HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-09-07; City Council; 12382 Exhibit 1; CALAVERA HILLS CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN7 LA
i I
I
I
I
I
I Mpnnm (GI
I
1
8
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
1 DRAFT
CALAVEM HILLS
MASTER PLAN
I APRIL30, 1
I
1
I
I m-nm (GI
I
I
1
I
I
R
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
CALA- rnLS MMsm PLrn
Prepared and Updated for,:
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, California 92009
April 30, 1993
Approved by:
City Council
Ordinance No. ****
I LAND OWNERS:
WILLIAM LYON HOMES, INC.
4330 La Jolla Village Drive
Suite 130
San Diego, CA 92122
(6 19) 546- 1200
CONSULTANTS:
IIUNSAKER AND ASSOCIATES HOFMAN PLANNING ASSC
SAN DIEGO, INC. 2386 Faraday Avenue
10179 Huennekens Street Suite 120
San Diego, CA 92121 Carlsbad, CA 92008
(619) 558-4500 (61 9)438- 1465
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ..........................................
A. PURPOSE ..........................................
B. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ...............
C. HISTORY D. MASTER PLAN GOALS ...............................
E. LEGAL DESCRIPTION
I
1
I
I
Y
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
..........................................
................................
11. LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ....................
A. GENERALPLAN ....................................
B. ZONING REGULATIONS
C. LAND USES ........................................
1. RESIDENTIAL .................................
2. COMMERCIAL
3. OPEN SPACE ..................................
4. SCHOOL SITES .................................
5. PARK SITE
D. GENERAL PROVISIONS ..............................
1. MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS
2.
3. NONVESTING OF RIGHTS .......................
4. MITIGATION MONITORING
5. GROWTH MANAGEMENT .......................
6. CONDITION VALIDITY ........................ b .
7. DEDICATIONS
8. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES .............
9. PUBLIC FACILITIES ............................
10. ZONING
11. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE ...........
12. LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENTS ..................
13. LANDSCAPING
14. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE ............. I 15. NOISE ........................................
111. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS .........................
A. MASTER PLAN ...................................... B. TENTATIVE W/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
C. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ...........................
D. PUBLIC FACILITY PHASING
E. MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS
..............................
.................................
....................................
..................
RECORDATION q .. to I * I t s , , .. .., , . ,. .. , , ... , ...
......................
.................................
......................................
................................
....
.......................... ........................
1. MAJOR MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS ............
2. MINOR MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS ............
F. TENTATIVE MAP/PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PIE
AMENDMENTS ......................................
1. MAJOR AMENDMENTS .........................
2. MINOR AMENDMENTS
G. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS .............
1. MAJOR AMENDMENTS
2. MINOR AMENDMENTS ..........................
..........................
.........................
IV. GENERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS .........
A. ARCHITECTURE
B. SETBACK STANDARDS ...............................
C. LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES ............................
1. INTRODUCTION ...............................
3. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION STANDARDS .......
4. MAINTENANCE ................................ 5. STREETSCAPE LANDSCAPING ...................
6. FIRE CONTROL ................................
7. NOISE ATTENUATION ..........................
D. FENCING ..........................................
1. VILLAGE WALLS ...............................
2. PRODUCTION FENCING .........................
E. VIEWS .............................................
1. PERMANENT SIGNS ............................
2. TEMPORARY SIGNS ............................
G. LJGHTING
H. CIRCULATION ......................................
I
a
II
I
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
If
1
I
E
I
I
I
I
....................................
2. LANDSCAPE ZONES ........ II . D ................
F. SIGNAGE ..........................................
..........................................
V. OPEN SPACE .............................................
A. INTRODUCTION ....................................
B. IMPROVEMENTS ....................................
1. BIKEWAYS
2. PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM ..........................
3. STANDARDS FOR BIKEWAYS AND PEDESTRIAN SYST
C. DEDICATION
D. MAINTENANCE .....................................
....................................
.......................................
VI. PUBLIC FACILITIES .......................................
A. INTRODUCTION ....................................
VII. GRADING. .............................................
A. XNTRODUCTI0:N ....................................
B. GUIDELINES .......................................
C. CONFORMANCE WITH CITY OF CARLSBAD ORDINANCES
D. BLASTING AREAS ...................................
E. PHASING OF GRADING ..............................
F. HAUL ROUTES'
G. LANDSCAPE MITIGATION ............................ .....................................
LIsr OF EXHTBITS I
1
P
B
B
8
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
P
II
fl
1
I
I
EXHIBIT 1 MASTER PLAN MAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EXHIBIT 2 LOCATION MAP ...............................
EXHIBIT 3 LEGALMAP ...................................
EXHIBIT 4 LAND USEMAP ................................
EXHIBIT 5 ZONING MAP ..................................
EXHIBIT 6 'LAND USE SUMMARY TABLE *. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EXHIBIT 7 LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE . . ,
SLOPES ....................................... EXHIBIT 8 FIRE CONTROL LANDSCAPING - MANUFACTURED
EXHIBIT 9 FIRE CONTROL LANDSCAPING-NATURAL SLOPES . #
EXHIBIT 10 STREETSCAPE SECTIONS-COLLEGE BOULEVARD
AND CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . q
EXHIBIT 11 NOISE AlTENUATION WALL LOCATIONS . . . . . . . . q
EXHIBIT 12 WALLDETAILS ...............................
EXHIBIT 13 VILLAGE ENTRIES TYPE 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EXHIBIT 14 VILLAGE ENTRIES TYPE 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
EXHIBIT 15 SIGN PLAN ...................................
EXHIBIT 16 MASTER PLAN OPEN SPACE MAP . . . . . . . , . . . . . . .
EXHIBIT 17 TRAILS MAP .................................
1
1
II L INTRODUCTION
I
1 A. PURPOSE
1 Exhibit 5, Page 14.
This introduction outlines the legal basis and scope of the Calavera Hills
Plan. A project description and statement of gods are also provided.
The Calavera Hills Master Plan constitutes the zoning for the area SI
The Master Plan map (Exhibit 1, Page 2) delineates specific neighba
within the Master Plan area. The Master Plan text defines the allowa
and intensity of land uses within each neighborhood. In addition, it I
detailed development and design standards, requirements, devel
phasing and timing. The Calavera Hills Master Plan has been approve
Carlsbad City Council, pursuant to Chapter 21.38 of the Carlsbad M
Code. Approval of the Calavera Hills Master Plan, however, does
development rights for the Master Plan Area. Construction of a PC
the Master Plan Area pursuant to this Master Plan shall not vest any
construct the balance of the plan.
Proposed land uses and development within the Calavera Hills Mas
or amendments thereto, shall be subject to all present and futur
policies, or ordinances adopted by the City Council.
Development within the Calavera Hills Master Plan Area shall f
requirements established by the Citywide Facilities and Improvement 1
Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 7, pursuant to Carlsbad M
Code Chapter 21.90. The Zone Plan provides a detailed descripl
analysis of how Zone 7 will develop from its current status to build c
plan also delineates how and when each facility and improvemenl
The plan further provides a complete description of how each fac
improvement will be financed when mitigation is necessary. The Ma:
defines the phased development of the Calavera Hills Planning P
assures that all phases of development are consistent with the requ
of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 7.
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
I
constructed in order to accommodate development within the Zone (1
1
t
I
1
I
1
CL
I
I
I
S
I
I
I z
0
E
1
1
a
2
The residential development potential for the Master Plan area h
established by applying the density ranges and the "control points
General Plan Land Use designations which were applicable to the p
Amendments to the Master Plan are permitted pursuant to the pr
established in Chapter 21.38 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (P-C Zc
Chapter I11 of the Master Plan.
The Master Plan implements the City of Carlsbad's General P
Municipal Code by providing guidelines and standards for the deve
of the planning area; by requiring facilities and services consistent
City's bcal Facilities Management Plan; and by ensuring that all ot
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
i
I
8
I
I
I
1
standards and requirements will be met in a consistent and uniform
No person shall use or develop any property covered by this Mastei
a manner which is contrary to the Master Plan as established by
Council. All developers within the Master Plan shall be subject to i
and conditions of the Calavera Hills Master Plan. Unless specifically 1
otherwise in this Master Plan, all City policies and ordinances app
Calavera Hills Master Plan Area as they would apply to any proper
City of Carlsbad. The Master Plan requires conformance with all ai
City development standards and requirements.
B. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
1. LOCATIO)
The Calavera Hills Master Plan area is located in the r
portion of the City of Carlsbad, south of Highway 78 and el
Camino Real, approximately three miles inland of the Pacifii
The central portion of the property is situated 4 miles southe:
geographic center of the City of Oceanside, 4 miles southwe
geographic center of the City of Vista, and 33 miles north of dl
San Diego.
Exhibit 2 on Page 4 indicates the boundaries of the project. Y
3
1
I
i
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
1
!
I
I
8
1
I
I
1
C 0
4' \ 0
'P
Q
4
I
I
I
E
I vIL,
;IC \x -1;
S"BDI"1SION BOUhOlil~ I -7% L-:% \ \ -d-- ._
,x \ -.. \I
"\\ Y
\\\ T--,, ,\I '\
I I I \-x, \\?$,x\ \ ,+tp\, \
\--7 I--,, ,\, I 'x ,\\
, \ , \
I \, \\
t I- \\ $3,\ I 3 'z
I
@Y I Q I 0 \\, '\ s
\-\?O.&..
\ \ --, n
-. \ .. \ \\
\\
< Q z 0 I 'I- om I a
pco I
Id I
0 n I
I
I I - -----_-__-____________I SLCTIO" LINE
t t I a. l I I 7 I I-
0
a 0 n
- cv W
z
LO, LlNE
sa io, u*€
az
I
I
2 2 I I s k I 2
It
t-
'I
l I I 0 I l! I I
I
a a n
d
c)
c)
u z 4 K I
'\
X\\ \\ \'' ,\ .., ,\.. 4
x, \, -. -. -\4 G W
I- P ! 2 SECTIONLiHE $
2
I- 2
a 2
1 __
1
8
I
1
I
1
1
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Calavexa Hills Master Planning area includes approxima
acres within the City of Carlsbad. Exhibit 2 on Page 4 indic
location of the project which is divided by College Avenue, <
Village Drive, and Tamarack Avenue.
The Master Plan features 19 residential villages, 1 community
school sites, 1 community commercial area, 1 recreational
storage facility, as well as large areas of open space. The
LFMP provides for a total of 2,333 dwelling units within the
Plan.
Nearly half of the Calavera Hills Master Plan area ha
developed. A total of 1,101 dwelling units, 1 elementary s(
recreational vehicle storage area, and 1 community park curreni
Villages A,B,C,D,G,J,O and P-1 have been developed for res
purposes with a variety of single family and multiple family res
product types. Villages Q and T have recorded final maps fc
family residences. Village L-1 has an approved Site Developmc
I
1 for 58 multi-family units.
I Hills Master Plan Area:
The following development has been completed within the <
Village A .. 36 Single Family Homes
Village B - 167 Single Family Homes
Villages C & D - 230 Multi-Family Units
Villages E-2 & F - -0- Community Park
Village G - 108 Duplex Units
Village I - -0- RV Storage Area
Village J - 210 Multi-Family Units
Village M & N - -0- Elementary School
VillaPes 0 & P-1 - 350 Single Family and Duplc
I
B
I
li Total Units - 1,101
1
1
I
I
E 6
t
The follawi1lg villages have approved tentative maps and) c I Development Plans:
I (approved TM/SDP)
Village L1 - 58 Multi-Family Units
The following villages have final maps:
Village Q - 140 Single Family Homes
Village T - 343 Sinde Family Homes
1
I m
I
I
3
I
I
8
I
t
I
i
IC
I
Total Units - 541
The changes contained within this Master Plan Amendment SI
apply to the above aforementioned Villages unless the owners c
properties apply for a formal amendment to the existing approv;
that time these Villages would be subject to all provisions
updated Calavera Hills Master Plan.
With the exception noted above, this latest update of the Mastc
applies only to the remaining undeveloped and unapproved \
within the Calavera Hills Master Plan. The provisior
requirements of this update of the existing Calavera Hills Mastc
any other village for which discretionary approvals have been re
This update impacts the following Villages specifically:
Village E-1 - Community Commercial
Village H - 42 Single Family Homes
Village K - 416 Multi-Family Units
Village L2 - 119 Multi-Family Units
Village R - 6 Single Family Homes
Village U - 139 Multi-Family Units
Village W - 32 Single Family Homes
Village X - 36 Single Family Homes
Villape Y - - 5 Sinple Familv Homes
do not apply to the developed Villages within the Master Plan 1
Total Units - 799
1 The total for undeveloped units reflects the buildout projections per Village
on the net developable area of the Village multiplied by the Growth Manal
Control Point (GMCP). Both existing and approved dwelling units are sub
from the dwelling unit cap for Zone 7 to determine future residential develc
potential within Zone 7. Since Villages A,C,D,G,J,O,Pl,Q & T havc
constructed or have approvals for 116 dwelling units above GMCP, the rer
undeveloped Villages in Zone 7 will be unable to develop to the potential i
7
4
I
1
B
8
II
I
I
8
by their GMCP. When the 116 excess dwelling units are subtracted fro1
potential 795 dwelling units located in the undeveloped portion of the maste
area per the GMCPs, it leaves a total of 679 units left to be developed 1
remainder portion of the Master Plan.
C. HISTORY
The Calavera Hills Master Plan has a history which dates back to 1974
the Planning Commission approved MP-150 - The Calavera Hills Mastei
Since that time there have been many amendments to both the Maste
and the General Plan for the Calavera Hills Area. Development of th
has continued with many of the villages built.
The following is a chronological history of the Calavera Hills Maste
Area:
March 12, 1974 - Planning Commission recommended approval of h
(Resolution #1050).
May 7, 1974 - City Council approved MP-lSO/EIR-230 (Resolution 4
May 21, 1974 - City Council adopted ZC 138 (Ordinance #9388).
January 26, 1977 - Planning Commission recommended approval of i
t
I 12/PUD-4 (Resolution #13 14).
I and Resolution #5146).
August 4, 1977 - City Council approved CT 76-12/PUD-4 (Resolution
July 12,1978 - Planning Commission recommended approval of GPA
July 12, 1978 - Planning Commission recommended certification of E
for GPA-5 1(A).
September 19, 1978 - City Council certified EIR-403.
October 3, 1978 - City Council approved GPA-Sl(A) (Resolution $!
October 25, 1978 - Planning Commission recommended approval
150(A) (Resolution f1481).
December 28, 1978 - City Council Approval MP-lSO(A) (Ordinance
January 13, 1982 - Planning Commission recommended approval
I
8
I
I
I
I
1
1 150(B) (Resolutioln f1912).
8
#
I
I
I
8
I
1 s
D
U
I
I
0
I
c
1
I
1
January 13, 1982 - Planning Commission recommended approval o
47/PUD-35- Villages C & D (Resolution #1911).
February 2, 1982 - City Council approved MP-lSO(B) (Ordinance #
May 26, 1982 - Planning Commission recommended approval of MI
(Resolution #1966).
July 14, 1982 - Planning Commission recommended approval of
8/PUD-41 - Village G (Resolution #1993).
August 25, 1982 - Planning Commission recommended approval oj
16/CP-213 - Village J (Resolution #2008).
m
March 23,1983 - Planning Commission recommended approval of MI
(Resolution #2095).
March 23, 1983 - Planning Commission recommended approval of
(Resolution #2096).
March 23, 1983 - Planning Commission recommended approval o
3/PUD 51 (Resolution #2094).
April 18, 1983 - City Council approved MP-150 (D) (Ordinance #9
#9683).
May 11, 1983 - Planning Commission recommended approval of MP
(Resolution #21117).
October 12,1983 - Planning Commission recommended approval of G
(Resolution #2100) - Change in densities, park sites & open space.
November 23,1983 - Planning Commission recommended approval o
21/PUD-57 (Resolution #2224) - Village 0 & P-1.
December 14,1983 - Planning Cornmission recommended approval of
(F) (Resolution #2214) - Changes to reflect the General Plan.
March 14, 1984 -. Planning Commission recommended approval of
1/PUD-66 (Resolution #2255) - Village A.
July 11, 1984 - Planning Commission recommended approval of
19/PUD-56 (Resolution #2289) - Village T.
9
I
B
I
1
6
I
I
July 11, 1984 - Planning Commission recommended approval of
32/PUD-62 (Resolution P2292) - Village Q.
May 22, 1985 - Planning Commission recommended approval of C
(Resolution #2440) - Master Tentative Map for Villages E-1, E-2, I
M,Q,R,S,T,U,W,X, Y.
August 14,1985 - Planning Commission approved PCD-83 (Resolution
- Village I - RV storage facility.
October 15,1985 - City Council denied CT 83-18/PUD-55 (Resolutioi
- Village H.
November 13, 1985 - Planning Commission denied CT 84-37,
(Resolution #2510) - Village U.
November 13, 1985 - Planning Commission denied CT 84-38,’
(Resolution #2511) - Village W,X,Y.
November 13, 1985 - Planning Comrnission denied CT85-4/1
(Resolution #2512) - Village L-2.
November 13, 1985 -Planning Commission recommended approval c
57(A) (Resolution #2513) - Village P-1 & 0 Phase 4 - Change prod
from four-plex to duplex.
February 18, 1986 - City Council approved PUD-S7(A) - Village P
Phase 4 exemptialn from Ordinance 9791.
July 28,1987 - City Council approved CT 83-19/PUD 56 (Resolution 4
Village T - time extension for tentative map.
July 28,1987 - City Council approved CT 83-32/PUD 63 (Resolution 4
Village Q - time extension for tentative map.
December 7,1988 - Planning Commission approved PCD 87-3(A) (Re!
#2802) - Village I - modification to allow for night watchman at RV
yard.
May 17, 1989 .- Planning Commission minute motion for sut
conformance CT 83-19/PUD 56 (Village T) and CT 83-32-PUD 63 (
8
I
I
I
I
1
1
li
I
1
m
I Q).
10
1
I
I
I
I
I
D, MASTER PLAN GOALS
The Calavera Hills Master Plan has been developed based on the fc goals. All development within the Master Plan area shall conform 1
goals:
1. Preserve the environmental resources and existing topc
character of the Master Plan Area.
Ensure the development within the Master Plan is compatil
internal development as well as compatible with surrc
developments.
Create and maintain an open space: network (Le., pedestrian
trails) which links neighborhoods within the Master Plan t
Master Plan community to surrounding land uses.
Create a variety of single family and multi family neighb
focused on common recreational areas.
Conform to all aspects of Carlsbad’s General Plan, Zone
Facilities Management Plan and all applicable City ord
2.
3. a
1 4.
5.
regulations, and policies.
Ensure that public facilities and services that serve the Master
Community meet or exceed applicable City standards and requi
prior to, or concurrent with development.
Create an attractive, buffered circulation system that provide:
safety needs of automobiles, cyclists, and pedestrians.
8. Provide the planning areas fair share of affordable
li
I
a
1
II
8
I
1
1
1
6.
7.
opportunities.
E. LEGAL DESCRIPTION
e
Portions of Lots D, E and J of the Rancho Agua Hedionda in the
Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to 1
thereof No. 823 on file at the office of the County Recorder of Sa
County. See Exhibit 3 on Page 5.
11
1
I
I
1
I
I
1
t
I
fi
1
I
8
I
4
I
1
1
TI. LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. GENERAL PLAN
The General Plan designations of the Calavera Hills Master Plan are
on Exhibit 4 on Page 13. They include the following designations:
Residential Low 0-15 Dwelling units pcr acre
Residential Mediunl 4-8 Dwelling units per acre
Elementaly School
All development .within the Master Plan shall be consistent with tht
use designations as well as complying with the Master Plan and D Development Standards.
B. ZONING REGULATIONS
The property within the boundary of this Master Plan is zoned
Community, (PC), as shown on Exhibit 5 on Page 14. The PC Zone
that a Master Plan be approved prior to any development on sit
Calavera Hills Master Plan complies with all of the requirements of
21.38, the Planned Community Zone, of the Carlsbad Municipal Ci
represents the zoning for the property within its boundaries. This Mas
has been prepared in compliance with the four goals of the Int
Purpose section, (21.38.010), of the PC Zone. They are:
1. Provide a method for and to encourage the orderly implemenl
the general plan and any applicable specific plans
comprehensive planning and development of large tracts of lar
unified ownership or developmental control so that the entire 1
be developed in accord with an adopted master plan to prc
environment of stable and desirable character;
12
n z W (3
-I W
W
v) 3
n z
I
I
- <I31 52 a?
n=-.a> y - I0 -K 0
m .-
0-5 -1 9p-G
E Q - on 20 E50 >Eg-CZ gmm .- -3a9 J>hL2 L o= m ~onx ~~~~~Q a0EE !-3c a n?.2.2 z E 0 ZL? c
<~ZZ~U gESrZ0 -0oaa -0-23Q JAZZ mow~n0 55 WIIII $IIIII
I
I
I
1
>
C
c .-
2 Eo ,g
tDEz tl)F$
o= uos ca,
ma
J
7
14 D
g
I
I
1
I
2. Provide a flexible regulatory procedure to encourage creati-
imaginative planning of coordinated communities involving a I
of residential densities and housing types, open space, corn
facilities, bath public and private and, where appropriate, comi 1 and industrial areas;
3. Allow the coordination of planning efforts between the develo]
the City to provide for the orderly development of all necessaq
facilities to ensure their availability concurrent with need;
Provide a framework for the orderly development of an a€
master planned area to provide some assurance to the develol
later development will be acceptable to the City, provided suc
are in accordance with the approved planned community mast1
4.
I C. LANDUSES
1 Page 13.
The specific land uses within this Master Plan are as shown as Exhit
1. RESIDENTIAL
a. Types of Housing
The master plan area will provide a diversity of housing to
single family and multi-family homes. The multi-family categc
include duplex, townhomes, stacked flats and apartments.
b. Affordable Housing
I
1
I
1
I
8
8
I
I
1
B 1. General Requirements
A. All residential development projects inch
not limited to single family dwellings,
miniums, duplexes, apartments, etc., wit1
remaining undeveloped portions of the Ct
Hills Master Plan which are approved a1
effective date of the Inclusionary Or<-
(Chapter 21.85) are required to construct I
units affordable to persons and families o
income.
All projects proposed within the master pli
be consistent with the policies and pr
contained in the City's General Plan and I
Element and any related code sections of'
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
B.
15
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C. Affordable housing development shall prc
mix of affordable dwelling units (by nun
bedrooms) in response to affordable 1.
demand priorities of the City, whenever fr
D. The design of the affordable units s€
reasonably consistent or compatible w
design of the total project development ii
of physical appearance, materials, and f 8 quality.
E. No building permit or other entitlement 5
issued for any affordable housing project
size unless a site development plan ha
approved for the project. The site devell
plan shall be processed pursuant to (
21.53.120 Of the Carlsbad Municipal Coc
This affordable housing plan serves to imy
the general plan in conjunction with any
affordable housing ordinances. I
requirements of this plan are not consiste
any affordable housing requirements of r
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, then t€
F.
1 restrictive shall take precedence.
2. Base Residential Dwellinn Units
A For planning purposes per the Zone :
Facilities Management Plan and based
unconstrained net develoDable acreai remaining number of future dwelling unit
master plan, including Villages "H', "K'
"R, "U", "W, "X and "Y, is estimated tc
units. The base units are calcula
multiplying the "net developable acreagr
the "growth management control point" f
planning area/village.
For any phase or individual development
the master plan for which a tentative map
been approved the base shall be equal
maximum number of dwelling units pc
under the master plan for that pl
individual development area.
B.
16
If in the course of reviewing a phase or ind
development area of the master plan tk
decision making authority of the City dete
that the maximum number of dwellinl
permitted for a phase or individual develc
area cannot be achieved, then the base s
equal to the maximum number of units i
approved by the final decision making ai
t
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
U
1
I
I
I of the City.
3. Inclusionary Housing Requirements
It is an objective of the Housing Element of th
General Plan, as well as this Master Plan to em
a range of housing opportunities are provided
identifiable economic segments of the pop
including households of lower income.
It is the intent of the Master Plan to conform
goals, objectives, policies and programs of the 1
Element of the City's General Plan. Pertinent
applicable to the Master Plan area are as follov
A, Policy 3.6.a: A minimum of 15 percen
units approved for any master 1
community or residential specific plan z 1 affordable to lower-income households.
B. Policy 3.2: In those developments wh
required to include 10 or more units afforl
lower-income households, at least 10 pe the lower income units should have 3 (
bedrooms. This policy does not pertain 1
income senior housing projects.
4. The Location For Affordable Housing Develop
A, When feasible and compatible with SUJT
land uses, the affordable housing units
built onsite and distributed throughc
remaining undeveloped villages of the
plan in order to provide a more balanl
diversified community or;
17
1
I
I
I
I
B
I
1
I
1
1
I
I
8
I
8
I
8
B. If it is deemed by the final decision
authority of the City to be in the public i,
some or all of the required affordable 1
units associated with one residential proj
may be produced and operated at an alte
site or sites. All agreements between int
parties to form a combined affordable 1
project shall be made a part of the €
Agreement required for the sites.
A potential combined affordable housini
the master plan could include Village "K'
its superior location to public transil
College Avenue and Carlsbad Village DX
adjacent future commercial site (Villag
and the adjacent Calavera Hills Communi
Timing of Lower and Moderate Income Inch
Units
The required affordable housing units sk
constructed concurrent with market rate unit5
both the final decision making authority of the (
developer agree within the Affordable I
C.
5. -
Agreement to an alternative schedule for develc
6. Affordable Housinp Apreement
Prior to approval of a final map or, where a ma
being processed, prior to the issuance of building
for any residential project subject to affordable
requirements the developer shall dem
compliance with this section of the master plat
preparation and approval of an Affordable 1
Agreement.
The Affordable Housing Agreement shall com
all the requirements of the Carlsbad Municipz
The agreement shall be recorded, and the releva
and conditions therefrom filed and recorded as
restriction on those individual lots or units of a I
which are designated for the location of afl 1 housing units.
18
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
II
1
1
I
7. Densitv Bonus
A. Pursuant to California State Density Bonu
(California Government Code 65915) the h
Plan Developer, as a result of pro
affordable housing units, may request a
granted a density bonus and/or addi
incentives per the terms of said s
Incentives may consist of either a reduct
site development standards, approval of
use zoning, additional density bonus ab0
minimum 25%, or other regulatory concf
which result in identifiable cost reductions
B. Housing projects may exceed the I
management control point when the pro
consistent with the Growth Manag
Ordinance and City Council Policy, the I
provides affordable housing per this sectic
Carlsbad Municipal Code can be made.
Expressly for the provision of affordable dl
units and provided that the Growth Manag
dwelling unit cap for the City's No1
Quadrant is not exceeded, additional uni
be obtained from the "Excess Unit Ba
surplus housing units only if units are avail
the time of development approval.
the required findings in Section 21.90.045 8
C.
2. COMMERCIAL
Village E-1 has been designated for Community Commercial. 'I
is approximately 11.3 gross acres in size and requires the appri
a Site Development Plan in order to develop the site. The Corn
Commercial site will be reserved for those uses which are pel
in the C-2-Q Zone.
3. OPEN SPACE
Preservation and enhancement of open space is an important
of this Master Plan. Overall, approximately 330.85 acres of ope1
or 40.39% of the total Master Plan area is devoted to open
This total has been approximated since it is based on existing Te
Maps for the villages that were approved and/or constructed p
19
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
8
I
I
I
8
1
D
8
8
I
I
the adoption and implementation of the Carlsbad Growth Managc Ordinance. Open space has been provided in the developed vi
but has not been calculated for this master plan. The Mastei
Open Space program consists of recreation areas, riparian ha
natural slopes, trails and landscape parkways. A more de
discussion of open space is provided beginning on Page 50.
4. SCHOOL SITES
The Calavera Hills Master Plan area has designated two areas j
development of an elementary school and a junior high school
Villages M and N are the elementaryl school site. It is approxii
11.1 acres in size and has been developed.
Village S is the Junior High School site. It is approximately 18.1
in size.
20
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
1
1
8
I
u
1
I
5. PARK SITE
Villages E-2 and F have been developed as a community
Villages E-2 and F are adjacent to one another and are located o
southeast corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and Tamarack Avc
These Villages comprise 18 acres of community park land fo
residents of Calavera Hills and the surrounding area. A comm
center, a gymnasium, several softball fields, basketball courts, chilc
play areas, picnic areas, and flat turfed play areas currently exist.
Village also contains a future fire station site. I
D. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS
The maximum development potential permitted by this Master I
shown on Exhibit 7 on Page 25. Exceptions to this maximum d
may be approved by the City Council in accordance with S
21.90.045 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Individual village del
exceeding growth management control points shall satisfy the fii
of said section. Density increases may be considered in conju
with the provision of affordable housing (density bonus) and/c
dedication of habitat mitigation lands as permanent open
(density transfer) outside of the Master Plan area, but with
northeast quadrant. I 2. RECORDATION
Notice of the approval of this Master Plan for property wit
boundaries shall be recorded with the County of San Diego Recc
Office. 1 3. NONVESTING OF RIGHTS
Specific development plans shall be evaluated in accordanc
Municipal Ordinances and Policies in force at the time said pl:
before the Planning Commission and the City Council for ap
Pursuant to Section 21.38.030(d), where a conflict in develc
standards or regulation occurs, the provisions of Chapter 21.33
Master Plan shall take precedence. Approval and constructi part of the development pursuant to this Master Plan shall not \
rights in the balance of the Master Plan nor create any vestec
for the approval of any subsequent developments.
21
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
D
i
I
1
I
4. MITIGATION MONITORING
In accordance with the Assembly Bill 3180, all mitigation mea
specified in EIR 90-5 and in the approving resolutions sha
complied with in their entirety at the appropriate time of develop-
A mitigation monitoring program shall be included as an attack to the resolution certifying EIR 90-5.
5. GROWTH MANAGEMENT
The applicant shall comply with all provisions of the Cai
Municipal Code, Section 21.90 (Growth Management Program)
applicant by pulling building permits pursuant to the Master Pk
the Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) and the Financl
for Zone 7 agrees that all of the dedication and other require
imposed as a condition of the Master Plan for Zone 7 LFMP a
Finance Plan are reasonably necessary to serve the needs 1
development for which the building permits are required.
6. CONDITION VALIDITY
If any condition for construction of any public improveme
facilities, or the payment of any fees in lieu thereof, imposed
approval or imposed by law on this project are challenge
approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code : 65913.5. If any such condition is determined to be inval
approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines t
project without the condition complies with all requirements ( 1
7. DEDICATIONS
All land/or easements required by this Master Plan for public
open space, recreational purposes and public utility purposes
granted to the City of Carlsbad without cost to the City and fic
liens and encumbrances. I 8. AVAILABILITY OF PUBLIC SERVICES
Approval of this plan does not constitute any guarantee that in
developments within the Master Plan area will be approved
the availability of public facilities and services will necessarily
with the Developer's timetable for construction. Availability q
services will be evaluated in the context of subsequent ir
approvals.
22
8
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
@
I
1
I
8
I
9. PUBLIC FACILITIES
To ensure that all development areas of the Master Plan sh;
adequately served, the developers of the Master Plan or PO'
thereof shall be required to provide for their share of the constn
or funding of all necessary public facilities pursuant to the app Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan, the Finance Plan ar
Master Plan. I 10. ZONING
Pursuant to Chapter 21.38 of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance (P-C :
this Master Plan shall constitute the zoning for all lands wit1
Master Plan. No person shall use or develop contrary to the pro
of the Master Plan any land located within the boundaries defi the Master Plan. All provisions of the Master Plan are imposc
condition of zoning. Approval of this document does not
compliance with all other applicable City ordinances in effed
time building permits are issued.
Pursuant to Section 21.38.030(d), where a conflict in regulation
the provisions of Chapter 21.38 of the Carlsbad Zoning Ordin;
this Master Plan shall control.
11. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
All development within the Calavera Hills Master Plan sha
compliance with Chapter 21.95, the Hillside Development Or(
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
12. LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENTS
The location of street, utilities, and other land use
improvements are approximate on the Master Plan Map.
locations will be established through the approval of the TI
Map and Site Development Plans. These precise locations
consistent with the generalized locations shown on the exhib
Master Plan.
13. LANDSCAPING
A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be approve
Planning Director prior to approval of final map, or the is:
grading or building permits for each village, whichever occu
23
I
I
I
I
I
I
8
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
II
1
I 14. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE
Village I has been developed as a recreational vehicle storage arc
serve the needs of the residents of the Calavera Hills Master
area. It covers approximately 2.5 acres. This RV storage ar'
operated and maintained by the Calavera Hills Recreational Ve
Park Corporation, a non-profit corporation. Since the Calavera
Master Plan area is only partially developed, space has been avai
within the RV storage area for nonresidents of the Calavera
Master Plan. The fees charged to these nonresidents has been us defray costs associated with the maintenance of the RV storage
Section 21.45.090 (k)(2) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code require
the area provided for storage be equivalent to twenty squarc
exclusive of driveways and approaches, for each dwelling unit 1
the planned development. Given that the base residential bui
projection for the Zone 7 LFMP allow a maximum of 2333 dv
units within the zone (ie: Master Plan), a total of 1.07 acres (
storage area would be required. Since the existing storage
currently provides a net storage area of 1.19, the existing facili meet City requirement through build out of the zone.
All development in Villages H, K, L-1, G2, R, U, W, X and '
participate in the Calavera Hills Recreational Vehicle
Corporation.
I
I 15. NOISE
A noise study shall be provided for all future residential projt
the requirement of the Carlsbad Noise Policy, PIanning Dep:
Policy No. 17. All future residential units shall be buffered fro]
per the requirements of this policy and the recommendation
noise study prepared for each project.
24
woo 0 IA G -00 "!"ZZ -20 -mrnrn~ OF
: $12 2 2 w 2: 4 4 cxm a I
I
I
8 mvl~ 8
v) b)gE
4 -0 q-2
h z m*mm m m m 22h g ggcd 3 3 cd 2g22Ei 0 cd {;i":-a ~~wlopm so, d m d 4 2 2 ZFZ I 0
9
0 4
0
m. m m
0 9 T- m 7 L4 - m m
wop 07 c wocg
3 3 r %
r ?; ? 9 l+ b 00 0 N N 0
I E [it li! gp 1 l4 $8
I $5
f% 1
I I 58
I
8
II
I
?J* 7
s E m P N 0 W m@?s
OZ$E? ON em r- Wac, aggzo 087 rd
nr l-
E!
!I
E
‘Zj458 $8R,8%R,?3 g -9 ? 2 $82 G?F
388=?8 8:;8?;?; .-.? r0 8 G 20
Fm -!G*ommW GUY 2
0 00
0 I! 4265‘: 2luIn~Ze N r0,
- 0
O % xp. - c - 2 a! 3 2 2 ,B 5 e=E e=E - E Em- E E =E ln md am - -3-”gg2
U 5; 2 $58 E E 9 s 5 2 d ;g gIl+ I+: 5 k
B 0% + Eg 8 g g j; 2 + 2 4 cn2 5 =x mz 53 mj3 - a 5 1 I! 5f S~~~SS E - c&ggd25 a my lny 5 -9
lnln
ZZZI I rz VN - !g 5aQ$x Fz5Q szalg$$t2 &$ && 5 I E
XI w= s Sku ‘1 Iq 5 3P i? $$230 gZ&%zggZ 1; j 4
a a 0 9” .k ggggg 4ggp;gg 22 B
d.5 13g $
15f i t “gg‘“ 5 - 55 - 55555555
=E
.-N 44
WB@BB Bo1 B 4mooh xa=-Ts~i yo o oq 2 ~cnmcncn cncn 55 5
U
< d 128 i$ 7- $9 0 -
owwDw $$:4ggs.1 i
Q. ‘I a m .: 5
%%% r
mr %:%
o “80
; d ;I
N; ;$z, I
R? 828
T)= >=*=x - 52s$5;;
a& $ u u lnz 2 2 5 53 cncn
ON =?J7 r 22 $Z&
37: $22
a 8s2 2BS
0-a waa ~mt- 33’
555 555
wm pppl 52;
i
I
I
I
I
NOTES TO EXHIBIT 7
General Notes
1. Uses permitted for this Master Plan are tholse specified as primary us
accessory uses for corresponding zones. Uses which would be allow
conditional uses shall be permitted only upon obtaining a Conditiona
Permit processed according to the provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal ( I 2. Definitions - Development Types
I other living unit.
A. Single Family - One house on a single lot totally detached fro]
B. Multiple Family - Attached rental or ownership units (Single F
Detached also allowed in this category). - Duplex - Triplex or larger
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
3. The above dwelling unit numbers represent the maximum density alloh
each Village based solely on Growth Control Points established by Carl
Growth Management Ordinance. Each village design will be evalua
relation to topography and site sensitivity per the City’s Design Guid
Manual and the standards of this Master Plan to justify the proposed d
Exceptions to this maximum density may be approved by the City Cou
accordance with Section 21.90.045 of the Carlsbad Municipal
Individual village densities exceeding growth management control poinl
satisfy the findings of said section. Density increases may be conside
conjunction with thie provision of affordable housing (density bonus) :
transfer).
the dedication of habitat mitigation lands as permanent open space (I
Specific Notes
1. If Village S is not acquired by the Carlsbad Unified School District for
purposes within ten (10) years from the recordation of the last at
subdivision map, the underlying development process and type for the
shall change from (CUP) to (PD) and will bear its proportional sharc
costs for public improvements.
Village U has steep slopes and/or significant canyon areas that have nl
included as open space. Special consideration shall be given to thes
at time of subdivision review to protect the integrity of the adjoinin
space areas.
2.
21
I
I
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
3. Villages adjacent to Tamarack Avenue, Carlsbad Village Drive and Col
Boulevard shall provide bus stop facilities at locations subject to
satisfaction of the North County Transit District. Said facilities shall minimum include a bench, free from advertising, and a pole for a bus
sign. The bench and pole shall be designed in a manner so as to not dc
from the basic architectural theme of the adjacent village and said design
be subject to the approval of the Planning Director and North County TI I District.
4. An open space easement shall be placed wherever possible to preserve n:
open space.
There shall be minimum grading for the construction of pads in Villa1
Village H shall be developed with custom homes in conformance wi
Village H Architectural Guidelines adopted in conjunction with the ter
map for the village.
5.
6.
28
III. DIE,WELOPMENT RENIEW PROCESS 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
Individual planning areas within this Master Plan shall be reviewed relative tc
provisions of this chapter. I A. MASTERPLAN
Approval of this Master Plan indicates acceptance by the City Counci
general framework for community development. Part of that framc
establishes specific development standards that constitute the z
regulations for the Calavera Hills Master Plan.
B, TENTATNE MAP/PLA"ED DEVELOPMIENT PERMIT
Unless otherwise provided by Section C of this Chapter, a tentative tra
and Planned Development Permit processed pursuant to Title 20 an(
the Carlsbad Municipal Code shall be submitted and approved prior
development of any residential villages. The tentative maps sh
consistent with the concepts, goals and standards specified in this Mast
to ensure compatibility with all applicable City policies and ordinances
final approval of each tentative map, grading, building and other min
permits for the development of the site may be issued provided that al
facility requirements have been satisged per the Zone 7 LOCd F:
Management Plan and Finance Plan.
1 L. SITE DEWLOPNENT PLAN
A site development plan processed pursuant to Chapter 21.06 of the <
Municipal Code shall be submitted and approved prior to the deve
of the cornunity commercial site. In addition, pursuant to Section 2
of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, all affordable housing projects
multi-family residential development of five (5) units or more sha
approval of a site development plan prior to development of the sub-
The site development plan shall be consistent with the concepts, p
standards specified in this Master Plan to ensure compatibility
applicable City policies and ordinances. After final approval of
development plan, grading, building and other ministerial permit
development of the site may be issued provided that all publj
requirements have been satisfied per the Zone 7 Local Facilities Ma
Plan and Finance Plan.
Each site development plan shall be submitted and processed as st
Chapter 21.06, Qualified Development Overlay Zone, of the
Municipal Code.
I
29
I
I
1
1
I"
SI
I
I
1
t
I
I
I
I'
1
I
I
I D. PUBLIC FACILITY PHASING
The Citywide Public Facilities Plan establishes performance ~~~d~d
public facilities throughout the City. In accordance with these perfonr
standards, the Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan contains a del
development phasing program for each of the eleven public facilities.
public facility performance standards identified in the Zone 7 Local Fac
Management Plan and Finance Plan and any amendments thereto mi
complied with as the Master Plan develops.
E. MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS
It is anticipated that certain amendments to the Master Plan may be ne(
during the development of the area. Any amendments to the Maste
shall occur in accordance with Carlsbad's Municipal code and the s amendment process described below. Amendments are divided in
categories as determined by the Pldg Commission. These includ
1) major; and 2) minor. Pursuant to Section 21.38.120 of the C;
Municipal Code, amendments may be initiated by the City Council,
Developer or developer of any village. I
30
I
1
li
E
3
S
I
1. MAJOR MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS
All Master Plan modifications which do not meet the criteri:
minor amendment as determined by the Planning Commissio
Section 2 below shall require a Major Amendment to the Maste
These amendments shall be processed pursuant to Section 21.
(P-C Zone) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. All Major Amenc
shall be reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commissic
revised for approval by the City Council.
Any request for a Major Amendmenl to the Master Plan shall r
a condition of consideration of any a.mendment to the Master
shall be the applicant’s responsibility to:
a.
consideration as it relates to the intent of the original Master Pli
Ensure that the proposed amendment meets the goa
objectives of the Master Plan and the public fz
requirements identified in the Zone 7 Local FE t Management Plan.
I s
b. Ensure the impacts if any to the Master Plan resulting fi
amendment can be satisfactorily mitigated.
Update any Master Plan studies and/or provide adc
studies when determined necessary by the Planning Di:
e.
d. Any Major Amendment to the Master Plan shall require
proposed development comply with all City ordinanc
policies in effect at the time of approvaI.
Provide a strike-out/underline copy of the Master P
when changes are necessary and update any Mast1
exhibits affected by the proposed amendment.
1
a
1
c
4
I
P
I
1
e.
31
1
1
E
t
2. MINOR W4STER PLAN AMENDMENTS
All Minor amendments-shall be reviewed for approval by the P1
Commission pursuant to Section 21.38.120. Minor amendmer
include the following:
a. Expansions or reductions to the individual villages up 1
in area may be allowed if the overall dwelling unit yield
allocation specified for the Planning Area does not incrc i change.
I b. Realignment or modification of internal streets of the
Plan if approved by the City Engineer.
Additions to/or amendments of design features identi
Community Development Standards, provided such addil
amendments strengthen the unity and vitality (
community’s design and are comprehensively incorpor
c. 1
1
I
I
1
8
5
S
1
I
I
@ the Master Plan.
d. Modifications to the development phasing scenario desa the Imal Facilities Management Plan for Zone 7 if ap
by the City Engineer.
Modification to the terms and conditions or location
affordable housing proposal as outlined within this Mastc
In alpproving such a modification the Planning Direct(
determine that the housing opportunities of the
proposal are at minimum, equivalent to those co
herein.
Any non-material changes to the Master Plan required tc
the requirements of the California Coastal Commissi
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Depart1
Fish and Game or the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
approved administratively by the Planning Director.
Planining Director has concerns about approving these I
administratively he may submit these changes to the P
Commission for a determination of substantial conform
the Master Plan.
e.
f.
For requests not noted above, the Planning Commissio
determine whether the proposed amendment is minor in natur
upon the criteria contained in Section 21.38.120(3) of the C 1 Municipal Code.
32
I
I F. TENTATIVE MAPIPLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AMENDM 1 1, MAJOR AMENDMENTS
1 Major Amendments to a Planned Development Permit m
permitted pler Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 21.45.160.
2. MINOR AMENDMENTS
Minor amendments may be approved-by the Planning Commk
the proposed change does not involve an addition of a new
group of uses not shown on the original permit, or the rearrang
of uses within the development, or changes of greater than ten F
in approved development standards including but not limited to
coverage, height, square footage of units, open space or lands
The Planning Commission's-review shall be limited only
village(s) affected by the proposed amendment.
E
I
1
I
li
1
I!
I
I
1
I
I
1
1
G. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS
1. MAJOR AMENDMENTS
Major Amendments to a site development plan may be pe
subject to the approval of the Planning Commission provided 1
provisions of Section 21.06.090 are met (Qualified Develc 1 Overlay Zone, Development Standards).
2. MINOR AMENDMENTS,
Minor Amendments may be approved administratively by the P Director if the proposed change does not involve chanEes of
than ten percent in approved development standards including
limited to yards, coverage, height, square footage of buildin1
space or landscaping. The Planning Director's review shall be
to only the village(s) affected by the proposed amendment.
33
11
9
1
I
I
t
1
8
1 IV. GENERAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
All development within the Master Plan shall comply with the general develol
standards established by this chapter. The following design guidelines have
developed to insure that all villages within the Master Plan maintain a con:
and unified character, while retaining their own identity. These guidelines ac
the common design elements that will be used throughout the community to pi
a visual cohesiveness and order, and to establish a strong sense of plac
belonging.
A. ARCHITECTURE
All single family residences constructed on lots of less than 7,500 squa
shall be designed in accordance with the City of Carlsbad’s Sma
Architectural Guidelines. All multiple family projects shall be desigl
accordance with the Design Guidelines of the Planned Develo
Ordinance, Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, unless wai
standards have been granted in conjunction with the provisions of affo S housing.
B. SETBACK STANDARDS
All residential units shall comply with the setback standards of the P
Development Ordinance, Chapter 21.45 of the Carlsbad Municipal
unless waivers of standards have been granted in conjunction wi 1 provisions of affordable housing.
E C. LANDSCAPE GUJDELINES
1. INTRODUCTION
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed per the requirc
of the City of Carlsbad’s Landscape Guidelines Manual. All lar
maintenance shall conform to the City of Carlsbad’s Lar
Guidelines Manual and project CC&R’s.
In general, the overall appearance of the landscape shall b
healthy and free of weeds and debris. All new construction !
landscaped in accordance with a City approved landscape pl
subject to City inspection of adequate maintenance levels.
1
1
a
I
U
1
I
34
E
1
II
I c
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
1E
I
I
c5
1E
2. LANDSCAFE ZONES
All landscape areas shall be assigned landscape intensity cla.sific
based on the intensity of maintenance and water requirements p
City of Carlsbad Landscape Guidelines Manual. The location 01
zones within individual projects shall be shown on the landscape
submitted for each development proposal. A brief description o
zone is as follows:
a. Zone One: Lush Landscape
Lush landscaping is used along the streets, around
monuments and in the recreation center where lush,
flowering landscape are required. These are high mainte
areas and will require significant amounts of irril
Consideration will be given to water conservation me
where appropriate.
b. Zone Two: Refined Landscape
Refined landscape are those which require less in1
maintenance practices (such as mowing, pruning, etc.) ai
water. Their appearance is un-manicured but well kept.
areas are primarily slopes found in private rear yards anc
main streets.
1; c. Zone Three: Naturalizing Landscape
Naturalizing landscape shall be planted for low use are;
do not have a refined appearance but are not natil
transition between the two. It should be able to b
naturalized and be self sustaining once established.
d. Zone Four: Native Landscape
Areas of existing vegetation planned for low-level acti
where existing vegetation is retained with very
modification. It will require a minimal level of maintc
seasonal fire protection) and no supplemental irrigatior
type of landscaping is used for major open space area:
the SDG&E easement and riparian area.
m
(usually periodic control of debris and minor cleari
35
1
t
E
1
T
1
1
I
1
1
E
c
e. Fire Protection Zone
This zone is designed to help resolve the potential dang
program utilizes landscape zones two, three and four to q
and maintain a fire control landscape, as shown on Exhibi
Page 38 and Exhibit 9 on Page 39. Plants used her
specifically selected for their fire retardant and lou
development adjacent to fire hazard areas, The fire proti
I characteristics.
3. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION STANDARDS
All landscape installation and irrigation systems shall conform
City of Carlsbad’s Landscape Guidelines Manual. Where appro]
each development shall be designed to utilize reclaimed wai
landscape irrigation to the satisfaction of the City pursuant to 5
C.3-5.1 of said Landscape Guidelines.
4. MAINTENANCE
All landscape maintenance shall conform to the City of Car
Landscape Guidelines Manual and project CC&Rs.
In general, the overall appearance of the landscape shall bt
healthy and free of weeds and debris. All new construction SI
landscaped in accordance with a City approved landscape pla
subject to City inspection of adequate maintenance levels.
landscape maintenance district is approved by the City Council
future, some of the area maintained by the various
homeowner’s associations may be maintained by the maintl
district. 1 5. STREETSCAPE LANDSCAPING
The streetscape is comprised of the relationship between bu
structures, street scale, adjacent view/vistas, signage, landscap
street furnishings. Exhibit 10 on Page 40, illustrates a
proposed streetscape within the Calavera Hills Master Plan. 1
1
I
11
II 36
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
D
1
c
1
.I
&
I
1
i
I
I
6. FIRE CONTROL
Where structures immediately abut native vegetation, fire ret:
roofs shall be provided as required by the Fire Marshall. In adr
within sixty (60) feet of these structures, plant materials H
modified as may be required by the Fire Marshall. The various 7
homeowners associations shall assume responsibility for mainte
of these areas.
Heavily vegetated open space areas containing concentratic
volatile fire fuels shall be selectively thinned and/or cleared f
suppression purposes as required by the Fire Marshall commen
with appropriate protection of sensitive environmental habitats
Adequate fire vehicle accessibility to the native areas via strc
special access fire roads and easements per the Fire Ma
requirements shall be provided. Whenever required by th
Marshall, slopes adjacent to development shall be land
according to the Interface Area Fire Protection Plan.
37
I
#
I
1
3 a Z
I
t
1
a
t
1
I
b
T
I
I
I
1
w 2 o< k 22
I
$ Q 0 a
m
3
0 tu
3 c
-
E
.w
IC
a$ =z
c =Q a :gY z ssg s gq k zz>
I 600
0 ;Q:.-O JOZ 22 8"
38
I
8
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
t
t
I
IF:
1
I
I
I
i
1
v)
Q) Q 0 a
Q) >
I
0 .- I %$ 21 1
r.20,L
bl W+( z 4m$L 0 $5 n 06- E Z,”$
p $502. =2 o* 0
I amo:
a
I/ ‘
39
1
N
1 4
B
I
1
I
1
I
0
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
W
U
W < (3
2
n
I
e
r?
n q m
a
n
U
0 \
> J m
W
(3 W J d 0
z 0 i= 0 W
v)
W
0 v)
W U I- v)
n a
L
40
I
1
II
R
I
1
I
I
I
4
I
L
B
1
I
1
I
I
7. NOISE ATTENUATION
Sound attenuation walls, (see Exhibit 11 on Page 42 for locatio1
Exhibit 12 on Page 43 for characteristics) will be similar in the 1(
detail, materials and character as the Community Entry Walls. walls will be used to buffer homes from the roadway noise
Carlsbad Village Drive, College Boulevard, and Tamarack Avt
required by the noise study prepared for the individual tentative
For walls exceeding six (6) feet in height, landscape berming sl
provided in conjunction with the walls.
These walls shall be constructed in conformance with the require
of the City of Carlsbad Noise Policy and shall conform to City
standards for sight distances.
D. FENCING
Fences and walls can serve many functions including security, id
enclosure, privacy, etc. It is intended that the available fencing tyj combined for appearances, interest and provide variety. Using a combi
of open and solid styles is encouraged.
Since approximately half the Master Plan has already been develop€
impossible to provide a common community wall for the entire Mastt
at this time. Two types of fencing will be provided within the undev
portion Master Plan; village walls and production fencing.
1. VILLAGE WALLS
All village walls shall be landscaped in accordance with Car
Landscape Guidelines Manual. Whenever possible, bermir
landscaping shall be utilized to soften the visual impacts of wa
fences. Where necessary, this wall type will be modif
accommodate view and noise attenuation. The village wall deti
shown on Exhibit 12 on Page 43. T 2. PRODUCTION FENCING
The production fences are of wood construction, and used to sc
private residence boundaries. This fencing is also used to fe
private yards within multiple family projects.
41
K 0 -0 mK 30
I
1
I
.-
t 'G 92 <3
;; 7J-
v)
t-
42
I
I
s :
$ 4
1 $2 3: ;g
\ 2
t
3Ul $5
59 g: 2:
Yt
0 -~- ..~--. ~- ~- ~
---- -- .--- ~-. ~_--_. ~. ..
I
i
t
I
I
1
1
II
t
I
T
1
8
Y
8
I
I
1 E. VIEWS
The hilly terrain of the Calavera Hills Master Plan area provides for
variety of external and internal views. Development of the site plans
individual villages should capitalize on view potential for the living
Interior view potential should be maximized by careful sitting of buildir
tall trees.
The treatment of edges between differing land uses is an iml
consideration in maintaining continuity in community design. Site pl
and landscape design should make a smooth and logical transition frc
area to the other without leaving hard edges or abrupt changes.
F. SIGNAGE
Appropriate signage is important in maintaining the community design
as well as providing a system for identifying community developme
giving directional information to residents and visitors. Signs uti1
Calavera Hills include both permanent and temporary signs. I 1. PERMANENT SIGNS
a. Project Entries
At the option of the developer project entry monume
may be provided. Project entries are those which I
access to the entire community. They should consist of
monumentation and landscape planting. These entries
be designed to create a portal and convey a sense of
This will inform the motorist that this is the entrance
Calavera Hills Community. This will include design f
that are consistent with community fencing materials.
entries will be provided along College Boulevard w
enters the northerly and southerly portions of the Mast
area and Carlsbad Village Drive where it enters the v
portion of the Master Plan area. An entry sign alread
on Tamarack Avenue where it enters the Master Plan
44
i
I
1
@
I
1
b. Villag,e Entries
These are the entries to the individual villages in Ca
Hills. They are to be designed as an enhancement extens
the community fencing detail. These should be limited
major entry points into a village and will provide visitor
the project name identification. Village entry signs wil
the same basic designs as shown by Exhibit 13 on Page L
Exhibit 14 on Page 47.
Village entry signs will be constructed at the entries to V
H,K.L2,U,W,X, and Y, Exhibit 15 on Page 48 shol
approximate location of village entry signs. 1
2. TEMPORARY SIGNS
Temporary signs which will be present until the completion of 1
construction shall be consistent with the City of Carlsbad’ t Ordinance and will include:
E b. Future village signs.
a. Community entry signs.
The design, lighting, and location of these signs shall be sub
Planning Directors administrative approval. U
1
I
1
I.
1
I c
I
I 45
2 0 E
i
m
I
R
I
t
I
1
I
1
8
1
I
0
1
II
II
1
1
.” r I ...a,-
4 3 ::i:::
2 q
46
2 0
T E I
i
1
I
1 3
1
I
I
1
I
I
1 %
I
1
8
I
I
C
8
I
3
E 5 8
3
L
q 4
2 q
z 2
E E
2 3
lu 0
%
2
47
i
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8
i
I
I
i
I
I
1
cc .- 0 .!? za
3; c .; act
0-
[5)
48
G, LIGHTING
i
8
#
8
B
I
I
I
1
I
I
8
8
I
1
I
The design issue of "lighting" includes street lighting, as well as buildir
landscape accent lighting, and sign illumination. Three basic principles :
be considered in the provision of lighting:
1.
1
Street lights should provide a safe and desirable level of illumi
for both motorists and pedestrians without intruding into resic
areas.
Lighting fixtures should relate to the human scale, especi:
pedestrian areas.
Lighting and lighting fixtures should complement the desig
character of the environment in which they are placed.
2.
3.
Illuminated entries should direct low to the ground and be limited to o
immediate vicinity of the entry. Lighted entries should not be distr
create visual hot spots, or glare, etc. If entry signs are illuminated the 1
shall be directed low to the ground and be limited to only the imn
vicinity of the entry. 1 H. CIRCULATION
The Calavera Hills Master Plan includes three major streets shown in tl
of Carlsbad's General Plan Circulation Element. These streets are 1(
84 foot right-of-way streets known functionally as major and secondary :
streets. All other streets within the master planned area are local str
The Zone 7 LFMP identifies special conditions which need to be
maintain acceptable service levels as new development places inci
demands on circulation facilities. These special conditions can be fc
the Zone 7 LFMP and Finance Plan. The plan analyzes existing, 1991
2000 and 2010 conditions based on yearly development phasing assurr
The time increments are used more a bench marks than actual com
dates. If a future traffic analysis indicates that identified irnprovern
interim improvements are needed earlier, the timing of their cornpletic
be adjusted to insure that the adopted performance standards 1 1 maintained.
49
i
Required ultimate or interim improvements shall be designed and guar
for construction prior to recordation of the first final map or issuanr
building or grading permit for projects identified as necessitati
improvements. Construction and City acceptance of the improvemen
occur prior to occupancy of the first affected unit.
All streets within the master plan shalI comply with City standard
required by the City Engineer.
e
I
4
V. OPENSPACE
A. INTRODUCTION
8
I
1
I
I
E
1
I
8
8
1
8
I
Overall, approximately 330.85 acres or 40.39% of the total Master Pll
consists of open space. Of this total, nearly 39.5 acres are "constrainec
per Growth Management Ordinance definitions. This total ha
approximated since it is based on existing tentative maps for the villa1
were approved and/or constructed prior to the adoption of the C
Growth Management Ordinance. Exhibit 16 on Page 53 shows the la
of open space within the Master Plan. The open space provided wit
Calavera Hills Master Plan complies with all applicable City ordinan
standards.
AI1 open space shall be provided consistent with the City's Gener:
Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan, and ope
shown within this Master Plan. If a proposed tentative map and/or s
varies from the City's General Plan or Management Plan, the applicz
file for an amendment. If a General Plan Amendment is requii
boundary adjustment procedures of the current open space and cons1
element must be adhered to. The following are the findings which
made in order to adjust the boundaries of any open space area show1
map titled Open Space and Conservation Map dated August 1988, as
amended.
- The proposed open space area is equal to or greater than 1
The proposed open space area is of environmental quality eqi
depicted on the Official Open Space and Conservation Map;
-
greater than that depicted on the Official Open Spa I Conservation Map; and
- The proposed adjustment to open space as depicted on the
Open Space and Conservation Map, is contiguous or with
proximity to open space as shown on the open space map.
8 50
1
I
I
8
I
I
8
I
1
1
I
I
8
I
I
1
1
I 51
The open space is intended to provide for recreational and
opportunities within the Planned Community, as well as provide for
aesthetic relief, erosion control, and habitat protection for numerous
and animals. The open space is utilized as a unifying element through1
planned community while providing visual and physical separation bl
development areas.
Open space shown on the Master Plan Open Space Exhibit, othc
constrained lands as identified in the Growth Management Ordin:
private open space and may be utilized for density calculations.
The Calavera Hills Master Plan divides the project's open space ir
major categories per Section 21.38.060 of 1 he Carlsbad Municipal Cc
master plans must provide 15 percent of the total master plan are
integrated open space program which addresses: 1) Open space
of resources; 3) Open space for outdoor recreation; and 4) Open si
public health and safety. Based on this standard, the Calavera Hills
Plan is required to provide a minimum 122.85 acres of open spa
approximately 291 acres of performance standard open space are p
The following are subsections which explain how the Calavera Hills
Plan complies with this requirement:
1. OPEN SPACE FOR THE PRESERVATION OF NA'
I
preservation of natural resources: 2) Open space for the managed pro
RESOURCES
The open space plan for the Master Plan preserves appro:
140.2 acres of undisturbed natural open space providing ha1
rare and endangered plant and animal species. As well, the
spaces provide a buffer from proposed development and lin
Planning area.
corridors to adjacent open spaces outside the limits of the
2. OPEN SPACE FOR THE MANAGED PRODUCTI(
RESOURCES
The preservation of the above mentioned natural open space
well as proposed manufactured slopes and other open space 1:
provide watershed to aid in ground water recharge in the
portion of the Master Plan area is currently being used o
reserved for the production of agricultural resources.
OPEN SPACE FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION
Calavera Hills Community Park, together with Hope El
School park, currently provide nearly 19 acres of public park1
future junior high school site located in Village "s" will PI
additional 18.8 acres once developed.
3.
u
I
I
I
I
8
I
4
1
1
3
I
I
I
I
D
1
I
8
Active and passive common recreational facilities per the requii
of the Planned Development Ordinance, Chapter 21.45 of the C:
Municipal Code, will be constructed within each village. The si
location of each of these areas will be determined at the time
tentative map approval for each village. These areas will be
exclusive use of the residents of the Calavera Hills Master Pla
OPEN SPACE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 4.
Native vegetation shall be preserved and, where warranted, enl
on the major project slopes. Where deemed necessary by tl
Marshall a fire protection plan shall be implemented as shc
Exhibit 9 on Page 39. Any irrigation system placed in the
project slopes shall comply with the City of Carlsbad’s Lan
Guidelines Manual.
Open spaces along Tamarack Avenue and Carlsbad Village
provide a scenic visual amenity for road users.
52
e
I
1
1
1
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
U
8
II
8
8 a a v)
C a, Q 0
53
u
I
I
1
I
E V. OPEN SPACE (CONTINUED)
B. IMPROVEMENT§
1. BIKEWAYS
Bikeways shall be provided on Carlsbad Village Drive, ’
Boulevard, and Tamarack Avenue within this Master Plan.
racks and related facilities shall be provided at common recrc
facilities and the commercial center to encourage the use
transportation mode. 8 2. PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM
A pedestrian system shall be provided for all major street!
pedestrian system shall provide residential areas with a linl
recreational facilities as well as the proposed Citywide trail
The City of Carlsbad shall obtain an irrevocable offer of dedic;
a permanent easement for the proposed trails where feasible.
STANDARDS FOR BIKEWAYS AND PEDESTRIAN SYS’
All bikeways and pedestrian systems shall be within arteria
right-of-wzys, unless shown otherwise in this Master Plan, su
the approval of the City Engineer and Director of Par
Recreation. Bikeways designs shall meet current city standarl
The pedestrian system within the public right-of-way shall con
five (5) foot wide sidewalk in a ten (10) foot wide area outside
streets and driveways upon approval of the City Engineer.
All bikeway and pedestrian street crossings shall be located i
intersections with appropriate signage as required by tl
Engineer.
Efforts shall be made during the tentative map process to con
the proposed Citywide Trail System.
I
3. m
m 1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
with landscaping. Sidewalks may be reduced to 4’ in width on
54
+
I:
Ccl a
a,
Io
II
I
I Ya
1
I
1
i
!
I
II
I
I
I
I
1
1
B
+-
a 2 5x 2s a0 %
Yc :E ma cm
c og E rno; 4s Ep ST-, = vlc 0 c3-
m
0 . 55
1
B
I
I
I
I
8
1
I
I
I
I
t
1
8
C. DEDICATION
Open space easements shall be dedicated over all open space areas shc
Exhibit 16 on Page 53 and any additional open space areas sho
easement for public access and use over all pedestrian and bicycle arc
contained within the public right-of-way as shown on each Tentativ
requesting approval.
approved tentative maps. Each Tentative Map shall offer for dedical
I D. MAINTENANCE
Either the Master Homeowner’s Association or Village Homeo
Association shall be responsible for the maintenance of all open space
If a Citywide landscape maintenance district is formed, the City may i
liability and maintenance responsibility for all or a portion of thest
space areas. The designation of a responsible entity shall be determi
the time of tentative map processing. If maintenance responsibility is re
by a homeowner’s association, the City shall have the right to enfor I responsibility.
m
m
56
8
I
8
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I VI. PUBLIC FACILITIES
A. INTRODUCTION
The Calavera Hills Master Plan land area lies entirely within Local F
Management Zone 7. The majority of public facilities requirements
Master Plan are fully addressed in the Zone 7 Local Facilities Man;
Plan (LFMP). The Zone 7 LFMP; (1) prclvides detailed description
the zone will develop, (2) demonstrates individually how and whc
required facility and/or improvement will be constructed to accom
phased development within the Master Plan, and (3) provides a
description of how each facility and improvement will be finance
mitigation is necessary.
The Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan and Finance Plan pi
detailed description of the following public facilities.
1. City Administration
2. Library
3. Wastewater Treatment
4. Parks 5. Drainage
6. Circulation
7. Fire
8. Open Space 9. School
10. Sewer Collection
11. Water Distribution
The provisions of public facilities within the Calavera Hills Master P1;
details of these facilities and their timing, see the Local F
Management Plan for Zone 7.
be in accordance with the Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Pla 1 m
m
1
1
1
H 57
U
11
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
R VII. GRADING
A. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to establish appropriate guidelines
grading of the remaining portions of the Master Plan Area which are CI
undeveloped, and, for which no discretionary approvals have yet been g
Specifically, these guidelines are established to control the future deveh
of Villages H,K,L2,R,U,W,X and Y. Since the intent of the Mast(
process is to review the area in question in a comprehensive mann!
reviewed, not on an individua1 village basis, but for the entire Mastt
area. It is the intent of these guidelines to minimize potential imp
existing landforms and to the visual aesthetics of the area.
implementation of these guidelines will mitigate the effects of the i
operation on existing residents while allowing for reasonable developr
the project area(s).
grading plan proposes that the grading of these undeveloped villa
B. GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are hereby established to assure appropriate i
designs for the remaining villages of the Calavera Hills Master P
Community.
1. Grading plans shall conform to the requirements of Chapter
City of Carlsbad Design Guidelines Manual. Preliminary an
grading plans will be prepared in accordance with the Municipa
for review by the City Engineer.
All permanent manufactured slopes in excess of three feet in
shall be constructed at a gradient of 2 to 1 (horizontal to verti
less. Any exceptions to the gradient must be approved by tl:
Engineer and Planning Director.
In areas where space is available within the approved sit€
manufactured slopes shall be contoured to simulate natural i
except where such contouring will conflict with the recommenc
21.38.060, and Chapter 11.06 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code a
2.
3.
I of the soils engineer.
4. I Development Ordinance.
II
Grading shall be in compliance with the policies of the City’s I-
5. Grading within each village shall provide for the safet
maintenance of other villages already developed or under constr
I
I 58
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
II
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
6. Grading permits may be issued for construction of model home
to the recordation of the final map if approved as part of the te3
map process.
The developer shall include top-soils rollback and redisking on I slopes to ensure stability and growth as may be required by ti Engineer and Planning Director.
Runoff and erosion shall be reduced by the construction of desi
basins identified in the Zone 7 Local Facilities Managemen
Provisions for maintenance and removal of deposited sedimer
be made prior to final map approval. The plans for these basir
be approved by the City of Carlsbad Engineering Depai
Temporary basins may be required during construction in addi
those identified in the: Zone Plan.
Grading shall be phased so that all erosion control basins are in
as a first item of work during grading activities.
Temporary runoff-control devices should be installed prior
7.
8.
9.
10,
m
grading activities.
11. All graded areas shall1 have erosion control meaures installed
thirty (30) days afteir rough grading is completed. If perr
vegetation cannot be installed within the 30-day period, tern
erosion control measures shall be installed, if required by tl-
Engineer.
All temporary slopes not scheduled for development within 0
shall be hydroseeded. Ninety percent (90%) germination is re
by means of rainfall or with an irrigation system if rair
insufficient.
The application for grading permits must provide assurance to ti
Engineer that manufactured slope banks will be properly land: and that the: landscape will be maintained by either the develop
property owner, the village association, or a landscape maintc
district if approved by the City Council.
All slopes shall be planted per the requirements of Car
Landscape Guidelines Manual and Chapter 11.06 of the C;
Municipal Code. Drought tolerant xeriscape shall be used wh
possible to reduce the need for irrigation.
Rock blasting program to be submitted and approved prior to is
of grading permit in accordance with engineering policy ai
Master Plan.
12.
13.
14.
15.
59
I
II C. CONFORMANCE WITH CITY OF CARLSBAD ORDINANCES
In addition to the standards and guidelines contained herein, all prc
grading shall also conform to the following City of Carlsbad ordir I policies and/or guidelines:
II Code).
II Code).
1. Excavation the Grading Ordinance (Chapter 11.06 Carlsbad Mu
2. Hillside Development Regulations (Chapter 21.95, Carlsbad Mu
3.
4.
5.
City of Carlsbad Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone '
City of Carlsbad Design Guidelines.
City of Carlsbad Landscape Guidelines. I 6. City of Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan.
I
I
U
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
7.
8.
City of Carlsbad Planning Department Policies.
City of Carlsbad Engineering Department Policies. I 9. City of Carlsbad Engineering Standards.
m
60
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
D. BLASTING AREAS
Large areas of non-rippable rock exist within the limits of the
boundaries. These areas are most predominate in Villages K,L2,U,X :
If blasting is to be permitted, a blasting program will be established
developer and approved by the City prior to ;and executed concurrent u
commencement of the grading operation. The primary focus of this pi
would be to insure the safety of nearby residents and their property .
as the public in general and public property. A brief outline of the el<
of the program are as follows:
1. The developer and blasting Contractor will hold a public meetir
local residents to explain the proposed blasting program.
The blasting contractor will conduct a pre-inspection of e
structures within the defined limits of the blasting area.
2.
inspection shall include documentation of the existing conditio
3, Affected neighboring property owners will be notified 24-hour
to commencement of blasting operations.
The blasting contractor will execute blasting operation.
The blasting contractor will conduct a post-inspection of ai
properties.
The developer and the blasting contractor will hold a folll
I
4.
5.
6. I meeting with local residents.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project, a specific rep(
be prepared for review and acceptance by the City Engineer and PI
Director. I E. PHASING OF GRADING
Prior to approval of final map(s) or issuance of grading permit(s), whi
occurs first, for development of one or more villages within the Maste
a phased grading plan shall be approved by the City Engineerir
Planning Departments. Whether one or more phases are propose
review of the phasing plan shall be based upon health and
considerations, as well as minimizing impacts upon existing residents.
61
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
G. HAULROUTES
In all cases, the earth hauling necessary for development of the ren
villages attempt to minimize, to the extent possible, impacts with f
developments and roadways. Due to its distance from the project's
"core", the development of Village "H" and associated improvem
Carlsbad Village Drive, will require the greatest attention to redl
potential conflicts. Specific routes and equipment operations schedu
be subject to review and acceptance by the Engineering Department 1
the commencement of the grading operation. I
H, LANDSCAPE MITIGATION
All graded areas shall be landscaped per the requirements of the
Carlsbad's Landscape Guidelines Manual and Chapter 11.06 of the C
Municipal Code.
Where appropriate, slopes shall be planted with drought tolerant
species using temporary irrigation systems. Once the vegetation h:
established these temporary irrigation systems shall be removed.
1lRRkb
36-34
RI?V:1/30/93
g:M6 43B
62
0
FINAL ENWRONJMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN
EIR 90-5
Prepared for
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2075 LAS PALMAS DRJYE
CARLSBAD, CA 92009
1)
Prepared by
EC0N
Regional Environmental Consultants
7460 M- vamy ~oad. san chego CA szim (619) y2 t6W
RECON NUMBER 232 MARCH 23,1993
nus document pnnted w recycled paper.
f
TABLE OF CONTENTS - I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. SUMMARY ANALYSIS 3
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3
B. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS 27
@
C. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED SHOULD THE PROPOSED
PROJECT BE IMPLEMENTED 42
D. EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT 43
E. RELATIONSHIP OF LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN’S ENVIRONMENT AND THE ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM
PRODUCTIVITY 44
F. GROWTH INDUCEMENT 45
G. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 46
H. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 48
1. No Project Alternative 48 2. Phased Grading Alternative 48 3. Alternative Alignments for Off-Site College Boulevard 49
4. Alternative Project Design 51 5. Alternative Site 57
III. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 61
A. LANDUSE 61
B. LANDFORM ALTERATION/VIS~LJAL QUALITY 78
C. CIRCULATION 101
D. NOISE 117
E. AGRICULTURE 13 1
F. PUBLIC FACILITIES 139
G. BIOLOGY 146
H. ARCHAEOLOGY 169
a
0
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Paae
I. PALEONTOLOGY 173
J. HYDROLOGY 176
K. AIRQUALITY 182
IV. CERTIFICATION 192
V. PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED 193
VI, REFERENCES CITED 194
VII. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 197
APPENDIXES
A: Notice of Preparation
C: Noise technical report D: Mestre-Greve noise report E: Biology technical report F: Cultural resources technical report
G: Paleontology technical report H: Hydrology technical report I: Air quality data
B: Traffic technical report
FIGURES
1: Regional location map 4
3: Proposed project site plan 11
4: Aerial photograph of the Calavera Hills area 12
2:
5: Calavera Hills - topography 13 6: General Plan land use designations 15
7: Village H site plan 16 8: Village K site plan 18 9: Village L-2 site plan 19
10: Village R site plan 20
1 1 : Village U site plan 21
12: Villages W, X, and Y site plan 23
13: Circulation improvements proposed by Village H 24
14: College Boulevard - preferred alignment 26
15: Alternative alignments for off-site College Boulevard 50 16: Alternative project design 52
17: Alternative project site 58
18: Calavera Hills and surrounding area - existing land uses 62
19: Calavera Hills - villages under examination 72
21: Cut and fill areas 91
22: Areas to be disturbed by grading 92
Project vicinity map - San Luis Rey 7.5’ U.S.G.S. quadrangle 5
20: Photograph location map 79
T,ABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) * Pane
FIGURES (cont.)
23: Grading for off-site College Boulevard 98 24: Existing lane configuration and control 102 25: 1995 Zone 7 distribution 107
26: 2000 Zone 7 distribution 110 27: 2010 Zone 7 distribution 113
28: Areas to be graded requiring blasting 119 29: Limits of grading 121 30; Construction haul routes 122
3 1 : Future noise contours along off-site College Boulevard 125 32: Agriculture soil types 132
33: Existing and LFMP sewer facilities 140 34: Watershed boundaries 141
35: Existing & LFMP water facilities 143 36: Vegetation map 148 37: Sensitive species map 155
38: Paleontologically sensitive areas 174 39: Drainage basins 177
TABLES e 1: 53
3: Existing Peak Hour Link Capacity Analysis 104 4: Summary of Existing Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis 105 5: Summary of Year 1995 Peak Hour Link Capacity Analysis 108 6: Summary of Year 1995 Intersection Capacity Analysis 109
7: Summary of Year 2000 Peak Hour Link Capacity Analysis 111
8: Summary of Year 2000 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis 112
9: Summary of Year 2010 Peak Hour Link Capacity Analysis 114
10: Summary of Year 2010 Peak Hour Intersection Capacity Analysis 115
1 1 : Noise Levels on Construction Truck Haul Routes 123 12: Soil Descriptions -_ 133 13: Capability Classes 135 14: Storie Index Ratings 136
15: Vegetation Totals for Calavera Hills Project 149 16: Sensitivity Codes 15C
17: Sensitive Plant Species Observed or With the Potential for Occurrence 153
18: Sensitive Plant Totals for Calavera Hills Project 154
19: Sensitive Wildlife Species Observed or Expected to Occur 158
20: Vegetation Impacts for Calavera Hills Project 161
21: Sensitive Plant Impacts for Calavera Hills Project 16; 22: Vegetation Impacts for Alternative College Boulevard Extensions 16:
23: Sensitive Species Impacts for Alternative College Boulevard Extensions 16~
Comparison of Alternative Design to the Proposed Project 2: Slope Summary for Village Seeking Discretionary Approval 80
*
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
TABLES (cont.)
24: Villages in Each Drainage Basin 176 25: Days Over Air Quality Standards at the Oceanside Monitoring Station 184 26: Summary of Air Quality for the San Diego Air Basin 186
PHOTOGRAPHS
1: Existing view from Carlsbad Village Drive 81
3: 82 41 82 5: Existing view from Calavera Hills Community Park 84 6: Existing view panorama from proposed Village L-2 84 7: Existing view of proposed Village R 86 8: 86 9: 88 10: Existing view of the area of proposed College Boulevard 88
2: Existing view from Carlsbad Village Drive 81 Existing view of Carlsbad Village Drive from Tamarack Avenue
Existing view of the residential portion of Village H
Existing panorama view of proposed Village U from existing Village D Existing view of Villages X and Y from Village A
I. INTRODUCTION
This draft environmental impact report (EIR) has been prepared according the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, amended. It is an informational document intended for both the decision-ma and the public and represents information concerning the final residential pk
of the Calavera Hills Master Plan area. The applicant for the project seeking discretionary approval of six tentative maps, all of which proF
residential development. Future discretionary review of grading permits >
follow project approval and this EIR is intended to provide the t
of the tentative maps will require the approval of the alignment of Coll
Boulevard south from Carlsbad Village Drive (Elm Avenue). Project apprc would also require a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to adjust open SF designations throughout the project area. A Calavera Hills Master I Amendment would also be necessary to modify village boundaries and a change residential product type. The proposed development also proposes development
slopes in excess of 15 percent which will require a Hillside Development Pel (HDP). The tentative maps will also require a permit for a Planned 1
Development (PUD). The discretionary actions considered in this EIR summarized below:
*
environmental review for all entitlement applications to follow. The apprc
General Plan Amendment GPA 90-04 Calavera Hills MPA MP-lSO(G)
Village H Village K Village L-2
Village R
Villages W, X, and Y
CT 90- 19PUD 90-20HDP 90-25 CT 90-22PUD 90-22/HDP 90-28
CT 90-20PUD 90-21/HDP 90-26 CT 90-24PUD 90-24/HDP 90-3 1
Village U
An Initial Study for the proposed project was prepared by the City
Carlsbad Planning Department. The Environmental Checklist and the list environmental issues to be discussed were prepared in conjunction with initial study as presented in the City of Carlsbad’s Notice of Preparation (N in Appendix A. The potentially significant issues identified include land landform alteratiodvisual quality, traffic circulation, noise, agriculr public facilities, biology, archaeology, paleontology, hydrology/water qua
and air quality. For each ma-jor environmental topic analyzed in this EIR,
Environmental Analysis section of this report presents a discussion of existing conditions, the identified significant impacts, and mitigation meas to reduce the impact. Significant environmental effects that cannot be avo
if the project is implemented are presented in Section 1I.C. A discussion the relationship between short-term and long-term productivity is contained
Section 1I.E. Sections 1I.F and 1I.G address the issues of growth induce]
anti cumulative impacts, respectively. A discussion of project alternatives
presented in Section 1I.B.
The requirements described in the CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Article 9 the California Administrative Code, were followed in the preparation of the A brief summary of the proposed project and its consequences is contained w the Summary Analysis section of the report as required by Section 15123 of
Guidelines. In accordance with Section 15125, a description of environmental setting both on and adjacent to the proposed project site is f
CT 90-251PUD 90-25MDP 90-32 CT 90-26PUD 90-26/HDP 90-33 @
e
1
in the existing conditions of the Land Use section. The relationship of the proposed project to the surrounding area is also evaluated in the Land Use section. Other topics required by Section 15126 of the guidelines which
describe the environmental impacts of the project occur in the report as
outlined in the Table of Contents. The technical and supporting material
discussed and cited in the text are listed in the References Cited section or are included in the appendixes attached to the EIR.
2
___
II. SUMMARY ANALYSIS
~~
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTlOW
1. Location and Setting
e
The proposed residential development addressed in this EIR
located in the northeast quadrant of the city of Carlsbad. Figure 1 shows proJect’s regional location in San Diego County. The project is a part of master plan community of Calavera Hills.
The master plan area is bounded by State Route 78 (SR 78) on north. Calavera Lake is within a few hundred feet of the eastern edge of property and the lake’s downstream drainage roughly parallels the eas
boundary of the property. The southern boundary of the property is an east-\ line approximately one-half of a mile north of the Rancho Carlsbad Trailer P this line was formerly a City of CarlsbadKounty of San Diego jurisdictic boundary. The master plan’s western extent is near Tamarack Avenue. Leg: the property can be described as within the west one-half of Section 3 and
east one-half of Section 4, Township 12 South, Range 4 West, and the south ( half of Sections 33 and 34, Township 11 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino E Meridian. Figure 2 shows the Calavera Hills Master Plan boundary on a U.S.( 7.5 -minute quadrangle.
An occupied San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) transmission
right-of-way (R-0-W) trending northeast-southwest cuts diagonally across southeastern corner of the property. In the north-central portion of the p erty, on the highest point in the master plan area, is a six million ga
steel tank water reservoir which is owned and operated by the Carlsbad Munic Waiter District (CM WD).
e
2. Master Plan History
The Calavera Hills Master Plan has a history which dates back be
May 7, 1974, when the City Council approved MP-150 (Lake Calavera Hills Mi Plan) and EIR-230. Since that time there have been many amendments to
General Plan and the Calavera Hills Master Plan as well as an updated env; mental impact report (EIR-403) in 1978. These past EIRs are incorporated reference in this EIR. Development of the area has continued, with many of vi11 ages built.
The following is a chronological history of the Calavera I
Master Plan area:
March 12, 1974 - Planning Commission recommended approval of MP
(Resolution #l050) - the original Calavera Hills Master Plan
May 7, 1974 - City Council approved MP-150/EIR-230 (Resolution #3407)
May 21, 1974 - City Council adopted ZC 138 (Ordinance #9388) - changed
zoning of the master plan area to P-C, Planned Community
January 26, 1977 - Planning Commission recommended approval of CT 7t PUD-4 (Resolution #13 14) - 167 single-family detached units in Village B 0
3
3 .-
FIGURE 2. PROJECT LOCATION ON U.S.G.S 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAP
SAN LUIS REY QUADRANGLE
.. -.
August 4, 1977 - City Council approved CT 76-12PUD-4 (Resolution #5145 and
Resolution #5 146)
July 12, 1978 - Planning Commission recommended certification of EIR-403 for GPA-51 - this EIR addressed the environmental impacts of the development of the master plan area and the construction of a satellite sewage treatment facility within the master plan area
July 12, 1978 - Planning Commission recommended approval of GPA-51 - revised densities and land use designation within the master plan area
September 19, 1978 - City Council certified EIR-403
October 3, 1978 - City Council approved GPA-51 (Resolution #5550)
October 25, 1978 - Planning Commission recommended approval of MP-lSO(A) (Resolution 31481) - revised text and land use designations of the master
plan area
December 28,1978 - City Council approved MP-lSO(A) (Ordinance #9517)
January 13, 1982 - Planning Commission recommended approval of MP-lSO(B)
(Resolution #1912) - changed the phasing boundaries of the master plan
January 13, 1982 - Planning Commission recommended approval of CT 81-47/
PUD-35 - 230 attached units in Villages C & D (Resolution #1911)
February 2,1982 - City Council approved MP-l50(B) (Ordinance #6888)
May 26, 1982 - Planning Commission recommended approval of MP-l50(C)
(Resolution #1966)
July 14, 1982 - Planning Commission recommended approval of CT 82-8PUD-41 -
Village G (Resolution #1983) - 108 duplex units
August 25, 1982 - Planning Commission recommended approval of CT 82-161
CP-213 - Village J (Resolution #2008) - 222 stacked flat condominiums
'March 23, 1983 - Planning Commission recommended approval of MP-lSO(D) (Resolution #2095) - amendment to expand the boundaries of the master plan
to incorporate a five-lot tentative map
March 23, 1983 - Planning Commission recommended approval of 2C-273 (Resolution #2096) - zone change to P-C, Planned Community, to accommodate a five-lot tentative map
March 23, 1983 - Planning Commission recommended approval of CT 83-3PUD-51 (Resolution #2094) - a five-lot tentative map adjacent to Village B
April 18, 1983 - City Council approved MP-lSO(D) (Ordinance #9682 and #9683)
May 11, 1983 - Planning Commission recommended approval of MP-lSO(E) (Resolution #2117) - a minor Master Plan Amendment to revise the development
6
standards for Villages 0 &; P-1 to allow for clustered multiple- and sin2 family development
October 12, 1983 - Planning Commission recommended approval of GPA 8 (Resolution #2190) - General Plan Amendment which increased densities several villages, reduced the amount of commercial, eliminated neighborhc park sites, and created a large community park site
November 23, 1983 - Planning Commission recommended approval of CT 83- PUD-57 (Resolution #2224) - Village 0 & P-1 for 406 single-family ,
0
multiple-family units
December 14, 1983 - Planning Commission recommended approval of MP-1% (Resolution #2214) - changes to reflect the General Plan, change text,
reduce the number of large-lot villages
March 14, 1984 - Planning Commission recommended approval of CT 84-1PUC (Resolution #2255) - Village A for 36 single-family detached units
July 11, 1984 - Planning Commission recommended approval of CT 83-19PUI (Resolution #2289) - Village T for 466 single-family detached units
July 11, 1984 - Planning Commission recommended approval of CT 83-32PUI
(Resolution #2292) - Village Q for 204 single-family detached units
May 22, 1985 - Planning Commission recommended approval of CT 81
(Resolution #2440) - master tentative map for Villages E-1, E-2, I, K,
M, Q, R, S, T, U, W, X, and Y
August 14, 1985 - Planning Cornmission approved PCD-83 (Resolution #246
Village I - design of recreational vehicle (RV) storage facility
October 15, 1985 - City Council denied CT 83-18PUD-55 (Resolution #822 Village H for 84 attached units
November 13, 1985 - Planning Commission denied CT 84-37/CP-300 (Resoh #2510) - Village U for 236 attiched units
November 13, 1985 - Planning Commission denied CT 84-38PUD-76 (Resoh
#2511) - Villages W, X, and ’k’ for 129 single-family units
November 13, 1985 - Planning Commission denied CT 85-4PUD-79 (Resob
#2512) - Village L-2 for 174 attached units
November 13, 1985 - Planning Commission recommended approval of PUD-5
(Resolution #2513) - Villages P-1 & 0 Phase 4 - change product type
fourplex to duplex
February 18, 1986 - City Council approved PUD-57(A) - Villages P-1 & 0 I 4 exemption from Ordinance 9791
July 28, 1987 - City Council approved CT 83-19PUD 56 (Resolution #91’ Village T - time extension for tentative map
*
0
7
July 28, 1987 - City Council approved CT 83-32PUD 63 (Resolution #9176) - Village Q - time extension for tentative map
December 7, 1988 - Planning Commission approved PCD 87-3(A) (Resolution #2802) - Village I - modification to allow for night watchman at RV storage
Yard
May 17, 1989 - Planning Commission minute motion for substantial conformance CT 83-19/PUD 56 (Village T) and CT 83-32PUD 63 (Village Q)
October 18, 1989 - Release of the Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan.
3. ProDosed Proiect Backmound
The applicant is requesting discretionary approval for the final residential phase of the 818.9-acre Calavera Hills Master Plan area. The proposed project area consists of approximately 290 acres of presently undevel-
oped land within the Calavera Hills Master Plan. Of this total, the tentative maps propose the grading and development of approximately 149 acres and the retention of the remaining 141 acres as natural open space. The project proposes a single-phase grading operation wherein the proposed villages and
roadbeds would be initially graded and residential development would proceed as market dictated.
In 1986, the density ranges for the General Plan residential land
use designations were amended city-wide. Because the Calavera Hills Master Plan was approved at the previous density ranges, the allowable densities shown in the existing master plan are not in conformance with the actual densities that
would be permitted by the General Plan. However, subsequent to the latest amendment to the Calavera Hills Master Plan, the City has adopted several new ordinances and policies as well as made revisions to existing ordinances, These
changes have rendered the existing Calavera Hills Master Plan inconsistent with
current City policies and ordinances. In 1990 the City of Carlsbad required an update of the master plan to bring it into conformance with current ordinances,
policies, and residential density ranges. The new ordinances and policies which have affected the master plan are discussed below. This amendment will not increase any density range or change any open space boundaries except for the instances described in this section.
In 1986, the Growth Management Ordinance, Section 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, was approved by the City Council. At this time the City of Carlsbad was divided into 25 Local Facilities Management Plan zones.
The Growth Management Ordinance required that a Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) be prepared prior to further development within each zone. The Calavera Hills Master Plan boundaries are coincident with the limits of the Zone 7 LFMP area. The Zone 7 LFMP was adopted by the City Council on December 5, 1989.
This plan determines the impacts to public facilities of the build-out develop- ment in the Calavera Hills Master Plan area and establishes a maximum number of
This growth management control point number is based on the General Plan land use designation expressed as dwelling units per net developable acre. The net
developable acreage is determined by subtraction of environmentally constrained
acreage from the gross area per the Growth Management Ordinance and Section 21.53.230 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Based upon this analysis, the maximum
dwelling units (growth management control point) for each land use designation.
8
number of future units permitted to be developed in the master plan area is 6 Changes to the maximum number of units to be developed are included as part
the subject Master Plan Amendment. This EIR will evaluate the land compatibility of the densities proposed by the Master Plan Amendment consis
with the Zone 7 LFMP.
The existing Calavera Hills Master Plan was prepared when den
0
calculations were based on gross acreage with relatively few restrictions development of constrained areas. Since density calculations are now based net acreage and development is not permitted on constrained lands by the Gro Management Ordinance and Hillside Development Ordinance, the requirements wi.
these ordinances supersede and replace note #8 on page 10 of the Calavera E Master Plan, Note #8 required that Villages H, K, L-1, L-2, N, Q, R, T, and
utilize clustered development to avoid mass grading and to preserve open SF
where possible. Since the more recently enacted ordinances require a n sensitive approach to development, it is not appropriate to cluster developn within the developable portions of each village.
The Hillside Development Ordinance has also been adopted subseql
to the last update to the Calavera Hills Master Plan. The Hillside Develop] Ordinance addresses hillside development in a more comprehensive manner than standards in the text of the existing master plan. The revision to the mi plan will require that all projects be designed in accordance with the Hill
Development Ordinance, which supersedes the development criteria of the exi: master plan. The Hillside Development Ordinance was developed to allow the
to evaluate grading on slopes of 15 percent or slopes 15 feet in height
greater to minimize the damage and alteration to the natural topography significant wildlife habitats as well as create an aesthetically plez hillside development where permitted. Further, it contains more spe criteria with regard to clustering, contour grading, and acceptable earth1
volumes than does the criteria contained in the existing master plan Calavera Hills. This EIR will address hillside development per the Hi1 Development Ordinance.
In 1990, a Citywide Trails Feasibility Study was conducted by City of Carlsbad to address the location and cost of providing trail beitween the various communities and the adjoining jurisdictions. The prop trails, as recommended in the Trails Feasibility Study, are incorporated
the proposed Master Plan Amendment and tentative maps. This EIR will ad( the compatibility of the proposed tentative maps with this proposed
system.
0
Finally, the Gencrd Plan Amendment and the Master Plan Amend address land use designation changes within Villages H, L-2, U, W, X, and Y.
The master plan development type for Village H as well as a PC of Village L-2 is proposed to be changed from multi-family residentia single-family residential.
The proposed General Plan Amendment and master plan revisior Villages H, U, W, X, and Y involve changes to the open space boundaries.
proposed changes to the open space boundaries are due to previous inacc mapping and a change to the development proposals for these areas. 7 changes will result in a net increase in the total amount of General 0 designated open space.
9
4. Calavera Hills Master Plan Area
The individual villages under examination in this review are scat- tered throughout the master plan area. Village H is on the western border of
the project, Villages K and L-2 are located in the north-central "core" of the master plan area, Village R is located in the northeast corner of the project overlooking Calavera Lake, and Villages U, W, X, and Y occupy the southeast quadrant of the master plan area. Figure 3 shows the proposed project in
relation to the adopted Calavera Hills Master Plan area.
The presently undeveloped northeast quadrant of the property, which is known as Villages L-1, Q, and T, has previously attained discretionary approval, but to date no construction activities have commenced.
Villages A, B, C, D, G, J, 0, and P-1 are existing residential parcels within the master plan area. Single-family detached residences are found in Villages A, B, 0, and P-1. Villages 0 and P-1 also have duplex product types. Village D is a residential area consisting of fourplex product types.
Garden or patio homes are the product types of Village G. Village J is a multi- family residential development. Village M is the existing Hope Elementary
School. Village E-2 and F are the existing Calavera Hills Community Park. Village I is an existing recreational vehicle storage area. Village S is
planned as a junior high school and Village E-1 is planned as a community
commercial site.
The existing land uses surrounding the master plan area include residential uses on the west and northeast, vacant land on the northwest and east, and agriculture on the south. North of the central portion of the site is mineral extraction area (Figure 4).
Topographically, the master plan area is located in an area of
rolling terrain with some moderate and steep slopes. The dominant landform on the site is a hill in the north-central portion of the master plan area which is occupied by the water storage reservoir. This promontory is approximately 440 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The land slopes radially from this point and is dissected by a number of drainages. A serpentine east-west drainage sepa-
rates the northwest quadrant of the master plan area. Runoff in the northwest quadrant is channeled to Buena Vista Creek and ultimately to Buena Vista Lagoon. The remainder of the site drains south to the Calavera Creek and Agua Hedionda
Creek and Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Figure 5 shows the master plan area, the
village boundaries, and the topography prior to development.
The vegetation on the undeveloped portions of the site is a mosaic of burned chaparral, disturbed areas, grasslands, and various types of chaparral communities. The best quality chaparral is located in the northern portion of the master plan area. The southeast quadrant of the master plan area has
pockets of chaparral in areas degraded by fire. Also on the site are scattered areas of coastal sage scrub. There is also an area of sycamore alluvial woodland in an area of proposed development which is off-site. Scattered groves
of eucalyptus trees also exist.
10
b
'I
NOTE: INDEX CONTOURS - 100' INTI
SUPPLEMENTARY CONTOURS
L
5. Characteristics of the Proiect
The "project" as examined in this EIR is represented by the six tentative maps submitted between June and September of 1990. As noted above, implementation of the submitted tentative maps would require an amendment to the existing Calavera Hills Master Plan (MP-15O(F)) to change the residential density in Village H and modify the boundary of Village U. Additionally, a General Plan Amendment is required to modify the boundaries of plan-designated open space. Figure 6 illustrates the existing General Plan land use designations.
The submitted tentative maps have been reviewed by City of Carlsbad planning staff, and modifications will be required for the maps to conform with the currently adopted City policies and regulations and also to reduce or avoid
the significant environmental impacts which have been identified in this EIR.
The revised tentative maps will represent an environmentally superior project
and will implement the environmental goals and concepts which are described in
the project redesign alternative (Section KH) of this EIR.
Coordination of the map revisions between the project applicant and the City of Carlsbad has commenced, and it is anticipated that the revised tentative maps will be completed prior to any hearing of the project by the City Council. A comprehensive update of the Calavera Hills Master Plan will accom-
pany the revised tentative maps. This update of the master plan will reflect the revised project designs and is also necessary in order for the master plan to be consistent with plans and ordinances (e.g., Zone 7 Local Facilities
Management Plan) which, as described above, have recently been approved by the
City of Carlsbad. The last comprehensive change made to the master plan occurred in 1984 (Master Plan Amendment MP-lSO(F)), and several policies and plans have been approved which now supersede the requirements in the existing plan. This comprehensive update is also expected to be completed prior to a
council hearing on the project.
The proposed project consists of 290 acres of presently undeveloped land. Of the 290 acres, the tentative maps propose the grading and development of 149 acres. These quantities would yield a natural open space acreage of 141.
proposed villages and roadbeds would be graded and residential development would
proceed as demand for the particular housing type dictated. The earthwork
volume proposed by the project's grading plan would be 1,315,340 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 1,202.460 cy of fill.
a. Villape - H. Village H is a 65.7-acre parcel on the western edge
of the master plan area known as Carlsbad Tract 90-19. The proposed development
of this parcel would be 13 custom single-family units on 15.11 developed acres. Figure 7 shows the tentative map site plan. The presented scenario would leave 47.80 acres of the village in open space, of which 37.24 acres would be natural
open space and 10.56 acres would be manufactured open space. Manufactured open space is typically the open space that results from the production and revege-
tation of slope areas that are required by grading activities.
The 13 residential units for this village are planned to be
constructed south of Carlsbad Village Drive. The remainder of the area south of
The project proposes a single-phase grading operation. In this scenario, the
11
EsmNnAL
E ELEMENTARYSCHOOC E LOWDENsrry mm MART
llllll =oMMw ((2-15 ou/Ac)
u PcsllcuTUTEs (04 W/X)
os OeENsPRcE (4-8W/ 1 c coMMLNrfc-
(815 W/AC)
J JUMORHIGHSCmXX FLM LOW-FJEDLMOesrn
Fplrl --
m kEDLlkcHc;HDENscry
c? cmpAF#
I
1 -
i A
’.
.-
PHOTOGRAPH 5. EXlSTfNG VIEW OF PROPOSE
E
l
VWQE W vnuaE u
8- R-O-W
PHOTOGRAPH 6. EXISTING PANORAMA VIEW FROM PROPOSED VILLAGE
I
(
Carlsbad Village Drive will be used as open space and for the storage of re1 ational vehicles. The recreational vehicle storage area is an exis facility. The portion of Village H north of Carlsbad Village Drive will incl
the grading and slopes necessay for the improvements to the north-south seci of Carlsbad Village Drive and open space. A discussion of the proposed imprc ments to Carlsbad Village Drive will follow later in this section. The te tive map for Village H also proposes a foot trail be constructed east
Carlsbad Village Drive.
b. Village - K. Villlage K is located in the central portion of
@
master plan area east of Tamarack Avenue and north of Carlsbad Village Dr
The presently undeveloped site occupies 38.75 acres known as CT 90-22. Figurl
Drive/Ha,rwich Drive which bisects the village and would serve as the prh access route to the proposed residences of Village K from Carlsbad Vill
Drive.
shows the tentative map site plan, Existing land use on the parcel is Glasl
Village K proposes to add 350 new units to the master plan c
The 350 units will be contained in 78 buildings including 20 duplexes,
triplexes, 26 fourplexes, and 10 fourteenplexes.
c. Village L-2. Village L-2 is situated in the north-cel
portion of the master plan area adjacent to and north of Village K. The vil is bounded on the west by Harwich Drive. Village L-2 is an 18.65-acre pi known as Carlsbad Tract 90-20. Figure 9 shows the tentative map site plan. site is presently undeveloped with the exception of a CMWD steel water resei and the associated conveyance lines. These facilities are not a part of
proposed project.
The proposed development would contribute 90 new units to
Calavera Hills Master Plan area. All of the proposed units would be a du
product type. Access to the proposed residential site would be from Tama Avenue.
d. Village R. Village R is a small parcel located in the norti corner of the master plan area overlooking Calavera Lake. Figure 10 shows
tentative map site plan. Village R is a 5.09-acre parcel referenced as CT 24. The tentative map proposes development of 4.06 acres of the pa Village R is split by the SDG&E transmission line R-0-W.
posed by the tentative map for the area of proposed Village R. Access to
village would be provided by College Village Drive and Tamarack Avenue, whi
part of approved Calavera Hills Village T.
e. Village U. 'Village U is a 61.45 gross-acre parcel knowi
Carlsbad Tract 90-25, It is located in the east-central portion of the IT plan area. Of the total area, development would occur on 24.45 acres of
site. Figure 11 shows the tentative map site plan. Village U is situated of proposed College Boulevard and north of the SDG&E R-0-W. The only o
existing land use on this parcel is an existing pump station in the nortl corner of the parcel.
*
- ~-
There are seven single-family detached residential units
*
17
a
*.
I
1
I
I
The tentative map proposes the construction of 42 new buildin
9 duplexes, 17 triplexes, and 16 fourplexes. This would add 133 units to
master plan area. Access to the site would be from future College Boulevard.
Villages W, X, and Y. Villages W, X, and Y are located in
southwest quadrant of the master plan area. These three villages are located a single tentative map, CT 90-26. The three villages are not contiguous beca
the SDG&E R-0-W and proposed College Boulevard alignments separate each corn' nity. The tentative map site plan is presented on Figure 12.
Village W is the most northern of the three villages. It located northeast of proposed College Boulevard and southeast of the SDG R-0-W. Village X is southwest of Village Y on the southwest side of propc
College Boulevard and south of the SDG&E R-0-W. Village Y is the most wes of the three villages; it is northwest of the SDG&E R-0-W and southwest
proposed College Boulevard.
For the purpose of this EIR, these villages are being exam as a unit. This is because they are all on a single tentative map and r(
enced as Carlsbad Tract 90-26. Collectively, the villages encompass 100.5 a
of predominantly undeveloped land in the master plan area. Villages W, X, ant represent the addition of 77 single-family detached residences to the Cala Hills Master Plan area on 55.2 developed acres.
0
f.
Village W is the largest of the three villages in size: it has the most proposed dwelling units with 37, on 39.68 gross acres. Valag is proposed to contain 32 single-family detached residences located on 5
gross acres. Village Y is the smallest of the three villages and proposes construction of 7 units on a 6.26-gross-acre parcel.
g. Carlsbad Village Drive. The tentative map for Village H
proposes improvements to a section of Carlsbad Village Drive. The wid1 would occur on the north-south section of the roadway between Pontiac Streef
Victoria Avenue. The proposed improvement to Carlsbad Village Drive can be on Figure 13.
The Carlsbad Circulation Element designates Carlsbad V Drive as a secondary arterial. Currently, this section of the roadway is lanes and does not meet design standards. Design standards require seco arterials to have an 84-foot R-0-W. This configuration produces two
lanes in each direction with no median.
@
The proposed lane additions would occur on the east side ( existing road. The improvement would begin approximately 300 feet ea Victoria Avenue; west of this point the roadway is presently an 84-foot R
Approximately 125 feet west of the point described above, a split in the lanes is proposed. The separation of the eastbound and westbound lanes increase to a maximum separation approximately 600 feet north of V Avenue. At this point the westbound travel lanes would be 150 feet east c
30 feet below the southbound travel lanes. This separation would continL approximately 400 feet and then begin to transition back to a standard F
R-0-W. The entire length of the lane split would be 1,600 feet. The co tion of a standard R-0-W would continue north and west for an additional feet to a point approximately 600 feet west of Pontiac Drive where thc e
22
; */,
CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLA
Final Environmental Impact Report
March 1993
-
- -
******* LOT MAP Me3
YLU I. m
CXISTING VlCTORN
I
-.- ~. -
construction would meet an existing 84-foot R-0-W. Figure 13 shows the proF
roadway improvements. The overall construction improvements to Carlsbad Vi Drive would span 3,100 feet, or just under 0.6 mile. a
h. ColleEe Boulevard. One of the primary roadway improven associated with this phase of the Calavera Hills project is the constructior
development would require the construction of College Boulevard from Carl Village Drive south to the intersection with proposed Cannon Road. Of proposed roadway’s approximate one-mile length, approximately one-third of mile of this alignment is off-site. The off-site section and the 01
section site of College Boulevard will be addressed as separate entities for
purposes of this review. The proposed R-0-W width is 102 feet and is desigr
as a major arterial in the Carlsbad Circulation Element. Design standards major arterials require two 12-foot travel lanes in each direction with an
foot median separating the travel directions.
the southern portion of College Boulevard (Figure 14). This phase of
0
*
25
0
f
- 0) - Q, fi 0
4
(
q
I !
(
I
B. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE ENVlRONMEN'I ANALYSIS
(I, 1. LandUse
a. ImDacts. Land use impacts were assessed based on the projc conformance with the following adopted City policies and ordinances: Zo
Ordinance, General Plan and the Open Space and Conservation Element, Cala Hills Master Plan, and the Growth Management Ordinmce and Zone 7 Local F: ties Management Plan. The project's conformance with the Hillside Developr
Ordinance is addressed under the issue Landform Alteratioflisual Quality.
assessed on a master plan level, not on a village-by-village level. Open s as proposed by the project would result in a net increase in open space acre over those shown in the existing General Plan. These proposed open space n fications would be contiguous with the existing General Plan designated space. Therefore, project-proposed encroachments into open space areas d nated in the General Plan would not be considered significant.
The densities proposed in Villages H, K, and L-2 would b conformance with the General Plan, master plan, and LFMP. Therefore, there
no land use impacts identified for these villages.
Impacts associated with General Plan designated open space
Carlsbad Village Drive and College Boulevard are Circul
Element roadways specified in the General Plan which have been included in
planning process for the area. The proposed improvements of Carlsbad Vi Drive and the proposed extension of College Boulevard would not, there
represent a significant land use impact.
The grading plan for Village R proposes fill slopes ofj
These slope areas are south of the village boundary.
The proposed densities in Village U would be in conformance
the General Plan, master plan, and LFMP. However, the tentative map for V U proposes construction of residential units in designated open space in cent Village T. The design of Village U as suggested on the tentative map I be considered a significant land use impact for Village U.
Villages W, X, and Y are consistent with the zoning and r
a
plan designations for the site. However, the densities proposed for the villages overall would exceed those allowable by the LFMP.
b. Mitigation. - Village U would result in a significant land
impact because of the proposed residential development in designated open in adjacent Village T. This issue is directly related to the design o village. Mitigation that could substantially lessen the effects of problematic site plan is an alternative design for Village U. The Altern
section of this EIR will explore redesign for Village U.
with construction of Carlsbad Village Drive was not considered a sign impact because the roadway is a planned Circulation Element roadway. HOT measures which would reduce this adverse effect include steepening the
The encroachment into designated open space which would e
27
aspect ratio to 1.8:l as recommended in the Calavera Hills Master Plan. This
would reduce the extent of grading required and encroachment into open space. A redesign of the grading by utilizing an alternative construction technique other
than that proposed by the tentative map may also result in substantially less- ened adverse effects.
2. Landform AlterationNisual Ouality
a. Impacts. The earthwork quantities required to complete this
balanced, with the project requiring 1,320,780 cy of cut and 1,202,460 cy of
fill. The imbalance of cut and fill quantities represents 117,910 cy of nonrippable rock that would be transported off-site to the north at a nearby
rock quarry (South Coast Asphalt Products) for disposal.
The Hillside Development Ordinance (HDO) addresses requirements
for grading in hillside areas. Impacts in relation to hillside grading volume
requirements were assessed on an overall project basis. Circulation Element roads are exempt from HDO. If these areas are excluded from consideration, the
remaining areas of the project would produce a hillside grading volume of 9,975
cubic yards per acre. This value is within the potentially acceptable range as defined by HDO. To be acceptable, findings must be submitted to the City for approval by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. Assuming approval of
these findings, the extent of earthwork proposed by the tentative maps and the earthwork volumes proposed by the mass grading exhibit would not represent a significant impact.
The grading for this portion of the Calavera Hills Master Plan
area is proposed to be accomplished in a single phase. The single-phased
grading approach would produce large graded pad areas which would be highly
visible and could remain undeveloped for an undeterminable amount of time. The views of villages from internal and off-site areas prior to build-out could contain partially developed villages which would not be totally landscaped. This condition will result in potentially significant effects on the surrounding visual environment. The duration of this impact is presently not quantifiable
and, therefore, may not necessarily be considered as a short-term impact.
HDO does not allow grading on hillsides with slopes in excess of 40 percent except under limited conditions. Impacts were assessed on a village-
by-village basis for encroachment into 40 percent slopes. Villages H, K, L-2,
U, X, and W all propose grading in areas where slopes exceed 40 percent.
Most manufactured slopes are proposed to be contour-graded and
less than 30 feet in height. HDO does not allow manufactured slopes greater
crib wall would exceed 30 feet in height, which would be a significant impact. Village L-2 also has several manufactured slopes proposed to be greater than 30
feet in height. Additionally, manufactured slopes in Village K adjacent to College Boulevard and Carlsbad Village Drive and in Village L-2 adjacent to Tamarack Avenue and Cay Drive are long and linear. The overall slope design for these villages does not match the existing topography nor conform to the intent
of HDO, which could represent a significant impact.
task as presented on the submitted mass grading plan would generally be
than 30 feet in height. However, a slope on the west side of Village K near a
28
Long, linear slopes adjacent to College Boulevard near Villi K, U, W, X, and Y would have noise barriers constructed on top. The combina
of a long, linear slope and noise barrier could represent an adverse vi, impact to travelers on College Boulevard.
The magnitude (maximum height of 90 feet) of the benched slopes along the east side of the proposed roadway improvement to Carl5
Village Drive would represent an adverse visual impact to viewers from Vil’ J, Village 0, and the elementary school. Additionally, the grading for
trail downslope from the roadway would contribute to the visual quality impact.
b. Mitigation. Mitigation of the significant landform alter:
impacts associated with the lack of compliance with the Hillside Develop1 Ordinance and the Calavera Hills Master Plan for Villages H, K, L-2, R, U,
and X would require a redesign of each of the tentative maps. Project altt
tives discussing potential redesign concepts on a village- by-village basis fully discussed in Section 1I.H. of this report.
The significant visual impacts associated with the pro€ grading and noise attenuation measures would be reduced by the landsc; proposed for each of the tentative maps. Potentially significant visual qi
impacts were identified above for Villages K, U, W, X, and Y and for proposed improvements to Carlsbad Village Drive. A conceptual landscape has been prepared for each tentative map. Visual impacts for Village H Carlsbad Village Drive would be substantially reduced by implementing
landscape plan, Impacts to travelers on College Boulevard past Villages K
W, X, and Y due to the long, linear slopes would be partially reduced
landscaping.
0
The potentially significant visual effects identified for
proposed single-phase grading are mitigable to below a level of signific
The reduction of these effects could be accomplished by the implementatic the landscape plan on the submitted tentative maps previous to project 1 out. Landscape plan implementation would be particularly effective in prox to public views associated with circulation element roads.
Although adverse visual impacts were not identified for V L-2, the landscaping proposed for the large, nearly circular manufactured
below the water reservoir will improve the aesthetic appearance of the ex tank from areas within the master plan as well as from off-site locations.
0
3. Circulation
a. Impacts. Maintaining a level of service D or better on roadway segment and each intersection during the peak hour is the perfon
standard used by the City to determine significant impacts. The levc service rating is a rating on the ability of a roadway or intersection to 1
a particular traffic volume at a certain speed. The levels of service can from A to F, with A being the most efficient level of service.
The internal circulation system of the project was determir be adequate. All roadway segments would operate at LOS C or better a
intersections would function at acceptable levels. 0
29
Because of the phasing of residential development, traffic conditions for three different years were analyzed. The years evaluated in the traffic report are 1995, after partial Zone 7 build-out; 2000, after full build-
out of Calavera Hills; and 2010, after full build-out of city-wide development and transportation facilities. Only those intersections and roadways segments which would be impacted by 20 percent or more of the project traffic were analyzed.
In 1995, Cannon Road is assumed to be extended from 1-5 to form a T intersection with El Camino Real, and the northern section of College
Boulevard is assumed to be extended southward to Carlsbad Village Drive (Elm
Avenue) near the center of the project site. Also, the College BoulevardSR 78
interchange is assumed to be eliminated and replaced by ramps at Vista Way and Plaza Drive in Oceanside. All roadways are expected to operate at LOS D or better. Peak-hour operations at all impacted intersections, except for the Tamarack AvenueEl Camino Real intersection, would have an LOS C or better. The
Tamarack AvenueEl Camino Real intersection would have an LOS F during the morning peak hour.
In the year 2000, College Boulevard is assumed to be extended south from Carlsbad Village Drive (Elm Avenue) to El Camino Real, Cannon Road
Reaches 3 and 4 are assumed to be constructed to just past College Boulevard,
and Faraday Avenue is assumed to be extended from just west of College Boulevard to Cannon Road.
In the year 2000, all roadway segments, except for El Camino
Real between Tamarack Avenue and College Boulevard, would operate at a peak-hour LOS of C or better. Southbound El Camino Real would operate at LOS E between
Tamarack Avenue and College Boulevard and northbound El Camino Real would oper- ate at LOS D for the same segment. All analyzed intersections were calculated to operate at LOS C or better during peak hours.
In the year 2010, no additional roadway improvements are planned beyond those which would exist in 2000, except that the entire length of El Camino Real through the city is assumed to be six lanes wide. All potentially impacted roadway segments would operate at LOS D or better. Except for the College BoulevardCannon Road intersection, all other analyzed intersections would operate at LOS B during the morning peak hour and LOS C during the after- noon peak hour. The College BoulevardCannon Road intersection would operate at LOS C during the morning peak hour and LOS E during the afternoon peak hour.
With some minor improvements described in the mitigation sec-
tion, the intersections and roadway links in Carlsbad will be able to accommo- date future regional traffic volumes, including trips to and from Oceanside. To determine the regional traffic distribution more accurately, additional analyses would need to be conducted.
b. Mitigation. The mitigation measures described below would
reduce the identified circulation impacts to below a level of significance.
Impacts which would occur by 1995 during the morning peak hour
at the El Camino Remamarack Avenue intersection (LOS F) can be mitigated by extending College Boulevard southward to intersect Cannon Road and extending
30
Cannon Road to intersect with El Camino Real. Both the College Boulevard Cannon Road segments should be built to have at least two travel lanes. 0 4. Noise
a. Impacts. Impacts to existing residential developments, scho and parks from the construction activities and impacts to future developr along off-site College Boulevard were evaluated in accordance with policies
standards adopted by the City of Carlsbad. The City is currently in the pro of updating its Noise Element and Noise Ordinance. In the interim, the City created Policy No. 17 stating exterior and interior noise level standards residential il.Teas, This policy applies to transportation noise sources.
exterior noise level limit is 60 CNEL and the interior standard is 45 CNEL.
The City of Carlsbad does not currently have a noise 1 standard for construction noise. Therefore, per City direction (Munoz, Citj Carlsbad Planning Department, 7/22/9 l), the significance of construction 1 produced by the project was assessed in accordance with the County of San 1
Noise Ordinance. San Diego County Noise Ordinance Section 36.410 states
construction noise shall not exceed 75 decibels for more than eight hours di any 24-hour period. Carlsbad Municipal Code Noise Section 8.48.010 1 grading and construction operations to the hours of 7:OO a.m. to sunset
weekdays and 8:OO a.m. to sunset on Saturdays. Construction activities prohibited on Sundays and holidays.
Portions of residential Villages C, D, Q, and T could exper
temporary noise levels in excess of 75 dBA L, during drilling activities d the times when the drilling activities are immediately adjacent to the re: tial areas. Due to the conservative assumptions made in the analysis and
fact that drilling activities would be temporary and would move from are area, impacts from blasting and drilling would not be considered signif Drilling and blasting is expected to last a total of 61 days. Village E- designated for commercial development and would not be impacted by noise blasting activities.
Portions of Villages C, D, J, G, 0 and P-1, T, and Q cou
impacted by grading noise above 75 dBA Leq. Also, portions of the neighbo park east of Village G and existing residences off-site directly west of V H could be exposed to temporary construction noise levels in excess of 75 Lq. Due to the conservative assumptions in the analysis and the fact grading would occur adjacent to residential areas temporarily, impacts wen
considered significant. Grading activities are expected to last for ap mately 33 working days for the entire site, Grading activities in any one would last for a shorter time period.
Four haul routes (A, B, C, and D) would be used by consb trucks to transport materials to and from the construction areas. Use of route A would occur independently of other operations after blasting (
Use of haul route A would not produce noise levels in excess of the (
standard.
Haul routes B, C, and D would be used during dirt excavatic were assumed to be used concurrently during the grading operations. In where grading would occur near a haul route, the average noise levels
@
0
31
surrounding areas would be dominated by the grading operation. In areas where grading does not occur, noise produced on haul routes would not cause existing
residential areas to experience noise levels in excess of County standards for construction noise.
Although the haul routes would not generate daytime hourly average noise levels in excess of County standards for construction noise, an individual truck pass-by, producing up to 79 dBA 50 feet away, could be a source
of nuisance noise to residences adjacent to the haul routes. These area include residences in Villages C, D, J, G, and T and the residences in the off-site development just west of Village H which border Carlsbad Village Drive.
The future noise levels along the off-site area of College Boulevard proposed to be constructed would range from approximately 75 CNEL near
the edge of the roadway to 60 CNEL about 450 feet away from the edge of the roadway. The Carlsbad General Plan designates the land surrounding College Boulevard from Cannon Road to the Calavera Hills Master Plan for residential uses and a high school. Based on City standards, any residential development which occurs within 450 feet of College Boulevard could potentially be exposed
to future noise levels which exceed City standards.
Impacts to the proposed Villages H, K, L-2, U, W, X, and Y from
noise produced by future traffic were evaluated by Mestre-Greve Associates in
May and July, 1990. Village R was not evaluated because it would not be located
near significant sources of future noise. The Mestre-Greve reports were pre- pared using traffic and project grading and configuration information that has
been updated or changed subsequent to the completion of the reports. Differ-
project tentative maps are discussed in detail in the Noise section of this EIR.
Since the village configurations and pad elevations have changed in some areas and the traffic volume forecast has been subsequently updated and revised, the impacts described in these acoustical reports can only be considered approxi- mate. It should be noted that the differences between the pad elevations and
configurations in Villages H, W, X, and Y analyzed in the Mestre-Greve reports and those in the proposed project could represent a potentially significant impact .
The Mestre-Greve reports identified areas in every village,
except Village R, which would experience future noise levels in excess of the City of Carlsbad standard of 60 CNEL for residential exterior areas. The major roadways in the vicinity of the project villages which would generate signifi- cant levels of future noise would be College Boulevard, Carlsbad Village Drive
(Elm Avenue), and Tamarack Avenue.
b. Mitigation. Although impacts from noise would not be considered
significant, the overall nuisance impact on the surrounding existing residences from drilling and blasting can be minimized by conforming to the regulations
established by the City of Carlsbad. The City of Carlsbad requires that a blasting report be submitted to the City Engineer prior to any blasting activi- ties. The report prepared for this project should incorporate the requirements stated in the blasting report prepared on July 1, 1991, for Calavera Hills Villages Q and T by Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc.
ences between the project analyzed in the Mestre-Greve reports and the proposed
3;
-
Although impacts from grading and construction trucks travel on haul roads was not considered significant, some measures can be implemer which would help control the nuisance noise generated by construction acl ties. These measures include limiting construction hours to the time pel allowed in the Carlsbad Municipal Code, 7:OO a.m. to sunset on weekdays and F a.m. to sunset on Saturdays, Also, limiting the initial hour of construction
8:OO rather than 7:OO a.m. on weekdays in areas directly adjacent to reside] development would reduce the nuisance noise impacts residents could experit
during the 33 days of grading activities.
Any future development that may be planned within 450 feel
off-site College Boulevard between the proposed project boundaries and Car
Road would require preparation of a more detailed acoustical analysis to d mine the noise environment more accurately based on grading plans and to rei
mend specific mitigation measures.
0
Mitigation of future traffic noise for each proposed village recommended by Mestre-Greve to attenuate exterior noise levels to below standard 60 CNEL limit. The recommended barriers can be walls, berms, ( combination wall/berm. In some areas, mechanical ventilation is recommendec attenuate exterior noise levels to interior noise levels below the 45 C standard. Mechanical ventilation involves air conditioning or fans which P
allow the occupant of a building to close all of the windows and still
interior/exterior air exchange.
Barriers with heights of 7-8 feet were recommended for are: Village H. Barriers 5-10 feet tall were recommended for areas in Villagr Barriers 5-6 feet tall were recommended for Village L-2. Areas in Villag require 5- to 12-foot barriers. Five to 13-foot barriers were recommende
Villages W, X, and Y.
Mechanical ventilation was indicated as possibly being necc for some buildings in Villages K, U, W, X, and Y. This issue should be c( ered when detailed site plans and architectural plans become available.
@
5. Agriculture
a. Impacts. Development in Villages K, L-2, R, U, W, X, a
would not adversely impact agriculture in the region.
Some of the soils underlying Village H could be classifii prime agricultural farmland. However, the portions of Village H proposed graded and developed would not impact these soils. Therefore, grading an veloping the proposed pads in Village H would not adversely impact agriculture.
The southern end of the proposed alignment for off-site C Boulevard has soil types classified as prime agricultural farmland. A tural activity is presently occurring within this area and the imn surroundings. A biological assessment conducted by ERCE indicates th;
proposed alignment for off-site College Boulevard would impact 3.3 aci
agriculture (ERCE 1990) which is located on prime soils. Also, the rc would make access more difficult, but not necessarily preclude it, t
approximately 29 acres of prime agricultural soil north of the alignmen' direct loss of 3.3 acres of prime agricultural soils would not consti *
33
significant impact, since College Boulevard is a Circulation Element roadway which would not be constructed prematurely.
b. Mitigation. Development of the proposed villages and on-site roadway improvements would not impact agriculture in the region. Since College
Boulevard is a planned Circulation Element roadway, the impacts to the 3.3 acres of prime agricultural soils are not considered significant. Mitigation is not considered necessary.
6. PublicFacilities
a. Impacts. The existing sewer system serving the watersheds which contain Villages H, K, and L-2 and portions of Villages U and Y would not be adequate to support the additional development planned within the area. If new
sewer facilities are not constructed to service these villages, they would be adversely impacted.
The watershed containing Villages W and X and portions of Village U and Y have no existing sewer facilities because there is no existing
development in this area. New facilities would be required to service these areas.
Existing water transmission lines underlie the proposed align- ments for College Boulevard and Carlsbad Village Drive near their intersection. There are also transmission lines underneath Villages K and L-2 which originate from the reservoir. Grading and construction in the areas over these major
pipelines could cause adverse impacts to water service in the area.
There are no transmission lines currently located to serve the undeveloped areas of the Calavera Hills Master Plan area. Adequate water distribution facilities would need to be provided to the new developments prior
to their occupancy.
The proposed project would generate 3,802 to 5,455 tons per year of municipal waste. Build-out of the project is expected by the year 1998. It
is anticipated that the regional problem of landfill space will be resolved by
significant .
b. Mitigation. The Local Facilities Management Plan requires that any development occurring subsequent to 1989 must provide for certain upgraded and new sewer and water facilities prior to issuance of building or grading permits. In addition, a financing mechanism is required to be provided which
would guarantee funding to upgrade sewer line NAHTlB prior to issuance of the 540th building permit in the zone. All other conditions stated in the LEMP should also be fulfilled.
this time. Therefore, impacts to the region’s landfills are not considered
There are no facilities which currently exist to service villages in the watershed containing the proposed Villages U, W, X, and Y.
Prior to development of these villages, the SAHT system will be required to be constructed so that sewer systems will be available to serve this part of the
project.
34
A water distribution system to deliver water to the new I dences shall be in place prior to occupancy. Also, the applicant shall obi
approval of construction and grading plans with the Carlsbad Municipal W; District prior to issuance of a grading permit. Measures to minimize or a\ disruptions in water service could include relocating and lowering the exisl
pipeline, installing a temporary pipeline during construction, and restric’
construction near major water transmission lines to the wintertime, when
demand for water is lower.
0
7. Bioloeical Resources
a. Impacts. Impacts for the Calavera Hills project are anal!
for the overall project, for each village, and also for the off-site Col Boulevard extension.
A total of 142.4 acres of land would be impacted by the prop project, excluding the off-site College Boulevard alignment. Of that total, acres of sensitive Diegan coastal sage scrub, 0.1 acre of riparian s( wetland, and an undetermined quantity of at least 0.3 acre of native grass containing needlegrass and thread-leaved brodiaea would be impacted. Sens
plant impacts would include 0.3 acre of thread-leaved brodiaea ha (approximately 130 individuals), 4.7 acres of California adolphia habitat, 5.7 acres of western dichondra habitat. One breeding pair of Calif( gnatcatchers and at least two San Diego horned lizards and two orange-thrc whiptails would be directly impacted by project development. In addition,
California gnatcatcher pair and two northern harriers would be indir impacted by construction in Villages H and K, respectively.
Three alternative alignments for off-site College Boulevard
considered. The applicant’s preferred alternative for the College Boult extension would impact a total of 23.6 acres, including sensitive Diegan cc sage scrub and sycamore alluvial woodland. Two orange-throated wh individuals and 0.2 acre of western dichondra would also be impacted. Im to Diegan coastal sage scrub would not be considered significant because
than one acre would be impacted and no California gnatcatchers were obs
using the habitat. Also, impacts to 0.2 acre of western dichondra and orange-throated whiptail individuals would not be considered signif because of the low sensitivity rating of the species. Impacts to sen habitats are similar between the three alternative alignments and none considered biologically preferred. ~
The construction of College Boulevard together with Cannon
would create a permanent barrier to wildlife movement in the area. HOT
this impact was not considered significant because large mammals and mosl species would still be able to cross fd1 slopes and road beds.
The widening of Carlsbad Village Drive on the western bo1
of the project would be considered a significant impact that is shared e
by all villages to be developed, since the need for the widening would k
increased traffic flow caused by the development of the villages. The wic of Carlsbad Village Drive would create significant impacts to thread- brodiaea, associated native grassland habitat, and riparian habitat. A
significant impact of the Carlsbad Village Drive widening would be the rec
@
a
35
__ -
of open space that is occupied by at least one pair of California gnatcatchers, which may lead to their extirpation from the open space area.
Development of Village H would impact chamise chaparral (0.2 acre), coastal sage scrub (0.7 acre), coastal sage scrublchaparral scrub
(1.0 acre), riparian areas (0.9 acre), and disturbed grassland (12.7 acres). Additionally, 1.1 acres of occupied western dichondra habitat would be impacted. Because the habitats in the southern section of Village H are not considered
sensitive and because the sensitivity rating of western dichondra is low, the impact to the western dichondra habitat would not be considered significant.
The proposed trail in the northern section of Village H would be a potentially
significant impact to unmapped native grassland habitat and thread-leaved
brodiaea. The quantity of this impact is unknown. This trail would also
further reduce the size of usable habitat for the observed California gnat-
catcher pair.
The sensitive habitats on Village K which would be impacted are coastal sage scrub and chaparral communities (26.2 acres total). Associated with the Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat (3.8 acres) are sensitive animal
species, including a documented breeding pair of California gnatcatchers, two San Diego homed lizards, and two orange-throated whiptails. Northern harrier foraging habitat would also be lost. The loss of the Diegan coastal sage scrub
and associated sensitive species would be considered significant.
Development of Village L-2 would impact coastal sage scrub/ chaparral scrub communities (11.0 acres) and Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat (2.7 acres). This habitat is adjacent to California gnatcatcher-occupied
habitat in Village K and the gnatcatcher pair was observed using the Village L-2 habitat in 1990. The loss of this habitat would be considered significant.
A total of 4.1 acres of coastal sage scrublchaparral scrub would be impacted by grading. This habitat is a fire transitional habitat and is not
considered sensitive. Because only 4.1 acres of habitat would be impacted, no
significant impacts would be caused by the development of this village.
Chaparral and coastal sage scrublchaparral vegetation (24.5 acres) would be impacted by grading in Village U. No sensitive species would be affected. Because of the large quantity of native vegetation impacted, the impacts would be considered cumulatively significant.
The grading of Villages W. X, and Y would impact chaparral and coastal sage scrublchaparral scrub (48.6 acres). Cumulatively, the impacts would be considered significant because of the loss of a large quantity of
native habitats.
b. Mitigation. - The mitigation measures briefly described below are designed to reduce significant impacts to a level of mitigated nonsignificance.
The Biology section of this EIR and the technical report in Appendix E describe
these measures in more detail.
Undeveloped land remaining in each village shall be dedicated as
natural open space.
36
A consulting biologist shall be retained to monitor grading
construction and shall have authority to halt, divert, or reduect construc activities to insure biological impacts are minimized. Prior to commencement
grading and construction near sensitive areas such as wetlands, a consul biologist shall mark the sensitive areas as out-of-bounds and monitor construction work as it proceeds.
Mitigation for significant impacts to thread-leaved brodi
shall consist of realigning the segments of Carlsbad Village Drive proposed be widened to avoid impacts to the brodiaea populatioln and to reduce impacts
the native grassland habitat. The reduction of impacts into Village H from
road widening would also increase the size of usable open space area observed species, including the California gnatcatcher pair.
The alignment of the proposed trail in Village H was not e\ ated during this survey. A spring survey will be required as a condition
approval of the tentative map for Village H to determine the presence or absc
of thread-leaved brodiaea along the proposed trail alignment. If thread-lei brodiaea is found, the trail will need to be realigned to avoid impacts. reduce the open space impacts caused by trail construction, trail grading :
1)
be minimized and the trail shall be realigned to follow natural topography,
On-site mitigation for significant California gnatcatcherDit
coastal sage scrub impacts through revegetation of disturbed habitat is PI ble. The creation of high quality coastal sage scrub habitat on-site at acceptable ratio in conjunction with the dedication of the remaining undevelc land to the City as open space could achieve mitigation of the impact. Appr of the Village K and L tentative maps would be conditioned to require thi detailed revegetation plan be prepared and approved by the City of Carlsbad
the State of California Department of Fish and Game. This mitigation 01
would only be acceptable if the created habitat is contiguous to a 1; regional open space system that is part of an adopted city-wide multispi Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The City of Carlsbad is currently preparir multispecies HMP which will recommend areas of coastal sage scrub habitat ti
acquired for the California gnatcatcher and other sensitive plant and ar species. An adopted City HMP (programs, fees, etc.) will provide guidanci administering any on-site mitigation program for this project. If such a
has not been adopted prior to the commencement of the grading of Village L
K, off-site acquisition of CalXornia gnatcatcher-occupied habitat would required as mitigation.
Mitigation of significant impacts to high-quality rip vegetation in the off-site College Boulevard alignment may be able tc
accomplished by the creation of wetlands in a 3:l ratio in the proposed
control channel south of the project site. Alternatively, enhancement of riparian scrub habitat in Village X may also accomplish mitigation. It s
also be noted that any impacts to the sycamore alluvial woodland will re agreement with the CDFG under Section 1601 of the Fish and Game Code and require notification and approval of the USACE under Section 404 of the 1
Water Act.
@
0
37
8. ArchaeologV _.
a. Impacts. Observations of the condition of site SDI-5416 during
been graded off the top of a bench and pushed eastward. This site is located
the mapping indicated that a large part of the midden portion of the site has
entirely off-site and disturbance renders the significance of the site low.
Under current development plans, construction in Village L-2 South would directly impact the southern one-half of site SDI-635; construction in Village K would directly impact all of site SDI-12,471; and construction in
the on-site eastern College Boulevard corridor alternate would directly impact
the southwestern third of SDI-12,470.
Under current plans, grading in the western College Boulevard corridor alternative would occur about 50 feet northeast of SDI-5416, and
grading in Village X would occur approximately 150 feet north of the site’s
northern limit. These close proximities create a potential for indirect impacts to SDI-5416, even though the archaeological site is not located within the project area.
b. Mitigation. The testing program conducted at the portion of site SDI-635 within Village Q concluded, and the City of Carlsbad concurred,
that the entire site is not a significant resource as defined by CEQA.
proposed development are not considered significant. Mitigation measures are not considered necessary.
As a result of the testing programs undertaken at sites SDI- 12,470 and SDI-12,471, these sites have been determined to have no data potential to address identified research questions for the project area. Therefore, these sites are not significant as defined by CEQA. Mitigation
measures are not considered necessary.
Because no testing has been accomplished at site SDI-5416, it is not known if this site represents a significant resource as defined by CEQA. However, impacts to this site can be avoided by identifying the site with
staking and flagging during grading.
c. Analysis of Significance. If site SDI-5416 is properly staked and flagged during grading so that it can be avoided, then the project would not
within the project area have been determined not to be significant as defined by
CEQA.
Therefore, impacts to the southern portion of this site resulting from the
have a significant impact on cultural resources. All other archaeological sites
9. Paleontology
a. Impacts. Areas within the project site are underlain by rock formations having the potential to contain fossiliferous deposits. These areas include all of Village H underlain by the Santiago Formation, which has a high potential for containing fossils. The portion of the project near the northern
boundary of Village W consists of the Lusardi Formation, which has moderate to
high potential for containing fossils. The southern one-half of the proposed alignment for off-site College Boulevard is underlain by Quaternary deposits, which have a low to moderate potential for the discovery of fossils. The
38
remaining areas of the project do not contain rock formations having the PO tial to contain significant fossils.
Grading operations in Village H, Village W, and the soutk one-half of the off-site alignment of College Boulevard are likely to ex€
fossils. Destruction of these fossils would represent an adverse impact on region’s paleontological resources.
b. Mitization. Mitigation measures would be carried out
coordination with the City’s adopted paleontological mitigation program
would reduce impacts to below a level of significance. These measures 5 include retaining a qualified paleontologist to inspect excavations, d
grading if fossils are found, and collect and prepare any fossils uncov
Natural History Museum.
10. Hvdrolow
a
during construction. Fossils will be donated to a museum such as the San D
a. Impacts. Four drainage basins exist on the project site. I I contains Villages H (part), K, and L-2; Basin I1 contains Village H (1 Basin 111 contains Village R; and Basin IV contains Village K (part), U, W and Y. The increases in runoff discharge over existing conditions due proposed developments for Basins I and I1 would be slight and would cause or small negative impact to the hydrology of the area. The small increast
runoff from Basin 111 could be handled by the existing detention basin anc
impacts would occur within this drainage area. Basin IV would experience a substantial 9.9 percent increase in runoff, which could be an adverse impact.
The proposed residential developments would adversely impac of the drainages by increasing the amount of urban pollutants flowing intc
water.
The time of greatest erosion and sedimentation impact is d the construction stage. Without mitigation, these impacts would be consi significant. All of the basins except for Basin III drain into lag Increased erosion in the drainages would help fill the lagoons with e
sediment. The project site is not an area of supply for beach sand; then no impacts would occur ‘to beach sand supplies.
The existing and proposed developments are above the 10( flood levels of Calavera Creek and would not be adversely impacted. section of the creek, adjacent to the proposed project, is proposed to rema
its natural condition. A previous study has determined, however, that I
stream Agua Hedionda Creek is inadequate for the 100-year flood. This SI of the creek flows south of and parallel to Cannon Road. Basins 11, 111 IV, which include Villages H, R, U, W, X, and Y, drain directly or indi
into this creek. Development of these villages would be impacted by the quate carrying capacity of Agua Hedionda Creek.
0
I€ a breach of Calavera Darn occurred, the area of inur would be within designated open space areas and would not affect existi proposed developments. The dam breach discharge would overflow onto C Boulevard and Cannon Road and then reenter the main channel and the east * of Calavera Creek.
39
b. Mitigation. The increases in runoff in Basins I and II would be mitigated by increasing the vegetation in the natural drainage course of each basin. The increase in runoff in Basin IV would be mitigated by any of the proposed alternatives in the Cannon Road EIR, which all include a detention and desilting basin at the future Cannon Road/College Boulevard intersection. Approved Villages Q and T in Calavera Hills are currently obtaining financing
for construction of these basins. Mitigation of the increased discharge from Basin IV can also be accomplished by construction of an on-site floodwater detention basin.
Mitigation for increased erosion and sedimentation impacts during the construction phase would include the design and construction of temporary desilting basins at the site. A permanent desilting basin has also
been planned, but not yet designed, for Calavera Creek downstream of the College BoulevardlCannon Road intersection. This basin will prevent future siltation of
the downstream channel and will also mitigate sediment problems caused by the
proposed developments.
Development is restricted in the Calavera Creek drainage until improvements can be made to the section of creek channel located immediately downstream of the future College Boulevard/Cannon Road intersection. Basins 11,
111, and IV in the project are part of this drainage and include Villages H (southern portion), R, U, W, X, and Y.
The City of Carlsbad Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 7
requires that prior to recordation of the first final map or issuance of a grading or building permit, developments within Basins 11, 111, and IV shall contribute a proportional share for construction of facilities listed in the
LFMP.
Grass swales and filter strips are recommended in the drainage
channels to control the influx of residential pollutants into the water.
11. Airouality
a. Impacts. Project development would result in long-term air pollutant emissions of carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, hydro- carbons (or reactive organic gases), and particulate matter.
Dust control and other construction-related activities are
regulated by the Air Pollution Control District. Since air quality impacts associated with construction for the project are regulated, they would not be considered significant.
The principal source of new pollutants associated with the operation of the project is emissions from vehicle traffic. However, the incremental contribution would be extremely small in terms of the regional basin and would not be expected to significantly change regional air quality of the
SDAB. Furthermore, the site is located approximately three miles east of
ments. Thus, because the project is not significantly farther from commercial,
employment, and other support centers than existing residential developments in the general area, vehicle trips of exceptional length would not be induced. The
downtown Carlsbad, and it is surrounded by commercial and residential develop-
40
mitigation measures listed in the traffic study would improve unaccepta
levels of service and eliminate the potential for "hot spots" and red1
congestion-related air quality impacts to levels of insignificance. @
The proposed project would have no significant direct impacts air quality in the San Diego Air Basin. However, when considered with other r residential development in the air basin, the cumulative effects of pro development would be to cointribute to nonattainment of clean air standa
However, development of this project would have a positive influence tow;
achieving a "jobdhousing balance" in the North County. Under such conditii with a balanced number of housing and employment opportunities, people worl in Carlsbad and other North County cities could relocate into the area ins
of having to travel long distances. A reduction in vehicle miles traveled w( also reduce traffic congestion in the area's freeways as well as air pollu emissions from mobile sources. Thus, shorter commutes brought about b: ')obs/housing balance" would contribute to the regional effort to achieve a
ent air quality standards.
b. Mitigation. - Compliance with all applicable APCD Rules Regulations would effectively mitigate fugitive dust impacts and other emis3 associated with construction activities. Emissions from heavy-duty dic powered construction equipment can be controlled by properly operating
maintaining the machinery.
The revised 1982 State Implementation Plan, still in e until approval of the Final 1991 SIP, recommends emission control tactics tc
applied to stationary and mobile sources. Some of these tactics can be ap on a project-level basis and the proposed project may make use of them. 7 tactics address mass transit, bicycling and walking, traffic flow improvem and park-and-ride facilities. The project includes provisions for roac improvements to ease traffic flow, bikeways, and pedestrian circulation; provisions would allow compliance with applicable tactics. No further m tion is required.
At this time, the only available mitigation for cumulative quality impacts is the successful implementation of the San Diego portion o
SIP under the supervision of the San Diego APCD.
*
0
41
C. SIGNIFICANT RREiVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE AI
ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOID SHOULD THE PROPOSED PROJECT BE IMPLEMENTED
The effects associated with the proposed project are documented in
Several of these impacts would be considered irreversible. The conversion
a
impact discussions of the Environmental Analysis section, which follo
vacant, open land to residential development and roadways, which effectik
precludes any existing and future beneficial uses (e.g., active and pass recreation opportunities) of the property as it presently exists, is considr to be an irreversible effect of the project. Likewise, implementation of proposed project would transform the visual character of the villages from area characterized by rolling hills and natural vegetation to an area of 1 dential development and roadways. Components of the development also w(
require the net loss of agriculturally productive land which would be considr
an irreversible effect. In addition, the project as it is proposed would f
ment the spatial arrangement of existing vacant land and result in a perma loss of biological habitat (e.g., coastal sage scrub).
e
0
42
D. EFFECTS NOT FOUND TO BE SIG"T
CEQA Section 15128 requires that an EIR identify and briefly explain \
various effects of the project were found not to be significant and, therefi are not addressed in the ETR. The initial study submitted for this project 3 prepared by City staff. It includes an Environmental Checklist to determine the proposed project is expected to have any significant effects on the e ronment, as well as a brief explanation of the findings for each issue. ' Notice of Preparation is included as Appendix A in this report and includes
checklist identifying the effects which are not considered potenti significant.
e
e
~
e
43
__
E. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAI
LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT
The project site is undeveloped and covered with native vegetati
primarily chaparral. This undeveloped land provides passive recreation, w life habitat, and visual relief and contrast from the existing surrounc residential developments. If the proposed project is implemented, these pas:
uses would be replaced by residential uses similar to the surrounding deve ments. This change of land use can be considered permanent. It would extremely difficult, if not impossible, to convert the land back to its nat state after being developed as a residential area.
The proposed project does, however, preserve approximately 48 perceni the land in its natural state in permanent open space easements. These c
space easements would continue to provide the passive uses which curre
exist, although on a smaller scale. The proposed project would be consis with the surrounding residential developments, but would significantly alter visual character of the site. This change is considered unavoidable and w occur with any other similar development which might be constructed in
area.
Although the project would permanently alter the site, it does not
e
a long-term risk to the environment which is different from any other resj tial development. This project is the last phase of the development of
Calavera Hills Master Plan area, which has been an ongoing project for apl imately 17 years. The proposed project fulfills the general plan’s design: of the area as a master planned community and also meets the design and sc uling requirements contained in the Calavera Hills Master Plan. *
-
e
44
F. GROWTH INDUCEMENT
Growth inducement is generally dependent on the presence or absence
existing utilities and municipal or public services in a given area. TI providing these services nearer to an unserviced or isolated area could ind growth in the undeveloped region. Also, population growth directly resul from a project could tax existing public services. Growth inducement can i
be defined as increasing the pace or density of existing surrounl-
developments.
@
The proposed project would not induce growth within the master plan
or in areas to the north or west. Regions to the north and west of the Cala Hills Master Plan area have already been fully developed with typical subu residential uses. The eight villages proposed to be developed in this prc are the last undeveloped villages in Calavera Hills. The other villages 1 already been built or have been approved for development. The project would tax existing services because it would provide new facilities to sufficie supply the proposed project.
Land bordering the master plan area to the east is primarily undevel
and land to the south is a mixture of vacant land and agriculture. The proF project could potentially impact these areas. However, it would not do sc providing public services and facilities near the undeveloped land. The pr
proposes to construct only those facilities necessary to serve the pro€
villages and meet the requirements of the Zone 7 Local Facilities Manage Plan (LFMP). Construction of unplanned sewer, water, gas, or electric would not be required. The project could induce growth in these areas be(
it would bring development in proximity to open, undeveloped, or agricu’ land.
The proposed project would construct College Boulevard through project south across the undeveloped land to Cannon Road. This new circu element link would improve access and increase traffic capacity to this veloped area. However, this would not be a significant impact because the is already planned for residential development in the general plan.
@
a
45
G. CUMULATIVEIMPACI'S
A project's impacts may not be individually significant, but co
be cumulatively significant when considered in conjunction with impacts cau by other projects in the area. A discussion of cumulative impacts SI consider "past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects produc related or cumulative impacts, including those projects outside the control
the agency" (CEQA Section 15130). Under CEQA Section 15065, a signific cumulative impact means that "the incremental effects of an individual pro. are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past proje the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable fu projects.
The past and present projects in the immediate area include the o
villages in the Calavera Hills Master Plan area. The proposed project is last phase of development of this 800-acre master-planned community. Fu projects which are likely to be developed in the vicinity include the Cala- Lake Municipal Golf Course, Carlsbad Highlands residential development, and
construction of Cannon Road Reaches 3 and 4.
@
The Calavera Lake Municipal Golf Course project is located east of Calavera Hills Master Plan area and includes the land surrounding Calavera L
An 18-hole golf course is proposed to be located primarily east of the 1 Picnic areas and a itrail system would be constructed around the lake. project also includes a clubhouse, parking lot, driving range, and mainten
facilities. Off-site improvements to be constructed are a temporary access to the site and a new water pipeline. A Draft EIR, dated May 9, 1991 currently being processed by the City.
Master Plan area and south of the Calavera Lake Municipal Golf Course prc The project proposes the development of single-family homes (600 homes) duplexes (210 units) on the 265-acre site. Recreational areas and preserv,
of natural open space areas are also part of the project. Off-site compo1 of the project would include the extension of College Boulevard from El Cai Real to future Cannon Road, and construction of approximately 1,200 fee
sewer line extending southward from the end of the western panhandle area o
project. A Draft EIR, dated January, 1981, and a supplement, dated Mach,
have been processed by the City.
Cannon Road Reaches 3 and 4 is an eastern extension of the exj Cannon Road. The project would construct approximately 0.7 mile of Cannon as a four-lane major arterial from El Camino Real to an intersection with f College Boulevard. This future intersection would be created when the of portion of College Boulevard is built as part of this project to de.
Calavera Hills Villages H, K, L-2, R, U, W, X, and Y. A Draft EIR, August, 1990, is currently being processed by the City, but has not yet released for public review.
biological resources, water quality, traffic circulation, air quality,
visual quality.
@ The Carlsbad Highlands project is located east of the Calavera
The issues which would be potentially cumulatively significant in
0
46
1. Biological Resources
The combined loss of riparian and Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat on the project sites discussed above would be cumulatively significant. Coastal
sage scrub grows only in the coastal areas of southern California and it supports threatened and endangered species (e.g., California gnatcatcher). A reduction in the number of acres of quality habitat contributes to the decline in population of sensitive species.
2. WaterOuality
Cumulative water quality impacts could occur from development in the
‘ Agua Hedionda and Buena Vista drainage basins. Development of the proposed project and others in the area would contribute to cumulative increases in urban
pollutant runoff reaching the Agua Hedionda and Buena Vista lagoons. However, mitigation measures recommended in the Hydrology section of this EIR would
reduce the project’s water quality and sedimentation impacts to below a level of
significance, limiting the project’s contribution to water quality degradation.
3. Traffic Circulation
Cumulative impacts to regional traffic circulation would not be
significant. The proposed project and Carlsbad Highlands would construct
portions of College Boulevard, a Carlsbad circulation element major roadway, so that it would link El Camino Real and Highway 78. Cannon Road Reaches 3 and 4
would link College Boulevard to Cannon Road, another circulation element
roadway. These extensions of major roadways would improve regional traffic circulation.
4. Airoualitv
The San Diego Air Basin is presently a nonattainment basin for
carbon monoxide, ozone, and particulates (PM- 10). A nonattainment classifica-
tion signifies that the basin’s air quality exceeds state and federal standards for a particular pollutant. Development of the project site would contribute to an incremental increase in these air pollutants. Because the air basin is
already a nonattainment area, any increase in pollutants would be cumulatively
significant.
5. VkUalhaliQ
Development of this project, Carlsbad Highlands, and Cannon Road
Reaches 3 and 4 would contribute to the incremental loss of vacant land in the
City of Carlsbad and would permanently change the viewshed from open space to
suburban residential. Although development of this area is indicated in the general plan, permanently altering the character of the land from vacant land to
residential development would be a significant, cumulative impact.
47
H. AL'IERNATIWS TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
1. No Proiect Alternative
Under the No Project alternative, the project site would remain undeveloped vacant level. Also, none of the infrastructure or roadway imprc ments would be constructed.
a
This alternative would avoid many of the impacts associated with
proposed project. There would be no encroachment into designated open SI areas. Impacts to sensitive biological resources and prime agricultural 1
would not occur. Visual impacts would be reduced because the site would not
converted from undeveloped vacant land to a suburban use. This &tern1 would also reduce impacts to topographic features and would avoid the imF
associated with hillside grading volumes and the City's Hillside Develop1
Ordinance. Because the area would remain undeveloped, the required upgrade: the sewer system would not be necessary. Nuisance noise generated construction activities on the site and increases in ambient noise levels due traffic which would have traveled on College Boulevard would not occur.
Additionally, impacts to intersections and roadway segments ca by project-generated traffic would not occur. However, since College Boule would not be constructed under this alternative, the goals and objective of Circulation Element of the General Plan would not be achieved. This altern
would not be consistent with the General Plan designation of the area for dential development, nor would it achieve the goals of the Calavera Hills M Plan. This alternative would also not provide the affordable housing v would be constructed under the proposed project in Village K and L-2. e
2. Phased Grading Alternative
Under this alternative, grading of the site would occur in phases, instead of the proposed project's single phase operation. The ult development of the site would be the same for this alternative as for
proposed project.
Grading of Villages U, W, X, Y, and H and grading of Car Village Drive and on- and off-site College Boulevard would occur in the phase of operations. The second phase would comprise grading of Villages K L-2. Since the ultimate development of the project would be the same, the
quantities of cut and fill generated by this alternative would be the same.
native, many of the environmental effects would be the same as those undc proposed project. Only those interim impacts associated with the constr
stage of the project could be different under this alternative. This inc
the visual and noise impacts from construction on the existing SU~OL
residential uses.
Visual impacts could be reduced under this alternative becz smaller portion of the site would be left graded and potentially vacant development occurs. The internal and off-site visual impacts of a I graded area would last for a shorter period of time under this alternative.
Because only the grading operations would change under this
0
48
Since the quantities of cut and fill would be the same, the number of construction truck trips required to transport the earth would be similar under this alternative and the haul routes used would be the same. Therefore, as in the proposed project, there would not be significant noise impacts due to construction truck haul route activity. However, nuisance noise impacts to
surrounding residences would still occur. Residences in existing Villages C and D and approved Villages Q and T would be exposed to construction twice, instead of once. The duration of each exposure would be of shorter duration than under the proposed project.
3. Alternative Aliments for off-Site College Boulevard
There are two other feasible alternative alignments for the southern portion of College Boulevard which would extend off-site to an intersection with future Cannon Road. These alternatives and the proposed alignment are shown in Figure 15. One alternative is located to the west of the proposed alignment and
the other is located to the east.
Both the western and eastern alternatives diverge from the proposed alignment approximately 2,400 feet north of the southern boundary of the
Calavera Hills Master Plan area. This divergence point is adjacent to the developed area of Village C. The western alternative remains consistently to the west of the proposed alignment, from the divergence point to the Cannon Road intersection. The eastern alternative fluctuates across the proposed alignment
for approximately 1,800 feet south from the divergence point before it consis-
tently remains east of the proposed alignment. The western alternative is located along the top of a ridge and the eastern alternative is located within a
drainage.
The choice of alignments for the two alternatives was based on
several limiting factors. The middle portion of College Boulevard is con-
strained on the west by existing Villages C and D. At the roadway’s inter- section with future Cannon Road, the existing Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park also limits the choice of locations for the College BoulevardCannon Road intersection. The Circulation Element of the General Plan designates College Boulevard to eventually extend past Cannon Road and connect to El Camino Real. To maintain continuity on either side of Cannon Road, College Boulevard must intersect Cannon Road east of the mobile home park. The alignment of College Boulevard is also constrained in the vertical direction because the roadway must maintain a grade of seven- percent or less to conform to the Carlsbad street
design standards for arterial highways.
Hunsaker and Associates conducted a grading analysis for each of the three alignments (Hunsaker and Associates 1990). The proposed alignment
would provide the most balanced grading. The western alternative would require about twice as much cut as it would fill and the eastern alternative would require about twice as much fill as it would cut. The proposed alignment would
only require about seven percent more fill than cut.
All of the proposed alignments would impact approximately 23 acres. Impacts to sensitive habitats are similar between the alignments, and none are considered biologically preferred. Significant impacts to less than one acre of
riparian habitat would occur under any of the possible alignments.
49
3
W
X E
w mu cu .- - - -
I -=z =-
-a s- ca
3
W +
7
0 M
W a w
ri
0
-
V
a >
4 cc -c
L
LQ-
.3
LD
Q,
1-
M, .- he
The alternative alignments for College Boulevard would impact prime agricultural soils to the same degree as the proposed alignment.
All three alternative alignments would fulfill the Circulation Element designation of this roadway as an arterial highway and each would allow for continuity with an extension of College Boulevard south of Cannon Road. Also, all three alternatives would incur approximately the same biological and
prime soils impacts. However, the proposed alternative alignment would clearly
provide the most balanced grading.
4. Alternative Proiect Desim
The "project" as examined in this EIR is represented by the six
tentative maps submitted between June and September of 1990. Implementation of
the submitted tentative maps would require an amendment to the existing Calavera Hills Master Plan (MP-lSO(F)) to change the product type in Village H and modify the boundary of Village U. Additionally, a General Plan Amendment is required to modify the boundaries of plan-designated open space.
The submitted tentative maps have been reviewed by City of Carlsbad planning staff, and modifications will be required for the maps to conform with the currently adopted City policies and regulations and also to reduce or avoid
the significant environmental impacts which have been identified in this EIR. Significant impacts have been identified with respect to biological resources, landform alteratiodvisual quality, and land use. The revised tentative maps will represent an environmentally superior project and will implement the envi-
ronmental goals and concepts which are described below as part of this redesign
alternative. Figure 16 has been included to conceptually depict some components of this redesign alternative. Accompanying Figure 16 is a comparative analysis
matrix (Table 1) that summarizes how the design alternative will mitigate environmental impacts identified by this EIR for the "proposed project." The
revised maps will still go through standard project review for compliance with all development standards. The modifications to each of the tentative maps which would substantially lessen the identified environmental impacts are described below.
a. Village H. The tentative map for Village H proposes the widening of Carlsbad Village Drive and a proposed addition to the City's trail system. The environmentally preferable alternative would reduce the impact of
these two facilities on the biological environment. Figure 16 conceptually illustrates this alternative for Village H.
As described in the traffic and biology sections of this EIR,
which follow, the tentative map for Village H would be conditioned to require
that an interim 34-foot roadway be added to the Master Plan for Calavera Hills. This roadway configuration would mitigate the potential for significant impacts
to the thread-leaved brodiaea population associated with the tentative map for Village H. Given this tentative map condition, a project alternative to reduce
roadway could become necessary if city traffic monitoring shows the need for the
road to be constructed to secondary arterial standards.
the biology impact is not necessary at this time. However, full widening of the
If monitoring in the future determines that the road should be improved, alternative roadway designs should be addressed as part of the future
51
L
b V s
3 e
E s
W
e: p1 n
0
w
0 b z -L7 WE
z ,k $8 a
b
a b 1-1 d zr 0 z 0
4
0 V
2
m h
5
e, - - .- .z "
8 n .s 8 .s 273 3 Y " 2 -
E Y 59 0
5
cj g
s a 38 .-
22 e 1 .3 93 3 i
Lao v, e, &%g &e ; sz E'Z u
? s
23. c.0 g.2 3 2 .5 .f &52 &% Y G
$3 .- a ,x - *z 4s 3 Z$
.I M an 45 2.5 a =M >sa 5% x, %i .g .s 2 2% 3.2 5s 3: ga_" *z :
3 'i; z '3 3 .3 c %z z.s 222 cj E.? %Z -5 82 %gw .-F 2 - 03 EZ.9 zg US 2; gJ.2$ =: .I 5 oa 5.3 r3 $&ti az aa--h 223 MZ e
a9 '109 % 3 -; 2% 92 E" 30 BE 2 .8 g.2 g P .; &$ 3; 5 .i g $ .s & s .-
&E a8 62.2 & :cj 2 .E E%% $2
32
cd a= Y
c a 0 U
.5 gz r! '2 52 z
%$ qii .9 9 n ,eo +l
3 z3 zsg b4 PM r/: .z v)
i
Y
.r(
0 cd
'3
0 a > Yd Q
0
3: "g 'J
2 $? &, u,-
i/i gd ygPj
cj h ='a%
Y
& ." Y .-
'3
c 00
e, a 000' $3 ""o 89E '10- &G Ecd
cd
e,
ZE3 22 .- v, > E zn
.e =5 G ME
My= 6.z
,o= v) ma '.' 52 cdzG
cdl
8U ou oe, g~
T2
3 v)
8 -3
0 .09 4 a
50 3s X
0 ga5. 5 .f n
?Z
xu b4a v)%
- ." e, -
e,
1
e, 3
B 8
e, e, 2% g@ I?.
g =E .- % a$.% 5 g 5 L .z E:
$3 .- e,
z Y M E .z cd 03 L 5 a 8 a .- v,
de, " 2 e, x g Z n 25 20 r .Y
0
v) Y v) 0
P
8 3&$ g: 00 0
3 32 2 ri g Z'G3
E$ 3 $3; S$ - - 3 .g .-i 2 z u 0 3 e,
" bSg .gg -22 5 5 25 2E g, .E.$
$2 dcl 64 u: .- i! %!? CdQJ q. 2m s.2 X2 =g 3. *zg SS gg 5g 2 3 $3 a g,2 3% wln 92e OE a? -2% -P oyl'r: gz %.: 22 2 g go?. Gzz
13 .- v) .- Y g
8 @ !i
e, 5 > u 3 '3
.a 3 h
'102 Y .=e,> 28 @% e gz g .9 U 0 .- E$
$5 -%e
.- cj%G UY 'c)
kiJG $3 g
.08 .9 y aa *s no
2s 8% g;
a:: =.t: =0 'Fh ccjm e,s oe, 2% ZE2 c.5 E .2 5s 5% "8
- 3
OD m e,
M .?
OD0
a
-a
E - 3 YGW 2g 3 0"
E
& L .-
e,,/.> 52 GO
-0
00 ffir E$ $$E a- .-
e, g
1- e g - - 0 g. 5s E 3 c 7% M g 5 U a$ &
g & * 3 "3 a5 29 3E EQ 5 v)
w g9 cjv) M .- %E : d m %is ma 8 3 :5 =g = 53 5n uo
24 ui L; I ui rj ri ?s 4
$. e 4
X
e,
ci
m
Y
0 0 L .I
2 - e, 3
v) v) 0 - 0 $2 *
v) Lu v,
C 0 CL- =z G
m 4
e, * 6 SL e' .9 2 93
Y e, ?E Egg cG8 gz7 22 263 .- 3 > e, oa Ace '3 = 3 B-8 -6" 0 .E I en 2 sg22 -g s 9 g .s e, .- a02 Y Wk > " ... 3 +j 0 c .2 - - gz 2 .z E
d a :S %;$ 3P ;i g '% NZEl LIS * &$2 2 2: E$$ -.wg 'ZQ3Tj .9gu !iz % @p %=:cd z 8% b a g32* * e, moa
V) s.% Maazz 2zz &3 8 Oh.9% .sea; csz %%e z3y gE+ 3 =E%
... 8J W So&& k x !$% ob$ u3.g $&LA $20 Casw iuo, ESQ *5&2 4 ZE'E gcay 23 6, 2 65
... ws 9 8-0- QcdS
%3%
0 QO2 e,$6 sg.3z FS€ ,g2cx i:2g ;$ a,he,on Ecf8
5* % 2 cdg ZEj a$ $ E g.z> 2.52; s.",aq;> 'E; '6 Ei ;io" p! &.g sc"z m322 %.y+ oa 0 bP30 425's uo-05 .g -gk g 'D
032 12 LA s $8 0% -L5z '4 gs3 c - 3; %g ZgE 3x e, $2 33 ; .; 8 85 $5
32 c Y v)Q 002 3 ge$ ya3 a$ .;a 2% Y z gFcf B 3 .a 2 =sz
9 2 2 gs ;s g)s 3
z
go a E -0
a5 3 I% c;l -,$5 25&
om 3 50 "0 =E% ma2 42g 2 B
2.U E; 3 .$? 8 0 z E 3 gg
gg 0 22 9 9.3 zg F "0 2 .g IC
bS eL $42 g.2; Q) OB 5 2.g ens g) .- 0 +i zcc *a * Z38 22 9 e,> g E 32 zgz chc
a 2 .s 88% .- m g 2 .E 22 2 82 2% e, ; ; .g b92 9u5
.e 8
3 Y
2 0
.- 5 'D
.- G E YE 'ue .- r: 3 a0
0
Fi
0 >
a .4 *
* g
M2"O 3c.- "529 a= Sgu
5 .g.s 0 E gayg '??aw -e,ua 28%
E
g
E
E
0 322
s &Q M
2
8
enas's B .z 2 2 .Y u
c
a0 ce, cd e, WE V1
L 52 ctr
91,
w. .oo + fi
0 k-
01
Y cd e,
- E-c z-
+ 's Q +
Y4 E
8 55; = - - .-
zw$
CI
QUc cc$
3
0
@ 4nc E-cgg
wr U
*d
E-c
LI
4
+ '0"
C 32 $
.- . 5 '= g a
&
.A
4 k
2
d E
0 80 WOO M5 U 2804
Y 0 2 8 8
c .4 il a
3 8 ii
5 u Eg & \ 58
m e .8 33
E3 d e,
4% 5 2 -8 5%
sz P -
m> 5 .Y cri ri cj u4
.rr c
m s h .2
'0 9 0 5 2 m m .- - .% Y
s % Q) a 0
LA
I
1ub i, u .& =s LA e
r; ri
2 G x % E 3 8 9
v)
v) .i 3 3
.- % g
Y G 8 E
2 2
ri
5 c
.-
.-
u
M
0 c e,
E
.- v)
%
4 4 .4 3
e, > '3 cd s 3 -0 2
g
g
2 E
9
.d >
U
i
.r
c z
C E g c E
5 i
4
F- u 8 g E c3 @ e
E
0 EL: fi W
0 b z, "0% at; a @g
E
qh
s
g
8 9
F1
w
4 !k 0
r/l) 2 4
__
'i3 2% '3 2 .- 4 *cd 22 st '25 G
c) zgg
3 .- 6s y
ZOC Fcd .C( e,
'F1 Geq > 2 ? 2 b !? EZE
D a.k a
v)
? .- Y >
3 b) Y i
a" % e,%%
? x a 3
OCJO G bo .-
? x a
3 v1 g.Q u Y rri 3 .s
a 2 9 E 2 3
is v) 8" e,
g Y as5 L *- F
E g 3 he !i d V pg3
-2G 2 '3
dl
." 3 .5: 3 2 .; s
I .c z ii .z cd a a 3 33 ii ii
& e is .- 5 e .-
cn Y 0 *slz 3 .- g3 ? F
-a 5 cd 9 % Y c .? !i .s
:5i,o 0 Csg '3
YZU .C( 3 Ze,O 2 2 .2 8 ?ea v) 3;g 0
%$ti .C( ?
s 5 k3 Q 53: Y
cn 5 E5 0 0 -2Q Sp ii
%$5 2 k &
2 gg a .B5 bn; %-& 8 3 8
Y Y a a E983 * E
5 sgq 8 E s !
3 - .-
3 3 5
@ g i .g 3
Y & .sa
z rri Y .-
3 3 .3
L3
i:
e, .e
2 .- 3
E 3 Y Eg 1
1
Y 3 u
cd 1
bn f u Y
+,
* cd
00 -
3
.I
v) .e
.I *
8 Y
U 'C D
V .I v1 u E
C en
0 0 G C
> > cd cd c U
0
c
bn bn
0 h
0
a
.-
(1,
Yf
0 c) Ed
.- v) .-
23 ._
Y C
2 T2 0 g 3 3 v;
13
C .C( 3
cd e, cd cd cd bn OD > an bo '3 3 '3 Y
.- 4
0
.I *
3 3 .I 3 3 .I
.I
3 3
.C(
0 >
Y .a .a .z 8 8
% cd cd
s s
3 3
3 3
cd - cd- .I Y
g .- Y
v) Y m g 5
Y v) Y 5
E"
1
Y 'Ea
e, E"
CE .-
* 3
Y
0 u Q 2 > 2 a
Y .? 8 cd
cd B B _- .- E" _-
gg
& 2 2
G
.I
Q
0 Y
." 2 a ? 2 2
!i !i
?
Y Y
0 as.,
Y -I
2 2 s
.s
2 & 2 2 2
a 3
-7
*
2
5 a
a 0 e
'0'
% oQ cd
'?
2 .E4 8 3 cn i2 e, 2 g 'g
e
& E
KW& zo U z z z 3 a ae c;l s V u
hj kz
.. 5 8 e,: ss * 32 cd 3 =cd 4g=
ki 32 % E 5% 5a B-/lu 4 2.83 0
=]k 5 224 933 a 0) c)
Y
u *2 Re# 2aa a
bi z s4
m
e, 1
h .y h .n 3 @
B i3
3 I 2 P
- 0
c
I
m cn 3 .I
.I I
c)
.n
0
I
t
5
4 ai 2 k s a
v; \d G 06 0; w
d - -
0 0 &
iii
& >8& .I - orno .I
0
w w 0
environmental review. Any future alternative analysis should acknowledge t the placement of the additional travel lanes for Carlsbad Village Drive
constrained from the west by the adjacent Quail Ridge and Templin Heights rl dential developments. Therefore, the improvements to the roadway must
located east of the present two-lane section in an area identified as contain a state-listed endangered plant species (thread-leaved brodiaea). To reduce
level of impact, the grading of the new travel lanes should utilize techniq that reduce the areal extent of the disturbance. This could include the use
crib walls and/or the elimination of the proposed split of the travel lanes
reduce the impact to the brodiaea habitat. A reduced version of Carls
Village Drive would allow for a greater area of contiguous open space.
The trail segment shown within the grassland/coastal sage sc habitat of Village H was not intensively surveyed for thread-leaved brodiaea
other sensitive species. The environmentally superior alternative for the I
would be to delay the selection of the trail alignment until the area can resurveyed in the spring. Depending on the results of this survey, a redes of the trail may be necessary to avoid additional biological impacts. ' redesign alternative would also require that the grading for the trail refined to be compatible with the topography and thereby reduce the extent
grading. Any realignment of the trail should also avoid areas of coastal s
scrub which could be used by California gnatcatchers, which were observed ( of the proposed alignment.
b. Village K. Village K was also identified as containing se tive biological habitat (i.e., coastal sage scrub) and associated sensi
redesign of the village layout would be required to avoid impacts to the oc pied habitat. However, this option would still result in -habitat fragmental and no guarantee that the species would continue to utilize the habitat as
surrounding area developed. Therefore, from a biological standpoint, the site mitigation suggested in the biology section is the environmentally supe alternative.
In addition, the long, linear slope adjacent to proposed Coll Boulevard was considered a significant visual impact. The impact would substantially lessened by an alternative site design which would undulate
manufactured slope to simulate the natural landscape form. This type of tr
ment is documented in the City's Design Guidelines handbook and Hillside De opment Ordinance. The proposed grading in the 40 percent slopes adjacent Harwich Drive could also be modified under this alternative to undulate manufactured slope. The revised grading to accommodate this redesign is shc
in Figure 16.
0
animal species (California gnatcatcher and orange-throated whiptail).
1)
c. Village L-2. The identified landform alteration impacts a ciated with Village L-2 (e.g., filling of the headward extension of the fii canyon at the western boundary and the grading of several prominent I outcrops) could be reduced by a project redesign which attempts to retail portion of these features. Likewise, a reduction in the manufactured slc which exceed 30 feet in height would reduce the degree of the landform a
ation impact. Figure 16 illustrates these redesign components for Village L-2.
Village L-2, like Village K, contains Diegan coastal sage sc 0 The proposed development plan precludes on-site mitigation. As outlined in
56
biology section of this EIR, the environmentally superior alternative to lessen the level of coastal sage scrub impacts would be the preservation of occupied
off-site habitat. The quality of Village L-2 open space could be enhanced by setting aside any undeveloped portions of Village L-2 as designated open space. The area designated as OS Lot 91 on the tentative map is an example.
d. Village R. The submitted tentative map for Village R proposes
the construction of 7 single-family detached residential units. This number of
units exceeds the growth management control point for villages and could conflict with the Carlsbad Growth Management Ordinance. Therefore, an alterna-
tive could be the elimination of one of the village’s residential units. No other significant environmental impacts were identified for Village R.
e. Village U. The proposed tentative map for the northern portion
of Village U adjacent to College Boulevard would develop residential units in
General Plan designated open space shown both for Village U and also in approved Village T. As shown on Figure 16, a project redesign would delete development in this area and set it aside as permanent open space. This alternative would
also preserve a prominent rock outcrop. This modification, along with the provision of a trail system as required in the master plan, would be environ- mentally preferable and would eliminate the identified land use impact asso- ciated with Village U.
Villazes W. X. and Y. The tentative map for Villages W, X, and Y proposes the construction of long, linear slopes adjacent to College Boule- vard. These slopes have been identified as representing a visual impact to
future users of proposed College Boulevard. As with Village K, an environ- mentally superior alternative would be to redesign these slope areas and undu- late the top and toe of the slope to simulate the natural topography. Figure 16
includes this component as part of the redesigned project.
A project redesign for Villages W, X, and Y would also delete
four of the units to bring the tentative maps in compliance with adopted City policies. The proposed 77 single-family units exceed the number allowed by the City’s growth management program. This modification to the site plan would
eliminate the identified land use impact.
5. Alternative Site
f.
Of the total approximately 290-acre project site within the Calavera
Hills Master Plan area, 140 acres would be developed in eight proposed villages. In order to achieve the objectives of the project, an alternative site should
consist of at least 140 acres of developable land to accommodate a similar project.
The Rancho Carrillo Master Plan area, shown in Figure 17, is a
600 acres in size and is located south of Palomar Auport Road and about 2.5 miles east of El Camino Real. The site is included in Zone 18 of the Growth
Management Plan for the City of Carlsbad. This site is about 18 miles southeast
of the Calavera Hills Master Plan area.
potential alternative site for the proposed project. This master plan area is
5;
k
am OF 0cwwx PROPOSED PROJECT SITE
QTY OF DlcIHTAs
FIGURE 17. ALTERNATIVE SITE LOCATION IN RELATION TO PRO
PROJECT
1 v.
~-
The Rancho Carrillo Master Plan designates the area for a variety of residential densities, open spaces, schools, and commercial areas. The master
plan also locates a planned industrial area adjacent to Palomar mort Road.
At present, the site is undeveloped. A major portion of the area
has been disturbed by agricultural uses, although no evidence of recent live- stock grazing was observed (RECON 1991a). Other areas of the site are covered
with a variety of native habitat types. There are areas which exceed 25 percent slopes, particularly in the southwest quadrant of the property, but the majority of the acreage is comprised of less than 25 percent slopes. The area primarily
drains into San Marcos Creek and, ultimately, to Batiquitos Lagoon. There are no prime agricultural soils on the site.
The project objective of developing 669 residential units could be achieved at this alternative site. However, it should be noted that the site is not owned by the applicant (Lyon Communities) and environmental review for development is currently ongoing. Like the Calavera Hills Master Plan, the
Rancho Carrillo Master Plan area provides for low medium, medium, and medium high density developments. There are also areas of the Rancho Carrillo site which are designated as open space in the Interim Open Space Ordinance. This
ordinance would have to be complied with if the site were developed.
Because there are slopes in excess of 25 percent on the site, there
is the potential for grading of hillsides in excess of City standards. The visual impacts of developing the alternate site would generally be the same as developing the proposed site because development of either site would change the
area from rural open space to suburban uses.
The impacts to public services would be similar at the alternative site because the utility infrastructure does not exist on the Rancho Carrillo
site.
There are no prime agricultural soils on or directly adjacent to the Rancho Carrillo area; therefore, development of the site would not impact prime
soils.
Melrose Avenue, a planned circulation element roadway, would run
north-south through the center of the master plan area. This roadway could
potentially cause noise impacts to residential areas located adjacent to it. Implementation of the project site at Rancho Carrillo would provide for the
and Carlsbad Village Drive which are included in the proposed project. Locating the project at Rancho Carrillo would have the same air quality impacts as the proposed project. The alternative site is located in the same air basin at approximately the same distance from major roadways, highways, and industrial and commercial areas.
construction of Melrose Avenue, but not of the extensions of College Boulevard
Implementation of the project at the alternative site would impact
many of the same types of biological resources found in the Calavera Hills Master Plan area. A report on the existing biological resources on the Rancho Carrillo site was prepared by RECON in August, 1991. The Rancho Carrill0 site
has eight identified sensitive habitat types. including the four found on the proposed project site. Like the proposed site, the Rancho Carrillo site also has populations of thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia). The Rancho
59
Carrillo site has significantly more wetland areas than the Calavera H site.
There are significantly more archaeological sites on the Can
Ranch properties than there are on Calavera Hills. These sites have i exhibited a greater intensity of use. Potential impacts to archaeolog
resources would be greater at the alternative project site.
0
a
e
60
Ill. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSg
A. LANDUSE
1. Existing Conditions
*
The overall project area is entirely within the boundaries of Calavera Hills Master Plan area. The master plan boundary is also congruent the Zone 7 LFMP. The original Calavera Hills Master Plan was approved in 19 The area consists of a total of 804.2 acres which is divided into 26 villa] It is projected that at build-out the master plan area will contain 2,.
residential dwelling units. The Zone 7 LFMP states there are 1,101 exisl
residential units in the Calavera Hills Master Plan area. In addition to existing units, Village Q and T have received discretionary approval for additional 483 units and Village L-1 has 80 approved units.
Major infrastructure facilities within the master plan area incl the 16.16-acre Calavera Hills Community Park in Villages E-2 and F, the H Elementary School in Village M, a recreational vehicle storage area Village I, a proposed junior high school in Village S, the Calavera €
Reclamation Plant, and the Carlsbad Municipal Water District’s steel tank w reservoir and associated conveyance system. Upon build-out of the plan a three circulation element roads will service Calavera Hills: College Boulev
Carlsbad Village Drive (Elm Avenue), and Tamarack Avenue.
The eight villages that are seeking discretionary approval
divided into six tentative maps. All of these villages are residential
development type. Villages H, R, K, L-2, and U each have their own sepa tentative maps. Villages W, X., and Y are grouped onto a single tentative 1 Collectively, these villages comprise approximately 290 acres of essent
vacant land entirely within the city of Carlsbad. The tentative maps pro the addition of 669 new dwelling units to the Calavera Hills Master Plan area.
The proposed land use for the villages is residential, with gel
plan designations from low-density residential (RL) to medium-high del residential (RMH) and open space. The residential designations allow for dential densities ranging from 0-1.5 dwelling units per acre (ddac) to ddac. Figure 18 shows the residential planning designations for each of villages examined in this report.
In association with the residential component of the project is construction of portions of College Boulevard and Carlsbad Village Drive I
Avenue) and an internal public and private street system to service
villages.
a. Descrbtion of Existing Land Uses. An overview of surroui
land uses reveals residential uses on the west and the northeast, agrici
and open space on the south, east, and northwest, and extractive industrial commercial adjacent to the north-central portion of the master plan Figure 18 shows graphically the existing on-site and surrounding land uses.
tion of existing land uses on a tentative map by tentative map basis.
1)
The following discussion will provide a more detailed de, *
61
Utilities Public/Quasi-oublic RS Restdential single family - - Electrical utilities PP Park RD Readential duplexes
UW Water utilibes PS School RG Readential garden homes
lndustnal !22mame RF Readential fourplexes
IE Extractiveindustry AG Agnculture RM Readential multi-family
IS storage VL Vacantland Commercial
CR Regional commercial
FIGURE 18. EXISTlNG LAND USES
R-2328E 8/91
1) Village H. Village H is a 65.65-gross-acre parcel of mo: undeveloped land known as Carlsbad Tract (CT) 90-19. This village is located
the western edge of the master plan area east and south of Carlsbad Vill, Drive. Topographically, the majority of the site is located on the east-fac
slope of the most incised drainage in the master plan area. The village split by a drainage divide which directs drainage both to the north towa Buena Vista Creek and to the south towards Agua Hedionda Creek. This divide now traversed by existing Carlsbad Village Drive. The topography of Village
is generally the most steep in the master plan area. Elevations in this vill range from 150 feet to 300 feet above MSL,
Improvements to the site are confined to a foot trail is part of the proposed city trail system and a portion of Carlsbad Vil Drive. Surrounding land uses include single-family residential areas known Quail Ridge, Templin Heights, and Falcon Hills, which are west of the ma plan area. Multi-family residential units Calavera Hills Villages G and J
located to the east. Open space is to the north and the Calavera I Reclamation Plant and Village I, a recreational vehicle storage area, is loc to the south.
The Carlsbad General Plan designates Village H as
Residential Low Density. The RL designation allows 0-1.5 ddac with a grc management control point of 1.0 ddac. The Calavera Hills Master Plan spec a permitted use of RD-M, Residential Density-Multiple. A wide variety of mitted residential uses are allowed in an RD-M zone:, including single dwell two-family dwellings, multiple dwellings, and accessory buildings. The m,
plan suggests a development type of clustered multi-family, with a maximum 0’ dwelling units. However, the maximum density is superseded by the Zone 7 LF which allows up to 42 dwelling units.
2) Village K. Village K is located in the central podor the master plan area east of Tamarack Avenue and north of Carlsbad Vi Drive. The presently undeveloped site occupies 38.75 gross acres known
Village K is located on the south of the summit of Calavera Hills Master Plan area. Existing topography slopes moderately to west, south, and east. Topographic elevations range from a low of 250 feet
in the northwest comer to a high of 437 feet MSL in the north-central PC of the site. The area of Village K is dissected by the headward extensio two drainages. One of the drainages is in the western side of the site; other is in the northeast comer of the site.
0
CT 90-22.
A portion of Glasgow Drive/Harwich Drive currently bi
the village and would serve as the primary access route from Carlsbad V: Drive to the proposed residences of Village K.
Existing land uses surrounding this parcel include \
land and a six-million-gallon water storage reservoir to the north, a expanse of vacant undeveloped land to the east, a temporary grading stockpi
the south, and the Calavera Hills Community Park across Carlsbad Village Drive.
The master plan calls for this area to be the “core” arr the community. To the north would be the proposed multi-family developme 0
63
I
, Calavera Heights Village L-2. To the east would be the approved single-family
I
I
development Village T and the proposed multi-family development Village U. To the south is Village E-1 , a future commercial site within the master plan.
The Carlsbad General Plan designates this village as RMH and open space. The RMH designation allows residential densities from 8-15 ddac with a growth management control point of 11.5 ddac. The Calavera Hills Master Plan has a permitted use of RD-M and a suggested development type of clustered multi-family. The maximum number of dwelling units allowed by the master plan
is 863, which is superseded by the Zone 7 LFMP which allows up to 416 dwelling units.
3) Village L-2. Village L-2 is situated in the north-central
is bounded on the west by Harwich Drive. Village L-2 is an 18.65-gross-acre parcel known as CT 90-20. This village occupies the topographic summit of the Calavera Hills Master Plan area. From the high point, the existing topography
slopes radially at moderate inclinations, becoming steepest in the village’s western extremity.
The site is presently undeveloped with the exception of the adjacent CMWD steel water reservoir and the associated conveyance lines. The other existing use appears to be unauthorized off-road-vehicle activity.
Surrounding existing uses are open space on the north, east, and south, and existing multi-family Calavera Hills Village 0 and P-1 to the west and northwest.
The Carlsbad General Plan designates Village L-2 as RM, Residential Medium Density. This designation allows for densities ranging from 4-8 ddac, with a growth management control point of 6.0 ddac. The Calavera
Hills Master Plan designates Village L-2 as RD-M, Residential Density-Multiple, and designates a development type of clustered multi-family units. The master plan allows for a maximum of 201 dwelling units, which is superseded by the Zone 7 LFMP which allows up to 119 dwelling units.
4) Village - R. Village R is located in the extreme northeastern
quadrant of the Calavera Hills Master Plan area. It is a 5.09-gross-acre parcel known as Carlsbad Tract 90-24. Village R is on a southeast-facing slope over- looking Calavera Lake. The village is approximately 500 feet northeast of and
50 feet above the Calavera Lake dam. Existing topographic elevations on the village site range from 240 feet to 275 feet above MSL. The slope of the vil- lage site can be described as moderate, with 90 percent of the village occupying slopes of 15 percent or less.
The primary existing land use on the site is a 150-foot
SDG&E electrical transmission line. The electrical transmission line easement is maintained by SDG&E and is currently occupied by two single circuit 138
kilovolt (kV) transmission lines. Wooden H-frame type pole structures are used to suspend the conductors in this easement. The transmission corridor enters on
the southwest side of the village. Approximately 200 feet inside the village
boundary the corridor changes alignment about 30 degrees east, continues for about 500 feet, then exits the northeast corner of the village.
portion of the master plan area adjacent to and north of Village K. The village
64
-
Other existing land uses on the site are an approximat(
1.5-acre area of abandoned agriculture and some unauthorized off-road-vehi
activity. Currently, the site is being impacted by illegal solid waste dispo activities. Surrounding existing land uses include vacant land to the no1
west, and south and a single-family residential area approximately 750 feet the east-northeast.
0
The Carlsbad General Plan designates Village R as RL
Residential Low-Medium Density. This designation allows for densities rang from 0-4 ddac with a growth management control point of 3.2 ddac. - Calavera Hills Master Plan designates Village R as R-1. The permitted
associated with the R-1 zone is single-family detached dwellings, with minim
lot sizes of 7,500 square feet. The master plan suggests a development type Village R of clustered single-family. The master plan allows for a maximum
allows up to 6 dwelling units. The City’s Growth Management Ordinance (Sea 21.90.045) contains provisions allowing project approvals in excess of growth control point if findings can be made. The required findings address provision of adequate public facilities, sufficient approvals quadrant-wide
densities below the control point to allow for any proposed excess, and den stration that the City’s public facilities plans would not be adver: impacted.
Village R, in previous master plans, was designated as c space and proposed as the site of a park. A subsequent master plan amendr
has changed the land use designation of Village R to residential. This was (
to consolidate the master plan’s park acreage into the now existing Cala Hills Community Park.
5) Village U. Village U is a 61.45-gross-acre parcel known
Carlsbad Tract 90-25. It is located in the east-central portion of the mi plan area. Village U is situated east of proposed College Boulevard and
bisected by the SDG&E R-0-W. The developable area is located on an east-fa
slope with on-site elevations ranging from 380 feet to 100 feet above MSL.
improvements to the site are an existing 150-foot transmission line easement a 30-foot water easement. The water easement is held by the San Diego Cc Water Authority. Also on-site is an existing pressure reducing and pum
station at the future intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive and Co Boulevard.
20 dwelling units in Village R, which is superseded by the Zone 7 LFMP wl
0
-
Village U is a presently undeveloped parcel. The
Existing land uses surrounding Village U include vacant
to the north, east, and south. A multi-family development, Calavera
Village D, is located to the west and a temporary stockpile is located to
northwest.
Surrounding Village U is an approved single-family dev
ment (Village T) to the north, proposed single-family developments (Village! X, and Y) to the south, and existing multi-family developments (Villages C
D) to the west. Also located to the west of Village U is Village E-1, a n
plan neighborhood commercial site. To the northwest is Village K, a pro] multi-family residential development. e
65
The Carlsbad General Plan designates Village U as RLM, Residential Low-Medium Density. This designation allows for densities ranging from 0-4 dufac with a growth management control point of 3.2 ddac. The
Calavera Hills Master Plan designates Village U as RD-M, Residentid Density- Multiple, as the permitted use. The master plan designates a development type
of clustered multi-family. The master plan allows for a maximum of 248 dwelling units in Village U, which is superseded by the Zone 7 LFMP which allows up to 139 dwelling units.
6) VillaPes W, X, and Y. Villages W, X, and Y are collectively known as Carlsbad Tract 90-26. Together they comprise 100.5 gross acres in the
southeast quadrant of the Calavera Hills Master Plan area. These villages are located on vacant, undeveloped land.
Topographically, Village W occupies the highest ground of
the three villages and slopes radially in all directions from its approximate center. Village Y would occupy a topographic bench area slightly downslope and
to the west of Village W. Village X would be placed on a larger topographic bench to the south of Village W at a similar elevation to Village Y.
This area of the master plan can be characterized as moder- ately sloping with significant areas of steep slopes. This statement can be substantiated because 59 percent of the three village areas exhibit slopes
greater than or equal to 15 percent and 31 percent of the area has slopes greater than or equal to 25 percent.
The only existing land uses on-site are two single circuit 138-kV SDG&E electrical transmission lines.
Existing land uses surrounding the three villages include vacant land to the north and east, agriculture of varying intensities to the southeast and south, single-family residential to the west, and multi-family residential to the northwest.
The planned land uses surrounding Villages W, X, and Y include an approved single-family detached residential development to the north
known as Calavera Hills Village T and a proposed multi-family residential development to the northwest known as Village U. Adjacent to but off-site of Village W and X, the general plan designates the area RLM, low to medium density residential. ~-
The Carlsbad General Plan designates Villages W, X, and Y as
RL, Residential Low Density. This density allows for densities ranging from 0-1.5 ddac, with a growth management control point of 1.0 ddac. The Calavera Hills Master Plan designates Villages W, X, and Y as R-1 single-family, with Village W specifically designated as single-family estates. In conformance with
the intent of the master plan to provide large-lot single-family residences in the southeast part of Calavera Hills, the applicant is proposing a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet for Villages X and Y and a minimum size of 20,000 square feet for Village W. The master plan allows for a maximum of 147 dwelling
units, which is superseded by the Zone 7 LFMP which allows for up to 73 dwelling units in the three villages.
66
7) Carlsbad Village Drive. The tentative map for Village
proposes the widening of Carlsbad Village Drive between Victoria Avenue 1
Pontiac Drive. Presently, this northlsouth-trending portion of the roadway two lanes. Carlsbad Village Drive is a circulation element secondary arter
which calls for an 84-foot R-0-W and 64 feet of total travel lanes. Carlsl Village Drive is also a circulation element bikeway. Currently, the area proposed grading for the Carlsbad Village Drive widening is in a natural state.
8) College Boulevard On-Site. The Carlsbad Circulation Elem
designates College Boulevard as a major arterial. A major arterial utilizes
102-foot R-0-W. The area of construction for College Boulevard on-site is fr
the proposed Carlsbad Village Drive intersection south to the Calavera H property line. The linear distance of the roadway improvement would be 4,
feet, or 0.8 mile. College Boulevard is also designated as a location for bicycle route by the Circulation Element. The proposed alignment of Colll Boulevard from Carlsbad Village Drive to the south Calavera Hills propc boundary is predominantly in its natural state. The exception to this, howe7 is the nonperpendicular crossing of the SDG&E electrical transmission 1
9) College Boulevard Off-Site. Off-site, College Boulevard
a Carlsbad Circulation Element designated major arterial. The roadway conf ration for College Boulevard off-site would be the same as College Boulevard site. College Boulevard is also designated as a location for a bicycle route the Circulation Element. The off-site section of College Boulevard is loci
from the south Calavera Hills property boundary to the proposed alignment Cannon Road. The linear distance of the roadway improvement would be appr
alignment, as shown on the tentative map, are existing vacant land and agn ture.
b. ADDlicable AdoDted Citv Documents. There are several ado]
@
R-0-W.
0 rnately 1,600 feet or 0.3 mile. Existing land uses that surround the prop(
City ordinances and policies which address land use issues applicable to proposed project. The pertinent components of those ordinances and policies
discussed below.
1) Zoning Ordinance. The Calavera Hills Master Plan area
zoned P-C, Planned Community. As stated in the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, intent and purpose of the planned community zone is to:
Provide a method for and to encourage the orderly implementation of the general plan and any applicable specific plans by the comprehensive
planning and development of large tracts of land under unified ownership
or developmental control so that the entire tract will be developed in accordance with an adopted master plan to provide an environment of
stable and desirable character;
Provide a flexible regulatory procedure to encourage creative and imag-
inative planning of coordinated communities involving a mixture of
residential densities and housing types, open space, community facili-
ties, both public and private and, where appropriate, commercial and industrial areas; a
67
-
Allow for the coordination of planning efforts between developer and city to provide for the orderly development of all necessary public
facilities to insure their availability concurrent with need;
Provide a framework for the phased development of an approved master plan area to provide some assurances to the developer that later devel-
opment will be acceptable to the city; provided such plans are in accordance with the approved planned community master plan (City of
Carlsbad 1982).
Section 21.38.040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC)
addresses one of the requirement of the P-C zone:
Prior to the approval for any permits for development on property zoned
P-C, planned community, a master plan of development must be approved by the city council in accord with the provisions of this chapter. A master plan when approved by ordinance shall establish the regulations for the development of the planned community within the P-C zone, and the regulations shall become part thereof (City of Carlsbad 1982).
2) General Plan. The Carlsbad General Plan’s Land Use Element
defines residential density allocations as a tool used in describing the inten- sity of residential land use. These designations are not intended to drive the selection of a specific product type. The planning designations, in general,
offer a type of intensity that would characterize the area. This characteriza- tion attempts to accommodate innovative approaches to residential design.
Low Density (RL) would be characterized by detached single-
family dwellings on lots of one-half acre or larger. This designation would not
preclude cluster-type developments having large areas of open space where resi-
dential density would remain in conformance with the planning designation
density of 1.5 ddac or less.
Low-Medium Density (RLM) residential areas are normally single-family residential units on slightly smaller lots in the range of a quarter of an acre per unit. Providing the development does not exceed 4 ddac, a variety of product types would be allowed under this designation.
Medium Density (RM) is characteristic of small-lot single- family residential, single-family attached, or low-density apartment developments.
Medium-High Density (RMH) is characteristic of apartment
complexes or condominium developments.
3) Calavera Hills Master Plan. The master plan document which
regulates the development of the lands under examination in this study is the
Calavera Hills Master Plan [MP-lSO(F)]. The master plan contains sections relating to environmental constraints, land use/development standards, open
space and maintenance, and public facilities and phasing.
The master plan is the site-specific planning document for the Calavera Hills area. Its purpose is to be consistent with but more detailed
and specific than the general plan.
68
The Calavera Hills Master Plan defines residential develc 0 ment types in this way:
Single-family - one house on a single lot totally detacl from any other living unit.
Multi-family - attached rental or ownership units of dup triplex, or larger.
Clustered - locating the development on the flatter, rr
buildable portions of the site while leaving the stee less buildable portions of the site in their natural state.
The Calavara Hills Master Plan’s grading standards sec
states that there should be no grading on naturauy occurring slopes of
percent or more unless approved by the City Engineer and Planning Director i review of a soils/engineering report. However, this section of the exis master plan is proposed to be eliminated during the upcoming comprehen master plan amendment. This grading section of the master plan will be upd
by referencing the City’s Hillside Development Ordinance (HDO). Slope imp will be assessed as described in the HDO.
4) Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan. The Calavera J Master Plan area is entirely within the Zone 7 Local Facilities Management 1
This plan is 1 of 25 facilities planning areas in the city of Carlsbad.
completion of the LFMP was part of Carlsbad’s overall growth management pro] and is a more detailed version of the growth management plan for the Zor area. The purpose of the plan is to analyze and project public faci requirements before and as an area continues to develop. To assure the adeq
of public facilities, compliance to the plan is mandatory, since it is a rei tory document. Of the public facilities examined in the plan, two are inch in the scope of this section, parks and open space.
Community parks facilities are addressed on a park di
basis. Carlsbad has four park districts that correlate to the four quadrant the city. The Calavera Hills Master Plan area is in the northeast quadrani Park District 2.
The performance standard set by the LFMP is 3 acres of
for every 1,000 population. Calavera Hills Community Park is a 16.16 existing facility near the core of the Calavera Hills area. Hope Eleme School is a 2.80-acre special use area that qualifies as park inventory aci This 18.98 acres of parkland in conjunction with other Park District 2 satisfies the plan’s required acreage for performance standard park demand.
The performance standard relating to open space for Zc LFMP is 15 percent of total land area, exclusive of non-developable land, i must be set aside as permanent open space concurrent with development.
total designated open space indicated on this figure totals 165.16 acres.
0
5) Hillside Develoument Ordinance. These regulations
contained in 21.95 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. In general, the ord sets standards for the identification and utilization of hillsides. A H a
69
Development Permit is required when development is proposed on slopes that exceed 15 percent slope and are 15 feet high. When these conditions exist on a parcel, the Hillside Development Ordinance has specific guidelines the
development applicant shall follow to apply for a permit. The conformance of the villages under examination will be dealt with in a comprehensive manner in the Landform Alteration section of this report.
6) Open Space and Conservation Element. The City of Carlsbad adopted an ordinance (Ordinance No. NS-109) in January, 1990, which is still
current and which establishes temporary land use controls to protect open space from development in Carlsbad. The major components of Ordinance No. NS-109 are as follows:
The ordinance prohibits the approval of any development
project which would delete the amount or quality of open space shown on the open space map recommended by the Citizen's Committee. Boundary adjustments could be
considered if certain findings are met as recommended in the report of the Citizen's Committee. The required findings are as follows:
a)
b) The open space area is of equal or greater environmental
quality;
c) The boundary modification is made in order to provide an enhancement to an environmentally sensitive area;
d) The adjusted open space is contiguous or within close
proximity to the open space shown on the map; and
e) The City Council may also modify the boundary location
shown on the map, but only if it finds that the modification is necessary to
mitigate a sensitive environmental area which is impacted by development provided the boundary modification preserves open space at a 2 to 1 ratio and is
within close proximity to the original area of open space.
The open space area is of equal or greater area;
2. Impacts
The impacts of the project have been assessed on its conformance with the adopted city policies and ordinances discussed in the preceding section. A detailed discussion of the project's conformance with the Hillside Development Ordinance will be presented in the Visual AestheticsLandform Alteration section.
Impacts associated with General Plan designated open space will not
be assessed on a village-by-village basis. Rather, being a regional issue, open space compliance will be assessed here at the master plan level. The Open Space
and Conservation Element of the General Plan states, "The Growth Management Ordinance shall be utilized to implement the goals and objectives of this
element and establish standards for Open Space." The performance standard for open space in Zone 7 is 15 percent of the total land area excluding environ-
mentally constrained land. This land must be permanent open space and available
concurrent with the development of the villages. The LFMP states that of the
818.9 acres of the Calavera Hills area, 705.65 acres are not environmentally
70
constrained. Therefore, the Calavera Hills area requires an open space I: formance standard demand of 105.80 acres as documented in the LFMP.
Figure 19 shows the existing general plan open space and is ger ally representative of the open space suggested on the submitted tentative ma
designated open space of 20.4 acres. More specifically, Figure 19 proposes
open space for a total general plan open space acreage of 132 acres.
The quality of the open space modifications are more subjective
nature; generally, the open space deletions do not fragment existing open SF and the proposed open space additions enhance the overall size of exis parcels. Also, the proposed addition on the southern boundary of the m:
plan area in Village X will serve as an additional open space link between relatively major parcels. This approximate area is also identified on Comprehensive Open Space Network map as a designated open space link an potential primary trail.
a. Village H. The Calavera Hills Master Plan [MP-lSO(F)] dt
nates the zoning in Village H as RD-M, Residential Density-Multiple. A * variety of permitted residential uses are allowed in this zone including si1 family dwellings, multi-family dwellings, and accessory buildings.
0
The modifications presented in Figure 19 quantify a net increase in general 1
addition of 30.5 acres of open space and deletion of 10.1 acres of design;
The adopted Calavera Hills Master Plan proposed development for Village H is clustered multi-family development with a maximum ak number of dwelling units of 96. The tentative map for Village H proposes
single-family detached units to be constructed on the parcel. Thus, from a use perspective this change in product type does not conform to the guide set by the master plan.
Currently, the Carlsbad General Plan designates Village H as low density residential, which is consistent with development proposed by tentative map. However, the Calavera Hills Master Plan designates the vi as multi-family residential. Although the tentative map does not conforn
master plan guidelines, the proposed project is not considered as an ad impact for Village H.
As described above, the Carlsbad General Plan desii Village H as RL, with permitted residential densities of 0-1.5 ddac.
residential density proposed by the Village H tentative map is 0.3 ddac, 7 is in conformance with the general plan designation for this parcel.
0
The tentative map for Village H proposes encroachment on g plan designated open space. 'The reduction of open space area in Village south of Carlsbad Village Drive and on the east edge of the proposed de ment. Figure 19 is a graphic representation of the approximate area of space that would be lost as a result of the project as submitted on the
tive map. The preceding discussion quantified the adequacy of the overall space supply for the Calaveira Hills Master Plan area; therefore, this enc ment is not considered a significant environmental impact.
Zone 7 LFMP allows for the construction of 42 units i village on the 42.2 acres of unconstrained land. The proposed 13 units e
71
F
Q,
Q)
!a 4 ;i
25 :E kz
AI aw at <y
2 v-
0'
r f z ZJ <m f1
0 v)
v) a
n z 4
U w Y a
2
<E KO
:
r .. w 0 U 3 0
v)
W 0
cn z W a 0
D w m 0 h 0 a Q
a a
ci v-
W U 3 c3
L -
result in a residential density of 0.3 ddac. The growth management con1
point for RL and Village H is 1.0 dulac. Therefore, the residential densil
proposed by the tentative map are in conformance with the general plan, master plan, and the LFMP.
b. Village K. Village K is also zoned RD-M, with a developn type of clustered multi-family suggested by the Calavera Hills Master Plan. master plan defines a clustering as "locating the development in the fl:
more buildable portions of the site, while maintaining the steeper, less bi able portions of the site in their natural state." The tentative map il trating Village K's design is shown on Figure 8.
village on the 36.2 acres of unconstrained land. The proposed 350 units w(
result in a residential density of 9.7 ddac. The growth management cor point for RMH and Village K is 11.5 ddac. Therefore, the residential dens proposed by the tentative map are in conformance with the general plan,
master plan, and the LFMP.
@
Zone 7 LFMP allows for the construction of 416 units in
C. Village L-2. The Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance designates Vd L-2 as RD-M, Residential Density-Multiple Zone. The Calavera Hills Master
designates a development type for Village L-2 as clustered multi-family. product type proposed by the tentative map is 45 duplexes.
The proposed density for Village L-2 is 4.96 ddac, whicl lower than the 6 ddac growthL management control point for planning design, RM. Village L-2 proposes to add 90 more units to the master plan area. All product types in this village will be duplexes. LFMP Zone 7 allows for units to be built in this village. Therefore, the intensity of developmen
in conformance with the general plan and the growth management program.
The tentative map for Village L-2 proposes encroachment general plan designated open space. The open space affected by Village L- south of proposed Tamarack ,4venue. However, since the overall developmer
the master plan area proposes a net increase in quantity and quality of space, this encroachment is not considered to be an adverse effect.
0
d. Village R. The Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance designates villai as R-1, with a proposed development type of clustered single-family, as ! in the master plan. In general, the permitted uses associated with Zone R-I
single-family detached dwellings, with lots exceeding 7,500 square feet.
Village R, under the Calavera Hills Master Plan, is desig
RLM and open space. The tentative map submitted for Village R propose construction of 7 detached single-family residences. The RLM planning de tion calls for a residential density range of 0-4 ddac, with a growth mi ment control point of 3.2 ddac. According to the LFMP, Village R has acres of unconstrained, developable land. The preceding values would allo~
the construction of 6 residential dwelling units in Village R. The propos dwelling units would exceed the growth management control point for Villa] This is contrary to the Growth Management Ordinance and would represc potentially significant land use impact for Village R. I€ the required fi1 pursuant to the Growth Management Ordinance cannot be made, the impact then require a redesign of the tentative map. a
73
The grading plan for Village R proposes fill slopes off-site.
These slope areas are south of the village boundary, but would encroach into the San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) easement,
e. Village U. Village U is zoned RD-M, Residential Density-
Multiple Zone, which allows for a variety of uses on the parcel. This zoning designation provides a means for development in general plan designations RLM through RH. A wide variety of permitted residential uses are allowed in this zone, including single-family dwellings, multi-family dwellings, and accessory
buildings. The development type for this Village U, as defined by the Calavera Hills Master Plan, is clustered multi-family.
The master plan has designated the village as RLM, which allows for densities in the range of 0-4 ddac. The growth management control point
for RLM designated land is 3.2 ddac. The LFMP would allow a maximum of 139
units to be built on the 43.25 acres of unconstrained, developable land. The tentative map for Village U proposes the construction of 133 dwelling units.
The resulting proposed residential density of Village U would be 3.1 ddac. The
intensity of the residential development for Village U conforms to the Carlsbad growth management program and the Zone 7 LFMP and, therefore, would not
represent a land use impact.
The tentative map for Village U proposes the construction of resi- dential units in designated open space in adjacent Village T. This situation is
presented graphically in Figure 11. The design of Village U as suggested on the
tentative map would be considered a significant land use impact for Village U.
f. Village W. X, and Y. Villages W, X, and Y are all designated R-1 in the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance. The primary permitted use in R-1 areas is
single-family detached residential dwellings. The Calavera Hills Master Plan suggests single-family development types for these villages. The development proposed by the tentative map for these villages is consistent in respect to
permitted uses.
The Carlsbad General Plan designates the area occupied by Villages W, X, and Y as RL and open space. The tentative map for the three villages proposes the addition of 77 detached single-family residences. Plan-
ning designation RL allows for a residential density range of 0-1.5 ddac, with a growth management control point of 1.0 dulac. The sum of the developable acres from the LFMP is 73.6 acres, which would allow for the sum total of 73
dwelling units in the combined villages.
If these villages are considered as a single entity, as presented on the tentative map, the proposed 77 residential units exceeds the maximum number of units allowed by Zone 7 LFMP. Similarly, the villages as an
entity exceed the growth management control point; this condition is
inconsistent with the City’s growth management program and, therefore,
constitutes a significant land use impact.
The tentative map for the three villages proposes encroachment
on general plan designated open space. Figure 19 illustrates the approximate area of open space that would be lost as a result of the project as submitted on
74
the tentative maps. However, since the overall development of the master p
area proposes a net increase in quantity and quality of open space, 1
encroachment is not considered to be an adverse effect. @
The portion of the tentative map that addresses Village
proposes the construction of 37 single-family detached units. The general i designation RL, assigned to Village W, allows for densities of 0-1.5 ddac v a growth management control point of 1.0 ddac. The LFMP for Village specifies a net developable acreage of 32.0 acres. The proposed 32 dwel
units would exceed the growth management control point for Village W. Thi: contrary to the Growth Management Ordinance and would represent a land impact.
The tentative map for Village W also proposes encroachment
Figure 19 shows the approximate area of open space that would be lost a result of the project as submitted on the tentative map. However, since overall development of the master plan area proposes a net increase in qua and quality of open space, this encroachment is not considered to be an ad\ effect.
The portion of the tentative map that describes Village proposes the construction of 33 single-family detached units. The general designation RL assigned to Village X allows for densities of 0-1.5 ddac wii growth management control point of 1.0 ddac. The LFMP for Village X spec a net developable acreage of 36.7 acres. Therefore, the LFMP would allow construction of more than 36 residential dwelling units in Village X. development intensity proposed by the tentative map for Village X conform!
general plan, master plan, and growth management program guidelines and u
not represent an adverse land use impact.
The tentative map for Village X also proposes encroachmen designated open space, which is contrary to adopted plans and ordinances.
approximate area of open space that would be modified as a result of the pr as submitted on the tentative map is shown on Figure 19. However, since overall development of the master plan area proposes a net increase in quz and quality of open space, this encroachment is not considered to be an ad
effect.
The portion of the tentative map which addresses Villag proposes the construction of 7 single-family detached units. The general designation RL assigned to Village Y allows for densities of 0-1.5 ddac w growth management control pomt of 1.0 ddac. The LFMP for Village Y spe a net developable acreage of 4.90 acres. The LFMP states that the constri
of 5 units is allowed. The proposed 7 dwelling units would exceed the g management control point for Village Y. This is contrary to the Growth Ma ment Ordinance and would represent a land use impact.
designated open space, which is contrary to adopted plans and ordinan
*
g. Carlsbad Village Drive. Carlsbad Village Drive is a circu
area. From a strictly land use standpoint, the proposed improvemenl Carlsbad Village Drive will not be an impact. Portions of the improvement for Carlsbad Village Drive are located in areas designated as general plan
element road and, therefore, has been included in the planning process fu
1.
75
space. This effect is, for the reasons listed above, not considered a land use impact.
h. College Boulevard On-Site. College Boulevard is a circulation
element road and, therefore, has been included in the planning process for the area. From a strictly land use standpoint, the proposed improvements to College Boulevard will not be an impact.
i. College Boulevard Off-Site. From a strictly land use stand-
point, the proposed construction of College Boulevard will not be an impact.
Please refer to Agriculture section for land use information on that topic.
3. Mitigation
The significant land use impacts identified above relate to the
various villages’ lack of compliance with adopted city plans, policies, and ordinances. Compliance with these adopted policies would, in many instances,
require a redesign of the affected village. As described below, conceptual project redesigns which afford increased compliance are discussed in Section 11.H.’ Project Alternatives, of this report. These effects include residential intensities in excess of growth management control points, development outside of village boundaries, and changes in product type.
a. Village H. No significant impacts were assessed for Village H
concerning land use issues; therefore, no mitigation will be required.
b. Village K. No mitigation is required for Village K because no
significant land use impacts were assessed.
c. Village L-2. No significant impacts were assessed for Village L-2 regarding land use issues; therefore, no mitigation will be required.
d. Village R. The impact with respect to the growth management
control point is potentially significant and depends on whether the required
findings can be made. If the findings cannot be made, a redesign of the
tentative map would be required. The suggested mitigation that may
substantially lessen the effects of the design of Village R is an alternative
design strategy. Redesign options for Village R are discussed in the Alternatives section of this EIR.
e. Village U. Village U would result in a significant impact
because of the proposed residential development in general plan-designated open space adjacent to Village T. This issue is directly related to the design of the village. Mitigation that could substantially lessen the effects of the problematic site plan is an alternative design for Village U. The Alternatives section of this EIR will explore redesign for Village U.
Village W, X, and Y. The tentative map for Villages W and Y has resulted in the identification of significant impacts because the intensity of
residential development is in conflict with the Growth Management Ordinance by exceeding the growth management control point. The effects are associated with the design of the village. The suggested mitigation that may substantially
lessen the effects of the problematic design is an alternative design strategy.
The Alternatives section of this EIR explores available redesign options.
~~
f.
76
g. Carlsbad Village Drive. The 2:l slopes required for Carls
Village Drive will encroach on designated open space. This was not considere significant impact because the roadway is a planned circulation element roadv However, measures which would reduce this adverse effect include steepening
slope aspect ratio to 1.8:l as recommended, for aesthetic reasons, in Calavera Hills Master Plan. This slope may have a ratio of 1.8:l if a pre
soils engineering report subst>antiates the slope stability and is approved the City Engineer and Planning Director. This would reduce the extent grading required and encroachment into open space. A redesign of the grading utilizing an alternative construction technique other than that proposed by
tentative map may result in substantially lessened adverse effects.
@
a
a
77
B. LANDFORM ALTERATIONMSUAL OUALITY
1. Existing Conditions
This section of thie EIR describes the existing landforms and 3
visual resources currently inherent with each of the proposed villages. 1 issues discussed for each village will include a general description of
topographic character of the parcel, a discussion of the slopes in the villa)
the existing views from the subject parcel, and a discussion of the exist
scenic quality. Views of the subject village will emphasize intensive vie that is, views that currently exist and are either public or private. r
locations of the photographs referenced below are shown in Figure 20.
e
a. Villane H. Topographically the majority of the site is loci on the east-facing slope of the most incised drainage in the master plan a
The village is split by a drainage divide that separates drainage to the n
towards Buena Vista Creek from southerly drainage to Agua Hedionda Creek. r
divide is now traversed by existing Carlsbad Village Drive. The topography
Village H is generally the most steep in the master plan area. Elevations this village range from 150 feet to 300 feet above MSL.
A slope analysis has been conducted for Village H (Table Slope categories defined in HDO are listed below accompanied by the percen
of the total site that is within each range. Approximately 19 percent of
site is 0-15 percent slope, 24 percent of the site is 15-25 percent slope, percent of the site is 25-40 percent slope, and 14 percent of the site exc 40 percent slope.
The topography of Village H offers several unobstructed inti-
views of the Cdavera Hills area. The major public views are located s Carlsbad Village Drive. The views are to the east and northeast overlooking open areas of the drainage and existing residential, industrial, and tran tation network areas. These existing views are presented in Photograph Existing views to the southeast have views of undeveloped land, Village J, a~ skyline view of Calavera Hills Community Park. This existing settint
presented in Photograph 2,
The area of Village H, because of its topographic location
aspect, is a highly visible area. The area north of Carlsbad Village Drh highly visible to existing residential Villages 0, P-1, and J as well as Elementary School. Photograph 3 is a representative view of the Car Village Drive improvement area. The area south of Carlsbad Village Drii
highly visible and in close proximity to existing Village G and eastbound elers on Carlsbad Village Drive. Persons utilizing Carlsbad Village Drive 7 have intermittent views of the developed area of Village H. The er
conditions of the area proposed for development south of Carlsbad Village
*
is presented in Photograph 4.
The visual quality of Village H can be characterized as ni
if somewhat confined, open areas. The views provided in this area afford relief from the urban form of the surrounding developed areas.
b. Village K. Village K is located on the south of the sumr the Calavera Hills Master F’lan area. Existing topography slope moderate @
78
__
In
f
L Q
c 0
0 5
c a za C
2
2: - U g 5 -4 2
ON(:
C C sw E 5 ow2 U 0
c
- 22 E a 2; n a *E s 3 ww w w xa > >
- - L1
TABLE 2 SLOPE SUhailARY FOR VILLAGE SEEKING e DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL
Slope Categories (in acres) Village 0-15% 1525% 25-40% >40%
H 12.50 15.30 27.70 9.00 K 26.9 1 4.27 4.08, 3.49
L-2 14.50 3.30 0.80 0.10
R 4.63 0.50 0.01 0.0
U 25.37 15.68 13.40 6.25 W 11.30 10.88 11.86 5.81
X 25.22 16.09 1 1.02 2.24 Y 4.93 1.15 0,113 0.00
TOTAL 125.36 67.17 69.05 26.89
% of TOTAL 43.46% 23.28% 23.94% 9.32%
a
e
PHOTOGRAPH 1. EXISTING VIEW FROM CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR
CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE J
PHOTOGRAPH 2. EXISTING VIEW FROM CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRI’
r
AREA OF PROPOSED CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR.
PHOTOGRAPH 3. EXISTING VIEW OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
FROM TAMARACK AVENUE
PHOTOGRAPH 4. EXISTING VIEW OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL A
OF VILLAGE H
the west, south, and east. Topographic elevations range from a low of 250 f MSL in the northwest comer to a high of 437 feet MSL in the north-cent
portion of the site. The area of Village K is dissected by the headward ext sion of two drainages. One of the drainages is in the western side of the s the other is in the northeast comer of the site.
As shown in Table 2, a slope analysis has been conducted Village K. Slope categories defined in HDO are listed below accompanied by
percentage of the total site that is within each range. Approximately percent of the site is 0-15 percent slope, 11 percent of the site is 15
percent slope. 10 percent of the site is 25-40 percent slope, and 9 percent the site exceeds 40 percent slope.
The topographically superior situation of Village K prov
both internal and external views. From an observation point near the center
the village the views, to the west are partially obstructed by intcrvei topography and vegetation. Southern views are screened to a lesser deg allowing views of existing Village D. As the landscape to the east slopes ai there are views across the Calavera Creek drainage to the next ridgeline, w is approximately 1 to 1.5 miles distant. The distant views to the east characterized predominantly by open space. The less distant views are of
slopes toward Calavera Creek and the SDG&E R-0-W.
The existing views of the area of proposed Village K encountered by a variety of viewer types, which include residential, rr ational, and roadway viewers. Village G and J is an existing multiple fa
development adjacent to Village K across Tamarack Avenue. The views of the proposed for Village K are characterized by steeply sloping, westward-fa scrub-covered slopes. The Calavera Hills Community Park is adjacent to Vi K across Carlsbad Village Drive. The views of Village K from the park primarily of the western one-half of Village K, which is characterized moderate to steep scrub-covered slopes, An existing view of Village K from northeastern corner of the park is presented in Photograph 5. The eastern
half of Village K is currently being obstructed by the spoil pile in V E-1. Roadway users have existing views of Village K from Carlsbad V Drive, Tamarack Avenue, and Glasgow Drive.
The overall scenic quality of Village K can be characterize a vacant open area. The quality of the view’s open space has been degrade off-road activity and unauthorized dumping activities. Presently, approxir 30 percent of the village native vegetation has been disturbed.
c. Village L-2. This village occupies the topographic summ the Calavera Hills Master Plan area. From the high point, the existing 1
raphy slopes radially at moderate to gentle inclinations, becoming most ste the village’s western extremity. Elevations on the site are from 340 feet at the southwestern edge of the site to 446 feet MSL near the base of the C
reservoir. The site topography exhibits only minor dissection from processes, The headward extension to two drainages are on the site--one i
@
a
southwestern comer and the other in the southeastern comer.
A slope analysis has been conducted for Village L-2. categories defined in HDO are listed below accompanied by the percentage
total site that exhibits slopes within each range. Approximately 77.5 1 @
83
Y U a a >
Z 3 I 2 0 0
cn -J -J
I
U W >
-I
/-c - -
-
a
a
a 0
2 0 U LL
,z
W
(3 a -J -I >
0 W cn 0 a 0 U a
LL 0
3 W >
(3 z
I- cn
X W
-
-
- -
uj r
a a
U
(3 0 F 0 r n I I4-a
of the site is 0-15 percent slope, 17.7 percent of the site is 15-25 perce slope, 4.3 percent of the site is 25-40 percent slope, and 0.5 percent of tl
site exceeds 40 percent slope.
Village L-2 is proposed to occupy the topographically highc land in the master plan area. This superior topographic situation provides bc
internal and external views. Views from an observation point near the CMV reservoir affords distant views of the Pacific Ocean to the west, views of
existing developed residential areas to the south, open space views to the e:
2nd views of Oceanside to the north. Less distant views include the spoil 5
in Village E-1 and the SDG&E R-0-W. Photograph 6 shows a panorama from t
location.
@
The area of proposed Village L-2 is highly visible due to village’s topographic situation. Village L-2 has a fairly uniform coverage scrub with some disruption of texture due to dirt access roads. However, CMWD reservoir dominates any view of Village L-2. Currently, the reservoir no vegetative screening that would help break up the mass of this structure.
d. Village R. Village R is on a southeast-facing spur of 1 overlooking Calavera Lake. The village is approximately 500 feet northeast
and 50 feet above the Calavera Lake dam. Existing topographic elevations on village site range from 240 feet to 275 feet above MSL. The slope of village site can be described as gentle to moderate. The topography of the
exhibits no dissected or canyon type features. A view of Village R is pre in Photograph 7.
A slope analysis has been conducted for Village R, Slope e gories defined in HDO are listed below accompanied by the percentage of total site that exhibits slopes within each range. Approximately 90.1 pe of the site is 0-15 percent slope, 9.7 percent of the site is 15-25 pe
slope, and 0.2 percent of the site is 25-40 percent slope. No portion of site exceeds 40 percent slope.
The existing views of the area of proposed Village R primarily southward. Distant views are of open space down the Calavera ( drainage and to the hills to the southeast. Near ground views associated Village R include Calavera Lake and the SDG&E R-0-W.
Existing views of the area of proposed Village R are limite the village’s location. Partial views of the village are presently ava from the residential areas of Oceanside to the northeast of the village.
e. Village U. The village is located on an east-facing slope is adjacent to the Calavera Creek drainage. The area of the proposed ville
dissected by a number of minor drainages associated with Calavera Creek
western, upland portion of the site has several promontories which have isolated by the headward extension of several of the drainages. Slopes c site are most steep along the drainages.
A slope analysis has been conducted for Village U. Slope
gories defined in HDO are listed below accompanied by the percentage
total site that exhibits slopes within each range. Approximately 41.8 of the site is 0-15 percent slope, 25.8 percent of the site is 15-25 *
85
I I
**
- - __ - _--
a-
a
W a
4 4 >
D W
v) 0 a 0 a a
LI 0
v)
W >
(3 z
I-
v)
X W
-
3 -
- -
r; r a a a a 0 I- O r a
-
_I 0 $' I
slope, 22.1 percent of the site is 25-40 percent slope, and 10.3 percent of ' site exceeds 40 percent slope.
There are several key viewpoints located in the area of propo:
Village U. The viewpoints are predominantly located along the western edge
the village. The open space views are oriented in an easterly direction acr
Calavera Creek to the distant hills. To the west are views of the exist residential area Village D. The SDG&E R-0-W is present in foreground vie There is also a rock outcrop in the northeast corner of the parcel that provi
a promontory with internal and external views.
0
Village U is currently visible to the residents of exis
The scenic quality of Village U is characterized by natural c space. Village U exhibits a uniform texture of scrubkhaparral coverage. r form is only broken by the SDG&E R-0-W.
f. Village W, X, and Y. The general topography of Village W. and Y can be characterized as moderately sloping with areas of steep slc Generally, the eastern portion of the site is more steep than the we: portion. The existing setting of the areas proposed for these villages is sh
in Photographs 6 and 9. Topographically, Village W would occupy the hi€
ground of the three villages, sloping radially in all directions from
approximate center. Village Y would occupy a topographic bench area slif downslope and to the west of Village W, on the west-facing slope of a draii
Village X would be placed on a larger, south-facing, topographic bench to
south of Village W at a similar elevation to Village Y. Topographic eleva
range from 310 feet to 90 feet MSL. There are three major canyons that are
of the topographic complex of Villages W, X, and Y. One drainage is in northeast of Village W, another straddles the boundary line between Village: and X, and the third is in the western portion of Village W adjacen Village Y.
A slope analysis has been conducted for Villages W, X, an Slope categories defined in HDO are listed below accompanied by the perce of the total site that exhibits slopes within each range. Approximately
percent of the site is 0-15 percent slope, 28.0 percent of the site is percent slope, 22.9 percent of the site is 25-40 percent slope, and 8.0 pt of the site exceeds 40 percent slope.
g. AdoDted City Ordinances. The development of slope areas i
Calavera Hills Master Plan area is controlled by the City of Carlsbad H Development Ordinance. A Hillside Development Permit is required when a F proposes grading on any slope with a gradient of more than 15 percent i
relief of more than 15 feet. The purpose of this ordinance is to assure p
planning for slope areas to protect and enhance their value as 1
resources. Specific issues discussed in the ordinance that are relevant t scope of this review are hillside grading volumes, existing steep : contour grading, and manufactured slopes.
Hillside grading volumes are an indication of the amou
earthwork needed to grade a lot in preparation for construction. This num the product of the cubic yards of earthwork, cut, or fill, whichever is
Village D. These existing views are presented in Photograph 8.
a
e
87
._
sou
VILLAGE X SDGBE R-O-W
PHOTOGRAPH 9. EXISTING VIEW OF VILLAGES X AND Y FROM VIL
PHOTOGRAPH 10. EXISTING VIEW OF AREA OF PROPOSED COL
BOULEVARD
divided by the total number of acres of grading proposed. The resulting qu tity is expressed in cubic yards per acre (cylac).
The Hillside Development Ordinance and CMC 21.95.060 are 6 cific in the amounts of hillside grading volumes and their relative sensitiv
From 0-7,999 cy/ac is acceptable, 8,000- 10,000 cy/ac is potentially accepta’ and greater than 10,000 cy/ac is unacceptable.
Steep slope are defined by HDO as any slope over 15 percent which disturbance of the slope requires a Hillside Development Permit.
requirements are met. Slopes in excess of 40 percent are not to be develo] unless exemption requirements cited in the Hillside Development Regulab (Section 21-95.090) are met.
Contour grading refers to a technique utilized to simi
existing topography. The design of the slope should be rounded and unduls on both the top and toe of the slope. Once this type of slope is revegeti it will enhance the manufactured slopes’ ability to blend into the na‘ landscape.
Manufactured slopes are created by grading activities and ma)
of either cut or fill in nature. The HDO has placed a limit of 30 feet on heights of manufactured slopes.
2. Impacts
e
slopes in excess of 25 percent, the HDO allows for encroachment if cer
It is often the intent of grading operations to balance earthword quantities; that is, volumes of cut should be equal to volumes of within the boundaries of the site. The grading proposed on the tentative 1
does not balance earthwork on a village-by-village basis. Rather, the earth quantities in individual villages reflect only a portion of earthwork whicl balanced for the overall project site and which will be accomplished i single phase of grading. The single-phase grading approach is proposed the applicant so that conslmction on all of the villages can comn
simultaneously.
Under the proposed grading plan, grading would occur on 149 acrl
the approximately 290 acres involved in this final phase of the Calavera Master Plan development. The earthwork quantities required to complete task as presented on the subrnitted mass grading plan would be 1,315,340 ( cut and 1,202,460 cy of fill. The imbalance of cut and fill qua
represents 117,910 cy of non-rippable rock that would be transported off-SI the north at a nearby rock quarry (South Coast Asphalt Products) for dis
Considering grading as a master plan level issue, the fOIl
discussion will assess impacts associated with conformance to HDO, speck
hillside grading volumes for the entire project. This discussion will the
followed by a detailed discussion and impact assessment on a village-by-7
level of analysis.
Circulation element roads are exempt from HDO; therefore, when facilities are deleted, the grading for the remainder of the proje 1,241,120 cubic yards. This value yields a hillside grading volume of
0
*
89
~-
cy/ac. This value falls into the potentially acceptable range. This situation requires that findings be submitted for approval by the planning director and the city engineer per HDO. Therefore, assuming approval of said findings, the
extent of earthwork proposed by the tentative maps and the earthwork volumes proposed by the mass grading exhibit will not represent a significant impact for this portion of the Calavera Hills Master Plan area, as it relates to HDO
compliance.
Figure 21 shows diagrammatically the proposed cut and fill areas for
the villages as presented on the submitted grading plan, and Figure 22 shows the extent of areas to be disturbed by grading. The manufactured slopes that would
be created in the grading process as proposed will exhibit a slope ratio of 2:1,
vertical rise. that is, for every two feet of horizontal run there would be one foot of
a. Village H. The grading plan for Village H proposes 77,410 cy of
cut and 13,830 cy of fill required to develop pads and provide adequate roadbed for the access to the residential units. The submitted tentative map proposes that 5.28 acres of the 65.65-acre parcel will be graded for the residential
portion of the village. Village H proposes a hillside grading volume of
14,66 1 cy/ac, which falls into the sensitivity category of unacceptable.
However, as quantified in the opening discussion of this section, hillside grading volumes are assessed on the master plan level; therefore, no impact is assessed from this potential noncompliance with HDO.
The portion of Village H proposed for residential development proposes development on steep slopes. The tentative map for Village H proposes grading on slopes in excess of 40 percent. However, given the small isolated
nature of the 40 percent slope areas, the proposed encroachment would not represent a significant landform alteration impact,
Village H effectively utilizes contour grading of manufactured
slopes to simulate existing topography (see Figure 7). Therefore, no signifi- cant impacts were identified regarding contour grading. In addition, the manu- factured slopes created by the grading for the residential portion of Village H are less than 30 feet in height and, therefore, conform with HDO, so
manufactured slopes are not anticipated to be a direct impact.
The aesthetic impact from the development of Village H to travellers on Carlsbad Village Drive, residents in Village G, and off-site residents along Stanford Street to the west is not considered adverse. Given the contoured grading approach to the site and preservation of the majority of
the eucalyptus trees at the western boundary of the site, the visual impact would not be considered significant.
b. Village K. The grading plan for Village K proposes 290,190 cy
of cut and 206,750 cy of fill on 33.61 acres of the 38.75-acre site. The
hillside grading volume for Village K would be 8,502 cylac. This quantity falls into the potentially acceptable sensitivity range. However, as quantified in the opening discussion of this section, hillside grading volumes are assessed on the master plan level; therefore, no impact is assessed from this potential
noncompliance with HDO.
90
VILLAGE Y VILLAGE X ._
-1
SOURCE EARTHWORK DISTRIBUTIONS MAP, HUNSAKER 8i ASSOCIATES, JULY, lQQ 1
L
FIGURE 21. EXTENT OF PROPOSED GRADING - AREAS OF CUT A
F &
R-2328E 8/91
c-em
In terms of manufactured slope design, the tentative map Village K exhibits long linear slopes adjacent to College Boulevard and Carls
Village Drive. However, the slope adjacent to open space at the western bot
~J-JJ is contoured. The slopes along College Boulevard and Carlsbad Village D
higher than this as it continues north and near the northern extent of Village
approaches 30 feet. Additionally, the curvilinear slope on the west side of village, near the crib wall, exceeds the 30-foot slope height as allowed by H
Overall, the manufactured slope design does not attempt to match the exi5 topography and would not satisfy the intent of HDO guidelines. Therefore, s design in Village K represents a significant impact.
The portion of Village K proposed for residential develop1
does contain steep slopes in excess of 40 percent. Since the 40 percent s
areas are not within a small, isolated ravine, the tentative map would
comply with the requirements of the HDO and would create a significant land1 alteration impact. The grading proposed for Village K will affect the head\ extension of several small finger canyons which would be filled. The Cali?
Hills Master Plan calls for the preservation of these types of natural feat The destruction of these topographic features would also contribute to significant landform alteration impact.
a
are primarily 20 feet in height, The slope along College Boulevard becoi
Visually, the only direct impact associated with Village K \li be the long linear slope (approximately 1100 feet in length) adjacent to Co Boulevard. This slope and the six-foot-high noise wall atop the slope c
represent an adverse aesthetic impact to travellers on the roadway.
c. Village L-2. 'The grading plan and also the tentative map Village L-2 show that earthwork quantities of 165,770 cy of cut and 122,08 of fill are proposed to prepare this village for residential develop] Approximately 16 acres of the 18-acre site would be graded. The hi grading volumes stated on the grading plan would be 10,059 cy/ac. This vc of earthwork falls into the sensitivity level of unacceptable. However
quantified in the opening discussion of this section, hillside grading vol
are assessed on the master plan level; therefore, no impact is assessed this potential noncompliance with HDO.
0
The manufactured slopes associated with Village L-2 wouli
somewhat rounded and contoured. However, as a general rule the top oj
slopes are linear, and the slopes along Tamarack Avenue and Cay Drive are tively straight. There are also several manufactured slopes that are in f of 30 feet in vertical height. These manufactured slope designs do not s
follow the guidelines outlined in HDO and would represent a significant impact.
Development of Village L-2 would also encroach into slop
excess of 40 percent. Since the 40 percent slope areas are not within a isolated ravine, the tentative map would not comply with the requirements c HDO and would create a significant landform alteration impact. As Village K, the grading required will affect the headward extension of s small finger canyons which would be filled. The Calavera Hills Master calls for the preservation of these types of features. The destruction of
topographic features by the grading proposed on the tentative maps for 7 L-2 would also represent a significant landform alteration impact. 0
93
Aesthetically, the landform alteration associated with Village L-2 would not represent an adverse impact. Given the village’s location adja- cent to the water reservoir tank and proximity to approved development in
Calavera (Village Q), the visual impact would not be considered significant.
d. Village R. The earthwork required to grade residential lots
Development of the site would disturb 4.06 acres of the 5.09 gross acres. The grading plan for Village R would require a hillside grading volume of 18,289 cy/ac. Any value in excess of 10,000 cy/ac is considered unacceptable by HDO. However, as quantified in the opening discussion of this section, hillside
grading volumes are assessed on the master plan level; therefore, no impact is
assessed from this potential noncompliance with HDO.
The tentative map for Village R does not show grading activities on slopes in excess of 20 percent, and there are no slopes that exceed 40 percent. The grading for village design for Village R is designed to conform
with the shape of the hill it occupies, and the contour grading requirement of the HDO would be satisfied. In addition, there are no slopes in Village R that exceed HDO height limitations. Therefore, the design of Village R would not create a significant landform alteration impact.
Development of Village R would not create direct adverse visual
impacts. Visually, Village R represents a logical extension of Village T in close proximity to the SDG&E power lines. The placement of single-family homes in this location would not represent an adverse aesthetic impact from off-site
areas. As with the development of all the proposed villages on the eastern periphery of Calavera Hills (Villages R, U, and W, X, and Y), Village R would place urban development in closer proximity to a presently undeveloped area and
alter the existing visual environment-
e. Village U. The grading plan for Village U proposes 135,805 cy of cut and 148,990 cy of fill. The residential grading for Village U would include 21.90 acres of the 61.45-acre site. Village U proposes a hillside grading volume of 6,803 cy/ac. This volume is in the acceptable range and would not represent an adverse impact.
Implementation of Village U would encroach into steep slopes. The tentative map for Village U proposes grading on slopes in excess of 40 percent. Since the 40 percent slope areas are not within a small, isolated
ravine, the tentative map would not comply with the requirements of the HDO and
Village U will also affect the headward extension of several small finger canyons which would be filled. The Calavera Hills Master Plan calls for the preservation of these types of features. The destruction of these topographic features by the grading proposed on the tentative maps for Village U would also
contribute to the signficant landform alteration impact.
In terms of manufactured slope design, contour grading is utilized in Village U along the edge of the development to blend the developed portion of the site with the existing topography. The manufactured slopes are nearly continuous along the east edge of the development, and there are two internal slope areas that separate the village into two levels. However, they
and an access road in Village R amounts to 0 cy of cut and 74,255 cy of fill.
would create a significant landform alteration impact.--The grading required for
94
-
1 \ :X 1 \'
mmcw 3 ww--7 I
-J ,o a c m L
C a CY: 2 -7 2;"- 0-
O :: 0
0.a W
ZY c
oCC rD e,== rn an x-
WW --I w-l-l m
a,
m
CD
0
J ;ju e, m
I
c
\ \
\\ \
,\ ,'
I I
--_____
i! B
do not exceed the 30-foot maximum height allowed by the HDO. Thus, no di impact is anticipated by the proposed manufactured slopes in Village U.
As mentioned above, the development of all the proposed villa on the eastern periphery of Calavera Hills (Villages R, U, and W, X, and would place urban development in closer proximity to a presently undevelo area and alter the existing visual environment. Given the surrounding CalaT
impact from placing residential development in this location would not
considered significant from internal or off-site locations. However, the nl attenuation walVberm combination along the eastern edge of College Boulei (approximately 800 feet in len,gth) at Village U could be considered an advl
visual impact to travellers along the roadway.
e
Hills development approvals arid adjacent SDG&E power line, the direct vi:
f. Village W, X. and Y. The grading plan for Villages W, X, Y proposes a total of 488,945 cy of cut and 297,865 cy of fill to prepare
three parcels for residential development (see Figure 12). A total of 43.09 the 100.5-acre site would be disturbed. The hillside grading volume extr lated from the grading plan and tentative map is 11,347 cy/ac. This volume
the composite villages would fall into the unacceptable sensitivity ra However, as quantified in the opening discussion of this section, hi1 grading volumes are assessed on the master plan level. Therefore, no impac
assessed from this potential noncompliance with HDO.
The grading required for the preparation of Village - W w
This activity would be confined to 22.01 acres of the 39.65-acre village. hillside grading volume for Village W is 12,015 cy/ac, which would be in unacceptable range according to HDO. However, as quantified in the ope discussion of this section, hillside grading volumes are assessed on the m, plan level; therefore, no impact is assessed from this potential noncompli with HDO.
involve 264,455 cy of cut and 126,805 cy of fill, according to the grading 1
II)
The tentative map for Village W proposes grading on slope: excess of 40 percent which would not be allowed under the HDO. Since the percent slope areas are not within a small, isolated ravine, the tentative would not comply with the requirements of the HDO and would create a signif
landform alteration impact.
There are no manufactured slopes in Village W that exceed %-foot height limit set by IHDO. Contour grading is utilized adjacent to
open space areas in Village TN to blend the developed portion of the site
length with a maximum height of 30 feet would be created adjacent to Cc
Boulevard.
The only direct aesthetic impact associated with Village W \I result from the linear slope adjacent to College Boulevard. The 8OO-foot linear slope would also have a noise wall/berm at the top of the slope. wall/berm combination would vary in height from 8 feet to 13 feet in hc These features along College Boulevard would represent a significant T
the existing topography. However, a long linear slope approximately 800 fet
t impact to travellers along the roadway. a
95
The grading plan for Village X suggests earthwork quantities of 169,340 cy of cut and 145,850 cy of fill. The grading activity will be associ- ated with only 16.24 of the 54.57 acres on the site. The hillside grading volume for Village X is 10,427 cy/ac, which is in the unacceptable range according to the HDO. However, as quantified in the opening discussion of this
section, hillside grading volumes are assessed on the master plan level; there- fore, no impact is assessed from this potential noncompliance with HDO.
Village X would also encroach into slopes in excess of 40
percent, which would not be allowed by the HDO and would represent a significant
Contoured manufactured slopes would be created adjacent to the open space areas to blend the developed portion of the site with the existing
topography. No direct impact is anticipated by the submitted tentative map as it relates to contour grading, and there are no manufactured slopes in Village X
that exceed the 30-foot height limit set by HDO.
As with Village W, the bedwall combination atop the 1000-foot- long slope adjacent to College Boulevard would represent an adverse aesthetic
impact. The contoured slope along the eastern edge of Village X would have a
bedwall combination at the top of the slope which varies in height. Although open space would provide a visual buffer along a portion of the roadway, the slope and noise attenuation features could represent an adverse visual impact to
travellers along College Boulevard.
The earthwork quantities for Village Y total 55,150 cy of cut
and 25,210 cy of fill covering 4.84 acres of the 6.26-acre parcel. The hillside grading volume for Village Y is 11,394 cy/ac. This value is in the unacceptable range according to HDO. However, as quantified in the opening discussion of
this section, hillside grading volumes are assessed on the master plan level; therefore, no impact is assessed from this potential noncompliance with HDO. There are no manufactured slopes in Village Y that exceed the 30-foot height limit set by HDO and no encroachment on slopes in excess of 40 percent is
proposed.
As described above, the bedwall combination atop the slope adjacent to College Boulevard could represent an adverse aesthetic impact. The
slope along the eastern edge of Village Y adjacent to College Boulevard would
have a bedwall combination at the top of the slope which reaches a maximum height of 11 feet at Lot 72. The linear slope and noise bedwall would repre-
sent an adverse visual impact to travellers along College Boulevard.
impact.
g. Carlsbad Village Drive. The grading plan for Carlsbad Village
the new travel lanes (see Figure 13). The improvement area for Carlsbad Village Drive is in an area of steep slopes as a significant portion of the improvement area is in excess of 25 percent and a few areas exceed 40 percent slopes. The tentative map proposes large fill slopes to create the roadbed for improvements to Carlsbad Village Drive. Fill slopes of 30-40 feet in height are common with
the largest slope reaching a maximum of 90 feet vertically. All slopes shown on
the tentative map for the improvements to Carlsbad Village Drive are 2:l. Carlsbad Village Drive is a circulation element road and is therefore exempt from HDO limits on hillside grading volumes and manufactured slope heights.
Drive within Village H proposes 26,280 cy of cut and 66,190 cy of fill to create
96
Therefore, no direct landform alteration impact is associated with t
activity.
The magnitude (maximum height of 90 feet} of the benched
slopes along the east side of the proposed roadway improvement to Carlsl Village Drive would represent an adverse visual impact to viewers fr
Village J, Village 0, and the elementary school. Photograph 2 depicts a view
this area. Additionally, the grading for the trail downslope from the road\ would contribute to the visual quality impact.
h. College Boulevard On-Site. The grading required for Coll
Boulevard on-site would be 194,520 cy of cut and 1'7,210 cy of fill. For ah the entire length, the on-site portion of College Boulevard is adjacent
existing or proposed villages, and the required grading for the road is re12 to both the road and the adjacent village. The major slope issues associ: with College Boulevard on-site have been discussed in the preceding discus, of the individual adjacent villages. College Boulevard is a circulation elen
road and is therefore exempt from HDO limits on hillside grading volumes
manufactured slope heights. Therefore, no direct impact is associated with activity. The aesthetic impact from the slopes and noise attenuation feat along the roadway have been discussed above.
i. College Boulevard Off-Site. The off-site portion of Col
Boulevard will require earthwork quantities of 0 cy of cut and 191,800 cy fill. The profile of College Boulevard off-site is dictated by enginee requirements concerning roadbed slope on major arterials. As shown Figure 23, a large amount of fill would be required to maintain the grade
College Boulevard as it transitions from the upland area of the villages ac
Cannon Road. The long fill slopes on both sides of the roadway for ofi College Boulevard would be a maximum of 50 feet vertical at a 2:l slope I As stated above, College Boulevard is a circulation element road and is t1 fore exempt from HDO limits on hillside grading volumes and manufactured '
heights. Visually, the placement of the roadway in this location would represent an adverse impact (Photograph 10).
j. Grading Impacts (ProDosed Single-phase Grading). As menti
previously, the grading for this portion of the Calavera Hills Master Plan is proposed to be accomplished in a single phase. The single-phased gr; approach would produce large graded pad areas which would be highly visible could remain undeveloped for an undeterminable amount of time. Dependin1
economic conditions and housing demand, it is possible under the worst
scenario that the graded pads would be vacant for a undeterminable amoui time. The views of villages from internal and off-site areas prior to buil could contain partially developed villages which would not be totally
scaped, This condition will result in potentially significant effects on
surrounding visual environment. The duration of this impact is presently
quantifiable and, therefore, may not necessarily be considered as a shofl
impact.
*
* the Calavera Creek drainage to the future intersection of College Boulevard
3. Mitigation
Mitigation of the significant landform alteration impacts assc with the lack of compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance an 0
97
1;-
FIGURE 23. GRADING FOR OFF-SITE COLLEGE BOULEVARD
Calavera Hills Master Plan for Villages H, K, L-2, R, U, W, and X would requ
a redesign of the each of the tentative maps. Pi'oject alternatives, discussj potentid redesign Concepts on a village-by-village basis are fully discussed
were not identified for Village R, no mitigation measures would be required.
The significant visual impacts associated with the proposed grad and noise attenuation measures would be substantially lessened by the propo landscaping concept for each of the tentative maps. Potentially signific visual quality impacts were identified above for Villages K, U, W, X, and Y :
for the proposed improvements to Carlsbad Village Drive. The following dis sion will describe the landscape concept associated with these villages and degree to which the identified impact would be reduced.
a. Village H and Carlsbad Village Drive: The landscape concept
the fill slopes which would be created along Carlsbad Village Drive w( substantially lessen the identified adverse visual impact. The slopes cre; along the east side of Carlsbad Village Drive would be landscaped with a mir native and nonnative trees, shrubs, and ground cover. The landscaping plan
all the villages consists of several transitional zones of plantings which w
Zone 1 provides lush landscaping along Street "A" and portions of Carl: Village Drive with trees having a minimum size of 15 gallons at plan Zone 2 provides refined landscaping for slope area in Village H and include variety of trees, shrubs, and ground cover. Tree size at the time of plar would be a minimum of 15 gallons and shrubs would be minimum of 1 gallo size. The total planting area for Zone 2 covers 3.09 acres.
b. Village K. The significant visual impact associated with long linear slope along Carlsbad Village Drive with a six-foot noise wall the slope would be reduced by the landscaping concept proposed for Villagc Transitional planting zones would be applied to Village K. Zone 1 covers
percent of the total planting area for Village K. The lush vegetation of Zo includes a variety of trees, shrubs, and ground cover. Minimum sizes at 1 ing would be 15 gallons for trees and 1 gallon for shrubs. For Zone 1, I trees would be located along College Boulevard, Tamarack Avenue, and Gla Drive. These plantings along College Boulevard would screen the six-foot wall and improve the appearance of the 1100-foot-long linear slope. In
tion, ground cover in Zone 1 would be used in and around shrubs h ph areas. Turf areas would be hydroseeded with tall fescue, and all areas of
1 would be automatically irrigated. Zone 2, covering 16 percent of the p
area in Village K, would occur at the rear of the house pads. Zone 2 conta variety of trees, shrubs, and ground covers. Plant sizes for trees and 5 would be 15 and 1 gallon, respectively.
c. Villaee L-2. Although adverse visual impacts were not 1 fied for Village L-2, the landscaping proposed for the large nearly c manufactured slope below the water reservoir will improve the aesthetic a ance of the existing tank from areas within the master plan as well as fron site locations. The Zone 2 refined landscaping treatment would occur on slopes and would consist of a variety of trees, shrubs, and ground covers.
impacts associated with the long linear slope along Carlsbad Village Drivc
0 Section II.H. of this report. Since significant landform alteration imp:
be applied to both the residential area of Village H and Carlsbad Village D
a
d. Village U. As with Village K above, the significant 0
99
a noise bedwall atop the slope would be reduced by the landscaping concept proposed for Village U. The lush vegetation of Zone 1 includes a variety of
trees, shrubs, and ground cover. Minimum sizes at planting would be 15 gallons
for trees and 1 gallon for shrubs. For Zone 1, street trees would be located
along College Boulevard. These plantings along College Boulevard would screen the walllberm atop the slope and improve the appearance of the 1100-foot-long linear slope to travellers along the roadway. In addition, ground cover in Zone 1 would be used in and around shrubs in planting areas. Turf areas would
be hydroseeded with tall fescue, and all areas of Zone 1 would be automatically irrigated. The refined landscaping treatment associated with Zone 2 of the
landscape plan would be applied to the slopes in Village U. A variety of trees,
shrubs, and ground covers in Zone 2 would occur on 11 percent of the total planting area.
e. Villages W. X, and Y. Significant viewshed impacts were also
identified for travellers along College Boulevard from the manufactured slopes and noise walls which would occur along the roadway at Villages W, X, and Y. The proposed landscaping of these slopes would be consistent with the landscape
concepts described above for Villages K and U. These measures would reduce the
adverse visual quality impact.
f. Overall Single-phase Grading Concept. The potentially signifi- cant visual effects identified for the proposed single-phase grading are
mitigable. The reduction of these effects could be accomplished by the imple-
mentation of the landscape plan on the submitted tentative maps previous to project build-out. Landscape plan implementation would be particularly
effective in close proximity to public views associated with circulation element roads. This would entail the planting of street trees to break up views to the temporarily undeveloped portions of the villages. In addition, the implementa- tion of landscape plan designs on slope areas would reduce the visual effect of
the numerous manufactured slopes associated with the villages. These plantings would primarily consist of Zone 2 materials. This planting of this zone should conform to HDO Hillside Development and Design Standards Section D. Lastly, the implementation of the landscape plan as it relates to the fuel modification zones would provide a smoother transition from the refined Zone 2 to the areas of native vegetation. This would soften an otherwise abrupt change from the
refined to the natural area.
100
C. CIRCULATION
This section summarizes the traffic study prepared for the project November 5, 1991, by Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. (BDI). The complete stud) included in this EIR as Appendix B,.
o
1. Existing Conditions
a. Methods of Analysis. The intersections and roadway segm
analyzed in the traffic study were chosen based on key areas identified in Zone 7 LFMP. The Zone 7 LFMP specifies the distribution of Zone 7 (Cala
Hills Master Plan) traffic and identifies intersections expected to be impa by 20 percent or more of the Calavera Hills traffic.
In accordance with City policy, only peak hour conditions 7 analyzed. Maintaining a level of service (LOS) D or better on each road segment and each intersection during the peak hour is the performance stan
used by the City to determine significant impacts. The level of service r is a rating on the ability of a roadway or intersection to handle a parti! traffic volume at a certain speed. The levels of service can range from A t with A being the most efficient level of service.
The Standard Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methods were usel peak hour roadway segment analysis and for four-way stop controlled interse
analysis. The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) procedures were usec evaluate signalized intersections. The Intersection Capacity Analysis Pro< (NCAP) was used to analyze all other types of intersections.
b. Existine: Roadwav Characteristics. Figure 24 shows the a
major existing roadways and intersection lane configurations in relation to Calavera Hills Master Plan area. The following paragraphs describe the exi
key roadways in the vicinity of the project.
a
1) College Boulevard. College Boulevard exists in two ser sections which will be eventually linked to provide a roadway connecting Road in south Carlsbad to SF, 78 in Oceanside. The section north of the p~ site extends from SR 76 to Esplanade Street in southern Oceanside. The se section, which is south of the project site, runs from just south of Pal
mort Road to El Camino Real. The existing sections of College Boulevard four lanes with two bicycle lanes. The posted speed limit is 45 miles hour (mph).
2) El Camino Real. This roadway is a major northhouth
extending from central Oceanside to Rancho Santa Fe. North of Chestnut AI
El Camino Real has three lanes in each direction. South of Chestnut Avenut roadway has two lanes in each direction. The posted speed limit is 50 mph. roadway is designated in the Zone 7 LFMP to be widened to six lanes.
3) Carlsbad Village - Drive (Elm Avenue), This roadway a
in an east/west direction from Carlsbad Boulevard to Harwich Dnve/Glasgow
near the center of the project site. The roadway varies from two to four but through the project site it is two lanes wide. The posted speed varies from 35-40 mph. 0
101
4) Tamarack Avenue. This roadway extends east from Carlsb, Boulevard to El Camino Real, then bends northward crossing Carlsbad Villa( Drive and finally terminates near the northern boundary of the project si Through the project site, Tamarack Avenue has two lanes in each direction with center turn lane.
5) Cannon Road. One section of Cannon Road extends fr( Carlsbad Boulevard to just east of Interstate 5 (1-5) and has two travel la
in each direction west of 1-5 and one westbound travel lane and two eastboy travel lanes east of 1-5. The other section of Cannon Road is in Oceanside i
extends west from Melrose Drive to the OceansidelCarlsbad border. Cannon Rr is designated in the LFMP as a four-lane roadway extending through Carlst linking the two sections.
levels of service for each existing roadway link and Table 4 lists the levels service for each existing intersection. Both morning and afternoon peak hc
were evaluated. As shown in Table 3, El Camino Real is currently operating an LOS B or better. Carlsbad Village Drive (Elm Avenue) and Tamarack Avenue
currently operating at levels of service A through D, depending on
particular roadway segment.
As the table indicates, all signalized intersections, except
0
c. Existing Volumes and Levels of Service. Table 3 lists
El Camino Real/SR 78 eastbound, are operating at LOS C or better during I
peak hours. The El Camino ReaVSR 78 eastbound intersection is operating LOSE during the afternoon peak hour, The unsignalized intersections anal: are operating at LOS E and F during the peak hours. * 2. Impacts
The residential villages in the Calavera Hills Master Plan area
in various stages of development. Ten villages (A, B, C, D, G, J, M, N, 0, have already been constructed. Villages Q and T have been approved but not developed, and the remaining eight residential villages are the subject of
EIR. The LFMP anticipated that build-out of the master plan area would OCCL 1996. However, in discussions with the City, it was determined that con5
tion of Villages Q and T would begin in two years (1993) and that full builc would be accomplished by 1998.
Because of the phasing of residential development, traffic c tions for three different years were analyzed. The years evaluated in traffic report are 1995, after partial Zone 7 build-out; 2000, after full t out of Calavera Hills; and 2010, after full build-out of city-wide develol
and transportation facilities. Only those intersections and roadways segr
which would be impacted by 20 percent or more of the project traffic analyzed.
a. 1995 Traffic Imuacts. In 1995, Cannon Road is assumed 1
extended from 1-5 to form a T intersection with El Camino Real, and the no section of College Boulevard is assumed to be extended southward to Ca Village Drive (Elm Avenue) near the center of the project site. Also
College BoulevardSR 78 interchange is assumed to be eliminated and replacc ramps at Vista Way and Plaza Drive in Oceanside. 1)
103
TABLE 3 EXISTING PEAK HOUR LINK CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Multi-Lane Highways
A.M. P.M. Direction Lanes/ Peak Hour Peak Hour
Roadway Segment of Travel Direction LOS LOS
El Camino Real
south of SR 78 Northbound 3 A A Southbound 3 B A south of Marron Road Northbound 3 B A Southbound 3 A A south of Carlsbad Village Dr. Northbound 3 A A
Southbound 3 A A Chestnut Avenue/ Northbound 2 A B
Tamarack Avenue Southbound 2 B A
Carlsbad Village Drive
west of El Camino Real Westbound 2 A A Eastbound 2 A A
east of El Camino Real Westbound 2 A A
Eastbound 2 A A
south of Carlsbad Village Dr. Northbound 2 A A Southbound 2 A A
west of El Camino Real Westbound 2 A A
Eastbound 2 A A
Tamarack Avenue
Two-Lane Highways
A.M. P.M.
Peak Hour Peak Hour
Roadway Segment Direction of Travel LOS LOS
Carlsbad Village Drive
Tamarack Avenue west of Tamarack Avenue WestboundEastbound B C
north of Carlsbad Village Dr. NorthboundSouthbound B B
east of Adams Street WestboundEastbound D D
TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF EXISTING PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS e
Signalized Intersections
A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour Intersection LOS LOS
El Camino Real at: SR 78 Westbound A C SR 78 Eastbound A E Marron Road A A Carlsbad Village Dr. A A Tamarack Avenue B A
Tamarack Avenue at: 1-5 Northbound A A
1-5 Southbound A A
Unsignalized Intersections
a
Intersection (Critical Movement A.M. LOS P.M. LO?
College Boulevard at: SR 78 Westbound ramps Westbound Left F F
SR 78 Eastbound ramps Eastbound Left F F
Northbound Left E E
Carlsbad Village Drive at: Tamarack Avenue - <C* <C*
*Better than LOS C. Note that the methodology for analyzing four-way controlled intersections is based on total approach volumes and gives of service as better than or worse than "C."
0
Figure 25 depicts the anticipated Zone 7 peak hour traffic distribution, roadway link volumes, and affected intersections. El Camino Real north of Cannon Road is expected to carry the heaviest traffic volumes.
Table 5 summarizes the results of the roadway link capacity analysis. All
roadways are expected to operate at LOS D or better.
Table 6 lists the levels of service for all affected inter-
sections. Peak hour operations at all impacted intersections, except for the
Tamarack AvenueEl Camino Real intersection, would have an LOS C or better. The
Tamarack AvenueEl Camino Real intersection would have an LOS F during the morning peak hour. Heavy westbound left-turn movements at this intersection take up nearly half of the available capacity.
b. 2000 Traffic Imuacts. In the year 2000, College Boulevard is assumed to be extended south from Carlsbad Village Drive (Elm Avenue) to El
Camino Real, Cannon Road Reaches 3 and 4 are assumed to be constructed to just
past College Boulevard, and Faraday Avenue is assumed to be extended from just west of College Boulevard to Cannon Road. Also, Carlsbad Village Drive is
assumed to be four lanes from the Zone 7 boundary to College Boulevard.
Figure 26 shows 2000 Zone 7 traffic distribution, peak hour link volumes, and the affected intersections. Table 7 summarizes the results of the
roadway link capacity analysis. El Camino Real was analyzed as a four-lane facility.
Table 8 lists the estimated levels of service for the affected
intersections. All three intersections were calculated to operate at LOS C or
better for both peak hours.
c. 2010 Traffic Impacts. This year is anticipated to represent full build-out of the city of Carlsbad. No additional roadway improvements are planned beyond those which would exist in 2000, except that the entire length of
El Camino Real through the city is assumed to be six lanes wide.
Figure 27 shows 2010 Zone 7 traffic distribution, peak hour link volumes for impacted roadways, and affected intersections. Traffic distribution would not change from 2000 conditions. Only Carlsbad Village Drive and College Boulevard are anticipated to be impacted by additional traffic increases. Table 9 summarizes the results of the roadway link analysis. All potentially
impacted roadway segments would operate at LOS D or better.
Table 10 summarizes the results of the impacted intersection
analysis. Except for the College BoulevardCannon Road intersection, all other
analyzed intersections would operate at LOS B during the morning peak hour and LOS C during the afternoon peak hour.
d. Impacts to Regional and Internal Circulation. With the planned
extensions of College Boulevard and Cannon Road reaching Oceanside, it is reasonable to expect some diversion of Oceanside traffic to Carlsbad roadways. Also, it should be noted that development in Oceanside was considered in the development of the computer models analyzed in this report. With some minor improvements described in the mitigation section, the intersections and roadway links will be able to accommodate future traffic volumes, including trips to and
from Oceanside. Further, the connection of the northern and southern segments
106
OCEANSIDE
CARLSBAD
XX : DlSTRlBUTlON OF ZOh
0 : IMPACTED INTERSECT1
- - : fAClLKY IMPROVEMEh
SOURCE: ZONE 7 LOCAL FACILI
MANAGEMENT PLAN SOURCE: BASMACIYAN-DARNELL,
INC.. JULY, 1991
FIGURE 25. YEAR 1995 ZONE 7 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION, LINK V
AND IMPACTED INTERSECTIONS
i i
R-2328E 8/91 ~
TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF YEAR 1995 PEAK HOUR
LINK CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Multi-Lane Highways
Direction Lanes/ Peak Hour
Roadway Segment of Travel Direction LOS *
El Camino Real
Chestnut Avenue/ Northbound 2 C
Tamarack Avenue South bound 2 D
College Boulevard
south of SR 78 Northbound 2 A Southbound 2 A
Tamarack Avenue
east of El Camino Real Northbound 2 A Southbound 2 A
Two-Lane Highways
Direction Peak Hour Road Segment of Travel LOS
Carlsbad Village Drive west of Tamarack Avenue Westbound D Eastbound
*Based on 10 percent of 24-hour volume in each direction.
TABLE 6 SUMMARY OFYEAR 1995
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS e (signalized intersections)
A.M. P.M.
Peak Hour Peak Hour Intersection LOS LOS
El Camino Real at:
Carlsbad Village Drive B C Cannon Road A A
Tamarack Avenue F C
SR 78 Eastbound OdOff Ramps A B
SR 78 Westbound OnlOff Ramps B B
Plaza Drive at:
Vista Way at:
*
e
OCEANSlDE
- - : FACILITY IMPROVEMENT - OW LINK VOLUMES
SOURCE: ZONE 7 LOCAL FAClLlTtES
MANAGEMENT PLAN SOURCE: BASMACIYAN-DARNELL,
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF YEAR 2000 PEAK HOUR LINK CAPACITY ANALYSIS a (Multi-Lane Highways)
Direction Lanes/ Peak Hour Roadway Segment of Travel Direction LOS*
south of SR 78 Northbound 2 A Southbound 2 B
north of Cannon Road Northbound 2 B Southbound 2 B
east of El Camino Real Westbound 2 A Eastbound 2 A
Carlsbad Village Drive Northbound 2 C Southbound 2 C
Chestnut Avenue/ Northbound 2 C Tamarack Avenue Southbound 2 C
Tamarack Avenue/ Northbound 2 D College Boulevard Southbound 2 E
College Boulevard
Carlsbad Village Drive
El Camino Real
*
*Based on 10 percent of 24-hour volume in each direction.
a
TABLE 8 SUMMARY OF YEAR 2000 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS (signalized intersections)
A.M. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour
Intersection LOS LOS
College Boulevard at:
Marron Road A A Cannon Road B B
El Camino Real at:
Carlsbad Village Drive B C
-
OCEANSIDE
XX : DIsTR~SUTION OF ZO! - - : FACILKY IMPROVEME1 - 000 LINK VOLUMES
SOURCE: ZONE 7 LOCAL FACIL
MANAGEMENT PUN
SOURCE: BASMACIYAN-DARNELL, INC., JULY, 1991
FIGURE 27. YEAR 2010 ZONE 7 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION, LINK
AND IMPACTED INTERSECTIONS
1
R-2328E 8/94
TABLE 9 SUMMARY OF YEAR 2010 PEAK HOUR LINK CAPACITY ANALYSIS* (Multi-Lane Highways)
Direction Lanes/ Peak Hour
Roadway Segment of Travel Direction LOS**
College Boulevard south of SR 78 Northbound 2 C Southbound 2 D
north of Cannon Road Northbound 2 C Southbound 2 C
east of El Camino Real Westbound 2 A
Eastbound 2 A
Carlsbad Village Drive
*Impacted roadway links.
**Based on 10 percent of 24-hour volume in each direction.
TABLE 10 SUMMARY OF YEAR 2010 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS * (signalized intersections)
A.M. P.M.
Peak Hour Peak Hour Intersection LOS LOS
College Boulevard at:
Marron Road B C
Cannon Road C E
Carlsbad Village Drive B C El Camino Real at:
*
I 4D
of College Boulevard to complete its entire planned length would provide a measure of relief to Carlsbad roadways. Traffic currently using Tamarack
Avenue, Carlsbad Village Drive, and El Camino Real could instead divert to College Boulevard, easing congestion on these links. To determine the regional traffic distribution more accurately, additional analyses would need to be conducted.
The adequacy of the proposed internal circulation system was evaluated by dividing the project site into 12 subzones and the streets into 33
segments and analyzing the traffic generated by each subzone. All roadway segments would operate at LOS C or better and all intersections were found to be
adequate.
3. Mitigation
The situations where impacts would exceed City standards are during the 1995 morning peak hour traffic conditions at the El Camino Remamarack
Avenue intersection. The LOS F would exceed City standards. In order to
mitigate this impact, the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real should have some interim modifications constructed. These modifications would include providing dual left-turn lanes from southwest-bound Tamarack Avenue to
southeast-bound El Camino Real together with traffic signal modifications. If City monitoring indicates failure of the dual left-turn lane mitigation, then the Cannon Road link from College Boulevard to El Camino Real should be completed with two travel lanes. Necessary intersection improvements and traffic signal improvements would also be required. Once the Cannon
Roadcollege Boulevard to El Camino Real link is completed, the dual left turns
at Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real should be removed and the traffic signal operations changed accordingly.
4. Analysis of Sirnificance
If the above mitigation measures are implemented, then the project would not have a significant impact on traffic circulation in the area. No
impacts are expected on the internal circulation system in the project.
With the planned connections of College Boulevard and Cannon Road to
Oceanside, it is reasonable to expect some diversion of Oceanside traffic to
Carlsbad streets. However, the construction of the northern and southern legs of College Boulevard would permit diversion of traffic from congested roadways within Carlsbad and significant impacts to regional circulation are not
anticipated.
i
116
D. NOISE
This section includes a summary of a noise technical report prepared
RECON addressing future traffic noise along off-site College Boulevard construction noise impacts to existing residences. The full report is inch as Appendix C of this EIR. This section also summarizes technical rep
prepared by Mestre-Greve on future traffic noise impacts to the propc villages. These reports are included as Appendix D of this EIR.
e
1, Existing Conditions
The proposed villages are currently undeveloped and are surroun by vacant land and existing residential areas. There are no significant n
sources in or near the proposed villages. Typical quiet suburban noise le
in locations away from transportation corridors range from 45 to 55 day/r average noise level (LdJ (Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1974).
Existing noise levels 50 feet from Carlsbad Village Drive along
western boundary of Village H are approximately 66 Community Noise Equiv; Level (CNEL) in areas where views of the roadway are relatively unobstruc
This noise level was calculated using the Federal Highway Administration (FH' Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77- 108). The actual environment is prob less noisy at particular receptors due to elevation differences between
roadway and the receptors and intervening terrain and structures.
The L,, scale is a 24-hour, cumulative measure of community 1
exposure based on an A-weighted noise level in units of decibels (dBA). The adds 10 decibels to the average nighttime (1O:OO p.m. to 7:OO am.) noise 11
to account for the increased sensitivity to noise during this period. CNEL is similar to the Ldn, except that this scale also adds 5 decibels to average evening (7:OO p.m. to 1O:OO p.m.) noise levels. The Ldn and CNEL generally equivalent. A-weighting is a frequency correction which corre
noise levels with the frequency response of the human hearing system.
2. Impacts
Impacts to existing residential developments, schools, and from the construction activities and impacts to future development along
site College Boulevard were (evaluated in accordance with policies and stan adopted by the City of Carlsbad. The City is currently in the proces updating its Noise Element and Noise Ordinance. In the interim, the City created Policy No. 17 stating exterior and interior noise level standard5
residential areas. This policy applies to transportation noise sources. exterior noise level limit is 60 CNEL and the interior standard is 45 CNEL
height located within five feet of the property line or usable area. Impac future residential areas along off-site College Boulevard were assesse
accordance with Policy No. 17.
The City of Carlsbad does not currently have a noise level st; for construction noise. Therefore, per City direction (Munoz, City of Ca
Planning Department, 7/22/9 l), the significance of construction noise prc
exterior standards shall be maintained for residential receptors six fec
a
117
__
by the project was assessed in accordance with the County of San Diego Noise Ordinance. San Diego County Noise Ordinance Section 36.410 states that
construction noise shall not exceed 75 decibels (dB) for more than eight hours during any 24-hour period. Carlsbad Municipal Code Noise Section 8.48.010 limits grading and construction operations to the hours of 7:OO a.m. to sunset on weekdays and 8:OO a.m. to sunset on Saturdays. Construction activities are
prohibited on Sundays and holidays.
a. Blasting. The areas of non-rippable rock which would need to be
blasted are shown in Figure 28. The number and schedule of blasts for each area of non-rippable rock were not available at the time this report was prepared. Blasting and removal of rock would occur prior to grading operations.
Blasting activities can be divided into two separate components: drilling and actual blasting. Holes are drilled into the rock to create areas
to place the explosives. For a similar project evaluated by RECON (RECON 1986), field measurements were taken 50 feet from a typical drilling operation. The resulting measured average noise level was 89 dBA Le, (hourly average noise
levels). Drilling can be expected to occur several days per week.
The explosives are electronically detonated in a programmed sequence with millisecond delay times between each detonation. The whole sequence lasts up to one-half second. This pattern causes the rock to fracture in a controlled manner. Because of the detonation sequencing, these blasts have
an indistinct rumbling sound which is hard to distinguish from background noise
(RECON 1986).
Prior to a blast, a warning signal is sounded consisting of
continuous burst of the air horn for about 10 seconds. These warning signals
are the loudest part of the blasting event. Based on measurements for another study (RECON 1986), the noise level produced by the air horn at 50 feet would be 102 dBA.
repeated bursts of an air horn, After a blast, the all-clear signal is a
Any sensitive receptors located within 275 feet of a blasting
area and having a clear line of sight would experience average noise levels in excess of 75 dBA L, based on an attenuation rate of 6 dBA for every doubling of distance from a pomt source. Figure 28 shows the locations of the existing residential developments relative to lines drawn at a distance of 275 feet from the blasting areas. As can be seen in the figure, portions of residential
Villages C, D, Q, and T could experience temporary noise levels in excess of 75
dBA L, during drilling activities during the times when the drilling activities are immediately adjacent to the residential areas. Village E-1 is designated for commercial development and would not be impacted by noise from blasting
activities.
The County construction noise standard states that construction
noise on or at the boundary of a residential property shall not exceed 75 dBA
for more than 8 hours in any 24-hour period. In a worst-case scenario, the residential areas within the 75 dBA Les lines shown in Figure 28 could tempo- rarily be exposed to noise levels exceeding the County standards. This conser-
vative conclusion assumes that the drilling activities would produce the maximum 90 dBA hourly L, noise level for at least 8 hours of the 12-hour construction
day in an area directly adjacent to the residential areas.
118
~-
BLASTING ARI
FIGURE 28. BLASTING AREAS
R-2328N 8/91
b. Grading and Construction Truck Traffic. The preferred single- phase grading alternative was the grading alternative analyzed in the noise technical report. Ground clearing activities for housing and roads in a typical
suburban residential area are estimated to generate 83-84 dBA Lcq 50 feet from
the site of construction (Bolt, Beranek and Newman 1971).
Figure 29 shows the limits of grading for the project. This figure also indicates the areas around the grading sites which would temporarily
experience noise levels in excess of 75 dBA Lq when grading was occurring in a particular area. Portions of Villages C, D, J, G, 0 and P-1, T, and Q could be
impacted by grading noise above 75 dBA L (see Figure 29). Also, portions of
the neighborhood park east of Village ?! and existing residences off-site directly west of Village H could be exposed to construction noise levels in
excess of 75 dBA Leq.
County standards specify that construction noise shall not exceed 75 dBA for more than 8 hours in any 24-hour period. A conservative
worst-case evaluation assumes that if grading occurs directly adjacent to a residential area within the 75 dBA L, line for more than 8 hours in any 24-hour period, then noise levels at the adjacent residential area would temporarily
exceed County standards. Grading activities are expected to last for approxi- mately 33 working days for the entire site. Grading activities in any one area would last for a shorter time period.
Figure 30 shows the construction truck haul routes. The traffic volumes for the haul routes are based on information provided by the applicant (Hunsaker and Associates 1991) and are based on the single-phase grading
alternative proposed for the project. Construction truck traffic would be present along haul route A after blasting is completed. Haul route A terminates at an off-site rock crusher and would be used first. The ADT for haul route A would be 210. Rock excavation is estimated to take about 61 days.
Use of haul route A would occur independently of other opera- tions. Table 11 lists the hourly average noise levels for this haul route. Hourly daytime noise levels along this haul route from Village U north to Carlsbad Village Drive would be 65 dBA Lq at 50 feet from the roadway. From
Carlsbad Village Drive north to the rock crusher, the daytime average noise levels would be 62 dBA Leq. The difference in noise levels is due to different roadway gradients. Use of haul route A would not produce noise levels in excess of the County standard.
Haul routes B, C, and D would be used during dirt excavation and were assumed to be used concurrently (see Table 11). Dirt excavation is esti- mated to require 33 days. The ADTs for Haul routes B, C, and D are 254 average daily trips (ADT), 519 ADT, and 287 ADT, respectively.
Haul routes B, C, and D were assumed to be used at the same time grading operations occur. Table 11 lists the daytime hourly average noise levels for the roadways that would be used as haul routes. In areas where
grading would occur near a haul route, the average noise levels in the surrounding areas would be dominated by the grading operation. In areas where grading does not occur, noise produced on haul routes would not cause existing residential areas to experience noise levels in excess of County standards for
construction noise.
120
a
J
150 FEET FROM GRADED 1m-1.1 AREA (75 dBA Led
LIMITS OF GRADING b
FIGURE 29. LIMITS OF GRADING
i
L
L '\ - HAULROUTE A
===.=--== HAUL ROUTE B
-=--I HAUL ROUTE C - - - HAUL ROUTE 0 w
FIGURE 30. CONSTRUCTION HAUL ROUTES
flEc0lVG
R-2328 N 8/9 1 ~-
TABLE 11
NOISE LEVELS ON CONSTRUCTION TRUCK HAUL ROUTES 0
Grade Haul Route ADT Contribution Total Daq
Roadway Segment (W ABCD ADT L,
ROCK EXCAVATION
College Boulevard
a. Village U north to 7 210 210
b. Carlsbad Village Dr. 2 210 210
Carlsbad Village Dr.
to rock crusher
DIRT EXCAVATION
College Boulevard
a. Cannon Road to 7 287 287
south border
@ b. South borderto 7 254 287 54 1
c. SDG&E easement to 7 254 519 773
d. Carlsbad Village Dr. 2! 5 19 519
SDG&E easement
Carlsbad Village Dr.
to Tamarack Ave.
Carlsbad Village Drive
a. College Blvd. to 4 254 519 773
west of Village El
b. West of Village El 2 254 254
to west border
Tamarack Avenue
a. West of College Blvd. '7 519 519
to Village R
SDG&E Easement
a. College Blvd to '7 519 519
Village R e
Although the haul routes would not generate daytime hourly average noise levels in excess of County standards for construction noise, an
individual truck passby, producing up to 79 dBA 50 feet away, could be a source of nuisance noise to residences adjacent to the haul routes. Residences in
west of Village H which border Carlsbad Village Drive could experience nuisance noise during use of the haul routes.
c, Future Traffic Noise on Off-Site College Boulevard. Future ADT
along College Boulevard from the southern project boundary to Cannon Road is estimated to be 33,948 ADT (Barker, Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc., 7/10/91). The grade along this section of roadway ranges from 0.0 percent near Cannon Road to
7.0 percent near the project boundary.
Figure 31 presents a noise contour map for noise levels along
this portion of roadway. The future noise levels would range from approximately
75 CNEL near the edge of the roadway to 60 CNEL about 450 feet away from the edge of the roadway. These noise levels were calculated using the FHWA Noise
Prediction Model.
The Carlsbad General Plan designates the land surrounding
College Boulevard from Cannon Road to the Calavera Hills Master Plan for mi-
dentid uses and a high school. The exterior noise level limit established by the City for residential uses is 60 CNEL for a receptor five feet within a
property line and six feet above the ground. Therefore, any residential development which occurs within 450 feet of College Boulevard could potentially be exposed to future noise levels which exceed City standards.
d. Future Noise Levels at the Proposed Villages. Impacts to the proposed Villages H, K, L-2, U, W, X, and Y from noise produced by future traf- fic were evaluated by Mestre-Greve Associates in May and July, 1990. This section summarizes these reports. Each village is evaluated in a separate report, except for Villages W, X, and Y, which are evaluated together. The
complete reports are included in this EIR as Appendix D. Village R was not evaluated because it would not be located near significant sources of future
noise.
The Mestre-Greve reports were prepared using traffic and project
information that has been updated or changed subsequent to the completion of the
reports. This section WU first discuss the results of the Mestre-Greve
acoustical analyses. Following the discussion of the results will be a description of the differences between the tentative maps analyzed in the
acoustical reports and the proposed project tentative maps, and the differences
between the traffic volumes used in the reports and the updated traffic volumes. In some cases, the pad numbers have changed; these changes are indicated in the text.
Villages C, D, J, G, and T and the residences in the off-site development just
The Mestre-Greve reports identified areas in every village which
would experience future noise levels in excess of the City of Carlsbad standard of 60 CNEL for residential exterior areas. The major roadways in the vicinity of the project villages which would generate significant levels of future noise would be College Boulevard, Carlsbad Village Drive (Elm Avenue), and Tamarack
Avenue.
124
a FIGURE 31. FUTURE NOISE CONTOURS ALONG OFF-SITE
COLLEGE BOULEVARD
x
Future noise contours were calculated along each major roadway
adjacent to the villages. The calculations assumed that there were no inter- vening structures, topography, or barriers between the noise source and receptor and that the ground condition was absorptive. An absorptive site would attenu-
ate 4.5 dBA for every doubling of distance from a noise source, whereas a reflective site would attenuate 3.0 dBA for every doubling of distance.
Villages K, U, W, X, and Y are adjacent to College Boulevard. The future 60 CNEL noise contour along College Boulevard was calculated by Mestre-Greve to be 483 feet from the centerline of the roadway for Villages U,
W, X, and Y. Near Village K, the 60 CNEL contour along College Boulevard was
calculated to be 431 feet.
Villages H and K are adjacent to Carlsbad Village Drive (Elm Avenue). Near Village H, the 60 CNEL contour for Carlsbad Village Drive was calculated to be 163 feet from the centerline of the roadway. Adjacent to
Village K, the 60 CNEL contour was calculated to be 165-180 feet from the cen terline.
Village L-2 is adjacent to Tamarack Avenue. The 60 CNEL contour
Subsequent to the completion of these reports in May, 1990, the Sari Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) published its most recent traffic
forecast (June, 1990). This updated forecast, used in the traffic technical report in Appendix B, indicates that in the year 2010, College Boulevard would
carry 33,948 ADT south of Carlsbad Village Drive and 36,704 ADT north of Carlsbad Village Drive (Barker, Basmaciyan-Darnel1 Inc., 7/10/91). In the year 2010, Carlsbad Village Drive would carry 11,295 ADT between College Boulevard and Tamarack Avenue and 8,243 ADT between Tamarack and Chestnut avenues. Tamarack Avenue would carry 2,500 ADT.
The traffic volumes used in the Mestre-Greve reports were obtained from the City of Carlsbad and based on the previous SANDAG traffic forecast, which was current at the time (Mestre, Mestre-Greve Associates, 7/17/91). The future traffic volumes used in the two Mestre-Greve reports for
Village H and Villages W, X, and Y were 44,460 ADT for College Boulevard and
11,150 ADT for Carlsbad Village Drive. The report prepared for Village K used a future traffic volume of 17,750 ADT for Carlsbad Village Drive (Elm Avenue)
between College Boulevard and Tamarack Avenue and 42,700 ADT for College Boulevard between Elm Avenue and Tamarack Avenue. The reports for Village K and L-2 used a traffic volume of 2,990 ADT for Tamarack Avenue. There are sizable differences between the current SANDAG traffic forecasts and the traffic
forecasts used in the Mestre-Greve reports for traffic volumes on College Boulevard and also on Carlsbad Village Drive between Tamarack Avenue and College
Boulevard.
was calculated to be 50 feet from the center of the roadway.
Also, in Villages H, W, X. and Y, some pad elevations or lot configurations for areas near the major roadways have changed between the project analyzed in the Mestre-Greve reports and the project presented on the tentative maps. The proposed project for Village H shows an open space lot
between Carlsbad Village Drive (Elm Avenue) and pads 2, 3, and 4. This open
space lot did not exist on the configuration analyzed by Mestre-Greve. Also,
pads 4 and 5 are 10 feet higher in the proposed project configuration.
126
Pads 3, 4, and 5 in Village W are three feet lower in proposed project. In Village X, pads 45 and 46 (pads 52 and 53 in the Me:
Greve report) are four feet lower in the proposed project. Pads 44, 47, and (pads 51, 54, and 60 in the Mestre-Greve report) are five feet lower in proposed project, and pads 54, 55, and 56 (pads 61, 62, and 63 in the Me3 Greve report) are six feet lower in the proposed project.
based on the traffic volume forecast and project grading and configuration wl
were current at the time the reports were written. Since the village conf rations and pad elevations have changed in some areas and the traffic vol.
forecast has been subsequently updated and revised., the impacts described these acoustical reports can only be considered approximate.
@
In summary, the results stated in the Mestre-Greve reports
3, Mitigation
a. Blasting. Noise levels generated by drilling activities
Village U could exceed 75 dBA for more than 8 hours in portions of exi! residential Villages C and D, but only when the drilling activities occur , cent to these residential areas. Noise levels in approved Villages Q an( could exceed the same standards when drilling and blasting activities occui areas of Villages K and L-2. However, due to the conservative assumptions r
in the analysis and the fact that drilling activities would be temporary would move from area to area, impacts from blasting and drilling would no
considered significant. The overall nuisance impact on the surrounding exii residences from drilling and blasting can be minimized by conforming to regulations established by the City of Carlsbad.
The City of Carlsbad requires that a blasting report
submitted to City Engineer prior to any blasting activities. The r prepared for this project should incorporate the requirements stated in
blasting report prepared on July 1, 1991, for Calavera Hills Villages Q and r Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. This report required that bla
nance (Division 5, Title 3, Section 35) and vibration standards promulgatec
the U.S. Bureau of Mines.
*
operations in Villages Q and T conform to the San Diego County Blasting
Some of the requirements stated in the County ordinance an(
Prior to blasting, a blasting schedule shall be approvei the City Engineer.
The blasting contractor shall notify the Carlsbad 1 Department and the County Sheriffs Department pic commencing blasting activities.
The property owner shall give a one-time notice in H to residences and business within 600 feet of a PO major blast location.
Villages Q and T blasting report include:
6 Pre-inspection of existing structures within 300 feet ol proposed detonation shall be conducted by an ins a
127
approved by the Carlsbad Police Department and the San Diego
County Sheriffs Department.
The hours of blasting will be from 9:OO a.m. to 4:30 p.m. or one-half hour before sunset, whichever comes first, Monday through Friday. No blasting will be allowed on weekends or holidays.
b. Grading and Construction Truck Traffic. Portions of existing residential developments and the neighborhood park could experience noise levels in excess of County standards. Due to the conservative assumptions in the analysis and the fact that grading would occur adjacent to residential areas temporarily, impacts were not considered significant. However, the following
measures would help control the nuisance noise generated by construction activities:
Hours of construction should be limited to the time period
allowed in the Carlsbad Municipal Code, 7:OO a.m. to sunset
on weekdays and 8:OO a.m. to sunset on Saturdays.
Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and
Also, using the SDG&E easement to transport earth to Village R
would avoid the creation of a source of nuisance noise to residences along
Tamarack Avenue in Village T. Limiting the initial hour of construction to 8:OO a.m. rather than 7:OO a.m. in areas directly adjacent to residential develop- ments would reduce the nuisance noise impacts residents could experience during the 33 days of grading activities.
c. Future Build-Out Traffic on Off-Site College Boulevard. Future
noise levels produced by off-site College Boulevard between Cannon Road and the master plan boundary would be approximately 60 CNEL at approximately 450 feet from the roadway. Therefore, any future development that may be planned within
450 feet of off-site College Boulevard would require preparation of a more
detailed acoustical analysis to determine the noise environment more accurately
based on grading plans and to recommend specific mitigation measures.
d. Future Noise Levels at the Proposed Villages. Mitigation was recommended by Mestre-Greve for each village. The mitigation is described and shown in figures in Appendix D. These mitigation measures were designed, based
on model results, to attenuate exterior noise levels to below the standard 60
CNEL limit. The recommended barriers can be walls, berms, or a combination wall/berm. In some areas, mechanical ventilation is recommended to attenuate exterior noise levels to interior noise levels below the 45 CNEL standard.
Mechanical ventilation involves air conditioning or fans which would allow the
occupant of a building to close all of the windows and still have interior/ exterior air exchange.
The differences between the pad elevations and configurations in Villages H, W, X, and Y analyzed in the Mestre-Greve reports and the pad eleva-
differences should be analyzed in more detail prior to approval of the tentative
fitted with standard mufflers.
I tions and configurations in the proposed project could be significant. These
map and grading plans. In addition, as noted throughout this EIR, the submitted
128
tentative maps are in the process of being redesigned to reflect an environn
tally superior project. The components of the redesigned maps are conceptui
discussed in the Project Altematives section of this EIR. The revised tei tive maps and site plans will require subsequent noise analyses to account any revised pad elevations and road way alignments.
The following list of village-by-village mitigation measures a summary of the mitigation recommended in the individual noise techn
reports for each village prepared by Mestre-Greve and included as Appendix
These measures are generally described below and will need to be modified c
the tentative maps are redesigned and the subsequent noise analyses completed.
recommended for pads 1,2, and 3 in Village H.
2) Village K. All buildings adjacent to Carlsbad Village 1 (Elm Avenue) and College Boulevard would require mechanical ventilation so windows may be kept closed. In the windows open condition, the interior r in these buildings would exceed the 45 CNEL interior noise level standard.
exterior receptors, barriers 5.0 to 7.5 feet tall are required for lots adj: to Carlsbad Village Drive and barriers 7.0 to 10.01 feet tall are required lots along College Boulevard.
3) Village L-2. A barrier 6.0 feet in height is required pads 21 through 23. A five-foot barrier is required for pads 67 and 68 a 5.5-foot barrier is required for pad 69. Pads 70, 75, and 76 require a six barrier.
4) Village U. The Mestre-Greve report indicates that mec
a
1) Villaee H. Barriers with heights of 7.0 to 8.0 feet \
cal ventilation may be necessary for some buildings in this village and
e
this issue should be considered when detailed site plans and architectural become available. This village requires 5.0- to 12.0-foot barriers for m tion of exterior noise.
5) Village 147. The Mestre-Greve report states that bu upgrades may be required to attenuate exterior noise to interior limit: final noise study should be prepared to consider this issue when detailed
plans and architectural drawings become available. To mitigate exterior pads 4 through 7 would require an 8.0-foot barrier, pad 1 would require a foot barrier, and pad 37 would require a 13.0-foot barrier.
6) Village X. The Mestre-Greve report states that bu
upgrades may be required to attenuate exterior noise to interior limii final noise study should be prepared to consider this issue when detailec plans and architectural drawings become available. To mitigate exterior pads 52, 53, and 60-63 (45, (46, and 53-56 in the proposed project) would I 5.0- to 6.0-foot barriers. Pad 47 (pad 40 in the proposed project)
require a 9.0-foot barrier.
7) Village 1. The Mestre-Greve report states that bi upgrades may be required to attenuate exterior noise to interior limj
final noise study should be prepared to consider this issue when detaile plans and architectural drawings become available. Exterior noise CE
require an 8.0-foot barrier arid pad 46 (pad 39 in the proposed project)
a
129
mitigated by constructing an 8.0-foot barrier on pad 38 (pad 71 in the proposed
project) and a 10.0- to 11.0-foot barrier on pad 39 (pad 72 in the proposed
project).
4. Analysis of Significance
Due to the conservative assumptions made in the acoustical analysis, the fact that the drilling, blasting, and grading activities are temporary in nature and move from area to area, any impacts from these activities would not
be considered significant.
Future residential development designated in the master plan within 450 feet of off-site College Boulevard could be significantly impacted by future
traffic along the roadway. Additional acoustical studies, which would be performed when specific plans are prepared for the area, would determine the extent of noise impact in the area.
Without the mitigation recommended in the Mestre-Greve reports,
future noise levels in some areas of the proposed villages would exceed City of Carlsbad noise level standards. The differences between the pad elevations and
configurations in Villages H, W, X, and Y analyzed in the Mestre-Greve reports and the pad elevations and configurations in the proposed project could repre- sent a potentially significant impact.
130
E. AGNCULTLJRE
1. Existing Conditions
The project area consists of undeveloped land covered with gra
lands in the south transitioning to chaparral of varying density in the noi There are scattered pockets of eucalyptus trees throughout the project s The terrain is primarily rolling hills with some moderate and steep sloF
There are indications of past agricultural use on a portion of Village R. Th
are no agricultural operations currently present on the site.
Surrounding the site are residential uses to the west and northc and vacant land to the east and northwest. Agricultural fields are located
the south and southeast. These fields are used primarily for growing tomatl Figure 4 is an aerial photograph of the project site and surrounding land I which shows the agricultural fields south of the project site.
The distribution of soil types across the entire master plan area
presented in Figure 32. Table 12 lists the full narrie for each soil type, Storie Index, the Capability Unit, and the village areas in which the soil found.
e
The Soils Survey (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] 1973) grouped the soils into Capability Units according to their suitability for n kinds of field crops. These Capability Units are listed in Table 13 and ranked from I to VIII, with Class I soils being most suitable fur agricult production.
Another rating system for agricultural suitability is the SI Index. The numeric values of this index range from 1 to 100 and are div into six grades, with an index of 100 and a grade of 1 being the most suit farmland. Table 14 lists the Storie Index classifications. Soils in the Diego region range from 5 to 97. The Storie Index of a soil indicates
relative degree of value of the soil for general intensive agriculture and based on soil characteristics only. Prime agricultural soils are soils w have a Storie Index greater than 79. A goal of the Open Space and Consem Element of the Carlsbad General Plan is to prevent premature development prime agricultural land and to preserve this land when feasible (City
Carlsbad 1990).
The project site was grouped into five main areas. Area 1 Village H; Area 2 is Villages I< and L-2; Area 3 is Village R; Area 4 is Vi11
U, W, X, and Y; and Area 5 is off-site College Boulevard. Figure 32 shows soil types in each area, Area 1 is comprised of mostly Carlsbad gravelly lo sand (CbE), Diablo clay (DaF), Gaviota fine sandy loam (GaF), and Salinas
loam (SbC). The first three soil types have similar characteristics. They moderately well-drained to well-drained soils with high erosion hazards and suitability for agriculture. These types of soils are used primarily for 1 ing developments and rangeland. Salinas clay loam is a Class 11 soil wii Storie Index of 73 formed from sediments of other soil types. This soil h slight to moderate erosion hazard. Although no agriculture is present on site, this soil type is suitable for citrus, truck crops, tomatoes, flowers,
pasture.
*
*
131
\
/-----,,
<-’
\ 1
/’ I / 4x
,,----+-- i--. ..~ ----... __-----. .- / ’\ //’
*/--
,/<*/
‘a 1
L BIO Bondallyloam
CbE CarLbad gravelly loamy -d
Cnnc Cicocba vcry rocky wmz
DaF habloclay
LE2
FcE.2 Fallbrmk rocky randy loam
Eswndrdo wry ha aody loam
FrE Fnantrockyfmcsandylaam
LC La3 Ron3 loamy ha sand u1c MBualoamycoanc~d NOTE: See Table 12 for description of Soil Codes
LcD2
LeE
LE3 Lar no=r loamy 6m sand SlG stocpgulhedkod
GaF Ganotaflmaodyloam
LC2 Lis Rorcs loamy fule rand Rm hvemash
SbA SaLoasckybam
SK S~clayLOam
Las Florcs loamy KIK sand
Lm Florcs loamy finc sand +
LvF3 Loamy allunal lad. Hucrhclno * PRIME AGRICULTURAL SOIL
8
FIGURE 32 SOIL TYPES
TABLE 12 SOIL DESCRIPTLONS e
S torie Cap ability Villag
Symbol Unit Name Index Unit Area'
B1C2 Bonsall sandy loam, 41 IV 274
CbE Carlsbad gravelly loamy sand, 15 VI 1
Cmffi Cieneba very rocky coarse <5 VI1 2
DaF Diablo clay, 13 VI 1
EsE2 Escondido very fine sandy loam, 32 VI 4
FeE2 Fallbrook rocky sandy loam, 27 VI 2
2% to 9% slopes, eroded
15% to 30% slopes
sandy loam, 30% to 75% slopes
30% to 50% slopes
15% to 30% slopes, eroded
9% to 30% slopes, eroded
9% to 30% slopes
30% to 50% slopes
2% to 9% slopes
5% to 9% slopes, eroded
(3) FxE Friant rocky fine sandy loam, 8 VI1 2 ,f
GaF Gaviota fine sandy loam, <5 VI1 1
LeC Las Flores loamy fine sand, 36 IV 5
LeC2 Las Flores loamy fine sand, 31 IV 4
LeD2 Las Flores loamy fine sand, 29 IV 3,
LeE Las Flores loamy fine sand, 29 VI 5
LeE3 Las Flores loamy fine sand, 24 VI1 2,
LvF3 Loamy alluvial land, Huerheuro 23 VI11 3
9% to 15% slopes, eroded
15% to 30% slopes
9% to 30% slopes, severely eroded
complex, 9% to 50% slopes, severely eroded e
TABLE 12 SOIL DESCRIPTIONS (continued)
S torie Capability Village Symbol Unit Name Index Unit Area*
MlC Marina loamy coarse sand, 54 111 I
Rm Riverwash <lo VIII 4
SbA Salinas clay loam, 81 I 5
S bC Salinas clay loam, 73 I1 1
S tG Steep gullied land <IO VIIl 1
2% to 9% slopes
0% to 2% slopes
2% to 9% slopes
SOURCE: USDA 1973
*Area 1 = Village H Area 2 = Village K, L-2 Area 3 = Village R Area 4 = Village U, W, X, Y
Area 5 = Off-site College Boulevard
TABLE 13
CAPABILITY CLASSES a
Class Description
I
II Soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice
Soils have few limitations that restrict their use.
plants or that require moderate conservation practices.
I11 Soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice
plants, require special conservation practices, or both.
Soils have very severe limitations that reduce the choice plants, require very careful management, or both.
V Soils are not likely to erode but have other limitati
impractical to remove, that limit their use largely
pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife habitat.
VI Soils have severe limitations that make them gene
unsuited to cultivation and limit their use largely
pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife, habitat.
VIT Soils have very severe limitations that make then uns
to cultivation and that restrict their use largely pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife habitat.
VIII Soils and landforms have limitations that preclude their
for commercial crop production and restrict their use recreation, wildlife, or water supply, or to esl purposes.
IV
II)
e
~
TABLE 14 STORE INDEX RATINGS
Grade Index Rating Description
Grade 1 80 to 100 Few or no limitations that restrict use for crops.
Grade 2 60 to 80 Suitable for most crops, few special manage-
ment needs, minor limitations that narrow crop choices.
Grade 3 40 to 60 Suitable for few crops or to special crops, requires special management.
Grade 4 20 to 40 Severely limited for crops, requires careful management.
Grade 5 10 to 20 Not suitable for cultivated crops, can be
used for pasture and range.
Grade 6 less than 10 Not suitable for farming.
Area 2 (Village K and L-2) is comprised mostly of Fallbrook ro(
sandy loam (FeE2) with some areas of Friant rocky fine sandy loam (FxE) i
Bonsall sandy loam (BlC2). The Fallbrook sandy loam is made of decompo granodiorite and has a moderately high erosion potential. The natural ferti
of this soil is low and it is mainly used for range. The Friant rocky i
sandy loam (Class VII, Storie 8) is a shallow soil with moderate to high eros
sandy loam (Class IV, Storie 41) has a moderate erosion potential and is u for range, dry-farmed grains, and flowers.
a
potential. It is mainly used for watersheds and wildlife habitat, The Bon
Area 3 (Village R) is comprised of the Las Flores Series of types. This soil type (Class TV, Stone 29-31) is made from marine sandstc
has a slight to moderate erosion potential, and is used for flowers, ra
truck crops, and housing developments.
Area 4 (Villages U, W, X, and Y) is dominated by Friant rocky sandy loam (FxE) described in the previous paragraph. It is poorly suited agriculture. Other soil types in this area include Fallbrook rocky sandy 11
(FeE2), Bonsall sandy loam (BlC2), the Las Flores Series (LeD2 and LeC2),
Escondido very fine sandy loam (EsE2). The Fallbrook rocky sandy loam, Bor sandy loam, and the Las Flores Series are described in a previous paragr Escondido very fine sandy loam (Class VI, Storie 32) is comprised of weath metamorphosed sandstone and has a moderate to high erosion hazard. This
can be used for range and citrus.
Area 5 (off-site College Boulevard) contains the Las Flores Sr
(LeC2, LeD2) and Friant rocky fine sandy loam (FxE) as described above. '
area also contains Salinas clay loam (SbA) which is a Class I soil havin
Storie Index of 81. This soil type is classified as prime agricultural f land. The soil fertility is high and it is primarily used for citrus, 1 crops, tomatoes, flowers, and small pasture lots.
0
2. ImDacts
The soils underlying Areas 2, 3, and 4 are classified at bes being severely limited for crops and requiring careful management. Develop in these areas (Villages K, L-2, R, U, W, X, and Y) would not adversely in agriculture in the region.
ranging from Class II to Class VIII and a Storie Index ranging from 73 to than 10. However, the portions of Area 1 proposed to be graded and devel are comprised of Carlsbad gravelly loamy sand and Gaviota fine sandy 1 These soil types have Capability Units of VI and VII and Storie Indexes o
and 5, respectively. These types of soils are not suitable for culti crops (USDA 1973). Therefore, grading and developing the proposed pad
Village H would not adversely impact agriculture.
Off-site improvements to College Boulevard comprise Area 5. southern end of the alignment terminates within a region of Salinas clay
(SbA). This soil type has a Capability Unit of I and a Storie lndex of 81 is classified as prime agricultural farmland. Agricultural activity is ently occurring within this region of soil and the immediately surrounding A biological assessment conducted by ERCE indicates that the proposed aligi
The soils underlying Area 1 (Village H) have a Capability
0
137
for off-site College Boulevard would impact 3.3 acres of agriculture (ERCE 1990), which is located on prime soils. The direct loss of 3.3 acres of prime agricultural soils would not constitute a significant impact since College Boulevard is a circulation element roadway which would not be constructed
prematurely. The construction of College Boulevard would also bisect and make access to approximately 29 acres of utilized prime agricultural soil north of the off-site alignment more difficult.
3. Mitigation
Since College Boulevard is a planned circulation element roadway,
the impacts to the 3.3 acres of prime agricultural soils are not considered
significant. Also, relocating College Boulevard to completely avoid the area of
prime soil would not be feasible. If the roadway were moved to the east, it would still bisect the area of prime soil and, if moved to the west, an existing residential development would prevent continuity with the roadway’s planned future extension south of Cannon Road. Avoidance of the loss of prime agricul- tural soils is therefore only possible under the No Project alternative.
Project alternatives are fully discussed in Section H.H.
The tentative map for Villages W, X, and Y would also be conditioned
to ensure that access be provided to off-site College Boulevard from the agricultural operations to the north.
4. Analvsis of Significance
In Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4, there are no soils above a Capability Unit
of IV which would be graded and developed. Soils with a Capability Unit of IV have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants and require very careful management (see Table 13). Therefore, impacts to agriculture in these
Area 5 would not be significant because College Boulevard is a circulation element roadway.
areas would not be significant. The impacts to the prime soils identified in
138
F. PUBLIC FACILITIES
The Calavera Hills M'aster Plan area is identified as Zone 7 in @ Growth Management Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. The Local Facilii
for new or upgraded sewer and water facilities for any subsequent development the zone. The discussion of sewer and water facilities below is based on LFMP.
Management PIan for Zone 7, approved in December, 1989, addmses requireme
Villages L-1, Q, and T are also part of the subsequent development to
constructed in the master plan area. These villages, located in the central northeast section of Calavera Hills, have already been approved for developn by the City and represent a total of 563 dwelling units.
1. Existing Conditions
a. Sewer Facilities. The project site is within the Carlsbad Se
Service District. The existing Zone 7 sewer collection system does not r
performance standards adopted by the City of Carlsbad. The existing force r
in Tamarack Avenue which conveys sewage from Zone 7 is being used temporaril a gravity main. A gravity line will be required to be constructed as part any approval,
The Calavera Hills Master Plan area is currently serviced by major sewer interceptors; the North Agua Hedionda Interceptor (NAHI) and
VistdCarlsbad (V/C) Interceptor. Both interceptors, shown in Figure 33, COI wastewater to the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility located near intersection of Palomar Road and 1-5 in the city of Carlsbad. NAHI joins
V/C Interceptor just north of the treatment plant.
Zone 7 is divided into three watershed areas for sewer plar purposes. The watershed boundaries and villages are shown in Figure Watershed A is currently sewed by the V/C Interceptor. This intercept0 jointly owned by the Cities of Vista and Carlsbad.
Sewage from Watershed B currently flows by gravity throu<
force main along Tamarack Avenue to the North Agua Hedionda Trunk 1B (NAH
line (see Figure 33), which then flows into the NAHI. This force main originally designed to carry sewage from Zone 2, located immediately we:
not operational, the force main has been used as stated above. The ex NAHTlB line is operating close to its capacity. An analysis in the L indicates that 590 additional dwelling units could utilize NAHTlB befor upgrade becomes necessary. Villages L-1, Q, and T have already been app and will utilize the NAHTlB line. Remaining capacity in the NAHTlB line
these villages are constructed will be approximately 54 additional equi. dwelling units. Parts of the approved Villages Q and T will also utilizr proposed temporary pump station just north of Village U.
There is no existing development in Watershed C and cur
b. Water Distribution. Water service for the Calavera Hills I Plan area is provided by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. Cur
@
Zone 7, to the Calavera Hills Reclamation Plant, Since the plant is pres
there are no sewer facilities which service this area.
@
139
.
BUENA VISTA
CAUVERA HILLS
FOXES LANDING
UFT STATION
1 Lift Station
0 Proposed Lift Station - Existing Sewer Facilities
--- Proposed Sewer Facilities
+P
FIGURE 33. EXISTING AND LFMP-PROPOSED SEWER FACILITIES
mc0#=
T * C 4 9
e
0
2 0 d F X
U a
t
9
2 0 F a
t ti s 3 3 4 1 I cn 0 * PE a w i m > v)
e
,I
-
-
I
water distribution facilities in Zone 7 meet the City’s adopted performance
standards. Existing water facilities and water facilities proposed by the LIMP
for the site are shown in Figure 35. The facilities include a 6 million gallon reservoir, a pressure reducing and pumping station at the future intersection of College Boulevard and Carlsbad Village Drive, and transmission lines serving the existing developments in the master plan area.
c. Landfills. The San Marcos landfill, which currently serves the municipal waste needs of the city of Carlsbad, is nearing capacity. However,
plans to expand the landfill are being worked on by the County. If this project is approved by the Board of Supervisors and a permit is issued by the RWQCB, the San Marcos landfill will continue to accept waste until mid-1996 (Rollin, San
Diego County Department of Public Works, 11/18/91).
There are two other projects currently being studied by the County. An EIR was prepared in January, 1990, addressing three possible sites
for a new landfill to handle North County municipal waste (County of San Diego 1990). The County is currently negotiating with firms to create more detailed designs for four of the potential sites identified in the EIR. However, these sites have not been approved for actual construction of a landfill.
An EIR is also being prepared for the construction of two emergency waste transfer stations, one of which is in Carlsbad at the Coast Waste Management site near the intersection of El Camino Real and Palomar mort Road. These emergency waste transfer stations would facilitate the
diversion of 40 percent of North County trash from the San Marcos landfill to the Otay and Sycamore landfills in the event that expansion is not possible at the San Marcos landfill. This diversion would expand the life of the San Marcos
landfill beyond its scheduled 1992 closure. This project has not been approved
by the Board of Supervisors and would only be implemented if expansion of the San Marcos landfill is not possible (Rollin. County Department of Public Works,
11/18/91).
The year 2020 per capita solid waste generation rate in the
County Department of Public Works 1989). However, the County Board of Supervisors approved the San Diego Recycling Plan on December 8, 1987, which specified a goal of 30 percent reduction in the total trash stream. If 30 percent of the waste stream is recycled, then the per capita generation rate
would be 2.3 tons per year.
county of San Diego is projected to be 3.3 tons per person per year (San Diego
2. Impacts
a. Sewer Facilities. The existing sewer system serving Watersheds
A and B would not be adequate to support the additional development planned within the area. Portions of the proposed Villages K and L-2 are within Water- shed A. Watershed B contains the residential lots proposed for Village H, a
portion of Villages U and Y, and the remainder of Villages K and L-2. If new
sewer facilities are not constructed to service these villages, they would be adversely impacted.
There are currently no developed areas in Watershed C. Water-
shed C contains Villages W and X and portions of Villages U and Y. New facili-
ties would be required to service these areas.
142
L
v) v)E
dEi oa a* LE ~g no - a+ gg
2 FW ow V)> P> -2 05
;f I
Y 0
v) zz
. x- P - wh
m
D *
t
N
0 * a*w a wz uw E si PE : dKn ad d EuJu
o w usm 0 m $*En: 3
(c 9 go wz Ea Lug 32 g g :
z 0
N p: Iw w+ 9 096
ow mk Q a E<= 4
g w i%(n++,z > *a ma
7: 3
w
0 w PEP EV) x LL:
4
w a+ & WP
i e e :OB 0 )I
a
I e e
-
-
A portion of the South Agua Hedionda Intercepter (SAHI) sewer system would be required to service some planning areas in Watershed C. The northern extension of South Agua Hedionda Trunk 2B (SAHT2B) line would be
extended from SAHI to within the Calavera Hills Master Plan area. This trunk
line would be aligned along an existing water line easement containing a dirt access road and disturbed habitat; therefore, no significant impacts to biolog- ical resources would occur.
The alignment of SAHT2B as it exits the Calavera Hills Master
Plan area would also follow an existing easemenddirt access road and future collector road south to the future intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road. This section of the sewer alignment is required by Carlsbad Highlands (CT
82- 12), an approved residential subdivision, and the environmental impacts were addressed in EIR 80-8 and Supplemental EIR 80-8a. Due to the fact that the sewer line would be aligned along an existing graded dirt access road, no
significant environmental impacts would occur.
The alignment of the SAHT2C sewer line from the intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road west to El Camino Real is addressed in the EIR for Cannon Road Reaches 3 & 4. This segment would follow a dirt access road
along the north side of a proposed drainage channel located south of the proposed Cannon Road Reach 3 alignment. Therefore, no significant environmental impacts are anticipated.
b. Water Distribution. As can be seen in Figure 35, there are existing 12- to 16-inch water transmission lines underlying the proposed align-
ments for College Boulevard and Carlsbad Village Drive near their intersection. There are also existing 12- to 14-inch transmission lines underneath Villages K
and L-2 which originate from the reservoir. Sixteen-inch and 14-inch pipelines
are considered to be major water transmission facilities (Coates, Carlsbad Municipal Water District, 7/19/91). Grading and construction in the areas over the pipelines could cause adverse impacts to water service in the area (Coates, Carlsbad Municipal Water District, 7/19/9 1).
There are no transmission lines currently located to serve the
undeveloped areas of the Calavera Hills Master Plan area. Adequate water
distribution facilities would need to be provided to the new developments prior
to their occupancy.
c. Landfills. The proposed project would construct 669 dwelling
units. The Zone 7 LFMP states that the average number of persons per household
for Zone 7 is 2.471. Therefore, the proposed project would attract 1,653 per- sons to the area. Using the County’s projected 2010 per capita waste generation
rate of 2.3 to 3.3 tons per year, the proposed project would generate 3,802 to
5,455 tons per year of municipal waste. Build-out of the project is expected by
will be resolved by this time. Therefore, impacts to the region’s landfills are not considered s; . nificant.
the year 1998. It is anticipated that the regional problem of landfill space
I
1-14
3. Mitigation
The Local Facilities Management Plan requires that any developml occurring subsequent to 1989 must provide for certain upgraded and new sewer a
water facilities prior to issuance of building or grading permits. The n sewer facilities required by the LFMP are shown in Figure 33. In addition, financing mechanism is required to be provided which would guarantee funding
upgrade sewer line NAHTlB prior to issuance of the 54th building permit in zone. Villages Q and T are planned to be constructed prior to the propo,
project and will use up the remaining existing capacity in the NAHTlB line.
other conditions stated in the LFMP should also be fulfilled.
*
There are no facilities which currently exist to service villages
Watershed C, which contains the proposed Villages U, W, X, and Y. Prior development of these villages, the SAHT system shown on Figure 33 will required to be constructed so that sewer systems will be available to serve part of the project.
A water distribution system to deliver water to the new resider
shall be in place prior to occupancy. Also, the applicant shall coordii construction and grading of Elm Avenue, College Boulevard, and Villages K L-2 with the Carlsbad Municipal Water District. Prior to issuance of a grac permit, construction plans must be approved by the Carlsbad Municipal W District. Measures to minimize or avoid disruptions in service are gener determined on a project-by-project basis and depend upon the size of the p
line, its current location, and the type of construction proposed. Tk measures could include relocating and lowering the existing pipeline, instal a temporary pipeline during construction, and restricting construction r major water transmission lines to the wintertime, when the demand for watei e lower.
*
145 ..
G. BIOLOGY
This section summarizes a biological analysis of the project
prepared by RECON in August, 1991. The analysis utilized previous biolog mapping, aerial photography, and geographic information system ((
The purpose of the analysis was to locate and identify the cur
status of biological resources, including natural plant communities and st
tive species, occurring or potentially occurring ion the property. Dire surveys for the California gnatcatchers were also conducted.
0
methodology. The complete report is included in this EIR as Appendix E.
1. Existing Conditions
a. Analysis Methods. The project site was previously surveyed 1990 by ERC Environmental and Energy Services Co. (ERCE 1990) and in 1977 Pacific Southwest Biological Services (PSBS 1977). Resource observations f
these previous surveys were included in the repoit. Vegetation mapping sensitive species locations from the previous 1990 survey were used to pre an impact analysis.
A botanical field check and survey were conducted by RECOP
June 11, 1991 to confirm the previous vegetation mapping. A second survey conducted June 13, 1991, in the areas of Village H proposed for developmen map a population of thread-leaved brodiaea. Zoological field checks
California gnatcatcher surveys were conducted May 30, June 3, June 4,
June 10, 1991. All surveys were conducted on foot during the morning 0 afternoon.
b. Habitats. Thirteen vegetation types occur on the property
off-site College Boulevard: southern mixed chaparral, chamise chaparral, Di
coastal sage scrub dominated by coastal sagebrush, Diegan coastal sage s dominated by black sage, coastal sage-chaparral scrub, burned coastal scrub-chaparral scrub, disturbed grassland, sycamore woodland, rip, scrub/wetland, eucalyptus, agriculture, disturbed land, and developed permitted areas. Figure 36 is a vegetation map showing the distribution these habitats on the project site and Table 15 lists the acreages of
habitat present in each village.
Four of the 13 habitat types present on the site are consil
to be sensitive: Diegan coastal sage scrub dominated by coastal sage
(Artemisia califomica) and black sage (Salvia mellifera), ril scrub/wetland, and disturbed grassland areas containing needlegrasses thread-leaved brodiaea. Sycamore woodland, which is found off-site along
alignment of the College Boulevard extension, is also considered sen:
Table 16 defines the sensitivity codes used in the following discussions.
four sensitive habitat types are described in detail below.
1) Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub. Four coastal sage scrub VL tion communities occur on the project site as identified on Figure 36. D
coastal sage scrub dominated by coastal sagebrush or black sage comprises
The scrub dominated by coastal sagebrush, characterized by dense perennial cover with almost no bare ground, is found on-site and also in the 0:
i (4.8 percent) and 1.1 acres (0.4 percent), respectively, of the project
@
146
1
MU!l-&H y -.~ - != - -
c D 0 1 zOv v1 -"e7w1w< c-
p.'~-mnw"om c w
w u- em rn
gorYcww o El c ,,-z.Z 3 z z J, =--
-a=m-amz.3cJ m- J -e cD 9,
-0 7-m c w -2ZZ wm- " w.
mm 'w =I - J WE; 02 - m
om --:-3. -E (D 3" VIZ < * a ;.
* p, Dm 03 - =iz 7
W gw- -g-- 0-u r 3 -I= p'wa- cb
10 3,. 2 ET
w0' - c-c
c3 5- 0
m-- 0-
aw CTwOlem nm"wo " - -- 70
-w ?=on o - '0 " o "0 -.m e, c. ri.
e- urn z- -- nrz ,a "a w
-
L
c0
-J c
0 L. om a -
P cc -0
PW
'0-1 wm -w
W -- e, 3
-0
c -
mw- - awa - 0
cn J
ow - w- c
'-0J w won -
cnm0 we- 5a-c
0
El
-w
-"
-a= 0 -.
1%
N 0 0 0
R
0
e
a
-. uc"g3 b b m 0% 4 p 0 gg? g $3 kj 6 2E 2g 2 8s
gz EZ C
!i \ e2
WE g g- fl KC' E, Sa % 8 gm 7 % E g m $0 -e Eg g @. Z&
m% 3: em ZE 4 5 $3 g F $E. eo 2.5 E 6 x L. f gg
E p e, E xT
3 p b g E23 Eg- 'om -,
8 cn 6'
"8 Qg ok
E
$? g 9 5- 5 B
Y 3 C
8 Ff a %
-=f.
ir
z
C.. c m W
% P w Y bee P"'cg 8 b t,8z VI 3
s
q
2
Q
5 z W e e e
00 0
E
R 4
c 00 c P gg& W P z CDgL oz e 0 0 E
8 8 gzo e 8 00 E 0 +E
VJ -82
!im f
7
e e e P gggj N 2 L r h,
s - E ir m g
3
8 % 0 i' 3 .? E 0 cb- v1 gocgj 0.c 3
L
io g
5 - - L w N P c" u; 0 c. CE
C
0 b 8 k Go-4 CP - s P - tr P8Lb-
L
w <2
0 x 2 P --
<"
Pp' 2 ZCnP c - - N 0 c 8 gbgb 3 ?n
-I E
N I W VI -e-
c. c c E CDLaZE E ?.p?- I e w 30 PC -ZL W ::
TABLE 16
SENSJTIVITY CODES
FEDERAL CANDIDATES AND LISTED PLANTS
FE= Federally listed, endangered
€T= Federally listed, threatened
C1= Enough data are on file to support a proposal for the federal listing
C1*= Enough data are on file to support a proposal for federal listing, but the plant is
presumed extinct
C2= Threat and/or distribution data are insufficient to support federal listing
C2*= Threat and/or distribution data are insufficient to support federal listing; plant
presumed extinct
C3a= Extinct
C3b= Taxonomically invalid
C3c= Too widespread andor not threatened
STATE LISTED PLANTS
CE= State listed, endangered
CR= State listed, rare
CT= State listed, threatened
CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOICIETY
LISTS R-E-D CODES
1A= Species presumed extinct.
lB= Species rare, threatened, or
R 0
1= Rare, but found in sufficient num- bers and distributed widely enough that the potential for extinction is low at this time.
endangered in California and else-
where. These species are eligible for state listing.
2= Species rare, threatened, or 2= Occurrence confined to several populations or to one extended population. endangered in California but which
are more common elsewhere. These
species are eligible for state listing. 3= Occurrence limited to one or a few
highly restricted populations, or present in such small numbers that
it is seldom reported. 3= Species for which more information is needed. Distribution, endan- germent, and/or taxonomic informa- tion is needed. E (5hg-t)
4= A watch list of species of limited 1= Not endangered
distribution. These species need
to be monitored for changes in the status of their populations. 3= Endangered throughout its range
2= Endangered in a portion of its
range
D (Distribution)
1=
2= Rare outside California 3= Endemic to California
More or less widespread outside
California
alignment of the College Boulevard extension. Dominant small shrub s include California sagebrush, red-bush monkey-flower, white sage, and f buckwheat. Common large shrubs include laurel sumac, lemonadeberry, and Common understory plants are needlegrams, amole, matchweed, and deenveed.
The Diegan coastal sage scrub dominated by black is also a dense perennial shrub cover and is found on the site and also foL the off-site College Boulevard alignment.
Coastal sage scrub is estimated to have once cc approximately 480,000 acres within San Diego County (RECON 1990). Howe
recent survey of the extent of this plant community using aerial photo: extensive field observations reveals a loss of nearly 80 percent count! (RECON 1990); the same trend is similar over most of southern Cal (Westman 1981), with total losses estimated at up to 85 percent. Coastal scrub is considered to be sensitive by both state and federal resource a2 including the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) (Holland 19) is also considered a biologically sensitive habitat by the County of San (1991) due to its rapidly diminishing acreages and the presence of incr
numbers of associated sensitive species.
Diego horned lizards (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei), and orange-th
whiptails (Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingii) were identified in community on-site, further increasing the habitat’s sensitivity sinc functions as habitat for these sensitive species. Some of the Diegan c sage scrub areas also contain Palmer’s grappling hook (Harpagonellu p var. palrneri), a California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory L
species .
type is composed of two components: riparian scrub and freshwater marsh. habitat type is found in three areas on-site and comprises 2.9 acres percent) of the property, The common tree species are arroyo willow
willow, and California sycamore. The dominant vegetation on drier
includes mule fat and Douglas’ sagewort, and on wet soils or in areas of ing water, cattails and bulrush.
3) Svcamore Woodland. Sycamore woodland is found off-s the stream that emerges from the Calavera reservoir and continues southwarc of the project boundary. This habitat is included in the current iil because of the potential impacts resulting from the off-site construction I
College Boulevard extension. Sycamore alluvial woodland is dominated by u sycamore in the overstory and mule fat in the understory. Other common s include Douglas’ sagewort, western ragweed, cocklebur, and saltgrass. S
other tree species are present including Mexican elderberry. arroyo willow
red willow.
Both sycamore woodland and the riparian scrub 1 described above are considered to be sensitive for a variety of reason:
most notable of which is the small percentage of such habitats which still
habitat in southern California as in northern California or the central
it has been estimated that only about one-third of the riparian habitat 1
California gnatcatchers (Polioptila califomica),
2) Riuarian ScrubNetland. The riparian scrub/wetland
4 compared to what was once historically present. Although never as abund
151
in San Diego County in the 1970s exists today (Holland 1987; Oberbauer, County Department of Planning and Land Use, 1990). Riparian habitats are also one of the most productive in terms of wildlife use. Riparian and wetland are consid- ered sensitive habitats by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), federal resource agencies, and the County of San Diego.
4) Disturbed Grassland Containing Native Grassland Components and Thread-leaved Brodiaea. The disturbed grassland on-site is composed of a dense cover of both native and non-native grass species and comprises 40.9 acres
(14.1 percent) of the vegetation on-site. Dominant species include slender wild oats, wild oats, smooth brome, red brome, ripgut grass, filaree, golden tanveed,
golden star, and foxtail fescue. Large stands of grasslands with dense native grass components were observed in Village H and small patches within coastal sage scrub-chaparral scrub habitats of Village U during the current survey. These areas were not identified in the 1990, survey and since no remapping was performed during this survey, the quantity of native grasslands on-site is unknown. The quantity of native grassland present on-site is at least equiva- lent to the thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea fifilifoli~) occupied habitat (at least 0.7 acre) plus some undetermined surrounding area. Common species for
these stands include purple and foothill needlegrass, golden stars, rosin weed, amole, and gum plant. A population of more than 300 thread-leaved brodiaea plants (0.7 acre of occupied habitat) and two small populations of Palmer’s grappling hook, both sensitive species, were found in Village H within the stands of native grassland.
As stated above, portions of the disturbed grassland areas have native grassland components containing thread-leaved brodiaea. These
portions of disturbed grasslands are considered native grassland habitat. The
composition of grasslands in San Diego County varies greatly and those with a dominant component of native grasses (e.g. Stip~, Elyrnus, Muhlenbergia, or Melica) are considered to be rare. Native grasslands are considered to be sensitive because they occur rarely and often provide habitat for sensitive plant taxa. Native grasslands are considered rare by the CDFG (in the CNDDB) and the County of San Diego.
c. Plant Saecies. A total of 115 plant taxa were identified on-
site, 85 of which (74 percent) are: native species.
No federally listed plant species were observed on the property. However, a total of five sensitive plant species were observed on-site. All
sensitive plant species observed or potentially occurring on-site are listed in Table 17. Table 18 shows sensitive plant totals for each village. One state endangered plant (thread-leaved brodiaea) was observed on the site. The status of this species is discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs. Two CNf’S List 2 species (Palmer’s grappling hook and California adolphia) and two
CNPS List 4 species (western dichondra and ashy spikemoss) were also observed
on-site. These species are also discussed in more detail below. Figure 37 shows the locations of these plants.
a
In addition, one CNPS List 3 species (Greene’s ground-cherry)
was observed during the 1977 survey of the property, but was not seen in 1990 or 1991. Other sensitive plant species which could potentially occur on the proj- ect site include San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila), San Diego sagewort
(Artemisia palmeri), wart-stemmed ceanothus (Ceanothus verrucosus), and 0
152
-/Cams ~~61 Suynp pauasqo - +
./Cams malm3 Suynp pauasqo - *
*sapo3 30 uogewIdxa 103 91 a1qq aas
e
ssomqds 6qsv
qws ~SES ~SEO~ ‘PmdEq3 1-2-1 P --I-- *ma3svlau!3 vpu?svpS
huaq3-punoJ8 s ,auaa.~~)
qms a%s pse03 i-i-i € --I-- +!2U22l8 S?]VSdqd
3ym 130.1 paaea1-1p~
vivuvl *dss
IeJledw3 2-I-€ a1 3€3l-- vsnalodkq vppiuuo~
yooq SuIlddefi s~aqed
pawlvd -JEA
/C~I~A ‘qws a8s mseo3 ‘pmdeq3 1-2-1 2 --I-- *.iawlvd Vl~2UO8VdAVH
Put!ISSEa 1IlglOO.J Put!
male auIu uI slam
asuap se apuo pun03 ‘puqsse~S
ng003 put! Lama ‘qms aSes ElPUOq3lp uIalS9M
*s~yv1uapp30 v.lpuoq3?g ~wm ‘put!lpoo~ amuoursp ‘plredq3 1-2- 1 P --I--
qs-uo pauasqo IOU snqlowa3 parmnais-mM
%Ban pmdRq3 ui alqrssod ’Pmdeq3 I -2- 1 2 --I-- snsomiian snqiouva3
0
H a%l?h
y punoj spnppupu! 006 JaAo ‘slood EaerpoJq pamappeam
PaA ’PWSseJS IIIrlJoo3 Put! LaIFA €-E-€ a1 13/23 *v!l 0JW va fl.va
alp-uo pauasqo 30u ‘sa8EuFip DOM~%ES o%a!a ues
3!saur UI pquaod ‘qru3s a8es pseo3 I -2-2 2 --I-- pawlvd vg?waiipr
ais-uo pamasqo 30u
‘qms a% uI aIqrssod ‘pwlsse.18 eIsoJqm o%aIa ues
1pqoo3 pw /C~I~A ‘qws a8es pw03 Z-Z-E a1 23-- vpwnd vlsoiquiv
~:!qdloPe ~!~O.w3 IS-uo UOUIUIO~ *pmdeq3 I -2- 1 2 --I-- ~a~guo&p~ vqdlopy
sluaunnoa aPo3 1S!7 swms sapadg
SdN3 SdN3 @JaPu/alQs
a3-330 am WLLNXLod 3H.L I-LLIM a0 mmS80
!ZIIXdS W?d WLLISN3S
LI 3-IaV.L
0
i3 W$k.gk3 “U’T
28 %a Q %. g‘%s 3g E2 $sob & E. Q $’ L. 2s rn z 2. :: & 3
i!. x Y % 2, 5’ 3 gsgg 2s -. 1 c.
?E
9
9 “8 0 +.;;-s 2
5’ g
2.
se
g 2. % 8‘ w- 3
cc se *z 25
Y.c,
*
Yn5L
U
5 w
Ln
E
+P 00%8 $i ? 88
88 + gbg e
gg + 888
-
I
+ “;g gs 8’
gg+wgg
K
s3 + zzz
P
-
P, E. e-
5 c. 5
z
m (D
5 - u’
7f
m (D
5 L u’ % r h)
5 - -5
icl
m (D
5 - u’
C
09 (D
es
$2 “x u’
d E
___----
felt-leaved rock mint (Monardella hypoleuca ssp. lanata). These species would have been observed during the survey if they were present on the site.
1) Thread-leaved Brodiaea. Thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) is a perennial herb endemic to southern California, being found only in San Diego and Riverside counties. It is thought to be extinct in Los Angeles
and San Bernardino counties. This species is listed by the state as endangered
and is a Category 2 candidate for federal listing. It also holds the highest sensitivity code possible by the California Native Plant Society, indicating a taxa which is extremely rare, has a very restricted distribution, and is highly
threatened throughout its range.
a
Thread-leaved brodiaea is found on the project site within native grassland components in the northern portion of Village H adjacent to Elm Avenue. Approximately 3 10 individuals were found scattered throughout the
grassland habitat, with the highest concentration being present in the northwest comer of the site. Habitat for this species on the site covers a very large area, with the appropriate soil type (Diablo clay) extending down into the drainage and along the entire northhouth length of the canyon system in the northern portion of Village H. Only areas near the proposed widening of Elm
Avenue were surveyed thoroughly. Additional populations may exist near the
drainage on the east side of the parcel. These populations would be included in
the proposed open space. No populations were found in the proposed housing development area of Village H (south of where Elm Avenue crosses the canyon).
2) Palmer’s gramling hook (Harpanonella palrneri). This
annual plant is found from Los Angeles County south into northern Baja Califor-
nia, Mexico, in the coastal foothills in coastal sage scrub and chaparral habi-
tats; it is confined to expansive clay soils in these regions. This species blooms from March to April, although it is still identifiable several months after blooming due to the presence of its distinctive fruits. The CNPS lists
Palmer’s grappling hook in List 2, species that are rare or endangered in California but more common elsewhere.
Palmer’s, grappling hook was found in two locations within Village U. It was observed in small patches of native grassland dominated by purple needlegrass within larger areas of Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern
mixed chaparral. Both sites contained expansive clay soils.
3) California adolDhia (Adolphia caljfornica). California
adolphia is a CNPS List 2 species. It is found in southwest San Diego County from the San Luis Rey River into Baja California, Mexico. This species is found
growing in dry canyons and washes of coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitats.
@
California adolphia is common throughout sage scrub and
chaparral habitats on-site. It is found in high concentrations in eight areas on the property, especially on south- and east-facing slopes (see Figure 37).
4) Western dichondra (Dichondra occidentalis). Western
dichondra is usually found growing under brush or trees in coastal sage scrub, chaparral, or oak woodland areas. It grows primarily in dry sandy soils ranging
from coastal Orange County south into Baja California, Mexico. This species is also found on some of the California Channel Islands. @
156
LST
‘(0861 Aun9W) %u!l3~1103 LqqOq
IO ~e~mu~uro~ pw uopmsap imlqey oi anp %u!u!pap am suopepdod pmzg
pamoy o%a ms ’aqo3g??3 UIaisaMylnos ur jemdey3 pm ‘pm~sm.r% ‘qnr3s a%es piseo3 uado 30 imiFqequf m sf pnzg pamoq S~L ‘UI~~UO~ ppds
30 sapads 9da3 B pm say3ads aep1pm3 z hTo%a1e3 (SMsn) a~yuas a3gp11~
pur! qsg *s+n r! s! sarmds s!~ -pnzg ~XLIOH oaxa ues (z
*n a%~1l~~ 30 hrepunoq ayi nau ‘airs i3aLoId ayi 30 iaa ayi oi Lpieypaurury.
‘isau 3~113~ m %tnpnpq ‘s~ay3lmir!u% e9~103~[r!3 paiuaurmop sey (91 -5121661
paqspa 30 h3) 81a asmo3 3109 RI~AE~~ av~ ayi iey1 paiou aq osp pInoys
21 *n a%~[p~ 30 Spa uravmqqou aqj UI pauasqo SBM md patp E ‘0661 UI
~WBS aqi u~ pauasqo 9.19~ sqad iag~~awx~% ~y~ro3gv3 OMJ. ‘ivi1qvq ~aymwx~% ~rwo3~p3 hpnb poo8 puaprsuo3 SI iuauru%g~ ~IRA~I~IO~ a%qo3 aqi u! PUT alis-uo qrms a~es pis~03 mgara ayi ~TJI -H ~ZE~IFA 30 Lmpunoq ~~alsamyuou
ayl mu pauasqo dno.r% L~IEJ r! 3.13~ spqq aaqi 1aq1o ay~, *x a%ell~~ UT
%upnp pauasqo 3.13~ s.ray3ie3iau% ep.1.103gv3 ~AIJ 30 pi01 v
0
wau 3~93~ rre BU~AE~ x ~BE-[-[IA uy +ed aq Y~M Aauns &j61 &3 i7uynp seam
lsau pazp!semd 3Ar)3r! m V11M .pd paleuI ?? aI3M Spnq OML .LahInS luaSn3 ayl
‘(0661 pooMiv) uogepdod ~ay~iecw~% ayi u! auymp
isau pm iuaurdopap p?.xnqn3p%e pm ueqm 103 ieiFqeq qtms a%es piseo3 ur!%ata 30 ssol aA!suaixg -pa.~a%uepua sr! sayds ayi 30 %ugsg aieis pasodold B
pa3ara.x Lpua3a.x sey ey1031p3 30 qeis au *LU~~UO~ ppads 30 salmds 9da3 e SF pue saymds pa~a%uepua m se %ugsg pmpa3 103 (1661 Jaqwaidas) pasodoid
3yl pasnV3 gAr!v (AaJD SnAzjJOlOJq) PJlqM03 P3pT?ay-UMO.Iq 3u[1 dq WsriysV.Rd
0 UWq SVy Ia~31l?3lr!U% E!WOj!@3 ay,L ‘.Iay31r!31EUE) r!!uTOJr@3 (1
.MO[3q ~ayl.1n3 passn3srp 3.R ‘IEIdIyM a. p3lI?OJql-3ZUI?.IO PUI? ‘PJEZT[ PauJOy
osala UPS ‘my~ia~i~ui? arwojrp3 ‘airs-uo sar3ads ~A~~SLI~S juauyuro~d aaqj au ‘(pad003 1aqdp3v) ~MEY s‘iadoo3 pm ‘(sngospnzj snaunb snm3) ~ayy urayuou ‘(snalniam snuqg) aiq pa.xaplnoys-pqq ‘(+!ppq
snqLCladkzj snioqdopyau3) pidyM paieo.qi-a%mIo ‘(p1pwqq zunivuoAo3
r!p.1ojp3 aqi %urpnpui ‘ails ay1 uo pauasqo 313~ saymds ajqpl!~ ailti -!suss xrs *&adoid ay1 uo paluasqo 3.13~ sapads a3gp1!~ paisg Llp~apa3 IO qe1s ON .duadoid aqi uo suoge3ol +ayi SMO~S ~c am%A *airs aq uo In330
69 pue ‘U~~~UIZUBLU 01 ‘sapida.x pm! uwqqdm ua~as ‘a3gp11~ ‘p
-s1e1lqey qms pm! ‘pmdey3 ‘qrux a%es pis~o3 paqmisrpun ayi 30 isour UT iuauoduIo3 hroismpun m! se %U~MOJZ punoj %qaq ‘iuawu%p pnAa1nog a%q103 ayi uyipw pue airs-uo uou1u103 SI ssowayrds Lqsv
*syiuow ~avp ayi ur amvneaddv aiy~ L~SF si! oi
-1qeq puedeq:, pm qnm Svs pweo3 u~ e~uroj1~a3 ~[iq maqyou pug ‘Liunoa a3uvio ‘Liunoa ooQa:a ws inoy%noq punoj SI ieqi iuqd ayqssou~ a1casoJd e s! ssouIayFds dysv -i\sumsmaup vpu~avpy) ssowaylds Lysv (s
‘uo~sualxa
pnAalnoa a%alio3 aqi JOJ iuauru%p ayi u~yi+ punoj osp SM pue airs-uo saqd ayu ul spmis iadre3 asuap UT punoj SBM e~puoyc~p LLI~S~M
mUOSOUkzjd) pRzT1 paWOy o%aIa WS ‘(Zl3piO&V3 v1!ldoTlod) Iay3iE3]VuS
Llp~iualod pin03 q3rqM asoql S?? IpM SB PahTaSqO sar&ds ijgpp~ 3AP!SUaS
3q SlSrl 61 a1qEL XhntS ay1 Suunp airs ay1 UO PahIaSqO aI3M sapds p+q
anp qqtrJguapl hpsta si 11 *axxqJnis!p 03 ~AI~Isu~s SI sar3ads slr~. ‘SIVI
@
c? d [ $4. 1 2 hF F
2. 0 n0 sr %E Q Q$
23 hO b5 BO 2 ;. :. 2 E2 Es Q ig 2; 70 $% 2 0' 5 ;7 7.2. ;i 3s %a E; p Es 3- a gg gg 3 € 5' ,- GE ?@ 2,
5 f
5 x 2. h 8 3.
I.
2
nac ?g 2. 9
2. 3
m
b0 0-
39 300 gg 20 q 2.g so 7-
OCD E$ Qu 3- Eo
b r'; e a. 8
I7 2 g 8
8 +
a0
5+ X* a 7 z E E. 5
5. OQ, * v
h +
??.
I I I I I I , I
L ! L ! \ I 1 I Tjb 5 N
cf n cl 0 cfcf m+ cf Xh
%us g23 ZgQ E3 w p w g8 0EE WgE 0qg gz gg 5.s gi 5E 85.C 2-3 5.p W5'
EkE 2 g SZPY &wg &g Es. 5.; a0 x GO 8ac
2s.B 8kz gP4. $2-
E ;.E 4% g; 9: ?Z 0 kg. 3. gJ- sg rJo-O gEj %E 2W .&&
zg.8 2g.z CD0.m 2% SE! y% 4v) 000 Px 3;
-z e E, 8 &$ 42 $3 s? CD -e g"Q &E? E @E 2 E:. 8, 2 2g YQ5.
0- -g & gs Ea
0 G3 -2 RE '4
2 E. 8 "5 59 og g 0s p 5:
9rE gm g E5 3: g zg e9 Di q z. .,.E
gid E -2 c 1 $5 5.5 n? :$
Y 5.g. SK gz cB 2.2 P. -- I.
E2 : ?. 'p, E.
o_ m0 F su ;$ OB 0E $2 w- Pg
2; 3% g Le Z?
0 0 1 s ?"
u P
G n8 n G cl
z=
0s
0- 3 $ +gz %g; p3 g$ 40
w= QE GEE PCD-W %p
E-.,
mc
-00 -0
a Q,
Ln OV, 5' 9 '3
2. 2 r c- m0
yz
c- c ='
C GC e3 z0
q2 0 7 d z z In
m z 9. I:
% v
c"0 2s gq
s
E
E 0
*mnn g +*
00 Rm
94r T44-%aaW mm 3. 3.
E.qEESE
"E 52 $E gmg.g@
3hW+0QE0 Eo =gzZ 2.Q 3z-E =e SESEg gQ gz
go pge 22
T 5. e 42 0"- z g c.- 8 ;.gi
coco D3 ?Ja i: kR ~~g~~.n~~g~$g~~ gY 8 gg5'3g g 5 EE. g2.6 K$WP -0 0 6
Ig ng,'fJC ch Kmb
~ +E. 8 ET=W 22 PaseoEpE.*E -cL c: g' E
we, k"'D:oc,O =oc. e: 5 z.
".PFz$p$ v1z -:SO, 6% 8s Q, aa" gg :E b x3.gg5.g Yg Wdh' a, *< e, =E. &onm
c.0 =c2.g'D:g qs @ Q:.o $0 (sa e. LEw "Fq gg.
3s mu9 8$$."Ks. 2 c. 5 : :. K ggg5s; E: 3c.-5. v13 9% 2."3 oaag$j 0 m CD gF
E 3 carngv1= g. g 9 3 3 Yg E s. 5 Za;Qg.%
2; 8 e z E ggE 9
2
"S 5 R
II I1 II I1 I1 I Fi: 3s 0
RR
ce
33
4Qnclm n Pa
QC -0 a
5
W)
8 i;'
E szmg 5' 5 0 5' 5. f. e
2
3 5' 1- "3 . , wo 25 E
h rgg E CD " 4. 9 5, t: 5g v1 2,
r5
e Iw g 5"
P
-1. T zz E
gz 0
0
0 E
m
3
20 5
e 5. 2 - 3 0 c
a
n bk or; 30 g i. II]
gE 8.
gg 2. 5
2 g2
a*
E! 3
i
02 eg q!j
i 1
'rlm < P
gg v1 3
3 2F E67
WO 2 5s 0
n
Fg h g4 ;g 8 gg
3 ,3,
g P E $9
33 e. $: g
9: E. ;
gg
CD
I OR U
25 (P- *% 22 1. P GFJ -0 Q z. \cc CCD v CD Y
I
091
piseo3 ur!%ala aqsuas 30 am 2.0 %u!pnpu! ‘sam 9.~2 30 pioi e i3ed p[nom ‘UOTSU~JX~ pmqnoa a%anoa aq 103 ~A~LLW~ par~a~a~d s‘iur!qddv
‘s13vdurr sarmds a&uas pm uopqa%a~ aq1 is11 €2 pu~ zz SqqQ
‘8 aA9E&3)1~ ‘SaAIJVU.I9J@ p.lTA3lnO~ 3%31103 3$rS--JJO 3r[) 103 Ld[aA!l%l
*AlaAp3adSa.I ‘x PUZ H S~%E~IIA UT UO93 -UO3 Aq pal3Bdmr A~JWIIPUF aq PltIOM SJ~F~ UI~~~JOU OM) PUE qd Jay:
-3~% qu;roj~@3 NO ‘UOI~TPPI? UI ‘)UNIdOlC)Aap WfoJd Icq p WE~~IF LIP aq PlnOM slF1dTyM pqr!O.I$-~~m!lO OM1 pUe SpSXXT p3UIOy OM1 l’ ie pm! siayw3ieu2 ep~1031p3 JO qd %u?paa.rq auo wuqeq ~~puoyxp UI~Y
30 same L*S pur! <iei?qvq eydlope e~uro3gv3 30 sa13~ ~*p ‘isFqr?y ~aq
pa~ea~-pea.~~p 30 ane c-0 apnput ppoM s3eduIr iuqd a~qsuas *paimduxF
cy) iseq it? 30 &pur!nb pauyruraapun u1! pur! ‘pmpam/qru3s ur!pdu 30 1.0 ‘qrux a%s rns‘eo:, ur!%ara arlprsuas 30 same c-8 ‘pi03 iey 30 ‘132
pasodold ayi dq pmedq aq ppoM pur!^ 30 sa.rx p-2~1 30 pi01 ‘J
*q3r! i3aCo.rd p~oi isg osle salqei yioa S~11pi dq pawduri iuaarad pur! mi
sapads iuqd ~A~!SU~S ayi slsg 12 qqtl pur! ‘a%elp Lq a%elp pal31
uopia%aA ayl 30 iuaxrad pue snedq uogaa%aA ayi asq 02 qqeL
wddi uopei snouerl aqi oi smedml i3aroJd aqi sa~ensnli~ 9~ a.rn%~~ 103 LV~AO aq,~ mixa pmAqno8 a%ai1oa ai~s-go aqi 103 osp pur! ‘a%ep q3sa 103 ‘132
[@.IN0 Clq1 JOJ paZh@U?? 2.R ldoJd SijfH EJaAE[Q ayl JOJ ‘WEdq
o%ra ur!S
PlnOM E3V!pO.Iq p3AI?al-pEaq) PUZ SSEJ%lpa3U %IFU??lUO3 pur!lSSZJ% 3AYBU JO
s-immq ‘2
-uo In330 01 pawadxa an sapads a3yp1~~ aApIsuas ~ayio ON
‘ie1;qq pidqM poo8 pa~aplsuo~ aq ppoM Lu: ayl 30 isour ‘aszq Axd i~asu~ a%nl ayi pm ieirqey qqeiys ayi 30 asp *iei~qeq pidqM paieoqi-a%ue.io alqei!ns an pur! sl!os dpu’es upiuo:, Ltr
ayl 30 qm3s paxp pm ‘qru3s a%es pis’eo~ ‘pmdetp ay,~ .iuauru%qt? uo!s
‘x a%el~f~ UT auo pm! )I a%en~~ uy pauasqo 3.13~ OM,L -Luadoid aqi 30 SA
PnAalnoa 3%3[103 3ql U!yl!M p3luaSqO SBM IFJdlYM P3lEOq)-a%ur!JO aUO
3q %UFJnp PahJaSqO XaM SlF€Qd!yM pqI?Oq1-a%ur!.IO 33-
si! woy8no.q iuaudolalzap p.mip@e pm wqin 30 ipsa1 e se iei~qeq 30
01 anp paua1Baql s! pidgML paieo.qi-a%ur!io an ‘e~w03qe3 isaMqinos ar.
UI SlTlrqey Iesredeq3 pw qms a&s @IS??O~ u! Icpo punoj ST ..I [WdIqM pz -kh~.~o’ q,~ -UI~~UO~ @pads jo saf3ads 3da3 a ST puf? 4Xlar30~ p@opi
o%ara ur!s aqi dq pauaivaqi pa~ap!suo3 SI ‘sapads aiepypm3 z hro2ae3 st
*saF3ads syqi 103 assq Laid iuqpxa ur! %uypIAo.rd ars-uo iuasad an sa
1- 3%nI au10S -Ly3ied si uogeia%aa aq pur! dpms axe spos aq~, *I pnz~l pau~oq p:iuaod p003 2n aan qm3s paxy~ pur! ‘qnr3s a%vs 1 ‘Frndey3 ayl 30 ISON ‘x ~~B[FA 30 Sean qm3s a%es pse03 ur!%ara UT 0661 ayi %uunp pauasqo 3.12~ spnzq pamoq OM^ 30 u%~s
B SF FVldlYM p~RO~i-a%URIO ayJ ’19361YM paiVOql-3SUZJO (E
..
02 OP
8 !=. 0 1 2 E
CD e:
E 5
8
9
a
5' e,
VI
?I
c, 9
g
5
R
cc
a
a cb R
e. v,
v, 3 0 3 5' -3 dB1
? $
0
e. v1 uFg_s v, 8s b 8% h Eg maggpu CD e g4h e 33 ii p, E g2J gz. ~CD g Y g 3 EG. gs p E- $E E rJ 8 Em z
80 oE mi gz & E$ m!2 c, = E. $6 a
s. 2 v1 8. m3
gF
2: f 8 WK z gE gg 93 S? a DO B8 e g 2.q E,
E' g 4 F;
E
8
x g
R 8 9 KO
F
a = z. 2: 2 9 5' e R
P
a i
L e
0 P oor P 0 0 "Ob 3 - s
W..PF POW 0 8
K 2808: L
%
i-" ppo.h)o
CL 04b9Pj
n n nn n s
nn- n % n+nW n h N
z 0 s gbz&e v v 8 &gs v
w
2 F
7"
p
L w
I3 P 0 P L
0 5
n E
6-N
nnn n -u- c.
8 0
n n n n
=f
00 OI L e
0 CD R 0
Nnsn 0 0 ow
v id2 8-w 1
8Zt P 5 Bo 1
W
W vv bggg 8 8 v 8 v v
e 5 8 VI tro08j % 2n-n~ n n n-- 8 Po . ooog 0
CL - I 0 0 e 0 0 020 0 e, v1
ch MOO h)
nn n n n 00
N n r 82 v 8 v 080 8 N v
30
v 0 egeso v v
8008 00 0 8 0
P gggg.= 0 v
W
vv
- I
8 8
nnm n rE 0 8 P P 0 CD
vvv3v v use v 0 w
c N -go c 5
ZG 0
v z C ink2
P
L
n n 00
P
n = nnnnn
m
c v 0 W
v
56"
t3 - L 8 g .E .E g 0 0 c I= P 0 0 -c N P in - I 5 'J?
h h n w iD w n hnhnh h n
WWk 2 0 p P 0 3
v 0 v bc Ggss$ w
w L cc 3 3 e c p. Ex=.= 8 -cc 0 c botrz 0 - hh 32 - PC? 1= .= v ZLj? - "X &
K
h
s' 2 P zww d
.=: -n-hn
=cco= 5 WWdYW W
P w
.(" - v L 3L.k
ir
LJ W
v
L
w e P e
-1 wrs c
bZL c
N aa.=p+ c. I P WL- PN r - w - *. c - N --& C
4-VI h N VI 0
hnn nn n h
Dc
nn n wu L v1 P P
0 iD LGO, 0 - -
vvw v
6 v XSbWi;, vww 0 v v
W
hh 04c? io+ 5
33% C?"S
q?:.? Gzg +
& ? s 4 x- zzz 53
Ob 3 g 0
h
vw
5Fg SG i-
222 -k
W
9-9 =Pic
3 0 on cd - e
6 E
E 5 0
m
d
a 3 888 e - F 4
Go -?-.e
1 a
2 9,28+ ?5s
0 an
@ $E
5
E
cd gsx
-28 "95.
3 > bE 2 s
h
k4 e,
1
ww & 3 04 ZgG .r( >
m h n
E
c?
kz a W 2&4+ 3 b,
(d
r= -. 9 1 > 00,-
3
.w ui- a: 2.- .- B s .sEp,a, gsgz .;z a2% U
ut -
8-9. :s&& 3s 2% qq6S
2
8
ti
B
3
A$ $0 $3 ia ;:
"2 $8 5g
.2 !& 9s
ga .!i c$
G3 ZA &a 3
$5 gTi 3 .e E
$ .z
0 0:
Y
a
.d
3 3 .e 3
a
.- cu
OE
Y
-
.r( >
.d m
rw 0
El
.- !% .f:
$5 $2 .s g $ .f
$2
Eu g
s* m
one
0 z+
TABLE 22 VEGETATION IMPACTS FOR AL'TERNATIW COLLEGE BOULEVARD EXTENSIONS
(acres)
Vegetation Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C (preferred alignment)
Coastal sage scrub-chaparral
Chamise chaparral 4.3 4.5 4.3
scrub mix 2.2 4.6 5.0
Burned coastal sage scrub-
chaparral scrub mix 11.1 8.6 6.2
Salvia me1 I ife ra- d o m in a te d coastal sage scrub 0.0 0.1 1.1
coastal sage scrub 0.5 0.1 0.0 Artemisia califomica-dominated
Disturbed 2.2 1.7 1.7
Agriculture 2.9 3.3 3.9
Sycamore alluvial woodland 0.1 0.7 0.7
TOTAL 23.3 23.6 22.9
I
TABLE 23
SENSITAE SPECIES IMPACTS FOR AL'IEFWATIW COLLEGE BOULEVARD EXTENSIONS 0
Species Alternative A Alternative B Al ternativl
Dichondra occidentalis 1.5 acres 0.2 acre 0.2 acre
Orange throated whiptail -- 2 observations 1 observatic
e
a
-
sage scrub and 0,7 acre of sycamore alluvial woodland. Two orange-throated
whiptail individuals and 0.2 acre of western dichondra would also be impacted.
a. All Villages. The widening of Carlsbad Village Drive on the
western boundary of the project would be considered a significant impact that is
shared equally by all villages to be developed, because it is designated a
secondary arterial in the circulation element of the General Plan. The full widening of Carlsbad Village Drive would create significant impacts to thread- leaved brodiaea through the impact of approximately 310 individuals by grading and filling of 0.3 acre of the population. Impacts to associated native grass- land habitat would also be significant and are estimated to be 0.3 acre plus some unmeasured surrounding area that was not mapped in 1990. Impacts to the 0.1 acre of riparian vegetation would also be considered a significant impact. Another possibly significant impact of the Carlsbad Village Drive widening would be the reduction of open space that is occupied by at least one pair of California gnatcatchers. The reduction in the size of the open space may lead
to the extirpation of this pair of birds from the open space area. Other
specific impacts for each village are discussed below.
b. Village H. An additional impact in Village H is the loss of
habitat that is specified in Table 20 and the grading of 1.1 acres of occupied western dichondra habitat. Because the habitats in the southern section of Village H are not considered sensitive and because the sensitivity rating of western dichondra is low, the impact would not be considered significant. The
proposed trail in the northern section of Village H would be a potentially significant impact to unmapped native grassland habitat and thread-leaved brodiaea. The quantity of this impact is unknown; the lower grassland slopes that contain the trail system were not searched for thread-leaved brodiaea. The
proposed trail was also not analyzed for impacts because its alignment was not
known at the time of the directed thread-leaved brodiaea survey. The construc- tion of the proposed trail would further reduce the size of usable habitat for the California gnatcatcher pair and negatively affect this pair's survival.
Village K. The development of Village K would cause the loss of
86.6 percent (33.6 acres) of the habitat in this village. Included in this
by state and local jurisdictions. Associated with the Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat in Village K are sensitive animal species, including a documented breeding pair of California gnatcatchers, two San Diego horned lizards, and two orange-throated whiptails. Northern harrier foraging habitat would also be
lost. The loss of the Diegan coastal sage scrub and associated sensitive species would be considered significant.
d. Village L-2. Along with 16.5 acres of vegetation impacts, 2.7 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub would be impacted. This habitat is adjacent
to California gnatcatcher-occupied habitat in Village K and the gnatcatcher pair
that was observed using the Village L-2 habitat in 1990. The loss of this habitat would be considered significant.
e. Village R. A total of 4.1 acres of coastal sage scrub-chaparral
scrub would be impacted by grading. This habitat is a fire transitional habitat and is not considered sensitive. Because only 4.1 acres of habitat would be
impacted, no significant impacts would be caused by the development of this
village.
c.
totd is 4.9 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub, which is considered sensitive
165
f. Village U. A total of 24.5 acres (39.8 percent of the vill
area) of chaparral and coastal sage scrub-chaparral vegetation would be impac by grading. No sensitive species would be affected. Because of the 1:
quantity of native vegetation impacts, they would be considered cumulatii significant.
@
g, Villages W, X, and Y. Impacts would result from the grading 48,6 acres of chaparral and coastal sage scrub-chaparral scrub. Curnulati\
the impacts would be considered significant because of the loss of a 1 quantity of native habitats.
h. College Boulevard Extension. Three alternative alignments the off-site College Boulevard extension were considered. Alternative B is
alternative proposed by the applicant and the one analyzed in this sec Vegetation and sensitive species impacts are listed in Tables 22 and respectively. All of the proposed alignments would impact approximately acres. Impacts to sensitive habitats are similar between the alignments, none are considered biologically preferred. Impacts to riparian habitats w be considered significant because the habitat is of high quality and consid sensitive by both federal and state agencies. Impacts to Diegan coastal
scrub would not be considered significant because less than one acre would impacted and no California gnatcatchers were observed using the habitat. , impacts to 0.2 acre of western dichondra and two orange-throated whiptail viduals would not be considered significant, because of the low sensii
rating of the species.
The construction of College Boulevard and Cannon Road create permanent barriers to wildlife movements in the area. However,
mammals and most bird species will be able to cross the fill slopes and beds. Impacts to smaller mammals and low-flying bird species would 1 occur. This impact is not considered significant, and mitigation measure: more readily facilitate wildlife movement would not be required.
@
3. Mitigation
Mitigation measures are described below for impacts attributab all villages, impacts from each separate village, and impacts from the Cc Boulevard extension alternatives. The following mitigation measures designed to reduce significant impacts to a below a level of significance.
Mitigation measures recommended below must be included in general notes for the project’s improvement plans let out to bid. In adc
where the mitigation measures affect a certain portion of the project, a
shall be added to the page of the improvement plans which details that PC
Implementation and monitoring of the following measures are more fully des( in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is under sei
cover.
a. All Villages. Mitigation for significant impacts to t
leaved brodiaea will be accomplished with the City’s acceptance of an il
is being proposed by the City to be added to the master plan requiremen Calavera Hills and would be made a condition of the tentative map approv
4 34-foot-wide roadway with no parking permitted on either side. Such a rot
@
166
Village H. Full widening to secondary arterial standards would be constructed
by the City if monitoring showed it to be necessary at a future date. All traffic projections indicate that the two-lane roadway would not fall below
performance standards at build-out conditions. If full widening is required in the future, additional environmental work would be required to identify specific
mi tigation measures.
Most of a stand of eucalyptus trees would also be preserved in the finger canyon that extends east into the center of Village H. The reduction of impacts into Village H from the road widening by reducing the roadway width
to 34 feet would also increase the size of usable open space areas for observed sensitive species, including the California gnatcatcher pair.
b. Village H. The alignment of the proposed trail was not evalu- ated during this survey. A spring survey will be required as a condition of approval of the Village H tentative map to determine the presence or absence of
thread-leaved brodiaea along the proposed trail alignment. If thread-leaved brodiaea is found, the trail shall be realigned to avoid impacts. To reduce the open space impacts caused by trail construction, trail grading shall be
minimized and the trail shall be realigned to follow the natural contours of the topography. The reduction of open space impacts resulting from the above measures would also benefit the California gnatcatcher pair that was observed using the village area. Remaining undeveloped areas shall be placed in
dedicated natural open space under the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad.
c. Village K. On-site mitigation for significant California
gnatcatc hermiegan coastal sage scrub impacts through revegetation of disturbed habitat is possible. The creation of high quality coastal sage scrub habitat
remaining undeveloped land to the City as open space could achieve mitigation of the impact. Approval of the Village K tentative map would be conditioned to require that a detailed revegetation plan be prepared and approved by the City of Carlsbad and the State of California Department of Fish and Game. This
mitigation option would only be acceptable if the created habitat is contiguous to a larger regional open space system that is part of an adopted city-wide multispecies HMP. The City of Carlsbad is currently preparing a multispecies HMP which will recommend areas of coastal sage scrub habitat to be acquired for the California gnatcatcher and other sensitive plant and animal species. An
adopted City HMP (program, fees, etc.) will provide guidance in administering
any on-site mitigation programs for this project. If such a plan has not been
adopted prior to the commencement of the grading of Village K, off-site acquisition of California gnatcatcher-occupied habitat replacement would be required as mitigation. The mitigation should consist of equal quality habitat
based on a 1:l replacement ratio.
d. Village L-2. On-site mitigation for significant California gnatcatcherlDiegan coastal sage scrub impacts through revegetation of disturbed habitat is possible. The creation of high quality coastal sage scrub habitat on-site at an acceptable ratio in conjunction with the dedication of the remaining undeveloped land to the City as open space could achieve mitigation of
the impact. Approval of the Village L tentative map would be conditioned to
of Carlsbad and the State of California Department of Fish and Game. This mitigation option would only be acceptable if the created habitat is contiguous
on-site at an acceptable ratio in conjunction with the dedication of the
4 require that a detailed revegetation plan be prepared and approved by the City
16-
to a larger regional open space system that is part of an adopted city-v
multispecies Habitat Managemlent Plan. The City of Carlsbad is curre preparing a multispecies HMP which will recommend areas of coastal sage sc
habitat to be acquired for the California gnatcatcher and other sensitive p
and animal species. An adopted City HMP (program, fees, etc.) will pro1
guidance in administering any on-site mitigation programs for this project. such a plan has not been adopted prior to the commencement of the grading Village L, off-site acquisition of California gnatcatcher-occupied habitat w( be required as mitigation. The mitigation should consist of equal qui habitat based on a 1 ; 1 replacement ratio,
e. Village R. Since no significant biological impacts are expe to occur from the development of Village R, no mitigation is recommended.
f. Village U. To mitigate for the significant biological imp; the undeveloped 37 acres shall be dedicated as a natural open space easerr This would also protect 0.6 acre of Palmer’s grappling hook, 1.0 acre of ( fomia adolphia, and the 1977 observation of Greene’s ground-cherry.
g. Villages W. X, and Y. Remaining iindeveloped land (52 ac
should be dedicated as open space to the city of Carlsbad. This preserva would also preserve 6.1 acres of western dichondra and 6.5 acres of Califc adolphia.
h. Collerre Boulevard Extension. Significant impacts to the h quality riparian vegetation under any of the proposed alternative alignm
will require mitigation at a 3:l ratio. Mitigation for these riparian imp, as with the similar riparian impacts from the construction of Cannon Road, be able to be accomplished by the creation of wetlands in the proposed f
control channel south of the project site. Alternatively, enhancement of riparian scrub habitat in Village X may also accomplish mitigation. Any ha creation shall be accomplished under the supervision of a consulting biolo This mitigation measure is recommended in the draft EIR for the constructior Cannon Road (RECON 1991b332).
It should also be noted that any impacts to the sycamore all1
woodland will require agreement with the CDFG under Section 1601 of the Fish Game Code and will require notification of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineersu
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. These agencies will require rnitig; subsequent to approval of the project by the local agency. Any construc affecting wetlands and riparian areas will require notification and permi
by these agencies. Plans for the project must stipulate that any permits agreements from state or federal resource protection agencies must be sec before any construction activity begins in the affected areas of the project.
0
0
168
H. ARCHAEOLOGY
This section is a summary of the cultural resources study prepared j the project by RECON in January, 1992. The complete study is included Appendix F of this EIR. The study evaluated cultural resources within t
proposed villages and the off-site alignment of College Boulevard.
@
1. Existing Conditions
The vegetation communities on-site contain many plants used Native American populations for food, clothing, construction, and medicir
Well-known food plants on the site are flat-top buckwheat, laurel surr lemonadeberry., toyon, black sage, and Mexican elderberry. Willows were used
fabricating structures, clothing, and weapons. The vegetation communities fully described in Section III.G., Biology.
Wildlife species which would have represented a food source
Native Americans were also documented in the biological survey prepared for < project. The project site is also located near coastal lagoon resources wl would have provided food sources such as clams, scallops, mussels, and b clams. Tidal species and deep water species of fish were also food resources.
Lithic sources were also important factors in prehistoric popula settlement patterns. Fine-grained volcanics were necessary for the construc of flaked stone tools. Granites and coarse-grained volcanics were necessary the construction of grinding implements. Suitable flaked or ground stone materials can be found on a sporadic basis in the valley or creek bottc Volcanics are also present in association with Cerro de la Calavera east of
project property.
]Based on investigation of lagoon shore sites at Batiquitos Lag Cheever and Eighmey (1991) lhave proposed a model for changes in subsistc
strategies through 9,000 years of prehistory. This model proposes the existi
of four periods of prehistory, which are characterized as "a transition f more regular and long-term occupation of the lagoon shore and terraces dl the early period to a more transitory, limited or specific use pattern dL
the late period" (Cheever and Eighmey 1991:l). Use of this model in the i pretation of resources located within the Calavera Hills project area nec tates the recovery of sufficient artifacts and faunal remains to idel intensity of use, subsistence strategy, and temporal placement for the sites.
Based on the natural resources present on the project site, M
are discussed above, the area represents a favorable location for human hi tion. The project area was first systematically surveyed in 1977 (Bull 1' and two sites found during this survey were evaluated in 1990 (Gallegos e 1990). One other relevant surv~cy was done on Robertson Ranch, which lies !
of the project area (Hector 1985). Four new sites were discovered and previously recorded site was located.
0
A survey was conducted by RECON for this project of all
alternative off-site College Boulevard alignments. The survey was conducte 10-meter transects. The corridor has been disturbed by cut and fill slopes agriculture and visibility was excellent. No sites were located. e
169
8
The sites which could be potentially impacted by this project include SDI-635, SDI-5416ISDM-W- 129 1 , SDI- 12,470, and SDI- 12,47 1. Each of these sites is described below.
a. SDI-635. Approximately one-half of this previously recorded
archaeological site lies within Village L-2 south, and the balance is within Village Q to the north. The site has been agriculturally plowed in the past. About 13 percent of its current surface area is largely intact and consists of dark brown to very dark gray-brown shell- and artifact-rich sandy loam midden soil. There is a large knoll nearby which may also contain in situ subsurface
deposits of unknown condition. About one-half of this area is within Village
L-2 South and the other one-half is in Village Q.
Site SDI-635 was initially recorded with the University of
California at Los Angeles, whose site record describes it as an area of slightly darkened soil and a shell scatter. The northern portion of this site was tested
not a part of this project. Based on this testing program, it was concluded
that this site was not significant. Although a portion of this site is within
the project area, the City of Carlsbad determined that no further archaeological evaluations were warranted.
b. SDI-5416 (SDM-W-1292). This site was recorded during the original 1977 survey of the area. The site was subsequently plotted and described during the Robertson Ranch survey (Hector 1985). During that survey,
it was recommended that the site be included with four other Robertson Ranch sites in a testing and mitigation program.
by ERC (Gallegos et al, 1990) in relation to development of Village Q, which is
This site was again identified as requiring testing in the archaeological study prepared for the Calavera Hills Master Plan area (Gallegos
et al. 1990). The site was thought to be within Village W. However, as a result of field investigations conducted by RECON for this project, the site was found to lie entirely on the Robertson Ranch property and outside of the
proposed project’s area.
The most important part of SDI-5416 has been severely impacted by past grading. Eight bedrock milling features are distributed across portions
of the site. No artifacts were found in association with these features or at any location between them.
c. SDI-12.470. This newly discovered site was located during the
spot-check field survey and is within Village W near the on-site eastern College Boulevard corridor alternate. This site is likely associated with the occur- rences of isolated shell and flakes recorded in this location during the 1977 survey (Bull 1977). During the spot-check survey, 17 shell fragments and 1 flake were observed. Extensive rodent activity, associated predator excava- tions, a minor slope wash, and remnants of a dirt road and foot paths have
disturbed the site area.
Because surface cultural materials were scarce at the site and
because of the small surface areas, a limited testing program was undertaken for
4 the purpose of discovering if a subsurface component to the site exists. Four
flakes, four pieces of shatter, some shell, and one piece of bone were recovered
173
during the testing program. Based on the flake size, it is possible that site was used for initial reduction activities.
d. SDI-12,471. This newly discovered sitc is located in Village
Dirt roads cross the site and the area has been subjected to agricultL
activities in the past. An intensive survey was performed at this site determine where surface concentrations of shell were located. Shell fragme
were discovered on the surface. It is unknown whether this site may h contained additional materials prior to grading and agriculture. However, ba
on the results of the comprehensive testing program, there are no remains of significance at the site.
2. Impacts
0
were found to be lightly scattered in three areas of the site. No artifi
An overriding conclusion of the testing program is that culti
remains at SDI-12,470 and SDI-12,471 are so seriously disturbed that little no research potential remains.
Observations of the condition of site SDI-5416 during the map]
indicated that a large part of the midden portion of the site has been grs off the top of a bench and pushed eastward. Without testing of the remaii midden areas at the edge of the bench and the milling feature loci, it cannot determined if important materials remain at the site which can address rese issues previously discussed. This site is located entirely off-site
disturbance renders the potential for existence of important materids low.
The model for prehistoric lagoon settlement patterns and I change through time (Cheever and Eighmey 1991) would require a data se identify the site activities. It is possible that these remain at SDI-5416, at such time as this site is threatened by impacts, testing to address
possibility should be conducted.
Under current development plans, construction in Village L-2 S would directly impact the southern one-half of site SDI-635; construction
Village K would directly impact all of site SDI-12,471; and construction in
on-site eastern College Boulevard corridor alternate would directly impact
southwestern third of SDI- 12,470.
Under current plans, grading in the western College Boulc corridor alternative would occur about 50 feet northeast of SDI-5416,
grading in Village X would occur approximately 150 feet north of the I northern limit, These close proximities create a potential for indirect im to SDI-5416, even though the archaeological site is not located within
project area.
0
3. MitiPation
The testing program conducted at the portion of site SDI-635 v Village Q concluded, and the City of Carlsbad concurred, that the entire si not a significant resource as defined by CEQA. Therefore, impacts to southern portion of this site resulting from the proposed development are
considered significant. Mitigation measures are not considered necessary. a
171
As a result of the testing programs undertaken at sites SDI-12,470 and SDI-12,471, these sites have been determined to have no data potential to
address identified research questions for the project area. Therefore, these
sites are not significant as defied by CEQA. Mitigation measures are not considered necessary .
Because no testing has been accomplished at site SDI-5416, it is not known if this site represents a significant resource as defined by CEQA.
However, impacts to this site can be avoided by identifying the site with
staking and flagging during grading.
4. Analysis of Significance
If site SDI-5416 is properly staked and flagged during grading so
that it can be avoided, then the project would not have a significant impact on cultural resources. All other archaeological sites within the project area have
been determined not to be significant as defined by CEQA.
172
1. PALEONTOLOGY
This section is based on the paleontological assessment prepared by Rh! Paleo Associates, Inc. for this project. The complete study is included in t EIR as Appendix G. The study assessed the known and potential paleontologi resources within the project area through literature and records reviews and field survey.
@
1. Existing Conditions
Exposed rock in the study area includes Cretaceous-age gran rock, Cretaceous-age Lusardi Formation, Eocene-age Santiago Formation, I
Quaternary-age deposits. These rocks have a varied history of fossil producl
in the region.
The granitic rocks present in the study area are approximately million years old, These rocks were formed when molten rock cooled deep wil
the earth. They are now exposed due to uplift and erosion associated with development of the Peninsular Mountain Range. Because these rocks were fon
intrusively, they do not contain fossils.
were deposited in a shallow sea that covered the region approximately 70 mil years ago. During the field study, no fossils were discovered in the forma underlying the project area. However, this rock unit has a moderate to poss
high potential for containing significant fossils. Other Cretaceous-age 1
units in the Carlsbad area have produced numerous invertebrate and vertet
The youngest bedrock in the study area is the Santiago Formal This formation is approximately 35-54 million years old. At several locat in the Carlsbad and Camp Pendleton areas, sandstones in this formation 1 produced large and diverse assemblages of terrestrial vertebrate fossils. ’
formation has a high potential for containing significant fossils. There
the study area. No fossils were located in the Santiago Formation during
field study.
Quaternary age deposits in the study area are undifferent deposits of streams and rivers. There are no records of fossils from 1 deposits within the project area and no fossils were found during the study. There are records of fossils from deposits of similar age ,elsewher(
northern San Diego County. These deposits have a low to moderate potential
containing fossils.
The Lusardi Formation consists of sandstones and conglomerates
e (dinosaur) remains.
two recorded occurrences of fossils in the Santiago Formation within one mile
2. Impacts
For this analysis., the project site was divided into four F
Area 1 contains Village H; Area 2 contains Villages K, L-2, and R; Ari
contains Villages U, W, X, and Y; and Area 4 consists of the off-site expa of College Boulevard. Figure 38 depicts the geological formations which
4 considered sensitive. 0
173
i
I- J
Q os a
cd 22
wc m
rI w U . .. :::::: 3 (3 - LL
-0. C QP) c.-
Q
00) 00 ' . -. . . :::::: ...... ...... . . . . . . f ... ::::::
All of Area 1 (Village H) is underlain by the Santiago Fonnatj which has a high potential for containing fossils. Area 2 (Villages K and L
consists entirely of the granitic rocks which do not contain fossils. 1 portion of Area 3 near the northern boundary above Village W consists of 1 Lusardi Formation. This rock unit has moderate to high potential for containj fossils. The rest of Area 3, including Villages U, X, and Y, do not cont, fossiliferous rock formations. The southern one-half of Area 4 (off-s
College Boulevard) is underlain by the Quaternary deposits which have a low moderate potential for the discovery of fossils.
Grading operations in Area 1, Village W in Area 3, and the south one-half of Area 4 are likely to expose fossils. Destruction of these fos would represent an adverse impact on the region’s paleontological resources.
0
3. Mitigation
Adverse impacts to paleontological resources could occur dui grading of Area 1 (Village H), Area 3 (Village W only), and the southern c
half of Area 4 (off-site College Boulevard). The following mitigation meas
would reduce the adverse impact of grading these areas to an acceptable le These mitigation measures would be carried out in coordination with the CI adopted paleontological mitigation program.
a. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform peri inspections of excavations and, if necessary, salvage expc fossils. The frequency of inspections will depend on the
of excavations, the materials being excavated, and the abundr of fossils.
b. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct gra
e
in the area of an exposed fossil to facilitate evaluation if necessary, salvage.
c. Because of the small nature of some fossils present in 1
rock units, matrix samples should be collected for proce:
through fine mesh screens.
d. Provisions for preparation and curation shall be made before fossils are donated to their final repository.
e. All fossils collected should be donated to a museum wi
systematic paleontological collection, such as the San I Natural History Museum.
~-
4. Analysis of Sienificimce -
Grading Area 1 (Village H), Area 3 (Village W only), and
southern one-half of Area 4 (off-site College Boulevard) could destroy f in the underlying rock. This represents a significant impact to the rei paleontological resources. The measures described above would mitigate
impact to below a level of significance.
1 e
175
J- HYDROLOGY
This section is a summary of the hydrology study prepared for the pr ect by Howard H. Chang, Ph.D., P.E. in November, 1991. The complete study included as Appendix H of this EIR. The study evaluated runoff, erosion, a sedimentation impacts, urban pollutant control, and dam breach impacts.
o
1. Existing Conditions
The proposed eight new villages in Calavera Hills are contak
within four drainage basins. Figure 39 shows the drainage basins and the poi at which flow leaves the master plan area from each basin. Basin IV has th
major points of flow concentration. Table 24 lists which proposed villages contained in each basin. Villages H and K span two basins.
TABLE 24
VILLAGES IN EACH DRAINAGE BASIN
-
Basin Village
-
I H, K, L-2 I1 H 111 R IV K, u, w, x, y
The surface areas for Basins I, 11, 111, and IV are 312, 63, 34,
e
215 acres, respectively. Portions of all these basins have been developed I residential uses. In the undeveloped areas, the surface cover can be classi as narrowleaf chaparral, with shrubs usually widely spaced and low to ground. All four hydrological soil types are present in the Calavera €
Master Plan. Soils are classifkd into four groups (A, B, C, and D) based
which are in Soil Group D, have a very slow infiltration rate and consequent1
high rate of runoff. The project area is estimated to consist of approxima
70 percent Soil Group D.
Each drainage basin flows into a different body of water. Three the basins drain into creeks which flow into lagoons before reaching the oc Basin 111 flows into Calavera Lake. Drainage from Basin I flows througl
single natural water course to Buena Vista Creek. Near the master plan boi
ary, drainage from Basin Il flows into an existing concrete-lined cha directed toward Agua Hedionda Creek. Drainage from Basin IT1 flows througl- existing detention basin before reaching Calavera Lake. Flow from Basin follows three different natural water drainages to Calavera Creek.
Calavera Dam is an earth and rock filled dam located at the we: end of Calavera Lake, east of the miaster plan area.
their infiltration rate (County of San Diego 19SS), For example, clay SI
a
176
,
4
'* L ---e 0-
VILLAGE
VILLAGE BOUNDARY
DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY
----
: .. :<;: :.
SOURCE: CITY OF CARLSBAD
r
FIGURE 39. DRAINAGE BASINS
2. Impacts
a. Storm Runoff. ‘fie increases in peak discharges due to propo: development in each drainage basin were computed for the 100-year 6-hour sto
it produces higher runoff discharges in small basins like the ones in
project area.
Increases in runoff were calculated using the HEC-1 compi
program developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Soil Conservat Service Method. The increases in runoff discharge over existing conditions 1 to proposed developments for Basins I, II, and III range from 2.0 to 3.5 1
cent. The slight increase in runoff from Basins I and I1 would cause a sn
negative impact to the hydrology of the area. The small increase in runoff fI Basin I11 could be handled by the existing detention basin and no impacts wc
occur within this drainage area. Basin lV would experience a more substa 9.9 percent increase in runoff. This increased runoff in Basin IV could be
adverse impact.
sedimentation in different ways at different stages. During the construc stage, there is a substantial increase in sediment production from grc
surfaces due to grading and lack of vegetation. After development is comp
sediment production is generally reduced below natural conditions due pavement, landscaping, and drainage facilities. Therefore, the time of gre erosion and sedimentation impact is during the construction stage. Wit mitigation, these impacts would be considered significant. Since Buena T
Creek, Agua Hedionda Creek, and Calavera Creek all flow into lagoons, kcre
sediment carried in these streams would adversely impact the lagoons. Lagc act as sediment traps, and the increased sediment carried in the creeks w deposit in the lagoons, helping to fill them up.
Because drainage flows toward the ocean, another area of con is the project’s effect on beach sand supply. Increases in sediment produ’ may benefit a beach, and conversely, decreases in sediment production aftel area is developed could adversely impact beach sand supply. The project d into creeks which flow into lagoons. All sediments carried from the PI site would drop out in the lagoons before they reached the ocean. There
the project site is not a supply area for beach sand.
c. Downstream Channels of Calavera Creek. The size of the n: swale of Calavera Creek from Calavera Dam to the future intersection of Cc
Boulevard and Cannon Road was determined to be adequate to contain a 100-ye hour storm event. The existing and proposed developments are above the 10(
flood levels of Calavera Creek and would not be adversely impacted. section of the creek is proposed to remain in its natural condition.
A previous study has determined, however, that downstream o future College BoulevardCannon Road intersection, Agua Hedionda Cree inadequate for the 100-year flood (Chang 1989). This section of the creek south of and parallel to Cannon Road through the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile 1 Park. This section of the creek has become filled with silt in recent years.
’
event. The 6-hour storm event was used instead of a 24-hour storm event becal
b. Erosion and Sedimentation. A development impacts erosion
(I)
e
178
Basins 11, 111, and IV, which include Villages H, R, U, W, X,
and Y, drain directly or indirectly into this creek. Development of these villages would be impacted by the inadequate carrying capacity of Agua Hedionda Creek. According to the Growth Management Program Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 7 (Calavera Hills Master Plan area), improvement of this section of Agua Hedionda Creek is a prerequisite to development in the drainage basin (City of Carlsbad 1989).
d. Urban Pollutants. In residential areas, sources of urban
pollutants in runoff include streets, parkmg lots, rooftops, lawns, and cars. The proposed residential developments would adversely impact the drainage creeks by increasing the amount of urban pollutants flowing into the water,
Breach of the Calavera Dam. A dam breach analysis was conducted
to determine the flood discharge which would result assuming a full reservoir
behind the dam. The inundation area was determined for use in the development of evacuation plans as required by the State Office of Emergency Services. For
areas immediately below a dam, the dam breach discharge is usually greater than
the 100-year flood volumes. The probability of a dam breach is generally considered to be lower than the 100-year flood event.
Since the dam is constructed of earth and rock, the breach
analysis assumed that failure is caused by erosion of the dam and that one-half of the reservoir capacity would be required to erode the dam to natural ground level. As the flow is routed downstream, the peak discharge of 3,402 cubic feet per second (cfs) is attenuated by channel storage of water created by the road
embankments of College Boulevard and Cannon Road. At the intersection of these two roadways, the discharge rate would be reduced to 2,017 cfs.
e.
h the stream channel upstream of the road embankments, the area of inundation would be within designated open space areas and would not affect
existing or proposed developments. The dam breach discharge would overflow onto
College Boulevard and Cannon Road and then reenter the main channel and the east
branch of Calavera Creek.
3. Mitigation
a. Storm Runoff. Mitigation measures for each basin are recom-
mended based on the degree of impact. Basin III would not be significantly
impacted by increased runoff, and therefore, no mitigation is required for this basin. Basins I and II would experience small increases in runoff which could be easily mitigated by increasing the vegetation in the natural drainage course
of each basin.
Basin IV would experience a 9.9 percent increase in runoff.
Basin IV drains into Calavera Creek through three principal points of concen-
by any of the proposed alternatives in the Cannon Road EIR, which all include a detention and desilting basin at the future Cannon Road and College Boulevard intersection. Villages Q and T in Calavera Hills, which are approved villages
in Basin N, are currently obtaining financing for construction of these basins.
tration (see Figure 39), This increase in runoff from Basin IV can be mitigated
179
Mitigation of the increased discharge from Basin IV can also accomplished by construction of an on-site floodwater detention basin. 1
basin would capture and atteinuate most of the runoff from Basin IV. ' location of this basin should be outside the 100-year floodplain of Calal
Creek, The most logical location for this basin would be at the Confluence
0
drainages D 1 and D2 in Basin IV.
b. Erosion and Sedimentation. Erosion and sedimentation imp
would most likely occur during the construction stage of the project. Mit tion for this impact would include the design and construction of tempor desilting basins at the site. The desilting basins would be sized based sediment yields calculated using the Universal Soil Loss Equation.
designed, for Calavera Creek as part of the improvements to the creek downstre of the College BoulevardCannon Road intersection. This basin will pre\ future siltation of the downstream channel and will also mitigate sedim
problems caused by the proposed developments. An ideal location for a basin desilt the north branch of Calavera Creek is just upstream of the Coll
BoulevardCannon Road intersection. A small depression created just upstream the road crossing and the road embankments would have a backwater effect on stream flow, inducing sediment deposition.
c. Downstream Channels of Calavera Creek. Development restricted in the Calavera Creek drainage until improvements can be made to section of creek channel located immediately downstream of the future Colh BoulevardCannon Road intersection. Basins 11, III, and IV in the project part of the Calavera CreeWAgua Hedionda Creek drainage and includes Villages (southern portion), R, U, W, X, and Y.
The City of Carlsbad Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone
(Calavera Hills Master Plan area) states that "prior to recordation of the f final map, issuance of a grading or building permit within Watershed B (Drain; Basins 11, III, and IV) of Zone 7, developers are required to guarantee Zone
proportional share of the following facilities to the satisfaction of the C
Engineer" :
A permanent desilting basin has also been planned, but not
0
1) Construct or fund, and provide a maintenance mechanism f a sediment detention basin approximately 1-2 acres in s to be installed in Zone 14 upstream of the Rancho Carlst Mobile Home Park.
2) Restoration of Agua Hedionda Creek from Calavera Creek
Prior to issuance of any grading permits for dwelling UI within Zone 7 draining south into Agua Hedionda Creek, the sediment detent basin and restoration of Agua Hedionda Creek shall be provided (Hofman Planni
Associates 1989). The villages impacted by this requirement are Villages (southern portion), R, U, W, X, and Y.
in the report "Sediment Study for Calavera Lake Creek in Carlsbad" (Cha
1989a). The desilting may be accomplished by two basins, one on each branch
the El Camino Real bridge.
i A sediment study for the required desilting basin is describ @
180
~
Calavera Creek, or by one combined basin for both branches. Precise locations
for these basins have not been determined. However, an ideal location for desilting the north branch of the channel is .just upstream of College Boulevard. The road embankments created at the intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road would have a backwater effect on the stream flow, thereby causing sediment to drop out of the stream.
Preliminary conceptual plans have already been developed for the required channel improvements. These include constructing the future naturally vegetated channel of Agua Hedionda Creek outside of the mobile home park along
its northern boundary. Preliminary channel geometry has been developed by P&D Technologies and is described in the hydrology technical analysis (see Appendix H).
d. Urban Pollutants. Grass swales and fiiter strips are recom- mended to control the influx of residential pollutants into the water. Grass
swales and filter strips remove pollutants from stormwater by slowing down the
flow velocity while encouraging infiltration into the underlying soil. Ice plants and low-lying acacia are desirable types of vegetation for grass swales,
since they are suitable for the local climate. Geofabric filters may be used for filter strips in areas where the soil has a low rate of percolation.
e. Breach of Calavera Dam, Floods caused by breach of the Calavera Dam would not impact existing or proposed residential developments. No mitiga-
tion is required.
4. Analvsis of Significance. Without mitigation, significant impacts
would occur due to increased stormwater runoff, which would cause increases in erosion, sedimentation, and urban pollutant loads. The measures recommended above, which include constructing detention and siltation basins, creating grass swales or filter strips, and revegetating natural drainages, would mitigate these potential impacts to below a level of significance.
Impacts to Villages H, R, U, W, X, and Y caused by the inadequacy of
Agua Hedionda Creek to carry the 100-year flood can be fully mitigated by fulfilling the requirements of the City of Carlsbad’s Local Facilities Manage- ment Plan for Zone 7, which are described in the mitigation section.
2
161
K. AIROUALITY
1. Existinp: Conditions
a, Climate, The project area, like the rest of San Diego Coun
e
coastal areas, has a semiarid Mediterranean climate characterized by hot, summers and mild, wet winters. The dominating permanent meteorological fea affecting the region is the Pacific High Pressure Zone, which produces
prevailing westerly to northwesterly winds. The site lies within the Co: Climate Zone. The study area has a mean annual temperature of 62 deg Fahrenheit and an average annual precipitation of approximately 14 inc
falling primarily from December to March. Winter low temperatures at the average about 50 degrees Fahrenheit, and average summer high temperatures rs between 73 and 77 degrees Fahrenheit (University of California 1970).
Prevailing conditions along the coast are modifie, by the d
sea breeze/land breeze cycle. Fluctuations in the strength and pattern of w from the Pacific High Pressure Zone interacting with the daily local c produce periodic temperature inversions that influence the dispersal or ( tainment of air pollutants in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). The aftern temperature inversion height, beneath which pollutants are trapped, vs between 1,500 and 2,500 feet.’ The altitude beneath the inversion layer is mixing depth for trapped pollutants. In winter, the morning inversion layer
about 800 feet. In summer, the morning inversion layer is about 1,100 feet. greater change between morning and afternoon mixing depth increases the ab of the atmosphere to disperse pollutants. Generally, therefore, air quality the site is better in the winter than in the summer.
The predominant pattern is sometimes interrupted by the called Santa Ana conditions, when high pressure over the Nevada-Utah area o comes the prevailing westerlies, sending strong, steady, hot, dry winds from
east over the mountains and out to sea. Strong Santa Anas tend to blow PO ants out over the ocean, producing clear days. However, at the onset or br down of these conditions, or if the Santa Ana is weak, air quality may adversely affected. In these cases, emissions from the South Coast Air Basir the north are blown out over the ocean, and low pressure over Baja Califc
draws this pollutant-laden air mass southwards. As the high pressure weak
prevailing northwesterlies reassert themselves and send this cloud of cont
nation ashore in the SDAB. There is a potential for such an occurrence du
45 days of the year. When this occurs, the combination of transported locally produced contaminants produces the worst air quality measurem recorded in the basin.
b. Air Ouality. The project area is within the SDAB. Air qu at a particular location is a function of the type and amount of pollui
being emitted into the air locally and throughout the basin and the displ rates of pollutants within the region. The major factors affecting polli
dispersion are wind speed and direction, the vertical dispersion of pollui (which is affected by inversions), and the local topography.
The concentration of pollutants in the air is measured at ell stations maintained by the San~ Diego Air Pollution Control District (AFCD) the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The station nearest the pr( measuring a full range of pollutants is in Oceanside, about four miles north
e
1)
182
I
of the project site. Air quality measurements are expressed in the number of
days on which air pollution levels exceed state standards set by CARB and
federal standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency. Table 25 lists the number of days annually from 1986 to 1989 on which state and federal standards were exceeded at the Oceanside monitoring station.
Air quality standards were set by the federal Clean Air Act of
1970, as amended in 1977. The federal Clean Air Act was also amended in 1990, but the air quality standards were not changed. In 1979, a major revision to
the San Diego portion of the state Air Quality Implementation Plan was prepared, since the standards for five air pollutants (ozone, carbon monoxide, particu- lates, nitrogen dioxide, and lead) were not being met. The revision presented a
new set of tactics to control pollution in the air basin and, with a deadline extension authorized by the Clean Air Act, showed attainment of ozone and carbon monoxide standards by December 1982. The granting of the extension required
submission of another major revision of the implementation plan in 1982. That
revision was able to report substantial improvements; the region had achieved
the health standard for nitrogen dioxide and had violated neither the lead standard for 18 months nor the carbon monoxide standard for two years.
1) Carbon Monoxide. The region, according to the 1982 report, did not violate carbon monoxide standards for two years. There were violations of the standard in 1985, but it was hoped that the basin would be redesignated as an attainment area after the completion of the 1987 monitoring evaluation.
At this time, however, the western portion of the basin (comprising most of the urbanized areas) is classified as nonattainment for both the state and the
federal standards for carbon monoxide, while the eastern sector has been designated as "unclassified" for this pollutant. This means that the state standard is not exceeded, but data is insufficient to determine the exact status
with respect to the federal standard.
2) Particulates. For several reasons hinging on the area's dry climate and coastal location, the SDAB has special difficulty in developing adequate tactics to meet present particulate standards. Local authorities have for some time advocated changing the particulate standard to reflect a more appropriate health-related scale. The state has adopted a new particulate standard for particulates ten microns (PM-10) or smaller in size, instead of total suspended particulates. A new federal 10-micron particulate standard was
adopted in 1987 that is somewhat less stringent than the state standard. The basin is in attainment of the federal standard. However, it has not been successful in meeting the more stringent state standard.
3) Ozone and Hydrocarbons. Ozone and hydrocarbon pollution
presents special control strategy difficulties in the SDAB because of climato- logical and meteorological factors. Ozone is the end product of the chain of chemical reactions that produces photochemical smog from hydrocarbon emissions.
A major source of hydrocarbon emissions is motor vehicle exhausts. In the SDAB,
only part of the ozone contamination is derived from local sources; under
certain conditions, contaminants from the South Coast Air Basin (such as the Los Angeles area) are windborne over the ocean into the SDAB. When this happens,
the combination of local and transported pollutants produces the highest ozone
area with respect to both the state and the federal standards for ozone.
levels measured in the bash. At this time, the aL bash is a nonattahment
185
TABLE 25
DAYS OVER AIR QUALRY STANDARDS
AT T€E OCEANSIDE MONITORING STATION a
Year Pollutant 1986 1987 1988 198‘
Ozone Federal 1-hour standard (0.12 ppm) 10 7 7 8 State 1-hour standard (0.10 ppm) 31 18 22 21*
Federal 8-hour average (>9 ppm) 0 0 0 0 State 8-hour average (9 ppm) 0 0 0 0
Federal annual average (0.053 ppm) 0 0 0 0 State 1-hour standard (0.25 ppm) 0 1 0 0
Federal annual average (0.03 ppm) 0 0 0 0
State 24-hour average (0.05 ppm) 0 0 0 0
Federal 24-hour average (150 p m3) 0 0 0 0
Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen dioxide
Sulfur dioxide
PM- 10 8 State 24-hour average (50 pg/m Y ) 3 5 6 14
SOURCE: State of California 1986,1987,1988,1989.
ppm - parts per million pg/m’ - micrograms per cubic meter * - Based on State 1-hour standard of concentrations greater than 0.09 ppm
a
In summary, based on data from the regional air quality monitoring network, the state Air Resources Board has designated the SDAB as a nonattainment area with respect to both the state and the federal standards for ozone and for the state PM-10 particulate standard. Furthermore, the western portion of the basin is classified as nonattainment for both the state and the
federal standards for carbon monoxide, while the eastern sector has been desig- nated as “unclassified“ for this pollutant. The SDAB is presently an attainment area for lead and sulfur dioxide. This could be attributed to the gradual
decline in the use of leaded gasoline and to the use of low-sulfur fuels for the region’s electrical generators. After exceeding the state NOx standard for two consecutive years, the basin is again in attainment for NOx. Table 26 shows a summary of air quality data for the entire SDAB.
Local agencies can control neither the source nor the transpor- tation of pollutants from outside the basin. The APCD policy, therefore, has
been to control local sources effectively enough to reduce locally produced contamination to clean air standards. In 1982, it was apparent that while these controls had effectively reduced ozone contamination, they would not allow the SDAB to attain control standards. Therefore, the 1982 implementation plan revision proposed more stringent but reasonably applicable tactics which would reduce local contributions by 1985, though population growth would once again
raise concentrations dangerously close to the nonattainment level by 2000. APCD contended, however, that the long term of this increase would allow development and implementation of new tactics as they were needed. This proposal was
reviewed and approved by CARB and EPA and is now part of the state implementa-
tion plan for the basin. Source emissions which conform to the APCD strategies for the attainment of clean air standards are considered not to have impacts on air quality in the air basin.
The San Diego portion of the 1982 State Implementation Plan (SIP) is currently being revised by APCD; the draft document has been released for public review, and a final version is scheduled for later this year. In preparing the revisions, the APCD bases projections of future air quality and pollutant emissions on population and employment growth estimates developed by
SANDAG. The current SANDAG population growth estimates are known as the Series 7 Forecast, which extend to the year 2010 and are based on community and general
plan land use designations. The production of new housing does not, in and of
itself, affect the population model, since it is considered a response to population growth rather than a cause of growth. Unless the location of the housing is so remote from facilities and employment that it significantly increases trip lengths for residents, or unless the circulation system is
inadequate for the traffic produced so that significant traffic congestion
results, new housing will not have a significant effect on the regional air quality model or on basinwide air pollution control strategies, as long as the
project does not contain features inconsistent with the adopted revisions to the
SIP.
c. Existing Site Conditions. The site is presently undeveloped, and it is zoned PC (Planned Community). Elevations within the project area range from an approximate high of 440 feet to a low of approximately 100 feet above MSL. An overview of surrounding land uses reveals residential uses on the
east and northwest and extractive industrial and commercial adjacent to the
north-central portion of the master plan area.
4 west and the northeast, agriculture and vacant undeveloped land on the south,
185
TABLE 26
SUMMARY OF AIR QUALITY DATA FOR THE SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN e
Number of Days Over Standard
State Federal
Pollutant 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1985 1986 1987 1981
Oxidant (ozone) 148 131 127 160 158 50 42 40 45
Carbon monoxide 5 2 1 5 6 3 1 * 2
Sulfur dioxide 0 0 0 0 0 - - - -
Nitrogen dioxide 0 0 1 1 0 - - -
Particulates (PM- 10) 3 5 18 28 0 0 0 0 0
SOURCE: California Air Resources Board 1985,1986,1987,1988,1989.
- means information was not available (no recordings). * means only data from stations reporting more than 9.5 ppm is listed in the summaries. e
4 e
2. Impacts
Project development would result in long-term air pollutant emis-
sions of carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOX), nitrogen oxides (NOx),
hydrocarbons (or reactive organic gases, ROGs), and particulate matter. Emissions would be generated by the vehicular traffic to and from the resi-
dences, by the burning of natural gas for space and water heating, and by the
regional power plants generating electricity to supply the needs of the devel-
opment. In addition, during construction of the proposed project, site prepa-
ration and grading has the potential to raise dust and discharge particulates into the air.
a. Construction-related Emissions. Construction would be a one- time, short-term activity. Dust control during grading operations is regulated under APCD's Rules 51 (the "Nuisance" Rule), 52 (Particulate Matter), and 54
(Dust and Fumes). Since air quality impacts associated with grading for the project are regulated, they would not be considered significant. Other construction-related activities such as the application of architectural coat- ings on buildings and of paving materials for parking lots and roadways are also
controlled by District Rules (67.0 and 67.7, respectively, which set a limit on the volatile organic compound content of coatings and of cutback and emulsified asphalts used in San Diego County). Thus, emissions from these other activities
would not be considered significant. Exhaust emissions from the heavy-duty construction equipment, although not considered significant because of their short duration, ought to be controlled, in order to minimize emissions of pollutants that conmbute to ozone formation,
b. Ouerations-related Emissions. The principal source of new
pollutants associated with development of the project is emissions from vehicle traffic. This long-term impact must be assessed in terms of the project's size, conformance with existing land use assumptions for the area, and pollution control strategies being supported. The proposed project would be the final development stage for the 800-acre Calavera Hills Master Plan. This phase would
create 669 residential units on approximately 290 acres. Also included in the project is the construction of access roads and an internal circulation system, as well as improvements (widening and extension) to Carlsbad Village Drive.
It is estimated that the ADT generated by the proposed project would be 5,554 vehicle trips (City of Carlsbad 1991:6). These vehicle trips
would contribute a proportionate share of emissions to the air basin. Based on
the EMFAC7PC emission factors shown in Table B (Appendix I) and on an average round trip commute of 20 miles at speeds of 35 miles per hour, it is estimated
that by the year 1997, at project build-out. these vehicle trips would result in 957 tons per year of carbon monoxide, 76 tons per year of organic gases, and 52 tons per year of oxides of nitrogen (Table C, Appendix I). However, the incre-
mental contribution would be extremely small in terms of the regional basin and would not be expected to significantly change regional air quality of the SDAB. Furthermore, the site is located approximately three miles east of downtown Carlsbad, and it is surrounded by commercial and residential developments in the cities of Oceanside, Vista, San Marcos, Escondido, Encinitas, and Leucadia.
Thus, because the project is not significantly farther from commercial,
the general area, vehicle trips of exceptional length would not be induced.
1 employment, and other support centers than existing residential developments in
187
Air quality impacts can also occur if traffic generated by
project were to result in inadequate traffic flow on streets and intersectil
The traffic section of this report (Section 1II.C) analyzes the effect of
proposed project on the circulation system. The maximum acceptable peak-1 LOS in urban areas is LOS D (Basmaciyan-Darnel1 1991:lI-6). An unacceptable I
would qualify an intersection or a roadway link as a potential "hot spot"; area operating at such a congested level that idling vehicles would result
carbon monoxide concentrations above the state one-hour (20 ppm or 23 mg/ and/or eight-hour (9 ppm or 10 mg/m3) carbon monoxide standards, the1 creating a significant impact. Because of the phasing of the reside]
development, traffic conditions were analyzed for three different years: 1' after partial Zone 7 build-out; 2000, after full build-out of all of Cala Hills; and 2010, after full build-out of city-wide development and transp
tion facilities. Only those intersections and roadways segments which would impacted by 20 percent or more of the project traffic were analyzed.
By the year 1995, all roadways are expected to operate at LO or better, and peak hour operations at all impacted intersections, except
one, would also have an LOS of D or better. By the year 2000, all roac
intersections were calculated to operate at LOS C or better for both peak h Lastly, by the year 2010 (representing full build-out of the city of Carlsl
traffic distribution would not change from 2000 conditions. All potent impacted roadway segments would operate at LOS D or better, and all the anal intersections, except for one, would operate at LOS B during the morning hour and LOS D during the afternoon peak hour. Thus, the traffic ana identifies three potential "hot spots" conditions:
1) 1995 morning peak hour traffic conditions at the El Ca
ReaVTamahack Avenue intersection (LOS F).
2) 2000 peak hour traffic conditions on a southbound segmei El Camino Real, between Tamarack Avenue and Co
Boulevard (LOS E).
BoulevardCannon Road intersection (LOS E).
@
segments, except for one, would operate at a peak hour LOS of D or better,
0
3) 2010 afternoon peak hour traffic conditions at the Cc
The mitigation measures listed in the traffic study v improve these unacceptable LOS conditions, eliminate the potential for spots," and reduce congestion-related air quality impacts to levels of
nificance. Thus, to summarize, the proposed project would have no signi: direct impacts on air quality in the San Diego Air Basin.
c. Cumulative Impacts. Considered with other new resid development in the air basin, however, the cumulative effects of project opment would be to contribute to nonattainment of clean air standards. ' the basin's nonattainment status with respect to carbon monoxide, ozone,
PM-10, all new or additional sources of emissions within the basin ma considered as contributing to the regional pollution burden and to an ex significant air quality impact.
Motor vehicle usage is the most obvious consequence of g
that leads to negative air quality impacts; that is, an increase in r
4 a
188
sources would result in an increase in air emissions, which would create an adverse impact on regional air quality. However, it should be noted that resi- dential development is not a strong stimulus to population growth. In a 1987
report on "Causes of Growth and Possible Control Measures in the San Diego Region," SANDAG concluded that population growth in the region is attributable principally to employment growth--over 60 percent of the region's population
growth since 1980 is related to the creation of new jobs.
Furthermore, development of this project would have a positive influence towards achieving a "jobshousing balance" in the North County. Under
such conditions, with a balanced number of housing and employment opportunities, people workmg in Carlsbad and other North County cities could relocate into the
area instead of having to travel long distances. A reduction in vehicle miles
traveled would also reduce traffic congestion in the area's freeways as well as air polluting emissions from mobile sources. Thus, shorter commutes brought about by a '?obs/housing balance" would contribute to the regional effort to
achieve ambient air quality standards.
3. Mitigation
a. Construction-related Emissions. As previously stated, compli-
Compliance can be achieved by watering all working surfaces and haul roads
during dry weather conditions, revegetating all unpaved areas as soon as possi- ble, restricting traffic of construction equipment to dust-controlled routes and
limiting the speed of haul vehicles, and curtailing construction during periods
of high wind. In order to control emissions from the heavy-duty, diesel-powered construction equipment, all equipment should be operated according to the manufacturers' instructions (with the fuel injection timing retarded to the
recommended level for reduced NOx emissions, but which will not result in excessive visible smoke emissions), be subject to periodic maintenance/tune-ups, and be turned off when not in use to avoid idle emissions. Adherence to the
stipulations of applicable APCD rulings for the application of architectural coatings and of cutback asphalt would effectively control other construction- related emissions. No further mitigation is necessary.
b. Operations-related Emissions. For long-term emissions, project contributions to the control of regional air quality may be measured as the
degree to which the project is consistent with the revised 1982 SIP, still in effect until approval of the final 1991 SIP. Development of the proposed proj- ect would be in accord with the Calavera Hills Master Plan and with the City of
Carlsbad General Plan land use designation (low to medium high density
residential) and assumptions and is thus considered consistent with the SIP. The SIP lists a total of 38 emission control tactics or Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) to be applied to stationary and mobile sources. Although most
of these strategies are intended to be implemented on a regional planning level by organizations such as the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB),
APCD, SANDAG, and local jurisdictions, the project may make use of the following tactics listed below as they are implemented:
ance with Rules 51, 52, and 54 would effectively mitigate fugitive dust impacts.
1) Tactic T-2, Transit. The accommodation of public transit
the MTDB when planning for the future needs of the area's commuters. NCTD Local Route
322 runs along Carlsbad Village Drive and Tamarack Avenue on an hourly basis.
4 will be implemented by the North County Transit District (NCTD) and
t 189
~
Local Route 311 departs from the College BoulevardLake Boulevard area to COL east and west along SR 78, stopping at Plaza Camino Real. Beginning
5:30 a.m. on weekdays, and approximately every 45 minutes thereafter, Expr Route 310 departs Plaza Camino Real for the University Towne Centre (in
Jolla) and Fashion Valley (in San Diego). County Transit Express Route ' begins operations from Plaza Camino Real at 5:50 a.m. every weekday; buses le approximately every 18 minutes for downtown San Diego (NCTD, 7/22/91).
2) Tactic T-3, Bicycling. The Calavera Hills Master Plan shc
Class 11 bikeways being provided along the full length of the major str
within the master plan, including roadways being constructed and/or improved part of the proposed project. A Class II bikeway is one with striping den0 a specific line of demarcation between the area reserved for bikers and lanes used by motor vehicles. Minimum standards for these bike paths are f four &O five feet in width, Additionally, the master plan calls for bic racks and related facilities to be provided in commercial centers and parks
encourage the use of this mode of transportation. All bikeway street cross shall be located at signalized intersections (City of Carlsbad 1984:26).
@
3) Tactic T-5, Traffic Flow Improvements. The proposed prc also includes improvements (widening and extension) to Carlsbad Village D (Elm Avenue). Village H proposes the widening of Carlsbad Village Drive betv
Seabrook Drive and Pontiac Drive. Presently, this northhouth-trending PO
of the roadway is two lanes. The tentative map for Village H propose5
increase the width to four lanes (two eastbound and two westbound), which w
bring the roadway up to circulation element standards of a major artr Other roadway improvements include those measures listed as mitigation in traffic section, which would help accommodate the vehicular traffic generated the proposed project and would ease traffic flows throughout the area.
4) Tactic T-7, Walking. All internal roadways will inc
paved., 5-foot-wide sidewalks. Additionally, as stipulated in the Calavera l
Master Plan, 5-foot-wide sidewalks in a 12-foot-wide area outside of curb
be provided adjacent to all major arterial streets within the master plan. pedestrian street crossings shall be located at signalized intersections '
of Carlsbad 1984:26).
5) Tactic T-8, Park-and-Ride Facilities. The Park-n
facility at the intersection of College Boulevard and Lake Boulevard could project area commuters who wish to ride Local Route 311 to Plaza Camino Red transfer to the Express Routes.
Thus, as noted, the project includes provisions for roa improvements to ease traffic flow, bikeways, and pedestrian circulation;
provisions would allow compliance with applicable RAQS. No further mitig
is required.
gation for cumulative air quality impacts is the successful implementatio the San Diego portion of the SIP under the supervision of the San Diego P Cumulative impacts would be primarily due to increased emissions from n
4 sources, which would degrade existing air quality in the area. The Cali
Clean Air Act requires implementation of transportation control me;
("strategies to reduce vehicle trips, vehicle use, vehicle miles tra
0
c. For Cumulative Impacts. At this time, the only available
0
190
-
vehicle idling, or traffic congestion," as defined by the act), to meet air
quality goals. The act has given the districts explicit authority for adoption, implementation, and enforcement of said transportation controls for the purpose of reducing motor vehicle emissions. The districts may delegate this authority to councils of government or other regional agencies; however, the districts have the ultimate responsibility to ensure successful implementation of all plans and control measures (State of California 1990:2, 16).
4. Analysis of Si&cance
Even though the project would have no significant direct impacts on air quality in the San Diego Air Basin, given the basin's nonattainment status
(with respect to carbon monoxide, ozone, and PM-IO), all new or additional sources of emissions within the basin may be considered as contributing to the
regional pollution burden and to a significant cumulative air quality impact. The proposed project is no exception, and emissions associated with it will thus
represent a significant cumulative impact. As noted above, the only way to
mitigate cumulative impacts is through the successful basinwide implementation of the SIP, which is anticipated to result in emissions reductions which would
achieve and maintain air quality standards in the region. Therefore, the fore- going contributions to implementing applicable RAQS would not mitigate the cumulative impacts to levels of insignificance, but would help reduce their magnitude so that they would be no worse than the cumulative impacts associated with other residential developments in the basin.
191
IV. CERTIFICATION
This report was prepared by Regional Environmental Consultants (RECON) u I) the direction of Lee Shenvood. The following persons participated in preparation of this report.
M. A. Alexandra Acosta-Mathis, B.A. Neurobiology
Assistant Analyst
Sandra Fayette, B.A. Education Assistant Analyst
Loretta L. Gross Production Supervisor
Jill Gurak, B.S. Engineering Assistant Analyst
David C. Hanna, M.A. Anthropology, B.A. Sociology and Anthropology Archaeologist
Production Specialist
Director, Environmental Group
Stacey Higgins
Kim B. Howlett, B.A. Urban Studies and Business and Economics
Peter Langenfeld, B.S. Geology, B.S. Geography e Assistant Analyst
Cameron Patterson, B.A. Biology Certified Ecologist, E.S.A.
John Phillips, B.S. Wildlife Management Ecologist
Technical Lllustrator Harry J. Price, B.A. Anthropology
Rudy Prosser, M.A. Geography with emphasis in GIs, B.A. Philosophy GIS Analyst
Production Typist Felicia Servio
Lee Shenvood, B.A. Geography, M.A. Geography Project Manager
Certified Ecologist, E.S.14.
Project Archaeologist
Plant Ecologist
Bobbie A. Stephenson, B.S. Botany; M.S. Biology
4 Sue A. Wade, B.A. Anthropology
David Zippin, B.A. Ecology a
192
V. PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED
@ Basmaciyan Darnell, Inc. Scott Barker
Bill Darnel1
Carlsbad, City of Planning Department Jeffrey Gibson
Eric N. Munoz
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
Bob Coates
Howard Chang, Ph.D, P.E.
ERCE Andrew Pigniolo Patrick Mock
Gallegos Associates
Dennis Gallegos
Hoffman Planning Associates
Hunsaker & Associates
Mike Howes
Dan Rehm 0 Lex Williman
Mestre-Greve Associates Vince Mestre
North County Transit District
RMW Paleo Associates Diana Weir
San Diego, County of Department of Planning and Land Use Tom Oberbauer
Jon Rollin Department of Public Works
4 e
193
VI. REFERENCES CITED
@ Atwood, J, L,
1990 Status Review of the California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californ Unpublished technical report, Manoment Bird Observatory, Manoi
Massachusetts.
Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. 1991 Traffic Study for Villages H, K, L-2, R, U, W, X, and Y in City Carlsbad Growth Management Zone 7. July.
Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc. 197 1 Noise fiom Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipn and Home Appliances. EPA Report No. PB-206-7 17. December.
Bull, Charles S. 1977 Archaeology and Linguistics, Coastal Southern California. Mas
thesis, San Diego State University.
California, State of 1985 Annual Summary of Air Quality Data (Gaseous ana! Particulate PL ants) (vol. XVII). Air Resources Board.
ants) (vol. XVIII). Air Resources Board. 1986 Annual Summary of Air Quality Data (Gaseous and Particulate PG
1987 Annual Summary of Air Quality Data (Gaseous and Particulate PL
ants) (vol. XIX). Air Resources Board.
1988 Annual Summary of Air Quality Data (Gaseous and Particulate PC
0
ants) (vol. XX). Air Resources Board.
1989 Annual Summary of Air Quality Data (Gaseous and Particulate PL ants) (vol. XXI). Air Resources Board.
1990 California Clean Air Act Transportation Requirements Guidance.
Resources Board. February.
Carlsbad, City of
1982 Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21 - Zoning. Revised 1984.
1984 Calavera Hills Master Plan (MP- 150(F)). February 2 1.
1989 Growth Management Program, Local Facilities Management Plan - Zon Prepared by Hofman Planning Associates, Hunsaker and Associates,
Weston Pringle and Associates. October 18.
1990 Carlsbad General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element.
1991 Notice of Preparation, Calavera Hills Master Plan EIR 90-5. February.
1991a Draft EIR for Lake Calavera Hills. 4 e
194
Chang, H. H. 1989 Hydrological Study for Northeast Carlsbad, Basins of Calavera Lake Creek and Aqua Hedionda Creek. July.
1989a Sediment Study for Calavera Lake Creek. August.
1991 Data Recovery at SDI-6753 and SDI-68 19: Aviara Development Project, Cheever, Dayle M., and James D. Eighmey
Carlsbad, California. RECON.
Environmental Protection Agency
1974 Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Report No. 550/9-74-004. March.
ERCE 1990 College Boulevard Alignment Alternatives - Comparison of Biological Impacts. Letter to Stephen Jantz, City of Carlsbad, September 28.
Gallegos, Dennis R., Andrew Pigniolo, and Patricia Mitchell 1990 Cultural Resource Testing Program for SDI-635 and SDI-636, Calaveras
Heights Village, Carlsbad, California. ERC Environmental and Energy Services Company.
Hector, Susan M., Ph.D. 1985 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad. RECON.
Holland, Robert F. 1986 Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and
Game. October.
Hunsaker and Associates 1990 College Boulevard Alignment Studies - Elm Avenue to Cannon Road. Letter to Steve Jantz of the City of Carlsbad, September 27.
1991 Estimated ADTs and Duration of Earthwork and Hauling. Letter to RECON, July 16.
McGurty, Brian M. 1980 Survey and Status of Endangered and Threatened Species of Reptiles Natively Occurring in Sun Diego, California. San Diego Herpetological Society.
PSBS (Pacific Southwest Biological Services) 1977 Report of a Biological Survey of the Calavera Hills Property. Prepared for RECON.
RECON 1986 An Analysis of Noise Impacts from Drilling and Blasting Operations at
4 the Prohoroff Ranch Property, San Marcos, California. October.
19 5
1990 Unpublished maps of coastal sage scrub distribution in San Diego Coi
199 1 a Rancho Carrillo Biological Constraints Assessment. Prepared for I) Engineering.
1991b Draft EIR for Reaches 3 and 4 of Cannon Road. Prepared for the Cit Carlsbad. October.
San Diego, County of
1985 Hydrology Manual. January.
1989 Department of Public Works. 'Regional Solid Waste Management Plan.
1990 Draft North County Landfill Site Selection EIR. January
199 1 Draft Guidelines for the lmplementution of the California Environm
Quality Act, May 13, 1991.
U.S. Department of Agriculture 1973 Soil Survey, Sun Diego Area, California. Soil Conservation Se
and Forest Service.
University of California 1970 Climates of Sun Diego County: Agricultural Relationships. Unive of California Agricultural Extension Service, San Diego.
Westman, Walter E. 1981 Coastal Sage Scrub Succession. Dynamics and Management of Medit neun-Type Ecosystems: Proceedings of the Symposium on June 2. 1981, edited by C. Conrad and W. Oechel. Pacific Southwest Forest Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, California.
0
.i e
196
VII. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
The City received four letters of comment on the Draft EIR. The p
numbers cited in the letters refer to pages in the Draft EIR, and consistency, the page numbers in the responses also refer to the Draft E Because of changes in the text, page numbers in the Find EIR may
different. Agencies, organizations, or individuals commenting on the are listed below in the order in which their letters appear in this char Responses are numbered consecutively throughout this chapter, but respoi
to each letter are reproduced following a copy of the letter.
e
1. California Department of Transportation
2. 3. City of San Marcos 4.
San Diego County Noise Control Hearing Board
San Diego County Department of Public Works
e
a
197
STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON, C
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
Aug 21, 1992
ERIC MUNOZ CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT
2075 LAS PALMAS DRIVE CARLSBAD, CA 92009
Subject: CALVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN EIR 90-5
SCH # 91021062
Dear ERIC MUNOZ:
The State Clearinghouse nas submitted the above rim& draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for rev: The review period is now closed and the comments from the responding
agency(ies) is(are) enclosed. On the enclosed Notice of Completion j you will note that the Clearinghouse has checked the agencies that h;
commented. Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure that yo^ comment package is complete. If the comment package is not in order,
please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Remember to refei the project's eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may
respond promptly.
Please note that Section 21104 of the California Public Resourcc
Code required that:
"a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make
substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency 01 which are required to be carried out or approved by the agencl
Commenting agencies are also required by this section to support their comments with specific documentation. These comments are forw; for your use in preparing your final EIR. Should you need more information or clarification, we recommend that you contact the comnenting agency (ies) . -
This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents,
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact Tom Loftus at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process.
L * Sincerely,
i
Christine Kinne Acting Deputy Director, Permit Assistanc
Enclosures
cc: Resources Agency 198
fjate of Colifornia Business, Transportation and
Memorondurn e : STATE CLEARINGHOCSE Date: July 16, 19!
Attenticn: T. Loftus File : 11-SD-78 3.32
From : Department of lronrportationj&#&9&##&
District 11 - Planning
Subject: ~EIR for the calzvera ~il~s Master Plan - SCH 91021062 - ---- - -_
Caltrans Dist.rict 11 co:r..r.ents are as follows:
Czltrans supports the colicept of "Fair Share Contributior
GT. the part Gf th~ develc~;ers. Therefore, it is our recorr.rr.s?,i
cion that the 2eveloFers r.espor,sible for this proposed project
contribcte tlleir fair shcre toward transportation improvement:
ir, the I2terstate 5 ar,d State Route 78 corridors, to help redzce -,he substantial L?,pact this project will have on these
two highway facilities,
1
If yo2 ha-$Ye ar.y qiestions regarding ozr comments, please * ccr,tact Bill Gorchak at (€119) 688-6958. 9mz
BILL DILLON, Chief
Planning Studies Branch
-_ c QJ
k-r m
199
, .,w<- ~ IIY,..>-uoIJ
ER WTE elm: El Xl # 91OZlW
Project Title: Calavera Hills Master PIC- ElR ~ ElR 90-5
Lead Agency: City of Carisbad Contact Person: Eric Y. 11-z
Street Address: 2375 ins palms Drive
City: CarlsLsi ...............................................................................................................................
PROJECT LOCATIO(:
Comfy: San Diego CitylUearelt C-icy: Carlsbad
Zrcss Streets:
Phon: (619) 438-1161, EI~. Wl
Zip: 92009 CMW Tan Dit10
Total Acres: 290 Future Inrersccrion of CarlsSad villagc Drive and College Boulevard
Assesor's Parcel YO. 167-101-19 168-OLO-2. 23. 27 Section: -. Tup. _- Raw: -- L1c: -
Yithin 2 Miles: state HW 1: 7e 6 1-5 Waterways: ~ake Calsnra
Airports: ._ Railuays: -- Lchmls: .. -----.-.-.----~-.-..---~.--~~--~~..~.._-__...~...___.-.-~-.----.-------.__.__.--~-~.-~.--.-_____.______._____.___________________
DOOIYYT TWE
no I OT*ERr - Jolnt Doclmot CERA: - h3P - SuppIementlSubseque?: YEPA: - - EA - FIN1 DocMenr - Early Cons - ElR (Prior S:k kn.) - Neg Occ - Other - Draft cis - x Draft EIR - Fats1 Other - ................................................................................................................................
LOCU ACTIOY TIP€
- General Plan Upda!e
Master Plai - Prezone - Redevelcpmnt - X General Pian Amnfnnf -
- cwmvlity Plan - Site Plan - X Land DivlSim (Sutdivirim, X Other Master Plan
................................................................................................................................
OCVELCP*EYT TYPE - X Residential: Unltr CbP ~crer zpc - affice: Sq. It. Acres - Erwlorees - - Trarrsportatim: lvpe
Waste Treatment: Type - Educational - Recreational - Wazardovl Yaste: lrp
- Specific Plan - Rezone - Amexation - Ccartal Permit isneral Plan Elmnt Pia& m;t Developrent - Use Permi t - -
Parcel Map. Tract Map, etc.) Arrerhrnt
- Yater Facilities: Type MGD
Acres - E.vloyees - - Mining: Mineral Ccrmevial: Sq. Ft. I,&S:rial: Sq. Ft. Acres - - Ewlo?ees - - Pouer: Type uatts - - -
Other: - .................................................................................................................................
PEWKT ISSUES DlSJJSSED II #x1IIEWT
- Y lesthe:ic/Visvel - Flood PLainlFloodrng - SchoolslUniversi t ies - X Yarer Oulicy Septic Sys~nrs - Water Slqplyl Forest Land/Fire Hazard -
- Y Ar~n~~~:~g~~ol/Historical - Mi neral s I X Soil ErosionlCaQaclionlGra5ing )I YetIMdlRiparian - Coastal 20nc - x YOlse - X Solid Yaste - X Ylldlife - x Cralnaqc/Absorp:ion - Econwlc/Jobs - X Public Se*vices/Facilifies X Traffic/Circulation - X Lnbse - Fiscal - Recrea!ion/Parts
- X 15-:cu!rural and
x Air Cultty - - GeoiogiciScismic - X Scucr Capacity trd Yatcr -
- Powlarion/Hwsing Salancc - ToxicfnarardDus - X Growth Inducing - X Vegetation - X Cwlative Effect Other - ................................................................................................................................
Presmt Lard Use/Zoning/Gcrrral Plan use
The proiect area is Currently vacant, vdevclcpd land with a PC (PIamd Cannnity) Zmlng
designation which require5 a IPaLtcr plan. General Plan ksiprutims involved Include: RIM (Residential-to~,*ed~~~n), RL (Residential-Lou). RMn (Reridcntial-*Cdim High) md OS tqxn Space)
ihe projec: proposes tu wild our tnc remtninq prcims ot the Calavcra Illla Master Plan area.
It invoives the construction 09 649 &welling mits (n .pprorimmtely 290 Yrea of hick 1L1 acres uou!d rmin in natural open space. Also involved Is Ihc construction of Collepc Boulevard thiargh
the p-aje:: area and cff-sLtc SWI~ to future Cmnon Road -
................................................................................................................................
iro)ec: iresciiqtim
6 &
'i
CLFMtINCHOUSL CONTACT: Tan Lof tu8
(916) 415-0613
CKTSITI an SnT
&Resourem St.tc/ba.raacr Sua
DDT STATE PN REKEU TO ACMCYI BEGCAN: p" : B - -a: FJ-q . - - -_ - - - - -
- - 0 Conaervation &U Waatr Mgmt Bd CBr--Grrntr - !r ==,, - CB:;-Wtr I-- quri ty
am EEV TO SCH I
Parka & Roc/OlIP - rh--wtz. SCH CWLIANCK I z! =-
MpD/APCD:g ) ,.rood&& re -- -- ran
&ROB. WCB t t - - 1AdLL-i-
!-E- *a -= On = B If?sw-b .'
_-.-- - ---- - -~-Tr&!iiiiiopm -
i -- -s I-
-.+.rtha.uic.
BFOWARDU Z'B CMIQR s DRLlml.~ -4ddaaW' *" ?ax Llx4D ==cY OnLY -&Lana - # \! - --:---c- - -- sns
-
0 SCAte &nda Coll
OW-- -- +%EriZz ~ --. -- - ('S_'_--scnt br lead I '*' - sent br SCH)
200 ,
California Department of Transportation
1. This comment is acknowledged. However, the improvements cited in e traffic analysis prepared for the Calavera Hills project are consistent the circulation studies and improvements cited in the City’s Growth Man ment Plan and the adopted Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan. Purs
to these adopted policies, additional regional improvements or contribut to facilities on SR-78 and 1-5 would not be required as conditions of tentative map approvals.
*
4 e
201
e.
August 17, 1992
Michael Holtzmiller, Planning Director
Planning Department
2075 Las Palrnas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Dear Mr. Holtzmiller,
The draft EIR for the Calavera Hills Master Plan was not on our
July agenda for the Noise Control Hearing Board. Since the Board
reviewed the Noise Technical Analysis in the draft EIR.
is not meeting until September I have as a member independently
1 I believe the EIR has sufficiently addressed existing noise
concerns and problems and is specifically structured and
delineated to deal with the future noise impacts.
The key, of course, to noise mitigation for any project is:
1. advance notification and education of both the noise makers
2. careful monitoring and implementation of all requirements.
Our County Noise Board is currently re-looking at the issue of
construction/industrial noise from the aspect of:
1. length of permits for such activity and
2. whether a construction/industrial site is impacted by abutting
or adjacent noise producing projects.
Sincerely yours,
and the noise-impacted and
f- 74
Ramona Finnila,Member
Noise Control Hearing Board
San Diego County
7 .. 4 -z ..,
2 ?, .. 1
G> -A -7. /; ._ .- + .- 4- A%<, F I c
.LJ .<-
I'
202 ,_
San Diego County Noise Control Hearing Board
1. These comments are acknowledged. The noise mitigation requirements cited
the EIR for short-term construction noise impacts associated with grac and blasting (i.e., notification procedures), as well as the attenua
required along several project roadways, will be included as conditions
project approval. Implementation of these requirements will be ass1 through monitoring by the City of Carlsbad.
@
e
0
203
@ @CO
C~B oi sari Cnarcos
r%,,,& \OW 105 W RICHMAR AVENUE SAN MARCOS CALIFORNIA 92069-1699
61 91744-4020 FAX 6191744-7543
July 14, 1992
Michael Holzmiller
City of Carlsbad Director of Planning
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576
RE: EIR 90-5; CALAVERA HILLS; RESPONSE FROM THE CITY OF SAN
MARCOS.
Dear Mike :
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment upon the above
referenced project.
Staff has no comments as the described project will not affect the
City of San Marcos.
Please call David Acuff at 591-7777 ext. 3222 should you have any
questions.
1
4A& 9A
Mike Poland
Principal Planner
I. LI
204
CITY COUNCIL
City of San Marcos
@ 1. Comment noted.
0
0
205
-
f@$J ;L%?+ 03s I,
&&&@
*OC.i.
COUNTY ENGINI
COUNTY AIRPOI
COUNTY ROAD COMM
TRANSPORTATION OPI
COUNTY SURVE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS FLOOD CONTRl
(619) 604-2212 LIQUID WAST 5555 OVERUND AVE SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA 92123 1 161778-- -, SOLID WAsTf
Mnuntg of Ban piqo
GRANVILLE M BOWMAN
DIRECTOR
7s---? ~,
? "'..,,4* T
- 3 I Z?+$$$
FAX (619) 268-0461
LOCATION CODE SY) ,' zh \3 if August 17, 1992
\
'T) $.'> 9,: Mr. Eric N. Munoz r^ C2-L" + 'i. -, d -
G, City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576
Dear Mr. Munoz:
Subject:
We have reviewed the Draft EIR and have the following comments:
Traffic/Circulation
Please submit the Draft EIR to Caltrans and provide appropriat
mitigation measures.
Solid Waste
Draft EIR for the Calavera Hills Master Plan
1
2 Please evaluate the recycling requirements for the project. Th attached, "Mandatory Recycling Ordinance Summary" identifie recyclable materials and provides an implementation schedule fo the North County Region. Also, please consider an integrated wast
management program to include curbside recycling, neighborhoo recycling/buyback centers, a materials recovery facility (MRF),
cornposting facility, and a household hazardous waste collectio facility.
If you have any questions, please call Dirk Smith at (619) 495
5679.
Very truly yours,
QJC)L/J
~HARON JASEK REID
e
Deputy Director
SJR:DDS:dds
Attachment
cc: Rick Anthony (0383), Robert Hoglen (0336)
4
206
yJ j. ,....- I-
' !.&&
COUN
COUN
COUNTY RO ANVILLE M BOWMAN TR4NSPOAT
COUN
FLOC
so
anlrnig of Ban @icga L
DlRt c TOM
(6191 694 2212 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Llai ILOCATION CODE 7501
ca
5555 OVERLANO AVE SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA 92123.1295
ManUatory Recycling Ordinance Summary
The San Diego County mandatory recycling ordinance, Chaptel Division 8 of Title 6 of the San Diego County Code to Rec Storage, Callection, Transportation, and Disposal of Solid 1
includes these major elements:
1) designation of materials to be recycled from reside
commercial, and industrial Sources;
2) a prohibition against disposal of designated recy materials with mixed refuse at County solid waste facil
3) a requirement that waste haulers operating i unincorporated areas of the County must provide
customers with collection of designated recyclab: accordance with the regional implementation schedule an generators must store designated recyclables separate
solid waste for pick-up.
The County will be awarding non-competitive tonnage grt
cities, with the exception of the City of San Diego, and to in the unincorporated area based on the tons of des
residential recyclables documented to have been divert4
County landfills. Competitive Technical Assistance Progrz
grants also will be awarded for diversion of cornmerc. industrial wastes.
Ordinance Enforcement
County Department of Public Works personnel will enfc ordinance by conducting random inspections of vehicles to dl
contents and origins of vehicles entering County t facilities. Vehicles carrying loads from those cities t'
adopted and are diligently enforcing similar approved r ordinance provisions for solid waste collectors and ge
shall be exempt from random inspections. Trash set-out: unincorporated area also will be inspected to determine th
generators are complying with the separate storage requirc the ordinance.
0
4 e
207
Piinfcd OK Rqcied Rprr
., Ordinance Implementation Schedule
The ordinance implementation schedule by waste source and region,
including progressive enforcement measures, is summarized in Table
1.
Following the initial three month warning period at each County
landfill haulers delivering solid waste containing designated
recyclables will be subject to surcharges of $25; two months later,
$50; aiid, two mnths after that, a maximum of $100 per load.
Citizens hauling their own wastes in cars, vans, and pick-up
trucks, will be subject to an initial one month warning period in
the North County region and then assessment of a $15 maximum
surcharge consistent with the schedule for implementing the
ordinance for single-family residential wastes in each region of
the County.
In accordance with the regional ixplementation schedule, haulers
that collect wastes from single-family and multi-family households
in the unincorporated area will be required to provide their single
family household customers with separate collection of designated
recyclables at least once weekly. They also must provide curbsiae
beginning of the program, and to each new household chat they
service thereafter. I
ardinance Incentive Program
As an incentive to stimulate single-family curbside and multi-
family residential recycling programs, noncompetitive tonnage
grants will be allocated according to the total tons of designated
residential recyclables, excluding yard and wood wastes, documented as having been collected from these households and marketed from
each city and the unincorporated areas. Documentation will include receipts and weight tickets for the sale of materials, and
reporting forms that the County will provide, to summarize the
tonnage information.
Tonnage grants will be awarded quarterly, to eligible cities and
haulers in the unincorporated area, commencing with the first quarter Of FY 1991/32, at the rate of $7.75 per ton, up to a limit of $2 million total in FY 1991/92. cities will have the discretion
to disburse these funds tothose haulers within their jurisdictions
that perform the recycling collections and provide the necessary documentation.
To enhance further recycling of conmercial and industrial wastes,
the County wiii institute a third round of competitive Technical
Assistance Program (TAP) grants totalling $525,000. Priority will
be given to programs that have potential to divert the greatest
quantities of materials that otherwise would be disposed in Count1
landfills.
nxycling collection containers to all these households at the
i
XI8
DESIGNATED RECYCLABLE MATERIALS e
RESIDENTIAL RECYCLABLES (eligible for tonnage grants)
aluminum, glass bottles and jars, newspaper, p
beverage bottles, tin and bi-metal cans, white
(appliances)
COMMERCIAL RECYCUBLES
(a) Office Buildings of more than 20,000 square feet:
aluninum, corrugated cardboard, newspaper, office
(b) Hospitality Industry, including all restaurants and tal
aluminum, corrugated cardboard, glass jars and bo
plastic beverage bottles, tin and bi-metal cans; goods (appliances) 0
INDUSTRIAL RECYCLABLES
asphalt, concrete, dirt, land clearing brush, sanc
YARD WASTE
leaves, grass, weeds, and wood materials from trt shrubs generated from residential sources
4 a
209
*,
TABLE 1
MANDATORY RECYCLING ORDINANCE IWPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
North County South County East County '
Region Region Region
Residential:
Single Family warnings Aug 1, 1991 Mar 1, 1992 Sept 1, 1992
$25 surcharge Nov 1, 1991 June 1, 1992 Dec 1, 1992
$5G surcharge Jan 1, 1992 Aug 1, 1992 Feb 1, 1993
$100 surcharge Mar 1, 1992 Oct 1, 1992 Apr 1, 1993
Residential: Multi-family warnings July 1, 1952 July 1, 1993 July i, 1994
$25 surcharge Oct 1, 1992 Oct 1, 1993 Oct 1, 1994
$50 surcharge Dec 1, 1992 Dec 1, 1993 Dec 1, 1994
$100 surcharge Feb 1, 1993 Feb 1, 1994 Feb 1, 1995
Yard Waste: warnings Jan 1, 1992 Jan 1, 1993 Jan 1, 1994
$25 surcharge Apr 1, 1992 Apr 1, 1993 Apr 1, 1994
$50 surcharge June 1, 1992 June 1, 1993 June 1, 1994
$100 surcharge Aug 1, 1992 Aug 1, 1993 Aug 1, 1594
I
Commercial :
Office & Hospitality
Warnings July 1, 1992 July 1, 1993 July 1, 1994
$50 Surcharge Dec 1, 1992 Dec 1, 1993 Dec 1, 1994
$100 surcharge Feb 1, 1993 Feb 1, 1994 Feb 1, 1994
$25 Surcharge Oct 1, 1992 Oct 1, 1993 Oct 1, 1994
Industrial
$25 surcharge Jan 1, 1992 Jan 1, 1993 Jan 1, 1994
S50 surcharge Mar 1, 1992 Mar 1, 1993 Mar I, 1994
$100 surcharge May 1, 1992 May 1, 1993 May 1, 1994
Xarnings Oct 1, 1991 Oct 1, 1992 Oct I., 1993
Citizen Hauled Wastes
Citizens hauling their own wastes in cars, vans and pick-up trucks,
1, 1991 in the North County Region; March 1, 1992 in the South County Region; and September 1, 1992 in the East County Region.
. will be subject to a maximum surcharge of $15 cosrnencing September
210
County of San Diego Department of Public Works
1. Caltrans received the Draft EIR, and their letter of comment is included part of the Final EIR.
2. The City of Carlsbad has recently prepared and adopted a Source Reduc Recycling Element, and the Calavera Hills project would be subject to tl requirements. This program has been designed to comply with the s requirements regarding recycling pursuant to the California Integrated W
Management Act (AT3 939), which was adopted in 1989.
I)
e
.__ -
a
211