HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-10-16; Planning Commission; Resolution 52951
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. 5295
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION
AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 14 UNIT SINGLE FAMILY
THE CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN LOCATED NORTH
OF TAMARACK AVENUE AND WEST OF CAY DRIVE IN
LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 7.
CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE L-2
CASE NO.: CT 01-01PUD 01-04
WHEREAS, Calavera Hills 11, LLC, “Developer”/“Owner,” has filed a verified
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN VILLAGE L-2 OF
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as
The remainder parcel northerly of Tamarack Avenue as shown
in Carlsbad Tract No. 83-32, Calavera Hills Village Q,
according to map thereof No. 12950, filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County, July 16, 1992, also
being Lot 6 of Carlsbad Tract No. 00-02
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said
project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of October, 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 ADOPTS the Negative Declaration according to Exhibit
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
"ND" dated June 24, 2002, and "PII" dated June 18, 2002, attached hereto and
made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findinps:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
A.
B.
C.
D.
It has reviewed, analyzed and considered Negative Declaration and the
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments
thereon prior to APPROVING 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 16th day of October, 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman,
Trigas, White, and Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 5295 -2-
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressiLocation: Village L-2 within the Calavera Hills Master Plan, generally located northwest of the College BoulevardCarlsbad Village Drive
intersection
Project Description: 14 single-family detached homes consistent with 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 Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at
(760) 602-4608.
DATED: JUNE 24,2002
CASE NO: CT Ol-Ol/PUD 01-04
CASE NAME: VILLAGE L-YCALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN
PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 24,2002
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: CT 01-01PUD 01-04
DATE: June 18,2002
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Calavera Hills Village L-2
2. APPLICANT: McMillin Homes
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2727 Hoover Ave. National
City, CA 92950 (619) 336-3138
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: May 17.2001
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Map and Planned Unit Development for the
construction of 14 single family dwelling units, on a 6.2 acre site within Villape L-2 of
the Calavera Hills Master Plan, generally located northwest 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.
c] Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems [7 Energy & Mineral 0 Aesthetics
0 Water 0 Cultural Resources
(XI Air Quality [7 Recreation
Resources
[7 Hazards
0 Noise
0 Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0
0
IXI
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.
G-
Planner Signature Date
Planning Director's Signature Date
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 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.
“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 environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no
additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence
that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
e 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 EIR, (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).
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? (#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)? (# 1 :Pgs 5.6- 1 - 5.6- 1 8)
Potentially
Significant Impact
0
0
0 o
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
Unless Impact
0
0
0
0
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 0
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly 0
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable 0 0 housing? (#l:PgS 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
0
0 (XI
0 IXI
0 (XI
0 IXI
0 IXI
0 (XI
Rev. 03/28/96 4
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation Incorporated
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Faultrupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) 0 0 0 ISI
Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) 0 0 0 IE3
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 0 0 IXI
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 0 0 0 IXI
Landslides or mudflows? (#1 :Pgs 5.1 - 1 - 5.1 - 15) 0 0 0 IE3
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 0 0 0 IXI
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
(#l:PgS 5.1-1 - 5.1.15)
- 5.1-15)
- (#l:PgS 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Subsidence of the land? (#1 :Pgs 5.1 - 1 - 5.1 - 15) 0 0 0 IXI
Expansive soils? (#1 :Pgs 5.1 - 1 - 5.1 - 15) 0 0 0 IXI
Unique geologic or physical features? (#1 :Pgs 5.1- 0 0 0 IE3
1 - 5.1-15)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff! (#l:Pgs
Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (#1 :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 - 5.2-1 1)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
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 -
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -
Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1)
”
5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
5 ..2- 1 1)
(#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
5..2-11)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CI
0
0
0
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an IXI 0 0 0 existing or projected air quality violation? (#1 :Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 0 0 0 IXI
5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
5 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or 0 Incorrted 0 IXI
cause any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-
12)
12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3- 0 0 IXI
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in: Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
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)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
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)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
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, animals, and birds? (#1 :Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) 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-
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs
(#1 :PgS 5.4- 1 - 5.4-24)
24)
pool)? (#1 :PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
5.4- 1 - 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 &
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
IXI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 cl
0 0 (XI
0 0 IXI
0 0 IXI
0 0 (XI
0 cl IXI
0
0
0
0
IXI
IXI
0 0 IXI
0 0 IXI
0 0 IXI
0 0 ISI
0
0
0 IXI
IXI
6 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Significant
Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated c) Result in the loss of availability of a known 0 0
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)
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
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs
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 brush, grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
0
0
cl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
cl
0
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#1 :Pgs 5.9-1 - 0 0 0
~ 5.9-15)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#1 :Pgs 0 0 0
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 government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6) 0 0 o b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) 0 0 0
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 0 0 o e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 0 0 0
C) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5) 0 0 0
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 0 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 0 0 0 facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7) 0 0 17 e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8) 0 0 o f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3) 0 0 0 g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 0 0 - 5.12.3-7)
No
Impact
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI
IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI
IXI
IXI IXI
IXI IXI IXI IXI
7 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation
Incorporated
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? 0 0 [XI
(#l:PgS 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? 0 0 [XI (#l:PgS 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
c) Create light or glare? (#1 :Pgs 5.1 1 - 1 - 5.1 1-5)
XIV. CULTURAL. RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 0 [XI
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 0 cl cl [XI
5.8-10)
0 [XI
5.8-10) c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change 0 0 0 IXI 10)
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
(#l:PgS 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) 0 IXI
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional 0 0 [XI
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1 :Pgs 0 0 IXI
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the 0 0 cl IXI
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?
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)?
will cause the substantial adverse effects on
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually 0
c) Does the project have environmental effects which 0
. human beings, either directly or indirectly?
0 IXI
0
8 Rev. 03/28/96
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 which 0 0 IXI
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,
California, 92008. (760) 602-4600.
1. UDdate of Geotechnical Re~ort, Calavera Hills Village L-2, Citv of Carlsbad, California,
dated October 20, 1999, Geosoils, Inc.
2. Interim ReDort of Geotechnical Investipation. Calavera Heights Village L-2. Carlsbad,
California, dated March 20, 1990, Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc.
3. Noise Technical Report for Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase I1 Village L-2. Citv of
Carlsbad. California, dated February 18,2002.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The project involves the construction and occupation of 14 detached single-family units, within
Village L-2 of the Calavera Hills Master Plan. The 6.2-acre 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 grading of the Village L-2 site were
reviewed through the Environmental Impact Report for the Calavera Hills Phase I1 Master
Tentative Map (EIR 98-02, SCH No. 991 11082), certified January 15,2002. The Environmental
Impact Report also reviewed the impacts associated with the development of Village L-2 with up
to 15 single-family units, 1 unit more than is proposed. 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 Village L-2.
Since the development of Village L-2 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 Village L-2 and the project
differences compared to the EIR. The differences center on a revised noise study (which does
not result in more or higher walls than those analyzed in the EIR) and a reduced unit amount (14
instead of 15 units).
The Village L-2 site is bound by the existing development of Village Q of the Calavera Hills
Master Plan to the east, north and west; Tamarack Avenue is to the south. The proposed single-
family residential use is compatible with all of the existing and future uses in the area.
The residential designation of the Village L-2 site is designated Residential Low-Medium (RLM)
in the City’s General Plan, allowing up to 3.2 dwelling units per developable acre. The proposed
density is 2.7 dwelling units 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-1 - Single Family Residential Zone, except as modified in the Master
Plan. The proposed development will consist of 14 single-family residential units an open space
lot and a common recreation lot. 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 zoning
district.
The proposed development would necessitate approximately 3,500 cubic yards of balanced
grading subsequent to the mass grading that creates Village L-2 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 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 existing Cay Drive and would generate 140
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
serve the 14 single family 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.
Noise wall locations and heights are not greater than those covered in the earlier analysis (EIR
98-02) and the proposed unit yield of 14 units is less than the 15 allowed by the master plan.
These two elements represent the variation in the project as reviewed by the master plan’s
certified environmental review (EIR 98-02) and now proposed. Given the above analysis, the
previous environmental documentation and the site-specific technical reports, the proposed
Calavera Hills Village L-2 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
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
11 Rev. 03/28/96
CIRCULATION:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would
result fiom 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 fiom 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-trafic, 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 MER 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 Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MER 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
12 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.
3. Noise Technical Report for Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase 11. Village L-2, dated
February 18,2002, RECON.
13 Rev. 03/28/96