HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-17; Planning Commission; Resolution 52331
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5233
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 106 UNIT MULTIFAMILY
APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT AFFORDABLE TO LOWER
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE FUTURE EXTENSION OF
COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE
DRIVE, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 7.
CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE Y
CASE NO.: SDP 01-05
WHEREAS, Calavera Hills LLC, “Developer/Owner” has filed a verified
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
A portion of Lots D and E of the Rancho Agua Hedionda, in
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to the partition Map thereof No. 823, filed in the
Office of the County Recorder of said County on November 16,
1896
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 17th day of July, 2002, hold a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
according to Exhibit "ND" dated June 18, 2002, and "PII" dated June 4, 2002,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findiws:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A.
B.
C.
D.
It has reviewed, analyzed and considered said Negative Declaration and the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
The Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 17th day of July 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez,
Heineman, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Segall
ABSTAIN: None
SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson] a
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
MICHAEL J. HObZblILLm
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5233 -2-
- City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: Southwest of the future extension of College Boulevard, south of
Carlsbad Village Drive.
Project Description: Site Development Plan for the construction of a 106 unit
multifamily apartment development, affordable to lower income
households, on an 8.16 acre site within Village Y of the Calavera
Hills Master Plan.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California 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, California 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 Michael Grim in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4623.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
PUBLISH DATE:
JUNE 18,2002
SDP 0 1-05
CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE Y
JUNE 18,2002
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 I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 0 1-05
DATE: June 4.2002
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Calavera Hills Village Y
2. APPLICANT: McMillan Homes
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2727 Hoover Ave, National Citv, CA
92950 (619) 336-3138
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: May 17.2001
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Develotment Plan for the construction of a 106 unit multifamily
apartment develoDment. affordable to lower-income households. on a 7.13 acre site within
Village Y of the Calavera Hills Master Plan, located southwest of the future extension of College
Boulevard. south of 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.
0 Land Use and Planning
0 Population and Housing
[7 Geological Problems
0 Water
Air Quality
a TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Biological Resources Utilities & Service systems
0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Hazards
0 Noise
0 Cultural Resources
Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
cl
IXI
0
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
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 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 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.
2 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 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 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but 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 environmeptal document have been incorporated into this project, then no
additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence
that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
0 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.
0 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 Em, (3) proposed mitigation measures do not
reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
I. 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?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
0
0
0 (#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
Unless Impact
0
U
landuses? (#l:Pgs 5.6:1 - 5.6-;8)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established communitv (including a low-income or 0 0 OBI
minority community)?i#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
0 0 om populationprojections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0 0 OBI
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0 0 om 5.5-6)
4 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
c) Seismic ground failure, includmg liquefaction? (#l:Pgs
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
5.1-15)
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
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)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, 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 water
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
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? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
body? (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
(#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
11)
5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
Potentially Significant Impact
O I7 o
0
0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
Unless Impact
0 OIXI cl OB I ON
ON
0 OIXI 0 OIXI OH
CI
0
0
0
0
CI
ON
UIXI
ON
ON
ON
ON
OIXI
0 OIXI
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3- IXI 00
1 - 5.3-12)
- 5.3-12) 0 0 OBI b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
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)
0 0 om
0 'I OM
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
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?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7.22) cl
proposal result in:
5.7-1 - 5.7.22) IXI
0
0
I7 o
0
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
animals, and birds? (#1 :PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
- 5.4-24)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents ofthe State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
1 - 5.13-9)
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
0
0 0
0
0
0
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)? (#1 :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 -
0
0
5.10.1-5)
0
0
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
I7
0
0
nu
UIXI
OIXI
OIXI
ON
6 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
healthhazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
hazards? (#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-
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 15)
1 - 5.9-15)
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? (#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)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental 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:
Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
Communications systems?
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7)
Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#1 :Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
5.11-1 -5.11-5)
5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
CULTUUL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- 10)
10)
7
Potentially Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Significant
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
cl 0 0 Incorporated
0 cl
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 o n U n U
0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 c7 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 I7
0 0 0
No
Impact
IXI
IXI
IXI
Ixl
IXI
IXI
IXI
Ixl
Ixl
IXI
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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-
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
1 - 5.8-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF 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 California hstory 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 ckent projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)? Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
0 0 OIXI 0 0 0 ‘IXI
Incorporated
0 0
0 0 UIXI
0 0 om
0
n
0
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,
California, 92008. (760) 602-4600.
1. Uudate of Geotechnical Rmrt, Calavera Hills Village Y, City of Carlsbad. California,
dated October 20, 1999, Geosoils, Inc.
2. Interim Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Calavera Heights Villages W-X-Y,
Tamarack and College Boulevard, Carlsbad, California, dated May 15, 1990, Southern
California Soil and Testing, Inc.
3. Noise Technical Reuort for Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase I1 Village Y, Citv of
Carlsbad. California, dated December 13,2001.
8 Rev. 03128196
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The Calavera Hills Village Y project involves the construction and occupation of 106
multifamily apartment units, affordable to lower income households within Village Y of the
Calavera Hills Master Plan. The 8.16 acre Village site will be created through the recordation of
the Master Tentative Map for Calavera Hills Phase I1 (CT 00-02) and ‘will be graded in
accordance with that map. The potential environmental impacts associated with the creation and
grading of the Village Y site were reviewed through the Environmental Impact Report for the
Calavera Hills Phase I1 Master Tentative Map (EIR 98-02, SCH No. 9911 1082), certified
January 15, 2002. The Environmental Impact Report also reviewed the impacts associated with
the development of Village Y with up to 140 apartment units, 34 units more than is proposed
with this Site Development Plan. This environmental document also reviewed the potential
environmental impacts associated with the future extension of College Boulevard, which will
provide frontage and access to Village Y. Since the development of Village Y cannot proceed
until the Master Tentative Map has been recorded and the site has been graded in accordance
with that map, the following environmental analysis deals only with the development of Village
Y with the proposed affordable apartment project.
The 7.13 acre apartment project site is bound by the future extension of College Boulevard and
the future single-family development in Village X to the east, the fbture single-family
development in Village X to the south, the existing single family residential development known
as The Cape to the west, and the future extension of College Boulevard and the future single
family development in Village W to the north. Village Y also includes an approximately 1.0
acre Community Facility site located in the northern portion of the property, which is not
proposed for development at this time but will be graded along with the mass grading of Village
Y and the remainder of Phase 11. The proposed multifamily residential use is compatible with all
of the existing and future surrounding residential and community facility uses.
The residential portion of the Village Y site is designated Residential High (RH) in the City’s
General Plan, allowing up to 19 dwelling units per developable acre. The proposed density is
14.9 dwelling per acre. The project site is zoned P-C (Planned Community) and, according to
the Calavera Hills Master Plan (MP 150(H)), the site is to be developed in accordance with the
R-3 - Multiple Family Residential Zone, except as modified in the Master Plan. The proposed
development would consist of 14 residential buildings, a recreatiodadministration building, 242
surface parking spaces, private streets and driveways, and three common recreation areas. The
residential buildings would be two-stories and measure a maximum of 28 feet in height; the
recreatiodadministration building would be one story and measure a maximum of 18 feet in
height. The total building coverage for the project is 14.5 percent (or 1.37 acres). The project is
consistent with the City’s General Plan and meets all development standards and design criteria
of the Master Plan and R-3 zoning.
The proposed development would necessitate approximately 8,200 cubic yards of balanced
grading subsequent to the mass grading that creates Village Y. The site development would also
include several retaining walls, with a maximum height of six feet. 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 construction 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 the fbture extension of College Boulevard and
would generate 848 average daily traffic trips, which can be accommodated in the future major
9 Rev. 03/28/96
arterial roadway. The project would 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 serve the 106 apartment units would be provided prior to
occupancy, in association with the Phase I1 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.
Due to the project’s proximity to College Boulevard, the Master Plan requires that a site-specific
noise study be conducted. That noise study indicates that noise attenuation walls are needed
along the project’s fkontage with College Boulevard. These walls would range in size fiom four
feet to nine feet high and are incorporated into the project design. The project architecture
incorporates strong relief and a variety of materials and colors, thus not creating any negative
aesthetic visual impacts fiom public views. Given the above analysis, the previous
environmental documentation and the site-specific technical reports, the proposed Calavera Hills
Village Y apartment project would not create any significant adverse environmental impacts as
designed and conditioned.
AIR OUALITY:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result
fiom 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 of the 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 alternative modes of transportation including
mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master ER 93-01, by
City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Ovemding Considerations” for
air quality impacts. This “Statement Of Ovemding Considerations” applies to all projects
covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR
10 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 will 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 MER was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to
review later projects.
EARLIER ANALYSES USED
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, California, 92008.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Re~ort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
2. Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II. Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 & Detention
Basins Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 98-02), dated November 2001, Recon.
12 Rev. 03/28/96