The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006-04-18; City Council; 18534; Appeal Lake Calavera Reservior Remedial Improvements HMPP 05-0314CITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL' AB# 18,534 MTG. 4/18/06 DEPT. PLN TITLE: APPEAL OF LAKE CALAVERA RESERVOIR REMEDIAL IMPROVEMENTS HMPP 05-03 DEPT. HD. W?< tf CITY ATT/ dJ5^ — ia-^ CITYMGR "5j3^> o1—II ooCN CO•H O0}0) -O<D4->a,o-a uc o O OO RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2006-101 DENYING an appeal and UPHOLDING the Planning Commission's decision to APPROVE the Habitat Management Plan Permit HMPP 05- 03 of the Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvements project. ITEM EXPLANATION: This item involves the appeal of the Planning Commission decision to approve a project to repair the existing works at the Lake Calavera Reservoir. More specifically, the appellant is appealing the Planning Commission's approval of a Habitat Management Plan Permit to allow the incidental take of 0.78 acres of occupied Coastal Sage Scrub habitat. Lake Calavera currently serves as a flood control device, however the existing intake and outlet systems for controlling the lake level are inoperable. In addition, the California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) requires that a certain amount of the water held by dams must be able to be drained within a specific time period. Given the inoperability of the existing system, as well as the State regulatory requirements, Public Works proposed the remedial improvements to the Lake Calavera Reservoir. The original repair methodology involved the temporary lowering of the lake level to expose the area of work to a dry environment. While this methodology could have caused over 14 acres of temporary and permanent wetland habitat impacts, and a commensurately large amount of mitigation, the proposal was originally selected due to strict DSOD inspection requirements and the lack of feasible engineering alternatives to isolate the work area. The City received numerous public comments objecting to this methodology. After further negotiations with DSOD and the discovery of a unique alternative construction method, staff redesigned the project and eliminated the need for lowering the lake level. This reduced the wetland impacts to 0.07 acres. A more detailed description of the proposed methodology is contained in the Planning Commission Staff Report and accompanying environmental review documents. On January 18, 2006, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing and voted (7-0) to approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit, and Habitat Management Plan Permit for the Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvement project. The appellant offered public testimony at the public hearing, which is contained in the excerpts from the Planning Commission Minutes (Attachment 6). On January 23, 2006, the appellant filed a timely request for appeal of the project to the City Council. On January 27, 1006, the appellant amended the appeal form on file with the City Clerk, adding an additional reason for appeal. Section 21.54.150 of the Zoning Ordinance contains the regulations governing the appeal of a Planning Commission decision. Subsection (c) states that, while the hearing of the project before the City Council is considered de novo, the Council "shall determine all matters not specified in the appeal have been found by the Planning Commission and are supported by substantial evidence." The term 'de novo' is a Latin expression meaning 'afresh' or 'anew1. The submitted appeal form does not challenge the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration or Conditional Use Permit. Section 21.54.150(b) states that the burden of proof is on the appellant to establish by substantial evidence that the grounds for the decision to overturn the Planning Commission determination exist. No supporting documentation was provided with the submitted Appeal Forms and no specific PAGE 2 references were provided to substantiate the appellant's claims. Therefore, staff could only analyze the reasons for appeal as stated on the Appeal Forms; these five reasons for appeal are listed below. Accompanying these appeal reasons are staff's responses. Reasons for Appeal (as stated in the Appeal Form, Attachment No. 3): Reason No. 1: "Planning Commission was not informed that the Wildlife Agencies had determined the project was not consistent with the HMP." Response: As shown in the e-mail correspondence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Attachment No. 8), no determination on the compliance of the proposed project with the HMP had been made as of the January 18, 2006 Planning Commission hearing. This fact was confirmed by personal communication February 28, 2006. Also, as stated in the e-mail correspondence, the HMP consistency determination by the Wildlife Agencies is made once the City submits a request for such a determination; in this case, the request will be processed in concert with the US Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game permitting process. Reason No. 2: "Public records were not made available to us prior to or at the hearing." Response: Based upon the appellant's testimony at the Planning Commission hearing for the project, staff is presuming that the appellant is referring to a January 17, 2006 memorandum summarizing staff's responses to comments received from Preserve Calavera during the environmental review period. As stated in the Planning Commission Minutes (Attachment No. 6), the Planning Department contacted the appellant on January 17, 2006 to coordinate the distribution of this document and copies were available with the Planning Department staff, since the document was also being distributed to the Planning Commissioners during their briefings. On January 18, 2006, staff received a second letter from Preserve Calavera, including a heading entitled, "Comments on Final MND and Responses to Comments on the Draft MND Resolution 5890." Subsection 2 of this letter states, "there were numerous cases where the responses to comments made by Preserve Calavera were incomplete, failed to respond to the primary issue raised, and/or were incorrect." In addition, there are several other references to staffs response to comments within the January 18, 2006 Preserve Calavera letter. Based upon this letter, staff believed that the appellant had received a copy of the January 17, 2006 memorandum containing staff's response to comments. Copies of this memorandum were also available at the January 18, 2006 Planning Commission hearing, where the document was entered into the public record. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not require that lead agencies provide written responses to comments received during the public review period for a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Planning Department performs this function as an enhanced public participation component of the environmental review process. Reason No. 3: "Several misstatements during the hearing could have effected the decision of the Planning Commission." Response: The Planning Commission Minutes (Attachment No. 6) contain a verbatim text of the appellant's testimony and staff's responses to that testimony. Without specific references from the appellant, staff is unable to evaluate this reason for appeal. Reason No. 4: "The rushed time schedule gave insufficient time for Commissioners to review submitted in forma tion." Response: The Planning Commissioners received all materials related to the Lake Calavera Remedial Reservoir Improvement project prior to the beginning of the hearing. As stated above, the January 17, 2006 staff memorandum was distributed at their individual briefings on January 17 and 18. The January 18, 2006 letter from Preserve Calavera was distributed prior to the commencement PAGES of the Planning Commission meeting. No Commissioners requested a continuance or any additional time to review the distributed materials. The public hearing process allows for the Commission to hear, discuss, and consider all information received prior to making a decision and, on occasion, the Commission has requested a continuance of an item based upon this new information. As mentioned above, no such continuance was requested for the Lake Calavera Remedial Reservoir Improvements and the Planning Commission made a unanimous decision on the project. Reason No. 5: "Failure to comply with\inconsistencies with HMP." Response: As with Reason No. 2 and 3 above, no specific supporting statements or references are provided regarding HMP inconsistency. As stated in the response to Reason No. 1, the City is in the process of establishing confirmation of HMP consistency with the Wildlife Agencies through the US Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game permitting process. The compliance and consistency of the project with the HMP was presented by staff at the Planning Commission hearing. Staff discussed that the project was consistent with the pertinent sections of the HMP, namely: hardline preserve areas, mitigation ratios, narrow endemic species, and adjacency standards. A brief summary of the project's compliance with the HMP is detailed below: Hardline preserve: The project site constitutes an essential public facility within the hardline preserve and the maintenance of the Lake Calavera Reservoir is specifically noted as a future public works project in the HMP. In addition, the project is under the jurisdiction of the State Division of Safety of Dams, therefore there is little flexibility in the operational standards of the dam and reservoir. The HMP mapping shows the area of work as disturbed and/or developed and the improvements and environmental impacts are the minimum necessary to meet DSOD requirements and protect exsiting development downstream. Mitigation ratios: The proposed mitigation meets or exceeds the mitigation ratios specified by the HMP and all environmental impacts have been minimized to the greatest extent possible without sacrificing operation function. Narrow Endemic species: No Narrow Endemic species exist within the project area. Wetlands: The project was redesigned to reduce potential wetland impacts to the greatest extent feasible, from over 14 acres to 0.07 acres. All proposed wetland mitigation meets or exceeds the mitigation ratios specified in the HMP and the City is pursuing the necessary agency approvals and certifications for impacts to wetlands. Adjacency standards: The proposed improvements have been designed to reduce impacts to the neighboring native open space areas. The lighting would be low pressure sodium fixtures directed downward and activated by a motion detector to reduce periods of illumination. The fencing is limited to that area immediately surrounding the control building and does not impact any animal movement or migration. Native vegetation is proposed to be planted around the control building fencing and no ornamental or invasive vegetation is proposed within the project. ENVIRONMENTAL: The entire remedial improvement project was reviewed for potentially significant adverse environmental impacts pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The environmental assessment identified potentially significant impacts in the areas of biological resources, cultural resources, and hydrology and water quality. Therefore, measures were included in the project conditions that mitigated these impacts to a level of insignificance. The Planning Director issued a Notice of Intent to Issue a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a 30-day public review period. One letter was received during this review period from Preserve Calavera. A copy of the comment letter and staff's responses to those comments are contained in Attachment No. 7. 3 PAGE 4 FISCAL IMPACT: Upholding the Planning Commission's decision to approve the project will result in the expenditure of funds from the Carlsbad Municipal Water District to perform the remedial improvements for the Lake Calavera Reservoir. EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Resolution No. 2006-101 2. Location Map 3. Appeal Form received January 23,2006 4. Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5890, 5891, 5892 5. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated January 18, 2006 6. Excerpts from Planning Commission Minutes, dated January 18, 2006 7. Memorandum from Planning Department to Planning Commission, dated January 17,2006 8. E-mail correspondence from Benjamin Prater, US Fish and Wildlife Service, dated January 23, 2006. DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Michael Grim, (760) 602-4623, mgrim@ci.carlsbad.ca.us 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2006-101 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL AND 3 UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE A HABITAT MANAGEMENT PERMIT FOR THE LAKE 4 CALAVERA RESERVOIR REMEDIAL IMPROVEMENTS. CASE NAME: LAKE CALAVERA RESERVOIR 5 REMEDIAL IMPROVEMENTS CASE NO.: HMPP 05-03 6 WHEREAS, on January 18, 2006, the Carlsbad Planning Commission 7 approved a Habitat Management Permit to allow the incidental take of 0.78 acres of occupied 8 Coastal Sage Scrub habitat; and 9 WHEREAS, on January 23, 2006, the appellant filed a timely appeal with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, on January 27, 2006, the appellant filed an amended appeal with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, on April 18 , 2006, the City Council of the City of14 Carlsbad considered said appeal; and WHEREAS, upon hearing the appeal, the City Council considered all factors16 related to the appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the18 City of Carlsbad, California, as follows: 20 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. 21 2. That said appeal is denied. 22 3. That the findings and conditions of the Planning Commission in 23 Planning Commission Resolution No. 5892 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference constitute the findings and conditions of the City Council in this matter. 24 4. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City 25 Council. The provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for Judicial Review" shall apply: 26 "NOTICE TO APPLICANT" 27 The time which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by 28 Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 or other paper seeking review must be filed in the appropriate court not later than the nineteenth day following the date on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision becomes final a request for the record of deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time within which such petition may be filed in court extended to not later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA, 92008." PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 18th day of April 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Lewis, Hall, Kulchin,Packard and Sigafoose NOES: None ABSENT:None Urn?i/ LORRAINE M.~VVOOD, City Clerk J (SEAL) -2- EXHIBIT2 SITE LAKE CALAVERA REMEDIAL IMPROVEMENTS CUP 04-11 EXHIBITS of Carlsbad I(We) appeal the decision of the to the Carlsbad City Council. Date of Decision you are appealing:, Subject of Appeal: BE SPEOFIC Examples: if the action is a City Engineer's Decision, please say so. If a project has multiple elements, (such as a General Plan Amendment, Negative Declaration, Specific Plan, etc.) please fist them all. !f you only want to appeal a part of the virfiote action, please state that here. L)J ,r I to t^ irt t l"~q „ " V <j i ^L Reason(s) for Appeal: * Please Note * Failure to specify a reason may result in denial off tfie appeal, and you wtll be R«ilt*d to the grounds stated here when presenting your appeal. BE SPECIFIC How did the decision maker err? What about the decision Ss inconsistent with state or local .aws. plans, or pofcy? \ i I. PUv tufets LfJ As*L r- •3 ^n c\ S1C3NATURE NAME (please print) DATE f I/ 13 PHONE NO. il/l ADDRESS: Street Name & Number T State.Zip Code 120O Carfsbad Vittage Drive » Carlsbad, California 92OO8-1989 • (619)434-2806 EXHIBIT 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5890 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR REPAIRS TO 4 THE EXISTING LAKE CALAVERA RESERVOIR INTAKE AND OUTLET WORKS, SPILLWAY AND ACCESS ROAD, AND OUTLET PIPING AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 6 NEW DAM OPERATIONS CONTROL BUILDING, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 900 TO 1,200 FEET SOUTH OF THE 7 INTERSECTION OF TAMARACK AVENUE AND KNOLLWOOD DRIVE, IN LOCAL FACILITIES 8 MANAGEMENT ZONE 7. o | CASE NAME: LAKE CALAVERA RESERVOIR REMEDIAL IMPROVEMENTS 10 CASE NO.: CUP 04-11 11 WHEREAS, Carlsbad Municipal Water District, "Developer/Owner," has filed 12 a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as 13 A portion of Lots D and L of Rancho Agua Hedionda, 14 according to Map No. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on May 1, 1915, in the City of 1 * Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California 16 ("the Property"); and 17 WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with 18 said project; and 20 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 18th day of January 2006, 21 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and .— ~"~ J 22 * WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony O'1* and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and 24 - - -_ considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors 25 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and26 27 I WHEREAS, the Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvements project site is 28 located within the boundaries of the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan and North San Diego County Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan, both of which contain technical information f related to the identification and protection of conservation areas and the impact assessment and 2 mitigation measures for the incidental take of habitats and species of concern within the plan 3 areas; and 4 - WHEREAS, all relevant information contained in the City of Carlsbad Habitat 5 Management Plan and North San Diego County Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan, on file in 7 the Planning Department and incorporated by reference herein, has been analyzed and Q considered in the environmental determination. 9 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 10 Commission as follows: 11 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 13 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Exhibit "ND," 14 dated January 18, 2006 according to Exhibits "NOI" dated December 12, 2005, and "PIP dated November 30, 2005, attached hereto and made a part hereof, 1 -* based on the following findings: 16 „. ,.Findings: 17 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: 18 a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments 2Q thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and 21 b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines 22 ^ and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and 23 c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of 24 Carlsbad; and —__ 25 d. based on the EIA Part II and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 26 Conditions; 27 1. As a condition of this approval, applicant must comply with the requirements of all 28 regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the project and any mitigation requirements of the environmental documents Yor the project. PCRESONO. 5890 -2- ' \0 2. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Lake Calavera 2 Reservoir Remedial Improvement Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 3 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning 4 , Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of January 2006, by the following vote, to wit: 7 AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall and Whitton8 9 NOES: 10 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 12 13 14 n MARTELL B. MONTGOMERY, t!!hairperson 15 CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 16 17 ATTEST: 18 19 DONNEU 2Q Assistant Planning Director 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PCRESONO. 5890 -3- ' |/ City of Carlsbad CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: Planning Department MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvements CUP 04-11/HMP 05-03 In and around the Lake Calavera Reservoir, approximately 900 to 1.200 feet south of the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and Knollwood Drive. City of Carlsbad. County of San Diego. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Repairs to the existing Lake Calavera Reservoir intake and outlet works, spillway and access road, and outlet piping; construction of a new dam operations control building and security fencing. Repairs will require the controlled drawdown of approximately 77 million gallons of impounded water within the reservoir over a four to six week period. Once repaired, the normal operations of the reservoir will result in water level fluctuations between 190 and 208 feet in accordance with an overall water management program. DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: IXI Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. I | The proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). I I Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that lire imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. ••v A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: January 18, 2006. pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No.5 890 „ ATTEST: DON NEU Assistant Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us City of Carlsbad Planning Department NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvements CUP 04- 11/HMPP 05-03 In and around the Lake Calavera Reservoir, approximately 900 to 1.200 feet south of the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and Knollwood Drive, City of Carlsbad. County of San Diego. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Repairs to the existing Lake Calavera Reservoir intake and outlet works, spillway and access road, and outlet piping; construction of a new dam operations control building and security fencing. Repairs will require utilization of a small temporary water-tight structure with an inflatable gasket which will be placed around the upper section of the existing tower in order to pump out the water between this tower and the temporary structure for demolition and construction access. Once repaired, the normal operations of the reservoir will result in water level fluctuations between 190 and 208 feet elevation in accordance with an overall water management program. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission. , . A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and revised Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Michael Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4623. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD PUBLISH DATE December 12. 2005 through January 11. 2006 December 12. 2005 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CUP 04-11/HMPP 05-03 DATE: November 30. 2005' BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvements 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Christopher Muehlbacher (760) 602-2736 4. PROJECT LOCATION: In and around the Lake Calavera Reservoir. Approximately 900-1.200 linear feet south of the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and Knollwood Drive in the northeast quadrant of Carlsbad. 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Carlsbad Municipal Water District 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Open Space (OS} 7. ZONING: Open Space (O-S) 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), California Dept. of Fish & Game rCDFG"). San Diego Regional Water Resources Control Board (RWOCB*) California Dept. of Safety of Dams fPSODX 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: Background. The Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) proposes to construct repairs to the existing Lake Calavera Reservoir* intake/outlet works, to the spillway and access road, conduct repairs to the existing outlet piping using slip-lining methods, construct a control building, and to install fencing for improved site security around the dam operations. Much of the existing operational features and apparatus are inoperable, having failed or been destroyed over years of maintenance neglect. The dam intake tower and walkway abutment now constitute undesirable and unsafe attractions to the public. The outlet pipeline, partially clogged with debris at the tower base, is requiring remediation. In addition, structural and operational deficiencies have also been detected at the outlet box structure, spillway apron, spillway channel, access road and security fencing. All of these aspects of the existing facility are proposed for improvement and upgrade. The primary function of the Lake Calavera Reservoir is stormwater retention for flood control. The water level in the reservoir is presently regulated solely by the elevation (approximately 208 ft. MSL) of the highest of three inoperable (rusted) outflow control valves on the intake tower. The lower two valves have been permanently sealed with marine caulk in order that a medium- high water level (and thus a visually attractive reservoir) can be maintained. This highest (208 ft) Rev. 07/03/04 valve is rusted in a permanently open position. Upon completion of the proposed remedial improvements, ongoing management of a functional dam operations system will result in water level fluctuation between 194-214 feet elevation in accordance with an overall water management program. The designed extreme high water level.of the reservoir is 220 feet elevation. As a result of the inoperable nature of the outflow valves, the existing dam facilities are not in compliance with the requirements of the Division of Safety of Dams (a division of the California Dept. of Water Resources). DSOD emergency regulations dictate that dam managers shall have the ability to draw-down at least 50% of the volume of the reservoir water within seven (7) days. While the Calavera Dam does not presently have this ability, implementation of the proposed remedial improvements would allow function and control of the dam which would allow it to comply with the requirement. This project will allow the reservoir to return to a natural in-flow, out-flow hydrological regime that can be managed to maximize its visual, biological and storm water control benefits. Environmental Setting. The subject repairs will take place on and around Calavera Dam, which is located on an existing 288 acre parcel encompassing Lake Calavera Reservoir and associated surrounding open spaces. This parcel is owned by the City of Carlsbad. The dam and related facilities are operated and maintained by CMWD. The surface area of the reservoir, when full, approximates 21 acres in size. Its maximum storage capacity is approximately 540 acre-feet of water. The average depth of the reservoir is between 12 to 16 feet and has a maximum water depth of 54 feet. Over the past thirty years the water surface level has ranged from 196-ft amsl to 217-ft amsl. The water level fluctuates naturally in response to rainfall and drought conditions, which results in variation of the surface area depending upon time of year, climatic conditions, evaporation rates and water saturation of soil in the watershed. The Lake Calavera reservoir impoundment is formed by the compacted earth-fill dam containing rock blankets on both upstream and downstream faces. The decomposed granite base was excavated and the dam and spillway structures were completed in 1941. The maximum operating reservoir height (extreme high water) is specified at elevation 220 feet (the elevation of the spillway) to allow for maximum storm water retention. The minimum operating reservoir level is established by the existing outlet lowest gate valve (elevation 189 ft.). The existing controlled water outflow occurs through a vertical, 63-foot tall reinforced concrete outlet tower located within the body of the reservoir, near the lake-side toe of the dam, and approximately 115 feet from the crest of the dam. The existing tower has an approximate 10- foot exterior diameter, and includes a grated cover, three 18 inch gate valves and ports, spaced at approximate 7 foot intervals, and a 12 inch emergency release valve. The base of the tower connects to a steel outlet pipe which is encased in reinforced concrete that transitions to concrete pipe which extends through the base of the dam to an outlet box situated at the downstream toe of the dam. The upper 26 feet (cut at elev. 199 ft.) of this vertical tower will be removed. Surrounding Land Uses. The subject property is identified as a future mitigation bank in the City of Carlsbad adopted Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Final execution of a mitigation bank agreement with the Wildlife Agencies however has not yet taken place. Surrounding land uses in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project and the Lake Calavera Mitigation Bank lands are all open space. Further to the west are newer single-family residential neighborhoods of Sheffield, Nantucket and Capistrano. An older, existing single family neighborhood, located within the city limits of Oceanside, exists over !/4 mile northerly of the site. The volcanic core of ancient Calavera Mountain exists south of, and supports the southern portion of the Lake Calavera Reservoir. Rev. 07/03/04 Intake/Outlet Pipeline Repairs. The major aspect of the proposed improvements involves the modification to the Intake/Outlet (I/O) pipeline system. This activity includes demolition of the upper 26-foot portion of the existing tower, and construction of a new laid-back outlet pipe along the upstream face of the dam equipped with intake points, including hydraulically and pneumatically actuated valves, and fish screens. The new laid-back pipe will be installed on the lake side of the face of the dam, with piping juncture to the existing tower above the historical minimum operating pool level, which is approximately elevation 189 feet. The outlet apparatus will be replaced with a laid-back pipeline secured to the lake-side face of the existing dam through a series of three saddle-pipe supports placed on the dam. This laid-back pipeline is proposed with multiple intake ports. This would allow for both ease of operation and selective water withdrawal from the stratum having the seasonally best water quality, avoiding both near-surface algae layers and also intake of bottom sediments. Each port will be protected from coarse suspended material by appropriate stainless steel screens and protective cages. The valves will be hydraulically operated with lines terminating at an operations control building to be situated at the dam's west end. The project will include construction of intake/outlet (I/O) controls to replace the existing manually operated devices. The new controls will be remotely operated through a pneumatic and hydraulic driver located in a small I/O control building located near the western terminus of the dam. An override pneumatic system for manually operating the valves under emergency conditions will be part of the control program. This pneumatic system will store energy to operate the valves numerous times under emergency conditions such as during power outages. Intake/Outlet Construction Method. In order to avoid environmental damage that could occur from draw-down of the reservoir level for construction, the project proposes a construction method which does not necessitate raising or lowering of the existing reservoir water level. This construction will be accomplished through utilization of a small temporary structure which will encompass the existing outlet tower during the tower-work process. The tower removal and laid- back pipe replacement construction method avoids the need for reservoir draw-down by placing an inflatable gasket and a water-tight temporary structure around the upper section of the existing tower and pumping out the water between this tower and the temporary structure. The existing tower will be then sawed and replaced by a new outlet pipe which is connected to the horizontal outlet pipe under the dam (upon completion of slip-line repairs to this pipe). The temporary structure can then be removed and the laid-back pipe connected to both the inside face of the dam and the new outlet flange located near the top of the new vertical outlet pipe. The hydraulic/pneumatic controls are then connected to this new apparatus. The above methodology of I/O apparatus replacement will not necessitate any modification of reservoir level. ^••*; Outlet Pipe Slip-line Repairs. The existing 28-inch steel outlet pipe fixed to the bottom of the existing outlet tower and the 30-inch concrete pipe located through the bottom of the dam also require remediation. To repair these existing outlet pipes, the 28-inch steel pipe will be removed ~~ and the entire reach of pipeline will be repaired using a 28-inch diameter high density polyethylene slip-liner. These improvements will necessitate the cutting of a temporary trail from the downstream end of the spillway to the outlet box. This trail will be restored in appropriate upland and riparian vegetation upon completion of the construction activities. Spillway Apron and Channel Repairs. Proposed repairs to the dam spillway apron and channel involve demolition and restoration of the existing gunite surface on the spillway apron; and Rev. 07/03/04 llo clearing, grading and restoration of the spillway channel surface are also proposed. The gunite* surface of the spillway apron is presently in disrepair and debris within the spillway channel as well as some floor erosion has reduced the present carrying capacity and functionality of,ihe channel. The repairs involve removal of approximately 7,500 sq. ft. of existing gunite spillway apron and channel wall, and replacement with reinforced gunite and concrete lining on the upper half, and Armorloc (an articulated concrete block revetment system of interlocking keys with open cells in which grasses and small shrubs can grow) on the lower portion. These improvements will restore the apron and channel to their original runoff transport design capacity. A slight revision to the dam crest approach ramp is also proposed at the spillway apron, which a will result in a small revision to the spillway channel design at the dam. Other Site Facility Improvements. In addition, an existing dirt access road will be upgraded and extended to permit egress over the restored spillway apron between a control building to be constructed adjacent to the dam, on the north side of the dam, and across the crest of the dam. New gates and security fencing is proposed around the control building. Removable bollards are to be placed at the access road to allow for pedestrian access and limited (authorized maintenance vehicles) vehicular access. Permanent bollards are to be placed at the end of the dam crest vehicular turn-around to allow for pedestrian trail access only. A new two-room I/O control building will be constructed on an approximate 60-foot by 50-foot graded (fill) pad along the east side of the spillway channel, between this channel and the dam face. This building will house the Hydraulic Power Unit that operates and supplies pressurized hydraulic fluid, and pressurized air, to the three butterfly valves on the laid-back I/O pipeline. An air compressor, storage tank and dam control system will also be located in the control building for clearing the fish screens. The building will be approximately 480 square feet in area (32-feet long by 15-feet wide), with a roof ridge height of approximately 14 feet above pad. The building will have concrete footings and floor slab, with walls constructed of 8-inch cement block. Architectural treatments will include a gable roof of wood rafters with composite shingle roofing. At the top of the dam, replacement and improvement of an all-weather (asphalt-concrete pavement on crushed aggregate base) access service road to the control building, across the spillway apron and across the dam crest is also proposed. A turn-around is proposed at the eastern portion of the dam crest to facilitate access and safety. These improvements will permit access for both construction equipment, and future operation and maintenance activities. Security fencing around the control building is also proposed. The security fencing will be constructed of 6-foot high chain link with barbed wire crown (total 7-feet high). This fencing will be installed around the perimeter of the I/O control building and associated parking spaces. Permanent bollards are proposed at the proposed turn-around, and removable bollards will be installed at the dam access road near its intersection with the existing sewer trunk line access road located just westerly of the dam area. The security fencingjand bollards are intended to deter vehicular traffic to the area, but not preclude pedestrian access to the reservoir, dam crest and authorized trails. Low-pressure sodium illumination security lighting will be provided around the control building. This lighting will be shielded, and directed downward away from residences and adjacent open spaces. Dam Operations. The general CMWD operations program for the reservoir upon completion of the remedial improvements is to maintain an annual median water surface elevation of approximately 208 ft amsl, which is the level of the open inoperable (rusted) outflow control valve on the outlet tower. This has been the long-term maximum elevation of the reservoir over the past several years. The reservoir water levels drop significantly during the summer months since the natural creek flows are predominantly influenced by rainfall events and rates of Rev. 07/03/04 ^ evaporation. Over the past thirty years the surface water levels have ranged from 196-ft amsl to 217-ft amsl. Since the reservoir is a drainage control facility, the operations management will keep the level at around 208 ft. elevation. Operations management will either allow accumulation or draw down of water volume (and thus surface .levels) in response to short-term rainfall events, contingent on the natural flow regime and evaporation factors. In anticipation of a minor rain event, it is anticipated that no water draw down would occur since any accumulation of storm water will be retained and then released downstream. Prediction of a significant rain event however, would necessitate a commensurate draw down to minimize the potential for flows over the dam spillway and potential flooding downstream. Under this draw down scenario, the water level would drop in anticipation of the rainfall event and then accumulate during the event. Following the rainfall event, the surplus would be released to maintain the approximate annual median elevation around 208-ft elevation. Thus, the water surface elevation would continually be returned to approximately the median level via any necessary volume reduction, accumulation, operation, evaporation and natural hydrology. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Geology/Soils Noise Hazards/Hazardous Materials LJ Population and Housing Hydrology/Water Quality | Public Services | Land Use and Planning | | Recreation X Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance Transportation/Circulation Utilities & Service Systems Rev. 07/03/04 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. | I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. Planner's Signat§re-x / / Date Assistant Planning Director's Signature Date Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section-,15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. « Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but all potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required. • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. » If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. Rev. 07/03/02 • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but riot limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in Deducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 07/03/02 .it CALAVERA DAM LOCATION MAP Carlsbad, California NORTH 'liHIi'fWII/f'M'lHIIIIHVHlKUrtVJ*'-1,- —:-*-wii-. ; ^g^^^^^-:^.V V^\-v^;viiV«S *?£$SS^TWS\\ i wz^m ^%iVs \ vVV^A'-xX V / V>'/S \^j\ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established - by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: a) b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact n Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildh'fe species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a 'tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant "No Impact Impact D D IE 53 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). V. ' CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) ^Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? x 13 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard.,for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? •V h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Less Than Significant "No Incorporated Impact Impact El El El 14 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Impacts to groundwater quality? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of Joss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant " No Impact Impact 15 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? o) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the proj ect: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? XL NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of 'Other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 16 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the proj ect: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? jii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant " No Impact Impact IEI D 17 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant " No Impact Impact 18 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant " No Impact Impact e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? fj Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X D b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumula- tively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The following is a technical explanation for each answer provided in the checklist provided on the previous pages. After each question is posed, a summary of the existing conditions is presented, followed by an analysis of potential project impacts, the finding and appropriate factual justification. In cases where the finding is "Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated", the finding is followed by a description of the mitigation measures that would reduce the impact to below a level of significance. Information sources are cited for each discussion. I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Existing Condition: The subject Lake Calavera reservoir and associated dam facilities are located within the viewshed of a number of residential homes to the north and west of the site. It is also visible briefly from motorists on lightly traveled Tamarack Avenue, a collector street west of Lake Calavera. In addition, the City of Carlsbad Open Space and Conservation Map designates a planned public trail, with 19 Rev. 07/03/02 picnic area and view point traveling within the open spaces along the northern edge of the reservoir area. All lands within and adjacent to the area of proposed impacts are designated by the General Plan Land Use Element for open space uses, and are correspondingly zoned Open Space. The area of the proposed repairs could generally be characterized as a natural area, although the reservoir was artificially created through construction of the dam in the early 1940's. ; An existing Intake/Outflow tower presently rises between 11 and 36 feet above the surface of Lake Calavera, depending upon surface water elevation at the time of measurement. An under water 30-inch outlet pipe exists under the foot of the dam, and exits at the downstream base. This piping is largely invisible to the public. A spillway, presently in a state of disrepair, and access service road off Tamarack Avenue also exists at the facility. Environmental Evaluation: The visible portion of the outlet tower will be eliminated through implementation of the proposed project. In replacement of this tower, a water intake/outlet apparatus, consisting primarily of a 24-inch pipe with three 18-inch ports with valves, and a single air/vacuum vent assembly will be constructed. This apparatus will be constructed in a laid-back fashion, on the lakeside dam face. These facilities will be installed utilizing a portable crane and a barge. An approximately 14-foot tall (to peak of roof), 480-square foot control building is proposed adjacent to the existing dam crest. This building will house a compressor and dam controls, and will be architecturally treated with a pitched roof, and composite shingle roofing materials. This structure will be constructed in a location where no structure presently exists, and will be visible to the public. Gunite repairs to the existing spillway and repairs and improvements to the existing service road will also occur to the north of the dam, and across the dam crest. Chain link security fencing is proposed around specific areas of the site. Temporary impacts associated with the use of a temporary structure placed around the existing outlet tower will occur during the 2-month tower removal period. Minor temporary visual impacts resulting from grading for the access road and control building will also result from the construction operation. Finding: Less than significant impact - The proposed dam apparatus repairs and construction would be visible from a location that has been designated and protected as a scenic vista point per the Carlsbad General Plan. The most visible aspect will be the proposed control building. Aesthetic treatment is proposed for this building, including materials, colors, roof design and tile materials, and other features that will be aesthetically pleasing. The maximum height of the proposed structure will be no more than 14 feet. The security fencing will be visible; however its aesthetic impact is expected to be minimal. The project will eliminate the existing highly visible outlet tower presently located within the reservoir surface area, and replace it with a laid-back piping apparatus that will be much less visible. Construction utilizing a temporary crane and barge will not result in significant visual impacts. Therefore, the project will'not have a substantially adverse impact on any scenic vista. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? Existing condition: No trees or rock outcroppings will be impacted by the proposed project. No buildings, including historic buildings, are located in or adjacent to the subject dam site. The area of proposed impact is not located within the viewshed of a State scenic highway or any State highway that is designated by CalTrans as eligible for listing as a scenic highway. Environmental Evaluation: Since no trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings, and no State scenic highways are in the vicinity of the proposed project, no significant impact to such resources is anticipated. 20 ' Rev. 07/03/02 Finding: No impact -"The site is not within the viewshed of a state scenic highway or any state highway that is designated by CalTrans as eligible for listing. Please also refer to the preceding response. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Existing condition: The existing visual character of the site'is that of an artificially created reservoir, surrounded by natural rolling hillsides. Coastal sage scrub native vegetation covers the surrounding upland areas, and riparian vegetation, including primarily southern willow scrub vegetation occurs to the east of the Lake Calavera reservoir. The proposed project involves repair of the dam apparatus, including the elimination of the upper portion of the existing outlet tower and its replacement with laid-back piping equipment, and construction of a control building, re-gunite shooting of an existing spillway, construction of security fencing, and construction of an all-weather access road that includes a turn-around. Environmental Evaluation: Permanent visual impacts of the proposed project will primarily involve the control building. This building will be architecturally treated with a pitched roof, and composition shingle roofing materials. Elimination of the visible portions of the existing vertical tower would be considered a beneficial impact of the project. Improvements to the spillway apron and channel will not constitute significant impacts. In the segment of the channel that will be improved with Armorloc, the visual character will be improved. Therefore, the project will not have a substantially adverse impact on any scenic vista. Finding: Less than significant impact - Please also refer to response I (a), above. d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Existing condition: The subject area contains no lights and produces no glare at the present time. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed control building facility will be equipped with low-level security lighting on the exterior of the structure that will be directed downward and away from the residences to the north and west. The lights will be mounted on the building wall, directed downward to prevent the light from penetrating significantly beyond the immediate site. Routine maintenance of the facilities will be performed during daylight hours only, during which time internal lighting will be utilized. A switch will be located at the entry gate to manually turn on the light if required for un-scheduled operations or non-routine maintenance activities. A similar switch will be located at the exit gate to manually turn off the lights after personnel have completed their work. Finding: Less than significant impact - The low-level security lighting will not result in a significant new source of substantial light and/or glare, and would not significantly affect nighttime views in the area. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Existing condition: The subject site is designated as "Other Land" and not designated as any category of important farmland on the "California Department of Conservation — San Diego County Important Farmland" exhibit dated September, 2002. No agriculture is presently practiced on the subject site. Environmental Evaluation: The area that would be impacted by the proposed project is not designated as any category of important farmland on the "California Department of Conservation - San Diego County Important Farmland" exhibit dated September 2002. In addition, the proposed project 21 ' Rev. 07/03/02 involves maintenance improvements to existing uses, and will not result in a change to these existing uses of the site. Finding: No impact - The subject site is designated as "Other Land" on the "San Diego Important Farmland, September 2002" map of the Farmland. This category is defined as "Land which does not meet.the criteria of any other category." Other categories include Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, and Grazing Land. No agriculture is presently practiced on the site. The proposed project involves maintenance improvements to existing uses, and will not result in a change to these existing uses of the site. As a result, it is concluded that the project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use. '• b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Existing condition: The subject project is located on property that is zoned for open space uses. Although agricultural operations are allowed in the Open Space zone, no such operations are presently conducted in the area of the proposed remedial improvements. The City of Carlsbad policy on agricultural uses is articulated in the General Plan Land Use Element. This policy indicates that the City's agricultural policies are intended to support agricultural activities while planning for the possible future transition of the land to more urban uses consistent with the General Plan. The subject property is not encumbered by a Williamson Act contract. Environmental Evaluation: Inasmuch as the proposed project is a repair operation of existing facilities, the subject site presently contains effectively the same land uses and facilities as those proposed. The property is not zoned specifically for agricultural uses, although agricultural uses would be allowed, and is not encumbered by a Williamson Act contract. Finding: No impact - Please refer to the preceding response. The site is on property established for the proposed purpose, and is considered the continuation of such existing uses. No effect on agricultural uses will result from implementation of the project. The property is not zoned for agricultural uses, and no Williamson Act contract encumbers the property. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Existing condition: The proposed project involves remedial improvements to existing dam facilities. No farmland exists in the area for which the improvements are proposed. Environmental Evaluation: Since the project primarily involves remedial improvements to existing facilities, the original (1940's) development of the area has removed or buried the original soil profile. Therefore, no changes of significance to the existing environment will occur as a result of the proposed improvements. The project will increase the opportunity for irrigation water storage, and thus could potentially improve future opportunities for farming. •* Finding: No impact - The proposed project will not affect any existing or identified farmland, nor will it cause changes to any factors, such as water supply, access, or drainage that would affect any active agricultural use. III. AIR QUALITY - Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Existing condition: The existing use of the site is dam facilities and operations, which use is imperative to the existence of the Lake Calavera reservoir. Remedial and maintenance improvements of these existing uses are proposed in order to allow for full and efficient functioning of dam facilities. 22 ' " Rev. 07/03/02 These improvements will allow for restored management of flood control and water storage. The site produces no measurable air pollution at this time. The project area has a warm-summer Mediterranean climate characterized by warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters. The dominant meteorological feature affecting the region is the Pacific High Pressure Zone, which produces prevailing winds from the west to northwest. These winds tend to blow pollutants away from the coast toward the inland areas. Consequently, air quality near the coast is generally.better than that which occurs at the base of the coastal mountain range. Fluctuations in the strength and pattern of winds from the Pacific High Pressure Zone interacting with the daily local cycle produce periodic temperature inversions that influence the dispersal or containment of air pollutants in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was enacted in 1970 and amended in 1977 and 1990 for the purposes of protecting and enhancing the quality of the nation's air resources to benefit the public's health, welfare and productivity. In 1971, in order to achieve the purposes of the CAA, the EPA developed primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards. Six pollutants of primary concern were designated;" ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead and suspended particulates. A proposed project's air quality impacts must be addressed relative to compliance with the standards adopted pursuant to these pollutants. The proposed project will be required to comply with all San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Rules and Regulations. Air emissions will be produced during construction, however this construction period will be temporary in nature. The dam facilities will be powered by electricity, for powering the hydraulic and pneumatic pumps, air compressors and instrumentation controls. The air backwash system will utilize a 10-horsepower compressor, also powered by electricity. The proposed project is located within the SDAB. The SDAB is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (Os), and a state non-attainment area for respirable particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMio). The applicable attainment plan for these criteria pollutants is the Regional Air Quality Strategy, which is prepared and administered by the San Diego APCD. Environmental Evaluation: Short-term air quality impacts during construction would occur from heavy equipment exhaust emissions, construction-related trips by workers, delivery trucks, and material hauling trucks, and from associated fugitive dust generation. Heavy construction equipment is usually diesel-powered. In general, emissions from diesel-powered equipment contain more nitrogen oxide compounds (NOx), sulfur oxide compounds (SOx), and PMio, and less carbon monoxide (CO) and reactive organic compounds (ROCs), than emissions from gasoline-powered engines. NOx compounds and ROCs are precursors to ozone formation. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to involve equipment such as tractors, scrapers, backhoes, cranes, grader, dump and concrete trucks, and miscellaneous tractor-trailer delivery trucks. The type Sf equipment that may be found at any one time at the site during the construction period will vary. The construction operation is anticipated to extend 6 to 10 months in duration, although heavy machinery will not be in operation during this entire period. Short term sources of construction-related air emissions include (a) fugitive dust from grading activities, (b) construction exhaust, and (c) construction related by worker commute, delivery trucks, and material-hauling trucks. The APCD does not have specific significance thresholds for air pollutants generated during construction. However, the APCD does specify Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) Trigger Levels for review of new stationary sources. Although these trigger levels are specified for stationary sources, they are used here to assess the potential impacts due to air emissions during project construction. The AQIA construction Trigger Levels are defined as: NOx 250 pounds per day 23 '• Rev. 07/03/02 SOx 250 pounds per day CO 550 pounds per day PM]0 100 pounds per day *" -•-• . No AQIA Trigger Levels specified for ROCs have been adopted. If anticipated project emissions exceed any of these Trigger Levels, a more detailed Air Quality Impact Analysis may be required by the APCD. For this evaluation, project construction air emissions were estimated using the California Air Resources Board UrbemisVG version 3.2 air emission estimation program. The UrbemisTG program does not include emission factors for SOx compounds. The equipment emission factors used in UrbemisTG are the same as those found in the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, and the Handbook does include emission factors for SOx compounds. A comparison of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook NOx and SOx compound emission factors reveals that the SOx emission factors are consistently less than the corresponding NOx emission factors for the same types of equipment. Therefore, it can be concluded that the total SOx emissions from a project will be less than the total NOx emissions from that project. The San Diego APCD Trigger Levels for NOx and SOx compounds are the same (250 pounds per day). Consequently, for this assessment it can be concluded that if the total NOx emissions projected by UrbemisTG are less than the AQIA Trigger Levels, then the total SOx emissions will also be below the Trigger Levels. As indicated, the amount and types of equipment on-site at any one time during the construction period will vary. This assessment conservatively assumes that all of the projected equipment could be working on-site simultaneously. Under this assumption, the maximum projected daily air emissions during construction would be: NOx 1 58 pounds per day SOx <1 58 pounds per day CO 92 pounds per day 26 pounds per day Finding: Less than significant impact - The project construction operation is considered relatively small in scale. Nonetheless, air quality impacts can result from the construction of the project. The Air Pollution Control District (ACPD) regulates controls for construction equipment and procedures such as dust control during construction. The project is required to comply with all APCD Rules and Regulations. All project construction is required to incorporate best management practices to reduce dust and air pollution impacts. Any air emissions produced during construction would be not significant and would be temporary. Permanent operation of the dam would not be a source of air pollutant emissions, since the facilities will be powered by electricity. Given the small amount of grading and construction overall and the fact that the permanent facility will be powereS by electricity, air emissions associated with this project are not anticipated to result in any significant air quality impacts. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Existing condition: Remedial and maintenance improvements of the existing dam facilities are proposed. The site does not contribute to any air quality violation at this time. Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to the preceding technical evaluation in Section III (a). Finding: No impact - Emission controls for construction equipment and procedures such as dust control during construction are regulated by the Air Pollution Control District (ACPD). The project is 24 ' Rev. 07/03/02 required to comply with all APCD Rules and Regulations. Any air emissions produced during construction would be temporary. Operation of the dam facilities would not be a source of air pollutant emissions, since the facilities will be powered by routine electricity. It is concluded that the proposed project will not contribute substantially to any existing or projected air quality violation. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? - Existing condition: Inoperable dam facilities that are in need of remedial maintenance exist on the site at the current time. The subject site produces no air pollution at this time. The project proposes replacement and upgrade of these existing facilities. . Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to evaluation at III (a). Finding: No impact - Please refer to response to III (a). d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Existing condition: Dam facilities operations that are in need of remedial maintenance and upgrade exist on the site at the current time. No sensitive air quality receptors are located near the subject site. Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to evaluation at III (a). The project would not alter wind patterns, moisture levels or temperatures in the area. Finding: No impact - Please refer to response to III (a). e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Existing condition: Dam operations that are in need of remedial maintenance exist at the current time. The site does not contain objectionable odors under the existing condition. Environmental Evaluation: Construction of the remedial improvements will not create substantial odors. No drawdown or impact to reservoir waters is proposed. No additional mud flats will be created or exposed. The proposed project operations will be powered hydraulically and pneumatically, and thus will not create odors of any significance. Finding: No Impact - Proposed project operations or construction will result in any significant odor impacts. ~ . . IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Existing condition: The subject site is located along the upper length of Calavera Creek. It encompasses a man-made earth-fill dam and reservoir that impounds runoff from the upper Calavera Creek watershed. Construction of the dam (and thus creation of the reservoir) has affected the natural physiography and biology of the site. Approximately 100 to 500 acre-feet of drainage water are retained annually as storm water runoff and to minimize downstream flooding. The reservoir level controls are presently inoperable. 25 ' Rev. 07/03/02 Biological investigations for the proposed project have been conducted by Merkel & Associates. Onsite vegetation and wildlife, and vegetation and wildlife in the surrounding area, including-around the reservoir, was mapped. A list of floral and faunal species observed was recorded. A search for sensitive plants and animals was conducted. Focused biological surveys for the Least Bell's Vireo, the Southern Willow Flycatcher, the Southwestern Pond Turtle, the California Gnatcatcher and the Thread-leaved Brodiaea were conducted. A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a California Dept. of Fish & Game jurisdictional delineation were conducted and confirmed by representatives of these agencies. Bathymetry for Lake Calavera was created by collecting depth (fathometer) readings from a survey vessel as it circumnavigated the reservoir. The results of this analysis are on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department and incorporated herein by reference to this environmental assessment in the form of the Biological Resources Report, Merkel & Associates, dated May 1, 2003. Focused surveys for animals and plants are on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department and incorporated herein by reference. Environmental Evaluation: The majority of the native upland vegetation that occurs within and surrounding the area of the project is classified as Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (DCSS). Mule Fat Scrub (MFS) is mapped along much of the southern side of the reservoir and is typically situated between the DCSS and the Southern Willow Scrub (SWS) and Freshwater Marsh (FWM) that rings the boundaries of the reservoir. Upstream of the reservoir, areas of Coastal Live Oak (CLO) riparian forest are intermingled with the SWS and FWM habitats. Much of the area south and southeast of the reservoir has been previously brushed by historical farming or other maintenance activities, or has burned in wildfire, and as a result the area is limited in native vegetation. These areas are predominated by Valley Needlegrass and Non-native Grasslands. Forbs and ruderal vegetation occurs within these areas, including Mustards, Tarplant, Japanese Honeysuckle and Doveweed. The subject area could be suitable habitat for Thread-leaved Brodiaea, a plant listed by the state as Endangered and federally listed as Threatened. Two separate focused surveys (Fall, 2002 and Summer, 2004) for Brodiaea did not result in detection of this plant. The only fish species specifically identified in Lake Calavera and the upstream creek is the Mosquitofish. This species is not native to the area, but due to widespread introductions, is not ubiquitous in California. Largemouth Bass, White Crappie, Bluegill and at least one species of catfish, probably Bullhead, are also known to exist in the reservoir. None of these fish species are native or sensitive. No direct biological significance is attributed to the loss of the various non-native fish occurring in the reservoir. Relatively few amphibians are known to inhabit the subject area. The Pacific Treefrog, Garden Slender Salamander, and Western Toad are active during periods of wet winter weather. The American Bullfrog would also be expected in the area. None of these species are sensitive. The federally listed Arroyo Toad habitat was not found on the site. Historical direct and indirect effects of human encroachment into the area have likely had a negative impact on most reptile species occurring within the area. Lizards common to the site include the Western Fence Lizard, the Side-blotched Lizard and the Southern Alligator Lizard. Sensitive reptile species that were not observed but may occur within the area include the Coast Horned Lizard, Coronado Skink, Belding's Orange-throated'Whiptail, Coastal Western Whiptail and Legless Lizard. A focused survey for the Southwestern Pond Turtle was conducted for the subject site. The Southern Pacific Pond Turtle is listed as a federal and state species of special concern that has been largely extirpated from freshwater habitat in southern California. Species of special concern is a regulatory status that may warrant future listing as threatened or endangered. Onsite pond turtle habitat includes Open Water and Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh. A pond turtle trapping survey was undertaken during July and August of 2002. This trapping survey revealed the existence of at least one Southwestern Pond Turtle within the subject reservoir area. The methodology and results of this survey by Merkel & Associates, dated September 4, 2002, are on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department and incorporated herein by reference. 26 '' Rev. 07/03/02 Snake species expected to occur onsite include the Common Kingsnake, Southern Pacific Rattlesnake, Striped Racer, Coast Patchnose Snake and Gopher Snake. Each of these species has been reported within five miles of the subject site, in habitats similar to those onsite. None of these species are considered rare or endangered. Merkel recorded fifty-one bird species over the survey period. The reservoir provides open water habitat for species such as Pied-billed Grebe, Mallard, Northern Shoveler, Gadwall, Bufflehead and Ruddy Duck. Also the Common Merganser, Virginia Rail, Common Moorhen and the American Coot. The SWS on the upstream portion of the reservoir provides habitat for many common species, such as the Bushtit, House Wren, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Blue-gray Gnatcatcher, Hermit Thrush, Orange-crowned Warbler, Spotted Towhee, and Tree Swallows. The Least Bell's Vireo, a federal and state listed endangered species, and the Little Willow Flycatcher, a state listed endangered species (no federal listing) are sensitive migratory species that can occur in SWS habitat. Merkel and Associates between April and July of 2002 conducted a field survey for these species in the subject area. The survey results revealed no sightings of the Least Bell's Vireo, but did detect a single sighting of a Little Willow Flycatcher, which was determined by the biologist to be migratory, a transient in the area. Follow-up surveys for both of these bird species were conducted in July 2004. No vireos or flycatchers were detected during these surveys. A number of potential predators (White-tailed Kites, Cooper's Hawk, Red-tailed Hawk) of these species were noted within the biological study area. During the 2002 biological survey, a pair of federally threatened Coastal California Gnatcatcher was found near the north shore of the reservoir, approximately 250 feet north of the dam construction area. In addition, a single male was observed at the base of the downstream face of the dam. A follow-up focused Gnatcatcher survey during April and May, 2003, revealed that the northerly pair had migrated farther north (to approximately 600 feet away from the construction area), and the single Gnatcatcher on the dam face was not observed at all. No other Gnatcatchers have been sighted within the subject study area in either survey. Although relatively few mammals were observed in the area of the proposed project, this is in part due to the fact that most native mammal species are nocturnal and not easily observed during daytime surveys. The California Ground Squirrel, Cottontail and Dusky-footed Woodrat were observed. Also observed within the non-native and disturbed areas were the characteristic mounds of Botta's Pocket Gopher. Tracks of the Spotted Skunk were identified. Other expected rodents include the San Diego Pocket Mouse, Pacific Kangaroo Rat, Deer Mouse and Cactus Mouse. These species form an important prey base for mammalian carnivores, raptorial birds, and snakes. Coyote is also expected to occur onsite. These species are not federally or state listed. Biological impacts associated with the proposed project involve impacts to Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (DCSS), which is the preferred habitat of the Gnatcatcher. These impacts, totaling 0.78 acres, result from construction of the control building, the spillway apron and channel improvements and peripheral construction. They will result in indirect impacts to the California Gnatcatcher. Such impacts will require issuance DCSS "Take" permit from the City of Carlsbad through their HMP program. This permit will require mitigation at a minimum 2:1 (replacement:impact) ratio for permanent impacts due to the fact that the DCSS in the area is considered "occupied" by the Gnatcatcher. Temporary impacts are mitigated at 1:1 ratio. Thus, mitigation is proposed through allocation of a total of 1.39 acres of quality DCSS credit including 1.22 acres preservation of existing habitat (considered "occupied" by the California Gnatcatcher) within the Carlsbad area, plus 0.17 acres of habitat restoration at the temporary outlet box construction service road. 27 ' Rev. 07/03/02 Iff Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Impacts (in acres) Habitat Type Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub I/O Control Building (Permanent) 0.09 Spillway Apron and Channel Improvements (Permanent)- 0.52 Service Road and Outlet Box (Temporary) 0.17 Total 0.78 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Mitigation (in acres) Habitat Type Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub TOTAL Permanent Impacts 0.61 0.61 Permanent Impacts Ratio 2:1 2:1 Permanent Impacts Mitigation 1.22 1.22 Temporary Impacts 0.17 0.17 Temporary Impacts Ratio 1:1 1:1 Temporary Impacts Mitigation 0.17 0.17 Total Required Mitigation 0.17 1.39 In order to minimize any potential for impacts beyond those identified above, a mitigation measure has been included which requires that the project proponent ensure that the limits of construction are clearly defined with temporary fencing prior to brush clearing activities and clearly visible to personnel on foot and equipment operators. Construction personnel shall strictly limit their activities and vehicles to the proposed project construction areas, approved staging areas, and routes of travel. The project proponent and/or biological monitor shall contact the USFWS to verify that the limits of construction have been properly staked and are readily identifiable, prior to construction. Inasmuch as no significant effect on the reservoir level is proposed during the construction operation, and the general operations management plan will continually return the reservoir level to approximately the median level (208 elevation) as the natural flow regime permits, no significant impacts to upstream, reservoir perimeter, or downstream riparian or wetlands biology, including oak trees and other wetland dependent resources, is anticipated. Finding: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated — Any potential impact resulting from habitat modifications to wetland vegetation communities in the vicinity of the project are considered potentially significant to those habitats and the special status species which inhabit such habitats. DCSS impacts totaling 0.78 acres (0.61 acres permanent and 0.17 acres temporary) will result from implementation of the project. This is considered a significant impact that can be mitigated to a level of insignificance through issuance of a "take" permit in accordance with the City of Carlsbad HMP and appropriate mitigation. These DCSS impacts shall specifically be mitigated through restoration of the area impacted by the temporary construction access trail from the spillway to the outlet box (0.17 acres) and credit for preservation of the balance (2:1 ratio) by permanent legal preservation of 1.22 acres of quality DCSS habitat (considered "occupied" by the California Gnatcatcher) within Carlsbad or the surrounding vicinity. Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Mitigation Proposed (in acres) Habitat Type Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Permanent Conservation Protection 1.22 Restoration of Spillway Construction Access ' Trail 0.17 Total (Ac.) 1.39 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and.Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 28 Rev. 07/03/02 Existing condition: Please refer to explanation of existing condition Section IV(a). Environmental Evaluation: Wetland habitat related biological impacts will result from the project, primarily involve the potential for impacts to wetland vegetation associated with the construction of the spillway apron and channel improvements, and the laid-back structure. Riparian and wetland impacts anticipated to result from implementation of the project are estimated as follows: Riparian and Wetland Impacts (CDFG Jurisdiction) (in acres) Habitat Type Southern Willow Scrub Mule Fat Scrub Freshwater Marsh TOTAL Spillway (Permanent) 0.002 0.005 0.007 Spillway Channel (Permanent) < 0.055 0.055 Outlet Box (Temporary) 0.002 0.010 0.012 Total (Ac.) 0.004 0.060 0.010 ~ 0.074 A total of 0.074 acres of impacts to riparian and wetland biology (permanent and temporary) will result from construction of the project. Inasmuch as management of the dam facilities upon completion of the remedial improvements does not anticipate any long-term changes in the historical overall reservoir level regime, no significant impacts to wetland and riparian biology is projected to result from future dam operations. Mitigation for the above temporary and permanent impacts is as follows: Riparian and Wetland Mitigation (in acres) Habitat Type Southern Willow Scrub Mule Fat Scrub Freshwater Marsh TOTAL Permanent Impacts 0.002 0.060 0.062 Permanent Impacts Ratio 3:1 3:1 3:1 Permanent Impacts Mitigation 0.006 0.180 0.186 Temporary Impacts 0.002 0.010 0.012 Temporary Impacts Ratio 1:1 1:1 1:1 Temporary Impacts Mitigation 0.002 0.010 0.012 Total Required Mitigation 0.008 0.180 0.010 0.198 A total of 0.198 acres of wetlands mitigation is required to mitigate for the potential permanent and temporary biological impacts that will result from construction of the project. This mitigation program will involve wetland creation of 0.198 acres of southern willow scrub (SWS) vegetation in a location along the edge of the north shore of the reservoir that is presently highly disturbed and vegetated with non-native grasslands (NNG). •*> Maintenance, inspection, monitoring and reporting of the status of the above mitigation program to the appropriate agencies will also take place. Marsh, riparian and other wetlands near the perimeter of the reservoir will not be impacted by the project inasmuch as no significant modification "of the water level regime during or after the construction operation is anticipated. Finding: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated - The proposed project will result in permanent and temporary impacts to wetland habitat, which will require a minimum of 0.198 acres of mitigation. A Streambed Alteration Agreement will be required from the CDFG pursuant to Section 1600 of the State Resources Code. 29 Rev. 07/03/02 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? Existing condition: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into Waters of the United States, including wetlands. As such, Section 404 regulates the following activities associated with the proposed project; (a) gunite improvements to the dam spillway apron (b) gunite and Armorloc improvements to the spillway channel, and (c) construction impacts resulting from the slip-lining program at the dam outlet box. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will result in a total of 0.134 acres of impacts to "water of the U.S." as a result of; (a) permanent impacts resulting from the clearing and gunite improvements to the dam spillway apron and channel and (b) construction impacts associated with the installation of sleeving equipment at the outlet box located at the bottom of the downstream face of the dam. US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Impacts (in acres) Habitat Type Southern Willow Scrub Mulefat Scrub Freshwater Marsh Non-wetland Waters TOTAL Spillway Apron (Permanent) 0.002 0.005 0.020 0.027 Spillway Channel (Permanent) 0.055 0.040 0.095 Outlet Box (Temporary) 0.002 0.010 0.012 Total 0.004 0.060 0.010 0.060 0.134 US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Mitigation (in acres) Habitat Type Southern Willow Scrub Mulefat Scrub Freshwater Marsh Non- wetland Waters TOTAL Permanent Impacts 0.002 0.060 0.060 0.122 Permanent Impacts Ratio 3:1 2:1 2:1 Permanent Impacts Mitigation 0.006 0.120 0.120 Temporary Impacts 0.002 0.010 0.012 Temporary Impacts Ratio 1:1 1:1 Temporary Impacts Mitigation 0.002 0.010 0.012 Total Required Mitigation 0.008 0.120 0.010 0.120 0.258 The USAGE regulates discharges or dredging or fill materials into Waters of the United States. A total of 0.258 acres of wetlands mitigation is required to mitigate for the potential permanent and temporary biological impacts to these Waters of the U.S. that will result from construction of the project. This amount includes the biological impacts associated with the CDFG Jurisdiction impacts articulated in the previous response. Thus, the 0.074 acres of CDFG impacts and 0.198 acres of mitigation are included within the USAGE Jurisdiction impacts and mitigation (which are larger due to the addition of 0.120 acres of "non-wetland waters") as jurisdiction to the USAGE. Therefore pursuant to CDFG and USAGE policies, the total wetland/riparian mitigation required is 0.258 acres. This mitigation program will involve wetland creation of 0.198 acres of southern willow scrub (SWS) vegetation in a location along the edge of the north shore of the "reservoir that is presently highly disturbed and vegetated with non-native grasslands (NNG). This mitigation will ensure compliance with appropriate mitigation ratios, and also with the federal "No net loss" policy for wetlands. 30 Rev. 07/03/02 Maintenance, inspection, monitoring and reporting of the status of the above mitigation program to the appropriate agencies will also take place. Finding: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated - The project is required to process and receive approval from the USAGE for a Section 404 permit. The project will be required to mitigate for impacts associated with filling of delineated areas at a minimum 3:1 ratio (SWS) and 2:1 ratio (MFS and Non-wetland Waters). This mitigation is included in the mitigation measures identified in this environmental assessment. If approved in conjunction with the mitigation measures articulated in this environmental assessment, the proposed project will result in less than significant impact on federally protected wetlands, as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Existing condition: Please refer to existing condition response IV(a). Environmental Evaluation: The subject project will result in elimination of an existing above-water intake tower, and construction of other improvements including a replacement (laid-back on the internal dam face) intake pipe, construction of a small control building, parking lot and fencing. No overall change in water quality or quantity of the reservoir is anticipated as a result of implementation of the proposed project. Upon completion of the project and removal of the construction materials and equipment, the site will return to the pre-project ecological status, with the exception of the constructed control building and its associated driveway/parking spaces, for which mitigation is required pursuant to biological resource impact mitigation. The proposed fencing around the operations will provide an obstacle to larger wildlife over the specific dam area, but this is not considered a significant barrier due to the relatively small area covered by this fencing. Finding: Less than significant impact - The proposed fencing is not considered a significant barrier to wildlife migration due to the relatively small area encompassed by the fence. No significant impact to fish or bird species is anticipated. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Existing condition: The City of Carlsbad has no adopted tree preservation policy or ordinance that would affect the subject project. Environmental Evaluation: The subject project will not impact trees or other biological resources protected by policy or ordinance except as otherwise described in response FV(a) and IV(c) above. J. ^i•v Finding: No impact - No tree preservation impacts will result from implementation of the project. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community —- Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Existing condition: The approved City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad, Nov. 2004, identifies the subject site as a "Proposed Hardline Conservation Area". This document indicates that the subject Lake Calavera site, owned by the City of Carlsbad, is planned as a mitigation bank for City public facility infrastructure biological impacts. This land use is consistent with the open space uses identified in the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The HMP designates a natural preserve system and provides a regulatory framework for determining 31 ' Rev. 07/03/02 f'. impacts and assigning mitigation. No other local, regional or state habitat conservation plans specific to this site encumber the property. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed dam use is consistent with the existing use on the property. In addition, the improvements proposed, which will provide for full functioning of the dam operations, are consistent with open space and hardline habitat preserve uses. The project will cause no change to the allowed open space uses on the site. The City of Carlsbad has not yet finalized a mitigation bank agreement with the Wildlife Agencies which is necessary in order to achieve authorized mitigation bank status for the Lake Calavera property. In addition, pursuant to the requirements of the Habitat Management Plan, the Lake Calavera property does not constitute appropriate mitigation for "occupied" habitat, and thus, DCSS mitigation for permanent impacts resulting from the subject project will not occur within the Lake Calavera property. They will instead involve conservation and permanent protection of occupied habitat elsewhere in or within the vicinity of Carlsbad. Finding: No impact - The proposed project is consistent with the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan. It also does not conflict with the zoning or General Plan land uses allowed on the site. The proposed mitigation is consistent with the Habitat Management Plan. g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? Existing condition: biologically sensitive areas, as described in the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan, surround the subject site. Much of these areas are hydraulically tributary to the subject site. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will result in construction of a control building and parking lot, improvements and replacement of the I/O tower facility and improvements to the surface of the spillway apron and channel. These project impacts will not significantly impact tributary areas inasmuch as temporary biology impacts are minimal and permanent impacts associated with these improvements will not significantly impact tributary areas. No drawdown or other significant impacts to the reservoir volume or surface level will result from implementation of the project. Finding: No impact - No significant impact to the environmentally sensitive tributary areas is anticipated to result from the project. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in*the significance of a historical resource as defined in §1 5064.5? Existing condition: The subject project proposes a continuation of the existing use on the property, including installation of replacement reservoir outflow apparatus with a laid-back pipeline secured to the upstream-side face of the existing dam, and other repair/replacement improvements. Other improvements include replacement of hydraulic and pneumatic I/O controls to replace the existing manually operated devices, and minor repairs and maintenance to the dam, spillway apron, spillway channel and installation of an all-weather access road will also occur. Debris within the spillway channel as well as some floor erosion has reduced the present carrying capacity of the channel, and thus, spillway repairs will be conducted to restore the channel to its original design' capacity. Replacement and improvement of an all-weather access service road to the control building, across the spillway and across the dam crest is also proposed. These improvements will permit access for both construction equipment, and future operation and maintenance activities. Security fencing around any and all of these facilities is also proposed. 32 ' Rev.. 07/03/02 A small amount of grading will be involved in excavation for construction of the control building. Scraping of the existing dirt driveway, to be overlain with all-weather materials, will also occur. With these exceptions, all of the proposed improvements will not involve significant grading nor will it cause significant disruption of soil. Environmental Evaluation: A Historic Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report for the Lake Calavera Remedial Improvements Project has been conducted by ASM Affiliates, Inc., dated March 2005. This report concludes that the project Area of Potential Effect (APE) contains only one historic resource, the 1942 Lake Calavera Dam. It concludes that the dam does not meet the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) nor does it.appear to meet the criteria to be considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. It is thus not eligible to either the National Register or the California Register. Finding: No impact - Investigation concludes that the subject site does not contain any aspect which would be considered historical or meet the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) nor meet the criteria to be considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Existing condition: A records search of archaeological resources in the area has been conducted. Although the general area represents a favorable location for prehistorical human habitation, no recorded cultural resource sites or historic landmarks have been logged within the immediate area. Environmental Evaluation: A review of existing cultural resources in the area of the subject project indicates that no impact to cultural resources will result from implementation of the subject project. Eight prehistoric sites are recorded within one-half mile of the study area however none of these sites will be impacted through implementation of the dam remedial improvements. In addition, the proposed project will not result in significant excavation, or significantly impact the soil in the subject project area. Since the project primarily involves remedial improvements to existing facilities, the original development of the dam has removed or buried much of the original soil profile, and thus significantly reduced the opportunity for discovery of prehistoric artifacts. Additionally, with the exception of the relatively minor grading associated with the construction pad for the proposed control building, the proposed project will not grade, or significantly impact the soil in the subject project area. Nonetheless, several locations at which cultural resources have been identified to exist or have existed in the general area, and thus the potential does exist for the discovery of cultural resources during excavation. Finding: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated - Due to the potential for significant impacts to cultural resources, an archaeological/cultural resource., specialist monitor should be available on-site to monitor the grading for the control building for archaeological resources. The archaeologist shall be empowered to stop the grading operation in the specific area of resource discovery, until all significant artifacts are recovered. A written report on the results of cultural resource discovery shairb'e prepared and submitted to the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. Artifacts determined to be significant shall be donated to a museum or local Indian collection pursuant to City policy. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic^ feature? Existing condition: The subject site is located in an area geologically characterized by largely decomposed granite, granitic rock and Santiago formation sedimentary rock. The scraping of topsoil, and minimal grading associated with development of the control building will impact a relatively small amount of this soil, which has been known to frequently contain fossil finds. Proposed improvements which are to be located within the reservoir, and also those improvements to be located on the dam face 33 '• Rev. 07/03/02 (which is the artificial embankment of soil) will not impact native soils. Paleontological resources are typically found in native soils. Environmental Evaluation: Santiago formation sedimentary soils have been known to contain fossil finds. The proposed project will have minimal impact on these sedimentary soils, primarily due to the limited excavation required for construction of the control building. A significant impact would result if important fossils were destroyed during construction of this control building. As a result, this impact can be mitigated to a level less than significant by requiring a paleontological monitor of the grading for the control building. Finding: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated - Due to the potential for significant impacts to paleontological fossil finds, a paleontological monitor should be available on-site during the grading for the control buildings, to monitor and assess whether fossils are unearthed. The paleontologist shall be empowered to salvage and curate any significant fossils identified, which shall be donated to a museum or Indian collection pursuant to City policy. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Existing condition: No record exists which would indicate the likelihood that human remains are interred or would be expected to be encountered during construction of the proposed project. The site has previously been disturbed by dam construction activities. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project is not anticipated to impact any known human remains. Finding: No impact - No human burials or remains are known to exist in the location of the subject project. VL GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Existing condition: The project area is situated in the western portion of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of southern California. This geomorphic province encompasses an area that extends 125 miles from the Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin, south to the Mexican border, and beyond another 775 miles to the southern tip of Baja California. The westernmost portion of the province in San Diego County, in which the site is located, generally consists of Upper Cretaceous, Tertiary and Quaternary age sedimentary rocks. The most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the north San Diego County area, indicates that the project is considered to be in a seismically active area, as is most of southern California. This map however, indicates that the subject site is not underlain by known active faults, nor is there evidence of ground displacement in the area during the last 11,000 years. The Rose Canyon fault zone is the closest known fault, which is the onshore portion of an extensive fault zone that includes the Offshore Zone of Deformation and the Newport-Inglewood fault to the north of the subject site. This fault zone, located approximately six miles westerly of the subject site, is made of predominately right-lateral strike-slip faults that extend south-southeast through the San Diego metropolitan area. The zone extends offshore at La Jolla, and continues north-northwest generally 34 " Rev. 07/03/02 if] parallel to the coastline. Portions of the Rose Canyon fault zone in the San Diego area have been recognized by the State Geologist to be considered active. Additionally, the Julian and Temecula segments of the Elsinore fault zone, about 23 miles to the northeast of the subject site are also referenced in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Environmental Evaluation: Based on resource investigation and field observations by Ninyo & Moore (Geotechnical Design Evaluation, dated November 19, 2002), no active faults have been mapped across the project site. .The closest fault is located approximately six miles westerly of the site. The Elsinore fault zone is located approximately 22 miles east-.of the site, and the Coronado Bank fault is located approximately 25 miles west of the site. The potential for rupture resulting from earthquake is considered to be low. The subject site is not within a fault-rupture hazard zone as indexed in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Finding: No impact - The project site is not within a fault-rupture hazard zone as determined in the geotechnical report, and as indexed in the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42; therefore the project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? Existing condition: Southern California is recognized as a seismically active area. As indicated in the response to Item VI(a)(i), the Rose Canyon fault zone is the closest known fault, located approximately six miles westerly of the subject site. This fault is made of predominately right-lateral strike-slip faults that extend south-southeast through the San Diego metropolitan area. The second-closest active area of potential ground motion is the Julian and Temecula segments of the Elsinore fault zone. No other known active faults are located within the vicinity of the project. The most significant seismic event likely to affect the proposed facilities would be a maximum moment magnitude 6.9 earthquake along the Rose Canyon fault zone, in which the horizontal peak ground acceleration has a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years is 0.27g (27% of the acceleration of gravity) and a 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years is 0.41g. The existing dam operations have not failed or been otherwise impacted due to seismic ground shaking during its over-60 year existence. Environmental Evaluation: The project site will likely be subject to ground shaking in response to either a local moderate or more distant large-magnitude earthquake. Seismic risk at the site is comparable to the risk for the San Diego area in general. The closest source to the site for ground motion, and the source that would produce the greatest ground acceleration at the site, is the Del Mar segment of the Rose Canyon/Newport-Inglewood fault zone, about .6 miles west, and potentially the Julian and Temecula segments of the Elsinore fault zone, about 22 miles to the northeast of the project site. Project design will meet or exceed existing earthquake design standards, including provision of emergency power failure back up, manual operation of emergency draining, and UBC compliance for the control building. Finding: ** Less than significant impact - The existing dam operations have not failed due to seismic ground shaking during the dam's over 60 year existence. Earthquake faults exist within southern California, including three fault zones within 26 miles of the site. Historical records have indicated however, that the risk of strong seismic ground shaking of the project site is minimal, and thus is considered a less than significant impact. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Existing condition: Liquefaction of soils with minimal cohesion can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research indicates that loose granular soils and silts that are saturated by a relatively shallow groundwater table are most susceptible to liquefaction. Preliminary geotechnical evaluation of the subject site indicates that the site is underlain by relatively dense formational sandstone and granitic rock, and thus not considered susceptible to ground failure or liquefaction. 35 '• Rev. 07/03/02 Environmental Evaluation; Relatively dense formational sandstone and granitic rock underlies the site. The potential for liquefaction or seismically induced settlement in the vicinity of the proposed improvements is considered to be nil. The existing dam facilities have not however, failed or experienced damage due to seismic-related ground failure, including-liquefaction during its 60 years of existence. Finding: No impact - The potential for liquefaction or seismically induced settlement in the vicinity of the proposed improvements is considered to be nil. In addition, the base of the existing Inlet tower will remain. The proposed laid-back piping and intake port system will be moderately flexible, and thus not be significantly susceptible to damage from seismic shaking or liquefaction. Maintenance and operations personnel will inspect the facilities daily, including the foundation of the control building. If cracks or voids are identified, replacement material could be pumped under the foundation for structural support. iv. Landslides? Existing condition: No landslides have been identified as having the potential to damage or affect the proposed project facilities. None have impacted the subject site during the over 60 years of existing dam facility existence. Environmental Evaluation: No landslides are anticipated to affect the proposed dam facilities. Finding: No impact - The project will not increase the likelihood of landslides. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Existing condition: Notwithstanding that the subject project proposes a continuation of the existing use on the property, some grading and movement of surface soils will be involved in the construction of the proposed project. Additionally, minor repairs and maintenance to the dam, spillway apron, and spillway channel will also occur. Debris presently existing within the spillway channel as well as some floor erosion has reduced the present carrying capacity of the. channel, and thus, spillway repairs will be conducted to restore the channel to its original design capacity. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed improvements and maintenance to the existing spillway channel, including gunite replacement of the channel surface, will reduce the potential for soil erosion within this channel. A small amount of grading is proposed for the control-building pad, and the access drive improvements, during the construction period. During this grading, the exposure of soils would lead to an increased chance for the erosion of soils from the site. Such grading will follow best management practices for the control of erosion, such as straw bale or sandbag barriers, silt fences, slope roughening, and outlet protection in exposed areas. Finished grades will be promptly hydroseeded or otherwise protected as required per the adopted City Grading Ordinance. If necessary, temporary slope cover such as jute matting or mulch will be applied to newly graded slopes to reduce the impact to soil erosion orShe loss of topsoil to a level of less than significant. Upon completion of the project, the water storage regime in the reservoir will not be significantly different than that which operates pre-remediation of facilities, except that control over the reservoir water volume will again be managed by CMWD, rather than by the elevation of the single valve outlet and climatic conditions and runoff. CMWD willmanage the reservoir volume in an effort to avoid high- volume discharges of impounded water. Under existing circumstances, no ability to control high-volume floodwater discharges exists, and thus downstream erosion occurrences take place during flood conditions. The project will have no effect on reservoir erosion or upstream erosion potential. 36 ' Rev. 07/03/02 Finding: Less than significant impact - It is concluded that impacts to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil will be less than significant because management of reservoir water levels will allow the operator to reduce the potential for downstream erosion occurrences that take place during flood conditions.. With regard to construction operations, the project is required to comply with the City of Carlsbad grading ordinance, including erosion control protection, over the limited areas in which bare soil will be temporarily exposed. Further, the proposed improvements to the spillway and spillway channel will result in a general long-term reduction of potential for downstream sediment transport. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Existing condition: Please refer to existing condition VI(a)(i, ii, and iii). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to evaluation VI(a)(i, ii, and iii). Routine soil settlement is expected to undergo total settlements of less than approximately 0.5 inches. Differential settlements are typically less than about one-half of the total settlement. Finding: Less than significant impact - Please refer to response VI(a)(i, ii, and iii). d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? Existing condition: The site of the proposed remedial improvements is composed of largely decomposed granite, granitic rock and Santiago formation sediments. Santiago formation geology is best described as light-colored, poorly-bedded, poorly-indurated, fine to medium grained sandstone sedimentary rock. Rock outcrop covers 2% to 10% of the surface in the vicinity. Some alluvium was encountered to the west of the dam structure at a depth of approximately 12 feet, but this is not considered to render the site significantly expansive pursuant to Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code. Environmental Evaluation: Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code does not identify the Santiago formation geology as highly expansive. Finding: No impact - It is concluded that expansive soils are not a geological hazard for the subject project. Therefore no substantial risks to life or property associated with expansive soils exist. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Existing condition: The subject project does not propose and will not necessitate the use of sewer, septic tank, or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No rest rooms or other wastewater facilities are proposed. *•*j Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project is a public infrastructure repair improvement. No sewer or wastewater facilities are necessary for full construction and operation of the project. As a result, such facilities are not proposed. Finding: No impact - No septic tanks or alternative sewage disposal systems are included in the project description. 37 ' Rev. 07/03/02 £"0 VH. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ; Existing condition: During construction of the proposed project, a small amount of construction materials such as petroleum projects, paint, oils and solvents will be transported and used on the site. Upon completion of construction of the project, no use of such products on the site is anticipated. Other than during this construction phase, the project will not routinely utilize any hazardous substances or materials. The project area could presently be considered an attractive nuisance for adventurers and loiterers. The proposed project would eliminate access to this nuisance hazard. Environmental Evaluation: Construction of the proposed project will involve operation of heavy machinery, which utilizes petroleum products, and paint, oils and solvents. No permanent use of such hazardous materials is anticipated. All transport, handling, use, and disposal of substances will comply with all federal, state, and local laws regulating the management and use of hazardous materials. The proposed project would eliminate the existing attractive nuisance through implementation of the proposed security fencing program. Finding: Less than significant impact - It is concluded that the routine amount of hazardous materials utilized during the construction period is not significant, and therefore the impact to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is less that significant. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Existing condition: Please refer to the preceding response. Environmental Evaluation: No significant hazard involving the release of hazardous material into the environment would be anticipated since only a small amount of hazardous materials will be utilized, and only during the construction period. Finding: Less than significant impact - Please refer the response to Section VII(b). No extraordinary risk of accidental explosion or the release of hazardous substances is anticipated with construction, development, implementation or operation of the proposed project. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Existing condition: The subject project is approximately 450 linear feet (0.09 mi.) from the nearest elementary school, which is future Calavera Hills Elementary School, located on Tamarack Avenue, northwest of the dam site. Therefore the site is within one-quarter mile of a proposed school. The project is not anticipated to emit any hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or wastes once operational. During the construction period, a small amount of hazardous materials, including petroleum products,, and paint, oils and solvents will be utilized. Environmental Evaluation: Hazardous products will be utilized on the proposed project only during the construction period. These substances are not anticipated to include any materials that would not likely be stored on the school site. No permanent storage or transport of hazardous materials will occur on the subject project. 38 ' Rev. 07/03/02 Finding: Less than significant impact - No permanent storage or use of hazardous material will occur on the subject dam project. Limited hazardous materials utilized during the construction period will not constitute a significant impact on health or operations of the adjacent school. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? Existing condition: The subject site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites (Federal database) compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 56962.5. Environmental Evaluation: The subject site is not included on a list of hazardous -materials sites (Federal database) compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 56962.5. In addition, it is not on the EPA database of current and potential Superfund sites currently or previously under investigation. Also, to the best of EPA's knowledge, it has been determined that no steps will be taken to list this site on the National Priorities List (NPL). It is not on any list of registered hazardous waste generators, or on a database of sites that treat, store, dispose of, or incinerate hazardous waste. Finding: No impact - The subject property is not included on any list of hazardous materials, and has no known previous use history that would involve the use or storage of hazardous materials. e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Existing condition: The subject dam remedial improvements are located approximately 15,000 linear feet (2.85 miles) due north of McClellan-Palomar Airport. The City of Carlsbad does have an adopted airport land use plan. Environmental Evaluation: Since the proposed project is located in excess of two miles (2.85 miles) from the closest airport (McClellan-Palomar Airport), the site does not meet the minimum qualifications as having the potential for safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Finding: No impact - As a result of its 2.85-mile distance from McClellan-Palomar Airport, the project does not meet the minimum qualifications as a potential safety hazard. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working'in the project area? Existing condition: No private airstrip exists in the vicinity of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation: The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and no people will resideXon the site. Construction work on the site will be temporary. Routine inspection"and maintenance worker(s) will typically be occupying the site only of a short duration, daily. Finding: No impact - The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Existing condition: The proposed project involves repair and rehabilitation of an existing use on the property. The project is not located on or adjacent to a public street. Environmental Evaluation: Neither construction nor operation of the dam operations facilities will significantly affect, block, or interfere with traffic on public streets, including any streets that would be 39 " Rev. 07/03/02 used for an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Routine maintenance activities will be accomplished by means of an existing private drive access to the site. The private drive approximately 250 feet in length, and is designed to avoid any impacts to the public street system. Finding: No impact - No improvements are proposed in any area which would physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Existing condition: The closest houses to the subject activity area are 400 feet to the west. The project will not result in any drawdown or drying of the reservoir water level. The proposed project is located within an area that is not residential. The subject proposed improvements will comply with UBC requirements for safety and electrical codes. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed, project is not residential and thus will not expose new residences to wildland fire risk. It will not result in any drawdown or drying of the reservoir water level and thus will not contribute to virus or insect breeding. The project will introduce however, electrical apparatus into a wildlands area. The project improvements however, are required to comply with UBC regulations and electrical safety codes, and thus will not result in any significant additional exposure of neighboring residences to wildfire risk. Finding: No impact - It is concluded that the proposed project will not expose residences in the vicinity to significant wildland fire risk. VHI. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Existing condition: The proposed project is primarily a repair and maintenance plan for existing dam operational facilities at Lake Calavera dam. Construction of the improvements is required by law to comply with all federal, state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act, California Administrative Code Title 23, and specific basin plan objectives identified in the "Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin. The subject project is located on Calavera Creek, which is a main tributary to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin identifies specific objectives for the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit and Agua Hedionda Hydrologic Subarea. These objectives include the requirement to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Best Management Practices (BMP's). The project must also obtain a NPDES permit prior to construction. The permit will require that the project develop and implement specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans to protect downstream water quality of Calavera Creek. As a result of the inoperable nature of the outflow valves, the existing dam facilities are not in compliance with the requirements of the DSOD. DSOD emergency regulations dictate that dam managers shall have the ability to drawdown at least 50% of the volume of the reservoir water within'a maximum of seven (7) .days. While the Calavera Dam does not presently have this ability, implementation of the proposed remedial improvements would result in operational facilities that would allow the dam to comply with the requirement. Environmental Evaluation: Application, certification and compliance with an NPDES permit for implementation of the subject project will ensure that water quality will be maintained to a level of acceptability. No drawdown of the reservoir level is proposed for the project. Crane facilities located on the disturbed area of the shore will position the temporary structure, remove the tower and place the laid- 40 '' Rev. 07/03/02 back structure. Cut-off and removal of the top portion of the existing I/O tower will result in a small amount of concrete dust entering the reservoir water. A temporary pump hose will be inserted into the enclosure. No addition of materials to the reservoir water is proposed, with the exception of the piping and electronic controls. Downstream of the dam, an existing low-flow channel for downstream Calavera Creek of approximately 3 feet across and 6 inches deep has formed, although some wider areas exist. Approximate average base flows are estimated at 3 cfs with velocities of approximately 2 feet per second. This creek travels through primarily clay soils, although portions of the channel consist of sandy-clayey soils. The low flow channel has nearly vertical side slopes, however they are fairly stable. Although erosion of the channel banks has occurred in the past, significant active erosion is not occurring on a regular basis. Although minimal vegetation occurs within the main channel of downstream Calavera Creek, dense vegetation, including brush and dense grasses, line the area on either side of the creek channel. Rocks occur within the channel in certain areas. The lack of vegetation within the main channel indicates the channel maintains a relatively constant flow velocity, reducing the potential for vegetation establishment. Implementation of the proposed project will also result in the ability of the dam facilities to comply with the DSOD requirement for 50% water volume drawdown within the required maximum of seven (7) days. This ability could allow for (under emergency circumstances) high volume water release that cannot occur now without uncontrolled breach of the dam. Such emergency circumstances are not considered a violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Finding: Significant unless mitigation incorporated - The proposed project could result in temporary degradation of water quality if it does not demonstrate compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations for water quality. The project proponent shall adhere to applicable RWQCB regulations for control of sedimentation and erosion, including the installation of temporary detention basins or other means of stabilization or impoundment required by the State Water Resources Control Board. All exposed graded areas shall be treated with erosion control pursuant to City of Carlsbad erosion control standards, including hydroseed, berms, desiltation basins, jute matting, sandbags, bladed ditches, or other appropriate methods. Compliance with DSOD requirements for emergency drawdown timeframes is considered a beneficial effect of the proposed project. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Existing condition: The proposed project is located within and around existing Lake Calavera, which is a surface-water reservoir. Geotechnical test borings by Ninyo & Moore, excavated for the subject project, did not encounter groundwater. However, as evidenced by the reservoir, groundwater is located relatively near the surface in the close vicinity of the reservoir. Groundwater levels may be expected to fluctuate due to seasonable variations, water usage and other factors. The project proposes access for construction of the laid-back pipe improvements however no modification of the reservoir level is proposed. A permit for construction of the project will necessitate a Section 401 certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, with conditions designed by the RWQCB to prevent adverse water quality effects on surface water and groundwater. Environmental Evaluation: No significant modification of creek tributary, reservoir water or downstream volume or surface elevation is proposed during the construction period or after construction is completed. Pumping of the water volume within the temporary structure in order to allow for 41 ' Rev. 07/03/02 construction of the I/O operations will not affect ground waters. No pumping of sub-surface waters is proposed. Thus no significant impact to water quality will result from the project. Finding: No impact - The proposed project could not result in depletion of groundwater in the immediate vicinity of Lake Calavera due to the fact that no significant modification of reservoir water volume or surface elevation is proposed. c) Impacts to groundwater quality? Existing condition: Please see the preceding description of existing condition. Environmental Evaluation: Pumping of the water volume within the temporary structure in order to allow for construction of the I/O operations will not affect ground water quality. Thus no significant impact to groundwater quality will result from the project. Finding: No impact - The proposed project will comply with federal, state and local water quality requirements and thus no significant impact to groundwater will result from implementation of the project. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Existing condition: The tributary drainage area to Lake Calavera is approximately 3.6 square miles. The average yearly rainfall within this drainage area is 13 inches. Drainage runoff enters Lake Calavera via a number of small branch tributaries to Upper Calavera Creek. This drainage extends several miles eastward into southwest Vista, in the vicinity of Hwy. 78. About 85% of the upstream watershed is outside the City of Carlsbad city limits. Nearly all of the surface runoff within the drainage area that reaches Lake Calavera occurs between December and late March. The natural drainage pattern of this sub-watershed has been influenced through installation of the dam, which has created the reservoir. Water exits the reservoir via an existing outflow tower, and during flood conditions, the spillway. None of these basic hydrologic factors will change with implementation of the proposed project. The subject project will include improvements the Calavera Dam operations facility. These improvements will not alter the existing constructed drainage of the site except to make the dam facilities mechanically operational. Improvements to the spillway channel are proposed which are intended to restore its water-transport efficiency. Environmental Evaluation: Construction of the improvements to the dam facilities will not significantly alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. Upon completion of the proposed remedial construction, the dam outlet controls will be operational. All indications are that this ability to operate and manage the dam facilities will allow the control of floodwaters so that they have less downstream impact than they do under the existing, uncontrolled situation. In anticipation of a major rain event, the dam manager will have the ability to perform an appropriate drawdown to minimize the potential for flows over and into the dam spillway. Under this scenario, the water level could be dropped in anticipation of the rainfall event and then rise again during the event. Following the rainfall event, the surplus would be released to maintain the approximate 208 annual median elevation. This increased efficiency in control of downstream flows will decrease the potential for downstream flooding. As a result, also the improvements proposed will result in a net long-term reduction of downstream sedimentation in Calavera Creek, primarily due to the gunite and Armorloc improvements (impervious and semi-impervious surface) of the spillway and spillway channel. A very minor incremental increase in the amount of impervious ground surface will result from construction of the control building and the spillway improvements. 42 . ' Rev. 07/03/02 Finding: No impact - The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing pattern of runoff from and through the reservoir. As a result, it is concluded that no significant impact to drainage flow will result from implementation of the project. e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? Existing condition: Please refer to the preceding existing condition. No modification to the drainage pattern of the site is proposed. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed improvements to the dam facilities will not significantly alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. Improvements proposed will result in a net reduction of downstream sedimentation in Calavera Creek, primarily due to the gunite improvements (impervious surface) of the spillway apron and a portion of the spillway channel. The remainder of the spillway channel will be surfaced with Armorloc material, which is a porous material. A very minor incremental increase in the amount of impervious surface will result from construction of the control building. The flow rate or volume of runoff through the dam and down Calavera Creek will be managed more efficiently, and thus may increase or decrease in flow volume and/or velocity as decided by CMWD operators. The project will also result in a slight, but not significant increase in runoff due to the increase in the area of impervious surface of the project. Finding: Less than significant impact - The flow rate or volume of runoff through the dam and down Calavera Creek will be managed more efficiently through implementation of the proposed project, and thus could increase if determined desirable by the dam manager. The project will also result in a slight, but not significant increase in runoff due to the increase in the area of impervious surface of the project. f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Existing condition: Impervious surfaces associated with development of the project will incrementally increase runoff to a limited degree. Gunite and concrete improvements to the spillway and spillway channel will improve efficiency and reduce the erosive potential of runoff transport downstream into Lower Calavera Creek, Environmental Evaluation: Impervious surfaces will increase in area and efficiency of runoff transport down Calavera Creek; however, since the project will be required to comply with federal, state and local water quality regulations, no significant creation of additional runoff will result. No impact to existing storm drain systems and no additional sources of polluted runoff will result from implementation of the project. Finding: Less than significant impact - Limited impervious surfaces at the dam will incrementally increase runoff from the site but will be directed to Calavera Creek, resulting in no net effect. No additional pollution of surface waters is anticipated to result from the project. g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Existing condition: The proposed project involves remedial improvements to existing dam and spillway facility operations, in order that they return to an operable condition. None of these improvements are anticipated to degrade water quality from its existing quality level. 43 ' ' . Rev. 07/03/02 Environmental Evaluation: Minor impacts to water quality resulting from sediment due to the construction of the project are anticipated. Construction of these improvements however, is required by law to comply with all federal, state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act and associated NPDES regulations. Therefore temporary impacts associated with the construction operation will be mitigated. The project will not result in permanent or long term degradation of water quality, and is anticipated to improve downstream water quality through elimination of features (spillway disrepair) that presently cause downstream sedimentation. No modification of the water volume, surface level or pH is proposed or anticipated during the construction period. Finding: Less than significant impact - Please refer to the preceding responses. h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? Existing condition: The proposed project involves improvements to existing flood control and water storage facilities, and does not involve the placement of housing or any residential or associated land use. Environmental Evaluation: No placement of housing is proposed through implementation of the project, and therefore no impact will result. No impact - No housing is proposed. Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? Existing condition: The replacement of a reservoir outlet pipe structure, with a laid-back water intake and air/vacuum vent assembly will all occur within the 100-year flood area. Only the laid back piping structure located on the upstream face of the dam is considered construction of a new structure. No other structural facilities will be located within the 100-year flood hazard area. Environmental Evaluation: Installation of the laid-back water intake/outlet assembly and air/vacuum vent assembly structure is very small in size (approximately 24" in diameter; 50' in length), and as a result will effect only an insignificant volume of flood hazard area. This facility, however will significantly improve the flood control capabilities and controls of the reservoir, and thus is not considered to result in impeded or increased flows of the creek. The project will demolish the upper 28 feet of the existing concrete tower, located within the 100-year flood' area. Finding: No impact - It is concluded that the proposed project will restore the dam operations, and thus improve the operator's ability to avoid impeded or increased downstream flows. j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Existing condition: The existing dam outlet pipeline, partially clogged with debris at the tower base, is in need of repair. In addition, improvements are necessary at the outlet box structure, spillway apron, dam drainage channel, access road and security fencing. All of these aspects of the existing facility are proposed for improvement and upgrade. These improvements will allow for increased control of floodwaters, and the improved operations of the dam. Environmental Evaluation: No significant impact will result from the proposed project because it will improve an existing deficient system of flood control and water containment operations. The dam structure has demonstrated in over 60 years in operation that it is not subject to failure from floodwaters. 44 ' Rev. 07/03/02 Finding: No impact - It is concluded that the proposed project will result in improved flood control operations. k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Existing condition: The proposed project site is located at an elevation of 200 ft. above sea level, approximately three miles from the Pacific Ocean. No mudflow conditions are located within or near the subject area. Environmental Evaluation: Conditions for seiche, tsunami or mudflow do not exist at or near the project site. Finding: No impact - The potential for damage to the project from seiche, tsunami or mudflow are very low due to the project's location and elevation. 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. Existing condition: Construction of the proposed project will temporarily create exposed (unvegetated) soil in portions of the proposed project area. The project applicant must however, obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit prior to construction. The permit will require that the project develop and implement specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans to protect downstream water quality of Calavera Creek. Environmental Evaluation: The construction phase of the project could result in increased erosion into Calavera Creek. As a result of the NPDES permit requirements associated with the proposed project, no significant increase in erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters will result from the project. Finding: Significant unless mitigation incorporated - The project will be required to demonstrate compliance with NPDES sediment control requirements during the construction phase. m) Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Existing condition: The subject site is on an upstream leg of Calavera Creek. The project does not propose to create or allow any pollutant discharges into receiving surface waters or other waters upstream or downstream of the subject project. , . Environmental Evaluation: The project proposes no increase in pollutant discharges. The project will be required to process and receive an NPDES permit, and water quality certification from the RWQCB. No heavy, metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen- demanding* substances, or trash will be produced by the project. Finding: No impact - No increase in pollutants will result from the project. n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? Existing condition: The project does not propose any modification of water quality exiting the site into receiving surface waters or other waters. The quality of water exiting the dam during or following construction is not anticipated to vary from the existing situation. Environmental Evaluation: No impact to receiving water quality will result from the proposed project. Construction operations will be required to comply with NPDES regulations. 45 ' Rev. 07/03/02 Finding: No impact - No receiving water quality will be adversely affected through implementation of the proposed project. o) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? Existing condition: Agua Hedionda Lagoon is listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list as an "Impaired" water body. This water body is impaired due to excess buildup of sedimentation and fecal bacteria. The proposed project ultimately drains (2 miles southwesterly) to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Environmental Evaluation: As designed, the proposed project will not be increasing the pollutants into downstream waters, including Agua Hedionda Lagoon. No impact- No pollutants are proposed to be released from the site. The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? Existing condition: The project will allow the Carlsbad Municipal Water District the option of restored management of flood control and water containment. This option will increase the ability to provide for downstream (or upstream) beneficial uses. Environmental Evaluation: No significant impact to beneficial uses, or water quality objectives will result from the proposed project. The ability to improve on these uses and objectives, due to greater ability to manage reservoir levels, will be increased through implementation of the proposed project. Finding: No impact - Please refer to the preceding responses. IX. LAND USE PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? Existing condition: The subject site is located on a 288-acre parcel encompassing Lake Calavera reservoir and dam. The property is undeveloped and identified on the City of Carlsbad Land Use Element of the General Plan as Open Space. Zoning is also for open space uses. Surrounding land uses in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project are open space. Further to the west are newer single-family residential neighborhoods of Sheffield, Nantucket and Capistrano. An older, existing single-family neighborhood, located within the city limits of Oceanside, exists over % mile to the north. Calavera Mountain (Cerro de La Calavera) is also open space, and exists south of the Calavera Dam. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed improvements involve primarily the replacement of existing uses, all within a large open space preserve. No division of an existing community would result from development of the project. Finding: No impact - The project would not physically separate any contiguous residential areas since none exist within the open spaces in and around the site. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 46 ' Rev. 07/03/02 Existing condition: The City of Carlsbad General Plan identifies the subject site as open space. Zoning is also designated open space. No specific plan covers the property. The site is not located with the Coastal Zone. The project proposes no change to any land use on the site. Environmental Evaluation: The project involves the repair of public utility infrastructure within the open space land use designation in the Carlsbad General Plan. This utility use already exists on the site. The proposed use is compatible with the open space designation. No incompatibility exists between the proposed project and the land use regulations on the property. Finding: No impact - The project is not in conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Existing condition: The City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad, Dec. 1999, identifies the subject site as a "Proposed Hardline Conservation Area". This land use is consistent with the open space uses identified in the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. No other habitat conservation plans specific to this site encumber the property. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed dam use is consistent with the existing, legal use on the property at this time. In addition, the improvements proposed, which will provide for full functioning of the dam operations, are consistent with open space and hardline habitat preserve uses. Finding: No impact - The subject project site is consistent with the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? Existing condition: The proposed project involves the replacement and improvement of existing dam operational facilities. No significant excavation or inundation will result from implementation of the project. No known or expected mineral deposits of future value to the region and the residents of the state are located in the immediate vicinity of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation: The subject site has been already largely disturbed. As a result of the minimal excavation and disruption of the surface of the land that will result from the proposed project, no significant impact to the potential for valuable mineral deposits is anticipated from the project. Finding: No impact - No known mineral resource of regional or statewide value are known that would be^affected through implementation of the project. Additionally, the project would affect a relatively small area of earth disruption, and any substantial mineral resource recovery under these minimal circumstances would not be expected. _ b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Existing condition: The subject site is not designated on the City of Carlsbad General Plan or the Zoning Ordinance as a locally important mineral resource recovery site. The property is not regulated by any specific plan or other regulatory land use plan. Environmental Evaluation: As a result of the fact that the City has not designated the subject property as an important mineral resource recovery site in any regulatory land use document, it is 47 ' Rev. 07/03/02 determined that implementation of the dam remedial operations will not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Finding: No impact - No adopted regulatory land use documents designate the subject site as any mineral resource recovery location. XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? Existing condition: The subject site presently contains dam operations apparatus, including an existing inlet tower located within the reservoir area. None of these apparatus create any noise due to their presently inoperable condition. Much of these inoperable facilities are located below the water surface. Existing urban development in the area are located to the west and north of the site. To the west are newer single-family residential neighborhoods of Sheffield, Nantucket and Capistrano. An older, existing single-family neighborhood, located within the city limits of Oceanside, exists over !/4 mile north of the site. Both the City of Carlsbad and the City of Oceanside have adopted noise regulations for their respective communities. The Noise Element of the Carlsbad General Plan states that the City's policy is that 60 dB(A) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is the maximum exterior noise level to which residential units should be subjected, except that 65 dB(A) is the maximum for residential units subject to noise from McClellan-Palomar Airport. The City of Oceanside allows somewhat greater flexibility for public uses, not to exceed 65dB(A) exterior noise level at residential property lines. The construction of the proposed project is anticipated to create the greatest amount of noise. The City of Carlsbad Municipal Code (Chapter 8.48) prohibits construction activity that would create disturbing, excessive, or offensive noise after sunset of any day, and before 7 A.M. Monday through Friday, and before 8 A.M. on Saturday, and all day Sunday and specified holidays. The Noise Ordinance does not set a defined noise level standard for construction activities, but simply limits the hours of construction. The significance of construction noise produced during project construction is typically assessed in accordance with the County of San Diego Noise Ordinance. San Diego County Noise Ordinance Section 36.410 stipulates that construction noise shall not exceed 75 dB for more than 8 hours during any 24-hour period. > Environmental Evaluation: Construction of the proposed dam facilities will involve the operation of grading and other construction equipment that create higher than usual construction noise, although these activities may not take more than a few days. Pumping of concrete is generally less loud than earthmoving equipment, but will take a longer period to complete. Residences in the area are of sufficient distance away, and the duration of construction noise on the project so short, that the contour lines identifying maximum noise level compliance does not overlap any of the surrounding homes. Once the construction is complete and the dam facilities are operational, the dam operations will rely on electricity for powering hydraulic pumps, air compressors and instrumentation controls located in the control building. The butterfly valves on the laid-back pipeline are hydraulically and pneumatically actuated by the hydraulic and-pneumatic pack in the control building. These also will be powered by electricity, and be operated underwater. The air backwash system will utilize a 10-horsepower compressor, also powered by electricity. Operation of the Inlet/Outlet system hydraulic and pneumatic actuators will make no audible noise since they function on electricity, and will be operated underwater. Any noise associated with the hydraulic 48 ' Rev. 07/03/02 and pneumatic pack will be confined to inside the control building. The air backwash system for the intake screens (a maintenance feature to keep the screens clean of accumulated debris or algae) also will run underwater, although the air burst associated with the backwash could be startling•< to a person standing close to the Inlet/Outlet system. This is anticipated to be a relatively infrequent event. The loudest noise will occur from the 10-horsepower compressor that powers the air backwash system. This compressor has been designed fully internal of the control building, and will be only nominally audible outside the control building. None of these apparatus are projected to exceed 60dBA at 100 feet from the control building. This level is less than that required by the City of Carlsbad General Plan. Finding: Less than significant impact - Both construction noise levels and permanent noise levels are anticipated to comply with City of Carlsbad General Plan standards. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? Existing condition: The Intake/Outlet system hydraulic and pneumatic actuators operate underwater on the laid-back piping system located on the lakeside dam face. The balance of the noise and/or vibration creating apparatus is located within the control building. None of these features will create excessive vibration of groundbourne noise levels. Environmental Evaluation: Noise and vibration creating hardware will not create vibrations beyond a few feet away from the control building. This low level of vibration will not result in any significant impacts to residences, because the closest residences are located a minimum of 400 feet from the subject site. Finding: No impact - The project will not produce any groundbourne vibration or noise beyond a few feet from the dam operations facilities. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Existing condition: Please refer to response XI(a). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to response XI(a). Finding: Less than significant impact - The project will result in a small incremental permanent increase in noise in the vicinity of the site. Since this increase will not be expected to exceed levels limits identified in the Carlsbad General Plan, the increase is not considered substantial or significant. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?* •* Existing condition: Please refer to response XI(a). Environmental Evaluation: Please refer to response XI(a). Finding: Less than significant impact - During construction, a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity is anticipated. Construction will be scheduled to conform to the noise level limitations specified in the Carlsbad Municipal Code, so the increase is not considered substantial or significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 49 '' Rev. 07/03/02 Existing condition: The subject dam remedial improvements are located approximately 15,000 linear feet (2.85 miles) due north of McClellan-Palomar Airport. The City of Carlsbad has adopted a -public airport land use plan. Environmental Evaluation: Since the proposed project is located in excess of two miles (2.85 miles) from the closest airport (McClellan-Palomar Airport), the site does not meet the minimum qualifications as having the potential for safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No significant impact is anticipated to result from noise generated from this airport. Finding: No impact - As a result of its 2.85 miles distance from McClellan-Palomar Airport, the project does not meet the minimum qualifications as a potential safety hazard. The project will not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. 1) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Existing condition: No private airstrip exists in the vicinity of the subject project. Environmental Evaluation: The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and no people will reside on the site. Construction work on the site will be temporary. Routine inspection and maintenance workers will be of a short duration, daily. Finding: No impact - The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Existing condition: The subject project involves remedial improvements to an existing dam facility. No new development or new land uses are proposed. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project involves the replacing and upgrading of inoperable dam facilities and equipment. It does not involve the development of new homes or businesses, nor does it involve the extension of new infrastructure. The project will not create new areas for development. It will allow for greater efficiency of flood control, and increased water storage volume and control. The project should have no discernible impact on growth, either directly or indirectly. Finding: No impact - The project will not induce substantial grown, nor will it induce population growth by providing infrastructure to support unplanned growth.>*-* b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Existing condition: No housing exists in the area of the proposed improvements. The subject area is totally surrounded by existing and planned open space. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will not displace any existing housing because no housing exists in the subject area of dam improvements. No impact - No housing will be displaced by the project. 50 ' Rev. 07/03/02 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Existing condition: The project site is zoned for open space uses, and is undeveloped. It is not planned for future urban development. The proposed use is consistent with the existing use of the property. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed project will not displace any people because no people, residences or other development exists in the area. Finding: No impact - The project site is presently undeveloped, and is planned for future and buildout open space use. As a result, no people or houses will be displaced by implementation of the project. XIH. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i. Fire protection? Existing condition: The subject dam facilities will introduce electrical pumps and equipment into a natural area that presently does not contain these apparatus. The project proponent has no plans to utilize the reservoir for storage of emergency fire protection water. Environmental Evaluation: Notwithstanding that additional electrical pumps and devices will be housed in an open space area which does not presently contain these apparatus, fire access to the site will be adequate, and no measurable increase in the need for fire services will be required. The subject project will not measurably affect current fire response times. Finding: Less than significant impact - The proposed facility will not have any measurable affect on the fire service demands or needs of the area. ii. Police protection? -, . * - » . Existing condition: The subject dam improvements will introduce costly equipment into an open space area that presently has none. The project design includes significant protective and security devices. A security fence is proposed to be installed around the proposed dam equipment. J.•*•* Environmental Evaluation: The introduction of costly equipment into a rural area increases the risk of burglary and/or vandalism of the facilities; however the inclusion of protective and security devices will minimize this risk. The project will eliminate an existing nuisance that has in the past attracted - —- adventurers and loiterers. Finding: No impact - The dam facilities will not generate any measurable increase in the need for police services and will not measurably affect current police response times. Therefore, the proposed facility will not have an affect on the police service needs of the area. iii. Schools? 51 ' Rev. 07/03/02 Existing condition: The dam improvements are a public infrastructure project, which do not generate school students. Environmental Evaluation: The project will have no impact on school student generation. Finding: No impact - The project will not generate any need for school services and, therefore, will have no impact on schools serving the area. iv. Parks? Existing condition: The dam improvements will not generate any demand for park facilities. Environmental Evaluation: The project will create no increase in park demand. Finding: No impact - The project will create no increased demand on parks serving the area, and therefore, will have no impact on parks/recreation areas. v. Other public facilities? Existing condition: The dam improvements will not generate any significant demand for any other public facilities. Environmental Evaluation: The project will create no increased demand for public facilities. It will however, allow for increased storage of water, and thus would be expected to result in a beneficial effect on water and flood control facilities. Finding: No impact - The proposed project will be constructed and operated by Carlsbad Municipal Water District and will make no demands on other public facilities or services. The project will increase the adequacy and efficiency of the municipal flood control system. XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Existing condition: The proposed project is an infrastructure improvement that creates no demand for neighborhood or regional parks, or other recreational facilities. Several unauthorized off-road vehicle trails exist in the vicinity of the proposed project. Recreational hikers and outdoor enthusiasts presently utilize these trails. In addition, the City of Carlsbad Citywide Community Trail program designates the Calavera Creek sewer trunk line maintenance road as a future north/soutE pedestrian recreational trail. Environmental Evaluation: The subject project will result in no impact on demand for parks or other recreational facilities. In addition, the proposed project will not impact the. authorized pedestrian recreational trails in the area. The security fencing is planned so that pedestrian trail access is maintained to all areas except for the specific dam operations facilities such as the control building, the dam crest, and the laid back and Intake/Outflow structure. With the exception of these particular areas, pedestrian access to the existing trails will largely remain available, although off-road vehicular access to the open spaces in the area will be curtailed by the fencing and gates. 52 •"*•- • Rev. 07/03/02 r Finding: Less than significant impact - The dam facility improvements will exert no added demand on recreational facilities of any kind. Security fence impacts to recreational hikers and outdoor enthusiasts will be minimal. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Existing condition: The proposed project is an infrastructure improvement that creates no demand for neighborhood or regional parks, or other recreational facilities. Several unofficial trails are located within the vicinity of the proposed project, primarily along the north and south sides of Lake Calavera, running parallel with the length of the reservoir. Environmental Evaluation: The subject project will have no impact on demand for parks or other recreational facilities. The proposed improvements may increase the opportunity for Lake Calavera to function as a recreational area, if the City of Carlsbad desires it to function in that manner in the future. Finding: No impact - No recreational facilities are included in the proposed project and none are required by the proposed use. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? Existing condition: The existing site is located in the northeast quadrant of the city of Carlsbad, generally east of College Boulevard and south of Lake Boulevard in Oceanside. The site does not generate any measurable traffic at this time. Operation, inspection and maintenance of the dam will generate on the average of approximately one trip per day to and from the site (two total trips). Environmental Evaluation: Traffic generation of approximately 2 ADT is considered a very low volume, and will create no substantial difference in traffic congestion in the area. Finding: No impact - A very low traffic volume will be generated by the proposed project. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Existing condition: All street segments and intersections in the area of the subject project presently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS "D" or better during the AM and PM peak hour periods). The proposed project will generate approximately 2 ADT. This amount of ADT increase is so minimal as to not rise to the level that it could possibly cumulatively exceed the adopted LOS established by the City of Carlsbad Growth Management Program. •* *Environmental Evaluation: The increase of 2 ADT onto the adjacent street system does not result in any impacted road segments or intersections exceeding the level of service standard established by SANDAG or by the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project will not significantly impact traffic flow in the area of the project. Finding: No impact - The proposed project will not significantly impact traffic levels of service on any street segment or intersection in the vicinity of the project. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? 53 . ' Rev. 07/03/02 Existing condition: The proposed dam facility improvements will have no impact on air traffic demand or air traffic patterns. Environmental Evaluation: No impact on air traffic will result from implementation of the dam improvements. Finding: No impact - The project would not generate or require air traffic and would not physically interfere with air traffic patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? Existing condition: The project design proposes a driveway access off of existing Tamarack Avenue, in the same location as the existing driveway to the dam. This is a private driveway, and is gated. The improvements proposed also include a private road across the spillway and an access road across the dam crest. All of these roads will be protected by security gating so that only authorized City personnel will be able to access the area. No improvements or modifications to any public roads are proposed. Environmental Evaluation: None of the improvements proposed will be accessible to the public. No improvements or modifications to any public roads are proposed. The access location on Tamarack Avenue does not constitute a hazardous situation. Finding: No impact - The project will not change the geometry of public roads. The very low level of traffic using the dam facilities access road would have virtually no effect on normal traffic on Cannon Road. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Existing condition: One vehicular access to the project site is proposed. This access is located on a private drive off of Tamarack Avenue. This access will function as main access (private), and also as an emergency access route. Environmental Evaluation: The singular access to the site is considered adequate to serve the project. The surrounding area is zoned for existing and future open space, and thus no through access, or secondary access, is determined to be necessary. Finding: No impact - Due to the low ADT generated by the project, no emergency access separate from the ordinary access is necessary. The proposed project access will not affect any public or private access to other property. > f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? Existing condition: The proposed project is projected to generate two ADT (one trip in, one trip out, daily). AS a result, the project has been designed with a minimum of one parking space (although a tandem space can also be accommodated). Environmental Evaluation: The proposed two (one tandem) parking spaces are considered adequate parking for the proposed use. Since the project is not open to the public, no public parking is proposed. Finding: No impact - Sufficient space to park operations, inspection and maintenance vehicles is provided on-site. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? 54 ' Rev. 07/03/02 Existing condition: The subject site is not identified on any regional or community plans relative to alternative transportation. The site is not central to any transportation corridor or route. Environmental Evaluation: The project is located on a site that is not considered integral to any alternative transportation policies. Thus the project will not conflict with any such policies. Finding: No impact - As a result of the fact that regional and local policies include no reference to the site in terms of alternative transportation programs, facilities, it is concluded that the project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Existing condition: The subject project involves remedial operations on the Calavera Dam facilities, and upgrade and installation of modern dam equipment. The project involves management and storage to natural drainage runoff. No wastewater or sewage creation, transport or treatment is involved in the project. Environmental Evaluation: The proposed dam project would have no impact or effect on any sewage system. No rest rooms are proposed in the facility. Finding: No impact - The project would have no effect on wastewater treatment. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? Existing condition: Please refer to the previous response. The project involves remedial operations on existing dam facilities, and upgrade and installation to modern dam equipment. The project involves management and storage of natural drainage runoff. No wastewater or sewage creation, and no potable water distribution would result from implementation of the project. No wastewater or water facility expansion would be required. Environmental Evaluation: The subject project would create no demand on wastewater treatment facilities, and would not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. It would not require expansion of any existing water or wastewater facilities. Finding: No impact - No additional demand on water distribution orjwastewater collection or treatment facilities wouldTesult from implementation of the proposed project. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Existing condition: The subject project involves the repair, upgrade and installation of modem dam operation facilities on Calavera Dam. As such, the project is considered a storm water collection infrastructure project. The project involves storm, water collection improvements as identified in the project description. No other new storm water drainage facilities are proposed. Environmental Evaluation: The subject project is adequate in size and scope to adequately provide for the project purpose. No additional new or expanded drainage facilities will be necessitated by implementation of the proposed project. Both upstream and downstream facilities contain adequate capacity and functionality to accept the storm water demands resulting when_the project is complete. 55 " Rev. 07/03/02 Implementation of the proposed project will be expected to increase functionality, reliability and improved management operations of the subject water storage and dam structure. Finding: No impact - No new storm water drainage facilities are proposed or would be required from development of the proposed project. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Existing condition: The project is a drainage infrastructure improvement, and does not propose or necessitate connection to potable water supplies. Environmental Evaluation: No water supply impacts are proposed through implementation of the project. The project will have no impact on water supplies, other than the beneficial potential for additional managed water storage area. Finding: No impact. The project will not connect to potable water supplies, and therefore will have no impact on water supplies. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Existing condition: The subject project does not include a rest room or other potential sewer-demand generating uses. The project will not be occupied permanently in any way. No wastewater treatment will be necessitated by the project. Environmental Evaluation: No impact to wastewater treatment will result from implementation of the subject project. No impact - No increase in wastewater treatment will result from the project. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Existing condition: Construction of the project will result in the potential for a minimal amount of solid waste disposal of scrap construction materials. No permanent solid waste creation is anticipated through operation of the proposed project. Environmental Evaluation: The project will not ordinarily generate any appreciable volume of solid waste, and solid waste collection from the site will not be required. Any minor amount of solid waste generated during routine maintenance will be taken off-site for appropriate disposal. Finding: No impact - No measurable significant impact on solid waste creation is expected to result from the subject project. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Existing condition: See previous response. ,The subject project is not anticipated to create any measurable significant amount of solid waste. The project is required to comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Environmental Evaluation: Any solid waste generated on the site during construction or operation would be removed and disposed of in an appropriate facility in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 56 ' Rev. 07/03/02 Finding: No impact - The project will create no significant impact on solid waste collection and disposal, and will comply with federal, state and local statutes. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Existing condition: The subject site presently houses a dam and reservoir. The dam facilities are presently inoperable, and the proposed project is necessary for management and control over the dam operations. Environmental Evaluation: A less than significant potential exists that the proposed project will substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species. Biological impacts associated with the proposed project involve impacts to 0.67 acres of DCSS occupied by the California gnatcatcher and 0.134 acres of impacts to wetlands and non-wetland waters of the U.S. These impacts will be mitigated through implementation of the project to a level less than significant. Also, erosion control, noise control and other precautions will be taken during construction to ensure that wildlife is not significantly impacted by the construction operations. No significant impacts to fish habitat will result from the project. Finding: Less than significant impact - Please refer to the responses to Sections IV and V. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) Existing condition: The subject project involves the repair and construction of existing public infrastructure at Calavera Dam. This improvement is a necessary infrastructure element in order that management and operation of the dam facilities can be restored. The dam is currently being used for flood control and water storage. Environmental Evaluation: The impacts resulting from implementation of the project are not considered cumulatively considerable. The project is considered cumulatively environmentally beneficial. Finding: % No impact - It is concluded that no cumulatively considerable impacts will result from implementation of the proposed project. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Existing condition: The subject project will replace and repair existing facilities on Calavera Dam. Environmental Evaluation: The project does not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 57 ' Rev. 07/03/02 70 Finding: No impact - Potential adverse effects on the human population have been evaluated in preceding sections of this checklist. No unmitigable adverse environmental effects attributable to the project have been identified. 58 '• Rev. 07/03/02 EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01), City of Carlsbad Planning Department (March 1994). 2. Remedial Improvements at Lake Calavera prepared for Carlsbad "Municipal Water District by Cathcart, Garcia & VonLangen Engineers, in associated with Powell/PBS&J (December 2002) 3. Biological Resources Report for Lake Calavera prepared for Carlsbad Municipal Water District by Merkel & Associates (May 1, 2003) 4. Calavera Hills Phase II, Bridge & Thoroughfare District Detention Basins Final EIR prepared for the City of Carlsbad Planning Department by RECON, Inc. (November 2001). 5. Current Rules and Regulations, County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District (November, 2002). 6. San Diego County Important Farmland. California Department of Conservation (September, 2002). 7. Lake Calavera Environmental FirstSearch Report. Environmental FirstSearch (January 30, 2003). 8. Uniform Building Code - Volume 1 (1997); Table 18-1-B. 9. Special Publication 42. California Geological Survey; State Geologist Division of Mines and Geology (May 1996). 10. Geotechnical Design Evaluation Lake Calavera Improvements. Nino & Moore (November 19,2002). 11. Focused Least Bell's Vireo Survey at Lake Calavera. Merkel & Associates (July 30, 2002). 12. Focused Southwestern Pond Turtle Surveys at Lake Calavera, Merkel & Associates (September 4, 2002). •V•* 13. Focused Survey for Thread-leaved Brodiaea at Lake Calavera. Merkel & Associates (September 4, 2002). 14. 45-day Letter Report of Focused Coastal California Gnatcatcher Survey for the Lake Calavera Improvements. Merkel & Associates (June 5, 2003). 15. Hydraulic Impact Study for Lake Calavera. Rick Engineering, (February 3, 2004). 16. 2004 Least Bells Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Surveys for Lake Calavera. Merkel & Associates (August 12, 2004). 59 ' Rev. 07/03/02 17. Lake Calavera Thread-leaved Brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) Survey Results. Merkel & Associates (August 24, 2004). 18. Historic Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report for the Lake Calavera Remedial Improvements Project, ASM Affiliates,-Inc. (March 2005). LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES To mitigate potentially significant project impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be applied to the development of the proposed project. WITH THE INCLUSION OF THESE MITIGATION MEASURES, THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL AVOID ANY POTENTIALY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS, AND AS A RESULT NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE EXISTS THAT THE PROJECT, INCLUDING THESE MITIGATION MEASURES, WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: 1. Prior to commencement of the project, and pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the project proponent shall consult with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) regarding the impacts of the project, and obtain any permits and perform necessary mitigation required by the USAGE. A wetland/riparian restoration plan shall be prepared and approved by the USAGE prior to wetland impacts. 2. Prior to commencement of the project, and pursuant to Section 1600 of the State of California Resources Code, the project proponent shall consult with the California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) regarding the impacts of the project, and obtain any permits and perform necessary mitigation required by the CDFG. A wetland/riparian restoration plan shall be prepared and approved by the CDFG prior to wetland impacts. 3. Prior to any impacts to DCSS, the project proponent shall process and receive authorization for a "take" permit pursuant to the adopted HMP. Direct impacts to 0.78 acres of occupied DCSS resulting from implementation of the project shall be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio (permanent impacts) through permanent conservation of 1.22 acres of occupied DCSS in a location deemed acceptable to the Wildlife Agencies. This permanent conservation shall be through purchase, easement or other acceptable means of preservation of DCSS habitat within Carlsbad or the surrounding vicinity. The project proponent shall additionally mitigate for temporary DCSS impacts at a 1:1 ratio through restoration of the area impacted by the cutting of the temporary construction access trail from the spillway to the outlet box (0.17 acres). A restoration plan shall be prepared and implemented for this 0.17-acre restoration. The restoration plan shall include site preparation guidelines, implementation monitoring, performance standards, long-term maintenance and monitoring methodology, with a commitment to funding. 4. Nc| clearing of occupied gnatcatcher habitat or construction that would result in direct impacts to DCSS or which occurs within 300 feet of occupied DCSS shall take place between February 15 and August 31 unless authorized by the Wildlife Agencies after consultation. An updated protocol-level gnatcatcher survey shall be performed no longer than one year before the initiation of project construction to provide an accurate mapping of current occupied habitat. If clearing and construction cannot be restricted to outside of the breeding season appropriate conservation measures shall be implemented, subject to the approval of the Wildlife Agencies, to ensure that no impact to this species occurs. Avoidance of noise-related impacts to occupied habitat can be assured through implementation of noise reduction methods (e.g., a temporary noise barrier or wall) to reduce noise within occupied habitat to a level below 60 dBA and/or as allowed by the Wildlife Agencies. If construction cannot be restricted to outside of the breeding season, kept to a minimum of 300 feet away from suitable habitat, or if construction noise is less than 60 dBA within suitable habitat, an updated focused survey is not expected to be. necessary. 60 '' Rev. 07/03/02 *) 3 5. The project proponent shall ensure that the limits of construction are clearly defined with temporary construction fencing prior to brush clearing activities and clearly visible to personnel on foot and equipment operators. Construction personnel shall strictly limit their activities and vehicles to the proposed project construction areas, approved staging areas, and routes of travel. The project proponent and/or biological monitor shall contact the USFWS to verify that the limits of construction have been properly staked and are readily identifiable, prior to construction. 6. A Wildlife Agency-approved biological monitor shall be present to monitor clearing, grading and construction activities for the project. The biological monitor shall have the authority to stop construction and require additional precautions or conservation measures to protect the open space areas as necessary. CULTURAL RESOURCES: 1. The project proponent shall retain a qualified archaeological/cultural resource specialist to monitor the grading for the control building. The archaeologist shall be empowered to stop the grading operation in the specific area of resource discovery, until all significant artifacts are recovered. A written report on the results of cultural resource discovery shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Carlsbad Planning Department. Artifacts determined to be significant shall be donated to a museum or Indian collection pursuant to City policy. If Native American resources are discovered, the Luiseno Band shall be advised, and allowed the opportunity to consult and assist in the recovery. 2. The project proponent shall retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor and perform inspection of any soil excavation that takes place in natural geology. If fossils are exposed, the paleontologist shall be empowered to divert or direct grading away from an exposed fossil to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage. Should fossils be found, the paleontologist shall make provisions for preparation and curation before the fossils are donated to their final repository. All fossils collected shall be donated to a museum with a systematic paleontological collection, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum or a similar Indian collection. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY: 1. Prior to commencement of the project, and pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, the project proponent shall notify the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) of the activities proposed, and shall receive water quality certification for the construction operation, if required by the RWQCB. 2. The project proponent shall comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulations as promulgated by the California RWQCB for the San Diego region. This shall include control of all non-storm discharges during construction, and development and implementation of a monitoring and reporting program to assess the storm water pollution prevention plan. J.•*•v 3. The project proponent shall control erosion, siltation, and emission of construction related pollutants through compliance with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan, Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) required under the County of San Diego Watershed Protection, - ~— Stormwater Management, and Discharge Control Ordinance (WPO) (Section 67.871), General Construction Stormwater Permit (Order No. 99-08-, NPDES CAS 000002) and the General Municipal Stormwater Permit (Order No. 2001-01, NPDES CAS0108758). In compliance with the General Construction Stormwater Permit, a SWPPP shall be prepared and approved prior to clearing of the site. The project proponent shall be responsible for monitoring and maintaining the BMP's identified below on a weekly basis. In addition, prior to commencement of clearing, the City Engineer must determine that project plans have incorporated adequate temporary desilting control. Some of the BMP's that shall be used during construction include, but are not limited to: 61 '' Rev. 07/03/02 *id • Silt fence, fiber rolls, or gravel bag berms • Check dams • Street sweeping and vacuuming • Storm drain inlet protection • Stabilized construction entrance/exit • Vehicle and equipment maintenance, cleaning and fueling • Hydroseed, soil binders, or straw mulch • Material delivery and storage • Stockpile management • Spill prevention and control • Waste management for solid, liquid, hazardous and sanitary waste • Concrete waste management 4. All equipment staging, maintenance and dispensing of fuel, oil or any other such activity shall occur in designated upland areas. The designated upland areas will be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff of these materials from entering waters of the United States, including wetlands. 62 ' Rev. 07/03/02 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. &M Date Signature 63 ' Rev. 07/03/02 0 "roO) !"ti 0 10o Q.CL X *^ 1 O CL ^D 0 E 0*""L_0 •Eo .£; "o0's1 CL CO £ o "ro 2Q. Q. f'f\ **~CO o LU « i -2 13 73 2 O LU O LL ^£ *21:0 E0>ok.aE^™ |reI^Z 0E0£ Yril eservoiDC ro 0 JHreO ^re ~* Q*_> C 73 "rolioCL Oo £0 $ CO0 COro0 0 "ro .D) 1 "S0Ec0 2 <C *u<! Q o)2 _j c O > o LU O -5~~5 (\s .^ O CL m CU CL ^ CL < H- ro.c co "roo 73C 0 ^COro0 E co "rog> I oro0 a "en ~o0 0 730CD) 'co Cro 73 .2"0 CL Eoo < 0ocroQ "E CD 'coc .t 0 "0 JD o: CO t5roCL E Isc;0ECs c0 730 MZ 073 ,?•> .Q E0 CO CO "^o-*-• , .o CD-CO0L. •*-» ^ CO 0 E0 .^D C70 D) ™ ^'co E _co >^ o 0 _co — "3 73Cro ^^O "c E0 CL E 73 ro £> 73 0 ~CL E vO %rCJ 0 0 •d COro.c 0±: COro0 E co "to O) '§ CO •4— ' ST COo csi 0 'o0CO 0 73 O O COsL_u0CO0CU o _Q ^3 Q. O03 •^-03 m CO u_ro E0 c..g ^ "cit cu 1 0"o. E c ° COC c > CO°o_ CO ^en cc cu 11l.a 5 *" ° D).£ - 5 Q. C 1^O S Mitigation Measureo•z. en 'c ro 0. "o0 'o" Q.[Consultation and permit acquisition from US Army Corp ofEngineers.0•z. en "E ro 0. "o0 'cT D_ "o "c 1Consultation and permit acquisition from California DepartmeFish'and Game.o•z. en "Ecro D_ 00 'o* IX "o in 0 0 Mitigation of direct impacts to 0.78 acres of occupied Diegancoastal sage scrub at 2:1 ratio through restoration of 0.10 acrimpacted areas and preservation of 1 .46 acres within the LakCalavera Mitigation Bank.o en 'E ro Q. "5-CU, cT CL IProhibition of clearing and grubbing between in Coastal SageScrub habitat between February 15 and August 31 to avoidimpacts to nesting California gnatcatchers.o~z. enc 0_c c LU O0 0 D. o »Define and fence limits of construction prior to brush clearingpreclude encroachment into habitat areas.<. o•z. enc cu0c"enc LU O0 O ' rx "do [Qualified biologist monitoring of brush clearing activities to avimpacts to birds.o"2^ enc 8c'enc LU O0 O D.Qualified archeological/cultural resource specialist monitoringgrading operations. io-z. enc 00c.'enc LU O0 O 0. (0co || Qualified paleontological specialist monitoring grading operatio•z. enc 0 0C 'en LU 00 cT D_»Consultation and Water Quality Certification for constructionoperation from Regional Water Quality Control Board.o•z. en 00c 'enc LU O0o D- EJU ICompliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Syspermit regulations.o•z. enc 0 0C 'enc LLJ O0 O D_ o IRestrict equipment staging, maintenance, and fuel and oildispensing and similar activities to designated upland areas t<prevent runoff from entering waters of the US.o•z. en.£ 00c 'enc LU Q 0'o' ^ 73 IAdherence to applicable Regional Water Quality Control Boarregulations for control of sedimentation and erosion.0) O1 II I <u E « I c O ^i1 o *- o£ ra «_ra "o oS*^ en±i C 3£ ra-S 5^ ™1.2 g •o £ -S — rocu cu> CC | a. Qa: 53O'•Eraa.ra co ,0 JJ '5>coa.u> ocCD ra E a>3|a> - ra P oingDepeas£ .E E -2 $ | I caaco£ .S - <i> E .175 h |i& -oii E m a> j Q- .2o c •? '•S ° ~ 'Ei .E W 77 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5891 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE 4 CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 480 SQUARE 5 FOOT INTAKE/OUTLET CONTROL BUILDING FOR THE LAKE CALAVERA RESERVOIR DAM OPERATIONS ON 6 PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 900 TO 1,200 FEET SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF 7 TAMARACK AVENUE AND KNOLLWOOD DRIVE, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 7. 8 CASE NAME: LAKE CALAVERA RESERVOIR REMEDIAL 9 IMPROVEMENTS CASE NO.: CUP 04-11 10 WHEREAS, Carlsbad Municipal Water District, "Developer/Owner," has filed 12 a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as 13 A portion of Lots D and L of Rancho Agua Hedionda, according to Map No. 823, filed in the Office of the County 14 Recorder of San Diego County on May 1, 1915, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California 16 ("the Property"); and 17 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Conditional Use 18 Permit as shown on Exhibits "A" - "B" dated January 18, 2006, on file in the Planning 19 Department, LAKE CALAVERA RESERVOIR REMEDIAL IMPROVEMENTS - CUP 20 04-11, as provided by Chapter 21.42 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and 21 22 ^ WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 18th day of January 200(x, 23 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 24 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 25 and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors 26 relating to the CUP. 27 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning28 Commission of the City-of Carlsbad as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 2 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission 3 APPROVES LAKE CALAVERA RESERVOIR REMEDIAL IMPROVEMENTS - CUP 04-11, based on the following findings and subject to ^ the following conditions: Findings: 6 1. That the requested use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is 7 essentially in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is located, in that the control building would house the dam operations 9 equipment for on-site and remote control of the inlet valves; is consistent with the Open Space land use designation; would generate negligible traffic; and would be 10 located so as to minimize the habitat encroachment to the greatest extent practicable while maintaining adequate access circulation and setback from the dam structure. 12 2. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, in that the proposed control building would fit within the confines of the proposed 13 graded pad. 14 3. That all the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping, and other features necessary to 1 <- adjust the requested use to existing or permitted future uses in the neighborhood will be provided and maintained, in that the proposed control building would be located so as 16 to minimize the habitat encroachment to the greatest extent practicable while maintaining adequate access circulation and setback from the dam structure. 17 4. That the street system serving the proposed use is adequate to properly handle all traffic generated by the proposed use, in that the traffic generated by the proposed use is 19 minimal since the control building is designed to be operated remotely and therefore would only generate traffic for periodic maintenance and inspection. 20 Conditions: 21 . Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to grading dr building permit, whichever occurs first. 23 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be 24 implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all 26 future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the 27 property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer 2° or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Conditional Use Permit. PCRESONO. 5891 -2- , Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections 2 and modifications to the Conditional Use Permit documents, as necessary to make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development 3 shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 4 r 3. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 6 4. Developer shall submit to Planning Director a reproducible 24" x 36" mylar copy of the Site Plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision making body. o 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the 9 Director from the Carlsbad Unified School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide school facilities. 10 6. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required as part of the Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan and any amendments made to that 1 2 Plan prior to the issuance of building permits, 13 7. Building permits will not be issued for this project unless the local agency providing water and sewer services to the project provides written certification to the City that adequate water service and sewer facilities, respectively, are available to the project at the 1 c time of the application for the building permit, and that water and sewer capacity and facilities will continue to be available until the time of occupancy. 16 8. This Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Director annually to 17 determine if all conditions of this permit have been met and that the use does not have a substantial negative effect on surrounding properties or the public health and welfare. If the Planning Director determines that the use has such substantial negative effects, the 19 Planning Director shall recommend that the Planning Commission, after providing the permittee the opportunity to be heard, add additional conditions to reduce or eliminate the 20 substantial negative effects. 9. This Conditional Use Permit is granted for an unlimited time period. This permit 22 „ may be revoked at any time after a public hearing, if it found that the structure ha's a substantial detrimental effect on surrounding land uses and the public's health 23 and welfare, or the conditions imposed herein have not been met. 24 10. This approval is granted subject to the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and HMPP 05-03 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5890 and 5892 for that other approval incorporated herein by reference. 26 .. 11. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners, shall be architecturally integrated and 27 concealed from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets, in substance as provided in Building Department Policy No. 80-6, to the satisfaction of the Directors of Community Development and Planning. PCRESONO. 5891 -3- 12. All exterior lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on 2 adjacent homes or property. Security lighting for the control building shall be activated by a motion sensor. 3 13. The exterior wall of the control building shall be sandstone in color in order to blend with the surroundings. 14. The proposed improvements to the spillway shall be in a natural color to blend with 6 the surrounding soils and rock. 14. Any chain link fencing associated with the proposed improvements, including the „ fencing surrounding the control building, shall be black in color. The proposed fencing around the control building shall include horizontal strands of barbed wire 9 on the top of the fence. 10 15. A Dam Operations Plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the District Engineer and the Wildlife Agencies prior to commencement of construction. 12 NOTICE •^ Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications, -,, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as "fees/exactions." 15 You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If 16 you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. 19 You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given^a 22 NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise expired. 23 24 25 -26 27 28 PCRESONO. 5891 -4- 1 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning 2 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of January 2006 by the 3 following vote, to wit: 4 r AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall and Whitton 6 NOES: 7 0 ABSENT: o 9 ABSTAIN: 10 11 MAlfre&wB. MONTGOMERY, (Mrperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 12 [TEST:_ s 13 X/ &U 14 I DONNEU Assistant Planning Director 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PCRESONO. 5891 -5- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5892 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN PERMIT TO ALLOW THE 4 TAKE OF 0.78 ACRES OF COASTAL SAGE SCRUB FOR THE 5 LAKE CALAVERA RESERVOIR REMEDIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ON PROPERTY GENERALLY 6 LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 900 TO 1 ,200 FEET SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF TAMARACK AVENUE AND 7 KNOLLWOOD DRIVE, IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 7. 8 CASE NAME: LAKE CALAVERA RESERVOIR REMEDIAL 9 IMPROVEMENTS CASE NO.: HMPP 05-03 10 WHEREAS, Carlsbad Municipal Water District, "Developer/Owner," has1 filed , 2 a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as 13 A portion of Lots D and L of Rancho Agua Hedionda, according to Map No. 823, filed in the Office of the County 14 Recorder of San Diego County on May 1, 1915, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California 16 ("the Property"); and 17 WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has received authorization to issue permits to I o10 impact various sensitive species and habitats, including species listed as Threatened or 19 Endangered, by virtue of Incidental' Take Permit No. TE022606-0 from the U.S. Fish and 20 Wildlife Service.and National Community Conservation Planning Permit No. 2835-2004-001- 21 22 23 WHEREAS, the authority stated above is based on a plan titled Habitat 24 Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad, Final Approval November 2004, referred to as the HMP, and approval of all projects is contingent on a finding of 26 consistency with the HMP; and 27 28 WHEREAS, said verified application by Developer constitutes a request for a 2 Habitat Management Plan Permit pursuant to the City's authority, on file in the Planning 3 - Department; and -- 4 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on the 18th day of January 2006, 6 consider said request; and 7 WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and o arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors 9 relating to the HMPP. 10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning ,2 Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows: 13 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 14 B) That the LAKE CALAVERA RESERVOIR REMEDIAL IMPROVEMENTS project is consistent with the HMP as described in the following findings. 16 C) That based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Commission APPROVES the Habitat Management Plan Permit, HMPP 05-03, for the LAKE 17 C ALAVERA RESERVOIR REMEDIAL IMPROVEMENTS based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:18 jo Findings: 20 1. That the LAKE CALAVERA RESERVOIR REMEDIAL IMPROVEMENTS is shown on Figure 18V Section D, of the approved HMP as a hardline area. 21 ~~ 2.-* That authorization to take species of concern is subject to continuous compliance with all provisions of the Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of 23 Carlsbad (HMP), the Citywide Incidental Take Permit issued for the HMP, the Implementing Agreement, the Terms and Conditions of the Incidental Take Permit, and 24 ... the Biological Opinion. 25 3. That authorization to take species of concern is subject to continuous compliance with all 26 mitigation measures as stated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and all conditions of approval for CUP 04-11, 27 including but not limited to habitat restoration and preservation, fencing of limits of construction prior to clearing, and monitoring of clearing activities for impacts to birds by a qualified biologist, and seasonal restriction on clearing and grubbing activities. PC RESO NO. 5892 -2- ' 4. That authorization to take species of concern is subject to continuous compliance with the 2 provisions of Volumes I, II, and III of the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for Threatened and 3 Endangered Species Due to Urban Growth within the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program Planning Area (SCH No. 93121073).4 , 5. That all impacts to habitat and all take of species will be incidental to otherwise lawful activities related to construction and operation of the Lake Calavera Reservoir 6 Remedial Improvements project. 7 6. That the project design as approved by the City of Carlsbad has avoided and minimized impacts to wildlife habitat and species of concern to the maximum extent practicable.8 9 7. That adequate funding has been provided to address changed circumstances and adaptive management needs that may be reasonably anticipated in the future, consistent with the 10 HMP Implementing Agreement. 8. That the incidental take of species of concern as a result of the project will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species in the wild due to compliance with all of the above stated requirements, as well as ongoing monitoring 13 and reporting to the wildlife agencies and the public. 14 9. That the Planning Director is authorized to sign the Take Permit. Conditions: 16 If any of the following conditions fail to occur; or if they are, by their terms, to be 17 implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted; deny or further condition issuance of all ,n future building permits; deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted; record a notice of violation on the 20 property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Habitat Management Flap Permit. 23 2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections and modifications to the Habitat Management Plan Permit documents, as necessary to 24 make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project. Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval. 26 3. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment 27 of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid this approval shall be invalid PCRESONO. 5892 -3- " $? unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with 2 all requirements of law. 3 4. This approval is granted subject to approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and CUP 04-11 and is subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5890 and 5891 for that other approval incorporated herein by reference. NOTICE 6 _ Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to for convenience as "fees/exactions." 9 You have 90 days from date of final approval to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedure set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or 12 annul their imposition. 13 You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capacity charges, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this 15 project; NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which you have previously been given a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise 16 expired. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PC RESO NO. 5892 -4- 1 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning 2 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 18th day of January 2006 by the 3 following vote, to wit: 4 " <- AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall and Whitton 6 NOES: 7 ABSENT:8 9 ABSTAIN: 10 11 MARTELL B. MONfGOMERjfChairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION 13 " 14 ATTEST: 15 16 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DONNEU 17 Assistant Planning Director 18 19 20 21 PC RESO NO. 5892 -5- The City of Carlsbad Planning Department EXHIBITS A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. P.C. AGENDA OF: January 18, 2006 Application complete date: April 29, 2004 Project Planner: Michael Grim , Project Engineer: Chris Muehlbacher SUBJECT: CUP 04-11/HMPP 05-03 - LAKE CALAVERA RESERVOIR REMEDIAL IMPROVEMENTS - Request for a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvements project, a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of an approximately 480 square foot intake/outlet control building, and a Habitat Management Plan Permit to allow the take of 0.78 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub for the remedial improvements at Lake Calavera Reservoir, on property generally located approximately 900 to 1,200 feet south of the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and Knollwood Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 7. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 5890, ADOPTING the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5891 and 5892, APPROVING Conditional Use Permit CUP 04-11 and Habitat Management Plan Permit HMPP 05-03, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. II. INTRODUCTION The proposal involves three components: a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the entire Lake Calavera reservoir remedial improvement project, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the construction of a 480 square foot dam operations control .building, and a Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMPP) for the take of 0.78 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub. The MND is required to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed dam repair project. The CUP is needed to allow a public structure within the Open Space zone. The HMPP is necessary to allow the take of species of concern, in this case Coastal Sage Scrub, related to the construction of the dam operations control building, access road, and improvements to the spillway apron and drainage channel. The proposal meets all applicable regulations and staff has no issues with the project. The project was originally scheduled for the April 20, 2005 meeting of the Planning Commission but was continued to allow staff time to review several lengthy public comment letters received the afternoon of the hearing. Subsequently, after discussions with the California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) and professional • engineers in the field of construction in wet environments, staff discovered a method that could be applied to the remedial improvement project that eliminated the need for drawing down the lake level and exposing the area of work. Therefore, a revised environmental impact assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public review. Since there were no revisions to the proposed control O CUP 04-11/HMPP 05-03 - LAKE CALAVERA RESERVOIR REMEDIAL IMPROVEMENTS January 18,2006 Page 2 building and access road developments, the Planning Commission staff report and approving resolutions did not significantly change. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) is requesting adoption of an MND and approval of a CUP and HMPP for the Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvement project. The project site is located approximately 900 to 1,200 feet south of the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and Knollwood Drive. The site and surrounding area is designated Open Space (OS) in the General Plan and zoned Open Space (O-S) and Planned Community (P-C). The project site is located within the Lake Calavera HMP hardline area and, with the exception of the dam and related drainage works, is void of structures. The nearest development is the residential subdivision approximately 600 feet to the west, north of Tamarack Avenue. The Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvements proposal has three components: An MND for the entire Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvements project, which includes repairs to the existing intake and outlet works, spillway, and access road and construction of a new dam operations control building; A CUP for the construction of a public building within the Open Space zone, namely the 480 square foot, one-story dam operations control building; and An HMPP to allow the take of 0.78 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub to accommodate the dam operations building, improved access road, and spillway apron and drainage channel improvements. The primary function of the Lake Calavera Reservoir is stormwater detention for flood control. The purpose of the remedial improvements is due to the requirements of the California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD), which has jurisdiction over all dams within the State. DSOD emergency regulations mandate that reservoirs be able to drawdown at least half of the volume of impounded water within seven days. The existing inlet works, contained in a tower located near the earthen dam, do not function properly. The lower two inlet valves were leaking and have been sealed shut in order to maintain a medium-high water level. The upper valve is rusted open, allowing water above the 208-foot elevation above mean sea level (msl) to drain out of the reservoir. During large rain events, such as those the previous winter season, the water level exceeds the 208-foot elevation and spills over the spillway in an uncontrolled manner. The proposed improvements would include new inlet works contained in a pipe on the dam surface. The pipe would contain three valve-controlled inlets, controlled from the proposed dam operations control building. These valves could be opened on-site or remotely from the CMWD headquarters. Upon completion of the proposed improvements, CMWD will be able to implement a reservoir water management program by opening and closing the new valves and adjusting the water level between 190 to 208 feet elevations to accommodate increased inflow for flood control. These improvements would bring the Lake Calavera dam into compliance with DSOD requirements. A more technical description of the Lake Calavera Reservoir CUP 04-11/HMPP 05-03 - LAKE CALAVERA RESERVOIR REMEDIAL IMPROVEMENTS January 18, 2006 Page 3 Remedial Improvements project is contained in the Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part II attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5890. The Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvements project is subject to the following regulations: A. General Plan; B. 0-S - Open Space Zone (Chapter 21.33 of the Zoning Ordinance); C. Conditional Use Ordinance (Chapter 21.42 of the Zoning Ordinance); D. Habitat Management Plan; and E. Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance). IV. ANALYSIS The recommendation of approval for this project was developed by analyzing the project's consistency with the applicable policies and regulations listed above. The following analysis section discusses compliance with each of these regulations/policies utilizing both text and tables. A.General Plan The Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvements project is consistent with the applicable policies and programs of the General Plan. Particularly relevant to the proposal are the Land Use, Open Space, and Public Safety Elements. Table 1 below indicates how the project complies with these particular elements of the General Plan. TABLE 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE Element Use Classification, Goal, Objective, or Program Proposed Use and Improvements Public structures and facilities are allowed in the Open Space designation, with approval of a CUP. Compliance Land Use Site is designated for open space uses.Yes Open Space and Conservation Preserve, protect and enhance those areas that provide unique and special open space functions. The removal of Coastal Sage Scrub habitat for the proposed control building and access road is mitigated through restoration and permanent preservation of similar habitat of equal or greater biological value. Yes Public Safety Comply with all requirements of the State Department of Water Resources' Division of Dam Safety to ensure adequate flood control. The proposed dam operations structure would allow on-site and remote control of reservoir water levels to ensure adequate flood control and comply with DSOD requirements. Yes CUP 04-11/HMPP 05-03 - LAKE CALAVERA RESERVOIR REMEDIAL IMPROVEMENTS January 18,2006 Page 4 Given the above, the Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvements proposal is consistent with the applicable portions of the General Plan. B. Open Space Zone The Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvement project site is zoned Open Space (O-S) and, therefore, subject to the provisions contained in Chapter 21.33 of the Zoning Ordinance. The O-S zone contains a list of permitted and conditional uses and structures, as well as development standards for minimum lot size and building height. Since the proposal does not include a subdivision, the minimum lot size standard does not apply. The O-S zone allows for public facilities and structures, subject to the approval of a CUP. The Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvement proposal includes a CUP and the discussion of the project's compliance with CUP regulations is contained in Section C below. The maximum building height allowed in the O-S zone is 25 feet, unless a higher elevation is approved by a CUP. The proposed control building would measure a maximum of 14 feet in height. Therefore, given the above, the Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvement project is consistent with the O-S zone. C. Conditional Use Ordinance According to Section 21.33.040(4) and 21.42.010(2)(I), public structures and buildings are allowed in the Open Space zone with the approval of a CUP. Four findings must be made in order to approve a CUP. These findings, elaborated in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5891, deal mostly with the project's consistency with the General Plan, desirability for the community, and compatibility with its site and surroundings. The proposed dam operations control building is desirable for the community in that it provides for the on-site and remote control of the Lake Calavera dam operation, while protecting the operating controls from weather and vandalism. The proposed structure would be placed upon a graded pad, limited in size to that needed to accommodate the building and necessary access circulation. While development of the building and access road would necessitate the clearing of 0.26 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub, the project is designed to minimize the amount of habitat impact to the greatest extent practicable. The proposed control building would be setback from the dam structure. The height of the building would be limited to 14 feet and exterior lighting would be aimed downward to minimize the visual impacts of the structure. Given the above, the Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvement proposal is consistent with the Conditional Use Ordinance. D. Habitat Management Plan In late 2004, the City of Carlsbad's Habitat Management Plan (HMP) was approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act and California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act. As a result, the City was granted authorization and issued a permit for the incidental take of species of concern covered by the HMP. These incidental takes of HMP wildlife are processed through an HMPP, the findings and conditions of which are contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 5892 attached. CUP 04-11/HMPP 05-03 - LAKE CALAVERA RESERVOIR REMEDIAL IMPROVEMENTS January 18, 2006 PaeeS In addition to identifying species of concern, such as Coastal Sage Scrub, the HMP maps "hardline" and "standards" conservation areas. Proposals for take within hardline areas are reviewed for compliance with the HMP, but are not required to undergo consultation with the wildlife agencies. Since the Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvement project was in process prior to the approval of the HMP, the City has already consulted with the FWS and DFG regarding the proposed take of the 0.78 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub regarding consistency with the provisions of the HMP. The HMP requires that mitigation for permanent impacts to gnatcatcher occupied Coastal Sage Scrub be provided at a minimum ratio of 2:1. The proposed mitigation for the 0.61 acres of permanent impacts and 0.17 acres of temporary impacts would include restoration of 0.17 acres of habitat impacted by the temporary construction access trail from the spillway to the outlet box and a credit for the preservation of 1.22 acres of occupied Coastal Sage Scrub habitat near the project site, within the City of Carlsbad. By processing an HMPP and providing the proposed mitigation, the Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvement project is consistent with the Carlsbad HMP. E. Growth Management Ordinance The Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvement is a non-residential project, therefore many of the Growth Management performance standards do not apply. Table 2 below details the project's compliance with those applicable standards. TABLE 2 - GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE Standard City Administration Library Waste Water Treatment Parks Drainage Circulation Fire Open Space Schools Water Impacts/Standards N/A N/A OEDU N/A PLDA B OADT Station No. 3 N/A N/A OGPD Compliance N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A Yes The Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvements site is located within Local Facilities Management Zone 7. No special development requirements, such as roadway construction or other infrastructure requirements, apply to this project. The Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) does require that all facilities and services necessary to serve the project be in place concurrent with, or prior to, need. The dam control operations building will be served by existing facilities on-site and in the adjacent public rights-of-way. Given the above, the Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvements project is consistent with the Growth Management Ordinance. CUP 04-11/HMPP 05-03 - LAKE CALAVERA RESERVOIR REMEDIAL IMPROVEMENTS January 18, 2006 Page 6 V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW As discussed above, one of the components of the proposal is the request for adoption of the MND for the Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvements. A detailed description of the improvement project, potential environmental impacts, and proposed mitigation measures is contained in the Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Part II and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5890. The MND analyzed the entire project, including: • Repairs to the existing Lake Calavera Reservoir intake and outlet works, spillway and access road, and outlet piping; • Construction of a new dam operations control building and security fencing; • Normal operations of the repaired reservoir works resulting in water level fluctuations between 194 feet and 214 feet elevations (msl) in accordance with an overall water management program. The project originally involved the controlled drawdown of the reservoir to fully expose the areas of work, allowing a dry construction environment. This proposal was based upon requirements of DSOD and available engineering construction methods. As discussed above, staff held further discussions with DSOD and professional engineers and derived a method that did not necessitate the drawdown of the reservoir. Based upon the revised project description, the environmental impact assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration was revised and recirculated on December 12, 2005 for the mandated 30-day public review period. Since the Planning Commission Staff Reports are distributed to the Planning Commissioners one week before the public hearing, the 30-day review period for the environmental documents was still open as of the report distribution date. Therefore, the public comments received, as well as staffs response to comments, will be distributed to the Planning Commission prior to the hearing and will be incorporated into the public record by staff at the public hearing. Due to the impacts associated with the construction of the control building, access road, and outlet pipe, as well as the.project's proximity to the wetland areas, the project requires mitigation measures in the areas of biological resources, cultural resources, and hydrology and water quality. These mitigation measures are listed in detail in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to Planning Commission Resolution No. 5890. With the mitigation measures contained in the environmental documents, including the substituted mitigation measure, all potentially significant environmental impacts have been reduced below a level of significance. In addition to the local agency permits, the Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvement project is required to obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement (Section 1601) from the DFG, a Section 404 permit from the USCOE, and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB. These permits are in process and, based upon agency comments, the City expects approvals for all permits within the upcoming months. CUP 04-11/HMPP 05-03 - LAKE CALAVERA RESERVOIR REMEDIAL IMPROVEMENTS January 18,2006 Page? ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5890 (Mit. Neg. Dec.) 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5891 (CUP) 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5892 (HMPP) 4. Location Map 5. Background Data Sheet 6. Exhibits "A" - "B" dated January 18, 2006 BACKGROUND DATA SHEET CASE NO:CUP 04-11/HMPP 05-03 CASE NAME: Lake Calavera Remedial Reservoir Improvements APPLICANT: Carlsbad Municipal Water District REQUEST AND LOCATION: Request for a Conditional Use Permit and Habitat Management Plan Permit to allow the construction and operation ,of an approximately 480 square foot intake/outlet control building for the Lake Calavera Reservoir Dam operations, located approximately 900 feet south of the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and Knollwood Drive. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of Lots D and L of Rancho Agua Hedionda. according to Map No. 823. filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on May 1, 1915. in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California APN: 168-040-02 Acres: 0.78 Proposed No. of Lots/Units: N/A GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Land Use Designation: Open Space COS) Density Allowed: N/A Existing Zone: O-S Surrounding Zoning, General Plan Zoning Site O-S North P-C South P-C East O-S West P-C School District: Carlsbad Unified Equivalenf Dwelling Units (Sewer Density Proposed: N/A Proposed Zone: N/A and Land Use: GeneraLPlan OS OS OS OS OS PUBLIC FACILITIES Water District: Carlsbad Sewer Capacity): 0 Current Land Use Reservoir Open Space Open Space Open Space Open Space District: Carlsbad ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT Negative Declaration, issued January 18. 2006 Certified Environmental Impact Report, dated_ Other, Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2006 Page 4 EXHIBIT 6 NOES: None ABSENT: Chairperson Montgomery and Cardosa Vice^Ghairjjerspn Baker closed the public hearinc ChairpersorTMoTTtfomejyaodJ&orrTrfTlssioner Cardosa returned to the dais. Dn Montgomery asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item. 5. CUP 04-11/HMPP 05-03 - LAKE CALAVERA RESERVOIR REMEDIAL IMPROVEMENTS - Request for a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvements project, a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of an approximately 480 square foot intake/outlet control building, and a Habitat Management Plan Permit to allow the take of 0.78 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub for the remedial improvements at Lake Calavera Reservoif, on property generally located approximately 900 to 1,200 feet south of the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and Knollwood Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 7. Mr. Neu introduced Item 5 and stated Senior Planner Mike Grim would make the Staff presentation. Chairperson Montgomery opened the public hearing on Item 5. Mr. Grim gave a detailed presentation on the project and stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chairperson Montgomery acknowledged the receipt of an updated map showing mitigation areas around the project site and also a letter from Preserve Calavera. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Heineman asked if there are any regulatory agencies that have not been contacted and if there were any issues that have come up. Mr. Grim stated that all the agencies which have jurisdiction over the area have been contacted and the City did redistribute all of the environmental documents and project descriptions to the agencies. Mr. Grim further stated that he received comments from the US Fish and Wildlife Service reminding Staff the City would have to demonstrate HMP Compliance when moving forward with the Army Corps of Engineers Permit. Commissioner Whitton asked if the environmental impacts are now not as extensive as stated previously. Mr. Grim stated that with the revised project description, the mitigation measures are now only for a very small portion of the site as opposed to the original project description. The impact areas are now in the spillway channel, getting access to and fixing the outlet box, improving the access road and the location of the control building. Commissioner Whitton asked if the repairs are essential for the ultimate safety and welfare of the residents, businesses, and roads downstream. Mr. Grim stated that was correct. Commissioner Segall inquired about the proposed lighting on the structure. Mr. Grim stated it is for J- security purposes. Commissioner Segall asked if the lighting is set to shine downward so as not cause a nuisance. Mr. Grim stated that was correct. Commissioner Segall inquired how far the divers would need to dive in order to repair the valves. .Chris . _, Muehlbacher, Associate Engineer, stated the divers would need to dive 18 to 20 feet down. Commissioner Segall asked what the purpose of the cameras is during the repairs. Mr. Muehlbacher stated that the Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) typically want all repairs done in the dry; however with the complexity of the project and the need to repair the dam, the live feed is a compromise made by the DSOD and it is an additional requirement of the City to ensure the installation of the pipeline. Commissioner Baker asked about the cement along the west end of Lake Calavera and if would remain after the project is complete. Mr. Muehlbacher stated that the existing gunnite would be replaced and the apron would be improved. A portion of the spillway channel would also be guniiited and the balance would have an open face block. Commissioner Baker asked if there was a way to make the changes look Planning Commission Minutes January 18,2006 Page 5 more natural. Mr. Muehlbacher stated that over time, vegetation would grow through the open face block. Mr. Grim stated that Staff could explore the possibility of getting color treatments to match the soil. Commissioner Baker further asked if the chain link fence around the building could be black instead of aluminum and if the lights on the building could be motion sensor lights. Mr. Muehlbacher stated that having the lights on motion sensors is an option that Staff could look into. Commissioner Baker commented that it would be nice if the building could be of a color which blends in better with its surroundings as opposed to just concrete block. Mr. Grim stated that was also feasible. Commissioner Dominguez inquired if motion detector lights are installed on the building could the lights be of a better version for a high profile public building, and if the older pipelines downstream from the dam will be dealt with at a future date. Mr. Muehlbacher stated that the motion lights would be on the building which would be fenced in which would add another layer of protection. He stated he could look into the possibility of encasing the lights in a cage. Mr. Muehlbacher stated that the project will need to gain access to the outlet box at the base of the dam and in order to do that the contractor will need to use the existing spillway, go all the way downstream and then work their way back up to the outlet box. In doing so, there will be a clearing and grubbing, and any obstructions and previous construction debris will be removed. As far as additional piping, there is piping that is derelict onsite. At this point, the project is confined to the spillway and access to the outlet box and nothing beyond that. Mr. Grim stated that issue is not associated with this project but could be something that is done as a cleanup effort of future preserve management. Commissioner Cardosa asked if someone could enter into the facility and inadvertently release the water from the lake. Mr. Muehlbacher stated that is part of the reason for the security fencing. In addition the building will have an alarm system as well as a SCADA system which would communicate back to the Water District headquarters. The operation of the dam can occur at either the Water District headquarters or at the dam building itself. If the alarm was triggered at the site, a message would be sent to the Water District informing them of alarm. Commissioner Cardosa asked what part of the dam outlet pipe would remain original. Mr. Muehlbacher stated that the outlet pipe would remain but will be slip-lined. Chairperson Montgomery inquired about the Northern Shore Wetland Improvement and its location, and if it is the location for wetland improvement. Mr. Grim stated that was correct and the location was identified as a potential site for wetland creation when looking for mitigation of the 14 acres. The precise mitigation plan is done in conjunction with the agency permits. Chairperson Montgomery asked if nothing was done to the spillway or to the project what chance would there be of significant problems later on. Mr. Muehlbacher stated the option of not doing anything is not an option. The City is under the jurisdiction of the DSOD and the City is required to get this project underway. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any further questions of staff. Seeing none, he asked if there were any members of the audience who wished speak on the item. Chairperson Montgomery opened public testimony on Item 5. Bill Arnold, 3432 Don Ortega, Carlsbad, President of the Rancho Carlsbad Homeowners Association, commented that he is pleased to see the City is moving forward with this project. Commissioner Whitton asked if the Rancho Carlsbad community was flooded from rains several years ago. Mr. Arnold stated this past winter there were two rainstorms that created a significant amount of water flowing through the creeks on their property. Part of the reason for that was the overspill from the dam. Don Christiansen, 3715 Longview Drive, Carlsbad, thanked the Commission for listening to public comment at the previous hearing and not draining Lake Calavera. He also thanked Staff for taking the time to research to come up with a viable alternative for the project. He further stated that solar powered lights might be an option for the lights on the building and that the fencing should be more low key or to blend in better than what is proposed. Jack Kubota, 536 Meridian Way, Carlsbad, stated that this project should be approved and should get underway as soon as possible. Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2006 CORRECTED >age6 Diane Nygaard, 5020 Nighthawk, Oceanside, representing Preserve Calavera, stated, "It is a waste of resources to plan this project 4 times simply because public input really was not properly considered in the past. If that input had been considered, the project would be done by now. A technical1 expert has described this as the Rolls Royce of dam control facilities with a whole new control building onsite plus offsite capability at the Water Department all just to be able to flip 3 switches in a dam that historically would have been operated three times in the last 8 years. A Rolls Royce that destroys 2.58 acres of wetlands and almost 1 of Coastal Sage Scrub. We all know this latest version is a huge improvement over last year's, but it still has a ways to go. Carlsbad will be issuing their own take permit on this project that means you really are the ones responsible to make sure these natural resources are protected. It is not the wildlife agencies. So before this Planning Commission allows the destruction of the wetlands and Coastal Sage Scrub for this Rolls Royce, we would urge you to ask yourself these six questions. One: have all reasonable actions been taken to avoid and minimize the wetlands and Coastal Sage Scrub impacts. Such actions could just be as simple as reducing the size of the paved parking area next to the control building and instead walk a few feet from the existing paved areas. Two: Can you assure that there are no adverse downstream impacts like more scouring of the creek banks or flooding at Rancho Carlsbad if there are no guidelines for operations of the dam. There is not one mitigation measure that addresses this. Three: Has the mitigation land been permanently protected if no funds have been committed for its maintenance and management. Any private developer in the City would be required to commit such funds as part of the project mitigation. Four: does the footprint for this project match the footprint for development shown on Figure 18 in the HMP. The land use is certainly allowed. The problem is the boundary of the area of impact and we think the handouts clearly illustrate that those two are not the same. Five, can you approve this project in good faith without seeing the referenced Wetland Habitat Restoration and Maintenance Monitoring Program. Staff said earlier tonight the plan is not yet finished but even more critical that plan is not identified as a mitigation measure. Six: has the public process this round really been fair and reasonable. This is the first, let me repeat that, this is the first, CEQA document that we have seen in this City or in any City where the comment letters in the draft report and the responses to the comments in the draft were not included in the final report. Staff have said this was available to the public prior to this hearing yet the staff report itself says they would not be available until tonight's meeting. How would anyone even know to ask for it? In fact when I did ask for it yesterday in person at the Planning Counter and in seven phone conversations to five different staff, I was not told it was available either. So if an interested party like me cannot get it, how can they really say that anyone from the general public can? If your answer to any of these questions is "no" or even "I'm not sure," then how can the Planning Commission approve this project tonight? Please send this back and say we take our responsibility to protect these resources very seriously and we want to be certain before we take action that will permanently damage this special area." Commissioner Whitton stated that he has a problem with what Ms. Nygaard commented on and understands her concern for the habitat but this is a matter of public safety with this dam and he has every confidence in the City and the City Staff and the planning groups that all these other matters that she discussed will be resolved in some satisfactory form or fashion. But he cannot, in good conscience, sit here and say that he is going to send it back again because the more it is sent back the more the potential is for public safety problems. The last thing he wants to see is any property damaged or lives threatened. Ms. Nygaard stated "they certainly support the concerns about public safety are significant, important and timely. Certainly the temporary pump provision will get us through this winter and allow us time to really make sure this project is done right. But in fact if there are no limits on dam operations a huge amount of water at high velocity could be released and could in fact make the down stream impacts very bad. She hears that Mr. Whitton says he fully trusts that that will be protected. The public deserves some protection as well and just having a dam operations plan approved gives us all that assurance." Commissioner Whitton stated he understands what Ms. Nygaard is saying but he does not see the public expressing any interest in support of her position, and the lack of such support suggests the public may be in favor of the City's position. Chairperson Montgomery stated there is one last speaker who has also submitted a two-page document that she requested be included as part of the public record. Kasey Cinciarelli, Lyons Ct, Carlsbad, read a prepared statement into the record. Planning Commission Minutes January 18,2006 Page 7 Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any questions of the speaker or if any other members of the audience wished to speak on Item 5. Seeing none, he closed public testimony on the item and asked staff to respond to the issues raised by the speakers. Mr. Grim stated that Staff could look into the suggestions made by Mr. Christiansen. Staff does want to make the building and the fencing to blend in with the surroundings. In regards to the comments from the representative from Preserve Calavera, he stated he was unsure of where the number of 2.58 acres of wetland removal is coming from. The environmental document circulated, reviewed and commented on by her has very explicit tables and not even the mitigation required at a 3:1 ratio equals 2.58 acres. I think we would disagree that this a Rolls Royce of dam protection. Combining this with a comment from the last speaker. The piping that contains the valves will have pneumatic and hydraulic system that go to the control building. Without the control building, the pneumatic and hydraulic system would have to run all the way to the water district site. What the control building allows us to do is have an interface with the dam onsite and allows remote control via communication to the operations. We want to bring this up to modern technology and make it safe. We certainly do not want to scrimp on the facility to jeopardize either safety or compliance with the DSOD. There was a comment on mitigation lands needing funding and we certainly are aware of that. If you speak with any of the planners that are doing current projects that require mitigation and speak with any of the developers going through that arduous process they will know that the City regularly regulates that. We do not require preservation without maintenance, monitoring, and management of the facility. They are very arduous requirements and that is consistent with the HMP since we are the permitting agency. There was a comment about the development footprint being shown on figure 18 and I think what that is referring to the hardline preserve area. As stated in the Staff presentation we feel that the improvements to the dam area are consistent with what is allowed with existing facilities within the hardline open space. Contrary to what the speaker said though, is because we are going to be subject to US Fish and Wildlife consultation and we are going to be subject to Department of Fish and Game permitting, we cannot issue an incidental take permit until we have gone through those reviews and they will certainly let us know if they feel that there needs to be an adjustment and what the process would be as you take the development footprint that is shown on Figure 18 and you move it over to the control building. It is what is called a hardline preserve or equivalency finding that is done through the HMP compliance phase. Staff still asserts this is an allowed use but if the wildlife agencies make us do that, we can certainly do that. That was not one of their explicit comments though. The detailed wetlands mitigation plan is through the permitting of other agencies. If we for whatever reason had full jurisdiction to actually even remove wetlands, we of course would be presenting that plan. But we work with the wildlife agencies, we defer to a lot of their expertise. They will go out there and work with the proposed plan and they may propose revisions to it and that is part of the permitting process through the wildlife agencies. With regard to the public process and the CEQA documents, the staff report clearly states in the Environmental Review section that because the public comment period extended beyond the distribution date, that we would be distributing the documents prior to the hearing and we are incorporating them into the public record. That is clearly stated in the staff report. Mr. Grim stated he could also offer testimony from Staff members that spoke to the individual and directed her to where to pick up the comments that were left at the front counter for her. Dam operations plan: we have already heard from the agencies that that is a condition for the Regional Water Quality Control Board. We are concerned about downstream erosion. I do not think that we would be doing this project if we did not have any concern about downstream erosion or potential flooding issues. That is the whole purpose of the project. That is approved by the District Engineer for the Water District so it goes not only under local review but under agency review. The last speaker talked about the need to improve the spillway and those kinds of concerns. I think we have already expressed that the spillway is under disrepair and is eroding further and to maintain the integrity not only of the spillway channel but also the dam itself which the spillway partly covers, we need to improve that. Once again, we are under DSOD requirements to do some of these areas so even if we did not want to we would probably be required by the state to do it anyway. As for some of the disposal of material, any raw materials are exported from the site. That is typically included in construction of a project. If we were proposing any stockpiling or disposals of those, those would have to be declared in the environmental document and the potential impacts would have had to be reviewed. There was a comment about the use of the lake and as it has been noted it is a flood control device. It is not intended for recreational water use. It is urban runoff and the City does not condone any active use on that lake whether it be launching boats, fishing or swimming. Anyone doing so, is doing so at their own risk and not with the City approval or recommendation. There was a comment about a full time naturalist and I Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2006 Page 8 would direct to the OSMP and the action the Council took recently which authorized staff to go out for a Request for Proposals for a Preserve Steward. That was one of the positions that was negotiated with the wildlife agencies and it was seen as a critical component to implementation of the HMP to have a certified biologist as a consultant. That Preserve Steward would not only oversee HMP implementation but they would assist with the potential review of biology reports and coordinate with all the preserve managers for their adaptive management which is part of the HMP. That is in the works and several of the issues about how the city will operate and how we will be stewards of the land, Mr. Grim stated he would direct them to the OSMP. There was one comment about why isn't the city using our own land for mitigation rather than going somewhere else. The mitigation that we need for the occupied Coastal Sage Scrub is not available within the Lake Calavera area because all of the occupied territory was already used for the golf course mitigation which was negotiated during the HMP and permitting for the golf course itself. Commissioner Baker stated two of the speakers commented on the size of parking lot for the control building and if it needed to be the proposed sized and asked Mr. Grim to respond. Mr. Muehlbacher responded that the proposed size is needed for access by operations and maintenance vehicles. Commissioner Baker also stated there was a question about noise from the pump house. Mr. Muehlbacher stated the controls are enclosed in a masonry building and they are pneumatic and hydraulic. The noise would come from an air compressor so it would cycle only when it needed to gain more pressure. The control building will attenuate equipment noise to an acceptable level. Commissioner Baker asked if the control building is necessary for the project. Mr. Muehlbacher stated that the project presented is an automated system and all the controls are the minimum necessary to control it. Commissioner Baker inquired about posting signs at the site stating the lake is not intended for recreational use. Mr. Grim stated that one of the speakers noted there is no trespassing signs posted on the site. He further stated the Parks and Recreation Department is preparing a Lake Calavera Trails map and is working with the agencies to figure out which trails to keep in the area. Part of the program should include additional signage. Mr. Grim stated he could pass the Commission's concerns onto the Parks Department. Commissioner Baker asked staff to comment on the letter received by Preserve Calavera that night. Mr. Grim stated that essentially what the Commission has heard is a fundamental disagreement on the level of HMP compliance, alternatives, analysis. We feel that project impacts have been mitigated to a level of insignificance which is demonstrated in the environmental documents and have documented compliance with the HMP. Had we done that in any gross inconsistency with the HMP or MHCP, he certainly feels that we would have gotten comments from the wildlife agencies instead of a go ahead to send them the documents. The second fundamental disagreement would be to the degree someone deems the impact to be significant and therefore needs to be mitigated. Staff fundamentally disagrees with the threshold of significance brought up by the letter. Mr. Grim also noted that some of the people who have commented have been in contact with the wildlife agencies so this is certainly not their last opportunity to influence project design or mitigation. Commissioner Whitton asked if the fence could be made out of barbwire instead of concertina. Mr. Muehlbacher stated that the function of the fence is to keep people from trespassing so any type of barrier is possible. Mr. Muehlbacher commented that it certainly can be done with barbwire. Commissioner Dominguez asked how much motor vehicle activity there will be during construction. He also asked for clarification as to if there would only be 1 vehicle a day checking on operations. Mr. Grim stated that was correct and that is what Staff is, anticipating unless something happens. During construction there will obviously be more activity. Commissioner Dominguez also asked if the larger turn- around areas would not be perpetual use. Mr. Grim stated that was correct. Commissioner Heineman asked if anyone had done any investigation as to the safety of the dam. Mr. Meuhlbacher stated the dam is inspected yearly by the DSOD. Commissioner Segall inquired who would respond if the alarm went off and how long the response time would be. Mr. Muehlbacher stated that a Maintenance and Operation staff member would receive a call /Of) Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2006 Page 9 and would respond within the half hour of the alarm. Commissioner Segall asked if there is a way to neutralize the controls remotely if someone were to break into the site. Mr. Muehlbacher stated that it would be overridden offsite. Commissioner Cardosa asked what the response would be of DSOD if no corrections were made to the dam. Mr. Muehlbacher stated that the City is under their jurisdiction. In the event that the City were to do nothing, it would come to the point that the City would have to draw down the reservoir to a safer level which is basically the first step of many. Commissioner Cardosa commented that lack of repair could significantly impact the wetlands. Mr. Muehlbacher stated that was correct. Chairperson Montgomery asked about concerns over dam operations. He asked if that is something the Commission could allude to in their document of approval, or be attached later on per the Director of Public Works approval. Mr. Grim stated that the Mitigated Negative Declaration requires that the City get certification and permits from other agencies and implicit in those permit regulations are things such as a Wetlands mitigation plan, the location of the Upland Mitigation Plan and management of that, the dam operations plan. All of those permits and their applications end up being incorporated into the project file for the CUP and the environmental review as well as the separate records that the Water District is using as a project file so those operation plans would be in there. Chairperson Montgomery asked if there is a way to expressly place that into the project file. Mr. Grim stated a condition on the project that a dam operations plan should be reviewed and approved by the Water District and approved by the agencies. Chairperson Montgomery listed the changes or improvements made: 1. Specify the color of the building to be sandstone; 2. Black fencing around the project site; 3. The spillway color be natural if possible; 4. Motion sensor for the security lighting; 5. Barbwire fencing; and 6. A Dam Operations plan be directly included in the approval as a condition. MOTION ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Baker, and duly seconded, that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 5890, ADOPTING the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued by the Planning Director and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolutions No. 5891 and 5892, APPROVING Conditional Use Permit CUP 04-11 and Habitat Management Plan Permit HMPP 05-03, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein, also to include a condition that a Dam Operation Plan will be prepared and approved by wildlife agencies and exterior surfaces of the pump house and surroundings to be natural looking including motion sensors on the light on the building and straight barb wire. DISCUSSION Commissioner Whitton commented that it would be irresponsible of him to not approve this project because thjis is essentially a non-functioning dam. Further delays would only place the public and safety beneath the dam in jeopardy as well as the escalating costs. He stated he is in favor of moving ahead with the project. Commissioner Segall supports the project and thanked staff for coming up with a viable alternative in order to make this project happen and to maintain the integrity of people downstream who could be greatly impacted by this dam. Commissioner Heineman stated staff has done an' admirably detailed job. He stated he is in favor of the project. Commissioner Dominguez also congratulated staff for coming up with a superior alternative for the project. Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 2006 Page 10 Commissioner Cardosa applauded staff for their due diligence with the project. He also thanked the public for their participation and persistence with the project. He stated he very much supports the project. Commissioner Baker also supports the project and thanked staff for their diligence and for pursuing the alternative. Chairperson Montgomery also supports the project and gave his kudos to staff for their hard work. VOTE: 7-0 AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Dominguez, Heineman, Segall, and Whitton NOES: None ABSENT: None Chairperson Montgomery closed the public hearing on Item 5 and thanked Staff for the presentation. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Whitton stated the City Council Workshop was cancelled. PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTS None. CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT MOTION By proper motion, the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of January 18, 2006, was adjourned at 8:13 p.m. DON NEU Assistant Planning Director Bridget Desmarais Minutes Clerk EXHIBIT? January 17,2006 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: Planning Department RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE LAKE CALAVERA RESERVOIR REMEDIAL IMPROVEMENTS As stated in the Planning Commission Staff Report, dated January 18, 2006, the 30-day public review period for the environmental documents pertaining to the Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvements (CUP 04-11) extended beyond the distribution date for the staff report. Therefore, this memorandum containing the public comments and staffs response to those comments is being distributed separately from the staff report package. The Planning Department received one comment letter during the 30-day public review period. This letter from Preserve Calavera, dated January 10, 2006 and copy attached, contained comments regarding aesthetics, biological resources, hydrology, and other issues. Staffs responses to those comments are detailed below. The attached letter has been augmented with numbers identifying the comments to facilitate correlation with the responses in this memorandum. Aesthetics #1 - Fencing is necessary to maintain security of the machinery and electronics in the control building from unauthorized entry. Native vegetation will be planted around the perimeter of the fence. Relocation of the- control building as suggested would not lessen aesthetic impacts. Relocation of the control building to the location identified by the commenter would necessitate import of significant fill soil to make the site higher than the spillway elevation to avoid damage from reservoir water. Biological Resources #1 - Wetlands impacts have been reduced from the 14.5 acres originally planned for permanent and temporary impacts. Only a.total of 0.074 acres of impacts to riparian and wetlands biology is now proposed. Impacts to the spillway, spillway channel and outlet box are the minimum necessary to meet the goals of the project - which is to repair the operational facilities. A LEDPA analysis is not required for Nationwide Permits. It is anticipated that this project will be issued a NWP-7 (Outfall Structures and Maintenance). NWP's are issued for permits that are considered to have no more than minimal effect on the environment (e.g.; acreage limit of 0.5 acre of impact per project). The proposed project has been determined to be the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative and the proposed wetland impacts are the minimum necessary to implement the project. #2 - The MND indicates that the new wetlands will be created "in a location along the edge of the north shore of the' reservoir that is presently highly disturbed and vegetated with non-native grasslands." This Wetlands Habitat Creation Plan will be reviewed and approved by the agencies. CEQA does not require that such plan be included in the MND. #3 - The referenced MND section includes a typographical error. The total wetland/riparian mitigation required is 0.258 acres. #4 - Mitigation for the DCSS impacts will be through the permanent conservation of 1.22 acres of occupied DCSS within Carlsbad or the surrounding vicinity. This will also include funding of permanent management and monitoring for this acreage. #5 - The DCSS mitigation change to "within the Carlsbad area" because the HMP allows for mitigation only of "unoccupied" DCSS in the Lake Calavera area. All occupied DCSS within the Lake Calavera area has already been used for the mitigation of the City golf course proj ect. #6 - Funding of permanent management and monitoring for the uplands and wetlands mitigation required by this project will be provided by the City. #7 - The City and Wildlife agencies continue to work towards establishing a mitigation bank in the Lake Calavera area, as envisioned hi the HMP. The process requires a number of additional studies and documentation, as well as approval from the Wildlife agencies, therefore no timeline for completion can be set. As stated above, this project does not propose any mitigation within the future bank. •* i #8 - The identified biological mitigation will not result in significant biological or other environmental impacts, and thus this information does not need to be included in the MND. Wetlands creation plans will be reviewed by the City and Wildlife Agencies. Wetlands creation area will include temporary fencing to minimize public disruption. #9 - Biology mitigation measure #6 indicates that a Wildlife agency-approved biologist will monitor the project construction to ensure to significant disruption to the subject species occurs, if it nests in close proximity to the construction operations. Any impacts to this species have been determined to not be significant. #10 - The project has been modified to avoid any significant disruption of the reservoir water and thus will not have a significant impact on this species. Any impacts to this species have been determined to not be significant. #11 - The project description indicates that "Low-pressure sodium illumination security lighting will be provided around the control building. This lighting will be shielded, and directed downward away from residences and adjacent open spaces." #12 - The correct numbers on DCSS mitigation are 0.07 acres creation and 1.22 acres preservation. Construction noise levels identified will mitigate for both animals and people. Noise impacts are not considered significant. Mitigation Measure #6 says clearing, grading and construction"activities shall be monitored. #13 and #14- The proposed project is consistent with the HMP and will undergo verification of this consistency during the consultation period of the required permitting with the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). The Wildlife agencies and the City are working together to establish a standardized format for HMP consistency determinations and reporting. The CEQA document, along with the supporting biological reports and surveys, indicate the project's compliance with the provisions of the HMP. More specifically, the project has been designed to reduce the impacts to the greatest extent feasible. All temporary and permanent impacts are being mitigated at the ratios required by the HMP. As stated above, relocation of the control building would necessitate a large amount of fill to be imported and a much larger, and more invasive, grading operation. No further reduction hi jurisdictional wetland areas could be accommodated without reducing the ability to conduct the construction necessary to bring the dam operations into compliance. A biologist has reviewed the proposed improvement plans and will be onsite to monitor construction activities. The area proposed for work is identified as disturbed, and even developed, on the HMP hardline preserve map for the Lake Calavera (Figure 18 of the HMP). Adjacency standards, such as the shielding of exterior lighting and planting of native landscaping, are incorporated into the project where appropriate. The dam serves as a critical public facility in providing flood control for the developed properties downstream and enhancement of the facility to meet current safety standards is consistent with the HMP. Hydrology #1 - The subject project will result in less erosion of downstream areas due to the controlled release of water rather than the existing situation which allows for flooding (uncontrolled) release of water downstream. #2 - See answer #1 above. #3 - The concrete dust from cutting the tower would not result in a significant impact. Thus no mitigation measure is required. #4 - The spillway apron has functioned for many years and no adjustment is required by DSOD in conjunction with the remedial improvements. #5 - The maintenance of the proposed facilities would not result in a significant impact. Thus no mitigation measure is required. #6 - The single automobile daily on the asphalt road would not result in a significant impact. Thus no mitigation measure is required. Other Issues #1 - The dust from construction and operations will not exceed APCD Rules and Regulations and thus would not result in a significant impact. Thus no additional mitigation measure is required. #2 - The removal of downstream, abandoned water pipes is not within the scope of the reservoir remedial improvement project and is not proposed at this time. #3 - The upstream hydrology does not pertain to the proposed reservoir remedial improvement project and, therefore, was not considered. C: Planning Director Assistant Planning Director Assistant City Attorney File Copy Attachment lo& RECEIVED JAN 1 0 2006 CITY OF CARLSBAD January 10,2006 PLANNING DEPT Mike Grim City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: Comments on Revised MND Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvements CUP 04-11 Dear Mr. Grim: These comments on the revised MND are made on behalf of Preserve Calavera. Preserve Calavera is a grassroots organization of residents of Carlsbad, Oceanside, and Vista and users of the open space around Mount Calavera in northeastern Carlsbad- the largest remaining natural area in a coastal north county city. We appreciate the major changes that have been made to this project. These changes have significantly reduced the wetlands impacts, and many of the neighborhood impacts that would have resulted from the earlier poorly planned project. But while the changes are significant, the project will still have significant adverse impacts that have been underestimated and/or have not been adequately mitigated. The following are our specific comments on this Revised MND. Aesthetics ( ) Aesthetics are an issue with the proposed project- and it will adversely effect a scenic vista- views from pedestrian trails and nearby residences of a hardline protected natural open space area next to the only lake in the city of Carlsbad. The size of the control building has been increased from 12' high to 14' and will be surrounded with a 6' high chain link fence with a 1' barbed wire crown. Painting the building an earth tone and using a pitched roof will hardly make this blend in to the natural surroundings. •». **•* Furthermore the addition of fencing around the building unnecessarily increases the area of impact. The building is located in a highly visible spot- easily seen from several rows of nearby housing. Exterior security lighting provides further protection, hi other places signage has been " ~ shown to be a significant deterrent to casual intruders. Why not eliminate the unsightly fencing- saving money, reducing the area of impact and improving the aesthetics? At a minimum there should be native vegetation around the fencing perimeter to reduce the visual impacts of this unsightly facility next to a lake. 5020 Nighthawk Way - Oceanside, CA 92056 www.preservecalavera.org : Relocating the control building to the nearside of the dam would both reduce the aesthetic impacts and the impact to sensitive habitat. Biological Resources ) San Diego County has lost an estimated 90% of its historic wetlands. The importance of wetlands to the health of the ecosystem is supported by their protection in Federal and State law, in the regional MHCP, and in Carlsbad's HMP which references the MHCP for wetlands protection. The MHCP clarifies that wetlands protection requires that a project first avoid, then minimize, then mitigate for any wetlands impacts. It specifically states in section 3.6.1 that" Any project that proposes to directly or indirectly impact wetlands or wetland vegetation communities (whether inside or outside the FPA) shall fully disclose and analyze such impacts in a CEQA document or in findings prepared under a local MHCP implementing ordinance. The CEQA document or findings document must fully analyze and factually substantiate that impacts to wetlands were avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible while still maintaining some economic or productive use of the property." This CEQA document identifies both direct and indirect impacts and has failed to show how wetlands protection criteria have been met. Furthermore wetlands impacts require compliance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines or whether the project is the least environmentally damaging practical alternative (LEDPA) as required by federal Clean Water Act regulations. Compliance with EPA Guidelines should also be included as part of the criteria for determining significance of impacts. Both the threshold and an analysis of compliance must be included as part of the assessment of impacts on biological resources. Furthermore it is clear throughout the MHCP that wetlands protection requires a three stage analysis- first avoid, then if not practicable, minimize, and after reasonable efforts to minimize- mitigate for any required impacts. It does not mean that as long as the impacts are mitigated that they are acceptable. The idea of the tiered approach is that protecting existing wetlands is a priority. The analysis of wetlands impacts needs to clearly indicate which impacts are being avoided, what actions have been taken to avoid impacts, why full impact avoidance is not practicable, what has been done to minimize the remaining impacts (i.e. some analysis of alternatives to minimize) and, lastly, how well the proposed wetlands creation will function. The wetlands impacts are associated with three project elements: the spillway, spillway channel, and the outlet box. Neither the MND analysis, nor the engineering study that was used to evaluate project alternatives discussed any alternatives to avoid or minimize the wetlands impacts caused by these three specific project elements. There are numerous reasonable alternatives to avoid or reduce these impacts such as reducing the length of the reconstructed area of the spillway, less construction hi the spillway channel, reconfiguration of the area of gunite vs Armorloc, moving the outlet box closer to the control building to reduce the length of pipeline, etc. The analysis of impacts to wetlands is not in compliance with the process described in the HMP/MHCP, the requirements of CEQA, or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines. \j, *7A ) the measures proposed to mitigate the damages to riparian or aquatic habitat do not mitigate the effect to a level of insignificance. First, the MND does not define how the existing wetlands /08 will be enhanced, or where the new habitat will be created. The MND provides insufficient information to evaluate the feasibility or the efficacy of the proposed mitigation. In their prior comment letter the wildlife agencies suggested the MND include: a description of the proposed site and an assessment of its suitability; site preparation; method of installation; irrigation plans; monitoring methods; reporting measures; performance standards and contingency measures that could be implemented if the standards are not met. The MND includes none of these. The description of the proposed mitigation is not adequate for the wildlife agencies or for the general public to determine the effects of the project ) Page 30 states " Therefore pursuant to CDFG and USAGE policies, the total wetland/riparian mitigation required is 0.258 acres. This mitigation program will involve wetland creation of 0.198 acres ..." Please clarify how the provision of 0.198 acres mitigation equals the 0.258 acres that are required? ) The MND admits that the project will have a significant adverse affect on .78 acres of Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (DCSS). The DCSS is the preferred habitat of the California Coastal Gnatcatcher (CCG), a federally threatened avian species. Therefor any destruction of DCSS will in turn impact the threatened CCG. To mitigate for the impacts to this DSCC the MND proposes the "restoration of area impacted by the temporary construction access trail from the spillway to the outlet box (0.17 acres) and credit for the preservation of the balance (2:1) by permanent legal preservation of 1.22 acres of quality DCSS habitat (considered "occupied" by the California Gnatcatcher) within Carlsbad or the surrounding vicinity." In the prior comment letter the wildlife agencies suggested the proposed mitigation should include: description of the proposed site, and an assessment of its suitability; site preparation; method of installation; irrigation plans; monitoring methods; reporting measures; performance standards and contingency measures that could be implemented if the standards are not met. The MND includes none of that, it merely contains a statement that credit for permanent legal preservation is sufficient. A "credit" does not mitigate the effects of the loss of the DCSS habitat to a level of insignificance. ( ) The location of the DCSS mitigation has been changed from "within the Lake Calavera property" ( page 29 in last year's MND) to " within the Carlsbad area" (page 27 of current MND). Please clarify why this change was made and what the justification would be to allow mitigation to be relocated out of this core area, out of the watershed of impact- and even potentially outside of the city of Carlsbad? The area of impact is high quality DCSS within the largest remaining core area'bf coastal North County and there are numerous mitigation sites within this same core area and same watershed. At the time of the earlier MND the HMP was not adopted. Now it has been- and the city has even greater opportunities to manage and protect their existing natural lands for the residents of Carlsbad. Yet you specifically change this provision in a way that potentially wastes taxpayer money (you of course already own the Lake Calavera land so there would be no acquisition cost) and potentially exports open space. Please change this back to the original language so impacts at Lake Calavera are mitigated at Lake Calavera. ( ) The city of Carlsbad adopted HMP and the Implementing Agreement indicate that it is the city's intent to establish a Mitigation Bank of 206.1 total acres at the Lake Calavera property. The project proposes to impact both wetland and upland habitat at Lake Calavera. The required mitigation may or may not take place within the 206.1 acre site. Both the acres, of impact and the acres of mitigation could impact the Mitigation Bank. In the absence of a Bank agreement the city is still obligated under the conditions of the take permit to fund all of the publicly owned hardline conservation land-within one year of execution of the take permit including permanent management of all mitigation land. The city is past the one year time period to have these funds in place. If such funds for management of all public hardline open space are not hi place by the time of project approvals, then at least the funds for management of mitigation land associated with this specific project are required. ( ) In their February 22,2005 response to the California Department of Fish and Game city staff stated" The city of Carlsbad has preserved in Calavera Dam Mitigation Bank, including the proposed mitigation property, in perpetuity. Carlsbad plans to process the necessary documentation for an overall mitigation bank in the near future " If the Bank agreement is executed prior to project initiation then this would impact mitigation credits available at the Bank, the requirement to fully fund maintenance of the entire Bank, and transfer of a conservation easement to CDFG or another acceptable third party." Please clarify "near future" and what will change with execution of the bank agreement as a result of the impacts from this project. ( ) Please provide maps that show areas of enhanced and created habitat by habitat type. It is impossible to assess the adequacy of the mitigation measures without knowing where they will be located, and how they are to be configured. Deferring this information to a future Mitigation/Monitoring Plan (MMP) with the US ACOE permit does not allow for analysis of project impacts in the CEQA document. The final MMP can be deferred for approval with the later permits, but at least a concept level plan should be included with the MND. The plan should also explain how new vegetation will be protected from the effects of public use right through the center of the restoration site. ( ) There is a white tailed kite nesting site of several years duration just upstream from the project site, and the kites are regularly seen in the project area. The biological survey noted the presence of the white tailed kite hi the biological study area- a state fully protected species for which there is no take authorization. The MND failed to discuss any measures to assure no direct or indirect impact to this sensitive species, which was specifically identified in the project area. Please evaluate these potential impacts and include appropriate mitigation. jL\ Q ( ) A Southwestern pond turtle was found on the biological survey and the prior project included a~mitigation measure to mitigate impacts to this species by providing a temporary relocation plan. Apparently the MND assumes that the revised construction plan has eliminated any potential impact to this species- with no mention of it. Please clarify how the revised construction plan will assure there are no impacts to this protected species. OP \\( ) The lighting descriptions are not consistent throughout the document. Please add a mitigation measure on the summary table: exterior lighting on the control building will be low - pressure sodium, shielded and directed down with no light spillover in accordance with the HMP. Also please consider the use of motion sensors on the lighting to reduce the amount of time that there is illumination. ijj/i 110 ) Three of the biological resource mitigation measures shown on the summary page do not match the text shown on pages 60 and 61. Please clarify these discrepancies which include: #3" DCSS mitigation is .10 restoration and. 1.46 preservation at Lake Calavera on the summary and .17 restoration and 1.22 at a location deemed acceptable to the Wildlife Agencies on page 60. # 4 does not address noise control. This needs to address the exterior noise levels for both people and for animal species. # 6 biologist role is incorrectly restricted to brush clearing to avoid impacts to birds. Per the text (and more specific requirements in the HMP) the role of the on-site biologist is much broader. ) The MM) failed to provide sufficient discussion of HMP consistency. We identified a number of consistency issues in our prior comment letter and these issues still have not been addressed. Under the provisions of the HMP this project must either be considered a "minor amendment" or as a hardline area that is consistent. The discussion in the MND is not sufficient to support a consistency finding under either of these procedures. While the MND has failed to properly identify the basis for consistency, this was addressed previously in Planning Commission Resolution Number 5892. These findings were incomplete, inaccurate, and failed to support the conclusion in the MND that this project is consistent with the HMP. Our concerns about inconsistency with the HMP include the following: - Finding 1 states" That the Lake Calavera Reservoir remedial Improvements is shown on Figure 18 Section D of the HMP as a hardline area." The project area marked on Figure 18 is actually the entire proposed Lake Calavera mitigation bank, only a small portion of which is the subject project. Furthermore the only area of development identified on Figure 18 is not the area that will be impacted by the proposed project. The Figure is not an accurate depiction of the project or the area of impact. - Finding 6 states "That the project design as approved by the city of Carlsbad has avoided and minimized impacts to wildlife and habitat and species of concern to the maximum extent practicable." There is no discussion in the MND or supporting documents that supports a conclusion that impacts to the California coastal gnatcatcher, a species of concern, have been so avoided and minimized. The impacts to this species are associated with the design and location of the control building and roadways. There are numerous, practicable alternatives that would reduce these impacts and should have been considered. These include but are not limited to: relocating the control building to the nearside of the dam where habitat is already degraded, the distance to the I/O tower would be reduced, and there would be no need for paving of the road across the dam; reducing or eliminating the parking area as sections of the roadway are gated and fenced for the exclusive use of city staff and could be used for parking; reducing the size of the building footprint; locating all or a portion of the building within landscaped areas or on land that is already degraded rather than in high quality coastal sage scrub Deducing the size of the building slab- which includes a substantially larger area than just the building. Several such building modifications were recent permit related actions by the wildlife agencies for a proposed reconstruction of the city of Vista Raceway Sewer Pump Station. If such changes are a requirement for one city that does not have its own take permit- they should be the same for a city that does have its own permit authority. The city of Carlsbad did not review the project consistent with past practice for avoidance of coastal sage scrub. - Section D.6 states "All projects that would effect type A habitats (riparian and wetland habitats, including vernal pools) must demonstrate that the impacts; 1. Cannot be avoided by a feasible alternative, 2) have been minimized to maximum extent possible, and 3) will be mitigated hi ways that assure no net loss of habitat value or function. This demonstration will occur as part of the CEQA review for the project, will require documentation and analysis of the impacts and analysis of impacts and alternatives, and must include an evaluation of the value and function of the affected habitat." The MND states " Wetland related biological impacts will result from the project primarily involve the potential for impacts to wetland vegetation associated with the construction of the spillway apron and channel improvements, and the laid- back structure." It goes on to show tables summarizing the impacts and required mitigation, but there is no discussion of any effort to avoid or minimize these impacts as is required by the HMP. The analysis required for wetlands impacts has not been provided in the MND. - Section F.l.B. 1) states "As City projects utilize mitigation credits from this bank, an endowment amount will be deposited in a fund to provide for long-term management." No such endowment funds have been provided although it is clear that the permanent impacts are being deducted from the anticipated remaining credits in the bank once it is formally established. Whether the Lake Calavera Mitigation bank is formally established or not, the permanent impacts to sensitive habitat trigger the requirement for permanent management. These required funds have not been provided which is not consistent with the provisions of the MHCP and HMP. Section F.2.A items 1), 2) and 3) include specific recommendations for habitat restoration and revegetation plans. These specific requirements have not been addressed hi the mitigation measures, which is both a CEQA issue as discussed previously, and an issue of inconsistency with the HMP. - MHCP Volume 1 Section 6.2.3 states " The sub-area plan and or/implementing regulations will address the following site design objectives...." Carlsbad's HMP does not specifically address these issues. In the absence of further city specific requirements, the project must still comply with the general guidelines of this section of the MHCP. Several of these guidelines have not been complied with hi the design of the control building and access roads. The key areas of non-compliance include: • Retain a biologist to review all grading plans (e.g. all access routes and staging areas), oversee all aspects of construction monitoring... (The role of the biologist is much more limited than is required for compliance). • Design placement of new development hi lower quality or disturbed areas. (The proposed control building will impact high quality coastal sage scrub although there are disturbed areas that could be utilized or the area of impact could be reduced) • Encourage greater flexibility in engineering design standards for park roads and maintenance roads through preserve areas. Design these roads to minimize biological impacts, while still considering safety standards (e.g. minimize biological impacts while still considering safety standards ( e.g., minimize bed width, eliminate shoulders or rural roads and maintenance roads, and minimize the number and location of maintenance roads.) (There is little justification for the road and on-site parking in this sensitive area) • Avoid co-locating human trails and wildlife movement corridors. (Wildlife use the dam for crossing in this area. The project proposes to pave the dam road, extend the area of road surface, and put regular maintenance vehicles on the road- which is also the pedestrian trail linkage. While co-locating is reasonable in this area- adding the vehicular traffic and fences and gates will be problematic for both the wildlife and people). ) Section E.3.A of the HMP discusses the equivalency findings process. It states " Minor changes to HMP maps to show actual, precise boundaries of conserved land, and which do not reduce the acreage or quality of the habitat, will be treated as automatic amendments under an Equivalency Finding. The city will provide written notice of the Equivalency Findings to USFWS and CDFG, and unless USFWS and CDFG object within 30 days after notification, the change will be considered approved. If objections are raised, the city will meet with the agencies to resolve the issue; and written approval of the resulting change will be required." The Figure 18 hardline map in the HMP for Lake Calavera is not consistent with the area of development proposed for this project. However the hardline map does show an area of impact which appears to be slightly larger than what is proposed for this project. The project could propose revised hardline boundaries and prepare a minor amendment consistent with the provisions of the HMP. According to statement of Mike Grim at a meeting on January 6,2006 it is the city's position that this Equivalency Findings process would run concurrent with the CEQA review, with the equivalency findings included in the CEQA documentation thereby allowing for both agency and public review and comment. With this project there has been no notice to the agencies of an Equivalency Finding, nor have the findings been included in the CEQA document. Failure to address the proposed modifications to hardline boundaries as shown in the approved HMP constitutes a further, major violation of HMP compliance. Hydrology jM ( ) Geology and Soils are potentially impacted by the project due to the potential for significant geomorphic impacts to the downstream channel below the dam. This needs to be corrected on the Checklist. Photo's E and F, page 9 of the Hydraulic Impact Study (2/3/04) show some of these conditions. Although the text says these are not active erosion sites, the photo and stream configuration support a conclusion that these are active erosion sites. The Impact Study also shows Froude Numbers at 1.01 for many reaches of the creek from the modeling results. This indicates the potential for super-critical flow conditions in these reaches, which could cause further active erosion. Additionally the DSOD regulations will result in changes to the dam operation after the repairs are made. No modeling was performed for the changes to these flows, which were also not discussed hi the Initial Study. New modeling is required of the downstream conditions. This should include a table showing releases estimated to meet the DSOD conditions plus releases estimated for the 7,25 and 100 year interval storms. The Initial Study should change the analysis of soils and hydrology, sections VI, a - b) and VIII, e to "potentially significant" until the above analysis is completed and demonstrates that the drainage pattern is not substantially altered and soil erosion is not increased. The MND concludes "Although erosion of the channel banks has occurred in the past, significant active erosion is not occurring on a regular basis." There is no support for this conclusion provided in the MND. The city's own downstream testing of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon shows increasing sediment since 1999 when regular testing was initiated. The MND assumes that operation of the dam, by the dam manager (a position that does not exist within the city) will assure flow volumes and velocity that do not cause further downstream erosion, yet the described conditions could result in significant adverse impacts unless they are mitigated. Such mitigation should include adoption of dam operating and maintenance procedures that specify limits for volume and velocity of release and monitoring to assure no erosion impacts from the new dam operating regimen. In the absence of such a mitigation measure, there is no assurance that there will not be adverse impacts. Please add appropriate mitigation measure specifying dam operating conditions that protect the downstream area from potential impacts. ) The project also could significantly increase erosion(sediment) into receiving surface waters. (Section VIII,L). Only a temporary increase in existing discharge required by the dam construction and lowering of the pool has been modeled. This model did show velocities in the channel a critical- velocity as discussed above. No modeling was done for the higher flows required by the DSOD conditions. Again the pictures taken during the field portion of the hydraulic study show the potential not only for cutting along the stream banks but also the potential for significant sloughing of the vertical stream banks (Photo's E and F). <% This is not just an issue under the emergency DSOD regulation conditions. Over the last ten years we are aware of only two times when water has been discharged over the spillway. With the dam operational lake discharges will presumably occur much more frequently. What will be the cumulative impact of much more frequent discharges on the vertical stream banks that are already showing significant sloughing? Impacts could be significant unless mitigated. Please add mitigation measure describing dam operating procedures that mitigate for this potential impact. ( ) The Environmental Evaluation of section VTH.a) indicates that removal of the I/Otower" will result in a small amount of concrete dust entering the reservoir water." The proposed mitigation measures list" concrete waste management" as one of the construction BMP's. This is too vague to provide any assurance of protection of the water quality from concrete dust. Please explain how concrete dust impacts will be mitigated. ) According to the engineering study the spillway apron was originally designed for 2,300 csf and the goal of the remedial work is to restore it to that capacity. The apron is about 500' long and varies between 5' and 25' high. There is no discussion as to whether this is an optimum apron design (only that it is cost effective to just clean out debris and respray the gunite on the existing structure.) The height and length of the apron result in high velocity flows whenever the lake reaches the level that spills are occurring. The MND concludes gunite spillway surface has no effect on water velocity. The hydrology study does not provide sufficient information to verify that downstream velocities will be controlled sufficiently to protect further degradation of the channel and other impacts. Furthermore the surface material was changed from all gunite, to a combination of gunite and Anchorlok. Was the hydrology analysis modified to account for the change in spillway surface material? Further analysis of spillway velocity is needed - both during the projects and for the flows anticipated with a 100 year flood considering the current proposal for spillway surface material. While the MND is not required to do a minute analysis of valve operation, it is required to assess potential downstream impacts. Simply stating that there is not a problem does not constitute sufficient analysis of this. Either provide further analysis of downstream impacts, or include operating procedures for the dam that assure that this is being adequately controlled. ) Page three indicates that disrepair and debris within the spillway channel as well as some floor erosion have reduced the carrying capacity of the channel. Mitigation needs to include a maintenance plan for this area that assures adequate channel capacity. The fish screens are a new addition to this area,which will need to be addressed in the maintenance plan. Any impacts associated with this more rigorous maintenance schedule also need to be included in the impact analysis. This repair project- and all of the associated impacts and public costs are a result of the lack of maintenance on the original dam valves. The maintenance of new/modified public infrastructure within a hardline preserve area is an indirect impact from this project, or the city intends not to do any maintenance. Either evaluate and mitigate for the indirect impacts from maintenance of all of the new infrastructure, or state that there are no impacts as you do not intend to do any maintenance. ( ) Improvements will be made to the asphalt-concrete access road. It is not specified exactly how much roadway surface will be effected- or where. Much of the current area that is described is dirt- with spotty degraded plant cover hi several places, and some old, broken up asphalt. The MND states that there will be a slight increase hi impervious cover from the roadway construction, but that this will have a negligible impact. Yet the area of impervious surface change is immediately above the lake on one side, and Calavera creek on the other side. At one point the city staff said there would be at least daily site inspection- presumably with a vehicle on the road daily. There is no discussion of drainage control from the road surface,which is /It) changing from dirt to impervious for a surface now expecting regular vehicle use and the apron . area which will presumably have daily vehicle parking. Further discussion of roadway design is required to support the conclusion that this will result in negligible impacts and that run-off from the road and parking area has been addressed. Other Issues «L\ ( ) Dust control during construction- with spraying of gunite, roadwork, etc is of concern because the construction area is surrounded on all sides by native habitat, and has nearby residences. It is not sufficient to just say the project will "comply with all APCD Rules and Regulations." This is a public project, in an area not easily monitored, surrounded by sensitive habitat Dust control measures should be specified, including identification for who is responsible for monitoring and enforcement. Since the fox is watching the henhouse there needs to be clear accountability, numbers posted to report problems, and clarification of the inspection schedule. Of the 12 mitigation measures included with the project not one addresses compliance with air quality regulations. ) The abandoned original water supply pipeline downstream from the project site is now visible in at least two locations down stream. The pipe appears highly corroded, and in some places is suspended several feet above the ground level. The integrity of these pipes is of concern. Unplanned failures could be damaging to the creek as well as create safety hazards for the high levels of public use in the area. The tune to remove them would be in conjunction with this project. An evaluation of the integrity of these pipes, and the advantages/disadvantages of their removal, should be considered as part of the project scope. ) The 2001 engineering study indicated that no gauging stations have been set up on any of the tributary streams feeding into Lake Calavera so the data on inflow volumes are based on estimates and not hard data. These estimates ranged from annual run-off volumes into the lake of 100-800 acre feet. This seems a very wide variation. We are very concerned about the cumulative impacts on this subwatershed HSU 4.3, and the lack of hard data upon which to base decisions. We do know that inflow to the coastal lagoons, including Agua Hedionda has shown dramatic increases over the last twenty years. There should at a minimum be a sensitivity analysis, with some assessment of the effects- of this inflow variability and either under or over estimating the inflow during this time where variations may be problematic. Such gauging stations would not be a requirement for this project- but would provide valuable information for assessing water quality and flow conditions that are important for addressing the cumulative impacts on this sub-watershed. Conditions in the project area have changed dramatically since this dam was built. They have also changed significantly over the last 10 years while the dam has been inoperable. The HMP and related permit conditions, and new stormwater protection guidelines were not in place the last time the dam was operated. CEQA does notrequire analysis of original conditions before the dam was built- but it does require evaluation of current conditions. The absence of reliable current data does not support adequate evaluation of these impacts on this impacted watershed. Please consider the addition of such monitoring stations as part of a plan to address cumulative impacts. 10 Conclusions This project has come a long way- but it still has a way to go to assure that it will result in long term improvements to trnVprecious area and not cause further destruction to a much loved local resource. We believe these comments fully support our recommendation to do some more analysis, strengthen a few mitigation measures and then move forward with an even better project. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We look forward to working with you to achieve a project that the City of Carlsbad can be proud of - one that protects the Agua Hedionda watershed and the irreplaceable natural land at Calavera. Sincerely, Diane Nygaard On Behalf of Preserve Calavera Cc: Ben Prater USFWS Nancy Frost CA DFG Christopher Means RWQCB Professor Richard Wharton USD Environmental law Clinic 11 EXHIBITS From: <Benjamin_Frater@fws.gov> To: "Mike Grim" <Mgrim@ci.carlsbad.ca.us> Date: 01/23/2006 12:19:09 PM Subject: Re: Lake Calavera Reservoir Improvements Mike, You are correct. We are waiting for a consistency determination from the City for this project. When we receive it, we will review it to ensure compliance with the HMP. At that time we will make a determination; but currently we have made no determination-either formally or informally-that I am aware of. Ben Benjamin Prater Fish and Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, California 92011 (760)431-9440x310 Carlsbad HMP FIGURE 30 HMP COMPLIANCE PROCESS All Receive-Agenda Item #_]££_ Project Submittal For the Information of the: CITY COUNCIL City Located in Hardline Area 1 : Located in Standards Area Reviewed for Compliance with HMP T Consultation and Concurrence with Wildlife Agencies and City If Non-Compliance See *Below If Complies, Normal City Review Reviewed for Compliance with Standards Contained in HMP If Project Approved, City Issues "Take" Permit A APR 1 8 2006 CITY OF CARLSBADCITY CLERK'S OFFICE If Non-Compliance See *Below If Complies with Standards, Processed under Consistency Finding to HMP Normal Cjty Review If Project Approved, City Issues "Take" Permit Non-Compliance Processing Alternatives Include: 1) Redesign Project 2) Submit for Plan Amendment to HMP E-2 DECEMBER, 1999 AS AMENDED FINAL APPROVAL NOVEMBER, 2004 PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above- entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of North County Times Formerly known as the Blade-Citizen and The Times-Advocate and which newspapers have been adjudicated newspapers of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of San Diego, State of California, for the City of Oceanside and the City of Escondido, Court Decree number 171349, for the County of San Diego, that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpariel), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit: March 28th, 2006 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at SAN MARCOS California This 28th, Day of March, 2006 Signature Jane Allshouse NORTH COUNTY TIMES Legal Advertising Proof of Publication of NOTICE Of PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL - LAKE CALAVERA RESERVOIR NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City ot Carlsbad willhold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive,Carlsbad California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuestiay. April 18, 2006, to consider anappeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve the Habitat Manage-ment Plan Permit for the Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvementsproject, to allow the take of 0.78 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub for the remedialimprovements at Lake Calavera Reservoir, on propertygenerally located ap-proximately 900 to 1.200 feet south of the intersection ofTamarack Avenue andKnollwood Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 7, and more particularlydescribed as: Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attendthe public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on or after theFriday prior to the hearing date. If you have any questions, please call MichaelGrim in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4623. If you challenge the Habitat Management Plan Permit in court you may belimited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the publichearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to theCity ofCarlsbad, Attn: City Clerk, .1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad CA92008, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE:HMPP 05-03 CITY OF CARLSBADCITY COUNCIL NCT 1916551 -03/28/2006 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL - LAKE CALAVERA RESERVOIR REMEDIAL IMPROVEMENTS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the Council Chambers, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California, at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 18, 2006, to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve the Habitat Management Plan Permit for the Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvements project, to allow the take of 0.78 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub for the remedial improvements at Lake Calavera Reservoir, on property generally located approximately 900 to 1,200 feet south of the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and Knollwood Drive, in Local Facilities Management Zone 7, and more particularly described as: A portion of Lots D and L of Rancho Agua Hedionda, according to Map No. 823, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on May 1, 1915, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. Those persons wishing to speak on this proposal are cordially invited to attend the public hearing. Copies of the agenda bill will be available on or after the Friday prior to the hearing date. If you have any questions, please call Michael Grim in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4623. If you challenge the Habitat Management Plan Permit in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Carlsbad, Attn: City Clerk, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad CA 92008, at or prior to the public hearing. CASE FILE: HMPP 05-03 PUBLISH: March 28, 2006 CITY OF CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL SITE LAKE CALAVERA REMEDIAL IMPROVEMENTS CUP 04-11 Jam Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51 60® HARVEY MIRIAM G FAMILY TRUST 06 3641CERROAVE OCEANSIDE CA 92056 LAGAYA ALFRED C&KARLA S 27 ALDER AVE WALNUT CREEK CA 94595 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY BUSSEN G&MICHELLE1M 3641 STR^affADR CARLSBAD CA 92008 BEARDSLEY TERRY R&GAIL E 3533 KNOLL WOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 KREFT BRIAN 3749 SKY HAVEN LN OCEANSIDE CA 92056 CANCELLERIDANII R&ANITA F 3718SADBCEDR sBADCA CITY OF CARLS PUBLIC AGENCY OOOWL KUDASIK MARY S 3757 SKY HAVEN LN OCEANSIDE CA 92056 AVERY® 5160® LABARBERA PAUL&SHARON 3 541 HUMMOCK DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 MOYNAN ROBERT D&LINDA J 3725 SADDLE DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 DEMARCO ANTHONY J JR 3657 AZURE LADO DR OCEANSIDE CA 92056 LAURENBRITTINBROOKE CO 3538 KNOLLWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 BEHRENS JEANETTE S PO BOX 130785 CARLSBAD CA 92013 HULTIN SUE A 4231LATIERADR OCEANSIDE CA 92056 MCFERRAN CLIFFORD 3650 AZURE LADO DR OCEANSIDE CA 92056 LANE KATHLEEN M V W 3930 RILL CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 HEUMANN RONALD^— - R&ROSEMARYJ^-^"^ 3919ROCKFIELDCT 08 FELIX ROBIN 4143 BAYCLIFF WAY OCEANSIDE CA 92056 FILIPPI ANDI 3896 ROCKFlELD CT CARLSBAD CA 92W8 ERICSON GLEN*TE 3662 CERR3WE OCEANSIDE CA 92056 MILLER RICHAJ 3635 CERR£ OCEANSIDE CA 9: RENDON DANIEL LIVING 3970 FOOTfflKC AVE CARLSBADCA 9200^ ®09is ®Ad3AV CABLE DRAGON REALTY TRUST NO 1 2 MARIGOLD AVE WELLESLEY MA 02482 BROKENSHIRE DONALD&M^Rf LIVING 3737SK«AVENLN E CA 2056 KAMHOLZ JEFFREY L 3600 CARLSBADCA 92008 MCMILLIN MONTARA^ 2727 HOOVER NATIONALITY CA 91 STI SUN CHANGHUA&LII XIAOWEN 3506 KNpiEWOOD DR CARf^BADCA ^2008 ROSE HAROLD&DEIRDRE M 3570 GORGE PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 CALAVERA HILLS IIL L^ C/O MCMILLIN CO>fl»ANIES 2727 Hp0VER AVE NATIONAL CITY CA91950 CYPRESS C/O HOMEBLUTOERS INC 2727^fOOVERAVE NATIONAL CITY CA91950 AM3AV-O9-008H uier Jam Free Printing . Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® MIFSUD FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP 7340 BINNACE CARLSBAD CA 92009 CALAVERA HILLS M; ASSN 2727 HOOV ' CITY CAro GOMBAR JOHN&BARBARA LIVING TRUS 775 MARSOPA DR VISTA CA 92081 CYPRESS VALLEY L L C C/O MCMILLIN HOMEBUILDERS INC 2727 HOOVER AVE NATIONAL CITY CA91950 WHILLOCK COURTNEY J&KRYSTIE L 3537 KNOLLWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 DOMINGO GLENN P&JENIFER 3952 PLATEAU PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 VALENCIA ROBERTO M&YVETTE M 3928 PLATEAU PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 SALAZAR JOE J&CATHERINE L 3925 PLATEAU PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 GRAHAM THOMAS M 3721 SKY HAVEN LN OCEANSIDE CA 92056 HANSON WILLIAM A&EUNICE A 3627 CERRO AVE OCEANSIDE CA 92056 ®09lS ••^ www.avery.com —— 1-800-GO-AVERY 80 SOUTH COLO/FORNIA L L C C/O ERNIE JABLONSKI 6530 S YOSEMITE ST #204 GREENWOOD VILLAGE CO80111 SHEA FAMILY TRUST 07-19-02 3932 PLATEAU PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 MCMILLIN MONTARA^TL C 2727 HOOVER, NATIONAirCfrY CA 91! MCGUIRE MICKEY A&REGINA 3633 STRATA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 WALTERS DUANE T&NANCY W LIVING 3554 KNOLLWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 BASSETT SARAH 3646 SKY HAVEN LN OCEANSIDE CA 92056 GOAD ROBERT F&CINDY A 4227 LA TIERA DR OCEANSIDE CA 92056 YEAGER WILLIAM S&KIMBERLY C 3919 RILL CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 CYPRESS VALLEY L>e C/O MCMILLm^-^ HOMEBUJitfERS INC 2727HOOVER AVE NfCTIONAL CITY CA91950 ACEVEDO FAMILY TRUST 08- 05-04 3659 AZURE LADO DR OCEANSIDE CA 92056 AM3AV-O9-008-1 _ AVERY® 5160® RASHKIN DARREN T&TIFFANY L 3612BAYVIEWPL CARLSBAD CA 92008 MUSKAL STEVEN M&KIRSTEN E 3625 STRATA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 CHOU CHARLES SHY-RU&SU YUN-LIN 3530 KNOLLWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 KIM FAMILY TRUST 02-03-00 3530 HUMMOCK DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 CYPRESS VALLEYMTC C/O MCMILLJ^X^ HOMEBUJkEJERS INC 2727H0OVERAVE N>mONAL CITY CA91950 LOPEZ FRANCISCO J&SILALAHI PJMA 3721 SADDLE DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 TELECH ARTHUR B&IMA J 26981 CALLE DON CARLO SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO CA 92675 WILSON SHAD T&KELIILIKI- WILSON 3725 SKY HAVEN LN OCEANSIDE CA 92056 HUSSAIN MOHAMMED ALI&AZRA R 3957 FOOTHILL AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 CARLSBAD UNIFIED^SCHOOL DISTRIC PUBLIC AGENCY OOOC 6ui)uu<j aaij uier Jam Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® CYPRESS VALLEY LVC C/O MCMILLIN^-"'^ HOMEBUJtBERS INC 2727JJ0OVERAVE IONAL CITY CA91950 HERNANDEZ JOSHUA 12220 PIGEON PASS RD #O MORENO VALLEY CA 92557 ^^^B www.avery.com — 1-800-GO-AVERY FLEMING DAVID S III&PAIGE L 3637 SKY HAVEN LN OCEANSIDE CA 92056 KUHN ADOLPH JR&MARY K 3702 SADDLE DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 AVERY® 5160® HOVEY JOHN M JR&PAULA C 3904 ROCKFIELD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 AMENDOLA JOSEPH F 2522 VIA ESPARTO CARLSBAD CA 92008 FARR FAMILY TRUST 10-09-98 5791 LA JOLLA CORONA DR LA JOLLA CA 92037 HA VU UY&LE THANH HANG 3976 PLATEAU PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 KINANE ROSALEE M 3633 CERRO AVE OCEANSIDE CA 92056 HEMKER ROBERT A&MARY A 3926 RILL CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 HEUMANN DOUGLAS C 3987 FOOTHILL AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 KUVELAS JACK&SHIRLEY D 3561 KNOLLWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 LN NEAL SHARON 3709 SKY OCEANsfDE CA THOMASON GA] 3675 AZURE, OCEAN5 9205< ODR CA IARIA VINCENTjJ 3574 GORGj CARLS 92C COBB RICHARB&JOANNE M 3648 SKYHATENLN CA 556 FREEMAN AT B&JACQUE£INE L 3944J>k&TEAU PL .SBAD CA 92008 BOZZO JAIMfc^ 1636STR£MONTST 92054 TAHMASSEBI NASSER&CATHY 22392 SPICEWOOD DR GOSHEN IN 46528 PL GUNIA MICHAEL ETRAP ANI- GUNIAJ 3968 CARLSBAD CA 92008 FREDERICK JAMES T&LOIS I 3658 CERRO AVE OCEANSIDE CA 92056 WOOD LINDA T OCE 9J2056 ELEN R ®09is BRAGG DONALI 3661 AZUI OCEANStDE CA HUTCHINSON 3729 SKY: OCEANSfl5E CA % AM3AV-O9-008-1 ODR DECRANS MARIAH 4133 BAYCLIFF WAY OCEANSIDE CA 92056 CARSON RONALD E&PATRICIA 3626 CONTOUR PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 WANDERSKI FRANK III&LAURIE A 3956 PLAJfotfJ PL CARtSBADCA YOUSEFI GEORGE K 3630 CONTOUR PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 KREBS EDWARD L&CONNIE M 3647 CERRO AVE OCEANSIDE CA 92056 MCMILLIN MOND 2727 HOOVI NATIpNAtTciTY CA 91 LC ®091S 31V1dW3i (jAjeAV asn Jam Ffee Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® BENNER SCOTT F 3650 CERRO AVE OCEANSIDE CA 92056 DAVIS CHRISTOPHER C&SHEILA A 3542 HUMMOCK DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 CHANDLER ADELE R TRUST 05-08-96 3962 FOOTHILL AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 JOHNSON JAMES L&LORRAINE 3717 SADDLE DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 SHIN YONG KWO su 3961 FOOTHTLLAVE CARLSBAD CA 9 SCHUSTER MO TRUST 3990 FOOTHILL AVE CARLSBAD CA 9. HABERSTROH SHtfUN C 3529 KNOL^WOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 920i SELLINGS TRALTON' J&CHARLOTJE'S 3741 SKYJHAVEN LN OCEANSIDE CA 92056 ^ JAKOBSEN JOJfl<r 3726 SADpZEDR CARLSBAD CA 93608 WANG LIVING VONHUBEN C] J&STEFANI 3526 KNpfcfWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 ®09is 'HER «•• www.avery.com —— 1-800-GO-AVERY MCMILLIN MONTARA^TL C 2727 HOOVEI NATIONALITY CA 91! KELLY STEVE M&BARBARA S 3613 STRATA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 BRAMAN MICHAEL S&ELIZABETHJ 3911ROCKEKLDCT CA RUBIALES ROBERT. A&PAULETTE^ 3972PLAJE?(UPL CARLSBAD CA 508 VISTA CALAVERA HOMEOW P O BOX 15J CARLSBAD CA 92 BAER JOHN M&KATHRIN L 3640 SKY HAVEN LN OCEANSIDE CA 92056 TRAN HOANG QUANG&NGUYEN LAURA T 3605 BAY>*IEW PL CARLSBAD CA )8 CYPRESS VALLEY \A^ HOMEBUILpStSINC 2727 H03VER AVE NATONAL CITY CA9195J; HAGE WILLIAM&NfCOLE 3642 CERRC OCEANSfl5E CA 9^ RIVAS MIKE A&JO A 3963 PLATEAU PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 AH3AV-O9-008-L _ AVERY® 5160® BAHR TERRY E&NOEI LIVING FAMIL 3569 GO^GE'PL CARfcSBADCA 92008 LEE-YU FAMILY TRUSJ 03 3934 RILL < CARLJSBA'CA 92008 CLEARY DENNIS H&DIANA L 3651 CERRO AVE OCEANSIDE CA 92056 MAHELONA RANI K 11879GLENHOPERD SAN DIEGO CA 92128 ESTABILLO EDWIND( B&SARAHA 4233 LAJIER DR OCEA^IDE CA 2056 LUNDE KIMBERLY J 3585 GORGE PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 STINAHANKS TIMOTHY V 3629 SI CARLOAD CA ARYAN FAMILY TOJtfST 1 1-04- 04 ^^^ 3929 PLPEAU PL 92008 BANGS JENNIFER M 4131BAYCLIFFWAY OCEANSIDE CA 92056 KAMAR CONSTRUC] INC POBOX CARLSBAD CA 3)0915 ILVldlNIL gAJSAV asp Jam Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® HANNAY FAMILY TRUST 08- 03-04 785 LYNWOOD DR ENCINITAS CA 92024 FROHLICH BRIAN J&JYE FU 15554 RIP ARIANRD POWAY CA 92064 CALAVERA HILLS MASTER ASSN ^^ C/O MCMILLttTO) 2727H0CVER AVE ^ATONAL CITY CA91950 SCHULTZE GARY&MAYA 3514 KNOLL WOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 JONES GREGORY ^~ W&KIMBERLYA^"^ 3924ROCKEIELDCT 92m ^> ODELL C JAMES 3609 STRATM5R CARLSBADCA CALAVERA HILLS ASSN C/O MCMH AVE IONAL CITY CA91950 2727 FRASER GRAHAMJFtEANN H FAMILY TR 2310 CARRIAGE CIR OCEANlTlDE CA 92056 ROECKER WILLIAM A&DEBORAH S 3637 CERRO AVE OCEANSIDE CA 92056 LOPEZ DAVID E&ROSAMARIA 3983 FOOTHILL AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 ®09is ^•™ www.avery.com —• 1-800-GO-AVERY BOBKA EDWARD JR&MARY 3923 RILL CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 SKY HAVEN: ASSN C/O G RG^IGMTINC 213LELCAMINO REAL #101 OCEANSIDE CA92054 SKY HAVEN POINTEJJNifNO 2 ASSN ^<^ C/O G R G MANAGEMENT INC 2131 EL>eAMINO REAL #101 OQErfNSIDE CA92054 JOHNSON PAUL T&DESIREE K 3907 ROCKFIELD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 KOLCZYNSKI SUE E 4121BAYCLIFFWAY OCEANSIDE CA 92056 MACKAY ALASDAIR B 3650 SKY HAVEN LN OCEANSIDE CA 92056 KIRKMAN FAMILY 07-02 3922 RILL CARLSBAD CA 92( SMALL ELLIS&ILJ 3933 CARLSBAD CA 92 JOHNSON ROBERT: MULLINS 3920 RO£KFIELD CT CARfcSBADCA 92 ELMER DARRYL&4 4229 LA TIEI OCEANSIB^CA 920^ AM3AV-OEHH)8-l STINE AVERY® 5160® KAMAR CONSTRUCTION CO INC 325 ELM AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 WALSH MICHAEL&SHARON 3566 KNOLL WOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 MASON CHRISTOPH 3936 PLAJEAU PL ADCA 008 ERCALAVERA HILLS ASSOCIATI C/O MC HOM^UILDERS INC 2727HOOVERAVE FOOTE DOUGLAS A&TRACY M 3999 FOOTHILL AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 THEILMANN BARBARA R 3655 AZURE LADO DR OCEANSIDE CA 92056 STEIN KAREN S 3538 HUMMOCK DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 MARTIN MASON A 4234 LA TIERA DR OCEANSIDE CA 92056 URIE LUTHER B&TAMMY A 3621 STRATA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 SEELY ROBERT S&f KATHLEE 3028 FAJJtVTEW DR CA 92084 ON 6uauu<i aaj-i uier Jam Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® PEREZ KENNETH D 3652 SKY HAVEN LN OCEANSIDE CA 92056 HERRON FAMILY TRUST 01-16- 04 1020 MONTEREY BLVD #4 HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 REID JAMES H&THERESA M 3632 SKY HAVEN LN OCEANSIDE CA 92056 WERNER THOMAS 3717 SKY HAVEN LN OCEANSIDE CA 92056 ^^^ www.avery.com —— 1-800-GO-AVERY HOLLINGSWORTH FAMILY TRUST 3644 CERRO AVE OCEANSIDE CA 92056 SILVESTER JONATHAN E&CAROLYN G 3581 GORGE PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 TWEED RANDY&LOUISE TRUST 07-30- 3915ROCKFIELDCT CARLSBAD CA 92008 ROSS STEPHEN J&STACEY C 3659 HARVARD DR OCEANSIDE CA 92056 AVERY® 5160® MALLOW KAREN S 4129 BAYCLIFF WAY OCEANSIDE CA 92056 ROBLES JESUS 4301 SERENA AVE OCEANSIDE CA 92056 TERRULLI BARBARA J 3638 SKY HAVEN LN OCEANSIDE CA 92056 LENT R SCOTT 20581GOSHAWKLN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 FRATE DONALD D 3631 CERRO AVE OCEANSIDE CA 92056 CLEARY KEVIN M 3646 CERRO AVE OCEANSIDE CA 92056 ENVIRONMENTAirl'RUST 7879 EL CAJ0NBLVD LAMES^CA 9j BRINER LLOYD W&DONNA E LIVING T 3660 AZURE LADO DR OCEANSIDE CA 92056 CAPPADONA MICHAEL&TU MY 3534 HUMMOCK DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 CITY OF CARLSBj PUBLIC A( 00000 ®09is ®AU3AV AH3AV-OD-008-1. Jam Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® AHRENDT LIVING TRUST 05- 20-02 3971 PLATEAU PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 BROWN KAREN S P O BOX 6603 OCEANSIDE CA 92052 R&R PROPERTIES 325 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR #C2 CARLSBAD CA 92008 CANTU ADRIAN 4135BAYCLIFFWAY OCEANSIDE CA 92056 RAMOS MAGDALENO&FAUSTINA D J R 3649 CERRO AVE OCEANSIDE CA 92056 SUNNA KHALED H&MELISSA D 3974 FOOTHILL AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 GARZA TRUST 04-26-02 4140BAYCLIFFWAY OCEANSIDE CA 92056 NGO LUONG D&LUC VAN Y 3941 FOOTHILL AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 ^^^m www.avery.com — 1-800-GO-AVERY METRAS ARTHUR J 1268 COTTONWOOD DR OCEANSIDE CA 92056 UMSCHEID PAULINE 4223 LA TIERA DR OCEANSIDE CA 92056 COSTA RICHARD B&DEEANN 3643 CERRO AVE OCEANSIDE CA 92056 HANSON WILLIAM A&EUNICE A 3627 CERRO AVE OCEANSIDE CA 92056 WILKIE DOUGLAS W G&KATHERINE E 3978 FOOTHILL AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 GRIFFIN STEPHEN M 3998 FOOTHILL AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 ROBINS FAMILY TRUST 06-11- 04 3945 FOOTHILL AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 DEVLIN ALBERT&JANET 3648 CERRO AVE OCEANSIDE CA 92056 AVERY® 5160® ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST 7879 EL CAJON BLVD LA MESA CA 91941 HICKETHIER DONALD&ALD A D 3629 SKY HAVEN LN OCEANSIDE CA 92056 OTTENBERG THOMAS S&ROBYNNE 3640 CERRO AVE OCEANSIDE CA 92056 HEGGINS JIMMY F JR&DEBRA A 3654 AZURE LADO DR OCEANSIDE CA 92056 TSOU TEI I&VALERIE J 3062 WOODBINE PL COLUMBUS OH 43202 ASHRAF ASAD&AKRAM HUMA 3616BAYVIEWPL CARLSBAD CA 92008 STEPHENS ERIC G&KERSTIN D 3608BAYVIEWPL CARLSBAD CA 92008 BATSFORD KYLE R&JULIE A 4235 LA TIERA DR OCEANSIDE CA 92056 BLACKLEDGE MEGAN 3654 SKY HAVEN LN OCEANSIDE CA 92056 HAGLER JAMES T&KAREN L 3966 FOOTHILL AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 ®09LS ©AU3AV JOHNSON KENNETH A&ANDREA J 3661 CERRO AVE OCEANSIDE CA 92056 KING DENNY K&CYNTHIA L 3710 SADDLE DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 AH3AV-OD-008-1 _ SEGNERI FAMILY TRUST 06-16- 04 3562 KNOLLWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 NICHOLS CRAIG W&MICHELE L 3541 KNOLLWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 ®091S 31V1dW31 ®AJ3AV asn Buuuud aaij uier Jam Free Printing . Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® BOWMAN FRANK 3639 CERRO AVE OCEANSIDE CA 92056 ^^^m www.avery.com —^ 1-800-GO-AVERY CHESTNUT DARIN J&LISA M 3931 RILL CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 AVERY® 5160® STAGEY ROBERT G&DENA M 3967 PLATEAU PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 HUBBARD TIMOTHY C&MAUREEN A P O BOX 33 HUBBARDSTON MA 01452 KARDEN MICHAEL G&JENNY L 3953 FOOTHILL AVE CARLSBAD CA 92008 CALAVERA HILLS MASTER ASSN C/O MCMILLIN CO 2727 HOOVER AVE NATIONAL CITY CA91950 BROWN LARRY 3604 BAYVIEW PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 SCANLON PATRICK 3637 STRATA DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 CIARDULLO LISA M 3557 KNOLLWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 BARNETT BRAD&SHANNON 3908 ROCKFIELD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 BLADES MAX C 3745 SKY HAVEN LN OCEANSIDE CA 92056 ZALINSKI DANIEL V 3625 CERRO AVE OCEANSIDE CA 92056 MCMILLIN MONTARA L L C 2727 HOOVER AVE NATIONAL CITY CA 91950 VISTA CALAVERA UNIT NO 1 HOMEOW PO BOX 1511 CARLSBAD CA 92018 HASLAM PHILLIP J&LAURIE L 3546 KNOLLWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 FAN JIANGUO&GUO HUI 3550 KNOLLWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 ALVAREZ FRANCISCO&ELIZABETH 3625 SKY HAVEN LN OCEANSIDE CA 92056 KUBOTA JACK Y FAMILY TRUST B 536 MERIDIAN WAY CARLSBAD CA 92009 SHARMA SANJEEV&SANGEETA S 3553 KNOLLWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 KUBOTA JACK Y FAMILY TRUST B 536 MERIDIAN WAY STATE OF CALIFOI PUBLIC AGE1 00000 PETERSON ALEX C&KATHERINE G 3558 KNOLLWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 TSAI TING K&PING T 3916 ROCKFIELD CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 CY CITY OF C PUBLIC 0000' MCMILLAN MICHAEL J&ALISA E 3960 PLATEAU PL CARLSBAD CA 92008 PHAM CUONG T&TRACEY 3582 GRANITE CT CARLSBAD CA 92008 CITY OF CARLS PUBLIC A( 00000 GLOGER RICHARD D&BRENDA T 3706 SADDLE DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 MEILICH OFER&CAROLE T 3522 KNOLLWOOD DR CARLSBAD CA 92008 MARASCHIELLO TONY J&MARLENE A 3602 CONTOUR PL CARLSBADCA 92008 AM3AV-OD-008-1. wer Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® CARLSBAD UNIF SCHOOL DIST 6225 EL CAMINO REAL CARLSBAD CA 92011 www.avery.com 1-800-GO-AVERY SAN MARCOS SCHOOL DIST 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069 AVERY® 5160® ENCINITAS SCHOOL DIST 101 RANCHO SANTA FE RD ENCINITAS CA 92024 SAN DIEGUITO SCHOOL DIST 701 ENCINITAS BLVD ENCINITAS CA 92024 LEUCADIA WASTE WATER DIST TIM JOCHEN 1960 LA COSTA AVE CARLSBAD CA 92009 OLIVENHAIN WATER DIST 1966OLIVENHAINRD ENCINITAS CA 92024 CITY OF ENCINITAS 505 S VULCAN AVE ENCINITAS CA 92024 CITY OF SAN MARCOS 1 CIVIC CENTER DR SAN MARCOS CA 92069-2949 CITY OF OCEANSIDE 300 NORTH COAST HWY OCEANSIDE CA 92054 CITY OF VISTA PO BOX 1988 VISTA CA 92085 VALLECITOS WATER DIST 201 VALLECITOS DE ORO SAN MARCOS CA 92069 I.P.U.A. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC ADMIN AND URBAN STUDIES SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY SAN DIEGO CA 92182-4505 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & GAME 4949 VIEWRIDGE AVE SAN DIEGO CA 92123 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY STE 100 9174 SKY PARK CT SAN DIEGO CA 92123-4340 SD COUNTY PLANNING STEB 5201 RUFFIN RD SAN DIEGO CA 92123 LAFCO 1600 PACIFIC HWY SAN DIEGO CA 92101 U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE 6010 HIDDEN VALLEY RD CARLSBAD CA 92011 AIR POLLUTION CNTRL DIST 9150 CHESAPEAKE DR SAN DIEGO CA 92123 CA COASTAL COMMISSION STE 103 7575 METROPOLITAN DR SAN DIEGO CA 92108-4402 SANDAG STE 800 401 B STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101 ATTN TEDANASIS SAN DIEGO COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY PO BOX 82776 SAN DIEGO CA 92138-2776 CITY OF CARLSBAD RECREATION CITY OF CARLSBAD PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING DEPT- PROJECT ENGINEER CITY OF CARLSBAD PROJECT PLANNER MICHAEL GRIM DIANE NYGAARD PRESERVE CALAVERA 5020 NIGHTHAWK WAY OCEANSIDE CA 92056 03/02/2006 AU3AV-O9-008-L aoidej afieuiac p la afipimnnmip uniccaiHmi Marcia Long - REVISED 1-23-06 Appeal - Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvements Page 1 From: Marcia Long To: Escobar-Eck, Marcela Date: 01/27/2006 11:46:41 AM Subject: REVISED 1-23-06 Appeal - Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvements Marcela: Please find attached a REVISED appeal form to the one filed on January 23, 2006. The revision is the addition of item number five. Please contact the City Clerks Office (760-434-2808) with any questions you may have. Thank you, Marcia Long Senior Office Specialist City Clerk's Office City of Carlsbad (760) 434-2808 Fax (760) 720-6917 mlong@ci. carlsbad. ca. us CC: Grim, Mike; Masterson, Michele; Mobaldi, Jane; Muehlbacher, Chris; Neu, Don; Patchett, Ray Citv of APPEAL FORM I (We) appeal the decision of the to the Carlsbad City Council. Date of Decision you are appealing: Subject of Appeal: BE SPECIFIC Examples: if the action is a City Engineer's Decision, please say so. If a project has multiple elements, (such as a General Plan Amendment, Negative Declaration, Specific Plan, etc.) please list them all. If you only want to appeal a part of the whole action, please state that here. (• < K IA AJ/ 9-+. Reason(s) for Appeal: • Please Note • Failure to specify a reason may result in denial off the appeal, and you will be limited to the grounds stated here when presenting your appeal. BE SPECIFIC How did the decision maker err? What about the decision is inconsistent with state or local laws, plans, or policy?^ ^;|^g ^/ M//fe \ , i t-<*<«»y ^lOA/A L'rf LtJ As'ii r-/j *£> v» *—> <eLW U., ^Yks i/i^L^Ll ^Js fc wU SIGNATURE NAME (please print) DATE PHONE NO. ADDRESS: StreefName & Number A CSty,~State',Zip Code 12OO Carlsbad Village Drive • Carlsbad, California 92OO8-1989 • (619) 434-28O8 CITY OF CARLSBAD 1635 FARADAY AVENUE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (760) 602-2401 REC'D FROM KJ v»~. QL DATE ACCOUNT NO. oo I- 30.10- H%"i3 DESCRIPTION ^(POCCOA ftV- "V^rt WW. \ w /V VOW«-Wv ^UVC>^*1 ^> >S^>e e s. <vo v\ eS^. ~S a ^ . 1 %" & oo 6? ;A«VK ^- ^ . C^? oM-u j \\vsw o5-c3.; f * ) U<^V-« V^Nax/^s,-.^ ^^^-£x-\st>v Y- v ^A- ;„ ^.\N u5fV.»£.V- *2b7a. ^-/ NOT VALID UNLESS VALIDATED BY TOTAL AMOUNT ^Sr>5 co ^^35 oo Printed on recycled paper.CASH REGISTER City of Carlsbad Faraday Center Faraday Cashiering 001 0602301-2 01/23/2006 11 Mon Jan23,2006 03:25 PM Name: DIANE NYGAARD MISC - MISC FINANCIAL $835.00 Iran Nbr: 060230102 0036 0037 1 ITEM(S): TOTAL: Check (Chk# 2672) Total Received: Have a nice day! $835.00 $835.00 $835.00 **************rjuSTOMER COPY************* Marcia Long -1-23-06 Appeal - Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvements, Planning Commission meeting 1-18-06 Page 1 From: Marcia Long To: Escobar-Eck, Marcela Date: 01/23/2006 11:11:31 AM Subject: 1-23-06 Appeal - Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvements, Planning Commission meeting 1-18-06 Marcela: Please find attached the following documents regarding the above mentioned appeal: > Notice of Appeal > Appeal form > Receipt of payment to file appeal > 1-18-06 Planning Commission Agenda Please contact our office should you have questions or need assistance. Thank you, Marcia Long Senior Office Specialist City Clerk's Office City of Carlsbad (760) 434-2808 Fax (760)720-6917 mlong@ci.carlsbad.ca.us CC: Grim, Mike; Masterson, Michele; Mobaldi, Jane; Muehlbacher, Chris; Neu, Don; Patchett, Ray '. L.voooA, City of Carlsbad Office of the City Clerk January 23, 2006 Marcela Escobar-Eck Planning Director RE: Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial Improvements - CUP 04-11/HMPP 05-03: Resolutions 5890. 5891. 5892: January 18. 2006. meeting. THE ABOVE ITEM HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. According to the Municipal Code, most appeals must be heard by the City Council within 30 days of the date that the appeal was filed. (REMINDER: If the notice requires a public hearing, the item will not be noticed in the newspaper until the agenda bill is signed off by the City Manager and the City Attorney). Please process this item in accordance with the procedures contained in the Agenda Bill Preparation Manual. If you have any questions, please call. Karen Kundtz, Assistant City Clerk, 760-434-2917 Copies To: Don Neu, Mike Grimm Enclosed: Copy of appeal Chris Muehlbacher, Michele Masterson Copy of agenda Jane Mobaldi, City Manager The appeal of the above matter should be scheduled for the City Council Meeting of Signature Date H:\Appeals\l-23-Q6 Calavera Appeal Notice.doc 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive • Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 • (760) 434-2808 Citv of Carlsbad I (We) appeal the decision of the. to the Carlsbad City Council. Date of Decision you are appealing:. APPEAL FORM r/a*mv1f- ECDEEDWE CITY OF CARLSBADCITY CLERK'S OFFICE r Subject of Appeal: BE SPECIFIC Examples: if the action is a City Engineer's Decision, please say so. If a project has multiple elements, (such as a General Plan Amendment, Negative Declaration, Specific Plan, etc.) please list them all. If you only want to appeal a part of the whole action, please state that here. \\ A u IA T i**-*V d Reason(s) for Appeal: • Please Note • Failure to specify a reason may result in denial of the appeal, and you will be limited to the grounds stated here when presenting your appeal. BE SPECIFIC How did the decision maker err? What about the decision is inconsistent with state or local laws, plans, or policy? I NAME (please print) ( ADDRESS: StreetfName & Number DATE State,Zip Code 120O Carlsbad Village Drive • Carlsbad, California 92008-1989 • (619)434-2808 Lake Calavera Reservoir Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial ImprovementsRemedial ImprovementsAppeal of HMPP 05Appeal of HMPP 05--0303 Location MapLocation MapCOLLEGE BLVDTAMARACKAVESADDLE DRSTRATA DRKNOLLWOODDRSTONERIDGERDFOOTHILL AVESITE Project PurposeProject PurposeDam operations and safety regulated by Dam operations and safety regulated by DSOD.DSOD.DSOD requires all reservoirs to be able DSOD requires all reservoirs to be able to release half of their impoundment to release half of their impoundment within seven day period.within seven day period.Current intake/outlet system is Current intake/outlet system is inoperable and is not in compliance with inoperable and is not in compliance with DSOD requirements.DSOD requirements. Project PurposeProject PurposePrimary function for Lake Calavera is a Primary function for Lake Calavera is a flood control device.flood control device.Due to inoperability of intake valve Due to inoperability of intake valve system, control of lake level in system, control of lake level in anticipation of potential flood events is anticipation of potential flood events is lacking.lacking.Outside of regulatory mandates, Outside of regulatory mandates, remedial improvements are warranted. remedial improvements are warranted. Proposed ImprovementsProposed ImprovementsInstallation of new valve system and Installation of new valve system and pipe placed on dam face.pipe placed on dam face.Connection of new valve system to Connection of new valve system to outlet pipe within existing lower portion outlet pipe within existing lower portion of existing tower.of existing tower.Demolition and removal of upper Demolition and removal of upper portion of existing tower.portion of existing tower. Proposed ImprovementsProposed ImprovementsRehabilitation of existing outlet pipe and box Rehabilitation of existing outlet pipe and box at bottom of downstream dam face.at bottom of downstream dam face.Construction of control building for remote Construction of control building for remote control of intake valves, with associated control of intake valves, with associated security fencing and lighting.security fencing and lighting.Improvement of spillway apron, spillway Improvement of spillway apron, spillway channel, and existing access road.channel, and existing access road. Proposed ImprovementsProposed Improvements Anticipated ResultsAnticipated ResultsReservoir function would meet DSOD Reservoir function would meet DSOD requirements and provide intended flood requirements and provide intended flood control.control.Operational plan and parameters would be Operational plan and parameters would be reviewed and approved by Wildlife reviewed and approved by Wildlife Agencies prior to implementation.Agencies prior to implementation.Natural fluctuations and resulting lake Natural fluctuations and resulting lake level lowering would continue to occur.level lowering would continue to occur. Project ProcessingProject ProcessingPlanning Commission adopted the Planning Commission adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated Negative Declaration and approved the Conditional Use Permit and approved the Conditional Use Permit and Habitat Management Plan Permit.Habitat Management Plan Permit.Planning Director has yet to issue the Planning Director has yet to issue the Incidental Take Permit.Incidental Take Permit.HMPP appealed to the City Council.HMPP appealed to the City Council. Project ProcessingProject ProcessingProject also requires approval from:Project also requires approval from:US Army Corps of Engineers (USFWS)US Army Corps of Engineers (USFWS)Regional Water Quality Control BoardRegional Water Quality Control BoardCalifornia Department of Fish and GameCalifornia Department of Fish and GameCalifornia Division of Safety of DamsCalifornia Division of Safety of DamsCity must demonstrate HMP Compliance to City must demonstrate HMP Compliance to USFWS as part of US Army Corps of USFWS as part of US Army Corps of Engineers permitting process.Engineers permitting process. Lake Calavera Reservoir Lake Calavera Reservoir Remedial ImprovementsRemedial ImprovementsAppeal of HMPP 05Appeal of HMPP 05--0303 HMP ComplianceHMP ComplianceLocated within hardline preserve areaLocated within hardline preserve areaHMP mapping shows area of work as disturbed HMP mapping shows area of work as disturbed and/or developed.and/or developed.Dam and flood control reservoir is essential public Dam and flood control reservoir is essential public facility under jurisdiction of DSOD.facility under jurisdiction of DSOD.Improvements are minimum necessary to meet Improvements are minimum necessary to meet operational requirements and protect existing operational requirements and protect existing development.development.Maintenance and refurbishment of existing public Maintenance and refurbishment of existing public facilities is allowed within the preserve.facilities is allowed within the preserve. Impact AssessmentImpact AssessmentControl BuildingControl Building0.09 ac permanent Coastal Sage Scrub0.09 ac permanent Coastal Sage ScrubService Road and Outlet BoxService Road and Outlet Box0.17 ac temporary Coastal Sage Scrub0.17 ac temporary Coastal Sage Scrub0.002 ac temporary Riparian0.002 ac temporary Riparian0.010 ac temporary Wetland0.010 ac temporary WetlandSpillway improvementsSpillway improvements0.52 ac permanent Coastal Sage Scrub0.52 ac permanent Coastal Sage Scrub0.062 ac permanent Riparian0.062 ac permanent Riparian HMP ComplianceHMP ComplianceMitigation for habitat impactsMitigation for habitat impactsMeets or exceeds mitigation ratios contained Meets or exceeds mitigation ratios contained in HMP.in HMP.All impacts have been minimized to greatest All impacts have been minimized to greatest extent feasible without sacrificing operational extent feasible without sacrificing operational function.function.Detailed mitigation plans subject to review Detailed mitigation plans subject to review and approval by Wildlife Agencies.and approval by Wildlife Agencies. HMP ComplianceHMP ComplianceAdjacency StandardsAdjacency StandardsLighting would be lowLighting would be low--pressure sodium pressure sodium directed downward to avoid spillage into directed downward to avoid spillage into habitat.habitat.Fencing is limited to control building Fencing is limited to control building surrounds and does not impact any animal surrounds and does not impact any animal movement or migration.movement or migration.No ornamental or invasive vegetation is No ornamental or invasive vegetation is proposed within project.proposed within project. Proposed ImprovementsProposed ImprovementsConstruction MethodConstruction Method Proposed ImprovementsProposed ImprovementsExisting Outlet TowerExisting Outlet Tower Proposed ImprovementsProposed Improvements Proposed ImprovementsProposed Improvements April 18, 2006 Preserve CalaveraLake Calavera CHMP Consistency AppealPreserve CalaveraApril 18, 2006 April 18, 2006 Preserve CalaveraNCOSC Agreement•NCOSC support city golf course•City adopt and adhere to a strong HMP•City acquire additional open space April 18, 2006 Preserve CalaveraHMP Non-Compliance•Ignoring project approval process ( HMP Fig 30)•No funds for open space management ( IA 14.0 )•Preserve Manager not under contract ( OSMP) •No annual report ( IA 12.2) April 18, 2006 Preserve CalaveraWho Raised Concerns ?•Wildlife agencies•Ca Coastal Commission•No. County Open Space Coalition April 18, 2006 Preserve CalaveraIssues with Lake Calavera•No funds allocated for permanently protecting mitigation land•Insufficient efforts to avoid/minimize CSS impacts•Development footprint not consistent with HMP - Fig 18 April 18, 2006 Preserve Calavera April 18, 2006 Preserve CalaveraWhat Needs to Happen ?•Evaluate alternatives to reduce the impacts of the control building, road and parking area•Allocate funds for the Lake C mitigation land- as required by any other developer in the city•Direct staff to report back at the next meeting with a schedule for HMP compliance that includes :- project processing- Preserve Manager in place- Financing plan April 18, 2006 Preserve Calavera