HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 01-06; Calavera Hills Village X; Tentative Map (CT) (2)CITY OF CARLSBAD
LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION
1) APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOR: (CHECK BOXES)
(FOR DEPARTMENT
USE ONLY)
(FOR DEPARTMENT
USE ONLY)
• Administrative Permit - 2nd
Dwelling Unit
• Planned Industrial Permit
• Administrative Variance • Planning Commission
Determination
• Coastal Development 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 • Tcntotivc PorccI Mop
Obtain from Engineering Department
• Local Coastal Plan Amendment Tentative Tract Map CTo\-o(£)
• Master Plan • Variance
• Non-Residential Planned
Development
• Zone Change
El Planned Development Permit • List other applications not
specified
2) ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(S).:
3) PROJECT NAME: Calavera Hills Village X
4) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: A single farrily msidpntial pmjenf.
5) OWNER NAME (Print or Type)
Calavera Hills II L.L.C.
6) APPLICANT NAME (Print or Type)
Calavera Hills II 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 THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE
INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY
KWemEDGE. 1
1 CERTIFY THAT 1 AM THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
OVl'NER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND
CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOV^LEDGE.
SIGNATURE / ' DATE SIGNATURE / DATE
7) BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION SdbdivLsicn of a Txrticn of lot D, E & J of tfas Rancho AHLB Bfelionda, City of
CarlsbadjCointy of San Diego, State of California, according to Itoition ffep Nb. 823, filed 11-16-1896.
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 ?
8) LOCATION OF PROJECT:
ON THE
BETWEEN
Calavera Hills Village X
West
STREET ADDRESS
SIDE OF Future College Boulevard
(NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST) (NAME OF STREET)
Carlsbad Village Drive AND Future Cannon Road
(NAME OF STREET)
9) LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE
10) PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS
Seven
124
13) TYPE OF SUBDIVISION
16) PERCENTAGE OF PROPOSED
PROJECT IN OPEN SPACE
19) GROSS SITE ACREAGE
22) EXISTING ZONING
Res.
43%
52.7
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
1.170
RM
N/A
(NAME OF STREET)
12) PROPOSED NUMBER OF
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
15) PROPOSED COMM
SQUARE FOOTAGE
1 8) PROPOSED SEWER
USAGE IN EDU
21) PROPOSED GENERAL
PLAN DESIGNATION
117
Zer^
117
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
TOr&WTRY FO RY FOR THIS RUFifOSE
SIGNATURE
FOR CITY USE ONLY
FEE COMPUTATION
APPLICATION TYPE
TOTAL FEE REQUIRED
FEE REQUIRED
Idaa ONINNVld
avasidvj do Alio
1002 I 0 a3d
DATE STAMP APPLICATION RECEIVED
RECEIVED BY:
DATE FEE PAID RECEIPT NO.
Form 1 6 PAGE 2 OF 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/EXPLANATION
PROJECT NAME: Calavera Hills Village X
APPLICANT NAME: 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 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 a single family detached residential development, with
117 dwelling units, located in what is commonly referred to as Calavera Hills
Planning Area X. The site is approximately 53 acres in size, and 43% 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 2,075 to 2,709 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
PROJECT DESCRiPTION/EXPLANATIQN
PROJECT NAME: Calavera Hills Village X
APPLICANT NAME: Calavera Hills II L.L.C.
Please describe fully the proposed project by application type. Indude 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 a single family detached residential development, with 115
dwelling vmits, located in what is commor^ly referred to as Calavera Hills Village
X. The site is approximately 52.5 acres in size, and 43% 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 1,858 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 RM; 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
Planning Commission processing of Tentative Maps and a thirty (30) d&y time limit for City Coimcil
action. These time limits can only be extended by the mutual concurrence of the appUcant and the
City. By accepting applications for Tentative Maps concurrently with apphcations 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 appUcation 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 limits for Planning Commission and City
Council action and fiilly concurs with any extensions of time up to one year from the date the
application was accepted as complete to properly review all of the applications.
Signature / . Date
Name (Print) Relationship to Application
(Property Owner-Agent)
FRM0037 2/96
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008
Applicant: CALAVERA HILLS II L L C
Description
CT010006
10/16/02 0002 01 02
Amount CGF" 117.66
117.66
Receipt Number: R0030278
Transaction Date: 10/16/2002
Pay Type Method Description Amount
Payment Check 51256 117.66
Transaction Amount: 117.66
Crib Wall
Block retaining wall
Plantable Wall
Calavera Hills II
Retaining Wall Materials
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad CA 92008
Applicant: CALAVERA HILLS II L L C
Set Id: S000000549
Description
CT010006
PUD01007
Total
Amount
11,990.00
7,900.00
19,890.00
0529 02/01/01 0002 01 02
19890^00
Receipt Number: R0018184
Transaction Date: 02/01/2001
Pay Type Method Description Amount
Payment
Payment
Check
Check
29776
50375
18,860.00
1,030.00
Transaction Amount: 19,890.00
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will require
discretionarj' action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board. Commission or Comminee.
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application subminal. Your project cannot
be reviewed until this information is completed. 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 propertj' 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 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 publiclv-owned corporation, include the
names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate page may be attached if
necessary.) ^ TT • T T -r T T T ^ calavera Hills II, LLC,
Person a California limited Corp/Part
liability company Title Title
2727 Hoover Avenue
Address Natinn^^l r-ity. CA QIQSn 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 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 publiclv-
owned corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. (A separate
page may be attached if necessary.)
Person ^^fill^" Companies, LLC
d DeldWdie IxiuxLtdd liability^
Title compamy Title
2727 Hoover Avenue
Address -ionP. 1 ^^^-y, rA qi q50
Tamarack Properties, Inc,
a California corporation
r./n Rrnnkfipld Hnmps
Address 1226.5 _ Pointe^Del.Mar, ste. 200
2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 438-0894 ®
Q NON-PROFIT ORGJBVIZATION OR TRUST ^
If any person identified pursuant to (I) 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 Mon Profit/Trust Non Profit/Trust
Title Title
Address Address
Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of Cit>' staff.
Boards, Commissions, Committees and/or Council within the past twelve (12) months?
I I Yes ^^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.
J>1.
Signature of owner^ate
Print or type name of owner
signature of applicanydate
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 STATEMENT 5/98 Page 2 of 2
Citv of Carlsbad
Planning Department
PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF DECISION
November 18, 2002
Calavera Hills II LLC
c/o McMillin Companies LLC
2727 Hoover Avenue
National City, CA 91950
SUBJECT: CT 01-06/PUD 01-07 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE X
At the Plaiming Commission meeting of November 6, 2002, your application was considered. The
Commission voted 6-0 (Commissioner Segall Absent) to RECOMMENDING ADOPTION/
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. The decision of the Planning Commission is advisory and will be
forwarded to the City Coimcil.
If you have any questions regarding the final dispositions of your application, please call the Plaiming
Department at (760) 602-4600.
Sincerely,
MICHAELX HOLZMILLER
Planning Director
MJH:EM:mh
Enclosed: Plaiming Commission Resolutions No. 5307, 5308, 5309
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
FILE COPY
Citv of Carlsbad
Planning Department
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to you, because your interest may be affected, that the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 6, 2002, to
consider a request for a Negative Declaration, Tentative Tract Map, and Planned Unit
Development Permit to allow the subdivision and construction of a 115 unit single family
development within Village X of the Calavera Hills Master Plan, on property generally located on
the west side of future College Boulevard, in Local Facilities Management Zone 7 and more
particularly described as:
Portion of Lots "D" and "J" of the Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to Map 823, filed in the Office of the San Diego County
Recorder on November 6, 1896, also being Lot 5 of Carlsbad
Tract No. 00-02
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 31, 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 Carlsbad at or prior
to the public hearing.
CASE FILE: CT 01-06/PUD 01-07
CASE NAME: CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE X
PUBLISH: OCTOBER 25, 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 X
CT 01-06/PUD 01-07
Citv of Carlsbad
Planning Department
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location:
Project Description:
Villages X and W v^ithin the Calavera Hills Master Plan, generally
located east and west of future College Boulevard south of the
College Blvd/Carlsbad Village Drive intersection in the Northeast
Quadrant.
115 single-family detached homes (Village X)
114 single-family detached homes (Village W)
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above-described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
envirotmient) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Plaiming Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plaiming
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 Planning Department at
(760) 602-4608.
DATED:
CASE NO:
CASE NAME:
SEPTEMBER 26, 2002
CT 01-06/PUD 01-07 AND CT 01-05/PUD 01-06
VILLAGE X AND VILLAGE W
PUBLISH DATE: SEPTEMBER 26, 2002
lAEL J. HOLZMLLEfe^ MICHAEL J. HOLZ:
Planning Director
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.cl.carlsbad.ca.us
o
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 01-05/PUD 01-06 and CT 01-06/PUD 01-07
DATE: September 17. 2002
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Calavera Hills Village W and X
2. APPLICANT: McMillin Homes
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2727 Hoover Ave. National
Citv. CA 92950 (619) 336-3138
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Mav 17. 2001
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Tentative Map and Planned Unit Development for the
constmction of two single family Villages within the Calavera Hills Master Plan: Village
X proposes 115 units and Village W proposes 114 units, generally located on both sides
of future College Blvd, south of the intersection of College Boulevard and Carlsbad
Village Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 7.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this
project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially
Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
I I Land Use and Planning
I I Population and Housing
I I Geological Problems
• Water
lEl Air Quality
^ Transportation/Circulation Q Public Services
I I Biological Resources Q Utilities & Service Systems
I I Energy & Mineral
Resources
I I Hazards
I I Noise
r~l Mandatory Findings of Significance
I I Aesthetics
I I Cultural Resotu-ces
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 significant 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.
I I I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
^ I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I 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 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
Planning Directors Signature Date
Rev. 03/28/96
Q
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 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 EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of
Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
• A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
Rev. 03/28/96
o
• 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 pubhc review. In this
case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
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 applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income
or minority community)? (#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 official regional or local | |
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either | |
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable | |
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
•
•
•
• K
• K
• K
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant Significant
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
Impact
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts
involving:
Fault rupture? (#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 of the 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)
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
IV. 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? (#l: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)
• • • M
• • • X • • • M
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • X
• • •
• • •
• • • m
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs
5.3-1-5.3-12)
• • •
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs
5.3- 1-5.3-12)
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 frips or traffic congestion?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#1 :Pgs
5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses? (#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 pedesfrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
altemative fransportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
g) Rail, waterbome or air fraffic 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 vernal
pool)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24)
e) Wildlife 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)
Q
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • X
• • • X
• • • X
• • •
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Result in the loss of availability of a knovra
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs
5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9)
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
(#l:Pgs 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
brush, grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 -
5.9-15)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
(#l:Pgs 5.9-1 -5.9-15)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
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
supplies, 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)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
Less Than
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
No
Impact
• m
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • X • • •
• • • X
• • • m
• • • m
• • • m
• • • m
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
f)
g)
XIII.
a)
b)
c)
XIV.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
XV.
a)
b)
XVI.
a)
b)
Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1
-5.12.3-7)
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
(#l:Pgs 5.11-1 -5.11-5)
Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect?
(#l:Pgs 5.11-1 -5.11-5)
Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5)
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 -
5.8-10)
Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 -
5.8-10)
Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10)
Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
(#l:Pgs 5.8-1 -5.8-10)
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1-5.8-10)
RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-1-5.12.8-7)
Affect existing recreational opportunities?
(#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -5.12.8-7)
FINDINGS OF MANDATORY
SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or resfrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of Califomia history or prehistory?
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)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
•
•
Less Than
Significant
Impact
•
•
•
•
No
Impact
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • X
• • •
• • • X
• • • X
• • •
• • •
• • •
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 Q CU ^
which will cause the substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
The following site-specific technical studies were used in the analysis and design of this project
and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad,
CaUfomia, 92008. (760) 602-4600.
1. Update of Geotechnical Report. Calavera Hills Villages W. X and Y City of Carlsbad,
Califomia. dated October 20,1999, Geosoils, Inc.
2. Interim Report of Geotechnical Investigation. Calavera Heights Villages W. X and Y
Carlsbad. Califomia. dated March 20,1990, Southern Califomia Soil and Testing, Inc.
3. Noise Technical Report for Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II Village W. City of
Carlsbad. Califomia. dated May I, 2002.
4. Noise Technical Report for Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II Village X. Citv of
Carlsbad. Califomia. dated August 13,2002.
Rev. 03/28/96
o o
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The project involves the constmction and occupation of two single-family villages within the
Calavera Hills Master Plan: 115 detached single-family units within Village X and 114 detached
single-family units in Village W. Both sites will be created through the recordation of the Master
Tentative Map for Calavera Hills Phase II (CT 00-02) and will be mass graded in accordance
with that map.
The potential environmental impacts associated with the grading of Villages X and W site were
reviewed through the Environmental Impact Report for the Calavera Hills Phase 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 X with up
to 117 single-family units; and Village W up to 121 units. These maps propose less units than
allowed by the master plan and comply with all design and development standards. EIR 98-02,
as certified, also reviewed the potential environmental impacts associated with the major public
improvements required for the buildout of the master plan including Villages X and W.
Since the development of Village X and W cannot proceed until the Master Tentative Map (CT
00-02) has been recorded, and the site has been graded in accordance with that map, the
following environmental analysis deals only with the development of Villages X and W and the
project differences compared to the EIR. The differences center on revised noise studies (which
does not result in more or higher walls than those analyzed in the EIR) and a reduced unit
amount (proposing less imits than allowed by the master plan).
College Boulevard separates the Village X and W sites. The proposed single-family residential
uses are compatible with all of the existing and fiiture uses allowed by the master plan.
The residential designation of both Villages is Residential Medium (RM) in the City's General
Plan, allowing up to 8 dwelling units per developable acre. The proposed densities of 4.6
(Village X) and 4.8 (Village W) is within the RM range. The project site is zoned P-C (Planned
Community) and, according to the Calavera Hills Master Plan (MP 150(H)), both sites are to be
developed in accordance with the R-1 - Single Family Residential Zone, except as modified in
the Master Plan. The proposed developments will consist of single-family residential units with
open space and common recreation lots. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan
and meets all development standards and design criteria of the Master Plan and the R-1 zone.
The proposed development would necessitate approximately 60,000 cubic yards (Village X) and
65,000 cubic yards (Village W) of balanced grading subsequent to the mass grading associated
the above referenced master tentative map (CT 00-02). All grading operations would be required
to conform to the recommendations of the site-specific geotechnical report, as well as the City of
Carlsbad Grading Ordinance. In addition, an all-weather access road would be provided
throughout constmction and Fire Marshal approval would be required prior to the storage of any
hazardous materials on site.
The residential project would take access off of future College Blvd and would generate 1150
(Village X) and 1140 (Village W) average daily traffic trips, which can be accommodated by
existing and required road segments in the area.
The project will be required to comply with the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit through the implementation of Best Management Practices, thus
reducing the amoimt of pollutants entering the public storm drain system. All facilities needed to
10 Rev. 03/28/96
o o serve the single-family developments will be provided prior to occupancy, in association with the
Phase II Master Tentative Map grading and improvement plans. In addition, the Carlsbad
Unified School District has stated that there are adequate school facilities to serve the proposed
apartment project.
Noise wall locations and heights are not greater than those covered in the earlier analysis (EIR
98-02) and the proposed imit yields are less than the maximums allowed by the master plan.
These two elements represent the variation in the project as reviewed by the master plan's
certified environmental review (EIR 98-02) and now proposed. Given the above analysis, the
previous environmental documentation and the site-specific technical reports, the proposed
projects for Calavera Hills Villages W and W would not create any significant adverse
environmental impacts as designed and conditioned.
AIR QUALITY:
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 of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan build-out, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measm-es
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage altemative modes of transportation including mass
tiansit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management stiategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked
"Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air
quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all projects covered
by the General Plan's Final Master EIR. This project is within the scope of that MEIR.
11 Rev. 03/28/96
o CIRCULATION:
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would
result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded
that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan would result in
increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out
traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional
through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all
freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the
implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the
City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at build-out.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out,
numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include:
1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to
develop altemative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian Unkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a faihng Interstate or
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either
been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the
failure of intersections at build-out of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of
Overriding Considerations" applies to all projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR.
This project is within the scope of that 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 currently reviewing the 1994 MEIR to
determine whether it is still adequate to review subsequent projects. Although the MEIR was
certified more than five years ago, the City's preliminary review of its adequacy finds that no
substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the MEIR was
certified. The only potential changed circumstance, the intersection failm-e at Palomar Airport
Rd. and El Camino Real, is in the process of being mitigated to below a level of significance.
Additionally, there is no new available information, which was not known and could not have
been known at the time the MEIR was certified. Therefore, the MEIR remains adequate to
review later projects.
EARLIER ANALYSES USED/SOURCE DOCUMENTS CITED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, Califomia, 92008.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II. Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 & Detention
Basins Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR 98-02). dated November 2001, RECON.
Noise Technical Report for Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II. Villages X and W. dated
August 13, 2002 and May 1, 2002, respectively, by RECON.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I
CASE NO:
DATE RECEIVED:
(To fae complete by staff)
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Calavera Hills Village X
2. APPLICANT: Calavera Hills II, LLC
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: Calavera Hills II. LLC.
c/o McMillin Companies: 2727 Hoover Avenue, National City, CA (619) 336-3735
4. PROJECT DESCHIPTION: Tentative subdivision map and planned unit development pennit
for 117 detached single family units to be located on 52.7 gross acres, with 25.1 acres to
be used for the development. The development is proposed over what will be a mass
graded site. The site is located on the west side of future College Boulevard. The
proposed project will involve construction of two-story units on minimum 4,000 sq. ft.
lots, with standard residential public streets. Access to the subdivision is proposed off
College Boulevard at a single location, with emergency access to the north at Village Y.
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 least 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
X 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 aM 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.
• An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and
including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially
significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to
mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a
"Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not
been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do
not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II
analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially
adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in
reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at
the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION.
Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would
otherwise be determined significant.
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) Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning? (The proposed project will conflict with
the existing Land Use Element of the General
Plan and the Calavera Hills Master Plan,
however a General Plan Amendment and
Master Plan Amendment is in process with the
City of Carlsbd and is expected to be approved
prior to consideration of the proposed project,
in the event this General Plan Amendment is
not adopted, the proposed project is not
consistent with the General Plan, which is
considered a significant environmental impact.
(#1, #2, #3;
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? The proposed project is
inconsistent with the existing Calavera Hills
Master Plan, however this Master Plan is
presently in process of modification. Upon its
adoption, the proposed project will be
consistent. Additionally, the proposed project is
consistent with the City of Carlsbad Draft Habitat
Management Plan (HMP). Nonetheless,
potentially significant environmental impacts to
land use will result if mitigation is not included.
(#3, #6)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (The proposed project is not anticipated
to be incompatible with the surrounding
residential land uses in the area inasmuch as
the most adjacent developed property is to the
north and west, and the proposed project will be
of a compatible density. (#1, #2, #3)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses? (The proposed project
will not have a significant impact on soils or
farmlands; the City's Final Master EIR and the
Calavera Hills EIR anticipate and plan 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
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and
attached)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income
or minority community)? (Existing urban develop-
ment occurs to the north and west of the
proposed project, however the proposed project
will not divide the physical arrangement of any
established community. The project will
indirectly add to the stock of affordable housing
through implementation of a future affordable
housing agreement with the City of Carlsbad.
(#1. #2, #3)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official 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)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (The proposed single family
development of Village X involves development
of a site previously identified for urban
development, and located directly adjacent to
an arterial roadway. A small extension of
College Blvd. is proposed to accommodate the
project. All improvements proposed are
adjacent to the subject property, or along its
direct frontage. (#1, #2, #3)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (The proposed project site is presently
undeveloped and will not displace any existing
housing; (#2, #3;
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people 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 should mitigate potential impacts
associated with earthquakes to a less than
significant impact; (#2, #3, #11)
X
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and
attached)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Seismic risk on the
subject site is considered low. The proposed
project will mitigate the effects of potential
seismic ground shaking by following all pertinent
State and Local building codes for construction,
including measures identified in the General
Plan Public Safety Element Implementing
Policies and Action Plans; (#2, #3, it11)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(The proposed project will mitigate the effects of
potential seismic ground shaking by following all
pertinent State and Local building codes and
standard regional engineering practices for
design and construction as required in
conjunction with the Carlsbad Master EIR; (#2,
#3, it11)
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 mudflow on the site by grading in
a manner consistent with the City's Grading
Ordinance and as directed by the soils report;
(#2. #3, #11)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (The
proposed project has been previously mass
graded. As a result of its future development, it
will mitigate the potential for erosion, changes in
topography or unstable soil conditions on the
site by grading in a manner consistent with the
City's Grading Ordinance, and including
mitigation measures identified in the General
Plan Public Safety Element Implementing
Policies and Action Programs; (#1, #2, #11)
g) Subsidence of the land? (The previously-graded
natural soils stability onsite is considered
generally good. The proposed project will
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)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
Rev. 03/28/96
\..J
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and
attached)
h) Expansive soils? (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 will mitigate the potential
for damage from expansive soil 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
•known to be located in an area with unique
geologic or physical features; (#2d, #3)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Less Than No
Significant Impact
Impact
X
X
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result 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 will comply
with the City of Carlsbad's policies regarding
surface runoff quantities and rates in
compliance the Final Master EIR; (#2, #3, #11)
b) Exposure of people 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 alteration
of surface water quality (e.g. temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (The proposed
project will not discharge directly or in an
uncontrolled manner into any surface waters or
result in an alteration 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 development of the
proposed project will not discharge directly or in
an uncontrolled manner into any surface waters
or result in an alteration of water quality since
mitigation measures including the use of
temporary onsite, and permanent downstream
sedimentation and retention basins will be
incorporated into the project; (#3, #11)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? (Development of the
proposed project will 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 loss of
groundwater recharge capability? (The City's
General Plan and the General Plan Master EIR
contemplate urban residential development of
Village W, and the project will not result in any
significant withdrawals or additions to the
groundwater; (#2, #3)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
(The City's General Plan Master EIR
contemplates urban development of the subject
villages, and the project will not result in any
significant alteration in the direction or rate of
flow of groundwater; (#2, #3, #11)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (All pesticides,
oil grease and other toxic substances contained
in typical urban runoff will be conhtrolled
consistent with Federal and State law. As a
result, the proposed project will not result in
significant impacts to groundwater quality; the
City's General Plan EIR contemplates urban
development of this site consistent with the
proposed project; (#2, #11)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? (The proposed project will not result in
significant impacts to groundwater; the City's
General Plan EIR contemplates urban
development 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
J
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and
attached)
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
(Covered under the City's General Plan EIR.
See Discussion of Environmental Evaluation at
the end of this checklist).
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (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) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? (The proposed
project will not invoke or result in climatic,
temperature, moisture or air mass changes; (#2,
#3)
d) Create objectionable odors? (The proposed
project is a typical urban residential
development. Residential 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. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(The proposed project involves development
which will generate approximately 1,170 ADT.
Although in and of itself, this increase is not
considered significant, the City of Carlsbad has
determined that a potential regional significant
impact to traffic congestion could result from this
and all other projects in the City. See Discussion
of Environmental Evaluation at the end of this
checklist.
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
development of sharp or hazardous design
features. The project will be designed in
compliance with all applicable City polices and
codes regarding circulation design which were
addressed in the City's General Plan Master
EIR. (#2)
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 development of
the site will provide emergency access in
compliance with applicable City codes and is
designed in compliance with all applicable City
polices regarding circulation design which were
addressed in the City's General 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 result will not result in significant impacts to
parking capacity. (#12)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(The proposed project does not involve actual
design of development of the subject site, and
as a result will not result in significant impacts to
pedestrians or bicyclists. (#12)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (The proposed project will be
developed in compliance with the existing City
polices and codes regarding alternative modes
of transportation which have been addressed in
the City's General Plan Master EIR. (#1, #2,
#12)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (The
proposed project does not preclude and is in
compliance with applicable 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
Unless
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
11 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially
(Supplemental documents may be refen-ed to and Significant
attached) Impact
Vll. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? (The proposed
project involves residential lotting development
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 and
chaparral vegetation, prime habitat for the
coastal Califomia gnatcatcher, a federally listed
species. In the event that the mass grading
associated with the master tentative map
application, 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; (#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 result 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 wetland habitats, however
impacts to "waters of the US", and indirect
impacts could occur to downstream riparian
scrub wetland and sycamore woodland as a
result of potential sedimentation resulting from
development; (#2, #3, #6)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (The
proposed project will not result in an impact on
wildlife dispersal or migration corridors since the
subject property will have been mass graded
pursuant to the master tentative map, prior to
development of the subject project. (#3, #6)
X
X
X
X
X
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would
the proposal?
12 Rev. 03/28/96
W
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and
attached)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? (Development of the proposed project
will be designed in conformance with all
applicable federal, state and local polices and
codes relating to energy conservation including
State Title No. 24. The project falls within the
realm of urban uses anticipated under the City's
General Plan Master EIR; (#2, #3, #5)
X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? (Development of the
proposed project will be designed in
conformance with all applicable federal, state
and local polices and codes relating to energy
conservation; the project will comply and
implement Housing Element Action Program 5.1
which implements residential energy efficient
standards; (#2)
X
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? (The
proposed project is located within an area with
known mineral deposits however these minerals
are not considered of significant value and
urban development is planned for this area of
the City, which has previously been found in the
General Plan Master EIR to not constitute a
significant impact; (#1, #2)
X
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)? (The
proposed project does not affect the previous
findings of consistency with the City of Carlsbad
Emergency Plan for Calavera Hills, and does not
include any uses that would likely involve
accidental explosions, or a release of hazardous
materials. As a result, it is concluded that the
project will not involve risk of these
circumstances as determined in the City's
General Plan Master EIR; (#2)
X
b) Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
(The proposed project will comply with City
standards for emergency response to the
developed site; (#2)
X
13 Rev. 03/28/96
w
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and
attached)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards? (The proposed project is a
typical residential project and is not expected to
create any health hazards. A 138 KV electrical
transmission line is located adjacent to and
northwest of the subject site. The General Plan
Master EIR addressed electro magnetic fields
(EMF's) and concluded that scientific research
has not established that EMF's are harmful to
human health; (#2, #3)
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 Plan 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 immediately along the northern
and eastern perimeter of 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 result it is concluded that the proposed
project will not increase fire hazard and will and
comply with all applicable City policies regarding
fire suppression, landscaping and low fuel
planting; (#2, #7, #9)
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
X
X
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (The
proposed project involves residential
development adjacent to College Blvd., a major
arterial roadway. As a result, noise impacts
from this roadway source could be significant
and will necessitate mitigation. The exact form
of mitigation must be addressed in a site specific
noise analysis; (#2, #3, #12)
X
14 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and
attached)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
(Development of the subject village for
residential purposes will result in the potential for
significant noise impacts from College
Boulevard. The potential significant adverse
impacts relative to noise levels from these
arterial roadways could be mitigated for the
proposed project through the construction of
noise walls of a height and density to minimize
noise effects. The proposed project is not within
the noise contour levels considered significant
for McClellan-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. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the
following areas:
a) Fire protection? (The proposed project will be
serviced by Fire Stations 3 & 5 and as a result, it
is projected to conform with the City of Carlsbad
General Plan, the Growth Management Plan
and the Zone 7 Local Facilities Management
Plan (LFMP). Additionally, at the time the
Calavera Hills fire station comes on line
(expected in 2004), fire protection to the area
will be enhanced. No substantive need for
additional fire protection beyond that anticipated
in these documents will result from development
of the proposed project; (#2, #3, #5)
b) Police protection? (Police protection is provided
by the City of Carlsbad Police Department; no
substantive need for additional police services
beyond that anticipated in the City of Carlsbad
General Plan and the Growth Management Plan
will result from development of the proposed
project; (#2, #3, #5)
c) Schools? (The proposed project will not have a
significant impact on schools because it has
been annexed into CUSD Special District #3,
which levies taxes for the construction of new
schools. A new K-8 school is proposed to be
constructed as part of this project; residential
development of this site is anticipated in the
City's Growth Management Program; (#2, #4,
#5)
X
X
X
15 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and
attached)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(No substantive increase in road maintenance
will be necessitated since the proposed project
will be in conformance with the City's General
Plan and Growth Management Plan; (#2, #4,
#5)
e) Other govemmental sen/ices? (No significant
need for any other governmental services
beyond those anticipated by the City of
Carlsbad General Plan and the Growth
Management Program will result from
development of the proposed project; (#2, #4,
#5)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Xll. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or
supplies, or substantial alterations to the
following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (The proposed project is
not anticipated to create a significant new
demand for major facilities or to require
substantial alterations to existing facilities; (#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
facilities; city codes require that the applicant
consult with cable and communications
providers during the proposed project
design/City review process; (#2)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (Urban uses on the subject property
are anticipated in the City's General Plan EIR
and Growth Management Plan; (#2, #4, #5, #7)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (The proposed project
will utilized existing and planned facilities, and
will not create significant or unanticipated
demand for sewer beyond that anticipated in
the City of Carisbad General Plan Master EIR
and the Master Sewerage Plan. No septic
systems will be utilized; MEIR 93-01, pp.
5.12.3.1-5.12.3.5).
X
X
X
X
16 Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information 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 residential uses
on the subject property are anticipated in the
City's General Plan Master EIR and Growth
Management Plan, and the proposed project is
not likely to result in significant increase in storm
water drainage beyond that identified in those
documents. To ensure that no significant
impact occurs, the project will comply with
mitigation measures relative to storm water
control identified in these documents; (#2, #3)
X
f) Solid waste disposal? (Urban uses on the
subject property are anticipated in the City's
General Plan EIR and Growth Management
Plan, and the proposed project will not result in
an increase in solid waste beyond that identified
in those documents; (#2)
X
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Urban uses
on the subject property are anticipated in the
City's General Plan EIR and Growth
Management Plan, and the proposed project
will not result in an increase in demand for local
or regional water supply beyond that identified
in those documents; (#2, #3)
X
Xlll. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (The
proposed project will not significantly affect City
of Carisbad designated scenic vistas or
highways; (#2)
X
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect?
(The City of Carisbad review process includes
building architecture and quality of site design to
insure that proposed developments harmonize
adequately with existing development in the
City. This review process prevents
demonstrable negative aesthetic effects. As a
result, eventual development of the proposed
project will be designed in a tasteful and
marketable manner and will not have a negative
aesthetic effect; (#2, #3, #7)
X
c) Create light or glare? (The City's General Plan
EIR anticipates residential uses on the subject
site, and no significant light or glare will result
from the proposed project; (#2)
X
17 Rev. 03/28/96
• ^ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
(Supplemental documents may be referred to and
attached)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (The
proposed project is located within an area which
is expected to contain paleontological
resources. As a result, grading of the site may
impact paleontological resources unless
mitigation measures are included to minimize the
impacts; (#2, #3, #11)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (The
proposed project is not expected to disturb
archaeological resources. (#3)
c) Affect historical resources? (There are no known
historical features on the site; (#3)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? (The proposed project will not cause a
physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values: (#3)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area? (The proposed
project will not restrict religious uses or impact
sacred areas; (#3)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
(The proposed project will not create a
significant additional need for parks or other
recreation facilities other than identified in
existing City policy documents which identify
recreational plans for buildout of the City; (#2,
#3, #4. #5)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (The
proposed project will not significantly affect
existing recreation 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 quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples
of the major periods of 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?
Potentially Potentially 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 this Assessment:
1. City of Carlsbad General Plan, September 6, 1994, as amended. Including
Land Use Element, Circulation Element, Housing Element, Parks 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 Phase II, Bridge & Thorouglifare District No. 4
and Detention Basins Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR 98-02), January,
2001.
4. City of Carlsbad Growth 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 the City of
Carlsbad, December, 1999.
7. City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, Title 21, as amended.
20 Rev. 03/28/96
8. Comprehensive Open Space and Resource Conservation Management Plan,
May, 1992.
9. Citv 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. City 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 single 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 QUALITY:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in
the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power
consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in
the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and
sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air
pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air
Basin is a "non-attainment basin," any additional air emissions are considered
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in
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 Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement
Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding
Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's
Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of
air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning
Department.
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 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 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.
NOISE:
The proposed project will involve the potential for exposure of future residents to high
levels of noise from College Boulevard, a major arterial roadway. The Calavera Hills
Draft EIR concludes that, with appropriate mitigation, significant adverse impacts
relative to noise levels from these roadways can be mitigated for the proposed
project. Conditions relating to this mitigation are attached to this assessment. The
proposed project is not within the noise contour levels considered significant for
McClellan-Palomar Airport.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
The proposed project involves residential 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. This habitat is considered prime habitat for use by the
coastal California gnatcatcher, a federally listed "threatened" species, under the
Endangered Species Act. 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.
All areas identified in the master tentative map as worthy of preservation, in
conformance with the Habitat Management Plan program, are to remain in open
space conservation area.
In addition, the proposed project is located in an area that contains "waters of the
U.S.", in which federal and state permits, and mitigation will be required. This
permitting process will be conducted in conjunction with the master tentative map
mass grading process, and as a result will be completed prior to consideration and
approval of the subject project. In the event that this master tentative map does not
23 Rev. 03/28/96
occur, and this subject project will be required to permit and mitigate for impacts to
the "waters of the U.S.", this is considered a significant impact to biological resources.
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
paleontological resources. As a result, future grading of the site may impact
paleontological resources unless mitigation measures are included to minimize the
impacts as determined in the Calavera Hills EIR.
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.
NOISE:
1. Exterior Noise Levels -To reduce significant ground-floor exterior noise levels
for residential use areas, the project applicant shall construct noise barriers varying
from five to nine feet in height along the top of the slope as shown in Figure 3D-11 in
the EIR. This measure reduces noise levels at all ground-floor usable areas within
the village to a level at or below 60 CNEL.Moreover, if additional points of access from
College Boulevard and, as a consequence, additional breaks are required, no usable
exterior areas shall be placed adjacent to those breaks. Even with the construction of
noise barriers, noise levels at the second floors of the units adjacent to the roadways
could exceed 65 CNEL. Standard construction is not assumed to adequately reduce
interior noise levels to below 45 CNEL at these locations. Therefore, the following
mitigation is required:
Interior Noise Levels - a) At the time building plans are available for the units in this
village, and prior to the issuance of building permits, a detailed acoustical analysis for
24 Rev. 03/28/96
units exposed to 65 CNEL or greater will be required demonstrating that interior noise
levels due to exterior sources will be at or below the 45 CNEL interior standard,
b) For those areas where exterior noise levels are projected to exceed 60 CNEL, it
will be necessary for the windows to remain closed to ensure that interior noise levels
meet the City's interior standard of 45 CNEL and forced-air circulation or air
conditioning is required.
2. If earthwork blasting is proposed, the project shall conform to San Diego
County Blasting Ordinance Title 3, Division 5, Chapter III County Code of Regulatory
Ordinances Sections 35.377.101-104, 35.377.301(a), 35.377.306 and 35.377.307) to
reduce the temporary noise impacts due to blasting and Section 8.48.010 of the City's
Municipal Code limiting allowable hours of activities. The allowable hours of activities
associated with blasting will be from 9:00 AM. to 4:30 P.M. or one-half hour before
sunset, whichever comes first, Monday through Friday. No blasting will be allowed on
weekends or on the holidays specified in section 8.48.010 of the City's Municipal
Code.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
1. Prior to approval of the subject project, the mass grading associated with the
master tentative map shall have been approved, including federal, state and City
permitting and mitigation for the disturbance of coastal sage scrub and "waters of the
U.S." 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:
25 Rev. 03/28/96
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.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
To be determined by Planning Director
26 Rev. 03/28/96
IMPROVING
QUALITY
OF LIFE
City of Carlsbad
Recreation Department
October 29, 2002
Brian Milich
McMillin Land Development
2727 Hoover Ave
National City, CA 91950
RE: CALAVERA HILLS, VILLAGE X - REQUEST FOR TRAIL
EASEMENT ^
Dear Brian,
As requested, attached is an aerial map indicating a proposed conceptual
alignment for the public trails easement in the Village X area as well as The Cape
open space area.
BUILDING
COMMUNITY
PRIDE
I would like to briefly explain that this trail link will provide a very important
connection to existing and future public trails within the Calavera Hills area; to
pedestrian sidewalks (which we like to refer to as the Circulation Element part of
the trail system), to Calavera Park, the future Robertson's Ranch development,
the Calavera Preserve areas and to existing and future residential communities.
However, I understand there are two main issues regarding a public trail
easement in this area that need to be addressed and discussed further:
STRENGTHENING
FAMILIES
1. Whether the wildlife agencies will consider this use in the open space corridor
2. Possible opposition by The Cape residents, since a Citywide Trail was not
shown in the original Master Plan.
In regard to the above issues, 1 would like to initially respond and offer the
following for consideration;
DEVELOPING
TOMORROW'S
LEADERS
The City recognizes that any proposal to have a public trail in the open space
area within the Cape residential development would require negotiation and
agreement with the home owners of that development. However, there currently
exists a CMWD water easement service roadway within the Cape open space
that local residents use to walk and hike. We would propose continued use of
that roadway as the public trail. Use of this existing water easement roadway for
trail use would eliminate the need for any grading and disturbance to the native
vegetation in the wildlife corridor. It is our hope that by utilizing this currently
existing roadway and using the exiting informal trails, in the Village X open space
corridor, that the wildlife agencies will allow trail use as an acceptable use of the
wildlife corridors that these two developments contain.
www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
J200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008-1989 (760) 434-2826 FAX (760)720-691 7
Finally, in addition to the importance of the connections mentioned above, the
proposed public trail easement will benefit the community by providing an
opportunity to enjoy and explore one of the larger contiguous open space
corridors within the City.
I will be contacting you in the near future to schedule a meeting whereby we can
discuss further and determine if the proposed trail easement and alignments will
work. Working together, I am hoping this is possible. In the meantime should you
have further questions, please feel free to contact me at 434-2978.
Sincerely,
Liz Ketabian
Park Planner
c: Don Rideout, Principal Planner
•^Eric Munoz, Senior Planner
Ken Price, Recreation Director
Frank Jimeno, Associate Engineer
)^vWn^
'V\ta\ as rvia£^
3 ^vJti^i^
Citv of Carlsbad
Planning Department
May 9, 2002
Calavera Hills II, LLC
Attn: Brian Milich
2727 Hoover Avenue
National City, CA 91950
SUBJECT: CT 01-06/PUD 01-07 - CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE X
Thank you for applying for Land Use Permits in the City of Carlsbad. The Planning
Department has reviewed your Tentative Tract Map and Planned Unit Development permit,
application numbers CT 01-06/PUD 01-07, as to their completeness for processing.
All of the items requested of you earlier 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
Planning Director
MJH:VL:cs
c: Don Rideout
Eric Munoz
Frank Jimeno
File Copy
Data Entry
Planning Aide
Planning Systems, Paul Klukas,1530 Faraday Ave, Ste 100, Carlsbad 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 01-06/PUD 01-07
Planning:
SITE INFORMATION
1. Indicate top and bottom elevations for all noise walls. Show these
elevations at each end of the wall and in the nniddle. Also show the worst
condition elevation.
2. Please provide the total building coverage for lots with proposed structures.
3. Please identify all utility lines as existing or proposed.
4. Please provide average and peak potable water demand in gallons per minute
(gpm).
5. Please provide peak irrigation water demand in gallons per minute (gpm).
6. Please provide average sewer generation in million gallons per day (mgd).
7. Please provide colored recycled water use map for future areas to be
irrigated with reclaimed water.
8. Please provide contour lines for the slope areas.
9. Please place all development application numbers in the upper right hand
corner of the plan (i.e. CT and PUD)
LANDSCAPE
10. Please provide the quantity of all proposed trees per species and type (i.e
street, open space, slope, and entries).
11. Please provide the percentage of the site used for landscaping.
BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND FLOOR PLANS
12. Please add a depth dimension to the garage. (20-foot minimum)
OTHER DOCUMENTS
13. Please complete a new disclosure statement that is consistent with the title
report.
14. Please update the project description form for the project.
15. Please provide a construction materials board for the homes and proposed
retaining walls. See application submittal form for details.
MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENTS
16. Please submit a fence plan (with fence heights), sign program, and
trellis/patio cover exhibit pursuant to the Master Plan. The fence plan shall
incorporate the Master Plan fire suppression walls and noise walls as
required by the noise study. Please specify that future improvements for the
southernmost lots. Lots 25 through 43, shall comply with section
VIII.D.7.b.7 of the master plan for fire-resistive construction.
17. Please provide a noise study in accordance with the city's noise guidelines.
18. Please plot the top of slope setback line for single- and two-story building
plate heights as described in the Master Plan. This should be plotted on the
trellis/patio plan.
19. Please add a separate rear elevation plan, with detail notes, for the units.
Lots 25 through 43, that must conform to the requirements of section
Vlll.D.7.b (Page 60) of the master plan.
Engineering:
To be sent under separate cover.
ISSUES OF CONCERN
Planning:
20. The landscape plan does not conform to the civil drawings along the street
parkways.
Engineering:
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
April 29, 2003
Terry Gage
McMillin Companies
2727 Hoover St
National City, CA 91950
SUBJECT: STREET NAME APPROVALS FOR CALAVERA HILLS VILLAGE X - CT
01-06
The following street names have been approved for use in the above-listed subdivision,
however, the items listed below must be submitted prior to Planning Department
approval of the final map. These names should be included on the final map and all
improvement plans.
A Rift Road
B Gentle Knoll Street
C Ravine Drive
D Pleasant Vale Drive
E Crater Rim Road
F Basin Road
In addition, please submit the following items to this office:
1. Street name list;
2. 400 scale mylar delineating street locations and hydrant locations with at least
two existing streets and/or intersections shown on the map; and
3. Vicinity map.
Please call me at (760) 602-4624, if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
^^^^^^^^^ 0€jC^^
CHRIS SEXTON
Planning Technician
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ^
c
^
L
NO SCALE
B\inr^au\MMnv>wir\c>L*vni\MUUiir-UNC