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