HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-08-07; Planning Commission; Resolution 52561
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. 5256
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW
THE SUBDIVISION AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 117 UNIT
MULTIFAMILY AIR-SPACE CONDOMINIUM DEVELOP-
MENT WITHIN VILLAGE E-1 OF THE CALAVERA HILLS
MASTER PLAN LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER
OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE AND COLLEGE
BOULEVARD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 7.
CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE E-1
CASE NO.: CT 01-03/CP 01-01
WHEREAS, Calavera Hills 11, LLC, “Developer” and McMillin Companies
LLC and Tamarack Properties, Inc., “Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of
Carlsbad regarding property described as
Parcel A of Parcel Map 16233, filed in the Office of the County
Recorder on September 21, 1990, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 7th day of August, 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.
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
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration
according to Exhibit "ND" dated July 3, 2002, and "PII" dated June 24, 2002,
attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinm:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A. It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration and the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and
B. 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
C. It reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of
Carlsbad; and
D. 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 7th day of August 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman,
Segall, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Baker
ABSTAIN: None n
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5256 -2-
- City of Carlsbad
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: Southwest comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and College
Boulevard in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of
California.
Project Description: Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit to allow the
subdivision and construction of a 117 unit multifamily air-space
condominium development within Village E-1 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:
JULY 3,2002
CT 01-03/CP 01-01
CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE E-1
JULY 3,2002
/
MICHAEL J. HaLZmLER
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 m.ci.carlsbad.ca.us @
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 0 1 -03KP 01 -0 1
DATE: June 24.2002
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Calavera Hills Village E-1
2. APPLICANT: Calavera Hills II, LLC
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2727 Hoover Ave. National Citv. CA
91950 (619) 336-3138
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUB”ED: May 29.2002
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Tract Map and Condominium Permit to allow the subdivision and construction of a 117 unit multifamily air-space condominium development within Village E-1 of the Calavera Hills Master Plan, on prouertv generally located at the
southwest comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and College Boulevard.
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 TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service systems
0 Geological Problems [7 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
[7 water OH-& 0 Cultural Resources
Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
0
0
Ix1
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.
Date I /
2 Rev. 03/28/96
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 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.
a “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.
e “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect fiom “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.
e
a
“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 &I potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaratian pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, .and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required
by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no
additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
a 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 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
a 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.
a An EIR must be prepared if ‘Totentially 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 11 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
significant.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source #(s): (#1:Pgs5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
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)
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)
(#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed offlcial regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
5.5-6)
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
which would otherwise be determined
Potentially Significant
*t
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than Significant Impact
0
0
0,
0
0
0
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
4 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Sigruficant
Impact
Potentially Sigmkant Unless Mitigation
LessThan No
Significant Impact Impact
Incorporated 0 0 0
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, including 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)
0 0 0
0 0 OIXI
0 0 0 0 OIXI OIXI
OIXI OIXI OIXI
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
0 0 OIXI Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
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)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
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)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
11)
body? (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
(#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
11)
5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
0
0 0
OIXI
OIXI
OB
OIXI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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-
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)
1 - 5.3-12)
- 5.3-12)
IXI 0 on
0
0
0
0
0
0
5 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CION. Would the
proposal result in:
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
Hazards to safety fiom design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7.22)
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)
(#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, f&, 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? (#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
(#1 :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 of the 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)
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 -
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
5.10.1-5)
hazards? (#l:PgS 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
Potentially Potentially Less Than
Signifkant Signrficant Significant Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
1x1 0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0
I7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OIXI
OIXI
0 IXI
0
0 OIXI
om
6 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable bmh,
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? (#1 :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.UTnITIES 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? (#l: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 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
10)
10)
7
Potentially
Impact
Signtficant
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0 cl cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Inc02Ttd
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0 El
Less Than Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 cl
0
0 0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
1 - 5.8-10)
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 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 fd 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 auimal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California 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 fbture projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentidry Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Less Than Significant
Impact
0
0
cl
0
0
0
0
No Impact
IXI
151
IXI
IXI
IXI
151
IXI
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. Update of Geotechnical Report, Calavera Hills Village E-1, City of Carlsbad, California,
dated August 28,2000, Geosoils, Inc.
2. Tentative Map Drainage Study for Calavera Hills E-1. Citv of Carlsbad, California, dated
May 28,2002, Hunsaker and Associates.
3. Noise Technical Report for Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II Village E-1. City of
Carlsbad, California, dated December 13,2001, Recon.
8 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The Calavera Hills Village E-1 project involves the subdivision and construction of a 117 unit
multifamily airspace condominium development within Village E-1 of the Calavera Hills Master
Plan. The 9.34 acre site was originally created with a Minor Subdivision (MS 832, recorded
September 21, 1990) and was remapped through the Calavera Hills Phase II Master Plan
Amendment and Master Tentative Map (Mp 15O(H)/CT 00-02). The site will be graded in
accordance with the Phase II map. The potential environmental impacts associated with the
grading of Village E-1 were reviewed through the Environmental Impact Report for the Phase II
Master Plan Amendments (EIR 98-02, certified January 15, 2002). The Environmental Impact
Report for Calavera Hills Phase II also reviewed the impacts associated with the development of
Village E-1 with up to 11 7 multifamily condominium units. This environmental document also
reviewed the potential environmental impacts associated with the fbture extension of College
Boulevard, which will provide fiontage but not access to Village E-1. Since the grading of
Village E-1 cannot proceed until the Master Tentative Map has been recorded andor the
associated grading permit has been issued, the following environmental analysis deals only with
the development of Village E-1 with the proposed multifamily air-space condominium project.
The 9.34 acre condominium site is bound by the future extension of College Boulevard to the
east, the existing single family development known as The Cape to the south, existing Glasgow
Drive and the Calavera Hills Community Park to the west, and Carlsbad Village Drive and future
single-family development in Village K to the north. The proposed multifamily residential use is
compatible with all of the existing and future surrounding residential land uses.
Calavera Hills Village E-1 is designated Residential Medium High (RMH) in the City’s General
Plan, allowing up to 15 dwelling units per developable acre with a Growth Management Control
Point of 1 1.5 dwelling per acre. The proposed density is 12.5 dwelling units per acre, which lies
within the allowable General Plan range but over the Growth Management Control Point. The
Calavera Hills Phase I1 Master Plan Amendment included an amendment to -the Zone 7 Local
Facilities Management Plan, which allows for Village E-1 to exceed the Growth Management
Control Point due to lesser densities elsewhere in the Master Plan and the provision of adequate
facilities to serve the units proposed within Village E-1. The project site is zoned Planned
Community (P-C) and, according to the Calavera Hills Master Plan (MP 150(H)), the site is to be
developed in accordance with the Residential Density - Multiple (RD-M) Zone, except as
modified in the Master Plan.
The proposed development would consist of 29 residential buildings, private streets and
driveways, three common recreation facilities, and 60 surface guest parking spaces. The
residential buildings would consist of 14 six-plex buildings and 11 three-plex in a motor court
style development, all units possessing a private two-car garage. The buildings would measure
34 feet in height and the condominium units would range in size fiom 1,350 square feet to 1,550
square feet. The total building coverage for the project would be 26 percent (or 2.46 acres).
The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and meets all development standards of the
Master Plan and the RD-M zoning designation.
The proposed development would necessitate approximately 18,630 cubic yards of cut, 15,760
cubic yards of fill, with 2,870 cubic yards of export subsequent to the mass grading associated
with the Calavera Hills Phase 11 Map (CT 00-02) for Village E-1. 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
9 Rev. 03/28/96
be provided throughout construction and Fire marshal approval would be required prior to
storage of hazardous materials on site.
The residential project would take access off of existing Glasgow Drive to the west and would
generate 936 average daily traflic trips, which can be accommodated by the collector street and
the adjoining major arterial roadways of Carlsbad Village Drive and College Boulevard. 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 need to
serve the 117 condominium units would be provided prior to occupancy, in association with the
Phase II Master Tentative Map (CT 00-02) grading and improvement plans as well as the
proposed air-space condominium tentative map (CT 01-03). In addition, the Carlsbad Unified
School District has stated that there are adequate school facilities to serve the proposed
condominium 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 fiontage with College Boulevard, Carlsbad Village Drive, and a portion of
Glasgow Drive. These walls would range in size fiom three (3) feet to 1 1 feet high and would be
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 E-1 condominium 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
from 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
10 Rev. 03/28/96
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 MER
This document is available at the Planning Department.
CIRCULATION:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would
result fi-om 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
fieeway 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 MER 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 MER 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 MER remains adequate to
review later projects.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
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 located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008,
(760) 602-4600.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase 11. Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 & Detention
Basins Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 98-02), dated November 2001, Recon.
12 Rev. 03/28/96