Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-11-06; Planning Commission; Resolution 53071 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. 5307 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 115 UNIT VILLAGE X OF THE CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF FUTURE COLLEGE BOULEVARD, SOUTH OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 7. CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE X CASE NO.: CT 01-06PUD 01-07 WHEREAS, Calavera Hills 11, LLC, “Developer”/“Owner,” has filed a verified SINGLE-FAMILY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as Portion of Lots “D,” “E,” and “J” of the Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map 823, filed in the Office of the San Diego County Recorder on November 6, 1896, also being Lot 1 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 6th day of November, 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 September 26, and "PII" dated September 17, 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 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 6th day of November, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez, Heineman, White, and Whitton NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Segall n SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HWZMIEER Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5307 -2- - City of Carlsbad NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: Villages X and W within the Calavera Hills Master Plan, generally located east and west of future College Boulevard south of the College BlvdCarlsbad Village Drive intersection in the Northeast Quadrant. Project Description: 1 15 single-family detached homes (Village X) 1 14 single-family detached homes (Village W) The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above-described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the 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: SEPTEMBER 26,2002 CASE NO: CT 01-06PUD 01-07 AND CT 01-05PUD 01-06 CASE NAME: VILLAGE X AND VILLAGE W PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 26,2002 Planning Director 7635 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 COlMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT Ol-OS/PUD 01-06 and CT 01-06iPUD 01-07 DATE: September 17.2002 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Calavera Hills Village W and X 2. APPLICANT: McMillin Homes 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2727 Hoover Ave, National Citv, CA 92950 (619) 336-3138 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: May 17,2001 - 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Map and Planned Unit Development for the construction of two single family Villages - within the Calavera Hills Master Plan: Village X proposes 1 15 units and Village W proposes 114 units, generally located on both sides of future College Blvd, south of the intersection of College Boulevard and Carlsbad Village Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 7. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services Population and Housing 0 Biological Resources [7 Utilities & Service Systems Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral 0 Aesthetics Water 0 Cultural Resources Resources Hazards 0 Noise Air Quality 0 Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 0 0 IXI 0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT ha\.e 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 significaht 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. Planner Signature J Date rslol, 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 follonilg 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 8 If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations’’ for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part 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? (#1 :Pgs 5.6- 1 - 5.6-1 8) 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 Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local b) Induce substantial growth in an area either c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable cl 0 Less Than No Significant Impact Impact 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 4 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result IV. WATER. Would the DroDosal result in: Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) 0 Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) 0 Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1- 0 .. (#l:PgS 5.1-1 - 5.1.15) 1 - 5.1-15) ~ Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) 0 Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 0 conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:PgS 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) 0 Expansive soils? (# 1 :Pgs 5.1 - 1 - 5.1 - 1 5) 0 Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 0 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) 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? (#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 - Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) 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? (#1 :Pgs 5.2-1 - Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Impacts to groundwater quality? (#1 :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) A. 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 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 V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an IX1 existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) 0 0 IXI 0 0 IXI 0 0 IXI 0 0 IX1 0 0 IXI 0 0 IXI 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 5 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs c7 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) 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 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)? (#1 :Pgs 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) 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? (#l: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- 24) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#1 :Pgs (#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) pool)? (#l: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) 6 Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact 0 0 151 0 IXI Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: A risk of accidental explosion or release of 0 hazardous substances (including, but not limited Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant lmpact Mitigation Incorporated Unless Impact 0 1si 0 0 IXI to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? Possible interference with an emergency response 0 0 IXI plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs (#l:PgS 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)- The creation of any health hazard or potential 0 0 0 IXI healthhazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 SI 0 Ix1 potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable 0 0 IxI brush, grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 5.9-15) (#l:PgS 5.9-1 - 5.9-15) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered 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) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - C) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5) 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 b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3- e) Storm water drainage? (#1 :Pg 5.2-8) & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) 7) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ixl 0 Ix1 IXI IXI 0 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 f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3) 0 0 Ix1 g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 0 0 0 Ixl - 5.12.3-7) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? 0 b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? 0 c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5) 0 (#l:PgS 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5) (#l:PgS 5.11-1 - 5.1 1-5) 2UV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within 5.8-10) 5.8-10) 10) (#l:PgS 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) 0 0 0 0 XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#1 :Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8y7) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:PgS 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the 0 b) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI cl IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 IXI 1x1 0 IXI 0 0 IXI 0 0 IXI 0 IXI 0 0 IXI 8 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant lmpact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Does the project have environmental effects 0 0 0 which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. The following site-specific technical studies were used in the analysis and design of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. (760) 602-4600. 1. 2. 3. 4. Update of Geotechnical Report, Calavera Hills Villages W, X and Y City of Carlsbad, California, dated October 20, 1999, Geosoils, Inc. Interim Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Calavera Heights Villages W. X and Y Carlsbad, California, dated March 20, 1990, Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. Noise Technical Report for Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase I1 Village W. City of Carlsbad, California, dated May 1,2002. Noise Technical Report for Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase I1 Village X, City of Carlsbad. California, dated August 13,2002. 9 Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The project involves the construction and occupation of two single-family villages within the Calavera Hills Master Plan: 1 15 detached single-family units within Village X and 1 14 detached single-family units in Village W. Both sites will be created through the recordation of the Master Tentative Map for Calavera Hills Phase I1 (CT 00-02) and will be mass graded in accordance with that map. The potential environmental impacts associated with the grading of Villages X and W site were reviewed through the 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 X with up to 117 single-family units; and Village W up to 121 units. These maps propose less units than allowed by the master plan and comply with all design and development standards. EIR 98-02, as certified, also reviewed the potential environmental impacts associated with the major public improvements required for the buildout of the master plan including Villages X and W. Since the development of Village X and W cannot proceed until the Master Tentative Map (CT 00-02) has been recorded, and the site has been graded in accordance with that map, the following environmental analysis deals only with the development of Villages X and W and the project differences compared to the EIR. The differences center on revised noise studies (which does not result in more or higher walls than those analyzed in the EIR) and a reduced unit amount (proposing less units than allowed by the master plan). College Boulevard separates the Village X and W sites. The proposed single-family residential uses are compatible with all of the existing and future uses allowed by the master plan. The residential designation of both Villages is Residential Medium (RM) in the City’s General Plan, allowing up to 8 dwelling units per developable acre. The proposed densities of 4.6 (Village X) and 4.8 (Village W) is within the RM range. The project site is zoned P-C (Planned Community) and, according to the Calavera Hills Master Plan (MP 150(H)), both sites are to be developed in accordance with the R-1 - Single Family Residential Zone, except as modified in the Master Plan. The proposed developments will consist of single-family residential units with open space and common recreation lots. The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and meets all development standards and design criteria of the Master Plan and the R-1 zone. The proposed development would necessitate approximately 60,000 cubic yards (Village X) and 65,000 cubic yards (Village W) of balanced grading subsequent to the mass grading associated the above referenced master tentative map (CT 00-02). All grading operations would be required to conform to the recommendations of the site-specific geotechnical report, as well as the City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance. In addition, an all-weather access road would be provided throughout 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 future College Blvd and would generate 11 50 (Village X) and 1140 (Village W) average daily traffic trips, which can be accommodated by existing and required road segments in the area. The project will be required to comply with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit through the implementation of Best Management Practices, thus reducing the amount of pollutants entering the public storm drain system. All facilities needed to .lo Rev. 03/28/96 serve the single-family developments will be provided prior to occupancy, in association with the Phase II Master Tentative Map grading and improvement plans. In addition, the Carlsbad Unified School District has stated that there are adequate school facilities to serve the proposed apartment project. Noise wall locations and heights are not greater than those covered in the earlier analysis (EIR 98-02) and the proposed unit yields are less than the maximums allowed by the master plan. These two elements represent the variation in the project as reviewed by the master plan’s certified environmental review (EIR 98-02) and now proposed. Given the above analysis, the previous environmental documentation and the site-specific technical reports, the proposed projects for Calavera Hills Villages W and W would not create any significant adverse environmental impacts as designed and conditioned. AIR 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 MEIR 11 Rev. 03/28/96 CIRCULATION: In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan \\-auld 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 MER This document is available at the Planning Department. A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the filing of an application for a later project. The City is currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was certified more than five years ago, the City’s preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance. Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to review later projects. EARLIER ANALYSES USED/SOURCE DOCUMENTS CITED The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Reoort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 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. 3. Noise Technical Report for Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase 11, Villages X and W, dated August 13,2002 and May 1,2002, respectively, by RECON. 13 Rev. 03/28/96