Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 01-05; Calavera Hills Village W; Tentative Map (CT)CITY OF CARLSBAD LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION 1) APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOR: (CHECKBOXES) (FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY) (FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY) • Administrative Permit - 2nd Dwelling Unit n Administrative Variance Q Coastal Development Permit Q Conditional Use Permit Q Condominium Permit Q Environmental Impact Assessment Q General Plan Amendment • Hillside Development Permit • Local Coastal Plan Amendment • Master Plan Q Non-Residential Planned Development [x] Planned Deveiopment Permit Q Planned Industrial Permit Q Planning Commission Determination Q Precise Development Plan Q Redevelopment Permit • Site Development Plan Q Special Use Permit Q Specific Plan Q Tcntotivo Porecl Mop Obtain from Engineering Department [3 Tentative Tract Map Q Variance Q Zone Change List other applications not specified CT 01-05 2) ASSESSOR PARCEL N0(S). 3) PROJECT NAME: Calavera Hills Village W 4) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: A single family residential project 5) OWNER NAME (Print or Type) Calavera Hills II L.L.C. 6) APPLICANT NAME (Print or Type) Calavera Hills II L.L.C. MAILING ADDRESS 2727 Hoover Avenue MAILING ADDRESS 2727 Hoover Avenue CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE National City, CA 91950 (619) 336-3735 CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE National City, CA 91950 (619) 336-3735 1 CERTIFY THAT 1 AM THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY 1 CERTIFY THAT 1 AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND C(2£RECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. SIGNATURE / DATE "SIGNATURE / DATE 7) BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION Subdivisicn of a pbrticn of Ix)t D, E, & J of the Randx) Agpa Ifedionda, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Ei^, State of Califomia, acoondirg to the partition map thereof Nb. 823, Nofb'PA-'-J'Rll^i^J PROJECT REQUIRING MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 3:30 P.M, A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING ONLY ONE APPLICATION BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 4:00 P.M. Form 16 PAGE 1 OF 2 8) LOCATION OF PROJECT ON THE Calavera Hills Village W East STREET ADDRESS SIDE OF (NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST) Future College Boulevard (NAME OF STREET) BETWEEN Tamarack Avenue AND (NAME OF STREET) Future Cannon Road (NAME OF STREET) LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE Seven 10) PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS 13) TYPE OF SUBDIVISION 16) PERCENTAGE OF PROPOSED PROJECT IN OPEN SPACE 19) GROSS SITE ACREAGE 22) EXISTING ZONING 127 11) NUMBER OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL UNITS Res. 19% 36.2 P-C 14) PROPOSED IND OFFICE/ SQUARE FOOTAGE 17) PROPOSED INCREASE IN ADT 20) EXISTING GENERAL PLAN 23) PROPOSED ZONING Zero Zero 1,210 RM N/A 12) PROPOSED NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS 1 5) PROPOSED COMM SQUARE FOOTAGE 1 8) PROPOSED SEWER USAGE IN EDU 21) PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION 121 Zero 121 N/A 24) IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMEBERS OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INSPECT AND ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. I/WE CONSENT T(3-tNTRY FOR THIS PURPOSE SIGNATURE FOR CiTY USE ONLY FEE COMPUTATION APPLICATION TYPE TOTAL FEE REQUIRED FEE REQUIRED 1^ inT>5' RECEIVED FE3 0 \ 2001 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT. DATE STAMP APPLICATION RECEIVED RECEIVED BY: DATE FEE PAID RECEIPT NO. Form 1 6 PAGE 2 OF 2 City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 9200! Applicant: CALAVERA HILLS II L L C Set Id: S000000548 Description CT010005 PUD01006 Total Amount 12,035.00 7,900.00 19,935.00 0530 02/01/01 0002 Dl 02 Receipt Number: R0018183 Transaction Date: 02/01/2001 CGP 19935"00 Pay Type Method Description Amount Payment Payment Checlc Checlc 50381 29775 1,030.00 18,905.00 Transaction Amount: 19,935.00 w PROJECT DESCRIPTION/EXPLANATION PROJECT NAME: Calavera Hills Village W APPLICANT NAME: Calavera Hills II L.L.C. Please describe fully the proposeid project by application type. 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: The proposed project is a single family detached residential development, with 121 dwelling units, located in what is commonly referred to as Calavera Hills Planning Area W. The site is approximately 36 acres in size, and 19% of the site is proposed to remain in open space. This open space area will provide an important linkage for the Carlsbad HMP, in addition to adding aesthetic qualities for the development. The proposed dwelling units will range in size from approximately 1,925 to 2,275 SF, and will be two stories in height. The proposed project includes applications for a Tentative Tract Map and a Planned Development Permit, and is in compliance with Calavera Hills Master Plan MP-150 (H). Project Description 10/96 Page 1 of 1 City of Carlsbad Planning Department DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary' action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board. Commission or Coniminee. The following infonnation MUST be disclosed at the time of application subminai. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print. Note: Person is defined as "Any individual, fimi, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and count)', city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit." Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property' owner must be provided below. 1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO . INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES. PLEASE INDICATE NON- APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.)^ TT • i i -r-r r T ^ Calavera Hills II, LLC, Person a California limited liability company Title 2 72 7 Hoover Avenue Address Na1-ir.n;^1 City, CA 91950 Address, Corp/Part_ Title OWNER (Not the owner's agent) Provide the COMPLETE, LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e, partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% ofthe shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv- owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) pg^g^j.i McMillin Companies, LLC d DeldWdie limlLfciU liabili Title compamy Title. 2727 Hoover Avenue Address M^t-ir^n^i rity^ CA QI q50 orp/Part Tamarack Properties, Inc. a California corporation c/o Rrnnkfield Hnmps Address np 12^65 Pointe,.,Del^Mar, ste. 200 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894 NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (I) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. Non Profit/Trust N/A >jon Profit/Trust Title Title Address Address, 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff. Boards. Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) momhs? I I Yes j^No If yes. please indicate person(s): NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. mature of owner/d^te Signature of applicantAiate Sig Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2 A w City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 Applicant: CALAVERA HILLS II L L C Description CT010005 Amount 45.14 9172 10/21/02 0002 01 02 CGP 45 ..14 Receipt Number: R0030375 Transaction Date: 10/21/2002 Pay Type Method Description Amount Payment Check 51255 45.14 Transaction Amount: 45.14 '™*^- i" ffi Di M E City of Carlsbad ¥ Planning Department PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF DECISION November 26, 2002 Calavera Hills II LLC c/o McMillan Companies, LLC 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, CA 91950 SUBJECT: CT 01-05/PUD 01-06 - CALAVERA IHLLS VILLAGE W At the Planning Commission meeting of November 20, 2002, your application was considered. The Commission voted 6-0 (Commissioner Dominguez Absent) RECOMMENDING ADOPTION/ RECOMMENDING APPROVAL ofthe Negative Declaration and Tentative Map. The decision ofthe Planning Commission is advisory and will be forwarded to the City Council. PUD 01-06 was continued to a date uncertain for enhanced architectural elevations. If you have any questions regarding the final dispositions of your application, please call the Plarming Department at (760) 602-4600. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZP Planning Director MJH:EM:mh Enclosed: Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5311 and 5312 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.cl.carlsbad.ca.us NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your Interest may be affected, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 8, 2003, to consider.a request for approval of a Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map, and Planned Unit Development within Village W of the Calavera Hills Master Plan, on property generally located east of future College Boulevard, south of the College Boulevard/Carlsbad Village Drive intersection, in Local Facilities Management Zone 7 and more particularly described as: Portion of Lots "D" and "J" of the Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map 823, filed in the Office of the San Diego County Recorder on November 6, 1896, also being Lot 2 of Carlsbad Tract No. 00-02. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after July 3, 2003. If you have any questions, please call Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4608. The time within which you may judicially challenge this Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map and/or Planned Unit Development in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: CT 01 -05/PUD 01-06 CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W PUBLISH: June 27, 2003 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL PROOF OF PUBLIC TION (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of This space is the County Clerk's Filing Stamp \"^' c %% V % / Proof of Publication of North County Times Fonnerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of Califomia, for the County of San Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: NOVERBER 7, 2002 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at this of SAN MARCOS, California 7TH day NOVERBER, 2002 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your Inter- est may be affected, that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carls- bad, California, at 6:00 p.m, on Wednesday, November 20, 2002, to consider a request for approval ol a Nega- tive Declaration, Tentative Tract Map, and Planned Unit Development Permit to allow the subdivision and con- struction of a 114 unit single family development within Village W of the Calavera Hills Master Plan,on property generally located east of future College Boulevard, south of the College Boulevard/Carlsbad Village Drive intersec- tion, in Local Facilities Management Zone 7 and more particularly described as: Portion of Lots "D" and "J" of the Rancho Agua Hedion- da, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map 823, filed in the Office of the San Diego County Recorder on November 6, 1896, also being Lot 2 of Carisbad Tract No. 00-02 Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after November 14, 2002, If you have any questions, please call Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4608. The time within which you may judicially challenge this Tentative Tract Map, and Planned Unit Development Per-mit, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Tenta-tive Tract Map, and Planned Unit Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public nearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing, CASE FILE: CT 01-05/PUD 01-06 CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W PUBLISH: NOVEMBER 7, 2002 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT Signature NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising ^^^^ . FILE C Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 20, 2002, to consider a request for approval of a Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map, and Planned Unit Development Permit to allow the subdivision and construction of a 114 unit single family development within Village W of the Calavera Hills Master Plan, on property generally located east of future College Boulevard, south of the College Boulevard/Carlsbad Village Drive intersection, in Local Facilities Management Zone 7 and more particularly described as: Portion of Lots "D" and "J" of the Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map 823, filed in the Office of the San Diego County Recorder dn November 6, 1896, also being Lot 2 of Carlsbad Tract No. 00-02 Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after November 14, 2002. If you have any questions, please call Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4608. The time within which you may judicially challenge this Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development Permit, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: CT 01-05/PUD 01-06 CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W PUBLISH: NOVEMBER 7, 2002 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ® SITE CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W CT 01-05/PUD 01-06 City of Carlsbad Planning Department NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location; Project Description: Villages X and W within the Calavera Hills Master Plan, generally located east and west of future College Boulevard south of the College Blvd/Carlsbad Village Drive intersection in the Northeast Quadrant. 115 single-family detached homes (Village X) 114 single-family detached homes (Village W) The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above-described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, Califomia 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4608. DATED: CASE NO: CASE NAME: SEPTEMBER 26, 2002 CT 01-06/PUD 01-07 AND CT 01-05/PUD 01-06 VILLAGE X AND VILLAGE W PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2002 IAELJIIOLZMKLEP MICHAEL J. HOLZ Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT 01-05/PUD 01-06 and CT 01-Q6/PUD 01-07 DATE: September 17. 2002 BACKGROUND CASE NAME: Calavera Hills Village W and X 2. APPLICANT: McMillin Homes 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2727 Hoover Ave. National Citv. CA 92950 (619)336-3138 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Mav 17. 2001 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Map and Planned Unit Development for the constmction of two single familv Villages within the Calavera Hills Master Plan: Village X proposes 115 units and Village W proposes 114 units, generally located on both sides of future College Blvd. south of the intersection of College Boulevard and Carlsbad Village Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 7. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. I I Land Use and Planning I I Population and Housing I I Geological Problems • Water ^ Air Quality 1X1 Transportation/Circulation [U Public Services I I Biological Resources CH Utilities & Service Systems I I Energy & Mineral Resources I I Hazards I I Noise I I Mandatory Findings of Significance I I Aesthetics I I Cultural Resources I I Recreation Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. ^ (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I I I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ! I I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I I I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I I I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Planner Signature Date Planning Directors Signature Date Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Enviromnental 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 infonnation 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 dociunent have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. Rev. 03/28/96 • If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the forai under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) Potentially Significant Impact • • • • • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • • • • • Less Than Significant Impact • • • • • No Impact II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local | | population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either Q directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable | | housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) • • • • • • Rev. 03/28/96 Q Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Potentially Significant Impact potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Fault rupture? (# 1 :Pgs 5.1 -1 - 5.1 -15) • • • b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1-5.1-15) • • • X c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? • • • (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1.15) • • • d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-• • • 1-5.1-15) • • • X e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1-5.1-15) • • • X f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil • • • conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15) • • • X g) Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) • • • X h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) • • • i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs • • • 5.1-1-5.1-15) WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or • • • the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -5..2-11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related • • • hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) • • • c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration • • • of surface water quality (e.g. temperature. dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) • • • d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any • • • waterbody? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) • • • e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of • • • water movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) • t) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either • • • through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) • • • g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? • • • (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -5..2-11) • • • h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -• • • 5..2-11) • • • i) Substantial reduction in the amount of • • • groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: • • • a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an • • • existing or projected air quality violation? (#1 :Pgs 5.3-1-5.3-12) Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3- 1-5.3-12) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3- 12) d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3- 12) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative transportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22) 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? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4- 24) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4- 24) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4- 1-5.4-24) VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1-5.13-9) Potentially Potentially Significant Significant impact Unless Less Than No Significant Impact Impact • Mitigation Incorporated • • X • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) Potentially Significant Impact • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • Less Than Significant Impact No Impact • m IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of • • • hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-5) • • • b) Possible interference with an emergency response • • • plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1-5.10.1-5) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential • • • health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) • d) Exposure of people to existing sources of • • • potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable • • • bmsh, grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) • X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 -• • • 5.9-15) • • • b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? • • • (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 -5.9-15) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6) • • • b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) • • • c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5) • • • X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? • • • e) Other govemmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -• • • 5.12.8-7) XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 • • • & 5.13-1 -5.13-9) b) Communications systems? • • • c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution • • • facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-• • • e) ') Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8) • • • Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). f) g) XIII. a) b) c) XIV. a) b) c) d) e) XV. a) b) XVI. a) b) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -5.12.3-7) AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 -5.11-5) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 -5.11-5) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1-5.11-5) CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- 10) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 -5.8-10) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1-5.12.8-7) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -5.12.8-7) FINDINGS OF MANDATORY SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Califomia history or prehistory? 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)? Potentially Significant Impact • • • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • • • Less Than Significant Impact • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • No Impact Rev. 03/28/96 c ^ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Does the project have environmental effects Q CH CH K which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. The following site-specific technical studies were used in the analysis and design of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, Califomia, 92008. (760) 602-4600. 1. Update of Geotechnical Report, Calavera Hills Villages W, X and Y City of Carlsbad. Califomia. dated October 20, 1999, Geosoils, Inc. 2. Interim Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Calavera Heights Villages W. X and Y Carlsbad, Califomia. dated March 20,1990, Southem Califomia Soil and Testing, Inc. 3. Noise Technical Report for Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II Village W. City of Carisbad. Califomia. dated May 1, 2002. 4. Noise Technical Report for Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II Village X, City of Carlsbad. Califomia. dated August 13,2002. Rev. 03/28/96 o DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The project involves the constmction and occupation of two single-family villages within the Calavera Hills Master Plan: 115 detached single-family units within Village X and 114 detached single-family units in Village W. Both sites will be created through the recordation of the Master Tentative Map for Calavera Hills Phase II (CT 00-02) and will be mass graded in accordance with that map. The potential environmental impacts associated with the grading of Villages X and W site were reviewed through the Enviromnental Impact Report for the Calavera Hills Phase II Master Tentative Map (EIR 98-02, SCH No. 99111082), certified January 15, 2002. The Environmental Impact Report also reviewed the impacts associated with the development of Village X with up to 117 single-family units; and Village W up to 121 units. These maps propose less units than allowed by the master plan and comply with all design and development standards. EIR 98-02, as certified, also reviewed the potential environmental impacts associated with the major public improvements required for the buildout of the master plan including Villages X and W. Since the development of Village X and W cannot proceed until the Master Tentative Map (CT 00-02) has been recorded, and the site has been graded in accordance with that map, the following environmental analysis deals only with the development of Villages X and W and the project differences compared to the EIR. The differences center on revised noise studies (which does not result in more or higher walls than those analyzed in the EIR) and a reduced unit amount (proposing less units than allowed by the master plan). College Boulevard separates the Village X and W sites. The proposed single-family residential uses are compatible with all ofthe existing and future uses allowed by the master plan. The residential designation of both Villages is Residential Medium (RM) in the City's General Plan, allowing up to 8 dwelling units per developable acre. The proposed densities of 4.6 (Village X) and 4.8 (Village W) is within the RM range. The project site is zoned P-C (Planned Community) and, according to the Calavera Hills Master Plan (MP 150(H)), both sites are to be developed in accordance with the R-1 - Single Family Residential Zone, except as modified in the Master Plan. The proposed developments will consist of single-family residential units with open space and common recreation lots. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and meets all development standards and design criteria of the Master Plan and the R-1 zone. The proposed development would necessitate approximately 60,000 cubic yards (Village X) and 65,000 cubic yards (Village W) of balanced grading subsequent to the mass grading associated the above referenced master tentative map (CT 00-02). All grading operations would be required to conform to the recommendations of the site-specific geotechnical report, as well as the City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance. In addition, an all-weather access road would be provided throughout constmction and Fire Marshal approval would be required prior to the storage of any hazardous materials on site. The residential project would take access off of future College Blvd and would generate 1150 (Village X) and 1140 (Village W) average daily traffic trips, which can be accommodated by existing and required road segments in the area. The project will be required to comply with the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit through the implementation of Best Management Practices, thus reducing the amount of pollutants entering the public storm drain system. All facilities needed to 10 Rev. 03/28/96 jvelo serve the single-family developments will be provided prior to occupancy, in association with the Phase II Master Tentative Map grading and improvement plans. In addition, the Carlsbad Unified School District has stated that there are adequate school facilities to serve the proposed apartment project. Noise wall locations and heights are not greater than those covered in the earlier analysis (EIR 98-02) and the proposed unit yields are less than the maximums allowed by the master plan. These two elements represent the variation in the project as reviewed by the master plan's certified enviromnental review (EIR 98-02) and now proposed. Given the above analysis, the previous environmental documentation and the site-specific technical reports, the proposed projects for Calavera Hills Villages W and W would not create any significant adverse environmental impacts as designed and conditioned. AIR QUALITY: In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result fi-om the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts in the form of 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 build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality ofthe region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, 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 altemative 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 projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR 11 Rev. 03/28/96 CIRCULATION: In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan would result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at build-out. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at build-out 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 projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR This document is available at the Planning Department. A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was certified more than five years ago, the City's preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance. Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to review later projects. EARLIER ANALYSES USED/SOURCE DOCUMENTS CITED The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, Califomia, 92008. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carisbad Planning Department. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I CASE NO: DATE RECEIVED: (To be complete by sfaflj BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. CASE NAME: Calavera Hills Village W APPLICANT: Calavera Hills II. LLC ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: Calavera Hills II. LLC, c/o McMillin Companies; 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City, CA (619) 336-3735 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative subdivision map and planned unit development pemiit for 121 detached single family units to be located on 36.2 gross acres, with 23.9 acres to be used for the development. The property is anticipated to be mass graded via a master tentative map and mass grading permit, prior to development of the proposed project, open space reserve. The site is located on the east side of future CoHege Boulevard. The proposed project will involve construction of two-story units on minimum 4,000 sq. ft. lots, with standard residential public streets. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Please check any of the 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. X Land Use And Planning • Population and Housing • Geological Problems • Water X Air Quality X Transportation/Circulation X Biological Resources • Energy & Mineral Resources • Hazards X Noise • Mandatory Findings of Significance • Public Services X Utilities & Services • Aesthetics X Cultural Resources • Recreation Rev. 03/28/96 J ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine If a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental impact Assessment appears In the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. • Based on an "EIA-Part II," if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negafive Declaration, including revisions or mitigafion 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 mitigafion measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potenfially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed 3 Rev. 03/28/96 adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mifigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerafions" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. A Negafive 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 significant, and those mifigafion measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mifigafion Incorporated" may be checked and a Mifigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potenfially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potenfially significant effect has not been discussed or mifigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mifigafion measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerafions" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mifigafion measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part il analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potenfially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potenfially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potenfial impacts and the proposed mifigafion measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attenfion should be given to discussing mifigafion for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (The proposed project will conflict with the existing Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Calavera Hills Master Plan, however a General Plan Amendment and Master Plan Amendment is in process with the City of Carlsbd and is expected to be approved prior to consideration of the proposed project. In the event this General Plan Amendment is not adopted, the proposed project is not consistent with the General Plan, which is considered a significant environmental impact. (#1. #2. #3) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? The proposed project is inconsistent with the existing Calavera Hills Master Plan, however this Master Plan is presently in process of modification. Upon its adoption, the proposed project will be consistent. Additionally, the proposed project is consistent with the City of Carlsbad Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Nonetheless, potentially significant environmental impacts to land use will result if mitigation is not included. (#3. #6) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (The proposed project is not anticipated to be incompatible with the surrounding residential land uses in the area inasmuch as the most adjacent developed property is to the west, and the proposed project will be of a compatible density. (#1, #2, #3; d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (The proposed project will not have a significant impact on soils or farmlands; the City's Final Master EIR and the Calavera Hills EIR anticipate and plan for urban development of the site. No agricultural operations exist or previously existed on the subject site in recent history; (#2, #3) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X • X X X Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (Existing urban develop- ment occurs to the west of the proposed project, however the proposed project will not divide the physical arrangement of any established community. The project will indirectly add to the stock of affordable housing through implementation of a future affordable housing agreement with the City of Carlsbad. (#1, #2, #3; X II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (The proposed project proposes no increase in regional or local population projections approved in conjunction with the City's Final Master EIR (#2, #3) X b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (The proposed single family development of Village W involves development of a site previously identified for urban development, and located directly adjacent to an arterial roadway. A small extension of College Blvd. is proposed to accommodate the project. All improvements proposed are adjacent to the subject property, or along its direct frontage. (#1, #2, #3; X c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (The proposed project site is presently undeveloped and will not displace any existing housing; (#2. #3) X GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (The proposed project is not located near active or potentially active faults. Standard engineering design and construction practices should mitigate potential impacts associated with earthquakes to a less than significant impact; (#2, #3, #^^; X Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) b) Seismic ground shaking? (Seismic risk on the subject site is considered low. The proposed project will mitigate the effects of potential seismic ground shaking by following all pertinent State and Local building codes for construction, including measures identified in the General Plan Public Safety Element Implementing Policies and Action Plans; (#2, #3, #11) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (The proposed project will mitigate the effects of potential seismic ground shaking by following all pertinent State and Local building codes and standard regional engineering practices for design and construction as required in conjunction with the Carlsbad Master EIR; (#2, #3, #11) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (The proposed project is not located in an area susceptible to seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard; (#2) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Landslides or mudflows? (The proposed project is located on land considered in previous environmental documents as suitable for development, and will mitigate the potential for landslides and mudflow on the site by grading in a manner consistent with the City's Grading Ordinance and as directed by the soils report; (#2. #3, #11) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (The proposed project has been previously mass graded. As a result of its future development, it will mitigate the potential for erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions on the site by grading in a manner consistent with the City's Grading Ordinance, and including mitigation measures identified in the General Plan Public Safety Element Implementing Policies and Action Programs; (#1, #2, #11) g) Subsidence of the land? (The previously-graded natural soils stability onsite is considered generally good. The proposed project will mitigate the potential for subsidence on the site by grading in a manner consistent with the City's Grading Ordinance and the recommendations set forth in the soils report; (#2, #3, #11) X X X X X X Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) h) Expansive soils? (The The City's Master EIR concluded that significant impacts associated with expansive soils can be mitigated to a level of less than significance through the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the General Plan Public Safety Element Implementing Policies and Action Programs. The proposed project will mitigate the potential for damage from expansive soil conditions on the site by grading in a manner consistent with these measures, and the City's Grading Ordinance; (#1, #2, #11) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (The proposed project is planned for a site not Iknown to be located in an area with unique geologic or physical features; (#2af, #3) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (The proposed project is not anticipated to adversely effect changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or surface runoff, in that it will comply with the City of Carlsbad's policies regarding surface runoff quantities and rates in compliance the Final Master EIR; (#2, #3, #11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (The proposed project will be designed to not increase the amount of drainage runoff from the site in its developed, when compared to its existing state prior to development; (#2. #11) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (The proposed project will not discharge directly or in an uncontrolled manner into any surface waters or result in an alteration of water quality; (#2, #3) X X X Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to attached) and Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (Eventual development of the proposed project will not discharge directly or in an uncontrolled manner into any surface waters or result in an alteration of water quality since mitigation measures including the use of temporary onsite. and permanent downstream sedimentation and retention basins will be incorporated into the project; (#3, #11) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (Development of the proposed project will result in no substantive change in the course or direction of water movement; (#2, #3) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (The City's General Plan and the General Plan Master EIR contemplate urban residential development of Village W. and the project will not result in any significant withdrawals or additions to the groundwater; (#2, #3) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (The City's General Plan Master EIR contemplates urban development of the subject villages, and the project will not result in any significant alteration in the direction or rate of flow of groundwater; (#2, #3, #11) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (All pesticides, oil grease and other toxic substances contained in typical urban runoff will be conhtrolled consistent with Federal and State law. As a result, the proposed project will not result in significant impacts to groundwater quality; the City's General Plan EIR contemplates urban development of this site consistent with the proposed project; (#2, #11) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (The proposed project will not result in significant impacts to groundwater; the City's General Plan EIR contemplates urban development of this site; (#2, #3, #9, #11) X X X X X X Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Covered under the City's General Plan EIR. See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation at the end of this checklist). b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Other than the impacts described in the Discussion of Environmental Evaluation, the proposed project is not anticipated to create significant impacts to sensitive receptors; (#2, #3) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (The proposed project will not invoke or result in climatic, temperature, moisture or air mass changes; (#2, #3) d) Create objectionable odors? (The proposed project is a typical urban residential development. Residential uses are not generally considered to create noxious odors; (#2. #3) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than significant Impact No Impact X X X X VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (The proposed project involves development which will generate approximately 1,210 ADT. Although in and of itself, this increase is not considered significant, the City of Carlsbad has determined that a potential regional significant impact to traffic congestion could result from this and all other projects in the City. See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation at the end of this checklist. b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (The proposed project does not involve the design or development of sharp or hazardous design features. The project will be designed in compliance with all applicable City polices and codes regarding circulation design which were addressed in the City's General Plan Master EIR. (#2) X X 10 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially (Supplemental documents may be referred to and Significant attached) Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (The project proposes the installation of circulation infrastructure concurrent with need. In order to be consistent with City standards, eventual development of the site will provide emergency access in compliance with applicable City codes and is designed in compliance with all applicable City polices regarding circulation design which were addressed in the City's General Plan EIR. (#1, #2. #5. #12) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (The proposed project does not involve actual design of development of the subject site, and as a result will not result in significant impacts to parking capacity. (#12) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (The proposed project does not involve actual design of development of the subject site, and as a result will not result in significant impacts to pedestrians or bicyclists. (#12) fj Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (The proposed project will be developed in compliance with the existing City polices and codes regarding alternative modes of transportation which have been addressed in the City's General Plan Master EIR. (#1, #2, #12) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (The proposed project does not preclude and is in compliance with applicable City polices and codes regarding alternative modes of transportation which were addressed in the City's General Plan Master EIR; (#2, #3, #12) X X X X X 11 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially (Supplemental documents may be referred to and Significant attached) Impact VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, result in impacts to: Would the proposal Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (The proposed project involves residential lotting development of a site for which permits to conduct mass grading will already have occurred prior to development of the subject project. The site presently contains coastal sage scrub and chaparral vegetation, prime habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher, a federally listed species. In the event that the mass grading associated with the master tentative map application, for which an EIR is being conducted, does not occur, the proposed project would result in potentially significant biological impacts, and mitigation would be necessary; (#3, #6, #8) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (The proposed project does not involve disturbance to locally designated biological species; (#3, #6) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (The proposed project involves development of a site devoid of natural communities and as a result wil not affect locally designated natural communities; (#3, #6) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)? (The proposed project does not involve direct impacts to wetland habitats, however impacts to waters of the US. and indirect impacts could occur to downstream nparian scrub wetiand and sycamore woodland as a result of potential sedimentation resulting from development; (#2, #3, #6) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (The proposed project will not result in an impact on wildlife dispersal or migration corridors since the subject property will have been mass graded pursuant to the master tentative map. prior to development of the subject project. (#3, #6) X X X X X Vlll. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? 12 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (Development of the proposed project will be designed in conformance with all applicable federal, state and local polices and codes relating to energy conservation including State Title No. 24. The project falls within the realm of urban uses anticipated under the City's General Plan Master EIR; (#2, #3, #5) X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (Development of the proposed project will be designed in conformance with all applicable federal, state and local polices and codes relating to energy conservation; the project will comply and implement Housing Element Action Program 5.1 which implements residential energy efficient standards; (#2) X 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? (The proposed project is located within an area with known mineral deposits however these minerals are not considered of significant value and urban development is planned for this area of the City, which has previously been found in the General Plan Master EIR to not constitute a significant impact; (#1, #2) X IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (The proposed project does not affect the previous findings of consistency with the City of Carlsbad Emergency Plan for Calavera Hills, and does not include any uses that would likely involve accidental explosions, or a release of hazardous materials. As a result, it is concluded that the project will not involve risk of these circumstances as determined in the City's General Plan Master EIR; (#2) X b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (The proposed project will comply with City standards for emergency response to the developed site; (#2) X 13 Rev. 03/28/96 %^ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (The proposed project is a typical residential project and is not expected to create any health hazards. A 138 KV electrical transmission line is located adjacent to and north of the subject site. The General Plan Master EIR addressed electro magnetic fields (EMF's) and concluded that scientific research has not established that EMF's are harmful to human health; (#2, #3) X d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (There are no known existing potential health hazards in the vicinity of the proposed project as determined in the City General Plan Master EIR; (#2) X e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (Preserved habitat areas containing high fuel plant species are proposed in close proximity immediately along the northern and eastern perimeter of the subject project. The proposed design incorporates provisions of the City Landscape Manual Fire Suppression standards as approved by the City Fire Marshal. As a result it is concluded that the proposed project will not increase fire hazard and will and comply with all applicable City policies regarding fire suppression, landscaping and low fuel planting; (#2, #7, #9) X X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (The proposed project involves residential development adjacent to College Blvd.. a major arterial roadway. As a result, noise impacts from this roadway source could be significant and will necessitate mitigation. The exact form of mitigation must be addressed in a site specific noise analysis; (#2, #3, #12) X 14 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Development of the subject village for residential purposes will result in the potential for significant noise impacts from College Boulevard. The potential significant adverse impacts relative to noise levels from these arterial roadways could be mitigated for the proposed project through the construction of noise walls of a height and density to minimize noise effects. The proposed project is not within the noise contour levels considered significant for McClellan-Palomar Airport. In addition, the Calavera Hills EIR concluded that, with appropriate mitigation.; (#2, #3, #10) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? (The proposed project will be serviced by Fire Stations 3 & 5 and as a result, it is projected to conform with the City of Carlsbad General Plan, the Growth Management Plan and the Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP). Additionally, at the time the Calavera Hills fire station comes on line (expected in 2004). fire protection to the area will be enhanced. No substantive need for additional fire protection beyond that anticipated in these documents will result from development of the proposed project; (#2, #3, #5) b) Police protection? (Police protection is provided by the City of Carlsbad Police Department; no substantive need for additional police services beyond that anticipated in the City of Cartsbad General Plan and the Growth Management Plan will result from development of the proposed project; (#2. #3, #5) c) Schools? (The proposed project will not have a significant impact on schools because it has been annexed into CUSD Special District #3. which levies taxes for the construction of new schools. A new K-8 school is proposed to be constructed as part of this project; residential development of this site is anticipated in the City's Growth Management Program; (#2, #4, #5) X X X 15 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (No substantive increase in road maintenance will be necessitated since the proposed project will be in conformance with the City's General Plan and Growth Management Plan; (#2, #4, #5) e) Other governmental services? (No significant need for any other governmental services beyond those anticipated by the City of Carlsbad General Plan and the Growth Management Program will result from development of the proposed project; (#2, #4, #5) Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated X X XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the foiiowing utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (The proposed project is not anticipated to create a significant new demand for major facilities or to require substantial alterations to existing facilities; (#2, #4, #5) b) Communications systems? (The proposed project may is not anticipated to create a significant new demand for major facilities or to require substantial alterations to existing facilities; city codes require that the applicant consult with cable and communications providers during the proposed project design/City review process; (#2) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (Urban uses on the subject property are anticipated in the City's General Plan EIR and Growth Management Pian; (#2, #4, #5, #7) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (The proposed project will utilized existing and planned facilities, and will not create significant or unanticipated demand for sewer beyond that anticipated in the City of Carisbad General Plan Master EIR and the Master Sewerage Plan. No septic systems will be utilized; MEIR 93-01, pp. 5.12.3.1-5.12.3.5). X X X X 16 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Storm water drainage? (Urban residential uses on the subject property are anticipated in the City's General Plan Master EIR and Growth Management Plan, and the proposed project is not likely to result in significant increase in storm water drainage beyond that identified in those documents. To ensure that no significant impact occurs, the project will comply with mitigation measures relative to storm water control identified in these documents; (#2, #3) X f) Solid waste disposal? (Urban uses on the subject property are anticipated in the City's General Plan EIR and Growth Management Plan, and the proposed project will not result in an increase in solid waste beyond that identified in those documents; (#2) X g) Local or regional water supplies? (Urban uses on the subject property are anticipated in the City's General Plan EIR and Growth Management Plan, and the proposed project will not result in an increase in demand for local or regional water supply beyond that identified in those documents; (#2, #3) X Xlll. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (The proposed project will not significantly affect City of Carisbad designated scenic vistas or highways; (#2) X b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (The City of Carisbad review process includes building architecture and quality of site design to insure that proposed developments harmonize adequately with existing development in the City. This review process prevents demonstrable negative aesthetic effects. As a result, eventual development of the proposed project will be designed in a tasteful and marketable manner and will not have a negative aesthetic effect; (#2, #3, #7) X c) Create light or glare? (The City's General Plan EIR anticipates residential uses on the subject site, and no significant light or glare will result from the proposed project; (#2) X 17 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (The proposed project is located within an area which is expected to contain paleontological resources. As a result, grading of the site may impact paleontological resources unless mitigation measures are included to minimize the impacts; (#2. #3, #11) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (The proposed project is not expected to disturb archaeological resources. (#3) c) Affect historical resources? (There are no known historical features on the site; (#3) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (The proposed project will not cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values: (#3) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (The proposed project will not restrict religious uses or impact sacred areas; (#3) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (The proposed project will not create a significant additional need for parks or other recreation facilities other than identified in existing City policy documents which identify recreational plans for buildout of the City; (#2, #3. #4. #5) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (The proposed project will not significantly affect existing recreation opportunities; (#2, #3, #4, #5) X X 18 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated X X X 19 Rev. 03/28/96 XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the fiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an eariier EiR or negafive declarafion. Secfion 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should idenfify 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 mifigafion measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mifigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigafion Incorporated," describe the mifigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific condifions for the project. ANALYSIS Earlier analyses and references utilized in this Assessment: 1. City of Carlsbad General Plan, September 6, 1994, as amended. Including Land Use Element, Circulation Element, Housing Element, Parks and Recreation Element, and Public Safety Element 2. General Plan Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01), September 6, 1994. 3. Draft Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II, Bridge & Thoroughfare District No. 4 and Detention Basins Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR 98-02), January, 2001. 4. City of Carlsbad Growth Management Program (Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan), September 23, 1986. 5. Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan, October 18, 1989. 6. Draft Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad, December, 1999. 7. City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, Title 21, as amended. 20 Rev. 03/28/96 c ^ 8. Comprehensive Open Space and Resource Conservation Management Plan, May, 1992. 9. City of Carlsbad Landscape Manual, November 13, 1990. 10. Comprehensive Land Use Plan McClellan-Palomar Airport, October 1986. 11. City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance, Title 11, as amended. 12. City of Carlsbad Transportation Design Standards, March 3, 1991 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Please use this area to discuss any of the environmental factors that were checked "No impact" yet lack any informafion citations and any factors that were checked "Potenfially Significant Impact" or "Potenfially Significant Impact Unless Mitigafion Incorporated." The City has adopted a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" with regard to air quality and circulafion impacts resulfing 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. LAND USE AND PLANNING: The proposed project conflicts with the present Land Use Element of the General Plan and the exisfing Calavera Hills Master Plan, and will require amendment to these Plans. Amendments to these plans are presenfiy in process in the City, which will change the land use on the subject property to residenfial low-medium density, which would allow the single family development proposed in this project. Upon approval of these discretionary legislative actions, the proposed project will be consistent with Land use and Planning documents. In the event that this General Plan and Master Plan Amendment does not proceed to approval, the subject project cannot be found in conformance with the General Plan and Master Plan. AIR QUALITY: The implementafion of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumpfion and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequenfiy 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 pollufion 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, confinued development to buildout as proposed in 21 Rev. 03/28/96 the updated General Plan will have cumulafive 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 implementafion of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternafive modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) condifions to promote energy efficient tiuilding and site design; and 5) participafion in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mifigafion measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as condifions of project approval. Operafion-related emissions are considered cumulafively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin," therefore, the "Inifial Study" checklist is marked "Potenfially 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 Resolufion No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerafions" 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 implementafion 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 jurisdicfional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementafion 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 circulafion associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mifigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulafion facilifies concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternafive modes of transportafion such as trails, bicycle routes, addifional 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 jurisdicfion of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation 22 Rev. 03/28/96 measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as condifions of project approval. Regional related circulafion impacts are considered cumulafively significant because of the failure of intersecfions at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through- traffic, therefore, the "Inifial Study" checklist is marked "Potenfially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparafion of an EIR is not required because the certlficafion of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolufion No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerafions" for circulafion impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerafions" 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. NOISE: The proposed project will involve the potential for exposure of future residents to high levels of noise from College Boulevard, a major arterial roadway. The Calavera Hills Draft EIR concludes that, with appropriate mifigafion, significant adverse impacts relative to noise levels from these roadways can be mitigated for the proposed project. Condifions relafing to this mifigafion are attached to this assessment. The proposed project is not within the noise contour levels considered significant for McClellan-Palomar Airport. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: The proposed project involves residential development of a site for which permits to conduct mass grading wiil already have occurred prior to development of the subject project This mass grading wiii be undertaken in reliance on approvals of the master tentative map and its associated grading permit. The site however, presenfiy contains coastal sage scrub vegetation, which is considered a sensitive habitat. This habitat is considered prime habitat for use by the coastal California gnatcatcher, a federally listed "threatened" species, under the Endangered Species Act. In the event that this master tentative map mass grading, for which an EIR is being conducted, does not occur, the proposed project would result in potenfially significant bioiogical impacts, and mifigafion would be necessary. All areas identified in the master tentafive map as worthy of preservafion, in conformance with the Habitat Management Pian program, are to remain in open space conservafion area. In addifion, the proposed project is located in an area that contains "waters of the U.S.", in which federal and state permits, and mifigafion will be required. This permitfing process will be conducted in conjunction with the master tentafive map mass grading process, and as a result will be completed prior to considerafion and approval of the subject project In the event that this master tentative map does not 23 Rev. 03/28/96 occur, and this subject project wiil be required to permit and mifigate for impacts to the "waters of the U.S.", this is considered a significant impact to biological resources. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: The proposed project couid result in a significant impact on storm water drainage facilifies, and wiii be required to install temporary and permanent erosion control and pollufion control facilities downstream of the project. Upon instailtion of adequate erosion and pollufion control devices, the project will be considered to have mitigated the impacts on storm water facilities to an adequate level. CULTURAL RESOURCES: The proposed project is located within an area which is expected to contain paleontological resources. As a result, future grading of the site may impact paleontological resources unless mifigafion measures are included to minimize the impacts as determined in the Calavera Hills EiR. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) LAND USE: 1. Prior to approval of the subject project, the City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use element, and the Calavera Hills Master Pian shall be amended to aiiow development in conformance with the subject project NOISE: 1. Exterior Noise Levels -To reduce significant ground-floor exterior noise levels for residenfial use areas, the project applicant shall construct noise barriers varying from five to nine feet in height along the top of the slope as shown in Figure 3D-11 in the EIR. This measure reduces noise levels at all ground-floor usable areas within the village to a level at or beiow 60 CNEL.Moreover, if additionai points of access from College Boulevard and, as a consequence, addifional breaks are required, no usable exterior areas shall be placed adjacent to those breaks. Even with the construction of noise barriers, noise levels at the second floors of the units adjacent to the roadways could exceed 65 CNEL. Standard construcfion is not assumed to adequately reduce interior noise levels to below 45 CNEL at these locafions. Therefore, the foiiowing mifigafion is required: interior Noise Levels - a) At the fime building plans are available for the units in this village, and prior to the issuance of building permits, a detailed acousfical analysis for 24 Rev. 03/28/96 units exposed to 65 CNEL or greater will be required demonstrafing that interior noise levels due to exterior sources will be at or beiow the 45 CNEL interior standard, b) For those areas where exterior noise levels are projected to exceed 60 CNEL, it wiil be necessary for the windows to remain closed to ensure that interior noise levels meet the City's interior standard of 45 CNEL and forced-air circulafion or air condifioning is required. 2. if earthwork blasfing is proposed, the project shall conform to San Diego County Blasfing Ordinance Title 3, Division 5, Chapter lli County Code of Regulatory Ordinances Sections 35.377.101-104, 35.377.301(a), 35.377.306 and 35.377.307) to reduce the temporary noise impacts due to blasfing and Secfion 8.48.010 of the City's Municipal Code limifing allowable hours of activifies. The allowable hours of acfivifies associated with blasfing will be from 9:00 AM. to 4:30 P.M. or one-half hour before sunset whichever comes first, Monday through Friday. No blasfing wiil be allowed on weekends or on the holidays specified in secfion 8.48.010 of the City's Municipal Code. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: 1. Prior to approval of the subject project, the mass grading associated with the master tentative map shall have been approved, including federal, state and City permitting and mitigation for the disturbance of coastal sage scrub and "waters of the U.S." habitat impacts. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: 1. The developer and the City of Carisbad shall, within 90 days of complefion of grading activifies, hydroseed/ landscape graded and common areas with appropriate ground cover vegetation consistent with any biological requirements (e.g., use of native or noninvasive plants). These revegetated areas shall be inspected monthly by a qualified landscape architect, biologist or comparable professional unfil verification is provided to the City that vegetafion has been firmly established as determined by the City's grading inspector. Compacted areas shall be scarified, where appropriate, to induce surface water infiltrafion and revegetation as directed by the project geologist, engineer, and/or biologist. 2. Grading and other surface-disturbing acfivifies either shall be planned to avoid the rainy season (i.e., November through March) to reduce potenfial erosion impacts or shall employ construcfion phase erosion control measures, including the short- term use of sandbags, matting, mulch, berms, hay bales, or similar devices along all graded areas to minimize sediment transport. The exact design, locafion, and schedule of use for such devices shall be conducted pursuant to direcfion and approval by the City Engineer. CULTURAL RESOURCES: 25 Rev. 03/28/96 c 1. During the grading operafion, a qualified paleontologist shaii be retained to perform periodic inspections of excavafions and, if necessary, salvage exposed fossils. The frequency of inspections wiil depend on the rate of excavafions, the materials being excavated, and the abundance of fossils. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil to facilitate evaluafion and, if necessary, salvage. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) To be determined by Planning Director 26 Rev. 03/28/96 Citv of Carlsbad Planning Departnnent May 9, 2002 Calavera Hills ll, LLC Attn: Brian Milich 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, CA 91950 SUBJECT: CT 01-05/PUD 01-06 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development permit, application numbers CT 01-05 / PUD 01-06, as to their completeness for processing. All of the items requested of you earlier have not been received and therefore your application is still deemed incomplete. Listed below are the item(s) still needed in order to deem your application as complete. This list of items must be submitted directly to your staff planner by appointment. All list items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals, including five (5) sets of plans. No processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be complete. When all required materials are submitted the City has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the application will be initiated. Please contact your staff planner, Eric Munoz, at (760) 602-4608, or Van Lynch, interim project planner, at 602-4613, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHAELJ. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH:VL:cs c: Don Rideout Eric Munoz Frank Jimeno •^le Copy Data Entry Planning Aide Planning Systems, Paul Klukas, 1530 Faraday Ave, Ste 100, Carlsbad CA 92008 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carisbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us LIST OF ITEMS IMEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION No. CT 01-05 / PUD 01-06 Planning: SITE INFORMATION 1. Indicate top and bottom elevations for all noise walls. Show these elevations at each end of the wall and in the middle. Also show the worst condition elevation. 2. Please provide the total building coverage for lots with proposed structures. 3. Please identify all utility lines as existing or proposed. 4. Please provide average and peak potable water demand in gallons per minute (gpm). 5. Please provide peak irrigation water demand in gallons per minute (gpm). 6. Please provide average sewer generation in million gallons per day (mgd). 7. Please provide colored recycled water use map for future areas to be irrigated with reclaimed water. 8. Please provide contour lines for the slope areas. 9. Please place all development application numbers in the upper right hand corner of the plan (i.e. CT and PUD) LANDSCAPE 10. Please provide the quantity of all proposed trees per species and type (i.e street, open space, slope, and entries). 11. Please provide the percentage of the site used for landscaping. BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND FLOOR PLANS 1 2. Please add a depth dimension to the garage. (20-foot minimum) OTHER DOCUMENTS 13. Please complete a new disclosure statement that is consistent with the title report. 14. Please update the project description form for the project. 15. Please provide a construction materials board for the homes and proposed retaining walls. See application submittal form for details. 16. Please provide a noise study in conformance with the City's noise guidelines manual and the Calavera Hills Master Plan. MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENTS 17. Please submit a fence plan (with fence heights), sign program, and trellis/patio cover exhibit pursuant to the Master Plan. 18. Please provide a noise study in accordance with the city's noise guidelines. 19. Please plot the top of slope setback line for single- and two-story building plate heights as described in the Master Plan. This should be plotted on the trellis/patio plan. Engineering: To be sent under separate cover. ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: 20. Please redesign the lots along Street "C" such that no lot(s) (Lot 11 5) take access from Street "C". 21. Although permitted by the Master Plan, please consider revising the grading/lot layout to reduce the retaining wall heights of Lot 53 and 93. It would be preferred to keep retaining walls down to 6 feet in height. 22. Please reduce the retaining wall height of Lot 93 to a maximum of six feet in height. 23. Please review the design of the subdivision to reduce the height of the slope in the interior of the project. Consider increasing the rear slope of the lots adjacent to the SDG&E easement to provide additional separation from the power lines. Also consider the large interior slope area as a separate parcel and to be maintained by the HOA as a common maintenance area. This would provide for a uniform maintenance of the slope area. LANDSCAPE 24. Please remove trees from sidewalk on Lots 1 6 and adjacent recreation area. 25. Please complete fire suppression zones adjacent to Lot 52. 26. Please add "shortcut", the natural path of travel to the sidewalk, at the north end of the Recreation Lot adjacent to Lot 109. 27. Please review transition of sidewalk at Lot 63. If possible, the transition should not create slivers of landscaping which would be difficult to maintain. Incorporate transition with the placement of the driveway approaches. 28. Please clarify if the large interior slope area is to be maintained by the HOA. (see leader line across lot 74) If to be maintained by HOA, add additional note on Sheet Two of the Landscape plans. Engineering: June 25, 2003 TO: BOBBIE HODER, PLANNING PLANNING DEPARTMENT - GRAPHICS TRAFFIC ENGINEER SCOTT BURNS, BUILDING DEPARTMENT KAREN GARBRY, BUILDING DEPARTMENT STEVE RUGGLES, STATION #3 FIRE DEPARTMENT GREG WOODS, PUBLIC WORKS - OAK ST OFFICE LORI ALLEN, POLICE DEPARTMENT KARL VON SCHLIEDER - GIS FROM: Planning Director STREET NAMES FOR CT 01-05 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE W The following street names have been approved as a part of the final map processing for CT 01-05. A map delineating street locations is attached. Public Streets: Street A Street B Street C Street D Meadow Drive Rich Field Drive Moon Field Drive Plains Way Attachment SHEET 1 OF 1 r = 400' PAcmc OCEAN PROPOSED nPE HYDRANT EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT ™^ HYDRANT LOCATION ^ CONSULT A/^N T S 2710 Loker Avenue West Suite 100 Oarlsbaa California 92008 760 -9 51 -• 7700 -Qx 760 931 -8680 www odayconsultants.con- Civil Engineering f^lanning Processing Surveying VILLAGE W 800' VILLAGE W CALAVERA HILLS 11 LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN CALAVERA HILUS II. LLH OWflPD 'ocms Scale I'^ev-O' IRCNT 1L«-/AT!0«. . C •VC-K-r «L»-/Ar SN . ^ CALAVER.\ HILLS VILLAGE'VV McMILLIN COMP/\NIES IIAI.IAN KliSnC I fRAj-iSMAN i SI'ANISI! COI.ONIAI : DAMAN Rl/SIIC I SI'AMSli ("DLDNIAI CALAVERA HILLS BROOKFIELD IIOME.S CASI-: CiR()l,!> .ARCHITECTS Crib Wall Block retaining wall Plantable Wall Calavera Hills II Retaining Wall Materials