HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-05-21; Planning Commission; ; MP 177S|GPA 96-06|LCPA 96-13|ZC 97-03 - AVIARA LOT 308|AZURE COVE ANNEXATIONThe City of CARLSBAD Planning Departmeiif
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No.
P.C. AGENDA OF: May 21, 1997
Application complete date: March 21, 1997
Project Planner: Michael Grim
Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham
SUBJECT: MP 177(SVGPA 96-06/LCPA 96-13/ZC 97-03 - AVIARA LOT 308/AZURE
COVE ANNEXATION - Request for a General Plan Amendment to change the
designation of a 1.2 acre parcel in the Aviara Master Plan (Lot 308) from Open
Space (OS) to Residential Low Medium (RLM), a Master Plan Amendment and
Local Coastal Program Amendment to establish permitted land uses and
development standards for this redesignated residential area within the Aviara
Master Plan and to annex the Azure Cove development into the Aviara Master
Plan as a new planning area, and a Zone Change from Single Family Residential
(R-l-7,500-Q) and Open Space (O-S) to Planned Community (P-C) to maintain
zoning consistency with Azure Cove and the Aviara Master Plan. The project is
located south of Aviara Parkway, between Batiquitos Drive and Aviara Drive in
Local Facilities Management Zone 19.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4096, 4097,
4098 and 4117, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a Master Plan Amendment MP 177(S),
General Plan Amendment GPA 96-06, Local Coastal Program Amendment LCPA 96-13 and
Zone Change ZC 97-03, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
This proposal involves a General Plan Amendment to redesignate a 1.2 acre parcel (Lot 308)
located adjacent to the Aviara Golf Course from OS to RLM and a Master Plan Amendment and
Local Coastal Program Amendment to establish permitted land uses and development standards
for this parcel and to armex Azure Cove, formally known as Brocatto, into the Aviara Master
Plan. The project also involves a Zone Change to Planned Community for the Azure Cove
development to establish consistency with the Aviara Master Plan. As part of the General Plan
Amendment, 14.4 acres ofPlanning Area 25 is proposed for redesignation from RLM to OS as
mitigation for the loss of 1.2 acres of open space from Lot 308.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Aviara Land Associates and Brookfield Carlsbad are requesting a General Plan Amendment,
Master Plan Amendment, Local Coastal Program Amendment and Zone Change. The General
Plan Amendment entails two components, including: 1) changing the land use designation from
OS to RLM on a 1.2 acre parcel (Lot 308) which is located within Planning Area 13, adjacent to
MP 177(S)/GPA 96-06/LCP^fe-13/ZC 97-03 - AVIARA LOT 308/AZlJiS COVE ANNEXATION
MAY 21, 1997
PAGE 2
the Aviara Golf Course, and 2) changing the designation from RLM to OS on a 14.4 acre parcel
(Lot 36) located within Planning Area 25 of Avieira. The Master Plan Amendment and Local
Coastal Program Amendment also entail two components, including: 1) establishment of
permitted uses and development standards for the proposed residential Lot 308 (included as part
of Plaiming Area 13), and 2) annexing the Azure Cove development, formally known as
Brocatto, into Aviara as a new planning area, namely Planning Area 33. The Zone Change
involves the redesignation of the Azure Cove development fi-om R-l-7,500-Q and O-S to P-C.
The Planned Commvinity Zone is the standard zoning designation for all master plans in the City.
As shown on the attached location map, Lot 308 is located southwest of Planning Area 15, a
multifamily development known as Sea Country Homes, immediately adjacent to and east of the
5th fairway of the Aviara Golf Course. Lot 36 is located north of the developed portion of
Planning Area 25, extending northward to the intersection of Aviara Parkway and Poinsettia
Lane. The Azure Cove development is located between Aviara and Interstate 5, directly west of
Aviara Planning Areas 29 and 30. Since the project can be divided into two distinct elements,
those being Lot 308/Lot 36 and Azure Cove, the following project description and backgrovmd
are also divided to facilitate explanation.
Aviara Lot 308 CPA 13) and Lot 36 (?A 25)
Aviara's Lot 308 is an isolated, gently sloping, 1.2 acre site located in the north-south trending
valley containing the 4th and 5th holes of the Four Seasons Aviara golf course. Uphill to the east
lies the Sea Country Homes multifamily development (PA 15) and the Aviara Point custom
home development (PA 13), and immediately to the west is the golf course. While Lot 308 has
remained clear of habitat, the slopes between Lot 308 and the surrounding development contain
native vegetation and are contained within lots covered by City open space easements.
Lot 308 was created by the original subdivision (CT 85-35) for the Aviara Master Plan, then
known as the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort. During the processing of the original master
plan and tract map, Lot 308 was overlooked with regard to development standards and design
criteria in the contents of the master plan because it existed as a separate lot, surrounded by open
space (i.e. natural open space or golf course) and isolated from the developable portions of the
surrounding residential planning areas. As a result. Lot 308 was inadvertently not assigned to
any particular planning area nor were the permitted uses for the lot clearly described. The fact of
the lot being surrounded by open space, its isolation fi-om other residential lots, and the absence
of a specific residential designation for this lot within the master plan, led to a redesignation of
the lot to Open Space during the City's General Plan Update in 1994.
Aviara Land Associates now desires to sell the 1.2 acre lot as a developable, single family parcel,
however several actions are required. Since the lot is now designated as Open Space in the
City's General Plan, a General Plan Amendment is necessary to designate the parcel for single
family residential uses (RLM). As discussed in the General Plan Analysis section below, to
compensate for the loss of 1.2 acres of Open Space, 14.4 acres of RLM designated land located
northwest of Planning Area 25 is proposed to be placed into General Plan Open Space. In
addition to these General Plan changes, the Aviara Master Plan requires a minor revision to
delete a descriptive statement regarding the exclusive location ofPlanning Area 13 lots on the
MP 177(S)/GPA 96-06/LCP^6-13/ZC 97-03 - AVIARA LOT 308/AZlJi^ COVE ANNEXATION
MAY 21, 1997
PAGE 3
ridgetop and clarify the planning area map to clearly show Lot 308 as a residential lot within PA
13. The lot can be accessed and receive utility service through an easement traversing Planning
Area 15 and, as with other lots in Aviara Point (PA 13), would require an administrative site
development plan review and Planning Director approval of the architectural elevations and site
plan prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. The exact alignment of utilities, such
as sewer and water, will be confirmed during grading and/or building permit review, as required
by condition number 4 ofPlanning Commission Resolution No. 4096 for MP 177(S).
Azure Cove Annexation
The Azure Cove development is a 72 unit, single family subdivision covering approximately
23.10 net acres, surrounded by an additional 17.85 acres of open space. The site is zoned R-1-
7,500-Q and O-S and designated RLM and RM in the General Plan. The area is bounded by
Interstate 5 to the west, Batiquitos Lagoon to the south and Aviara Planning Areas 29 and 30 to
the east. In December 1990, the City Council approved the single family subdivision, then
known as Brocatto, and its related EIR and Site Development Plan (CT 89-19/EIR 89-01/SDP
89-07). The project is currently under construction by Brookfield Carlsbad.
Since the Azure Cove development is directly adjacent to the Aviara Master Plan and shares
similar open space types and maintenance responsibilities, the common lands of Azure Cove
(17.85 acres of coastal sage scrub and the Batiquitos Lagoon wetlands buffer) were annexed by
the Aviara Master Homeowner's Association in late 1996. Subsequent to this HOA annexation,
it became apparent that there were other attributes of Aviara that would be advantageous to the
Azure Cove development, such as customized fire suppression program and project marketing.
Aviara's fire suppression guidelines are more customized to the north Batiquitos Lagoon
vegetation and topography than the city-wide regulations, and neighborhoods within Aviara are
afforded a multi-level marketing benefit through the addition of Master Plan advertising.
Therefore, Brookfield Carlsbad is requesting annexation into the Aviara Master Plan.
The proposal is subject to the following regulations:
A. General Plan;
B. Aviara Master Plan (MP 177 and its amendments); and
C. Local Coastal Program.
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project's
consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis
section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies utilizing both text and
tables.
MP 177(S)/GPA 96-06/LCPA
MAY 21, 1997
PAGE 4
ft 6-13/ZC 97-03 - AVIARA LOT 308/AZ COVE ANNEXATION
A. General Plan
The proposed project is consistent with the applicable policies and programs of the General Plan.
Particularly relevant to the proposed amendments are the Land Use, Circulation and Open Space
Elements. Table 1 below indicates how the project complies with these particular elements of
the General Plan.
TABLE 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
ELEMENT USE CLASSIFICATION, GOAL,
OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM
PROPOSED USES AND
IMPROVEMENTS COMPLIANCE
Land Use To preserve the City as a desirable
residential, beach and open space
oriented community.
Project proposes an increase
of 13.2 acres of General Plan
Open Space.
Yes
Circulation Require new development to
construct all facilities needed to
serve development concurrent or
prior to development.
Lot 308 has an access and
utility easement across PA
15 and is conditioned to
demonstrate adequate access
and facilities prior to
building permit issuance.
Yes
Open Space To provide public access to ail open
space areas with limited exceptions.
Access trails are contained in
the newly designated General
Plan Open Space adjacent to
PA 25.
Yes
Revisions to the Official Open
Space and Conservation Map shall
result in increased area and
environmental quality of habitat.
Quantity and quality of new
open space is greater than
existing open space.
Yes
In addition to the above conformities, the proposed land use changes are compatible with the
surrounding uses in that the proposed residential use on Lot 308 does not impact the adjacent
golf course use and the natural open space areas will be protected from residential impacts
through implementation of the required Aviara fire suppression program. The newly acquired
Open Space in Lot 36 is compatible with the adjacent residential uses in that it provides passive
recreation through an open space trail and, as with Lot 308, the boundary area between the uses
is subject the provisions of the Aviara fire suppression program. The proposed land use changes
are also consistent with the P-C - Planned Community zoning in that they continue to provide a
balanced mix of land uses within the Aviara Master Plan.
'jft-13/ZC 97-03 - AVIARA LOT 308/AZlft ( MP 177(S)/GPA 96-06/LCPA^6-13/ZC 97-03 - AVIARA LOT 308/AZlJ^ COVE ANNEXATION
MAY 21, 1997
PAGES
B. Aviara Master Plan
One of the goals of the Aviara Master Plan is to preserve the community's environmental
resources and existing topographic character. The redesignation of Lots 308 and 36 meets this
goal by preserving in General Plan Open Space a 14.4 acre area containing quality habitat, a
portion of which is a very successful native revegetation area on the external slopes of Planning
Area 25. The Azure Cove annexation portion meets this intent because over 40 percent of the
project area has been set aside for native open space. One of the other goals of the Aviara Master
Plan is to provide a well-balanced and functional mix of various land uses which will create a
high quality environment. The proposed land use changes will increase the quantity and quality
of open space within the master plan area and, since the Azure Cove development is already
balanced between single family residential and open space, aimexation into the master plan will
support the goal of a well-balanced community.
In addition to the open space requirements of the master plan, the Azure Cove annexation is
consistent with the various provisions of the Aviara Master Plan in that the development
standards, design guidelines, housing type and architecture, fencing, entry monumentation, North
Batiquitos Lagoon Trail access and Site Development Plan approval process for home
construction are all the same or very similar to the corresponding aspects within the master plan
documents. The site is the only developable lands between Aviara and the Interstate 5 freeway
and forms an appropriate western entry to the Aviara Master Plan community. Therefore, the
proposed amendments are consistent with the Aviara Master Plan.
C. Local Coastal Program
The Aviara Master Plan is located within the Mello I, Mello II and East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt
Properties segments of the Local Coastal Program, therefore, the proposal is subject to the Land
Use Plan and Implementing Ordinances for those segments. The implementing ordinance for
those portions of the Mello I, Mello II and East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties segments
within Aviara is the Aviara Master Plan. This section addresses only conformance with the Land
Use Plan, since conformance with the implementing ordinance (the Aviara Master Plan) is
addressed in section B above.
The policies of the various Land Use Plans which apply to the proposed amendments involve the
preservation of environmentally sensitive lands. An example of this goal of preservation can be
found in the Mello I Land Use Plan which states, "all land uses and intensity of use shall be
compatible with the protection of sensitive coastal resources." The proposed exchange of open
space would result in the protection of 14.4 acres of quality native habitat through a General Plan
Open Space designation while losing 1.2 acres of a highly disturbed, gently sloping area from
General Plan Open Space. The eventual development on the 1.2 acre parcel would be one single
family residence. Therefore, the proposed amendments are consistent with the sensitive coastal
resource protection policies of the Local Coastal Program.
'^6-l3/ZC 97-03 - AVIARA LOT 308/AZTft ( MP 177(S)/GPA 96-06/LCPA^6-13/ZC 97-03 - AVIARA LOT 308/AZUKE COVE ANNEXATION
MAY 21, 1997
PAGE 6
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Earlier analysis has been conducted on three occasions. First was the Environmental Impact
Report for Brocatto at Batiquitos Shores (EIR 89-01 for CT 89-19), certified on December 11,
1990. This document analyzed all of the potential impacts for the development and occupation
of the 78 unit single family development now known as Azure Cove. Second was the
Environmental Impact Report for the Pacific Rim Country Club and Resort (EIR 83-02(A) for
CT 85-35/MP 177, certified on December 8, 1987. This document analyzed all of the potential
impacts for the development and occupation of the over 2,000 unit residential master plan (now
known as Aviara) with its associated 18-hole golf course, resort hotel, sports club and
neighborhood commercial site. Third was the Master Environmental Impact Report for the 1994
General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), which reviewed the potential impacts of buildout of the
City's General Plan, including transportation and air quality impacts. There will be no additional
significant effects due to this proposal that were not analyzed in the Environmental Impact
Reports and no new mitigation measures or alternatives are required. The project is, therefore,
within the scope of the prior EIRs and no new environmental document nor Public Resources
Code 21081 findings are required. All feasible mitigation measures identified in the previous
EIRs which are appropriate to this project have been incorporated into the project. A Notice of
Prior Environmental Compliance was issued and duly noticed on April 5, 1997, and no
comments were received.
ATTACHMENTS;
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4096
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4097
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4098
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4117
5. Location Map
6. Background Data Sheet
7. Disclosure Statements
8. Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance dated April 5, 1997
9. Environmental Impact Assessment Part II dated April 2, 1997.
AVIARA LOT 308/
AZURE COVE ANNEXATION
MP 177(S)/GPA 96-06/LCPA 96-13
ftitv of C^rlsbP^H
• »JJ.I-.Li..f^,^|
DISCLQSURP STATEMENT
APO'JCANTTS STATcMEf^rr OF OlSCLGSUfiE OF CH3TA1N OWNEPSHIP INTcHSSTS ON AU. APPUCATIONS WHICH WIU. 5cGUlP=
GiSCSETIONAflY ACTION ON THg PAMT OF THE C.TY COUNCIL OR ANY APPOlNTHO SOAPO. COMMISSION OR COMMrrT==
(Please Print)
Tha following information must be disclosed:
1. Applicant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
Aviara Land Associates Limited Partnership
2011 Palomar Airport Road
Suite 206 Carlsbad, CA 92009
Owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Aviara Land Associates Limited Partnership
2011 Palomar Airport Road
Suite 206
farl-^had, CA q7nnQ
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names and
addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership
interest in the partnership.
MA
4. if any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names anc
addresses of any person sen/ing as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary
of the trust.
FRM00013 8/90
2075 Las Palmas Drive - CarlsDad. California 92009-4859 - (619) 438-1161
Disclosure Statemerrt
(O^er)
Page 2
Have you had rnore than 3250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff. Scares
Commissions. CpfllrTTittees and Councii within the past twelve months?
Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s)____ . .
=,r,on d.fin.<l "Any .ndiv.du.l. firm. eao«tn.r,Mo. jo.m v«ur.. «.oci-flon. .ooal club, fr.t.m.1 0f5.nc.t10n. eoroofWion. ..t.t.. :ru«.
;;^r. syndict.. m.. .nd .ny otn.f county, crty «.d county, crty mun.c.p.l<ty. d..tnct or ott^f pcimd .ubd^-on. of .ny otn.r srouo or
comomaJion .cting u . unit'
Owner:
Aviara Land Associates Limited
Partnership, a Delaware limited
partnership
BY: Aviara Land,€ompany, a Delaware
^cerporation/General Partner fporatioiy Gene
Applicant:
Aviara Land Associates Limited
Partnership, a Delaware limited
partnership
BY: Aviara Land'G^mpany, a Delaware
^-^QfporatioijL, General Partaer
Bv:'^—- .
D. L. Clemens
By:.
Scott M. Medansky/Asst. Secret:
Date: Date:
Citv of Carlsbad
Planning Departnnent
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OR CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS
WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL OR ANY
APPOINTED BOARD, COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE
(Please Print)
The following information must be disclosed:
1. Applicant
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application.
BROOKFIELD CARLSBAD INC.
12865 Pointe Del Mar, Ste. 200
Del Mar, CA 92014
2. Owner
List the names and addressees of all person having any ownership interest in the property involved.
BROOKFIELD CARSLBAD INC.
12865 Pointe Del Mar, Ste. 200
Del Mar, CA 92014
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names
and addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning
any partnership interest in the partnership.
4. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the
names and addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or
as trustee or beneficiary of the trust.
DISCLOS.FRM 2/96 PAGE 1 of 2
2075 Las Palmas Drive » Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161
Disclosure Statement
(Over)
Page 2
5. Have you had more than $250.00 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff.
Boards, Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No x_ If yes, please indicate person(s)
Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization,
corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other
political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
(NOTE; Attach additional pages as necessary)
BROOKFIELD CARLSBAD INC.
Signature of Owijer/date
BROOKFIELD CARLSBAD INC.
Signature of applicant/date
E. Dale Gleed - Vice President
Print or type name of owner
Elizabeth Zepeda - Secretary
Print or type name of applicant
DISCLOS.FRM 2/96 PAGE 1 of 2
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: MP 177(SVGPA 96-06/LCPA 96-13
CASE NAME: AVIARA LOT 308/AZURE COVE ANNEXATION
APPLICANT: AVIARA LAND ASSOCIATES
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for a Master Plan Amendment. General Plan
Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to clarify open space boundaries and
development standards for an isolated single family residential lot in Aviara Planning Area 13
and annexation of the Azure Cove development into the Aviara Master Plan as a new planning
area
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 308 of Carlsbad Tract 85-35. Unit E. according to Map No.
12413. filed June 29. 1989 in the Office of the County Recorder. County of San Diego: Lot 36 of
Carlsbad Tract 90-37. according to Map No. 13188. filed in the Office of the County Recorder.
County of San Diego: and All of Carlsbad Tract No 89-19. according to Map No. 12902. filed
December 11. 1991 in the Office of the County Recorder. County of San Diego. State of
Califomia
APN: various Acres: 55.0 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: N/A
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: RLM/RM/OS
Density Allowed: 0.0-3.2 du/ac Density Proposed: N/A
Existing Zone: P-C/R-1-0 Proposed Zone: N/A
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad's Zoning
Requirements)
Zoning Land Use
Site P-C/R-l-Q Vacant & Single family
North P-C Open space
South O-S Open space
East P-C Residential
West P-C 1-5 freeway
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): N/A
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
I I Negative Declaration, issued
[ I Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated_
Other, Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance
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: Aviara Lot 308/Azure Cove Annexation
Project Location: South of Aviara Parkway, east of Kestral Drive, in the Aviara
Master Plan, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego.
Project Description: Clarification of open space boundaries and development
standards for an isolated residential lot in Aviara Planning
Area 13 and annexation of the Azure Cove development into
the Aviara Master Plan as a new planning area.
Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las
Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited.
Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of
date of publication.
DATED: APRIL 5, 1997
CASE NO: MP 177(S)/GPA 96-06/LCPA 96-13
CASE NAME: AVIARA LOT 308/AZURE COVE ANNEXATION
PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 5, 1997
MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART n
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: MP 177(SVGPA 96-06/LCPA 96-13
DATE: APRIL 2. 1997
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: AVIARA LOT 308/AZURE COVE ANNEXATION
APPLICANT: AVIARA LAND ASSOCIATES
3.
4.
5.
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2011 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD.
SUITE 206. CARLSBAD CA 92008 (760)931-1190
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: DECEMBER 11. 1996
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Clarification of open space boundaries and development standards
for an isolated residential lot in Aviara Planning Area 13 and the annexation of the Azure Cove
development into the Aviara Master Plan as a new planning area.
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.
I I Land Use and Planning
I I Population and Housing
I I Geological Problems
• Water
I I Air Quality
I I Transportation/Circulation Public Services
I I Biological Resources Q Utilities & Service Systems
I I Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics
I I Hazards Cultural Resources
I I Noise Recreation
I I 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 I 1 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 I I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I I 1 find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in earlier EIRs and pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to those earlier EIRs
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
Planner Signature Date
Planning Director's Signature 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 Impacf 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).
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#1, pgs 5-71 - 5-85; #2, pgs 4-1 - 4-26;
#3, pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#1, pgs 5-71 - 5-85; #2, pgs 4-1 - 4-26; #3,
pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#1, pgs 5-71 - 5-85; #2, pgs 4-1 - 4-26; #3, pgs 5.6-1 -
5.6-18)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#1, pgs 5-71 - 5-85; #2, pgs 4-1 - 4-26; #3,
pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#1, pgs 5-71 - 5-85; #2, pgs 4-1
-4-26; #3, pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18)
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• ^
• K
• ^
• ^
• m
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#1, pgs 5-71 - 5-85; #2, pgs 4-
1 -4-26; #3, pgs 5.5-1 -5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#1, pgs 5-71 - 5-
85; #2, pgs 4-1 - 4-26; #3, pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#1, pgs 5-71 - 5-85; #2, pgs 4-1 - 4-26; #3,
pgs 5.5-1 -5.5-6)
•
•
•
•
•
•
• K
• ^
• m
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupttire? (#1, pgs 5-3-5-13; #2, pgs 4-150 - 4-
156; #3, pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#1, pgs 5-3-5-13; #2, pgs 4-
150-4-156; #3, pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#1, pgs
5-3 - 5-13; #2, pgs 4-150 - 4-156 ; #3, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-
15)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#1, pgs 5-3 - 5-
13; #2, pgs 4-150 - 4-156; #3, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#1, pgs 5-3 - 5-13; #2, pgs
4-150-4-156; #3, pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#1, pgs 5-
3 - 5-13; #2, pgs 4-150 - 4-156; #3, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#1, pgs 5-3-5-13; #2, pgs 4-
150-4-156; #3, pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15)
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
h) Expansive soils? (#1, pgs 5-3-5-13; #2, pgs 4-150 -
4-156; #3, pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#1, pgs 5-3 - 5-
13; #2, pgs 4-150-4-156; #3, pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
•
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
•
•
No
Impact
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#1, pgs 5-19 - 5-
27; #2, pgs 4-110 - 4-118; #3, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#1, pgs 5-19 - 5-27; #2, pgs 4-110 -
4- 118; #3, pgs 5.2-1 -5.2-11)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#1, pgs 5-19 - 5-27; #2, pgs 4-
110-4-118; #3, pgs 5.2-1 -5.2-11)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#1, pgs 5-19 - 5-27; #2, pgs 4-110 - 4-118; #3,
pgs 5.2-1 -5.2-11)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#1, pgs 5-19 - 5-27; #2, pgs 4-110 - 4-
118; #3, pgs 5.2-1 -5.2-11)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (#1, pgs 5-19 - 5-27; #2, pgs 4-110 - 4-118;
#3, pgs 5.2-1 -5.2-11)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#1,
pgs 5-19 - 5-27; #2, pgs 4-110 - 4-118; #3, pgs 5.2-1 -
5.2-11)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#1, pgs 5-19 - 5-27;
#2, pgs 4-110 - 4-118; #3, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#1, pgs
5- 19 - 5-27; #2, pgs 4-110 - 4-118; #3, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-
11)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#1, pgs 5-
14 - 5-18; #2, pgs 4-84 - 4-93; #3, pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#1, pgs 5-14
- 5-18; #2, pgs 4-110 - 4-118; #3, pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (#1, pgs 5-14-5-18; #2, pgs 4-
110-4-118; #3, pgs 5.3-1 -5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#1, pgs 5-14 - 5-18; #2,
pgs 4-110 - 4-118; #3, pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• ^
•
•
•
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle frips or fraffic congestion? (#1, pgs
5-86 - 5-107; #2, pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #3, pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-
22)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#1, pgs 5-86 - 5-107; #2, pgs
4- 63 - 4-80; #3, pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#1, pgs 5-86 - 5-107; #2, pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #3, pgs 5.7-
1 - 5.7-22)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#1,
pgs 5-86 - 5-107; #2, pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #3, pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7-22)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#1,
pgs 5-86 - 5-107; #2, pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #3, pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7-22)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#1,
pgs 5-86 - 5-107; #2, pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #3, pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7-22)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#1, pgs 5-86 -
5- 107; #2, pgs 4-63 - 4-80; #3, pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22)
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impact
Impact Unless t Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• ^
• m
• K
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#1, pgs 5-28 - 5-60; #2, pgs 4-119
-4-149; #3,5.4-1-5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage frees)? (#1,
pgs 5-28 - 5-60; #2, pgs 4-119 - 4-149; #3, 5.4-1 - 5.4-
24)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#1, pgs 5-28 - 5-60; #2,
pgs 4-119 - 4-149; #3, 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#1, pgs 5-28 - 5-60; #2, pgs 4-119 - 4-149; #3, 5.4-1 -
5.4-24)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#1, pgs 5-28
- 5-60; #2, pgs 4-119 - 4-149; #3, 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• m
•
•
•
•
Vlll. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#1,
pgs 5-114 - 5-199; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pgs
5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#1, pgs 5-114 - 5-199; #2, pgs 4-
94 - 4-109; #3, pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5)
•
•
•
•
• K
• m
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? (#1, pgs 5-114 - 5-199; #2,
pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
• M
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#1, pg. 5-132; #2, pgs 4-94 -
4-109; #3, pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#1, pgs 5-108 - 5-113;
#2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#1, pg. 5-132 #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pgs
5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-3)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#1, pg. 5-132 #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109;
#3, pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-3)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#1, pgs 5-28 - 5-60 #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-
109; #3, pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-3)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• ^
•
•
•
•
X. NOISE. Would the proposal resuh in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#1, pgs 5-61 - 5-70;
#2, pgs 4-81 - 4-84; #3, pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-15)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#1, pgs 5-
61 - 5-70; #2, pgs 4-81 - 4-84; #3, pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-15)
•
•
•
•
•
•
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#1, pgs 5-108 - 5-113; #2, pgs 4-94 -
4-109; #3, pgs 5.I2.5-I - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#1, pgs 5-108 - 5-113; #2, pgs 4-94
-4-109; #3, pgs 5.12.5-1 -5.12.5-6)
c) Schools? (# 1, pgs 5-108 - 5-113; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109;
#3, pgs 5.12.7-1 -5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#1,
pgs 5-108 - 5-113; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pgs
5.12.1-1 -5.12.8-7)
e) Other governmental services? (#1, pgs 5-108 - 5-113;
#2, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #3, pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (#1, pgs 5-114 - 5-119; #2, pgs
4-94 - 4-109; #3, 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5)
b) Communicafions systems? (#1, pgs 5-114 - 5-119; #2,
pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.8-7)
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • •
• • • X
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#1, pgs 5-114 - 5-119; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109;
#3, pgs 5.12.2-1 -5.12.3-7)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#1, pgs 5-114 - 5-119; #2, pgs
4-94 - 4-109; #3, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#1, pgs 5-114 - 5-119; #2, pgs
4-94 - 4-109; #3, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#1, pgs 5-114 - 5-119; #2, pgs 4-
94 - 4-109; #3, pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#1, pgs 5-114 - 5-
119; #2, pgs 4-94 - 4-109; #3, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
No
Impact
• K
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#1, pgs 5-
120 - 5-129; #2, pgs 4-35 - 4-62; #3, pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-
5)
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#1, pgs
5-120 - 5-129; #2, pgs 4-35 - 4-62; #3, pgs 5.11-1 -
5.11-5)
c) Create light or glare? (#1, pgs 5-120 - 5-129; #2, pgs 4-
35 - 4-62; #3, pgs 5.10.3-1 - 5.10.3-2)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#1, pgs 5-130 - 5-
131; #2, pgs 4-157 - 4-167; #3, pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#1, pgs 5-130 - 5-
131; #2, pgs 4-157 - 4-167; #3, pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
c) Affect historical resources? (# 1, pgs 5-130 - 5-131; #2,
pgs 4-157 - 4-167; #3, pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#1, pgs 5-
130 - 5-131; #2, pgs 4-157 - 4-167; #3, pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#1, pgs 5-130 - 5-131; #2, pgs
4-157 - 4-167; #3, pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
• •
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • . • X
• m
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#1, pg. 5-132;
#2, pgs 4-157 - 4-167; #3, pgs 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1, pg. 5-
132; #2, pgs 4-157 - 4-167; #3, pgs 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
•
•
•
•
• ^
• ^
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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 Califomia 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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
•
•
Less Than No
Significan Impact
t Impact
• ^
• K
• m
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis has been conducted on three occasions. First was the Environmental Impact
Report for Brocatto at Batiquitos Shores (EIR 89-01 for CT 89-19), certified on December 11,
1990. This document analyzed all of the potential impacts for the development and occupation
of the 78 unit single family development formerly known as Brocatto (now known as Azure
Cove). Second was the Environmental Impact Report for the Pacific Rim Country Club and
Resort (EIR 83-02(A) for CT 85-35/MP 177), certified on December 8, 1987. This document
analyzed all of the potential impacts for the development and occupation of the over 2,000 unit
residential master plan (now known as Aviara) with its associated 18 hole golf course, 550 room
hotel, sports club and neighborhood commercial site. Third was the Master Environmental
Impact Report for the 1994 General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), which reviewed the potential
impacts of buildout of the City's General Plan, including transportation and air quality impacts.
Without exception, the proposed actions have no additional impacts not previously analyzed in
the earlier environmental review and no additional review or mitigation measures are necessary.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The first component of this proposal involves a clarification of open space boundaries and
development standards for an isolated, 1.2 acre lot in Planning Area 13. The lot was identified
for development in the original master plan and has been kept clear of vegetation, however the
exact development standards were not addressed. During the processing of the General Plan
Update in 1994, the site was erroneously designated with as open space. The first component of
this proposal reinstates the ability for the lot to develop in accordance with the original intent of
the master plan (MP 177). In addition, an area totaling 14.4 acres that was previously designated
for low to medium density residential development, that contains both natural and revegetated
native habitat, is being designated as open space.
The second component deals with the annexation of an adjacent, 78 unit single family
development into the Aviara Master Plan (MP 177) as a new planning area. All existing
development standards, open space requirements and design criteria contained in the original
development, and reviewed by the EIR for Brocatto (EIR 89-01) remain the same with this
annexation.
AIR OUALITY:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked
"Potentially Significant Impacf. 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.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
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 (jrowth 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 1)
measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, 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.
12 Rev. 03/28/96