The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSDP 92-06B; SAMBI SEASIDE HEIGHTS; Site Development Plan (SDP).... -CITY OF CARLSBAD -. ' LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION FOR PAGE 1 OF 2 1) APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOR: (CHECK BOXES) A11DVJJ~ .D-tv 1 J 01) J,.. (FOR DEPT (FOR DEPT USE ONLY) USE ONLY) □ Master Plan □ General Plan Amendment □ Specific Plan □ Local Coastal Plan Amendment □ Precise Development Plan [ii Site Development Plan /Amudrnl-nF) gDpq i.-~(13 ) □ Tentative Tract Map □ Zone Change □ Planned Development Permit . □ Conditional Use Permit trD'f' '12--05(9 Hillside Development Permii{qyY1Q,r)dfl!.-lt1f) □ Non-Residential Planned Development lg] □ Condominium Permit □ Environmental Impact Assessment □ Special Use Permit □ Variance □ Redevelopment Permit □ Planned Industrial Permit □ +eetati:>re Pafsel Ma~ Obtain from Eng. Dept le! Coastal Development Permit c,op 'f/J-O~ .. □ Administrative Variance □ Planning Commission Determination □ Administrative Permit -2nd Dwelling Unit □ List any other applications not specified 2) ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(S). _ ___,;.2...;..1....;4;;_-...;;1;;_4"""'0;;_-....;0;;...7'---------------------------- 3) PROJECT NAME: Sambi Seasiciie Heights 4) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Single Family Detached Re~ ldential 5) OWNER NAME (PRINT OR TYPE) Sambi Seaside Heights, LLC MAILING ADDRESS 8649.Firestone Blvd. CITY AND ·STATE Downey, CA . . ; ' -ZIP TELEPHONE 90241 .. J310)861-943 I CERTIFY THAT 1 AM THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. 6) APPLICANT NAME (PRINT OR TYPE Kaufman and Broad of San Diego, Inc. MAILING ADDRESS 12626 High Bluff Drive #400 CITY AND STATE ZIP San Diego, CA 92~30 TELEPHONE (619) 259-6000 I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF Y KNOWLEDGE. DATE /-7-4-17 7) BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION:· Lots 37-111 and lots 120-137 of map 13378 Carlsbad Tract 92-02 NOTE: • 8) LOCATION OF PROJECT: ON THE BETWEEN CITY OF CARLSBAD LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION FO Hidden Valley Road and Plum Tree Road STREET ADDRESS PAGE 2 OF2 East I SIDE OF I Hidden Valley Road (NORTH, SOUTH EAST, WEST) (NAME OF STREET) Camino De Los Ondasl AND I Palomar Airport Road (NAME OF STREET) (NAME OF STREET) 9) LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 10) PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS 13) TYPE OF SUBDMSION (RES/ COMM/ INDUS) 16) PERCENTAGE OF PROPOSED PROJECT IN OPEN SPACE 19) GROSS SITE ACREAGE 22) EXISTING ZONING ~ 11) NUMBER OF EXISTING ~ RESIDENTIAL UNITS 12) PROPOSED NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS r-7 14) PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL r-:-:-7 15) PROPOSED COMMERCIAL ~ OFFICE/SQUARE FOOTAGEl.1U1LJ SQUARE FOOTAGE r-7 17) PROPOSED INCREASE IN r"7 18) PROPOSED SEWER USAGE INji7 ~ AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC l.E.ilLJ IN EQUIVALENT DWELLING ~ r-7 20) EXISTING GENERAL ~ PLAN li2-17>1-a.l 23) PROPOSED ZONING UNITS • •• • • L J_ 21) PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN IRM!R#M ~/ RLfl DESIGNATION I t--i; P--I 24) IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS, OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INSPECT AND ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT IS HE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. I/WE CONSENT TO ENTRY FOR THIS PURPOSE SIGNAT *************************~************************************************************************************************ FOR CITY USE ONLY FEE COMPUTATION: APPLICATION TYPE S'Pf' HOP TOTAL FEE REQUIRED DATE FEE PAID FRM0016 3/96 FEE REQUIRED JAN 2 7 1997 DATE st~~tfc~to':N'REcEIVED S-OCJ .. RECEIPT NO. rt CITY OF CARLSBAD A 3 ,il Id ... ~.f.i·■ REQUEST FOR REFUND • Account No. _(...;;;.l .... l_._~=-=' =;.-e=a=~=-==·=· --Vendor No. -------- Amount of Refund ...;..t....:,1_,,1_. ___ Fee Paid For: SD P ~l-Ob ( fl) ·; So.rnb\ ~tv,~ \a e, Date Fee Paid: , -,1 ~ 1 Fee Paid By: k~v f fY\O. n Abro £?i. d Facts Supporting Request: _p__,_r t..:....__(_v__;\,__· __,_C'_..h-'-'t,._,(_,_$..;:.__~()~$~~'-lf-"D,:..:fk~\ ct:::.!...-___________ _ I Street Signature of Applicant: Dept. Justification: Rec: ________ _.;.:a _________ ~-~ f.l&cu _,.,. ~ Approve □ Disapprove Finance Investigation: Rec: --------::--:----------------'-----------__ _ D Approve □ Disapprove Dept. Head Signature Date .City Manager's Action: P.,--·Approve D Disapprove City Mani!lger Signah,re _ .Date ·-CITY OF CARISBAD • " ' LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION FOR PAGE 1 OF 2 1) APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOR: (CHECK BOXES) A c-,.-'?:":¥111: :~ ![ ~ ' r "" (FOR DEPT ,(r;Jct·L.( t_,lJ-·\_· • fr ~· r.7-(FOR DEPT USE ONLY} I i USE ONLY} D Master Plan □ General Plan Amendment □ Specific Plan □ Local Coastal Plan Amendment □ Precise Development Plan Ii] Site Development Plan (ir,u rd~ nF) 1-SDP q 2.-~(6. □ Tentative Tract Map □ Zone Change D Planned Development Pennit □ Conditional Use Permit H-D'P q2,-D5(. □ Non-Residential Planned Development IKI Hillside Development Permil'1yY1R.iJNnf) □ Condominium Permit □ Environmental Impact Assessment D Special Use Permit □ Variance □ Redevelopment Permit □ Planned Industrial Permit □ Teat.iKi¥B Parse! ~~ ~ Coastal Development Permit CDP 'fl/-tJ~ -Obtain from Eng. Dept □ Administrative Variance □ Planning Commission Determination .. □ Administrative Permit -2nd Dwelling Unit □ List any other applications not specified 2) ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(S). 214-14 0-0 7 -----------'-'----------------------------- 3) PROJECT NAME: Sambi Seaside Heights 4) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Single Family Detached Re~ ldential 5) OWNER 6) APPLICANT NAME (PRINT OR TYPE) NAME (PRINT OR TYPE Sambi Seaside Heights, LLC Kaufman and Broad of San Diego, Inc. MAILING ADDRESS MAILING ADDRESS 8649.Fire tone Blvd. 12626 High Bluff Drive #400 CITY AND·STATE Downey, CA ZIP TELEPHONE CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE (619) 259-6000 . .. 90241 ... (310) 861-943 San Diego, CA 92130 I CERTIFY THAT l AM-THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF KNOWLEDGE. DATE /-1-/-77 7) BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION:· • Lots 37-111 and lots 120-137 of map 13378 Carlsbad Tract 92-02 NOTE: ·"' 8) LOCATION OF PROJECT : ON THE BETWEEN CITY OF CARLSBAD A LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION FORff9' Hidden Valley Road and Plum Tree Road STREET ADDRESS PAGE2 OF2 East I SIDE OF ... I _H __ i_d_d_e_n_V_a_l_l_e_y __ R_o_a_d ___ __. (NORTH, SOUTH EAST, WEST) (NAME OF STREET) Camino De Los Ondas I AND Palomar Airport Road (NAME OF STREET) (NAME OF STREET) 9) LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE ~ 10) PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS 13) TYPE OF SUBDIVISION (RES/ COMM/ INDUS) 16) PERCENTAGE OF PROPOSED PROJECT IN OPEN SPACE 19) GROSS SITE ACREAGE 22) EXISTING ZONING r:::;-;;-, 11) NUMBER OF EXISTING ~ RESIDENTIAL UNITS 12) PROPOSED NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS Gu r:--7 14) PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL r:-:-::-7 15) PROPOSED COMMERCIAL ~ OFFICE/SQUARE FOOTAGE~ SQUARE FOOTAGE II 17) PROPOSED INCREASE IN r.-:7 18) PROPOSED SEWER USAGE ~ L.__J AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC l.1!ilw IN EQUIVALENT DWELLING ~ UNITS • • • • II 20) EXISTING GENERAL L.__J PLAN L J. 21) PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN !RMI R#M ~/ RLti DESIGNATION IF-v>-i-a.l 23) PRoPosED zoNING 1 i-.1jt>--I 24) IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING TIIIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF_ CITY STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS, OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INSPECT AND ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT IS SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. I/WE CONSENT TO ENTRY FOR THIS PURPOSE SIGNAT ************************************************************************************************************************** FOR CITY USE ONLY FEE COMPUTATION: APPLICATION TYPE S'PP !+T>P f.. IA.. TOTAL FEE REQUIRED DATE FEE PAID FRM0016 3/96 RECE6\G.ED FEE REQUIRED JAN 2 7 1997 DATE SlfAMPAPPUCntorif'RECEIVED RECEIPT NO. ' . . ~\l ¾ts .. ACCOUNT NO. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT l~ ~-~,'!, • 1-~... f {'\ \\ ~-.i,v q -~ ··l)(n { A) lJ LJ'-]~ A/"} ·-I HnP q~ ~(J 3 (J~·-; .350 . .,..., /.i ' ,.:1)0~ tn ! };,,. . •"'I \ 1~tJP 4'j, ~, . /') ~-~ ·-1c1t '1~ t' . H..:1111,i , .. J.. . . ) f)r~) . '2. I .-t :) :),.., 6 C) ~~-.. JJI? D l",::/1 i· n ;, ·I-,\.! t:' r, t:.:;'/)/J ,-/) ,-,1.,1 . ' -;::> .I'! • ~, ', ; l {t I\ "rl D 2 c·1 .J. I. I •• Ji I "'··. !)~. /'f ✓-1 -.J J\ )n-n/-J.,JriPl! rt lf1J1;,h~ --~· \ (· I) It{?,{•' 51; or) I' r.n ~, 1 l;, . ' .J l "' . j t.'t 1· -. -. {-1/ .< , . r_,,_ ( i), --I J ., J /7 /\'') ~ ~ l i ·-t l i. ,~•_,, i. ~. 4 l.i.!Ji - RECEIPT NO. 311~lt4 NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY TOTAL $,/..,. .,,.,35.,,, '::)1 5 -lOZ) @ Printed on recycled paper. CASH REGISTER PLEASE NOTE: Time limits on the processing of discretionary projects established by state law do not start until a project application is deemed complete by the City. The City has 30 calendar days from the date of application submittal to determine whether an application is complete or incomplete. Within 30 days of submittal of this application you will receive a letter stating whether this application is complete or incomplete. If it is incomplete, the letter will state what is needed to make this application complete. When the a,pplication is complete, the processing period will start u~:-~--~,,a~,~ Ji/ ~tion letter. Applicant Signature: --~/ 52: . ---7-,,,,,.-~----::a---r------------ ./ -__,.. ----r ----, • -Staff Signature: .• ,_,r:..;,:, .. /' .•• ,-----✓~ ·----- Date: / /2 ,7 J 97 , ! To be stapled with receipt to application Copy for file ,. Cit}' of Carlsbad ■ :Q6i O,hU·l •l4•iUII, ,t§ ,ii DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPLICANT'SSTATEMENTOFDISCLOSUREORCERTAINOWNERSHIPINTERESTSONALLAPPLICATIONS WHICH WILL REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE CITY COUNCIL OR ANY APPOINTED BOARD, COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE ( Please Print) The following information must be disclosed: 1. 2. Applicant List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Kaufman and Broad of San Diego, Inc. 12626 High Bluff Dr. #400 San Diego, CA 92130 Lisa Gordon Owner List the names and addressees of all person having any ownership interest in the property involved. Sambi Seaside Hei~hts, LLC 8641 Firestone Blvd. Downey, CA 902Lfl 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names and addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. Toyohara America, Inc. 8641 Firestone Blvd. Downey, CA 90241 4. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the trust. DISCLOS.FRM 2/96 PAGE 1 of 2 2075 Las Palmas Drive • Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 Disclosure Statement (Over) Page 2 5. Have you had more than $250.00 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff. Boards, Commissi9ns, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes __ No ..)S._ If yes, please indicate person(s) ______________ _ Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit." (NOTE: Attach additional pages as necessary) Signature of Owner/date Attor>Wy ~ ~;t f:nS'-eJi!o H, ToyoMft). ~>-i-hi SeAsvfe t-f.et0,h-/:s LLC Print or type name of owne[ DISCLOS.FRM 2/96 Lisa Gordon, Kaufman and Broad Print or type name of applicant JAN 2 7 1997 PAGE 1 of2 ... • PROJECT DESCRIPTION/EXPLANATION PROJECT NAME: Sambi Seaside Height3 APPLICANT NAME: Kaufman And Broad of San Diego, Inc. Please describe fully the proposed project. Include any details necessary to adequately explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project. You may also include any background information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for, or appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if necessary. Description/Explanation: See Attached. < Rev. 4/91 ProjDesc.frm PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND EXPLANATION Per the Sambi Seaside Heights Vesting Tentative Map Conditions of Approval, the applicant is conditioned to obtain approval of the architecture and site plan from the Planning Director through the site development plan process. This application is submitted in order to comply with that condition. This application covers only lots 37-111 and 120-137, a total of 93 lots of tract 92-02. The application proposes to construct three plan types as depicted in the attached chart: PLAN/# SQ.FT. STORY BR/BA GARAGE RANGE 1 2,433 to 2,828 2 4/2.5 3 2 2,820 to 3,050 2 5/3 3 3 3,152 to 3,901 2 5/3 3 The square footage as shown in the above chart depicts a maximum and minimum square footage available for each unit. The square footage is dependent upon the options which are available to the buyer, including bonus rooms, dens, enlarged master bedrooms and family rooms. The architecture incorporates three floor plans each with three different front elevations. A variety of hip and gable roofs provide a varied and interesting roof line. Certain elevations incorporate a front porch feature. All exterior colors, including the roofs, incorporate earthtones per conditions no. 72 ofresolution 3591. Please note that the plan 1 rear elevation has been modified to relieve the flat wall elevation in the rear per your suggestion. A pop-out at the family room was added to the rear, enhanced with a gable roof element. Please refer to the rear elevation for plan 1 for clarification. This application falls under previous approvals for tract 92-02, including planning Commission resolutions 3590, 3591, 3592, 3593, 3977, 3978, 3979, and 3980. The site has an approved tentative map and recorded final map, as well as approved grading, landscape and improvement plans. K.UFMAN_6BROttD January 24, 1997 Mr. Jeff Gibson City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Pahnas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 SUBJECT: SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN CT 92-02 SAMBI SEASIDE HEIGHTS Dear Jeff: Enclosed please find the application for lots 3 7-111 and 120-13 7 of tract 92-02. The following materials accompany the application: Check for $1,595 ($500 noticing fee, $220 EIA fee, $475 site development plan, $350 Hillside Permit) Check for $3,790 for the Coastal Development Permit Environmental Impact Assessment Form Project Description and Explanation Disclosure Statement Ten sets of folded site plans Ten sets of folded fence plans Ten sets of folded architecture-elevations and floor plans Color and Material Board Noticing Package Title Report Per our earlier discussion, you estimated that the Planning Review would be completed in 2 weeks, and then we will be scheduled for Planning Commission. Please note that landscape plans have previously been approved for the site. A copy is attached for your reference. We respectfully request approval of the application. Sincerely, OF SAN DIEGO, INC. ·sa ordon Manager Forward Planning JA~J 2 7 1997 Enclosures KAUFMAN AND BROAD OF SAN DIEGO, INC. 12626 HIGH BLUFF DRIVE SUITE 400 SAN DIEGO CA 92130 TEL 619.259 6000 FAX 619.259.5108 • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM -PART I (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT) / cAsE No. >DP !g.~o,\....B) DATE REC'D. , I~, I 27 To be' compllted by staff BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: _____ s_2rnb_, _1._· _s_e_a_s1._· d_e_He_1.....,· g"--h_t_c ________________ _ 2. APPLICANT: _____ K...;a;;.;;u...;f~m_a1_1-'a..;;;n;.;;;d...;B=r;;.;o;.;;.a;.;;;d...;o.;;.;f;;....;;S;.;;a=n...;D;;;..;1.;;;..;· e;....g"""o..,_, ....;I=r=1c...=------------- 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: ___________ _ l:2626 liigh Dlu;f:f...,Drive ~~400 f,;:~'" Dleqo, Cl\. 92130 259-6000 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: __ 9_3_s_in_g_l_0._F_· 'a'r.1_._±_l_y_P_.e_f'l_i_d_en_c_e_s_w_i t_h_'i_n_an_e_x_isJ_~-'i--· _.9 ____ _ , ,residential ~;ubdivisionc (final map, :6in±slr1ed lotsi Cctt.l.sbad Tract 92--0:: SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Please check any of environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially Significant Impact", or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning Population and Housing Geological Problems Water Air Quality Transportation/Circulation Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Rev. 4/12/95 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 en':7ironment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 2 Rev. 4/12/95 • 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. 3 Rev. 4/12/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (§§P!!#.fu4ilJ#:H1ffeY:m.Mt.WffliW!M)ftf!@~'Jqjgii!:::~if.a.~M) -I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Sources: ) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations ( e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? ( ) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? ( ) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly ( e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of maJor infrastructure)? ( ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) 4 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact Rev. 4/12/95 No Impact X >< >< >< >( >( Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): ($,p,pfi.l?hl~fn:t~i:::t1~µn¥~¥,fm~nP.#.=!~t!#!WJ§@fiwi~~i§) IV. d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( ) ) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) h) Expansive soils? ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical foatures? ( ) WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality ( e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ( ) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) 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? ( ) g) Altered direction groundwater? ( or rate of flow of ) 5 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact Rev. 4/12/95 No Impact x:. ~ ~ X ~ i::_ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): ($ilppl~JAM~::g~µffl.f\!t@!}\M@!M#.MI~§}in<!:·~tm.¢h¥.~J h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) i) Substantial reduction m the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) V. 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? ( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) 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)? ( ) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) 6 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact Rev. 4/12/95 No Impact >< X X Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (S.?N}@ni\f~§.F~®Yi.ne.n@:!Mn!tKfg!tr.#.~:J\i=·a,ri<(-affa9li~i!) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation ( e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ( ) 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? ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? ( ) c) Locally designated natural commumt1es (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ( ) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ~ ) 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? ( ) 7 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact Rev. 4/12/95 No Impact x Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): {Sgpptem.e'@~f:~¥Hn.i!n.@:!Y.!K:W.::~f~@tt}§&1n~:t§~~~*-4J IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: X. a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? ( ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) 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? ( ) b) Police protection? ( < ) c) Schools? ( ) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) e) Other governmental services? ( ) 8 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact No Impact X X >< x x:: >< Rev. 4/12/95 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): ($.~pfilein~'ritaj.!='l:!~!'.1:~i½#.~M~#.Y:J¥.i'¥.!tt#.W1~l'l~~~¥tf;ghed) 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? ( b) Communications systems? ( c) Local or regional water distribution facilities? ( d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( e) Storm water drainage? ( t) Solid waste disposal? ( treatment g) Local or regional water supplies? ( XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( c) Create light or glare? ( ) ) or ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ~ ) c) Affect historical resources? ( ) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) 9 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact Rev. 4/12/95 No Impact y ;x X X Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (~tlpp.te~~zit@.;-:~~@~##W:1'-~f:1,e\&,~~~4'::t§::=a~~t~@.<lh~} e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) xv. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) 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 effeets which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 10 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact Rev. 4/12/95 No Impact x X ;x ~ XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. See Attached 11 Rev. 4/12/95 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Please use this area to discuss any of the environmental factors that were checked "No impact" yet lack any information citations and any factors that were checked "Potentially Significant Impact" or "..Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." The City has adopted a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" with regard to air quality and circulation impacts resulting from the normal buildout according to the General Plan. The following sample text is intended to guide your discussion of the impacts to these environmental factors. 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 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. 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 12 Rev. 4/12/95 • implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous I])itigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) N/A ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) N/A 13 Rev. 4/12/95 • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM-EARLIER ANALYSES Because all impacts were identified and mitigation for the single family tract within the previous application and conditions of approval, no impacts are identified with this application for architecture and siting of the homes on the individual lots. EIR 93-03 was certified in connection the prior approved Specific Plan 203 and the General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). In addition, a conditional negative declaration dated August 5, 1993 was approved for CT92-02. These documents are available at the Planning Department for review. The following identifies which effects from the checklist were analyzed in the earlier documents and/or mitigated through the conditions of approval. LAND USE The project as a whole (tract 92-02) is below the growth management dwelling unit allowance. It is consistent with the City's General Plan. In addition, to offset conversion of non- prime agricultural land, a mitigation fee was paid. HOUSING The overall developer (Sambi) has entered into a housing agreement with the City to provide 42 affordable units within tract 92-02. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS The site has an approved grading plan prepared per the conditions of approval. Grading has been completed in accordance with the plans and the recommendations of the grading report prepared by Pacific Soils Engineering. WATER The drainage requirements of the Specific Plan 203, Mellow II and the City's ordinances have been considered and adequately designed into the improvements. The project is conditioned that building permits will not be issued unless the water district determines that facilities are adequate to serve the residences. AIR QUALITY Measures were conditioned on the grading plan and incorporated into the grading operation per condition 60 of resolution 3 5 91. CIRCULATION The street system is designed to adequately handle the projects pedestrian and vehicular traffic and accommodate emergency vehicles. Aviary Parkway and Hidden Valley Road have been constructed to provide adequate access of ingress and egress for the site. BIOLOGICAL The project was conditioned to obtain a coastal development permit, streambed alteration agreement, and a Army Corp of Engineers 404 permit, whereby mitigation measures included the following: an open space deed restriction was required to be placed on habitat sensitive areas, sensitive slopes to be enhanced with Coastal Sage Scrub, wetland impacts were to be mitigated with 1. 77 acres of wetland mitigation. Restoration is to be monitored for 5 years. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES No mitigation required. HAZARDS A detailed soils and testing report was prepared and reviewed by the City and County Health Department assessing public health impacts associated with hazardous pesticides. • NOISE The project is conditioned to provide noise attenuation walls per the updated noise study on file with the Planning Department. PUBLIC SERVICES Impacts to public schools were mitigated through the annexation of the property into the Community Facility District #3 (School Mello Roos). UTILITIES Project is conditioned to comply with the City's standards for solid waste management. AESTHETICS All structures and roof materials are to be earthtone in color. CULTURAL RESOURCES A paleontologist oversaw the grading operation per condition 68 of resolution 3591. RECREATION The developer will park-in-lieu fees and the project was found not to negatively impact Poinsettia Community Park.