HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-07-01; Planning Commission; ; SDP 97-27|CDP 97-60 - SERENATA - AVIARA PLANNING AREA 21u1e City of CARLSBAD Planning Departnu,ut ~fJ..__
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
P.C. AGENDA OF: July 1, 1998
Item No. 0
Application complete date: February 3, 1998
Project Planner: Michael Grim
Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham
SUBJECT: SDP 97-27/CDP 97-60 -SERENATA -AVIARA PLANNING AREA 21-
Request for a Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit to allow
the construction of 81 single family homes on pregraded lots within A viara
Planning Area 21, located on the west side of Ambrosia Lane, between Conosa
Way and Poinsettia Lane in Local Facilities Management Zone 19.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4322 and 4323,
APPROVING a Site Development Plan SDP 97-27 and Coastal Development Permit CDP 97-
60, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
This proposal involves the construction of 81 single family homes on pregraded lots within
A viara Planning Area 21. The Site Development Plan is required to review the building
architecture and plotting for the 81 single family homes and a Coastal Development Permit is
needed for development in the Coastal Zone. The project conforms to all applicable regulations
and staff has no project issues.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Brehm-Aviara III Development Associates, Ltd Partnership is requesting approval of a Site
Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit to allow the development of 81 single
family homes on pregraded lots within A viara Planning Area 21. The site consists of three tiers
of double-loaded streets that parallel the northern end of the Aviara Golf Course. The site is
accessed off of Ambrosia Lane at two locations: Calliandra Road and Docena Road, the latter of
which also serves future Planning Area 22 to the west. The Planning Area 21 subdivision (CT
92-03, Unit 4, 5 and 6) was approved by the City Council on January 25, 1994 and recorded at
the County Clerk on August 12, 1997. All residential building pads and streets in Planning Area
21 are currently graded in conformance with the approved grading plan for the A viara Phase III
Master Tract Map (CT 92-03). To the north of the site lies natural open space areas and to the
south is the 14th hole of the A viara Golf Course. East of the project site is a future multifamily
site (Planning Area 18) while the area to the west is mostly a native habitat corridor, with future
Planning Area 22 on the bluff top beyond.
0
SDP 97-27/CDP 97-60 -5.1..,_.illNATA-AVIARA PLANNING ARLA 21
July 1, 1998
Pae 2
The Serenata -A viara Planning Area 21 proposal involves a mix of homes, ranging from 2,688
to 4,197 square feet in area and measuring either 21.5 feet or 28.5 feet high. Each model has
floor plan options, including bedrooms and offices, and all models contain at least a two-car
garage. The allowable options are shown on Exhibits "F" -"AA", dated July 1, 1998. The
architectural style would be a mix of Spanish Colonial and Mediterranean elements, as
prescribed by the A viara Residential Design Guidelines.
The Serenata -A viara Planning Area 21 project is subject to the following regulations:
A. General Plan;
B. Local Coastal Program;
C. Aviara Master Plan (MP 177 and its amendments);
D. P-C -Planned Community Zone (Chapter 21.38 of the Zoning Ordinance);
E. Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance); and
F. Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan.
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project's
consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis
section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies utilizing both text and
tables.
A. General Plan
The Serenata -A viara Planning Area 21 project is consistent with the applicable policies and
programs of the General Plan. Particularly relevant to the single family development are the
Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space and Conservation and Public Safety Elements.
Table 1 below indicates how the project complies with these particular elements of the General
Plan.
TABLEl-GENERALPLANCOMPLIANCE
ELEMENT USE CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, PROPOSED USES AND COMPLIANCE OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
Land Use Site is designated for residential land Proposed density of 2.7 du/ac
uses at a density from 0.0 to 3.2 du/ac. is consistent with the land use Yes designation.
SDP 97-27/CDP 97-60 -StKENATA -AVIARA PLANNING ARhA 21
July 1, 1998
Pae 3
TABLE 1 -GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
ELEMENT USE CLASSIFICATION, GOAL, PROPOSED USES AND
OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS.
Circulation Require new developments to All street improvements will
construct all roadways needed to serve be completed prior to, or
the development prior to or concurrent concurrent with, development.
with needs.
Housing Ensure that all master planned Project provides market rate
communities and qualified units within A viara while the
subdivisions provide a range of master plan developer has
housing for all economic income constructed sufficient units in
ranges. the Villa Loma development
to cover PA 21 's affordable
housing requirement.
Public Safety Design all structures in accordance All buildings will meet UBC
with the seismic design standards of and State seismic
the UBC and State building requirements.
requirements.
Provision of emergency water systems All necessary water mains,
and all weather access roads. fire hydrants and
appurtenances must be
installed prior to occupancy of
any unit and all weather
access roads will be
maintained throughout
construction.
Open Space Minimize environmental impacts to Project maintains amount of
and sensitive resources in the City. native habitat and erosion
Conservation control during grading
reduces sedimentation of the
lagoon.
Utilize Best Management Practices Project will comply with all
for control of storm water pollutants. NPDES requirements
B. Local Coastal Program
COMPLIANCE
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
The Serenata -Aviara Planning Area 21 site lies within the Mello I segment of the City's Coastal
Zone and is subject to the corresponding land use policies and implementing ordinances. The
implementing ordinances for those portions of the Mello I within A viara are contained in the
Aviara Master Plan. This section addresses only conformance with the Land Use Plan since
implementing ordinance conformance is addressed in section C below. The policies of the Mello
I segment emphasize topics such as preservation of agriculture and scenic resources, protection
SDP 97-27/CDP 97-60 -Sr..KENATA -AVIARA PLANNING ARtA 21
July I, 1998
Pae 4
of environmentally sensitive resources, provision of shoreline access, and prevention of geologic
instability and erosion.
The land uses allowed through the LCP segments are the same as those allowed through the
A viara Master Plan, therefore the proposed single-family residential uses are consistent with the
LCP. All steep slopes with native vegetation were preserved through the tentative tract map (CT
92-03) and no encroachment is proposed with the residential construction. The current erosion
control standards of the Engineering Department will be maintained throughout the project site to
deter off-site erosion and potential lagoon sedimentation. No agricultural lands exist on the
graded site, therefore no impacts to such will occur. The project site is located 0.63 miles from
the Batiquitos Lagoon and no existing or future coastal access routes exist through the site. No
significant visual resources exist on or near the project site. Given the above, the project is
consistent with the applicable overlays, namely the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay Zone
and the Coastal Resource Overlay Zone Mello I Segment. Therefore, the Serenata -A viara
Planning Area 21 project is consistent with the Mello I land use policies.
C. A viara Master Plan
According to the A viara Master Plan, all development within Planning Area 21 is to follow the
requirements of the R-1-7,500 zone, except as modified in the master plan. Most of the
development standards, such as use allocation, building height, setbacks and design criteria are
contained in the master plan. Table 2 below details the project's conformance to these master
plan standards and criteria.
TABLE 2: A VIARA MASTER PLAN CONFORMANCE
MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENT PROPOSED PLAN CONFORMANCE
Building Height:
30 feet for a maximum of 69 units 69 units measure 28.5 feet in height Yes
22 feet for a minimum of 12 units 12 units measure 21.5 feet in height
Front Yard Setback:
20 feet minimum All units have a minimum 20 foot front Yes
yard, 34 units exceed this setback.
Side Yard Setback:
Minimum 10% of lot width All units have a side yard at least I 0% Yes
of the lot width.
Ambrosia Lane Setback:
20 feet minimum All units are at least 20 feet from Yes
Ambrosia Lane right-of-way.
As shown in Table 2 above, the developer has incorporated more restrictions in the development
than are required by the master plan. Included in these restrictions were an increased front yard
setback for 42 percent of the homes and a slightly reduced maximum building Considering that
SDP 97-27/CDP 97-60 -~...,1illNATA -AVIARA PLANNING ARtA 21
July 1, 1998
Pae 5
the proposed units meet or exceed all requirements and standards, the Serenata -A viara PA 21
project is consistent with the A viara Master Plan. Since the A viara Master Plan serves as the
implementing ordinance of the Local Coastal Program for this site, consistency with the master
plan also represents consistency with the LCP implementing ordinances.
D. P-C -Planned Community Zone
The underlying zoning of the proposed Serenata -A viara PA 21 project is P-C, Planned
Community. In accordance with that designation, the A viara Master Plan was created to
implement that zoning. No specific development standards or design criteria exist in the P-C
zone, however, and all applicable standards and criteria are contained within the master plan
documents. Therefore, conformance with the master plan requirements also indicates
conformance with the Planned Community Zone Ordinance.
E. Growth Management Ordinance
Since the Serenata -Aviara PA 21 project involves the placement of residential units on already
subdivided lots, the impacts on the facilities regulated by the Growth Management Ordinance
have been assessed with the approval of the tentative tract map for Planning Area 21 (CT 92-03).
Table 3 below reiterates the project's compliance with the applicable Growth Management
facility requirements.
TABLE 3 -GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
Standard Impacts/Standards Compliance
City Administration 652.7 sq ft Yes
Library 348.0 sq ft Yes
Waste Water Treatment 81EDU Yes
Parks 1.31 acres Yes
Drainage PLDAD Yes
Circulation 810 ADT Yes
Fire Station No. 4 Yes
Open Space NIA Yes
Schools CUSD Yes
Sewer Collection System 81EDU Yes
Water 17,820 GPD Yes
F. Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan
Local Facilities Management Zone 19 covers the entire A viara Master Plan area, including
Planning Area 21. No special development requirements, such as roadway construction or other
infrastructure improvements, apply to this 81 unit residential development on previously
subdivided lots. The plan does require that all facilities needed to serve the development be in
SDP 97-27/CDP 97-60 -SciffiNATA-AVIARA PLANNING ARbA 21
July 1, 1998
Pae 6
place concurrent with or prior to need. The Serenata -A viara Planning Area 21 project, as
conditioned, will be served with all utilities and improvements prior to occupancy of any unit.
Therefore, the project is consistent with the Zone 19 Local Facilities Management Plan.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Earlier environmental analyses have been completed for the project site on several occasions.
One is the Master Environme_ntal Impact Report for the City's 1994 General Plan Update (MEIR
93-01) reviewed the potential impacts of buildout of the City's General Plan, including
transportation and air quality impacts. Another source is 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, analyzed all of the potential impacts for the development and occupation of
the over 2,000 units residential master plan (now known as A viara) with its associated 18 hole
golf course, 550 room hotel, sports club and neighborhood commercial site, including
development of Planning Area 21 with residential uses. The third previous environmental
document is the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Aviara Phase III Master Plan
Amendment (CT 92-03/MP 177(G)), approved January 25, 1994, which reviewed the grading
and construction related to the development of Phase III, including development of Planning
Area 21 with 81 single family homes. Without exception, the proposed action has no additional
impacts not previously analyzed in the earlier environmental review and no additional review or
mitigation measures are necessary.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4322
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4323
3. Location Map
4. Disclosure Statement
5. Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance, dated March 23, 1998
6. Environmental Impact Assessment Form, dated March 17, 1998
7. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
8. Background Data Sheet
9. Exhibits "A" -"BB", dated July 1, 1998.
MG:kc
SERENATA-AVIARA P.A. 21
SDP 97-27/CDP 97-60
City of· Carlsbad
■ :.jfii,i,h,t· I •l§ •Ei,i .,\§ ,i I:,
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant's statement or disclosure of 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.
The following information must be disclosed:
1 . APPLICANT
2.
List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the
application.
Brehm-Aviara III Development Associates, L.P. __ .;,__ _____________ _
2835 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 220
San Diego, CA 92108
OWNER
List the names and addresses of all
property involved.
Brehm-Aviara III Development
Associates, L.P.
2835 Camino Del Rio South, #220
San Diego, CA 92108
-----------------
persons having any ownership interest in the
PICal Housing Associates, L.P.
CO-PAMG-Real Estate
4320 La Jolla Village Drive, #205
San Diego, CA 92122-1244
3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership,
list the names and addresses o_f all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares
in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. ·
CALPers Investment Office Prudential Ins. Co. of America
P.O. Box 2749
Sacramento, CA 95812-2749
CO-PAMG-Real Estate
4320 La Jolla Village Drive, #205
San Diego, CA 92122-1244
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.
The BretTm Companies, LLC Lumbermen 1 s Investment Corp.
2835 Camino Del Rio South, #220 P.O. Box 2030 -----------------San Diego, CA 92108-3882 Austin, TX 78768
2075 Las Palmas Dr.• Carlsbad. CA 92009-1576 ·• (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894
5. Have you had r. e than $250 worth of business trc. .... acted with any member of
City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve
( 12) months?
0 Yes O No If yes, please indicate person(s): __________ _
Person is defined as ·•Any ·individual, •firm, ·co-partnership, 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 sheets if necessary.
see·attached signature block
Signature of owner/date Signature of applicant/date
Brehm-Aviara III Development Associates, L_._P_. ______________ _
Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant
Disclosure Statement 10/96 Page 2 of 2
Attachment # 1
BREHM-A VIARA ID DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES, L.P.,
a Delaware limited partnership
By: Brehm-Aviara Group, LLC, a California
limited liability company, its general partner
By: The Brehm Companies, LLC, a California
limited liability company, its manager
By:
City of Carlsbad
1:.JEl,i,h,l·l•Jd•Eliieeid,il
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 certifie_d environmental documents and, therefore, no additional
environmental review will be required and a notice of determination will be filed.
Project Title:
Project Location:
SERENATA -AVIARA PLANNING AREA 21
West of Ambrosia Lane, between Conosa Way and
Poinsettia Lane, City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego.
Project Description: Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit to
construct 81 single family homes on pregraded lots within
Aviara Planning Area 21.
Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las
Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited.
Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of
date of publication.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH DATE:
MARCH 23, 1998
SDP 97-27 /CDP 97-60
SERENATA -AVIARA PLANNING AREA 21
MARCH 23, 1998
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894
ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT ASSESSMENT FORM -PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SOP 97-27/CDP 97-60
DATE: March 17, 1998
BACKGROUND
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CASE NAME: Serenata -Aviara Planning Area 21
APPLICANT: The Brehm Communities
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2835 Camino del Rio South, Suite 220,
San Diego, CA 92108 ( 619) 293-7090
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: =D=ec=e=m=b=er:;..;3:;..;l;.a...;;..19"-'9;..;::8'---_________ _
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit to
construct 81 single family homes on pregraded lots within Aviara Planning Area 21. located west
of Ambrosia Lane, between Conosa Way and Poinsettia Lane, City of Carlsbad, County of San
Diego.
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.
D Land Use and Planning
D Population and Housing
D Geological Problems
D Water
D Air Quality
D Transportation/Circulation
D Biological Resources
D Public Services
D Utilities & Service Systems
D Energy & Mineral Resources D Aesthetics
D Hazards
D Noise
D Cultural Resources
D Recreation
D Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
O I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
O I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
D I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
[g] 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 a Negative
Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIRs and Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior
Compliance has been prepared.
Planner Signature Date
Plann~ Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENT AL 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 p!)tentially 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.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
• If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant. and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated'"
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked. and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards. and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect. or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I.
11.
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#1, pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18; #2, pgs 4-1 -
4-26, #3, pgs 11-12)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? (#1, pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18; #2, pgs 4-1 -
4-26, #3, pgs 11-12)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (# 1, pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18; #2, pgs 4-1 -4-
26, #3, pgs 11-12)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations ( e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses? (#1, pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18;
#2, pgs 4-1 -4-26, #3, pg 11)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#1, pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18; #2,
pgs 4-1 -4-26, #3, pgs 13-14)
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (# 1, pgs 5.5-1 -5.5-6; #2,
pgs4-I -4-26;#3,pg 13)
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 5.5-1 -5.5-6; #2, pgs 4-1 -
4-26; #3, pg 13)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?(# I, pgs 5.5-1 -5.5-6; #2, pgs 4-1 -4-26;
#3, pg 13-14)
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#1, pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15; #2, pgs 4-
150 -4-156; #3, pg 7)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#1, pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15;
#2, pgs 4-150 -4-156; #3, pg 7)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(#1, pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15; #2, pgs 4-150 -4-156; #3.
pg 7)
d) Seiche. tsunami, or volcanic hazard?(# 1, pgs 5.1-1
-5.1-15; #2, pgs 4-150 -4-156; #3, pg 7)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#1, pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15;
#2. pgs 4-150 -4-156; #3, pgs 7-8)
t) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading. or fill? (#I,
pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15; #2, pgs 4-150 ~ 4-156; #3, pgs
7-8)
5
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Less Than
Significant Impact
Impact
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting lnfonnation Sources).
g) Subsidence of the land? (#1, pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15;
#2, pgs 4-150 -4-156; #3, pgs 7-8)
h) Expansive soils? (#1, pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15: #2, pgs 4-
150 -4-156; #3, pg 7)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#1, pgs 5.1-
1 -5.1-15; #2, p~s 4-150 -4-156; #3, pgs 7-8)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
V.
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#1, pgs
5.2-1 -5.2-11; #2, pgs 4-1 IO-4-118; #3, pg 8)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (#I, pgs 5.2-1 -5.2-11;
#2, pgs 4-110 -4-118; #3, pg 8)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#1, pgs 5.2-1 -5.2-11; #2,
pgs 4-110-4-118; #3, pg 9)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (#1, pgs 5.2-1 -5.2-1 I; #2, pgs 4-1 IO
-4-118; #3, pg 9)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements? (#1, pgs 5.2-1 -5.2-1 I; #2, pgs
4-1 IO -4-118; #3, pg 8)
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 5.2-1 -5.2-1 I: #2, pgs 4-110 -
4-118; #3, pg 9)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(#1, pgs 5.2-1 -5.2-1 I; #2, pgs 4-110 -4-118; #3,
pg 8)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#1, pgs 5.2-1 -
5.2-11; #2, pgs 4-1 IO -4-118; #3, pg 9)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? (# L pgs 5.2-1 -5.2-11; #2, pgs 4-110 -
4-118; #3, pg 8)
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: .
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? (#1, pgs 5.3-1 -5.3-
12; #2, pgs 4-110 -4-118: #3, pg 8)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#1, pgs 5.3-1 -5.3-
12; #2, pgs 4-110 -4-118; #3, pg 8)
6
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Potentiall)
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□ □
□
Less Than 1\o
S1gniticant Impact
Impact
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□ □
□
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#I, pgs 5.7-1 -5.7-
22; #2, pgs 4-63 -4-80; #3, pgs 14-15)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? (#1, pgs 5.7-1 ~ 5.7-22; #2, pgs 4-63 -4-80;
#3, pg 15)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#1, pgs 5.7-1 -5.7-22; #2, pgs 4-63 -4-80; #3, pg
14)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#1, pgs 5.7-1 -5.7-22; #2, pgs 4-63 -4-80; #3,
pgs 14-15)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (#1, pgs 5.7-1 -5.7-22; #2, pgs 4-
63 -4-80; #3, pg 14)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (# 1, pgs
5.7-1 -5.7-22; #2, pgs 4-63 -4-80; #3, pg 14)
Vil. 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 5.4-1 -5.4-24;
#2, pgs 4-119 -4-149; #3, pgs 10-11)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#1, pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24; #2, pgs 4-119 -4-149; #3,
pgs 10-11)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( # 1, pgs 5 .4-1 -5.4-
24; #2, pgs 4-119 -4-149; #3, pgs 10-11)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? (#1, pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24; #2, pgs. 4-119 -4-
149; #3, pgs 10-11)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#I, pgs
5.4-1 -5.4-24; #2, pgs 4-119 -4-149; #3, pg 11)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#1, pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5; #2, pgs 4-94 -4-109;
#3, pg 9)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#1, pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5;
#2, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #3, pg 9)
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? (#I, pgs
5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5; #2, pgs 4-94-4-109; #3, pg 9)
7
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Potentiall~
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
□ □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Less Than
S1gnilica111
Impact
□ □
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
]\(l
Impact
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
IX.
X.
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides. chemicals or radiation)? (#1, pgs
5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-3; #2, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #3, pg
13)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#1, pgs
5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-3; #2, pgs 4-94 -4-109; #3, pg
15)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards? (#!, pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-3; #2,
pgs 4-94 -4-109; #3, pg 12-13)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#1, pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-3; #2,
pgs 4-94 -4-109; #3, pg 12-13)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#1, pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-3; #2,
pgs 4-94 -4-109; #3, pg 13)
NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#1, pgs 5.9-1 -
5.9-15: #2, pgs 4-81 -4-84; #3, pg 12-13)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#1, pgs
5.9-l -5.9-15;#2,pgs4-81-4-84;#3,pg 12-13)
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 5.12.5-1 -5.12.5-6; #2,
pgs 4-94 -4-109; #3, pg 12)
b) Police protection? (#1, pgs 5.12.5-1 -5.12.5-6; #2,
pgs 4-94 -4-109; #3, pg 12)
c) Schools? (#1, pgs 5.12.7-1 -5.12.7-5; #2, pgs 4-94
-4-109; #3, pg 12)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(#1, pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.8-7; #2, pgs 4-94 -4-109;
#3, pg 12)
e) Other governmental services? (#1, pgs 5.12.1-1 -
5.12.8-7; #2, pgs4-94-4-109; #3, pg 12)
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? (#I, pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5;
#2. 4-94-4-109: #3, pg 9)
b) Communications systems? (#1, pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.8-7; #2, 4-94 -4-109; #3, pg 12)
8
Potentially
Significant
Impact
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
Less Than
Significant
Impact
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
~()
Impact
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting lnfonnation Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than N(l
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated ,\
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution □ □ □ [8J facilities? (#1, pgs 5.12.2-1 -5.12.3-7; #2, 4-94 -
4-109; #3, pg 12)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#1, pgs 5.12.2-1 -5.12.3-7; □ □ □ [8J #2, 4-94 -4-109; #3, pg 12)
e) Stonn water drainage? ( # 1, pgs 5 .12.2-1 -5 .12.3-□ □ □ [8J 7: #2, 4-94 -4-109: #3, pg 12)
t) Solid waste disposal? (#1, pgs 5.12.4-1 -5.12.4-3; □ □ □ [8J #2, 4-94 -4-109; #3, pg 12)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#1, pgs 5.12.2-1 □ □ □ [8J -5.12.3-7; #2, 4-94 -4-109; #3, pg 12)
XIII. AESTHETICS. _Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l. □ □ □ [gJ pgs 5.11-1 -5.11-5: #2, pgs 4-35 -4-62; #3, pg 15)
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#1, D □ □ [gJ pgs 5.11-1 -5.11-5; #2, pgs 4-35 -4-62; #3, pg l 5)
c) Create light or glare? (#1, pgs 5.10.3-1 -5.10.3-2: D □ □ [8J #2, pgs 4-35 -4-62; #3, pg 15)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#1, pgs 5.8-1 -□ D □ [8J 5.8-10; #2, pgs.4-157 -4-167; #3, pgs 9-10)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (# 1, pgs 5.8-1 -D □ □ [gJ 5.8-10; #2, pgs 4-157 -4-167; #3. pgs 9-10)
c) Affect historical resources? (#1, pgs 5.8-1 -5.8-10; D □ □ [gJ #2, pgs 4-157 -4-167; #3, pgs 9-10)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change D □ □ [8J which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
(#1, pgs 5.8-1 -5.8-10; #2, pgs 4-157 -4-167; #3,
pgs 9-10)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the D □ □ -potential impact area? (#1, pgs 5.8-1 ~ 5.8-10; #2,
pgs 4-157 -4-167; #3, pgs 9-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional □ □ □ parks or other recreational facilities? (#I, pgs
5.12.8-1 -5.12.8-7: #2, pgs 4-157 -4-167: #3, pg
15)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#I, pgs D □ □ 5.12.8-1 -5.12.8-7; #2, pgs 4-157 -4-167; #3, pg
15)
XVI. MANDATORY-FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless
□
□
□
Mitigation
Incorporated
□
□
□
Less Than l\,,
Significant Impact
Impact
□
□
□
Referenced in the above checklist are the earlier environmental analysis that have been
conducted for the project site. Source #1 is the Master Environmental Impact Report for the
City's 1994 General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01) reviewed the potential impacts of buildout of the
City's General Plan, including transportation and air quality impacts. Source #2 is 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, analyzed all of the potential impacts for the
development and occupation of the over 2,000 units residential master plan (now known as
A viara) with its associated 18 hole golf course, 550 room hotel, sports club and neighborhood
commercial site, including development of Planning Area 21 with residential uses. Source #3 is
the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Aviara Phase III Master Plan Amendment (CT 92-
03/MP I 77(G)), approved 1/25/94, which reviewed the grading and construction related to the
development of Phase Ill, including development of Planning Area 2 I with 81 single family
homes. Without exception, the proposed action has no additional impacts not previously
analyzed in the earlier environmental review and no additional review or mitigation measures are
necessary.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposal involves the construction of 81 single family homes on pregraded lots within
A viara Planning Area 21. The proposed homes meet all applicable standards and policies.
including setbacks, building height and architectural style. No environmentally sensitive
resources exist on the previously graded site and no significant adverse impacts to the
environment are anticipated.
AIR QUALITY:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide. reactive
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the
San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin". any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout. a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development: 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore. the "Initial Study'' checklist is marked
"Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore. the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-0 I. by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246. included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations'' for air
quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR. including this project, therefore. no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout. numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master -EIR. These include 1)
measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need: 2) provisions to
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails. bicycle routes. additional sidewalks.
pedestrian linkages. and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic. therefore.
the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant lmpacf'. 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
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM OF APPLICABLE)
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
l3 Rev. 03/28/96
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: Serenata-Aviara PA 21 -SDP 97-27/CDP 97-60
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 19 GENERAL PLAN: __ RL=M"'---------
ZONING: P-C -Planned Community
DEVELOPER'S NAME: Brehm-Aviara Development Associates, Ltd Partnership
ADDRESS: 2835 Camino del Rio North, Suite 220, San Diego CA 92108
PHONE NO.: (619)293-7090 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: 215-900-01 to 52/215-910-01 to 34
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 81 single family dwellings
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: March. 1999 ~~~~---------------
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
City Administrative Facilities:
Library:
Demand in Square Footage= 652.7 sg ft
Demand in Square Footage= 348.0 sg ft
Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) 81EDU
Park:
Drainage:
Demand in Acreage =
Demand in CFS =
Identify Drainage Basin =
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
Circulation: Demand in ADT =
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
1.31 acres
NIA
PLDAD
810 ADT
Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = Station No. 4
Open Space:
Schools:
(Demands to be determined by staff)
Sewer:
Water:
Acreage Provided = N ........... / A _________ _
Demands in EDU
Demand in GPD =
CUSD
81 EDU
17,820 GPD
L. The project is one (1) unit below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: SDP 97-27/CDP 97-60
CASE NAME: Serenata-Aviara Planning Area 21
APPLICANT: Brehm-Aviara Development Associates. Ltd. Partnership
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit to
construct 81 single family homes on pregraded lots within A viara Planning Area 21. located west
of Ambrosia Lane, between Conosa Way and Poinsettia Lane.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 52 -80 of Carlsbad Tract No. 92-03, Unit 3. according to
Map No. 13463; lots 81 -103 of Carlsbad Tract No. 92-03. Unit 4. according to Map No. 13464;
and lots 104 -137 of Carlsbad Tract No. 92-03, Unit 5, according to Map No. 13465, all filed in
the Office of the Comity Recorder. County of San Diego, August 12. 1997.
APN: 215-900-01 to -52; 215-910-01 to -34 Acres: 30.4 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: .fil.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation: Residential Low Medium Density (RLM)
Density Allowed: 0.0 -3.2 du/ac Density Proposed: --=2""".7'-d=u/=ac.::;...._ _______ _
Existing Zone: Planned Community (P-C) Proposed Zone: Planned Community (P-C)
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad's Zoning
Requirements)
Zoning Land Use
Site P-C Vacant
North P-C Open Space
South P-C Golf course
East P-C Vacant
West P-C Open Space
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): ~8~1 ________________ _
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: --=D .... e ___ c ___ em=b ___ er"""'""-'19~1~9~9~7 ____________ _
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
D Negative Declaration, issued ____________________ _
D Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated ______________ _
~ Other, Notice of Prior Environmental Compliance, dated March 23. 1998