The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 01-01; Calavera Hills Village L-2; Tentative Map (CT)City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 Applicant: CALAVERA HILLS II L L C Description CT010001 Amount 7727 10/01/02 0002 01 02 CGP 119=14 119.14 Receipt Number: R0030007 Transaction Date: 10/01/2002 Pay Type Method' Description Amount Payment Check 51203 119.14 Transaction Amount: 119.14 CITY OF CARLSBAD LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOR: (CHECK BOXES) (FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY) (FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY) • Administrative Permit - 2ncl Dwelling Unit • Planned Industrial Permit • Administrative Variance • Planning Commission Determination • Coastal Deveiopment Permit • Precise Development Plan • Conditional Use Permit • Redevelopment Permit • Condominium Permit • Site Development Plan • Environmental Impact Assessment • Special Use Permit • General Plan Amendment • Specific Plan • Hillside Development Permit • Tentative Porcel Mop Obtain from Engineering Department • Local Coastal Plan Amendment Tentative Tract Map • Master Plan • Variance • Non-Residential Planned Development • Zone Change Planned Development Permit • List other applications not specified 2) ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(S).: 168-28CM9 3) PROJECT NAME: gp T-? 4) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: A sangLe famay residential pcoject. 5) OWNER NAME (Print or Type) • Cypress Valley L.L.C 6) APPLICANT NAME (Print or Type) Cypress Valley L.L.C. MAILING ADDRESS 2727 Hoover Avenue MAILING ADDRESS 2727 Hoover Avenue CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE National City CA 91950 (619) 336-3735 CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE National City CA 91950 (619 336-3735 1 CERTIFY THAT 1 AM TME LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. 1 CERTIFY THAT 1 AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. SIGNATURE / " DATE "SIGNATURE / DATE 7) BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION The RenHinder I^roel ^ch lies northerly of Tknarack Avenue as §ncm. cn Carmsd Tta=t ND. 83-32, Calavera Hills Villpffi Q, tfep thereof Nb. 12950, filed 7-16-1992. NOTE: A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 3:30 P.M. A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING ONLY ONE APPLICATION BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 4:00 P.M. Form 16 PAGE 1 OF 2 LOCATION OF PROJECT ON THE BETWEEN Calavera Hills Village L-2 West STREET ADDRESS SIDE OF Cay Drive (NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST) (NAME Or STREETI Tamarack Avenue AND (NAME OF STREET) Harwich Drive (NAME OF STREET) 9) LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 10) PROPOSED NUMBER'OF LOTS Spvpn 13) TYPE OF SUBDIVISION 16) PERCENTAGE OF PROPOSED PROJECT IN OPEN SPACE 19) GROSS SITE ACREAGE 22) EXISTING ZONING 18 Res 29% 6.2 P-C 11) NUMBER OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL UNITS 14) PROPOSED IND OFFICE/ SQUARE FOOTAGE 17) PROPOSED INCREASE 'IN ADT 20) EXISTING GENERAL PLAN 23) PROPOSED ZONING Zero Zero 150 RIU N/A 12) PROPOSED NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS 1 5) PROPOSED COMM SQUARE FOOTAGE 18) PROPOSED SEWER USAGE IN EDU 21) PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION 15 Zerc 15 N/A 24) IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMEBERS OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INSPECT AND ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. I/WE CONSENT NTRY FOR THIS PURPOSE T^_^NTR' SIGNATURE FOR CITY USE ONLY FEE COMPUTATION APPLICATION TYPE TOTAL FEE REQUIRED FEE REQUIRED [1 ,5LeO RECEIVED FES 0 1 2001 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT. DATE STAMP APPLICATION RECEIVED RECEIVED BY: DATE FEE PAID a - \ - O I RECEIPT NO. Form 1 6 PAGE 2 OF 2 City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008 Applicant: CALAVERA HILLS II L L C Set Id: S000000543 Description CTOlOOOl PUD01004 Total ^^^'^^ 0462 02/01/01 0002 01 02 ^^r. r.r. CGF" 12360-00 7,360.00 5,000.00 12,360.00 Receipt Number: R0018165 Transaction Date: 02/01/2001 Pay Type Method Description Amount Payment Payment Check Check 29772 50378 11,330.00 1,030.00 Transaction Amount: 12,360.00 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/EXPLANATiON PROJECT NAME: Calavera Hills Village L-2 APPUCANTNAME: Cypress Valley L.L.C. Please describe fully the proposed project by appiication type. Include any details necessary to adequately explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project. You may also include any background information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for, or appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if necessary. Description/Explanation: The proposed project is a single family detached resideiitial development, with 15 dwelling units, located in what is commonly referred to as Calavera Hills Planning Area L-2. The site is approximately 6.2 acres in size, and 29% of the site is proposed to remain in open space. This open space area will provide an important linkage for the Carlsbad HMP, in addition to adding aesthetic qualities for the development. The proposed dwelling units will range in size from approximately 1,925 to 2,275 SF, and will be two stories in height. The proposed project includes applications for a Tentative Tract Map and a Planned Development Permit, and is in compliance with Calavera Hills Master Plan MP-150 (H). Project Description 10/96 Page 1 of 1 City of Carlsbad Planning Department 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 Comminee. The foilowing information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is compieted. Please print. Note: Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and count)', city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit." Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property' owner miist be provided below. 1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO . INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON- APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiciv-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Cypress Valley, LLC _^ Persona California limited— Corp/Part Title liat)ility company Title____ 2727 Hoover Avenue . jj Address NationCity, CA 919.^0 Address OWNER (Not the owner's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e, partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership inciudes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of ail individuals owning more than 10% ofthe shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a pubiiciv- owned corporation, inciude the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) McMillin Companies, LLC Brookfield Calavera Inc. Person a Delaware limited Corp/Part a California corporation liability company ^^i ^ ^ Y\\\t ' tr- .1 Title / Brookfield Homes 2 72 7 Hoover Avenue Address National City, CA 91950 Address. iZBbb Pointe Del Mar, Ste, npl Mar. CA 9-^ni 4 200 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894 ® NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION OR TRUST ^ If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer, or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary of the. N/A Non Profit/Trust Title Non Profit/Trust_ Title Address Address 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff. Boards. Commissions, Committees and/or Councii within the past twelve (12) months? I I Yes ^ No If yes, piease indicate person(s):. NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. 1 certify that al! the above information is true and correct to the best of my l<nowiedge. Signature of owner/^te Print or type name of owner Signature of applicant/iMte 7^a/»/ /ro^^c Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/applicant's agent if applicable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEIVIENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2 o o City of Carlsbad Planning Department 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 at the time of application submittal. Your project cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Flease print. Note: Person is defmed as "Any individual, finn, co-partnership, joiat venture, association, social club, firatemal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and coimty, city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a tmit." Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner must be provided below. 1. APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent) Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a financial interest in the apphcation. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, adi-esses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON- APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW If a publiclv-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person Corp/Part Calavera Hills I! L.L.C. Title Title Address ; Address 2727 Hoover Ave. National City CA 91950 2. OWNER (Not the owner's agent) . Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal ownership (i.e, partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the ownership includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, title, addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% ofthe shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publiclv- owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if necessary.) Person Corp/Part Calavera Hills II L.L.C. Title Title Address Address 2727 Hoover Ave. National City CA 91950 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 NON-PROFI TO GANIZATION OR TRUST If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a nonprofit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses of ANY person serving as an officer or director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary ofthe. Non Profit/Trust Title Address Non ProfitTrust_ Title Address Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within fhe past twelve (12) months? • Yes XX| No If yes, please indicate person(s):_ NOTE: Attach additional sheets if necessary. I certify that all the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature o^^wner/date Signature of applicant/date Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant Signature of owner/appUcant's agent if apphcable/date Print or type name of owner/applicant's agent H:ADMIN\COUNTER\DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2 SITE CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE L-2 CT 01-01/PUD 01-04 PRQJECT DESCRIPTION/EXPLANATION PROJECTNAME: Calavera Hills Villaqe L-2 APPUCANTNAME: Calavera Hills II L.L.C. Please describe fully the proposed project by application type. Include any details necessary to adequately explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project. You may also mclude any background information and supporting statements regarding the reasons for, or appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if necessary. Description/Explanation: The proposed project is a single family detached residential development, with 14 dwelling units, located in what is commonly referred to as Calavera Hills Village L-2. The site is approximately 6.2 acres in size, and 29% of the site is proposed to remain in open space. This open space area will provide an important linkage for the Carlsbad HMP, in addition to adding aesthetic qualities for the development. The proposed dwelling units will range in size from approximately 2,058 to 3,300 square feet, including garages. The proposed project includes applications for a Tentative Tract Map and a Plarmed Development Permit, and is in compliance with Calavera Hills Master Plan MP-150 (H), approved January 15,2002 (Ordinance No. NS-616). The existing zoning is PC, the existing General Plan designation is RLM; no change in zoning or General Plan is proposed. STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP CITY OF CARLSBAD The Subdivision Map Act and the Carlsbad Municipal Code sets a fifty (50) day time restriction on Plamiing Commission processing of Tentative Maps and a thirty (30) day time limit for City Council action. These time limits can only be extended by the mutual concurrence of the applicant and the City. By accepting applications for Tentative Maps concurrently with applications for other approvals which are prerequisites to the map; i.e., Environmental Assessment, Environmental Impact Report, Condominium Plan, Planned Unit Development, etc., the fifty (50) day time limits and the thirty (30) day time limits are often exceeded. If you wish to have your application processed concurrently, this agreement must be signed by the applicant or his agent. If you choose not to sign the statement, the City will not accept your application for the Tentative Map until all prior necessary entitlements have been processed and approved. The undersigned understands that the processing time required by the City may exceed the time limits, therefore the undersigned agrees to extend the time liniits for Planning Commission and City Cotmcil action and fully concurs with any extensions of time up to one year fi-om the date the application was accepted as complete to properly review all ofthe applications. Signature j^p. [ Date 1^0 hi M'T2^/te^C (3uyf^^/^ Name (Print) Relationship to Application (Property Owner-Agent) FRM0037 2/96 3 Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the Planning Commission of the City of Carisbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carisbad Village Drive, Carisbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 16, 2002, to consider a request for a Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map (CT), and Planned Unit Development permit (PUD) to allow the subdivision and construction of a 14-unit single-family development within Village L-2 of the Calavera Hills Master Plan, on property generally located north of Tamarack Avenue and west of Cay Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 7 and more particulariy described as: Portion of Lots "D" and "J" of the Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the City of Carisbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map 823, filed in the Office of the San Diego County Recorder on November 16,1896 Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the staff report will be available on and after October 10, 2002. If you have any questions, please call Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4608. The time within which you may judicially challenge this Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development permit, if approved, is established by state law and/or city ordinance, and is very short. If you challenge the Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carisbad at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: CT 01-01/PUD 01-04 CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE L-2 PUBLISH: OCTOBER 3, 2002 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us SITE CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE L-2 CT 01-01/PUD 01-04 PROOF OF PUBLIC HON (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of This space is f the County Clerk's Filing Stamp North County Times Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of Califomia, for the County of San Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: YEAR: 2002 i(;(aH I certify (or declare) under penalty of peijury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at SAN MARCOS, Califomia Proof of Publication of NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: Village L-2 within the Calavera Hills Master Plan, generally located northwest of the Col-lege Boulevard/Carlsbad Village Drive Intersection Project Description: 14 single-family detached homes consistent with the CalaveruT-lills Master Plan. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above-described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation ot the Galifornia Environ-mental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Or-dinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a resuft of said re-view, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive docu-ments is on file in the Planning Department. 1635 Fara-day Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Eric Munoz in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4608. DATED: JUNE 24. 2002 CASE NO: GT 01-01/PUD 01-04 CASE NAME: VILLAGE L-2/CALA VERA HILLS MAS-TER PLAN PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 24, 2002 /s/Michael J. Holzmiller Planning Director NCT1366312 this 16TH day of JULY, 2002 Signature NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Address/Location: Project Description: Village L-2 within the Calavera Hills Master Plan, generally located northwest ofthe College Boulevard/Carlsbad Village Drive intersection 14 single-family detached homes consistent with the Calavera Hills Master Plan. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above-described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Califomia Enviromnental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, Califomia 92008. Comments fi-om the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Eric Munoz in the Plaiming Department at (760) 602-4608. DATED: CASENO: JUNE 24, 2002 CT 01-01/PUD 01-04 CASE NAME: VILLAGE L-2/CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 24,2002 MICHAEL J. HOLZMirLER Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I CASE NO: DATE RECEIVED: (To be complete by staff) BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. CASE NAME: Calavera Hills Village L-2 APPLICANT: Calavera Hills II, LLC ADDRESS mo PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICAJ^: Calavera Hills II. LLC. c/o McMillin Companies; 2727 Hoover Avenue. National City, CA (619) 336-3735 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative subdivision map and planned unit development permit for 15 detached single family units to be located on 6.2 gross acres, located on the north side of Tamarack Avenue, to the north and east of the existing Carlsbad Municipal Water District water tank reservoir. The proposed project will involve construction of two-storv units on minimum 4,000 sq. ft. lots. Access to the subdivision is proposed off existing Cay Drive. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Please check any of the environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this project. This would be any environmental factor that has at ieast one impact checked "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the checklist on the following pages. X Land Use And Planning • Population and Housing • Geological Problems • Water X Air Quality X Transportation/Circulation X Biological Resources • Energy & Mineral Resources • Hazards • Noise • Public Services X Utilities & Services • Aesthetics X Cultural Resources • Recreation • Mandatory Findings of Significance 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 in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed 3 Rev. 03/28/96 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. • 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. • AJI 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. Rev. 03/28/96 issues (and Supporting information Sources): Potentially (Supplemental documents may be referred to and Significant attached) Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:, a) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact Conflict with generai pian designation or zoning? (The proposed project wiii confiict with the existing Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Calavera Hills Master Pian, however a Generai Plan Amendment and Master Pian Amendment is in process with the City of Carlsbd and is expected to be approved prior to consideration of the proposed project. In tiie event this General Plan Amendment is not adopted, the proposed project is not consistent with the General Pian, which is considered a significant environmentai impact. (#1. #2. #3) b) Confiict with applicable environmentai pians or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? The proposed project is inconsistent witli the existing Calavera Hills Master Pian, however this Master Pian is presentiy in process of modification. Upon its adoption, the proposed project wiil be consistent. Additionally, the proposed project is consistent with the City of Carisbad Draft Habitat Management Pian (HMP). Nonetheless, potentially significant environmental impacts to land use wiil resuit if mitigation is not included. (#3, #6) c) Be incompatible with existing iand use in the vicinity? (The proposed project is not anticipated to be incompatible with the surrounding residentiai iand uses in the area inasmuch as the most adjacent developed property is to the north, east and west, and the proposed project wiil be of a compatible density. (it1, #2, #3^ d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soiis or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible iand uses? (The proposed project wiii not have a significant impact on soiis or farmlands; the City's Final Master EIR and the Calavera Hiiis EIR anticipate and pian for urban development of the site. No agricultural operations exist or previously existed on the subject site in recent history; (#2, #3) X X X X Rev. 03/28/96 w issues (and Supporting information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attactied) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant impact No Impact e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (inciuding a low-income or minority community)? (Existing urban deveiop- ment occurs to the south of the proposed project, however the proposed project wiii not divide the physical arrangement of any established community. The project wiil indirectly add to the stoci< of affordable housing through implementation of a future affordable housing agreement with the City of Carisbad. (#1, #2, #3) X 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed officiai regional or local population projections? (The proposed project proposes no increase in regional or local population projections approved in conjunction with the City's Final Master EIR (#2, #3) X b) induce substantial growth in an area either directiy or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (The proposed singie family deveiopment of Viiiage L-2 involves development of a site completeiy surrounded by urban lands, and located near the intersection of two arterial roadways. No extensions of major infrastructure is proposed. Ail improvements proposed are adjacent to the subject property, or aiong its direct frontage.1 (#1, #2, #3) X c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (The proposed project site is presentiy undeveloped and wiil not displace any existing housing; (#2, #3) X GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Wouid the proposai result in or expose peopie to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (The proposed project is not located near active or potentially active faults. Standard engineering design and construction practices shouid mitigate potential impacts associated with earthqualces to a less than significant impact; (#2, #3, #11) Rev. 03/28/96 issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to attached) and Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Seismic ground shaking? (Seismic risk on the subject site is considered low. The proposed project wiil mitigate the effects of potential seismic ground shaking by foilowing aii pertinent State and Local buiiding codes for construction, including measures identified in the General Plan Public Safety Element Implementing Policies and Action Plans; (#2, #3, #11) c) Seismic ground faiiure, inciuding liquefaction? (The proposed project wiii mitigate the effects of potential seismic ground shaking by foliowing ail pertinent State and Local buiiding codes and standard regional engineering practices for design and construction as required in conjunction with the Carisbad Master EIR; (#2, #3, #11) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (The proposed project is not located in an area susceptible to seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard; (#2) e) Landslides or mudflows? (The proposed project is located on land considered in previous environmental documents as suitable for development, and will mitigate the potential for landslides and mudfiow on ttie site by grading in a manner consistent with the City's Grading Ordinance and as directed by the soiis report; (#2. #3, #11) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soii conditions from excavation, grading, or fiil? (The proposed project has been previously mass graded. As a result of its future deveiopment, it wiii mitigate the potential for erosion, changes in topography or unstable soii conditions on the site by grading in a manner consistent with the City's Grading Ordinance, and inciuding mitigation measures identified in the General Plan Public Safety Element Implementing Policies and Action Programs; (#1, #2, #11) g) Subsidence of the iand? (The previously-graded natural soiis stability onsite is considered generally good. Tlie proposed project wiil mitigate the potential for subsidence on the site by grading in a manner consistent with the City's Grading Ordinance and the recommendations set forth in the soils report; (#2, #3, #11) X X X X X X Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) h) Expansive soiis? (The The City's Master EIR concluded that significant impacts associated with expansive soils can be mitigated to a level of less than significance through the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the General Plan Public Safety Element Implementing Policies and Action Programs. The proposed project wiil mitigate the potential for damage from expansive soii conditions on the site by grading in a manner consistent with these measures, and the City's Grading Ordinance; (#1. #2, #11) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (The proposed project is planned for a site not Iknown to be located in an area with unique geologic or physical features; (#2d, #3) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X IV. WATER. Wouid the proposal resuit in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (The proposed project is not anticipated to adversely effect changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or surface runoff, in that it wiil comply with the City of Carisbad's poiicies regarding surface runoff quantities and rates in compiiance the Finai Master EIR. In addition, the impacts of deveiopment have been considered in EIR 90-05 Calavera Hills EiR;(#2, #3, #11) b) Exposure of peopie or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (The proposed project will be designed to not increase the amount of drainage runoff from the site in its developed, when compared to its existing state prior to development; (#2, #11) c) Discharge into surface waters or other aiteration of surface water quaiity (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (The proposed project wiii not discharge directiy or in an uncontrolled manner into any surface waters or result in an aiteration of water quality; (#2, #3) X X X Rev. 03/28/96 issues (and Supporting information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (Eventual deveiopment of the proposed project wiii not discharge directiy or in an uncontrolled manner into any surface waters or result in an aiteration of water quaiity since mitigation measures inciuding the use of temporary onsite, and permanent downstream sedimentation and retention basins wili be incorporated into the project; (#3, #11) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (Deveiopment of the proposed project wiil result in no substantive change in the course or direction of water movement; (#2, #3) 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 ioss of groundwater recharge capability? (The City's Generai Plan and the General Plan Master EIR contemplate urban development of Viiiage L-2, and the project wiil not resuit in any significant withdrawals or additions to the groundwater; (#2, #3) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (The City's Generai Plan Master EIR contemplates urban deveiopment of the subject viiiages, and the project wili not resuit in any significant aiteration in the direction or rate of flow of groundwater; (#2, #3, #11) h) impacts to groundwater quaiity? (Ail pesticides, oil grease and other toxic substances contained in typical urban runoff wiil be conhtrolled consistent with Federal and State iaw. As a resuit, the proposed project will not resuit in significant impacts to groundwater quaiity; the City's Generai Pian EIR contemplates urban development of this site consistent with the proposed project; (#2, #11) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise avaiiabie for pubiic water supplies? (The proposed project wiii not result in significant impacts to groundwater; the City's Generai Pian EIR contemplates urban deveiopment of this site; (#2. #3, #9, #11) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Less Than Significant impact No Impact X X X X X X Rev. 03/28/96 issues (and Supporting information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quaiity standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quaiity vioiation? (Covered under the City's Generai Plan EIR. See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation at the end of this checkiist). b) Expose sensitive receptors to poilutants? (Other than the impacts described in the Discussion of Environmental Evaluation, the proposed project is not anticipated to create significant impacts to sensitive receptors; (#2, #3) c) Aiter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (The proposed project wili not invoke or resuit in climatic, temperature, moisture or air mass changes; (#2, #3) d) Create objectionable odors? (The proposed project is a typical urban residential deveiopment. Residentiai uses are not generally considered to create noxious odors; (#2, #3) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Wouid the proposal resuit in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (The proposed project involves deveiopment which wiil generate approximately 150 ADT. Although in and of itself, this increase is not considered significant, the City of Carisbad has determined that a potential regional significant impact to traffic congestion couid result from this and ail other projects in the City. See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation at the end of this checkiist. b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (The proposed project does not involve the design or deveiopment of sharp or hazardous design features. The project wili be designed in compiiance with aii appiicable City polices and codes regarding circulation design which were addressed in the City's Generai Plan Master EIR. (#2) X X 10 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) c) inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (The project proposes the installation of circulation infrastructure concurrent with need, in order to be consistent with City standards, eventual deveiopment of the site wiii provide emergency access in compiiance with appiicable City codes and is designed in compiiance with ail applicable City polices regarding circulation design which were addressed in the City's Generai Plan EIR. (#1, #2, #5, #12) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (The proposed project does not involve actual design of development of the subject site, and as a resuit will not resuit in significant impacts to parking capacity. (#12) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (The proposed project does not involve actual design of deveiopment of the subject site, and as a resuit wiil not resuit in signiflcant impacts to pedestrians or bicyclists. (#^2j f) Conflicts with adopted poiicies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (The proposed project wiil be developed in compiiance with the existing City polices and codes regarding alternative modes of transportation which have been addressed in the City's General Pian Master EIR. (#1, #2, #12) g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? (The proposed project does not preclude and is in compiiance with applicabie City polices and codes regarding alternative modes of transportation which were addressed in the City's General Plan Master EIR; (#2. #3, #12) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Uniess Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X 11 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) Vll. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Wouid the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (inciuding but not iimited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (The proposed project involves pubiic street and residential lotting deveiopment of a site for which permits to conduct mass grading will already have occurred prior to development of the subject project. The site presently contains coastal sage scrub vegetation, which is considered a sensitive habitat. In the event that this mass grading, for which an EIR is being conducted, does not occur, the proposed project wouid resuit in potentially significant biological impacts, and mitigation would be necessary. (#3, #6, #8) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (The proposed project does not involve disturbance to locally designated biological species; (#3, #6) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (The proposed project involves development of a site devoid of natural communities and as a resuit wil not affect locally designated natural communities, (#3, #6) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (The proposed project does not involve direct impacts to wetiand habitats, however indirect impacts couid occur to downstream riparian scrub wetland and sycamore woodland as a resuit of potential sedimentation resulting from deveiopment; (#2, #3, #6) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (The proposed project wiil not resuit in an impact on wildlife dispersal or migration corridors since the subject property wiii have been mass graded pursuant to the master tentative map, prior to deveiopment of the subject project. (#3, #6) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Uniess Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X 12 Rev. 03/28/96 issues (and Supporting information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) Viii. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Wouid the proposai? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (Development of the proposed project wiii be designed in conformance with all appiicable federal, state and local polices and codes relating to energy conservation including State Title No. 24. The project fails within the realm of urban uses anticipated under the City's Generai Pian Master EIR; (#2, #3, #5) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefflcient manner? (Deveiopment of the proposed project wiil be designed in conformance with ail applicabie federal, state and local polices and codes relating to energy conservation; the project wiii compiy and implement Housing Element Action Program 5.1 which implements residential energy efficient standards; fvlEIR 93-01, pp. 5.12.1.2-5.12.1.4). c) Result in the ioss of availability of a known mineral resource that wouid be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (The proposed project is located within an area with known mineral deposits however these minerals are not considered of significant vaiue and urban deveiopment is planned for this area of the City, which has previously been found in the Generai Pian Master EIR to not constitute a significant impact; (#1, #2) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant impact No Impact X X X IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposai involve: a) A risk of accidental expiosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not iimited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (The proposed project does not affect the previous findings of consistency with the City of Carisbad Emergency Pian for Calavera Hills, and does not inciude any uses that wouid likely involve accidental explosions, or a release of hazardous materials. As a resuit, it is concluded that the project wiil not involve risk of these circumstances as detennined in the City's Generai Plan Master EIR; (#2) X 13 Rev. 03/28/96 0^ issues (and Supporting information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) b) Possible interference with an emergency response pian or emergency evacuation plan? (The proposed project wiii compiy with City standards for emergency response to the developed site; (#2) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential heaith hazards? (The proposed project is a typical residentiai project and is not expected to create any health hazards. A 138 KV eiectricai transmission line is located southeriy of the subject site. The Generai Plan Master EIR addressed electro magnetic fields (EMF's) and concluded that scientific research has not established that EMF's are harmful to human heaith; (#2, #3) Potentially Significant impact d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (There are no known existing potential health hazards in the vicinity of the proposed project as determined in the City General Pian Master EIR; (#2) e) increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (Preserved habitat areas containing high fuel plant species are proposed in close proximity to the subject project. The proposed design incorporates provisions of the City Landscape Manual Fire Suppression standards as approved by the City Fire Marshal. As a resuit it is concluded that the proposed project wili not increase flre hazard and wiil and compiy with aii applicable City poiicies regarding fire suppression and low fuel planting; (#2, #7, #9) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Less Than Significant impact No Impact X X X X X. NOISE. Wouid the proposai resuit in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (The proposed project is not anticipated to be a source of signiflcant noise, and wiii not resuit in residents being subjected to significant noise sources, since it is weli away from arterial roadways, and is not within the Airport Infiuence Area for Paiomar Airport; (#2, #3, #12) 14 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be refen-ed to and attached) b) Exposure of peopie to severe noise levels? (Development of the subject viiiage for residential purposes wiii not resuit in the potential for significant noise impacts from roadways or other noise sources The proposed project is not within the noise contour levels considered significant for McCleiian-Palomar Airport. In addition, the Calavera Hills EIR concluded that, with appropriate mitigation,; (#2, #3, #10) Potentially Significant impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant impact No Impact X Xi. PUBLIC SERViCES. Wouid the proposal have an effect upon, or resuit in a need for new or altered government services in any of the foilowing areas: a) Fire protection? (The proposed project wiil be serviced by Fire Stations 3 & 5 and as a result, it is projected to conform with the City of Carisbad Generai Pian, the Growth Management Pian and the Zone 7 Local Faciiities Management Plan (LFMP). Additionally, at the time the Calavera Hills flre station comes on iine (expected in 2004), fire protection to the area wiil be enhanced. No substantive need for additionai fire protection beyond that anticipated in these documents wiil resuit from deveiopment of the proposed project; (#2, #3, #5) b) Police protection? (Police protection is provided by the City of Carisbad Police Department; no substantive need for additional police services beyond that anticipated in the City of Carisbad Generai Pian and the Growth Management Plan wiil resuit from development of the proposed project; (#2, #3, #5) c) Schools? (The proposed project wiii not have a significant impact on schools because it has been annexed into CUSD Speciai District #3, which levies taxes for the construction of new schools. A new K-8 schooi is proposed to be constructed as part of this project; residentiai development of this site is anticipated in the City's Growth Management Program; (#2, #4, #5) d) Maintenance of pubiic facilities, inciuding roads? (No substantive increase in road maintenance wiii be necessitated since the proposed project will be in confonnance with the City's Generai Plan and Growth Management Plan; (#2, #4, #5) X X X X 15 Rev. 03/28/96 issues (and Supporting information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) e) Other govemmental services? (No significant need for any other governmental services beyond those anticipated by the City of Carisbad Generai Pian and the Growth Management Program will resuit from deveiopment of the proposed project; (#2, #4, #5) Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Uniess Impact Mitigation Incorporated X Xll. UTILITIES AND SERViCES SYSTEMS. Would the proposai result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the foilowing utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (The proposed project is not anticipated to create a significant new demand for major faciiities or to require substantial alterations to existing faciiities; (#2, #4, #5) b) Communications systems? (The proposed project may is not anticipated to create a significant new demand for major facilities or to require substantial alterations to existing facilifies; city codes require that the appiicant consult with cable and communications providers during the proposed project design/City review process; (#2) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution faciiities? (Urban uses on the subject property are anticipated in the City's Generai Pian EilR and Growth Management Pian; (#2, #4, #5, #7) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (The proposed project will utiiized existing and planned facilities, and wiil not create significant or unanticipated demand for sewer beyond that anticipated in the City of Carisbad Generai Plan Master EIR and the Master Sewerage Pian. No septic systems will be utiiized; MEIR 93-01, pp. 5.12.3.1-5.12.3.5). X X X X 16 Rev. 03/28/96 ^^^^^^ Issues (and Supporting informafion Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Storm water drainage? (Urban residenfial uses on the subject property are anticipated in the City's Generai Pian Master EIR and Growth Management Pian, and the proposed project is not likely to result in significant increase in storm water drainage beyond that idenfified in those documents. To ensure that no significant impact occurs, the project wiil comply with mitigafion measures relative to storm water control idenfifled in these documents; (#2, #3) X f) Solid waste disposal? (Urban uses on the subject property are anficipated in the City's Generai Pian EIR and Growth Management Pian, and the proposed project wili not resuit in an increase in solid waste beyond that idenfified in those documents; f#2j X g) Local or regional water supplies? (Urban uses on the subject property are anticipated in the City's Generai Pian EIR and Growth Management Pian, and the proposed project wiii not result in an increase in demand for local or regional water supply beyond that idenfified in those documents; (#2, #3) X Xlll. AESTHETICS. Wouid the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (The proposed project wiil not significanfiy affect City of Carisbad designated scenic vistas or highways; (#2) b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthefic effect? (The City of Carisbad review process inciudes building architecture and quality of site design to insure that proposed developments harmonize adequately with existing deveiopment in the City. This review process prevents demonstrable negative aesthetic effects. As a resuit, eventual deveiopment of the proposed project wili be designed in a tasteful and marketable manner and will not have a negative aesthetic effect; (#2, #3, #7) c) Create light or glare? (The City's Generai Plan EIR anticipates residentiai uses on the subject site, and no significant light or glare wiil resuit from the proposed project; (#2) X X X 17 Rev. 03/28/96 issues (and Supporting informafion Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) XiV. a) b) c) d) e) CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Disturb paieontological resources? (The proposed project is located within an area which is expected to contain paieontological resources. As a resuit, grading of the site may impact paieontological resources unless mitigation measures are included to minimize the impacts; (#2, #3, #11) Disturb archaeological proposed project is not archaeological resources. resources? expected to (#3) (The disturb Affect historical resources? (There are no known historical features on the site; (#3) Have the potential to cause a physical change which wouid affect unique ethnic cultural values? (The proposed project wili not cause a physical change which wouid affect unique ethnic cultural values: (#3) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potenfial impact area? (The proposed project will not restrict religious uses or impact sacred areas; (#3) Potenfially Significant Impact Potenfially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X XV. RECREATIONAL a) Would the proposal: Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreafional facilifies? (The proposed project wiil not create a significant additionai need for parks or other recreafion facilifies other than identified in exisfing City poiicy documents which identify recreafional plans for buildout of the City; (#2, #3, #4, #5) b) Affect exisfing recreafional opportunifies? (The proposed project will not significantiy affect exisfing recreafion opportunities; (#2, #3, #4, #5) X X 18 Rev. 03/28/96 issues (and Supporting information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quaiity of the environment, substanfially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife populafion to drop beiow self-sustaining leveis, 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 individuaiiy limited, but cumulafively 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 environmentai effects which wili cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either direcfiy or indirecfiy? Potenfially Potenfially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation incorporated X X X 19 Rev. 03/28/96 XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. ANALYSIS Earlier analyses and references utilized in ttiis Assessment: 1. Citv of Carlsbad General Plan, September 6, 1994, as amended. Including Land Use Element, Circulation Element, Housing Element, Par/fs and Recreation Element, and Public Safety Element. 2. General Plan Master Environmental impact Report (MEIR 93-01), September 6, 1994. 3. Draft Calavera Hills Master Plan Pliase II, Bridge & Ttiorouahfare District No. 4 and Detention Basins Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR 98-02), January, 2001. 4. Citv of Carlsbad Growtfi Management Program (Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan), September 23, 1986. 5. Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan, October 18, 1989. 6. Draft Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in ttie City of Carlsbad, December, 1999. 7. Citv of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, Title 21, as amended. 20 Rev. 03/28/96 8. Compretiensive Open Space and Resource Conservation Management Plan, May, 1992. 9. City of Carlsbad Landscape Manual, November 13, 1990. 10. Comprehensive Land Use Plan McClellan-Palomar Airport, October 1986. 11. City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance, Title 11, as amended. 12. Citv of Carlsbad Transportation Design Standards. March 3, 1991 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Please use this area to discuss any of the environmental factors that were checked "No impact" yet lack any information citations and any factors that were checked "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." The City has adopted a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" with regard to air quality and circulation impacts resulting from the normal buildout according to the General Plan. The following sample text is intended to guide your discussion of the impacts to these environmental factors. LAND USE AND PLANNING: The proposed project conflicts with the present Land Use Element of the General Plan and the existing Calavera Hills Master Plan, and will require amendment to these Plans. Amendments to these plans are presently in process in the City, which will change the land use on the subject property to residential low-medium density, which would allow the singie family development proposed in this project. Upon approval of these discretionary legislative actions, the proposed project will be consistent with Land use and Planning documents. In the event that this General Plan and Master Plan Amendment does not proceed to approval, the subject project cannot be found in conformance with the General Plan and Master Plan. AIR QUAJ-ITY: 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 21 Rev. 03/28/96 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 Councii 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. 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 22 Rev. 03/28/96 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 ofthe 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 certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: The proposed project involves public street and residential lotting development of a site for which permits to conduct mass grading will already have occurred prior to development of the subject project. This mass grading will be undertaken in reliance on approvals of the master tentative map and its associated grading permit. The site however, presently contains coastal sage scrub vegetation, which is considered a sensitive habitat. In the event that this master tentative map mass grading, for which an EIR is being conducted, does not occur, the proposed project would result in potentially significant biological impacts, and mitigation would be necessary. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: The proposed project could result in a significant impact on storm water drainage facilities, and will be required to install temporary and permanent erosion control and pollution control facilities downstream of the project Upon installtion of adequate erosion and pollution control devices, the project will be considered to have mitigated the impacts on storm water facilities to an adequate level. CULTURAL RESOURCES: The proposed project is located within an area which is expected to contain paieontological resources. As a result, future grading of the site may impact paieontological resources unless mitigation measures are included to minimize the impacts as determined in the Calavera Hills EIR. 23 Rev. 03/28/96 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) LAND USE: 1. Prior to approval of the subject project, the City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use element, and the Calavera Hills Master Plan shall be amended to allow development in conformance with the subject project. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: 1. Prior to approval ofthe subject project, the mass grading associated with the master tentative map shall have been approved, including mitigation for the disturbance of coastal sage scrub habitat impacts. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: 1. The developer and the City of Carlsbad shall, within 90 days of completion of grading activities, hydroseed/ landscape graded and common areas with appropriate ground cover vegetation consistent with any biological requirements (e.g., use of native or noninvasive plants). These revegetated areas shall be inspected monthly by a qualified landscape architect, biologist, or comparable professional until verification is provided to the City that vegetation has been firmly established as determined by the City's grading inspector. Compacted areas shall be scarified, where appropriate, to induce surface water infiltration and revegetation as directed by the project geologist, engineer, and/or biologist. 2. Grading and other surface-disturbing activities either shall be planned to avoid the rainy season (i.e., November through March) to reduce potential erosion impacts or shall employ construction phase erosion control measures, including the short- term use of sandbags, matting, mulch, berms, hay bales, or similar devices along all graded areas to minimize sediment transport. The exact design, location, and schedule of use for such devices shall be conducted pursuant to direction and approval by the City Engineer. CULTURAL RESOURCES: 1. During the grading operation, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of excavations and, if necessary, salvage exposed fossils. The frequency of inspections will depend on the rate of excavations, the materials being excavated, and the abundance of fossils. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed fossil to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage. 24 Rev. 03/28/96 ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) To be determined by Planning Director. 25 Rev. 03/28/96 o ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CT 01-01/PUD 01-04 DATE: June 18. 2002 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Calavera Hills Village L-2 2. APPLICANT: McMillin Homes 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2727 Hoover Ave. National Citv. CA 92950 (619) 336-3138 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Mav 17.2001 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Map and Planned Unit Development for the constmction of 14 single family dwelling units, on a 6.2 acre site within Village L-2 of the Calavera Hills Master Plan, generally located northwest of the intersection of College Boulevard and Carlsbad Village Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 7. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTL\LLY 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. r~l Land Use and Planning I I Population and Housing I I Geological Problems • Water ^ Air Quality ^ Transportation/Circulation Q Public Services I I Biological Resources Q Utilities & Service Systems I I Energy & Mineral Resources I I Hazards n Noise r~l Mandatory Findings of Significance I I Aesthetics I I Cultural Resources I I Recreation Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I I I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a sigmficant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I I I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. n I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. r~l I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Planner Signature Date Plaiming Director^iSignaturfe^ Date 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 detennine 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 Impacf 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 fi-om "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 in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EER. 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 sigmficant effect on the environment. Rev. 03/28/96 • If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measiu-es 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 ofthe form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be detennined significant. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) b) Conflict with apphcable enviromnental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) e) Dismpt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) Potentially Significant Impact • • • • • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • • • • • Less Than Significant Impact • • • • • No Impact II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed offlcial regional or local | | population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly Q or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastmcture)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable | | housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) • • • • • • Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Fauh mpture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1.15) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15) Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1- 1-5.1-15) Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) rv. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2- 1-5..2-11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (#l: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? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1-5..2-11) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l: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? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3- 12) d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3- 12) 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)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1-5.7.22) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicychsts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative transportation (e.g. bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) 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? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4- 24) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24) e) Wildhfe dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24) VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#l: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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1-5.13-9) Potentially Significant Impact • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • Less Than No Significant Impact Impact • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) Potentially Significant Impact • Potentially Significant IJnless Mitigation Incorporated • Less Than Significant Impact • No Impact IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1-5.10.1-5) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1-5.10.1-5) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) , d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable bmsh, grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#1 :Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-15) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6) b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other govemmental services? (#l: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 supphes, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 -5.13-9) b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7) 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 supphes? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -5.12.3-7) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Rev. 03/28/96 Q Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? • • • K (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 -5.11-5) • • • m b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? • • • m (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 -5.11-5) • • • m c) Create hght or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) • • • m XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paieontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 -• • • ^ 5.8-10) • • • K b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 -• • • K 5.8-10) • • • m c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-• • • m 10) • • • ^ d) Have the potential to cause a physical change • • • ^ which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 -5.8-10) • • • m e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within • • • m the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional • • • m parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1-5.12.8-7) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs • • • m 5.12.8-1-5.12.8-7) XVI. MANDATORY FINDESfGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the • • • K quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildhfe 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 Califomia 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? 8 Rev. 03/28/96 o Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Does the project have environmental effects which Q Q I I ^ will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. The following site-specific technical studies were used in the analysis and design of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, Califomia, 92008. (760) 602-4600. 1. Update of Geotechmcal Report. Calavera Hills Village L-2. Citv of Carlsbad. Califomia. dated October 20,1999, Geosoils, Inc. 2. Interim Report of Geotechnical Investigation. Calavera Heights Village L-2. Carlsbad. Califomia. dated March 20,1990, Southem Califomia Soil and Testing, Inc. 3. Noise Technical Report for Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II Village L-2. City of Carlsbad. California, dated Febmary 18,2002. Rev. 03/28/96 o o DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The project involves the constraction and occupation of 14 detached single-family units, within Village L-2 of the Calavera Hills Master Plan. The 6.2-acre site will be created through the recordation of the Master Tentative Map for Calavera Hills Phase II (CT 00-02) and will be graded in accordance with that map. The potential environmental impacts associated with the grading of the Village L-2 site were reviewed through the Environmental Impact Report for the Calavera Hills Phase II Master Tentative Map (EIR 98-02, SCH No. 99111082), certified January 15,2002. The Environmental Impact Report also reviewed the impacts associated with the development of Village L-2 with up to 15 single-family units, 1 unit more than is proposed. EIR 98-02, as certified, also reviewed the potential environmental impacts associated with the major public improvements required for the buildout of the master plan including Village L-2. Since the development of Village L-2 cannot proceed until the Master Tentative Map (CT 00-02) has been recorded, and the site has been graded in accordance with that map, the following environmental analysis deals only with the development of Village L-2 and the project differences compared to the EIR. The differences center on a revised noise study (which does not result in more or higher walls than those analyzed in the EIR) and a reduced unit amount (14 instead of 15 units). The Village L-2 site is bound by the existing development of Village Q of the Calavera Hills Master Plan to the east, north and west; Tamarack Avenue is to the south. The proposed single- family residential use is compatible with all ofthe existing and future uses in the area. The residential designation ofthe Village L-2 site is designated Residential Low-Medium (RLM) in the City's General Plan, allowing up to 3.2 dwelling units per developable acre. The proposed density is 2.7 dwelling units per acre. The project site is zoned P-C (Planned Community) and, according to the Calavera Hills Master Plan (MP 150(H)), the site is to be developed in accordance with the R-l - Single Family Residential Zone, except as modified in the Master Plan. The proposed development will consist of 14 single-family residential units an open space lot and a common recreation lot. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and meets all development standards and design criteria of the Master Plan and the R-l zoning district. The proposed development would necessitate approximately 3,500 cubic yards of balanced grading subsequent to the mass grading that creates Village L-2 associated the above referenced master tentative map (CT 00-02). All grading operations would be required to conform to the recommendations of the site-specific geotechnical report, as well as the City ofCarlsbad Grading Ordinance. In addition, an all-weather access road would be provided throughout constraction and Fire Marshal approval would be required prior to the storage of any hazardous materials on site. The residential project would take access off of existing Cay Drive and would generate 140 average daily traffic trips, which can be accommodated by existing and required road segments in the area. The project will be required to comply with the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit through the implementation of Best Management Practices, thus reducing the amount of pollutants entering the public storm drain system. All facilities needed to 10 Rev. 03/28/96 serve the 14 single family units would be provided prior to occupancy, in association with the Phase II Master Tentative Map grading and improvement plans. In addition, the Carlsbad Unified School District has stated that there are adequate school facilities to serve the proposed apartment project. Noise wall locations and heights are not greater than those covered in the earlier analysis (EIR 98-02) and the proposed unit yield of 14 units is less than the 15 allowed by the master plan. These two elements represent the variation in the project as reviewed by the master plan's certified environmental review (EIR 98-02) and now proposed. Given the above analysis, the previous environmental documentation and the site-specific technical reports, the proposed Calavera Hills Village L-2 project would not create any significant adverse environmental impacts as designed and conditioned. AIR OUALITY: In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result fi-om the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts in the form of increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality ofthe region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage altemative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope ofthat MEIR 11 Rev. 03/28/96 CIRCULATION: In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would result fi-om the build-out of the City imder an updated General Plan. That document concluded that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out traffic; however, 12 fiill and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all fi-eeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at build-out. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concunent with need; 2) provisions to develop altemative 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 jiuisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at build-out of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR This document is available at the Planning Department. A MEIR may not be used to review projects if it was certified more than five years prior to the filing of an application for a later project. The City is cunently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was certified more than five years ago, the City's preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no substantial changes have occuned with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failure at Palomar Airport Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance. Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to review later projects. EARLIER ANALYSES USED The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, Califomia, 92008. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City ofCarlsbad Planning Department. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 o o 2. Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II. Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 & Detention Basins Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 98-021 dated November 2001, RECON. 3. Noise Technical Report for Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II. Village L-2. dated Febraary 18,2002, RECON. 13 Rev. 03/28/96 City of Carlsbad Planning Department PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF DECISION October 21, 2002 Calavera Hills II, LLC 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, CA 91950 SUBJECT: CT 01-01/PUD 01-04 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE L-2 At the Planning Commission meeting of October 16, 2002, your application was considered. The Commission voted 7-0 to APPROVE (AS AMENDED) your request. The decision of the Planning Commission became final on October 16, 2002. The time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is govemed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code 1.16. Any petition or other paper seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the ninetieth day following the date which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attomey of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the Planning Director, Michael J. Holzmiller, Secretary of the Planning Commission, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008. If you have any questions regarding the final dispositions of your application, please call the Planning Department at (760) 602-4600. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Planning Director MJH.EM.mh Enclosed: Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5295, 5296, 5297 1635 Raraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us City of Carlsbad Planning Department May 9, 2002 Calavera Hills 11, LLC Attn: Brian Milich 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, CA 91950 SUBJECT: CT 01-01/PUD 01-04 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE L-2 Thank you for applying for Land Use Pernnits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Department has reviewed your Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Developnnent permit, appiication numbers CT 01-01 / PUD 01-04, as to their completeness for processing. All of the items requested of you eariier have not been received and therefore your application is still deemed incomplete. Listed below are the item(s) still needed in order to deem your application as complete. This list of items must be submitted directly to your staff planner by appointment. All list items must be submitted simultaneously and a copy of this list must be included with your submittals, including five (5) sets of plans. No processing of your application can occur until the application is determined to be complete. When all required materials are submitted the City has 30 days to make a determination of completeness. If the application is determined to be complete, processing for a decision on the application will be initiated. Please contact your staff planner, Eric Munoz, at (760) 602-4608, or Van Lynch, interim project planner, at 602-4613, if you have any questions or wish to set up a meeting to discuss the application. Sincerely, MICHAEL J. HOLZMILLER Pianning Director MJH:VL:cs Attachments c: Don Rideout Eric Munoz Frank Jimeno File Copy Data Entry Planning Aide Planning Systems, Paul Klukas, 1 530 Faraday Ave, Ste 100, Carisbad CA 92008 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us LIST OF ITEMS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE APPLICATION No. CT 01-01 / PUD 01-04 Planning: SITE INFORMATION 1. Please provide the total building coverage for lots with proposed structures. 2. Please provide average and peak potable water demand in gallons per minute (gpm). 3. Please provide peak irrigation water demand in gallons per minute (gpm). 4. Please provide average sewer generation in million gallons per day (mgd). 5. Please provide colored recycled water use map for future areas to be irrigated with reclaimed water. 6. Please provide contour lines for the slope areas. 7. Please place all development application numbers in the upper right hand corner of the plan (i.e. CT and PUD) LANDSCAPE 8. Please provide the quantity of all proposed trees per species and type (i.e street, open space, and slope). 9. Please provide the percentage of the site used for landscaping. BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND FLOOR PLANS 10. Please add a depth dimension to the garage. (20-foot minimum) OTHER DOCUMENTS 11. Please complete a new application form, project description, and disclosure statement as the original application shows the applicant as Cypress Valley LLC as the applicant. Please find copies of the original and new forms attached. 12. Please provide two copies of the Preliminary Title Report current within the last six months. 13. Please provide a construction materials board for the homes and proposed retaining walls. See application submittal form for details. 14. Please update the project description form for the project. MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENTS 15. Please submit a fence plan (with fence heights) and trellis/patio cover exhibit pursuant to the Master Plan. 16. The Calavera Hills Master Plan does not list a basketball court as a common active recreation facility. Please consider an alternative use as listed within the Master Plan. 17. Please plot the top of slope setback line for single- and two-story building heights as described in the Master Plan. This should be plotted on the trellis/patio plan. Engineering: To be sent under separate cover. ISSUES OF CONCERN Planning: None Engineering: March 4, 2003 TO: BOBBIE HODER, PLANNING PLANNING DEPARTMENT - GRAPHICS TRAFFIC ENGINEER SCOTT BURNS, BUILDING DEPARTMENT ROBIN NUSCHY, BUILDING DEPARTMENT STEVE RUGGLES, STATION #3 FIRE DEPARTMENT GREG WOODS, PUBLIC WORKS - OAK ST OFFICE LORI ALLEN, POLICE DEPARTMENT KARL VON SCHLIEDER - GIS FROM: Planning Director STREET NAMES FOR CT 01-01 & CT 01-2 - CALVAVERA HILLS VILLAGES L-2 & K The following street names have been approved as a part of the final map processing for Calavera Hills Villages L-2 & K. A map delineating street locations is attached. CT 01-01 Village L-2 Public Street: Granite Court CTOl-02 Village K Public Streets: Rock Ridge Road Flat Rock Street Sand Court Pebble Street CS:mh Attachment 0 EXIST. F.H. PROPOSED F.H. 200 SCALE: 1' = 400' smn jum PM HmANTs FW mum 'L-^r St r CDNSULTA^rr 2710 LWER AVE. WEST Suite 100 Cartsbad, CA 92006 760-931-770( Fox: 760-931-868C