Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 97-15; Lohf Property; Tentative Map (CT) (7)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-08/CT 97-15/CDP 97-39/HDP 97-16 DATE: Octobers. 1998 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. CASE NAME: Lohf Subdivision APPLICANT: Western Pacific Housing for LAMCO Housing. Inc. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2385 Camino Vida Roble. Suite 107. Carlsbad CA 92009 (760)929-1600 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: September 18. 1997 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request for a Zone Change and Local Coastal Program to change the zoning designation from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential (R-l) for two parcels covering 36.7 acres, and a Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Development Permit and Hillside Development Permit to allow the subdivision and grading for, and construction of, 73 single family dwellings, with three open space lots, all on property generally located west of El Camino Real, between Cassia Road and Dove Lane, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. 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. | | Land Use and Planning | | Population and Housing | | Geological Problems Water Air Quality Transportation/Circulation | | Public Services Biological Resources | | Utilities & Service Systems Energy & Mineral Resources | | Aesthetics Hazards I I Cultural Resources | | Noise | | Recreation I I Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) [~] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. | | I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. | | I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 1X1 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 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed 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 • 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. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (#1, pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (#1, pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) Potentially Significant Impact D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D Less Than Significant Impact D D D D D No Impact II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (#1, pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (#1, pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#1, pgs 5.5-1 -5.5-6) D D D D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#1, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2) b) Seismic ground shaking? (#1, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#1, pgs 5.1-1-5.1-15: #2) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (# 1, pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15; #2) e) Landslides or mudflows? (#1, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#1, pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15; #2) Subsidence of the land? (#1, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15;g) h) i) #2) Expansive soils? (#1, pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #2 Unique geologic or physical features? (#1, pgs 5.1- 1-5.1-15; #2) Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D n Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D D D D IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#1, pgs 5.2-1 -5.2-11; #3) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#1, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11; #3) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#1, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11; #3) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (#1, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11; #3) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (#1, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11; #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? (# 1, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11; #3) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (#1, pgs 5.2-1-5.2-11; #3) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#1, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11; #3) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? (#1, pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11; #3) D D n D n n n n n n n n n n n n n n V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 5 n n n n n n Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (#1, pgs 5.3.1 - 5.3- 12) d) Create objectionable odors? (#1, pgs 5.3.1 - 5.3- 12) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact n VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. 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)? (#1, pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7- 22) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#1, pgs 5.7-1 -5.7-22) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#1, pgs 5.7-1-5.7-22) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#1, pgs 5.7-1-5.7-22) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#1, pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#1, pgs 5.7-1 -5.7-22) D D D D D D D D D D D D D 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? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#1, pgs 5.4-1 .5.4-24) D D D D D D D D D D D VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#1, pgs 5.12.1 -5.12.1-5) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#1, 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? (#1, pgs 5.12.1 -5.12.1-5) D D D D D IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (#1, pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-3) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#1, pgs 5.10.1-1-5.10.1-3) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (#1, pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#1, pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (#1, pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-3) Potentially Significant Impact D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#1, pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#1, pgs 5.9-1 -5.9-15)D D XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#1, pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5) b) Police protection? (#1, pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5) c) Schools? (#1, pgs 5.12.7-1 - 5.12.7-5) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#1, pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.8-7) e) Other governmental services? (#1, pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) D D D D D D D XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (#1, pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5) b) Communications systems? (#1, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.8-7) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (#1, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#1, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) e) Storm water drainage? (#1, pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3- 7) f) Solid waste disposal? (#1, pgs 5.12.4-1 -5.12.4-3) g) Local or regional water supplies? (#1, pgs 5.12.2-1 -5.12.3-7) D n nn n n n XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#1, pgs 5.11-1-5.11-5)D 7 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#l,pgs 5.11-1-5.11-5) c) Create light or glare? (#l,pgs 5.10.3-1 -5.10.3-2) Potentially Significant Impact n Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Less Than Significant Impact No Impact n XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#1, pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#1, pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) c) Affect historical resources? (#1, pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- 10) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#1, pgs 5.8-1-5.8-10) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#1, pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) D n n n n n n n n n n n XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#1, pgs 5.12.8-1-5.12.8-7) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1, pgs 5.12.8-1 -5.12.8-7) D D D XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the I—I I—I I—I KTI quality of the environment, substantially reduce ^^ the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually I—I I—I I—I rc/i 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 | I I I i I r\/i will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. There are three sources of earlier analysis referenced above. Source #1 is the Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR 93-01) for the 1994 General Plan Update. This analysis reviews the potential impacts of developing the City in conformance with the General Plan in the 8 Rev. 03/28/96 areas of land use and planning, population and housing, geologic problems, water, air quality, transportation and circulation, biological resources, energy and mineral resources, hazards, noise, public service, utilities and service systems, aesthetics, cultural resources and recreation. Source #2 is the "Preliminary Geotechnical Study - Lohf Property", dated June 25, 1998 and prepared by Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. of San Diego, California. Source #3 is the "Hydrology Study for Lohf Property", dated July 31, 1998 and prepared by Hunsaker and Associates. The proposed Lohf Subdivision project involves the subdivision and grading for, and the construction of, 73 single family homes over 36.7 acres, with three open space lots. The site is mostly cleared of native vegetation from previous agricultural operations, with the exception of some habitat in the southwest corner of the project site. The proposed development would encroach into approximately 1.6 acres of native habitat, including the relocation or removal of a mature oak tree. The proposed habitat removal is proposed to be mitigated by preservation of the remaining areas of native habitat and by relocating or replacing the mature oak tree. The site may also contain paleontological and archeological resources and appropriate mitigation measures have been included. With the exception of land use and planning, biological resources and cultural resources, the proposed action, as designed, has no additional impacts not previously analyzed in the earlier environmental review and no additional review or mitigation measures are necessary with regard to population and housing, geologic problems, water, energy and mineral resources, hazards, 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 Program Amendment to change the zoning designation from Limited Control (L-C) to One Family Residential (R-l-7,500) for two parcels totaling 36.7 acres; and a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Permit and Coastal Development Permit to allow the subdivision and grading for, and construction of, a 73 unit single family residential development over 29.6 acres, with 7.1 acres remaining in three open space lots. The property is designated Residential Low Medium Density (RLM), which allows for residential uses at densities from 0.0 to 3.2 dwellings per developable acre (du/ac) by the City's General Plan and Growth Management Ordinance. The 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 Dove Lane, within the City's Coastal Zone. The site is surrounded to the west, north and east by virtually undeveloped property, with the exception of two single family homes on the adjacent lots to the north. These properties are also designated for residential development in the density range of 0.0 to 3.2 du/ac by the City's General Plan and Growth Management Ordinance. South of the project site is Pavoreal, a 90 unit, single family subdivision at a density of 3.1 du/ac. The project site also borders the South Carlsbad Library parcel along a small portion of the 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 single family homes. The homes are currently accessed via a dirt road leading from El Camino Real, which lies approximately 200 feet to the west. Future access of the subdivision would be taken from Dove Lane, Mimosa Drive, and future Poinsettia Lane, which will traverse the northern portion of the site in an east-west direction. The water, sewer, and storm drain facility 9 Rev. 03/28/96 requirements would be met through existing and proposed infrastructure and would be in place prior to occupancy of any structure. The Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment would bring the zoning designations of the property into conformance with the City's General Plan and Local Coastal Program and the proposed development would conform to all applicable regulations and policies. As discussed below, all potential impacts, except for Air Quality and Circulation, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. LAND USE AND PLANNING As mentioned above, the existing General Plan designation of the subject property is Residential Low Medium (RLM), which, after adjusted in accordance with the City's Growth Management Ordinance, allows a density of 0.0 to 3.2 dwelling units per developable acre. The existing zoning is Limited Control (L-C), which is a temporary designation given to annexed lands. The appropriate zoning designation to implement the RLM General Plan designation is One Family Residential (R-l). Therefore the proposed Zone Change and Local Coastal Program Amendment to change the zoning of the subject property to R-l is appropriate and consistent with all applicable land use documents. Since the property is within the Coastal Zone, the Local Coastal Program Amendment is necessary to maintain consistency between the City's Zoning Ordinance and the implementing ordinances of the City's Local Coastal Program. AIR QUALITY: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent 10 Rev. 03/28/96 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. In addition to the impacts discussed above, there are a number of occupied single family homes on the southern and northern borders of the project area. To preclude local air quality impacts to these residences during grading, a mitigation measure designed to reduce construction-related dust and emissions is included. 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 1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project site has been reviewed for sensitive biological resources by the project applicant's biologist, Anita Hayworth, Ph.D., the findings of which are contained in "Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis for the Dove Lane Property", dated May 5, 1998. According to that study, 28.6 acres of the project site is disturbed or developed due to previous agricultural 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 greatly sloping topography, and contains southern maritime chaparral and a coastal live oak riparian forest. A California gnatcatcher female with juvenile(s) (Polioptila californica) was also 11 Rev. 03/28/96 observed in this habitat area, however this was during the late summer and the birds were likely dispersing or roaming the vicinity, according to the biological study . With the exception of the northernmost 0.4 acres of native vegetation, the southwestern portion of the site will remain in natural open space and be maintained by the future homeowners association. There is also a small area of southern maritime chaparral in the northwestern corner of the site, which will remain intact as well. Mitigation for the removal of 0.4 acres of southern maritime chaparral, as well as other, non- sensitive plant communities (i.e. 1.2 acres of southern mixed chaparral and 0.5 acres of eucalyptus woodland) would be accomplished through preservation of the remaining 5.5 acres of southern maritime chaparral. Since a California gnatcatcher was observed on site, the grading operations are being restricted during the gnatcatcher's breeding season, from February 1 to August 31 each year. The site also contains a mature coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), located in the middle of the disturbed/developed area. Since the project cannot be designed around the tree, the applicant must mitigate the loss by planting ten (10) coast live oaks within the project open space areas to be preserved. Based upon the information in the biological study, the proposed mitigation measures, as generally described above and detailed below, will reduce the project's impacts to biological resources to a level of insignificance. CULTURAL RESOURCES 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-8195. There have been two previous archeological reconnaissances conducted on site: the "Draft Historical/Archeological Survey for the Dove Lane Property", conducted by Gallegos and Kyle in 1997; and "interim Letter Report of Significance Testing at CA-SDi-8195, Dove Lane/Lohf Property...", written by Dayle Cheever and dated September 8, 1997. According to both of these studies, the existing archeological artifacts and ecofacts have been heavily disturbed due to agricultural and residential uses on the project site. In August of 1997, the site was surveyed and determined to be significantly altered by recent historic land use practices with the result of limited research value. The artifacts collected from the site are being analyzed to glean what general information is available, the results are expected in the near future. No additional archeological work was recommended on the site. There are potentially significant fossil areas of Tertiary and Quaternary Ages within the project site, therefore, the grading operations of the project are conditioned to be monitored by a qualified paleontologist in case of fossil discovery. These mitigation measures allow the paleontologist to direct or divert grading operations to facilitate paleontological investigations. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) 1. To mitigate fugitive dust and other construction-related air quality impacts, the developer shall do the following: * Control fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust prevention measures; * Maintain equipment engines in proper tune; * Seed and water until vegetation is grown; * Spread soil binders * Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated 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 damp enough to prevent 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, the proposed development shall demonstrate conformance with the recommendations of "A Biological Resources Report and Impact Analysis for the Dove Lane Property, City of Carlsbad", prepared by Anita M. Hayworth and dated May 5, 1998, including, but not limited to, preservation and maintenance of the existing coastal maritime chaparral habitat. 3. To mitigate the loss of a mature coast live oak, the developer shall either transplant the mature coast live oak tree, or plant replacement coast live oak trees at a ratio of 10:1 at a location to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. A landscaping plan showing all oak tree transplanting or replanting shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Planning Director prior to issuance of grading permit. 4. To mitigate potential disturbances to the California gnatcatcher, the grading operations within 100 feet of the proposed open space area will be restricted during the gnatcatcher breeding season, or from February 15 to August 30 each year, unless it can be shown through field reconnaissance by a certified biologist that no gnatchatchers are present on the property for two months prior to the start of grading. 5. To mitigate potential paleontological impacts, the developer shall accomplish the following prior to final map approval or issuance of grading permit: * A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources A copy of the paleontologist's report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuance of a grading permit. » A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for 13 Rev. 03/28/96 laboratory processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process. * The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an 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 a 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 shall 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 AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date 14 Rev. 03/28/96 PROJECT NAME: LOHF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL DATE: FILE NUMBERS: ZC 97-06/LCPA 97-08/CT 97-15/HDP 97-16/CDP 97-39 EIR OR CONDITIONAL NEC. DEC.: CONDITIONAL NEC DEC The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). A jf» Mitigation Measure» !"•" , • •*•(•• "ff • , Fugitive dust mitigation Preservation of project open space Replanting of coastal live oaks Gnatcatcher breeding season grading moratorium Paleontological survey Monitoring Type Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Project/ Ongoing Ongoing Monitoring Department Engineering Planning Planning Planning/ Engineering Planning Shown on Plans No Yes No No No Verified Implementati , on j Remarks mz Ozsm I O3J O O Xmo CO 0)(Q Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated. Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information. RD - Appendix P.