Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-08-10; City Council; 12360; Hubbs Sea World Research InstituteCl--‘/ OF CARLSBAD - AGEt- -;A BILL LA ” AB # 43CeO MT& 8- I O-9 3 TITLE:APPEALOFTHEPLANNINGCOMMISSION APPROVALOFTHEHUBBSsEAwoRLDRJZsEARCH CITYAT DEPT. PLN INSTITUTEPROJE~-CUP92-lO/HDP93-05 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Both the Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare documents DENYING the appeal of the Hubbs Sea World Institute project, and UPHOLDING the Planning Commission APPROVAL of CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05. ITJZM JXPLANATION On July 7,1993, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and approved, with modifications (6-O), the Hubbs Sea World Institute project, located in the northwest quadrant of the City, east of Carlsbad Boulevard, along the north shore of the outer basin of Aqua Hedionda Lagoon, in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1. More detailed information is included in the attached staff report to the Planning Commission. Twenty-two citizens provided public testimony to the Planning Commission. The testimony consisted of eleven citizens in opposition to the project and eleven citizens in favor of it. Their public testimony is included in the attached Planning Commission Minutes dated July 7, 1993. Additional changes to the project proposed by the Planning Commission at the hearing have been incorporated into the appropriate Planning Commission Resolutions. Citizens in opposition to the project were concerned that environmental impacts from the project including traffic, noise, water quality, biology, archaeology, odor, visual aesthetics, economic, and private view blockage would have a significant adverse impact on the environment and the residential community to the north. In addition, the opposition felt that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should have been prepared to analyze the environmental impacts of the project. Staff does not deny that the project would create physical environmental change to the site, however, that change is not considered adversely significant under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), nor would the change endanger the health and safety of the residents living to the north. Mitigation measures provided as conditions of approval for the project would reduce any potentially significant impacts to below a level of significance. In order to evaluate the level of significance of the environmental impacts, staff has consulted with marine and wildlife biologists, archaeologists, noise and water quality experts, traffic engineers, soil engineers, architects, other responsible State agencies, including the Coastal Commission, California Department of Fish and Game, California State Lands Commission, California Department of Conservation, and the Regional Water Quality Board, along with field visits to the site and the existing hatchery facility on Mission Bay. Based on the conditions of approval for the project and all the information that has been gathered to this date and placed in the public record, including the responses to public comments, staff concludes that there is no fair argument that can be made to support the contention that significant adverse impacts will occur, therefore, the preparation of a Conditional Negative Declaration and not an EIR was appropriate per the provisions of CEQA. PAGE 2 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 1 ‘&%O Traffic generated from the project would amount to less than a 2% increase in the existing traffic at the intersection of Garfield Street and Tamarack Ave, which is the busiest portion of the street. The additional traffic generated by this project would not result in a sub-standard level of service along the road segment. The current traffic counts indicate 1600 ADT at the busiest intersection and Garfield Street has a road design capacity to accommodate 10,000 ADT. Noise analysis of the electric water pumps indicates that once they are placed underground in a concrete vault their sound will be inaudible from the closest residential lot which is approximately 210 feet away and 33 feet higher in elevation. Existing Citywide noise studies indicate that the ambient noise level in the project vicinity ranges from approximately 50 to 60 db CNEL due to traffic noise from Carlsbad Blvd, and Interstate 5. The noise analysis evaluated the sound generated by larger 25 horse power pumps sitting on top of the ground and determined that at the adjacent residential lots the sound from the pumps would not exceed 33 db. If this sound measurement were converted into a comparable community noise level equivalent the sound would not exceed 48 db CNEL, and the pumps would not be heard due to the ambient noise level in the area. The use of 15 horse power pumps placed underground and surrounded by concrete to sound attenuate the noise even further would result in significantly reduced sound levels. The waste water discharge into the lagoon is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency and the facility will not be constructed until the proper discharge permit is obtained and the waste water meets all adopted EPA regulations. Water quality experts have determined that the ammonia content in the discharge would constitute approximately one quarter of a pound of ammonia dissolved in 1.4 million gallons of sea water over a 24 hour period and have no negative effects on the waters of the outer basin or the existing aquaculture operations. At the public hearing John Davis, the operator of the existing aquaculture venture on the lagoon, stated that he is very concerned about water quality and is convinced that water flowing from the hatchery tanks will have no effect on his aquacultural business. Of the entire lagoon system the outer basin has the highest amount of tidal flushing due to the close proximity to the mouth of the lagoon which is permanently kept open to the Pacific Ocean by two jetties. All dead fish and other solid matter will be prevented from passing into the seawater discharge system by filter screens. The fish hatchery is currently operating on Mission Bay and discharging waste water into that body of water under an EPA permit. Wildlife biologists have surveyed the project site for endangered, threatened, or sensitive animal and plant species and none were located. Based on thorough biological field analysis it was determined that the site does not contain wetland habitat nor would the project create significant biological impacts. On the contrary, in order to establish a wetland habitat on this property the riprap would have to be removed and a 6 foot depth of soil over the entire site would have to be excavated and hauled away before the tidal waters would inundate the area. An archaeological site was identified in the project area and the site has been excavated, studied, and categorixed into the records by a professional archaeologist and deemed not a significant cultural resource. The loss of private views is not considered a significant impact under CEQA. Only the loss of public views has significance under state law and the project has been designed to protect public views from Carlsbad Boulevard and the railroad tracks. In addition, the devaluation of residential property values is also not considered a significant physical environmental impact under CEQA and was not evaluated. Additionally, no evidence has been submitted to support the claim of lowered property values. PAGE 3 OF AGENDA BILL NO. 11; 3 b 0 The City of Carlsbad and the California Coastal Commiss’ ion designated the project site as appropriate for aquaculture facilities in the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan, adopted May, 1982 as the City of Carlsbad’s Local Coastal Program for the lagoon. In 1982 the City Council made the finding that the land use plan fulfilb the policies and goals of the Coastal Act of 1976. Policy 1.8 of the plan states: “The primary use of the site shall be aquaculture. Other coastal dependant and visitor serving commercial uses shall be allowed, provided they occupy no more than 50% of the site”. As part of the Agua Hedionda long range land use plan an EIR was prepared (EIR-329) which evaluated different alternatives for land uses on various sites throughout the lagoon area. In the EIR a suggested alternative for this site was aquaculture and that is the land use that was ultimately adopted by the City Council for this site. The Planning Commission has determined that the project could potentially have a significant effect on the environment, however, there would not be a significant effect in this case since the mitigation measures described in the “Initial Study” have been added to the project. The Conditional Negative Declaration was sent to the State Clearinghouse for State Public Agency review and no comments from State agencies were received during or after the notice period. None. Facilities Zone Local Facilities Management Plan Growth Control Point Net Density Special Facilities 1 1 N/A N/A N/A A 1. Location Map 2. Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3522,3523, and 3524 3. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 7, 1993 w/attachments 4. Excerpts of Planning Commission Minutes, dated June 16, 1993 & July 7, 1993 \ r- \ Y t ftr&r7- f+ / b-6 /a, 360 &-/o-93 \ Tl-ciII City of CMal HUBBS SEA WORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE I CUP 92-IO/ HDP 93-05 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ~ 21 ~ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3522 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MARINE FISH HATCHERY/RESEARCH FACILITY ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF GARFIELD STREET, NORTH OF THE AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON, WEST OF THE AT&SF RAILROAD TRACKS, IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE CITY, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE &SE NAME: HUBBS SEA WORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE CASE NO: CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 16th day of June, 1993, and on the 7th day of July, 1993, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request, and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Conditional Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A> That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby APPROVES the Conditional Negative Declaration according to Exhibit “MND”, dated May 6, 1993, and “PII”, dated April 21, 1993, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: Findinp: 1. The initial study shows that the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, however, there will be no significant impact in this case because the mitigation measures described in the initial study have been added to the project. - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. The streets are adequate in size to handle traffic generated by the proposed project. 3. There are no sensitive resources located onsite or located so as to be significantly impacted by this project provided that the mitigation conditions of approval are complied with. Conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. . . . Approval of this project, is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolution No.‘s 3523 and 3524. The applicant shall receive approval of the following permits prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first: a> b) 4 Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission; 404 Permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers; Permit to Discharge Wastewater issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, prior to issuance of a building permit; and d) Any other permits that may be required by responsible agencies, including the California Department of Fish and Game. All responsible agency permits must substantially conform to this approval. If substantially different, an amendment to CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 will be required. The proposed sea water intake pipes leading from the project to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon shall be relocated to entirely avoid any areas of eel grass habitat, unless it is determined, through the 404 Permit or a subsequent responsible agency permit, that the encroachment into the eel grass habitat is not considered a significant impact, or is determined a significant impact that can be mitigated with eel grass habitat enhancement or replacement. The applicant shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant shall provide best management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first. The applicant shall submit a roof color and materials board for Planning Director approval prior to issuance of a building permit. The roof finish shall consist of a non-glare type finish that will minimize reflective light impacts to adjacent residential land uses. PC RESO NO. 3522 -2- 1 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning 2 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of July, 1993, by the 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Noble; Commissioners: Betz, Welshons, Savary, ErWk&Hall. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Schlehuber. ABSTAIN: None. CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOnMILkkR PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RESO NO. 3522 -3- - CONDITIONAL NEGATfVE DECLAFM’l’lON PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Garfield Street and the outer basin of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon APN: 206-070-l 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of the; (1) constkction of a 20,300 sq. ft. experimental marine fish hatchery/research facility; (2) construction of accessory outdoor race-ways; (3) installation of underground seawater intake and outlet pipes connected from the Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the facility; (4) construction of sewer and water pipes leading from the facility to Garfkld Street; (5) 1640 cubic yards of grading to enhance the existing access road at the terminus of Garfield Street; (6) 3300 cubic yards of remedial grading for a building pad and the driveways, and; (7) dedication of a 25 foot wide lateral public trail easement along the north shore of the outer basin of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for tmplementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a Conditional Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Conditional Negative De&ration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department at (619) 438-1161, extension 4455. DATED: MAY 6,1993 CASE NO: CUP 920lO/HDP 93-05 . 2 MICHAEL J. HOtiMtiR Planning Director ASE NAME: HUBBS SEA WORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE Nm G: BLISH DATE: MAY 6,1993 2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlebad, California QpOOS-1576 l (619) 438-l 161 @ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACX ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO. CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 DATE: APFUL 21. 1993 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Hubbs - Seaworld Research Institute 2. APPLICANT: Hubbs - Seaworld Research Institute 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1700 South Shore Road San Dieno. CA 92109. (619)931-1677 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Amil20.1993 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The nroiect consists of the: (11 construction of a 20.300 SQ. ft. exnerimental marine fish hatcherv/research facilitv: (2) construction of accessoxv outdoor race- wavs: (3) installation of underground seawater intake and outlet nines connected from the Arma Hedionda Lagoon to the facilirv: (41 construction of sewer and water DUDES Ieadinn from the facilitv to Garfield Street: (51 1640 cubic vards of madinn to enhance the existing access road at the terminus of Garfield Street: (6) 3300 cubic vards of remedial madinn for a buildinn Dad and the drivewavs, and: (71 dedication of a 25 foot wide lateral nublic trail easement alonn the north shore of the outer basin of Aaua Hedionda Lagoon. 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 sign&ant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist 8 identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and Provides the City with informatioti to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaratior~ . l 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. On the checklist, “NO” will be checked to indicate this determination. * An EIR must be prepared if the City determines that there is substantial evidence that any aspect of the project may cause a sirmificanf effect on the environment. The project may qualify for a Negative Declaration however, if adverse impacts are mitigated so that environmental effects can be deemed insismifkant. These findings are shown in the checklist under the headings “YES-sig” and ‘YES-ins@ respectively. a A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particuhr attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. . . PHYSICAL ENvIRoNMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECIZY: YES YES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.’ 9. 10. 11. bigI (insig) Result in unstable earth conditions or increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards? Appreciably change the topography or any unique physical features? Result in or be affected by erosion of soils either on or off the site? Result in changes in the deposition of beach sands, or modification of the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Result in substantial adverse effects on ambient air quality? Result in substantial changes in air movement, odor, moisture, or temperature? Substantially change the course or flow of water (marine, fresh or flood waters)? Affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water or public water supply? Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resources? Use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Alter a significant archeological, paleontological or historical site, structure or object? NO x x x x x X X X -2- BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL ‘DIRECI-LY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES big) WigI 12. 13. 14. 1s. 16. Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, microflora and aquatic plants)? Introduce new species of plants into an area, or a barxier to the normal replenishment of existing species? Reduce the amount of acreage of any agricultural crop or affect prime, unique or other farmland of state or local importance? X Affect the diversity of species, habitat or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, all water dwelling organisms and insects? Introduce new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? HuMANENvIRoNMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY: 17. Alter the present or planned IAnd use of an area? YES YES W@ (i&g) 18. Substantially affect public utilities, schools, police, f?re, emergency or other public services? NO x X X X NO X X HUMANENVIRONMENT WILL THE PROPOSAL DIRECI’LY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 2s. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. Result in the need for new or modified sewer systems, solid waste or hazardous waste control systems? Increase existing noise levels? Produce new light or glare? Involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? Substantially alter the density of the human population of an area? Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? Generate substantial additional trafk? Affect existing parking facilities, or create a large demand for new parking? Impact existing transportation systems or alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? Increase traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Interfere with emergency response plans,or emergency evacuation plans? Obstruct any scenic vista or create an aesthetically offensive public view? Affect the quality or quantity of’ existing recreational opportunities? 4 x X x X X x X X X X X X . . MANDATORY FINJXNGS OF SIGNIFlW~ WlLL THE PROPOSAL DtRJXTLY OR INDIRECTLY: YES YES NO 33. 34. 35. 36. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wild- life 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 en- dangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Wg) (insig) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the dis- advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) Does the project have the possible environmental effects which are in- dividually limited but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively con- siderable” means that the incremental effects of an individual 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.) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? x X X X -5 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The project would be located On a 10.4 acre pad along the north shore of the outer basin of Aqua He&onda Lagoon. The fish hatchery building, exterior race-ways, driveways and parking areas would all be located on the level portion of the site which currently contains disturbed vegetation. The fish hatchery building would be located approximately 125 feet from the lagoon (100 year flood line). The facility would be accessed by an existing driveway leading from the terminus of Garfield Street. The project site is located adjacent to the @a Hedionda Lagoon to the west and south, existing single and multi-family residential development to the north, and the AT&SF railroad tracks to the east. The adjacent residential development to the north is approximately 20 to 30 feet higher in elevation than the project site. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT The Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated December 1992, indicates that no soil or geologic conditions are present on the site that would preclude the, development of the property. The geologic reconnaissance and exploratory borings indicate no evidence of faulting and the seismic risk in not considered signiiicant. A majority of the site improvements would be constructed on the level areas of the site which contain hydraulic fill soils and lagoon deposits, therefore, the project would not appreciably change the topography of the site or create additional soil erosion. Grading to enhance and widen the existing access road at the terminus of Garfield Street would require minimal cut and fIl slopes. All manufactured slopes would be landscaped and adequate drainage facilities would be provided to reduce slope erosion to a level of insignificance. The project would include an underground intake pipe constructed from the facility, through the riprap along the lagoon shore, and into the lagoon. The riprap would be temporarily displaced to install the new pipe and then replaced over the pipe. The underwater intake structure would be sunk into the lagoon substratum approximately six inches, therefore, it would not substantially modify the bed of the lagoon. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant would be required to obtain a 404 Petmit from the Army Corps of Engineers. Surface drainage from the developed Portions of the site, including the roof, driveways, and parking areas, would be diverted into a grass lined drainage swale and catch basin prior to entering the lagoon. This would eliminate the urban pollutant and silt content of the runoff and reduce water quality impacts to below a level of signifkance. Prior to issuance of a building petmit the applicant would be required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit The project would include an outfall into the lagoon and would pekxlically discharge and exchange seawater from the fish cultivating tanks. The outflow would contain small amounts of ammonia and excess fish food, however, it would not contain any chlorine or coliform bacteria. Prior to issuance of a building pennit the applicant must obtain an Environmental Protection Agency Permit to Discharge Process Wastewater. Cotipliance with this permit would ensure that any water quality impacts to the lagoon are reduced to below a level of signikance. The property was suNeyed for archaeological resources by Gallegos & Associates and the report dated April 1993, indicates that one archaeological site (AH-I) was located on the bluff adjacent to the terminus of -6- Garfield Street. The site was tested and evaluated and determined to be not significant under CEQA and the City’s guidelines. No additional work was recommended for the site by the archaeological consultant. Project improvements would be constructed on the surface of lagoon dredge deposits and along an existing graded access road, therefore, the presence or discovery of paleontological resources onsite is not anticipated. BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT The property was surveyed for sensitive biological habitat and sensitive plant and animal species by Sweetwater Environmental Biologists Inc. The survey report dated March 1993, indicates that the entire site contains disturbed or ruderal vegetation, and no sensitive plant or animal species were observed. As a result of the biological survey and subsequent analysis there are no biological constraints to development and project improvements would not create a significant biological impact. The site constraints map for the recently approved special use permit (SUP 92-04) to allow dredging of the outer lagoon by SDG&E indicates the presence of eel grass habitat in the vicinity of the proposed intake pipe. The intake pipe has the potential to impact approximately 24 sq. ft. of eel grass which may create a potential significant impact, therefore, the intake pipe should be aligned further west along the shore a minimum of approximately 100 feet to entirely avoid the eel grass habitat. If it is detetmined through the Federal 404 Permit process or other subsequent required resource agency permits that the encroachment into -he eel grass is not considered a significant impact, or determined a significant impact that can be mitigated with replacement of habitat, the intake pipe would not have to be relocated to the west. HUMAN ENVIRONMENT The large metal roof of the hatchery building has the potential to create significant glare impacts on the residential land uses to the north. To reduce impacts to a level of insignificance the roof must be painted or coated with a non-glare type finish. The fish hatchery building would be surrounded with landscaping on all sides and be located as close to the base of the existing northern slope as is feasible. Locating the main structure along the northern property line places it further from the lagoon and Carlsbad Blvd. and utilizes the natural topography to minimize the visual impact to-public viewsheds. In addition, the parking areas would be screened with an earthen berm and landscaping. These design and landscaping features of the project would reduce potentially significant impacts to public views along Carlsbad Blvd. and the railroad tracks to a level of insignifkance. The project would provide a 25 foot wide lateral public trail easement along the northern shore of the outer basin of the lagoon, therefore, there would be no significant impacts to recreational opportunities. This trail easement would extend east to the railroad right-of-way and would potentially connect to any future City proposed rail trail. -7- ANALYSIS OF VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SUCH AS: a) Phased development of the project, b) alternate site designs, c) alternate scale of development, d) alternate uses for the site, e) development at some future time rather than now, f) alternate sites for the proposed project, &nd g) no project alternative. a) The fish hatchery is a one phase project, therefore phasing is not a feasible alternative. b) Several alternate site designs have been evaluated prior to selection of the proposed site plan. Placement of the building adjacent to the nor-them slope reduces visual impacts and allows a 25 foot lateral access easement for the purposes of a future public trail. A wider and straighter access alternative leading directly from the texminus of Garfield Street was also evaluated and would result in additional 25 to 30 foot high manufactured fill slopes that would create visual impacts from Carlsbad Blvd. Utilization of the existing dirt access driveway leading from Garfield Street minimizes grading impacts to the site. c) Visual impacts to public viewsheds are reduced to below a level of significance with landscape screening and building placement, therefore, a smaller scale project designed for the purposes of mikrking impacts to public views would not be warranted or be consistent with the goals of the project. d) The site is designated for Aqua Culture land use in the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan. The Agua Hedionda Lagoon presents a unique opportunity to support Aqua Culture land uses at this location. Alternate uses of the site such as commercial serving tourist (restaurants) or residential land uses would not necessary create any less of an impact than the proposed project. Use of the site for open space would eliminate all types of development impact, however, that would not meet the goals and objectives of the proposed project. e) All project impacts can be mitigated to below a level of signi!%ance, therefore, postponing the project to a ftiture date would delay the project and not provide the additional benefit to the halibut and seabass fishing resource. f) There are no other locations within the City of Carlsbad or in north San Diego County that have the site charactaistics (public road. access combined with a good supply of easily accessible seawater) necessaxy to accomkdate a marine f&h hatchery of this nature. g) Project impacts are not significant given the proPosed mitigation, therefore, the “no project“ alternative would eliminate the opportunity to enhance and r&nish depleted marine resources. The benefits new marine fishery research could have on the ocean environment far outweighs any localized environmental impacts to the project site, therefore, this alternative is not feasible or desirable. -8- . . DETERMINATION (To Be Completed By The Planning Department) On the basis of this initial evaluation: A I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATTVB DECLARATION will be prepared. - I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, because the environmental effects of the proposed project have already been considered in conjunction with previously certified environmental documents and no additional environmental review is required. Therefore, a Notice of Determination has been prepared. x I find that although the proposed project could have a signiknt 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 Conditional Negative Declaration will be proposed. - I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date Signature JG:'km LIST’ MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE1 1) The applicant shall receive approval of the following permits prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs first: a) Coastal Development Permit issued by the Califomia Coastal Commission; b) 4 404 Permit is&d by the Amy Corps of Engineers; Permit to Discharge Wastewater issued by the Envkmental Protection Agency, prior to issuance of a building permit. d) Any other permits that may be required by responsible agencies, including the California Department of Fish and Game. -9- 2) The proposed seawater intake pipes leading from the project to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon shall be relocated to entirely avoid any areas of eel grass habitat, unless it- is determined, through the 404 p&t or a subsequent responsible agency permit, that the encroachment into the eel grass habitat is not considered a significant impact, or is determined a signilkant impact that can be mitigated with eel grass habitat enhancement or replacement. 3) The applicant shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant shall provide best management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs fkt. 4) The applicant shall submit a roof color and materials board for Planning Director approval prior to issuance of a building pennit. The roof finish shall consist of a non-glare type finish that will minimize reflective light impacts to adjacent residential land uses. ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) -lO- APPLKAN’T’ CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATING MEASURES THIS tS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MtTIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. 4&d 37, lw- Date Signature JG:km , L -ll- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3523 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DEVELOP A MARINE FISH HATCHERY/RESEARCH FACILITY ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF GARFIELD STREET, NORTH OF AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON, EAST OF THE AT&SF RAILROAD TRACK!3 IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE CITY IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 1. CASE NAME: HUBBS SEA WORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE CASE NO: CUP 92-10 WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of Carlsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Pknning Commission did, on the 16th day of June, 1993, and on the 7th day of July, 1993, consider said request on property described as: That portion of Ranch0 Agua Hedionda in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to partition map thereof no. 823, fled in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16, 1896. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors relating to CUP 92-10. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Pkming Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: A> That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission APPROVES CUP 92-10, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Findings: 1. 2. A. B. C. D. E. The requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the general plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is located, because the requested use would: (1) play an important role in directly replacing stocks of marine fish diminished because of development of ecologically sensitive wetlands; (2) benefit the commercial and recreational fishing industries in San Diego County and the State of California; (3) provide invaluable scientific marine fishy mearch; and, (4) provide mitigation to of&et adverse impacts to the marine environment caused by the operation of the San Onofke Nuclear Generating Station. The project would be consistent with the implementing ordinances of the General Plan, including Title 21, the Open Space and Conserva tion Ilesowce Management Plan, and the Agua Hediouda Land Use Plan which designates this site for Aquaculture. The project would not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of theexktingsingle-fkmilylandusestothenorth. Themarine fish hatchery would not produce excessive odors. The live fish are raised in large salt water tanks which do not produce excessive odor. Heavy me&an&d manufacturing type equipment that could potentially produce excessive noise would not be required to operate this facility. The loudest onsite noise source would be generated by two 15 horsepower sea water pumps and those pumps would be encased within a concrete vault and located approximately 210 feet from the nearest residential structure. The pumps would also be located 33 feet lower in vertical elevation thaxi the closest homes. Due to the concrete case around the pumps, the large linear separation between the pumps and the homes, the steep and intervening 33 foot high slopes, noise from &is facility would not significantly impact the existhg residential neighborhood to the north. The project would generate 26 avaage daily trips which is equivalent to 2.5 single-family homes and would not significantly impact traffk along Garfield Street. Garfield Street has a traffic capacity of approximately 10,000 trips per day. The busiest portion of that street is at the intezsection with Tamarack Avenue. At that point the latest traflk count indicates approximately 1,600 tips Per day. The site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, because the project site is relatively level and the aquaculture facility would utilize 1 acre of an e&sting 10 acre site. All the proposed site improvemen ts would meet City ordinances and policies without the need for a variance from development standards. PC RESO NO. 3523 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. 4. 5. 6. . . . All the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained, because the proposed project would provide: (1) a perimeter fence for security and safety; (2) a 150 foot setback from the lagoon, a 40 foot setback from the northern property line, and a 100 foot landscaped setback from the nearest residential structure; (3) an 18-28 foot grade diEerential between the building pa L north, (4) adequate beg proposedstructuresfi-om i landusestothenorth;a foot height limit required 11 The hatchery building WC to provide architectural i structure when it is viewi trellis would also provide The street system serving generated by the propos Garfield Street would be for Institute perso- e buses. The facility woul traffic generated by apl circulation aisles, and lc movements of large vel Ordinance does not cant: applicant has stated thal shiftsand1oparkingspa would be provided. Thr spaces if the parking df provided to accommoda reseamh facility. The fi educational tours would The project is consistent * the Planning Commissio: project, ensured building Engineer determines tha within the project unle Commission is satisfied ti General Plan have been I This project is consistent been conditioned to corn Facilities Management Pl PC RJZSO NO. 3523 for the hatchery and the residential -&md uses to the ningandlandscaping(breesandshrubs)toscreenthe Brlsbad Boulevard, the railroad tracks, and the residential I., (5) a 20 foot high building which conforms to the 30 by the R-A Zone. ~dbeprovidedwithapeakedroofandvariedroofline terest and to enhance the visual appearance of the large 1 fkom Carl&ad ~N&WIEL The enhanced entxyway and visual interest along the Carlsbad Boulevard elevation. he proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic i use, because the exkting dirt driveway leading from tidened to 20 feet and paved to provide adequate access nests, and emergency vehicles, including fire trucks and generate 26 average daily trips which is equivalent to roximately 2.5 single family homes. All driveways, ding areas are adequate to accommodate the tmning cles, including trucks and buses. The cit~?s parking naparkingstandardfortheaquaculturelanduse. The the facility would have 7 employees during peak hour s would be provided, therefore, adequate onsite parking site plan has suflicient area to add additional parking nand increases intheflmln?. ParkiIlghasalsobeen !bllSfS associated with educational field trips to the ility would not be open to the general public and all e scheduled by appointment only. ith all City public facility policies and ordinances since: has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this bennits will not be issued for the project unless the City sewer service is available, and building cannot occur ; sewer service remains available, and the Planning It the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the et insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project. tith the City’s Growth Management Ordinance as it has ly with any requirement approved as part of the Local n for Zone 1. -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Conditions: Approval is granted for CUP 92-10, as shown on Exhibits “A” - “K’, dated July 7, 1993, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development shall occur substantially as shown unless otherwise noted in these conditions. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment of any fees in lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this project are challenged this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 65913.5. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with all requirements of law. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation required by the Zone 1 Local Facilities Management Plan approved by the City Council on September 1, 1987, incorporated herein and on file in the Planning Department and any future amendments to the Plan made prior to the issuance of building permits. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. Water shah be provided to this project pursuant to the Water Service agreement between the City of Carlsbad and the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, dated May 25, 1983. Approval of this request shah not excuse compliance with ah sections of the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable City ordinances in effect at time of building permit issuance. This conditional use permit is granted for a period of five (5) years. This conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Director on a yearly basis to determine if all conditions of this permit have been met and that the use does not have a significant detrimental impact on surrounding properties or the public health and welfare. If the Planning Director determines that the use has such significant adverse impacts, the Planning Director shall recommend that the Planning Commission, after providing the permittee the opportunity to be heard, add additional conditions to mitigate the significant adverse impacts. This permit may be revoked at any time after a public hearing, if it is found that the use has a significant detrimental affect on surrounding land uses and the public’s health and welfare, or the conditions imposed herein have not been met. This permit may be extended for a reasonable period of time not to exceed 5 years upon written application of the permittee made no less than 90 days prior to the expiration date. In granting such extension, the Planning Commission shall find that no substantial adverse affect on surrounding land uses or the public’s health and welfare will result PC FESO NO. 3523 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. because of the continuation of the permitted use. If a substantial adverse affect on surrounding land uses or the public’s health and welfare is found, the extension shall be considered as an original application for a conditional use permit. There is no limit to the number of extensions the Planning Commission may grant. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of grading or building permits, whichever occurs first. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, free from weeds, trash, and debris. Landscape plans shall be designed to minimize water use. Lawn and other zone 1 plants (see Guidelines Manual) shah be limited to areas of special visual importance or high use. Mulches shall be used and irrigation equipment and design shall promote water conservation. Mulches shall not be required in areas of hydroseeding. The developer shall avoid trees that have invasive root systems, produce excessive litter and/or are too large relative to the lot size. Planter width shall be a minimum of four (4) feet, not including curb, footings and/or other paving, and parking overhang. Prior to final occupancy, a letter from a California licensed landscape architect shall be submitted to the Planning Director certifying that all landscaping has been installed as shown on the approved landscape plans. All herbicides shall be applied by applicators licensed by the State of California. The applicant shall pay a landscape plan check and inspection fee as required by Section 20.08.050 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The first set of landscape and irrigation plans submitted shall include building plans, improvement plans and grading plans. All landscape and irrigation plans shall show existing and proposed contours and shall match the grading plans in terms of scale and location of improvements. Mounding shah be used in parking lot landscaping or preliminary plans shah explain why mounding is not possible to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. All parking lot trees shall be canopy trees. Mature trees which are removed shall be replaced one to one with minimum 36" box specimen. Each case shall be reviewed by the Planning Director. PC RJZSO NO. 3523 -5- - - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. The minimum shrub size shah be 5 gallons. 1 gallon sized shrubs for certain types of plants and for purposes of availability may be pemnitted subject to Planning Dirfxtor approval. Prior to approval of the final landscape plan, tree and shrub species along the northem property line shall be selected so as to provide adequate samming within a reasonable time period, and trees and shrubs shall be selected that do not exceed 20 feet in height at full maturity, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Any signs proposed for this development shall at a minimum be designed in conformance with the City’s Sign Ordinance and shah require review and approval of the Planning Director prior to installation of such signs. Building identification and/or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings so as to be plainly visible from the street or access road; color of identification and/or addresses shall contrast to their background color. Approval of CUP 92-10 is granted subject to the approval of HDP 93-05. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall receive a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission that approves development that is in substantial conformance with the City approval. Evidence that the permit has been received shall be submitted to the Planning Department. All conditions of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3522 for the Conditional Negative Declaration are applicable to this approval and incorporated through this reference. The developer shah provide the City with a reproducible 24” x 36”, mylar copy of the Site Plan as approved by the Planning Commission. The Site Plan shall reflect the conditions of approval by the City. The plan copy shah be submitted to the City Engineer and approved prior to building, grading, tinal map, or improvement plan submittal, whichever occurs first. This approval shall become null and void if building permits are not issued for this project within one year from the date of project approval. Trash receptacle areas shall be enclosed by a six-foot high masonry wall with gates pursuant to City standards. Location of said receptacles shall be approved by the Planning Director. Enclosure shall be of similar colors and/or materials to the project to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the Directors of Planning and Building. PC RESO NO. 3523 -6- - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Planning Director approval. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property. No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. In such instance a storage plan will be submitted for approval by the Fire Chief and the Planning Director. As part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, the applicant shall include a reduced, legible version of the approving resolution/resolutions on a 24” x 36” blueline drawing. Said blueline drawing(s) shall also include a copy of any applicable Coastal Development Permit and signed approved site plan. Prior to issuanceofahuildingpermittheownershallgranttotheCityofCarlsbad or its designee an &vocable offer of dedication for lateral public access. The required access shall be of a width not less than 25 feet and located according to -iits “A” and ‘93” dated July 7,1993, incorporated by reference. The facility will he made available for free educational tours for students and nonprofit groups upon written request by the school, or the group representing the students. The facility will m be used as a conmercial tour bus stop. If this lkility is closed, or not used for the pmposes intended by the Conditional UsePermi~orupollt exmination of the Conditional Use Permit, SIX&E, as the landholder, guarantees that upon request of the City Council, the structum will be removed and the property will be returned to its former state. The peak single.event noise level shall not exceed 4!5dBA at the facility fence abutting the residential area between the hours of 6:OO PM and 8:00 AM. All structures shall be maintained to retain an attractive appearance including, but not limited to, regular periodic maintenance of the metal siding and roof materials. 40. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits will not be issued for development of the subject property unless the District Engineer determines that sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such sewer permits and will continue to be available until time of occupancy. This note shall be placed on the site plan. 41. This project is located within the local coastal plan. All development design shall comply with the requirements of that plan. 42. The applicant shall comply with all the rules, regulations and design requirements of the respective sewer and water agencies regarding services to the project. PC PESO NO. 3523 -7- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. The applicant shall be responsible for coordination with S.D.G.&E., Pacific Bell Telephone, and Cable TV authorities. Prior to grading and building permit issuance the applicant shall pay all current fees and deposits required. Pretreatment of the sanitary sewer discharge from this project may be required. In addition to the requirements for a sewer connection petit the applicant shall conform to the requirements of Chapter 13.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The applicant shall apply for an industrial waste water discharge permit concurrently with the building permit for this project. Based upon a review of the proposed grading and the grading quantities shown on the Site Plan, a grading permit for this project is required. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, a grading permit shall be obtained and grading work be completed in substantial conformance with the approved grading plans. No grading shall occur outside the limits of the project unless a grading or slope easement is obtained from the owners of the affected properties. If the applicant is unable to obtain the grading or slope easement, no grading permit will be issued. In that case the applicant must either amend the conditional use permit or change the slope so grading will not occur outside the project site in a manner which substantially conforms to the approved site plan as determined by the City Engineer and Planning Director. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site within this project, the applicant shall submit to and receive approval from the City Engineer for the proposed haul route. The applicant shall comply with all conditions and requirements the City Engineer may impose with regards to the hauling operation. The developer shall exercise special care during the construction phase of this project to prevent offsite siltation. Planting and erosion control shall be provided in accordance with the Carlsbad Municipal Code and the City Engineer. Reference Chapter 11.06. Additional drainage easements may be required. Drainage structures shall be provided or installed prior to the issuance of grading or building permit as may be required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall comply with the City’s requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant shall provide best management practices to reduce surface pollutants to an acceptable level prior to discharge to sensitive areas. Plans for such improvements shall be approved by the city Engineer prior to issuance of grading or building permit, whichever occurs first. PC RESO NO. 3523 -8- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. A Certificate of Compliance/Adjustment PM/Record of Survey shall be tiled with the County Recorder of the County of San Diego, State of California’ for the division of, Parcel B of City of Carl&ad Adjustment Plat No. 404, prior to building c=w=v- Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City in a form acceptable to the City Attorney acknowledging that there have been claims of unacceptable levels of fetal coliform and other bacteriological conditions which may render applicant’s fish at times unmarketable, unsalable and not fit for human consumption under laws, ordinances, policies and regulations of Federal, State, County or local jurisdictions. Furthermom, applicant recognizes that its business may be interrupted from time to time resulting from an application of these law ordinances, regulations or policies. Nonetheless, applicant desires to have approved its Conditional Use Permit and operate under certain terms and conditions. The&ore, being fully aware of these possible consequences, applicant waivers all claims for causes of action against the City, the Fzxina Admiktmtive Agency (F&Q and its member agencies or their officers and employees from any and all damages or liabilities resulting from or arising out of the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. The applicant further waives any and ail claims for business intemlptio~ loss of profits, taking of property or injury to business reputation to the fullest extent allowed by law. In addition, applicant indemnifies and holds harmless the City, EAA and its members agencies, their officers and employees f&m any and all claims, demands, causes of action, liability or loss of any or asserted by third Persons resulting from or arising out of applicant% operation of its business and further agrees to apply all costs including defense costs and attorney’s fees and ail judgements against the City, Encina and its member agencies, their officers and employees. An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Planning Director approval. AU lighting shah be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property. No outdoor storage of material shall occur onsite unless required by the Fire Chief. In such instance a storage plan will be submitted for approval by the Fire Chief and the Planning Director. As part of the plans submitted for any permit plan check, the applicant shah include a reduced, legible version of the approving resolution/resolutions on a 24” x 36” blueline drawing. Said blueline drawing(s) shall also include a copy of any applicable Coastal Development Permit and signed approved site plan. Fire Conditions: 57. Prior to the issuance of building permits, complete building plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department. PC PESO NO. 3523 -9- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. Onsite water mains and Ere hydrants are required. An all weather, unobstructed access road suitable for emergency service vehicles shall be provided and maintained during constructions When in the opinion of the Fire Chief, the access road has become unserviceable due to inclement weather or other reasons, he may, in the interest of public safety, require that construction operatious cease until the condition is corrected. All required water mains, fire hydrants and appurtenances shah be operational before combustible building materials are located on the construction site. All security gate systems controlling vehicular access shall be equipped with a “Ihod’, keyqerated emergency entry device. Applicant shall contact the Fire Prevention Bureau for specikations and approvals prior to imtallation. Plans and/or specifications for fie alarm systems, fire hydrants, automatic fk sprinkler systems, and other fire protection systems shah be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to construction. The building shall be designed with an approved automatic fires sprinkler system or such architectuxal features or alternative fire protection meamres to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief. Water District: The entire potable and non-potable water system/systems for subject, project shall be evaluated in detail to ensure that adequate capacity and pressure for domestic, landscaping and tie flow demands are met. The developer shall be responsible for all fees, deposits and charges which will be collected at time of issuance of the building permit. The San Diego County Water Authority capacity charge will be collected at issuance of application for meter installation. sequentially, the Developer% EngiMer &all do the followingz A. Meet with the City Fire Marshal and establish the fire protection requirements. B. Preparearoloredreclaimedwater~areamapandsubmittothePlanning Department for processing and approval CL Schedule a meeting with the District Ehgheer for review, comment and approval of the prelhhmy system layout usage (G.P.M. - E.D.U.) plan for potable, re&imed and sewer systems prior to the preparation of implxmment plans. PC PESO NO. 3523 -lO- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 .- 67. This project is approved upon the express condition that building permits wiII not be issued for development of the subject property unless the water district serving the development determines that adequate water service and sewer facilities are available at the time of application for such water service and sewer permits wilI continue to be available until time of occupancy. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regukr meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of CarIsbad, California, held on the 7th day of July, 1993, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners: Betz, Welshons, Savaxy, ErWill8CHa.U. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Schlehuber. ABSTAIN: None. BAILEY NOB@ Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RESO NO. 3523 -ll- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 3524 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO DEVELOP A MARINE FISH HATCHERY/RESEARCH FACILITY ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF GARFIELD STREET, NORTH OF THE AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON, WESTOF THEAT&SF RAILROADTRACKS IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE CITY, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PLAN ZONE 1. CASENAME: HUBBSSEAWORLDRESEARCHINSTITUTE CASENO: HDP 93-05 WHEREAS, a verified application has been filed with the City of CarIsbad and referred to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request as provided by Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission did, on the 16th day of June, 1993, and on the 7th day of July, 1993, consider said request on property described as: That portion of Ranch0 Agua Hedionda in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to partition map thereof no. 823, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, November 16, 1896. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering ail testimony and arguments, if any, of aI.I persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered aII factors relating to HDP 93-05. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of CarIsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission APPROVES HDP 93-05, based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions: .- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Findinzs: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The site’s hillside slope conditions have been identifkd on a slope constraints exhiiit; all undevelopable areas of the site have been properly identified; and no development or grading would occur in those areas. Grading to widen the existing dirt access driveway would occur on 40% slopes. The exkting 40% slopes have been disturbed by prkvious grading when the driveway was originally constructed and, thdore, maybe excluded from the req ukments of the Hillside Development Regulations by the decisionmaking body per Section 21.95.090 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The project design minim&s dist&ance of the hillside area. Utilization of the existing driveway leading from Garfield Street eliminates the need for a 28 foot high fill slope that would otherwise be required to extend Garfield Street further south and down the existing slopes. The crib wall and cut slope necessary to widen the access driveway would be landscaped to provide visual screening and to prevent slope erosion. The project is consistent with all City public facility policies and ordinances since: The Planning Commission has, by inclusion of an appropriate condition to this project, ensured building permits will not be issued for the project unless the City Engineer determines that sewer service is available, and building cannot occur within the project unless sewer service remains available, and the Planning Commission is satisfied that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan have been met insofar as they apply to sewer service for this project. The applicant is by condition, required to pay any increase in public facility fee, or new construction tax, or development fees, and has agreed to abide by any additional requirements established by a Local Facilities Management Plan prepared pursuant to Chapter 21.90 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. This will ensure continued availability of public facilities and will mitigate any cumulative impacts created by the project. This project is consistent with the City’s Growth Management Ordinance as it has been conditioned to comply with any requirement approved as part of the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1. Conditions: i. All conditions of approval for CUP 92-10 as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3523 are applicable to this approval and incorporated through this reference. 2. Approval for HDP 93-05, as shown on Exhibits “A’‘-“KY, dated July 7, 1993, incorporated by reference and on file in the Planning Department. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved exhibits. Any proposed grading PC PESO NO. 3524 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and/or development substantially different from this approval as determined by the Planning Director, shall require an amendment to this permit. 3. Approval of HDP 93-05 is granted subject to the approvd of CUP 92-10. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regukr meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 7th day of July, 1993, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Noble; Commissioners: Betz, Welshons, Savary, ElWhl&Hall. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Schlehuber. ABSTAIN: None. BAILEY NOB& Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HOLZMItiR PLANNING DIRECTOR PC RESO NO. 3524 -3- EM 16rjL3 f+6 /a,3LI 0 APP&;.;r;;3COMPLETE DATE: 8-f0- 93 STAFF PLANNER: JEFF GIBSON STAFF REPORT 0 2 DATE: JULY 7, 1993 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 - HUBBS SEA WORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE - Request for approval of a Conditional Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit, and Hillside Development Permit to develop a marine fish hatchery/research facility on land generally located south of Garfield Street, north of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and west of the AT&SF railroad tracks in the R-A-10 Zone in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 3522, APPROVING the Conditional Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3523 and 3524, APPROVING, CUP 92-10, and HDP 93-05 based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Hillside Development Permit to develop a 20,300 sq. ft. marine fish hatchery/research facility on land generally located south of Garfield Street, north of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and west of the AT&SF railroad tracks in the R-A-10 Zone in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. Hubbs Sea World Research Institute is a non-profit corporation that currently conducts its research in a facility adjacent to Sea World at Mission Bay in the City of San Diego. The next phase of the research project and a proposed expansion of Sea World would displace the existing research facility making the relocation necessary. Since 1984 the Institute and San Diego State University have been working jointly on the Ocean Resources Enhancement and Hatchery Program (OREHP) to evaluate the feasibility of culturing and releasing juvenile marine fish into the ocean. The goal of the project is to replenish depleted wild stocks in the ocean waters off the coast of Southern California. The hatchery would primarily rear two commercially and recreationally important fish species, white seabass and California halibut. The Institute would also conduct research on the feasibility of culturing other marine fish species. CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 HUBBS SEA WORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE JUNE 16,1993 PAGE 2 The research is funded by the California Department of Fish and Game through revenues accrued from the sale of $1 sport and $10 commercial marine fishing stamps to fishermen south of Point Arguello. The Institute has also been successful in securing a financial commitment from the State of California for the expenditure of mitigation funds arising out of the operation of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). The fish hatchery is considered a viable mitigative measure to compensate for the fish lost from thermal shock and environmental degradation caused by the operation of SONGS. The project consists of: (1) construction of a 20,300 sq. ft. marine fish hatchery/research facility; (2) construction of accessory outdoor race-ways; (3) installation of underground seawater intake and outlet pipes connected from the fish hatchery to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon; (4) construction of sewer and water pipes leading from the facility to Garfield Street; (5) 1640 cubic yards of grading to enhance the existing access road at the terminus of Garfield Street; (6) 3300 cubic yards of remedial grading for a building pad and the driveways; and, (7) dedication of a 25 foot wide lateral public trail easement along the north shore of the outer basin of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The project would be located on a 10.4 acre parcel owned by SDG&E along the north shore of the outer basin of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The fish hatchery building, exterior race-ways, driveways and parking areas would all be located on the level portion of the site which currently contains disturbed vegetation. The hatchery building would be located approximately 125 feet from the lagoon (100 year flood line). The facility would be accessed by an existing driveway leading from the terminus of Garfield Street. The project site is located adjacent to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the west and south, existing single and multi-family residential development to the north, and the AT&SF railroad tracks to the east. The adjacent residential development to the north is approximately 18 to 28 feet higher in elevation than the project site. III. ANALYSIS The proposed project is subject to the following land use plans and ordinances: A. City of Carlsbad General Plan - Land Use and Open Space and Conservation Element. B. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Conditional Uses, Chapter 21.42. C. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Hillside Development Regulations, Chapter 21.95. D. Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan, City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program. E. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Growth Management, Chapter 21.90 and Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 20. CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 HUBBS SEA WORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE JUNE 16,1993 PAGE3 F. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Environmental Protection Procedures, Title 19 and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A. GENERAL PLAN The project site has an Open Space (OS) General Plan Land Use Designation and is located in the Residential Agricultural Zone (R-A). LAND USE ELEMENT The Zoning Ordinance, Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, implements the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Title 21, Section 21.42.010(2)(L) allows the development of Aquaculture facilities in all zones, including the R-A Zone and the Open Space Zone, with a conditional use permit (CUP), therefore, the project would be consistent with the General Plan. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT The Conceptual Open Space and Conservation Map designates Trail Link No. 11A on the project site. This citywide trail link is planned to connect to Trail Link No. 11 which is a potential future regional rail-trail along the AT&SF rail corridor. As part of this conditional use permit a 25 foot lateral public access easement would be dedicated along the northern shore of the outer basin of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon from Carlsbad Boulevard east to the AT&SF right-of-way. This 25 foot wide public access would provide the necessary citywide trail connection for Link No.llA, therefore, the project as proposed would not preclude future trail access to the railroad corridor. In addition the site contains no sensitive plant or animal species or sensitive biological habitats, therefore, the project would be consistent with the Open Space and Conservation Element. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ORDINANCE Section 21.42.010(2)(L) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code allows the development of Aquaculture facilities in all zones, including the R-A-10 Zone, with a conditional use permit (CUP). Before a CUP can be approved by the Planning Commission the following four findings must be made: 1) “The requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the genera1 plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is located.” CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 HUBBS SEA WORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE JUNE 16, 1993 PAGE 4 The requested use is desirable and would: (1) play an important role in directly replacing stocks of marine fish diminished because of development of ecologically sensitive wetlands; (2) benefit the commercial and recreational fishing industries in San Diego County and the State of California; (3) provide invaluable scientific marine fishery research; and, (4) provide mitigation to offset adverse impacts to the marine environment caused by the operation of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. The project would be consistent with the implementing ordinances of the General Plan, including Title 21, the. Open Space and Conservation Resource Management Plan, and the ‘Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan which designates this site for Aquaculture. The project would not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the existing single-family land uses to the north. The marine fish hatchery would not produce excessive odors or create significant noise impacts (See the attached staff response to citizen comments). The live fish are raised in large salt water tanks which do not produce excessive odors; Heavy mechanized manufacturing type equipment that could potentially produce excessive noise would not be required to operate this facility. The loudest onsite noise source would be generated by two 15 horsepower sea water pumps and those pumps would be encased within a concrete vault and located approximately 210 feet from the nearest residential structure. The pumps would also be located 33 feet lower in vertical elevation than the closest homes. Due to the concrete case around the pumps, the large linear separation between the pumps and the homes, the steep and intervening 33 foot high slopes would not significantly impact the existing residential neighborhood to the north, (See the attached staff response to citizen comments and the supplemental noise study). The project would generate 26 average daily trips which is equivalent to traffic generated by 2.5 single-family homes and would not significantly impact traffic along Garfield Street. Garfield Street has a traffic capacity of approximately 10,000 trips per day. The busiest portion of that street is at the intersection with Tamarack Avenue. At that point the latest traffic count indicates approximately 1,600 trips per day. A condition has been incorporated into the Conditional Use Permit Resolution that informs the applicant that there have been claims of unacceptable levels of fetal coliform and other biological conditions in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon that may impact the operation of the facility. 2) “The site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use. The project site is relatively level and the aquaculture facility would utilize 1 acre of an existing 10 acre site. All the proposed site improvements would meet City CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 HUBBS SEA WORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE JUNE 16, 1993 PAGE 5 ordinances and policies without the need for a variance from development standards. The fish hatchery would be located at the base of the slopes along the northern property line to minimize the visual impacts of the facility from Carlsbad Boulevard and the railroad tracks. 3) “All the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained.” The proposed project would provide: (1) a perimeter fence for security and safety; (2) a 125 foot setback from the lagoon, a 40 foot setback from the northern property line, and a 100 foot landscaped setback from the nearest residential structure; (3) an 18-28 foot elevation differential between the building pad for the hatchery and the residential land uses to the north; (4) adequate berming and landscaping (trees and shrubs) to screen the proposed structures from Carlsbad Boulevard, the railroad tracks, and the residential land uses to the north; and, (5) a 20 foot high building which conforms to the 30 foot height limit required by the R-A Zone. The hatchery building would be provided with a peaked roof and varied roof line to provide architectural interest and to enhance the visual appearance of the large structure when it is viewed from Carlsbad Boulevard. The enhanced entryway and trellis would also provide visual interest along the Carlsbad Boulevard elevation. 4) “The street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use. The existing dirt driveway leading from Garfield Street to the site would be widened to 20 feet and paved to provide adequate access for Institute personnel, guests, and emergency vehicles, including fire trucks and buses. The facility would generate 26 average daily trips which is equivalent to traffic generated by approximately 2.5 single family homes. All driveways, circulation aisles, and loading areas are adequate to accommodate the turning movements of large vehicles, including trucks and buses. The City’s Parking Ordinance does not contain a parking standard for the aquaculture land use. The applicant has stated that the facility would have 7 employees during peak hour shifts and 10 parking spaces would be provided, therefore, adequate onsite parking would be provided. The site plan has sufficient area to add additional parking spaces if the parking demand increases in the future. Parking has also been provided to accommodate buses associated with educational field trips to the research facility. The facility would not be open to the general public and all educational tours would be scheduled by appointment only. CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 HUBBS SEA WORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE JUNE 16, 1993 PAGE 6 C. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE A Hillside Development Permit is required for this project because the project site has slopes along the northern property line that are fifteen percent or more with an elevation differential greater than fifteen feet. The proposed project complies with the requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance as follows: 1) The site’s hillside slope conditions have been identified on a slope constraints exhibit; all undevelopable areas of the site have been properly identified; and no development or grading would occur in those areas. Grading to widen the existing dirt access driveway would occur on 40% slopes. The existing 40% slopes have been disturbed by previous grading when the driveway was originally constructed and, therefore, may be excluded from the requirements of the Hillside Development Regulations by the decision making body per Section 21.95.090 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. 2) The project design minimizes disturbance of the hillside area. Utilization of the existing driveway leading from Garfield Street eliminates the need for a 28 foot high fill slope that would otherwise be required to extend Garfield Street further south and down the existing slopes. The crib wall and cut slope necessary to widen the access driveway shall be landscaped to provide visual screening and to prevent slope erosion. D. AGUA HEDIONDA LAND USE PLAN The project is subject to the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan and complies with the land use plan as follows: 1. The marine fish hatchery is consistent with the plan’s aquaculture land use designation for the site. Policy 1.8 of the land use plan which was adopted by the City Council in 1982 states: “The primary use of the site shall be aquaculture. Other coastal dependent and visitor serving commercial uses shall be allowed, provided they occupy no more than 50% of the site”. The Aqua Hedionda Land Use Plan fulfills the policies and goals of the Coastal Act and was found, by the City Council, to be in conformity with the policies of the Coastal Act of 1976. 2. A 25 foot wide lateral public access easement to be dedicated for public access to the lagoon is shown on the site plan. 3. The hatchery building is located 100 feet from the lateral public access easement, and over 125 feet from the lagoon. 4. Landscaping in the form of trees and shrubs and berming would be provided to screen the proposed facility from Carlsbad Boulevard. . CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 HUBBS SEA WORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE JUNE 16, 1993 PAGE 7 5. Grading of 25% slopes is required to widen the existing driveway leading from Garfield Street, however, there is no alterative access to the site. This grading alternative (utilization of the existing driveway) requires substantially less grading than physically extending Garfield Street to the south and then down the existing steep slopes. 6. The 20 foot high hatchery building does not exceed the 35 foot height limit established by the land use plan. E. GROWTH MANAGEMENT The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1 in the Northwest Quadrant. The impacts on public facilities created by this project and compliance with the adopted performance standards are summarized as follows: FACILITY IMPACTS :. ~oMpLTANcE wIm:y.: .. : 1. STAhkRDS City Administration I N/A I Yes Library I N/A I Yes Waste Water Treatment I N/A I Yes Parks I N/A I Yes Drainage I N/A I Yes Circulation I 26 ADT I Yes Fire I Station No. 1 I Yes Open Space I N/A I Yes Schools I CUSD I Yes Sewer Collection System I 2.8 EDU I Yes Water Distribution System I 616 GPD I Yes F. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Planning Director has determined that the project could have a significant effect on the environment, however, there would not be a significant effect in this case since the mitigation measures described in the attached initial study have been added to the project. This decision was based on findings of the Environmental Assessment Part II, a Cultural Resources Study, a Biological Resource Impact Study, a Geotechnical Report, and a field surveys by staff. A Conditional Negative Declaration was issued by the Planning Director on May 6, 1993. CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 HUBBS SEA WORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE JUNE 16,1993 PAGE 8 The Conditional Negative Declaration was sent to the State Clearinghouse for State Public Agency review and no comments were received during the notice period. Eight letters of comment from citizens were received during the 30 day public review period that ended on June 7, 1993. The letters and staffs response to these comments are attached to the staff report. All citizens that commented in writing on the project were sent: (1) staffs responses to the comments in the letters; (2) copies of the Initial Study; (3) additional letters from technical experts; and (4) and copies of all the citizen’s letters that were sent to the City. IV. SUMMARY The proposed project: (1) is consistent with the General Plan; (2) complies with the Conditional Use Permit Ordinance; (3) meets all the requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance; (4) corresponds with the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan; (5) is in conformance with Growth Management; and (6) will not significantly impact the environment, therefore, staff recommends approval of CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05. ATI’ACHMENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3522 Planning Commission Resolution No. 3523 Planning Commission Resolution No. 3524 Location Map Background Data Sheet Disclosure Statement Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form Addendum, Staff Response to Comments, dated July 7, 1993, and Public Comment Letters Reduced Exhibits Exhibits “A” - “R’, dated June 16, 1993. May 12,1993 JG:kmzlh . NOTICE OF COMPLETION Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 Ten; ieet, Rm. 121, Sacramento, CA 95814 - 910/z T 8ee NOTE Below: Project Title: Hubbs Sea World Research Institute El Sal t Lead Agency: Citv of Carl&d Contact Person: Jeff Gibson Street Address: 2075 Las Palmas Drive Phone: (619)438-1161 City: Carl&ad Zip: 92009 county: San Dieoo --___--___..____-_________________I_____--------------------.---.----------------------------------------.-----------------.--- PROJECT LOCATION: county: San Dies0 City/Nearest Comnnity: Carl&ad Cross Streets: Garfield Street Total Acres: 10.4 Assessor's Parcel No. 206-070-11 Section: TV. Range: Base: Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: 1-5 8 Carl&ad Blvd. Uaterways: Pacific Ocean 8 Agua Hedionda Lagoon Airports: N/A Railuays: AT&SF Schools: N/A _..~_.~~.~_...~~~~~~~~..~~~~~~~~~.~..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..~~.........~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ DOClW%T TYPE CEQA: - NOP - Supplernant/Subsequent IEPA: = ::* OTHER: - Joint Docunent Early Cons - EIR (Prior SCH No.) Final Docunent x Neg Dee - Other -Draft EIS z Other -Draft EIR - FONSI __________-___-___._____________________-------------------------------------------------------------------------.-------------- LOCAL ACTION TYPE - General Plan Update - Specific Plan - Rezone - Amxation - General Plan Amendment Master Plan - General Plan Element - Planned Unit Development z Site Plan x Prezone - Redevelofxaant Use Permit - Coastal Permit - Ccfmeunity Plan - Land Division (SuMivision, - Other Parcel Map, Tract Map, etc.) ----__-__-..---__--------------------------------.----------------------------------------.------------------------------------- DEVELOPWIlT TYPE - Residential: Units Acres - Office: Sq. Ft- Acres Employees - Comnercial: Sq. Ft. Acres Employees - Industrial: Sq. Ft. Acres Elrployees - Educational - Recreational - Uater Facilities: Typa km - - Transportation: Type - Mining: Mineral Power: Type Uatts - Waste Treatment: Type - Hazardous Uaste: Type x Other: Marine Fishery Research PROJECT ISSUES DIscussED IN WCUENT X Aesthetic/Visual - Flood Plain/FLooding - Agricultural Land - Forest Land/Fire Hazard z Air Quality x Archaeological/Historical - Geologic/Seismic Minerals Coastal Zone x Drainage/Absorption z Noise __ Population/Housing Balance 1 - Economic/Jobs - Public Services/Facilities - Fiscal - Recreation/Parks x Schools/Universities 2 Uater Puality Septic Systems - Uater Supply/ Sewer Capacity Groud Uater Soil Erosion/Cospaction/Grading - Uetland/Riparian Solid Uaste - Uildlife Toxic/Hazardous -Growth Inducing Traffic/Circulation - Landuse Vegetation - Cunulative Effect - Other .-.-___..____--_______________II________---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present Lard We/Zoning/Gemral Plan Use - Vacant/R-A-lo/Open Space ---------__----___--_______I____________------------------------------.----------.---------------------..-.------------------.-- Project Description - The project consists of the; (1) construction of a 20,300 sq. ft. experimental marine fish hatchery/research facility; (2) construction of accessory outdoor race-ways; (3) installation of tirground seawater intake andoutlet pipes cowctad from the Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the facility; (4) construction of sewer and water pipes leading from the facility to Garfield Street; (5) 1640 cubic yards of grading to enhance the existing access road at the terminus of Garfield Street; (6) 3300 cubic yards of remedial grading for a building pad and the driveways, and; (7) dedication of a 25 foot wide lateral public trait easement along the north shore of the outer basin of Ague Hedionda Lagoon. NOTE: Clearinghouse will assign identification nu+ars for all new projects. If a SCH nur&r already exists for a project (e.g. from a Notice of Preparation or previous draft docunant) please fill it in. Revised OctobarJ&Pg BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO: CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 CASE NAME: Hubbs Sea World Research Institute APPLICANT: Hubbs Sea World Research Institute REQUEST AND LOCATION: DeveIoDment of a 20.300 sauare feet marine fish hatcherv/research facihty located south of Garfield Street, north of the Asrua Hedionda Lagoon. and west of the AT&SF Railroad LEGAL DEXRIPTION: Portion of Ranch0 Aaua Hedionda in the Citv of &.&bad according to Partition MaD No. 823 on file at the office of the Countv Recorder of San Dieno Countv. November 16, APN: (POR) Acres= Proposed No. of UNITS N/A GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Us6 Designation OPEN SPACE Density Allowed N/A Density Proposed N/A Existing Zone R-A-10 Proposed Zone N/A Surrounding Zoning and hand Use: (See attached for information on &&bad’s Zoning Requirements) zoning hand Use Site R-A-10 Vacant North R-l Residential south OS Vacant East OS Vacant West OS Vacant PUBLIC FACILITIES School District CarIsbad Water District CarIsbad Sewer District C&bad Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity) 2.8 EDU Public Facilities Fee Agreement, dated N/A - Non-Profit ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Mav 6.1993 X Negative De&ration, issued Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated Other, DISCLOSURE STATEMENT APPuCAKT’S STATEMENT OF OkXLOSURE OF CERTAIN OWNERSHIP INTERESTS Ok ALL APPtXATIONS WHICH WILL REOUIRE OISCAETIONAAY ACTION ON THE PART OF THE ‘2ll-f COUNCIL OR ANY APPOINTED BOARO. COMMISSION OR COMMI-I-TEE. (Please Prrnt) The following information must be disclosed: Applicant List the names and addresses of all persons having a financial interest in the application. Q TNSTITUTE non-prnf i + rorytrat-on A Califoui 1 1700 San’Dieqo;‘CA .‘,9210.9. .‘s. 2. Owner List the names and addresses of all persons having any ownership interest in the property involved. SAN DIEGO GAS & J?T,l?CITR,C. T c/o Paul O'Neal 5875 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad, CA 92008 3. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a corporation of partnership, list the names and addresses of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 4. If any person identified pursuant to (1) or (2) above is a non-profit organization or a trust, list the names and addresses Of any p8rSOfl serving iu Officer of director of th8 non-profit OrgmiZatiOn Of aS trust88 Or b8n8fiCiafY Of th8 trust. FRMooo13 8/90 2075 Las Palmas Drive * Car&bad. California 92009-4859 0 (619) 438-l 161 . . Disclosure Statement (Over) Page 2 I 5. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of City staff, Boards Commlssions, Committees and Council within the past twelve months? Yes - - No xx If yes, please indicate person(s) , Person 18 dafinod U: ‘Any individual. firm, copartnorship, joint vonturr, u~ocktion, social club, fratwnrl organiz&on, corporation, rstatr, !ruSt, recowor. syndicatr, lhir and any other county, cRy and county, ctly municcpality. dirtrid or other politica SubdivIsion, or any othrr group o, combmUon actmg a8 l unR’ (NOTE: Attach additional pages a$ necessary.) . Paul O'Neal Frank A. Powell, Jr. Print or type name of owner Print or type name of applicant FRMmo13 8/90 - CITYOFCARISBAD GROWTH MANAGE3vENT PROGRAM LOCAL FA- IMF’ACI’S ASSESSMENT FORM ITo be Submitted with DeveloDment ADDkationl PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT: FILE NAME AND NO: HUBBS SEA WORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE - CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONE: 1 GENERAL PLAN: RMH ZONING: R-A-10 DEVELOPER’S NAME: HUBBS SEA WORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 9000-266 CARLSBAD 92008 PHONE NO: 931-1677 ASSESSORS PARCEL NO: (POR) 206-070-11 QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): 1 ACRE ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: N/A A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = Library: Demand in Square Footage = Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) Park: Demand in Acreage = Drainage: Demand in CFS = Identify Drainage Basin = (Identify master plan facilities on site plan) Circulation: Demand in ADTs = (Identify Trip Distribution on site plan) Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = Open Space: Acreage Provided - Schools: (Demands to be determined by staff) Sewer: Demand in EDUs - Identify Sub Basin - (Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan) Water: Demand in GPD - N/A ALL N/A N/A N/A N/A 26 1 N/A CUSD 2.8 N/A 616 - AITA- 8 COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO LETTERS CUF’ 92-lO/HDP 93-05 - HUBBS SEA WORLD RESEXCCH INm Eight letters of comment were submitted in response to the Conditional Negative Declaration for CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 Hubbs Sea World Research Institute. (see attached letters from the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation, dated May 25,1993, Thomas Smith, dated June 4, 1993, Daniel Reich, dated June 4, 1993, Margaret Bonas, dated June 4, 1993, Oshima Family, dated June 4, 1993, Bita Titus, dated June 5, 1993, Bryan Bonas, dated June 5,1993, and Willis and Diann Boyd, dated June 7,1993). The various letters reiterate some of the same issues of concern. In those circumstances the concern is surnmarized and the staff response refers to a previous response. The specific comments and responses to these are listed below: (1) coliinmm There is a concern about the proposed landscaping in terms of how long it will take to provide adequate screening, if the right plants have been selected for the site conditions, and if the plant species will block private views. RESPONSE: The project’s preliminary landscape plan was reviewed by the City’s landscape architect and contains plants that are drought resistant, fast growing, and able to adapt and grow in the sandy and salty soils. A project condition requires that on the final landscape plan, plants shall be selected so that their height at maturity does not exceed 20 feet. The 5 gallon trees selected on the plan would reach full maturity in approximately 7 to 10 years, and the 24 inch box trees would mature in approximately 5 to 7 years. The Myporum Laetum (screen tree) is a fast growing tree that resembles a bushy shrub that would provide substantial screening before it reaches full maturity. (2) COMMENT: There is a concern about how the project would be lighted and how adjacent residences will be screened from these lights. RESPONSE: The parking lot would contain lights for safety and the main structure would contain small lights along the building walls for security. These lights would be screened from view of the residential land uses to the north by the landscaping. The residential properties are located 18 to 28 feet higher in elevation than the project, and the closest residential structure is located approximately 100 feet from the hatchery building, therefore light would not shine directly onto the residential structures. A project condition requires that the final exterior lighting plan, including parking areas shall be submitted for Planning Director approval. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property. COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO LETI’ERS CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 - HUBBS SEAWORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE IETl’ERFROMTHOMASWILLIAMSMITH (3) COMMENT: The development is a visitor center and industrial production facility which is not an appropriate scale for this site and the residential neighborhood to the north. There are no commercial or industrial areas in the neighborhood. RESPONSE: The project is designed for fishery research and the rearing of white sea bass and halibut in salt water tanks (Aquaculture). The fish are eventually released into the ocean. The facility is not designed to provide visitor information to the public or is it associated with the production of industrial products. A locked gate along the driveway entrance at Garfield Street would prohibit potential visitors from driving to the facility for information. The City of Carlsbad and the California Coastal Commission designated the site as appropriate for aquaculture facilities in the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan, adopted May, 1982 as the City of Carlsbad’s Local Coastal Program for the lagoon. In 1982 the City Council made the finding that the land use plan fulfYls the policies and goals of the Coastal Act of 1976. Policy 1.8 of the plan states; ” The primary use of the site shall be aquaculture. Other coastal dependant and visitor serving commercial uses shall be allowed, provided they occupy no more than 50% of the site”. As part of the Aqua Hedionda long range land use plan an EIR was prepared (EIR 329) which evaluated different alternatives for land uses on various sites throughout the lagoon area. In the EIR a suggested alternative for this site was aquaculture and that is the land use that was ultimately adopted by the City Council for this site. EIR 329 stated that the property had significant potential for aquaculture production in the next 10 years. The surrounding neighborhood includes not only the residential land uses to the north but many other non-residential uses including; (1) the railroad tracks directly east; (2) Carlsbad Boulevard which is a four lane roadway located west of the site; (3) existing aquaculture facilities to the south; (4) a riprap encased lagoon basin that is routinely dredged with heavy equipment to provide adequate sea water holding capacity for the cooling of the SDG&E Encinas Power Plant, and; (4) the ten story power plant, 353 foot high emissions stack, and. associated infrastructure (large oil storage tanks, etc..) which is all located on the opposite side of the outer lagoon basin and in view of this property and the residential portion of the neighborhood along Olive Street. The residential character of the neighborhood includes large multi-family residential structures along Garfield Street and Carlsbad Boulevard that are three stories, 35 feet in height, and approximate 200 feet in length. COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO LETTERS CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 - HUBBS SEAWORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE PAGE 3 The hatchery facility is compatible with the neighborhood due to the pitched and varying roof line, a 20 foot building height measured to the peak of the roof which is substantially less than the height and bulk of some of the residential structures to the north, a heavily landscaped 40 foot setback from the property line, an 18 to 28 foot elevation differential between the two land uses, a 100 foot distance to the nearest residential structure, and the transportation and intensive energy production land use characteristics of the southern portion of the neighborhood. (4) co- “Ironically, the site was originally a wetland area and since raised with dirt fill. As such, it has removed ten acres of wetlands from the environment putting further stress on ocean fish spawning habitat”. RESPONSE: The environmental analysis for this project focused on the change in the physical environment associated with the proposed hatchery project. The dredging and filling of the project site associated with the past construction of the power plant is not an impact created by this project, therefore, CEQA does not require that it be evaluated or mitigated. (5) co- “Local agencies should not only pause and reflect when faced with significant effects in their review but must prepare an EIR on any project which may have a significant effect on the environment”. RESPONSE: Based on the evidence found in the project’s Initial Study including; (1) the EIA Part I prepared by the applicant, dated April 20, 1993; (2) the Biol ogical Analysis Report prepared by Sweetwater Environmental Biologists, Inc. dated March 26,1993; (3) the Cultural Resource Survey and Test of Site CA-SDI-13076 prepared by Gallegos & Associates, dated May 1993; (4) the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Geocon, Inc. dated December 1992; (5) field visits to .the project site and the existing aquaculture facility at Mission Bay by staff; (6) the project’s physical improvements as illustrated on the site plan, constraints exhibit, and preliminary landscape plan; (7) the mitigation requirements of the Conditional Negative Declaration; (8) the responses from responsible State agencies, and; (9) these responses to public comments, the Planning Department concludes that a fair argument can be substantiated to support the conclusion that no si&.flcant adverse impacts will occur, therefore, the preparation of a Conditional Negative Declaration is justified per the requirements of CEQA. COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO LETTERS CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 - HUBBS SEAWORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE PAGE 4 (6) COMMENT: “Using a mere reasonable possibility of significant impact with regard to traffic in the area which will be generated by this project any conclusion besides significant would be incorrect. The Planning Department states the project should be evaluated by analogy to two residential units. This is absurd. This project calls for the servicing of industrial equipment. It also seeks to entertain visitors for public relations purposes using buses for transportation. This analogy of comparing this commercial industrial development to residential units is inadequate”. RESPONSE: The analogy that 26 ADT is comparable to traffic generated by.25 single-family homes was not the basis for the conclusion that a significant traffic impact would not occur, but rather, to provide a quantitative ADT comparison that would be easily understood by the public. The traffic analysis is based on the roadway capacity and design of Garfield Street. The public street that this project will take its access from, Garfield Street, has a traffic capacity of approximately 10,000 trips per day. The busiest portion of that street is at the intersection with Tamarack Avenue. At that point the latest traffic count indicates approximately 1,600 trips per day. The project is estimated to add an additional 26 trips for the seven employees. The added vehicle trips in relationship to the existing traffic on Garfield Street and the street’s trafIic capacity are considered insignificant. For further ADT comparison, the construction of residential apartments with no more than 6 dwelling units, and commercial structures designed for an occupant load of 30 persons or less are categorically exempt from environmental CEQA review. A 6 unit apartment project would generate 48 ADT. The qualitative nature of the project’s ADT would not be significantly different from residential ADT given the fact that school buses and large utility and municipal trucks routinely service residential land uses. The use of trucks and busses traveling to the project will also have an insignificant impact to the street. The street is designed to handle that type of traffic. The project is not a commercial/industrial land use and its central purpose is not for public relations. The existing Hubbs Sea World Research Institute in San Diego currently schedules on the average one field trip per month to the site for educational purposes. (7) co- “The large project now proposed bears little resemblance to the project as originally conceived and presented to the neighborhood two years ago”. , RESPONSE: Past project proposals that were presented to the public but’ not officially submitted to the City are not a part of this project COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO LETTERS CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 - HUBBS SEAWORLD RESEARCH INSTlTUTE PAGE 5 (8) COMMENT: RESPONSE: (9) COIvlMFAm RESPONSE: application. These past project proposals are irrelevant to this environmental review and can not be considered in the analysis of CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05. “Failure to denote or even recognize the signifkant controversy over the social and environmental effects to the area requires the preparation of a EIR”. The existence of public controversy over environmental effects of a project shall not require preparation of an environmental impact report if there is no substantial evidence before the local agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, (Pub. Resources Code, 21082.2 subd. (a).). To this date the City has not received substantial evidence that signikant environmental impacts would occur if the project is approved. Case law cited in the “Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), 1992 Edition, by Remy, Thomas, and Moose states that in Perley v. County of Calaveras (3d Dist 1982) 137 CaLApp3d 424,436-437(187 CaLRptr. 53), the Court held that “opposition of a few neighbors” did not rise to the level of “a serious public controversy,” because the neighbors had merely expressed “fears and desires” without any “objective basis for challenge.” This decision implies that “seriousness” must have a substantial evidentiary basis. “Although it is concluded that this production facility will not violate noise policies of the City few specifics are offered. It is stated that the pumps will be encased in concrete. It still is unstated how noisy they will be”. The 15 horse power electric sea water pumps are located approximately 210 feet from the nearest residence and are 33 feet lower in elevation. The pumps are placed underground and surrounded by concrete. The attached noise study, conducted by Frank Awbrey, Ph.D., indicates that a much larger 25 hp/llOO RPM electric pump placed above ground would generate an overall sound pressure level of 76.3 dB with a maximum l/3 octave bin level of 69.9 dB at 2 kHz. With the 25 hp pump placed above ground the tone would measure 33 dB at the nearest residence. A typical urban residential area has ambient noise levels of 50 dB. With the proposed smaller 15 hp pumps installed below ground level and in a concrete vault, their sound should be completely inaudible even within most of the project compound. Other potential noise sources include equipment inside the building including refrigerators and swimming pool circulator pumps. These noise sources would not generate noise in excess of 60 dB. Given the sound attenuation characteristics of the COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO LEITERS CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 - HUBBS SEAWORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE building walls, noise levels immediately outside the walls would be at least 20 dB lower, (See attached noise study). The Planning Department’s only noise policy (No. 17), is not applicable to this project. The policy applies to all discretionary applications for residential txoiects of five or more dwelling units located near I-S, Highway 78, the railroad right-of-way, and Circulation Element Roadways. However, the noise sources associated with this project would meet the Policy 17 standard of 60 dB for noise impact to residential property. (10) COMMENT: ‘This huge development will not only block the views of the homes of residents it abuts but also be an eyesore on the estuary where it is proposed to be sited”. RESPONSE: Any private view impact created by the project is not considered a significant impact under CEQA and the City of Carlsbad does not have a view protection ordinance to ensure private view protection. To respond to neighborhood concerns that private views would be blocked the applicant is currently working on a redesign to lower the roof. The new roof would have multiple ridges lines to reduce its bulk and the building would have a total height of 20 feet to the roof peak. The vertical elevation of the roof peak would be at approximately 33 feet above sea level and be directly level with the pool deck of the condominium project to the northeast. As a result the roof would not block private ocean views. The hatchery building is aligned adjacent to the northern slopes of the property to minimize the visual appearance of the structure from Carlsbad Blvd. and the railroad tracks. The building has been designed with a peaked roof, a varying roof line, trellis along the exterior, and a covered front entryway to provide architectural interest. Landscaping is provided to screen and visually soften the building from adjacent properties and Carlsbad Blvd, (Also see Comment No.1). (11)colMImrm “Although it is concluded this is the best site for the project no specifics are given either in the staff report or by Mr. Avis as to what other sites were considered and how this site was found to be more appropriate. Why either restoring the site to its original wetland condition or allowing it to remain what it has become, a passive recreational area, is never addressed with any specifics as required by CEQA”. RESPONSE: When a local agency determines that a project would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and prepares a COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO LEITERS CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 - HUBBS SEAWORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE PAGE 7 (12) COMMENT: RESPONSE: Negative Declaration, CEQA does not require a detailed and comprehensive analysis of alternatives sites or land uses. Project alternatives are required when there is evidence that the project will have a sign&ant adverse impact on the environment and an alternative would lessen or mitigate those adverse impacts. Public Resources Code Section 21002 forbids the approval of projects with significant adverse impacts when feasible alternatives or mitigation measures can substantially lessen such impacts. A “significant effect” is defined as one which has a substantial adverse impact. If the project has “NO” sign&ant impacts than there is no substantial adverse impact and no justification for requiring a discussion of alternatives, (Also see Comment No. 3). The concern is that waste water discharge from the facility will negatively impact the lagoon waters, effect existing aquaculture operations in the lagoon, and that the existing polluted lagoon water would adversely effect the viability of the proposed aquaculture facility. Before the applicant is permitted to construct the facility they must obtain the required EPA Permit to Discharge Process Wastewater. This permit ensures that the project meets federal, state, and local water quality control and health standards and will not adversely impact the waters of the lagoon. Before the lagoon water enters the hatchery facility the water will be filtered to remove sand and harmful contaminants thus eliminating any adverse impacts to the viability of the aquaculture operation. The attached letter from Richard Ford, Ph.D. states that; “the total ammonia production by juvenile white seabass in the proposed facility will be approximately 100 grams (0.25 pounds) per day. This will be diluted by 1.44 million gallons of seawater passing through the culture system each day. This concentration of ammonia represents a negligible influx to the lagoon system, and will have absolutely no deleterious effects on the environment through toxic properties or odor. In addition to EPA regulations, the proposed hatchery program is regulated by joint agreement between the California Department of Fish and Game and the California Coastal Commission. This agreement dictates that there be no significant degradation to the surrounding environment, including the effects of effluent discharge. Failure to meet this agreement would result in discontinuation of the program. EPA regulations restrict the discharge of all but dissolved solids into the lagoon”. All dead fish and other solid matter will be prevented from passing into the seawater discharge system by filter screens. The existing facility located at Mission Bay is currently operating under an EPA Permit in conjunction with Sea World. COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO LETTERS CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 - HUBBS SEAWORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE PAGE 8 (13) COMMENT: “Alter significant arch, paleo, or hist. sites - The Staff Reports finds there to be an impact but that it is insignificant. Such a conclusion is of course useless to any analysis. P.O.E. reports that a dig was initiated at one spot on the site. How this dig came to be done at that particular spot and how the results were deemed insignificant is not explained by the Planning Department. If there is specific information available to the City which was used to perform the dig it should be stated in the Staff Report so this information can be properly evaluated”. RESPONSE: The Initial Study for the project, dated April 21, 1993, references the technical findings of the Cultural Resource Survey and Test of Site CA-SDI-13076 prepared by Gallegos & Associates. The property was surveyed for cultural resources and one site (CA-SDI-13076) was identified. The site was tested for significance according to the requirements of CEQA and the City of Carlsbad’s Archeological Guidelines. Based on this study and the site evaluation SDI-13076 was deemed unimportant with no additional evaluation or work recommended. This study along with other technical studies referenced in the Initial Study are on file in the Planning Department. (14) COMMENT: “This development has literally snuck up on the residents of this neighborhood. Notice should have been given by mail to each resident in the area with specific information and in a timely manner”. RESPONSE: Notice of the Conditional Negative Declaration was published on May 6, 1993, in the Carlsbad Sun and the public was given the CEQA required 30 days to comment. The public hearing notice for the project was published in the Carlsbad Sun (a general circulation newspaper in Carlsbad) on June 3, 1993 which was 13 days before the hearing. All residents within a 600 foot radius of the project site were sent individual public notices in the mail on June 2,1993. State law and local ordinances require that public hearing notice be published in one general circulation newspaper and mailed 10 days prior to the hearing date. LJCITER PROM DAN’IFL RFJCH (15) COMMENT: “The noise levels for pumps that run 24 hours a day will create a very annoying sound due to their rhythmic drive. Since the proposed building site is right up against the surrounding houses, the noise levels could create a disturbance. What noise studies were preformed to evaluate this potential problem and is there a contingency plan if noise levels reach a certain level?‘. COMMENTSANDRESPONSETOLEITERS CUP92-lO/HDP93-OS-HUBBSSEAWORLDRESEARCHINSTITUTE RESPONSE: (16) COMMENT: RESPONSE: (17) COMMENT: RESPONSE: (18) COMMENT: RESPONSE: (19) co- RESPONSE: (20) COMMENT: RESPONSE: See Comment No. 9 “The visual impact of a metal building is not consistent with any other new structure in this area. The shear size of this structure could adversely constrict a existing ocean view corridor for many residences”. See Comment No. 1, 3 & 10. ‘What method did the assessment use to conclude that odors created by fish waste and feed would not be a problem to surrounding residences?“. The conclusion that odors would not be considered a significant impact is based on field visits to the existing facility at Mission Bay in San Diego. The live fish are raised in salt water tanks similar to large aquariums and the trace amounts of fish waste in the form of ammonia does not produce a detectable odor, (Also see Comment No. 12 on waste discharge). The building is ventilated through the building walls with fans. Traffk concerns. See Comment No. 6. “Since the lagoon is zoned for aquaculture it appears inconsistent that the aquaculture would occur on the land and not in rearing mesh gages inthe water as other locations have done”. The proposed aquaculture use is consistent with the definition of aquaculture in the Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21, Chapter 21.04 as stated: “Aquaculture means that form of agriculture devoted to the propagation, cultivation, maintenance, and harvesting of aquatic plants and animals in marine, brackish, and fresh water”. Aquaculture may take a variety of forms and is not restricted by the Municipal Code to the rearing of fish in only lagoon waters. Landscaping to hide the large structure. See the project’s preliminary landscape plan and Comment No. 1. LETIER FROM MARGAREI' BONAS (21) COIuIMlsm Aesthetic impacts. COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO LETTERS CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 - HUBBS SEAWORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE PAGE 10 RESPONSE: See Comment No. 1, 3 & 10. (22) co- Noise impacts. RESPONSE: See Comment No. 9 (23) COMMENT: Waste water impacts. RESPONSE: See Comment No. 12. (24) COMMENT: Alternative site analysis. RESPONSE: See Comment No. 11. IETI’ER FROM THE OSHIMA FAMILY (25) COMMENT: View impacts. RESPONSE: See Comment No. 10. (26) CO- “This building will block our ocean breeze”. RESPONSE: The peak of the roof will not exceed the height of the pad elevation of the residences to the north and the structure is aligned east to west, therefore, the prevailing westerly winds from the ocean would not be blocked. (27) COMMENT : Odor impacts. RESPONSE: See Comment No. 17. (28) COMMENT: “Substantially increase usage or cause depletion of any natural resource”. RESPONSE: The main 20,300 sq. ft. building would be constructed of metal which is in ample supply and not considered a scarce resource. The operation of the facility would consume electricity to power the lights and pumps. Electricity is also in ample supply. (29) COMMENT: Biological impacts to wildlife, insects, and plants. RESPONSE: The project site was surveyed for sensitive plant and animal resources by Sweetwater Environmental Biologists, Inc. The report indicated that the entire site supports ruderal/disturbed vegetation, and no State or Federal listed endangered or threatened plant or animal COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO LETTERS CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 - HUBBS SEAWORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE (30) co- RESPONSE: (31) COMMENT: RESPONSE: (32) COMMENT: RESPONSE: (33) COMMENT: RESPONSE: (34) co- RESPONSE: species were observed on the site. Based on a thorough biological field analysis it was determined that the site does not currently contain habitat that is classified as either wetland or coastal marsh. The property is approximately 12 feet above sea level which prohibits the land from being inundated by tidal water. Due to the habitat disturbance and the daily usage of the property by both humans and dogs, sensitive bird species are unlikely to utilize the area for nesting. Under CEQA, impact to wildlife not listed as sensitive and endangered or threatened by extinction is not considered a significant impact for the purposes of environmental review of physical project impacts. Noise impacts. See Comment No. 9. Light and glare impacts. The project’s roof is required to have a non-glare coated surface to eliminate glare on surrounding property. Also see Comment No. 2. Traffic impacts. See Comment No. 6. View impacts. See Comment No. 10 ‘There will no longer be access to the lagoon, we need as a community which cares about it’s environment to encourage S.D.G.&E. to let the lagoon remain as is for recreational opportunities to our citizens and our future generations”. Access to the lagoon will not be effected by this project. On the contrary, as illustrated on the site plan, there would be a 25 foot wide lateral public access easement leading from Carlsbad Blvd. along the entire north shore of the outer lagoon basin to the railroad bridge. This public access would be dedicated for public use in perpetuity. (35) COMMENT: Waste water, biological, noise, and trafFic impacts, alternative sites, and a change in size of the project. B: See Comment Nos. 12, 29, 9, and 6, 11, and 7. COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO LETTERS CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 - HUBBS SEAWORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE LETI’ER FROM BRYAN BONAS (36) COMMFNT: “It is very difficult for me to understand why the City of Carlsbad would allow such a project to be built, without taking into account some serious environmental issues, the conservation of our coast line and estuary and severe impact this industrial building will have on the property values on the residents”. RESPONSE: The City has evaluated the project impacts on the environment as required by CEQA, (see Comment No. 5). The site has been designated for aquaculture since 1982 as part of the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan which serves as the Local Coastal Program for the lagoon. Under CEQA, economic impacts resulting from a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the physical environment. LETI’ERFROMWI.LLISANDDIANNBOYD (37) COMMENT: View, noise, trafk, and economic impacts. RESPONSE: See Comment Nos. 10, 9, 6, and 36. In addition, five more letters were received after the public review period for the project closed on June 7, 1993, (See letters from Willis and Diann Boyd, dated June 16, 1993, Larry D. Stem, dated June 8, 1993, Gerry Lomax, dated June 15, 1993, Rollin F. Duni, dated June 10, 1993, and Thomas William Smith, dated June 11, 1993. The specific comments and responses to these are listed below: (38) co- View, noise, air, and traffic impacts. RESPONSE: See Comment Nos. 10, 9, 6, and 36. (39) COMMENT: Fiscal, land use, aesthetic, and wildlife impacts. RESPONSE: The question concerning the project’s monetary benefit to taxpayers does not fall under the category of a physical environmental impact and the Planning Department does not have the fiscal expertise to answer the question, therefore, the question has been referred to the City’s Finance Department for a response in subsequent correspondence. See Comment Nos. 3, 10, 19, 29, and 36. COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO LETTERS CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 - HUBBS SEAWORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE LETIER FROM ROLLIN F. DUNI (44-l) COMMENT: Wildlife impacts, and clearance from the Coastal Commission. RESPONSE: See Comments Nos. 12, and 29. If the City’s Planning Commission approves the project the applicant must then obtain a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission before the project is constructed. (41) COMMENT: “Although the Negative Declaration and Staff Report represent this development to be the best site and use for this site, in fact no alternatives were ever seriously considered by the Department. Such representations appear to be mere echoes from the applicant, SDG&E”. RESPONSE: See Comment No. 11. The applicant is Hubbs Sea World Research Institute. SDG&E is the property owner. (42) COMMENT: Inadequate public notice. RESPONSE: See Comment No. 14. (43) COMMENT: “A geological engineering report was discovered in the file and reviewed by Mr. Bonas and myself. Curiously there is scant mention of the conclusion in the Negative Declaration or the Staff Report”. RESPONSE: In the Conditional Negative Declaration the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Geocon Inc., dated December 1992 is referred to in the section under Physical Environment. The report states that; ‘The results of our site geologic reconnaissance and exploratory borings did not reveal any evidence to indicate the presence of faulting within the property”; “If liquefaction were to occur at the site, differential settlement of structures and lateral earth movements could result; however, public safety should not be endangered, and; “NO soil or geologic conditions were observed during the course of the investigation that would preclude the development of the property as presently planned, provided the recommendations of this study are followed”. Prior to issuance of a grading and building permit for the project, detailed working drawings designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and based on the recommendations of the geotechnical study will be required. Specific mitigation recommendations of the report include building foundation alternatives because the underlying soils are not suitable for supporting the proposed foundation loads of . COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO LETTERS CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 - HUBBS SEAWORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE (44) COMMENT RESPONSE: (45) COMMENT: RESPONSE: the hatchery building. These alternatives include “surcharging”, “in situ densitication - (dynamic deep compaction, vibro-flotation, and vibro-replacement)“, or “deep pile foundations”. Based on costs and feasibility the report highly recommends the use of remedial grading and batter piles sunken into the soil to a depth of 30 feet. The final foundation support alternative and design will be determined prior to issuance of the grading and building permits. The use of a pile supported foundation and remedial grading to compact the soil would not have a signXcant impact on the environment. The piles would be submerged into the ground and not be visible, the piles would provide a safe and secure foundation support per the recommendations of the geotechnical report, and the construction noise created from driving the piles into the ground would be considered a short-term construction impact of a limited duration. To minimize short-term construction impacts to the residential neighborhood and as required by Chapter 8.48 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code construction hours would be prohibited; (1) after sunset on any day, and before seven a.m., Monday through Friday; (2) before eight a.m. on Saturday, and; (3) all day on Sunday and certain holidays. In addition, the approved grading permit would require dust and construction traffic control. Per the Biological Impact Analysis prepared by Sweetwater Environmental Biologists, Inc., the site does not provide adequate habitat for the nesting of sensitive, endangered, or threatened bird species (i.e. Least Tern, etc..), therefore, noise impacts from the project construction would not create a significant negative impact to nesting wildlife. Blockage of adjacent homeowner% views and alternative site analysis. See Comment Nos. 10, and 11. “Perhaps this development is really not what is the tinal vision of SDG&E Corporation. It could be argued that at the end of ten years of a SDG&E visitor center and token fish factory the building could be remodeled for executive offices. Meanwhile, SDG&E proposes more buildings on the proposed site, creeping south toward the railroad trestle”. Any land use change and associated building remodel to an office type use would require an amendment to the conditional use permit, an amendment to the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, and an amendment to the Aqua Hedionda Land Use Plan. These amendments would require further public hearing review by the Planning Commission and City Council. At this time the City has not received COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO LETTERS CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 - HUBBS SEAWORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE PAGE 15 a development application for additional buildings on the property south of the hatchery facility. (46) COMMENT: “To say, as Doug Avis maintains, that this development is a non-profit endeavor may be just another developer phony P.R. campaign where once again the whole truth is never stated. A simple declaration under penalty of perjury declaring that the non-profit basis of the project, which drives it from a public relations perspective, is true would be simple to devise and implement here”. RESPONSE: Attached to these responses is verification that Hubbs Sea World Research Institute is a California non-profit public benefit corporation. APPENDIX P ENVIRON. JJTAL MITIGATION MONllDFUNG CA XLIST Page 1 of 1_ #-‘E.\ uoe,, : -,‘,‘ s,., -+ >S,‘“‘C. &- _; 4.. ?lE, (3.4 ,;;,..u + FE:. “,i m4 i-v, :.-; .c:,* -,I ‘^ ,-; -- June 11, 1993 Planning Department City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009 ATTN: Mr. Jeff Gibson Mr. Gibson: I am the senior scientific investigator responsible for the performance of our Institute’s fisheries enhancement project. As such I was notified that during the public review of the materials submitted in support of our Conditional Use Permit application to the City of Carlsbad, some questions were raised as to the “credibility” of the proposed hatchery project. I would like to address those concerns in this correspondence. First, the need for this research program was East recognized because of the marked decrease in yield from many of our southern California marine fisheries. The importance of these fisheries resources depends on the point of reference, but a 1985 economic evaluation of sportMing revenues conducted by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography estimated that sportfishing alone contributes from $250 to $430 million a year to our San Diego county economy. An expanded geographical estimate predicts that sportfishing contributes over $2 billion annually to our California economy. This excludes the commercial value of these fisheries resources. Along with this strategic economic importance is the real need to stab&e our country’s and the world’s food supply. Current estimates predict that the world’s oceanic fisheries are already being harvested past a sustainable level, and the current level is only being main- because of the exploitation of new species. At this time less than a quarter of the world’s overall fisheries need is met through aquaculture. Comparing growth of world populations to the predicted level of ocean harvest, it is apparent that we will need to more than quadruple our global production of seafood through aquaculture. On a national level demand is now so high and supplies so limited that seafood imports are second only to oil as a contribution to our national trade deficit. This narrative is provided to put the overall potential for this hatchery research program into perspective. As a non-profit research foundation, our Institute is free to look beyond the immediate economic impact of this program toward addressing these longer-term Mr. Jeff Gibson Carlsbad Planning Department June 11, 1993 resource management problems. The impetus for our research was the desire on the part of fishermen in our state to directly address, in a proactive manner, these dwindling fisheries resources. The use of hatchery reared juveniles to enhance depleted fish stocks is an accepted management technique for only a few marine teleost and invertebrate species, but for many fresh water and anadromous fish species. Our research program is not unique in concept, but its execution is far more comprehensive in scope than any other single program now underway. The Ocean Resources Enhancement and Hatchery Program (OREHP) was initiated in 1983 by legislative mandate (Assembly Bill 1414). The law enacted required that funds be collected from fishermen and used solely to support research concerning marine fisheries enhancement. The law places the management of the program within the California Department of Fish & Game, the director of which derives program guidance from an advisory panel comprised of CDF&G managers and scientists, researchers from both the University of California and the California State University systems, from the commercial aquaculture community and from both recreational and commercial fishing groups. This panel established the initial research goals for the program and is responsible for annual review of progress and approval for future work This diverse group of users, managers and scientists represents the first step in the review process that approved the construction of the proposed hatchery. After the OREHP panel unanimously approved the expansion of the program in 199 1, we approached the California Coastal Commission for consideration of the inclusion of an expanded enhancement experiment as part of the mitigation program being planned for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). Some of the letters of support for the inclusion of the hatchery project in the mitigation plan are enclosed for your information. The Commission staff formed its own scientific advisory committee comprised of fisheries biologists from its own Marine Review Committee, the University of California at Santa Barbara, University of C&ornia at Los Angeles, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and California Deputment of Fish and Game and its own in-house scientist. After an exhaustive one year review and with thk advice of its own advisory committee, the staff recommended to the Commbioa that the proposed expansion be included within the SONGS mitigation plan. OnthreeqaratieoccasionstheCo mmission met to hear various aspects of the sGIffs review of our plan, and on each occasion voted unanimously for its acceptance. With the expansion of the research program committed by the Advisory Panel, we also needed to reauthorize the tinding legislation for ten additional years. Assembly Bill 960 unanimously passed both houses of the California legislature and their respective committees. 2 Mr. Jeff Gibson Carlsbad Planning Department June 11, 1993 This legislative process also included an additional scientific evaluation. In addition to these internal and external reviews, we publish the results of our work in scientific journals as well as participate in national and international symposia and workshops for critical review. Considering the depth of review our project regularly undergoes by scientists from state and federal agencies as well from the fishermen that fund OREHP, I feel the “credibility” of our research and the proposed hatchery has already been established. Concerns over the number of fish returned to date should not be an issue. Only one legal fish has been recaptured to date because we did not develop a reliable tagging technique until 1990. Since white seabass do not grow to legal size until an age of five years, fishermen will only be able to return the tagged fish we have already released starting in 1995. As part of our assessment program, we have recaptured far more fish smaller than legal size. The intent of the hatchery is to provide enough tagged fish to adequately assess the real economic benefit to be derived from the program. Theoretically, the program is economically feasibility, but this has to be tested on a scale where large enough numbers of fish can be released and recaptured to provide statistical significance. I must emphasize that this program is an experiment. If it was simply a culture and release project, scientists from our Institute would not need to be involved. Since the hatchery was tist proposed in July 199 1, we have: been reauthorized for ten years to support the expanded program; organized the fishing community into a volunteer resource capable of augmenting the existing successful experimental program; signed a license agreement for the land required for the hatchery; The ex&ting w and ita various scientific, managerial and community components have responded to ttrir opportunity for expansion in a timely and enthusiastic manner. Over 500,000 southern Califomh fishermen and scientists from around the world are watching the progress of our program. I hope that we can resolve the real “neighborhood” issues, excluding those relating to credibility, in an expeditious manner. Finally, I would like to compliment your office on the work undergone in the review of this program to da&. It obviously represents a carehl consideration of some of the 3 Mr. Jeff Gibson Carlsbad Planning Department June 11, 1993 questions facing the use of the proposed site for the hatchery project. Some of these questions are the same ones that the existing and expanding program are dedicated to answering in a definitive and responsible manner. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions regarding this matter. Donald B. Kent Senior Vice-President/ OREHP Principal Investigator cc: R. Besccker 4 . MFG., CO. INC. 17351 MURPHV AVE. 0 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 0 (714)660-8757 ._ _ FAX 714-660-7067 December 3, 1991 Mr. Thomas W. Gwyn Chairman California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, Fourth Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Dear Mr. Gwyn: This letter is to support funding for a marine fish hatchery as part of the overall mitigation plan to offset the environmental impact of operations at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). I, along with my 40 employees and over 70,000 other Califor- nians, make my living from the sportfishing industry. According to Dave Rockland, one of the nation's leading fisheries economists, in 1985 the sportfishing industry in California had $2.2 billion in expenditures. It generated $102 million in sales tax along with $33.8 million in state income tax and $33.9 million license revenues. Oftentimes issues come before your body where there is a conflict beteen what is best for industry and what is best for the resource and the environment. With the ocean hatchery there is no such conflict. The ocean hatchery will benefit both industry and the marine resource of California. The resource will benefit because California has lost over 90% of its wetlands, and most all of the loss cannot be recovered. The hatchery project would take a fish like white seabass and duplicate the rearing function of our lost nursery areas and then release fish to the ocean for natural survival. The over $2 million that recreational fishermen have agreed to tax themselves for use in the ORHEP legislation has helped determine that a hatchery project will work. Industry will benefit because the trend of decreasing participation in ocean recreational fishing caused by decreasing marine fish populations will be reversed as this hatchery project and subsequent projects help to improve our local marine fisheries. On behalf of the American Fishing Tackle Manufacturers Association as vice chairman of their Environmental Quality Committee and on behalf of AFTCO and the other fishing tackle manufacturers here in California I urge you to support this critical hatchery project. It will be a real boost to the California sportfishing industry. Sincerely, Bill Shedd AFTCO (Axelson Fishing Tackle Mfg. Co., Inc.) cc Mr. Peter M. Douglas Qualitv Offshore Fishino Tackle August 16, 1991 Mr. Thomas W. Gwyn Chairman California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th Floor GHIO SEAFOOD PRODUCTS A Division of Anthony’s Fish Grottos San Francisco, CA 94105 5232 Loveloch St. San O/ego Calrlornie 92110 - 297-7256 Dear Sirs: I would like to lend my support to the Hubbs-Seaworld Research Institute regarding the adoption of the mitigating plans which include the restoration of 150 acres of wetlands and construction of 300 acres of artificial reef. In writing this letter it comes at a time when I, as Chairman of the Sea Grant Industry Advisory Group these past 20 years, met with the Sea Grant people and California State University representative. My main concern at this meeting (August 15) was the drain of scientific knowledge in aquaculture developed by our California science community and being used throughout the world. Because of our environmental laws in the State of California, we have a lack of actual on-site aquaculture to put this knowledge into practice. Here now, representing itself, Hubbs' proposal smacks at the heart of my concerns all these years by providing our own California ocean fish hatchery. Yes, by all means, I urge you to consider the importance of your decision. S~;;ly..?.& Tod Ghio GHIO SEAFOODS Past President, CA Seafood Industry Chairman, Sea Grant Advisory Group Member of I.M.R. TG:sra United Anglers of Southern California Mr. Thomas w. Gwyn Chairman California Coastal commission 631 Howard Street, Fourth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Dec. 23, 1991 United Anglers of Southern California (UASC) is a m of United Anglers of California, the state's largest fishery conservation organisation. The purpose of this letter is to ask for your support in the creation of the proposedCX2EW FishHatchery for the environmental imr#r?ts which have resulted from the San Cnofre Nuclear Generating Station (SMGS). The construction of this fish hatchery is critical to UASC members. We plan to build grow-out facilities to take the two-inch fingerlings from the hatchery, raise them to 7 - 10 inches in sizeand then, release them into the ocean. We currently have grow-out facilities in Oxnard and have raised and released salmon in 1990 and 1991 and two groups of white seabass in 1991. These facilities were built and operated by volunteers and because of this success, fishermen in other areas wsnt to raise white seabass in their harbors. Onlybybuilding a white seabass hatcherycanwe obtain enough fingerlings to supply all of the groups that want to get involved in this venture. With the loss of 90% of our wetlards in southern California, we are convinced that the onlywayto restore our white seabass fishery is to raise them in a hatchery, grow them out in saltwater rearing pens, and release them into the ocesn. We have groups that have carmitted to building grow-out facilities in 1992 in San Diego, Newport Beach, and Marina De1 Rey. The mDney to build these will come from private sources, and the fingerlings will coube from the existing research facility at Hubbs, Sea World Institute. The quantity of fish available to us in 1992 will be about 50,000 fish. It is imperative that a hatchery be built in 1992 so that we can take advantage of the capacity of the grow-out facilities available to us in 1993. 7711 Centcr Avenue&MO l Huntington Beach,Giifomia 92647 714/891-5055. FAX 7141840-3318 We are also working with state legislators in both the Stats Assembly and the Senate to extend the CREHP program which "sunsets" at the end of 1992. Under this program saltwater fishermen, south of Point Conception, pay for a $1.00 stamp affixed to their fishing license. These funds will be used to operate the fish hatchery. Fishermen have been buying this $1.00 stamp for msny years now and will be happy to continue doing so to bring back our white seabass fishery. ._ This is a great project - we have business, academia, volunteers, snd' government working together on a project to restore an important resource. hreryone is excited about the prosmt of moving out of a research phase snd into a production test phase, but all of our plans depend upon the constmction of a fish hatchery. It is critical for us to obtain the support of the Coastal commission to build this fish hatchery. If we can provide any additional information, we'll be happy to do so. As the representative organisation of the southern California saltwater fishermen, we strongly urge your cooperation in bringing this project to fruition. We can not think of a more suitable way of sper&ng scxne of the SONGS mitigation mney. Director, UASC cc: Mr. Peter M. Douglas . SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA 2917 CANON STREET SAN DIEGO. ULIFORNIA 92106 (619) 2264455 ROBEKT C. FLETCHER PLawwl August 22, 1991 Mr. Peter M. Douglas, Ex. Dir. California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Dear Peter: The Sportfish,ing Association of California (SAC) represents over 170 Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessels operating out of 21 different Sportfishing Landings between Avila Beach and San Diego. When the Ocean Resources Enhancement and Hatchery Act was passed in 1983, we felt that there was potentially a significant benefit to our industry if the concept of an ocean hatchery turned out to be economically feasible. As Deputy Director then Chief Deputy Director of the California Department of Fish & Game I represented the state agency on the advisory panel created by then Assemblyman Stirling's legislation. Today I represent SAC on the Ocean Resources Enhancement and Hatchery Advisory Panel (OREHAP), and am excited about the potential benefits to sportfishing that might accrue from an ocean hatchery. For this reason, I urge the Commission to provide funding through SONGS mitigation to make this valuable enhancement tool a reality. Pressure on our marine resources will continue to be significant in the years to come, and this management alternative, already 'proved in Texas with red drum, could provide a real benefit to the recreational angling public. For this reason SAC would like to go on record as supporting the use of mitigation dollars for the construction of an ocean hatchery for enhancement of important sportfishing species. Sincerely, w. A. Narr PIUIDmT.E.MEnITUS k6bert C. Fletcher, President RF FISHER= & SEAFOOO 1715 CAPITOL AVE SACRAMENTO C A L I F 0 R N I A 9 5 8 14 916-441-5560 FAX- 916-446.1063 OFFICERS Pmslda7t J. Dmd PW ChcsacakFishCompay.IK. *DKso 1StvKC hSKhIt EmeslWsv(snd Mendal Roducn. If-K hntaFesonngs VKC hiSdOlt - LcS~ Bruce Fawy TWA. Inc. San Francisco vKC~-~On Baly Stahl1 1algBwchse4iwdcQnoany Long- Euzcube omct~ RObCRROSS 11OOKSt.. SW. PO0 Saramaxo.cA9s814 (916)447- . August 30, 1991 MY. Thomas W. Gvyn Chairman California Coastal Commission 631 Hovard Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Dear Mr. Gvyn: This is a letter of support for the continuation and expansion of the Ocean Resources Enhancement and Hatchery Program (OREHP) that is being : conducted jointly by Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute and San Diego State University.. As the Vice President of Chesapeake Fish Co., Inc., the President of the California Fisheries and Seafood Institute, member of California Sea Grant Industry Advisory Committee and a charter member of the Board of Directors and Executive Committee of the nevly formed California Seafood Council, I vear a number of hats representing a variety of interests. All of these interests vould benefit from the successful enhancement of California's marine resources. The pioneering vork that has been done at Hubbs- Sea World over the past 20 years in this area of resource enhancement has been and could continue to be a benefit to all Californians. The increasing demands that are being placed on all of California's Resources and especially it's near-shore marine resources could be significantly affected by a large scale program such as OREHP. I urge you to approve an expanded Ocean Resources Enhancement and Hatchery Program. Both the recreational and consumer user groups vould enjoy the benefits of such a program. Helping to defray the conflict betveen these tvo groups vould be a much desired by-product. J. David Ptak President cc: Frank Povell Donald Kent WICE Cf THE CNIFORNIA CCNSIJPXR SEAFOOO SUPPLY MXJSTW P SC~l’i‘l’ #L) I I!I<RKI3L,EY (:,\ %I702 / (5 I0.l S45-3333 December 7 7, 1991 Mr. Thomas W. Gwyn, Chairman California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Dear Chairman Gwyn and Commissioners: United Anglers is the state’s largest fishery conservation organization. representing I some 80,000 anglers and citizens across California. We want you to know of our ardent support for the creation of the proposed OREHP Fish Hatchery as a portion of the mitigation for the environmental impacts which have resulted from the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). One of the mo?;t significant reasons for this fishery’s decline has been the loss of coastal nursery habitat vital for seabass reproduction. This facility would produce white seabass in sufficient quantities to begin the restoration of this once premier fishery which has been nearly destroyed. As a representative of California’s three million recreational anglers, and especially those who have funded the Ocean Resources Enhancement and Hatchery Program (OREHP) which has pioneered the artificial production of white seabass, we would also like to advise you that our constituency is most supportive of this proposal. Recreational anglers have paid some $2 million since the passage of OREHP legislation in 1984, and we are again supporting the re-authorization of this program, which should be passed in 1992. In summary, it makes good sense to utilize SONGS mitigation funds to help restore white seabass, and to be able to do so in conjunction with the OREHP program under the guidance and approval of the California Department of Fish & Game. Sincerely, Sohn Beuttler Executive Director c:\wp5 1 \uac\ccom - 12/l 719 1 c THE CITY OF SANDIEGO RoNRoBERTS Mr. Thomas W. Gwyn s"E"c"o"N"d'~x~~'c"r Chairman California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Dear Chairman Gwyn: September 4, 1991 I am writing to support the inclusion of a marine fish hatchery as part of the overall mitigation plan designed to offset the environmental impact of operations at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Here in San Diego, the non-profit Hubbs-Seaworld Research Institute and San Diego State University have been developing the technology required to enhance depleted marine species. The California Department of Fish and Game has funded this research, which is known as the Ocean Resources Enhancement and Hatchery Program (OREHP). Because of the importance of fishing to the California economy, the OREHP represents an invaluable investment to the quality of life and to the fiscal prosperity of our State. Sportfishing alone is estimated to contribute over $2 billion annually to California's economy. More research in this regard needs to be done. An expansion of the existing pilot OREHP, or construction of a similar project, would be an excellent way to both mitigate the environmental impacts of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, and further this important hatchery research. I urge your support. Ron Roberts , Councilmember Second District RR:AVL -. . . . . .'-- n .:,A:-- WV-I P c.--. c-- I-+:,-- P-l:r^-^;^ o91n, Dhrr...- ICI 0, ')QP-C,3,9 STAte CAPrroL p 0. Box 942649 34cAUIENTO.cAM2~1 (910) as-7210 ol~:TCrnCE 1080 UJ’JJVfRsJrV AVJ+JU~ SUITE H-201 SAN omo. CA 92lo3 191912Q4-?878 &mkdllg M#lifimtia ~q@laturE MIKE GOT-CH C3MMCREES: HEWER ON C3NSUMER PPOTECTION. SOVERNMEMAL 5FFCJENC( i ECCONOMJC 5NELclPMEN-r ENVl~MeMAr. SAC E-R d TOXIC MATEFWLS LOCAL QOVERNMENT VATURAL RCsoURC~ AssEMBLY.MAN. sJFvm.al3HTH otstmct sl%:cT CCMMrrrEE ON MARINE AESOURCES September 20, 1991 Mr. Thomas W. Gwyn, Chairman California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Dear Chairman Gwynr I have been informed that the California Coastal Commission is considering inclusion of a marine fish hatchery as part of the overall mitigation plan designed to offset the environmental impact of operations at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Here in San Diego, the non-profit Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute and San Diego State University have been developing the technology required to enhance depleated marine species, This California Department of Fish and Game-funded research is known as the Ocean Resources Enhancement and Hatchery Program (OREHP). The OREHP laboratory is located adjacent to Mission Bay which is in my assembly district. I have been following with great interest the progress of this program. Because of the vital importance of fishfng to the California economy, OREHP represents an invaluable investment to the quality of life and the fiscal prosperity of our state. It has been estimated that sportsfishing alone contributes over $2 billion annually to the California economy. With fishery yields continuing to decline over time, it is essential that we work actively to counteract this potential threat ta our future economic resources. An expansion of the existing pilot scale OREHP hatchery would be a an invaluable step toward this goal. As Assemblyman for the 78th District, I feel the inclusion of a marine fish hatchery in the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station's mitigation plan would be in the be in the best Lnterests of the economic future of the State. 001719 I cc: Peter Douglas Frank Powell jTATE CAPITOL = 3 aox 942649 jACRdMENT0. CA 34249~QC01 ;16)445-2112 :;S;RICT CFFICE :262 HOUOAY COURT SUITE 209 iA ,OLW. CA 92037 5191 457-5775 .DEIRDRE ALPERT ASSEMBLYWOMAN. SEVENPI-FIFTH OISTRICT ZOUCATION -EALTH ‘OUSING AN0 C”MMUNITY “4 XVELOPMENT 3ANSPORTATION “JBLIC EMPLOYMENT =iETlREMENT AN0 SOCIAL SERVICES October 11, 1991 Mr. Peter Douglas Director California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 4';. Dear Peter, ',2 _/,' Southern California Edison's plans to purchase and restore 88 acres in the San Dieguito River Valley as mitigation for fish mortality at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station is truly a boon to the preservation of wetlands in San Diego County. While Southern California Edison is to be congratulated for its decision to invest in the river valley, I feel compelled to call your attention to a project which satisfies the mandate to employ like for like mitigation. It is my understanding that Ms. Susan Hansch of.the Coastal Commission's Energy and Ocean Resources Unit is currently engaged in a dialogue with Hubbs Sea World Research Institute regarding additional mitigation for San Onofre which could result in the development of a full-scale hatchery for the enhancement of depleted marine fisheries in Southern California. I wish to express my-support for this innovative project, and urge your full consideration of the Hubbs Sea World Research Institute fish hatchery mitigation proposal. I look forward to your positive response. Sincerely, 'i--j yc./ ., \ 4 L ASSEMBLYWOMAN DEIRDRE ALPERT 75th District DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY COLLEGE OF SCIENCES SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSIN SAN DIEGO CA 921824057 (619) 594-6767 June 10, 1993 Mr. Jeff Gibson Planning Department City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmae Dr. Calrsbad, CA 92009 Dear Mr. Gibson: In reference to the hatchery research project proposed for Agua Hedionda Lagoon, I have assessed the noise that will be generated by the facility for ite potential effect on neighboring residents. I am a professor of biology at San Diego State University, and specialire in measuring noise and assessing its biological effects. One project I am involved in measures traffic noise and assesses how it affects behavior and population dynamica of birds. Other projects measure th8 noise from jet Overflights and Titan rocket launches and assess the effects on animal populations. Past projects have measured the effects of boat noise on dolphins, oil drilling noise on beluga whalee, assessed potential effects of space shuttle launches on marine mammals, and investigated whether sound could be US8d to move sea' otters from the area of an oil spill. I am a member of the Bioacoustics Committee of the Acoustical Society of America and am well qualified to measure noise and assess its biological effects. The noise generated on sit8 at the Carlsbad facility will come from machinery both inside and outside of the building. InBide noise will be gen8rated primarily by laboratory equipment (ag. refrigeratora) and swimming pool circulatqr pumps. Maximum A-weighted noise levels from typical examples of theS8 sources s8ldOm eXC88ds 60 decibela, and usually is much lower. Even if the building wall8 attenuate the noise by only 20 dB, the noise level immediately outside the building would be below that of a quiet residential neighborhood in a small town. Outaide noise will corn0 from the main sea water supply pumps and from air blowrn. I h8V8 m8asUr8d th8 sound from a 25 HP, 1100 RPM sea water pump t which is mlightly larger than the 15 HP pump8 that will be used at the facility. (888 Pigtare 1). At on8 meter distance, the overall A-weighted sound prem8ur8 level im 76.3 decibels, which is about equivalent to riding in an autombile at 40 mph. The major potentially annoying sound from the pump ia a 69.9 dB tone at 2000 HZ. Figure 2 shows how this tone would att8nUat8 over op8n, 18~81 ground in direct lin8 Of sight. At the nearest house, 75 m away, the sound level would b8 lemm than 35 dB, about equivalent to a soft whisper at 2 meterm distance, and 10 dB lower than the usual ambient in a small town residential area. Becaumo the pumps will be installed b8lOW ground level in a concrete vault, their sound will not radiatm out efficiently, so it should b8 completely inaudible even within most of the compound. 1 THE CALI’FORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY The main 80urce of noise from the air blowera im a whistle aa air ia pulled into tha air intake. Thin ia completely eliminated by an intake muffler oymtr. Also, the blower will be located on the west aide of the building, which will prevent any reeidual sound from reaching nearby residences. A sound-treated enclosure probably will not be needed, but could be built if any blower noise did reach a residence. To keep things in perspective, people ohould realize that the trains that pass near the facility generate mound presoure levels of 90 to 100 dB 10 m away. A typical urban residential area hae ambient noise levelo of SO dB. A very quiet place in the desert, with no birds or insects singing, hae an ambient noise level of about 20-25 dB, which is the predicted level of sound 200 metera from the sea water pumpr. I judge that it will not be neceseary to measure ambient community noise levels in the neighborhood before or after construction, but I am willing to do that if the city tao deoires. Sincerely: - :d I Frank T. Awbrey, PhD Profemmor of Biology 619) 594-3750 attachmenta (figures) cc: 'Ruth Beaecker, Benchmark Pacific 2 m u 30 I- 20 . . . . . . . . . . .._ 10 r !T’ ; : : i ; : : i i : I i : : [ : : i : j I : i : : ; : : : . . . . . . . $ . . . . . : : : : : i ; : : i j : : : + : : : : i ; i : ; j : j + : : : : i i i : I : j : : : : : : i i i i i : ..+....j . . . . . . : : i f i i : i : j ! : : i : : ii, 100 I I ............ Hertz I I I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . ; ; : : i ; , t. . . . . . . . . ..___ d T’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ 10000 Figure 1. One-third octave spectnm levels of a 25 HP, 1100 RPM electric pump. Overall souud pressure level is 76.3 dB. Maximum l/3 octave bin level is 69.9 dB at 2 kHz. . - G 80 (D g 70 !i & 60 ca % 50 E p! 40 s d 30 hi n 20 3 \_ 3d sound level at Sound loss with distance . .:.. m is 69.9 Decibc Distance from pump in meters ................................. . ............ I.. ... ...... ........................................... .1 . i 150 200 Figure 2. How a 69.9 dB tone at 2 kHz, as produced by a 25 HP sea water pump running at 1100 RPM, would decrease with distance away from the source. At the nearest residence, 75 m away, the tone would measure 33 dB, and would be masked by the usual ambient noise in a quiet neighborhood. - VITA Frank T. Awbrey Professor of Biology San Diego State University Major Research Interests. Bioacoustics; Effects of noise on animals; Evolution Education. AB 1960 Zoology University of California, Riverside MA 1963 Zoology University of Texas, Austin PhD 1965 Zoology University of Texas, Austin Professional Experience. San Diego State University, Department of Biology Faculty, 1964-present. Senior Research Associate, Sea World Research Institute / Hubbs Marine Research Center. Board of Directors, Porpoise Rescue Foundation. Professional Organizations. American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists; American Association for Advancement of Science; Society of the Sigma Xi; Society for the Study of Evolution; Western Society of Naturalists; Society for Marine Mammalogy; Acoustical Society of America Supported Research Investigations of the effects of vessel and helicopters noise on behavior of free-ranging belukha whales (Delphinuprerus leu&) in the eastern Bering Sea. With W. E. Evans, Hubbs / Sea World Research Institute. Evaluation of acoustic and non-acoustic responses of Arctic marine mammals to underwater noise from offshore drilling operations. American Petroleum Inst. With W. E. Evans, Hubbs / Sea World Research Institute. Sea Ott-es Oil Spill Avoidance Study. Minerals Management Service. With R. Davis, T. Willlams, D. Siniff and R. Pastorak. Effects of Noise fron U. S. Navy Construction Activities in San Diego Bay on Least Terns and Their Food Species. U. S. Navy. Effects of aircraft noise on wild and domestic animals. U. S. Air Force. With A. E. Bowles / Sea World Research Institute. F. T. Awbrey: Vita Page 2 Effects of Titan launch noise on marine mammals at Vandenberg AFB and Channel Islands National Park. U. S. Air Force. With B. S. Stewart / Sea World Research Institute. Avoiding Prohibited Species: Resolving the conflict between the sablefish longline fishery and killer whale conservation in Alaska. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Potential Effects of Traffic Noise on Songs and Associated Behavior of the California Gnatcatcher. Caltrans. Coastal Sage Bird Breeding Success Study. Caltrans. With D. Hunsaker, San Diego State University. Selected Publications, Articles and Reports. Jehl, J. R., Jr., W. E. Evans, F. T. Awbrey and W. S. Drieschmann. 1980. Distribution and geographic variation in the killer whale (Orcinus orcu) populations of the Antarctic and adjacent waters. Antarctic J. U.S. 15(5): 161-163. Leatherwood, S., J. A. Thomas and F. T. Awbrey. 1981. Observations of Minke whales off northwestern Ross Island. Antarctic J. U.S. 16(5):154-156. Thomas, J. A., S. Leatherwood, W. E. Evans, J. R. Jehl and F. T. Awbrey. 1981. Ross Sea Killer Whale (Orcinus orcu) distribution, behavior, color pattern and vocalizations. Antarctic J. U.S. 16(5): 157-158. Dahlheim, M. E. and F. T. Awbrey. 1982. A classification and comparison of vocalizations of captive killer whales (Orcinus orcu). J. Acoust. Sot. Am. 72661-670. Leatherwood, S., F. S. Todd, J. A. Thomas and F. T. Awbrey. 1982. Incidental records of cetaceans in southern seas. January and February 1981. Rep. int. Whal. Comm. 32:515-520. Awbrey, F. T., J.. A. Thomas, W. E. Evans and S. Leatherwood. 1982. Ross Sea killer whale vocalizations: Preliminary description and comparison with those of some northem hemisphere killer whales. Rep. int. Whal. Commn. 32667-670. Leatherwood, S., F. T. Awbrey and J. A. Thomas, 1982. Miie whale response to a transiting vessel. Rep. int. Whal. Commn.32:795-802. Awbrey, F. T., S. Leatherwood, E. D. Mitchell and W. Rogers. 1984. Nesting Green Sea Turtles on Isla Clarion, Revillagigedos, Mexico. Bull. So. Cal. Acad. Sci. 83:69-75. Thomas, J. A,, S. F. Fisher and F. T. Awbrey. 1986. Use of acoustic techniques in studying whale behavior. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. (Special issue 8):121-138. F. T. Awbrey: Vita Page 3 Young, R. W. and F. T. Awbrey. 1986. Efficient monitoring of aircraft noise near a military operating area. J. Acoust. Sot. Am. Suppl. 180, S8 (Abstract). Awbrey, F. T. and J. A. Thomas. 1987. Measurements of sound propagation from several seal harassment devices. pp.85-104 in Mate, B. R. and J. T. Harvey (eds.), Acoustical Deterrents in Marine Mammal Conflicts with Fisheries. Oregon Sea Grant oREsu-w-86-oo1. Grinnell, A. D., P. M. Narins, F. T. Awbrey, W. M. Hamner and P. P. Hamner. 1988. Eye/photophore coordination and light-following in krill, Euphusia superba. J. Exp. Biol. 134:61-77. Thomas, J. A., R. A. Kastelein and F. T. Awbrey. 1990. Behavior and blood catecholamines of captive belugas during playbacks of noise from an oil drilling platform. Zoo Biol.:393-402. Awbrey, F. T. 1990. Concluding comments on cetacean hearing and echolocation. Pages 427433 in Thomas, J. A. and R. A. Kastelein, eds. Sensory Abilities of Cetaceans: Laboratory and Field Evidence. Plenum Press. New York. 710 pages. DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY COLLEGE OF SCIENCES SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-0057 (619) 594-6767 June 11, 1993 Mr. Jeff Gibson Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Plamas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 Dear Mr. Gibson: The purpose of this letter is to clarify issues related to the effects of water discharge from the marine fish hatchery in Carlsbad proposed by Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute. I feel this clarification is necessary after reading several of the letters you have received from concerned citizens who live adjacent to this property. As part of my evaluation, I have also reviewed the EPA wastewater discharge permit submitted by H-SWRI to the Regional Water Quality Control Board. As you can see from my curriculum vitae (attached), I have dedicated almost 30 years to the study of the marine environment. This research has been directed toward the population ecology of demersal invertebrates and fishes, ecological effects of pollutants, ecological assessments of natural and degraded marine habitats, and the aquaculture of marine invertebrates and fishes. During this time, I have published over 60 papers in refereed journals and served as the major professor for 58 graduate students in marine ecology and aquaculture. Therefore, I feel well qualified to address this issue. There are three primary components to the issue of wastewater discharge which must be fully understood. These are 1) the water distribution and filtration system, 2) the products of fish metabolism and its effects on other marine life and 3) the procedure for removal of dead fish. The primary culture units in which white seabass eggs will be reared to the juvenile stage at the Carlsbad hatchery, will employ a flow through seawater system. In this system, particulate matter is filtered from the incoming lagoon water by using a rapid sand filter. The animals are held in this filtered water, which provides them with oxygen and removes the end waste products, primarily ammonia. According to the chemistry analysis performed by Analytical Technologies, Inc and submitted as part of the EPA wastewater discharge permit for the hatchery, the total ammonia production by juvenile white seabass in the proposed facility will be approximately 100 grams (0.25 pounds) per day. This will be diluted by 1.44 million gallons of seawater passing through the culture system each day. It is very apparent to me that THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSIM this concentration of ammonia represents a negligible influx to the lagoon system, and will have absolutely no deleterious effects on the environment through toxic properties or odor. Fish mortalities represent another potential source of concern. EPA regulations restrict the discharge of all but dissolved solids into the lagoon. As described in the proposed hatchery operations, any fish which die in the culture system will be prevented from passing into the seawater discharge system by screens. These fish will be removed manually immediately after death, bagged and discarded in the trash. Therefore, none will enter the lagoon and there will be no odor problems. In addition to EPA regulations, the proposed hatchery program is regulated by joint agreement between the California Department of Fish and Game and the California Coastal Commission. This agreement dictates that there be no significant degradation to the surrounding environment, including the effects of effluent discharge. Failure to meet this agreement would result in discontinuation of the program. That is an important safeguard built into the program. Gperation of the Carlsbad hatchery has the potential to provide benefits to the white seabass population as well as to the recreational and commercial fisheries for this species. I believe there will be no adverse effects on the marine environment from operation of this hatchery. If you or others should have any questions about my evaluation, please feel free to call me at 594-5373 or 224-8912. Sincerely, fJtW Richard F. Ford, Ph.D. Professor of Biology San Diego State University cc Ruth Bmeker, Benchmark Pacific RICHARD FISKE FORD Date of Birth: March 7,1934 Place of Birth: Los Angeles, California Social Security NO: 560-44-1658 EDUCATION B.A. Pomona College, Department of Zoology, 1956 (Zoology) M.A. Stanford University, Department of Biology, 1959 (Biology of Fishes) Ph.D. Scripps Institution of Oceanography,University of California, San Diego, Department of Oceanography, 1965 (Oceanography-Benthic Marine Ecology) POSITIONS AND RELATED EXPERIENCE Stanford University:: Eli Lilly Fellow, Department of Biology, 1957-58; Teaching Assistant, Department of Biology, 1957-59; Research Assistant, George Vanderbilt Foundation, 1957-59. Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego: Marine Technician Trainee, 1954; Research and Teaching Assistant, Department of Oceanography, 1959-62; U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries Predoctoral Fellow, Department of Oceanography, 196264; Lecturer in Marine Ecology, University of California Extension, 1968; Member, California Sea Grant Committee, California Sea Grant College Program, 1976-84. San Diego State University: Assistant Professor of Biology, 1964-68; University Representative, Chamber of Commerce Oceanographic Development Committee, 1967-70; Diving Safety Officer, 1967-73; Member, University Diving Control Board, 1973-86; Associate Professor of Biology, 1968-71; Coordinator, Biological Sciences Graduate Program, 197 l-73; Campus Coordinator, Sea Grant Program, 1974-86; Director, Center for Marine Studies, 1974-86; Coordinator, Marine Biology Program, 1984-86; Executive Committee, Center for Maine Studies 1969-91; Professor of Biology, 197 l-present; Advisory Council, Coastal and Marine Institute (CMI), 1991-present; Marine Laboratory Planning Committee, CMI, 1990-present; Facilities Committee, CM& 199 1 -present; Chairman of Research Committee, CMI, 1992-present. National Science Foundation: Faculty member, NSF-SDSU Institute for Teachers, Colorado Springs and San Diego, Summer, 1967; Faculty member, NSF-SDSU Ecology Institute, Aspen, Colorado, Summer, 1971; Funded participant with responsibility for U.S. arrangements, Workshop on Lobster and Rock Lobster Ecology and Physiology, Penh, Western Australia, NSF U.S.-Australia Cooperative Science Program, 1976-77. Visiting Scientist, CSIRO Division of Fisheries Research, Perth,Western Australia, funded by NSF U.S.-Australia program, 1980-8 1; Reviewer of proposals for Oceanography Program and other programs in the NSF, 1975-present. Office of Sea Grant Programs, U.S. Department of Commerce: SDSU Campus Coordinator for Sea Grant Program, 1974-86; Member of California Sea Grant Committee, California Sea Grant College Program, 1976-84; Reviewer of proposals and member of site review panels, 1976-present. California Department of Fish and Game: Appointed California State University Representative on Advisory Board for Ocean Resources Enhancement and Hatchery Program, 1984-93. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region: Appointed Member, San Diego Bay Technical Advisory Panel, 1989-present. Richard F. Ford Page 2 Citizens Coordinate Century III; San Diego: Chairman, Coastal Zone Committee, 1970-7 1; Member, Executive Committee, 1970-7 1; Member, Board of Directors, 1970-74. City of San Diego: 1967-69. Member, Beach and Shoreline Study Committee, City Planning Department, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Australia: Visiting Scientist, CSIRO Division of Fisheries Research, Perth, Western Australia, funded in part through CSIRO Exchange Visits Programme, 1980-81. Hubbs Sea World Research Institute, San Diego: Member, Scientific Advisory Council 1977-82; Member, Research Coordination Committee, 198290; Scientific Associate, 1982- present. Public Broadcasting System, KPBS TV and FM Stations, San Diego: Member, Science Advisory Committee, KPBS Office of Scientific Affairs, 1974-80. San Diego Museum of Natural History: Research Associate, 1978-present. San Diego Unified Port District: Chairman, Marine Environmental Advisory Committee, 1975- 78. Sigma Xi: Secretary, San Diego Chapter, 1978-80 and 1981-82; President-Elect and Program Chairman, San Diego Chapter, 1982-83; President, San Diego Chapter, 1983-84. SOCIETY MEMBERSHIPS American Association for the Advancement of Science American Association of University Professors American Society of Limnology and Oceanography Ecological Society of America Sigma Xi Western Society of NaturaIists ZoologicaI Society of San Diego CONSULTANT IN MARINE ECOLOGY TO THE FOLLOWING AGENCIES AND COMPANIES California Department of Fish and Gam California Regional Water Qualiv Control Board David D. Smith and Associates EnvironmentaI Engineering Laboratory, Inc. HON Development Company Intersea Research Corporation Keith B. McDonald’and Associates, Inc. Michael Brandman Associates Phillips, Brandt, Reddick Salerno, Livingston and Partners San Diego Gas & Electric Company San Diego Unified Port District Sea Science Services U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Woodward-Qyde Consultants Page 3 RESEARCH INTERESTS Marine ecology; population ecology of benthic marine invertebrates and fishes; marine pollution ecology; ecological effects of thermal effluent and waste discharges on marine organisms; aquaculture of crustaceans and fishes. TEACHING AREAS Marine ecology; biological oceanography; marine pollution ecology; aquaculture. ’ CURRENT RESEARCH GRANTS AND CONTRACTS Research on culture technology, juvenile population characteristics and habitat requirements, and assessment of approaches to stocking for white seabass and California halibut. Co-principal investigator with Mr. Donald B. Kent. Supported by grants from the Ocean Resources Enhancement and Hatchery Program, California Department of Fish and Game, 1984-present. Current annual support - $450,000. Research on assessment of marine habitats in San Diego Bay and their vulnerability to pollution and disturbance effects. Supported by grants from the Teledyne Research Assistance Program, 1990-present. Current annual support - $30,000. PREVIOUS RESEARCH GRANTS AND CONTRACTS Ecological studies on the continental shelf off San Diego, r’ !ploying the Cousteau Diving Saucer. Associate Investigator working with principal inve dgators E.W. Fager and C.L. Hubbs of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Supported by a pt from the National Science Foundation, 196344. Research on the population biology and fishery of the Califomia spiny lobster. Co-principal investigator with D.M. Dexter, D.A. Fanis, and W.E. Hazen. Supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation’s Sea Grant Program, 1968-70. U.S.-Australia Workshop on Lobster and Rock Lobster Ecology and Physiology, Perth, Australia. Coadinators B.F. Phillips and J.S. Cobb. Funded participant through a grant from the National Science Foundation’s U.S.-Australia Cooperative Science Program, 1976-77. Research on the distribution and abundance of Antarctic Chaetognatha. Co-principal investigator with A. Alvarino. Supported by three one-year grants hrn the National Science Foundation through a contract with the Smithsonian Institution Oceanographic Sorting Center, 1977-80. Research on population ecology of juvenile Western Australian rock lobsters. Supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation’s U.S.-Australia Cooperative Science Program and by the CSIRO Division of Fisheries and Oceanography, 1980-81. Resdarch on the use of solar gradient ponds for aquaculture of marine animals in warm water. Co-principal investigator with Dr. Preston Lowrey, Department of Mechanical Engineering, SDSU. Supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation, 198687. Richard F. Ford Page 4 Research to evaluate potential ecological problems of introducing the American lobster (J-Jo- americanUS) as an exotic species in California. Co-principal investigator with C.O. Krekorian. Supported by a grant from the Offke of Sea Grant programs, 1970-73. Research on the use of thermal effluent in culturing the American lobster. Project director and co-principal investigator with J.C. Van Ok. Supported by grants from the Office of Sea Grant Programs, 1973-79. Research on re-establishment of anadromous fishes in southern California. Co-principal investigator with J.C. Van Olst. Supported by a grant from the Office of Sea Grant Programs, 1977-78. Research on temperature tolerances of benthic marine invertebrates and their relationship to regulatory requirements for thermal effluent. Co-principal investigator with J.C. Van Olst. Supported by a grant from the office of Sea Grant Programs, 1978-80. . . Coasld Pm DISK Research on the marine habitats of inner San Diego Bay and their potential for rehabilitation. Supported by a contract from the California Coastal Conservancy and the San Diego Unified Port District, 1988-89. . . . CallfonrtaRePlonalm . . Conuol Board.San An evaluation of ecological effects of thermal effluent from generating stations in San Diego County and their relationship to state and federal regulations. Supported by a contract from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region, 1975. Research on ocean discharges from wastewater treatment outfalls in the San Diego region. Co- principal investigator with Dr.- John B. Conway, Graduate School of Public Health, SDSU. Supported by a contract from the California State Water Resources Control Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 198640. Research cona&@ effects on the coastal marine environment of urban stormwater runoff. Supported by wts from the Itvine Company, 1989-91. Research on feeding relationships and population characteristics of the sabiefish and the Pacific hake off Newport Beach, California. Co-principal investigator with D.A. Farris. Supported by a grant from the Marine Research Committee, State of California, 1965-67. Richard F. Ford Page 5 . . 7one -ati- Research to evaluate the ecological effects of cooling water from the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station on the kelp bed community. Project leader with T.A. Dean of the University of California, Santa Barbara. Supported by grants from the Marine Review Committee, California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, 1977-81. Research & Develoe . . S_outhernalla Edis- Laboratory simulation studies to determine ecological effects of fluctuating thermal effluent temperature regimes on benthic marine invertebrates and fishes. Supported by contracts from the Research and Development Program, Southern California Edison Company, 1973-77. Laboratory studies concerning predicted ecological effects of thermal effluent from the Long Beach Generating Station. Supported by a contract from the Research and Development Program, Southern California Edison Company, 1978-79. Gas & Electric Comppnrpnd Rew Water Ou&v Corua-ol Board Research on the ecological effects of thermal effluent discharged from the South Bay Power Plant in San Diego Bay. Supported by contracts from SDG&E to Environmental Engineering Laboratory, Inc., San Diego, 1968-74. Research on the ecological effects of thermal effluent discharged from the Encina Power Plant in Carlsbad, California. Supported by a conuact from SDG&E, 1970. Research on the ecological effects of thermal effluent discharged from the Station B Power Plant in San Diego Bay. Supported by a contract from SDG&E to Environmental Engineering Laboratory, Inc., San Diego, 1973-75. An evaluation of ecological effects of thermal effluent from SDG&E generating stations and their relationship to U.S. Environmental Rote&on Agency regulations. Supported by a contract from SDG&E, 197475. Research concerning the ecological effects on marine fishes and invertebrates caused by trapping and impingement in the cooling water system of the Encina Power Plant. Co-principal investigator with J.C. Van Olst Supported by a contract from the Environmental Program, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, 1979-80. Research on sediment transport in the heads of the La Jolla submarine canyon system. Co- investigator with Dr. Craig H. Everts. Supported by a contract from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers through Moffatt and Nichol, Engineers, 1984-87. Research on the population ecology and fishery potential of the spiny lobster Panulirus penicm at Enewetak Atoll, Marshall Islands. Co-principal investigator with T.A. Ebert. Supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy through the Mid-Pacific Research Laboratory, University of Hawaii, 1978-80. RichardF.Ford . . . . U.S. Naa Page 6 Research concerning effects of underwater disturbances on open water fishes in San Diego Bay. Supported by a contract fi-om the U.S. Navy Engineering Facilities Command, 1988-91. Research on marine fouling communities associated with stn~ctures employed in the deep submergence rescue vehicle training program. Supported by a contract from Lockheed Ocean Systems, 1990-91. 1 J.S. Geological Survey Benthic biological studies on the shallow continental shelf off Kodiak Island, Alaska. Supported by a contract from the U.S. Geological Survey and Exploration Services Company, Inc., 1976. Benthic biological studies on the continental shelf off Icy Bay, Alaska. Supported by a contract from the U.S. Geological Survey and Texaco, 1977. Western Consortium for the Health Profesd Research on toxicity and bioaccumulation of chemical compounds in fathead minnows, PimeDhales m exposed to water reclaimed from sewage effluent. Co-principal investigator with Dr. Ann de Peyster, Graduate School of Public Health. Supported by a grant from the Western Consortium for the Health Professions, 1986-89. PUBI&VTIONS BY RI- F. FORD SINCE 1974 1974 1974 1974 1975 1975 1975 1975 1976 (total of 61 papers published 1964-present) A laboratory study of interactions between the American lobster, a ticanus, and the California spiny lobster, panulirus m with comparative observations on the rock crab, mm. Fish. BuII. 72:114&l 159 (with C.O. Krekorian and D.C. Sommervillc). A recirculating culture system for larvae of the American lobster, mm. Aquaculture 3:303-309 (with SA. &fling and J.C. Van Olst). An automatic feeding device for’cuIturing larval stages of the American lobster, m m. Aquaculture 3:311-314 (with S.A. Serfling and J.C. Van Olst). Ecological Studies of the pueruIus larval stage of the California spiny lobster, Panulirus w (Ran&d). Fish. Bull. 73:360-377 (with SA. Serfling). Laboraray culture of juvenile stages of the Cal%omia spiny lobster, panulirus m (Randall), at elevated temperatures. Aquaculture 6:377-387 (with SA. Serfling). Use of thermal effluent in culturing the American lobster. In: Power Plant Waste Heat Utilization in Aquaculture. I. PSE&G Company, Newark, NJ. pp. 71-100 (with J.C. Van Olst, J.M. Carlberg, and W.R. Dorband). Beneficial use of thermal effluent in lobster culture. J. World Mariculture Sot. 6:509-519 (with J.C. Van Olst, J&l. Carlberg, W.R Dorband and R.L Johnson). Early development, growth, and survival of the yellow crab, w M Rathbun (Decapoda, Brachyura) in the laboratory. Aquaculture 7:267-279 (with W.R. Anderson). Richard F. Ford Page 7 1976 1976 1976 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1978 1978 1978 1979 1979 Effects of substrate type and other factors on the growth, survival, and cannibalism of juvenile Homarus americanus in mass rearing systems. J. World Mariculture Sot. 7:61- 74 (with T.M. Carlbert and J.C. Vanoist) Hatchery methods for the production of juvenile lobsters (Homarus -ericanus). Univ. Calif. Sea Grant Publ. No. 48. Inst. Mar. Res. LMR Ref. 76-6. 21 p. (with A. Schuur, W.S. Fisher, J.C. Van Olst J.M. Carlberg, J.T. Hughes, and R.A. Shleser). Effects of chemicals in thermal effluent on m americanus maintained in aquaculture systems. J. World Mariculture Sot. 8:647-672 (with D.A. Delisuaty, J.M. Carlberg, and J.C. Van Olst). A description of intensive culture systems for the American lobster ()iomarus americu) and other cannibalistic crustaceans. J. World Mariculture Sot. 8:27 l-292 (with J.C. Van Olst and J.M. Carlberg). Growth patterns of lobsters. In: B.F. Phillips and J.S. Cobb (eds.), Workshop on Lobster and Rock Lobster Ecology and Physiology. CSIRO Aust. Divis. Fish. Oceanogr. Spec. Publ. No. 7. pp. 83-103. . Effects of thermal effluent on survival, growth, moulting, and reproductive condition of the California spiny lobster, panulirus inttrmr>tus. In: B.F. Phillips and J.S. Cobb (eds.), Workshop on Lobster and Rock Lobster Ecology and Physiology, CSIRO Aust. Divis. Fish Oceanogr. Spec. Publ. No. 7. pp. 12-13. Food preferences, feeding activity patterns, and potential competition between Homaw americanus,PanulirusintermDtus.andmm; In: B.F. Phillips and J.S. Cobb (eds.), Workshop on Lobster and Rock Lobster Ecology and Physiology. CSIRO Aust. Divis. Fish Oceanogr. Spec. Spec. Publ. No. 7. pp. 23-24 (with J.M. Carlberg). An evaluation of growth, moulting frequency, and associated tagging methods for the California spiny lobster, panulirus u, based upon mark-recapture and impoundment studies. In: B.F. Phillips and J.S. Cobb (eds.), Workshop on Lobster and Rock Lobster Ecology and Physiology. CSIRO Aust. Divis. Fish Oceanogr. Spec. Spec. Publ. No. 7. pp. 32-33 (with D.A. Farris). A comparison of larval stages of the lobsters mm, mgammarus, and their hybrid. J. World Mariculture Sot. 9:109-122 (with J.M. Carlberg and J.C. Van Olst). Pilot-scale systems for the culture of lobsters in thermal effluent. h: Power Plant Waste Heat Ut&ation in Aquaculture II. PSE&G Co., Newark, NJ. pp. 1-13 (with J.M. Carlberg and J.C. Van Olst). Effects of thermal effluent on benthic marine invertebrates determined from long-term simulation studies. In: J.H. Thorp and J.W. Gibbons (eds.), Energy and Environmental Stress in Aquatic Systems. DOE Symposium Series (CONF-71114). National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA. pp. 546-568 (with D.G. Foreman, K.J. Grubbs, C.D. Kroll, and D.G. Watts). Aquaculture systems utilizing thermal effluent. First meeting, Mariculture Committee. ’ 66th Statutory Mtg., International council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen, Denmark. 20 p. (with J.C. Van Olst and J.M. Carlberg). Potential for communal rearing of nephropid lobsters (Homarus spp.). J. World Mariculture Sot. 10:126-138 (with J.M. Carlberg and J.C. Van Olst). Richard F. Ford Page 8 1979 1980 1980 1981 1982 1983 1986 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 Effects of fluctuating and constant temperatures and chemicals in thermal effluent on growth and survival of the American lobster (m americanus) J. World Mariculture Sot. 10:139-158 (with J.R. Felix, R.L. Johnson, J.M. Carlberg, and J.C. Van Olst). Effects of temperature and feeding level on growth of the American lobster, m americanus. Second meeting, Mariculture Committee, 67th Statuatory Mtg., International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Warsaw, Poland. Bartley, J.M. Carlberg, and J.C. Van Olst). 17 p. (with D.M. Ecology of Lobsters. In: J.S. Cobb and B.F. Phillips (eds.), The Biology and Management of Lobsters. Vol. II. pp. 3-9. Academic Press, New York. Growth and conversion efficiency of juvenile American lobsters (Homarus americanu in relation to temperature and feeding level. J. World Mariculture Sot. 11:355-368 (with D.M. Bartley, J.M. Carlberg, and J.C. Van Olst). Antarctic Chaetognatha: United States Antarctic Research Program. && cruises 8-28, part I. Paper 3 h Biology of the Antarctic Seas XI, Komicker, L.S. (ed.). Am. Geophysical Union, Antarctic Research Series Vol. 34 pp. 129-338 (with A. Alvarino and S.C. Hosmer). Antarctic Chaetognatha: United States Antarctic Research Program. Eltanin cruises lo- 23,25,27, Part II. Paper 2 b Biology of the Antarctic Seas XIX, Komicker, L.S. (ed.). Am. Geophysical Union, Antarctic Research Series Vol. 39 pp. 69-204 (with A. Alvarino and D. F. Verfaille). Population characteristics and fishery potential of the spiny lobster panulirus penicm at Enewetak Atoll. Bull. Mar. Sci. 38(1):56-67 (with T.A. Ebert). Experimental manipulation of population density and its effects on growth and mortality of juvenile western rock lobsters, panulirus m George (with B.F. Phillips and L.M. JOB). Fish. Bull. 86(4):773-787. South San Diego Bay Enhancement Plan. Vols. I-IV. Published by San Diego Unified Port District and California State Coastal Conservancy (with K.B. Macdonald, E. Copper, P. Unitt, and JP. H&&r). Combining mariculture and seawater-based solar ponds. Trans. ASME J. Solar Energy Engineering. 112:9@97 (with P. Lowrey, R. Collado, F. Morgan and E. Frusti). Practical a Rotifer r hes to high density production of the rorifer Brachionus pficatilis.. In: MxroaIgae Culture Systems. Proc. US-Asia Workshop, Honolulu, HI. (with D.B. Kent and R.M. Orhun). Studies evaluating the feasibility of stocking depleted marine fisheries in southern California. J. World Aquaculture Sot. 25:131-149 (with D.B. Kent). In Effects of stocking density, and photoperiod on cannibahsm in larval white seabass, Atractoscion no6iZi.r. Fish Biol. (with P. Dutton and D.B. Kent). In Press Distribution, abundance, food habits, age and growth of early juvenile white seabass (Atractoscion nobilis) off San Diego County, Ca. Fish. BulI. (with C. Donohoe and D.B. ‘, Kent). .i Richard F. Ford Page 9 In An eight year spawning history of white seabass (Afracroscion rwbilis) under &ficidly controlled temperature and photoperiod conditions. J. World Aquaculture Sot. (with D.B. Kent, S. Johnson, and M.A. Drawbridge). b Press An evaluation of a mark and recapture program for hatchery-reared white seabass (Amcmcion n&k) released into the wild. J. World Aquaculture Sot. (with M.A. Drawbridge, D.B. Kent and M.A. Shane). Jn Prm Evaluation of a regional marine fish enhancement program utilizing a central hatchery and satellite pen-rearing stations. J. World Aquaculture Sot. (with D.B. Kent and M.A. Drawbridge). ? -. 1 -. 1 Sweet-water Environmei\tu Biologists, Inc, 3!!4!8 Camho dd RIO Sovlh. cWb DeEon DIego. Cc+ffW 92106 t&1?) 2&l&$ Fm 2w.4216 June 23,1993 / I Ah, Ruth Beseclcor I I Benchmaric Pacific P.0, Box 9000-266 I f Carlsbad, California 92018 8 1 Subject: Hubbs-Sea World Institute White Sea Bass Hatcher. Carlsbad Dear Ms, Bwcker: I This letter reports on the wetland status of the proposed sid for the Hubbs Institute White Sea Bass Hatchcry, The site is located at the south end f Garfield Street in Carlsbad, Califomla. As you know, this fum previously prepared a b ological report for this project dated March 26,1993, 1 I visited the site on the mornin& of June 17, 1993. It is the end of Ckrfield Street and can bc accessed by a dirt road which extends down of this street, The site of the pad create s reposed facility con&k of level, compacted fill. _ by this fill is 12.5 feet above mean sea level. ruderal species with scattered elements of coastal bluff scrub vegetation ~8s observed which could be considered wetla Environmental Laboratory 1987). In order for an llrca to be considered a wetland three criteri$ must bc meet. These crkeria relate to the vegetation, soils, and hydrology of a site. VpiFally, ifanv of rhesc three factors is missing it is not considered a wetland. The site does not meet the vegetation criterion, In fact, it supports only ruderat ve etatlon, Over half of an arca must be covered with wetland plants to meet this criterion, h e site, because of its elevation above sea level, does also not high tide line in this area is approximately seven feet above criterion for hydrology. The level. The sit& elevation of 12.5 feet above sea level clearly places the site out of conduct a soils analysis; therefore no firm conclusions hydrology, I did not my opinion &at the site fails to meet two of the three cri about this criterion. It is wetland. cia and is not a jwisdktional Please call Barry Jones or mc if you have any questions or co&nents regarding this issue. bokqcol rtvdiw * WIQHO rnonopsmnt * hotmt rettarmion a ~onmantd re+mc47 * reguwxy conwkmw res4urca omnq. auewtwnl. amY fwQchm l r~ro?~@anWg, urc4qmentaWn.andmwut0q , I -- _... .- ._. _ i . .,3x , T=LE”!-!P L WV I E4 8 7’010 ; 6-24-33 9:50GM ; 61922639441 - -24 -35 I nu &I,- 5 sitl=l WUKLJJ KkSit It 1: l-i CBRTIPICATE 0P A!¶EIJDMEN'l' OF ARTXCLES or( rYCORFO1IZr\'.~'xO~ FRANX POWRL& and KAZSE WRltXT cert.ify tpatt: 1. They AZ0 the president ttnci t:ha respectively, +cretary~, of 5EA WO.RLD RES,&kRTH' XNST~TUTE., a CaAl.%bm5$ nonprofit public benefit corporU&m. 1 ’ ‘. 7 Artic1.s X,:A of the articles of inooyparacioti al this corpo&tion is mi:ended to read as fol.lows: The n6m.e oP this co~x-pora~ion stml.1 be: ; HUPB.9 !5%& tJOHLD RdS?hj;R~H ;TN&‘~,“l’lJ’S’E I I 3. The Laregoing amenddent of axticlcis oi: irwq$m~&tion has been duly appticN,ed by the bmrd of dirm%orsw 1 4. The foregoing amendment oe alrticlss of iocurg~wtion! i has bcm duly approved by tha r+&i$-ed vote of membar~. Fle further declare und of the Stat.9 of Qlifornia. certificat,e czrfa ‘tmkj and curxe I . - _. Tc-L= _ . zr. :‘a13 ; I+24-33 ,3 : *n&p1 ; ~~~&;tj+J4* O&~-+~GLC2~. .7 A -24--‘33 THU s : + SEI=I WORLD RESE - RCH P-82 ’ I, j.!:, -*y;;-;&. :,~I!.;L~.~,~,tT-“;J:.~~-;‘:.-,~~~.~,~. I q'.:"': ti.';$ *: $*I; r,, , .,w+: * , L....i 4 ,+ s$." ...l.j., ',,I ,...... .,,p.& . .y .',.. a.*, qiJ:s:;.T ~~:j;:/~~~~:.:.~,;,.;.,::,t'l'r:9",;,i~.~~,.~~~~~~~~~~1~'.17 I.,. / , :r," ;I :y."'t,";;~y;~ * .'r'"' :I :; i .:: !> :I ;! ; 4qg?~y?$!$a. : .m. ‘. ,:: I ) : : I ..j f ‘, I _ - .L.!Upy,7: jvygf=J -... . . ..*_ . CI4w-c ;lww . _ --..-.A St/,qq&& ,QF SIN ; : “I ,, ‘I ! ,a *i * ’ ,. ! ’ !I ’ ,I”’ ! : I 8’ ,” 1 jJfr4RCfI p-f)f?G jx!, ,$kctf$t;kry of Sl:ik& ,431 ~&A8 ; ,: Staie of California, flereby~cert~ify: I I . * , ,, 1 j ” . ! That the ULIIG,X& tra,xwript.;has been wnt ga$& ~$11 i.. [ the corpoj-at,e rc&-d on. j&p ifi. ihis off&+, x$+$$# it I’ ,’ ‘L. T>urports to IJ~ :; mpy, a.nd that $;;1nze i.s~: f$l; i#~q :i$fd f ;:orrect. ‘, ! .:, .i:. 5, , ; , .: i ” II’, I ..* .s \I 1: i :; ! ,-. ’ j : ‘. I :: : ‘1 * ‘i;: ia : ,I,; PI p : < ,I : I’ I. : .i; : j ‘,LC ‘,!i\’ ! ‘1, ii!, .I,. .; ’ .,,t ; ‘I, I p 3 a ..:, “2: i .# ; 13 j 3: ,; ,: ; ,,;‘I; :,i ,: ‘;;, : .C$ ’ I I i!;;, t ,c, ’ ‘&i, ,, ;:g ‘,. -q ’ y4;; j ‘:I .: . $i:[ ;$ I / f .iq ! ‘.,: ::ii I ‘1;t $ 1 ,::,.:I. , y,?. : 1 : j/l’., ;;jr’ i $J f May 25, 1993 LAGOON FOUNDATION Jeff Gibson Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, Ca. 92009 RE: CUP 92-10 HUBBS-SEA WORLD RESEARCH Dear Jeff: We would like to thank you for speaking at the most recent Board of Directors Meeting of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation regarding the proposed fish hatchery on the north side of the Outer Lagoon. Your presentation was professional and very informative. The Foundation realizes the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Local Coastal Program designates this site for aquaculture uses and the proposed project is in conformance with this designation. The Foundation can support the proposed use at this site, but we have a number of concerns that we believe need to be addressed. Last year representatives of Hubbs Sea World came to one of our meetings and spoke to us about the proposed project. At that time they assured us that they would be meeting with us and keeping us up to date on the process of the project. They also showed us a rendering of the site that showed a smaI1 building for the fish hatchery. The plans you showed us had a building with a square footage in excess of 20,000 square feet, that is approximately a half acre in size. Based on our brief review of the blue line drawings that you brought to the meeting the applicants have appeared to make the building as attractive as possible. We have some concerns about the proposed landscaping. How long will it take for the landscaping to grow large enough to screen the building from Carlsbad Boulevard ? The environment is rather harsh in that area due to the salt air and the salty soils. We also have concerns about the proposed landscaping on the slope between the homes and the hatchery building. The landscaping plans we reviewed only showed 5 gallon trees and shrubs being planted in this area. We have concerns about how long it will take these plants to growing large enough to screen the hatchery building from the adjacent homes. We also have concerns about the species growing too large and blocking the existing views from these homes. Has the City’s Landscape Architect reviewed these plans and does he feel comfortable that the proposed landscaping will adequately screen the site in a timely manner ? A CalSomia Ncmpdit Copyition Sii March 1990 P.O. Box 4281, Cadsbad, CA 92018 The Agua Hedionda Lagoon Local Coastal Program calls out for a trail along the north side of the outer lagoon. According to the plans you showed us, S.D.G. & E. will be dedicating a 25’ easement for this trail, but will not be improving this trail at the present time. This trail should be improved with decomposed granite when the hatchery is developed. One of the goals of the Agua Hedionda lagoon Foundation is to encourage pedestrian access to the lagoon. The full improvement of this trail at the earliest possible time would facilitate this goal. How will this site be lighted at night and how will adjacent residences be screened from this lighting ? Will the public utilities to this site be undergrounded ? What is the possibility of some of the fish being raised at this facility being released into Agua Hedionda Lagoon to improve the sport fishing in the lagoon ? As mentioned earlier the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation supports the proposed use, but has some questions about its impacts and the mitigation proposed for these impacts. We would like to see this use on the Lagoon, but want to make sure the City gets the best possible project. This project will benefit S.D.G. & E., Hubbs Sea World and sport fishermen in California, we should also make sure it benefits Carlsbad. We regret the inconvenience of bringing up all of these questions at such a late date. We were led to believe by representatives of S.D.G. & E. and Hubbs Sea World that we would be kept informed as to the status of the project and they would be interested in getting our input. Unfortunately, after our initial meeting with them we have never heard from them again. We would not have even known about this item being scheduled for Planning Commission if we had not made inquiries at the Planning Department. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or need any clarifications of the concerns mentioned in this letter. Sincerely, %4!!!!!7 Mario Monroy President Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation cc Michael Holzmiller Gary Wayne Marty Orenyak Ray Pachett Planning Commission City Council - THOMAS WILLIAM SMITH Attorney at Law 400 S. Melrose Dr., Ste. 102 Vista, Ca, 92083 (619) 941-8343 June 4, 1993 Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Ave. Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 Re: CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05, Hubbs/Sea World Development Dear Members of the Planning Commission: I represent Protect Our Estuery (POE), a coalition of homeowners and individuals who have joined together to ensure that development near or in the Agua Hedionda Estuary proceeds in a lawful and responsible manner. Carlsbad's estuaries are among the most environmentally sensitive lands in the State of California. As such these lands are entitled to the strict scrutiny required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). POE contends that the above referenced development does not satisfy the requirements or spirit of CEQA and is therefore inappropriate for the site as proposed. Moreover, POE has concluded, after careful review of the available information,, that the proposed Negative Declaration is not only inappropriate for this development but perhaps absurd in light of the following arguments. Needless to say this project has already been heavily lobbied to the City Counsel, Planning Commission, City Manager's Office and the Planning Department by wealthy and powerful interests.including the Anheuser-Busch Corporation, the San Diego Gas and Electric Corporation and, the Fieldstone Corporation. The integrity of the Carlsbad planning process will again be severely tested. It will be difficult to. say no to such interests. Further, the alleged purpose of the development which is to produce species of fish which are threatened with extinction would be presumably very well received by the public at large. No one within POE fails to recognize the importance of such a purpose. This is not to say the avowed purpose here is not viewed with some skepticism. For instance, of the 20,000 tagged White Sea Hatchings released in San Diego's Mission Bay since .1988 only one fish has returned to be caught by local fisherman according to a recent Union.Tribune article on the facility. National Fisherman Magazine in its November 1992, issue reports that biologists in this field believe the depletion of the White Sea Bass is primarily due to the 1. pollution and industrial development by the shore which have caused the White Sea Bass population to migrate to better sea conditions such as in Mexico. The financing of the operation of this development is equally speculative. The staff report herein reports the development has a vaguely described financial commitment from the State of California. Such financing is not reassuring in light of the State's current financial crisis. The City's recent experience with Sammis and Aviara Developments illustrate the difficulty of sound planning when a development's financial viability and representations are not secure. This proposed shoreline development with a heretofore unproven method and questionable financing may possibly just add to the problem of White Sea Bass stock depletion. Whether or not this development will accomplish its purpose is however beyond the scope of POE's initial opposition as stated herein. The focus herein is the problems raised by the development under CEQA. All public relations rhetoric aside this development amounts to little more than a Visitor's Center and industrial production facility which is proposed for a residential beach neighborhood. The question here is whether such a development is appropriate for this site on the scale that is proposed. The neighborhood is bordered by the estuary, Carlsbad Blvd., Tamarack Ave., and the Santa Fe Railroad line. There are no commercial or industrial areas in the neighborhood. The site itself is bordered by rip rap along the estuary, residential homes, and the Santa Fe railroad line. Ironically, the site was originally a wetland area and since raised with dirt fill. As such, it has removed ten acres of wetlands from the environment putting further stress on ocean fish spawning habitat. Now it is proposed to build on the fill in order to somehow improve the environment instead of returning the area to its original wetland condition which will without question improve the environment immediately and for the long term. The traffic circulation within this area is at capacity and designed merely for the local neighborhood needs. It cannot nor should it suffer the additional heavy use by the diesel buses and trucks which are contemplated to service this development. This flagrant but telling impact is deemed by the Planning Department as not significant. The word should be closely re-examined in the context of this development. The Planning Department appears to have altered'the meaning of this word which has some legal definition under CEQA in order to rush this development through by way of the resulting Negative Declaration branch of this review process. A re-definition or loose application of this word will inevitably lead in the atmosphere of the ever present developer pressure to abuse of the process. 2. . SIGNIFICANT EFFECT DEFINED The term "significant effect on the environment'* means a substantial or gotentiallv substantial change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project. 14 Cal. Admin. Code 15382. No. Oil Inc. v. Los Anueles. (1974) 13 C. 3d 68, 83 note 83. Local agencies should not only pause and reflect when faced with significant effects in their review but must prepare an EIR on any project which u have a significant effect on the environment. The word "may" connotes a reasonable gossibilitv Sundstrom v. Countv of Mendocino. (1988) 202 CA 3d 296. . In the case of Banlv v Kleindrenst. (1972) 471 F. 2d 823, 837, Justice Friendly in his dissenting opinion states the problems inherent in a sloppy application of the definition of the word significant: . l'Although all words may be 'chameleons' which reflect the color of their environment...'significant' has that quality more than most. It covers a spectrum ranging from 'not trivial' through 'appreciable' to 'important' and even 'momentous." In Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Sunervisors. (1972) 8 C. 3d 247, the Court observed that the judiciary "will not countenance abuse of the 'significant effect' qualification as a subterfuae to excuse the making of impact reports otherwise required by the act." In Citizen Assoc. for Sensible De elomnt of the Bishop Area v. Countv of Inve (1985) y72 CA 3d 151, the Court held that the determination to prepare a negative declaration (which is proposed here by the Planning Department based upon its findings of no significant environmental impacts) must be supported by data and evidence. . ule check mrks or conclwns on a form . . . are-sufficient because t ev nro ide no . (Emphasii added; at pagrl71. s for Therefore, in order to fulfil1 the requirements of CEQA and provide a fair and meaningful assessment to the community it is necessary to utilize the proper definition of significant which is as stated above a mere reasonable possibility. Using this definition with regard to additional traffic in the area which will be generated by this project any other conclusion besides significant would be incorrect. The Planning Department states the project should be evaluated by analogy to two residential units. This is absurd. This project calls for the servicing of industrial equipment. It also seeks to entertain visitors for public relations purposes using buses for transportation. This analogy of comparing this commercial industrial development to residential units is inadequate. 3. . Moreover, it should be understood that the public relations purpose of this project is the central purpose of the project. The large project now proposed bears little resemblance, to the project as originally conceived and presented to the neighborhood two years ago. Essentially the project then was 5000 sq. ft. building placed at the opposite end of the site away from homes on two acres with a production of 500,000 fingerlings per year which was in excess of what is proposed presently. Please see the article which includes a rendering kindly provided to P.O.E. by Mr. Avis at the June 4th meeting with P.O.E. on the proposed site. Interestingly, the parties from Hubbs who spoke were unconcerned about where the facility was built just so it could be built somewhere. Mr. Avis and SDG&E representatives were the only ones within the applicant's circle who were pressing for this site. It should be noted that the meeting on June 4, 1993, at the site between Mr. Avis representing the applicant and P.O.E. has generated serious public controversy over the environmental effects of the project. Additionally, another opposition group has surfaced in the neighborhood composed mainly of Garfield Street residents. These residents can speak for themselves but needless to say the increased traffic as described above along a two lane street which feeds the entire neighborhood will be a major concern for them. Failure to denote or even recognize the significant controversy over the social and environmental effects to the area requires the preparation of an EIR. See CEQA guidelines Section 15064(h)(l). DITIONAJ. SIGNIFICAN!C IMPACTS Traffic, although a serious environmental issue for any residential neighborhood, is only one of many significant impacts that heretofore have been intentionally understated or ignored in this process heretofore. The following additional factors are respectfully submitted as impacts which are significant and not dealt with fairly to this date. 1. Noise- Although it is concluded that this production facility will not violate noise policies of the city few specifics are offered. It is stated the pumps for the facility will be encased in concrete. It still is unstated how noisy they will be. The residents questioned Mr. Avis about this point and requested the location of other similar facilities, which were stated to be existing, but no answers were available. Back up pumps and their noise levels and maintenance requirements also lack specifics or even any mention within the Staff Report at this late date. Concluding these pumps won't be noisy without specifics cannot be judicially reviewed. 2. VisUaFJIBpacts - This huge development will not only block the views of the homes of residents it abutts but will also be an eyesore on the estuary where it is proposed to be sited. Although it is concluded this is the best site for the project no specifics are given either in the staff reports or by Mr. Avis as to what other sites were considered and how this site was found to be more appropriate. The applicants agents at the June 4th meeting could give no reasons why this industrial development could not be easily placed across the estuary at existing SDGCE industrial facilities or remain at its present facility at Sea World except to say these two corporations didn't want it there. These conclusions provide no basis for a meaningful analysis of the development. It is similar with respect to the best use of the site. Why either restoring the are site to its original wetland condition or allowing it to remain what it has become, a passive recreational area, is never addressed with any specifics as required under CEQA. AFFECTS TO OUALITY OF SURFACE WATEB Hubbs proposes to merely dump the fish wastewater into the estuary as needed after removing some solids. This would of course only add to the chronic pollution problem that has afflicted the estuary for years, sources of which are still unidentified. Less than two years ago the former owner of the aquaculture in this estuary which produces muscles was ordered to stop the sale of his product for human consumption by the San Diego County Health Department. A study was made by this owner and his production was altered to compensate for this problem. The pollution problem was never resolved and remains to this date. The source could be from the beach area which is regularly closed down owing to equipment failures at the two local sewage treatment outfalls. Another possibility is the pump station facility less than 200 yards from this site which also has had chronic mechanic failures. Or it could be from some other unknown problem. Curiously there is no mention of this problem in the Negative Declaration or Staff Report. It would seem this is central to the discussion if for no other reason than to consider the viability of the applicant's fish production in light of this problem. In fact, this subject is so poorly addressed that neither Mr. Avis nor his technical experts on June 4th could even state how many barrels per week of the applicants wastewater will be dumped into the estuary . This information is basic to any analysis. Such a lack of specific detail is the same in all aspects of this project. It appears the strategy here is to get approval of a concept that is so vague that the final plan may be completely different yet nevertheless acceptable within the approval. This is unacceptable and impossible for any court to scrutinize. Further, such omissions may be intentional and should not be tolerated. 5. - ICANT ARCH. PAT.90. OR HIST. SITE;s The Staff Reports finds there to be an impact but that it is insignificant. Such a conclusion is of course useless to any analysis. P.O.E. reports that a dig was initiated at one spot on the site. How this dig came to be done at that particular spot and how the results were deemed insignificant is not explained by the Planning Department. If there is specific information available to the city which was used to perform a dig it should be stated in the Staff Report so this information can be properly evaluated. Mere again worthless. conclusions are PROCEDURAJ, DUE PROCESS This development has literally snuck up on the residents of this neighborhood. Notice should have been given by mail to each resident in the area with specific information and in a timely manner. Most residents are still unaware of this development.- Those who have become aware have done so only within the last week. This sharp practice is traditional with both SDGCE Corp. and the Fieldstone Corporation and unfortunately tolerated by the City especially if the City Management is in favor of the development which the residents believe is true here. Developers have months to lobby the City in favor of this project. Sometimes this lobbying even includes assistance in election campaigns. The residents have usually only a few days to mount their examination of a developments. This is unfair and particularly onerous to these residents. The period for public input should be extended and the planning commission meeting of June 16, 1993, continued in order to give the residents a fair chance to evaluate this development. I have & stated all the arguments in opposition to this development in this letter because several lines of inquiry are not completed. Please consider this correspondence as our initial opposition which will be supplemented. However, based upon the foregoing it is respectfully requested that the proposed negative declaration be denied and that a full E.I.R. be required with regard to the proposed development. Sincerely, q!! THOMAS WILLIAM SMITH TWS/bw C.C. P.O.E. 6. .- h Milestorie For Mark- ..dre I. F Full Scale Hatchery Proposed -. r’ \!. Rendering of proposed haichery. Since 1978, when 800 half-pound striped bass were first released into Mission Bay, H-SWRI has been seeking solutions to the difficult problems caused by overfishing and the loss of healthy marine habitats. With studies on the depleted white seabass (Atractoscion nobilis) fishery beginning in 1982, the Ocean Resources Enhancement and Hatch- ery Program (OREHP) sought to develop a reliable and cost-efficient system for mass producing fish in captivity and releasing them into the wild. A milestone was passed last October when Don Kent, Senior Vice President of H-SWRI, and Dick Ford of San Diego State University reported OREHP’s progress to the California Department of Fish and Game, which has coordinated and funded the program since 1984. The progress of the OREHP program to date has been such that when Kent and Ford proposed the development of an expanded pro- duction scale hatchery for review by the Californra Coastal Commission, it was wholeheartedly endorsed by the program’s independent advisory panel. For the OREHP program to be expanded, the Advisory Panel first recommended to the Department of Fish and Game that the authorizing legrslation should be extended for an additional ten years. Assemblywoman 4000 I .I I I I I I 1 I 300 g 3000 1 .Y I / / 1 2000 I / / / 9 / / d / m 1000 / I CcmtmAim to standing stock - - fmirtgyiela YEAR Esthated contibution to the standing stock of white se&ass and yield to the fishery msulting from the release of 350,OW juveniles each year for 20 years. Assemblymembers Dede Albert and Mike Go tch assist at a release of 10,ocEo white seabass fingerlings into Mlssion Bay December IO, 1991, as part of the OREHP project. Dede Alpert (75th District) has taken the lead in reauthorizing the legislation. The expansion of the program will occur with the construction of a production-scale hatchery. Most likely it will be located adjacent to the ocean; perhaps on a power plant site where a clean sea water supply would be readily available. The hatchery design is based on intensive culture methods that would require approximately 2 acres of land. Juvenile fish produced in this hatchery would be transported to pen rearing systems located within various southern California bays and harbors. The small (l-l 5 inch) fish would be held in pens for seven months during which time they would grow to a size of ten inches, and subsequently released into bays. This expanded program could produce in excess of 500,000 releae- able white seabass a year. Using consewative estimates of survival, this scale of production is expected to result in an annual yield of 200 metric tons of legal-size white seabass. In addition to this program, hatchery researchers will experiment with the rearing of other native species such as California halibut, black seabass and yellowtail. Mr. Michael J Holzmiller-Planning Director City of Carlsbad Planning Dept 2075 Las Palmas Dr. JUN 0 4 1w ,.;$ :: ;:. .-i ,2.y i’: ,’ “3 : . . , i . . _ -; .,~ .’ ‘ Carlsbad, Ca 92009-l 576 ._’ _- .J Re: Proposed fish hatchery in the outer basin of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon APN: 206-070- 11 Dear Mr. Holzmiller, I am writing this letter in response to the proposed fish hatchery and the negative declaration that was given regarding this project. I just found out about this project on May 29, 1993. I feel that a project of this magnitude should have involved the local residences and their input early on. It appears that for all intensive purposes that the City or Hubbs-SEAWORLD do not care what the surrounding residences feel about this property or its use. I am in a dilemma here for I am a avid salt water fly fishermen and live directly above the lagoon. I support the idea of a fish hatchery for this species but I also fish this lagoon often and enjoy the peace and its beauty. I read the the Environmental Impact Assessment and find that its conclusions are objectionable to me for the following reasons: 1. I feel that there are other possible sites on SDG&E property that would also work. 2. The noise levels for pumps that run 24 hours a day will create a very annoying sound.due to their rhythmic drive. Since the proposed building site is right up against the surrounding houses, the noise levels could create a disturbance. What noise studies were performed to evaluate this potential problem and is there a contingency plan if the noise reaches a certain level? If a study has been done is a report available for review by a independent specialist? 3. The visual impact of a metal building is not consistent with any other new structure in this area. The shear size of this structure could adversely constrict a existing ocean view corridor for many residences. I believe that the Coastal Commission has specific guidelines for this. Will a a silhouette be constructed on the site prior to any formal approvals that will indicate visual length, width and HElGHT of structure? This seems to be the accepted method with most coastal cities where views are at stake. 4. What method did the assessment use to conclude that odors created by fish waste and feed would not be a problem to the surrounding residences?A building that is RETAIL OUTLET: 310 PORTOFINO WAY, KING HARBOR MARINA, REDONDO BEACH, CA 90277 MAILING ADDRESS: 2911 STATE ST, #J, CARLSBAD, CA 92008 (800) 646-l 178 l FAX (619) 434-l 510 20,000 square feet can house a lot o . HOW would the building be ventilated and exhaust the odors created by this operation? 5. In the report it stated that the outflow from the fish cultivating tanks would contain ammonia and excess food. How would the ammonia effect the nutrient rich lagoon and its fish habitat? Was a study performed prior to this assessment on the lagoon so that a baseline of existing conditions could be established?This study could be used to evaluate any future impact if the hatchery is approved. If a study was done is a copy available for review and comment? 6. What studies were performed to assure that the existing aqua farm cultivating mussels would not be impacted by this operation? 7. To access the proposed fish hatchery the entrance would be at the end of Garfield Street. Since this is a residential neighborhood the streets are not designed for large trucks going in and out on a regular basis let alone the added traffic the hatchery would attract. How does the City of Carlsbad propose to deal with this potential problem?Will this be a public road allowing people to park at all hours of the night or will there be a gate that can be locked? 8. Since the lagoon is zoned for aqua culture it appears inconsistent that the aqua farming would occur on the land and not in rearing mesh gages in the water as other locations have done i.e. ; Marina del Rey, King Harbor in Redondo Beach and Newport Beach. Why does such a large structure need to built ? 9. What kind of landscaping could hide such a large structure and not disturb the existing environment of the lagoon? If trees are planted to help hide the building will they be native plants and trees and will they be drought resistant? To conclude I would like these questions answered so I may be more supportive of this project. I believe in the future of aqua culture as we deplete the ocean and land of our valuable resources. In order to be supportive of this fish hatchery the public should be invited and involved from the beginning. These hatcheries could prove to be valuable in the future. Most people we have talked to are very disturbed in the way the proposed fish hatchery issue has been addressed (or not really addressed). We hope that a appropriate solution can be reached so that this one will be a model for the future. We look forward to our City representing us in the way that will best serve the community as a whole and not any one special interest group, company or developer. cc: Bill Ponder- Coastal Commission Sierra Club- San Diego Chapter Carlsbad City Council Members Blade Citizen - Editorial Dept. The Water Mark- Aqua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation RETAIL OUTLET: 310 PORTOFINO WAY, KING HARBOR MARINA, REDONDO BEACH, CA 902T/ MAILING ADDRESS: 2911 STATE ST, #J, CARLSBAD, CA 92008 (800)646-1178*FAX(619)434-1510 MARGARET J. BO#AS 231 Olive Street Carlsbacl, California 92008 (619) 729-8137 June 4, 1993 CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-1576 Attention: Michael Holtzmiller Re: Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute Dear Mr. Holtzmiller, The following comments are my concerns regarding CUP 92-lO/ HDP 93-05 - for your files. After reading the Negative Declaration (5-6-93), the Preliminary Staff Report for the Planning Commission, the project files at the Planning Department, walking and photographing the project site, my reaction was as though I had been struck by three bolts of lightning. Unbelievable adverse environmental impacts for not only the Agua Hedionda Estuary but for all of Carlsbad. 1. Asthetics - The project (fish hatchery) will result in the obstruction of scenic vistas to the residents and public. 2. The creation of an offensive site development in full.public view b visual pollution. The building is an industrial one of momentous proportions - 220 ft. X 90 ft. X 28 ft. high - which, when placed on ground eleven feet above sea level, puts it at 39 feet elevation, dropped in an old established neighborhood, entirely residential. 3. A definite potential exists to continue to 1sdegrade11 the quality of the existing environment, i.e., additional air traffic noise (off course over the lagoon instead of over the coastal area). Rail traffic noise is increasing plus rapid rail is in our near future, there is freeway noise in addition to the "blow offs" from the power plant, plus the visual shock and soot pollution that SDG&E creates. We have also experienced two raw sewage spills from the pump station near the railroad trestle in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Over 250,OOO.OO gallons within the last year. We certainly don't need to continue to exploit and destroy this coastal estuary! CITY OF CARLSBAD June 4, 1993 Page 2 4. The project (H.S.W.R.1) may have a reasonable possibility of a negative impact on the estuary's water quality and quantity of recreation well into the future. Will the discharge create a new and undesirable environment in the lagoon waters? Attract hostile species? Kill off existing aquatic species? 5. Substantial adverse effects. Will there be a reasonable possibility of adverse environmental effects on human beings? Both directly and indirectly? 6. Alternate possibilities for the site are: a. Leave it as it is, "open space", or return it to it's natural state. b. Share space at Scripps Institute of Oceanography, La Jolla, California. C. Share space on the Carlsbad Encina Power Plant site. Noise and visual impact would be negative. Pipes could be lengthened and pump size enlarged, plus discharge pipes could be located near the south jetty outfall of SDG&E. Entrance already at Cannon Road, hence savings on road construction (proposed). Fish do not need an ocean view - people do. 7. Please, in Heaven's name, allow us to protect and preserve our Agua Hedionda Estuary for future generations to enjoy. A place of solace and meditation and peace to be enjoyed by all in our community. I believe an Environmental Impact Report is necessary, because your negative declaration will not suffice, but leaves too many unanswered questions. TWS:ddd Head1 i ne : .$?ata : Page : Author: The San Dlego Union-Trrbune ED ZIERALSKI Staff Writer Index Terms: f ISHING Text: Bruce Holbrook has been tlshlng Mission Bay tar 30 years, but he never had a day like he did on Saturday. Just atter catching a legal-size hallbut, Holbrook hooked into a tish that pulled him around his boat so much he thought it was a shark. It turned out to be a legal-size white seabass, a 30-inch tish that weighed 10 pounds. Holbrook said he caught the tish near the Hyatt Islandia Hotel. “We used to catch baby white seabass and we called them sea trout,” said Holbrook, an appliance repairman from San Carlos. “But I’ll bet I haven’t caught a white seabass ,of any size In the last 15 years.” Holbrook froze the fish, and he said he will take it to Hubbs-Sea ,World Research Institute. / Hubbs has been releasing tingerllng white seabass in Mission Bay since 1966. Hubbs released Zci ,~NO Juvenile white se?bass In the bay. and all ut the ones released since 1ys8, have been marked for identification. Hubbs has received- hatchery-rdgd ta ed tish tram a t1sh~rmarr since the program began but 1s hoping ro*. w$&,& ----+~ Saturday was the day tor white seabass, The husband-and-wife team of Gordon and Letty McCulley ot Santee simultaneously caught two whltz seabass while on the morning run on the Daily Double out of Point Loma Sporttishlng. Gordon’s went 41-8, Letty’s 13-4. Both fish carcasses were sent to Hubbs, dccorcflng to Dally Double captain Fred Huber . -,r di!prme ye%? 7 :.;E .., L _.^ -. - he +-Ii, I%3 ’ -. b *‘-:L -J:. 1 . -.----_ -- - - -~- -.. -..- _- --_. - AILT&L-A., ___---- -_- .- ..-- -=_. ~~Agllp ?.;t; ;‘v-yz-T. :- -?I;unl. .&a&i. &’ /’ // OS. cs&.a, - - w d-&&_ L&&L?---- ..-- --. - fre#bhs~~--~.- ~- ._-. b_eQf?Se&ue __ ..~ .*-*-a __._-..._ ~- ~- - -y.~~:- .._. ; **: L :. i ..- -*s..- \ _ 1 5 ee Y ‘*, I) cn 4-h e I Lk+h-J- .: -- -__--_----~_---- ----. .- - - ~__ - - - __-.- -.-.- - .- --- -- ---.---. -- - _-..~-- ----. -~- . ____- -__--- .._._-- __ -.- ___- --- - .- .-.--_-_-- -.- ~-- -... -__.-- - --._--___ __._ ---. -- _____ - -_-.- - .~ -. .~ L. ---_~. _ ..__. --. -..- d ROLLIN F.~IJNI ATTORNEY AT LAW xadS~-~xxiWY~-~L~Wz -x zexY.?a% 301 Olive , Carlsbad, Ca. Case File: CUP 9240/HDP 93-05 Case Xame: IiUBB WORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE REFERRED !OClfY’JCNAQR FOR RESPONSE I am unable to attend the public hwaring on June 16, 1993 regarding the request for approval to develop a marine fish hatchery facility on the Agua Hedionda rSagoon. I wish to have my objection to thi s project become part of the minutes of your meeting so that they may be used in court at some future time if that should become necessary. My objection to this project is that it would effect, if not destroy, the wildlife presently in the lagoon, ;\a a native of California for the last 82 years, I have seen the gradual‘encroachment of building that has virtually wiped out all the wildlife habitats in southern California.. I'would like to know if you have had eln enviromental impact report on this project or' clearance by the Coastal Commission.. If so, I would Like a copy of same. Thank you, Rollin F. Duni June 8, 1993 PRESIDENT, CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL 1200 ELM STREET CARLSBAD, CA. 92009-1576 Dear Sir, I am writing this letter as a concerned citizen that will be unable to attend the June 16th meeting regarding the San Diego Gas 61 Electric Partnership with the Hubbs Seaworld research Institute on the Aqua Hedionda Estuary. This meeting is regarding the building of an industrial buildinq for a fish hatchery. Plea&e inciude the rCTlZiZkS in this letter-in record. Please send me a copy of the environmental report concerning this project. I would also like someone to explain how this benefits the taxpayers, when you are taking the property off the tax roll and leasing the property for a token $1.00 per year. Additionally, I was under the impression through the new building codes that you are trying to hold back on construction along the coast line. You are limiting construction on private homes and condominium projects - shouldn't that include industrial projects?? I would hate to see another industrial building in the estuary in addition to the ugly eyesore already there. I thought the goal in California was to save the coastline, not destroy it by putting up more industrial projects. the minutes of-the meeting for the We currently have a natural habitat for rare birds that would be destroyed by a construction such as this. I had hoped that the City Council would learn from the unanimous protest on ban the bars. It certainly doesn't appear that the residents of Carlsbad are being adequately represented by the City Council. A concerned citizen of Carlsbad. Larry D. &ern, Vice President Olive Point Homeowners Association 331 Olive Street Unit 201 Carlsbad, California cc: Mayor of Carlsbad City Manager of Carlsbad +==---T .- -.--- . l &/ -- &,.;( L-/j v9L-3 6,./ June 15, 1993 ,- REfU?RED~OClV WUCER fORRESPONSf o&m: c -/t-9 3 President, Carlsbad City Council 1200 Catlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 Dear Sir, I am writing this letter as a concerned citizen that will be unable to attend the June 16th meeting regarding the San Diego Gas 6 Electric Partnership with the Hubba Seaworld Research Institute on the Ague Hedionda Estuary. This meeting is regarding the building of an industrial building for a fish hatchery. Please include the remarks in this letter in the minutes of the meeting for the record. Please send me a copy of the environmental report concerning this project , I-world al80 like someone to l ~pl+M how- thiw benefita the taxpayora, when you are taking the property off the tax roll and leasing-tm -prapelicfp..f~ r.*tolwrrt*+l .m per year. Additionally, I was under the impression through the new building codes that you are trying to hold back on construction along the coastline. You are limiting construction on privafe hones and condominium projects - shouldn’t that include industrial projects?? I would hate to see another industrial building in the estuary in addition to the ugly eyesore already there. I thought the goal in California was to save the coastline, not destroy it by putting up more industrial projects. We currently have a natural habitat for rare birds that would be destroyed by a construction such as this. I had hoped that the City Council would learn from the unanimous protest on ban the bars. It certainly doesn’t appear that the residents of Carlsbad are being adequately represented by City Council. A concerned citizen of Carlabad. Gerry Lomax 2231 Rutherford Road, #200 Carlsbad, CA 92008 cc: Bud Lewis, City Mayor Ray Patchett, City Manager lmtolu¶ Leabng CoffJ. T-Ion Acc+tuxi Cap. lmvelu¶ cctto zieAc.# ~~* crmYt sawcu. Inc. Chris Davis PESideM 2231 Rutherford Rd. Se. 200 l C$bd, CA 920o8 9) 93-l-5970 I- G 400 South Uelrose Drive, Suite 102 Vista, California 92083 (619) 941-8343 June 11, 1993 Planning Commission CITY OF CARLSBAD Planning Department 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009 Re: Hubbs/Sea World Development No. &/ y .g 2 -/~~sP~$~- Supplemental Comments / Dear Members: fi?k 64%%wy /mAL& &SdM On June 8, 1993, I was able to review the 4 fi es and related files in the above-referenced matter at the Planning Department. I was accompanied by Brian Bonas, a member of Protect Our Estuary (P.O.E.), whom I represent. Mr(s) l Jeff Gibson and Gary Wayne of the Department were kind enough to review these files with us and attempt to answer our questions as best as they were able. Additional concerns are now in issue and issues that were raised in my previous correspondence may be even more pressing. Some of these issues will require more serious scrutiny because they require technical analysis, i.e., specifically, engineering problems that appear heretofore to not have been addressed adequately. As such, we believe the hearing to consider the proposed Negative Declaration should be continued for a period of time necessary to properly address these technical concerns. Such concerns are as follows: 1. Site and Use - Although the Negative Declaration and Staff Report represent this development to be the best site and use for this site, in fact no alternatives were ever seriously considered by the Department. Such representations appear to be mere echoes from the applicant, SDG&E. Moreover, the best m of the property, restoration to wetland, and best site, across the estuary at existing industrial facilities where space is available, were not considered apparently at the behest of SDG&E. In fact, Gibson and Wayne insisted the Department focus was only upon this site and the use as proposed by the applicant. Site and use questions are critical here when what is proposed is essentially an enlargement of industrial facilities by SDG&E into a residential beach neighborhood. And this neighborhood is becoming increasingly alarmed, owing to l Planning Commission CITY OF CARLSBAD June 11, 1993 Page Two environmental concerns, at this prospect, even with the lack of adequate notice given to them by the Department. A small ad without a map in the classified section of the Carlsbad Sun, a paper with virtually no circulation in Carlsbad is no real notice at all. I'm sure such a minimal notice is amusing to unethical members of the planning community, but it is unconscionable to the residents of Carlsbad. 2. mauefaction - A geological engineering report was i discovered in the file and reviewed by Mr. Bonas and myself. Curiously there is scant mention of the conclusion in the Negative Declaration or the Staff Report. This engineering report concludes that the sub-strata on the site would liquefy in the event of an earthquake. Presumably other problems could arise as well should a large industrial building be located on the site as proposed. Additionally, the sketchy proposed use calls for tour buses to visit the property, including school children. A structurally unsound building would not be acceptable to the community where school children might be visiting. This engineering report then goes on to recommend and propose a design for pile driven concrete piers thirty feet in depth to be installed in order to provide a sound foundation for the proposed industrial structure. Despite the obvious care and detail with which this report was prepared, its conclusions are rejected by the Department and mere additional compacting is proposed as a viable alternative to the pile driven supports. It would seem logical to infer that the expert who prepared the engineering report would have been aware of such a more cost effective solution and would have closely considered it before recommending the more elaborate and costly solution. This problem should be reconsidered by the Department and the proposed alternative submitted to the expert who first consulted on the problem for analysis. Otherwise, of course, should an accident occur, the City will not be able to share liability with this expert in the event of a lawsuit for negligence. 3. Blockaae of the Adjacent Homeowner's View@ - Gibson and Wayne were quick to dispel any notion that City Ordinances precluded a blocking of homeowner's views by a new development. Mr. Wayne noted with pride that his view had been blocked and he had been afforded no relief. However, I recall from serving on the Land Use Review Committee in the early 1980's that protection of views was encouraged and lovely homeowner's views would not be unnecessarily destroyed. If any such preference exists, it should be brought Planning Commission CITY OF CARLSBAD June 11, 1993 Page Three forth and examined in light of what is proposed here. This project will abut the homes along Olive Avenue. Placing the industrial building near the railroad trestle which is about 200 yards south, of the proposed site would eliminate all the homeowner view problems and not affect the development operation at all. Perhaps this development is really not what is the final vision of SDG&E Corporation. It could be argued that at the end of ten years of a SDG&E visitor center and token fish factory the building could be remodeled for executive offices. Meanwhile, SDG&E proposes more buildings on the proposed site, creeping south toward the railroad trestle. Each proposal will of course receive a negative declaration since each incremental building further defines the area as a commercial/industrial area. Further, during this entire period these facilities are depreciated in a lucrative tax scheme. To say, as Doug Avis maintains, that this development is a non-profit endeavor may be just another developer phony P.R. campaign where once again the whole truth is never stated. A simple declaration under penalty of perjury declaring that the non- profit basis of the project, which drives it from a public relations perspective, is true would be simple to devise and implement here. P.O.E. speculates that alternative designs for this facility should be requested from the applicant. It may be possible to design this development without the necessity of a large industrial building at all. Certainly the Department should formally consider these alternative ideas, if for no other reason than to test the good faith intentions of the Applicant. After all, one of the alleged underlying purposes here is to provide mitigation of environment damage done at the nuclear facilities by local power companies. Discovery that no real out of pocket mitigation will be paid for and that, in fact, this development will reap substantial monetary rewards and ultimately expand the area of SDGbE capital facilities after ten years should not be condoned by the Department. Such a position would be nothing but a fraud upon those who fought so long with the best of motives to secure such mitigation with the net result of another ten acre loss of wetland habitat. It should be clearly understood that corporate officers have a legal duty to maximize profits and minimize losses. Their loyalties rest solely with their corporate interest at the expense of public interest. They would be obligated to execute such a scenario as delineated above upon first recognition, whether conceived at present or not. Therefore, such a scenario should be prevented lest the planning process be thwarted to unfairly change land use for large corporate interests. Planning commission CITY OF CARLSBAD June 11, 1993 Page Four If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, - -;;gg$.& -'THOMAS W. SMITH TWS:ddd cc: P.O.E. 6194380834: # 1 RC’J B”Y’ : xE!?Ux TELE:SQPIEF? 7010s; 6-16-33 3:13PM ; ? 14f=-?na43a+ P.O1 06/16/1993 15: 10 FROM Ft.>;. ,ON RECVCLING CENTER TO 16,~ June 16 1993 City of Carlsbad Fax 619-438-0894 Re: Case File: CUP 92-lO/Hdp 93-05 Case Name HUBBS SEA WORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE We live in Riverside, California,Of all the Beach communties we could have invested in betwe@n Huntington Beach and San- Diego. We chose Carlsbad, California as a'place to retire, A place to enjoy the beach, the view of the beach, the peace and quiet. Now we are faced with'losing it all. We strongly object to the proposed fish hatchery being built in front of our home. It will spoil the view, increase noise levels, pollute the air with increased traffic, Therefore destroying our property values. PLEASE TURN THTS DOWN , :, 331 Olive Ave. Carlsbad, Ca. 1233 Coronet Drive Riverside, Ca. THOMAS WILLIAH SMITH Attorney at Law 400 S, Helrose Dr., Ste. 102 Vista, Ca. 92083 (619) 941-8343 , '. . r.fl ., _- 1 ._ '. June 21, 1993 Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, Ca. 92009 Re: CUP 92-101, HDP 93-05, Hubbs/Sea World Development: Attention Jeff Gibson: 2nd Supplemental Comments, Request for Special Notice Dear Members: Please allow these further comments to be considered in , the above referenced matter as supplemental by my two previous letters on behalf of Protect Our Estuary of Carlsbad, POE. As I have stated before it is respectfully requested that the Conditional Negative Declaration that is now proposed by the Planning Department and the Applicant be denied and an E.I.R. be ordered in this matter. Please allow me to also use this opportunity to reauest snecial notice be given to me with regard to any hearings or conferences regarding this matter. The Negative Declaration as proposed for this project does not comply with CEQA for several additional reasons as stated infra. . IEWAT THE WTOPPO- CEQA requires consideration of the environmental consequences of a proposed activity at the earliest possible stage. City of Antioch v. Citv Counsel. (1986) 187 Cal. App. 3d 1325. Mr. Gibson and the Planning Department are taking the smug approach that impacts that are identified or acknowledged after being identified by POE will be addressed at later stages in the planning process after the Proposed Negative Declaration is approved either by the Engineering Department or by another agency entirely. These significant impacts include the necessity of two additional pumping systems for the project, backup and sand removal, or well as the pile driven pier system which is now begrudingly acknowledged to be required for the now 23,000 sq. ft. building. (Curiously, at a recent meeting to discuss the project before the Aqua Hacienda Lagoon Foundation on June 1. 14, 1993, Mr. Don Kent, biologist for the Applicant, acknowledged this large type of building is not required for this project.) It appears a similar attitude and procedure will be employed regarding the wastewater dumping in to the estuary which the project will require. This attitude is unconscionable in light of the fact that even at this late date the Applicant is uncertain or refuses to acknowledge how many barrels of wastewater per week will be dumped in to the estuary or even whether consideration is being given to the impact such dumping will have upon the chronic pollution problem which already exists in the estuary! This procedure is, of course, violative of CEQA and has been the source of several disasters in the past including the Sammis Project and San Onofre Nuclear Generator, SONG, which is the source of mitigation funds for this project. Once a project is built it is usually impossible to address these issues and the only course is mitigation sometimes even off site as in the sad example of SONG. Perhaps Mr. Gibson's confidence is buttressed by several hastily prepared letters from biologists who are financially associated with the Applicant. These conclusionary statements merely state opinions without foundation and attempt to minimize obvious significant impacts. As such they should be disregarded in favor of a full and independent environmental review. POE will address these specific comments at the earliest possible opportunity after more closely considering their alleged merit. One experienced scientist who helped develop the mitigation policies which yielded the mitigation funds being used here was contacted by me on June 21, 1993. He described the use of these funds for this project at this site as "shear idiocy." His declaration will be sought in this matter. MIS. 0 . Based upon the foregoing and the following arguments and facts it is contended that the Department intends to piecemeal this project which is prohibited under CEQA. The process, as misapplied by the Department in a de facto fashion, changes the zone from HA-10 to an industrial/commercial use by alleging a minimal potential impact per a vague aquaculture definition. Acquaculture has never been done upon .the site. All during and after the ten year period of the project additional and changed uses can be applied for by the Applicant with a much easier burden shouldered by the Applicant with regard to environmental mitigation. Using this subterfuge and building a facility that is four times what is required is intended to ensure that environmental considerations do not emerge "by chopping a larger project into many little ones - each (it is alleged) with minimal potential impact on the environment - which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences." Bozung v. J,ocal Agencv Form. Comm.. (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 263, 283-284. 2. It is our contention that this issuance of a Negative Declaration here is a piecemeal approach which will create an industrial-commercial zone and overbuilt facility abutting an established residential beach neighborhood on the pretext by this Applicant, SDG&E, of helping the white sea bass population. The proposed Negative Declaration here does not consider the cumulative impacts that will arise under this project as identified in the inadequate Department Staff Report or even as supplemental by POE's comments herein and heretofore. Public Resources Code Section 21083(b) requires the finding of a significant effect which would require a fair and full E.I.R. if: "The possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable." The proposed Negative Declaration does not evaluate the cumulative impacts in the areas of industrial usage, permanent habitat destruction, traffic, noise, unnecessary loss of public and private views, strain on city services, devaluation of adjoining land owner's properties, liquifaction problems, archaeological impacts, extensive grading, and further pollution of the estuary. The proposed Negative Declaration fails to consider w alternatives to the proposed site or its use. If the Applicant, SDG&E is representing it will lease the site to Hubbs/Sea World for $1.00 per year as touted then it becomes logical to consider other more important uses for the shoreline property including restoration of the land to its original wetland condition which it was before SDG&E began using it for a dump site. Restoration of wetlands habitat is the preferred method of replenishing ocean fisheries stocks. Another use which has been disregarded is to allow the property to remain as a passive use recreation area. Recreation land is always in short supply. With the already stipulated to trail system by the Applicant the land would be a welcome addition to Carlsbad's open space inventory. One of the major functions of an E.I.R. is to ensure that all reasonable alternatives to proposed projects are thoroughly assessed. W' i g (1976) 18 Cal. 3d 190-197. The Proposed Negative Declaration here fails to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed development and fails to provide any information that evaluates the comparative merits of other alternatives, as required by CEQA. 3. CONF'LICT OF PROPOSED DJZVELOPKENT WITH O!CHER LAND USE PLANS: Carlsbad has a long standing plan for the area in which the proposed development is intended to be located by the Applicant. It is the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan first adopted in 1982 which is scarcely mentioned in the Proposed Negative Declaration. It is no wonder because the two plans are in obvious conflict. Some of the more obvious policy conflicts which cannot be avoided are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Basic Policies: (from the California Coastal Act of 1976) . . . . . . That the California Coastal Zone is a distinct and valuable resource....and exists as a delicately balanced ecosystem: That the permanent protection of the state's natural and scenic resource is a paramount concern...: That to . ..protect public and private property, wildlife, marine fisheries, other ocean resources and the natural environment, it is necessary to protect the ecological balance of the coastal zone and prevent its deterioration and destruction. Basic Goals: . . Protect, maintain, and where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment.... . . Preservation of natural resources and environmentally sensitive areas; Goals and Policies Carlsbad General Plan I . . . . . . ..recognizes the unique environmental status of the (estuary) and its environs, designating the entire shoreline, and a majority of the flood- plain area and the south shore properties as "open space" . ..and designates the entire Aqua Hedionda Plan as a "special treatment area." d use : . . Preserve and enhance the environment... . . Protect and conserve natural resources, fragile 4. 6. 7. 8. ecological areas, unique natural assets... . . Provide for . ..and ensure that all such (land) uses . ..serve to protect and enhance the environment... Onen SnaceIConservation: . . Preservation of Natural Resources... Geoloaical .: . ..to minimize the loss of life, injury to health and destruction of property... Coastal Act Policies: 30231 . . The biological productivity and quality of coastal waters,..wetlands, estuaries , . . . shall be maintained and, where feasible restored through... minimizing adverse effects of wastewater discharges... ATTACHHENT 2 Archaeoloav Mitiaation Measures : "The aboriginal resources located within the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Area are all that remain of a once extensive hunting and gathering population which once occupied coastal Southern California. Studies by Dr. Malcolm Rogers (1920 - 1965), Dr. James Moriarty (1966), Claude Warren (1967), and R. Kaldenberg and Dr. Paul H. Ezell (1974) indicate that a static population existed along coastal San Diego County at least as early as 9030 plus 200 B.P. (Moriarity 1967). This population seems to have originated in Eastern California (Willey 1966) or the great basin (Davis 1973) and migrated into a pristine, unoccupied coastal area. Different theories as to the exact route these people traversed when they came to dominate San Diego County are available (Rogers 1939: Rogers 1945; Von Werlhof 1975). Since archaeology is yet in its formative period locally, we are able only to hypothesize the relationship between landforms, land use, and paleoethnic travel and trade routes. What is know is that groups of people lived at major sites along the San Diego coast, exploited and estuarine resources, and eventually the resources were depleted. At that time (7000 B.P) an adjustment process occurred where the local groups had to readapt to a changing economic/resource situation. All of the sites along Agua Hedionda contain scientific data of extreme value to scientists in understanding this adaptive process. New techniques and other scientific methods currently employed in San Diego County will enable scientists 5. to reinterpret and perhaps explain techno-environmental change in San Diego County. Prehistorians such as Ezell (1975), Moriarty (1975, Leonard (1975) and Warren (1975) all believe that sites found along Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoons are of such an enormous scientific value that careful controlled excavation and mitigation is necessary. Impacts. Since the plan for the Agua Hedionda Study are in formative stages, the exact impact of development to each archaeological resource cannot be assessed. However, it can be stated that any land alteration in the form of grading, intensive brushing or leveling in the vicinity of any of the archaeologial sites will adversely impact these resources. All of the sites located in this project are area subsurface sites which contain an abundance of cultural materials. These may include human burials which are protected under m CaliforniaHealth Section 8100 and the California Penal Code, Section 602, Chapter 1299. Section 7052 of the California Health and Safety Code makes the destruction of even an unmarked cemetery a felony. Therefore, caution is necessary when considering any impact to the subsurface sites. According to the more recent Mendocino County decision, six burials constitute a registered legal cemetery and any attempt to remove even prehistoric remains without an appropriate permit would be construed as "grave robbing." Extreme legal and scientific care must be taken in the event any human remains are found. Site AH-5 is the only site on the subject property where it seems unlikely any human remains may be unearthed. This is largely due to past land alterations activities and not to prehistoric site functions or locations.gg All of the above listed policies, goals, and uses seek to preserve the unique and beneficial character of the Aqua Hedionda Estuary. Any land use change or development should receive special scrutiny. Such scrutiny is not possible with a mere Conditional Negative Declaration. The above listed policies are reduced to meaningless words if they are not found to be standards of the highest importance which cannot be easily pushed aside by a powerful Applicant and thereby avoid a full E.I.R. Wherefore, POE requests the proposed Conditional Negative Declaration be rejected as inadequate and a full and independent E.I.R. be prepared forthwith. Sincerely, - THOMAS WI&AM SMITH TWS/bW C.C. POE 6. d -. 1 -. , 1 1 I q I --- I t I 19 1 ii i3 z Y 5 I 7 -.I- 1 -.. --- --.- tj- p ( \.{ gg . +yg:::, ( --3.T ” _’ .- . . . -I - ~; II -..~ I --pp -1 (? I ~’ *I 1 /I , 1 i ; .- ,_ b 2 (‘3 ;-T-y id 8h IT l -)I1 II.1 IC 1 , * I II --.- - & 4 I 1: I j /I I(&Dq --.. .-. ‘)OQO fll-.. ~--- p&l& z 0000 ..--~~-~____--. (r;) ( -)I t-i .-. ~---r-~- (1) <.-> 1 I 1 IwvdI I ! I b rb c/l L b IL c - ! t je -N- 11 lil ilh /1!1 I’ x i7J & A 2 AI iPi 5% I I- w & ii3 88 I / I 9 !ix 23 . f4 - - .- a .I -. - .- - - _ i .- -- Ii - . . - t--. ----- t 3 !lil ,’ / ybil I’ .- -c El ; I] i I. n ’ / I I I I ’ / il ( I I/ 1; j I: ‘1:’ ’ ;I I or tit 1. ‘ii /I i /(I d-1 / ! I! I 1; I I 1’ f=,y I i ./ c i 1 -1 ‘- 1 I ’ Ir i ]H L I,: / 1 i ; / I 1 ’ II-II 1.. f ;ij i 1.1 I I I ) i j ! I /‘i, ;,!I ! !I I lj c -Jm !. ~ I/ 1 iiIjji / /:, $& 1 /I 1 11 I -! (i)/;i,i j / ‘;ii,‘il i,i iii/ii/;’ j ,! ’ i ‘I +i ‘/ I I! i iii, !I ‘1 ‘I ik “,/i ii!/ /, i 1 II : I / I ! 1 ) I I i=- II1 ii ,ji I ! /~I~ i w il II ’ St I I I!lll 11 / j/i/ I IIjlj, :/ ‘:I; I ipik:f! “I II! )) I / i ’ 1 IIj ;‘i j i j /I1 I ’ I L.. ‘1 1 / I ’ i !I! jl i I /iI ii/ )L I - _ .- --_ -_-_ _ -. .I..? _. ._-. : ~~~~~ -~-- - -___ .__- _~ - _ - -- - _, ;--. ;.-, ., , +. ‘. ,’ r BITA B. TITUS 231 Olive Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 c.:?~s,:3 (619) 729-6986 June 5, 1993 Michael J. Holzmiller, Planning Director City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 RECEIVED RE: Dear This Case No: CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 Ase Name: Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute Mr. Holzmiller: letter is written in response to the above referenced “Conditional Negative Declaration” as it relates to the Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute. I would like to first say I am not opposed to the benefits of this research project, but I am adamantly opposed to the proposed location, what the environmental impact will be to the lagoon and the impact it will have to the residents that live on the lagoon and others that use it. Approximately 1 year ago I visited the Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute and participated in the “fade construction” project. At that time I met with Frank Powell and Don Kent of Hubbs, who both informed me of the proposed project and site. They both told me the hatchery would be approximately 5,000 square feet , would require approximately 2 acres land and would be located at the south end point on the ocean side (near the railroad tracks) of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. During that visit a friend video taped the institute, tanks and overall operations. One thing that was extremely apparent was the constant noise that came from the various pumps necessary to keep the tanks operational 24 hours a day. I left Hubbs that day with mixed emotions. I do understand the worthiness of such a project, but what would the effect be on the lagoon? The location did not exactly thrill me, but the way the Hubbs people and the fisherman’s association represented talked , this project was a done-deal, so I thought the location on the lagoon would be okay if this was “going to happen! ” Now I find out that it is 4 times in size, both the land usage and building size, the location is completely changed and no environmental impact study is required or is planned to be done. I am now convinced that the truth of the project was not represented and after the presentation by Benchmark Properties, SDGE and Hubbs that the people of Carlsbad are being forced to accept this project regardless of what they want or what the impact will be to the environment and residents. Page 2 June 5, 1993 Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director City of Carlsbad Planning Department I feel there are numerous questions your department should have answers to from Hubbs-Sea World, SDG&E, and Benchmark Properties before making a decision on this project. I believe the definition of “insignificant” impact from your report should be clarified to the citizens of Carlsbad and where YOU obtained this information from to make an “insignificant” impact determination within the “conditional negative declaration.” Some of these questions are: 1. What effect will there be on existing plant life, sea life and fish be? I understand the pumps will expel ammonia and waste into the lagoon. The lagoon already has waste spillage from the Encina Waste Treatment plant. 2. What effect will there be on existing plant life, birds and small animals that live on the lagoon? 3. What will the noise levels be from the pumps that will run 24 hours a day? What kind of pumps are they? 4. What is the definition of increased traffic on the already busy Garfield roadway? I know it states “26” trips, but who or what is making these trips per day? 5. What are the or were the alternative sites for this project? 6. Why did the size and location of this project change from its original plan and presentation? At the evening meeting on Friday, June 4th, with Benchmark Properties, Hubbs and SDG&E, in particular Doug Avis, none of those questions could be answered. Matter af fact they all got rather indignant that the public would question them in that fashion. Actually Paul O’Neil even went so far as to tell some of us that if the project does not go through as it was presented that evening, they (X%&E) may just close off the lagoon to all public use. That type of response is uncalled for and could certainly be -interpreted as a threat. However, I would rather have Paul O’Neil go through on his threat than have this project go through as it is currently presented. I am joining with other Carlsbad citizens to stop this project and get some answers. As Doug Avis said. “This project is all or nothing.. .there is no compromise. ” So I say the precedence has been set. I hope the Planning Department will be the voice of the citizens! Best regards, Rita B. Titus BRYAN J BONAS 231 Olive Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 729-6986 June 5, 1993 Michael J. Holzmiller, Planning Director City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 RECEWED RE: Case No: CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 Ase Name: Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute Dear Mr. Holzmiller: Please consider this letter a protest to the proposed construction of a 20,000 square foot industrial building on the Agua Hedionda Lagoon for Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute fish hatchery. My objection to this project comes after much thought and consideration. It is very difficult for me to understand why the City of Carlsbad would allow such a project to be built, without taking into account some serious environmental issues, the conservation of our coast line and estuary and severe impact this industrial building will have on the property values on the residents above? The parties involved in this project have either directly lied or provided misleading information in order to achieve their own self serving interests. It has been said by one of the principals involved that this project will either go ahead as planned or not go ahead at all! I can assure you that I will do my utmost to make sure that the latter option occurs. In addition, I will also strive to publicise this projects inefficiencies and of the incompetence of the individuals who have had a hand in this project to date. I think it is time the Planning Department, this cities civil servants, from the top on down, start to focus on what the people of this community want . ..not what they think is best for them. I hope that you make a sincere effort to look into this project and discover what I have, that this project should not be built on the Agua Hedionda Estuary. If you would like to discuss this project and share views and specific issues, I would be willing to meet with you at your convenience. Bryan J. Bonas RC’J BY: XEROX TELECOPIER 7816 ; 6- 7-93 12: 48PM ; 7146204490-l 6194380094; ft 1 06/07/1993 12:45 FROM h ON RECVCLING ICENTER TO 16. 0894 P.01 June 7,1993 RE: Case File: CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 Case Name; HUBBS SFA XORLD FtESEARCli INSTITUTE WE strongly object to the placement of this building on the Agua Hedionda estuary. This will spoil our view of the Lagoon and Ocean, increase noise levels -and traffic therefor destroy our propertv values. PLEASE T’JRN THIS PLAN DEN Diann R. Boyd (j/ 331 Olive Ave. Carlsbad, California Minutes of: PLANNING COMMISSION Time of Meeting: 6:00 P.M. Date of Meeting: June 16,1993 Place of Meeting: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Noble called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The pledge of allegiance was led by Chairman Noble. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Noble, Commissioners Betz, Erwin, Savary, Schlehuber, and Welshons Absent: Commissioner Hall Staff Present: Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director Brian Hunter, Senior Planner Jeff Gibson, Associate Planner Eric Munoz, Associate Planner Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst Don Rideout, Senior Management Analyst, Growth Mgmt Karen Hirata, Deputy City Attorney David Hauser, Assistant City Engineer Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer Steve Jantz, Associate Engineer Chairman Noble introduced the new Planning Commissioner, Marnie Betz. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA: There were no comments from the audience. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Welshons, and duly seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 5, 1993, as submitted. VOTE: 5-0-l AYES: Chairman Noble, Commissioners Erwin, Savary, Schlehuber, and Welshons NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Betz PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. CUP 92-l O/HDP 93-05 - HUBBS SEA WORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE - Request for approval of a Conditional Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit, and Hillside Development Permit to develop a marine fish hatchery/research facility on land generally located south of Garfield Street, north of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and west of the AT&SF railroad tracks in the R-A-10 Zone in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1. Chairman Noble stated that due to late input which staff was unable to respond to, they are requesting a continuance to July 7, 1993. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION June 16,1993 PAGE 2 Brian Bonas, 231 Olive Avenue, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and inquired if it would be possible to have this item continued to July 21 st instead of July 7th. The reason for his request is that the deadline for public input was June 6, 1993. Now that staff is being given additional time to respond to the public input, he feels that the public should be given an additional 30 days to comment on the EIR and the staff replies to their original input. Commissioner Erwin inquired if there would be any problem granting the continuance for an additional two weeks. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied that the public review closed on the Negative Declara- tion and there’s no extension of that. There’s no other opportunity for them to provide comments except at public hearing. Furthermore, the project is in the Coastal Zone and any additional delay beyond July 7, 1993 would result in the project being delayed an additional year since there is a limited grading window in the coastal zone and grading of the site cannot take place after the window closes. Commissioner Welshons inquired if persons in attendance tonight will be permitted to speak on July 7, 1993. Chairman Noble stated that they would be able to speak. He would only open public testimony for those persons unable to attend the meeting on July 7, 1993. ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Schlehuber, and duly seconded, to continue CUP 92-lO/HDP 93-05 to July 7,1993. VOTE: 6-O AYES: Chairman Noble, Commissioners Betz, Erwin, Savary, Schlehuber and Welshons NOES: None ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Erwin advised Mr. Bonas that written staff reports are made available to the public one week before the meeting. He can get a copy at the Planning Department office on Las Palmas Drive. Mr. Wayne replied there appears to be some confusion on the procedures. In the case of Negative Declarations, there is no formal requirement to respond to comments. However, staff, as a policy, does generally respond in writing to written comments as well as verbally to public input at the public hearing. Staff makes the written responses part of the staff report which is available to Commissioners one week before the meeting. Commissioner Erwin inquired if it would be possible to have the report available to the public one week prior to the meeting. Mr. Wayne replied that he will try. Chairman Noble opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak to anyone who wotild be unable to attend the July 7th meeting. Ila Schmidt, 3873 Garfield Street, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she cannot see how a fish hatchery can benefit the City of Carlsbad. She would implore anyone to spend one hour on a Saturday afternoon at the lagoon. It is a wonderful resource. Many children play there and can go fishing. She feels the lagoon is one of the joys of living near the beach. Bill Dickinson, 4072 Garfield Street, Carlsbad, representing 23 homeowners on Garfield Street, addressed the Commission and stated that he and the homeowners he represents have reservations about the Hubbs project. They feel that the proposed site for a large metal industrial buildings is out of context for this residential area. They would like to see an EIR done because they feel mitigation is necessary to offset damage to the sensitive wetlands area. They are concerned about traffic impacts because Garfield is the only street for ingress or egress. They see no provision in the staff report for maintenance and would like this issue addressed in the CUP. A copy of Mr. Dickinson’s letter and a signed petition of the homeowners he represents are on file with the minutes in the Planning Department. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION June 16,1993 PAGE 3 Andrea Oshima, 315 Olive Avenue, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she is opposed to the Hubbs project. She has lived in Carlsbad for 30 years and practically grew up on this lagoon. This is the only place in Carlsbad where children can be taught about nature and wildlife. Animals will no longer exist if a commercial venture takes over. When her church tried to construct a building recently on a vacant lot, they had to go to a lot of expense for an EIR. She doesn’t understand why this sensitive area doesn’t require an EIR. There is no consistency. James Lope, 286-B Chinquapin Avenue, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that although he is a fisherman, he wants what is best for the community. He thinks the majority should rule in determining what is best for the citizens of Carlsbad at this location. There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Noble declared the public testimony closed until July 7, 1993. ing Commission recessed at 6:27 p.m. and reconvened at 6:32 p.m. Hills Master Plan, align the southerly extension of College Boulevard to future nstruct 73 single-family homes on lots ranging in size from 12,000 to generally located in the northeast quadrant of the City, south of the f Local Facilities Management Zone 1, in Local Facilities Management Jeff Gibson, Associate Planner, r the background of the request and stated that the applicant is requesting certification of an Envrron I Impact Report (EIR) and approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA), Master Plan Tentative Tract Map (CT), Planned Development Permit (PUD), and Hillside Devel P) to adjust General Plan open space boundaries, amend and update the Calavera align the southerly extension of College Boulevard to future Cannon Road, and construct 73 one a ry, single family homes on lots ranging in size from 12,000 to 36,000 sf., in Villages W, X and Y, the southeast corner of the Master Plan. The Calavera Hills Master Plan is one of the City’s o ter plans and was first adopted in 1974. The area has been planned for mostly residential develo years. Currently, approximately half of ool, and an RV storage area. Using an rcated that Village E would remain vacant at this time. He noted that Village L-l was approved six townhomes. Villages Q and T operation to construct Carlsbad to the City boundary, and then construct 480 single family homes. Villages L-l, Q, and T are not nsideration tonight. Mr. Gibson reviewed the items currently under consideration, i.e. the final f development of the Master Plan, and stated that the final phase includes the EIR that evaluated s H, K, L-2, R, U, W, X and Y. Accompanying these maps is a GPA to add adjust some of the open space boundaries to accommodate the maps. In ter Plan would be amended and updated to reflect current City policies, including growth manageme the reduction of 896 du’s in the Master Plan. There are a maximum of 679 du’s re as part of this final phase. Tonight’s public hearing also includes consideration on Avenue south to Cannon Road as part of Villages W, X and Y. This is the first subdivision forward for public review as part of the final phase. Prior to any further approval of subdivisi MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION July 7, 1993 ner Hall stated that he had a difficult time justifying the extra cost to install pipes for reclaimed will not be available for another ten years. Mr. Greaney replied that it is less costly to install when a project is under construction than it is to retrofit the site at a later date. The ater until the reclaimed water becomes available. Commissioner Hall and not just sleevin ordinance requires a There is not a dual syst reclaimed water becom he recent Girls Club project and stated that th.eir plans called for dual piping ney could not speak to the Girls Club specifics. He stated that the ems to be installed in accordance with reclaimed water standards. ater meter. The lines will be used for potable water until the ACTION : Motion was made by C ner Erwin, and duly seconded, to accept the report as filed. VOTE: 6-O AYES: Chairman Noble, Commissioners in, Hall, Savary, and Welshons NOES: None ABSTAIN: None \ . ‘\ PUBLIC HEARING: Chairman Noble advised the applicant that they had the right to be heard be& ‘..hjq a full Commission, if desired. Doug Avis, Benchmark Pacific, speaking on behalf of the applicant, advi the Commission that they would like to proceed. 2. CUP 92-l O/HDP 93-05 - HUBBS SEA WORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE - Request for approval of a Conditional Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit, and Hillside Development Permit to develop a marine fish hatchery/research facility on land generally located south of Garfield Street, north of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and west of the AT&SF railroad tracks in the R-A-l 0 Zone in Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 1. Jeff Gibson, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the request and stated that the applicant is requesting approval to develop a marine fish hatchery on the north shore of the outer basis of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. As part of any site compatibility and environmental review analysis for a project, it is important to first consider the existing environmental setting of the site. He gave a slide presentation of the site and surrounding area for the benefit of the Commission and those in attendance. Mr. Gibson stated that as part of staff’s review of the environmental impacts of the project, it was determined that no adverse and significant environmental impacts would occur. Staff does not deny that the project hould create physical environmental change to the site; however, that change is not considered adversely significant, nor would the change endanger the health and safety of the residents living to the north. In order to evaluate the level of significance of the environmental impacts, staff has consulted with marine and wildlife biologists, archaeologists, noise and water quality experts, traffic engineers, soil engineers, architects, other responsible State agencies, including the Coastal Commission and the California Department of Fish and Game, along with field visits to the site and the existing hatchery facility on Mission Bay. Based on the conditions of approval for the project and all the information that has been gathered to this date and placed in the public record, including the responses to public comments, staff concludes that a fair argument can be made to support the conclusion that no significant adverse impacts will occur. Therefore, based on the provisions of State law and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the Conditional Negative Declaration. Mr. Gibson stated that traffic generated by the project would amount to less than a 2% increase in the existing traffic at the intersection of Garfield Street and Tamarack Avenue, which is the busiest portion of MINUTES DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION July 7, 1993 PAGE 3 the street. The additional traffic generated by this project would not result in a substandard level of service along the road segment. The current traffic counts indicate 1600 ADT at the busiest intersection and Garfield Street has a road design capacity to accommodate 10,000 ADT. Noise analysis of the electric water pumps indicates that once they are placed underground in a concrete vault, their sound will be inaudible from the closest residential lot which is approximately 210 feet away and 33 feet higher in elevation. Existing Citywide noise studies indicate that the ambient noise level in the project vicinity ranges from approximately 50 to 60 Db CNEL due to traffic noise from Carlsbad Boulevard and Interstate 5. The noise analysis evaluated the sound generated by larger 25 horsepower pumps sitting on top of the ground and determined that at the residential lots, the sound from the pumps would not exceed 33 Db. If this sound measurement were converted into a comparable community noise level equivalent, the sound would not exceed 48 Db CNEL, and the pumps would not be heard due to the ambient noise level in the area. The use of 15 horsepower pumps set into the ground and surrounded by concrete to sound attenuate the noise even further, would result in significantly reduced sound levels. Mr. Gibson stated that the wastewater discharge into the lagoon is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the facility will not be constructed until the proper discharge permit is obtained and the wastewater meets all adopted EPA regulations. Water quality experts have determined that the ammonia content in the discharge would constitute approximately one quarter of a pound of ammonia dissolved in 1.4 million gallons of sea water over a 24 hour period and have no negative effects on the waters of the outer basis or the existing aquaculture operations. Once this discharge mixes with the waters of the outer basin, the ammonia content would be nondetectable. Of the entire lagoon system, the outer basis has the highest amount of tidal flushing due to the close proximity to the mouth of the lagoon, which is permanently kept open to the Pacific Ocean by two jetties. All dead fish and other solid matter will be prevented from passing into the seawater discharge system by filter screens. The fish hatchery is currently operating on Mission Bay and discharging wastewater into that body of water under an EPA permit. Mr. Gibson stated that wildlife biologists have surveyed the project site for endangered, threatened, or sensitive animal and plant species and none were located. Based on thorough biological field analysis, it was determined that the site does not contain wetland habitat nor would the project create significant biological impacts. On the contrary, in order to establish a wetland habitat on this property, the riprap would have to be removed and a 6 ft. depth of soil over the entire site would have to be excavated and hauled away before the tidal waters would inundate the area. He stated that it has been suggested that the project would have cumulative environmental impacts that must be analyzed with an EIR, however, staff has not received information that indicates cumulative impacts would occur. Less than a 2% traffic increase in an existing urbanized neighborhood and on a street that can accommodate over 100 times the proposed traffic, would not be considered cumulatively significant by the City’s traffic engineer. Recent degradation in the water quality of the lagoon waters has resulted from increasing concentrations of fetal bacteria and the fish in this hatchery facility do not produce coliform fetal bacteria. There can be no cumulatively significant loss to sensitive biological habitat and wildlife if there is no sensitive habitat located on the site. Mr. Gibson stated that the archaeological site has been excavated, studied, and categorized into the records by a professional archaeologist and deemed not a significant cultural resource. Therefore, the loss of same cannot be considered cumulatively. significant. The loss or private views is not considered a significant impact under CEQA. As a result, it cannot be considered a cumulative impact either. Only the loss of public views has significance under State law and the project has been designed to protect public views from Carlsbad Boulevard and the railroad tracks. In addition, the devaluation of residential property values is also not considered a significant physical environmental impact under CEQA. Therefore, a cumulative loss of economic value cannot be considered in the environmental review of this project. Mr. Gibson stated that it has been suggested that the review of this project is a piecemeal type development process that contributes to the cumulative degradation of the area. The Agua Hedionda Land PLANNING COMMISSION July 7, 1993 PAGE 4 Use Plan, which is a long range land use plan for the lagoon, was developed under the joint effort of property owners around the lagoon, the City of Carlsbad, and the Coastal Commission. It is the planning tool that guides and coordinates the land use development of the lagoon. The plan was adopted by the Carlsbad City Council and the Coastal Commission in 1982 and found to be in compliance with the goals and policies of the Coastal Act of 1976. He stated that Policy 1.8 of the land use section of the plan states that the primary use of the site shall be aquaculture. Aquaculture, as defined in the City’s municipal code, includes the propagation and cultivation of aquatic plants and animals in marine water. As part of the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan, an EIR was prepared and certified by the City Council and it was determined through this long range planing review process that the outer basin was the most appropriate area of the lagoon for aquaculture. There is currently an existing aquaculture facility on the south shore of the basin. Mr. Gibson stated that in response to neighborhood concerns about blockage of private ocean views, the applicant has redesigned the project by lowering the roof to a height of 20 ft., measured to the peak, and created multiple roof lines to reduce the bulk of the roof. The peak of the roof would be located approximately 33 ft. above sea level and the lowest adjacent residential building pad would be located 32 ft. above sea level. As a result, private ocean views would not be blocked. The 20 ft. high hatchery building is less bulky in scale than many of the condominiums in the residential neighborhood, the structure has architectural elements that provide visual interest, there is adequate setback and landscape screening from the residential area and the lagoon, the aquaculture land use is consistent with the adopted Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan, and, as conditioned, the project would not have a significant environmental impact. Staff recommends approval of the project. Commissioner Erwin inquired about why the Foundation originally wanted to build the hatchery near the railroad tracks and now they have decided to move it away from the tracks. Mr. Gibson replied that the original plans were submitted to the City in December 1992. However, the building had to be moved away from the tracks to achieve the setback from the 25 ft. public easement. Commissioner Erwin stated that the roadway entering the site will be steep and could be dangerous for school buses. He inquired about the height of the guard rail. Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer, replied that the guard rail will be approximately 2 ft. 2 inches high and was designed according to State requirements. The rail will not obstruct the view and staff is comfortable that it will be adequate for public safety. Commissioner Erwin inquired if the reason no EIR is required is because there are no significant impacts to be mitigated. Mr. Gibson replied that this is correct. Commissioner Erwin commented that the roof on the entry portico is higher than the rest of the building. He inquired if it could be lowered to the same height as the rest of the building. He thinks there would be less of an impact. Mr. Gibson deferred response to the applicant. Commissioner Erwin stated that if dead fish will not be placed in the lagoon, then it must mean they will be placed in trash receptacles. He is concerned about a foul odor and did not see a condition to cover the fish disposal. Mr. Gibson replied that there is no condition. He feels that if the waste could be sealed in plastic bags and removed from the site within a reasonable time, it would protect against the possibility of odor. Commissioner Erwin noted that the perimeter fence will be a cyclone fence and inquired if there will be landscape to hide the fence. Mr. Gibson replied that there is no proposal to landscape the fence. Commissioner Erwin stated that he would like to add three conditions, per his memorandum dated July 7, 1993, as follows: MINUTES DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION July 7, 1993 PAGE 5 1. Condition #l 1 The facility will be made available for free educational tours for students upon written request by the school, or the group, representing the students. The facility will not be used as a commercial tour bus stop. 2. Condition #2 - If this facility is closed, or not used for the purposes intended by the CUP, or upon termination of the Conditional Use Permit, SDG&E, as the landholder, guarantees that upon request of the City of Carlsbad Planning Director, the structure will be removed and the property will be returned to its former state. 3. Condition #3 - The peak single event noise level shall not exceed 45 dBA at the facility fence abutting the residential area between the ours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Commissioner Welshons requested staff to identify what other uses would be permitted on the site, based on the present zoning. Mr. Gibson replied that only aquaculture or visitor commercial would be allowed in addition to active recreation such as camping, etc. Commissioner Welshons asked staff to comment on Commissioner Erwin’s condition to have the building removed after this applicant leaves. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied that there is no need to tear the building down because it is being constructed as a permanent building. It meets all standards and the only uses that would be allowed would be uses that would involve some discretionary action. As long as the use is operating within the guidelines of the permit, it could be operated by someone else. Commissioner Welshons inquired if there have been other applications for some type of use at this general location. Mr. Wayne replied that in the last 10 years only three aquaculture and related uses have been approved in or adjacent to the outer lagoon, but many applicants have made inquiries regarding proposed uses for this general location. Commissioner Erwin explained that he would like to see the building removed because he doesn’t want to see an abandoned building if the Foundation moves out. Commissioner Welshons inquired how much light will impact the surrounding residents. Mr. Gibson replied that no light will be permitted to shine on adjacent properties. The applicant is required to submit a lighting plan for approval. Commissioner Welshons stated that it might be necessary to have a condition added to require the trees to be pruned so they will not exceed 22 ft. in height. Commissioner Hall inquired if there will be anything other than the pumps generating noise. Mr. Gibson replied that the inside noise from the circulating pumps will not exceed 55 dBA but that noise will be muffled outside the structure because the building will shield most of the noise. Commissioner Hall inquired if the building is metal. Mr. Gibson replied that it is. Commissioner Hall inquired why the building diagram shows fill being added to raise the building. Mr. Gibson replied that the natural grade is 12’ 7” which drops off about 2 ft. on one side. Fill is needed on that side to make the ground level at 12’ 7”. Commissioner Hall inquired if, instead of adding fill, the site could be lowered. Mr. Gibson deferred response to the applicants engineer. Commissioner Hall inquired who the CUP will be issued to. Mr. Gibson replied that it will be SDG&E. MINUTES . PLANNING COMMISSION July 7, 1993 PAGE 6 DRAFT Commissioner Hall inquired if that means that if Hubbs vacates the site, then SDG&E can find another lessee. Mr. Gibson replied that this is correct. Commissioner Hall inquired if the CUP would have to come back before the Planning Commissioner. Mr, Gibson replied that it would not have to come back. Commissioner Hall inquired what is being done to ensure that the roof of the metal building won’t rust. in 1 O-l 5 years. Mr. Gibson deferred response to the applicants engineer. Chairman Noble inquired if the use changes from aquaculture then it would have to come back, but not if the lessee changes. Mr. Gibson replied that this is correct. Chairman Noble inquired if other sites for the Hubbs facility were considered. Mr. Gibson replied that the applicant looked at alternative sites and can address that. Mr. Gibson noted a couple of housekeeping items for the Commission’s attention as follows: 1. A revision to Condition #47, CUP 92-l 0, per staff memo dated June 30, 1993. 2. A new condition to Resolution No. 3523, inadvertently left out, which states that, “Prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner shall grant to the City of Carlsbad or its designee, an irrevocable offer of dedication for lateral public access. The required access shall be of a width not less than 25 ft. and located according to Exhibits “A” and “B” dated July 7, 1993, incorporated by reference.” Doug Avis, Benchmark Pacific, 6670 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, representing the Hubbs Research Foundation, 1700 Shores Road, San Diego, CA 92101, addressed the Commission and gave some history on the Foundation and its activities. He stated that the reason for wanting to locate in Carlsbad is its close proximity to fresh saltwater and the fact that SDG&E is giving them a ten year lease for only $1 per year. Furthermore, the facility had to be in close proximity to the headquarters in San Diego, which eliminated any location much further north. Mr. Avis stated that the hatchery was moved away from the railroad tracks because scientists have concluded that the stress of the trains will affect the fish. He stated that several meetings had been conducted with the adjacent property owners and there has been a lot of emotion expressed. Also, all homeowners were invited to tour the Hubbs facility in San Diego but only four residents showed up. Many City officials showed up, however, which was good. Several opponents thought the building was too tall and bulky and others wanted it moved closer to the tracks. Because of the feedback, the applicant has compromised by reducing the height of the building by 8 ft. below that allowed by the Height Ordinance. However, Mr. Avis noted for the record that there are many people who genuinely see the need for the facility and are in favor of it. He reiterated that the Hubbs facility has scientific value and will not be a burden on the taxpayers. He thinks they will be good neighbors and only time will prove their value as good neighbors. Mr. Avis can agree to the three added conditions proposed by Commissioner Erwin. As far as the other comments expressed by the Commission, he stated that: . Lowering the entrance portion of the building - Mr. Avis believes that the entire building is at a height which will not impact adjacent residents, however, he will see if it can be lowered a bit. * Disposal of dead fish - Mr. Avis stated that dead fish can be wrapped in double plastic and placed in trash receptacles to avoid odor. * Complaints once the hatchery is in operation - Mr. Avis stated that they know the rules regarding CUP’s and are aware that if there are any complaints, Hubbs will be called back before the Planning Commission to explain and/or correct them, else the CUP will be revoked. MINUTES DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION July 7, 1993 PAGE 7 * Metal composition of building - Mr. Avis stated that the proposed building is of superior quality and will be built to last 50 years. He believes the proposed materials are a better solution than a wooden building. * Fish products - Mr. Avis stated that the Hubbs facility is an R&D project and is not a fish farm in the context that there would be fish to sell to the public. The fish being produced will be used to replenish the Pacific Ocean waters. Don Kent, Vice President, Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute, 1700 So. Shores Road, San Diego, CA 92109, addressed the Commission and stated that Hubbs is a research organization rather than a profit making venture. Sea World has allowed their name to be used because it is a nonprofit foundation. Fish depletion in the ocean has been significant and the foundation is dedicated to helping replenish those waters and ensure a viable supply of fish for future generations. The program is supported by thousands of anglers and is endorsed by the California Coastal Commission. Assembly Bill 960 recently granted the foundation 10 years of additional funding. The facility will benefit all of Southern California. He apologized for having to move the hatchery away from the railroad tracks. However, when the plans were originally submitted, they did not take into consideration the setbacks required by the Coastal Commission. It was later that they received information that the vibration from the railroad tracks might harm the fish. Commissioner Welshons stated, for the record, that she had taken a tour of the Hubbs facility in Mission Bay. She inquired if Hubbs anticipates that sea bass will come into the lagoon and brood. Mr. Kent replied that, ultimately, this will happen. Commissioner Welshons inquired if closing the mouth of the Batiquitos Lagoon has had any effect on the decline of the white sea bass. Mr. Kent replied that 2-3 year old fish use embayments for brooding while 4-5 year old fish tend to use the kelp beds offshore. Commissioner Welshons requested more information on the funding sources. Mr. Kent replied that AB 960 was passed by the California Assembly in October 1992. It guaranteed funding for ten years. Those funds cannot be used for any other purpose. Commissioner Welshons inquired if a 5 year CUP will be sufficient. Mr. Kent replied that he would prefer to have 10 years but would accept 5 years. Commissioner Welshons requested more information on the ammonia discharge into the lagoon. Mr. Kent replied that the daily ammonia discharge would be 400-500 grams which is equivalent to a handful of lawn fertilizer. The ammonia will dissipate quickly because of the constant movement of the water caused by operation of the power plant. Commissioner Welshons inquired if Hubbs intends to keep the remainder of their project at the Mission Bay site. Mr. Kent replied that they do. Commissioner Welshons inquired about the hours of operation. Mr. Kent replied that the facility would be attended between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Betz inquired if the project will be geared to replenishing halibut as well as sea bass. Mr. Kent replied that initially the project will be devoted to breeding white sea bass, however, they plan to add brood tanks for black sea bass and halibut. Commissioner Betz announced, for the record, that she too had taken a tour of the Mission Bay facility with Chairman Noble. She appreciated the tour and the information she received. She inquired what Hubbs foresees in the way of visitors to the facility. Mr. Kent replied that the foundation’s charter mandates the education 6f future scientists. He noted that Commissioner Erwin was concerned about a line of yellow MINUTES DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION July 7, 1993 PAGE 8 school buses visiting the facility. He could accept a condition to limit visitors but he hopes that scientist would not be prohibited from visiting the facility during the future worldwide conference which will be held in San Diego. Commissioner Savary suggested that Commissioner Erwin’s recommended condition include students and scientists. Commissioner Erwin inquired who will own the building. Mr. Kent replied that the building will be owned and maintained by the Hubbs Sea World Institute, however the land is owned by SDG&E. Commissioner Erwin inquired if Sea World provides financial support in the form of salaries for the employees. Mr. Kent replied that Sea World makes an annual donation to the institute but there are no direct contributions in the form of salaries. Their primary support is received from the California Coastal Commission. Commissioner Erwin inquired why the impact of the railroad tracks was not checked out at the onset. Mr. Kent replied that he only operates one hatchery which is not located near tracks so he didn’t envision it to be a problem. The Department of Fish and Game operates many hatcheries and they were the ones to bring it to his attention. Commissioner Erwin inquired if the Department of Fish and Game has reviewed this application. Mr. Kent replied that they have. Commissioner Erwin is concerned about the issue of a potential fish stench emanating from the hatchery. He noted that the local landfills are almost to capacity and it won’t be long before they refuse to accept plastic products because they don’t disintegrate. Mr. Kent replied that if wrapping the dead fish will be a problem, another way to dispose of them would be to grind them up and put them into the sewer system which would ultimately carry them offshore. Commissioner Erwin is concerned about the roof line and inquired if it might be possible to drop the roof at the entry by 2 l/2 ft. to bring it level with the rest of the building. Doug Avis returned to the podium and replied that he is not sure, but believes the entry was designed a little higher than the rest of the building for aesthetic purposes. He is unaware if lowering the entry would have structural implications. Commissioner Erwin inquired about the comment regarding 10 year funding by the State and asked if they have already received operating funds for the entire 10 year period. Mr. Kent replied that the foundation receives their funding annually; their operating costs are reviewed by an advisory panel during the regular budget process. Commissioner Hall inquired if the site is manned 24 hours. Mr. Kent replied that between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 8:30 a.m. the facility is manned by sensors. If a problem occurs, someone responds. Commissioner Hall inquired if the facility will result in any pollution to the lagoon. Mr. Kent replied that they are currently awaiting their permit from the Water Quality Board. The institute must observe affluent standards or they are fined. Commissioner Hall asked why the building is being raised rather than lowered to conform with the natural terrain. Mr. Kent replied that the fish must be harvested from one pool to another. By having a grade differential between the inside and outside, it allows them.to harvest the fish by gravity and minimizes stress to the fish. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, responded to Commissioner Erwin’s comment regarding the height of the entry roof. He does not feel that the roof can be lowered without impacting the roof drainage. MINUTES DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION July 7, 1993 PAGE 9 He stated that the roof appears to have a 3 and 12 pitch roof, which is about as low as it can be and function as a pitched roof. Jeff Gibson, Associate Planner, commented that if the Commission has a problem with tours to the facility, a condition could be added limiting the number of tours to one a week. Chairman Noble stated that he does not feel the hatchery will be encouraging tours. He would like to see the condition state that tours will be allowed on a “non-interfering” basis. RECESS The Commission recessed at 8:02 p.m. and reconvened at 8:15 p.m. Prior to opening public testimony, Chairman Noble stated that the following persons had filed speaker slips as protestors of record, and indicated that they did not wish to speak: Alan Sakal - 4042 Garfield Street, Carlsbad Cynthia Sakal - 4042 Garfield Street, Carlsbad Kay D. Christensen - 4026 Garfield Street, Carlsbad Warren Christensen - 4026 Garfield Street, Carlsbad Llewella Davies - 4044 Garfield Street, Carlsbad Chris Davis - 29436 Meadow Glen Way West, Escondido Margaret Davis - 29436 Meadow Glen Way West, Escondido Daurine Irvin - 4054 Garfield Street, Carlsbad Phylis M. Rawlings - 4052 Garfield Street, Carlsbad Gracia L. Riley - 4032 Garfield Street, Carlsbad Chairman Noble opened the public testimony and issued the invitation to speak. Thomas Smith, 2342 Caringa Way, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he was a member of the General Plan Review Committee, and is a member of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation, who has not voted to endorse the hatchery. He is speaking tonight on behalf of the “Protect Our Estuary” (POE) group who are opposing the research project. He feels that staff is attempting to change the research zone into an industrial zone, thereby causing wetlands destruction. Mr. Smith stated that inadequate notice was given to the surrounding neighborhood. POE feels that the project will result in substantial impacts to the lagoon which should be handled by an EIR. Furthermore, he has been advised that the applicant was offered a site to operate by the U. S. Navy and Scripps Oceanography, which they declined. He feels that choosing this site in Carlsbad is nothing more than a corporate scam. Dan Reich, 331 Olive Avenue #lOl , Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he is a licensed general building contractor and knows that R zoning is restricted to residential agriculture. He is concerned that the site being proposed for the hatchery was created by hydraulic fill. He has read the geotechnical report submitted to the City which states that there is severe liquefication and the earth is unstable. As a result, there will be significant impacts to the lagoon. He does not feel the City has requested objective opinions from outside sources, which is why they don’t feel there are any impacts. Furthermore, CEQA doesn’t require consideration of economic issues. He is concerned that property values will plummet, which is a “welfare” issue. He thinks it is interesting that a 1984 staff report denied a project at this same location because I’.... the outstanding views of the lagoon would be impacted.” He stated that Mr. Wayne’s comment on the roof pitch is incorrect because the building design could easily be changed by shortening the roof span. Lii Vine, 280-A Chinquapin Avenue, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she is an architectural designer. She feels that many things could be done to the building to make it more MINUTES DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION July 7, 1993 PAGE 10 appealing. She doesn’t feel.there would be so much objection if it were designed in a Cape Cod style or as a Victorian village. She feels the hatchery is another Split Pavilion in the making. Richard Glenn, 8455 Via Mallorca #41, La Jolla, addressed the Commission and stated that he is member of the National Coalition for Marine Conservation and an Aquaculturist by profession, with a Ph.D. in Biology. He supports the project. He used to live in Carlsbad and, in fact, started the first mussel farm at the lagoon. He stated that California is in its infancy in ocean enhancement yet they pride themselves as a leader in many fields. He stated emphatically that, under no definition can the proposed site be considered wetlands. He feels this scientific project is a positive use and urged the Commission to approve it. Bernard M. O’Gara, 331 Olive Avenue #303, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he is concerned that we don’t know more about the project. Citizens rely on the City to identify and recommend mitigation measures. A negative declaration doesn’t do that. There are 36 areas which must be investigated yet only three studies have been done. He thinks we need more engineering and scientific data, and it should be available in the public library for people to look at during non-working hours. He believes an EIR should be done before the project can be approved if, for no other reason, than to formalize the mechanism. He believes the Planning Commission has an obligation to determine if there will be an environmental effect on the citizens. There are many questions still unanswered. Bryan Bonas, 231 Olive, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that several other sites were offered by SDG&E but Hubbs wanted this one. He feels that Mr. Kent declined the Navy site in Point Loma for trivial reasons. Mr. Bonas wants to know why Hubbs doesn’t have to comply with the Geocon study which states that pilings are needed to solve the liquefication problem. He hopes the city has liability ,nsurance in case there are problems. Furthermore, he questions the objectivity of the Planning staff. Mr. Bonas believes an EIR needs to be done. He is opposed to the project. Randi Fjaeran, P. 0. Box 4281, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she is on the Board of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation (AHLF). In January 1992, AHLF was invited to meet with Hubbs and were given an artist’s rendition of the proposed facility which was to be located near the railroad tracks. Although AHLF favored the project, they had many questions, and Hubbs promised to keep them informed. Many changes were made to the project after that meeting, and AHLF was not consulted or advised. The AHLF opposes the project because they feel the proposed edge treatment around the lagoon will set a precedent for other development. Dee Taylor, 241 Olive Avenue, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she walks around the lagoon on a daily basis and enjoys the natural beauty. She is distressed that there is so little beach left in Carlsbad that is open to the public. She thinks the power plant is an eyesore and she gets constant headaches from the noise which emanates from it. Now she and others will have to deal with additional noise from the hatchery. Joyce James, 3931 Garfield, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she is very opposed to this project being put into a residential area. She wants to know who she and other residents and taxpayers can turn to for help in opposing this project. She is very suspicious because of what she has read in the newspaper. She cannot conceive of any licensing agency giving permission to grade and blacktop over wetlands. Jim Paulk, 3571 Running Tide, Huntington Beach, addressed the Commission and stated that he is the Director of the United Anglers of California. Although he is concerned about the loss of wetlands in Southern California, this experiment is an important one to see if we can enhance the ocean. It has had unanimous support by the legislature and the governor. He stated that the $1 .OO tax on fisherman will provide ample operating funds for the facility. He noted that many volunteers are building grow-out pens to help grow the small fish before they are released into the ocean. He feels this project is an opportunity MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION July 7, 1993 PAGE 11 for Carlsbad to be in important instrument in helping to restore fish depletion in the ocean. He hopes the Commission will vote in favor of the project. Commissioner Erwin stated that it is difficult to keep volunteers enthused, let alone over a ten year period. Mr. Paulk replied that thousands of people are involved. The Newport Beach Anglers Club alone has in excess of 600 members. They have raised a lot of money to support the experiment. People are excited to try and see if something can be done to help replenish the ocean. John Jones, 3044 State Street, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he has seen a similar facility operating on Lake Erie. There was a lot of noise coming from it. He is concerned about the project because the metal building will amplify the noise. He is sympathetic with the people who live in the area and is unhappy to see the wetlands being destroyed. He doesn’t believe there would have been so much opposition if the building had been left where it was near the railroad tracks. Dr. Victor Rocha, 995 Valencia Avenue, San Marcos, addressed the Commission and stated that he is employed by California State University at San Marcos and is the Dftan of Arts & Science. He supports the Hubbs project because it is a great educational opportunity. Although he doesn’t want to offend the local citizenry, he feels he has a leadership responsibility to promote this scientific experiment because it is an opportunity to enhance biotechnology in this area. Commissioner Erwin inquired if Cal State is involved with Hubbs in this or any other ventures. Dr. Rocha replied that he is not aware of any involvement other than they have a keen interest and would like to use the information to help educate our future scientists. Larry Salamone, 2688 Waterbury Way, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he is in favor of the project and is happy it is coming to Carlsbad. Margaret Bonas, 231 Olive, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that our coastline is Carlsbad’s most precious asset. She doesn’t want to see it destroyed. She is curious why Hubbs and Sea World are so anxious to build in the center of Carlsbad. She thinks it is interesting that Hubbs doesn’t pay taxes while the citizens do, yet they are being given free rein to destroy our wetlands. She doesn’t see how this can in any way benefit Carlsbad. She, too, visited the Mission Bay facility and thought it was interesting that the pumps were so noisy they had to be turned off while the tour was being conducted. Ms. Bonas feels the project will open a Pandora’s box. She would urge the Commission to deny the project and rezone the area to open space in perpetuity as a place to mediate, relax, and enjoy the beauty of nature. She submitted a petition of 222 signatures who oppose the project. The petition will remain on file in the Planning Department. Tom Frey, 1840 E. Point Avenue, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he owns property in Bristol Cove and is in favor of the Hubbs project. When they construct their building, they needed to install piles. He feels the height of the structure is right on target and is low enough so that it won’t impact the surrounding residents. However, he would like to see a condition on the sound which specifies the distance and decibels which will be allowed. In addition, he thinks we need to watch out for the height of the trees so they don’t get too tall. Of most concern to him is the smell. He would like to see staff review that on a regular basis. Robert E. Richards, 4615 Park Avenue, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he too lives in Bristol Cove, right on the water. He noted on the EIR assessment form that the grading start is conditioned on receipt of various permits. He would like to know if the permits have been applied for, if they are currently under review, and if any permits have been received or challenged. He would like confirmation from the Commission that construction will not begin until the permits have been received. Because this is the last natural estuary in Carlsbad, he thinks the City should reconsider the need for an EIR. MINUTES - DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION July 7, 1993 PAGE 12 Robert Fletcher, 2917 Canon Street, San Diego, addressed the Commission and stated that he is a member of the Sportfishing Association of California and used to work for the California Department of Fish and Game. He was responsible for collecting brood species which started this project. He feels the hatchery is essential and the location is critical. He feels this is an opportunity to restore the wetlands, not destroy them, and it is an opportunity to help jump-start restoration of the sea bass population. If we want to see any results in the 21 st century, we must begin now. He feels there is a real commitment on the part of citizens, anglers, and scientists.He urged the Commission to look at the broader view. Jeff Brussel, 4607 Park Drive, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he is on the Bristol Cove Board of Directors. He came tonight primarily to gather information. He has listened to both sides of the story and was impressed by what the supporters of the project had to say. He has never known this staff to be in cahoots with developers. Although he has sympathy for the people who live nearby, the property is owned by SDG&E and it is private property. They have a right to use their property as long as it doesn’t violate the zoning. We will benefit by the project because it will help replenish a dwindling resource. Mr. Brussel is in favor of the project with the following conditions: (1) that only certain types of vehicles will be permitted to enter the neighborhood; (2) that the waste disposal is identified--personally, he likes the idea of grinding the fish; (3) that everything possible needs to be done to eliminate noise; (4) that lighting be minimized and used only for security; (5) that some investigation needs to be done to determine if a metal building will be the best material around salt water; and (6) that the facility is adequately screened by landscaping so that it won’t be an eyesore. He would be interested in knowing what will happen to the remaining 3-l /2 acres around the lagoon. Also, what effect it would have on the hatchery if the lagoon is opened up to boating. Commissioner Erwin inquired if Mr. Brussel was speaking on behalf of the Bristol Cove Homeowner’s Association. He replied that he was. Paul O’Neal, SDG&E, addressed the Commission and stated that he is neither an attorney nor a liar. He has never stated that work on the riprap was the basis for this project. The riprap work was done to save the bluffs and its was planning was done four years ago, before he ever came to Carlsbad. He stated that the property will not be removed from the tax roles and there will be no loss in tax revenues. He has received a total of fo,ur proposals for this site and he rejected three of them. This is the only use he has been in favor of because it will be the best for the City of Carlsbad. We can’t keep taking from the ocean and not be responsible to put something back. Mr. O’Neal feels the hatchery will be an opportunity to create two generations of school children who will understand what it means to replenish the environment. He loves the project and wholeheartedly supports it. Commissioner Erwin inquired if this project is being used to provide mitigation for San Onofre. Mr. O’Neal replied that it has nothing whatsoever to do with mitigation. Commissioner Erwin inquired if SDG&E can accept the second condition he has proposed, regarding removal of the structure after termination of the CUP. Mr. O’Neal replied that the condition would be acceptable. John Davis, P. 0. Box 2600, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he currently operates an aquaculture venture on the lagoon. He is very concerned about water quality and has been convinced that water flowing from the hatchery tanks will have no effect on his aquaculture business. Elaine Lyttleton, 4210 Sunnyhill, Carlsbad, representing the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Commission and stated that this project has included a virtual army of volunteers. The Chamber not only wants to promote growth, they also want to make sure proposed development is good for the city. Research and development is an acceptable industry and Hubbs Sea World is a perfect match for Carlsbad. Even though Hubbs will only employ seven people, it is not too small for Carlsbad. She feels it MINUTES DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION July 7, 1993 PAGE 13 is a wonderful opportunity for university students as well as young children. The research project is being. funded by taxpayers and she feels we need to embrace this type of quality project in our community. Bob Ladwig, 2642 Ocean, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that he is a resident of Carlsbad, a member of the Anglers Association, and President of the Economic Council of the Chamber of Commerce. He supports the project and hopes the Commission will also. Mr. Ladwig stated that he has worked with development issues for many years and he assured those in attendance that this project haS been given no special treatment. Chairman Noble offered the applicant an opportunity for rebuttal. Doug Avis, Benchmark Pacific, 6670 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that there has apparently been some confusion regarding the soils report. He assured the Commission that the project will include the use of pilings to offset liquefication. He stated that this site was chosen because the other SDG&E site would not work. The Navy site in Point Loma was investigated but the Navy never offered it for use. He feels that there is a lot of public misunderstanding about the CUP process. Everyone will be watching the hatchery closely until they prove they can be good neighbors. He would appreciate the Commission’s support because they are anxious to move ahead. Commissioner Erwin inquired if his proposed Condition #l would be acceptable if it stated that tours would only be allowed for students and non-profit groups. Mr. Avis replied that would be okay. Commissioner Hall is concerned about the aesthetics of a metal building. He is also worried that there will be a fatigue factor that close to the ocean. He inquired if the architectural professionals involved would investigate to see if a material other than metal might be better. Mr. Avis replied that they would consider it although cost effectiveness is a critical factor because this project is on a fixed budget. He is comfortable that the structure as proposed will be effective as well as attractive.’ There being no other persons desiring to address the Commission on this topic, Chairman Noble declared the public testimony closed and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Chairman Noble commented that he has been approached by many people who feel that the Commissioners have made up their mind before public testimony has been heard. He assured everyone in attendance that this is definitely not the case. Chairman Noble requested staff to respond to the issues identified during the public hearing. Bob Wojcik, Principal Civil Engineer, advised the Commission that the Engineering Department has not overruled Geocon’s recommendations. A detailed soils report is still being required and recommendations will be integrated into the project. The public testimony was reopened in order to hear from another citizen. Daurine Irvin, 4054 Garfield, Carlsbad, addressed the Commission and stated that she has listened to testimony from the applicant for over one hour and she cannot be convinced that if you increase the noise you will not have more noise. Not only will there be noise from the hatchery pumps, but there will also be noise from the additional traffic in the area. All this and the adjacent residents will lose their view as well. Chairman Noble reclosed the public testimony and opened the item for discussion among the Commission members. Commissioner Erwin inquired about the status of the permits. Mr. Gibson replied that a 404 permit has been applied for and a copy of the permit request is on file in the Planning Department. The EPA permit MINUTES - DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION July 7, 1993 PAGE 14 has also been applied for. The Coastal Commission will only accept applications after the local agencies are finished. Commissioner Erwin stated that there are many difficult issues to consider. A project in this location needs to be compatible with the neighborhood. Although there is no view protection ordinance, he was happy to see that the applicant had dropped the height on the building. He feels that his proposed Condition #3 will take care of noise and his proposed Condition #l should pretty much eliminate tour buses. He will vote in favor of the project because the CUP is only for five years. Normally this type of project would receive a 10 year CUP. At the end of five years, the Commission will take another hard look at it again. We have assurance from SDG&E that the building will be removed after termination of the CUP. He thinks most of the problems have been addressed. The lack of an EIR will continue to cause questions. He will support the project with inclusion of his proposed conditions. Commissioner Hall inquired if the CUP will be final tonight unless appealed. Mr. Wayne replied that this is correct. However, he is concerned that two of the conditions being added by Commissioner Erwin will set a precedent. He would recommend that the Commission seriously consider his Conditions #2 and #3 because we have never before required a permanent building to be removed. He feels we need a nexus of why we would do that. As far as the noise condition is concerned, he thinks it will be difficult to enforce when the neighborhood ambient noise is 60 dBA. There is no precedent or policy establishing the 45 dBA restriction and this is a higher or more restrictive standard than that which is being applied to the adjacent neighborhood. Commissioner Erwin stated that the applicant has accepted Conditions #2 and #3, regardless of whether or not they set a precedent. He will not vote for the project without those conditions. Commissioner Hall thinks the Commission needs to keep in mind the type of building we are trying to place in a residential setting. He supports the use but is sympathetic with the neighborhood. If the building is going to be here for many years to come, he thinks it should be constructed out of something other than metal. He thinks more consideration needs to be given to aesthetics. Commissioner Welshons feels that many serious concerns have been raised. She visited the Hubbs site in Mission Bay to check it out. She has asked a lot of questions. She is convinced that the Planning staff is following the CEQA procedures. She thinks that adequate mitigation has been proposed and is inclined to support the project with the added conditions. Commissioner Savary agrees with Commissioners Erwin and Welshons. She is in favor of the project because the long term benefits outweigh the temporary inconvenience. Commissioner Betz believes the other Commissioners have brought out many salient points and that the overall benefits of the project overshadow the negatives. She is inclined to support it. Chairman Noble has visited the Hubbs facility in Mission Bay. He thinks any noise coming from the facility can be controlled by the proposed conditions. Commissioner Welshons commented that if the building will look as good as the drawing, she can accept it. She thinks everything has been done to balance the aesthetics and that the metal material will probably be better than wood. Commissioner Hall replied that the Commission needs to remember that the building will be large and consume approximately l/2 acre. He thinks we also need to take a hard look at the outside area around the building. Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director, replied that he feels adequate conditions are in place to cover the concerns, i.e. there will be no outside storage and the landscape needs to be maintained: He stated that a condition could be added to require exterior maintenance of the building. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION July 7, 1993 PAGE 15 Commissioner Hall is looking for something to break up the long mass of building. He knows what a metal building will do in 10 years and how it will look in 15 years. ACTION: Motion was made by Commissioner Erwin, and duly seconded, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 3522, approving the Conditional Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director, and adopt Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 3523 and 3524 approving CUP 92-l 0 and HDP 93-05, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, with the following amendments: (1) Add Condition covering the irrevocable offer of dedication; (2) Amend Condition #47 per staff memo dated June 30, 1993; (3) Amend Resolution No. 3523, Page 4, Condition #1 , and Resolution No. 3524, Page 2, Condition #2, changing the date to July 7, 1993; (4) Add new Erwin Condition #l , as read into the record, with the change that tours will be available for students and non-profit groups; (5) Add new Erwin Condition #2, as read into the record, with the change that the City Council may request removal of the structure at termination of the CUP; (6) Add new Erwin Condition #3, as read into the record, with no changes; and (7) Add a new condition to read that “All structures shall be maintained to retain an attractive appearance including, but not limited to, regular periodic maintenance of the metal siding and roof materials. VOTE: 6-O AYES: Chairman Noble, Commissioners Betz, E&in, Hall, Savary, and Welshons NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ADJOURNMENT: By proper motion, the Regular meeting of Jtily 7, 1993 was adjourned at lo:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, GARY E. WAYNE Assistant Planning Director BETTY BUCKNER Minutes Clerk MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED. MINUTES VKIXGOCLL\IM3RAPHICS 134s Lomica Road El Capn, CA 92020 (619) 588 0961 8 August 1991 -. . _. Mr. Thomas W. Gwyn Chairman Caldmia Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Sub@: Ocean Resources Enhancement and Hatchery Program (OREHP) Coastal Commission. Therefore, I have followed the actions and record of the California I was privileged to be a member of the advisory mmission that created the Caliiomia Coastal Commission with some paternal interest. In addition I sewed as Manager, Lockheed Ocean Sciences Laboratories when that organization was involved in conducting environmental and ecological data collection and analysis at the San Onolre Nuclear Generating Station. My Ph.0. education in ichthyology was gained largely from my mentor Dr. Cad L. Hubbs. UCSD, Scripps Institution of Oceanography. During the past six years I have followed the highly successful hatchery program at the Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute. Accordingly. I feel both qualified and compelled to comment on the California Coastal Commission action item related to endorsing the recommendation to tieate a larger marine fish hatchery. An expanded hatchery faciliiy and release program will yield needed new knowledge about anificially enhanang the now unpredictable annual natural reproduction success. creamd at the Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute. Personnel have been trained to culture Marine resource managers have benefitled significantly from the pilot hatchery facility two species, the white seabass and the California halibut. Institute and San Diego State University personnel have produd a prodlgious number of fry for release into the wild. conditions for the rearing and husbandry of additional species. Survival information on Significantly more prodtiaivily could be derived from a larger facility possessing more varied for expansion d this research program. National and international academic interest In this Institute reared fish released into Mission Bay is most encouraging, but there is now a need seven year old program is strong because of the potential that it offers for bringing back depleted stocks, domestic and foreign. that have been a valuable resource to commercial and lay fisherman. , . Larger marine fish hatchery releases and survival determinations offers, at present, the prospect for understanding natural losses versus those lost to the actlvitles of man. There are an infinite number of environmental pressures being placed on California's marine flsherles resources and many unanswered questions related to population dynamic3 of various species, vertebrate and invertebrate. remain. Population declines, even lo near the early fifties are now scarce to rare. There is no clear reason why? The proposed extinction, have occurred within the last four decades. Species common on San Diego in research facility is needed to provide greater insight into a broad range of populatlon dynamics issues. Research Institute) and the omdal OREHP Advisory Panel recummendatlon lor a legislative I urge you to endorse the creation of the proposed hatchery ( Hubbs-Sea Worid extension of the program. Another issue is the plan for the creation of a large artlfiaal reef. The art of artificial reef development needs to be advanced too. Artificial reels impact more positively.on welcome addition for gaining knowledge about reef ecology. My personal obsenrations speaes other than the two discussed above. A new 300 acre artificial reef would be a found the existing San Onofre Nudear Generating Station artiliaal reef to be of reduced saentillc value because the haphazard plawment of various rock layen by the installlng contractor who created a simple rubble pile. Albeit there is some added habitat for reef been prcperly constwed. Make sure mat it is built to spec1 dwelling flora and fauna, but i! owM have had more amenable to statistical analysis il it had I will be watching for the results d pur delberations. Sincarely, Andreas 6. Rechnher, Ph.0. President cc: Mr. Frank Powell. HubbsSea Wodd Research Institute Saltwater Sportsman 3C Em 71 Sea, Seach. CA 90720 12/13/91 Mr. Thomas GWyn chairman California Coastal Commission 631 Howard Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, GA 94105 Dear Mr. GWYn, fish hatchery as part of the mitigation plan to offset the I am writing to urge YOU to support funding for a salt water impact of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Plant. This plan makes perfect sense in it's simplicity because it benefits the millions of sports fishermen and supports California's huge sportfishing industry that generates millions of dollars in tax revenue for the state. These win-win situations don't come alone too often! On behalf of SALT WATER SPORTSMAN, the world's largest sportfishing magazine, we hope you'll support this vital hatchery program. Sincerely, Philip Troy salt Water Sportsman .- Times Mirror M Magazines Jan. 8, 1992 Thomas Gwyn CaLifomia Coastal Commission 45 Fremont St. San Francisco, CA 94105-2219 Dear Mr. Douglas, This letter is in regards to the Ocean Resources Enhancement and Hatchery Program (OREHP), an important project, not only to myself but the Western Outdoor News readers who sportfiih. In the 8 years I have been editor of this weekly paper that serves 70,000 sportsmen, this has become arguably the most important program to enhance our depleted fisheries brought on mainly though a loss of coastal "nursery" habitat. I'm sure the Coastal Commission has been inundated with many requests for some of the SONGS mitigation money, but let me say that a hatchery system that we envision would compliment the addition or restoration of habitat through the SONGS money. In addition to being editor of Westem Outdoor News, I have been a board memeber of United Anglers of Southern California and I also serve on the White Seabass Committee, so I have been involved in this project for many years. To make this request short and sweet, I will say only that legislation now being induced pens along the coast hinges on one thing: Getting a hatchery built in Carlsbad. The land has to continue the white seabass program and move into production with the various rearing been donated by San Diego Gas & Elecmc, and we have plans for defraying the cost of building the facilities through donation of a huge building now being used by the America's Cup in San Diego. Even with all this work, however, unless we have a hatchery built at a cost of $1.5 million, the entire project and all the information gathered over 15 years at Hubbs Sea World facility will be raised through private donations. Research Institute will be worthless. It is highly unlikely that the money for the hatchery This white seabass program is ready to go, to progress out of the sciendfic stage and into production. We need help to fund the hatchery. This type of cenaal facility has close ties .with the intent of the mitigation money to enhance the fishery. Please consider the proposal point the future of the project and the past 15 years of research hinges on the Commission's before you to use some of the mitigation money to build the Carlsbad hatchery. At this help. Sincerely, Pat McDonell Editor, Western Outdoor News cc Peter M. Douglas ." '. ', iA - .. Miltorb E. Shedd 1520 Rings Road Newport Rsach, California 92663 January 9, 1992 Mr. Thomas W. Gwyn Chairman California Coastal Commission 45 Freemont Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, California 94105-2219 Dear Tom: the Board of Directors for Sea World's first eighteen years, I have spent a great deal of time and energy focused on the oceans of Southern California' and the creatures that inhabit its waters. In 1955 over 50,000 white seabass were caught by sportfisherman in California. Since 1966, the best year has been approximately 5,000 or one tenth the total of 1955. White seabass and many other marine fisheries native to Southern California waters are in severe decline. As the co-founder of Sea World, Inc. and Chairman of Your support of the marine fish hatchery in Carlsbad would.benefit the marine ecology, the California public in general and the sportfishing community in particular. By providing the funds to build the hatchery, you will be doing more than just building one hatchery. You will be providing the opportunity to prove that we can in fact replenish our depleted oceans. I believe this will lead to a number of marine fish hatcheries along our California coastlines. In millions of local fish including white seabass, halibut, calico the future these hatcheries could return to the sea tens of bass, yellowtail and black seabass to name a few. The decision by the California Coastal Commission to would be a wise decision indeed. fund the construction of the marine fish hatchery in Carlsbad ..I , Sincerely, Milton C. Shedd Co-founder Sea World, Inc. cc: Mr. Peter M. Douglas January 9, 1992 Mr. Thomas Gwyn Chai rman California Coastal Commission San Francisco, CA 94105-2219 45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000 .. Dear Tom: Outdoor Ventures owns both South Coast Spoctfishing and Ca7 ifornia anglers in California, we urge you to support funding for’ the OREHP Angler magazines. On behalf of our readership of over 100.000 Fish Hatchery as a portion of the mitigation for the environmental impacts from the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). Southern California’s fisheries are in decline and so is fishing participation. Money spent on the OREHP Fish Hatchery would be the program wi 11 support our marine environment, the two mi 11 ion best possible use for the SONGS mitigation funds. The hatchery sportfishing industry. saltwater fishermen in our state, and the over two billion dollar Everyone wins with the marine fish hatchery and we hope you will support it. Sincerely. Hol &@?f lv Ray Gene;al Manager .. ., Outdoor Ventures Publishing Group 1921 East Carnegie Auenrre. Suite 3-N Sanrn Ana. California 92705 (71 4) 261 -9779 Fax: (71 4) 261 -9853 June 22, 1993 City of Carlsbad City Council Nembers 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008 We are writing to you regarding the proposed fish hatchery on the Aqua Hedionda Estuary. There has not been an EIR done on the land. They did a conditional negative declaration. We find that hard to believe. We have never been involved in anything political or environmental, and both of us feel strongly about this issue. All we are asking for as citizens is to prove that nothing that lives in or near the estuary will be harmed. We ask that an independent person do# our EIR with no connections to any other sources. (I am sure you know what I mean!) I have enclosed copies of additional concerns we have. P.O.E. (Protect our Estuary) Pat and Andrea Oshima ' I June 16, 1993 LET THE MINUTES REFLECT MR. AND MRS. OSHIMA'S OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED FISH HATCHERY. We have lived in Carlsbad over 30 years. My husband grew up playing on this many fond memories of this lagoon, and both of us would hate to see any kind lagoon and learned how to fish from the old fisherman at the time. He has of structure on this land. I have enjoyed the beauty and calming effect the lagoon has to offer for the past ten years. We have taught our children about nature and water life on this lagoon. Our children enjoy flying their kites, collecting sea shells, and their all time favorite, skipping rocks across the water. The diversity of animal life at the lagoon is awesome from: octopus, crabs, fish, sand dollars, starfish, sea potato, anemones to hawks, cranes or heron, racoon, lizard, squirrels and others not to mention the these will no longer exist, if industrial/comercial business continue to take over what should be left for our childrens children and future generations. This issue does not concern the fish hatchery itself, it has to do with present and future generations being able to have this estuary to enjoy. Why is it that this fragile environmental Aqua Hedionda estuary does not require an EIR? When our church had to provide an EIR for future building on an empty lot where there already is commercial buildings around us, like Where is the consistency? another church, gas station, motels and restaurants along Pi0 Pic0 Avenue. and soul and if you truly care for the Carlsbad community you serve, please I respectfully ask each and everyone of you to look deep inside your heart generations. find an alternate site for this project and keep our estuary for our future CARLSBAD. CALIFOI1NIA 92008 1200 ELM AVENUE Ollice 01 fhe Cify Clerk (G19) 434-2808 TELEPHONE APPEAL FORM I (Ws) appeal the following decision of the Plannins Commission ”. to the City Council: Project Name and Number (or subject of appeal): CUP 92-10/HDP 93-05 Hubbs Fish Hatchery Attorney for Protect Our Estuary (P.O.E.), to the Carlsbad Planning Commission and Carlsbad City Council, regarding the above referenced .. project,,-requesting E.I.R. pursuanttoCEQA guidelines and stating reasons for such request. 7/15/93 Date Signature ” ’ THOMAS WILLIAM SMITH Name (Please Print) 400 S. Melrose Dr., Ste. 102 Address Vista, Ca. 92083 ,, (619) 941-8343 Telephone Number mma.9 W* SmHI AttornqatLmv 400 south Helrose Drive, suite 102 Vista, California 92083 (619) 941-8343 July 16, 1993 Carlsbad City Council Carlsbad, CA 92008 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision (7-7-93) Hubbs Fish Hatchery Attention: Jeff Gibson CUP 92-10/HDP 93-05 Dear Members of the Council: that it appeals the decision of the Planning Commission in the Protect Our Estuary, P.O.E., regretfully must inform you above-referenced matter. I recognize that the Appeal to you will be decided De Novo, but it may be helpful to delineate the problem areas. letters to the Planning Commission, which are attached hereto, were The rather serious issues raised by P.O. E. in my previous essentially denied at the hearing in a summary, if not flippant, manner. Although the Applicant and their professional more than one and one-half hours of time at the hearing, I was representative, Doug Avis of the Fieldstone Corp., were allowed allotted only three minutes. I objected to this substantially unfair procedure, but to no avail. Such a procedure makes it impossible for a professional representative to either make a case or rebut their opposition in an adversarial proceeding. As such, this policy violates both the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution. The mischief didn't stop there. It was obvious that the Planning Commission had been heavily lobbied by the Applicant and be a token enterprise. It is appalling that such a result could curiously, the Planning Department. The entire hearing seemed to representative could be so arrogantly treated in favor of corporate evolve whereby the citizens of the community and their legal representatives who objectively lack credibility. Introductions to several speeches by Mr. Avis always included an attempt to Carlsbad City Council July 16, 1993 Page Two quarrelled with this conclusion. This cheap tactic is of course stereotype P.O.E. as mere N.I.M.B.Y. (s) . The Chairman never unfair to P .O. E. and absurd in light of the environmental arguments I have presented in their behalf. questions are increasing in number. During and since the meeting, these environmental estimates that the hatchery will need approximately 200,000 For instance, P. 0. E. gallons of pumped water per day. Such pumping will on a non- specific basis kill all immature fish and other fauna entering the system, including white sea bass! This is similar to what occurred at San Onofre which yielded the offsite mitigation monies which are will not be here either. sought here. This problem at San Onofre cannot be corrected and To compound the error here is considered. irresponsible and is another significant impact which has not been P.O.E. estimates the one-half acre steel industrial building will require that seventy 30 foot pilings be pile driven into the site to protect the building from earthquake liquification problems if the GEOCON design is followed. At the same time, the Planning Commission has imposed a five-year review on the project and deceitfully pronounces the building could be torn down and the land restored to its original condition. Will these pilings be removed? I doubt it, but the which has not been addressed. question should be addressed and creates another significant impact In fact, the entire basis for the reliance on the Planning staff reports in this matter is subject to question. All representations of the applicant have been accepted by the Staff as true and correct. This is unwise and provides a formula for a major problem. For example, the GEOCON report which presumes the liquification problem solvable is prepared by a corporate sponsor of the Applicant, GEOCON. It is the same with the GALLEGOS report. Don Kent of Hubbs, and all the scientists who have written in favor Moreover, the information these men provide has no basis in study, of this project are financially associated with the Applicant. experiment or research, at the site. It amounts to nothing more project, describes it as a research facility that will increase than speculation. Don Kent, in his letter in support of this ocean fish stocks, and make a dent in world hunger. See Kent's letter of July 11, 1993. This is nothing but speculation, if not utter nonsense. Other than minor production questions similar to other industrial plants in Carlsbad, there is no research planned for this site. There are no grants pending for research at this Carlsbad City Council July 16, 1993 Page Three the ocean by boat. The project will have no effect on world site. The only questions of any significance will be addressed in hunger. The idea that the ocean will ever solve world hunger problems, is described by Dr. Paul Erlich, an environmental population biologist of Stdnford University, as a "pervasive myth". The reason is because the ocean has its own massive food requirements and any surplus is minimal. However, P.O.E. is not interested, nor does it believe that the focus here should be upon the use that this industrial facility would contemplate. P.O.E. does not oppose a sincere effort in this area of inquiry. The focus should be on the land use aspects of this decision. A good purpose of the Applicant is irrelevant. The Planning Commission stated that any time the plant should be torn down if the representations and conditions of acceptance were found to be false or not in compliance. This is not true and again deceitful. Our experiences with the San Onofre nuclear plant and other projects in the City show this to be unfeasible. Once a project is built, it will stand and, more than likely only some inadequate mitigation will be proposed as was the case with the SAMMIS "research" project in Carlsbad. "Passing the buck" on these important environmental questions will not answer the legitimate environmental ones raised here by P.O.E. The lawful and proper way here is to require an E.I.R. Respectfully submitted, THO~S WILLI~ SMITH Attorney for P.O.E. cc: Jeffrey Scott c/o Smith & Peltzer THOMAS WILLIAM SMITH Attorney at Law 400 S. Melrose Dr., Ste. 102 Vista, Ca. 92083 (619) 941-8343 June 21, 1993 Planning Commission city of Carlsbad Carlsbad, Ca. 92009 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Re: CUP 92-101, HDP 93-05, Hubbs/Sea World Development; Attention Jeff Gibson; 2nd Supplemental Comments, Request for Special Notice Dear Members: the above referenced matter as supplemental by my two previous letters on behalf of Protect Our Estuary Of Carlsbad, POE. Please allow these further comments to be considered in that the Conditional Negative Declaration that is now As I have stated before it is respectfully requested proposed by the Planning Department and the Applicant be denied and an E.I.R. be ordered in this matter. Please allow me to also use this opportunity to reauest sDecial notice be given to me with regard to any hearings or conferences regarding this matter. The Negative Declaration as proposed for this project does not comply with CEQA for several additional reasons as stated infra. : consequences of a proposed activity at the earliest possible stage. City of Antioch v. Citv Counsel. (1986) 187 Cal. App. the smug approach that impacts that are identified or 3d 1325. Mr. Gibson and the Planning Department are taking acknowledged after being identified by POE will be addressed at later stages in the planning process after the Proposed Negative Declaration is approved either by the Engineering Department or by another agency entirely. These significant impacts include the necessity of two additional pumping systems for the project, backup and sand removal, or well as the pile driven pier system which is now begrudingly acknowledged to be required for the now 23,000 sq. ft. building. (Curiously, at a recent meeting to discuss the project before the Aqua Hacienda Lagoon Foundation on June CEQA requires consideration of the environmental . -* 1. acknowledged this large type of building is required for 14, 1993, Mr. Don Kent, biologist for the Applicant, this project.) It appears a similar attitude and procedure will be employed regarding the wastewater dumping in to the estuary which the project will require. This attitude is unconscionable in light of the fact that even at this late many barrels of wastewater per week will be dumped in to the date the Applicant is uncertain or refuses to acknowledge how estuary or even whether consideration is being given to the problem which already exists in the estuary! This procedure impact such dumping will have upon the chronic pollution is, of course, violative of CEQA and has been the source of and San Onofre Nuclear Generator, SONG, which is the source several disasters in the past including the Sammis Project built it is usually impossible to address these issues and of mitigation funds for this project. Once a project is the only course is mitigation sometimes even off site as in the sad example of SONG. Perhaps Mr. Gibson's confidence is buttressed by several hastily prepared letters from biologists who are financially associated with the Applicant. These conclusionary statements merely state opinions without foundation and attempt to minimize obvious significant impacts. As such they should be disregarded in favor of a full and independent environmental review. POE will address these specific comments at the earliest possible opportunity after more closely considering their alleged merit. One policies which yielded the mitigation funds being used here experienced scientist who helped develop the mitigation was contacted by me on June 21, 1993. He described the use of these funds for this project at this site as "shear idiocy." His declaration will be sought in this matter. facts it is contended that the Department intends to piecemeal this project which is prohibited under CEQA. The process, as misapplied by the Department in a de facto fashion, changes the zone from RA-10 to an impact per a vague aquaculture definition. Acquaculture has industrial/commercial use by alleging a minimal potential never been done upon the site. All during and after the ten year period of the project additional and changed uses can be applied for by the Applicant with a much easier burden shouldered by the Applicant with regard to environmental mitigation. Using this subterfuge and building a facility that is four times what is required is intended to ensure that environmental considerations do not emerge "by chopping a larger project into many little ones - each (it is alleged) with minimal potential impact on the environment - which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences." BBc- (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 263, 283-284. Based upon the foregoing and the following arguments and 2. Declaration here is a piecemeal approach which Will Create an industrial-commercia1 zone and overbuilt facility abutting an established residential beach neighborhood on the pretext by this Applicant, SDG&E, of helping the white sea bass population. fi It is our contention that this issuance of a Negative The proposed Negative Declaration here does not consider the cumulative impacts that will arise under this project as as supplemental by POE's comments herein and heretofore. identified in the inadequate Department Staff Report or even Public Resources Code Section 21083(b) requires the finding of a significant effect which would require a fair and-full E.I.R. if: '!The possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. The proposed Negative Declaration does not evaluate the cumulative impacts in the areas of industrial usage, permanent habitat destruction, traffic, noise, unnecessary devaluation of adjoining land owner's properties, loss of public and private views, strain on city services, extensive grading, and further pollution of the estuary. liquifaction problems, archaeological impacts, 1 AL AI S 0 alternatives to the proposed site or its use. If the Applicant, SDG&E is representing it will lease the site to HubbsjSea World for $1.00 per year as touted then it becomes logical to consider other more important uses for the shoreline property including restoration of the land to its original wetland condition which it was before SDG&E began using it for a dump site. Restoration of wetlands habitat is the preferred method of replenishing ocean fisheries stocks. The proposed Negative Declaration fails to consider property to remain as a passive use recreation area. Recreation land is always in short supply. With the already stipulated to trail system by the Applicant the land would be a welcome addition to Carlsbad's open space inventory. that all reasonable alternatives to proposed projects are One of the major functions of an E.I.R. is to ensure thoroughly assessed. (1976) 18 cal. 3d 190-197. The Proposed Negative Declaration here proposed development and fails to provide any information fails to consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the that evaluates the comparative merits of other alternatives, as required by CEQA. Another use which has been disregarded is to allow the 3. Carlsbad has a long standing plan for the area in which the proposed development is intended to be located by the Applicant. It is the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan first adopted in 1982 which is scarcely mentioned in the Proposed Negative Declaration. It is no wonder because the two plans are in obvious conflict. Some of the more obvious policy conflicts which cannot be avoided are: 1. Basic Policies: (from the California Coastal Act of 1976) .. .. .. That the California Coastal Zone is a distinct delicately balanced ecosystem; and valuable resource. ... and exists as a That the permanent protection of the state's natural and scenic resource is a paramount concern...; That to ...p rotect public and private property, wildlife, marine fisheries, other ocean necessary to protect the ecological balance resources and the natural environment, it is of the coastal zone and prevent its deterioration and destruction. 2. Basic Goals: .. Protect, maintain, and where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment. ... 3. Priorities: .. Preservation of natural resources and environmentally sensitive areas; 4. Carlsbad General Plan: Goals and Policies .. ... recognizes the unique environmental status of the (estuary) and its environs, designating the entire shoreline, and a majority of the flood- plain area and the south shore properties as Hedionda Plan as a "special treatment area." "open space" ... and designates the entire Aqua 5. Land use: .. Preserve and enhance the environment ... .. Protect and conserve natural resources, fragile , -. 4. ecological areas, unique natural assets. .. .. Provide for. ..and ensure that all such (land) uses...serve to protect and enhance the environment ... 6. ODen Soace/Conservation: .. Preservation of Natural Resources ... 7. Geoloaical Hazards: .. ... to minimize the loss of life, injury to health and destruction of property ... 8. Coastal Act Policies: 30231 .. The biological productivity and quality of coastal waters,..wetlands, estuaries, ... shall be maintained and, where feasible restored through ... minimizing adverse effects of wastewater discharges ... ATTACHMENT 2 Archaeoloav Mitiaation Measures: !!The aboriginal resources located within the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Area are all that remain of a once extensive hunting and gathering population which once occupied coastal Southern California. Studies by Dr. Malcolm Rogers (1920 - R. Kaldenberg and Dr. Paul H. Ezell (1974) indicate that a 1965), Dr. James Moriarty (1966), Claude Warren (1967), and static population existed along coastal San Diego County at least as early as 9030 plus 200 B.P. (Moriarity 1967). This population seems to have originated in Eastern California (Willey 1966) or the great basin (Davis 1973) and migrated into a pristine, unoccupied coastal area. Different theories as to the exact route these people traversed when they came to dominate San Diego County are available (Rogers yet in its formative period locally, we are able only to 1939: Rogers 1945; Von Werlhof 1975). Since archaeology is hypothesize the relationship between landforms, land use, and paleoethnic travel and trade routes. What is know is that groups of people lived at major sites along the San Diego coast, exploited and estuarine resources, and eventually the resources were depleted. At that time (7000 had to readapt to a changing economic/resource situation. B.P) an adjustment process occurred where the local groups All of the sites along Agua Hedionda contain scientific data of extreme value to scientists in understanding this adaptive process. New techniques and other scientific methods currently employed in San Diego County will enable scientists . -\ 5. to reinterpret and perhaps explain techno-environmental change in San Diego County. Prehistorians such as Ezell believe that sites found along Agua Hedionda and Batiquitos (1975), Moriarty (1975, Leonard (1975) and Warren (1975) all Lagoons are of such an enormous scientific value that careful controlled excavation and mitigation is necessary. Imoacts. Since the plan for the Agua Hedionda Study are in formative stages, the exact impact of development to each be stated that any land alteration in the form of grading, archaeological resource cannot be assessed. However, it can intensive brushing or leveling in the vicinity of any of the All of the sites located in this project are area subsurface archaeologial sites will adversely impact these resources. These may include human burials which are protected under sites which contain an abundance of cultural materials. California Health and Safety Code, Section 8100 and the California Penal Code, Section 602, Chapter 1299. Section destruction of even an unmarked cemetery a felony. 7052 of the California Health and Safety Code makes the Therefore, caution is necessary when considering any impact to the subsurface sites. According to the more rece,nt Mendocino County decision, six burials constitute a registered legal cemetery and any attempt to remove even prehistoric remains without an appropriate permit would be construed as "grave robbing." Extreme legal and scientific care must be taken in the event any human remains are found. Site AH-5 is the only site on the subject property where it seems unlikely any human remains may be unearthed. This is prehistoric site functions or locations." largely due to past land alterations activities and not to to preserve the unique and beneficial character of the Aqua All of the above listed policies, goals, and uses seek Hedionda Estuary. Any land use change or development should receive special scrutiny. Such scrutiny is not possible with a mere Conditional Negative Declaration. The above listed policies are reduced to meaningless words if they are not found to be standards of the highest importance which cannot be easily pushed aside by a powerful Applicant and thereby avoid a full E.I.R. Wherefore, POE requests the proposed Conditional Negative Declaration be rejected as inadequate and a full and independent E.I.R. be prepared forthwith. Sincerely, THOMAS WILLIAM SMITH TWS/bw C.C. POE 6. . -. THOMAS WILLIAM SMITH Attorney at Law 400 s. Melrose Dr., Ste. 102 Vista, Ca. 92083 (619) 941-8343 June 4, 1993 Planning Commission city of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Ave. Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 Re: CUP 92-10/HDP 93-05, Hubbs/Sea World Development Dear Members of the Planning Commission: I represent Protect Our Estuery (POE), a coalition of homeowners and individuals who have joined together to ensure that development near or in the Agua Hedionda Estuary proceeds in a lawful and responsible manner. Carlsbad‘s estuaries are among the most environmentally sensitive lands in the State of California. As such these lands are entitled to the strict scrutiny required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). POE contends that the above referenced development does not satisfy the requirements or spirit of CEQA and is therefore inappropriate careful review of the available information,, that the for the site as proposed. Moreover, POE has concluded, after proposed Negative Declaration is not only inappropriate for this development but perhaps absurd in light of the following arguments. Needless to say this project has already been heavily lobbied to the City Counsel, Planning Commission, City Manager’s Office and the Planning Department by wealthy and powerful interests including the Anheuser-Busch Corporation, the San Diego Gas and Electric Corporation and, the Fieldstone Corporation. The integrity of the Carlsbad planning process will again be severely tested. It will be difficult to. say no to such interests. Further, the alleged purpose of the development which is to produce species of very well received by the public at large. No one within POE fish which are threatened with extinction would be presumably fails to recognize the importance of such a purpose. This is not to say the avowed purpose here is not viewed with some skepticism. For instance, of the 20,000 tagged White Sea Hatchings released in San Diego’s Mission Bay since 1988 only one fish has returned to be caught by local fisherman according to a recent Union Tribune article on the facility. National Fisherman Magazine in its November 1992, depletion of the White Sea Bass is primarily due to the issue reports that biologists in this field believe the . -. 1. pollution and industrial development by the shore which have conditions such as in Mexico. caused the White Sea Bass population to migrate to better Sea The financing of the operation of this development is equally speculative. The staff report herein reports the development has a vaguely described financial commitment from the State of California. Such financing is not reassuring in recent experience with Sammis and Aviara Developments light of the State's current financial crisis. The City's development's financial viability and representations are not illustrate the difficulty of sound planning when a secure. This proposed shoreline development with a heretofore unproven method and questionable financing may possibly just add to the problem of White Sea Bass stock depletion. purpose is however beyond the scope of POE's initial opposition as stated herein. The focus herein is the problems raised by the development under CEQA. Whether or not this development will accomplish its amounts to little more than a Visitor's Center and industrial production facility which is proposed for a residential beach neighborhood. The question here is whether such a development is appropriate for this site on the scale that is proposed. The neighborhood is bordered by the estuary, Carlsbad Blvd., Tamarack Ave., and the Santa Fe Railroad line. There are no commercial or industrial areas in the neighborhood. The site itself is bordered by rip rap railroad line. Ironically, the site was originally a wetland along the estuary, residential homes, and the Santa Fe removed ten acres of wetlands from the environment putting area and since raised w.ith dirt fill. As such, it has proposed to build on the fill in order to somehow improve the further stress on ocean fish spawning habitat. Now it is environment instead of returning the area to its original wetland condition which will without question improve the environment immediately and for the long term. All public relations rhetoric aside this development The traffic circulation within this area is at capacity and designed merely for the local neighborhood needs. It diesel buses and trucks which are contemplated to service cannot nor should it suffer the additional heavy use by the this development. This flagrant but telling impact is deemed by the Planning Department as not significant. The word development. The Planning Department appears to have should be closely re-examined in the context of this definition under CEQA in order to rush this development altered the meaning of this word which has some legal through by way of the resulting Negative Declaration branch of this review process. A re-definition or loose application of this word will inevitably lead in the atmosphere of the ever present developer pressure to abuse of the process. t -. 2. The term "significant effect on the environment" means a substantial or potentially substantial change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project. 14 Cal. Admin. Code 15382. No. Oil Inc. v. Los Anaeles. (1974) 13 C. '3d 68, 83 note 83. Local agencies should not only pause and reflect when faced with significant effects in have a significant effect on the environment. The word "may" their review but must prepare an EIR on any project which &Q.y connotes a reasonable possibilitv. Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino. (1988) 202 CA 3d 296. In the case of (1972) 471 F. 2d 823, 837, Justice Friendly in his dissenting opinion states definition of the word significant: the problems inherent in a sloppy application of the "Although all words may be 'chameleons' which reflect the color of their environment ...' significant' has that quality more than most. It covers a spectrum ranging from 'not trivial' through 'appreciable' to 'important' and even 'momentous.I' C. 3d 247, the Court observed that the judiciary "will not countenance abuse of the 'significant effect' qualification otherwise required by the act." as a subterfuae to excuse the making of impact reports In 3 (1972) 8 In C'ti 2 e Bish (1985) 172 CA 3d 151, the Court held that the determination to prepare a negative declaration (which is proposed here by the Planning Department based upon its findings of no significant environmental impacts) must be supported by data and evidence. & are insufficient because they provide no vehicles for in order to fulfill the requirements of CEQA and provide a (Emphasis added) at page 171. Therefore, fair and meaningful assessment to the community it is necessary to utilize the proper definition of significant which is as stated above a mere reasonable possibility. Using this definition with regard to additional traffic conclusion besides significant would be incorrect. The in the area which will be generated by this project any other Planning Department states the project should be evaluated by analogy to two residential units. This is absurd. This project calls for the servicing of industrial equipment. It also seeks to entertain visitors for public relations purposes using buses for transportation. This analogy of comparing this commercial industrial development to residential units is inadequate. 3. Moreover, it should be understood that the public relations purpose of this project is the central purpose of the project. The large project now proposed bears little resemblance to the project as originally conceived and project then was 5000 sq. ft. building placed at the opposite presented to the neighborhood two years ago. Essentially the production of 500,000 fingerlings per year which was in end of the site away from homes on two acres with a which includes a rendering kindly provided to P.O.E. by Mr. excess of what is proposed presently. Please see the article site. Interestingly, the parties from Hubbs who spoke were AViS at the June 4th meeting with P.O.E. on the proposed unconcerned about where the facility was built just so it could be built somewhere. Mr. Avis and SDG&E representatives were the only ones within the applicant's circle who were pressing for this site. It should be noted that the meeting on June 4, 1993, at the site between Mr. Avis representing the applicant and P.O.E. has generated serious public controversy over the environmental effects of the project. Additionally, another mainly Of Garfield Street residents. These residents can opposition group has surfaced in the neighborhood composed speak for themselves but needless to say the increased traffic as described above along a two lane street which them. Failure to denote or even recognize the significant feeds the entire neighborhood will be a major concern for controversy over the social and environmental effects to the area requires the preparation of an EIR. See CEQA guidelines Section 15064(h)(l). residential neighborhood, is only one of many significant Traffic, although a serious environmental issue for any impacts that heretofore have been intentionally understated or ignored in this process heretofore. The following additional factors are respectfully submitted as impacts which are significant and not dealt with fairly to this date. 1. Noise - Although it is concluded that this production facility will not violate noise policies of the city few specifics are offered. It is stated the pumps for the facility will be encased in concrete. It still is unstated how noisy they will be. The residents questioned Mr. Avis about this point and requested the location of other similar facilities, which were stated to be existing, but no answers were available. Back up pumps and their noise levels and maintenance requirements also lack specifics or even any mention within the Staff Report at this late date. Concluding these pumps won't be noisy without specifics cannot be judicially reviewed. block the views of the homes of residents it abutts but will 2. Visual Imoacts - This huge development will not only . -. 4. also be an eyesore on the estuary where it is proposed to be sited. project no specifics are given either in the staff reports or by Mr. Avis as to what other sites were considered and how agents at the June 4th meeting could give no reasons why this this site was found to be more appropriate. The applicants estuary at existing SDG&E industrial facilities or remain at industrial development could not be easily placed across the corporations didn't want it there. These conclusions provide its present facility at Sea World except to say these two no basis for a meaningful analysis of the development. It is similar with respect to the best use of the site. Why either restoring the are site to its original wetland condition or allowing it to remain what it has become, a passive recreational area, is never addressed with any specifics as required under CEQA. Although it is concluded this is the best site for the AFFECTS TO OUALITY OF SURFACE WATER the estuary as needed after removing some solids. This would of course only add to the chronic pollution problem that has unidentified. Less than two years ago the former owner of afflicted the estuary for years, sources of which are still the aquaculture in this estuary which produces muscles was ordered to stop the sale of his product for human consumption by the San Diego County Health Department. A study was made by this owner and his production was altered to compensate for this problem. The pollution problem was never resolved and remains to this date. The source could be from the beach area which is regularly closed down owing to equipment failures at the two local sewage treatment outfalls. Another possibility is the pump station facility less than 200 yards from this site which also has had chronic mechanic failures. Or it could be from some other unknown problem. Hubbs proposes to merely dump the fish wastewater into Negative Declaration or Staff Report. It would seem this is central to the discussion if for no other reason than to consider the viability of the applicant's fish production in light of this problem. In fact, this subject is so poorly addressed that neither Mr. Avis nor his technical experts on June 4th could even state how many barrels per week of the applicants wastewater will be dumped into the estuary . This information is basic to any analysis. Such a lack of specific detail is the same in all aspects of this project. It appears the strategy here is to get approval of a concept that is so vague that the final plan may be completely different yet nevertheless acceptable within the approval. This is unacceptable and impossible for any court to scrutinize. Further, such omissions may be intentional and should not be tolerated. Curiously there is no mention of this problem in the . -. 5. ALTER SIGNIFICANT ARCH. PALEO, OR HIST. SITES The Staff Reports finds there to be an impact but that it is insignificant. Such a conclusion is of course useless to any analysis. P.O.E. reports that a dig was initiated at particular spot and how the results were deemed insignificant one spot on the site. How this dig came to be done at that is not explained by the Planning Department. If there is specific information available to the city which was used to perform a dig it should be stated in the Staff Report so this information can be properly evaluated. Mere conclusions are again worthless. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS of this neighborhood. Notice should have been given by mail This development has literally snuck up on the residents to each resident in the area with specific information and in development. Those who have become aware have done so only a timely manner. Most residents are still unaware of this within the last week. This sharp practice is traditional with both SDG&E Corp. and the Fieldstone Corporation and unfortunately tolerated by the City especially if the City believe is true here. Developers have months to lobby the Management is in Pavor of the development which the residents City in favor of this project. Sometimes this lobbying even have usually only a few days to mount their examination of a includes assistance in election campaigns. The residents developments. This is unfair and particularly onerous to these residents. The period for public input should be extended and the planning commission meeting of June 16, 1993, continued in order to give the residents a fair chance to evaluate this development. this development in this letter because several lines of inquiry are not completed. Please consider this correspondence as our initial opposition which will be supplemented. I have & stated all the arguments in opposition to However, based upon the foregoing it is respectfully requested that the proposed negative declaration be denied and that a full E.I.R. be required with regard to the proposed development. Sincerely, TWS/bw C.C. P.O.E. 1 THOMAS WILLIAM SMITH 6. .*' Full Scale Hatchery Proposed Rendering of proposed halchery. Since 1978, when 800 half-pound striped bass were first released into Mission Bay, H-SWRI has been seeking solutions to the difficult the loss of healthy imarine habitats. problems caused by overfishing and With studies on the depleted white seabass (Afracfoscion nobilk) fishery beginning in 1982, the Ocean Resources Enhancement and Hatch- ery Program (OREHP) sought to develop a reliable and cost-efficient captivity and releasing them into the system for mass producing fish in wild. October when Don Kent, Senior Vice A milestone was passed last President of H-SWRI, and Dick Ford of San Diego State University reported OREHP's progress to the California has coordinated and funded the Department of Fish and Game, which program since 1984. The progress of the OREHP when Kent and Ford proposed the program to date has been such that development of an expanded pro- duction scale hatchery for review by the California Coastal Commission, it was wholeheartedly endorsed by the program's independent advisory panel. For the OREHP program to be expanded, the Advisory Panel first recommended to the Department of Fish and Game that the authorizing additional ten years. Assemblywoman legislation should be extended for an v) 0) m """ n 0 1993 1995 1997 19992001200320052007200920112013 YEAR Esfimafed confdbufion lo lhe sfanding sfock of while seabass and yield lo fhe fishery resulting from fha release of 350,000 juveniles each year for 20 years. Assambiymembers Dede Aipert and Mike Gofch assisf af a release of 10.000 while seabass fingerlings info Mission Bay December IO, 1991, as par1 of lhe OREHP project. Dede Alpert (75th District) has taken the lead in reauthorizing the legislation. occur with the construction of a The expansion of the program will production-scale hatchery. Most likely it will be located adjacent to the ocean; perhaps on a power plant site where a clean sea water supply would be readily available. The hatchery design is based on intensive culture methods that would require approximately 2 acres of land. hatchery would be transported to pen Juvenile fish produced in this rearing systems located within various The small (1-1.5 inch) fish would be southern California bays and harbors. held in pens for seven months during which time they would grow to a size of ten inches, and subsequently released into bays. This expanded program could produce in excess of 500,000 releas- able white seabass a year. Using conservative estimates of survival, this scale of production is expected to result in an annual yield of 200 metric tons of legal-size white seabass. In addition to this program, hatchery researchers will experiment with the rearing of other native species such as yellowtail. California halibut, black seabass and- - 1200 ELM AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 Office of the City Clerk DATE : 7///L p3 (619) 434.2808 TELEPHONE THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. According to the Municipal Code, appeals must be heard by the City Council within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: The item will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off by - all parties.) Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call. The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council Meeting of Signature Date .. .- CITY OF CARLSBAD 1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 438-5621 ACCOUNT NO. I DESCRIPTION I AMOUNT . , ', REQUEST FOR REFUND CITY OF CARLSBAD Account No. @l-~lO-OO~O-% I3 Amount of Refund Date Fee Paid: Facts Supporting Request: Street City , ', State Zip Telephone I I I Approve C1 Disapprove City Manager Signature ~~ - Date THOMAS WILLIAM SMITH Attorney at Law 400 S. Melrose Dr., Ste, 102 Vista, Ca. 92083 (619) 941-8343 July 20, 1993 Carlsbad City Council Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Re: Hubbs Fish Hatchery, C.U.P. 92-10/HDP 93-05 Attention: Jeff Gibson Dear Members of the Council: Members of P.O.E. have completed another line of inquiry in the above referenced matter. Don Kent of Hubbs, the Applicant herein, in his letter to Mr. Gibson dated June 11, 1993, relies upon a 1985 Ileconomic evaluation" conducted by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography to support his argument. Scripps if, of course, was skeptical of this representation. It appears that just unknown as a center for economic research. Therefore, P.O.E. as Mr. Kent's opinions regarding the project's favorable impact upon depleted fishing stocks and world hunger were groundless so too is his economic opinion with regard to the local economy. The "economic evaluationv1 Kent refers to is little more than a compilation of minor public relations material prepared by E.L. Venrick in 1985. Scripps did not do an opinion is based upon a mere survey of the readership of a "economic evaluation", nor did Venrick. Essentially her "popular sport fishing publication." This also is not an any governmental decision. The technical term for such "economic evaluation" and should not be used as a basis for phenomena as this is "blow back." Blow back is information that is created for public relations or propaganda purposes which is then negligently or intentionally proposed as truth for purposes of policy evaluation. A copy of a portion of Venrick's so-called "economic evaluation" and Kent*s letter are attached for your convenience. I informed Mr. Gibson of the problem on July 20, 1993 by telephone. His previous position on representations by an Applicant seems to be unchanged. Unless the Applicant changes its representations they are presumed to be true and Carlsbad City Council July 20, 1993 Page two will not be checked. In fact, in this case they will be promoted by the Department as true. This unwritten policy is absurd and not in the best interest of the city. Sincerely, THOMAS WILLIAM SMITH Encl . TWS/bw C.C. Smith & Peltzer Dayna Fried, Union Tribune P.O.E. June 11, 1993 Planning Department City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009 ATTN: Mr. Jeff Gibson Mr. Gibson: I am the senior scientific investigator responsible for the performance of our Institute's fisheries enhancement project. As such I was notified that during the public review of the materials submitted in support of our Conditional Use Permit application to the City of Carlsbad, some questions were raised as to the "credibility" of the proposed hatchery project. I would hke to address those concerns in this correspondence. First, the need for this research program was first recognized because of the marked decrease in yield from many of our southern Califomia marine fisheries. of these fisheries resources depends on the point of reference, but a evaluation of sporttishing revenues conducted by the Scripps Institution o estimated that sportfishing alone contributes from $250 to $430 million a year to our San Diego county economy. An expanded geographical estimate predicts that sporttishing contributes over $2 billion annually to our California economy. This excludes the commercial value of these fisheries resources. Along with this strategic economic importance is the real need to stabilize our country's and thc world's food supply. Current estimates predict that the world's oceanic ,,$( fisheries are alrraay"being harvested past a sustainable level, and the current level is only being main- because of the exploitation of new species. At this time less than a quarter of the world's ovd fisheries need is met through aquaculture. Comparing growth of world populations to the predicted level of ocean harvest, it is apparent that we will need to more than quadruple our global production of seafood through aquaculture. On a ~tional level demand is now so high and supplies so hted that seafood imports are second only to oil as a contribution to our ~tional trade deficit. This narrative is provided to put the overall potential for this hatchery research program into perspective. As a non-profit research foundation, our Institute is free to look beyond the immediate economic impact of this program toward addressing these longer-term A recent repon put out under the auspices of the National Coalition for Marine Conservation (NCMC) entitled "An Economic Assessment ofMarine Recreational Fishing in Southern California" (Weme, Hanemann and Sumd, 1985) gives 3 detailed evaluation of(x.tm slwnfshing during 1983 for the California coastline south ofpoint Conception. With !he ~Id-~~unp~~bl$t& .& from a yw~~~fiwf!p~p~ pyided by C. ymson and D. Huppt at the Southwest Fisheries Center of NMFS (National Marine Fahenes Sen~e, unpub. doc.), it was pusible to calculate the ratio ofrrips in 5x1 Oiego Coung. to the twl number of trips in the five nxuine counties south of Point Conception (Table 1). This information was then +wd IO scale down the numbers in the NCMC report to reflect the sponfishing industry in San Diego. On the average, 22% ofthe fishingactivity in Southern California occurs in San Diego County. In the following discussion. unless aherwise indicated, the values presented h3ve been derived from values given in the NCMC report, scaled down by a facror of 0.22 to represent San Diego County TABLE 1 Intensity of marine recreational fishing in 1963; a comparision between the number of trips in San Diego County and the number of trips in southern California, south of PI. Conception. - THOUSANDS OF TRIPS (Fishing Platform Type) Private Party and Charter Locality Vessels Vessels and Bank Beach Man-made Structures So. California 1,932 1.257 792 1,156 San Diego Co. 444 314 206 162 # trips San Diego #trips So. California 0.23 0.25 0.26 0.14 Mean proportion = 0.22 accuracy of the scaling factor as well ai the accuracy of the NCMC repon. Ekcause the lamer is based The dues presented are only rough aeproxi_m=. Their validity is .. dependent ~- . . ~~ ~ upose aWX@oftKZ<$n depends upon the degree to which the composition ofthe readership reflects upon an extensive-suww~of the readership of a popular s~~s~i~g"p;sIitatio~~c~ the tnle composition ofthe sportfishing communiiy. ~y". ." .- . .. . The number of marine anglers who fished in Southern California waters in I983 was estimated to be 1,491,ooO. Applying the scaling factor of0.22 and rounding, it appears that approximately 328,000 anglers fished in San Diego County These 328,000 anglers made over one million fishing rrips and caught over five million fish. About 25% of these anglers were out-of-state residenrs bringing new dollars into the county. fishing to the fishermen and the economic impact of fshing on the local economy. The first The economic value of marine sporrfishing can be evaluated &om two perspectives: the value of chase of tackle, bait, beer and sun tan lotion. For 1983, such expenses by fishermen in San Diego includes the expenses incurred during the fishing rrip such as travel expenses, license fees, pur- County is estimated at 1148 million. Decre Carlsbad SUN :ed A Legal Newsuauer bv the Suuerio *. r Court of San Diego County Mail all correspondence regarding public notice advertising to W.C.C.N. Inc. 2841 Loker Ave. East, Carlsbad, CA 92008 (619) 431-4850 Proof of Publication STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ss. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. I cmily under penalty of pcrjury that thc foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Carlshnd, County of San Diego, State of California on -2he 29th day of ~~ ~~ July, 1993 " ~ ._ Clerk of the Printer - - APPEAL CUP 92-10/HDP 93-5 - HUBBS SEA WORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO p.m., on Tuesday, August 10, 1993, to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission approval of a Conditional Negative Declaration, a Conditional Use Permit, and a Hillside Development Permit to develop a marine fish hatchery/research facility on property generally located south of Garfield Street, north of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and west of the AT&SF railroad tracks, described as: in the R-A-10 Zone, in Local Facilities Management Zone 1, and more particularly That portion of Rancho Agua Hedionda in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to partition Map thereof No. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on November 16, 1896. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department at 438-1161, ext. 4455. If you challenge the Conditional Negative Declaration, the Conditional Use Permit, and/or the Hillside Development Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues raised by you or someone else at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk’s Office at, or prior to, the public hearing. APPELLANT: Thomas Smith PUBLISH: July 29, 1993 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL 4 (Form A) TO: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST Attached are the materials necessary for you to notice APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF THE HUBBS SEA WORLD RESEARCH INSTITUTE PROJECT - CUP 92-1O/HDP 93-05 for a public hearing before the City Council. B Please notice the item for the Council meeting of PA3 / Thank you. Attachments ncn a, (x0 - rS3 9E -. - u io or 2"5 ID3 war -5 u 0 No, 07 om 53* V c L SJ 0 3 Iu Lo a, 3 cn 0 Y a ID -. 7 Nfl C 0*fl N31 x. Wt-L QO T! 3 m 0 3 w in i i Y - 9 - n n 3) 0) - '5 a n w 3 w WJil 7 -7 -Y in0 IT-r- w -. 0 a< i m D7 nm <o wm L N3 OV ON 3) nwo ar LnLo 7 NT in 03 0"w w -. ?< 7 n3 mw Iu > -. <- u3mY N - 2. -XI 3 .- 213 3 ai 0 -. so -i m n 03 07 coo v) cLrr m * 0 w I w 0 5 3 3 w in Bernard MP- toinette #dish Santa Ana Ca 92705 SO781 rque.r.r-iar1 !)r Thoaas K :.lotey 1831 Oeerhi'll Tr Topanga, Ca 30290 . He1 & Mccor~t~aiughay Car'lshad, Ca 12008 143 Sequoia Av Alan P OgJen CarI.:hai-I Ca 92008 163 Sequoia Ave Sunset. Go1 den 11315 Rancho Bernardo Rd #133 San Diego Ca 92127 Sunset Go1 den 11315 Rancho Bernardo Rd San Diego Ca 92127 #133 Jeannette 8 Ike 3955 Garfield St Car-lsbad Ca 92008 Michael L Pappas Carlsbad Ca 92008 111 Sequoia Ave #E W Richard IJlmer Carlsbad Ca 92008 111 Seqlroia Ave #E World Sav P 0 Box 2314 San Leandro, Ca 94577 Pine Partners Sea C/O Michael Straub P 0 80x 1306 Carlsbad ra 92018 Lorraine Young Carlsbad Ca 92008 3978 Garfield St Thoaas 8 Notey 1831 Deerhill 1; Topanga, Ca 90290 ,lefferso~~ CKEveIyn tieard 1306 Basswood Ave rarlsbad Ca 92008 Jeannette 8 Ike 395s Garfield St. Carlshad Ca 92008 Sunset Go1 den 11315 Rancho Bernardo Rd San Diego Ca 92127 Irene P 8 Duro (none Of Record) Warren F&Alice Frinchahoy 3981 Garfield St Carlsbad Ca 92008 Blackburn David W Tmst 04 Corona Del Mar Ca 92625 468 Seaward Rd Frank tI Iii&Linda P Weaver 111 Sequoia Ave #D Carlshad Ca 92008 Frank EgKathryn A Talke P 0 Box 9514 t! Rancho Santa Fe Ca 92067 $1 1 M L. Green Carlshad, Ca 32001.1 290 Chinquapin I Vincerit Fanily TrIrst 06-10 4494 N Pershing Ave San Rernardino Ca 3240'7 . Gemini Tmst. 1520 King St. ';anta Cruz ra 95060 2513 Cove St Jack N&Dorothy D Trs liall Corona Del Mar Ca 32625 Sunset Go1 den 11315 Rancho Bernard0 Rd #133 San Diego Ca 92127 Irene P R Duro (none Of Record) tlomerXNina D Eaton 1106 2Nd St #225 Er~cinitas Ca 92024 Edward K Nance 1408 E Vista Del Mar Dr FI11 lerton Ca 92631 iiarley R JrgJoyce A T Noel P 0 Box 802195 Santa Clarita Ca 91380 Norman&Ersilia Engebrits ? 0 Box 651 Carlsbad Ca 92018 Jeanne L Green 290 ChinqlAapin Ave #B Carlshad Ca 32008 . Any M Snyder 0ceanc;icie Ca 92056 31332 Sky1 ine 3r - Shin-Kai&Nancy S Chang 11.1. Tamaraclc Ave #101. Cai.1 sbac! Ca 92008 Marshall E&Nanc Montgomery 20025 Newton St Corona Ca 91719 Richard W&Juanita Geierman 2111 Males Dr Cardiff Ca 92007 Donald 88Paula Mccullough 1125 Countrywood In Vista Ca 92083 Robert. C Axt.ell 111 Tamarack Ave #304 Carlshati Ca 92008 0 ai 11 iam BRPledra J Saunder.; 160 Sequoia Ave Carlsbad Ca 9'200% 0 Frank 0KJeanett.e Taylor - 30502 Via La Cresta Rancho Palos Verd Ca 90274 a Mesa Az 0523..3 a 0 Wal 1 y8klel en V A1 bright 111 Tamarack Ave #E106 Carlsbad Ca 92008 a 0 John&Mary C Iiy1 kema I 1711 Rossmont Drive Redlands Ca 92373 Clifford R Jr&Joan Pierce 111 Tamarack Ave #205 Carlsbad Ca 92008 a a Loomis Family Tr~lst 06-26- 516 Peachtree In Arcadia Ca 91006 a a Thomas V&Donna Quackenbush 1817 Mt Shasta Drive 5an Pedro Ca 90732 .....I *Ut.***...* Prepact for: Reqliesteri by: Rep: .**..*t****.t*.*t* James T tiarcis 144 Sequoia Ave ft2 Carlsbad Ca 92008 Paul M8Doreen Ryan Carlsbad Ca 92008 152 Sequoia Ave . Larry V8Gaylor Tinnerstet 3941 Garfield St Carlsbad Ca 92008 q Robert SgBertha Gillingham 2628 Wilson St Carlsbad Ca 92008 I Bernard8Jane Mazelsky 1022 Dancove Drive West Covina Ca 91791 Dwight A8Marian J Wymore 111 Tamarack Ave #lo7 Carlsbad Ca 92008 Harry M8Marietta A Mays 6571 Monte Vista San Bernardino Ca 92404 Robert8Agnes L Wal ton Carlsbad Ca 92008 111 Tamarack Ave #206 Gaskins Family 1989 Trust 548 N 13Th Ave #304 IJpland Ca 91786 Richa, d 1'R:'atricia D Simln 1019 Longwood Ave \.os Angeles Ca 90019 . Wade A1 exander 296 Chinquapin Ave #B Carlsbad Ca 92008 A Edwin&Susan Carrigan La Mesa Ca 91941 4364 Canterbury Dr .James ERI ii Vine 280 Chinqlrapin Ave #A Car Isbaci Ca 92008 Philip C & Flory 187 Chinquapin Av Carl sbad, Ca 92008 Sunset Go1 den 11315 Rancho Bernard0 Rd San Diego Ca 92127 #133 Karl F&Virginia tloffbauer Tal lbrook Ca 92028 3432 Casablanca Way Joseph C&Barbara J Donegan Carlsbad Ca 92009 7712 Romeria St Florence F Millilcen 4062 Garfield St Carlshad Ca 92008 Jacqoel ine K Crossnan 292 Ckinquapin Ave #R Carlsbad Ca 12008 hne Go1 lahon 26111 Brookdalz Lane Dilart~e Ca 91010 Karl L Radke 296 Chinquapin Ave #A Carlsbad Ca 92008 Carol A 1.a~ 282 Chinqlrapin Ave #A Car'l sbad Ca 42008 Wil 1 iaa8Jllrly S Mongai 17400 Rrookhurst. St #200 Foi~rntair Valley Ca 92708 Rohert t Coppo'la Carlshad, Ca 92008 197 Chinquapin Av Car Jos 135 Car KentgCindy Forgeon 185 Chinquapin Ave lsbad Ca 92008 ah C Iii8Jan Mccracken Chinquapin Ave sbad Ca 92008 I iet-te C Sharp 838 Oakwood St Glendora Ca 91740 Kutlesa Living Trust 11-06 Carlsbad Ca 92008 4024 Garfield St. #8 Rilly J Burke Fallhrook Ca 92028 1791 Premier St Karia li Trevino 26230 Western Ave l.or?i ta Ca 907i7 John H Snyder Pasadena Ca 91104 1245 N Catalina Ave JayKGloria Rothenberg 10153 Crebs Ave Northridge Ca 91324 Jaaes L Iienke 280 Pt Chinquapin Av Carlsbad, Ca Karl Hartmann 1939 Avenida Plaza Real Oceanside Ca 92056 Robert A Harger 1230 6Th Ave Manhattan Beach Ca 90266 Cruce C Taber Carlsbad Ca 92008 145 Chinquapin Ave James A8Pamela J Gal lade 4016 Garfield St Carlshad Ca 92008 Mary Trs Raleigh 9816 Ronnie Vista Dr La Mesa Ca 91941 flilly J Burke Fall brook Ca 92028 1791 Premier St Percy DRL~.Icille A Cloud 5201 Shore Dr Carlsbad Cd 92008 Marshal 1 liblCora A Lyls Carlsbad Ca 92013~ 385 Chinqliapin Ave Percy Dgiucille A Cloud 5201 Shore Dr Carlshad Ca 92008 Francis XBMarga Mc Cormack 975 Singing Wood Dr Arcadia Ca 91006 JohnBDeborah Steinbach 4028 Garfield St Carlsbad Ca 92008 Alan D Sakal 4042 Garfield St Carlsbad Ca 92008 . Alan CBJanet M Fani Newman P 0 Rox 749 I..a Oliinta Ca 92253 Thomas GBGonzal ez Gonzal ez 19437 Windrose Dr J Rowlands tleights Ca 91748 9 William Dickinson 4072 Garfield St > Carlsbad, Ca 92008 x) j Irvine C;, 92720 Kay Ota 4 Belleza St Vine Corp 280 Chinquapin Ave #A Carlsbarl Ca 92008 Ja7es .Lii Vine 280 Chinquapin Ave #A Carlsbarl Ca 92008 - Percy D8Luci'lle A Cloud 5201 Shore Dr Carlshad Ca 92008 Robert W Fitzpatrick P 3 Gox 932 San Jlran Capistt-a Ca 9269'% F1 isabeth Gerum 13342 Del Monte Dr #SF Seal Reach Ca 90740 Gracia L Riley Carlsbad, Ca 92008 4032 Garfield St Warren A Trust Christensen Carlsbad Ca 92008 4026 Garfield St V RBMounean J Dixon 4040 Garfield St P 0 Box 1576 Carlshad Ca 92008 William BBDaurine A Irvin Beverly Hills Ca 90210 1212 Beverly View Drive Richard KBNancy S Roberts 3432 Bravata St tiuntington Beach Ca 92649 ese George H&Elizabeth J Me 4078 Garfield St Carlsbad Ca 92008 Osterkamp Family Trust 09- Fallbrook Ca 92028 315 Stewart Canyon Rd Mary L Davis 236 Olive Ave Carl shad Ca 92008 Per-cy D&Lllci 1. A C1 olld 5201 Shore Dr Carlsbai: Ca 92008 Robert lii Fitzpatrick P 0 Box 732 ';an .Juan Capistra Ca 92693 Robert P&Myrna Y Klose 2906 Sari Juan Dr Fullerton Ca 92635 1.1 ewe1 1 a Davies 4044 Garfield St Carlsbad Ca 92008 Oscar B Ortiz 2331 Desert Gardens Dr El Centro Ca 92243 Will ian H8Phy1 is Raw1 ings Carlsbad Ca 92008 4052 Garfield St Steven tl Saar 4046 Garfield St Carlsbad Ca 92008 George H Meese P 0 Box 975 Carlsbad Ca 92018 Margery A Nelson 220 01 ive Ave C.arlsba;l Ca 92008 Sara C Morales 305 Date Ave Carlsball Ca 92008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THOHAS WILLIAM SMITH Attorney at Law 400 S. Melrose Dr., Ste. 102 Vista, Ca. 92083 (619) 941-8343 July 30, 1993 Carlsbad City Council 1200 Carlsbad Village Dr. Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 Re: Hubbs Fish Hatchery, C.U.P. No. 92-10/HDP93-05, Attention: Jeff Gibson Dear Members of the Council: attention that Mr. O'Neil of SDG&E is approaching other members of P.O.E. and attempting to dissuade them from active membership in P.O.E. Essentially he disparages the their view by undergrounding power lines or improve the Agua leadership and lawyers of P.O.E. and then offers to improve middle and eastern sections of the estuary if they will not Hedionda Estuary for boating by further dredging of the oppose, nor file an appeal, or drop the appeal. Several members of P.O.E. have brought it to my promises in writing and executed by a person with real authority in SDG&E but the tactic is, of course, tempting to dispute because these people have a major portion of their a few of our members. Such offers are unfair leverage in this net worth invested in their homes which are located in the area near the proposed fish hatchery project. Needless to say Mr. O'Neil is unwilling to put these Both of these promises have been addressed elsewhere in other forums and are analogous to SDG&E and the city touting this dedication was to come to pass whether the project is the benefit of the trial dedication on the site when in fact omitted from the discussion with the citizens approved or not. But of course this fact is intentionally whose enthusiasm for exercising their constitutional right to petition their government under the U.S. and California Constitution is then chilled. See First Amendment, U.S. Constitution; Article 1, Section 3, California Constitution: communicating with a represented party; and C.E.Q.A. Section and Rule 7-103 California Rule of Professional Conduct i.e. 15064 (h)(l). that any support of Mr. O'Neil's sordid efforts in this regard be withdrawn forthwith. Based upon the foregoing authorities it is requested Carlsbad City Council July 30, 1993 Page two With respect to another issue P.O.E. wishes to supplement the facts previously suppiied to the city with respect to the substantial impact of wastewater discharge into the Agua Hedionda Estuary which will result from the proposed project. As you may know, the Planning Department proposes that P.O.E.'s position is that such an approach is an unlawful this issue be delegated to the E.P.A. permit process. piecemeal approach under C.E.Q.A. and that the issue should be addressed now by way of an E.I.R. Kent conceded after questioning by the Commission that the 350,000 fingerling production figure is a minimu@ and that production of another species, halibut, is planned for the hatchery. This production estimate which has never been specified as minimum or maximum until July 7, 1993, has evolved downward from 1 million to 500,000 to 450,000 to building for the site and the size of the site itself have 350,000. Curiously the square footage of the industrial risen in the opposite direction from a 5,000 square foot building on a four acre site to a 20,000 square foot building on a seven to ten acre site plan. At the Planning Commission meeting on July 7, 1993, Don production figures given by the applicant are uncertain. Hence they can be raised especially if the size of the now proposed larger production facility is considered. It is noted by P.O.E. that the federal standard for a hatchery whereby a E.I.R. (denoted E.I.S. under federal law) is triggered is 100,000 pounds of fish per year. Therefore, under federal law the substantial impact is automatically established at the 100,000 pounds per year production figure. This production figure is based upon the presumption that such a level of production will generate a significant amount of pollution upon the surrounding ecosystem. Focusing on the fish production it is obvious that the The Applicant and Planning Department have avoided the environment that is created in this fish hatchery is for serious consideration of this obvious conclusion. Moreover, the benefit of one or a limited number of species. Therefore, it will be subject to parasitic and algae predation and food decay which can only be discouraged or treated with toxic chemicals. The Applicant proposes to dump this pollution into the Estuary. Ultimately the use of coastal habitat by fish hatcheries may impinge on native species habitat and cause reductions in the populations of other native organisms. Therefore, the origins of the Carlsbad City Council Page three July 30, 1993 federal standard should be seriously studied in this instance and applied to the Applicant's proposal. The Applicant could with only a nominal increase in production thereby avoiding bring production up to or exceed the federal minimum standard environmental review at the proper time under C.E.Q.A. only to have the question addressed later after the site is developed in piecemeal fashion which is prohibited under C.E.Q.A. Respectfully submitted, Attorney for P.O.E. c.c Brian Bonas, President P.O.E. Paul O'Neil, SDG&E Lou Farkas Kay Christensen Bud Meese Ruth Besecker Doug Avis Smith & Peltzer 5- .. - _"""""""""""" "~""""""""""" _""""""""""" - " - Source : The San Diego Union-Tribune Author: Staff Writer ED ZIERALSKI Index Terms: FISHING Text: never had a day like he did on Saturday. Bruce Holbrook has been tishlng Mission Bay tor 30 years, but he that pulled him around his boat so much he thought it was a shark. Just atter catching a legal-size hallhut, Holbrook hooked Into a tish It turned out to be a legal-size white seabass, a 30-inch tish that weighed 10 pounds. Holbrook sald he caught the tish near the Hyatt Islandia Hotel. said Holbrook, an appliance repalrman from San Carlos. "But I'll bet "We used to catch baby white seabass and we called them sea trout," I haven't caught a white seabass of any size in the last 15 years." Holbrook froze the tish, and ha sald he will take It to Hubbs-%a World Research Institute. but 1s hoplns tor more. \ \ Saturday was the day tor whlte seabass. The husband-and-wite team ut Gordon and Letty McCulley of Santee slmultaneously caught two whit2 g- 2 -73 Lorna Sporttlshlna. Gordon's went 41-8, LettY's 13-4. Bcth fish seabass while on the morning run on the Daily Double out ot' Point lbs, according to Dally Double captaln Fred 'p s e L 1 J ROLLIN F. b-UNI ~~dLxxxxwY~xx~x& ATTORNEY AT LAW “X XWFXWk 301 Olive , Carlsbad, Ca. Case File: CUP 92-l0/tTDP 93-05 Case Name: IlUBD IfORLI) 1t.ESEARCH INSTITUTIC I am unahle to atl.rrhd l.11r public hearing on June 16, 1993 regarding the request for approval to develop a marine fish hatchery facility on the Agua Hedionda TIa.goon. I wish to have my objection to this project become part of court at some future time if that should become necersary. the minutes of your meeting so that they may be used in My Objection to this project is that it would effect, if not destroy, the wildlife presently in the lagoon., As a native of California for the last 82 years, 1 have seen wiped out all the wildlife ha.hitats in southern California., the gradual encroa.chrnent of building that has virtually I would like to know if you have had cin enviromental impact If so, I wo~~ld like a copy of same. report on this project or! clearance by the Coastal Commission., Thank you, Rollin F. Duni June 8, 1993 PRESIDENT, CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL 1200 ELM STREET CARLSBAD, CA. 92009-1576 Dear Sir, I am writing this letter as a concerned citizen that will be unable to attend the June 16th meeting regarding the San Diego Gas & Electric Partnership with the Hubbs Seaworld research Institute on the Aqua Hedionda Estuary. This meeting is regarding the building of an industrial building for a fish hatchery. Please include the remarks in this lett.er i.? the minute= of thc xeating Ecr the record. Please send me a copy of the environmental report concerning this project. I would also like someone to explain how this benefits the taxpayers, when you are taking the property off the tax roll and leasing the property for a token $1.00 per year. Additionally, I was under the impression through the new building codes that you are trying to hold back on construction along the coast line. You are limiting construction on private homes and condominium projects see another industrial building in the estuary in addition to the - shouldn't that include industrial projects?? I would hate to Ugly eyesore already there. I thought the goal in California was to save the coastline, not destroy it by putting up more industrial projects. We currently have a natural habitat for rare birds that would be destroyed by a construction such as this. I had hoped that the City Council would learn from the unanimous protest on ban the bars. It certainly doesn't appear that the residents of Carlsbad are being adequately represented by the City Council. A concerned citizen of Carlsbad. Larry D. Stern, Vice President Olive Point Homeowners Association 331 Olive Street Unit 201 Carlsbad, California cc: Mayor of Carlsbad City Manager of Carlsbad June 21, 1993 TO: The City Council Carlsbad, Ca. City of Carlsbad WE strongly object to the placement of the proposed view of the ocean, increase noise levels, pollute the fish hatchery in front of our home. It will spoil the values. air, increase traffic and destroy our suffering property PLEASE TURN THIS PLAN DOWN Willis G. Boyd Jr. ' Diann R. Boyd Carlsbad, Ca.92008 331 Olive Ave. #202 -~ .. ~- - - 574V Of C-ALIFORNIA"THE RE90URC19 AOWCY -<,.e - FRC WIl5oN, Gowr~,~ __. I RTMENT OF FISH 'AND GAME .. ne Resources Division Golden Shoro, Suite 50 Long Beaoh, CA 90802 (310) 590-5102 I! ,I h i! ,. August 5, 1993 Mr. Jeff aibmon Carlsbad Planning Department 2075 Lae Blamae Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009 Doar Mr. Gibson: The California Dopartment of Fish and Qams'im remponaible for adminietrativo and ecientific .oversight on the Ocean Reaouroem working with the Hubbs-Sea World Reeearch Institute on the Enhanaoment and Hatahsry Program (QREHPJ. The Department ie development of a marino fish hatchery that we propoee to locate on Lagoon. I wae infomad that the need for this new facility to, 6an Diego Qas and Electric property adjhcont to Aqua Hedionda potential impacts on larval and juvenile fieh populations that ogorate a mea water intake ayatoi ha# raised the question of might be entrained and impinged by the intake,system. The Department .ha5 the manda'ted authority by the state to evaluate and manage the coastal fisheries resources and to intorauk with other agencies to assess environmental impacts caused by proposed coastal development. Am tho coordinator for OREHP, I have responsibility for providing direction and oversight for tha program. Part of my dutiea inaluda faailitating thd aonatruction of the new hatchery at Aqua Hedionda Lagoon. Since the eubject Of and have aomo to the following conclusion. entrainment and i,mpingement ham arisen, 1 have examined the iseue In formulating my opinion, I reviewed the information provided in fh,m reBort, ' ENCINA POWER PLANT, Cooling Water Zntakc 6ystem Demonotration (In Aeaordance With Section 31b(b), Federal Water Pollution Control Act llmen&ent 1973). This report (December 1980), oummarizes obs~rvations made on €loral and faunal planktonic, juvanile and adult populations within and around Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The study was conducted in 1979 and rapremanta a at that time am well as the impact caused by Encina Bower Plant comprehoneive aesesament of the respective standing cropa (stocks) outsrations relative to other aources of mortality on those crops 1 I 1 C'eg. natural, recreational and commercial fishing) , Tho report'e emunary (Ch. 10, P. 23) discusaion aonaluclea that: "overall, the impacts of entrainment and impingement wero found to be small and ". tho pOpUlatiOnE ahould not diminish due to powar plant OparatiOns"~ L p,s~gI~u~~O 70 bi(*rcl~ Palo& 1-0 y/te/q3 MSLTIN~. Mr. dibeon August 5, 1993 Page 2. In addition to thin conclusion, I considered the followingr 1) ' Tha proposed hatchery will impaat less than 0.1% of the water reportedly affected by power plant operational 2) The relative small intake for the hatchery will even be cliffuned over the intake atructure (velocity - furthar minimiam impacts to juvenile fieh as water will 5.3 ft./min. L 0.06 HPK, and 3) For energy efficienay, the proposed hatahery will only draw in tha minimum amount of water required for minute to minute oparstiona (all eatimsted irnpaate ate baoed on the maximum poanible flaw capablo for the facility). It is my conmidared opinion that the operation of the sea water intake and dimcharge syutem for the propooed hatchery will not have population# found in Aqua Hedionda Lagoon. any nignificant impact on the ntanding crops of floral and faunal If you should have any questions about my evaluation, pleaue feel free to contact me. ..? Sinaerely, OREHP Coordinator Senior Marina Biologist " The Watermark / EDLONDA LAGOON FOUNDATlON VOLUME 1 NUMBER 5 APHLL 1993 fl -- " 2 The Watermark AGUA HEDLONDA LAGOON FOUNDATlON / VOLUME 1 NUMBER 5 APHLL 1993 NOW IS THE TIME ... TO COME TO THE AID OF TllE LAGOON FISH HATCHERY PLANS CHANGED . . . AND CHALLENGED CALPAW '94 DESERVES OUR SUPPORT You' may have first read about it here.. .the proposal for a fish hatchery at Agua Hedionda lagoon to nurture white sea bass and halibut, primarily for commercial and recreational fishing . It sounded like a good idea in January 1992 but somehow it has changed from compatible use to disruptive presence! and E1ectri.c Company Eirst contacted AHLF regarding construction of a When representatives o€ Hubbs/Sea World and- the San Diego Gas worthy of consideration. The initial concept called for a two-story fish hatchery on the north side of the outer lagoon, the idea seemed building below the railroad track and everyone agreed that the facility should not intrude on the lagoon enviro9ment in any way. AHLF directors were assured participation in the early plannlng process. Imagine our surprise when more than a year later, in May 1993., we accidentally ,learned that a plan had already been com;>leted and now a one-story metal building directly beneath the reside-tial area approved by the city planning staff. What's more, the structure overlooking the north side 'of the lagoon ... and was 20,000 sq. ft., half the size of a football field. O'Neal (SDC&F:), and Doug Avis (Benchmark PaciEic) to discuss the AHLF directors then met with Don Kent (Hubbs/Sea World), Paul hatchery design. As a result, the roof was redesigned and lowered, but the idea of rotating the entire structure, with its back to the rail road tracks instead of local residences, was totally rejected. AHLF Past-president Randi Fjaeran protested this plan at the July 6 Planning Commission. She told commissioners that while AHLF supported the principle of a fish hatchery on the lagoon, it objected to the size, location and appearance of the building as shown in this plan. However, the plan was approved, as proposed, imposing restrictions on noise and requiring the removal of the building by SDG&E if tlubbs/Sea World should vacate it €or any reason. This decision was appealed on July 16 and the project will come before the City Council soon. AHLF will be there to repeat its objections. AHLF MEMBERS ARE URGED TO ATTEND THIS MEETING. YOU WILL BE CALLED WHEN A DATE HAS BEEN SET ... LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!!! FA# MESSASE From: The Christensens 4026 Garffeld St. Carlsbad, CA 92008 Phone:16191729-4617 Fax: [6 I91 729-36 IO From : BUD MEESE - PHONE No. : 619 434 8073 - Flus. 10 1993 5:llPM P01 bats: 08 / In / 93 page: 1 (11 1 To: CARLSBAD Crm COmCfL Yronr Bud keeee la00 Carlsbad Village Dr. 4078 CarfioLd St. Carlobad, CA 92008 Carlobad. CA 92008 Pax #: (619) 790 9463. Tel #: (619) 414 blOR Fax #I (619) 134 8073 Re: Lottsr from T- Smith. Attorney at Law Dated Julv 30, 1993 the "C.C." Statement indiaatee X have rouoivod a aupy of uhich 1 have not. Paragraph one utatou khat UT. O'Noil of BW&E io apprdauhing other membero of P.O.'E. and attempting t.0 dioouade them from aotive namberohip in P.O.E." with an offer to undarground the power lines in our noighborhood if we don't oppooo or appoal tho Hubbo Fioh Hatohery projoat. Firut of all I am not a member of P.O.E. nor have X over been. (Thie newly formed group just alootad there ofkicara on July 24, 1993. ) I truva Lal.ku13 Lu Mr. O'Neil along with three other property owners on Oarfield Bt. but this wan the renultn of li letter sent to Mr O'Nsil on May 24, 1993 by Mr. L. Parkas u prclperty owner at the end of earfield at. regarding the p~~~lbillt~ of urrderyrounUiny the wires in this mreo. I don't know where Mr. Smith racsived his informution but I can anmure you my deciaion not to oppose the Uatchery has not come about by any disnuafsion by Hr. O'Neil Ilinori-*ly, August 10, 1993 Mayor Bud E. Lewis and Council Members City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: The proposed Fish Hatchery Ladies and Gentlemen: In 'the best interests of the citizens of Carlsbad, I urge you to request an environmental impact report prior to the approval of the Fish Hatchery being proposed by the San Diego Gas and hardy to approve such a project that will have such an impact on Electric Company and Hubbs Sea World. I believe it to be fool the City of Carlsbad for the following reasons: 1 . DEAD FISH SMELL! 2. FISH HATCHERIES ARE NOISY! 3. THE PLANS ARE NOT ATTRACTIVE AND COULD LEAD T0.A "BAN THE BARS" REVOLT BY THE CITIZENS OF CARLSBAD. 4. PROPERTY VALUES WILL BE AFFECTED ADVERSELY WITH THE CURRENT THROUGH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. PLAN, WHICH WAS HASTILY "PUT TOGETHER" AND "RAILROADED 'I 5. THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS NOT BEEN SUFFICIENTLY EXAMINED TO DETERMINE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THIS PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT IN REGARDS TO THE WELL BEING AND GENERA1 WELFARE OF CARLSBAD CITIZENS, AND COULD RESULT IN A LAWSUIT, OR LAWSUITS. Thank You for your consideration. sincerely, /-v Carole J! stewart " L RESUME DBA FIRST CAPITAL MORTGAGE SERVICE CAROLE JAYNE STEWART 2725 JEFFERSON STREET SUITGE #14 CARLSBAD. CA 92008 CURRENT: FIRST CAPITAL MORTGAGE SERVICE, ESTABLISHED IN 1989 PACIFIC RIM REALTY, ESTABLISHED IN 1981 LICENSED REAL ESTATE BROKER IN CALIFORNIA, SINCE 1960 (License # 00183726) MEMBER: THE CARLSBAD BOARD OF REALTORS/SANDICOR THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS SAN DIEGO MORTGAGE BROKERS ,ASSOCATION CARLSBAD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RANCHO SANTA FE BUS. & PROF. WOMEN 1983-89 1974-83 1960-74 FEE APPRAISER FOR GEORGE DELL AND ASSOCIATES 8031 LINDA VISTA ROAD, SAN DIEGO, CA 92111. MEMBER : THE SOCIETY OF REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS. ASSIGNMENTS INCLUDED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, 1-4 UNITS, INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, SUBDIVISIONS, VACANT LAND, CONDOMINIUMS, COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, AND GROVES. STUDIED SENIOR HOUSING WITH THE NORTHEAST PROFESSIONAL INSTITUTE FOR CONGREGATE CARE/ ASSISTED LIVING/ETC. REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT AT 531 ELM AVENUE, AND 3001 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD. ROYAL PALMS BEACH AND TENNIS CLUB, (NOW THE CARLSBAD INN) PACIFIC RIM PROJECT (AVIARA). REAL STATE BROKERAGE FIRMS IN MANHATTAN BEACH, HERMOSA BEACH, REDONDO BEACH, AND TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA. FIVE FULL-TIME OFFICES, 175 REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES. ENGAGED IN RESALE ACTIVITIES, BUSINESS OPPORTUNITES, ESCROW. EDUCATION SYNOPSIS: EL CAMINO COLLEGE, UCLA, SREA COURSED 101, 102, 201. CCIM 100, 102 AND REVIEW. UCSD REAL ESTATE CONSTRUCTION AND FINANCE. SREA PROJECT FEASIBILITY, SREA FNMA UNDERWRITING GUIDELINES, & FHLMC STANDARDS. Carl sbad 1200 Carl Carlsbad, Dear Mayo 1 ONDA FOUNDATIOh August 10, 1993 City Counci 1 sbad Village Drive CA 92008 r Lewis and Council Members, When the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation was first contacted by Hubbs/Sea World in January, 1992 and told of the proposed fish hatchery, the foundation endorsed the project. The foundation told Hubbs at that time that the appearance of the building and its impact on the lagoon environment and the neighborhood would be very important. The council in the past has been very responsive to citizen's concerns about the size and impact of a building within a neighborhood. For example, recently the ordinance governing the size and height of residential buildings was changed in currently the city is paying to have the second story removed response to residents' concerns on Highland and Skyline, and from a building on Carlsbad Blvd. due to neighborhood concerns there. The Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation remains concerned with the size of the fish hatchery and its location. We support changes in siting and a redesign that would reduce the mass of the building and better integrate it into this unique Commission was to break the hatchery up into two or three site. Perhaps the best suggestion made at the Planning smaller structures. The Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation also believes that it is important that the following conditions be imposed: 1. That the fish hatchery will not serve as mitigation, 2. That Hubbs/Seaworld will stock both the Agua present or future, for the Encina Power Plant. Hedionda and Batiquitos Lagoon with fish from the hatchery. 3. That SDGBE follow through on its assurance to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation to improve the trails along the north shore of the lagoon and A California Nmpmfit CMpOration Since March 1990 P.O. Box 4281, Carlsbad, CA 92018 provide seating areas and interpretive signs with a pictorial explanation of activities within the hatchery. beneficial and compatible use, that with site sensitive In summary, we feel that the proposed fish hatchery is a design can enhance the western basin of the lagoon. Sincerely, Makio k. Modroy, President Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation MRM: sa