The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997-11-05; Planning Commission; ; CT 97-04|CP 97-02|SDP 97-03 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE L-1♦ le City of CARLSBAD Planning Departml g;/J A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION P.C. AGENDA OF: November 5, 1997 ItemNo.@ Application complete date: May 29, 1997 Project Planner: Chris DeCerbo Project Engineer: Clyde Wickham SUBJECT: CT 97-04/CP 97-02/SDP 97-03 -CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE L-1 - Request for approval of a Tentative Map, Condominium Permit and Site Development Plan to construct 35 single family detached condominium units on the northwest comer of Harwich Drive and Edgeware Way in the PC zone in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 7. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 4181, 4182 and 4183 APPROVING CT 97-04, CP 97-02 and SDP 97-03, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting the approval of various permits to develop a 6.3 acre site (Village L- I) in the Calavera Hills Master Plan with 35 single family detached condominium units, one common recreation lot and private streets. Five (5) of the proposed units will be reserved as affordable for-sale condominium units. In order to enable the achievement of these 5 affordable dwelling units, the applicant is requesting the approval of three development standards modifications (economic incentives) including 24 foot wide private streets, 18 foot garage setbacks and exclusive use areas (lots) less than 3,500 square feet in area. This inclusionary housing project was unanimously approved (6-0) by the Housing Commission on September 11, 1997. Otherwise, as designed and conditioned, the project is in compliance with the General Plan, the Calavera Hills Master Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and the Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND A major amendment to the Calavera Hills Master Plan, located in the Northeast Quadrant of the City, was approved by the City Council on November 1, 1993. The Master Plan is divided into Villages A through Y for planning purposes. The applicant, the Clurman Company, Inc., is requesting approval of a Tentative Map, Condominium Permit and Site Development Plan to construct 35 detached condominium units in Village L-1, on a 6.3 acre rectangular shaped lot which is located on the northwest comer of Harwich Drive and Edgeware Way. As shown on Exhibits "A" -"Q", the proposed project would consist of 35 detached single family condominium units developed around a central 24 foot wide private street which is ~ CT 97-04/CP 97-02/SDP '-03-CALA VERA HILLS VILLAGE L! November 5, 1997 Pa e2 configured in a loop. Five of the proposed condominium units (units 17, 25, 29, 34 and 35) would be restricted as affordable to lower-income households. Each of the detached condominium units have fenced exclusive use yard areas (including a minimum 10 foot wide side yard and minimum 480 square foot rear yard). The units are separated by a minimum of 10 feet and are setback an average of 15 feet from the private street. Twelve (12) guest parking spaces (including 10 bay and 2 on-street) are well dispersed along the private street. Also included within the center of the project is a 3500 square foot common active recreation area containing a practice basketball court and a tot-lot area. . The condominiums would all be two-stories (between 23'6" and 25') in height, have attached two-car garages and would range in size from 1,330 to 1,910 square feet. The project would feature Mediterranean architecture consisting of barrel tile roofs with varying roof lines, stucco exteriors with wood and wrought iron accents and front entries with single story roof overhangs. The eastern two-thirds (4.16 acres) of the subject property has been rough graded into a relatively level building pad consistent with a previous discretionary approval (CT 85-30) and the western one-third of the property (2.14 acres) is comprised of steep natural slopes which are vegetated with coastal sage scrub habitat and are located within an existing open space easement. Public street improvements have been constructed along Harwich Drive, and Edgeware Way has been graded, but is not improved with paving, curb, gutter and sidewalks. The surrounding neighborhood is developed with three-story, multi-family units to the west, two- story duplex units to the north, and vacant residentially designated land to the south and east. The Calavera Hills Community Park is located approximately 700 feet to the south along Harwich Drive and a designated neighborhood commercial site is located at the intersection of Carlsbad Village Drive and College Avenue within walking distance of Village L-1. The property is located in the Planned Community (PC) zone and is subject to the requirements of the Calavera Hills Master Plan and is designated Residential Medium High (RMH 8-15 du/ac) by the General Plan. In 1992 the City Council approved an application (CT 92-05/PUD 92-06/SDP 92-05) for the development of 58 attached townhome units on this property. This project included 9 affordable dwelling units, thereby qualifying as the City's first approved inclusionary housing project. This approved inclusionary housing project was granted a standards modification to reduce driveway widths to 24 feet. A similar standards modification is being requested with this application. IV. ANALYSIS Staffs recommendation of approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project's consistency with the applicable City regulations and policies. This analysis will present in text . and tables the project's consistency with the applicable regulations and policies listed below: ~ CT 97-04/CP 97-02/SDP '03-CALA VERA HILLS VILLAGE~ November 5, 1997 Pae 3 A. Carlsbad General Plan; B. Calavera Hills Master Plan 150(G); C. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21: 1. Chapter 21.45, Planned Development Ordinance; 2. Chapter 21.53, Section 21,53.120, Site Development Plan; D. Growth Management Ordinance, Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 7; E. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20) and the California Subdivision Map Act; and F. Environmental Protection Procedures (Title 19) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT The property has a Residential Medium High (RMH) General Plan Land Use designation that allows the development of low rise condominium projects that range in density from 8 to 15 du/acre with an 11.5 du/acre growth management control point. The project will include 35 detached condominium units developed at a density of 8.3 dwelling units per net acre, therefore, the project is consistent with the allowed density and land use designation of the General Plan. HOUSING ELEMENT Pursuant to Housing Element Policy 3.6.b (15% Inclusionary Housing Requirement), this project is required to provide 15% of it's total units (35 units x .15 = 5 .25 units) as affordable to lower income households. Consistent with this policy, the project will provide 5 condominium units which are affordable to lower income households. The remaining one-quarter unit inclusionary housing requirement will be satisfied through the payment of an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee to the City. All of the 5 affordable condominium units will have 4 bedrooms, thereby helping the City to achieve it's large family housing policy objective (Housing Element Policy 3.2). B. CALA VERA HILLS MASTER PLAN lS0(G) The Calavera Hills Master Plan designates the Residential Density-Multiple Zone (RD-M) of the City's Zoning Ordinance as the implementing zone for development standards in Village "L-1". A Condominium Permit is being processed as part of this application and Section 21.45.020(a) of the Planned Development Ordinance requires that the project meet the standards of the underlying zone unless otherwise modified by the Condominium Permit. This project would comply with the standards of the RD-M zone as follows: ~ CT 97-04/CP 97-02/SDP '03-CALA VERA HILLS VILLAGE~ November 5, 1997 Pa e4 STANDARD REQUIRED Lot Size 3,500 sq. ft. Lot Coverage 60%max. Front Yard Setback (Hal\1/ich Drive) 10-20 ft. Street Side Yard Setback (Edgeware Way) 5-10 ft. Side Yard Setback 5 ft. Rear Yard Setback 10 ft. Building Height 35 ft. PROPOSED 2,780 -5,540 sq. ft. 16% ll-30ft. 10-25 ft. 10 ft. 235 ft. 25 ft. With the exception of required :minimum lot size, the proposed project complies with the requirements of the Calavera Hills Master Plan as discussed below. See discussion within subsection C.2 of this report regarding minimum lot size standards modification request. 1) The Calavera Hills Master Plan allows multiple family development types within Village "L-1 ". In that the Master Plan defines single family detached units as a "multiple family" development type, the proposed detached single family condominium units are a permitted use within Village "L-1". 2) The proposed project has been clustered adjacent to Harwich Drive and the steep, natural coastal sage covered slopes located in the western and northwestern area of the property have been placed into an open space easement to the City for their protection as required by the master plan. This open space easement will be maintained by the project homeowner' s association. C. CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 21 1. CHAPTER 21.45 -PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE A Condominium Permit is being processed along with a Tentative Map in order to allow common ownership of the private streets and open space and to provide a method of approving 35 air space detached condominium units. Residential condominiums are subject to the requirements of the Planned Development Ordinance. As discussed above, the development of this site with 35 detached condominium units (8.3 du/acre) is consistent with the Residential Medium High (RMH 8-15 du/acre and 11.5 du/acre Growth Management Control Point) land use designation and Calavera Hills Master Plan. This condominium use would also_ be compatible with surrounding duplex and multiple family uses. The detached condominium units would be developed around a private loop street that is landscaped with a combination of trees, ground cover and shrubs and enhanced with textured paving material at the project entryway. The condominium units would each have fenced exclusive use rear and side yard areas (minimum area of 480 SF). A 3500 square foot common active recreation area containing a practice basketball court and a tot-lot would also be provided in the center of the project. Each unit would have an attached two-car garage with internal access. Recreational Vehicle parking for this project would be provided at the existing 2.5 acre ~ CT 97-04/CP 97-02/SDP .03-CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE_,, November 5, 1997 Pae 5 Calavera Hills R.V. storage site which is located along Tamarack Ave. Although not a requirement for detached air-space condominium units, the project nevertheless complies with the City's small lot architectural guidelines. When a Condominium Permit is required, the Planned Development Ordinance has a separate set of requirements in addition to the Master Plan requirements. This condominium project (35 detached air-space units on a single lot) was reviewed relative to the Planned Unit Development standards which are applicable to small lot single family dwellings because of it's similarity to such use type. The proposed project complies with the requirements of the Planned Development Ordinance as follows: STANDARD REQUIREMENT PROVIDED Street Width 30 feet 24 feet** Front Yard Setback 15 foot Average and IO foot 15.6 foot Average and 10 foot Minimum Minimum Garage Door Setback 20 feet 18 feet** Rear Yard 15' X 15' Minimum U seable Yard 15' X 15' Minimum Rear Yard Area Side Yard Setback 5 Foot Minimum 5 Foot Minimum Recreation Area 200 sq. ft./unit Common Active 3500 sq. ft. Private Passive 15' X 15' Rear Yard R.V. Storage 20 sq. ft./unit (700 sq. ft.) Provided in the Master Plan R.V. Storage Area Storage Space 480 cu. ft./unit Storage Provided in 2 Car Garages Parking Resident -2 Covered Spaces/Unit 2 Car Garage/Unit Guest -12 Spaces 12 Guest Spaces Minimum Lot Size 3,500 sq. ft. Average 3,500 sq. ft. Range form 2,780 sq. ft. -5,540 sq. ft. ** The proposed 24 foot wide private streets, 18 foot garage door setbacks, and lot sizes do not meet the standards as discussed below. 2. CHAPTER 21.53, SECTION 21.53.120 -SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Calavera Hills Master Plan requires project compliance with the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (Chapter 21.85 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code). Therefore, 15% (5 du) of the total number of units in Village L-1 would be required to be restricted as affordable to lower-income households. Chapter 21.53 of the Zoning ordinance requires the approval of a Site Development Plan for affordable housing projects of any size. The required findings, include consistency with the General Plan goals and policies ( discussed previously in this report), adequacy of the site and street system, and a determination that the affordable units are compatible with surrounding uses, and will not adversely impact the site or surrounding areas ( discussed below). ' CT 97-04/CP 97-02/SDP •3-CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE L' November 5, 1997 Pae 6 This project would have 35 residential units of which 15%, or 5 units, are designated as affordable to lower-income households. The proposed project does not meet the Planned Development Ordinance's 30 foot standard for the minimum width of a private street/driveway the 20 foot setback standard for garages facing private streets or the minimum 3,500 square foot lot size. The project proposes 24 foot wide private streets, minimum 18 foot garage setbacks and lot sizes ranging between 2,780 square feet to 5,540 square feet. The previous affordable housing project approval on this site (SDP 92-05) did similarly include 24 foot wide private driveways and the proposed 18 foot garage setback would be adequate to accommodate a parked automobile within the driveway. In order to provide affordable housing in this project, the applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission approve these standards modifications pursuant to Section 21.53.120(c) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. Section 21.53.120(c) allows a Site Development Plan for an affordable housing project to have less restrictive development standards than specified in the zone code or underlying zone if the project is in conformance with the General Plan and would not have a detrimental effect on public health, safety and welfare. For the reasons discussed below, this finding and the other above-noted findings can be made: a. This project is consistent with the General Plan and the Calavera Hills Master Plan as explained in Section A of this report. The project would not have a significant impact on the environment as discussed below in Section F of this report. b. The proposed two story detached residential units would be compatible with the surrounding residential development. The proposed detached single family condominium land use would be visually and operationally less intensive, and therefore, compatible with the duplex condominiums to the north and the multi- family units to the west. An 11 to 30 foot building setback from Harwich Drive in association with the construction of a masonry wall with landscaping along Harwich Drive and Edgeware Way would provide an adequate buffer between this project and the public streets. c. The design of the project is creative and aesthetically sensitive in that: 1. All elevations of the detached residential condominium units include considerable facade articulation, single story elements, varied rooflines and sufficient architectural accent features and building forms to provide pedestrian scale and visual interest both from the private streets within the project and the perimeter public streets. 11. The front yard and street side setbacks would be landscaped with a combination of trees and shrubs to partially screen the residential structures from the public streets. d. The proposed 3 5 residential units would be accommodated on the existing level areas of the property without encroaching into the steep coastal sage covered slopes located in the western portion of the site. , CT 97-04/CP 97-02/SDP '-03-CALA VERA HILLS VILLAGE L' November 5, 1997 Pae 7 e. The project would provide adequate onsite parking and circulation to serve the needs of the residents and their guests, and it would not impact the availability of offsite street parking. f. Sidewalks and drainage facilities would be provided along the project's street frontages to serve the project. g. The existing Planned Development Ordinance requires at a minimum 30 foot wide private streets/driveways, however, the proposed 24 foot wide private street would be adequate to provide safe and efficient traffic circulation, vehicle turn movements and emergency access. The City's Parking Ordinance requires a minimum standard width of 24 feet for a two-way traffic aisle containing 90 degree parking on both sides. A 24 foot wide driveway aisle provides adequate separation and distance for vehicles backing out of garages and guest parking spaces and adequate separation for two-way traffic. Prior to January, 1987 the City's Planned Development Ordinance permitted 24 foot wide private streets/driveways in Residential Planned Unit Developments. Under this old ordinance, the existing multi-family projects surrounding Village L-1 in Calavera Hills were developed with 24 foot wide private streets/driveways. Based on these neighboring residential developments, the 24 foot wide driveways have been proven functional and historically have not resulted in traffic circulation and public safety problems. h. The existing Planned Development Ordinance requires that garages with entries that face directly onto a public or private street shall maintain a minimum setback of 20 feet. This 20 foot minimum garage setback standard ensures that resident or guest vehicles which are parked in such driveways do not encroach into the right- of-way of the fronting public or private street. However, based upon the fact that the average motor vehicle (excluding recreational vehicles) measures between 15 feet and 17 feet in length, the proposed minimum 18 foot garage setback would be adequate to allow for the typical resident or guest motor vehicle to be parked in the driveway without encroaching into the private streets or sidewalks. Additionally, all of the project units which have less than a 20 foot front yard garage setback shall be conditioned to be equipped with roll-up garage doors and garage door openers and a condition has been included which requires the project CC&Rs to include a provision which requires that all resident vehicles be parked within the garage unless more than 2 vehicles are owned by the resident. In this situation, the other vehicles may be parked in the driveway. i. Adequate primary and secondary emergency access is provided from Edgeware Way and a utility easement off of Harwich Drive respectively. The 24 foot private street is wide enough to accommodate emergency vehicles, and the project would be conditioned to prohibit parallel parking along this central access way. The project has been reviewed and approved by the Fire Department. CT 97-04ICP 97-02ISDP '03-CALA VERA HILLS VILLAGE~ November 5, 1997 Pae 8 J. This project proposes exclusive use areas (lots) which average 3,500 square feet in area but do not comply with the 3,500 square foot minimum lot size. However, this reduced lot size will not result in any impacts to public health, safety and welfare and will accomplish the General Plan (Housing Element) objective of providing a diversity of housing types for lower-income households. D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 7 in the Northeast Quadrant of the City. The impacts on public facilities created by this project and compliance with·the adopted performance standards are summarized as follows: FACILITY .. IMPACTS COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS City Administration 121. 7 square feet Yes Library 64.9 square feet Yes Waste Water Treatment 35EDU Yes Parks .24 acres Yes Drainage NIA Yes Circulation 350 ADT Yes Fire Station# 3 Yes Open Space NIA Yes Schools CUSD Yes Sewer Collection System 35EDU Yes Water Distribution System 7,700 GPD Yes This project is 45 dwelling units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance for the planning area. Based on the constraints analysis in the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 7, Village L-1 was allocated 80 dwelling units. Since this project would develop only 35 units, there would be an additional 45 units available for the City's Bank of Excess Dwelling Units in the Northeast Quadrant. E. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE The proposed Tentative Map would comply with all the requirements of the City's Subdivision Ordinance, Title 20. Adequate drainage would be provided with Edgeware Way and the entire lot draining into an existing storm drain that flows north through the project. The project grading to create building pads and private streets would be balanced on-site and consists of 6,100 cubic yards of cut and 6,100 cubic yards of fill. All required public street improvements are existing along Harwich Drive and paving, curb, gutter and sidewalk would be provided along Edgeware Way. Access to the residences would be provided by a 24 foot wide private street containing one ingress and egress point onto Edgeware Way and an additional gated emergency access off of Harwich Drive. ' CT 97-04/CP 97-02/SDP 913-CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE L, November 5, 1997 Pae 9 V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project will be located on a property that has been rough graded into a relatively level pad consistent with a previous discretionary approval (CT 85-30). This previously graded pad contains no sensitive vegetation, wildlife or cultural resources. The western 1/3 of the property is comprised of steep slopes which are vegetated with coastal sage scrub habitat. This area of the property is however located within an existing open space easement and will not be impacted by the project. This finding ofno project impact has been verified through surveys of the property by staff, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish and Game. Based upon the EIA Part II "Initial Study" for the project and the above-noted site surveys, it is concluded that this proposed 35 unit residential project will not create any additional impacts that have not been previously analyzed adequately in the City's General Plan Update EIR (MEIR 93-01 ). Therefore, the Planning Director issued a Notice of Prior Compliance for the project on July 25, 1997. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4181 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4182 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4183 4. Location Map 5. Background Data Sheet 6. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form 7. Disclosure Form 8. Prior Environmental Compliance 9. Environmental Impact Assessment Form -Part II 10. Reduced Exhibits 11. Exhibits "A" -"Q", dated November 5, 1997. CD:kr - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE L-1 CT 97-04/CP 97-02/SDP 97-03 CASE NO: -BACKGROUND DATA SHEET- CT 97-04/CP 97-02/SDP 97-03 CASE NAME: CALA VERA HILLS VILLAGE L-1 APPLICANT: CL URMAN COMP ANY INC. REQUEST AND LOCATION: 35 single family condominium units on the NW comer of Harwich Drive and Edgeware Way LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1 of Carlsbad Tract 85-30, in the City of Carlsbad, according to Map 11826, recorded May 29, 1987. APN: 167-554-01 Acres: __§_J_ Proposed No. of Lots/Units: ---'1::.:../=35:c...-.. _______ _ GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: ---'RM==H=------------------------- Density Allowed: 8-15 du/ac Density Proposed: _""""8""".3;......=du/==a-'-c _______ _ Existing Zone: _____ P ___ C __________ Proposed Zone: --P_C __________ _ Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: (See attached for information on Carlsbad's Zoning Requirements) Zoning Land Use Site PC Vacant North PC Duplex Multi Family South PC Vacant East PC Vacant West PC Multi Family PUBLIC FACILITIES School District: Carlsbad Water District: Carlsbad Sewer District: Carlsbad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): -=3:::...5 _______________ _ Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated: ---"'M=ar=c=h-"'6-'--"-'19'--"9'--'-7 ____________ _ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT D Negative Declaration, issued ____________________ _ D Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated ______________ _ ~ Other, Notice of Prior Compliance -July 25, 1997 CITY OF CARLSBAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM (To be Submitted with Development Application) PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE L-1 CT 97-04/CP 97-02/SDP 97-03 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 1 GENERAL PLAN: =RM=H,.___ _____ _ ZONING: =--P-=C _________________________ _ DEVELOPER'S NAME: CLURMAN COMPANY, INC ADDRESS: 455 LINDEN STREET, LAGUNA BEACH, CA., 92651 PHONE NO.: (714)494-3707 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: ..:e...16=7__,-5=5;...:.4-....::::0~1 ______ _ QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): =35c....:d=u=------- ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: ________________ _ A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage= -""12=1:::....:.. 7-'------ Library: Demand in Square Footage= =64..:...:·.::...9 ____ _ Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) Park: Drainage: Demand in Acreage = Demand in CFS = 35EDU 0.24 NIA Identify Drainage Basin =N ::...:.:.::.I A-=------- (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) Circulation: Demand in ADTs = 350 (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) Fire: Served by Fire Station No.= 3 Open Space: Acreage Provided = NIA Schools: CUSD (Demands to be determined by staff) Sewer: Demands in EDUs 35EDU Identify Sub Basin = NIA (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) Water: Demand in GPD = 7 700 L. The project is 45 units below the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance. -City of -Carlsbad ■ #J t%i ,i ■ll ,t-■ •1§-i= i,;, .j§ .\I DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission or Committee. The following information must be disclosed: 1 . APPLICANT List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. THE CLURMAN COMPANY, INC. DONALDS. CLURMAN A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION KENNETH M. KAPLAN 455 LINDEN STREET LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 2. OWNER List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. SAME AS ABOVE 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names and addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. THE CLURMAN COMPANY, INC. DONALDS. CLURMAN 4. If any person identified pursuant to ( 1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of any person serving as officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary_ of the trust. N/A 2075 Las Palmas Dr.• Carlsbad. CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894 5. Have you had m.e than $250 worth of business tra!cted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months? D Yes ~No If yes, please indicate person(s) : ___________ _ Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, assoc1at1on, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city and county, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit." NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. X rtil--. Al- Signature of owner/date Signature of applicant/date DONALDS. CLURMAN DONALDS. CLURMAN Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant Disclosure Statement 10/96 Page 2 of 2 --City of Carlsbad ■@61,1 ,Ii ,i· 1 •24·ki4 i, ,t§O I PUBLIC NOTICE OF PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE Please Take Notice: The Planning Department has determined that the environmental effects of the project described below have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and, therefore, no additional environmental review will be required and a notice of determination will be filed. Project Title: Calavera Hills Village L-1 Project Location: The project is located on the northwest corner of Harwich Drive and Edgeware Way. Project Description: The development of 35 single family detached condominium units on a level 6.28 acre infill site. Justification for this determination is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date of publication. DATED: JULY 25, 1997 CASE NO: CT 97-04/CP 97-02/SDP 97-03 CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE L-1 PUBLISH DATE: JULY 25, 1997 MriiAELJ.HLZER Planning Director 2075 Las Palmas Dr.• Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 • (619) 438-1161 • FAX (619) 438-0894 - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM-PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) BACKGROUND CASE NO: CT 97-04/CP 97-02/SDP 97-03 DATE: July 17, 1997 1. CASE NAME: CALA VERA HILLS VILLAGE L-1 2. APPLICANT: Clurman Company, Inc. 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 455 Linden Street, Laguna Beach, California 92651, (714) 494-3707 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: March 6 1997 ------------------ 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The development of 35 single family detached condominium units (including 5 affordable units) on a level 6.28 acre lot which is located on the northwest corner of Harwich Drive and Edgeware Way. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. D Land Use and Planning D Population and Housing D Geological Problems D Water [XI Air Quality [XI Transportation/Circulation D Biological Resources D Public Services D Utilities & Service Systems D Energy & Mineral Resources D Aesthetics D Hazards D Noise D Cultural Resources D Recreation D Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 -DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) D I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DE CLARA TI ON will be prepared. D I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. D I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. IZJ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environmental Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01), including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Piin.ner Signature Date Pl~ Date 2 Rev. 03/28/96 --ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A ''No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. · • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately iri an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 -- • If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 - Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (#1:Pgs 5.6-1 -?-6-18) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#1:Pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#1:Pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations ( e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (#1:Pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (#1:Pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (# 1 :Pgs 5.5-1 -5.5-6) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (# I :Pgs 5 .5-1 - 5.5-6) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#1:Pgs 5.5-1 -5.5-6) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#1:Pgs 5.1-1-5.1-15) b) Seismic ground shaking? ((#1:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ((#1:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1.15) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#1:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) e) Landslides ormudflows? (#1:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15) t) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from exc~vation, grading, or fill? (# I :Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15) g) Subsidence of the land? (#1:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.l-15) h) Expansive soils? (#1:Pgs 5.1-1-5.1-15) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#1:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#1:Pgs 5.2-1 -5 .. 2- 11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ((#1:Pgs 5.2-1 -5 . .2-11) 5 Potentially Significant Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □. □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Rev. 03/28/96 -Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ((#1 :Pgs 5.2-1 -5 .. 2-11) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ((#1:Pgs 5.2-1 -5 .. 2-11) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ((#1:Pgs 5.2-1 -5 .. 2-11) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ((#1:Pgs 5.2-1 -5 .. 2-11) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ((#l:Pgs5.2-l-5 .. 2-ll) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ((#1:Pgs 5.2-1 -5 .. 2- 11) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ((#1:Pgs 5.2-1 -5 .. 2-11) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#1 :Pgs 5.3- 1 -5.3-12) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#1:Pgs 5.3-1 -5.3-12) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ((#1:Pgs 5.3-1 -5.3-12) d) Create objectionable odors? ((# 1 :Pgs 5.3-1 -5.3-12) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (# l :Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#1:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#1:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#1:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#1:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#1:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#1:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) 6 Potentially Significant Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ -Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Less Than. No Significan Impact t Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Rev. 03/28/96 -Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (#1:Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24) b) Locally designated . species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#1 :Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24) c) Locally designated natural communities ( e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#1:Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (#1 :Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#I :Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24) VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#1:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 -5.13-9) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#1:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- 1 -5.13-9) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (#1:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 -5.13-9) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (#1:Pgs 5.10.l-l -5.10.1-5) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#1:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-:5) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (#1:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-5) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#1:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-5) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (#1 :Pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-5) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#1 :Pgs 5.9-1 -5.9- 15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#1:Pgs 5.9- l -5.9-15) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#1 :Pgs 5. 12.5-1 -5.12.5-6) b) Police protection? (#1 :Pgs 5.12.6-1 -5. 12.6-4) 7 Potentially Significant Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ -Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Less Than Significan t Impact □ □ ·D □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ No Impact Rev. 03/28/96 -Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Schools? (#1:Pgs 5.12.7.1 -5.12.7-5) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (I, pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.8-7) e) Other governmental services? (#1:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (#1:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 -5.13-9) b) Communications systems? (#1; pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.8-7) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#1:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -5.12.3-7) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#1:Pgs 5.12.3-1 -5.12.3-7) e) Storm water drainage? (#1:Pg 5.2-8) f) Solid waste disposal? (#1:Pgs 5.12.4-1 -5.12.4-3) g) Local or regional water supplies? (#1:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#1:Pgs 5.11-1 -5.11-5) b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? ( # 1 :Pgs 5.11-1 -5.11-5) c) Create light or glare? (#1 :Pgs 5.11-1 -5.11-5) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (# I :Pgs 5.8-1 -5.8- 10) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#1:Pgs 5.8-1 -5.8- 10) c) Affect historical resources? (#1 :Pgs 5.8-1 -5.8-10) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#1:Pgs 5.8-1 -5.8-10) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#1:Pgs 5.8-1 -5.8-10) XV.RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#I :Pgs 5. 12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (# 1 :Pgs 5.12.8-1 -5.12.8-7) 8 Potentially Significant Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □· □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ -Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Less Than Significan t Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ No Impact Rev. 03/28/96 • e -Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the □ □ □ ~ quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually □ □ □ limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will □ □ □ cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis of this proposed 35 unit condominium project has been completed through the General Plan Update (GPA 94-01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01) . The MEIR is cited as source #1 in the preceding checklist. This proposal is consistent with the applicable portions of the General Plan and is considered a Subsequent Project that was described in MEIR 93-01 as within its scope. There will be no additional significant impacts due to this development that were not analyzed in the MEIR and no new or additional mitigation measures or alternatives are required. This Subsequent Project is, therefore, within the scope of the prior MEIR and no new environmental document nor Public Resources Code 21081 findings are required. All feasible mitigation measures identified in MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this Subsequent Project have been incorporated into this project. 9 Rev. 03/28/96 • -- DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This project is located at the northwest corner of Harwich Drive and Edgeware Way and entails the further subdivision of a 6.28 acre parcel into 35 two-story single family detached (zero lot line) condominium units. The project's grading would be balanc·ed on-site and would consist of 8100 cubic yards of cut and fill on this relatively level infill lot that has been previously rough graded. Public street improvements have been constructed along Harwich Drive and Edgeware Way has been graded but paving, curb, gutter and sidewalks have not as yet been constructed. The site is designated RMH (8-15 du/ac) which would allow for the development of detached single family or multiple family units and is adjacent to a two-story residential duplex development to the north, vacant residentially designated land to the south and east and open space to the west. Approximately 1.7 acres located within the western 1/3 of the project site is vegetated with coastal sage scrub habitat. This habitat is however located within an existing open space easement and will not be impacted by this project. II. B. ENVIRONMENT AL ANALYSIS Environmental Impact Discussion Air Quality , The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City 10 Rev. 03/28/96 • -.. Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. Transportation/Circulation The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. · To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact''. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resoluti~n No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. III. EARLIER ANALYSES USED The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009, (760) 438-1161, extension 4471. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 • CT 97-04/CP 97-02/SDP 97-03 + SHEET 2 OF 2 CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE CARLSBAD, CA. OCT. 23, 1997 • STREET SCENE THE CLURMAN CO. TCA#97048 • - COLORFD ALU1UNUM WINDOW +---t--H-\1~1 FRAMf-~ REAR ELEV A TION CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE LErT SIDE ELEVATION CARLSBAD, CA. OCT. 23, 1997 rRONT ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION THE CLURMAN CO. TCA#97048 PLAN1 • r • - • a ,, ~ / LEFT SIDE ELEVATION ( ZERO LOT LINE) REAR ELEV ATJON CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE PAINTED OR STAJNCD WOOD TRIM PAINTED WOOD GARAGr. DOOR 2COATPI.A'iTFRFINISII [lm ELEVATIONS FRONT ELEVATION PLAN2 RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION CARLSBAD, CA. OCT. 23, 1997 THE CLURMAN CO. TCA#97O48 • - - I.EFT SIDE ELEVATION ( ZERO LOT LINE) WROUGHT IRON RAILING REAR ELEV A TION CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE Pl..ASTCR ON MOLDfD PLANT-ON - WROUGIIT IRON POTHOI.DF.RS-~~11.----~ 2 COATPLASTTR nNJC,11 -----4:~iW,,~-J-➔ PAINTFD WOOD GARAGr D00 .. ¼ FRONT Elf>VATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION, CARLSBAD, CA. ocr. 23, 1997 • '¥ ELEVATIONS iHE CLURMAN CO. iCA #97048 PLANB -