HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-08-05; City Council; 19540; Agua Hedionda Creeks ProjectCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL 13
AB# 19,540
MTG. 8/05/08
DEPT. ENG
CITY OF CARLSBAD DRAINAGE MASTER PI AN AND
PLANNED LOCAL DRAINAGE AREA FEES / CALAVERA AND
AGUA HEDIONDA CREEKS PROJECT
EIR 04-02 / MCA 07-01 / ZCA 07-047 LCPA 07-06
DEPT. HEAD
CITY ATTY. <S^2*
CITY MGR. (tL_
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. City Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No. CS-004 AMENDING Carlsbad Municipal
Code, Title 15, Chapter 15.08, Updating the Planned Local Drainage Area Fee Program,
Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan (MCA 07-01); and
2. City Council INTRODUCE Ordinance No, CS-OOS AMENDING Title 21, Chapters
21.38, 21.203 and 21.205 of the Municipal Code by Deleting References to the Master
Drainage Plan Adopted in 1994 and the Model Erosion Control Ordinance and Adding
References to the Proposed City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan and Existing Engineering
Standards, Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan (ZCA 07-04); and
3. City Council ADOPT Resplution No. 2008-229 CERTIFYING Environmental Impact
Report EIR 04-02, Adopting the Candidate Findings of Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program and Approving a Local Coastal Program Amendment to Revise and Delete
References to the Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan (MDSWQMP),
Model Erosion Control Ordinance, and Grading Ordinance for the City of Carlsbad Drainage
Master Plan and Calavera, Agua Hedionda Creeks Project Affecting Properties Citywide, and
Portions of Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks in and Near the Rancho Carlsbad
Residential Community and in Local Facilities Management Zones 8, 14, 15 and 24, Drainage
Master Plan Update/Calavera and Agua Hedionda Creeks (EIR 04-02/MCA 07-01/ZCA
07-04/LCPA 07-06); and
City Council ADOPT Resolution No.2008-230 APPROVING the 2008 Carlsbad
Drainage Master Plan and Approving a Change to the City's Planned Local Drainage Area
Fee, CIP Project No. 3872.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
Carlsbad's existing Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan (MDSWQMP) was
adopted by the City Council in March 1994 and amended in 1996. Subsequent development of the
City has resulted in the need to reassess existing storm water infrastructure requirements and
capacity, and to update the MDSWQMP. On April 8, 2005, the City Council approved a Professional
Services Agreement with Brown and Caldwell (B&C) Engineers to revise and update the City of
Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan.
The 2008 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan (DMP) contains the results of the assessment of drainage
areas, an outline of existing storm drain infrastructure, and the identification of needed improvements
required to accommodate storm water runoff resulting from new developments within the City limits.
The DMP update also provides planning level cost estimates and recommendations for updating the
current Planned Local Drainage Area (PLDA) fee structure to ensure adequate funds exist for the
construction pf future drainage facilities that suppprt proposed development. The DMP recommends
the construction of 34 Master Drainage Plan projects and collecting $21,930,385 in Planned Local
Drainage Area funds for future storm drain infrastructure.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Steve Jantz, (760) 602-2738, siant@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY.
COUNCIL ACTION:APPROVED D
DENIED D
CONTINUED D
WITHDRAWN D
AMENDED D
Resolution 2008-230, Ordinance Nos. CS-004 & 005
CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC Gt Sept. 9. 2QQ8
CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN D
RETURNED TO STAFF D
OTHER-SEE MINUTES D
*** Adopted Res. 2008-229 as amended
Page 2
The objectives of the Drainage Master Plan update are as follows:
1. Assess the storm drain infrastructure needs of the four designated basins within the City
boundaries;
2. Identify needed improvements such as additional infrastructure required for accommodating storm
water runoff with limited hydraulic modeling for new developments;
3. Identify new storm water infrastructure to serve developing areas and the replacement of existing
facilities to accommodate increased storm runoff;
4. Update proposed storm drain infrastructure cost estimates;
5. Create a plan for the replacement and maintenance of storm water facilities;
6. Update Master Plan facility information for use with the City's Geographical Information System;
7. Recommend an updated PLDA fee structure;
8. Identify non-PLDA projects, operations and maintenance activities; and
9. Review storm water quality requirements.
Master Drainage Plan Facilities
The City is divided into four major watersheds:
• The Buena Vista Creek Watershed;
• The Agua Hedionda Watershed;
• The Encinas Creek Watershed; and
• The Batiquitos Lagoon Watershed
Three of the watersheds become lagoons prior to discharging to the Pacific Ocean. The Encinas
Creek Watershed is the only one among the four watersheds that discharges directly to the Pacific
Ocean.
According to the tasks outlined in the Professional Service Agreement, Brown and Caldwell (B&C)
was required to analyze the storm drain facilities in the 1996 MDSWQMP to determine if the Master
Plan facilities were still necessary and to identify future storm drain system needs. To accomplish this
task, B&C was required to perform limited hydrologic and hydraulic analysis on selected drainage
sub-basins and master planned facilities. The analysis was categorized into three types; a) planned
drainage system networks where development has occurred, b) current drainage facilities which may
be inadequate due to additional impervious areas, and c) planned drainage system networks where
development is scheduled to occur in the near future. Based on the results of the analysis effort,
34 Master Plan drainage facility projects were identified to accommodate the ultimate storm water
flows from future development through buildout of the City.
Planned Local Drainage Area Fee Structure
The legislation providing authority for improvement exaction, including impact fees, are found in
section 66483 of the Subdivision Map Act (Gov Code Sec 66410 et. seq.), Article 13 (D) section 6,
Government Code Section 66000 known as the "Mitigation Fee Act". These sections set forth the
nature, use and limitations of PLDA fees as does CMC Chapter 15.08. For example, money collected
through such impact fees must be kept in separate PLDA fund accounts and expended solely for the
construction or reimbursement of new drainage facilities within the specific PLDA basin.
In determining the recommended PLDA fee structure, the primary consideration is to effectively and
fairly apportion fees in relation to development's impact on required drainage facilities. Drainage
runoff is directly related to the permeability (absorption) characteristics of land upon which the rainfall
occurs. Under the PLDA fee program, fees paid by developers are used by the City to construct
master plan projects as well as to reimburse developers that construct master plan facilities.
PageS
Currently, the City collects PLDA fees per development acre in two categories: Low and High runoff
coefficients. The proposed PLDA fee structure is categorized as low, medium, and high runoff
coefficient categories. The differences between the coefficients are based on land use designations.
As an example, a single-family home provides more permeable area whereby runoff is naturally
soaked into the ground (more landscape and yards). Conversely, office and planned industrial
projects provide more parking lots and minimal landscape area whereby there is a higher rate of
drainage runoff.
The recommended PLDA fee structure and rates are as follows:
Runoff
Coefficient
Low
Medium
High
PLDA Basin A
$5,270
$10,480
$22,837
PLDA Basin B
$1,970
$3,797
$8,535
PLDA Basin C
$1,912
$2,705
$8,287
PLDA Basin D
$1,813
$2,966
$7,857
($/developable acre)
Dredging and Improvements to Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creek
In addition to analyzing the program level impacts of the update to the Drainage Master Plan,
EIR 04-02 analyzed the project level impacts of the Dredge and Improvements to the Agua Hedionda
and Calavera Creeks within and adjacent to the residential community of Rancho Carlsbad.
The dredge and improvement project proposes to conduct dredging operations and to make channel
improvements along Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks to provide enhanced flood protection for
the residential community of Rancho Carlsbad. Approximately 50% of the 504 existing residences
within Rancho Carlsbad are currently located within the 100-year flood zone. After completion of the
improvements, all but approximately nine of the residences will be removed from the 100-year flood
zone.
Planning Commission Action
On January 16, 2008, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Carlsbad Drainage
Master Plan/Calavera and Agua Hedionda Creeks project. The Planning Commission voted 6-0
(Cardosa absent) to recommend and approve the project as follows:
Project Applications
Environmental Impact Report
EIR 04-02
EIR Findings of Fact
EIR Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
Local Coastal Program Amendment
LCPA 07-06
Zoning Code Amendment
ZCA 07-04
Special Use Permit
SUP 06-02
Coastal Development Permit
CDP 06-04
Habitat Management Plan Permit
HMPP 06-03
Planning Commission Action
Recommend Certification
Recommend Adoption
Recommend Approval
Approve*
Council Action
X
X
X
* Subject to City Council certification of EIR 04-02 and adoption of Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program.
Page 4
The Planning Commission did not review the proposed Drainage Master Plan or the proposed
changes to Municipal Code Title 15 regarding Planned Local Drainage Area fee adjustments
(MCA 07-01) as they are not subject to Commission review. Instead, staff provided Commissioners
with copies of the Drainage Master Plan for information only.
The last three applications listed in the above table, SUP 06-02, CDP 06-04, and HMPP 06-03, are
required for the City's proposal to enhance flood control by dredging, improving, and maintaining the
portions of Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks in and near the Rancho Carlsbad community
(Exhibit 6). The Planning Commission's approval of the three permits is subject to certification of the
Final EIR. However, since the project is already a component of the current Master Drainage and
Storm Water Quality Management Plan (MDSWQMP) adopted in 1994, the project is not contingent
upon approval of the proposed Drainage Master Plan, Local Coastal Program Amendment, or Zone
Code Amendment.
During the Planning Commission meeting, five people provided public testimony as to the following,
which is paraphrased below:
• The benefit that would be achieved by the proposed dredging and improving of
Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks since the project would enhance flood control in and
near the Rancho Carlsbad residential community;
• The need for sufficient funding for Drainage Master Plan components in general and
specifically for components BR (bridge under future College Boulevard) and BJ-1 (also
referred to as Basin BJ), a proposed retention basin near Rancho Carlsbad. Particularly
expressed was whether funding would cover the relocation of Rancho Carlsbad uses, such as
the RV storage and community gardens, that may be eliminated due to construction of BJ-1;
• The importance of Component BJ-1 for flood protection for Rancho Carlsbad;
• The apparent lack of analysis of land use impacts associated with construction of Component
BJ-1;
• The value of Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks as a wildlife corridor, the possible loss of
this corridor during the proposed dredging and improving of the creeks, and the concern that
the EIR analysis of this topic is inadequate;
• The lack of integration between the proposed Drainage Master Plan and other documents,
such as those establishing water quality and habitat preservation requirements, which may
hamper comprehensive watershed management;
• The need for the Drainage Master Plan to contain guidelines that restrict conversion of natural
drainages to concrete-lined channels, and;
• The importance of meeting all the conditions of the HMP, specifically the hiring of a land
manager for the City-owned Lake Calavera property.
Many of the comments verbalized at the hearing were also expressed in letters received just prior to
and following the Planning Commission hearing. These letters are attached as Exhibit 1 to the EIR
resolution. Many of the comments contained in the correspondence raise concerns about the project's
environmental impact. Generally, these comments have been addressed already by analysis in the
Final EIR or by the responses to comments in the Final EIR. However, staff has also prepared
additional responses to the comments raised in the recent correspondence. Staff has also revised
portions of the EIR to clarify information about the alternatives. More information about the minor
revisions to the EIR is contained in the Environmental Impact section below.
One comment above regards the apparent lack of analysis of land use impacts associated with
construction of Basin BJ-1. While not part of the attached responses to comments, the EIR does
contain an analysis of land use impacts associated with all Drainage Master Plan components. As a
program level rather than project level component, only a broad analysis of potential impacts was
performed, which noted that construction of a retention basin is compatible with the residential and
open space land use designations of the area.
PageS
Drainage Master Plan Public Outreach
On July 23, 2008, staff held an informational meeting to describe the 2008 Carlsbad Drainage Master
Plan, the Environmental Impact Report, and revised PLDA Fee Program with various members of the
public, affected property owners, and representatives of the development community.
Staff recommends the City Council approve the 2008 Drainage Master Plan; certify the Environmental
Impact Report, as modified; adopt the Candidate Findings of Fact, as modified, and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program; approve the Local Coastal Program Amendment; and introduce
ordinances to approve the Zoning Code and Municipal Code amendments.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The City of Carlsbad prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Drainage Master Plan
Update/Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks project. The EIR includes a program level assessment
of the potential impacts of the actions anticipated to be implemented under the long-term planning
horizon of the Drainage Master Plan Update. It is anticipated that subsequent analysis and permits
may or will be necessary to construct the various facilities identified in the Update.
The EIR also includes a project level assessment for the proposed dredging and improvements to
Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks. Accordingly, the EIR addresses fully the environmental impacts
associated with this portion of the project such that permits for the dredging and improvements may
be approved upon certification of the EIR.
The EIR describes that program and/or project level components have potentially significant impacts
in the areas of noise, biological resources (including cumulative biological impacts), cultural
resources, and paleontological resources. However, the EIR cpncludes that all impacts can be
mitigated to below a level of significance. The EIR also determines that at either the program or
project level the project would result in no significant unavoidable impacts.
A comprehensive description of the project's environmental analysis and impacts are contained in the
attached EIR resolution and the Planning Commission staff report and minutes. The EIR Resolution
contains attachments that include the additional comments and responses to comments as well as
minor revisions to the EIR. The revisions consist of the following:
o Clarification that the city-owned Lake Calavera parcel is a "mitigation parcel" rather than
"mitigation bank" tp reflect that a formal banking agreement is unnecessary for city projects to
mitigate there (This change also affects the Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program).
o Revision of EIR Chapter 7, which considers alternatives to the project, to correct inconsistent
headings; make Table 7-1, which compares the alternatives, consistent with its supporting
text; and identify the correct environmentally superior alternative in Section 7.5, which
summarizes the alternatives, so it is consistent with its supporting text.
The additional responses and revisions to the EIR do not constitute "significant new information" as
defined in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088.5 (a) and theref9re
do not trigger the recirculation requirement. Instead, they merely clarify and amplify discussion
already contained in the EIR and information about the project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The purpose of the Planned Local Drainage Area (PLDA) Fee Program is to collect fees from
development projects and apply the funds to identified Drainage Master Plan projects. The current list
of Drainage Master Plan projects is outlined in the 1994 Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality
Management Plan. Since 1995, the City has collected PLDA funds as a condition to the approyal of
land development projects and applied those funds to the construction of the Master Plan Projects.
The current PLDA Fee program, collected on the basis of development acre, is as follows:
EXISTING PLDA FEE PROGRAM (S/ACRE)
Runoff
Coefficient
Low
High
PLDA
Basin A
$2,130
$3,486
PLDA
Basin B<
<54,578
57,492
PLDA
Basin C
$3,423
$5,602
PLDA
Basin D
$46
$76
Page 6
In accordance with the adopted PLDA fee program, all collected PLDA funds are deposited into
specific accounts known as Drainage Areas (Area A - D) corresponding with the 4 drainage
watershed boundaries as noted above. Therefore, the funding for the various master plan projects is
tracked and expended from the specific drainage area accounts. The timing and allocation of PLDA
funds is identified and approved with the annual Capital Improvement Program.
The 2008 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan proposed construction of 34 Master Plan Projects with an
estimated construction cost of $21,930,385.
The following is a summary of current PLDA Area fund balances, an estimation of the construction
costs for 34 proposed master plan facilities, and an estimation of future revenue from PLDA fee
funding to allow for the construction of future master plan facilities:
PLDA Fund Balance1
PLDA Master Plan Project Cost
PLDA Funding Needs
AREA A
$249,639
$1,953,719
$1,704,080
AREAS
$5,865,748
$12,727,555
$6,861,807
AREAC
$3,679,499
$4,775,649
$1,096,150
AREAD
$226,928
$2,473,462
$2,246,534
TOTAL
$10,021,814
$21,930,385
$11,908,571
1The PLDA Fund Balances include the amounts used to purchase wetland mitigation credits from the North County HabitatBank as these credits will be used to mitigate future PLDA projects.
To generate needed funding, staff is recommending amending the current PLDA fee and structure to
include three runoff coefficient categories shown below.
EXHIBITS:
Runoff
Coefficient
Low
Medium
High
PLDA
Basin A
$5,270
$10,480
$22,837
PLDA
Basin B
$1,970
$3,797
$8,535
PLDA
Basin C
$1,912
$2,705
$8,287
PLDA
Basin D
$1,813
$2,966
$7,857
($/development acre)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Ordinance No.CS-004 AMENDING Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 15, Chapter
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
15.08, Updating the Planned Local Drainage Area Fee Program, Carlsbad Drainage Master
Plan (MCA 07-01); and
Strikeput version of Ordinance No. CS-OQ4 amending Title 15.08 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code regarding Planned Local Drainage Area fees (MCA 07-01); and
Ordinance No. CS-OOS AMENDING Title 21, Chapters 21.38, 21.203 and 21.205 of
the Municipal Code by Deleting References to the Master Drainage Plan Adopted in 1994 and
the Model Erosion Control Ordinance and Adding References to the Proposed City of
Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan and Existing Engineering Standards, Carlsbad Drainage
Master Plan (ZCA 07-04); and
Strikeout version of Ordinance No. CS-005 amending Titles 21.38, 21.203 and
21.205 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code regarding proposed Zoning Ordinance text changes
(ZCA 07-04). _ _.. nf%nResolution No. 2008-229 CERTIFYING Environmental Impact Report EIR 04-02,
Adopting the Candidate Findings of Fact, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
and Approving a Local Coastal Program Amendment to Revise and Delete References to the
Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan (MDSWQMP), Model Erosion
Control Ordinance, and Grading Ordinance for the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan and
Calavera, Agua Hedionda Creeks Project Affecting Properties Citywide, and Portions of Agua
Hedionda and Calavera Creeks in and Near the Rancho Carlsbad Residential Community and
in Local Facilities Management Zones 8, 14, 15 and 24, Drainage Master Plan
Update/Calavera and Agua Hedionda Creeks (EIR 04-02/MCA 07-01/ZCA 07-04/LCPA 07-
06)' and
Resolution No. 2008-230 APPROVING the 2008 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan
and Approving a Change to the City's Planned Local Drainage Area Fee, CIP Project No.
3872.
Project Map: Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creek Dredging.
Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 6376, 6377, 6378, 6379, 6380, and 6381.
Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 16, 2008.
Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes dated January 16, 2008.
Final EIR 04-02 for the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update (previously distributed
to Council and available for public review in the Planning Department).
1 ORDINANCE NO. CS-004
2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA AMENDING CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 15,
3 CHAPTER 15.08 UPDATING THE PLANNED LOCAL DRAINAGE AREA
FEE PROGRAM
4 CASE NAME: CARLSBAD DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN
CASE NO: MCA 07-01
5
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad California, does ordain as follows:
6
SECTION 1: That Title 15, Chapter 15.08 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended
7
by the amendment of Section 15.08.010 to read as follows:
8
15.08.010 Purpose.
9 (a) This chapter imposes a fee to pay for various storm drain improvements within the city.
The amount of the fee is based upon engineering analysis and has been calculated to be equal
10 to or less than the cost of the drainage improvement. The drainage improvements funded by
this fee are designated in the report entitled City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, dated July
11 2008, on file with the city engineer.
(b) This chapter is necessary to ensure the completion of storm drainage, flood control and
12 water pollution control improvements in a timely manner concurrent with the need for such
improvements. The construction of the drainage improvements funded by this fee will ensure
compliance with the city's growth management standards relating to drainage facilities and with
the water quality improvement requirements of the national pollutant discharge elimination
14 system permit issued for city storm drainage facilities. (Ord. NS-293 § 2 (part), 1994)
15 SECTION 4: That Title 15, Chapter 15.08 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended
by the amendment of Section 15.08.040 to read as follows:16
15.08.040 Fee.
' (a) The planned local drainage area fee schedule shall be established by city council resolution
and shall be considered part of this chapter.
(b) A planned local drainage area fee shall be paid by the owner or developer prior to the
issuance of any building permit or occupancy permit or prior to final or parcel map approval for a
project, whichever occurs first. The planned local drainage area fees shall be adjusted annually
,_» based upon the July, 2008 Engineering News Record Los Angeles Construction Cost Index of
9335.69 based on the 1967 average = one hundred.
(c) If, as a condition of development, the project owner or developer is required to construct a
planned local drainage facility, then the developer may receive a credit against payment of the
22 planned local drainage area fee. The amount of the fee credit shall not exceed the facility cost
as estimated in the master drainage plan plus the adjustments provided for in subsection (b) of
this section. If the cost of the planned local drainage facility installed by the developer exceeds
the amount of the fee credit established by this subsection the developer is eligible for
24 reimbursement on the balance of the facility costs pursuant to Section 15.08.080 of this chapter.
(d) The drainage fee paid for each property subject to this chapter shall be based upon the
gross property acreage (including easements and not more than thirty feet of the fronting street
right-of-way measured at right angles to the property line along the full extent of the street
frontage) less any area of constrained land as it may be defined in Section 21.53.230 and based
upon the runoff potential for the respective general plan designation for the property. The runoff
27 potential for each land use designation shall be as indicated within Appendix C of the City of
Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, dated July 2008.
28
1 (e) The applicant for a building permit may request adjustment of the PLDA fees specified in this
chapter upon submittal of a written request to the city engineer. The request should include an
2 explanation of the reason for the requested adjustment and any documentation in support of the
request. Upon review of the request, the city engineer shall determine whether to approve or
3 deny the requested adjustment. (Ord. NS-293 § 2 (part), 1994)
4 EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after its adoption; and
5 the City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once
6 in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen (15) days after its
7 adoption.
8 ///
9 ///
10 ///
11 ///
12 ///
13 ///
14 ///
15 ///
16 ///
17 ///
18 ///
19 ///
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a Regular Meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on
the day of , 2008, and thereafter
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad,
California, on the day of , 2008, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
1 Chapter 15.08 DRAINAGE AREA FEE
2 Sections:
15.08.010 Purpose.
3 15.08.020 Prohibition of development.
15.08.030 Application requirements.
4 15.08.040 Fee.
15.08.050 Exemption.
5 15.08.060 Use of fees.
15.08.070 Assessment districts.
6 15.08.080 Reimbursement agreements.
15.08.090 Advance of funds by city.
7 15.08.100 Expiration of chapter.
8 15.08.010 Purpose.
(a) This chapter imposes a fee to pay for various storm drain improvements within the city.
9 The amount of the fee is based upon engineering analysis and has been calculated to be
equal to or less than the cost of the drainage improvement. The drainage improvements
10 funded by this fee are designated in the report entitled City of Carlsbad Drainage Master
Plan, dated July 2008 Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan,
11 dated March, 1994, on file with the city engineer.
(b) This chapter is necessary to ensure the completion of storm drainage, flood control and
12 water pollution control improvements in a timely manner concurrent with the need for such
improvements. The construction of the drainage improvements funded by this fee will
ensure compliance with the city's growth management standards relating to drainage
facilities and with the water quality improvement requirements of the national pollutant
discharge elimination system permit issued for city storm drainage facilities. (Ord. NS-293
§2 (part), 1994)
15.08.020 Prohibition of development.
For any property subject to this chapter, notwithstanding any provision of this code to the
contrary, no final or parcel map shall be approved nor shall any building permit or occupancy
' permit for any project be issued and no person shall build, use or occupy any project, without
first paying the fee established by, or otherwise complying with, this chapter. (Ord. NS-293 § 2
18 (part), 1994)
15.08.030 Application requirements.
In addition to any other requirements for a building permit authorized pursuant to Title 18 of this
code and as established by the building official, the applicant for a building permit shall:
„. (a) Submit a site plan showing the building footprint of all existing and proposed habitable
structures on the property subject to this chapter together with a summary of the building
22 footprint areas for existing and proposed structure(s).
(b) Pay the planned local drainage area fee established by action of this chapter.
(c) Subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall apply to all new building construction, to all
residential and non-residential remodels, enlargements or alterations where the proposed
24 building footprint is increased by fifty percent or greater over the existing building footprint.
(d) This section shall not apply to property which was subdivided after October 16, 1980, and
for which the subdivider for said property paid or received credit for payment of any PLDA
fees. (Ord. NS-293 § 2 (part), 1994)
26 ///27 ///
28
1 15.08.040 Fee.
(a) The planned local drainage area fee schedule shall be established by city council
2 resolution and shall be considered part of this chapter.
(b) A planned local drainage area fee shall be paid by the owner or developer prior to the
3 issuance of any building permit or occupancy permit or prior to final or parcel map
approval for a project, whichever occurs first. The planned local drainage area fees shall
4 be adjusted annually based upon the July January, 2008 4S94 Engineering News Record
Los Angeles Construction Cost Index of 9335.69 §49r43 based on the 1967 average = one
5 hundred.
(c) If, as a condition of development, the project owner or developer is required to construct a
6 planned local drainage facility, then the developer may receive a credit against payment of
the planned local drainage area fee. The amount of the fee credit shall not exceed the
7 facility cost as estimated in the master drainage plan plus the adjustments provided for in
subsection (b) of this section. If the cost of the planned local drainage facility installed by
8 the developer exceeds the amount of the fee credit established by this subsection the
developer is eligible for reimbursement on the balance of the facility costs pursuant to
9 Section 15.08.080 of this chapter.
(d) The drainage fee paid for each property subject to this chapter shall be based upon the
10 gross property acreage (including easements and not more than thirty feet of the fronting
street right-of-way measured at right angles to the property line along the full extent of the
11 street frontage) less any area of constrained land as it may be defined in Section
21.53.230 and based upon the runoff potential for the respective general plan designation
12 for the property. The runoff potential for each land use designation shall be as indicated
within Appendix C Table 4 3 City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, dated July 2008
for the master drainage plan.
(e) The applicant for a building permit may request adjustment of the PLDA fees specified in
this chapter upon submittal of a written request to the city engineer. The request should
include an explanation of the reason for the requested adjustment and any documentation
in support of the request. Upon review of the request, the city engineer shall determine
whether to approve or deny the requested adjustment. (Ord. NS-293 § 2 (part), 1994)16
15.08.050 Exemption.
17 Project by public agencies or entities shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter. (Ord.
10 NS-293 §2 (part), 1994)1 o
15.08.060 Use of fees.
Drainage area fees collected hereunder shall be segregated according to their source and
deposited into a planned local drainage facilities fund established for each planned local
drainage area and the funds therein and interest accruing thereto shall be expended solely for
~, the construction of or for reimbursement for construction of drainage facilities within the
respective planned local drainage area. All of the fees collected shall be expended solely to
22 build or finance planned local drainage facilities serving the city. (Ord. NS-293 § 2 (part), 1994)
15.08.070 Assessment districts.
If an assessment district or special taxing district is established for all or any part of the area
24 subject to this chapter to fund storm drain improvements which are or will be funded in whole or
in part by the fee established by this chapter, the owner or developer of a project may apply to
the city council for a credit against the fee in an amount equal to the assessment or taxes paid.
(Ord. NS-293 § 2 (part), 1994)
26 ///
27 ///
28
1 15.08.080 Reimbursement agreements.
The city council may, at its discretion, enter into a reimbursement agreement with a developer,
2 when said developer has constructed a planned local drainage facility improvement.
Reimbursement shall be made only as fees are collected in connection with the development of
3 other property in the same planned local drainage area in which said facilities were constructed.
The schedule of payments for the reimbursement shall take into consideration the schedule of
4 planned local drainage facility improvement construction contemplated in the adopted capital
improvement program and shall be made at the sole discretion of the city council. The amount
5 of reimbursement shall be limited to the actual cost, including engineering and other costs, of
such facilities at the time they are constructed. The term of reimbursement agreements shall not
6 exceed ten years. The payment of any reimbursement shall be limited to the extent that funds
are available through the collection of the PLDA fees. If the amount of reimbursement exceeds
7 the cost of the facility as estimated in the master drainage plan including the adjustments
provided for in Section 15.08.040(b), then the city council shall revise the facility fee schedule
8 accordingly. The developer requesting reimbursement shall pay or receive appropriate fee
credits based upon the revised fee schedule. (Ord. NS-293 § 2 (part), 1994)9
15.08.090 Advance of funds by city.
10 The city may advance money from any available source or fund for the construction of
improvements which would otherwise be paid for from fees collected pursuant to this chapter
and reimburse itself from future fees. (Ord. NS-293 § 2 (part), 1994)
12 15.08.100 Expiration of chapter.
This chapter shall be of no further force and effect when the city council determines that the
amount of fees which have been collected reaches an amount equal to the cost of the storm
drain improvements. (Ord. NS-293 § 2 (part), 1994)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
u t
1 ORDINANCE NO. CS-OOS
2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 21, CHAPTERS 21.38, 21.203 AND
3 21.205 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY DELETING REFERENCES TO
THE MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN ADOPTED IN 1994 AND THE MODEL
4 EROSION CONTROL ORDINANCE AND ADDING REFERENCES TO
THE PROPOSED CITY OF CARLSBAD DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN AND
5 EXISTING ENGINEERING STANDARDS.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN
6 CASE NO: ZCA 07-04
7 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does ordain as follows:
8 SECTION 1: That Section 21.38.141 (c) (6) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended
9 to read as follows:
10 6. A site specific technical report shall be required addressing the cumulative
effects of developing each subwatershed and recommending measures to mitigate both
11 increased runoff and sedimentation. It shall be reviewed and prepared according to the City of
Carlsbad Engineering Standards and provisions of the Local Coastal Program, with the
12 additions and changes adopted herein, such that a natural drainage system is generally
preserved for the eastern undeveloped watersheds, but that storm drains are allowed for those
western portions of the watershed which have already been incrementally developed.
14 SECTION 2: That Section 21.203.040 (B.) (1.) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
1. Buena Vista Lagoon. Developments located along the first row of lots bordering
Buena Vista Lagoon, including the parcel at the mouth of the lagoon, shall be designated for
17 residential development at a density of up to four dwelling units per acre. Proposed
development in this area shall be required to submit topographic and vegetation mapping and
analysis, as well as soils reports, as part of the development permit application. Such
19 information shall be provided in addition to any required environmental impact report, and shall
be prepared by qualified professionals and in sufficient detail to locate the boundary of wetland
,_„ and upland areas and areas of slopes in excess of twenty-five percent. Topographic maps shall
be submitted at a scale sufficient to determine the appropriate developable areas, generally not
~1 less than a scale of one inch equals one hundred feet with a topographic contour interval of five
feet, and shall include an overlay delineating the location of the proposed project. The lagoon
22 and wetland area shall be delineated and criteria used to identify any wetlands existing on the
site shall be those of Section 30121 of the Coastal Act and based upon the standards of the
local coastal program mapping regulations. Mapping of wetlands and siting of development shall
be done in consultation and subject to the approval of the Department of Fish and Game.
24 Development shall be clustered to preserve open space for habitat protection. Minimum
setbacks of at least one hundred feet from wetlands/lagoon shall be required in all development,
25 in order to buffer such sensitive habitat area from intrusion. Such buffer areas, as well as other
open space areas required in permitted development to preserve habitat areas, shall be
permanently preserved for habitat uses through provision of an open space easement as a
condition of project approval. In the event that a wetland area is bordered by steep slopes (in
27 excess of twenty-five percent) which will act as a natural buffer to the habitat area, a buffer area
of less than one hundred feet in width may be permitted. The density of any permitted
28 "
development shall be based upon the net developable area of the parcel, excluding any portion
of a parcel which is in wetlands or lagoon. As specified in subsection A of this section, a density
2 credit may be provided for that portion of the parcel which is in steep slopes. Storm drain
alignments as proposed in the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan which would be carried
3 through or empty into Buena Vista Lagoon shall not be permitted, unless such improvements
comply with the requirements of Sections 30230, 30231, 30233 and 30235 of the Coastal Act by
4 maintaining or enhancing the functional capacity of the lagoon in a manner acceptable to the
State Department of Fish and Game. Land divisions shall only be permitted on parcels
5 bordering the lagoon pursuant to a single planned development permit for the entire original
parcel.
6
SECTION 3: That Section 21.203.040 (B.) (3.) (a.) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
7
amended to read as follows:
a. All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban runoff
flow rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in accordance with: (1)
the requirements of the city's grading ordinance, storm water ordinance, standard urban storm
water mitigation plan (SUSMP) dated April 2003, and as amended, and the City of Carlsbad
Drainage Master Plan, as those documents are certified as part of the city's LCP; (2) the city's
jurisdictional urban runoff management program (JURMP) and the San Diego County Hydrology
Manual to the extent that these requirements are not inconsistent with any policies of the LCP;
12 and (3) the additional requirements contained herein. Such mitigation shall become an element
of the project, and shall be installed prior to the initial grading.
SECTION 4: That Section 21.203.040 (B.) (3.) (c.) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:15
c. Mitigation shall require construction of all improvements shown in the City of
Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan and any amendments to them for the area between the project
site and the lagoon (including the debris basin), as well as revegetation of graded areas
immediately after grading; and a mechanism for permanent maintenance if the city declines to
accept the responsibility. Construction of drainage improvements may be through formation of
an assessment district, or through any similar arrangement that allocates costs among the
various landowners in an equitable manner.
2Q SECTION 5: That Section 21.203.040 (B.) (4.) (a.) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
-, amended to read as follows:
22 a- All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban runoff
flow rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in accordance with: (1)
the requirements of the city's grading ordinance, storm water ordinance, standard urban storm
water mitigation plan (SUSMP) dated April 2003 and as amended, and the City of Carlsbad
Drainage Master Plan, as those documents are certified as part of the city's LCP; (2) the city's
jurisdictional urban runoff management program (JURMP) and the San Diego County Hydrology
25 Manual to the extent that these requirements are not inconsistent with any policies of the LCP;
and (3) the additional requirements contained herein. Such mitigation shall become an element
of the project and shall be installed prior to the initial grading.
27
28
1 SECTION 6: That Section 21.203.040 (B.) (4.) (c.) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
2 amended to read as follows:
3 c. Mitigation shall also require construction of all improvements shown in the City of
Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan and amendments to it. No subsequent amendments are a part
4 of this zone unless certified by the coastal commission. The general provisions, procedures,
standards, content of plans and implementation contained with them are required conditions of
5 development in addition to the provisions below. Approved development shall include the
following conditions, in addition to the requirements specified above:
6
SECTION 7: That Section 21.203.040 (B.) (4.) (c.) (i.) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
7
amended to read as follows:
i. All off-site, downstream improvements (including debris basin and any other
9 improvements recommended in the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan) shall be constructed
prior to the issuance of a grading permit on-site. Improvements shall be inspected by city or
10 county staff and certified as adequate and in compliance with the requirements of the drainage
plan and the additional requirements of this zone. If the city or county declines to accept
I maintenance responsibility for the improvements, the developer shall maintain the
improvements during construction of the on-site improvements;
SECTION 8: That Section 21.203.040 (B.) (4.) (c.) (vi.) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
is amended to read as follows:14
vi. Storm drainage facilities in developed areas shall be improved and enlarged
according to City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, incorporating the changes specified in this
section. Improvement districts shall be formed for presently undeveloped areas which are
'" expected to urbanize in the future. The improvement districts shall implement City of Carlsbad
Drainage Master Plan. Upstream areas in the coastal zone shall not be permitted to develop
17 incrementally prior to installation of the storm drain facilities downstream, in order to assure
protection of coastal resources. New drainage facilities, required within the improvement
districts shall be financed either by some form of bond or from fees collected from developers
on a cost-per-acre basis;
SECTION 9: That Section 21.205.060 (a.) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended
to read as follows:
a. All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban runoff
flow rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in accordance with: (1)
2~> the requirements of the city's grading ordinance, storm water ordinance, standard urban storm
water mitigation plan (SUSMP) dated April 2003 and as amended, and the City of Carlsbad
Drainage Master Plan, as those documents are certified as part of the city's LCP; (2) the city's
jurisdictional urban runoff management program (JURMP) and the San Diego County Hydrology
Manual to the extent that these requirements are not inconsistent with any policies of the LCP;
and (3) the additional requirements contained herein. Such mitigation shall become an element
of the project and shall be installed prior to the initial grading.
27
28
6
SECTION 10: That Section 21.205.060 (c.) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended
2 to read as follows:
3 c. Mitigation shall also require construction of all improvements shown in the City of
Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan and amendments to it. No subsequent amendments are a part
4 of this zone unless certified by the coastal commission. The general provisions, procedures,
standards, content of plans and implementation contained in them are required conditions of
5 development in addition to the provisions below. Approved development shall include the
following conditions, in addition to the requirements specified above:
6
SECTION 11: That Section 21.205.060 (c.) (i.) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
7
amended to read as follows:
i. All off-site, downstream improvements (including debris basin and any other
improvements) recommended in the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan shall be constructed
prior to the issuance of a grading permit on-site. Improvements shall be inspected by city staff
and certified as adequate and in compliance with the requirements of the drainage plan and the
additional requirements of this zone. If the city declines to accept maintenance responsibility for
the improvements, the developer shall maintain the improvements during construction of the on-
site improvements;
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective no sooner than thirty (30) days after
its adoption but not until approved by the California Coastal Commission, and the City Clerk shall
certify the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in a newspaper of
general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen (15) days after its adoption.16
.7 '"
18 '"
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a Regular Meeting of the Carlsbad City Council on
the day of , 2008, and thereafter
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad,
California, on the day of , 2008, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
EXHIBIT 4
ZCA 07-04
PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT CHANGES
DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN / PLANNED LOCAL DRAINAGE AREA FEES /
CALAVERA AND AGUA HEDIONDA CREEKS PROJECT
Section 21.38.141 (c) (6) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is proposed to be amended as
follows:
(6) A site specific technical report shall be required addressing the cumulative
effects of developing each subwatershed and recommending measures to mitigate
both increased runoff and sedimentation. It shall be reviewed and prepared
according to the City of Carlsbad Engineering Standards and provisions of the
Local Coastal Program, Modol Erosion Control Ordinance contained in tho mactor
drainage plan, with the additions and changes adopted herein, such that a natural
drainage system is generally preserved for the eastern undeveloped watersheds, but
that storm drains are allowed for those western portions of the watershed which have
already been incrementally developed.
Section 21.203.040 (B.) (1.) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is proposed to be amended as
follows:
1. Buena Vista Lagoon. Developments located along the first row of lots bordering
Buena Vista Lagoon, including the parcel at the mouth of the lagoon, shall be
designated for residential development at a density of up to four dwelling units per
acre. Proposed development in this area shall be required to submit topographic and
vegetation mapping and analysis, as well as soils reports, as part of the development
permit application. Such information shall be provided in addition to any required
environmental impact report, and shall be prepared by qualified professionals and in
sufficient detail to locate the boundary of wetland and upland areas and areas of
slopes in excess of twenty-five percent. Topographic maps shall be submitted at a
scale sufficient to determine the appropriate developable areas, generally not less
than a scale of one inch equals one hundred feet with a topographic contour interval
of five feet, and shall include an overlay delineating the location of the proposed
project. The lagoon and wetland area shall be delineated and criteria used to identify
any wetlands existing on the site shall be those of Section 30121 of the Coastal Act
and based upon the standards of the local coastal program mapping regulations.
Mapping of wetlands and siting of development shall be done in consultation and
subject to the approval of the Department of Fish and Game. Development shall be
clustered to preserve open space for habitat protection. Minimum setbacks of at least
one hundred feet from wetlands/lagoon shall be required in all development, in order
to buffer such sensitive habitat area from intrusion. Such buffer areas, as well as
other open space areas required in permitted development to preserve habitat areas,
EXHIBIT 4
shall be permanently preserved for habitat uses through provision of an open space
easement as a condition of project approval. In the event that a wetland area is
bordered by steep slopes (in excess of twenty-five percent) which will act as a natural
buffer to the habitat area, a buffer area of less than one hundred feet in width may be
permitted. The density of any permitted development shall be based upon the net
developable area of the parcel, excluding any portion of a parcel which is in wetlands
or lagoon. As specified in subsection A of this section, a density credit may be
provided for that portion of the parcel which is in steep slopes. Storm drain
alignments as proposed in the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Carlsbad
master drainage plan which would be carried through or empty into Buena Vista
Lagoon shall not be permitted, unless such improvements comply with the
requirements of Sections 30230, 30231, 30233 and 30235 of the Coastal Act by
maintaining or enhancing the functional capacity of the lagoon in a manner
acceptable to the State Department of Fish and Game. Land divisions shall only be
permitted on parcels bordering the lagoon pursuant to a single planned development
permit for the entire original parcel.
Section 21.203.040 (B.) (3.) (a.) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is proposed to be amended
as follows:
a. All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban runoff
flow rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in accordance
with: (1) the requirements of the city's grading ordinance, storm water ordinance,
standard urban storm water mitigation plan (SUSMP) dated April 2003, and as
amended, and the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, master drainage plan
dated 1994, as those documents are certified as part of the city's LCP; (2) the city's
jurisdictional urban runoff management program (JURMP) and the San Diego County
Hydrology Manual to the extent that these requirements are not inconsistent with any
policies of the LCP; and (3) the additional requirements contained herein. Such
mitigation shall become an element of the project, and shall be installed prior to the
initial grading.
Section 21.203.040 (B.) (3.) (c.) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is proposed to be amended
as follows:
c. Mitigation shall require construction of all improvements shown in the City of
Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan master drainage plan and any amendments to them
for the area between the project site and the lagoon (including the debris basin), as
well as revegetation of graded areas immediately after grading; and a mechanism for
permanent maintenance if the city declines to accept the responsibility. Construction of
drainage improvements may be through formation of an assessment district, or
through any similar arrangement that allocates costs among the various landowners in
an equitable manner.
EXHIBIT 4
Section 21.203.040 (B.) (4.) (a.) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is proposed to be amended
as follows:
a. All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban runoff
flow rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in accordance
with: (1) the requirements of the city's grading ordinance, storm water ordinance,
standard urban storm water mitigation plan (SUSMP) dated April 2003 and as
amended, and the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, master drainage plan
dated 1994, as those documents are certified as part of the city's LCP; (2) the city's
jurisdictional urban runoff management program (JURMP) and the San Diego County
Hydrology Manual to the extent that these requirements are not inconsistent with any
policies of the LCP; and (3) the additional requirements contained herein. Such
mitigation shall become an element of the project and shall be installed prior to the
initial grading.
Section 21.203.040 (B.) (4.) (c.) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is proposed to be amended
as follows:
c. Mitigation shall also require construction of all improvements shown in the City of
Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan master drainage plan and amendments to it. No
subsequent amendments are a part of this zone unless certified by the coastal
commission. The general provisions, procedures, standards, content of plans and
implementation contained with them are required conditions of development in
addition to the provisions below. Approved development shall include the following
conditions, in addition to the requirements specified above:
Section 21.203.040 (B.) (4.) (c.) (i.) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is proposed to be
amended as follows:
i. All off-site, downstream improvements (including debris basin and any other
improvements recommended in the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan
drainage plan) shall be constructed prior to the issuance of a grading permit on-site.
Improvements shall be inspected by city or county staff and certified as adequate
and in compliance with the requirements of the drainage plan and the additional
requirements of this zone. If the city or county declines to accept maintenance
responsibility for the improvements, the developer shall maintain the improvements
during construction of the on-site improvements;
Section 21.203.040 (B.) (4.) (c.) (vi.) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is proposed to be
amended as follows:
EXHIBIT 4
vi. Storm drainage facilities in developed areas shall be improved and enlarged
according to City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, the Carlcbad mactor drainage
pterv-incorporating the changes specified in this section. Improvement districts shall
be formed for presently undeveloped areas which are expected to urbanize in the
future. The improvement districts shall implement City of Carlsbad Drainage
Master Plan, the master drainage plan. Upstream areas in the coastal zone shall not
be permitted to develop incrementally prior to installation of the storm drain facilities
downstream, in order to assure protection of coastal resources. New drainage
facilities, required within the improvement districts shall be financed either by some
form of bond or from fees collected from developers on a cost-per-acre basis;
Section 21.205.060 (a.) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is proposed to be amended as
follows:
a. All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban runoff
flow rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in accordance
with: (1) the requirements of the city's grading ordinance, storm water ordinance,
standard urban storm water mitigation plan (SUSMP) dated April 2003 and as
amended, and the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, master drainage plan
dated 1994, as those documents are certified as part of the city's LCP; (2) the city's
jurisdictional urban runoff management program (JURMP) and the San Diego County
Hydrology Manual to the extent that these requirements are not inconsistent with any
policies of the LCP; and (3) the additional requirements contained herein. Such
mitigation shall become an element of the project and shall be installed prior to the
initial grading.
Section 21.205.060 (c.) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is proposed to be amended as
follows:
c. Mitigation shall also require construction of all improvements shown in the City of
Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan master drainage plan and amendments to it. No
subsequent amendments are a part of this zone unless certified by the coastal
commission. The general provisions, procedures, standards, content of plans and
implementation contained in them are required conditions of development in addition
to the provisions below. Approved development shall include the following conditions,
in addition to the requirements specified above:
Section 21.205.060 (c.) (i.) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is proposed to be amended as
follows:
i. All off-site, downstream improvements (including debris basin and any other
improvements; recommended in the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan
EXHIBIT 4
drainage plan) shall be constructed prior to the issuance of a grading permit on-site.
Improvements shall be inspected by city staff and certified as adequate and in
compliance with the requirements of the drainage plan and the additional requirements
of this zone. If the city declines to accept maintenance responsibility for the
improvements, the developer shall maintain the improvements during construction of
the on-site improvements;
-£2.
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-229
2
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT EIR 04-02, ADOPTING THE CANDIDATE
4 FINDINGS OF FACT, THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM AND APPROVING A LOCAL COASTAL
5 PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO REVISE AND DELETE
REFERENCES TO THE MASTER DRAINAGE AND STORM
6 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (MDSWQMP), MODEL
EROSION CONTROL ORDINANCE, AND GRADING ORDINANCE
7 FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN AND
CALAVERA, AGUA HEDIONDA CREEKS PROJECT AFFECTING
8 PROPERTIES CITYWIDE AND PORTIONS OF AGUA HEDIONDA
AND CALAVERA CREEKS IN AND NEAR THE RANCHO
9 CARLSBAD RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY AND IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONES 8, 14, 15 AND 24.
10 CASE NAME: DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE/
CALAVERA AND AGUA HEDIONDA CREEKS
11 CASE NO.: EIR 04-02/MCA 07-01/ZCA 07-04/LCPA 07-06
12 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as follows:
13 WHEREAS, on January 16, 2008, the Carlsbad Planning Commission held a duly noticed
14 public hearing to consider a proposed Environmental Impact Report (EIR 04-02) and adopted
j5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6376, recommending to the City Council certification of EIR
, 04-02, as modified by Exhibit "EIR-C" attached to Resolution 6376, and adoption of the Candidate
Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and adopted Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 6377, 6378 recommending approval of ZCA 07-04 and LCPA 07-
18
06, respectively, subject to the City Council certification of EIR 04-02 and adoption of the
19 Candidate Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
20 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, did on August 5, 2008, hold a public
91 hearing to consider the recommendations and heard all persons interested in or opposed to EIR
22 04-02; and
23 WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared and submitted to the
24 State Clearinghouse and a Notice of Completion was filed, published, and mailed to responsible
25 agencies and interested parties providing an initial 45-day review period that was extended an
26 additional 15 days; and
27
28
1 WHEREAS, all comments received during the review period are contained in the Final
2 EIR; and
3 WHEREAS, following publication of the Final EIR and distribution of responses to
4 commenting parties, certain parties continued to submit comments up to, during, and after the
5 testimony given at the project's public hearing held by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission
6 on the project on January 16, 2008; and
7 WHEREAS, in order to address all issues raised by the public on the proposed project
8 and provide comprehensive disclosure and documentation of environmental issues associated
9 with the project, the additional comments and responses to comments were prepared as attached
10 Exhibit 1; revisions to the Final EIR as attached Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 2a; revisions to the
Candidate Findings of Fact as attached Exhibit 3; and revisions to the Mitigation Monitoring and
12 Reporting Program as attached Exhibit 4 and as hereby incorporated into the Final EIR for
consideration by the Carlsbad City Council; and
WHEREAS, the information contained in the additional responses and revisions to the
Final EIR, Candidate Findings of Fact, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program do
not constitute "significant information" as defined in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines Section 15088.5(a). Instead, the information provided merely clarifies and amplifies
1 Q discussion already contained in the Final EIR. As such, recirculation of the Final EIR is not
1O required because the new information added to the EIR only clarifies, amplifies and makes
90 insignificant modifications to an adequate EIR (CEQA Guideline, 15088.5(b)).
21 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad,
22 California, as follows:
23 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
24
2. The City Council does hereby find that the Final EIR 04-02, as modified by Exhibits
25 1,2, and 2a attached hereto, the Candidate Findings of Fact, as modified by Exhibit 3 attached
hereto, and the Mitigation and Monitoring Program, as modified by Exhibit 4 attached hereto,
26 have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act,
the State EIR Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
27
28
1 3. The City Council has reviewed, analyzed, and considered Final EIR 04-02, as
modified by Exhibits 1, 2, and 2a attached hereto, the environmental impacts therein identified for
2 this project, the Candidate Findings of Fact, as modified by Exhibit 3 attached hereto, and the
Mitigation and Monitoring Program, as modified by Exhibit 4 attached hereto, prior to approving
3 the project, and they reflect the independent judgment of the City of Carlsbad City Council.
4. The City Council does accept as its own, incorporate as if set forth in full herein,
and make each and every one of the findings contained in the Candidate Findings of Fact, as
modified by Exhibit 3 attached hereto, including feasibility of mitigation measures pursuant to
Public Resources Code 21081 and CEQA Guidelines 15091, and infeasibility of project
6 alternatives.
7
5. The City Council hereby finds that the Mitigation and Monitoring Program, as
modified by Exhibit 4 attached hereto, is designed to ensure that during project implementation
and operation the Developer and any other responsible parties implement the project
components and comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified in the Candidate
Findings of Fact, as modified by Exhibit 3 attached hereto, and the Mitigation and Monitoring
10 Program.
6. The Record of Proceedings for this project consists of the Environmental Impact
Report, as modified by Exhibits 1, 2, and 2a attached hereto, Candidate Findings of Fact, as
12 modified by Exhibit 3 attached hereto, and Mitigation and Monitoring Program, as modified by
Exhibit 4 attached hereto; the "Record" upon which the City Council bases these Candidate
13 Findings of Fact and its actions and determinations regarding the project includes, but is not
limited to, the Draft EIR, together with all appendices and technical reports referred to therein,
14 whether separately bound or not; all reports, letters, applications, memoranda, maps, or other
planning and engineering documents prepared by the City, engineering consultant, environmental
15 consultant, or others presented to or before the decision-makers as determined by the City Clerk;
all letters, reports, or other documents submitted to the City by members of the public or public
16 agencies in connection with the City's environmental analysis on the project; all minutes of any
public workshops, meetings, or hearings, including the scoping sessions, and any recorded or
17 verbatim transcripts/videotapes thereof; any letters, reports, or other documents or other
evidence submitted into the record at any public workshops, meeting, or hearings; matters of
18 common general knowledge to the City that the City may consider, including applicable State or
local laws, ordinances, and policies, the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Local Facilities
19 Management Plans, and all applicable planning programs and policies of the City; and, all
findings and resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the project, including all
20 documents cited or referred to therein.
21 The custodian of the full administrative record shall be the City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad
Village Drive, and the Planning Director, 1635 Faraday Avenue, both in Carlsbad, CA 92008.
22
7. That the Environmental Impact Report (EIR 04-02) on the above referenced
project, as modified by Exhibits 1, 2 and 2a attached hereto, is certified; and that the Candidate
Findings of Fact, as modified by Exhibit 3 attached hereto, and the Mitigation Monitoring and
24 Reporting Program, as modified by Exhibit 4 attached hereto, are adopted and that the condition
of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 6376, on file with
25 the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference and as modified by Exhibit 4, is the condition
., of the City Council.26
27
28
1 8. That the amendment to the Local Coastal Program (LCPA 07-06) is approved as
shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 6378 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated
2 herein by reference.
9. That the approval of LCPA 07-06 shall not become effective until it is approved by
the California Coastal Commission and the Coastal Commission's approval becomes effective.
"NOTICE TO INTERESTED PARTIES"
"The time within which judicial review of this decision must be
6 sought is governed by 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 or other paper
seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not
later than the ninetieth 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 the proceedings
accompanied by the required 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 is 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 proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of
Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008."
14"
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad,
California, on the 5th day of August, 2008, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Hall, Packard, Nygaard
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
(SEAL)
f";O-E^i^-^r^T-;^;
^%*"JlV*:j^/".u --v>fc.>^^ -Vc-
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
Comment Index
Agency/Organization
Preserve Calavera
Carlsbad Watershed Network
Preserve Calavera
Carlsbad Watershed Network
Bataquitos Lagoon Foundation
N/A
Commenter
Diane Nygaard
Isabelle Kay
Diane Nygaard
Brad Roth
Fred Sandquist
Diane Nygaard and
Isabelle Kay
Comment Date
January 24, 2008
January 24, 2008
January 14, 2008
January 14, 2008
January 14, 2008
February 26, 2008
Letter Reference
PCa*
CWNa
PCb*
CWNb
BLF
DNIK
*Note: These letters contain responses prepared by the City that originally appeared in Appendix F of the Final
EIR. In some cases, the letter only quotes a portion, rather than the entire, response. The reader is referred to
Appendix F for the complete response.
Comment Letter PCa
Mayor and City Council
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Dr
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mayor and City Council
January 24,2008
Subject: LCP Amendment
Comments on FEIR
Drainage Master Plan Update
HMP Consistency
These comments on the LCP amendment related to the Master Drainage Plan (MDP) and
associated documents 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 area is the largest remaining natural
land in a coastal North County city.
We are concerned about the public notice associated with the proposed LCP amendments, and
the Coastal Development Permit(CDP) for the Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks dredging
project. The Planning Commission staff report stated that the City Council would consider
approving the DMP and LCP changes following review of all comments on the LCP after a 6
week public review period from December 14 - January 24, 2008. As a commoner on this
project we believe we should have received notice of such public comment period for the LCP.
The only mailed notice we received for this project was for the FEIR and this did not include
any notice of the proposed LCP amendment. The first public notice of the LCP amendment that
we are aware of occurred with the posting of the Planning Commission Agenda for the January
16, 2008 meeting which we believe was received via email on January 10,2008. The 45 day
public comment period on the LCP amendments was not posted on the city website until about
January 16 ( see email from Scott Donnell), just a few days before the end of the comment
period.
Furthermore this was not sent out to the list of interested parties who have notified the city in
writing that they wish to be informed of such notices. While notifying agencies and putting legal
notices in two local newspapers meets the letter of the law, it certainly is not consistent with the
intent of providing reasonable public notice nor is it consistent with the standard city public
notice procedures.
Furthermore, we were not aware until January 23, 2008 (during a phone call to CA Coastal
Commission staff) that the city had processed the Coastal Development Permit for the dredging
project based on the ELR certification by the Planning Commission. The public comment period
PCa-1
5020 INIghlhiwk Way - Oceudde, CA »ZOS«
www.pre»ervte«l«ver».org
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
Comment
Reference
.j,_- ,,•, - -»-
Response to Comment
PCa-1 Comment noted. This comment relates to the processing of the Local Coastal Plan Amendment
and Coastal Development Permit, not the adequacy of the EIR. However, the City desires to be
responsive. In accordance with the requirements of the Coastal Act, notice for the Local Coastal
Program Amendment (LCPA) was sent to the Coastal Commission, various agencies, and others
on the interested parties list and was also published in two local papers on December 14, 2007,
the beginning of the required six-week public review period. For the convenience of the public, the
Planning Department also posts LCPA and other notices on its website, to which people may
receive an email notification when such posting occurs. Unfortunately, this posting did not occur as
it should have when the notice was published; the City corrected this oversight and the notice was
posted on the website by January 18, 2008. Furthermore, staff did not find that the commentor or
the commentor's organization were on the interested parties list of individuals and agencies that
have requested to receive LCPA notices. The public comment period on the proposed LCPA
closed January 24, 2008.
Secondly, the Planning Commission's approval of the Coastal Development Permit (CDP 04-41)
for the dredging of Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks was not subject to approval of either the
proposed Drainage Master Plan or Local Coastal Program Amendment. This is because the
dredging of the creeks is a component of the current Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality
Management Plan adopted in 1994 and referenced in the current Local Coastal Program. .
In addition, CDP 04-41 was described and noted as a permit for the dredging project in the
project's public hearing notice published in the newspaper, posted on the City's website, and
mailed to property owners at least 10 days prior to the January 16, 2008, Planning Commission
hearing. The permit was also discussed in the Planning Commission staff report for that meeting.
for the LCP was still underway, the MDP had not been approved, yet the notice of final action
for this permit was submitted.
We request tint all LCF anwndroeati and coastal development permits be treated the same
u aU other city project nortec*- witk posting on the city website and email notific»tiou to
those persons who have signed op for tfct dry's rourJjtt notie* system.
The projects included within the Master Drainage Plan arc located throughout the city - with
seven) in the Coastal Zone or immediately adjacent to the Coastal Zone where they can have
both direct and indirect impacts on sensitive coastal resources. Our concerns are the impact on PCa-2
the Buena Vista and Agua Hedionda watersheds including the associated lagoons and coastal
waters, the effect on the regional and local wildlife condors, the proximity to existing regional
and state reserves, and the cumulative impacts to sensitive wetland resources Development of
the projects as proposed doesn't just impact the few acres identified for direct impacts, it could
impact hundreds of acres of high quality wetland and upland habitat causing further damage to
our coastal watersheds.
At the Planning Commission hearing on January 16,2008 they certified die Final EIR associated
with both the program and project level components of the MDP. But at that hearing it was
stated that approval of the MDP and LCP amendments that reference the MDP wore the "PCa-3
authority of the City Council. Those additional items were just submitted to the Planning
Commission for information and would be beard by the Council at a future bearing We believe
the content of tic MDP and adequacy of the EIR and mitigation measures are critical to any
decision to amend the LCP that win then incorporate these by reference. Our comments therefor
include aU of these related documents.
We reviewed the responses to comments and changes made to the FEIR. submitted further
comments to the Planning Commission, and testified at the hearing on January 16,2008. We
believe that many of the written responses and verbal responses made at the hearing failed to
address key issues, or provided incomplete infocmatioa The result is thai what sounds Iflce very
innocuous amendments to the LCP, in fact would incorporate mis MDP and the mitigation
proposed in the FEIR in a way that is not consistent with related documents that better protect
coastal resources.
The following are our concerns about the MDP and the proposed LCP amendments that
incorporate the MDP into the LCP. The following will identify key issues with first the program
and following mat the project level elements of the MDP. Reference numbers are those used in
the responses to comments to (he FEIR. Comment is identified in plain text Applicant response
is shown in Italics. Current comment is in bold. Please note that these are preliminary
comments, prior to close of the public comment period, and prior to release of the staff report on
the MND and LCP.
Section 1 discusses the MND and analysis of impacts shown in the FEIR - particularly concerns
related to the Coastal Zone, Section 11 HMP Consistency and Section 111 Proposed LCP
Amendment.
Scetiaal Program Level MDP Components
L3-5 We are particularly concerned about assumptions about land use and watershed
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
PCa-2
PCa-3
As addressed in response to comment L3-1 in Appendix F of the Final EIR, the City continues to
note this comment This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a program-
level planning document (the DMP Update). As discussed throughout the EIR, subsequent
environmental review will be required for individual program-level DMP Update components as
they proceed to project-level design. Except for the two projects receiving project level review in
this FEIR, the proposed facility type and sizing of project components described in Table 3-1 are
representative of current/general facility needs and are used to develop planning level project cost
estimates for inclusion in the PLDA fee program. The DMP Update does not commit the City to a
particular design solution or preclude the use of alternative designs that may be more
environmentally sensitive. Final design of a specific DMP Updated facility is subject to all
applicable City policy and regulatory documents including the General Plan, Habitat Management
Plan, Local Coastal Program, City Standards, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and State and Federal permitting requirements. Furthermore, Section 4.9 of the EIR explains that
guidance for complying with storm water management requirements and design and construction
best management practices is contained in other documents including the Jurisdictional Urban
Runoff Management Plan (JURMP), Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP),
Watershed Urban Runoff Management Plan (WURMP), and RWQCB Permit No. R9-2007-001.
Comment noted. This comment refers to the permit process for the approval of the DMP Update,
not the adequacy of the EIR. To clarify, the Planning Commission recommended to the City
Council certification of the Final EIR and approval of the Zone Code amendment and Local
Coastal Plan Amendment, but does not maintain approval authority of these actions. The City
Council has the authority to render a determination on the DMP, associated code amendments,
and certification on the FEIR. Furthermore, the DMP Update alone was submitted to the Planning
Commission for information only; as noted above, the Local Coastal Program Amendment was
recommended for approval by the Commission.
PCa-4
improvement efforts that could dramatically reduce volume and velocity of flows entering
Carlsbad. What efforts h«ve been made to coordinate pl«ns with the upstream parts of the sub-
watersheds that «re outside of the city of Carlsbad boundaries?
The City made efforts to discuss improvements thai may impact other jurisdictions, such as tke
California Department of Transportation. However, because ike DMP Update did not require
detailed Hydraulic calculations, coordination with upstream Jurisdiction was not necessary.
The point tt not th»t the drainage system proposed in Carlsbad wo«ld effect th« ether
jurlidictioni- it B that what the upstream jurisdiction* ar» doing could dranrartcaBy
change the volame and velocity «f water entering Carlsbad. "Miking efforts" could be
leaving I phone menage. The response doesn't even indicate that there ii an intent to
property CMrdbute- aad to consider alternatives should there be a dramatic dnnge ii
land me, run-off control, or other factors that impact the volant aid velocity of flow*
catering Carkbad.
How nill the city upd»t* th« MDP to incorporate such changes?
L3-7 The MDP should include some guidelines about how choice* were made to use such ^
measuresC hardscapc engineering solutions) rather than a bioengmeering/scjjuijitiorv'rcsloration —
choice that would allow natural creek function. Please particularly identify the decision to install
or increase the size of culvers and'or concrete channels instead of using more natural means to
control flows.
Tlie use of culverts and/or concrete channels is I* part based on the siope of the conveyance,
expected discharge volume, depth, aad velocity of flow. In most instances flow velocities tlial are
greater than 5 to 7 feet per second introduce instability in tatlined channels. The other/actors
are associated witk the soil properties, svcJi as soil type, cohesion, infiltration, etc. These ploy a
role In tilt channel stability,
Patting a aatural creek Into a culvert or ttning tt with concrete ii damaging to the natural
functions of a creek. Repeated dredging of a crack instead of addressing the upstream
braes that arc causing silt deposit» also usually not the be«t solution for the plants and
animal) that need a functioning creek t» survive- or to reduce the sit aad poBatant bad
that reaches the downstream lagoon. The comment was t» mci*4c galdeUnet- guidelines
that wooW provide the conditions under which a culvert is determined t» be the best
loUtMD, and conditions under which k Is not. At die hearing staff stated there are policies
fa place that make it dear that things like calvcrtlng creeks are a last resort- however none
of this was included in the MDP- and it Is the MDP that is referenced in the LCP.
L3-21 ft appears that this is really a flood control program and that any benefit: to water quality
are occidental. If water quality improvements are really part of the project objectives then this
requires much more analysis and discussion in both the MDP Plan and the EIR
... The objectives of the DMP Update relative to water quality have been clarified in section 3.2
ofUieEJJl..-
What was done was to eliminate" indirect benefits to water quality" from the project goatt, PCa-6
Instead of integrating water quality Improvement planning with flood control the tw» an
PCa-5
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
. , ee
detailed hydrology or hydraulic studies until the project is brought forward for final d
There are several facilities proposed within Basin B, including Facilities B and BN (comprising the Agua
Hedionda and Calavera Creek Dredge and Improvement Project), BNB, BJ-1, BJ-2. BJB, BL-L and BP.
These facilities accommodate flows originating outside the City limits. Because Facilities B and BN include
project level review within the FEIR, a detailed hydrology study was prepared for the watershed that took into
account the latest available general plan land use information for properties located within Carlsbad and the
neighboring jurisdictions. The 1998 and 2004 Rick Engineering Studies referenced in Section 3.4.2 of the EIR
include hydrology modeling calculations based upon the latest available land use information to project 1 00-
year stormwater flows for each of the Drainage Master Plan (DMP) Update facilities/project components
noted above. The 2004 Rick Engineering Studies included provisions within the hydrology model to account
for lag times associated with installation of Low Impact Development (LID) designs within the general
watershed. LID design principles are aimed at mitigating after-development hydrologic impacts for storms in
the 2 to 10 year range. LID does not significantly diminish the flooding impacts resulting from a 100 year
storm event. The referenced hydrology studies represent the latest land use information available and
adequately address the impacts of flows originating from both within and outside the City limits.
Because the DMP Update is primarily a planning level document used to assess local needs and develop
cost estimates for inclusion in the City's PLDA fee program it is not the appropriate document for addressing
coordination issues with neighboring upstream jurisdictions. The City has partnered with all neighboring
jurisdictions with which it shares a common watershed boundary and, has worked extensively to develop the
Carlsbad Watershed Management Plan. The cities have formed the Carlsbad Watershed Management Plan
committee comprised of staff from the cities of Carlsbad, Solana Beach, Encinitas, Vista, San Marcos,
Oceanside, and Escondido and, with the County of San Diego. The committee meets regularly to discuss
issues of common interest with regard to the shared watersheds, identify sources of water pollution and
develop positive measures to reduce pollutant loads.
PCa-5 See response to comment PCa-2 and response to comment L3-7 in Appendix F of Final EIR. Additionally, the
DMP Update is primarily a planning level document used to assess local needs and develop cost estimates
for inclusion in the City's PLDA fee program. It is documents such as the Local Coastal Program and others
mentioned in response to comment PCa-2 above that more appropriately establish regulations and policies to
guide flood control enhancements.
Additionally, Final EIR Section 3-5 states, in part, "impacts associated with DMP Update components would
be minimized through implementation of project design features/methods, regulatory requirements, and
construction measures that would be incorporated as applicable into individual project designs and
implemented during construction, which are summarized in Table 3-6. These are not mitigation measures,
but rather features, methods, or measures that are incorporated into the project design and implementation.
Table 3-6 in the Final EIR."
PCa-6 See responses to comments L3-21 and L 3-24 in Appendix F of Final EIR and PCa-5 above The City
continues to note this comment. The projects identified in the Updated DMP will be carried out in compliance
with the water quality regulations and guidelines as contained in previously-referenced documents such as
the Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Plan (JURMP), Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan
(SUSMP), Watershed Urban Runoff Management Plan (WURMP), RWQCB Permit No. R9-2007-001 and the
Habitat Management Plan. Because the DMP Update is primarily a planning-level document used to assess
local drainage needs and develop cost estimates for inclusion in the City's PLDA fee program, it is not the
appropriate document for addressing water quality issues.
being treated as completely separate activities. All over this country public jurisdictions
are working to improve water quality- doing thing* like taking creeks oat of culverts and
creating more natural wetlands as pan of that effort- a practice that when properly
designed can abo have significant flood control benefit!.
Instead of eliminating any reference to water quality, the MDP and LCP should dearly
state bow flood control will be integrated with the required run-off control program of the
RWQCB. It should abo include a statement that where there are conflicts betwecB flood
control and water quality provisions or HMP how these win be resolved.
L3-23 ....The hydrology study needs to assess the impacts of lesser flow volumes and assure that
these, as well as the 100 year floods, are being addressed.
...By proposing DMP Update component* that would accommodate the 100-year floods
citywide, tke City is addressing any lesser degree oj"flooding....
Our point was that much smaller levels of run-off than the 100-year flood are causing
damage to our local creeks and adding silt and other pollutants to ow lagoons. Of course
the flooding is less- but the damage occurs much more frequently and cumulatively may
even be worse than a single large flood. The response completely ignores this by only
considering flooding- and only at the 100-year flood level. This is another example of why
It is important to integrate this with broader watershed protection - that doesn't just
consider flooding- but looks at scouring and undercutting, buffers along creeks, and
opportunities for retrofits that accomplish flood control but also address the impacts from
the lesser storm events.
LJ-26 .... The EIR should identify the total amount of the system that is culvened/channdizcd
or otherwise precluded from natural function and compare what is proposed with the current
MDP update and current conditions The EIR then needs to evaluate the impact of the full extent
of such changes on natural hydrology and wetlands function.
A description of each project component proposed in the DMP Update is provided in Tables 3-1
and 3-2 o) the EIR.
Tables 3-1 and 3-2 appear to include a total of 17,885 feet of cntverting/cnanneiization for
the PDLA projects and 1,290 for the noo-PDLA for a total of 19,175 linear feet or over 3.6
miles. The explanation has failed to identify how this massive Increase In hardscape has
minimized either wetlands impacts, or permeable cover. Even though a significant part of
these are within developed areas, many are areas with some existing biological functions
that will bt essentially destroyed. At the bearing staff stated that the prior MDP redaced
the amount of creeks that were being cnhtrted/channetized. However 19,175 feet remains
a substantial impact The MDP and FEIR failed to adequately consider the cumulative
impacts of such significant changes to existing creeks and drainage channels.
L3-31 The EIR says that no beneficial uses are identified for Calavera Creek. This is not
correct.
Stction 4.9.1.i of the EIR has been revised to identify the beneficial uses of Calavera Creek.
PCa-7
PCa-8
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
PCa-7 See response to comment L3-23 in Appendix F of Final EIR. The City acknowledges that lesser-
degree storms have a potential for contributing to bank erosion and sediment transport. To
address these needs, the City is working with other co-permittees of the Municipal Stormwater
Permit (RWQCB Order No. R9-2007-001) to develop stormwater hydromodification standards that
will be applied to future development beginning 2009. Until such a time as appropriate standards
are developed by the co-permittees and adopted by the RWQCB, the use of the 100-year storm
flow criteria is the most appropriate method for establishing planning-level project descriptions and
cost estimates needed for inclusion in the PLDA fee program.
Additionally, impacts caused by more frequent, but lesser degree flooding will be addressed
through operation and maintenance activities included and described in Section 3.3 and 3.4 of
Final EIR.
See response to comment L3-26 in Appendix F of Final EIR and response to comment PCa-2. To
clarify, approximately 16,000 linear feet (over 90%) of the proposed concrete encased drainage
facilities are proposed within existing developed areas where stormwater flows currently drain
along improved roads and/or other impervious surfaces. The environmental impact of
undergrounding or channelizing such facilities will be negligible. The remaining 10%
(approximately 1,800 linear feet) of the proposed concrete encased facilities are located at future
road crossings, within areas programmed for extensive private developments and/or along the
NCTD railroad right-of-way. Thus, the majority of channelization referenced would occur in areas
currently or likely developed with non-permeable cover. In all cases, the final design and
construction of these facilities will require environmental review and must comply with all City,
State and Federal regulatory requirements.
The FE1R was modified to correct this error by adding in tfc« list of beneficial use*.
However, the point b not to just list the beneficialuses- the latent b to analyze whether
litre lire any adverse impacts to any of tbe beneficial net from what It bring proposed.
The city has failed to demonstrate that any analysis was done on tbe effects of dredging
over 3,000 feet of fail treelc channel 00 the beneficial uses of Ike creek- and tat
downstream lagoon which if • 303(4} lilted impaired waterbody.
1^33 The condition of a creek bottom las a significant effect on the biological resources of the
crock. This project should not just return the creeks to their current degraded condition- it should
restore them to a reasonable level of biological function. This should include providing some
variations in creek bottom to create riffles and ponds and allow for natural variability of flow
conditions.
....// is anticipated that She existing biological Junction of the creeks will In uttered following
implementation oftkt project.
Thert is nothing in tbe MDP, analysis of Impact*, project description or even project goal*
that indicates that the biological function of the creek b even aa Issue of concern. The EIR
protest require that impacts from the project an addressee]. However given the degraded
condition of rooft of our creeks returning then t» port project condition h not sufficient. —
Without real action to address the bMogkal function! of the creeks the statement that
they will be restored It really Just empty words.
L3-55 Alternatives analysis U a key element in the CEQA process... The alternatives analysis in
the FEW is insufficient as it does not include a feasible environmentally superior ahcroau'-vc to
tbe selected project at the program or project level. Feasible alternatives do exist therefor tbe
city must deny the project as currently proposed and revise the MDP.
Feasible alternatives at the program and project level include a relatively modest change in land
use- with greater emphasis on Low Impact Development and control of bydromodi&cabon.. A
modified version of Alternative B from the Rick Engineering study could both substantially meet
objective)- and spare Caltvera creek from such extensive dredging.
Refer to response to comment L5-51. Alternative Bfrom the Rick Engineering Study was
considered and rejected because U clearly did not meet the project goat to maximize to the extent
feasible the number of lots tkat would receive 100-year flood protection.
The response to comment »ly dlscntsed alternatives for the project Uvel and aot tbo
program level components. There was an environmentally preferred alternative. Why has
tbe city chosen to move forward with the MDP when their own analytii shows it could be
done better? Furthermore there is no discussion about whether an environmentally
preferred alternative coaU at least have been considered for the Coastal Zone.
L3-59 The DEIR assumed there are no cumulative impacts to biological resources because there
is a regional conservation plan that protects Ine resource*. A plan is a pile of paper. A plan
doesn't protect resources
...because mitigation measures art consistent with the goals and policies of tb* Oty'sHMP
cumulative impacts would be considered less than significant after implementing mitigation.
PCa-9
PCa-10
PCa-11
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
PCa-9 See response to comment L3-31 in Appendix F of Final EIR. Although the Final EIR was revised
to list beneficial uses of Calavera Creek in response to previous comments by Preserve Calavera
(letter dated August 30, 2007), both program-level and project-level analyses of potential adverse
environmental impacts to these beneficial uses (and by association to Agua Hedionda Lagoon) are
discussed in Sections 4.1 (Land Use), 4.2 (Agricultural Resources), 4.7 (Recreation), 4.9
(Hydrology/Water Quality) and 4.10 (Biological Resources) of the Final EIR. The EIR concludes
that at the project-level (Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creek Dredge and Improvements project),
less than significant impacts will occur to land use, agricultural resources, recreation,
hydrology/water quality; and that specific mitigation measures are available which would
substantially lessen the environmental impacts of the project on biological resources to a level less
than significant.
PCa-10 See response to comment L3-33 in Appendix F of Final EIR. Additionally, all potential adverse
environmental impacts associated with the project have been disclosed in the Final EIR, and the
project will not be approved without appropriate mitigation measures to substantially lessen the
significant environmental effects of the project. Impacts to biological resources are discussed in
Section 4.10 of the Final EIR, and specific mitigation measures are identified that will substantially
lessen the environmental effects of the project on biological resources. Although improvements
and benefits to water quality and the biological functions of lagoons, creeks, streams, etc. are not
direct objectives of the DMP Update, the Update does reference indirect beneficial impacts to
overall water quality within the City's four drainage basins.
PCa-11 See response to comment L3-55 in Appendix f of Final EIR. Additionally, Section 7.0 of the Final
EIR evaluates five alternatives at the program-level and two alternatives at the project-level. Four
of the five program-level alternatives analyzed did not meet the objectives of the DMP Update.
Analysis of the remaining program-level alternative (Reduced Use of Impervious Materials
Alternative) concludes that the alternative is: 1) environmentally superior to the DMP Update as
proposed; 2) capable of meeting the objectives of the DMP Update; and, 3) feasible overall. Both
of the project-level alternatives were identified as feasible; however, they did not meet the project
objectives to provide 100-year flood protection to the maximum number of lots as feasible and
practicable.
The EIR acknowledges that the proposed DMP Update has already given careful consideration to
the development of the program-level facility descriptions to reduce environmental impacts to the
maximum extent possible. Being a program-level planning document, the DMP Update must
conservatively estimate project descriptions in order to develop an adequate and reasonable fee
program. Consistent with the requirements of the City's Stormwater Program, Habitat
Management Plan and Local Coastal Plan as discussed in the Final EIR, the City will pursue ways
to minimize environmental impacts by designing each proposed facility to reduce footprint impacts,
using impervious material alternatives when appropriate, and employing stormwater low impact
design methods.
PCa-12
It b BOW over 3 years since the city of C»rl»b«d adopted their HMP- yet UK contract for
tfat land manager hat yet to be executed, and the regional funding source that is essential to
nee* all of the conditions of tb< HMP hu been delayed for yean. Tat cky cannot rely on a
"plan" to address cumulative impacts- they mutt fnD> be meeting all of (be condirjfas of
the plan. The dry has not met all of the eoadjtkwi of the HMP - specifically the cky owned
hardJute preserve land li not being managed at there is BO cvntract la plact with a land
manager. Therefor the HMP does not mitigate for the identified, significant cumulative
Impacts of thii project, or any other project that impact) sensitive habitat or the watershed.
L3-61 .. .Recent estimates arc (hat the Agua Hedionda watershed is already at 32% impervious
cover. (Tetntedi presentation to AHWMP Stakeholders). Studies show a direct correlation
between the health of the watershed and the percentage of impervious cover. Watersheds with
10% or more impervious cover are already considered impaired ...
...the DMP Update would not substantially increase Ike amount ofimpen4ma surfaces within
(lit city (rtlative to the current 32% cover) and would sent to improve tin overall flood and
storm water conveyance in the city.
Cumulative Impacts analysis Is not concerned with Just the direct project Impacts- bat with
the Impacts of the project along with an of the ether projects: that art eauing advene
impacts. The problem b that there it nothing In place to assure that the watershed will not
be subject to further degradation and it is already impaired. The MDP does not even have
any goals that show this is even a consideration in the project design.
L3-65 Poor integration of wetlands mitigation. Because several related nujcUs arc being
addressed independently, the wetlands impacts and mitigation are also being addressed
Independently.... There is no evidence to support the conclusion that BMP's on new construction
alone are sufficient to prevent adverse cumulative impacts to hydrology and the adverse impacts
oo the lagoon and coastal waters.
... see responte to comment L3-61 regarding impervious cover... TTie questions regarding water
quality do not relate to the EIR. The cumulative analysis haa appropriately addressed the
potential impacts a/other proposed projects.
This was not responsive to the comment which is poor integration of planning of wetland
mitigation. Failure to adequately coordinate planning for numerous projects - both city
wide, and hi the Agna Hediooda/ Calavera creeks project area, falls to address the
cumulative impacts to all of the watersheds in this part of the CHU. The dry needs to
develop better procedures to properly coordinate mitigation phasing for anticipated
projects at a tub-watershed kvd- with clear preference for mitigating impacts within the
same sab- watershed and with some mitigation sites available within the Coastal Zone.
Project Level MDP tales
Our priority concerns with the projeo level components are :
Direct and indirect impacts to wetland and buffers
PCa-14-
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
PCa-12 See response to comment L3-59 in Appendix F of Final EIR. The critical elements of the Habitat
Management Plan (HMP) necessary to ensure effective implementation of habitat mitigation are in
place. It is worth noting that the majority of the preserve lands in the City are located on privately-
owned property. Management of these lands is the responsibility of the property owners. As
required by the HMP, the City has hired a preserve steward to oversee and coordinate
management of the privately-owned and managed preserves. With respect to City-owned
preserve areas, the City has been working closely with the wildlife agencies to finalize a Preserve
Management Plan (PMP) that will prioritize management needs and specify actions for the City
lands. Once the PMP is approved, the City will then contract with a preserve manager to begin
the biological management and monitoring program for City-owned preserves. Finally, the lack of
a regional funding source to provide for management of certain lands (e.g., pre-HMP created open
space areas), does not impair the City's ability to carry out other habitat protection responsibilities
under the HMP, particularly the evaluation, impact avoidance and impact mitigation of new
development. It was agreed among the City, resource agencies and Coastal Commission that
implementation of the HMP could occur pending a resolution to the regional funding issue. The
City continues to cooperate with other jurisdictions and resource agency staff to satisfy the
remaining funding and implementation requirements of the HMP.
PCa-13 See response to comment PCa-4. Additionally, see response to comment L3-61 in Appendix F of
Final EIR; Section 5.1 of Final EIR. In accordance with CEQA the Final EIR document analyzes
all reasonably foreseeable cumulative impacts from existing and proposed projects. All
reasonably foreseeable projects (including proposed, approved and completed projects)
contributing to potential cumulative impacts will be subject to applicable stormwater
regulations/requirements.
The EIR concludes that construction of the DMP Update facilities would not substantially increase
imperviousness in the watershed and would have an indirect beneficial impact to overall water
quality within the City's four drainage basins. For these reasons the EIR found that the project's
cumulative impact on Hydrology and Water Quality is less than significant. Additionally, all
foreseeable projects within the DMP Update and City's watershed are subject to stormwater Low
Impact Development (LID) design standards pursuant to the City's Municipal Stormwater Permit
(RWQCB Order No. R9-2007-001). By 2009, all significant projects in the Carlsbad watershed will
be subject to new hydromodification standards designed specifically to address the changes in
ground surface imperviousness resulting from development activity.
PCa-14 See response to comment PCa-13. Additionally, see responses to comments L3-61 and L3-65 in
Appendix F of Final EIR. All potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the DMP
Update implementation have been disclosed in the Final EIR document and the DMP Update will
not be approved as proposed unless there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation
measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the
DMP Update implementation. Additionally, Section 5.0 of the EIR analyzes and evaluates all
reasonably foreseeable cumulative impacts from existing and proposed projects. Mitigation
measures that would reduce impacts on biological resources—including those that may occur in
wetland areas—to a level of less than significant have been integrated into a comprehensive
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15097. As
noted in the original response to this comment, improvements to water quality are not a direct
objective of the DMP Update, but rather an indirect benefit. Therefore, the questions raised
regarding integration of the DMP Update with wetlands mitigation planning do not relate to this
EIR.
Protection of viable wildlife movement
Insufficient mitigation measures to address all project impacts
insufficient alternatives analysis
Lack of integration with CWN Watershed Management Plan and currently
underway Agua Hodionda Watershed Management Plan
L3-S It would appear that the small area to be dredged west of El Camino Real and south of
Cannon could be done by hand- eliminating Ihe need for storage and on access road in (his area.
This is of particular concern because most of the sensitive resources identified in the biological
survey (Appendix D- Recon bio survey Figure 4) are located west of El Camino Real so
minimizing impacts in this area is most important
...Thf amount of silt ami debris thai hot accumulated since die emergency dredge project is
estimated to be the tome or more than vkal was previously dredged.
The area of greatest impact ta m the Coastal Zone and It win be subjected to on-going
impact, from planned future dredging. Such * huge amount of tat deposit in the short -
time period sine* tb« MwrgtBcy dredging b a clear Indication of upstream problems. Tb*
MDP/FEIR does not Indicate any action to address tht upstream problems. Of course the
sUt needs to be removed. Bat without addressing the root problem <here wtt Jott b* a
tontinuous cycle of dredeur. and continuing impacts to this area. This is an example of
how Important it b to integrate the flood control system with watershed pU»ing. Failing
to do this will result hi continuing cumulative impacts to this area - impacts that have Dot
been adequately addressed hi the MDP or FEIR.
UJ) Please clarify exactly where the mitigation for die Phase 1 emergency dredging mitigation
for permanent impacts to .45 acres willow riparian and .03 acres southern willow scrub is
located, plus the Phase II temporary mitigation for 3.06 acres WUS.
-..A conceptual mitigation plan hoi been prepared. The city is in tke process of coordinating
with the resource agenda to identify a suitable offsite mitigation area.. Impacts to wllott
riparian and southern willow scrub are considered permanent and will be mitigated by the
emergency dredge project tn accordance with the permits issued by the resource agencies....
It is now almost 2 years sine* this sensitive habitat was destroyed by the emergency project.
Of COMIC emergency projects require Immediate action- but that does not exctase the fad
mat almost 2 years Inter this habitat has not been replaced and the plan ha* not even been
completed. If fhb DMT were integrated with watershed planning there would be projects
pre-identifled and ready to nsc for exactly such ciraanastancca. There needs t« be a real
effort to pre-tdentlfy mitigation sites and have a time frame for rcpUccnatnt when habitat
is destroyed. The plants and wildlife who depended on this habitat could not wait that lone
for action- it's too Me for them.
U-34 The wildlife agency comment letter on the project scope, Alt iuan 4.e asked tor a
discussion of possible conflicts resulting from wildlife-human interactions at th* inter&ce
between the project sites and natural habitats
PCa-15
PCa-16
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
PCa-15 See response to comment L3-8 in Appendix F of Final EIR and responses to comments PCa-4
and PCa-11. The Final EIR found that the Dredge and Improvement Project would have beneficial
effects upon overall water quality, stormwater conveyance and flood control. One of the
impairments to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon is sedimentation. Removal of the sediments within the
channel prior to reaching the lagoon will help alleviate the lagoon impairment. It should be noted
that the stretch of Agua Hedionda Creek encompassed by the dredge project is a natural sediment
trap due to the flat gradient of the creek bed which results in a slowing of the creek flows leading
to the deposition of sediments. The specific origin of the sediment deposited at the project site is
unknown; however, the sediment is as likely and perhaps more likely to originate from
undeveloped open space areas and agricultural lands as from the more impervious areas of
developed property. Whether or not more effective watershed planning is put into place upstream
of the project does not alter the fact that whatever sediment remains in the stormwater flows will,
by virtue of the reduced channel gradient, be deposited at the project site. Additionally, impacts
associated with excessive accumulation of sediment will be precluded by operation and
maintenance activities described in Section 3.4.4 of the EIR and within the DMP Update itself.
PCa-16 See response to comment L3-9 in Appendix F of Final EIR. As an update to the original response,
the City mitigated for the permanent willow riparian impacts caused by the emergency dredge
project through purchase of .96 acres of wetland/riparian mitigation credits from the North County
Mitigation Bank. The City submitted its latest mitigation plan to the wildlife agencies for approval
on October 19, 2007, and is awaiting a response. The additional comments are noted.
... During project level environmental renew for specific DMP updates components impacts so
specific wildltfe movements nouW be evaluated and specific mitigation would be identified.
The proposed project work will impact wBdUf* movement- in mm area already experiencing
a high rale of roadkill because of disruption to the wildlife movement corridor. ( S«* Alt
Report by Karen MerrlB). This condition will b« exacerbated by farther dredge activities
IB tke one part of the wildlife corridor that hu not already been cut off by the construction
• the actual creek corridor. During the hearing staff stated that the only sensitive species IB
the praject area are birdi therefor wlldUfe movement was not • coDcern. They also (tared
that this was really Juit i lack of understanding about the "level of significance" of the
impact- and It waf determined that these Impact* were test than significant. Protecting tht
movement corridor* of terrestrial species, particularly the mesopredators, fa key to
prelecting the ecosystem. Impacts in this area are significant now- and could be
dramatically wort* if they are not addressed. Further mitigation Is required to protect
wildlife movement through this area- both daring and post construction.
13-38 «nd 39 ... There is no explanation for ihe statements thai there is no need to assess
presence of any rare plant species. ... The surveys for Light- footed Clapper Rail, Least Bell's
vireo and Southwestern willow flycatcher are all out of dale. ...
.. tht study area for Agua Hedionda and Calavera crttJa was surveyed in Atigtat
1005.....Additionally rare plant species wen not wert not detected -within or along Agua
Hedionda Creek during the wetland delineation in 2002 (KECON 2002).
These surveys are 2 and 1/2 to 5 yean old and wlfl be even more obsolete by the time work
ts actually done. Standard protocol b to provide a survey within one year of the EIR issue
date- particularly when prior surveys have found endangered species present. The surveys
arc oat of date and shoald be updated as current information could effect mitigation.
Avoiding active nests alone (the only direct mitigation for these impacts) Is not sufficient
given the history of damage to tab area and the fact that mitigation for the emergency
work stfil has not been done.
LJ-4V46 Bio 1 a defers description of program and project level mitigation until agency
permitting.
Tht requirement for a mitigation plan u only appropriate for project level components where
impacts are known....A mitigation plan is being prepared for the proposed Ague Hediondo and
Calavera crtrks dredging ... and will be presented to the reiourct agencies as part of toe permit
process.
Agni Hedionda and Calavera creeks are project level component*, therefor the mitigation
plan should have been included at order to meet public review requirements- both for the
mitigatUn plan and the BMP consistency determination. Failure to Include this violates
provisions of CEQA and die BMP.
13-49/51 Alternative B in the Rick Engineering report was rejected as 33 lots were still subject
to flooding. Similarly, the 2:1 Side Slope Alternative was rejected because 26 tots were subject
w flcxxlingo«t^'dcrt«<1^'CTO»wlla591t>lssubJe<;tlofloo<Jin8 Wh»l u the threshold for
PCa-17
PCa-18
PCa-19
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
PCa-17 See response to comment L3-34 in Appendix F of Final EIR. See also Section 4.10-2 of Final EIR
which establishes thresholds of significance pertaining to impacts on biological resources. As
stated, potentially significant impacts would occur to biological resources if implementation of the
proposed DMP Update would, "interfere 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." Furthermore, Section 4.10.5.3 of the Final EIR identifies that
implementation of mitigation measures Bio-5 through Bio-7e would reduce significant and
cumulative impacts at the project-level to a level below significance.
As a point of information, recent grading of the Robertson Ranch project resulted in the completion
of a wildlife corridor between the Calavera Hills area and El Camino Real. This corridor is located
across Cannon Road from Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks and across El Camino Real from
the Agua Hedionda Creek floodplain. Culverts under Cannon Road and El Camino Real provide
wildlife connections to the creeks and the floodplain from the corridor. With dredging and
improvements proposed to occur to Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks no earlier than fall 2009,
the Robertson Ranch wildlife corridor may provide another route for animals.
PCa-18 See response to comments L3-38 and L3-39 in Appendix F of Final EIR. The comment refers to
separate studies prepared for evaluation of biological resources within the area of influence for the
project. These studies include a Rare Plant Survey (conducted August 2005); a Focused Survey
for the Least Bell's Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (conducted May-July 2005); and a
Focused Field Survey for the Light-footed Clapper Rail (conducted February-March 2006). None
of these studies is more than three (3) years old. Additionally no sensitive/rare plant species or
any of the above-referenced avian species were identified as a result of the aforementioned
studies. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-7a through 7e (as discussed within
Section 4.10.5.3 of the Final EIR) will ensure that potential impacts to biological resources are
reduced to a level of less than significant. Such mitigation measures include the requirements for
additional surveys within and surrounding the project area prior to commencement of construction
activities.
PCa-19 See responses to comments L3-45, L3-46, and F1-2 in Appendix F of Final EIR. See also
Mitigation Measures Bio-2b on Page 4.10-75 and Mitigation Measure Bio-5 on Page 4.10.76 of
Final EIR, which further assures HMP consistency (beyond that incorporated into the project
design) in coordination with the appropriate resource agencies. The Agua Hedionda and Calavera
Creek Dredge and Improvement Project, as mitigated through the aforementioned biological
resources mitigation measures, will be consistent with CEQA and mitigation will ensure that
environmental impacts will be less than significant.
acceptability? Dredging of CaUvera creek could be avoided while impacting only 15 more lots
than the selected alternative- most of the direct biological resource impacts would be avoided .
... The primary objective of the dredging and improvements to Aguo Hedionda and Calavera
creeks « to provide 100-year flood protection to the maximum number of lou feasible and
practicable. in this case, allbut 9 lots \tvuld receive protection from a J 00-year flood event.
The errata distributed at the Planning Conuniitioa hearing changed thit to
"approximately" 9 tote. IB addition, testimony by staff nude It clear that in all but one
cast "flooding" meant part of a lot was wet for a limited period of time not tfae actual
home*. The response falls to provide any explanation for how It wa» determined that still
flooding parts of 9 lots meets the criteria- and that protecting all but "approximately" 9
lots is the maximum level practicable and feasible. The ACOE 404 permit requires
justification for the least damaging practicable alternative. The FEIR has failed to provide
any justification for the conclusion that what Is proposed represents a reasonable trade-off
between minimal flooding and damaging the biological function of the creek. What is the
LEDPA? Since part of this proposed dredging Is in the Coastal Zone there should be
farther discussion that justifies the impacts to coastal resources.
Section IIHMP Consistency
The proposed MDP is not fully consistent with the HMP and the analysis of consistency was
inadequate in the FEIR and staff report.. Either the project needs to be revised, project
conditions need to be added, or a minor amendment to the HMP needs to be processed to address
the areas of inconsistency. Furthermore, the LCP has already been amended to incorporate
provisions of the HMP, and to add more specific requirements in the Coastal Zone. This lack of
consistency could therefor cause even greater impacts in the Coastal Zone.
The following arc four specific areas where the project is not consistent with the HMP:
PCa-20
1. Spcci fie mitigation for the identified wetlands impacts is not provided. In the absence of
such information it is impossible to determine if the requirements for no net loss have been
met Furthermore, it is stated throughout the FEIR and staff report that mitigation for the
impacts from the emergency dredging project of 2006 have yet to be implemented. There is
already a net loss of wetlands function in the project area- a condition thai will be
exacerbated by the additional impacts from the proposed project.
2. There is no discussion of protection of wildlife movement in spite of this area having been
identified as a problem area for wildlife movement. The HMP includes specific provisions
to protect wildlife movement but these have been ignored in project design and conditions.
There is a requirement for a project biologist- to mark project boundaries, and assure no
impacts to nesting species. But this biologist is not tasked with assuring that wildlife
movement is not disrupted. This is of particular concern with the Agua Hcdionda and
Calavera Creek dredging project. This is the area of highest roadkill and it is right on the
border of the Coastal Zone, at El Camino Real and Cannon Rds.
3. L3-42 states the project is consistent with the provisions of the HMP sections F.2.A
restoration and revegetation and F.3.C landscaping. However the mitigation measures do not
PCa-21
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
PCa-20 See responses to comments L3-49 and L3-51 in Appendix F of Final EIR.
The commenter raises a question as to how the City determined that the proposed project that
protects up to 279 lots from a 100-year storm event (thus leaving 9 lots remaining without flood
protection) meets the stated objective of providing maximum feasible 100-year flood protection.
Dating back to 1996. the City became aware of the potential flood hazard when the residents of
the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park community presented a park conversion plan for
resident-ownership of the park. It was discovered that approximately 288 of the 504 unit sites
would be subject to flooding. The City Council agreed to acquire the drainage channels and take
actions to reduce flood exposure to the park. Over the ensuing years the City conducted a number
of technical studies that resulted in the design of several of drainage facilities including the Agua
Hedionda and Calavera Creek Dredge project. As individual flood control elements were
constructed, hydrology studies were updated.
Taking into consideration site conditions, basin size, design issues, project cost and environmental
constraints, Engineering Department staff concluded that the maximum feasible number of unit
sites that could be removed from the 100-year flood zone to be between 276 and 279. It was
determined that the cost of upsizing facilities and the resulting environmental impacts were
infeasible and impracticable; and outweighed the benefits of completely removing the remaining 9
to 12 tots from the flood zone. With the proposed project, City engineers estimate that the floor
elevations of the units on eight of the nine lots would be sufficiently above the post-project flood
level to qualify for some type of flood protection certification
The Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creek Dredge and Improvement Project meets the objective of
the DMP Update to provide 100-year flood protection to the maximum number of lots as feasible
and practicable and would leave approximately 9 lots within the Rancho Carlsbad community
subject to 100-year flood. The project meets this goal better than the no project alternative or
other alternatives analyzed in the Final EIR. The alternatives do not meet the project objectives
given that they would result in 26 and 210 lots remaining without 100-year flood protection.
PCa-21 See responses to comments PCa-14 and PCa-19, as well as response to comment L3-43
in Appendix F of Final EIR.
See response to comment PCa-17 and response to comment L3-34, L3-40, and L3-41 in
Appendix F of Final EIR. Also, Table 3-6 of the Final EIR lists a number of project design
features, methods, and construction measures with which Drainage Master Plan
components must incorporate as applicable. Among other things, the Table lists various
provisions of the Habitat Management Plan and, for projects within or adjacent to an HMP
Hardline Preserve area, the Table specifies that a qualified project biologist shall be made
available for both the preconstruction and construction phases to review plans, address
protection of sensitive biological resources, and monitor ongoing work.
The comment refers to previous comment/response L3-43 (not L3-42) in Appendix F of
Final EIR. As stated in L3-43, all DMP Update projects would be designed to be
consistent with the restoration, revegetation, and landscaping policies of the HMP. Since
the DMP Update, as designed, is consistent with the HMP, mitigation measures are not
necessary to ensure HMP consistency. See Table 3-6 for a description of the project's
consistency requirements with the HMP.
See response to comment PCa-10.
require this. Without project conditions to require this there is no assurance that these provisions
will be met
4. The proposed mitigation measures do not fully address all of the potential edge effects of
development- in spite of the project area being adjacent to state of CA preserve land, on the west
and city of Carlsbad HMP preserve land on the east
Section in LCP Amendment
In addition to concerns about public notification, we object to the proposed LCP amendment for
the following reasons as discussed above:
1. The project as proposed is not consistent with the HMP as discussed in Section II.
2. The MDP and FEIR is inadequate as discussed in Section 1.
3. The LCP discusses methods to protect water quality- an item that was specifically removed
from the MDP Update.
4. The project as proposed could have significant advene cumulative impacts on coastal
resources. The MDP includes proposed cul verting of 19,175 linear feet or over 3.6 miles of
natural and disturbed wetlands. There is essentially no discussion of avoidance or
minimization measures.
5. Discrepancies in the hardline preserve description between the HMP and the proposed
project have not been adequately explained.
Recommendations
We believe these comments fully support oor recommendation to:
1. Make a real commitment to integrate plans for flood control with comprehensive watershed
planning - including water quality and habitat conservation. Include language that says the
plans are all intended to be consistent and establish a process for resolving any
inconsistencies that might later be identified. Require that future projects arc integrated with
the recommendations of the Agua Hedionda Watershed Management Plan and any future
plans for watersheds that extend into Carlsbad..
2. Add a project condition that requires establishing guidelines for when a creek can be
culverted or a natural creek channel can be lined with concrete.
3. Provide the full project level Mitigation Plan for the Agua Hedionda and Calavera creek
dredging project for public review and comment
4. Integrate planning for wetlands mitigation for the prior emergency dredging project, the
current project, and any others that might be anticipated in the project area to assure the best
outcome for the watershed. This is especially critical for projects like this whcr the direct
impacts extend into the Coastal Zone.
5. Add a mitigation measure to address the wildlife movement corridor issues in the project area
that will only be made worse by this project.
6. Require the city to have the HMP required habitat land manager contract signed and in place
before allowing any further coastal development permits, or any further loss of wetland
habitat anywhere in the city.
7. Qmdu« a nx>re c»mprehensiv< review of HMP c»risislen<^ and document specifically how
each of the MHCP edge effect conditions will be addressed.
PCa-22
PCa-23
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
PCa-22
PCa-23
1. See responses to comments PCa-7, PCa-10, PCa-14, and PCa-19. See also responses
to comments L3-34, L3-40, L3-41 and L3-43.
2. See responses to comments PCa-4 through PCa-20.
3. See response to comment L3-21 in Appendix F of Final EIR and response to comment
PCa-6. See also responses to comments L3-21 and L3-24. As previously noted, the
purpose of the DMP Update is to provide adequate storm water conveyance throughout
the City. Water quality protection is not a direct objective of this project, but is an indirect
benefit. Just as the City's LCP Land Use Plan contains policies to protect water quality,
so too does it contain policies requiring protection of coastal resources from flood hazards
through installation of storm drainage facilities. Implementation of water quality policies is
carried out through the City's Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Plan (JURMP),
Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Watershed Urban Runoff
Management Plan (WURMP), and Grading and Stormwater Ordinances. Implementation
of the LCP flood control policies is carried out through the projects identified in the
Drainage Master Plan. The two sets of policies are harmonized by requiring that
individual projects are designed to be consistent with adopted ordinances and Stormwater
management plans, and that appropriate mitigation measures and design measures as
identified in the Final EIR are carried out.
4. See responses to comments PCa-8 and PCa1 1 .
5. See responses to comments L3-17 and L3-59 in Appendix F of Final EIR and response to
comment PCa-12. Regardless of whether portions of the Agua Hedionda and Calavera
Creeks Dredge and Improvements Project is located within the Hardline Preserve Area,
adequate mitigation measures (Bio-2b, Bio-5 and Bio-6) and design measures (Final EIR
Table 3-6) are provided to ensure that potential impacts will be reduced to a level below
significance.
This comment refers to updates to the City's Local Coastal Plan (LCP) and the Zoning Ordinance,
which implements the LCP, and not the adequacy of the EIR. The City has prepared draft
modifications to these documents presented at the January 16, 2008 Planning Commission
meeting. At that meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously approved Resolutions 6377 and
6378 recommending approval of modifications to the LCP, which would reference the DMP
Update.
Comment noted. See responses to comments PCa-5, PCa-6, PCa-12, PCa-13, PCa-14, PCa-17,
PCa-19 and PCa-22, as well as responses to comments referenced therein.
We urge you to adopt these recommendations and assure that tins project does what it is intended
to- but doesnt cause unintended damage to our coastal resources or the upper watershed through
piecemeal planning.
Sincerely,
Diane Nygurd
On Behalf of Preserve Calaven
Cc: David Mayer CDFG, David Zouteodyk USFWS, Mike Porter RWQCB , Toni Ross CCC
An - Report by Karen Merrill. M**K» Dnumte Ptaa kp Ju 08
Novranbcr 19, 2007
RE: Review of Report on Rod-Ida it B Cunoo Real and Canaan Road
This hUtt is Ml response to the Raad-kiH Kport by Metro Booker, biotogjc*] moertar fa the Robertson Ranch Eosl
Village Project We visited (be ana fcri look « fcr coodttjom calfcd <m ii die repot We inspected • mKh l«r|!«r
ana than AOWB o* Fifm I »*k* it rScety i*y w* came to ihtntry dirjeronc cooclunoni
Tlie bflaic question* arc :
I . Why we we icciaj an ncreaK a roadkill « H Canon ReaVCatnoaf
2. 1* the ccxwnictioB uwculed with Ac Ro6trt»o» Rjadi project cOecasf narnul »-ildiifc novement ihioujb thii
am?
3, Vilul corrective tcooc ii
The foUowing ductma «cfa ef &CM dkn« quettioM.
It is possible ibrt ibis i* just » l<«ny«a«y ttJJoaal inr.rMif,. BuwtMj, ctnstnKIMB ic occuns^ nrauKancouiEly
sloog College, Cincon, md El CCDUK> Rot- «U «l location moriinrj «nik «isJ««g ud new wildlife
uKtercrouings. White no liogleof Aexetnas wouldbccxpoclediocBBcacnracae irjro«Sdll (they «4ll b»ve
quitt a few aJtcrnaic routes possible) . it secre Rasoubfe ib* die omUouioa of coojtmcuon along roadn-ays at
(he rime of nonrud seatKaal <iapemc« a t fiaac.
2. Is the ccrastnKikn ssjocmed widi Ac Robemco Ranch project fffrrring ncaeii wikiWe movcmrw ihrougb this
srei?
Our assessment is tbi£
uTldlifc movirjg eastfwra* rorapoJuttry ««l of CXOUB nxd «re JKS eBectcd by fee RR construction
They likdy are fotiowiog Ajptt Hedkuda Cn<k, are ovl of flic coBstovcbJoii zone md cioys vader D Catnino Real at
Ihe uiulercfossuig it the creek Ebe same •> ms done prior to !he <ga$m> licci
wildlife moving cn^Vcsl EBdnodialdy wrtt oTOmoa Road have bad feeir BOTBH] movement patlcnu
disrupted
Thi> dtsruption bat ocennted in «ero»i ttago o»er tine , p»t***y »bifti»( [ben farther to Ike >««• north v.c»[ after
croMiag College Tlioc miraafe xafto >«vr bcto feaV'i'H Cal««t» Greet. Tke cylvcrtod creek i» no ki>^ct
fuiKtiorail for wildhfc novemtm. The <ndi ocai riie c«r<cn b bco« oxd *> • buaua lurtac and hu nurncrout
pitctof fresh and hi»ohthuaM6Kc<aadloitet paper. Thi» atone wouU rcaak ia wMtirc avoidisj thiJ »TM < il
tan made to haw quickly). The ie«d«^atttl»«raa)^|>afilebteoripi^ crack ahgamitt it lUwMocltedby j-bar. The new urtocrcrojatr^ of Cokfe "ear die crack will tvaamUy help- but rcoaim * conitrutlion zone on
tbc wuOKm >xk- and b»» no faKuf in ola« c« tiMier woe K> dmct wildlife MOVHUKU sway front (he toad and Co
ibe wildlife mdercnMMif, There «H eeyo*» ««• OB both tide* of** a«w wAJUfc »oorcrow«» «l Coltegt Blvd
The movement pMera ram Amv» Ibe preserved baeiuf «cat of *e pR$ccl fooa^nal to El Camino Real viftcK they
»« cnaiinj a gndc level (We ltd ml ice evidence of wildlife «o«w»t alo«t Caanoo road btwoca the j-bsr«nd
new bouidary wmfl- but Iraetdac coadxioo] iwre poor.)
The determination that atunxls aw *uag (he Caamoa Road box c*hrcra (Report Fifim 4 A J) from die Aqua
Hedtonda Creei corridot B icadi *e area NW ofCaaaoi and N of El Canna Real it kxomcL The ctilvem (»ee
Photo «PC1) tbowed M> >>£« of recent wadKfe |iaa>i«t mcoa^k. OK of Ac ARC cafrcrn tffetitd us he regularly
used by huiraos. Mo'emeat frm lie cteek cornoor i) Mocked by me old flood wtD at Rmcho Carlsbad and «
fenced off opening (ice Pkoto *PC2)_ There if a snail col ra Am feadxt but a« conducive to wiktUfc pauing
through because if tfley win the creek corridor abeady 6xy would conrjaoe aoder B Ctraino Real &0owing the
creek.
wildlife moving casfc'weat farther aorta- wp to development prior lo Taraarack k*rc had iso
potential mowtscrA patterns thrxM&^l tab area- bvt they are KM currently using the existing ttndcrpaxKt of El
CaminoRnU
The bout* « lie W»h point of tin arw probably UaoricaUy dmded wAtifc movuncjK into no routes around ii.
Tbc one to ihc cwt » no* fcBy graded »-i* rrarmlaDr K> com (b> icvcril kaodrad Ccet and lott of bwvy
equipment. Butlbe|wtlio*lbcwe>tuitiOiiMsnlriAfMt«B<bev97«^KEIC*ntaoKe«l.
TV culvcn u El Caminc Rt»l (Rcpofl Fifwt 6) ifaom Bt» of mail untiamil we o«ly. Coyou ugn it «vii«ni
QlOTi(hrfoolpBUBOclheN»^ofElCjroii»Rc^Cro«^«fi»d<«pr«ar»tob«tf)cp^«TO)n>o«rociil
(Mltem.
3. Whut correcaw KOCB • needed t
Will) the apeoiag of CaofjooRd, A*s iuc0tctkMb«t*ec4iocfaKd traffic volume «fcid> is IScciy convibinipg to
the increase in road-kiU io <fa» are*. Thai i> • mew condom that wifi oooame to be a probkaa for wiktti£e
msveraent
Wildlift Movecacnt RcccnamaxJatjOM
Wildlife Crctssiflg sierage sbmkl be »f*tfj»afrf akng tes iecboe of Camo&'E] Caeocoo Ecal to a)en drivers aod ~^
reduce wildlife raoruBty.
We »$ree (here b > e«d for fencing *kng ri« aonfa side ofBl Caeaiao fiat to faand «ioven>eoi fcroegt the
e.t cling cuhTit. It B anamed (c«dd »ot Kirtj) Ait cahren cxitt beyond iVe aastiag dnin Imk fencing across
El Catnirej Real. Urnil taA lime *9 ^.-^-^-^^^jl fcaeiog b tnattBed, BK cxiaiag chain link fencing (CDF&G)
on the soulti side of El Caaoino Real b«n wildlife fiooi ^am h^ ^e rqurua area and ^eir nvtora! movcmeiit
corridof. Mwfificatioa to aBow accen *x wikflac nffl be neccmry in rhc interim.
•The new wiltffife undcrcrossing OB CoBcgc BJvd sboiid tavc feaciog insttUrd on bora sides of the road to
(acilitatc crouing below fr»dc.
Olber Observatkalf
•IrolaUcd irrigation dowiulofK Cofc^e BKd-k it vtry wet wuh * lot of rna-oacrre* growiiq Acre.
-By deleutioo ^Jjltway offCotleje Blw»- «M »lt fctet a atai rhoe bw down, b im»»tioo line «taiiipl«se here?
Tunuisk growinj in detdHjoo ares.
-Creek cbannel-ihc concrete cband *w ran ondcr CoBefc lo UK creek- oc tcyancc «od nitonl an* downslope
from CoUe|e Blwl M full of boma» Coco. Tki« need* lo be Mmmd. U t> nrobiMy froa the worVen at (be adjacent
agriculture nte.
We ippnciaie dK pronp* respoox lo ow cooccnu wtCk iaaaati roxf UO in chu vicinity end hope tot remedu]
actions in the near future to proiecl the wiklkfc nKncment comoor.
Sincertly,
Karen Merrill
Preserve Calavera Tnckia{ Team
Ptxxo* PCI-3 box advent uader Caanoa Rd, feokii)( *oi-<K>*wai
Photo* PC2- old Hood w»B «nd fax* *t Raacbo CvMwl jm
•creu («•«) from Ac J bun cuJven aalor Oawa Rd
«at*' 8B5WX I««te» HE
ORGNA
Member Orgtnizationi
Agua Hedionda Lagoon
Foundation
Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation
Buena Vista Lagoon
Foundation
Canyons Network
Cottonwood Creek
Conservancy
The Escondido Creek
Conservancy
Resources Conservation
District of Greater San -Diego,
County
Preserve Calavera
San Efijo Lagoon
Conservancy
Comment Letter CWNa
cumCadftaf \Rurrslml MrtJiwi
Mayor and City Council
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Dr
Carlsbad, CA 92008
January 24, 2008
Re. Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update, Final Environmental
Impact Report, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
Dear Mayor and City Council:
This letter is written on behalf of the Carlsbad Watershed Network
(CWN). CWN is a coalition of organizations whose goal is "To protect,
restore and enhance the quality and beneficial uses of water, habitats,
and other natural resources of the watersheds of the Carlsbad
Hydrologic Unit (CHU) and the adjacent coastal shoreline." The
Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit comprises seven watersheds of coastal
north San Diego County watercourses -including all of the streams
and lagoons in the city of Carlsbad.
We submitted a letter addressing the January 16, 2008 hearing of
the Carlsbad Planning Commission, during which the Carlsbad
Drainage Master Plan (DMP) Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR) was approved by the Commission. In that letter, we
expressed our disappointment that staff had acted counter to our
recommendations of August 2007 that the Plan be amended to:
Improve integration with the currently underway Agua Hediona
Watershed Management Plan; improve integration with the
Carlsbad Watershed Management Plan; and place more emphasis
on the water quality objectives of the plan. In fact, it was stated by
staff that because other plans were being developed within the city
that integration was not necessary. We continue to believe that
this is not in the best interests of the public or the city's natural
resources.
We do appreciate that some Planning Commissioners requested more
information from staff on the other watershed planning efforts in the
City and the advantages to be gained from holistic planning of flood
control projects.
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
Comment
Reference.
CWNa-1
CWNa-2
,-. •*i7-..^-t- • , - - . ; •• *.ty^'-¥«te? 3:-: • • Kf* * >, -.•„' .'S/vV.-v' - ---•, .>rf--k?- Response toComment,- * -V-«R'Sj7 -H-jg--, /• 7 ;.•¥,-,»",*,-,' -^ , .. ,&«,^%-^^,-r,- - -Vt.'-p-tr'.-lX./^.r -
The Planning Commission action was to recommended City Council's certification of the Final EIR,
and to recommend City Council's approval of the Zoning Code Amendment and Local Coastal
Plan Amendment. It does not have approval authority of these actions.
See response to comment PCa-6. See also responses to comments L3-21 and L4-2 in Appendix
F of Final EIR. Additionally, it should be noted that a draft of the Agua Hedionda Watershed
Management Plan was released in July 2008, significantly after the preparation of the proposed
Drainage Master Plan.
CWNa-1
CWNa-2
Mission: To protect, restore, and enhance the quality and beneficial uses of water, habitats, and other
natural resources of the watersheds of the Carlsbad Hydrotogic Unit and the adjacent coastal shoreline.
www.cartsbadwatershednetwork.org
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
We were, however, extremely disappointed to learn following that hearing that the city of
Carlsbad processed a Coastal Development Project (CDP) for dredging the Agua
Hedionda and Calavera Creeks immediately following the PC hearing, based on the FEIR
approval, but during the open public comment on the issue, due to dose on January 24,
2008. This would appear to be a sign that public input is neither desirable nor taken
seriously by the City.
The City of Carlsbad adopted a Local Coastal Program (LCP) in 1996, which applies to
the approximately 9,700 acres (39 percent) of the city within the Coastal Zone. In many
areas, El Camino Real delineates the eastern boundary of the Coastal Zone. In other
cases, the Coastal Zone extends further inland, such as in the case of the Agua Hedionda
and Calavera Creeks within the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile home park.
The City of Carlsbad's Drainage Master Plan Update includes at least 27 projects that are
located within the Coastal Zone. These activities may be subject to a Coastal
Development Permit requirement (CDP). Since Carlsbad has an approved LCP, the City
acts as the local permitting authority for the issuance of CDPs for projects located within
its Coastal Zone, except within areas of deferred certification where the state retains
permitting authority. For example, Agua Hedionda Lagoon lies outside of Carlsbad's
permitting authority, and projects adjacent to the lagoon would require a CDP from the
California Coastal Commission (CCC).
Other projects are likely to have direct or indirect impacts upon resources within the
Coastal Zone, and may therefore be within the purview of the CCC to review for
compliance with the LCP in the case of an appeal. In addition, the Local Coastal
Program for the city of Carlsbad needs to be updated to reflect the DMP projects as well
as changes in the language of the LCP to accurately reference the update (largely the
substitution of the words "City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan" for "Carlsbad master
drainage plan").
Finally, the LCP does not now accurately reflect the current regulations regarding
stormwater, since it requires only that "All development must include mitigation
measures for the control of urban runoff flow rates and velocities, urban pollutants,
erosion and sedimentation in accordance with: (i) the requirements of the city's grading
ordinance, storm water ordinance, SUSMP, and the "master drainage plan dated 1994"
as those plans are certified as part of the city's LCP; (2) the city's jurisdicttonal urban
runoff management program (JURMP) and the San Diego County Hydrology Manual...";
and (3) the additional requirements contained herein." (Section 9)
We strongly suggest that the more current requirements for compliance with the North
County Co-permittees Watershed Urban Runoff Management Program (WURMP) now
be incorporated into the LCP.
It is understood that the Carlsbad DMP has been developed to address the build-out
state anticipated within the city of Carlsbad, as described by the current General Plan.
However, the circumstances on the ground continue to change, and especially relevant
have been the changes mandated by the SD Regional Water Quality control Board with
regard to the handling and discharge of stormwater. The most recent NPDES permit
requires that the north county coastal cities collaborate to implement the Watershed
Urban Runoff Plans for each watershed. The DMP does not appear to comply with these
requirements for watershed-based planning. In fact, this drainage master plan should be
developed to implement the infrastructure needs of the overall stormwater plan, Thus,
www.cadsbadwatershednetwork.or9
Page 2 of 5
CWNa-3
CWNa-4
CWNa-5
CWNa-6
CWNa-7
CWNa-8
CWNa-9
CWNa-3
CWNa-4
CWNa-5
CWNa-6
CWNa-7
CWNa-8
CWNa-9
Comment noted. Final design of DMP Update facility components are subject to all applicable City
policy and regulatory documents including the General Plan, Habitat Management Plan, Local
Coastal Program, City Standards, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State and
Federal permitting requirements. See also response to comment PCb-1, To clarify, Planning
Commission action at the January 16, 2008 meeting consisted of the following:
• A recommendation that City Council: certify the Final EIR; adopt the Candidate Findings of
Fact; and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
• A recommendation that City Council approve the Zone Code Amendment, Local Coastal
Plan Amendment; and
• Planning Commission approval of the Coastal Development Permit, Special Use Permit
and Habitat Management Plan Permit,
Secondly, the Planning Commission's approval of the Coastal Development Permit (CDP 04-41)
for the dredging of Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks was not subject to approval of the Local
Coastal Program Amendment, the proposal for which the referenced public comment was sought.
This is because the dredging of the creeks is a component of the current Master Drainage and
Storm Water Quality Management Plan adopted in 1994 and referenced in the current Local
Coastal Program. .
Comment noted. It should be noted that the Coastal Zone does not encompass Agua Hedionda
and Calavera Creeks within the Rancho Carlsbad community; instead El Camino Real marks the
boundary of the Coastal Zone.
Comment noted. Table 3-7 of the Final EIR notes the need for Coastal Development Permits
within the Coastal Zone and existence of deferred certification and other specific areas where the
Coastal Commission retains permit authority.
Comment noted. This comment refers to updates to the City's LCP and Zoning Ordinance, and
not the adequacy of the EIR. The City has prepared draft modifications to these documents
presented at the January 16, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, the Planning
Commission unanimously approved Resolutions 6377 and 6378 recommending approval of
modifications to the LCP and Zoning Ordinance, which would appropriately reference the DMP
Update.
See response to comment CWNa-6.
See response to comment L3-21 in Appendix F of Final EIR and response to comment PCa-6.
See responses to comments PCa-4 and PCa-6. See also response to comment L3-21 in
Appendix F of Final EIR.
the drainage plan would be one component of a stormwater plan that could also include
upstream source controls, low-impact development methods, reduced impervious
surfaces, daytighting of creeks to improve their water quality and flow characteristics,
and the use of floodplains for water retention, energy dissipation, watertable recharge,
and non-infrastructure recreational or conservation purposes.
The limited approach of the DMP seems to be leading to a plan that may create more
harm and/or fail to take advantage of possible beneficial alternatives to traditional
infrastructure development. This general concern is stated here because, clearly, the
results of any short-comings of this plan will be focused on the coastal zone.
The DMP FEIR as a whole suffers from vagueness and the use of boilerplate language to
justify why there is no mitigation necessary (because impacts are not "significant*}, the
threshold for "significance" of impacts, and planned mitigation when there is a need.
Generally speaking there are references to standards in the City's Habitat Management
Plan and Local Coastal Program that are used to justify the assessment that impacts will
be mitigated below a level of significance. However, there are no details to support this
contention. And in fact, for the two projects that are detailed (the Calavera Creek and
Agua Hedionda Creek dredging) there is no mitigation plan in place. Furthermore,
impacts that have already been created through the emergency permit (February 2006)
to dredge these creeks two years ago still do not have compensatory mitigation
established.
The descriptions of the construction of infrastructure projects themselves, on the other
hand, are generally detailed to the point where they might not realistically be
implemented in the future as currently planned.
AH /Calavera Creek Dredging project „
This project should have had its own EIR, since the vagueness inherent in the Program
level EIR is not appropriate for these defined projects. While the reader is assured that
there will be adequate mitigation provided to reduce all impacts below a level of
significance, it is difficult to see howthat will actually occur: merely replacing riparian
vegetation elsewhere will not do much to reduce the impacts of increased flow into the
Agua Hedionda lagoon. Neither will it compensate for the loss of wildlife corridor
habitat. This area is designated Link B in the HMP, an area designated as required for
connecting Core habitats 4 (AH Lagoon) and 5 (Lake Calavera). The mitigation for loss
of this connectivity both during construction and subsequently is completely inadequate.
The city of Carlsbad obtained an emergency permit and carried out the work to dredge
the Agua Hedionda Creek within the Rancho Carlsbad community almost two years ago.
Mitigation for that project does not appear to have been carried out to date. Note that
sensitive species habitat in the coastal zone is to be mitigated at a ratio of 4:1. This is not
made clear in the FEIR. We strongly urge that in-kind mitigation for that project be
carried out within the sub-basin and as close as possible to the immediate vicinity of this
location as soon as possible, and that the resulting habitat restoration or other measures
to provide wildlife habitat connectivity be analyzed and evaluated as a success prior to
permitting the next phase of this project.
We strongly urge that any compensatory mitigation be carried out in such a way as to
restore the ecosystem functions lost in the sub-basin where the impact occurs, or at least
in the same watershed. We object to mitigation funds being paid to obtain credit in the
North County Mitigation Bank, which is outside the city of Carlsbad. There is also no
www.cansbadwat8rshednetwof1c.org
Pago 3 of 5
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
CWNa-10
CWNa-11
CWNa-12
CWNa-13
CWNa-14
CWNa-10
CWNa-11
CWNa-12
CWNa-13
CWNa-14
Comment noted.
See response to comment PCa-6 for response to comments on water quality issues. See
responses to comments L3-9, L3-21, L3-35, L3-37 and L3-42 in Appendix F of Final EIR and
response to comment PCa-16 for information on mitigation of impacts associated with acquisition
of offsite habitat/credits for mitigation purposes and mitigation associated with the 2006
emergency dredge project. See also responses to comments PCa-12; as well as. L3-47 and L3-
59 in Appendix F of Final EIR for consistency with (and mitigation of impacts) related to
implementation of the HMP.
Contrary to the comment that the EIR fails to recognize mitigation measures because there are no
significant impacts identified, the EIR analyzes effects of the DMP Update at the program and
project level on a range of environmental issues. It discusses environmental impacts that are not
found to be significant according to specific criteria, and where potential significant impacts have
been identified, the EIR prescribes implementation of mitigation measures to reduce impacts
below a level of significance.
See responses to comments PCa-2 and PCa-3. As stated, the DMP Update is primarily a
planning-level document utilized to evaluate funding for reasonably foreseeable projects. Except
for the two projects receiving project level review in this FEIR, the proposed facility type and sizing
of project components described in Table 3-1 are representative of current/general facility needs
and are used to develop planning level project cost estimates for inclusion in the PLDA fee
program.
See response to comment PCa-16 and responses to comments L3-9. L3-35, L3-37 and L3-42 in
Appendix F of Final EIR for information on mitigation of impacts associated with acquisition of
offsite habitat/credits and mitigation associated with the 2006 emergency dredge project.
Mitigation standards for impacts to environmentally-sensitive habits in the Coastal Zone, including
the 4:1 mitigation ratio cited in the comment, are addressed in Section D-7 of the Habitat
Management Plan. Mitigation measure Bio-2a for the Agua Hedionda/Calavera Creeks Dredge
and Improvement project specifically references these Coastal Zone mitigation standards.
See response to comment L3-42 in Appendix F of Final EIR. The North County Mitigation Bank is
located in the City of Carlsbad east of Costco and along the south side of Palomar Airport Road.
While the comment that there is no "mitigation bank" established at Lake Calavera is technically
correct, the property nevertheless functions as such. Since adoption of the HMP, the City and
wildlife agencies agreed that a formal banking agreement would be unnecessary as only City
projects would be able to use the property for mitigation on an as-needed basis. Municipal
projects that impact upland habitats may use credits at Lake Calavera on an acre-for-acre basis.
Acknowledging that the City is permitted to use the property for mitigation without it being a formal .
bank, it is now reported as the Lake Calavera Mitigation Parcel. The name change will be
reflected in the Final EIR.
"mitigation bank" established at Lake Calavera, so such misleading references should be
deleted from the DMP. There is also a major concern that the CarUbad Preserve
Management entity and program do not yet exist, so that all the requirements, policies
and guidelines referred to as being in the HMP, and which are cited as being the basis for
reducing impacts resulting from the DMP to below a level of significance are largely not
able to be implemented.
Of particular concern is the continued increasing hardscaping of the Agua Hedionda and
Calavera Creeks just above the Agua Hedionda lagoon and the resulting loss of riparian
ecosystem functions. Calavera Creek has already been split and 500 cfs put into a pipe.
Perhaps a more reasonable approach would have been to have moved the entire creek to
that location, away from Rancho Carlsbad, and to have restored as many functions in the
new riparian corridor as possible, including the wildlife corridor function.
Project Specific Alternatives Analysis
The alternatives analysis appears too weak to be taken seriously. The preferred project is
cited repeatedly as the only one that will achieve the goals of the project, but this may be
because the project is so constrained. It certainly appears that Implementation of
upstream watershed improvements might well reduce the necessity for this massive
channelization project. The implementation of the Reduced Impact to Sensitive Habitats
and Wetlands Alternative and the 2:1 Slope Alternative in combination would appear
quite feasible. It does not appear justifiable to rule out the first alternative merely on the
basis that" it may not achieve the level of flood control that would be provided by
implementation of the DMP Update."
Furthermore, the impacts to these creeks and others are described throughout the FEIR
as "improvements". These "improvements", which include hardscaping the banks,
adding gabions, and digging out or widening the creek, may hasten the flow of water into
the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, other lagoons, and the Pacific Ocean; however, they detract
from the creeks' abilities to support other beneficial uses. The total impacts to existing
natural channels through PLDA projects alone is approximately two miles (AFA, AFB,
BRB-U, BQ.) Additional non-PLDA maintenance projects of "enhanced channels" result
in additional permanent impacts.
It should also be pointed out that the goal of preventing the flooding of the Rancho
Carlsbad property is perhaps an unreasonable one, since it is difficult to see the
justification for keeping water off the yards entirely in the rare occasion of a loo-year
flood, when most, if not all of the homes themselves are 3-4 feet above the flood level
since they are built on raised frameworks. One of the more moderate alternatives, which
would do far less environmental damage to wetlands and would cost less would likely be
just as effective at keeping floodwaters out of the homes themselves. The LCP would
seem to require this approach, or even a more pro-active one of reducing threats to life
and property by acquiring the property:
LCP POLICY 4-7 FLOOD HAZARDS: "Development shall continue to be restricted in
loo-year floodplain areas. Continuing the policy of zoning loo-year floodplains as open
space will permit natural drainage to occur without the need for flood control channels.
No permanent structures or filling shall be permitted in the floodplain and
only uses compatible with periodic flooding shall be allowed. "
If the reasoning behind allowing Rancho Carlsbad to be situated where it is, at the
confluence of three creeks in the loo-year floodplain, was that it could be periodically
flooded, then it should be allowed to remain there only under those circumstances.
www.carls&adwatersbednetworK.org
Page 4 of 5
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
CWNa-15
CWNa-16
CWNa-15
CWNa-16
CWNa-17
CWNa-18
Comment noted. Moving Calavera Creek north of its current location as the commentor suggests
is outside the scope of this project.
See responses to comments PCa-8 and PCa-11. See also response to comment L3-49 in
Appendix F of Final EIR. The characterization of the DMP Update as a "massive" channelization
project is not accurate. As pointed out in response to comment PCa-8, over 90% of the proposed
concrete encased drainage projects would be placed in existing developed areas where
stormwater flows currently drain along improved roads and other impervious surfaces.
See responses to comments PCa-2, PCa-8, PCa-9, PCa-10. See also responses to comments
L3-7, L3-26, L3-31.
See response to comment PCa-20. See also, responses to comments L3-49 and L3-51 in
Appendix F of Final EIR. Further, it should be noted that the Rancho Carlsbad community is not
located within the Coastal Zone.
CWNa-17
CWNa-18
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
Extraordinary measures to alter the floodplain to save the development from loo-year
flooding of only the yards seem unreasonable and contrary to the guidance and intent of
the Coastal Commission.
In addition, the fact that the City has removed previous language in the DMP Update
including water quality improvements as one if its goals is a great disappointment. In
fact, the LCP clearly makes water quality improvement a high priority
Finally, with regard to the repeated reference to the City's Habitat Management Plan as a
mitigation instrument for the DMP, it may indeed be that compliance with the HMP is
not as easy as it appears in the FEIR. For example, the only drainage projects
specifically called out in Appendix 8-3 are the AH Creek channel "enhancement", the
Cannon Road Drainage channel, and the South Carlsbad Village Storm drain, and
together they are anticipated to impact 11-33 acres.
Under Management and Monitoring recommendations (App. F, p. 14) those pertaining
to hydrology and flood control, include:• "Maintain existing natural drainages and watersheds and restore or minimize
changes to natural hydrological processes.
• "Use BMPs both within and outside the preserve system to maintain water
quality."
In conclusion, we ask that you work with your staff to incorporate more of the
opportunities available for protecting our watersheds into the Drainage Master Plan
and/or that that plan become integrated with the other fine plans for watershed
protection being developed by your city staff and others. In particular, we hope you will
take advantage of the information coming out of the Agua Hedionda Watershed
Mangement Plan, which will be released this year. Please also keep us informed of any
and all hearings on this matter.
Sincere regards,
CWNa-19
CWNa-20
CWNa-19 See response to comment L3-21 in Appendix F of Final EIR See response to comment PCa-6.
Comment about disappointment over removal of water quality improvement as a project objective
IQ nnteH
CWNa-20 | See response to comment PCa-21. See also response to comment L3-43 in Appendix F of Final
EIR. The three projects noted by the commentor as specifically called out in Habitat Management
Plan Appendix B are preceded in the appendix by this clarifying statement: "Future projects
necessary to complete the Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan inclusive
of, but not limited to, the following projects." Furthermore, compliance with cited Habitat
Management Plan hydrology and flood control provisions are noted and discussed in response
PCa-5.
Isabelle Kay
On behalf of Carlsbad Watershed Network
www.cartsbadwatershodnetwexfc.orgPage 5 ol 5
Comment Letter PCb Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
January 14, 200S
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Comments on FEIR
Drainage Master Plan Update
HMP Consistency
LCP Amendment
Dear Planning Commission:
These comments on the Final EIR and associated documents 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
area is the largest remaining natural land in a coastal North County city.
The projects included within the Master Drainage Plan are located throughout this area. Our
concerns are the impact on the Buena Vista and Agua Hedionda watersheds, the effect on the
regional and local wildlife corridors, the proximity to existing regional and state reserves,
and the loss of sensitive wetland resources. Development of the projects as proposed doesn't just
impact the few acres identified for direct impacts, it could impact hundreds of acres of high
quality habitat in one of the few core habitat areas remaining in coastal north county.
We have reviewed the responses to comments and changes made to the FEIR. We believe that
many of the responses failed to address the key issue raised in the comment. The result is that
this Final EIR still has not adequately identified all of the adverse impacts from this project. We
are particularly concerned about the cumulative impacts. In our original comment letter we
identified the following priority concerns - and these have still not been addressed:
Comment
Reference
PCb-1
Response to Comment1
See responses to comments PCa-4, PCa-6 and PCa-11. See also responses to comments L3-3,
L3-21, L 3-24 and L3-55 in Appendix F of Final EIR. The City continues to note the applicant's
priority concerns. Additionally, it should be noted that a draft of the Agua Hedionda Watershed
Management Plan was released in July 2008, significantly after the preparation of the proposedDrainage Master Plan.
Poor integration with land use planning
Lack of integration with CWN Watershed Management Plan and currently
under.vay Agua Hedionda Watershed Management Plan
Insufficient alternatives analysis
The following will identify key issues with first ihe program and following that the project level
FEIR. Reference numbers are those used in the responses to comments. Comment is identified
in plain text. Applicant response is shown in Italics. Current comment is in bold.
50JO Nlghtfcaivk Way - Oconiide, C A 92054
>vw>v.prese rvecalavcra.org
PCb-1
1 The majority of comments presented in the January 14, 2008 letter from Preserve Calavera (PCb) are repeated in the
January 24, 2008 letter from Preserve Calavera (PCa) to the Planning Commission Except where noted here, the
responses to the January 24. 2008 letter (PCa) also respond to this January 14, 2008 letter (PCb)
Section I discusses the FEIR, section II HMP Consistency and section III Proposed LCP
Amendment.
Section I FEIR
Program level Components
L3-5 We are particularly concerned about assumptions about land use and watershed
improvement efforts that could dramatically reduce volume and velocity of flows entering
Carlsbad. What efforts have been made to coordinate plans with the upstream parts of the sub-
watersheds that are outside of the city of Carlsbad boundaries?
The City made efforts to discuss improvements that may impact other jurisdictions, such as the
California Department of Transportation. However, because the DMP Update did not require
detailed hydraulic calculations, coordination with upstream jurisdictions was not necessary.
The point is not that the drainage system proposed in Carlsbad would effect the other
jurisdictions- it is that what the upstream jurisdictions are doing could dramatically change
the volume and velocity of water entering Carlsbad. "Making efforts" could be leaving a
phone message. The response doesn 't even indicate that there is an intent to properly
coordinate- and to consider alternatives should there be a dramatic change in water use.
L3-7 The program level EIR should include some guidelines about how choices were made to
use such measures rather than a bioengineering/acquisition/restoration choice that would allow
natural creek function. Please particularly identify the decision to install or increase the size of
culverts and/or concrete channels instead of using more natural means to control flows.
The use of culverts and/or concrete channels is in part based on the slope of the conveyance,
expected discharge volume, depth, and velocity of flow. In most instances flow velocities that are
greater than 5 to 7 feet per second introduce instability in unlined channels. The other factors
are associated with the soil properties, such as soil type, cohesion, infiltration, etc. These play a
role in the channel stability.
Putting a natural creek into a culvert or lining it with concrete is damaging to the natural
functions of a creek. We recognize why this is often selected as the engineering solution to
"control" the water. However this is rarely the best solution for the plants and animals
that need a functioning creek to survive. The comment was to include guidelines-
guidelines that would provide the conditions under which a culvert is determined to be the
best solution, and conditions under which it is not. Guidelines are necessary to assure that
impacts to biological are being minimized.
L3-21 It appears that this is really a flood control program and that any benefits to water quality
are accidental. If water quality improvements are really part of the project objectives then this
requires much more analysis and discussion in both the Master Plan and the EIR. There are
opportunities for projects that could have dual benefits, such as daylighting of storm drains.
Better integration of flood control and water quality elements would benefit both.
... The objectives of the DMP Update relative to water quality have been clarified in section 3.2
of the EIR....
What was done was to eliminate indirect benefits to water quality from the project goals.
Instead of integrating water quality improvement planning with flood control the two are
being treated as completely separate activities. Of course it is easier to do it this way- but it
is not the best way. All over this country public jurisdictions are working to improve water
quality- and doing things like taking creeks out of culverts and creating more natural
wetlands as part of that effort- a practice that when properly designed can also have
significant flood control benefits. The City of Carlsbad, that prides itself on being a leader
on infrastructure planning, in fact is behind the times on how they are segregating flood
control from the other issues of the watershed.
L3-23 ....The hydrology study needs to assess the impacts of lesser flow volumes and assure that
these, as well as the 100 year floods, are being addressed.
...By proposing DMP Update components that would accommodate the 100-year floods
citywide, the City is addressing any lesser degree of flooding....
Our point was that much smaller levels of run-off than the 100-year flood are causing
damage to our local creeks- of course the Hooding is less- but the damage occurs much
more frequently and cumulatively may even be worse than a single large flood.. The
response completely ignores this by only considering flooding- and only at the 100-year
flood level. This is another example of why it is important to integrate this with broader
watershed protection - that doesn't just consider flooding- but looks at scouring and
undercutting, buffers along creeks, and opportunities for retrofits that accomplish flood
control but also address the impacts from the lesser storm events.
L3-26 .... The EIR should identify the total amount of the system that is culverted/channelized
or otherwise precluded from natural function and compare what is proposed with the current
MDP update and current conditions. The EIR then needs to evaluate the impact of the full extent
of such changes on natural hydrology and wetlands function.
A description of each project component proposed in the DMP Update is provided in Tables 3-1
and 3-2 of the EIR.
Tables 3-1 and 3-2 identify a total of 17,885 feet of culverting/channelization for the PDLA
projects and 1,290 for the non-PDLA for a total of 19,175 linear feet or over 3.6 miles. The
explanation has failed to identify how this massive increase in hardscape has minimized
either wetlands impacts, or permeable cover. Even though a significant part of these are
within developed areas, many are areas with some existing biological functions that will be
essentially destroyed. The FEIR failed to adequately consider the cumulative impacts of
such signicant changes to existing creeks and drainage channels.
L3-31 The EIR says that no beneficial uses are identified for Calavera Creek. This is not
correct.
Section 4.9.1.5 of the EIR has been revised to identify the beneficial uses of Calavera Creek.
The report was modified to correct this error by adding in the beneficial uses. However,
the EIR should not just list the beneficial uses- the whole intent is to analyze whether there
are any adverse impacts to any of the beneficial uses from what it being proposed. Simply
adding in a list of beneficial uses does not meet the requirements of the EIR process which
is to analyze any potential adverse impacts of these projects on the beneficial uses.
L-33 The condition of a creek bottom has a significant effect on the biological resources of the
creek. This project should not just return the creeks to their current degraded condition- it should
restore them to a reasonable level of biological function. This should include providing some
variations in creek bottom to create riffles and ponds and allow for natural variability of flow
conditions.
....It is anticipated that the existing biological function of the creeks will be restored following
implementation of the project.
There is nothing in the analysis of impacts, project description or even project goals that
indicates that the biological function of the creek is even an issue of concern. The EIR
process requires that impacts from the project are addressed. However given the degraded
condition of most of our creeks returning them to post project condition is not sufficient.
Without real actions to address the biological functions of the creeks the statement that
they will be restored is really just empty words.
L3-55 Alternatives analysis is a key element in the CEQA process. The city has previously been-
informed of the key issues in this analysis which include ( Delano, 2001) : 'The core of an EIR
is the mitigation and alternatives sections." Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors.
52 Cal.3d 553, 564 (1990). An EIR "must produce information sufficient to permit a reasonable
choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects and concerned." San Bernardino Valley
Audubon Society. Inc v. County of San Bernardino. 122 Cal. App. 3d738,750-51 (1984).
"Environmentally superior alternatives must be examined whether or not they would impede to
some degree the attainment of objectives." Kings County. 221 Cal. App. 3d at 737.) the core of
the EIR process. The alternatives analysis in the DEIR is insufficient as it does not include a
feasible environmentally superior alternative to the selected project at the program or project
level. Feasible alternatives do exist therefor the city must deny the project as currently proposed.
Feasible alternatives at the program and project level include a relatively modest change in land
use- with greater emphasis on Low Impact Development and control of hydromodification.. A
modified version of Alternative B from the Rick Engineering study could both substantially meet
objectives- and spare Calavera creek from such extensive dredging.
Refer to response to comment L3-5J. Alternative B from the Rick Engineering Study was
considered and rejected because it clearly did not meet the project goal to maximize to the extent
feasible the number of lots that would receive 100-year flood protection.
The response to comment only discussed alternatives for the project level and not the program
level components.
L3-59 The DEIR assumes that there are no cumulative impacts to biological resources because
there is a regional conservation plan that protects the resources. A plan is a pile of paper. A
plan doesn't protect resources Until plans are implemented and funded there is no assurance
that regional resources are protected- therefor every project that proceeds is adding to the
cumulative adverse impacts on both local and regional resources. While this project cannot
mandate actions by other jurisdictions, it can and should require that the city of Carlsbad HMP is
fully fUnded, with preserve management in place before any additional impacts are allowed.
This should be included as a specific project MM.
.. .because mitigation measures are consistent with the goals and policies of the City's HMP
cumulative impacts would be considered less than significant after implementing mitigation.
It is now over 3 years after the city of Carlsbad adopted their HMP- yet the contract for the
non-profit land manager has yet to be executed, and the regional funding source that is
essential to meet all of the conditions of the HMP has been delayed for years. The city
cannot rely on a "plan" to address cumulative impacts- they must fully be meeting all of
the conditions of the plan. The city has not met all of the conditions of the HMP therefor
the HMP does not mitigate for the identified, significant cumulative impacts.
L3-61 ....- increasing impervious cover in an area already at risk
Recent estimates are that the Agua Hedionda watershed is already at 32% impervious cover.
(Tetratech presentation to AHWMP Stakeholders). Studies show a direct correlation between the
health of the watershed and the percentage of impervious cover. Watersheds with 10% or more
impervious cover are already considered impaired. This project has to be evaluated as to its
contribution to the cumulative impacts. While the project has what sounds like a high percentage -
of the total area remaining in open space, the concern is where is that open space, how well does
it protect the creek, how effective are the buffers? This increase in impervious cover needs to be
assessed in terms of its contribution to continued degradation of this area.
...the DMP Update would not substantially increase the amount of impervious surfaces within
the city (relative to the current 32% cover) and would serve to improve the overall flood and
storm water conveyance in the city.
Cumulative impacts analysis is not concerned with just the direct project impacts- but the
impacts of the project along with all of the other projects that are causing adverse impacts.
The problem is that there is nothing in place to assure that the watershed will not be
subject to further degradation and it is already impaired.
L3-6S Poor integration of wetlands mitigation.
Because several related projects are being addressed independently, the wetlands impacts and
mitigation are also being addressed independently. We are concerned that this lack of
coordination will not result in the best overall wetland mitigation plan for this portion of the
watershed There is no evidence to support the conclusion that BMP's on new construction
alone are sufficient to prevent adverse cumulative impacts to hydrology and the adverse impacts
on the iagoon and coastal waters.
... see response to comment L3-61 regarding impervious cover... The questions regarding water
quality do not relate to the EIR. The cumulative analysis has appropriately addressed the
potential impacts of other proposed projects.
This was not responsive to the comment which is poor integration of planning of wetland
mitigation. Failure to adequately coordinate planning for numerous protects - both city
wide, and in the Agua Hedionda/ Calavera creeks project area, fails to address the
cumulative impacts to all of the watersheds in this part of the CHU.
Project Level FEIR Issues
Our priority concerns with the project level components are :
Direct and indirect impacts to wetland and buffers
Protection of viable wildlife movement
Insufficient mitigation measures to address all project impacts
Insufficient alternatives analysis
Lack of integration with CWN Watershed Management Plan and currently
underway Agua Hedionda Watershed Management Plan
L3-8 It would appear that the small area to be dredged west of El Camino Real and south of
Cannon could be done by hand- eliminating the need for storage and an access road in this area.
This is of particular concern because most of the sensitive resources identified in the biological - -
survey ( Appendix D- Recon bio survey Figure 4) are located west of El Camino Real so
minimizing impacts in this area is most important.
...The amount of silt and debris that has accumulated since the emergency dredge project is
estimated to be the same or more than what was previously dredged.
Such a huge amount of silt deposit in this short time period is a clear indication of upstream
problems. The FEIR does not indicate any action to address the upstream problems. Of
course the silt needs to be removed. But without addressing the root problem there will just be
a continuous cycle of dredging and continuing impacts to this area. This is an example of
how important it is to integrate the flood control system with watershed planning. Failing to
do this will result in continuing cumulative impacts to this area - impacts that have not been
adequately addressed in the FEIR.
L3-9 Please clarify exactly where the mitigation for the Phase I emergency dredging mitigation
for permanent impacts to .45 acres willow riparian and .03 acres southern willow scrub is
located, plus the Phase II temporary mitigation for 3.06 acres WUS. It appears that this new
project will again be impacting much of the same area- when Phase I and Phase II has not yet
been fully addressed.
....A conceptual mitigation plan has been prepared. The city is in the process of coordinating
with the resource agencies ti identify a suitable offsite mitigation area.. Impacts to willow
riparian and southern willow scrub are considered permanent and will be mitigated by the
emergency dredge project in accordance with the permits issued by the resource agencies....
It is now almost 2 years since this sensitive habitat was destroyed by the emergency project.
Of course emergency projects require immediate action- but that does not excuse the fact
that almost 2 years later this habitat has not been replaced and the plan has not even been
completed. If this DMP were integrated with watershed planning there would be projects
pre-identificd and ready to use for exactly such circumstances. There needs to be a real
effort to pre-identify mitigation sites and have a time frame for replacement when habitat
is destroyed. The plants and wildlife who depended on this habitat could not wait that long
for action- it's too late for them.
L3-34 The wildlife agency comment letter on the project scope, Att item 4.e asked for a
discussion of possible conflicts resulting from wildlife-human interactions at the interface
between the project sites and natural habitats. This issue has not been addressed in the DEIR and
is of particular concern because these creek corridors are local wildlife movement corridors that
are in immediate proximity to residences. ...
... During project level environmental review for specific DMP updates components, impacts to
specific wildlife movements would be evaluated and specific mitigation would be identified.
The proposed project work will impact wildlife movement- in an area already experiencing
a high rate of roadkill because of disruption in the wildlife movement corridor. ( See All
Report by Karen Merrill). This condition will be exacerbated by further dredge activities
in the one part of the wildlife corridor that has not already been cut off by the construction
along Collcge,Cannon and El Camino Real. Further mitigation is required to protect
wildlife movement through this area- both during and post construction. —
L3-38 and 39 ... There is no explanation for the statements that there is no need to assess
presence of any rare plant species. ... The surveys for Light-footed Clapper Rail, Least Bell's
vireo and Southwestern willow flycatcher are all out of date. ...
.. the study area for Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks was surveyed in August
200} Additionally rare plant species were not were not delected within or along Agua
Hedionda Creek during the wetland delineation in 2001 (RECON 2002).
These surveys are 2 and 1/2 to 5 years old and will be even more obsolete by the time work
is actually done. Standard protocol is to provide a survey within one year of the E1R issue
date- particularly when prior surveys have found endangered species present. The surveys
arc out of date and should be updated as current information could effect mitigation.
Avoiding active nests alone( the only direct mitigation for these impacts) Is not sufficient
given the history of damage to this area and the fact that mitigation for the emergency
work still has not been done.
L3-42 It is stated that the project is consistent with the provisions of the HMP sections F.2.A
restoration and revegetation and F.3.C landscaping. However the mitigation measures do not
require this. These conditions need to be specifically addressed in a Project level MM.
... because she project is considered consistent with the referenced provisions of the HM1', there
is no significant impact and therefor no mitigation is required.
The HMP Consistency analysis for the project level components was not included with the
FEIR. Some discussion of this was included with the Planning Commission staff report
posted to the city website a few days ago. See Section II for discussion of three key areas
where this project K not consistent with the HMP/MHCP. Failure to be in full compliance
with the UMP does not reduce the impacts to biological resources to an insignificant level.
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
PCb-2 See response to comment L3-43 in Appendix f of Final EIR and response to comment PCa-21
PCb-2
L3-45/46 Bio la defers description of program and project level mitigation until agency
permitting. This is not consistent with the provisions of CEQA which requires sufficient
information to determine if the proposed mitigation reduces the identified impact to a level that
is less than significant. Failure to provide this information in the CEQA documents does not
afford the public the required opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the mitigation
proposed.
Furthermore, unless mitigation is specified one cannot determine consistency with the HMP. Per
the HMP, project level CEQA documents are required to document consistency with the HMP.
Failure to provide this information therefor also violates this provision of the HMP. Please
include specific plans for sensitive habitat mitigation....
The requirement for a mitigation plan is only appropriate for project level components where
impacts are known.... A mitigation plan is being prepared for the proposed Agua Hedionda and
Calavera creeks dredging ... and will be presented to the resource agencies as part of the permit
process.
Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks are project level components, therefor the mitigation
plan should have been included in order to meet public review requirements- both for the-
mitigation plan and the HMP consistency determination. Failure to include this violates
provisions of CEQA and the HMP.
L3-49/51 Alternative B in the Rick Engineering report was rejected as 33 lots were still subject
to flooding. Similarly, the 2:1 Side Slope Alternative was rejected because 26 lots were subject
to flooding - yet the selected alternative has 9 lots subject to flooding. What is the threshold for
acceptability? Dredging of Calavera creek could be avoided while impacting only 15 more lots
than the selected alternative- most of the direct biological resource impacts would be avoided
...The primary objective of the dredging and improvements to Agua Hedionda and Calavera
creeks is to provide 100-year flood protection to the maximum number of lots feasible and
practicable. In this case, all but 9 lots would receive protection from a 100-year flood event.
The response fails to provide any explanation for how it was determined that still flooding
9 lots meets the criteria- and that protecting all but 9 lots is the maximum level practicable
and feasible. The ACOE 404 permit requires justification for the least damaging
practicable alternative. The FEIR has failed to provide any justification for the conclusion
that still flooding 9 lots is the best they can do and that this is the LEDPA..
Section II HMP Consistency
The proposed project is not fully consistent with the HMP. The analysis of this was inadequate
in the FEIR. The following are several specific cases where the project and program level
components are not consistent. Either the project needs to be revised, mitigation measures must
be added, or the a minor amendment to the HMP needs to be processed to address the areas of
inconsistency.
The following are three specific areas where the project is not consistent with the HMP :
1. Specific mitigation for the identified wetlands impacts is not provided. In the absence of
such information it is impossible to determine if the requirements for no net loss have been
met. Furthermore, it is stated throughout the FEIR and staff report that mitigation for the
impacts from the emergency dredging project of 2006 have yet to be implemented- in fact a
final plan is yet to be completed. There is already a net loss of wetlands function in the
project area- a condition that will be exacerbated by the additional impacts from the proposed
project. .
2. There is no discussion of protection of wildlife movement in spite of this area having been
identified as a problem area for wildlife movement.
3. The proposed mitigation measures do not fully address all of the potential edge effects of
development- in spite of the project area being adjacent to state of CA preserve land, on the
west and city of Carlsbad HMP preserve land on the east.
Section III LCP Amendment
The staff report indicates the intent to have the City Council approve the DMP Update and LCP
changes following review of all comments on the LCP after a 6 week public review period from
December 14 - January 24, 2008. As a commentor on this project we believe we should have - -
received notice of such public comment period for the LCP. The mailed notice we received for
this project only mentioned the FEIR and did not provide any notice of the proposed LCP
amendment. The first public notice of the LCP amendment that we are aware of occurred with
the posting of the Planning Commission Agenda for the January 16, 2008 meeting which we
believe was received via email on January 10, 2008. Please verify the dates and method of
public notice for the LCP amendment and explain why we were not notified in spite of our prior
comments on this project.
In addition to concerns about public notification, we object to the proposed LCP amendment for
the following reasons:
1. The project as proposed is not consistent with the HMP as discussed in section II above.
2. The FEIR is inadequate as discussed in Section I above.
3. The LCP discusses methods to protect water quality- an item that was specifically removed
from the DMP Update.
4. The project as proposed could have significant adverse cumulative impacts on coastal
resources. The DMP Update includes proposed culverting of 19,175 linear feet or over 3.6
miles of natural and disturbed wetlands. There is essentially no discussion of avoidance or
minimization measures.
5. Discrepancies in the hardline preserve description between the HMP and the proposed
project have not been adequately explained.
Recommendations
We believe these comments fully support our recommendation to:
1. Make a real commitment to integrate plans for flood control with comprehensive watershed
planning - including incorporating the recommendations of the Agua Hedionda Watershed
Management Plan into the next phases of the project.
2. Add a mitigation measure that requires establishing guidelines for when a creek can be
culverted or a natural creek channel can be lined with concrete.
3. Provide the fiill project level Mitigation Plan for Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks for
public review and comment.
4. Require the city to have the habitat land manager contract signed and in place before
allowing loss of further habitat from the project level components.
5. Integrate planning for wetlands mitigation for the prior emergency dredging project, the
current project, and any others that might be anticipated in the project area.
6. Add a mitigation measure to address the wildlife movement corridor issues in the project area
that will only be made worse by this project.
7. Provide a complete determination of HMP consistency with the EIR as is required in the
HMP so that the public can be fully informed in order to comment on this issue.
We urge you to adopt these recommendations and assure that this project does what it is intended
to- but doesn't cause unintended damage to the watershed through piecemeal planning.
Sincerely,
Diane Nygaard
On Behalf of Preserve Calavera
Cc: David Mayer CDFG, David Zoutendyk USFWS
Mike Porter RWQCB
Att - Report by Karen Merrill.
Master Drainage Plan feir Jan 08
November 19, 2007
RE: Review of Report on Road-kill at El Camino Real and Cannon Road
This letter is in response to the Road-kill report by Melissa Booker, biological monitor for the Robertson Ranch East
Village Project. We visited the area for a look at the conditions called out in the report. We inspected a much larger
area than shown on Figure 1 which is likely why we came to slightly different conclusions.
The basic questions are :
1 .Why are we seeing an increase in roadkill at El Camino Real/Cannon?
2. Is the construction associated with the Robertson Ranch project effecting normal wildlife movement through this
area?
3. What corrective action is needed ?
The following discusses each of these three questions.
l.Why are we seeing an increase in roadkill at El Camino Real/Cannon?
It is possible that this is just a temporary seasonal increase. However, construction is occurring simultaneously
along College, Cannon, and El Camino Real- all at locations associated with existing and new wildlife
undercrossings. While no single of these areas would be expected to cause an increase in roadkill (they still have
quite a few alternate routes possible), it seems reasonable that the combination of construction along roadways at
the time of normal seasonal dispersion is a factor.
2. Is the construction associated with the Robertson Ranch project effecting normal wildlife movement through this
area?
Our assessment is that:
wildlife moving east/west immediately east of Cannon road are not effected by the RR construction
They likely are following Agua Hedionda Creek, are out of the construction zone and cross under El Camino Real at
the undercrossing at the creek the same as was done prior to the construction.
wildlife moving east/west immediately west of Cannon Road have had their normal movement patterns
disrupted
This disruption has occurred in several stages over time , probably shifting them further to the west- northwest after
crossing College. These animals might have been following Calavera Creek. The culverted creek is no longer
functional for wildlife movement. The creek near the culvert is being used as a human latrine and has numerous
piles of fresh and historic human feces and toilet paper. This alone would result in wildlife avoiding this area (it
sure made us leave quickly). The roadway area that roughly parallels the original creek alignment is now blocked
by j-bar. The new undercrossing of College near the creek will eventually help- but remains a construction zone on
the southern side- and has no fencing in place on either side to direct wildlife movement away from the road and to
the wildlife undercrossing. There was coyote sign on both sides of the new wildlife undercrossing at College Blvd.
The movement pattern runs through the preserved habitat west of the project footprint to El Camino Real where they
are crossing at grade level. (We did not see evidence of wildlife movement along Cannon road between the j-bar and
new boundary wall- but tracking conditions were poor.)
The determination that animals are using the Cannon Road box culverts (Report Figures 4 & 5) from the Aqua
Hedionda Creek corridor to reach the area NW of Cannon and N of El Camino Real is incorrect. The culverts (see
Photo #PC1) showed no signs of recent wildlife passing through. One of me three culverts appeared to be regularly
used by humans. Movement from the creek comdor is blocked by the old flood wall at Rancho Carlsbad and a
fenced off opening (see Photo #PC2). There is a small cut in that fencing but not conducive to wildlife passing
through because if they are in the creek corridor already they would continue under El Camino Real following the
creek.
wildlife moving east/west further north- up to development prior to Tamarack have had no disruption in
potential movement patterns through this area- but they are not currently using the existing underpasss of El
Camino Real
The house at the high point of this area probably historically divided wildlife movement into two routes around it.
The one to the east is now fully graded with essentially no cover for several hundred feet and lots of heavy
equipment. But the path on the west is still natural habitat all the way up to El Camino Real.
The culvert at El Camino Real (Report Figure 6) shows sign of small mammal use only. Coyote sign is evident
along the footpaths on the N side of El Camino Real, Crossing at grade appears to be the preferred movement
pattern.
3. What corrective action is needed ?
With the opening of Cannon Rd, this intersection has seen increased traffic volume which is likely contributing to
the increase in road-kill in this area. This is a new condition that will continue to be a problem for wildlife
movement.
Wildlife Movement Recommendations —
Wildlife Crossing signage should be installed along this section of Cannon/El Camino Real to alert drivers and
reduce wildlife mortality.
We agree there is a need for fencing along the north side of El Camino Real to funnel movement through the
existing culvert. It is assumed (could not verify) this culvert exits beyond the existing chain link fencing across
El Camino Real. Until such time as recommended fencing is installed, the existing chain link fencing (CDF&G)
on the south side of El Camino Real bars wildlife from entering the riparian area and their natural movement
corridor. Modification to allow access for wildlife will be necessary in the interim.
-The new wildlife undercrossing on College Blvd. should have fencing installed on both sides of the road to
facilitate crossing below grade.
Other Observations
-Installed irrigation downslope College Blvd-it is very wet with a lot of non-natives growing there.
-By detention spillway off College Blvd- old silt fence is still there but down. Is irrigation line still in place here?
Tamarisk growing in detention area.
-Creek channel-the concrete channel that runs under College to the creek- the entrance and natural area downslope
from College Blvd is full of human feces. This needs to be removed. It is probably from the workers at the adjacent
agriculture site.
We appreciate the prompt response to our concerns with increased road kill in this vicinity and hope for remedial
actions in the near future to protect the wildlife movement corridor.
Sincerely,
Karen Merrill
Preserve Calavera Tracking Team
Photoft PC 1 -3 box culverts under Cannon Rd, looking west-northwest
Photo# PC2- old flood wall and fence at Rancho Carlsbad just
across (east) from the 3 box culvert under Cannon Rd.
OR GiNAL
Comment Letter CWNb
Sctttxirle
Member Organizations
Agua Hedtonda Lagoon
Foundation
Batiquttos Lagoon Foundation
Buena Vfeta Lagoon
Foundation
Canyons Network
Cottonwood CreekConservancy
The EscorKJkJo Creek
Conservancy
Resources Conservation
District of Greater San .Diego.
County
Preserve Calavers
San Elijo Lagoon
Conservancy
January 14, 2008
Rarmning Commssion
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Planning Commission:
Subject: Comments on EIR,
Master Drainage Plan Update
These comments on the final EIR are made on behalf o1 the Carlsbad
Watershed Network (CWN). CWN is a coalition of organizations whose goal
is To protect, restore and enhance the quality and beneficial uses of water,
habitats, and otner natural resources of the watersheds of the Carlsbad
Hydrologic Unit (CHU) and the adjacent coastal shoreline." The Carlsbad
Hydrologic Unit is comprised of seven watersheds of coastal north San Diego
County watercourses -including all of the streams and lagoons in the city of
Carlsbad.
On August 31, 2007, we submitted comments on the Draft EIR for the Master
Drainage Plan Update; We have reviewed the responses to our comments
and the changes incorporated in this final EIR It was the unanimous vote of
the members present at our last meeting to submit this letter to express our
continuing concerns with this project.
Our primary concern rs the lack of integrated planning for watershed
protection. We appreciate that the city of Carlsbad is taking a
comprehensive look at the infrastructure needed to control flooding in their
city. We are also pleased to see that this includes guidelines for maintenance
and operation of the proposed facilities -items that are often overlooked. This
kind of comprehensive planning has the potential to address several issues
of concern, and to help reduce further damage to the watershed.
However, instead of improving the coordination of this drainage plan with .
other related projects that affect the watershed, it appears the city has
decided to do even less coordination. The Master Drainage Plan goals were
revised to eliminate "indirectly protect and improve water quality" from them
We believe there clearly are effects of flood control on water Quality, and the
city is expending considerable resources on improving water quality. Trie
Master Drainage Ran Update provides an opportunity to further those efforts
-an opportunity trial is tost ff water quality is no longer a consideration in the
Master Drainage Ran.
The response to our comment to "Improve integration with the currently
underway Agua Hedionda Watershed Management Plan" was,".. .If and
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
Comment
Reference
CWNb-1
CWNb-2
~*;fir%f' "" -" _'-'Response to Comment •• - n
See response to comment PCa-6 and responses to comments L4-1, L3-21, L2-24 and L3-50 in
Appendix F of Final EIR. The City continues to note the priority concerns of Carlsbad Watershed
Network.
See response to comment
Appendix F of Final EIR.
PCa-6 and responses to comments L4-1,L3-21, L2-24 and L3-50 in
CWNb-1
CWNb-2
Mission: To protect, restore, met enhance the quality and beneficial uses ol water, habitats, and other
natural resources of the watersheds of the Carlsbad Hydrologic Untt am the adjacent coastal shoreline.
www.cartsbA4watershednetwork.org
when the Agua Hedionda Watershed Management Plan is finalized, the City will take the
provisions of the plan under consideration." This does not reflect a real commitment lo consider
tlie health of the watershed in moving forward with the City's drainage system. The Agua
Hedionda WMP will result in recommendations for watershed improvements, including such
things as land acquisition habitat restoration and bioengtneering projects. These could nelp
achieve many of the Drainage Ran objectives, and might eliminate or modify the need for some
of the hardscape solutions proposed in your Plan.
The response to our comment to "Improve integration with the Carlsbad Watershed Management
Plan* and "Place more emphasis on the water quality objectives of your plan" was again to
eliminate the reference to water quality from the project goals and to add the following :
"As stated in Section 31, the DMP Update does not directly address storm water quality because
the city now has separate planning documents for storm water quality control. However, a benefit
of the DMP Update is that it would indirectly protect and improve water quality by improving storm
water conveyance, reducing erosion, and removing sediments and/or contaminants."
The voters of California recently approved Proposition 84, a multi-million dollar bond to support
integrated water planning. The City of Carlsbad and other local agencies are sponsors of our
local Agua Hedionda WMP project - an integrated local approach to watershed planning There
is increasing recognition of the importance of coordinated planning, and even voter support to pay
for it.
Integration of the Master Drainage Plan with other plans focused on beneficial uses of water and
habitat protections, such as the Agua Hedionds WMP and CWN's Carlsbad WMP, would assist
the city in avoiding and/or minimizing environmental impacts resulting from the Implementation of
the Master Drainage Plan. Such a holistic approach could also result in the teas! expensive and
most effective mitigation planning, where impacts are unavoidable.
We believe this final EIR was not responsive to our comments. The end result is a project that
will not optimize the huge public investment in flood control infrastructure, resulting in a waste of
public funds. Equally as important, it will riot fully support the critically needed effort to restore
and protect our impaired local water bodies.
We urge you to revise this project to assure that flood control will be done in a way that fully
protects our local watersheds and water quality.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We look forward to working with you to
implement flood control projects that ore consistent with CWN's Carlsbad Watershed
Management Plan, the Agua Hedionda Watershed Management Plan, and that conside- all of the
natural resources of our precious coastal watersheds.
Sincerely,
Brad Roth
On behalf of Carlsbad Watershed Network
CWNb-3
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
CWNb-3
CWNb-4
CWNb-5
See response to comment PCa-6 and responses to comments L4-1, L3-21, 12-24 and L3-50 in
Appendix F of Final EIR. Additionally, it should be noted that a draft of the Agua Hedionda
Watershed Management Plan was released in July 2008, significantly after the preparation of the
proposed Drainage Master Plan.
See response to comment
Appendix F of Final EIR.
See response to comment
Appendix F of Final EIR.
PCa-6
PCa-6
and
and
responses
responses
to
to
comments
comments
L4-1,
L4-1,
L3-21
L3-21
L2-24
L2-24
and
and
L3-50 in
L3-50 in
CWNb-4
CWNb-5
www.cart6badwaJer6hedrwtwork.org
Page 2 of 2
Comment Letter BLF
Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation
Prfwnr, Prv'.vcl und Entuintt
January 14. 2008
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad. CA 92008
Subject: Drainage Master Plan Update Final Environmental Impact
Report (EIR)
Dear Chairperson Baker and Commissioners'.
The Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation (BLF) appreciates the opportunity to comment
on the Final EIR for the Drainage Master Plan Update. We submitted comments
during the regular comment period, and we received a response to our
comments from staff and the EIR preparers which includes tt« Final EIR with
revisions. Taking into consideration the Draft EIR, response to comments, and
Final EIR, we offer the following observations and recommendations to the
Planning Commission:
1. The BLF recognizes that an update to the Drainage Master Plan o needed at
this time. We also recognize that some specific projects are at an advanced
stage of planning, allowing for the detailed analysis of impacts and mitigation,
while other projects are at a very preliminary stage with less specificity and
more ambiguity. This has resulted in an EIR which includes both Project
Level Analysis and Program Level Analysis, which can be an appropriate
method of analyzing infrastructure master plans. The BLF is primarily
concerned with projects in Basin D, the Batiquitos Lagoon Watershed, where
tr>3 projects are entirely at the Program level.
2. Although the BLF understands the reasons behind taking the two-level
approach in this EIR, we have some comments about how it has been done.
Specifically, when projects are at such a preliminary stage that they cannot be
unambiguously described in the EIR. it becomes very difficult for the public to
evaluate the impacts and comment intelligently. We made this comment in
our letter of August 31. 2007 (tetter L-1). and we find that H has been
satisfactorily responded to by staff for present purposes. However, our
recommendation for the future is for staff to spend some additional time
developing the project descriptions for individual components that are
included in a Program-level EIR This would prevent misunderstandings and
promote good communication with the public.
BLF-1
BLF-2
P.O. Box UCK91 Carlsbad. California 920I3-CK9! • 760.9M.OBOO • www.tMliiji.Uos!O!inHaiion.oro
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
Comment
Reference
BLF-1
BLF-2
• ..' - • • -, Response toComment" '*-'•*/;' } '. • : •, ".
The comment is noted regarding commenter's understanding that EIR contains both project-level
and program-level project descriptions and analyses. It is also noted that commenter is primarily
concerned with Basin D projects.
The comment is noted See response to comment PCa-2.
3 The response to our comment letter provided in the side-by-side format
initially gave the impression that little had been changed in the document in
response to our concerns. Fortunately, a closer reading of the Final EIR
showed that substantial changes had, in fact, been made to certain mitigation
measures, and these changes met the objectives of our comments. For
example. Mitigation Measure Bk>-1 now includes a statement that future
project-level environmental review for drainage projects that would impact
habitat will receive review from the wildlife agencies to verify HMP
consistency. Also, Mitigation Measure Bio 1-o requires surveys for sensitive
species prior to construction and Measure Bto-2b now contains a good
discussion of mitigation for wetland impacts of future projects. We are
gratified to see these changes, as they substantially address the issues that
are of greatest concern to us. We would like to suggest for future EIR's that
responses to comments in the side-by-side format be somewhat more
explanatory and tell readers where significant changes have been made in
the document.
In conclusion, the BLF is satisfied that the Program-level components (or Basin D
have been adequately analyzed and will be properly addressed if and when they
progress to more a more detailed planning phase. Aside from our suggestions
for improvements to future EIR's, we believe that staff and the EIR preparers
have done a thorough job of communicating with us arid responding to our
comments. We look forward to working with staff on these projects at the
appropriate time
Sincerely;
Fred C. Sandquist
President
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
BLF-3
BLF-3 Comment noted- This comment pertains to the format of the EIR, not its adequacy.
cc Scott Donnell, Senior Planner, City of Cartebad
Comment Letter DNIK
Scott Donncll - List of Key Issues- dredging and MDP
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
From: "diane nygaard" <dandd2@peoplepc,com>
To: "David Hauser" <dhaus@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>,
D»te: 0X76/2008 10:36 AM
Subject: List of Key Issues-dredging and MDP
CC: "Isabelle Kay" <ikay@ucsd.edu>
'Scon Donnell" <Sdonn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>
Scott and David
Thank you very much for providing the opportunity for us to discuss our key issues with the dredging project and
MDP/EIFULCP. We thought the discussion was very productive toward a better understanding of each others
position, finding areas of common concern, and remaining with a small list of items where we "agree to disagree."
Hopefully next time we will be a3te to have a conversation like this much earlier in the process and save everyone
a tot of time and money.
This list incorporates what we see as the key issues remaining from all of the prior letters submitted by Preserve
Calavera and the Carlsbad Watershed Network.
Calavera and Agua Hedionda Creek Dredging
1. Provisions to protect the viability of the wildlife movement comdor through construction- could be a project
condition that adds this to the list of duties for the already assigned project biologist (per detailed discussion at
prior meeting).
2. Bio surveys are out dated. More current ones are needed prior to initiation of construction.
~DNIK-1
DNIK-2
3. Mitigation plan is needed for both the prior emergency dredging and the current project. Although this is not a DNIK-3
CEQA requirement providing such information provides opportunity for public comment and assurances that there
is no net loss ot function- and adddresses a concern raised by CCC staff.
4. Project alternatives that avoid and minimize wetlands impacts, particularly in the coastal zone, have not been DNIK-4
adequately described. It sounds like efforts have been made that were not identified in the EIR - and at teast one
biologically preferred alternative (hand dedging in the coastal zone) was rejected without a clear justification.
MDP Plan/EIR and related LCP Amendments
5. Improved integration of all of the related programs that effect water quality is desired. A statement of intent to DNIK-5
work toward this In future updates would provide better assurances that this is the direction things are going,
(deleting indirect benefits to water quality as a project objective sounds like there wll be less integration and less
concern about water quality and implies the direction is less integration ).
Comment
Reference
DNIK-1
DNIK-2
DNIK-3
DNIK-4
DNIK-5
DNIK-6
DNIK-7
DNIK-8
•T- '','••"•'- " • Response to Comment • -"• --..vC- ".. , ~, v- -J- . t~ * _. ,.^~, „-„ - ,, . ',T>-^*- ~ -
Comment noted. See response to comment PCa-17.
See response to comment PCa-18
See response to comment PCa-16.
See response to comment PCa-14.
See response to comment PCa-6 and responses to comments L3-21 and L3-24 in Appendix F of
Final EIR.
See responses to comments PCa-2 andPCa-6. See also responses to comments L3-21 and L3-
24 in Appendix F of Final EIR. Further, it should be noted that a draft of the Agua Hedionda
Watershed Management Plan was released in July 2008, significantly after the preparation of the
proposed Drainage Master Plan.
See responses to comments PCa-2 and PCa-10.
See responses to comments PCa-2 and PCa-17. See also response to comment L3-34 in
Appendix F of Final EIR. Comment noted. As discussed throughout the EIR, subsequent
environmental review will be required for individual program-level DMP Update components as
they proceed to project-level design. Subsequent environmental review for these components will
analyze the need to protect wildlife corridors.
6. Acknowledgement that water conveyance and water quality can be improved by things other than the
engineering solutions which are the onty items addressed in the MDP. A statement about considering
recommendations of the AHWMP and other future WMPs prior to proceeding with actual projects would make
thai connection. Future MDP updates could then include specific restoration and acquisition projects that in effect
serve multiple purposes.
7. Better guidelines and opportunities for mitigation of coastal zone impacts In the coastal zone are needed.
Buying credits in the NC Mitigation Bank doesn't really benefit Agua Hedionda and Buena Vista watersheds
Need some mitigation tend in the coastal zone in each watershed. Identifying these for future project impacts
couW be coordinated with the current effort to identify open space parcels.
8. Protection of wildlife comdor throughout project construction.(Same as # 1 above but needs to include all
projects.)
DNIK-6
DNIK-7
DNIK-8
filc://C:\Documents and Settmgs\sdonn\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\47C3EB91 GW-... 04/09/2008
Page 2 of2
9. Make proper reference to the JURMP in the LCP amendments. This Item was deleted from our list per
discussion as SUSUMP reference addresses this.
10. A statement is needed to clarify that as each project moves forward there will be an analysis of wetlands
avoidance and minimization and this will be discussed in the CEQA document.
DNIK-9
DNIK-10
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
11. A statement was made at the Planning Commission that upstream coordination (outs'de the city limits) was DNIK-11
done with the hydrologlc modeling- implying no further coordination is needed. FEMA maps change, upstream
land use changes, and numerous things can occur that would effect the reaches of creeks within the city. A
statement that upstream issues will be looked at as a project moves forward would assure this is part of on-going
integration efforts.
12. There is nothing in this document that indicates that culverting of streams and channelizing creeks is
considererd only as a last choice option Other documents establish some policy guidance- like the HMP
protection of streams, anC RWQCB requirements for no hydromodrfication. But these provisions need to be
strengthened.
13. The MDP focus is on the 100 yr flood- but many of the on-going impacts to our watercourses come from
events that occur much more frequently. Reference to AHWMP and other WMP's per # 6 above could address
this and create future opportunities for fee structure to capture some of these other related costs
DNIK-12
DNIK-13
11. The HMP required land manager needs to be in place - with actual habitat management and enforcement of DNIK-14
the provisions to protect natural resources lhat are now just a pile of paper.
Diane Nygaard and Isabeile Kay
DNIK-9
DNIK-10
DNIK-1 1
DNIK-12
DNIK-13
DNIK-14
Comment noted. This comment pertains to amendments to the LCP. not the adequacy of the
EIR. The City has prepared draft modifications to the LCP presented at the January 16, 2008
Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously approved
Resolutions 6377 and 6378 recommending approval of modifications to the LCP and Zoning
Ordinance, which would reference the DMP Update. The existing LCP already includes
regulations/measures for implementation of the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan
(SUSMP) and the Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Plan (JURMP); these existing
requirements are not proposed for amendment. The City currently satisfies implementation of the
SUSMP through enforcement of the localized (JURMP).
See response to comment PCa-2. Additionally, Section 4.10.5.1 of the Final EIR states that for
various habitat types listed in the HMP (including wetlands), avoidance and on-site mitigation of
impacts are the priorities as DMP project components are implemented. Future project level
environmental review of project components that would have biological impacts would be provided
to the resource agencies to verify consistency with the City's HMP.
See response to comment Pca-4 and response to comment L3-5 in Appendix F of Final EIR.
Comment noted. See response to comment PCa-4 and response to comment L3-5 in Appendix F
of Final EIR.
See response to comment PCa-7 and response to comment L3-33 in Appendix F of Final EIR.
Comment noted. See also response to comment PCa-12. This comment pertains to
implementation of the HMP, not the adequacy of the EIR.
file://C:\Documents and Settmgs\sdonn\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\47C3EB91GW-.. 04/09/2008
Page 1 of 7 Exhibit 2 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S.6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Table S-l
Summary of Program Level Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and
Residual Impacts
Bio-Id Impacts to Type D (unoccupied coastal sage scrub, coastal sage/chaparral mix,
chaparral), Type E (annual, normative grassland), and Type F (disturbed lands,
eucalyptus, agricultural lands) habitats are not subject to the fee payment. Instead, these
types of impacts will be mitigated at the Lake Calavera Mitigation Bank, Parcel per the
ratios included in HMP Table 11. An appropriate mitigation ratio would be determined
based on habitat quality and quantity as determined in coordination with the applicable
resource agencies at the time of project permitting.
Bio-6 The project shall mitigate impacts to wetland and riparian habiat through on-site
restoration and/or wetland and riparian habitat creation/restoration/enhancement at a ratio
to be determined in coordination with the applicable resources agencies at the time of
permitting, consistent with LCP and HMP policies and provisions, as applicable. If
adequate acreage to satisfy mitigation is not available on-site and/or at the Lake Calavera
Mitigation Bank Parcel then alternative mitigation credits may be purchased from the
North County Mitigation Bank, or other alternative sites deemed acceptable by the
resource agencies.
Page 2 of 7 Exhibit 2 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
CHAPTER 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.10.1.1 Program Level
Applicable Plans and Policies
Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan
The State of California implemented the NCCP Program, which is aimed at conserving
and ensuring the biological integrity of entire communities while accommodating
economic development. With the initiating of the NCCP Program in 1991, formal
regional planning for biological resources protection has become widespread and
important in southern California. Regional conservation planning efforts in Carlsbad
have been conducted in accordance with the NCCP Program of 1991. In November
2004, the City adopted a HMP. The overall goal of the HMP is to contribute to regional
biodiversity and the viability of rare, unique or sensitive biological resources throughout
Carlsbad.
The HMP includes conservation goals and measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate
impacts to covered species on a project basis, including measures that apply to drainage
infrastructure projects. The HMP goals and measures are applied citywide to all public
and private projects regardless of whether projects are located within or outside of the
preserve system.
Information about the specific mitigation measures for HMP-covered species is included
in Appendix C of the Carlsbad HMP. City public facility and improvement projects, such
as those included in the DMP Update, are required to provide mitigation based on the
ratios shown in Table 4.10-5. These mitigation ratios apply whether a project is located
inside or outside the preserve system. For Type D habitats (unoccupied coastal sage
scrub, coastal sage/chaparral mix, chaparral), Type E habitats (annual, normative
grasslands) and Type F habitats (disturbed lands, eucalyptus, agricultural lands) as
identified in Table 4.10-5, mitigation fees can be paid in lieu of off-site mitigation as
determined by the City Council. City projects are able to use the future Lake Calavera
Mitigation Bank Parcel for impacts to Type D, E, and F habitats.
Page 3 of 7 Exhibit 2 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
Table 4.10-5
Mitigation Ratios for Impacts to HMP Habitats
Habitat Group and Type
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Coastal salt marsh, alkali marsh, freshwater marsh, estuarine, salt
pan/mudflats, riparian forest, riparian woodland, riparian scrub,
vernal pools, disturbed wetlands, flood channel, fresh water
Engelmann oak woodland, coast live oak woodland '
Beach, southern coastal bluff scrub, maritime succulent scrub,
southern maritime chaparral, native grassland
Gnatcatcher - Occupied coastal sage scrub
Unoccupied coastal sage scrub, coastal sage/chaparral mix, chaparral
(excluding southern maritime chaparral)
Annual (nonnative) grassland
Disturbed lands, eucalyptus, agricultural lands
Mitigation Ratio/
Requirement by Type of
Impacted Habitat
No net loss goal (mitigation
ratio varies by type of
replacement habitat)
3:12
2:13
1:1 4<5
0.5: 14'5
Mitigation Fee4'5
Group A habitats are associated with wetlands. Impacts to these habitat types are
subject to review under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act or Section 1600
of the California Fish and Game Code.
It is assumed that all habitats in Type B will be included in the proposed preserve
system. Small, isolated patches of low quality southern maritime chaparral may be
located outside a preserve area and maximum avoidance and on-site conservation is
preferred.
Maximum avoidance and on-site conservation of Group C habitat are encouraged.
Off-site mitigation for habitat in this group that is not conserved or mitigated on-site
shall pay a per acre in lieu mitigation fee in an amount to be determined by the City
Council. This fee is discussed in more detail in Section E of the Plan.
City projects that impact Type D, E, and F habitats will not pay the fee and will
mitigate at the Lake Calavera Mitigation Bank Parcel. These projects may mitigate
out-of-kind because the objective is to build the preserve system by combining small
mitigation requirements into a larger, contiguous area. City projects that impact Type
A, B, and C habitats must mitigate in-kind at the ratios stated above.
4.10.3.3 Project Level
Consistency with Local Policies or Ordinances
Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan
The HMP establishes a conservation goal for Core Area 4 of no net loss of wetland and
riparian habitat (HMP Section D.7, Standard 7-8). The project would result in the loss of
Page 4 of 7 Exhibit 2 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
wetland and riparian habitat in Core Area 4 as a result of vegetation clearing for dredging
and construction in the area downstream of the El Camino Real Bridge (upgradient or
east of the Cannon Road Bridge). This would result in a significant and cumulative
impact since this would contribute to the regional loss of wetland and riparian habitat.
Agua Hedionda Creek is also referenced in Section G of the HMP, "Take Authorization
and Assurances, and Provisions for Unforeseen Circumstances." Section G.3, Item 2
states "For the purpose of defining Changed Circumstance, Flood is defined as natural
rain runoff events occurring within and causing damage to HMP preserve floodplains
associated with the City's four watersheds ... Agua Hedionda ...and their associated
creeks and tributaries, at less than 50-year levels ..." This section is mostly concerned
with damage to the preserve areas as a result of flooding. The removal of sediment
and/or debris is included as an acceptable maintenance activity following flood events.
The project is therefore consistent with this goal.
The HMP adjacency standards include management recommendations for erosion control
(Section F.3.B). The proposed dredging and improvements in Agua Hedionda and
Calavera creeks (project components B and BN) would be required to incorporate BMPs
into the project design as part of the project's SWPPP, including sediment and erosion
control measures. These measures are described in more detail in Section 4.9
(Hydrology/Water Quality). The long-term maintenance plan for the dredging and
improvements project in Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks also includes BMPs for
long-term erosion control. Although Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks within the
project area are not within an Existing HMP Hardline Preserve, the mitigation plan would
be consistent with the HMP's recommendations for Habitat Restoration and Revegetation
(Section F.2.A) and the Landscaping Restrictions (Section F.3.C), as applicable.
Therefore, proposed project components B and BN would be consistent with the
applicable preserve management goals in Section F of the HMP.
Appendix B-3 of the HMP includes a list of "City Projects Covered by Proposed City-
Lands Mitigation Bank." Under the "Drainage Projects" category, the table lists "Future
projects needed to complete the Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management
Plan [DMP] inclusive of, but not limited to the following projects." Channel
enhancement in Agua Hedionda Creek is listed as one of the projects meeting these
criteria. While the City is early in the process of establishing the Lake Calavera
Mitigation Bank Parcel, the HMP contemplates providing mitigation for drainage
I/I
Page 5 of 7 Exhibit 2 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
projects in the mitigation bank and specifically identifies Agua Hedionda Creek as a
potential project.
4.10.5 Mitigation Measures
4.10.5.1 Program Level
Bio-Id Impacts to Type D (unoccupied coastal sage scrub, coastal sage/chaparral mix,
chaparral), Type E (annual, normative grassland), and Type F (disturbed lands,
eucalyptus, agricultural lands) habitats are not subject to the fee payment. Instead, these
types of impacts will be mitigated at the Lake Calavera Mitigation Bank, Parcel per the
ratios included in HMP Table 11. An appropriate mitigation ratio would be determined
based on habitat quality and quantity as determined in coordination with the applicable
resource agencies at the time of project permitting.
Bio-6 The project shall mitigate impacts to wetland and riparian habiat through on-site
restoration and/or wetland and riparian habitat creation/restoration/enhancement at a ratio
to be determined in coordination with the applicable resources agencies at the time of
permitting, consistent with LCP and HMP policies and provisions, as applicable. If
adequate acreage to satisfy mitigation is not available on-site and/or at the Lake Calavera
Mitigation Bank Parcel, then alternative mitigation credits may be purchased from the
North County Mitigation Bank, or other alternative sites deemed acceptable by the
resource agencies.
CHAPTER 7.0
ALTERNATIVES
7.4.1.2 No Project Components within Sensitive Habitats or Wetlands within the
Coastal Zone or HMP Preserve Reduced Impacts to Sensitive Habitats and
Wetlands Alternative
7.4.1.4 No Project-No Build Alternative No Project-No Update to the Existing 1994
MDSQMP Alternative
Page 6 of 7 Exhibit 2 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
7.5.1 Program Level
Table 7-1 summarizes the findings from the program level alternatives evaluation. This
analysis is qualitative rather than quantitative. If any of these alternatives were pursued,
additional environmental review would be required to quantify the anticipated impacts
and to recommend appropriate mitigation measures consistent with the level of impact.
Based on the qualitative evaluation of the alternatives in this section, implementation of
the Reduced Impact to Sensitive Habitats and Wetlands Alternative Reduced Use of
Impervious Materials would be the environmentally superior alternative.
Overall, this alternative would result in fewer impacts than the DMP
Update, as proposed, while achieving the DMP Update objectives. While this alternative
would result in fewer impacts than the DMP Update to Visual Resources, Noise, and
Biological Resources (Table 7-1), impacts would generally still be considered significant
for these issue areas. However, the DMP Update was developed with consideration of
environmental constraints and generally avoids locating facilities within sensitive habitats
or wetlands. A facility is only proposed in sensitive habitats and wetlands if the facility
is necessary to achieve flood control and adequate storm flow conveyance to meet the
objectives of the DMP Update, which would not be achieved with an alternative location.
As with the DMP Update, incorporation of the mitigation measures included in this EIR
would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Neither implementation of the
Reduced Impact to Sensitive Habitats and Wetlands Alternative Reduced Use of
Impervious Materials nor the DMP Update (as demonstrated in the analysis included in
Chapters 4.0 and 5.0) would result in any unmitigable significant impacts directly,
indirectly, or cumulatively. While the Reduced Impact to Sensitive Habitats and
Wetlands—Alternative Reduced Use of Impervious Materials is considered the
environmentally superior alternative, it may not achieve the level of flood control that
would be provided by implementation of the DMP Update, as demonstrated in this
analysis.
1-1
Page 7 of 7 Exhibit 2 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
Table 7-1
Program Level Alternatives Comparison of Impacts to DMP Update Impacts1
Issue Area
Land Use
Agriculture
Visual Resources
Transportation/Circulation
Air Quality
Noise
Recreation
Geology/Soils
Hydrology/Water Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Paleontological Resources
Achieves DMP
Update Objectives
Project Alternatives
No
Mechanized
Dredging or
Vegetation
Removal
Greater
Similar
Similar
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Similar
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Fewer
Fewer
No
Reduced
Impact to
Sensitive
Habitats and
Wetlands
Greater
Similar
Similar
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Similar
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Similar
Similar
¥esNo
Reduced Use
of
Impervious
Materials
Similar
Similar
Similar
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Similar
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Similar
Similar
Yes
No Project-
No Update to
the Existing
1994
MDSQMP
Greater
Similar
Greater
Greater
Similar
Fewer
Similar
Similar
Greater
Fewer
Fewer
Fewer
No
No Project-
No DMP Update
Approval
Greater
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Greater
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
No
Greater = Alternative results in greater impacts than the DMP Update, even if the DMP Update would result
in significant impacts to the issue area.
Fewer = Alternative results in fewer impacts than the DMP Update but would not necessarily reduce impacts
to a less than significant level.
Similar = Alternative results in similar impacts as the proposed DMP Update.
Page 1 of 7 Exhibit 2a to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Additional Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S.6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Table S-l provides a summary of the environmental impacts resulting from implementation
of the program level DMP Update components. Table S-2 is a summary of the
environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the project level DMP Update
components (i.e., the Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks Dredging and Improvements
Project). These tables are included at the end of this section.
Table S-2. Summary of Project Level Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures,
and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Result of Impact Analysis
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Bio-5 The loss of 0.08 acre of
willow riparian forest is considered
a significant and cumulative
impact and requires compensatory
mitigation (i.e., creation,
restoration, and/or replacement of
in-kind habitat).
Bio-6 Loss of wetland and riparian
habitat, including habitat loss
within the coastal zone boundary,
is considered a significant and
cumulative impact.
Bio-7 Proposed dredging and
improvements within Agua
Hedionda Creek (area adjacent to
Cannon Road Bridge) have the
potential to result in significant
indirect impacts to least bell's
vireo, southwestern willow
flycatcher, and light-footed clapper
rail.
Mitigation
Bio-5 Mitigation measures listed for Bio- la and Bio-2a
and 2b shall be implemented as applicable to
address project-specific vegetation impacts within
Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks.
Bio-6 The project shall mitigate impacts to wetland and
riparian habitat through on-site restoration and/or
wetland and riparian habitat
creation/restoration/enhancement at a ratio to be
determined in coordination with the applicable
resources agencies at the time of permitting,
consistent with LCP and HMP policies and
provisions, as applicable. If adequate acreage to
satisfy mitigation is not available on-site and/or at
the Lake Calavera Mitigation Bank Parcel, then
alternative mitigation credits may be purchased
from the North County Mitigation Bank, or other
alternative sites deemed acceptable by the resource
agencies.
Bio-7a If dredging and improvement activities cannot be
conducted outside the breeding season for
sensitive wildlife species, then prior to
commencement of construction activities, a
preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist to determine presence/absence
of nesting birds. If nesting birds are detected on-
site, vegetation removal shall be delayed until the
chicks have fledged or the nest has failed.
Bio-7b To address potential impacts to the light-footed
clapper rail, a qualified biologist shall survey the
area and surrounding 500-foot buffer area for
light-footed clapper rails prior to implementation
Residual
Impact
Less than
significant
Less than
significant
Less than
significant
Page 2 of 7 Exhibit 2a to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Additional Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
of dredging activities. There is no need to survey
the area upstream of El Camino Real since this
area is void of suitable clapper rail habitat
(freshwater marsh). If clapper rails are detected in
the project area, they should be flushed, prior to
the onset of any vegetation removal.
Bio-7c For potential indirect impacts to least Bell's vireo,
mitigation measures Bio 1-h through Bio 1-j shall
be implemented, as applicable.
Bio-7d For potential indirect impacts to southwestern
willow flycatcher, implementation mitigation
measures Bio 1-k through Bio 1-m shall be
implemented, as applicable.
Bio-7e To discourage sensitive species from entering active
construction areas between El Camino Real and
Cannon Road bridges, a physical barrier
(construction fence) shall be installed on the
downstream side of Cannon Road before dredging
or vegetation removal commences. The barrier
would be removed once the construction activity has
ceased on the south side of El Camino Real.
S.8 ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY
Table S-3
Program Level Comparison of Alternatives Impacts to DMP Update Impacts"
Issue Area
Land Use
Agriculture
Visual Resources
Transportation/Circulation
Air Quality
Noise
Recreation
Geology/Soils
Hydrology/Water Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Paleontological
Resources
Project Alternatives
• No
Mechanized
Dredging or
Vegetation
Removal
Greater
Similar
Similar
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Similar
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Fewer
^iiTt i icir
Fewer
Reduce^
Impact to
Sensitive
Habitats and
Wetlands
Greater
Similar
Similar
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Similar
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Similar
Similar
Reduced Use
of Impervious
Materials
Similar
Similar
Similar
Similar
Similar
C! iiri 1 1jjf
Fewer
Similar
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Similar
Similar
No Project-
No Update
to the
Existing 1994
MDSQMP
Greater
Similar
Greater
Greater
Similar
Fewer
Similar
Similar
Greater
Fewer
Fewer
Fewer
No Project-
No BMP
Update
Approval
Greater
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Greater
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Page 3 of 7 Exhibit 2a to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Additional Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
;.:• -.&•'•'
Issue Area
Achieves DMP
Update Objectives
,'."• , , : •'-'-"••,. Project jlferiiMves , ,„ ' V^,' ;> r- .-
;NO
Mechanized
Dredging or
Vegetation
Removal
No
Reduced
Impact lo
Seasitive
Habitats and
Wetlands
¥es-No
Reduced Use
of Impervious
Materials
Yes
No Project-
Nolfpdate
to the
Existing 1994
MDSQMP
No
"'••"- f '-•
No Project-
No DMP
Update
Approval
No
a Greater = Alternative results in greater impacts than the DMP Update, even if the DMP Update would result in
significant impacts to the issue area.
Fewer = Alternative results in fewer impacts than the DMP Update but would not necessarily reduce impacts to
a less than significant level.
Similar = Alternative results in similar impacts as the proposed DMP Update.
Environmentally Superior Program Level Alternative
Based on the qualitative evaluation of the alternatives, implementation of the Reduced
Impact to Sensitive Habitats and Wetlands Alternative Reduced Use of Impervious Materials
would be the environmentally superior program level alternative. Overall, this alternative
would result in fewer impacts than the DMP Update, as proposed, while achieving the DMP
Update objectives. While this alternative would result in fewer impacts than the DMP
Update to Noise and Biological Resources (Table S-12), impacts would generally still be
considered significant for these issue areas. However, the DMP Update was developed with
consideration of environmental constraints and generally avoids locating facilities within
sensitive habitats or wetlands. A facility is only proposed in sensitive habitats and wetlands
if the facility is necessary to achieve flood control and adequate storm flow conveyance to
meet the objectives of the DMP Update, which would not be achieved with an alternative
location. As with the DMP Update, incorporation of the mitigation measures included in this
EIR would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Neither implementation of the
Reduced Impact to Sensitive Habitats and Wetlands Alternative Reduced Use of Impervious
Materials Alternative nor the DMP Update would result in any unmitigable significant
impacts directly, indirectly, or cumulatively. While the Reduced Impact to Sensitive
Habitats and Wetlands Alternative Reduced Use of Impervious Materials Alternative is
considered the environmentally superior alternative, it may not achieve the level of flood
control that would be provided by implementation of the DMP Update, as demonstrated in
the analysis in this EIR.
Page 4 of 7 Exhibit 2a to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Additional Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
Environmentally Superior Project Level Alternative
Based on the analysis, the No Project Alternative would potentially result in fewer impacts to
the issue areas of Air Quality, Noise, and Biological Resources. However, the alternative
would potentially result in greater impacts to Land Use, Visual Resources,
Transportation/Circulation, Geology/Soils and Hydrology/Water Quality. Further, the No
Project Alternative would not achieve the objectives of the proposed project because 210 lots
would not receive flood protection during a 100-year storm event.
The 2:1 Side Slope Design Alternative would potentially result in fewer impacts to the issue
area of Geology/Soils. However, the alternative would potentially result in greater impacts
to Land Use, Visual Resources, Transportation/Circulation, Air Quality, and
Hydrology/Water Quality, and Biological Resources and would not achieve the objectives of
the proposed project because 26 lots would not receive flood protection during a 100-year
storm event.
Table S-4
Project Level Alternatives Comparison of Impacts"
Issue Area
Land Use
Agriculture
Visual Resources
Transportation/Circulation
Air Quality
Noise
Recreation
Geology/Soils
Hydrology/Water Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Paleontological Resources
Achieves Project Objectives
Project Alternatives
.. ^
Greater
Similar
Greater
Greater
Fewer
Fewer
Similar
Greater
Greater
Fewer
Similar
Similar
No
-*%1 SIoiiJT&eSliSfir^
Greater
Similar
Greater
Similar Greater
Similar Greater
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Greater
Greater
Similar
Similar
No
Greater = Alternative results in greater impacts than the proposed project, even if the
proposed project would result in significant impacts to the issue area.
Fewer = Alternative results in fewer impacts than the proposed project but would not
necessarily reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Similar = Alternative results in similar impacts as the proposed project.
Page 5 of 7 Exhibit 2a to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Additional Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
Because neither of the alternatives would achieve the objectives of the proposed project and
would potentially result in greater impacts to some of the issue areas, the proposed Agua
Hedionda and Calavera Creeks Dredging and Improvements Project would be the
environmentally superior alternative.
CHAPTER 3.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Table 3-6
Summary of Project Design Features/Methods,
Agency Requirements, and Construction Measures
Biological
Resources
The trimming of trees that could provide roost/nest sites for raptors shall
only be completed between September 16 and December 31 to prevent
possible disruptions to breeding raptors.
Any native vegetation removed shall be cut off at the surface, to allow
maximum resprouting. Areas where vegetation will be removed shall be
revegetated with native species similar to those removed.
For projects within or adjacent to an HMP Hardline Preserve area, a
qualified project biologist shall be made available for both the
preconstruction and construction phases to review plans, address protection
of sensitive biological resources and wildlife movement corridors, and
monitor ongoing work. The project biologist shall review final plans,
designate areas that need temporary fencing, and monitor the installation of
appropriate temporary fencing and construction. The project biologist shall
monitor construction activities within designated areas during critical times
such as vegetation removal and the installation of BMPs and HMP Hardline
Preserve fencing, and ensure that all avoidance and minimization measures
are properly constructed and followed.
Page 6 of 7 Exhibit 2a to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Additional Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
CHAPTER 7.0
ALTERNATIVES
7.5.2 Project Level
Table 7-2 summarizes the findings from the project level alternatives evaluation.
Based on the analysis, the No Project Alternative would potentially result in fewer impacts to
the issue areas of Noise, Air Quality and Biological Resources. However, the alternative
would potentially result in greater impacts to Land Use, Visual Resources,
Transportation/Circulation, Geology/Soils, and Hydrology/Water Quality. Further, the No
Project Alternative would not achieve the objectives of the proposed project because up to
210 lots would not receive flood protection during a 100-year storm event.
Table 7-2
Project Level Alternatives Comparison of Impacts '
Issue Area
Land Use
Agriculture
Visual Resources
Transportation/Circulation
Air Quality
Noise
Recreation
Geology/Soils
Hydrology/Water Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Paleontological Resources
Achieves Project Objectives
Project Alternatives
No Project
Greater
Similar
Greater
Greater
Fewer
Fewer
Similar
Greater
Greater
Fewer
Similar
Similar
No
2:1 Slope Design
Greater
Similar
Greater
Greater
Greater
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Greater
Greater
Similar
Similar
No
Greater = Alternative results in greater impacts than the proposed project, even if
the proposed project would result in significant impacts to the issue area.
Fewer = Alternative results in fewer impacts than the proposed project but would
not necessarily reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Similar = Alternative results in similar impacts as the proposed project.
Page 7 of 7 Exhibit 2a to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Additional Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
The 2:1 Side Slope Design Alternative would potentially result in fewer impacts to the issue
area of Geology/Soils. However, this alternative would potentially result in greater impacts
to Land Use, Visual Resources, Transportation/Circulation, Air Quality, Hydrology/Water
Quality, and Biological Resources and would not achieve the objectives of the proposed
project as up to 26 lots would not receive flood protection during a 100-year storm event.
Because neither of the alternatives would achieve the objectives of the proposed project and
would potentially result in greater impacts to some of the issue areas, the proposed Agua
Hedionda and Calavera Creeks Dredging and Improvements Project would be the
environmentally superior alternative.
Exhibit 3 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Recommended Changes to the Candidate Findings of Fact
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
3.2.3 Mitigation Measures
Bio-Id Impacts to Type D (unoccupied coastal sage scrub, coastal sage/chaparral mix,
chaparral), Type E (annual, nonnative grassland), and Type F (disturbed lands,
eucalyptus, agricultural lands) habitats are not subject to the fee payment.
Instead, these types of impacts will be mitigated at the Lake Calavera Mitigation
Bank Parcel, per the ratios included in Table 11 of the HMP. An appropriate
mitigation ratio would be determined based on habitat quality and quantity as
determined in coordination with the applicable Resource Agencies at the time of
project permitting.
3.2.7 Mitigation
Bio-6 The project shall mitigate impacts to wetland and riparian habitat through on-site
restoration and/or off-site wetland and riparian habitat creation/restoration/
enhancement at a ratio to be determined in coordination with the applicable
Resource Agencies at the time of permitting, consistent with LCP and HMP policies
and provisions, as applicable. If adequate acreage to satisfy mitigation is not
available on-site and/or at the Lake Calavera Mitigation Bank Parcel, then
alternative mitigation credits may be purchased from the North County Mitigation
Bank, or other alternative sites deemed acceptable by the Resource Agencies.
Page 30 of 37 Exhibit 4 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Recommended changes to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
PROJECT NAME: City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan TDMP) Update
(includes Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creek Project)
FILE NUMBERS: EIR 04-02/LCPA
02/HMPP 06-03/CDP 06-04
07-06/ZCA 07-04/SUP 06-
APPROVAL DATE: [Click Herel
The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental
impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with
and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring
Department
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
Program Level Mitigation Measures - DMP Update Components
Bio- Id Impacts to Type D (unoccupied coastal sage scrub,
coastal sage/chaparral mix, chaparral), Type E
(annual, normative grassland), and Type F
(disturbed lands, eucalyptus, agricultural lands)
habitats are not subject to the fee payment. Instead,
these types of impacts will be mitigated at the Lake
Calavera Mitigation Bank Parcel per the ratios
included in HMP Table 11. An appropriate
mitigation ratio would be determined based on
habitat quality and quantity as determined in
coordination with the applicable resource agencies
at the time of project permitting.
Pre-
construction/
Post-
Construction
City of
Carlsbad,
Engineering
- Public
Works;
Planning
Project Level Mitigation Measures - Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks Dredging and Improvements Project
Bio-6 The project shall mitigate impacts to wetland and
riparian habitat through on-site restoration and/or
wetland and riparian habitat
creation/restoration/enhancement at a ratio to be
determined in coordination with the applicable
Pre-
construction/
Post-
Construction
City of
Carlsbad,
Engineering
- Public
Works;
l
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-230
2
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
3 APPROVING THE 2008 CARLSBAD DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN AND
APPROVING A CHANGE TO THE CITY'S PLANNED LOCAL
4 DRAINAGE AREA FEE.
CASE NAME: CARLSBAD DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN
5 CASE NO: CIP PROJECT NO. 3872
6 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as follows:
7 WHEREAS, on April 8, 2005, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California,
determined it necessary and in the public interest to enter into an agreement with Brown and
n Caldwell to update the Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, Project No. 3872; and
WHEREAS, Brown and Caldwell completed the update to the Carlsbad Drainage Master
Plan in accordance with the tasks outlined in its Professional Services Agreement; and
11
WHEREAS, the Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan dated July 2008, incorporated herein by
12
reference, represents a comprehensive program for the phased and orderly development of
improvements to accommodate the future drainage service needs of the City; and
14 WHEREAS, the Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan dated July 2008 identifies projects to
construct new drainage facilities, and modify or expand existing drainage facilities, collectively
16 referred to as "Planned Local Drainage Area (PLDA) facilities", that are needed to accommodate
17 the demand from future development in the City; and
18 WHEREAS, the Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan dated July 2008 recommends a revision
to the City's Planned Local Drainage Area (PLDA) fee program and explains the nexus between
„„ the imposition of the PLDA fee and the estimated reasonable cost of constructing the PLDA
facilities for which the fee is charged; and
WHEREAS, the Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan dated July 2008 includes an estimate of
22
the cost to construct the PLDA facilities and a fee calculation methodology to effectively and fairly
23 apportion the PLDA fees in relation to future development's demand on the identified PLDA
24 facilities; and
WHEREAS, an updated PLDA fee program is for the financing of the identified PLDA
26 facilities is set forth in the Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan dated July 2008; and
27
28
1 WHEREAS, the PLDA fees as set forth in the Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan dated July
2 2008 do not exceed the reasonable costs of constructing the facilities and the fees are not levied
3 for general revenue purposes; and
4 WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has established and will continue to maintain a fund or
5 funds necessary to collect the fees so imposed and to maintain said fund or funds and the
6 interest collected therein and to authorize expenditures for only those projects, bond payments, or
7 other construction activities set forth in the Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan dated July 2008.
8 The fee deposited in the fund or funds shall not be commingled with any other funds or revenue
9 of the City. The City has made and will continue to make a report, at least annually, and within
10 sixty (60) days of the close of the fiscal year determining the beginning and ending balances for
11 the fiscal year and the fees, interest, and other income and the amount of expenditure on each
12 public facility. The City Finance Director has made and will continue to make this information
available to the public and report to the City Council not less than fifteen (15) days after making
said information available to the public. The Finance Director shall monitor these funds so that, if
required, the City Council may make written findings that all or a portion of the fee remaining
unexpended or uncommitted in the fund for five (5) or more years are still necessary for the
1 7' purpose to which the fees is to be expended and demonstrate a reasonable relationship between
1 8 that fee and the cost of the improvements; and
19 WHEREAS, the proposed PLDA fee program includes an administrative variance
procedure to allow waivers of payment of the full PLDA fee in certain instances which are more
21 specifically described in the Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan dated July 2008; and
22 WHEREAS, the PLDA fee program includes provision for a developer, who constructs all
or a portion of one or more of the identified PLDA facilities, to receive credit against the payment
24 of their respective PLDA fee and/or to receive reimbursement for costs deemed eligible for
reimbursement pursuant to the credit and reimbursement program described in the Carlsbad
26 Drainage Master Plan dated July 2008; and
27 ///
28
WHEREAS, the time and place of this meeting was noticed in accordance with
2 Government Code Sections 66016, and a copy of the Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan dated July
3 2008 was made available to the public at least 14 days prior to this public hearing; and
4 WHEREAS, Notice of this hearing was included in two publications with at least five days
5 intervening between the dates of first and last publication; and
6 WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 5th day of August, 2008 hold a duly noticed
7 hearing as prescribed by law to consider the proposed Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan dated July
8 2008 and the proposed change in the Planned Local Drainage Area Fee; and
9 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
'0 arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors
relating to the Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan dated July 2008 and the proposed change in the
12 City's Planned Local Drainage Area Fee.
13 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad as
follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. The City Council has heard and considered all oral and written presentations
offered by the public on the proposed Planned Local Drainage Area Fee update.
18 3. The City Council finds the Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan dated July 2008
i g adequately describes the nexus between the imposition of the proposed updated PLDA fee and
20 the estimated reasonable cost of constructing the PLDA facilities for which the fee is charged.
4. The Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan dated July 2008 is hereby approved.
5. The proposed fee does not include any cost attributable to existing deficiencies in
any existing facility.
6. The list of PLDA facilities as described in the Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan
dated July 2008 is hereby approved and shall be funded through the collection of the proposed
26 updated PLDA fee.
27
28
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7. The City Council finds that the fee calculation methodology described in the
Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan dated July 2008 effectively and fairly apportions the proposed
updated PLDA fees in relation to future development's demand on the identified PLDA facilities.
8. That the City Council hereby approves the update to the Planned Local Drainage
Area Fee structure as follows:
Runoff
Coefficient
Low
Medium
High
PLDA Basin A
$5,270
$10,480
$22,837
PLDA Basin B
$1,970
$3,797
$8,535
PLDA Basin C
$1,912
$2,705
$8,287
i
PLDA Basin D
$1,813
$2,966
$7,857
($/developable acre)
9. That the Planned Local Drainage Area Fee change hereby approved shall be
effective sixty (60) days after the adoption of this resolution.
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
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad,
California, on the day of , 2008, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
(SEAL)
Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creek Dredging
SUP 06-02/HMPP 06-03/CDP 06-04
PROJECT MAP
Legend
X///X Project Site
Creek
Bridge
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6376
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATON OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT AND ADOPTION OF CANDIDATE FINDINGS OF
FACT AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE DRAINAGE MASTER
PLAN UPDATE.
CASE NAME: CITY OF CARLSBAD DRAINAGE MASTER
PLAN UPDATE/AGUA HEDIONDA AND
CALAVERA CREEKS
CASE NO: EIR 04-02
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, "Applicant," has filed a verified application
with the City of Carlsbad to adopt a city-wide Drainage Master Plan, an update to the current
Master Drainage Plan previously adopted in 1994 and amended in 1996; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report - EIR 04-02 was prepared in
conjunction with the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update ("Project") in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS components of both the existing Master Drainage Plan and Project
include the dredging of portions of Calavera and Agua Hedionda creeks for enhanced flood
control; and
WHEREAS, following public circulation and notice of the Final
Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR), staff determined necessary additional minor
text changes to the Final EIR as shown in attached exhibit "EIR-C." These changes clarify
that the number of lots in the Rancho Carlsbad community that would remain subject to at
least partial inundation during a 100-year storm event, is an approximate, rather than a
specific or maximum number; and
WHEREAS, the minor text changes merely clarify discussion already
contained in the Final EIR. As such, recirculation of the Final EIR is not required because
f/
1 the new information added to the EIR makes insignificant modifications to an adequate
2 EIR (CEQA Guideline, 15088.5(b)); and
3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on January 16,2008 hold a duly
4 noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
5
WHEREAS, the Final EIR, as modified by attached Exhibit "EIR-C," was
6
presented to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission reviewed and considered
„ the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the Project; and
9 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
10 and arguments, examining the Final EIR, Candidate Findings of Fact, and Mitigation
11 Monitoring and Reporting Program, analyzing the information submitted by City staff, and
'2 considering any written and oral comments received, the Planning Commission considered all
factors relating to the Final EIR.
14 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
15
Commission as follows:
16
A) That the foregoing recitals are true and correct;
B) That the Final EIR consists of EIR 04-02, dated December 2007, appendices,
written comments and responses to comments, all on file in the Planning
jo Department and incorporated by this reference, and the minor text changes
identified in attached Exhibit "EIR-C," and collectively referred to as the
20 "Report."
21 C) That the Final EIR, EIR 04-02, as modified by attached Exhibit "EIR-C, is
recommended for acceptance and certification as the FEIR, and that the FEIR as
22 recommended is adequate and provides reasonable information on the Project and
all reasonable and feasible alternatives thereto, including the "No Project"
alternative.
24 D) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
25 Commission hereby RECOMMENDS CERTIFICATION of the Final EIR,
EIR 04-02, as modified by attached Exhibit "EIR-C," ("Report"), and
26 RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Candidate Findings of Fact ("CEQA"
Findings); attached hereto marked as Exhibit "EIR-A" and incorporated by
27 this reference; and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
28
PC RESO NO. 6376 -2-
1 ("Program")* attached hereto marked as Exhibit "EIR-B" and incorporated
by this reference; based on the following findings that are supported by
substantial evidence in the Record and subject to the following condition.
3 Findings:
4
1. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Final EIR 04-02, as modified by
5 attached Exhibit "EIR-C,"_the CEQA Findings, and the Program have been prepared in
accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR
6 Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
7 2. The Planning Commission has reviewed, analyzed, and considered Final EIR 04-02, the
„ environmental impacts therein identified for this Project and as modified by attached
Exhibit "EIR-C," the CEQA Findings, and the Program prior to RECOMMENDING
9 APPROVAL of the Project, and they reflect the independent judgment of the City of
Carlsbad Planning Commission.
10
11 3. The Planning Commission does accept as its own, incorporate as if set forth in full
herein, and make each and every one of the findings contained in the CEQA Findings,
including feasibility of mitigation measures pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081
and CEQA Guidelines 15091, and infeasibility of Project alternatives.
4. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Program is designed to ensure that
during Project implementation and operation the Developer and any other responsible
15 parties implement the Project components and comply with the feasible mitigation
measures identified in the CEQA Findings and the Program.
16
5. The Record of Proceedings for this Project consists of the Report, CEQA Findings, and
the Program; the "Record" upon which the Planning Commission bases these CEQA
Findings and its actions and determinations regarding the Project includes, but is not
limited to, the Draft EIR, together with all appendices and technical reports referred to
therein, whether separately bound or not; all reports, letters, applications, memoranda,
maps, or other planning and engineering documents prepared by the City, planning
20 consultant, environmental consultant, Project applicant, or others presented to or before
the decision-makers as determined by the City Clerk; all letters, reports, or other
21 documents submitted to the City by members of the public or public agencies in
connection with the City's environmental analysis on the Project; all minutes of any
22 public workshops, meetings, or hearings, including the scoping sessions, and any
recorded or verbatim transcripts/videotapes thereof; any letters, reports, or other
documents or other evidence submitted into the record at any public workshops, meeting,
or hearings; matters of common general knowledge to the City that the City may
consider, including applicable State or local laws, ordinances, and policies, the General
25 Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Local Facilities Management Plans, and all applicable planning
programs and policies of the City; and, all findings and resolutions adopted by the City in
26 connection with the Project, including all documents cited or referred to therein.
27
28 PC RESO NO. 6376 -3-
1
2
3*J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1 O18
19
20
21
22
y\4,j
24
25
26
27
28
The custodian of the full administrative record shall be the City Clerk's Office, 1200
Carlsbad Village Drive, and the Planning Director, 1635 Faraday Avenue, both in
Carlsbad, CA 92008.
Condition:
1 . The Developer shall implement the mitigation measures described in Exhibit EIR-B,
the Program, for the mitigation measures and monitoring programs applicable to
development and operation of the Drainage Master Plan Update.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on January 16, 2008, by the following vote,
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Boddy, Dominguez,
Montgomery, and Whitton
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Cardosa
ABSTAIN:
/~V /" ^N
H-M \JL1 \. 'I -*v*O»»
JULIE B/UCER, ^Chairperson
CARLSBAb4»fcANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~/bu
DONNEU
Planning Director
PCRESON0.6376 -4-
Planning
to wit:
Douglas,
tit
EXHIBIT "EIR-A"
CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 6376
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
FINDINGS OF FACT
(PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE 521081 CEQA GUIDELINES 315091)
For the
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR 04-02)
For the
CITY OF CARLSBAD DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE
(SCH No. 2006041066)
Findings of Fact
1.1 INTRODUCTION
A Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) has been prepared pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and Chapter 19.04 (Environmental
Protection Procedures) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to address the potential environmental
effects of the City of Carlsbad (City) Drainage Master Plan Update (DMP Update; the Project)
and considered by City Council in connection with its public consideration of requested
approvals for the Project. The full scope of the Project and associated approvals are described in
more detail in Section 1.2 below.
The Project consists of an update to the City's existing Master Drainage and Storm Water
Quality Management Plan. The DMP Update is a comprehensive planning document that serves
to assess existing storm drain infrastructure and drainage areas; identify anticipated improvements
and additional infrastructure required to prevent flooding and accommodate storm flows resulting
from future development within the city; and provide guidance on developing a Planned Local
Drainage Area (PLDA) fee program to facilitate construction of specific drainage facilities
required for new development. A program level environmental analysis has been prepared for
most of the project components proposed in the DMP Update, as well as for proposed operation
and maintenance activities.
In addition to the program level analysis, two project components identified with the DMP
Update are at a point in the design process that enables a project level analysis. Specifically, the
City has initiated design of the Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks Dredging and
Improvements Project (identified in the DMP Update as project components B and BN and
identified by the city-issued permits for the dredging project as "Agua Hedionda and Calavera
Creeks"). Project components B and BN involve drainage infrastructure modifications and
improvements along Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks to provide flood protection for Rancho
Carlsbad, an existing residential community. Because project components B and BN are in the
design phase, they are evaluated at a project level in the Final EIR and are part of the Project as
defined herein). The Final EIR and its separately bound technical appendices are incorporated
herein by reference as though fully set forth.
The following statement of facts and findings ("Findings") has been prepared in accordance with
CEQA, for use by the City in connection with its actions as Lead Agency for the Project.
1.1.1 Definitions
The following table defines acronyms, abbreviations, terms, and phrases are used in this
document.
Term
BMP
CDFG
CEQA
CIP
City
CWA
Definition
Best Management Practice
California Department of Fish and Game
California Environmental Quality Act
Capital Improvement Project
the City of Carlsbad
Clean Water Act
CEQA Findings of Fact 2 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
Findings of Fact
Term
dBA
BMP Update
Final EIR
Findings
GPS
HMP
Important Farmland
in/sec
LCP
Lead Agency
U
LF
LOS
LUCP
MHCP
MMRP
NOC
NOP
PD
PI
PLDA
ppv
program level
Project
project components B and BN
project level
Resource Agencies
RWQCB
SCIC
STPs
SWPPP
SWRQB
USAGE
USFWS
Wildlife Agencies
WQTR
Definition
A-weighted decibel
the Update to the City's Drainage Master Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
the statement of facts and findings that have prepared in accordance with
CEQA
global positioning system
Habitat Management Plan
Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Local Importance, as shown on maps prepared pursuant to
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
inches per second
Local Coastal Program
the City of Carlsbad
equivalent noise level
linear feet
level of service
Land Use Compatibility Plan
Multiple Habitat Conservation Program
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program
Notice of Completion
Notice of Preparation
Planning Director
Principal Investigator
Planned Local Drainage Area
peak particle velocity
the program level environmental review of the project components proposed
in the DMP Update
the Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
the Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks Dredging and Improvements Project
the project level environmental review prepared for DMP Update project
components B and BN
applicable state and local agencies with jurisdiction over implementation of
proposed DMP Update components, including but not limited to USAGE,
RWOCB, USFWS, SWRQB, and/or CDFG
Regional Water Quality Control Board
South Coastal Information Center
shovel test pits
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
State Water Resources Control Board
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USFWS and CDFG
Water Quality Technical Report
1.1.2 Record
The "Record" upon which the City Council bases these CEQA Findings and its actions and
determinations regarding the Project includes, but is not limited to, the following:
CEQA Findings of Fact 3
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
January 16, 2008
Findings of Fact
(1) The Draft EIR and Final EIR for the Project, together with all appendices and technical
reports referred to therein, whether separately bound or not;
(2) All reports, letters, applications, memoranda, maps, or other planning and engineering
documents prepared by the City, planning consultant, environmental consultant, project
applicant, or others presented to or before the decision-makers as determined by the City
Clerk;
(3) All letters, reports, or other documents submitted to the City by members of the public or
public agencies in connection with the City's environmental analysis on the Project;
(4) All minutes of any public workshops, meetings, or hearings, including the scoping
sessions, and any recorded or verbatim transcripts/videotapes thereof;
(5) Any letters, reports, or other documents or other evidence submitted into the record at
any public workshops, meeting, or hearings;
(6) Matters of common general knowledge to the City that the City may consider, including
applicable State or local laws, ordinances, and policies; the General Plan; and all
applicable planning programs and policies of the City; and
(7) All findings and resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the Project, including
these Findings, and all documents cited or referred to therein.
The custodian of the full administrative record shall be the City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad
Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA 92008, and the Planning Director, 1635 Faraday Avenue, also in
Carlsbad. The City Council received, reviewed, and considered all of the information and
documents in the record.
1.1.3 Overview of Project Impacts and CEQA Findings
The Final EIR assesses the potentially significant impacts of the DMP Update and identifies the
following categories of impacts:
(1) Potential impacts that would be "less than significant"; and
(2) Potential impacts that would be mitigated to a level that is "less than significant
with the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR."
(3) Potential impacts that would be "significant and immitigable" because they could
not be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of
mitigation measures.
The DMP Update would not result in impacts that would be "significant and unmitigable."
CEQA Findings of Fact 4 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
Findings of Fact
The City is acting as the Lead Agency for the Project under CEQA. As the Lead Agency, the
City is responsible for making certain written .Findings related to the Project prior to approval of
the DMP Update.
Pursuant to CEQA Sections 21081 and 21081.5 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and
15096(h), for each significant Project impact identified in the Final EIR [i.e., categories (2) and
(3) above], the City must make one or more of the following Findings:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency (other than the City), and such changes have been, or can
and should be, adopted by such other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final
EIR.
CEQA defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within
a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and
technological factors" [CEQA § 21061.1]. The CEQA Guidelines add "legal" considerations as
an additional factor in determining feasibility [CEQA Guidelines § 15364]. In addition, if the
Finding in (3) above is made with respect to any significant Project impact, the City must make a
Finding, based upon substantial evidence in the record, that specific overriding economic, legal,
social, technological, or other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant effects on the
environment [CEQA §§ 21081(b), 20181.5; CEQA Guidelines § 15093].
The Findings set forth in this document have been prepared pursuant to CEQA Sections 21081
and 21081.5 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091, 15092, 15093, and 15097 to address the
environmental effects of the Project set forth in the Final EIR as modified.
1.1.4 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program
A Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared and will be adopted as
part of the conditions of approval of the DMP Update, pursuant to CEQA Section 21081.6 and
CEQA Guidelines Section 15097. A copy of the MMRP is included as Exhibit B to this
Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference.
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.2.1 Project Location
Program Level
The DMP Update proposes project components located within Carlsbad, in the northern part of
San Diego County. The City encompasses approximately 42 square miles and is divided into
CEQA Findings of Fact 5 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
Findings of Fact
four major drainage basins, which all ultimately drain to the Pacific Ocean. These four basins
(Basins A, B, C, and D) roughly correspond to the four local watersheds (Buena Vista Creek,
Agua Hedionda Creek, Encinas Creek, and Batiquitos Lagoon). Basins A, B, and D extend
outside of city limits, while Basin C is included entirely with the jurisdictional boundaries of the
City. All project components would be located within the City's jurisdictional borders.
Basin A (Final EIR, Figure 3-1) is located in the northern portion of Carlsbad. It is bordered by
State Route 78 and Oceanside to the north, the Pacific Ocean to the west, generally Carlsbad
Village Drive to the south, and College Boulevard to the east. Basin A is the smallest basin
within the Carlsbad drainage area, occupying approximately 2,270 acres within the Buena Vista
Creek Watershed.
Basin B (Final EIR, Figure 3-2) is located directly south of Basin A. The northern basin
boundary roughly follows Carlsbad Village Drive. The southern boundary incorporates Palomar
Airport Road, Cannon Road, and College Boulevard. The basin extends east from the coast to
the city boundary, occupying approximately 9,340 acres within the Agua Hedionda Creek
Watershed.
Basin C (Final EIR, Figure 3-3) is located in the center of the city and encompasses
approximately 2,580 acres within the Encinas Creek Watershed. The northern boundary includes
a portion of Palomar Airport Road, Cannon Road, and College Boulevard. The western
boundary is the Pacific Ocean, while the southern boundary follows Poinsettia Lane and
El Camino Real. The eastern boundary of the basin follows El Camino Real, with a small
extension out along Palomar Airport Road east of El Camino Real. A large segment of
McClellan-Palomar Airport Road runs through the center of this basin.
Basin D (Final EIR, Figure 3-4) is located in the southern portion of the city. The southern
boundary is the same as Carlsbad's boundary with Encinitas. The western boundary is the
Pacific Ocean. The northern boundary includes Poinsettia Lane and El Camino Real. The
eastern boundary follows Rancho Santa Fe Road and the city's border with Encinitas and
San Diego County. Basin D is the largest basin, encompassing approximately 10,907 acres
within the Batiquitos Lagoon Watershed (City of Carlsbad 2006a).
Project Level
Project components B and BN are located within the Aqua Hedionda Creek Watershed. These
DMP Update project components, described in more detail below, would provide flood
protection for Rancho Carlsbad. Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks flow within constructed
earthen channels through Rancho Carlsbad, except under bridges where riprap sides exist. Agua
Hedionda Creek (Project component B) flows west through the southwestern portion of Rancho
Carlsbad, bends southwest at the confluence with Calavera Creek, and exits the Rancho Carlsbad
community under El Camino Real. West of El Camino Real, Agua Hedionda Creek bends west,
where it passes beneath Cannon Road and flows into a natural stream channel that drains into
Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Two road crossings, Cannon Road Bridge and El Camino Real Bridge,
are located within the downstream portion of the proposed work area. The length of work in
Agua Hedionda Creek within the project boundary is approximately 3,000 linear feet (LF),
CEQA Findings of Fact 6 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
Findings of Fact
extending from approximately 100 feet below the downstream edge of Rancho Carlsbad Drive
Bridge to the downstream edge of Cannon Road Bridge.
Calavera Creek (Project component BN) originates from Lake Calavera and meanders in a
southerly direction through open space, then flows south through an 11-foot by 7-foot reinforced
concrete box culvert under the intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road, and enters
the Rancho Carlsbad community at the point of confluence with a tributary known as Little
Encina Creek. Calavera Creek then flows southwest, along the northwest boundary of the
Rancho Carlsbad community, to a point of confluence with Agua Hedionda Creek, located
approximately 300 feet east of El Camino Real. The approximate length of Calavera Creek
within the project boundary is 3,400 LF, extending from the box culvert at the intersection of
Cannon Road and College Boulevard to the confluence with Agua Hedionda Creek.
1.2.2 Project Description
Program Level
As a comprehensive planning document, the DMP Update is comprised of PLDA projects
(subject to the PLDA fee program), operation and maintenance activities, and non-PLDA
projects. Under the PLDA fee program, fees paid by developers are used by the City to construct
and maintain storm water infrastructure required for accommodating the increased storm water
flows resulting from new development. Non-PLDA projects involve improvements to drainage
facilities that are public facilities but are not required to accommodate additional storm flows
generated from new development. Because non-PLDA projects do not address impacts of new
development, they are not funded by the PLDA fee. In addition, the DMP Update identifies
Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs), which involve improvements to existing drainage facilities
and are considered non-PLDA projects in the DMP Update. Operation and maintenance-related
activities for both PLDA and non-PLDA project components are also included in the DMP
Update but would not be funded through the PLDA fee program.
PLDA projects included in the DMP Update would involve drainage infrastructure components
and activities, including (but not limited to) reinforced concrete pipe, concrete trapezoidal
channels, soft bottom trapezoidal channels, drainage inlets, manhole cleanouts, junction
structures, perforated subdrains, gabion structures, sediment basins, water quality basins, erosion
and scour protection, slope stabilization, installation of Vmax, and bridge construction.
Non-PLDA projects, including CIP projects, encompass both proposed facilities and existing
facilities that are now considered for rehabilitation but would not be funded by the City's PLDA
program because they are not intended to accommodate additional storm flows generated from
proposed new development. Proposed non-PLDA projects included in the DMP Update would
involve drainage infrastructure components and activities, including (but not limited to) those
described above for PLDA projects. Details of these general activities proposed as part of the
DMP Update are found in Sections 3.3.5 and 3.3.6 of the Final EIR.
Tables 3-1 and 3-2 of the Final EIR list the proposed PLDA and non-PLDA projects identified
by the DMP Update.
CEQA Findings of Fact 7 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
Findings of Fact
Operation and maintenance of existing and proposed drainage facilities are an essential
component for the proper and efficient function of city infrastructure. While operation
and maintenance activities are anticipated for all city drainage facilities, including both
PLDA and non-PLDA DMP Update components, these proposed activities are long-term
commitments that would not be paid for by private developers and would therefore not
receive funding from the PLDA fee program.
Proposed operation and maintenance activities have been grouped into a number of
categories, including (but not limited to) Inlet/Outlet and Channel Maintenance, Existing
Facilities Repair, Facility Rehabilitation/Upgrades (Non-capacity Related), Culvert
Replacement and Roadway Rehabilitation, Bridge Rehabilitation/Replacement, Storm
Drain Infrastructure Repair, Sedimentation/Retention/Water Quality Basin Maintenance
and Repair, and Jurisdictional Dam operation and maintenance. Each of these categories
is discussed in greater detail in Section 3.3.6 of the Final EIR.
Project Level
Project components B and BN are proposed to provide flood protection for the Rancho
Carlsbad residential community by improving the capacity of Aqua Hedionda and
Calavera creeks (within Rancho Carlsbad) to contain a 100-year flood event, to the extent
feasible. Both project components contain both PLDA and non-PLDA elements.
Proposed PLDA project component B involves channel improvements along
approximately 3,000 LF of an existing tributary that conveys runoff from Agua Hedionda
Creek and adjacent open areas. PLDA project component B would involve dredging
portions of Agua Hedionda Creek to widen the creek at its confluence with Calavera
Creek, improving conveyance capacity of the channel for containment of a 100-year
flood event, collecting on-site and off-site storm water runoff, and minimizing flooding
of segments of Agua Hedionda Creek adjacent to the Rancho Carlsbad residential
community. Proposed improvements would entail dredging, dewatering, possible beach
disposal of sand and sediment from within the channel banks, possible bridge
stabilization, and on-site restoration where appropriate.
PLDA project component BN would involve excavation and enhancement of Calavera
Creek. Modifications include installation of gabion structures, removal of miscellaneous
concrete, and bank stabilization.
Upon completion of channel dredging improvements, long-term maintenance of both
Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks would be required to maintain flood control capacity
(i.e., contain 100-year flood events). Project components B and BN both propose non-
PLDA components, including long-term channel maintenance in the form of periodic
inspections; sediment, debris, and, vegetation removal; and repair of eroded surfaces
associated with drainage and bridge appurtenances.
With implementation of PLDA project components B and BN, all but approximately nine
of the lots in Rancho Carlsbad would receive protection from a 100-year flood event.
CEQA Findings of Fact 8 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
Findings of Fact
1.2.3 Project Objectives
Implementation of the proposed DMP Update (including proposed PLDA, non-PLDA, and
operation and maintenance activities) would accomplish the following objectives:
• address existing and anticipated future drainage infrastructure deficiencies within the city
at a basinwide level;
• provide facilities to accommodate storm flows from future development contemplated by
the City's General Plan;
• provide facilities to accommodate anticipated drainage infrastructure needs in the city,
either through rehabilitation and replacement of aging infrastructure or implementation of
new facilities necessary to accommodate generalized future development; and
• provide for necessary long-term infrastructure operation and maintenance activities to
ensure public safety, reduction of flood hazards, and storm water quality control.
The DMP Update does not directly address storm water quality because the City now has
separate planning documents for storm' water quality control. However, a benefit of the DMP
Update is that it would indirectly protect and improve water quality by improving storm water
conveyance, reducing erosion, and removing sediments and/or contaminants.
1.2.4 Discretionary Actions
The following discretionary actions will be required to implement the DMP Update, as
applicable to specific project components:
City of Carlsbad
• Approval of the DMP
• Various City Approvals/Permits
City of Carlsbad/ California Coastal Commission
• Coastal Development Permit
• Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment
FEMA
• Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR)/Letter of Map Revision
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• Section 404 Permit
California Department of Fish and Game
• Streambed Alteration Agreement
CEQA Findings of Fact 9 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
Findings of Fact
California Department of Transportation
• Encroachment Permits
Regional Water Quality Control Board
• Dewatering Permit
• 401 Certification
• Construction Stormwater Permit
San Diego Gas & Electric
• Encroachment Permits
1.3 FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The City, acting as Lead Agency for the environmental review of the DMP Update under CEQA,
makes the following Findings with regard to the environmental review process undertaken to
analyze potential environmental impacts of the DMP Update.
(1) In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(d), the City determined the
Project would clearly require an EIR and therefore did not prepare an Initial
Study.
(2) The City issued its Notice of Preparation (NOP) on March 29, 2006. The NOP
was distributed to all responsible and trustee agencies, as well as other agencies
and members of the public (Appendix A of the Final EIR), and was published in a
local newspaper. A number of written responses were received.
(3) The City held a public scoping meeting on April 12, 2006, at the City's Faraday
Center. Advance notice of the meetings was given in the NOP. At the scoping
meeting, the public was invited to comment on the scope and content of the EIR.
Oral and written comments were received. A copy of the NOP and the written
comments received in response to the NOP and public scoping process are
included in Appendix A of the Final EIR.
(4) The following substantive potential impact areas were identified for the
environmental impact analysis:
Land Use
Agricultural Resources
Visual Resources
Recreation
Geology/Soils
Hydrology/Water Quality
Additionally, the Final EIR includes other substantive sections required by
CEQA, such as executive summary, project description, cumulative effects,
effects found not to be significant, and growth inducing effects and alternatives.
Transportation/Circulation
Noise
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Paleontological Resources
CEQA Findings of Fact 10
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
January 16, 2008
Findings of Fact
(5) The Draft EIR for the DMP Update was circulated for public review for a period
of 45 days, which started on July 16,2007, and ended on August 31, 2007. A 15-
day extension of the public review period was granted, enabling additional
comments to be received through September 14, 2007. The Draft EIR was
distributed to a variety of public agencies and individuals. A Notice of
Completion (NOC) of the Draft EIR was published in a local newspaper. The
NOC included information on locations, including the City's website, where the
EIR as well as the proposed Drainage Master Plan Update document would be
available to the public.
(6) The City has considered, and responded to, public comments on the Draft EIR.
The City determined that recirculation of the Draft EIR was not required.
Responses to comments received on the Draft EIR are included in Appendix F of
the Final EIR.
(7) The City released the Final EIR for public review in December 2007. The Final
EIR was distributed to all responsible and trustee agencies as well as all agencies
and members of the public that submitted written comments on the Draft EIR.
The City made public the release of the EIR through an announcement on its
website where the Final EIR would be available to the public.
(8) Prior to certification of the Final EIR, the City Council has not made any
decisions that constitute an irretrievable commitment of resources or a
commitment to a definitive course of action with respect to the DMP Update.
2.0 FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
DETERMINED TO HAVE NO IMPACT OR TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the DMP Update are
less than significant and therefore do not require mitigation measures.
2.1 LAND USE
2.1.1 Program Level
Finding: Implementation of the DMP Update would not result in program level land use impacts
associated with the Significance Criteria discussed in Section 4.1.2 of the Final EIR.
Specifically, the DMP Update components would not:
• result in the physical division of the communities within the city,
• conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation, or s
• conflict with the City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP).
Facts in Support: Proposed DMP Update components would not physically divide the
communities within the city because construction and operation of the proposed DMP Update
CEQA Findings of Fact 11 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
Findings of Fact
components would primarily occur in existing drainages or rights-of-way within developed
areas, or natural drainages within open space areas. Therefore, program level impacts would be
less than significant.
The proposed DMP Update would not conflict with existing land uses and designations because
the components would be consistent with City land use plans and policies, including the
Carlsbad General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Floodplain Management Regulations, Growth
Management Program, Local Facilities Management Plans, Land Use Compatibility Plan
(LUCP) for McClellan-Palomar Airport, Open Space and Conservation Management Plan, and
Local Coastal Program. Therefore, program level impacts resulting from conflicts with land use
plans, policies, and regulations would be less than significant. The DMP Update's consistency
with each of the aforementioned land use plans and policies is detailed in Section 4.1.3.1 of the
Final EIR.
The proposed DMP Update would not result in any land use conflict with the City's HMP
because design features/methods and construction measures have been incorporated into the
project design that result in the avoidance of potential conflicts with the City's HMP. These
measures include installation of temporary fencing along Coastal Zone/HMP boundaries adjacent
to constructing/staging areas; limitations and regulation of vehicle access to construction sites;
identification of designated staging areas for storage of construction equipment/materials,
parking, or other construction-related activities; and designation of staging areas for
equipment/vehicle fueling at a minimum distance of 50 feet away from HMP boundaries.
Additionally, appropriate catchment basins/devices shall be used to prevent the flow of fuel, and
construction equipment shall be checked for leaks prior to operation and repaired as necessary.
The City would verify that these measures occurred prior to the first preconstruction meeting for
each component. Therefore, the DMP Update would not conflict with the requirements of the
HMP, These measures are further detailed in Table 3-6 of the Final EIR.
2.1.2 Operation and Maintenance
Finding: Implementation of proposed operation and maintenance activities would not result in
land use impacts associated with the Significance Criteria discussed in Section 4.1.2 of the Final
EIR and restated above in Section 2.1.1.
Facts in Support: Proposed operation and maintenance activities would not physically divide a
community within the City because proposed activities would occur within existing or proposed
drainage facilities. Therefore, impacts associated with operation and maintenance activities
would be less than significant.
Proposed operation and maintenance activities would not conflict with any existing land uses and
designations because the component parts would be consistent with City land use plans and
policies, including the Carlsbad General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Floodplain Management
Regulations, Growth Management Program/ Local Facilities Management Plans, LUCP for
McClellan-Palomar Airport, Open Space and Conservation Management Plan, and Local Coastal
Program. Therefore, impacts resulting from conflicts with land use plans, policies, and
CEQA Findings of Fact 12 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
Findings of Fact
regulations would be less than significant. The DMP Update's consistency with each of the
aforementioned land use plans and policies is detailed in Section 4.1.3.1 of the Final EIR.
Proposed operation and maintenance activities associated with the DMP Update would not result
in any land use conflict with the City's HMP because design features/methods and construction
measures have been incorporated into the project design that result in the avoidance of potential
conflicts with the City's HMP. These measures, discussed in Section 2.1.1 above and detailed in
Table 3-6 of the Final EIR, will be verified by the City prior to the first preconstruction meeting
for each component of the DMP Update. Therefore, operation and maintenance activities would
result in less than significant land use conflicts with the City's HMP.
2.1.3 Project Level
Finding: Implementation of the proposed Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks Dredging and
Improvements (DMP Update project components B and BN) would not result in land use
impacts associated with the Significance Criteria discussed in Section 4.1.2 of the Final EIR and
restated above in Section 2.1.1.
Facts in Support: Proposed project components B and BN would not physically divide a
community within the city because the proposed dredging and improvements in Aqua Hedionda
and Calavera creeks would occur within the existing drainage facilities and do not involve the
construction of any new structures. Therefore, project level impacts associated with components
B and BN would be less than significant.
Proposed project components B and BN would not conflict with existing land uses and
designations because proposed improvements do not involve change in existing land use or
zoning designations. Additionally, proposed project components B and BN are not located
within the McClellan-Palomar Airport LUCP. There are no conflicts with land use plans,
policies, and regulations; therefore, project level impacts associated with components B and BN
would be less than significant.
Proposed project components B and BN would not result in any land use conflict with the City's
HMP because project components B and BN are not located within the designated Existing
Hardline Preserve Area of the City's HMP. Therefore, project level impacts associated with
components B and BN would be less than significant.
2.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
2.2.1 Program Level
Finding: Implementation of the DMP Update would not result in program level impacts to
agricultural resources associated with the Significance Criteria discussed in Section 4.2.2 of the
Final EIR. Specifically, the DMP Update components would not:
CEQA Findings of Fact 13 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
Findings of Fact
• convert Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Local Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program (i.e., Important Farmland), to nonagricultural use;
• conflict with existing General Plan policies, zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract; or
• involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of agricultural land uses to nonagricultural use.
Facts in Support: Proposed DMP Update components would not result in the conversion of
Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Local
Importance to nonagricultural use nor conflict with existing General Plan policies related to
agricultural land because proposed components would occur within existing drainage channels or
involve rehabilitation/replacement of existing drainage facilities and would not affect agricultural
land resources or activities. Additionally, the proposed DMP Update components would not
conflict with a Williamson Act Contract or zoning for agricultural use because no components of
the DMP Update are proposed within Williamson Act contract lands or areas zoned for
agricultural use. Therefore, program level impacts associated with agricultural resources would
be less than significant. Tables 4.2-2 and 4.2-3 of the Final EIR provide a detailed analysis of
impacts to agricultural resources.
2.2.2 Operation and Maintenance
Finding: Implementation of proposed operation and maintenance activities would not result in
program level impacts to agricultural resources associated with the Significance Criteria
discussed in Section 4.2.2 of the Final EIR and restated above in Section 2.2.2.
Facts in Support: Proposed operation and maintenance activities would not result in the
conversion of designated Important Farmland or the conversion of existing agricultural uses to
nonagricultural uses because operation and maintenance activities would be conducted primarily
within existing drainage facilities and would not involve the construction of new structures on
existing agricultural land or Important Farmlands Likewise, proposed operation and
maintenance activities would not adversely affect areas currently zoned for agricultural use or
under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, potential impacts to agricultural resources from
operation and maintenance activities would be less than significant.
2.23 Project Level
Finding: Implementation of proposed project components B and BN would not result in impacts
to agricultural resources associated with the Significance Criteria discussed in Section 4.2.2 of
the Final EIR and restated above in Section 2.2.2.
Facts in Support: Proposed project components B and BN would not result in impacts to
agricultural resources because none of the land within the project component boundaries is
designated as Important Farmland. Likewise, none of the land within the project limits is zoned
for agricultural use or included in a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, project level PLDA and
CEQA Findings of Fact 14 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
Findings of Fact
non-PLDA components would not adversely affect agricultural activities or resources, or conflict
with General Plan policies related to agricultural land use. Potential impacts would be less than
significant.
2.3 VISUAL RESOURCES
2.3.1 Program Level
Finding: Implementation of the DMP Update would not result in program level impacts to visual
resources associated with the Significance Criteria discussed in Section 4.3.2 of the Final EIR.
Specifically, the DMP Update components would not:
• substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings; or
• create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect daytime
or nighttime views in the area.
Facts in Support: Proposed DMP Update components would not substantially degrade the visual
character of the city because proposed DMP Update components primarily involve construction,
replacement, and improvement of existing facilities within drainages located at or below grade
within or adjacent to existing road right-of-way or in developed/disturbed areas. The DMP
Update would not significantly change the existing quality of the overall visual character of the
city. Additionally, design features/methods and construction measures have been incorporated
into the project design that result in the avoidance of potential visual impacts. These measures
are discussed in Section 2.1 above and detailed in Table 3-6 of the Final EIR. For example,
proposed bridge structure modification and replacement (e.g., PLDA component Cl) and
potential staging areas and access roads during construction activities for some project
components (e.g., PLDA components AFA, AFB, BQ, C, and DH) would involve activities
within visible areas. These areas are required to be relandscaped to preconstruction conditions
(to the extent feasible) after project completion. Therefore, program level impacts relating to the
substantial degradation of existing visual character or quality would be less than significant.
Proposed DMP Update components would not create a new source of substantial light or glare
because design features/methods and construction measures incorporated into the project design
require that nighttime construction lighting be shielded or directed away from residential areas.
Additionally, there are no permanent lighting features or reflective materials proposed by the
DMP Update that would create a new permanent source of light or glare. Therefore, program
level impacts resulting from new sources of substantial light and glare would be less than
significant.
2.3.2 Operation and Maintenance
Finding: Implementation of proposed operation and maintenance activities would not result in
impacts to visual resources associated with the Significance Criteria discussed in Section 4.3.2 of
the Final EIR and restated above in Section 2.3.1.
CEQA Findings of Fact 15 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
Findings of Fact
Facts in Support: Proposed operation and maintenance activities would not substantially degrade
the existing visual character of the site or create a new source of substantial light and glare
because operation and maintenance activities would be periodic and temporary and would be
restricted to existing facilities and maintenance of the drainage purposes of those facilities. If
construction were required during maintenance of a specific facility, visual impacts from
construction activity would be periodic and temporary, and staging areas and equipment storage
would be located in existing right-of-way or other disturbed/developed areas. Therefore,
potential impacts to visual resources from operation and maintenance activities would be less
than significant.
2.3.3 Project Level
Finding: Implementation of proposed project components B and BN would not result in impacts
to visual resources associated with the Significance Criteria discussed in section 4.3.2 of the
Final EIR and restated above in Section 2.3.1.
Facts in Support: Proposed PLDA project components B and BN include dredging and
improvements in Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks. These components would not
significantly degrade the existing visual character or quality because the visibility of the
proposed staging area would be a temporary impact to the existing visual character. No other
activities associated with the PLDA project components are expected to affect the scenic quality
of the area. Adopted project design measures as discussed in Section 2.1 above and detailed in
Table 3-6 of the Final EIR require relandscaping of areas where vegetation would be removed.
Overall, the improvements to Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks are anticipated to provide an
overall visual enhancement. Therefore, project level impacts to visual resources associated with
PLDA project components B and BN would be less than significant.
Proposed PLDA project components B and BN would not create any new source of substantial
light and glare because dredging and construction activities would occur during daylight hours
and neither project component would result in the construction of any permanent source of light
or glare. Therefore, project level impacts resulting from new sources of substantial light and
glare would be less than significant.
Proposed non-PLDA project components B and BN include long-term channel maintenance in
Aqua Hedionda and Calavera creeks. These components would not significantly degrade the
existing visual character or quality because activities associated with channel maintenance would
occur periodically within existing drainage channels. If necessary, construction staging and
storage areas would be located in existing right-of-way or disturbed areas. Therefore, project
level impacts to visual resources associated with non-PLDA project components B and BN
would be less than significant.
Proposed non-PLDA project components B and BN would not create any new source of
substantial light and glare because long-term maintenance activities would occur during daylight
hours and would not require the construction of a new permanent lighting source or utilize
reflective materials. Therefore, project level impacts resulting from new sources of substantial
light and glare would be less than significant.
CEQA Findings of Fact 16 January 16, 2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update loo
Findings of Fact
2.4 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
2.4.1 Program Level
Finding: Implementation of the DMP Update would not result in program level
transportation/circulation impacts associated with the Significance Criteria discussed in Section
4.4.2 of the Final EIR. Specifically, the DMP Update components would not:
• 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);
• exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service (LOS) standard established
by the County congestion management agency and the City's Growth Management
Program for designated roads or highways;
• result in inadequate emergency access; or
• result in insufficient parking capacity.
Facts in Support: Proposed DMP Update components would not increase traffic in relation to the
existing traffic load and street system capacity because the nature of the drainage improvements
proposed as part of the PLDA component would not generate traffic. Where construction of the
PLDA components could result in short-term traffic impacts due to the installation or
replacement of facilities within existing roadways, standard construction practices and
implementation of the required traffic control measures in the traffic control plans would avoid
traffic-related impacts due to lane closures. Therefore, program level impacts relating to
increased traffic would be less than significant.
Proposed DMP Update components would not exceed LOS standards. Although PLDA projects
could result in the generation of increased truck traffic during construction, the traffic is not
expected to exceed 200 peak hour trips per day or increase traffic on roadways to a level that
would degrade LOS at intersections or on roadway segments. DMP Update components would
not generate traffic in the long term; therefore, LOS for city streets would not be adversely
affected. Therefore, program level impacts relating to increased LOS would be less than
significant.
Proposed DMP Update components would not result in safety hazards from inadequate
emergency access because a detailed traffic control plan would be prepared for the construction
of both PLDA and non-PLDA projects during project specific environmental review. The traffic
control plan would include signage and flaggers, and other warning devices to allow heavy
equipment on roadways, and would provide adequate measures to ensure public safety of
motorists and pedestrians located near proposed construction areas. Through implementation of
these measures, potential program level impacts associated with emergency access would be less
than significant.
CEQA Findings of Fact 17 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update i A i\OI
Findings of Fact
2.4.2 Operation and Maintenance
Finding: Implementation of proposed operation and maintenance activities would not result in
transportation/circulation impacts associated with the Significance Criteria discussed in Section
4.4.2 of the Final EIR and restated above in Section 2.4.1.
Facts in Support: Proposed DMP Update components would not result in traffic, access, or
parking impacts because operation and maintenance activities would not take place directly in
roadways or interfere with normal circulation. To avoid potential impacts resulting from
roadway, bridge, and culvert maintenance, the traffic control measures discussed above would be
implemented. Operation and maintenance activities would not generate traffic or adversely
affect transportation/circulation in the long term. Therefore, traffic impacts associated with
operation and maintenance activities would be less than significant.
2.4.3 Project Level
Finding: Implementation of proposed project components B and BN would not result in
transportation/circulation impacts associated with the Significance Criteria discussed in Section
4.4.2 of the Final EIR and restated above in Section 2.4.1.
Facts in Support: Project components B and BN would not result in an increase in traffic
because ingress and egress of PLDA and non-PLDA project construction traffic would be subject
to a traffic control plan, including measures such as notices, signage, flaggers, and other warning
devices to control heavy equipment traffic and direct pedestrians to safe crossings. Details of
these project design measures are found in Table 3-6 of the Final EIR. Should the City select to
dispose of dredge material at an off-site location, as described as Option 2 in Section 3.4.3 of the
Final EIR, the project would require a City Haul Route Permit and haul routes would be
consistent with the City's approved truck haul route map. Project components B and BN would
not generate traffic or adversely affect transportation/circulation in the long term. Therefore,
project level traffic impacts would be less than significant.
Project components B and BN would not exceed any LOS standards because trip generation for
removal of channel spoils is estimated to average 60 average daily trips. This number of trips
would not result in a substantial increase in local traffic, or substantial degradation of segment or
intersection LOS. Therefore, project level impacts associated with a decrease in roadway or road
segment LOS would be less than significant. Project components B and BN would not interfere
with emergency access measures because emergency access to and from the Rancho Carlsbad
community and surrounding land uses would be maintained during construction of PLDA
components B and BN. Likewise, traffic control measures discussed above would be required
during construction activity. Therefore, project level impacts associated with emergency access
would be less than significant.
CEQA Findings of Fact 18 January 16, 2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update loz.
Findings of Fact
2.5 NOISE (PROJECT LEVEL)
Finding: Implementation of proposed project components B and BN would not result in noise
impacts associated with the Significance Criteria discussed in Section 4.6.2 of the Final EIR.
Specifically, the DMP Update components would not:
• expose persons within 50 feet of the project to generation of groundborae vibration in
excess of 0.2 inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (ppv);
• result in increased nighttime ambient noise levels;
• result in noise levels of more than 75 dBA (A-weighted decibels) equivalent noise level
(Leq) (or above ambient levels, if above 75 dBA Leq) over a period of more than
3 consecutive days; or
• expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (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).
Facts in Support: PLDA project components B and BN would not expose people within 50 feet
of the project to groundbourne vibration because temporary construction-related vibration at the
nearest receptors would be anticipated to be less than 0.06 in/sec ppv and would likely be less
than the level of perception. Groundbourne vibration caused by non-PLDA components is
anticipated to be even less. Therefore, project level impacts associated with groundbourne
vibration would be temporary and less than significant.
Both PLDA and non-PLDA project components B and BN would not result in increased
nighttime ambient noise levels because temporary construction activities would only occur
during daylight hours, as permitted by the City's noise ordinance. Therefore, project level
impacts associated with nighttime noise levels would be less than significant. PLDA project
components B and BN would not result in noise levels of more than 75 dBA Leq over a period of
more than 3 consecutive days. Although short-term noise levels at homes within 50 feet of
construction would exceed 75 dBA, and 1-hour average noise levels would be likely to exceed
75 dBA, the duration of this activity at any residence is anticipated to generally be less than 3
consecutive days. Exposure to vibrations for non-PLDA project components B and BN is
anticipated to be less than significant. Therefore, project level impacts associated with noise
exposure over 75 dBA would be temporary and less than significant.
2.6 AIR QUALITY
2.6.1 Program Level
Finding: Implementation of the DMP Update would not result in program level impacts to air
quality associated with the Significance Criteria discussed in Section 4.4.2 of the Final EIR.
Specifically, the DMP Update components would not:
CEQA Findings of Fact 19 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
103
Findings of Fact
• conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS);
• violate the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or California Ambient Air
Quality Standards (CAAQS) or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation;
• violate thresholds established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), as
shown in Table 4.5-5 of the Final E1R;
• result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors);
• expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or
• expose sensitive receptors to objectionable odors for more than a 1 -week period.
Facts in Support: The DMP Update components would not result in gaseous or paniculate
emissions that conflict with or violate a national or state air quality standard or threshold because
implementation of standard design and construction practices as described in Table 3-6 of the
Final EIR would require pollution control measures during construction. These measures
include water and dust control agents would be applied to active grading areas, unpaved surfaces,
and dirt stockpiles to prevent or suppress airborne particulates; trucks and equipment would not
idle for more than 15 minutes when not in service; and air filters and other pollution control
devices on construction equipment would be properly operated and maintained. Through these
measures temporary impacts associated with violations of air quality standards would be less
than significant.
The DMP Update components would not result in exposure to objectionable odors because the
release of odor from wet sediments or from paving activities would dissipate relatively rapidly
and would not be anticipated to be noticeable for more than 1 week. Therefore, temporary
program level impacts associated with objectionable odors would be less than significant.
2.6.2 Operation and Maintenance
Finding: Implementation of proposed operation and maintenance activities to air quality
associated with the DMP Update would not result in impacts associated with the Significance
Criteria discussed in Section 4.5.2 of the Final EIR and restated above in Section 2.6.1.
Facts in Support: Proposed operation and maintenance activities of the DMP Update components
would not result in gaseous or particulate emissions that conflict with or violate a national or
state air quality standard or threshold because operation and maintenance of both PLDA and
non-PLDA components require use of standard design and construction practices as described
above and detailed in Table 3-6 of the Final EIR. Through implementation of these project
CEQA Findings of Fact 20 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
Findings of Fact
design features/methods and construction practices, air quality impacts associated with operation
and maintenance activities would be less than significant.
2.6.3 Project Level
Finding: Implementation of project components B and BN would not result in impacts associated
with the Significance Criteria discussed in Section 4.5.2 of the Final EIR and restated above in
Section 2.6.1.
Facts in Support: Project components B and BN would not result in gaseous or particulate
emissions that conflict with existing attainment and maintenance plans, violate air quality
standards, or make a considerable contribution to the existing regional pollutant concentrations
because estimated air emissions resulting from implementation of PLDA project components B
and BN were modeled and calculated using the general assumption that 30,000 cubic yards of
dredged and excavated materials would be hauled off-site.and project construction would last 4
to 6 months. The conclusion reached was that estimated project emissions would be less than the
threshold values used for assessment of conformity of federal projects to the state air quality
plans (details of the modeling and calculations are included in Section 4.5.3.3 of the Final EIR).
Therefore, project level impacts resulting from air quality emissions would be less than
significant.
PLDA project components B and BN would not result in exposure to objectionable odors for
more than a 1-week period. Although there would be a potential for odor emissions from the
dredging and removal of wet sediments from the creek channels, this would be limited to the
time required to remove the odorous materials or for the odor emissions to be minimized by
drying of the materials and would not last more than 1 week. Therefore, project level impacts
associated with objectionable odors would be less than significant.
Non-PLDA project components B and BN would not result in air quality impacts because the
intensity and duration of long-term maintenance activities would be less, and emissions would be
less than calculated for the PLDA construction activities. Therefore, potential project level air
quality impacts associated with non-PLDA components B and BN would be less than significant.
2.7 RECREATION
2.7.1 Program Level
Finding: Implementation of the DMP Update would not result in program level impacts to
recreation associated with the Significance Criteria discussed in Section 4.7.2 of the Final EIR.
Specifically, the DMP Update components would not:
• result in adverse impacts to recreational opportunities in the city.
Facts in Support: The DMP Update components would not result in adverse impacts to
recreational opportunities in the city because the project does not involve construction of or
improvements to existing or proposed recreational facilities. Existing neighborhood and regional
CEQA Findings of Fact 21 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
/OS
Findings of Fact
parks or other recreational facilities would not be affected by the DMP Update. There could be
temporary impacts on recreational uses within open space and parks during construction of DMP
Update components; however, these potential impacts would be short term, and alternative
recreational facilities within the city would remain available for use. Therefore, program level
impacts to recreational opportunities within the city would be less than significant.
2.7.2 Operation and Maintenance
Finding: Implementation of proposed operation and maintenance activities would not result in
impacts to recreation associated with the Significance Criteria discussed in Section 4.7.2 of the
Final EIR and restated above in Section 2.7.1.
Facts in Support: Implementation of proposed operation and maintenance activities associated
with the DMP Update would not result in adverse impacts to recreational opportunities in the
city because these activities would not involve the construction of recreational components or
improvements to existing or proposed recreational facilities. Existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities would not be affected. There could be temporary impacts on
recreational uses within open space and parks during operation and maintenance activities;
however, these potential impacts would be short term, and alternative recreational facilities
within the city would remain available for use. Therefore, recreational impacts associated with
operation and maintenance activities would be less than significant.
2.7.3 Project Level
Finding: Implementation of proposed project components B and BN would not result in impacts
associated with the Significance Criteria discussed in Section 4.7.2 of the Final EIR and restated
above in Section 2.7.1.
Facts in Support: Implementation of project components B and BN would not result in adverse
recreational opportunities in the city because neither PLDA nor non-PLDA components parts
would involve the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Further, Use of existing
recreation facilities within the Rancho Carlsbad residential community would not be impacted by
implementation of either component B or BN. Therefore, project level recreational impacts
would be less than significant.
2.8 GEOLOGY/SOILS
2.8.1 Program Level
Finding: Implementation of the DMP Update would not result in program level impacts to
geology/soils associated with the Significance Criteria discussed in Section 4.8.2 of the Final
EIR. Specifically, the DMP Update components would not:
• expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
CEQA Findings of Fact 22 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
Findings of Fact
o 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,
o strong seismic ground shaking,
o seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, or
o landslides;
• result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil;
• 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; or
• be located on expansive soils, as defined in the 1997 Uniform Building Code, creating
substantial risks to life or property; or
• result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource.
Facts in Support: The DMP Update components would not result in the exposure of people or
structures to seismic, fault-related hazards, liquefaction, or landslides because, although the
proposed DMP Update components may potentially be subject to local seismic activity,
geotechnical investigations would be required prior to design of each component to identify
issues related to faults and seismic hazards and to develop appropriate design features to address
potential issues. Additionally, the City of Carlsbad Building Code and the Uniform Building
Code require project design measures be incorporated into project component design to minimize
the threat of such damage. Therefore, program level impacts associated with fault and seismic
activity would be less than significant.
The DMP Update components would not result in impacts due to unstable or expansive soils.
Although construction activity of components could result in potential hazards resulting from
expansive or unstable soils and rock conditions, a geotechnical investigation would be required
prior to the commencement of individual projects involving excavation, grading, or construction
of new structures. Likewise, the DMP Update components would not result in impacts from
substantial soil erosion because all construction would be performed in accordance with the
requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance, which requires the control of erosion during
construction and the stabilization of all disturbed surfaces upon completion of construction.
Therefore, program level impacts associated with expansive and unstable soil or soil erosion
would be less than significant.
The DMP Update components would not result hi the loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource because extraction of mineral resources is not proposed as part of the project.
Therefore, no program level impacts related to the loss of availability of a locally important
CEQA Findings of Fact 23 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
Findings of Fact
mineral resource recovery site are anticipated from implementation of proposed DMP Update
project components.
2.8.2 Operation and Maintenance
Finding: Implementation of proposed operation and maintenance activities would not result in
impacts to geology/soils associated with the Significance Criteria discussed in Section 4.8.2 of
the Final EIR and restated above in Section 2.8.1.
Facts in Support: Implementation of proposed operation and maintenance activities associated
with the DMP Update would not result in impacts to soils or seismic activity because site-
specific geotechnical analysis would be conducted for proposed PLDA and non-PLDA
components and site-specific remediation measures would be incorporated into facility project
design. Therefore, impacts to soils or seismic activity from operation and maintenance activities
would be less than significant.
Implementation of proposed operation and maintenance activities associated with the DMP
Update would not result in impacts from substantial soil erosion. Although some operation and
maintenance activities within natural channels could lead to damage from accelerated erosion, all
operation and maintenance would be performed in accordance with the requirements of the
City's Grading Ordinance, which requires the control of erosion during construction and the
stabilization of all disturbed surfaces upon completion of construction. Due to conformance with
the City's ordinance, erosion-related impacts from operation and maintenance activities would be
less than significant.
2.8.3 Project Level
Finding: Implementation of proposed project components B and BN would not result in impacts
to geology/soils associated with the Significance Criteria discussed in Section 4.8.2 of the Final
EIR and restated above in Section 2.8.1.
Facts in Support: Implementation of both PLDA and non-PLDA proposed project components B
and BN would not expose people or structures to geologic hazards because a geotechnical
evaluation found no evidence of faulting within the project limits. Although the project area
could experience seismic activity, the requirements of the City Building Code and the 2001
Uniform Building Code would be implemented as part of project level design to minimize the
threat of construction damage associated with seismic activity. Therefore, project level impacts
associated with geologic hazards would be less than significant.
Implementation of both PLDA and non-PLDA proposed project components B and BN would
not result in impacts due to erosion or unstable or expansive soils. Although the project would
involve bank and channel excavation and installation of drop structures, drains, and an access
road where expansive soils potentially occur, design of the project components would
incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) and erosion-prevention measures to address
issues related to expansive soils and stabilize the banks of the creeks. These BMPs are detailed
CEQA Findings of Fact 24 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
Findings of Fact
in Section 4.8.3.3 of the Final EIR. Through implementation of the BMPs, project level impacts
associated with erosion or unstable or expansive soils would be less than significant.
Implementation of both PLDA and non-PLDA project components B and BN would not result in
the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource because the projects do not include
extraction of mineral resources. Additionally, no mineral resources recovery sites are designated
within the city, and no impacts related to loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site are anticipated.
2.9 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY
2.9.1 Program Level
Finding: Implementation of the DMP Update would not result in program level impacts to
hydrology/water quality associated with the Significance Criteria discussed in Section 4.9.2 of
the Final EIR. Specifically, the DMP Update components would not:
• violate federal, state, or local water quality standards or waste discharge requirements;
• alter the existing drainage pattern of flow of the area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in adverse impacts from
erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site;
• create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
• otherwise adversely impact water quality;
• place housing or other structures within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or FIRM or other flood delineation map, that would
impede or redirect flows; or
• expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
flooding.
Facts in Support: The DMP Update components would not result in violations of water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements, create or contribute an exceedance of storm water
runoff, or adversely impact water quality. Although temporary impacts could occur during
construction activities, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), as required by the
State Water Resources Control Board, will be prepared for project components resulting in soil
disturbance greater than or equal to 1 acre. The SWPPP will identify BMPs that will help reduce
impacts related to construction activities and postconstruction activities on storm water quality.
Details of proposed BMPs are included as project design measures in Table 3.6 and Section
4.9.3.1 of the Final EIR. In addition, under the San Diego County Municipal Permit, compliance
with the City's storm water management requirements includes preparation of a Water Quality
Technical Report (WQTR), which would minimize any impact of proposed projects on storm
CEQA Findings of Fact 25 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
Findings of Fact
water quality, regardless of project size. Through implementation of the BMPs identified in the
storm water management documents, program level impacts associated with hydrology/water
quality will be less than significant.
2.9.2 Operation and Maintenance
Finding: Implementation of proposed operation and maintenance activities would not result in
impacts to hydrology/water quality associated with the Significance Criteria discussed in Section
4.9.2 of the Final EIR and restated above in Section 2.9.1.
Facts in Support: Implementation of proposed operation and maintenance activities associated
with the DMP Update would not result in violations of water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements; create or contribute an exceedance of storm water runoff; or adversely
impact water quality because the spill contingency plan and construction measures, including a
SWPPP or WQTR, as appropriate, are identified as project design measures in Table 3-6 of the
Final EIR. Through implementation of the project design measures, including enforcement of
BMPs identified in the storm water management documents, hydrology/water quality impacts
associated with operation and maintenance activities will be less than significant.
2.9.3 Project Level
Finding: Implementation of proposed project components B and BN would not result in impacts
to hydrology/water quality associated with the Significance Criteria discussed in Section 4.9.2 of
the Final EIR and restated above in Section 2.9.1.
Facts in Support: Implementation of proposed project components B and BN would not result in
violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, create or contribute an
exceedance of storm water runoff, or adversely impact water quality. Although the projects
propose dredging and construction activities that could potentially degrade water quality in the
creeks, project components B and BN would be required to incorporate BMPs into the project
design, which would be part of the required SWPPP, as specified in Table 3-6 of the Final EIR.
Implementation of the SWPPP would avoid potential impacts. Therefore, project level
hydrology/water quality impacts would be less than significant.
2.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES (PROJECT LEVEL)
Finding: Implementation of proposed project components B and BN would not result in impacts
to cultural resources associated with the Significance Criteria discussed in Section 4.11.2 of the
Final EIR. Specifically, project components B and BN would not:
• cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological
resource as defined in Section 15064.5; or
• disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
CEQA Findings of Fact 26 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
110
Findings of Fact
Facts in Support: Implementation of both PLDA and non-PLDA components B and BN would
not result in impacts to cultural resources because no cultural resources were identified during
the archival research or field survey within the proposed project areas.
Implementation of PLDA and non-PLDA components of proposed project components B and
BN would not result in the disturbance of human remains. Although the potential exists for
buried cultural deposits in areas adjacent to creek and river beds, none are expected to be
encountered during ground-disturbing activities associated with the dredging of Agua Hedionda
and Calavera creeks due to the level of previous disturbance in the area. Therefore, project level
impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant.
2.11 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES (PROJECT LEVEL)
Finding: Implementation of proposed project components B and BN would not result in impacts
to paleontological resources associated with the Significance Criteria discussed in Section 4.12.2
of the Final EIR. Specifically, project components B and BN would not:
• directly or indirectly destroy an identified sensitive paleontological resource or site or an
identified sensitive geologic feature.
Facts in Support: Implementation of both PLDA and non-PLDA components of proposed project
components B and BN would not result in impacts to paleontological resources because the
proposed project boundary for project components B and BN is located on Quaternary alluvial
deposits, which have a low to moderate potential to contain paleontological resources.
Additionally, the creeks were previously dredged and channelized during construction of the
Rancho Carlsbad residential community, as well as during subsequent emergency dredging.
Therefore, paleontological resources would not likely be destroyed as a result of conducting the
proposed dredging and improvements, and project level impacts would be less than significant.
2.12 CUMULATIVE (PROGRAM AND PROJECT LEVEL)
2.12.1 Land Use
Finding: Implementation of the DMP Update would not result in program or project level
cumulative impacts to land use.
Facts in Support: Implementation of the DMP Update would not result in significant land use
impacts. It is assumed that future development in the city would occur in a manner consistent
with the City's General Plan, Growth Management Plan, and other land use planning documents
and regulations. However, implementation of the DMP Update would not alter planned land use
conditions in the city beyond what is envisioned in the General Plan. Therefore, the DMP Update
would not contribute to cumulative land use impacts in Carlsbad.
2.12.2 Agricultural Resources
Finding: Implementation of the DMP Update would not result in program or project level
cumulative impacts to agricultural resources.
CEQA Findings of Fact 27 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
"' ' " ' " / '/
Findings of Fact
Facts in Support: Implementation of the proposed DMP Update components would not result in
significant agricultural resource impacts. The proposed DMP Update components would not
involve the conversion of Important Farmlands or existing agricultural uses to nonagricultural
uses and would not conflict with any Williamson Act contracts in the City. Therefore the DMP
Update would not contribute to cumulative agricultural resource impacts.
2.12.3 Visual Resources
Finding: Implementation of the DMP Update would not result in program or project level
cumulative impacts to visual resources.
Facts in Support: Implementation of the proposed DMP Update components would not result in
significant impacts to visual resources. Many proposed components are located at or below
grade within or adjacent to the existing road right of way or in developed/disturbed areas. Visual
impacts during construction would be short-term and no permanent lighting would be necessary.
For this reason, the DMP Update would not contribute to cumulative impacts to visual resources.
2.12.4 Transportation/Circulation
Finding: Implementation of the DMP Update would not result in program or project level
cumulative impacts to transportation/circulation.
Facts in Support: Implementation of the proposed DMP Update components would not result in
impacts to transportation/circulation. Although project components could generate potential
cumulative short-term construction-related impacts, these would be minimized or avoided
through coordination and implementation of traffic control plans and encroachment permit
requirements at the tune of construction. Through these measures, the DMP Update would not
cumulatively contribute to significant transportation/circulation impacts.
2.12.5 Noise
Finding: Implementation of the DMP Update would not result in program or project level
cumulative noise impacts.
Facts in Support: Implementation of the proposed DMP Update components would not result in
significant noise impacts. DMP Update components have the potential to generate short-term
noise impacts during construction and maintenance activities; however, the components would
not result in any long-term noise impacts. Potential localized impacts due to construction noise
are mitigated to a level of insignificant through required component compliance with standards
regarding acceptable levels of vibration caused by construction equipment and noise when
construction is within a specified distance of a sensitive receptor. Therefore, the DMP Update
would not result in a significant contribution to cumulative noise impacts.
2.12.6 Air Quality
Finding: Implementation of the DMP Update would not result in program or project level
cumulative air quality impacts.
CEQA Findings of Fact 28 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update . .
„. ,-„,..,.. -- •• • •- //.£——
Findings of Fact
Facts in Support: Implementation of the proposed DMP Update components would not result in
significant impacts to air quality. Temporary emissions generated from construction equipment
and fugitive dust during construction activities would be minimized by incorporation of the dust
control and construction emission control features included in Table 3-6 of the Final EIR.
Therefore, the DMP Update components would not result in a significant contribution to
cumulative air quality impacts.
2.12.7 Recreation
Finding: Implementation of the DMP Update would not result hi program or project level
cumulative impacts to recreational resources.
Facts in Support: Implementation of the proposed DMP Update components would not result in
significant impacts to recreation. Impacts to existing facilities could be experienced during
component construction, but these impacts would be short term and alternative recreation
facilities within Carlsbad would remain available for use. Therefore, the DMP Update would not
contribute to cumulative impacts to recreation.
2.12.8 Geology/Soils
Finding: Implementation of the DMP Update would not result in program or project level
cumulative impacts to geology/soils.
Facts in Support: Implementation of the proposed DMP Update components would not result in
significant impacts to geology/soils. Geologic conditions hi the region would essentially remain
the same regardless of implementation of the DMP Update, and geotechnical investigations would
be required prior to project construction. Therefore, the DMP Update would not contribute to
cumulative impacts related to geology/soils.
2.12.9 Hydrology/Water Quality
Finding: Implementation of the DMP Update would not result in program or project level
cumulative impacts to hydrology/water quality.
Facts in Support: Implementation of the proposed DMP Update components would not result in
significant hydrology/water quality impacts. The DMP Update would not substantially increase
the amount of impervious surfaces and would serve to improve overall flood control and storm
water conveyance in the City; components would also be required to comply with various water
quality control measures such as those outlined in Table 3-6 of the Final EIR. Therefore, the
project would not significantly contribute to cumulative hydrology/water quality impacts.
2.12.10 Cultural Resources
Finding: Implementation of the DMP Update would not result in program or project level
cumulative impacts to cultural resources.
CEQA Findings of Fact 29 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update .
- — 13
Findings of Fact
Facts in Support: Implementation of the proposed DMP Update components would not result in
significant impacts to cultural resources based on the mitigation measures recommended in
Section 4.11 of the Final EIR. Further, project level components B and BN are not anticipated to
impact cultural resources. Therefore, the project would not result in a considerable contribution
to significant cumulative cultural resource impacts.
2.12.11 Paleontological Resources
Finding: Implementation of the DMP Update would not result in program or project level
cumulative impacts to paleontological resources.
Facts hi Support: Implementation of the proposed DMP Update components would not result hi
significant impacts to paleontological resources based on the mitigation measures recommended
in Section 4.12 of the Final EIR. Further, project level components B and BN are not anticipated
to impact paleontological resources. Therefore, the project would not result in a considerable
contribution to a significant cumulative paleontological resource impact.
3.0 FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DETERMINED TO
BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The Final EIR identifies certain mitigation measures that have been incorporated, in all
substantive respects, into the MMRP for the DMP Update. The City, as Lead Agency, will
incorporate the MMRP into the conditions of approval of the DMP Update.
The City finds, pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(l)-(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(a)(l)-(2), that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
Project, which would avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant effects in the
following environmental categories: (1) noise; (project level); (2) biological resources (program
and project level); (3) cultural resources (program level); and, (4) paleontological resources
(program level).
The City finds that the potentially significant effects in the environmental categories specified
above have been mitigated to a level that is less than significant after implementation of
mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the MMRP. The impacts,
which have been reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation, together with the basis
for such determination, are set forth below.
3.1 NOISE (PROGRAM LEVEL)
3.1.1 Potentially Significant Impacts
The DMP Update has the potential to result in the following potentially significant program level
noise impacts:
• There would be a potentially significant noise impact if a proposed DMP Update
component would require the use of heavy construction equipment, generating noise of
75 dBA or greater within 50 feet of a sensitive receptor for a period of longer than 3 days,
CEQA Findings of Fact 30 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
Findings of Fact
or if a proposed DMP Update project component would require work to be done after
sunset or before 7:00 a.m., excluding holidays. (Noise-1)
• There would be a potentially significant vibration impact if a proposed DMP Update
component would require the use of pile drivers, generating a vibration of 0.2 in/sec or
greater at a sensitive receptor. (Noise-2)
Operation and maintenance activities identified in the DMP Update have the potential to result in
potentially significant noise impact Noise-1, stated above.
3.1.2 Finding
Mitigation measures have been identified in the Final EIR that mitigate or avoid potentially
significant program level noise impacts resulting from implementation of the DMP Update.
3.1.3 Mitigation Measures
The Final EIR found that the above potentially significant effects relating to program level noise
impacts would be mitigated to a level of less than significant through implementation of the
following mitigation measures:
Noise-1 If a proposed project component would require the use of construction equipment
that may generate noise of 75 dBA or greater within 50 feet of a sensitive receptor
for a period of longer than 3 days, or would require work to be done between
sunset and 7:00 a.m., as permitted by Municipal Code Section 8.48.020,
preparation and implementation of a project level noise evaluation shall be
required. The evaluation shall assess potential noise levels and require the
implementation of appropriate noise attenuation measures to reduce potential
noise impacts to less than 75 dBA Lcq during the daytime or to 60 dBA Leq at
nighttime. The noise evaluation shall consider the use of temporary noise walls,
noise blankets, noise-reducing enclosures for individual pieces of equipment, and
engines with special mufflers as potential noise attenuation measures. Monitoring
shall be required to demonstrate the effectiveness of the project-specific measures
to reduce noise levels to this limit. If monitoring results indicate that the
measures are not reducing noise to acceptable levels, work will cease until further
environmental analysis is performed that recommends additional noise attenuation
measures. For emergency projects as defined in Municipal Code Section
8.48.020(A), the requirement for evaluation, monitoring, and potential additional
mitigation measures shall be performed if determined feasible by the City
Engineer.
Noise-2 If a proposed project component would require the use of pile drivers, preparation
and implementation of a project level vibration evaluation shall be required. The
evaluation shall consider the potential vibration levels associated with project
construction at the nearest structure locations. The analysis shall demonstrate that
CEQA Findings of Fact 31 January 16, 2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update 116
Findings of Fact
vibration levels at those structures remain below 0.2 in/sec, or a different
construction technique resulting in vibration less than 0.2 in/sec shall be required.
3.1.4 Facts in Support
Implementation of Mitigation Measure Noise-1 will reduce potentially significant noise impacts
associated with the use of heavy construction equipment because preconstruction noise
assessments will verify that appropriate noise attenuation measures are tailored for each DMP
Update project component to reduce potential significant impacts to less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure Noise-2 will reduce potentially significant noise impacts
associated with vibration impacts because preconstruction vibration evaluations will verify that
appropriate measures are tailored for each DMP Update project component to reduce potential
significant impacts to less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures Noise-1 and
Nosie-2 will reduce potentially significant noise impacts to a level of less than significant.
3.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (PROGRAM AND PROJECT LEVEL)
3.2.1 Potentially Significant Impacts (Program Level)
The DMP Update and operation and maintenance activities have the potential to result in the
following potentially significant program level and cumulative biological resource impacts:
• Per the City's HMP, implementation of proposed DMP Update components could result
in long-term impacts if sensitive species or habitats are permanently destroyed or
degraded. This would also result in a cumulative impact to biological resources. (Bio-1)
• Long-term or permanent impacts could result from loss of sensitive habitats within the
Coastal Zone. This would contribute to the regional loss of sensitive habitats, resulting in
a cumulative impact. (Bio-2)
• The loss of state and/or federally listed plant species is considered a significant impact.
The loss of sensitive plant species at a regional level would contribute to a cumulative
impact. (Bio-3)
• Drainage facility improvements that result in substantial vegetation clearing or impede
wildlife movement within Core Areas and linkages would result in a significant impact.
(Bio-4)
3.2.2 Finding
Mitigation measures have been identified in the Final EIR that mitigate or avoid potentially
significant program level and cumulative impacts to biological resources resulting from
implementation of the DMP Update.
3.2.3 Mitigation Measures
CEQA Findings of Fact 32 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
III*
Findings of Fact
The Final EIR found that the above significant effects relating to biological impacts would be
mitigated to a level considered less than significant through implementation of the following
mitigation measures. Implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio 1-a through Bio 1-d would be
required for DMP Update components that would impact sensitive HMP habitats and would
reduce direct and cumulative impacts to below a level of significance. Note that the descriptions
of Type A through F habitats are per Table 11 of the City's HMP. Avoidance and on-site
mitigation are the priority. Future project level environmental review for DMP Update
components that would impact biological resources would be provided to the Wildlife Agencies
for review to verify consistency with the City's HMP.
Bio-la For impacts to Type A habitats (coastal salt marsh, alkali marsh, freshwater
marsh, estuarine, salt pan/mudflats, riparian forest, riparian woodland, riparian
scrub, disturbed wetlands, flood channel, fresh water, Engelmann oak woodland,
coast live oak woodland) a goal of no net loss of habitat value or function shall be
met. Habitat replacement ratios and the specific location of mitigation lands shall
be determined in consultation with the USFWS, USACE, and CDFG as
appropriate in accordance with the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act
(CWA), federal wetland policies, and the California Fish and Game Code. All
mitigation lands for impacts to riparian and wetland habitats shall be in the City or
Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) plan area, at a ratio to be
determined by the applicable Resource Agencies at the time of project permitting.
Bio-lb Impacts to Type B habitats (beach, southern coastal bluff scrub, maritime
succulent scrub, southern maritime chaparral, and native grass) shall be mitigated
at a 3:1 ratio, or at an appropriate ratio based on habitat quality and quantity as
determined in coordination with the applicable Resource Agencies at the time of
project permitting.
Bio-lc Impacts to Type C habitats (California gnatcatcher-occupied coastal sage scrub)
shall be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio, or at an appropriate ratio based on habitat quality
and quantity as determined in coordination with the applicable Resource Agencies
at the time of project permitting.
Bio-Id Impacts to Type D (unoccupied coastal sage scrub, coastal sage/chaparral mix,
chaparral), Type E (annual, normative grassland), and Type F (disturbed lands,
eucalyptus, agricultural lands) habitats are not subject to the fee payment.
Instead, these types of impacts will be mitigated at the Lake Calavera Mitigation
Bank, per the ratios included in Table 11 of the HMP. An appropriate mitigation
ratio would be determined based on habitat quality and quantity as determined in
coordination with the applicable Resource Agencies at the time of project
permitting.
Bio-le Prior to the first preconstruction meeting for each project component, the City
shall verify that the following statement is included in the construction
specifications: No clearing, grubbing, grading, or other construction activities
within occupied gnatcatcher habitat shall occur between March 1 and August 15,
CEQA Findings of Fact 33 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
Findings of Fact
the breeding season of the coastal California gnatcatcher (gnatcatcher). No
clearing, grubbing, grading, or other construction activities within or adjacent to
unoccupied habitat shall occur between March 1 and August 15, until the
requirements in Bio-lf and Bio-lg have been met to the satisfaction of the City:
Bio-If A qualified biologist (possessing a valid- Endangered Species Act Section
10(a)(l)(a) Recovery Permit) shall survey appropriate habitat areas subject to
construction noise levels exceeding 60 dBA Leq for the presence of gnatcatcher.
Gnatcatcher surveys shall be conducted pursuant to USFWS protocol survey
guidelines a minimum of 4 weeks (within the breeding season) prior to
commencement of construction. If gnatcatchers are present, then the following
conditions must be met:
• Between March 1 and August 15, no construction activities shall occur
within any portion of the site where such activities would result in noise
levels exceeding 60 dBA L^, at the edge of occupied gnatcatcher habitat.
An analysis concluding that construction-generated noise would not
exceed 60 dBA Leq at the edge of occupied habitat must be completed by a
qualified acoustician (possessing current noise engineer license or
registration, with experience monitoring noise levels for listed wildlife
species) and approved by the City at least 2 weeks prior to commencement
of construction activities; OR
• At least 2 weeks prior to commencement of construction activities, and
under the direction of a qualified acoustician, noise attenuation measures
(e.g., berms, walls) shall be implemented to ensure that construction-
generated noise will not exceed 60 dBA Leq at the edge of occupied
gnatcatcher habitat. Concurrent with commencement of construction
activities and with implementation of necessary noise attenuation
measures, noise monitoring1 shall be conducted at the edge of occupied
habitat to ensure that construction-generated noise does not exceed
60 dBA Lcq. If the noise attenuation measures implemented are
determined to be inadequate by the qualified acoustician or biologist, then
the associated construction activities shall cease until such time that
adequate noise attenuation is achieved or until the end of the breeding
season (August 15).
Bio-lg If gnatcatchers are not detected during the preconstniction survey within areas
that would be subject to construction noise levels exceeding 60 dBA Leq, the
qualified biologist shall submit substantial evidence to the City and applicable
Noise monitoring shall continue at least twice weekly on varying days, or more frequently depending on the
construction activity, to verify that noise levels at the edge of occupied habitat are maintained below 60 dBA L^
or to the ambient noise level if it already exceeds 60 dBA L^,. If not, other measures shall be implemented in
consultation with the biologist and the City, as necessary, to reduce construction-generated noise levels to below
60 dBA Leq or to the ambient noise level if it already exceeds 60 dBA Leq. Such measures may include, but are
not limited to, limitations on the placement of construction equipment and the simultaneous use of equipment.
CEQA Findings of Fact 34 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
K
Findings of Fact
regulatory agencies demonstrating whether noise attenuation measures
(e.g., berms, walls) are necessary between March 1 and August 15 as follows:
• If this evidence indicates the potential is high for gnatcatcher to be present
based on historical records or site conditions, then measure Bio-If shall be
adhered to as specified above.
• If this evidence concludes that no impacts to this species are anticipated,
no mitigation measures will be necessary.
Bio-lh Prior to the first preconstruction meeting for each project component, the City
shall verify that the following statement is included in the construction
specifications: No clearing, grubbing, grading, or other construction activities
shall occur within least Bell's vireo habitat shall occur between March 15 and
September 15 (least Bell's vireo breeding season) in occupied least Bell's vireo
habitat. No clearing, grubbing, grading, or other construction activities within or
adjacent to unoccupied least Bell's vireo habitat shall occur between March 15
and September 15 until the requirements in Bio-li and Bio-lj have been met to
the satisfaction of the City.
Bio-li A qualified biologist shall survey those wetland areas that would be subject to
construction noise levels exceeding 60 dBA Leq for the presence of least Bell's
vireo. Least Bell's vireo surveys shall be conducted a minimum of 8 weeks
(within the breeding season) prior to commencement of construction. If least
Bell's vireos are present, then the following conditions must be met:
• Between March 15 and September 15, no construction activities shall
occur within any portion of the site where such activities would result in
noise levels exceeding 60 dBA Leq at the edge of occupied least Bell's
vireo habitat. An analysis showing that construction-generated noise
would not exceed 60 dBA Leq at the edge of occupied habitat must be
completed by a qualified acoustician (possessing current noise engineer
license or registration), with experience monitoring noise levels for listed
wildlife species) and approved by the City at least 2 weeks prior to
commencement of construction activities; OR
• At least 2 weeks prior to commencement of construction activities, and
under the direction of a qualified acoustician, noise attenuation measures
(e.g., berms, walls) shall be implemented to ensure that construction-
generated noise would not exceed 60 dBA Leq at the edge of occupied
least Bell's vireo habitat. Concurrent with commencement of construction
activities and with implementation of necessary noise attenuation
measures, noise monitoring1 shall be conducted at the edge of occupied
habitat to ensure that construction-generated noise does not exceed 60
dBA Leq. If the noise attenuation measures implemented are determined
to be inadequate by the qualified acoustician or biologist, then the
CEQA Findings of Fact 35 January 16.2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update If/}m
Findings of Fact
associated construction activities shall cease until such time that adequate
noise attenuation is achieved or until the end of the breeding season
(September 16).
Bio-lj If least Bell's vireos are not detected during the preconstruction survey within
areas of potential habitat that would be subject to construction noise levels
exceeding 60 dBA Leq, the qualified biologist shall provide evidence to the City
and applicable regulatory agencies demonstrating whether noise attenuation
measures (e.g., berms, walls) are necessary between March 15 and September 15
as follows:
• If this evidence indicates the potential is high for least Bell's vireo to be
present based on historical records or site conditions, then condition li
shall be adhered to as specified above.
• If this evidence concludes that no impacts to this species are anticipated,
no mitigation measures would be necessary.
Bio-1 k Prior to the first preconstruction meeting for each phase of the proj ect component,
the City shall verify that the following statement is included in the construction
specifications: No clearing, grubbing, grading, or other construction activities
shall occur within occupied southwestern willow flycatcher habitat between May
1 and September 1 (southwestern willow flycatcher breeding season). No
clearing, grubbing, grading, or other construction activities within or adjacent to
unoccupied southwestern willow flycatcher habitat shall occur between May 1
and September 1 until the requirements in Bio-11 and Bio-1m have been met to
the satisfaction of the City.
Bio-11 A qualified biologist shall survey those wetland areas that would be subject to
construction noise levels exceeding 60 dBA Lcq for the presence of southwestern
willow flycatcher. Southwestern willow flycatcher surveys shall be conducted
pursuant to USFWS protocol survey guidelines a minimum of 6 weeks (within the
breeding season) prior to commencement of construction. If southwestern willow
flycatchers are present, then the following conditions must be met:
• Between May 1 and September 1, no construction activities shall occur
within any portion of the site where such activities would result in noise
levels exceeding 60 dBA Leq at the edge of occupied southwestern willow
flycatcher habitat. An analysis showing that construction-generated noise
would not exceed 60 dBA Leq at the edge of occupied habitat must be
completed by a qualified acoustician (possessing current noise engineer
license or registration, with experience monitoring noise levels for listed
wildlife species) and approved by the City at least 2 weeks prior to
commencement of construction activities; OR
CEQA Findings of Fact 36 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
Findings of Fact
• At least 2 weeks prior to commencement of construction activities, and
under the direction of a qualified acoustician, noise attenuation measures
(e.g., berms, walls) shall be implemented to ensure that construction-
generated noise would not exceed 60 dBA Leq at the edge of occupied
southwestern willow flycatcher habitat. Concurrent with commencement
of construction activities and with implementation of necessary noise
attenuation measures, noise monitoring1 shall be conducted at the edge of
occupied habitat to ensure that construction-generated noise does not
exceed 60 dBA Leq. If the noise attenuation measures implemented are
determined to be inadequate by the qualified acoustician or biologist, then
the associated construction activities shall cease until such time that
adequate noise attenuation is achieved or until the end of the breeding
season (September 2).
Bio-1m If southwestern willow flycatchers are not detected during the preconstruction
survey within areas of potential habitat that would be subject to construction noise
levels exceeding 60 dBA Leq, the qualified biologist shall submit substantial
evidence to the City and applicable regulatory agencies demonstrating whether
noise attenuation measure (e.g., berms, walls) are necessary between May 1 and
September 1 as follows:
• If this evidence indicates the potential is high for southwestern willow
flycatcher to be present based on historical records or site conditions, then
measure Bio-11 shall be adhered to as specified above.
• If this evidence concludes that no impacts to this species are anticipated,
no mitigation measures would be necessary.
Bio-In To identify the presence/absence of sensitive and/or native fish species within
potential aquatic habitat (e.g., freshwater species such as the tidewater goby), the
following measure shall be implemented:
• Conduct a trapping/netting study; if sensitive native fish are detected, then
(1) trapping and translocation of the sensitive fish shall occur, and/or
(2) exclusionary trapping shall be placed to prevent sensitive fish species
from entering the area of disturbance during in-stream activity.
Bio-lo Where required, protocol-level surveys will be conducted for sensitive plant or
wildlife species prior to construction of DMP Update components, as required by
the Wildlife Agencies.
Bio-2a For DMP Update components that would result in the loss of sensitive habitats
within the Coastal Zone, mitigation shall be required at ratios consistent with
requirements of the HMP, including Standards 7-1 through 7-14 of Section D, and
the policies and provisions of the Local Coastal Program (LCP).
CEQA Findings of Fact 37 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
Findings of Fact
Bio-2b Mitigation ratios shall be consistent with the provisions of the HMP and LCP.
For all projects affecting riparian and wetland habitat, habitat replacement ratios
and the specific location of mitigation lands shall be determined in consultation
with the USFWS, USAGE, and CDFG as appropriate in accordance with the
requirements of the federal CWA, federal wetland policies, and the California
Fish and Game Code. For DMP Update components with unavoidable impacts,
the City shall either: (1) demonstrate that viable wetlands can be created at a
minimum ratio of 1:1 within close proximity of the impact area to replace the
wildlife function affected by the project; or (2) provide proof that wetland
creation credits at a minimum ratio of 1:1 have been purchased at a Wildlife
Agency approved bank. Consistent with the City's HMP, higher ratios will be
required for impacts to high-quality wetlands (e.g., occupied by listed or
otherwise sensitive species) and for wetlands within the Coastal Zone. For DMP
Update components where wetland creation will be necessary, construction shall
not be initiated until a viable wetland creation mitigation site with long-term value
is identified (and if necessary purchased by the City) and the wetland mitigation
plan is approved by the appropriate Resource Agencies. The wetland creation
shall not require impacts to sensitive wildlife or vegetation communities. All
mitigation lands for impacts to riparian and wetland habitats shall be in the City or
MHCP plan area as deemed appropriate by the Wildlife Agencies.
Bio-3 As needed, surveys for state and federally listed sensitive plant species shall be
conducted to complete a determination of suitable habitat presence prior to
implementation of DMP Update components. Surveys shall be conducted at a
time when sensitive plant species would be most observable.
Bio-4 At the project design stage for the DMP Update components located within key
Core Areas and linkages, design measures and restoration efforts shall be required
to maintain the viability of the wildlife corridors throughout Carlsbad.
3.2.4 Facts in Support
Implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-la through Bio-Id will reduce potentially
significant impacts to sensitive habitat because they require replacement of disturbed habitat with
preserved habitat at ratios determined in consultation with the Resource Agencies. This measure
will verify that despite disturbance of habitat caused by development, sensitive habitat remains
viable throughout the city. Implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-le through Bio-1m will
reduce potentially significant impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica),
least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), and southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii
extimus) because they require the avoidance of breeding seasons, and preconstruction screening
of surrounding habitat to determine the existence of nesting birds. This will verify that
appropriate steps are taken to protect the species from noise generated by the nearby
construction.
CEQA Findings of Fact 38 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
Findings of Fact
Implementation of Mitigation Measure Bio-In will reduce potentially significant impacts to
native fish because it requires preconstruction identification of such species in water bodies
potentially affected by construction activities to verify appropriate protective steps are taken
prior to in-stream activities.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure Bio-lo will reduce potentially significant impacts to
additional wildlife species through the requirement of preconstruction protocol surveys as
directed by the state and federal Wildlife Agencies. These surveys will identify whether any
species requiring protective measures are present within the project sites. Through
implementation of Mitigation Measure Bio-lo, potentially significant impacts to sensitive habitat
and species will be reduced to less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-2a and 2b will reduce potentially significant impacts
resulting from loss of sensitive habitats within the Coastal Zone because disturbed habitat shall
be replaced at ratios consistent with requirements of the City's HMP and determined in
consultation with the Wildlife Agencies. Wetland loss will require approval by the Resource
Agencies of a viable wetland creation mitigation site with long-term value prior to initiation of
construction. This measure will verify the continued viability of coastal habitat through
preservation and restoration. Through implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-2a and 2b,
potentially significant impacts to sensitive habitat within the Coastal Zone will be reduced to less
than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-3 will reduce potentially significant impacts
resulting from loss of sensitive plant species because preconstruction surveys are required to
determine the existence of sensitive plants in the vicinity of each project so appropriate
protective steps can be taken. Through implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-3,
potentially significant impacts to sensitive plants will be reduced to less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure Bio-4 will reduce potentially significant impacts resulting
from impeding wildlife movement within Core Areas and linkages because each component of
the DMP Update must be designed to preserve wildlife movement within the drainages.
Through implementation of Mitigation Measure Bio-4, potentially significant impacts associated
with wildlife movement will be reduced to less than significant.
3.2.5 Potentially Significant Impacts (Project Level)
DMP Update project components B and BN and have the potential to result in the following
project level potentially significant biological impacts:
• The loss of 0.08 acres of willow riparian forest is considered a significant and cumulative
impact and requires compensatory mitigation (i.e., creation, restoration, and/or
replacement of in-kind habitat). (Bio-5)
• Loss of wetland and riparian habitat within the Coastal Zone is considered a significant
and cumulative impact. (Bio-6)
CEQA Findings of Fact 39 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
IZ3
Findings of Fact
• Proposed dredging and improvements within Agua Hedionda Creek (area adjacent to
Cannon Road Bridge) have the potential to result in significant indirect impacts to least
Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and light-footed clapper rail. (Bio-7)
3.2.6 Finding
Mitigation measures have been identified in the Final EIR that mitigate or avoid potentially
significant impacts to biological resources resulting from implementation of the DMP Update
components B and BN,
3.2.7 Mitigation
The Final EIR found that the above significant effects relating to project level biological impacts
would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant through implementation of the
following mitigation measures:
Bio-5 Mitigation measures listed for Bio-la, and Bio-2a and 2b shall be implemented as
applicable to address project-specific vegetation impacts within Agua Hedionda
and Calavera creeks.
Bio-6 The project shall mitigate impacts to wetland and riparian habitat through on-site
restoration and/or off-site wetland and riparian habitat creation/restoration/
enhancement at a ratio to be determined in coordination with the applicable
Resource Agencies at the time of permitting, consistent with LCP and HMP
policies and provisions, as applicable. If adequate acreage to satisfy mitigation is
not available on-site and/or at the Lake Calavera Mitigation Bank, then alternative
mitigation credits may be purchased from the North County Mitigation Bank, or
other alternative sites deemed acceptable by the Resource Agencies.
Bio-7a If dredging and improvement activities cannot be conducted outside the breeding
season for sensitive wildlife species, then prior to commencement of construction
activities, a preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to
determine presence/absence of nesting birds. If nesting birds are detected on-site,
vegetation removal shall be 'delayed until the chicks have fledged or the nest has
failed.
Bio-7b To address potential impacts to the light-footed clapper rail, a qualified biologist
shall survey the area and surrounding 500-foot buffer area for light-footed clapper
rails prior to implementation of dredging activities. There is no need to survey
the area upstream of El Camino Real since this area is void of suitable clapper rail
habitat (freshwater marsh). If clapper rails are detected in the project area, they
should be flushed, prior to the onset of any vegetation removal.
Bio-7c For potential indirect impacts to least Bell's vireo, Mitigation Measures Bio 1-h
through Bio 1-j shall be implemented, as applicable.
CEQA Findings of Fact 40 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
Findings of Fact
Bio-7d For potential indirect impacts to southwestern willow flycatcher, implementation
Mitigation Measures Bio-Ik through Bio-lm shall be implemented, as applicable.
Bio-7e To discourage sensitive bird species from entering active construction areas
between El Camino Real and Cannon Road bridges, a physical barrier
(construction fence) shall be installed on the downstream side of Cannon Road
before dredging or vegetation removal commences. The barrier would be
removed once the construction activity has ceased on the south side of El Camino
Real.
3.2.8 Facts in Support
Implementation of Mitigation Measure Bio-5 will reduce potentially significant impacts resulting
from the loss of 0.08 acres of willow riparian forest because habitat replacement will be required
for the disturbed willow riparian forest at ratios determined in consultation with state and federal
Wildlife Agencies. Through implementation of Mitigation Measure Bio-5, potentially
significant impacts to 0.08 acres of willow riparian forest will be reduced to less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure Bio-6 will reduce potentially significant impacts resulting
from the loss of wetland and riparian habitat within the Coastal Zone because wetland habitat
restoration and creation are required for all impacts at ratios determined in coordination with the
applicable Resource Agencies. Through implementation of Mitigation Measure Bio-6,
potentially significant impacts to riparian habitat will be reduced to less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-7a through Bio-7e will reduce potentially significant
impacts resulting from the indirect impacts to least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher,
and light-footed clapper rail because preconstruction surveys of the project areas will verify that
appropriate measures are taken prior to disturbance of vegetation. Through implementation of
Mitigation Measures Bio-7a through Bio-7e, potentially significant impacts to least Bell's vireo,
southwestern willow flycatcher, and light-footed clapper rail will be reduced to less than
significant.
3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES (PROGRAM LEVEL)
3.3.1 Potentially Significant Impacts
The DMP Update has the potential to result in the following potentially significant program level
impacts to cultural resources:
• For those areas not adequately surveyed, as identified in Tables 4.11-2 and 4.11-3 of the
Final EIR, roads traversing previously undisturbed areas or projects requiring surface
disturbance in undeveloped areas could potentially lead to significant impacts to surface
cultural deposits. (Cult-1)
• Ground-disturbing project activities or excavation into intact native soils could potentially
impact significant cultural resources that have not yet been discovered. (Cult-2)
CEQA Findings of Fact 41 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
Findings of Fact
The operation and maintenance activities of the DMP Update have the potential to result in
potentially significant impact Cult-1, stated above.
3.3.2 Finding
Mitigation measures have been identified in the Final EIR that mitigate or avoid potentially
significant program level impacts to cultural resources resulting from implementation of the
DMP Update.
3.3.3 Mitigation Measures
The Final EIR found that the above significant effects relating to program level and operation
and maintenance activities would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant through
implementation of the following mitigation measures:
Cult-1 The following mitigation measures will be required if a proposed PLDA or non-
PLDA component is located in an undeveloped area that could potentially impact
significant cultural deposits, as indicated in Tables 4.11-2 and 4.11-3. In addition,
for any operation and maintenance activities that will require temporary
construction of an access road through previously undeveloped or undisturbed
areas, the following mitigation measures will be required prior to construction.
a) Preconstruction Requirements - Prior to the start of construction, a
pedestrian survey shall be conducted under the supervision of a qualified
archaeologist for previously undisturbed areas that have not been surveyed
or adequately surveyed (e.g., the area was surveyed with outdated or non-
protocol methods). The survey shall be conducted in parallel linear
transects spaced no farther than 10 meters apart in undeveloped areas.
1) Cultural resources, if found during the survey, shall be photographed,
mapped using a global positioning system (GPS), and recorded on the
appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation forms
(DPR Form 523A/B). The forms shall be submitted to the South
Coastal Information Center (SCIC) for the assignment of Primary
numbers within 1 week of the survey.
2) Within 1 month of completion of the field survey, a draft letter report
or technical report shall be submitted to the City for review, whether
the survey is negative or positive. A final report shall be submitted
within 6 weeks of receipt of the City's comments, with a copy
submitted to the SCIC for their files.
b) If the pedestrian survey is positive, the qualified archaeologist shall conduct
an updated archival search, if needed, as well as additional detailed field
testing. Local Native American groups shall be contacted for testing of
prehistoric cultural resources regarding the project. Where applicable, the
CEQA Findings of Fact 42 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
Findings of Fact
City will execute a Pre-Excavation Agreement with the appropriate Native
American groups.
1) Prior to the start of field testing, surface artifacts and/or features shall
be marked and mapped using a GPS. Testing shall be required if
surface artifacts are discovered, and shall include a program of
30-centimeter-diameter shovel test pits (STPs) to define site
boundaries and identify the potential for a substantial subsurface
deposit.
2) Based on the results of the STPs, additional measures such as Test
Excavation Units or mechanical trenching (for substantial historic
sites) would be placed in areas with the potential for a substantial
subsurface deposit, as determined by the qualified archeologist.
3) All excavated soils shall be screened through 1/8-inch mesh hardware
cloth. On completion of the project, the artifact collection, along with
copies of the catalogs and the technical report, shall be permanently
curated at the San Diego Archaeological Center. An updated site
record shall be prepared and submitted to the SCIC.
4) Within 3 months of completion of the fieldwork, a draft technical
report including evaluations and recommendations shall be prepared
and submitted. The final technical report shall be submitted within
6 weeks of receipt of the City's comments.
Cult-2 Monitoring Requirements - Construction monitoring will be required for
proposed PLDA or non-PLDA DMP Update components that involve excavation
or grading within undisturbed native soils and could potentially impact subsurface
cultural deposits, as indicated in Tables 4.11-2 and 4.11-3.
a) Prior to the first preconstruction meeting for the project, the Planning
Director (PD) shall verify that the requirements for archaeological
monitoring and Native American monitoring, if applicable, have been noted
on the appropriate construction documents. The applicant shall retain a
qualified archaeologist to verify that a records search has been completed
and updated, as necessary, and to implement the monitoring program. At
the preconstruction meeting, the archaeologist shall submit to the PD a copy
of the site/grading plan that identifies areas to be monitored.
b) The qualified archaeologist shall be present full-time during grading/
excavation of native soils with the potential to contain buried cultural
features or deposits and shall document activity via the Consultant Monitor
Record. Monitoring of trenches shall include mainline, laterals, services,
and all other appurtenances that impact native soils 1 foot deeper than
existing as detailed on the plans or in the contract documents. It is the
CEQA Findings of Fact 43 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update . .
ILT
Findings of Fact
construction manager's responsibility to keep the archaeological monitors
up-to-date with current plans.
c) In the event of a discovery, the archaeologist, or the Principal Investigator
(PI) if the monitor is not qualified as a PI, shall divert, direct, or temporarily
halt ground-disturbing activities in the area of the discovery to allow for
preliminary evaluation of potentially significant archaeological resources.
The PI shall also immediately notify the construction manager and the PD of
such findings at the time of discovery.
1) The significance of the discovered resources shall be assessed by the
PI. For significant archaeological resources, a Research Design and
Data Recovery Program shall be prepared and implemented by the
qualified archaeologist. The results of the Research Design and Data
Recovery Program shall be approved by the City before ground-
disturbing activities in the area of discovery shall be allowed to
resume.
d) If human remains are discovered, work shall halt in that area and procedures
set forth in the California Public Resources Code (Sec. 5097.98) and State
Health and Safety Code (Sec. 7050.5) shall be implemented. Construction
in that area shall not resume until the remains have been evaluated and
conveyed to appropriate descendants or reinterred to the satisfaction of the
PI.
e) The archaeologist shall notify the PD, in writing, of the end date of
monitoring. The archaeologist shall be responsible for ensuring that all
cultural remains collected are cleaned, catalogued, and permanently curated
with an appropriate institution; that a letter of acceptance from the curation
institution has been submitted to the Planning Department; that all artifacts
are analyzed to identify function and chronology as they relate to the history
of the area; that faunal material is identified as to species; and that specialty
studies are completed, as appropriate.
f) Within 3 months following the completion of monitoring, the Draft Results
Report (even if negative) and/or evaluation report, if applicable, which
describes the results, analysis, and conclusions of the Archaeological
Monitoring Program (with appropriate graphics) shall be submitted to the
PD for approval. For significant archaeological resources encountered
during monitoring, the Research Design and Data Recovery Program shall
be included as part of the Draft Results Report. The qualified archaeologist
shall be responsible for recording (on the appropriate State of California
Department of Park and Recreation forms-DPR 523 A/B) any significant or
potentially significant resources encountered during the Archaeological
Monitoring Program, and submitting such forms to the SCIC with the Final
Results Report.
CEQA Findings of Fact 44 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
Findings of Fact
3.3.4 Facts in Support
Implementation of Mitigation Measure Cult-1 will reduce potentially significant program level
impacts resulting from roads or surface disturbance through areas not adequately surveyed
because any unsurveyed area will undergo preconstruction surveys to verify adequate steps are
taken to protect and preserve any identified cultural resources. Through implementation of
Mitigation Measure Cult-1 potentially significant program level impacts to cultural resources
will be reduced to less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure Cult-2 will reduce potentially significant program level
impacts to undiscovered resources because an on-site construction monitor will be present during
excavation and grading of areas with potential resources to verify that ground-disturbing
activities are halted should resources be located. Through implementation of Mitigation
Measure Cult-2 potentially significant program level impacts to cultural resources will be
reduced to less than significant.
3.4 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.4.1 Potentially Significant Impacts
The DMP Update and operation and maintenance activities have the potential to result in the
following potentially significant program level impact to paleontological resources:
• Grading and earthwork could disturb potentially unknown fossil remains and the
information in the fossils could be lost. (Paleo-1)
3.4.2 Finding
Mitigation measures have been identified in Final EIR that mitigate or avoid potentially
significant program level impacts to paleontological resources resulting from implementation of
the DMP Update.
3.4.3 Mitigation Measures
The Final EIR found that the above significant effect relating to program level and operation and
maintenance activities would be mitigated to a level considered less than significant through
implementation of the following mitigation measure:
Paleo-1 A monitoring program shall be prepared and implemented if excavation into
intact geologic formations with moderate to high sensitivity is proposed.
Components of such a monitoring program shall include, but not be limited to, the
following:
a) A qualified paleontological monitor shall be present at a pregrading meeting
with the construction contractor and PD (Planning Director) of the City
Planning Department. The purpose of the meeting will be to consult and
coordinate the role of the paleontologist during construction. The
CEQA Findings of Fact 45 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
Findings of Fact
paleontological monitor shall have adequate knowledge and experience with
fossilized remains likely to be present to identify them in the field. The
paleontological monitor shall be adequately experienced to remove
paleontological resources for further study.
b) The paleontological monitor shall be present during the applicable stages of
grading and construction (including trenching), as determined at the
pregrading meeting. The paleontological monitor shall have the authority to
temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading in the area of an exposed fossil to
facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage. At the discretion of the
monitor, recovery may include washing and picking of soil samples for
microvertebrate bone and teeth. Construction activities in the area of
discovery shall resume upon notification by the paleontologist that fossil
remains have been recovered. The City shall ensure the contractor is aware
of the random nature of fossil occurrences and the possibility of a discovery
of such scientific and/or educational importance that it might warrant a
long-term salvage operation or preservation. All fossils collected shall be
donated to a museum with a systematic paleontological collection, such as
the San Diego Natural History Museum. The City shall ensure the grading
contractor is aware of this provision. Conflicts regarding the role and
authority of the monitor shall be resolved by the PD or his/her designee.
c) Collected fossils shall be cleaned and/or prepared to a point of
identification, and then curated to museum standards (cataloging of locality
and specimen data, numbering, identification, labeling) before being
deposited in an appropriate public facility (or facilities) mat can provide
permanent archival storage (so that specimens are available for future
scientific study). A report detailing the mitigation and any discoveries shall
be prepared and submitted to the City within 3 months following
termination of the paleontological monitoring program, even if negative.
The report shall include necessary maps, graphics, and fossil lists to
adequately document the paleontological monitoring program.
3.4.4 Facts in Support
Implementation of Mitigation Measure Paleo-1 will reduce potentially significant impacts
resulting from the potential disturbance and loss of fossil remains because the preconstruction
monitoring program will verify that steps will be taken to protect and preserve fossils if
unearthed during excavation and/or grading. Through implementation of Mitigation Measure
Paleo-1 potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources will be reduced to less than
significant.
3.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS (BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES)
3.5.1 Potentially Significant Impacts
CEQA Findings of Fact 46 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update /O A
Findings of Fact
The DMP Update would result in potentially significant long-term impacts to biological
resources. These impacts would be cumulatively significant when considered together with
other development projects in the City and the region due to the loss of sensitive habitat.
3.5.2 Finding
Mitigation measures have been identified in Final EIR that mitigate or avoid potentially
significant cumulative impacts to biological resources resulting from implementation of the
DMP Update.
3.5.3 Mitigation Measures
The Final EIR found that cumulative significant biological impacts would be mitigated to a level
considered less than significant through implementation of mitigation measures discussed above
in Sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.7, and detailed in Section 4.10 of the Final EIR.
3.5.4 Facts in Support
Implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-1 through Bio-7 would reduce significant
cumulative biological impacts to less than significant because of the rationale discussed above in
Sections 3.2.4 and 3.2.8.
4.0 FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The City, acting as the Lead Agency under CEQA, finds that the Final EIR identifies no
significant unavoidable impacts.
CEQA Sections 21081 and 21081.5 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provide that the City
shall not approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified that identifies one or
more significant environmental effects of the project unless the City makes one or more of the
following Findings for each significant effect, based on substantial evidence in the record:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect;
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the agency making the finding, and such changes
have been, or can and should be, adopted by such other agency; and/or
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final
EIR.
The City has determined that mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR will substantially
lessen the significant impacts identified above in Section 3 of these Findings. Such mitigation
measures have been incorporated into the MMRP, which will be included as a condition of the
City's approval of the DMP Update.
CEQA Findings of Fact 47 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
Findings of Fact
5.0 FINDINGS REGARDING INFEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES
In preparing and adopting findings, a lead agency need not necessarily address the feasibility of
both mitigation measures and alternatives when contemplating approval of a project with
significant impacts. Where a significant impact can be mitigated to an acceptable level solely by
the adoption of mitigation measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to
consider the feasibility of environmentally superior alternatives, even if their impacts would be
less severe than those of the project as mitigated. [Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City
Council (1978) 83 Cal. App. 3d 515, 521; Kings County Farm Bureau v. Citv of Hanford (1990)
221 Cal. App. 3d 692, 730-731; Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the
University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 400-403.] Therefore, because the DMP Update
would not result in any significant immitigable impacts, no findings are required regarding
infeasible alternatives.
6.0 FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGES
The DMP Update would cause irreversible environmental changes consisting of the following:
Alteration of the human environment as a consequence of the development process. In
particular, the DMP Update would result in the alteration of natural drainages, sensitive
biological habitats, and wetlands to provide drainage improvements, flood protection, and
indirect improvements to storm water quality control. Impacts to these sensitive resources would
be reduced to a less than significant level with the mitigation measures included in the Final EIR.
Use of nonrenewable natural resources for construction, operation, and maintenance of project
components. The proposed DMP Update would not use nonrenewable fossil fuels, such as
diesel, gasoline, or oil for construction equipment at a greater rate than other typical construction
projects; increase the overall rate of use of any nonrenewable natural resource; or result in the
substantial depletion of any nonrenewable resource.
7.0 FINDINGS REGARDING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
The City Council hereby adopts the MMRP attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B. In the
event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures set forth herein and the MMRP,
the MMRP shall control. The MMRP will be adopted as part of the conditions of approval for
the DMP Update, pursuant to CEQA Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097.
CEQA Findings of Fact 48 January 16,2008
EIR 04-02 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update ^
„ .„ _ , /o^—
Page 1 of 14
PROJECT NAME: City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan <DMP)
Update (includes Aqua Hedionda and Calavera Creek Project)
FILE NUMBERS: EIR 04-02/LCPA
02/HMPP 06-03/CDP 06-04
Exhibit EIR-B
07-06/ZCA 07-04/SUP 06-
APPROVAL DATE: fClick Here!
The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate
identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that
this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly
Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Type
Monitoring
Department
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
Program Level Mitigation Measures - DMP Update Components
Noise-1 If a proposed project component would require the use of
constructfon equipment that may generate noise of 75 dBA
within 50 feet of a sensitive receptor for a period of longer than
3 days, or would require work to be done between sunset and
7:00 a.m., as permitted by Municipal Code Section 8.48.020,
preparation and implementation of a project level noise
evaluation shall be required. The evaluation shall assess
potential noise levels and require the implementation of
appropriate noise attenuation measures to reduce potential
noise impacts to less than 75 dBA L*, during the daytime or to
60 dBA Leq at nighttime. The noise evaluation shall consider
the use of temporary noise walls, noise blankets, noise-
reducing enclosures for individual pieces of equipment, and
engines with special mufflers as potential noise attenuation
measures. Monitoring shall be required to demonstrate the
effectiveness of the project-specific measures to reduce noise
levels to this limit. If monitoring results indicate that the
measures are not reducing noise to acceptable levels, work
will cease until further environmental analysis is performed that
recommends additional noise attenuation measures. For
emergency projects as defined in Municipal Code Section
8.48.020(A), the requirement for evaluation, monitoring, and
potential additional mitigation measures shall be performed if
determined feasible by the City Engineer.
Noise-2 If a proposed project component would require the use of pile
drivers, preparation and implementation of a project level
vibration evaluation shall be required. The evaluation shall
consider the potential vibration levels associated with project
construction at the nearest structure locations. The analysis
shall demonstrate that vibration levels at those structures
Pre-
construction/
Construction
Pre-
construction/
Construction
City of Carlsbad,
Engineering -
Public Works
City of Carlsbad,
Engineering -
Public Works
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Pre-Construction, Construction, Post-Construction
Monitoring Department = Department or Agency responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated
Remarks = Notes on status of ongoing mitigation measure or other information
Page 2 of 14 Exhibit EIR-B
Mitigation Measure
remain below 0.2 in/sec, or a different construction technique
resulting in vibration less than 0.2 in/sec shall be required.
Monitoring
Type
Monitoring
department
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
Implementation of mitigation measures Bio 1-a through Bio 1-d would be required for DMP Update components that would impact sensitive Habitat Management Plan (HMP )
habitats and would reduce direct and cumulative impacts to below a level of significance. Note that the descriptions of Type A through F habitats are per Table 11 of the HMP.
Avoidance and on-srte mitigation are the priority. Future project level environmental review for DMP Update components that would impact biological resources would be
provided to the Wildlife Agencies for review to verify consistency with the City's HMP.
Bio-1a For impacts to Type A habitats (coastal salt marsh, alkali
marsh, freshwater marsh, estuarine, salt pan/mudflats, riparian
forest, riparian woodland, riparian scrub, disturbed wetlands,
flood channel, fresh water, Engelmann oak woodland, coast
live oak woodland) a goal of no net loss of habitat value or
function shall be met. Habitat replacement ratios and the
specific location of mitigation lands shall be determined in
consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), and California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) as appropriate in
accordance with the requirements of the federal Clean Water
Act (CWA), federal wetland policies, and the California Fish
and Game Code. All mitigation lands for impacts to riparian
and wetland habitats shall be in the City or Multiple Habitat
Conservation Program (MHCP) plan area, at a ratio to be
determined by the applicable resource agencies at the time of
project permitting.
Bio-1b Impacts to Type B habitats (beach, southern coastal bluff
scrub, maritime succulent scrub, southern maritime chaparral,
native grass) shall be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio, or at an
appropriate ratio based on habitat quality and quantity as
determined in coordination with the applicable resource
agencies at the time of project permitting.
Bio-1c Impacts to Type C habitats (California gnatcatcher-occupied
coastal sage scrub) shall be mitigated at a 2:1 ratio, or at an
appropriate ratio based on habitat quality and quantity as
determined in coordination with the applicable resource
agencies at the time of project permitting.
Bio-1d Impacts to Type D (unoccupied coastal sage scrub, coastal
sage/chaparral mix, chaparral), Type E (annual, nonnative
grassland), and Type F (disturbed lands, eucalyptus,
agricultural lands) habitats are not subject to the fee payment.
Instead, these types of impacts will be mitigated at the Lake
Calavera Mitigation Bank, per the ratios included in HMP Table
1 1 . An appropriate mitigation ratio would be determined based
on habitat quality and quantity as determined in coordination
with the applicable resource agencies at the time of project
Pre-
construction/
Post-
Construction
Pre-
construction/
Post-
Construction
Pre-
construction/
Post-
Construction
Pre-
construction/
Post-
Construction
City of Carlsbad,
Engineering -
Public Works;
Planning
City of Carlsbad,
Engineering -
Public Works;
Planning
City of Carlsbad,
Engineering -
Public Works;
Planning
City of Carlsbad,
Engineering -
Public Works;
Planning
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Pre-Construction, Construction, Post-Construction
Monitoring Department = Department or Agency responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated
Remarks = Notes on status of ongoing mitigation measure or other information
Page 3 of 14 Exhibit EIR-B
MKIgation Measure
permitting.
Monitoring
type
Monitoring
Department ,
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
Implementation of mitigation measures Bio-1e through Bio-1g shall be required for DMP components that would result in indirect impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher,
within 150 m (500 ft) of the proposed project footprint, from construction-g
Bio-1e Prior to the first preconstruction meeting for each project
component, the City shall verify that the following statement is
included in the construction specifications: No clearing,
grubbing, grading, or other construction activities within
occupied gnatcatcher habitat shall occur between March 1 and
August 15, the breeding season of the gnatcatcher. No
clearing, grubbing, grading, or other construction activities
within or adjacent to unoccupied habitat shall occur between
March 1 and August 15, until the requirements in Bio-1f and
Bio-1g have been met to the satisfaction of the City.
Bio-1f A qualified Biologist (possessing a valid Endangered Species
Act Section 10(a)(1)(a) Recovery Permit) shall survey
appropriate habitat areas subject to construction noise levels
exceeding 60 decibels (dBA) hourly equivalent (Uq) for the
presence of gnatcatcher. Gnatcatcher surveys shall be
conducted a minimum of 4 weeks (within the breeding season)
prior to commencement of construction. If gnatcatchers are
present, then the following conditions must be met:
• Between March 1 and August 15, no construction activities
shall occur within any portion of the site where such
activities would result in noise levels exceeding 60 dBA Uq
at the edge of occupied gnatcatcher habitat. An analysis
concluding that construction-generated noise would not
exceed 60 dBA Uq at the edge of occupied habitat must be
completed by a qualified Acoustician (possessing current
noise engineer license or registration, with experience
monitoring noise levels for listed wildlife species) and
approved by the City at least 2 weeks prior to
commencement of construction activities; OR
• At least 2 weeks prior to commencement of construction
activities, and under the direction of a qualified Acoustician,
noise attenuation measures (e.g., berms, walls) shall be
implemented to ensure that construction-generated noise
will not exceed 60 dBA Uq at the edge of occupied
gnatcatcher habitat. Concurrent with commencement of
construction activities and with implementation of
necessary noise attenuation measures, noise monitoring
shall be conducted at the edge of occupied habitat to
ensure that construction-generated noise does not exceed
enerated noise and would reduce impacts to below a level of significance:
Pre-
Construction
Pre-
Construction/
Construction
City of Carlsbad,
Engineering -
Public Works;
Planning
City of Carlsbad,
Engineering -
Public Works;
Planning
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Pre-Construction, Construction, Post-Construction
Monitoring Department = Department or Agency responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated
Remarks = Notes on status of ongoing mitigation measure or other information
Page 4 of 14 Exhibit EIR-B
Mitigation Measure
'- ™ ---.V •'. •-:• .' .*- •=- •'.-" .
60 dBA Uq. If the noise attenuation measures
implemented are determined to be inadequate by the
qualified Acoustician or Biologist, then the associated
construction activities shall cease until such time that
adequate noise attenuation is achieved or until the end of
the breeding season (August 15).
Bio-lg If gnatcatchers are not detected during the preconstruction
survey within areas that would be subject to construction noise
levels exceeding 60 dBA Uq, the qualified Biologist shall
submit substantial evidence to the City and applicable
regulatory agencies demonstrating whether noise attenuation
measures (e.g., berms, walls) are necessary between March 1
and August 15 as follows:
• If this evidence indicates the potential is high for
gnatcatcher to be present based on historical records or
site conditions, then measure Bio-1f shall be adhered to as
specified above.
• If this evidence concludes that no impacts to this species
are anticipated, no mitigation measures will be necessary.
Monitoring
Pre-
Construction/
Construction
Monitoring
Department
City of Carlsbad,
Engineering -
Public Works;
Planning
Shown on
Plan!
Verifted
implementation Remarks
Implementation of mitigation measures Bfo-1h through Bio-1j shad be required for DMP components that result in indirect impacts to the least Bell's vireo, within 150 m (500
ft) of the proposed project footprint, from construction-generated noise and would reduce impacts to below a level of significance:
Bio-1h Prior to the first preconstruction meeting for each project
component, the City shall verify that the following statement is
included in the construction specifications: No clearing,
grubbing, grading, or other construction activities shall occur
between March 15 and September 15 (least Bell's vireo
breeding season) in occupied least Bell's vireo habitat. No
clearing, grubbing, grading, or other construction activities
within or adjacent to unoccupied least Bell's vireo habitat shall
occur between March 15 and September 15 until the
requirements in Bio-1i and Bio-1j have been met to the
satisfaction of the City.
Bio-1i A qualified Biologist shall survey those wetland areas that
would be subject to construction noise levels exceeding 60
dBA Uq for the presence of least Bell's vireo. Least Bell's
vireo surveys shall be conducted a minimum of 8 weeks
(within the breeding season) prior to commencement of
construction. If least Bell's vireos are present, then the
following conditions must be met:
• Between March 15 and September 15, no construction
activities shall occur within any oortion of the site where
Pre-
construction
Pre-
Construction/
Construction
City of Carlsbad,
Engineering -
Public Works;
Planning
City of Carlsbad,
Engineering -
Public Works;
Planning
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Pre-Construction, Construction, Post-Construction
Monitoring Department = Department or Agency responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated
Remarks = Notes on status of ongoing mitigation measure or other information
Page 5 of 14 Exhibit EIR-B
Mitigation Measure
such activities would result in noise levels exceeding 60
dBA Leq at the edge of occupied least Bell's vireo habitat.
An analysis showing that construction-generated noise
would not exceed 60 dBA U, at the edge of occupied
habitat must be completed by a qualified Acoustician
(possessing current noise engineer license or registration),
with experience monitoring noise levels for listed wildlife
species) and approved by the City at least 2 weeks prior to
commencement of construction activities; OR
• At least 2 weeks prior to commencement of construction
activities, and under the direction of a qualified Acoustician,
noise attenuation measures (e.g., berms, walls) shall be
implemented to ensure that construction-generated noise
would not exceed 60 dBA Leq at the edge of occupied least
Bell's vireo habitat. Concurrent with commencement of
construction activities and with implementation of
necessary noise attenuation measures, noise monitoring1
shall be conducted at the edge of occupied habitat to
ensure that construction-generated noise does not exceed
60 dBA Leq. If the noise attenuation measures
implemented are determined to be inadequate by the
qualified Acoustician or Biologist, then the associated
construction activities shall cease until such time that
adequate noise attenuation is achieved or until the end of
the breeding season (September 16).
Bio-1j If least Bell's vireos are not detected during the
preconstruction survey within areas of potential habitat that
would be subject to construction noise levels exceeding 60
dBA Leq, the qualified Biologist shall provide evidence to the
City and applicable regulatory agencies demonstrating
whether noise attenuation measures (e.g., berms, walls) are
necessary between March 15 and September 15 as follows:
• If this evidence indicates the potential is high for least Bell's
vireo to be present based on historical records or site
conditions, then condition 1i shall be adhered to as
specified above.
• If this evidence concludes that no impacts to this species
are anticipated, no mitigation measures would be
necessary.
Monitoring
Type
Pre-
Construction/
Construction
Monitoring
Department
City of Carlsbad,
Engineering -
Public Works;
Planning
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
Implementation of mitigation measures Bio-1k through Bio-1m shall be required for DMP components that would result in indirect impacts to the southwestern willow
flycatcher, within 1 50 m (500 ft) of the proposed project footprint, from construction-generated noise and would reduce impacts to below a level of significance:
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Pre-Construction, Construction, Post-Construction
Monitoring Department = Department or Agency responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated
Remarks = Notes on status of ongoing mitigation measure or other information
Page 6 of 14 Exhibit El R-B
Mitigation Measure :
Bio-1k Prior to the first preconstruction meeting for each phase of the
project component, the City shall verify that the following
statement is included in the construction specifications: No
clearing, grubbing, grading, or other construction activities
shall occur within occupied southwestern willow flycatcher
habitat between May 1 and September 1 (southwestern willow
flycatcher breeding season). No clearing, grubbing, grading,
or other construction activities within or adjacent to unoccupied
southwestern willow flycatcher habitat shall occur between
May 1 and September 1 until the requirements in Bio-11 and
Bio-1 m have been met to the satisfaction of the City.
Bio-11 A qualified Biologist shall survey those wetland areas that
would be subject to construction noise levels exceeding 60
dBA Uq for the presence of southwestern willow flycatcher.
Southwestern willow flycatcher surveys shall be conducted a
minimum of 6 weeks (within the breeding season) prior to
commencement of construction. If southwestern willow
flycatchers are present, then the following conditions must be
met:
• Between May 1 and September 1 , no construction activities
shall occur within any portion of the site where such
activities would result in noise levels exceeding 60 dBA Uq
at the edge of occupied southwestern willow flycatcher
habitat. An analysis showing that construction-generated
noise would not exceed 60 dBA Uq at the edge of occupied
habitat must be completed by a qualified Acoustician
(possessing current noise engineer license or registration,
with experience monitoring noise levels for listed wildlife
species) and approved by the City at least 2 weeks prior to
commencement of construction activities; OR
• At least 2 weeks prior to commencement of construction
activities, and under the direction of a qualified Acoustician,
noise attenuation measures (e.g., berms, walls) shall be
implemented to ensure that construction-generated noise
would not exceed 60 dBA Uq at the edge of occupied
southwestern willow flycatcher habitat. Concurrent with
commencement of construction activities and with
implementation of necessary noise attenuation measures,
noise monitoring1 shall be conducted at the edge of
occupied habitat to ensure that construction-generated
noise does not exceed 60 dBA Uq. If the noise attenuation
measures implemented are determined to be inadequate by
Monitoring
• "Type :<
Pre-
Construction
Pre-
Construction/
Construction
Monitoring
Department
City of Carlsbad,
Engineering -
Public Works;
Planning
City of Carlsbad,
Engineering -
Public Works;
Planning
Shown on
Plans '
Verified
Implementation Remarks
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Pre-Construction, Construction, Post-Construction
Monitoring Department = Department or Agency responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated
Remarks = Notes on status of ongoing mitigation measure or other information
Page 7 of 14 Exhibit EIR-B
: \ .•/^.^^^••iiji^^iiii^ *'"«,'*-
the qualified Acoustician or Biologist, then the associated
construction activities shall cease until such time that
adequate noise attenuation is achieved or until the end of
the breeding season (September 2).
Bio-1m If southwestern willow flycatchers are not detected during the
preconstruction survey within areas of potential habitat that
would be subject to construction noise levels exceeding 60
dBA L«I. the qualified Biologist shall submit substantial
evidence to the City and applicable regulatory agencies
demonstrating whether noise attenuation measures (e.g.,
berms, walls) are necessary between May 1 and September 1
as follows:
• If this evidence indicates the potential is high for
southwestern willow flycatcher to be present based on
historical records or site conditions, then measure Bio-11
shall be adhered to as specified above.
• If this evidence concludes that no impacts to this species
are anticipated, no mitigation measures would be
necessary.
Bio-1n To identify the presence/absence of sensitive and/or native
fish species within potential aquatic habitat (e.g., freshwater
species such as the tidewater goby), the following measures
shall be implemented: Conduct a trapping/netting study; if
sensitive native fish are detected, then (1) trapping and
translocation of the sensitive fish shall occur, and/or (2)
exclusionary trapping shall be placed to prevent sensitive fish
species from entering the area of disturbance during in-stream
activity.
Bio-1o Where required, protocol-level surveys will be conducted for
sensitive plant or wildlife species prior to construction of DMP
Update components, as determined by the Wildlife Agencies.
Bio-2a For DMP components that would result in the loss of sensitive
habitats within the Coastal Zone, mitigation shall be required at
ratios consistent with requirements of the HMP, including
Standards 7-1 through 7-14 of Section 0, and the policies and
provisions of the Local Coastal Program (LCP).
Bio-2b Mitigation ratios shall be consistent with the provisions of the
HMP and LCP. For all projects affecting riparian and wetland
habitat, habitat replacement ratios and the specific location of
mitigation lands shall be determined in consultation with the
Monitoring
Type
Pre-
Construction/
Construction
Pre-
Construction
Pre-
construction
Pre-
construction/
Post-
Construction
Pre-
construction/
Post-
Construction
., MonitoJririg
department ;
City of Carlsbad,
Engineering -
Public Works;
Planning
City of Carlsbad,
Engineering -
Public Works;
Planning
City of Carlsbad,
Engineering -
Public Works;
Planning
City of Carlsbad,
Engineering -
Public Works;
Planning
City of Carlsbad.
Engineering -
Public Works;
Planning
Shown on
Plans:*;
t; Verified
Implementation Remarks
-••'. • •' '. .-: •'!;•-:-
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Pro-Construction, Construction, Post-Construction
Monitoring Department = Department or Agency responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure
Shown on Plans - When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated
Remarks = Notes on status of ongoing mitigation measure or other information
Page 8 of 14 Exhibit EIR-B
Mitigation Measure
USFWS, USAGE, and CDFG as appropriate in accordance
with the requirements of the federal CWA, federal wetland
policies, and the California Fish and Game Code. For DMP
Update components with unavoidable impacts, the City shall
demonstrate that viable wetlands can either be 1) created at a
minimum ration of 1:1 within dose proximity of the impact area
to replace the wildlife function affected by the project, or 2)
provide proof that wetland creation credits a minimum ratio of
1:1 have been purchased at a Wildlife Agency approved bank.
Consistent with the City's HMP, higher ratios will be required
for impacts to high quality wetlands (e.g., occupied by listed or
otherwise sensitive species) and for wetlands within the
Coastal Zone. For DMP Update components where wetland
creation will be necessary, construction shall not be initiated
until a viable wetland creation mitigation site with long-term
value is identified (and if necessary purchased by the City) and
the wetland mitigation plan by the appropriate Resource
Agencies. The wetland creation shall not require impacts to
sensitive wildlife or vegetation communities. All mitigation
lands for impacts to riparian and wetland habitats shall be in
the City or MHCP plan area, as deemed appropriate by the
Wildlife Agencies.
Bio-3 As needed, surveys for state and federally listed sensitive
plant species shall be conducted to complete a determination
of suitable habitat presence prior to implementation of DMP
Update components. Surveys shall be conducted at a time
when sensitive plant species would be most observable.
Bio-4 At the project design stage for the DMP Update components
located within key Core Areas and linkages, design measures
and restoration efforts shall be required to maintain the viability
of the wildlife corridors throughout Carlsbad.
Cult-1 The following mitigation measures will be required if a
proposed PLDA or non-PLDA component is located in an
undeveloped area that could potentially impact significant
cultural deposits, as indicated in Tables 4.11-2 and 4.11-3. In
addition, for any operation and maintenance activities that will
require temporary construction of an access road through
previously undeveloped or undisturbed areas, the following
mitigation measures will be required prior to construction.
a) Preconstruction Requirements - Prior to the start of
construction, a pedestrian survey shall be conducted
under the supervision of a qualified archaeologist for
Monitoring
Type
Pre-
Construction
Pre-
Construction
Pre-
Construction
Monitoring
Department
City of Carlsbad,
Engineering -
Public Works;
Planning
City of Carlsbad,
Engineering -
Public Works;
Planning
City of Carlsbad,
Engineering -
Public Works;
Planning
Shownon
;:<K. Plans"': "
Verified
Implementation Remarks
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Pre-Construction, Construction, Post-Construction
Monitoring Department = Department or Agency responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated
Remarks = Notes on status of ongoing mitigation measure or other information
Page 9 of 14 Exhibit EIR-B
-'':•'& •' ^;;:ft^:^l^0nM«a8«l^::X .- :;:; KA^H-.'
previously undisturbed areas that have not been surveyed
or adequately surveyed (e.g., the area was surveyed with
outdated or non-protocol methods). The survey shall be
conducted in parallel linear transects spaced no farther
than 10 meters apart in undeveloped areas.
1) Cultural resources, if found during the survey, shall be
photographed, mapped using a global positioning
system (GPS), and recorded on the appropriate
California Department of Parks and Recreation forms
(DPR Form 523A/B). The forms shall be submitted to
the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) for the
assignment of Primary numbers within 1 week of the
survey.
2) Within 1 month of completion of the field survey, a
draft letter report or technical report shall be submitted
to the City for review, whether the survey is negative
or positive. A final report shall be submitted within 6
weeks of receipt of the City's comments, with a copy
submitted to the SCIC for their files.
b) If the pedestrian survey is positive, the qualified
archaeologist shall conduct an updated archival search, if
needed, as well as additional detailed field testing. Local
Native American groups shall be contacted for testing of
prehistoric cultural resources regarding the project. Where
applicable, the City will execute a Pre-Excavation
Agreement with the appropriate Native American groups.
1 ) Prior to the start of field testing, surface artifacts and/or
features shall be marked and mapped using a GPS.
Testing shall be required if surface artifacts are
discovered, and shall include a program of 30-cm-
diameter shovel test pits (STPs) to define site
boundaries and identify the potential for a substantial
subsurface deposit.
2) Based on the results of the STPs, additional measures
such as Test Excavation Units or mechanical trenching
(for substantial historic sites) would be placed in areas
with the potential for a substantial subsurface deposit.
as determined by the qualified archeologist.
Monitoring
: -^typeSV
Monitoring
. Department
Shown on
Plans
VerifieoY
Implementation
..•i?e-. vRemarks ; :
' •:. •:' :=*>: rs
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Pre-Construction, Construction. Post-Construction
Monitoring Department = Department or Agency responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated
Remarks = Notes on status of ongoing mitigation measure or other information
Page 10 of 14 Exhibit EIR-B
Mitigation Measure
3) All excavated soils shall be screened through 1/8-inch
mesh hardware cloth. On completion of the project the
artifact collection, along with copies of the catalogs
and the technical report, shall be permanently curated
at the San Diego Archaeological Center. An updated
site record shall be prepared and submitted to the
SCIC.
4) Within 3 months of completion of the fieldwork, a draft
technical report including evaluations and
recommendations shall be prepared and submitted.
The final technical report shall be submitted within 6
weeks of receipt of the City's comments.
Cult-2 Monitoring Requirements - Construction monitoring will be
required for proposed PLDA or non-PLDA DMP components
that involve excavation or grading within undisturbed native
soils and could potentially impact subsurface cultural deposits,
as indicated in Tables 4.11-2 and 4.11-3.
a) Prior to the first preconstruction meeting for the project,
the Planning Director (PD) shall verify that the
requirements for archaeological monitoring and Native
American monitoring, if applicable, have been noted on
the appropriate construction documents. The applicant
shall retain a qualified archaeologist to verify that a
records search has been completed and updated, as
necessary, and to implement the monitoring program. At
the preconstruction meeting, the archaeologist shall
submit to the PD a copy of the site/grading plan that
identifies areas to be monitored.
b) The qualified archaeologist shall be present full-time
during grading/excavation of native soils with the potential
to contain buried cultural features or deposits and shall
document activity via the Consultant Monitor Record.
Monitoring of trenches shall include mainline, laterals,
services and all other appurtenances that impact native
soils one foot deeper than existing as detailed on the
plans or in the contract documents. It is the construction
manager's responsibility to keep the archaeological
monitors up-to-date with current plans.
c) In the event of a discovery, the archaeologist, or the
Principal Investigator (PI) if the monitor is not qualified as
Monitoring
Type
Pre-
Construction/
Construction
Monitoring
Department
City of Carlsbad,
Engineering -
Public Works;
Planning
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Pre-Construction, Construction. Post-Construction
Monitoring Department = Department or Agency responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated
Remarks = Notes on status of ongoing mitigation measure or other information
Page 11 of 14 Exhibit EIR-B
Mitigation Measure
J3- * ...
a PI, shall divert, direct, or temporarily halt ground-
disturbing activities in the area of the discovery to allow for
preliminary evaluation of potentially significant
archaeological resources. The PI shall also immediately
notify the construction manager and the Planning Director
of such findings at the time of discovery.
1) The significance of the discovered resources shall be
assessed by the PI. For significant archaeological
resources, a Research Design and Data Recovery
Program shall be prepared and implemented by the
qualified archaeologist. The results of the Research
Design and Data Recovery Program shall be approved
by the City before ground-disturbing activities in the
area of discovery shall be allowed to resume.
d) If human remains are discovered, work shall halt in that
area and procedures set forth in the California Public
Resources Code (Sec. 5097.98) and State Health and
Safety Code (Sec. 7050.5) shall be implemented.
Construction in that area shall not resume until the
remains have been evaluated and conveyed to
appropriate descendants or reinterred to the satisfaction
of the PI.
e) The archaeologist shall notify the PD, in writing, of the end
date of monitoring. The archaeologist shall be
responsible for ensuring that all cultural remains collected
are cleaned, catalogued, and permanently curated with an
appropriate institution; that a letter of acceptance from the
cu rat ion institution has been submitted to the Planning
Department; that all artifacts are analyzed to identify
function and chronology as they relate to the history of the
area; that faunal material is identified as to species; and
that specialty studies are completed, as appropriate.
f) Within 3 months following the completion of monitoring,
the Draft Results Report (even if negative) and/or
evaluation report, if applicable, which describes the
results, analysis, and conclusions of the Archaeological
Monitoring Program (with appropriate graphics) shall be
submitted to the Planning Director for approval. For
significant archaeological resources encountered during
monitoring, the Research Design and Data Recovery
Monitoring
Type
,f Monitoring
TJtepartment
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks ?
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Pre-Construction, Construction, Post-Construction
Monitoring Department = Department or Agency responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated
Remarks = Notes on status of ongoing mitigation measure or other information
Page 12 of 14 Exhibit EIR-B
Mitigation Measure
Program shall be included as part of the Draft Results
Report. The qualified archaeologist shall be responsible
for recording (on the appropriate State of California
Department of Park and Recreation forms-DPR 523 A/B)
any significant or potentially significant resources
encountered during the Archaeological Monitoring
Program, and submitting such forms to the SCIC with the
Final Results Report.
Monitoring
"Type
Monitoring
Department
Shoyjnon
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
The following mitigation measures shall be implemented during construction of PLDA and non-PLDA project components proposed in geologic formations with a moderate
to high sensitivity for paleontological resources, including Unnamed Marine Terrace Deposits, Unnamed River Terrace Deposits, Santiago Formation, Del Mar Formation,
Point Loma Formation, Lusardi Formation, or Undifferentiated Santiago Peak Volcanics. Determination of the underlying geologic formations shall be determined during
project design through existing mapping, project-specific geotechnical investigations, or other appropriate testing methods. Implementation of these measures will reduce
impacts to paleontological resources to below a level of significance.
Paleo-1 A monitoring program shall be prepared and implemented if
excavation into intact geologic formations with moderate to
high sensitivity is proposed. Components of such a monitoring
program shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
a) A qualified paleontological monitor shall be present at a
pregrading meeting with the construction contractor and
Planning Director (PD). The purpose of the meeting will
be to consult and coordinate the role of the paleontologist
during construction. The paleontological monitor shall
have adequate knowledge and experience with fossilized
remains likely to be present to identify them in the field.
The paleontological monitor shall be adequately
experienced to remove paleontological resources for
further study.
b) The paleontological monitor shall be present during the
applicable stages of grading and construction (including
trenching), as determined at the pregrading meeting. The
paleontological monitor shall have the authority to
temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading in the area of an
exposed fossil to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary,
salvage. At the discretion of the monitor, recovery may
include washing and picking of soil samples for
microvertebrate bone and teeth. Construction activities in
the area of discovery shall resume upon notification by the
paleontologist that fossil remains have been recovered.
The City shall ensure the contractor is aware of the
random nature of fossil occurrences and the possibility of
a discovery of such scientific and/or educational
importance that it might warrant a long-term salvage
Pre-
Construction/
Construction
City of Carlsbad,
Engineering -
Public Works;
Planning
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Pre-Construction, Construction, Post-Construction
Monitoring Department = Department or Agency responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated
Remarks = Notes on status of ongoing mitigation measure or other information
Page 1 3 of 14 Exhibit EIR-B
(Mitigation Measure
operation or preservation. AH fossils collected shall be
donated to a museum with a systematic paleontological
collection, such as the San Diego Natural History
Museum. The City shall ensure the grading contractor is
aware of this provision. Conflicts regarding the role and
authority of the monitor shall be resolved by the PD or
his/her designee.
c) Collected fossils shall be cleaned and/or prepared to a
point of identification, and then curated to museum
standards (cataloging of locality and specimen data,
numbering, identification, labeling) before being deposited
in an appropriate public facility (or facilities) that can
provide permanent archival storage (so that specimens
are available for future scientific study). A report detailing
the mitigation and any discoveries shall be prepared and
submitted to the City within 3 months following termination
of the paleontological monitoring program, even if
negative. The report shall include necessary maps,
graphics, and fossil lists to adequately document the
paleontological monitoring program.
Monitoring
Type
MipnitorJng
Department
Shown on -s
Plans *•
Verified
Implementation , RemartS^ V;
Project Level Mitigation Measures - Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks Dredging and Improvements Project
Bio-5 Mitigation measures listed for Bio-1a and Bto-2a and 2b shall
be implemented as applicable to address project-specific
vegetation impacts within Agua Hedionda and Calavera
creeks.
Bio-6 The project shall mitigate impacts to wetland and riparian
habitat through on-site restoration and/or wetland and riparian
habitat creation/restoration/enhancement at a ratio to be
determined in coordination with the applicable resources
agencies at the time of permitting, consistent with LCP and
HMP policies and provisions, as applicable. If adequate
acreage to satisfy mitigation is not available on-site and/or at
the Lake Calavera Mitigation Bank, then alternative mitigation
credits may be purchased from the North County Mitigation
Bank, or other alternative sites deemed acceptable by the
resource agencies.
Bio-7a If dredging and improvement activities cannot be conducted
outside the breeding season for sensitive wildlife species, then
prior to commencement of construction activities, a
preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist to determine presence/absence of nesting birds. If
nesting birds are detected on-site, vegetation removal shall be
Pre-
construction/
Post-
Construction
Pre-
construction/
Post-
Construction
Pre-
Construction
City of Carlsbad,
Engineering -
Public Works;
Planning
City of Carlsbad,
Engineering -
Public Works;
Planning
City of Carlsbad,
Engineering -
Public Works;
Planning
•
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Pre-Constniction, Construction, Post-Construction
Monitoring Department = Department or Agency responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated
Remarks = Notes on status of ongoing mitigation measure or other information
Page 14 of 14 Exhibit EIR-B
Mitigation Measure
delayed until the chicks have fledged or the nest has failed.
Bio-7b To address potential impacts to the light-footed dapper rail, a
qualified biologist shall survey the area and surrounding 500-
foot buffer area for light-footed clapper rails prior to
implementation of dredging activities. There is no need to
survey the area upstream of El Camino Real since this area is
void of suitable dapper rail habitat (freshwater marsh). If
dapper rails are detected in the project area, they should be
flushed, prior to the onset of any vegetation removal.
Bio-7c For potential indirect impacts to least Bell's vireo, mitigation
measures Bio 1-h through Bio 1-j shall be implemented, as
applicable.
Bio-7d For potential indirect impacts to southwestern willow
flycatcher, implementation mitigation measures Bio 1-k
through Bio 1-m shall be implemented, as applicable.
Bio-7e To discourage sensitive species from entering active
construction areas between El Camino Real and Cannon Road
bridges, a physical barrier (construction fence) shall be
installed on the downstream side of Cannon Road before
dredging or vegetation removal commences. The barrier
would be removed once the construction activity has ceased
on the south side of El Camino Real.
Monitoring
Type
Pre-
Construction
Pre-
Construction/
Construction
Pre-
Construction/
Construction
Construction
Monitoring -
[Department
City of Carlsbad,
Engineering -
Public Works;
Planning
City of Carlsbad,
Engineering -
Public Works;
Planning
City of Carlsbad,
Engineering -
Public Works;
Planning
City of Carlsbad,
Engineering -
Public Works;
Planning
Shown on
Plans
Verified -..
Implementation Remarks
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Pre-Constmction, Construction, Post-Construction
Monitoring Department = Department or Agency responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be
initialed and dated
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented,
this column will be initialed and dated
Remarks = Notes on status of ongoing mitigation measure or other information
Exhibit "EIR-C" to Planning Commission Resolution 6376
January 16,2008
Recommended Text Changes to Final Environmental Impact Report EIR 04-02
(Bold, italicized, and underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words
indicate text to be deleted)
3.4 PROJECT LEVEL PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In addition to the program level analysis of project components that are currently at a
preliminary stage of design, some components identified with the DMP Update are at a
point in the design process that enables a project level analysis. The City has identified
and initiated design of two DMP Update components, B and BN, also collectively known
as the Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks Dredging and Improvements Project. These
components are evaluated at a project level in this document.
The City proposes to conduct drainage infrastructure modifications and improvements
along Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks to provide enhanced flood protection for the
residential community of Rancho Carlsbad, an existing residential mobile home
community located east of El Camino Real and south of Cannon Road, in the
northeastern section of Carlsbad. Over 50 percent of the homes in Rancho Carlsbad are
located within the existing limits of the 100-year floodplain and could be subject to flood
damage during a major storm event. Within the DMP Update, the Agua Hedionda Creek
project components are included as Project B, and the Calavera Creek project
components are included as Project BN. Projects B and BN are farther along in the design
process, and therefore a sufficient level of detail is available to evaluate these projects at
a project level within this EIR.
Projects B and BN have both PLDA and non-PLDA elements, as shown in Tables 3-3
and 3-4, respectively, and described in more detail below. Together, Projects B and BN
would reduce flooding in the Rancho Carlsbad residential community by improving the
capacity of Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks, within Rancho Carlsbad, to contain a
100-year flood event (all but approximately a maximum of nine lots would be alleviated
from inundation during a 100-year flood event).
3.4.2 Project Background
The improvements to Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks are an integral part of the
DMP Update and are essential components of the flood control and protection measures
outlined for the city. Based on visual inspections and preliminary engineering, the overall
channel conveyance capacity of Agua Hedionda Creek has been reduced through the
deposition of 4 to 6 feet of sediment accumulated over the 36 years since the original
construction of the channel, creating a backwater effect within the Calavera Creek
conveyance. This reduces the conveyance capacity of Calavera Creek. Localized scour
along Calavera Creek banks has threatened to undermine residential foundations during
heavy storm events. Several homeowners have installed revetment walls (constructed of
treated lumber and steel "I-beams") and/or rock slope protection to protect their homes
from damage during heavy storm events. Approximately maximum of nine units would
Ifr-
Exhibit "EIR-C" to Planning Commission Resolution 63 76
January 16,2008
partially remain subject to inundation during a 100-year flood event following
implementation of the proposed DMP Update. The All nine units that would partially
remain in the 100-year floodplain under the proposed scenario are on elevated
foundations that would raise their first-floor elevation above the 100-year floodplain
level. Long-term maintenance of both creeks is also proposed to maintain flood
protection levels in Rancho Carlsbad.
7.1.2 Project Level
Following the 1996 amendment to the MDSQMP to include Agua Hedionda Creek as a
PLDA project (see Section 3.1.1), the City contracted Rick Engineering Company to
conduct a study to evaluate various design alternatives to achieve 100-year flood capacity
in Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks (Rick Engineering Company 2004). The design
alternatives considered various combinations of the following actions: improvements to
Calavera Dam and the existing BJB Basin, construction of new detention basins (referred
to as Melrose, Faraday, and BJ in the Rick Engineering Company report), and channel
improvements and dredging within Agua Hedionda Creek. Dredging and maintenance
within Calavera Creek were not considered as part of these alternatives. These
alternatives were ultimately rejected, however, because they did not provide 100-year
flood protection for as many lots as feasible (compared to the proposed DMP Update
components, which would alleviate all but approximately nine lots from inundation
during a 100-year flood event).
Appendix F - Response to Comments
L3-49 The City does not intend to acquire any lots with private residents for habitat
preservation purposes. The primary objective of the dredging and improvements
to Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks is to provide 100-year flood protection to
the maximum number of lots as feasible and practicable. In this case, all but
approximately 9 lots would receive protection from a 100-year flood event.
m
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6377
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT TO DELETE
4 REFERENCES TO THE MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN
ADOPTED IN 1994 AND THE MODEL EROSION CONTROL
5 ORDINANCE AND TO ADD REFERENCES TO THE
6 PROPOSED CITY OF CARLSBAD DRAINAGE MASTER
PLAN AND EXISTING ENGINEERING STANDARDS.
7 CASE NAME: DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE
CASE NO: ZCA 07-04
8
9 WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 21.52.020 of the Carlsbad Municipal
10 Code, the City of Carlsbad has prepared an amendment to Title 21 of the Municipal Code
11 relating to references to the Master Drainage Plan and Model Erosion Control Ordinance in
12 Chapters 21.38 (Planned Community Zone), 21.203 (Coastal Resource Protection Overlay
Zone), and 21.205 (Costal Resource Overlay Zone Mello ILCP Segment); and
14
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is set forth in the draft City Council
15
Ordinance, Exhibit "X," dated January 16, 2008, and attached hereto DRAINAGE MASTER16
! 7 PLAN UPDATE - ZCA 07-04; and
18 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on January 16, 2008, hold duly
19 noticed public hearings as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
20 WHEREAS, at said public hearings, upon hearing and considering all testimony
21
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, analyzing the information submitted by
22
staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all
£j
24 factors relating to the Zone Code Amendment.
25 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
26 Commission as follows:
27 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
2g B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of DRAINAGE MASTER
PLAN UPDATE - ZCA 07-04, based on the following findings:
Findings;
2 1. The proposed Zone Code Amendment, ZCA 07-04, is consistent with the General Plan in
3 that the Carlsbad General Plan authorizes existing drainage infrastructure and
planned capacity improvements to support all designated land uses in the city. The
4 Drainage Master Plan Update was designed to guide the City in the implementation
<- of drainage facilities required to meet the present and future needs of Carlsbad as
anticipated by the General Plan. Additionally, the Drainage Master Plan Update is
6 consistent with the General Plan Public Safety Element by providing flood
protection for developed areas. Further, to be consistent with the General Plan
7 Open Space and Conservation Element, the design of Drainage Master Plan Update
components would also incorporate design features/methods and construction
measures to minimize impacts to sensitive environmental resources. Finally, no
General Plan Amendments are proposed as part of the Drainage Master Plan
Update.
10
2. The proposed Zone Code Amendment, ZCA 07-04, reflects sound principles of good
planning in that it (a) ensures consistency with and implements the policies of the
.. Local Coastal Program, which are also proposed for amendment to reference the
proposed Drainage Master Plan, (b) ensures internal consistency regarding
13 references to the proposed Drainage Master Plan, and (c) implements the programs
of the General Plan as identified in the previous finding.
14
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting to the Planning Commission of
the City of Carlsbad, held on January 16,2008, by the following vote, to wit:
17 AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Boddy, Dominguez, Douglas,
Montgomery, and Whitton
18
19
ABSENT: Commissioner Cardosa
21 ABSTAIN:
22
23 fX.
24 JULIE HAKER, Chairperson
CARLSBATTPLANNING COMMISSION
25"
26 ATTEST:
27
28
DON NEU
Planning Director
PCRESONO.6377 -2-
ISO
Exhibit "X"
January 16, 2008
1 ORDINANCE NO.
2
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 21 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE BY DELETING REFERENCES TO THE
4 MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN ADOPTED IN 1994 AND THE
MODEL EROSION CONTROL ORDINANCE AND ADDING
5 REFERENCES TO THE PROPOSED CITY OF CARLSBAD
DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN AND EXISTING ENGINEERING
6 STANDARDS.
CASE NAME: DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE
7 , CASE NO.: ZCA 07-04
8 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does ordain as follows:
9 SECTION 1: That Section 21.38.141 (c) (6) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended
to read as follows:
10
6. A site specific technical report shall be required addressing the cumulative
effects of developing each subwatershed and recommending measures to mitigate both
increased runoff and sedimentation. It shall be reviewed and prepared according to the City of
12 Carlsbad Engineering Standards and provisions of the Local Coastal Program, with the
additions and changes adopted herein, such that a natural drainage system is generally
13 preserved for the eastern undeveloped watersheds, but that storm drains are allowed for those
western portions of the watershed which have already been incrementally developed.
14
SECTION 2: That Section 21.203.040 B.1. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended
15
to read as follows:
16
1. Buena Vista Lagoon. Developments located along the first row of lots bordering
Buena Vista Lagoon, including the parcel at the mouth of the lagoon, shall be designated for
residential development at a density of up to four dwelling units per acre. Proposed
18 development in this area shall be required to submit topographic and vegetation mapping and
analysis, as well as soils reports, as part of the development permit application. Such
19 information shall be provided in addition to any required environmental impact report, and shall
be prepared by qualified professionals and in sufficient detail to locate the boundary of wetland
and upland areas and areas of slopes in excess of twenty-five percent. Topographic maps shall
be submitted at a scale sufficient to determine the appropriate developable areas, generally not
21 less than a scale of one inch equals one hundred feet with a topographic contour interval of five
feet, and shall include an overlay delineating the location of the proposed project. The lagoon2 and wetland area shall be delineated and criteria used to identify any wetlands existing on the
site shall be those of Section 30121 of the Coastal Act and based upon the standards of the3 local coastal program mapping regulations. Mapping of wetlands and siting of development shall
be done in consultation and subject to the approval of the Department of Fish and Game.
Development shall be clustered to preserve open space for habitat protection. Minimum
setbacks of at least one hundred feet from wetlands/lagoon shall be required in all development,
in order to buffer such sensitive habitat area from intrusion. Such buffer areas, as well as other
open space areas required in permitted development to preserve habitat areas, shall be
permanently preserved for habitat uses through provision of an open space easement as a
27 condition of project approval. In the event that a wetland area is bordered by steep slopes (in
excess of twenty-five percent) which will act as a natural buffer to the habitat area, a buffer area
28 of less than one hundred feet in width may be permitted. The density of any permitted
development shall be based upon the net developable area of the parcel, excluding any portion
1 of a parcel which is in wetlands or lagoon. As specified in subsection A of this section, a density
credit may be provided for that portion of the parcel which is in steep slopes. Storm drain
2 alignments as proposed in the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan which would be carried
through or empty into Buena Vista Lagoon shall not be permitted, unless such improvements
3 comply with the requirements of Sections 30230, 30231, 30233 and 30235 of the Coastal Act by
maintaining or enhancing the functional capacity of the lagoon in a manner acceptable to the
4 State Department of Fish and Game. Land divisions shall only be permitted on parcels
bordering the lagoon pursuant to a single planned development permit for the entire original
5 parcel.
6 SECTION 3: That Section 21.203.040 B. 3. a. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
7 amended to read as follows:
8 a. All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban runoff
flow rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in accordance with: (1)
9 the requirements of the city's grading ordinance, storm water ordinance, standard urban storm
water mitigation plan (SUSMP) dated April 2003, and as amended, and the City of Carlsbad
10 Drainage Master Plan, as those documents are certified as part of the city's LCP; (2) the city's
jurisdictional urban runoff management program (JURMP) and the San Diego County Hydrology
11 Manual to the extent that these requirements are not inconsistent with any policies of the LCP;
and (3) the additional requirements contained herein. Such mitigation shall become an element
12 of the project, and shall be installed prior to the initial grading.
13 SECTION 4: That Section 21.203.040 B. 3. c. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
14 amended to read as follows:
c. Mitigation shall require construction of all improvements shown in the City of
16 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan and any amendments to them for the area between the project
site and the lagoon (including the debris basin), as well as revegetation of graded areas
, _ immediately after grading; and a mechanism for permanent maintenance if the city declines to
accept the responsibility. Construction of drainage improvements may be through formation of
jo an assessment district, or through any similar arrangement that allocates costs among the
various landowners in an equitable manner.
19 SECTION 5: That Section 21.203.040 B. 4. a. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
21 a. All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban runoff
22 flow rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in accordance with: (1)
the requirements of the city's grading ordinance, storm water ordinance, standard urban storm
23 water mitigation plan (SUSMP) dated April 2003 and as amended, and the City of Carlsbad
Drainage Master Plan, as those documents are certified as part of the city's LCP; (2) the city's
24 jurisdictional urban runoff management program (JURMP) and the San Diego County Hydrology
Manual to the extent that these requirements are not inconsistent with any policies of the LCP;
25 and (3) the additional requirements contained herein. Such mitigation shall become an element
of the project and shall be installed prior to the initial grading.
26
27
28 -2-
1 SECTION 6: That Section 21.203.040 B. 4. c. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
2 amended to read as follows:
3 c. Mitigation shall also require construction of all improvements shown in the City of
Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan and amendments to it. No subsequent amendments are a part
4 of this zone unless certified by the coastal commission. The general provisions, procedures,
standards, content of plans and implementation contained with them are required conditions of
5 development in addition to the provisions below. Approved development shall include the
following conditions, in addition to the requirements specified above:
6
SECTION 7: That Section 21.203.040 B. 4. c. i of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
7
amended to read as follows:
8
i. All off-site, downstream improvements (including debris basin and any other
9 improvements recommended in the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan) shall be constructed
prior to the issuance of a grading permit on-site. Improvements shall be inspected by city or
10 county staff and certified as adequate and in compliance with the requirements of the drainage
plan and the additional requirements of this zone. If the city or county declines to accept
11 maintenance responsibility for the improvements, the developer shall maintain the
improvements during construction of the on-site improvements;
SECTION 8: That Section 21.203.040 B. 4. c. vi. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
13
is amended to read as follows:14
vi. Storm drainage facilities in developed areas shall be improved and enlarged
15 according to City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, incorporating the changes specified in this
section. Improvement districts shall be formed for presently undeveloped areas which are
16 expected to urbanize in the future. The improvement districts shall implement City of Carlsbad
Drainage Master Plan. Upstream areas in the coastal zone shall not be permitted to develop
17 incrementally prior to installation of the storm drain facilities downstream, in order to assure
protection of coastal resources. New drainage facilities, required within the improvement
18 districts shall be financed either by some form of bond or from fees collected from developers
on a cost-per-acre basis;
SECTION 9: That Section 21.205.060 a. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is20
_. amended to read as follows:
a. All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban runoff
flow rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in accordance with: (1)
the requirements of the city's grading ordinance, storm water ordinance, standard urban storm
23 water mitigation plan (SUSMP) dated April 2003 and as amended, and the City of Carlsbad
Drainage Master Plan, as those documents are certified as part of the city's LCP; (2) the city's
2 jurisdiction^ urban runoff management program (JURMP) and the San Diego County Hydrology
Manual to the extent that these requirements are not inconsistent with any policies of the LCP;
and (3) the additional requirements contained herein. Such mitigation shall become an element
26 of the project and shall be installed prior to the initial grading.
27
28 -3-
1 SECTION 10: That Section 21.205.060 c. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
2 amended to read as follows:
3 c. Mitigation shall also require construction of all improvements shown in the City of
Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan and amendments to it. No subsequent amendments are a part
4 of this zone unless certified by the coastal commission. The general provisions, procedures,
standards, content of plans and implementation contained in them are required conditions of
5 development in addition to the provisions below. Approved development shall include the
following conditions, in addition to the requirements specified above:
6
SECTION 11: That Section 2121.205.060 c. i. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
7
amended to read as follows:
8
All off-site, downstream improvements (including debris basin and any other
9 improvements recommended in the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan shall be constructed
prior to the issuance of a grading permit on-site. Improvements shall be inspected by city staff
10 and certified as adequate and in compliance with the requirements of the drainage plan and the
additional requirements of this zone. If the city declines to accept maintenance responsibility for
1 1 the improvements, the developer shall maintain the improvements during construction of the on-
site improvements;
12
13 ///
14 ///
15 ///
17 ///
18 ///
19 ///
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 -4-
fct
1 EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective no sooner than thirty
2 days after its adoption but not until approved by the California Coastal Commission, and the City
3 Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least once in
4 a publication of general circulation in the City of Carlsbad within fifteen days after its adoption.
5 INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City
6 Council on the day of 2008, and thereafter.
7 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
8 Carlsbad on the day of 2008, by the following vote, to wit:
9 AYES:
10 NOES:
ABSENT:
12 ABSTAIN:
13
14 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
15
16 RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney
17
18
19 CLAUDE A. LEWIS, Mayor
20 ATTEST:
21
22 LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk
23^ (SEAL)
24"
25
26
27
28 -5-
765
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6378
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO (1) THE POLICIES OF
4 THE CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM FOR THE
AGUA HEDIONDA, MELLO I, MELLO II, WEST
5 BATIQUITOS LAGOON/SAMMIS PROPERTIES, AND EAST
6 BATIQUITOS LAGOON/HUNT PROPERTIES SEGMENTS
AND (2) THE IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCE OF THE
7 CARLSBAD LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (TITLE 21 -
ZONING ORDINANCE) TO DELETE REFERENCES TO THE
8 MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN ADOPTED IN 1994 AND THE
Q MODEL GRADING ORDINANCE AND ADD REFERENCES
TO THE PROPOSED CITY OF CARLSBAD DRAINAGE
10 MASTER PLAN.
CASE NAME: DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE
11 CASE NO: LCPA 07-06
12 WHEREAS, California State law requires that the Local Coastal Program,
13 General Plan, and Zoning designations for properties in the Coastal Zone be in conformance; and
14
WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad, "Applicant," has filed a verified application for
15
,, an amendment to the Local Coastal Program; and16
17 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Local Coastal
18 Program Amendment as shown on Exhibit "X" dated January 16, 2008, attached to Planning
19 Commission Resolution No. 6377 and Exhibit Y attached hereto, as provided in Public
20 Resources Code Section 30574 and Article 15 of Subchapter 8, Chapter 2, Division 5.5 of Title
21
14 of the California Code of Regulations of the California Coastal Commission Administrative
22
Regulations; and
£j
24 WHEREAS, the amendment affects properties throughout the City's Coastal
25 Zone; and
26 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on January 16, 2008, hold a duly
27 noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
28
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
2
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
3
relating to the Local Coastal Program Amendment; and4
WHEREAS, State Coastal Guidelines requires a six-week public review period
for any amendment to the Local Coastal Program.
7 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
o Commission of the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
9 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
10
B) At the end of the State-mandated six-week review period, starting on December,
14,2007, and ending on January 24,2008, staff shall present to the City Council
. _ a summary of the comments received.
13 C) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE -
14 LCPA 07-06, based on the following findings, and subject to the following
conditions:15
., Findings:10
17 1. That the proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment meets the requirements of, and is
in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and all applicable policies
18 of the Mello I, Mello II, West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties, East Batiquitos
Lagoon/Hunt Properties, and Agua Hedionda Lagoon segments of the Carlsbad Local
Coastal Program not being amended by this amendment, in that no development or
2Q construction is proposed with this amendment and all future development projects
located in the coastal zone that are processed pursuant to these revised standards
21 would be subject to discretionary review and a Coastal Development Permit to
ensure consistency with Local Coastal Program policies.
22
2. That the proposed amendment to the Mello I, Mello II, West Batiquitos
23 Lagoon/Sammis Properties, East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties, and Agua
Hedionda Lagoon segments of the Carlsbad Local Coastal Program is required to bring
the policies of the segments into consistency with each other and the similarly
25 proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance so that the policies and
implementing ordinances of the Local Coastal Program uniformly reference the
26 proposed City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan.
27
28
PC RESO NO. 6378 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting to the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, held on January 16,2008, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Boddy, Dominguez, Douglas,
Montgomery, and Whitton
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Cardosa
ABSTAIN:
JULIE Bf\KEK Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
DON NEU
Planning Director
PCRESONO. 6378 -3-
IS*
Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan Exhibit Y to Planning Commission Resolution 63 78
January 16, 2008
3-14 Grading and Landscaping Requirements
In addition to the requirements of the City of Carlsbad Master Drainage Master Plan,
permitted new development shall also comply with the following requirements:
a. Grading activity shall be prohibited during the rainy season: from October 1st
to April 1st of each year.
b. All graded areas shall be landscaped prior to October 1st of each year with
either temporary or permanent landscaping materials, to reduce erosion
potential. Such landscaping shall be maintained and replanted if not well-
established by December 1st following the initial planting.
c. The October 1st grading season deadline may be extended with the approval of
the City Engineer subject to implementation by October 1st of special erosion
control measures designed to prohibit discharge of sediments off-site during
and after the grading operation. Extensions beyond November 15th may be
allowed in areas of very low risk of impact to sensitive coastal resources and
may be approved either as part of the original coastal development permit or as
an amendment to an existing coastal development permit.
d. If any of the responsible resource agencies prohibit grading operations during
the summer grading period in order to protect endangered or rare species or
sensitive environmental resources, then grading activities may be allowed
during the winter by a coastal development permit or permit amendment,
provided that appropriate best management practices (BMPs) are incorporated
to limit potential adverse impacts from winter grading activities.
26
/6f
Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan Exhibit Y to Planning Commission Resolution 63 78
January 16, 2008
4.1 a. All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban runoff
flow rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in
accordance with the requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance, Storm Water
Ordinance, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), City of
Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, and the following additional requirements. The
SUSMP, dated April 2003 and as amended, and the City of Carlsbad Drainage
Master Plan are hereby incorporated into the LCP by reference. Development
must also comply with the requirements of the Jurisdictional Urban Runoff
Management Program (JURMP) and the San Diego County Hydrology Manual to
the extent that these requirements are not inconsistent with any policies of the
LCP.
b. Prior to making land use decisions, the City shall utilize methods available to
estimate increases in pollutant loads and flows resulting from proposed future
development. The City shall require developments to incorporate structural and
non-structural best management practices (BMP's) to mitigate the projected
increases in pollutant loads and minimize any increases in peak runoff rate.
c. Water pollution prevention methods shall be implemented to the maximum extent
practicable, and supplemented by pollutant source controls and treatment. Small
collection strategies located at, or as close as possible to, the source (i.e., the point
where water initially meets the ground) to minimize the transport of urban runoff
and pollutants offsite and into a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)
shall be utilized.
d. Post-development runoff from a site shall not contain pollutant loads which cause
or contribute to an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives or which have
not been reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
e. Development projects should be designed to comply with the following site design
principles:
1. Protect slopes and channels to decrease the potential for slopes and/or
channels from eroding and impacting storm water runoff.
2. To the extent practicable, cluster development on the least environmentally
sensitive portions of a site while leaving the remaining land in a natural
undisturbed condition.
3. Preserve, and where possible, create or restore areas that provide important
water quality benefits, such as riparian corridors, wetlands and buffer zones.
Land acquisition of such areas shall be encouraged.
4. Provide development-free buffer zones for natural water bodies.
5. Minimize the amount of impervious surfaces and directly connected
impervious surfaces in areas of new development and redevelopment.
6. Where feasible implement site design/landscape features to slow runoff and
maximize on-site infiltration of runoff.
39
Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan Exhibit Y to Planning Commission Resolution 63 78
January 16, 2008
• Grading of surfaces so as to direct runoff toward planned drainages and, if
possible, away from cut and fill slopes;
• Early planting and maintenance of ground cover suitable for slope erosion control
and maximum retention of natural vegetation;
• Development projects shall preserve, as feasible, natural drainage swales and
landforms.
4.3 Development projects shall provide for improvements indicated in the City of
Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, and shall limit the rate of runoff through the provision
of onsite catchment basins, desilting basins, subsurface drains, and similar
improvements as necessary. Runoff shall be controlled in such a way that the velocity
and rate of runoff leaving the site shall not exceed that of the site in its natural state.
4.4 Recognizing the unique environmental features of the lagoon and its environs and the
sensitivity of the area to soil credibility and sedimentation, development shall be
regulated as follows:
a. Development on existing subdivided lots having all of their area in slopes of 25%
or greater shall be permitted, but grading shall be limited to minimal site
preparation for pole-type footings. Driveway/parking areas shall be limited in size
and shall be restricted to an area adjacent to the local streets. Onsite vegetation
shall not be disturbed beyond the minimal area needed to be cleared for the
construction process, which shall be clearly delineated on approved site plans.
b. Development, grading and landform alteration of natural steep slope areas (25%)
shall be avoided, when feasible. Any unavoidable disturbance shall be minimized
to the extent possible. Exceptions may include encroachments by roadway and
utilities necessary to reach flatter developable areas, when there is no feasible less
environmentally damaging alternative. The maximum allowable density shall be
calculated on the total lot area, although this may be modified through setbacks,
plan review, or other requirements of this plan and applicable City regulations.
c. Use of the Planned Development (PD) mechanism and cluster development shall
be required in areas containing environmentally sensitive resources, extensive
steep slope areas and significant natural landform features.
39
Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan Exhibit Y to Planning Commission Resolution 63 78
January 16, 2008
a) A runoff control plan prepared by a licensed engineer qualified in hydrology and
hydrolics demonstrating/ that there would be no significant increase in peak runoff
rate from the developed site over the greatest discharge expected from the existing
undeveloped site as a result of 6 hour, lo-year frequency storm. Runoff control
may be accomplished by a variety of methods including such devices as catchment
basins, detention basins, siltation traps, or other appropriate measures.
b) Development approvals shall include detailed maintenance provisions for repair
and maintenance of approved drainage and erosion control facilities. Permanent
runoff control and erosion control devices shall be installed prior to or concurrent
with onsite grading activities.
c) Development shall meet all other requirements of this plan, including the
provisions of the City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance and Drainage Master Plan.
5.8 The conceptual alignment recommended by PRC Toups (alignment 1-B) for Cannon
Road shall be incorporated into this plan (see Exhibit G). In developing the precise
alignment of the proposed roadway, the following design criteria and environmental
protection measures shall apply:
a) No portion of the road construction shall involve filling or dredging of fresh or
saltwater marsh wetlands, except as noted in the letter from the Coastal
Commission to the State Department of Fish and Game (2/17/82; Attachment 3, P.
56).
b) To the extent that any portion of the road construction would occur in or adjacent
to an environmentally sensitive habitat area other than a wetland, the road shall be
sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade such
areas, shall avoid significant disruption of habitat values, and shall be sited and
designed to be compatible with the continuance of habitat values.
c) To the extent that there are no feasible less environmentally damaging alternatives
and the road as designed would nonetheless result in adverse impacts to
environmentally sensitive habitat areas, such impacts shall be fully mitigated in
accordance with the recommendations of the State Department of Fish and Game.
d) To protect agricultural lands from the growth-inducing potential of the project, no
agricultural lands shall be assessed for construction of the road, and the road shall
be designed so as to avoid uncontrolled access into adjacent agricultural areas.
50
Land Use - Mello I Chapter ll-l
Exhibit Yto Planning Commission Resolution 6378
January 16,2008
II. SEGMENT
II-1 Mello I Segment - Land Use Policies
(AB 462) (Now PRC 30170)
Certified 9/80 Amended 10/85
1. STANDARD PACIFIC
Policy 1 - Maximum Density of Development
The Standard Pacific property shall be designated for a medium density residential development
with a maximum density of 7 dwelling units per gross acre. The property shall be developed
using the City's RD-M (Residential-Multiple Zone) or PC (Planned Community) in effect at the
date of certification. An overlay zone shall be established incorporating the Coastal Act
requirements. All permitted uses in the underlying zone shall be conditional uses in the overlay
zone. Divisions of land and other developments as defined in the Coastal Act shall be in accord
with the requirements of the Policies contained herein. Poinsettia Lane shall be extended only as
generally shown on the PRC Toups land use map to the eastern boundary of the site. The
location of Poinsettia Lane is in no way determined by this Local Coastal Program (LCP),
however, this LCP is not intended to preclude access to agricultural areas to the east.
Development of the property may occur only under the provisions of the Pacific Rim Country
Club and Resort Master Plan, and shall be subject to the requirement of Policy 2
"Agriculture/Planned Development."
Policy 2 - Buffers
A sturdy fence capable of attenuating noise and dust impacts, generally to be a concrete block
wall a minimum of 6 feet in height, shall be provided between residential development and
agricultural areas to the north and east. As a partial alternative, utilization of natural topographic
separations such as trees, Chaparral, and existing slopes is encouraged, to the extent that such
separations can be incorporated into site planning and would accomplish adequate attenuation to
noise and dust. Permanent maintenance of this area and any structures, through a homeowners
association or other acceptable means, shall be provided as a condition of development.
Policy 3 - Drainage, Erosion Control
a. All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban runoff flow
rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in accordance with the
City of Carlsbad 6 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello I Chapter II-l
Exhibit Yto Planning Commission Resolution 6378
. January 16, 2008
requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, Standard Urban
Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, and the
additional requirements contained herein. The SUSMP, dated April 2003 and as
amended, and the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan are hereby incorporated into the
LCP by reference. Development must also comply with the requirements of the
Jurisdiction Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP) and the San Diego County
Hydrology Manual to the extent that these requirements are not inconsistent with any
policies of the LCP. Such mitigation shall become an element of the project and shall be
installed prior to the initial grading. At a minimum, such mitigation shall require
construction of all improvements shown in the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan
between the project site and the lagoon (including the debris basin), revegetation of all
graded areas immediately after grading, and mechanism for permanent maintenance if the
City declines to accept the responsibility. Construction of drainage improvements may be
through formation of an assessment district or through any similar arrangement that allots
costs among the various landowners in an equitable manner.
b. Prior to making land use decisions, the City shall utilize methods available to estimate
increases in pollutant loads and flows resulting from proposed future development. The
City shall require developments to incorporate structural and non-structural best
management practices (BMP's) to mitigate the projected increases to pollutant loads and
minimize any increases in peak runoff rate.
c. Water pollution prevention methods shall be implemented to the maximum extent
practicable, and supplemented by pollutant source controls and treatment. Small
collection strategies located at, or as close as possible to, the source (i.e., the point where
water initially meets the ground) to minimize the transport of urban runoff and pollutants
offsite and into a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) shall be utilized.
d. Post-development runoff from a site shall not contain pollutant loads which cause or
contribute to an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives or which have not been
reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
e. Development projects should be designed to comply with the following site design
principals:
1) Protect slopes and channels to decrease the potential for slopes and/or channels
from eroding and impacting storm water runoff.
2) To the extent practicable, cluster development on the least environmentally
sensitive portions of a site while leaving the remaining land in a natural
undisturbed condition.
3) Preserve, and where possible, create or restore areas that provide important water
quality benefits, such as riparian corridors, wetlands and buffer zones. Land
acquisition of such areas shall be encouraged.
4) Provide development-free buffer zones for natural water bodies.
5) Minimize the amount of impervious surfaces and directly connected impervious
City of Carlsbad 7 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello I Chapter II-l
Exhibit Y to Planning Commission Resolution 6378
January 16, 2008
Policy 1 - Land Uses
The "Occidental Land, Inc." landowners elected to pay an agriculture conversion fee as required
by the Agricultural Subsidy Program established by the Mello II LCP Segment (AB 1971)
adopted and certified by the Coastal Commission on June 3,1981. With the election to pay the
agriculture conversion fee, the Agricultural Subsidy Program allowed the "Occidental Land,
Inc." properties to be developed in accordance with the land uses described below.
Pursuant to State Legislation in 1984, the Agricultural Subsidy Program was replaced with the
Agriculture Conversion Mitigation Fee (Public Resource Code Section 30171.2 and 30171.5)
(Mello II Segment Policy 2-1 Option 3).
As per Public Resource Code Section 30171.2, the land use policies established in 1981 by the
adoption of the Mello II Segment remained "operative" even thought the Agricultural Subsidy
Program was replaced.
The Occidental Land parcels are hereby designated as follows:
(1) The area located east of Interstate 5 and north of Poinsettia Lane shall be designated for
residential use at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre.
(2) The area located east of Interstate 5 and south of Poinsettia Lane shall be designated for
residential use at a maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre.
(3) The area located west of Interstate 5 and south of Poinsettia Lane shall be designated for
visitor-serving or neighborhood commercial development according to Chapter 21.26 of the
Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance.
(4) The area located west of Interstate 5 and north of Poinsettia Lane shall be designated for
visitor-serving or neighborhood commercial development according to Chapter 21.26 of the
Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, provided that a minimum of 35% is developed as visitor serving
uses.
Policy 2 - Drainage, Erosion Control
a. All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban runoff flow
rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in accordance with the
requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation
Plan (SUSMP), City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, and the additional requirements
contained herein. The SUSMP, dated April 2003 and as amended, and the City of
Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan are hereby incorporated into the LCP by reference.
Development must also comply with the requirements of the Jurisdictional Urban
Runoff Management Program (JURMP) and the San Diego County Hydrology Manual
to the extent that these requirements are not inconsistent with any policies of the LCP.
City of Carlsbad 10 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello I Chapter II-l
Exhibit Yto Planning Commission Resolution 6378
January 16, 2008
Such mitigation shall become an element of the project and shall be installed prior to
initial grading. Mitigation shall also require construction of all improvements shown in
the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan and amendments thereto between the project
site and the lagoon (including the debris basin), revegetation of all graded areas
immediately after grading, and a mechanism for permanent maintenance if the City
declines to accept responsibility. The offsite drainage improvements shall be
reimbursable to Occidental by use of assessment districts, development agreements or
other appropriate means acceptable to the City.
b. Prior to making land use decisions, the City shall utilize methods available to estimate
increases to pollutant loads and flows resulting from proposed future development. The
City shall require developments to incorporate structural and non-structural best
management practices (BMP's) to mitigate the projected increases in pollutant loads
and minimize any increases to peak runoff rate.
c. Water pollution prevention methods shall be implemented to the maximum extent
practicable, and supplemented by pollutant source controls and treatment. Small
collection strategies located at, or as close as possible to, the source (i.e., the point
where water initially meets the ground) to minimize the transport of urban runoff and
pollutants offsite and into a municipal separate storm water system (MS4) shall be
utilized.
d. Post-development runoff from a site shall not contain pollutant loads which cause or
contribute to an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives or which have not
been reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
e. Development projects should be designed to comply with the following site design
principles:
1) Protect slopes and channels to decrease the potential for slopes and/or
channels from eroding and impacting storm water runoff.
2) To the extent practicable, cluster development on the least environmentally
sensitive portions of a site while leaving the remaining land in a natural
undisturbed condition.
3) Preserve, and where possible* create or restore areas that provide important
water quality benefits, such as riparian corridors, wetlands and buffer zones.
Land acquisition of such areas shall be encouraged.
4) Provide development-free buffer zones for natural water bodies.
5) Minimize the amount of impervious surfaces and directly connected
impervious surfaces in areas of new development and redevelopment.
6) Where feasible implement site design/landscape features to slow runoff and
maximize on-site infiltration of runoff.
7) Properly design outdoor material storage areas (including the use of roof or
awning covers) to minimize the opportunity for toxic compounds, oil and
grease, heavy metals, nutrients, suspended solids and other pollutants from
City of Carlsbad 11 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello I Chapter II-l
Exhibit Yto Planning Commission Resolution 6378
January 16, 2008
mitigation.
(3) Drainage and runoff shall be controlled so as not to exceed at any time the rate associated
with property in its present state, and appropriate measures shall be taken on and/or
offsite to prevent siltation of lagoons and other environmentally sensitive areas.
(4) The appropriate measures shall be installed prior to onsite grading.
(5) All undevelopable slopes shall be placed in open space easements as a condition of
development approval.
(6) a. All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban runoff
flow rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in accordance
with the requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance,
Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), City of Carlsbad Drainage
Master Plan, with the additions and changes adopted herein, such that a natural
drainage system is generally preserved for the eastern undeveloped watersheds, but
that storm drains are allowed for those western portions of the watershed which have
already been incrementally developed. The SUSMP, dated April 2003 and as
amended, the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan are hereby incorporated into
the LCP by reference. Development must also comply with the requirements of the
Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Runoff Management Program (JURMP) and the San
Diego County Hydrology Manual to the extent that these requirements are not
inconsistent with any policies of the LCP.
b. Prior to making land use decisions, the City shall utilize methods available to estimate
increase in pollutant loads and flows resulting from proposed future development.
The City shall require developments to incorporate structural and non-structural best
management practices (BMP's) to mitigate the projected increases in pollutant loads
and minimize any increases in peak runoff rate.
c. Water pollution prevention methods shall be implemented to the maximum extent
practicable, and supplemented by pollutant source controls and treatment. Small
collection strategies located at, or as close as possible to, the source (i.e., the point
where water initially meets the ground) to minimize the transport of urban runoff and
pollutants offsite and into a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) shall be
utilized.
d. Post-development runoff from a site shall not contain pollutant loads which cause or
contribute to an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives or which have not
been reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
e. Development projects should be designed to comply with the following site design
primcipals:
City of Carlsbad 17 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello II Chapter II-2
Exhibit Y to Planning Commission Resolution 6378
January 16, 2008
Policy 4-5 SOIL EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES
Policy 4-6 "SEDIMENT CONTROL" PRACTICES
Policy 4-7 FLOOD HAZARDS
(a) Storm Drainage Facilities in Developed Areas
(b) City's Grading Ordinance
(c) Storm Drainage Facilities in Undeveloped Areas
(d) Financing New Drainage Facilities
(e) 100-Year Floodplain
(f) City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan
Policy 4-8 SEISMIC HAZARDS
5. Public Works and Public Services Capacities
Policy 5-1 REGIONAL SEWAGE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Policy 5-2 FUTURE SEWAGE TREATMENT
Policy 5-3 UNTREATED RECLAIMED WATER
Policy 5-4 TEN PERCENT RESERVE SEWAGE CAPACITY FOR COASTAL
DEPENDENT RECREATION FOR VISITOR-SERVING USES
Policy 5-5 POINSETTIA LANE
6. Recreation and Visitor-Serving Uses
Policy 6-1 ADDITIONAL CITY PARKS
Policy 6-2 REGIONAL PARK
Policy 6-3 ENCINA FISHING AREA
Policy 6-4 NEED FOR ADDITIONAL OVERNIGHT CAMPING
Policy 6-5 NEED FOR 200 ADDITIONAL HOTEL-MOTEL ROOMS, AND
City of Carlsbad 44 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello II Chapter 11-2
Exhibit Yto Planning Commission Resolution 6378
January 16, 2008
POLICY 3-2 BUENA VISTA LAGOON
Developments located along the first row of lots bordering Buena Vista Lagoon, including the parcel
at the mouth of the lagoon (See Exhibit 4.5, Page 75), shall be designated for residential development
at a density of up to 4 dwelling units per acre. Proposed development in this area shall be required to
submit topographic and vegetation mapping and analysis, as well as soils reports, as part of the coastal
development permit application. Such information shall be provided as a part of or in addition to any
required Environmental Impact Report, and shall be prepared by qualified professionals and in
sufficient detail to enable the City to locate the boundary of wetland and upland areas and areas of
slopes in excess of 25%. Topographic maps shall be submitted at a scale sufficient to determine the
appropriate developable areas, generally not less than a scale of 1" -100' with a topographic contour
interval of 5 feet, and shall include an overlay delineating the location of the proposed project. Criteria
used to identify any wetlands existing on the site shall be those of Section 30121 of the Coastal Act
and based upon the standards of the Local Coastal Program mapping regulations, and shall be applied
in consultation with the State Department of Fish and Game.
Development shall be clustered to preserve open space for habitat protection. Minimum setbacks of at
least 100 feet from wetlands shall be required in all development, in order to buffer such sensitive
habitat areas from intrusion unless otherwise permitted pursuant to Policy 3-1.12. Such buffer areas,
as well as other open space areas required in permitted development to preserve habitat areas, shall be
permanently preserved for habitat uses through provision of an open space easement as a condition of
project approval. In the event that a wetland areas is bordered by steep slopes (in excess of 25%)
which will act as a natural buffer to the habitat area, a buffer area of less than 100 feet in width may be
permitted.
The density of any permitted development shall be based upon the net developable area of the parcel,
excluding any portion of a parcel which is in wetlands.
Storm drain alignments as proposed in the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan which would be
carried through or empty into Buena Vista Lagoon shall not be permitted, unless such improvements
comply with the requirements of Sections 30230, 30231, 30233, and 30235 of the Coastal Act by
maintaining or enhancing the functional capacity of the lagoon in a manner acceptable to the State
Department of Fish and Game.
Land divisions shall only be permitted on parcels bordering the Lagoon pursuant to a single planned
unit development permit for the entire original parcel.
POLICY 3-3 BATIOUITOS LAGOON
Erosion, drainage, and sedimentation of Batiquitos Lagoon were previously addressed, in the certified
Local Coastal Program prepared by the Coastal Commission for the areas subject to AB462 (Mello I
Segment) (See Exhibit 1.1). Development within the area which is the subject of that plan AB462
(Mello I Segment), and of AB1971 (Mello II Segment), shall also be required to meet those same
policies. Much of the Batiquitos Lagoon watershed is designated in this plan for continued
City of Carlsbad 67 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello II Chapter II-2
Exhibit Y to Planning Commission Resolution 6378
January 16, 2008
agricultural use which does not require a coastal development permit. When a coastal development
permit is required, however, conditions shall be imposed which will assure that the permitted
development will be carried out in a manner that assures protection of the water quality of the Lagoon.
Removal of major vegetation, for instance, requires a coastal development permit, and such permitted
activity shall be conditioned to limit the manner, time, and location of vegetation removal so as to
minimize soil erosion.
Development shall be clustered to preserve sensitive habitat areas and maintain the maximum amount
of permanent open space feasible. At a minimum, the following policies shall regulate development in
areas adjacent to the lagoon:
a) A minimum setback of 100 feet from the wetland shall be required, with the wetland area
determined as described in Policy 3-2, Buena Vista Lagoon on Page 50.
b) At least two-thirds (2/3) of any permitted development shall be clustered on the half of the
property furthest away from the lagoon at the base of the bluff.
c) Existing mature trees shall be preserved.
d) An offer to dedicate land for public recreation use, in favor of the City of Carlsbad or State
Coastal Conservancy and irrevocable for a term of 21 years, shall be required as a condition of
development. The required land dedication shall be of a size adequate to accommodate public
use facilities including some picnic tables and public parking, and shall include a public access
trail parallel to the lagoon shore of at least 15 feet in width with unobstructed views to the
lagoon.
e) To facilitate provision of public use areas and preservation of environmentally sensitive lands,
and to maintain the outstanding visual resources in the area surrounding the lagoon, an
additional density credit of one dwelling unit per acre of developed land shall be provided for
each two and one half per cent (2 1/2%) of total lot area, excluding wetlands, which is
maintained in open space and public recreation in excess of fifty per cent (50%) of the total lot
area, excluding wetlands.
f) Land divisions shall only be permitted on parcels bordering the lagoon pursuant to a single
planned development permit over the entire original parcel. The base residential density shall
be a maximum of 12 dwelling units per gross acre, excluding wetlands, subject to increase as
provided in Policy 3-3 e) above.
POLICY 3-4 GRADING AND LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
Permitted new development shall comply with the following requirements:
City of Carlsbad 68 Local Coastal Program
Land Use-Melloll Chapter 11-2
Exhibit Y to Planning Commission Resolution 6378
January 16, 2008
a) All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban runoff flow rates
and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in accordance with the
requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, Standard Urban Storm
Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, and the following
additional requirements. The SUSMP, dated April 2003 and as amended, the City of Carlsbad
Drainage Master Plan are hereby incorporated into the LCP by reference. Development must
also comply with the requirements of the Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program
(JURMP) and the San Diego County Hydrology Manual to the extent that these requirements
are not inconsistent with any policies of the LCP.
b) All graded areas shall be landscaped prior to October 1 st of each year with either temporary or
permanent landscaping materials, to reduce erosion potential. Such landscaping shall be
maintained and replanted if not well-established by December 1st following the initial
planting.
c) Prior to making land use decisions, the City shall utilize methods available to estimate
increases in pollutant loads and flows resulting from proposed future development. The City
shall require developments to incorporate structural and non-structural best management
practices (BMP's) to mitigate the projected increases in pollutant loads and minimize any
increases in peak runoff rate.
d). Water pollution prevention methods shall be implemented to the maximum extent practicable,
and supplemented by pollutant source controls and treatment. Small collection strategies
located at, or as close as possible to, the source (i.e., the point where water initially meets the
ground) to minimize the transport of urban runoff and pollutants offsite and into a municipal
separate storm sewer system (MS4) shall be utilized.
e) Post-development runoff from a site shall not contain pollutant loads which cause or contribute
to an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives or which have not been reduced to the
maximum extent practicable.
f) Development projects should be designed to comply with the following site design principles::
1. Protect slopes and channels to decrease the potential for slopes and/or channels from
eroding and impacting storm water runoff.
2. To the extent practicable, cluster development on the least environmentally sensitive
portions of a site while leaving the remaining land in a natural undisturbed condition.
3. Preserve, and where possible, create or restore areas that provide important water
quality benefits, such as riparian corridors, wetlands and buffer zones. Land
acquisition of such areas shall be encouraged.
4. Provide development-free buffer zones for natural water bodies.
5. Minimize the amount of impervious surfaces and directly connected impervious
surfaces in areas of new development and redevelopment.
6. Where feasible implement site design/landscape features to slow runoff and maximize
City of Carlsbad 69 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello II Chapter 11-2
Exhibit Y to Planning Commission Resolution 6378
January 16, 2008
4) The area utilized for these uses shall be the minimum size necessary to satisfy the
requirements of the City of Carlsbad Zoning Code.
(i) Water Quality:
a. All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban runoff flow rates
and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in accordance with the
requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, Standard Urban
Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Drainage Master Plan, and the following additional
requirements. The SUSMP, dated April 2003 and as amended, the City of Carlsbad Drainage
Master Plan are hereby incorporated into the LCP by reference. Development must also
comply with the requirements of the Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program
(JURMP) and the San Diego County Hydrology Manual to the extent that these requirements
are not inconsistent with any policies of the LCP.
b. Prior to making land use decisions, the City shall utilize methods available to estimate
increases in pollutant loads and flows resulting from proposed future development. The City
shall require developments to incorporate structural and non-structural best management
practices (BMP's) to mitigate the projected increases in pollutant loads and minimize any
increases in peak runoff rate.
c. Water pollution prevention methods shall be implemented to the maximum extent practicable,
and supplemented by pollutant source controls and treatment. Small collection strategies
located at, or as close as possible to, the source (i.e., the point where water initially meets the
ground) to minimize the transport of urban runoff and pollutants offsite and into a municipal
separate storm sewer system (MS4) shall be utilized.
d. Post-development runoff from a site shall not contain pollutant loads which cause or
contribute to an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives or which have not been
reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
e. Development projects should be designed to comply with the following site design principles:
1. Protect slopes and channels to decrease the potential for slopes and/or channels from
eroding and impacting storm water runoff.
2. To the extent practicable, cluster development on the least environmentally sensitive
portions of a site while leaving the remaining land in a natural undisturbed condition.
3. Preserve, and where possible, create or restore areas that provide important water
quality benefits, such as riparian corridors, wetlands and buffer zones. Land
acquisition of such areas shall be encouraged.
4. Provide development-free buffer zones for natural water bodies.
5. Minimize the amount of impervious surfaces and directly connected impervious
surfaces in areas of new development and redevelopment.
6. Where feasible implement site design/landscape features to slow runoff and maximize
City of Carlsbad 74 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello II Chapter 11-2
Exhibit Y to Planning Commission Resolution 6378
January 16, 2008
connect to neighboring properties with existing or potential wildlife corridor linkages.
Impacts to native habitat shall require onsite mitigation through restoration and/or creation of
habitat within the designated corridor linkage, in addition to any other required mitigation.
3-8.11 Assessor's Parcel No. 215-050-12 (Reiter) - Development shall be limited to a maximum of
25% of the property, and shall be clustered on the western portion of the property. No
impacts to coast oak woodland, riparian areas or wetlands shall be allowed A wildlife
corridor linkage oriented generally north-south shall be provided on the eastern portion of
the property, include the onsite coast oak woodland area, and be designed to connect to
neighboring properties with existing or potential wildlife corridor linkages. Impacts to
native habitat shall require onsite mitigation through restoration and/or creation of habitat
within the designated corridor linkage, in addition to any other required mitigation.
3-8.12 Assessor's Parcel No. 215-050-73 (Levatino)-Maximum 25% development clustered on the
southern portion of the property. Buffer widths may be reduced and/or additional impacts
may be allowed to the extent necessary to obtain site access, and/or to accommodate
Circulation Road improvements identified in the certified LCP.
The parcel specific standards listed above are adopted because hardline preserve boundary lines were
not established at the time of preparation of the HMP. The purpose of the standards is to ensure that
future development is sited to preserve the maximum amount of ESHA within the coastal zone, and
to establish a viable habitat corridor and preserve area in Zones 20 and 21. If the City, with the
concurrence of the wildlife agencies and the Coastal Commission through an LCP amendment,
subsequently approves a hardline preserve boundary for any of the above-described properties as
part of the HMP, then the onsite preservation included in the hardline preserve boundary shall apply.
4. GEOLOGIC, FLOODPLAIN, AND SHORELINE HAZARD AREAS
POLICY 4-1 COASTAL EROSION
I. Development Along Shoreline
a. For all new development along the shoreline, including additions to existing
development, a site-specific geologic investigation and analysis similar to that required
by the Coastal Commission's Geologic Stability and Blufftop Guidelines shall be
required; for permitted development, this report must demonstrate bluff stability for 75
years, or the expected lifetime of the structure, whichever is greater. Additionally,
permitted development shall incorporate, where feasible, sub-drainage systems to
remove groundwater from the bluffs, and shall use drought-resistant vegetation in
landscaping, as well as adhering to the standards for erosion control contained in the City
of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan. A waiver of public liability shall be required for any
permitted development for which an assurance of structural stability cannot be provided.
All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban runoff flow
rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in accordance with the
City of Carlsbad 82 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello II Chapter 11-2
Exhibit Yto Planning Commission Resolution 6378
January 16, 2008
requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinances, Standard Urban
Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, and the
following additional requirements. The SUSMP, dated April 2003 and as amended, the
City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan are hereby incorporated into the LCP by
reference. Development must also comply with the requirements of the Jurisdiction^
Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP) and the San Diego County Hydrology
Manual to the extent that these requirements are not inconsistent with any policies of the
LCP.
b. Prior to making land use decisions, the City shall utilize methods available to estimate
increases in pollutant loads and flows resulting from proposed future development. The
City shall require developments to incorporate structural and non-structural best
management practices (BMP's) to mitigate the projected increases in pollutant loads and
minimize any increases in peak runoff rate.
c. Water pollution prevention methods shall be implemented to the maximum extent
practicable, and supplemented by pollutant source controls and treatment. Small
collection strategies located at, or as close as possible to, the source (i.e., the point where
water initially meets the ground) to minimize the transport of urban runoff and pollutants
offsite and into a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) shall be utilized.
d. Post-development runoff from a site shall not contain pollutant loads which cause or
contribute to an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives or which have not been
reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
e. Development projects should be designed to comply with the following site design
principals:
1. Protect slopes and channels to decrease the potential for slopes and/or channels from
eroding and impacting storm water runoff.
2. To the extent practicable, cluster development on the least environmentally sensitive
portions of a site while leaving the remaining land in a natural undisturbed condition.
3. Preserve, and where possible, create or restore areas that provide important water
quality benefits, such as riparian corridors, wetlands and buffer zones. Land
acquisition of such areas shall be encouraged.
4. Provide development-free buffer zones for natural water bodies.
5. Minimize the amount of impervious surfaces and directly connected impervious
surfaces in areas of new development and redevelopment.
6. Where feasible implement site design/landscape features to slow runoff and
maximize on-site infiltration of runoff.
7. Properly design outdoor material storage areas (including the use of roof or awning
covers) to minimize the opportunity for toxic compounds, oil and grease, heavy
metals, nutrients, suspended solids and other pollutants from entering the storm water
conveyance system.
City of Carlsbad 83 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello II Chapter 11-2
Exhibit Y to Planning Commission Resolution 6378
January 16, 2008
included as a condition of project approval.
Projects which create dredge spoils shall be required to deposit such spoils on the beaches if the
material is suitable for sand replenishment.
IV. Undevelopable Shoreline Features
No development shall be permitted on any sand or rock beach or on the face of any ocean bluff, with
the exception of accessways to provide public beach access and of limited public recreation
facilities.
POLICY 4-2 LANDSLIDES AND SLOPE INSTABILITY
The soils investigations now required as part of the land subdivision process are adequate to identify
with specificity areas of landslide and instability. However, these investigations will need to be
particularly thorough in those areas with La Jolla Group soils which have been identified for
potential future development.
Currently, soils investigations are only required for subdivisions. In the future, any development
proposed for areas known to be prone to landslide shall include a geologic investigation identifying
appropriate mitigation measures, and such geologic report shall be substantially as has been required
by the Coastal Commission's Geologic Stability and Blufftop Development Guidelines.
POLICY 4-3 ACCELERATED SOIL EROSION
Areas West of I-S and the Existing Paseo del Norte and Alone El Camino Real Upstream of Existing
Storm Drains
For areas west of the existing Paseo del Norte, west of 1-5 and along El Camino Real immediately
upstream of the existing storm drains, the following policy shall apply:
a. All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban runoff rates
and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in accordance with the
requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, Standard Urban
Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, and the
additional requirements contained herein. The SUSMP dated April 2003 and as
amended, the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan are hereby incorporated into the
LCP by reference. Development must also comply with the requirements of the
Jurisdictional Urban RunoffManagement Program (JURMP) and the San Diego County
Hydrology Manual to the extent that these requirements are not inconsistent with any
policies of the LCP. Such mitigation shall become an element of the project, and shall be
installed prior to the initial grading. At a minimum, such mitigation shall require
construction of all improvements shown in the City of Carlsbad-Drainage Master Plan
City of Carlsbad #6Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello II Chapter II-2
Exhibit Yto Planning Commission Resolution 6378
January 16, 2008
and amendments thereto between the project site and the lagoon (including the debris
basin), as well as: revegetation of graded areas immediately after grading; and a
mechanism for permanent maintenance if the City declines to accept the responsibility.
Construction of drainage improvements may be through formation of an assessment
district, or through any similar arrangement that allots costs among the various
landowners in an equitable manner.
b. Prior to making land use decisions, the City shall utilize methods available to estimate
increases in pollutant loads and flows resulting from proposed future development. The
City shall require developments to incorporate structural and non-structural best
management practices (BMP's) to mitigate the projected increases in pollutant loads and
minimize any increases in peak runoff rate.
c. Water pollution prevention methods shall be implemented to the maximum extent
practicable, and supplemented by pollutant source controls and treatment. Small
collection strategies located at, or as close as possible to, the source (i.e., the point where
water initially meets the ground) to minimize the transport of urban runoff and pollutants
offsite and into a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) shall be utilized.
d. Post-development runoff from a site shall not contain pollutant loads which cause or
contribute to an exceedance of receiving water quality obj ectives or which have not been
reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
e. Development projects should be designed to comply with the following site design
principles:
1. Protect slopes and channels to decrease the potential for slopes and/or channels
from eroding and impacting storm water runoff.
2. To the extent practicable, cluster development on the least environmentally
sensitive portions of a site while leaving the remaining land in a natural
undisturbed condition.
3. Preserve, and where possible, create or restore areas that provide important water
quality benefits, such as riparian corridors, wetlands and buffer zones. Land
acquisition of such areas shall be encouraged.
4. Provide development-free buffer zones for natural water bodies.
5. Minimize the amount of impervious surfaces and directly connected impervious
surfaces in areas of new development and redevelopment.
6. Where feasible implement site design/landscape features to slow runoff and
maximize on-site infiltration of runoff.
7. Properly design outdoor material storage areas (including the use of roof or
awning covers) to minimize the opportunity for toxic compounds, oil and grease,
heavy metals, nutrients, suspended solids and other pollutants from entering the
storm water conveyance system.
8. Incorporate roof or awning covers over trash storage areas to prevent offsite
City of Carlsbad *7 ' Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello II Chapter 11-2
Exhibit Yto Planning Commission Resolution 6378
January 16, 2008
c) Slope disturbance will not result in substantial damage or alteration to maj or
wildlife habitat or native vegetation areas and is consistent with the habitat
protection policies contained in Policies 3-1 and 3-8.
d) If the area proposed to be disturbed is predominated by steep slopes and is in
excess of 10 acres, no more than one third of the total steep slope area shall
be subject to major grade changes.
e) If the area proposed to be disturbed is predominated by steep slopes and is
less than 10 acres, complete grading may be allowed only if no interruption
of significant wildlife corridors occurs.
f) Because north-facing slopes are generally more prone to stability problems
and in many cases contain more extensive natural vegetation, no grading or
removal of vegetation from these areas will be permitted unless all
environmental impacts have been mitigated. Overriding circumstances are
not considered adequate mitigation.
(3) Drainage and Erosion Control
a. All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban
runoff flow rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in
accordance with the requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance, Storm Water
Ordinance, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), City of
Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, and the additional requirements contained
herein. The SUSMP, dated April 2003 and as amended, and the City of
Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan are hereby incorporated into the LCP by
reference. Development must also comply with the requirements of the
Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP) and the San Diego
County Hydrology Manual to the extent that these requirements are not
inconsistent with any policies of the LCP.
b. Prior to making land use decisions, the City shall utilize methods available to
estimate increases in pollutant loads and flows resulting from proposed future
development. The City shall require developments to incorporate structural and
non-structural best management practices (BMP's) to mitigate the projected
increases in pollutant loads and minimize any increases in peak runoff rate.
c. Water pollution prevention methods shall be implemented to the maximum
extent practicable, and supplemented by pollutant source controls and treatment.
Small collection strategies located at, or as close as possible to, the source (i.e.,
the point where water initially meets the ground) to minimize the transport of
urban runoff and pollutants offsite and into a municipal separate storm sewer
system (MS4) shall be utilized.
City of Carlsbad 91 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello II Chapter II-2
Exhibit Yto Planning Commission Resolution 6378
January 16, 2008
categories of BMP's on the basis that the City finds them to be infeasible
or impracticable.)
2. Addition of new development categories as Priority Projects.
3. Addition of new coastal waters to the map of Environmentally Sensitive
Areas.
4. Reductions in the area of impervious surfaces used to designate a specific
category of Priority Project.
p. Any minor changes made pursuant to the above list shall be accompanied by a
finding that the changes will improve and better protect coastal water quality.
The City Engineer or Planning Director shall notify the Executive Director in
writing of any of the above listed changes. For any changes not included in the
above list, the City shall contact the Executive Director to determine whether an
LCP amendment is necessary, and if necessary, shall subsequently apply for an
LCP amendment for the changes.
(4) Required Drainage or Erosion Control Facility Maintenance Arrangements:
Development approvals shall include detailed maintenance arrangements for
providing the ongoing repair and maintenance for all approved drainage or erosion-
control facilities.
(5) Installation & Timing of Permanent Runoff and Erosion Control Devices:
All permanent runoff-control and erosion-control devices shall be developed and
installed prior to or concurrent with any onsite grading activities.
(6) Required Open Space Easements on Undeveloped Slopes:
All undevelopable slopes shall be placed in open space easements as a condition of
development approval.
POLICY 4-4 REMOVAL OF NATURAL VEGETATION
When earth changes are required and natural vegetation is removed, the area and duration of exposure
shall be kept at a minimum.
POLICY 4-5 SOIL EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES
a. Soil erosion control practices shall be used against "onsite" soil erosion. These
include keeping soil covered with temporary or permanent vegetation or with
mulch materials, special grading procedures, diversion structures to divert surface
runoff from exposed soils, and grade stabilization structures to control surface
water. All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban
City of Carlsbad 94 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello II Chapter II-2
Exhibit Y to Planning Commission Resolution 63 78
January 16, 2008
runoff flow rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in
accordance with the requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance, Storm Water
Ordinance, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), City of
Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, and the additional requirements contained herein.
The SUSMP, dated April 2003 and as amended, and the City of Carlsbad Drainage
Master Plan are hereby incorporated into the LCP by reference. Development must
also comply with the requirements of the Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management
Program (JURMP) and the San Diego County Hydrology Manual to the extent that
these requirements are not inconsistent with any policies of the LCP.
b. Prior to making land use decisions, the City shall utilize methods available to
estimate increases in pollutant loads and flows resulting from proposed future
development. The City shall require developments to incorporate structural and
non-structural best management practices (BMP's) to mitigate the projected
increases in pollutant loads and minimize any increases in peak runoff rate.
c. Water pollution prevention methods shall be implemented to the maximum extent
practicable, and supplemented by pollutant source controls and treatment. Small
collection strategies located at, or as close as possible to, the source (i.e., the point
where water initially meets the ground) to minimize the transport of urban runoff
and pollutants offsite and into a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)
shall be utilized.
d. Post-development runoff from a site shall not contain pollutant loads which cause
or contribute to an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives or which have
not been reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
e. Development projects should be designed to comply with the following site
design principles:
1. Protect slopes and channels to decrease the potential for slopes and/or
channels from eroding and impacting storm water runoff.
2. To the extent practicable, cluster development on the least
environmentally sensitive portions of a site while leaving the remaining
land in a natural undisturbed condition.
3. Preserve, and where possible, create or restore areas that provide
important water quality benefits, such as riparian corridors, wetlands and
buffer zones. Land acquisition of such areas shall be encouraged.
4. Provide development-free buffer zones for natural water bodies.
5. Minimize the amount of impervious surfaces and directly connected
impervious surfaces in areas of new development and redevelopment.
6. Where feasible implement site design/landscape features to slow runoff
and maximize on-site infiltration of runoff.
7. Properly design outdoor material storage areas (including the use of roof
City of Carlsbad 95 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello II Chapter II-2
Exhibit Yto Planning Commission Resolution 6378
January 16, 2008
if they create more than 2,500 square feet of impermeable surface or increase the
impermeable surface on the property by more than 10%.
m. Although, residential developments of less than 10 units, including single family
residences, are generally exempt from the SUSMP priority project requirements,
they shall meet those requirements, including achievement of the numerical sizing
standard, if they are in, within 200 feet of, or discharging directly to an ESA,
including the Pacific Ocean; or shall provide a written report signed by a licensed
civil engineer showing that as the project is designed they are mitigating polluted
runoff, including dry weather nuisance flows, to the maximum extent practicable.
n. Detached residential homes shall be required to use efficient irrigation systems
and landscape designs or other methods to minimize or eliminate dry weather
flow, if they are within 200 feet of an ESA, coastal bluff or rocky intertidal areas.
o. The following minor revisions may occur to the Carlsbad SUSMP Storm Water
Standards dated April 2003 without an LCP amendment:
1. Addition of new Best Management Practices (BMP' s) found to be more
protective of water quality than current BMP's or removal of BMP's
found to be ineffective. (This does not include removal of BMP's or
categories of BMP's on the basis that the City finds them to be infeasible
or impracticable.)
2. Addition of new development categories as Priority Projects.
3. Addition of new coastal waters to the map of Environmentally Sensitive
Areas.
4. Reductions in the area of impervious surfaces used to designate a specific
category of Priority Project.
p. Any minor changes made pursuant to the above list shall be accompanied by a
finding that the changes will improve and better protect coastal water quality.
The City Engineer or Planning Director shall notify the Executive Director in
writing of any of the above listed changes. For any changes not included in the
above list, the City shall contact the Executive Director to determine whether an
LCP amendment is necessary, and if necessary, shall subsequently apply for an
LCP amendment for the changes.
POLICY 4-6 "SEDIMENT CONTROL" PRACTICES
a. Apply "sediment control" practices as a perimeter protection to prevent offsite
drainage. Preventing sediment from leaving the site should be accomplished by
such methods as diversion ditches, sediment traps, vegetative filters, and sediment
basins. Preventing erosion is of course the most efficient way to control sediment
runoff. All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban
City of Carlsbad 97 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello II Chapter II-2
Exhibit Yto Planning Commission Resolution 6378
January 16, 2008
runoff flow rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in
accordance with the requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance, Storm Water
Ordinance, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), City of
Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, and the following additional requirements. The
SUSMP, dated April 2003 and as amended, and the City of Carlsbad Drainage
Master Plan are hereby incorporated into the LCP by reference. Development must
also comply with the requirements of the Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management
Program (JURMP) and the San Diego County Hydrology Manual to the extent that
these requirements are not inconsistent with any policies of the LCP.
b. Prior to making land use decisions, the City shall utilize methods available to
estimate increases in pollutant loads and flows resulting from proposed future
development. The City shall require developments to incorporate structural and
non-structural best management practices (BMP's) to mitigate the projected
increases in pollutant loads and minimize any increases in peak runoff rate.
c. Water pollution prevention methods shall be implemented to the maximum extent
practicable, and supplemented by pollutant source controls and treatment. Small
collection strategies located at, or as close as possible to, the source (i.e., the point
where water initially meets the ground) to minimize the transport of urban runoff
and pollutants offsite and into a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)
shall be utilized.
d. Post-development runoff from a site shall not contain pollutant loads which cause
or contribute to an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives or which have
not been reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
e. Development proj ects should be designed to comply with the following site design
principles:
1. Protect slopes and channels to decrease the potential for slopes and/or
channels from eroding and impacting storm water runoff.
2. To the extent practicable, cluster development on the least
environmentally sensitive portions of a site while leaving the remaining
land in a natural undisturbed condition.
3. Preserve, and where possible, create or restore areas that provide
important water quality benefits, such as riparian corridors, wetlands and
buffer zones. Land acquisition of such areas shall be encouraged.
4. Provide development-free buffer zones for natural water bodies.
5. Minimize the amount of impervious surfaces and directly connected
impervious surfaces in areas of new development and redevelopment.
6. Where feasible implement site design/landscape features to slow runoff
and maximize on-site infiltration of runoff.
7. Properly design outdoor material storage areas (including the use of roof
City of Carlsbad 98 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello II Chapter II-2
Exhibit Y to Planning Commission Resolution 6378
January 16, 2008
if they create more than 2,500 square feet of impermeable surface or increase the
impermeable surface on the property by more than 10%.
m. Although residential developments of less than 10 units, including single family
residences, are generally exempt from the SUSMP priority project requirements,
they shall meet those requirements, including achievement of the numerical sizing
standard, if they are in, within 200 feet of, or discharging directly to an ESA,
including the Pacific Ocean; or shall provide a written report signed by a licensed
civil engineer showing that as the project is designed they are mitigating polluted
runoff, including dry weather nuisance flows, to the maximum extent practicable.
n. Detached residential homes shall be required to use efficient irrigation systems and
landscape designs or other methods to minimize or eliminate dry weather flow, if
they are within 200 feet of an ESA, coastal bluff or rocky intertidal areas.
o. The following minor revisions may occur to the Carlsbad SUSMP Storm Water
Standards dated April 2003 within an LCP amendment:
1. Addition of new Best Management Practices (BMP' s) found to be
more protective of water quality than current BMP' s or removal of
BMP's found to be ineffective. (This does not include removal of
BMP's or categories of BMP's on the basis that the City finds them
to be infeasible or impracticable.)
2. Addition of new development categories as Priority Projects.
3. Addition of new coastal waters to the map of Environmentally
Sensitive Areas.
4. Reduction in the area of impervious surfaces used to designate a
specific category of Priority Projects.
q. Any minor changes made pursuant to the above list shall be accompanied by a
finding that the changes will improve and better protect coastal water quality. The
City Engineer or Planning Director shall notify the Executive Director in writing of
any of the above listed changes. For any changes not included in the above list, the
City shall contact the Executive Director to determine whether an LCP amendment
is necessary, and if necessary, shall subsequently apply for an LCP amendment for
the changes.
POLICY 4-7 FLOOD HAZARDS
(a) Storm Drainage Facilities in Developed Areas
Storm drainage facilities in developed areas should be improved and enlarged according to the City of
Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, incorporating the changes recommended in the LCP.
City of Carlsbad 100 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello II Chapter 11-2
Exhibit Y to Planning Commission Resolution 6378
January 16, 2008
(b) City's Grading Ordinance
The City's grading ordinance should be amended to greatly reduce the extent of onsite and offsite
erosion due to construction activities. (See policies under Soil Erosion.) Although these are primarily
erosion control measures, they will help to prevent sedimentation in downstream drainage facilities.
(c) Storm Drainage Facilities in Undeveloped Areas
Drainage improvement districts shall be formed for presently undeveloped areas which are expected to
urbanize in the future. The improvement districts would serve to implement the City of Carlsbad
Drainage Master Plan. Upstream areas in the coastal zone shall not be permitted to develop prior to
installation of the storm drain facilities downstream, in order to assure protection of coastal resources.
(d) Financing New Drainage Facilities
New drainage facilities, required within the improvement districts, should be financed either by some
form of bond or from fees collected from developers on a cost-per-acre basis.
(e) 100-Year Floodolain
Development shall continue to be restricted in 100-year floodplain areas. Continuing the policy of
zoning 100-year floodplains as open space will permit natural drainage to occur without the need for
flood control channels. No permanent structures or filling shall be permitted in the floodplain and only
uses compatible with periodic flooding shall be allowed.
(f) Drainage Master Plan
Adopt the provisions of the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan to ameliorate flood and drainage
hazards within the planning area.
POLICY 4-8 SEISMIC HAZARDS
The provisions of the State Uniform Building Code are not entirely adequate for earthquake protection.
The City should continue to monitor the UBCs earthquake provisions and make recommendations for
improvement.
Most development in liquefaction-prone areas should have site-specific investigations done
addressing the liquefaction problem and suggesting mitigation measures. New residential
development in excess of four units, commercial, industrial, and public facilities shall have site-
specific geologic investigations completed in known potential liquefaction areas.
City of Carlsbad 101 Local Coastal Program
1*3
Land Use - West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties Chapter II-3
Exhibit Yto Planning Commission Resolution 6378
January 16, 2008
other important coastal resources. The amount of the fee shall be determined by the City Council at
the time it considers the proposal for development and shall reflect the per acre cost of preserving
prime agricultural land pursuant to Option 1 of the "Mello IF portion of the Carlsbad LCP, as
amended, but shall not be less than $5,000 nor more than $10,000 per acre. All mitigation fees
collected under this section shall be deposited in the State Coastal Conservancy Fund and shall be
expended by the State Coastal Conservancy in the following order of priority:
1. Restoration of natural resources and wildlife habitat in Batiquitos Lagoon;
2. Development of an interpretive center at Buena Vista Lagoon;
3. Restoration of beaches managed for public use in the coastal zone in the City of Carlsbad;
4. Purchase of agricultural lands for continued agricultural production within the Carlsbad
Coastal Zone as determined by the Carlsbad City Council;
5. Agricultural improvements which will aid in continuation of agricultural production within
the Carlsbad Coastal Zone, as determined by the Carlsbad City Council.
Note: The fee for the remaining 60 acres of non-prime agricultural land within the Poinsettia
Shores Master Plan was set with the approval of the Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park
Master Plan at $5,000 per acre.
C. GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL
a. Because the area is located close to environmentally sensitive habitats, all development must
include mitigation measures for the control of urban runoff flow rates and velocities, urban
pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in accordance with the requirements of the City's Grading
Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP),
City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, and the following additional requirements. The SUSMP,
dated April 2003 and as amended, and the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan are hereby
incorporated in the LCP by reference. Development must comply with the requirements of the
Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP) and the San Diego County
Hydrology Manual to the extent that these requirements are not inconsistent with any policies of
the LCP.
b. Drainage and runoff shall be controlled so as not to exceed the capacity of the downstream
drainage facilities or to produce erosive velocities and appropriate measures shall be taken on
and/or off the site to prevent the siltation of the Batiquitos Lagoon and other environmentally
sensitive areas.
c. All graded areas shall be hydroseeded prior to October 1 st with either temporary or permanent
materials. Landscaping shall be maintained and replanted if not established by December 1st.
City of Carlsbad 123 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties Chapter 11-4
Exhibit Y to Planning Commission Resolution 6378
; January 16, 2008
4) All areas disturbed by grading, but not completed during the construction
period, including graded pads, shall be planted and stabilized prior to October
1st with temporary or permanent (in the case of finished slopes) erosion
control measures and native vegetation. The use of temporary erosion
control measures, such as berms, interceptor ditches, sandbagging, filtered
inlets, debris basins, and silt traps shall be utilized in conjunction with
plantings to minimize soil loss from the construction site. Said plantings
shall be accomplished under the supervision of a licensed landscape architect
and shall consist of seeding, mulching, fertilization, and irrigation adequate
to provide 90% coverage within 90 days. Planting shall be repeated, if the
required level of coverage is not established. This requirement shall apply to
all disturbed soils, including stockpiles.
5) All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban
runoff flow rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation
in accordance with the requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance, Storm
Water Ordinance, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP),
City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, and the following additional
requirements. The SUSMP, dated April 2003 and as amended, and the City
of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan are hereby incorporated into the LCP by
reference. Development must also comply with the requirements of the
Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP) and the San
Diego County Hydrology Manual to the extent that these requirements are
not inconsistent with any policies of the LCP.
6) Prior to making land use decisions, the City shall utilize methods available to
estimate increases in pollutant loads and flows resulting from proposed future
development. The City shall require developments to incorporate structural
and non-structural best management practices (BMP's) to mitigate the
projected increases in pollutant loads and minimize any increase in peak
runoff rate.
7) Water pollution prevention methods shall be implemented to the maximum
extent practicable, and supplemented by pollutant source controls and
treatment. Small collection strategies located at, or as close as possible to,
the source (i.e., the point where water initially meets the ground) to minimize
the transport of urban runoff and pollutants offsite and into a municipal
separate storm sewer system (MS4) shall be utilized.
8) Post-development runoff from a site shall not contain pollutant loads which
cause or contribute to an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives or
which have not been reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
9) Development projects should be designed to comply with the following site
City of Carlsbad 139 Local Coastal Program
I®
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6379
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CDP 06-04 TO ALLOW DREDGING
4 AND IMPROVEMENTS FOR ENCHANCED FLOOD
CONTROL ON A PORTION OF AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK IN
THE COASTAL ZONE THAT IS BETWEEN THE EL CAMINO
6 REAL BRIDGE AND THE DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF THE
CANNON ROAD BRIDGE IN LOCAL FACILITIES
7 MANAGEMENT ZONES 8 AND 24.
CASE NAME: AGUA HEDIONDA AND CALAVERA
8 CREEKS
9 CASE NO.: CDP 06-04
10 WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad, "Developer," has filed a verified application with
11 the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Carlsbad Canterbury Association and
12 Evans Point Homeowners Association, "Owners," with easements granted or dedicated to
13
the City of Carlsbad for road, drainage, open space, sewer, and maintenance purposes and
14
described as
16 A portion of Lot 148 of City of Carlsbad Tract No 96-07, Kelly
Ranch Village E, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
17 State of California, according to map thereof No. 13715, as
filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County
18 on December 31, 1998, and; a portion of Lot 195 of City of
19 Carlsbad Tract No. 91-3, Evans Point, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California, according to map
20 thereof No. 13189, as filed in the Office of the County Recorder
of San Diego County on February 10,1995
21
22 ("the Property"); and
23 WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Coastal
24 Development Permit as shown on Exhibits A - H dated January 16, 2008, on file in the
25 Planning Department, AGUA HEDIONDA AND CALAVERA CREEKS - CDP 06-04, as
26 provided by Chapter 21.201,040 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
27
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did, on January 16, 2008, hold a duly
28
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
2 and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
3
relating to the CDP.
4
5 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
6 Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
7 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
9 APPROVES AGUA HEDIONDA AND CALAVERA CREEKS - CDP 06-04
based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
10
Findings;
1. That the proposed development is in conformance with the Certified Local Coastal
Program (LCP) and all applicable policies in that it is the intent of the LCP to allow
13 implementation of drainage projects that are part of the City's drainage master
planning program.
14
2. The proposal is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3
of the Coastal Act in that the project involves dredging of existing creeks that are not
navigable, used for recreation or bordered by public trails or recreation areas.
3. The project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay
Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will adhere to the
1 g City's Master Drainage Plan (as well as the proposed Drainage Master Plan Update),
Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation
19 Plan (SUSMP), and Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP) to
avoid increased urban runoff, pollutants, and soil erosion. No steep slopes are located on
the subject property and the site is not located in an area prone to landslides. To enhance
21 flood control, the project does propose removal of native vegetation and
construction of improvements within a floodway; however, the existing Local
22 Coastal Program requires storm drainage facilities in developed areas to be
improved and enlarged according to the City's existing Master Drainage Plan and
thus it is the intent of the LCP to allow implementation of drainage projects that are
24 part of the City's drainage master planning program. Furthermore, LCP Policy 3-
1.7(a)(5) permits impacts to wetlands for dredging required for public service
25 purposes and there is no feasible alternative to dredging the area between the El
Camino Real and Cannon Road bridges (the portion of the project within the
Coastal Zone) that would provide flood protection to Rancho Carlsbad to the extent
feasible and restore 100-year flood capacity in the creeks. Finally, impacts to
wetlands would be mitigated to a level of insignificance, and the portion of the
28 project within the Coastal Zone is not part of a Habitat Management Plan Hardline
Preserve.
PC RESO NO. 6379 -2-
4. Natural vegetation would be retained as much as possible, such as along creek
2 banks. Additionally, on-site mitigation could potentially occur on the creek banks,
where feasible, to restore natural vegetation in place of existing exotic or ornamental
3 vegetation. Further, the long-term maintenance plan would promote the growth of
native vegetation on the creek bank where appropriate and discourage
establishment of invasive exotic, nonnative, and ornamental vegetation via
maintenance activities.
5. Implementation of the project's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program and
long-term maintenance plan would be consistent with requirements of LCP policies
7 4-5 (erosion control) and 4-6 (sediment control).
8 6. This Coastal Development Permit has been submitted following the City's issuance
of an emergency Coastal Development Permit on February 6, 2006, to permit
emergency dredging of the project portion of Agua Hedionda Creek within the
Coastal Zone. Mitigation for biological impacts associated with the emergency work
have been or will be mitigated separately from this Coastal Development Permit.
11 Subject to the conditions of approval, this Coastal Development Permit also permits
improvements and dredging beyond those accomplished by the emergency permit
12 and includes a long term maintenance plan for creek dredging and enhanced flood
. - control on a permanent basis.
14 Conditions:
15 Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a
grading permit or start of construction, whichever occurs first.
16
.- 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
18 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
19 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
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 Coastal Development Permit.
22
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
23 and modifications to the Coastal Development Permit documents, as necessary to make
24 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
25 development, different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
26 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.
4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
PCRESON0.6379 -3-
challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
2 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid, this approval shall be invalid
unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with
3 all requirements of law.
4 5. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold
c harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
6 and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the City arising, directly
or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Coastal Development Permit
7 06-04, (b) City's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or
nondiscretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and
(c) Developer/Operator's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby,
9 including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the
facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation
10 survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City's
approval is not validated.
11 V
12 6. Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plancheck, a
reduced legible version of all approving resolution(s) in a 24" x 36" blueline drawing
13 format (including any applicable Coastal Commission approvals).
14 7. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
- as part of the Zones 8 and 14 Local Facilities Management Plans and any amendments
made to that Plan prior to the issuance of grading permits.
16
8. This approval is granted subject to the certification, adoption, and approval of the
17 Environmental Impact Report (EIR 04-02) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, SUP 06-02 and HMPP 06-03, and is subject to all conditions contained in
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6376, 6380, and 6381 for those other approvals
19 incorporated herein by reference.
20 9. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the EIR 04-02 Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
22 10. This approval shall become null and void if grading permits are not issued or construction
is not started for this project within 24 months from the date of project approval.
23
11. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall apply for and obtain a
24 grading permit issued by the City Engineer.
25 12. If a grading permit is required, all grading activities are prohibited from (February 1st for
26 gnatcatcher or March 15 for vireo) to (September 15th for gnatcatcher or vireo). All
erosion control measures must be installed prior to the initial grading. Any grading
27 extensions into the grading prohibition period must receive written approval of the
Planning Director, City Engineer, and the responsible wildlife agencies (California
2° Department of Fish and Game/United States Fish and Wildlife Service).
PCRESONO. 6379 -4-
13. Long term maintenance of the project portion of Agua Hedionda Creek is approved
2 and shall occur according to the (1) "Monitoring and Maintenance Plan for Agua
Hedionda and Calavera Creeks Dredging and Improvements Project" contained in
3 Appendix B of the Final EIR 04-02; (2) the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program; and (3) these conditions of approval.
4 "
c 14. Developer shall pay the citywide Public Facilities Fee imposed by City Council Policy
#17, the License Tax on new construction imposed by Carlsbad Municipal Code Section
6 5.09.030, and CFD #1 special tax (if applicable), subject to any credits authorized by
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 5.09.040. Developer shall also pay any applicable
7 Local Facilities Management Plan fee for Zones 8 and 14, pursuant to Chapter 21.90. All
such taxes/fees shall be paid at issuance of building permit. If the taxes/fees are not paid,
this approval will not be consistent with the General Plan and shall become void.
9
15. Prior to the issuance of the Coastal Development Permit, Developer shall submit to the
10 City a Notice of Restriction executed by the owner of the real property to be developed.
Said notice is to be filed in the office of the County Recorder, subject to the satisfaction
1 * of the Planning Director, notifying all interested parties and successors in interest that the
City of Carlsbad has issued a Coastal Development Permit by Resolution No. 6379 on
the property. Said Notice of Restriction shall note the property description, location of
13 the file containing complete project details and all conditions of approval as well as any
conditions or restrictions specified for inclusion in the Notice of Restriction. The
14 Planning Director has the authority to execute and record an amendment to the notice
' which modifies or terminates said notice upon a showing of good cause by the Developer
or successor in interest.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RESO NO. 6379 -5-
1 NOTICE
2
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
4 "fees/exactions."
5 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
annul their imposition.
9 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
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
12 expired.
13 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on January 16, 2008, by the following
15 vote, to wit:
16
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Boddy, Dominguez, Douglas,
Montgomery, and Whitton
18 NOES:
19
ABSENT: Commissioner Cardosa
20
ABSTAIN:
22
23 ..
JULIE %AKEJl, Chairperson
24 CARLSBATTPLANNING COMMISSION
25
26 ATTEST:
27
28 DON NEU
Planning Director
PCRESONO.6379 -6-
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6380
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
FLOODPLAIN SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
DREDGING AND IMPROVEMENTS FOR ENCHANCED
FLOOD CONTROL ON PORTIONS OF CALAVERA AND
AGUA HEDIONDA CREEKS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED AT AND NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF EL
CAMINO REAL AND CANNON ROAD AND IN A PORTION
OF RANCHO CARLSBAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT ZONES 8,14,15, AND 24.
CASE NAME: AGUA HEDIONDA AND CALAVERA CREEKS
CASE NO: SUP 06-02
WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad, "Developer," has filed a verified application with
the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Carlsbad Canterbury Association, Evans
Point Homeowners Association, Calavera Hills II LLC, and the multiple owners of the
Rancho Carlsbad residential community, "Owners," with easements granted or dedicated to
the City of Carlsbad for road, drainage, open space, sewer, and maintenance purposes and
described as
A portion of Lot 148 of City of Carlsbad Tract No 96-07, Kelly
Ranch Village E, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California, according to map thereof No. 13715, as
filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County
on December 31,1998; a portion of Lot 195 of City of Carlsbad
Tract No. 91-3, Evans Point, in the City of Carlsbad, County of
San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No.
13189, as filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San
Diego County on February 10, 1995; a portion of Parcel 1 of
City of Carlsbad Minor Subdivision 96-08 in the City of
Carlsbad County of San Diego, State of California, according
to Parcel Map 17985, as filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County on February 4, 1998, and;
Parcel 2 and a portion of the remainder parcel of City of
Carlsbad Minor Subdivision 92-01, Robertson Ranch, in the
City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to map thereof No. 19804, as filed in the Office of the
County Recorder of San Diego County on August 3,2005
("the Property"); and
in-
WHEREAS, said verified application constitutes a request for a Floodplain
2
Special Use Permit [Amendment] as shown on Exhibits "A" - "H" dated January 16, 2008, on
3
file in the Planning Department, AGUA HEDIONDA AND CALAVERA CREEKS - SUP 06-4
02, as provided by Chapter 21.110 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on January 16, 2008, hold a duly
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
9
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
10
relating to the Floodplain Special Use Permit.
12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
13 Commission of the City of Carlsbad as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission
16 APPROVES AGUA HEDIONDA AND CALAVERA CREEKS - SUP 06-02,
based on the following findings and subject to the following conditions:
17
Findings;
lo
19 1. The site is reasonably safe from flooding in that while the project proposes
construction in a floodplain, construction is temporary and designed to enhance
20 flood protection of existing creeks, thereby increasing the safety from flooding of the
Rancho Carlsbad residential community.
21
22 2. The project as proposed has been designed to minimize the flood hazard to the habitable
portions of the structure in that while no habitable structures are proposed, the project
23 would result in removing all but nine of the current 278 Rancho Carlsbad homes
from being subject to inundation during a 100-year storm event.
24
3. The proposed project does not create a hazard for adjacent or upstream properties or
structures in that the proposed project would remove nearly 270 homes in the Rancho
25 Carlsbad residential community from the threat of flooding during a 100-year storm
event.
27
28
PC RESO NO. 6380 -2-
113
4. The proposed project does not create any additional hazard or cause adverse impacts to
2 downstream properties or structures in that immediately below the project, Agua
Hedionda Creek opens to a wide undeveloped flood plain that extends to Agua
3 Hedionda Lagoon.
5. The proposed project does not reduce the ability of the site to pass or handle a base flood
of 100-year frequency in that the project would increase the ability of Agua Hedionda
and Calavera creeks to pass floodwaters of such frequency.
6. The proposed project taken together with all the other known, proposed, and anticipated
projects will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot
at any point in that the proposed project will dredge and improve Agua Hedionda
and Calavera creeks, thereby lowering and widening the creeks and increasing their
9 floodwater capacity.
10 7. All other required state and federal permits have been or will be obtained prior to
issuance of permits for grading, dredging or construction of the project.
Conditions;
13 Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a
grading permit or start of construction, whichever occurs first.
14
., 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
16 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
17 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
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 Special Use Permit.
20
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require Developer to make, all corrections
21 and modifications to the Special Use Permit document(s) necessary to make them
internally consistent and in conformity with final action on the project. Development
shall occur substantially as shown in the approved Exhibits. Any proposed development,
23 different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
24 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.
25
~, 4. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
27 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
28 unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with
all requirements of law.
PC RESO NO. 6380 -3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5. This approval is granted subject to the certification, adoption, and approval of the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR 04-02) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, CDP 06-04 and HMPP 06-03, and is subject to all conditions contained in
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6376, 6379, and 6381 for those other approvals
incorporated herein by reference.
6. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the EIR 04-02 Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
7. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold
harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the City arising, directly
or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Special Use Permit, (b) City's
approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or nondiscretionary, in
connection with the use contemplated herein, and (c) Developer/Operator's installation
and operation of the facility permitted hereby, including without limitation, any and all
liabilities arising from the emission by the facility of electromagnetic fields or other
energy waves or emissions. This obligation survives until all legal proceedings have been
concluded and continues even if the City's approval is not validated.
8. Developer shall submit to the Planning Director a reproducible 24" x 36," mylar copy of
the Site Plan reflecting the conditions approved by the final decision-making body.
9. Developer shall include, as part of the plans submitted for any permit plancheck, a
reduced legible version of all approving resolution(s) in a 24" x 36" blueline drawing
format (including any applicable Coastal Commission approvals).
10. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
as part of the Zone 8, 14, 15, and 24 Local Facilities Management Plans and any
amendments made to those Plans prior to the issuance of grading permits.
11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide proof to the
Director from the School District that this project has satisfied its obligation to provide
school facilities.
12. Long term maintenance of the project portions of Agua Hedionda and Calavera
creeks is approved and shall occur according to the (1) "Monitoring and
Maintenance Plan for Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks Dredging and
Improvements Project" contained in Appendix B of the Final EIR 04-02; (2) the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and (3) these conditions of
approval.
13. This approval shall become null and void if grading permits are not issued or construction
is not started for this project within 24 months from the date of project approval.
PC RESO NO. 6380 -4-
Engineering
2
14. Developer shall dredge and construct improvements in the Agua Hedionda and
3 Calavera Creek channels per the approved Site Plan to restore channel capacities
and remove adjacent properties from flood hazard areas per FEMA regulations to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
15. Prior to issuance of grading permits or start of construction, Developer shall submit the
necessary technical studies and documentation to the City Engineer to process a
Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) through FEMA to adjust regulatory
floodplain limits.
16. At the conclusion of the project, Developer shall process and receive approval of a Letter
of Map Revision (LOMR) from FEMA to finalize adjustment of the regulatory floodplain
limits.
17. Prior to hauling dirt or construction materials to or from any proposed construction site
within this project, Developer shall apply for and obtain approval from, the City Engineer
for the proposed haul route.
12
18. Prior to the start of construction activities, Developer shall obtain receipt of a Notice of
Intention from the State Water Resources Control Board.
19. Developer shall comply with the City's requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
15 Elimination System (NPDES) permit and the City's Standard Urban Storm Water
Mitigation Plan (SUSMP).
16
20. Prior to start of construction activities, Developer shall prepare a "Storm Water Pollution
17 Prevention Plan (SWPPP)" in compliance with current requirements and provisions
established by the San Diego Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board and City of Carlsbad Requirements. The SWPPP shall address measures to reduce
19 to the maximum extent practicable storm water pollutant runoff during construction of
the project.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RESO NO. 6380 -5-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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."
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
annul their imposition.
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
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
expired.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on January 16, 2008 by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Boddy, Dominguez, Douglas,
Montgomery, and Whitton
NOES:
ABSENT: Commissioner Cardosa
.ABSTAIN:
\ it.
JULIE BAKER, Chairperson
CARLSBAELPLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
DONNEU
Planning Director
PCRESON0.6380 -6-
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6381
2
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN PERMIT TO ALLOW
4 IMPACTS ON NATIVE HABITATS FOR DREDGING AND
5 IMPROVEMENTS FOR ENCHANCED FLOOD CONTROL ON
PORTIONS OF CALAVERA AND AGUA HEDIONDA
6 CREEKS ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT AND
NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF EL CAMINO REAL AND
? CANNON ROAD AND IN A PORTION OF RANCHO
CARLSBAD IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONES
8 8,14,15, AND 24.
9 CASE NAME: AGUA HEDIONDA AND CALAVERA
CREEKS
10 CASE NO: HMPP 06-03
1 ] WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad, "Developer," has filed a verified application with
12 the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Carlsbad Canterbury Association, Evans
13
Point Homeowners Association, Calavera Hills II LLC, and the multiple owners of the
14
. ^ Rancho Carlsbad residential community, "Owners," with easements granted or dedicated to
16 the City of Carlsbad for road, drainage, open space, sewer, and maintenance purposes and
17 described as
18 A portion of Lot 148 of City of Carlsbad Tract No 96-07, Kelly
19 Ranch Village £, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego,
State of California, according to map thereof No. 13715, as
20 filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County
on December 31,1998; a portion of Lot 195 of City of Carlsbad
2 ! Tract No. 91-3, Evans Point, in the City of Carlsbad, County of
22 San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No.
13189, as filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San
23 Diego County on February 10, 1995; a portion of Parcel 1 of
City of Carlsbad Minor Subdivision 96-08 in the City of
24 Carlsbad County of San Diego, State of California, according
to Parcel Map 17985, as filed in the Office of the County
Recorder of San Diego County on February 4, 1998, and;
26 Parcel 2 and a portion of the remainder parcel of City of
Carlsbad Minor Subdivision 92-01, Robertson Ranch, in the
27 City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California,
according to map thereof No. 19804, as filed in the Office of the
28 County Recorder of San Diego County on August 3,2005
("the Property"); and in
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad has received authorization to issue permits to
2
impact various sensitive species and habitats, including species listed as Threatened or
3
Endangered, by virtue of Incidental Take Permit No. TE022606-0 from the U.S. Fish and4
Wildlife Service and Natural Community Conservation Planning Permit No. 2835-2004-001-05;
6 and
7 WHEREAS, the authority stated above is based on a plan titled Habitat
Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad, Final Approval November
9
2004, referred to as the HMP, and approval of all projects is contingent on a finding of
10
consistency with the HMP; and
WHEREAS, said verified application by Developer constitutes a request for a
13 Habitat Management Plan Permit pursuant to the City's authority as contained in Chapter
14 21.210 of the Zoning Ordinance, on file in the Planning Department; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on January 16, 2008, hold a duly
16
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
17
WHEREAS, at said hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and18
jo arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
20 relating to the Habitat Management Plan Permit.
21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission as follows:
23
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
24
B) That the AGUA HEDIONDA AND CALAVERA CREEKS project is
consistent with the HMP as described in the following findings.
C) That based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Commission
27 APPROVES the Habitat Management Plan Permit, HMPP 06-03, for the AGUA
HEDIONDA AND CALAVERA CREEKS project based on the following
findings and subject to the following conditions:
PCRESON0.6381 -2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Findings;
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
That the Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks project is shown in Figure 28 of the
approved HMP as "development area" east of El Camino Real and "development
area" and "existing Hardline Preserve area" west of El Camino Real. However, the
portion of the creek shown as within the existing Hardline Preserve area is actually
not in a Hardline Preserve based on a detailed examination of recorded documents
affecting the area.
That authorization to take species of concern, through the take of 0.08 acre of Willow
Riparian Forest, is subject to continuous compliance with all provisions of the Habitat
Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad (HMP), the Citywide
Incidental Take Permit issued for the HMP, the Implementing Agreement, the Terms and
Conditions of the Incidental Take Permit, and the Biological Opinion. Biological impacts
associated with the 2006 emergency dredging of Agua Hedionda and Calavera
creeks are mitigated separately from those impacts associated with the project.
That authorization to take species of concern is subject to continuous compliance with all
mitigation measures as stated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
for EIR 04-02 as contained in Planning Commission Resolution 6376 and is subject to
all conditions contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6376, 6379 and 6380
for those other approvals, including but not limited to recordation of conservation
easements over all conserved areas and management and monitoring in perpetuity by a
qualified conservation entity.
That authorization to take species of concern is subject to continuous compliance with the
provisions of Volumes I, II and III of the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program and the
Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for Threatened and
Endangered Species Due to Urban Growth within the Multiple Habitat Conservation
Program Planning Area (SCH No. 93121073).
That all impacts to habitat and all take of species will be incidental to otherwise lawful
activities related to construction, operation, and maintenance of the Agua
Hedionda/Calavera Creeks project in that the dredging and improvements to
enhance the flood control capabilities of existing drainage facilities are acceptable
activities and are subject to approval of all required permits before work occurs.
The development project complies with the purpose and the intent provisions of Carlsbad
Municipal Code Section 21.210.10 in that the Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks
project is consistent with (a) the General Plan Land Use and Public Safety Elements
because the General Plan authorizes existing drainage infrastructure and planned
capacity improvements to support all designated land uses in the city and establishes
policies to provide flood protection to developed areas; (b) the Open Space and
Conservation Element in that impacts to sensitive habitat are mitigated to a level of
insignificance and are avoided if possible; (c) the Habitat Management Plan in that
the project proposes appropriate design features and mitigation measures as
identified in the Final EIR 04-02 to reduce biological impacts to a level of
insignificance.
PCRESON0.6381 -3-
7. That the project design as approved by the City of Carlsbad has avoided and minimized
2 impacts to wildlife habitat and species of concern to the maximum extent practicable.
Specifically, (a) there is no feasible alternative to dredging the creeks or impacting
3 wetlands that would provide flood protection to Rancbo Carlsbad to the extent
feasible and restore 100-year flood capacity in the creeks; (b) all biological impacts
4 can be reduced to a level of insignificance through mitigation measures that require
r among other things, best management practices to limit indirect temporary impacts
due to construction (e.g., dust, noise, water quality) and creation/restoration/and
6 enhancement of wetland and riparian habitat; (c) natural vegetation would be
retained as much as possible, such as along creek banks; (d) on-site mitigation could
7 potentially occur on the creek banks, where feasible, to restore natural vegetation in
place of existing exotic or ornamental vegetation; (e) the long-term maintenance
plan would promote the growth of native vegetation on the creek bank where
9 appropriate and discourage establishment of invasive exotic, nonnative, and
ornamental vegetation via maintenance activities; (f) the majority of the project is in
10 area the Habitat Management Plan indicates is "developed area" and none of the
project is in a Hardline Preserve Area, and: (g) the project is consistent with Local
Coastal Program polices, including those regarding wetland impacts, vegetation
j2 preservation, and sediment and erosion control.
13 8. 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
14 HMP Implementing Agreement.
9. That the incidental take of species of concern as a result of the project will not
16 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
17 and reporting to the wildlife agencies and the public.
^ ° 10. That the Planning Director is authorized to sign the Take Permit.
19 Conditions;
20
Note: Unless otherwise specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of a
21 grading permit or start of construction, whichever occurs first.
22
23 1. If any of the following conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be
implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so
24 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
25 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
property title; institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said
27 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 Plan
28 Permit.
PCRESON0.6381 -4-
2. Staff is authorized and directed to make, or require the Developer to make, all corrections
2 and modifications to the Habitat Management Plan Permit documents, as necessary, to
make them internally consistent and in conformity with the final action on the project.
3 Development shall occur substantially as shown on the approved Exhibits. Any proposed
development different from this approval, shall require an amendment to this approval.
5 3. Developer/Operator shall and does hereby agree to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold
harmless the City of Carlsbad, its Council members, officers, employees, agents, and
6 representatives, from and against any and all liabilities, losses, damages, demands, claims
and costs, including court costs and attorney's fees incurred by the City arising, directly
? or indirectly, from (a) City's approval and issuance of this Habitat Management Plan
„ Permit, (b) City's approval or issuance of any permit or action, whether discretionary or
nondiscretionary, in connection with the use contemplated herein, and
9 (c) Developer/Operator's installation and operation of the facility permitted hereby,
including without limitation, any and all liabilities arising from the emission by the
10 facility of electromagnetic fields or other energy waves or emissions. This obligation
survives until all legal proceedings have been concluded and continues even if the City's
approval is not validated.
12 4. Developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws and
13 regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
" 5. If any condition for construction of any public improvements or facilities, or the payment
. - of any fees in-lieu thereof, imposed by this approval or imposed by law on this Project are
challenged, this approval shall be suspended as provided in Government Code Section
16 66020. If any such condition is determined to be invalid, this approval shall be invalid
unless the City Council determines that the project without the condition complies with
17 all requirements of law.
18 6. This approval is granted subject to the certification, adoption, and approval of the
19 Environmental Impact Report (EIR 04-02) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, CDP 06-04 and SUP 06-02, and is subject to all conditions contained in
20 Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6376, 6379, and 6380 for those other approvals
incorporated herein by reference.
22 7. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the EIR 04-02 Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
23
8. This project shall comply with all conditions and mitigation measures which are required
24 as part of the Zone 8, 14, 15, and 24 Local Facilities Management Plans and any
- amendments made to those Plans prior to the issuance of grading permits.
26 9. This approval shall become null and void if grading permits are not issued or construction
is not started for this project within 24 months from the date of project approval.
27
10. As a condition of this approvals applicant must comply with the requirements of all
regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the project and any mitigation requirements
of the environmental documents for the project. Pursuant to Government Code section
PCRESON0.6381 -5-
11 65871 and Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 20, Chapter 20.04, section 20.04.140, applicant
2 || shall grant a conservation easement for the conservation, protection, and management of
fish, wildlife, native plants, and the habitat necessary for biologically sustainable
3 || populations of certain species thereof, in accordance with the City's adopted Habitat
Management Plan.4 II
11. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or clearing of any habitat, whichever occurs first, the
5 || Developer shall take the following actions to the satisfaction of the Planning Director in
relation to the open space lot(s) which are being conserved for natural habitat in
" conformance with the City's Habitat Management Plan:
7 a. Select a conservation entity, subject to approval by the City, that possesses
qualifications to manage the open space lot(s) for conservation purposes.
8 II b. Prepare a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or other method acceptable to the City
9 I for estimating the costs of management and monitoring of the open space lot(s) in
perpetuity in accordance with the requirements of the North County Multiple
1" Habitats Conservation Plan and the City's Open Space Management Plan.
11 c. Based on the results of the PAR, provide a non-wasting endowment or other
financial mechanism acceptable to the Planning Director and conservation entity,
^ if any, in an amount sufficient for management and monitoring of the open space
, 0 lot(s) in perpetuity.
d. Record a Conservation Easement over the open space lot(s).14 ||
e. Prepare a Preserve Management Plan which will ensure adequate management of
15 the open space lot(s) in perpetuity.
16 12. Long term maintenance of the project portions of Agua Hedionda and Calavera
creeks is approved and shall occur according to the (1) "Monitoring and
17 || Maintenance Plan for Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks Dredging and
Improvements Project" contained in Appendix B of the Final EIR 04-02; (2) the
18 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and (3) these conditions of
jo approval.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II
PCRESONO. 6381 -6-
1 NOTICE
2
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
4 "fees/exactions."
5 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
6 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.
9 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
NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has previously otherwise
12 expired.
13 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the planning
14 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on January 16, 2008 by the following
15
vote, to wit:
16
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioners Boddy, Dominguez, Douglas,
Montgomery, and Whitton
18
NOES:
19
ABSENT: Commissioner Cardosa
20
21 ABSTAIN:
22 On.
23 JULIE BAKER, Chairperson
CARLSBAD-BLANNING COMMISSION24
25 ATTEST:
26"
27
2g DONNEU
Planning Director
PCRESONO.6381 -7-
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
Item No.
P.C. AGENDA OF: January 16,2008
Application complete date: N/A
Project Planner: Scott Donnell
Project Engineer: David Hauser, Steve Jantz
SUBJECT: EIR 04-02/ZCA 07-04/LCPA 07-06/CDP 06-04/SUP 06-02/HMPP 06-03 -
CITY OF CARLSBAD DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN
UPDATE/CALAVERA AND AGUA HEDIONDA CREEKS - A request to:
(1) recommend (a) certification of a Final EIR, and (b) adoption of the Candidate
Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the
proposed City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update and the Calavera and
Agua Hedionda Creeks project; (2) recommend approval of a Zone Code
Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend the Zoning
Ordinance and the Local Coastal Program policies to replace references to the
Master Drainage Plan adopted in 1994 with references to the proposed City of
Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan as well as delete references to the Model Erosion
Control Ordinance and Model Grading Ordinance; and (3) approve a Coastal
Development Permit, Special Use Permit (floodplain), and Habitat Management
Plan Permit for the dredging, improving, and long-term maintenance of portions
of Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks in and near the Rancho Carlsbad
residential community.
I.RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission (1) ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6376
RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION of the Final EIR, EIR 04-02, and ADOPTION of the
Candidate Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; (2) ADOPT
Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6377and 6378 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of
ZCA 07-04 and LCPA 07-06 based on the findings contained therein; and (3) ADOPT Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 6379, 6380 and 6381 APPROVING CDP 06-04, SUP 06-02, and
HMPP 06-03, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The objectives of the Drainage Master Plan Update/Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks project
are to help implement the proposed City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan and provide enhanced
flood control protection for the Rancho Carlsbad residential community.
The Drainage Master Plan Update (DMP Update) is a comprehensive, city-wide planning
document that serves to assess existing storm drain infrastructure and drainage areas; identify
anticipated improvements and additional infrastructure required to prevent flooding and
accommodate storm flows resulting from future development within the city; and provide guidance
EIR 04-02/ZCA 07-04/LCPA 07-06/CDP 06-04/SUP 06-02/HMPP 06-03 - CITY OF
CARLSBAD DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE/AGUA HEDIONDA AND CALAVERA
CREEKS
January 16, 2008
Page 2
on developing a Planned Local Drainage Area (PLDA) fee program to facilitate construction of
specific drainage facilities required for new development. The DMP Update would replace the
City's current Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan, adopted in 1994 and
amended in 1996.
Components of both the existing and proposed drainage master plans are the dredging and
improvements of portions of Agua Hedionda Creek and Calavera Creek in and near the Rancho
Carlsbad mobile home community. The proposed dredging and improvements would provide
enhanced flood control protection to the community by removing the threat of flooding from
approximately 270 homes.
To accomplish the project objectives are three different proposed actions, all of which require a
Planning Commission recommendation or approval as identified herein:
1. EIR 04-02 - Certify a Final Environmental Impact Report for both the proposed DMP
Update and the dredging of the two creeks. The Final EIR analyzes most Update
components at a "program level" based on the preliminary design information available
for these components. For the two Update components that would result in the dredging
of portions of Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks in and near Rancho Carlsbad and the
intersection of El Camino Real and Cannon Road, the Final EIR provides a "project
level" analysis based on the advanced design work completed.
With regards to the program level analysis, the EIR represents the best effort to evaluate
environmental impacts associated with implementation of the DMP Update given its
long-term planning horizon. It can be anticipated that development conditions could
change; however, the assumptions used are the best available at the time of preparation
and reflect existing knowledge of patterns of development, land use designations, and
technological factors related to engineering and design.
2. ZCA 07-04 & LCPA 07-04 - Amend the policies of the Local Coastal Program and
sections of the Zoning Ordinance to reference the proposed Drainage Master Plan. The
amendments, which can be characterized as "housekeeping" changes, would delete
references to the current "Master Drainage Plan" or similar term and uniformly replace
them with references to the "City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan." The amendments
would also delete references to the Model Erosion Control Ordinance and Model Grading
Ordinance, both of which are identified as part of the existing Master Drainage Plan but
which were not adopted and were replaced by other regulations; in one instance, the
reference to the Model Erosion Control Ordinance would be replaced by a new reference
to the City's Engineering Standards, the regulations that address erosion control, among
other things.
The proposed Local Coastal Program Amendment affects all segments of the City's
Coastal Zone except the Carlsbad Village Segment. Because the Village area is
essentially developed and lacks sensitive habitat, this segment lacks goals or policies that
relate to drainage infrastructure, storm water conveyance, or biological resources.
EIR 04-02/ZCA 07-04/LCPA 07-06/CDP 06-04/SUP 06-02/HMPP 06-03 - CITY OF
CARLSBAD DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE/AGUA HEDIONDA AND CALAVERA
CREEKS
January 16, 2008
Page3
3. CDP 06-04, SUP 06-02 & HMPP 06-03 - Approve a Coastal Development Permit,
Special Use Permit (floodplain), and Habitat Management Plan Permit for the proposed
dredging and improvements of Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks. The Coastal
Development Permit applies only to the portion of the dredging and improvement project
in the Coastal Zone, which is the part of Agua Hedionda Creek between the Cannon Road
and El Camino Real bridges.
Planning Commission approval of the three permits above for the dredging of Agua Hedionda
and Calavera creeks is dependent upon certification of the Final EIR but is not dependent upon
approval of the DMP Update. This is because dredging of the creeks is a component of the
current Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan adopted in 1994.
Also, adoption of the Drainage Master Plan Update is not subject to Planning Commission
review or recommendation and instead requires only the approval of the City Council. This
approval will occur at a later date. Staff has provided a copy of the DMP Update to the Planning
Commission for information only. An excellent description and analysis of the DMP Update is
also provided in the Final EIR.
All aspects of the project, including proposed Local Coastal Program and Zoning Ordinance
amendments and permits to dredge and improve the creeks, are consistent with the applicable
portions of the General Plan, remaining portions of the Zoning Ordinance and the Local Coastal
Program not proposed for change, and other applicable regulations such as the Habitat
Management Plan.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Drainage Master Plan Update - Since adoption of the existing Master Drainage and Storm
Water Quality Management Plan in 1994, rapid growth and subsequent development of the City
have resulted in the need to reassess existing storm water infrastructure requirements and
pipeline capacities to accommodate projected drainage flows. The Drainage Master Plan Update
is a guidance document and contains the results of the assessment of existing storm drain
infrastructure, the identification of needed improvements required to accommodate storm water
flows resulting from new developments within the city limits, and a recalculation of the Planned
Local Drainage Area (PLDA) Fee Program. The PLDA Fee is paid by developers and used by
the City to construct and maintain storm water infrastructure required for handling the increased
storm water flows resulting from new developments.
The purpose of the DMP Update is to identify and implement necessary drainage improvements
to provide adequate storm water conveyance and flood control protection throughout the city.
Implementation of the proposed DMP Update would accomplish the following objectives:
1. Address existing and anticipated future drainage infrastructure deficiencies within the
city at a basinwide level;
2. Provide facilities to accommodate storm flows from future development contemplated by
the City's General Plan;
EIR 04-02/ZCA 07-04/LCPA 07-06/CDP 06-04/SUP 06-02/HMPP 06-03 - CITY OF
CARLSBAD DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE/AGUA HEDIONDA AND CALAVERA
CREEKS
January 16,2008
Page 4
3. Provide facilities to accommodate anticipated drainage infrastructure needs in the city,
either through rehabilitation and replacement of aging infrastructure or implementation of
new facilities necessary to accommodate generalized future development; and
4. Provide for necessary long-term infrastructure operation and maintenance activities to
ensure public safety, reduction of flood hazards, and storm water quality control.
Further, the DMP Update does not directly address storm water quality because the city now has
separate planning documents for storm water quality control. However, a benefit of the DMP
Update is that it would indirectly protect and improve water quality by improving storm water
conveyance, reducing erosion, and removing sediments and/or contaminants.
Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks General Description - The City proposes to conduct
drainage infrastructure modifications and improvements along Agua Hedionda and Calavera
creeks to provide enhanced flood protection for the residential community of Rancho Carlsbad.
Rancho Carlsbad is an existing residential mobile home community located east of El Camino
Real and south of Cannon Road. Over 50 percent of the homes in Rancho Carlsbad (278 of the
total 504 units) are located within the existing limits of the 100-year floodplain and could be
subject to flood damage during a major storm event. The original segments of Agua Hedionda
and Calavera creeks were reconstructed as man-made, earthen channels in conjunction with the
development of the Rancho Carlsbad community according to plans dated June 1969.
The Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creek project components are included as part of the DMP
Update (as PLDA components "B" and "BN") but are farther along in the design process;
therefore, a sufficient level of detail is available to evaluate these projects at a project level
within the EIR. The Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks Dredging and Improvements Project
would reduce flooding in the Rancho Carlsbad residential community by improving the capacity
of Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks, within Rancho Carlsbad, to contain a 100-year flood
event (all but approximately 9 of the 278 lots would be alleviated or partially alleviated from
inundation during a 100-year flood).
Calavera Creek flows along the north boundary of Rancho Carlsbad and joins Agua Hedionda
Creek, which passes through the center of the community, just upstream of El Camino Real.
From their confluence, Agua Hedionda Creek continues and exits the Rancho Carlsbad
community under El Camino Real. West of El Camino Real, Agua Hedionda Creek bends west,
where it passes beneath Cannon Road and flows into a natural stream channel that drains into
Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
A project map is attached that shows the creeks, proposed project features, and existing
landmarks.
The length of work in Agua Hedionda Creek within the project boundary is approximately 3,000
feet, extending from approximately 100 feet below the downstream edge of the Rancho Carlsbad
Drive Bridge to the downstream edge of the Cannon Road Bridge. The approximate length of
EIR 04-02/ZCA 07-04/LCPA 07-06/CDP 06-04/SUP 06-02/HMPP 06-03 - CITY OF
CARLSBAD DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE/AGUA HEDIONDA AND CALAVERA
CREEKS
January 16,2008
PageS
Calavera Creek within the project boundary is 3,400 feet, extending from near the intersection of
Cannon Road and College Boulevard to the confluence with Agua Hedionda Creek.
The improvements to Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks are an integral part of the DMP
Update and are essential components of the flood control and protection measures outlined for
the city. Based on visual inspections and preliminary engineering, the overall channel
conveyance capacity of Agua Hedionda Creek has been reduced through the deposition of 4 to 6
feet of sediment accumulated over the 36 years since the original construction of the channel,
creating a backwater effect within Calavera Creek and reducing its capacity. Several
homeowners have installed revetment walls (constructed of treated lumber and steel "I-beams")
and/or rock slope protection to protect their homes from damage during heavy storm events. In
fact, storms in 2004 resulted in significant scouring of the banks within Calavera Creek.
Approximately nine units would partially remain subject to inundation during a 100-year flood
event following implementation of the proposed DMP Update. Units that would partially remain
in the 100-year floodplain under the proposed scenario are on elevated foundations that would
raise their first-floor elevation above the 100-year floodplain level. Long-term maintenance of
both creeks is also proposed to maintain flood protection levels in Rancho Carlsbad.
In March 2006, emergency channel dredging was conducted and completed in portions of Agua
Hedionda and Calavera creeks to provide immediate flood protection for the residential
community of Rancho Carlsbad. Emergency dredging was conducted in two phases. The first
phase involved removing vegetation and dredging within the channel between the El Camino
Real and Cannon Road bridges. The second phase included dredging of the Agua Hedionda
Creek channel from the El Camino Real Bridge, working eastward (upstream) to the southern
boundary of Rancho Carlsbad Drive. To facilitate the work, the City issued an emergency
Coastal Development Permit in February 2006. Biological impacts associated with the
emergency work are being mitigated.
The 2006 emergency dredge activities were required to address immediate flood control and
public safety needs of the Rancho Carlsbad community; however, long-term dredging,
improvements, and regular maintenance for the Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks as proposed
in the DMP Update must be completed to restore and maintain the flood control capacity of the
channels. In response, the proposed Coastal Development Permit, Special Use Permit
(floodplain), and Habitat Management Plan Permit have been submitted.
Improvements and dredging to Agua Hedionda Creek - Proposed work would involve sediment
removal and channel improvements along approximately 3,000 feet of channel bottom from near
Rancho Carlsbad Drive to the downstream edge of the Cannon Road Bridge. Between El Camino
Real Bridge and the confluence with Calavera Creek, Agua Hedionda Creek would be widened
by approximately 27 feet. Upstream of the confluence of Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks,
Agua Hedionda Creek would be dredged up to 6 feet in depth.
An access road would be constructed near the confluence of Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks
to provide access for dredging equipment in the creeks (Figure 3-5). An additional access point
would be maintained to enter Agua Hedionda Creek between the El Camino and Cannon Road
bridges.
EIR 04-02/ZCA 07-04/LCPA 07-06/CDP 06-04/SUP 06-02/HMPP 06-03 - CITY OF
CARLSBAD DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE/AGUA HEDIONDA AND CALAVERA
CREEKS
January 16, 2008
Page 6
In addition to channel dredging, the following improvements would also occur to Agua
Hedionda Creek:
1. Removal and replacement of eroded concrete aprons and downdrains;
2. Slope stabilization (for areas subject to erosion or scour) with slope treatment material;
3. Construction of a desilting basin within the channel for temporary sediment control
measures during construction and for permanent sediment control as part of the long term
maintenance plan for Agua Hedionda Creek;
4. Installation of drop structures (gabions) to control stormwater velocity; and
5. Removal of retaining wall.
The project may also involve improvements to the existing support structures of the Cannon
Road and El Camino bridges to provide for a smoother flow of water under the bridges and
minimize potential accumulation of large debris. Project plans attached to this staff report
provide detailed information about the proposed improvements to both Agua Hedionda and
Calavera creeks.
Improvements and Dredging to Calavera Creek - The project proposes dredging that would
occur along approximately 300 feet of Calavera Creek from its confluence with Agua Hedionda
Creek just upstream of the El Camino Real bridge. The creek presently has a channel depth of
approximately 9 feet and a bottom width of approximately 4 feet, and the proposed dredging
would widen the creek bottom to 9 feet. Additional work would involve slope repair and
enhancement and drop structures, similar to that described above for Agua Hedionda Creek. A
decorative, 380-foot long wall adjacent to Calavera Creek would be removed to allow for access
during construction activities and reconstructed following dredging and improvements to the
creek.
Completion of proposed dredging and improvements to both creeks is estimated to take 4.5
months. Initial work would begin upstream near the Rancho Carlsbad Drive bridge and then
proceed downstream. If water is present upstream, a temporary channel diversion would be
installed at Rancho Carlsbad Drive. Dredging activities within Agua Hedionda Creek (including
excavation for the access road) are expected to take up to 50 working days. Dredging of Calavera
Creek would take up to 5 working days while the remaining slope restoration and structural
bridge improvements would be completed in approximately 45 working days.
Staging areas for project construction would be restricted to developed areas or areas with
nonnative/ornamental vegetation. Staging area locations may include the two vacant parcels east
of El Camino Real and between Cannon Road (hidden from view by an existing perimeter wall)
and Calavera Creek and the existing dirt access road between the Cannon Road and El Camino
Real bridges. If the two vacant parcels, owned by Calavera Hills II LLC, are unavailable, staging
would occur on existing maintenance roads along Calavera Creek over which the City has access
rights.
Besides equipment storage and maintenance, staging area activities would include dewatering of
dredge material prior to its transfer off-site. With regards to disposal of dredge materials, the
EIR 04-02/ZCA 07-04/LCPA 07-06/CDP 06-04/SUP 06-02/HMPP 06-03 - CITY OF
CARLSBAD DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE/AGUA HEDIONDA AND CALAVERA
CREEKS
January 16, 2008
Page?
City has two options: (1) beach replenishment, and/or (2) off-site disposal. More information
about each option may be found in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIR.
Upon completion of channel dredging and improvements, long-term maintenance of Agua
Hedionda Creek and Calavera Creek would be required to maintain 100-year flood capacity in
the creeks adjacent to Rancho Carlsbad and between the El Camino and Cannon Road bridges.
Long-term channel maintenance would include periodic inspections; sediment, debris, and
vegetation removal; and repair of eroded surfaces associated with drainage and bridge
appurtenances. The long-term monitoring and maintenance plan for Agua Hedionda and
Calavera creeks is included in Appendix B of the Final EIR. The ability to maintain the creeks on
a permanent basis is proposed as part of the project permits and is conditioned to occur according
to all conditions of approval, the project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and the
previously mentioned monitoring and maintenance plan.
IV. ANALYSIS
The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing its
compliance/consistency with the following:
A. General Plan;
B. Zoning Ordinance;
C. Local Coastal Program;
D. Habitat Management Plan; and
E. Growth Management Ordinance.
A. General Plan
ZCA 07-04, LCPA 07-06, CDP 06-04, SUP 06-02, andHMPP 06-03 - Compliance of the project
actions with the General Plan is demonstrated in the table below.
Ifl
EIR 04-02/ZCA 07-04/LCPA 07-06/CDP 06-04/SUP 06-02/HMPP 06-03 - CITY OF
CARLSBAD DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE/AGUA HEDIONDA AND CALAVERA
CREEKS
January 16, 2008
PageS .
TABLE 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
ELEMENT GOAL, OBJECTIVE,
POLICY OR PROGRAM
PROJECT CONSISTENCY
Land Use A City which preserves and
enhances the environment,
character and image of itself
as a desirable residential,
beach and open space oriented
community.
oText amendments to incorporate by reference
the DMP Update are consistent with the
General Plan in that the Carlsbad General
Plan authorizes existing drainage
infrastructure and planned capacity
improvements to support and protect all
designated land uses in the city. The Drainage
Master Plan Update was designed to guide the
City in the implementation of drainage
facilities required to meet the present and
future needs of Carlsbad as anticipated by the
General Plan.
oNo General Plan Amendments are proposed
as part of the Drainage Master Plan Update.
oThe dredging of Agua Hedionda and Calavera
creeks in particular would remove
approximately 270 homes in Rancho Carlsbad
from threat of flooding.
Land Use Require compliance with the
Growth Management public
facility standards, which
includes that "drainage
facilities must be provided as
required by the City and
concurrent with
development."
o Proposed amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance and Local Coastal Program will
facilitate implementation of the Drainage
Master Plan Update.
o The dredging of and improvements to Agua
Hedionda and Calavera creeks are needed to
provide flood protection to the Rancho
Carlsbad community.
EIR 04-02/ZCA 07-04/LCPA 07-06/CDP 06-04/SUP 06-02/HMPP 06-03 - CITY OF
CARLSBAD DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE/AGUA HEDIONDA AND CALAVERA
CREEKS
January 16,2008
Page 9
TABLE 1 - GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE CONTINUED
ELEMENT GOAL, OBJECTIVE,
POLICY OR PROGRAM
PROJECT CONSISTENCY
Open Space
&
Conservation
Element
To design storm water
conveyance systems that do
not adversely impact sensitive
environmental resources.
To control stormwater
pollutants.
o Design of Drainage Master Plan Update
components would incorporate design features
and construction measures to minimize
impacts to sensitive environmental resources.
o Dredging and improvements to Agua
Hedionda Creek and Calavera Creek are
consistent with Local Coastal Program
environmental policies and the Habitat
Management Plan; further, all biological
impacts can be mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
o The DMP Update does not propose wide-scale
channelization of natural streams. The
majority of the proposed DMP Update
components involve improvements to existing
facilities or installation of drainage features in
developed areas (i.e., roads and right of-ways;
existing commercial, industrial, or residential
areas).
o Construction of drainage improvements and
facilities would be subject to compliance with
all regulations imposed by the City and other
agencies to ensure storm water quality.
Public Safety A city which minimizes
injury, loss of life, and
damage to property resulting
from the occurrence of floods.
Require installation of
protective structures or other
design measures to protect
proposed building and
development sites from the
effects of flooding or wave
action.
o Implementation of the Drainage Master Plan
Update would provide flood protection for
developed areas and future developed areas.
The proposed text amendments would assist
in that implementation.
o Proposed dredging of and improvements to
Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks would
remove approximately 270 homes in Rancho
Carlsbad from threat of flooding by a 100-
year storm event.
EIR 04-02/ZCA 07-04/LCPA 07-06/CDP 06-04/SUP 06-02/HMPP 06-03 - CITY OF
CARLSBAD DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE/AGUA HEDIONDA AND CALAVERA
CREEKS
January 16, 2008
Page 10
B. Zoning Ordinance
ZCA 07-04 - The proposed text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance would improve its use and
understanding by standardizing the references to the City's master drainage planning document.
Presently, references to this document vary and include "Master Drainage Plan," "Master
Drainage Plan dated 1994," and "Carlsbad master drainage plan." The proposed Zone Code
Amendment would replace these references uniformly with "City of Carlsbad Drainage Master
Plan." Additionally, reference to the "Model Erosion Control Ordinance" as part of the drainage
master plan would also be deleted since, as explained in more detail under the Local Coastal
Program discussion below, this ordinance was not adopted and its proposed contents have been
replaced by other documents. Besides these proposed reference changes, no other amendments to
the Zoning Ordinance are proposed.
CDP 06-04, SUP 06-02 & HMPP 06-03 - Dredging of and improvements to Agua Hedionda and
Calavera Creeks require a Special Use Permit (floodplain) per Zoning Ordinance Chapter
21.110. The project complies with the requirements of this Chapter, including its statement of
purpose, in that the proposed dredging and improvements would benefit the Rancho Carlsbad
residential community by protecting human life and health, minimizing the need for rescue and
relief efforts associated with flooding, and minimizing damage to utilities. Further, the project
would remove nearly 270 units from the threat of flooding by a 100-year storm. The project also
includes a maintenance plan to ensure periodic dredging and maintenance continue so that
residences remain protected. The project also proposes no buildings, structures or habitable
components that would potentially expose people or property to flooding hazards.
The Zoning Ordinance also requires project compliance with the Habitat Management Plan and
various provisions of the Local Coastal Program. Discussion regarding the proposal's
consistency with these documents is below.
C. Local Coastal Program
ZCA 07-04 and LCPA 07-06 - The proposed amendment is required to bring Local Coastal
Program policies into consistency with each other and the similarly proposed amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance. This would enable the policies and implementing ordinances of the Local
Coastal Program to uniformly reference the proposed City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan.
The proposed reference to the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan would simply, in most
cases, replace references to the existing Master Drainage Plan, adopted in 1994. Existing
references to the Model Erosion Control Ordinance (in the Zoning Ordinance) and the Model
Grading Ordinance (in the Local Coastal Program polices) as part of the Master Drainage Plan
would also be deleted. Inclusion of these references date back to ordinances proposed in the
1980s but never adopted. Provisions for grading and erosion control are now found in documents
other than the Drainage Master Plan, such as the grading ordinance, and in region-wide
requirements for erosion and stormwater pollution control imposed on all cities by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board. For example, the proposed revision to Zoning Ordinance Section
21.38.141 (c) (6) replaces the requirement to comply with the "Model Erosion Control
Ordinance contained in the master drainage plan" with the requirement to comply with "City of
Carlsbad Engineering Standards and provisions of the Local Coastal Program."
EIR 04-02/ZCA 07-04/LCPA 07-06/CDP 06-04/SUP 06-02/HMPP 06-03 - CITY OF
CARLSBAD DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE/AGUA HEDIONDA AND CALAVERA
CREEKS
January 16,2008
Page 11
As evidenced by the numerous existing references to the City's master drainage plan and related
text that require compliance with the plan, it is the intent of the LCP to allow implementation of
drainage projects that are part of the City's drainage master planning program. The proposed
revisions to the Zoning Ordinance and policies of the Local Coastal Program would not
adversely impact coastal resources, obstruct coastal views or otherwise damage the visual beauty
of the coastal zone and are therefore consistent with the policies of the Local Coastal Program.
No permanent construction or development is involved with the proposed amendment. In
addition, all projects processed pursuant to the Drainage Master Plan Update that also require a
Coastal Development Permit would be required to comply with all applicable provisions and
policies of the certified Local Coastal Program.
CDP 06-04, SUP 06-02 & HMPP 06-03 - The proposal is in conformity with the public access
and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act in that it involves dredging of existing
creeks that are not navigable, used for recreation, or bordered by public trails or recreation areas.
Further, the project is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Resource Protection Overlay
Zone (Chapter 21.203 of the Zoning Ordinance) in that the project will adhere to the City's
Master Drainage Plan (as well as the proposed Drainage Master Plan Update), Grading
Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP),
and Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP) to avoid increased urban
runoff, pollutants, and soil erosion.
No steep slopes are located on the subject property and the site is not located in an area prone to
landslides. To enhance flood control, the project does propose removal of native vegetation and
construction of improvements within a floodway; however, the existing Local Coastal Program
requires storm drainage facilities in developed areas to be improved and enlarged according to
the City's existing Master Drainage Plan and thus it is the intent of the LCP, as noted above, to
allow implementation of drainage projects that are part of the City's drainage master planning
program. Furthermore, LCP Policy 3-1.7(a)(5) permits impacts to wetlands for dredging required
for public service purposes and there is no feasible alternative to dredging the area between the
El Camino Real and Cannon Road bridges (the portion of the project within the Coastal Zone)
that would provide flood protection to Rancho Carlsbad to the extent feasible and restore 100-
year flood capacity in the creeks. Further, impacts to wetlands would be mitigated to a level of
insignificance, and the portion of the project within the Coastal Zone is not part of a Habitat
Management Plan Hardline Preserve.
Moreover, natural vegetation would be retained as much as possible, such as along creek banks.
Additionally, on-site mitigation could potentially occur on the creek banks, where feasible, to
restore natural vegetation in place of existing exotic or ornamental vegetation. Further, the long-
term maintenance plan would promote the growth of native vegetation on the creek bank where
appropriate and discourage establishment of invasive exotic, normative, and ornamental
vegetation via maintenance activities.
EIR 04-02/ZCA 07-04/LCPA 07-06/CDP 06-04/SUP 06-02/HMPP 06-03 - CITY OF
CARLSBAD DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE/AGUA HEDIONDA AND CALAVERA
CREEKS
January 16, 2008
Page 12
D. Habitat Management Plan
ZCA 07-04 and LCPA 07-06 - As they do not directly propose development nor impact
standards relating to habitat protection, the proposed Local Coastal Program and Zoning
Ordinance text amendments are consistent with the City's Habitat Management Plan.
CDP 06-04, SUP 06-02 & HMPP 06-03 - The proposed dredging, widening, and improving of
Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks would impact both sensitive and non-sensitive habitat,
including 0.08 acre of willow riparian forest and 5.80 acres of nonnative/ornamental vegetation.
Impacts to willow riparian forest, which occur in the Coastal Zone, are considered significant.
Further, potential direct and indirect impacts on sensitive animal species such as the least bell's
vireo caused by construction and maintenance of the project are considered significant.
Project impacts to biological resources are in addition to those resulting from the emergency
channel dredging in 2006. The emergency work primarily dredged Agua Hedionda Creek,
whereas the project proposes widening of Agua Hedionda Creek and Calavera Creek, and
additional dredging and improvements such as permanent maintenance access. Therefore, since
it has a greater project "footprint," the project has additional impacts.
Despite its larger footprint, the majority of project biological impacts occur to non-sensitive
habitat. Further, the project design as proposed and conditioned is consistent with the Habitat
Management Plan because it has avoided and minimized impacts to habitat and covered species
to the maximum extent feasible in that:
1. There is no feasible alternative to dredging the creeks or impacting wetlands that would
provide flood protection to Rancho Carlsbad to the extent feasible and restore 100-year
flood capacity in the creeks;
2. All biological impacts can be reduced to a level of insignificance through mitigation
measures that require among other things, best management practices to limit indirect
temporary impacts due to construction (e.g., dust, noise, water quality) and creation,
restoration and enhancement of wetland and riparian habitat;
3. Natural vegetation would be retained as much as possible, such as along creek banks;
4. On-site mitigation could potentially occur on the creek banks, where feasible, to restore
natural vegetation in place of existing exotic or ornamental vegetation;
5. The long-term maintenance plan would promote the growth of native vegetation on the
creek bank where appropriate and discourage establishment of invasive exotic, nonnative,
and ornamental vegetation via maintenance activities;
6. The majority of the project is in an area the Habitat Management Plan indicates is a
"development area" and none of the project is in a Hardline Preserve Area, and;
7. The project is consistent with Local Coastal Program polices, including those regarding
wetland impacts, vegetation preservation, and sediment and erosion control. Further,
dredging and improvements to enhance flood control in existing drainage facilities are
acceptable functions in habitat areas.
In addition, the project is conditioned to comply with the requirements of all regulatory agencies
having jurisdiction over the project and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
EIR 04-02/ZCA 07-04/LCPA 07-06/CDP 06-04/SUP 06-02/HMPP 06-03 - CITY OF
CARLSBAD DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE/AGUA HEDIONDA AND CALAVERA
CREEKS
January 16, 2008
Page 13
E. Growth Management Ordinance
ZCA 07-04 and LCPA 07-06 - The proposed Local Coastal Program and Zoning Ordinance text
amendments would not affect local facilities per the City's Growth Management Program as they
propose no development and do not amend any standards that would impact the City's ability to
plan or provide public services.
However, compliance with the proposed City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, as the proposed
amendments require, would help ensure that drainage facilities accommodate future development
as anticipated by the General Plan and are adequately maintained to provide public safety and
stormwater control. Therefore, the text amendments assist in compliance with the Growth
Management performance standard that "drainage facilities must be provided as required by the
City concurrent with development" and the General Plan Land Use Element Growth
Management and Public Facilities Goal A.I that states, "A City which ensures the timely
provision of adequate public facilities and services to preserve the quality of life of residents."
CDP 06-04, SUP 06-02 & HMPP 06-03 - The Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks project is in
four Local Facility Management Zones (8, 4, 15, and 24) since these zones all converge at the
intersection of El Camino Real and Cannon Road. Because the dredging and improvements
proposed involve no construction or development of habitable structures or uses, they would also
not impact the City's ability to plan or provide public services. In fact, by enhancing flood
protection for Rancho Carlsbad, the proposal complies with the Growth Management Ordinance
requirement of adequate drainage.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City of Carlsbad prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Drainage Master
Plan Update/Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks project as required by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and the Environmental Protection
Procedures (Chapter 19.04) of the City's Municipal Code. The EIR includes a program level
assessment of the potential impacts of the actions anticipated to be implemented under the long-
term planning horizon of the Drainage Master Plan Update. It is anticipated that subsequent
analysis and permits may or will be necessary to construct the various facilities identified in the
Update.
The EIR also includes a project level assessment for the proposed dredging and improvements to
Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks. Accordingly, the EIR addresses fully the environmental
impacts associated with this portion of the project such that permits for the dredging and
improvements may be approved upon certification of the EIR.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(d), the City determined the Project would
clearly require an EIR and therefore did not prepare an Initial Study. The City issued its Notice
of Preparation (NOP) on March 29, 2006. The NOP was distributed to all responsible and
trustee agencies, as well as other agencies and members of the public (Appendix A of the Final
EIR), and was published in a local newspaper. A number of written responses were received.
EIR 04-02/ZCA 07-04/LCPA 07-06/CDP 06-04/SUP 06-02/HMPP 06-03 - CITY OF
CARLSBAD DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE/AGUA HEDIONDA AND CALAVERA
CREEKS
January 16,2008
Page 14
On April 12, 2006, the City held a public scoping meeting at the City's Faraday Center.
Advance notice of the meetings was given in the NOP. At the scoping meeting, the public was
invited to comment on the scope and content of the EIR. Oral and written comments were
received. A copy of the NOP and the written comments received in response to the NOP and
public scoping process are included in Appendix A of the Final EIR.
The following substantive potential impact areas were identified for the environmental impact
analysis:
Land Use Recreation
Agricultural Resources Geology/Soils
Visual Resources Hydrology/Water Quality
Transportation/Circulation Biological Resources
Noise Cultural Resources
Air Quality Paleontological Resources
In addition to a comprehensive analysis of the above potential impact areas, the EIR includes
other substantive sections required by CEQA, such as the executive summary, project
description, cumulative effects, effects found not to be significant, growth inducing effects, and
alternatives.
The Draft EIR for the DMP Update was circulated for public review for a period of 45 days,
which started on July 16, 2007, and ended on August 31, 2007. A 15-day extension of the public
review period was granted, enabling additional comments to be received through September 14,
2007. The Draft EIR was distributed to a variety of public agencies and individuals. A Notice of
Completion (NOC) of the Draft EIR was published in a local newspaper. The NOC included
information on locations, including the City's website, where the EIR as well as the proposed
Drainage Master Plan Update document would be available to the public.
The City has considered and responded to public comments on the Draft EIR and determined
that recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. Responses to comments received on the Draft
EIR are included in Appendix F of the Final EIR. The City released the Final EIR for public
review in December 2007. The Final EIR was distributed to all responsible and trustee agencies
as well as all agencies and members of the public that submitted written comments on the Draft
EIR. The City made public the release of the Final EIR through its posting on the City's website
and its availability at various public locations, such as city libraries and the Faraday building.
The EIR describes that program and/or project level components have potentially significant
impacts in the areas of noise, biological resources (including cumulative biological impacts),
cultural resources, and paleontological resources. However, the EIR concludes that all impacts
can be mitigated to below a level of significance. The EIR also determines that at either the
program or project level the project would result in no significant unavoidable impacts.
The CEQA Findings of Fact and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are attached to
the Planning Commission Resolution recommending certification of the EIR.
EIR 04-02/ZCA 07-04/LCPA 07-06/CDP 06-04/SUP 06-02/HMPP 06-03 - CITY OF
CARLSBAD DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE/AGUA HEDIONDA AND CALAVERA
CREEKS
January 16,2008
Page 15
ATTACHMENTS;
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6376 (Final EIR)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6377 (ZCA)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6378 (LCPA)
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6379 (CDP)
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6380 (SUP)
6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6381 (HMPP)
7. Location Map
8. Project Map
9. Background Data Sheet
10. Local Facilities Impact Assessment Form
11. Exhibit "XI" - Strike-out and bold version of the proposed Zoning Ordinance text
amendments
12. Exhibit "Yl" - Strike-out and bold, italicized version of the proposed Local Coastal
Program text amendments
13. Disclosure Statement
14. Reduced exhibits
15. Final EIR 04-02 (previously distributed)
16. City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update document (previously distributed; for
information only)
17. Exhibits "A" - "H" dated January 16, 2008
BACKGROUND DATA SHEET
CASE NO: EIR 04-Q2/CDP Q6-04/SUP 06-02/HMPP 06-03
CASE NAME: AGUA HEDIONDA AND CALAVERA CREEKS
APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad
REQUEST AND LOCATION: The project would dredge and improve portions of Agua
Hedionda and Calavera creeks for enhanced flood control purposes. Project locations affect
portions of the creeks and adjacent properties at and near the intersection of El Camino Real and
Cannon Roads and within the Rancho Carlsbad residential community.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 17985: a portion of Lot 195 of
Tract Map 13189; a portion of Lot 148 of Tract Map 13715; a portion of Parcels 2 and 3 of
Parcel Map 19804.
APN: Portions of 168-050-37. 38. 39. 40. 41: 168-050-55: 168-050-56: 208-162-34; 212-152-01
Acres: 11 (approximate; includes staging areas) Proposed No. of Lots/Units: N/A
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
Existing Land Use Designations: OS, RM
Proposed Land Use Designation: N/A
Density Allowed: 4-8 du/ac (N/A) Density Proposed: N/A
Existing Zone: P-C. OS. R-l. RMHP Proposed Zone: N/A
Surrounding Zoning, General Plan and Land Use:
Site
North
South
East
West
Coastal Zone: E><] Yes |~~1 No Local Coastal Program Segment: Mello II
Zoning
P-C, OS, R-l, RMHP
P-C, RMHP
OS, R-l, RMHP
RMHP
P-C, OS, R-l, RMHP
General Plan
OS,RM
RLM,RM
RM,OS
RM
RM, OS
Current Land Use
Creek channels, vacant
Mobile home park, vacant
Residential, open space
Residential
Residential, vacant, open space
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
Within Appeal Jurisdiction: IXI Yes I I No Coastal Development Permit: [X] Yes |~~l No
Local Coastal Program Amendment: I I Yes [X] No
Existing LCP Land Use Designation: OS, RM Proposed LCP Land Use Designation: N/A
Existing LCP Zone: OS, R-l Proposed LCP Zone: N/A
Revised 01/06
PUBLIC FACILITIES
School District: Carlsbad Unified Water District: Carlsbad Municipal Sewer District: Carlsbad
Equivalent Dwelling Units (Sewer Capacity): N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Categorical Exemption,,
Negative Declaration, issued.
Final Environmental Impact Report, dated December 2007 (pending City Council
certification)
Other,
Revised 01/06
CITY OF CARLSBAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
LOCAL FACILITIES IMPACTS ASSESSMENT FORM
(To be submitted with Development Application)
PROJECT IDENTITY AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT:
FILE NAME AND NO: Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks - EIR 04-02/CDP 06-04/SUP 06-
02/HMPP 06-03
LOCAL FACILITY MANAGEMENT ZONES: 8.14,15,24 GENERAL PLAN: OS. RM
ZONING: P-C. OS. R-l.RMHP
DEVELOPER'S NAME: City of Carlsbad
ADDRESS: 1635 Faraday Avenue. Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314
PHONE NO.: 602-4600 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: Portions of 168-050-37. 38. 39. 40. 41;
168-050-55: 168-050-56: 208-162-34: 212-152-01
QUANTITY OF LAND USE/DEVELOPMENT (AC., SQ. FT., DU): Creek dredging and
improvement for enhanced flood control purposes; no buildings proposed.
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: 2008 - 2009
A. City Administrative Facilities: Demand in Square Footage = N/A
B. Library: Demand in Square Footage = N/A
C. Wastewater Treatment Capacity (Calculate with J. Sewer) N/A
D. Park: Demand in Acreage = N/A
E. Drainage: Demand in CFS = N/A
Identify Drainage Basin = Basin B
(Identify master plan facilities on site plan)
F. Circulation: Demand in ADT = N/A
(Identify Trip Distribution on site plan)
G. Fire: Served by Fire Station No. = 5
H. Open Space: Acreage Provided = N/A
I. Schools: N/A
(Demands to be determined by staff)
J. Sewer: Demands in EDU N/A
Identify Sub Basin = 8. 15 A. 24A
(Identify trunk line(s) impacted on site plan)
K. Water: Demand in GPD= N/A
L. The project does not require or affect the Growth Management Dwelling unit allowance.
Exhibit "X1"
January 16, 2008
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
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 21 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE BY DELETING REFERENCES TO THE
MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN ADOPTED IN 1994 AND THE
MODEL EROSION CONTROL ORDINANCE AND ADDING
REFERENCES TO THE PROPOSED CITY OF CARLSBAD
DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN AND EXISTING ENGINEERING
STANDARDS.
CASE NAME: DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE
CASE NO.: ZCA 07-04
Note: (bold words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted)
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does ordain as follows:
»
SECTION 1: That Section 21.38.141 (c) (6) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended
to read as follows:
6. A site specific technical report shall be required addressing the cumulative
effects of developing each subwatershed and recommending measures to mitigate both
increased runoff and sedimentation. It shall be reviewed and prepared according to the MedeJ
Erosion Control Ordinance contained in the City of Carlsbad Engineering Standards and
provisions of the Local Coastal Program master drainage plan, with the additions and
changes adopted herein, such that a natural drainage system is generally preserved for the
eastern undeveloped watersheds, but that storm drains are allowed for those western portions
of the watershed which have already been incrementally developed.
SECTION 2: That Section 21.203.040 B.1. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is amended
to read as follows:
1. Buena Vista Lagoon. Developments located along the first row of lots bordering
Buena Vista Lagoon, including the parcel at the mouth of the lagoon, shall be designated for
residential development at a density of up to four dwelling units per acre. Proposed
development in this area shall be required to submit topographic and vegetation mapping and
analysis, as well as soils reports, as part of the development permit application. Such
information shall be provided in addition to any required environmental impact report, and shall
be prepared by qualified professionals and in sufficient detail to locate the boundary of wetland
and upland areas and areas of slopes in excess of twenty-five percent. Topographic maps shall
be submitted at a scale sufficient to determine the appropriate developable areas, generally not
less than a scale of one inch equals one hundred feet with a topographic contour interval of five
feet, and shall include an overlay delineating the location of the proposed project. The lagoon
and wetland area shall be delineated and criteria used to identify any wetlands existing on the
site shall be those of Section 30121 of the Coastal Act and based upon the standards of the
local coastal program mapping regulations. Mapping of wetlands and siting of development shall
be done in consultation and subject to the approval of the Department of Fish and Game.
Development shall be clustered to preserve open space for habitat protection. Minimum
setbacks of at least one hundred feet from wetlands/lagoon shall be required in all development,
in order to buffer such sensitive habitat area from intrusion. Such buffer areas, as well as other
open space areas required in permitted development to preserve habitat areas, shall be
permanently preserved for habitat uses through provision of an open space easement as a
1 condition of project approval. In the event that a wetland area is bordered by steep slopes (in
excess of twenty-five percent) which will act as a natural buffer to the habitat area, a buffer area
2 of less than one hundred feet in width may be permitted. The density of any permitted
development shall be based upon the net developable area of the parcel, excluding any portion
3 of a parcel which is in wetlands or lagoon. As specified in subsection A of this section, a density
credit may be provided for that portion of the parcel which is in steep slopes. Storm drain
4 alignments as proposed in the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan master drainage plan
which would be carried through or empty into Buena Vista Lagoon shall not be permitted, unless
5 such improvements comply with the requirements of Sections 30230, 30231, 30233 and 30235
of the Coastal Act by maintaining or enhancing the functional capacity of the lagoon in a manner
6 acceptable to the State Department of Fish and Game. Land divisions shall only be permitted on
parcels bordering the lagoon pursuant to a single planned development permit for the entire
7 original parcel.
8 SECTION 3: That Section 21.203.040 B. 3. a. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
9 amended to read as follows:
10 a. All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban runoff
flow rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in accordance with: (1)
the requirements of the city's grading ordinance, storm water ordinance, standard urban storm
water mitigation plan (SUSMP) dated April 2003, and as amended, and the City of Carlsbad
12 Drainage Master Plan master drainage plan dated 199-1, as those documents are certified a?
part of the city's LCP; (2) the city's jurisdictional urban runoff management program (JURMF
and the San Diego County Hydrology Manual to the extent that these requirements are not
inconsistent with any policies of the LCP; and (3) the additional requirements contained herein.
Such mitigation shall become an element of the project, and shall be installed prior to the initial
grading.
SECTION 4: That Section 21.203.040 B. 3. c. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is16
amended to read as follows:
c. Mitigation shall require construction of all improvements shown in the City of
Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan master drainage plan and any amendments to them for the
19 area between the project site and the lagoon (including the debris basin), as well as
revegetation of graded areas immediately after grading; and a mechanism for permanent
20 maintenance if the city declines to accept the responsibility. Construction of drainage
improvements may be through formation of an assessment district, or through any similar
arrangement that allocates costs among the various landowners in an equitable manner.
22 SECTION 5: That Section 21.203.040 B. 4. a. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
23 amended to read as follows:
24 a. All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban runoff
flow rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in accordance with: (1)
25 the requirements of the city's grading ordinance, storm water ordinance, standard urban stor,
water mitigation plan (SUSMP) dated April 2003 and as amended, and the City of Carlsbad
26 Drainage Master Plan master drainage plan dated 199-1, as those documents are certified as
part of the city's LCP; (2) the city's jurisdictional urban runoff management program (JURMP)
27 and the San Diego County Hydrology Manual to the extent that these requirements are not
inconsistent with any policies of the LCP; and (3) the additional requirements contained herein.
28
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Such mitigation shall become an element of the project and shall be installed prior to the initial
grading.
SECTION 6: That Section 21.203.040 B. 4. c. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
c. Mitigation shall also require construction of all improvements shown in the City
of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan master drainage plan and amendments to it. No
subsequent amendments are a part of this zone unless certified by the coastal commission. The
general provisions, procedures, standards, content of plans and implementation contained with
them are required conditions of development in addition to the provisions below. Approved
development shall include the following conditions, in addition to the requirements specified
above:
SECTION 7: That Section 21.203.040 B. 4. c. i of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
i. All off-site, downstream improvements (including debris basin and any other
improvements recommended in the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan drainage plan)
shall be constructed prior to the issuance of a grading permit on-site. Improvements shall be
inspected by city or county staff and certified as. adequate and in compliance .with the
requirements of the drainage plan and the additional requirements of this zone. If the city or
county declines to accept maintenance responsibility for the improvements, the developer shall
maintain the improvements during construction of the on-site improvements;
SECTION 8: That Section 21.203.040 B. 4. c. vi. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
is amended to read as follows:
vi. Storm drainage facilities in developed areas shall be improved and enlarged
according to the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Carlsbad master drainage plan,
incorporating the changes specified in this section. Improvement districts shall be formed for
presently undeveloped areas which are expected to urbanize in the future. The improvement
districts shall implement the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan master drainage plan.
Upstream areas in the coastal zone shall not be permitted to develop incrementally prior to
installation of the storm drain facilities downstream, in order to assure protection of coastal
resources. New drainage facilities, required within the improvement districts shall be financed
either by some form of bond or from fees collected from developers on a cost-per-acre basis;
SECTION 9: That Section 21.205.060 a. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
a. All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban runoff
flow rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in accordance with: (1)
the requirements of the city's grading ordinance, storm water ordinance, standard urban storm
water mitigation plan (SUSMP) dated April 2003 and as amended, and the City of Carlsbad
Drainage Master Plan master drainage plan dated 199-1, as those documents are certified as
part of the city's LCP; (2) the city's jurisdictional urban runoff management program (JURMP)
and the San Diego County Hydrology Manual to the extent that these requirements are not
inconsistent with any policies of the LCP; and (3) the additional requirements contained herein.
•v
-3-
1 Such mitigation shall become an element of the project and shall be installed prior to the initial
grading.
2
SECTION 10: That Section 21.205.060 c. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
3
amended to read as follows:
4
c. Mitigation shall also require construction of all improvements shown in the City
5 of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan master drainage plan and amendments to it. No
subsequent amendments are a part of this zone unless certified by the coastal commission. The
6 general provisions, procedures, standards, content of plans and implementation contained in
them are required conditions of development in addition to the provisions below. Approved
7 development shall include the following conditions, in addition to the requirements specified
above:
8
SECTION 11: That Section 2121.205.060 c.- i. of the Carlsbad Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
10
i. All off-site, downstream improvements (including debris basin and any other
1 1 improvements recommended in the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan drainage plan)
shall be constructed prior to the issuance of a grading permit on-site. Improvements shall be
inspected by city staff and certified as adequate and in compliance with the requirements of the*
drainage plan and the additional requirements of this zone. If the city declines to acce,
maintenance responsibility for the improvements, the' developer shall maintain the
improvements during construction of the on-site improvements;14
15 /;/
17 ///
18 ///
19 ;//
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 -4.
Exhibit Y-J
January 16, 2008
LCPA 07-06
Proposed Text Changes to Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan
(Bold, italicized words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted)
3-13-1.14 Invasive Plants
The use of invasive plant species in the landscaping for developments such as those identified
in Table 12 of the HMP shall be prohibited.
3-14 Grading and Landscaping Requirements
In addition to the requirements of the model grading ordinance in the City of Carlsbad Master
Drainage Master Plan, permitted new development shall also comply with the following
requirements:
a. Grading activity shall be prohibited during the rainy season: from October 1st
to April 1st of each year.
b. All graded areas shall be landscaped prior to October 1st of each year with
either temporary or permanent landscaping materials, to reduce erosion
potential. Such landscaping shall be maintained and replanted if not well-
established by December 1st following the initial planting.
c. The October 1st grading season deadline may be extended with the approval o
the City Engineer subject to implementation by October 1st of special erosion
control measures designed to prohibit discharge of sediments off-site during
and after the grading operation. Extensions beyond November 15* may be
allowed in areas of very low risk of impact to sensitive coastal resources and
may be approved either as part of the original coastal development permit or as
an amendment to an existing coastal development permit.
d. If any of the responsible resource agencies prohibit grading operations during
the summer grading period in order to protect endangered or rare species or
sensitive environmental resources, then grading activities may be allowed
during the winter by a coastal development permit or permit amendment,
provided that appropriate best management practices (BMPs) are incorporated
to limit potential adverse impacts from winter grading activities.
26
Exhibit Y-l
January 16, 2008
LCPA 07-06
Proposed Text Changes to Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan
(Bold, italicized words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted)
Policies
4.1 a. All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban runoff
flow rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in
accordance with the requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance, Storm Water
Ordinance, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Master City
of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, and the following additional requirements.
The SUSMP, dated April 2003 and as amended, and the City of Carlsbad Master
Drainage Master Plan (1994) are hereby incorporated into the LCP by reference.
Development must also comply with the requirements of the Jurisdictional Urban
Runoff Management Program (JURMP) and the San Diego County Hydrology
Manual to the extent that these requirements are not inconsistent with any policies
of the LCP,
b. Prior to making land use decisions, the City shall utilize methods available to
estimate increases in pollutant loads and flows resulting from proposed future
development. The City shall require developments to incorporate structural and
non-structural best management practices (BMP's) to mitigate the projected
increases in pollutant loads and minimize any increases in peak runoff rate.
c. Water pollution prevention methods shall be implemented to the maximum extent
practicable, and supplemented by pollutant source controls and treatment. Small
collection strategies located at, or as close as possible to, the source (i.e., the point
where water initially meets the ground) to minimize the transport of urban runoff
and pollutants offsite and into a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)
shall be utilized.
d. Post-development runoff from a site shall not contain pollutant loads which cause
or contribute to an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives or which have
not been reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
e. Development projects should be designed to comply with the following site design
principles:
1. Protect slopes and channels to decrease the potential for slopes and/or
channels from eroding and impacting storm water runoff.
2. To the extent practicable, cluster development on the least environmentally
sensitive portions of a site while leaving the remaining land in a natural
undisturbed condition.
3. Preserve, and where possible, create or restore areas that provide important
water quality benefits, such as riparian corridors, wetlands and buffer zones.
Land acquisition of such areas shall be encouraged.
4. Provide development-free buffer zones for natural water bodies.
5. Minimize the amount of impervious surfaces and directly connected
impervious surfaces in areas of new development and redevelopment.
39
Exhibit Y-l
January 16, 2008
LCPA 07-06
Proposed Text Changes to Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan
(Bold, italicized words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted)
Construction of drainage facilities prior to or concurrently with grading activities;
• Grading of surfaces so as to direct runoff toward planned drainages and, if
possible, away from cut and fill slopes;
• Early planting and maintenance of ground cover suitable for slope erosion control
and maximum retention of natural vegetation;
• Development projects shall preserve, as feasible, natural drainage swales and
landforms.
4.3 Development projects shall provide' for improvements indicated in the City of
Carlsbad Master Drainage Master Plan, and shall limit the rate of runoff through the
provision of onsite catchment basins, desilting basins, subsurface drains, and similar
improvements as necessary. Runoff shall be controlled in such a way that the velocity
and rate of runoff leaving the site shall not exceed that of the site in its natural state.
4.4 Recognizing the unique environmental features of the lagoon and its environs and the
sensitivity of the area to soil credibility and sedimentation, development shall be
regulated as follows:
a. Development on existing subdivided lots having all of their area in slopes of 25%
or greater shall be permitted, but grading shall be limited to minimal site
preparation for pole-type footings. Driveway/parking areas shall be limited in size
and shall be restricted to an area adjacent to the local streets. Onsite vegetation
shall not be disturbed beyond the minimal area needed to be cleared for the
construction process, which shall be clearly delineated on approved site plans.
b . Development, grading and landform alteration of natural steep slope areas (25%)
shall be avoided, when feasible. Any unavoidable disturbance shall be minimized
to the extent possible. Exceptions may include encroachments by roadway and
utilities necessary to reach flatter developable areas, when there is no feasible less
environmentally damaging alternative. The maximum allowable density shall be
calculated on the total lot area, although this may be modified through setbacks,
plan review, or other requirements of this plan and applicable City regulations.
c. Use of the Planned Development (PD) mechanism and cluster development shall
be required in areas containing environmentally sensitive resources, extensive^
steep slope areas and significant natural landform features.
39
Exhibit Y-l
January 16, 2008
LCPA 07-06
Proposed Text Changes to Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan
(Bold, italicized words indicate text to be added and strilcethrough words indicate text to be deleted)
a) A runoff control plan prepared by a licensed engineer qualified in hydrology and
hydrolics demonstrating/ that there would be no significant increase in peak runoff
rate from the developed site over the greatest discharge expected from the existing
undeveloped site as a result of 6 hour, lo-year frequency storm. Runoff control
may be accomplished by a variety of methods including such devices as catchment
basins, detention basins, siltation traps, or other appropriate measures.
b) Development approvals shall include detailed maintenance provisions for repair
and maintenance of approved drainage and erosion control facilities. Permanent
runoff control and erosion control devices shall be installed prior to or concurrent
with onsite grading activities.
c) Development shall meet all other requirements of this plan, including the
provisions of the City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance and Master Drainage Master
Plan.
5.8 The conceptual alignment recommended by PRC Toups (alignment 1-B) for Cannon
Road shall be incorporated into this plan (see Exhibit G). In developing the precise
alignment of the proposed roadway, the following design criteria and environmental
protection measures shall apply:
a) No portion of the road construction shall involve filling or dredging of fresh or
saltwater marsh wetlands, except as noted in the letter from the Coastal
Commission to the State Department of Fish and Game (2/17/82; Attachment 3, P.
56).
b) To the extent that any portion of the road construction would occur in or adjacent
to an environmentally sensitive habitat area other than a wetland, the road shall be
sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade such
areas, shall avoid significant disruption of habitat values, and shall be sited and
designed to be compatible with the continuance of habitat values.
c) To the extent that there are no feasible less environmentally damaging alternatives
and the road as designed would nonetheless result in adverse impacts to
environmentally sensitive habitat areas, such impacts shall be fully mitigated in
accordance with the recommendations of the State Department of Fish and Game.
d) To protect agricultural lands from the growth-inducing potential of the project, no
agricultural lands shall be assessed for construction of the road, and the road shall
be designed so as to avoid uncontrolled access into adjacent agricultural areas.
50 /
Land Use - Mello I Chapter II-l
Exhibit "Y-l "^
January 16, 2008
LCPA 07-06
Proposed Text Changes to Local Costal Program
(Bold, italicized words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted)
a. All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban runoff flow
rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in accordance with the
requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, Standard Urban
Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Master City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan,
and the additional requirements contained herein. The SUSMP, dated April 2003 and as
amended, and the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Master Drainage Plan (1 994)
are hereby incorporated into the LCP by reference. Development must also comply with
the requirements of the Jurisdiction Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP) and
the San Diego County Hydrology Manual to the extent that these requirements are not
inconsistent with any policies of the LCP. Such mitigation shall become an element of
the project and shall be installed prior, to the initial grading. At a minimum, such
mitigation shall require construction of all improvements shown in the City of Carlsbad
Master Drainage Master Plan between the project site and the lagoon (including the
debris basin), revegetation of all graded areas immediately after grading, and mechanism
for permanent maintenance if the City declines to accept the responsibility. Construction
of drainage improvements may be through formation of an assessment district or through
any similar arrangement that allots costs among the various landowners in an equitable
manner.
b. Prior to making land use decisions, the City shall utilize methods available to estimate
increases in pollutant loads and flows resulting from proposed future development. The
City shall require developments to incorporate structural and non-structural best
management practices (BMP's) to mitigate the projected increases to pollutant loads and
minimize any increases in peak runoff rate.
c. Water pollution prevention methods shall be implemented to the maximum extent
practicable, and supplemented by pollutant source controls and treatment. Small
collection strategies located at, or as close as possible to, the source (i.e., the point where
water initially meets the ground) to minimize the transport of urban runoff and pollutants
offsite and into a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) shall be utilized.
d. Post-development runoff from a site shall not contain pollutant loads which cause or
contribute to an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives or which have not been
reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
e. Development projects should be designed to comply with the following site design
principals:
1) Protect slopes and channels to decrease the potential for slopes and/or channels
from eroding and impacting storm water runoff.
2) To the extent practicable, cluster development on the least environmentally
City of Carlsbad 7 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello I Chapter II-l
Exhibit "Y-l"
January 16, 2008
LCPA 07-06
Proposed Text Changes to Local Costal Program
(Bold, italicized words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted)
(4) The area located west of Interstate 5 and north of Poinsettia Lane shall be designated for
visitor-serving or neighborhood commercial development according to Chapter 21.26 of the
Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, provided that a minimum of 35% is developed as visitor serving
uses.
Policy 2 - Drainage, Erosion Control
a. All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban runoff flow
rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in accordance with the
requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation
Plan (SUSMP), Master City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, and the additional
requirements contained herein. The SUSMP, dated April 2003 and as amended, and the
City of Carlsbad Master Drainage Master Plan (1994) are hereby incorporated into the
LCP by reference. Development must also comply with the requirements of the
Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP) and the San Diego County
Hydrology Manual to the extent that these requirements are not inconsistent with any
policies of the LCP. Such mitigation shall become an element of the project and shall
be installed prior to initial grading. Mitigation shall also require construction of all
improvements shown in the Master City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan and
amendments thereto between the project site and the lagoon (including the debris basin),
revegetation of all graded areas immediately after grading, and a mechanism for
permanent maintenance if the City declines to accept responsibility. The offsite
drainage improvements shall be reimbursable to Occidental by use of assessment
districts, development agreements or other appropriate means acceptable to the City.
b. Prior to making land use decisions, the City shall utilize methods available to estimate
increases to pollutant loads and flows resulting from proposed future development. The
City shall require developments to incorporate structural and non-structural best
management practices (BMP's) to mitigate the projected increases in pollutant loads
and minimize any increases to peak runoff rate.
c. Water pollution prevention methods shall be implemented to the maximum extent
practicable, and supplemented by pollutant source controls and treatment. Small
collection strategies located at, or as close as possible to, the source (i.e., the point
where water initially meets the ground) to minimize the transport of urban runoff and
pollutants offsite and into a municipal separate storm water system (MS4) shall be
utilized.
d. Post-development runoff from a site shall not contain pollutant loads which cause or
contribute to an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives or which have not
been reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
City of Carlsbad 11 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello I Chapter II-l
Exhibit "Y-
January 16, 2008
LCPA 07-06
Proposed Text Changes to Local Costal Program
(Bold, italicized words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted)
(5) All undevelopable slopes shall be placed in open space easements as a condition of
development approval.
(6) a. All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban runoff
flow rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in accordance
with the requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance,
Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Master City of Carlsbad
Drainage Master Plan, with the additions and changes adopted herein, such that a
natural drainage system is generally preserved for the eastern undeveloped
watersheds, but that storm drains are allowed for those western portions of the
watershed which have already been .incrementally developed. The SUSMP, dated
April 2003 and as amended, the Master City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan
(1991) are hereby incorporated into the LCP by reference. Development must also
comply with the requirements of the Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Runoff
Management Program (JURMP) and the San Diego County Hydrology Manual to
the extent that these requirements are not inconsistent with any policies of the LCP.
b. Prior to making land use decisions, the City shall utilize methods available to estimate
increase in pollutant loads and flows resulting from proposed future development.
The City shall require developments to incorporate structural and non-structural best
management practices (BMP's) to mitigate the projected increases in pollutant loads
and minimize any increases in peak runoff rate.
c. Water pollution prevention methods shall be implemented to the maximum extent
practicable, and supplemented by pollutant source controls and treatment. Small
collection strategies located at, or as close as possible to, the source (i.e., the point
where water initially meets the ground) to minimize the transport of urban runoff and
pollutants offsite and into a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) shall be
utilized.
d. Post-development runoff from a site shall not contain pollutant loads which cause or
contribute to an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives or which have not
been reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
e. Development projects should be designed to comply with the following site design
principals:
1) Protect slopes and channels to decrease the potential for slopes and/or
channels from eroding and impacting storm water runoff.
2) To the extent practicable, cluster development on the least
environmentally sensitive portions of a site while leaving the remaining
City of Carlsbad 18 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello II Chapter II-2
Exhibit "Y-l"
January 16, 2008
LCPA 07-06
Proposed Text Changes to Local Costal Program
(Bold, italicized words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted)
(5) Installation and Timing of Permanent Runoff and Erosion Control
Devices
(6) Required Open Space Easements on Undeveloped Slopes
Policy 4-4 REMOVAL OF NATURAL VEGETATION
Policy 4-5 SOIL EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES
Policy 4-6 "SEDIMENT CONTROL" PRACTICES
Policy 4-7 FLOOD HAZARDS ,
(a) Storm Drainage Facilities in Developed Areas
(b) City's Grading Ordinance
(c) Storm Drainage Facilities in Undeveloped Areas
(d) Financing New Drainage Facilities
(e) 100-Year Floodplain
(f) City of Carlsbad Master Drainage Master Plan
Policy 4-8 SEISMIC HAZARDS
5. Public Works and Public Services Capacities
Policy 5-1 REGIONAL SEWAGE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Policy 5-2 FUTURE SEWAGE TREATMENT
Policy 5-3 UNTREATED RECLAIMED WATER
Policy 5-4 TEN PERCENT RESERVE SEWAGE CAPACITY FOR COASTAL
DEPENDENT RECREATION FOR VISITOR-SERVING USES
Policy 5-5 POINSETTIA LANE
6. Recreation and Visitor-Serving Uses
City of Carlsbad 47 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello II Chapter II-2
Exhibit "Y-l'
January 16, 2008
LCPA 07-06
Proposed Text Changes to Local Costal Program
(Bold, italicized words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted)
POLICY 3-2 BUENA VISTA LAGOON
Developments located along the first row of lots bordering Buena Vista Lagoon, including the parcel
at the mouth of the lagoon (See Exhibit 4.5, Page 75), shall be designated for residential development
at a density of up to 4 dwelling units per acre. Proposed development in this area shall be required to
submit topographic and vegetation mapping and analysis, as well as soils reports, as part of the coastal
development permit application. Such information shall be provided as a part of or in addition to any
required Environmental Impact Report, and shall be prepared by qualified professionals and in
sufficient detail to enable the City to locate the boundary of wetland and upland areas and areas of
slopes in excess of 25%. Topographic maps shall be submitted at a scale sufficient to determine the
appropriate developable areas, generally not less than a scale of 1 " - 100' with a topographic contour
interval of 5 feet, and shall include an overlay delineating the location of the proposed project. Criteria
used to identify any wetlands existing on the site shall be those of Section 30121 of the Coastal Act
and based upon the standards of the Local Coastal Program mapping regulations, and shall be applied
in consultation with the State Department of Fish and Game.
Development shall be clustered to preserve open space for habitat protection. Minimum setbacks of at
least 100 feet from wetlands shall be required in all development, in order to buffer such sensitive
habitat areas from intrusion unless otherwise permitted pursuant to Policy 3-1.12. Such buffer areas,
as well as other open space areas required in permitted development to preserve habitat areas, shall be
permanently preserved for habitat uses through provision of an open space easement as a condition of
project approval. In the event that a wetland areas is bordered by steep slopes (in excess of 25%)
which will act as a natural buffer to the habitat area, a buffer area of less than 1 00 feet in width may be
permitted.
The density of any permitted development shall be based upon the net developable area of the parcel,
excluding any portion of a parcel which is in wetlands.
Storm drain alignments as proposed in the City o/Carlsbad Master Drainage Master Plan which would
be carried through or empty into Buena Vista Lagoon shall not be permitted, unless such
improvements comply with the requirements of Sections 30230, 30231, 30233, and 30235 of the
Coastal Act by maintaining or enhancing the functional capacity of the lagoon in a manner acceptable
to the State Department of Fish and Game.
Land divisions shall only be permitted on parcels bordering the Lagoon pursuant to a single planned
unit development permit for the entire original parcel.
POLICY 3-3 BATIOUITOS LAGOON
Erosion, drainage, and sedimentation of Batiquitos Lagoon were previously addressed, in the certified
Local Coastal Program prepared by the Coastal Commission for the areas subject to AB462 (Mello I
City of Carlsbad 72 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello II Chapter II-2
Exhibit "Y-l"
January 16, 2008
LCPA 07-06
Proposed Text Changes to Local Costal Program
(Bold, italicized words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted)
POLICY 3-4 GRADING AND LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS
In addition to the requirements of the model grading ordinance in the Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan,
Ppermitted new development shall else comply with the following requirements:
a) All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban runoff flow rates
and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in accordance with the
requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, Standard Urban Storm
Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Maste-City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, and the
following additional requirements. The SUSMP, dated April 2003 and as amended, the City of
Carlsbad Master Drainage Master Plan (199*1) are hereby incorporated into the LCP by
reference. Development must also comply with the requirements of the Jurisdictional Urban
Runoff Management Program (JURMP) and the San Diego County Hydrology Manual to the
extent that these requirements are not inconsistent with any policies of the LCP.
b) All graded areas shall be landscaped prior to October 1 st of each year with either temporary or
permanent landscaping materials, to reduce erosion potential. Such landscaping shall be
maintained and replanted if not well-established by December 1st following the initial
planting.
c) Prior to making land use decisions, the City shall utilize methods available to estimate
increases in pollutant loads and flows resulting from proposed future development. The City
shall require developments to incorporate structural and non-structural best management
practices (BMP's) to mitigate the projected increases in pollutant loads and minimize any
increases in peak runoff rate.
d). Water pollution prevention methods shall be implemented to the maximum extent practicable,
and supplemented by pollutant source controls and treatment. Small collection strategies
located at, or as close as possible to, the source (i.e., the point where water initially meets the
ground) to minimize the transport of urban runoff and pollutants offsite and into a municipal
separate storm sewer system (MS4) shall be utilized.
e) Post-development runoff from a site shall not contain pollutant loads which cause or contribute
to an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives or which have not been reduced to the
maximum extent practicable.
f) Development projects should be designed to comply with the following site design principles::
1 . Protect slopes and channels to decrease the potential for slopes and/or channels from
City of Carlsbad 74 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello II Chapter II-2
Exhibit "Y-l'
January 16, 2008
LCPA 07-06
Proposed Text Changes to Local Costal Program
(Bold, italicized words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted)
(e) Siting/Parking. Due to severe site constraints, innovative siting and design criteria (including
shared use of driveways, clustering, tandem parking, pole construction) shall be incorporated to minimize
paved surface area. Dwelling units shall be clustered in the relatively flat portions of the site.
(g) Roads in Open Space: Access roads shall be a permitted use within designated open space subject
to an approved coastal development permit, only when necessary to access flatter areas and when
designed to be the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative. Wildlife corridors shall be
required when necessary to facilitate wildlife movement through the open space area.
(h) Other Uses in Open Space: The designated open space on Planning Area D may be modified to
accommodate daycare facilities and RV parking which meet the following criteria, subject to an approved
coastal development permit:
1) In no case shall the designated open space corridor be less than 800 feet including the
desiltation basin on Planning Area E;
2) No development shall encroach into jurisdictional wetlands mapped by the ACOE;
3) The facilities shall be located on the least environmentally sensitive portion of the site and
within non-native grassland and/or disturbed agricultural area to the maximum extent
possible; and
4) The area utilized for these uses shall be the minimum size necessary to satisfy the
requirements of the City of Carlsbad Zoning Code.
(i) Water Quality:
a. All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban runoff flow rates
and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in accordance with the
requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, Standard Urban
Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Master Drainage Master Plan, and the following
additional requirements. The SUSMP, dated April 2003 and as amended, the City of
Carlsbad Master Drainage Master Plan (1991) are hereby incorporated into the LCP by
reference. Development must also comply with the requirements of the Jurisdictional Urban
Runoff Management Program (JURMP) and the San Diego County Hydrology Manual to the
extent that these requirements are not inconsistent with any policies of the LCP.
b. Prior to making land use decisions, the City shall utilize methods available to
increases in pollutant loads and flows resulting from proposed future development. The City
shall require developments to incorporate structural and non-structural best management
practices (BMP's) to mitigate the projected increases in pollutant loads and minimize any
City of Carlsbad 79 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello II Chapter II-2
Exhibit "Y-l"
January 16, 2008
LCPA 07-06
Proposed Text Changes to Local Costal Program
(Bold, italicized words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted)
3-8.10 Assessor's Parcel No. 21 5-050-44, 45, 46, 47 (Kevane)- Development shall be limited to a
maximum of 25% of the property, and shall be clustered on the western portion of the
property. No impacts to coast oak woodland, riparian areas or wetlands shall be allowed. A
wildlife corridor linkage oriented generally north-south shall be provided on the eastern
portion of the property, include the onsite coast oak woodland area, and be designed to
connect to neighboring properties with existing or potential wildlife corridor linkages.
Impacts to native habitat shall require onsite mitigation through restoration and/or creation of
habitat within the designated corridor linkage, in addition to any other required mitigation.
3-8.1 1 Assessor's Parcel No. 215-050-12 (Reiter) - Development shall be limited to amaximum of
25% of the property, and shall be clustered on the western portion of the property. No
impacts to coast oak woodland, riparian areas or wetlands shall be allowed A wildlife
corridor linkage oriented generally north-south shall be provided on the eastern portion of
the property, include the onsite coast oak woodland area, and be designed to connect to
neighboring properties with existing or potential wildlife corridor linkages. Impacts to
native habitat shall require onsite mitigation through restoration and/or creation of habitat
within the designated corridor linkage, in addition to any other required mitigation.
3-8.12 Assessor' s Parcel No. 2 1 5-050-73 (Levatino) - Maximum 25% development clustered on the
southern portion of the property. Buffer widths may be reduced and/or additional impacts
may be allowed to the extent necessary to obtain site access, and/or to accommodate
Circulation Road improvements identified in the certified LCP.
The parcel specific standards listed above are adopted because hardline preserve boundary lines were
not established at the time of preparation of the HMP. The purpose of the standards is to ensure that
future development is sited to preserve the maximum amount of ESHA within the coastal zone, and
to establish a viable habitat corridor and preserve area in Zones 20 and 21 . If the City, with the
concurrence of the wildlife agencies and the Coastal Commission through an LCP amendment,
subsequently approves a hardline preserve boundary for any of the above-described properties as
part of the HMP, then the onsite preservation included in the hardline preserve boundary shall apply.
4. GEOLOGIC, FLOODPLAIN, AND SHORELINE HAZARD AREAS
POLICY 4-1 COASTAL EROSION
I. Development Along Shoreline
a. For all new development along the shoreline, including additions to existing
development, a site-specific geologic investigation and analysis similar to that required
by the Coastal Commission's Geologic Stability and Blufftop Guidelines shall be
required; for permitted development, this report must demonstrate bluff stability for 75
City of Carlsbad 88 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello II Chapter II-2
Exhibit "Y-l '
January 16, 2008
LCPA 07-06
Proposed Text Changes to Local Costal Program
(Bold, italicized words indicate text to be added and otrikethrough words indicate text to be deleted)
years, or the expected lifetime of the structure, whichever is greater. Additionally,
permitted development shall incorporate, where feasible, sub-drainage systems to
remove groundwater from the bluffs, and shall use drought-resistant vegetation in
landscaping, as well as adhering to the standards for erosion control contained in the City
of Carlsbad Master Drainage Master Plan. A waiver of public liability shall be required
for any permitted development for which an assurance of structural stability cannot be
provided. All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban
runoff flow rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in
accordance with the requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance, Storm Water
Ordinances, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Master-City of
Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, and the following additional requirements. The
SUSMP, dated April 2003 and as amended, the City of Carlsbad Master-Drainage
Master Plan (1994) are hereby incorporated into the LCP by reference. Development
must also comply with the requirements of the Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management
Program (JURMP) and the San Diego County Hydrology Manual to the extent that these
requirements are not inconsistent with any policies of the LCP.
b. Prior to making land use decisions, the City shall utilize methods available to estimate
increases in pollutant loads and flows resulting from proposed future development. The
City shall require developments to incorporate structural and non-structural best
management practices (BMP's) to mitigate the projected increases in pollutant loads and
minimize any increases in peak runoff rate.
c. Water pollution prevention methods shall be implemented to the maximum extent
practicable, and supplemented by pollutant source controls and treatment. Small
collection strategies located at, or as close as possible to, the source (i.e., the point where
water initially meets the ground) to minimize the transport of urban runoff and pollutants
offsite and into a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) shall be utilized.
d. Post-development runoff from a site shall not contain pollutant loads which cause or
contribute to an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives or which have not been
reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
e. Development projects should be designed to comply with the following site design
principals:
1. Protect slopes and channels to decrease the potential for slopes and/or channels from
eroding and impacting storm water runoff.
2. To the extent practicable, cluster development on the least environmentally sensitive
portions of a site while leaving the remaining land in a natural undisturbed condition.
3. Preserve, and where possible, create or restore areas that provide important water
City of Carlsbad l9 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello II Chapter II-2
Exhibit "Y-J "
January 16, 2008
LCPA 07-06
Proposed Text Changes to Local Costal Program
(Bold, italicized words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted)
POLICY 4-3 ACCELERATED SOIL EROSION
Areas West of 1-5 and the Existing Paseo del Norte and Along El Camino Real Upstream of Existing
Storm Drains
For areas west of the existing Paseo del Norte, west of 1-5 and along El Camino Real immediately
upstream of the existing storm drains, the following policy shall apply:
a. All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban runoff rates
and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in accordance with the
requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, Standard Urban
Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Masses-City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan,
and the additional requirements contained herein. The SUSMP dated April 2003 and,as
amended, the City of Carlsbad Master Drainage Master Plan (1994) are hereby
incorporated into the LCP by reference. Development must also comply with the
requirements of the Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP) and the
San Diego County Hydrology Manual to the extent that these requirements are not
inconsistent with any policies of the LCP. Such mitigation shall become an element of
the project, and shall be installed prior to the initial grading. At a minimum, such
mitigation shall require construction of all improvements shown in the City of Carlsbad
Master Drainage Master Plan and amendments thereto between the project site and the
lagoon (including the debris basin), as well as: revegetation of graded areas immediately
after grading; and a mechanism for permanent maintenance if the City declines to accept
the responsibility. Construction of drainage improvements may be through formation of
an assessment district, or through any similar arrangement that allots costs among the
various landowners in an equitable manner.
b. Prior to making land use decisions, the City shall utilize methods available to estimate
increases in pollutant loads and flows resulting from proposed future development. The
City shall require developments to incorporate structural and non-structural best
management practices (BMP' s) to mitigate the proj ected increases in pollutant loads and
minimize any increases in peak runoff rate.
c. Water pollution prevention methods shall be implemented to the maximum extent
practicable, and supplemented by pollutant source controls and treatment. Small
collection strategies located at, or as close as possible to, the source (i.e., the point where
water initially meets the ground) to minimize the transport of urban runoff and pollutants
offsite and into a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) shall be utilized.
d. Post-development runoff from a site shall not contain pollutant loads which cause of
contribute to an exceedance of receiving water quality obj ectives or which have not been
City of Carlsbad 93 Local Coastal Program
111
Land Use-MelloII . Chapter II-2
Exhibit "Y-l
January 16, 2008
LCPA 07-06
Proposed Text Changes to Local Costal Program
(Bold, italicized words indicate text to be added and otrilcethrough words indicate text to be deleted)
less than 10 acres, complete grading may be allowed only if no interruption
of significant wildlife corridors occurs.
f) Because north-facing slopes are generally more prone to stability problems
and in many cases contain more extensive natural vegetation, no grading or
removal of vegetation from these areas will be permitted unless all
environmental impacts have been mitigated. Overriding circumstances are
not considered adequate mitigation.
(3) Drainage and Erosion Control
a. All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban
runoff flow rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in
accordance with the requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance, Storm Water
Ordinance, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Master City
of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, and the additional requirements contained
herein. The SUSMP, dated April 2003 and as amended, and the City of
Carlsbad Master Drainage Master Plan (1994) are hereby incorporated into the
LCP by reference. Development must also comply with the requirements of the
Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP) and the San Diego
County Hydrology Manual to the extent that these requirements are not
inconsistent with any policies of the LCP.
b. Prior to making land use decisions, the City shall utilize methods available to
estimate increases in pollutant loads and flows resulting from proposed future
development. The City shall require developments to incorporate structural and
non-structural best management practices (BMP's) to mitigate the projected
increases in pollutant loads and minimize any increases in peak runoff rate.
c. Water pollution prevention methods shall be implemented to the maximum
extent practicable, and supplemented by pollutant source controls and treatment.
Small collection strategies located at, or as close as possible to, the source (i.e.,
the point where water initially meets the ground) to minimize the transport of
urban runoff and pollutants offsite and into a municipal separate storm sewer
system (MS4) shall be utilized.
d. Post-development runoff from a site shall not contain pollutant loads which cause
or contribute to an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives or which
have not been reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
e. Development projects should be designed to comply with the following site
City of Carlsbad 98 ~Local Coastal Program
112-
Land Use -MelloII Chapter II-2
Exhibit "Y-l "
January 16. 2008
LCPA 07-06
Proposed Text Changes to Local Costal Program
(Bold, italicized words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted)
categories of BMP's on the basis that the City finds them to be infeasible
or impracticable.)
2. Addition of new development categories as Priority Projects.
3. Addition of new coastal waters to the map of Environmentally Sensitive
Areas.
4. Reductions in the area of impervious surfaces used to designate a specific
category of Priority Project.
p. Any minor changes made pursuant to the above list shall be accompanied by a
finding that the changes will improve and better protect coastal water quality.
The City Engineer or Planning Director shall notify the Executive Director in
writing of any of the above listed changes. For any changes not included in the
above list, the City shall contact the Executive Director to determine whether an
LCP amendment is necessary, and if necessary, shall subsequently apply for an
LCP amendment for the changes.
(4) Required Drainage or Erosion Control Facility Maintenance Arrangements:
Development approvals shall include detailed maintenance arrangements for
providing the ongoing repair and maintenance for all approved drainage or erosion-
control facilities.
(5) Installation & Timing of Permanent Runoff and Erosion Control Devices:
All permanent runoff-control and erosion-control devices shall be developed and
installed prior to or concurrent with any onsite grading activities.
(6) Required Open Space Easements on Undeveloped Slopes:
All undevelopable slopes shall be placed in open space easements as a condition of
development approval.
POLICY 4-4 REMOVAL OF NATURAL VEGETATION
When earth changes are required and natural vegetation is removed, the area and duration of exposure
shall be kept at a minimum.
POLICY 4-5 SOIL EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES
a. Soil erosion control practices shall be used against "onsite" soil erosion. These
include keeping soil covered with temporary or permanent vegetation or with
City of Carlsbad 101 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello II Chapter 11-2
Exhibit 'T-7*
January 16, 2008
LCPA 07-06
Proposed Text Changes to Local Costal Program
(Bold, italicized words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted)
mulch materials, special grading procedures, diversion structures to divert surface
runoff from exposed soils, and grade stabilization structures to control surface
water. All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban
runoff flow rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in
accordance with the requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance, Storm Water
Ordinance, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Master City of
Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, and the additional requirements contained herein.
The SUSMP, dated April 2003 and as amended, and the City of Carlsbad Master
Drainage Master Plan (199*1) are hereby incorporated into the LCP by reference.
Development must also comply with the requirements of the Jurisdictional Urban
Runoff Management Program (JURMP) and the San Diego County Hydrology
Manual to the extent that these requirements are not inconsistent with any policies
of the LCP.
b. Prior to making land use decisions, the City shall utilize methods available to
estimate increases in pollutant loads and flows resulting from proposed future
development. The City shall require developments to incorporate structural and
non-structural best management practices (BMP's) to mitigate the projected
increases in pollutant loads and minimize any increases in peak runoff rate.
c. Water pollution prevention methods shall be implemented to the maximum extent
practicable, and supplemented by pollutant source controls and treatment. Small
collection strategies located at, or as close as possible to, the source (i.e., the point
where water initially meets the ground) to minimize the transport of urban runoff
and pollutants offsite and into a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)
shall be utilized.
d. Post-development runoff from a site shall not contain pollutant loads which cause
or contribute to an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives or which have
not been reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
e. Development projects should be designed to comply with the following site
design principles:
1. Protect slopes and channels to decrease the potential for slopes and/or
channels from eroding and impacting storm water runoff.
2. To the extent practicable, cluster development on the least
environmentally sensitive portions of a site while leaving the remaining
land in a natural undisturbed condition.
3. Preserve, and where possible, create or restore areas that provide
important water quality benefits, such as riparian corridors, wetlands and
City of Carlsbad 102 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello II Chapter II-2
Exhibit "Y-l"
January 16, 2008
LCPA 07-06
Proposed Text Changes to Local Costal Program
(Bold, italicized words indicate text to be added and strikethrougli words indicate text to be deleted)
The City Engineer or Planning Director shall notify the Executive Director in
writing of any of the above listed changes. For any changes not included in the
above list, the City shall contact the Executive Director to determine whether an
LCP amendment is necessary, and if necessary, shall subsequently apply for an
LCP amendment for the changes.
POLICY 4-6 "SEDIMENT CONTROL" PRACTICES
a. Apply "sediment control" practices as a perimeter protection to prevent offsite
drainage. Preventing sediment from leaving the site should be accomplished by
such methods as diversion ditches^ sediment traps, vegetative filters, and sediment
basins. Preventing erosion is of course the most efficient way to control sediment
runoff. All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban
runoff flow rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in
accordance with the requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance, Storm Water
Ordinance, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Master City of
Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, and the following additional requirements. The
SUSMP, dated April 2003 and as amended, and the City of Carlsbad Master
Drainage Master Plan (1994) are hereby incorporated into the LCP by reference.
Development must also comply with the requirements of the Jurisdictibnal Urban
Runoff Management Program (JURMP) and the San Diego County Hydrology
Manual to the extent that these requirements are not inconsistent With any policies
of the LCP.
b. Prior to making land use decisions, the City shall utilize methods available to
estimate increases in pollutant loads and flows resulting from proposed future
development. The City shall require developments to incorporate structural and
non-structural best management practices (BMP's) to mitigate the projected
increases in pollutant loads and minimize any increases in peak runoff rate.
c. Water pollution prevention methods shall be implemented to the maximum extent
practicable, and supplemented by pollutant source controls and treatment. Small
collection strategies located at, or as close as possible to, the source (i.e., the point
where water initially meets the ground) to minimize the transport of urban runoff
and pollutants offsite and into a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)
shall be utilized.
d. Post-development runoff from a site shall not contain pollutant loads which cause
or contribute to an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives or which have
not been reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
City of Carlsbad 105 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello II Chapter II-2
Exhibit "Y-l'
January 16, 2008
LCPA 07-06
Proposed Text Changes to Local Costal Program
(Bold, italicized words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted)
BMP's or categories of BMP's on the basis that the City finds them
to be infeasible or impracticable.)
2. Addition of new development categories as Priority Projects.
3. Addition of new coastal waters to the map of Environmentally
Sensitive Areas.
4. Reduction in the area of impervious surfaces used to designate a
specific category of Priority Projects.
q. Any minor changes made pursuant to the above list shall be accompanied by a
finding that the changes will improve and better protect coastal water quality. The
City Engineer or Planning Director shall notify the Executive Director in writing of
any of the above listed changes. For any changes not included in the above list, the
City shall contact the Executive Director to determine whether an LCP amendment
is necessary, and if necessary, shall subsequently apply for an LCP amendment for
the changes.
POLICY 4-7 FLOOD HAZARDS
(a) Storm Drainage Facilities in Developed Areas
Storm drainage facilities in developed areas should be improved and enlarged according to the City of
Carlsbad Master-Drainage Master Plan, incorporating the changes recommended in the LCP.
(b) City's Grading Ordinance
The City's grading ordinance should be amended to greatly reduce the extent of onsite and offsite
erosion due to construction activities. (See policies under Soil Erosion.) Although these are primarily
erosion control measures, they will help to prevent sedimentation in downstream drainage facilities.
(c) Storm Drainage Facilities in Undeveloped Areas
Drainage improvement districts shall be formed for presently undeveloped areas which are expected to
urbanize in the future. The improvement districts would serve to implement the City of Carlsbad
Master Drainage Master Plan. Upstream areas in the coastal zone shall not be permitted to develop
prior to installation of the storm drain facilities downstream, in order to assure protection of coastal
resources.
(d) Financing New Drainage Facilities
New drainage facilities, required within the improvement districts, should be financed either by some
form of bond or from fees collected from developers on a cost-per-acre basis.
City of Carlsbad 108 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - Mello II Chapter II-2
Exhibit "Y-l"
January 16, 2008
LCPA 07-06
Proposed Text Changes to Local Costal Program
(Bold, italicized words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted)
(e) 100-Year Floodplain
Development shall continue to be restricted in 100-year floodplain areas. Continuing the policy of
zoning 100-year floodplains as open space will permit natural drainage to occur without the need for
flood control channels. No permanent structures or filling shall be permitted in the floodplain and only
uses compatible with periodic flooding shall be allowed.
(f) Master Drainage Master Plan
Adopt the provisions of the City of Carlsbad Master Drainage Master Plan to ameliorate flood and
drainage hazards within the planning area.
POLICY 4-8 SEISMIC HAZARDS
The provisions of the State Uniform Building Code are not entirely adequate for earthquake protection.
The City should continue to monitor the UBCs earthquake provisions and make recommendations for
improvement.
Most development in liquefaction-prone areas should have site-specific investigations done
addressing the liquefaction problem and suggesting mitigation measures. New residential
development in excess of four units, commercial, industrial, and public facilities shall have site-
specific geologic investigations completed in known potential liquefaction areas.
5. PUBLIC WORKS AND PUBLIC SERVICES CAPACITIES
POLICY 5-1 REGIONAL SEWAGE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
The planned improvements to the regional sewage transportation system should be undertaken and
completed. These improvements are necessitated by development beyond the coastal zone.
POLICY 5-2 FUTURE SEWAGE TREATMENT
Future treatment demands can be met by the combined effects of enlarging the Encina Water
Pollution Control Facility and implementing the City of Carlsbad Wastewater Reclamation Master
Plan. The City must participate in meeting growth demands beyond the coastal zone.
City of Carlsbad 09 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties Chapter II-3
Exhibit "Y-J!
January 16, 2008
LCPA 07-06
Proposed Text Changes to Local Costal Program
(Bold, italicized words indicate text to be added and strikdthrough words indicate text to be deleted)
5. Agricultural improvements which will aid in continuation of agricultural production within
the Carlsbad Coastal Zone, as determined by the Carlsbad City Council.
Note: The fee for the remaining 60 acres of non-prime agricultural land within the Poinsettia
Shores Master Plan was set with the approval of the Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park
Master Plan at $5,000 per acre.
C. GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL
a. Because the area is located close to environmentally sensitive habitats, all development must
include mitigation measures for the control of urban runoff flow rates and velocities, urban
pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in accordance with the requirements of the City's Grading
Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP),
Master City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, and the following additional requirements. The
SUSMP, dated April 2003 and as amended, and the City of Carlsbad Master Drainage Master
Plan (1991) are hereby incorporated in the LCP by reference. Development must comply with
the requirements of the Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP) and the San
Diego County Hydrology Manual to the extent that these requirements are not inconsistent with
any policies of the LCP.
b. Drainage and runoff shall be controlled so as not to exceed the capacity of the downstream
drainage facilities or to produce erosive velocities and appropriate measures shall be taken on
and/or off the site to prevent the siltation of the Batiquitos Lagoon and other environmentally
sensitive areas.
c. All graded areas shall be hydroseeded prior to October 1 st with either temporary or permanent
materials. Landscaping shall be maintained and replanted if not established by December 1st.
d. Grading plans shall indicate staking or fencing of open space areas during construction and shall
specifically prohibit running or parking earth-moving equipment, stockpiling or earthwork
material, or other disturbances within the open space areas.
e. Any necessary temporary or permanent erosion control devices required for the development of a
specific planning area, such as desilting basins, shall be developed and installed prior to any on,
or off, site grading activities within the specific planning area requiring the mitigation, or,
concurrent with the grading, provided all devices required for that planning area are installed and
operating prior to October 1st, and installation is assured through bonding or other acceptable
means.
f. The developer must provide for the long-term maintenance of drainage improvements and
City of Carlsbad 135 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - West Batiquitos Lagoon/Sammis Properties Chapter 11-3
Exhibit "Y-l"
January 16, 2008
LCPA 07-06
Proposed Text Changes to Local Costal Program
(Bold, italicized words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted)
5. Agricultural improvements which will aid in continuation of agricultural production within
the Carlsbad Coastal Zone, as determined by the Carlsbad City Council.
Note: The fee for the remaining 60 acres of non-prime agricultural land within the Poinsettia
Shores Master Plan was set with the approval of the Batiquitos Lagoon Educational Park
Master Plan at $5,000 per acre.
C. GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL
a. Because the area is located close to environmentally sensitive habitats, all development must
include mitigation measures for the control of urban runoff flow rates and velocities, urban
pollutants, erosion and sedimentation in accordance with the requirements of the City's Grading
Ordinance, Storm Water Ordinance, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP),
Master City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, and the following additional requirements. The
SUSMP, dated April 2003 and as amended, and the City of Carlsbad Master Drainage Master
Plan (1994) are hereby incorporated in the LCP by reference. Development must comply with
the requirements of the Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP) and the San
Diego County Hydrology Manual to the extent that these requirements are not inconsistent with
any policies of the LCP.
b. Drainage and runoff shall be controlled so as not to exceed the capacity of the downstream
drainage facilities or to produce erosive velocities and appropriate measures shall be taken on
and/or off the site to prevent the siltation of the Batiquitos Lagoon and other environmentally
sensitive areas.
c. All graded areas shall be hydroseeded prior to October 1 st with either temporary or permanent
materials. Landscaping shall be maintained and replanted if not established by December 1st.
d. Grading plans shall indicate staking or fencing of open space areas during construction and shall
specifically prohibit running or parking earth-moving equipment, stockpiling or earthwork
material, or other disturbances within the open space areas.
C; Any necessary temporary or permanent erosion control devices required for the development of a
specific planning area, such as desilting basins, shall be developed and installed prior to any on,
or off, site grading activities within the specific planning area requiring the mitigation, or,
concurrent with the grading, provided all devices required for that planning area are installed and
operating prior to October 1st, and installation is assured through bonding or other acceptable
means.
f. The developer must provide for the long-term maintenance of drainage improvements and
City of Carlsbad 135 Local Coastal Program
Land Use - East Batiquitos Lagoon/Hunt Properties Chapter II-4
Exhibit Y-9
January 16, 2008
LCPA 07-06
Proposed Text Changes to Local Coastal Program
(Bold, italicized words indicated text to be added and strikethrougk words indicate text to be deleted)
cumulative development shall be implemented prior to development in accordance
with the following additional criteria:
1) Submittal of a runoff control plan designated by a licensed engineer qualified
in hydrology and hydraulics, which would assure no increase in peak runoff
rate from the developed site over the greatest discharge expected from the
existing undeveloped site as a result of a 10-year frequency storm. Runoff
control shall be accomplished by a variety of measures, including, but not
limited to, onsite catchment basins, detention basins, siltation traps, and
energy dissipators and shall not be concentrated in one area or a few
locations.
2) Detailed maintenance arrangements and various alternatives for providing the
ongoing repair and maintenance of any approved drainage and erosion
control facilities.
3) All permanent runoff and erosion control devices shall be developed and
installed prior to or concurrent with any onsite grading activities.
4) All areas disturbed by grading, but not completed during the construction
period, including graded pads, shall be planted and stabilized prior to October
1 st with temporary or permanent (in the case of finished slopes) erosion
control measures and native vegetation. The use of temporary erosion
control measures, such as berms, interceptor ditches, sandbagging, filtered
inlets, debris basins, and silt traps shall be utilized in conjunction with
plantings to minimize soil loss from the construction site. Said plantings
shall be accomplished under the supervision of a licensed landscape architect
and shall consist of seeding, mulching, fertilization, and irrigation adequate
to provide 90% coverage within 90 days. Planting shall be repeated, if the
required level of coverage is not established. This requirement shall apply to
all disturbed soils, including stockpiles.
5) All development must include mitigation measures for the control of urban
runoff flow rates and velocities, urban pollutants, erosion and sedimentation
in accordance with the requirements of the City's Grading Ordinance, Storm
Water Ordinance, Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP),
Master City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan, and the following additional
requirements. The SUSMP, dated April 2003 and as amended, and the City
of Carlsbad Master Drainage Master Plan (1994) are hereby incorporated
into the LCP by reference. Development must also comply with the
requirements of the Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program
(JURMP) and the San Diego County Hydrology Manual to the extent that
City of Carlsbad 151 Local Coastal Program
Planning Commission Minutes January 16, 2008 Page 3
Chairperson Baker asked Mr. Goff to respond to the issues regarding zoning, setbacks, and view
ordinance. Mr. Goff stated the site is zoned R-3 and the house will be built to those standards. The
maximum peak of the project is 21.5 feet tall at the street level which is lower than average. The
setbacks are 10 feet, and 30 feet along the northern edge. The City does not have a view ordinance and
lot coverage can be 60% of site. This project covers 1 8% of the site.
Chairperson Baker inquired if the City can govern the size of a home. Mr. Goff stated no.
Commissioner Montgomery asked if the project were multi-family, how many units could be allowed. Mr.
Goff stated 3.22 units could be developed based on the contours and constraints on the site.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Montgomery, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6369 adopting a Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and adopt
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6370 approving Coastal Development Permit
(CDP 06-25), based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
VOTE: 6-0-1
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioner Boddy, Commissioner Dominguez,
Commissioner Douglas, Commissioner Montgomery, Commissioner Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Cardosa
ABSTAIN: None
Chairperson Baker asked Mr. Neu to introduce the next item.
2. EIR 04-02/ZCA 07-04/LCPA 07-06/CDP 06-04/SUP 06-02/HMPP 06-03 - CITY OF
CARLSBAD DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE/CALAVERA AND AGUA
HEDIONDA CREEKS - A request to: (1) recommend (a) certification of a Final EIR,
and (b) adoption of the Candidate Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for the proposed City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update
and the Calavera and Agua Hedionda Creeks project; (2) recommend approval of a
Zone Code Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment to amend the
Zoning Ordinance and the Local Coastal Program policies to replace references to
the Master Drainage Plan adopted in 1994 with references to the proposed City of
Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan as well as delete references to the Model Erosion
Control Ordinance and Model Grading Ordinance; and (3) approve a Coastal
Development Permit, Special Use Permit (floodplain), and Habitat Management Plan
Permit for the dredging and maintenance of portions of Agua Hedionda and
Calavera Creeks in and near the Rancho Carlsbad residential community.
Mr. Neu introduced Item 2 and stated Senior Planner Scott Donnell assisted by Associate Engineer Steve
Jantz and Engineering Consultant Glen Van Peski would make the staff presentation.
Staff gave a detailed presentation and stated they would be available to answer any questions.
Chairperson Baker asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Dominguez asked how drainage requirements in Carlsbad are addressed since large
portions of the City's drainage basins are outside Carlsbad. Mr. Jantz noted drainage plans and flows
from other surrounding cities are considered when calculating Carlsbad's drainage requirements.
Commissioner Dominguez also asked why comments received made a significant point of lack of
161
Planning Commission Minutes January 16,2008 Page 4
integration among drainage plans. Mr. Donnell responded that multiple documents are considered and
must be complied with in the planning of drainage improvements. Commissioner Dominguez further
asked about stormwater quality and addressing problems with jurisdictions that drain into Carlsbad.
David Mauser,.Deputy City Engineer, discussed the multiple documents that address stormwater quality,
including those that require cooperation among different agencies on a regional level. He noted the
Regional Water Quality Control Board would have the ultimate say regarding enforcement.
Commissioner Montgomery asked if the documents protect the city with water quality issues. Mr. Hauser
stated that was correct.
Chairperson Baker called for a 10 minute recess.
Chairperson Baker called the meeting to order at 7:22 with all Commissioners present.
Chairperson asked if there were any further questions of Staff.
Commissioner Montgomery asked if future developments in other cities are considered when calculating
runoff and stormflows entering Carlsbad. Mr. Jantz responded affirmatively that buildout conditions are
considered. Mr. Hauser followed up and noted detailed hydrology studies are also prepared when
specific projects are proposed.
Chairperson Baker opened the public testimony on the item.
Russ Kohl, 3317 Don Pablo, Carlsbad, spoke about the flood mitigation fee that the homeowners of
Rancho Carlsbad were responsible for. He stated that the project is a very welcome project. One
question asked by Mr. Kohl had to do with the EIR statement that there would be no Land Use Impacts
associated with the BJ Basin. He noted there would be no impacts to the RV parking, the maintenance
and landscaping facilities and community gardens.
Commissioner Montgomery asked if BJ Basin is built would it impact the RV parking. Mr. Kohl noted that
if BJ Basin is built, those facilities will have to be moved and they believe the City should help with that. If
BJ Basin is not in the Master Plan, then Rancho Carlsbad would have other issues.
Bill Arnold, Don Ortega Drive, clarified that are 9 homes that would have water on the lot not that they
would be inundated. Mr. Arnold stated the residents are very pleased to see this project. The main
concern is what is not in the EIR. The funding for BJ Basin is critical.
Karen Merrill, 6901 Quail Place, Carlsbad, addressed Item 6 in the Preserve Calavera letter. They are
concerned with the increase in traffic and roadkill along El Camino Real and Cannon. Dredging will close
the wildlife corridor with no discussion as to how the wildlife will move between natural areas via the
creek. They are asking for a project biologist to recommend ways to protect the wildlife movement
corridor during construction.
Diane Nygaard, representing Preserve Calavera, noted the plan needs to be better and integrated with
other documents. She noted several key items from Preserve Calavera's comment letter on this project.
David Bentley, 7449 Magellan Street, has been working with the homeowners of Rancho Carlsbad, wants
to insure there is sufficient funding in the Drainage Master Plan for public facilities required. Land and
relocation of RV parking and gardens need to be a part of the BJ Basin budget. He stated he is grateful
to see the project has gotten to this point.
Chairperson Baker asked if there were any questions. Seeing none, she asked staff to respond to the
issues raised by the speakers.
Mr. Donnell responded to the different comments raised by the speakers, including the difference
between program and project level components, land use impacts associated with Basin BJ, and
Planning Commission Minutes January 16,2008 Page 5
integration of the Drainage Master Plan (DMP) with other documents. He also noted the components
identified in the DMP are not exact and can be moved.
Chairperson Baker asked what would trigger whether Basin BJ is needed or not. Mr. Hauser stated City
Council would be the trigger and discussed studies and other factors that would be necessary to reach a
decision.
Mr. Donnell stated there is a discussion in the EIR about the wildlife corridor, and that project biologist
and EIR concluded that creek dredging would not have a significant impact and that no mitigation
measure regarding wildlife movement was necessary.
Chairperson Baker asked if there were any further questions of staff or if there were any other comments
from Staff. Mr. Hauser commented about the 9 units in the flood area.
Commissioner Montgomery asked who is responsible for future maintenance of the channels. Mr. Hauser
stated the City is.
Commissioner Montgomery inquired about the budgetary issues in regards to the Drainage Master Plan.
Jane Mobaldi stated the comments made by Mr. Bentley are reflected in the minutes, and as stated in the
EIR page 1-7, fees to pay for DMP components are not considered as part of the Planning
Commissioner's review. Ms. Mobaldi stated that is why the EIR took the big picture approach to this.
Commissioner Dominguez stated that Mr. Bentley should be encouraged to speak at the City Council
hearing.
Commissioner Boddy asked for staff to comment on the remaining four issues from the Preserve
Calavera letter. Mr. Donnell responded and discussed each issue. Mr. Hauser shared that staff can
share the project mitigation plan with the Carlsbad Watershed Network.
Commissioner Douglas participated in the Council Workshop this afternoon and stated there will be
another workshop with residents to discuss the funding.
Commissioner Dominguez stated that Staff would do well to get a integration process in place and
expressed his concern about the importance of the creek serving as a wildlife corridor. Ms. Mobaldi
stated that the threshold for significance regarding project impacts on the creeks is in question and stated
that the consultant should respond.
Commissioner Boddy stated her concurrence with Commissioner Dominguez.
Commissioner Whitton stated they are interesting areas for discussion but the Commission is beginning
to play with words.
Commissioner Montgomery suggested adding a mitigation measure to include a biological measure
during construction. Mr. Donnell requested a 5 minute recess.
Chairperson Baker called the meeting to order at 8:19 with all Commissioners present.
Mr. Donnell stated that prior to City Council, staff will look at the issues more closely that have been
raised and seek to clarify and amplify the EIR findings.
Ms. Mobaldi asked that the consultant speak and address this issue.
Lindsay Cavallaro, from EDAW, 1420 Ketner Boulevard, stated the biologist who studied the creek
dredging project in terms of wildlife using the corridor during construction noted that temporary
construction impacts would not inhibit those species from using the corridor and that appropriate
mitigation has been recommended to ensure sensitive species (birds) would not be significantly impacted.
Planning Commission Minutes January 16, 2008 Page 6
Commissioner Dominguez asked if there is any corridor where wildlife would not be exposed to surface
traffic. Ms. Cavarallo responded that wildlife can use culverts and undercrossings. Coyotes are not
considered sensitive and therefore project mitigation measures only focused on those species that are
considered sensitive.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Montgomery, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6376 recommending
certification of the Final EIR, EIR 04-02, and adoption of the Candidate Findings of
Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; adopt_Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 6377and 6378 recommending approval of ZCA 07-04
and LCPA 07-06 based on the findings contained therein; and adopt Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 6379, 6380 and 6381 approving CDP 06-04, SUP 06-
02, and HMPP 06-03, based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained
therein.
VOTE: 6-0
AYES: Chairperson Baker, Commissioner Boddy, Commissioner Dominguez,
Commissioner Douglas, Commissioner Montgomery and Commissioner Whitton
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Cardosa
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Montgomery commented about not having a Habitat Manager in place is causing concern
for him. Mr. Neu stated there is a Preserve Steward in place from TAIC. The position referred to in the
letter is the Preserve Manager which would be responsible for managing the city-owned land.
Chairperson Baker closed the public hearing on Item 2 and Mr. Neu to introduce the next item.
3. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Chairperson Baker stated that because Commissioner Cardosa was absent the Election of Officers would
be continued until February 6, 2008.
COMMISSION COMMENTS
None.
PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTS
Mr. Neu commented about the upcoming League of Cities Planners Institute to be held in March 2008.
Planning Commission Minutes January 16,2008 Page 7
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of January 16, 2008, was adjourned
at 8:35 p.m.
DON NEU
Planning Director
Bridget Desmarais
Minutes Clerk
JJELM^^ ——__^_^_.._,, ..„_ J._-^__^_m^^^£ga£i.
All Receive - Agenda Item # \5
From: GlenniPruim For Information of
To: Jim Elliott THELCITY COUNCIL
CC: David Mauser; Lisa Hildabrand; Scott Donnell; Steve Jantz CM *_' CA_*_ GC
Date: 8/5/200811:20 AM pi i ~
Subject: Carlsbad Chamber PLDA Meeting Date M5/OP FrorrYCWfg^Asst. CM_
Jim,
This morning, Steve and I attended the Chamber meeting and gave a brief presentation on the PLDA program. Councilman
Packard was in attendance at the meeting. Our presentation focused on the Drainage Master Plan (DMP) and the PLDA
fees and didn't focus on the Rancho Carlsbad drainage issues or the EIR, although both of those issues did come up. The
presentation went well (Steve did a really nice job) and there were a lot of questions.
There was certainly a lot of energy about the fee increases and the impact that would have on development within the City.
There seemed to be a general understanding that new development should pay for its' impacts.
One main issue that was raised had to do with the Low Impact Development (LID) standards. The BIA was questioning
whether the new standard, which was adopted to comply with water quality regulations, was factored into the DMP
analysis. The BIA felt that development should get credit for the reduction in runoff that they felt would occur as a result
of complying with LID. It is our opinion that LID is geared toward attaining water quality improvements in smaller rain
events and would have a minor impact on the 100-year storm events used to design master planned drainage facilities.
Another issue that was raised was whether the fee program would allow the flexibility to adjust the fee required based on
supplemental on-site drainage improvements that can be shown to reduce the discharge from the site in larger rainfall
events. For example, if a developer installed a detention basin larger than would be required for water quality reasons
could they be reclassified from a high intensity project to a medium or low intensity project, resulting in lower fees. The
DMP and PLDA fee program to be presented to Courtd tonight do not address such a proposal. It would be very difficult to
evaluate the overall impact, on both the flood control facility sizes and the fee generation capability, of such a proposal.
There were also numerous questions regarding redevelopment and how the fee program would be applied to specific
projects such as the Westfleld mall.
Overall, my sense is that the Chamber/BIA group will attend the meeting tonight and request that Council defer the
adoption of the DMP and PLDA fee program so that additional studies can be performed. The group seemed to understand
that the EIR needs to be certified to allow the Rancho Carlsbad work to move forward and would probably recommend that
Council certify the EIR and hold off any action on the two other documents.
Ted Owen did express some concern about a perceived lack of time to respond to the DMP and PLDA. There has been
ample opportunity for the development community to provide input on this project, going as far back as the public scoping
meeting for the EIR, thru the Planning Commission process earlier this year and up to the public information meeting held
on July 23. The Chamber and BIA have been silent up to this point.
This a brief summary of the Chamber meeting. Let me know if you need anything else. Please share this with Council if
you deem appropriate.
Glenn
RLSBAD
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
August 5, 2008
Honorable Claude Lewis
Mayor
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
BUILDING INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION OF
SAN DIECO COUNTY
:>an Diego
hapter
RE: Drainage Master Plan Update & Drainage Fees
Dear Mayor Lewis and Members of the City Council:
Alt Receive - Agend
For Information
THELCITY
CM *
Date Frc
erThe Building Industry Association of San Diego County, the Carlsbad Chamb
of Commerce and National Association of Office & Industrial Properties
combined represent over 3,300 companies comprising a workforce of more than
200,000 San Diegans. Given the current economic climate, we urge city to not
move forward with any fee increases at this time. Any increase in cost in the
current climate may only delay or make projects in the city infeasible, which
will delay economic recovery and will have negative economic and fiscal
impacts to the city.
It is more than evident that the U.S. economy is struggling and showing signs) of
continued deterioration. The state and the federal governments have both
recently taken action to shore up the economy and the deterioration in the
housing market, The state passed legislation that provides for a 1-year autorr atic
extension for approved Tentative Maps and the federal government passed ait
economic stimulus package to stem the tide of foreclosures and the loss of
liquidity available for financing economic growth, We believe it is imperativ
that the city follow the state and federal governments' lead by looking for
opportunities to stimulate economic development.
We have reviewed the proposed drainage study and fee methodology and we
have concern with some of the assumptions used to calculate the drainage fees.
The methodology does not account for the recently enacted storm water
regulations that require development projects to meet new Low Impact
Development (LID) and Hydromodification requirements for storm water ruiKoff.
The drainage study needs to incorporate these new storm water regulations into
the modeling assumptions to determine what the actual volume of runoff from
future development areas will be and likewise the size and scope of the drainage
facilities required to accommodate this reduced volume of runoff.
The new storm water regulations require all new development projects to
infiltrate storm water runoff into the project site, rather than letting it run off (the
site into the storm drain. Common infiltration techniques include landscape
beds, vegetated swales, and porous concrete and pavement. The new
regulations also require that detention basins be built onsite to control the
amount and rate of runoff volumes to prevent downstream drainages and
facilities from being adversely affected by high runoff volumes
(hydromodification). While these new requirements will not necessarily
completely eliminate the need for drainage facilities, they will reduce the
amount of water entering these facilities and, therefore, reduce the size, scope,
and cost of these facilities. I
In summary we recommend the city council take the following action:
a Certify the Environmental Impact Report so that the Rancho Carlsbad
drainage improvements can be implemented.
a Expand the administrative variance procedures contained in the Drain ige
Master Plan to include Low Impact Development (LID) and
hydromodification as project design solutions that can reduce storm w^ter
runoff and therefore allow for a reduction in the fees for individual
projects.
a As data on the effectiveness of LID and hydromodification becomes
available, revise the drainage study to account for reduced runoff level^
from these new storm water design requirements.
a Delay the implementation of the proposed fee increases in the drainage
study for a period of one year and, as an economic stimulus, implement
only those drainage fees which would decrease (certain categories of
residential would see a decrease in drainage fees in drainage basins "B
and "C").
Q Continue to assess the fees at the recordation of the final map but allow
the fees to be paid at the Close of Escrow or Certificate of Occupancy.
This reduces the cost and amount of financing needed to begin a project,
Thank you for this opportunity to respond to the proposed fee increases. In light
of the stagnant economy and the deterioration that has occurred in the
development industry, we strongly encourage the city to not move forward \ nth
fee increases at this time.
Very truly yours,
Scott C. Mottoy
Public Policy Advocate
Building Industry Association
Ted Owen
Chief Executive Officer
Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce
Craig Benedetto
Legislative Advocate
National Association of Office & Industrial Properties
cc: Lisa Hildabrand, Interim City Manager
Ron Ball, City Attorney
Glenn Pruim, Director of Public Works
Mr. Steve Jantz, Associate Engineer
The Loft in F I r m_
Carlsbad Location
5760 Fleet Street, Ste. 110
Carlsbad, California, 92008
Tel: 760.431.2111
fax: 760.431.2003
Respond to Carlsbad, CA Location
www.loftinfirm.com
sloftin@loftinfirm.com
Tennessee Location
407Main Street, Ste. 205
Franklin, Tennessee, 37064
Tel: 615.567.6722
Fax: 615.567.6723
Client/Matter Number:RCOA-Lot 4-
Attorneys at Law
CITY OF CARLSBAD
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Via Email & Overnight Mail
July 29 2008
City Clerk
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Hearing: August 5,2008
Item: Public Hearing, Item No. 13
£±1- ?oPSDMP and Panned Loca, Drainage Area Fee
Program or to Continue Said Item
Dear Mayor Bud Lewis and Honorable Councilpersons:
As you
above referenced action demolish.on and
The
March 2008
OHMS
" dated Mayn, 2008, July .4 2008
1.
Company, dated June 30, 1998.
M^Rancho CaHsbad^ain-Basin-F.oodC.ty Council He-ing B-5-8.tr C.ty C,erk Oppos.t.on S-5-8.doc
THE LOFTIN FIRM
City Clerk
August 5, 2008
Page 2 of4
2. Any and all documents, writings, correspondence, memorandums and communications
pertaining to or relating to the hydrology and water quality technical report known as
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Report for Calavera Hills II and Detention Basin BJB, Rick
Engineering Company, dated May 8, 2002.
3. Any and all documents, writings, correspondence, memorandums and communications
pertaining to or relating to the hydrology and water quality technical report known as
Rancho Carlsbad Mobilehome Park Alternative Analysis for Agua Hedionda Channel
Maintenance, Rick Engineering Company, dated December 13, 2004.
4. Any and all documents, writings, correspondence, memorandums and communications
pertaining to or relating to the hydrology and water quality technical report known as
Drainage Study for Robertson Ranch, O'Day Consultants, Inc., September 2, 2005.
5. Any and all documents, writings, correspondence, memorandums and communications
pertaining to or relating to the hydrology and water quality technical report known as
Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan for Robertson Ranch East Village, O'Day
Consultants, Inc., dated September 2, 2005.
6. Any and all documents, writings, correspondence, memorandums and communications
pertaining to or relating to the hydrology and water quality technical report known as
Preliminary Storm Water Management Plan for Robertson Ranch West Village, O'Day
Consultants, Inc., dated September 2, 2005.
7. Any and all documents, writings, correspondence, memorandums and communications
pertaining to or relating to the hydrology and water quality technical report known as
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses for Robertson Ranch East Village, Chang
Consultants, dated September 4, 2004.
8. Any and all documents, writings, correspondence, memorandums and communications
pertaining to or relating to the hydrology and water quality technical report known as
Hydraulic Analyses for 84" RCP at Robertson's Ranch East Village, Chang
Consultants, dated November 22, 2004.
9. Any and all documents, writings, correspondence, memorandums and communications
pertaining to or relating to the hydrology and water quality technical report known as
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses for Robertson Ranch East Village 84" Reinforced
Concrete Pipe Alternative, Chang Consultants, April 27, 2005.
10. Any and all documents, writings, correspondence, memorandums and communications
pertaining to or relating to the hydrology and water quality technical report known as
Hydraulic Analysis for Calavera Creek Channel Protection, Chang Consultants, dated
August 30, 2005.
M:\Rancho Carlsbad\Drain-Basin-Flood\City Council Hearing 8-5-8\ltr City Clerk Opposition 8-5-8.doc:
THE LOFTIN FIRM
City Clerk
August 5, 2008
Page 3 of4
11. Any and all documents, writings, correspondence, memorandums and communications
pertaining to or relating to the hydrology and water quality technical report known as
Engineering Analyses of Detention Basin BJ, Chang Consultants, dated October 4,
2005.
12. Any and all documents, writings, correspondence, memorandums and communications
pertaining to or relating to the hydrology and water quality technical report known as
Robertson's Ranch East Village 84" Reinforced Concrete Pipe Alternative, Chang
Consultants, January 10, 2006.
13. Any and all documents, writings, correspondence, memorandums and communications
pertaining to or relating to the hydrology and water quality technical report known as
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analyses for Robertson's Ranch, Chang Consultants, dated
February 20, 2006.
All of the materials listed related to the approval of the stated projects below:
14. Any and all staff reports, draft staff reports, resolutions, draft resolutions, documents,
writings, correspondence, memorandums and communications pertaining to or relating
to conditions of approval for Robertson's Ranch project.
15. Any and all resolutions, draft resolutions, documents, writings, correspondence,
memorandums and communications pertaining to or relating to conditions of approval
for Calavera Hills project.
16. Any and all staff reports, draft staff reports, resolutions, draft resolutions, documents,
writings, correspondence, memorandums and communications pertaining to or relating
to conditions of approval for the Holly Springs project.
17. Any and all staff reports, draft staff reports, resolutions, draft resolutions, documents,
writings, correspondence, memorandums and communications pertaining to or relating
to the conditions of approval for the Cantarini project.
18. Any and all staff reports, draft staff reports, resolutions, draft resolutions, documents,
writings, correspondence, memorandums and communications pertaining to or relating
to the conditions of approval for the Drainage Master Plan (DMP) for zone 15.
The RCOA is requesting the following additions to the DMP and Fee Program as stated in
prior correspondence to City Staff and Attorneys:
Action A. Find that BJ Basin is a necessary component of the DMP.
M:\Rancho Carlsbad\Drain-Basin-Flood\City Council Hearing 8-5-8\ltr City Clerk Opposition 8-5-8.doc:
THE LOFTIN FIRM
City Clerk
August 5, 2008
Page 4 of4
Action B. Provide a financing mechanism for the construction of BJ Basin and for payment
to and on behalf of RCOA for the land and improvement located thereon, and
relocation and reconstruction.
1. Finding: BJ Basin is a necessary and integral part of the DMP to protect the
health and safety of the public, and specifically the residents located in Rancho
Carlsbad Country Club Estates.
2. Finding: The general location of BJ Basin on property owned by the Rancho
Carlsbad Homeowners Association, Inc. has been established at least since the
1980 DMP.
3. Financing of the acquisition of the property and the relocation of the RCOA
amenities located thereon shall be paid from the Planned Local Drainage Area Fee
Program which shall be amended to include the sum of Two Million, Two
Hundred, Fifty Thousand Dollars ($2,250,000).
The Board of and Members of RCOA want to work with the City to resolve the above issues. At
this time, absent the language, or similar language, being included in the approval for the DMP,
Financing Plan therefor, and other related resolutions, the RCOA will strongly object to those
actions.
Sincerely,
THE LOFTIN FIRM
L. Sue Lojtin, 'Esq.
By: L. Sue Loftin, Esq.
cc: Honorable Mayor Bud Lewis (Hand Delivered - Carlsbad Village Drive)
Honorable Councilpersons (Hand Delivered - Carlsbad Village Drive)
Ron Ball, City Attorney (Hand Delivered - Carlsbad Village Drive)
Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney (Hand Delivered - Carlsbad Village Drive)
Ronald Keep, Assistant City Attorney (Hand Delivered - Carlsbad Village Drive)
Lisa Hildebrand, City Manager (Hand Delivered - Carlsbad Village Drive)
Glenn Prium, Director of Public Works (Hand Delivered - Faraday)
David Hauser, Planning & Land Use (Hand Delivered - Faraday)
Clients (Via Email)
David Bentley (Via Email)
Bob Ladwig (Via Email)
Brookfield Homes (Via Email)
M:\Rancho Carlsbad\Drain-Basin-Flood\City Council Hearing 8-5-8\ltr City Clerk Opposition 8-5-8.doc:
BENFEQ
REAL ESTATE
May 12,2006
Mayor Bud Lewis
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
RE: Zone 15; Cantarini-Holly Springs
Dear Mayor Lewis:
The purpose of this letter is to update you regarding the status of our 8-year development effort
in Carlsbad's Zone 15. The Council's vote hi support of our Cantarini-Holly Springs projects on
December 7,2004, was the culmination of a very challenging 6 1/2 year project review process.
In January 2005, the approved project EIR and entitlements were subjected to a CEQA lawsuit;
by July 2005 we had negotiated a settlement and dismissal with plaintiff Preserve Calavera.
Since resolving the CEQA challenge, we have been working to secure the requisite state and
federal agency permits (Regional Water 401, Fish & Game 1602, Army Corps of Engineers 404,
and USF&WS HMP Equivalency). Our RWQCB 401 permit was approved in December 2005;
the Army Corps 404 and Fish & Game 1602 permits are pending USF&WS concurrence.
The most costly and convoluted resource agency process has been the new HMP "Hardline"
Equivalency concurrence with USF&WS. Essentially, USF&WS/CDF&G rejected the city's
EIR findings and HMP equivalency conclusions and demanded significant additional
concessions and costly design modifications from the landowners.
In fact, given the extraordinary delays, additional costs and onerous new regulatory burdens it
imposes, the HMP has proved disastrous for landowners. Instead of gaming greater regulatory
certainty and the permit streamlining benefits that were promised hi exchange for a landowner's
early "hardline" commitments, the HMP has imposed disproportionately higher costs and
exactions on a minority of Carlsbad's taxpayers in the form of diminished property rights, longer
and more costly reviews, larger open space dedications, higher mitigation ratios, bigger impact
fees and huge open space management endowments.
While providing no greater environmental or open space quality benefits than Carlsbad's own
Growth Management standards, the HMP (a) provides political activists with another vehicle for
wasteful litigation, (b) exacerbates the housing affordability problem and (c) consumes financial
resources that could otherwise be devoted to legitimate environmental protection and open space
programs. In sum, the HMP is a classic example of bureaucratic excess and regulatory over-
reach which, under the populist guise of "environmental protection", extorts substantial "public
benefit" from a small minority of private landowners.
7449 Magellan Street * Carlsbad, CA 92011 * 760-809-5216 * 760-476-9572
benteq@adelphia.net
I am hopeful that ultimately the city will devote sufficient resources to rectify the inequities and
amend its HMP, particularly those provisions that were inserted late in the process without
adequate property owner involvement or legitimate scientific justification.
In the mean time, our frustrated quest for HMP equivalency concurrence for the Cantarini-Holly
Springs projects may nearly be over. Based on our last meeting with the resource agencies (in
late March), we are making "final" changes to our plan and the Substantial Conformance map
should be ready for submittal to the city in a few days. Thereafter, we will work with staff to
generate the HMP equivalency letter requesting USF&WS concurrence.
The next significant challenge we face is financing the Zone 15 College Blvd. improvements.
Constructing this final section of College Blvd. will provide better access and unproved safety
for all Zone 15 properties and substantially improve circulation for the broader northeast
Carlsbad area. To that end, an integral part of our development efforts has been regular
communication with the neighboring Rancho Carlsbad Homeowners. In addition to those
residents' substantial interest in the area's development, they have a special interest in the
enhanced access and flood control facilities associated with College Blvd.
Because several hundred Growth Management units were eliminated from Zone 15 to facilitate
the Sunny Creek Specific Plan and extra HMP open space (core and linkages), the city's Zone 15
College Blvd. off-site improvements have become an excessive funding burden for the relatively
small number of remaining units. The Zone 15 financing challenge is further complicated by
insufficient city reimbursements and recent suggestions by city officials that the "BJ" Basin is no
longer needed. Aside from the contradictions and controversy this suggestion creates, it raises
significant legal and permitting issues since the "BJ" Basin (a) is already included hi at least two
of the city's certified EIRs, (b) has been issued permits by the resource agencies and (c) has been
defined hi numerous city documents and communications as an integral part of the overall flood
control/drainage program affecting Rancho Carlsbad.
Notwithstanding the seemingly endless impediments, assuming we finally clear our HMP
Equivalency hurdle we should be able to commence the final engineering for Cantarini-Holly
Springs and College Blvd. this summer. Then, barring any major complications hi the final
engineering and grading permit process, construction could commence late next year.
I appreciate your attention and continuing support and hope you find this update helpful. Please
don't hesitate to contact me if you need additional information.
Very truly yours,
David M. Bentley, Owner/Managing Partner
Cantarini Ranch/The Bentley-Monarch Joint Venture &
Co-Applicant/Co-Owner for Holly Springs, BJ Apartments, Dos Colinas, DB-Lubliner
(Distribution list attached)
Copy To: Carlsbad Mayor & City Council Members
Ray Patchett, Carlsbad City Manager
Barbara Kennedy, Carlsbad Project Planner
Jeremy Riddel, Carlsbad Project Engineer
David Hauser, Carlsbad Deputy City Engineer
Bob Ladwig, Ladwig Design Group
George O'Day, O'Day Consultants
Holly Springs Ltd. Partners
Rancho Carlsbad Homeowners Association, Inc. c/o Bill Arnold
Don Steffenson, Jr., Esq. - Monarch
Zone 15 Development Group
S-5-OSr-
REAL ESTATE
August 5, 2008
Mayor Bud Lewis & City Council Members
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
RE: August 5,2008 Drainage Master Plan Update; (CS-004, CS-005,2008-229,2008-230)
Honorable Mayor & Council:
The purpose of this letter is to request that the City Council NOT approve the proposed Carlsbad
Drainage Master Plan ("DMP") and proposed Planned Local Drainage Area Fee revision without
first amending said Plan and all related studies, documents, resolutions and ordinances to ensure
that: (1) Detention Basin BJ is clearly defined as (a) a City of Carlsbad public facility that
provides flood control for the Rancho Carlsbad Community and (b) a necessary public facility
even if College Blvd. "Reach A" is never constructed and even if no further development occurs
in Zone 15; and (2) all public facilities, including but not limited to Detention Basin BJ and the
College Blvd. Bridge, are properly budgeted for and fully funded by the City to provide
complete and timely payment for the design, construction and acquisition of said facilities.
Alternatively, if the City concludes, after due process, that Detention Basin BJ is not a necessary
public facility, the City should amend its DMP and execute all other legal and public processes
necessary to properly notify and inform the public and modify and/or amend all prior existing
entitlements, development permits, agreements, plans, etc. hi order to establish that Detention
Basin BJ is not required for flood control purposes.
If the City formally concludes that Detention Basin BJ is no longer required, the City must, hi
any event, reimburse Zone 15 property owners and developers for the substantial expenditures
made, in reliance on the City's earlier representations and impositions, toward satisfying the
City's conditions of approval in connection with Detention Basin BJ.
As noted hi my May 12,2006 correspondence (copy attached), hi addition to enduring an
unnecessarily onerous and protracted regulatory review on our Cantarini-Holly Springs projects,
Zone 15 property owners face extraordinary and disproportionately higher development costs as
a result of regulatory mandates by the city, state and federal agencies. By equivocating on the
Detention Basin BJ issue and underfunding public facilities in Zone 15, the City is exacerbating
problems, creating greater uncertainty and costly conflict, and effectively ensuring that new Zone
15 development will not be financially feasible. As a consequence, College Blvd. Reach A and
Detention Basin BJ will not get built, unless by the City, and other public benefits associated
with new Zone 15 development, including generous open space dedications, public trails and
affordable housing, will not be realized.
7449 Magellan Street * Carlsbad, CA 92011 * 760-809-5216* 760-476-9572
benteq@adelphia.net
It is important to understand that Detention Basin BJ is not required by and does not benefit the
new Zone 15 development projects. Instead, Detention Basin BJ has been defined for decades
by the City as an important public facility providing flood protection for the Rancho Carlsbad
community. This fact is evidenced by the drainage master plans and supporting studies produced
by the City and its consultants as well as the City's conditions of approval, certified EIRs and
other actions associated with the Calavera II/Bridge & Thoroughfare District #4, Cantarini-Holly
Springs, and other Zone 15 projects.
Accordingly, unless the City formally determines that said flood control facility is no longer
required, it is the City's obligation to fully and completely fund the Detention Basin BJ project.
More particularly, the City must purchase the land, design the detention basin, assist the current
owners (RCOA) with relocation of their existing improvements on the land, construct the
detention basin, and maintain the detention basin.
To the extent that the City can defer the construction of this flood control/public facility to
coincide with private development in Zone 15, then pursuant to the Local Facility Management
Plan, the "lead developer" will coordinate the design, construction and RCOA relocation process
under reimbursement agreements with the City. In order for this developer-managed method to
work, however, the City must formally commit to fully and timely fund all the costs.
In addition to our extensive efforts over many years to get clarity and consistency from City staff
on the Detention Basin BJ issues, as part of our final engineering submittal for College Blvd.
Reach A we have provided a detailed engineer's cost estimate for the College Blvd. bridge (copy
attached). The indicated cost for the bridge is just over $2.8M, but only $1.8 million is budgeted
in the DMP.
The Zone 15 developers/property owners need your help to ensure fair and equitable treatment
and to achieve our mutual objectives, including completing the last section of College Blvd., the
Detention Basin BJ and RCOA relocation projects, HMP Open Space dedications, affordable
housing, etc. To that end, we are requesting that the City Council ensure the corrections,
amendments and/or modifications referenced in this letter are made to the City's DMP and fee
program.
Very truly yours,
David M. Bentley,
Cantarini Ranch, Holly Springs, DB-Lubliner, Zone 15 Owners/Developers
Copy To: Carlsbad Mayor & City Council Members
Bob Ladwig, Ladwig Design Group
Ray Martin, Hunsaker Associates
Holly Springs Ltd. Partners
Rancho Carlsbad Homeowners Association, Inc.
July 2, 2008 Letter from Lisa Hildabrand, City Manager:
"...the City does not believe Basin BJis required for flood control purposes... "
When did the City make that determination? What is the basis for that conclusion?
What processes were followed to notify and generate input from the public?
Why weren't Zone 15 property owners allowed to participate in the analysis?
How does this "no flood control purpose " conclusion affect the conditions of approval for
Zone 15 projects?
If the "no flood control purpose " is a credible conclusion, why was it made without public
input and why has iflBBHMi refused multiple invitations/requests to meet and explain
this new conclusion to thelmost directly impacted property owners (RCOA, Zone 15)?
"...there is the potential that an area of impoundment may be created on the upstream side of
College Boulevard when Reach A is constructed. "
Note: Any impoundment is the result of the City's mandated crossing design, which was
intended to support a flood control detention basin.
What is the difference between "detention" and "impoundment"?
How much "impoundment" will there be & what is that conclusion based on?
If flood control is not required, why not design the culvert/road crossing to allow free
flow/avoid impoundment?
"The Environmental Impact Report for the DMP... has fully-analyzed the impacts of a basin at
this location..."
What exactly was the "basin" that the EIR fully-analyzed; (what distinction was made
between flood control and "impoundment")?
"The actual configuration of the drainage culvert and any accompanying basin -will only be
determined when the developer of the Cantarini-Holly Springs (or other Zone 15) project
submits detailed design drawings for the extension of College Boulevard".
Detailed design drawings for College were submitted to the City hi January 16, 2008
along with checks totaling $310,616.88.
"The sizing of the culvert and the associated flood impoundment area will be evaluated by City
staff at that time.
"flood impoundment" - 1 thought this wasn't for flood control?
What did the EIR "fully analyze"?
If the drainage configuration proposed at this location causes adverse flood-related impacts to
the Association property, the developer proposing the improvements will be required to mitigate
those impacts. "
The "drainage configuration " is what the city analyzed and approved pursuant to the
Calavera II/B&TD#4 EIR. "mitigate those impacts " means the developer will pay.
"The party responsible for the Proposed BJ improvements will be eligible for reimbursement (or
fee credits) from the drainage fee program up to the amount included in the Planned Local
Drainage Fee Program account for the cost of the actual improvements only. "
Advance Planning Study Estimate
x General Plan Estimate
Engineer's Estimate
PROJECT: Cantarini Ranch
STRUCTURE COST ESTIMATE
ESTIMATE DATE: 1II13/2007
BRIDGE: College Boulevard Bridge over Agua Hedionda Creek CALTRANS DISTRICT: 11
TYPE:Cast-In-Place, Prestressed Concrete Box Girder BR. NO: 57c-xxxx
LENGTH:153.00 WIDTH:84.00 AREA (SF) =12,852 RTE:
NO. OF STRUCTURES IN PROJECT :EST. NO:1 CO: SD
QUANTITIES BY:Tony Sanchez PM:
PRICING BY:Wade Durant COST INDEX DATE: 9/30/2007 COST INDEX: 472
NO.
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.
CODE CONTRACT ITEMS
STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (BRIDGE)
STRUCTURE BACKFILL (BRIDGE)
FURNISH STEEL PILING (HP10x57)
DRIVE STEEL PILE (HP10x57)
PRESTRESSING, CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE
STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE
STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, BRIDGE FOOTING
STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, APPROACH SLAB (TYPE N)
MINOR CONCRETE
JOINT SEAL, TYPE B (MR = 2")
BAR REINFORCING STEEL (BRIDGE)
CALIFORNIA ST-30 BRIDGE RAIL
PEDESTRIAN RAILING
COST ESCALATION FORECAST;
PROJECTED CONSTRUCTION START DATE 6/ 1 /2009
TIME OF COMPLETION (WORKING DAYS) 260
COMPUTED CONSTRUCTION FINISH DATE 7/1/2010
MIDPOINT OF CONSTRUCTION 1 2/1 5/2009
ANNUAL ESCALATION RATE 5.00%
ESTIMATED COST ESCALATION $ 328, 1 82
FOR BUDGETING (ESCALATED DOLLARS) $ 3,1 51,000
TYPE UNIT
CY
CY
LF
EA
LS
CY
CY
CY
CY
LF
LB
LF
LF
QUANTITY
375
268
2,920
64
1
1,074
93
187
42
175
250,000
820
410
PRICE
$ 80
$ 100
$ 25
$ 2,300
$ 100,000
$ 800
$ 500
$ 700
$ 1,500
$ 120
$ 1.25
$ 250
$ 250
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
SUBTOTAL
MOBILIZATION (@10%)
SUBTOTAL BRIDGE ITEMS
CONTINGENCIES 20%
BRIDGE TOTAL COST
COST PER SQ.FT.
BRIDGE REMOVAL (CONTINGENCIES INCL.)
WORK BY RAILROAD OR UTILITY FORCES
SUPPLEMENTAL WORK
GRAND TOTAL
FOR BUDGETING (CURRENT DOLLARS)
AMOUNT
$ 30,000
$ 26,800
S 73,000
$ 147,200
$ 100,000
$ 859,200
$ 46,500
$ 130,900
$ 63,000
$ 21,000
$ 312,500
$ 205,000
$ 102,500
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
S 2,117,600
$ 235,289
$ 2,352,889
$ 470,578
S 2,823,467
$ 220
$
$
$
$ 2,823,467
$ 2,823,000
COMMENTS;
1. This estimate represents the Engineer's professional opinon of probable cost only and no guarantee regarding its accuracy is expressed or implied. Actual
bid prices will vary depending on market conditions at the time of bidding and are not within the Engineer's control.
2. This estimate does not include any forecast of cost escalation unless shown in the table above.
3. This estimate includes structure items only and does not include costs for roadwork, utilities, landscaping, mitigation, right-of-way or engineering.
4. Costs of architectural enhancements such as architectural treatment, pilasters, or decorative lighting are not inlcuded.
December 19, 2001
Sue Loftin
LOFTIN & WARD
4330 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 330
San Diego, CA 92122
RELOCATION OF RANCHO CARLSBAD MOBILE HOME PARK RV STORAGE AREA,
MAINTENANCE FACILITIES, WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY, VEHICLE WASH FACLITY
AND COMMUNITY GARDEN (THE "RC AMENITIES")
Pursuant to our telephone conversation earlier today, I have prepared this letter to
memorialize our understanding regarding the future relocation of the Rancho Carlsbad
Mobile Home Park (RCMHP) amenities located on Parcel 4 owned by RCMHP. We
recognize and acknowledge that the future construction of College Boulevard Reach A will
effectively sever the physical access to the RCMHP amenities currently enjoyed by the
residents living within the park. We also recognize and acknowledge that the future
construction of Retention Basin BJ will require relocation of all RCMHP amenities located
within the area of inundation created by Basin BJ including the RV storage area, sewer
disposal site, maintenance facilities and portions of the community garden.
City staff will pursue the goal of collaboratively working with the RCMHP owners, the Zone
15 developers and the McMillin Company towards a solution which includes relocation of the
RV storage area, sewer disposal site, maintenance facilities and community garden onto the
approximately 5.7 acre parcel of land located generally north of the RCMHP property and
south of future Cannon Road Reach 3 as shown on the attached Exhibit 1. The relocation of
these facilities will include planning and design for such facilities, site preparation, provision
of utilities, installation of replacement RCMHP amenities, installation of security fencing,
installation of appropriate pedestrian and vehicular access from RCMHP across Calavera
Creek and processing of any discretionary actions and agency permits.
City staff will also pursue the goal crafting a financial plan for the relocation of said facilities in
such a manner as to not require any financial involvement of the RCMHP over and above
their current obligation for payment of Local Drainage Area "B" fee and RCMHP's dedication
Sue Loftin Letter
Page 2
of the needed land or easements required to construct Basin BJ in exchange for the
relocation benefits generally outlined in this letter. It is the City's further intention to require
establishment an appropriate financing mechanism(s) to spread the costs of the relocation in
a fair and equitable manner in accordance with State law and to require construction of the
relocated RCMHP amenities, including without limitation, access from the existing Lot/Parcel
2 (the Lot/Parcel on which the mobilehomes are located) of RCHOA prior to construction of
Reach A of College Boulevard and Retention Basin BJ.
If you have further questions or comments on this matter, please feel free to give me a
call to discuss.
Respectfully,
David Mauser
Deputy City Engineer
c City Manager
Public Works Director
Community Development Director
Planning Director
Bill Arnold, Rancho Carlsbad Owner's Association
Brian Millich, McMillin Development Company
David Bently, Cantarini Ranch
Bob Ladwig, Ladwig Design Group
August 5,2008
Mayor Lewis, City Council Members
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Master Drainage Plan EER
Master Drainage Plan Update
LCP Amendments
Dear Mayor Lewis and City Council:
Preserve Calavera is a non-profit grassroots organization whose goal is to preserve and protect
the natural resources of coastal North County.
The projects included within the Master Drainage Plan will impact significant resources
throughout the city of Carlsbad, particularly the function of our local watersheds and coastal
lagoons. At the hearing on this issue before the city's Planning Commission, Commissioner's
raised concerns about the integration of this project with other efforts related to water quality and
watershed protection and requested further information about the impacts on wildlife roadkill.
To our knowledge no response was made to the roadkill issues, and while there has been some
progress toward integrated planning there is still a long way to go. Potentially hundreds of
millions of dollars will be required to fully address restoration needs for the coastal lagoons
within the city (Agua Hedionda ,Buena Vista, and Batiquitos.) Failing to consider these issues in
an integrated way could result in wasted taxpayer dollars and continued degradation of our
coastal watersheds.
What staff has proposed is consistent with the practices of the past. But past practices need to
change if we are to have any hope of retaining the biological function of this area, and a healthy
watershed.
In January of 2008 Preserve Calavera and the Carlsbad Watershed Network submitted comment
letters on the FEIR and related documents. These comments still stand and those two letters are
again incorporated by reference. The responses to these comments have, in many cases, been
unresponsive, incomplete, and inaccurate. However it is clear it is the City's intent to certify this
EIR and we see no point to further discussion of our concerns with this document, but request
that this letter be added to the public record for the FEIR.
5020 Nighthawk Way - Oe^nside, CA 92056
www.preservecalavera.org
We do have concerns with the other related documents, and the remaining steps that are needed
to address the city's flood control concerns in a way that does not contribute to further
degradation of our already impaired coastal waters. The following provides some further
background on what we see as fee-key remaining issues of eoneern and fee-actions that can and
should be taken to address them,
Wetlands Protection
The MHCP states "Projects that propose to impact a wetland must demonstrate with substantial
factual evidence that the impact is essential to maintaining some economic or productive use of
the property and that no feasible alternative would eliminate or minimize the impact or
otherwise result in greater biological value. If impacts to wetlands cannot be avoided while
retaining economic or productive use of the property, an evaluation of biological functions and
values shall be made based on the best available science...Any unavoidable impacts to wetlands
must be mitigated to result in no net loss of wetland vegetation acreage and biological function
and value within the MHCP subregion, and preferably, but not necessarily, within the same
drainage and city."
This Project includes direct wetlands impacts. The EIR failed to provide substantial factual
evidence that concludes these impacts are unavoidable. The EIR discusses the impacts in terms
of acreage by habitat type, but fails to evaluate the impacts or mitigation in terms of biological
function and value. This is of particular concern because part of this area of Impact is within the
Coastal Zone and the rest is immediately adjacent to the Coastal Zone and will have at least
indirect impacts on coastal resources. Studies have found that removal of vegetation associated
with modifications to stream channels causes a decline in water quality as temperatures rise,
more sediment is deposited, and turbidity and nutrient levels tend to increase. (1,2,3)
In addition to the specified Project level impacts, fee Program level EIR identifies significant
potential wetlands impacts for other projects included in the Master Drainage Plan Update
(MDP). It concludes that these impacts will be less than significant if mitigation is as proposed
in the HMP. However this is too broad a mitigation to be enforceable and there are numerous
provisions of the HMP that could become operative depending upon project specific conditions.
The EIR and MDP should make it very clear feat there will be tether action wife each project to
first avoid and then minimize any impacts. The discussion in the EIR has failed to demonstrate
that the dredging project has received this required analysis and consideration of alternatives.
Since the EIR fails to provide adequate discussion of these critical issues up front, the discussion
of alternatives will need to take place wife fee regulatory agencies over permitting conditions.
The best process would assure that these discussions are fully disclosed, upfiont as part of the
public review. (Is there another public review mechanism?) But what is most important is that
there is actually a serious effort to first avoid and then minimize wetlands impacts. There is no
evidence that this has occurred wife mis MDP and fee dredging project Integration wife
watershed management planning such as the AH WMP could reduce impacts from the start by
using alternative solutions to drainage problems.
Requested Action:
- Provide further description of actions to avoid and minimize wetlands impacts due to the
proposed dredging project.
- Establish policy that there will be further analysis of wetlands avoidance and minimization in
CEQ A documents as future projects move forward,
- Establish policy that drainage projects will be integrated with watershed and wetlands planning
and protection measures in the same drainage sub-basin
Wildlife Corridor
The scientific document used as the basis for the MHCP preserve plan provides the following
clarification of the wildlife corridor design guidelines:
"The width of a corridor should be based on biological information for the target species( e.g.
home range size and dispersal capabilities), the quality of the habitat within and adjacent to the
corridor, topography, and edge effects of adjacent land uses. Where topography is lacking, the
corridor must be weft vegetated and development screened and set back from the corridor. A
corridor surrounded by natural vegetation may not need to be as wide to function as an
appropriate travel corridor as it would need to be if the corridor were surrounded by
development If the corridor is relatively long, it must be wide enough for animals to hide hi
during the day. A typical width greater man 1,000 feet is recommended for large mammals
(Ogden I992a). Constricted sections of a corridor should have a maximum lengtii of less man
500 feet and a minimum width of 400 feet For canyon situations, the corridor should extend
from rim-to-rim if possible. If corridors are excessively long or narrow, they may become
mortality sinks and decrease the survival probability of wildlife populations." (Biological Goals,
Standards and Guidelines for Multiple Habitat Preserve Design, Ogden, February 1998).
Also MHCP Volume lr Section 6JL3 page, 6-6 provides iluthercJarificalion of wildlife crossings
and states in part "Avoid co-locating human trails and wildlife movement corridors/crossings."
The proposed plan has not considered the combination of wildlife movement and human trails -
potentially exacerbating the impacts on wildlife movement. This clearly is not consistent with
The City of Carlsbad HMP includes conservation goals and planning standards for Zones 14 and
15 that emphasize the importance of protecting the wildlife movement corridor through this area.
Since there is already so much construction in the surrounding area, with even more planned,
each project needs to make sure that wiidlife movement corridors remain viable during
construction and in the post construction project design. This is of particular concern with the
dredging project as this has already been identified as one of the top priority areas for wildlife
roadkill. The wildlife agencies have submitted fencing designs to the city to address this
immediate issue. But mis still remains an on-going issue of concern at the dredging location,
and is a potential issue at numerous other future drainage facility construction sites.
Requested actions:
- Address the immediate roadkili problem area atCarmon/Ei Carnino Real by installing the
fencing recommended by the WL A's.
Add a general project condition that monitoring for functionality of the wildlife movement
corridor will be part of the routine tasks of the assigned project biologist A functional
particular project Monitoring needs to occur prior to, during* and following construction to
ensure that connectivity is not lost
Mitigation Plan
After almost three years there is still not an approved mitigation plan for the emergency dredging
carried out in 2006 (?), nor has one been defined for the proposed dredging project, or for the rest
of the impacts associated with the entire MDP. Securing mitigation land for wetlands,
particularly coastal wetlands, takes time and effort The Lake Calavera area witt not work for
much of this requirement because of the need to replace like habitat. Purchasing credits in the
North County Mitigation Bank doesnt benefit the Agua Hedionda and Buena Vista Watersheds-
and they are the ones that will have the greatest impacts.
We realize thatit can take time to put together a good mitigation plan. But identifying broad
impacts at the program level would allow the city to really assess where they could provide
mitigation in a way that provides substantial benefit to the watershed. The Agua Hedionda
Watershed Management Plan identifies numerous potential mitigation project locations. The
WLA's recently signed an MOU for advance approval of mitigation to be credited toward future
roadway projects included in Transnet The MDP provides another opportunity for such pro-
active, integrated planning.
Requested actions:
- Complete mitigation plan for the prior dredging project and the new proposed dredging- and
allow no further project impacts until such a plan is in place.
- Review the AHWMP and other such documents to develop a comprehensive mitigation
approach.- one that pre-plans for mitigation needs, focuses mitigation in the watershed of
impact, and addresses the^nonet less requirements in theeoastai zone.
Project Alternatives
The E1R at both the project and program level has not provided sufficient description of any real
alternatives to avoid impacts to biological resources and watersheds - particularly in the coastal
zone. It sounds like efforts were made but not described in the EIR- and at least one alternative,
hand dredging within the coastal zone, was rejected without a clear justification.
According to Ann Riley, the recognized expert in urban stream restoration, * Floodplain
management experts say that the most desirable approach for flood management from a
watershed perspective is to use land use zoning, relocation of structures, and floodproofing and
elevation of structures in flood-hazard areas to reduce damages from the large, rare events and to
put more resources into the kinds of watershed management practices that that will reduce our
most common, recurring storm-water and flood problems.'1 ( 4)
Having a broader approach to identifying alternatives goes back to what is considered the
starting point of modem floodplain management- Gilbert White's 1942 PbJD. dissertation,
Human Adjustment to Floods. In this he identified that there are a whole range of adjustments
including: elevation of land and structures; watershed management; engineering structures like
levees, reservoirs and channel modifications; flood-proofing; land use adjustments like zoning
and acquisition; federal relief to cover the costs of responding to floods; and a national flood
insurance program (5).
While not all of these are practical at a local level, having a broader based approach could reduce
the amount of the much more damaging constructed modifications to stream channels. And if
they are tied to flood control, such things as land acquisition could be included in the city's
impact fees.
We realize it is too late in this update process to significantly change the approach in the
proposed MDP. However, these are the kinds of actions that should be considered with future
updates. Components of this more comprehensive approach, like not removing 100 % of the
vegetation at a time, but doing this in smaller increments so some level of biological function is
maintained, could greatly lessen the impacts from the engineering approaches that are the only
solutions included in this update.
Requested actions:
- Provide better description of alternatives to impacts for the project level impacts, particularly
ones that avoid and minimize wetlands impacts.
- Provide assurances that all future projects will go through a reasonable alternatives analysis
process.
- Provide a mechanism for staff working on drainage projects to consult with their colleagues
in the stDrmwaiear/NPDES compliance and habitat management arenas early on
- Consider less damaging project level approaches as they move forward- such as incremental
vegetation removal.
Integration of Water Qualify Plans
The MDP originally had improved water quality stated as an indirect goal. This was eliminated
in the FEIR, but was raised as an issue of concern at the City Planning Commission hearing.
The practice of just considering the hydrologic modeling for flood control results m
constructing maintenance intensive channels and other engineered solutions, rather than the
broader solutions that are much less damaging. An integrated plan would focus on creating a
more sustainable dynamic equilibrium for local streams mat is modeled more on nature and less
on the kind of controlled environment found in the typical flood control project (5)
Requested action:
- Add a section to the MDP that indicates intent to work toward integrated planning between
flood control, water quality, habitat conservationand other programs that impact the
functions of the watershed.
Coordination with Other Jurisdictions in the Watershed
A statement was made at the Planning Commission hearing that coordination was done with the
upstream jurisdictions with the hydrologiG modeling and implying that no further cxwrdination is
needed Watersheds undergo continual changes- FEMA maps change, land uses change, land
along creeks gets acquired and all can effect the downstream volume and velocity of flow.
Hydrologic models are based on assumptions about conditions and as these change the analysis
needs to be updated. Since the MDP is a long term plan, mis process of coordination needs to
take place throughout the implementation of the planned projects.
The Copermittees are coordinating on compliance with water quality items as required by their
NPDES permit- but mis is only part of the coordination effort that is needed.
The AHWMP provides a framework for coordination within one of the city's watersheds. This
should be looked at as a model for the others as well.
Requested action:
- Establish a process for on-going coordination with other jurisdictions in the sub-watersheds.
Guidelines for Culverting/Channelizing of Streams
There is nothing in the MDP that indicates that the culverting/channelizing of our streams is an
action of last resort Other documents establish some policy guidance - like the HMP protection
of streams, and RWQCB requirement for no hydromodification. But these regulatory guidelines
need to be reflected in local standards and guidelines.
The adverse impacts from channelization projects gone bad is well documented and has been
written about by technical experts and in the poplar press in stories like "Channelization:Shortcut
to Nowhere," "How to KM a River by 'Improving1 It", "and "Crisis on Our Rivers." (6) Issues of
concern include: excessive erosion and sedimentation (7), failure resulting in worse down
stream conditions(S), and more frequent flooding(9).
Requested Action:
Develop guidelines for when streams can be channelized or hardened that make it clear this
is an option of last resort.
Post Project Evaluation of Results
An essential component of a successful drainage control plan is to measure the results a few
years after installation. Did the projects perform as designed? Were there unanticipated
impacts? Was mamtenance completed as needed, within budget? What could be done to
improve the results for the next project? The Army Corps of Engineers did such a study of flood
control and bank stabilization projects and found there were significant problems and areas
where knowledge gaps have not resulted hi the best designs. (10)
Requested Action:
- Add a process for evaluation of project results so there is a feedback loop that assures the
next project builds on ihe4essons of thepast
MDP Needs a Broader Focus than the 100 year flood
Many of the on-going impacts to our watercourses come from events that occur much more
frequently than a projected 100 year flood. Better integration with watershed planning will
identify other projects to address lesser flow conditions- and create an opportunity for a future
fee structure that addresses all of these items- and not just the one none of us are likely to ever
see- a 100 year flood.
Many professionals now conclude that the natural features of streams (riparian vegetation, pools,
riffles, meanders and floodplains) are important elements in creating stable steam channels and
that these natural features need to be part of the planning for stream modification projects.
(11,12)
Requested Action:
- Integrated planning discussed above will assure that these more frequent but often more
damaging lower flow conditions are considered in project planning.
HMP Consistency
Planning Commission Resolution 6381 included a determination that the MDP was consistent
with the HMP. We disagree with that conclusion. The HMP shows part of the dredgihg project
as hardline preserve. The EIR concluded that was just an error. Further explanation is needed to
determine if that is the case. If so, this should at least trigger the minor amendment process that
would correct the HMP. If that is not the case, then the mitigation requirements for impacts to
hardline preserve land are incorrect ( Per the MHCP and HMP impacts to hardline preserve land
are 2x what they would otherwise be).
The HMP also establishes a process for wetlands avoidance and roMroizarion^ which has not
been followed.
The HMP identifies specific conditions to be addressed for projects hi Zones 14 and 15 and these
have not been complied with.
In addition, the Implementing Agreement for the HMP said the land manager for the city-owned
open space kinds would be in place within one year of signing the agreement It is now over
three years and this contract has yet to be signed, the city owned land remains unmanaged, and
the degradation of this land continues. Funds were allocated last year and not spent so this is
clearly not an issue of money- but one of a lack of priority. Hundreds of acres of land have been
lost to development hi the last three years- but the 607 acres of city owned land that are supposed
to be permanently protected remain in limbo. The city has talked about enforcement provisions
for addressing violations ofprovisions ofthe HMP- but hasryetto putlhe people or the
ordinances in place that would do this.
Until there is full compliance with all of the conditions of the Implementing Agreement the HMP
is not operative and the MDP is not consistent with it as it assumes that land is being managed to
protect the resources when it in fact is not
Requested Actions:
- Establish a drop dead date for having the HMP city owned land manager in place.
- Prepare city ordinances that detail penalties for violations of HMP provisions.
- Implement the ranger program mat is included in the adopted Open Space Management Plan
All of the coastal watersheds in the city of Carlsbad are impaired. The methods proposed to
reduce flooding hi the MDP can cause other unintended consequences to water quality,
biological resources and the beneficial uses of water. Addressing these issues in a more
comprehensive way will benefit everyone. We will continue to work with your staff and outside
agencies toward such an integrated approach.
Diane Nygaard
On behalf of Preserve Calavera
cc: Scott Donnell, David Hauser, Barbara Kennedy
References
1 James R, Karr and I. J. Schlosses, Impact of Near Stream Vegetation and Stream Morphology
on Water Quality and Stream Biota (Athens, Georgia:Environmental Research Laboratory,
2 F. Douglas Shields, Jr., and Thomas Sanders, "Water Quality Effects of Excavation and
Diversion," Journal of Environmental Engineering 112, no.2 (April 1986).
3 Douglas M. Green and J. Boone Kauffman, "Nutrient Recycling at the Land-Water
InterfacerThe Importance of the Riparian Zone," in Robert E. Greenwell, ed., Practical
Approaches to Riparian Resource Management: An Educational Workshop (Billings,
Montana: Bureau of Land Management, 1989).
4 Ana L. RHey, Restoring Streams in Cities* A Guide for Planners, Policymakers, and Citizens,
Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1998, pp 133-4.
5 Gilbert F. White, Human Adjustment to Floods, a Geographical Approach to the Flood
Problem in the United States, Research roper No. 29 (Chicago: University of Chicago,
1945).
6 Richard D. Hey, "River Mechanics," Journal of the Institutue of Water Engineers, 40(1986).
7 Andrew Brookes, Chanettized Rivers, Perspectives for Environmental Management ( New
YorkJohaWiley.l 988),
8 Luna Leopold and Thomas Dunne, Water in Environmental Planning (San Francisco: W.H.
Freeman, 1978).
9 Robert R. Curry, "Rivers, A Geomorphic and Chemical Overview" in Ray T. Oglesby,
Clarence A. Carlson, and James A. McCann, eds., River Ecology and Man (New York:
Academic Press, 1972),
10 Arthur D. Little, lac., "Channel Modification: Aa Environmental, Economic and Financial
Assessment," Report to the Council on Environmental Quality (Washington, .C.: Executive
Office of the President, 1973/
11 Robert W. McCarfey, John J. mgram, Bobby J. Brown, and Andy Reese; Flood Control
Channel National Inventory, Miscellaneous Paper HL-90-10, (Vkksburg,
Mississippi:Hydraulics Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Department of the Army, October 1990).
12 Edward A. KeHer, "Channelization:A Search fora Better Way," Geology>3 (1976): p. 246-
248,
13 Nelson R. Nunnally and F. Douglas Shields, Incorporation of Environmental Features in
Flood Control Channel Projects Technical Report E-85-3 (Vicksburg, Mississippi:U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, May 1985).
August 5, 2008 Westfield'
Westfield, LLC
402 West Broadway
Suite 2050
RE: CITY OF CARLSBAD MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN San Die9°'CA 92101
Telephone (619) 544-8100
Facsimile (619) 238-9485
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
We request that you continue Action Items 1 and 4 of AB#19,540. Item 1 is the Amendment to the Carlsbad
Municipal Code Title 15. Item 4 is the Approval of the 2008 Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan. The proposed
fee structure is flawed and has significantly underestimated the amount of development acreage that will be
required to pay the new drainage fee.
Here is a specific example that demonstrates this fact:
• Basin A is estimated to contain 195 "Billable Acres"
• Plaza Camino Real (PCR) is located in Basin A and contains 83.61 gross acres
• City staff has stated that PCR was not included in that 195 "Billable acres"
• The ordinance has no provision for waivers for redevelopment of property and in fact limits the
administrative variance procedure in the Drainage Master Plan
• The drainage improvements for Basin A are estimated at $1.7 million dollars
• PCR could pay as much as $1.9 million dollars (83.61 X $22,837) under the drafting of this
ordinance
• Due to unintended consequences, PCR alone would be required to pay more than the entire Basin A
improvement costs.
Section 15.08.040 (b) requires the drainage fee to be paid prior to issuance of any building permit or map
whichever occurs first. Section 15.08.040 (d) states that the drainage fee shall be based upon the gross
property acreage. Any fully developed property that proposes to simply subdivide is required to pay the
drainage fee. The way the Ordinance is written, even if no building permit was requested, the drainage fee is
required. If a project like the redevelopment of PCR requires a building permit for a new building, the fee is
required based on the projects gross acreage, even if no additional impact to the drainage is created.
A project like PCR creates no new demand for master drainage facilities. It has no master drainage facilities
down stream that benefit it. Yet the proposed Action Items 1 and 4 would require such a project to pay more
than 100% of the estimated cost of all new master drainage facilities in the entire basin. Is that fair? This is
the unintended consequence of the current draft of the ordinance you are being asked to approve this
evening.
We request an amendment to the Ordinance that updates Title 15 regarding the drainage fee program. We
would suggest adding language to the Exemption section 15.08.050. The wording we recommend is
"Projects that are subdivided and\or redeveloped and that do not increase the net impervious area of the site
shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter."
Alman J. Tara ton
Director of Development, WestfieldT'laza Camino Real
Westfield, LLC
All Receive - Agenda Item # ] ~~>
For Information of
THE CITY COUNCIL
ERRATA SHEET FOR CITY COUNCIL ITEM # 13 CM \^ CA_i^CC
Date PploftFrom cmX. Asst. CM
August 5, 2008
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
VIA: DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: CHANGES TO EIR 04-02 - DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE
Staff recommends the City Council supplement Exhibit 2 of Resolution 2008-229 with
the attached additional recommended revisions to the Final Environmental Impact Report
(EIR). These revisions do not require recirculation of the EIR as they are insignificant
and merely provide clarification and amplification as allowed by CEQA Guidelines
15088.5(b).
The revisions:
1. In the Executive Summary section:
a. In Table S-2, Summary of Project Level Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation Measures, and Residual Impacts, note the less than significant
impacts that result from application of mitigation measures for biological
impacts.
b. In Section S.8, Alternatives Summary, ensure consistency with Chapter
7.0, Alternatives.
2. In Table 3-6 of Chapter 3.0, Project Description, add clarification that protection
of wildlife movement corridors will be addressed for Drainage Master Plan
components within or adjacent to HMP Hardline Preserve areas.
3. In Chapter 7.0, Alternatives, ensure consistency between a text and table
regarding comparison of impacts for project level components.
DON NEU
Page 1 of?Exhibit 2 to the City Council Resolution certifying E1R 04-02
Additional Recommended Revisions to the Finnl EIR
(Attachment to 8/5/08 Errata Sheet For City Council Item ft 13)
("Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and stfiketftFeugh words indicate text to be deleted.)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S.6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Table S-l provides a summary of the environmental impacts resulting from implementation
of the program level DMP Update components. Table S-2 is a summary of the
environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the project level DMP Update
components (i.e., the Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks Dredging and Improvements
Project). These tables are included at the end of this section.
Table S-2. Summary of Project Level Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures,
and Residual Impacts (Continued)
afeS;Resulf6tImi)nct/AnaiysIS'te5*
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Bio-5 The loss of 0.08 acre of
willow riparian forest is considered
u significant mul cumulative
impact and requires compensatory
mitigation (i.e., creation,
restoration, and/or replacement of
in-kind habitat).
Bio-G Loss of wetland and riparian
habitat, including habitat loss
within the coastal zone boundary,
is considered a significant nml
cumulative impact.
Bio-7 Proposed dredging and
improvements within Agua
i Icdionda Creek (area adjacent to
Cannon Road Bridge) have the
potential to result in significant
indirect impacts to least hell's
vireo, southwestern willow
flycatcher, and light-footed clapper
rail.
Bio-5 Mitigation measures listed for Bio-la and Bio-2a
and 2b shall be implemented as applicable to
address project-specific vegetation impacts within
Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks.
Bio-6 The project shnll mitigate impacts to wetland and
riparian habitat through on-siie restoration and/or
wetland and riparian habitat
: creaiion/restoration/cnhaneerncnt at a ratio to be
determined in coordination with (he applicable
resources agencies at the time of permitting,
consistent with LCP and HMP policies and
provisions, as applicable. If adequate acreage to
satisfy mitigation is not available on-site and/or at
the Lake Calavera Mitigation Bank Parcel, then
alternative mitigation credits may be purchased
from the North County Mitigation Bank, or other
alternative sites deemed acceptable by the resource
agencies.
Bio-7a If dredging and improvement activities cannot be
conducted outside the breeding season for
sensitive wildlife species, then prior to
commencement of construction activities, a
preconstruclion survey shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist to determine presence/absence
of nesting birds. If nesting birds are detected on-
site, vegetation removal shall be delayed until the
chicks have fledged or the nest has failed.
Bio-7b To address potential impacts to the light-fooled
clapper rail, a qualified biologist shall survey the
area and surrounding 500-foot buffer area for
}^R«iauaias«'fy&fftf'-s '•"'xrf&'t't'-'frr'-1-"-'; \ r: '?fl«SKfImpnctifes:3(
Less than
significant
Less than
significant
Less thnn
significant
Page 2 of 7 Exhibit 2 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Additional Recommended Revisions to the Finai EIR
(Attachment to 8/5/08 Errata Sheet For City Council Item # 13)
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and stfiketflFeHgh words indicate text to be deleted.)
1'ighl-fooled clapper rails prior to implementation
of dredging activities. There is no need to survey
the area upstream of El Camino Real since this
area is void of suitable clnppcr rail habitat
(freshwater marsh). Ifclapper rails are dw.'ected in
the project area, they should be flushed, piior to
the onset of any vegetation removal.
Bio-7c For potential indirect impacts lo leasi Bell's vireo,
mitigation measures Bio l-h through Bio !-j shall
be implemented, us applicable.
Bio-7d For potential indirect impacts to southwestern
willow flycatcher, implementation mitigation
measures Bio l-k through Bio I-m shall bo
implemented, as applicable.
Bio-7e To discourage sensitive species from entering active
construction areas between El Camino Real and
Cannon Road bridges, a physical barrier
(construction fence) shall be installed on the
downstream side of Cannon Road before dredging
or vegetation removal commences. The barrier
would be removed once the construction activity has
ceased on the south side of El Camino Real.
S.8 ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY
Table S-3
Program Level Comparison of Alternatives Impacts to DMP Update Impacts"
Issue Area
Land Use
Agricullure
Visual Resources
Transportation/Circulation
Air Quality
Noise
Recreation
Geology/Soils
Hydrology/Water Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
JV -' , t WS^. Project Alternatives <> '
_"Nos ^
-Mechanized^
Dredging or^
Vegetation'
Removal
Greater
Similar
Similar
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Similar
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Sirmlap
Esvvej:
i Red^ucecLj'*
<•* Impacfjto*
tSensitlve
Habitats 'and
Wetlands
S4mHaf
Greater
Similar
Similar
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Similar
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Similar
* * -f \ > T.
a ">*. *-Reduced Use
of Impervious
Materials
Similar
Similar
Similar
Similar
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Similar
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Similar
NoJProject- ,
No'Updrite *
to the
Existing 1994
MDSQMP
Greater
Similar
Greater
Greater
Similar
Fewer
Similar
Similar
Greater
Fewer
Fewer
1
No Project-
No:DMTV
Update
Approval
Greater
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Greater
Undetermined
Undetermined
Page 3 of 7 Exhibit 2 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Additional Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Attachment to 8/5/08 Errata Sheet For City Council Item # 13)
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethreugh words indicate text to be deleted.)
SaMttmS^a^^^
~-'^-'t?-'f:-:-?:Dredgingior;:;
•"--' •v'-'Ha
..-..-'--
gKeouceu^tuse:-.' -3«* ••«.7T:;-^rJp>--;S.^->,-' .•^-.-•;
tolilnipeiryious
'
Exlsliiiig'1994
Pnleontological
Resources
Sim HBF
Fewer
Similar Similar Fewer Undetermined
Achieves DMP
Update Objectives
No ¥es-No Yes No No
" Greater = Alternative results in greater impacts than the DMP Update, even if the DMP Update would result in
significant impacts to the issue area.
Fewer = Alternative results in Fewer impacts than the DMP Update but would not necessarily reduce impacts to
a less than significant level.
Similar = Alternative results in similar impacts as the proposed DMP Update,
Environmentally Superior Program Level Alternative
Based on the qualitative evaluation of the alternatives, implementation of the Red«ee4
fevf?aeHe-$ensitive Hab&ate-aHd Wetlands -Alternative Reduced Use of Impervious Materials
would be the environmentally superior program level alternative. Overall, this alternative
would result in fewer impacts than the DMP Update, as proposed, while achieving the DMP
Update objectives. While this alternative would result in fewer impacts than the DMP
Update to Noise and Biological Resources (Table S-33), impacts would generally still be
considered significant for these issue areas. However, the DMP Update was developed with
consideration of environmental constraints and generally avoids— te&ating fucilities-within
seHS&ve-kabtefe-w-wetlands: A facility is only pfeposed-in senstttve-habHate-end-^vet4ands
tf4he-faellity--is neeessaFy-te-achievc fleed-eentfel-QHd adequate storm flow convoyanee-te
moot the objectives of the • DMP-ypdate;- which \veuld not bo- achieved with cm alternative
As with the DMP Update, incorporation of the mitigation measures included in this
EIR would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Neither implementation of the
|^4Heed4fflpa&He-^nsi^e--Habi4gts-and--WetteHds Alternative Reduced Use of Impervious
Materials Alternative nor the DMP Update would result in any unmitigable significant
impacts directly, indirectly, or cumulatively. While the Reduced—Impact -to Sensitive
l-labtet^-and-WetteRcls Alter-natwe Reduced Use of Impervious Materials Alternative is
considered the environmentally superior alternative, it may not achieve the level of flood
control that would be provided by implementation of the DMP Update, as demonstrated in
the analysis in this EIR.
Page 4 of 7 Exhibit 2 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Additional Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Attachment to 8/5/08 Errata Sheet For City Council Item # 13)
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethfeugh words indicate text to be deleted.)
Environmentally Superior Project Level Alternative
Based on the analysis, the No Project Alternative would potentially result in fewer impacts to
the issue areas of Air Quality, Noise, and Biological Resources. However, the alternative
would potentially result in greater impacts to Land Use, Visual Resources,
Transportation/Circulation, Geology/Soils and Hydrology/Water Quality. Further., the No
Project Alternative would not achieve the objectives of the proposed project because 210 lots
would not receive flood protection during a 100-year storm event.
The 2:1 Side Slope Design Alternative would potentially result in fewer impacts to the issue
area of Geology/Soils. However, the alternative would potentially result in greater impacts
to Land Use, Visual Resources, Transportation/Circulation, Air Quality, aa4
Hydrology/Water Quality, and Biological Resources and would not achieve the objectives of
the proposed project because 26 lots would not receive flood protection during a 100-year
storm event,
Table S-4
Project Level Alternatives Comparison of Impacts"
Issue Area
Land Use
Agriculture
Visual Resources
Transportation/Circulation
Air Quality
Noise
Recreation
Geology/Soils
Hydrology/Water Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Paleontological Resources
Achieves Project Objectives
Project Alternatives
~~^ No Project l *!
Greater
Similar
Greater
Greater
Fewer
Fevver
Similar
Greater
Greater
Fewer
Similar
Similar
No
* 2:1 Slope Design •
Greater
Similar
Greater
SirotlaF Greater
SimHar- Greater
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Greater
Greater
Similar
Similar
No
Greater = Alternative results in greater impacts than the proposed project, even if the
proposed project would result in significant impacts to the issue area.
Fewer = Alternative results in fewer impacts than the proposed project but would not
necessarily reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Similar = Alternative results in similar impacts as the proposed project.
Pnge 5 of?Exhibit 2 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Additional Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Attachment to 8/5/08 Errata Sheet For City Council Item it 13)
(Nole: Underlined words indicate text to be added and stfiketJi rough words indicate text.to be deleted.)
Because neither of the alternatives would achieve the objectives of the proposed project and
would potentially result in greater impacts to some of the issue areas, the proposed Agua
Hedionda and Calavera Creeks Dredging and Improvements Project would be the
environmentally superior alternative.
CHAPTER 3.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Table 3-6
Summary of Project Design Features/Methods,
Agency Requirements, and Construction Measures
Biological
Resources
• The trimming of trees that could provide roost/nest sites for raptors shall
only be completed between September 16 and December 31 to prevent
possible disruptions to breeding raptors.
• Any native vegetation removed shall be cut off at the surface, to allow
maximum resprouting. Areas where vegetation will be removed shall be
revegetated with native species similar to those removed.
• For projects within or adjacent to an HMP Hardline Preserve area, a
qualified project biologist shall be made available for both the
preconstruction and construction phases to review plans, address protection
of sensitive biological resources and wildlife movement corridors, and
monitor ongoing work. The project biologist shall review final plans,
designate areas that need temporary fencing, and monitor the installation of
appropriate temporary fencing and construction. The project biologist shall
monitor construction activities within designated areas during critical times
such as vegetation removal and the installation of BMPs and HMP Hardline
Preserve fencing, and ensure that all avoidance and minimization measures
are properly constructed and followed.
Page 6 of 7 Exhibit 2 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Additional Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Attachment to 8/5/08 Errata Sheet For City Council Item # 13)
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and stwkethFeugh words indicate text to be deleted.)
CHAPTER 7.0
ALTERNATIVES
7.5.2 Project Level
Table 7-2 summarizes the findings from the project level alternatives evaluation.
Based on the analysis, the No Project Alternative would potentially result in fewer impacts to
the issue areas of Noise, Air Quality and Biological Resources. However, the alternative
would potentially result in greater impacts to Land Use, Visual Resources,
Transportation/Circulation, Geology/Soils, and Hydrology/Water Quality. Further, the No
Project Alternative-would not achieve the objectives of the proposed project because up to
210 lots would not receive flood protection during a 100-year storm event.
Table 7-2
Project Level Alternatives Comparison of Impacts '
Issue Area
Land Use
Agriculture
Visual Resources
Transportation/Circulation
Air Quality
Noise
Recreation
Geology/Soils
Hydrology/Water Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Paleontologica! Resources
Achieves Project Objectives
~ ' •vProjects;Alt"crnativcs':.:-it-:'.-':':--:'v.v-':-
No Project
Greater
Similar
Greater
Greater
Fewer
Fewer
Similar
Greater
Greater
Fewer
Similar
Similar
No
2:1 Slope Design
Greater
Similar
Greater
Greater
Greater
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Greater
Greater
Similar
Similar
No
Greater = Alternative results in greater impacts than the proposed project, even if
the proposed project would result in significant impacts to the issue area.
Fewer = Alternative results in fewer impacts than the proposed project but would
not necessarily reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Similar = Alternative results in similar impacts as the proposed project.
Page 7 of 7 Exhibit 2 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Additional Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Attachment to 8/5/08 Errata Sheet For City Council/tew ft 13)
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and stfiketlwough words indicate text to be deleted.)
The 2;] Side Slope Design Alternative would potentially result in fewer impacts to the issue
area of Geology/Soils, However, this alternative would potentially result in greater impacts
to Land Use, Visual Resources, Transportation/Circulation, Air Quality, Hydrology/Water
Quality, and Biological Resources and would not achieve the objectives of the proposed
project as up to 26 lots would not receive flood protection during a 100-year storm event.
Because neither of the alternatives would achieve the objectives of the proposed project and
would potentially result in greater impacts to some of the issue areas, the proposed Agua
Hedionda and Calavera Creeks Dredging and Improvements Project would be the
environmentally superior alternative.
Rancho Carlsbad OwnersRancho Carlsbad Owners’’AssociationAssociationPresentation to Carlsbad City Presentation to Carlsbad City CouncilCouncilAugust 5, 2008August 5, 2008
Rancho Carlsbad Presentation to Rancho Carlsbad Presentation to Carlsbad City CouncilCarlsbad City CouncilIntroductionIntroductionBarbara BevisBarbara BevisBackgroundBackgroundRuss KohlRuss KohlCurrent SituationCurrent SituationBill ArnoldBill ArnoldWhat we wantWhat we wantSue LoftinSue Loftin
WhatWhat’’s the Background?s the Background?Russ KohlRuss Kohl
What is BJ Basin?What is BJ Basin?Key public facility detention basin in city DMP Key public facility detention basin in city DMP Final of four detention basins that control Final of four detention basins that control flooding for residents of Rancho Carlsbadflooding for residents of Rancho CarlsbadRequires 8 acres of land owned by Rancho Requires 8 acres of land owned by Rancho CarlsbadCarlsbadDisplaces 60Displaces 60--space RV parking, community space RV parking, community garden, and maintenance facilitygarden, and maintenance facility
BJ Basin shown in 1980 Master BJ Basin shown in 1980 Master Drainage PlanDrainage PlanDescribed as a debris basin
BJ Basin in 1994 MD & Storm BJ Basin in 1994 MD & Storm Water Quality PlanWater Quality PlanDescribed as “A sedimentation basin immediately upstream of Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park”
From 1996 to 1998From 1996 to 1998RC residents purchase RC residents purchase Rancho Carlsbad out of Rancho Carlsbad out of bankruptcybankruptcyComplete process of Complete process of obtaining entitlements, obtaining entitlements, mapping, sub dividingmapping, sub dividingFull conversion to a Full conversion to a residentresident--owned owned community on Aug. 4, community on Aug. 4, 19981998College Blvd. College Blvd. ““Reach AReach A””rightright--ofof--way had to be way had to be given to citygiven to cityRightRight--ofof--way for both way for both creeks given to citycreeks given to city
Permit Map approved in 1997 shows BJ Basin located in Parcel D (currently Parcel 4)BJ Basin continues in 1997
City approved conversion of RC to City approved conversion of RC to Homeowner CommunityHomeowner CommunityFlood Mitigation Fee of $318K assessed as Flood Mitigation Fee of $318K assessed as Rancho Carlsbad fair share of flood controlRancho Carlsbad fair share of flood controlGoal: to remove homes from 100 yr flood Goal: to remove homes from 100 yr flood zonezoneFully paid in February 2008Fully paid in February 2008
Contract to Secure Future Public Contract to Secure Future Public ImprovementsImprovementsRancho CarlsbadCity of Carlsbad
Rick Engineering Report in Rick Engineering Report in 19981998Proposed dredging Proposed dredging both creeksboth creeksBuild four Build four detention basins detention basins including BJ Basinincluding BJ Basin
Scoping Meeting for Draft EIR in Scoping Meeting for Draft EIR in fall of 2000fall of 2000HomeownersHomeowners’’Association Association less than 2 less than 2 years oldyears oldNewly elected Newly elected Board and Board and PresidentPresidentCalaveraHills IICannon Rd.Thoroughfare #4Detention Basin BJBDetention Basin BJCollege Reach ACity Speak!
We must take charge of the future of our community
City of CarlsbadRancho CarlsbadMcMillin Corp Calavera Hills IIAll of 2001MeetingsNegotiations
Agreement ReachedAgreement ReachedMcMillinMcMillinoffered City and Rancho Carlsbad offered City and Rancho Carlsbad option on 5.7 acres on North property line option on 5.7 acres on North property line to relocate facilities and to relocate facilities and amentitiesamentitiesSolution to relocation necessary for Solution to relocation necessary for Rancho Carlsbad to support EIR and other Rancho Carlsbad to support EIR and other resolutionsresolutions
Rancho Carlsbad withdrew Rancho Carlsbad withdrew opposition to EIR 98opposition to EIR 98--02 on two (2) 02 on two (2) conditionsconditions1 Letter from city memorializing 1 Letter from city memorializing commitment for funding of relocation commitment for funding of relocation expensesexpenses2 Approval by City Council of Resolution 2 Approval by City Council of Resolution 20022002--016016
1 Letter from David Hauser, 1 Letter from David Hauser, Deputy City EngineerDeputy City EngineerReceived Dec, 2001 Received Dec, 2001 by Sue Loftin, General by Sue Loftin, General CounselCounselCommitment by City Commitment by City of Carlsbad to funding of Carlsbad to funding of relocation of relocation expensesexpenses
2 Resolution 20022 Resolution 2002--016016Approved by City Council Approved by City Council Jan 15, 2002Jan 15, 2002Caused Option Caused Option Agreement to be enactedAgreement to be enactedProvide mechanism for Provide mechanism for purchase and repayment purchase and repayment of relocation landof relocation land
Letter of Sept 23, 2002 from City to Letter of Sept 23, 2002 from City to Rancho CarlsbadRancho CarlsbadOption Agreement and Purchase & Escrow Instruction Completed
Option AgreementOption AgreementSigned by :•Calavera Hills II (Seller)•City of Carlsbad (Buyer)•Rancho Carlsbad (Beneficiary)
How we got where we areHow we got where we areBill ArnoldBill Arnold
Rancho CarlsbadRancho Carlsbad’’s North Wall & s North Wall & Spillway before Cannon Rd.Spillway before Cannon Rd.
Completed Box Culvert and Weir Completed Box Culvert and Weir WallWall
Little Encino Creek, RV Parking and Little Encino Creek, RV Parking and Footbridge to the GardenFootbridge to the Garden
High Water at Weir 15 hours After High Water at Weir 15 hours After Rain Stopped Rain Stopped Jan 10, 2005
Damage to Bank Opposite Weir, Damage to Bank Opposite Weir, Rock Dumped Morning After StormRock Dumped Morning After StormJan 10, 2005
8484””Diameter Pipe Being Installed Diameter Pipe Being Installed to Divert Water from Box Culvertto Divert Water from Box Culvert
Planning Area 22, Robertson Ranch Planning Area 22, Robertson Ranch Land South of Cannon Rd.Land South of Cannon Rd.
Lake Lake CalaveraCalaveraEngineering Report Engineering Report (2001) Confirming Lack of Water (2001) Confirming Lack of Water Level Controls Dating Back Level Controls Dating Back ““a a number of yearsnumber of years””
Says BJ Basin not Needed
David CannonDavid Cannon’’s Critique s Critique of Chang Studyof Chang StudyDetails errors in Chang Report
Robertson Ranch Master Plan EIRRobertson Ranch Master Plan EIRRobertson RanchConflicting statements regarding necessity for BJ Basin
Draft Draft Drainage Master Plan Update EIRDrainage Master Plan Update EIR•BJ Basin is Included•Silent on Funding for Relocation
Meetings of Rancho Carlsbad with Meetings of Rancho Carlsbad with city staff and policy makerscity staff and policy makersLearned that staff was planning to remove Learned that staff was planning to remove BJ Basin from EIRBJ Basin from EIR
Rancho Carlsbad Letter 3Rancho Carlsbad Letter 3--2020--08 to 08 to Carlsbad City CouncilCarlsbad City CouncilOutlines Concern of Lack of Funding for our Forced RelocationConcern that BJ Basin not included
Lack of Response from CityPromptedLetter from Rancho Carlsbad General Counsel requesting answers
City Manager Letter City Manager Letter of July 2of July 2ndnd, 2008, 2008Alarms go offNo Funding for Relocation
ConclusionConclusionWhat do we want?What do we want?Sue LoftinSue Loftin
THE PROBLEMTHE PROBLEM
THE PROBLEMTHE PROBLEMFor over 30 yearsFor over 30 years,,the problem has been the problem has been floodingfloodingof Rancho of Rancho CarlsbadCarlsbadthe the sciencesciencehas confirmed the problemhas confirmed the problemone part of the one part of the solutionsolutionto the problem has to the problem has been the construction of BJ Basinbeen the construction of BJ Basinthe location of the location of BJ BasinBJ Basinhas been in has been in approximately the approximately the same locationsame location
THE MISTAKETHE MISTAKE““Engineering Analysis of Detention Basin BJEngineering Analysis of Detention Basin BJ””by Chang Consultants, by Chang Consultants, October 4, 2005October 4, 2005, hired by, hired byMcMillin submitted with Robertson RanchMcMillin submitted with Robertson RanchChang contradicts himself: Chang contradicts himself: September 2005September 2005Robertson Ranch EIR: Robertson Ranch EIR: after analyzing the 84after analyzing the 84””culvert, BJ Basin is still needed.culvert, BJ Basin is still needed.Chang contradicts CityChang contradicts City’’s consultant s consultant ––RECRECChang contradicts all other consultantsChang contradicts all other consultantsNot discussed or considered as part of Robertson Not discussed or considered as part of Robertson Ranch because RR not affect water flow related to BJ Ranch because RR not affect water flow related to BJ BasinBasin
If NowIf Now’’s Not the Time?s Not the Time?When is the time?
THE SOLUTION & REQUESTTHE SOLUTION & REQUEST1.1.Finding: Finding: BJ Basin is required to protect the health & BJ Basin is required to protect the health & safety of the publicsafety of the public2. Finding: 2. Finding: BJ Basin must be constructed whether or not BJ Basin must be constructed whether or not College Boulevard is ever builtCollege Boulevard is ever built3. ERRATA3. ERRATAto Resolutions Adopting DMP, EIR and Fee to Resolutions Adopting DMP, EIR and Fee Plan to include Findings 1 and 2 above, and financing Plan to include Findings 1 and 2 above, and financing of the purchase of RCOAof the purchase of RCOA’’s land, and the demolition s land, and the demolition and reconstruction of the amenities located thereon and reconstruction of the amenities located thereon (say $2.25 M)(say $2.25 M)4. CONTINUE4. CONTINUEthe DMP & Fee structure to consider above the DMP & Fee structure to consider above ErrataErrata
WhatWhat’’s the cost?s the cost?LandLand8 acres @ $150,000 8 acres @ $150,000 $1,200,000$1,200,000PlanningPlanning$ 350,000$ 350,000Demolition/ReconstructionDemolition/Reconstruction$ 800,000$ 800,000RCOA portion of upgradesRCOA portion of upgrades$$--100,000100,000TotalTotal$2,250,000$2,250,000
THE PROBLEMTHE PROBLEM
Debris from 1978 FloodDebris from 1978 Flood
Drainage Master PlanDrainage Master PlanEnvironmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Report &&Calavera/Agua Hedionda Creeks Calavera/Agua Hedionda Creeks Dredge and ImprovementsDredge and ImprovementsProjectProjectAugust 5, 2008August 5, 2008Carlsbad City CouncilCarlsbad City Council
Presentation OverviewPresentation OverviewProject OverviewProject OverviewDrainage Master Plan & PLDA FeeDrainage Master Plan & PLDA Fee––Steven Steven JantzJantz, Associate Civil Engineer, Associate Civil EngineerAgua Hedionda & Calavera Creek DredgingAgua Hedionda & Calavera Creek Dredging––David Hauser, Deputy City EngineerDavid Hauser, Deputy City EngineerEnvironmental Impact Report and PermitsEnvironmental Impact Report and Permits––Scott Donnell, Senior PlannerScott Donnell, Senior PlannerStaff RecommendationsStaff Recommendations
Recommended Council ActionsRecommended Council Actions––Introduce Municipal Code AmendmentsIntroduce Municipal Code AmendmentsTitles 15 and 21Titles 15 and 21––Certify the EIRCertify the EIRFindings of Fact and MMRPFindings of Fact and MMRP––Approve LCP AmendmentsApprove LCP Amendments––Approve the Carlsbad Drainage Master PlanApprove the Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan––Approve revised PLDA Fee StructureApprove revised PLDA Fee Structure
OverviewDrainage Master PlanAgua Hedionda & Calavera Creek Dredging ProjectEnvironmental Impact Report
Drainage Master PlanDrainage Master Plan
CANNON RDEL CAMINO REAL 05001,000250FeetEIR 04-02/SUP 06-02/HMPP 06-03/CDP 06-04Aqua Hedionda andCalavera Creek DredgingCalavaraCalavara& Agua & Agua HediondaHediondaCreeks Creeks Dredge ProjectDredge Project
Carlsbad Drainage Master Carlsbad Drainage Master PlanPlanSteven Jantz Steven Jantz Associate EngineerAssociate Engineer
Carlsbad Drainage Master PlanCarlsbad Drainage Master PlanMain ComponentsMaster Drainage Plan ProjectsProject CostsFinancing Program
Carlsbad Carlsbad Drainage Drainage BasinsBasins
Carlsbad Drainage Master PlanCarlsbad Drainage Master PlanMaster Drainage Plan ProjectsMaster Drainage Plan ProjectsPerform hydraulic analysisConfirm previously identified Master Plan storm drain facilitiesIdentify future storm drain facilitiesInclude:Land development provided drainage facilitiesCapital Improvement Program projects
Carlsbad Drainage Master PlanCarlsbad Drainage Master PlanDrainage Area B
Carlsbad Drainage Master PlanCarlsbad Drainage Master PlanProject CostsProject CostsDevelop appropriate cost estimates-Design and permitting- Construction + contingencies- Potential environmental mitigation
Carlsbad Drainage Master PlanCarlsbad Drainage Master Plan34 Drainage Master Plan ProjectsTotal Estimated Cost - $21,930,385Basin ABasin ABasin BBasin BBasin CBasin CBasin DBasin D$1,953,719$1,953,719$12,727,555$12,727,555$4,775,643$4,775,643$2,473,462$2,473,462
Carlsbad Drainage Master PlanCarlsbad Drainage Master PlanProject FundingProject FundingPlanned Local Drainage Area Fee Program-Development paid fee program- Computed on developable acreage•Excludes constrained lands and open space- Cost apportioned by drainage basin- Land Use determines low-medium-high fee Fee collected at final map or building permit, whichever occurs first
Runoff CoefficientRunoff CoefficientLand Use CodesLand Use CodesLowLowMediumMediumHighHighOpen SpaceOpen SpaceResidentialResidential••LowLow••Low MediumLow MediumResidentialResidential••MediumMedium••Medium HighMedium HighCommunity FacilityCommunity FacilityMixed UsesMixed UsesResidentialResidential••HighHighCommercialCommercialOfficeOfficeIndustrialIndustrial
Planned Local Drainage Area FeePlanned Local Drainage Area Fee34 Drainage Master Plan ProjectsTotal Estimated Cost - $21,930,385Basin ABasin ABasin BBasin BBasin CBasin CBasin DBasin DFacilityFacilityCostsCostsCurrent PLDA Current PLDA Fund BalancesFund Balances$249,639$249,639$5,865,748$5,865,748$3,679,499$3,679,499$226,928$226,928BillableBillableAcresAcres1951951,4641,464189189782782$1,953,719$1,953,719$12,727,555$12,727,555$4,775,643$4,775,643$2,473,462$2,473,462
Planned Local Drainage Area Planned Local Drainage Area Fee StructureFee StructurePLDA APLDA APLDA BPLDA BPLDA CPLDA CPLDA DPLDA DCURRENTCURRENTNEWNEWCURRENTCURRENTNEWNEWCURRENTCURRENTNEWNEWCURRENTCURRENTNEWNEWRunoff Runoff CoefficientCoefficientLowLow$2,130$2,130$5,270$5,270$4,578$4,578$1,970$1,970$3,423$3,423$1,912$1,912$46$46$1,813$1,813MediumMedium$10,480$10,480$3,797$3,797$2,705$2,705$2,966$2,966HighHigh$3,486$3,486$22,837$22,837$7,492$7,492$8,535$8,535$5,602$5,602$8,287$8,287$76$76$7,857$7,857Fees computed on gross developable acre basis
Carlsbad Drainage Master PlanCarlsbad Drainage Master PlanThe Drainage Master Plan is a planning documentThe Drainage Master Plan is a planning documentInclusion of a project does not guarantee constructionInclusion of a project does not guarantee constructionFuture DMP projects will undergo detailed design Future DMP projects will undergo detailed design analysisanalysis––Project scopeProject scope––NeedNeed––Potential alternative solutionsPotential alternative solutionsAdditional environmental review and permits may be Additional environmental review and permits may be requiredrequired
Agua Hedionda & Calavera Creeks Agua Hedionda & Calavera Creeks Dredge and Improvement ProjectDredge and Improvement ProjectDavid Hauser, P.E.David Hauser, P.E.Deputy City EngineerDeputy City Engineer
BackgroundBackgroundRancho Carlsbad Flood Control ProgramRancho Carlsbad Flood Control Program1971 1971 --Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home ParkRancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park504 Homes504 HomesChannel flood control facilities privately maintainedChannel flood control facilities privately maintainedAgua Agua HediondaHediondaCreekCreekCalaveraCalaveraCreekCreekLegend
BackgroundBackgroundRancho Carlsbad Flood Control ProgramRancho Carlsbad Flood Control ProgramEarly 1980Early 1980’’s s ––FEMA FEMA identified much of Rancho identified much of Rancho Carlsbad as impacted by 100Carlsbad as impacted by 100--Year floodplainYear floodplainAgua Agua HediondaHediondaCreekCreekCalaveraCalaveraCreekCreekRancho Carlsbad BoundaryRancho Carlsbad BoundaryLegend
BackgroundBackgroundRancho Carlsbad Flood Control ProgramRancho Carlsbad Flood Control Program1994 1994 ––City Updated Master Drainage PlanCity Updated Master Drainage Plan––Added project to widen Calavera Creek ChannelAdded project to widen Calavera Creek Channel––Added three basins for sediment controlAdded three basins for sediment controlBasin BJBasin BJBasin BJBBasin BJBBasin BPBasin BPCalaveraCalaveraCreek Creek WideningWidening
BackgroundBackgroundRancho Carlsbad Flood Control ProgramRancho Carlsbad Flood Control Program1996 Howard Chang Flood Study1996 Howard Chang Flood Study––Commissioned by Rancho Carlsbad TenantsCommissioned by Rancho Carlsbad Tenants––Concludes that flood impacts to RC Park were minorConcludes that flood impacts to RC Park were minor––Recommends nonRecommends non--structural flood control structural flood control ––advance advance warning and evacuationwarning and evacuation1997 Rancho Carlsbad Park Conversion1997 Rancho Carlsbad Park Conversion––City agrees to take over channel maintenanceCity agrees to take over channel maintenance––Rancho Carlsbad agrees to pay $318,000Rancho Carlsbad agrees to pay $318,000
1998 1998 ––Rick Engineering Study CompletedRick Engineering Study Completed––Recommended:Recommended:Installation of four retention basinsInstallation of four retention basinsDredging and improvement to Agua Hedionda and Calavera Dredging and improvement to Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creek ChannelsCreek Channels1999 1999 ––Lake Calavera Outlet Repair ProjectLake Calavera Outlet Repair Project––Added to City Capital Improvement Program (CIP)Added to City Capital Improvement Program (CIP)BackgroundBackgroundRancho Carlsbad Flood Control ProgramRancho Carlsbad Flood Control Program
Palomar Airport RoadEl Camino RealCannon RoadC ol le g e B ou lev a rd Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home ParkFaraday AvenueTamarack AvenueChannel Dredging84 Inch Storm DrainCalavera Outlet RepairBasin BJMelrose BasinBasin BJBFaraday Basin
Agua HAgua Hedionda and Calavera Creek edionda and Calavera Creek Dredge and Improvement ProjectDredge and Improvement Project¾¾Dredge Accumulated Dredge Accumulated SedimentSediment¾¾Trim and stabilize channel Trim and stabilize channel side slopesside slopes¾¾Replace down drainsReplace down drains¾¾Construct settling basinConstruct settling basin¾¾Install gabInstall gabion drop structuresion drop structures
Anticipated results:Anticipated results:Removal of all but 6 Removal of all but 6 --12 12 lots from 100lots from 100--yr. inundationyr. inundationStabilization of Calavera Stabilization of Calavera Creek BanksCreek BanksAgua HAgua Hedionda and Calavera Creek edionda and Calavera Creek Dredge and Improvement ProjectDredge and Improvement Project
Maintenance Component:Maintenance Component:Annual Sediment MonitoringAnnual Sediment MonitoringClearing of settling basinClearing of settling basinVegetation and debris removal Vegetation and debris removal Maintenance interval to be Maintenance interval to be determined by inspectionsdetermined by inspectionsAgua HAgua Hedionda and Calavera Creek edionda and Calavera Creek Dredge and Improvement ProjectDredge and Improvement Project
Project ProcessingProject ProcessingEnvironmental Impact Environmental Impact ReportReportScott DonnellPlanning Department
Project Components & Project Components & RelationshipsRelationshipsEIR 04-02•Findings•MMRPDMPU•Fee Structure•Drainage FacilitiesText Changes•Zone Code•Municipal Code•LCPDredge Project•Permits
Planning Planning CommissionCommissionCity CouncilCity CouncilCoastal Coastal CommissionCommissionCDP, SUP, CDP, SUP, HMPPHMPPEIREIRDMPUDMPUZCA, LCPAZCA, LCPAReview ProcessReview ProcessSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOP*STOPCoastal Commission has appealed CDP.Coastal Commission has appealed CDP.*
Environmental Impact Environmental Impact ReportReportProgram and project level documentProgram and project level document––Program level components need further Program level components need further reviewreviewMajority of Drainage Master Plan facilitiesMajority of Drainage Master Plan facilitiesPermits and environmental analysisPermits and environmental analysis––Project level components have adequate Project level components have adequate analysisanalysisComponent Component ““BB””(Agua Hedionda Creek) (Agua Hedionda Creek) Component Component ““BNBN””(Calavera Creek)(Calavera Creek)
Environmental Impact Environmental Impact ReportReportReview process:Review process:––NOP/Scoping meeting: Spring 2006NOP/Scoping meeting: Spring 2006––Release of draft EIR: Summer 2007Release of draft EIR: Summer 200760 day public review period60 day public review period––Release of final EIR: December 2007Release of final EIR: December 2007Responses to all commenting parties documentedResponses to all commenting parties documented––Certification and adoption processCertification and adoption processPlanning Commission: January 16, 2008Planning Commission: January 16, 2008City Council City Council
Environmental Impact Environmental Impact ReportReportPotential Significant Environmental Impacts:Potential Significant Environmental Impacts:––NoiseNoise––Biological ResourcesBiological Resources––Cultural ResourcesCultural Resources––Paleontological ResourcesPaleontological ResourcesMitigation:Mitigation:––Reduce impacts to insignificant levelsReduce impacts to insignificant levels––All impacts mitigatedAll impacts mitigated
Environmental Impact Environmental Impact ReportReportAlternatives AnalysisAlternatives Analysis––5 program level alternatives5 program level alternativesEnvironmentally superior alternative Environmentally superior alternative Rejected alternativesRejected alternatives––2 project level alternatives2 project level alternativesEnvironmentally superior alternative Environmentally superior alternative Rejected alternativesRejected alternativesProposed project recommendedProposed project recommended
Environmental Impact Environmental Impact ReportReportResolution certifying EIRResolution certifying EIR––Additional responses to commentsAdditional responses to comments––Revisions to Final EIRRevisions to Final EIR––Revisions to Findings and MMRPRevisions to Findings and MMRPErrataErrataAll changes are insignificantAll changes are insignificantEIR recirculation not requiredEIR recirculation not required
Proposed Text ChangesProposed Text ChangesChanges to Zoning Ordinance and LCPChanges to Zoning Ordinance and LCPChanges would:Changes would:––Reference proposed planReference proposed plan––Standardize referencesStandardize references––Delete references to model ordinancesDelete references to model ordinancesChanges would not conflict with Coastal Changes would not conflict with Coastal policiespolicies
ProjectProject--Level Dredging and Level Dredging and Improvement PermitsImprovement PermitsRequired PermitsRequired Permits––Coastal Development PermitCoastal Development PermitProposed improvements west of El Camino RealProposed improvements west of El Camino Real2006 Emergency permit2006 Emergency permit––Special Use Permit (floodplain)Special Use Permit (floodplain)––Habitat Management Plan PermitHabitat Management Plan Permit
CANNON RDEL CAMINO REAL 05001,000250FeetEIR 04-02/SUP 06-02/HMPP 06-03/CDP 06-04Aqua Hedionda andCalavera Creek DredgingCalavaraCalavara& Agua Hedionda Creeks & Agua Hedionda Creeks Dredge ProjectDredge ProjectCDP 06-04
ProjectProject--Level Dredging and Level Dredging and Improvement PermitsImprovement PermitsPermit compliancePermit compliance––General PlanGeneral Plan––Local Coastal ProgramLocal Coastal Program––Zoning OrdinanceZoning OrdinancePlanning Commission actionPlanning Commission action––Permits approved pending EIR certificationPermits approved pending EIR certification
Recommended Council ActionsRecommended Council Actions––Introduce Municipal Code AmendmentsIntroduce Municipal Code AmendmentsTitles 15 and 21Titles 15 and 21––Certify the EIRCertify the EIRFindings of Fact and MMRPFindings of Fact and MMRP––Approve LCP AmendmentsApprove LCP Amendments––Approve the Carlsbad Drainage Master PlanApprove the Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan––Approve revised PLDA Fee StructureApprove revised PLDA Fee Structure
Public HearingPublic HearingCarlsbad City Council ChambersCarlsbad City Council ChambersAugust 5, 2008August 5, 20086:00 p.m.6:00 p.m.
QuestionsQuestions
Basin BJ BackgroundBasin BJ Background1980 1980 ––Basin BJ added to Drainage Master PlanBasin BJ added to Drainage Master Plan––as a sedimentation basin not for flood control facilityas a sedimentation basin not for flood control facility1998 1998 --Rick Engineering Hydrology ReportRick Engineering Hydrology Report––Recommended:Recommended:Four retention basins (Basin BJ, BJB, Faraday and Melrose)Four retention basins (Basin BJ, BJB, Faraday and Melrose)Dredge and improve Agua Dredge and improve Agua HediondaHediondaand and CalaveraCalaveraCreek Creek ChannelsChannels1999 1999 ––City adds City adds CalaveraCalaveraDam Repair to CIPDam Repair to CIP2005 2005 ––Chang Consultants Basin BJ StudyChang Consultants Basin BJ Study––Operation of Operation of CalaveraCalaveraDam as Flood Control Facility can Dam as Flood Control Facility can provide same flood control benefits as Basin BJprovide same flood control benefits as Basin BJ––Requires manual operation of outlet valvesRequires manual operation of outlet valves
Palomar Airport RoadEl Camino RealCannon RoadC ol le g e B ou lev a rd Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home ParkFaraday AvenueTamarack AvenueChannel Dredging and Improvement84 Inch Storm DrainCalavera Outlet RepairBasin BJMelrose BasinBasin BJBFaraday Basin
Holly SpringsHolly SpringsRobertson Ranch EastSchoolPropertyMcMillin RV SiteOption PropertyBasin BJCannon Road Reach 4A.C ollege BoulevardWest PropertyProposed RV SiteCantariniCantarini
Cantarini Cantarini Condition of Approval Regarding Basin BJCondition of Approval Regarding Basin BJ46. In accordance with the Zone 15 LFMP, Developer shall provide forthe relocation of the existing Rancho Carlsbad RV storage lot, maintenance facilities and community garden (collectively the ‘‘Rancho Carlsbad Facilities”) impacted by the College Boulevard and Basin BJ improvements. The Developer obligation includes, but is not limited to, securing an alternate site for relocating the Rancho Carlsbad Facilities, obtaining a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and/or other discretionary permits necessary for the relocation and constructing replacement improvements for the Rancho Carlsbad Partners property.The relocation shall be processed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and the City Engineer. Developer shall enter into a secured agreement with the City guaranteeing construction of the Rancho Carlsbad Facilities in a form acceptable to the City Engineer.PC RES0 NO. 5753
Holly Springs Holly Springs Condition of Approval Regarding Basin BJCondition of Approval Regarding Basin BJ47. No final map, grading or improvement permits shall be issued or approved until the public street and public utility improvements that serve this project are dedicated, secured, and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. These improvements consist of, but are not limited to, College Boulevard street and public utility improvements from its existing terminus near El Camino Real to Cannon Road, College Boulevard bridge, Basin BJ, ‘A’ Street, ‘J’ Street, ‘M’ Street, and ‘C’ Street all as shown on the Tentative Map for CT 00-18. 48. The final map for this project shall not record in advance of the final map for CT 00-18, as the improvements for this project are contingent on CT 00-18 constructing them, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.PC RES0 NO. 5759
CalaveraCalaveraHills Phase II Hills Phase II Condition of Approval Regarding Basin BJCondition of Approval Regarding Basin BJ31. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Calavera Hills Phase II project (“Project”), the applicant shall cause Owner to enter into a purchase option agreement with the City of Carlsbad and the Rancho Carlsbad Owners Association offering the City the option to purchase, at not more than fair market value, an approximately 5.7 acre parcel of land, to provide a relocation site for facilities that will either be replaced by or have the access severed by the construction of College Boulevard Reach A or Detention Basin BJ (the “Facilities Replacement Area”). The general location of the Facilities Replacement Area is shown on the Rancho Carlsbad Exhibit as the location of the Rancho Carlsbad Owners Association facilities, including the community garden, RV parking lot, wash area and waste disposal area. The purchase option agreement shall provide that if the City does not exercise its option to purchase by January 1, 2010, the Rancho Carlsbad Owners Association may exercise the option and purchase the parcel. The agreement shall also provide that the Rancho Carlsbad Owners Association, with agreement of Owner, may process any and all permits and applications with the appropriate governmental agencies required for the implementation of these provisions provided any such permits issued are conditioned upon the transfer of the parcel. Alternately, the Owner may elect to process the necessary permits and applications to implement these provisions itself.
CalaveraCalaveraHills Phase II Hills Phase II Condition of Approval Regarding Basin BJCondition of Approval Regarding Basin BJThe agreement shall provide that if either the Owner or Rancho Carlsbad Owners Association are denied by any approving governmental agency a requested permit necessary for use of the 5.7 acre parcel for a community garden, RV parking lot, wash area and waste disposal area, then the purchase option agreement shall automatically terminate. The City shall provide the mechanism whereby the purchase by the Association shall be eligible for credit and repayment from the appropriate funding source or sources established by the City which include this purpose. Any such credit and repayment mechanism shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with the transfer to the City by the Rancho Carlsbad Owners Association of the property rights required to install Basin BJ. If the Rancho Carlsbad Owners Association and Owner are unable to reach agreement with respect to the terms of the purchase option agreement by May 1, 2002, the Rancho Carlsbad Owners Association and Owner shall enter into binding arbitration to resolve the terms of the agreement, subject to concurrence by the City to resolve the terms of the agreement, subject to concurrence by the City to the extent the terms impact the City’s obligations under the agreement. Such arbitration to be paid for by Owner. The City Manager and City Attorney, or their designees, shall be authorized to negotiate and enter into the purchase option agreement on behalf of the City, provided it complies with the terms of this condition, without further review of the City Council. The actual purchase of acquisition of the property which is the subject of the option agreement will require City Council review and approval.CC Resolution No. 2002CC Resolution No. 2002--016016
Basin B PLDA Fee ProgramBasin B PLDA Fee ProgramAssuming Relocation CostAssuming Relocation Cost($5,000,000)($5,000,000)Runoff Runoff CoefficientCoefficientExisting Existing PLDA FeePLDA FeeProposed Proposed PLDA FeePLDA FeeRevised Revised PLDA FeePLDA FeeLowLow$4,578$4,578$1,970$1,970$3,311$3,311MediumMedium$3,797$3,797$6,383$6,383HighHigh$7,492$7,492$8,535$8,535$14,347$14,347
Planned Local Drainage Area Planned Local Drainage Area Fee StructureFee StructurePLDA APLDA APLDA BPLDA BPLDA CPLDA CPLDA DPLDA DCURRENTCURRENTNEWNEWCURRENTCURRENTNEWNEWCURRENTCURRENTNEWNEWCURRENTCURRENTNEWNEWRMHRMH$602$602$1,747$1,747$1,295$1,295$633$633$968$968$451$451$13$13$494$494RLMRLM$690$690$1,647$1,647$1,484$1,484$616$616$1,109$1,109$598$598$15$15$567$567RMRM$368$368$1,747$1,747$791$791$633$633$592$592$451$451$8$8$494$494RHRH$190$190$1,202$1,202$409$409$449$449$306$306$436$436$4$4$414$414Fees computed using land use density related to a per unit basis