HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 97-39; Lohf Subdivision; Coastal Development Permit (CDP) (10)e of
e
Carlsbac
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: West of El Camino Real, between Cassia Road and Dove Lane
the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego.
Project Description: Request for a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program to chan
the zoning designation from Limited Control (L-C) to One Fami
Residential (R-1) for two parcels covering 36.7 acres; and
Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Development Permit and Hillsi
Development Permit to allow the subdivision and grading for, a
construction of, 73 single family dwellings, with three open spa
lots, on the same 36.7 acres.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described proje
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ar
the Environmental Protection 0rdinanc.e of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review,
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on tl
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in tl
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plannir
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public a
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of dti
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Michael Grim in the Planning Department
(760) 43 8-1 16 1, extension'4499.
DATED: OCTOBER 26,1998
CASE NO: ZC 97-06LCPA 97-081CT 97-1 5/HDP 97- 16/CDP 97-39
CASE NAME: LOHF SUBDIVISION
PUBLISH DATE: OCTOBER 26,1998
a - MICHAEL J. HmZmLER
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (760) 438-11 61 FAX (760) 438-089
e a
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNJNG DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: ZC 97-06LCPA 97-081CT 97-151CDP 97-39lHDP 97-
DATE: October 3, 1998
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Lohf Subdivision
2. APPLICANT: Western Pacific Housing for LAMCO Housing, Inc.
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2385 Camino Vida Roble, Suite 10
Carlsbad CA 92009 (760) 929-1600
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: September 18, 1997
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program to chani
the zoning designation from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential (R-1) for tv
parcels covering 36.7 acres, and a Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Development Permit ar
Hillside Development Permit to allow the subdivision and grading for, and construction of, 7
single family dwellings, with three open space lots, all on property generally located west of 1
Camino Real, between Cassia Road and Dove Lane, in the City of Carlsbad, County of Sz
Diego.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projec
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impac
Unless Mitigation Incorp~rated’~ as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning (XI Transportation/Circulation [3 Public Services
0 Population and Housing [x1 Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems
Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
Water 0 Hazards 0 Cultural Resources
Air Quality Noise 0 Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
0
DETERMINATION.
e
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on t
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on I
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigati
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIT
DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
E I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlj
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatil
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negati
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on t
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potential
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier pursuant to applical
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier, includi,
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. TherefoI
a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
%%E/& 4- - e./ 92
Planner Signature Date
.,\J
\ , /$/&] ;w&!&?!& IO pi/48
Plahning Directoys Signhture Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the C
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a signific:
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followi
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and hum
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negatj
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
a A brief explanati.on is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that s
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following ea
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informati’
sources show that: the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved.
“No Impact” ansvver should be explained when there is no source document to refer to,
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
a “Less Than Sign.ificant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that t
potential impact .is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopt
general standards and policies.
a “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporatic
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and tl
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce tl
effect to a less than significant level.
e “Potentially .Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that :
effect is significant.
a Based on an “E1.A-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significa!
effect on the environment, but & potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzc
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicab
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigatc
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upc
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to c
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the pric
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no addition
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
a When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily requirt
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EI:
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement (
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
a A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence th
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less ban significant, a
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In tl
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporate
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
a An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includi
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect 1
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, a
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less th
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations’’ for the significant impact h
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not redu
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is I:
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect,
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significe
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end oft
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentic
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be deterrnin
significant.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impac
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
(Source #(s): cl 0 0 w
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over cl 0 0 [XI
the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? 0 0 0 [XI
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from 0 El 0 [XI
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 0 0 w
minority community)? (#l, pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l, pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0 cl El
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly 1:e.g. through projects in an 0 0 0 tx1
undeveloped a:rea or extension of major
infrastructure)? (#1, pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l, pg!; 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) cl 0 0 [x1
4 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people tlD potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l, pgs 5.1-1
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;
#2)
(#l, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15: #2)
- 5.1-15; #2)
#2)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
0 CI
0'
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0 0
0
0
0
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#I, 0 0
PgS 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;
h) Expansive soils? (#l, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (# 1, pgs 5.1-
#2) 0 0
0 0
1 - 5.1-15; #2) 0 0
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
8)
h)
0
Changes in absalrption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l, pgs
Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (#l, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1;
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1; #3)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? (#I, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1; #3)
Changes in currmts, or the course or direction of
water movements? (#I, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1; #3) '
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; #3)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
Impacts to groundwater quality? (#1, pgs 5.2-1 -
Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? (#l, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1; #3)
5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1; #3)
#3)
(#l, PgS 5.2-1 - 5.2-11; #3)
5.2-1 1; #3)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
17 o
V. AIR QUALITY. Wcluld the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
existing or projected air quality violation? [x1 o
€3 0
5
Less Than No
Significant Impa Impact
0 [x] 0 [XI
0 [XI
0 [x]
0 E
0 €3
0 [XI
0 [XI w
0 [XI
0 [XI
O w
0 €3
0 [XI
0 [x1
[XI
0 IXI
0 [XI
0
0 0
Rev. 03/28/96
a 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant lmpa
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? (#l, pgs 5.3.1 - 5.3- 0 0 0 (x1
12)
12)
d) Create objectionable odors? (#ly pgs 5.3.1 - 5.3- 0 0 0 w
VI. TRANSPORTATIO!K!IRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm (equipment)? (#l, pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l, pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? (:HI, pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22)
g) Rail, waterborne: or air traffic impacts? (#I, pgs
22)
uses? (#l, pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22)
(# 1 y pgs 5.7- 1 - 5.7-22)
5.7-1 - 5.7-22)
[x] 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (includhg but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds?
0 [XI
0 €3 b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l, pgs
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? o w
pool)? 0 IXI
5.4- 1 - 5.4-24) 0 '0
0 0 0 [xi
0 IXI
0 El
0 (x1
0 IXI
0 [x]
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 Ixi
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewalble resources in a wasteful and
inefficient mannlx? (#I, pgs 5.12.1 - 5.12.1-5)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State? (#l, pgs
(#l, PgS 5.12.1 - 5.12.1-5) 0 0 o
0 0 0
0 0 0
5.12.1 - 5.12.1-5)
€3
[XI
Ixi
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
6 Rev. 03/28/96
a
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substimces (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (# 1, pgs
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l, pgs
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1,-3)
5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1,-3)
health hazards? (#l, pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3)
health hazards? (#l, pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3)
grass, ortrees? (#I, pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3)
0
cl
0
0
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l, pgs 5.9-1 -
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#1, pgs
5.9-15) o
5.9-1 - 5.9-15) 0
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES'. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5)
b) Police protection? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5) o 0 0 C) Schools? (#l, pg!; 5.12.7-1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-1 - (#l, PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0
5.12.8-7) 0
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (#l, pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5)
b) Communications systems? (#I, pgs 5.12.2-1 -
c) Local or regional water treatment or. distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#I, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (#l, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l, pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (# 1, pgs 5.12.2- 1
5.12.8-7)
facilities? (#l, pg,s 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
7)
- 5.12.3-7)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l,
PgS 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
7
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation Incorporated
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
0
0 0 a
0 0 a 0
a
Less Than No
Significant Impat Impact
0 [XI
IXI
0 [XI w
0 [XI
0 Ix) o w
0 [XI 0 [XI 0 Ix) 0 w
0 [XI
0 Ix) 0 Ix)
IXI
0 [x1 0 [x)
0 [x] o [XI
0 [x)
Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impac
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Have a demons,trated negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare? (#ly pgs 5.10.3-1 - 5.10.3-2)
(#I, pgs 5.1 1-1 - 5.11-5) 0 0 0 Ixl
0 0 El
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#1 y pgs 5.8-1 -
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l, pgs 5.8-1 -
c) Affect historical resources? (#ly pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
5.8-10) o w 0 0
5.8-10) 0 [XI 0 0
10)
which would affkt unique ethnic cultural values? 0 0 o [XI
potential impact area? (#I, pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) 0 0 Bl
0 0 0 [x]
(#l, pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#Iy pgs 0 0 0 w
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7)
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-.7) cl 0 w b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (# 1 y pgs
XVI. MANDATORY FINTIINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce 0 0 w
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 lhave impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? 0 0 w
(“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 0 0 0 Ixl
beings, either directly or indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER ANAL’YSES.
There are three sources of earlier analysis referenced above. Source #I is the Maste
Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01) for the 1994 General Plan Update. This analysi
reviews the potential impacts of developing the City in conformance with the General Plan in th
8 Rev. 03/28/96
* e
areas of land use and planning, population and housing, geologic problems, water, air quali
transportation and circulation, biological resources, energy and mineral resources, hazards, noi
public service, utilities and service systems, aesthetics, cultural resources and recreation. SOU
#2 is the “Preliminary Geotechnical Study - Lohf Property”, dated June 25, 1998 and prepared
Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. of San Diego, California. Source #3 is the “Hydrology Study
Lohf Property”, dated July 3 1, 1998 and prepared by Hunsaker and Associates.
The proposed Lohf Subdivision project involves the subdivision and grading for, and t
construction of, 73 single family homes over 36.7 acres, with three open space lots. The site
mostly cleared of native vegetation from previous agricultural operations, with the exception
some habitat in the southwest comer of the project site. The proposed development WOI
encroach into approximately 1.6 acres of native habitat, including the relocation or removal 0.
mature oak tree. The proposed habitat removal is proposed to be mitigated by preservation oft.
remaining areas of native habitat and by relocating or replacing the mature oak tree. The si
may also contain paleontological and archeological resources and appropriate mitigatic
measures have been included.
With the exception of land use and planning, biological resources and cultural resources, f
proposed action, as designed, has no additional impacts not previously analyzed. in the earli
environmental review anti no additional review or mitigation measures are necessary with rega
to population and housing, geologic problems, water, energy and mineral resources, hazarcl
noise, public service, utilities and service systems, aesthetics, and recreation.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The proposed project has two components: a Zone Change and Local Coastal Progra
Amendment to change the zoning designation from Limited Control (L-C) to One Fami
Residential (R-1-7,5-00) for two parcels totaling 36.7 acres; and a Tentative Tract Map, Hillsic
Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to allow the subdivision and grading fo
and construction of, a 73 unit single family residential development over 29.6 acres, with 7.
acres remaining in three open space lots. The property is designated Residential Low Mediu~
Density (EM), which allows for residential uses at densities from 0.0 to 3.2 dwellings p‘
developable acre (ddac) by the City’s General Plan and Growth Management Ordinance. TI
subject properties also located within the City’s Coastal Zone.
The project site is generally located west of El Camino Real, between Cassia Road and Do\
Lane, within the City’s Coastal Zone. The site is surrounded to the west, north and east b
virtually undeveloped property, with the exception of two single family homes on the adjacer
lots to the north. These properties are also designated for residential development in the densit
range of 0.0 to 3.2 ddac .by the City’s General Plan and Growth Management Ordinance. Sout
of the project site is Pavoreal, a 90 unit, single family subdivision at a density of 3.1 ddac
The project site also borders the South Carlsbad Library parcel along a small portion of th
eastern side, just south of the entry point for Dove Lane onto the subject property.
The project site is mostly cleared from previous agricultural operations and contains three sing1
family homes. The homes are currently accessed via a dirt road leading from El Camino Rea’
which lies approximately 200 feet to the west. Future access of the subdivision would be take
from Dove Lane, Mimosa Drive, and future Poinsettia Lane, which will traverse the norther
portion of the site in an east-west direction. The water, sewer, and storm drain facilit
9 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
requirements would be met through existing and proposed infrastructure and would be in plz
prior to occupancy of any structure.
The Zone Change and LlDcal Coastal Program Amendment would bring the zoning designatic
of the property into conlormance with the City’s General Plan and Local Coastal Program a
the proposed developmlent would conform to all applicable regulations and policies.
discussed below, all potential impacts, except for Air Quality and Circulation, will be mitigal
to a level of insignificance.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
As mentioned above, the existing General Plan designation of the subject property is Resident
Low Medium (RLM), wlhich, after adjusted in accordance with the City’s Growth Manageme
Ordinance, allows a density of 0.0 to 3.2 dwelling units per developable acre. The existi.
zoning is Limited Control (L-C), which is a temporary designation given to annexed lands. T
appropriate zoning designation to implement the RLM General Plan designation is One Fami
Residential (R- 1). Therefore the proposed Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendmc
to change the zoning of the subject property to R-1 is appropriate and consistent with
applicable land use documents. Since the property is within the Coastal Zone, the Local Coas
Program Amendment is necessary to maintain consistency between the City’s Zoning Ordinan
and the implementing orclinances of the City’s Local Coastal Program.
AIR OUALITY:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updatr
1994 General Plan will rt:sult in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle mil
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reacti.
organic gases, oxides of :nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are t:
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since t.
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are consider1
cumulatively .significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in tl
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 varie
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisiol
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measurl
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demx
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including ma
transit services; 4) condlitions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable ar
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into tl
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project
located within a “non-altainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is markc
“Potentially Significant 1,rnpact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, tl
preparation of an EIR is riot required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-0 1, by Ci.
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for a
quality impacts. This ‘“Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subseque
10 Rev. 03/28/96
a e
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore,
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at t
Planning Department.
In addition to the impacts discussed above, there are a number of occupied single family hom
on the southern and northern borders of the project area. To preclude local air quality impacts
these residences during grading, a mitigation measure designed to reduce construction-relatl
dust and emissions is included.
CIRCULATION:
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updatt
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequa
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severe
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. The:
generally include all fieeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsb:
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersectiol
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, numerot
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 1
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalk
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulatic
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic fiom a failing Interstate c
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City t
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have eithc
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 th
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefort
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project i
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because thl
recent certification of Fiaal Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, includec
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement 0
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’
Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulatiol
impacts is required.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The project site has been reviewed for sensitive biological resources by the project applicant’:
biologist, Anita Hayworth, Ph.D., the findings of which are contained in “Biological Resource:
Report and Impact Analysis for the Dove Lane Property”, dated May 5, 1998. According to tha
study, 28.6 acres of the project site is disturbed or developed due to previous agricultura
activities and the existing residential uses. There is one large area of native vegetation remaining
in the southwestern portion of the site. This area totals approximately 5.5 acres, has greatlq
sloping topography, and contains southern maritime chaparral and a coastal live oak ripariar
forest. A California gnatcatcher female with juvenile(s) (Polioptila califomica) was alsc
11 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
observed in this habitat area, however this was during the late summer and the birds were like
dispersing or roaming the vicinity, according to the biological study . With the exception of tl
northernmost 0.4 acres of native vegetation, the southwestern portion of the site will remain
natural open space and be maintained by the future homeowners association. There is also
small area of southern rnaritime chaparral in the northwestern comer of the site, which w
remain intact as well.
Mitigation for the removal of 0.4 acres of southem maritime chaparral, as well as other, no1
sensitive plant communities (i.e. 1.2 acres of southern mixed chaparral and 0.5 acres (
eucalyptus woodland) would be accomplished through preservation of the remaining 5.5 acres (
southern maritime chapanal. Since a California gnatcatcher was observed on site, the gradir
operations are being restricted during the gnatcatcher’s breeding season, from February 1 1
August 3 1 each year.
The site also contains a mature coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), located in the middle of tl
disturbeddeveloped area. Since the project cannot be designed around the tree, the applica
must mitigate the loss by planting ten (10) coast live oaks within the project open space areas t
be preserved.
Based upon the information in the biological study, the proposed mitigation measures, 2
generally described abovle and detailed below, will reduce the project’s impacts to biologic;
resources to a level of insignificance.
L
CULTURAL RESOURCIS
While the Lohf Subdivision project site does not contain any structures of historical significance
there is a prehistoric site located in the area, identified as CA-SDi-8 195. There have been twl
previous archeological reconnaissances conducted on site: the ‘‘Draft Historical/Archeologice
Survey for the Dove Lane Property”, conducted by Gallegos and Kyle in 1997; and “interir
Letter Report of Significance Testing at CA-SDi-8195, Dove LaneLohf Property.. .”, written b:
Dayle Cheever and dated September 8, 1997. According to both of these studies, the existin,
archeological artifacts and ecofacts. have been heavily disturbed due to agricultural ant
residential uses on the project site. In August of 1997, the site was surveyed and determined tl
be significantly altered by recent historic land use practices with the result of limited researc,
value. The artifacts collected from the site are being analyzed to glean what general informatior
is available, the results are expected in the near future. No additional archeological work wa:
recommended on the site.
There are potentially significant fossil areas of Tertiary and Quaternary Ages within the projec
site, therefore, the grading operations of the project are conditioned to be monitored by i
qualified paleontologist in case of fossil discovery. These mitigation measures allow thc
paleontologist to direct or divert grading operations to facilitate paleontological investigations.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
. 0 e
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. To mitigate fugitive dust and other construction-related air quality impacts, the develol
L
shall do the following:
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Control fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust prevention measures;
Maintain equipment engines in proper tune;
Seed and wilter until vegetation is grown;
Spread soil binders
Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeat
soakings, as necessary, to maintain crust and prevent dust pick-up by the wind;
Street sweeping, should silt be carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares;
Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move dm
enough to p:revent dust raised when leaving site;
Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day;
Use of low sulfur fuel (0.5% by weight) for construction equipment.
2. To mitigate the loss of southern maritime chaparral and southern mixed chaparral, t:
proposed development shall demonstrate conformance with the recommendations of “
Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis for the Dove Lane Property, City
Carlsbad”, preparled by Anita M. Hayworth and dated May 5, 1998, including, but nl
limited to, preservation and maintenance of the existing coastal maritime chaparr
habitat.
3. To mitigate the loss of a mature coast live oak, the developer shall either transplant tl
mature coast live (oak tree, or plant replacement coast live oak trees at a ratio of 1O:l at
location to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. A landscaping plan showing all 02
tree transplanting or replanting shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Plannir.
Director prior to issuance of grading permit.
4. To mitigate potential disturbances to the California gnatcatcher, the grading operatior
within 100 feet of the proposed open space area will be restricted during the gnatcatchc
breeding season, or from February 15 to August 30 each year, unless it can be show
through field reconnaissance by a certified biologist that no gnatchatchers are present c
the property for two months prior to the start of grading.
5. To mitigate potential paleontological impacts, the developer shall accomplish th
following prior to final map approval or issuance of grading permit:
4 A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform a walkover survey of the si1
and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impac
fossil resources A copy of the paleontologist’s report shall be provided to th
Planning Director prior to issuance of a grading permit.
A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of th
site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossil
present in geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples fo
13 Rev. 03/28/96
A a e
laboratory processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make perioc
reports to the Planning Director during the grading process. L
The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of
exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts.
+ All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with
research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum.
+ Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities shz
be resolved by the Planning Director.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
See attached.
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AN
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF TKESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
/"! /"
iqh /L/g
Date
-
14 Rev. 03/28/96
I
ENVIRONMENTAL MITI 8 TlON MONITORING CHECKLIST; Q age 1 of 1
J
(
J
j
1 1
I
q 4
I
i
I 1
I
I I
(
I I : -
7
5 a . I
.- 2
f
$2
L m
3 - 1 Go
% .G c6
0 'p %a 5 II
x2
sa,
"(1)
Wi-