The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2002-10-08; City Council; 16923 part 3 of 6; Draft Program Environmental Impact ReportW > a a a a > R E b. are benefits to the intersections along PAR by making the Faraday Avenue connection, while there is added traffic to the Faraday Avenue intersection locations. In general, is an apparent desire on the part of Carlsbad and adjacent cities to provide improvements which serve to assist the PAR corridor (which the Faraday Avenue connection accomplishes). The PAR corridor is utilized by traffic from various jurisdictions; therefore, improvements to this corridor serve to benefit the immediate, as well as surrounding, areas. Year 2005 Conditions (With the Faradav Connection) With and Without Project A “with” and “without” project comparison was not prepared for this special evaluation condition. For purposes of this study, the “With Faraday Connection” (at Year 2005) is directly linked to the Carlsbad Ouh North project. Within this study, if the proposed project does not exist (Without Project) the “Year 2005 Condition (With the Faraday Connection)” does not exist. YEAR 201 0 CONDITIONS Similar to the Year 2005 anaIyses, SANDAG modeling was performed for the Year 2010 conditions. Input was provided regarding the development activity that is anticipated to occur within this time kame. For Curlsbad Oaks North, buildout of the project is anticipated to have occurred by Year 2010, so SANDAG incorporated these land use assumptions in the Year 2010 traffic modeling. Table 3, which was previously presented in this study, details the land use assumptions that were incorporated in the traffic modeling. In order to undertake the Year 2010 modeling efforts, a roadway network needed to be developed (Figure 14). Similar to the Year 2005 analyses, City Staff (with input from participating consultants) provided road system assumptions to SANDAG, which are expected to be a conservative estimate of the actual roadways that may be constructed by Year 2010 (it is possible added street connections may actually be available). The Year 2010 land use assumptions were then applied to the assumed road system by SANDAG through their modeling Job it12614 WILLDAN Carlsbad Oaks North Projeci - TrafJic Study Ciry of Carisbad 100 Figure 14 illustrates the Year 2010 road network assumed in the SANDAG modeling effort. The Year 2010 intersection volumes, without the proposed project, are illustrated on Figures I5A - 150. The amount of (full) project trafiic at each of the study intersections, based on the SANDAG Select Zone model runs, are shown on Figures 16A - 160. The resulting AM and PM peak hour volumes produced through modeling efforts are shown on Figures 17A - 170. These volumes were then analyzed; first, using the existing intersection lane conditions. This provides .a beneficial “starting point”, where the effects of the added (Year 2010) traffic combined with the added road connections can be evaluated. It can then be determined what additional intersection improvements may be needed for this condition. ‘As discussed earlier, this methodology is beneficial, given the number of projects and road connections that are presently undeveloped. An example of the “benefit” is that an intersection improvement could be shown to be needed for &ar 2005, but not required for Year 2010 due to an added road connection. By starting with the exlstlng intersection analyses for each condition, these occurrences would be highlighted and the agency could make an informed decision about their infiastructure needs. L ‘4.. Tabfe 10 presents the intersection analyses results for the “existing” conditions, and then the “improved” intersection conditions (where necessary) in order to provide acceptable intersection operations, As was done for Ye& 2005, where added road connections, added intersection legs, or creation of the intersection, a basic intersection configuration was assumed utilizing available information. If added intersection lanes were also required (i.e., on the existing intersection legs), these were assumed as intersection improvements. / The intersection analyses results are summarized in Table 10 and show the six intersections that would require improvement (over the existing geornetrics) in order to provide acceptable operations. These intersections require improvements to address the cumulative effects of -. ? WILLDAN Job #12614 Carlsbad Oaks North Project - Trafic Study City of Carkbad 102 ~~ W 1 CANNON RD 9 I.", VISTA WAY i 7 p8 EB RAMF W -I1 2 62,/ll tl g f 28 /. BARCELON *'7 '7 1p7 t 1 1/420 J 70/123 AJ tL 'OINSETTIA LN. EIB. 78 RAMP CARLSBAD VILLAGE DF T W 3 CARLSBAD IVILLAGE DR T P~NSETTIA LN Id 11 I lY53 tl0 /21( f 240/71 ARACK AVE, =I z 12 LEGEND 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ZARLSBAD UAKS ?010(WITHOUT PROJECT) [NTERSECTION VOLUMES -@- Po k 34/65 + 31/41 r, $4 "9. J SUNSET DR dl I: 15 h I PAR^ CENTER DR I: 19 COLLEGE BLVD. 4 W 23 "i- a k 190/49 + 179/25 286/70< POINSETTIA LN. J f4 -, 15 PALOMAR I AIRPORT RI F RADAY AVE - W 24 IWRIDGE DI; I ALGA RD, dl I: 21 PQQ 322 + 834/305 k 803/590 456'684 r, .f4 PALOMAR PIRPORT RD. - Id 25 IMELROSE DR T . CAMINO IDA ROBLE - W 26 LEGEND 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES CARLSBAD OAKS 2010(WITHOUT PROJECT) INTERSECTION VOLUMES - .a, p,. , ,, d&<$ i J COSTA AVl I 78 WE RAMPS T ' SAN ?:COS LL BLVI S~~CAMORE AVE :Iff v1 p1 34 QUdSTHAVEN RD 6 38 I IE 31 T I 74 EB RAMPS 1: 40 LEGEND 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUME. CARLSBAD OAKS 2010<WITHOUT PROJECT) INTERSECTION VOLUMES -@- WA I'RAR'Tf Wf!Wlwf! TATr a m4 No Scale JfL J PALOMAR AIRPORT RD I? 51 -I " _I I: 44 48 PI 52 PALOMAR~AIRPORT RI IC 45 FARADAY 46lf331 + 6 /lo8 I( 856/297 J 184/137 AVE d 'T - h 1 d 49 53 In 46 54 LEGEND 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES IARLSBAD OAKS ?010(WITHOUT PROJECT) [NTERSECTIUN VOLUMES '<-% - . .i ,. &*$( IJ FTKI IRF 15T No Scale CANNON RI ..I .. VISTA WAY ! T Pa EB RAMf CALL^ BARCELO~ .I 4 W 6 C r C AJ SL CARLSBAD CARLSBAD IVILLAGE DI Id 11 dl 4 LEGEND 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES :ARLSBAD OAKS '010 'RUJECT VOLUMES -6)- 5a lz6l4 No Scale PA TTIBNf NtrnINt Nf "-, ," - .- T SUNSET DR PO NSETTIA LN. -I1 W 24 I I IAVIRA-ALGI 't /I 17 21 PALOMAR PIRPORT RD. Id 25 MELROSE DR. 1 CAMINO IDA ROBLE: w 26 LEGEND 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 3ARLSBAD OAKS ?010 >RUJECT VOLUMES J I d8 WB RAMP? PALOMAR I AIRPORT RD, SAN &.(COS BLV: S'rlCAMORE AVf '01 r E Zl 38 I I PALOMAR I AIRPORT RE PALOMAR~AIRPORT RD. VI sl In I w 39 LEGEND 't o/o f o/o + o/o 8 EB RAMP I 36 L% BJ $4 PALOMAR AIRPORT RI VI ?t /I Y a 000 &U lY x o a 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES XRLSBAD OAKS !010 'ROJECT VOLUMES -@- IDI m* flA WAWf BWfM[RIII ill' No Scale PALOMAR I AIRPORT R: 51 P~LOMAR I AIRPORT RI I? 44 52 rr PALOMAR AIRPORT RI . + 77/47.? J 54/414 FARADAY 1 AVE Id I 49 53 I k 0/2 47 J 4IRPORT RD 54 LEGEND 580/540 = AM/’PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ZARLSBAD OAKS =ROJECT VOLUMES 2010 -@ -. .as?., ..,. y;: ,, : q&’ No Scale a FTLI IRF 161 8 WB RAMP: - W 1 CANNON RI: - F~RADAY AVE , dl u 9 I W 2 F I . CALL BARCELON T Jl W 6 CARLSBAD IVILLAGE DI -I1 W 3 I Id 11 LEGEND N I TA ARACK AVE w lI W 4 I CANNON RI PO~NSETTIA L T dl E 12 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES :ARLSBAD 'OAKS ?O~~(INCLUDES PROJECT) INTERSECTION VOLUMES -6)- m 116LI m mww ~~~R~~ MP No Scale "_. ." .- J 209/37 -MAR VIST '4 - 16 15 T il3/365) 51/515-+ J2/608 '\ L w II: I$ 20 360p -c 42 /15/ J 165/156 lADAY AVE PALOMAR. !AIRPORT RD. CAMINO @A ROBLE T LEGE BLVD LEGEND 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES CARLSBAD OAKS 2010(INCLUDES PROJECT) INTERSECTIUN VOLUMES -@ .., '"'Vh , -, ,. .. ,s.-,. 'aiir No Scale ?92/19 j '\ '00/249 + 19/27 I FTGIIRF 171 I L COSTA AVE 1 I 78 WB RAMPS w L 41 1/76 34 QUdSTHAVEN R: a 38 SAN M$,S BLVD. PI " m I b.4 39 I f I z a c1 32 I 7d EB RAMPS PALOMAR IIRYYY LEGEND 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES CARLSBAD OAKS 2010(INCLUDES PROJECT) INTERSECTION VOLUMES -6))- No Scale PALOMAR I AIRPORT RD 51 CE Qcg- 'L 54/19 PALOMAR AIRPORT RI 3 a 48 52 ~ALOMAR{AIRPORT RI: I! 45 + 933/769 f 238/551 FARADAY I AVE 53 LEGEND $G$ 2h \ \-\ -*.- PALOMAR AIRPORT RD. 54 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES XRLSBAD OAKS ?010tINCLUDES PROJECT) iNTERSECTIUN VOLUMES ,( , ., 1 C E E ? 2 N c t m I U ! I . . . . . . . ! w h L t m m m u . 2 e w ij . 2 e - r- pl I existing trfic, growth of the surrounding areas, and the proposed project. It should also be remembered that the Faraday Avenue connection is assumed (in the SANDAG model) to occur in Year 2010; but, as a part of the Carlsbad Ouh North project, the connection is assumed to be in place by Year 2005. Improvements - Year 2010 Conditions The intersection improvements required to provide acceptable operations for these Year 2010 conditions are shown on Figures 3A - 3M, presented earlier in this study. Figures 3A - 3M also identify the parties responsible for the intersection improvements. These improvements serve to address potential impacts related to existing, cumulative, and project related impacts. This evaluation serves to provide information on potential infiastructure needs required by 2010. These Year 2010 improvements show the measures at the six LOS EIF locations (for the particular road system assumptions made). The following section shows the project related impacts for the Year 2010 conditions. The 2010 conditions are consistent with the City traffic fee analyses and th&TIF is applicable to the proposed project, ‘L .* The project related contribution toward the Year 2010 conditions is defined by the “with” and “without” project responsibilities (Table IOA), including the TIF requirements. The proposed Carlsbad Ouh North project is shown to have a significant impact (2.0 second or more delay increase at LOS E or F or a decline in intersection operations from acceptable to unacceptable) at five of the study intersections under these Year 2010 conditions. These five study intersections are: Melrose / Sunset, Melrose / Sycamore, Melrose / Park Center, Melrose / Rancho Santa Fe, and El Fuerte / PAR. As mentioned previously, Figures 3A - 3M identify the parties responsible for the improvements. For the project impacts at the study intersections outside of the City of Carlsbad (Melrose / Sunset, Melrose / Sycamore, and Melrose / Park Center), overriding considerations would be required and, in this case, the City of Vista (and a Vista project) would be responsible for the improvements at these locations. For the remaining intersections in Carlsbad, the improvements necessary at the Melrose / Rancho Santa Fe and El Fuerte / PAR Job #I2614 WLCLDAN Carlsbad Oaks North Project - Trafic Study City of Carlsbad 118 -I- L .i -l ., , .,'.. intersections would be the shared responsibility of several projects, including the Carlsbad Oaks North project. [Please refer to Figures 3A - 3M for improvement responsibilities and for the (illustrated) specific intersection improvements.] It should also be noted that the proposed Carlsbad Oaks North project would be responsible for the improvements (added legs) at the study intersection of El Fuerte / Faraday, since a part of this project is the Faraday Avenue connection (between ECR and Melrose) and also since this study intersection is located in the center of the project site. Year 2010 Conditions With and Without the Project Table IDA presents a comparison of conditions with and without the proposed project, as required. The TRAFFM worksheets contained in Appendix B provide the supporting calculations and also document the traffic volume, lane geometry and other relative data. YEAR 2020 CONDITIONS The Year 20iOCEonditions are representative of “buildout” conditions for the project area street system (which is illustrated in Figure 18) and include development of the planned land uses, as well. The traffic projections were generated by the SANDAG modeling process, whch has also been utilized to obtain traffic volumes for the other conditions. These projections included input fiom the City of Carlsbad and participating consultants regarding land use assumptions and the street network to be included. Figures 19A - 190 show the Year 2020 intersection volumes prior to inclusion ,of the proposed project (without project). The Carlsbad Oaks North related traffic at each of the study intersections (for buildout conditions, project only) are provided in w f WILLDAN Job #I2614 Carlsbad oaks North Project - Trafic Study City of Carlsbod 122 +- o/o k 465/646 f 207/272 WB RAMPS 't f 5 wg 2 g3 2 1 781 EB RAMPS 4 W 2 4 W 3 I w J k 46/59 +- 812/473 f 639/.?6J CANNON RD. CALLEIBARCELONA T W 4 6 W 3 ?Jg I & r, ti !97/54 j tT; &2a "'y 'OINSETTIP 3/JW + 18/166 -3: W 3 LL I k I37/422 -c 285,145 f 171/212 \VE. t @O J o/o + o/o 78 RAMPS t 202270 c 691/577 ( 27/227 VISTA WAY 580/540 =M/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ARLSBAD OAKS 320 (WITHOUT PROJECT) - JTERSECTION VOLUMES @ - <.;!:~\ *+&J .,, ~ No Scale + 17/165 k 324/J7l J 227/106 IWRIDGE Dl k I23/386 + 13/26 J EW266 AMORE AVI &J k S' ?21//22 f 24/22 + & w333 3: v) U CY -1 W x %si% ".T &&& 227 k 266/76 t 1483/1345 AJ $- L f 47/701 PALOMAR AIRPORT RI CAMINO IVIDA ROBL PALOMAR AIRPORT RD, I Id 23 Id 24 Id 25 W JI 26 LEGEND k 278/50 + /79/189 J J64/784 .N. 580/540 =AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES :ARLSBAD OAKS 2020 '(WITHOUT PROJECT) - 'NTERSECTION VOLUMES @ - No Scale AVIARA ALGA l86/672 f 5 J 22/334 + 30/218 3g x u -1 W a I I -c 397/206 k 370/124 f 107184 COSTA AV I 2s =I a VI 33 PALOMARI AIRPORT RD, T PALOMAR AIRPORT RD 1 SAN M RCOS BLVD 1 SHATWRIDGE DR, PALOMAR I AIRPORT RD PI v) Ln I 3 39 LEGEND i f k o/o f o/o + o/o EB RAMPS PALOMAR ]AIRPORT RD. I JI 580/540 =AM,/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES :ARLSBAD OAKS NTERSECTION VOLUMES !020 (WITHOUT PROJECT) - PA LO MAR^ AIRPORT RI E 44 P~L~M~~~~RPORT RI 52 oaa B&h + 1160//56J .12@/.125 2 i L J Ol0 PAP-~AR AIRPORT RD I + 7JJ/J70 I8UJ4G FARADAY 1 AVE I 49 53 PALOMAR IAIRPORT RD rw 50 54 LEGEND 580/540 =AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ZARLSBAD OAKS 2020 (WITHOUT PROJECT) - :NTERSECTION VOLUMES - The resulting AM and PM peak hour volumes produced through modeling Figures 21A - 210. For the Carlsbad Oaks North project, it should be noted that the presently proposed project represents a conservative evaluation, when compared to previous development plans and SANDAG model assumptions previously included for the project site. The reduced project intensity should translate to some reduction in traffic impacts when considering the previous long range traffic needs for the area. For many of the surrounding areas, where there are not specific. projects presently planned, the SANDAG modeling is also likely to include “worst case” type assumptions. Year 2020 Traffic Proiections. ExistinE Geometrics and Imorovements The results of these Year 2020 analyses are provided in Table 11. Consistent with the precedmg analyses, the “improvements” were identified when needed (i.e. LOS E or F operations). Figures 3A - 3M identify improvements at 10 study intersections which are necessary to return the intersection to acceptable operations under Year 2020 conditions. (See also Table 11.) The parties responsible for the intersection improvements are also noted on Figures 3A - 3M. f These Year 2020 analyses include identification of improvements that are planned or identified by various sources, including past traffic studies, present improvement programs, other concurrent studies, etc. This represents the “planned” infi-astructure that is projected to support the future traffic growth, attributable to development of the region, which also includes the proposed project. For intersections within the City of Carlsbad, the Year 2020 improvement needs were found to be consistent with the planned TIF measures. For locations outside of Carlsbad’s jurisdiction, the improvements are viewed to be consistent with the previously identified improvements in previously approved traffic studies. Since the project will be subject to the TIF and the improvement needs are consistent with this program, project impacts are addressed through the TIF at most of,the study intersections in the City of Carlsbad. The improvements needed at a ‘L I WZLDAN Carlsbad Oaks North Project - Traflc St!t~::J-? Job +I12614 C‘? ojCarLwd 128 r, o/o 7% ARACK AVE 't f -& - 4 2 e4 CARLSBAD 7E k. O/l f o/o + o/o 3ARCELONA r' SL CALLE CARLSBAD IVILLAGE DF T o/o t 2/14 f 0/2 '4 f LN. s$ 10 POINSETTIA ILN. 7 LEGEND 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES IARLSBAD OAKS ?020 'ROJECT VOLUMES -@- ma =a* No Scale 'IN TRARW' 1;wr.mlhlll Nf' ~~ ~- " r, o/o 7% VISTA WAY w 't o/o J 16/4 t o/o -MAR VIST PALOMAR 1 AIRPORT RD "-7 1% 1 20 F~RADAY AVE Id 24 AVIARAiALGA Id 25 q\ CAMINO IVIDA ROBLEI w 26 LEGEND 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES :ARLSBAD OAKS 1020 'RCIJECT VOLUMES .. b &p:. i e,. I L COSTA AVI I 78 WB RAMPS 1 2 SL IW W z IP p1 S4 Q;E/STHAVEN RL PALOMAR I AIRPORT RD . SAN M~RCOS BLVD. SHAI~UWRIDGE DR, T I PALUMAR~AIRPORT RD PI v) Ln I b-4 39 LEGEND 74 EB RAMPS T PALOMAR PIRPORT RI a 40 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES IARLSBAD OAKS ?020 ’ROJECT VOLUMES \c 00 S+L 6 PALOMAR AIRPORT RI T PALOMAR~~RPORT RD Sh PALOMAR~AIRPURT 'RI IC 45 + 69/413 f 42/321 FARADAY I AVE I 49 53 LEGEND PALOMAR IAIRPORTRD. 54 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ZARLSBAD OAKS 'ROJECT VOLUMES 2020 -@ ."%. "' ? .:. "" I FIGlJRE 20D No Scale ! 208/8i + 199/69 J 6Tl7 /ILLAGE DI; k o/o J O/O -c o/e :E RAMPS v, + 211/71 53/322 + -. h 46/59 + 81U474 J M/.163 CANNON R1 2 SL W 6 FARADAYlAVE POINSETTIA] LN. I POINSETTIA ~LN. POINSETTIAI LN. I =I W 11 LEGEND 580/540 =AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 'ARLSBAD OAKS 020 4TERSECTION VOLUMES -@- I T m. I,',. No 'Scale ! k J4/5@ t 38/49 J 27/15 SUNSET DL Id 23 QINSETTIA ILN. "I ?7 k 17/8J -c 6/49 f 24/16 -MAR VIS' 't s_ $j s- 9% -2 . 16 . PALOMAR! AIRPORT R 17 dl P 21 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD. Id 25 CAMINO VIDA RUBLE I W -It 26 LEGEND 580/540 =AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ARLSBAD OAKS 020 ITERSECTION VOLUMES 9lN679 9 l2U334 -+ IJO/218 J 3z I: Q V J W I “c 397/206 k 376/126 f 107/84 COSTA AVE I 29 48 WB RAMP! a1 k ll4/186 “c o/o f 811/424 WB RAMPS ’t Q 5 =a “9 &2 “1 37 + 597/SSO ‘t 338/IW f 84/19 4IRPORT RD, SAN &RCOS BLVl 1252/121J 445/189 162/444 SvfCAMORE AVf w la g:$ + 8/40 > 364724 2 ti 829/985 QU STHAVEN RL PALOMAR IAIRPORT RE E .^ ‘SAN “COS BLVD SHA~RIDGE DR YO 192/283 31/65 35 I + PALOMAR AIRPORT RD 110 PALOMAR ~IRPORT RD IJN471 + l32/39 f v) a/o 0 & Q I: 0 C 3, a I I- 39 LEGEND 580/540 =AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES CARLSBAD OAKS 2020 INTERSECTION VOLUMES PALOMAR! AIRPORT RD 77&4 + 455 92 j 76/41 1 51 cc PALUMARIAIRPORT RI I8 J 44 PALOMAR I AIRPORT RL I! p1 48 52 PALOMAR I AIRPORT RI I? 45 + FARADAY AVE 1017/440 + E t- 95/117 3 3L 912 Id 49 53 IW 54 LEGEND 580/540 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES ! r' c I. r. i W N C C c W m few intersections in Carlsbad would be the shared responsibility of several projects, including the Curlsbud Oak North project. For locations outside of Carlsbad’s jurisdiction, overriding considerations would be required. Year 2020 Conditions, With and Without the Project These analyses provide an overview of the relative impacts of the proposed project. Table 12 shows a “before” and “after” view of the proposed project, when assuming there is vacant land (before) or the fully developed “worst case” project (after). These evaluations assist in the environmental evaluations of the proposed project. It is recognized that these evaluations ignore the fact that regardless of this particular project, some anticipated land uses for the proposed site would be planned. The analyses were completed based on SANDAG Select Zone model runs for the proposed project, which were utilized to “subtract” project related traffic from the Year 2020 traffic projections. The intersection analyses were completed for the “without” project conditions and serve to docqnt the project related impacts. For locations where there are unacceptable (LOS ”“‘ E or F) final operations, the project is “allowed” to add an intersection “delay” of two (2.0) seconds, before its impacts are considered significant. I The proposed Curlsbud Ouh North project is shown to have a significant impact (2.0 second or more delay increase at LOS E or F or a decline in intersection operations from acceptable to unacceptable) at nine of the study intersections under these Year 2020 conditions. These nine study intersections are: S.R. 78 WB Ramps / ECR, Melrose / Sunset, Melrose / Sycamore, Melrose / Park Center, Melrose / Alga, Melrose / Rancho Santa Fe, ECR / Aviara - Alga, San Marcos / Grand, and El Fuerte / PAR. As mentioned previously, Figures 3A - 3M identify the parties responsible for the improvements and also illustrate the specific ‘intersection improvements. Job #12614 WILLDAN L a I- T T I C * .- 0 a 0 1 N N N d -4 . -4 3 3 VI N a c) The proposed project would be required to mitigate the project impact at the S.R. 78 WJ3 Ramps / ECR intersection during the Year 2020. (It is noted that this study intersection is located in the City of Oceanside and is within Cultram’ jurisdiction.) For the project impacts at the other study intersections outside of the City of Carlsbad sphere of influence (in Vista: Melrose / Sunset, Melrose / Sycamore, and Melrose / Park Center, and in San Marcos: San Marcos / Grand), overriding considerations would be required and the respective jurisdictions would be responsible for the improvements at these locations. At the study intersection of Melrose / Alga in the City of Carlsbad, TIF mitigations (required of the Carlsbad Oah North project and others) would address the project impact at this location. The improvements necessary at the remaining Carlsbad intersections with project impacts (Melrose / Rancho Santa Fe, ECR / Aviara - Alga, and El Fuerte / PAR) would be the shared responsibility of several projects, including the Carlsbad Oaks North project. [Please refer to Figures 3A - 3M for improvement responsibilities and for the (illusbated) specific intersection improvements.] For locations .o tside of Carlsbad’s jurisdiction, the improvements are viewed to be consistent with long-range planned improvements. There are on-going studies and updates that occur within all jurisdictions, which could modify future planned improvements. The measures identified are viewed to be accurate based on this particular “snapshot” in time. The most conservative evaluation of the proposed project would be if Table I2 were reviewed in conjunction with Table II. This comparison indicates the project impacts at the study locations outside of Carlsbad’s jurisdiction, where long range improvements are anticipated with or without the proposed project. .& .L In general, these analyses serve to show that acceptable intersection operations would be provided for conditions which include development of the proposed project. The project is anticipated to provide its “fair share” of roadway improvements, which contribute to the future road system. It is likely that this will occur through the accelerated construction of Faraday Job #I2614 WILLDAN Carkbad Oaks North Project - TrafJic Study City of Carlsbad 144 6196396120 IJISTR CITY RTTY 816 PW2 SEP 30 '02 10:20 .Avenue and/or though the City traffic fees (which contribute tow& the long range traffic needs), which will be determined by the City of Carlsbad. Analyses - Year 2020 Conditions As described above, for these Year 2020 analyses, there are two sets of results provided (Tables I1 and 12). These data provide some important information which shows that the future road system can support adequate operations, the benefits of presently planned / identified imprOYernents for these iong range analyses, and the relative impact of the proposed project mder "worst case" conditions. Information is provided with respect to these Year 2020 (long range) conditions and the Carisbad Oak North project related impacts are identified. Overall, it is anticipated that for the CurZsbad Oaks North project given, combined with the acceleration of the Faraday Avenue connection, as well as participation in the TIF program, the majority of the project related impacts of the proposed project should be addressed. Intoroventents - Year 2020 Condifions The improvements identified for future Year 2020 conditions at the study intersections are illustrated on Figures 3A - 3M, presented earlier in this study. Figures 3A - 3M also identifies d1e parties responsible for the intersection improvements. These intersections improvements were identified through various sources and serve to provide acceptable operations under long range traffic conditions. It is noted that these improvements are consistent with the planned mitigations included in the TLF program. The improvement needs are also consistent with improvements identified through other past traffic studies and anticipated road improvement measures. It must be remembered that these improvements are not specifically related to the Cardsbad Oaks North project, but instead address the overall cumulative traffic impacts. Jeb #I2614 RG'LJDAN CarLyhod Oaks Nonh Projeci - Trnflc Study Civ of Carlsharl 145 CONCLUSION The analyses presented in this study provide detailed examination and information related to the potential impacts ofthe Carlsbad Oakr Nor:h project, as well as the future improvement needs in order to support the cumulative development of the surrounding region. The Carisbad Oah North project is consistent with the type of development that has been planned for this site for many years. One important aspect of the proposed project is the planned acceleration of the construction schedule for the Faraday Avenue connection between El Camino Real and Melrose Drive. This roadway connection would be provided in conjunction with the Car[sbad Oaks North project, well ahead of the assumed schedule in the SANDAG modeling (which indicates construction by Year 2010). In addition to this roadway improvement, which is of regional significance, the proposed project would be required to participate in the City of Carlsbad Tr&c Improvement Fee (TIF). The TIF serves as a w%-defined procedure for projects to provide “fair share” contributions toward long range roadway infrastructure needs. Job #I2614 WT..LDAN C,irl,+ia Oaks North Project - Trafflc Strrdy Ciiy of Csrlsbad 146 6196396129 UISTR CITY RTTY 816 P83 SEP 38 '82 1Ei:29 ne following table lists the impacted study intersections located within the City of Carlsbad mnd also summarizes the project mitigation required at these locations. CARtSBAD OAKS NORTH STUDY XPITFJXSECTIONS WITHM TEIE CITY OF CARLSBrZD PRO-ECT MXTJGATION SUMMhRY Impacted Mitigation 2020 Exist +Iuterim I 2005 2010 Intersection Project Significant Project Impact I Melrose I PAR (#20) _" Project Contribution _" " Yes El Fuerte / PAR Project Fair Share Yes Yes ." "- Rancho Santa Fe Melrose / W7) Project Contribution Yes Yes Yes "_ p2) [#21) Contriiution .i)F ?3 Melrosc / Alga TKF Contribution Yes "_ "_ - ECR / Avian-Alga [#28) Project Fair Share Yes "_ "_ 2uesthaven Rancho Santa Fc / " _" "_ NO ;#38) 'None v.* "_ Conhibution _____ For identification of the specific intersection improvements (added lanes or lane movemmt changes), please refer to Figures 3A -3M. Figures 3A - 3M were presented earlier in this study and provide illustrations of the specific intersection improvements, in addition to identifying the ' parties responsible for the improvements. There are several intersections outside of the City of Carlsbad which have significant project impacts. A project impact that creates a delay of greater thm 2.0 seconds at intersections with unacceptable LOS E or F operations or wluch occurs when there is a decline in intersection operations &om acceptable to unacceptable levels, is demeaned to be significant a.ccording to u l___l "-. "- lob #I2614 WLLDAN Cdrlshad Oaks North Prnjea - TraBc Stfrdy City of Carlsbnd 147 61963'36120 VISTA ClTf HTTY SANXEC guidelines. At these locations outside of the City of Carlsbad sphere of influence, overriding considerations would be required and the respective jurisdictions would be responsible for intersection improvements. The table which follows lists the impacted study intersections which are located outside of the City of Cxlsbad and also summarizes the project mitigation nzqnired at these locations. CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH PRO.ECT MITIGATION SUMMARY STUDY JIWEWECTIONS OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAID - t Kmpacted Signficmt Project Impact Intersectlon Mltigntion Exist +Interim I 2005 I 2010 2020 Project I Rancho Santa Fe ! -- I None i San Marcos / (43 6) ECR (City of Vista) ($1 ) S.R. 78 WB Ramps I "_ Project Fair Share Yes "_ No Overriding Contribution (tils) "_ Yes Yes Yes Considerations (City of Vista) Overriding Melmse I Sycamore (#18) ." Yes Yes Yes Considerations (City of Vista) Melrose I Overriding Park Cenrer " Yes Yes Yes (#19) Melrose / Sunset Considerations (City of Vista) Overriding San Marcos I Grand (City of San Marcos) Considerations Yes No NO "_ (#3 I) For identification of the specific intersection improvements (added lanes or lane movement changes), pleae refer to Fignres 3A -3M. Figrrres 3A - 3M were presented earlier in this study and provide illusmations of the specific intersection improvements, in addition to identifying the parties responsible for the impmvements. - U'ILLDAN Carlsbad Oaks North Projec: - Traffic Stxuiy lob #I2614 City of Carlsbnd 148 EXHIBIT 3 May 29, 2002 Anne I-lysong, Associate Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Cadsbad, California 92008 XE: Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan EIR (EJR 98-08) Dear Ms. Hysong: The City of Vista has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepal-ed for the Catlsbad Oaks,No~th Specific Plan, Faraday Avenue Extension, El Fuerte Street Extension, and South Agua Hedionda Sewer Interceptor Project. Based on the information included below, the City of Vista feels that the Draft ETR is inadequate and should not be approved in its currcnc form, nor should it be used as a basis for any of the entitlements contemplated for the project. City staff provides the following cotnrnents: T1-allsuol~ation/Tl.aT~c I. Based on review of existing an'd prqjected intersection volumes in the project trafric repon. (Appendix B of the Draft EIR), City of Vista staff noted that several of the intersections analyzed in Vista had lower volumes in the future conditioncs) I:hau cui-rently exist. Based on an analysis of traffic counts tnlten to reflect existing conditions and model resu1t.s indicating 2005 with project conditions, five of the ten Vista intersecticns analyzed have lower furwe .volumes in the 2005 with project condition than those collnted tlnder existing conditions. This depicts a major flaw in the project tl-affic analysis that must be addressed prior to approval OC the proposed project. The subject Vista intersections and the decreased volumes assumed in the traffic report are summarized below in Table 1. W. Vista Way (Broedwny)/E/lelrose Drive (#I31 8,868 SR.78 ED Ramps/Melro;c Drivc (#IJ) -36.5% SR-78 WB RArnpsiSycamorc hvcnuc iH37) 8.359 5.306 SR-78 ED RampsiSycamore Avenue (tt3G) -5.7% 6.413 G,R00 Shadowridge Dl-iveiSycamore Avenue (#35) -7.3% 6,062 6.538 " "_ """- 9,357 -32.7% 6.293 ,~ _I,"___.."x"_" ~ Based on anticipat,ed grow1:h in the region in accordance wjth SANDArJ projections, Calrrans modeling of future Freeway operations, and City of Vtsta analysis of the land uses in the v~cinity of these intersections, no decline jn intersection volumes is anticipated between now and 2005. In fact, based on a recent traffic analysis prepared at the State Route 78 (SR-78)iSycamore Avenue intcrchange, the City of Vista anticipates an approximate 5 percent increase in approach volumes at both the westbound ramps and eastbound ramps intersections betwe,en now and 2005 (URSIBRW, 2002). This fact is particularly concerning due to the City of Vista's projected unacceptable levels of service at the SR-78 eastbound ramps/Sycamore Avenue intersect.ion ~~nder future year conditions, where the proposed project would result in a significant impact at this intersection and the project tt.affic analysis assumes a 36.5 percent decrease in crtrffic volumes. The project traffic analysis must be revised Lo reflect actual projected operating conditions at the subject Vista inlersections. 2. The City of Vista has general concerns over the impacts the proposed project will have on intersections within the City. Specifically, the DraTtEJR identifies projecled significant impacts at the following foirr intet-sections: * S. Melrose Drive/Park Center DrivelEaraday Road S. Melrose DrivelSycamore Avenue S. Melrose Drivelsunset Drive * State Roule 78 (SR-78) Eastbound RampslSycamore Aventue The City of Vista requests that the Lead Agency consider project alternatives andlor mitigation measures to mitigate for direct project-related impacts within the City of Vista, as identified in the Draft EIR. The City of Vista ofrefs the following recommendations For consideration by the City of Carisbad: a. Adopt 8 reduced project al\emative that will substantially reduce or avoid significant traffic impacts outside the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbarl. Alternative C analyzed in the Dl-aft EIR (Reduced Development AreaiIntensiry) is identified as [he environmentally superior alternative and, based on a review of the project objectives listed in Section 3.0 of the Dl-aft EIR, meets all of the project objectives. Alternative C would result in a reduction of approximately 3,800 a-verage daily trips (ADT) as compared LO the proposed project, which would reduce or avoid projected signilicaut tl-affic impacts at intersections within the City OF Vista. Should Alternative C be considered for adoption, the City of Vista requests that an analysis of projected traffic impacts resulting from implementation of this Altel-native be prepat-ed and circulated prior to approval. b. Should the City of Carlsbnd consider adoption ol the proposed project. the City c,f Visttl J-eqL1est.s that the, applicanl rnitigare for signilkant traffic irnpacts within tilt City of Vista. %Ilr City of \;ista agrees to enforce anv improvernent ~xquirements that ai-e imposed as mitigation by the Cit)) of I". ",,, Carisbad for significant traffic impacts at intersections ilnder. the jurisdiction Of tile City of Vista. Seven1 inlersection improvements are identified in the ploject traffic repori (Willcian-WPA TrRFfic Engineering, ~4ay 9; 2001, Revised March 29, 2002) that are assumed to be the responsibility of the City Of Vista, but are required only as a result of implementalion of the proposed project. Accordingly, the project applicant should be responsible Tor implementation of all feasible mitigation Lo offset these impacts. The Draft EIR indicates that improvements to the affected intersections ~it11,in Vista al-e potentially feasible, but are not recommended because the intersecfions are lucated outside of the jurisdiction of the Lead Agency and there is currently no i~nprovement pl-ogram in place to ensure the improvements will be implemented. The City of Vista contends that it will adopt any mitigation requirements imposed on the project applicant to rnitigale Tor signific>ult tmffic impacts within Vista's j~rrisdiction and ensure inlplementation of those rnit,igation requirements consistent with the timing of project development. Relati,ve to specific improvernents identified in the project traffic report, the City of Vista offers the following information and mitigation ~~cornme.ndations: ' i. S. Melrose DlivdPark Center Drive/Faraday Road Page 18 of the project traffic repolt ident.ifies the Following intersection improvements to mitigate for significant. project-related impacts: * Construct an additional dedicated left turn lane on the eastbound Faraday Road approach to S. Melrose Drive. This improvement is assumed in the Year 2005 scenario. Constlxlct an additional dedicated right turn 1;m on the southbound S Melrose Drive approach 10 Faraday Road/Yark Center Drive. This jn1provcnxrlt is assumed in the Year 2010 scenario. 'be project mpfic l-eport identifies these improvements as the responsibility o[ the City of Vista for the planned I-lome Depot plmject at [he northeast corner of this intersection; h&ever, this project has not been Kpproved by the Vista City Council and, thus, 1:he assumption that this mitigation will be installed by the Home Depot project is prernat.~~re. In addition, the EIome Depot project is currently being analyzed in an HR [flat will identify necessary i~nprovements (if any) that will be required 10 Initigate for project-1-elated traffic impacts, but this determination has not been macle at this time. Fu~il~e~mot'e, based. on a previous analysis Of the EJo~ne Depot project yl-epared by URSiBKW (20011, the specific ilnprwqements identified above would not be required to mitigate for impacts created by the Home Depot project. Therefore, these inlprove~nent.~ are directly related to irnplemenl.ation of the pl'oposed project and. thlls, the City of Vista requests that the project applicant he resl.,c,ns,tjlc for tllelr Implernenl.ation. The recomn1endr.d impro\wnenLs I May 29.2002 Annc I-lysong, Associate Planncl Page 4 rd 9 should be identified as mitigation measures in the Final EV. and should be included as conditions of approval for the project. ii. S. Melrose DrivelSvcanlore Aye= Page IS of the project traffic report identifies the following intersection improvements to mitigate for significant project-1-elated impacts: Conslruct an additional dedicated left turn lane on the southhound S Alell-ose Drive app’oach to Sycamore Avenue. This improvement is wsumed in the Year 2005 scenario. Construct and additional dedicated left turn lane and two additional dedicated right turn lanes on the northbound S. Melrose Drive approach to Sycamore Avenue. This improvement is assumed in the Year 2005 scenario. dedicated right turn lane, one dedicated through lane, and one dedicated right turn lane. Restripe the Sycarnm Avenue westbound approach to provide-one It should be noted that the{-e is currently a dedicated leFt turn lane on the northbound Alelrose Drive approach to this intersection, which was imple~nented when the signal was installed in May, 2001. In addition, the proposal to construct two additional dedicated right tun1 lanes at the northbound Melc-ose Drive approach Lo this intersection is not Feasible due to the amount of additional right-of-way necessary with respect to the existing development a1 the, southeast comer. Based on this, the City reques1.s that the analysis be reanalyzed with one additional dedicated right turn lene and reconfigur’ation of the outside through lane to permit a split through/right ~novement. Furthermore, the westbound Sycamore Avenue approach is cuuenrly striped to accommodate two dedicated left tirm lanes, one dedicated thl-ough lane, and one dedicated right t.urn lane, which provides the desired intersection geometry in the project traffic report. Based on this, the City of Visla recommends the Following intersection iml,rovements be installed by the applicant as mitigation For direct project- related impacts: Construct an additional dedicated left. turn lane on the southbound S. hfelxose Drive approach to Sycamore Avenue. This irnprovernent is assumed in the Year 2005 scenario. outside through lane to allow a split through/right movenlent at the northbound S. Melrose Drive approach to Sycamore Avenue. These improvements are assumed in the Year 2005 scenario. These improvements should be identiFied as rnitigatioll measures in the Final T;,m and should be jncludcd as conditions OF approYal For the project Construct an additional dedicated right turn lane and restripe the May 29,2002 Page 5 of 9 Anne I.lysung. Associate Pltln11~1 iif. S,.M.elrose Drive/Sunset Drive Page 17 of the prqiect traffic report identifies the folluwing inlet-section imp!-ovements to tnitigace for significant projecf-related impacts: Construct an additiona1,left turn lane on the northbound S. Melrose Drive appmach to Sunset Drive. The City of Vista questions the feasibility of this recommender1 improvement since it would provide dual left tun1 lanes on northbound S. Melrose Drive, which would direct traffic into one lane on westbound Sunset Drive (a two-lane collector roadway). Based on the capacity of Sunset Drive, implernentation of an additional left turn lane is not feasible and other mitigation alternatives are requesled, or the Final EII?. should find that no feasible mitigation can be implemented at this intersection and that the project's impact at this inrersecrion is significanr and immitigable. iv. SR-78 Eastbound RamrdSycamore Avenue Page 5.2-3 of the Drxft EIR identifies the following improvement to mitigate for signiricant project-related impacts: Chnnge the configuration of lhe second eastbound left turn lane on the SR-78 eastbound off-ramp approach Io allow lcft and right turn movements. The Draft EJR identiRes this improvement as the responsibility of the City of Vista and Caltrans; however, neither agency has any plans or improvement programs in place IO irnplernent the recornmended imp8-ovement. In correspondence with (he City of Vista Engineering Depanment and Cnltrans, it has been determined that the current intersection geometry at the SR-7S eastbound off-ramp at Sycamore Avenue (i.e., two dedicated left turn lanes and one dedicated right turn lane) is ideal because it allows an overlapping right turn movement from the off-ramp ontp southbound Sycamore Avenue during peak houl-s, which is the critical movement. Based on corl-espondence with Caitrans signal operations stafF (Cindee Fever 4/18/02), the current geornetrics with the signal overlap provides optimal intersection operations and, therefore, is preferred over the configuration recommended in the Draft EIR. Therefore. the recornmeuded improvement at the SR-78 eastbound ramps/Sycamore Avenue intersection in the Draft ELR is not considered feasible. Based on this information. the City of Vista recommends the following intersection improvement be installed by the applicant as mitigation Tor direct project-related impacts: Consmuct an additional dedicated right turn lane on [he eastbound SR. 78 off-ramp approach to Sycamore Avenue. This improvement is assurrled in the Existing PIUS Jntelim Project scenario. i / I312 PO': SEP 25 '02 12:55 This impro!~ement should be idenrified as a mitigation measure in tile Final EJR and should be inc'luded as a condition of approval for the project. C. In lieu of installation of the physical improvements as mitigation for the project-related significant traffic impacts, the City of Vista is ~villing to accept a "fair share" contribution from the applicant for the identified (feasible) mitigation recommendations at the S. Melrose Drive/Sycamore Avenue , intersection. The City of Vista prepared cost estimates for thc identified improvements and deterlnincd the project's equitable sha~e of' these improvements using the. methodology described in the Cdtrans GuicleSort/?.c Prepration ojTkfiic Impct Studies, January, 2001 (Appendix B) based on the volumes idenrified in the project traffic repol-t (\Villdan-WFA Traffic Engineering, May 9, 2001, Revised h4arch 29, 2002). The worlcsheels used to determine the cost of improvements and the project's equitable share of those improvements are included as Attachment 1 to this letter. The pl-oject's lair shim conlributions are summarized below: i. S. Melrose DrivefSvcamore Avsm Construct an additional dedicated left tun lane on the soutl~bound S. MelroseDrive approach to Sycamore Avenue. The cost for this improvement is estimated at $73,395.G3 and the project's contribution to this intersection is 16.05 percent. Therefor-e, the project's fair s11a1-e cost of this improvement is $11,780.00. outside through lane to allow a split throughiright movement at the northbound S. Melrose Drive approach to Sycam.ore Avenue. The cost for this improvement is'estimated at 5122,494.38 and the project's contrihution to this intersection is 16 pel-cent. Therefore, the pl~oject's hir share cost of this improvement is $19,660.35. Construct an additional dedicated right turn lane and restripe the Because the proposed project would create the connection of Faraday Road at S. Melrose Dl-ive and would result in direct project-related impacts at this i intersection clue the roadway connection, it should be the project applicant's ~-esponsibility to install the identified improvements at this intersecl.ion, and payment of a fair share contribution toward the improvements identified in Comment No. b(i) would not provide adequate mitigation. 'In addition, since the project traffic report is flawed and does nor identify the correct growth assumptions at the SR-78 easrbound rampslSycamore Avenue intersection, the project's fair share contribution toward this improvemcnl cannot be determined without the requesled revisions to the project traffic analysis (as identified in Co~nment No. I). Tlle City of Vista requests that, in lieu of installaLion of physical improvements as mitigarion at rhe S. Melrose DriveiSycamore Avenue in~e~-section, the pro.icct applicant. be rrsponsible for payment of the identified equitable coscs to the City as mitigation fo1- the project-related signlficanl II-afFic impacts within the City of Vista. The Cily of Vista is currently processing an amendment to the Capital Imp~-ovement Frogran1 (CFj 10 include all of the identified project-relaled impl-ouements in the CIF, whjch will provide an established program under which the City may request assessment of an equitable improvement fee ~OJ- the project's impacts. The CIP amendment will be approved prior to approval of the proposcd project by the City of Carlsbad. The City of Vista is also willing 1.0 enter into a mitigation agl-eemerrt with the City ol Carlsbad to ensure that the fees collected arc used for the identified improvements mcl provide a specified timeframe lor implementation of those improvements. It should be noted that the City of Vista released a draft hfitigated Negative Declaration (M.ND) for a proposed 1-Tome Depol at the northeast comer of S. Melrose Drive and Park Center DriveiFaraday Road in June, 2001. which dealt will) si111i1a1 issws. Thc pwject treffic analysis identified potenttnlly significant traffic impacts within the City of Carlsbad (at the S. hfelrose Drive/:Palomar Airpoll Road intersection) under future'conditions (Year 2020) with implemenlation of lhe FIorne Depot project. The City ol Vista consulted with the City of Carlsbad regardtng this potential impact and inclucled mitigation in [he MND to address potential traffic impacts outside of the City of Vista's jurisdiction in a similar fashion (ic, requiring that the applicant provide a "fair share'' contribution to future improvements) per a request by the City of Carlsbad. Accordingly, the City of Vista is requesting that a similar approach be used in addressing the proposed pl-oject's impacts outside oECal-Isbad's jurisdiction. d. The City of Vist.8 is open to discussion ol alte~nalive mitigation scenarios with City ol. Gal-lsbad staff or the project applicanr. Should either party wish to discuss alternative mitigation scenal-ios for the idenrified intersection impacts within Vim, hey should contact the Community Developmcni Dii-ector, Robin Putnam, to set t~p a meeting. Any discussion of alternative mitigation solutions would require agreement by the City of Vista prior to approval of the projecl.. r e. Pages 5.2-6 through 5.2- 15 ofthe Draft EKR identify that impacts to intersections wiihin the City of Vista WOIII~ be ofFset by construction of Faraday Avenue and Melrose Drive because these connections will "allow regional traffic alternative routes of travel." While the City of Vista recognizes that these roadway extensions will improve regional circulation, they rJo nothing to offset the project impacts at the identified interSectionS. The traffic analysis prepared for the project clearly states that the .project would resulr in individuaJly significant traffic impacts at the Four identified Vista intersections without the connection of Faraday Road, and that the intersection of S. Melrose DriveiPal-k Center Drivc/Faraday Road \v@ultl actually operate at a worse level of servlce wirh [he connection of Faraday RoacI [,\voolJ be rccluced from LOS E to LOS F). li these regiolial connections I-educe ttle traffic volllrnes approaching the affected intersections because 1he.y provide “alte~?~atjve routes of travel” [hen the project traffic analysis ~llot~ld be revised to reflect the actual traffic projections at these intersecl.ions with the identified connections in place. The City of Vista does not agree that the extensions of Faraday Avenue and Melrose Drive would “offset” project impacts as implied in the Dl-aft EElIi. Noise 3. Page 5.47 (Table 5.4-1) of the Draft EIR identifies existing noise levels based 011 rneasul-ed traffic volumcs on roadways surrounding the project site. Table 5.4.1 references existing noise levels on S. Melrose Drive north and south of Poinsettia Lane. It is assumed that this refers, to the planned extension of Melrosc Drive and Poinsettia Avenue; however: this road does not exist and, therefore, there is no existing noise generated on this pollion of S. Melrose .Drive. The table should be revised to reflect the existing condition, similar Lo the reference provided for P~LI h~l~~y Avn~tur web1 UI’ El Fucrte Street. The same comment applies to the “Existing” noise levels ill Table 5.4-5. In addition, it would be helpful to provide the. trafric volumes used to rererence the identified noise levels in the existing and luture tables (Table 5.4-1 and 5.4-5). 4. Pages 5.4-10 and 5-41 I of the Draft EIR list the City of Vista‘s noise stand.arcls based on the Noise Elcrnent o,f the General Plan. The applicable exterior property line noise levels are relerenced in the Citv’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32) of the Vista Municipal Code and should be referenced as the applicable exterior noise standards For operational activities. The noise sLanciards referenced in the Draft EIR are provided in he Now Elemenr of the General Plan as “target levels“ (page 5 of the Vista Noise Element), but are not intended For use as noise thresholds. The applicable ‘standards from Chapter 8.32 of the City’s Municipal Code should be referenced and used to determine significance for any operational impacts h-om the proposed pl-o;ject. 5. Page 5.4- I I of the Draft EIR references the City of Vim’s adoption of lhe San Diego County Noise Ordinance and the applicable noise construction threshold. Based on cor~-espondence wi1.h the County‘s Noise Control Offcer (John Bennetc. 4/25/02), the County’s (and City’s) conslruction noise threshold is a 75 decibel average over an eight-hour period (Le., 75 dBA Leq-8h). The Draft EIR states that “construction activities are permitted pvided the noise level at the property line does not exceed 75 dBA Cor more than eight hours a day.” This threshold \vould permit constructio11 activities to continuously exceed 75 dBA up to eight hours as long as it did not exceed Ihe eight hour time period. According to the County of San Diego, that is not the intent of the construction noise threshold ~111d the apldicable standard is a 75 dBA eight4iour average. The constnlction noise tlireshold should be revised accordingly and the analysrs of construclion noise impacts to adjacent se11sitive residential receprors within the City of Vista shonltl be re-analyzed using the conact thl-eshold. 6. Page 5.417 of the Draft HI< indicates that the City of VisTa Noise Ordinance considers a 3 tlTj~ lr,crease in roadway Iwiw levels as pc~ten~ialiy sigllificartt. The 812 PI0 SEP 25 ‘02 12:56 May 2s. 2002 Anne llysong. Asrociale Planner Pilgc 9 of9 City of Vista Noise 01-dinance contains no such standard or threshold. In ,f;Ict., there is no reference to any significance criteria in the City’s Noise Elemenr, the City’s Noise Ordinance, or the County’s Noise Ordinance (incorporated by reference in the Municipal Code). While [he City of Vista does not disagree with the City of Carlsbad’s significance criteria for traffic noise impacts (referenced on Page 5.4-10 of the Drait Em), it should be clarified that this is a significance threshold used by the City of Carlsbad and is not referenced as a significance threshold in the City of Vlsta’s Noise Ordinance. City staff appreciates rhe opportunity to review the Draft EIR and we look forward LO a timely response to our concerns. Shoold you have any cpcstions regarding the issues identified herein or require any additional information, please Feel free 10 contact me at (760) 726-1.340, extension 1262. Sincerely, John Conley Principal Planner References: URSIBRW. 2002. Traffic Impact Annlysis, Tllibodo Road A4ulti-Fanmil]~ Flousi7ig Pvojecr. Prepared for [he City of Vista Community Development Department Apl-il 29. Attachment 1: Fair Share Cosr, Analysis - S. Melrose .Drive/Sycamore Avenue htersection C: Rita Geldert, City Manager J. Wayne Dernetz, City Attorney Robin Putnam, Comrnunity Development Director Gerard Gilbert, City of Oceanside Jerry Bacltoff, City of San Marcos Attachment 1 Fair Share Contribution Based on Total intersection Volume 2005 Conditions Carslbad Oaks North Specific Plan EIR Tolal lntersectlon Sycamcro AvQJS. Mslrose Drive Cumdative (2005) Base Plus Projecl 5,607 5,115 Add SE Lett Turn Lane Exlsting 1,995 2,530 Add NB Righl Turn Lane Tolal Increase 3,672 2.585 (Comment c[il) Project Trips 415 51 B Pwrcenl lncrww. Project Contribution 12.15% 19.96% Average Conlrlbution 16.05% 6196396120 VISTA CIT'I ATTY 812 P12 SEF 25 '02 12:57 Attachment 1 Fair Share Allocation of Improvement Costs at Impacted Intersections Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan EIR Estimated Cast ProJect Project Improvement to Improve' Fair Share % Falr Share Amount Sycamore AvenudS. Melrose Drivo Add SB Left Turn Lane $73,395.63 16.05% $1 1,780.00 Add ND Right Turn Lane $122.494.38 16.05% $1 9,660.35 TOTAL $1 95,890.01 $31,440.35 ' Cost Estimates Prepared by City of Vista 6196396120 UISTR CIT'i RTTf 812 PI3 SEP 25 '02 12:57 Attachnrent 1 Cost Estimimate for Street Improvements Required by Carisbad Oaks Development S, Melrose & Sycamore Additional Left Turn on Southbound Melrose - Item Description Remove Median Curb Excavation Repiace Median Curb 8" Aggregate Bas@ Stamped Concrete 4" Asphalt Concrete Remove Striping New Striping New Signai l.oops Signal Modifications Quantity - Unit Unlt Cost Total 1440 LF $3.00 $4.320.00 - 1440 LF $1 4.50 720 SF 138 CY $9.00 2880 SF $5.00 2880 SF $1.25 $1.85 lOi0 LF $0.65 17 EA $460.00 1 LS $10,000.00 1 LS $1,440.00 25% Contingency Subtotal Total $20;880.00 $'1,242.00 $3,600.00 $3,600.00 $5,328.00 $1,440.00 $656.50 $7,650.00 $14,679.13 $50,716.50 $10,000.00 $73,395.63 Adclitional Right Turn on Notlhbound Melrose I Item Descriution Clear & Grub Remove Curb B Gutter Remove Sidewalk Repiace Curb & Gutter Repiace Sidewalk Remove and Replace Curb inlet Relocate Street Light Excavation 4" Asphalt Concrele 8" Aggregate Base Remove Striping New Striping New Signal Loops Slgnal Modifications Replace Landscaping Additional RIW Pedestrian Ramp Quantity UJ Unit Cost 2500 SF $0.35 - Total $875.00 345 LF 2000 SF $1.25 $3.00 2000 SF 343 iF $14.50 1 LS $4.00 $3,850.00 2 EA 'I91 CY $2,000.00 4000 SF $1.25 $9.00 40,OO 'SF 51 45 1 LS $720.00 360 LF $0.65 13 EA 1 LS $450.00 $1 0,000.00 4000 SF 1 EA $0.79 $1.1 50.00 2500 SF $1 5.00 Subtolal 25% Contingency Total $'1',035.00 $2,500.00 $5,002.50 $Q,OOO.OO $3,850.00 $4,000.00 $1,719.00 $5,000.00 $7,400.00 $720.00 $5,850.00 $234.00 $3,160.00 $1,150.00 $37,500.00 $97,995.50 $122,494.38 $10,000.00 $z4.4m.a0 Melrose/Sycalnore Intersection Total $195,090.00 EXHIBIT 4 J. WAYNE DERNETZ, City Attorney MARTIN A GROVER. Assistant City Attorney OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF VISTA, CALIFORNIA 600 Eucalyptus Avenue Vista, California 92081 Direct Dial: (760) 639-6119 Facsimile: (760) 639-6120 Jonathan B. Stone, Assistunt City Attorney May 30,2002 VIA FAX: (760) 602-8559 AND MAIL Anne Hyson Associate Planner City of Cads t ad Carlsbad, CA 92008 1635 Faraday Avenue Dear Ms. Hysong: Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan (“Project”), and supplements the comments made in a letter of This letter comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) prepared for the Vista’s Principal Planner, John Conley, dated May 29, 2002 (“Conley Letter”). AccordingJo the DEIR, the Project, as pro osed, will cause significant traffic impacts at four intersections in Vtsta. These im acts can be eiminated or substantially reduced with variety” physical improvements tot R. e Impacted-intersections (“Intersection Improvements”) “rden t at are identified in the DEIR. Yet, the DEIR recommends against including Intersection Improvements as required mitigation measures for the Project. Apparently, the DEB mistakenly concludes that Intersection Improvements are infeasible. The opposite is true, and Development - must approve available mitigation measures to eli- impacts. -- before approving the the developer and Vista that would require the developer to construct or fairly contribute to the The required mitigation can be accomplished easily through a mitigation agreement between Intersection Improvements. The agreement would be limited to the impacted intersectlons identified in the DEIR and would consist only of the Intersection Improvements (or slishtly modified , improvements) that will successfully mitigate the identified Project-related impacts In Vista. This contract, for instance, could be required as a precondition to rezoning developer’s pfoperty, approving a specific plan for the Pryect, or approving the requested amendment to the city's generalilan. Since the 1960’s, the Call orma Courts have upheld a municipality’s right and abllity to con ltlon zonlng on the execution of an agreement required to protect the public health safety and welfare. Scrutton v. Co~nty ofSncrnme~zlo (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 412. I). Culver City,’ In that case, the California Supreme Court upheld the impositionaf a one-time and This mitigation strategy was reaffirmed in a recent opinion ofthe California Supreme,ErbZich ad-hoc mitigation measure on an applicant as a precondition to a specific plan and I (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854 Anne Hysong, Associate Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Page 2 Carlsbad, CA 92008 rezoning - the very approvals sought in this instance by the developer. The State’s high court only required that the burdens imposed on the developer have a nexus to the ieveloper’s project and satisfy the rough proportionality standards announced by the courts. This technique is contemplated and sanctioned by CEQA. Under the CEQA Guideline-d such as,Carlsbad, qay authorize mitigation measures consisting of “agreements-her , PU~IIV h~nd~ng Instruments. 14 CCK 61>1~0.~. Ine buldellnes. of course. rewire the . = ” . , . . . -. . . = ~~~~~~~~~ agreement to satlsfy the ‘‘nexus’’ and ‘‘Cough proportionality” requirements of Ehrlich aid other cases. Yet, these, and all other legal re uirements, are more than satisfied by the analysis ofthe DER (which establishes the nexus between t 1’ e Project and Intersection Improvements), the Conky Letter (which establishes the rough proportionafity), and the terms that would be included in the mitigation agreement between City and Developer. Under these circumstances, Vista is uncertain why the DEIR concludes that it is infeasible to \ I\ _, include a mitigation measure which would read largely as follows: “Developer shall avoid significant traffic impacts in the City of Vista by installing traffic improvements designed to reduce project-related traffic impacts below the City of Vista through which the developer contributes toward such traffic significance as identified in the EIR, or shall execute a mitigation agreement with improvements based on the rough proportionality standards of Ehrlich v. City of Culver Ci/y.” ’ In addition, a proposed subdivision must be denied or include mitigation measures if (1) the site to be subdivided is “not physically suitable for the proposed rlerlsity of development;” or (2) the “proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environment damage.” Gov’t. Code §66174(d) and (e). In this instance, the DEIR concludes that the density of development will result in significant environmental and traffic impacts in Vista., Thus, the subdivision must include available and reasonable conditions, such as the Intersection Improvements, before it is approved. Certainly, the Subdivision Map Act provides Carlsbad with still another lawful opportunity to condition the Project on the execution of a mitigation agreement between City and the developer. See also, Carlsbad Municipal Code, 5520.12.090-091 and Chapter 20.12 which authorize the imposition of “conditions” on a tentative map to obtain contribution toward traffic improvements or to otherwise promote the public, health, welfare, and safety; Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 19.04 and 5 19.04.180. Additionally, Vista has commenced the process to amend its Capital Improvement Program to include the Intersection Improvements. This amendment is not a legal prerequisite to the execution of a mitigation agreement or the requirement of such an agreement as a mitigation measure. Anne Hyson Associate Planner City of Carls t ad Carlsbad, CA 92008 163 5 Faraday Avenue Page 3 in which to respond to the significant project-related impacts that will occur in Vista. We welcome Vista trusts that Carlsbad, upon reviewing this letter, will agree that there are feasible ways an opportunity to discuss the subject so that this important project may proceed with the minimum work together. I can be reached at (760) 639-6123. of environmental harm. We thank you for considering this letter and welcome the opportunity to Sincerely, Jonathan B. Stone Assistant City .Attorney cc: Ron Ball, City Attorney, Carlsbad EXHIBIT 5 August 1,2002 Dear. Mr. Stone: In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a), the City of Cxlsbad is transmitting responses to your comments on the Draft EIR for the proposed Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan project. Thank you for your interest in the project. You will receive a notice of public hearing prior to the Planning Commission hearing that is tentatively scheduled for August 21, 2002. Sincerely, A- Hp&b ANNE HYSONG Associate Planner Attachment COMMENT LETTER CV Ciw of Vista May 29,2002 Response to Comment CV 1 Please refer to responses to comments CV 2 through CV 16 for a detailed response to each of the comments. Response to Comment CV 2 The traffic report prepared in conjunction with the EIR used the SANDAG CitydCounty 2020 regional model for baffic analysis. %s model was updated to include all approved and/or pending projects in the City of Carlsbad and it’s neighboring cities, including the City of Vista. In addition, planned roadway network improvements were identified by City of Carlsbad and the neighboring communities for the years 2005,2010 and 2020. The City of Vista has used Series 8 regional forecast as a comparison throughout this comment letter. The comparison of the two reports is almost impossible. As an example, the Series S model underestimated some areas, had erroneous access nodes and left land uses out in others. In the Series 8 model, the Carlsbad Oaks North project was shown as open space. The change from the existing condition reflects an incomplete roadway network. The 2005 analysis includes Meirose Drive as well as a portion of Faraday Avenue. Both of these roadways provide an instant relief to the existing system. The existing traffic patterns will change when the new network and roadways are completed. The traffic model that is utilized in the traffic analysis provided in the Carlsbad Oaks North EIR incorporated a select zone analysis. The select zone analysis used computer generated “attractors” (schools, shopping centers, freeways, and work centers) in combination with “generators” (housing, apartments, recreation, shopping centers) and developed a model of traffic patterns throughout the County. Unlike previous traffic analysis methodologies that involved some level of subjective estimation of the traffic percentages or project distribution and an effort to proportion growth using the same pattern year after year, the select zone analysis is widely accepted in the traffic engineering industry as a more accurate prediction of growth and traffic patterns. Because these two methodologies are so different, it is not possible to provide a useful comparison of an old view and a newer traffic model. The roadway network improvements assumed in the 2005 model result in changes to traffic flow patterns from the existing conditions. Four of the five intersections identified by City of Vista are at freeway ramps at SR-78. Traffic patterns through freeway interchanges cannot be based solely on the land uses surrounding the interchanges. Freeways are directly affected by changes to the roadway nehvork. The threshold for impacts to freewaydramps are much higher (it., requires more trips) than is for other surface street intersections, Final EIR -Responses IO Commenrs Carlsbad Oairr North Specific Plan EIR 27 Ciy of Carlsbad August 2002 By 2005, the rraffic model assumes that san "has Boulevard is improved to five lanes from the existing four lanes, increasing capacity. Rancho Santa Fe Road is improved eon1 four IO six 1mes. which is also an increase in capacity. The improvements identified will provide additional capacity, and may result in a shift in traffic volumes at the fieeway ramps identified by the City of Vista. Improvements are also included in the traffic study that return the intersection from deficient operations to acceptable operations under existing conditions. It is unclear as to whether or not these improvements are taken into consideration in the City’s analysis of unacceptable conditions at Sycamore under 2005 conditions. It is also unclear from the City’s coinment what analysis of the freeway ramps the City of Vista’s analysis is based on, which would result in the five percent increase in traffic volumes a7 the ramps. Improvements have been identified in the Mc report to mitigate the deficient conditions within the City of Vista. As Carlsbad does not have jurisdiction outside of the City limits, the City of Carlsbad is not able to enforce any mitigation measures imposed on the projec! outside of the City. Response to Comment CV 3 The four identified roadways are showing signs of an existing failure. The City of Vista has recently approved projects with impacts on these roadways and has not provided mitigation to support the existing development. For example, the City of Vista approved a commercial center located at the northwest comer of Business Park Drive and Palomar Airport Road. This project has been constructed and is operational. The traffic generated by this project directly impacts the intersection of Melrose Drive and Palomar Airport Road and the intersection of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road (both located in the City of Carlsbad); however, the City of Vista did not participate in funding improvements to the intersections impacted in the City of Carlsbad. Comment noted. Response to Comment CV 4 The statement that the improvements to the intersections are only caused by Carlsbad development is factually wrong. The failure occurs at many of the intersections today and the traffic analysis indicates a cumulative impact at these intersections. As an example, if the project was not approved and constructed, regional growth, particularly in Vista would show failures to continue to appear. There are several projects planned in the City of Carlsbad and the City of Vist.a that will effect traffic operations at the intersections identified by the City of Vista. During 2020 build out, with all other projects in place these four intersections are forecast to operate deficiently. The point in time when these intersections operate deficiently will depend upon the order in which the projects are developed. Based on the baffic study -guidelines the ‘Gth’’ and ‘Whout” project scenarios were analyzed assuming the Carlsbad Oaks North project was the lasr to be developed. Carlsbad Onk Norrh Specz$c Plan EIR 28 Final EIR -Responses IO Comments Ciry of Carlsbad August 2002 Response to Comment CJ’ 5 The City of Carlsbad met on numerous occasions with City of Vista staff to discuss progaranls and alternatives. .4t the last meeting the staff of each City discussed havin? each Citv mitigate its own traffic impacts and not crossing jurisdictional boundaries. The cost of Melrose Drive improvements in Carlsbad and the Faraday Roadway improvements are estimated in the several millions of dollars that the City of Carlsbad and this project is prepared to absorb. These improvements more than offset the impacts in the City of Vista. See also response to comment VCA 3. The City of Vista has approved major projects on or near the same four intersections without looking at build-out needs or traffic forecasting. The intersections of S: Melrose / Park Center as well as S. Melrose / Sycamore Ave. are part of large developments without build out or permanent improvements planned. The Home Depot Project is an application that is on file at the City of Vista and is currently being studied by the City of Vista for development (an EIR is under preparation). Acquisition of Right of Way is not an obligation that can be passed to another Jurisdiction. Eminent Domain and Condemnation is governed by regulations that the City of Carlsbad will not assume within the City of Vista. The Home Depot project attempted to use the series 8 traffic model and met opposition based on the inherent flaw of an outdated Model. The statement that the Home Depot improvements would not have been required is unfounded, the Mitigated Negative Declaration was never circulated. The decision to process an EIR along with an updated traffic model was made by the City of Vista last year. At the time the traffic model for the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan project was prepared, the Home Depot project was included in the traffic model, as an approved project, for inclusion in the City of Carlsbad Sub-Area model. Although the project is not currently approved, it is a pending project under analysis and will have an impact on the intersection withm the project study area. Therefore, it is critical that this project be considered in the analysis. It is reasonable to assume that any improvements along the project fiontage for the Home Depot project would be the.responsibility of that project if the project is approved. If the project does not ‘# move forward, then the project trips associated with that land use will not be realized. Therefore, the traffic conditions forecast are conservative and the improvements identified may not be needed. Previous studies of the Home Depot project were based on model data stemming from land use data that was over eight (8) years old. This included open space for the proposed Carlsbad Oaks project area. Therefore, the analysis conducted for this study did not reflect the most recent land use data available. Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan EIR Final EIR - Response3 to Comments 29 Ciry ofCarlshad Augusr 2002 Response to Comment CV 6 The improvements identified in the traffic study mitigate the identified deficient conditions. As stated. the City of Carlsbad does not have jurisdiction over the improvements outside of Civ limits. Other feasible intersection improvements may be available to mitigate the identified deficient conditions. Response to Comment CV 7 The improvements identified in the traffic study mitigate the identified deficient conditions. As stated, the City of Carlsbad does not have jurisdiction over the improvements outside of Ciry limits. Other feasible intersection improvements may be available to mitigate the identified deficient conditions. Response to Comment CV 8 The improvements identified in the traffic study mitigate the identified deficient conditions. As stated, the City of Carlsbad does not have jurisdiction over the improvements outside of City limits. Other feasible intersection improvements may be available to mitigate the identified deficient conditions. Response to Comment Cv 9 The improvements identified in the traffic study mitigate the identified deficient conditions. As stated, the City of Carlsbad does not have jurisdiction over the improvements outside of City limits. Other feasible intersection improvements may be available to mitigate the identified deficient conditions. With respect to the statement by the commentor that, “In lieu of installation of the physical improvements.. __ Vista is willing to accept a fair share contribution”, the cost estimate stated by the cornmentor includes right of way acquisition as well as costs unsupported by any public document. The percentages identified by the commentor are unfounded. If this project is paying 16.05%, Vista has not identified the source of the other S3.95% of the funding (e.g., by which document or established program). The. calculations appear to include cumulative base plus project. The actual 2005 AM/€” peak volumes on the requested legs of the intersection (of the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan project alone) equal 0 for southbound and 1611 17 for northbound. None of these ratios develop percentages that Vista has recommended. (8 of the 12 movements are 0 volume). The statement that Carlsbad asked for a fair share contribution from the Home Depot Project is not accurate given the City’s recent thread of discussion about each City being responsible for its own impacts. Response to Comment CV 10 Comment noted Response to Comment CV 11 Carlsbad Oak North Spec$c Plan EIR Final EIR -Responses IO Comments 30 Ciry of Carlsbad Augusr 2002 Comment noted. The addition of Faraday and h4elrose will improve traffic operations along a;dmati\;e routes such as El Camino Real, Business Park, and Paiomar Airpon Road. The extension of Melrose Drive and Faraday will result in an increase in traffic along these roadways, as would be expected when an existing dead-end roadway is connected. The roadway capacity pro\;ided by these two roadways is necessary for the circulation system in North San Diego County. The existing roadway network without improvements such as the extension of Melrose. \vi11 not be able to handle the future forecast volumes without these improvements. The traffic along Melrose Drive in particular is associated with a shift from other regional roadways and is not directly related to the proposed project. Response to Comment CV 12 The se-gnents of Melrose Drive referenced by the commentor have not been constructed. Tables 5.4-1 and 5.4-5 of the EIR have been revised to indicate that the se-gnents do not currently exist, and therefore there is no corresponding traffic generated noise. Response to Comment CV 13 The following text has been added to page 5.4-1 1 of the EIR: wilile the City of Vista General Plan Noise Element identrfes target noise levels for land use categories, the Noise Element refers to the Ci@ of Vista Noise Control Ordinance (Municzpal Code Chapter 8.32) for the enforceable noise standards. Municipal Code Chapter 8.32 legally sets exteriorproperty line noise limits for various land uses in terms of I-hour Leg value (Leq(h,), unless a variance has been applied for (citing mitigation circumstances) and granted. As speczfied therein. residential areas are restricted in the amount of noise that can legally be generated at the property line to 50 dBA between 7:OO AM and 1O:OO PM and 45 dBA between 1O:OO ?M and 7.00 AM. For commercial uses, applicable exterior proper@ line noise limits are 60 dBA between 7:OO AM and 1O:OO ?A/ and 55 dBA between 1OtOO PM and 7:OO AM. Moreover, in the event that the alleged offensive noise contains music or speech conveying informational content, the I- hour Leg limit is reduced by 5 dB. The Noise standards set forth in the City of Vista’s Municipal Code address the noise that a particuIar use can generate. The provisions of Vista’s Municipal Code do Rot apply to the proposed project as it is located within the City of Carlsbad. The Specific Plan contains performance standards that include “ . . . between the hours of 6:OO pm and 7:OO am, uses on lots S, 13, and 17 shall not produce noise in excess of 60 Ldn as measure at the property line and 55 Ldn if the noise repetitive in nature.” These standards would ensure no significant stationary noise impact would result to adjacent residences. Response to Comment CV 14 Page 5.4-11 of the EIR incorrectly stated the construction noise level standard. The City acknowledges that the intent of the standard is not to allow construction noise to continuously exceed 75dBA up to eight hours a day, rather that the construction noise threshold is a 75 decibel average over an eight-hour period. Page 5.4-1 1 of the EIR has been revised as follows: Carlsbad Oak Nonh Specific Plan ElR 31 Fino1 EIR -Responses to Comments City ofCarlsbad August 2002 The City of Vista permits construction related noise provided the noise level 31 the property line does not exceed 75 dBA averaged over a71 e;&-hour period. kwrm+&~ Typical construction equipment noise level data is provided in the EIR (see Table 5.4-2) and noise levels from blasting and rock crushing have been identified. As identified in the EIR, the average noise level at 50 feet from earthmoving equipment ranges beween 79 and 66 *A. The construction noise level will exceed 75 dB at certain times during the course of the day; however, because typical grading activities involve moving around throughout the site, it is expected that, when average over an eight hour period, noise levels will not exceed the threshold of 75 dBA. Response to Comment CV 15 Page 5.4-17 of the EIR incorrectly states that the City of Vista Noise Ordinance considers a 3dBA increase in roadway noise levels as potentially significant. The 3 dBA increase is in reference to the Thresholds of Significance utilized for the evaIuation of roadway noise impacts, and as identified on page 5.4-10 of the EIR. Page 5.4-10 of the EIR has been revised as follows: As identified in the Thresholds of Significance, -a 3 dBA increase in roadway noise levels is considered potentially significant. '3 D Response to Comment CV 16 Comment noted. COMMENT LETTER VCA City Attorney, City of Vista May 30,2002 Response to Comment VCA 1 Comment noted. Please refer to the detailed responses provided in responses to comments VCA 2 through VCA 8 and CV 1 through CV 16. Response to Comment VCA 2 The EIR does not recommend against implementing the intersection improvements identified in the EIR. The EIR concludes that the impact is significant and unavoidable because the ultimate responsibility of implementing specific intersection improvements, dedication of right-of-way, and intersection configuration is outside the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad, and is the responsibility of the City of Vista. The City of Vista has indicated that there is currently no specific improvement program in place to ensure the improvement to the intersection. The City of Carlsbad cannot enforce mitigation measures for intersections in other cities. Because there is Carlsbad Oak Nonh Specific Plan EfR Final EfR - Responses to Comments 32 Ciry of Carisbad August 2002 no assurance that the improvements will be implemented, the ElR concludes the impact \vi11 be si-mificant and unavoidable. Response to Comment VCA 3 It is unclear to the City of Carlsbad that such a funding mechanism is currently in place to accept fair share contributions for any of the identified locations. However, the City of Vista .4ttomey‘s Office suggests that the “developer” should be required to mitigate its cumulative impact for its contribution to regional traffic in the City of Vista. The City of Vista historically has not assumed responsibility to mitigate impacts of development in Vista, nor in the surrounding cities, such as Carlsbad. Further, the commentor does not acknowledge the reality that the EIR addresses multiple, regionally significant circulation improvements (Faraday extension and El Fuerte). and not just private development. Traffic tends to go two ways: people leave their homes to work, shop or recreate - then return. Much of the traffic traveling Faraday into Vista in fact will be people residing in Vista returning home and much of it will not be generated by the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan private development. The Faraday connection is a regional element. Under the City Attorney’s Office analysis, it would be just as appropriate for the City of Vista to contributeishare the cost of constructing Faraday as the residential and industrial development already in place in Vista impacts Carlsbad roads and already necessitates additional linkages, such as Faraday. The larger issue is multi-jurisdictional planning and contribution. Vista does not have jurisdiction in Carlsbad any more than Carlsbad has jurisdiction in Vista to impose monetary contribution conditions. CEQA recognizes this governmental reality in that PRC 5 21081(a)(2) expressly reco~zes that one agency cannot be required (or expected) to compel mitigation outside its jurisdiction when “changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency”. Response to Comment VCA 4 The City of Vista Attorney’s Office appears to misunderstand the nature of the GPA and SPA process for the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan. Currently, as is, the existing Carlsbad General Plan land use designations and zoning of the property would allow much greater development on the Techbuilt property and the extensions of Faraday and El Fuerte without a General Plan amendment. The approval of the General Plan Amendment request will reduce the area designated for industrial .development and conform those plans to the project as proposed. The proposed General Plan Amendment and rezone is to expand the permanent open space. The City of Vista is requesting Carlsbad to act extra-territorially; something State law does not authorize and CEQA clearly recognizes. Response to Comment VCA 5 Neither the Erhrlich case nor the Scrutton case cited by the City of Vista Attorney’s Office involved extra-territorial mitigation measures. In each instance, the conditionsiexactions authorized were limited to the agency’s own territory and jurisdiction and do not, directly or indirectly, authorize extra-territorial governance. As stated in the response to comment VCA 4, the level of private development is already authorized by zoning and general plans which themselves underwent CEQA compliance at the levels and densities proposed here. No density Carlsbad Oak Norlh Spec<fic Plan EIR 33 Flnal EIR - Responses fo Commenrs Ciry ofCarlsbad Augusr 2002 increase is being requested and all mitigation measures within Carlsbad’s le2al jurisdiclion are being incorporated. Response to Comment VCA 6 As previously stated, PRC 5 2108l(a)(2) recognizes a “lead a!pxy’s“ inability to compel activities outside its jurisdiction; clearly not sanctioned by CEQA, State law or the State constitution. The issue here is not the identification of extra-territorial impacts and mitigations, but rather the absence of jurisdiction in compelling their inclusion. In that regard, the reference to Guidelines 5 15126.4 is entirely misplaced. A Guideline cannot grant jurisdiction or the authority to govern where none exists. Guideline 5 15126.4 merely authorizes permit conditions. agreements or other techniques as examples of methods to assure that legally authorized mitigations are enforced, so that legally authorized mitigations are documented and enforceable. The Erhrlich standard is a two level requirement: (1) the subject matter must be within the legitimate purposes, (Le., jurisdiction) of the governmental agency and (2) the extent of the regulation must be “roughly proportional” to the project impacts. Here, the first test is not satisfiable. Response to Comment VCA 7 Simply stated, a mitigation measure could be written, it would just be illegal and unenforceable, amounting to “contract zoning”. Fundamentally, CEQA is not a restructuring of the limited right of any governmental unit to “govern” outside, its jurisdictional limits, nor does CEQA grant any extra-tenitorial authority. Response to Comment VCA 8 Comment noted. COMMENT LETTER EN County of San Diego Public Works May 22,2002 Response to Comment EN 1 The McClellan Palomar Airport Manager was sent the Notice of Completion for the Carlsbad Oaks North ED? on April 12, 2002 notifying him of the availability of the Draft EIR for review and that the public review period would end on May 30, 2002. In response’ to the County’s request for a time extension, the City granted a two-week extension to give San Diego County Airports adequate opportunity to review and comment on the EIR. Final EIR -Responses 10 Comments Corkbad Oaks North Specjfc Plan EIR 34 LETTER VCA J. WAYNE DERhETL Cify Anorney MARTIR A. GROVER, Assistam Cify Anorney Jonathan B. Stone, AssisIan1 Ciry Anornq OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF VISTA, CALIFORNIA 600 Eucalyprur Avenue Vista. Caliiornia 92064 Direct Dial: (760) 639-61 19 Facsimile: (760) 639-6120 May 30,2002 VIA FAX: (760) 602-8559 AND MAIL Anne Hysong, Associate Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Dear Ms. Hysong: This letter comments on the Draft Environnlental Impact Report (“DEIR”) prepared for the 4 Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan (“Project”), and supplements the comments made in a letter of VCA 1 Vista’s Principal Planner, John Conley, dated May 29, 2002 (“Conley Letter”). d I According to the DER, the Project, asproposed, will cause intersections in Vista. These impacts can be,eliminated or variery”physica1 improvements to the impacted Intersections improvements) that will This contract, for instance, could be required as a precondition to rezoning developer’s1 property, approving a specific plan for the Project, or approving the requested amendment to the ability to condition zoning on the execution of an agreement required to protect the pubhc health safety and welfare, Scncrlon v. County of Sacramenlo (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 412. city’s general plan. Since the 1960’s, the California Courts have upheld a municipality’s right This mitigation strategy was reaffirmed in a recent opinion of the California Su reme- Erl7lich Y. Culver Czty,’ In that case. the California Supreme Court upheld the imposition o a one VCA 5 time and ad-hoc mitigation measure on an applicant as a precondition to a specific plan and -i Anne Hysong, Associate Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Page 2 Carlsbad, CA 92008 required that the burdens imposed on the developer have a nexus to the (eveloper’s project rezoning - the very approvals sought in this instance by the developer. The State’s high court only 1 VCA 5 and satisfy the rough proportionality standards announced by the couns.- Cont. This technique is contemplated and sanctioned by CEQA. Under the CEQA Guidelines a 1 lead asency_suchas Carlshad,mayauthorizemitigationmeasuresconsistingof“a~eementsorother legally binding instruments.” 14 CCR Sl5126.4(a)(Z). The Guidelines. of course, require the agreement to satisfy the “nexus” and “rough proportionality” requirements of Eidich and other 1 VCA cases, Yet, these, and all other legal requirements, are more than satisfied by the analysis of the DEIR (which establishes thenexus between the Project and Intersection Improvements), the Conley ’ Leaer (which establishes the rough proportionality), and the terms that would be included in the / mitigation agreement berween City and Developer: d Under these circumstances. Vista is uncertain why the DEIR concludes that it is infeasible7 -l to include a mitigation measure which would read largely as follows: “Developer shall avoid significant traffic impacts in the City of Vista by installingtaffic improvements desiped to reduce project-related traffic impacts f VCA7 below significance as identified in the EIR, or shall execute a mitigation agreement with the Cjty of Vista through which the developer contnbutes toward such traffic improvements based on the rough proportionality standards of Ehl-lich 1’. City of Culver. Ciry.” i In addition, a proposed subdivision must be denied or include mitigation measures if: (1) the site to be subdivided is “not physically suitable for the proposed densip of development:” or (2) the “proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environment damage.” Gov’t. Code §66474(d) and (e). In this instance, the DEE concludes that the density of development will result in significant environmental and traffic impacts in Vista. Thus, the subdivision must include available and reasonable conditions, such as the Intersection Improvements, before it is approved. Certainly, the Subdivision Map Act provides Carlsbad with still another lawful opportunity to condition the Project on the execution of a mitigation agreement between City and the developer. See also, Carlsbad Municipal Code, $$20.12.@90-@91 and Chapter 20.12 which authorize the imposition of “conditions” on a tentative map to obtain contribution toward traffic improvements or to otherwise promote the public, health, welfare, and safety; Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 19.04 and 5 19.04.1 80. ’ Additionally, Vista has commenced the process to amend its Capital Improvement Program to include the Intersection Improvements. This amendment is not a legal prerequisite to the execution of a mitiption agreement or the requirement of such an ayeenlent as a mitigation measure. Anne Hysong. Associate Plannet City of Carlsbad Carlsbad, CA 92008 1635 Faraday Avenue Page 3 in which to respond to the significant project-related impacts that wlll occur in Vista. We welcome Vista msts that Carlsbad, upon reviewing this letter, will a9ee that there are feasible ways of environmental harm. We thank you for considering this letter and welcome the opportunity IO work tosether. I can be reached at (760) 639-6123. an opportunity to discuss the subject so that this imponant project may proceed with the minimum Jonathan B. Stone Assistant City Attorney cc: Ron Ball, City Attorney, Carlsbad 9.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO PUBLIC AND OTHER AGENCY CORIR‘IENTS The Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan Draft EIR was circulated for public review for a period of 60 days extending from April 12, 2002 to June 14, 2002. The Drafi EIR was distributed to a variety of public agencies and individuals. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the City of Carlsbad has evaluated the comments on environmental issues received from those agenciesiparties and has prepared written responses to each pertinent comment relating to the adequacy of the environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIR. There has been good faith, reasoned analysis in response to comments, rather than conclusionary statements unsupported by factual information. The agencies, or_eanizations, and interested persons listed on the “Response to Comments Index” submitted comments on the Draft EJR during the public review period. Each comment submitted in writing is included, along with a written response where determined necessary. Each comment letter is identified with a letter in the upper right comer of the first page of the letter. The individual comments have been given reference numbers, which appear in the right margin next to the bracketed comment. For example, Letter AS will have comment numbers ASI, AS2, etc. In response to comments received, certain revisions have been made in the EIR. These revisions to the EIR are generally minor text changes that do not constitute significant additional information that changes the outcome of the environmental analysis or require recirculation of the document (Guidelines Section 1SOSS.S). All such changes are noted in the responses to comments. The agencies, organizations, and individuals that submitted comments on the Drafi EIR are identified in Table 9-1 Responses to Comments Index. The comment letters and responses are provided on the following pages. Carlsbad Onh North Specific Plan EIR Final EIR - Responses IO Comments 1 Ciw ofCarlsbnd Augur1 2002 TABLE 9-1 RESPONSES TO COhlhlENTS INDEX Carlsbad Oak North Speci/c Plan EIR 7 Final EIR - Responses 10 Commenrs - Cip ofcarisbad Augusi 2002 " EXHIBIT 6 .- August 14, 2002 Anne Hysong, Associate Planner City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carisbad, California 92008 €2: Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan EIE (EIF. SS-08) Czar Ms. Hysong: The City of Vista has reviewed the responses to Vista's comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (ERR) for the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan, Faraday Avenue Extension, El Fuerte Street Extension, and South Agua Hedionda Sewer Interceptor Project. The City of Vista provides the following information for the record: CV2: None of the data referenced in Vista's comment letter relies on data taken from the Series 8 regional forecast. All referenced traffic data in comments 1 and 2 are taken directly from the project traffic report prepared by Willdan-WPA Traffic Engineering. Vista's comment No. 1 references an anticipated five percent increase in volume at the SR-7S/Sycamore interchange in 2005 that was taken €rom a recent traffic report prepared by URSBRW, which was also prepared using the SANDAG City'siCounty 2020 regional model. The City of Vista updated the Circulation Ejement of our General Plan in 2002 and adopted a citpvide traffic m3del prepzred by S?>DAG udiizing the 2020 regimd zode!, Carlsbad's response to Vista's cominent No. 1 indicates that the approximate 30 percent d.ecrease in traffic volume assumed in the project traffic repolt unde.r the 2005 with project condition at the SR-78 eastbound ramps/Sycamore Avenue intersection may result fl-om a shift in traffic related to improvements (i.e., adding lanes) on San Marcos Boulevard and Rancho Santa Fe Road; the SR-78 interchanges at these locations a-e located approximately 1 and 2 miles from the SR-7S/Sycamore Avenue interchanze, respectively. It is difficult to understand how Carlsbad can justify a 30 percent decrease in traffic volumes at the SR- 78iSycamoi-e Avenue interchange in 2005 by relying on road improvements at interchanges 1 to 2 miles away. CV3: The City of Vista prepared an EIR for the Vista Business Park Specific Plan (Vista Business Fark Specific Plan Final Supplemental EIR, City of Vista, 1993) that addressed the traffic impacts from buildout of the Specific Plan, which included the commercial center at the northwest comer of Eusiness Park Drive Anne Hysoug. .A.ssuciotc Pia1;ner Page 2 of 3 Aupt 14,200’ and Falomar Airport Road. The Vista Business Park EIR did not identify any significant traffic impacts at intcrsrctions within the City of Carlsbad. Carlsbad’s response does not provide any justification as to why the reduced project alternative (Alternative C) is not being considered. CV4: The City of Vista does not dispute that the failure at the identified Vista intersections would occur without the project, but this fact does not justify the lack of mitigation for the project’s increased impact at these intersections, Based on the project traffic analysis, the project would increase the average delay at the intersections of S. Melrose DriveiPark Center Drive and S. Melrose Drive/Syc.amore Avenue by more than 55 seconds during the A.M peak hour in the future (1020) condition. The proje.ct applicants should be responsible for th.ir proportionate share of mitigation based on the direct impacts CF the project. CV5: Carlsbad’s response indicates that the cities of Ca!sSad and Vista met acd aped to mitigate their own impacts and not cross jurisdictional boundaries. No such agreement was reached in reference to the Carlsbad Oaks North project. The City of Vista agrees that the extensions of Melrose Drive and Faraday Avenue will improve regiond traffic circulation, but staff disputes the finding that these improvements will offset the project-specific intersection impacts in Vista. The City of Vista has prepared environmental analyses for all development projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the vicinity of the four referenced Vista intersections, which has included traffic forecasting as part of the standard environmental review process. The assertion that Vista has “approved major projects on or near the same four intersections without lookin2 at build-out needs or t-affic forecasting” is unfounded. The intersections refe;enced ha-ge been designed and hilt wit11 standai-d geometries c.onsisteot with the roadway cla3sifica?ions. 31.- i,il; LiUIIIL L:.-.” L,cp.vr i-”“i pLuJect “-: zt the i:c.i-theast Lcc8mer of S. M?:rrjse EriYJ? ..;d Tarlc Center Drive is a proposed project within the City of Vista and staff agrees that it should be included in the cumulative analysis for the Carlsbad Oaks North project. However, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for the project, which included notice sen? to the City of Carlsbad. The traffic analysis prepared for Home Depot was based on Series S and, therefore, was not taken forward for consideration and is currently being revised to reflect the 1020 SANDAG model. Nonetheless, the Ca1-lsbad Oaks mitigation assumptions for Home Depot are not consistent with the previous traffic analysis, nor are they required’as frontage improvements for the Home Depot project. It is not possible to identify what improvements will be required of the Home Depot project until the revised traffic analysis is complete. The project EIR and Carlsbad’s response Fim\.ld: no justification 2.s to why th- identihsd impro\:ernenis ‘‘consisttnt u,ith the Home Depot project” are assumed in the Carlsbad Oaks North traffic analysis. Augus: 14,2002 .hct H~SGII~, ,&.rsoc,a!e Ela:inci Faze 3 of 3 CV9: The fair share contribution calculation relies on the zatnl approach volume at the intersection of S. hklrose Drive and Sycamore Avenue that is generated by the project. The referenced volbmes were taken from Fizure 10 (Intenection 18) of the project traffic report. This methodology is consistent with Caltrans’ methodology for calculation of proportionate costs for traffic impacts. The identified improvements at the intersections of S. Melrose Drivelpal-k Center Drive and S. Melrose DriveKycamore Avenue were included in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) by a vote of the Vista City Council on August 13, 2002. Therefore; an established program is currently in place to ensure implementation of the identified improvements consistent with the timing of the mitigation requirements for the Carlsbad Oaks North project. Should you have any questions regarding the info~mation contained iherein, please feel frze io contact me ai (760) 726-1340, extension 1262. Sincerely, I Principal Planner C: &ta Geldert, City Manager J. Wayne Demetz, City Attorney Robin Putnam, Comnunitg Development Director EXHIBIT 7 . . . " J. WAYXE DERNETZ, City Attorney MARTIN A. GROVER, Assistant CiQ Attorney OFFlCE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF VISTA, CALIFORNIA 600 Eucalyptus Avenue Vista, California 92054 JONATHAN B. STONE, Assistant City Attorney August 14, 2002 Ms. Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad. CA 92008-1949 Facsimile: (760) 639-6120 Direct Dial: (760) 639-6119 By Facsimile and U.S. Mail Re: Carlsbad Oaks Dear Ms. Mobaldi: Yesterday we spoke regarding the environmental impact report ("EIR") for the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan. The EIR will initially be presented to the Planning Commission on August 21. The Planning Commission will consider a variety of issues including whether it will recommend that the City Council certify the EIR. Subsequently, the City Council will hold a public hearing regarding the certification of the EIR. At that hearing the City Council, if it certifies the EIR, will either: (1) condition the project so that all significant impacts in the City of Vista are mitigated; or (2) make findings under Public Resources Code §21081(a) to support a decision to not require those mitigation measures. As you know, Vista believes that the first option must be selected and has requested Carlsbad to do so. As I explained yesterday, Vista wants to present evidence and arQu- ~~qcactin~~to adopt findings which would excuse it from requiring mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts in Vista. You informed me that Vista was free to present evidence and arguments (regarding the propriety of proposed findings under section 21081) as part of the public hearing before the City Council. I understand that this evidence may be included in the record through oral communications at the hearing before the City Council and through the submission of documents prior to or during that hearing. You also informed me that it is unnecessary to first submit the documentary evidence to the Planning Commission as a prerequisite to presenting it to the City Council for inclusion in the record. Ms. Jane Mobaldi City of Carlsbad Page 2 Of course, Vista hopes to discuss this subject with Carlsbad in advance of the hearings and will do its best to provide as much information to Carlsbad at the earliest possible time. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions Sincerely, Jonathan Stone Assistant City Attorney cc: Ron Ball, City Attorney EXHIBIT 8 RONALD R. BALL CITY ATORNEY JANE MOBALDI ASSISTANT ClTY AnORNEY ClNDlE K. McMAHON DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY JULIA L. COLEMAN ClTY OF CARLSBAD -; -~. .~ ~~~~. . . 1200 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE . -, ~ ..-, .. .1 . .~ . .. ~ CARLSEAD. CALIFORNIA 92008-1989 ~. (760) 434-2891 .~ FAX: (760) 434-8367 1 a": j . '/.( ~.. '~ . r .". , ., SECRETARY TO CITY ATTORNEY RANDEE HARLIB LEGAL SECRETARYIPARALEGAL ARDlS SEIDEL August 15,2002 Jonathan B. Stone, Esq. Assistah City Attorney City of Vista 600 Eucalyptus Avenue Vista, CA 92084 Re: Carlsbad Oaks Dear Mr. Stone: I am in receipt of your letter of August 14, 2002, regarding the City of Vista's desire to present evidence and arguments to the Carlsbad City Council at the public hearing for consideration of certification of the Carlsbad Oaks Environmental Impact Report. Vista representatives may appear at the Planning Commission hearing scheduled for August 21, 2002, when a recommendation as to certification of the EIR will be made to the City Council, or only at the subsequent public hearing before the City Council on the matter. Any written materials presented at the hearing will be made part of the record and representatives of the City of Vista will be allowed to make oral comments in accordance with the City Council's rules and time iimitations for public comment. As you know, Carlsbad, as Lead Agency ha$ already responded in writing to Vista's comments on the Draft EIR. Very truly yours, bane Mobaldi Assistant City Attorney' /jmk EXHIBIT 9 - .. . " RESOLUTION NO. 2002-225 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISTA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CAPTIAL 2006 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEARS 2001-02 THROUGH 2005- WHEREAS, the City Council, on October 23, 2001, approved a Five Year Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2001-02 through 2005-06 ("CIP); and WHEREAS, subsequent to Vista's approval of the CIP. the City of Carlsbad completed a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR) analyzing the environmental impacts resulting from a proposed development ("Carlsbad Oaks") consisting of 1.9 million square feet of buildings on about 650 acres of land; and WHEREAS, a traffic study ("Traffic Study"), included as Appendix B to the DEIR, has determined that Carlsbad Oaks will produce significant traffic impacts in the City of Vista at two intersections ("Two Intersections") designated in the DElR as intersection Nos. 18 and 19 which are located respectively at (a) Sycamore Avenue and Melrose Drive; and (b) Park Center Drive and Melrose Drive; and WHEREAS, the Traffic Study and DElR conclude that the significant impacts at the Two Intersections can be mitigated through widening certain streets to include left and right turn ! lanes ("Street Improvements"); and ~~ ~ WHEREAS, the DElR projected that intersection 19 -without Carlsbad Oaks --would continue operating at acceptable levels through 2020 and that there would be no need for mitigation or Street Improvements at that intersection except for Carlsbad Oaks; and WHEREAS, the DElR concludes that Carlsbad Oaks substantially contributes to the traffic at intersection 18 and the need for Street Improvements by increasing the projected peak hour delay at that intersection by 87 seconds; and WHEREAS, the City hascaused the preparation of engineer cost estimates for the Street Improvements and wishes to formalize a program that will allow for the future construction of the Street Improvements; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to process an amendment to the CIP ("CIP Amendment") to include the Street Improvements, as particularly described in the amendment; and WHEREAS, adequate funding for the Street Improvements will be available only through combining fair share contributions for impacts resulting from Carlsbad Oaks and other funds available to the City (including fees, grant funds, and other revenues), and WHEREAS, this program shall occur in accordance with the applicable provisions of $3 contracts approved by the City Manager and the requirements of applicable Federal and State .+ law, including "rough proportionality" requirements, provided that fair share contributions are 29 i received in connection with Carlsbad Oaks; and ,.~. . I. . : :: 7 .. ., RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 225 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISTA PAGE NO. 2 I ., .2 WHEREAS, any funds contributed toward the Street Improvements shall be spent on!y on the construction of those improvements and shall be held in a separate account (except for purposes of investment); and WHEREAS, a party responsibie for making contributions to the Street Improvements may construct all or part of the Street Improvements rather than making a monetary contribution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. The above recitals are true and correct. 2. The Street Improvements, for purposes of Government Code §65402(a), constitute a street widening. 3. In accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section §65402(a). the City Council determines that the review of the Street Improvements by the Planning Commission shall not be required. ,, ' 4. The CIP Amendment is hereby approved. 5. The City Manager, in accordance with the direction of this resolution, shall implement a program for construction of the Street Improvements upon receipt of fair share contributions. 6. The program shall permit Vista to receive fair share contributions toward the construction of the Street Improvements when an environmental review determines that a project (whether within Vista or outside of Vista) will produce significant traffic impacts in Vista that can be mitigated by the Street Improvements. 7. The City, in operating the program for Street Improvements. shall comply with all reporting requirements imposed by law, if any, and shall comply with ail applicable laws relating to the use, collection, expenditure, and return of funds collected through j the program. 8. The City Manager is hereby authorized to implement this program by executing any contract for the contribution or construction by a developer of the Street by the contributing party to protect their lawful interests, including contracts Improvements containing standard provisions and provisions reasonably requested associated with the mitigation of impacts.resulting from Carlsbad Oaks. 9. Based on all relevant factors, the Street Improvements can be constructed within a reasonable time if fair share contributions are received in connection with Carlsbad Oaks. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-225 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISTA PAGE NO. 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the City Council held on August 13,2002 by the following vote: AYES: CAMPO. GRONKE, RITTER, MAYOR ESTES NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE APPROVED AS TO FORM: Wayne Dernetz, City Attorney ATTEST: Jo Seibert. City Clerk n ! EXHIBIT 10 6196336120 UlSTR CiTY FITT'I 812 F14 SEP 25 '02 12:53 OFFICE OF TRE CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF VISTA, CALIFORNIA J. WAYNE DERNETZ, Ctty Altnrney Arslstsnt Clty Attorney Jonnthan B. Stone, Assistant City Attorney MARTIN k GROVER, August 21,2002 BY FAX : 760-602-8559 & US MAIL Mr. Michael Holzmiller, Secretary of the Planning Commission City of Carlsbad 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive Carlsbad, CA 92008-1949 Re: Carlsbad Oaks Dear Mr. Holzmiller: Vista repeats its request for mitigation of traffic impacts projected to occur in Vista due to the Carlsbad Oaks project, This mitigation can be achieved in many ways, including through imposing conditions on the project. For instance, conditions could require the applicant to do one of the following: (1) construct street improvements in Vista prior to receiving a grading permit, occupancy permit or other authorization; (2) make full or fair share contributions toward those improvements prior to proceeding with the project; (3) enter into a mitigation agreement with Vista to facilitate the street improvements; or (4) extend an offer lo Vista to fully or partly fund or construct the improvements, This type of mitigation is commonly required by jurisdictions throughout San Diego County (including Vista) to respond to cross-jurisdictional traffic impacts. The City of Vista is prepared to assure that any mitigation measures approved by Carlsbad will achieve the desired result. In fact, the Vista City Council, on August 13, unanimously adopted a resolution to amend its Capital Improvement Program and lend support to Carlsbad in its efforts to mitigate project-related traffic impacts. The Capital improvement Program now includes improvements at the following intersections in Vista: (1) S. Melrose Drive at Park Center Drive and Faraday Road; and (2) S. Melrose Drive and Sycamore Avenue. The resolution is attached, with new pages describing these intersection irnprovoments. Mr. Holzmiller City of Carlsbad Page 2 Please include this letter and its attachment in the record relating to any hearing regarding the certification of the EIR for Carlsbad Oaks. You may call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jonathan B. Stone, Assistant City Attorney enclosure cc: Ms. Sandra Holder, Director of Community Development Ms. Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney Ms. Anne Hysong, Associate Planner RESOLUTION NO. 2002-225 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISTA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING AN AMENDMENTTO THE CAPTIAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEARS 2001-02 THROUGH 2005- ,2006 Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2001-02 through 2005-06 (“CIP”); and WHEREAS, the City Council, on October 23. 2001, approved a Five Year Capital Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR) analyzing the environmental impacts resulting from WHEREAS, subsequent to Vista’s approval of the CIP, the City of Carlsbad completed a a proposed development (“Carlsbad Oaks”) consisting of 1.9 million square feet of buildings on about 650 acres of land; and WHEREAS, a traffic study (“Traffic Study”), included as Appendix B to the DEIR, has determined that Carlsbad Oaks will produce significant traffic impacts in the City of Vista at two intersections (“Two Intwedions”) designated in the DElR as intersection Nos. 18 and 19 which are located respectively at (a) Sycamore Avenue and Melrose Drive; and (b) Park Center Drive and Melrose Drive; and WHEREAS, the Traffic Study and DEIR conclude that the significant impacts at the Two intersections can be mitigated through widening certain streets to inblude lefl and right turn lanes (“Street Improvements”); and WHEREAS, the DEIR projected that intersection 19 -without Carlsbad Oaks -- would continue operating at acceptable levels through 2020 and that there would be no need for mifigation or Street Improvements at that intersection except for Carlsbad Oaks; and WHEREAS, the DElR concludes that Carlsbad Oaks substantially contributes to the traffjc at intersection 18 and the need for Street Improvements by increasing the projected peak hour delay at that intersection by 87 seconds; and WHE,REAS, the City has caused the preparation of engineer cost estimates for the Street Improvemenfs and wishes to formalize a program that will allow for th5 future construction of the Street Improvements; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to process an amendment to the CIP (“CIP Amendment“) to inclljde the Street,lmprovements, as paiticulariy described in the amendment; and WHEREAS, adequate funding for the Street Improvements will be available only through combining fair share contributions for impacts resulting from Carlsbad Oaks and other funds available to the City (including fees, grant funds, and other revenues), and _. WHEREAS, this program shall OCCUI- in accordance with tho applicable provisions of ., .I contracts approved by the City Manager and the requirements of applicable Federal and State ,! .{ law, including “rough proportionality” requirements, provided that fair share contributions are .I ., 3 received in connecficm with Carlsbad Oaks; and RESOLUTION NO^ 2002- 225 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISTA PAGE NO. 2 ! i .I WHEREAS. any funds contributed toward the Street Improvements shall be spent onjy on the construction of those improvements and shall be held in a separate account (except for purposes of investment); and WHEREAS, a party responsible for making contributions to the Street lnlprovements may construct ail or part of the Street Improvements rather than making a monetary contribution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. The above recitals are true and correct 2. The Street Improvements, for purposes of Government Code §65402(a), constitute a street widening. 3, In accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section §65402(a), the City Council determines that the review of the Street Improvements by the Planning Commission shall not be required. 4. The CIP Amendment is hereby approved. 5. The City Manager, in accordance with the direction of this resolution, shall implement a program for construction of the Street Improvements upon receipt of fair share contributions. 6. The program shall permit Vista to receive fair share contributions toward the that a project (whether within Vista or outside of Vista) will produce significant traffic construction of the Street Improvements when an environmental review determines impacts in Vista that can be mitigated by the Street Improvements. 7. The City, in operating the program for Street Improvements, shall comply with all reporting requirements imposed by law, if any, and shall comply with ail applicable laws relating to the use, collection, expenditure, and 'return of funds collected through the program. 8. The City Manager is hereby authorized to implement this program by executing any contract for the contribution or construction by a developer of the Street by the contributing party to protect their lawful interests, including contracts Improvements containing standard provisions and provisions reasonably requested associated with the mitigation of impacts resulting from Carlsbad Oaks. 9. Based on all relevant factors, the Street Improvements can be constructed within a reasonable time if fair share contributions are received in connection with Carlsbad Oaks. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-225 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VISTA PAGE NO. 3 i ,I PASSED AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the City Council held on August 13, 2@02 by the following vote: AYES: CAHPO, GRONKE, RITTER, MAYOR ESTES NOES: NONE APPROVED AS TO FORM: Wayne Dernetz, City Attorney f&a/ iN W. E ES, Jr.. Mayoy ATTEST: Jo Seibert, City Clerk n f !?I ": ... ". . .. 61963961213 UISTH CITY HTT'f 812 Pi9 SEP 25 '02 12:59 EXHIBIT I I T TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION The City of Carlsbad Planning Department Appiicanon cornplers dm: hla! I I. 199s Project Planner: Anne Hyson: Project Engineer: Clyde \Vickhmi I P.C. AGENDA OF: August 71,2002 ! I SUBJECT: EIR 9S-08iGP.4 97-05iZC 97-05iSP ZlliSP ZOO(BVLFR1P 16(.4I/CT 97- SPECIFIC PL.4h' - Request for a recommendation of certification of a Program Environmental Impact Repon, and recornmendation of adoption of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Ovenidins Considerations, Mirigarion Monitoring and Reporting Program; recommendation of approval for the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan, Carlsbad Airport Center Specific P1.m Amendment and Zone 16 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment; and approval of a Tentative Tracr Map, Hillside Development Permit, Planned Industrial Permit, and Floodplain Special Use Permit for the development of an indusrrial park that will include 23 industrial lots, 3 open space lots, and one passive recreation lot located north of Palomar Airport Road between El Camino Real and the City's eastern boundary in the P-C Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 16. Public Works projects that are associated with the Carlsbad Oaks North project include the extension of Faraday Avenue, the extension of El Fuerte Street, and Reaches A through D of the South Agua Hedionda Interceptor (SAHI). I3IHDP 97-10/PIP 02-OZiSUP 97-07 - CAFUSB.4D 0.4KS NORTH I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ..IDOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5241 RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION of EIR 9s-OS and RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; ADOPT Planning Conmission Resolutions NO. 5245, 5216, 5247, 5275', and 5248 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of GPA 97-05,, Zc 97-', 05, SP 211, SP 200(B) and LFMP 16(A), and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5219, 5250, 5251, and 5252 APPROVING CT 97-13, HDP 97-10, PIP 92-02. and SUP 97-07, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. 11. INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting a recommendation for certification of the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan Environmental Impact Repon (EIR 98-08), a recommendation of approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Local Facilities Management Plan, and Specific Plan, and approval of the necessary entitlements to allow, the subdivision and grading of an industrial park including the extensions of Faraday Avenue, El Fuene Street and Reaches A through D of rhe South Agua Hedionda Interceptor seiver generail:; located nonh of Palomar Airport Road between El Camino Real and the City's eastern boundaq in the nonheast quadrant. , ., '' ELF: 98-0S/GPA 97-O5/ZC 97-O5/SP 2IIISP 200(B)LFMP 16(AjiCT 97-1;:HDP 97-10,' PIP 02-02iSUP 97-07 - CAFLSBAD OAKS NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN August 21,2002 Page 2 The Specific Plan area and future roadway extensions are proposed on land currently designarcd by the General Plan for Planned Industrial (PI) developmenr and Open Space (OS). The proposed General Plan Amendment will adjust the PI and OS boundaries within the Specific Plan area to correspond with proposed industrial development and a Habitat Mana,ozment Plan (HMP) hardline conservation area. The proposed zone change for the Specific Plan area from P- C to P-M and O-S will provide consistency with the proposed General Plan desi-gations. The proposed Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan will regulate industrial and auxiliary commercial development within a 194.5 acre industrial park as well as provide for the preservation and management of 3 open space lots consisting of 719.5 acres. Subdivision of the site is proposed by a tentative tract map with 23 industrial lots, one passive recreation lot. three open space lots, and onsite and offsite public infrastructure including Faraday Avenue, El Fume . Street, and the South Agua Hedionda Interceptor sewer. A detailed description of the proposed development and necessary discretionary actions is provided below in the Project Description section of this report. EIR 98-08 is a joint public/private environmental document that analyzes the environmental impacts of a 414 acre private industrial development (Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park), two General Plan circulation arterial roadway extensions (Faraday Avenue and El Fuerte Street), and the SAHI sewer, The combined project area is approximately 650 acres of land. The Carlsbad Oaks North project requires the proposed infrastructure as part of its development. The construction of Faraday Avenue, El Fuerte Street and the SAHI sewer will avoid anticipated Growth Management circulation failures and sewer deficiencies. The project complies with CEQA and all applicable City policies and standards. All project issues have been resolved, and all necessary findings can be made for the requested approvals. 111. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan Program EIR analyzes the impacts of development over 650 acres that includes the development of a 194.5 acre industrial park and preservation of 219.5 I acres of open space, the extensions of Faraday Avenue and El Fuerte Street, and a 3.4 mile long gravity flow trunk sewer to serve existing and planned industrial development within the South Agua Hedionda Basin. The Program EIR includes an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the following issue areas: Land Use and Planning Hazards and Hazardous Materials TransportatiodTraffic HydrologyiWater Quality Air Quality Cultural Resources Noise Paleontological Resources Biological Resources Aesthetics GeologyiSoils Public Services and Utilities Populatioflousing The EIR concludes that the project will result in: (1) unavoidable significant traffic, air quality, and biological environmental impacts; EIR 98-08iGPA 97-OjiZc 9i-ojlSp 21I/sP 200@)/LFhCP 16(A)/CT 9T-IYHDP 97-10, PIP 02-OZ/SUP 97-07 - CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH SPECIFIC PLAh' August 2 1,2002 Pace 3 (2) SiFificant noise, biological: hazards, \yarer qualit!,. paleoniological. and assrheric impacts that can be mitigated or avoided; and (3) impacts considered in the EIR but found to be less than significant. (See Section 1'. Environmental Review, -of this repon for a more detailed discussion of the EIR analysis). The project necessitates the following discretionq actions: General Plan Amendment (GPA 97-05) adjusts Planned Industrial (PI) and Open Space (OS) boundaries to be consistent with the City's negotiated Habitat Management Plan (HMP) hardline conservation area boundaries for a wildlife habitat corridor within the Specific Plan area. This change will reduce the acreage of PI designated land from 2S2 acres to 194.5 acres and increase the acreage desigated as OS from 155 acres to 219.5 acres; Zone Change (ZC 97-05) rezones the property from Planned Community (P-C) IO the Planned Industrial (P-M) and Open Space (OS) zoning classifications that are consistent with the proposed General Plan land use desiFations; Zone 16 Local Facilities Management Amendment to incorporate updated facilities requirements and methods of financing for the Specific Plan area; Specific Plan (SP 21 1) establishes zoning regulations for the proposed industrial park. To enable implementation of the Specific Plan, the proposed tentative tract map, hillside development permit, planned industrial permit, and floodplain special use permit are required to subdivide and grade the industrial park including the necessary road and sewer infrastructure; Specific Plan Amendment (SP 200(B)) deletes the northern 414 acres identified by the SP 200 as Area B and now proposed as the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan; Tentative Tract Map (CT 97-13) subdivides the 414 acre Specific Plan area into 23 industrial lots, one passive recreation lot, and three open space lots in conformance with the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the CMC); Hillside Development Permit (HDP 97-10) regulates hillside grading permitted in accordance with the Hillside Development Regulations Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the CMC); Planned Industrial Permit (PIP 02-02) requires the industrial subdivision to be consistent with the Planned Industrial Zone (Chapter 21.34 of the CMC). A PIP will be required for the future development of each industrial lot; and Floodplain Special Use Permit (SUP 97-07) requires developmenr with any area of special flood hazard (Agua Hedionda Creek) to be in compliance with the Flood Plain Management Regulations (Chapter 21.1 10 of the CMC). ELR 9S-O8/GPA 9i-O5/ZC 97-0j/sP 21 lisp 200(B)/LFMP 16(A)/CT 97-13,WDp g;-10:’ August 21: 2002 Page 4 - In general, the combined 650 acre property is vacant and characterized by three differen; topozaphic areas: the north-facing hillside slopes that extend down from the southern projecl area, the roce hills that cover the central and northern portions of the project area. and the intervening east-west canyon drainage known as La Mirada Creek, a tributary to Aguz Hedionda Creek. La Mirada Creek is a broad riparian drainage area with mature oak trees that traverses the southern half of the site in a roughly east-west direction and the Agua Hedionda Creek traverses the,northwestem portion of the project area. Linear riparian woodlands consistins of oaks. willows and sycamore trees are the primary habitat type associated with these creeks. Many sensitive plant habitats including southern maritime chaparraYnutrall’s scrub oak. southern coast live oak riparian forest, and coastal sage scrub are located throughout the project site. These vegetation communities provide nesting and foraging habitat for various sensitive and non- sensitive wildlife species. The project area is bounded by a single-family residential neighborhood and furure commercial area in the City of Vista to the east; the Carlsbad Oaks East and West Business Centers to the south, vacant land owned by the County of San Diego and leased by the Coast Waste Trash Transfer Station, and the Carlsbad Safety Center to the west, and the Dawson Los Monos Canyon Reserve to the north. The 21 8 acre Dawson Los Monos Reserve is part of the University of California Natural Land and Water Resources system and is used by the University for scientific and educational purposes. PIP 02-02iSW 97-07 - CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH SPECFIC PLAN The majority of the project area is located within the McClellan-Palomar Airport Influence Area and the southern portion of the property is located in the Flight Activity Zone. The proposed development is therefore subject to the McClellan-Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLW). In 1986, the proposed 414 acre Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan area was approved as Area B in the Carlsbad Airport Business Center Specific Plan (SP 200). Area A of SP 200 included the Carlsbad Oaks East and West Business Parks located east of El Camino Real and directly north of Palomar Airport Road. SP 200 set forth development regulations for Area A to enable industrial development within the southern portion of the Specific Plan area along Palomar j Airport Road and required that an amendment be processed in the future with development regulations for Area B. Area A is now fully developed and physically separated from Area B; therefore, a separate Specific Plan (SP 21 1) is proposed for the area formerly identified as Area B of SP 200. This necessitates a companion amendment to SP 200 to delete Area B from that Specific Plan. The proposed Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park Specific Plan will guide the development and operation of the Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park and ensure the preservation, malntenance and funding of open space in perpetuity. The Specific Plan provides zoning regulations for the development of a 194.5 acre industrial park consisting of 23 industrial lots, 1 passive employee recreation lot, and preservation and maintenance of 3 open space lots consisting of approximately 219.5 acres for a total of 4i4 acres. The proposed industrial lots, ransing in size from 2.6 acres to 20.8 acres, will accommodate a projected 1,921,000 square feet of planned industrial development in the Specific Plan area. Permitted industrial uses include manufacturing, warehouse, research and development, and offices; however, the Specific Plan restricts the use of hazardous materials on lots that are located within 1,000 feet of any ER 9S-OS/GPA 97-05iZC 97-OjisP 21 1/SP 2OO(B)LFMp 16(.4)/CT 97-lj:xDp 97-10 PIP 02-02/SUP 97-07 - CARLSBAE OAKS NORTH SPECIFIC PL,A.h' August 21,2002 Page 5 residential unit. Commercial land uses that directly support the industrial park are also pem1ittsd on specified lots with a conditional use permit and commercial uses are required on either LOT 1 or 2 at the intersection of El Fuerte Street and Faraday .ii\,enue. The intent of this requiremen1 1s to provide commercial services such as eating establishments that would sen'e the existins and proposed industrial developments in this area. Lot 9, located near the proposed intersectiorl of El Fuerte Street and Faraday Avenue, is reserved for passive employee recreation unless a sewer pump station is necessitated by selection of an alternative force main sew'er in Faraday A\.enue. This area is proposed to be developed with landscaping, 8 parking spaces. picnic tables, trellises and benches to enable employees IO visually enjoy the natural open space located beiou. El Fuerte Street to the east. Lot 9 will also act as a trailhead for the proposed Citywide Trail Se,ment 26 that will follow the ali=ment of an existing sewer easement road located south of La Mirada Creek from El Fuene Street to the project's eastern boundary The trail will connect to the east with the trail seapent proposed along the westem boundary of the recently approved Carlsbad Raceway and Palomar Forum Business Parks. Trail Se-pent 26 will continue north within the El Fuerte Street right-of-way and proceed west in the Faraday Avenue right-of-way to the Specific Pian boundary. A second small mini-park is proposed at the northeast comer of Faraday Avenue and El Fuerte Street that also provides a landscaped picnic area with tables, benches, and trellises. Public road access is not currently available to the Specific Plan area. Primary access to the site is proposed by Faraday Avenue, a General Plan circulation arterial roadway. This four lane secondary arterial roadway would be extended 1.3 miles from its existing terminus at Orion Way in the City of Carlsbad, across County of San Diego owned land and through the Specific Plan area, to its existing terminus in the City of Vista. An existing Settlement Agreement recorded on August 14, 1997 between the County of San Diego and the City of Carlsbad requires San Diego County to make an irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Carlsbad for the alignment of Faraday Avenue through County property. Faraday Avenue will cross the south fork of Agua Hedionda and La Mirada Creeks and will require approval 'of a Floodplain Special Use Permit. The proposed location of the roadway creek crossing will minimize road construction impacts to sensitive riparian habitat and also reduce the flow of the 100-year storm event by the construction of a 6' x 7' box culvert under the roadway. This design will create a detention basin during a 100-year flood event to attenuate downstream flooding of the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park and reduce stream bed erosion. Adjacent to the culvert, a large diameter (24 feet wide by 12 feet tall) arched pipe culvert is proposed to allow wildlife movement below the roadway and above the anticipated hish water mark. El Fuerte Street is also proposed IO provide access to the site. This four lane secondary circulation arterial roadway is proposed to be extended through the Specific Plan area 2,800 feet from north of Loker Avenue to future Faraday Avenue. The proposed South Agua Hedionda Sewer Interceptor will provide sewer service to the Carlsbad Oaks North project and the approved Carlsbad Raceway and Palomar Forum industrial projects to the east. SAHI Reaches A through D of the South Agua Hedionda Sewer Interceptor are proposed to be construcr.ed from the southeast comer of the project area (at Melrose Drive) lo the northwest connectins with the existing Agua Hedionda trunk sewer located in Sunny Creek Road. The alignment of the sewer is proposed to stay within an existing dirt road located south of La Mirada Creek until it reaches the proposed extension of El Fuerte Street. At that point, the sewer will turn north, staying within the rights of way of proposed El Fuerte Street and Faraday ELR 9S-OUGPA 97-OYZC 97-0YSP 21 I/SP 2OOp)LFMP 16(~)/cT 97-I;,mP 97-10; August 2 1 ~ 2002 Page 6 Avenue. The sewer would then exit the right of \vay of Faraday Ayenue and continue in a northwesterly direction until it reaches SUM? Creek Road. This portion of the sewer \yilt generally follow the contours adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek ar a minimal depth, maintainins a gravity system. A’20 foot wide easement will be required for the construcrion of a 12 foot wide all-weather maintenance road to be located over the sewer line for this segmenr of the sewer. PIT 02-02ISUP 97-07 - CARLSBAD OMS NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN The area proposed for development is established by the proposed HMP hardline conservation area boundary. The HM’P conservation area surrounds the area proposed for development on three sides and limits the development to the northern half of the property. The proposed subdivision and grading desig consists of terraced industrial lots that are consistent with the north-south descending landform of the project area to reduce grading amounts where feasible. Grading quantities for the project exceed the Hillside Ordinance “potentially acceptable” range and manufactured slopes exceed 40 feet in heizht at some locations due to grade alteration required for Faraday Avenue and El Fuerte Street as well as extensive cut and fill required to achieve large flat industrial building pads on the existing undulatedj’sloped terrain. Faraday Avenue will be intersected at two locations by a loop access road that will provide access to the majority of lots within the subdivision. Three cul-de-sac streets that intersect with the loop road will provide access to interior lots. The project is subject to the following land use plans, policies, and ordinances: A. Carlsbad General Plan 1. General Plan AmendmentiDraft Habitat Management Plan 2. General Plan Consistency B. Specific Plan 21 1 C. Carisbad Municipal Code, Title 20 (Subdivision Ordinance) D. Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 21 (Zoning Ordinance) including: 1. Zone ChangePlanned Industrial Zone (Chapter 21.34) 2. Zone ChangeiOpen Space Zone (Chapter 21.33) 3. Hillside Development Regulations (Chapter 21.95) 4. Floodplain Management Regulations (Chapter 21 .I 10) E. AfcCIellan-Palomar Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan’ (CLUP) F. Draft Habitat Management Plan G. Growth Manazement OrdinanceiZone 16 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment IJ?. AEALYSIS The recommendation of approval for this project was developed by anal!.zinS [he projecr‘s consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed ab0x.e. The follonjzg analysis section discusses compliance with each of these resularionsipolicies utilizins bo:h rest and tables. Al. General Plan Amendment The Specific Pian area is currently designated by the General Plan for Planned Industrial (PI) and Open Space (OS) land uses. A porrion Of the project site is proposed as a hardline consemarion area (Core Area 5) in the City’s Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP). This hardline area is proposed to be entirely desigated as OS, however, the existing boundaries of PI and OS designations do not coincide entirely with the boundaries of the negotiated hardline consenzarion area (see the attached “General Plan Open Space Revision” map). The proposed General Pian Amendment is, therefore, necessary to adjust the boundaries of PI and OS. Policy C.20 of the Open Space Plaining and Protection Section of the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element requires findings to adjust the boundaries of any open space shown on the “Official Open Space and Conservation Map” dated September, 1994. The necessary findings are: (1) The proposed open space is equal to or greater than the area depicted on the Official Open Space Map. The proposed adjustment in open space boundaries will increase the acreage designated as OS from 135 acres to 2 19.5 acres; than that depicted on the Official Open Space Map. The open space adjustment will eliminate PI land use designations and preserve additional acres of open space within a wildlife habitat corridor that conrains critical wetland and riparian habitat sumounding La Mirada Creek; and The proposed adjustment to open space is within close proximity to the open space presently shown on the Official Open Space Map. The proposed amendment will change and increase the acreage of open space within the.,, project boundaries by 84.5 acres. The additional open space is contiguous with existing open space. (2) The proposed open space area is of environmenral quality equal to or greater (3) A?. General Plan Consistency The proposed project is consistent with the applicable policies contained within each relevant element of the General Plan. The following rable indicates compliance with the General Plan: GP ELEMENTIGOAL OBJECTIVEIPOLICY COMPLIANCE 1’ LANE USE I .C.3lC.5 The project requires more stringent performance standards and substantial buffers berween adjacent residential development in the City ofvista and industrial lots in the d6velopment to ensure compatibility. EIR 9S-OWGPA 97-Oj/Zc 97-0jisP 211/SP ZOO(B)/LFMP 16(A)/CT 9i-ljIHDP 97-10; Aueust 2 1,2002 PIP 02-02iSUP 97-07 - CART-SBAE OAKS NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN Industrial Goal NObjectives B.l, B.3 Objective B.4 Policy C IOiObjective c.3 Objectives C.8K.9 Policy C.12 Policy C.13 Environmental Goal A Policy C.7 CIRCULATION jtreets and Traffic ;oak A.1IA.S - I i Provides for light industrial uses thereby developing a base of light. sollution free industries in the City with minimal impacts to surrounding land uses through landscaped buffers, restrictions on noise ~ generation, use of hazardous materials, and lighting. The industrial park is located within the boundaries of the existing Planned Industrial (PI) comdor as shown on the General Plan. i i i I I I The industrial park is designed with lots that are large and level enough to accommodate industrial development including adequate parkins. loading, storage, landscaped perimeter se.tbacks and manufactured slopes, and properly functioning internal roads with adequately spaced driveways. The Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan includes a requirement for one lot located at the intersection of Faraday Avenue and El Fuerte Street (secondary arterials) and provides for other lots to be developed with commercial uses desi-ged to serve the occupants of the industrial park through issuance of a conditional use permit. The Specific Plan performance standards for the industrial project meet or exceed performance standards required by the P-M Zone and include more stringent noise, air quality and safety, and lighting standards. The industrial park provides two passive employee recreation areas with views of natural open space and trailhead access to a trail within the development unless the selection of a force main sewer requires a Sewer pump station within one of these areas. The project protects and conserves natural resources and fragile ecological areas by providing 219.5 acres of open space identified within Core Area 5 of the HMP and buffers adjacent sensitive preserve areas from the development. The project’s impacts to natural resources have been analyzed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act through the preparation of an EIR. ‘he project will complete the final Segments of two circulation arterial 2ads that will meet the local and regional transportation demand and ccommodate alternative modes of transportation. 1 I EIR 96-08/GPA 97-0j/ZC 97-oj/sP 21 IISP 2OO(B)ILFMP 16(.4)!CT 97-l3/HDP 97-10, PIF' 02-02/SUP 97-07 - CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH SPECIFIC PLAh' Aupst 2 1,2002 Page 9 Objective B.1 i The project will dedicate and irnpro\,e all circulation faciliiics required , Policies C.16IC.18 by the project, including circularion anerial road\vays. concurrent \virh i demand. OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION - Special Resource Protection Policy C.4 Objective B.l Policy C.6/C.19 r ' he project will result in the preservation of 219.5 acres of open spacc ~ hat will establish and mainrain a regionally sic9ni~cant'muiti-species ~ lidlife corridor consistent with the Ciry's HMP. provide a ciryvide rrail ~ e,pent, and rezone the open space to the Open Space zone. he project has been conditioned to require the proposed wildlife habitat preserve to be manased and financed in perpetuity consistent with an I , pproved maintenance program. r I r e phe project provides a minimum 300' wide buffer to protect the adjacent awson Los Monos Canyon Reserve natural resource area, which is tilized for educational and scientific research. Trail Svstem Policy c.3 I... he project requlres an mevocable offer of dedication for Trail Segment of the Citywide Trail System. Fire Risk Manazement Goal A.l I he fire risk presented by adjacent natural open space is mitigated hrough requiring fire suppression' buffers within the boundaries of the evelopment to avoid impacts to surrounding sensitive native vegetation. Air Oualitv Preservation he Specific Pian requires the formation of a business association to Policy C.3 ncourage usage of buses and vanpools and to provide incentives for car- oolins, flex-time, shortened work weeks, and telecommuting. // i Water Oualirv he project incorporates storm water quality control measures (BMPs) Objective B.2/Policy onsisrent with a conceptual Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan C.3 repared for the project to avoid adversely impacting sensitive water esources. F r EIR 9S-OSIGPA 97-OYZC 97-05iSP 211ISP 200(El)/LFblP 16(A)!CT 9?-1;!HDP 97-101 August 21,2003 PIP 02-02ISUP 97-07 - CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN h.3ISE Goal A.2 PARKS gL RECREATION PUBLIC SAFETY Flood Hazards Policies C.3iC.5 Hazardous Materials Policy C.3 Airpon Hazards Policies C.2IC.3 4oise generarion and interior noise srandards for future development re required by the Specific Plan in compliance with the City’s Koise tandard, McClellan Palomar CLUP, and P-M zone performance tandards. and environmental mitigation measures as applicable. Payment of park-in-lieu fee The project is required to install properly sized drainage facilities to handle the 100-year flood conditions and to ensure compliance with Titles 18 and 20 pertaining to drainase and flood control structures. The project reduces the risk of exposure to hazardous substances from future industrial development by restricting the use of hazardous materials within 1,000 feet of residential land use. The project conforms with the noise, height, and location requirements of the Carlsbad Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP). A. Specific Plan 211 Government Code Section 65451 governs the content of specific plans. The Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan contains all information required by state law. The plan consists of both text and diagrams which specify the following detail: (1) distribution and location of land uses; (2) .’ infrastructure; (3) development standards; (4) implementation measures including financing measures; and (5) a statement of the relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan. The purpose of the proposed Specific Plan is to provide for the design, development, and operation of a light industrial park within an area currently desiznated by the General Plan for Planned Industrial (PI) land use. As indicated in the General Plan Consistency Table above, the project complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the various elements of the General Plan pertaining to PI land uses. The proposed land use and development regulations ensure an industrial development that conforms to community goals and values and implements the City’s Habitat Management Plan by preserving and protecting a wildlife habitat corridor consistent with a nesotiated hardline conservation area. The Specific Plan also identifies the necessary public infrastructure to serve development within the area and provides for its installation prior to or concurrent with development in accordance. with the proposed Zone 16 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment. ELR 9S-O8/GPA 97-05/ZC 97-OYSP 21 l/SP ZOO(B)/LFMP 16(.4)!CT 97-13:X~p 97-10,' PIP 02-02/SLJP 97-07 - CARLSBAE OAKS NORTH SPECIFIC PL.A& August 2 1,2002 Pace I1 The permitted uses, development standards and design pidelines pro\,ided in the Specific plz,1 are adequate to properly develop the project sits. The proposed industrial and ausilian. commercial uses \vi11 be appropriate in area, location and o\.erall desip to the purpose inrsnded thereby creatingan environment of sustained desirability and stability. Large. industrial pads with adequate area for buildings, parking lots, setbacks and landscaping are proposed to enable campus type corporate development. Commercial uses located in proximity to the industrial uses will contribute to the balance of land use so that commercial services are a~aailable to emplovees of the proposed and surrounding industrial parks. The street system includes two secondan. circulation arterial roadways that will provide access to the site and internal streets that provide access to each industrial lot, is desiped in accordance with City standards and will ensure proper and efficient traffic circulation 10 the site and throughout the development. Appropriate measures are proposed to mitigate any adverse environmental impacr as noted in the environmental impact report (EIR 98-0s) prepared for the project. The proposed Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan generally sets forth Planned Industrial (P-M) Zone development and performance standards in accordance with Chapter 2 1 .;1 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. More restrictive standards are required by the plan to avoid and/or mitisate land use compatibility impacts resulting from the project's proximity to existing residential development and natural open space. These standards require: The provision of a 30-foot fire suppression setback inside the property line of industrial lots that are adjacent to natural open space. Specific landscape standards that require naturalizing landscaping adjacent to open space boundaries that is sensitive to the surrounding natural environment and avoids the introduction of invasive species. More stringent performance standards for noise and lighting in some areas to ensure compatibility with the surrounding residential and open space land uses. Noise generation standards are reduced to 55 - 60 Ldn during the evenins hours for lots adjacent to residential development. .4 separate lighting plan is required for each lot abutting either residential development or open space to avoid negative impacts from light spillage. A storm water pollution prevention plan that requires BMPs on. each industrial lot"' after grading and after development of each lot in compliance with approved drainage and storm water pollution prevention plans. Restrictions on the use of hazardous. materials within 1,000 feet of any residential structure. Special 75' - 150' rear building setbacks and 50' landscape buffers for lots abutting residential development. Operational standards for blasting and rock crushing during the srading operation that prohibit rock crushing activities within 850 feet from the eastern and northern propeny lines. Restrictions on locations of loading areas so that none will be visible from Faraday Avenue or El Fuene Street, and none are allowed between the rear of buildings and rear propeny lines of lo& adjacent to residential development. Architectural and landscape guidelines intended to ensure quality development are included and will be implemented through the formation of a Carlsbad Oaks North EIR 95-OSiGPA 97-05iZC 97-OjiSP 2IliSP 200p)/ZFMp 16(A)/CT 97-1;mDP 97-10; August 21: 2002 Paee 12 PIP 02-02/SUP 97-07 - CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN owner’s association that will be responsible for performin: architectural revie\\, prior to submittal for City administrative approval of subsequent planned industrial pem1iLs. ’ The Specific Plan provides for one less restrictive front yard setback standard for Lcts 15 - 19 and 27 than is allowed by the P-M Zone. Chapter 21.34 (P-M Zone) required a jj-foot average front yard setback but not less than 25 feet, while the proposed Specific Pian allows a minimum setback of 25 feet for Lots 15 - 19 and 27. These lots are located along the loop road at the northern boundary of the project where a 300-foot setback from the Dawson Los Manos Canyon Reserve is required as part of the HMP hardline boundary and a 30-foot fire suppression zone is necessitated by the adjacent native vegetation. Given these additional requirements. it is appropriate to allow somewhat reduced front setbacks to enable development of the lots. .4ctual development of the majority of these lots will result in a greater than 25’ front yard setback due to manufactured slopes in the front setback and the .7 to 1 top of slope setback required by the Specific Plan and Hillside Development Regulations. C. Subdivision Ordinance The proposed tentative tract map complies with all requirements of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code). The proposed project would subdivide the project site into 23 industria1 lots, I passive recreation lot, and 3 open space lots that surround the development on threes sides. The site is physically suited for the proposed development since the site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the industrial lots. Project grading consisting of 2,660,000 cubic yards of cut and fill to be balanced on site during a single phase of mass grading can be justified as discussed below in Section D.3. Hillside Regulations. All infrastructure improvements required by the project including Faraday Avenue, El Fume Street, internal industrial streets, the South Agua Hedionda Interceptor sewer, water and reclaimed water lines, and all drainage and flood control facilities will be installed concurrent with development. Potentially significant impacts resulting from the project have been identified and will by mitigated in accordance with the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project. DUD?. Planned Industrial ZonelOpen Space Zone $ The project includes a zone change to rezone the Specific Plan area from the previous Planned Community (P-C) Zone to the P-M and 0-S Zones. The P-C zoning was applied to the project area in 1981 as part of the former residential Valle Verde Planned Community which was never developed. The former Specific Plan (SP 200), approved in 1986, indicates that the property will be rezoned to the Planned Industrial (P-M) zone because the P-C zoning is inconsistent with the Planned Industrial (PI) and Open Space (OS) land use designations; the P-M zone 1s the implementing zone for PI designated areas and the 0-S zone implements the OS land use designations. The proposed rezone of 194.5 acres to the P-M zone and 219.5 acres to the 0-S zone will ensure consistency between the General Plan and Zoning since the proposed zone boundaries are consistent with the proposed adjustment to the PI and OS General Plan designation boundaries. The proposed subdivision in the P-M Zone is subject to Section 21.34.060 of the Zoning Ordinance requiring a Planned Industrial Permit (PIP) for all industrial subdivisions. Specific Plan 211, which establishes the zoning and development regulations for the future subdivision ‘EIR 9s-OSIGPA 97-05iZC 97-OjlSP 2 1 IlSP 2OO(B)/LFMP 16(A)lCT 97- 1 ;MDP 9;- 10 August 21,2002 Pace 13 and/or development of each lot within the Specific Plan area. specifies that subdi\.isions nlusl conform to the P-M zone subdivision standards. The proposed subdi\.ision complies \ritll tjl: applicable development standards and desi9 criteria for industrial subdi\.isions. The proposed industrial lots exceed the minimum one acre lor size. and the proposed circularion sys~m ensures a safe, efficient, and functional street system by providing TWO points of access from Faraday Avenue via Street “D” and driveways that are adequately spaced and located \\.it11 the appropriare site disrance. A PIP will be required for the fume development of each industrial lot. The proposed wildlife habitat corridor consisting of three lots (Lots 10. 1 I, and 12) within the proposed subdivision will be dedicated as permanent open space in accordance with the City‘s Habitat Management Plan and rezoned to the 0-S zone in accordance with provisions of the 0-S zone. The Specific Plan requires compliance with the provisions of the 0-S zone and requires a conservation easement to be dedicated that will preclude any use of the open space beyond the existing and proposed utility easements, proposed trail and passive recrearion area. and permanent drainage basins. D3. Hillside Regulations A Hillside Development Permit is required for the project because the property contains ,slopes of 15 percent and greater with elevation differentials greater than 15 feet. The project consists of a terraced grading design to create a landform that is consistent, with some modification to the City’s Hillside Development Regulations. Necessary modifications include the project’s grading volume of 11,928 cubic yardslacre, which exceeds the acceptable range of 10,000 cubic yardsiacre, and slopes that exceed 40’ in height. Hillside regulations are intended to ensure that hillside landforms are developed in a sensitive manner and that the majority of manifactured slopes are undulated and do not exceed 40’ in height. Although the Hillside Ordinance excludes industrial subdivisions from gading volume limitations and slope height restrictions, justification for exceeding the acceptable grading volume is’still required. The following table provides justification for requested modifications and describes compliance with hillside development regulations: PIP 02-02lSLJF 97-07 - CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN Natural slopes of over 40% gradient with elevation differential > 15’, a minimum of 10,000 square fee:, and a prominent land form feature. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS STANDARD PROPOSED PLAN 1 COMPLIANCE Undevelopable Slopes: 1 The Specific Pian area contains 21.2 1 Yes I I acres of 4O%+ slopes. 4.7 acres will be disturbed by industrial development, however, the 40%+ slopes located within the development area are scattered within small drainages which are not prominent land form features. Additional areas will be disturbed by the road alignments, however, Section 21.95.I?0(1) ofthe Carlsbad Municipal Code excludes those areas for circulation anerial roads provided that the alignments are environmentally preferred. EIR 98-OSIGPA 97-0YZC 97-OYSP 211iSP 200(B)LFhP 16(A)/CT 97-lYHDP 97-10; PIP 02-02/SUP 97-07 - CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN August 2 1,2002 Page 14 3ading volumes > 10,000 xbic yardslacre allowed if xoject qualifies for an :xclusion or modification Maximum manufactured slope leight: 30 feet Zontour Grading: Manufactured slopes > 20 feet .n height and 200 feet in iength and visible from :irculation element road indior useable public open ;pace. ;lope edge building setback: 1.7 foot horizontal to 1 foot iertical imaginaiy diagonal ]lane measured from edge of ;lope to structure. kreening manufactured ;lopes: Landscape nanufactured slopes :onsistent with the City’s Landscape Manual 11,766 cubic yarddacre excludins Faraday Avenue and El Fuene Street* Maximum manufactured slope height is approximately 70 feet within the Specific Plan area and approximately j( feet along offsite Faraday Avenue. The majority of slopes comply with the standard. Higher slope heights are required to create large industrial pads that are terraced down the’hillside within a reduced developable area consisting of sloping and undulating natural terrain.* Contour gradins is proposed along slopes visible from Faraday Avenue to the north. Buildings are not proposed at this time. Slope edge setbacks are required by the Specific Plan and will be analyzed with future Planned Industrial Permits. All manufactured slopes are landscaped in accordance with the City’s landscape manual with the exception of perimeter slopes that will be revegetated with naturalizing species to avoid the introduction of invasive species to adjacent natural areas. Yes Y- es Yes NIA Yes , 'Exclusions are permined for gradmg volumes, slope heights and graded areas which are directly associated with :irculation element roadways, provided that the proposed ali_enments are environmentally preferred and comply with 111 other City standards, and unusual geotechnical conditions. Pursuant to Sectlon 21.95.140 of the Carlsbad VIuniclpai Code, grading in excess of 10.000 cubic yardsiacre for non-residential projects is allowed. Justi~cation C I for the proposed grading volume above the acceptable range is based on grading quantities necessary to create an industrial subdivision on existing sloping and undulating terrain. The area proposed fir development is limited by northern bounday. This area descends from north to south from approximately 424 feet to 290 feet at the westem the HMP to between the proposed Faraday Avenue alignment and a mlnimum of 300 feet from the properry’s end of the development and from approximately 540 feet to 310 feet at the eastern end. The properry is undulated due to drainages across the propeq hat generally flow In 3 southeasterly or southwesterly direction. The proposed erading deslrn consists of h_ee quantltles of cut and fill necessary to create larre. flat, terraced indusrrlaf 1o[s across terrain that undulates and slopes UI both directions. This desip enables the preservation of s~gniilcantly more open space hat is pan of a hardline conservation area In the Ciry’s HMP. ELR 96-OSiGPA 97-05iZC 97-0jiSP ZlliSP ZOO(B)/LFMP 16(.4)/CT 97-lj/HDP g;-lO PIP 02-02iSW 97-07 - CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN August 2 1,2002 Pee 15 D4. Floodplain Regulations The project is consistent with the proyisions of the Floodplain Special Use Permir. The purpose of the regulations is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, and IC minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions. The proposed Faraday .4venue crossin: of La Mirada Creek is subject to the City's Floodplain Management Regularions. This area of the project site is located within an area inundated by.a 100-year flood. A 100-year flood is defined as a flood which has a one percent annual probability of being equaled or esceeded. A Special Use Permit is required to be obtained in addition to any other required permits or entitlements before construction or development begins within an area inundated by a 100-year flood, Hydrology studies have been prepared for the project and reviewed by staff. The proposed grading and drainage improvements will modify the configuration of the 100-year flood\vay by creating a detention basin at the Faraday Avenue crossing of La Mirada Creek. A 6' x 7' box culvert under Faraday Avenue in La Mirada Creek is proposed IO detain a ponion.of the 100-year flood. The Faraday Avenue detention basin is part of an overall plan to reduce peal; flows that impact the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park downstream. Upstream. the Carlsbad Raceway and Palomar Forum projects are incorporating a similar improvement to reduce peak 100-year flows along La Mirada Creek at Melrose Drive. With the approved and recommended basins in place at Melrose Drive and Faraday Avenue and two others adjacent to the CollegeiCmon roadway improvements, the peak discharge through the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park is decreased by approximately 10 to 15 percent necessary to reduce downstream flooding. . E. McClelIan-Palomar Airport Land Use Plan (CLUP) The project is located within the boundaries of the airport influence area and flisht activity zone as indicated in the CLUF'. The flight activity zone covers the southern portion of the property which is proposed as open space; therefore, no development is proposed in the flight activity zone. The proposed development is consistent with the Piarmed Industrial land use designation that existed at the time the CLU" was adopted; therefore, compliance with the P-M zoning regulations at the time the proposed lots are developed will ensure consistency with the CLUP. Additionally, the project is subject to Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Pan 77 referenced by,) the CLUP as Appendix D, which establishes a horizontal surface or plane that is 150 feet above the established airport elevation (478 feet) for a distance of approximately 10,000 feef from the center of the primary surface of each runway. FAR part 77 recognizes that the highest natural elevation on the Carlsbad Oaks property is 548 feet and that it penetrates the 47s-foot FAR Pafl 77 surface elevation. In 1995, the FA4 indicated that structures or protrusions on any lot in a previously proposed residential subdivision would not be allowed to exceed an elevation of 54s feet, the highest natural elevation on property prior to development. The highest pad elevation proposed on the tentative tracl map is 53 feet below the 548 feet maximum. The maximum building height permitted in the P-M Zone is 45'; therefore; no development will exceed the highest natural elevation on the propeny. The project is conditioned to require the developer to submit an airspace determination from the FAA indicating that 'the project is in accordance with FAR Pan 77 prior to approljal of a final map. EIR 9S-08IGPA 97-05IZC 97-0jisP 21 I/SP 200(B)/LFMP 16(A)ICT 97-ijkIDP 97-10: August 2iJ002 PIP 02-02iSW 97-07 - CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN F. Draft Habitat Management Plan The project area is identified as a proposed hardline conservation area in the City's Dxft Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The project is consistent with the HMP in thar ti:: hardline conservation area is proposed as open space in accordance with the plan and mitigation ratios set forth by the HMP have been used to mitigate impacts to sensitive species proposed for disturbance within the development area. Upon completion of project grading and improvements, ownership of the conservation area will be transferred to a natural lands management entity. Simultaneous with the actual transfer of ownership of open space to a natural lands management entity, the developer will provide funding or other financial mechanism acceptable to the City to provide for management and conservation in perpetuity. G. Growth Management An amendment is proposed to the Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) for Zone 16 to reflect adjustments to the Planned Industrial and Open Space land use designations and changes to facilities requirements. The proposed zone plan covers the entire zone and analyzes the requirements of the 11 public facilities included within the growth management progam. For each of the eleven public facilities, the plan lists the required performance standard, provides a facility planning and adequacy analysis, required mitigation and financing sources for any required mitigation. Special conditions of the LFMP amendment include drainage, sewer, water and circulation facilities. The zone will be in compliance with the required performance standards by satisfying the general and special conditions listed in the zone plan. The facilities impacts of the project are summarized in the following table: GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE // ', / V. ENVIRONMENTALREVIEW A Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR).was prepared for the project in accordance with . the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the Environmental Protection Procedures (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. The EIR addresses the environmental impacts associated with all discretionary applications for the EIR 9S-OS/GPA 97-O5/ZC 97-0j/SP ZlI/SP ?OO(B)/LFMP 16(A)ICT 97-131IDP 97-10 PIP 02-02/SW .97-07 - CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN August 2 I, 2002 proposed project. City staff prepared an environmental impact assessment of the project 10 determine the areas of potential impact and issued a Xotice of Preparation (NOP) on hla!. 15. 2000. The NOP was distributed to all Responsible and Trustee Agencies. as \vel1 as other agencies and members of the public. Staff conducted a public scoping meerin: on j3nuq 1 S. 2001, to solicit feedback from interested persons regarding potential impacts !hat may resull from implementation of the proposed project. At the public scoping meeting. the public \vas presented with a project description and invited to pro\,ide written comments on the scope and content of the EIR. Written responses were received by staff and these comments were raken into consideration prior to developing a detailed scope of work for the EIR. The Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan EIR, which analyzes the impacts of an industrial subdivision. nvo circulation arterial roadways and the SAHI sewer ali=menr, considers the follo~ving areas of potential impact: Land Use and Planning TransportatiodTraffic Air Quality Noise Biological Resources GeologyiSoils Hazards and Hazardous h4aterials HydrologylWater Quality Cultural Resources Paleontological Resources Aesthetics Public Services and Utilities Popularioflousing Additionally, the Draft EIR includes other sections required by CEQA such as an Executive Summary, Project Description, Long Term Effects (Cumulative, Growth Inducing, Significant Irreversible and Unavoidable, and Not Significant), and Alternatives. Four alternatives are considered in the EIR. The alternatives include the no project alternative that is consistent with the General Plan, a northerly Faraday Avenue and SAHI sewer alignment, a Faraday Avenue bridge crossing over La Mirada Creek, and a reduced project that would exclude Lot 24 thereby reducing the acreage and intensity of industrial development.' Notification that the Draft Program EIR was available for public review was accomplished through the publication of a Notice of Completion dated April 12, 2002. The Notice of, Completion was published in the newspaper and forwarded to Responsible and Trustee agencies as well as other agencies and interested parties. This action commenced a 45-day public review and comment period that ended May 30, 2002. At the request of the Public Works Department of the County of San Diego, the review period was extended through June 14, 2002. A total of 11 comments were submitted prior to the close of the review period. Responses were prepared and mailed for each of the letters. Response letters also provided notice of the availability of the Final EIR. The analysis contained in the EIR concludes that all significant impacts would be mttigated to below a level of significance with the exception of direct project specific and cumulative impacts to air quality and rransponation, and project specific impacts to biology. Direct project specific impacts, also referred 10 as primary effects, are those caused by the project and that occur at the same time and place. In contrast, cumulative impacts refer to two or more indivtdual impacts thar, when considered together, are considerable or thar compound or increase other environmental impacts. The cumulative impacts all arise from the marginal contribution the EIR 98-OSiGPA 97-OjiZC 97-Oj/sP 211ISP 2OO(B)/LFMT 16(A4)/CT 97-1j;HDP 97-10, PIP 02-02/SUP 97-07 - CAFXSBAD OAKS NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN August 21,2002 proposed project will make, when combined with the impacts from existing and other future projects, to preexisting condirions that fail to meer applicable standards currently. Under CEQA, before a project which is determined to have significant. cnmitigated environmental effects can be approved, the public agency must consider and adopt a ”Statement of Overriding Considerations” pursuant to CEQA..GuideIines i5033 and 15093. The primary purpose of CEQ.4 is to fully inform the decision makers and the public of the environmenral effects of a proposed project and to include feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce any such adverse effects below a level of significance; however, CEQA reco-aizes and authorizes the approval of projects where not all adverse impacts can be fully lessened or avoided. The Lead agency must explain and justify its conclusion to approve such a project through the starement of overriding considerations setting forth the proposed project’s general social, economic, policy or other public benefits which support the agency’s informed conclusion to approve the project. The CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Ovemdin,o Considerations are attached to the Planning Commission Resolution for the EIR. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5241 (EIR 98-08) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5245 (GPA 97-05) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5246 (ZC 97-05) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5247 (SP 21 1) Planning Copmission Resolution No. 5248 (LFMP 16(A)) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5249 (CT 97-13) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5250 (HDP 97-’10) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5251 (PIP 92-02) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5252 (SW 97-07) Planning Commission Resolution No. 5275 (SP 200(B)) Location Map Background Data Sheet Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form Disclosure Statement Letters and E-mails to the Planning Commission and City Council EIR 98-08 (previously distributed) Specific Plan 21 1 (previously distributed) Zone 16 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment (previously distributed) Zone 16 Executive Summary Reduced Tentative Map Exhibits General Pian Open Space Revision Map Exhibits “A” - “W’ dated August 2 1, 2002 (on file in the Planning Deparrment) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 ” 77 23 24 25 26 17 28 PLANrU’ING CORIMISSIOA’ FSSOLUTIOK NO. 5244 .4 RESOLLITION OF THE PL.LNNNG COMMISSIOX OF THE CITY OF CPJ1ISBAD. C.4LIFORVI.A.. RECOhlhlEh’IXG CERTIFIC.4TION OF A PROGRLM EhTIRONhIEXT.41 IIVlPACT REPORT. EIR 98-0s. FOR THE C.%SB?LD 0.XS .NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN\:, RECOMMEhDING ADOPTIOK OF THE CANDIDATE FINDINGS OF FACT, A ST.4TEh.IENT OF OVERRIDMG CONSIDERkTIONS, AND A MITIGATIOR MO?JITOmTG .4ND REPORTING PROGR4M ON PROPERTY GENEFALLY LOCATED NORTH OF PALOh4.G AIRPORT ROAD BETWEEN EL CAhUNO REAL PihD THE CITY’S E.4STER.N BOUNDARY IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGE- MENT ZONE 16. CASE NAME: CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN CASE NO.: EIR 98-0s WHEREAS, Techbilt Construction Corp., “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding propeny owned by Carlsbad Oaks North partners, L.P., “Owner,” described as That portion of Lot “B” of Rancho Agua Hedionda, in the 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, 1S96. (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, 2 Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 98-08) was prepared in conjunction with said project; and i WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 2lst day of August, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearinx, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the Program EIR, Statement of Overrriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Program EIR. I 7 - 3 4 5 6 7 X 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED b!, the Pian:>ing Commission as follows: 1. 2. 3. That the foregoing recitations are true and correct That the Final Program Environmental Impact Report consists of the Final Program Environmental Impact Report, EIR 98-08, dated .4ugust 21. 2002. appendices, written comments and responses to comments, as amended to include the comments and documents of those testifying ar the public hearins and responses thereto hereby found to be in good faith and reason by incorporating a copy of the minutes of said public hearing into the report. all on file in the Planning Department incorporated by this reference, and collectively referred to as the “Report”. That the Program Environmental Impact Report EIR 98-08, as so amended and evaluated is recommended for acce.ptance and certification as the final Environmental Impact Report and that the final Environmental Impact Report as recommended is adequate and provides reasonable information on the project and all reasonable and feasible alternatives thereto, indudin: no project. That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby RECOR‘IRIENDS CERTIFICATION of the Program Environmental Impact Report, EIR 98-08; RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Candidate Findings of Fact (“CEQA Findings”), and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (“Statement”), on file in the Planning Department and incorporated by this reference; and of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“Program”), attached hereto as Exhibit “EIR-B” and incorporated by this reference; based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions; The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find that the ’Final Program EIR 98-08, the Candidate Findings of Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Carlsbad. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed. analyzed and considered Final Program EIR 98-08, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project; the Candidate Findings of Fact (“Findings” or “CEQA Findings”) and the Statement of Overridin: Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“Program”) attached hereto as Exhibit “EIR-B”, prior to RECORIR.IENDING APPROV‘AL of this project. The Planning Commission finds that Final Program EIR 98-08 reflects the independent judgent of the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission. I 1 - 7 .3 I 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 20 21 ” 77 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. 5. 6. 7. The Planning Commission does accept as its own, incorporate as if se1 forth in full herein. and make each and even one of the findings conrained in the CEQ.4 Findll?s< (Exhibit “EIR-B”), including feasibility of mirigarion measures pursuan! 10 Punil: Resources Code 71081 and CEQA Guidelines 15091. and inisasibilir). of proir;: alternatives. The Planning Commission hereb)’ finds that the Program is desi,oxd to ensure 11m during project implementation the Developer and an). other responsible panies implemen: the project components and comply with the feasible mitigarion measures idenriiied in the CEQA Findings and the Program. Although certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects caused h!. the project will remain, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures and an!. feasible alternatives, there are specific economic, social and other considerations tha~ render the unavoidable significant adverse environmental effects acceptable. as sei fonh in the Statement. The Record of Proceedings for this project consists of The Report, CEQA Findings. Statement and Program; all reports, applications, memoranda, maps, letters and other planning documents prepared by the planning consultant, the project Applicant, the environmental consultant, and the Cih of Carlsbad that are before the decision makers as determined by the Cip Clerk; all documents submitted b!. members of the public and public agencies in connection with the EIR; minutes of all public meetings and public hearings; and matters of common knowledge to the, City of Carlsbad which they may consider, including but not limited to, the Carlshad General Plan, Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, and Local Facilities nlanagement Plan which may be found at 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive in the custody of the City Clerk, and 1635 Faraday Avenue in the custody of the Director of Planning. Conditions: 1. The Developer and/or City, as appropriate, shall implement the mitigation measures described in Exhibit “EIR-B”, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, for the mitigation measures and monitoring programs applicable to development of the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan, Faraday .4venue, El Fuerte Street and the South .4gua Hedionda Interceptor sewer. ... ... -3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1s 2c 21 22 2: 2c 2: 2t 2; 21 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED ar a regular meetin? of the PIxmillg Commission of the City of Carisbad, California, held on the Zlst day of AuEusr 2007. li\. til: I , following vore, to wit: AYES : NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson CARLSBAE PLANNTNG COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL 1. HOLZMILLER Plannins Director EXHIBIT “EIR-B” CITY OF CARLSB.0 RESOLUTION NO. 5141 C.4LIFORNIA EN\’IRON’RIENT..\L Q‘L.L\LIT\’ ACT FINDINGS OF FACT (Public Resources Code $ 21081 CEQ.4 Guidelines $ 15091) and STATEMENT OF O\‘ERRIDING CONSIDEIUTIONS (CEQA Guidelines $ 15093) for the FINAL PROGR4M ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 9s-OS) CAFUSBAD OAKS NORTH SPECIFIC PL&N (1002) SP 21 1 (SCH No. 2000051 057) 1. INTRODUCTION Final Program Environmental Impact Report (hereafter “Final Program EIR’ or “FPEIR”) has been prepared pursuant to the California Environn~ental Quality Act to address the potential environmental effects of the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan, Faraday Avenue Roadway Extension, El Fuerte Roadway Extension, and South Agua Hedionda Sewer Interceptor (2002) and associated actions (hereafter “Proposed Project”) and considered by the City in connection with its public consideration of requested approvals for the Proposed Project. While the full scope of the Proposed Project and associated approvals are more detailed in Section 1.4 below, the Proposed Project generally consists of the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan, which would guide the development of a 414-acre industrial park (a maximum of approximately 1,921,000 square feet of light industrialibusiness park use would be developed and approximately 220 acres (53%) of the Specific Plan is proposed for Open Space), completion of the final lid of the Faraday Avenue roadway between its existing terminus within the City of Carlsbad at Orion Street and its existing terminus within the City of Vista, the extension of El Fuene Street from its existing terminus northward to form a AT@ intersection with Faraday Avenue within the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan area, and the extension of the South Agua Hedionda Sewer Interceptor as identified in the City of Carlsbad Masrer Plan of Sewerage. The Final Program EIR also analyzed the environmental effects of a range’of project alternatives as well. The Final Program EIR and its separately bound technical appendices are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set iorth. CEQA Findings ai Fact And Sraremeni of Overriding Considerations I 8/1/02 1.1 Purpose of CEQA Findings; Terminology. CEQA Findings play an imporrant role in the consideration of projects for which an EIR is prepared. Under PRC $21081 and Guidelines 515091 above, where a final ELR identifies one or more sigificanr environn1ent3j effecrs, a project may not be approved until the public azency makes urirren findings suppons: by substantial evidence in the administrative record as each of the significant effects. In turn. the three possible findings specified in Guidelines §15091(a) are: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmenral effect as identified in tne final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of emplopent opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. In turn, Guidelines §15092(b) provides that no agency shall approve a project for which an EIR was prepared unless either: (1) The project as approved will not have a significant effect on the enviromenr, or (2) The agency has: (A) Eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects where feasible as shown in the findings under Section 15091, and (B) Determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable under Section is091 are acceptable due to overriding concerns as described in Section 15093. Based on the foregoing, the Guidelines do not provide a bright distinction between the meaning of “avoid” or “substantially lessen”. The applicable Guidelines are based on PRC $21081, which j uses the phrase “mitigate or avoid”, and hence it is generally considered that to “avoid” is to include changes or alterations that result in the significant effect being reduced to below a level of significance. In contrast, the phrase “substantially lessen” is used to describe changes or alterations that materially reduce the significant effect, but not below a level of significance, thus, while mitigated, the effect remains significant. These Findings will distinguish, for the purposes of clarity, between effects that have been “avoided” (thereby reduced below a level of significance) and those that have been “substantially lessened” (and thus remain significant). In combinarion with the mitigation and monitoring program discussed immediately below, the following Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations are binding obliEations of the project to implement all required mitigation measures. 1.2 Purpose and Legal Authorities. The California Environmental Quality Act (hereafter “CEQA”) was adopted in 1970 and is codified in California Public Resources Code $4 CEQA Fmdingr of Fact 8/1/02 And Sraremenr of Overridins Considerations 2 21000 etseq. (hereafrer “PRC $2 1000”). CEQA is an imponant enviromenral law applicable 10 most public agency decisions to carry Out, authorize or approve projects that could ha1.e ad\.ers: effects on the en\,ironment. CEQA does nor directly regulate project implemenr~tiol~ or approvals through subsranrive standad or prohibitions, but rather CEQ.4 senerail), requires OII]! that agencies inform themselves about the potential environmental effects of a Proposcd Project. carefully consider all peninent environmental informarion effects of a Proposed Projx!. carefully consider all pertinent environmental information before they act, pro\’ide the public an opponunity to review and comment on any environmental issues, and include conditions or other requirements to avoid or reduce potential significant adverse effects of the project or action \vhen feasible. The City has codified environmental protection procedures implementing CEQ.4 and the state adminisrrative guidelines issued pursuant to CEQ.4 in Carlsbad Municipal Code. Chapter 19.04. Chapter 19.04 provides for the protection and enhancement of the environment by establishing principles, objectives, criteria, definitions and procedures for evaluation of both public and private projects, implementing CEQA and the state guidelines and providins for the preparation and evaluation of environmental documents in accordance therewith. The Ciry’s consideration of Findinzs of Fact and a Statement of Ovemding Considerations are key steps in the process of considering the approval of the Proposed Project while concurrently protectin2 and enhancing the environment. The applicable standards and. scope of the City’s responsibilities are detailed in the followinc excemts from the State CEOA Guidelines - (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, $$ 15000 e!. seq.; hereafter “Guidelines $15000”). Guidelines $15040. Authority Provided by CEQA. (a) CEQA is intended to be used in conjunction with discretionary powers granted to public agencies by other laws. (b) CEQA does not grant an agency new powers independent of the powers granted to the agency by other laws. (c) Where another law grants an agency discretionary powers, CEQA supplements those discretionary powers by authorizing the agency to use the discrerionary powers tui mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment when it is feasible to do so with respect to projects subject to the powers of the agency. Prior IO January 1, 1983, CEQA provided implied authority for an agency to use its discretionary powers to mitigate or avoid sigificant effects on the environment. Effective January 1, CEQA provides express authority to do so. (d) The exercise of the discretionary powers may take fcms that had nor been expected before the enactment of CEQA, bur the exercise must be within the scope of the power. (e) The exercise of discretionary powers for environmental protection shall be consistent with express or implied limitations provided by other laws. CEQA Findings of Fact .4nd Srarernsnr of Ovemding Conslderarionr 3 811 102 Guidelines $15031. Authority to Mitigate. Within the limitations described in Section 15010. (a) A lead agency for a project has authority to require feasible chanses in any or all activities involved in the project in order to substantially lessen or avoid significanr effecis on rh: environment, consistent with applicable constitutional requirements such as the ”nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards established by case law (Aioliu~l i’. Culijorula Coma1 Con~ntission (1987) 483 U.S. 825; Doh v. Ciy ofTignrd, (1991) 512 US. 371; Ei~rlich 1’. Cin. of Culver City, (1996) 12 Cal. 4Ih 554.). (b) When a public agency acts as a responsible agency for a project, the agency shall have more limired authority than a lead agency. The responsible agency may require changes in a project to lessen or avoid only rhe effects, either direct or indirect, of that part of the project which the agency will be called on to carry out or approve., (c) With respect to a project which includes housing development, a lead-or responsible agency shall not reduce the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure or alternative to lessen a particular significant effect on the environmeni if thaf agency deiermines that there is another feasible, specific mitigation measure or alternative that would provide a comparable lessening of the significant effect. Guidelines g15042. Authority to Disapprove Projects. A public agency may disapprove a project if necessary in order to avoid one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if thcproject were approved as proposed. A lead agency has broader authority to disapprove a project that does a responsible agency. A responsible agency may refuse to approve a project in order to avoid direct or indirect environmental effects of that part of the project that the responsible agency would be called on to carry out or approve. For example, an air quality management district acting as a responsible agency would not have authority to disapprove a project for water pollution effects that were unrelated to the air quality aspects of the project regulated by the district. Guidelines $15043. Authority to Approve Projects Despite Significant Effects. /i A public agency may approve a project even though the project would cause a significant effect on the environment if the agency makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that: (a) There is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effect (see Section 1S09I); and (b) Specifically identified expected benefits from.the project outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project. (See Section 15093) CEQA Findings of Fact And Sr3rernen1 of Overriding Considerations 4 g/1/02 Guidelines $15090. Certification of the Final EIR (a) Prior to approving a project the lead agency shall certify that:. (1) The final EIR has been completed in compliance \vith CEQ.4; (2) The final EIR was presented to the decision-making bod!; of the lead aFency and that the decision-rnaking body reviewed and considered the information contained in the fin31 EIR prior to approving the project; and (3) The final EIR reflects the lead agency’s independent judgement and analysis (b) When an EIR is certified by a non-elected decision-making body within a local lead agency, that certification may be appealed to the local lead agency’s elected decision-making body, if one exists. For example, certification of an ELR for a tentative subdivision map hv a city’s planning commission may be appealed to the city council. Each local lead agency shall provide for such appeals. Guidelines 515091. Findings. The purpose of this resolution is to adopt the findings required by this CEQA Guideline section and the underlying California Public Resource Code 5 201 81. (a) No public ayncy shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: 2 (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (b) The findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) The findin3 in subsection (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives, The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subsection (a)(]), the agency shall also adopl a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes, which it has either required in the project CEQA Findings of Fact 8\1/02 And Srarernent of Overriding Considerations 5 or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen sipificant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions. areernents. or other measures. (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or . other marerials which constitute the record of the proceedinss upon {vhich its decision is based. (i) A statement made pursuant to Secrion 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section. Guidelines $ 150363. Eeasible. Feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time taking into consideration economic, environmental, lesal, social and technological factors. Feasibility must also be considered in the context of alternatives which obtain most of the basic objectives of the Project, but would avoid and substantially lessen any simificant effects of the Project. See Guideline 5 l5126.6(a). Guidelines $15092. Approval. (a) After considering the final EIR and in conjunction with making findings under Section 15091, the lead agency may decide whether or how to approve or carry out the project. (b) A public agency shall not decide to approve or carry out a project for which an EIR was prepared unless either: (1) The project as approved will not have a significant effect on the environment, or (2) The agency has: (A) Eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible as shown in findings under Section 15091, and (B) Determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be !, unavoidable under Section 15091 are acceptable due to overriding concerns as described in Section 15093. (c) With respect to a project which includes housing development, the public agency shall not reduce the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure if it determines that there is another feasible mitigation measure available that will provide a comparable level of mitigation. 1.3 Program Environmental Impact Report Process. In accordance with CEQA, the Guidelines and Chapter 19.04, the City considered an Initial Study. Based on the Initial Study, the City concluded that the Proposed Project could have a sipificant impact on the environment and that preparation of an environmental impact report w’as necessary and issued its Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) on May 9, 2000. The NOP was distributed to all Responsible and Trustee ’ Agencies, as well as other agencies id members of the public. A number of written responses CEQA Findinp of Fact 8/ I /O? And Statement of Overriding Considerations 6 I were received, and the City held a public scoping meeting in order to increase opportunities for public' input. The scoping session took place on January 18, 2001 at the City's Plminc Depanment Conference Center (1635 Faraday Avenue). .4t the scoping session, the public \\'as invited IO comment on the scope and content of the EIR. Approximately 40 people si2n-d il: the scoping session and comments were received and considered in both verbal and wrllten foml. A cop); of the Initial Study, NOP, the wrirren comments received in response to the XOP 2nd public scoping session are included in Volume 1 -4ppendix X to the Final Prosram EIR. - After consideration of the initial Study, Scoping session comments and other comments on response IO the NOP the City identified that the Draft Program EIR should analyze the potential for environmental impacts associated with the following thirteen substantive potenrial impact areas in the Environmental Impact Analysis section: S S S S S S S S S S S S S Land Use and Planning TransportatiodTraffx Air Quality Noise Biological Resources GeologyiSoils Hazards and Hazardous Materials HydrologyNater Quality Cultural Resources Paleontological Resources Aesthetics Public Services and Utilities PopulatiodHousing Additionally, the Draft EIR was directed to include other CEQA substantive sections including Executive Summary, Project Description, Cumulative Effects, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, Growth Inducing Effects and Alternatives. Because of the scope of the Proposed Project, a Program EIR was determined to be the most useful and appropriate form of EIR. Guidelines $15168 establishes the benefits of a Program EIR as follows: Guidelines $15168. Program EIR. ", (a) General. A program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either: (I) Geographically, (2) As logical pans in the chain of contemplated actions, (3) In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or (4j 4s individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways. CEQA Findinss of Facr And Sraternen~ of Overriding Considerations 7 SiliO? (b) Advantases. Use of a propam EIR can provide the following advantages. The program EIR can: (I) Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternariws than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action. (2) Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighred in a case-by-case analysis, (3) Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations, (4) Allow the lead agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has seater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts, (5) Allow reduction in paperwork. (c) Use With Later Activities. Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. (I) If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new initial study would need to be prepared leadins to either an EIR or a negative declaration. (2) If the agency finds that pursuant Guideline Fj'15162 and Public Resource Code 521166, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. (3) An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR into subsequent actions in the program. (4) Where the subsequent activities involve site-specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to i determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were covered in the program EIR. (5) A program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with subsequent activities if it deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible. With a good and detailed analysis of the program, many subsequent activities could be found to be within the scope of the project described in the program EIR, and no further environmental documents would be required. (d) Use With Subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations. A program EIR can be used to simplify the task of preparing environmental documents on later pans of the program. The program EIR can: (1) Provide the basis in an initial study for determining whether the later activity may have any significant effects. CEQA Findings of Fact 8/1/02 And Statement of Overriding Considerations 8 (2) Be incorporated by reference to deal with regional influences, secondap effccrs cumularive impacts, broad alternatives. and other factors that apply 10 rhe prograr as 3 who]: (2) Focus an EIR on a subsequent project to permir discussion solely of ne\\ eff:cts which had not been considered before. (e) Xotice Wirh Later Activities. When a law other than CEQA requires public notice when the agency later proposes to carry out or approve an activity within the program and to rely on the program EIR for CEQA compliance, the norice for the activity shall include a statement that: (1) This activity is within the scope of the program approved earlier, and (2) The program EIR adequarely describes the acrivity for the purposes of CEQA. On April 12, 2002 the Draft Progam EIR was published and the City duly notified interested Responsible and Trustee Agencies, as well as other interested agencies and sent out over 75 “Notice(s) of Completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan Project” to all members of the public who had signed on the interested party list at the scoping session or otherwise requested notification. The “Notice of Completion” commenced an initial 45 day public review and comment period expiring on June 30, 2002. The “Notice of Completion” advised that the Draft Progran EIR was available, and it was in fact available, for review at four locations: the City of Carlsbad Planning Depanment (1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008); the City Clerk’s Office (1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008); the Carlsbad Main Public Library (1775 Dove Lane, Carlsbad, CA 92009) and Carlsbad’s Georgina Cole Public Library (1250 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008). Complete copies were also available for purchase, with or without the Appendices, throuzh the Planning Department. The City established the cost of purchased copies at.less than the actual reproduction cost. Following expiration of the public review and comment period to the Draft Program EIR, every writren comment letter was reviewed and written responses were prepared. The written public comments and the written responses thereto are contained in the Final Program EIR. 1, On August 21, 2002 the City Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider, among other things, Certification of the Final Program EIR in accordance with CEQA, the Guidelines and Chapter 19.04. By Planning Commission Resolution No. 8244, the Planning Commission certified the Final Program EIR as complete. Resolution No. 5244 is incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 1.4 Description of Proposed Project. The proposed projecr consists of four main components: X Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan. The Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan would guide the development of a 414-acre industrial park. The Specific Plan proposes 23 Industrial lots, 3 open space lots, and 1 lot for employee picnic area. Under proposed re~ulations, a maximum of approximately 1,921,000 square feet of light CEQ.4 Findmgs of Fact And Srarernenl of Overriding Considerations 9 SI1102 industriabusiness park use would be developed. Approximately 220 acres (j3%) of the Specific Plan is proposed for Open Space. X Farads), Avenue Roadtvay Extension. Farad?,?, .4venue is a Citv of Cxlsbad Gsneral Plan Circulation Element Roadway classified as a secondq &erial. Ths proposed project would complete the final link of the roadway between its existin? terminus within the City of Carlsbad at Orion Street and its existin: terminus within the City of Vista. The proposed extension is approximately 1.3 linear miles. X El Fuerte Street Extension. El Fuerte is a City of Carlsbad General Plan Circulation Element Roadway classified as a secondary arterial. The proposed project would extend the roadway from its existing terminus northward to form a AT@ intersection with Faraday Avenue within the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan area. This proposed extension is approximately 2,800 linear feet. X South Agua Hedionda Sewer Interceptor. The South Agua Hedionda Sewer Interceptor is identified in the City of Carlsbad hlaster Plan of Sewerase. The project proposes the construction of Reaches SAHTl A through D of the sewer: The gravity flow sewer would extend 3.4 miles, with a trunk diameter of 15 and 1s inches. Also, as part of the project, the City of Vista=s existing Buena Sanitation District sewer line that currently traverses the project area could be abandoned in place: and relocated to within the proposed extension of Faraday Avenue. The following discretionary actions must be taken by the City in order to approve the proposed project: 1. 2. II 2. 4. 5. 6. General Plan Anretrdnfenf (GPA97-05). This amendment would amend the City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use Map to reflect the increased areas of open space and reduced acres of planned industrial categories proposed in the Specific Plan area. Zone Cha/tge fZC97-05). As proposed, a change is being requested to the zoning designation from a planned community (PC) designtion to planned industrial (P-M) and open space (OS) to ensure consistency with the General Plan. Specific Plan No. 211. The applicant for the Carlsbad Oaks North property is requesting adoption of a Specific Plan to provide for orderly development of a 414- acre industrial park and open space uses consistent with City requirements. 'i Zone 16 Local Facilities Management Pia/$ Anletrdnrenf. Pursuant to the City of Carlsbad=s Growth Manapnent Plan, the City is divided into 25 distinct zones for facilities planning purposes. The Specific Plan property is located entirely within Zone 16, and an amendment to the existing Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) is required. The Zone 16 LFMP plan would be revised to reflect the modifications in land use and changes in buildout projections and facilities demands. Tentative Map (CT97-13). The applicant for Carlsbad Oaks North property is proposing one tentative map to subdivide and grade 23 industrial lots and 3 open space lots over the entire property. This map will implement the Specific Plan. Hillside Deweloptne~tt Perurit (HLJP97-IO). The proposed grading must be conducted in conformance with the City of Carlsbad Hillside Development Ordinance. CEQA Findings of Fact And Statement of O\,erriding Considerations 10 811102 7. Special Use Permit (SUP97-07). A Flood Plain Special Use Permit is required for development of the Faraday Avenue crossing over the .4qua Hedionda Creek. 8. P[a,lmd lrzdustrial Permit (PIP 02-02), .4 Planned Industrial Permit is required for [I); industrial subdivision. 1.5 Environmental Setting. The project area is located in the easrern portion of the City of Carlsbad in northern San Diego County. The City of Carlsbad is located approxima1ely 30 miles north of downtown San Diego. The project area is bounded by the Dawson-Los Monos Canyon Reserve to the north; a sin%le-family residential neishborhood and future commercial area located in the City of Vista to the east; the Carlsbad Airport Business Center ro the sourh: and vacant land owned by the County of San Diego, the Coast Waste Trash Transfer Station. and the Carlsbad Safety Center to the west. The Dawson-Los Monos Reserve is parr of the Universitv of California Natural Land and Water Resources system and is used by the University for scientkc and educational purposes. The reserve is considered a core habitat area 3s pan of the proposed North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan. The reserve comprises 718 acres and contains a perennial coastal stream. southern riparian woodland, .coast live oak woodland, inland saze scrub, mixed and chamis chaparral, and mixed grasslands. Regional access to the project area is provided by Interstate 5, located apphximately four miles west of the project area. Local access to the project area is provided via El Camino Real and Faraday Avenue, located approximately I/? mile west of the project site, Palomar Airport Road and El Fuerte, located south of the site, and Melrose and Business Park Drive, located to the east of the project site in the City of Vista. In general, the project area is characterized by three different topographic areas: the north-facing hillside slopes that extend down from the southern project area, the rocky hills that cover the central and northern portions of the project area, and the.intervenins east-west canyon drainaxe. The central and northern portions ofthe area are characterized by gradually steepening ganite hillsides, which include numerous tributary drainages and rock outcrops. The project area is generally in its natural condition, although southern portions of the area had been farmed in the past, and lands in the northwestern portion are currently utilized for agriculture. Most of the northern ponion of the project area is represented by a pair of large hills, The La Mirada Creek is a broad riparian drainage with mature oak trees that traverses the southern half of the site in a roughly east-west direction. A broad swath of riparian habitat, associated with Agua Hedionda Creek runs across the northwestern portion of the project area. Many sensitive plant habitats including southern maritime chaparral/nuttall=s scrub oak, southern coast live oak riparian forest, and coastal sage scrub are located in the creeks that traverse the project area. These vegetation communities provide nesting and foraging habitat for various sensitive and non-sensitive wildlife species. The highest valued habitats within the project area include the oak riparian forest and southern willow scrub, which form a portion of a larger regional habitat linkage corridor extending off-site to the west and east of the project area. The project area=s proximity to the Dawson-Los Monos Canyon Reserve also raises its habitat value and connectivity to off-site resources. The Specific Plan area is identified in the City=s Habitat Management Plan (HMP) as a proposed ?&ardline .Area.@ The final approval of the HMP is pendinx, and the specific timing of forma! implementation of the HMP is unknovm. Should the HhlP be implemented, the Specific Plan must be designed, permitted and developed in accordance with specific standards CEQA Findings of Fact And Sralemenr of Overridins Considerarions 11 811102 identified in the HMP, including habitat preserjation, corridor widths, and mitigation requirements. The project area is located east of the McClellan-Palomar Airport. The airpon is a general aviation facility located approximately 113 mile west of the Specific Plan portion of the project. Pursuant to state law, a Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUJ) \\’as prepared by SANDAG for the airport which identifies areas likely to be impacted by noise and flight activity operations at the airport and establishes an Airport Influence Area boundary. Portions of the project area are located within the airports flight activity zone and runway protection zone; however, no industrial lots are located within the flight activity zone. More detailed descriptions of the propeny area and its environs is set forth in the Final Progam EE at pages 4-1 through 5.12-7 and incorporated herein by this reference. 1.6 Mitigation Monitoring Program. Pursuant to PRC $210S1.6, the City has also adopted a detailed mitigation and monitoring program prepared by the EIR consultant under the direction of the City. The program is designed to assue that all mitigation measures as hereafter required are in fact implemented on a timely basis as the Proposed Project propzsses through its development and construction phases. Compliance with the “Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan (2002) Ihization and Monitoring Program” (a copy of which is attached to this Resolution as “Attachment B”) is a condition of any City approvals and incorporated herein by this reference. 1.8 Record of Proceedings. For all purposes of CEQA compliance, including these Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, the administrative record of all City proceedings and decisions regarding the environmental analysis of the Proposed Project shall include but are not limited to the following: -The Draft and Final Progam EIR for the Proposed Project, together with all appendices and technical reports referred to therein, whether separately bound or not; -All reports, letters, applications, memoran’da, maps or other planning and engineering documents prepared by the City, planning consultant, environmental consultant, project applicant or others presented to or before the decision-makers , as determined by the City Clerk; -All letters, reports or other documents submitted to the City by members of the public or public agencies in connection with the City’s environmental analysis on the Proposed Project; -All minutes of any public workshops, meetings or hearings, including the scoping session, and any recorded or verbatim transcriprsivideotapes thereof; -Any letters, reports or other documents or other evidence submitted into the record at any public workshops, meetings or hearings; and -Matters of common general knowledge to the City which they may consider, including applicable state or local laws, ordinances and policies, the General Plan and all applicable planning programs and policies of the City. .I CEQA Findings of Fact 8/1/02 And Statement of Overriding Considerations 12 The custodian of the full administrative record shall be the City Clerk's Office, 1200 CarIsb2.d Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, provided, howwer thar ponions of the record m3!. h;. contained in other offices of the City. 2. FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, REQUIRED nlIT1G.ATIO) hlE..\SURES AND SUPPORTING FACTS 2.1 Land Use and Planning 2.1.1 Land Use Compatibiliw Impact. The Specific Plan proposes industrial uses that have the potential to use. store and handle hazardous materials. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure HMI. The following conditions shall be incorporated into the proposed Specific Plan and shall be required of future development: a. No project facilities located within 1,000 feet of any residential unit shall store, handle, or use toxic or highly toxic zases as defined in the most currently adopted fire code at quantities that exceed exempt amount as defined in the most currently adopted fire code. b. Facilities that store, handle, or use regulared substances as defined in the CalifomiaHealth and Safety Code 25532(g) in excess of threshold quantities shall prepare risk management plans for determination of risks to the community. c. Facilities that store, handle, or use any quantity of a toxic or highly toxic gas as defined in the most currently adopted fire code, which are also regulated substances as defined in the California Health and Safety Code 25532(g) shall,, prepare an offsite consequence analysis (OCA). The analysis shall be performed in accordance with Title 19 of the California Code of Regulation 2750.2 through 27S0.3. If the OCA shows the release could impact the residential community, the facility will not store, handle, or use the material in those quantities. If a decrease in the quantity of material reduces the distance to toxic endpoint to where the community is not impacted, the facility shall be able to utilize the material in that quantity. Factual Support and Rationale. If the Offsite Consequence Analysis shows the release could impact the residential community, the facility will not store, handle, or use the material in those quantities. If a decrease in the quantity of material reduces the distance to toxic endpoinr to where the comrnuniry is not impacted, the facility shall be able to utilize the material in that quantity. Computer models may be utilized as a roo1 to determine the distance a hazardous material can travel if released to the atmosphere. Paramerers such as temperature, CEQA Findings ofFacr And Sraremenr of Overriding Considerarions 13 811102 wind speed, atmospheric stability, and quantity released, material properties, and type of release (e.g., pressurized gases) is considered by these models. Models can be overlayed onto maps. which will show the distance to toxic endpoint in the event of a release. These models can be performed under Aworst case@ meteorolo$cal conditions and chemical release. Under this situation, the maximum ham potential is determined from the most sophisticated method available to ensure community safety. 2.1.2 Offsite Land Use Compatibilih Impact. As proposed, the Specific.Plan will provide a minimum 75 to 150-foot building setback and 60-foot minimum landscape buffer along the project eastern boundary. Uses that may occur on these lots have the potential to si=~ficantly impact the existing adjaceni residential uses in terms of lighting, noise, air quality, and hazardous materials. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced belo\v a level of significance. Mitigation Measure LU1. A minimum 75 to 150-foot building setback (including ancillary structures, loading zones, trash enclosures, refuse collection areas) shall be required between Lots #S, #13, and #17 of the Specific Plan and the eastern boundary. This setback shall include the proposed 60-foot minimum landscape buffer and construction of a block wall at the top of the slope or berm as identified in the Specific Plan. Mitigation Measure LUZ. Each Planned Industrial Permit or a Conditional Use Permit for any future facility proposed on Lots #S, X13, and #I7 shall be reviewed for strict compliance with the performance standards established in the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan (Section I11 Development Standards and Design Guidelines, subsections 0, P, Q, and R). Measures to achieve these performance standards and thereby avoid potential conflicts between the Planned Industrial development and the existing residential development (with respect to such issues as noise, lighting, air quality, and safety) shall be implemented as necessary. Specific measures would be determined and implemented as part of the discretionary review of a Planned Industrial Permit or a Conditional Use Permit and could include, but not be limited to, restriction of certain / types of uses and hours of operations, building and loading bay placement, enhanced .$ landscaping, and directional lighting. Factual Support and Rationale. Substantial setbacks, buffering treatments, and performance standards are required to be implemented, which will mitigate the potential significant land use compatibility impact between the proposed uses and the existing residential development to the east of the Specific Plan. 2.2 TransportationlCirculation 2.2.1 Year 7005 Traffic Operations Impact. With the existing roadway geometry, the addition of the interim project does have a direct significant impact (4.9 second increase in delay) upon the already unacceptable CEQA Findings of Fact 8/1/02 And Statement of Overridins Considerations 14 (AM) operations at intersection #36 - SR 78 EB RampsiSycamore intersection (greater than a 2.0 second increase). Finding. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibilit), and jurisdic!ioi: of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such chanses h3I.e heel: adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agent!'. Mitigation Measure. The intersection improvement sholvn on Figure 52-31 of ths EIR depicts an example of feasible mitigation that if implemented, Lvould reduce the project impact to a level less than significant. There are other forms of mitigation that could also be implemenred to achieve an acceptable level of service. Factual Support and Rationale. The ultimate responsibility of implementing specific intersection improvements, dedication of right-of-way. and intersection configuration is outside the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad, and is the responsibility of the Ciry ofvista. The City of Vista has indicated that there is a specific improvement program in place to fund. design. and constmct the identified improvements to intersection g36 (Figure 52-31 of the EIR). With these improvements in place in the existing + interim project condition, the proposed.project will not result in a significant impact to this intersection. Impact. Inrersecrion #I5 Meirose/Sunset. The proposed project will result in an increase in delay of 7.7 seconds in the AM peak hour, decreasing the LOS at this intersection in 2005 from D to E. This is considered a significant impact. Finding. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and nor the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Mitigation Measure. The intersection improvement shown on Figure 5.2-3D of the EIR depicts an example of feasible mitigation that if implemented, would reduce the project impact to a level less than significant (LOS D as shown in Table 3.2-5A Year 2OOj P'o'oiunres with Impr-ovenlems column of the EIR). There are other forms of mitigation that could also be implemented to achieve an acceptable level of service. Factual Support and Rationale. The ultimate responsibility of implementing specific intersection improvements, dedication of right-of-way, and intersection configuration is outside) the jurisdiction of the City of Carisbad, and is the responsibility of the City of Vista. The City of Vista has indicated that there is currently no specific improvement program in place to fund, design and construct improvements to this intersection. Therefore, while mitigation is potentially feasible at this location, because there is no specific program in place to ensure the improvement of the intersection, the impact to intersection $15 will remain significant and unavoidable. However, while a significant and unavoidable localized impact to intersection #I5 Melrose/Sunset is identified, the addition of Faraday Avenue from Melrose Drive to Orion Street and Melrose Drive from Palomar hrport Road to the City of Vista, which will be constructed in conjunction with the proposed project will allow regional traffic alternative routes of travel and will help to offset the incremental impacts to the identified intersection. CEQA Findings of Fact .4nd Statement of Overriding Considerations 15 8/1\02 Impact Intersection #18 ?de/rose/Sycamore. In the Year 2005 without he project, intersection $15 will operate at Los F in the AM peak hour. The proposed project will result in an increase in delay of 36.8 seconds in the .4M peak hour and 15.0 seconds in the phj pek hour. decreasing the PM LOS at this intersection in 2005 from D to E. These are considered siFniiican: impacts. Finding. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdicrion of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Mitigation Measure. The intersection improvement shown on Figure 5.2-3E of the EIR depicts ,an example of feasible mitigation that if implemented, would reduce the project impacts to a level less than si-cpificant (LOS D in AM and C in PM peak hour as shown in Table j.2-jA Year 200j Volumes wirh improvements column of the EIR). There are other forms of mitizarion that could also be implemented to achieve an acceptable level of service. Factual Support and Rationale. The ultimate responsibility of implementing specific intersection improvements, dedication of right-of-way, and intersection configuration is outside the jurisdiction of the City of Carisbad. and is the responsibility of the City of Vista. The City of Vista has indicated that there is currently no specific improvement propm in place to fund, design and construct improvements to this intersection. Therefore, while mitigation is potentially feasible at this location, because there is no specific program in place to ensure the improvement of the intersection, the impact to intersection $18 will remain significant and unavoidable. However, while a significant and unavoidable localized impact to intersection #IS MeiroseiSycamore is identified, the addition of Faraday Avenue from Melrose Drive to Orion Street and Melrose Drive from Palomar Airport Road to the City of Vista, which will be constructed in conjunction with the proposed project, will allow regional traffic alternative routes of travel and will help to offset the incremental impacts to the identified intersection. Impact. Infersecrion $19 Melrose/Park Cenrer. In the Year 2005 without the project, intersection #I9 will operate at LOS D in the AM and PM peak hour. The proposed project will result in an increase in delay of 29.8 seconds in the PM peak hour, decreasing the PM LOS at this intersection in 2005 from D to E. This is considered a significant impact. 5 Finding. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Mitigation Measure. The intersection improvement shown on Figure 5.2-3E of the EIR depicts an example of feasible mitigation that if implemented, would reduce the project impact to a level less than significant (LOS D as shown in Table 5.2-5A Year 2005 Volumes with Improvements column of the EIR). There are other forms of mitigation that could also be implemented to achieve an acceptable level of service. Factual Support and Rationale. The ultimate responsibility of implementing specific intersection improvements, dedication of right-of-way, and intersection configuration is outside the jurisdiction of the City of Carisbad, and is the responsibility of the City of Vista. The City of CEQA Findines of Fact 8/1/02 And Statement of Overriding Considerations 16 .Vista has indicated that there is currently no specific improvement program in place to fund. desig and construct improvements to th~s intersection. Therefore, x,hile miti,uatior! is potentially feasible at this location, because there is no specific prosram in place to ensur: rh: improvemen1 of the intersection, the impacr to intersection $19 will remain siFifican! and unavoidable. However, while a significant and unavoidable localized impact to intersection =19 MelroseiPark Center is identified, the addition of Faraday Avenue from Melrose Drive to Orion Srreer and Melrose Drive from Palomar Airport Road to the City of Vista, Xvhich will be constructed in conjunction with the proposed project, will allow regional traffic altemati\,e routes of rta\,eI and will help to offset the incremental impacrs to the identified intersection. Impact. inrersecrion $20 Mehse/PAR. In the Year 2005 withoui the projecr. intersection $20 will operate at LOS F in the AM peak hour and D in the Phl peak hour. The proposed project will result in an increase in delay of 9.6 seconds in the AM peak hour. This is considered a significant impact. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure T1. Implementation of the intersection improvements for intersection #20 as shown on Figure 5.2-3E of the EIR would reduce the project impact at this intersection. Mitigation Measure T1 requires the project applicant to provide for the design and construction of the recommended improvements for intersection 820 as illustrated in Figure 5.2- 3E of the EIR. TI. Prior to approval of Final Map or Grading Permit, whichever occurs first, for any portion of the development that would generate traffic, the applicant shall MelroseiPalomar Airport Road as illustrated on Figure 5.2-3E of the EIR. Proof of design, bonds, and construction schedule shall be submirted to the City of Carlsbad before issuance of any buildin: perniit. .A provide for the design and construction of the improvement of intersection 820 Factual Support and Rationale. Even with implementation of this mitigation measure, and improvement of the intersection per the City of Carlsbad TIF, this intersection will continue to operate at an unacceptable level of service without the extension of Faraday. However, the proposed project will not be allowed to develop without the completion of the extension of Faraday Avenue. As shown in Table 5.2-7 of the EIR and as described in the AWirh Furaduv Co/mectio:l@ subsection below, implementation of the proposed project with the extension of Faraday completed and with the implementation of the improvements identified in Figure 5.2-3G of the EIR (Mitigation Measure TI) will not result in a significant impact to this intersection in the Year 2005 + Interim Project condition once the Faraday extension is complete. Impact. I~rersectio:? M7 Pz44wEI Fuerre. In the Year 2005 without the project, intersection #47 will operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour and F in the PM peak hour. Without the Faraday extension complete, the proposed project will result in an increase in delay of 102.1 seconds in the AM peak hour and an increase of 111.7 in the ph$ peak hour. This is considered a significant impact. CEQA Findines of Fact And Statement of Overriding Considerations 17 811102 Finding.. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level ofsipificance. Mitigation Measure T2. Implementation of the intersection improvement shonm on Figure 5.2-3L of the EIR would reduce the project impact at this intersection IO a level less than significant (LOS D as shown in Table 5.2-jA of the EIR) in the Ah! and PA^ peak hour. Mitigation Measure T2 requires the project applicant to provide for the design and construction of the recommended improvements for intersection $47 as illustrated in Figure 5.2-3L of the EIR. I T2. Prior to approval of Final Map, Grading Permit, or Building Pernit. whichever occurs first, for any portion of the development that would generate traffic, the applicant shall provide for the desip and consrruction of the improvement of intersection #17 Palomar Airport RoadEl Fuerte as illustrated on Figure 5.2-3L of this EIR. Proof of desip bonds, and construction schedule shall be submitted to the City of Carlsbad before issuance of any building permit. Factual Support and Rationale. Mitigation Measure T2 requires the project applicant to provide for the design and construction of the recommended improvements for intersection f$47 as illustrated in Figure 5.2-3L of the EIR. As discussed herein below and further provided in other portions of the Administrative Record in 1986, the City established a comprehensive Growth Management Progam and ordinances to address the buildout of the City. Not only were land uses and densities of use evaluated and sigificantly reduced, but a critical part of the Program was establishment of citywide performance standards for public facilities, including traffic and transportation. By setting performance standards, then adequacy of facilities could be measured, and if performance standards were not being met, then projects significantly affecting those underperforming facilities could be conditioned, or phased, to require the facilities performance levels be assured before development could proceed. The performance evaluations are assured through the requirement that Local Facilities, Management Plans be approved before development may proceed in the various development zones throughout the City. Underlying the performance standards is the principle that facilities must be provided for concurrent with the need generated by the subsequent development. As the Proposed Project is one of the few remaining larger infill areas in the northeast quadrant of the City and represents the bulk of the land left for industrial development in that area, special analysis was applied by City staff, planning and engineering, to confirm that the traffic assumptions and citywide traffic modeling program used for the analysis was the most current and complete. In that regard, the generally used SANDAG traffic models and assumptions were reviewed and updated for the City of Carlsbad and surrounding areas before the Proposed Project traffic modeling was run, such that the City would be confident of the resulting analysis and conclusions, and importantly, that the analysis was calibrated to reflect the currently anticipated City buildout under the Growth Management Program and General Plan. .bong other things, it was required that the Proposed Project evaluate impacts to arterial or major intersections whenever the modeling demonstrated that the Proposed Project would contribute 50 or more trips during either the AM or PM peak hours as a consistently applied standard of impact, and in turn, the Citywide intersection performance standard of LOS D is applied consistently for all intersections within the Proposed Project’s influence area. The assumptions, methodology and rules for the study was established by the City before the study // CEQA Findings of Fact And Statement of Overriding Considerations 18 8/1/02 ws undertaken so that reliable and consistent conclusions could be achieved. Additionally. over 300 pending and potentiai future projects were evaluated prior to undenaking the selected ].car 2005, 2010, and 2020 impact scenarios and to determine what additions IO existing traffic flo~s were likely or anticipated. In this effort, the study went far beyond the Carlsbad Cit!. Iimirs a11d evaluared projects and conditions over a siqiiicant regional area. .4s Carlsbad is locared alone Interstate 5 and also includes many regionally sinificanr and impacted major corridors such 2s palomar Airport Road, Rancho Santa Fe Road and El Camino Real to name a few. [he traffic loads and current and future background levels were calculated withour reaard to origin. \\herher it was local or regional traffic. In this way, the merhodolog and assumptions were targeted to provide the mosr accurate projections of impacts and areas of concern. The findings and results ofall studies and reports were carefullyreviewed by City Staff for accuracy and consistenq,. As part of the City Growth Management Program, the City enacted several traffic impact and improvement funding prorams intended to generate funds to be used for area or citywide facilities. Those programs include the City CFD No. 1 Communities Facilities District. \vhich includes all the Proposed Project. AS new development occurs, it is required to pay special taxes to the City who then uses the taxes, or leverages future tues to sell bonds, to finance a range of city facilities, including major roads. Additionally, the City has certain Traffic impact Fee programs, that raise additional funding. The Traffic Impact Fee programs are coordinated with CFD No. 1 where applicable. For streets that largely serve only a particular development? the developer is required to construct and finance them outside the citywide fee programs. Finally, in certain circumstances special funding programs may be established, or combinations of funding sources utilized. Impact. Intersection X19 MeIrose/Park Cenrer. Intersection $19 would experience LOS F operations in the AM and PM peak hour with implementation of the proposed project with the Faraday connection. This is considered a significant impact. " Finding. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. hlitigation Measure. The intersecrion improvement shown on Figure 5.2-3E of the EIR depicts an example of feasible mitigation that if implemented, would reduce the project impact to a level less than significant (LOS D as shown in Table 5.2-6 Yeor 2005 P'oblumes -MW! Inymwneuts With Faraday Aveuue Comecrion column of the EIR). There are other forms of mitigation that could also be implemented to achieve an acceptable level of service. Factual Support and Rationale. The ultimate responsibility of implementing specific intersection improvements, dedication of right-of-way, and intersection configuration is outside the jurisdiction ofthe City of Carlsbad, and is the responsibility of the City of Vista. The City of Vista has indicated that there is currently no specific improvement program in place to fund, design and construct improvements to this intersection. Therefore, whiIe mitisation is potentially feasible at this location, because there is no specific program in place to ensure the improvement of the intersection, the impact to intersection XI9 will remain significant and unavoidable. CEQA Findings of Fact And Statement of Overriding Considerations 19 8/1/02 However, while a significant and unavoidable localized impact to intersection #I 9 MeIrosePark Center is identified, the addition Of Faraday kom Melrose Drive to Orion Street and Melrose Drive from Palomar Airport Road to the City of Vista, which will be constructed in conjunction with the proposed project, will allow regional traffic alrernarive routes of [ravel and \vi11 help to offset the incremental impacts to the identified intersection. 2.2.2 Year 2010 Traffic Operations Impact. i/lterseclion #15 Meirose/Sunsei. In the Year 2010 condition, intersection XI5 will operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour with or.without the project. The proposed project will result in an increase in delay of 3.8 seconds in the AM peak hour. This is considered a significant impact. Finding. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Mitigation Measure. The intersection improvement shown on Figure 5.2-3D of the EIR depicts an example of feasible mitigation that if implemented, would reduce the project impact to a level less than significant (LOS D as shown in Table 5.2-8 Year 2010 i'oi1u71es wirh in~provemenfs column of the EIR). There are other forms of mitigation that could also be implemented to achieve an acceptable level of service, Factual Support and Rationale. The ultimate responsibility of implementin,o specific intersection improvements, dedication of right-of-way, and intersection configuration is outside the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad, and is the responsibility of the City of Vista. The City of Vista has indicated that there is currently no specific improvement program in place to fund, design and construct improvements to this intersection. Therefore, while mitigation is potentially feasible at this location, because there is no specific program in place to ensure the improvement of the intersection, the impact to intersection #15 will remain significant and unavoidable. However, while a significant and unavoidable localized impact to intersection #I5 MeirQseiSunset is identified, the addition of Faraday Avenue from Melrose Drive to Orion Street and Melrose Drive from Palomar Airport Road to the City of Vista, which will be constructed in ' conjunction with the proposed project, will allow regional traffic alternative routes of travel and will help to offset the incremental impacts to the identified intersection. Impact. inlersecfion X18 Sycanlore/Meirose. In the Year 2010 condition, intersection X18 will operate at LOS F in the AM peak hour with or without the project. The proposed project will result in an increase in delay of 63.5 seconds in the AM peak hour. This is considered a significant impact. Finding. (,2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Mitigation Measure. The intersection improvement shown on Figure 5.2-3D of the EIR depicts an example of feasible mitigation that if implemented, would reduce the project impact to CEQA Findings of Fact 8/1/02 And Statement of Overriding Consideralions 20 a level less than significant (LOS .D as show in Table 5.2-8 )‘ear 3OJO kblrtnlps Improvemenu column ofthe ER). There are other forms of mitigation that could also be implemented to achieve an acceptable level of service. The ultimate responsibility of implementing specific inrsrseclioi: improvements, dedication of right-of-way, and intersection configuration is outsid: til: jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad, and is the responsibility of the City of Vista. The Cin of Vista has indicated that there is currently no specific improvement program in place to fund. design and construct improvements to this intersection. Therefore. while rnirizaioc is potentially feasible at this location, because there is no specific program in place to ensure the improvement of the intersection, the impact to intersection g1S will remain significant and unavoidable. However, while a significant and. unavoidable localized impact to intersection $18 Melrose/Sunset is identified, the addition of Faraday Avenue from Melrose Drive to Orion Street and Melrose Drive from Palomar Airport Road to the City of Vista, which will be constructed in conjunction with the proposed project, will allow regional traffic alternative routes of rravel and will help to offset the incremental impacts to the identified intersection. Impact. Intersectiox 819Melrose/Park Cermr. In the Year 2010, intersection $19 would experience an acceptable Los D operations in the AM and PM peak hour without the proposed project. The proposed project would result in an increase in delay of 73.6 seconds in the AM peak hour and 42.3 seconds in the PM peak hour, lowering the LOS to F during both peak periods. This is considered a significant impact. Finding. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. ,,.. Mitigation Measure. The intersection improvement shown on Figure 5.2-3E of the EIR depicts an example of feasible mitigation that if implemented, would reduce the project impact to a level less than significant (LOS D as shown in Table 5.2-8 Yeear 2010 Volumes wilh hprovenrenrs column of the EIR). There are other forms of mitigation that could also be implemented to achieve an acceptable level of service. Factual Support and Rationale. The ultimate responsibility of implementing specific intersection improvements, dedication of right-of-way, and intersection configuration is outside the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad, and is the responsibility of the City of Vista. The City of Vista has indicated that there is cunently no specific improvement program in place to fund, design and construct improvements to this intersection. Therefore, while mitigation is potentially feasible at this location, because there is no specific program in place to ensure the improvement of the intersection, the impact to intersection X19 will remain significant and unavoidable. ’, However, while a significant and unavoidable localized impact to intersection X19 MelroseIPark Center is identified, the addition of Faraday ‘4venue from Melrose Drive to Orion Street and Melrose Dnvs from Palomar .4irpori Road IO the City of Vista, which will be constructed in conjunction with the proposed project, will allow regional traffic alternative routes of travel and .will help to offset the incremental impacts to the identified intersection. CEQA Findinzs of Fact 8/1/02 And Statement of Overriding Considerations 21 Impact. Intersection $22 Melrose/Rancho Santu Fe. In the Year 2OlO with 01 without the project, with the existin: lane geometry. intersection 22 will operate at LOS F in the Ah1 peak and PM peak hour. The proposed project lvill result in an increase in deia!. of S.9 seconds in the ,AM peak hour and an increase of 1.5 seconds in the P,\i peak hour. .The increase in delay in the AM peak hour is considered a significant impacr because it is Tearer than 3.0 seconds. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures. the identified direct si,gificant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of sigificance. Mitigation Measure. Implementation of the intersection improvement shown on Figure 5.2-3F of the EIR would reduce the project impact at this intersection to a level less than significant in the AM and PM peak hour ((LOS C as shown in Table 5.2-8 Year 2010 i.biwnes with Improvements column of the EIR). Mitigation Measure T3 requires the project applicant to pay a fair share contribution to the City of Carlsbad to perform the recommended improvements for intersection X22 as illustrated in Figure 5.2-3F of the EIR. T3. Prior to approval of Final Map, Grading Permit, or Building Pemlit, whichever occurs first, for any portion of the development that would generate traffic, the applicant shall pay a Afair share@ contribution as determined by the City of Carlsbad for the improvement of intersection #22 Melrose/Rancho Santa Fe as illustrated on Figure 5.2-3F of this EIR. Proof of payment of this fair share contribution shall be submitted to the City of Carlsbad prior to issuance of any building permit. Factual Support and Rationale. Mitigation Measure T3 requires the project applicant to pay a fair share contribution to the City of Carlsbad to perform the recommended improvements for intersection X22 as illustrated in Figure 5.2-3F of the EIR. These improvements will allow the intersection to operate at an acceptable level of service. Impact. imersecrion #7 PAWE1 Fuer-te. In the Year 2010 without the project, intersection $47 will operate at LOS D in the AM peak hour and C in the PM peak hour. The addition of project traffic will result in an increase in delay of 26.5 seconds in the AM peak hour and an increase of 32.6 seconds in the PM peak hour, increasing the delay to an unacceptable ' LOS in both peak hours. This is considered a significant impact. I Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation hleasure T2. Implementation of the intersection improvements shown on Figure 5.2-3L of the EIR would reduce the project impact at this intersection to a level less than sipificant in the AM and PM peak hour (LOS C as shown in Table 5.2-8 Year 2010 Vohmes with In~proveme~~t~ column of the EIR). Mitigation Measure T2 requires the project applicant to provide for the design and construction of the recommended improvements for intersection #47 as illustrated in Figure 5.2-3L of the EIR. Factual Support and Rationale. Mitigation Measure T2 requires the project applicant to provide for the design and construction of the recommended improvements for CEQA Findings ofFact 8/1/02 And Starernenr of Overriding Considerarions 22 intersection #47 as illustrated in Figure 5.2-3L of the EIR. These improvemenrs allo\\, [he intersection to operate at an acceptable ievel~of service. 2.2.3 Year 2020 Traffic Operations Impact. It~rerseciion $1 SR 76 1.W RanlpsKCR. In the Year 2020 \vith or \vithou! the project, intersection $1 will operate at LOS C in the hh,t peak hour and F in the PA! peak ]lour, The addition of project traffic will result in an increase in delay of 5.1 seconds in tk PLI p:ak hour. This is considered a si-mificant impact. Finding. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and nor the agency making the finding. Such changes haye been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other asency. hlitigation kleasure. The intersection impro\zement shown on Figure j.2-3.4 of the EIR depicts an example of feasible mitigation that if implemented, would reduce the projecr impact to a level less than significant (LOS C as shown in Table 5.2-jA Yeear 2OOj Ik'oi~rmes wirh Improvements column of the EIR). There are other forms of mitigation that could also be implemented to achieve an acceptable level of service. Factual Support and Rationale. The ultimate responsibility of implementing specific intersection improvements, dedication of right-of-way, and intersection configuration is outside the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad, and is the responsibility of the City of Oceanside. The City of Oceanside has indicated that there is currently no specific improvement program in place to fund, design and construct improvements to this intersection. Therefore, while mitigation is potentially feasible at this location, because there is no specific progam in place to ensure the improvement of the intersection by the Year 2005, the impact to intersecrion #I will remain significant and unavoidable. However, while a significant and unavoidable localized impact to intersection X1 SR 78 WB RampsiECR is identified, the addition of Faraday Avenue from Melrose Drive to Orion Street and Melrose Drive from Palomar Airport Road to the City df Vista, which will be constructed in conjunction with the proposed project, will allow regional traffic alternative routes of travel and will help to offset the incremental impacts to the identified intersection. Impact. Intersection #I5 Mebose/Sumer. In the Year 2020 condition, intersection #15 will operate at LOS D in the AM and PM peak hour without the project. The proposed project will result in an increase in delay of 6.S seconds in the AM peak hour, worsenins the LOS to E. This is considered a significant impact. Finding. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other asency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Mitigation hleasure. The intersection improvement shown on Figure 5.2-3D of the EIR depicts an example of feasible mitigation that if implemented, would reduce the project impact to a level less than significant (LOS D) as shown in Table 5.2-10 Year 2020 Voh112s wirh Improvernems column of the EIR). There are other forms of mitisation that could also be implemented to achieve an acceptable level of senice. CEQA Findings of Facr And Sraremenr of Overriding Considerarians 23 8/1/02 Factual Support and Rationale. The ultimate responsibility of implemenring specific intersection improvements, dedication of risht-of-way. and intersection csnfiyralion is outside the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad, and is the responsibility of the Ciry oiVisI2. Tilt City of Vista has indicated that there is currently no specific improvement pro,vram in place IO fund, desi9 and construct improvements to this intersecrion. Therefore. while mitizarion is potentially feasible at this location, because there is no specific program in place to ensure the improvement of the intersection, the impact to inrersection X15 will remain significant and unavoidable. - However, while a sinificant and unavoidable localized impact to intersection $15 Melrose/Sunset is identified, the addition of Faraday Avenue from Melrose Drive to Orion Street and Melrose Drive from Palomar Airport Road to the City of Vista, which will be construcred in conjunction with the proposed project, will allow regional traffic alternative routes of travel and will help to offset the incremental impacts to the identified intersection. Impact. Infersecrion #I8 Svcamore/Melrose. In the Year 2020 condition, intersection #I8 will operate at Los F in the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM peak hour without the project. The proposed project will result in an increase in delay of 86.9 seconds in the AM peak hour and 23.1 seconds in the PM peak hour, worsening the LOS in the Phl peak hour to an unacceptable LOS E. This is considered a significant impact. Finding. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Mitigation Measure. The intersection improvements shown on Figure 5.2-3D of the EIR depicts an example of feasible mitigation that if implemented, would reduce the project impact to a level less than significant (LOS D in AM and LOS C in PM as shown in Table 5.2-10 Year 2020 Vo'oiumes with Inlproventenu column of the EIR). There are other forms of mitigation that could also be implemented to achieve an acceptable level of service. Factual Support and Rationale. The ultimate responsibility of implementing specific intersection improvements, dedication of right-of-way, and intersection configuration is , outside the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad, and is the responsibility of the City of Vista. The ,' City of Vista has indicated that there is currently no specific improvement program in place to fund, design and construct improvements to this intersection. Therefore, while mitigation is potentially feasible at this location, because there is no specific program in place to ensure the improvement of the intersection, the impact to intersection #18 will remain significant and unavoidable. However, while a significant and unavoidable localized impacr to intersection #18 MelroseiSunser is identified, the addition of Faraday from Melrose Drive to Orion Street and Melrose Drive from Palomar Airport Road to the City of Vista, which will be constructed in conjunction with the proposed project, will allow regional traffic alternative routes of travel and will help to offset the incremental impacts to the identified intersection. Impact. intemecfion XI9 Melmse/Park Cenfer. In the Year 2020, intersection 319 would experience an acceptable LOS D operations in the AM and PM peak hour without the CEQA Findings of Facr And Statement of Overriding Considerations 24 81 I 102 proposed project. The proposed project would result in an increase in delay of j7.3 seconds in the o hi peak hour and 63.6 seconds in the Phi peak hour, lowerin: the LOS 10 F dufinc bolh F,c3:, periods. This is considered a sisificant impact. - Finding. (2) Such Changes or alterations are \vithin the rcsponsibilir\ 3116 jurisdiction of another public agency and nor the agency making the findin:. Such changes IIX been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopt?d by such other agencv. -. Mitigation Measure. The intersection improvement shown on Figurs 5.2-3E of the EIR depicts an example of feasible mitigation that if implemented, \vould reduce the projecr impact to a level less than significant (LOS D as shown in Table 52-10 }24r 2020 P’dm7e~ wi/i~ Impr.oven~enls column of the EIR). There are other forms of mitisation that could also be implemented to achieve an acceptable level of service. Factual Support and Rationale. The ultimate responsibility of implementins specific intersection improvements, dedication of right-of-way, and intersection configuration is outside the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad, and is the responsibility of the City of Vista. The City of Vista has indicated that there is currently no specific improvement program in place to fund, design and construct improvements to this intersection. Therefore, while mitisation is potentially feasible at this location, because there is no specific progan in place to ensure the improvement of the intersection, the impact to intersection $19 will remain significant and unavoidable. However, while a significant and unavoidable localized impact to intersection #19 MelrosePark Center is identified, the addition of Faraday from Melrose Drive to Orion Street and Melrose Drive from Palomar Airpon Road to the City of Vista, which will be constructed in conjunction with the proposed project, ivill allow regional traffic alternative routes of travel and will help to offset the incremental impacts to the identified intersection. Impact. Infersecrim 21 Algu/A-leb.ose. In the Year 2020 with or without the project, intersection X21 will operate at LOS C in the AM peak and LOS E in the PM peak hour. The proposed project will result in an increase in delay of 3.8 seconds in the PM peak hour. The increase in delay in the PM peak hour is considered a significant impact because it is greater than 2.0 seconds. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure T4. Implementation of the intersection improvement shown on Figure 5.2-3F of the EIR would reduce the project impact at this intersection to a level iess than significant in the PM peak hour (LOS C as shown in Table 52-10 Year 2020 Voiumes will7 Inrproven~e~~ts column). Mitisation Measure T4 requires the project applicant to pay a fair share contribution to the City of Carlsbad to perform the recommended improvements for intersection #21 as illustrated in Figure 5.2-3F of the EIR. T4. Prior to approval of Final h4ap, Grading Permit, or Building Permit, whichever occurs first, for any portion of the development that would generate traffic, the applicant shall pay a Afair share@ contribution as determined by the CEQA Findinzs of Fact And Statement of Overrldmg Consideratians - 7j SiliO? City of Carlsbad for the improvement of intersection $21 MeiroseiAlga as illustrated on Fiyre 5.2-3F of this EL?. Proof of payment of this fair shxi contribution shall be submitted to the City of Carlsbad prior to issuance of an!. building permit. Factual Support and Rationale. Mitigation Measure T4 requires the protect applicant to pay a fair share Contribution to the City of Carlsbad to perfom the recommended improvements for intersection 21 as illustrated in Fipre 5.2-3F of the EIR. implen~~snration of these improvements will allow the intersection to operate at an acceptable level of service. Impact. imersecfio~i #22 Melrose/Rarrcho Sm7m Fe. In the Year 3020 without the project, intersection $22 \hill operate at LOS D in the AM peak and Phl peak hour. The proposed project will result in an increase in delay of 3.5 seconds in the PM peak hour. The increase in delay in the Ph4 peak hour is considered a significant impact because it is greater than 2.0 seconds. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitization measures, the identified direct sigificant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of si-gificance. Mitigation Measure T3. Implementation of the intersection improvement shown on Figure 5.2-3F of the EIR would reduce the project impact at this intersection to a level less than significant in the.AM and PM peak hour (LOS D as shown in Table 5.2-10 Year 2020 Volumes with In~provemenfs column of the EIR). Mitigation Measure T3 requires the project applicant to pay a fair share contribution to the City of Carlsbad to perfom the recommended improvements for intersection X22 as illustrated in Figure 5.2-3F of the EIR. T3. Prior to approval of Final Map, Grading Permit, or Building Permit, whichever occurs first, for any portion of the development that would generate traffic, the applicant shall pay a Afair share@ contribution as determined by the City of Carlsbad for the improvement of intersection #22 MelroseRancho Santa Fe as illustrated on Figure 5.2-3F of this EIR. Proof of payment of this fair share contribution shall be submitted tu the City of Carlsbad prior to issuance of any building permit. / Factual Support and Rationale. Mitigation Measure T3 requires the project applicant to pay a fair share contribution to the City of Carlsbad to perfom the recommended improvements for intersection X22 as illustrated in Figure 5.2-3F of the EIR. Implementation of these improvements will reduce the impact to this intersection to a level less than significant. Impact. Inlersecrion X28 Aviar-a-AlgdECR. In the Year 2020 without the project, intersection E28 v.41 operate at LOS D in the AM peak and LOS E in the PM peak hour. The proposed project will result in an increase in delay of 2.9 seconds in the PM peak hour. The increase in delay in the PM peak hour is considered a significant impact because it is greater than 2.0. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitisation measures, the identified direct significant impact would bs avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. CEQA Findings of Fact And Statement of Overrldinz Considerations 26 8/1/02 Mitigation Measure T5. Mitigation Measure Tj would reduce the project impact at this intersection to a level less than si-gnificant (LOS C in the AM and LOS D in the PXI peak hour as shown in Table 5.7-10 year 2020 b'dtnles wffh irupr-ovemerm coiumn). Mitisarion hleasur: T5 requires the project applicant to pay a fair share contribution to the improuemen: oi intersection $78 as illustrated in Figure j.2-3G of the EIR. Tj. Prior to approval of Final Map, Grading Permit, or Building Pemiir. whichever occurs iirsr, for any portion of the development thar \r.oulj senerare traffic, the applicant shall pay a Afair shares contribution as determined by the City of Carlsbad for the improvement of inrersection 22s AIodEi Camino Real as illustrared on Figure j.2-3G of this EIR. Proof of payment of this fair share contribution shall be submitted to the City of Carlsbad prior to issuance of an\' building permit. - Factual Support and Rationale. Mitigation Measure T5 requires the project applicant to pay a fair share contribution to the improvement of intersection 28 as illustrated in Figure 52-36 of the EIR. Impact. Infersecfiotl #31 Sun MarcodGrmd. In the Year 2020 condition. intersection 231 will operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour and LOS F in the PM peak hour without the project. The proposed project will result in an increase in delay of 2.2 seconds in the PM peak hour, worsening the LOS in the PM peak hour. This is considered a significant impaci. Finding. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibiliry and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the findins. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Mitigation Measure. The intersection improvements shown on Figure 5.2-3H of the EIR depict an example of feasible mitisation that if implemented, would reduce the project impact to a level less than significant (LOS D in AM Ph.1 as shown in Table 52-10 Yeear- 2020 Volurnes wifh intprovemenfs column). There are other forms of mitigation that could also be implemented to achieve an acceptable level of service. Factual Support and Rationale. The ultimate responsibility of implementing specific intersection improvements, dedication of right-of-way, and intersection configuration is' ourside the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad, and is the responsibility of the City of San Marcos. The City of San Marcos has indicated that there is currently no specific improvement program in place to fund, desisn and construct improvements to this intersection. Therefore, while mitigation is potentially feasible at this location, because there is no specific program in place to ensure the improvement of the intersection, the impact to intersection SI will remain significant and unavoidable. However, while a significant and unavoidable localized impact to intersection #31 San MarcosiGrand is identified, the addition of Faraday Avenue from Melrose Drive to Orion Street and Melrose Drive from Palomar Airpon Road to the City of Vista, which will be constructed in conjunction with the proposed project, will allow regional traffic alternative routes of travel and will help to offset the incremental impacts IO the identified intersection. CEQA Findings of Fact And Srarernent of Overriding Considerations 27 8/1/02 Impact. lnrersection #47 pAR/E/ Fuerre. In the Year 2020 without the project. inkrsection M7 will operate at Los F in the AM peak hour and D in the PM peak hour. The addition of project traffic will result in an increase in delay of 60.jseconds in thr. Ah1 peak hour and an increase of 83.8 seconds in the Pbl peak hour. This is considered a significant Impxt. Finding. With the incorporation of the followin? mitigation measures. the identified direct simificant - impact would be avoided and thereby reduced belo\v a level oisi~niilcmcs. Mitigation Measure. Implementation of the intersection improvements sho\vn on Figure 5.2-3L of the EIR would reduce the project impact at this intersection to a level less than significant in the AM and PM peak hour ( (LOS C as shown in Table 52-10 ?ear 2020 Vohm with Improvenlenrs column). Mitigation Measure T2 requires the project applicant to provide for the design and construction of the recommended improvements for intersection #47 as illustrated in Figure 5.2-3L of the EIR. Factual Support and Rationale. Mitigation Measure T2 requires the project applicant to provide for the design and construction of the recommended improvements for intersection $47 as illustrated in Figure 5.2-3L of the EIR. Implementation of these improvements will allow the intersection to operate at an acceptable level of service. 2.3 Air Quality 2.3.1 Short-Term Construction Impact. The site preparatiodgrading activities associated with the proposed project will generate 292 pounds per day of NO, and 600 pounds per day of PMlo. As depicted in Table 5.3-4 of the EIR, NO, and PMlo exceed :he SDAPCD Rule 20.2 construction emission thresholds. This is considered a significant impact. Finding. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technologic.al, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Mitigation Measure AQ1. During the clearing, grading, earth moving or excavation on the project site, the following measures shall be implemented: ,i Conrrol fugitive dust by regular watering, paving construction roads, or other dust $ Maintain equipment engines in proper tune; $ Seed and water until vegetation cover is grown; $ Spread soil binders; $ Wet the area down, sufficient enough to form a crust on the surface with repeated soakings, as necessary, to maintain the crust and prevent dust pickup by the wind; $ Street sweeping, should silt be carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares; $ Use water trucks or sprinkler systems to keep all areas where vehicles move dirt $ Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; $ Use of low sulfur fuel (0.5% by weight) for construction equipment; $ Soil erosion measures; $ Water exposed surfaces two times per day; preventive measures; enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site; CEQA Flndingr of Facr And Starement of Overriding Considerations 28 811102 $ Reduce speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph or less; and $ Water haul roads two times per day. Factual Support and Rationale. The foregoing fugitive dust and din remedies \\.jI! be effective in reducinx air born dusr and pmiculare emissions from gadin: operarions. Th: combination of on-site watering, sweeping of pal'emenr. load requirement limirxions. suriacin; onsite construction roads with controlled trip frequencies and suspension of gradin: acti\.ities when winds exceed 25mph have proven to be effective in mitigating constructio;. dust and particulate emissions. However, Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ! (a ponion of which is derived from the URBEhlIS 7G air quality model) will nor reduce the shon-tern air pollutant emissions associated with NO, or PMlo to a level less than significant. The shon-tern1 air emission impact associated with NO and PMbo will remain significant and unavoidable. Impact. The project area contains ganitic rock and rock crushing is proposed on- site to process the rock materials. The potential for dust emissions from rock crushing activities is considered a significant impact. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure AQt. During rock crushing activities, Best Available Control Technology (BACT) techniques, such as: misting along the conveyor feeds for the crusher; wetting of stockpiles; and limited crusher activities when wind speeds are in excess of 25 mph shall be used to control dust emissions. Factual Support and Rationale. The Best Available Control Technology (BACT) is required to be used IO control fugitive dust emissions from the rock crushing operations in these areas. Dust emissions from rock crushing operations are highly variable and are best controlled through the use of wet-suppression techniques. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ2 will reduce the dust emissions associated with rock crushing activities to a level less than significant. Mitigation - Measure AQ2 requires that BACT techniques such as misting along the conveyor feeds for the crusher, wetting of stockpiles, and limiting crusher activities when wind speeds are in excess of 25 mph be used to control dust emissions. Impact. The construction of buildings within the proposed project area will also result in shon-tern air emissions. Building construction will occur as lots are purchased andi businesses plan to locate in the business park. The construction activities associated with Phase 1 of the project will generate approximately 3,259 pounds per day of NO,, PMlo, and CO exceed the SDAPCD Rule 20.2 construction emission thresholds. The pollutant emissions associated with developing Phase 1 are significantly hizher than the SDAPCD thresholds. Therefore, the shon-tern pollutant emissions associared with development of Phase 1 will be significant and unavoidable. The construction activities associated with Phase 2 will generate approximately 1,928 pounds per day of NO,, 137 pounds per day of PMlo, and 419 pounds per day of CO emissions. The estimated NO, and PMlo would exceed the SDAPCD Rule 20.2 construction emission thresholds. Therefore, the short-term pollutant emissions associated with development of Phase 2 will be significant and unavoidable. CEQA Flndlnes of Fact And Statement of Overriding Considerations 29 8/1/02 Construction activities associated with Phase 3 will generate approximately 2,505 pounds per day of NO,, 17s pounds per day of PMlo, and 545 pounds per day of CO emissions. The estimated NO, and PMlo exceed the SDAPCD Rule 20.2 construction emission thresholds. Therefore, the short-term pollutant emissions associated with the development of Phase 3 ir-ill bs significant and unavoidable. Finding. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technolosjcal, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for hizhly trained workers. make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EX Mitigation Measure. No feasible mitization measure has been identified that would reduce the impact to a level less than significant. Factual Support and Rationale. The level of emissions estimated to result from construction activity will exceed the si-~ficance thresholds. There is no feasible mitigation ro reduce tie amount of emissions, other than reducing the area of disturbance each day, and limiting the number of construction equipment operating at one time. This is not feasible, as this approach would estend the construction period to several years, and would not allow for a coordinated grading operation which is required for balanced grading activity. 2.3.2 Operational Emissions Impact. Table 5.3-6 of the EIR depicts the total projected long-term air pollutant emissions resulting from development of the interim project in Year 2005. The projected long- term air pollutant emissions associated with the interim project will exceed threshold criteria for all four of the pollutant categories; carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), oxides of nitrogen (NO,), and particulate matter (PMlo). The interim project will emit approximately 2,108 pounds per day of CO. This is 1,558 pounds per day more than the significance threshold. Emissions generated by the project will also be higher than the significance threshold for ROG emissions by approximately 2,136 pounds per day, NO, by 1,119 pounds per day, and PMio by 100 pounds per day. This is considered a significant impact. Finding. (3) Specific economic, legal; social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Mitigation Measure AQ3 will be implemented to reduce the impact to the extent feasible; $ however, no feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate this project-level impact and the impact remains significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure AQ3. The following measures shall be implemented as feasible for all subsequent development projects within the project area as identified in the City of Carlsbad General Plan Final Master Environmental Impact Report: $ Provide within the proposed development, a commercial site designated to serve the commercial needs of the occupants of the business park. $ Development within Carlsbad Oaks North shall provide traffic control devices along all roadway segments and at intersections and interconnect and synchronize the operation of traffic signals along arterial streets, whenever feasible. $ Development and businesses within Carlsbad Oaks North shall encourage conmuter usage of busses, carpools and vanpools. CEQA Findings of Fact And Statemenr of Oveniding Considerations 30 811102 $ Provide, whenever possible, incentiyes for car pooling, flex-time, shonened \veri, weeks, and telecommunications and other means of reducing vehicular miles [ra\.eled, $ Develop and implement employer incentive progams to encouraze the placemen1 of strategic bicycle storage lockers, and the consrmction of safe and convenirrlr b~c\.cls facilities. $ Development within Carlsbad Oaks North shall provide shade trees to reduc: building heatin? (cooling) needs. $ Development within Carlsbad Oaks North shall use energy eficienr io\\:-sodium $ Development within Carlsbad Oaks North shall use light colored roof marerials to parking lot lights. reflect heat. Factual Support and Rationale. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ3 \vi11 reduce this impact to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure AQ; requires the impismentarion of all feasible area source and mobile source measures in new development in the project area. However, based on the results of further modeling utilizing the URBEMIS 7G air quality model, even with the incorporation of area source and mobile source mitigation measures (such as those required by Mitigation Measure .4Q3), the long-term air pollutant emissions associated with the project will still exceed threshold criteria for CO, ROG, NO,, and PMlo by a substantial amount, and the long-term project-specific air quality impact is significant and unavoidable. The reliance on the automobile for the future industrial primary mode of transponation, given the entire San Diego air basin’s non-attainment status, makes the incremental contribution from the Proposed Project to be significant. While the air quality in the region has been improving, the overall resolution will need to wait for cleaner burning, or less polluting, modes of transportation, and shifting the travel patterns from single occupancy vehicles to carpooling, bus, bicycle and walking modes. This represents as much a cultural as well as a facility shift, but cannot realistically be fully implemented with this Proposed Project. The project will accommodate bike lanes, bus stops and walking trails in addition to sidewalks. its proximity to residential land uses in north County will also serve to reduce overall driving distances. Impact. In the long-term, development anticipated to occur in the project area will generate new vehicular traffic. This additional traffic, amounting to approximately 22,650 new trips will generate mobile source emissions. As depicted in Table 5.3-7 of the EIR, this additional traffic will senerate approximately 3,199 pounds per day of CO, 5,343 pounds per day. of ROG, 797 pounds per day of NO,, and 261 pounds per day of PMlo. Additionally, the Specific Plan will result in the generation of stationary source emissions in the cooling. As depicted in Table 5.3-7 of the EIR, stationary sources will generate approximately region through on-site consumption of energy (i.e, lighting, water, and space heating and 571,37 pounds per day of CO, 103.63 pounds per day of ROG, 1,425.69 pounds per day of NO,, and 2.57 pounds per day ofPMlo. The projected long-term air pollutant emissions associated with the project will exceed threshold criteria for all four of the pollutant categories; carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), oxides of nitrogen (NO,), and particulate matter (PMlo). Stationary and mobile sources associated with the proposed project will emit approximately 3,770 pounds per day of CO. This project will be greater than the significance threshold for ROG emissions by 5,391 pounds per is 3,220 pounds per day more than the significance threshold. Emissions senerated by the CEQA Findings of Facr And Statement of Overriding Considerations 31 8/1/02 day, NO, by 2,167 pounds per day. and PM 10 by 114 pounds per day. This is considered a significant impact. Finding. (3) Specific economic. legal, social: technological. or olher considerations. including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers. make infeasible the mitization measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Mitigation Measure AQ3 will be implemented to reduce the impact to the extent feasible: however, no feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate this project-level impact and the impact remains significant and unavoidable. hfitigation Measure AQ3. The following measures shall be implemented as feasible for all subsequent development projects within the project area as identified in the Ciry of Carlsbad General Plan Final Master Environmental Impact Report: $ Provide within the proposed development, a commercial site designated to serve the commercial needs of the occupants of the business park. $ Development withm Carlsbad Oaks North shall provide traffic control. devices along all roadway segments and at intersections and interconnect and synchronize the operation of traffic siFals along arterial streets, whenever feasible. $ Development and busmesses within Carlsbad Oaks North shall encoura, oe commuter usage of busses, carpools and vanpools. $ Provide, whenever possible, incentives for car pooling, flex-time, shortened work weeks, and telecommunications and other means of reducing vehicular miles traveled. $ Develop and implement employer incentive programs to encourage the placement of strategic bicycie storage lockers, and the construction of safe and convenient bicycle facilities. $ Development within Carlsbad Oaks North shall provide shade trees to reduce building heating (cooling) needs. $ Development within Carlsbad Oaks North shall use energy efficient low-sodium parking lot lights. $ Development within Carlsbad Oaks North shall use light colored roof materials to reflect heat. Factual Support and Rationale. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ3 will reduce this impact to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure AQ3 requires the implementation ; of all feasible area source and mobile source measures in new development in the project area. However, based on the results of further modeling utilizing the URBEMIS 7G air quality model, even with the incorporation of area source and mobile source mitigation measures (such as those required by Mitigation Measure AQ3), the long-term air pollutant emissions associated with the project will still exceed threshold criteria for CO, ROG, NO,, and PM,o.by a substantial amount, and the long-term project-specific air quality impact is significant and unavoidable. The reliance on the automobile for the future household primary mode of transportation, given the entire San Diego air basin’s non-attainment status, makes the incremental contribution from the Proposed Project to be significant. While the air quality in the region has been improving, the overall resolution will need to wait for cleaner burning, or less polluting, modes of transportation, and shifting the travel patterns from single occupancy vehicles to carpooling, bus, bicycle and walking modes. This represents as much a cultural as well as a facility shift, but cannot realistically be fully implemented with this Proposed Project. The project will .. CEQA Finding of Fact And Sraremenr of Overriding Considerarions 32 8/1/02 accommodate bike lanes, bus stops and wauclns trails in addition IO sidewalks. Its prosimirv 10 residenlial land uses will also serve to reduce overall dnving distances. 2.3 Koise 2.4.1 Construction Koise Impact. 'As identified above and illustrated in Figure 52.4 of the EIR. sensitive uses located to the north of the project site will not be subjected to 65 dB.& Leq noise levels as a result of proposed blasting and rock crushinz operations. Additionally. the exrerior noise levels experienced at the residences located to the east in the City oiVista will not exceed the 65 dBA exterior noise level allowed by the City of Vista or the 75 dBA construction nois: le\'el standard. However, if durinz grading, the location of the blasting and 'the rock crushers were required to be relocated for any reason, significant noise impacts could occur Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures. N1. Prior to blasting, a blasting schedule shall he prepared by the project applicant and submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. N2. The blastins contractor shall notify the Carlsbad Police Department and the County Sheriff=s Department prior to commencing any blastin3 activities. N3. The project proponent shall give a one-time notice in writing to residences within 1,000 feet of a potential major blast operation as well as the Dawson Los Manos Canyon Reserve. The notice shall disclose the anticipated blasting schedule and provide a contact phone number for the blasting contractor. N?. A pre-blast inspection of existing structures within 300 feet of any proposed detonation shall be conducted by an inspector approved by the Carlsbad Police Department, the San Diego County Sheriff=s Depanment and the City of Carlsbad Building Department. N5, The project shall conform to the San Diego County Blasting Ordinance Title 3, Division 5, Chapter 111 County Code of Regulatory Ordinance Sections 35.377.101-101, 35.377.301(a) and 35.377.307 to reduce the temporary noise impacts due to blasting and Section 8.4S.010 of the City=s Municipal Code limiting allowable hours of activities. The allowable hours of activities associated with blasting are 9:OO am to 4:30 pm, or one- half hour before sunset, whichever comes first, Monday through Friday. No blasting is allowed on weekends nor on the holidays specified in Section 8.48.01 of the City-s Municipal Code. N6. A blasting report shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to any blasting activities. The report shall conform to the San Diego County Blasting Ordinance (Division 5, Title 3, Section 35) and vibration stmdards promui~3ted by [he U.S. Bureau oiMines. CEQA Flndings of Fact And Siatement of Overriding Considerations 33 8/1/02 N7. No rock crushing activities shall be allowed within S50 feet of: I) the Dauson Los Monos Reserve located to the north of the project area; and 2) the residential uses located to the east of the project area. Compliance with this measure shall be enforced ny the City of Carlsbad Public Works Depmment. Factual Support and Rationale. Implementation of Mitisation h4easures Xi through N7 will reduce the potential impact to a level less than significant should the proposed blasting and rock crushing centers need to be relocated from their currently proposed position. Mitigation Measures Nl through N6 require preparation and implementation of a blasting schedule and blasting report, as well as notification of surrounding sensitive uses and inspection of existing structures within 300 feet of any proposed blasting activities. Mitigation Measure N7 requires that no rock crushing activities be performed within 650 feet of the Dawson Los Monos Reserve or the residential uses located to the east of the project site in the City ofVista. This \vi11 ensure that the noise levels experienced by these adjacent land uses as a result of blasting and rock crushing activity will not exceed 65 dBA Leq. Impact. Traffic associated with the Specific Plan industrial uses will result in an increase of traffic generated noise along surrounding roadways ranging From 0.1 dBA CNEL along Sycamore Drive, east of the 7s freeway to 3.0 dBA CNEL along Faraday Avenue west of Melrose Drive, The 3.0 dBA increase along Faraday Avenue is considered a significant increase in noise along this roadway as it meets the 3.0 dBA increase criteria established by the City of Vista. This increase in roadway noise will result in a significant .impact to the single-family residences located within approximately 135 feet of the roadway centerline. This is considered a significant impact. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure N8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall have an acoustical study prepared by a certified acoustician (subject to City approval) to determine the proper location, height, and configuration of any additional noise barrier (e.g., wall or berm) to protect the residences located within 135 feet of Faraday Avenue west of Melrose Drive and east of El Fuerte Street from noise levels in excess of 65 dBA. The developer shall make a written offer to impacted property owners to install a noise barrier approved by the Planning Director at the size and location specified by the acoustical analysis. Installation shall be required prior to the opening of Faraday Avenue unless proof is provided by the developer that a property owner has rejected the proposed noise barrier. ‘I Factual Support and Rationale. Implementation of Mitigation Measure N8 will reduce this impact to a level less than significant. Mitigation Measure N8 requires the developer to complete an acoustical study (subject to City approval) to determine the proper location, height, and configuration of a noise barrier (e.g., wall or berm) if needed to protect the residences from noise levels in excess of 65 dB.4. Upon the determination of the appropriate noise barrier (if needed), the developer shall install the barrier to the satisfaction of the City of Carlsbad. CEQA Findings of Facr And Statement of O\,erridinz Considerations 34 8/1/02 2.5 Biological Resources 2.5.1 Sensitive Habitats and Vegetation Impact. The proposed project would primarily impact coastal sag: scrub 3113 southern mixed chaparral. The prqiect would also impact non-nativr Zrassiana. coastal sageichaparral scrub, coyote brush scrub_ southern coasr litre oak npoodland. sout1,em nlan~imc' chaparralmuttall=s scrub oak phase, valley needlesass grassland. and southem coast live oak riparian forest. Impacts to vegetation are associated with implementation of all aspects of' the project. Impacts to all of these vegetation types are considered sigificant and requir: mitization under the Carlsbad HMP. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures.. the identified direct sigificant impact \\m.dd be avoided and thereby reduced beloLv a ie\'el of significance. Mitigation Measure BR1. The project proponents shall mitigate all significant impacts to upland habitat in accordance with the mitigation ratios identified in Table 5.5-3 of the EIR. Proof of implementation of this mitigation shall be provided prior to grading or vegetation removal on the project site and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Ciry of Carlsbad Planning Department. The mitigation can occur on dedicated lands not proposed for development within the project site, so long as viable connectivity to the principal open space lands are maintained. Mitigation can also occur in approved regional land banks with agency approval. The satisfaction of BRl is generally anticipated to occur through conservation of on-site or off- site habitats, either of the same type or from a higher tiered habitat group as identified in the Carlsbad HMP (see Table 5.5-3 of EIR). Off-site mitigation is proposed to include 100.6 acres of remaining mitization credit from Phase 2 and 3 within the Carlsbad Highlands mitigation bank as well as 70.4 acres of suitable conservation from other mitigation lands that at a minimum, meet the following mitigation standards: 1) Mitigation lands shall include not less than 11.1 acres of HMP group D or a higher tier habitat to mitigate Southern Mixed Chaparral. 2) Mitigation lands shall include not less than 20.8 acres of Southern Maritime Chaparral and may include Nutrall=s Scrub Oak Phase chaparral to satisfy this requirement. 3) Mitigation lands shall include not less than 38.5 acres of habitat that has been pre- approved by wildlife agencies for use in mitigating gnatcatcher occupied habitat, or which is determined to be gnatcatcher occupied or occupiable Coastal Sage Scrub (including up to 4.6 acres of Coyote Brush Scrub). 4) Mitigation lands shall be located within MHCP conservation lands or shall be determined by the wildlife agencies and City of Carlsbad to substantively contribute to conservation of lands that &ll fulfill the conservation objectives of the MHCP. Southeru Muririnre Chaparral/Nutiall=s Scrub Oak Phase Due to the dearth of this specific floristic assemblage throughout the MHCP planning area and the presence of sensitive plant species such as Nuttall=s scrub oak, it is recommended to be mitisated at a 3:l replacement ratio by preserifation of similar or the hieher quahty, maritime chaparral habitat type. hfitigation would require that vegetation be compensated through CEQA Findings of Fact And Statement of Overriding Considerations 35 8/1/02 conservation of habitat wihn preserved lads that contribute to the regional habitat consen’ation strategy for the h,lHCP. A portion of the mitigation for impacts IO this habitat is [O b,- accomplished on-site while the remaining acreage shall be mitigated by off-site acquisition. Oak Woodiands The Carlsbad HMF’ calls for no-net loss of oak \+:oodland habitats. This would include the Southern Coast Live Oak Woodland and the Southern Coasr Live Oak Riparian Foresr thal is anticipated to be impacred as a result of project implementation. While the HMP appears [o call for 2 1:l replacement, the restoration of oak woodland habitat requites many years to be accomplished, As a result, mitigation for oak woodlands shall include both the HMP required woodland creation as well as a 2:l conservation element wherein oak dominated habitat on-site is conserved in open space. This would bring the total oak habitat mitigation up to a 3:l mitigation ratio (1:l restoration and 2:1 conservation). While impacts are assumed to occur to all oak trees occurring within 25 feet of any grading area. to further minimize impacts to peripheral trees, wherever ok root systems are damaged by excavation or placement of fill over root zones, a proportional amount of the tree canopy should be removed by pruning by a qualified arborist or habitat restoration specialist. Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub The impacts to sage scrub (83.9 acres) constitute a high percentage of the sage scrub remaining locally, and this vegetation type is occupied by the federally-Iisted threatened California gnatcatcher. While the understory of the sage scrub may not be particularly diverse, the level of impact is nevertheless substantial given this high percentage of local sage scrub being impacted and the importance of this habitat to supporting California gnatcatchers on-site. Mitigation is recommended to be a mix of on-site habitat conservation and off-site purchase of occupied or occupiable sage scrub or regional land bank credits that have been approved for use in mitigating gnatcatcher occupied habitat (e.g., the Highlands Mitigation Land Bank). Open Space Management Any lands used for mitigation of project impacts must be adequately managed to sustain biological resource values present at the time of CEQA document adoption. Management responsibilities for the property must be outlined in a detailed management plan and adequately funded as an element of the land conservation contemplated. The open space management ’ responsibilities for the open space shall consist of active maintenance to protect and preserve the quality of the habitat (including but not limited to reasonable prevention of trespass) as required by the USFWS and CDFG. Mitigation Measure BW. Prior to the removal of vegetation (issuance of a grading permit) the Developer shall encumber Open Space lots and mitigation lands with a conservation easement in favor of CDFG, and prior to final map the Developer shall grant to the City an Irrevocable Offer to dedicate fee title of Open Space Lots 10, 11, and 12 to be accepted by the City upon completion of grading and improvements. The City shall transfer the fee title to a natural lands management entity for perpetual maintenance. The natural lands management entity selected must have an open space management plan that is acceptable to the wildlife agencies and approved by the City. Simultaneous with the transfer of ownership of open space to the City, the Developer shall provide funding or other acceptable financial mechanism to provide for management and conservation in perpetuity. CEQA Findings of Fact And Staremenr of Overriding Considerations 36 8/1/02 Factual Support and Rationale. The Carlsbad HhP addresses mitig3[ion requirements for each of these vegetation tpes. Mitization Measures BRI and BE \%;ill reduce the sienificanr - impact to sensitive vegetation 10 a less than significant level. Under the Carlsbud HhP, the City is required to mitipe impacts to chaparral at a I:1 replacerr.znt ralio for ;ill public projects. This applies to chaparral vegetation other than southem rnantimc chapanaLih'uttall=s scrub oak phase, which requires mitigation at a 3:1 ratio (see Table 5,5-: of EIR for habitat groups and mitigation ratios). Proof of implementation of this mitigation \vi11 be provided prior to grading or vegetation removal on the project site and shall be subject 10 rhe review and approval of the City of Carlsbad Planning Depanment. The sarisfacrion of BR1 is * generally anricipated to occur throush conservation of on-sire or off-sire habitats. either of the same type or from a higher tiered habitat goup as identified in the Carlsbad HMP (see Table 5.5- 3 of EIR). Off-site mitigation is proposed to include 100.6 acres of remaining mitigarion credit from Phase 2 and 3 within the Carlsbad Highlands mitigation bank as well as 70.4 acres of suitable conservation from other mitigation lands. These lands will be manased as described in mitigation measure BR2. 2.5.2 Sensitive Plants Impact. The project would impact 117 California adolphia. Under the proposed project design, impacts to this species are considered to be less than significant and no mitiprion is recommended beyond that addressing habitat impacts. The project. would also impact 53 southwesrem spiny rush, 10 summer holly (approximately 10% of the on-site population), two patches of western dichondra, and one San Diego Soldenstar. None of these impacts is considered biologically significant; however, the San Diego goldenstar and summer-holly are considered narrow endemic species under the HMP. As such, measures specific to impacts to narrow endemic species derived from the HMP must be addressed. Additionally, based upon the 12.57 acres of southern maritime chaparralhluttall-s scrub oak phase that would be impacted by proposed development, an estimated 4,436 individual Nuttall=s scrub oak would be impacted. The Nuttall=s scrub oak impact is considered significant. Mitigation Measures requiring a 3:l replacement ratio of similar southern maritime chaparralNuttall=s scrub oak habitat would address this impact as required under Mitigation Measure BRl Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the! identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. hlitigatioo Measure BR3. Although populations of clay bindweed, San Diego thommint, and thead-leaf brodiaea are outside of the proposed impact area, indirect impacts could occur due to habitat intrusion associated with increased human foot and bicycle traffic. 4 low splir rail fence should be installed on the borders of the trails in areas adjacent to these sensitive plant populations. Management efforts for the San Diego Goldemstar shall be undertaken to search clay soils in the area of the known occurrence of this species during site clearing and grubbing. To the extent feasible, all bulbs and corms shall be salvaged from the soil and transplanred into suitable clay soils located elsewhere in the open space. Transplant receiver areas shall be manqed and fenced, as appropriate in a manner similar to the known existine occurrence of rare plants discussed previously. These measures are expected to support the goal of reducing detrimental edge effects for these species that will ultimately be required as an CEQA Findinps of Facr And Stalemenr of Ovemidinp Considerarlons 31 8/1/02 element of the area specific management plans to be prepared for lands included in the MHCP presewes, including the on-site open space to be conserved as a pan of this projecr. Factual Support and Rationale. Mitigation h4easures requiring a 3:l replacement ratio of similar southern maritime chaparraVKuttall=s scrub oak habirar would address this impact as required under Mitigation Measure BRI. The measures required in Mitigation Measure BR3 are expected to suppon the goal of reducing detrimental edge effects for these species that will ultimately be required as an element of the area specific management plans to be prepared for lands included in the MHCP presenws, including the on-site open spacc to be conserved as a part of this project. 2.5.3 Sensitive Animals Impact. The loss of 83.9 acres of coastal sage scrub is expected to have an adverse impact on animal species resident within this habitat type. The proposed project will impact four pairs of California gnatcatchers and habitat historically, but not presently, occupied by two additional pairs of gnatcatchers (KEA 1998). The various proposed cornponents of the project would traverse or largely remove the native vegetation on California gnatcatcher territories; thereby impacting the four gnatcatcher pairs. These pairs of gnatcatchers were observed to use a fairly broad area over the course of the site visits. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of sigificance. Mitigation Measures. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BRI and BR2 identified above. Factual Support and Rationale. The Carlsbad HMP does not provide the same mitigation requirement for occupied gnatcatcher habitat (i,e,, 2:l) as it does for unoccupied gnatcatcher habitat (i.e., 1: 1 j. However, deciding which category is appropriate for each area of sage scrub can be difficult. Within occupied and adjacent habitat, there is typically an expansion or contraction of sage scrub gnatcatcher use areas that occurs on a yearly basis. This is due primarily to two reasons. First, environmental chanoes (e.,o., mesic versus xeric conditions based on significant yearly fluctuations in rainfall) may dlctate larger or smaller areas for forasing are required. Second, there may be varying numbers of gnatcatchers presenl [i.e., there are ’ population fluctuations that do not always balance localized juvenile dispersals (replacements) 5 with the deaths of some individuals]. Given this process by which gnatcatchers reconfigure available habitat to suit the unique current circumstances B there may be no reasonable scientific methodology for separating contiguous blocks of similar quality sage scrub into occupied and unoccupied habitat without extenslve field monitoring of individual gnatcatcher territories over multiple seasons. As such, the US. Fish & Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish 6r. Game have indicated that they consider all sage scrub on the sire to be occupied by gnatcatchers. As a result, a 2:l (conserved to impacted) ratio is required under the Carlsbad HMP. Mitigation lands should support or be suitable to support California gnatcatchers, or alternatively be pre-approved for mitigation of gnatcatcher p occupied habitats. This mitigation would be expected to adequately address impacts to California gnatcatchers and associated habitat required to support the gnatcatchers. ? CEQA Findlngr of Facr Ana Sratement of Overridiny Considerations 38 81 1/02 2.5.4 Wetlands Impact. The proposed project \vould impact: 1.5 acres of southem \villon Scrub; 0.4 acre of freshwater marsh; and 0.4 acre of cismontane alkali marsh. and 0.1 acre of disrurbrd wetlands for a total of 2.4 acres of wetland habitat. in addition. 0.4 acre of non-w:\land waterways considered to be streambeds wouid also be impacted by the projecl. Time mpws are all considered significant. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitisation measures. the identified direcr significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced belou a level of significance. Mitigation Measure BR3. The project proponents shall mitigate wetland impacts on-site per the mitigation ratios in Table 5.5-4 of the EIR or the final mitigation ratios determined during state and federal permit negotiations, whichever are reater. The mitigation shall result in no-net-loss of wetlands as required by the Carlsbad HMP. As part of the pemlit processing, a wetland restoration and monitoring plan must be prepared and be subject to the review and approval of these agencies. Regarding the wetland mitigarion, it is recommended that should all three components of the project (ie., Carlsbad Oaks North Business Park, Faraday Avenue Roadway Extension, and Agua Hedionda Sewer Interceptor) be approved, a sin:le mitigation effort should be implemented. To the extent practical, efforts should be made to enhance degraded wetlands along the on-site drainage in lieu of conducting a straight habitat creation mitigation program. Figures S.5-5 and 5.5-6 of the EIR depict the available areas to conduct wetland creation. Enhancement opportunities are widespread on the Specific Plan site as a result of rapidly expanding pampas grass and other exotic species. Impact to oak dominated riparian habitats shall be mitigated as peripheral restoration along the riparian corridors, with the provision that individual impacted oak trees (> 4 inches diameter at breast heieht) be mitigated at a minimum 1O:l replacement ratio with container trees (5-gallon size or larger). The oaks should be placed at the outer perimeter of a revesetation site to provide habitat diversity and buffer to the restoration effort. It is anticipated that a conceptual wetland mitigation plan would be prepared for permitting purposes prior to site development. A restoration specialist should prepare and implement the plan, The pian shall include specifications, grading, irrigation, and planting plans. It shall also include maintenance and monitorin? actions, and success criteria to be applled during a 5-year mitigation establishment period. It is recommended that the wetland mitigation be completed' concurrent with Phase I of the project development to adequately mitigate for unavoidable temporal losses of habitat. In addition, the following recommended measures are provided to minimize indirect impacts to on-site and off-site wetland resources. These measures shall be incorporated into project construction specifications. 1) Staging/storage areas for equipment and materials shall be located outside of all drainages. 2) Equipment maintenance shall be prohibited within or near any drainage where petroleum products or other pollutants from the equipment may enter these areas under any flow. CEQA Findmss of Fau And Srarernenr of Overriding Considerations 39 SlliOZ 3) Excavated soils from trenching operations shall be stored above the ordinav high water mark for all drainages during the rainy season and any materials placed in 3. seasonally dry portion Of a drainage shall be removed prior to inundation b!. hi:h flows. 4) Silty or turbid water shall be prohibited from being discharged into any drainay:. Such water shall he settled, filtered, or otherwise clarified prior to discharge. 5) Natural drainage patterns shall be maintained as much as possible durinz construction. Erosion control techniques, including the use of szndbags and the installation of sediment traps, shall be employed to control erosion and limit excess drainage of construction activities. 6) Trash, or any debris shall be disposed of at an approved off-site facility. 7) An arborist shall review the proposed grading plans in order to determine if there are root impacts to oak that would require tree pruning. Factual Support and Rationale. Mitigation Measure BR4 will reduce the impact to a level less than significant. Impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation must be pursued in a sequential order in accordance with requirements of section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The project will be required to obtain additional state and federal authorizations for unavoidable impacts to wetland habitats. These include a Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 404 permit, a CWA section 401 state water quality certification, and a California Fish 6: Game Code section 1600 et seq. streambed alteration agreement (SPIA). The project will be required to mitigate impacts through wetland creation and potentially restoration or enhancement measures. Mitigation shall be governed by the mitigation ratios required by the Carlsbad HMP unless greater mitigation requirements are imposed through state and federal wetland regulatory programs. Figures 5.5-5 and 5.5-6 of the EIR depict the general location and extent of area where wetland mitigation is contemplated through habitat creation. The sites identified total 10.4 acres and provide adequate area and hydrologic conditions to accomplish wetland mitigation including all associated upland grading required to construct the mitigation sites. These areas are larger than would be required to meet mitigation needs where enhancement or restoration of existing degraded wetlands were used as a portion of the wetland mitigation program. However, it is premature to assume the extent to which creation, restoration, or enhancement of wetlands may ,be used to satisfy wetland mitigation requirements of state and federal wetland regulatory programs. For this reason, mitigatlon measure BR4 addresses wetland mitigation by establishing mitigation ratios for wetland impacts, reaffirming the HMP no-net-loss policy (thus requiring at least 1:l habitat creation as part of the mitigation), and identifying locations available on-site to complete wetland creation mitigation. To the extent that state and federal permits result in a mix of restoration, creation, and enhancement, or require greater mitigation ratios, these requirements would still satisfy' CEQA mitigation provided all conditions of BR4 were still met. 2.5.5 Raptor Nesting Habitat Impact. The proposed project would reduce the amount of foraging habitat available for a number of raptorial bird species. Most importantly, this would affect two sensitive species, which are known to breed on the project site. The project would result in a reduction of 45.7 percent of the available grassland and sage scrub foraging habitat in the project CEQA Findings of Fact And Statement of Overriding Considerations 40 81 1/02 area and would increase the amount Of human activiry and traffic in the area, Based on these effects, it is anticipated that the nonhern harrier breeding on-site will abandon the are3. Given the extremely uncommon breeding occurrence of this species in San Diego county. this impacr is considered to be significant. This impact is considered to be site specific and no! readil\. addressed by alternative area consemxion. This impact would occur lo one of 13 coniimlsd breeding sites in the county and one Of 27 known or probable breeding locations in San Diego Counry (based on Unitt, unpublished data from the Breedin: Bird Atlas). While anticipated to be more tolerant of disturbance and loss of scrubland forasin: environments than the hamer, the on-site breeding white-tailed kite would also be ad\.ersely impacted by the project development. It is not clear that this species Lvould abandon nesting on the propeny. Because this species is more common as a breeding resident than are harriers and the poienrial of site abandonment is lower, impacts to this species are considered to be adverse but not individually significant on a species basis. However, the site suppons widespread raptor use by a number of residen! and migratory raptor species that would all be impacted to Sreater or lesser degees by the loss of foraging habitat resulting from the exrensive developmen! proposed. Collectively, impacts to raptor foraging areas art' considered to be significant. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct sinificant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance for all raptor species with the exception of the northern hamer. Mitigation Measure BR5. Loss of nesting Northern Harriers within the greater project area is expected, and is considered' an unmitigable impact at the project level. White- tailed Kites may also discontinue nesting within the riparian canopy of the primary creeks. Mitigation is recommended to enhance and provide additional protection for other kite nesting or roostins locations in the Carlsbad Area (e.g., riparian habitat along Apa Hedionda Creek west of El Camino Real). This would include initial identification of historical kite nestinshoosting sites on publicly owned lands, and funding of signage, and policing aciions if necessary, to keep humans from trespassing into the near vicmity of these nesthoost sites while they are actively in use. Clearing of vegetation, including all native habitat as well as non-native grassland, shall be performed in the non-breeding season (outside of the period from February 15 throqh August 30) in order to avoid impacts to nesting raptors. Factual Support and Rationale. These. impacts, unlike those resulting to northem harriers, are considered to be mitigable through a combination of on-site and off-site habitat conservation in large blocks of open scrub and grassland habitat types. Mitigation Measure BF.5 will reduce the impact to raptors (with the exception of the northem harrier) to a level less than significant. 2.5.6 Riparian Road Crossing Design Impact. M'ithin the proposed projec!, Faraday Avenue crosses riparian comdors at two locations. These are proposed to be designed to permit general wildlife movement beneath the roadway usin2 large diameter arched pipe culverts (24 feet wide by 12 feet tall at the main crossing and an 8 foot culven is proposed wes! of the main crossing where Faraday Avenue crosses the smaller tributary canyon on County lands). Perhaps as important as providing a means for animals to cross Faraday Avenue is the need to direct animals to ths crossings and discourase over road crossinzs by roadwsy desizn. Animals will not preferentially use the undercrossings provided unless alternative over road crossings are CEQA Findings of Fact And Sraiemem of Overriding Considerations 41 8/1/02 . made less desirable and animals are heled towards the undercrossings. This can be readily accomplished through incorporation of project details such as fencing, revegetation, and other features, however, at the present time this has not been done. As a result, pormtial road kill impacts are considered sigificant and mitigable throuzh incorporation of roadway design delails that promote wildlife use of provided undercrossinzs Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced belo\\. a level of significance. &litigation Measure BR6. For the road crossings to provide effective benefits to wildlife movement, proper design is essential. The crossings shall include fencing that funnels animals towards the entrances to the undercrossings and reduce over the road crossings. Vegetation should be kept back from driving surfaces to discourage animals from approaching the roadways. Fences shall not be located immediately adjacent to roadway surfaces and shall include cover vegetation on the road side of any fencing so.that animals that do get onto the road have protected cover that they can retreat into. Fencing can be discontinuous bur should be used to train movements of animals in the pattern of flow desired. Fencing and vegeiation shall be designed to direct movement through the corridor in an efficient manner, and without pockets or dead-ends which can cause confusion and can cause animals to cross roadways. Factual Support and Rationale. The main drainage culvert is sized consistent with. the proposed wildlife undercrossing for the upstream Melrose Avenue crossing The wildlife undercrossings proposed for Faraday Avenue are considered adequate to provide for movement of mid-sized to small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians throughout the conserved habitat. As a result, impacts to wildlife corridor functionality are not considered to be significant. 2.5.7 Wildlife Movement Corridor Impact. Disruption of existing local corridors by the various project components are not expected to completely isolate substantial tracts of the project sites remaining habitat areas. However, implementation of the proposed project has the potential to fragment the project area into multiple habitat patches that are tenuously connected. Construction of the sewer interceptor component of the project could have a potentially sisnificant temporary impact on localized wildlife movement. In some instances, it is anticipated that wildlife may become ; trapped in the excavated trenches (as if they were a pit-fall trap) during construction. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure. BR7. During construction of the sewer and any other underground utilities in proximity to natural open space, trenches shall be inspected daily and any trapped wildlife shall be removed and released unharmed into native vegetation a hundred feet or more from the construction area. Construction fencing shall also be installed to minimize impacts to wildlife during the construction phase of the project. Implementation of this mitigation shall be subject to monitoring by the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. Factual Support and Rationale. The project may not directly eliminate local resident species (i.e,, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, songbirds); however, it would underscore CEQA Findings of Fact 8/1/02 And Statemenr of Ovecridmg Consid-rations 42 the importance and the need to protectlmaintainldefend the remaining local corridors, This would be pariicularly important for more widely foraging predators such as the bobcat. CO\~OI~. or gray fox that may rely on such pathways on a daily basis. Standard mitigation nleasures associated with construction practices require the sewer trench to be inspected dail\ ourill. construction: and an); trapped wildlife removed unharmed and released into nati\.e \q&xion hundred feet or more from the construction area. Construction fencing shall also b- Insuli,-d lo minimize impacts to wildlife durin: the construction phase of the project. 2.5.S Indirect Irnpacrs Impact. Development of the Specific Plan component of the proposed proiect is expected to increase and concentrate the use by humans into remaining adjacent undeveloped lan'ds. These activities include mountain biking, jogging. and hiking. Although mountain bikes can be destructive where not confined to existing mails, at the present time. use appears to be well restricted to these existing trails. Lighting from the business park development is also expected to incrementally illuminate adjacent habitat. Although noise generation is largely a result of the type of businesses that establish, the proposed project has the potential to result in a significant indirecr impacr associated with noise. Another potential indirect effect of urban development is the increase of problematic animal species such as the black rat and house.cat. Development of the roadway extensions (Faraday Avenue and El Fuerte Street) is expected to result in an increase in traffic noise, unnatural lighting on adjacent habitat areas, increased opportunities for the spread of non- native plant species that reduce habitat quality, and the death of animals attempting to cross the roadway. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitioation Measure BR8. Mitigation of indirect impacts to resident fauna and local wildlife comdors within rhe proposed site development plan require the following measures to be taken: P Extemporaneously created trails other than those approved for focused recreational open space use andor for utility access should be prohibited. Sign of illicit trail- breaking should be followed by placement of substantial impediments to discourage subsequent use. The actively utilized mountain bike and hiking trails within the project site boundaries should be regularly bounded by signage that prohibitsidiscourages human intrusion into surrounding native habitats. These signs shall not identify specific rare plant locations, but when warranted shall indicate the presence of particularly environmentally sensitive areas. Low-pressure sodium lamps are less likely than other lights to shift circadian rhythms and shall be used to reduce the adverse effects of artificial lishting where lighting is iocated adjacent to open-space areas. Low-sodium lights shall be used in conjunction with cut-off shields (fully shielded/full cutoff Ilghting) around the perimeter edge of development. Such shields shall direct the light downward and towards development to eliminate excess illumination of open space habitats. Lighting shall not be ~nstalled in the vicinity of the local wildlife comdors to promote use of these areas by local wildlife. CEQA Findings of Fact And Statement of Overridq Considerations 43 8\1/02 3) Fencing (non-barbed) shall be constructed where active-use urban infrastructure is proposed to discouraze intrusion into the preserve areas, Fencing of the entire opal space easement is not recommended: as areas of habitat contiguous r\.ith ofilsire undisturbed habitat should not be further fracmented. - 4) Signage shall be used in conjunction with any open space easement fencing and as previously mentioned along any trails Lvhich border rare plant populations. Signazs should be posted along the perimeter of the open space easements which adjoin the project site and more frequently in the vicinity of.any sensitive habitat. Roadway signage that wwns of wildlife crossing shall be installed on the roadxva!: above at the two proposed wildlife comdoriroad culverts along Faraday Avenue to assist in minimizing roadkills and wildlife avoidance accidents. 5) Native plants shall be used to the yearest extent feasible in the landscaped areas adjacent to andior near mitigationlopen space areas andior wetlandiriparian areas. Invasive exotic plant species shall not be planted, seeded, or otherwise inrroduced to the .landscaped areas adjacent and/or near the mitigatiow'open space areas andior wetland riparian areas. Exotic species not to be used include those species listed on Lists A and B of the California Exotic Pest Council=s list of Exotic Pest Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in California as of October 1999.@ This list includes such species as: pepper trees, pampas yass, fountain grass, ice plant. myoporum. black locust, capeweed, tree of heaven, periwinkle, sweet alyssum, English ivy, French broom, Scotch broom, and Spanish broom. 6) Existing pampas grass shall be removed from areas proposed for open space conservation. 7) Leash law restrictions shall be posted along any trail access points and shall be enforced. 8) Clearing of scrub and riparian vegetation, shall be performed in the non-breeding season (August 1 through Februay 1) in order to avoid impacts to nesting birds including sensitive riparian species and the California gnatcatcher. 9) Construction trenches should be inspected daily and any trapped wildlife shall be removed and released unharmed into native vegetation a hundred feet or more from i the construction area. Construction fencing shall also be employed where appropriate to minimize impacts to wildlife during the construction phase of the project. 1O)The concentration of ongoing recreational human activities in a reduced area (k, not including areas proposed for development) is not necessarily considered significant, if similar future activities are restricted to the pre-existing routes of travel. However, there should be future monitoring of the local wildlife habitat and vegetation conditions in areas that are currently pristine native habitat, to better evaluate any ongoing impacts, and to respond with management actions if required in the future. If the proposed open space easement is to function properly as mitigation it will need not only to be presemed but also managed in peipetuity. To assume that vegetation communities such as occur on-site are static systems would bc incorrect. Temporal vegetation community shifts may alter the suitability of areas for some .. species over time. The level of disturbance within an area may change (including fire CEQA Findings of Faci 811102 And Statement of Ovemiding Considerations 44 frequency) and micro-habitat use by some resident species may cease if a local or regional comdor has limited capacity io suppon these resident populations. T&inc such temporal issues, as weii as edge effects into consideration. the proposed open space easements should be manazed to contribute the goals of the MHCP maximize diversity and abundance \\here appropriate. .4 managemen1 plan for [h: proposed open space easement shall be developed and in>plemen[ed b!. an approprjals managemenr entity. 1 I) At the time of implementation of the project, a public notification proctss \vi11 be undertaken through on-site posting with maps indicarinz the location of authorized trails. Factual Support and Rationale. With proper direction of lighting and building desig (Le., avoid the use of very light or reflective surfaces on buildings facins preserve lands. should not significantly affect wildlife habitat. Additionally, a 300-foot setback has been as well'as via compliance with lighting requirements in Specific Plan 21 1, the lighting impact incorporated into the site plan component of the project to buffer against such indirect impacts to the Los Mafios Preserve, located just north of the project area. As specified in the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan, all development within the Specific Plan area is required to comply with the development standards of Section 21.31.090 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and Specific Plan 211, which limits potential noise and vibration impacts. Specifically, Section 21.34.090 requires that the noise level associated with any development proposed within the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan area not exceed sixty-five Ldn as measured at the property line. Where a structure is occupied by more than one use, the noise level shall not be in excess of 45 Ldn as measured within the interior space of the neighboring establishment. Additionally, all uses within the Specific Plan area shall be operated as not to lot upon which the noise source is located. Implementation of these standards will avoid any potential indirect impact associated with noise, and noise generated from the business park is not anticipated to significantly impact wildlife. The potential indirect effect of an increase of the black rat and house cat is more typically an issue at landfills or other areas where refuse is allowed to'accumulate, or in residential areas where predatory feral cats can occur in significant numbers. This is not expected to result in a significant impact given the proposed land uses. In the case of the roadway extensions (e.:., El Fuene Street) the impact would occur over a relatively long distance. Such long-term indirect impacts will be managed and monitored by a management entity to deter significant impacts to remaining adjacent native habitat and animal species. D oenerate vibration discernible without instruments by the average person while on or beyond the 2.6 Geologg/Soils Impact. The presence of loose porous soils and expansive soils is considered a significant impact. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. CEQA Findinss ofFacr And Sraternent of Overriding Considerarlons 45 8/1/02 Mitigation Measure GS1. All future grading and consmction of the project sire shall comply with the geotechnical recommendations contained in the Prelirnirjoq. Geor~cii~~icu: Irwesrigatio~~ for Proposed Carlsbad Oak Easr prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants (lune 15, 1990) (as updated b.; GEOCOIU', hc. Januar); 4: 2000). Geologic Reconrmmulict. Iuri: Limiled Subsurface Ir~ws~igafian, Proposed Sourh Apa Hediolzda ilrrercepior .-!li,y~ncur!. Carlsbad Califortlia prepared by Leighton and Associates, Inc. (I\:o\?ember 30. 2000). alrd Geological Recomaissance. Proposed Farads). Avellue €.uemio,r 0ri011 Srreei ro Broohaw~: Pass, Carisbad, Calijornia prepared by Leighton and Associates. Inc. (hslarch 1;. 2001). The% reports contain specific recommendations for mitigating geotechnical conditions relxed to soils earthwork, slope stability, and Found and surface waters for each specific component of the project (Specific Plan, Roadways, and Sewer). All recommendations contained in the repon shall be incorporated into all final engineering and grading plans. The soil engineer and engineering geologist shall review the grading plans prior to finalization to \.eriiy the plans compliance with the recommendations of the report. A third pany review of the geotechnical reporr and final grading plans shall be conducted by the City of ,Carlsbad Engineering Depanment prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad. Factual Support and Rationale. According to the geotechnical investigation, the Specific Plan area is generally suitable for grading and development in accordance with the proposed improvements. Mitigation Measure GSl requires that project site gading and development comply with the geotechnical recommendations related to soils earthwork, slope stability, and ground and surface waters, contained in the Prelimim~y Geotecilr~icalI~lvesti~aiio~i for rhe Proposed Carlsbad Oaks Easr, Carisbad, California. Woodward-Clvde Corlsulrarlrs, June lj, 1990 (refer to Volume I11 Appendix F ofthis EIR). Impact. Several ancient landslide deposits have been identified in the southern portion of the project area, primarily within the Santiago Formation. Landslides within the project area are considered unsuitable for structural support, and this is considered a significant impact. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitiption measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and ,thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation hleasure GS2. Prior to development on-site, complete removal of , the ancient landslides that occur in areas of proposed development or some other form of stabilization is required. Final recommendations for stabilization can be determined after specific development plans are finalized. Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad. Factual Support and Rationale. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GS2 will reduce the impact of exposure of future development within the project area to landslides to a level less than significant. Mitigation Measure GS2 requires complete removal of the ancient landslides which occur in areas of proposed development or some other form of stabilization. Final recommendations for stabilization can be determined after specific development plans are finalized. The investigation of potential landslide areas will be conducted to confirm the locations and extent of the potential landslides. Specific recornmendations such as remedial gading \vi11 be Implemented to eliminate the risk associated with the potential landslide area. The City Engineer will assure that all grading plans address the areas of concern and conform to the geotechnical studies. CEQA Findrngs of Fact And Sraremenr of Overriding Considerarims 46 811102 Impact.. Because the project area is located in a seismically active regiol;. [ht. area is likely to be subject to at least ont moderate to major earthquake durin: the desizn ii je o j [he structures. This may result in a significant impact. - Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures. til- identified direct significant impact would bc avoided and thereby reduced belon a level 01' significance. Mitigation Measures. GS3. All future .development of the project site shall adhere to the Uniform Building Code and Stare building requirements in effect at the time specific development is proposed. Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the Ciry of Carlsbad. GS?. The alluvial and colluvial portions of the projecr area in tvhich development is proposed shall be completely stabilized. Final recommendations for srabilization can be determined after specific development plans are proposed. Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad. Factual Support and Rationale. Mitigation Measure GS3 requires development in accordance with the Uniform Building Code that is in effect at the time specific development is proposed within the project area. The Uniform Building Code and State building requirements contain structural and earthquake requirements to address potential damage to structures based on certain seismic parameters known in the Southern California region. Implementation of Mitipion Measure GS4 will reduce the impact of liquefaction in the project area to a level less than significant. Mitigation Measure GS4 requires the alluvial and colluvial portions of the project area in which development is proposed to be stabilized. Final recommendations for stabilization can be determined after specific development plans are proposed. Impact. Accordin,o.to the geotechnical investigation, a permanent shallow ground water table does not exist on the site. However, running water was identified in some drainages on-site. In a hillside development such as the proposed project, control of groundwater is essential to reduce the potential for undesirable surface flow, hydrostatic pressure, and the adverse effects of ground water on slope stability. This issue is considered a significant impact. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure GS5. Prior to grading and construction an additional geotechnical investigation shall be conducted to identify possible future seepage areas that could occur during grading. Field recommendations for mitigation of future potential seepage, as well as for the provision of drainage in areas known to be susceptible to groundwater accumulation shall be implemented. Compliance with this measure shall be verified by the City of Carlsbad. Factual Support and Rationale. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GS5 will reduce the potential for groundwater impacts to a level less than significant. Mitigation Measure GSj requires that prior to construction related to the Specific Plan, Faraday Avenue Roadway Extension, El Fuerte Street and/or the South Agua Hedionda Sewer, additional investigations to identify possible future seep2ze areas during gadins and providing field recommendations for mitigation of future porential seepage is required, as well as providing dramage in areas known to be susceptible to groundwater accumulation. In addition, specific geotechnical CEQA Findings of Facr And Sraremenr of Overriding considerations 47 8/1/02 recommendations identified in the Specific Plan geotechnical investigation provided in Volume 1I Appendix F of the EIR are required to be implemented. Recommendations for mitiratio11 or future potential seepage, as well as for the provision of drainage in areas howa to be susceptiblc to groundwater accumulation will be incorporated into grading and deve1opmer.t plans for the project. The City Engineer will assure that all grading plans address the areas of concern and conform to the geotechnical recommendations regarding the presence of ground\r-ater. 2.7 Hazards and Hazardous Rlaterials. Impact. The proposed Specific Plan would allow for the developmenr and operation of a light industrial development. There is a potential for accidental release of a hazardous substances associated with the potential use and storage of hazardous materials within the Specific Plan area, This is considered a significant impact. Findinz. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures. the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a levei of significance. Mitigation Measure HRTI. The following conditions shall be incorporated into the proposed Specific Plan and shall be required of future development: a. No project facilities located within 1,000 feet of any residential unit shall store, handle, or use toxic or highly toxic gases as defined in the most currently adopted fire code at quantities that exceed exempt amount as defined in the most currently adopted fire code. b. Facilities that store, handle, or use regulated substances as defined in the Caiifomia Health and Safety Code 25532(g) in excess of threshold quantities shall prepare risk management plans for determination of risks to the community. c. Facilities that store, handle, or use any quantity of a toxic or highly toxic gas as defined in the most currently adopted fire code, which are also regulated substances as defined in the California Health and Safety Code 25532(g) shall prepare an offsite consequence analysis (OCA). The analysis shall be performed in accordance with Title 19 of the California Code of Reylation 2750.2 through '; 2750.3. If the OCA shows the release could impact the residential community, the facility will not store, handle, or use the material in those quantities. If a decrease in the quantity of material reduces the distance to toxic endpoint to where the community is not impacted, the facility shall be able to utilize the material in that quantity. Computer models may be utilized as a tool to determine the distance a hazardous material can travel if released to the atmosphere. Parameters such as temperature, wind speed, atmospheric stability, and quantity released, material properties, and type of release (e.g., pressurized gases) is considered by these models. Models can be overlayed onto maps, which will show the distance to toxic endpoint in the event of a release. These models can be performed under Aworst case@ meteorological conditions and chemical release. Under this situation, the CEQA Findings of Fact And Statement of Overridins Considerations 48 8/ 1/02 maximum harm potential is determined from the most sophisticated method available to ensure community safety. Factual Support and Rationale. Mitigation Measure HMI has been &\.elop& ill consultation with the City of Carlsbad Fire Depanment and requires thar the follo\\.in!: conditions be required of future de\eloprnent in the Carlsbad Oaks gonh Specific Plan area. .< stated above, Condition AaO would not pemir any quantities in escess of exempt mlounts of toxic or highly toxic gases. Condition A.bc will ensure thar a risk manasernen1 plan is prepared as defined by California Health and Safety Code 25532(g). Condition .4ce is praposed in order to ensure that materials that are regulated as toxic or highly toxic gases do not impacr the community. Condition +.c@ requires the preparation of an Offsite Consequence .balysis (OCA) to determine the types and quantities of materials that may be allowed in the industrial development without impacting the surrounding residential communiry. With the adherence IO these conditions required by htirigation Measure Hhfl related IO hazardous materials. the potential impact related to hazardous materials beween the proposed industrial and residential uses will be less than significant. Additionally, under the proposed Specific Plan regulations (Section 111 Development Standards and Design Guidelines) a Planned Industrial Permit shall be required to be submitted for reviex and approval by the Planning Director for all industrial lots proposed for development within the Specific Plan area. Permitted uses identified in the Specific Plan will be limited to light- and medium industrial uses, research and development uses, and industrial support and service uses and professional office uses, provided that such uses are confined within a building or buildings and do not contribute excess noise, dust, smoke, vibration, odor or toxic or noxious matter to the surrounding environment. Uses permitted will be required to comply with the provisions of Section 21.34.090 of the Ph4 zone of the Carlsbad Municipal Code and Specific Plan 211 regardin2 performance standards (see Section 5.1 - Lar~d Use and Pluming for a more detailed discussion). 2.8 HydrologyfiVater Qualih Impact. Preliminary hydrology analysis has been conducted for the project and drainage facilities are proposed that will control runoff. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure WQHl is proposed to ensure the impact to hydrologyidrainaze is reduced to a level less than significant. Mitigation Measure WQHl requires that a detailed hydrology analysis be prepared at the time specific developments (i.e., at the final design staze) are submitted for review by the City, and that a drainage control sysrem be implemented in accordance with the recommendations of the hydrology analysis. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced belo\\, a level of significance. Mitigation Measure WQH1. Subsequent to project approval, but prior to approval of final design plans within the Specific Plan area and final engineering plans for the roadways, a detailed hydrology study shall be prepared to address the specific drainase characteristics of the proposed development and supporting infrastructure. The drainaze control plan shall be implemented in accordance with the recornmendations of the detailed hydroloxy study and shall address on-site and off-site draina2e requiremenls to ensure on-site runoff will not adversely affect off-site areas. CEQA Findings of Fact And Sratemrnt of Overriding Considerations 19 8/1/02 Factual Support and Rationale. Mitigation Measure U'QHI requires thar 3 detailed hydrology analysis be prepared at the time specific developments (i.e., at the final desig stage) are submitted for review by the City, and that a drainage control sysrenl h? implemented in accordance with the recommendations of the hydrolosy analysis. The City assures that drainage patterns will not be siFiiicantly changed and adversely impacred through a series of measures. First, drainase area fees are assessed at final map sraze to assurs the financing source for city wide stormdrain facilities that are located offsite of the project. These public stomdrain systems are maintained by the City. Additionally> through the Engineering Department, onsite stormdrain systems and other improvements elmvhere are reviewed as part of the subdivision improvement engineering plans and specifications to assure adequate drainase facilities will be incorporated into the Project. With the addition of the detention basins and u'ater quality basins desiFed into the Project, and careful revie\\- of the L sading and improvement plans, surface water and drainage patterns are prorected After development is complete, the industrial land use areas will drain significantly more stormwater runoff into La Mirada Creek, Agua Hedionda Creek, and eventually into Agua Hedionda Lagoon than under existing conditions. The hydrology/drainage impact is considered significant. However, as part of the project, a drainage control plan will be implemented to control the additional runoff. Figure 5.8-2 of the EIR depicts the post-construction stormwater drainage plan, As depicted in Figure 5.8-2 of the EIR, two water quality basins are planned south of the Faraday Avenue roadway extension as the majority of on-site stormwater runoff will drain south towards La Mirada Creek and then westward to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The drainage control facilities have been sized and located to adequately control the increase in runoff from the project. With installation of improvements there will be no increase in the rate or volume of surface runoff to off-site, or downstream areas. Additionally, as identified in Section 5.12-Public Services and Utilities of the EIR. the project will be required to comply with the Local Facilities Management Plan 16 (LFMP 16) requirement that .Major drainase facilities must be ,provided prior to or concurrent with development.@ Impact. Pollutant discharges in surface water runoff associated with the industrial land used may contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses. Table 5.8-2 of the EIR depicts typical ' pollutant loads based on a commerciallofficeiindustrial development with 70 to 90% i imperviousness. The water quality impact associated with industrial development is considered a significant impact. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct sisnificant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure WQHZ. Regarding the industrial land use, the proposed project is required by the RWQCB to comply with the areawide Municipal Stormwater Permit, Order No. 2001-01. In addition, industrial land uses are required to comply with Order No. 97- 03-0WQ, NPDES, General Permit No. C.4S0000001 Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Industrial Activities Excluding Construction Activities. Further, all requirements contained in the Concept Water Quality Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the Plan and verified by the City Engineer. The Best Management Practices (BMP) Plan Options address the use of CEQA Findines of Fact And Statement of Overriding Considerations 50 81 1/02 source and trearment connol based Bi@s such a: 1) Non-stormwater discharses; 2) Vehicle and equipment fueling, cleaning and maintenance; 3) hlatrrial manazemenr and storaze: 1) \vast: handlins and disposal; 5) Wet ponds; 6) Constructed wetlands; 7) Oihater sepxators and WIX quality inlets and/or 8) A combination of source and trearment control BklP options. Factual Support and Rationale. The proposed project is required h!. til: RWQCB to comply with the areawide Municipal Stormu.arer Permit. Order Xo. 2001-01. In addition, industrial land uses are required to comply with Order No. 97-0;-D\\'Q. NPDES. General Permit No. CAS0000001 Discharges of Storm\vater .4ssociated wirh lndustrial Activities Excluding Construcrion Activities. However. indusrrial land uses that meel the minimum conditions of ACategory 10 Dischargers@(light industrial) as defined in Order No. 9i- 03-DWQ are not subject to this Order. Funher, the project proponent has prepared a Concept Water Quality Plan to assist in defining the permit requirements needed for the planned industrial land uses. The Concept Water Quality Plan is contained in Appendix 1 of the EIR. The Plan includes BMP desiy criteria, BMP results, and BMF industrial plan implementation (source and treatment control options as discussed below). Based on the >.typical contaminanr removal$ percentages identified in Table 5.6-3 of the EIR, the BMPs identified in the Plan would remo\'e up to 100 percent of the suspended solid contaminants discharged into runoff from the industrial areas of the project site. Mitigation Measure WQH2 requires that all requirements contained in the Concepr Water Quality Plan be implemented. The BMP Plan Options address the use of treatment conrrol methods using source control and treatment control based BMPs such as: 1) Non-stormwater discharges; 2) Vehicle and equipment fueling, cleaning and maintenance; 3) Material management and storage; 3) Waste handling and disposal; 5) Wet ponds; 6) Constructed wetlands; 7) OiVwater separators and water quality inlets andjor 8) A combination of source and treatment control BMP options. The Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted the new point source storm water discharge regulations and standards as part of the new San Diego Municipal Storm Water Permit (Order No. 2001-1) pursuant to the Clean Water Act, which now becomes part of the NPDES Permit CA 0108758. As such, the storm water discharge standards and requirements for new development have been significantly increased. The Proposed Project has anticipated these new replations and included detention basins and water quality basins in order to capture the first 0.6 inches (approximately) of rainfall on-site, so that sediment and urban pollutants can be eliminated or removed prior to the storm water entering the watercourses, lagoons, and ultimately the ocean. The water quality will be improved through a combination of natural and mechanical filtration or sedimentation traps, thereby substantially improving the water quality of storm water discharge in new development areas such as the Proposed Project. These efforts will require, among other steps, a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB, as well as meeting all the new storm water discharge requirements through a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and associated NPDES permit and authorization. These new, higher standards are intended to improve the overall municipal storm water quality before it discharges through the public storm drain systems into the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Under Order No. 1001-1, the City, as a co-pemirted, will have the primary responsibility for enforcement of the permits and authorizations. The detention basins and water quality basins will be maintained by the applicable associations as part of the common areas. 2.9 Cultural Resources. CEQA Findings of Fact And Srarerneni of Overriding Considerarions jl 8/1/0? impact. Cultural sites identified as significant that would be impacted b!. the proposed project are: Temp 1: Temp 2, Temp 8, SDI-5231. and SDI-2776. Theprojeci=s inlpacl to these archeolooical resources is considered siyificant due to their potential to expand the understandins of ;he subsistence patterns of the late prehistoric Luisefio people in rhc Carisbad area. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures. the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of signiGcmce. hlitigation Measure. The City of Carlsbad requires the mitigation of si-mificantly impacted archaeological sites Temp 1, Temp 2, Temp S, SDI-5231, and SDI-2776 through the following measure: C1. A data recovery progam shall be completed for any significant archaeological sire impacted by the project in compliance with the City of Carlsbad=s Cultural Resource Guidelines Criteria and Methodology for completing a Data Recovery Program Phase I11 (December 1990). Data recovery provides for a sample of the site to be excavated, artifacts and ecofacts to be analyzed, special studies (i.e., radiocarbon dating, residue analysis, obsidian hydration, and sourcing) and a report of finding that addresses the important research questions. In addition, monitoring of brushing, grading. and trenching shall be required during the construction of the project in order to identify any significant components of the slte that were not observed during data recovery excavations. Monitoring will also focus on any potential to discover sites that were not identified in the pre;ious surveys due to them being buried or masked from view. Any previously unrecorded sites discovered during brushing, grading, or trenching will require' significance evaluation and, if found to be important, mitigation applied before grading can resume at the location of the discovery. All artifacts and data collected from the testing and mitigation work for the project will be submitted to the San Diego Archaeological Center for permanent curation. The City of Carlsbad will be responsible for the funding of this curation program. Factual Support and Rationale. The impacted archaeological sites will undergo further testing and data recovery prior to grading and disturbance and therefore, will fully protect and record the significance of the site and any artifacts or materials. (Carlsbad's Cultural Resource Guidelines Criteria and Methodology for Completing a Data Recovery Program Phase 111 December, 1990). Data recovery provides for a sample of the site to be excavated, artifacts and ecofacts to be analyzed, special studies (i.e., radiocarbon dating, residue analysis, obsidian hydration and sourcing) and a report of finding which addresses the important research questions. Because these sites are important due to their research potential, mitigation of impacts can be achieved by exhausting the research potential of the significant sites through implementation of a program to recover artifacts and data representative of the occupation of the sites. Mitigation Measure Cl requires that a data recovery program be conducted for each significant archaeological site impacted by the proposed project. Avoidance of the siznificant impact could be achieved through avoidance of the sigiilcant sites during construction and operation of the proposed project. However, this measure is infeasible as the planned industrial development, and the road and sewer alignments are constrained by yarious factors including geotechnical and enzineerinz feasibility, biology, and hydrology. CEQA Findmxs of Fact 8/1/02 And Statement of Overriding Considerations 52 l 2.10 Paleontological Resources Impact. Implementation of the proposed project will rcquirc ea.nil\vori, that will disturb the Santiago Formation in the southern portion of the project arez ths Poilll Loma Formation in the western portion of the project area? and the Lusardi Fonarion in 111: central areas of the property (generally folIouJing the proposed alignment of Farads!, .qvenue). Because the proposed project will disturb geological deposits thar have a moderate (Lllsardi) and high (Point Loma and Sanriago) potenrial for producing significant pa1eontolo:ical resources. the proposed project will result in a significant impact to paleonrological resources. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures. the identified direct significant impact wndd be avoided and thereby reduced below a .level of significance. Mitigation Measure PRI. Prior to site grading, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to carry out an appropriate mirigation program. (.4 qualified paleontologist is defined as an individual with an MS or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques.) $ The qualified paleontologist shall be present at the pre-construction meeting to consult with the grading and excavation contractors. $ A paleontological monitor shall be on-site a minimum of half-time durins the original cutting of previously undisturbed sediments to inspect cuts for contained fossils. In the event that fossils are discovered, it may be necessary to increase the per/day in field monitoring time. Conversely, if fossils are not being found then the monitoring should be reduced. (A paleontological monitor is defined as an individual who has experience in the collecrion and salvage of fossil marerials. The paleontological monitor shall work under the direction of a qualified paleontologist,) $ When fossils are discovered the paleontologist (or paleontolo,oical monitor) shall recover them. In most cases, this fossil salvage can be completed in a short period of time. However, some fossil specimens (,such as a complete larze mammal skeleton) may require an extended salvage period. In these instances the paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall be allowed to remporarily direct, divert. or halt grading to allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Because of the potential for' the recovery of small fossil remains, such as isolated mammal teeth, it may be necessary in certain instances, to set up a screen-washing operation on the site. $ Fossil remains collected during the monitoring and salvage portion of the mitigation program shall be cleaned, repaired, sorted, and cataloged. $ Prepared fossils, along with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps, shall either be deposited (as a donation) in a scientific institution with permanent paleontological collections such as the San Diego Natural History Museum or retained by the City and displayed to the public at an appropriate location such as City Hall. $ .4 final summary report shall be completed and retained on file ar the City that outlines the results of the mitigation program. This report shall Include discussions of CEQA Findlngs of Fact And Staremenr of Ovenidin$ Considerations 53 811102 the methods used, stratigraphic section(s) exposed, fossils collected. and si~nificance of recovered fossils. Factual Support and Rationale. The geologic nature of the site creates th: potential for paleontolo~ical resources being uncovered durins grading operations. The mitigation measures require a monitoring program and approved qualified paieonro1o:ical monitor be present during initial grading, and pregrading meetings. with authority to nalt gradins if resources are uncovered or evident durinz the rading process to look for well-preserved fossil remains. If identified, the City and the paleontologist will coordinate a salvase program before grading may resume in the fossil area. Through this process, and the cleaning. storage and contribution of any fossil remains to a museum or other depository, will protect any resources. These procedures, combined with a final report from the monitor, have proven to be an effecti1,e program for preservation and recovery, where appropriate. 2.11 Aesthetics Impact. The views of the several homes located on the southern portion of Brookhaven Pass that can currently view the project site will be altered. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure. AEl. The following measures shall apply to all lots visible from Faraday Avenue and El Fuerte Street, as well as Lots #X, #13, and X1 7: $ Prohibit placement of mechanical equipment on roofs unless the project incorporates architectural treatment consisting of architectural elements or building parapets that are of sufficient height and desi3 to screen future mechanical roof equipment; $ Prohibit installation of roof screens other than building parapets or architectural elements that are integrated into the architectural design of building; $ Prohibit loading bays that are visible from Faraday Avenue and El Fuerte Street; $ Require enhanced architectural treatment of all building elevations that are visible i / from Faraday Avenue and El Fuene Street, Factual Support and Rationale. The bulk of the buildings on the project area will not be visible from the backyards of homes on Brookhaven Pass with the implementation of proposed landscape screening and block wall at the top of the slope, the existence of the manufactured slope itself, implementation of the 75 to 150-foot building setback (as required in Mitigation Measure LUI of this EIR). Also, Mitigation Measure AEI is proposed to ensure that all mechanical equipment on roofs are screened from view. Impact. The Scenic Comdor Guidelines identify Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real as >.community theme corridors,@ and Cannon Road and Faraday Avenue are identified as Acommunity scenic corridors.” CEQA Findmgs of Fair And Staremenr of Overriding Conslderations 53 81 1/02 Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, [he identified direct significant impact would 6e avoided and thereby reduced belo\v a le\s] ,of si-gificance. Mitigation Measure .G1. The following measures shall apply to all IoIs \.lsible from Faraday Avenue and El Fuerte Street, as well as Lots #E. #13. and $17: $ Prohibit placement of mechanical equipment on roofs unless the projecr incorporates architectural treatment consisting of architectural elements or building parapets that are of sufficient height and design to screen future mechanical roof equipment; $ Prohibit installation of roof screens other than building parapets or architectural elements that are integrated inlo the architectural design of buildinzs; $ Prohibit loading bays that are visible from Faraday Avenue and El Fume Street; $ Require enhanced architectural treatment of all building elevations that are visible from Faraday Avenue and El Fuene Street. Factual Support and Rationale. As required by the Scenic Corridor Guidelines, specific planning considerations need to be incorporated into right-of-way treatments, and the preservation of scenic views. A 50-foot landscaped setback is planned alonz El Fume Street and Faraday Avenue. Interior streets shall include a 25 to 35-foot wide landscape easement. These setbacks are consistent with the right-of-way treatment guidelines identified in the Scenic Corridor Guidelines and will allow for the enhancement of landscaping along these corridors. The Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan proposes other development standards and design criteria that are consistent with the El Fuene Street and Faraday Avenue Scenic Condor Development Standards. Desig criteria associated with El Fuerte Street and Faraday Avenue includes entry treatments, streetscape and street-side setbacks, interior slopes and setbacks, parking areas, passive open space use areas and eating areas, perimeter screening, and naturalizingiexterior slope, Implementation of Mitigation Measure AEI will ensure that .rooftop mechanical equipment and loading bays are not visible from Faraday Avenue or El Fuerte Street, and that buildings fronting these roadways are designed with enhanced architectural treatments. Impact. The proposed project will introduce new light and potential sources of glare in the project area. Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measure AEZ. Any future development of Lots #8, #13, and #I7 shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards of the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Pian, Part 111, Section R. A separate lighting plan shall be prepared for each perimeter lot abutting residential land uses or open space to ensure that no off-site spillage will occur. Factual Support and Rationale. The project will be required to comply with City standards regardin? building and street lighting, as well as architectural design criteria for planned industrial uses In order to avoid impacting sensitive land uses (residential) east of the site. The development standards and design guidelines proposed in the Specific Plan require that all outdoor lighting be designed to reflect downward and that iighting shall be directed away from the residential neighborhood to the east to avoid impacts to adjacent homes or property. CEQA Fmdmgs of Fact 8/1/02 And Staremenr of Overriding Considerations 55 Mitigation Measure AE2 is proposed to ensure compliance with this standard of the Specific Plan: (See Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan, Pan 111, Section Q.) The sensitive land uses immediatel! adjacent to and east of the project areas \\.ouId noi impacted by intense glare associated with reflective building materials as the proposed industrial buildings would be setback a minimum of 75 to150 feet [as required by hlitigarion h4easurs LUI) from the residential uses and at a lower ele\>ation relative to the proposed proieci indusrnal uses. 2.12 Public Services and Utilities Impact. The construction and operation of the circulation arterial road\vays. drainage facilities, water facilities, and sewer facilities will result in an impact to the environment as a component of the overall development and operation of the Specific Plan. The physical environmental impacts associated with the construction of the circulation anerial roadways, drainage facilities, water facilities, and sewer facilities are considered as pan of the environmental evaluation contained in the applicable sections of this EIR. Potential impacts associated with the construction and operation of the circulation arterial roadways, drainase facilities, water facilities, and sewer facilities generally include traffic, air quality, noise, geologyi’soils, biological resources, culturaI resources. - Finding. With the incorporation of the following mitisation measures, the identified direct significant impact would be avoided and thereby reduced below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures. Construction related Mitigation Measures identified in Sections 5.3 Air Quality, 5.4 Noise, 5.5 Biological Resources, 5.6 GeologyiSoils, 5.8 HydrologyiWater Quality and 5.9 Cultural Resources and 5.10 Paleontological Resources will reduce the impact to the construction of public facilities to a less than sigificant level. Factual Support and Rationale. The Proposed Project will place a demand on certain public services and facilities, and will require the construction and operation of new facilities. The physical impacts to the environment as a result of construction and operation of public facilities are evaluated throughout the EIR by virtue of the fact that these facilities have been defined as part of the proposed land use plan and project components. Implementation of the mitigation measures prescribed in the EIR identified above will mitigate the physical impact ; to the environment from the construction and operation of these facilities. 3. FINDINGS CONCERNING FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 3.1 Applicable Standards. Under CEQA, whenever a public agency considers approving a project for which the EIR concludes that notwithstanding the incorporated mitigation measures, there will nonetheless remain significant impacts that are not avoided or lessened below a level of significance, the public agency must consider and make findings regarding the feasibility of alternatives discussed in the EIR. As stated in CEQA (PRC $21002): “[It] is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects .... The lezislature further finds and declares that in event specific economic, social, or other CEQA Findings of Facr 81 1/02 And Statement of Overriding Considerations 56 conditions m&e infeasible such project alternatives or mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof,” Here, the FPEIR concludes that after the incorporation of the specific mitigarion rnemms outlined in Section 2 above, the Proposed Project will still have the follou.inz siznificanl. unmitigable environmental effects: - Direct and Cumulative Impact to Traffic/Circulatioo -Direct and Cumulative Impact to Air Qualiv. -Direct Impact to Biological Resources. The determination of the infeasibility of alternatives is necessarily an evaluation of the many elements of specific economic, social or other considerations. (Guidelines $15091). Elsewhere in the Guidelines $15361, “feasible” is defined as “...capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and techno1o:ical factors.” At the same time, infeasibility is not equated with impossibility and case law recoqizes that an alternative or mitigation measure may also be infeasible if it~is undesirable or impractical from a policy standpoint. As an example. a conflict between project alternatives and a city’s gowth management policies and progams supported a finding of infeasibility in City of Del Mar v, City of San Diego (19S2) I33 CA3d 401. The Court went on to describe the alternatives analysis under CEQA necessarily involves the balancing of economic, environmental, social and technological factors within the province of the decision makers. In undertaking the comparative analysis called for under CEQA in considering the feasibility of project alternatives, it is also necessary to keep in mind the Project objectives as expressed in the FPEIR. The overall Project Objectives are set forth at Pages 3-4 and 3-5 of the FPEIR as follows: The following objectives have been identified by the City of Carlsbad for the proposed project: $ Strengthen the City=s tax base and provide increased job opportunities for local ‘’ residents through the provision of employment-generating uses. $ Establish an attractive industrial development that will blend the natural and built enviromnent and create a high quality industrial development. $ Create an open space system that protects and conserves the natural resources while encouraging public awareness and appreciation of the fragile ecological areas surrounding the La Mirada Creek and Agua Hedionda Lagoon. $ Provide for the design, development and operation of a light industrial complex consisting of industrial, research and development, office, and open space uses. $ Ensure an industrial development that conforms to community goals and values and .. the protection of adjacent land uses from incompatibility. CEQA Findings of Fact And Statement of Overriding Considerations 51 8ili02 Implement the provisions of the Ciry of Carlsbad General Plan Develop the Specific Pian in conformance with ths City=s Gro\vth Ivlan;lysment Piw Dwelop the property with a land use thar is compatible nith the h4cClellan-P~lomx Airport Comprehensive Land Use Pian. Provide for abundant open space thar will: protect lhe lar,oe open space habitat corridor that is iocated within the project area, provide visual relief to the industrial park, as well as a sense of natural spaciousness. Encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation through tne provision of a pedestrian circulation system which is both safe and comfortable. Create an open space system that is consistent with'the Presenre areas of the Ciry=s Draft Habitat Management Plan. Businesses within the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan should provide a range of job types for the community=s residents. Provide a setback and buffer from the Dawson-Los Monos Canyon Resen'e Provide a circulation system that facilitates movement and access needs of automobiles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Minimize impacts to the adjacent residential development. Construct the final link of Faraday Avenue as a Secondary Arterial behreen the existing terminus in Carlsbad at Orion Street to its existing terminus in the City of Vista immediately west ofMeirose Drive. Construct El Fuerte Street as a Secondary Arterial from its existing northern terminus to Faraday Avenue. Minimize impacts from construction of the roadways to sensitive biological resources Construct Reaches SAHTIA through D of the South Agua Hedionda Sewer Interceptor as identified in the Municipal Water District Sewer Master Plan. Minimize impacts from construction of the sewer to sensitive biological resources. 3.2 Findings on Project Alternatives The Final Program EIR evaluated a range of potential project alternatives. The project alternatives included: 1. Alternative A - No ProjectiExisting General Plan Alternative 2. .4ltsrnative B - .4lternative RoadwayiSewer Alignment 3. Alternative C - Reduced Development Aredintensity 4. Alternative D - Roadway Bridge CEQA Findings of Fact And Statement of Overriding Considerations 58 8/1/02 CEQA requires consideration of the so Project alternative and the City s:lect:d [Ile others on the basis they represent a reasonable range of alternative projecr proposals tha: 8npr.2~ to be porentially comparible with most of thc overall Project Objecti\zes. Applying the criteria discussed above for considering the feasibility of proiecl alternatives and considering the totality of the informarion in the Final Prosram EIR. testinion! and information received durins the public hearings and the evidence in the adnlinisrrari\.e records as a whole, the City has determined that the identified project alternarives arc not feasible in light of the Project Objectiw, the Ciry’s progams and policies, general Iezal principles applicable to a landowner’s right or privilege to make beneficial use of its properry in accordance with all applicable laws, policies, standards and land use regulations unifomly applied and economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations specified beloLv. The factual support, reasoning and analysis supponin: this conclusion is set forth belon with respect to each of the Project alternatives evaluated in the Final Prosam EIR. 3.2.1 No ProjectiExisting General Plan Alternative. (FPEIR Section.6.1) The State CEQA Guidelines require analysis of the No Project Alternative (Public Resources Code Section 15126). According to Section 15126.6(e), Athe specific alternative of >no project= shall also be evaluated along with its impact. The >no project= analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.@ The Existins General Plan Alternative assumes that the Specific Plan ponion of the project area would be developed pursuant to the existing adopted City of Carlsbad General Plan land use designations and development footprint. Figure 6-1 of the EIR depicts Alternative A. Table 6-2 of the EIR provides a comparison of Alternative A to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, the existing General Plan land use designations of the Specific Plan area are Planned Industrial and Open Space; however, under the this alternative approximately 220,s acres would be developed with industrial uses and approximately 175.2 acres would be remain in open space. The remaining portion would be developed with supporting infrastructure (i.e, external roadways). As shown in Figure 6-1 of the EIR, this alternative allows more of the project area to be developed. Under this Alternative, the Faraday Avenue and South Agua Hedionda Sewer (gravity flow) alignments are the same as the proposed project. However, as with the proposed project a force-main sewer alignment alternative is also an option. Under this option, the sewer would be carried in Faraday .4venue ail the way to El Camino Real and then head north to connect with the existing South Agua Hedionda gravity main. If the force-main option were implemented, a sewer pump station would be constructed. Also, a gravity sewer would be constructed in rhe dirt road south of the La Mirada Creek to pick up sewer flow from the Raceway sewer basin. ’? (a) This alternative would result in greater impacts to land use and planning, transponatio~’trafilc. air quality, noise, biolozical resources, hydrologyiwater quality, paleontological resources, aesthetics, and public services and utilities. The No ProjecdExisting General Plan alternative will result in similar impacts with respect to geologyisoils, hazards and CEQ.4 Findings of Fact 811102 And Sratemenr of Ovemiding Considerarions 59 hazardous materials, and cultural resources. The scope and range of mitisation measure would remain the same for the No Projecfixisting General Plan alternative compared to the Proposed Project and therefore the alternative does not incorporate sigificant en\,ironmenrai ad\,anragss overall. (b) Implementation of the No ProjecUExistins General Plan .4lternative may resulr in 3 - meater impact to biolosical resources as the existing general plan land use confiyrarions of rht site are not consistent with the City's Drafr HMP. (c) This alternative would meet most of the basic objectives of the Project 3.2.2 Alternative Roadway/Sewer Alignment. (FPEIR Section 6.2) Figure 6-2 of the EIR depicts Alternative B. Under this alternative approximately 164.3 acres would be developed with industrial uses and approximately 222 acres would be remain in open space. The remaining portion would be developed with supporting infrastructure (i.e. external roadways). Under this Altemarlve, the Faraday Avenue roadway extension bisects the lower portion of the Specific Plan pad-area and the Agua Hedionda sewer extension (sravity flow) is Abenchedm at the base of the slopes of lots #5,# 6, and X9. As the sewer moves west, past lot it will be located in the Faraday Avenue right-of-way before it continues northwest towards Sunny Creek Road. Implementation of this alternative would require sigificantly more grading than the proposed project - approximately 400,000 cubic yards more Fading than the proposed project. As with the proposed project a force-main sewer alignment alternative is also an option. However, as with the proposed project a force-main sewer ali,ment alternative is also an option. Under this option, the sewer would be carried in Faraday Avenue all the way to El Camino Real and then head north to connect with the existing South Agua Hedionda gravity main. If the force-main option is implemented, a sewer pump station would be constructed at Lot $9 in the Specific Plan area. Also, a gravity sewer would be constructed in the dirt road south of the La Mirada Creek to pick up sewer flow from the Raceway sewer basin. (a) This alternative would result in greater impacts to air quality, noise, paleontological resources, and aesthetics. Implementation of this alternative would require approximately $ 400,000 cubic yards of grading more than would be required under the proposed project. 3.1.3 Reduced Development ArealIntensity. (FPEIR Section 6.3) Figure 6-3 depicts Alternative C. Under this alternative approximately 12s acres would be developed with industrial uses and approximately 260 acres would be remain in open space. The main characteristic of this alternative is that the western portion (Lot 24) of the proposed project would not be developed with industrial uses and would remain in'open space. The remaining portion would be developed with supporting infrastructure (ix external roadways). As shown in Figure 6-3, this alternative involves the same alignment of Faraday Avenue as the proposed project. The sewer alignment is also the same alignment as the proposed project. However, as with the proposed project a force-main sewer alignment alternative is also an option. Under this option, the sewer would be carried in Faraday Avenue all the way to El CEQA Findings of Fact 8/1/02 And Statement of Overridlnc Considerations 60 Camino Real and then head north to connect with the existing South .4:ua Hedionda Fayil\, main. If the force-main option is implemented, a sewer pump station would be constructed Lot +9 in the Specific Plan area. Also, a gravity sewer would be constructed in the din ro>d south ofthe La Mirada Creek to pick up sewer flow from the Raceivy sewer basin. - (a) This alternative would incrementally reduce the impact to transponatiowtraffic and air quality, although these impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The .Alternati\,e Land Use Plan C would also have fewer noise, biological resources, hydrologymater qua1i:y. cultural resources, paleontological resources. aesthetics, and public senices and utiliries impacts. This alternative will result in simiiar impacts with respect to land use, geologyisoils. and hazards and hazardous materials. Under the proposed project, all impacts to biological resources can be mitigated, with the exception of the nonhern harrier; however, under this alternative. the impacr to the northern harrier would remain significant and unavoidable as well. (b) The .4lternative Land Use Plan C would substantially reduce planned industrial development, but without proportional reduction in circulation element roads, back bone infrastructure, resulting in a significant increase in the infrastructure cost allocation to the City. This would further exacerbate housing costs in the Carlsbad area for existing and future residents. (c) The City's efforts to provide a balance of jobs and housinz opponunities would be adversely affected as Alternative Land Use Plan C would not provide as much of the needed industrial development and the jobs associared with that use. The City's analysis show approximately 70% of the people who live in Carlsbad commute elsewhere to work and roughly 70% of the people employed in Carlsbad commute from other cities or the county. L .. (d) The Alternative Land Use Plan C would result in less of revenue generating .j development, The City, by not benefitting from the range of development fees and exactions. as well as increased tax base would be adversely impacted in terms of tax revenues to support public facilities and infrastructure that would have been built or financed by the industrial portion of the Proposed Project. The City's Growth Management Program and facilities performance standards would be jeopardized as the cost of additional facilities and infrastructure to serve existing and future citizens, and the sources of those funds and facilities, were spread proponionately for future development to finance and construct. This financing shortfall could affect a range of citywide facilities such as fire support. police, city government, as well as! transportation and the needed road network. In other words, the Citywide capital infrastructure funding mechanism would be jeopardized. . .. 3.2.4 Alternative D -Roadway Bridze. (FPEIR Section 6.4) Under the proposed project and the previously discussed alternatives, a culven is planned to convey water under the Faraday .4venue roadway extension at the point where Faraday Avenue is planned to cross over La Mirada Creek. Also, under the proposed project, a 24'-wide by 12' high wildlife undercrossing would be provided at this location. The Roadway Bridge Alternative proposes a bridge instead ofa culvert at this location. Figure 6-4 of the EIR depicts the Roadway Bridy Alternative. CEQA Flndinss of Fact And Srarement of Overriding Considerations 61 811102 The primary biological benefit of this design is that it would allow wildlife movement 10 continue with less visual restriction or constriction beneath the Faraday Avenue estellsiorl. Bridges afford animals a better view of habitat before they commit to moving throueh. and thus also foster more frequent and efficient movement. A bridge crossins would result in less or 211 incumbrance to wildlife mo\;ement, but would not alter the determination of significance since a large diameter culven is considered adequate to address the specific corridor requirements at his site. A bridge design option would require the construction of a separate be:m structure upstream or downstream of the bridge to serve as a retention basin dam. This separate structure would result in additional habitat impacts while improving the functionality of the crossin: design. The bridge alternative is addressed elsewhere under.the alternatives section of [his document. I (a) The primary biological benefit of this design is that it ufould allon wildlife movement to continue with less visual restriction or constriction beneath the Faraday Avenue extension. Bridges afford animals a better view of habitat before they commii to moving through, and thus also foster more frequent and efficient movement. A bridge crossins would result in less of an incumbrance to wildlife movement, but would not alter the determination of significance since a large diameter culvert is considered adequate to address the specific corridor requirements at this site. A bridge design option would require the construction of a separate berm structure upstream or downstream of the bridge to serve as a retention basin darn. This separate structure would result in additional habitat impacts while improving the functionality of the crossing design. 4. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (CEQA Guideline 8 15093) As discussed in Section 4.1 of these CEQA findings, the FPEIR concludes that the Proposed Project, even with incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures and consideration of alternatives, will no’netheless have significant direct and cumulative impacts on air quality and traffic, and a direct impact on biological reosurces. The cumulative impacts all arise from the marginal contribution the Proposed Project will make, when combined with the impacts from existing and other future projects, to pre-existing conditions that fail to meet applicable air quality and traffic standards currently. The City has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts, I which may have substantially lessened the impacts, but have not been successful in reducing them below a level of significance. Under CEQA, before a project which is determined to have significant, unmitigated environmental effects can be approved, the public agency must consider and adopt a “statement of overridin3 considerations” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15043 and 15093. As the primary purpose of CEQA is to fully inform the decision makers and the public as to the environmental effects of a Proposed Project and to include feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce any such adverse effects below a level of significance, CEQA nonetheless recognizes and authorizes the approval of projects where not all adverse impacts can be fully lessened or avoided. However. the agency must explain and justify its conclusion to approve such a project through the statement of overriding considerations setting forth the Proposed Project’s general CEQA Findings of Fact And Statemenr oiOverridq Considerations 62 RiiiO? social, economic, policy or other public benefits which support the agency's informed conclusion to approve the Proposed Project. The city finds that the Proposed Project has the folloxving substantial social. econonlic, policy and other public benefits justifying its approval and implementation. not \vithstmding 1101 all environmental impacts were fully reduced belo\v a level of significance" A. Citv General Plan and Policies. The Proposed Project is consistent \\pith the Cit!.'s General Plan and Policies in that it provides for industrial development and open space, as \\ell as critical infrastructure. B. Gronqh Management Promam: Zonine. The Proposed Project is fully consistent \vith the density limitations, including the Growth Management control point, and has not souzht an increase in zoning or density. The standards that will guide the entire buildout of the Proposed Project and the Local Facilities Management Plans setting forth the phasing 2nd timing of needed public infrastructure. These programs assure the Proposed Project will develop as a balanced whole and needed public infrastructure and facilities will be provided commensurate with need in order to meet the public facilities performance standards of the City's Growth Management Program. C. Emulovment Omortunities. The Proposed Project will have a 194-acre business park, with a projected 1,921,000 square feet of industrial uses with potential for creation of high salary jobs, located adjacent to the City's major industriaVofice area. This industrial development will assist Carlsbad in providing sufficient and desirable employment opportunities for existing and future residents and improve the jobshousing balance. D. Ouen Space. Approximately 220 acres or (53 %) of the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific .', Plan consists of Open Space. The open space consists of a) open space for the preservation of natural resources; and, b) open space for public health and safety; recreation areas, trails; and landscaped parkways. E. Citwide Road Network Imurovements. The Proposed Project will construct the final link of Faraday Avenue, a crirical eastiwest circulation element road. The Proposed Project will also construct a lid of El Fuene Street a critical northkouth circulation element road. F. South Azua Hedionda InterceDtor Sewer. The Proposed Project will construct Reaches SAHIl A through D of the South Agua Hedionda Sewer. G. General Fund. The approval of this project would result in an increased generation of real property tax revenue for the City of Carlsbad. The City would receive real property tax increment revenues attributable to the increased value of improved real property associated with the dwelling units for the project. Based on the assessed value of the land with implementation of the proposed improvement and standard tax rates, the project would contribute substantial total property tax dollars. A portion of these property taxes would be paid to the City. It should be noted that the estimated real estate values and the tax rate used to calculate the property tax are subject to change. Additional revenue contributions would also be generated by increased sales tax, vehicle license in-lieu fees, real property transfer taxes, other state subventions, and business license taxes. CEQA Flndinzs of Fact And Statement of Overriding Considerations 63 811102 H. Additional Public Infrastructure Caoital Contributions. The Cityls Gro\\[li manasement Proram and land use ordinances provide a series of public fac;'ities ff-i md exactions that are charged to neLv deLJelopment, which area zenerally payable at either rims or final subdivision map or issuance of individual building permits. Based on the project 3s proposed, these public infrastructure and facilities on a citywide bases. including cir!, administrative facilities, fire stations, libraries, roads. and stom drainage s!xsms as \Yell 3s public water and sewer facilities. These capital contriburions are in addition to the infiastructure being constructed on-site and represent the project's share of citywide infrastructure. The proposed project's Capital public facilities contributions consist of the following components: a) Growth management Local Facilities Fees estimated at 5310 per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU). b) Citywide Community Facilities District No. I per EDU. The CFD funds major area and Interstate 5 bridgesiramps, including the ramp at Palomar Airport Road. c) Traffic Impact Fee estimated per EDU contributes to the funding of various road, signal, intersection, and similar transportation impacts throughout the City. d) Public Facilities Fees contribute to the financing of city administration and maintenance facilities, parks, libraries, fire station, police stations, and similar city infrastructure. e) Drainage Fees estimated depending on location; this fund is used to construct master storm drain facilities in addition to those proposed by the project. 0 Sewer Connection Fees per EDU within the City of Carlsbad service area; these fees represent the facilities capacity and connection charges for sanitary sewers and treatment plants. g) Water Capacity charges per EDU depending on the water district and additional meter. connection fees per meter; charges and fees represent facilities capacity and cor&ection charges for water facilities and distributionistorage systems. The foregoing fees may be subject to periodic adjustment and escalations in accordande with the underlyins ordinance or laws applicable thereto. The total fees represents the public facilitjes capital contributions only and does not include any school fees or mitigation as the project's impacts on school facilities are addressed directly with the affected school districts and various city processing, application, and plan check charges for processing approvals. I. Consistent with Regional Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan. the Citv of Carlsbad Draft HMP (1999). and 1993 Agreement Establishing the CNP .Project will acquire and preserve an estimated 219.5 acres of sensitive habitats consistent with the regional habitat / planning goals. J, Citvwide Road Network Improvements. The project will construct critical circulation element roadways. These road improvements are important .elements of the overall road network of the City supporting local as well as rezional traffic. K. Reeional Flood Control Improvements. The project includes the construction of a detention basin located within the Aqua Hedionda Watershed. The basin is a part of a larger conceptual drainage plan outlined in the Rancho Carlsbad Channel gi Basin Project (Rick Engineering 1998) and is intended to minimize the potential for downstream inundation of the off-site Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park during the 100-year storm event. 1 CEQA Findings of Fact And Statement of Overriding Considerations 64 811 102 Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2002 Page 1 Time of Meeting: Minutes of: PLANNING COMMlSSiON Date of Meeting: Place of Meeting: 6:02 P.M. August 21,2002 COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER Planning Commission Chairperson Trigas called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Baker led the pledge of allegiance ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez. Heinernan. White, and Whitton Absent: Commissioner Segall Staff Present: Gary Wayne, Assistant Planning Director Jane Mobaldi. Assistant City Attorney Bobbie Hoder, Senior Management Analyst Anne Hysong, Associate Planner Michele Masterson, Management Analyst Clyde Wickham, Associate Engineer Marshall Plank, Sr. Civil Engineer Greg Fisher, Assistant Planner Glenn Pruim, Deputy Public Works Director, Engineering Services Bob Johnson, Deputy City Engineer, Transportation Div. Bob Wojcik, Deputy City Engineer, Land Use Div. Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner Steve Jantz, Associate Engineer Bill Plummer. Deputy City Engineer, Design Don Rideout. Principal Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairperson Trigas asked if there were any additions or corrections to the August 7, 2002 minutes. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker and duly seconded, to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 7. 2002. VOTE: 5-0-1 AYES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Dominguez, Heineman, White, and Whitton NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Baker due to absence at August 7,2002 meeting Chairperson Trigas directed everybody's attention to the slide on the screen to review the procedures the Commission would be following for tonight's public heahg. COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA None Planning Commission Minutes August 21,2002 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairperson Trigas asked Mr. Wayne to introduce the first item. 1. CUP 87-08x1 - PICKLE'S CAFE - Request for both a retroactive IO-year extension (from 1992 through 2002) and 5year extension (from 2002 through 2007) of CUP 87-08 to allow the continued operation of a delicatessen, Pickles' Cafe (formerly Gateway Deli). on property generally located at 5670 El Camino Real in the Carlsbad Gateway Center (SDP 84-5) in the MQ Zone within Local Facilities Management Zone 5. 2. CUP 87-12x3 - FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH - Request for a retroactive five-year extension (from church, occupation of a modular building and operation of a daycare/preschool within church February 18. 2002 through February 17, 2007) of CUP 87-12x2 to allow the continued operation of a facilities on property generally located at 3780 Pi0 Pic0 Drive in the R-l Zone within Local Facilities Management Zone 1 3. CUP 25O(Blx2 - PALOMAR DELI - Request for a retroactive five-year extension (from March 19, 2002 through March 18, 2007) Of CUP 250(B)x1 to allow the continued operation of a delicatessen at 6150 Yarrow Drive, Suite "C," in the Planned Industrial Zone in Local Facilities Management Zone 5. Mr. Wayne stated that agenda items 1, 2, and 3 are normally heard in a public hearing context, however, these projects are minor and routine in nature with no outstanding issues and Staff recommends approval of all. He recommended they be acted upon and voted on as a group. If the Commission or someone from the public wishes to discuss or pull an item then Staff would be available to respond to questions. He stated the Commission's action is final on the three items unless appealed to the City Council. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker and duly seconded, to approve Staff recommendations on Items 1. 2 and 3. (CUP 8748x1, CUP 87-12x3. and CUP 25O(B)x2) VOTE: AYES: 6-0-0 Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Dominguez. Heineman, White, and Whitton ABSTAIN: NOES: None None 4. EIR 98-WGPA 97-05EC 97-05ISP 211/SP 2001B)lLFMP 16(A)/CT 97-13/HDP 97-lO/PIP 02- 021SUP 97-07 - CARLSBAD OAKS NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN -Request for a recommendation of certification of a Program Environmental Impact Report, and recommendation of adoption of the Candidate Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; recommendation of approval of the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan. Carlsbad Airport Center Specific Plan Amendment and Zone 16 Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment; and approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside development of an industrial park that will include 23 industrial lots, 3 open space lots, and one Development Permit. Planned Industrial Permit, and Floodplain Special Use Permit for the eastern boundary in the P-C Zone and Local Facilities Management Zone 16. Public Works passive recreation lot located north of Palomar,Airpori Road between El Camino Real and the City's projects that are associated with the Carlsbad Oaks North project include the extension of Faraday Avenue, the extension of El Fuerte Street, and Reaches A through 0 of the South Agua Hedionda Interceptor (SAHI). Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2002 Page 3 Mr. Wayne introduced the next item on the agenda and stated that Anne Hysong would make the presentation, assisted by Clyde Wickham and a number of consultants. Chairperson Trigas opened the public hearing on Item #4 Anne Hysong, Associate Planner, stated that the Carlsbad Oaks North project and the offsite improvements West Business Parks and between the city's eastern boundary and El Camino Real. She pointed out the required by the project are located north of Palomar Airport Road and the existing Carlsbad Oaks East and surrounding areas of the properly which include the Dawson Los Monos Canyon Reserve to the north, residential development and vacant commercial Bnd in the City of Vista to the east, and the existing business parks to the south, and vacant land owned by the County and various property owners to the north and west. Ms. Hysong stated that the combined 650-acre property is characterized by three topographic areas. She pointed out the north facing hillside Slopes that extend down from the southern boundary, the rocky hills that cover the central portion, and the intervening eastiwest canyon drainage known as La Mirada Creek, which is a tributary to the Agua Hedionda Creek that traverses the northwestern portion of the County property. Riparian woodlands consisting of oak, willow, and sycamore trees are the primary habitat type associated with these creeks. Many sensitive plant habitats, including southern maritime chaparral, mixed chaparral, nuttall's scrub oak, southern Coast live oak riparian forest, and coastal sage scrub are located throughout the site. These vegetation communities provide nesting and foraging habitat for a variety of sensitive wildlife species. Ms. Hysong stated the applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission recommend approval of certification of a Final Program EIR. General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Zone 16 Local Facilities Airport Business Center Specific Plan to eliminate the project area from that plan. The applicant is also Management Plan Amendment, the Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan, and an amendment to the Carlsbad requesting Planning Commission approval of a Tentative Map, Hillside Development Permit, Planned Industrial Permit and a Floodplain Special Use Permit. These permits would allow the subdivision and grading of an industrial subdivision that includes offsite road and sewer improvements. She showed slides of the site from various directions and explained what was shown in the slides. She said the project requires an adjustment to the existing Planned Industrial and Opeh Space designation boundaries and a zone change from PC Zone to PM. The project consists of 23 industrial lots: one passive open space lot for employee recreation, and 3 open space lots totaling 219.5 acres. The open space lots comprise a habitat consetvation area that is consistent with the negotiated hardline boundaries in the City's east. HMP. The project includes a citywide trail segment that will connect with the Raceway property trail to the The project will extend Faraday Avenue from Orion Street to the City of Vista and extend El Fuerte Street from its terminus north of Loker Avenue to intersect with Faraday Avenue. lhe project also includes the Agua Hedionda Interceptor sewer, which will provide sewer service to the Carlsbad Raceway and Palomar Forum projects, as well as the Carlsbad Oaks North project. Ms. Hysong described the proposed gravity sewer alignment and said the gravity sewer alignment has a 12-foot sewer access road proposed as part of the sewer construction. That is the City's preferred sewer option. however, there is a second option proposed in the Specific Plan. She pointed out that second sewer option would follow the same alignment in the existing sewer access road located south of La Mirada Creek and would be a gravity sewer up to Lot 9. At that point it would be a force main sewer, and sewage would be pumped from a pump station through a line that would be constructed in the Faraday Avenue right-of-way all the way to El Camino Real. Then it would travel north until it connects with the existing Agua Hedionda gravity sewer. The project also requires two pollution control basins that would collect drainage from the industrial subdivision. A separate flood control detention basin is required within the wetland area of the oak riparian corridor. The proposed construction a 6 x 7' box culvert under the roadway would detain water during the 100-year flood event. Impact to the wetlands would be minimal. Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2002 Page 4 Ms Hysong pointed out the location of the two proposed animal crossings, One crossing proposed above the floodway near the intersection of Faraday Avenue and El Fuerte Street, is an arched culvert approximately 12' high by 20' wide that is separate from the flood facility. The second proposed animal crossing is an 8' by 8' culvert in another drainage area located on the County of San Diego property, Ms. Hysong stated that the proposed Carlsbad Oaks North Specific Plan will regulate development of the business park and is projected to result in approximately 1,921,000 square feet of industrial space, The plan requires compliance with environmental mitigation measures and construction of the necessary public facilities. It requires commercial uses to Serve employees on one of the lots at the intersection of Faraday Avenue and El Fuerie Street. The Specific Plan provides for passive recreation areas and a trail system. Unless alternative development standards are required by the Specific Plan, the future development is required to comply with Planned Industrial developmental standards. Planned Industrial Permits are required for future industrial development on each of the lots. If commercial development is proposed a Conditional Use Permit would be required. To ensure land use compatibility between industrial land uses, residences to the east, and the surrounding open space, the Specific Plan requires the following more restrictive standards: A prohibition on the use of hazardous materials within 1,000 feet of residential development. . More stringent noise and lighting standards for lots abutting residences to the east and open space. . Increased setback and landscape buffers along the eastern poject boundary to buffer residential and . Fire suppression areas are provided around the perimeter of the project due to open space areas and . Restrictions on the location of loading areas adjacent to residences. . Architectural and landscape guidelines to.ensure quality development. . Non-invasive landscaping is required adjacent to all natural open space areas. The landscape plan also requires the transplantation of oak trees that are removed in grading operations to the project entry's where it's feasible. That proposal is part of the Specific Plan and is more of an aesthetics requirement; it is not required as mitigation for impacts to oak trees. industrial land uses. native habitat, so additional setbacks are required along all those perimeter lots. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan is also required for construction and post-construction development on all of the lots. The project is subject to and consistent with the Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). The CLUP requires that no development within the Carlsbad Oaks project exceed the existing natural within the industrial subdivision. The project is also subject to the Hillside Development Regulations. It's elevation on the site, A condition has been added that requires FAA determination prior to any development anticipated by the Hillside Ordinance that industrial development will exceed limitations on grading quantities and slope heights, however, justification is still required to allow that. 219.5 acres within the Specific Plan area are being rezoned to open space and will be subject to the open space zone standards. The project is consistent with the open space zoning in that uses proposed are limited to utility easements, permanent drainage basins, a trail, and passive recreation areas. An open space easement will be dedicated to the City and a conservation easement will be dedicated, along with the transfer of ownership and maintenance responsibilities, to a natural lands management entity. Funding for that maintenance will be provided by the developer in perpetuity. The industrial subdivision is subject to standards required by the PM Zone for lot Size, setbacks from arterial roadways, and design. The project is consistent with applicable standards in that SO-foot landscape they provided a safe and functional street system with two access points from Faraday Avenue. The road setbacks have been proposed along El Fuerte Street and Faraday Avenue. Ms. Hysong said they believe design includes adequately spaced driveway locations along the loop road that provides access to the majority of the lots. The proposed amendment to the Zone 16 Local Facilities Management Plan provides for the required public facilities to develop Zone 16. Facility requirements include UIe construction of Faraday Avenue, El Fuerte Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2002 Page 5 Street, a financial guarantee for the construction of Melrose Drive, construction of the south ~gua Hedionda Interceptor sewer, and construction of the necessary potable and recycled water facilities. Ms. Hysong stated that the final Program Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's environmental protection was held in January of 2001 and the written responses received subsequent to that meeting were used to procedures. A Notice of Preparation of the EIR was prepared in May of 2000. A publid scoping meeting develop a scope of work. The program EIR analyzes the potential impacts of the preferred project and four alternatives. Potential impacts were associated with land use planning, traffic, air quality, noise, biology, geology, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, cultural resources, pale0 resources, aesthetics, public services and utilities, and population and housing. The following four alternatives were included: 1) no project General Plan alternative, 2) a northerly Faraday Avenue and sewer alignment, 3) the Faraday Avenue bridge creek crossing, and 4) a reduced acreage and intensity alternative. A Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR was prepared on April 12. 2002 commencing a 45-day public review, sent to those letters on August 1, 2002. which was extended to June 14, 2002. Eleven public comment letters were received and responses were The final program EIR conclusions require mitigation for significant impacts to land use compatibility. Mitigation includes increased setbacks and landscape buffers along the project's eastern boundary and compliance with performance standards for air quality, noise, lighting, and safety. Air quality mitigation includes emission control for construction vehicles. It requires commercial services be provided to the industrial subdivision and installation of traffic control devices. Ms. Hysong stated they are also requiring that the business park association encourage methods to reduce commuter trips through carpooling, flex hours, telecommuting, etc. Noise mitigation includes requirements to limit rock blasting and rock crushing activities during grading operations. An acoustical study is required and possible construction of noise walls to attenuate roadway noise impacts to residences adjacent to the City's eastern boundary where the Faraday Avenue extension is proposed. Biological mitigation includes a combination of preservation, creation, and enhancement of wetlands and habitats offsite and onsite. such as the preservation and creation of oak woodlands and riparian forests, protection of foraging habitats, restricting the removal of vegetation to the non-breeding season and maintenance and funding of the habitat conservation area in perpetuity. Ms. Hysong stated that geological impacts will be mitigated through removal and stabilization of soils, and restrictions for hazardous materials use. Drainage and water quality mitigation involves a hydrology study in compliance with the Storm Water Pollution Control Plan that will have to be prepared for the project. Archaeological and paleontological impacts will be mitigated through a data recovery program for archaeological resources and having a paleontologist onsite to monitor the grading operations. Aesthetics with architectural and landscape guidelines set forth by the Specific Plan. include a lighting plan for the perimeter lots to avoid light spillage onto adjacent properties and compliance Ms. Hysong turned the presentation over to Clyde Wickham and Dawn Wilson to review mitigation for traffic impacts. Clyde Wickham, Associate Engineer, stated that as part of the City's review of the taffic impacts for this project as well as others, the City hired REF Consulting to run a third party review to look at the traffic impacts to be consistent with all of the traffic of the City's/County's 2020 model. The purpose was to generate a traffic eport that was consistent with the ,City's plans and improvement programs of all our projects. He turned the presentation over to Dawn Wilson. Dawn Wilson, RBF Consulting, stated that their responsibility was to ensure consistency between the projects and to ensure that all local and regional traffic guidelines were adhered to which included SANTEC, CMP, GMP, and LFMP standards. She said that the Carlsbad Oaks project is forecast to generate approximately 22,650 trips per day based on a mixture of industrial land uses, including light industrial, Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2002 Page 6 commercial, and office. In 1997 the City of Carlsbad took on the task of updating the Carlsbad area model based on SANDAG's city, county, and regional model. The update was conducted in conjunction with the traffic study prepared for this and the five other developments previously discussed. After nearly three years of extensive research and modeling, the model was calibrated and validated for use on these traffic studies, Through the model update RBF and City Staff worked together to collect land use data for all the traffic analysis zones, both within the City of Carlsbad as well as surrounding cities. This process also required City Staff to review all undeveloped zones within the city and determine the buildout rate for the years 2005, 2010, and 2020. The proposed Carisbad Oaks project is projected to be built out by the year 2010. Focusing on the study area it was determined that based on land use and traffic volumes, that Melrose Drive from its existing terminus in Vista to Palomar Airport Road, Faraday Avenue from El Camino Real to Melrose, and Poinsettia Lane from El Camino Real to Melrose Drive would need to be constructed by the years 2005. By the year 2020, the model assumes all roadway networks in the existing circulation element of the General Plan are constructed and built to their ultimate configuration, including the extension of College Blvd. and Cannon evaluated. Road to College from El Camino Real. Ms. Wilson showed slides of the roadway network for each year peak hour shall be included in the Traffic Impact Analysis Report. Using this guideline, a total of 49 study Ms. Wilson said SANTEC states that any intersection where a project that adds 50 or more trips in the intersections were included in this analysis. To determine the sphere of influence for the project, project generated trips were assigned to the roadway network. For this project the distribution of project trips was completed using a select zone analysis run. The traffic model looks at the land use in the zone,and distributes the trips based on the location of zones that would attract them. Once the attractors are identified in the model, the model looks for the shortest path for the zones based on speeds and travel times. When the route speed zones are identified then the project-generated trips can be assigned to the the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) methodology. This compares the volume through the intersection roadway network. The 49 studied intersections identified to be included in the study were evaluated using to the total capacity of the intersection. This ratio is then associated with a level of service ranging from level service A, which is a volume capacity ratio of less than 50 percent, to a level suvice F. where the volume is equal to capacity. The City of Carlsbad and the County of San Diego established level service D as a threshold for acceptable level of service, which is approximately a ratio of 80 percent of capacity. The County of San Oiego Congestion Management Plan measures level of service using the highway capacity manual which is different from the ICU. This method uses delay to determine level of service. All CMP facilities were evaluated and determined to operate level service D or better with the planned roadway improvements and intersection improvements for this project. The CMP also requires that all freeway facilities where 150 or more peak directional trips are added need to be evaluated. The project does not add over 150 directional trips, therefore, freeway mainline segments were not evaluated; that is not to say that the intersection ramps were not evaluated. The City's LFMP indicates that all intersections and roadway segments where 20 percent or more of the project-generated trips pass through need to be evaluated using the ICU methodology. Using the SANTEC and City standards, a total of 22 study intersections are forecast to have an increase in delay greater than 2 seconds in the a.m. or p.m. peak hour and therefore, are considered to be impacted by the project. Mitigation measures were identified for all the intersections to return them to a level of service D or better by the year 2020. of the impacts are tied directly to this project. The intersections will be mitigated in one of the following Ms. Wilson explained that since these impacts are based on the existing intersection configuration. not all ways: Project mitigation or improvement, contribution to the Traffc Impact Fee Program or participation thereof, the Bridge and Thoroughfare Fee Program, or improvements made by other projects. For intersections located outside the City of Carlsbad, Staff has discussed the impacts and recommended improvements. It is Cmcy not to mitigate outside the city limits. Airport Road and El Fuerte Street. Both are in the year 2005. Faraday Avenue at El Carnino Real and Intersections identified to be mitigated by the project include Melrose at Palomar Airport Road, Palomar Planning Commission Minutes August 21, 2002 Page 7 Faraday Avenue at El Fuerte are planned for 2010. The following roadway improvements are tied to the project: the connection of Faraday Avenue between El Fuerte and Melrose Drive, El Fuerte from Faraday Avenue to Palomar Airport Road, Melrose Drive being improved to six lanes from the city limit to palomar Airport Road, and the connection of Faraday Avenue between El Camino Real and El Fuerte. Ms. Wilson stated that impacts to intersections located outside the City of Carlsbad can be mitigated, but Since it is not City policy to mitigate outside city limits, a Statement of Overriding Consideration is necessary. Four intersections are located in the City of Vista and one is located in the City of Sari Marcos. The conclusion of the analysis is that the evaluation of short and long term future conditions indicate that the planned intersection mitigation, either by other traffic impact fees or through this project, the intersections will be returned to an acceptable level of service D or better under the 2020 condition. Ms. Hysong continued the pesentation stating that CEQA requires that a public agency must consider and adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration for unmitigatable impacts before approving a project. The program EIR has identified direct project specific and cumulative impacts to traffic as well as air quality and project specific impacts to biology that cannot be adequately mitigated. Justification for making those overriding .considerations is based on the project's general policy, economic, social, and public'benefits, which are substantial. The project is consistent with and implements the General Plan policies as outlined in the Staff Report. It provides for citywide road network improvements, it would construct the south Agua Hedionda Interceptor sewer to serve the entire northeast quadrant, it will provide additional employment opportunities, it preserves 219.5 acres within the HMP core area, it provides for additional general fund revenues, public infrastructure capital contributions, and it provides for an important regional flood control improvement at the intersection of Faraday Avenue and El Fuerte. corrections to the Specific Plan for the record: Ms. Hysong added that four letters were received on August 20 and 21, 2002 and stated the following - On page 322, Section G, Item 1, under Community Identity Signs la, it should read: "Signage that identifies the industrial park, that is, community identity signs, consistent with the conceptual design shown in Figure 16. shall be allowed in addition to all other signs prmitted by this Specific Plan. One primary permanent ground sign not to exceed 75 square feet identifying the project will be allowed at the intersection of El Fuerte Street and Faraday Avenue. One secondary permanent ground sign not to exceed 12 feet in length and 4 feet in height will be allowed at both intersections of Faraday Avenue and Street "D". With the exception of these three community identity or monument signs no other freestanding signs will be allowed along Faraday Avenue or El Fuerte Street." - On page 327, Item 0 - Pedestrian Trails. In the second to last line under that paragraph where it says "within Lot 11 and/or 12, remove Lot 12. There is one other location where this exact change will be made. . On the second page of the Specific Ran where it identifies the owners, the applicant requested that Escondido Serenas Development, Incorporated be removed because they no longer have ownership of the property. Chairperson Trigas asked the applicant if he wished to proceed without a full Commission. The applicant stated he wished to proceed. Chairperson Trigas, referring to one of the letters received, asked for clarification on the letter from US Fish and Wildlife Service and what implications it would have on the Commission's decision. Ms. Hysong replied that through the letter they are alerting the decision-makers that during their permitting process, the Section 7 consultation, there is a possibility that additional mitigation measures will be required or the project will be revised and possibly reduced to reduce the impacts. Ms. Mobaldi added that it does not prevent the Commission from proceeding, it is alerting them to another possible concern that may need to be negotiated in the future.