HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-05-03; Planning Commission; ; CT 94-07|PUD 94-06 - POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA A-4MTO:APPLICATION^OMPLETE DATE:
DECEMBER 22. 1994
STAFF PLANNER: ERIC MUNOZ
STAFF ENGINEER: JIM DAVIS
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MAY 3, 1995
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: CT 94-07/PUD 94-06 - PQINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA "A-4" - A request
for a recommendation of approval of a Tentative Tract Map and Planned
Unit Development for a 65 lot subdivision consisting of two open space lots,
one sewer pump station lot, one private street lot and 61 residential lots to
accommodate 61 single family detached homes on 5,000 square foot minimum
sized lots within the 12.6 acre P-C (Planned Community) zoned parcel of
Planning Area "A-4" in the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan located north of the
Batiquitos Lagoon and east of the railroad right of way, in the Coastal Zone,
within Local Facilities Management Zone 9.
I.RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3771 and
3772, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of CT 94-07 and PUD 94-06, respectively, based on
the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
This project is proposing a Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development to develop
Planning Area "A-4" in conformance with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan with 61
detached single family homes. A Tentative Tract Map is required per the Subdivision Map
Act to subdivide the property into 5,000 square foot minimum sized lots. A Planned Unit
Development Permit (PUD) is required since the project addresses several components of
the intent and purpose of the Planned Development Ordinance as listed in Section 21.45.010
of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically involved are: separate ownership of planned unit
development lots, development in accordance with the General Plan and applicable master
plan, the allowance of flexibility in project design while providing for essential development
standards and the provision of development which will be compatible with existing and
permitted future surrounding developments. Accordingly, the project proposal includes
subdivision into less than 7,500 square foot lots and the use of private streets.
The site has a General Plan land use designation of RM (Residential-Medium). Per the
Master Plan and RM designation, Area "A-4" is allowed a density range of 4-8 dwelling units
per acre (du/ac). The development of 61 units on 12.6 acres of land with the proposed
density of 4.8 du/ac, therefore, is consistent with the Master Plan.
CT 94-07/PUD 94-06
POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA "A-4"
MAY 3, 1995
PAGE 2
The site itself is essentially flat and has no unique topographic features or significant
environmental resources. North of the site is the vacant land associated with Area "A-3".
East and south of the site is the existing Batiquitos Lagoon desiltation basin site and the
Lagoon itself, respectively. West of the site is the railroad right of way. Immediately
adjacent to the east, south and west perimeters of the site is the public access right of way
associated with the public blufftop trail segment consistent with the Poinsettia Shores Master
Plan as well as the governing Local Coastal Program.
The master tentative map for Poinsettia Shores (CT 94-01) approved in August 1994 allowed
the mass grading of the master plan property, the construction of the Avenida Encinas
roadway and related infrastructure to allow the development of individual planning areas.
Only finish grading is required to the mass graded site for the development of Area "A-4".
The project's finish grading involves 17,100 cubic yards (CY) of cut, 21,300 CY of fill with
4,200 CY of import.
The location of Planning Area "A-4" within the Master Plan is depicted on the attached
Location Map. The detached single family homes will feature three floor plan types as
shown on Exhibits "G" - "I": Plan type A has approximately 2,341 square feet (proposed
height 25 feet); Plan type B has 2,911 square feet (proposed height 27 feet), and; Plan type
C has 3,175 square feet (proposed height 281/a feet). Elevations are depicted on Exhibits
"J" - "L". No plan type exceeds two stories. The proposed architecture is contemporary
with roof tile, stucco accented with wood trim and a variety of roof planes and articulation.
Every unit provides more than the minimum area requirement for a two car garage.
An internal 36 foot wide private street will serve the project with guest parking allowed on
each side. The overall site plan for the project is depicted on Exhibits "C" - "D". The
project is designed to meet the City's Noise Policy that applies to new residential
development (over 5 units) within the City. Noise barrier wall heights and details
(consistent with the project's noise study dated June 30, 1994) are shown on Exhibits "C",
"D", "M" and "N". Two pedestrian access gates are located at the terminus of Streets "6"
and "9" through the noise wall adjacent to the railroad right of way to provide public access
to the public trail segment within "A-4" (Exhibits "C", "D" and "M" - "O").
The project will take access from Windrose Circle via a private street. Gated entries are not
proposed since the Coastal Commission approval of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan and
corresponding Local Coastal Program Amendment in May 1994 prohibited gated entrances
into Planning Areas "A-3" and "A-4". The intent was to maximize the public access
opportunities to the public lagoon blufftop trail system. Unlike other trail segments in the
Master Plan, the trail segment adjacent to the railroad right of way and blufftop areas of "A-
3" and "A-4" are coastal resource pedestrian trails specifically intended for use by the
general public, in addition to master plan residents. Public trail amenities including seating
CT 94-07/PUD 94-06
POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA "A-4"
MAY 3, 1995
PAGE 3
nodes and an overview as required by the Master Plan and LCP will be provided (Exhibits
"M", "N" and "P").
Signage is proposed for the subject planning area near the project entrance in the form of
the Village Identity Sign which meets pertinent Master Plan criteria (Exhibits "M" and "O").
The proposed landscape concept (Exhibits "M" - "P) is designed to screen the development
along the perimeters; and to promote land use compatibility with adjacent future planning
areas.
HI. ANALYSIS
The proposed project is subject to the following land use plans and regulations:
A. Carlsbad General Plan
B. Poinsettia Shores Master Plan - MP 175(D)
C. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 20 (Subdivision Ordinance)
D. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21 (Zoning Ordinance), including:
1. Chapter 21.45 Planned Development
2. Chapter 21.85 Inclusionary Housing
3. Chapter 21.90 Growth Management
E. West Batiquitos Local Coastal Program (LCP)
A. GENERAL PLAN
The approval of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan involved several findings of consistency
with the City's General Plan. All development consistent with the master plan is therefore
inherently consistent with the General Plan. By providing a product type at or below the
approved density for the subject planning area, the master plan's implementation maintains
consistency with the General Plan.
By supplying residential market rate units per the master plan, the project is consistent with
the Land Use and Housing Elements of the General Plan. The master plan was not
required to provide any additional open space beyond natural open space areas previously
dedicated by the master plan property. Since natural open space dedications are not
required of this planning area, this project is consistent with the Open Space Element of the
General Plan. By conducting a noise study and designing the project to comply with the
CT 94-07/PUD 94-06
POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA "A-4"
MAY 3, 1995
PAGE 4
City's noise policy for new residential development, the project is consistent with the Noise
Element of the General Plan.
B. POINSETTIA SHORES MASTER PLAN - MP 175(D)
The proposal for Area "A-4" is in conformance with the governing master plan. The master
plan allows up to 62 single family dwelling units to be constructed on 5,000 square feet
minimum sized lots (61 dwelling units are proposed). The master plan provides certain
development standards and design criteria which are complied with and summarized as
follows: (1) a minimum structural setback of 80 feet from the east facing Batiquitos Lagoon
bluff edge and a minimum setback of 100 feet from the south facing bluff edge is
maintained and in most cases exceeded. The blufftop setback area has two components: a)
a public right of way setback area 40 feet and 50 feet in width (for the east and south facing
bluff edges, respectively) designated for public trail segment, and b) a private right of way
setback area 40 and 50 feet in width associated with the rear yard areas of private homes,
separated from the public trail area and restricted by the prohibition of accommodating any
of the main residential structure; (2) minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet; (3) no structures
will exceed the 30 feet/two story height limit associated with this planning area; (4) the
proposed architecture is consistent with the City's Small Lot Architectural Guidelines with
regards to roof line articulation and integration of single story elements.
The master plan also requires that special attention be given to the aesthetic sensitivity
associated with locating development near the Lagoon blufftop. The proposed project
successfully achieves this objective by complying with the 80 foot and 100 foot structural
setback requirements reviewed above. The southeast corner blufftop lot (Lot 49) is the
most critical lot with regards to this issue. As shown on Exhibit "D", the 80 foot setback
requirement from the east slope edge is exceeded with a 90 foot setback; the 100 foot
setback requirement from the south slope edge is exceeded with a 125 foot setback. In fact,
the required 100 foot setback for the row of south bluff homes is exceeded with an average
setback of 115 feet. The minimum building separation is 10 feet; this standard is exceeded
with an average building separation of nearly 15 feet. The architecture proposed is high
quality with a variety of roof/building planes and articulation proposed under the 30 foot
height limitation.
The blufftop setbacks are over double the setback requirement imposed on the existing
Rosalena subdivision to the east and are over double the requirement imposed on the
previously approved land use for the subject site of "A-4" under the previous master plan.
The previous approvals (under the former master plan) for the site of "A-4" also involved
a more intensive development with a higher building height limit and only a 45 foot blufftop
setback. For these combined reasons, staff supports the applicant's efforts to design the
blufftop homes of "A-4" without creating an adverse or significant visual impact. Three
cross sections are provided to assess the proposed blufftop area development (Exhibit "F")
relative to the required setback areas and adjacent development. The three cross sections
CT 94-07/PUD 94-06
POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA "A-4"
MAY 3, 1995
PAGES
are representative of the more sensitive areas of "A-4's" development (Exhibit "E" provides
an index of the cross sections provided).
The master plan also requires that the tentative map approval for A-4 adequately restrict
the allowable accessory uses and structures permitted within the private setback portion of
the blufftop setback area. This restriction is contained in condition No.31 of Resolution No.
3771. The primary intent is to prohibit any structural portion of the main dwelling unit
within the private setback area while allowing for reasonable rear yard accessory uses and
structures. These restrictions, outlined in condition No. 27 will be incorporated into the
project's future CC&Rs.
In addition, the Master Plan refers to the PD Ordinance (since a Planned Unit
Development Permit is involved). Compliance with the PD Ordinance development
standards is discussed in Section D.I of this report.
All other aspects of the master plan pertinent to Area "A-4" are complied with by the
proposed project including the provision of a trail segment, noise policy compliance,
adequate and appropriate landscaping and the provision of private passive and active
recreation areas.
C. CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE - TITLE 20
Since land subdivision into 5,000 square foot minimum sized lots consistent with the Master
Plan is proposed, this project must comply with the Subdivision Map Act and the City's
Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20). As reviewed and conditioned by the Engineering
Department, the proposed project meets all applicable requirements relating to subdivisions
in the City. No serious public health problems will be created by the proposed subdivision.
All necessary public facilities and infrastructure improvements, including circulation,
drainage, sewer, water and utilities have either already been provided through the master
tentative map (CT 94-01) or are conditions of approval for this project. All required
findings per the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Title 20 are contained in Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3771 for CT 94-07.
D. CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE - TITLE 21
D.I. Chapter 21.45, Planned Development
In addition to the specific development standards established by the Poinsettia Shores
Master Plan (as discussed above) the Planned Development (PD) Ordinance is designated
as the implementing ordinance for Planning Area "A-4". All of the required findings for
the granting of a Planned Unit Development Permit (governed by the PD Ordinance) are
contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3772 for PUD 94-06. Below is an
overview of the PD standards compared against the proposed project.
CT 94-07/PUD 94-06
POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA "A-4"
MAY 3, 1995
PAGE 6
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE
Density
Lot Size
Front Yard Setback
Building Separation
Building Height
Private Street Width
Parking
Resident
Guest
RV Storage
Storage Space
Recreation Space
Common Active
Private Passive
REQUIRED/ALLOWED
4-8 DU/AC - 62 units
5,000 square foot minimum
20' minimum from back of sidewalk
off private streets
10' min. w/allowable protrusions up
to 2' each unit
30' max/2 stories
30' - no parking on street
32' - parking on one side
36' - parking on both sides
122 covered spaces
18 spaces
Provided for w/PA "E"-SDP 94-03
Satisfied by 2 car garage space
Provided for w/PA "M"-SDP 94-03.
PA "M" plus private rear yard passive
areas, 15 x 15' minimum
PROPOSED
4.8 DU/AC - 61 units
5,400 sq ft min/7,244 sq ft
average/17,000 sq ft maximum
20' minimum from back of
sidewalk off private streets
10' min/14.5' avg. w/allowable
protrusions up to 2' each unit
25, 27 and 28.5' for three different
plan types/2 stories max
36' internal private street system
with parking allowed on both sides
for visitors
186 covered spaces (garages)
58 on-street spaces
Provided for w/PA "E"-SDP 94-03
Satisfied by 2 car min. garage
space
Provided for w/PA "M"-SDP 94-03
PA "M" plus 15 x 15' min (225 sq
ft) private passive areas
The project also is consistent with the design criteria outlined in the PD Ordinance.
Findings relating to the project's conformance to these design criteria are contained in
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3772 for PUD 94-06. In summary, the plan is
comprehensive and innovative in that it accounts for the location, constraints (noise) and
shape of the site. Adequate usable open space and recreation areas are provided. Buildings
are well integrated and the provision for required parking areas and vehicular and
pedestrian circulation is made. Being a part of an approved master plan, there will be no
disruptive elements introduced into the community by the proposed project.
The internal street system is functional while not dominating the site and all common areas
are accessible to the future residents and well related to each other. Finally, architectural
harmony will be obtained within the area through appropriate building height limitations,
perimeter screening/buffering and proper planning of adjacent planning areas.
CT 94-07/PUD 94-06
POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA "A-4"
MAY 3, 1995
PAGE?
D.2. Chapter 21.85 Inclusionary Housing
This project's inclusionary affordable housing requirement is satisfied by the approval and
development of Planning Area "D" within the Master Plan (CT 94-10/CP 94-03/SDP 94-08)
or the approval of an off-site Affordable Housing Agreement. Either case will result in the
provision of 90 affordable housing units, consistent with the Master Plan. A detailed
summary of master plan affordable housing provisions is contained in the staff report for
Area "D" (CT 94-10). While no units in the subject subdivision are required to be restricted
as affordable housing units, the project will be conditioned so that no final map approval
will be granted until the on-site project for Area "D" (CT 94-10) receives final map
approval; or an off-site Affordable Housing Agreement is approved by the Planning Director
and Community Development Director.
D3. Chapter 21.90 Growth Management
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 9 in the
Southwest Quadrant. The impacts created by this development on public facilities and
compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized as follows:
FACILITY
City Administration
Library
Waste Water Treatment
Parks
Drainage
Circulation
Fire
Open Space
Schools
Sewer Collection System
Water
IMPACTS
226 square feet
121 square feet
61EDU
N/A
N/A
610 ADT
Station No. 4
N/A
cusp
61EDU
13,420 GPD
COMPLIANCE
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
The project is 15 dwelling units below the Growth Management Growth Control Point.
Required facilities and services will be available to serve the build-out of the master plan
including the development of the proposed project. All required Growth Management
findings are contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3771 for CT 94-07.
E. WEST BATIOUITOS LCP
The approval of the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan in January 1994 included a Local Coastal
Program (LCP) Amendment (LCPA 91-02) for the West Batiquitos LCP which was
CT 94-07/PUD 94-06 ™
POINSETTIA SHORES PLANNING AREA "A-4"
MAY 3, 1995
PAGE 8
approved by the California Coastal Commission on May 12, 1994. Coastal Commission's
certification of LCPA 91-02 established the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan as the
implementing ordinance/document for the West Batiquitos LCP. All development consistent
with the master plan, such as the proposal for this planning area, is therefore in
conformance with the West Batiquitos LCP and all applicable coastal regulations. A Coastal
Development Permit will be required prior to final map approval.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As discussed in the Initial Study for this project (Environmental Impact Assessment Form,
Part II), all potential environmental impacts associated with the development of this
planning area have already been identified and mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Environmental analysis and documentation for the master plan and subsequent planning
areas was conducted for the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175 (D)) and the master
tentative map (CT 94-01) resulting in the issuance and approval of Mitigated Negative
Declarations. Since all applicable mitigation measures have either been completed or
designed into the project (i.e. noise attenuation/noise policy compliance and
archeological/paleontological monitoring during the site's mass grading), no environmental
impacts will result from the proposed development of this planning area. Therefore, a
Notice of Prior Compliance was issued and duly noticed on March 27, 1995.
V. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The proposed project is in compliance with the Carlsbad General Plan, Poinsettia Shores
Master Plan, West Batiquitos LCP and Carlsbad Municipal Code, Titles 20 and 21 as
described in this report. Therefore, staff recommends approval of CT 94-07 and PUD 94-
06, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained within their respective
resolutions.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3771
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3772
3. Location Map
4. Environmental Impact Assessment Form, Part II dated March 22, 1995
5. Notice of Prior Compliance dated March 27, 1995
6. Background Data Sheet
7. Disclosure Form
8. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
9. Reduced Exhibits "A" - "P"
10. Exhibits "A" - "P", dated May 3, 1995.
ENMJk
APRIL 3, 1995
BATIQUITOS LAGOON
POINSETTIA SHORES
RA. A-4--CT 94-07/PUD 94-06
BATIQUITOS LAGOON
POINSETTIA SHORES
P.A A-3--CT 94-06/PUD 94-05
P.A. A-4--CT 94-07/PUD 94-06
-
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. CI’ 94-06/PUD 94-05 and CI’ 94-07/PUD 94Xl6
DATE: March 22. 1995
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Poinsettia Shores - Plannine Areas A-3 and A-4
2. APPLICANT: Kaiza Poinsettia Cornoration
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 7220 Avenida En&as. Suite 200
Carlsbad. CA 92009
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMI’ITED: April 25. 1994
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: T w lannin
consistinp of 50 detached single family homes on 5.000 sa ft minimum lots on 10.7 acres. and (2) Area
“A-4” consisting of 61 detached single familv homes on 5.000 sa ft minimum lots on 12.6 acres. Both
pl in 3) ea involve T n tiv Tra Ma
Permits txrsuant to the Citv’s Planned Develonment Ordinance and are consistent with the Poinsettia
Shores Master Plan.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact”, or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
- Land Use and Planning
- Population and Housing
- Geological Problems
- Water
X Air Quality
X Transportation/Circulation - Public Services
- Biological Resources - Utilities and Service Systems
- Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics
-H- - Cultural Resources
X Noise - Recreation
- Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. y3q!x 33
DETERMINATION.
.(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an
attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect
1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document purswn t to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the
effect is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated.” An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
cl
cl
q
cl
El
Planner Signature
Planning Director Si@ature u
Date I
3lu-h 5 Date
2 Rev. l/30/95 I!+
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 identitles 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 Signifkant 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 ‘WA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the
environment, but fl potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuan t to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures
that are imposed upon the proposed project, and (c) none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all of the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental
document have been required or incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document
is required (Prior Compliance).
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any
of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are
mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than signitlcant, 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.
Rev. l/30/95 35
. 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.
. 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 signifkant, ar, (4) through the E&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. lpop5 3b
issues (and SuppatiDg lafmtiat saucea):
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
cl
4
Conflict with general plan designation
or zoning? (Source #l)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans
or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (Source Ws: 1,3)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (Source #l)
Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)? (Source Ws: 1,2)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement
of an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)? (Source # 1)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
PtWthlly
Signifiiant
bwt
potentidly
signincant
unleaa l&ssThan
Mitigation Significant
Inwrporad Imprct &t
a)
W
cl
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Source #l)
Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects
in an undeveloped area or extension of major
in.fktmcture)? (Source tl)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (Source #l)
x
x
Rev. l/30/95 31
-
lssuep (and supputing ldamatial sauces):
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the
a)
b)
4
4
d
f)
I)
h)
0
proposal result in or expose people to potential
impacts involving:
Fault rupture? (Source #‘s: 2,4)
Seismic ground shaking? (Source KS: 2,4)
Seismic ground failute, including
liquefaction? (Source #k’s: 2,4)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Source Ws: 2,4)
Lkdslides or mudflows? (Source Ws: 2,4)
Erosion, changes in topography or
unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading, or fill? (Source Ws: 2,4)
Subsidence of the land? (Source Ws: 2,4)
Expansive soils? (Source Ws: 2,4)
Unique geologic or physical fW? (!kmce Ws:
2,4)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal resnlt in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Source
ws: 23)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (Source #s: 2J)
Potentially
Sigtil
POWidly Udf?&3 Lesrllun SigUifii rbctigatioa Signilifmt
U-=t Incarparad lw=t l&t
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Rev. l/30/95 3%
-
ls5utY (and Suing lnfcxmatiaa salrcea):
c) Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)? (Source Ws: 2J)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water
in any water body? (Source Ws: 2,5)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? (Source #2)
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (Source #2)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? (Source #2)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Source #2)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for
public water supplies? (Source #2)
POtddl~
siinifii
lJOWltUy U&S3 L.mTbl siinifll Mitigatioa Significant
hwt Incarpcra@ hP=t lgt
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source
Ws: 1,2,8) x -
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source Ws:
122) x
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? (Source Ws: 12) - - x
d) Create objectionable odors? (Source #‘s: 12) x
7 Rev. 1/3ops 3”
issues (ad supptiug lnfcsmatial saurces):
VI. TRANSPORTATION/ClRCULA’lTON.
Would the proposal result in:
a)
b)
4
4
d
0
g)
Increased vehicle trips or trafEc congestion? (Source
ws: 1,6,8)
Hazards to safety from design features
(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (Source
ws: 12)
Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? (Source’ Ws: 1,2)
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or
off-site? (Source #Y’s: 12)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? (Source #V’s: 1,2)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (Source Cs: 12)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic
impacts? (Source Ws: 12)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? (Source Ws: 1,2,3)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
trees)? (Source Ws: 12)
POMltidy
Siglifii
w=t
Pote!ntially
Significant
UUkSS
Mitigation
Incarporad
LesThan
Signifiamt No
hP=t bpact
x -
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Issues (ad Suppating hfamatim Sauces):
c) Locally designated natural communities
(e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source Ws:
12,3)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? (Source Ws: lJ,3)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration
corridors? (Source Ws: 1,2,3)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? (Source ws: 12)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (Source Ws: 12)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value
. to the region and the residents of the State? (Source
ws: 12)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a)
W
c>
4
A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous. substances (including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? (Source Iys:
La
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source
ws: 12)
The creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard? (Source 44%: 1,2)
Exposure of people to existing sources
of potential health hazards? (Source Ws: 1,2) _
9
POWttidy
Significant
lavct
Potentially
Significant
UlllSS
Mitigation
hxxpccated
LesThan
Significant
bpect
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
-
lasues (and Suppating Infamaticm !hrces): . .
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? (Source Ws: 1,2)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Source Ws: 12)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise
levels? (Source Ws: 1,7)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
POtfSltldly siinifiiant
UllkSS LesThall
Mitigation Significant
InmpcratfA Impact l&t
x
x
x
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
a)
b)
cl
4
d
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
govemment services in any of the following areas:
Fire protection? (Source Ws: 1,9)
Police protection? (Source Ws: 1,9)
Schools? (Source Ws: 1,9)
Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? (Source Ws: 1,9)
Other governmental services? (Source Ws: 1,9)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to the following
utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (Source Ws: 1,9)
b) Communications systems? (Source #l)
x
x
10
-
POttXUhlly
Issues (and Supporting hfcrmatiat Samea): Significant
Impact
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? (Source #V’s: 1,9)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source Ws: 1,9)
e) Storm water drainage? (Source #s: 1,9)
f) Solid waste disposal? (Source iys: 1,9)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source Ws: 1,9)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic
highway? (Source #l)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? (Source #l)
c) Create light or glare? (Source #l)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a)
W
c>
4
d
Disturb paleontological resonrces? (Source Ws: 1,2)
Disturb archaeological resources? (Source Ws: 1,2)
Affect historical resources? (Source Ws: 1,2)
Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would a!%zct unique ethnic cultural
values? (Source #%: 12)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area? (Source Ws: 12)
Potentially
Significant
UDkSS
Mitigation
Incorporated
La-Than
significant
Impact Gt
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
11 Rev. l/30/95 k’j
issues (and Suppating Infarmatian Sances):
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? (Source w
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Source
w
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 wild life species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Porentially
Signifii
Impact
POttXltidly
Significant
UIlk LesB-llml
Mitigation Significant No
Incupaated Impact m=t
x
x
x
x
x
12 Rev. 1/3o/!z &A
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more
effects have been adeqnately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)@) of
the CEQA Guidelines. In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. All pertinent
earlier analyses have been identired at the beginning of the Discussion of Environmental Evaluation.
The Source Documents identified have been cited as appropriate in the checklist and environmental
discussion.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyxed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
1. Air Oualitv and Circulation Imnacts: Statements of Overriding Consideration made with the City’s
General Plan Master EIR (Source Document #8).
2. Archeological and Paleontoloeical Imnacts: Mass grading monitoring required by Source Document #l
and 2.
3. Noise Impacts: Noise study (Source #7) was required by Source Document #l.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which
they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Mitigation measures specific to this project include: (1) Archeological and paleontological monitoring which
was carried out during the mass grading of the site in accordance with the approval of CT 9441, and (2)
noise mitigation designed into the project pursuant to a site specific noise analysis conducted for the
proposed project.
13 Rev. l/30/95 4
-
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
SOURCE DOCUMENTS CITED (All source documents are on file in the Planning Department located at 2075
Las Palmas Drive, Carl&ad, CA 92009; (619) 438-1161)
1. Poinsettia Shores Master Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration and corresponding Environmental Impact
Assessment Form Part II dated July 26, 1993.
2. Poinsettia Shores Master Tentative Map Mitigated Negative Declaration and corresponding Environmental
Impact Assessment Form Part II dated April 1, 1994.
3.
4.
West Batiquitos LCP certified by the Coastal Commission May 12, 1994
Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park by Woodward-Clyde
Consultants dated June 4, 1986.
5.
6.
7.
Hydrology Study prepared by O’Day Consultants dated April 30, 1993.
Transportation Analysis for Poinsettia Shores by Urban Systems Associated dated May 17, 1993.
Noise Analysis for Poinsettia Shores Planning Area B-l by Mestre Greve Associates dated July 19, 1994.
Noise Analysis for Poinsettia Shores Planning Area B-2 by Mestre Greve Associates dated June 29, 1994.
8. City of Carlsbad General Plan Fii Master EIR 9341 approved by City Council Resolution No. 94-246.
9. Zone 9 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) documents including amendment LFMP 87-09(A) (approved
January 4, 1994) and the Zone 9 Finance Plan (approved September 6, 1994)
PROJECT BACKGROUND/OVERVIEW OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Planning Areas A-3 and A-4 are proposed in full compliance with all applicable provisions of the Poinsettia Shores
Master Plan. The proposed densities are within the limits established by the master plan which designated these
planning areas with Residential-Medium (RM) General Plan designations. Area A-3 proposes 50 detached single
family homes (51 allowed) on 5,000 sq ft minimum sized lots and Area A4 proposes 61 detached single family
homes (62 allowed) on 5,000 sq ft minimum sized lots. The proposed architecture for A-3 and A4 is the same
featuring three floor plan types that range from approximately 2,340 sq ft to 3,175 sq ft. All plan types have a
maximum building height of 28 l/2 feet. All applicable development standards and design criteria are complied
with. Areas A-3 and A-4 are within the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan as shown on the attached Location Map.
The Poinsettia Shores Master Plan (MP 175-D) was approved in January 1994 and incorporated a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (Source Document #l) which was intended to identify environmental impacts and related
mitigation measures to allow the buildout of the residential portion of the master plan. As a result, the master plan
contains environmental mitigation measures on a planning area by planning area basis. The subject planning areas
have either completed applicable mitigation measures or incorporated them into their project design. Subsequent
to the master plan approval, the Poinsettia Shores Master Tentative Map (CT 94-01) was approved in August 1994
and incorporated another Mitigated Negative Declaration (Source Document .#2) to allow mass grading of the
master plan property, construction of the Avenida Encinas roadway, and construction of drainage improvements
on the west side of the master plan site. The subject planning area sites are already mass graded from the approval
of CT 9441. All necessary i&astructure to serve the buildout of the residential planning areas has either already
been constructed or are financially secured to guarantee their construction concurrent with need.
Section 21080.7 of CEQA and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines allows a residential project, developed
consistent with applicable General Plan designations, to be determined in prior compliance with existing
environmental review if an EIR has been certified for the subject General Plan. Such is the case with the City’s
General Plan Update Final Master EIR 93-01 (Source Document #6) certified in September 1994. This document
is referenced in addressing the Air Quality and Circulation impacts associated with master plan buildout.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DISCUSSION (The brief discussions below are intended to summarize and/or
supplement the evidence contained in the pertinent Source Documents as noted on the checklist).
1. Land Use and Planning
a)c), e): The proposed planning areas implement the governing Poinsettia Shores Master Plan in conformance
with all master plan standards and guidelines, the Residential-Medium (RM) General Plan designation and the
coastal regulations of the West Batiquitos Lagoon Local Coastal Program (LCP).
d): All agricultural conversion fees required for the mass grading of the master plan site associated with the
approval of CT 9441 have been paid or secured to the City’s satisfaction. Mass grading of the site is near
completion at this time.
2. Population and Housing
a)-c): Local population projections and limits will not be exceeded by the buildout of the Poinsettia Shores
Master Plan including the development of the subject planning areas. Development of the Avenida Encinas
roadway and related infrastructure associated with CT 94-01 will induce the buildout of the master plan in
accordance with the General Plan and zoning regulations including Growth Management compliance.
3. Geologic Problems
a)-i): The sites for Planning Areas A-3 and A4 have recently been mass graded per the approval of CI’ 94-
01. Refmed finish grading is required for the construction of building pads and internal roadways. A-3
requires approximately 4,300 cubic yards (cy) of cut, 13,500 cy of ftll and 9,200 cy yards of import. A-4
requires approximately 17,100 cy of cut, 21,300 cy of fill and 4,200 cy yards of import. Standard grading
permit procedures will apply. No seismic, geologic of surface substrate hazards are associated with the master
plan site including the subject planning area sites.
4. Water
a)-i): The development of streets and residential units will increase the amount of impervious areas and
change existing absorption rates, however, all proposed drainage for buildout of the master plan’s residential
planning areas meets City and Engineering Department standards. Major drainage infkstmcture has been
provided by approval of CT 94-01. No flood hazards will be created by the development of the subject
planning areas. No adverse impacts to the Batiquitos Lagoon system will be created by the buildout of the
master plan including the subject planning areas. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
standards are required to reduce urban pollutant quantities in drainage runoff. No impacts to any groundwater
resources will be created by buildout of the master plan.
15 Rev. l/30/95 0
5. Air Quality
a): Since the proposed planning areas are residential projects per Section 21080.7 of CEQA and Section
15 183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the buildout of the master plan including the development of the subject
planning areas was included in the updated 1994 General Plan Final Master EIR 9341 and will result in
increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in
increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and
suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the
San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions
are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the
updated General Plan will have cumulative signitlcant 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 Fii 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 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Gf
Overriding Considerations” for air quality impacts. This “Statement of Overriding Considerations” applies
to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plans Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore,
no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning
Department.
b)d): Development of the subject planning areas will not expose sensitive receptor to known significantly
adverse pollutants or significantly change any air characteristics including moisture, temperature or odor.
6. Transportation/Circulation
a): Since the proposed planning areas are residential projects per Section 21080.7 of CEQA and Section
15 183 of the CEQA Guidelines, the buildout of the master plan including the development of the subject
planning areas was included in the updated 1994 General Plan and will result in increased traffic volumes.
Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial
intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional
control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carl&ad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected
to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
16 Rev. l/30/95 9
7. Biological Resources
a)-e): No biological resources or sensitive habitat are associated with the subject planning area sites. All open
space requirements of the master plan have been secured to allow buildout of the master plan. The Batiquitos
Lagoon and associated wetlands and sensitive bluffs will not be impacted by the development of Areas A-3
and A4.
8. Energy and Mineral Resources
a)-c): Non-renewable resources, energy and mineral resources will not be affected by the development of the
subject planning areas.
9. HaZUds
To lessen or rninim& the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation
measures have been recommended in the Fii Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision
of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such
as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3)
participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from
a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of
the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of
intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the “Initial Study”
checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan,
therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01,
by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation
impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the
General Plan’s Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
b)-g): All streets will meet City standards, facilitate emergency vehicle access into the subject planning areas,
create no conflicts between pedestrians and bicyclists and will not interfere with railroad activities. Various master plan components incorporate bicycle racks, provisions for buses and mass transit and pedestrian trails
and iinkages which will benefit the residents of the subject planning areas.
a)-e): No hazards will be associated with the construction and development of the subject residential planning
areas. Emergency vehicle access is provided to adequately serve Areas A-3 and A-4. Flammable hazards or
explosion potential will not created by the project.
10. Noise
a): The development of residential dwelling units will not significantly increase existing noise levels.
b): As required previous environmental review and corresponding mitigation measures, Areas A-3 and A-4
have been designed pursuant to the recommendations of site specific noise studies to that compliance with the City’s Noise policy and element of the General Plan will be maintained and no significant noise impacts will
17 Rev. l/30/95 +5
result.
11. Public Sewices
a)e): Roth subject planning areas comply with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan and the requirements and
standards of the Zone 9 Local Facilities Management Plan and related documents. Therefore, all necessary
public facilities and services will be adequately provided to serve the buildout of the master plan including
Areas A-3 and A-4.
12. Utilities and Services Systems
a)-g): Provisions for adequate utilities, water treatment, sewage, storm water drainage and water supplies have
been secured and/or accounted for via the infrastructure associated with CT 94-01 and compliance with the
Zone 9 LFMP. Coast Waste Management has reviewed the subject planning areas and have indicated that
adequate solid waste disposal service can be provided.
13. Aesthetics
a)c): No scenic vista or highway considerations are pertinent to the subject planning areas. No aesthetic
impacts will result from development of Areas A-3 and A4. Planning Area A4 is a blufftop site and was
required to proposed development that will not adversely impact the aesthetic qualities of the blufftop area.
In re*‘sponse, the project complies with the master plan setback requirement of 100 feet from the bluff edge.
This setback distance is over twice the setback currently observed by the Rosalena subdivision’s blufftop
homes (45 feet). In addition, a lower building height as measured to the peak is established for this planning
area as compared to the Rosalena homes or the development that would have been allowed under the previous
master plan for the site.
14. Cultural Resources
a)-e): No cultural resources of any kind are associated with the subject planning area sites. All required
archeological and paleontological monitoring that was required during the mass grading process has been
satisfactorily completed. No historic or significant ethnic cuhural or religious resources will be impacted by
the development of Areas A-3 and A4.
15. Recreation
a)-b): No recreational facilities currently exist on or near the subject planning areas. Passive recreation areas
are provided throughout the site designs of Areas A-3 and A4 usually near the interface with the master plans
trail system Another planning area in the master plan (Area M) is designated and designed as a multiple use
active and passive recreation center intended for the use of master plan residents, including those of Areas A-3
and A-4. No impacts to recreational resources or opportunities will result from the development of the subject
planning areas.
18 Rev. 1/3op5 60
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IIF 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 PROJEm.
Date Signature
19 Rev. w/95 4’
PUBLICNOTICEOFPRIORENVTRONMENTALCOMPLlANCE
Please Take Notice:
The Planning Department has determined that the environmental effects of the project described
below have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental
documents and, therefore, no additional environmental review will be required and a notice of
determination will be filed.
Project Title: Poinsettia Shores - Planning Area’s “A-3” and ‘Ad”
Project Location: Poinsettia Shores Master Plan, north of Batiquitos Lagoon and east of the
railraod rightof-way.
Project Description: “A-3” consists of 50 detached single family homes. “A-4” consists of 61
detached single family homes. Minimum lot size for both Planning Areas
is 5,000 square feet.
Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, Community
Development, 2075 Las Wnas Drive, Carl&ad, California 92009. Comments from the public
are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Associate Planner, Eric Munoz, in the
Planning Department within thirty (30) days of date of publication.
DATED:
CASENO: CASE NO:
APPLICANT: POINSETITA SHORESPLANNINGAREA'S"A-3"AND"A-4"
PUBLISH DATE:
MARCH 271995 MI~~AELJ.WL~~MLER CT' 9446/PUD 9445 - PA "A-3" Planning Director CI'9447/PUD94-06-PA "A-4"
MARCH 27, 1995
2075 Las Palmas Drive l Carlsbad, California 92009-l 576 l (619) 438-l 161 6a
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: CT 94-07/PUD 94-06
CASE NAME: Poinsettia Shores Planning Area "A-4"
APPLICANT: Kaiza Poinsettia Corporation
REQUEST AND LOCATION: Sixty-one (61) single family homes on 5.000 sa. ft. minimum
sized lots consistent with the Poinsettia Shores Master Plan.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 4 of Carlsbad Tract 94-01 according to Map No. 13181 in the City
of Carlsbad, as recorded on January 26. 1995 in the County of San Diego. State of California
APN: 216-140-25. 36 Acres: 12.6 Proposed No. of Lots/Units 65/61
(Assessor's Parcel Number)
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Land Use Designation RM
Density Allowed 4-8 du/ac Density Proposed 4.8 du/ac
Existing Zone PC Proposed Zone PC
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad's Zoning
Requirements)
Zoning Land Use
Site PC Vacant (PA "A-4")
North PC Vacant (PA "A-3"
South OS Batiquitos Lagoon
East PC Existing desilt basin/Lagoon habitat
West TC Railroad right-of-way
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District Carlsbad Water District Carlsbad Sewer District Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 61
Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated December 9. 1994
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Negative Declaration, issued
Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated
Other, Notice of Prior Compliance issued March 27, 1995
ENM:Ih
r
CJity of Carlsbad
Rlannina Department
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
APPLICANTS STATEMENT OF DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS ON ALL APPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE
DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE OTY 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.
Kaiza Poinsettia Corporation
7220 Avenida Enemas
Suite 200
(-arisoaa, cs
Owner
List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved.
Kaiza Poinsettia Corporation
7220 Avenida Encinas
suite
If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names anc
addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnersnip
interest in the partnership.
Saioa California. Inc.
7220 Avenidg
Suite 200
P7009
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 serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary
of the trust.
FRM00013 a/90
2075 Las Paimas Drive • Carlsoad. California 92009-^859 • (619) 138-1161
Disclosure Statement
(Over)
Page 2
5. Have you had more than S250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff. Bear:
Commissions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months?
Yes No If yes, please indicate person(s)_
Person it d«fin*o M: 'Any individual, firm, copartn«rthip. joint v«ntur«. aMOciation, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust.
receiver, syndicate, tfii* and any otlw county, city and county, city municipality, district or other political »u&drvi$ion, or any other grouo or
combination acting a» a unit'
NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary.)
Signature of Owner/date
Print or type name of owner
Signature of applicant/date
Print or type name of applicant
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be Submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: Poinsettia Shores Planning Area "A-4" - CT 94-07/PUD 94-06
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE:_9_ GENERAL PLAN: RM
ZONING: PC - Poinsettia Shores Master Plan
DEVELOPER'S NAME: Kaiza Poinsettia Corporation
ADDRESS: 7220 Avenida Encinas. Suite 200. Carlsbad CA 92009
PHONE NO: (619)931-9100 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO: 216-140-25.36
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC, SQ. FT., DU): 12.6 Acres
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE:
A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = 226
B. Library: Demand hi Square Footage = 121
C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer)
D. Park: Demand hi Acreage = N/A
E. Drainage: Demand hi CFS = N/A
Identify Drainage Basin = B
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
F. Circulation: Demand hi ADTs = 610
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = _4
H. Open Space: Acreage Provided - N/A
I. Schools: N/A
(Demands to be determined by staff)
J. Sewer: Demand in EDUs - 61
Identify Sub Basin - N/A
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
K. Water: Demand in GPD - 13.420
L. The project is 1.8 units below the Growth Point.
EASEMENT NOTES;
ACC. KTS SOC*£
'AC. §QL
8R m K IUJCEOS 1/IV"
•M 54SS. *0 4ST.OM 11/1/3*
r/w T4-ii«S4.o«
PARKING SUMMARY:
SAN DIEGO NORTHERN RAILROAD \ V'
GENERAL NOTES
OdfTMQ OCNCKM. fUW
OWOtAL KM
CONTOUfl GRADING ANALYSIS
TM3 STt WAS OKADO UhOOl TXCOf WASTCK rCNTAHWC **f, C.T. (4-01 FINALOftACMNO ro« fMS PIAWMMO AKCA(ICC ORAOlNO ANALYSIS)
uMno SCHOOL Darner
HUMdPAL WATtM BSTMCT
CAMLS8AO HUMOPAL WATtM MTMCT
LOT 9
11.7 AC. WOO
MSIOCMTVH. LOTS
OHN IPACC ion
UVifN PVU* r*TWN LOT
MMTt fUtOT LOTton
BENCHMARK:
10 CMU8M TTATC PMK 40 FtET (*&or cCKTtnjpiior noun touwj CA«J»UI•LM. ON MXTO Tmtn KOOCt NOA75B2
YICINITY MAP
NO SCALE
SHEET 1 OF 4 SHEETS
C.T. 94-07
P.U.D. 94-06
TENTATIVE MAP
FOR
POINSETTIA SHORES
PLANNING AREA A-4
LEGEND:
SU80MSKW MUNMftV
C CONTOUR1
C HYDRANT
etOTNC smtcr UOHT
PROPOSED met
PROPOSED tlNtSHOJ CONTOURS
PROPOSED WATER MMM
PROPOSED SEWER MM* * yjt.
PROPOSED STQIfW (HUM * C.O.
PROPOSED CURt INLET
CRADCD SLOPCS (M MM)W/DATUCHT UN(
WO*OSCD SPOT CL£VAnON . .
CONC»1T€ BLOCK «TM«M) «*UL
D CUADORM. (M-»). , .
I soo I
r' 'r'
worosco r
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
.OF SUN WCOO, STATt QT CAUTOMM, ACCOKOINC TOr NO. uni. nua IN THC orrx£ or TMC COUNTVor SAN MOO COUNTY ON jANUAmr ». iwt or omcuL KCONOS
CIVIL ENGINEER/LAND SURVEYOR:
OWNER/SUBDIVIDER:
KMU KMStnu conKHunoN. * CAUTOMIA COM>OAATION7720 AVCMOA CMCMAS. STt »o
HOAWO SACA
.•CVSC3 «*** -8. I««S•fVSlO WJI it. IMSorvisco res «. i«i
~rs M
ENGINCE» DT VORiC.
EXHIBIT "A'
» - *
J/" I— H
J^^ I
, JT
JT
VfpfMssJJ)
T5.-&
t
'•
^fOM
*
/
vUkw^..'^
T
X
S™ (
TYPICAL SECTION - EXISTING WINDWSC C/ffCLf <«*UC)ANO AVFM04 ENCINAS ON-SITE fnmxi
»jow
»•
t
J^
!s
•r1 ^
rvwcju. SECTION — PRIVATE SJREEJ
wjwrSTREETS P*C
SHE
C TMat imd wvf Hn PUMMcmto \^*A*WO M« «TMN t-IOt
LOT AREAS
101 W.
J -
— i —
T
1
to
>
*
I
1
T|
tl
LOT AREA (V)
ItJO
MJO
17M
UM
•100
UM
17(0
iao
ing
9MOino
MMU197BO
•400
1300
LOT AREAS
LOT NO.LOT AREA (SF)
TUQ
MOO
»400
1000
aeoowoo
J.oo
ireoo
KM
1100
uoa
TUO
TJ*0
ET 2 OF 4 SHEETS
94-07/P.U.D. 94-06
TYPICAL SECTION — PRIVATE STREET
STREETS 8,7,8,9,10
u /
nKfoiv (*owTot VAi moor <M> **WM> MI
TYPfgJt SECTION - AVtNIDA fNCIHAS
, ---
TYPICAL LOT DRAINAGE DETAILM 5tnl
NOit urn MU suBfxcE BUM w
BENCHMARK:
DCSCMFTXM: rANOMD OtSC ITT r
A^pmu. 300 ftrr SOUTH or soum wwTO CMtLSSMl JT*rt ***W «0 FEET CAST OfCCNTCRUNE OF NORTH tOUNO OMLSB«DM.VO. ON PONTO SmeCT MIOCC NO. "M2
L CONTAOL 0*T*
I. OC Q
sojsa y
EXHIBIT "B'^
SHEET 3 OF 4 SHEETS
C.T. 94-07
P.U.D. 94-06
EXHIBIT "C'
SHEET 4 OF 4 .SHEETS
, C.T. 94-07
P.U.D. 94-06
EXHIBIT "D'
EXHIBIT
.
ii^<:«|^.;:n-*i^S;5
JV--1
1 ._ L
. .4. L -i..J_ i_i L-t-.-L.
- i.:,—|. -j i-.p-|.' :.|.71.,,..i....L:
-+ 'i .;.,
-4-.-
. „ ^_.:_:„)-. ._;...;
,-. (.
^ n . ' . t-*
. «V:.:.»_,..
• -htv-f---
"^j*:'- : ":'j^r-prr;
Lik£
...... :.^.
:r;:^±
g
EXHIBITS"
PLAN A 2341 S.F
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
fj
lf« •
111 i
CO
§
co
PLANNING AREA A-3 AND A-4 Iop6
THE VILLAGE OF HONFLEUB
EXHIBIT "G"
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
LEGEND
UMUONVM •ffMHIftrAKTiirH0IMBUTM
WIND OIIHWUMn« «MtmHfl«nP nurue*T - TIVWMW"
PLAN B 2911 s.F.
FERST FLOOR PLAN SCAIJt : i;*-=l'-«- 024 1
Gt-o"m~~*yw».
VIH.
'
1
j?
ft•§
s
_—
s
ix
CO
ffiCQ
IH
PL.
PLANNING AREA A-3 AND A-4
THE VIUAGE OF HONFLEUR
2 OF 6
EXHIBIT 'H"
PLAN C 3175 S.F.
FIRST FLOOR PLAN ru—iSGALR : l/4-Bl'4* » I 4 •
PLANNING AHEA A-3 AND A-4
THE VILLAGE OF HONFLEUR
131
cn
I
co oc
SH-lg
3 OF 6
EXHIBIT 'T
LEFT ELEVATION
PLAN A
FRONT ELEVATION SCALE : M-.l'-r 014 I
RIGHT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION
PLANNING AREA A-3 AND A-4
THE VILLAGE OF HONFLEUR
'9
CO
H *
§
W 1CO
SI
4 OF 6
EXHIBIT "j1
LEFT ELEVATION
TYPICAL FINISH MATRTUAIfl
RIGHT ELEVATION
PLANB
FRONT ELEVATION 2 4 *
REAR ELEVATION
II
fjlit
*§1SB I
"I
COI
OH
PLANNING AREA A-3 AND A-4
THE VILLAGE OF HONFLBUH
5OF6
*K"
•Mr.
PLANC
FRONT ELEVATION
RIGHT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION
PLANNING AREA A-3 AND A-4
THE VILLAGE (til
II
m
CQ
a.
6 OF 6
Mil»1«M»ct mt ttbOHf fir *n *T« »Ww* • p«bOt«M*lkDK; •/ • !(««•-•"• AM•»•» Cllf if Tittal-MI. A »««•••
LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN
POINSETTIA SHORES, AREA
EXHIBIT "M'
C.T. 94-07
P.U.D. 94-06
i 'PLANT MATEftUlD
VntDtsTMif mri. , N , S^^fYV^i^rVf'-"'53
OUPOEEO GRANITE : I1 V VhMJ_. «•.(«& taJbi. Ui ''
•E-r^-i .•vrssKs
U4W4 J i»' W w-i^ A.I•!•'• te-d !• At i «tt««l'B« renter
lUtoytMENT PLANS WILL BE UOUVUxi \ K. «C5S'TM«S }T f> \ >VjroowiAMBrrAtriANTSCAHNOA* • ' , "vVffg-,*"?•• hr"'^i iYliBi(Ai«rAcnoNofTinirv*tSnNO \ 1J..1.U J.t,,../-in.>... w /rt: nil *r«. b lv»H< -• th* nix)*, thpn ,^ tft* t'U. HiK'ilk
lMd«pI *rtH *in bl -taM V h4 Mt TtM IIMI •• »4l •>.,! * r-fl
tAOOTN OP^N .^PAtR AFP.AmtUllr* b KUlMJ -Hk rtr. Ittlh) fMdina»ofc H *P1 r*q»l>t ••T.lut b.t« rt »l«M.Mt (««>». kt-bNlk mini tf *tbrii tW «)M>
toxi tl, n, 1} »d •' in •rgtkil>k tor IMt p,0J,H.Irrltvlloll <*lc>Ull«ll1 • inBult •monnl ot lnp|il»inflll*l wlltr rrqolrtd.
\!i.. i R.iis.r.'t'i'jil'.,b-Av»,.., V, _;-.'' /M i', -l«Xti..CS<i.IcV9-4n»>it . /ttt 5SSf• fflliiSrTS:" "
not sn nji^ • CKi0" NOB'M wm^KT or r
~ a sowt p"wTO CMSBU S1*!T P"« «0 TO t*ST OfCtVItRLMOH WJ-flO SI"TD »>Wt HO.vow*
tONt n Ir lltpkvMI*! WMtf *••«!!,M* p*r M*««I.II" p« Httt
•I*** to it City rf'cv'bto-l Li«<ny MM-A*
, LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN -
I POINSETTIA SHORES, AREA A-4
EXHIBIT "N'
?tOCK(NOISE BARRIER) WALL FLF.VATION
>* '— " "
STEEL TUBE FENCE W/ PILASTER5Si !5 Hit?
2<4'
MAX.
EtEVATION
VILLAGE IDENTITY SIGN
|*CO*T
2 VmpS^LtmimsLI \SpllD BLO1 I—Bo7T3inil
W»*-i tHAlt »t * POUND SOU
WOOD GATE AT NOISE BARRJER0' L _
SOLID BLOCK SECTION(H01SE BARRIER)
^
-?•
1.
-\
•^
Jl
/
'll
-
/
\
\
'
^
-£•
,
Ij
/t
'*
7 v
i/'/
~Z*~ J''.'~<-'-
V
\i
5
\
°-?-
•* *~
rl
, >';
i
/
*!
^
•3^
/ /•/
1
s\/\\
^>> ~-">^
/ ' 1
^
I'. *' l«Mt>*tC
SCALE 3/<"= 1'- O*
LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN
POINSETTIA SHORES, AREA A-4 I'L-3
EXHIBIT "O"
TRAILS SYSTEM - OVERVIEW AREA
NOTT' THIS ILLUSTRATION IS CONCEPTUAU FINAL DETAILS OF THAH
AND REI.ATED AMrjrtnrj ftUL BE SUBMITTED WnM TRAILCONS1RUCTION PI AN FOR RF.VIF.W AND ArPROVAL TRInR TOnun.niNn PFBMIT issiiANra
O
3
as\p
-IIffilii
TBAIIS SYSTEM - 36ATINO HOOt
LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN
PQINSETTIA SHORES, AREA A-4 PL-4
EXHIBIT "P5