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.