HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-12-22; City Council; 20084; 2005-2010 Housing Element General Plan AmendmentCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL 14
AB# 20,084
MTG. 12/22/09
DEPT. PLN
2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT -
GPA 03-02
DEPT. HEAD $?f
CITY ATTY. xj2^
CITY MGR. (>—
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council ADOPT Resolution No. 2009-322 . ADOPTING a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and APPROVING General Plan
Amendment (GPA 03-02) based upon the findings contained therein.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The City of Carlsbad is updating its General Plan Housing Element. The Housing Element
addresses a variety of housing topics, including need, availability, and affordability for a specific
period, or housing cycle. The last housing cycle ended June 30, 2005. The current housing
cycle began July 1, 2005, and ends June 30, 2010. An update to the Housing Element requires
an amendment to the General Plan.
State law requires every city and county in California to update its Housing Element for each
housing cycle. The state Department of Housing and Community Development, Division of
Housing Policy Development (HCD) reviews and certifies Housing Elements for compliance
with state law. With revisions made since its initial release in April 2007, HCD has found
Carlsbad's proposed 2005-2010 Housing Element for the current housing cycle will comply with
state housing element law.
As a policy level document, approval of the Housing Element would not result in approval or
construction of housing, change in land use designations, or an increase in residential
densities. Approval would also not amend any other General Plan policies or provisions of the
Growth Management Plan, Zoning Ordinance, or Local Coastal Program. Instead, the Housing
Element will establish the framework and programs that if implemented would meet Carlsbad's
housing needs. Some programs proposed simply continue previously approved programs that
are successful and underway, such as inclusionary housing.. Other programs are new and their
implementation requires amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other city
requirements before they are effective. These amendments would be subject to separate and
additional public review and hearings.
Housing Element preparation has taken several years and involved frequent public notice and
comment opportunities. Public input opportunities began with workshops before the Housing
Commission in 2004 and 2005. Staffs request to submit the initial draft of the Housing Element
to HCD was also considered by the Housing Commission and approved by the City Council in
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Scott Donnell 760-602-4618 scott.donneH@carlsbadca.gov
FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY.
COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED jfr CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC D
DENIED D CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN D
CONTINUED D RETURNED TO STAFF D
WITHDRAWN D OTHER-SEE MINUTES D
AMENDED D
Page 2
2007. Additionally, three drafts of the Housing Element were released for public review in 2007
and 2008.
In early 2009, after HCD's finding that the Housing Element will comply with state law, the
Housing Commission held two publicly noticed meetings on the 2005-2010 Housing Element.
At its February 12 meeting, the Housing Commission voted 3-2 (Bradwell and Wrisley) to
recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment to the Planning Commission and City
Council.
On November 18, 2009, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 5-2
(Dominguez and Douglas) to recommend adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approval of the General Plan Amendment.
Through its public review, many comments on the proposed Housing Element have focused on
the property identified in the document as "Quarry Creek," the City's site selection process to
meet its share of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), and environmental review.
At Quarry Creek, a Housing Element program states the City will redesignate and rezone the
property to allow up to 500 residential units; the present land use designation allows for 165
units on the 100 acre site. More details about public comments received are provided below.
"RHNA" is a housing unit needs estimate developed by the state to accommodate projected
growth among four different income categories. While Carlsbad does not have to build or require
the building of units to meet the projections, the City must provide the opportunities needed to
enable developers to construct these units. These opportunities exist in the form of available
land as well as land use policies and standards, such as General Plan land use designations
and appropriate minimum densities and zoning requirements. Through detailed analysis of
standards and available land inventories, the Housing Element must demonstrate whether the
growth projected can be accommodated based on current requirements and policies or whether
changes are needed.
With existing standards, developers have constructed several thousand units in Carlsbad that
contribute greatly toward meeting the City's RHNA share. However, Carlsbad's existing policies
and requirements, combined with its available land inventory, are not adequate to provide the
number of homes necessary for persons and families in the lower and moderate income
categories. In fact, the Housing Element reveals the City is 3,566 units short of meeting the
projections for these two income groups.
Therefore, amendments are proposed to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other land
use documents. A description of these amendments is found in proposed programs 2.1 and 2.3
of Housing Element Section 6. These amendments, which include redesignating specific
properties to higher densities and allowing mixed use residential at shopping centers, have
been the focus of public comments on the Housing Element. These comments largely center on
the following topics:
• Inappropriateness of Quarry Creek for development because of:
o The presence of important historic and natural resources, including sensitive
Native American resources;
o The need for remediation of soil and groundwater contamination and
inappropriateness of the site for residences because of that contamination;
o The site's proximity to significant open space;
PageS
o The unsuitability of the site as a potential smart growth area (as designated by
SAN DAG);
o The inappropriateness of concentrating high intensity uses, such as high density
housing, at the City's borders;
o The inability of the site to be ready for development within the current housing
cycle, which ends June 30, 2010, and;
o The availability of other locations in Carlsbad where units could be constructed in
lieu of Quarry Creek. These locations include industrial areas such as Carlsbad
Oaks North and the Palomar Airport Road corridor.
• Inadequacy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and its mitigation measures prepared
for the Housing Element General Plan Amendment and need for an Environmental
Impact Report.
• The validity of the data used to produce the Housing Element, as the data is not current;
therefore, the Housing Element does not comply with state housing law.
• The high density nature of the proposed Bridges at Aviara (Pontebello) project, which is
inappropriate for its planned location.
Staff has responded to these comments in staff reports, correspondence, and in presentations
before the Housing Commission and Planning Commission. Additional information, however, is
warranted to respond to concerns raised about the availability of the Quarry Creek site during
the housing cycle, concentration of high intensity at the City's border, and the relationship of the
Housing Element to the Pontebello project.
• Quarry Creek: This property is a critical component of Housing Element Program 2.1 as
it could provide a significant number of lower and moderate-income residential units
based on land use densities proposed by-the City. Furthermore, Quarry Creek is in a
location suitable for high density housing, as evidenced by its potential smart growth
area designation. Remediation of contaminated soils and groundwater is proceeding in a
manner with which the County Department of Environmental Health concurs.
Reclamation of the formerly mined areas must also occur as required by state law, and
the environmental review process for the reclamation plan is well underway. A
discussion of Quarry Creek and the land use amendments proposed for it are part of the
Housing Element reviewed by HCD in 2008. Based on its November 21, 2008, letter to
the City, HCD found that this element, with which the current version substantially
conforms, will comply with state housing element law when adopted by the City and
submitted to HCD.
Staff intends to proceed with implementing Program 2.1 as soon as possible to enable
the appropriate land use designations for Quarry Creek to be in place by the end of the
Housing Cycle. This will require significant effort; if the process cannot be complete by
June of next year, staff will continue to proceed with the needed land use amendments
as Quarry Creek will remain a critical component towards meeting the City's share of the
RHNA in the next housing cycle as well, which begins 2013.
Finally, of the 500 units proposed to be allowed under Program 2.1 land use
designations for Quarry Creek, 300 would be considered high density at 20 units per
acre and 200 would be considered medium-high density at 12 units per acre. This does
not represent an inappropriate concentration of high density units along the City's border
with Oceanside. Review of the attached "City of Carlsbad 2005-2010 Housing Element
Page 4
Site Study" map shows that both existing and Housing Element-proposed high density
sites are scattered in all four of Carlsbad's quadrants, including in the Village and Barrio
areas, along Palomar Airport Road, and along El Camino Real near Cassia Road.
• Bridges at Aviara (Pontebello): The Housing Element, in Section 3, counts the affordable
housing portion of this privately-initiated proposal to help meet the City's RHNA.
Approval of the Housing Element, however, does not result in approval or entitlements
for this project or its affordable housing. Concerns expressed regarding density, traffic,
and other project-specific matters will be considered in the review and hearings for
Pontebello, which will occur entirely separate from consideration of the Housing Element.
Should the Pontebello project not be approved, the City will need to "replace" the units to
make sure its RHNA share can still be met. Further, as a point of clarification, the
Housing Element incorrectly reports this project will contribute 65 lower income
apartments; the correct number of units is 76.
Despite the need for amendments to various land use documents, Carlsbad is a significant
producer of affordable housing. This is demonstrated in the Housing Element, particularly in
Section 3, and by the construction of more than 2,000 affordable units throughout the City since
1993. Furthermore, the City's success is evidenced in the 2007 report, Affordable By Choice:
Trends in California Inclusionary Housing Programs. Commissioned by several housing-interest
groups, the report identifies Carlsbad as one of California's top producers of affordable housing.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Adoption of the Housing Element will enable the City to apply or more successfully compete for
state and local housing, transportation, and planning grants. Agencies without an adopted
element are ineligible to apply for certain state housing grants. Further, some SANDAG funding
programs award points to jurisdictions with adopted elements, thereby putting those agencies
without such elements at a disadvantage.
Some Housing Element programs proposed for carry over from the previous element help fund
affordable housing and homeless and supportive services. These include keeping programs to
maintain the Housing Trust Fund, participate in Community Development Block Grant and
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers programs, and, through the Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance, require payment of the housing in lieu fee. No new programs are proposed that
would result in new fees.
The implementation of various Housing Element programs, such as those requiring
amendments to the general plan or zoning, will incur staff time and public hearings. As these
are proposed city-initiated efforts, costs will be borne by the City of Carlsbad. Potentially, some
zone changes or general plan amendments proposed by the programs may be accomplished
instead by private parties as part of a development application.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and the Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code. As
noted, approval of the General Plan Amendment establishes the framework for future housing
actions rather than approval or construction of housing or approval of any land use or zoning
PageS
changes. Housing Element approval will also not amend any policy or standard the City has
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact.
However, it is recognized that housing facilitated by the Draft Housing Element could have a
potentially significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, staff prepared and circulated for
public review a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP). Mitigation measures are included to reduce identified potential significant
impacts to a less than significant level for housing facilitated by the Draft Housing Element.
Staff received significant public comments in response to the MND's circulation. In reply, staff
prepared detailed responses; the comments and responses are attached. Staffs responses
support the adequacy of the MND and the Planning Director's publishing of a Notice of Intent to
adopt a MND and MMRP on May 29, 2009.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Resolution No. 2009-322
2. Planning Commission Resolutions 6547 and 6548
3. Housing Commission Resolution 2009-001
4. Planning Commission materials:
a. Staff Report dated November 18, 2009 (without resolutions and "2005-2010
Housing Element information Packet," contents of which are included as separate
exhibits herein);
b. Draft meeting minutes dated November 18, 2009.
5. Housing Commission materials:
a. February 12, 2009 meeting
i. Staff Report (without resolution);
ii. Errata;
iii. Meeting minutes;
iv. Staff PowerPoint presentation.
b. January 8, 2009 meeting
i. Staff Report (without resolution)
ii. Meeting minutes
iii. Staff PowerPoint presentation
6. McMillin Land Development letter dated December 1, 2009
7. Correspondence submitted to Planning Commission for consideration at the
Commission's November 18, 2009 meeting:
a. Peter and Katherine Nikias letter dated November 18, 2009;
b. Hanson Aggregates letter dated November 17, 2009;
c. Russ Cunningham dated November 14, 2009;
d. Kasey Cinciarelli email dated November 18, 2009;
e. California Indian Legal Services Letter dated November 10, 2009;
f. Ann Hallock letter dated November 1, 2009;
** g. Petition submitted by Carlsbad High School Environmental Club (undated);
h. Miscellaneous information on Quarry Creek provided by attendee (identity
unknown) at November 18 Planning Commission meeting:
i. April 11, 2008 memorandum from City Manager, City of Oceanside;
ii. Excerpt from Former South Coast Quarry Amended Reclamation Plan
Draft Subsequent EIR;
iii. Portion of list titled "Revised property ranking with additional City Council
nominated areas" and excerpted from "Proposition C Open Space and
PageG
Trails Property Acquisition Program on Property Analysis and Ranking for
Three Additional Areas, dated January 2008."
8. Correspondence and information provided to the Housing Commission by the public at
the February 12, 2009 meeting:
a. Mike Bullock email dated February 12, 2009
b. Reverend Carl J. Souza testimony dated February 12, 2009
c. San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians/Carmen Mojado letter dated February 11,
2009
d. Don Christiansen letter and attachments dated February 10, 2009
e. Preserve Calavera information:
i. Potential Affordable Housing Alternatives to Quarry Creek dated
February 12, 2009;
f. Miscellaneous information on Quarry Creek and other items (undated);
9. Information provided to the Housing Commission by staff for the February 12, 2009
meeting:*
a. "City of Carlsbad 2005-2010 Housing Element Site Study" map prepared by staff;
b. "Quarry Creek Facts and Information," prepared by McMillin Land Development
Services, LP;
c. "Fuel Impact Remediation Program," prepared by Hanson Heidelberg
Cement Group.
10. City of Carlsbad Draft 2005-2010 Housing Element, dated December 2008.*
*'Denotes item previously distributed to City Council with copies on file in the Planning
Department and City Clerk's Office.
** Also provided at the February 12, 2009 Housing Commission meeting and
December 22, 2009 City Council meeting.
(f
EXHIBIT 1
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-322
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED
3 NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND APPROVING A GENERAL
4 PLAN AMENDMENT TO ADOPT THE UPDATE OF THE
HOUSING ELEMENT FOR THE 2005-2010 HOUSING CYCLE
5 AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
AND WHICH AFFECTS PROPERTIES THROUGHOUT THE
6 CITY.
CASE NAME: 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
7 CASE NO.: GPA 03-02
8 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as
follows:
9
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Housing
Commission did, on February 12, 2009, hold a noticed public meeting to consider General Plan
Amendment GPA 03-02, as referenced in Housing Commission Resolution No. 2009-001, and12
the Housing Commission adopted Housing Commission Resolution No. 2009-001,
recommending to the Planning Commission and City Council that GPA 03-02 be approved; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission did, on November 18, 2009, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by16
law to consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
program, as referenced in Planning Commission Resolution No. 6547, and General Plan18
Amendment GPA 03-02, as referenced in Planning Commission Resolution No. 6548, and the
Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolutions No. 6547 and 6548
recommending to the City Council that they be approved; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, on the 22nd day of
~~ December , 2009, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider said Mitigated
24 Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and General Plan
25 Amendment; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
27 and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the City Council considered all factors
28
1 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
2 and General Plan Amendment.
3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
4 of Carlsbad as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. That the recommendation of the Housing Commission for the approval of
General Plan Amendment GPA 03-02 is adopted and approved, and that the findings of the
Housing Commission contained in Housing Commission Resolution No 2009-001 on file with
o the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference are the findings of the City Council.
9 3. That the recommendations of the Planning Commission for the (1)
adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,
10 and (2) approval of General Plan Amendment GPA 03-02 are adopted and approved, and that
the findings of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolutions No.
11 6547 and 6548 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference, are the findings
of the City Council.
12
4. This action is final the date this resolution is adopted by the City Council.
13 The Provisions of Chapter 1.16 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, "Time Limits for Judicial
Review", shall apply:
14
"NOTICE TO APPLICANT"
15
The time within which judicial review of this decision must be 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 review must be filed in
the appropriate court not later than the nineteenth day following the date
1° on which this decision becomes final; however, if within ten days after the
decision becomes final a request for the record of the deposit in an19 amount sufficient to cover the estimated cost or 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
21 record is either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney
of record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the
record of the proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of
22 Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, CA. 92008."
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad on the 22nd day of December. 2009, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Hall, and Blackburn.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Council Member Packard.
>, Mayor
ATTEST:
JJL
Altffi M.
EAL) (J
EXHIBIT 2
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6547
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
4 FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO ADOPT THE
UPDATE OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT FOR THE 2005-2010
5 HOUSING CYCLE AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE.
6 CASE NAME: 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
CASE NO.: GPA 03-027 - ;
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, "Applicant," has filed a verified application
o
g with the City of Carlsbad to adopt a General Plan Amendment for the Draft 2005-2010 Housing
10 Element ("Draft Housing Element"), a document that affects properties throughout Carlsbad; and
11 WHEREAS, the Draft Housing Element is an update to the Housing Element
12 adopted in 2000 for the 1999-2005 Housing Cycle; and'
1*7 "
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared in
14 conjunction with said project; and
15
WHEREAS, subsequent to the public circulation of the MND from May 29,
16
2009 to June 28, 2009, staff prepared minor revisions to the Draft Housing Element and
17
the MND, as necessary, to (1) delete text and figures regarding the La Costa Town Square18
10 project, which was approved by City Council in August 2009 without the residential and
20 mixed use high density components indentified in the Draft Housing Element; (2) add
21 additional shopping center sites with high density, mixed use potential to Table 3-7 and
22 related text; (3) revise text, tables and figures as necessary to reflect the above revisions; (4)
update the MND's Initial Study (Environmental Impact Assessment Form) Sections 15 and
24 17 on Transportation/Traffic and Mandatory Findings of Significance to match the
25
findings of the San Diego Association of Governments' Final 2008 Congestion Management
26
Program Update and amend the MND's list of supporting information sources to include
27
this document; and (5) amend Draft Housing Element Section 4 to clarify the ability of
10
1 water and sewer providers to serve the City's remaining Regional Housing Needs
2 Assessment and to add to the Quarry Creek environmental constraints discussion that
remediation of groundwater is occurring; and
4
WHEREAS, the minor changes to the MND and Draft Housing Element do
5
not require recirculation of the MND since they are consistent with the description of "new
6
information" in CEQA Section 15073.5(c) (4), which states recirculation is not required if
0 "new information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, oro
9 makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration;" and
10 WHEREAS, the minor revisions to the MND affect specifically the "Project
11 Description" and "Initial Study (Environmental Impact Assessment Form)"portions of the
12 environmental document, which are attached, and are shown as either strikeouts or bolded
and underlined text; arid
14 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on November 18, 2009, hold a duly
15
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
16
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
17
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and18
,g considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors
20 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
22 Commission as follows:
7"i A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
24 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
25 Commission hereby RECOMMENDS ADOPTION of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program according to
26 Exhibits "NOI," "MND," "Project Description" and "Initial Study (Environmental
Impact Assessment Form)," and "MMRP" attached hereto and made a part
27 hereof, based on the following findings:
28
PC RESO NO. 6547 -2-
1
2 Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. It has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Negative Declaration for the
5 DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT (dated December 2008) - GPA 03-
02, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and said
5 comments thereon, and the Program, on file in the Planning Department, prior to
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project;
7
b. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental
Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad;
10 c. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the
City of Carlsbad, and;
12
d. Based on the "Project Description" and "Initial; Study (Environmental Impact
13 Assessment Form)," the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and
comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial
evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PC RESO NO. 6547 -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
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on November 18, 2009, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners Baker, L'Heureux, Nygaard, Schumacher, and
Chairperson Montgomery
Commissioners Dominguez and Douglas
MAfcTEWB. MONT
CARLSBAD PLANN
ATTEST:
ERY, Clufcerson
COMMjsllON
DON NEU
Planning Director
PC RESO NO. 6547 -4-
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NAME: Draft 2005-2010 Housing Element
CASE NO: GPA 03-02
PROJECT LOCATION: City-wide
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is the adoption of the City of Carlsbad Draft 2005-.
2010 Housing Element, which requires a General Plan Amendment. California Housing Element
law requires that local jurisdictions update their housing elements every five years. The Housing
Element represents a chapter of the City's General Plan, a planning document that identifies the
community's long-term goals for development. The Housing Element chapter provides guidance
and direction for City policymakers to address the specific housing needs of the community.
PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental
review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of
the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study ,(EIA Part 2) identified
potentially significant effects on .the. environment, but (1) mitigation measures developed before
the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project "as revised" may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad City
Council.
A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad,
California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Pursuant to Section 15204 of the
CEQA Guidelines, in reviewing Mitigated Negative Declarations, persons and public agencies
should focus on the proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the
environment. If persons and public agencies believe that the project may have a significant
effect, they should: (1) identify the specific effect; (2) explain why they believe the effect would
occur; and (3) explain why they believe the effect would be significant. Please submit comments
in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of the date of this notice.
The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and
approval/adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional
public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any
questions, please call Scott Donnell in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4618.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD May 29. 2009 - June 28. 2009
PUBLISH DATE May 29. 2009
City of Carlsbad
2005-2010 Housing Element
(General Plan Amendment GPA 03-02)
Project Description & Initial Study
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
Contact: Scott Donnell, Senior Planner
(760)602-4618
Scott.Donnell@carlsbadca.gov
o--s
I. Project Description
Update
This environmental document, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, supersedes the Negative
Declaration circulated by the City in January and February 2009. The Draft 2005-2010 Housing
Element programs analyzed in both environmental documents remain the same. Please see the
Environmental Review section below.
Project Summary
The project is the adoption of the City of Carlsbad Draft 2005-2010 Housing Element ("Draft
Housing Element"). California Housing Element law requires that local jurisdictions update
their Housing Elements every five years.1 The Housing Element represents a chapter, or element,
of the City's General Plan, a planning document that identifies the community's long-term goals
for development. Adoption of the Draft Housing Element requires an amendment to the General
Plan.
The Draft Housing Element provides guidance and direction for City-policymakers to address the
specific housing needs of the community. For this Initial Study, the project is the adoption of the
Draft Housing Element pursuant to Section 65302 of the California Government Code.
California law provides guidance to communities in the preparation of the Housing Element.2
Per State law, the Housing Element has two main purposes:
(1) To provide an assessment of both current and future housing needs and constraints in
meeting these needs; and
(2) To provide a strategy that establishes housing goals, policies, and programs.
The Draft Housing Element is a plan for the 2005-2010 period. This differs from the City's other
General Plan elements, which cover a much longer period. The Draft Housing Element serves as
an integrated part of the General Plan but is updated more frequently to ensure its relevancy and
accuracy. The Draft Housing Element identifies strategies and programs that focus on:
(1) Conserving and improving existing affordable housing;
(2) Maximizing housing opportunities throughout the community;
(3) Assisting in the provision of affordable housing;
(4) Removing governmental and other constraints to housing investment; and
(5) Promoting fair and equal housing opportunities.
State law requires Housing Elements to be updated every five years to reflect a community's
changing housing needs, unless otherwise extended by State legislation. These five year periods, or
housing cycles, are staggered throughout the state so all California cities and counties update their
elements at different times. For San Diego County jurisdictions, the current housing cycle began
July 1, 2005, and ends June lQ, 2010.
The state Department of Housing and Community Development, Division of Housing Policy
Development (HCD) reviews Housing Elements for compliance with state law. With revisions
made since its initial release in April 2007, HCD has found Carlsbad's Draft Housing Element
1. California Government Code, §65588 et. seq.
2 California Government Code, §65583 et. seq.
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR INITIAL STUDY
Page 2
for the current housing cycle will comply with state law. This compliance is stated in a
November 21, 2008, letter from HCD to the City. The compliant version of the Draft Housing
Element is dated December 2008 and is the subject of this Project Description and Initial Study.
The preparation of the Draft Housing Element has taken several years and has involved several
public meetings before the City's Housing Commission and City Council. Now that the draft has
been completed and found compliant by HCD, the Draft Housing Element and its related
General Plan Amendment (GPA) will undergo the formal approval process. After receiving a
recommendation of approval from the Housing Commission in February 2009, the GPA also will-
be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council at public hearings. These hearing are
expected to take place in summer 2009. If the City Council approves the Draft Housing
Element, it will be sent to HCD for certification.
Readers may view the HCD compliance letter and the City's Draft Housing Element, dated
December 2008, at http://www.carlsbadca.gov/pdfdoc.html?pid=528
Project Location
The City of Carlsbad is located along the Pacific coast in northern San Diego County. Carlsbad
is bounded by the city of Oceanside to the north; the city of Encinitas to the south; the cities of
San Marcos and Vista, and unincorporated San Diego County areas to the east; and the Pacific
Ocean to the west. The Draft Housing Element applies to the areas within the City limits, which
encompass approximately 42 square miles. The City contains three lagoons, extensive
agricultural lands, and several large tracts of open space.
Project Objectives
The Draft Housing Element uses the residential goals and objectives of the City's adopted Land
Use Element as a policy framework for developing more specific goals and policies in the Housing
Element. The residential goals and objectives of the Land Use Element encompass four main
themes:
1. Preservation: The City should preserve the neighborhood character, retain the identity of
existing neighborhoods, maximize open space, and ensure slope preservation.
2. Choice: The City should ensure a variety of housing types (single-family detached or
attached, multifamily apartments and condominiums) with different styles and price levels
in a variety of locations for all economic segments and throughout the City.
3. Medium and High Density Uses in Appropriate, Compatible Locations: Medium and
higher density uses should be located where compatible with adjacent land uses and where
adequately and conveniently served by commercial and employment centers, transportation
and other infrastructure, and amenities. Further, the City should encourage a variety of
residential uses in commercial areas to increase the advantages of "close-in" living and
convenient shopping.
4. Housing Needs: The City should utilize programs to revitalize deteriorating areas or those
with high potential for deterioration and seek to provide low and moderate income housing. | j
GPA 03-02-2005-2010 HO ING ELEMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR INITIAL STUDY
Page 3
Furthermore, affecting all development in Carlsbad is the Growth Management Program, the
provisions of which are incorporated into the General Plan. Developed in 1986, the Growth
Management Program ensures the timely provision of adequate pubic facilities and services to
preserve the quality of life of Carlsbad residents. Accordingly, a purpose and intent of the Growth
Management Program is to provide quality housing opportunities for all economic segments of the
community and to balance the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of
Carlsbad's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources.
The Draft Housing Element was reviewed with regard to the Growth Management Program. As
demonstrated herein, the City can meet its obligations under the law with respect to the Regional -
Housing Needs Allocation under the Growth Management Program.
Project Characteristics
Each community in California has a responsibility to provide affordable housing and help
address statewide housing needs. A process commonly known as the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA), mandated by State law, was developed to allocate the regional housing
needs to individual jurisdictions. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is
responsible for developing the RHNA for the county and the 18 cities in San Diego County.
RHNA figures are developed based on statewide housing needs; regional growth patterns; local
growth potentials; housing market eharacteristics such as construction, demolition, and vacancy
rates; and household characteristics such as average household size. Furthermore, the RHNA is
divided into four income groups based on the county Median Family Income (MFI):
• Very Low Income (up to 50 percent MFI)
• Low Income (between 51 and 80 percent MFI)
• Moderate Income (between 81 and 120 percent MFI)
• Above Moderate Income (above 120 percent MFI)
For the 2005-2010 Housing Element cycle, the State Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) projected a need for 107,301 new housing units in the San Diego region.
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is responsible for allocating this future
housing need to the 19 jurisdictions within the County. In this capacity, SANDAG developed a
RHNA that determines each jurisdiction's "fair share" of the forecasted growth through 2010.
Carlsbad's share of the regional housing need for the 2005-2010 period is allocated by SANDAG
based on factors such as recent growth trends, income distribution, and capacity for future
growth.
The City of Carlsbad was assigned a future housing need of 8,376 units for the 2005-2010
planning period, or 7.8 percent of the overall regional housing need. The City must make
available residential sites at appropriate densities and development standards to accommodate
these 8,376 units according to the following income distribution:
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR INITIAL STUDY
Page 4 ,
• Very Low Income: 1,922 units (23.0 percent)
• Low Income: 1,460 units (17.4 percent)
• Moderate Income: 1,583 units (18.9 percent)
. Above Moderate Income: 3>411 units (40.7 percent)
For San Diego County, the regional growth projected by the State was for the period between
January 1, 2003 and June 30, 2010. Therefore, while the Draft Housing Element is a five-year
document covering July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2010, the City has seven and one-half years (January
1, 2003 through June 30, 2010) to fulfill the RHNA. Therefore, housing units constructed or"
issued Certificates of Occupancy during this period can be credited toward the RHNA for this
housing cycle. As part of the City Inclusionary Housing program, a significant number of
affordable units have been constructed (or are under construction) since January 1, 2003. Overall,
based on the number of units constructed or under construction since January 1, 2003 through
December 31, 2006, the City has already met 60 percent of its RHNA, with a remaining RHNA of
3,566 units (2,395 lower and 1,171 moderate income units). Approximately 25 percent of the units
constructed or under construction during the 2003 to 2006 period are affordable to persons in the
very low, low, and moderate income categories.
Pursuant to State law, the City must demonstrate that it has adequate vacant and underutilized
residential sites at appropriate densities and development standards to accommodate the City's
RHNA. Overall, the City has the capacity to accommodate 5,280 additional units on residentially
designated land and in mixed-use and redevelopment areas. This capacity includes the ability to
accommodate 3,028 lower income, 577 moderate income, and 1,675 above moderate income units.
Combined, the City has land resources to meet the remaining RHNA of 3,566 units for lower and
moderate income households using properties designated for Residential High and Residential
Medium High densities. As the RHNA for above moderate income housing has already been
satisfied by residences constructed through 2006, there is no remaining need to address for this
income group.
In 1986, Carlsbad voters passed Proposition E, which ratified the City's Growth Management
Plan. This program lowered the City's residential buildout capacity and imposed very specific
facility improvement and/or fee requirements for all new development. The program divided the
City into four quadrants and established a dwelling unit cap per quadrant. The cap for the entire
City is 54,600 units, although the individual quadrant caps cannot be exceeded without approval
from Carlsbad voters. The accommodation of the City's RHNA can be accomplished within the
City's Growth management dwelling unit cap. While the Draft Housing Element does include
programs (e.g., 2.1 and 2.2) to increase or allow residential density on several residential and
non-residential properties for purposes of meeting the City's RHNA for lower and moderate
income housing, the Draft Housing Element does not propose housing development beyond the
total dwelling units anticipafed in the City's existing General Plan.
The Draft Housing Element includes goals, policies, and programs to further facilitate increasing
the supply of affordable housing; however, it does not directly provide for approval or
construction of any housing, nor directly change any land use designations, use, or development
standards. Individual development projects and proposed land use and code changes pursuant to
adoption and implementation of the Draft Housing Element will be subject to separate
environmental review as necessary by the City. IQ
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HO iNG ELEMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR INITIAL STUDY
PageS
Environmental Review
A Negative Declaration (SCH #2006051076) for the Draft Housing Element, dated December
2008, was circulated for public review from January 29 to February 28, 2009. (An earlier
Negative Declaration, circulated in 2006, was prepared for a now superseded version of the
Housing Element and is no longer valid.) In response to comments received on the 2009
circulation, this Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. No changes have been made
to the Draft Housing Element programs analyzed in either document.
Information on the environmental documents referenced in this document is listed below and at
the end of Part II of this document, the Initial Study. Because of its age, the General Plan Final
Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR), adopted in 1994, is used primarily for background
information.
Document
General Plan Master
EIR
Final EIR, Robertson
Ranch Master Plan
Final EIR, Ponto
Beachfront Village
Vision Plan
Negative Declaration,
Village Master Plan
and Design Manual
Changes
Dnfl- FIT? T T Tn"tT
Draft Subsequent
EIR, Former South
Coast Quarry
Amended
Reclamation Plan
Draft EIR, Bridges at
Aviara
EIR for Regional
Comprehensive Plan
Status
Certified in 1994
Certified in 2006
Certified in-2007
Adopted in 2007
Public review of
Draft EIR completed
Notice of Preparation
released February 3,
2009
Certified in 2004
3
Approving
Resolution
City Council
Resolution 94-246
City Council
Resolution 2006-324
City Council
Resolution 2007-303
City Council
Resolution 2007-274,
Housing and
Redevelopment
Commission
Resolution 446
N/AI "/ I \.
N/A (City of
Oceanside)
N/A
San Diego
Association of
Governments
Resolution 2005-01
State Clearinghouse
Identification #
93091080
2004051039
2007031141
2007071132
">r>fnfMi 1 so
2005021119
2009021030
20040111411
As mentioned, the Draft Housing Element includes programs that propose city-initiated actions
to increase or allow residential density on several properties. These actions are needed to enable
the City of Carlsbad to meet its RHNA obligation for lower and moderate income housing. The
2P
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR INITIAL STUDY
Page 6
City has also counted privately-proposed residential projects toward fulfilling its RHNA
obligation. Draft Housing Element Section 4 discusses environmental constraints and
information for all sites, whether counted because of city or private proposals.
City Proposals
Proposed programs 2.1 and 2.3 identify the need for General Plan Amendments and other land use
regulation changes for several properties, or sites. Some of these sites are already undergoing or
have completed environmental review that is relevant to Program 2.1. For example, the properties-
identified as "Ponto" and "Commercial Mixed Use Ponto" are part of the adopted Ponto
Beachfront Village Vision Plan, for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been
certified. This EIR analyzed the potential environmental impacts of high density and mixed use
residential projects at densities and unit numbers consistent with those identified in Program 2.1.
Therefore, additional environmental review is not anticipated to be necessary to adopt the required
land use changes identified in the Draft Housing Element for the Ponto properties.
In October 2007, the City Council adopted changes to the Village Master Plan and Design Manual
and other applicable documents that, among other things, established density ranges with minimum
and maximum densities in the Village Redevelopment Area. As part of this action, the City
Council also adopted a Negative Declaration, which considered the environmental impacts of 937
additional residences that could be-built in the Village area as a result of the changes. Under
Program 2.1, the increased minimum densities proposed in the Village area, which are within the
adopted density ranges, would allow up to 875 of the 937 units. Therefore, additional
environmental review is not required to implement Program 2.1 changes to the Village Master Plan
and Design Manual and other applicable regulations.
Another site identified in Program 2.1 is Quarry Creek. Quarry Creek is an approximately 100
acre property in Carlsbad. Hard rock mining was undertaken over several decades on portions of
the property. Mining also took place on adjacent property in the City of Oceanside, all but about
four acres of which has been already reclaimed and developed as a shopping center.
For the 100 acre Quarry Creek property in Carlsbad, the City's General Plan currently designates
about 76 acres of the site for residential development and 24 acres as open space. The program
proposes two new residential land use designations to replace the property's current residential
designation that would increase the density currently allowed and in turn increase the housing unit
yield. The program does not propose any particular site design as part of the-density increase. The
City of Oceanside, as lead agency per agreement with the City of Carlsbad, has circulated a Draft
EIR for the reclamation of past mining activities at Quarry Creek (listed above as "Draft
Subsequent EIR, Former South Coast Quarry Amended Reclamation Plan"). Although in draft
form, the environmental document provides relevant information to consideration of the Quarry
Creek site. If certified by Oceanside, the mitigation measures identified in the Quarry Creek EIR
can be implemented by Carlsbad, the agency responsible to review, approve, and issue all
discretionary and grading permits for all work necessary to complete the reclamation for the
majority of the Quarry Creek property that is located in the City of Carlsbad. The permits filed
with Carlsbad include Special Use Permit (floodplain) SUP 07-03, Habitat Management Plan
Permit HMP 07-06, and Hillside Development Permit HDP 07-01. However, it is recognized that
implementation of land use changes identified for the Quarry Creek site per Program 2.1 will
require its own environmental review. n |
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HCL ,ING ELEMENT
PROJECT DESCPJPTION FOR INITIAL STUDY
Page?
Program 2.1 proposes other changes to land use designations and standards as follows:
• Increase the minimum densities of the residential RMH and RH General Plan land use
designations as follows. Existing density information is provided for perspective:
Designation
RMH
RH
Densities*
Existing
Minimum
density
8.5
15
Existing
Growth
Management
Control Point
11.5
19
Proposed
Minimum
Density
12
20
Existing
maximum
density
15
23
*AH densities in housing units per acre.
The proposed minimum density increases affect underutilized and vacant, unentitled
properties in the RMH and RH designations. These properties are generally small and
scattered throughout Carlsbad. When compared to existing minimum densities, the
increased minimum densities potentially enable approximately 150 more units to be built.
This increase in units would not cause Growth Management dwelling unit caps to be
exceeded nor exceed 'residential buildout figures as estimated by the General Plan.
However, Government Code Section 65863, provisions of which were incorporated into
the Carlsbad General Plan and Zoning Ordinance in 2004, restricts a city's ability to
approve densities below those utilized to determine compliance with housing element
law. For the previous housing element, which was in effect in 2004, densities utilized to
determine compliance were those at the Growth Management Control Point (GMCP). For
the Draft Housing Element, the GMCP is also used to determine housing law compliance,
except where densities increases are proposed as described in this paragraph, Program
2.1, and as part of the private proposal discussed below and in the Draft Housing
Element.
In keeping with Section 65863, residential projects approved by the City have densities
generally at or near the GMCP. Densities are permitted below the GMCP only if specific
findings are made.
As evidenced in the table above, the proposed minimum densities of 12 and 20 units per
acre represent only slight increases over the Growth Management Control Points for the
RMH and RH designations. These minor density changes potentially increase the yield
by 25 additional units on properties designated RMH and RH when compared to existing
Growth Management Control Points. Because the density increase is slight and affected
parcels are scattered throughout Carlsbad, the City does not anticipate implementation of
this component of Program 2.1 will require additional environmental review.
The proposed minimum densities will apply to other projects discussed herein as well,
such as Quarry Creek and La Costa Town Square, and the proposed densities have been
or will be considered in the environmental documents for those other projects.
7/2,
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR INITIAL STUDY
PageS
• Allow housing, in the form of mixed use residential and commercial projects, in
Carlsbad's commercial zones. Such uses are already conditionally permitted in the City's
commercial districts. Program 2.1 would allow mixed use residential by right, rather than
by conditional use permit. The City does not anticipate this program will require
additional environmental review.
• Amend land use designations in the Barrio Area to permit higher density residential than
currently exists and mixed-use (commercial and residential) development. Preparation of
development standards and land use changes will require environmental review.
Private Proposals
Additionally, the Draft Housing Element relies on private projects, identified in many of the
tables of Draft Housing Element Section 3, which have been approved or are undergoing the
review process. Since these are private projects and not proposed city actions, they are not
included in any Draft Housing Element programs. For the approved projects, including
Robertson Ranch (see Table 3-4) and others (see Table 3-11), all environmental analysis has
been completed to enable the projects to be built as reported in the Draft Housing Element.
Further, Table 3-12 identifies the construction of 80 second dwelling units toward meeting the
City's lower income housing need. As accessory uses to single-family dwellings, second
dwelling units are exempt from environmental review. • ;
Table 3-4 also identifies the Bridges at Aviara and La Costa Town Square as twe-a proposed
project with units; to help meet the City's RHNA. As indicated in the table above, an EIR s-afe
currently is being prepared for eaeh-the Bridges at Aviara project. In addition, this feetfe project
proposes amendments to the General Plan and other regulatory documents as needed to provide
the land use designations, densities, and housing unit numbers as identified in Table 3-4.
Accordingly, no subsequent environmental review will be necessary.
SANDAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Smart Growth
In 2004, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) adopted the Regional
Comprehensive Plan (RCP) for the San Diego region. The RCP provides a vision for the region
based on smart growth and sustainability. The RCP is the long-range planning document that
addresses the region's housing, economic, transportation, environmental and overall quality of
life needs. A key implementation action of the RCP has been the development of a "Smart
Growth Concept Map" illustrating the location of existing, planned, and potential smart growth
areas. The SANDAG Board accepted an initial Smart Growth Concept Map in 2006 and an
updated Concept Map in 2008.
The RCP defines smart growth as a compact, efficient, and environmentally-sensitive pattern of
development that provides people with additional travel, housing, and employment choices by
focusing future growth away from rural areas and closer to existing and planned job centers and
public facilities, while preserving open space and natural resources and making more efficient
use of existing urban infrastructure.
The updated Concept Map identifies four smart growth areas in Carlsbad, all of which are
proposed in the Draft Housing Element as sites for high density residential and/or mixed use
development. These sites fit the smart growth definition because they are in or near developed /_, J?
GPA 03-02-2005-2010 HO, ,ING ELEMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR INITIAL STUDY
Page 9
areas and are proximate to major transportation corridors, transit facilities, job centers, and
public facilities and amenities. They also comply with the City's General Plan policies guiding
the location of high density housing and mixed use projects. As identified in the Draft Housing
Element, these sites are the Barrio Area, Village Redevelopment Area, Quarry Creek, Ponto, and
Plaza Camino Real. The Barrio and Village Redevelopment areas are counted as one smart
growth area in the RCP.
As part of its 2004 adoption of the RCP, SANDAG certified a Program EIR. As a program level
document, the certified EIR analyzes potential environmental impacts at a broad, rather than
project-specific, level. In addition, since it was prepared before the concept maps, the EIR did-
not analyze any of the maps' smart growth areas, including those in Carlsbad. The Program EIR
mitigation measures apply to projects in general and recognize that proposed smart growth
projects, for example, will be subject to subsequent environmental review to address potential
individual environmental impacts. As discussed below, mitigation measures are proposed to
ensure potential impacts associated with implementation of Draft Housing Element programs,
'including that which feature smart growth sites as identified in the RCP, are adequately analyzed
and addressed.
Conclusion
In the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), mitigation measures are
included to reduce identified potential significant impacts to a less than significant level for
housing facilitated by the Draft Housing Element. However, these mitigation measures will not
be applied to the approved city and private proposal projects discussed above that have already
undergone environmental review. At a minimum, projects still pending completion of
environmental review will comply with all applicable mitigation measures identified in the
MMRP and/or they will comply with equal or better mitigation measures specifically developed
as each project progresses.
Housing Plan
The Housing Plan section of the Draft Housing Element establishes a policy framework to guide
City decision-making to meet identified goals and objectives and is implemented through a series
of housing policies and programs offered by the City. The housing programs outlined below
represent actions the City of Carlsbad will undertake to promote housing opportunities for all
segments of the community. Because of their continued success and relevancy, many of the goals,
objectives, policies, and programs contained in the Housing Plan have been .carried forward from
the City's previous Housing Element, adopted in 2000.
These programs outlined below are from the Draft Housing Element dated December 2008. Since
only programs are identified below, the reader is referred to Section 6 of the Draft Housing
Element for all goals, objectives, policies and other information contained in the Housing Plan.
Draft Housing Element Programs
Preservation
Preserving the existing housing stock and avoiding deterioration that often leads to the need for
substantial rehabilitation is one of the City's goals. In addition, it is important to preserve o \
£~>\
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR INITIAL STUDY
Page 10
affordable housing units in the community to maintain adequate housing opportunities for all
residents.
Program 1.1: Condominium Conversion
The City will continue to discourage and/or restrict condominium conversions when such
conversions would reduce the number of low or moderate income housing units available
throughout the City. All condominium conversions are subject to the City's Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance; the in-lieu fees or actual affordable units required by the ordinance would be used to
mitigate the loss of affordable rental units from the City's housing stock.
Program 1.2: Mobile Home Park Preservation
The City will continue to implement the City's Residential Mobile Home Park zoning ordinance
(Municipal Code 21.37) that sets conditions on changes of use or conversions of Mobile Home
Parks.
The City will also assist lower income tenants to research the financial feasibility of purchasing
their mobile home parks so as to maintain the rents at levels affordable to its tenants.
Program 1.3: Acquisition/Rehabilitation of Rental Housing
The City will continue to provide assistance to preserve the existing stock of low and moderate
income rental housing, including: - •
• Provide loans, grants, and/or rebates to owners of rental properties to make needed repairs
and rehabilitation.
• Acquire and rehabilitate rental housing that is substandard, deteriorating or in danger of
being demolished. Set-aside at least 20 percent of the rehabilitated units for very low
income households.
• Provide deferral or subsidy of planning and building fees, and priority processing.
Priority will be given to housing identified by the Building Department as being substandard or
deteriorating, and which houses lower income and in some cases moderate income households.
Program 1.4: Rehabilitation of Owner-Occupied Housing
As the housing stock ages, the need for rehabilitation assistance may increase. The City will
provide assistance to homeowners to rehabilitate deteriorating housing. Energy conservation
improvements are eligible activities under the City's rehabilitation assistance. Assistance will
include financial incentives in the form of low interest and deferred payment loans, and rebates.
Households targeted for assistance include lower-income and special needs (disabled, large, arid
senior) households.
Program 1.5: Preservation of At-Risk Housing
One project - Seascape Village - within the City may be considered as at risk. This project has
deed restrictions on 42 units that are set to expire January 1, 2009. The City will monitor the
status of projects such as Seascape Village that may be at-risk, ensure tenants receive proper
GPA 03-02-2005-2010 HO. xNG ELEMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR INITIAL STUDY
Page 11
notification of any changes and are aware of available special Section 8 vouchers, and contact
nonprofit housing developers to solicit interest in acquiring and managing at risk projects.
Housing Opportunities
A healthy, sustainable community relies on its diversity and its ability to maintain balance among
different groups. The City encourages the production of new housing units that offer a wide range
of housing types to meet the varied needs of its diverse population. A balanced inventory of
housing in terms of unit type (e.g., single-family, apartment, condominium, etc.), cost, and
architectural style will allow the City to fulfill a variety of housing needs.
Program 2.1: Adequate Sites
The City will continue to monitor the absorption of residential acreage in all densities and, if
needed, recommend the creation of additional residential acreage at densities sufficient to meet the
City's housing need for current and future residents. Any such actions shall be undertaken only
where consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
• In order to ensure that adequate residential acreage at appropriate densities is available to
meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) the City will implement
the following objectives:
• The City shall process a general plan amendment(s) to redesignate a minimum net
acreage of each site in Table 6-1 to RH and require that the redesignated sites be
developed, at a minimum density of 20 units per acre. As part of this program, the City
shall also process all necessary amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and other planning
documents, such as master or specific plans.
Table 6-1
General Plan Amendment (RH): Ponto and Quarry Creek
Property
Ponto
Quarry Creek
Commercial
Mixed Use
Ponto
APN
216-140-17
Portions of 167-040-
21
Portion of 2 16- HO-
IS
Approximate
Minimum Acres to be
Redesignated to RH
6.4
.15.0
2.8
Density
Yield
128
300
28
The City shall process a general plan amendment(s) to redesignate a minimum net
acreage of each site" in Table 6-2 to RMH and require that the redesignated site be
developed at a minimum density of 12 units per acre. As part of this program, the City
shall also process all necessary amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and other planning
documents, such as master or specific plans.
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR INITIAL STUDY
Page 12
Table 6-2
General Plan Amendment (RMH): Quarry Creek
Property
Quarry Creek
APN
Portions of 167-040-
21
Approximate Minimum
Acres to be
Re-designated to RMH
17 '
Density
Yield
200
The City shall process general plan amendments to establish minimum densities of 12
units per acre and 20 units per acre for the RMH and RH land use designations,
respectively, except for those RH designated properties in the Beach Area Overlay Zone.
Residential projects and mixed use projects with residential components within the
Village Redevelopment Area shall be developed at minimum densities equal to 80% of
the maximum of the density range. For land use districts 1-4 (density range of 15 - 35
units per acre), as specified in the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and
Design Manual, 80% shall be 28 units per acre. For land use districts 5-9 (density range
of 15 - 23 units per acre), 80% shall be 18 units per acre. Furthermore, the City shall
approve modifications to development standards of the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment
Master Plan and.Design Manual if a project satisfactorily demonstrates as determined by
the City that such modifications are necessary to achieve the minimum densities.
The City shall process amendments to the general plan and zoning ordinance and process
other planning documents as necessary to establish and permit the minimum densities,
areas, and land uses as described in Section 3 and specified in Tables 3-4, 3-6 and 3-9 for
the Barrio Area.
The City shall amend its zoning ordinance, general plan, and other land use documents as
necessary to permit residential in a mixed use format on shopping center sites and
commercial areas with a General Plan designations of "CL" and "R" and zoning
designations of "C-L," "C-l" and "C-2," and/or other general plan and zoning
designations as appropriate. Mixed use residential on shopping center and commercial
sites shall be at a minimum density of 20 units per acre.
The City will encourage the consolidation of small parcels in order to facilitate larger-
scale developments. Specifically, the City will make available an inventory of vacant
and underutilized properties to interested developers, market infill and redevelopment
opportunities throughout the City, particularly in the Village Redevelopment Area and
proposed Barrio Area, and meet with developers to identify and discuss potential project
sites.
For the Barrio Area, incentives shall be developed to encourage the consolidation of
parcels and thus the feasibility of affordable housing. These incentives shall include
increased density and other standards modifications. Incentives are not necessary for the
Village Redevelopment Area as standards modifications (including increased density) are
already permitted for affordable housing, "green" buildings, and projects which meet the 1
GPA 03-02- 2005-2010 H(X .NG ELEMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR INITIAL STUDY
Page 13
goals and objectives of the Village (which include residential and mixed use
developments).
Program 2.2: Flexibility in Development Standards
The Planning Department, in its review of development applications, may recommend waiving or
modifying certain development standards, or propose changes to the Municipal Code to encourage
the development of low and moderate income housing.
Program 2.3: Mixed Use
The City will encourage mixed-use developments that include a residential component. Major
commercial centers should incorporate, where appropriate, mixed commercial/residential uses.
Major industrial/office centers, where not precluded by environmental and safety considerations,
should incorporate mixed industrial/office/residential uses.
• As described in Program 2.1, the City shall amend the zoning ordinance and other
necessary land use documents to permit residential mixed use at 20 units per acre on
shopping center sites and commercial areas.
Program 2.4: Energy Conservation
The City of Carlsbad has established requirements, programs, and actions to improve household
energy efficiency, promote sustainability, and lower utility costs.
• Enforce California building and subdivision requirements by requiring compliance with
state energy efficiency standards (including adoption of the California Energy Code, 2007
Edition) and state Subdivision Map Act energy conservation provisions (Government Code
section 66473.1). This latter code section requires subdivision design to provide future
homes with passive or natural heating opportunities to the extent feasible through, for
example, lot orientation.
• Encourage solar water heating by requiring new residential construction (ownership
dwelling units only) to pre-plumb to accommodate solar hot water systems. This
requirement has been in effect since 1981.
• Promote and participate in regional water conservation programs that allow Carlsbad
Municipal Water District (CMWD) residents to receive rebates for water efficient clothes
washing machines and toilets, free on-site water use surveys, and vouchers for weather-
based irrigation controllers. The City publicizes these programs on its website at
www.carlsbadca.gov/water/ wdtips.html. CMWD serves approximately 75 percent of the
City.
CMWD is also a signatory t6 the California Urban Water Conservation Council Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU"). Signatories to the MOU implement 14 Best Management Practices
that have received a consensus among water agencies and conservation advocates as the best and
most realistic methods to produce significant water savings from conservation.
In 1991, Carlsbad adopted a five-phase Recycled Water Master Plan designed to save potable
water. The result is that CMWD has the most aggressive water recycling program in the region
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR INITIAL STUDY
Page 14
when measured in terms of percent of supply derived from recycled water. In its 2005 Urban
Water Management Plan, CMWD estimates that in 2020 seven percent of the water needs of the
area it serves will be met by conservation, 21 percent by recycled water usage, and 72 percent by
desalinated water.
• In the Village Redevelopment Area, encourage energy conservation and higher density
development by the modification of development standards as necessary to:
o Enable developments to qualify for silver level or higher LEED (Leadership in"
Energy & Environmental .Design) Certification, or a comparable green building
rating, and to maintain the financial feasibility of the development with such
certification.
o Achieve densities at or above the minimum required if the applicant can provide
acceptable evidence that application of the development standards precludes
development at such densities.
Modifications may include but are not limited to changes to density, parking standards,
building setbacks and height, and open space.
• Facilitate resource conservation for all households by making available through a
competitive process Community Development Block Grants to non-profit organizations
that could use such funds to replace windows, plumbing fixtures, and other physical
improvements in lower-income neighborhoods, shelters, and transitional housing.
• Per General Plan policy, reduce fossil fuel consumption and pollution and improve
residents' health by requiring:
o New development to provide pedestrian and bike linkages, when feasible, which
connect with nearby community centers, parks, school, and other points of interest
and major transportation corridors.
o Multi-family uses to locate near commercial centers, employment centers, and
major transportation corridors.
• Designate "smart growth" areas in the City to help implement the San Diego Association
of Governments Regional Comprehensive Plan vision for compact, sustainable growth.
• Per the City's Growth Management Program:
o Facilitate development of higher density, affordable, and compact development
by allowing withdrawals from the City's Excess Dwelling Unit Bank (see Section
4 for further'details) only for certain qualifying projects; these projects include
transit-oriented/smart growth developments, senior and affordable housing, and
density bonus requests.
o Encourage infill development in urbanized areas before allowing extensions of
pubic facilities and improvements to areas which have yet to be urbanized.
Program 3.1: Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
The City will continue to implement its Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that requires 15 percent
of all residential units within any Master Plan/Specific Plan community or other qualified
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOi .*NG ELEMENT '
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR INITIAL STUDY
Page 15
subdivision (currently seven units or more) be restricted and affordable to lower income
households. This program requires an agreement between all residential developers subject to this
inclusionary requirement and the City which stipulates:
• the number of required lower income inclusionary units;
• the designated sites for the location of the units;
• a phasing schedule for production of the units; and
• the term of affordability for the units.
For all subdivisions of fewer than seven units, payment of a fee in lieu of inclusionary units is
permitted. The fee is based on a detailed study that calculated the difference in cost to produce a
market rate rental unit versus a lower-income affordable unit. As of September 1, 2006, the in-lieu
fee per market- rate dwelling unit was $4,515. The fee amount may be modified by the City
Council from time-to-time and is collected at the time of building permit issuance for the market
rate units. The City will continue to utilize inclusionary in-lieu fees collected to assist in the
development of affordable units.
The City will also continue to consider other in-lieu contributions allowed by the Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance, such as an irrevocable offer to dedicate developable land.
Program 3.2: Excess Dwelling Unit'Bank
The City will continue to maintain, monitor and manage the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank,
composed of "excess units" anticipated under the City's Growth Management Plan, but not utilized
by developers in approved projects. The City will continue to make excess units available for
inclusion in other projects using such tools as density transfers, density bonuses and changes to the
General Plan land use designations per Council Policy Statement 43.
Based on analysis conducted in Section 4, Constraints and Mitigating Opportunities, the City has
adequate excess dwelling units to accommodate the remaining RHNA of 2,395 units for lower and
1,171 units for moderate income households, which would require the withdrawal of 2,830 units
from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank.
Program 3.3: Density Bonus
In 2004, the State adopted new density bonus provisions (SB 1818) that went into effect on
January 1, 2005. Consistent with the new State law (Government Code sections 65913.4 and
65915), the City will continue to offer residential density bonuses as a means of encouraging
affordable housing development. In exchange for setting aside a portion of the development as
units affordable to lower and moderate income households, the City will grant a bonus over the
otherwise allowed density, and up to three financial incentives or regulatory concessions. These
units must remain affordable for a period of 30 years and each project must enter into an agreement
with the City to be monitored by the Housing and Redevelopment Department for compliance.
The density bonus increases with the proportion of affordable units set aside and the depth of
affordability (e.g. very low income versus low income, or moderate income). The maximum
density bonus a developer can receive is 35 percent when a project provides 11 percent of the
units for very low income households, 20 percent for low income households, or 40 percent for
moderate income households.
GPA 03 -02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR INITIAL STUDY
Page 16
Financial incentives and regulatory concessions may include but are not limited to: fee waivers,
reduction or waiver of development standards, in-kind infrastructure improvements, an additional
density bonus above the requirement, mixed use development, or other financial contributions.
Program 3.4: City-Initiated Development
The City, through the Housing and Redevelopment Department, will continue to work with private
developers (both for-profit and non-profit) to create housing opportunities for low, very low and
extremely low income households.
Program 3.5: Affordable Housing Incentives
The City uses Redevelopment Housing Set-Aside Funds and Housing Trust Funds to offer a
number of incentives to facilitate affordable housing development. Incentives may include:
• Payment of public facility fees;
• In-kind infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to street improvements,
sewer improvements, other infrastructure improvements as needed;
• Priority processing, including accelerated plan-check process, for projects that do not
require extensive engineering or environmental review; and
• Discretionary consideration of density increases above the maximum permitted by the
General Plan through review and approval of a Site Development Pjan (SDP).
Program 3.6: Land Banking
The City will continue to implement a land banking program to acquire land suitable for
development of housing affordable to lower and moderate income households. The Land Bank
may accept contributions of land in-lieu of housing production required under an inclusionary
requirement, surplus land from the City or other public entities, and land otherwise acquired by the
City for its housing programs. This land would be used to reduce the land costs of producing
lower and moderate income housing by the City or other parties.
The City has already identified a list of nonprofit developers active in the region. When a City-
owned or acquired property is available, the City will solicit the participation of these nonprofits to
develop affordable housing. Affordable Housing Funds will be made available to facilitate
development and the City will assist in the entitlement process.
Program 3.7: Housing Trust Fund
The City will continue to maintain the various monies reserved for affordable housing, and
constituting the Housing Trust Fund, for the fiduciary administration of monies dedicated to the
development, preservation and rehabilitation of housing in Carlsbad. The Trust Fund will be the
repository of all collected in-lieu fees, impact fees, housing credits and related revenues targeted
for proposed housing as well' as other local, state and federal funds.
Program 3.8: Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
The Carlsbad Housing Authority will continue to operate the City's Section 8 Housing Choice
Voucher program to provide rental assistance to very low income households.
GPA 03-02-2005-2010 HOI .NG ELEMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR INITIAL STUDY
Page 17
Program 3.9: Mortgage Credit Certificates
The City participates in the San Diego Regional Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program. By
obtaining a MCC during escrow, a qualified homebuyer can qualify for an increased loan amount.
The MCC entitles the homebuyer to take a federal income tax credit of 20 percent of the annual
interest paid on the mortgage. This credit reduces the federal income taxes of the buyer, resulting
in an increase in the buyer's net earnings.
Program 3.10: Senior Housing
The City will continue to encourage a wide variety of senior housing opportunities, especially for
lower-income seniors with special needs, through the provision of financial assistance and
regulatory incentives as specified in the City's Senior Housing Overlay zone. Projects assisted
with these incentives will be subjected to the monitoring and reporting requirements to assure
compliance with approved project conditions.
In addition, the City has sought and been granted Article 34 authority by its voters to produce 200
senior-only affordable housing units. The City would need to access'its Article 34 authority only
when it functions as the owner of the project, where the City owns more than 51 percent of the
development.
Program 3.11: Housing for Persons with Disabilities
The City will adopt an ordinance to establish a "formal policy on offering reasonable
accommodations to persons with disabilities with regard to the construction, rehabilitation, and
improvement of housing. The ordinance will specify the types of requests that may be
considered reasonable accommodation, the procedure and reviewing/approval bodies for the
requests, and waivers that the City may offer to facilitate the development and rehabilitation of
housing for persons with disabilities.
Program 3.12: Housing for Large Families
In those developments that are required to include 10 or more units affordable to lower-income
households, at least 10 percent of the lower income units should have three or more bedrooms.
This requirement does not pertain to lower-income senior housing projects.
Program 3.13: Farm Labor Housing
Pursuant to the State Employee Housing Act, the City permits by right employee housing for six or
fewer in all residential zones where a single-family residence is permitted. Farm labor housing for
12 persons in a group quarters or 12 units intended for families is permitted by right on properties
where agricultural uses are permitted. In 2004, the City amended the Zoning Code to
conditionally permit farm labor housing for more than 12 persons in a group quarters or 12
units/spaces for households in the E-A, O, C-l, C-2, C-T, C-M, M, P-M, P-U, 0-S, C-F and C-L
zones.
j
Program 3.14: Housing for the Homeless
Carlsbad will continue to facilitate the acquisition, for lease or sale, of suitable sites for emergency
shelters and transitional housing for the homeless population. This facilitation will include:
• Participating in a regional or sub-regional summit(s) including decision-makers from North
County jurisdictions and SANDAG for the purposes of coordinating efforts and resources
to address homelessness;
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PROJECT DESCPJPTION FOR INITIAL STUDY
Page 18
• Assisting local non-profits and charitable organizations in securing state and federal
funding for the acquisition, construction and management of shelters;
• Continuing to provide funding for local and sub-regional homeless service providers that
operate temporary and emergency shelters; and
• Identifying a specific zoning district in the City where emergency shelters will be permitted
by right, with the following criteria:
o The appropriate zoning district will offer easy access to public transportation and
supportive services.
o The zoning district should also contain adequate vacant and underutilized sites or
building that can be converted to accommodate emergency shelters.
o Besides being subject to the same development standards applied to other
development in the specified zoning district, the City will establish objective
development standards to regulate the following: 1) the maximum number of
beds/persons, permitted to be served nightly; 2) off-street parking based on
demonstrated need, but not to exceed parking requirements for other residential or
commercial uses in the same zone; 3) The size/location of exterior and interior
onsite waiting and client intake areas; 4) The provision of onsite management; 5)
The proximity of other emergency shelters, provided that emergency shelters are
not required to be more than 300 feet apart; 6) The length; of stay; 7) Lighting; and
8) Security during hours that the emergency shelter is in operation.
Program 3.15: Transitional and Supportive Housing
Currently, the City's Zoning Ordinance does not address the provision of transitional housing and
supportive housing. The City will amend the Zoning Ordinance to clearly define transitional
housing and supportive housing. When such housing is developed as group quarters, they should
be permitted as residential care facilities. When operated as regular multi-family rental housing,
transitional and supportive housing should be permitted by right as a multi-family residential use
in multi-family zones.
Program 3.16: Supportive Services for Homeless and Special Needs Groups
The City will continue to provide CDBG funds to community, social welfare, non-profit and other
charitable groups that provide services for those with special needs in the North County area.
Furthermore, the City will work with agencies and organizations that receive CDBG funds to offer
a City Referral Service for homeless shelter and other supportive services.
Program 3.17: Alternative Housing
The City will continue to implement its Second Dwelling Unit Ordinance (Section 21.10.015 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code) %nd will continue to consider alternative types of housing, such as
hotels and managed living units.
Program 3.18: Military and Student Referrals
The City will assure that information on the availability of assisted or below-market housing is
provided to all lower-income and special needs groups. The Housing and Redevelopment Agency
will provide information to local military and student housing offices of the availability of low-
income housing in Carlsbad.
GPA 03-02-2005-2010 HO, ,NG ELEMENT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR INITIAL STUDY
Page 19
Program 3.19: Coastal Housing Monitoring
As a function of the building process, the City will monitor and record Coastal Zone housing data
including, but not limited to, the following:
1) The number of new housing units approved for construction within the coastal zone after
January 1,1982.
2) The number of housing units for persons and families of low or moderate income, as
defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, required to be provided in new
housing developments within the coastal zone.
3) The number of existing residential dwelling units occupied by persons and families of low
or moderate income that are authorized to be demolished or converted in the coastal zone
pursuant to Section 65590 of the Government Code.
4) The number of residential dwelling units occupied by persons and families of low or
moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code that are
required for replacement or authorized to be converted or demolished as identified above.
The location of the replacement units, either onsite, elsewhere within the City's coastal
zone, or within three miles of the coastal zone in the City, shall be designated in the review.
Program 3.20: Housing Element Annual Report
To retain the Housing Element as a viable policy document, the Planning Department will
undertake an annual review of the Housing Element and schedule an amendment if required. As
required, staff also monitors the City's progress in implementing the Housing Element and
prepares corresponding reports to the City Council, SANDAG, and California Department of
Housing and Community Development annually.
Fair Housing
Equal access to housing is a fundamental right protected by both State and Federal laws. The City
of Carlsbad is committed to fostering a housing environment in which housing opportunities are
available and open to all.
Program 4.1: Fair Housing Services
With assistance from outside fair housing agencies, the City will continue to offer fair housing
services to its residents and property owners. Services include:
• Distributing educational materials to property owners, apartment managers, and tenants;
• Making public announcements via different media (e.g. newspaper ads and public service
announcements at local radio and television channels);
• Conducting public presentations with different community groups;
• Monitoring and responding to complaints of discrimination (i.e. intaking, investigation of
complaints, and resolution); and
• Referring services to appropriate agencies.
II. Initial Study (Environmental Impact Assessment Form)
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: GPA 03-02
DATE: May 29. 2009
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT -
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv of Carlsbad - 1635 Faradav Avenue. Carlsbad.
CA 92008-7314
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Scott Donnell. Senior Planner- (760) 602-
4618
4. PROJECT LOCATION: Citywide
5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Same as Lead Agencv. above
6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: N/A - Citvwide ',_
7. ZONING: N/A-Citvwide
8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing
approval or participation agreements): Once adopted by the Citv. certification of the Draft
Housing Element from the State Department of Housing and Community Development.
Division of Housing Policy Development is required.
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES: See Project Description
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
X Aesthetics X] Geology/Soils X Noise
XI Agricultural Resources [><] Hazards/Hazardous Materials U Population and Housing
X] Air Quality
X Biological Resources
X Cultural Resources
X Hydrology/Water Quality X Public Services
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Recreation
X Mandatory Findings of
Significance
X Transportation/Circulation
X Utilities & Service Systems
Rev. 11/17/08
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have
been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required.
Planner Signature Date
Planning Director's Signature Date
3 - Rev. 11/17/08
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The
Environmental Impact Assessment appears in. the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist
identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides
the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported
by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to
projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source
document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
• "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not
significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
• "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact."
The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
• "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly
adverse.
• Based on an "EIA-Initial Study",-if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on
the environment, but all potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an
earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a
supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental
document is required.
• When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR
if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made
pursuant to that earlier EIR.
• A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or
any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment.
• If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there
are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation
measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially
Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration
may be prepared.
Rev. 11/17/08
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
« An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to
the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or
mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation
measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding
Considerations" for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3)
proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the
EIA-Initial Study analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse
effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to
below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears after each related set of questions.
Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined
significant.
Rev. 11/17/08
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but
not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a State scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
a - c) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. . The City of Carlsbad is a coastal city comprised
of a diverse scenic landscape with coastal bluffs, several lagoons, and various valleys and canyons surrounded by
rolling foothills. Much of the City is in open space, with scenic resources prevalent throughout the City.
The Draft Housing Element will not result directly in the construction of any housing. However, all future
development facilitated by the Draft Housing Element policies and programs will be're viewed and constructed in
accordance with the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code and the Local Coastal Program.-'-Many of the scenic resources
in Carlsbad are areas precluded from development by existing City regulations. Housing development will be
subject to development standards such as Title 21, which precludes development on beaches, bodies of water,
natural slopes over 40%, significant wetlands, or significant riparian or woodland habitats. In addition, Carlsbad's
Growth Management policies require 15% of the developable land in the City to be preserved as open space. The
Local Coastal Program includes policies that preserve sensitive natural resources, significant slopes and public
views.
The City is not located near a State Scenic highway (California Department of Transportation). The City has
adopted Scenic Corridor Guidelines for several major Carlsbad streets and the railroad. Currently, only the El
Camino Real corridor features an overlay zone with specific development standards to recognize its scenic
designation, although the adopted Scenic Corridor Guidelines contain general criteria for landscaping, site design
and architecture, and signs. All projects adjacent to El Camino Real and other streets designated as scenic corridors,
including housing developments, are reviewed for consistency with these standards and guidelines.
All future development facilitated by the Draft Housing Element policies and programs will be reviewed and
constructed in accordance with the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code and the Local Coastal Program. However, as
the City develops, scenic resources could be negatively affected, which is considered a significant impact.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
• A-l As applicable, all future development projects in the City shall comply with the following
requirements:
o Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 21.53 and California Environmental Quality Act - Preservation of
steep slopes (40% or greater) and other environmentally constrained areas (i.e., wetlands and
floodways).
o The open space and sensitive habitat preservation requirements of the City of Carlsbad Habitat
Management Plan.
Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
o El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards.
o Hillside Development Ordinance (contour/landform grading, screening graded slopes, landscape
buffers, reduction of slope heights and grading, sensitive hillside architecture).
o Planned Development Ordinance and Design Guidelines Manual,
o Landscape Guidelines Manual
o City Council Policy No. 44 - Architectural Guidelines for the Development of Livable
Communities.
o City Council Policy No. 66 - Principles for the Development of Livable Neighborhoods
o Growth Management Ordinance - Requirement for 15% performance standards open space
o Zoning Regulations (i.e., setback, coverage, signage, and height, etc.)
o City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program
• A-2 As applicable, all future development projects in the City shall comply with the following General
Plan policies:
o Arrange land use so that they preserve community identity and are orderly, functionally efficient,
healthful, convenient to the public and aesthetically pleasing. (Land Use Element, Overall Land
Use Pattern, C.I)
o Ensure that the review of future projects places a high priority on the compatibility of adjacent land
uses. (Land Use Element, Overall Land Use Pattern, C.2)
o Review the architecture of buildings with a focus on ensuring the quality and integrity of design
and enhancement of the character of each neighborhood. (Land Use Element, Overall Land Use
Pattern, C.€) -:
o Ensure that grading for building pads and roadways is accomplished in a manner that maintains the
appearance of natural hillsides (Land Use Element, Environmental, C.3)
d.) Potentially Significant impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Future housing facilitated by the Draft
Housing Element could introduce new sources of light (street lights, security lighting, etc.), and substantial light and
glare affecting nighttime views is an aesthetic concern. New sources of light due to urban development could also
have a negative affect when adjacent to open space and sensitive natural resource areas. These impacts are
considered significant without mitigation; however, implementation of the following mitigation measures will
reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.
• A-3 As applicable, developers shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of an exterior
lighting plan, including parking areas, recreation areas and other applicable components of residential
projects. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or
property. For any lighting adjacent to or within 100 feet of open space and sensitive habitat areas, the
lighting plan shall demonstrate compliance with the Adjacency Standards of the Carlsbad Habitat
Management Plan.
• A-4 Construction lighting shall be shielded or directed away from adjacent residences and sensitive
receptors to light, including sensitive habitats.
• A-5 All projects adjacent to open space and sensitive habitat areas shall comply with the lighting
recommendations found in the Adjacency Standards of the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan, including
the following:
o Eliminate lighting in or adjacent to the preserve areas except where essential for roadway, facility
use and safety and security purposes.
Rev. 12/13/07
II.
( GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
o Use low pressure sodium illumination sources. Do not use low voltage outdoor or trail lighting,
spot lights, or bug lights. Shield light sources adjacent to the preserve so that the lighting is
focused downward.
o Avoid excessive lighting in developments adjacent to linkages through appropriate placement and
shielding of light sources.
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California
Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would
the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment,
which, due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
a, c) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. According to the San Diego County Important
Farmland 2006 map, published by the California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program, the City of Carlsbad contains a limited number of areas considered Prime Farmland and Farmland of
Statewide Importance. The Draft Housing Element will not alter existing General Plan policies and designations or
Zoning Ordinance standards regarding agricultural resources. Additionally, the City's Local Coastal Program (LCP)
policies address the issue of premature conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses by establishing programs
which require mitigation, including impact fees, for agricultural conversion.
The existing General Plan and goals and policies regarding agricultural uses provide for the preservation of
agricultural lands and prevention of their premature conversion to urban uses. While the City supports agriculture, it
also recognizes its possible transition to urban uses. Where important farmlands exist, this could result in
significant impacts if these lands are converted to urban uses. Implementation of the following mitigation measures
will reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.
• AR-1 Within the Coastal Zone, projects that would convert farmland must comply with the agricultural
conversion requirements of the Local Coastal Program.
• AR-2 For any project that would convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance, a California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model Analysis must
be prepared to identify potential impacts to important agricultural lands.
Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
b. No Impact) There are no Williamson Act contracts in effect in Carlsbad and the Draft Housing Element does not
propose to convert any properties currently zoned for agriculture to residential uses; therefore, no impact is
assessed.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations.) Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for •
ozone precursors)? - -
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people?
a) No Impact. The Draft Housing Element does not include any proposal for the physical development of any site.
Policies are intended to facilitate housing development with the adopted General Plan land use policies, the City's
Growth Management Program, and regional growth assumptions.
The project site (citywide) is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a state non-attainment area for ozone (O3)
and for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10). The periodic violations of national
Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland
foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve
air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality
Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG).
A Plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state-
mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having
serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by
the Air Resources Board (ARBy after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly
regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996.
The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are
incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city's and the
County's general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project
Rev. 12/13/07
( GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that
the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. Implementation of the policies and programs of
the Draft Housing Element will not increase the number of dwelling units in Carlsbad beyond that already
anticipated by the General Plan and Growth Management Plan, therefore the Draft Housing Element is consistent
with the growth assumptions utilized in the air quality planning document.
Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific
reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality
management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set
forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California
Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the
following:
• Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
• Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
The project area is located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being
implemented. As discussed above, the Draft Housing Element is a policy document and does not include any
proposal for physical development of any property. The Element plans for housing consistent with the General Plan
land use policies and regional growth policy, as expressed through SANDAG's RHNA allocation. Thus, given that
the RAQS are developed based on jurisdictions' long-range plans, the project is consistent with the regional air
quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. Furthermore, the Draft
Housing Element encourages infill and mixed-use development, which will assist in achieving regional air quality
goals. No significant impact is identified.
b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The closest air quality monitoring station to the
project site is at Camp Pendleton. Data available for this monitoring site from 2000 through December 2004
indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (a total of
10 days during the 5-year period). No other violations of any air quality standards have been recorded during the 5-
year time period.
The Draft Housing Element is a policy level document that analyzes adopted land use policies and does not include
a proposal for physical development of any site. Any development facilitated by the Draft Housing Element would
involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such emissions would be
minimized through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the
site for dust control.
Long-term emissions associated with housing projects facilitated by the Draft Housing Element would be consistent
with those emissions already anticipated by the General Plan build out assumptions. Although air pollutant
emissions would be associated with these projects, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality
standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Furthermore, the General Plan EIR included air quality
mitigation measures to which any future project would be subject, which will reduce air quality impacts. Future
environmental assessments will be conducted to ascertain potential project-specific air quality impacts and
compliance with appropriate regulatory authorities. Adherence to applicable standards related to the generation and
control of air quality will reduce potential impacts. Any impact is assessed as less than significant.
Any development facilitated by the Draft Housing Element would involve short-term emissions associated with
grading and construction. Impacts, which include tailpipe emissions from construction equipment and dust, are
considered a significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce the impacts to a
less than significant level.
• AQ-1 Future development shall comply with the following requirements as applicable:
o Water or dust control agents shall be applied to active grading areas, unpaved surfaces, and dirt
stockpiles as necessary to prevent or suppress particulate matter from becoming airborne. All soil
10 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
to be stockpiled over 30 days shall be protected with a secure tarp or tackifiers to prevent
windblown dust.
o Spoil or demolition material in each truckload shall be kept low enough to prevent spillage and
shall be sufficiently wetted down or covered with a secure tarp to prevent dust generation during
transport.
o Grading and other soil handling operations shall be suspended when wind gusts exceed 25 miles
per hour. The construction supervisor shall have a hand-held anemometer for evaluating wind
speed.
o Dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces at the project site and on the adjacent roadway shall be
swept or vacuumed and disposed of at the end of each workday to reduce resuspension of
particulate matter caused by vehicle movement.
o Vegetation disturbed by construction or maintenance activity shall be revegetated upon completion
of work in the area, where appropriate.
o Electrical power shall be provided from commercial power supply wherever feasible, to avoid or
minimize the use of engine-driven generators.
o Air filters on construction equipment engines shall be maintained in clean condition according to
manufacturers^ specifications.
o The construction contractor shall comply with the approved traffic control plan to reduce non-
project traffic congestion impacts. Methods to reduce construction interference with existing
traffic and the prevention of truck queuing around local sensitive receptors shall be incorporated
into this plan.
o Trucks and equipment shall not idle for more than 15 minutes when not in service.
c) Less Than Significant Impact. The air basin is currently in a state non-attainment zone for ozone and
suspended fine particulates. The Draft Housing Element is a policy level document that analyzes adopted land use
policies and does not include a proposal for physical development of any site. Any development facilitated by the
Draft Housing Element would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in
emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with potential future
housing projects would be consistent with those already anticipated by the General Plan build out assumptions.
Given that the Draft Housing Element is within the limits of the General Plan, air quality would be essentially the
same whether or not the Draft Housing Element is implemented, as build out of the General Plan could still occur.
According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(4), the proposed project's contribution to the cumulative
impact is considered de minimus. Future environmental assessments will be conducted to ascertain potential
project-specific air quality impacts and compliance with appropriate regulatory authorities. Adherence to applicable
standards related to the generation and control of air quality will reduce potential impacts.
The Draft Housing Element includes programs to encourage mixed use and higher-density residential development.
Mixed-use development in Carlsbad has the benefit of potentially reducing both work and non-work related trips by
future residents in the area, which could reduce air quality impacts as compared to typical single use development
patterns. Furthermore, Carlsbad requires higher density housing to be near transit services, commercial and
employment centers, which could also reduce auto emissions. Along these lines, all four areas of Carlsbad that the
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has designated as existing/planned or potential smart growth
areas are specified in the Draft Housing Element as proposed locations for enhanced existing or future mixed use
and higher density residential development. Smart growth areas must meet certain housing and employment target
densities and transit service thresholds. In Carlsbad, proposed smart growth areas are Plaza Camino Real, Ponto,
Quarry Creek and the Village Redevelopment area/Proposed Barrio Area. Any impact in this area is assessed as less
than significant.
Global Warming/Climate Change
"Global warming" is the term used to describe very widespread climate change characterized by a rise in the Earth's
ambient average temperatures with associated disturbances in weather patterns and resulting alteration of oceanic
11 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
and terrestrial environs and biology. The predominant opinion within the scientific community is that global
warming is currently occurring, and that it is being caused and/or accelerated by human activities, primarily the
generation of "greenhouse gases" (GHG). The types of GHG include those related to land use, such as carbon
dioxide and nitrous oxide, which are generated by various activities that include the burning of fossil fuels.
California State Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) established a state goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the
year 2020, and California State Senate Bill 97 (SB 97) amends CEQA to establish GHG emissions and their effects
as appropriate for CEQA analysis. SB 97 also directs the Governor's Office of Planning and Research to prepare
guidelines for the mitigation of GHG emissions by July 1, 2009 and transmit those draft regulations to the California
Air Resources Board, which must certify and adopt these guidelines by January 1, 2010.
The Draft Housing Element is a policy level document that analyzes adopted land use policies and does not include
a proposal for physical development of any site. Without specific project details for future projects, and
furthermore, in the absence of regulatory guidance to assist any lead agencies in determining whether a particular-
project will have a significant impact on global warming, it is not possible to determine impacts to air quality in
relation to global warming. Any future development proposal that is facilitated by Draft Housing Element policies
and programs will be subject to further environmental review pursuant to CEQA on a site-specific basis.
d) Less than Significant Impact. The Draft Housing Element does not include a proposal for physical
development of any site, however, implementation of the Draft Housing Element could facilitate new housing
construction. The Draft Housing Element applies citywide and new housing" could be built next to sensitive
receptors, such as schools and hospitals. However, residential land uses and mixed use that allows residential uses
generally would be considered compatible with sensitive receptor sites as they do not generate the types of
pollutants typically considered harmful to these sites, or excessive concentrations of pollutants. Impacts will be less
than significant.
e) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Although the Draft Housing Element will not result
directly in the construction of any Housing, housing development could be facilitated by the implementation of the
Housing Element. Objectionable odors are generally created by nonresidential uses, such as industrial and
manufacturing businesses. Development facilitated by the Draft Housing Element would be exclusively residential
units on residentially designated land and mixed-use developments in commercial areas; these uses typically are not
associated with the creation of objectionable odors. However, the construction of any projects facilitated by the
Draft Housing Element could generate fumes from the operation of construction equipment, which may be
considered objectionable by some people. While such exposure would be short-term or transient, it may be
considered significant. Implementation of the above Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce this impact to a less
than significant level.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian,
aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations or by California Department
of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Sianificant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
12 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing; Element
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
a — d) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated.- The Draft Housing Element is a policy document
and will not result directly in the approval or construction of any Rousing. However, adoption of the Draft Housing
Element will facilitate housing production, which could have an impact on sensitive species and wildlife, habitat,
wetlands and other resources.
The San Diego Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP) includes a subregional plan for the northwestern
portion of the County, including Carlsbad, and was approved by the San Diego Association of Governments on
March 23, 2003. The subregional plan provides for the conservation of 77 sensitive species. On November 15,
2004, the Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad (HMP) was approved, and
provides for the conservation of 43 sensitive species. In addition, the HMP has identified and mapped a preserve
system for the City. Any housing development facilitated by the Draft Housing Element will be subject to, and
required to comply with, the requirements of these documents.
Portions of the City identified by the General Plan for residential development have been identified by the HMP as
including potentially sensitive habitat resources. For any future project that may impact sensitive habitat or species,
a detailed biological resource study is required, as well as any applicable state and federal agency permits, as
outlined in the HMP.
Without the filing of a proposed development application with studies and plans, it is not possible to analyze and
determine all the specific biological impacts a project may have. However, construction, of housing pursuant to the
proposed Draft Housing Element could result in the following potentially significant impacts:
• Per the City's HMP, housing construction 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.
• 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.
• 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.
13 Rev. 12/13/07
i GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
• Development that results in substantial vegetation clearing or impede wildlife movement within Core Areas
and linkages would result in a significant impact.
• Construction and occupancy of housing adjacent to sensitive species or habitats may have permanent or
temporary direct and indirect negative impacts, such as from invasive species, runoff, and construction
noise.
Staff has prepared a list of mitigation measures that would be applicable to projects with the potential to impact
sensitive habitats and species. These mitigation measures could be made conditions of a project approval, or the
measures may be refined or found unnecessary as detailed planning and study specific to the project occurs. In any
case, adherence to these measures and City standards will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
• BR-1 Projects with the potential to impact sensitive biological species and habitats, as determined by the
City, shall comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Coastal Act, the-
Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP), the HMP and other applicable documents including but
not limited to those identified in subsection 5.1, Regulatory Context, of the City's "Guidelines for
Biological Studies," dated May 29, 2008, and as may be amended from time to time
• BR-2 For projects with the potential to impact sensitive biological species and habitats, as determined by the
City, a biology resources technical report (BTR) shall be prepared. The BTR shall provide the necessary
information to establish" the current status of biological resources within-a project footprint, an analysis of
potential project impacts, and mitigation measures that should be implemented to reduce the impacts to below a
level of significance. The format and content of the BTR shall be similar to report standards outlined in the
City's "Guidelines for Biological Studies," dated May 29, 2008, and as may be amended from tune to time.
Future project level environmental review that would impact biological resources would be provided to the
Wildlife Agencies for review to verify consistency with the City's HMP.
• BR-3 Implementation of the mitigation measures BR-3a through BR-3d would be required for projects 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 HMP. Avoidance
and on-site mitigation are the priority.
o BR-3a 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, USAGE, and CDFG as
appropriate in accordance with the requirements of the federal 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 MHCP plan area, at a ratio to be determined by the applicable
resource agencies at the time of project permitting.
o Bio-3b 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.
o Bio-3c 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.
o BR-3d 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 subject to the fee payment if not conserved or mitigated onsite.
• BR-4 Construction activities, including clearing and grubbing, in or adjacent to habitat occupied
associated with sensitive species, migratory birds, or raptors, shall be generally prohibited during the bird
14 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
breeding season (February 15 - September 15). If construction activities cannot be avoided during this time
the following measures shall be taken:
o BR-4a A qualified biologist shall conduct a focused species gnatcatcher survey in appropriate
habitat within and surrounding the project areas. The surveys will consist of three visits, one week
apart; the last of these shall be conducted no more than three days prior to construction.
o BR-4b Surveys shall also be conducted by a qualified biologist in appropriate habitat for nesting
raptors and migratory birds (including, but not limited to, the least Bell's vireo) within three days
of construction.
o BR-4c If nests of sensitive species, migratory birds, or raptors are located, the project applicant
shall receive confirmation from the biologist that construction may proceed or continue and
implement any necessary mitigation measures.
o BR-4d During the breeding season, construction noise shall be measured regularly to maintain a
threshold at or below 60 dBA hourly Leq within 300 feet of breeding habitat occupied by listed
species. If noise levels superseded the threshold, the construction array will be changed or noise
attenuation measures will be implemented.
BR-5 Where required, protocol-level surveys will be conducted for sensitive plant or wildlife species
prior to construction, as determined by the Wildlife Agencies.
BR-6 For projects 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 LCP.
BR-7 Mitigation ratios shall be consistent with the provisions of the HMP and Local Coastal Program.
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 projects with unavoidable impacts, the City shall demonstrate that
viable wetlands can either be: 1) 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 projects 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 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.
BR-8 As needed, surveys for state and federally listed sensitive plant species shall be conducted to
complete a determination of suitable habitat presence prior to issuance of any discretionary permits by the
City. Surveys shall be conducted at a time when sensitive plant species would be most observable.
BR-9 At the project design stage for projects 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.
BR-10 Projects shall comply with the Adjacency Standards outlined in Section F., pp. 4-16 to F-24 of the
HMP.
BR-11 During clearing, grading, and other construction activities, ensure that proper irrigation and
stormwater runoff mitigation measures are employed to reduce sediment loads and to prevent contamination
from pesticides, fertilizers, petroleum products, and other toxic substances. Fugitive dust shall also be avoided
and minimized through watering and other appropriate measures.
,fl
15 Rev. 12/13/07
I GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
e - f) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. General Plan policies, the Habitat Management
Plan and its implementing ordinance (Chapter 21.210 of the Zoning Ordinance), and the Open Space Management
Plan are the City's policies and ordinances protecting biological resources. The Housing Element does not conflict
with any applicable habitat conservation plan, including the Carlsbad HMP. However, construction of housing
facilitated by adoption of the Draft Housing Element could conflict with these requirements. Compliance with the
biological resources mitigation measures identified above will ensure consistency with local requirements.
Additionally, Draft Housing Element programs do not propose housing in any areas designated by the General Plan
as Open Space.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial~"adverse change in the signifi-
cance of an archeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale
ontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation .
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
D
a - d) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. According to the Carlsbad General Plan Master
EIR (1994), Carlsbad contains many areas of significant paleontological and cultural resources; this has been
reinforced by numerous studies prepared for the many master plan and development projects processed by the City
since the General Plan's adoption in 1994. Recognizing the value of Carlsbad's prehistoric, historic, and
paleontological heritage, the General Plan includes policies to address potential impacts on cultural and
paleontological resources resulting from development projects. The City of Carlsbad Historic Resources Inventor)'
has identified all historic structures throughout the City for the purpose of preserving historic resources. In 2009, the
City completed consultation with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians on the Draft Housing Element pursuant
to California Government Code 65352.3. The Band identified the potential for significant impacts to Native
American cultural resources due to housing constructed pursuant to the Draft Housing Element.
While the Draft Housing Element will not result directly in the approval or construction of any housing, its adoption
and implementation will facilitate housing production, which could impact cultural resources. Pursuant to standard
City practice and mitigation measures, future housing developments proposed in whole or in part that implement the
programs contained in the Draft Housing Element will require a site-specific assessment of potential impacts to
paleontological and archeological resources pursuant to CEQA and associated local, state and federal regulations. It
is standard City practice to consult the City of Carlsbad Historic Resources Inventory to ensure that no historic
structures will be demolished. If a site has the potential of containing paleontological and archeological sensitive
resources, a cultural or paleontological resources survey report is required.
Staff has prepared a list of mitigation measures that would be applicable to projects with the potential to impact
cultural resources when avoidance is not feasible. Such projects would be those that, for example, encroach into
areas with intact native soils or areas not adequately surveyed or undisturbed, including projects requiring surface
disturbance in undeveloped areas. These mitigation measures could be made conditions of a project approval, or the
measures may be refined or found unnecessary as detailed planning and study specific to the project occurs. In any
case, adherence to these measures and City standards will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
16 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
CR-1 The following mitigation measures will be required if a project is located in an undeveloped area
that could potentially impact significant cultural deposits.
o CR-1 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.
• CR-la(l) 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 SCIC for the assignment of Primary numbers within 1 week of the survey.
• CR-la(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.
o CR-lb 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.
" CR-lb(l) 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.
• GR-lb(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.
• CR-lb(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.
• CR-lb(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.
CR-2 Monitoring Requirements - Construction monitoring will be required for projects that involve
excavation or grading within undisturbed native soils and could potentially impact subsurface cultural
deposits.
o CR-2a 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.
o CR-2b 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 construction manager's responsibility to
keep the archaeological monitors up-to-date with current plans.
17 Rev. 12/13/07
f GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
o CR-2c 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.
" CR-2c(l) 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 discoveiy shall be allowed to resume.
o CR-2d 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.
o CR-2e 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.
O CR-2f: 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.
CR-3 The following paleontological mitigation measures shall be implemented:
o CR-3a: Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to perform a
walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading
will impact fossil resources.
o CR-3b A copy of the paleontologist's report shall be provided to the Planning Director before
construction. If the paleontologist's report finds the project will not significantly impact fossil
resources, this mitigation measure shall be considered fulfilled and no further effort to comply
with this measure shall be required.
o CR-3c A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site and
to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in the geologic
strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples for laboratory processing through fine
screens.
o CR-3d The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the Planning Director during the
grading process.
o CR-3e The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed
fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts.
o CR-3f All fossils collected may be donated to a public, nonprofit institution with a research
interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum.
o CR-3g Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the
project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
18 Rev. 12/13/07 r O
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
El
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or. based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Section
1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
a.i) No Impact. According to the maps published by the California Geological Survey, the City of Carlsbad is not
located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. No known active faults, fault traces, or suspected faults
traverse the City. The nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon fault zone, located approximately three to four
miles offshore. No impact is assessed as no known earthquake faults will be affected by future housing projects
facilitated by the Draft Housing Element.
a.ii - a.iv. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The City is not subject to any unique
earthquake hazards; however, there are several active faults throughout Southern California, and these potential
earthquakes could affect Carlsbad. Landslides are also a potential threat in parts of the City. Potential for seismic
ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, and landslides are considered a significant impact. Implementation
of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
19 Rev. 12/13/07
53
: GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
• GS-1 A site-specific geotechnical investigation shall be prepared to address geotechnical considerations
related to future housing development facilitated by the Draft Housing Element, specifically project
components that would involve excavation, grading, or construction of new structures. The report shall
contain all necessary requirements to address any adverse soils conditions that may be encountered in final
design of a project. The applicant- shall be required to adhere to all such requirements. The report shall
include a discussion of site-specific geology, soils, and foundational issues; a seismic hazards analysis to
determine the potential for strong ground acceleration and ground shaking; potential groundwater issues;
and structural design recommendations. The soil engineer and engineering geologist shall review the
grading plans for adequate incorporation of recommended measures prior to finalization.
• GS-2 All future projects shall be designed and constructed in conformance to the Uniform Building
Code, current seismic design specifications of the Structural Engineering Association of California, and
other regulatory requirements.
b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. A variety of soil types, including those that are
considered very erosive, are found throughout Carlsbad. Due to the sensitive habitats at the lagoons and creeks
located in Carlsbad, erosion as a result of development can significantly impact water quality. Erosive soils may be
located on future project sites facilitated by the Draft Housing Element, and as such, the potential for erosion is
considered significant. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less than
significant level.
Mitigation Measures
• GS-3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit for review and
approval of the Carlsbad City Engineer, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to demonstrate
that pollutants will be controlled through compliance with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Stormwater
Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), General Construction Stormwater Permit, and the General Municipal
Stormwater Permit. The applicant shall be responsible for monitoring and maintaining the Best
Management Plan (BMP) erosion control measures in accordance with the City's grading and erosion
control requirements.
• GS-4 All applicable federal, state and local permits regarding drainage shall be obtained. Such permits
include the General Construction Stormwater Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
• GS-5 Future development shall comply with the following requirements as applicable:
o Erosion control measures shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer in accordance
with the City's grading and erosion control requirements (Municipal Code § 15.16 et.seq.). The
locations of all erosion control devices shall be noted on plans included in the SWPPP.
o All grading permits issued authorizing grading during the rainy season (October 1 of any year to
April 30th of the following year), shall require the installation of all erosion and sedimentation
control protective measures in accordance with city standards. Erosion and runoff control
measures shall be designed and bonded prior to approval of grading permits by the City.
o All permanent slopes shall be planted w'ith erosion control vegetation, drained and properly
maintained to reduce erosion within 30 days of completion of grading. Erosion control and
drainage devices shall be installed in compliance with the requirements of the City.
o All erosion and sedimentation control protective measures shall be maintained in good working
order through out the duration of the rainy season unless it can be demonstrated to the City
Engineer that their removal at an earlier date will not result in any unnecessary erosion of or
sedimentation on public or private properties.s
c — e) Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. According to the Carlsbad General Plan
EIR (1994), generally the soil types present throughout the City can support development. However, geotechnical
characteristics of soils vary by soil type, and all new development applications require an analysis of site-specific
soils. The Carlsbad General Plan EIR (1994) identifies various areas in the City where soil types exist that are
20 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
potentially unstable or expansive, and where liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence, and landslides could
potentially result. All development proposals in Carlsbad are subject to the requirements such as the Uniform
Building Code earthquake construction standards and soil remediation requirements that, when necessary and
applied, guard against potential adverse effects. Locating potential projects on soils that cannot support
development is considered a significant impact. For any future housing projects facilitated by the Draft Housing
Element, implementation of the above Mitigation Measures GS-1 and GS-2 will reduce this impact to a less than
significant level.
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
- Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school? - -: "
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
environment?
e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized
areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands?
a, c) Less than Significant Impact. The Draft Housing Element is a policy document and will not result directly in
the construction of any housing. Adoption of the Draft Housing Element will facilitate housing production, and
21 Rev. 12/13/07
' GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
future residences could be exposed to hazards associated with residential, and in the case of mixed use development,
commercial uses. Incidental amounts of hazardous materials may be utilized during the construction and/or
occupation of new residential units and nearby commercial uses in mixed use projects. It is anticipated that the
nature and quantity of hazardous materials utilized will be typical of those of residential and commercial uses and
therefore would not be significant. In addition, the nature and quantity of such materials would not likely create a
significant impact on any existing or proposed school located within one-quarter mile of a residential site.
b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Large areas of the City that currently or previously
have been in agricultural use are designated for residential development by the General Plan. Agricultural
chemicals and pesticides may have been used and stored on these properties, which could impact future residential
development. Likewise, other areas of the Carlsbad, such as the Quarry Creek site discussed in d) below or
commercial areas, may have contaminated soils or groundwater due to the presence of former or existing non-
agricultural uses, such as gas stations, above or below ground storage tanks, dumps, or industrial operations. _
Furthermore, redevelopment in older parts of Carlsbad, such as in the downtown Village or Barrio Areas, may
expose construction workers to hazardous materials during demolition activities. Development of sites with such
contamination may expose people to release of hazardous materials, a potentially significant impact.
In response, for any future housing project facilitated by the implementation of the Draft Housing Element, if a site
has the potential of containing agricultural chemicals and pesticides or other soil contaminants, a soils testing and
analysis report is required. Monitoring and sampling of groundwater may also be necessary along with groundwater
and soil remediation to ensure "all contaminants are removed. As identified below and as may be further refined
during project review, any recommended mitigation measures would be made conditions of any project approval.
Adherence to these measures and existing federal, state, and local regulations will reduce potential impacts to a less
than significant level.
A proposed Draft Housing Element program would permit emergency shelters in the,City's industrial zones. These
zones may contain uses that routinely .use, transport or dispose of'hazardous materials. As with all uses locating in
the P-M or M zones, siting an emergency shelter will require consideration be given to the presence of surrounding
industrial uses that may employ chemicals or hazardous materials or procedures that could pose a threat. Such
surrounding uses may render a potential emergency shelter location as unsuitable or may require additional building
requirements. While it is not possible to determine if such conditions exist until a specific site is identified,
mitigation measures can be developed to ensure due consideration is given to potential hazards associated with
industrial areas. Any emergency shelter proposed pursuant to the Draft Housing Element will be subject to site-
specific environmental review to ensure compliance with all applicable city land use policies and regulations,
including fire and building codes.
Staff has prepared a list of mitigation measures that would be applicable to projects with the potential to be
significantly impacted by the routine use or accidental release of hazardous materials. These mitigation measures
could be made conditions of a project approval, or the measures may be refined or found unnecessary as detailed
planning and study specific to the project occurs. In any case, adherence to these measures and City standards will
reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
• HM-1 Prior to approval of discretionary permits for projects within (1) an existing or former agricultural
area, or (2) an area believed to have contaminated soils due to historic use, handling, or storage of
hazardous materials, a detailed soils testing and analysis report shall be prepared by a registered soils
engineer, and submitted to the City and the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (DEH)
for approval. This report shall evaluate the potential for soil contamination due to historic use, handling, or
storage of chemicals and materials restricted by the DEH. The report shall also identify a range of possible
mitigation measures to remediate any significant public health impacts if hazardous chemicals are detected
at concentrations in the soil which would have a significantly adverse effect on human health.
• HM-2 If use of agricultural chemicals within an existing agricultural operation has the potential to
adversely impact a proposed residential development on an adjacent parcel, mitigation measures including
but not limited to physical barriers and/or separation between the uses shall be considered.
• HM-3 Prior to approval of any permits for uses such as emergency shelters and farm worker housing
within the City's industrial zones, the applicant shall obtain clearances from federal, state, and local
22 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
agencies as necessary to ensure such uses are not exposed to significant hazards due to the routine
transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials or through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
• HM-4 All trash and debris within project sites shall be disposed of off-site in accordance with current,
local, state, and federal disposal regulations. Any buried trash/debris encountered shall be evaluated by an
experienced environmental consultant prior to removal.
• HM-5 Before beginning demolition or renovation activities, the interior of individual onsite structures
shall be visually inspected. Should hazardous materials be encountered, the materials shall be tested and
properly disposed of offsite in accordance with state and federal regulatory requirements. Any stained soils
or surfaces underneath the removed materials shall be sampled. Results of the sampling would indicate the
appropriate level of remediation efforts that may be required.
• HM-6 Before beginning any remedial or demolition work, building owners shall contract with a certified
professional to conduct an asbestos survey, consistent with National Emission Standards for hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) standards to determine the presence of asbestos containing materials. Demolition of
or within existing buildings on individual parcels onsite must comply with State law, which requires a
certified contractor where there is asbestos-related work involving 100 square feet or more or such
materials to ensure that_certain procedures regarding the removal of asbestos are followed.
• HM-7 Before the issuance of a grading permit, all miscellaneous debris (i.e., wood, concrete, storage
drums, and automobiles) shall be removed offsite and properly disposed of at an approved landfill facility.
Once removed, a visual inspection of the areas beneath the removed materials shall be performed. Any
stained soils observed underneath the removed materials shall be sampled. Results of the sampling would
indicate the appropriate level of remediation efforts that may be required. ;
• HM-8 If unknown wastes or suspect materials are discovered during construction on individual
properties that are believed to involve hazardous waste/materials, the contractor shall:
o Immediately stop work in the vicinity of the suspected contaminant, removing workers and the
public from the area;
o Notify the project engineer of the City of Carlsbad;
o Secure the areas as directed by the project engineer, and;
o Notify the City's hazardous waste/materials coordinator.
d) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. . The State of California Environmental Protection
Agency on its website maintains the Cortese List, which is the name commonly given to the requirements referenced
by Government Code Section 65962.5. According to the website's Cortese List data resources, Carlsbad has many
sites where cleanup of hazardous materials is underway or has been completed. Most of these sites are located in the
City's commercial and industrial areas. Quarry Creek, proposed in Draft Housing Element Program 2.1 as a site to
be redesignated from lower density to medium and high density residential housing, is identified as a location where
two active cleanup efforts are underway - one due to a leaking underground tank. The Draft Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for the Former South Coast Quarry Amended Reclamation Plan, the CEQA document prepared for the
reclamation of the Quarry Creek site, describes soil and groundwater remediation efforts underway. The Draft EIR
notes that cleanup is anticipated to occur prior to or during site reclamation; this means that remediation would be
complete before residential development of the site. Because remediation is underway according to all applicable
requirements, the Draft EIR includes no mitigation measures with regards to hazardous materials. Further, the Draft
EIR concludes that all remediated soils would remain on site and there would be no hazards associated with their
redistribution on the site.
The Draft Housing Element may facilitate residential construction, including mixed use development and
emergency shelters, on sites known to be on the Cortese List. Properties on the list are more likely to be those in
commercial and industrial areas and are also more likely to be developed rather than vacant. When applications are
23 Rev. 12/13/07
( GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
submitted to redesignate the land use of a property or propose development or redevelopment, disclosure of
inclusion on the Cortese List is required: Because development of such sites could create a significant hazard to the
public or environment if their cleanup was not conducted consistent with all federal, state, and local regulations, a
mitigation measure requires compliance with applicable regulations for any site identified on the Cortese List. These
regulations would also dictate whether property, such as Quarry Creek, could be developed safely while any
remediation was underway or if cleanup needed to occur prior to any development and occupancy of a site. Any
recommended mitigation measures developed consistent with the regulations would be made conditions of any
project approval. Adherence to these measures would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Besides the Cortese list, City staff also reviewed the federal Environmental Protection Agency website to determine
if any active sites in Carlsbad are identified on the federal Environmental Protection Agency's CERCLIS Database
and Superfund Site Information list. No sites were identified as active. Six sites in Carlsbad are designated
"archived sites" on the Superfund list, which means the site has no further interest under the Federal Superfund
program. The locations of all six sites cannot be determined based on the website data; however, one archived site is
identified as South Coast Asphalt Products with an address of 3701 Haymar Drive. This may be the Quarry Creek-
site.
• HM-9 When applications are submitted to the City of Carlsbad Planning Department to redesignate the
land use of a property or propose development or redevelopment, disclosure of inclusion on the Cortese
List (Government Code Section 65962.5) shall be required. If an application is for property included on the
Cortese List, the applicant shall provide evidence that describes the required remediation process, through
text and graphics, and (-1) demonstrates compliance is occurring or has occurred with all applicable federal,
state, and local regulations; (2) describes all necessary actions and approvals to remediate the property and
includes evidence of any approvals so far obtained; (3) describes the estimated remediation timeframe,
current status, and any monitoring required during and following remediation; (4) discusses any restrictions
on use of the property upon reclamation completion; (5) includes all other required information as deemed
necessary by the City, DEH, and other agencies having regulatory authority with regards to remediation of
the site. - .... -,
e - f) No Impact. The McClellan-Palomar Airport is located west of El Camino Real and north of Palomar Airport
Road inside the boundaries of Carlsbad. The airport is a County owned and operated general aviation facility. The
Airport Land Use Commission is responsible for preparing the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the area
surrounding the airport, and most recently amended the CLUP in 2004. The City's General Plan conforms to the
CLUP and prohibits residential uses in the nearby vicinity around the airport, including in Runway Protection Zones
and Flight Activity Zones. The Draft Housing Element is consistent with the CLUP and General Plan as no land use
changes are proposed in the airport vicinity.
A proposed Draft Housing Element program would permit emergency shelters in the City's industrial (M and P-M)
zones. These land use zones surround the airport. However, uses involving large gatherings of people (more than
100), which may include shelters, are not permitted in Flight Activity or Runway Protection Zones per the CLUP.
As demonstrated in Section 4 of the Draft Housing Element, sufficient properties exist outside the Flight Activity
Zones to accommodate such shelters. Any emergency shelter proposed pursuant to the Draft Housing Element will
be subject to site-specific environmental review to ensure compliance with all applicable city land use policies and
regulations, including the CLUP.
No private airstrips exist in Carlsbad or in the adjacent areas of bordering cities. No significant impact will result.
g) Less than Significant Impact. Adoption and implementation of the Draft Housing Element will not impair
implementation of an adopted emergency response plan. According to the Carlsbad General Plan, the City has
adopted the "City of Carlsbad Emergency Plan"; however, this plan does not apply to day-to-day or routine
emergencies, and as such, will not be impacted by the implementation of the Draft Housing Element. Through the
development review process, projects are reviewed by the Carlsbad Fire Department to verify that adequate access
for fire safety equipment is maintained and that individual sites can be evacuated in an emergency situation.
Adherence to such requirements and existing City standards will reduce the potential impacts to a less than
significant level. No mitigation measures are required.
24 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
h) Less than Significant Impact. The City is considered a medium fire hazard area for wildland fires that could
threaten urban and undeveloped areas. This condition arises from a large area of natural vegetation along the City's
eastern boarder and within City limits. The Draft Housing Element will not directly result in the construction of any
housing. Development facilitated by the implementation of the Draft Housing Element and consistent with adopted
land use policy could place additional homes in or near areas with wildland fire hazards. The City's Landscape
Manual implements prevention techniques for wildland fires. Also, through the development review process,
projects are reviewed by the Carlsbad Fire Department which imposes conditions to minimize fire hazards,
including conditions such as requiring interior sprinklers and fire-safe roofing materials, and ensuring adequate fire
safety equipment access. All future housing development must comply with the Landscape Manual and other
conditions imposed by the Carlsbad Fire Department to minimize fire hazards. Adherence to such requirements and
existing City standards will reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level. No mitigation measures are
required.
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with ground water recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local ground water table
level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-
site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, or substantially increase
the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in
a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantiafly degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation
map?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
X
X
Rev. 12/13/07
•q') I
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures,
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
k) Increase erosion (sediment) into receiving surface
waters.
1) Increase pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals,
pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics,
nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash)
into receiving surface waters or other alteration of
receiving surface water quality (e.g. temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
m) Change receiving water quality (marine, fresh or
wetland waters) during or following construction?
n) Increase any pollutant to an already impaired water
body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d)list? ;
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
o) Increase impervious surfaces and associated runoff?
p) Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat?
q) Result in the exceedance of applicable surface or
groundwater receiving water quality objectives or
degradation of beneficial uses?
a), c-i). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Draft Housing Element is a policy
document that does not recommend or approve any particular development project. However, implementation of
Draft Housing Element policies and programs will facilitate housing construction, which in turn could generate
additional urban stormwater runoff and affect water quality. Development typically results in increased impervious
areas resulting in more rapid runoff of stormwater, with increased flow rates and volumes downstream. These
increased flows can cause streambed erosion. The 2007 Regional Water Quality Control Board permit includes a
requirement to implement Low Impact Development (LID) features into new development. LID techniques help to
mimic more closely the pre-development runoff characteristics.
The quality of stormwater runoff is regulated under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act and the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The NPDES stormwater permit provides a mechanism for monitoring the
discharge of pollutants and for establishing appropriate controls to minimize the entrance of such pollutants into
stormwater runoff. As part of the NPDES permit, each jurisdiction must prepare programmatic guidance
documents, including the Watershed Urban Runoff Management Plan (WURMP), a Jurisdictional Urban Runoff
Management Plan (JURMP), and a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP).
The SUSMP and Municipal Storm Water Permit require the City to prevent stormwater pollution and improve the
quality of water flowing into the • stormwater system for all new and existing development through the
implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Through the development review process, the City applies
Source Control and Treatment Control BMPs to all new development projects. Any project facilitated by the Draft
26 Rev. 12/13/07 (pO
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
Housing Element would be subject to the BMP requirements, as well as all federal, State, regional and local
stormwater requirements. Furthermore, future projects are subject to requirements for a hydrology report to assess
impacts relating to drainage and stormwater runoff. Projects must demonstrate adequate capacity in downstream
drainage systems or show that the development does not increase runoff.
Runoff from residences pursuant to the Draft Housing Element can potentially generate non-stormwater discharges.
Specific development plans will be required to include best management practices (BMPs) specifically targeted to
the anticipated pollutants.
The below mitigation measures ensure a project's compliance with all standards promulgated to ensure water
quality. Projects facilitated by the Draft Housing Element will comply with these measures; furthermore, once
project details are known, these mitigation measures may be refined, supplemented or replaced by more appropriate,
specific measures.
• WQ-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall prepare and submit for review and
approval of the Carlsbad City Engineer, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) to
demonstrate that pollutants will be controlled through compliance with the City of Carlsbad Standard
Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), General Construction Stormwater Permit (Order No. 99-08,
NPDES CAS000002), and the General Municipal Stormwater Permit (Order R9-2007- 0001, NPDES
CAS0108758). The applicant shall be responsible for monitoring and maintaining the BMP erosion control
measures identified below on a weekly basis in accordance with the City's grading and erosion control
requirements (Municipal Code Section 15.16. et seq.). The locations of all erosion control devices shall be
noted on the grading plans. BMPs that shall be installed include, but are not limited to, the following:
o Silt fence, fiber rolls, or gravel bag berms
o Check darns
o Street sweeping and vacuuming '_ .
o Storm drain inlet protection
o Stabilized construction entrance/exit
o Hydroseed, soil binders, or straw mulch
o Containment of material delivery and storage areas
o Stockpile management
o Spill prevention and control
o Waste management for solid, liquid, hazardous, and sanitary waste, and contaminated soil
o Concrete waste management
• WQ-2a. Prior to issuance of grading permits or approvals for any public or private right-of-way
improvements or site development plans, the developer shall prepare and submit for review and approval
by the City of Carlsbad City Engineer, a stormwater management plan that demonstrate that pollutants
will be controlled through compliance with the City of Carlsbad SUSMP and Stormwater Management
Program (SWMP). Approval of such plans shall be subject to a determination by the Carlsbad City
Engineer that the proposed project has incorporated post-development water quality pollution control site
design BMPs, source control BMPs, and numerically-sized treatment control BMPs such as those
identified below into the project design to the maximum extent practicable:
o street sweeping
o inlet basin labeling
o Filtering bioretention units
o Pervious pavement
o Vegetated swales
o Detention/infiltration basins
o Covered trash enclosures
• WQ-2b. Projects shall be required to show compliance with the applicable hydromodification provisions
of Order R9-2007-0001 and to show they are designed so that postproject runoff flow rates and directions
do not exceed pre-project runoff flow rates and directions for applicable design storms. Projects shall
incorporate LID design techniques to reduce the amount of runoff by mimicking the natural hydrologic
IP I27 Rev. 12/13/07
< GPA03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
function of the site by preserving natural open spaces and natural drainage channels, minimizing
impervious surfaces, and promoting infiltration and evapotranspiration of runoff before runoff leaves the
site. LID techniques include, but are not limited to:
o Vegetated buffer strips
o Vegetated bio swales
o Rain gardens
o Porous pavements
o Bioretention areas
o Vegetated roofs
o Stormwater planter boxes
o Infiltration trenches
o Dry wells
• WQ-3 In conjunction with the sale, rental or lease of a residence or business property, all prospective
owners and tenants shall be notified in writing through Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
that they shall:
o Establish or work with established disposal programs for the removal and proper disposal of toxic
and hazardous waste products.
o Not discharge-or cause to be discharged any toxic chemicals or. hydrocarbon compounds, such as
gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives and other such
fluids, into any public or private street or into any storm drain or storm drain conveyance.
o Use and/or dispose of all pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers, and other such
chemical treatments in accordance with federal, State, County, and City requirements as prescribed
on their respective containers.
o Employ RMPs to "eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when planning any changes to the
landscaping and/or surface improvements. Developer shall establish a homeowner's association
and corresponding CC&Rs. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning
Director prior to final map approval.
o Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide the Planning Department with a
recorded copy of the official CC&Rs that have been approved by the California Department of
Real Estate and the Planning Director.
• WQ-4 As required by the City Engineer, a hydrology report to assess impacts relating to drainage and
Stormwater runoff shall be prepared. The report shall demonstrate compliance with current applicable
hydromodification standards and demonstrate adequate capacity in downstream storm drain facilities, or
shall demonstrate no increase in runoff peak flows through onsite detention.
b) Less than Significant Impact. It is not anticipated that any development facilitated by adoption of the Draft
Housing Element would interfere substantially with the recharge of groundwater or groundwater supplies. The City
of Carlsbad is not reliant upon groundwater for its domestic water supply. Neither the Final Master Environmental
Impact Report prepared for the 1994 General Plan Update nor the Carlsbad Municipal Water District Water Master
Plan Update identify groundwater as a significant supply source to the City or development as a potential threat to
groundwater supplies or recharge.
g -h, j) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Draft Housing Element is a policy
document that does not recommend or approve any particular development project. However, implementation of
Draft Housing Element policies and programs will facilitate housing construction.
3
Based on the policies and standards of the City, and as required by mitigation measures below, it is not anticipated
that housing constructed as a result of a Draft Housing Element program will expose people or property to flooding
risk or impede or redirect flood flows. The Flood Hazard goal of the General Plan Public Safety Element is "a City
which minimizes injury, loss of life, and damage to property resulting from the occurrence of flooding." Further, an
objective of the Element is "to restrict or prohibit uses which are dangerous to the health and safety of people or
28 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
adversely affect property due to water and erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increased in erosion or flood
height or velocities."
Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.110, Floodplain Management Regulations, implements the Public Safety Element
policies regarding floodplain development. It establish restrictive provisions regarding construction of structures
within a 100-year floodplain and requires the installation of protective structures or other design measures to protect
proposed buildings and development sites from the effects flooding or wave action. It also recognizes that
controlling the alteration of natural floodplains and stream channels and controlling the filling, dredging, and
grading of these features helps reduce flooding potential. Furthermore, the Floodplain Management Regulations
require specific development and construction standards to avoid damage due to inundation by tsunami within
established coastal high hazard areas and by mudflows in mudslide prone areas.
Based on the Floodplain Management Regulations, all new construction and substantial improvements must be~
elevated to or above the base flood elevation. All new construction must be located on the landward side of the
reach of mean high tide. As specified in the mitigation measures below,'all future housing developments will be
subject to compliance with these required standards, including reports and studies as determined by the City
Engineer. Furthermore, projects that incorporate changes to established floodplains are required to document these
changes through the FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) process.
Adherence to these measures and existing City standards will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant
level.
• WQ-5 Proposed development shall comply with all applicable requirements of Chapter 21.110,
Floodplain Management Regulations, of the Zoning Ordinance. This shall include preparation of all
applicable studies and reports, including those required by other agencies, such as FEMA, as directed by the
City Engineer.
• WQ-6 Proposed development shall be subject to compliance with mitigation measures GS-1 and GS-2,
which require preparation of site-specific geotechnical investigations and compliance with Uniform
Building Code and other structural regulations.
i) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Specific areas of Carlsbad may be subject to
inundation due to failure of a dam, such as a breach of the Stanley A. Mahr Reservoir in the La Costa area. Failure
of the dam, an unlikely event, has the potential to flood areas downstream, which may necessitate evacuation.
Inundation is a possibility even if the area downstream of a dam is not within a flood zone.
The following mitigation measure will reduce the possibility of flooding due to dam failure to a less than significant
level.
• WQ-7 As directed by the City Engineer, a dam breach analysis and inundation study shall be prepared for
any area potentially subject to flooding due to a dam breach or failure. Based on the study as approved by the
City Engineer, appropriate mitigation measures shall be developed to ensure adequate safety of individuals
and, as feasible, protection of property in downstream areas.
k — q) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Draft Housing Element is a policy document
that does not recommend nor approve any particular development project. However, implementation of Draft
Housing Element policies and programs will facilitate housing construction, which in turn could generate additional
erosion, pollutant discharges, impervious surfaces, urban stormwater runoff and affect water quality, including that
of lagoons, wetlands and riparian areas.
According to the Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan (2008), Clean Water Act Section 303(d) listed waters in the
Carlsbad watershed include the following: The Pacific Ocean shoreline at the mouth of Buena Vista Creek and
Moonlight State Beach (located in Encinitas, CA), Buena Vista Lagoon, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and the Agua
Hedionda Creek. These waters currently do not meet established water quality standards. Implementation of Draft
Housing Element programs may result in significant impacts associated with the listed impaired water bodies.
However, compliance with the water quality mitigation measures WQ-1 to WQ-4 listed above would cause any
impacts to be less than significant.
! "2lp 629 Rev. 12/13/07 ^ ^
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
Through the development review process, the City requires Source Control and Treatment Control BMPs to be
incorporated into all new development projects. As required by mitigation measures WQ-1 to WQ-4 above, any
project facilitated by the Draft Housing Element would be subject to the BMP requirements, all federal, State,
regional and local stormwater requirements as well as a hydrology report to assess impacts relating to drainage and
stormwater runoff.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
X
X
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
a - c) Less than Significant Impact. The Draft Housing Element is a policy document that does not recommend or
approve any particular development project. The Draft Housing Element plans for the City's future housing needs
within the level anticipated by the General Plan. The Draft Housing Element does not propose nor affect any policy,
program or regulation that would result in the division of an established community; instead, Draft Housing Element
programs strengthen developed residential and some commercial areas by encouraging infill residential or mixed use
development. Therefore, impacts are assessed as less than significant.
The Draft Housing Element will not conflict with nor amend any General Plan policies or provisions of the Growth
Management Plan, Zoning Ordinance, or Local Coastal Program or any other policy or standard adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact. No land zoned for open space or designated by the
General Plan for open space will be converted to urban uses by the Draft Housing Element. The Draft Housing
Element does not affect preserve areas identified in the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Through the
environmental review process, future projects facilitated by the Draft Housing Element would be evaluated for
potential environmental impacts and compliance with the provisions and policies of the documents identified above.
Any new mitigation measures identified would be required as conditions of approval. Adherence to these measures
and existing City standards will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
The Draft Housing Element does not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan, including the Habitat
Management Plan (HMP) for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad (2004). All future housing development
facilitated by the Draft Housing Element will be subject to, and required to comply with, the requirements of the
HMP. No significant impact will result.
30 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan?
a - b) No Impact. No mineral resources are currently being extracted within Carlsbad. Although mineral resources
were previously extracted throughout the City via gravel pits, oil wells, and salt evaporation ponds, as the City has
become more developed, these activities have decreased through time. All mining operations ceased in 1995 and are
now complete at the South Coast Materials Quarry in northern Carlsbad (Former South Coast Quarry Amended
Reclamation Plan Draft Subsequent E1R, Sept. 2008). According to the Carlsbad General Plan EIR (1994), all
resources at this quarry have been depleted. There are remaining mineral resources present in the northeastern part
of the City, but this area was designated by the 1994 General Plan for urban development and is not planned for
extraction activities. Therefore, no impact on mineral resources will result.
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels
in excess of standards established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise
levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
Rev. 12/13/07
f GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
a) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Carlsbad experiences typical urban noise from
sources such as automobile, train, and air traffic, operation of mechanical equipment and construction equipment,
vocalizations, and related sources. Primary sources of noise include highways and other roadways (especially
Interstate 5, State Highway 78, El Camino Real, Palomar Airport Road, and Rancho Santa Fe Road), and North
County Transit District railroad, and planes using McClellan-Palomar Airport.
Draft Housing Element policies will facilitate housing construction throughout Carlsbad in areas where noise may
be of concern. Development of properties along Interstate 5, State Highway 78, El Camino Real, Palomar Airport
Road, and Rancho Santa Fe Road and the railroad could expose future residents to excessive noise in the absence of
barriers, benns, or other noise-attenuating features. Development of residential property in or next to commercial
areas may expose future residents to truck noise and other urban sources of noise.
The City's General Plan Noise Element contains several policies that require noise attenuation and/or prohibit
residential development in noisy areas. The maximum permitted noise level for residential interiors is a CNEL of 45"
dBA (pursuant to Title 24 of the California Administrative Code), and the maximum for residential exteriors is a
CNEL of 60 dBA or 65 dBA if subject to noise from McClellan-Palomar Airport.
Future development facilitated by the Draft Housing Element may expose residents to high levels of roadway, rail,
or airport noise, which is considered a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures N-l through N-3
would reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
• N-l A noise study shall be submitted with all discretionary applications for residential projects of five
or more dwelling units located within or 500-feet beyond the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour lines as shown
on Map 2: Future Noise Contour Map in the Noise Element of the General Plan. This noise study shall
identify design features such as noise attenuation walls and mechanical building ventilation necessary to
enforce the City policy that 60 dBA CNEL is the exterior noise level (65 dBA if subject to noise from
McClellan-Palomar Airport) and 45-dBA CNEL is the interior noise level to which all residential units shall
be mitigated. -"• ' "
• N-2 To minimize noise impacts, project design techniques shall be used during any discretionary
review of a residential or other noise sensitive project to shield noise sensitive areas from a noise source.
This can be done, for example, by increasing the distance between the noise source and the receiver:
placing non-noise sensitive uses such as parking areas, maintenance facilities, and utility areas between the
source and the receiver; using non-sensitive structures, such as a garage, to shield noise sensitive areas; and,
orienting buildings to shield outdoor spaces from a noise source.
• N-3 As applicable, future residential development shall comply with the policies of the City of
Carlsbad General Plan Noise Element and City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual.
b, d) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Infill development involves construction or
redevelopment in close proximity to existing developed areas, and as such, new development on infill properties
may expose people to temporary groundbourne noise and vibration due to construction activities compared to
development of previously undeveloped areas. Construction of projects facilitated by the Draft Housing Element
will generate short-term noise from construction equipment, such as water trucks, scrapers, bulldozers, and other
vehicles, which may be considered significant impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measure N-4 would reduce
the impacts level to a less than significant level.
• N-4 As applicable, future residential development shall comply with the following requirements:
o Heavy equipment shall be repaired at sites as far as practical from nearby residences and occupied
sensitive habitats.
o Construction equipment, including vehicles, generators, and compressors, shall be maintained in
proper operating condition and shall be equipped with manufacturers' standard noise control
devices or better (e.g., mufflers, acoustical lagging, and/or engine enclosures).
o The City's noise ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.48.010) limits the hours of construction to
between 7 a.m. and sunset on weekdays and 8 a.m. to sunset on Saturdays. Construction is
32 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
prohibited on Sundays and holidays. The City Manager may grant an exception for night work
during the night, Sundays, and holidays if the construction is in a nonresidential zone and there are
no inhabited dwellings within 1,000 feet of the construction site.
o Electrical power shall be provided from commercial power supply, wherever feasible, to avoid or
minimize the use'of engine-driven generators.
o Staging areas for construction equipment shall be located as far as practicable from residences and
sensitive habitats.
o Operating equipment shall be designed to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal noise
regulations.
o Noise attenuation walls/buffers shall be used to shield sensitive noise receptors from construction-.
generated noise greater than 75 dBA within 50 feet of sensitive receptors.
o If lighted traffic control devices are to be located within 500 feet of residences, the devices shall be
powered by batteries, solar power, or similar sources, and not by an internal combustion engine.
With regard to the construction of future projects adjacent to open space and sensitive habitat areas, construction
noise is considered a significant impact to the least Bell's vireo, California gnatcatcher, and other sensitive species,
migratory birds, or raptors during their breeding seasons (ie., February 15 through September 15). Implementation
of Mitigation Measure N-5 would reduce this impact to less than significant level..
• N-5 Refer to Mitigation Measure Biological Resources BR-4, which will reduce potential construction
noise impacts to sensitive bird species, migratory birds, or raptors to below a level of significance.
c) Less than Significant Impact. Future housing development facilitated by the Draft Housing Element policies
will result in additional population, potentially increasing existing.noise levels. Carlsbad and the surrounding cities
constitute an urbanized environment where existing noise levels are higher than other less developed areas, and
implementation of the Draft Housing Element would not result in a substantial increase to the existing noise level.
Impacts will be less than significant
e) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The McCellan-Palomar Airport is located west of El
Camino Real and north of Palomar Airport Road inside the boundaries of Carlsbad. The airport is a County owned
and operated general aviation facility. The Airport Land Use Commission is responsible for preparing the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) for the area surrounding the airport, and adopted the CLUP in 2004. The
City's General Plan conforms to the CLUP and prohibits residential uses in the nearby vicinity around the airport.
According to the General Plan Noise Element, land within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, which extends from the
runway of Palomar Airport and is generated by aircraft operations, is not planned for residential uses. The Draft
Housing Element will not modify the existing land use plan inside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour boundaries.
The majority of the City is located in the airport Noise Impact Notification Area (NINA), where aircraft overflight
typically occurs on an irregular basis. Though not considered a health or safety impact, aircraft noise may be a
nuisance. Implementation of Mitigation Measure N- 6 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
• N-6 Future residential development shall comply with the following requirements as applicable:
o Prior to the recordation of the first final (tract/parcel) map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property is subject
to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form
meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney (see Noise Form #2 on file in
the Planning Department).
o Developer shall post aircraft noise notification signs in all sales and/or rental offices associated
with the new development. The number and locations of said signs shall be approved by the
Planning Director (see Noise Form #3 on file in the Planning Department).
33 Rev. 12/13/07
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
( GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
f) No Impact. No private airstrips exist in Carlsbad or in the adjacent areas of bordering cities. No significant
impact will result.
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
a - c) No Impact, The Draft Housing Element considers additional housing opportunities within the limits of the
policies of the General Plan Land Use Element and Growth Management Plan. In 1986, Carlsbad voters passed
Proposition E, which ratified the City's Growth Management Plan. This program lowered the residential build out
capacity and imposed very specific facility improvement and/or fee requirements for all new development. The
program established a dwelling unit cap of 54,600 dwelling units. The accommodation of the City's RHNA can be
accomplished within the City's Growth Management dwelling unit cap (See City of Carlsbad Draft 2005-2010
Housing Element Section 4). Though the Draft Housing Element includes programs proposing residential density
increases and residential mixed-use in commercial areas for purposes of meeting the RHNA for lower and moderate
income housing, the Draft Housing Element does not propose policies to facilitate housing beyond the total dwelling
units anticipated by the City's existing General Plan and Growth Management Plan.
Moreover, the Draft Housing Element will not induce substantial population growth by the extension of roads and
other infrastructure, since the project does not provide for such. The Draft Housing Element contains policies that
encourage infill development in existing areas and a diversity of housing types and price. Development of the
Quarry Creek site, as would be facilitated by Draft Housing Element Program 2.1, may result in the extension of
Marron Road. The Quarry Creek site is largely disturbed and bordered on three sides by development; due to its
proximity to commercial areas and transportation, it is also a potential smart growth area per SANDAG. Quarry
Creek is already served by two roads (the present terminus of Marron Road to the east and Haymar Drive to the
north) and its development may not warrant extension of the road to the west. It is likely that a traffic study,
submitted with a development proposal at Quarry Creek, will determine the need for the extension.
None of the programs or policies in the Draft Housing Element would displace either substantial numbers of existing
housing or persons. Draft Housing Element proposed programs that propose and encourage increased densities for
residential and mixed use projects, such as in the proposed Barrio Area and the Village Redevelopment Area, may
result in demolition of housing units. However, these units would be replaced by new housing, either as a stand-
alone residential product or, as permitted by applicable regulations and policies, in combination with commercial
uses. Furthermore, sites identified in Program 2.1, such as Quarry Creek and the proposed Barrio Area, are
consistent with the SANDAG Regional Comprehensive Plan's objectives of developing smart growth areas as a way
to accommodate additional housing in an efficient, compact, and resourceful manner.
3
Finally, the Draft Housing Element contains programs designed to preserve existing affordable housing and
rehabilitate deteriorated housing. No significant impacts will result.
34 Rev. 12/13/07 U
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered government facilities, a
need for new or physically altered government
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Sianificant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
El
E
IE!
El
a.i — a.v) Potentially Significant-Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Draft'Housing Element considers
additional housing opportunities within the limits of the policies of the General Plan Land Use Element and Growth
Management Plan. In 1986, Carlsbad voters passed Proposition E, which ratified the City's Growth Management
Plan. This program lowered the residential build out capacity and imposed very specific facility improvement
and/or fee requirements for all new development. The program established a dwelling unit cap of 54,600 dwelling
units. The accommodation of the City's RHNA can be accomplished within the City's Growth Management
dwelling unit cap, as explained in Section 4 of the City of Carlsbad Draft Housing Element.
The Growth Management Plan requires planning for public facility needs through build out and for public facilities
to be provided concurrent with development. The Draft Housing Element does not affect the Growth Management
Plan, and does not propose policies to facilitate housing beyond the total dwelling units anticipated by the City's
existing General Plan and Growth Management Plan. Implementation of the Draft Housing Element will not require
additional public services beyond those already anticipated. Developers of every new development facilitated by the
Draft Housing Element will be required to pay all applicable impact fees, including required school impact fees, to
support additional public services as the demand for those services increases with population growth.
Implementation of the Draft Housing Element will not require additional public services beyond those already
anticipated, with the exception of Local Facility Management Zone 25. Zone 25 is undeveloped and not all public
service needs are known at this time. This is considered a significant impact; however, the City's General Plan and
Habitat Management Plan do anticipate future development within Zone 25. Moreover, the San Diego Association
of Governments has identified the Quarry Creek portion of zone 25 as a potential smart growth area, or an area
suitable for a compact, efficient, and environmentally-sensitive urban development pattern. Implementation of the
mitigation measure below will reduce public service impacts to a less than significant level.
• PS-1 Prior to approval of the first tract map or building permit in Zone 25, a Local Facility Management
Plan shall be prepared and adopted by the City Council for Zone 25. Consistent with the Carlsbad Growth
Management Plan and its performance standards for public facilities, this plan shall show how and when
the following facilities will be provided: Sewer systems, water, drainage, circulation, fire facilities,
schools, libraries, city administrative facilities, parks and open space. This plan shall also include an
35 Rev. 12/13/07
bcs
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
i GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
inventory of present and future requirements for each public facility, a phasing schedule establishing the
timing for provision of each facility, and a financing plan for funding the necessary facilities.
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
a) Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the Draft Housing Element has the potential to increase the
number of housing units and residential population. This could accelerate the deterioration of existing park and
recreational facilities. Developers of future housing projects will be required to pay all applicable fees (including
park in-Iieu fees and development impact fees) to address any potential impacts on park and recreational facilities
and services.
The Growth Management Performance Standard for Parks requires 3 acres of park space for every 1,000 people in
the city. As population (and corresponding demand for parks) is increased, Growth Management policies require
park acreage to be concurrently increased, thereby ensuring that existing park facilities are not overburdened. No
significant impacts will result.
b) No Impact. The Growth Management Plan requires planning for public facility needs through build out, and
requires public facilities to be provided concurrent with development. This includes the build out need for parks and
recreational facilities. The Draft Housing Element does not affect these plans or require additional facilities beyond
those already anticipated. No significant impacts will result.
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard' established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
36 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housina Element
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in insufficient parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted-policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-
outs, bicycle racks)?
a) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Draft Housing'Element is a policy document that
does not recommend or approve any particular development project. Implementation of Draft Housing Element
policies and programs will facilitate housing construction, which in turn could generate new vehicle trips. However,
the policies in the Draft Housing Element do not include project specific conditions and approval. The project
specific impacts to the transportation system will be addressed as part of the permitting-process.
The Draft Housing Element includes programs that encourage infill, higher density 'and mixed-use development,
which are located in close 'proximity to public transportation and services. These programs are consistent with
SANDAG Regional Comprehensive Plan objectives for smarter, more efficient growth patterns because they are
expected to reduce the number of vehicle trips as compared to standard single family development.
Citywide, the circulation system has been designed to accommodate the number of housing units at buildout of the
General Plan, and the Draft Housing Element does not propose to increase or significantly redistribute the number of
housing units designated in the General Plan. However, there may be local traffic impacts from individual future
projects which may be potentially significant prior to mitigation. Implementation of the following mitigation
measures, consistent with the Growth Management Plan, will reduce any such impacts to a less than significant
level.
• T-l Require new development to provide a traffic analysis report, as applicable, according to City
standards and as may be required by the City Engineer. This report shall evaluate project specific traffic
impacts and identify mitigation for impacts.
» T-2 Require new development to comply with the adopted (September 23, 1986) Growth Management
performance standards for circulation facilities, which ensures future development will not exceed the
traffic load and capacity of the City's street system and intersections.
• T-3 Developers shall make applicable fair share contributions through the Traffic Impact Fee (TIP)
program toward traffic improvements, to the satisfaction of the Carlsbad Engineering Department.
« T-4 For projects that may potentially impact the circulation networks of adjacent jurisdictions, the City
shall coordinate the project's environmental review with these jurisdictions to determine the need for any
mitigation of the potential impacts.
• T-5 Require new development to provide pedestrian and bicycle linkages, when feasible, which
connect to nearby community centers, commercial developments, parks, schools, points of interest, major
transportation corridors and the Carlsbad Trail System.
37 Rev. 12/13/07
71
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. SANDAG, acting as the County Congestion
Management Agency, has designated flwse-fpjjLroads (QlJyenJiain...Rd,t.Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real
and Palomar Airport Rd.) and twxteRe highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system.
According.to the SANDAG Final 2QQ.8 Congestion Management Program Update, apr^rpyed Noyem.bgrJQOJi.
tThe extstfflj*-Levej.s .Of Service on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad &L9f 2jQ07_tsare_:
Qlivenhain Road
Rancho Santa Fe Road
El Camino Real
Palomar Airport Road
Interstate 5
SR78
LOS
"D"
"A-BCJE"
"A-BErE"
"A-D"
"E"
"fD"
The Congestion Management Program's (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is "E", or LOS "F" if
that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (&.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad war, LOS "F in 1990). Accordingly, all designated
roads and ^highways. with ^ tlig excegtk)n of a portion of El Camino Real, and highway 78 are currently operating at or
better than the acceptable standard LOS.
Tllg_QMF_Jg.signs ...... LQSJ!El.tgJhe Eortion ....... of JEI Camino jleal ._from J^aza Drive ..... in, Carlsbad to ..... Vista Way in
Oceansjde. The jj)30_SANJDAG Regjona[_Tj^njp_ortati_on_ jPjan_(R.TP). adopted November 2007, jj the ^primary
SL:;^
idejmfiejyhjsjdejad^^
Implementation of the Draft Housing Element will not result in dwelling units above that already anticipated by the
Carlsbad General Plan and Growth Management Plan. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS)
"E" standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacities of the
designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable levels of
service in the short-term and at buildout.
Citywide, the circulation system has been designed to accommodate the number of housing units at buildout of the
General Plan, and the Draft Housing Element does not propose to increase the number of housing units beyond the
General Plan. However, there may be local traffic impacts from individual future projects which may be significant.
Implementation of the above mitigation measures T-l, T-2. T-3, T-4 and T-5 will reduce this impact to a less than
significant level.
c) No Impact. The Draft Housing Element does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent
with the General Plan and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not,
therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed.
d - f) Less than Significant Impact. The Draft Housing Element is a policy document and does not provide any
project entitlements and will not result directly in the construction of any housing. Adoption of the Draft Housing
Element will facilitate housing production, which could increase the use of existing roads and require new road
improvements. Through the environmental review process, future projects facilitated by the Draft Housing Element
would be evaluated for potential traffic impacts and would be required to comply with the City's roadway safety
standards, emergency access requirements and parking standards. Any future project circulation improvements will
be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. All projects will
be evaluated by the Fire and Police Departments and required to satisfy existing requirements for emergency access.
Parking standards set forth in the Zoning Code will be applied to each new housing development.
If a project could have potential traffic impacts, a traffic analysis report will be required. Any mitigation measures
identified would be required as conditions of approval. Adherence to these measures and existing City standards
will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. No mitigation measures are required.
38 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
g) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Draft Housing Element is a policy document and
will not result directly in the construction of any housing. The Draft Housing Element includes programs that
encourage infill, higher density and mixed-use development, which per the General Plan are to be located in close
proximity to public transportation, including rail. Draft Housing Element programs support, rather than conflict
with currently adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The General Plan contains
goals and policies related to pedestrian travel, bicycle support facilities, commuter facilities and public transit
facilities and services. Implementation of the Draft Housing Element is expected to increase the use of alternative
transportation. Furthermore, any project facilitated by the Draft Housing Element will be required to comply with
existing City standards regarding the installation of bicycle racks and bus turnouts.
New housing facilitated by Draft Housing Element programs may include homes adjacent to or near the North
County Transit District railroad right of way, particularly in the Village Redevelopment Area, Barrio Area, and
Beach Area Overlay Zone. New development may increase traffic volumes, including pedestrian traffic, at at-grade
highway-rail crossings. These traffic increases may impact safety within the rail corridor. However, the mitigation
measure below requires the preparation of studies to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
• T-6 For development proposed adjacent to or near the North County Transit District railroad right of
way, traffic analysis reports required by mitigation measure T-l shall address any traffic increase impacts
over affected rail crossings and associated mitigation measures, if any, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer,
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the ;.
project: ..-'""
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider, which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
39 Rev. 12/13/07 72)
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
a) Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Wastewater generated within Carlsbad
is treated at the Encina Wastewater Authority (EWA). EWA's treatment facility is designed to treat wastewater to
the secondary level and meets current-State and Federal requirements. As such, EWA's facility is designed to
adequately treat sewer flows from uses such as residential development. With regard to water quality impacts for
wastewater treatment facilities resulting from pollutants generated by general runoff, new development of currently
vacant areas could cause significant impacts. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce this
impact to a less than significant level.
• USS-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit for review and
approval of the Carlsbad City Engineer, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) to
demonstrate that pollutants will be controlled through compliance with the City of Carlsbad Standard
Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), General Construction Stormwater Permit, and the General
Municipal Stormwater Permit. The applicant shall be responsible for monitoring and maintaining the Best
Management Plan (BMP) erosion control measures in accordance with the City's grading and erosion
control requirements.
b - e) Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Draft Housing Element considers
additional housing opportunities within the limits of the policies of the General Plan Land Use Element and Growth
Management Plan. In 1986, Carlsbad voters passed Proposition E, which ratified the City's Growth Management
Plan. This program lowered the residential build out capacity and imposed very specific facility improvement
and/or fee requirements for all new development. The program established a build out dwelling unit cap of 54,600
dwelling units. The accommodation of the City's RHNA can be accomplished 'within the City's Growth
Management dwelling unit cap. The Growth .Management Plan requires planning for public facility needs through
build out and for public facilities to be-provided concurrent with development.
The Carlsbad Municipal Water District Master Plan (2003) and Carlsbad Sewer District Master Plan (2003) planned
for the capacity and conveyance facilities necessary to serve the City with water distribution and wastewater
treatment services to the Growth Management build out dwelling unit cap of 54,600 dwelling units. Though the
Draft Housing Element will facilitate housing construction which could increase water and sewer demand, the Draft
Housing Element does not affect these master plans and will not exceed the number of dwelling units anticipated by
these master plans and allowed under Growth Management.
The City is also served by the following: Leucadia Wastewater District, Olivenhain Municipal Water District and
Vallecitos Water District. Each district has prepared master plans or studies which evaluate the adequacy and
determine improvements necessary to provide adequate service for future developments.
Carlsbad has structured its development impact fees to provide for adequate public infrastructure, services and
utilities in developing areas of the City, which are generally well served, to meet existing and approved
developments. Future development proposals will be reviewed to address any potential impacts on water supply and
wastewater collection and treatment. Development will not be permitted unless adequate service is available or can
be provided. Future development proposals will also be required to pay all applicable fees (including development
impact fees) to address any potential impacts to facilities or service delivery.
With respect to Local Facility Management Zone 25, Zone 25 is currently undeveloped and not all public service
needs are known at this time. This is considered a significant impact; however, implementation of Mitigation
Measure PS-1 from the Public Services section will reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.
f- g) No Impact. All development facilitated by the Draft Housing Element will comply with existing City, State
and federal statutes regarding solid waste disposal, including source reduction programs pursuant to the California
Integrated Waste Management Act. Each housing development facilitated by the Draft Housing Element will
participate in the City's recycling program and comply with all other regulations related to waste management. No
significant impact will result.
40 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housine Element
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumula-
tively considerable" means -that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects?)
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
a) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Draft Housing Element is a policy document and
does not provide any project entitlements and will not result directly in the construction of any housing. However,
adoption of the Draft Housing Element will facilitate future housing projects, which could negatively affect
environmental quality. As evidenced in the Biological Resources category, the project has the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment and reduce the number and restrict the range of a rare animal and plant. However, the
project's compliance with mitigation measures, which requires compliance with the HMP, ensures these impacts
would be reduced to a level of insignificance.
b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project does not have cumulatively considerable
impacts as this environmental document demonstrates. SANDAG projects regional growth for the greater San
Diego area and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based on these
projections, region-wide standards, including but not limited to, storm water quality control, air quality standards,
habitat conservation, and congestion management standards are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of
development in the region. All of the City's development standards and regulations are consistent with the region-
wide standards. The City's standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage
standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resources protection regulations, and public facility standards,
ensure that future development within the City will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact.
Mitigation measures are included herein to ensure projects comply with all applicable standards.
Two regional issues of concern with regard to cumulative impacts are air quality and regional circulation.
Development of future residential projects facilitated by Draft Housing Element policies and programs may
represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin.
41 Rev. 12/13/07
"76
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
As discussed above in the Air Quality section, Draft Housing Element policies will not provide for housing beyond
that accounted for in SANDAG's regional plans and thus, is within the scope of regional air quality management
plans. While future projects will contribute to regional emissions, those emissions have been accounted for in
regional planning efforts. Additionally, mitigation measures are included herein to reduce to less than significant the
short term air quality impacts that occur during construction.
With regard to circulation, SAN DAG,.... the County Congestion ..... Management Agency jC MA) has designated
fouL.roads (Qlivenhajn^Rd^^RanchQ Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real, and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway
segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The CMA has determined, based on the City's
growth projections in the General Plan:2]^J]fiB:lSQM>tffiffi^ tnat
these designated roadways will function at acceptable levels of service in the short term and at build out. Draft
Housing Element programs are consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan growth projections. Mitigation measures
are included in this environmental document to ensure localized traffic impacts, compliance with the City's Growth
Management and Traffic Impact Fee programs, coordination with other cities, and improvements to Carlsbad's
pedestrian and bicycle circulation network occur. Regarding biological impacts, the MHCP was designed to
compensate for the loss of biological resources throughout the program's region; therefore, projects that conform to
the MHCP, as specified by the City's HMP, would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact for those
biological resources adequately covered by the program. As discussed in the Biological Resources category herein,
the direct and indirect biological impacts resulting from development facilitated by the Draft Housing Element
should not be cumulatively considerable if the mitigation measures as contained herein are implemented to ensure
conformance to the MHCP and the City's HMP.
c) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The Draft Housing Element policies and programs
seek to (1) provide a plan for meeting the City's share of the regional housing need, (2) focus on providing safe and
affordable housing or shelter for all Carlsbad residents, (3) encourage the rehabilitation 6f deteriorated housing units
and (4) provide shelter for homeless individuals. Further, implementation of Draft ,'Housing Element programs
would encourage the development of compact," efficient smart growth, which would efficiently locate housing near
transportation, services, and employment. Adoption and eventually implementation of the Draft Housing Element
will have an overall beneficial impact.
Construction of housing pursuant to the Draft Housing Element, if not according to applicable standards and
requirements, could potentially have significant adverse effects on human beings. Therefore, mitigation measures as
contained herein ensure any future housing facilitated by the Draft Housing Element, including emergency shelters
and temporary farm worker housing, will be constructed consistent with all adopted building codes and other
applicable standards, such as those regarding noise and air quality and hazards and hazardous materials.
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program E1R, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier E1R or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
c) Mitigation mealures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document
and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
42 Rev. 12/13/07 l(p
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008.
1. City of Carlsbad. Carlsbad General Plan.
2. City of Carlsbad. Carlsbad Municipal Water District Water Master Plan Update. March 2003.
3. City of Carlsbad. City of Carlsbad Draft 2005-2010 Housing Element. December 2008.
4. City of Carlsbad. City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan. July 2008.
5. City of Carlsbad. City of Carlsbad Sewer Master Plan Update. March 2003.
6. City of Carlsbad. El Camino Real Corridor Study. February 8, 1984.
7. City of Carlsbad. Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan
Update. SCH# 2006041066. December 2007.
8. City of Carlsbad. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan
Update. SCH #93091080. March 1994.
9. City of Carlsbad. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad. November
2004.
10. City of Carlsbad. Landscape Manual. Adopted November 13, 1990.
11. City of Carlsbad. Local Coastal Program with Kelly Ranch Amendments. Amended 2006.
12. City of Carlsbad. Minutes of City of Carlsbad City Council and Housing and Redevelopment Commission
(Joint Special Meeting). November 6, 2007.
13. City of Carlsbad. Municipal Code, Title 21: Zoning Ordinance.
14. City of Carlsbad. Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report. EIR 06-01. Bridges at
Aviara. February 3, 2009.
15. Ciiy of Carlsbad. Scenic Corridor Guidelines. July 1, 1988.
16. City of Carlsbad. Negative Declaration for Village Master Plan and Design Manual - Amendments. (SCH
#2007071132). Adopted Nqyember'6, 2007.
17. CERCLIS Database and Superfund Site Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
http://epa.gov/superfund/sites/cursites/index.htm. accessed January 22, 2009.
18. Cortese List Data Resources, California Environmental Protection Agency,
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/defau1t.htiTi, accessed January 22, 2009.
19. Eligible and Officially Designated Routes, California Department of Transportation,
www.dot.ca.gov/liq/LandArch/scenic/cahisvs.htm.
20. Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Regional Comprehensive Plan for the San Diego
Region. (SCH # 2004011141). Prepared by P & D Environmental. July 2004.
21. Former South Coast Quarry Amended Reclamation Plan Draft Subsequent EIR (SCH# 2005021119;.
Prepared by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. September 2008.
22. La Costa Town Square Draft Environmental Impact Report. (SCH #2003041159). Prepared by EDAW,
Inc. March 19, 2009.
23. Officially Designated State Scenic Highways, California Department of Transportation,
www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/schwv.htm.
24. Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. (SCH #2007031141). Prepared
by RBF Consulting. August 2007.
25. Robertson Ranch Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. (SCH #2007031141), Prepared by
BRG consulting, Inc. April 2006.
26. San Diego Association of Governments. Regional Comprehensive Plan for the San Diego Region. July
2004.
27. San Diego County Important Farmland 2006 map, published August 2008. Access from the State
Department of Conservation website at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gOv/pub/dlrp./FMMP/pdf/2006/sdgQ6 west.pdf.
28. San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, McClellan-Palomar
Airport Carlsbad, California. Amended October 4, 2004.
I i
43 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
Aesthetics
• A-l As applicable, all future development projects in the City shall comply with the following
requirements:
o Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 21.53 and California Environmental Quality Act - Preservation of
steep slopes (40% or greater) and other environmentally constrained areas (i.e., wetlands and
floodways).
o The open space and sensitive habitat preservation requirements of the City of Carlsbad Habitat
Management Plan.
o El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards.
o Hillside Development Ordinance (contour/landform grading, screening graded slopes, landscape
buffers, reduction of slope heights and grading, sensitive hillside architecture).
o Planned Development Ordinance and Design Guidelines Manual.
o Landscape Guidelines Manual
o City Council-Policy No. 44 - Architectural Guidelines for the Development of Livable
Communities.
o City Council Policy No. 66 - Principles for the Development of Livable Neighborhoods
o Growth Management Ordinance - Requirement for 15% performance standards open space
o Zoning Regulations (i.e., setback, coverage, signage, and height, etc,)
o City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program
• A-2 As applicable, all future development projects in the City shall comply with the following General
Plan policies:
o Arrange land use so that they preserve community identity and are orderly, functionally efficient,
healthful, convenient to the public and aesthetically pleasing. (Land Use Element, Overall Land
Use Pattern, C.I)
o Ensure that the review of future projects places a high priority on the compatibility of adjacent land
uses. (Land Use Element, Overall Land Use Pattern, C.2)
o Review the architecture of buildings with a focus on ensuring the quality and integrity of design
and enhancement of the character of each neighborhood. (Land Use Element, Overall Land Use
Pattern, C.6)
o Ensure that grading for building pads and roadways is accomplished in a manner that maintains the
appearance of natural hillsides (Land Use Element, Environmental, C.3)
• A-3 As applicable, developers shall submit and obtain Planning Director approval of an exterior
lighting plan, including parking areas, recreation areas and other applicable components of residential
projects. All lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or
property. For any lighting adjacent to or within 100 feet of open space and sensitive habitat areas, the
lighting plan shall demonstrate compliance with the Adjacency Standards of the Carlsbad Habitat
Management Plan.
• A-4 Construction lighting shall be shielded or directed away from adjacent residences and sensitive
receptors to light, including sensitive habitats.
• A-5 All projects adjacent to open space and sensitive habitat areas shall comply with the lighting
recommendations found in the Adjacency Standards of the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan, including
the following:
44 Rev. 12/13/07 """"]*
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
o Eliminate lighting in or adjacent to the preserve areas except where essential for roadway, facility
use and safety and security purposes.
o Use low pressure sodium illumination sources. Do not use low voltage outdoor or trail lighting,
spot lights, or bug lights. Shield light sources adjacent to the preserve so that the lighting is
focused downward.
o Avoid excessive lighting in developments adjacent to linkages through appropriate placement and
shielding of light sources.
Agricultural Resources
• AR-1 Within the Coastal Zone, projects that would convert farmland must comply with the agricultural
conversion requirements of the Local Coastal Program.
• AR-2 For any project that would convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance, a California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model Analysis must
be prepared to identify potential impacts to important agricultural lands.
Air Quality
• AQ-1 Future development shall comply with the following requirements as applicable:
o Water or dust control agents shall be applied to active grading areas, unpaved surfaces, and dirt
stockpiles as necessary to prevent or suppress particulate matter from becoming airborne. All soil
to be stockpiled over 30 days shall be protected with a secure tarp or tackifiers to prevent
windblown dust.
o Spoil or demolition material in each truckload shall be kept low enough to prevent spillage and
shall be sufficiently .wetted down or covered with-a secure tarp to prevent dust generation during
transport. -
o Grading and other soil handling operations shall be suspended when wind gusts exceed 25 miles
per hour. The construction supervisor shall have a hand-held anemometer for evaluating wind
speed.
o Dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces at the project site and on the adjacent roadway shall be
swept or vacuumed and disposed of at the end of each workday to reduce resuspension of
particulate matter caused by vehicle movement.
o Vegetation disturbed by construction or maintenance activity shall be revegetated upon completion
of work in the area, where appropriate.
o Electrical power shall be provided from commercial power supply wherever feasible, to avoid or
minimize the use of engine-driven generators.
o Air filters on construction equipment engines shall be maintained in clean condition according to
manufacturers' specifications.
o" The construction contractor shall comply with the approved traffic control plan to reduce non-
project traffic congestion impacts. Methods to reduce construction interference with existing
traffic and the prevention of truck queuing around local sensitive receptors shall be incorporated
into this plan.
o Trucks and equipment shall not idle for more than 15 minutes when not in service.
Biological Resources
• BR-1 Projects with the potential to impact sensitive biological species and habitats, as determined by the
City, shall comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Coastal Act, the
Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP), the HMP and other applicable documents including but
45 Rev. 12/13/07
: GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
not limited to those identified in subsection 5.1, Regulatory Context, of the City's "Guidelines for
Biological Studies," dated May'29, 2008, and as may be amended from time to time
BR-2 For projects with the potential to impact sensitive biological species and habitats, as determined by the
City, a biology resources technical report (BTR) shall be prepared. The BTR shall provide the necessary
information to establish the current status of biological resources within a project footprint, an analysis of
potential project impacts, and mitigation measures that should be implemented to reduce the impacts to below a
level of significance. The format and content of the BTR shall be similar to report standards outlined in the
City's "Guidelines for Biological Studies," dated May 29, 2008, and as may be amended from time to time.
Future project level environmental review that would impact biological resources would be provided to the
Wildlife Agencies for review to verify consistency with the City's HMP.
BR-3 Implementation of the mitigation measures BR-3a through BR-3d would be required for projects 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 HMP. Avoidance""
and on-site mitigation are the priority.
o BR-3 a 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 4ands 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. All mitigation lands for impacts to riparian and wetland
habitats shall be in the City or MHCP plan area, at a ratio to be determined by the applicable
resource agencies at the time of project permitting.
o Bio-3b 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.
o Bio-3c 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.
o BR-3d 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 subject to the fee payment if not conserved or mitigated onsite.
BR-4 Construction activities, including clearing and grubbing, in or adjacent to habitat occupied
associated with sensitive species, migratory birds, or raptors, shall be generally prohibited during the bird
breeding season (February 15 - September 15). If construction activities cannot be avoided during this time
the following measures shall be taken:
o BR-4a A qualified biologist shall conduct a focused species gnatcatcher survey in appropriate
habitat within and surrounding the project areas. The surveys will consist of three visits, one week
apart; the last of these shall be conducted no more than three days prior to construction.
o BR-4b Surveys shall also be conducted by a qualified biologist in appropriate habitat for nesting
raptors and migratory birds (including, but not limited to, the least Bell's vireo) within three days
of construction.
o BR-4c If nests of sensitive species, migratory birds, or raptors are located, the project applicant
shall receive confirmation from the biologist that construction may proceed or continue and
implement any necessary mitigation measures.
o BR-4d During the breeding season, construction noise shall be measured regularly to maintain a
threshold at or below 60 dBA hourly Leq within 300 feet of breeding habitat occupied by listed
species. If noise levels superseded the threshold, the construction array will be changed or noise
attenuation measures will be implemented.
46 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
BR-5 Where required, protocol-level surveys will be conducted for sensitive plant or wildlife species
prior to construction, as determined by the Wildlife Agencies.
BR-6 For projects 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 LCP.
BR-7 Mitigation ratios shall be consistent with the provisions of the HMP and Local Coastal Program.
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 projects with unavoidable impacts, the City shall demonstrate that
viable wetlands can either be: 1) 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.
BR-8 As needed, surveys for state and federally listed sensitive plant species shall be conducted to
complete a determination of suitable habitat presence prior to issuance of any discretionary permits by the
City. Surveys shall be conducted at a time when sensitive plant species would-be most observable.
BR-9 At the project design stage for projects 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.
BR-10 Projects shall comply with the Adjacency Standards outlined in Section F., pp. 4-16 to F-24 of the
HMP.
BR-11 During clearing, grading, and other construction activities, ensure that proper irrigation and
stormwater runoff mitigation measures are employed to reduce sediment loads and to prevent contamination
from pesticides, fertilizers, petroleum products, and other toxic substances. Fugitive dust shall also be avoided
and minimized through watering and other appropriate measures.
Cultural Resources
CR-l The following mitigation measures will be required if a project is located in an undeveloped area
that could potentially impact significant cultural deposits.
o CR-l 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.
• CR-la(l) 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 SCIC for the assignment of Primary numbers within 1 week of the survey.
• CR-la(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.
47 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
o CR-lb 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.
" CR-lb(l) 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.
1 CR-lb(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.
• CR-lb(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 SC1C.
• CR-lb(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.
CR-2 Monitoring Requirements — Construction monitoring will be required for projects that involve
excavation or grading within undisturbed native soils and could potentially impact subsurface cultural
deposits.
o CR-2a 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.
o CR-2b 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 construction manager's responsibility to
keep the archaeological monitors up-to-date with current plans.
o CR-2c 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.
• CR-2c(l) 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.
o CR-2d 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.
o CR-2e 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,
48 Rev. 12/13/07 _
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
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.
o CR-2f: 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.
CR-3 The following paleontological mitigation measures shall be implemented:
o CR-3a: Prior to .any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained to perform a
walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading
will impact fossil resources.
o CR-3b A copy of the paleontologist's report shall be provided to the Planning Director before
construction. If the paleontologist's report finds the project will not significantly impact fossil
resources, this mitigation measure shall be considered fulfilled and no further effort to comply
with this measure shall be required.
o CR-3c A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of the site and
to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in the geologic
strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix -samples for laboratory processing through fine
screens. - -r
o CR-3d The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the Planning Director during the
grading process.
o CR-3e The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an exposed
fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts.
o CR-3f All fossils collected may be donated to a public, nonprofit institution with a research
interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum.
o CR-3g Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities of the
project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
Geology and Soils
GS-l A site-specific geotechnical investigation shall be prepared to address geotechnical considerations
related to future housing development facilitated by the Draft Housing Element, specifically project
components that would involve excavation, grading, or construction of new structures. The report shall
contain all necessary requirements to address any adverse soils conditions that may be encountered in final
design of a project. The applicant shall be required to adhere to all such requirements. The report shall
include a discussion of site-specific geology, soils, and foundational issues; a seismic hazards analysis to
determine the potential for strong ground acceleration and ground shaking; potential groundwater issues;
and structural design recommendations. The soil engineer and engineering geologist shall review the
grading plans for adequate incorporation of recommended measures prior to fmalization.
GS-2 All future projects shall be designed and constructed in conformance to the Uniform Building
Code, current seismic design specifications of the Structural Engineering Association of California, and
other regulatory requirements.
GS-3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit for review and
approval of the Carlsbad City Engineer, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to demonstrate
49 Rev. 12/13/07
I GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
that pollutants will be controlled through compliance with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Stormwater
Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), General Construction Stormwater Permit, and the General Municipal
Stormwater Permit. The applicant shall be responsible for monitoring and maintaining the Best
Management Plan (BMP) erosion control measures in accordance with the City's grading and erosion
control requirements.
• GS-4 All applicable federal, state and local permits regarding drainage shall be obtained. Such permits
include the General Construction Stormwater Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
• GS-5 Future development shall comply with the following requirements as applicable:
o Erosion control measures shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer in accordance
with the City's grading and erosion control requirements (Municipal Code § 15.16 et.seq.). The
locations of all erosion control devices shall be noted on plans included in the SWPPP.
o All grading permits issued authorizing grading during the rainy season (October 1 of any year to"
April 30th of the following year), shall require the installation of all erosion and sedimentation
control protective measures in accordance with city standards. Erosion and runoff control
measures shall be designed and bonded prior to approval of grading permits by the City.
o All permanent slopes shall be planted with erosion control vegetation, drained and properly
maintained to reduce erosion within 30 days of completion of grading. Erosion control and
drainage devices shall be installed in compliance with the requirements of the City.
o All erosion and sedimentation control protective measures shall be maintained in good working
order through out the duration of the rainy season unless it can be demonstrated to the City
Engineer that their removal at an earlier date will not result in any unnecessary erosion of or
sedimentation on public or private properties.
Hazards and Hazardo.us Materials •
• HM-1 Prior to approval of discretionary permits for projects within (1) an existing or former agricultural
area, or (2) an area believed to have contaminated soils due to historic use, handling, or storage of
hazardous materials, a detailed soils testing and analysis report shall be prepared by a registered soils
engineer, and submitted to the City and the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (DEH)
for approval. This report shall evaluate the potential for soil contamination due to historic use, handling, or
storage of chemicals and materials restricted by the DEH. The report shall also identify a range of possible
mitigation measures to remediate any significant public health impacts if hazardous chemicals are detected
at concentrations in the soil which would have a significantly adverse effect on human health.
• HM-2 If use of agricultural chemicals within an existing agricultural operation has the potential to
adversely impact a proposed residential development on an adjacent parcel, mitigation measures including
but not limited to physical barriers and/or separation between the uses shall be considered.
• HM-3 Prior to approval of any permits for uses such as emergency shelters and farm worker housing
within the City's industrial zones, the applicant shall obtain clearances from federal, state, and local
agencies as necessary to ensure such uses are not exposed to significant hazards due to the routine
transport, use or' disposal of hazardous materials or through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
• HM-4 All trash and debris within project sites shall be disposed of off-site in accordance with current,
local, state, and federal disposal regulations. Any buried trash/debris encountered shall be evaluated by an
experienced environmental consultant prior to removal.
• HM-5 Before beginning demolition or renovation activities, the interior of individual onsite structures
shall be visually inspected. Should hazardous materials be encountered, the materials shall be tested and
properly disposed of offsite in accordance with state and federal regulatory requirements. Any stained soils
or surfaces underneath the removed materials shall be sampled. Results of the sampling would indicate the
appropriate level of remediation efforts that may be required.
50 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
• HM-6 Before beginning any remedial or demolition work, building owners shall contract with a certified
professional to conduct an asbestos survey, consistent with National Emission Standards for hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) standards to determine the presence of asbestos containing materials. Demolition of
or within existing buildings on individual parcels onsite must comply with State law, which requires a
certified contractor where there is asbestos-related work involving 100 square feet or more or such
materials to ensure that certain procedures regarding the removal of asbestos are followed.
• HM-7 Before the issuance of a grading permit, all miscellaneous debris (i.e., wood, concrete, storage
drums, and automobiles) shall be removed offsite and properly disposed of at an approved landfill facility.
Once removed, a visual inspection of the areas beneath the removed materials shall be performed. Any
stained soils observed underneath the removed materials shall be sampled. Results of the sampling would
indicate the appropriate level of remediation efforts that may be required.
• HM-8 If unknown wastes or suspect materials are discovered during construction on individual
properties that are believed to involve hazardous waste/materials, the contractor shall:
o Immediately stop work in the vicinity of the suspected contaminant, removing workers and the
public from the area;
o Notify the project engineer of the City of Carlsbad;
o Secure the areas as directed by the project engineer, and;
o Notify the City's hazardous waste/materials coordinator.
• HM-9 When applications are submitted to the City of Carlsbad Planning Department to redesignate the
land use of a property or propose development or redevelopment, disclosure of inclusion on the Cortese
List (Government Code Section 65962.5) shall be required. If an application is for property included on the
Cortese List, the applicant shall provide evidence that describes the required remediation process, through
text and graphics, and (1) demonstrates compliance is occurring or has occurred with all applicable federal,
state, and local regulations'; (2) describes all necessary actions and approvals to remediate the property and
includes evidence of any approvals so far obtained; (3) describes the estimated remediation timeframe,
current status, and any monitoring required during and following remediation; (4) discusses any restrictions
on use of the property upon reclamation completion; (5) includes all other required information as deemed
necessary by the City, DEH, and other agencies having regulatory authority with regards to remediation of
the site.
Hydrology and Water Quality
« WQ-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall prepare and submit for review and
approval of the Carlsbad City Engineer, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) to
demonstrate that pollutants will be controlled through compliance with the City of Carlsbad Standard
Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), General Construction Stormwater Permit (Order No. 99-08,
NPDES CAS000002), and the General Municipal Stormwater Permit (Order R9-2007- 0001, NPDES
CAS0108758). The applicant shall be responsible for monitoring and maintaining the BMP erosion control
measures identified below on a weekly basis in accordance with the City's grading and erosion control
requirements (Municipal Code Section 15.16. et seq.). The locations of all erosion control devices shall be
noted on the grading plans. BMPs that shall be installed include, but are not limited to, the following:
o Silt fence, fiber rolls, or gravel bag berms
o Check dams
o Street sweeping and vacuuming
o Storm drain inlet protection
o Stabilized construction entrance/exit
o Hydroseed, soil binders, or straw mulch
o Containment of material delivery and storage areas
o Stockpile management
o Spill prevention and control
o Waste management for solid, liquid, hazardous, and sanitary waste, and contaminated soil
o Concrete waste management
51 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
WQ-2a. Prior to issuance of grading permits or approvals for any public or private right-of-way
improvements or site development plans, the developer shall prepare and submit for review and approval
by the City of Carlsbad City Engineer, a stormwater management plan that demonstrate that pollutants
will be controlled through compliance with the City of Carlsbad SUSMP and Stormwater Management
Program (SWMP). Approval of such plans shall be subject to a determination by the Carlsbad City
Engineer that the proposed project has incorporated post-development water quality pollution control site
design BMPs, source control BMPs, and numerically-sized treatment control BMPs such as those
identified below into the project design to the maximum extent practicable:
o street sweeping
o inlet basin labeling
o Filtering bioretention units
o Pervious pavement
o Vegetated swales
o Detention/infiltration basins
o Covered trash enclosures
WQ-2b. Projects shall be required to show compliance with the applicable hydromodification provisions
of Order R9-2007-0001 and to show they are designed so that postproject runoff flow rates and directions
do not exceed pre-project runoff flow rates and directions for applicable design storms. Projects shall
incorporate LID design techniques to reduce the amount of runoff by-mimicking the natural hydrologic
function of the site by preserving natural open spaces and natural drainage channels, minimizing
impervious surfaces, and promoting infiltration and evapotranspiration of runoff before runoff leaves the
site. LID techniques include, but are not limited to:
o Vegetated buffer strips
o Vegetated bio swales •
o Rain gardens .. • - • • '.
o Porous pavements
o Bioretention areas
o Vegetated roofs
o Stormwater planter boxes
o Infiltration trenches
o Dry wells
WQ-3 In conjunction with the sale, rental or lease of a residence or business property, all prospective
owners and tenants shall be notified .in writing through Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
that they shall:
o Establish or work with established disposal programs for the removal and proper disposal of toxic
and hazardous waste products,
o Not discharge or cause to be discharged any toxic chemicals or hydrocarbon compounds, such as
gasoline, motor oil, antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives and other such
fluids, into any public or private street or into any storm drain or storm drain conveyance.
o Use and/or dispose of all pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers, and other such
chemical treatments in accordance with federal, State, County, and City requirements as prescribed
on their respective containers.
o Employ BMPs to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when planning any changes to the
landscaping and/or surface improvements. Developer shall establish a homeowner's association
and corresponding CC&Rs. Said CC&Rs shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning
Director prior to final map approval,
o Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall provide the Planning Department with a
recorded copy of the official CC&Rs that have been approved by the California Department of
Real Estate and the Planning Director.
WQ-4 As required by the City Engineer, a hydrology report to assess impacts relating to drainage and
stormwater runoff shall be prepared. The report shall demonstrate compliance with current applicable
52 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
hydromodification standards and demonstrate adequate capacity in downstream storm drain facilities, or
shall demonstrate no increase in runoff peak flows through onsite detention.
WQ-5 Proposed development shall comply with all applicable requirements of Chapter 21.110,
Floodplain Management Regulations, of the Zoning Ordinance. This shall include preparation of all
applicable studies and reports, including those required by other agencies, such as FEMA, as directed by the
City Engineer. ,
WQ-6 Proposed development shall be subject to compliance with mitigation measures GS-1 and GS-2,
which require preparation of site-specific geotechnical investigations and compliance with Uniform
Buildins Code and other structural regulations.
Noise
N-l A noise study shall be submitted with all discretionary applications for residential projects of five
or more dwelling units located within or 500-feet beyond the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour lines as shown
on Map 2: Future Noise Contour Map in the Noise Element of the General Plan. This noise study shall
identify design features such as noise attenuation walls and mechanical building ventilation necessary to
enforce the City policy that 60 dBA CNEL is the exterior noise level (65 dBA if subject to noise from
McClellan-Palomar Airport) and 45 dBA CNEL is the interior noise level to which all residential units shall
be mitigated.
N-2 To minimize noise impacts, project design techniques shall be used during any discretionary
review of a residential or other noise sensitive project to shield noise sensitive areas from a noise source.
This can be done, for example, by increasing the distance between the noise source and the receiver;
placing non-noise sensitive uses such as parking areas, maintenance facilities,' and utility areas between the
source and the receiver; using non-sensitive structures, such as a garage, to shi.eld noise sensitive areas; and,
orienting buildings to shield:outdoor spaces from a noise source.
N-3 As applicable, future residential development shall comply with the policies of the City of
Carlsbad General Plan Noise Element and City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual.
N-4 As applicable, future residential development shall comply with the following requirements:
o Heavy equipment shall be repaired at sites as far as practical from nearby residences and occupied
sensitive habitats.
o Construction equipment, including vehicles, generators, and compressors, shall be maintained in
proper operating condition and shall be equipped with manufacturers' standard noise control
devices or better (e.g., mufflers, acoustical lagging, and/or engine enclosures).
o The City's noise ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.48.010) limits the hours of construction to
between 7 a.m. and sunset on weekdays and 8 a.m. to sunset on Saturdays. Construction is
prohibited on Sundays and holidays. The City Manager may grant an exception for night work
during the night, Sundays, and holidays if the construction is in a nonresidential zone and there are
no inhabited dwellings within 1,000 feet of the construction site.
o Electrical power shall be provided from commercial power supply, wherever feasible, to avoid or
minimize the use of engine-driven generators.
o Staging areas for construction equipment shall be located as far as practicable from residences and
sensitive habitats.
o Operating equipment shall be designed to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal noise
regulations.
o Noise attenuation walls/buffers shall be used to shield sensitive noise receptors from construction-
generated noise greater than 75 dBA within 50 feet of sensitive receptors.
o If lighted traffic control devices are to be located within 500 feet of residences, the devices shall be
powered by batteries, solar power, or similar sources, and not by an internal combustion engine.
53 Rev. 12/13/07
: ( GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
• N-5 Refer to Mitigation Measure Biological Resources BR-4, which will reduce potential construction
noise impacts to sensitive bird species, migratory birds, or raptors to below a level of significance.
• N-6 Future development shall comply with the following requirements as applicable:
o Prior to the recordation of the first final (tract/parcel) map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property is subject
to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating from McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form
meeting the approval of the Planning Director and the City Attorney (see Noise Form #2 on file in
the Planning Department).
o Developer shall post aircraft noise notification signs in all sales and/or rental offices associated
with the new development. The number and locations of said signs shall be approved by the
Planning Director (see Noise Form #3 on file in the Planning Department).
Public Services
• PS-1 Prior to approval of the first tract map or building permit in Zone 25, a Local Facility Management
Plan shall be prepared and adopted by the City Council for Zone 25. Consistent with the Carlsbad Growth
Management Plan and its performance standards for public facilities, this plan shall show how and when
the following facilities will be provided: Sewer systems, water, drainage, circulation, fire facilities,
schools, libraries, city-administrative facilities, parks and open space.. This plan shall also include an
inventory of present and future requirements for each public facility, a phasing schedule establishing the
timing for provision of each facility, and a financing plan for funding the necessary facilities.
Transportation/Traffic
• T-l Require new development to provide a traffic analysis report, as Applicable, according to City
standards and as may be required by the City Engineer. -This report shall evaluate project specific traffic
impacts and identify mitigation for impacts.
• T-2 Require new development to comply with the adopted (September 23, 1986) Growth Management
performance standards for circulation facilities, which ensures future development will not exceed the
traffic load and capacity of the City's street system and intersections.
« T-3 Developers shall make applicable fair share contributions through the Traffic Impact Fee (TIP)
program toward traffic improvements, to the satisfaction of the Carlsbad Engineering Department.
• T-4 For projects that may potentially impact the circulation networks of adjacent jurisdictions, the City
shall coordinate the project's environmental review with these jurisdictions to determine the need for any
mitigation of the potential impacts.
• T-5 Require new development to provide pedestrian and bicycle linkages, when feasible, which
connect to nearby community centers, commercial developments, parks, schools, points of interest, major
transportation corridors and the Carlsbad Trail System.
• T-6 For development proposed adjacent to or near the North County Transit District railroad right of
way, traffic analysis reports required by mitigation measure T-l shall address any traffic increase impacts
over affected rail crossings and associated mitigation measures, if any, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer,
Utilities and Service Systems
• USS-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit for review and
approval of the Carlsbad City Engineer, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) to
demonstrate that pollutants will be controlled through compliance with the City of Carlsbad Standard
Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), General Construction Stormwater Permit, and the General
Municipal Stormwater Permit. The applicant shall be responsible for monitoring and maintaining the Best
Management Plan (BMP) erosion control measures in accordance with the City's grading and erosion
control requirements.
54 Rev. 12/13/07
GPA 03-02
2005-2010 Housing Element
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION .MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR
WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
(Not applicable)
Date Signature
QQ0 155 Rev. 12/13/07
Page 1 of 23
PROJECT NAME: Draft 2005-2010 Housing Element FILE NUMBERS: GPA 03-02
APPROVAL DATE: May 26. 2009
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
• A-1 As applicable, all future development projects in
the City shall comply with the following requirements:
o Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 21.53 and California
Environmental Quality Act - Preservation of steep slopes (40%
or greater) and other environmentally constrained areas (i.e.,
wetlands and floodways).
o The open space and sensitive habitat preservation
requirements of the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan.
o El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards.
o Hillside Development Ordinance (contour/landform grading,
screening graded slopes, landscape buffers, reduction of slope
heights and grading, sensitive hillside architecture).
o Planned Development Ordinance and Design Guidelines
Manual.
o Landscape Guidelines Manual
o City Council Policy No. 44 - Architectural Guidelines for the
Development of Livable Communities.
o City Council Policy No. 66 - Principles for the Development of
Livable Neighborhoods
o Growth Management Ordinance - Requirement for 1 5%
performance standards open space
o Zoning Regulations (i.e., setback, coverage, signage, and
height, etc.)
o City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program
Monitoring
' Type,,
Project
• j
< Monitoring .
Department
Planning
i
•
Shown on'
• Plans'
•
,, Verified
Implementation Remarks
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.
Page 2 of 23
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Type
Monitoring
Department
Shown on
Plans *
, Verified
Implementation'Remarks
A-2 As applicable, all future development projects in
the City shall comply with the following General Plan policies:
o Arrange land use so that they preserve community identity and
are orderly, functionally efficient, healthful, convenient to the
public and aesthetically pleasing. (Land Use Element, Overall
Land Use Pattern, C.1)
o Ensure that the review of future projects places a high priority
on the compatibility of adjacent land uses. (Land Use Element,
Overall Land Use Pattern, C.2)
o Review the architecture of buildings with a focus on ensuring
the quality and integrity of design and enhancement of the
character of each neighborhood. (Land Use Element, Overall
Land Use Pattern, C.6)
o Ensure that grading for building pads and roadways is
accomplished in a manner that maintains the appearance of
natural hillsides (Land Use Element, Environmental, C.3)
Project Planning,
Engineering
A-3 As applicable, developers shall submit and obtain
Planning Director approval of an exterior lighting plan,
including parking areas, recreation areas and other
applicable components of residential projects. All lighting
shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts
on adjacent homes or property. For any lighting adjacent to
or within 100 feet of open space and sensitive habitat areas,
the lighting plan shall demonstrate compliance with the
Adjacency Standards of the Carlsbad Habitat Management
Plan.
Project Planning
A-4 Construction lighting shall be shielded or directed
away from adjacent residences and sensitive receptors to
light, including sensitive habitats.
Project Planning,
Building,
Engineering/P
ublic Works
A-5 All projects adjacent to open space and sensitive
habitat areas shall comply with the lighting recommendations
found in the Adjacency Standards of the Carlsbad Habitat
Management Plan, including the following:
Planning
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
fNShown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and da'ted.
—-M/erified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated.
" Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.
Page 3 of 23
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Monitoring
Department
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
Eliminate lighting in or adjacent to the preserve areas except
where essential for roadway, facility use and safety and
security purposes.
Use low pressure sodium illumination sources. Do not use low
voltage outdoor or trail lighting, spot lights, or bug lights. Shield
light sources adjacent to the preserve so that the lighting is
focused downward.
Avoid excessive lighting in developments adjacent to linkages
through appropriate placement and shielding of light sources.
AR-1 Withiathe Coastal Zone, projects that would convert
farmland must comply with the agricultural conversion
requirements of the Local Coastal Program.
Project Planning
• AR-2 For any project that would convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, a
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
(LESA) Model Analysis must be prepared to identify potential
impacts to important agricultural lands
Project Planning
AQ-1 Future development shall comply with the following
requirements as applicable:
o Water or dust control agents shall be applied to active grading
areas, unpaved surfaces, and dirt stockpiles as necessary to
prevent or suppress particulate matter from becoming airborne.
All soil to be stockpiled over 30 days shall be protected with a
secure tarp or tackifiers to prevent windblown dust.
o Spoil or demolition material in each truckload shall be kept low
enough to prevent spillage and shall be sufficiently wetted
down or covered with a secure tarp to prevent dust generation
during transport.
o Grading and other soil handling operations shall be suspended
when wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour. The construction
supervisor shall have a hand-held anemometer for evaluating
wind speed.
o Dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces at the project site
Project Planning,
Building,
Engineering
V^
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.
Page 4 of 23
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Type
Monitoring
Department
Shown on
Plans,
, Verified
Implementation Remarks
o
o
and on the adjacent roadway shall be swept or vacuumed and
disposed of at the end of each workday to reduce resuspension
of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement.
Vegetation disturbed by construction or maintenance activity
shall be revegetated upon completion of work in the area,
where appropriate.
Electrical power shall be provided from commercial power
supply wherever feasible, to avoid or minimize the use of
engine-driven generators.
Air filters on construction equipment engines shall be
maintained in clean condition according to manufacturers'
specifications.
The construction contractor shall comply with the approved
traffic control plan to reduce non-project traffic congestion
impacts. Methods to reduce construction interference with
existing traffic and the prevention of truck queuing around local
sensitive receptors shall be incorporated into this plan.
Trucks and equipment shall not idle for more than 15 minutes
when not in service.
BR-1 Projects with the potential to impact sensitive biological
species and habitats, as determined by the City, shall comply with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California
Coastal Act, the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP),
the HMP and other applicable documents including but not limited
to those identified in subsection 5.1, Regulatory Context, of the
City's "Guidelines for Biological Studies," dated May 29, 2008, and
as may be amended from time to time
Project.Planning
BR-2 For projects with the potential to impact sensitive
biological species and habitats, as determined by the City, a biology
resources technical report (BTR) shall be prepared. The BTR shall
provide the necessary information to establish the current status of
biological resources within a project footprint, an analysis of potential
project impacts, and mitigation measures that should be
implemented to reduce the impacts to below a level of significance.
The format and content of the BTR shall be similar to report
Project Planning
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
PNShown 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.
= Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.
Page 5 of 23
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Type '
Monitoring
Department
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
standards outlined in the City's "Guidelines for Biological Studies,"
dated May 29, 2008, and as may be amended from time to time.
Future project level environmental review that would impact
biological resources would be provided to the Wildlife Agencies for
review to verify consistency with the City's HMP.
BR-3 Implementation of the mitigation measures BR-3a
through BR-3d would be required for projects 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 HMP. Avoidance
and on-site mitigation are the priority.
o BR-3a 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, USAGE, and
CDFG as appropriate in accordance with the requirements of
the federal 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 MHCP plan
area, at a ratio to be determined by the applicable resource
agencies at the time of project permitting.
o Bio-3b 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.
o Bio-3c 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
Project Planning
-D
JC
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.
Page 6 of 23
Mitigation Measure , '
agencies at the time of project permitting.
o BR-3d 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 subject to the fee payment if not
conserved or mitigated onsite.
• BR-4 Construction activities, including clearing and grubbing,
in or adjacent to habitat occupied associated with sensitive
species, migratory birds, or raptors, shall be generally prohibited
during the bird breeding season (February 15 - September 15). If
construction activities cannot be avoided during this time the
following measures shall be taken:
o BR-4a A qualified biologist shall conduct a focused species
gnatcatcher survey in appropriate habitat within and
surrounding the project areas. The surveys will consist of three
visits, one week apart; the last of these shall be conducted no
more than three days prior to construction.
o BR-4b Surveys shall also be conducted by a qualified biologist
in appropriate habitat for nesting raptors and migratory birds
(including, but not limited to, the least Bell's vireo) within three
days of construction.
o BR-4c If nests of sensitive species, migratory birds, or raptors
are located, the project applicant shall receive confirmation
from the biologist that construction may proceed or continue
and implement any necessary mitigation measures.
o BR-4d During the breeding season, construction noise shall be
measured regularly to maintain a threshold at or below 60 dBA
hourly Leq within 300 feet of breeding habitat occupied by
listed species. If noise levels superseded the threshold, the
construction array will be changed or noise attenuation
measures will be implemented.
• BR-5 Where required, protocol-level surveys will be
conducted for sensitive plant or wildlife species prior to
construction, as determined by the Wildlife Agencies.
Monitoring
\ Type
Project
Project
- Monitoring
Department
Planning
<
Planning
Shown on
Plans
Verified •
Implementation Remarks
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
pShown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
.^irA/erified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated.
I \\Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.
Page 7 of 23
Mitigation Measure . "'• ' r
• BR-6 For projects 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 LCP.
• BR-7 Mitigation ratios shall be consistent with the provisions
of the HMP and Local Coastal Program. 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
projects with unavoidable impacts, the City shall demonstrate that
viable wetlands can either be: 1) 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 projects 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 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.
• BR-8 As needed, surveys for state and federally listed
sensitive plant species shall be conducted to complete a
determination of suitable habitat presence prior to issuance of any
discretionary permits by the City. Surveys shall be conducted at a
time when sensitive plant species would be most observable.
Monitoring .
Type '
Project
Project
j
Project
. Monitoring ; -
Department
Planning
Planning
Planning
, Shown on
- Plans • -
•, \ Verified
Implementation Remarks
..--—
v>
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.
Page 8 of 23
Mitigation Measure,Monitoring
Type '
Monitoring
' Department
Shown on
"Plans",
Verified
Implementation Remarks
BR-9 At the project design stage for projects 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.
Project Planning
• BR-10 Projects shall comply with the Adjacency Standards
outlined in Section F., pp. 4-16 to F-24 of the HMP.
Project Planning,
Engineering
• BR-11
ensure
During clearing, grading, and other construction activities,
that proper irrigation and stormwater runoff mitigation
measures are employed to reduce sediment loads and to prevent
contamination from "pesticides, fertilizers, petroleum products, and
other toxic substances. Fugitive dust shall also be avoided and
minimized through watering and other appropriate measures.
Project Planning,
Engineering
CR-1 The following mitigation measures will be required if a
project is located in an undeveloped area that could potentially
impact significant cultural deposits.
o CR-1 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.
• CR-1a(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 SCIC for the
assignment of Primary numbers within 1 week of the survey.
• CR-1a(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
Project Planning
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
o^Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
"*^TVerified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated.
~—JRemarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.
Page 9 of 23
Mitigation Measure
files.
o CR-1b 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.
• CR-1b(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.
• CR-1b(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.
• CR-1b(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.
• CR-1b(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.
* CR-2 Monitoring Requirements - Construction monitoring will
be required for projects that involve excavation or grading within
undisturbed native soils and could potentially impact subsurface
cultural deposits.
Monitoring
Type
1
Project
Monitoring
Department
•
Planning,
Engineering
Shown on
Plans
,.< Verified .
Implementation - Remarks
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.
Page 10 of 23
Mitigation Measure , ,
o CR-2a 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.
o CR-2b 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 construction
manager's responsibility to keep the archaeological monitors up-
to-date with current plans.
o CR-2c 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.
• CR-2c(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.
o CR-2d If human remains are discovered, work shall halt
Monitoring
Type
1
.
Monitoring
Department
!
:Shown on
Plans j
Verified
Implementation Remarks
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
f>phown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
•^Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated.
•—Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.
Page 11 of 23
Mitigation Measure , " ,
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.
o CR-2e 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.
o CR-2f: 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.
Monitoring
• '•' Type
<
Monitoring
Department
!
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
-
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and da'ted.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.
Page 12 of 23
Mitigation Measure ,'•••;'•'
• CR-3 The following paleontological mitigation measures shall
be implemented:
o CR-3a: Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist
shall- be retained to perform a walkover survey of the site and to
review the grading plans to determine if the proposed grading
will impact fossil resources.
o CR-3b A copy of the paleontologist's report shall be provided to
the Planning Director before construction. • If the
paleontologist's ..report finds the project will not significantly
impact fossil resources, this mitigation measure shall be
considered fulfilled and no further effort to comply with this
measure shall be required.
o CR-3c A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform
periodic inspections of the site and to salvage exposed fossils.
Due to the small nature of some of the fossils present in the
geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples
for laboratory processing through fine screens.
o CR-3d The paleontologist shall make periodic reports to the
Planning Director during the grading process.
o CR-3e The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct
grading in the area of an exposed fossil in order to facilitate
evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts.
o CR-3f All fossils collected may be donated to a public,
nonprofit institution with a research interest in the materials,
such as the San Diego Natural History Museum.
o CR-3g Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist
and the grading activities of the project shall be resolved by the
Planning Director and City Engineer.
• GS-1 A site-specific geotechnical investigation shall be
prepared to address geotechnical considerations related to future
housing development facilitated by the Draft Housing Element,
specifically project components that would involve excavation,
grading, or construction of new structures. The report shall contain
all necessary requirements to address any adverse soils conditions
Monitoring
- '.Type "
Project
•
, '
i '
Project
Monitoring
Department
Planning,
Engineering
;
.
Planning,
Building,
Engineering
Shown on
• Plans' "
Verified
Implementation Remarks
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
~Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
' Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.
Page 13 of 23
Mitigation Measure , .
that may be encountered in final design of a project. The applicant
shall be required to adhere to all such requirements. The report
shall include a discussion of site-specific geology, soils, and
foundational issues; a seismic hazards analysis to determine the
potential for strong ground acceleration and ground shaking;
potential groundwater issues; and structural design
recommendations. The soil engineer and engineering geologist
shall review the grading plans for adequate incorporation of
recommended measures prior to finalization.
• GS-2 All future projects shall be designed and constructed in
conformance to the Uniform Building Code, current seismic design
specifications of the Structural Engineering Association of
California, and other regulatory requirements.
• GS-3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall
prepare and submit for review and approval of the Carlsbad City
Engineer, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to
demonstrate that pollutants will be controlled through compliance
with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation
Plan (SUSMP), General Construction Stormwater Permit, and the
General Municipal Stormwater Permit. The applicant shall be
responsible for monitoring and maintaining the Best Management
Plan (BMP) erosion control measures in accordance with the City's
grading and erosion control requirements.
• GS-4 All applicable federal, state and local permits regarding
drainage shall be obtained. Such permits include the General
Construction Stormwater Permit from the Regional Water Quality
Control Board.
• GS-5 Future development shall comply with the following
requirements as applicable:
o Erosion control measures shall be provided to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer in accordance with the City's grading and
erosion control requirements (Municipal Code § 15.16 et.seq.).
The locations of all erosion control devices shall be noted on
plans included in the SWPPP.
.Monitoring „;Type
Project
Project
Project
Project
-„ Monitoring
Department
Planning,
Buifding,
Engineering
Planning,
Engineering,
Public Works
Engineering
Planning,
Engineering,
Public Works
Shown on
'Plans -
1 , Verified
Implementation Remarks
O
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and da'ted.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.
Page 14 of 23
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Type
Monitoring
Department
Shown on
Plans'
. Verified
Implementation Remarks
o
o
o
All grading permits issued authorizing grading during the rainy
season (October 1 of any year to April 30th of the following
year), shall require the installation of all erosion and
sedimentation control protective measures in accordance with
city standards. Erosion and runoff control measures shall be
designed and bonded prior to approval of grading permits by
the City.
All permanent slopes shall be planted with erosion control
vegetation, drained and properly maintained to reduce erosion
within 30 days of completion of grading. Erosion control and
drainage devices shall be installed in compliance with the
requirements of the City.
All erosion and sedimentation control protective measures shall
be maintained in good working order through out the duration
of the rainy season unless it can be demonstrated to the City
Engineer that their removal at an earlier date will not result in
any unnecessary erosion of or sedimentation on public or
private properties.
HM-1 Prior to approval of discretionary permits for projects
within (1) an existing or former agricultural area, or (2) an area
believed to have contaminated soils due to historic use, handling,
or storage of hazardous materials, a detailed soils testing and
analysis report shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer,
and submitted to the City and the San Diego County Department of
Environmental Health (DEH) for approval. This report shall
evaluate the potential for soil contamination due to historic use,
handling, or storage of chemicals and materials restricted by the
DEH. The report shall also identify a range of possible mitigation
measures to remediate any significant public health impacts if
hazardous chemicals are detected at concentrations in the soil
which would have a significantly adverse effect on human health.
Project Planning,
Engineering
• HM-2 If use of agricultural chemicals within an existing
agricultural operation has the potential to adversely impact a
proposed residential development on an adjacent parcel, mitigation
measures including but not limited to physical barriers and/or
Project Planning,
Engineering
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
•"^Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
Overified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated,
f^j-temarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.
Page 15 of 23
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Type
Monitoring
Department
Shown on
Plans •
Verified
Implementation Remarks
separation between the uses shall be considered.
• HM-3 Prior to approval of any permits for uses such as
emergency shelters and farm worker housing within the City's
industrial zones, the applicant shall obtain clearances from federal,
state, and local agencies as necessary to ensure such uses are
not exposed to significant hazards due to the routine transport, use
or disposal of hazardous materials or through reasonable
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment.
Project Planning,
Building
HM-4 All trash and debris within project sites shall be
disposed of off-site in accordance with current, local, state, and
federal disposal regulations. Any buried trash/debris encountered
shall be evaluated by an experienced environmental consultant
prior to removal.
Project Planning,
Building,
Engineering
HM-5 Before beginning demolition or renovation activities, the
interior of individual onsite structures shall be visually inspected.
Should hazardous materials be encountered, the materials shall be
tested and properly disposed of offsite in accordance with state
and federal regulatory requirements. Any stained soils or surfaces
underneath the removed materials shall be sampled. Results of the
sampling would indicate the appropriate level of remediation efforts
that may be required.
Project Planning,
Building
HM-6 Before beginning any remedial or demolition work,
building owners shall contract with a certified professional to
conduct an asbestos survey, consistent with National Emission
Standards for hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) standards to
determine the presence of asbestos containing materials.
Demolition of or within existing buildings on individual parcels
onsite must comply with State law, which requires a certified
contractor where there is asbestos-related work involving 100
square feet or more or such materials to ensure that certain
procedures regarding the removal of asbestos are followed.
Project Planning,
Building
HM-7 Before the issuance of a grading permit, all
miscellaneous debris (i.e., wood, concrete, storage drums, and
Project Planning,
Engineering
a
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.
Page 16 of 23
• Mitigation Measure ' ,, . ,
automobiles) shall be removed offsite and properly disposed of at
an approved landfill facility. Once removed, a visual inspection of
the areas beneath the removed materials shall be performed. Any
stained soils observed underneath the removed materials shall be
sampled. Results of the sampling would indicate the appropriate
level of remediation efforts that may be required.
• HM-8 If unknown wastes or suspect materials are discovered
during construction on individual properties that are believed to
involve hazardous waste/materials, the contractor shall:
o Immediately stop work in the vicinity of the suspected
contaminant, removing workers and the public from the area;
o Notify the project-engineer of the City of Carlsbad;
o Secure the areas as directed by the project engineer, and;
o Notify the City's hazardous waste/materials coordinator.
• HM-9 When applications are submitted to the City of Carlsbad
Planning Department to redesignate the land use of a property or
propose development or redevelopment, disclosure of inclusion on
the Cortese List (Government Code Section 65962.5) shall be
required. If an application is for property included on the Cortese
List, the applicant shall provide evidence that describes the
required remediation process, through text and graphics, and (1)
demonstrates compliance is occurring or has occurred with all
applicable federal, state, and local regulations; (2) describes all
necessary actions and approvals to remediate the property and
includes evidence of any approvals so far obtained; (3) describes
the estimated remediation timeframe, current status, and any
monitoring required during and following remediation; (4) discusses
any restrictions on use of the property upon reclamation
completion; (5) includes all other required information as deemed
necessary by the City, DEH, and other agencies having regulatory
authority with regards to remediation of the site.
• WQ-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer
shall prepare and submit for review and approval of the Carlsbad
City Engineer, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program
, Monitoring '
Type
Project
Project
Project
Monitoring
Department
Planning,
Building,
Engineering,
Public Works
Planning
Engineering,
Public Works
Shown on
Plans
Verified , ,
Implementation Remarks
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
J/lonitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
/erified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.
Page 17 of 23
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
'Type
Monitoring
Department
Shown on
. Plans "
Verified
Implementation Remarks
(SWPPP) to demonstrate that pollutants will be controlled through
compliance with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Stormwater
Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), General Construction Stormwater Permit
(Order No. 99-08, NPDES CAS000002), and the General
Municipal Stormwater Permit (Order R9-2007- 0001, NPDES
CAS0108758). The applicant shall be responsible for monitoring
and maintaining the BMP erosion control measures identified
below on a weekly basis in accordance with the City's grading and
erosion control requirements (Municipal Code Section 15.16. et
seq.). The locations of all erosion control devices shall be noted on
the grading.plana, BMPs that shall be installed include, but are not
limited to, the following:
o Silt fence, fiber rolls, or gravel bag berms
o Check dams
o Street sweeping and vacuuming
o Storm drain inlet protection
o Stabilized construction entrance/exit
o Hydroseed, soil binders, or straw mulch
o Containment of material delivery and storage areas
o Stockpile management
o Spill prevention and control
o Waste management for solid, liquid, hazardous, and sanitary
waste, and contaminated soil
o Concrete waste management
WQ-2a. Prior to issuance of grading permits or approvals for any
public or private right-of-way improvements or site development
plans, the developer shall prepare and submit for review and
approval by the City of Carlsbad City Engineer, a Stormwater
management plan that demonstrate that pollutants will be
controlled through compliance with the City of Carlsbad SUSMP
and Stormwater Management Program (SWMP). Approval of such
plans shall be subject to a determination by the Carlsbad City
Engineer that the proposed project has incorporated post-
development water quality pollution control site design BMPs,
source control BMPs, and numerically-sized treatment control
BMPs such as those identified below into the project design to the
Project,
ongoing
Engineering
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.
Page 18 of 23
Mitigation Measure ,
maximum extent practicable:
o street sweeping
o inlet basin labeling
o Filtering bioretention units
o Pervious pavement
o Vegetated swales
o Detention/infiltration basins
o Covered trash enclosures
» WQ-2b. Projects shall be required to show compliance with the
applicable hydromodification provisions of Order R9-2007-0001
and to show they are designed so that postproject runoff flow rates
and directions do not exceed pre-project runoff flow rates and
directions for applicable design storms. Projects shall incorporate
LID design techniques to reduce the amount of runoff by mimicking
the natural hydrologic function of the site by preserving natural
open spaces and natural drainage channels, minimizing
impervious surfaces, and promoting infiltration and
evapotranspiration of runoff before runoff leaves the site. LID
techniques include, but are not limited to:
o Vegetated buffer strips
o Vegetated bio swales
o Rain gardens
o Porous pavements
o Bioretention areas
o Vegetated roofs
o Stormwater planter boxes
o Infiltration trenches
o Dry wells
• WQ-3 In conjunction with the sale, rental or lease of a
residence or business property, all prospective owners and tenants
shall be notified in writing through Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) that they shall:
o Establish or work with established disposal programs for the
removal and proper disposal of toxic and hazardous waste
Monitoring
Type
Pr6ject,
ongoing
Project,
ongoing
Monitoring
Department
Engineering
i
Planning,
Engineering
• Shown on
Plans -,
~ Verified ~
Implementation Remarks
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
•"^TShown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
C/sVerified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated.
,___Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.
Page 19 of 23
Mitigation Measure
products.
o Not discharge or cause to be discharged any toxic chemicals or
hydrocarbon compounds, such as gasoline, motor oil,
antifreeze, solvents, paints, paint thinners, wood preservatives
and other such fluids, into any public or private street or into
any storm drain or storm drain conveyance.
o Use and/or dispose of all pesticides, fungicides, herbicides,
insecticides, fertilizers, and other such chemical treatments in
accordance with federal, State, County, and City requirements
as prescribed on their respective containers.
<J
o Employ BMPs to eliminate or reduce surface pollutants when
planning any changes to the landscaping and/or surface
improvements. Developer shall establish a homeowner's
association and corresponding CC&Rs. Said CC&Rs shall be
submitted to and approved by the Planning Director prior to
final map approval.
o Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall
provide the Planning Department with a recorded copy of the
official CC&Rs that have been approved by the California
Department of Real Estate and the Planning Director.
• WQ-4 As required by the City Engineer, a hydrology report to
assess impacts relating to drainage and stormwater runoff shall be
prepared. The report shall demonstrate compliance with current
applicable hydromodification standards and demonstrate adequate
capacity in downstream storm drain facilities, or shall demonstrate
no increase in runoff peak flows through onsite detention.
• WQ-5 Proposed development shall comply with all applicable
requirements of Chapter 21.110, Floodplain Management
Regulations, of the Zoning Ordinance. This shall include
preparation of all applicable studies and reports, including those
required by other agencies, such as FEMA.as directed by the City
Engineer.
« WQ-6 Proposed development shall be subject to compliance
with mitigation measures GS-1 and GS-2, which require
Monitoring
- Type
Project
Project
Project
Monitoring
Department
<
Engineering
Planning,
Engineering
Planning,
Engineering,
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.
Page 20 of 23
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Type
Monitoring
Department
SHown on
Plans
- Verified
Implementation Remarks
preparation of site-specific geotechnical investigations and
compliance with Uniform Building Code and other structural
regulations.
Building
N-1 A noise study shall be submitted with all
discretionary applications for residential projects of five or
more dwelling units located within or 500-feet beyond the 60
dBA CNEL noise contour lines as shown on Map 2: Future
Noise Contour Map in the Noise Element of the General Plan.
This noise study shall identify design features such as noise
attenuation walls and mechanical building ventilation
necessary to enforce the City policy that 60 dBA CNEL is the
exterior noise level (65 dBA if subject to noise from
McClellan-Palomar Airport) and 45 dBA CNEL is the interior
noise level to which all residential units shall be mitigated.
Project Planning
N-2 To minimize noise impacts, project design
techniques shall be used during any discretionary review of a
residential or other noise sensitive project to shield noise
sensitive areas from a noise source. This can be done, for
example, by increasing the distance between the noise
source and the receiver; placing non-noise sensitive uses
such as parking areas, maintenance facilities, and utility
areas between the source and the receiver; using non-
sensitive structures, such as a garage, to shield noise
sensitive areas; and, orienting buildings to shield outdoor
spaces from a noise source.
Project Planning
N-3 As applicable, future residential development shall
comply with the policies of the City of Carlsbad General Plan
Noise Element and City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines
Manual.
Project Planning
N-4 As applicable, future residential development shall
comply with the following requirements:
o Heavy equipment shall be repaired at sites as far as practical
from nearby residences and occupied sensitive habitats.
Project Planning,
Building,
Engineering
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure,
on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated.
= Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.
Page 21 of 23
Mitigation Measure -
o Construction equipment, including vehicles, generators, and
compressors, shall be maintained in proper operating condition
and shall be equipped with manufacturers' standard noise
control devices or better (e.g., mufflers, acoustical lagging,
and/or engine enclosures).
o The City's noise ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.48.010)
limits the hours of construction to between 7 a.m. and sunset
on weekdays and 8 a.m. to sunset on Saturdays. Construction
is prohibited on Sundays and holidays. The City Manager may
grant an exception for night work during the night, Sundays,
and holidays if the construction is in a nonresidential zone and
there are no inhabited dwellings within 1 ,000 feet of the
construction site.
o Electrical power shall be provided from commercial power
supply, wherever feasible, to avoid or minimize the use of
engine-driven generators.
o Staging areas for construction equipment shall be located as
far as practicable from residences and sensitive habitats.
o Operating equipment shall be designed to comply with all
applicable local, state, and federal noise regulations.
o Noise attenuation walls/buffers shall be used to shield sensitive
noise receptors from construction-generated noise greater than
75 dBA within 50 feet of sensitive receptors.
o If lighted traffic control devices are to be located within 500 feet
of residences, the devices shall be powered by batteries, solar
power, or similar sources, and not by an internal combustion
engine.
• N-5 Refer to Mitigation Measure Biological Resources
BR-4, which will reduce potential construction noise impacts
to sensitive bird species, migratory birds, or raptors to below
a level of significance.
• N-6 Future development shall comply with the following
requirements as applicable:
o Prior to the recordation of the first final (tract/parcel) map or
Monitoring '
Type
•
. j
Project
Project
Monitoring
Department
!
Planning
Planning,
Engineering
Shown on •
' Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and daHed.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.
Page 22 of 23
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
' Type
Monitoring
Department
Shown on
" Plans'
Verified
Implementation Remarks
o
the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, the
Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this property
is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating
from McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval
of the Planning Director and the City Attorney (see Noise Form
#2 on file in the Planning Department).
Developer shall post aircraft noise notification signs in all sales
and/or rental offices associated with the new development.
The number and locations of said signs shall be approved by
the Planning Director (see Noise Form #3 on file in the
Planning Department).
PS-1 Prior to approval of the first tract map or building permit
in Zone 25, a Local Facility Management Plan shall be prepared
and adopted by the City Council for Zone 25. Consistent with the
Carlsbad Growth Management Plan and its performance standards
for public facilities, this plan shall show how and when the following
facilities will be provided: Sewer systems, water, drainage,
circulation, fire facilities, schools, libraries, city administrative
facilities, parks and open space. This plan shall also include an
inventory of present and future requirements for each public
facility, a phasing schedule establishing the timing for provision of
each facility, and a financing plan for funding the necessary
facilities.
Project Planning
T-1 Require new development to provide a traffic
analysis report, as applicable, according to City standards
and as may be required by the City Engineer. This report
shall evaluate project specific traffic impacts and identify
mitigation for impacts.
Project Planning,
Engineering
T-2 Require new development to comply with the
adopted (September 23, 1986) Growth Management
performance standards for circulation facilities, which ensures
future development will not exceed the traffic load and
capacity of the City's street system and intersections.
Project Planning,
Engineering
T-3 Developers shall make applicable fair share Project Planning,
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
• Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated.
"Verified implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated.
""Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.
Page 23 of 23
, Mitigation Measure Monitoring Monitoring
Department
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
contributions through the Traffic Impact Fee (TIP) program
toward traffic improvements, to the satisfaction of the
Carlsbad Engineering Department.
Engineering
T-4 For projects that may potentially impact the
circulation networks of adjacent jurisdictions, the City shall
coordinate the project's environmental review with these
jurisdictions to determine the need for any mitigation of the
potential impacts. .
Project Planning,
Engineering
T-5 Require new development to provide pedestrian
and bicycle linkages, when feasible, which connect to nearby
community centers, commercial developments, parks,
schools, points of interest, major transportation corridors and
the Carlsbad Trail System.
Project Planning,
Engineering,
Recreation
T-6 For development proposed adjacent to or near the
North County Transit District railroad right of way, traffic
analysis reports required by mitigation measure T-1 shall
address any traffic increase impacts over affected rail
crossings and associated mitigation measures, if any, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Project Planning,
Engineering
• USS-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall
prepare and submit for review and approval of the Carlsbad City
Engineer, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP)
to demonstrate that pollutants will be controlled through
compliance with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Stormwater
Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), General Construction Stormwater
Permit, and the General Municipal Stormwater Permit. The
applicant shall be responsible for monitoring and maintaining the
Best Management Plan (BMP) erosion control measures in
accordance with the City's grading and erosion control
requirements.
Project Engineering
Explanation of Headings:
Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and ddted.
Verified Implementation = When mitigation measure has been implemented, this column will be initialed and dated.
Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other information.
1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6548
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO
4 ADOPT THE UPDATE OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT FOR
THE 2005-2010 HOUSING CYCLE AS REQUIRED BY THE
5 CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE.
CASE NAME: 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
6 CASE NO.: GPA 03-02
7
with the City of Carlsbad to adopt a General Plan Amendment for the Draft 2005-2010 Housing
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, "Applicant," has filed a verified application
8
9 Element ("Draft Housing Element"), a document that affects properties throughout Carlsbad; and
10
WHEREAS, the Draft Housing Element is an update to the Housing Element
11
adopted in 2000 for the 1999-2005 Housing Cycle; and
12
WHEREAS, the Housing Commission did on January 8 and February 12, 2009,1 j
I A hold noticed public meetings to consider said request; and
15 WHEREAS, at said meetings, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
16 arguments, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments
received, the Housing Commission considered all factors relating to the Draft Housing Element
18 and recommended approval of the General Plan Amendment to the Planning Commission and
19 City Council; and
20
WHEREAS, subsequent to the Housing Commission hearings, staff prepared
21
minor revisions to the Draft 2005-2010 Housing Element to (1) delete text and figures
22
regarding the La Costa Town Square project, which was approved by City Council in
August 2009 without the residential and mixed use high density components indentified in
25 the Draft Housing Element; (2) add additional shopping center sites with high density,
26 mixed use potential to Table 3-7 and related text; (3) revise text, tables and figures as
27 necessary to reflect the above revisions; and (4) amend Section 4 to clarify the ability of
98^° water and sewer providers to serve the City's remaining Regional Housing Needs
1 Assessment and to add to the Quarry Creek environmental constraints discussion that
2 remediation of groundwater is occurring; and
3 WHEREAS, these minor revisions, which maintain the City's ability to meet
4 its RHNA obligations for lower income housing, also maintain project consistency with the
5
General Plan, Growth Management Program, Local Coastal Program, and State Housing
6
Element law; the minor revisions are attached to this resolution as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on November 18, 2009, hold a dulyo
o noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
10 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
11 and arguments, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written
12 comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the General Plan
Amendment.
14 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning
15
Commission as follows:
16
17 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
18 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning
Commission RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the DRAFT 2005-2010
19 HOUSING ELEMENT (dated December 2008) - GPA 03-02, including the
~A minor text revisions shown on attached Exhibit A, based on the following
findings:
Findings:
22
1. The General Plan Amendment is necessary to ensure the General Plan Housing
23 Element is consistent with state housing law as found in the California Government
Code, comnfencing with Section 65580.
24
2. Through its strategies and programs, the General Plan Amendment to the Housing
Element ensures the city will continue to provide all required and necessary
« f affordable housing programs, policies and regulations to successfully meet a priority
of Government Code Section 65580(a), which states "the availability of housing is of
27 vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable
oo
PCRESONO. 6548 -2-
1 living environment for every Californian, including farmworkers, is a priority of the
highest order."
. The General Plan Amendment incorporates Housing Element programs,
particularly Program 2.1, that require land use designation and minimum density
4 changes necessary to comply with growth projections as determined by the State
Department of Housing and Community Development and as allocated by the San
5 Diego Association of Governments through the Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA) process.
6
4. The General Plan Amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the
General Plan in that (1) it complies with the location criteria for medium and higher
density, multi-family uses and overall Land Use Element Residential Objective B.I,
which states "to achieve a variety of safe, attractive housing in all economic
segments throughout the City;" (2) it does not conflict with the objectives and
policies of other elements that have bearing on or are impacted by residential land
10 uses, such as the Circulation Element, Parks and-Recreation Element, and Public
Safety Element, including compliance with safety measures in place to protect
11 residents from potential aircraft operation hazards; (3) the General Plan
Amendment does not allow residential encroachment into open space areas,
consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element, and; (4) it does not
propose housing in areas where people would be exposed to harmful noise since, as
consistent with the Noise Element, negative impacts from transportation sources can
14 be mitigated through design and building sound insulation.
15 5. The General Plan Amendment is consistent with the City's Local Coastal Program
in that none of the proposed policies or programs allow for degradation of
16 agricultural or scenic resources, encroachment into environmentally sensitive areas,
restriction of coastal access, or creation of geologic instability or erosion. The
proposed updates to the Housing Element also contain programs intending to
preserve and/or replace affordable housing within the Coastal Zone, as required by
state law.
19 6. The General Plan Amendment is consistent with the City's Growth Management
20 Program in that (1) unit yields that could be realized from implementation of
Housing Element programs do not exceed the Growth Management dwelling unit
21 cap for any of the four quadrants; (2) programs do not conflict with Growth
Management threshold standards to ensure public facilities and services keep pace
22 with development; and (3) the Housing Element is consistent with a purpose and
intent of the Growth Management Program, which is to provide quality housing
opportunities for all economic segments of the community and to balance the
housing needs of the region against the public service needs of Carlsbad's residents
and available fiscal and environmental resources.
25
7. The minor revisions to the Draft Housing Element as shown in Exhibit A attached
26 to this resolution maintain compliance with the findings herein as they do not
conflict with any of the requirements or policies of the land use documents identified
27 or with state housing law.
28
PCRESONO. 6548 -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
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on November 18, 2009, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners Baker, L'Heureux, Nygaard, Schumacher, and
Chairperson Montgomery
Commissioners Dominguez and Douglas
M.
CARLSBAD PLANN
ATTEST:
8L7J,
>erson
ION
DON NEU
Planning Director
PCRESONO. 6548 -4-
Exhibit A to Planning CommL . jn Resolution 6548
Draft 2005-2010 Housing Element (GPA 03-02)
Draft 2005-2010 Housing Element -
Proposed Minor Text Changes
(Proposed deletions shown strikeout and
proposed additions shown double underlined)
\n
Resources Available
units per acre. Additionally, the proposed Barrio Area is identified as a RH site
because of the high density land use proposed there; it may, however, receive a
different high density land use designation than RH.
Table 3-4
Existing and Proposed High Density Residential (RH) Sites
Property APN Acres Density Number of
Units1
Vacant Residential Sites currently designated RH
Robertson Ranch
Unentitled Land
Subtotal
Portions of 168-050-47, 208-
010-36
Various (see Appendix C)
22
12
20-22,3
du/ac2
20 du/ac3
4652
237
702
Vacant Residential Sites proposed to be designated RH
Bridges at Aviara
Affordable Housing
Component4
Subtotal
Portions of 215-050-44 and
47 2.6 25 65
65
Vacant Non-Residential Sites proposed to be designated RH
Ponto4
Quarry Creek4
Subtotal
Other
Underutilized RH Sites
Proposed Barrio Area4
Subtotal
Total
-ITS nfin ,?i
216-140-17
Portions of 167-040-21
Various (see Appendix D)
Various (See Appendix G)
f n
6.4
15
0.26
14
-in rln/-ir
20 du/ac
20- du/ac
20 du/ac3
28 du/ac
1 ~>0
128
300
548428
8
256
264
1,5701,423
Notes:1 Number of units does not always reflect acreage multiplied by density because of rounding and other
factors.2 General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Master Plan approved to allow the densities and number of units
shown. Number of units includes 78 high-density, lower income units under construction (Glen Ridge) as of
October 2008. These units are not reflected in Table 3-2.3 City commits to process a GPA to increase minimum density to 20 du/ac on these sites (New Program).4 More information about these projects is provided below.
Source: City of Carlsbad, December 2008
Table 3-5
Approved Multi-Family Projects on Small Sites
Project a
Ayoub Triplex
Ocean Breeze Condos
Acacia Estates
Tamarack Beach Lofts
La Vercia
Site Size
(in acres)
0.19
0.31
0.32
0.22
0.41
Units
3
5
4
4
5
Density
15.8 du/ac
16.0 du/ac
12.5 du/ac
18.0 du/ac
12.2 du/ac
Approval
Date
2000
2002
2005
2006
1998
City of Carlsbad
2005-2010 Housing Element 3-9
Resources Available
Specific Sites Proposed to be Designated RH
fwe-FoLOLdifferent sites are proposed for redesignation to RH. For three of them,
the City would propose the redesignation; the other two aresjte wjou[d_Jbe
developer-initiated applications. Details of each follow:
1. Bridges at Aviara Affordable Housing Component: A developer has
filed applications, including a zone change and general plan amendment, to
redesignate and develop and preserve approximately 60 vacant acres in
the Southwest Quadrant. The proposed project would .feature 428
condominiums for senior residents and 65 apartments units on a proposed
2.6-acre site. Occupancy of the 65 apartments would be restricted to lower
income families. Much of the property would be set aside as open space
to preserve natural habitat. Current zoning for the affected acreage is L-C
(Limited Control) and R-l (One-family Residential). Current general plan is
RLM (Residential Low Medium Density) and OS (Open Space).
2-7— La Costa Town1 Square! A developer initiated application, the La Costa
Town Square project, located in the Southeast Quadrant, features a largo
shopping center and office development, a mixed use component, and
single- and multi family .residential. — Part of the proposal would redesignate
six acres of property from O (Office) to RH and construct- 120 multi family
units on the property at the proposed minimum density for vacant RH sites
of 20 units per acre. — Current zoning of the property, P C (Planned
Community), would not change. The draft environmental impact report for
La Costa Town Square is expected to be publicly released in early 2009
with public hearings later that year.
=P°nto: Ponto is the name given to a 130-acre area located near
Carlsbad State Beach in the southwestern part of the City. Ponto also falls
within the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Area. The Ponto
Beachfront Village Vision Plan is intended to provide guidance for the
development of a 50-acre portion of Ponto. This Vision Plan, approved by
the City in 2007, designates approximately 6.4 vacant acres for high
density residential. This property has a current zoning of P-C and a
combination general plan designation of U-A/T-R/C (Unplanned
Area/Travel-Recreation/Commercial). . Per the Vision Plan, the City would
amend the general plan to designate the property RH. The environmental
impact report for the Ponto Beachfront'Village Vision Plan has been certified
by the City, although the report is the subject of litigation regarding
financial contributions towards off-site improvements.
4r3_^ _Quarry Creek: The site of the former South Coast Materials Quarry
that ceased mining operations in 1995, Quarry Creek is an approximately
100-acre parcel bisected by Buena Vista Creek and bordered by
commercial and residential uses, the 78 Freeway, and open space. The
majority of the property is vacant; some buildings from the quarry
City of Carlsbad
3-10 2005-2010 Housing Element \ \ ^
Resources Available
operation remain, and recycling of used concrete and asphalt materials
continues on a. temporary basis on site. The site is undergoing soil
remediation and reclamation planning as required by the State Surface
Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and a draft environmental impact
report on the reclamation plan was released for public review in September
2008. Quarry Creek, which is located in the Northeast Quadrant, has a
current zoning of R-l-10,000 (One family residential, minimum 10,000-
square-foot lot size) and M (Manufacturing) and general plan designations
of RLM (Residential Low Medium Density) and OS (Open Space). The City
proposes to redesignate a portion of the property to RH with an appropriate
zoning. The City also proposes to redesignate another portion of the
property to RMH (see Table 3-9). Quarry Creek is unique in that it is part of
the only area in the City without a Local Facilities Management Plan; this
plan must be adopted before any development may occur. A developer
has filed an application to initiate the master planning of Quarry Creek in a
manner consistent with the City's residential land use and density
objectives for the property.
Barrio Area: The Barrio is an approximately 100-acre
urbanized area in the City's Northwest Quadrant originally developed by
Hispanic immigrants in the 1920s. Mostly developed, the Barrio Area is
west of Interstate 5, east of the railroad tracks and, south of the Village
Redevelopment Area.. Roughly at the renter of the 'Barrio Area are the
recently expanded Pine Avenue Park, Chase Field, and the City's newly
remodeled senior center. Along with these open space and community
uses, existing land uses include medium and lower density residential and
higher density, multi-family uses. A few Barrio properties are developed
with neighborhood commercial uses, and the area is well served by
churches and a multitude of services in the adjacent Village Redevelopment
Area.
While ideally located next to major transportation, shopping and recreation
(including Carlsbad State Beach less than one mile to the west), the Barrio
Area has a significant number of older, underutilized properties with high
absentee ownership. Of the nearly 320 properties in the Barrio Area, over
25 percent have structures at least 55 years of age, 60 percent are
absentee-owned, and 55 percent of the properties have improvement
values less than their land values. Similar to many older neighborhoods,
the Barrio has been transitioning from predominantly family owned
occupancy to non-owner occupancy. Consequently, many older and
substandard buildings exist in the area, and many properties are not being
adequately maintained.
j
Though property values in the Barrio Area remain high, the neighborhood
could benefit from additional investment in property improvements. Since
2000, the City has made a number of substantial public improvements in
the area, including utility undergrounding, storm drain and street
improvements, and the previously mentioned park and senior center
City of Carlsbad
2005-2010 Housing Element 3-11
Res ,rces Available
Whether as a stand-alone or combined document, the master or specific
plan would establish a new or unique land use designation that permits
high densities in excess of the current RH land use designation, which
permits a maximum of 23 units per acre. However, since RH is the City's
only current high density land use designation, it used to designate the
proposed high density for the Barrio Area as well.
RH Mixed Use Sites
The City's satisfaction of its RHNA also relies upon existing and proposed "mixed
use" sites. For purposes of this Housing Element, mixed use describes properties
where both commercial and residential uses either are permitted or proposed on
the same or adjacent sites. Mixed use may be "horizontal," with different uses
located on adjoining sites, or it may be "vertical," with residences, for example,
located above shops in a multi-story building. Table 3-6 lists residential
potential in the City's planned mixed use and existing redevelopment areas
where lower income housing also may be feasible.
Table 3-6
Existing and Proposed RH Mixed Use Sites
Property APN Acres , DensityI-.
Number
of Units1
Proposed Vacant Mixed Use Sites
Costa Town Squared
Commercial Mixed Use
Ponto2
Portion nf "l")'3 Dfifi ">">
Portion of 216-140-18
J..U
(opprox)
2.8
(approx)
M /A1 <!/ /'\
20 du/ac
44
28
Proposed Shopping Center Mixed Use Sites
Various (see Table 3-7)2 Various Various 20 du/ac 3^525
Existing Village Mixed Use Sites (underutilized and vacant)
Village Redevelopment Area2 Various (see Appendix F)71.5 18 and 28
du/ac3
875
Proposed Barrio Area (primarily underutilized)
Barrio Area2
Total
Various (see Appendix G)5 28 du/ac3 45
473391*4
23
Notes:1 Number of units does'not always reflect acreage multiplied by density because of rounding, planned mixed use
developments, and other factors. Number of units also reflects deductions for any existing units.2 More information about these projects is provided in the text below.3 The City commits to adopting a policy to establish the minimum densities shown.. Only 50% of the potential
yield for both Village and proposed Barrio Area Mixed Use sites is considered. For the Village, only 1.7 acres of
the total acres shown are vacant.
Source: City of Carlsbad, August 2007 and March 2008
Proposed Vacant Mixed Use Sites
City of Carlsbad
2005-2010 Housing Element 3-13
Resources Available
-La Costa Town Square; This developer proposed project also features D
mixed use component with 14 multi-family residential units in addition to
its proposed RH component discussed above. These 14 units arc proposed
as inclusionary units for satisfying the single'family residential component
of the project. These units will be affordable to lower income households.
L Ponto: Also discussed above, the draft Ponto Beachfront Village Vision
Plan prepared by the City designates an approximate six acre area as a
mixed use center where residential would be permitted in a vertical or
horizontal arrangement. The City commits to the development of 28
dwelling units on the site at a density of 20 units per acre. This property
has a current zoning of P-C and a combination general plan designation of
U-A/T-R/C/OS (Unplanned Area/Travel-Recreation/Commercial/Open
Space). This designation would be changed to an appropriate mixed use
designation that facilitates high density development.
Proposed Shopping Center Mixed Use Sites
Carlsbad recognizes the increasing pressure on cities to encourage smart growth
developments; that is, developments which recognize the importance of
sustainability and balance social, economic, and environmental needs through the
development of mixed use commercial and high density residential projects. The
City is also aware that it has a finite supply of raw land. For these reasons,
Carlsbad sees its many shopping center sites as potential locations for high
density housing. As potential mixed-use sites, they would comply with General
Plan objectives for medium and high density uses calling for close-in, convenient
shopping for the City residents and proximity to transportation corridors and
employment areas.
Currently, outside the Village Redevelopment Area, residential uses above the
ground floor of a multi-story commercial building are conditionally permitted in
the zones applied to shopping centers (i.e., C-l [Neighborhood Commercial], C-2
[General Commercial], and C-L [Local Shopping Center]). Recognizing the
potential for residential mixed with existing or redeveloped commercial uses, this
Housing Element includes a new program to develop new standards to permit by
right multi-family housing in the City's commercial zones at a minimum density of
20 du/acre.
While residential development would not be mandatory upon any shopping center
development or redevelopment proposal, the City believes the shopping centers
identified in Table 3-7 have the potential to initiate mixed use development
within this Housing Element cycle. The City has identified these centers as
potential mixed-use sites for various reasons, including functional obsolescence
due to small supermarket and/or property size and poor vehicular circulation;
underutilization of property; undeveloped property: and City ownership of
surrounding property. One of these centers, Plaza Camino Real, has already been
the subject of redevelopment discussions between the City and mall owners.
3-14 2005-2010 Housing Element
City of Carlsbad v O O
Res- -rces Available
Plaza Camino Real, a regional mall along Highway 78 developed in the late 1960s,
is entirely surrounded by parking on property owned by the City of Carlsbad.
The dwelling unit yield projected for the shopping centers is based on only 25
percent of each center's acreage redeveloping with residential uses at 20 units
per acre. This assumption recognizes that not all shopping centers will propose
mixed-use; for those that do, the 25 percent limitation also recognizes the
importance of maintaining sites for commercial uses in the City.
(Table 3-7 identifies only select shopping centers; the proposed program to allow
mixed uses at shopping centers would apply to all shopping centers and shopping
center sites in Carlsbad.)
Table 3-7
Shopping Centers with High Density, Mixed Use Potential
Use
Von's Center
Von's Center
Country Store
Plaza Camino
Real
Sunnyj^eek
(.undeveloped)
North County
Plaza
Total
Location
Interstate 5
and
Tamarack
El Camino
Real and La
Costa-Ave
El Camino
Real
El Camino
Real and
Marron Rd.
E]_Cam'[n_o
ReaLand
College_Blvd
Marron Rd
and
Jefferson St
Quadrant
Northwest
Southeast
Northwest
Northwest
.Northeast
Northwest
APN
206-050-16
- 20
216-124-
11,13,15,-
16, and 17
207-101-24
156-301-
06, 10, and
11; 156-
302-14 and
24
209-090-11
156-301-16
Acres -
5
8
5
57
(parking
lot only)
IZJi
12
(excludes
creek)
Existing
Zoning1
C-l
'•. C-l-Q
C-2/C-2-
Q
C-2
.Gi
C-2-0/OS
Existing
General
Plan2
L
L, L/OS
L
R
I
OS/R
Number
of
Units3
25
42
25
285
88
60
a^fezs
Notes1 Zoning symbols are: C-l (Neighborhood Commercial); C-2 (General Commercial) C-L (Local Shopping Center);
O-S (Open Space); R-P (Residential Professional); Q (Qualified Development Overlay Zone).2 General Plan land use symbols are: L (Local Shopping Center); OS (Open Space); R (Regional Commercial).3 Number of units is based on 25% of site acreage multiplied by 20 du/ac.
Existing Underutilized and Vacant Mixed Use Sites in the Village
Based on current development trends, the City estimates that significant
residential development potential is located in the Village Redevelopment Area,
which encompasses the City's downtown and is located in the Northwest
Quadrant. Furthermore, the City is encouraging mixed use developments in its
downtown area. Residential development (at a density of up to 35 units per
acre) is currently permitted or provisionally permitted on nearly all of the
City of Carlsbad
2005-2010 Housing Element 3-15 123
Resources Available
Second Units
Furthermore, the City has experienced increased development of second units in
recent years. Between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2006, a total of 67
second dwelling units (or.an annual average of 17 units) were built in the City.
The City estimates an additional 80 second units may be developed during the
remaining four years of the 2005-2010 planning period based on recent trends.
Pursuant to City regulations, second dwelling units, if rented, must be rented at
rates affordable to lower income households.
Adequacy of Sites Inventory in Meeting RHNA
Overall, the City has the capacity to accommodate 5,£66-ZSQ_additional units on
existing and proposed, residentially designated land, mixed use projects and
redevelopment areas (Table 3-12). This capacity can potentially facilitate the
development of 3,0^4-Q28_lower income, 577 moderate income, and 1,675 above
moderate income units based on economic feasibility as it relates to densities.
Combined, the City has land resources and programs (existing and proposed) to
accommodate the remaining RHNA of 3,566 units for lower and moderate income
households on properties designated for RH and RMH densities. Since the City
has more capacity than necessary to satisfy RHNA lower income demands, the
surplus can be applied to satisfy moderate-income needs. As the RHNA for
above-moderate income housing has already been satisfied by residences
constructed throug'h 2006, there is no remaining need to address for this income
group.
Table 3-12
Adequacy of Sites in Meeting Remaining RHNA
Sites
Residential Sites
Mixed Use Sites
Recently approved
Proposals with Affordable
Components1
Second Units
Total
RHNA Remaining
Difference
Lower
Income
j^&Lm.
-1 0 0 O 1 AT3i, -'-'-> JLfcS/ji
16
80
3,014ft2a
2,395
+6496J3
Moderate
Income
569
0
8
0
577
1,171
-594
Above
Moderate
Income
1,675
0
0
1,675
—
+ 1,675
Total
3,863223
J— 2-1Q1 A7"31,^0 J JLfc±.4.-2
24
80
573*65*280
3,566
+1, ?eezi4
'These projects, indentified in Table 3-11, are in addition to those found in tables 3-1 and 3-2 and
represent affordable housing approved since December 31, 2006.
Source: City of Carlsba'd, May 2008.
The City's existing affordable housing program has been quite successful,
despite severe market constraints related to the high cost of residential land. As
shown in Table 2-15, Carlsbad property values are the second highest in the
County, well above the County median. As discussed previously, there is a
City of Carlsbad
2005-2010 Housing Element 3-25
Constraints and Mitigatu _ Opportunities
Table 4-4
Dwelling Units Permitted on Vacant and Underutilized Residential
and Mixed Use Sites and Recently Approved Projects Based on Current
Growth Control Points
Property
Bridges at Aviara
R-H-pareety
Ponto
Quarry Creek
Vacant Unentitled RH Land
Underutilized RH sites
Second Dwelling Units
Village Redevelopment Area
Commercial Mixed Use Ponto
Vacant Unentitled RMH Land
Underutilized RMH Land
Shopping Center Mixed Use
Proposed Barrio Area .
Recently Approved Projects with
Affordable Housing (Harding Street
Senior Project)1
Total
APN
Portions of 215-050-44 and 47
223 060 31
216-140-17
Portions of 167-040-21
Various
Various
Various
Various
Portion of 223 060 32
Portion of 216-140-18
Various
Various
Various
Various
204-192-12
Dwelling Units
Permitted
22
e
0
165
224
68
0
0
0
0
91
96
0
70
6
742
Notes:1 These projects are found in Table 3-11. Of the three projects identified in Table 3-11, only the Harding Street
Project is counted in this Table 4-4. For purposes of this Housing Element, all 15 affordable units in the Harding
Street project have been withdrawn from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank. Overall, the project requires a 44 unit
bank withdrawal when also factoring in its market rate units.
The other two projects in Table 3-11, Lumiere and Roosevelt Street, do not require additional bank withdrawals.
The Lumiere project is part of the Village Redevelopment Area (already counted above) and_the Roosevelt Street
project rehabilitates existing units and thus requires no units from the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank.
In addition to ensuring adequate units exist in the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank, it
is also necessary to verify that the identified sites do not cause the dwelling unit
caps of each quadrant to be exceeded. .Table 4-5 provides this analysis to
demonstrate that quadrant caps will not be exceeded. In the "Identified Sites"
column, reported are the number of units that would be withdrawn from the
Excess Dwelling Unit Bank and that are in addition to any units already
permitted on the sites by existing General Plan designations and densities, as
identified in Table 4-4. As shown below, since per quadrant totals under
"Identified Sites" are fewer than the per quadrant totals under "Future Units,"
each quadrant has'sufficient capacity to accommodate proposed Housing
Element programs, as indicated by the per quadrant totals under "Remaining
Future Units."
City of Carlsbad
2005-2010 Housing Element 4-13
Constraints and Mitigating Opportunities
Water Supply
Although Carlsbad and the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) do not
foresee short-term water supply problems, the City cannot guarantee the long-
term availability of an adequate water supply. Recent State law requires that
the local water purveyor prepare a water supply assessment for larger
subdivisions to ensure adequate long-term water supply for single-year and
multi-year drought conditions prior to issuance of a building permit. The City
also actively implements several water conservation programs and has an
extensive network for the collection, treatment, and circulation of recycled water
for non-potable uses throughout the City. In 2006, the City approved the
Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Plant. If approved by the Coastal Commission
and built, the desalination plant would provide 100 percent of the potable water
needs of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, which serves most of the city.
Mitigating Opportunities
Pursuant to State law, affordable housing projects should be given priority for
water and sewer services should supply or capacity becomes an issue.
The Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) serves approximately 75 percent
of the City, providing sewer service to the same area as the City of Carlsbad.
Both the City and CMWD have adequate capacity and facilities to serve the
portion of the City's -remaining RHNA that is within their service areas^
approximately 3.400 units.v This equals approximately 3,200unitG, or the
majority of the City's 3,566 remaining RHNA units. Portions of the CMWD service
area are also sewered bv the Leucadia Wastewater District, an agency further
discussed below.
The portions of Carlsbad not served by CMWD or the City are located in the
southeastern part of Carlsbad, including the community known as "La Costa."
For much of this area, the Leucadia Wastewater District provides sewer service
and the Olivenhain Municipal and Vallecitos water districts provide water service.
None of the sites the City has identified to meet its RHNA are located in the
Vallecitos service area. However, no more than 4Q€-350=_of Carlsbad's remaining
RHNA are located within the Leucadia and Olivenhain districts. Both districts
have ind]£at£d_their__aMIJlv_,lQ.jirovide sewer and water services to the RHNA
yj3.Lts.JMlthLn their respective service!_areas^_Letters indicating the ability of the
districts to provide service ore pending.
Topography
Certain topographic conditions can limit the amount of developable land and
increase the cost of housing in Carlsbad. For safety and conservation purposes,
Carlsbad's Hillside Development Ordinance does not allow significant amounts of
grading without regulatory permits. In addition, land that has slopes over 40
percent is precluded from the density calculation. Development on slopes
greater than 25 percent but less than 40 percent is permitted at half the site's
base density. Thousands of acres of land in Carlsbad are constrained by
City of Carlsbad
2005-2010 Housing Element 4-39
Jonstraints and Mi tig a tit Opportunities
in developed areas and are not expected to be heavily constrained by
steep slopes and habitat or require significant environmental review.
3. Underutilized Sites - These are properties with existing RMH or RH
General Plan designations and potential for more intense development.
They are all less than one acre in size, located near the coast, and in
developed areas. There are likely no significant environmental constraints
associated with these parcels.
4. Proposed Barrio Area and Existing Village Redevelopment Area - These
two areas have the potential to provide a significant amount of housing
to meet the City's remaining RHNA. Located adjacent to each other and
west of Interstate 5, the Barrio and Village areas are in urbanized,
developed areas and lack significant topography and sensitive vegetation.
Impacts associated with density increases already approved for the
Village Redevelopment Area and considered in this Housing Element have
been analyzed in an adopted environmental document. As individual
projects are proposed, they will go through separate environmental
review although this review is not expected to be significant.
The proposed Barrio Area plan will require environmental review, which
will likely focus on potential impacts associated with,urban development,
such as traffic, aesthetics, land use, an:d public facilities. Adoption of the
planning and environmental documents for the proposed Barrio Area may
extend to 2010, but is expected to be completed before July 2010.
5. Bridges at Aviara Affordable Housing Component - Part of a large
proposed senior project, this high density project is located on
undeveloped lands in the City's Coastal Zone. Potential environmental
constraints include those associated with slopes, sensitive habitat, and
land use. The project site is on land currently designated for low density
development. The project will be analyzed for compliance with the City's
Habitat Management Plan and Local Coastal Program, among other
documents. Environmental impacts will be considered in the
environmental document prepared for the whole Bridges at Aviara project.
Processing of the environmental document may extend through 2009.
6.La Costa Town Square—This project is subject to an EIR that is-schcdulcd
for rclcase-es-a-dfaft document in 2-008. The RH portion of this project is
already graded; the commercial mixed us-c portion-ts' on undeveloped
property with topographic and vegetation constraints, among others. It is
expected that the project and its EIR con be approved in 2000.
7^6^_ Ponto - The Ponto area features a proposed RH site and a
proposed commercial mixed use site. The RH and mixed use sites and
land uses are already identified and analyzed in an approved vision plan
and EIR certified by the City Council; however, zoning and General Plan
amendments are necessary to put in place correct land use designations,
City of Carlsbad
2005-2010 Housing Element 4-41
Constraints and Mitigating Opportunities
and the EIR is the subject of litigation regarding financial contributions
towards off-site improvements. Provided litigation is resolved without
revisions to the EIR, development consistent with the vision plan should
not require additional significant environmental review.
8r7. Quarry Creek - A former mining operation, Quarry Creek is a
largely disturbed, approximately 100-acre property that also features
significant habitat areas. The property is subject to reclamation as
required by the state Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. The
reclamation plan and accompanying EIR are in preparation and the draft
EIR was released for public review in September 2008. Based on earlier
agreements, the City of Oceanside, not Carlsbad, is responsible for
preparation and approval of the reclamation plan and EIR. An additional,
five-acre portion of the former mine is in Oceanside and is not part of the
site considered by this Housing Element.
Additional environmental review will be required for the land use
designations the City proposes for this site; this review may include
another EIR. Furthermore, site reclamation must be permitted and must
occur before Quarry Creek is ready for residential or other development.
Reclamation includes restoration of Buena Vista Creek, which bisects the
site, and remediation of soils^j^^gmyijcl^ate^r, a process which is well
underway. . . "
4-42 2005-2010 Housing Element
City of Carlsbad \0 "{)
EXHIBIT 3
1 HOUSING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2009-001
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSING
4 ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO ADOPT THE
HOUSING ELEMENT FOR THE 2005-2010 HOUSING CYCLE.
5 CASE NAME: HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE FOR
2005-2010
6 CASE NO.: GPA 03-02
7 WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad, "Applicant," has filed a verified application
o
regarding the periodic update to the City's Housing Element of the General Plan; and
9
WHEREAS, said verified application by Applicant constitutes a request for a
10
General Plan Amendment as shown on in the "City of Carlsbad Draft 2005-2010 Housing
11
Element December 2008" on file in the Carlsbad Planning Department GPA 03-02 - HOUSING
12
ELEMENT UPDATE FOR 2005-2010 as provided in Government Code 65350 et seq. and
Section 21.52.160 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code; and
15 WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment affects properties throughout the City;
16 and
17 WHEREAS, the Housing Commission did, on January 8, and February 12, 2009,
° hold public meetings as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
19 WHEREAS, at said public meetings, upon hearing and considering all testimony
20
and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all factors
21
relating to the General Plan Amendment.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 HC RESOLUTION NO. 2009-001
PAGE 22
3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Housing
4 Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, as follows:
5
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
6
B) That based on the information provided within the Housing Commission staff
report and testimony and arguments, if any, presented during the public meetings
_ of the Housing Commission on January 8, and February 12, 2009, and the
information provided in the errata to the Housing Commission dated February 12,
9 2009, the Housing Commission hereby ADOPTS Resolution No. 2009-001,
recommending APPROVAL to the Planning Commission and City Council of
10 the City of Carlsbad of General Plan Amendment GPA 03-02, based upon the
findings contained herein.
11 Findings;
12"
13 1. The amendment to the General Plan Housing Element complies with state housing
element law, as provided in Government Code 65580 et seq. and as demonstrated by
14 the "City of Carlsbad Draft 2005-2010 Housing Element December 2008."
2. The amendment to the General Plan Housing Element identifies strategies and
programs that focus on:
a. Conserving and improving existing affordable housing;
17 b. Maximizing housing opportunities throughout the community,
c. Assisting in the provision of affordable housing;
18 d. Removing governmental and other constraints to housing investment; and
e. Promoting fair and equal housing opportunities.
19
3. Through its strategies and programs, the amendment to the General Plan Housing
Element ensures the city will continue to provide all required and necessary
2 j affordable housing programs, policies and regulations to successfully meet a priority
of Government Code Section 65580(a), which states "the availability of housing is of
22 vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable
living environment for every Califomian, including farmworkers, is a priority of the
23 highest order."
24
25
26
27
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
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Housing
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 12th day of February, 2009, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
.ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Kirk, Ritchie and Smith
Bradwell and Wrisley
None
None
JIE SMITH, CHAIRPERSON
CARLSBAD HOUSING COMMISSION
DEBORAH K. FOUNTAIN
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
HC RESOLUTION NO. 2009-001
PAGE 3
-3-
EXHIBIT 4A
The City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No.
P.C. AGENDA OF: November 18,2009
Application complete date: N/A
Project Planner: Scott Donnell
Project Engineer: N/A
SUBJECT: GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT - Request for a
recommendation of adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a
recommendation of approval 'for a General Plan Amendment to adopt the
update and revisions to the General Plan Housing Element for the 2005-2010
Housing Cycle as required by the California Government Code.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6547
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and ADOPT
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6548 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a
General Plan Amendment (GPA 03-02) based on the findings contained therein.
II. INTRODUCTION
The City of Carlsbad is updating its General Plan Housing Element. The Housing Element
addresses a variety of housing topics, including need, availability, and affordability for a
specific period, or housing cycle. The last housing cycle ended June 30, 2005, and the City
adopted the Housing Element for that cycle in 2000. The current housing cycle began July
1, 2005, and ends June 30, 2010. An update to the Housing Element requires an amendment
to the General Plan.
State law requires every city and county in California to update its housing element for each
housing cycle. The state Department of Housing and Community Development, Division of
Housing Policy Development (HCD) reviews and certifies Housing Elements for
compliance with state law. With revisions made since its initial release in April 2007, HCD
has found Carlsbad's proposed 2005-2010 Housing Element for the current housing cycle
will comply with state law. A copy of the compliance letter is attached.
Unlike other General Plan Amendments, since the proposal would amend the Housing
Element, it requires the review of the City's Housing Commission. The Housing
Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the general plan amendment at
meetings in January and February of this year. Additionally, following consideration by the
Planning Commission, the City Council will also review the 2005-2010 Housing Element
("Draft Housing Element") at a public hearing. If the City Council approves the Draft
Housing Element, it will be sent to HCD for certification. As the state has 90 days to
complete its final review, the City expects to have a certified element by early 2010.
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18,2009
Page 2
If approved and certified, the City will need to implement the various programs of the Draft
Housing Element. Some of these simply continue previously approved programs that are
successful and underway. Other programs are new and would require amendments to the
General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other city requirements. These amendments would be
subject to separate and additional public review and hearings.
The programs that require amendments to the City's land use documents, such as its General
Plan, are proposed to accommodate projected growth and address recent changes in state
law. For example, a proposed program would implement a recent state law that requires
cities to identify zones in which emergency shelters can be permitted by right, without a
conditional use permit.
Other proposed programs respond to housing unit needs estimates developed by the state
through HCD to accommodate projected growth throughout California. The San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG) then distributes the forecasted housing units
through a complex formula to all San Diego jurisdictions and for all income groups. This
SANDAG process is formally known as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, or
"RHNA."
Carlsbad's share of the RHNA requires the accommodation of 8,376 housing units over a
7.5 year period from 2003 to 2010. While Carlsbad does not have to build or require the
building of units to meet the projections, the City must provide the opportunities needed to
enable developers to construct these units. These opportunities exist in the form of land use
policies and standards, such as General Plan land use designations and minimum densities
and zoning requirements.
With existing standards, developers have constructed several thousand units in Carlsbad
since 2003. However, the City's existing policies and requirements are not adequate to meet
all projected growth in the lower and moderate income categories. Therefore, amendments
are proposed. These amendments, which include redesignating specific properties to higher
densities and allowing mixed use residential at shopping centers, have been the focus of
public comment on the Draft Housing Element.
Despite the need for amendments, Carlsbad has successfully worked hard to produce
substantial affordable housing. This is demonstrated in the draft element, particularly in
Section 3, and is evidenced in the 2007 report, Affordable By Choice: Trends in California
Inclusionary Housing Programs. Commissioned by several housing-interest groups, the
report identifies Carlsbad as one of California's top producers of affordable housing.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Draft Housing Element Purpose and Contents
The Housing Element of the General Plan is designed to provide the City with a coordinated
and comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent, and affordable
housing within the community. A priority of both State and local governments, Government
Code Section 65580 states the intent of creating Housing Elements:
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18, 2009
Page 3
The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of
decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farm
workers, is apriority of the highest order.
Per State law, the Draft Housing Element has two main purposes:
(1) To provide an assessment of both current and future housing needs and constraints
in meeting these needs; and
(2) To provide a strategy that establishes housing goals, policies, and programs.
As a five-year plan covering a specified period of time (in this case, the 2005-2010 housing
cycle), the Housing Element differs from the City's other General Plan elements, which cover
a much longer period. The Housing Element serves as an integrated part of the General Plan,
but is updated more frequently to ensure its relevancy and accuracy. The Draft Housing
Element identifies strategies and programs that focus on:
(1) Conserving and improving existing affordable housing;
(2) Maximizing housing opportunities throughout the community;
(3) Assisting in the provision of affordable housing;
(4) Removing governmental and other constraints to housing investment; and
(5) Promoting fair and equal housing opportunities.
The City's Draft Housing Element is divided into the following six topic areas, each a section
of the document:
• Introduction. An introduction to review the requirements of the Draft Housing
Element, public participation process, and data sources (Section 1 of the Draft Housing
Element);
• Housing Needs Assessment. A profile and analysis of the City's demographics,
housing characteristics, and existing and future housing needs (Section 2);
• Resources Available. A review of resources available to facilitate and encourage the
production and maintenance of housing, including land available for new construction
and redevelopment, as well as financial and administrative resources available for
housing. This section also documents Carlsbad's efforts to meet its RHNA through an
analysis of existing land use policies, an inventory of residential land and projects, and
proposed programs that recommend, among other things, revised minimum densities
(Section 3);
• Constraints and Mitigating Opportunities. An analysis of constraints on housing
production and maintenance, including market, governmental, and environmental
limitations to meeting the City's identified needs (Section 4);
• Review of 1999 Housing Element. An evaluation of accomplishments under the 1999-
2005 Housing Element (Section 5); and
• Housing Plan. A statement of the Housing Plan to address the City's identified
housing needs and a formulation of housing goals, policies, and programs (Section 6).
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18, 2009
Page 4
The Draft Housing Element also contains appendices, which provide the following
information:
• Eligibility for Housing Element self-certification (Appendix A);
• Summary of Housing Element accomplishments for the previous (1999-2005) housing
cycle (Appendix B);
• Available land inventories for proposed or existing residential development, prepared
to demonstrate compliance with RHNA, discussed in Analysis below (Appendices C -
G); and
• A sample staff report and meeting noticing materials (Appendices H and I).
Because of their continued success and relevancy, review of Appendix B demonstrates that
most housing goals, policies, and programs found in the Housing Element adopted in 2000 are
included in the Draft Housing Element. For example, proposed Program 3.1 states the City
will continue to implement the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Carlsbad's inclusionary
requirements have been quite successful in producing housing affordable to lower income
families. In fact, developers constructed over 650 units of affordable housing in Carlsbad from
2003 to 2006.
Staff has received a June 27, 2009, memorandum from the University of San Diego
Environmental Law Clinic criticizing the datedness of some information found primarily in
Sections 2 and 4 of the Draft Housing Element. The memorandum and staffs response are
provided as attachments to the staff report.
Previous Draft Housing Element Review
The preparation of the Draft Housing Element has taken several years and involved frequent
public notice and comment opportunities. The Housing Commission held three public
workshops on the Draft Housing Element from October 2004 to May 2005 and additional
meetings on the matter in 2007 and 2009. Additionally, drafts of the Housing Element were
released for public review in April 2007, June 2008, and December 2008.
In April 2007, the Housing Commission met to (1) provide city staff formal comments on
the Draft Housing Element and (2) consider a recommendation to support submission of the
draft element to HCD. While not required by state law, jurisdictions typically seek a review
body's support to submit the draft. The meeting was well attended by the public, particularly
because of a component of proposed Program 2.1 (found in Section 6 of the Draft Housing
Element) that would redesignate portions of a large vacant property known as Quarry Creek
for medium and high density housing at densities considered by the state to be appropriate to
develop housing affordable to lower and moderate income persons.
j
Quarry Creek is the name commonly given to an approximately 100 acre former quarry at
the Carlsbad and Oceanside border, just west of the Quarry Creek shopping center in
Oceanside. The Housing Commission, by minute motion, voted 2-1 on the recommendation
to support filing the draft with HCD. Since the affirmative vote of three commission
members is needed for any Commission action, the Commission did not act on the
recommendation. More information about Quarry Creek may also be found in Section 3 of
the Draft Housing Element and in Tables 1 and 3 below.
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18, 2009
PageS
Subsequent to the Housing Commission meeting, the City Council, in July 2007, approved
the filing of the Draft Housing Element to HCD. The Planning Department then submitted
the document to HCD for the first of three separate reviews by the state.
Section 1, under Public Participation, contains a recap of the Council meeting and the
Housing Commission meetings and workshops. The recap also identifies the issues and
concerns raised as well as staffs responses to them.
Following the three separate reviews of the Element by HCD, the Housing Commission
again reviewed the Draft Housing Element at public meetings on January 8 and February 12,
2009. At its last meeting, the Housing Commission voted 3-2 to recommend approval of the
amendment to the Planning Commission and City Council. The staff report and minutes of
the recent Housing Commission meetings are attached.
As with all previous meetings and workshops at which the Draft Housing Element has been
discussed, staff has publicized the current meeting by sending meeting notices to a list of
interested citizens, government agencies, housing advocates, developers, lenders, Realtors,
Carlsbad homeowner associations, large farmers, and major employers.
Self-certification
Pursuant to special legislation (Government Code 65585.1), jurisdictions in the San Diego
region are eligible to self-certify their Housing Elements and avoid the lengthy HCD-
certification process. For a jurisdiction to self-certify, it must meet specified affordable
housing goals. Additionally, a self-certified element must substantially comply with state law.
Having exceeded self-certification requirements (as shown in Appendix A), Carlsbad is
entitled to self-certify its Draft Housing Element and initially planned to do so. However,
after further consideration, the City chose instead to pursue HCD certification. One reason for
this decision is that certification by HCD provides Carlsbad with a rebuttable presumption that
the Housing Element is legally valid, which shifts the burden of proof to the challenger to
show the element is inadequate. Another reason to pursue HCD certification is that a self-
certified element may cause a jurisdiction to be ineligible for certain funds and grants
distributed by HCD. In September 2006, the City Council directed staff to pursue HCD-
certification. More details about self-certification may be found in Section 1 and Appendix A
of the draft element.
IV. ANALYSIS
This analysis section focuses on different aspects of the Draft Housing Element and its
consistency with land use documents such as the General Plan. Information this section provides
on Quarry Creek and the Draft Housing Element Site Study were largely written by staff in
response to public and commissioner comments raised during this year's Housing Commission
meetings. The following aspects of the Draft Housing Element are discussed in this section:
• Proposed Housing Element Policies and Programs
• Adequate Sites and RHNA
• Quarry Creek
• Draft Housing Element Site Study
• Housing Needs
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18,2009
Page 6
• Consistency with the General Plan, Local Coastal Program and Growth Management
• Certified Housing Element Benefits
Draft Housing Element Policies and Programs
The Housing Plan, found in Section 6, sets out the City's long-term housing goals and identifies a
menu of shorter-term objectives, policy positions, and programs to achieve the long-term goals.
The goals, objectives, policies, and programs comprise a broad-based Housing Plan for the
creation of housing opportunities throughout the City. Through this Housing Plan the City
demonstrates its understanding of the magnitude of the housing problem, as well as its
commitment of City resources to providing the necessary solutions.
Generally, the programs identify how and when Carlsbad will address a housing need. They
identify funding, implementation responsibility, and the objectives and time frame. For example,
several programs require the City to adopt or amend ordinances. These amendments must be
accomplished within the housing cycle.
Before devising a new five-year housing plan for the Draft Housing Element, staff reviewed the
housing goals, policies, and programs contained in the Housing Element adopted in 2000 for
effectiveness and continued appropriateness. Based on this review, most programs remain relevant
and effective. However, some programs, such as Program 3.13 of the previously adopted Element,
are no longer necessary and are proposed for deletion. A complete analysis of the prior Housing
Element is contained in Section 5 and Appendix B of the Draft Housing Element.
As mentioned, the Draft Housing Element makes no changes to the City's successful
inclusionary housing program. Additionally, no programs are proposed to modify Zoning
Ordinance requirements regarding the planned development ordinance, density bonus, senior
housing regulations, or growth management regulations. However, Zoning Ordinance (and thus
Local Coastal Program) changes are needed to help Carlsbad meet it's RHNA (such as through a
program to allow housing in the commercial zones) and comply with state law (see Housing
Needs below). Finally, Draft Housing Element programs propose no changes to the City Council
Policy Statement 43, which establishes the criteria for awarding units from the City's Excess
Dwelling Unit Bank.
Adequate Sites and RHNA
Carlsbad's share of the regional housing need for the current cycle is allocated by SANDAG to
each of the four income groups listed below and is based on factors such as recent growth trends,
income distribution, and capacity for future growth. For the current housing cycle, Carlsbad's
share is 8,376 units. After taking into account vacant residential land and housing units already
constructed, under construction, and approved (through December 31 2006), the City's
remaining RHNA to satisfy through 2010 is as follows:
\o
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18, 2009
Page?
• Very Low Income: 1,719 units ~i
. Low Income: 676 units J 2'395 "lower"income units
• Moderate Income: 1,171 units
• Above Moderate Income: 0 units
Total 3,566 units
As the above list indicates, Carlsbad must demonstrate it has adequate sites to accommodate
units in all but the above moderate income category. While state law requires jurisdictions
to provide adequate sites to meet their RHNA obligations, they are not required to develop
the sites nor ensure the sites actually develop. Instead, cities and counties must have the
appropriate land use designations and standards in place so developers can propose projects
consistent with the programs of the Housing Element.
Generally, HCD considers land designated by a city's General Plan for high density, multi-
family residential uses to be appropriate for very low and low income households
(collectively "lower income" households), land designated for medium or medium-high
density uses to be suitable for moderate income households, and land designated for low
density, single family uses to be appropriate for above moderate income households. HCD
has accepted Carlsbad's position that a minimum density of 20 dwelling units/acre (du/ac) is
adequate for lower income uses and a minimum density of 12 du/ac is adequate for moderate
income uses.
In Carlsbad, high density lands have a General Plan designation of "RH" and allow 15 to 23
du/ac, with a Growth Management Control Point of 19 du/ac. Medium-high density lands
have a designation of "RMH," and allow 8 to 15 du/ac, with a Growth Management Control
Point of 11.5 du/ac. The Growth Management Control Point is typically the density below
or at which development has historically occurred, although some projects, such as
Robertson Ranch (see Table 1 below), have developed or been approved at higher densities.
Factoring vacant and underutilized land currently designated RH or RMH yields about 700
high density units for lower income families and about 330 medium-high density units for
moderate income families. These figures are based on potentially achievable unit yields
from vacant properties and underutilized properties (properties with low improvement to
land values, such as an older single-family home on a large lot designated for high density
uses).
Based on the preceding paragraph, current programs, policies, and land use designations,
which yield about 1,030 units, do not accommodate Carlsbad's entire remaining share of
very low, low, and moderate income households, which total over 3,500 units. To make up
the shortfall, the City has proposed programs that require amendments to the General Plan,
Zoning Ordinance, and Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, including:
• Increasing minimum densities for all RMH and RH designated properties from 11.5
du/ac and 19 du/ac to 12 and 20 du/ac, respectively;
• Permitting mixed use residential projects in the City's shopping centers and
commercial zones at 20 du/ac. This affects properties such as Plaza Camino Real;
• Changing land use designations on existing residential and non-residential properties
to help meet its remaining RHNA. These city-initiated changes are in addition to
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HODsfNG ELEMENT
November 18, 2009
Page 8
privately-initiated projects, such as Robertson Ranch (already approved) and Bridges
at Aviara, which the City has counted toward meeting its regional share obligation.
City-initiated amendments affect properties such as Quarry Creek and the Barrio
Area just south of downtown; and
• Establishing minimum densities in the Village Redevelopment Area of 18 and 28
du/ac, depending on land use district.
Details about these proposed changes generally may be found in Section 3 and programs 2.1
and 2.3 of the draft Element.
The following tables, from Section 3 of the draft Element, provide detail about the sites and
densities proposed to help Carlsbad meet its remaining RHNA.
TABLE 1
EXISTING AND PROPOSED RH SITES
Property APN Acres Density Number
of Units1
Vacant Residential Sites currently designated RH
Robertson Ranch
Unentitled Land •
Subtotal
Portions of 168-050-47,
208-010-36
Various (see Appendix C)
22
12
20-22.3
du/ac2
20 du/acj
4652
237
702
Vacant Residential Sites proposed to be designated RH
Bridges at Aviara
Affordable Housing
Component4' 5
Subtotal
Portions of 215-050-44 and
47 2.6 25 65
65
Vacant Non-Residential Sites proposed to be designated RH
Ponto4
Quarry Creek
Subtotal
Other
Underutilized RH
Sites
Proposed Barrio
Area4
Subtotal
Total
216-140-17
Portions of 167-040-21
Various (see Appendix D)
Various (See Appendix G)
6.4
15
•<
0.26
14
20 du/ac
20 du/ac
20 du/ac3
28 du/ac
128
300
428
8
256
264
1,459
Notes:
1 Number of units does not always reflect acreage multiplied by density because of rounding and other
factors.
2 General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Master Plan approved to allow the densities and number of units
shown. Number of units includes 78 high-density, lower income units under construction (Glen Ridge) as
of October 2008. These units are not reflected in Table 3-2.
3 City commits to process a GPA to increase minimum density to 20 du/ac on these sites (new program).
4 More information about these projects is provided in Section 3 of the Draft Housing Element.
5This is a private, developer-initiated project.
Source: City of Carlsbad, December 2008
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOLDING ELEMENT
November 18, 2009
Page 9
Table 2 identifies properties that would permit "mixed use" developments, or developments
that combine residential and commercial uses on the same or adjacent properties.
Residences in mixed use projects would be developed at the minimum densities shown.
More information on the proposed shopping center mixed use sites and other sites identified
in the table may be found in Draft Housing Element Section 3.
TABLE 2
EXISTING AND PROPOSED RH MIXED USE SITES
Property APN Acres Density Number
of Units1
Proposed Vacant Mixed Use Sites
Commercial Mixed Use
Ponto2 Portion of 216-140-18 2.8
(approx)20 du/ac 28
Proposed Shopping Center Mixed Use Sites
Various (see Table 3-7)2 Various Various 20 du/ac 525
Existing Village Mixed Use Sites (underutilized and vacant)
Village Redevelopment
Area Various (see Appendix F)71.5 18 and 28
du/ac3 875
Proposed Barrio Area (primarily underutilized)
Barrio Area2
Total
Various (see Appendix G) 5 28 du/ac3 45
1,473
Notes:
1 Number of units does not always reflect acreage multiplied by density because of rounding, planned mixed use
developments, and other factors. Number of units also reflects deductions for any existing units.
2 More information about these projects is provided in Section 3 of the draft Element.
3 The City commits to adopting a policy to establish the minimum densities shown. Only 50% of the potential
yield for both Village and proposed Barrio Area Mixed Use sites is considered. For the Village, only 1.7 acres of
the total acres shown are vacant.
Source: City of Carlsbad, August 2007 and March 2008
As Table 3 identifies below, also proposed are changes to existing and planned medium-
high density residential sites.
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18,2009
Page 10
TABLES
EXISTING AND PROPOSED MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(RMH) SITES
Property APN Acres Density Number
of Units1
Vacant Residential Sites currently designated RMH
Robertson Ranch
Vacant Unentitled
RMH Land
Subtotal
Portions of 168-050-47,208-
010-36
Various (see Appendix C)
7
8
12.4du/ac2
12 du/ac3
842
92
176
Vacant Non-Residential Sites proposed to be designated RMH
Quarry Creek4 Portions of 167-040-21 17 12du/acj 200
Other
Underutilized
RMH Land
Underutilized RH
Land in the Beach
Area Overlay
Zone
Proposed Barrio
Area4
Subtotal
Total
Various (see Appendix D)
Various (see Appendix E)5
Various (see Appendix G)
10
5.5
3
12 du/ac3
1 5 du/ac
12 du/ac3
102
60
31
193
569
Notes:
1 Number of units does not always reflect acreage multiplied by density because of rounding and other factors.
2 GPA and Master Plan approved to allow the densities and number of units shown.
3 City commits to process a GPA and/or other legislative changes necessary to increase minimum density to 12
du/ac on these or portions of these sites (new program).
4 More information about these sites is found in Section 3 of the Draft Housing Element.
5 The minimum density of 15 du/ac is the existing lower end of the density range for the Residential High Density
(RH) designation.
City of Carlsbad, August 2007 and March 2008
Based on the land use changes proposed in the above tables, the City is able to meet its
remaining RHNA, as Table 4 below shows, since units allocated to the lower income
category may also help fulfill the unit need of the moderate income category. Overall, Table
4 reveals the City has a 39 unit surplus of housing considered affordable to lower income
persons.
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOLDING ELEMENT
November 18, 2009
Page 11
TABLE 4
ADEQUACY OF SITES IN MEETING REMAINING RHNA
Sites
Residential Sites
Mixed Use Sites
Recently approved
Proposals with
Affordable
Components1
Second Units
Total
RHNA Remaining
Difference
Lower
Income
1,459
1,473
16
80
3,028
2,395
+633
Moderate
Income
569
0
8
0
577
1,171
-594
Above
Moderate
Income
1,675
0
0
1,675
—+1,675
Total
3,703
1,473
24
80
5,280
3,566
+1,714
Notes:
found in the tables above and represent affordable housing approved since December 31, 2006. Two
of the lower income units identified are in an approved mixed use (commercial and residential)
development.
2The City has also counted toward its high density yield' the estimated number (80) of second
dwelling units to be built through 2010.
Source: City of Carlsbad, May 2008.
Errata to recommended Planning Commission Resolution 6548
Planning Commission Resolution 6548, which recommends approval of the General Plan
Amendment for the Draft Housing Element, includes an errata. The errata propose minor
changes to the text and tables of Draft Housing Element Sections 3 and 4. Since the
preparation of the latest version of the Draft Housing Element (dated December 2008), the
applicant has modified and the City has approved La Costa Town Square. Among the
changes were the deletion of the residential/commercial mixed use component. In addition,
in August 2009 the City Council approved the project, but without its proposed high density
residential site. Both the mixed use component and high density residential site were
acknowledged in the Draft Housing Element as they helped Carlsbad meet its remaining
RHNA in the form of units affordable to lower-income persons.
To make up for the loss of 134 high density units from La Costa Town Square as counted by
the Draft Housing Element, two additional shopping center sites with high density mixed
use potential are proposed for addition to Table 3-7 of the Draft Housing Element. These
sites are identified in the errata.
Besides these changes, the errata also contain other minor revisions; staff has revised section
4 to clarify the ability of all water and sewer districts to serve the remaining RHNA units.
Finally, the section's discussion on environmental constraints with regards to Quarry Creek
has been modified to note that groundwater contamination is being remediated.
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUsfNG ELEMENT
November 18, 2009
Page 12
Quarry Creek
Of the many programs in the Draft Housing Element, Program 2.1 has generated the most public
interest because one of its components would increase minimum densities for the property
commonly referred to as Quarry Creek. This program would redesignate approximately 32 acres
of Quarry Creek to accommodate 500 housing units, as compared to the approximately 165 units
the site can accommodate under its current residential land use designation. The present General
Plan designations for Quarry Creek are Low-Medium Density (RLM, 0-4 units/acre) and Open
Space (OS). The current zoning for the property is Manufacturing (M) and One-family _.
Residential, minimum 10,000 square foot lot size (R-l-10,000). The General Plan Land Use
Map also shows the extension of Marron Road across the Quarry Creek site. Under the City's
Habitat Management Plan, portions of the property are designated as either Proposed Hardline
Conservation Areas or Development Areas.
Public comments have included suggestions that Quarry Creek should be entirely set aside as
open space, because of its location and important natural and cultural resources, and concerns
that soil and groundwater contamination may pose threats to future residents there.
Approximately half of the mostly vacant, 100-acre Quarry Creek property has been disturbed by
mining operations that ended in 1996. An additional four-acre portion of the former mine,
consisting of a steep-walled pit just west of and below Mossy Nissan, is in Oceanside and is not
part of the site considered by this Draft Housing Element. Also not part of Program 2.1 but in
Carlsbad is an approximately 57 acre "panhandle" parcel adjacent to and west of the Quarry
Creek property. This vacant property, which has not been mined, also has RLM and OS land use
designations. Details about all of these properties have been previously provided to the Planning
Commission in the "2005-2010 Housing Element Information Packet," which is referenced as a
staff report attachment.
As a formerly mined property, the Quarry Creek site is subject to reclamation as required by the
state Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. The proposed reclamation plan and accompanying
Draft Subsequent EIR were released for public review in September 2008. It is estimated that
both documents may be ready for public hearing in early 2010. Reclamation of most of the
Oceanside portion of the former mine, now occupied by Kohl's, WalMart, and other businesses
in the Quarry Creek shopping center, was completed earlier this decade.
While significantly disturbed, the Quarry Creek property also features significant natural and
cultural resources, including Buena Vista Creek and El Salto Falls. According to the Draft
Subsequent EIR, the California Native American Heritage Commission has recognized the falls
as a sacred site for the Luiseno people, in particular the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians,
because of its cultural significance, including for religious, ceremonial, and historical reasons. As
required by state law, staff has officially consulted with the San Luis Rey Band regarding Quarry
Creek and the entire Draft Housing Element.
The Draft Subsequent EIR also notes El Salto Falls meets the criteria of a "traditional cultural
property" as established by the National Park Service (NFS). According to the NFS, such a
property ".. .can be defined generally as one that is eligible for inclusion on the National Register
[of Historic Places] because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living
community that (a) are rooted in that community's history, and (b) are important in maintaining \ \\ Q
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUslNG ELEMENT
November 18, 2009
Page 13
continuing cultural identity of the community." The National Register of Historic Places is an
official list of America's historic places worthy of preservation maintained by the NFS.
The need to preserve the falls, as well as the need to maintain an appropriate setting around
them, is acknowledged in the proposed reclamation plan for Quarry Creek. However, the Draft
Subsequent EIR states that no specific boundaries have been placed on El Salto Falls as a
traditional cultural property, making it difficult to assess potential impacts resulting from
reclamation activities. Furthermore, since an overall objective of the proposed reclamation plan
is not to develop Quarry Creek but instead to "reclaim...the site to a safe, usable condition that is
readily adaptable for future land uses ..." the Draft Subsequent EIR concludes that establishment
of an appropriate boundary around El Salto Falls would occur as part of the review of
development plans for Quarry Creek. Moreover, staff notes that El Salto Falls, the creek, some
hillsides, and a large riparian area are already protected by an Open Space designation per the
existing General Plan Map.
Based on earlier agreements between the two jurisdictions, Oceanside, not Carlsbad, is
responsible for overseeing the review and approval of the reclamation plan and the Subsequent
EIR. This EIR does not analyze any impacts associated with redesignating Quarry Creek to
accommodate 500 units. Accordingly, implementation of Program 2.1 with regards to this
particular property will require separate environmental review.
If the planned reclamation plan for Quarry Creek is approved by Oceanside, approval of permits
from Carlsbad, including a Habitat Management Plan Permit, Hillside Development Permit,
Special Use Permit (floodplain), and other permits will be needed to actually begin grading and
other improvements to restore the site. Furthermore, site reclamation must be permitted and must
occur before Quarry Creek is ready for residential or other development. Reclamation includes
restoration of Buena Vista Creek, which bisects the site, and remediation of contaminated
groundwater and soils, a process which is well underway.
According to the Draft Subsequent EIR for the proposed reclamation plan, now-removed
underground storage tanks for gasoline and diesel fuel contaminated soil and groundwater at
Quarry Creek. Remediation of groundwater, the Draft Subsequent EIR reports, is anticipated to
be complete by this year, although continued monitoring will occur. Remediation of soils is
anticipated to continue until site grading activities to implement the reclamation plan begin. The
Draft Subsequent EIR concludes that with respect to hazards and hazardous materials on the
Quarry Creek site, no mitigation is required.
Due to the presence of historic agricultural operations, soil remediation in Carlsbad is not
uncommon as properties develop. The Final EIR for Robertson Ranch, for example, noted the
presence of fuel storage tanks and the residue from certain now banned chemicals in some areas
of the former ranch. As necessary, soil was removed from the ranch and used as fill material for
College Boulevard. The Final EIR also contains a mitigation measure that requires, prior to site
grading, the removal and proper disposal of any stained soil to eliminate a potential health hazard
from the project site. The measure also requires verification of proper disposal by a hazardous
materials specialist before site grading.
In response to concerns expressed about Quarry Creek, the City has attempted to find additional
sites that would provide affordable housing opportunities besides Quarry Creek and other
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18, 2009
Page 14
properties already identified. Though the effort failed to identify additional vacant land or
significant gains in individual underutilized properties, the City was able to propose new
programs that recognize a substantial number of units from the proposed Barrio Area plan.
Additionally, an increase in the permitted density for some land use districts in the Village
Redevelopment Area also enabled the City to continue to meet its RHNA. While the City still
finds Quarry Creek as a critical component of its affordable housing portfolio, with increased
opportunities in the Village and Barrio areas, the City has reduced the site's anticipated yield
from 600 units (as originally reported in the City's April 2007 Draft Housing Element) to 500
units. More information about the City's site selection process is provided below.
More information on Quarry Creek may be found in the Environmental Review section at the
end of this staff report.
Draft Housing Element Site Study
Along with Quarry Creek, at the Housing Commission meetings held in early 2009, both
commissioners and the public expressed interest in understanding the criteria for selecting the
sites identified in proposed Program 2.1. As a result, staff produced the "City of Carlsbad 2005-
2010 Housing Element Site Study" map that is part of the "2005-2010 Housing Element
Information Packet" provided earlier to the Planning Commission and referenced as a staff report
attachment This map identifies the sites or areas selected or rejected for inclusion in the Draft
Housing Element, constraints to locating housing, primarily due to open space and airport and
industrial uses, and present affordable housing projects.
Since Carlsbad's entire RHNA consists of lower and moderate income housing units, the City
must propose sites suitable for minimum densities of 12 and 20 units per acre. At these densities,
housing will be multi-family. Constraints applicable to identifying multi-family sites include the
following:
• Restrictive General Plan Policies. Residential policies of the General Plan Land Use
Element state medium and higher density residential developments are to be located near
commercial centers, employment centers, major transportation corridors, community
facilities, open space, and other amenities. Existing affordable housing developments in
Carlsbad are located consistent with these policies, as the attached Housing Element Site
Study map shows. Program 2.1 sites proposed for redesignation, such as Quarry Creek
and the Barrio Area, also meet these General Plan criteria. Staff further notes that
SANDAG has identified Quarry Creek as a potential smart growth area. SANDAG
defines smart growth as:
A compact, efficie/it, and environmentally-sensitive urban development pattern. It
focuses future growth and infill development close to jobs, services, and public
facilities to maximize the use of existing infrastructure and preserve open space
and natural resources. "
Smart growth is characterized by more compact, higher density development in
key areas throughout the region that is walkable, near public transit, and
promotes good community design. Smart growth results in more housing and
transportation choices for those who live and work in smart growth areas.
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18,2009
Page 15
In its effort to identify sites appropriate for the densities required, staff did consider two
vacant properties along El Camino Real, between College Boulevard and Jackspar Drive,
and a vacant property at the intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road. While
these sites, identified on the map, meet the above General Plan policies, they were
rejected due either to lack of property owner interest, access constraints, or issues that
staff believes the property owner must address and resolve before development may
occur.
• Limited Available Land. Comparing current state Department of Finance estimates on the
number of existing housing units in Carlsbad (44,320, as of January 1, 2009) with city
staff and SANDAG projections of housing unit numbers at buildout (approximately
48,360 and 49,899 units, respectively, as of 2030) shows Carlsbad at present has reached
about 89 to 92 percent of its residential capacity. These buildout figures, based on recent
growth projections, differ from the estimates that resulted in the 54,600 dwelling unit cap
established by the 1986 Growth Management Program.
Furthermore, review of the attached map shows most of Carlsbad's remaining
undeveloped land is preserved as open space. Large tracts of undeveloped lands in the
Calavera Hills and La Costa areas and along and east of Agua Hedionda Lagoon have
been set aside as open space. Another large area of undeveloped property exists along the
south side of the 78 Freeway east of El Camino Real. Some of this area, such as the 134-
acre Sherman property, has been permanently preserved as open space. Most of the
balance consists of the 100-acre Quarry Creek parcel and an adjacent 57-acre property
that are General Plan designated for residential development and open space.
The significant vacant lands dominating the Sunny Creek area east of El Camino Real are
designated either for open space or low density residential. Much of the Sunny Creek
area is not ideally suited for medium and higher density housing as it is not near major
roads and conveniences as General Plan policies require.
• Constraints on residences in industrial areas. Proposed Draft Housing Element Program
2.3 states:
The City will encourage mixed-use developments that include a residential
component. Major commercial centers should incorporate, where appropriate,
mixed commercial/residential uses. Major industrial/office centers, where not
precluded by environmental and safety considerations, should incorporate
mixed industrial/office/residential uses.
j
• As described in Program 2.1, the City shall amend the zoning ordinance
and other necessary land use documents to permit residential mixed use at
20 units per acre on shopping center sites and commercial areas.
The first part of this program, a carryover from the previous Housing Element,
encourages mixed use development in commercial and industrial/office areas. With the
Draft Housing Element, the City proposes to implement this program in commercial
HV>
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18, 2009
Page 16
areas, as indicated by the second, bulleted paragraph. Review of the proposed Program
2.1 and the first three tables above indicates the City's extensive reliance on mixed use
commercial and residential development to help it meet the RHNA.
The program also encourages mixed industrial/office/residential uses where not
precluded by environmental and safety considerations. The central core of Carlsbad,
surrounding McClellan-Palomar Airport, is dominated by business parks with industrial
and office uses. Some of these parks have undeveloped properties, and Carlsbad Oaks
North, the most recently developed industrial park, is entirely vacant. Because they are
employment centers and situated near public transit and major transportation corridors,
the City's business parks offer potential locations for residential uses. At this time,
however, staff has not proposed a program to encourage mixed-use developments in
Carlsbad's major industrial/office centers for several reasons.
First, business parks in Carlsbad are zoned Heavy Commercial-Limited Industrial (C-M),
Manufacturing (M), or Planned Industrial (P-M). These zones permit residential uses by
conditional use permit. (For housing units to be counted for RHNA purposes, they must
be permitted by right rather than by conditional use permit.) The City's business parks,
however, including Carlsbad Oaks North, did not incorporate residential uses when their
master planning occurred. An exception to this statement is Bressi Ranch, the master
planning for which included industrial, office, commercial, and residential uses. General
Plan Land Use Element Policy C.I5 states:
Consider residential development, which houses employees of businesses
located in the PM zone, when it can be designed to be a compatible use as an
integral part of an industrial park.
Furthermore, unlike the City's commercial areas and because they generally have not
been planned for residential uses, Carlsbad's business parks tend to lack the convenient,
day to day commercial uses and amenities required for multi-family uses by the General
Plan policies identified above.
Second, lacking the comprehensive planning upfront to provide for mixed
industrial/office/residential uses, business parks generally have developed with industrial
and manufacturing uses that may pose safety and health hazards to residents if they lived
in close proximity. Businesses that generate or use chemicals and hazardous materials are
permitted in the City's industrial zones. Because they are permitted, these zones are
generally not safe locations for uses such as schools, day cares, and residences. And, if
these uses were to locate in an industrial zone, they may preclude industrial uses from
locating there, thus defeating the purpose of having industrial zones. General Plan Land
Use Element Industrial Policy C.I states,
Limit the amount of new industrial land uses to those which can feasibly
be supported by desirable environmental quality standards and the
current growth rate of the trade area and the City. Protect these areas
from encroachment by incompatible land uses. [Emphasis added]
MT7
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18,2009
Page 17
Third, airport noise and safety are other factors that limit the ability to locate residential
uses in the business parks. Due to the proximity of McClellan-Palomar Airport, many
properties in the M and P-M zones are located in the airport's Flight Activity Zone
(FAZ). The FAZs mark the primary airplane approach and departure paths, and
properties within them are unsuitable for residential use. Moreover, noise from aircraft
operations limits properties near the airport to non-residential uses.
In response to constraints caused by airport operations, General Plan Land Use Element
Industrial Policy C.4 states, "Concentrate more intense industrial uses in those areas least
desirable for residential development ~ in the general area of the flight path corridor of
McClellan-Palomar Airport."
Fourth, many properties in the City's industrial zones are governed by private conditions,
covenants, and restrictions (CC&Rs). Due likely to potential incompatibilities between
industrial and residential uses and the presence of the airport, these CC&Rs generally
prohibit residential uses of any kind.
Draft Housing Element Section 4 provides more information about limitations on
residential development in the industrial areas. Though written primarily to address
potential locations for emergency shelters, the information is generally applicable to all
residential uses.
Limitation on Mixed-Use Projects. California housing law states no more than 50 percent
of the lower income housing need as identified in a city's RHNA can be accommodated
on sites designated for mixed uses (e.g., commercial and residential development in one
building). Carlsbad's remaining lower income housing need is 2,395 units and half of that
number is 1,198 units. Based on proposed Program 2.1, Carlsbad would provide more
than enough units (3,028) to meet its lower income housing need. As identified in Table 4
above, more than half of these units (1,553), which include 80 second dwelling units,
would be provided by strictly residential projects. The remaining mixed use residential
units (1,475) would be available to satisfy the balance of lower income need. The 633
"surplus" units resulting from the difference between Carlsbad's remaining lower income
housing need (2,395 units) and lower income units potentially achieved from
implementation of Program 2.1 (3,028 units) have been redesignated for the moderate
income housing need to make up for the unit deficit in that category.
Based on the state law restrictions, retaining Program 2.1 properties such as Quarry
Creek that are planned for "pure" high density residential uses are important.
Housing Needs
Programs are proposed to address the housing needs of various individuals as required by state
law. Highlights of these programs are as follows:
• Program 3.11: Housing for Persons with Disabilities. Adopt an ordinance to establish a
formal policy on offering reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities with
regard to the construction, rehabilitation, and improvement of housing. For example, a
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUsfNG ELEMENT
November 18,2009
Page 18
reasonable accommodation may take the form of a front setback reduction to allow an
access ramp;
• Program 3.14: Housing for the Homeless. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit
emergency shelters in the City's industrial zones; and
• Program 3.17: Alternative Housing. Adopt an ordinance to conditionally permit managed
living units in the Village Redevelopment Area. Managed living units are small, studio-
like units designed for transient or permanent occupancy.
Consistency with the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Growth Management
• General Plan. California law requires that the General Plan contain an integrated and
internally consistent set of policies. The Draft Housing Element programs and policies
are directly related to several elements, namely the Land Use, Circulation, Public Safety
and Noise elements. Of these, the Draft Housing Element is most affected by
development policies contained in the Land Use Element, which establishes the location,
type, intensity and distribution of land uses throughout Carlsbad. While the Draft
Housing Element is not necessarily related to some elements, such as the Arts Element, a
discussion of the consistency between these elements is also included below.
o Land Use Element. The Draft Housing Element uses the residential goals and
objectives of the City's adopted Land Use Element as a policy framework for
developing more specific goals and objectives in the Draft Housing Element. The
numerous goals and objectives of the Land Use Element encompass four main
themes:
• Preservation: The City should preserve the neighborhood character, retain the
identity of existing neighborhoods, maximize open space, and ensure slope
preservation.
• Choice: The City should ensure a variety of housing types (single-family detached
or attached, multifamily apartments and condominiums) with different styles and
price levels in a variety of locations for all economic segments and throughout the
City.
• Medium and High Density Uses in Appropriate, Compatible Locations:
Medium and higher density uses should be located where compatible with adjacent
land uses and where adequately and conveniently served by commercial and
employment centers, transportation and other infrastructure, and amenities.
Further, the City should encourage a variety of residential uses in commercial areas
to increase the, advantages of "close-in" living and convenient shopping.
• Housing Needs: The City should utilize programs to revitalize deteriorating areas
or those with high potential for deterioration and seek to provide low and moderate
income housing.
The Draft Housing Element was also reviewed for consistency with the Growth
Management Program, the provisions of which are incorporated into the General Plan.
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUsfNG ELEMENT
November 18, 2009
Page 19
Consistency with Growth Management is summarized near the end of this Analysis
section.
Since the Draft Housing Element uses the residential goals and objectives of the
City's adopted Land Use Element as a policy framework for development of its goals
and policies, the Draft Housing Element is consistent with the General Plan.
Examples of this include the consistency of proposed Program 2.1 with the Land Use
Element policies that: (1) Encourage residential and commercial mixed uses, (2)
Establish location criteria and constraints for medium and higher density (multi-
family) housing and for residential uses, including emergency shelters, in the City's
industrial areas and near the McClellan-Palomar Airport, and (3) Set forth density
ranges for the RMH and RH land use designations, with which new proposed
minimum densities are consistent.
o Circulation Element. Draft Housing Element programs and policies do not prevent or
preclude the provision of adequate circulation within and around future housing
developments. All residential development is still required to conform to the City's
Growth Management Program, thereby providing all necessary infrastructure
concurrent or prior to development. No adjustment to the alignment or provision of
General Plan Circulation roadways is necessary to accommodate the Draft Housing
Element programs and policies. Therefore, the Draft Housing Element is consistent
with the Circulation Element.
o Noise Element. The Land Use Element designates a substantial amount of residential
land bordering Interstate 5 and the railroad corridor; it also designates residential land
near the 78 Freeway. These major transportation corridors are significant sources of
noise in the City. Proposed Draft Housing Element programs, particularly Program
2.1, build upon the existing residential land use designations by recommending
density increases. Areas that would experience density increases under the proposed
Draft Housing Element and which are adjacent to these major noise sources include
the Barrio Area, the Village, and Quarry Creek.
The General Plan Noise Element states that the negative impacts of transportation
noise, which it identifies as the most extensive noise problem faced by Carlsbad, can
be averted through noise mitigating design and building sound insulation. These
measures are required by the Noise Element of any multi-family project that is
subject to excessive noise, such as from Interstate 5. Therefore, the Draft Housing
Element is consistent with the Noise Element!
o Open Space and Conservation Element. This element contains policies and maps that
indicate the allowable development in open space and environmentally sensitive areas
of the City. The proposed policies and programs of the Draft Housing Element do not
require residential encroachment into open space areas. Land inventories prepared by
staff to determine Carlsbad's ability to meet its RHNA did not count lands either
General Plan-designated or zoned as open space or with open space easements.
Accordingly, the 2005-2010 Housing is consistent with the Open Space and
Conservation Element.
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18, 2009
Page 20
o Public Safety Element. As with the Circulation Element, some of the programs and
policies of the Public Safety Element are implemented through the City's Growth
Management Program. Facilities and services, such as police and fire protection, have
performance standards that must be met with each new development. The Draft
Housing Element proposed contains no programs or policies that would conflict with
this requirement.
The remaining programs and policies of the Public Safety Element deal with various
potential hazards, such as those from floods, geologic instability, and airport
operations. While all potential hazards cannot be determined without site specific
review, land inventories prepared by staff to determine the City's ability to meet its
RHNA generally excluded properties or portions of properties constrained by
floodplains, electrical transmission corridors, and steep hillsides. Furthermore, no
properties within the McClellan-Palomar Airport's Flight Activity Zone are counted
for housing unit yield or emergency shelters by proposed Draft Housing Element
programs. Any development on property that is part of a proposed program will be
developed consistent with Public Safety Element policies. Therefore, the Draft
Housing Element is consistent with the Public Safety Element.
o Parks and Recreation Element. The Parks and Recreation Element calls for the
provision of park and recreational opportunities for the enjoyment of all Carlsbad
residents, activities that attract tourists and recreational amenities for the City's
industrial park occupants. The provision of park land is implemented through the
City's Growth Management Program and the state Subdivision Map Act. No
programs or policies of the Draft Housing Element decrease the opportunity to
acquire park dedications or develop park lands. Accordingly, the Draft Housing
Element is consistent with the Parks and Recreation Element.
o Arts Element. The Arts Element deals with the provision of art and artistic
opportunities for the enjoyment of all Carlsbad residents and visitors. There is very
little that relates the Draft Housing Element with this element. No proposed programs
and policies preclude the implementation of the Arts Element programs. Since there
is no conflict between the two elements, the proposed update of the Draft Housing
Element is consistent with the Arts Element.
• Local Coastal Program. A portion of Carlsbad lies within the Coastal Zone and is
therefore subject to the regulations of the City's Local Coastal Program, or LCP. While
the LCP has six segments, the goals and policies of each segment are substantially
similar: preservation of agriculture, scenic resources, and water quality, protection of
environmentally sensitive areas, provision of shoreline access, and prevention of geologic
instability and erosion.
The Draft Housing Element recognizes the constraints of development in the Coastal
Zone and does not conflict with LCP goals or objectives. None of the proposed policies
or programs allow for degradation of agricultural or scenic resources, encroachment into
environmentally sensitive areas, restriction of coastal access, or creation of geologic
instability or erosion. The proposed updates in the Draft Housing Element also contain
programs intending to preserve and/or replace affordable housing within the Coastal
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUslNG ELEMENT
November 18, 2009
Page 21
Zone, as required by state law. Given the above, proposed Draft Housing Element
policies and programs are consistent with the LCP.
The City's Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance for the LCP. Implementation
of Draft Housing Element programs will require amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.
Some programs also affect properties in the Coastal Zone. Any Zoning Ordinance
changes will require amendments to the LCP.
• Growth Management. Furthermore, affecting all development in Carlsbad is the Growth
Management Program, the provisions of which are incorporated into the General Plan.
Adopted in 1986, the Growth Management Program ensures the timely provision of
adequate public facilities and services to preserve the quality of life of Carlsbad residents.
Accordingly, a purpose and intent of the Growth Management Program is to provide
quality housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community and to balance
the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of Carlsbad's residents
and available fiscal and environmental resources.
The Draft Housing Element was reviewed with regard to the Growth Management
Program. As demonstrated in Section 4 of the document, the City can meet its
obligations under the law with respect to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation under
the Growth Management Program.
Certified Housing Element Benefits
State certification of a Housing Element provides a local jurisdiction with a rebuttable
presumption that the Housing Element is legally valid. Thus, challenges brought against a
certified element shift the burden of proof to show that it is inadequate to the challenger.
Additionally, Housing Element certification is important for jurisdictions to compete effectively
for certain funding and grants awarded by SANDAG and HCD. Both agencies award points to
jurisdictions with certified elements; thus, a city or county that does not have a certified element
is at a disadvantage to those jurisdictions that do. Affected SANDAG funding, for example,
includes that from the Smart Growth Incentive Program, TransNet and the Transportation
Development Act (TDA). Previously, Carlsbad has received over one million dollars in TransNet
and TDA funds for various transportation projects.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Previous Environmental Review
j
Since it is a policy level document, adoption of the Draft Housing Element will not directly
result in any housing being approved or constructed, land use designations being changed, or
minimum densities being raised. Adoption will also not amend any other General Plan policies
or provisions of the Growth Management Plan, Zoning Ordinance, or Local Coastal Program or
any other policy or standard adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
impact.
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18, 2009
Page 22
However, it is recognized that housing facilitated by the Draft Housing Element could have a
potentially significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, and pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code, staff conducted an environmental impact assessment. That
assessment resulted in staffs publishing of a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) and circulating the MND for a 30-day public review from May 29 to June
28, 2009.
Public review of the MND follows the January-February 2009 circulation of a Negative
Declaration for the Draft Housing Element. Based on the comments received, the environmental
analysis was reconsidered and the MND prepared. The MND supersedes the earlier Negative
Declaration. No changes have been made to the Draft Housing Element programs analyzed in
either environmental document.
Because HCD would certify the Draft Housing Element, staff mailed both the Negative
Declaration and subsequently the MND to the State Clearinghouse (SCH), which distributed
them to a number of different state agencies for review. Staff also sent copies directly to the
California Coastal Commission (CCC) and HCD. Additionally, both the MND and Draft
Housing Element were made available on the City's website and at the Dove and Cole libraries.
The MND contains an expanded project description with an overview of the Draft Housing
Element and the RHNA process, a list of all proposed Draft Housing Element programs, and a
detailed section on environmental review. The environmental review section focuses on the
projects (both city and privately-initiated) and the programs proposed to help Carlsbad meet its
RHNA. These programs, specifically 2.1 and 2.3, recommend land use changes to achieve
specific densities, land use designations, and unit yields. This section also describes the
environmental documents approved, underway, or needed to address the environmental impacts
associated with implementing the programs. By way of example, the Program 2.1 component to
increase densities at Quarry Creek is subject to future environmental analysis. Conversely, the
Program 2.1 component to change land use designations in the Ponto area is not subject to
further environmental review because the proposed change is consistent with assumptions
considered in the certified EIR for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan.
In the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) attached to Planning Commission
Resolution 6547, mitigation measures are included to reduce identified potential significant
impacts to a less than significant level for housing facilitated by the Draft Housing Element.
However, these mitigation measures will not be applied to approved city and private projects that
have already undergone environmental review. At a minimum, projects still pending completion
of environmental review will comply with all applicable mitigation measures identified in the
MMRP and/or they will comply with equal or better mitigation measures specifically developed
as each project progresses.
In response to the public circulation of the MND, staff received four letters and one email. A
brief summary of the commenters and their comments are provided below.
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18, 2009
Page 23
SUMMARY
Commenter
Ann Hallock
California Indian Legal Services on
behalf of San Luis Rey Band
Department of Toxic Substances
Control
Preserve Calavera
USD Environmental Law Clinic -
legal representative of Diane Nygaard
Focus of comments
Quarry Creek - soil and groundwater
contamination
Cultural resources - emphasis on Quarry
Creek
Hazardous Wastes - past and future
Inadequacy of MND/Broad criticism -
all potential housing sites
Inadequacy of MND/ Need for EIR
/Quarry Creek - multitude of issues
Each of the letters and email received are attached. Following each, detailed responses to every
comment are provided by staff.
Additionally, the list below responds to some of the primary comments raised. Since many of the
comments regard Quarry Creek, the responses add to and in some cases repeat information
provided in the earlier staff report section on Quarry Creek.
1. Need for an Environmental Impact Report. USD Environmental Law Clinic argues that
an EIR must be prepared as there is a fair argument that the Draft Housing Element may
result in significant environmental impacts. In response, staff concurs that development
facilitated by adoption of the Draft Housing Element may have a potentially significant
effect on the environment. However, these potential effects, including those identified in
the letter, can be adequately analyzed and mitigated to a point of no significance through
the proposed MND and MMRP.
In addition, as a policy document, while adoption of the Draft Housing Element may
facilitate housing development, it would not result in the approval or construction of any
housing. Furthermore, as explained earlier in this section, many projects and proposed
programs the City has considered in the Draft Housing Element to help meet its RHNA
have already completed or are currently undergoing environmental review. At a
minimum, projects still pending environmental review, such as proposed actions
regarding the Quarry Creek site, will comply with all applicable mitigation measures
identified in the MMRP and/or they will comply with equal or berter.mitigation measures
specifically developed as each project progresses through its own environmental and
public review process.
2. Project-level environmental analysis. Issues raised by different commenters suggest
project-level environmental analysis of a program-level document (the Housing Element
Update). As discussed in the MND, subsequent environmental review and CEQA
compliance will be required for both the implementation of proposed Housing Element
programs and for any future development projects facilitated by the Housing Element.
The Housing Element does not change land use designations in Carlsbad and does not
propose the physical development of any site. Development of any site listed in the
Housing Element will be initiated at an undetermined future time by private developers.
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOU&ING ELEMENT
November 18,2009
Page 24
Project details are unknown at this time; therefore project-level environmental analysis is
not appropriate for the Housing Element. Future private development projects will be
subject to City standards and CEQA.
3. The Draft Housing Element falls within the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) definition of "project." Staff concurs with this comment, and, accordingly, has
prepared a MND as required by CEQA.
4. The 161-acre Quarry Creek property is the site of a former mining operation. Former
mining operations were contained on about one-half of a 100-acre property in Carlsbad
and a four acre adjacent parcelin Oceanside. Draft Housing Element Program 2.1
regarding Quarry Creek affects this 100-acre parcel. An adjacent 57-acre parcel to the
west of the mining operations was not mined, is undeveloped, and makes up part of the
161 acres to which Preserve Calavera and others in their comment letters refer.
5. Examples of post-mining activities include open space uses and activities. The USD
Environmental Law Clinic memorandum lists grazing, agricultural lands, and open space
are suitable activities that may occur on Quarry Creek following reclamation to restore
the site. The site is designated by the City's General Plan and Habitat Management Plan
for open space and residential development and by the Zoning Ordinance for residential
and industrial purposes. Furthermore, an overall objective of the proposed reclamation
plan for Quarry Creek is "reclaim...the [Quarry Creek] site to a safe, usable condition
that is readily adaptable for future land uses ..." Therefore, it is logical to expect that
portions of Quarry Creek will be developed with uses other than the open space uses
identified in the letter. Furthermore, an overall objective of the proposed reclamation
plan is "reclaim...the [Quarry Creek] site to a safe, usable condition that is readily
adaptable for future land uses..."
6. Quarry Creek is home to many sensitive species that would be severely impacted by the
project's proposed development of 500 homes. The Draft Housing Element does not
approve the development of 500 homes at Quarry Creek. The City recognizes, however,
that housing facilitated by adoption of the housing element, including housing that may
be built at Quarry Creek, may significantly impact important resources. Accordingly, a
MND and MMRP have been prepared to sufficiently address and mitigate impacts that
may result from construction and post-construction impacts. At a minimum, projects still
pending completion of environmental review will comply with all applicable mitigation
measures identified in the MMRP and/or they will comply with equal or better mitigation
measures specifically developed as each project progresses.
7. Regarding hazardous^ materials, there have not been consistent improvements in levels of
contaminants at Quarry Creek. The "Fuel Impact Remediation Program" a February
2009 handout produced by the Quarry Creek owner and included in the "2005-2010
Housing Element Information Packet" provided to the Planning Commission earlier and
referenced as a staff report attachment, states "the project [to decrease impacts from fuel
contamination] is on track to meet goals for remediation and to make materials available
for site work during reclamation, once Hanson's proposed reclamation plan is approved."
Hanson is the owner of Quarry Creek. The handout further describes and graphically
depicts reductions in contaminants from 2004 to 2008.
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18, 2009
Page 25
Remediation of soils is anticipated to continue until site grading activities to implement
the site reclamation begins. The Draft Subsequent EIR concludes that with respect to
hazards and hazardous materials on the Quarry Creek site, no mitigation is required.
Additionally, the MND and MMRP contain mitigation measures to reduce potential
hazardous material impacts to a less than significant level. As will all future residential
development that may be facilitated by adoption of the Draft Housing Element, these
mitigation measures will apply to any development of the Quarry Creek site.
Furthermore, staff has contacted the San Diego County Department of Environmental
Health (DEH) and verified that DEH concurs with the remediation process and methods
underway at Quarry Creek. DEH also noted that status reports and other information
regarding the remediation efforts are available to the public at the State's Geotracker
website, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov.
8. Regarding cultural resources, state law requires consultation with Native American
tribes prior to adoption or amendment of a General Plan. In 2007, staff began
consultation with San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians on the Draft Housing Element.
Consultation with the Band concluded earlier this year.
Revisions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration
As discussed earlier under the Analysis section, staff has proposed minor changes to the Draft
Housing Element, to delete references to La Costa Town Square, among other things. These
minor changes also affect the project description part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
These revisions have been noted in Planning Commission Resolution 6547 and shown on the
project description, which is an attachment to the resolution. Consistent with California
Environmental Quality Act Sectionl5073.5(c)(4), the resolution clarifies the changes do not
require recirculation of the MND as the revisions result in only insignificant modifications to the
Draft Housing Element and the MND.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6547 (MND)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6548 (GPA)
3. November 21, 2008, letter of compliance from HCD
4. "2005-2010 Housing Element Information Packet" (provided earlier to the Planning
Commission and available at the City of Carlsbad Faraday Center, Planning Counter, for
review):
a. City of Carlsbad Draft 2005-2010 Housing Element, dated December 2008.
b. February 12, 2009, Hpusing Commission meeting items:
i. Staff report and resolution;
ii. Errata;
iii. Minutes (draft);
iv. Staff PowerPoint presentation.
c. January 8, 2009 Housing Commission meeting items:
i. Staff report;
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18,2009
Page 26
ii. Minutes;
iii. Staff PowerPoint presentation.
d. Information provided to the Housing Commission by staff and the public at the February
12 meeting:
i. Information submitted by the public;
ii. "City of Carlsbad 2005-2010 Housing Element Site Study" map prepared by
staff;
iii. "Quarry Creek Facts and Information," prepared by McMillin Land Development
Services, LP;
iv. "Fuel Impact Remediation Program," prepared by Hanson Heidelberg
Cement Group.
5. June 27, 2009, University of San Diego Environmental Law Clinic memorandum, and city
staff response, regarding outdated data used in the Draft Housing Element.
6. Correspondence received and city staff response provided in regard to Notice of Intent to
adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration:
a. Department of Toxic Substances Control letter dated June 25, 2009
b. Preserve Calavera letter dated June 26, 2009
c. Ann Hallock email dated June 26, 2009
d. University of San Diego Environmental Law Clinic memorandum dated June 27, 2009
e. California Indian Legal Services letter dated June 29, 2009
\<ol
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. GovernorQE CALIFORNIA -BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING, AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
1800 Third Street, Suite 430
P. O. Box 952053
Sacramento, CA 94252-2053
(916)323-3177
FAX (916) 327-2643
November 21,2008
Mr. Don Neu, Director
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Neu:
RE: Review of the City of Carlsbad's Revised Draft Housing Element
Thank you for submitting the City of Carlsbad's draft housing element received for
review on September 24, 2008. The Department is required to review draft housing
elements and report the findings to the locality pursuant to Government Code
Section 65585(b). In addition, the Department considered comments submitted by
Ms. Diane Nygaard, pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(c). The review was
also facilitated by several communications with Mr. Scott Donnell, Senior Planner,
Mr. Gary Barberio, Assistant Planning Director, Mr. Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner,
Mr. Dave de Cordova, Principal Planner, Ms. Debbie Fountain, Housing and
Redevelopment Director, and your consultant, Ms. Veronica Tam.
The revised draft element addresses the statutory requirements described in the
Department's August 4, 2008 review. For example, the element now demonstrates
adequate sites and includes programs to encourage development on nonvacant sites.
As a result, the revised draft element will comply with State housing element law
(Article 10.6 of the Government Code) when adopted and submitted to the Department,
pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(g).
The Department recognizes Carlsbad's efforts to adopt effective housing and land-use
strategies to address its existing and projected housing need, including encouraging
redevelopment and lot consolidation in the Village and Barrio Areas. Programs to
provide adequate sites and encourage redevelopment in the Village and Barrio Areas,
including Program 2.1 (Adequate Sites), are critical in demonstrating compliance with
housing element law. The City must monitor and report on the results of these
programs through the annual progress report, required pursuant to Government Code
Section 65400, and should amend programs as necessary if existing programs or
strategies are not effective in providing needed housing opportunities.
Mr. Don Neu, Director
Page 2
For your information, pursuant to Government Code Section 65863, local governments
must ensure the inventory of sites or any sites program accommodates the regional
housing need throughout the planning period of the element. In addition, no local
government action shall reduce, require or permit the reduction of, the residential
density for any parcel to, or allow development of any parcel at, a lower residential
density than identified in the site inventory or program unless the local government
makes written findings, the reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan,
including the housing element and the remaining sites identified in the housing element
are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need.
The Department appreciates the City's efforts to address its housing needs and is
thankful of Mr. Donnell's hard work and cooperation during the housing element update.
The Department looks forward to receiving Carlsbad's adopted housing element. If you
have any additional questions, please contact Paul McDougall, of our staff, at
(916) 322-7995.
Sincerely,
Cathy E. Creswell
Deputy Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Carlsbad, Planning Department
FROM: Richard Wharton, University of San Diego Environmental Law Clinic, legal
representatives of Diane Nygaard, President of Preserve Calavera
SUBJECT: Comments Re: City of Carlsbad, Amended 2005-2010 Housing Element
DATE: June 27,2009
INTRODUCTION
The Carlsbad Housing Element Amendment is not in substantial compliance with
Government Code § 65583 because the data relied upon are not based on current information in
that it relies predominantly on out-dated economic data and projections, such as property values,
rental prices, and income levels prior to 2005. Since the Housing Element Amendment relies on
obsolete data, conclusions based on the data are systematically flawed. The requirement that the
Housing Element be updated every five years shows a clear legislative intent that the Element be
based on current information. Since 2007, the municipalities of the San Diego County, and the
entire nation, have suffered a unique and unprecedented economic downturn. Housing markets,
income levels, unemployment rates, foreclosure rates, and home sales have all turned for the
worse. Despite the unprecedented economic changes, none of the current, yet relevant economic
factors have been taken into account in the Housing Element Amendment. By relying on out-
dated, obsolete, and essentially useless data, the proposed Housing Element is not in substantial
compliance with § 65583 of<he Housing Code.
The proposed Carlsbad Housing Element should not be adopted because it is
economically impractical and inconsistent with the clear legislative intent to provide current
information for up-to-date project planning. Furthermore, during the initial review of a housing
element, "any interested party" may challenge the element, and the court's review "shall extend
to whether any portion of the housing element substantially complies with the specific
requirements of section 65583." " 'Substantial" compliance means actual compliance in respect
to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute, as distinguished from
'mere technical imperfections of form.' " Buena Vista Gardens Apartments Assn. v. City of San
Diego Planning Dept., 220 Cal.Rptr. 732 (Cal.App.3d 1985); Camp v. Board of Supervisors, 176
Cal.Rptr. 620 (Cal.App.3d 1981).
I. DISCUSSION
The city of Carlsbad is relying on out-dated, yet vital information. The majority of the
tables, graphs, charts, and figures rely on information prior to 2005. After 4 years, almost all of
the information is now obsolete and counters the purpose of updating the housing element.
Thus, the Housing Element Amendment is not in substantial compliance with the specific
requirements and its legislative intent to maintain current information. In order to provide
sensible and practical housing projections, the city must take into account any economic, fiscal,
or circumstantial factors that may prevent the projects from being feasible. Many of the projects
proposed in the Housing Element Amendment are not practical because the costs and estimations
are based on data prior to the unprecedented economic downturn. The Housing Element based
most of their projections on market value and rental prices in the early 2000's; however, those
prices are outdated and cannot be relied upon for planning purposes. They do not account for
real wages, the current consumer price index, and inflation. Another example is the lack of
?
availability of mortgages for lower-income households. The current housing element assumes
that these lower-income households can obtain a mortgage loan as easily as 2003, when banking
institutions such as Countrywide were not requiring income verification to obtain loans. Without
current data the amended housing element is useless in determining who can qualify for
mortgage loans.
This memorandum analyzes the information presented in Section 2 of the Carlsbad
Housing Element Amendment. Tables from section 2 of the Housing Element Amendment with
outdated information are listed below. The tables are the raw data inputs used by the City of
Carlsbad to evaluate the sufficiency of their low-income housing.
Overall, the data used in the Housing Element is deficient in three ways. First, the data
is not current. Second the data is selected from a range of dates in a manner that is not
systematic. Third, the data does not cover the years 2005-2010 adequately.
Most of the tables are based on information that is out of date. The tables are all based
on data prior to the 2008 economic downturn. Given the 2008 economic downturn, tables 2-6, 2-
8, 2-10, 2-14, 2-15, 2-16, 2-17 and 2-22 are presently inaccurate. These tables represent
employment, income or housing and rental costs. All of these figures would have changed based
on the economic downturn late in 2008. The most recent of the tables is based on information
from 2007. The data does not present an accurate picture of the current housing situation in
Carlsbad.
Likewise, the data also does not accurately reflect the timeframe the Housing Element
is intended to cover. The Housing Element should cover the years 2005-2010. However, the
Housing Element was not written until late last year. Much of the data is from before 2005.
In addition, the data is taken from a range of dates, covering at least a 7-year time
j
frame. There is no consistency in the method of selecting the dates for the data.
The goal of the Housing Element is to create a cohesive image of the state of
affordable housing in Carlsbad and to provide concrete solutions for adequate housing, if it is
lacking. Since the data here is not coherently and systematically culled together, the conclusions
reached based on the data are also flawed. Accordingly, the City of Carlsbad does not meet the
goal of putting together concrete and reliable plans to ensure adequate low-income housing.
Therefore, it does not substantially comply with Government Code § 65583(a).
TABLES SHOWING OUT OF DATE INFORMATION - FROM SECTION 2 OF THE
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 2-6 Average Yearly Salary taken from the State Employment Development Department in
2004.
Table 2-8 Household Income by Tenure and Household Type taken from the Comprehensive
Housing Affordability Strategy in 2006.
Table 2-9 Special Needs Groups in Carlsbad based on the 2000 census and Task Force on
Homelessness 2004.
Table 2-10 Homeless Population by Jurisdiction from the Task Force on Homelessness 2004.
Table 2-11 Homeless Shelters and Services in North County from the San Diego Regional Task
Force on Homelessness 2004.
Table 2-12 Housing Unit Type from the Census in 1990 and the Department of Finance in 2005.
Table 2-13 Housing Vacancy taken from the 2000 Census.
Table 2-14 Home and Condominium Sales from DataQuick 2004.
Table 2-15 Median Home Prices from American Association of Retailers in 2007.
3
Table 2-16 Apartment Rental Rates from Appartments.com January 2006.
Table 2-17 Housing Affordability Matrix taken from sources and date not specified.
Table 2-19 Housing Assistance Needs of Lower Income Households HUD January 2006.
Table 2-20 Inventory of Assisted Rental Housing from City of Carlsbad 2007.
Table 2-22 Market Value of at Risk Housing Unit from Table 2-16.
The Housing Element contains table 3-1 which lists housing production in Carlsbad
during the period of 2003-2006 based on income level availability. Given the recent changes to
the housing market and the slowdown of construction, this data is no longer relevant to the actual
needs of lower income families and thus should be reformulated by the City of-Carlsbad.
Similarly table 3-3 lists recent affordable housing projects and the subsidies used to keep them
affordable. It is not clear from the graph when this information is dated from and it should thus
be updated and more clearly labeled. Doing so will give the Housing Element a more clear
statement of the current true cost of low income housing subsidies to the City of Carlsbad.
Section 4 of the Housing Element addresses constraints and mitigation opportunities on
creating affordable housing in Carlsbad. Table 4-1 states the price of land in Carlsbad, but is
based on MLS listings from September of 2004, more than 5 years ago. The prices have
plummeted since then. There have been multiple fluctuations in the price of land and housing
since 2004 and given the severity of the latest financial crisis this data should be updated before
the Housing Element is approved. Table 4-2 depicts the availability of financing for new
homes to families of different income levels. The data for the table comes from 2003 which does
not reflect the dire situation that the lending industry is currently in—many are no longer in
business. Below is a comparison of table 4-2 and an updated version using data from 2008. It is
clear that lending opportunities, especially for low income households has dropped significantly.
s
The Housing Element states that an additional obstacle for homebuyers continued to be the
downpayment required by lending institutions. Given the current housing situation, a high FICO
score, in conjunction with strong verification of income, would not guarantee the approval for a
mortgage. Additionally the mitigation measures listed after the 2003 data in the Housing
Element are insufficient at best.
Comparison
Table
Low Income
(<80%)
Moderate
Income (80 to
120%)
Above
Moderate
Income (>120%)
Total
2003 (City of Carlsbad)
Total
Apps
178
513
3320
4011
%
Org
69.4
66.9
72.5
70.9
%
Denied
11.9
11.3
8.5
9.3
%
Other
18.7
21.8
19.0
19.7
2008 (County of San Diego, San
Marcos, Carlsbad)
Total
Apps
12317
28033
148457
188807
%
Org
51.8
56.7
55.7
55.6
%
Denied
26.0
19.7
19.0
19.5
%
Other
22.2
23.6
25.4
24.9
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), 2008.
Table 5-1 displays the progress the city has made toward the RHNA housing construction
goals. These numbers are based on data from June of 2005, and have changed significantly in
the mean time. Also of note is the huge disproportion of above moderate income housing built
as compared to all other categories, displaying the true lack of affordable housing options in the
City of Carlsbad.
II. CONCLUSION
Due to the reliance on out-dated and inconsistent data as a result of the unique and
unprecedented 2008 economic downturn in San Diego County and the entire nation, the amended
Carlsbad 2005-2010 Housing Element is not in substantial compliance with specific
requirements of Government Code § 65583. Reliance on the projections of the amended
Housing Element is economically unviable and contradicts legislative intent for up-to-date
projections. The Buena Vista case concludes that a court has full discretion to review "whether
any portion of the housing element substantially complies" with § 65583. Buena Vista Gardens
Apartments Assn. v. City of San Diego Planning Dept., 220 Cal.Rptr. 732 (Cal.App.3d 1985);
Camp v. Board of Supervisors, 176 Cal.Rptr. 620 (Cal.App.3d 1981). Thus, until the City of
Carlsbad applies the most current or economically applicable data for its projections, the
proposed amendment to the Housing Element does not substantially comply with §65583.
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
November 10, 2009
Richard Wharton
University of San Diego School of Law
5998 Alcala Park, Room WH317
San Diego, CA 92110
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT DATA
Dear Mr. Wharton:
Thank you for your memorandum of June 27, 2009. In the memorandum, you opine that the
Draft Housing Element is not in compliance with Government Code § 65583 because of the
datedness of some its information. Section 65583 identifies required housing element contents.
It is part of state Housing Element Law, which begins with § 65580. City staff disagrees with
your position that the Draft Housing Element does not comply with state law.
By way of background, state law requires all California cities and counties to update their
housing elements not less than every five years. Typically, updates have occurred in five year
increments, or housing cycles; the current housing cycle for which the Draft Housing Element is
proposed began July 1, 2005 and ends June 30, 2010.
The state Department of Housing and Community Development, Division of Housing Policy
Development (HCD) reviews and certifies housing elements for compliance with state law. With
revisions made since its initial release in April 2007, HCD has found adoption of the Draft
Housing Element will comply with state law. After public hearings before the Planning
Commission and City Council (Housing Commission hearings have already taken place), city
staff anticipates adoption of this Draft Housing Element in early 2010.
For the current housing cycle, Government Code 65588(e) (5) specifies adoption of housing
elements for San Diego County jurisdictions shall occur before July 1, 2005, or by the beginning
of the cycle. For this timely revision to occur, data must be collected, the regional housing needs
assessment completed, the housing element prepared, HCD review of the draft document
finished, and workshops and hearings by the local jurisdiction held. This lengthy pre-adoption
process typically takes 18 to 24 months or more. Accordingly, Carlsbad began the process to
revise its housing element in 2003 and published its first draft in April 2007, not late last year as
the memorandum suggests.
The City has produced a draft document that, as noted earlier, will comply with state law upon
its adoption. Accordingly,* and based on the background information presented above, staff
disagrees with your comments that the Draft Housing Element contains outdated information for
the following reasons:
• If Carlsbad had adopted its Draft Housing Element by July 2005, that element and its
policies, facts, and figures would have applied until the end of the housing cycle in June
2010. Therefore, data collected prior to July 2005 is useful regardless of when a housing
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 * www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
MR. RICHARD WHARTON
NOVEMBER 10, 2009
PAGE 2
element is adopted and appropriate for establishing policies that will be in effect during the
several years of the housing cycle.
• Government Code § 65583(a) (1) indicates the use of Census data is appropriate to
determine a certain household type.
• The Draft Housing Element relies on Census data; the last available Census data is from
2000, and new Census data will not be ready until after 2010. Additionally, to ensure a
relevant comparison, 2000 Census data is sometimes compared with 1990 Census figures.
• HCD's "Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements," available on the HCD website at~
http://www.hcd.ca.qov/hpd/housing element2/index.php. extensively cites use of the
Census as an appropriate information source. The Building Blocks also encourage use of
data sources besides the Census, which the City has done.
• Contrary to the memorandum, the Draft Housing Element provides a relatively cohesive set
of data. Other than Census data, the economic and population figures, household
characteristics, and building activity data provided all reflect dates in the 2003 to 2006 time
frame; this is generally true of the information presented in tables and figures found in Draft
Housing Element sections 2, 3, and 4. An exception to this can be found in the tables that
report Carlsbad's efforts to demonstrate it has adequate sites to accommodate its share of
the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Because of the difficulty in finding adequate
sites, tables that show how the City will meet its RHNA, such as Table 3-4, have dates as
recently as December 2008. More information on RHNA may be found in Section 3.
• As1 previously mentioned, HCD has found the Draft Housing Element will comply with state
law upon its adoption. This is contrary to your assertion that Draft Housing Element data is
"...not in substantial compliance with Government Code § 65583 because the data relied
upon are not based on current information..." A copy of the HCD letter is attached.
• Proposed Program 3.20 of the Draft Housing Element recognizes the need, if necessary, to
update the document. It states:
Program 3.20: Housing Element Annual Report
To retain the Housing Element as a viable policy document, the Planning Department will
undertake an annual review of the Housing Element and schedule an amendment if
required. As required, staff also monitors the City's progress in implementing the Housing
Element and prepares corresponding reports to the City Council, SANDAG, and California
Department of Housing and Community Development annually.
Funding: Departmental Budget
Lead Agency: Planning Department
Objectives and Time Frame:
• Prepare Annual Housing Production Report and report on implementation of the
General Plan, including the Housing Element.
• Submit annual report on implementation of the General Plan, including the Housing
Element and Annual Housing Production Report, to the City Council, HCD, and other
government agencies as necessary.
MR. RICHARD WHARTON
NOVEMBER 10, 2009
PAGE 3
Additionally, the memorandum cites the apparent out datedness of Table 5-1, citing that the
figures are based on data from June 2005. Actually, this table intentionally reports housing
constructed only for the previous housing cycle (July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2005) as it is part of a
report on the 1999 Housing Element, which addressed housing needs during that time period.
The memorandum also claims tables 2-17 and 3-3 lack dates of preparation and Table 2-17 does
not have its source cited. Table 2-17 clearly identifies that it provides 2006 information.
Furthermore, the paragraph preceding the table indicates the table provides figures based on data
produced by HCD. Regarding Table 3-3, which reports subsidies for affordable housing projects,
relevant date information is given for each project the table identifies. For every project, the year
of project completion and the relevant agenda bill that discussed project subsidies are provided. -
Finally, just before the memorandum's conclusion, it suggests there exists "...a true lack of
affordable housing options in Carlsbad." To the contrary, as the Draft Housing Element reveals,
Carlsbad's inclusionary requirements have been quite successful in producing housing affordable
to lower income families. In fact, developers constructed over 1,150 units of affordable housing in
Carlsbad from 1991 to 2006. The City's hard work to produce a substantial amount of affordable
housing is evidenced in the 2007 report, Affordable By Choice: Trends in California Inclusionary
Housing Programs. Commissioned by several housing-interest groups, the report identifies
Carlsbad as one of California's top producers of affordable housing.
Sincerely,
SCOTT DONNELL
Senior Planner
Diane Nygaard, Preserve Calavera
File Copy
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Linda S. Adams
Secretary for
Environmental Protection
Maziar Movassaghi
Acting Director
5796 Corporate Avenue
Cypress, California 90630
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor
June 25, 2009
Mr. Scott Donnell
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND) FOR 2005-2010 DRAFT
HOUSING ELEMENT GPA03-02 (SCH# 2006051076)
Dear Mr. Donnell:
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted
document for the above-mentioned project. As stated in your document: "The project is
the adoption of the City of Carlsbad Draft 2005-2010 Housing Element, which requires a
General Plan Amendment. California Housing Element law requires that local
jurisdictions update their housing elements every five years. The housing element
represents a chapter of the City's General plan; a planning document that identifies the
community's long term goals for development. The housing element chapter provides
guidance and directions for city policymakers to address the specific housing needs of
the community.
The Housing Element includes goals, policies, and programs to further facilitate
increasing the supply of affordable housing; however, it does not directly provide for
housing construction nor directly change any land use designations use, or
development standards. Individual development projects and proposed land use and
code changes pursuant to adoption and implementation of the Housing Element will be
subject to separate environmental review by the City".
Based on the review of the submitted document DTSC has the following comments:
j
1) The ND should identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the
project area may have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances.
Printed on Recycled Paper
Mr. Scott Donnell
June 25, 2009
Page 2
2) The document states that the ND would identify any known or potentially
contaminated sites within the proposed project area. For all identified sites, the
ND should evaluate whether conditions at the site may pose a threat to human
health or the environment. Following are the databases of some of the
regulatory agencies:
• National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA).
• EnviroStor, a database primarily used by the California Department of
Toxic Substances Control, at www. Envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov.
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS):
A database of RCRA facilities that is maintained by U.S. EPA.
• Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS): A database of CERCLA sites that is
maintained by U.S.EPA.
• Solid Waste Information System (SW1S): A database provided by the
California Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both
open as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and
transfer stations.
• GeoTracker: A List that is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control
Boards.
• Local Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup
sites and leaking underground storage tanks.
• The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 91 1 Wilshire Boulevard,
Los Angeles, California, 9001 7,. (21 3) 452-3908, maintains a list of
Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS).
3) The ND should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation
and/or remediation for any site that may be contaminated, and the government
agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If hazardous materials or 3
wastes were stored at the site, an environmental assessment should be I.
conducted to determine if a release has occurred. If so, further studies should be I
carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the
Mr. Scott Donnell
June 25, 2009
Page3
potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. It
may be necessary to determine if an expedited response action is required to
reduce existing or potential threats to public health or the environment. If no
immediate threat exists, the final remedy should be implemented in compliance
with state laws, regulations and policies.
4) The project construction may require soil excavation and soil filling in certain
areas. Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of the excavated soil.
If the soil is contaminated, properly dispose of it rather than placing it in another
location. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to these soils.
Also, if the project proposes to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, proper
sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported soil is free of
contamination.
5) Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected
during the construction or demolition activities. A study of the site overseen by
the appropriate government agency might have to be conducted to determine if
there are, have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may
pose a risk to human health or the environment.
6) If during construction/demolition of the project, soil and/or groundwater
contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area should cease and
appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. If it'is
determined that contaminated soil and/or groundwater exist, the ND should :
identify how any required investigation and/or remediation will be conducted, and
the appropriate government agency to provide regulatory oversight.
7) If weed abatement occurred, onsite soils may contain herbicide residue. If so,
proper investigation and remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted at
the site prior to construction of the project.
8) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the
proposed operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the
California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code,
Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations
(California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5). If it is determined that
hazardous wastes will be generated, the facility should also obtain a United
States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number by contacting
(800) 618-6942. Certain hazardous waste treatment processes or hazardous
materials, handling, storage or uses may require authorization from the local
Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Information about the requirement for
authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA. .
Mr. Scott Donnell
June 25, 2009
Page 4
9) DISC can provide guidance for cleanup oversight through an Environmental
Oversight Agreement (EOA) for government agencies that are not responsible
parties, or a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VGA) for private parties. For £
additional information on the EOA or VGA, please see
www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Brownfields, or contact Ms. Maryam Tasnif-
Abbasi, DTSC's Voluntary Cleanup Coordinator, at (714) 484-5489.
If you have any questions,regarding this letter, please contact me at (714) 484-5472 or
at "ashami@DTSC.ca.gov".
Sincere
Al-Shami
Project Manager
Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program
cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, California 95812-3044
CEQA Tracking Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Office of Environmental Planning and Analysis
1001 I Street, 22nd Floor, M.S. 22-2
Sacramento, California 95814
nritter@.dtsc.ca.gov
CEQA #2615
Response to June 25, 200* Comments by California Department of Toxic Substances
Control
On
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Draft 2005-2010 Housing Element
(Note: The number of the response below corresponds with the comment identified by the number in the
right margin of the comment letter)
1. Comment noted. This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a
program-level document (the Housing Element Update). As discussed in the MND,
subsequent environmental review and CEQA compliance will be required for both the
implementation of proposed housing element programs and for any future development
projects facilitated by the housing element. The Housing Element does not change land
use designations for any property and does not propose the physical development of any
site. Development of any site listed in the Housing Element would be initiated at an
undetermined future time by private developers and project details are unknown at this
time; therefore project-level environmental analysis is not appropriate for the Housing
Element.
However, the MND recognizes that large areas of the City that currently or previously
have been in agricultural use are designated for residential development by the General
Plan and agricultural chemicals and pesticides may have been used and stored on these
properties, which could impact future residential development. Likewise, other areas of
Carlsbad, such as the Quarry Creek site discussed in the MND or commercial areas,
may have contaminated soils or groundwater due to the presence of former or existing
non-agricultural uses, such as gas stations, above or below ground storage tanks,
dumps, or industrial operations. Furthermore, redevelopment in older parts of Carlsbad,
such as in the downtown Village or Barrio Areas, may expose construction workers to
hazardous materials during demolition activities. Development of sites with such
contamination may expose people to release of hazardous materials, a potentially
significant impact.
In response, mitigation measures HM-1 thru HM-9 will require future projects to study
and identify the existence or release of any hazardous substances. For any future
housing project facilitated by the implementation of the Draft Housing Element, if a site
has the potential of containing agricultural chemicals .pesticides or other soil
contaminants, a soils testing and analysis report is required. Monitoring and sampling of
groundwater may also be necessary along with groundwater and soil remediation to
ensure that all contaminants are removed. As identified in the MND and as may be
further refined during project review, any recommended mitigation measures would be
made conditions of any project approval. Adherence to these measures and existing
federal, state, and local regulations will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant
level.
Though most sites require further environmental analysis to identify if contamination
exists, at the Quarry Creek site, contamination is known to exist and cleanup efforts are
ongoing. The Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Former
South Coast Quarry Amended Reclamation Plan ("Draft Subsequent EIR"), the CEQA
document prepared for the reclamation of the Quarry Creek site, describes soil and
groundwater remediation efforts underway. The Draft Subsequent EIR notes that
cleanup is anticipated to occur prior to or during site reclamation; this means that
remediation would be complete before residential development of the site. Because
remediation is being conducted according to all applicable requirements, the Draft
Subsequent EIR includes no additional mitigation measures with regards to hazardous
materials. Further, the Draft Subsequent EIR concludes that all remediated soils would
remain on site and there would be no hazards associated with their redistribution on the
site.
RESPONSE TO JUNE 25, 2009 COMMENTS BY CALIFORNIA DEPAKTMENT OF TOXIC
SUBSTANCES CONTROL
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page 2 ;
2. Comment noted. This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a
program-level document (the Housing Element Update). When future applications are
submitted to redesignate the land use of a property or propose development or
redevelopment, Mitigation Measure HM-9 requires disclosure of the site's inclusion on
the Cortese List. Because development of such sites could create a significant hazard to
the public or environment if their cleanup was not conducted in accordance with all
federal, state, and local regulations, a mitigation measure requires compliance with
applicable regulations for any site identified on the Cortese List. As suggested by this
comment in the DTSC letter, during future environmental analysis, all databases
maintaining lists of contaminated sites will be reviewed as appropriate.
3. See proposed mitigation measures HM-1 thru HM-9. Though the Housing Element does
not propose the physical development of any site, the MND proposes measures that will
require identification of potential contamination and necessary remediation as well as
appropriate regulatory oversight for any future project facilitated by the Housing Element.
4. For future projects that may require soil excavation, the MND proposes mitigation
measures HM-1 and HM-5, which require detailed soils testing and remediation for
contaminated soils. Adherence to these measures and City standards will reduce
potential impacts to a less than significant level.
5. Comment noted. This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a
program-level document (the Housing -Element Update). However, for future projects
facilitated by the Housing Element, staff has prepared a list of mitigation measures that
would be applicable to projects with the potential to be significantly impacted by the
routine use or accidental or unexpected release of hazardous materials. Through future
project-level environmental analysis, these mitigation measures could be made
conditions of a project approval, or the measures may be refined or found unnecessary
as detailed planning and study specific to the project occurs. In any case, adherence to
mitigation measures HM-1 thru HM-9 and City standards will reduce potential impacts to
a less than significant level.
6. Comment noted.
\7b
June 26, 2009
Scott Donnell, Sr Planner
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Comments on MND- Housing Element 2005-2010
Dear Mr. Donnell:
Preserve Calavera is a grassroots organization focused on preserving and protecting the natural
resources of coastal north county. We are concerned about the 2005-2010 Housing Element
because of its direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on north county watersheds, sensitive
habitat, and native plants and wildlife. These concerns have been raised previously at two
hearings before the Housing Commission, correspondence to city staff, and memo from the USD
Environmental Law Clinic dated February 26, 2009. • .
This MND fails to address numerous issues raised about this project over the last two years.
The project as proposed potentially has significant direct, indirect and cumulative temporary and
permanent impacts that have not been addressed in the MND.
The following are our specific comments on the environmental impacts of the Housing Element.
Further comments will be submitted on our behalf by the Environmental Law Clinic of USD.
Land Use
Statement is made that "Housing units constructed or issued certificates of occupancy
during this period can be credited toward the RHNA for this housing cycle." (1/1/03-
6/30/10) However there is no explanation in the Housing Element that explains how
numerous projects included in the plan can be constructed or issued certificates of
occupancy during the specified time period. For example, it is clear that the property
identified as Quarry Creek which is still subject to remediation of contaminated soil and
water as well as reclamation of the prior mine site could have residences constructed by
6/30/10. Since the Housing Element is for a specified time period the impacts must be ev
aluatged for that specific time period. There is no assurance as to how much of this plan
will actually be implemented within the specified 5 year period. There is consequently
no assurance that impacts will be as stated in the MND as no time frame is defined..
5020 Nighthawk Way - Oceanside, CA 92056
www.preservecalavera.org
The list of smart growth criteria listed here is not a complete or accurate list of the Smart
Growth criteria actually adopted by SANDAG. This includes very specific items for each
type of smart growth site. Proximity and frequency of service for public transit is a key
criterion for most of the categories of smart growth. Many of the locations identified are not
within the specified distance and/or do not have the required service frequency to qualify as
a smart growth site. The Smart Growth map issued by SANDAG includes all sites
recommended by the respective city, whether they meet the specified SANDAG smart
growth criteria or not. Mere inclusion on the map does not mean it actually meets the smart
growth critieria as is stated in the MND. It only means that the reporting city says it does and
requested that the site be included on the map.
For example, the Quarry Creek site is identified on the SANDAG Smart Growth map as a
Community Center. This category of smart growth site requires "high frequency local"
transit service. Such transit service is not in place now at this location, nor is it included in
the "revenue constrained" alternative of the RTF adopted by SANDAG. Furthermore, recent
transit funding cuts and resultant service cuts make it even more apparent that there is
essentially no potential for such transit service to be in place within the next 5 years.
Furthermore the Independent Transit Peer Review Panel of SANDAG report states that a
viable smart growth plan would concentrate on the core urban area as the place with the
greatest potential to actually achieve smart growth. None of the four smart growth sites in
Carlsbad are within the urban core, and none have any potential for transit service at the
required levels to meet Smart Growth criteria.
Furthermore the project descriptions for the four Smart Growth sites in Carlsbad all include
substantial development in addition to the residential units.1 For example CB-1 Plaza
Camino Real would include " mixed-use complex that would add floor area to the existing
retail development", CB-2 Quarry Creek would include "commercial(office and/or retail)
uses and possible public gathering places", CB-3 Carlsbad Village would include " mixed
residential/retail development", and CB-4 Ponto beachfront would include "live-work units
and mixed retail-residential development." These additional land uses are integral to the
designation of these sites as "smart growth" yet none of these additional land uses and the
associated environmental impacts have been analyzed or mitigated.
The MND assumes that the changes proposed in the Housing Element constitute "Smart
Growth" yet the analysis has failed to identify which of these units are consistent with the
smart growth criteria, what other potential smart growth development would be precluded if
these projects were approved (because of the housing unit cap in city ordinances), and the
cumulative effect of these proposed density changes on transportation and open space- two
other critical components of any smart growth project evaluation.
The statement about the provision of public transit to smart growth sites is not accurate.
The adopted Regional Transportation Plan proposes a split of transportation dollars
between transportation modes with public transit receiving about 1/3 of the anticipated
revenue. However the current economic downtown has reduced revenue to the local \J
Smart Growth Concept Map - Site Descriptions, SANDAG
rn
transit district (NCTD) resulting in significant service cuts. There are no assurances that
anywhere in north county will have reliable, high frequency transit service. The MND
has assumed that the proposed Housing Element will result in smart growth, thereby
offsetting many of what could be significant impacts from thousands of housing units.
No analysis has been done to support this claim, and in fact the areas where development
will impac t existing natural lands in areas without transit service will have exactly the
opposite effect. The Housing Element could actually have greater adverse impacts than
the existing land use as proposed in the General Plan- there is no information upon which
to base such a judgment.
Air Quality
This list of proposed air quality mitigation measures is insufficient to reduce adverse air
quality impacts to a level of insignificance. This generic list has been included with
several recent city development projects, often where overriding considerations were then
used to allow development to continue in spite of significant temporary and permanent
air quality impacts. (See Robertson Ranch as one recent example). There is absolutely
no basis for the conclusion that applying this mitigation measure for this project will
reduce impacts to level of insignificance when on several recent projects they have not
been sufficient.
Item III.c- Air quality impacts are cumulative and this project could result in a
cumulatively significant increase in air pollutants and exceed ambient air quality
standards- this would not be less than significant as is stated in the MND. Each
constructed project included within the Housing Element adds to local air quality
impacts. This Project proposes the redistribution of thousands of housing units within the
city, and the resultant automobile trips associated with those units. This will result in
both temporary (construction related) and permanent impacts (both traffic and stationary
sources). Doing future project specific air quality assessments ignores the need to assess
the cumulative impacts which can be considerable. The description of how the use of the
four sites designated as smart growth could reduce auto emissions has no basis. In fact
such dense development, above what is currently proposed for those areas could result in
significant localized increased impacts. There is no discussion about impact of air quality
hot spots from congested traffic near residential uses and several of the intersections that
will be effected by the 4 designated smart growth sites are already highly congested.
Item IH.d Several of the locations proposed for housing density increases areas are
adjacent to residences for sensitive receptors- primarily seniors at College and Lake and
along El Camino Real. All of the four designated smart growth locations propose, and to
be consistent with the smart growth criteria, include, commercial or other mixed use
development in addition to the residential uses. These non-residential uses could
generate the types of pollutants of concern to sensitive receptors. Furthermore the
combined effects of the housing and non-housing uses would add significantly more air
quality pollutants than the current general plan, at these specific locations. The MND has
failed to adequately evaluate or mitigate for such potential impacts. The MND has
provided no basis for the conclusion that such impacts would be less than significant.
7
8
Hazardous Materials
- The MND indicates that using the Cortese list, the city has numerous sites where cleanup
of hazardous materials is underway or has been completed. It then goes on to identify 2
hazmat clean-up actions underway on one specific site— Quarry Creek. It then specifies
the nature of one of those two clean-ups underway- - the clean-up of soil and water from
a leaking underground gasoline tank. The MND implies that other sites included for
zoning changes for housing may include active clean-up sites but fails to identify such
sites,, and it fails to identify the nature of the second of the two clean-ups currently
underway at the Quarry Creek site. The standards for clean-up established by the County ~ 1 _
of San Diego Environmental health Division vary depending upon the ultimate land use J- (j
of a site. Land currently zoned for industrial/commercial use may not be cleaned up to a
level acceptable for high density residential land uses. The MND has failed to provide
sufficient information to determine the nature and extent of such clean-up activities at the
locations proposed for housing density increases. Such contamination could affect both
the ability to use a site for housing, and the timing of such land being available for
housing. Both the location and timing are key factors in the Housing Element. There are
also no contingency plans that address what would happen if some locations are found to
not be acceptable, or that they could not be converted to residential use within the
specified time period. .
- HM -9 is inadequate to address the potential impacts from placing housing on
contaminated sites. It merely proposes that documents be submitted at some future time
that describe what will be required to remediate the site. It does not require that all such
remediation has been completed prior to any such land use redesignation. The purpose of 11
the Housing Element is to provide a Plan capable of actually addressing the City's
affordable housing needs within a reasonable period of time. The uncertainty of site
remediation, and lack of any time frame for their completion provides no such
assurances. Furthermore any such sites not capable of clean-up to residential standards
would require substitution of other sites. This could cause additional impacts that have
not been addressed in the MND.
VILh states that there would be a less than significant impact from risk of wildland fires
and states that the city is a medium fire hazard area for wildland fires. This is not an
accurate statement. Attached is the draft map of Fire Hazard Severity Zones from
CALFire. Much of the City of Carlsbad is classified as "High" and "Very High" fire
hazard severity. See website at www.fire.ca. gov/fire^prevention to view higher 12
resolution maps. We were told that while this map is marked as draft there are very few
changes pending in the City of Carlsbad and that fire hazard severity ratings have been at
this level for many years. Note that areas marked as high and very high include portions
of the Quarry Creek site, and several other areas proposed for housing density changes.
This is of particular concern for the Quarry creek site as the city of Oceanside is already
on record for raising concerns about their ability to provide emergency services for this
area. Portions of the city do pose a high wildland fire risk and the MND has not
adequately evaluated or mitigated for this risk.
Transportation
On page 37 it is stated that" the Draft Housing Element does not propose to increase or
significantly redistribute the number of housing units designated in the General Plan."
The accuracy of this statement relies on an assumption that redistributing thousands of
housing units is not significant. This statement is not accurate. It is reasonable to assume
that redistributing thousands of housing units is a significant action. If it were not
significant there would be no requirement to do a CEQA review. If it were not i A
significant there would be no need to spend over 4 years revising the Housing Element to
accommodate the redistribution. According to the trip generation criteria of SANDAG2
each single family residential unit generates an average of 12 automobile trips per day
and each multi-family unit generates 8. Caltrans requires additional congestion analyses
studies for any project that generates 50 or more peak hour trips on local freeways. The
redistribution of even a few housing units can have major effects on local roadway
congestion.
The MND has failed to identify the changes in trips associated with the redistribution of
thousands of housing units. Some local roadways are already at failure for traffic
congestion. Others are close to failure. The traffic changes associated with the project
will cause both temporary and permanent increases to local traffic in some areas. The
project has failed to properly identify or mitigate for these changes. Instead it has
improperly deferred their analysis to an unspecified future time when individual
development projects are being considered. Since many of the changes proposed with the
Housing Element are too small a number of units to even trigger a full traffic analysis the
cumulative impacts of the entire package of changes is never considered.
On page 38 it is stated that the General Plan included a circulation system designed to
accommodate the number of housing units included in the plan. It then concludes that
since the draft Housing Element does not include any increase in the number of units
beyond those in the general Plan that only project specific traffic needs to be addressed i r
and this has been done through mitigation measures T-l through T-5. Such future
mitigation could conceivably include roadway extensions or widening. Such roadway
modifications could result in additional indirect impacts which have not been identified
or mitigated with the Project.
The MND has not properly identified or mitigated for impacts on adjacent jurisdictions.
T-4 provides that "for projects that may potentially impact the circulation networks of
adjacent jurisdictions, the City shall coordinate the project's environmental review with
these jurisdictions to determine the need for any mitigation of the potential impacts."
This project includes projects that could impact adjacent jurisdictions, yet there is no
evidence that the environmental review has included such coordination. The residential
units proposed at Westfield Mall effect El Camino Real- a roadway on the list of
2 San Diego Traffic Generators, San Diego Association of Governments, updated July 1998.
5
regionally significant arterials that crosses multiple jurisdictions, has several failing
segments and intersections and is supposed to have had a corridor specific traffic analysis
done to assess cumulative impacts. Such a comprehensive analysis is necessary to
determine if it is even possible to reduce traffic impacts from any furture project to less
than significant.
- The City of Oceanside is on record with concerns about adding traffic from the Quarry
Creek Project to Oceanside roads, primarily College Blvd which is already highly
congested in the area proposed for 500 additional housing units. The memo from the
Oceanside City Manager specifically says the c ity is opposed to the proposed dense _. 1 n
housing proposed in the Housing Element. The MND has not identified these regional
conflicts or provided any mechanism for resolving them. It has failed to even comply
with the mitigation measure it proposes for project specific impacts.
- T-5 includes only a very general statement of compliance with pedestrian and bicycle
linkages. The City has adopted both bicycle and pedestrian Master Plans, in addition to
the trail system. All projects should be required to comply with all of the programs and
policies included in these two master plans for bicycles and pedestrians.
Biological Resources
- The MND cites the EIR for the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) as part of the
assurances that adequate analysis and mitigation has been provided. The RCP assumed
that applying smart growth principles would accommodate more housing and population 1 y
but preserve more undeveloped land. However, there is nothing in the RCP, and or the
mitigation measures for this MND ,that provides any such assurances.
How much additional open space will be provided to mitigate for the increases in density
and housing that are proposed?
Wildlife corridor zones are the corridors Unking wildlife habitat patches which are essential
as pathways for genetic and demographic interchange and must be protected to minimize
problems associated with habitat fragmentation. They are also important for facilitating
daily, annual, and seasonal movements and, for some species, for permitting dispersal to
breeding and foraging areas. The HMP identifies key wildlife corridors and linkages. The
MND fails to identify or provide adequate mitigation for protecting either the regional or
local wildlife movement corridors from design, through construction and post construction
conditions. It is not sufficient to consider wildlife movement during design. This is an on-
going requirement, particularly as construction can cause temporary disruption and wildlife
do not always redistribute in patterns assumed in early project planning. The MND needs
to require more comprehensive analysis and protection of wildlife movement through all
phases of project planning and implementation.
Existing linkages should be maintained within the City and particular care is needed in assessing
linkages across city boundaries. Linkages or corridors that are currently constrained (e.g., by existing
development) should be prioritized for acquisition and enhancement, if necessary, to preserve or
increase their value to wildlife.
Sediments and pollution mobilized by construction and operation of the Project could result
in runoff into local waters. This is a particular concern with the Quarry Creek site because
it includes a key reach of Buena Vista Creek which flows to the Buena Vista Lagoon and
marine waters. Once run-off from this site enters the watershed system, these sediments o i
have the potential to cover the stream bed where fish spawn and fish food sources live,
where fish rest and feed, and may reduce oxygen and visibility for fish and light for
underwater plants and algae. Therefore, increased sedimentation of the already impaired
Creek due to the Project also creates a risk of potentially significant environmental impacts
on aquatic life.
The MND concludes that providing site specific biological surveys is sufficient to assure that
sensitive plant and animal species will not be adversely affected. However breaking this
large project into smaller components could result in numerous project locations being
under the de minirnus limitations and thus not subject to the mitigation rules of the HMP.
However, the entire Housing Element is well over the limit and should be considered as a
whole. Piecemealing projects are in contravention of CEQA and frustrate the goals of the 2,2.
HMP. The separation of this project into individual projects is "inconsistent with the
mandate of CEQA that a large project shall not be divided into little ones because the
division can disguise the aggregate environmental impacts of the total project." Citizens
Assn. for Sensible Dev. of Bishop Area v. Inyo (1985) 172 C.A.3d 151, 167). The court also
found "large projects shall not be divided into little ones because the division can submerge
the aggregate environmental impacts of the total project."
The MND should include a vegetation map that includes an impact overlay/fuel ^ o
modification zone to ensure that sensitive habitat is not impacted by the Project (either
directly or indirectly).
We also request that consistency findings with the HMP are prepared and submitted to the
Wildlife Agencies concurrent with the processing of the CEQA documents. Consistency
with the regional and local conservation plans should be demonstrated during the public
review period for CEQA. Delaying this until the final projecta approval before City Council
circumvents the public review process specified in CEQA and is also not consistent with the
process described in the HMP Section E.2.
There are no project specific conditions that address landscaping , assure the optimization of
the use of native plants, restrictions on the use of invasive plants, or irrigation regimes that o c
would not be disruptive to watersheds or nearby native habitat. Failure to address
landscaping and associated chemical and run-off issues could cause significant impacts and
no mitigation has been proposed.
Geology and Soils
The MND has provided no information upon which to base any understanding of
compliance with hillside development restrictions, which can effect erosion and sediment
discharges to the watershed, as well as failures and loss of habitat. The Hill side
Development Ordinance includes specific conditions related to development on steep
slopes. There is no discussion about such restrictions, possible impacts from such
construction, and no conditions that assure compliance with the provisions of the existing
City ordinance. The MND has failed to assess the potential impacts from construction on
steep slopes which could occur at numerous locations within the sites in the Housing
Element. The Project as proposed has not complied either with the spirit or intent of the
hillside development provisions to maintain an environmental equilibrium consistent with
existing vegetation, soils, geology, slopes, and drainage patterns and has failed to preserve
the natural topography. Further, designs are needed to preserve the natural appearance of ^6
hillsides. By placing no restrictions on the amount of imported fill dirt or things like crib
walls, it is hard to understand that these impacts have been considered at all.
Complying with the ordinance should be required to evaluate existing conditions including
slopes, drainage, vegetation, soils, geologic factors, and hydrology, and are reviewed
together with the Development Plan and a proposed landscape plan. Findings must be
made that the development is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and
Hillside Development Ordinance. Subsequent grading and building permits must then be
required to be consistent with the Hillside Development Ordinance. No such plan or
compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance was analyzed nor is there anything in
the record to indicate it was ever evaluated.
Public Facilities
- The City of Oceanside is on record by memo from the City Manager that Oceanside
objects to the dense housing proposed at Quarry Creek in part because the city of r\ *-i
Oceanside ends up having to provide police and other emergency services to this area on ^ '
the border between the two cities. This issue of regional impacts has not been identified
or mitigated with the MND.
The City of Carlsbad Growth Management Plan requires the provision of specified
number of acres of parkland for each 1,000 residents. The Housing Element includes
some redistribution and increase of housing within the 4 quadrants of the city. The ~ Q
MND has failed to demonstrate that each area of the city has sufficient parkland with the ^-*
proposed redistribution of housing units and number of residents. The potential need to
provide additional public parks is another indirect project impact that has not been
properly addressed in the MND.
^
Utilities and Service Systems
- The MND states that the city is served by 4 water districts and that each has an approved
master plan to evaluate the adequacy and determine improvements necessary to provide £<y
for future developments. However there is no analysis about how the Housing Element
will change the number of future residents served by each of these districts and whether
the approved master plans can accommodate the increase in number of residents for a
particular district. Furthermore the City of Carlsbad recently imposed Level 2 drought
conditions and regional water districts have indicated that conditions may worsen in the 2,y
near future. Level 4 conditions require curtailment of any new water hook-ups. The
MND has failed to provide any substantive analysis of reasonably expected redistribution
of water demand, changes to local water supply or to provide appropriate mitigation for
such future conditions. ~
- Will each of the 4 water districts be impacted the same? Should there be any
consideration of reducing units served by water districts that project reduced future
supply? There is no evidence that current water supply conditions have been addressed 30
in the project analysis. This is another issue with significant cumulative impacts- both on
the city of Carlsbad and on the region because of interjurisdictional coverage by water
districts.
Hydrology and Water Quality
There is substantial evidence from which it can be fairly argued that there is a reasonable
possibility that the Project will have a significant effect on hydrology and water quality due
to unusual circumstances. The Project includes several sites that include steep slopes,
special hydrologic features like artesian ponds, and that are located in 303(d) listed impaired
waterbodies. None of these specific conditions are identified or addressed in the proposed
mitigation measures. This is of particular concern with the Quarry Creek project where any
sediments mobilized by erosion and pollutants released during and after the construction of .) J
the Project, chemicals and fertilizers used for landscaping of the Project, as well as oils,
gasoline, grease and chemical contaminant runoff from the existing and proposed buildings,
parking lots and roads of the Project will then filter down to the Buena Vista Creek, which
is currently 303 (d) listed as an impaired water body for sediment toxicity. This, in turn, will
have significant environmental impacts on the coastal watershed that terminates at the
highly sensitive Buena Vista Lagoon and downstream marine waters.
There is no analysis of the changes to impervious cover within sub-watersheds. The
percentage of impervious cover is directly related to watershed health. While the MND
proposes to add project conditions on new development that does not address the already
degraded conditions of all of our coastal sub-watersheds. The Carlsbad Watershed
Management Plan includes recommendations for the entire Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit. The J ^
recently issued Agua Hedinda Watershed Management Plan includes conditions specific to
the Agua Hedionda sub-watershed. The MND has not identified or evaluated compliance
with these two key watershed protection plans. The project needs to be evaluated for
consistency with these plans and appropriate mitigation measures need to be added to
assure that both cumulative and project specific impacts to the watershed are addressed.
TheWNDliaalailed to idenfify which of tf»e proposed Hotwn^Etesn^ project sites are
located witfun the 100 year flood plain. In many parfs of Carlsbad the FEMAfloodj>Ianx
.mapping has JBQt been updated to .reflect current conditions, l^hetmore these maps have
:not been updatedio reflect r&ix^ sea kvelsass^^ .
Ifoodplaln management regulation sped^ 33
widnnthelOO-3nearfloodptoinfactlhi3ha8notbeenf61{Dwed. The result is Ihatlhe
- floodptain has been and wiR continue to be modified with the corotoucKoa of projects that
have already beea approve d- fee <3ty simply allows fBI in thd3oodplara#>*»ew
coxisfractioniselevated.0tobetfsoaRanchisones(^ Tbcie is D» analysis
of how the combined housing unite proposed joiljhe Housing Qetnentvrill impact the
floodplain.
"Low impact development catena and assessment appears to be alrnostvvlioliymisfflnglioin
the ttocmnaitaiion. At flte least ftw project should be required tol^emcanfanBaDcevdlit the
IwImp&tDttlfffm^Guitlclmxiix&eCcfflty^tf
of hnperviotts areas, in particular cxaTeervalionof ixatoalsoifaaadslopes/.nriniinizatioiiof
existing 34
all have been thoroughly discussed and analyzed by the Hoosing HeowatL Jtlsasfltoagh
beininta^
be preserved yetthat was clearly not dotw here.
This project has completely Jailed to consider cumulative impacts including transportation,
biological resources, air quality, hydrology,, geology/ and failed to consider potential indued
effects socn as Impacts firo^ fefled to consider connectivity of
zcopernous areas, failed to consider previous studies and documents relative to S»e area and Ihe
nuinerous specific stoprxjpc»ed fro ^C
overall impact to watCTuuaKtymthe-wafetsbsdovtttljxnfL Specific indirect impacts over ticre ""
would fndude habitat isolation, vehicle and <imstrurtionrKnBe, invasive or non-native species,
aesthetics and other such impacts particularly irntytrtecoastdzxutt or in other areas adjacent to-
sensitive natural resources.
TOs MND has failed to meet the basic requirements of CEQA and iteeds to be rejected.
Sincerely,
DiaoeNygaard
OaB^tslf ofPteserve Calavera
Att : CAFire Fire Hazard severity Map
10
10
DRAFT Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA
IIST
COPY
Response to June 26, 2009 Comments by Preserve calavera
On
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Draft 2005-2010 Housing Element
(Note: The number of the response below corresponds with the comment identified by the number in the
right margin of the comment letter)
Introduction
1. Comment noted. Many of the past issues expressed by Preserve Calavera have
regarded Quarry Creek specifically. As anticipated in the comment, the USD
Environmental Law Clinic submitted a comment letter on the Draft Housing Element
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND); staff has issued a separate response to this
letter.
Land Use
2. Draft Housing Element Section 3.1, beginning on page 3-1, clarifies that the Housing
Element is a five-year planning document covering the housing cycle July 1, 2005 to June
30, 2010. However, the growth projection, or RHNA, assigned to the five-year cycle is
actually developed for a 7.5-year time frame beginning January 1, 2003 and ending June
30, 2010. Therefore, housing units constructed, under construction, or approved between
2003 and July 1, 2005, can be credited toward the RHNA for this Housing Element period.
These units are identified in tables 3-1 and 3-2 of Section 3.1. These tables also identify
such units through the end of 2006.
State law does not obligate jurisdictions to.construct units to meet RHNA during the
housing cycle. Instead, cities and counties must provide adequate sites, with appropriate
land use requirements (e.g., general plan designations, zoning, and development
standards), that enable both for-profit and non-profit housing developers to build the units
during the housing cycle. Of course, market forces and the availability of governmental
subsidies such as tax credits that are outside the control of the City of Carlsbad can
significantly influence how many homes are actually constructed during a particular target
period. As Carlsbad does not have sufficient sites with appropriate land use requirements
to meet its RHNA, staff has proposed Draft Housing Element Program 2.1 to provide them
within the cycle. This program proposes amendments to various land use documents of
the City, such as the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. There is no mandate, however,
regarding when or if the units must be built.
Upon drafting Program 2.1, city staff estimated completion dates for the implementation of
the different program objectives, all of which were within the housing cycle. Due to delays,
these dates will not be met. If Program 2.1 components are not completed within the
housing cycle, state law requires their achievement within the first year of the following
cycle. It is reasonable to conclude some program objectives will be completed by mid-
2011. Other program objectives, because of complexities, may not be completed until
2012.
As the MND project description notes, completion of two of the Program 2.1 objectives -
increasing minimum densities in the Village Redevelopment Area and changing land use
designations for certain properties in the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan area - will
be facilitated by the fact that environmental review has already been completed for these
projects.
Completion of Draft Housing Element programs would effectuate only land use changes,
not actual housing construction. It is speculative to say when housing construction might
occur.
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 20od COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVcKA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGE 2
3. The MND does not state that sites meet the San Diego Association of Governments'
(SANDAG) smart growth criteria, as the commenter indicates. Instead, the MND indicates
the sites meet SANDAG's definition of smart growth as stated in the Regional
Comprehensive Plan. The RCP defines smart growth as:
A compact, efficient, and environmentally-sensitive pattern of
, development that provides people with additional travel, housing, and
employment choices by focusing future growth away from rural areas and
closer to existing and planned job centers and public facilities, while
preserving open space and natural resources and making more efficient
use of existing urban infrastructure.
The SANDAG Smart Growth Concept Map identifies four smart growth opportunity areas
in Carlsbad, all of which are proposed in the Draft Housing Element as sites for high
density residential and/or mixed use development. These sites were identified for smart
growth planning because they are in or near developed areas and are proximate to
major transportation corridors, transit facilities, job centers, and public facilities and
amenities. They also comply with the City's General Plan policies (Land Use Element
policies C.2, C.4, C.5, C.7, C.8, and C.10) guiding the location of high density housing
and mixed use projects. As identified in the Draft Housing Element, these sites are the
Barrio Area, Village Redevelopment Area, Quarry Creek, Ponto, and Plaza Camino
Real. The Barrio and Village Redevelopment areas are counted as one smart growth
area on the SANDAG Map.
4. Further, three of the four sites in Carlsbad identified on SANDAG's Smart Growth Concept
Map qualify as potential smart growth sites only. While recognized they do not meet the
criteria today, their development potential, location, and proximity to employment centers
and existing and planned transit services, for example, suggest they are good candidates
to meet SANDAG's smart growth criteria in the future. However, even if one or more of
these sites ultimately do not satisfy smart growth criteria, they are still suitable areas for
meeting the City's housing needs. The MND is intended to analyze the potential impacts
of the Draft Housing Element, a programmatic/policy level element of the General Plan.
The MND is not intended to analyze any actual development proposals, whether on one of
the four potential smart growth sites or elsewhere in the City. Land use policies and
zoning standards of the Carlsbad Village existing/planned smart growth site (CB-3, the
designation applied to the site by the Smart Growth Concept Map) already permit a mix of
commercial and residential. For the Ponto Beachfront (CB-4) potential smart growth area,
the certified environmental impact report analyzed both high density residential and mixed
use development. The proposed Draft Housing Element Program 2.1 component would
implement new land use designations consistent with this analysis. Further discussion
about the other potential smart growth sites - Plaza Camino Real (CB-1) and Quarry Creek
(CB-2), may be found in the MND project description.
5. Citing Growth Management dwelling unit cap concerns, the commenter questions what
other smart growth development potentially would be precluded upon approval of the
smart growth sites identified. An analysis of Draft Housing Element compliance with
Growth Management is found in Section 4, and Table 4-5 specifically identifies the
significant number of allowable units for development remaining in each of the City's four
quadrants after program implementation. Further, it is speculative to identify what, if any,
smart growth projects may be proposed in Carlsbad's future.
As to cumulative impacts, the adoption of the Draft Housing Element will not have
cumulatively considerable impacts as the MND demonstrates. SANDAG projects \s\lo
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 20u9 COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVcRA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGE 3
regional growth for the greater San Diego area and local general plan land use policies
are incorporated into those SANDAG projections. Based on these projections, region-
wide standards, including but not limited to, storm water quality control, air quality
standards, habitat conservation, and congestion management standards are established
to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City's
development standards and regulations are consistent with the region-wide standards.
The City's standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and
drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resources protection
regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that future development within the City
will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. Mitigation measures are
included in the MND to ensure future projects consistent with the Draft Housing Element
comply with all applicable standards.
An issue of regional concern with regard to cumulative impacts is transportation. With
regard to circulation, SANDAG, acting as the County Congestion Management Agency
(CMA) has designated four roads (Olivenhain Rd., Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino
Real, and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments (portions of I-5 and State
Route 78) in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. According to
SANDAG's 2008 Congestion Management Program (CMP) Update, these designated
roadways functioned at an acceptable peak-hour Level of Service "E" or better as of
2007, with the exception of the segment of El Camino Real from Plaza Drive to the
northerly city limit. With implementation of planned CMP roadway improvements (as
identified in the 2030 SANDAG Regional Transportation Plan), this deficient segment of
El Camino Real will function at acceptable levels of service in the short term and at build
out.
It is important to note that regional growth projected in the CMP analysis incorporates
Carlsbad General Plan build-out assumptions. Draft Housing Element programs are
consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan growth projections. Mitigation measures (T-1
through T-6) are included in this environmental document to ensure compliance with the
City's Growth Management and Traffic Impact Fee programs, coordination with other
neighboring cities, and improvements to Carlsbad's pedestrian and bicycle circulation
network occur.
Overall, achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service "E" standard assumes
implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacities of the
designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, these
designated transportation routes will function at acceptable levels of service in the short-
term and at buildout.
The commenter specifically mentions cumulative open space impacts. It is unclear if this
concern refers to open space preserved in a natural state or for active recreation
purposes. However, as discussed in the MND's Biological Resources Section IV, direct
and indirect impacts to sensitive habitats resulting from development facilitated by the
Draft Housing Element should not be cumulatively considerable with application of
mitigation measures-BR-1 through BR-11 to new development in conformance with the
MHCP and the City's HMP.
The MND also notes that the Growth Management Plan requires planning for public
facility needs through build out, concurrent with development, which include active
recreation facilities such as parks. The Draft Housing Element does not affect the
Growth Management Plan, and does not propose policies to facilitate housing beyond
the total dwelling units anticipated by the City's existing General Plan and Growth
Management Plan. Implementation of the Draft Housing Element will not require IT)
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 20utf COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVbKA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGE 4
additional public services beyond those already anticipated. Developers of every new
development facilitated by the Draft Housing Element will be required to pay all
applicable impact fees, including required school impact fees, to support additional
public services as the demand for those services increases with population growth.
6. See responses 3 and 5 above. It is not clear what "natural lands" the commenter is
referencing.
Air Quality
7. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 in the Housing Element MND specifically applies to temporary
construction related impacts, not to long term operational impacts. The comment letter
incorrectly asserts that the Robertson Ranch EIR found temporary construction related
impacts to be significant and unavoidable, even after mitigation was applied. On the
contrary, the Robertson Ranch EIR found that temporary construction impacts were
significant, but mitigation measures reduced this impact to a less than significant level.
As discussed in the MND, subsequent environmental review and CEQA compliance will
be required for both the implementation of proposed housing element programs and for
any future housing development projects facilitated by the housing element.
8. As stated in the MND, the build out assumptions of the General Plan were incorporated
into the regional air quality planning process. The location of future residential units
within city boundaries does not substantially affect the build out assumptions of the
General Plan related to regional air quality plans. The Housing Element does not
propose residential units in excess of that allowed by the General Plan. Therefore,
cumulative impacts on a regional level would not be substantially different if the Housing
Element is adopted, as compared to the build out of the existing General Plan.
Cumulative ambient air quality impacts with adoption of the Draft Housing Element
would be less than significant since the General Plan has already been considered in the
regional air quality planning process and the State Implementation Plan, and it is
consistent with those programs.
Growth Management limits the number of dwelling units in Carlsbad on a citywide scale.
Additionally, Growth Management divides the City into four quadrants and also limits the
number of dwelling units for each of these four quadrants. The Housing Element does
not propose dwelling units in excess of either the citywide limit or the individual quadrant
limits. Furthermore, the majority of the units accommodated in the Housing Element
would be built on land that is already designated for residential uses in the General Plan.
The Housing Element does not propose to change the land use in large areas of the city
from non-residential to residential uses. Commercial areas counted for mixed use units
already allow residential mixed use with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The
Housing Element proposes a program to eliminate the CUP requirement and allow
residential by right, but does not propose to re-designate this land from commercial to
mixed use. Therefore, contrary to the claim in the comment letter, the Housing Element
does not propose to^ignificantly redistribute the number of housing units designated in
the General Plan.
Regarding construction related impacts, this comment suggests project-level
environmental analysis of a program-level document (the Housing Element Update). As
discussed in the MND, subsequent environmental review and CEQA compliance will be
required for both the implementation of proposed Housing Element programs and for
any future development projects facilitated by the Housing Element. The Housing
Element does not change land use designations in Carlsbad and does not propose the
i (
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 20osl COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVcrtA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGE 5
physical development of any site. Development of any site listed in the Housing Element
will be initiated at an undetermined future time by private developers. Project details are
unknown at this time; therefore project-level environmental analysis is not appropriate for
the Housing Element. Future private development projects will be subject to City
standards and CEQA.
The comment that there is no basis for the concept that the four sites in the Housing
Element that are designated as smart growth could reduce auto emissions is incorrect.
The link between air quality and smart growth is Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). A
substantial portion of our region's air quality impacts are from automobile tailpipe
emissions. Measures to reduce VMT will reduce these emissions, thereby lessening air
quality impacts.
Research has established ,a link between smart growth and reductions in VMT.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (Our Built and Natural
Environments, 2001) mixing land uses can result in shorter automobile trips and
automobile trips being replaced with other modes of transportation, such as walking or
public transit. Both results reduce VMT, and corresponding auto emissions. This is true
for both mixed use development, as well as compact, higher density residential
development. Mixing uses within residential neighborhoods reduces the number of auto
trips as well as their length as compared to single-use residential neighborhoods
(McCormack and Wilkinson, 1996, as found in Our Built and Natural Environments).
Transit oriented development has been found .to result in less auto trips than those
initially estimated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual for
this type of development (Cervero and Arrington, 2008). Carlsbad's Housing Element
proposes significant portions of the RHNA in the Village and Barrio areas, which are
already mixed use neighborhoods well served by transit and services. Also proposed
are mixed use for commercial areas, and new housing near commercial services, as in
Quarry Creek. In light of the studies cited above, it is reasonable to conclude that mixed
use developments may result in less air quality impacts than typical single-family
residential subdivisions. Note that some of the mixed use sites counted toward the
RHNA would need to be redeveloped in order to add housing, and the exact amount and
type of commercial uses is unknown. It is possible that the future mix and intensity of
commercial uses could be less than exists today, thereby lessening the impact of adding
housing on these sites.
The Housing Element is an element of the General Plan, and as such, affects property at
a citywide scale. At the citywide scale, the Housing Element is consistent with the
General Plan and its air quality impacts would be less than significant as stated above.
Carbon Monoxide "hot spot" analysis requires a project specific traffic analysis report
and modeling for potentially impacted intersections in order to determine whether hot
spots occur and if their impacts are considered significant. This comment suggests
project-level environmental analysis of a program-level document (the Housing Element
Update). As discussed in the MND, subsequent environmental review and CEQA
compliance will be required for both the implementation of proposed housing element
programs and for any future housing development projects facilitated by the housing
element.
9. This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a program-level
document (the Housing Element Update). Sensitive receptors are members of the
population who are especially sensitive to air pollutants, such as children or elderly
persons, or land uses where these members of the population live and gather.
Examples are residential neighborhoods, schools, convalescent care facilities. The Draft
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 20uy COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVtKA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGES
Housing Element, if adopted, would become a programmatic/policy level element of the
General Plan. The Draft Housing Element does not propose any specific development
project and certainly does not propose to locate incompatible development near sensitive
receptors.
While not directly relevant to the MND on the Draft Housing Element, the commenter
might be interested to know that mixed-use developments are typically designed to
encourage pedestrian and bicycle use and reduce vehicle trips by combining residential
with compatible non-residential uses, such as employment, shopping and recreation in
close proximity. However, the Zoning Ordinance prohibits industrial and manufacturing
uses in the commercial zones that are identified by the Housing Element for mixed use.
Therefore, the Carlsbad Housing Element does not propose mixed use or residential
land uses adjacent to industrial or manufacturing uses. Furthermore, within a mixed use
building, the California Building Code both limits the non-residential uses to types that
are compatible with the residential portion of the building and requires separation
features to limit potential negative effects on the building residents. Due to these use
compatibility features, air quality impacts for residents of mixed use projects should be
less than significant. Likewise locating compatible mixed use projects adjacent to
existing residential uses would not create a significant air quality impact on the existing
residents or sensitive receptors. Any impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than
significant and therefore no mitigation is necessary.
Carlsbad's General Plan has anticipated mixed .use and the compatibility of residential
and industrial uses. Mixed use and higher density housing is encouraged by the
Carlsbad General Plan near commercial areas, employment areas and transportation
corridors (see Land Use Element, Residential C.5 and C.10). Mixed use development
in the Village was also anticipated by the Carlsbad General Plan (see Land Use
Element, Village Policy C.5). Existing General Plan policies limit intense industrial uses
to areas least desirable to residential development (Land Use Element, Industrial Policy
C.4), and require compatibility of the industrial areas with surrounding residential areas
as well as limiting incompatible uses within the industrial areas (Land Use Element,
Industrial Policies C.1, C.2 and C.6). However, it must be emphasized that the Housing
Element is an element of the General Plan, and as such, affects property at a citywide
scale. Environmental impacts should be reviewed at the citywide scale as well. At the
citywide scale, the Housing Element is consistent with the General Plan and its air
quality impacts would be less than significant as stated above.
Hazardous Materials
10. Comment noted. There are two active cleanup efforts at Quarry Creek. One is in
response to a leaking underground fuel tank, as the commenter notes and as identified
in the Draft Housing Element. According to the Department of Environmental Health
(DEH), a case file for the other effort was opened in 2000 to address any other
remediation needed in addition to that of the leaking tank. At that time, concerns about
surface oil spills or waste suggested opening a second case file. Ultimately, according to
DEH, there is no separate cleanup action associated with this second case file at this
time.
The MND acknowledges the Draft Housing Element may allow (and in that sense
facilitate) residential construction, including mixed use development and emergency
shelters, on sites known to be on the Cortese List. The MND also notes active or past
hazardous materials cleanup sites in Carlsbad primarily occur in commercial and
industrial areas. Accordingly, appropriate mitigation measures have been proposed.
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 20U9 COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVtRA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGE 7
However, the Draft Housing Element does not propose to redesignate any industrially-
designated land to residential uses. Furthermore, areas proposed for density increases
already (1) are designated for residential uses, (2) permit residential and
residential/commercial uses (the Village Redevelopment Area), (3) conditionally permit
residential/commercial uses (the City's commercial zones), or (4) have completed the
environmental review (Ponto) that analyzed the uses contemplated by the Draft Housing
Element.
As the MND notes, city staff has reviewed the California Environmental Protection
Agency's Cortese List data resources
(http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/default.htm) and the federal ~
Environmental Protection Agency's CERCLIS Database and Superfund Site Information
list website (http://epa.gov/superfund/sites/cursites/index.htm). The federal government
identifies no active cleanup sites in Carlsbad. The State Water Resources Control Board
listing of cleanup sites per the Cortese List website identifies many locations in Carlsbad,
most in its industrial and commercial areas, where cleanup of hazardous materials is
completed or underway. Many of these are related to leaking underground tanks and
gasoline spills, and many cleanup operations shown are closed rather than open, active
efforts.
11. It is speculative to determine site-specific remediation requirements, including
acceptability of a site for a particular use or the timeframe for clean-up, until a
development application is submitted and the need for any remediation is determined.
Any remediation plans or timetables to address contamination are the responsibility of
the County Department of Environmental Health and Regional Water Quality Control
Board. Other involved agencies may include the City of Carlsbad, the Air Pollution
Control District, and the California Environmental Protection Agency. Mitigation Measure
HM-9 anticipates this and is adequate to address actual or potential contamination
issues that may arise with development facilitated by the Housing Element.
12. Staff has reviewed the "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA" for Carlsbad,
produced by Cal FIRE and dated June 11, 2009
(ftp://frap.cdf.ca.gov/fhszlocalmaps/san_diego/Carlsbad.pdf). This and similar maps for
other jurisdictions in California are identified as drafts. Carlsbad is identified as a city that
contains some areas that constitute "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones." However,
no portion of the Quarry Creek property is within such a zone. All other properties
affected by Draft Housing Element programs proposing housing density changes are not
within such zones either except for (1) scattered and small individual properties,
primarily in the La Costa area, affected by the proposed minimum density increase for
the RMH and RH land use designations; and (2) the Plaza Camino Real West shopping
center, a shopping center identified in Draft Housing Element 3-7 as a potential site for
high density, mixed use housing. Apparently, the south and west portions of the
shopping center could be affected by wildfire in the Hosp Grove and Buena Vista
Lagoon areas.
13. Comment noted. The MND acknowledges and evaluates the risk wildland fires pose to
Carlsbad residents. It also reports that development facilitated by the implementation of
the Draft Housing Element and also consistent with adopted land use policy could place
additional homes in or near areas with wildland fire hazards. See also Response 12.
As discussed in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the MND, adoption and
implementation of the Draft Housing Element will not impair implementation of
Carlsbad's adopted emergency response plan. Further, through the development review \Ql'
1-
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 20U9 COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVbRA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGES
process, the Carlsbad Fire Department reviews projects to verify, as necessary,
appropriate landscaping and building materials for fire-prone areas, and adequate
access for fire safety equipment as well as evacuation routes. Adherence to such
requirements and existing city standards will reduce the potential impacts to a less than
significant level. Thus, wildfire risks are adequately evaluated and addressed by existing
requirements.
Transportation
14. Growth Management limits the number of dwelling units in Carlsbad on a citywide scale.
Additionally, Growth Management divides the City into four quadrants and also limits the
number of dwelling units for each of these four quadrants. The Housing Element does
not propose dwelling units in excess of either the citywide limit or the individual quadrant
limits. Furthermore, the majority of the units accommodated in the Housing Element
would be built on land that is already designated for residential uses in the General Plan.
The Housing Element does not propose to change the land use in large areas of the City
from non-residential to residential uses. Commercial areas counted for mixed use units
already allow residential mixed use with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The
Housing Element proposes a program to eliminate the CUP requirement and allow
residential by right, but does not propose to re-designate this land from commercial to
mixed use. Therefore, contrary to the claim in the letter, the Housing Element does not
propose to significantly redistribute the number of housing units designated in the
General Plan.
15. Comment noted. This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a
program-level document (the Housing Element Update). As discussed in the MND,
subsequent environmental review and CEQA compliance will be required for both the
implementation of proposed Housing Element programs and for any future development
projects facilitated by the Housing Element. The Housing Element does not change land
use designations for any property and does not propose the physical development of
any site. Development of any site listed in the Housing Element would be initiated at an
undetermined future time by private developers. Project details are unknown at this
time; therefore project-level environmental analysis is not appropriate for the Housing
Element. Future land use changes and private development projects will be subject to
City standards and CEQA.
However, it must be emphasized that the Housing Element is an element of the General
Plan, and as such, affects property at a citywide scale. Environmental impacts should
be reviewed at the citywide scale as well. At the citywide scale, the Housing Element is
consistent with the other elements of the General Plan because the Housing Element
does not propose units in excess of that allowed by the General Plan, and the City's
circulation system has been designed to accommodate the build out of the General Plan.
Complex traffic studies and modeling at the project-level are required in order to
determine where road widening or extensions may be necessary. The Housing Element
does not contain project-level details necessary to assess the type and magnitude of all
potential traffic impacts. Future projects and any resulting traffic impacts, including
possible road widening and extensions will be subject to CEQA and City standards.
16. Comment noted. This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a
program-level document (the Housing Element Update). Please see Response 15
above. The Housing Element is an element of the General Plan, and as such, affects
property at a citywide scale. Environmental impacts should be reviewed at the citywide
scale as well. At the citywide scale, the Housing Element is consistent with the General
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 2009 COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVtrtA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGE 9
Plan because the Housing Element does not propose units in excess of that allowed by
the General Plan, and the City's circulation system has been designed to accommodate
the build out of the General Plan.
Mitigation Measure T-4 is intended for the future implementation of proposed Housing
Element programs and for any future development projects facilitated by the Housing
Element. Mitigation Measure T-4 requires project-level environmental analysis of the
type and detail unavailable for the program-level Housing Element project. If the
Westfield Mall site is redeveloped with housing in the future, this project will comply with
T-4. It is anticipated that compliance with T-1 would also include a corridor specific
traffic analysis for El Camino Real impacts.
17. Comment noted. Please see Response 15 above, this comment suggests project-level
environmental analysis of a program-level document (the Housing Element Update).
The Housing Element is an element of the General Plan, and as such, affects property at
a citywide scale. At the citywide scale, the Housing Element is consistent with the
General Plan because the Housing Element does not propose units in excess of that
allowed by the General Plan, and the City's circulation system has been designed to
accommodate the build out of the General Plan
Quarry Creek currently has a General Plan land use designation of single family
residential that would allow the potential for development of approximately 165 dwelling
units. The Housing Element is a planning-|evel document which envisions increasing
the residential densities permitted on Quarry Creek to allow the potential for higher
density development on the site, but the Draft Housing Element is not proposing 500
units where none were previously allowed nor proposing to increase the existing density
designation by 500 units. Moreover, adoption of the Draft Housing Element does not
grant approval of any actual development proposal on Quarry Creek or any site within
the City; applications for any specific development proposal would have to be processed
and would be subject to environmental review at a project-specific level of detail that
simply is not available when considering a programmatic document like the Draft
Housing Element.
18. Comment noted. The purpose of the Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan (December 2007)
and Pedestrian Master Plan (August 25, 2008) is twofold: (1) to provide
recommendations and strategies for enhanced pedestrian and bicycle mobility in
Carlsbad, and (2) to allow Carlsbad to apply for grant funding for Capital Improvement
Projects that construct pedestrian and bicycle linkages. The documents do not contain
requirements or conditions of approval for private development projects. However,
where applicable, it is the practice of the City to require developers to install pedestrian
and bicycle pathway and sidewalk linkages, which would help implement the master
plans.
Biological Resources
19. Smart growth as envisioned by the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) would result in
increased open space at both the regional and local levels. By increasing the density of
development within developed areas, development that otherwise would occur in rural
areas of the county can instead be concentrated in cities. Where increased densities occur
in urban and suburban areas, land can be used more efficiently, improving opportunities
for affordable and mixed use housing and open space preservation.
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 2009 COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVtKA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGE 10
Without a development proposal, it is speculative to estimate additional open space that
may be realized within Carlsbad and the region through the promotion of smart growth
development in the City of Carlsbad. However, it should be noted that the Draft Housing
Element does not propose that any area designated for open space currently be re-
designated to promote residential development. Instead, the Draft Housing Element
promotes an increase in the allowable density of development on sites already designated
for development as the primary method to meet Carlsbad's "fair-share" housing
obligations.
As the MND describes in the Recreation section, the City's Growth Management
Performance Standard for Parks requires 3 acres of park space for every 1,000 people
in the city. As population (and corresponding demand for parks) is increased, Growth
Management policies require park acreage to be concurrently increased, thereby
ensuring that existing park facilities are not overburdened.
20. HMP Figure 4 identifies HMP Cores, linkages, and Special Resource Areas. The latter two
can serve as wildlife corridors between the Cores. Cores and linkages depicted on Figure
4 do not represent entire areas to be preserved but instead encompass habitat,
developable, and developed areas, such as in the Robertson Ranch, Aviara, and Villages
of La Costa areas. Draft Housing Element Programs do not propose housing in linkages or
Special Resource Areas.
21. The Draft Housing Element is a policy document that does not recommend or approve
any particular development project. However, implementation of Draft Housing Element
policies and programs will facilitate housing construction, which in turn could generate
additional urban stormwater runoff and affect water quality. The quality of stormwater
runoff is regulated under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act and the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
The NPDES stormwater permit provides a mechanism for monitoring the discharge of
pollutants and for establishing appropriate controls to minimize the entrance of such
pollutants into stormwater runoff. As part of the NPDES permit, each jurisdiction must
prepare programmatic guidance documents, including the Watershed Urban Runoff
Management Plan (WURMP), a Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Plan
(JURMP), and a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP).
The SUSMP and Municipal Storm Water Permit require the City to prevent stormwater
pollution and improve the quality of water flowing into the stormwater system for all new
and existing development through the implementation of Best Management Practices
(BMPs). Through the development review process, the City applies Source Control and
Treatment Control BMPs to all new development projects. Any project facilitated by the
Draft Housing Element would be subject to the BMP requirements, as well as all federal,
State, regional and local stormwater requirements. Furthermore, future projects are
subject to requirements for a hydrology report to assess impacts relating to drainage and
stormwater runoff. * Projects must demonstrate adequate capacity in downstream
drainage systems or show that the development does not increase runoff.
Runoff from new residences contemplated by the Draft Housing Element can potentially
generate non-stormwater discharges. Specific development plans will be required to
include best management practices (BMPs) specifically targeted to the anticipated
pollutants.
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 20U9 COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVbrtA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGE 1 1 _
The mitigation measures recommended by the MND ensure a project's compliance with
all standards promulgated to ensure water quality. Projects facilitated by the Draft
Housing Element will comply with these measures; furthermore, once project details are
known, these mitigation measures may be refined, supplemented or replaced by more
appropriate, specific measures.
22. The North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP) was designed to
compensate for the loss of biological resources throughout the program's region;
therefore, projects that conform to the MHCP, as specified by the City's HMP, would not
result in a cumulatively considerable impact for those biological resources adequately
covered by the program. As discussed in the MND's Biological Resources category, the
direct and indirect biological impacts resulting from development facilitated by the Draft
Housing Element should not be cumulatively considerable if the mitigation measures as
contained in the MND are implemented in accordance with the MHCP and the City's
HMP.
23. The Draft Housing Element is a policy document that neither recommends nor approves
any particular development project. Specifics regarding impacts a project may have to
sensitive biological resources, such as through establishment of fuel modification zones,
can only be analyzed upon submittal of a development proposal. No analysis can be
done as necessary and meaningful information is not yet available.
24. Per HMP Section E.2, Consistency Findings are required with conversion of standards
areas to proposed hardline areas. Property in standards areas must be designed,
permitted, and developed according to the requirements of HMP Section D. This occurs
upon submittal of a development proposal or other specific action.
25. Mitigation measure BR-10 requires compliance with HMP Adjacency Standards. These
standards, beginning on HMP page F-16, include landscape and irrigation standards that
address the commenter's concerns.
Geology and Soils
26. Comment noted. Please see Response 15, this comment suggests project-level
environmental analysis of a program-level document (the Housing Element Update).
For this reason, it is speculation to try and determine what, if any, unique natural
features would be disturbed by development facilitated by Draft Housing Element
programs. However, implementation of Draft Housing Element policies and programs will
facilitate housing construction, which in turn could generate additional water quality
impacts from soil erosion. Mitigation measures require future projects to comply with
requirements for a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Best
Management Practices (BMP), which will address this issue during future project-level
environmental review when development details are known (see Mitigation Measures
GS-3, GS-4 and
Regarding the Hillside Development Ordinance, development of any property in
Carlsbad which meets the criteria outlined in the Hillside Development Ordinance is
subject to the regulations of that ordinance. Please note that the compliance with the
Hillside Ordinance is not listed as a mitigation measure for the Geology and Soils section
of the MND. As the Housing Element does not contain a proposal for the physical
development of any site listed in the Housing Element or any other property, it is not
possible to know the potential specific impacts of future projects regarding the -/vnill
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 2009 COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVfcRA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGE 12
development of steep slopes as suggested by the comment letter. Furthermore, without
specific grading and engineering designs, it is not possible to discuss in the Housing
, Element how future projects may comply with the Hillside Development Ordinance.
According to Carlsbad Municipal Code, a Hillside Development Permit shall be
processed with any other associated development permit(s), such as a Tract Map, Site
Development Plan or Coastal Development Permit. As a legislative action, the Housing
Element Update is not the appropriate project for which to impose detailed compliance
with the Hillside Development Ordinance.
Public Facilities
27. Currently and at build out, all fire station districts within Carlsbad are and will be in
compliance with the Growth Management standard for the provision of Fire services,
which is as follows: the number of dwelling units outside of a five minute response time
. from the nearest fire station shall not exceed 1,500 dwelling units.
As the Housing Element is consistent with the citywide Growth Management dwelling
unit cap, as well as the individual quadrant dwelling unit caps, units facilitated by the
housing element will not exceed Carlsbad's Growth Management standard for Fire
services. In addition, Carlsbad's Growth Management Fire Service standard can be met
with the proposed density increases for Quarry Creek. Carlsbad can provide fire service
to all areas of the city and implementation of the housing element will not result in new
need for additional fire stations; therefore the any fire service impacts would be less than
significant.
Carlsbad Police Department's response time goal is to respond to all priority one calls
within an average of 6 minutes. Priority one calls are those where there is an
immediate threat to life or property. The police department has been able to consistently
meet this goal and does not anticipate that additional incremental development will affect
their ability to meet this goal. Carlsbad Police Department is the primary law
enforcement agency for all of Carlsbad; neighboring law enforcement agencies do not
respond to police calls for service in Carlsbad except in very unusual circumstances
such as an officer down; development in Carlsbad along city borders will not create a
police service impact for other jurisdictions.
28. Carlsbad's Growth Management standard for Parks requires 3 acres of park land per
1,000 increase in population. As population grows over time, the standard requires the
City to add additional park acreage to maintain this ratio. As such, in the FY 08-09
Capital Improvement Program list of projects, as well as the Parks and Recreation
Element of the General Plan, the following parks have already been identified to be
constructed prior to build-out and are necessary for Growth Management compliance:
Alga Norte Park, Veteran's Memorial Park, Zone 5 Business Park Recreation Facility,
and Robertson Ranch Park.
Construction of these parks would provide enough park acreage to serve the build-out
population projected for each quadrant based on Growth Management housing unit
caps. Since the Housing Element does not propose dwelling units beyond what is
anticipated by Growth Management, either citywide or in each individual City quadrant,
the adoption of Housing Element Update will not create a need for additional parks
beyond what is already contemplated.
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 2009 COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVhRA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGE 13
Utilities and Service Systems
29. Water service is provided to the residents of Carlsbad by the three following water
districts: Carlsbad Municipal Water District, Vallecitos Water District and Olivenhain
Municipal Water District. As stated in the letter and the MND, the water districts base
their future demand projections on Carlsbad's General Plan. These three districts are
member agencies of the San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority), and each
district receives its water from the Water Authority via the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California (Metropolitan). Due to cutbacks from Metropolitan, the Water
Authority issued a Level 2 Drought Condition effective July 1, 2009, which affects all
member agencies equally. Carlsbad Municipal Water District's issuance of a Level 2
condition is the implementation at the local level of the Water Authority's Level 2
condition. If more restrictive drought measures are implemented, these would be region-
wide measures that would equally affect all jurisdictions receiving water from the Water
Authority, and Carlsbad would need to comply with these measures. However,
determinations on drought conditions are made by the Water Authority and Metropolitan,
and are beyond the authority of Carlsbad. The timing of such determinations is unknown.
Until such determination is made, the water districts intend to accommodate growth as
planned for in the General Plan, and Carlsbad must do the same.
As discussed in Section 4 of the Draft Housing Element, Carlsbad is served by different
water and sewer agencies. These are the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD),
which along with the City of Carlsbad, provide water and sewer service to approximately
75 percent of Carlsbad. The southeastern part of the City is served by Leucadia
Wastewater District (LWD), Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD), and Vallecitos
Water District (VWD).
As the Draft Housing Element describes, both CMWD and the City can adequately serve
the approximately 3,400 of the 3,566 remaining RHNA units. The remaining units, all
located in the southeastern part of Carlsbad, can be sewered by LWD. There are no
remaining RHNA units in the VWD Service area.
In the OMWD service area, the Draft Housing Element identifies 91 potential units to
help meet the City's remaining RHNA need. These units are either multi family or second
dwelling units. OMWD anticipates no to minimal impacts on the District's ability to serve
the majority (49) of these units with the District's current capacity.
The additional 42 of the 91 units potentially would result from the construction of mixed
use residential at the existing Von's center at the southeast corner of El Camino Real
and La Costa Avenue (see Draft Housing Element Table 3-7). Subject to additional
evaluation upon review of an actual project proposal, OMWD believes it can also serve
these units with minimal impact under the assumption that the new use of water created
by the 42 potential housing units would be offset by reducing the number of current
water users on the shopping center site. OMWD also notes that water use by the new
residential units would be further offset because of the District's requirement that the
shopping center by retrofitted for reclaimed water use as part of any water improvements
proposed there.
It is not possible to determine with certainty whether new water demand would be offset
by a reduction of current water uses without a specific development proposal. This is
beyond the scope of the Draft Housing Element, which as a program level document
would result in no land use changes or approval or construction of housing if adopted.
Any development project for mixed use residential at the Von's center, when and if
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 20Ud COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVtKA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGE 14
proposed, would require separate review and approval. In any case, OMWD's comments
indicate its ability to adequately serve all RHNA units within its service area.
30. See Response 29 above. As stated previously, the Water Authority issued a Level 2
Drought Condition effective July 1, 2009, which affects all member agencies equally.
The comment letter also questions whether there should be any consideration of
reducing units due to potential future water supply reductions.
The determination of the number of housing units that a Housing Element must plan for
is beyond the scope of Carlsbad's Housing Element Update. The State of California,
through the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Department
of Finance, determines a regional growth forecast for each 5-year housing element
update cycle. This regional growth forecast is provided to the local regional planning
agency (SANDAG) which then determines the number of housing units each individual
jurisdiction must plan for. This number is the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA). This RHNA is a fixed number provided to each jurisdiction prior to the Housing
Element Update, and cannot be changed during the update process. The appropriate
time for consideration of a reduction in the number of housing units is during the RHNA
distribution process.
Hydrology and Water Quality
31. As a policy document, the Draft Housing Element neither recommends nor approves any
particular development project. For this reason, it is speculation to try and determine
what, if any, unique natural features would be disturbed by development facilitated by
Draft Housing Element programs. However, implementation of Draft Housing Element
policies and programs will facilitate housing construction, which in turn could generate
additional urban stormwater runoff and affect water quality. The quality of stormwater
runoff is regulated under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act and the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
The NPDES stormwater permit provides a mechanism for monitoring the discharge of
pollutants and for establishing appropriate controls to minimize the entrance of such
pollutants into stormwater runoff. As part of the NPDES permit, each jurisdiction must
prepare programmatic guidance documents, including the Watershed Urban Runoff
Management Plan (WURMP), a Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Plan
(JURMP), and a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP).
The SUSMP and Municipal Storm Water Permit require the City to prevent stormwater
pollution and improve the quality of water flowing into the stormwater system for all new
and existing development through the implementation of Best Management Practices
(BMPs). Through the development review process, the City applies Source Control and
Treatment Control BMPs to all new development projects. Any project facilitated by the
Draft Housing Element would be subject to the BMP requirements, as well as all federal,
State, regional and local stormwater requirements. Furthermore, new development is
subject to requirements for a hydrology report to assess impacts relating to drainage and
stormwater runoff. Projects must demonstrate adequate capacity in downstream
drainage systems or show that the development does not increase runoff.
Runoff from residences pursuant to the Draft Housing Element can potentially generate
non-stormwater discharges. Specific development plans will be required to include best
management practices (BMPs) specifically targeted to the anticipated pollutants.
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 20Ud COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVtrtA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGE 15
According to the Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan (2008), Clean Water Act Section 303(d)
listed waters in the Carlsbad watershed include the following: the Pacific Ocean
shoreline at the mouth of Buena Vista Creek and Moonlight State Beach (located in
Encinitas, CA), Buena Vista Lagoon, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and the Agua Hedionda
Creek. These waters currently do not meet established water quality standards.
Implementation of Draft Housing Element programs may result in significant impacts
associated with the listed impaired water bodies. However, compliance with the water
quality mitigation measures WQ-1 to WQ-4 would reduce any impacts to less than
significant.
32. Concerns related to increases in impervious surfaces are adequately addressed through
compliance with the requirements for LID techniques and hydro modification provisions
discussed in Response 34 below.
Neither the Carlsbad Watershed Management Plan nor the Agua Hedionda Watershed
Management Plan is a regulatory document; therefore, a compliance evaluation with
these documents is not required. However the City recognizes the value of these
documents and the work of the Carlsbad Watershed Network (CWN), a group formed in
1998 to support and develop coordinated efforts for the protection and improvements of
the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit. To this end, Section 6 of the City's Drainage Master Plan
states:
The City of Carlsbad will continue to collaborate with the CWN on the
implementation of the Carlsbad Watershed Management Plan, the Agua
Hedionda Watershed Management Plan and any other future
subwatershed planning addressing the Carlsbad Hydrologic Units. The
City will endeavor to incorporate the various watershed planning goal
elements, watershed management opportunities and action items into the
planning, design, construction and maintenance of future drainage
projects.
33. While no site affected by Draft Housing Element Program 2.1 is entirely within a
floodplain, portions of some developed and vacant sites are. These include Quarry
Creek, two properties in the Village Redevelopment Area along Buena Vista Lagoon,
and property along Sunny Creek. Some commercial properties, affected by programs
2.1 and 2.3 which permit residential mixed use in shopping centers and commercial
areas, are also .partially within the floodplain. These include the Vons/Fusion Fitness
center, Plaza Camino Real, and North County Plaza adjacent to Buena Vista Creek; the
undeveloped shopping center property at College Avenue and El Camino Real and
adjacent to Sunny Creek; and the Albertson's center at El Camino Real and La Costa
Avenue and alongside San Marcos Creek.
Based on the policies and standards of the City, and as required by mitigation measures
WQ-5 through WQ-7, it is anticipated that housing constructed as a result of a Draft
Housing Element program will not expose people or property to flooding risk or impede
or redirect flood flows. The Flood Hazard goal of the General Plan Public Safety Element
is "a City which minimizes injury, loss of life, and damage to property resulting from the
occurrence of flooding." Further, an objective of the Element is "to restrict or prohibit
uses which are dangerous to the health and safety of people or adversely affect property
due to water and erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or
flood height or velocities."
2,0 \
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 200d COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVtKA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGE 16
Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.110, Floodplain Management Regulations, implements
the Public Safety Element policies regarding floodplain development. It establish
restrictive provisions regarding construction of structures within a 100-year floodplain
and requires the installation of protective structures or other design measures to protect
proposed buildings and development sites from the effects of flooding or wave action. It
also recognizes that controlling the alteration of natural floodplains and stream channels
and controlling the filling, dredging, and grading of these features helps reduce flooding
potential.
Regarding the Quarry Creek site, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
Former South Coast Quarry Amended Reclamation Plan, in the Hydrology and Water
Quality section, indicates the reconfiguration of Buena Vista Creek would be designed to
accommodate 100 year storm flows. Further, the EIR notes "all proposed project
drainage facilities implemented as part of the reclamation would be designed to
accommodate flows from ultimate development conditions including off-site portions of
the project site watershed, with no associated significant impacts related to capacity or
flooding hazards."
New updated FEMA maps will be effective July 6, 2010, and have already been made
available by FEMA to local governments for review.
34. The Hydrology and Water Quality section of the MND notes the 2007 Regional Water
Quality Control Board permit requires new development to implement Low Impact
Development (LID) features. LID techniques help to mimic more closely the pre-
development runoff characteristics. Accordingly, recommended mitigation measures
WQ-2b states:
• WQ-2b. Projects shall be required to show compliance with the applicable
hydromodification provisions of Order R9-2007-0001 and to show they are designed
so that post project runoff flow rates and directions do not exceed pre-project runoff
flow rates and directions for applicable design storms. Projects shall incorporate LID
design techniques to reduce the amount of runoff by mimicking the natural hydrologic
function of the site by preserving natural open spaces and natural drainage
channels, minimizing impervious surfaces, and promoting infiltration and
evapotranspiration of runoff before runoff leaves the site. LID techniques include,
but are not limited to:
o Vegetated buffer strips
o Vegetated bio swales
o Rain gardens
o Porous pavements
o Bioretention areas
o Vegetated roofs
o Stormwater planter boxes
o Infiltration trenches
o Dry wells
Consistent with Mitigation Measure WQ-2b, the City requires LID design techniques per
the following standard condition:
Developer shall incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) design techniques, on all
final design plans submitted to the City, to reduce the amount of run-off by mimicking
the natural hydrologic function of the site by preserving natural open-spaces and
natural drainage channels, minimizing impervious surfaces, and promoting infiltration
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 20Utf COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVtKA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGE 17
and evaporation of run-off before run-off leaves the site. Developer shall incorporate
LID techniques using current County of San Diego Low Impact Development
Handbook (Stormwater Management Strategies). LID techniques include, but are not
limited to: vegetated swale/strip, rain gardens, and porous pavement, which can
greatly reduce the volume, peak flow rate, velocity and pollutants.
Cumulative/Indirect Impacts
35. Contrary to the commenter's assertion, the MND has adequately considered and
demonstrated that implementation of Draft Housing Element programs would not have
cumulatively considerable environmental impacts. SANDAG projects regional growth
policies for the greater San Diego area and local general plan land use are incorporated
into SANDAG projections. Based on these projections, region-wide standards, including
but not limited to, storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation,
and congestion management standards are established to reduce the cumulative
impacts of development in the region. All of the City's development standards and
regulations are consistent with the region-wide standards.
With regards to biological impacts, for example, the North County Multiple Habitat
Conservation Plan was designed to compensate for the loss of biological resources
throughout the program's region; therefore, projects that conform to the MHCP, as
specified by the City's HMP, would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact for
those biological resources adequately covered by the program.
Furthermore, as discussed in the MND's Air Quality section, Draft Housing Element
policies will not provide for housing beyond that accounted for in SANDAG's regional
plans and thus, are within the scope of regional air quality management plans. While
future projects will contribute to regional emissions, those emissions have already been
accounted for in regional planning efforts. Additionally, mitigation measures are included
herein to reduce to less than significant the short term air quality impacts that occur
during construction.
Overall, the City's standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality
and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resources protection
regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that future development within the City
will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. Mitigation measures are
included herein to ensure projects comply with all applicable standards.
The commenter cites "previous studies and documents relative to the area and the
numerous specific sites proposed for housing density increases..." It is unclear what the
specific studies are.
Scott Donnell
From: annhhallock@yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 12:12 PM .
To: Scott Donnell
Subject: MND regarding the "Quarry Creek" site
Dear Scott,
The contamination of both soil and groundwater on the Quarry Creek" site proposed for affordable housing
units is so significant that it has been under DEH jurisdiction for almost a decade. In lumping together several
of the properties presented in the 2005-2010 Draft Housing Element, the current, cursory MND fails to
address in any substantive manner the serious contamination (including two known carcinogens) found at the
"Quarry Creek" site.
Notably, the Element itself makes no mention of the contaminated groundwater and states only in passing that
"Restoration includes...the remediation of soils, a process that is well underway" (p. 4-42). Such a statement is
fallacious, misleading, and utter supposition, since no testing of the thousands of cubic feet of contaminated soil
has yet to be done.
At the very least, the proposed low-income residents of the "Quarry Creek" site deserve a thorough
EIR dedicated solely to that site. The EIR must address the contaminated soil and groundwater and determine
the environmental impact they will present. The MND fails to do either.
Best,
Ann H. Hallock
Response to June 26, 2009 Comments by Ann Hanock
On
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Draft 2005-2010 Housing Element
(Note: The number of the response below corresponds with the comment identified by the number in
the right margin of the comment letter)
1. According to the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Former
South Coast Quarry Amended Reclamation Plan, investigation and remediation of soil
and groundwater contamination at Quarry Creek has been underway since at least
1998, three years after the cessation of mining activities. According to the EIR, Quarry
Creek was listed in eight different environmental databases maintained by federal, state,
and local governments. The majority of listings related to underground and aboveground
fuel storage tanks. Site assessments determined that fuel leaking from the tanks had
contaminated soil and groundwater. It should be noted that remediation efforts are
separate from and not a part of the proposed reclamation plan.
Beginning on page 23 of the Initial Study, the Draft Housing Element Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) addresses the contaminated soil and groundwater present at Quarry
Creek as well as the ongoing cleanup efforts. It reports that cleanup of groundwater is
anticipated to occur prior to or during site reclamation; this means that remediation
would be complete before residential development of the site. The MND further points
out that because remediation is underway according to all applicable requirements, the
EIR includes no mitigation measures with regards to hazardous materials. Further, the
EIR concludes that all remediated soils would remain on site and there would be no
hazards associated with their redistribution on the site.
In February 2009, Hanson Heidelberg Cement Group, owner of Quarry Creek, produced
a handout on the Quarry Creek remediation. "Carlsbad Site Update: February 2009 Fuel
Impact Remediation Program" reports that "some soils are close to meeting the
thresholds for use in reclamation grading pending agency approval" and "groundwater
impacts have been reduced significantly in both extent and concentrations." The handout
also notes "the project is on track to meet goals for remediation and to make materials
available for site work during reclamation..."
The MND proposes several mitigation measures to ensure potential impacts caused by
past or current handling, storage, or use of hazardous materials are mitigated to a level
of insignificance; these apply to all properties affected by Draft Housing Element
Programs, not just Quarry Creek. Those mitigation measures that specifically address
the commenter's concerns are the following:
• HM-1 Prior to approval of discretionary permits for projects within (1) an existing
or former agricultural area, or (2) an area believed to have contaminated soils due to
historic use, handling, or storage of hazardous materials, a detailed soils testing and
analysis report shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer, and submitted to the
City and the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) for
approval. This report shall evaluate the potential for soil contamination due to historic
use, handling, or storage of chemicals and materials restricted by the DEH. The
report shall also Identify a range of possible mitigation measures to remediate any
significant public health impacts if hazardous chemicals are detected at
concentrations in the soil which would have a significantly adverse effect on human
health.
• HM-9 When applications are submitted to the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department to redesignate the land use of a property or propose development or
redevelopment, disclosure of inclusion on the Cortese List (Government Code
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 20Urf COMMENTS BY ANN HALLOCK
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page 2
Section 65962.5) shall be required. If an application is for property included on the
Cortese List, the applicant shall provide evidence that describes the required
remediation process, through text and graphics, and (1) demonstrates compliance is
occurring or has occurred with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations; (2)
describes all necessary actions and approvals to remediate the property and
includes evidence of any approvals so far obtained; (3) describes the estimated
remediation timeframe, current status, and any monitoring required during and
following remediation; (4) discusses any restrictions on use of the property upon
reclamation completion; (5) includes all other required information as deemed
necessary by the City, DEH, and other agencies having regulatory authority with
regards to remediation of the site.
2. The purpose of the Draft Housing Element is not to provide a detailed environmental
assessment of sites, including Quarry Creek, affected by its proposed programs. Rather,
state housing law requires housing elements to provide a general description only of a
site's known environmental constraints. In the Draft Housing Element, such information
is provided at the end of Section 4, Constraints and Mitigating Opportunities, beginning
on page 4-40. Besides describing the soil remediation efforts underway, as the
commenter notes, the Quarry Creek discussion in Section 4 mentions the site's
significant habitat areas and proposed reclamation of the mined areas and restoration of
Buena Creek. In Draft Housing Element Section 4, staff has also amended the Quarry
Creek environmental constraints discussion (page 4-42) to note remediation of
contaminated groundwater, in addition to soils, is-occurring.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for the Draft Housing Element
provides a comprehensive environmental assessment. Specifically, the Initial Study
discusses groundwater contamination on page 24 in the section that specifically
addresses and proposes mitigation for potential hazards and hazardous materials.
Regarding the commenter's statement that "...no testing of the thousands of cubic feet
of contaminated soil has yet to be done," staff notes the EIR and handout cited in
Response 1 give no indication of soil or groundwater contamination or any remediation
efforts other than from the leaking tanks described in the response. Furthermore, and as
noted earlier, the MND reports that because remediation is underway according to all
applicable requirements, the EIR includes no mitigation measures with regards to
hazardous materials. Nevertheless, if additional contaminated soil or groundwater
remains, mitigation measures, including those identified in the previous response are
proposed to reduce any potential negative impacts to a level of insignificance.
3. Regardless of the income status of future residents or users of the site, a thorough
assessment of potential hazards to public health and safety is required under CEQA.
Responses One and Two above effectively address the commenter's request for
analysis of contamination issues and their potential impacts.
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Carlsbad, Planning Department
From: Richard Wharton, Paul Chen, Jeffrey Reid, Edward Petrus and Katherine Old,
University of San Diego Environmental Law Clinic, legal representatives of
Diane Nygaard, President of Preserve Calavera
Subject: Comments Re: City of Carlsbad, 2005-2010 Housing Element Mitigated Negative
Declaration
Date: June 27,2009
INTRODUCTION
Review of administrative orders or decisions are judged under the "abuse of discretion"
standard provided in California Code of Civil Procedures § 1094.5. Such orders or decisions are
defined as where by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and
discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or
officer. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5(a). Under that standard, abuse of discretion is established
if the administrative body (1) has not proceeded in the manner required by law, (2) the order or
decision is not supported by the findings, or (3) the findings are not supported by the evidence.
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5(b). Pursuant to 1094.5, certification of a negative declaration of a
project, despite substantial evidence that the project may result in significant environmental
impacts, constitutes an abuse of discretion as a failure to proceed in the manner required. See
Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma, 6 Cal. App. 4th 1307, (1992).
I. Failure to Produce an EIR for a Project, Despite Evidence of Significant
Environmental Impacts, is an Abuse of Discretion Pursuant to 1094.5.
According to the Guidelines to CEQA, a decision making body shall adopt a proposed
negative declaration "only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the
initial study and any comments received), that there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect on the environment" (Emphasis added). 14 CCR 15074. However,
the Guidelines also state that "[i]f there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record
3
before a lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the agency
shall prepare a[n] EIR." (Emphasis added). 14 CCR 15064. See Sierra Club, 6 Cal. App. 4th
1307, 1316 (1992); See also No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal. App. 3d 68, 75 (1974).
A "significant" effect on the environment means "a substantial, or potentially substantial,
adverse change in the environment." Lauren Heights Improvement Assoc. v. Regents of the 4
Univ. ofCal, 7 Cal. App. 4th 1112, 1123-1126 (1993). The low threshold requirement for initial I
preparation of an EIR "reflects a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental 2.
review when the question is whether any such review is warranted." Sierra Club, 6 Cal. App. 4th
at 1316-17.
Here, the 2005-2010 Housing Element for the City of Carlsbad ("Housing Element") clearly
falls within the definition of a "project" under CEQA. CEQA mandates ".. .that environmental
considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones, each
with a minimal potential impact on the environment, which cumulatively may have disastrous
consequences." See Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com., 13 Cal. App. 3d 280, 283-284
(1994); Rural Landowners Assn. v. City Council, 143 Cal. App. 3d 1013, 1024 (1983). In part,
CEQA avoids such a result by defining the term "project" broadly. The Guidelines define a
"project" as:
"Project" means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a
direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical
change in the environment, and that is any of the following:
(1) An activity directly undertaken by any public agency including but not limited to
public works construction and related activities clearing or grading of land,
improvements to existing public structures, enactment and amendment of zoning
ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of General Plans or elements thereof
pursuant to Government Code Sections 65100-65700. (Emphasis added). 14 CCR
15378(a).
The Housing Element is an element of the General Plan for the City of Carlsbad, and falls
within the statutory provisions specifically mentioned in the Guidelines. See 14 CCR 7559- -
65589.8.
In the present case, at the very least, there is a "fair argument" that can be made that
significant environmental impacts will result from the Housing Element, and therefore an EIR A
must be prepared. See Sierra Club, 6 Cal. App. 4th at 1316.
A. It Can be Fairly Argued that the Housing Element May Have Significant
Environmental Impacts, so an EIR Must Be Prepared.
The Housing Element has potential for resulting in direct physical changes in the I
environment because it encourages and anticipates large scale development in currently r
undeveloped land, so an EIR must be prepared. Section six (6) of the Housing Element provides I
the details of the City's "Housing Plan." One of the stated goals of the Housing Plan is to create
"New housing developed with diversity of types, prices, tenures, densities, and locations, and in
sufficient quantity to meet the demand of anticipated city and regional growth." Housing
Element, §6 "Housing Plan" at 6-5. The Housing Plan goes on to state: "The City encourages
the production of new housing units that offer a wide range of housing types to meet the varied
needs of its diverse population." Id. (Emphasis added).
The City then provides a list of ways that it will accomplish these goals. Specifically, the
City proposes to adopt general plan amendments, and process all necessary amendments to the
zoning ordinance and other planning documents to redesignate a minimum net acreage of Quarry
Creek and Ponto to "Residential High Density" and require that the redesignated sites be
developed at a minimum density of 20 units per acre. See "Table 6-1" at 6-6. According to
"Table 6-1," the City is planning to rezone the areas of Ponto and Quarry Creek to allow for 128
units and 300 units, respectively. Id. Furthermore, the City plans to redesignate a portion of
Quarry Creek "Residential Density-Multiple" and require that the redesignated site be developed
at a minimum density of 12 units per acre. See "Table 6-2" at 6-7. This redesignation will allow
for 200 units on the 17 acres of land at Quarry Creek. Id.
Presently, Quarry Creek is a 161-acre, privately owned parcel of open land which is the
home to the sacred El Salto waterfall and borders preserved lands.1 Quarry Creek was also the
site of a former gravel-mining operation. This former mine is currently going through the
reclamation process, pursuant to section 27123 of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
("SMARA"), which attempts to reverse the negative environmental impacts of mining by
requiring that the former mined land be returned to a second, productive use. Examples of post-
mining uses include: open space, wildlife habitat, agricultural land, grazing, park lands, etc. The
un-mined portions of the site includes sensitive habitat, and the area subject to reclamation
includes significant cultural, historic, and natural resources.
The proposed Housing Plan will allow for approximately 500 units to be built on this site.
Furthermore, the current owner of the site, Hanson, is already in the process of selling the land to
a developer, McMillon, who plans on building the 500 residential units provided for in the
Housing Element. This planned development clearly requires an EIR as the planned
development will clearly result in "reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment."
Specifically, development of this magnitude at Quarry Creek will have direct impacts on El
Salto waterfall, the functioning of Buena Vista Creek, the coastal watershed that terminates at
Buena Vista Lagoon, and this valley with its irreplaceable combination of natural, cultural,
1 Please note that the Housing Element may also have significant environmental impacts to Ponto, however,
will limit my comments to the Quarry Creek site.
n
historic, and spiritual resources. The project will also have significant direct and indirect impacts
on the functioning of the larger adjoining preserve area. Because the Housing Element has a
potential for resulting in "direct physical change in the environment" and because it may be
fairly argued that the development that will occur on Quarry Creek as a result of the Housing
Element may have significant impacts to noise, great traffic, geology and soils, water quality,
biology, air quality, and cultural resources, an EIR must be prepared.
ARGUMENT
The City of Carlsbad, 2005-2010 Housing Element Amendment proposes the construction of
500 residential units in Quarry Creek; hereafter referred to as the project. The Housing Element
Mitigated Negative Declaration (M.N.D.) includes an initial study of the project. The initial
study finds there are potentially significant effects on the environment due to the project,
identifies a mitigation plan, and concludes the mitigation plan would mitigate the effects so that a
less than significant effect on the environment would occur overall. However, there is
substantial evidence that the mitigation plan, with respect to the project, is inadequate because
even as mitigated, the project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment.
Therefore the City of Carlsbad, Planning Department, should prepare an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for the project rather than adopt the M.N.D.
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) a mitigated negative declaration is
prepared for a project for which the initial study has identified potentially significant effects on
the environment, but revisions in the project proposals would avoid the effects or mitigate the
effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and there is
no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as
revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. (Need site). Potentially significant
effects on the environment occur when there is a reasonable probability that the project will have
a significant environmental impact. Mejia v. City of Los Angeles, 29 Cal. App. 3d 788, (2005).
If this is established for a project, an M.N.D. may be appropriate, provided revisions to the
project are adequate and as a result there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record
the revised project may have a significant effect on the environment.
The adoption of an M.N.D. may successfully be challenged if there is substantial evidence
that the proposed mitigation measures are inadequate and that the project as revised and/or
mitigated may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Citizens for Responsible
and Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace, 73 Cal. App. 3d 202, (2008).
j
Additionally, a negative declaration which requires formulation at a future time of measures
to mitigate the environmental impact of proposed project violates the rule that members of the
public and other agencies must be given an opportunity to review mitigation measures before a
8
negative declaration is approved. San Bernardino Valley Audubon Soc. v. Metropolitan Water f
Dist., 83 Cal. App. 2d 836, (1999). Mitigation measures stated in an M.N.D. are not required to
specify exact details of design; if it is determined that mitigation measures may reduce the g
impact to insignificance. Ocean View Estates Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Montecito Water Dist.,
Cal. App. 3d (2004).
There is a reasonable probability the project will have a significant environmental impact;
this is identified in each of the sub-categories in this document. There is also substantial
evidence that the mitigation plan identified in the M.N.D. is not adequate to mitigate the effects
to so they are less than significant. In some cases, the M.N.D. fails to make findings with respect
to the potential impacts. In others, the M.N.D. makes findings with respect to the potential
impacts, but the findings are not supported by the evidence. The failure of the M.N.D. to provide
an adequate mitigation plan in the initial study evidence that the project, as mitigated, may have
a substantial negative impact on the environment and strongly indicates that an M.N.D. should
not be adopted.
I. There is substaintial evidence from which it may be fairly argued that there
may be significant environmental impacts and the proposed mitigation
measures do not reduce these impacts to a level of insignificance to the
following areas:
A. Aesthetics
1 . It can be fairly argued from substantial evidence in the record that the project
may have significant environmental impacts with respect to aesthetics.
The Initial Study admits that "[t]he City of Carlsbad is a coastal city comprised of a diverse
scenic landscape with coastal bluffs, several lagoons, and various valleys and canyons
surrounded by rolling foothills. Much of the City is an open space, with scenic resources
prevalent throughout the City." Initial Study, p. 6. However the City initially concluded in that
study that there would be no significant environmental impacts to aesthetics caused by the
amendment of the Housing Element. Id. That conclusion was incorrect, the amendment of the
housing element may have significant environmental impacts to aesthetics as a result of the
planned construction of 500 residential units in Quarry Creek. Presently much of this part of the
City is open space, as such a development of the magnitude proposed in the Draft Housing
Element creates a large potential for significant impacts to the aesthetics of the City. —
2. The proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impacts to a level of 11
insignificance. I
The Draft Housing Element states that there are potentially significant threats to the
aesthetics of the City unless the City takes steps to mitigate. The proposed mitigation steps
however will not reduce the impact to the City's aesthetics to a level that is less than significant.
The primary mitigation plan cited in the Draft Housing Element is that the project will comply
with the following measures: Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 21.53, California Environmental
Quality Act, City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan, El Camino Real Corridor Development
Standards, Hillside Development Ordinance, Planned Development Ordinance and Guidelines
Manual, Landscapes Guideline Manual, City Council Policy No. 44, City Council Policy No. 66,
Growth Management Ordinance, Zoning Regulations, City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program
and several General Plan Policies. Draft Housing Element, p.6-7. While this list of mitigation
measures is impressive, the Draft Housing Plan makes no effort to explain how it will comply
and use all of these measures at the Quarry Creek site, it only states that it will. Simply stating 1 1
that the City will comply with the necessary ordinances, plans and codes is not sufficient to show
that the environmental impact has been mitigated. See Sundstrom v. County ofMendocino, 202
Cal. App. 3d 296, 305-306 (1998). The City must go beyond that and explain and demonstrate
how all of these ordinances, plans and codes will prevent any significant environmental impact.
Id.
Given the importance of the great beauty of the City of Carlsbad to all the members of .the
local community the protection of the City's aesthetics is of great importance. The mitigation
measures in the M.N.D. are nothing more than a list of ordinances, plans and codes which the
project is already subject to and do not represent any actual mitigation plan as required by the
holding in Sundstrom. Additionally the M.N.D. doesn't contain any evidence to support their
finding that following these ordinances, plan and codes will prevent significant negative impacts
to the City's aesthetics. Thus there is a fair argument that an EIR is necessary because there is
substantial evidence that there may be environmental impacts even with mitigation. _
B. Agricultural Resources
1. It can be fairly argued from substantial evidence in the record that the project
may have significant environmental impacts with respect to agriculture.
The 2005-2010 Housing Element admitted that according to the San Diego County Important
Farmland 2006 map, published by the California Department of Conservation, Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program, the City of Carlsbad contains a limited number of areas
considered Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance. The report also stated that 1 O
"The Draft Housing Element will not alter existing General Plan policies and designations or
Zoning Ordinance standards regarding agricultural resources." Draft Housing Element, p. 8.
Where important and prime farmlands exist, premature conversion to urban uses could result in
significant impacts to the environment, diminishing any future prospects of agricultural
^\^
production in the proposed sites. The City of Carlsbad contains some of the richest agricultural
soil in the San Diego County. The Local Coastal Program pointed out that the city contains
Class II to Class VIII classification of soils. Local Coastal Program, Exhibit 4.2 (2006). The
majority of the city's agricultural soils, classified by the Local Coastal Program, are Class III and
IV, which are designated by the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
as suitable for growing truck crops, such as tomatoes, flowers and other crops. Class I through
IV can be used for any of the following purposes: Crop production, floriculture, horses (private
use), nursery crop production, poultry, rabbits, chinchillas, hamsters and other small animals, and 1 2
roadside stands for display and sale of products produced on the same premises, with a floor area
not exceeding two hundred. Id., p. 44-45. The conversion of these soils to urban uses will
significantly inhibit its agricultural use in the areas where the planned projects are situated. The
mitigation measures outlined by the M.N.D. suggest that the city does intend to convert farmland
within the Coastal Zone, and Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance. Thus, it can be fairly argued that all of these conversions will have significant
impacts on the ability to grow agricultural products in the future.
2. The proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impacts to a level of
insignificance.
The proposed mitigation measures with respect to agricultural resources in points a and c of
the Housing Element do not reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance. The first mitigation
measure proposed by the Draft Housing Element merely states that for projects "within the
Coastal Zone, the projects would convert farmland in compliance with the agricultural
conversion requirements of the Local Coastal Program." Draft Housing Element, p. 8. Without
knowing the specific measures chosen amongst the mitigation options outlined by the California
Coastal Act of 1976, and as applied by the Local Coastal Program, it would be impossible for the
city and its constituents to determine whether the measures will ultimately reduce the
environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. Many of the mitigation measures must be
approved prior to the inception of the entire project. Some of the mitigation measures of the \ 3
Local Coastal Program will have significant environmental impacts on not only agriculture, but
also surrounding areas.
Furthermore, the City of Carlsbad failed to provide substantial evidence to support the
mitigation measures. The Local Coastal Program clearly outlines three mitigation options;
however, the City did not state which option they would follow. Each option has further duties
and preservation requirements. For example, 1) Under § 30241 of the California Coastal Act,
where the maximum amount of prime agricultural land shall be maintained in agricultural
production to assure the protection of the areas' agricultural economy, and conflicts shall be
minimized between agricultural and urban land uses, the City must establish stable boundaries
separating urban and rural areas, including, where necessary, clearly defined buffer areas to
minimize conflicts between agricultural and urban land uses. In addition, the City must limit
113
conversions of agricultural lands around the periphery of urban areas to the lands where the
viability of existing agricultural use is already severely limited by conflicts with urban uses and
where the conversion of the lands would complete a logical and viable neighborhood and
contribute to the establishment of a stable limit to urban development. It is essential to know
prior to the approval of the project not merely whether the city will abide by the requirements of
the Local Coastal Program, but also as to how the city plans to fulfill any subsequent duties in a
detailed fashion. 2) The California Coastal Act, § 30242 further states that all other lands
suitable for agricultural use shall not be converted to nonagricultural uses unless (1) continued or
renewed agricultural use is not feasible, or (2) such conversion would preserve prime agricultural
land or concentrate development consistent with Section 30250. In addition, the Local Coastal
Program states that if the feasibility of continued agriculture is questionable, either the City or
involved landowners may complete an agricultural feasibility analysis. That portion of the study
area determined not to be feasible for continued agriculture could be converted only after: a) the 1 o
City approves the feasibility study; b) a Local Coastal Program amendment is prepared and -*• ^
submitted to the Coastal Commission that provides for the conversion; and c) the Coastal
Commission certifies the Local Coastal Program amendment as to its conformance with the
Coastal Act. Local Coastal Program, p. 42, 43 (2006). 3) The final option with regards to
coastal agriculture involves an "Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Fee", where in lieu of the
procedures established by the above options, property may be converted to urban uses upon
payment of an Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Fee. However, the fees shall be paid prior to
the issuance of building permits for the project and 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 to further other environmentally related projects.
In conclusion, without being informed as to the details of the mitigation measures that the
Housing Element chooses to undertake, there is not substantial evidence to support the current
proposed mitigation measures. As such, the proposed mitigation measures on its face do not
reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance. Thus an EIR is the appropriate measure to
undertake.
C. Air Quality —
I. There is substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
environmental impact with respect to air quality.
14The Housing Element will have reasonably foreseeable significant environmental impacts to
air quality as a result of construction of the 500 residential units in Quarry Creek that the project
allows for. Increased emissions due to construction of the proposed development, including dust
emissions caused by moving vehicles, excavation, earth movement and grading will have
significant negative impacts to air quality. For example, emission from construction vehicles,
commuting workers, as well as eventual emissions from the increased traffic from the inhabitants
of the residential units, will result in significant increases in the emissions of greenhouse gases,
namely carbon dioxide (CC^), nitrous oxide (NaO), and methane (Cf-Lj). These emissions, in
turn, will significantly impact human health and sensitive species in the area, as well as have i A
significant cumulative impacts on global warming. Additionally methane is a precursor to ozone
(Os). The project site is located in the San Diego Air-Basin. This area is a state non-attainment
area for ozone. —
2. The finding that the mitigation plan is adequate regarding air quality is not
supported with evidence; there is substantial evidence the mitigation plan is
inadequate and the project may have a significant adverse effect on the
environment.
A negative declaration which requires formulation at a future time of measures to mitigate
the environmental impact of proposed project violates the rule that members of the public and
other agencies must be given an opportunity to review mitigation measures before a negative
declaration is approved. San Bernardino Valley Audubon Soc, Cal. App. 2d at 836. The
M.N.D. proposes State Implementation Plans (SIPs), currently being drafted, pursuant to the
National Air Quality Act will adequately mitigate the potentially significant effect on the
environment caused by the increase in criteria pollutants as a result of the project. The SIPs are
inadequate to mitigate the significant effects to the environment because they will be formulated -j ^
at a future time. This violates the rule that requires the public and agencies have an opportunity
to review the mitigation measures before the negative declaration is approved. If the M.N.D. is
approved before such time as the SIPs have been completed and approved it will be in violation
of this rule.
Given that the SIP is not available until it is formulated in the future, it is impossible to
conclude the SIP is an adequate mitigation of the significant effects. There is no evidence in
support of this finding. As indicated in the initial study and also in this document, there is a
reasonable probability the project will have a significant environmental impact due to decreased
air quality. And with no viable mitigation plan to allay this impact, it follows that there is
substantial evidence the project (as mitigated) may have a significant adverse effect on the
environment.
D. Biological Resources
3
1. There is substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
environmental impact with respect to biological resources, and there is 10
substantial evidence that there may be significant impacts.
a. Sensitive Species
Quarry Creek is home to many sensitive species which would be severely impacted by the
project's proposed development of 500 residential units. Specifically, Quarry Creek and the
surrounding vicinity are the home to the California coastal gnatcatcher, the least Bell's vireo, the
Orange-throated whiptail, the white-tailed kite, the yellow warbler, and the yellow-breasted chat.
There have also been recent sightings of juvenile Cooper's hawks in the tress on the western
boundary of the project site.
Extensive development in the surrounding areas has also caused significant impacts to habitat
of avian species, often resulting in relocation and concentration of these species in open areas.
Due to this concentration, development in open space of Quarry Creek will arguably further
impact greater numbers of these avian species.
Additionally, the development of 500 residential units will result in night lighting and noise
that will significantly impact these sensitive species and their habitat. Night lighting exposes
wildlife species to unnatural light regime and may alter behavior patterns, causing them to have
lower reproductive success, and thus reducing species diversity. Noise from grading,
construction and vehicular traffic will have significant impacts to sensitive species such as the
least Bell's vireos, coastal California gnatcatchers or raptors in that increased noise will affect
breeding of these sensitive species, reducing species diversity. Therefore, there is a fair -i /-
argument that construction of 500 residential units on this presently open land may have
significant negative environmental impacts on the habitat and viability of these sensitive species.
Lastly, sediments and pollution mobilized by construction may end up in the Buena Vista
Creek, the Buena Vista Lagoon and marine waters. If they enter the watershed system, these
sediments have potential to cover the stream bed where fish spawn and fish food sources live,
where fish rest and feed, and may reduce visibility for fish and light for underwater plants and
algae. Therefore, increased sedimentation of the creek due to the project also creates a risk of
potentially significant impacts on aquatic life.
b. Vegetation
The proposed project site supports several vegetation communities including but not limited
to: southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest, southern willow scrub, freshwater march,
riparian woodland, channels and streambeds, open water, Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern
j
mixed chaparral, non-native grassland, and eucalyptus woodland. Several of these vegetation
communities are listed as sensitive habitats. Additionally, recent studies have observed over 77
plant species on the project site, and the presence of Palmer's grappling hook, a sensitive plant
species.
10
Construction of 500 residential units will have reasonably foreseeable direct significant
environmental impacts on this habitat and vegetation. Furthermore dust released during
construction activities could cover revegetation in adjacent habitat areas.
2. The finding that the mitigation plan is adequate regarding biological 16
resources is not supported with evidence; and there is substantial evidence that
the mitigated project may have a significant adverse effect on the
environment.
17
A negative declaration which requires formulation at a future time of measures to mitigate
the environmental impact of proposed project violates the rule that members of the public and
other agencies must be given an opportunity to review mitigation measures before a negative
declaration is approved. San Bernardino Valley Audubon Soct., 83 Cal. App. 2d at 836. The
M.N.D. mitigation measures to address the potentially significant impacts to biological resources
are inadequate because they will be formulated in the future. This violates the rule requiring the
public and agencies to have an opportunity to review the mitigation measures before the negative
declaration is approved. If the M.N.D. is approved before such time as the mitigation measures
have been formulated it will be in violation of this rule.
There is no evidence to support a finding that the mitigation measures are adequate. As
indicated in the initial study there is a reasonable probability the project will have a significant
environmental impact on biological resources. And with no viable mitigation plan to allay this
impact, it follows that there is substantial evidence the project (as mitigated) may have a
significant adverse effect on the environment.
E. Cultural Resources
1. There is a reasonable probability the project will have a significant
environmental impact with respect to noise, and there is substantial evidence
that it may cause environmental impacts.
The El Salto waterfall is a sacred site for the San Luis Rey band of Mission Indians, and has
been listed as a sacred site by the California Native American Heritage Commission of the State
of California. State law requires consultation with Native American Tribes and the Native 1 O
American Heritage commission prior to the preparation or amendment of the general plan for the
purpose of protecting cultural places in lands affected by the proposal. Cal Gov Code §§ 65351,
65352-65352.4. Additionally, the presence of the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians and
many past discoveries of cultural resources at Quarry Creek makes it highly probable that there
are significant cultural resources on the project's site that have yet to be discovered. These
11
resources will not be detected until they are uncovered and damaged during the grading process. A
The presence of potentially unknown cultural resources on-site, as well as the close proximity of I
known cultural resources, creates a reasonable possibility of significant environmental impacts.
Therefore there is a fair argument that there may be impacts such that an EIR must be prepared. I
2. The proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impacts to a level of
insignificance.
The proposed mitigation of the project's environmental impacts to undiscovered cultural
resources will not reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. The only mitigation
measures that will be used protect the any paleontological resources on the site is a walkover
survey and review of grading plans by a paleontologist prior to grading. Draft Housing Element,
p. 1 8. Only if the report generated from the walkover finds evidence of significant environmental
impacts will a monitoring program be put into place. Id. Because paleontological resources are
most commonly found underneath the soil surface it is unlikely that a simple walkover survey
will be able to identify the negative impacts to the project site's paleontological resources. As a 1 Q
result, such resources will only be uncovered by the blades of heavy grading equipment and
without a monitoring program in place would likely not be recognized and preserved properly.
Thus there is no evidence that mitigation plan in the M.N.D. to preserve paleontological
resources are adequate to mitigate potential impacts. Given the importance of these resources
the only way to ensure no significant impact is to conduct an EIR so that presence or absence of
paleontological is confirmed by proper methods by a professional as opposed to by a
construction worker with the blade of a heavy grading machine.
Similarly the project's proposed mitigation plan for damages to cultural deposits will not
prevent significant environmental impacts. Again the only preconstruction requirements, before
heavy grading begins, is contingent on a simple walkover by an archaeologist. Draft Housing
Element, p. 17. Only if significant cultural deposits are found on the surface during this survey
will an updated archival search be conducted along with field testing that permits for the digging
of shovel test pits. Id. While this approach could seem reasonable for an ordinary site it must be 20
noted that the Quarry Creek site has a history of containing cultural deposits and that disturbing
the unexcavated soil at the site will very likely cause major impacts to cultural resources. Any
damages done to such resources will be egregious and irreversible and in order to protect against
such damages an EIR must be conducted prior to any construction in order to indentify and
protect these precious resources.
There is strong evidence that the Quarry Creek project site contains undiscovered
significant cultural resources. Presence of such resources on a site where major grading of soil is
going to take place creates a great risk of a significant negative environmental impact. The Draft 2 1
Housing Element mitigation steps are not sufficient to prevent such an environmental impact.
There is no evidence presented by the City which supports the Draft Housing Element
12
conclusion that using preconstruction surface only surveys will be sufficient to mitigate the
impact to the Quarry Creek's cultural resources before the grading process begins. Thus there is o 1
a fair argument that an EIR is required to accurately access and address all threats to Quarry
Creek's cultural resources.
F. Geology/Soils
1. There is a reasonable probability the project will have a significant
environmental impact with respect to noise.
The Housing Element will have a reasonably foreseeable significant impact to geology and
soils. The grading done during construction of the proposed development at Quarry Creek
would displace soils, increase the potential for soils to be subject to wind and water erosion and 22
have potential to impact the Buena Vista watershed and the Buena Vista Lagoon. Additionally,
there is a reasonable possibility of the site's soil being unstable to the point that there is risk to
life and property as well as not being adequate to support the use of septic tanks where sewers
are not available. These geological factors pose a reasonable threat to significantly impact the
environment. —
2. The proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impacts to a level of
insignificance.
The Draft Housing Element States, "[d]ue to the sensitive habitats at the lagoons and creeks
located in Carlsbad, erosion as a result of development can significantly impact water quality.
Erosive soils may be located on future project sites facilitated by the Draft Hosing Element, and
as such, the potential for erosion is considered significant". The mitigation measures contained
in the Draft Housing Element are not sufficient to reduce the environmental impacts of the
erosion of soils to a level that is insignificant. The Draft Housing Element simply proposes that
they will create a Storm Water Pollution Plan and comply with the Carlsbad Standard Urban
Stormwater Mitigation Plan, General Construction Stormwater Permit and the General O 'I
Municipal Stormwater Permit. Draft Housing Element, p.20. While following those measures
will hopefully positively affect the level of soil erosion, the Draft Housing Development plan
does not explain or provide any evidence that they will be able to take all of those steps. Simply
stating that the City will comply with the necessary laws and codes does not show that they will
in fact be able to mitigate the environmental impact of soil erosion to less than significant levels.
See Sundstrom 202 Cal. App. 3d at 305-306. The only way to determine if these mitigation
measures will be adequate to'ensure no significant impact on the environment during the
construction of the Housing Element at the Quarry Creek site is for an EIR to be conducted.
Although the City of Carlsbad General Plan EIR states that in general soil types present
throughout the City can support development, geotechnical characteristics of soils types vary and
13
all new development applications require a site-specific soil analysis. In order to mitigate the
potential of the soils being unstable to the point that there is risk to life and property as well as
not being adequate to support the use of septic tanks where sewers are not available the Draft
Housing Element again simply states that they will conduct the required geotechnical report and
comply with the Uniform Building Code. Draft Housing Element, p.20. There is simply not
enough evidence contained in these mitigation measures to eliminate the reasonable possibility
that the construction of the Housing Element will have a significant impact on the environment
through the unsuitableness of the soil for this kind of development. The Quarry Creek site was
once a mine and as such there is an elevated possibility for the presence unusual soil conditions
due to heavy mining activities. The Draft Housing Element presents no evidence that the site's
former usage is not of concern and that these mitigation measures will be sufficient. Also the
mitigation measures do not specify how the results of the geotechnical investigation will be dealt
with other than stating that they will be reviewed by soil and geological engineers before 93
finalizing the grading plan. Id. Simply having the suitability of the soil reviewed before the final
plan does not ensure that the subsequent manipulation of the soil during the construction process
will mitigate potential environmental impacts.
The Quarry Creek site contains significant potential for causing environmental damage due
to its soil properties and as such there should be strong prevention and mitigation plans in place
before any construction can commence. The Draft Housing Element mitigation steps simply
state that the City will only comply with the required ordinances and does not contain any
substantive plan to deal with the specifics of the Quarry Creek site as is required by Sundstrom.
The City presented no evidence to support their findings that these minimal mitigation steps will
eliminate all potentially significant environmental impacts. Therefore there is a fair argument
that an EIR must be conducted in order to ensure that the significant risk of environmental
damage posed by the soil at the Quarry Creek site is dealt with properly. _
G. Hazardous Materials.
1. There is a reasonable probability that the project will have a significant
environmental impact with respect to hazardous materials.
Remarkably and significantly, the Initial Study of the Housing Element identifies three key
and significant environmental impacts with respect to hazardous materials. The first is the O A
General Plan, which designates residential developments in large areas of the City that currently
or previously have been used for agricultural. Agricultural chemicals and pesticides have been
used and stored on these properties, which have a high probability to negatively impact the
environment in regards to future residential development of this area.
14
Second, the use of hazardous materials during the construction and/or occupation of new
residential units and nearby commercial use in this mixed use project cannot be accurately
estimated or quantified without the issuance of an EIR.
Thirdly and most importantly, many areas designated by the Carlsbad Housing Element and
in particular, Quarry Creek, have contaminated soils and groundwater due to the presence of
former or existing non-agricultural uses, such as gas stations, above or below ground storage
tanks, dumps, and industrial operations. The California Environmental Protection Agency on its
website maintains the Cortese list, which is the name commonly given to the requirements
referenced by Government Code section 65962.5. According to the website's Cortese List,
Carlsbad has many sites where cleanup of hazardous materials is underway including sites in the
Carlsbad Housing Element. In fact, Quarry Creek, proposed in Draft Housing Element Program
2.1 as a site to be re-designated from lower density to high density residential housing is
identified as a location where two active cleanup efforts are underway, including one due to a
leaking underground tank. Thus the existence and potential existence of hazardous materials on
site clearly presents a significant environmental impact to and because of the proposed
development of residential units in the Housing Unit that can only be properly addressed by the
required issuance of an EIR.
2. There exist no findings to show that the substantial environmental impacts caused
by the hazardous materials are mitigated to a level of insignificance and the
evidence does not support the findings.
Section 1094.5 (b) of the California Code of Civil Procedure provides that an abuse of
discretion is established if the respondent city has not proceeded in the manner required by law,
the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the
evidence.
The California Supreme Court explained how this requirement is met in Topanga, "[w]e ...
concluded that implicit in section 1094.5 is a requirement that the agency which renders the
challenged decision must set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence
and the ultimate decision or order." Topanga, 11 Cal. App. 3d, at 515. The requirements for
findings " serves to conduce the administrative body to draw legally relevant sub-conclusions
supportive of its ultimate decision, the intended effect is to facilitate orderly analysis and
minimize the likelihood that the agency will randomly leap from evidence to conclusions. In
addition, findings enable the reviewing court to trace and the agency's mode of analysis. Id. at
516.
Finally, a negative declaration which requires formulation at a future time of the measures to
mitigate the environmental impact of a proposed project, violate not only the rule set forth by the
24
15 ^z\
Supreme Court in Topanga, that findings to justify the analytical gap between the evidence and
the ruling, but also violates the rule that members of the public and other agencies must be given
an opportunity to review and analyze whether the proposed mitigation measures will actually
make the environmental impact insignificant before a negative declaration will be approved. In
this case the M.N.D. mitigation measures to address the potentially significant impacts in regards
to hazardous materials are inadequate because they are to be addressed or formulated in the
future. See San Bernardino, 83 Cal. Rptr. 2nd at 836.
The City of Carlsbad has committed an abuse of discretion in violation of section 1094.5 of
the California Code of Civil Procedure because the City has altogether failed to set forth
adequate findings to support the decision to approve the MND. The Initial Study admits that the
Carlsbad Housing Element project will cause potential significant environmental impacts; but
they claim they have all been mitigated. However, the findings in the Initial Study fail to support
the City of Carlsbad's decision that all impacts have been mitigated in that the findings are
merely conclusions and fail to " bridge the analytical gap" between the evidence and the decision
to certify the M.N.D. More specifically, the findings fail to demonstrate how the M.N.D. meets
the requirements of CEQA and how the mitigation proposed will reduce all environmental
impacts to a level of insignificance in a manner required by the Supreme Court in Topanga.
The findings in the Initial Study consist of only potential future measures to mitigate which
are totally inadequate as set forth above. Indeed the Initial Study is replete with conclusory
futuristic statements such as, "While it is not possible to determine if such conditions exist until a
specific site is identified, mitigation measures can be developed to ensure due consideration is
given to potential hazards", and "Monitoring and sampling of groundwater may also be
necessary along with groundwater and soil remediation to ensure all contaminates are removed."
Every mitigation factor listed in the Initial Study, from HM-T through HM-9, fall into one of
only two categories. First, a general conclusory statement that all Federal, State and local
regulations and statues will be followed; or second, that some type of testing will be completed
with the actual mitigation factors to be determined later. Not only do these so-called mitigation
factors fail miserably to show the environmental impacts have been mitigated to an insignificant
level in violation of the Supreme Court's holding in Topanga, but altogether fail to provide the
public with the opportunity to review the mitigation measures BEFORE an M.N.D. is approved.
Here once the M.N.D. is approved the genie is out of the bottle and cannot be put back. There are
no requirements to mitigate, just to test. This is insufficient, and as such abuse of discretion has
occurred in violation of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
3
In conclusion, there are no findings to show that the significant impact caused by hazardous
materials are mitigated at all, let alone they are made insignificant by the mitigation procedures
set forth in the M.N.D. The evidence does not support the findings because there is no evidence
16
or finding because everything depends on what is found in the future. The M.N.D. must be *
denied and an EIR needs to be issued after a full and complete investigation of all possible *->^
environmental impacts.
H. Hydrology/Water Quality
1. It can be fairly argued from substantial evidence in the record that the project may
have significant environmental impacts with respect to hydrology and water
quality of the land.
25The Initial Study and the subsequent Draft Housing Element admits that, "implementation of
Housing Element policies and programs will facilitate housing construction, which in turn could
generate additional urban stormwater runoff and affect water quality. Development typically
results in increased impervious areas resulting in more rapid runoff of stormwater". Initial Study,
p. 18; Draft Housing Element, WQ, p. 26. The future development of 500 residential units at
Quarry Creek anticipated in the Housing Element will have reasonably foreseeable significant
environmental impacts on hydrology and water quality. —
Specifically, development of this magnitude at Quarry Creek will have direct impacts on the
Buena Vista Creek, which is currently 303(d) listed as impaired water for sediment toxicity.
Therefore, sediments mobilized by erosion and pollutants will have a direct and rapid path to the
creek, and from there to marine waters. This, in turn, will have significant environmental
impacts on the coastal watershed that terminates at Buena Vista Lagoon, and downstream marine
waters. Any sediments mobilized by erosion and pollutants released in the construction of the
proposed development will have potential to impact the entire watershed, including the El Salto
waterfall, Buena Vista Creek, Buena Vista Lagoon, and the downstream reaches of the creek
including marine waters. Development at Quarry Creek also has potential to have indirect and ^ /-
cumulative impacts on the El Salto waterfall. Furthermore, the Quarry Creek site currently
contains remnants of contaminated soil and groundwater, further increasing the danger of the
harmful pollutants entering our waters. Soils can. also be contaminated with pollutants left over
from past activities. The Quarry Creek is best known for its mining activities and it is reasonably
foreseeable that pollutants left from these activities will contribute to the toxicity of the creek's
hydrology. The Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan lists the following pollutants found
on similar developments which could affect water quality: sediment, nutrients from fertilizer
(phosphorus and nitrogen), trash and debris, oxygen-demanding substances from landscaping, oil
and grease from parked vehicles, pesticides from landscaping, and organics. —
Hydrology studies are therefore necessary to analyze the impacts from impervious cover,
drainage stormwater runoff, and the potential for direct impacts as a result of pollution and 97
sediments deposited into the creek and the waterfall, and potential cumulative impacts to
downstream reaches of the creek and on the entire watershed.
17
The significant environmental impacts to hydrology and water quality are, at the very least
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment resulting from the
construction and habitation of the Housing Element's proposed development in Quarry Creek.
2. The proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impacts to a level of
insignificance; the Carlsbad City Council failed to provide adequate findings
supported by evidence to support the mitigation measures.
The proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the environmental impacts to
hydrology/water quality to a level of insignificance. The mitigation measures for points k
through q of the Draft Housing Element admits that "Implementation of Draft Housing Element
programs may result in significant impacts associated with the listed impaired water bodies.
However, compliance with the water quality mitigation measures WQ-1 to WQ-4 listed above
would cause any impacts to be less than significant." Id., at p. 29. There have not been any 2 8
hydrological tests performed to substantiate this mitigation measure. While it can be reasonably
foreseeable that the project will have significant environmental impact on hydrology and water
quality, we cannot assume that the proposed measures will lower the impact to a level of
insignificance without proper hydrology tests and reviews. The city failed to provide substantial
evidence to support the mitigation measures.
Therefore, an EIR is required because there is substantial evidence in the record which
constitutes a fair argument that there may be significant environmental impacts to the hydrology
and water quality of the land and the proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impacts to
a level of insignificance.
I. Mandatory Findings of Significance —
1. There is more than a reasonable probability that the project will have significant
environmental impact with respect to findings of significance.
The Initial Study identifies three areas of mandatory findings of significant environmental
impact. First, the City finds it potentially significant that the project has the potential to degrade
the environment, substantially reduce the number and restrict the range of a rare animal and OQ
plant. Second, the City finds the project has the potential to degrade air quality and regional
traffic circulation. Third, the City finds that the project's environmental effects will cause
substantial adverse effects ori human beings. These environmental adverse finding are of such
import it's hard to imagine how they can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. What is clear
that on the record is that there is no evidence or findings of mitigation let alone mitigation, which
would render these significant environmental impacts insignificant.
18
2. There have been absolutely no findings which show that that the mandatory
findings of significance have been mitigated to a level of insignificance and what
findings if any that exist are not supported by the evidence.
The finding do not support in any way that the mitigations factors will reduce the substantial
environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. In fact the findings are mere conclusions. For
example, and with respect to the first mandatory findings of significance, the Initial Study simply
states: "... the project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment and reduce the
number and the range of a rare animal and plant. However, the project's compliance with
mitigation measures, which requires compliance with the HMP, ensures these impacts would be O Q
reduced to a level of insignificance." But how?? And why?? As stated above, this conclusion "
begs the question" by simply restating the statue's requirements In hac verba. The finding of the
City does not "bridge the analytical gap between the raw evidence and the ultimate decision or
order." Topanga, 11 Cal. 3rd at 517.
The exact same observation is applicable to the two other areas of mandatory significant
findings of air quality, traffic circulation and adverse effects on humans. The City provides only
conclusions that beg the question. That is the City merely states that compliance with some
regulation or rule will mitigate the significant environment impacts to levels of insignificance
without an explanation of how and why. As stated above, this is insufficient and an EIR is
required in this case.
J. Noise
1. There is substantial evidence that the project may have a significant
environmental impact with respect to noise.
The Housing Element anticipates and provides for the construction of 500 residential units on
the Quarry Creek site, which is currently open, undeveloped land. Construction of these
residential units will have reasonably foreseeable significant environmental impacts on noise due
to the traffic that will result from the extensive construction required to build these residential o A
units as well as the actual noise that will result from the construction process itself. For example,
noise from grading, construction and vehicular traffic will have significant impacts to sensitive
species such as the least Bell's vireos, coastal California gnatcatchers, and raptors, in that
increased noise will affect breeding of these sensitive species thus reducing species diversity.
Furthermore, once construction is complete, the additional 500 residential units will generate
significant amounts of new and permanent traffic, and thus significantly impacting the noise
quality of the area.
19
2. The M.N.D. fails to set forth findings supported by the evidence that
mitigation measures during construction will adequately mitigate the
substantial effect due to noise; and there is a reasonable probability noise due
to the increased population may have a significant negative impact on the
nearby sensitive habitat.
The M.N.D. fails to provide evidence in support of findings that mitigation measures
adequately address the effect of construction noises on sensitive species in Quarry Creek.
Although the M.N.D. lists several mitigation measures for construction of the project, it fails to
provide evidence about the adequacy of these mitigation measures. Mitigation measures, such as
locating construction machinery as far from sensitive habitat, are unlikely to be adequate given
the proximity of the project to sensitive habitats. The close proximity would make it
impracticable to locate machinery far enough away from sensitive habitats to protect them from
construction noise. There is no evidence this would be sufficient; on the contrary the proximity
indicates this measure would be inadequate. The same is true for the remaining mitigation
measures. Keeping construction equipment in good working order and complying with machine
noise regulations does not ensure sensitive habitats will be adequately protected from
construction noise. It may reduce the noise, but it does not reduce the impact to a level of
insignificance. Compliance of the City's noise ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.48.010)
does not ensure sensitive species will not be exposed to significant noise; the ordinance
addresses hours of construction rather than prohibiting noise entirely. Minimizing the use of
generators will not mitigate the noise adequately since other large construction vehicles that
make noise will be required nonetheless. Noise buffers may also be inadequate since it may not
be feasible to construct a buffer surrounding enough construction to shield all sensitive habitats
nearby. The remaining mitigation measures are addressed under biological resources.
With respect to noise from the additional population, the Initial Study concludes there will
not be a substantial increase in noise. The study reaches this conclusion because, as it states, the
noise level from the additional population will be comparable to the noise level of the current
urban environment. However, the evidence does not support a finding the effect of the
additional population will be less that significant. The Quarry Creek area is currently
uninhabited. So Quarry Creek cannot be considered an urbanized environment at present. It is
reasonably probable the introduction of 500 residential units into a previously uninhabited area
may result in a significant increase in noise. Since a mitigation measure has not been introduced
to assuage the increased noise there is substantial evidence the project may have a significant
adverse effect on the environment due to increased noise from the project.
K. Population and Housing
31
20 22U
1. It can be fairly argued from substantial evidence in the record that the project
may have significant environmental impacts with respect to population and
housing.
It can be fairly argued from substantial evidence in the record that the project may have
significant impacts with respect to population and housing. The Housing Element states, "For
the 100 acre Quarry Creek property in Carlsbad, the City's General Plan currently designates
about 76 acres of the site for residential development and 24 acres as open space. The program
proposes two new residential land use designations to replace the property's current residential
designation that would increase the density currently allowed and in turn increase the housing
unit yield." Draft Housing Element, p. 6. The approximate minimum acres to be re-designated to
RMH is 17, yielding a density of 200 units, and the acres to be re-designated to RH is 15,
yielding 300 units. This project alone would directly induce substantial growth in the area. The
Housing Element also admitted that the "development of the Quarry Creek site... may result in
the extension of Marron Road." In addition, because Quarry Creek is already served by two
roads (the present terminus of Marron Road to the east and Haymar Drive to the north), it is
likely that a traffic study, submitted with a development proposal at Quarry Creek, will
determine the need for the extension. Currently the Housing Element states that the development
will have "No Impact," although it shows inconsistencies in the report as stated above.
Furthermore, the Draft Housing Element proposed programs that propose and encourage
increased densities for residential and mixed use projects, such as in the proposed Barrio Area
and the Village Redevelopment Area, which may require the demolition of housing units. Draft
Housing Element, p. 6. These units would be replaced by new housing, either as a standalone 3 3
residential product or in combination with commercial uses. The replacement of current housing
units is a significant environmental impact to population and housing. It will not only induce
substantial growth directly, but will displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. —
The Program EIR mitigation measures apply to projects in general and recognize that
proposed smart growth projects, such as Quarry Creek, Ponto, Barrio Area, Village
Redevelopment Area, and Plaza Camino Real, will be subject to subsequent environmental
review to address potential individual environmental impacts. The mitigation measures do not
reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance. In a relatively small community and population, -^ '
to build 500 units at Quarry Creek and 128 units at Ponto would have significant impact to the
population and would induce substantial growth. Thus, it can be fairly argued from substantial
evidence in the record that the project may have significant environmental impacts with respect
to population and housing.
2. The proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impacts to a level of or
insignificance. t
21
The proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance.
Although the Housing Element states that the projects have "No Impact" on the environment
with regards to housing and population, for the reasons stated above, it can be fairly argued that
the projects will have significant impacts. While the proposed measures are within the limits of
population and housing projection, that does not exclude the fair argument that the mitigated •$ ^
measures could have significant environmental impacts to the population and housing.
Furthermore, the City Council, in its mitigation measures, does not address the two proposed
projects identified as the Bridges at Aviara and La Costa Town Square, which will have units to
help meet the City's RHNA. Id., at p. 7. _
3. The Carlsbad City Council failed to provide substantial evidence to support
the mitigation measures.
The City Council failed to provide substantial evidence to support the mitigation measures.
The City Council merely explains that the projects will not exceed the policies of the General
Plan Land Use Element and Growth Management Plan and the figures originated by Proposition _ ,
E. Id, at p. 34. While the Housing Element considers additional housing opportunities within the -^ ™
limits of the policies, it does not exclude the possibility that such projects may have significant
impact to housing and population. Furthermore, none of the mitigation measures are supported
by substantial evidence.
Thus, an EIR is required because there is substantial evidence in the record which
constitutes a fair argument that there may be significant environmental impacts to population and
housing and the proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impacts to a level of —
insignificance.
L. Public Services
1. It can be fairly argued from substantial evidence in the record that the project
may have significant environmental impacts with respect to public services.
It can be fairly argued from substantial evidence in the record that the project may have
significant environmental impacts with respect to public services. When government or public
facilities are physically altered or newly constructed, each facility in itself may pose significant
environmental impacts. The Housing Element admits that the "Growth Management Plan
requires planning for public facility needs through building out and for public facilities to be
provided concurrent with development." Id., at p. 34. Although the current Housing Element
does not affect the Growth Management Plan, and does not propose policies to facilitate housing
beyond the total dwelling units anticipated by the City's existing General Plan and Growth
Management Plan (54,600 dwelling units), the Housing Element does acknowledge that
22
additional public services will be needed as the demand for those services increases with
population growth. Id.
The Housing Element recognizes that there are two exceptions to the notion that
implementation of the mitigation measures will reduce public service impacts to an insignificant
level. It can be fairly argued from substantial evidence in the record that these two exceptions
may have significant environmental impacts with respect to public services. First, the Local
Facility Management Zone 25 is an undeveloped site and not all public service needs are known
at this time, however, the City's General Plan and Habitat Management Plan do anticipate future
development within Zone 25. Second, the San Diego Association of Governments has identified
that the Quarry Creek portion of zone 25 is a potential smart growth area, or an area suitable for
a compact, efficient, and environmentally-sensitive urban development pattern. Once housing
and commercial developments increase on these potential sites, concurrent public services are 37
required. Id. Even if the public services grow within the anticipated rate predicted by the City's
existing General Plan and Growth Management Plan, a reasonable person must acknowledge that
construction of public services due to increasing housing and population growth will have a
cumulative effect over time, not merely that of a individually erected buildings or facilities.
Thus, more fire protection, police forces, schools, parks, post offices, and other government
buildings will be required as the population grows. Construction of each building will have
significant environmental impacts on the soil, water quality, air quality, noise, traffic, and other
environmental issues, such as depleting biological resources and flooding. Each constructed
facility will require its own environmental review and the City fails to anticipate the substantial
environmental impacts of necessary public services in the future as a result of the project.
2. The proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impacts to a level of —
insignificance.
The proposed mitigation measure does not reduce the environmental impacts to a level of
insignificance. The measure merely shows that a Local Facility Management Plan shall be
prepared and adopted by the City Council for Zone 25. This is not sufficient to constitute an
adequate mitigation measure. Consistent with the Carlsbad Growth Management Plan and its
performance standards for public facilities, this plan shall show how and when the following "5 O
facilities will be provided: Sewer systems, water, drainage, circulation, fire facilities, schools,
libraries, city administrative facilities, parks and open space. However, this plan does not
demonstrate how the measure will reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance. Even if the
project in itself does not have significant environmental impacts, because it will require the
construction of the facilities addressed above, the construction phases would, as admitted by the
Housing Element, be considered a significant impact. Id. —
3. The M.N.D. failed to provide substantial evidence to support the mitigation 3 9
measures. I
23
Similar to many of the mitigation measures taken, the M.N.D. failed to provide substantial 4
evidence to support the mitigation measures. It merely promises to acquire approval of the first
tract map or building map in Zone 25. It does not provide any evidence to support how the
construction of concurrent public facilities and services will reduce the environmental impacts to
a level of insignificance.
M. Transportation/Traffic
2. The proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impacts to a level of
insignificance.
1 . There is substantial evidence that the project may have a significant
environmental impact with respect to noise.
The Housing Element may have significant environmental impacts to traffic caused by
construction and operation of the development. Reasonably foreseeable impacts to traffic 40
include the delivery of materials by trucks for the construction of 500 residential units
anticipated on site. Once construction is finished, the inhabitants of these 500 residential units
will generate large amounts of trips and traffic causing a significant increase in traffic on the
already congested streets and freeways of the City of Carlsbad and San Diego. _
In an attempt to mitigate the potentially significant impact of traffic generated by the Draft
Housing Element the city states that "[t]he Draft Housing Development is a policy document that
does not recommend or approve any particular development project. Implementation of Draft
Housing Element policies and programs will facilitate housing construction, which in turn could
generate new vehicle trips". Draft Housing Element, p. 37. While it is true that the Draft
Housing Element does not include specific plans for what kind of residential units are going to
be built on the Quarry Creek site as a result of its passage, the general purpose of the Draft
Housing Element is to "encourage infill, higher density and mixed use development". Id. In
order to mitigate the inevitable increase of traffic that will occur from this type of development A i
the City proposes that they will provide "a traffic analysis report... as may already be required
by the City Engineer. This repot shall evaluate specific traffic impacts and identify mitigation
for impacts". Id. Thus the first method of mitigation of traffic proposed in the Draft Housing
Element is that they will make a report, which may already be required, to find ways mitigate the
effect of traffic. Planning to create a report with the goal of mitigating a negative impact in
future is not a true mitigation measure. The Draft Housing Element needs to propose a actual
comprehensive and binding mitigation plan to ensure that the substantial negative impacts it will
have on traffic are correctly dealt with. The other mitigation measures proposed in addition to
the mitigation report are simply that the Draft Housing Element will comply with regulations and
plans such as the Growth Management performance standards, the Traffic Impact Fee and
complying with other affected jurisdictions' mitigation requirements. Id., at 37-38. As
24
discussed before the Sundstrom holding stated that agreeing to simply comply with ordinances,
plans and codes does not suffice as mitigation. Sundstrom 202 Cal. App. 3d, 305-306. The City
needs to have a specific plan, supported by actual evidence to show how the significant effect on
traffic caused by the approval of the Draft Housing Element will be mitigated.
41
Because the City has made no findings to demonstrate how they will be able to mitigate the
potentially specific impact the Draft Housing Element will have on traffic and has presented no
evidence to support those findings there is a fair argument that an EIR must be conducted to
ensure that the Draft Housing Element does not lead to a significant environmental impact
because of the traffic that it creates once constructed. _
N. Utilities and Services
1. There is a reasonable possibility of substantial environmental impacts with respect
to wastewater treatment and water drainage facilities.
The Initial Study identifies four separate areas of significant environmental impact, all
arising from wastewater treatment or water drainage facilities. The first, second and forth are
identified as problems associated with new residential construction presented by the Housing
Element and the efficiency, or lack thereof, of treating wastewater at the Encina Wastewater
Facilities, whether a new facility would be required, whether new wastewater treatment
requirements and/or capacity are needed which in and of itself would cause significant
environmental impacts.
The third area, the construction of new storm drain facilities or expansion of existing
facilities may in and of itself cause significant environmental impact. These are substantial
environmental impacts that cannot be addressed by mitigation. An EIR is needed to address these
complex, important and substantial environmental impacts.
2. There are absolutely no findings to show that wastewater environmental impacts
have been mitigated and no findings are supported by the evidence.
The first environmental impact as it pertains to utilities and service systems involves the
Encina Wastewater Treatment facility (EWA) and the fact that new development brought on by
Carlsbad Housing Element of current vacant areas could cause significant impacts on EWA. The
proposed mitigation measure found in USS-1 has absolutely nothing to do with the impact.
Indeed, USS-1 simply requires the City to submit, in the future, a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Program, which requires only that the City will comply with existing law and
regulations. But simply stating that the City will comply in the future with all the required
ordinates, codes and regulations is insufficient to show the environmental impact has been
25 231
mitigated. Sundstrom, 202 Cal. App. 3d at 305-306. Also of concern is that mitigation factors
implemented in the future, are inadequate to support a M.N.D. for approval.
Finally, there must be a cause and effect and a logical relationship between the problem and
the mitigating factor which the City must explain pursuant to Topanga. Topanga, 11 Cal. App. 43
3d, at 515. The capacity of EWA is at issue and the City's only suggestion is the simple Band-
Aid of reaffirming its commitment to following the law will mitigate EWA's ability and capacity
to process and treat polluted storm water.
O. Cumulative Impacts
1. There is significant evidence the project will have a significant environmental
impact taking into consideration cumulative impacts.
Due to the sensitive nature of the habitat and species in Quarry Creek the cumulative impacts
must be given special consideration. The addition of 500 residential units to a presently 44
uninhabited area will encompass a wide range of changes from the construction itself to the
support services, infrastructure, transportation, traffic, noise, air and water impacts. It will be a
veritable onslaught for the sensitive species that reside in. close proximity to the project. There is
substantial evidence that, taken as a whole, the cumulative impacts may have a significant and
negative impact on the environment. —
2. There are no findings to address the reasonably probable cumulative and
significant environmental impacts.
The M.N.D. fails to address the cumulative impacts from the project. The initial study finds
there are significant impacts and this document has identified other reasonably probable 4 J
significant impacts. However the cumulative nature of these impacts is not addressed. Based on
the initial study there is substantial evidence that the project as mitigated may have a significant
negative impact on the environment because the cumulative impacts have not been addressed.
CONCLUSION
Approval of the amendment to the Housing Element must comply with CEQA. If the project
will cause an environmental impact then an EIR must be conducted before the project is
approved. The construction of the Housing Element will cause several environmental impacts, 46
as discussed above. The mitigations measures proposed by the City will be insufficient to ensure
that there will be no environmental impact. Thus an EIR must be conducted prior to the approval
of the amendment to the Housing Element.
26
Response to June 27, ^009 Comments by University of San uiego Law Clinic
On
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Draft 2005-2010 Housing Element
(Note: The number of the response below corresponds with the comment identified by the number in the
right margin of the comment letter)
Introduction
1. Comment noted.
2. Comment noted. The City has prepared a mitigated negative declaration (MND), not a
negative declaration, for the Draft Housing Element. A MND has been prepared because
implementation of Draft Housing Element programs may result in construction that could
significantly impact the environment. However, pursuant to Title 14 of the California
Code of Regulations, Section 15070 (14 CCR 15070), use of a MND is appropriate when
impacts can be mitigated to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. The
Draft Housing Element MND demonstrates that potential impacts associated with
implementation of programs can be mitigated accordingly.
The discussion contained in Section 15070 notes use of a MND provides efficiencies in
the environmental review process because it eliminates the time and costs involved in
preparing an EIR and still provides for public review and comment on the sufficiency of
the MND.
Furthermore, Section 15070 (b) (2) notes use of a MND is appropriate when "there is no
substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as
revised may have a significant effect on the envh"onment." Comments submitted on the
Draft Housing Element MND do not produce the substantial evidence necessary.
3. Staff concurs the Draft Housing Element meets the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines definition of "project." The MND considers the Draft Housing
Element's potential environmental effects comprehensively and cumulatively.
4. See response to comment 2.
5. The commenter fails to identify which component of Draft Housing Element Program 2.1
proposes "large scale development in currently undeveloped land." The largest
undeveloped properties impacted by the program are a 17.5 acre vacant shopping
center site identified for mixed use residential and an estimated 7 acres of an
approximately 40 acre vacant parcel identified for high density residential. These parcels,
both in the Sunny Creek area, would yield approximately 88 units and 120 units,
respectively. Additionally, Housing Element programs would not convert any land
designated open space, and, with the exception of the Residential Medium High (RMH)
and Residential High (RH) land use designations, they do not increase the currently
allowable densities of any residential land use designation.
However, presuming "large scale development in currently undeveloped land" is a
reference to Quarry Creek, staff believes labeling the site as "undeveloped" or "open
land" is misleading.a Slightly less than one-half of the 100 acre property has been
significantly disturbed by decades-long hard rock mining that ceased in 1995. The
effects of mining, along with various related structures, site modifications, and dirt roads
remain. Furthermore, remediating contaminated soil and groundwater and recycling of
construction materials at Quarry Creek continue. While Quarry Creek is bordered by
preserved open space, it is also adjacent to a shopping center, car dealership, and
freeway.
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 20ud COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SAiM DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page 2
Proposed Program 2.1 proposes to increase the density of residential land use
designations already applies to Quarry Creek. The target of these designations is the
already disturbed, rather than undeveloped, portions of Quarry Creek. This program also
focuses on the 100 acre parcel containing the formerly mined area and not the adjacent
57 acre undisturbed property.
Following reclamation of the 100 acre Quarry Creek site, the commenter notes that post-
mining activities include open space and agricultural activities. Post-mining activities are
not limited to only these uses; the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, Public
Resources Code Section 2733, defines "reclamation" as a process that returns land to a
useable condition that is readily adaptable to alternate uses. This may include uses
consistent with the General Plan, which, in the case of Quarry Creek, are residential.
City staff acknowledges the impacts that may result from implementation of Housing
Element programs, particularly the land use changes proposed by Program 2.1. Contrary
to the commenter's assertion, the MND thoroughly demonstrates these potential impacts
can be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
6. The Draft Housing Element will not allow for 500 units to be built at Quarry Creek, as the
commenter suggests. Instead, if approved, a Draft Housing Element program (Program
2.1) states the City will change the land use designations on the Quarry Creek site to
allow increased residential densities. However, this action to increase densities at Quarry
Creek or any other Carlsbad property is subject to review and approval that is separate
from that required to approve the Draft Housing Element.
Contrary to the commenter's assertion, until development plans are proposed and
submitted to the City of Carlsbad, it is speculative to state that a project developed at
Quarry Creek will have direct impacts to El Salto waterfall, the functioning of Buena Vista
Creek, or other aspects of the site or its surroundings. Recognizing the potential for
direct and indirect impacts, the MND contains adequate analysis and findings to mitigate
any potentially significant impacts. The commenter is referred to the appropriate sections
of the MND for further information.
7. Comment noted. See Responses 2 and 6.
8. Comment noted.
9. The MND clearly notes that all identified possible impacts can be mitigated to a level of
insignificance. As demonstrated throughout these responses to comments and in the
MND itself, the comprehensive analysis of potential impacts is linked to mitigation
measures (findings) so the relationship between the analysis and mitigation is clear. The
mandatory questions in each potential impact category (e.g., Aesthetics, Air Quality, etc.,
as contained in the Initial Study, MND Part II) are addressed with background that is
appropriate and relevant, analysis of applicable regulatory requirements and standards,
reasons why the Draft Housing Element would or would not potentially impact the
particular category, and explanations of how mitigation measures, if appropriate, would
lessen potential impacts to a level of insignificance. Furthermore, these responses to
comments do not modify the analysis or findings of the MND, but they do amplify the
information within in the MND to effectively respond to the comments.
A. Aesthetics
10. Much of the City is in protected open space due to the preservation requirements of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code, Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan, Local Coastal Program,o
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 20ud COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SAiM DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page 3
Growth Management and CEQA. These areas of open space will remain as they are
today, as the policies of the Housing Element do not propose residential development in
areas that are designated as open space.
There are undeveloped areas of the City that are designated in the General Plan for
residential development. These undeveloped areas may be developed at a future time,
and the visual character of these undeveloped sites would be changed and views that
are considered scenic could be negatively affected. However, if scenic resources are
located on undeveloped properties, these would be preserved through application of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code, Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan, Local Coastal Program,
Growth Management and CEQA which will reduce impacts on aesthetics to a less than
significant level. Further, in undeveloped areas currently designated for residential
development, the above policies would require additional dedications of open space,
thereby increasing the amount of preserved open space in the City.
With regard to Quarry Creek, the former land use for about one-half the site was a rock
quarry while the remainder of the site was left undeveloped. Quarry Creek is adjacent to
larger undeveloped areas which together comprise Local Facility Management Zone 25.
A large portion of Zone 25 has been purchased and dedicated as permanent open
space by the California Department of Fish and Game. About 24 acres of the 100 acre
Quarry Creek site are designated as Open Space by the General Plan, and a portion of
the property also has been designated by the HMP as habitat preserve. However, for the
residentially-designated portion of the Quarry Creek site that is identified in Housing
Element Program 2.1 Adequate Sites, the visual character is currently degraded due to
the industrial nature of the former mining operations. Once the planned mining
reclamation process is underway, the property will be restored to a condition which
would allow development consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use
designation, which is single family residential. The result of the reclamation process
would be graded pads, also not considered a scenic resource. Quarry Creek is also
located in close proximity to highly urbanized areas; specifically, it is adjacent to
Highway 78 and developed commercial areas in the City of Oceanside.
The Housing Element Program 2.1 proposes to increase the General Plan Land Use
density of the Quarry Creek site from single-family residential to medium and high
density multi-family residential. The sensitive habitat in Zone 25, as well as the creek
and El Salto Falls located at the Quarry Creek site could be considered scenic
resources; however, these resources would be preserved by the existing policies in
Carlsbad Municipal Code and the Habitat Management Plan if development of Quarry
Creek were to occur. As single family development is currently allowed in Quarry Creek
by the General Plan, exchanging single family for multi-family development would not
constitute a significant impact on aesthetics because the Carlsbad Hillside Ordinance
and Architectural and Neighborhood design guidelines in City Council Policies 44 and 66
would provide adequate mitigation by ensuring a high quality design for the site and
building architecture, regardless of the residential product type.
j
11. Undeveloped portions of the City are designated by the General Plan for residential
development, and future development on these properties could lead to a sense of
urbanization that may be objectionable for some. Also, some of the undeveloped
properties in Carlsbad could contain important scenic resources, such as creeks, steep
hillsides, and habitat. For properties with important scenic resources, the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan, Local Coastal Program and CEQA
will preserve these resources. Furthermore, Growth Management requires 15% of the
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 20Ud COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SAiM DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page 4
developable land in a Local Facilities Management Zone (such as Zone 25 in which
Quarry Creek is situated) to be set aside for permanent open space.
With regard to aesthetics, Carlsbad policies and standards such as Hillside Development
Ordinance, Planned Development Regulations, Landscape Guidelines Manual, El
Camino Real Scenic Corridor Development Standards and Council Policies 44 and 66
will ensure a high quality of grading and architectural design, thereby mitigating aesthetic
impacts to a less than significant level.
According to the General Plan EIR (1994), substantial aesthetic impacts were expected
to occur as the city developed; however, with the application of General Plan policies, -
such as those listed in Mitigation Measure A-2, it is reasonable to suggest that when
these same policies are applied to future residential projects in the City, visual impacts
will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
B. Agriculture
12. Comment noted. This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a
program-level document (the Draft Housing Element). As discussed in the MND,
subsequent environmental review and CEQA compliance will be required for both the
implementation of proposed Housing Element programs and for any future development
projects facilitated by the Housing Element. The Housing Element does not propose the
physical development of any site. Development of any site listed in the Housing Element
will be initiated at an undetermined future time by private developers. Project details are
unknown at this time; therefore project-level environmental analysis is not appropriate for
the Housing Element. Future private development projects will be subject to City
standards and CEQA
Conversion of agricultural land to urban uses without mitigation is considered a
potentially significant impact; however, implementation of Mitigation Measures AR-1 and
AR-2 will reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. The mere conversion of
Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance to urban uses does
automatically constitute a significant agricultural impact as suggested by the comment
letter. Detailed project level analysis associated with a development proposal would be
necessary. Measure AR-2 requires future projects to perform Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (LESA) analysis, which is the method for determining the
significance of converting agricultural land to urban uses, including Prime Farmland and
Farmland of Statewide Importance. The LESA model analyzes specific property
information such as soil quality, acreage used for agriculture, water availability, and
adjacent land uses, which would be necessary in order to make a determination of
significance with regard to impacts to important farmland.
None of the land presently designated for agricultural uses will be converted to
residential uses as a result of the Housing Element.
13. Comment noted. This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a
program-level document (the Draft Housing Element). The Local Coastal Program
allows three mitigation options for the conversion of coastal agricultural land to urban
uses. Option 1 requires preservation of one acre of prime coastal agricultural land for
each acre impacted, option 2 requires an agricultural feasibility study, and option 3
requires payment of an agricultural mitigation conversion fee. Note that the Housing
Element does not propose development on any property, and selection of one of the
above three options cannot occur until a future project proposes to develop on property
with coastal agriculture. The City and California Coastal Commission have already n -yt
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 200rf COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SA.M DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PageS
accepted all three options as adequate mitigation for impacts resulting from the
conversion of coastal agriculture within city boundaries to urban uses. It follows that for
any projects facilitated by the Housing Element that are subject to these requirements,
as stated in Mitigation Measure AR-1, their impacts will be mitigated to a less than
significant level.
C. Air Quality
14. Comment noted. This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a
program-level document (the Draft Housing Element). As discussed in the MND,
subsequent environmental review and CEQA compliance will be required for both the
implementation of proposed Housing Element programs and for any future development
projects facilitated by the Housing Element. Specific project details of future
development proposals are necessary to determine the levels of emissions to expect
from future projects and whether they would be considered significant impacts.
The growth assumptions used by the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and the Regional
Air Quality Strategies are based on the Carlsbad General Plan, and the Housing
Element does not propose residential units in excess of that allowed by the General
Plan, therefore no significant impact, including cumulative impacts, with regard to air
quality would occur from the long term operation of the residential units (See Response
C.2. below).
With regard to global warming, SB 97 directed the Governor's Office of Planning and
Research and the California Air Resources Board to draft and adopt guidelines for the
mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by Jan. 1, 201.0. In the absence of these
guidelines, as well as specific development project details, it is not possible to determine
whether a project will have a significant air quality impact in relation to global warming.
15. The Housing Element MND was noticed and circulated for the standard 30 day review
and copies were sent to relevant outside agencies consistent with State law. Through
this process, other agencies and the public have been given adequate opportunity to
review and comment on the Housing Element's proposed mitigation measures.
Contrary to that suggested by the letter, the MND does not propose to adopt a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) as an air quality mitigation measure for the Housing Element.
The letter also incorrectly states that the SIP is in draft form and that the mitigation in the
SIP is not yet formulated.
The SIP for San Diego County has been in existence since after the passage of the
Federal Clean Air Act, though it has been periodically revised thereafter. The SIP was
most recently revised in 2007 to meet the federal 8-hours ozone standard, but this
revision is still in draft form as it has not yet been approved by the EPA (the 2007
revision has been approved by the State). The applicable SIP that San Diego County
operates under is the 2002 revision, which has been approved by both the State and the
EPA. The mitigation and strategies to meet the federal air quality standards have
already been formulated and approved in the applicable 2002 SIP, and the appropriate
time to comment on this mitigation would have been during the 2002 SIP public review
process.
The regional growth assumptions in the SIP use growth forecasts provided by the San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and SANDAG's forecasts are based on
the build out of each jurisdiction's general plan. Based on these regional growth
assumptions, the SIP then proposes mitigation and strategies to meet Federal air quality
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 200y COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SAiM DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page6
standards. Therefore, the air quality mitigation for the General Plan, and any project
found consistent with the General Plan, has already been adopted in the SIP. As the
MND states, because the growth assumptions used by the SIP are based on the
Carlsbad General Plan, and since the Housing Element does not propose residential
units in excess of that allowed by the General Plan, no significant air quality impact
would occur.
D. Biological Resources
16. Comment noted. Quarry Creek and nearby areas have important biological resources.
Hillside, creek, and riparian portions of the Quarry Creek site are already in protected
open space and the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan, in recognition of the property's
natural habitat and wildlife, establishes standards for parts of it to be preserved.
Along with its undisturbed areas, Quarry Creek has also been extensively mined for
decades such that nearly half of the 100 acre site has been disturbed. Appropriately, the
HMP identifies portions of the site as "development area" and the General Plan shows
portions of the site as suitable for residential development.
Beginning on page F-16 of the HMP, adjacency standards are listed to address
development in the urban-wildland interface. The introduction to this list states:
The HMP will result in an urban wildlife preserve system in which
conserved habitat areas are adjacent to development of various types. In
order to prevent negative effects of either area on the other, these
adjacency standards must be addressed in the planning of any
development/habitat interface:
• Fire management
• Erosion control
• Landscaping restrictions
• Fencing, signs, and lighting
• Predator and exotic species control
The MND contains an extensive set of mitigation measures that require compliance with
these adjacency standards and other measures to protect water quality, habitat, and
wildlife. These measures are commonly applied throughout the City of Carlsbad and
require, among other things, surveys by professional biologists to determine the
presence of sensitive plants and animals. While the Draft Housing Element would not
directly result in the construction of any housing, projects facilitated by its programs
would comply with these measures; furthermore, once project details are known, these
mitigation measures may be refined, supplemented or replaced by more appropriate,
specific measures.
17. The Mitigated Negative Declaration arid Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
were circulated for a 30 day public comment period. No comments from the Wildlife
Agencies (i.e., California Department of Fish and Game and United States Fish and
Wildlife Service) were received.
Without the filing of a proposed development application with studies and plans, it is not
possible to analyze and determine all the specific biological impacts a project may have.
However, construction of housing pursuant to the proposed Draft Housing Element could
result in the following potentially significant impacts:
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 200^ COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SAiM DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page 7
• Per the City's HMP, housing construction 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Development that results in substantial vegetation clearing or impede wildlife
movement within Core Areas and linkages would result in a significant impact.
• Construction and occupancy of housing adjacent to sensitive species or habitats
may have permanent or temporary direct and indirect negative impacts, such as
from invasive species, runoff, and construction noise.
Contrary to the commenter's assertion, the MND adequately reports and provides
mitigation for projects with the potential to impact sensitive habitats and species. These
mitigation measures could be made conditions of a project approval, or the measures
may be refined or found unnecessary as detailed planning and study specific to the
project occurs. In any case, adherence to these measures and City standards will
reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
E. Cultural Resources
18. Comment noted. Staff consulted with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, as
required by SB 18 (Government Code 65352.3) on the Draft Housing Element General
Plan Amendment. This consultation concluded in March 2009.
City staff recognizes Carlsbad's rich cultural (and paleontological) resources, including
those at Quarry Creek; these resources, whether existing or potential, are acknowledged
in the Former South Coast Quarry Amended Reclamation Plan Draft Subsequent EIR,
which is listed as supporting information source in the MND. This document has been
prepared to analyze the proposed reclamation of former hard rock mining at Quarry
Creek, which disturbed nearly half of the 100 acre site.
Due to the presence of these resources, the Draft Housing Element's environmental
assessment includes mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3) to
ensure (1) sites with known and potential resources are properly surveyed and
monitored during construction and (2) resources are evaluated and protected as
necessary.
With regards to Quarry Creek in particular, staff also notes that cultural resource
surveys, impacts, and mitigation have been and will be considered as part of the
environmental review underway for the proposed reclamation of the mined portions of
the property, which disturbed nearly one half of its 100 acres. Through the environmental
review, cultural resources on the Quarry Creek site and in the surrounding area will be
considered. Accordingly, it stands to reason that significant knowledge of known and
potential cultural and paleontological resources will be gained through this effort and
implementation of reclamation. More information on these resources may be found in
the Former South Coast Quarry Amended Reclamation Plan Draft Subsequent EIR.
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 20Uy COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SAiM DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PageS
19. The Former South Coast Quarry Amended Reclamation Plan Draft Subsequent EIR, in
Section 4.2, Soils, Geology and Paleontology, states:
Paleontology is the science dealing with pre-historic plant and non-human
animal life. Paleontological resources (or fossils) encompass the remains
or traces of hard and resistant materials such as bones, teeth, or shells,
although plant materials and occasionally less resistant remains (e.g.,
tissue or feathers) can also be preserved. The formation of fossils
typically involves the rapid burial of plant or animal remains and the
formation of casts, molds, or impressions in the associated sediment
(which subsequently becomes sedimentary rock). As a result of this
process, the potential for fossil remains in a given geologic formation can
be predicted based on known fossil occurrences from similar (or
correlated) geologic formations in other locations. Accordingly, while there
are no recorded fossil occurrences or collection efforts known from the
[Quarry Creek] site, paleontological resource potential can be inferred
from on-site geology and off-site fossil occurrences in similar materials...
Further, because paleontological resources are largely a buried resource, there is no
way to accurately predict what fossils are present within a site or their individual
significance to the scientific community before they are discovered. However, the
geotechnical report required by Mitigation Measure GS-1 would assist in identifying
geological formations and thus the potential for fossil remains.
20. The commenter is directed to Mitigation Measure CR-1a, which states "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)." It is these pedestrian surveys that identify the
presence of any unknown cultural resources. CR-la and CR-1b describes the detailed
steps that take place if a pedestrian survey finds cultural resources.
21. See Response 20 above. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure CR-2 establishes the
requirements for construction monitoring by a qualified archaeologist and, if applicable, a
qualified Native American monitor.
F. Geology/Soils
22. Regarding water quality impacts from soil erosion and construction activities, Mitigation
Measures GS-3, GS-4 and GS-5 are similar to those used in the Ponto Beachfront
Village Vision Plan EIR, which is also a program level document. It states that future
projects within the plan boundaries will prepare SWPPPs that include BMPs (as
proposed in the Housing Element MND), which will reduce significant short-term impacts
to water quality to a Jess than significant level. It is reasonable to suggest that similar
mitigation measures'in the MND will reduce water quality impacts from soil erosion and
construction activities to a less than significant level.
With regard to the soils at Quarry Creek and their ability to support development and
septic systems, this comment suggests project level environmental analysis for a
program level document (the Draft Housing Element). Note that if Quarry Creek were
developed, Carlsbad Municipal Code regulations would require it to be tied into the
sewer system of the Carlsbad Sewer District. As to the soil stability and its ability to
support development in Quarry Creek, complex geotechnical studies at the project-level sy |\r\
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 20U9 COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page 9
are required in order to determine whether soil in Quarry creek can support development
and what mitigation measures are needed, if any. The Housing Element does not
contain project-level details to assess the type and magnitude of geologic and soils
impacts.
23. The MND also acknowledges that there are areas of the City that have unstable and
erosive soils and that if these areas were developed without the benefit of geotechnical
studies and mitigation measures, significant impacts to geology and soils could occur.
However, the MND does not propose development without mitigation.
This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a program-level
document (the Draft Housing Element). For vacant and undeveloped land, Mitigation
Measure GS-1 requires a geotechnical report to be submitted for City review along with
an application to develop property, such as a Tract Map, Site Development Plan or
Coastal Development Permit. The report would identify any negative soil conditions and
propose a remediation plan as mitigation.
As for the special conditions at the Quarry Creek site, according to geotechnical study of
the Former South Coast Quarry Amended Reclamation Plan Draft Subsequent EIR, a
significant impact was noted for the settlement of soils, but can be mitigated to a less
than significant level, as stated in the EIR.
G. Hazardous Materials
24. Comment noted. This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a
program-level document (the Draft Housing Element). The Draft Housing Element does
not contain project-level details necessary to assess the type and magnitude of all
potential impacts. The Housing Element is an element of the General Plan, and, as such,
affects property at a citywide scale. Environmental impacts should be reviewed at the
citywide scale as well.
As discussed in the MND, subsequent environmental review and CEQA compliance will
be required for both the implementation of proposed housing element programs and for
any future development projects facilitated by the housing element. The Housing
Element does not change land use designations for any property and does not propose
the physical development of any site. Development of any site listed in the Housing
Element would be initiated at an undetermined future time by private developers and
project details are unknown at this time; therefore project-level environmental analysis is
not appropriate for the Housing Element.
However, the MND recognizes that large areas of the City that currently or previously
have been in agricultural use are designated for residential development by the General
Plan and agricultural chemicals and pesticides may have been used and stored on these
properties, which could impact future residential development. Likewise, other areas of
Carlsbad, such as the Quarry Creek site discussed in the MND or commercial areas,
may have contaminated soils or groundwater due to the presence of former or existing
non-agricultural uses, such as gas stations, above or below ground storage tanks,
dumps, or industrial operations. Furthermore, redevelopment in older parts of Carlsbad,
such as in the downtown Village or Barrio Areas, may expose construction workers to
hazardous materials during demolition activities. Development of sites with such
contamination may expose people to release of hazardous materials, a potentially
significant impact.
V\\
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 20urf COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SA.M DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page 10
In response, mitigation measures HM-1 thru HM-9 will require future projects to study
and identify the existence or release of any hazardous substances. For any future
housing project facilitated by the implementation of the Draft Housing Element, if a site
has the potential of containing agricultural chemicals .pesticides or other soil
contaminants, a soils testing and analysis report is required. Monitoring and sampling of
groundwater may also be necessary along with groundwater and soil remediation to
ensure that all contaminants are removed. As identified in the MND and as may be
further refined during project review, any recommended mitigation measures would be
made conditions of any project approval. Adherence to these measures and existing
federal, state, and local regulations will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant
level.
Though most sites require further environmental analysis to identify if contamination
exists, at the Quarry Creek site, contamination is known to exist and cleanup efforts are
ongoing. The Former South Coast Quarry Amended Reclamation Plan Draft
Subsequent EIR (Draft EIR), the CEQA document prepared for the reclamation of the
Quarry Creek site, describes soil and groundwater remediation efforts underway. The
Draft EIR notes that cleanup is anticipated to occur prior to or during site reclamation;
this means that remediation would be complete before residential development of the
site. Because remediation is being conducted according to all applicable requirements,
the Draft EIR includes no additional mitigation measures with regards to hazardous
materials. Further, the Draft EIR concludes that all remediated soils would remain on site
and there would be no hazards associated with their redistribution on the site.
The MND acknowledges the Draft Housing Element may allow (and in that sense
facilitate) residential construction, including mixed use development and emergency
shelters, on sites known to be on the Cortese List. The MND also notes active or past
hazardous materials cleanup sites in Carlsbad primarily occur in commercial and
industrial areas. Accordingly, appropriate mitigation measures have been proposed.
Furthermore, areas proposed for density increases already (1) are designated for
residential uses, (2) permit residential and residential/commercial uses (the Village
Redevelopment Area), (3) conditionally permit residential/commercial uses (the City's
commercial zones), or (4) have completed the environmental review (Ponto) that
analyzed the uses contemplated by the Draft Housing Element.
As the MND notes, city staff has reviewed the California Environmental Protection
Agency's Cortese List data - resources
(http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/default.htm) and the federal
Environmental Protection Agency's CERCLIS Database and Superfund Site Information
list website (http://epa.gov/superfund/sites/cursites/index.htm). The federal government
identifies no active cleanup sites in Carlsbad. The State Water Resources Control Board
listing of cleanup sites per the Cortese List website identifies many locations in Carlsbad,
most in its industrial and commercial areas; where cleanup of hazardous materials is
completed or underway. Many of these are related to leaking underground tanks and
gasoline spills, and many cleanup operations shown are closed rather than open, active
efforts.
It is speculative to determine site-specific remediation requirements, including
acceptability of a site for a particular use or the timeframe for clean-up, until a
development application is submitted and the need for any remediation is determined.
Any remediation plans or timetables to address contamination are the responsibility of
the County Department of Environmental Health and Regional Water Quality Control
Board. Other involved agencies may include the City of Carlsbad, the Air Pollution r-j QQ
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 20Qy COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page 11
Control District, and the California Environmental Protection Agency. Mitigation
Measure HM-9 anticipates this and is adequate to address actual or potential
contamination issues that may arise with development facilitated by the Housing
Element.
City staff disagrees with the commenter's assertion that "there are no requirements to
mitigate, just to test." The specifics of mitigation measures HM-1 thru HM-9 clearly
require otherwise.
H. Hydrology/Water Quality
25. Comment noted. Mitigation Measures WQ-1 to WQ-4 ensures a project's compliance
with all standards promulgated to ensure water quality. Projects facilitated by the Draft
Housing Element will comply with these measures; furthermore, once project details are
known, these mitigation measures may be refined, supplemented or replaced by more
appropriate, specific measures.
26. According to the Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan (2008), Clean Water Act Section 303(d)
listed waters in the Carlsbad watershed include the following: the Pacific Ocean
shoreline at the mouth of Buena Vista Creek and Moonlight State Beach (located in
Encinitas, CA), Buena Vista Lagoon, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and the Agua Hedionda
Creek. These waters currently do not meet established water quality standards.
Implementation of Draft Housing Element programs may result in significant impacts
associated with the listed impaired water bodies. However, compliance with the water
quality mitigation measures WQ-1 to WQ-4 would reduce any impacts to less than
significant.
The Former South Coast Quarry Amended Reclamation Plan Draft Subsequent EIR
(Draft EIR), prepared for the proposed reclamation of the Quarry Creek site, states in
Section 4.3 on Hydrology and Water Quality "...existing surface and groundwater quality
within the [Quarry Creek] site and vicinity is assumed to be generally poor. This
conclusion is based on...surface water monitoring data from up- and downstream
waters, the largely urban nature of the associated watershed, and the presence of
groundwater contaminates related to previous [underground storage tanks] within the
site." Locations where monitoring data was collected include Buena Vista Lagoon and
Buena Vista Creek just east of the Quarry Creek site.
The Draft EIR also notes "....historic and current surface water quality monitoring has
been/is being conducted within the Buena Vista Creek watershed in association with
local/regional water agency programs and requirements under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and related Municipal Storm Water Permit
requirements. Specifically, these efforts include bioassessment studies and ambient
lagoon/bay monitoring conducted pursuant to the NPDES Municipal Permit beginning
with the 2001/2002 storm season, as well as bioassessment studies conducted by the
RWQCB between 1998 and 2002. In addition, quantitative sampling was conducted
along Buena Vista Creek (among other locations) in 2002 under the State Surface Water
Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP)."
With regards to hydrology and water quality, the Draft EIR concludes "... proper
implementation of the proposed project design measures and conformance with all
applicable regulatory/industry standards would avoid or reduce all associated hydrology
and water quality impacts below a level of significance before mitigation."
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 200d COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SAis DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page 12
27. Mitigation Measure WQ-4 adequately addresses the need for a hydrology study. The
measure states: "As required by the City Engineer, a hydrology report to assess impacts
relating to drainage and stormwater runoff shall be prepared. The report shall
demonstrate compliance with current applicable hydromodification standards and
demonstrate adequate capacity in downstream storm drain facilities, or shall
demonstrate no increase in runoff peak flows through onsite detention." With regards to
downstream waters, see also Response 26 above.
28. See Response 25 above. The commenter notes no hydrological tests have been
performed to substantiate the effectiveness of Mitigation Measures WQ-4 to ensure
water quality. Such tests can only be performed after a project is built.
The Draft Housing Element, a program level policy document, does not propose the
physical development of any site. As discussed in the MND, subsequent environmental
review and CEQA compliance will be required for both the implementation of proposed
Housing Element programs and for any future development projects facilitated by the
Draft Housing Element.
I. Mandatory Findings of Significance
29. The commenter misstates this section's conclusions. For each mandatory finding of
significance, city staff has recommended a finding of "potentially significant unless
mitigation incorporated," rather than "potentially significant" as the commenter suggests.
The latter suggests impacts that cannot be mitigated.
The analysis and conclusion provided for the mandatory findings of significance serve
two purposes: First, to explain why the Draft Housing Element, with recommended
mitigation, does not have cumulative impacts. Second, to respond to questions and
demonstrate the Draft Housing Element will not (1) result in substantial adverse impacts
to specific aspects of the natural environment (e.g., reduce the number of a rare plant);
(2) eliminate an important example of a major period of the state's history or prehistory;
and (3) cause substantial adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly.
For both purposes, the responses in the mandatory findings of significance section rely
and build on the analysis and findings contained in the rest of the MND. Throughout the
section, the reader is referred to relevant parts of the MND for additional and sometimes
more comprehensive information. The section on mandatory findings of significance was
not written as a stand-alone component of the MND. Therefore, when the commenter
questions how and why an impact can be mitigated to a level of no significant impact,
the commenter needs to refer to the applicable environmental impact discussion section.
J. Noise
30. Regarding the noise environment in and around Quarry Creek, the existing noise
conditions at the Quarry Creek site include noise impacts from the adjacent State Route
78, an adjacent Kohls and Wal-Mart shopping center, and nearby College Avenue.
Although undeveloped, Quarry Creek is located in an urbanized area with large numbers
of existing residences located to the south of the site and across State Route 78 to the
north. Additional residential development in Quarry Creek would not significantly impact
the ambient noise levels of the surrounding area.
Characterizing Quarry Creek as "currently open, undeveloped land" as the commenter
does is misleading. Almost half the 100 acre property has been significantly disturbed by
decades-long hard rock mining that ceased in 1995. The effects of mining, along with * \ J (J
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 2009 COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page 13
various related structures, site modifications, and dirt roads remain. Furthermore,
remediating contaminated soil and groundwater and recycling of construction materials
at Quarry Creek continue.
Regarding construction impacts at Quarry Creek to sensitive species such as the least
Bell's vireo, coastal California gnatcatcher, and raptors, the noise study in the Former
South Coast Quarry Amended Reclamation Plan Draft Subsequent EIR (Draft EIR)
found that mitigation measures that avoid construction during the breeding season of the
sensitive species listed above would mitigate this significant noise impact to a less than
significant level. The Housing Element MND proposes similar mitigation measures;
therefore it is reasonable to suggest that noise impacts on sensitive species will be
mitigated to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure BR-4 prohibits construction
activities during the breeding season for sensitive bird species.
Mitigation Measure N-1 requires applicable future residential projects to prepare a noise
impact study. If projects include large recreation or gathering areas, this noise impact
study may include an analysis of noise generated by these areas. As no development is
proposed by the Housing Element, a noise study submitted with future projects is
necessary to identify and mitigate these potential impacts.
It is also important to note the HMP designates portions of the Quarry Creek property as
"development area" and the General Plan shows portions of the site as suitable for
residential development.
31. Comment noted. This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a
program-level document (the Draft Housing Element). The Draft Housing Element does
not propose the physical development of any site. As discussed in the MND,
subsequent environmental review and CEQA compliance will be required for both the
implementation of proposed Housing Element programs and for any future development
projects facilitated by the Housing Element.
See Response 30. While not directly relevant to the MND on the Draft Housing Element,
the commenter might be interested to know that the Former South Coast Quarry
Reclamation Plan EIR found that construction noise impacts to sensitive species could
be mitigated to a less than significant level. Therefore, if a future residential project were
proposed on the same property it is reasonable to suggest that noise generated by its
construction could also utilize similar measures to mitigate construction noise impacts to
a less than significant level.
Though Quarry Creek is uninhabited, it is part of a larger highly urbanized area and is
located immediately adjacent to State Route 78, which generates significant ambient
noise. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that a future residential project in Quarry
Creek would not significantly increase the ambient noise levels of the area.
K. Population and Housing
j
32. Staff disagrees with the assertion that the increased densities proposed for the Quarry
Creek site "alone would directly induce substantial growth in the area." First, present
General Plan land use designations would allow up to 165 housing units; as proposed in
the Draft Housing Element, the maximum number of units would increase by
approximately 335, or a total 500 units. Second, the extension of Marron Road is already
planned by the General Plan Circulation Element; its extension would not open an area
to unanticipated development. Third, the Quarry Creek site is in an urbanized area and
adjacent on three sides to commercial uses, residences, roads, and a freeway.
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 2009 COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page 14
The MND determined a "No Impact" finding for population and housing because, as the
MND explains, the Draft Housing Element considers additional housing opportunities
within the limits of the policies of the General Plan Land Use Element and Growth
Management Plan. Though the Draft Housing Element includes programs proposing
residential density increases and residential mixed-use in commercial areas for
purposes of meeting the RHNA for lower and moderate income housing, the Draft
Housing Element does not propose policies to facilitate housing beyond the total
dwelling units anticipated by the City's existing General Plan and Growth Management
Plan.
33. None of the programs or policies in the Draft Housing Element would displace either ~
substantial numbers of existing housing or persons. Draft Housing Element proposed
programs that propose and encourage increased densities for residential and mixed use
projects, such as in the proposed Barrio Area and the Village Redevelopment Area, may
result in demolition of housing units. However, these units would be replaced by new
housing, either as a stand-alone residential product or, as permitted by applicable
regulations and policies, in combination with commercial uses. Furthermore, sites
identified in Program 2.1, such as Quarry Creek and the proposed Barrio Area, are
consistent with the SANDAG Regional Comprehensive Plan's objectives of developing
smart growth areas as a way to accommodate additional housing in an efficient,
compact, and resourceful manner.
34. Environmental review, in the form of a certified Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR,
Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan, cited as a supporting information source in the
MND), was completed for the Ponto area in 2007.
Staff disagrees that the Ponto or Quarry Creek projects would induce substantial growth.
See Response 32 above for further information.
35. Both the Bridges at Aviara and La Costa Town Square projects are addressed in the
MND. For example, see "Private Proposals" under the Environmental Review section of
the MND project description. Subsequent to the preparation of the MND, the La Costa
Town Square project was approved by the Carlsbad City Council. However, the portion
of the project counted by the Housing Element for high density housing was deleted by
the City Council.
With regards to the Bridges at Aviara proposal, as indicated in the MND project
description, an environmental impact report is currently being for the project. In addition,
the Bridges project proposes amendments to the General Plan and other regulatory
documents as needed to provide the land use designation, density, and housing unit
numbers as identified in Draft Housing Element Table 3-4. Accordingly, the MND notes
no subsequent environmental review will be necessary for this project.
At a minimum, projects still pending completion of environmental review will comply with
all applicable mitigation measures identified in the MMRP and/or they will comply with
equal or better mitigation measures specifically developed as each project progresses.
36. It is unclear as to what mitigation measures the commenter is referring. It is also unclear
what the substantial evidence is to support the commenter's claim that "...there may be
significant environmental impacts to population and housing and the proposed mitigation
measures do not reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance." To the contrary, staff
encourages the commenter to read Responses 32 and 33 above, and Responses 44
and 45 under Section O., Cumulative Impacts.
f^J**v
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 20ud COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SAiM DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page 15
L. Public Services
37. The Housing Element plans for housing opportunities to meet the RHNA within the
dwelling unit limits of the General Plan and Growth Management. Even though
Carlsbad's population will continue to grow in the future creating additional demands for
public services, through Growth Management, these services have been anticipated and
planned for. These public services will be provided as the population grows independent
of whether the Housing Element is approved or not, as the City has not yet reached build
out. The Housing Element itself does not cause a significant public services impact
because the need for these services does not originate with the policies of the Housing
Element. As future public facilities are constructed, they will be subject to CEQA
environmental review.
The letter asserts there is a cumulative impact on public services due to continual
population increases over time. However, Growth Management regulations set a finite
limit to the number of dwelling units that may be constructed in the city. At build out,
planned public service ratios will meet Growth Management standards. As the number
of dwelling units will not increase, any population increase due to natural increase or in-
migration would be negligible and as such, any impact to public services after build out
would be less than significant.
38. Comment noted. This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a
program-level document (the Draft Housing Element). The Housing Element does not
propose the physical development of any site. As discussed in the MND, subsequent
environmental review and CEQA compliance will be required for both the implementation
of proposed Housing Element programs and for any future development projects
facilitated by the Housing Element.
Zone 25 is the only remaining Local Facility Management Zone in Carlsbad that is
undeveloped and where all public facilities needs are not known. Prior to development
in Zone 25, a Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) must be adopted that plans for
the provision of services for Zone 25 in compliance with the adopted Growth
Management standards. The Housing Element does not propose development in Zone
25, and until such time, public services needs will remain unknown. If and when
development is proposed, a future LFMP for Zone 25 will identify necessary public
facilities needs, and environmental review pursuant to CEQA will be performed at that
time. Implementation of Mitigation Measure PS-1 will mitigate environmental impacts to
a less than significant level because development in Zone 25, and the associated
construction of any necessary public services, will not be permitted without an LFMP and
thorough environmental review pursuant to CEQA.
39. See Response 28 above.
M. Transportation/Traffic
40. Comment noted. This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a
program-level document (the Draft Housing Element). As discussed in the MND,
subsequent environmental review and CEQA compliance will be required for both the
implementation of proposed housing element programs and for any future development
projects facilitated by the housing element. For sites listed in the Draft Housing Element
Program 2.1, land use changes are necessary to develop at the densities proposed by
the Housing Element, but these land use changes are not a part of the Draft Housing
Element. The Housing Element does not propose the physical development of any site,
and future project details are unknown at this time, therefore project-level environmental
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 20Ud COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SAiM DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page 16
analysis is not appropriate for the Housing Element. Future actions by either the City or
a private developer would be necessary to develop at densities proposed in the Housing
Element, and these actions will be subject to CEQA.
Complex traffic studies and modeling at the project-level are required in order to
determine where potential road segments and intersections are impacted by a project,
and whether impacts are significant and mitigation is necessary. The Housing Element
does not contain project-level details to assess the type and magnitude of traffic impacts.
41. Comment noted. This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a
program-level document (the Draft. Housing Element). For projects that may generate -
traffic in excess of a certain level, a traffic report is required not only for identification of
mitigation measures, but also for identification of the specific impacts that may result
because of the project. The requirement for a traffic report is an appropriate level of
mitigation for a program level project. Mitigation Measure T-1 is the necessary first step
in a proposed mitigation program for the Housing Element. Future identification of
specific impacts through project-level environmental analysis provided in a traffic report
would yield evidence of specific impacts as well as appropriate mitigation, if any is
required.
N. Utilities and Services
42. The impact identified in Item A of the Utilities and Services Systems section of the MND
involves stormwater runoff and whether it meets the water quality requirements of the
Regional Quality Control Board. Please see Response 43 below. The only impacts
identified in items B - D that are considered significant relate to Local Facility
Management Zone 25, for which no Local Facility Management Plan (LFMP) has been
prepared. Development in Zone 25 without an LFMP would be considered a significant
impact with regard to utilities and services; however, preparation of an LFMP would
mitigate these impacts to a level of less than significant, as stated in Mitigation Measure
PS-1. Furthermore, approval of an LFMP for Zone 25 and any associated utility
improvements would be subject to CEQA. However, note that the issue of whether
construction of new storm drain facilities or expansion of existing facilities will cause a
significant impact requires project level analysis, and the Draft Housing Element is a
program level document. Details of future development projects and their need for storm
drain facilities is currently not known, but would be identified in an LFMP.
All water and sewer districts serving Carlsbad have indicated they have sufficient
existing and planned capacity to serve the number of housing units in Carlsbad's RHNA.
This includes any density increases required as part of Draft Housing Element Program
2.1 on Adequate Sites.
43. Contrary to that stated in the letter, the capacity of EWA is adequate for the number of
housing units in Carlsbad's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The
completed EWA Phase V Expansion provides sufficient capacity to accommodate the
build-out of the General Plan and the number of units allowed by Growth Management,
and therefore can accommodate the RHNA as well.
However, with regard to water quality of stormwater runoff, the Housing Element
recognizes that for construction on an undeveloped site, there exists the possibility that
significant impacts could occur if mitigation is not incorporated into a project. Note that
this comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a program-level
document (the Draft Housing Element). When project details are known, Mitigation
Measure USS-1 requires that any future project facilitated by the Housing Element /y
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 20uy COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SAiM DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page 17
prepare a SWPPP that includes BMPs to prevent water quality impacts resulting from
polluted runoff.
O. Cumulative Impacts
44. While wide ranging, it appears the thrust of this comment regards the potential impacts
to adjacent habitat and sensitive species a project built on the Quarry Creek site may
have. Accordingly, the commenter is referred to responses provided in Section C., Air
Quality; Section D., Biological Resources; Section H., Hydrology and Water Quality; and
Section J., Noise. Regarding cumulative impacts, the commenter is referred to the
response below.
45. Contrary to the commenter's assertion, the MND has adequately considered and
demonstrated that implementation of Draft Housing Element programs, incorporating
recommended mitigation measures, would not have cumulatively considerable
environmental impacts. The reader is referred to the MND's section on Mandatory
Findings of Significance, which discusses cumulative impacts. That section is also
summarized below.
SANDAG projects regional growth policies for the greater San Diego area and local
general plan land uses are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based on these
projections, region-wide standards, including but not limited to, storm water quality
control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, and congestion management
standards .are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the
region. City regulations are consistent with the region-wide standards.
For example, the North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan was designed to
compensate for the loss of biological resources throughout the program's region;
therefore, projects that conform to the MHCP, as specified by the City's HMP, would not
result in a cumulatively considerable impact for those biological resources adequately
covered by the program.
Furthermore, as discussed in the MND's Air Quality section, Draft Housing Element
policies will not provide for housing beyond that accounted for in SANDAG's regional
plans and thus, are within the scope of regional air quality management plans. While
future projects will contribute to regional emissions, those emissions have already been
accounted for in regional planning efforts. Additionally, mitigation measures are included
herein to reduce to less than significant the short term air quality impacts that occur
during construction.
Overall, the City's standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality
and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resources protection
regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that future development within the City
will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. Mitigation measures are
included herein to ensure projects comply with all applicable standards.
y
Conclusion
46. Comment noted. Staff acknowledges the potential for housing constructed pursuant to
Draft Housing Element programs, if implemented, to have environmental impacts.
However, as demonstrated in these responses and the MND, the recommended
mitigation measures are adequate to reduce potential impacts to a level of
insignificance.
CALIFORNIA INDIAN LEGAL SERVICES
Escondido Office
609 South Escondido Boulevard, Escondido, CA 92025 y Phone 760/746-8941 y Fax 760/746-1815
www.calindian.org y contactCILS@calindian.org
EUREKA . MicheleFahley, Staff Attorney BISHOP
ESCONDIDO 760/746-8941, Ext. 121 SACRAMENTOmfahley@calindian.org
June 29.2009
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Mr. Scott Donncll. Planner
Carlsbad Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsad, CA 92008
Re: Comments on MND 2005-2010 Housing Element; GPA 03-02
Dear Mr. Donnell:
These comments are submitted by California Indian Legal Services on behalf of the San
Luis Rey Band of Luisefio Mission Indians ("San Luis Rey Band" or "Tribe"), regarding the
Housing Element ("Element"). The San Luis Rey Band is a San Diego County Tribe whose
traditional territory includes the current cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Vista. Escondido and
Bonsall, among others. The San Luis Rey Band is concerned about the preservation and protection
of cultural, archaeological and historical sites within the area affected by the proposed Element.
The Tribe understands that the Element itself is simply a "paper" project: however, the Element will
determine where Carlsbad will focus its efforts to meet the housing Element. The Band's concerns
are focused on the particular properties that are mentioned in the Element.
The San Luis Rey Band is concerned about the protection of unique and irreplaceable
cultural resources and sacred sites which may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed Element
and subsequent projects. The Band held two SB 18 consultations with the City on March 16 and
31. As you know, the Band is very concerned about identifying the Quarry Creek site as potentially
meeting the City's housing needs. The Band believes that any development in this area will harm
irreplaceable cultural resources. The site is home to a sacred site, many cultural sites and unique
natural features.2
In addition, the entire valley from the El Salto Falls to the ocean is considered a ''cultural
corridor'' by the Band and has traditionally, historically and contemporaneously been an area of
significance for Luisefio peoples. As such, the Tribe does not agree that the Quarry Creek site is
appropriate for meeting Carlsbad's housing element. The Band again urges the City to remove the
Quarry Creek site from its \\sl of sites identified for use to meet the City's housing element.
In addition, because of the site's significance, the Tribe disagrees with the MND's I
conclusion that there are potentially significant impacts, unless mitigated. The Band firmly believes 3
Comment Letter to Scott Donnell
Re: Draft 2005-2010 Housing Element
June 29. 2009
Page 2
that impacts to the Quarry Creek site cannot be mitigated. While this particular Element does not
directly impact the site, it opens the door for future development, which will directly impact the
area. The MND should be revised to indicate that there are indeed potentially significant impacts.
The Element fails to adequately consider the impacts to identified sites should development occur to
meet the City's housing needs. The MND does not address this issue, even though the Tribe spent
several hours with City staff discussing their concerns.
In regard to the other areas identified in the Element, the Band did discuss concerns with the
City during die SB 18 consultation. Those'areas as well may have important cultural resources that
could be impacted by future development. Therefore, as the MND correctly notes, any individual
project must have its own environmental assessment to determine how, if at all. impacts on cultural
resources may be impacted. The Band will comment separately on any environmental review.
However, the Band would also request that tribal representatives be involved in the creation of any
environmental review document, including the initial study and preparation of cultural resource
surveys.
We look forward to working with the City to guarantee that the requirements of the CEQA
are rigorously applied to this project. We thank you for your continuing assistance in protecting our
invaluable Luiseno cultural resources.
Sincerely,
CALIFORNIA INDIAN LEGAL SERVICES
Michele Fahley
Attornevs for the San Luis Rey Band
Melvin Vernon, Tribal Captain
Carmen Mojado. Secretary of Government Relations
251
Response to June 2b, 2009 Comments by California Indian t.egal Services
On
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Draft 2005-2010 Housing Element
(Note: The number of the response below corresponds with the comment identified by the number in the
right margin of the comment letter)
1. Comment and concerns noted.
2. Comment noted. Staff acknowledges consultation with the Band, as required by SB 18
(Government Code 65352.3). This consultation concluded in March 2009. City staff
recognizes Carlsbad's rich cultural (and paleontological) resources, including those at
Quarry Creek. For this reason, the Draft Housing Element's environmental assessment
includes mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3) to ensure (1)
sites with known and potential resources are properly surveyed and monitored during
construction and (2) resources are evaluated and protected as necessary.
Staff is aware Quarry Creek is a property with not only cultural but also biological
resources as well. Hillside, creek, and riparian portions of the site are already in-
protected open space and the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan establishes
standards in recognition of its natural habitat for the property's preservation and
development. Quarry Creek has also been extensively mined for decades such that
approximately half of the 100 acre site has been disturbed. Appropriately, the HMP
recognizes a portion of the site is suitable for development. Considering its significant
amount of disturbed acreage and proximity to transit, major roads, and services, Quarry
Creek is a fitting location for increased residential density as the Housing Element
proposes.
3. As evidenced in the Draft Housing Element's environmental assessment, and as noted
in the response to comment 2 above, staff believes significant impacts to cultural
resources, whether at Quarry Creek or elsewhere, are mitigable. The mitigation
measures proposed are typical of projects throughout Carlsbad.
Contrary to the comment, the Draft Housing Element does not "...open the door for
future development..." The Quarry Creek site is already designated for residential
development in addition to open space preserve and already has been significantly
disturbed by mining. Furthermore, the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) does
acknowledge the presence of potentially significant cultural resources at Quarry Creek
and other Carlsbad locations, which is why the MND includes mitigation measures as
described above.
4. Staff notes that some housing sites identified in the Housing Element, such as Ponto
and Bridges at Aviara, have completed or are currently undergoing environmental
review. The San Luis Rey Band is already on the Planning Department mailing list to
receive notices of intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative
declaration. Staff will also add the Band to its mailing list for notices of preparation of an
environmental impact report. Such notices are also published in local newspapers,
posted on the City's website, and available through a free email subscription service the
City provides. The cbmmenter is also likely to receive notices through the state Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for those projects which affect the interests of
state agencies and are routed through the State Clearinghouse.
Furthermore, by law, the City must directly contact California Native American tribes
when it proposes any general plan amendment. General plan amendments are needed
for several sites identified by Draft Housing Element programs, such as Quarry Creek.
The city-initiated contact begins the formal consultation process described in the
commenter's letter and noted in Response 2 above. ^ pi<!
EXHIBIT 4B
Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 2009 Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
Chairperson Montgomery asked Mr. Neu to introduce the first item.
1. GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT - Request for a recommendation of
adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a recommendation of approval for a
General Plan Amendment to adopt the update and revisions to the General Plan Housing
Element for the 2005-2010 Housing Cycle as required by the California Government
Code.
Mr. Neu introduced Agenda Item 1 and stated Senior Planner Scott Donnell would make the Staff
presentation.
Chairperson Montgomery opened the public hearing on Agenda Item 1.
Mr. Donnell gave a detailed presentation and stated he would be available to answer any questions.
Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any questions of Staff.
Seeing none, Chairperson Montgomery opened public testimony.
The following speakers spoke in opposition to the Housing Element, citing numerous issues with the
Quarry Creek site:
Walt Meier, 4332 Stanford Street, Carlsbad
Wendy Hinman, 2080 Basswood Avenue, Carlsbad, representing the Historic Preservation Commission
Virginia Unanue, 1413 Denise Circle, Oceanside, representing the Carlsbad Historical Society
Amy Johnsgard, 7313 Basso Court, San Diego, from Environmental Law Clinic representing Diane
Nygaard
Clint Engleson, 4968 Longbranch Avenue, San Diego, from Environmental Law Clinic representing Diane
Nygaard
Bob Eggers, 5810 Riley Street, San Diego, from Environmental Law Clinic representing Diane Nygaard
Anne Hallock, 1701 Tamarack Avenue, Carlsbad
Shelley Hayes-Caron, Marron Adobe, Carlsbad
Penny Johnson, 1360 Hillview Court, Carlsbad
Mel Vernon, 1044 N. Escondido, representing the San Luis Rey Band of Indians
Prashant Bhat, 911 Rosemary Avenue, Carlsbad
Diane Nygaard, 5020 Nighthawk, Oceanside, representing Preserve Calavera
Don Christiansen, 3715 Longview Drive, Carlsbad, representing the Buena Vista Valley Coalition
Karen Merrill, 6901 C Quail Place, Carlsbad, representing Preserve Calavera
Dennis Huckaby, 2319 California Street, Oceanside, representing the Buena Vista Audubon Society
Joyce Gammon, 270 Juniper Avenue, Carlsbad and 3258 Pearl Lane, Oceanside
The following speakers spoke in opposition to the Housing Element, citing numerous issues with the
Bridges at Aviara site:
Katherine Nikias, 1675 Calliandra Road, Carlsbad
Ralph Williams, 1665 Docena Road, Carlsbad
De'Ann Weimer, 6606 Fiona Place, Carlsbad
Julie Leader, 1696 Amant Court, Carlsbad
Victoria Scully, 1683 Calliandra Road, Carlsbad
Mary Jane Jagodzinski, from Community Housing Works, spoke in favor of the Housing Element including
the Bridges at Aviara site.
Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 2009 Page 3
Ann Gunter, from the Lightfoot Planning Group representing Hanson Aggregates, clarified some issues
regarding the Quarry Creek site and the agreement that is in place for the remediation and reclamation of
the site.
Brian Milich, representing Corky McMillin Company, 2750 Womble Road, San Diego, responded to issues
raised by the public regarding the Quarry Creek site and answered questions from the Commission.
Chairperson Montgomery asked if there were any further members of the audience who wished to speak
on the item. Seeing none, he closed public testimony.
RECESS
Chairperson Montgomery called for a 10 minute recess at 8:40 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Montgomery called the meeting to order at 8:53 p.m. with all Commissioners present.
Chairperson Montgomery asked Staff to respond to the issues brought up during public testimony.
Mr. Donnell stated the Housing Element is policy document. It does not approve any type of housing. It
will not result in the construction of housing at Quarry Creek or anywhere else in the city. It simply
establishes a framework the city may follow at some point in time. The Housing Element will not change
any existing open space designations that currently exist in Carlsbad. Staff concurs that El Salto Falls
and Buena Vista Creek Valley are sites that contain sensitive resources; therefore, the Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) contains a number of measures that ensure that development at Quarry Creek, or any
site in Carlsbad, has to go through the proper processes and deal with the appropriate agencies to
ensure those resources are dealt with. The Housing Element is looking at issues at a much broader,
higher level rather than at a project specific level.
Regarding the comment from the Environmental Law Clinic concerning outdated data, Mr. Donnell stated
that data provided for the Housing Element is typically produced prior to its adoption. If adoption of the
Housing Element for this current cycle would have occurred in 2005, the data for that Housing Element
would have been valid through the end of the cycle, which would be 2010. The City is relying on data that
was developed generally from the time period from 2003-2006. That is acceptable to the Housing and
Community Development Department (HCD), and they have in fact determined that the City's Housing
Element would substantially comply with state law.
In Staffs opinion, the Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate, and the various impacts that were
identified are considered at a program level and the mitigation measures are adequate.
Mr. Donnell stated that a major thrust of the Housing Element is its programs to provide adequate sites.
The city is obligated to provide a certain amount of land to accommodate a certain number of housing
units. Staff is aware that state law does require housing sites identified in the Housing Element to be
adopted and complete within the housing cycle. Staff has made an effort to complete the Housing
Element within a reasonable time frame. It has, however, been held up by a number of issues including
the difficulty in identifying adequate sites. Nevertheless, The state's Housing and Community
Development Department has still recommended that the City's Housing Element can be certified. State
law does recognize that cities may not adopt programs to provide adequate sites within the housing cycle.
If that were to happen, there are penalties in place. Mr. Donnell further stated sites identified will be
needed in this housing cycle or for the next housing cycle. Deleting any sites from the Housing Element
would further delay the Housing Element.
Regarding the Bridges at Aviara project, that development would occur with or without the Housing
Element. The affordable component of that project is required by the city's Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance as were the other affordable housing developments in the general area around the Bridges
25 H
Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 2009 Page 4
proposal. Alternative sites to Quarry Creek have been looked at within the city, particularly throughout
the industrial core, but there are too many restrictions to site high density housing in that area. Finally, as
made clear in the MND and the mitigation measures, any impact that is anticipated would be mitigated
satisfactorily.
Ms. Mobaldi stated CEQA does provide that a city must do the level of review that can be done based
upon the information available. When there is a program such as this, both the case law and the statutes
recognize that a city may not be able to do review at the level of detail that could be done for a specific
project. Ms. Mobaldi stated that with the program, staff has done the review based on the information
that is available at this time, and identified mitigation measures based on the impacts that have been
identified, which are feasible because the mitigation measures are already provided for in existing
programs, ordinances or standards. So the mitigation is not speculative or remote as was suggested.
Commissioner Douglas asked staff to respond to the comment regarding spot zoning. Mr. Donnell stated
that comment was in regards to the Bridges at Aviara project. He stated that is an area that is already
designated as residential. Whatever type of residential project is built at that site, it will still be required to
provide Inclusionary Housing. In regards to it being spot zoning, that is not relative to the Housing
Element, but rather when the specific project comes before the Planning Commission. Commissioner
Douglas asked about traffic congestion around the Bridges at Aviara site as well as the Quarry Creek site.
Mr. Donnell stated those issues would be addressed in the appropriate environmental document for each
site. Commissioner Douglas further asked if, in the Housing Element, the city concerns itself about lack
of financing for affordable housing at this time. Mr. Donnell stated financing for affordable housing is a
concern. There is an analysis of city funds available to do things such as purchase land for affordable
housing projects and to assist developers so they can provide affordable housing. It is an item the city
needs to demonstrate to the state that the city has adequate abilities and to verify whether the availability
of financing is a constraint or an opportunity. Commissioner Douglas asked about hazardous soil, water
and vapor at the Quarry Creek site as well as the lateness in the delivery of the Housing Element. Mr.
Donnell stated that bringing the document to the Commission at this late stage in the housing cycle is
simply a reflection of the difficulties in finding sites to accommodate the city's Regional Housing Needs
Assessment. It also reflects the difficulties the city has had with the environmental review as well as
questions about the city self-certifying the document.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if the Department of Environmental Health issued a concurrence letter
on the CAP for the remediation site. Mr. Donnell deferred the question to Ms. Gunter or Mr. Milich.
Commissioner Dominguez asked about the inventory of public property throughout the city of Carlsbad.
Mr. Donnell stated that as part of AB 2348 the city is required to inventory available residential land. By
and large the properties that the City owns or the water district owns are not residentially designated.
Doing a survey of the land that the city owns will reveal that the majority of the sites are set aside as open
space, are for park purposes or for some type of utility purpose. Based on that analysis, it is Staffs
opinion that the city does not have an abundance of surplus land that can be made available for
affordable housing.
Commissioner Douglas asked about the value of the property at Quarry Creek. Mr. Donnell stated the
adoption of the Housing Element does not confer any entitlements to the Buena Vista Creek Valley
property. Commissioner Douglas asked about the property along Avenida Encinas across from the train
station. Mr. Donnell stated that vacant property is under a deed restriction which limits the use to waste
water treatment and recycling. The property could still be considered for another use however. The
general manager of the water treatment center indicated that in the future there could be land available
for some use other than waste water treatment. It would require an agreement of all member agencies to
the change.
Commissioner Nygaard stated the Housing Element does not guarantee that housing would be built
during the life of the document. Mr. Donnell stated that was correct.
Chairperson Montgomery directed the Commission's attention to Chapter 6 which includes the goals,
policies and procedures of the Draft Housing Element.
Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 2009 Page 5
Chairperson Montgomery asked Staff to discuss the siting methods used throughout the city for the
Housing Element. Mr. Donnell stated the siting methods are based on General Plan policies that
establish where higher density housing can locate in the city. The Housing Element proposes to
distribute throughout the city higher density sites at such areas as Quarry Creek, the Barrio, shopping
centers along El Camino Real, the Bridges at Aviara site and other areas in La Costa.
Chairperson Montgomery clarified that the 3,500 units required by the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment have been distributed throughout the city. Mr. Donnell stated that was correct. Chairperson
Montgomery asked what methodology was used for the distribution of those units. Mr. Donnell stated that
in addition to the General Plan policies, sites need to be determined to be compatible at a higher density
in an existing neighborhood. In some instances staff also contacted property owners to determine if the
property owners were interested in possibly changing the zoning on their property to allow a higher
density.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if any property owners declined increasing their zoning designations.
Mr. Donnell stated there were a few that stated they were not interested at the time.
Commissioner Baker stated she agrees with adding additional units to downtown, the Barrio and at the
various shopping centers. She stated the appropriate time to discuss issues such as zoning at particular
sites like Quarry Creek and the Bridges at Aviara would be when a specific project is before the
Commission.
Commissioner L'Heureux asked for clarification regarding Ms. Hallock's comments concerning the timing
of the Housing Element. Mr. Donnell stated that he is aware of the requirement that sites should be ready
during the housing cycle or by June 30, 2010; however, state law recognizes that cities are not always
able to accomplish that due to difficulties associated with properties. Because of that, built into Housing
Element law, is the recognition that in some cases properties that a Housing Element identifies, if they
cannot be completed within the cycle, it is acceptable subject to the city recognizing that certain penalties
are associated with it. The city is aware that state housing law indicates that if a city cannot complete its
sites re-designation, it is required to update its Housing Element more frequently. It is potentially subject
to a lawsuit because of that. Commissioner L'Heureux asked that if by including Quarry Creek in the
document knowing those laws, if the Commission is subjecting the entire plan to perhaps invalidation.
Ms. Mobaldi stated that there was testimony about the fact that if there is contaminated soil it can be
removed; it can actually be removed now and replaced with clean soil. Ms. Mobaldi stated she feels the
Quarry Creek site could potentially be ready sooner rather than later if a development proposal came
sooner than the remediation is completed, but she is not sure if that would be the case. Commissioner
L'Heureux stated the question the Commission is being forced to recognize is to approve a document that
includes a site that has a probability of being disqualified. The site is really critical to the functioning of
the entire document, and without it, the Housing Element does not work. Ms. Mobaldi stated the timing is
unknown, and housing element law recognizes that not all the programs that are adopted are necessarily
going to be successful. As a city renews its Housing Element at each cycle, the city goes back and looks
at what was done in the previous cycle, whether those programs were accomplished, and if they were
not, the city needs to adjust its program accordingly. Ms. Mobaldi advised the Commission to get more
clarification regarding whether or not the Quarry Creek site could be utilized prior to the time all the
contamination is removed. Commissioner L'Heureux stated that he is concerned that if the 500 units from
that site are removed from the Housing Element, the City knows that it would be difficult to locate another
site to accommodate those units. Ms. Mobaldi stated she understands his concerns and stated that is the
issue Staff has wrestled with in trying to identify sites and to make sure the sites are available at least in
time for development proposals on those sites.
Commissioner Douglas stated there is a letter from HCD which states the Draft Housing Element
complies with state housing laws. Mr. Donnell stated HCD has already seen the draft element and have
stated it complies with state housing laws including the Buena Vista Valley site.
25G?
Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 2009 Page 6
Commissioner L'Heureux asked what the effect of the tentative approval. Mr. Donnell stated that many of
the issues raised during the meeting have been raised previously. For example, the Housing
Commission took this up in 2007 and concerns about Quarry Creek were expressed then. Staff at HCD
is aware of the concerns at Quarry Creek (Buena Vista Creek Valley). The letter that HCD gave to the
city in November 2008 recognizes Quarry Creek. It also states that if the Housing Element adopted by
Council matches what the state reviewed, then HCD believes the Housing Element can be certified. This
element is substantially the same as what the state reviewed. Commissioner L'Heureux stated his
concern is that he did not see anywhere else where that specific issue was addressed that forcefully
indicated there was a legal impediment to including Quarry Creek as part of the Housing Element. Mr.
Donnell stated there is an environmental discussion in Section 4 of the Housing Element which
specifically identifies that a reclamation plan is underway and that there is contamination of soils.
Commissioner L'Heureux stated he did not find in the Housing Element what the implications would be if
the site were not ready by a certain date. He stated he is concerned that the City will go through this
process and there is the possibility that it can be thrown back in the city's face. Commissioner L'Heureux
asked what the city's options are if that happens. Assuming that happens, Mr. Donnell stated if the state
disqualifies that property, or another property, then the city would be required to find a replacement site.
Mr. Donnell stated the city would have to go back and do another inventory of available properties and try
to find another way to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment to make up those 500 units.
Commissioner L'Heureux asked if the city has ever done that in which no other properties are found to
qualify. Mr. Donnell stated this is the first time in the city's history where Carlsbad is approaching
buildout. With the previous housing cycle approved in 2000 based on data from the late 1990's there was
still available land. State law has also been revised since the last housing cycle making it much more
difficult for cities to meet their affordable housing needs, which is why the city has produced the site
inventory which is a new state requirement. Commissioner L'Heureux asked if any other cities have
faced this same dilemma. Mr. Donnell stated he is not aware but this exact issue of finding adequate
sites is everyone's bone of contention.
Commissioner Baker asked if cities get already existing communities to accept higher densities then the
cities can leave the bigger available lands used for things such as agriculture and open space alone. Mr.
Donnell stated that was correct.
Mr. Neu commented about the timeliness of the Housing Element. In response to Commissioner
L'Heureux's comment regarding available options, Mr. Neu stated the primary option would be if the city
could go back and find another site, or sites, to account for the difference in units. Mr. Neu stated that
Staff has done that exercise and so far have been unsuccessful. The other roadblock is the practicable
deadline of having a certified Housing Element for this housing cycle at all. The new law states that in
March of the coming year, if the city does not have a Housing Element in place, the city will not have an
element. There are cities, for whatever reason, that do not adopt an element but those cities run the risk
of not having a legal General Plan. Mr. Neu stated Staff has done everything to get to the point of having
a certified Housing Element. If the Commission were to send Staff back to find replacement sites, the
concern would be if the documents could be revised, determine any impacts to the CEQA document, and
return to the Commission in time to make the March 2010 deadline. Mr. Neu further stated that during the
CEQA review and the criticisms of the city's earlier environmental document took 5 or 6 months for Staff
to respond. Another option would be to take General Plan categories and significantly increase them
beyond what the General Plan currently allows.
Commissioner L'Heureux asked if the Commission would be looking at a change in the character of the
City, not only in density but in height, in massing, and in bulk, if the 500 units were "shoehorned" into
existing areas that have been identified outside of Quarry Creek. Mr. Neu stated that could happen. The
types of structures that can be built to achieve the allowed density under the current plan are in keeping
with what has historically been seen in the city. Mr. Neu further commented that even in the Quarry
Creek, the city is not talking about developing 100% of the site. As with the Habitat Plan, there are
percentages of the site that have to be preserved. It is really trying to find a balance on the site of the
preservation of the important resources. The areas Staff was focusing on for development are areas that
are already impacted by the quarrying activities, and there was still additional acreage.
257
Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 2009 Page 7
Commissioner Dominguez asked about the final net increase of units at the Quarry Creek site. Mr.
Donnell stated the current designation allows for 165 units so there is a net increase of 335 units. Mr.
Neu also stated that although Staff is not looking at the details of any specific project, there are a variety
of different product types that you can develop to achieve the densities, and developers will come forward
with a product type they believe will be sellable when a project is ready for the marketplace. There will be
a fair amount of attached products but there will also be the potential for some detached products. Mr.
Neu stated that Staff is trying to demonstrate to the Commission there is a feasibility to accommodate
units, a variety of ways to achieve it, and various locations to place the units. Commissioner Dominguez
asked if it would be difficult to make the changes to the draft Housing Element and actuate it prior to the
March 2010 deadline if the Commission agrees there is viability in this approach. Mr. Neu stated that it
could be done but it would be difficult. Commissioner Dominguez commented the Commission is
struggling to try and find alternatives. Mr. Neu added that while the Housing Element may forecast a
certain number of units on a particular site, when a particular project comes before the Commission or
City Council, they may find the number of units to be inappropriate. Staff may also, in reviewing a project,
come to the same conclusion. The challenge at that point, if a density cannot be achieved, will be a
shortfall of units that will need to be reallocated to a different location which could cause Staff to
concurrently amend the Housing Element.
Commissioner Schumacher asked what the total number of proposed units is the City needs to have in
order to comply with the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, without any density bonuses proposed by
developers. Mr. Donnell stated 3,566. Commissioner Schumacher further asked if it was possible that
the City could get to 80% buildout and have density bonuses which put the City at 100% of the 3,500
units. Mr. Donnell stated that for purposes of the Housing Element, the City has to show sites to
accommodate 3,566 units, and the City cannot rely on density bonuses. Commissioner Schumacher
asked if the Housing Element is approved in its current form, and the process is repeated in 5 years with
the City at 80% buildout, it is only an estimate, it is then possible that 3,500 can be achieved. Mr. Neu
stated the general concept of a site building more units on it than was anticipated through a density
bonus, it would then reduce the demand elsewhere. Commissioner Schumacher asked if future projects
would then be adjusted. Mr. Neu responded that the current General Plan, consistent with some of the
state findings Staff needs to make, if the City allows a project to develop under what the General Plan
designation allows for, Staff has to show that by allowing the project to do so would not preclude the City
from obtaining the number of units the City needs to reach. The City has done that on some development
projects with the rationale that if the project is developing a unit or two short; those units are "deposited"
into the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank under Growth Management. Those units can be reallocated to
another project if it needs it in the future. Commissioner Schumacher stated that the Commission's
recommendation of approval to the City Council of this document is a forecast. These numbers are
based on a formula which is difficult to predict. Mr. Neu commented that are many variables, and this is
the City's attempt to show that it can accommodate the required number of units. There are many things
that will change during the life of a Housing Element. Commissioner Schumacher asked how close the
3,566 units puts the city in reaching the goal of the 54,000 units identified in the current General Plan as
the city's number of units allowed at buildout. Mr. Donnell stated in 2001 or 2002, the City Council took
action to reduce the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank by 3,100 units, which in effect reduced the cap from
54,600 to roughly 52,000. The city would still be under the cap with the 3,566 in the programs necessary
to achieve that.
Commissioner Douglas reminded the Commission about the recently approved La Costa Town Square
project in which the Commission approved the project with an increased density which the Council did not
approve. Those units were removed from the current total number. Commissioner Douglas asked if
more units could be added to the Barrio area because it seems like a natural area for increased densities.
Mr. Neu stated Staff did include the Barrio Area in the Housing Element. Staff, however, has been trying
to work within the density ranges in the current General Plan. One of the challenges in the Barrio area is
that there is a pattern of smaller lots. The smaller the lot, even if the math works out for a higher density,
it becomes difficult to achieve once Staff begins working with the development standards. At this point,
Staff was trying to work with a density they felt could be achieved and what seemed reasonable. Mr.
Donnell stated the estimates identified in the Housing Element for the Village area and Barrio area are
conservative. Staff had to subtract the existing units from a piece of property in which Staff felt a higher
Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 2009 Page 8
density could be achieved. While Staff is estimating the yield from the Barrio to be 330 units that is only
after selecting certain properties that Staff felt could redevelop and after subtracting any existing units on
that property.
Chairperson Montgomery asked if the City is projecting to achieve even further units in the future. Mr.
Donnell stated yes. Chairperson Montgomery asked if any units are eliminated with this Housing Element
would then further exasperate the issue of trying to figure out where to place the units in the future. Mr.
Neu added that Staff spent time reviewing the SANDAG land use maps of the city to not over count the
vacant land, to show all the land that is preserved habitat, and land that is committed to another use.
One of the factors used in determining the number of units is the amount of vacant land available. In the
current forecasting process, the City was able to cut about 3,000 units from the SANDAG maps based on
that review in terms of what is feasible on the property that is available. Staff has also taken other steps
to try and minimize future issues.
Ms. Mobaldi stated the City runs a risk without a valid, certified housing element. The city can become
subject to legal challenges. Theoretically, a developer can propose very high densities and without a
valid Housing Element, a court could say that the proposal cannot be denied because it is not consistent
with the General Plan because the City would not have a valid General Plan.
Commissioner Baker stated the Commission is not approving any development and it is not saying yes or
no to any future projects.
Commissioner L'Heureux commented the Commission is struggling with the issues, and acknowledges
Staff has done a phenomenal job in evaluating the sites. The Housing Element is a city-wide document
and not focused on two particular sites.
Chairperson Montgomery asked for a motion to continue the meeting past 10:00. Commissioner Douglas
motioned to continue the meeting past 10:00 p.m. with a vote of 7-0.
Commissioner Dominguez pointed out to the Commission that Section 6-8 of the document references
the deadline for the sites identified in the Housing Element to be ready as October 2009, with the
exception of the Quarry Creek site. Mr. Neu commented that Staff is aware of the penalties and
acknowledged Commissioner Dominguez's concerns; however, there are benefits of having an approved
Housing Element such as making the city more competitive through SANDAG for different funding
sources.
Commissioner Douglas asked about homeless shelters, emergency shelters and transitional housing.
Mr. Donnell stated that for emergency shelters and housing for the homeless, there is a program that
requires the city to amend its industrial designations to permit emergency shelters. Presently the city's
Zoning Ordinance is silent on that aspect. The only emergency/homeless shelter the city has is La
Posada. Under the proposed program, the City would amend the zone in which La Posada is located to
permit such shelters by right. Because of the restraints on the industrial areas, such as CC&Rs
prohibiting residential uses, and residential restrictions prohibiting large assemblages of people, there are
limited areas where an emergency shelter can be built in the city. Commissioner Douglas asked about
transitional and supportive housing. Mr. Donnell stated that although he is not an expert, those types of
housing, by state law, have to be located wherever multiple family housing is located. Debbie Fountain,
Housing and Redevelopment Director, stated that supportive housing is typically incorporated into multi-
family housing. Transitional housing is typically service oriented housing geared towards the homeless
where tenants move from a homeless situation into temporary type of housing and then transition into
permanent housing. The City does not currently have a transitional facility for family housing but does
participate in a program located in Vista where Carlsbad financially participated and then families'
transition into permanent housing in one of the affordable housing complexes in Carlsbad. La Posada
does serve as a transitional type of housing facility but it is only for men. Commissioner Douglas asked if
there are any facilities for women. Ms. Fountain stated the city does not currently have a facility in
Carlsbad for women. Commissioner Douglas further asked about farm worker housing. Ms. Fountain
Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 2009 Page 9
stated the city does not currently have a site set up strictly for farm workers although La Posada does
serve farm workers and that facility is looking to expand.
Chairperson Montgomery asked about the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank and how it fits within the Housing
Element. Mr. Donnell stated it will be significantly drained to implement the programs of the Housing
Element and it is adequate to support the proposed programs but most of the units would be utilized to
implement the programs.
Commissioner Dominguez asked for clarification regarding the Excess Dwelling Unit Bank and proposed
increases in densities. Mr. Donnell stated the Excess Dwelling Unit will not be completely drained, but
the City does need a majority of those units to enable the programs in the Housing Element.
Commissioner Douglas asked if the highest density proposed in the Barrio area is 50 units per acre. Mr.
Donnell stated the highest density being proposed for the Barrio is 28 units per acre.
Chairperson Montgomery asked about the Barrio and if there will be a specific plan to help guide the
development for that area. Mr. Donnell stated that is something Staff does foresee happening for that
area so that it is a cohesive type design and everything is well thought out. Chairperson Montgomery
asked if that is something which is currently happening or if it is only a thought for the future. Mr. Neu
commented that the City has had a draft plan submitted by a group that was interested in doing just what
was described; however, it was not submitted as a formal plan so it is not something Staff is currently
working on. Staff has received direction from the Council that would have Staff consider that area early
on in the Envision Carlsbad process or perhaps have Staff do separate work on it concurrently with the
Envision Carlsbad process. Mr. Neu stated that a challenge that could present itself could be pressures
from different areas of town for things to happen while the Envision Carlsbad process is going on at a
city-wide level.
Commissioner Douglas asked how much funding would be lost if there is not a certified Housing Element.
Mr. Donnell stated roughly a couple hundred thousand dollars on average per year from SANDAG. Ms.
Fountain commented there was a Workforce Housing Grant totaling about $500,000 which we obtained
when we had a certified Housing Element. The other issue that can come into play with the City not
having a certified Housing Element, particularly in redevelopment areas, the City would not be able to find
compliance with creating or amending redevelopment areas.
Commissioner Nygaard stated it is really important for the Commission to move forward with this as
quickly as possible.
Commissioner Dominguez asked if existing incremental funding for the redevelopment area would be
impacted by the City not having a certified Housing Element. Ms. Fountain stated that currently it would
not be effected, but if the City were to try to receive additional funding that had criteria to add to existing
funding for affordable housing or other types of programs, the City might not eligible for additional funding
due to a lack of a certified Housing Element.
Commissioner Dominguez stated the document does facilitate future development and it does facilitate
future environmental impacts and that is why the Mitigated Negative Declaration is required.
Chairperson Montgomery inquired about the direct environmental impacts and if it forces more property to
be set aside at the Quarry Creek site. Mr. Donnell stated that any development that occurs at Quarry
Creek will be subject to the Habitat Management Plan and the Open Space designation that is already on
the site. There are limitations in place to ensure that habitat is preserved and development is confined.
In addition, any development that occurs next to a habitat preserve, there are various adjacencies
standards that have to be met. The idea of that is to mitigate the impacts that people might have by living
close to habitat. Mr. Donnell stated that when you look at the preserve area and realize that it preserves
the creek and connects to the Sherman property, the connectivity that is desired is achieved.
Chairperson Montgomery asked if the Housing Element document would limit the Commission in any way
of constraining that property and any future decision the Commission makes. Mr. Donnell stated that
Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 2009 Page 10
during the project review, it would be within the Commission's purview to make any modifications as
deemed necessary and to recommend to the City Council. When the City or a developer comes back
and proposes a re-designation of the current land uses on the site, if those re-designations are approved,
that would establish minimum densities. If a project is proposed based on those re-designations and if
the Commission were to approve a density below the allowable density, then the Commission would have
to demonstrate that those units could be made up elsewhere. A future re-designation of the property may
have future implications for approving a lesser density in order to provide perhaps more open space.
Conversely, one could argue that the units could be clustered if they were removed from part of the
property to provide more open space, thereby increasing density elsewhere. However, Mr. Donnell
stated it is purely speculation until the Commission has a project before them for approval.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Baker thanked Staff for their hard work. She stated this document does not convey
development rights. It is something that has to be done for the state of California and she can support the
Housing Element.
Commissioner L'Heureux thanked the public for bringing up all of the issues regarding the Housing
Element and potential development in the city. He feels Staff has done an exhaustive job with the
document. He stated he can support the document.
Commissioner Nygaard stated she can support the document. She commented that the city needs to do
it whether the Commission likes it or not. This is a feasibility forecast. She thanked Staff for their hard
and extensive work. She also thanked the public for coming out and voicing their opinions.
Commissioner Schumacher also thanked the community for stating their concerns, and he stated his
support for the document.
Commissioner Dominguez also thanked Staff as well as the public. He feels there is enough uncertainty
regarding the Buena Vista Creek development and other areas that he cannot support the document.
Commissioner Douglas commented on the beauty of the site and hopes that the Commission can achieve
some sort of balance. She agrees that the Staff has done a great job and she understands the City's
obligation to the state.
Chairperson Montgomery stated that the City's obligation to the state is enough to garner his support of
the document.
MOTION
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Schumacher, and duly seconded, that the Planning
Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 6547 recommending
adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt Planning Commission
Resolution No. 6548 recommending approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA
03-02) based on the findings contained therein.
VOTE: 5-2
AYES: Chairperson Montgomery, Commissioner Baker, Commissioner L'Heureux,
Commissioner Nygaard and Commissioner Schumacher
NOES: Commissioner Dominguez and Commissioner Douglas
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chairperson Montgomery closed the public hearing on Agenda Item 1 and thanked Staff for their
presentations.
Planning Commission Minutes November 18, 2009 Page 11
COMMISSION COMMENTS
None.
PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMENTS
None.
CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
By proper motion, the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of November 18, 2009, was
adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
DON NEU
Planning Director
Bridget Desmarais
Minutes Clerk
EXHIBIT 5Ai
Staff: Scott
Senior
Item. 3STo. X
FEBRUARY 12, 2009
SUBJECT: GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT - Request for a
recommendation of approval to adopt the update and revisions to the
General Plan Housing Element for the 2005-2010 Housing Cycle as
required by the California Government Code.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Housing Commission ADOPT Housing Commission Resolution No. 2009-001
recommending APPROVAL to the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of
Carlsbad of General Plan Amendment GPA 03-02, based upon the findings contained
therein.
II. PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Housing Commission received a staff report and resolution on the 2005-2010 Draft
Housing Element on January 8, 2009. After receiving public testimony, the Housing
Commission continued the item to its February 12, 2009, meeting. The staff report for the
January 8 meeting is attached.
Staff has revised Housing Commission Resolution 2009-001 to reflect the February 12,
2009, meeting date.
III. EXHIBITS
1. Housing Commission Resolution 2009-001
2. January 8, 2009 staff report on GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 Draft Housing Element
EXHIBIT 5Aii
ERRATA SHEET FOR ITEM #1
February 12, 2009
TO: HOUSING COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Scott Donnell, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: GPA 03-02 DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Below, staff has recommended minor text changes to the draft 2005-2010 Housing
Element. Bold words indicate recommended new text and strikethrough words indicate
recommended deleted text.
1. Section 1, Introduction
a. Page 1-4:
E. HCD Review
While the City of Carlsbad is eligible to self-certify its Housing Element, the City
has elected to submit the 2005-2010 Housing Element for HCD review to ensure
the City's eligibility for affordable housing programs. :Fhe Draft Carlsbad Housing
Elements were was-submitted to HCD in August 2007, June 2008, and September
2008. Comments were received from the State HCD on the City's Draft Housing
Elements in (HGB letters dated October 25,2007, August 4,2008, and November
21,2008). The November 21 letter from HCD states "the revised draft element
addresses the statutory requirements described in the Department's August 4,
2008 review." This Housing Element, dated December 2008, is consistent with
the revised draft element described in HCD's November 21 letter and
represents a revised document in response to both State and other public comments
received during the 60-day public review periods that occurred with each
submittal of the draft element to HCD.
2. Section 6, Housing Plan
a. Page 6-5:
Program 1.5: Preservation of At-Risk Housing
One project - Seascape Village - within the City may be considered as at risk.
This project has deed restrictions on 42 units that are set to expire January 1,
2009. The City will monitor the status of projects such as Seascape Village
that may be at-risk, ensure tenants receive proper notification of any changes
and are aware of available special Section 8 vouchers, and contact nonprofit
housing developers to solicit interest in acquiring and managing at risk
projects.
b. Page 6-7:
Program 2.1: Adequate Sites
• [fifth bullet point] Residential projects and mixed use projects with residential
components within the Village Redevelopment Area shall be developed at
minimum densities equal to 80% of the maximum of the density range. For
land use districts 1 - 4 (density range of 15 - 35 units per acre), as specified in
the Carlsbad Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual,
80% shall be 28 units per acre. For land use districts 5-9 (density range of 15
- 23 units per acre), 80% shall be 18 units per acre. Furthermore, the
City shall approve modifications to development standards of the Carlsbad
Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual if a project
satisfactorily demonstrates as determined by the City that such modifications
are necessary to achieve the minimum densities.
c. Page 6-16:
Program 3.6: Land Banking
The City will continue to implement a land banking program to acquire land
suitable for development of housing affordable to lower and moderate income
households. The Land Bank may accept contributions of land in-lieu of housing
production required under an inclusionary requirement, surplus land from the City
or other public entities, and land otherwise acquired by the City for its housing
programs. This land would be used to reduce the land costs of producing lower and
moderate income housing developed undertaken by the City or other parties.
The City has already identified a list of nonprofit developers active in the region.
When a City-owned or acquired property is available, the City will solicit the
participation of these nonprofits to develop affordable housing. Affordable
Housing Funds will be made available to facilitate development and the City will
assist in the entitlement process.
EXHIBIT SAiii
Minutes of: HOUSING COMMISSION
Time of Meeting: 6:00 P.M.
Date of Meeting: February 12,2009
Place of Meeting: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Smith called the Meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Ritchie led with the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners: Emelda Bradwell
Craig Kirk
Doris Ritchie
Bobbie Smith
Hope Wrisley
Absent: None
Staff Present: Housing and Redevelopment Director: Debbie Fountain
Senior Planner: Scott Donnell
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of January 8, 2009, were approved with one correction on page 5, paragraph 5, line one, delete
the first "in the way."
VOTE: 4-0
AYES: Bradwell, Wrisley, Kirk and Smith
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Ritchie (absent from meeting)
ABSENT: None
ITEM NOT ON AGENDA
There were no items that were not on the agenda.
NEW BUSINESS
Debbie Fountain, Director of Housing and Redevelopment, presented the item on the agenda which is the
2005 to 2010 draft Housing Element. On January 8, 2009, the draft Housing Element was presented to
the Housing Commission. We had a report presented at that time by staff and our consultant, and our
consultant unfortunately couldn't be with us tonight. The staff planner on this project, Scott Donnell, is
here tonight, and he will be making a short presentation for you to go over where we are at. At the last
meeting there was a decision to close the public testimony at that time, and the intent was the Housing
Commission wanted to think about all the testimony it had received that evening and not make a decision
and give you more time to think about it and to review the issues. After Mr. Donnell makes his
presentation, we will turn the meeting back to you Madam Chair and if the Commission wishes to reopen
the testimony, you can have that discussion with the Commission at that time and take a vote as to
whether or not you would like to reopen the testimony. There are a couple of people who have contacted
our office and indicated they were interested in speaking tonight and providing you with some additional
information. That is up to the Housing Commission at this point as to whether or not you would like to
reopen that public testimony.
Scott Donnell, the staff planner, said he briefly wanted to go over what will be covered in tonight's
presentation. We will first of all recap the meeting at which you last heard this item on January 8, 2009.
HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 12,2009
PAGE 2 of 13
We will also take some time to respond to the public comments as well as the Housing Commission
comments that were raised at that meeting, discuss the Errata you have been provided already, provide
you with staffs recommendation as well as the anticipated review schedule once the Housing Element
finishes its review by you. There is some updated information regarding the review I would like to share. I
would also like to mention, for the public's benefit, there is some information in the Council's Chambers
foyer that is available to them including a couple of handouts that have been provided by both McMillin
Homes and Hanson regarding the soil remediation that is occurring there as well as some general
development information, zoning land use, etc. that has been provided by McMillin. We have also
provided a Housing Element site study map that we'll cover in more detail later in this presentation. Also
provided in the back are both copies of the Errata you already have as well as copies of the slides.
I would like to briefly recap the meeting. The primary purpose of the January 8, 2009, meeting was to
introduce you to the Housing Element, its contents, and go over the requirements of the State Housing
Law, what cities and counties in California are obligated to do. At that meeting we also spent a large
amount of time talking about the growth projection, the Regional Share Housing Needs Assessment that
Carlsbad must deal with and how that impacts our Housing Element programs. We also discussed the
ramifications of not adopting a Housing Element; how that may eventually lead to the city being unable to
issue permits for development. No Housing Element also penalizes the city in being less likely to apply for
certain grants through the San Diego Association of Governments. We concluded our presentation in
January with a recommendation.
There were a number of public comments, as you probably remember, as well as comments from the
Housing Commission itself. Those comments focused on two areas; one had to do with site selection,
and the other focused on the Quarry Creek property. We will discuss both of those later. The public
comment period was closed as Ms. Fountain mentioned, and the meeting was continued to tonight.
I would like to respond to the first primary point of the comments raised on January 8, 2009, and that has
to do with the site selection. I would like to lay the ground work for why we are where we are in terms of
recommending programs and up-zoning of certain property in Carlsbad. First of all, the government code
establishes that the availability of housing is of statewide importance as a mandate that is passed down
from the state to all counties and cities in California. That can take many forms. It can be in the form of
providing emergency shelters, providing housing for the elderly, providing farm worker housing, but in this
case it takes the form also of accommodating or providing enough units for expected growth in Carlsbad.
The growth projections estimate that Carlsbad needs to provide nearly 8,400 units in the 2003 to 2010
timeframe. Fortunately, that included a very busy time in Carlsbad's growth and we have been able to
reduce that number through the construction of units by about 5,000. It does leave a need that still needs
to be fulfilled even though we have that original growth projection of about 8,400 units subtracting the
5,000 units that have been constructed; we still have a need of 3,566 homes. The growth projections are
broken down by income category. Those 3,566 homes that Carlsbad needs to provide are for the lower
and moderate income family categories.
The State Department of Housing and Community Development, which reviews our Housing Element,
says that providing homes to families in those income categories must be at specific densities. In
Carlsbad those specific densities are 12 units to the acre for moderate income families and 20 units to the
acre for lower income families. We do not actually need to require these units be built. The city does not
have to act as a contractor. We instead simply need to make sure that we have land and programs and
densities that are adequate to accommodate those 3,566 homes. Some of the problems with doing that
are: Our existing land use policies per our General Plan are inadequate based on our General Plan Land
Use Map to date; we don't have the land or the densities to accommodate 3,566 homes. That is largely
because we have a lack of appropriately located vacant land. Carlsbad for the most part is primarily built
out; residentially speaking, we are probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 85 to 90% of our
residential build out.
Another limitation or criteria that is important for selecting sites to accommodate that lower and moderate
income housing need is the General Plan. The General Plan contains a number of policies which dictate
where it is appropriate to locate higher density housing or multifamily housing. Both higher density and
HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 12,2009
PAGE 3 of 13
multifamily are considered appropriate for moderate and lower income families. The land designated for
these densities needs to be near commercial centers, employment centers, major transportation corridors,
parks, amenities, shopping areas, and community facilities. There is also another policy that encourages
residential uses to be located in commercial areas to take advantage of that close and living opportunity
and convenience to shopping. When we look at all the criteria, the fact we have a limited amount of land,
the fact that our General Plan dictates where multifamily and higher density uses can go, we end up with a
site selection study that really is limited in terms of the options Carlsbad has.
You have been provided a map as part of your packet that simply shows the different sites that Carlsbad
both selected and rejected in terms of being part of our Housing Element. If you take a look at the upper
left corner of the map, you will see there are call outs for three areas; one the Beach Area Overlay,
another the proposed Barrio Area, and the third is the Village Redevelopment Area. These are all
appropriate infill areas. They are close to major transportation corridors, they are near shopping, they are
near amenities, they are appropriate places to locate moderate and lower income housing. Indeed, our
Housing Element does have programs which recognize these three areas in particular as great places to
do just that. Other sites called out on this map that are part of the Housing Element include Quarry Creek
near the upper part of the photo as well as various locations throughout Carlsbad, either along the coast
such as the Ponto Area or down toward Encinitas in the La Costa area. This map also shows sites the
City considered but rejected and the most prominent feature of this map is the central portion of Carlsbad
around the McClennan-Palomar Airport area. The airport is labeled as well as a large area that indicates
the flight activity zones of aircrafts as they approach the McClennan-Palomar Airport. It is not appropriate
to locate residential areas in that yellow hashed area. Because of the airport's location, because of safety
hazards and noise concerns, the General Plan says the area around the airport is most appropriate for
industrial land uses. It is not the type of location that is suitable generally for residential uses. Because of
that, staff did not include any properties within the industrial areas. I should mention that besides
constraints caused by the airport, there are also constraints due to the industrial uses themselves, which
might employ chemicals or processing or manufacturing techniques that would be inappropriate or
perhaps unsafe for residential uses. That is probably a reason why the majority of properties in our
industrial areas have restrictive CC&R's that actually prohibit residential uses. What this Housing Element
site study map also shows are the locations of existing affordable projects in the city like Cassia Heights or
Villa Loma or Mariposa in the Calavera Hills area. If you look at the locations of those sites, you will
realize that generally by and large they are all located along major transportation corridors, close to
shopping, and close to employment corridors just as the General Plan requires.
On this map the portion of protected open space has been added. The purpose of showing this slide is to
emphasize the lack of land which is truly available for residential construction today. Any area you see in
a shade of green is protected open space, either protected by easement or zoning or General Plan
designation. It is unavailable for development. Any vacant land that is left in Carlsbad today that you
might see driving around has generally been set aside as open space or is in a location staff feels is
inappropriate for higher density construction. There are a few sites in the central part of the city that we
did consider and did believe would be appropriate for lower and moderate income housing; those are the
Kelly property, the Tabata El Camino property, and also the Basin BJ property. We would agree these are
appropriate locations; however, due to constraints, due to the site simply not being ready, constraints due
to access, or unwillingness of the property owner, they were not included in the Housing Element. That is
background on how the city arrived at the certain sites such as the beach area overlay, the Village area
and also Quarry Creek and why we consider them to be appropriate as part of our Housing Element.
The second part of my response to comments I wanted to cover is staffs response to comments raised
regarding Quarry Creek in particular. First of all, we do have a program in our proposed Housing Element
that designates the 100 acre Quarry Creek property for 500 units of housing on approximately 32 acres of
land. I want to be clear that the land to which the Housing Element refers is the property on which the
mining has taken place. It is outlined in yellow and pointed out by the yellow arrow on the slide. Staff
believes there are many advantages to the Quarry Creek site, and we have listed some of the reasons
why we believe it is appropriate for moderate and lower income housing. About 50% of the 100 acre
property has been disturbed by past mining. The current General Plan now designates the property or 70
acres of the property for residential use. The location complies with General Plan criteria in terms of being
HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 12, 2009
PAGE 4 of 13
close to shopping, employment centers, as well as transportation corridors. It has also been designated
by SANDAG as a potential smart growth site in recognition of its location. As provided in the handouts to
you, the remediation of soils to remove contaminants about which comments were raised at the last
meeting is being addressed. One bullet point that is not provided on this slide is that the zoning for the
property is for residential as well as manufacturing uses. Other comments on the Quarry Creek site to
respond to issues raised, and this is provided to give you some background Information on the open
space aspects of Quarry Creek. There are environmental constraints that our General Plan recognizes
that any developer has to accommodate; for example, certain steep slopes need to be preserved, areas of
sensitive habitat need to be preserved, our General Plan currently calls out that 30 acres of the Quarry
Creek site is designated as open space. That open space designation simply cannot be changed. In fact,
our General Plan says for open space areas any change to the boundaries of such must not decrease the
amount or the quality of the land that is protected by the current open space designation. We also, in our
Growth Management Plan, designate that at least 15% of the developable area of a facility zone be set
aside as open space. A facility zone has not been adopted for Quarry Creek, but as part of the process to
change the land use designation as staff recommends, that facility zone will be adopted and will call out
where this 15% additional open space will be located.
Finally, the Quarry Creek area has already been mapped in terms of habitat preservation through our
Habitat Management Plan has identified the Quarry Creek Property as a proposed hard-line conservation
area.
I would like to talk about the Errata that has been provided to you. This Errata simply proposes for minor
changes to the text of the Housing Element, mainly to bring the Housing Element or portions of it up to
date with the review that has occurred through the Housing and Community Development process. It also
amends a couple of programs to clarify city efforts towards preserving at-risk housing and clarifying
certain standards that regard only the Village as well as finally eliminating some unnecessary words, some
misspellings in the Housing Element. None of the changes proposed in the Errata are substantive and no
sites are affected.
Our recommendation, therefore, is approval of the Housing Element update which actually takes the form
of a General Plan amendment. We also recommend that your action tonight include reference to the
Errata. Your recommendation will be forwarded to Planning Commission and City Council and it is the
City Council that makes the final decision. I would like to update the Housing Commission as well as the
audience regarding the review schedule. Presently the environmental document on the Housing Element
is out for public review and will be for another two weeks. The Planning Commission hearing date is
tentatively set for April 1, 2009. We expect sometime thereafter the City Council will hear this item as well.
Finally, after the City Council, assuming it does adopt the Housing Element, staff will provide that Element
to the state for certification; the state has 90 days to do that. Subsequently to that, of course, we will be
holding additional hearings to actually implement the programs that are adopted in the Housing Element.
Ms. Fountain said that is all staff wanted to share with the Housing Commission tonight. At this time, it will
be turned back over to the Housing Commission. As mentioned earlier, if you do wish to reopen the public
testimony, that will be the first item we would ask you to consider tonight and discuss and take a vote if
you would like to do that. Also, you may want to discuss how long you are willing to give each speaker if
you are willing to reopen the public testimony. There is at least one member of the public that has a
presentation longer than five minutes.
Chairperson Smith asked the members of the Housing Commission if they are willing to reopen the public
testimony at this time.
Commissioner Wrisley said she would be willing to reopen the public comment period if we can be
assured that the comments that are made are not things that were already said the last time. We listened,
we listened well and we don't want you to go over the same points again. The information we were given
tonight looks like mainly it is on the MPBE remediation, and I think that is irrelevant in what we are trying to
decide tonight. Yes, we want the remediation done, we want it done correctly, but I don't know that has a
HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 12,2009
PAGE 5 of 13
whole lot to do with what our decision would be. If we can be assured that it is new information, I would be
willing to reopen public testimony.
Commissioner Kirk said he too is in favor of additional public testimony providing that it is new information
and relevant information. I agree the remediation is certainly something that is of concern. I believe it is
being addressed. I believe it is not our position to address that here. So if your testimony is regarding
that, from my perspective as well, that is not pertinent to this particular decision we will be making tonight.
That is an ongoing effort and it is being completed by the necessary commissions, boards and
organizations. Other than that, I am certainly in favor of hearing additional new and relevant testimony.
Commissioner VVrisley moved that we reopen public testimony.
Commissioner Kirk seconded that we would reopen public testimony.
VOTE: 4-1
AYES: Bradwell, Kirk, Smith and Wrisley
NOES: Ritchie
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Chairperson Smith asked if there is anyone in the audience who would like to provide new information for
the Housing Commission to listen to, please come up to the microphone and give your name and address
and limit your comments to five minutes please.
Good evening, my name is Casey Cinciarelli and I live on Lyons Court in the northeast quadrant of
Carlsbad. I do think the issue of contamination is pertinent, particularly to this Commission, because the
way the decontamination schedule has been running, there is probably no need to have this in the current
Housing Element and here is why: I am going to present to you the documented information on the history
of contamination and the ongoing remediation efforts at the Hanson America site proposed for 500 low
and moderate income houses. It is fully documented in the pages of the packet you have been given.
That documentation was found in the files at the San Diego County Land and Water Control Division of
the US Department of Environmental Health. It shows the extent of contamination at the site and reveals
the continuing efforts to remediate the contamination. This began in August of 1998 when eight
underground storage tanks were removed after leaking 86,000 gallons of hydrocarbons, primarily diesel
fuel and gasoline, into the soil. From August 1998 to December 1999, Kleinfelder Engineering made
borings to determine the area of hydrocarbons in the soil. From March 2001 to February 2003,
Environmental Business Solutions established 17 monitoring wells and began monitoring the
hydrocarbons in the ground water, which is an underground aquifer. In April 2004, Brown and Caldwell
Engineers began quartering monitoring of the ground water using monitoring wells placed at the edge of
the hydrocarbon plume. In September 2004, Brown and Caldwell submitted their corrective action plan to
the San Diego County's division of Department of Environmental Health. The plan outlines aggressive
remediation of hydrocarbons in the soil and ground water. It states that remediation would be completed
by June 2007 when property ownership would be transferred for redevelopment. The plan recommends
removal of the contaminated soil offsite, not natural attenuation in situ. The carcinogenic hydrocarbon
MTBE and the ground water will be remediated with ozone sparging to comply with the requirement of no
more than five micrograms per liter. MTBE and the soil must be remediated to no greater than five
micrograms per kilogram. The community was notified that two carcinogens are present on site. The
plan estimates completion of the remediation in eleven months, by February 28, 2006, to be followed by
one year of verification of the final acceptable MTBE levels in the ground to end September 15, 2006. In
January 2005, Brown and Caldwell submitted their interim remedial action plan to the Department of
Environmental Health. Ground water will be remediated by sparging an estimated 550 pounds of ozone
with the system operating 24 hours per day. They state the completion of remediation will meet the June
2007 deadline. From July 2005 to March 2006, excavated soil stock piled 43,000 cubic yards of soil in 21
piles on site of proposed Marron Road extension. Ten thousand, five hundred cubic yards of soil
contaminated with MTBE recovered with plastic sheeting. They began monitoring the biopiles passive
bioremediation. /n May 2006, they installed 16 ozone sparge wells to remediate MTBE in the ground
270
HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 12, 2009
PAGE 6 of 13
water. In September 2006 to January 2007, there began pilot tests using ozone sparge system. In
January 2007 there began formal remediation of MTBE using the ozone sparge system. In October 17,
2008, Brown and Caldwell submitted their report summarizing their September 2008 ground water
monitoring at Hanson America. From January 2007 to September 2008, about 21 months, 850 pounds of
ozone had been aggressively sparged 24 hours per day into the ground water to remediate MTBE. They
submitted the results of 15 monitoring wells tested in September 2008. Thirteen monitoring wells still
contained MTBE, and in 11 of the 13 MTBE levels in the ground water remain above five micrograms per
liter, ranging from 8.1 to 480 micrograms per liter. Remediation of the contaminated ground water
continues to this day and the biopiles of contaminated soil continue their passive remediation. I confirm
there is fuel contamination at the site. I confirm that contamination soil is covered, is being bioremediated,
and at present, this is the site of the proposed 500 low income housing units and it is still contaminated.
The remediation completion date is unknown.
Chairperson Smith reminded the audience to please limit their comments to five minutes.
My name is Penny Johnson and 1 live at 1360 Hillview Court in Carlsbad. I have been a resident for 31
years at that address. I had an interesting experience in August of 2008. I went down to the SANDAG
meeting in San Diego when the Quarry Creek site was going to be discussed. They were rather taken
aback because of the 200 sites on the smart growth plan, this was the largest response they had ever
had to any of the sites that Quarry Creek should not be built on. If there were that many responses, they
did not tell us the number, they just said it was the largest response they have ever had to any smart
growth site plan. Perhaps you do need to take another look at it. The smart growth designation by
SANOAG sounds very officious; however, what I found out at the meeting was, at least it was not
knowledge to me, that SANDAG does not designate the areas of smart growth, they only confirm the area
when and if it is sent to them by the cities' planning commissions. They have no power over the site being
put on or taken off the smart growth map. Those who were there were told that we needed to go back to
the city and because of the responses that they did get, that it certainly seemed proper to look at this site
again given the large response that they did have to not build on Quarry Creek. So it is up to you to make
the proper choice and according to those responses that SANDAG received, it seems the choice would be
rather clear.
My name is Carl Souza and I live at 3621 Vista Campana South in Oceanside. I am a retired industrial
hygienist, which deals with the field of science that is developed for people dealing specifically with
hazardous chemicals and materials that can affect the human body or can affect the human communities,
not just employees. I have reviewed all the data of the files that have gone into the County of San Diego.
You have my testimony before you (attached), but I would like to add a little to it. MTBE is a very
interesting product. It was added to gasoline to take the place of lead because lead was polluting the
atmosphere. What this does is helps oxygen form in the gasoline so it would burn cleaner and burn more
efficiently. This is why certain communities throughout the United States have a requirement to put MTBE
in the gasoline. MTBE is a hot potential carcinogen that shows to be a cancer in animal tests. We don't
have enough time to assess the human tests. Unfortunately when you find something being a carcinogen,
you have human guinea pigs. They are the ones that suffer. You are also dealing with benzene. You
have these two products in the soil. Benzene is a noted carcinogen. It affects the lungs, it affects the
bone marrow, it affects the body system. In the same way that MTBE goes into your system it goes to the
same basic organs so you have a combination when you are dealing with that. Proposition 65 of the State
of California states that benzene is found to cause cancer, birth defects and other reproductive problems.
It can be passed on from a mother to a future generation. These are things we are extremely concerned
about. These are things that are happening basically in our backyard. In order to get rid of this, it takes
time. One of the qualities of MTBE is that it is very difficult to get out of soil for the simple reason it does
not bind itself with organic compounds. It can attract itself to water molecules a little easier. Benzene is
the same thing, but both of them are lighter than water. When you look at the diagrams of the site, you
see the plume is migrating towards Buena Vista Creek. What happens with the MTBE and the benzene?
They are floating at the front end and they are floating above it. The one thing I can remind you folks of is
Love Canal in New York, where people died because of a chemical wasteland that was covered over and
homes were built on top of it. All we are asking for now is let the remediation continue until this site is
perfectly clear. I don't want my kids or my grandkids living in an area where there is a possible
HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 12,2009
PAGE 7 of 13
contamination. Does the City of Carlsbad have deeper pockets? New York paid a lot, and the chemical
companies paid a lot, but what is money compared to human life and reproductive problems? It doesn't
equate. I ask you to look very, very carefully at this. Look at postponing judgment on this site until all the
standards set by the city and county of San Diego are met and this is complete. I ask your consideration.
My name is Maryann Varny and I live at 2796 James Drive in Carlsbad. Remediation of MTBE in the
site's ground water began with ozone sparging two and a half years ago in September of 2006.
Aggressive ozone sparging 24 hours a day began in January of 2007. We will present the results and
samples taken in September 2008 after 19 months of this aggressive ozone sparging. The greatest
MTBE concentration allowed by the San Diego County Land and Water Control Division of the Department
of Environmental Health is five micrograms per liter of ground water. This level must be reached in all
ground water monitoring wells, without exception, before development can be reasonably foreseen. The
parcel outlined on the right in the slide is the proposed site of the 500 low income housing units. Near the
upper edge is where the leaking underground storage tanks were located. In the middle is Buena Vista
Creek. The purple dots indicate the monitoring wells tracking MTBE concentrations in the ground water.
Their outline is roughly the size of the hydrocarbon plume in the aquifer. In September of 2008, 15
monitoring wells were sampled; 13 reported MTBE. Brown and Caldwell's October 2008 report tracked
the concentration levels of MTBE in those 13 monitoring wells from 2000 through September of 2008.
Examination of these graphs reveals that despite ongoing ozone sparging from 2006 to 2008, MTBE
concentrations decreased in only two of the 13 monitoring wells. In all the remaining 11 monitoring wells,
MTBE levels remained well above the .required five micrograms per liter. The vertical line on the left
indicates concentration levels. Remember, MTBE concentrations can be no greater than five micrograms
per liter. The horizontal line at the bottom of the graph marked yearly monitor sampling from 2000 to
2008. The dark purple line represents MTBE. Close examination of the years 2007 to 2008, a 21 month
period of aggressive 24/7 ozone sparging shows it has had little effect in reducing MTBE concentrations in
the aquifer. MW4 is the one exception; this graph of MW4 shows a dramatic decrease in MTBE during
2006/2008, which has fallen below required levels. MW5: MTBE has increased since 2007 to 22
micrograms per liter. The concentration levels cited are from the reports tabled: MW8 increased to 250;
MW9 increased to 10; MW10 increased to 130; MW13 increased to 64; MW16 at the creek increased to
8.3; MW17 at the creek decreased 8.1; MW18 decreased to 64; MW19 increased to 480, the highest
MTBE level; MW20 slightly decreased to 94; MW21 increased to 86; KMW2, little change to 43. These
graphs demonstrate that even after two and a half years of ozone sparging, there has been little significant
decrease in MTBE concentrations with exception of MW4. The required five micrograms per liter has still
not been reached in 11 of the 13 monitoring wells reporting MTBE last September. In fact, as you have
just seen, the lowest concentration levels are 60% and 100% above the required level.
Commissioner Wrisley asked Chairperson Smith if they can stipulate they know the soil is contaminated
and they are attempting to remediate it and the city will not allow them to build on that land until it is
remediated. We have been listening to one person after another telling us the same thing. We know it is
going to need to be done.
My name is Diane Nygaard and I am representing Preserve Calavera and our 2,300 local families. We
are also part of the Buena Vista Valley coalition. I think why people wanted to make sure you were all
aware of this is this Housing Element plan is through 2010, and we think it is very clear this land is not
going to be ready for houses in 2010. We think you care about when these housing units actually are
available to this community. Of course, we realize In order to take 500 units away from Quarry Creek,
they would have to go somewhere. Your staff and consultants have been working for some time to come
up with a reasonable plan, and we would not presume to come in here tonight as community volunteers
without any expertise in this area and undo your plan. What we have done is identify a number of
reasonable options for replacing these 500 units, every one of which has some challenges, but every one
of which we believe has less challenges than putting 500 units at the Quarry Creek site. Let me step you
through the handout package; category A, already submitted applications for projects; these are already
further through the review process with the city than the Quarry Creek project with one project alone would
account for a minimum of 86 units. We learned of another one in the same category last night. Category
B: Shopping center/mixed use; this is already in your plan, this is nothing new, but the number of units
really hasn't been optimized. The guidelines in the plan are to ensure that only 25% of the site yield so
HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 12, 2009
PAGE 8 of 13
that you really protected the commercial uses and the revenue. The numbers used are based on the low
end of the yield, 20 units per acre. Most such developments, mixed-use shopping center projects across
this country are built at a much higher density than that. In an area like this with a commitment and the
20/30 regional transportation plan, with high frequency public transit along El Camino Real, the Westfield
Mall, and other shopping centers along that road are ideal locations for dense affordable housing. Your
own policy says that 80% of such projects should be at the higher end at 28 units per acre. Just meeting
your policy standard on this one mall could add 114 units. The former 17 acre Wal-Mart site at College
and Cannon is also ideal for this type of development. Per your staff, this could yield another 88 units.
Category C: Permitted, but unbuilt projects. We only looked at one of several possible projects in this
category, Canterini Holly Springs. This combined project proposed to build 374 units less than the zoning
allowed; and put those 374 units into the excess dwelling bank; units that are sorely needed in this
community. That project has sat unbuilt, not moved forward now for over four years and the expiration of
the time extension is soon approaching. Redoing this single project could make it economically viable so
that it could move forward, and just restoring 20% of those lost units could yield another 93. Category D:
Industrial/Commercial mixed use; last month and earlier this evening there was discussion about the
airport and how this was a barrier to putting residential in that area. In the handout package you will see
the noise contours and the housing policies of the airport authority, and as you can see, you would virtually
have to build on the runway for this to be an issue. There are very limited number of locations that are
required to report to the County Health Department. They are using hazardous chemicals in industrial
sites, so those sites are known; very few locations that store and use such chemicals in the City of
Carlsbad. So there are very few restrictions on that, putting residential in the industrial zone. So there are
several key properties that have excellent potential for that consistent with your policy 2.3. One project
alone, Carlsbad Oaks North at the 25% yield rate, would equal over 1,000 units. Every one of these
options will take some work to realize, but as we stand here tonight, they are much more feasible in a
reasonable timeframe than the Quarry Creek project. So we would urge you to ask your staff to seriously
explore all of these other alternatives before we destroy the Buena Vista Creek Valley.
My name is Carmen Mujado and I am a representative for the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians and
also for Saving Sacred Sites Monitoring. I am the monitor who goes out to these job sites and does the
monitoring to protect our cultural resources. I am here today to speak to you and read a letter to the
Housing Commissioners that we wrote. We, the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians along with the
Native American Heritage Commission and the County of San Diego, have expressed deep concerns
regarding the destruction of our cultural heritage. After a thorough review of the GPA 03-02 Housing
Element for 2005-2010, we have serious apprehension about the potential negative impact on sacred and
cultural resources on our prehistoric and historic sites. We have previously discussed with the
Commission on numerous occasions our ongoing concerns regarding the Quarry Creek development and
El Salto Falls. Our concerns have always stemmed from the fact these sites include numerous Native
American and cultural resources that have been recorded in sacred land, inventory maintained by the
NAHC. However, these are not our only concerns with the proposed Housing Element. It is SLR's and
other's collective fear that in order to meet the City of Carlsbad's needs for development and
improvements GPA 03-02 may have great implications to additional cultural sensitive areas. SLR is
concerned about the protection of unique and irreplaceable cultural resources such as Luiseno Village
site, archeological items which would be displaced by development. In addition, we are legitimately
concerned about the proper treatment of cultural items, sacred artifacts, and Native American remains
that are highly likely to be discovered in the city's continuing developments and improvements. We
respectfully request that the City, through this Commission, consider avoidance as defined in the
California and Environmental Quality Act, Section 15370, which states Lead Agencies should contemplate
avoidance when significant cultural resources could be affected by the project. Therefore, it is SLR's hope
that this Commission values our concerns and recommends avoidance of culturally sensitive areas to the
City. It is also our hope that we continue working together with the City of Carlsbad, as partners, in
protecting our precious Native American/Luiseno cultural resources that have been located and continued
to be unearthed within the City's boundaries.
I would like to thank the Commissioners for reopening public comment. I do appreciate that. My name is
Don Christiansen, and I live at 3715 Longview Drive in Carlsbad. I have a brief PowerPoint presentation,
HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 12,2009
PAGE 9 of 13
and it runs between five and ten minutes. If it runs over five minutes, Shelly has agreed to give me her
five minutes.
Chairperson Smith asked the Commissioners how they feel about that.
Commissioner Wrisley said as long as it is ten minutes total.
Mr. Christiansen said first he would like to give credit to the person who created this; her name is Victoria
Beach. She used to teach at the Harvard School of Design and was a member of the Oceanside Planning
Commission. She moved to Monterey and gave me this presentation to share with you. I would also like
to give credit to All Bine who provided some of the following photos. Victoria's young daughter loves
waterfalls, so when Victoria and her family first moved to this part of the country, she did extensive
research on the internet and bought several guidebooks so they could check out Southern California
waterfalls. One of the closest she could find is Palm Canyon in the Anza Borrego Desert, a couple of
hours east of here. This was the beginning of the largest state park system in the lower 48. They went to
Palm Canyon and were impressed with the cascading waterfalls, the meandering creek, quiet pools, and
the ancient palms. The Palm Canyon waterfall was the catalyst for the entire 600,000 acre Anza Borrego
State Park. The same day of the first meeting of the first state park system in the United States the
director of the San Diego Natural History Museum contacted state officials urging them to set aside
several thousand acres in Palm Canyon, which they did. Please note the word "unique;" that is significant.
Soon after Victoria and her daughter returned from their trip to the Palm Canyon waterfall I gave her a tour
of El Salto and the Buena Vista Creek Valley. In spite of all the research she had done in Southern
California waterfalls, she had never heard of El Salto, and I would add to this day I think very few people in
Carlsbad even know it exists. I quote Victoria, "I couldn't believe my eyes. The physical similarities were
astonishing." You may be astonished to learn that you have been looking at El Salto all along. As you can
tell by this, all the photos on the left are those of Palm Canyon, the beginning of the largest state park in
the continental United States, and all the slides on the right are El Salto, in our own backyard. We are
looking at the subject area now. Moving from the east where the waterfalls are, the stream, Buena Vista
Creek, from the east to the west, fertile land, Buena Vista Lagoon and the ocean. Native Americans
inhabited this part of the Buena Vista Creek Valley over 9,000 years ago. El Salto is a designated Native
American sacred site. The Portola Expedition camped here in 1769. Early pioneers camped and played
here. The Marron Land Grant referred to this area as the planting lands. It is also a major wildlife
corridor, and there is a trail that runs from Carlsbad's newest park, Hidden Canyon, almost to the waterfall.
Victoria has a background in urban landscape and building design. The following are some of her
comments: Most people feel that our community's best natural asset is the incredible beach, but now it
turns out that we are also unbelievably fortunate to have one of the highest waterfalls closest to the coast
in all of Southern California. It is situated inland enough that it aligns nicely with some other existing and
planned inland recreation; for instance, El Corazon, San Luis Rey river basin and the Buena Vista Lagoon.
It would be a perfect destination for highlight along a larger recreation loop. This means we could be on
the verge of a bilateral recreation system that brings more inland people out and more coastal people in.
This would be a real unifying device that, aside from being out of the ordinary and very enjoyable, may
also allow some of the coastal real estate values to better influence the rest of the city. To summarize, the
reverse is also true. If we do not properly use our inland assets, we will forever forego the financial
benefits that come from providing unique city amenities that make inland here preferable to inland
elsewhere.
We are students from Carlsbad High School, and we started a petition. For a brief introduction, we will
read our petition. We the students and residents of Carlsbad hereby support the preservation and
protection of the Buena Vista Valley and insist the city government recognize the historical, cultural and
environmental benefits of this wildlife corridor currently threatened by the "Smart Growth" development
proposal. This statement represents over 300 students and staff at Carlsbad High School, the Alternative
Energy Organization and Environmental Club have collected over the past 48 hours. We insist you
recognize the cultural, environmental and historical values that the Buena Vista Valley holds to our
Carlsbad community.
Chairperson Smith said we appreciate students coming and taking part in their city government.
HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 12,2009
PAGE 10 of 13
My name is Jack Gumming, and I live at 2855 Carlsbad Blvd, which is in the village area. I think 500 units
in the village area would be a nice addition. This could really be fine if we could put it in the village area,
concentrate some type of transportation. Wouldn't it be nice to have a monorail that went out to Plaza
Camino Real and back so that people could move around without needing to use an automobile? I am
probably the least prepared out of the number of prepared presentations. I haven't really prepared
anything. Don Christiansen called me, and he is a mighty persuasive fellow as you have seen and has a
good heart and he didn't tell me what to say. I must confess that I am from back east and we have
waterfalls. I grew up in South Orange, New Jersey, near a delightful park that had a wonderful waterfall.
We used to go and picnic at the foot of that waterfall. It was beautiful. There were quarries in those hills,
but they weren't right at the waterfall. In fact, that area had been recovered from what had been a quarry
at one time and was made over into a beautiful park and I am trying to remember what it was; I think it
may have been called the Wachung Reservation, but I have forgotten exactly what the name of that park
was. It looks like the waterfall you see a picture of here. Wouldn't it be beautiful if the youngsters who are
going to be living in these 500 homes could have a place like that to go out to, but that is not what we are
here about tonight. We did have a meeting at Imagine Carlsbad recently, and it was to help with the
process which is known as Envision Carlsbad, which has to do with the reworking of the General Plan of
the city. The plan is to get wide public input and try to come up with the most creative General Plan that
the city can have for what the citizens of Carlsbad really want. It is a tribute to the staff that they are
reaching out to do that. Now we come with this particular item, which as I understand it and I just learned
of it today and tried to go out on the web to see exactly what this item was, it is described very technically
here on the agenda. It is not available on the internet so I have not been able to read it. Don told me a
little bit about what it was and I asked Mr. Millich to see if I could get a contrary view to make sure that I
was getting exactly the right sense, and I gather the idea here is a piecemeal attempt to increase the
density of a particular parcel to foster development. There is a developer who is interested in getting an
amendment that would allow greater density there. Whether he would do the development or not, that is
something else. This would just allow somebody to do it. Presumably if you approve this, then that land is
worth more than it might otherwise be worth. Scott Donnell outlined general principles for this kind of
housing in the city, and they made an awful lot of sense. I tried to apply those general principles to this
particular proposal and it stopped making sense. It seemed rather anomalous at that point. I knew from
talking to people at SANDAG that the designation of this as a smart growth center is at the initiative of the
City of Carlsbad. The regional planners don't see it fitting really well into the regional plan so obviously it is
not near the rail lines, it is just out there in the middle of nowhere, but for some reason it is going that way.
You have some other reasons that would make this an anomalous place to development. The one thing
that was clear at the Imagine Carlsbad meeting that we had on this city was the driving wish for people to
have a green city with green areas. So while I can see why a developer might say desecration has
already taken place there, people in the past did a bad thing so the damage is done, let's just continue
doing it. We are going to fix it up and make it a little bit nicer, but we want to meet this need on this
particular parcel, why they might say that. But I would like to say a word for that Envision Carlsbad, I hope
everybody participates in it, and I hope we can look at this thing in an overall context and not do our
planning piecemeal, parcel by parcel. If you want to know more about Envision Carlsbad, go to
envisioncarlsbad.org.
My name is Brian Millich from Corky McMillin Company at 2750 Hybrid Street, San Diego, California
92106. I have provided your staff and I believe they provided you with some of the information that tries to
sort out a little bit about fact from fiction about the Quarry Creek site. It is not the fact that we came in and
requested the change in designation. We are currently allowed up to 283 units on the site. The additional
217 units was considered to be a better idea, primarily because the site is an impacted site, it is next to a
freeway, it is next to a Wal-Mart shopping, and if there ever was a site that should develop at least a
portion of it, I believe Quarry Creek is that site. It did go through SANDAG at your city's request. They
asked SANDAG to consider that it be a smart growth site. There was opposition. It was from the same
group that you are hearing from tonight. SANDAG decided that it did make sense as a smart growth site
because of its location. This is not Anza Borrego desert. This is Quarry Creek, an extension of an area
that has already been impacted. I am not here to talk or to try and persuade you about the attributes of
the project, but I will commit to you tonight and I will commit to the Planning Commission and the City
Council when I appear before them on the Housing Element that we will be extremely mindful of the
2,15
HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 12, 2009
PAGE 11 of 13
sensitive resources of the site. We will protect the falls, we will protect the creek, we will provide as much
if not more open space than was recently adopted by your City Council, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and
California Fish and Game through the Habitat Management plan. We will make sure that the site is
dramatically better than it exists today. It can provide housing, it can provide open space, the creek and
the falls will be protected and it will be an exemplary project. That is my commitment to you.
My name is Sue Ladouceur, and I live at 3460 Charter Oak Drive. I am a private citizen but also a
member of the Historic Preservation Commission. You probably have an e-mail that went back and forth
with Ms. Fountain on our concerns. Don Christiansen brought this very important issue to us about three
years ago, and we made it our primary goal at that time and have tried to follow it and be supportive of the
groups that want to make you aware of the historic and cultural value of this land, which of course has
already been talked about. I am just reiterating that and how important it is to us and to the sense of
history that we hope you remember in this land. There has been many other sites in Carlsbad that have
been dug up willy nilly for housing developments. We have put up some wonderful housing
developments, I'll admit that, but many of them have been desecrating dinosaurs and all kinds of
wonderful bones. We had somebody from one of the schools bring in all kinds of treasures from some of
these sites. Some of these things are never sacred after they are dug up, which we would realize from the
Native Americans' interest in this land. So realize that once it is dug up, in a way I know Debbie said it
wouldn't be destroyed, it is destroyed, it is not the same as it was before. So you are changing a part of
Carlsbad's history. Wendy Hinman used to jump into the water from the creek. That was a rite of
passage for young people like the railroad trestles. There is so much history back there that will be lost.
You can't build 500 homes and have it not impact traffic. I am amazed that frankly the city has let this go
this far. I am amazed that it was a part of SANDAG. I am amazed that you are even thinking about doing
this when it is polluted land. It will never be totally clean of carcinogens. Think about these things, and
think about Carlsbad's history and Carlsbad's history. We need to give this back to the children for
tomorrow because they have to have a sense of what Carlsbad is and was.
My name is Shelly Hays Carron, and I reside in the Marron Adobe in the Buena Vista Creek Valley in
Carlsbad. My question was in the presentation from Ms. Tarn when you gave your first presentation, you
cited some state law regarding the Housing Element, and one of the items that you cited, and I believe
Ms. Wrisley made mention of it also as to when you submit this Housing Element to the state, the
requirement is that this land be available to be built on within a certain parameter. I would say this is
flawed because of the remediation and because of the contamination. I don't think it should be included in
the 2005-2010 Housing Element for that specific reason and because of the state law.
Chairperson Smith closed public testimony as no one else appeared to speak.
Commissioner Wrisley said I am not one of the usual suspects. I don't belong to the Historic Preservation
Committee, although I have to stipulate that my daughter does, the aforementioned Wendy Hinman. I
don't belong to the Historical Society. In no way could I be labeled with the pejorative of tree hugger, but I
have lived in this city for 45 years. I have seen my children grow up here for 45 years. We have so little
history in Carlsbad. It goes out in little pieces here and there. If you have ever been to Europe, you are
just amazed of the history all around you. When I was in Scotland, I visited a house that had been
continually occupied for 1,000 years; 700 years by the same family. Mary Queen of Scots used to go
there when she was out hunting. We have so little here. I am tired of SANDAG and the State of California
holding us hostage. If I went out and abducted someone's child and held them for ransom, I would be in
serious trouble but the government does it all the time with impunity. They just say, "well this is the way it
is. You have to educate your children a certain way or we are not going to give you money. You have to
build your roads a certain way or you are not going to get highway funds." Do you remember the movie,
Network, and he says "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to put up with it anymore?" Well that is the way I
feel right now. I do realize we need affordable housing, but I do think we should be able to say SANDAG,
we don't have any room left without impinging on our history. So we take it down to 1,742 units and we
think that is all we can do. Sue me, but that is just what is available. That would still leave us short by
1,824 units. Maybe we can find them someplace. I don't agree with this list that is here necessarily. I
don't see getting a 1,055 units in Carlsbad, Oaks North, I don't agree with using the Farmer's Building,
but there must be other places. If there is not, then just say we don't have any more room. I realize that
HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 12,2009
PAGE 12 of 13
my vote will be symbolic. It will probably pass anyway, but I am going to have to vote no on the Housing
Element.
Ms. Fountain said in terms of the Housing Element itself, you can vote not to include the Quarry Creek site
in it. But, I just want to remind everybody that there are a lot of other programs and there is a lot of good
within the Housing Element. Comments were provided on Quarry Creek only. I didn't actually hear
anything tonight that complained about any other program or any other issue at hand here so I would hate
for you to proceed thinking that your only option is to not adopt the Housing Element. You can adopt it
with revisions or changes in it. This Housing Commission can make recommendations for modification to
the Housing Element without just saying you are not going to adopt or approve it. Your recommendations
or your suggestions can go forward to the Planning Commission and the City Council, and that is what we
are asking you to do tonight. I don't want you to go away thinking that if you don't approve Quarry Creek,
you can't adopt the Housing Element. If we take the Quarry Creek site off, we do have to find another
site. You can make other suggestions to staff to share with the Planning Commission and the City Council,
if you choose to do so.
Commissioner Ritchie thanked Mr. Donnell for his thorough presentation, especially the map. It was very
informative. Mr. Millich, I appreciate your folder from McMillin. Your maps were also very thorough and
very informative.
Commissioner Kirk expressed his appreciation for everyone who has commented; their passion, their
genuine concern, not only for the historical preservation but for the quality of life of Carlsbad. That is
certainly why participating on this Commission is extremely important to me. I share that concern. I think
we are faced with some very difficult challenges. I wish we were able to address the concerns with MTBE
and benzene. I think simply, quite candidly, it is beyond me. The charts and graphs are a run through.
Those require thorough analysis. You can't possibly do justice, nor expect anyone of us to comprehend
that data when it is presented so rapidly, and I think your effort was lost. It needs more time, and also to
introduce that without establishing who you are to give it a sense of credibility, I think that really diminishes
its value as well. On the other hand, Mr. Souza's presentation was definitely taken seriously. He
presented a thorough document and provided some very effective commentary. I do wish it was
something that I felt that we as a body could contemplate, but quite candidly I think it is a little beyond us.
I do have to rely upon the city as this moves forward to ensure that no build out occurs without that being
appropriately addressed. I will certainly be watching that myself as a concerned citizen and could find
myself sitting over there with you. It is a passionately and emotionally filled discussion, and I have to defer
to this and look at this from my perspective. I realize my position is probably not going to be a popular
position with all of you, but I do think that it is the right decision in terms of looking at Carlsbad and what
we need to do and look forward to. I do believe and trust that Mr. Millich in representing McMillin is in fact
sincere and honest and will honor the commitment to not only preserve the falls, enhance the falls, but
also the additional open space. I would also like to see a trail system that connects the falls to the waves,
as I believe was stated during our last meeting. I think that is a phenomenal idea and certainly something
we need in this area. I encourage that they also contemplate that going forward. Again, I would like to
thank you. In addition to your testimony, I have also spent a reasonable amount of time with Mr. Donnell
and Ms. Fountain. I have done my own independent research. I have read papers dating back to 2006
when this issue was getting a lot of attention and Ms. Nygaard's publication and the Union Tribune and the
North County Times and others as well. I have attempted to educate myself to the greatest extent
possible. So I make a decision, not based on emotion, but based on what I believe is really the right
decision or the best decision for Carlsbad. I thank you all for your testimony and for allowing me to speak
for a moment.
Chairperson Smith said she too would like to say she is impressed with everyone's concerns. I listened
two years ago, I think it was, and one of the things that really touched my heart was a seven or eight year
old that came and read a poem about how she felt about the falls. To see you high school students from
Carlsbad High School coming out and making yourself known to your city government that is very
impressive to me. I love Carlsbad. I love the natural beauty of Carlsbad. Just like Commissioner Kirk
said, it is hard to make a decision as to what you should do and what you shouldn't do, but when you look
at the other programs that Mr. Donnell has stated that would be implemented with the programs that are
HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES
FEBRUARY 12,2009
PAGE 13 of 13
available for our city that we plan to vote on, we have to move on. We have to look in the future. We
have to look at these children here who one day will need a place to live. We have to look at all of us.
One day we will need to move on. I believe Mr. McMillin when he said he would not touch the sacred site.
I believe that. I feel we should submit this resolution for approval to the Planning Commission and the City
of Carlsbad.
Commissioner Ritchie moved that the Housing Commission adopt Housing Commission Resolution 2009-
001, recommending approval to the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of Carlsbad of
General Plan Amendment GPA 03-02, based upon the findings contained therein and with the minor text
changes to the draft 2005-2010 Housing Element set forth within the Errata sheet provided by staff and
dated February 12, 2009.
Commissioner Kirk made a motion to second the recommendation.
VOTE: 3-2
AYES: Kirk, Ritchie and Smith
NOES: Bradwell and Wrisley
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Ms. Fountain made an announcement that the Housing Commission received invitations to the Glen
Ridge Apartments Grand Opening, which is the project in Robertson Ranch. That Grand Opening is
scheduled for Thursday, March 19, 2009, from 4:00 to 5:30 p.m. at 4555 Glen Avenue in Carlsbad. All of
the Housing Commissioners are invited to attend. We may be having a Housing Commission meeting in
March to discuss the PHA Plan, and we will notify you if that will be presented.
ADJOURNMENT
By proper motion, the meeting of February 12,2009, was adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Deborah Fountain
Housing and Redevelopment Director
PATRICIA CRESCENT!
Minutes Clerk
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
2.18
EXHIBIT tfflO/2009
CITY OF CARLSBAD
2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
HOUSING COMMISSION MEETING
Tonight's Presentation
Recap January 8 meeting
Respond to Commission and public comments
Discuss errata
Provide staff's recommendation
Review anticipated schedule
Materials for Public Review
"Quarry Creek Facts and Information" - McMillin
Fuel Impact Remediation Program Update - Hanson
Housing Element Site Study Map
Errata
This presentation
2005-2010 Housing Element
Meeting Recap
12/10/2009
January 8 Meeting
Staff presentation:
Update of prior Element and GPA
State law
Accommodating growth projections
Proposed Element contents and programs
Ramifications of no Housing Element
Staff recommendation
January 8 Meeting
a Housing Commission and public comments
Site selection
Quarry Creek
i'j Public comment period closed
n Meeting continued to February ] 2
2005-2010 Housing Element
SIS
Response fo Commenfs
Response to Comments — Site Selection
c State law
Government Code: "The ava7/abi/ify of housing ij of
statewide importance..."
Regional growth projections
Carlsbad's share. 8,376 units (2003-2010)
Construction to reduce the share
12/10/2009
Response to Comments — Site Selection
Need
Carlsbad's remaining need: 3,566 homes
Lower and moderate income families only
Specific densities
Construction not required
Limitations
Existing land use policies inadequate
Appropriate, vacant land limited
Response to Comments — Site Selection
General Plan policies
"Locate multi-family uses near commercial centers,
employment centers and major transportation corridors."
"locate higher density residential uses in close proximity
to open space, community facilities, and other amenities."
"Encourage a variety of residential [uses] in commercial
areas to increase the advantages of "close in" living and
convenient shopping."
BEST
COPY
.•
12/10/2009
Response to Comments — Quarry Creek
Housing Element Program 2.1
Process amendments to:
Redesignate 1 5 acres for 300 units (20 du/ac) 32 acres/
Redesigned 1 7 acres for 200 units (1 2 du/ac) 5°° ""'"
Response to Comments — Quarry Creek
Appropriateness of Quarry Creek site
Approx. 48 acres disturbed by past mining
Approx. 70 acres now designated for residential use
Location complies with General Plan criteria
Designated SANDAG Smart Growth Site
Remediation of contaminated soils occuring
Response to Comments — Quarry Creek
Development limitations of Quarry Creek site
Environmental constraints
Approx. 30 acres designated as open space
Growth Management Open Space standard
Proposed Hardline Conservation Area
2005-2010 Housing Element
Errata
COPY
.•
.
12/10/2009
Errata
i Proposed are non-substantive changes:
Update HCD review description
Describe city efforts toward at-risk housing
Clarify program affecting Village standards
Eliminate unnecessary words
No sites are affected by changes
2005-2010 Housing Element
Recommendation
Staff Recommendation
Recommend approval of Housing Element update
(General Plan Amendment)
Recommend action include reference to errata
: Recommendation will be forwarded to Planning
Commission and City Council
City Council makes final decision
mat
2005-2010 Housing Element
Review Schedule
12/10/2009
Anticipated Schedule
n Early 2009:
February 28: Public comment period ends on
environmental document
April 1: Planning Commission public hearing
April - May: City Council public hearing
Anticipated Schedule
j Spring 2009:
State certifies Element (90-days)
-j 2009- 2010:
Hold additional hearings to carry out programs
EXHIBIT 5Bi
XTie CityofCeurlmbadlXoTuming «fc JRecteve/opjmejra* JDepAfAmetnt
Staff: Scott X>onxtell
Sexklox* Plcuemex*
Item. No. 1.
JANUARY 8,2009
SUBJECT: GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT - Request for a
recommendation of approval to adopt the update and revisions to the
General Plan Housing Element for the 2005-2010 Housing Cycle as
required by the California Government Code.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Housing Commission ADOPT Housing Commission Resolution No. 2009-001
recommending APPROVAL to the Planning Commission and City Council of the City of
Carlsbad of General Plan Amendment GPA 03-02, based upon the findings contained
therein.
II. PROJECT BACKGROUND
The City of Carlsbad is updating its General Plan Housing Element. The General Plan is
Carlsbad's long range planning document. One of the components of the General Plan is the
Housing Element. The Housing Element addresses a variety of housing topics, including
need, availability, and affordability for a specific period, or housing cycle. The last housing
cycle ended June 30,2005, and the City adopted the Housing Element for this cycle in 2000.
The current housing cycle, which began July 1, 2005, will end June 30, 2011. Through
legislation, the state has extended the end of the current cycle one year from June 30,2010.
Throughout this report and in the draft document however, "2005-2010" is the time period
stated for the current cycle.
State law requires every city and county in California to update its Housing Element for each
housing cycle. The state Department of Housing and Community Development, Division of
Housing Policy Development (HCD) reviews Housing Elements for compliance with state
law. With revisions made since its initial release in April 2007, HCD has found Carlsbad's
draft Housing Element for the current housing cycle will comply with state law. A copy of
the compliance letter is attached.
Since it is a component of the General Plan, approval of the updated Housing Element
requires a General Plan Amendment (GPA). Following review by the Housing Commission,
the GPA also will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council at public
2005-2010 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
January 8,2009
PAGE 2
hearings. If the City Council approves the Housing Element, it will be sent to HCD for
certification.
The preparation of the draft Housing Element has taken several years and involved frequent
public notice and comment opportunities. Commissioners may recall that the Housing
Commission held three public workshops on the Housing Element from October 2004 to
May 2005. Additionally, drafts of the Housing Element were released for public review in
April 2007, June 2008, and December 2008.
In April 2007, the Housing Commission held a public meeting to (1) provide city staff
formal comments on the draft Housing Element and (2) consider a recommendation to
support submission of the draft element to HCD. While not required by state law,
jurisdictions typically seek a review body's support to submit the draft. The meeting was
well attended by the public, particularly because of a component of proposed program 2.1
(found in Section 6 of the draft Housing Element) that would redesignate portions of a large
vacant property known as Quarry Creek for medium and high density housing.
Quarry Creek is an approximately 100 acre former quarry at the Carlsbad and Oceanside
border, just west of the Quarry Creek shopping center in Oceanside. The Housing
Commission, by minute motion, voted 2-1 (Chairman Scarpelli voting "no;" Commissioner
Ritchey absent) on the recommendation to support filing the draft with HCD. Since the
affirmative vote of the three commission members is needed for any Commission action, the
Commission did not act on the recommendation. A recap of this meeting and the three
earlier public workshops is contained in the Public Participation discussion of the first
section of the draft Housing Element. More information about Quarry Creek may also be
found in Section 3 of the draft Housing Element and in Tables 1 and 3 below.
Subsequent to the Housing Commission meeting, the City Council, in July 2007, approved
the filing of the draft Housing Element to HCD. The Planning Department then submitted
the document to HCD for the first of three separate reviews by the state.
If approved and certified, the City will need to implement the various programs of the draft
Housing Element. Some of these simply continue programs that are already successful and
underway. Other programs would require amendments to the General Plan, Zoning
Ordinance, and other city requirements. These amendments would be subject to separate and
additional public review and hearings.
As with all previous Housing Commission meetings and workshops at which the Housing
Element has been discussed, staff has publicized the current meeting by posting notices (one
is attached) at city facilities throughout Carlsbad and by publishing a notice in the
newspaper, Additionally, staff sent notices to interested citizens, government agencies,
housing advocates, developers, lenders, Realtors, Carlsbad homeowner associations, large
farmers, and major employers.
2005-2010 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
January 8,2009
PAGE 3
ID. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The remainder of this report primarily discusses the following three topics. None of the
topics are discussed in great detail; the reader is referred to the draft Housing Element for
more information.
• Housing Element purpose, need and contents;
• Self-certification; and
• Policies and programs, with a focus on the City's efforts to accommodate Carlsbad's
share of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, which is an estimate of the
number of housing units needed to accommodate projected growth through 2010.
Draft Housing Element Purpose and Contents
The Housing Element of the General Plan is designed to provide the City with a coordinated
and comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent, and affordable
housing within the community. A priority of both State and local governments, Government
Code Section 65580 states the intent of creating housing elements:
The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of
decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farm
workers, is a priority of the highest order.
Per State law, the Housing Element has two main purposes:
(1) To provide an assessment of both current and future housing needs and constraints
in meeting these needs; and
(2) To provide a strategy that establishes housing goals, policies, and programs.
As a five-year plan covering the 2005-2010 period, the Housing Element differs from the
City's other General Plan elements, which cover a much longer period. The Housing Element
serves as an integrated part of the General Plan, but is updated more frequently to ensure its
relevancy and accuracy. The Housing Element identifies strategies and programs that focus
on:
(1) Conserving and improving existing affordable housing;
(2) Maximizing housing opportunities throughout the community,
(3) Assisting in the provision of affordable housing;
(4) Removing governmental and other constraints to housing investment; and
(5) Promoting fair and equal housing opportunities.
The draft Housing Element has the following major components:
• An introduction to review the requirements of the Housing Element, public
participation process, and data sources (Section 1 of the Housing Element);
• A profile and analysis of the City's demographics, housing characteristics, and existing
and future housing needs (Section 2);
2005-2010 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
January 8,2009
PAGE 4
• A review of resources available to facilitate and encourage the production and
maintenance of housing, including land available for new construction and
redevelopment, as well as financial and administrative resources available for housing
(Section 3);
• An analysis of constraints on housing production and maintenance, including market,
governmental, and environmental limitations to meeting the City's identified needs
(Section 4);
• An evaluation of accomplishments under the 1999-2005 Housing Element (Section 5);
and
» A statement of the Housing Plan to address the City's identified housing needs and a
formulation of housing goals, policies, and programs (Section 6).
The draft Housing Element also contains appendices, which provide the following information;
• Eligibility for Housing Element self-certification;
• Summary of Housing Element accomplishments for the previous (1999-2005) housing
cycle;
• Available land inventories for proposed or existing residential development, prepared to
demonstrate compliance with the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), discussed
below; and
• A sample staff report and meeting noticing materials.
Self-certification
Pursuant to special legislation (Government Code 65585.1), jurisdictions in the San Diego region
are eligible to self-certify their Housing Elements and avoid the lengthy HCD-certification process.
For a jurisdiction to self-certify, it must meet specified affordable housing goals. Additionally, a
self-certified element must substantially comply with state law.
Having exceeded self-certification requirements, Carlsbad is entitled to self-certify its 2005-2010
Housing Element and initially planned to do so. However, after further consideration, the City
chose instead to pursue HCD certification. One reason for this decision is that certification by HCD
provides Carlsbad with a rebutable presumption that the Housing Element is legally valid, which
shifts the burden of proof to show ihe element is inadequate to the challenger. Another reason is a
self-certified element may cause a jurisdiction to be ineligible for certain funds and grants
distributed by HCD. In September 2006, the City Council directed staff to pursue HCD-
certification. More details about self-certification may be found in Section 1 and Appendix A of
the draft element.
Policies and Programs
The Housing Plan, found in Section 6, sets out the City's long-term housing goals and identifies a
menu of shorter-term objectives, policy positions, and programs to achieve the long-term goals.
The goals, objectives, policies, and programs comprise a broad-based Housing Plan for the creation
of housing opportunities throughout the City. Through this Housing Plan the City demonstrates its
2005-2010 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
January 8,2009
PAGES
understanding of the magnitude of the housing problem, as well as its commitment of City
resources to providing the necessary solutions.
Generally, the programs identify how and when Carlsbad will address a housing need. They
identify funding, implementation responsibility, and the objectives and time frame. For example,
several programs require the City to adopt or amend ordinances. These amendments must be
accomplished within the housing cycle.
Before devising a new five-year housing plan for the 2005-2010 Housing Element, staff reviewed
the housing goals, policies, and programs contained in the 1999 Housing Element for effectiveness
and continued appropriateness. Based on this review, most programs remain relevant and effective.
However, some programs are no longer necessary and are proposed for deletion. A complete
analysis of the 1999 Housing Element is contained in Section 5 and Appendix B of the 2005-2010
draft Housing Element.
Due to changes in state law, including mandates to accommodate forecasted growth, staff has
proposed a number of new programs to ensure Carlsbad has:
• Adequate sites, whether vacant or developed, at appropriate densities and development
standards to accommodate its share of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA);
and
• Adequate provisions to ensure the housing needs of persons with disabilities, the
homeless, farmworkers, and other individuals are met.
Beginning with adequate sites and RHNA, a discussion of each of these topics is provided below.
Adequate Sites and RHNA
Carlsbad's share of the regional housing need for the current cycle is allocated by SANDAG to
each of the four income groups listed below and is based on factors such as recent growth trends,
income distribution, and capacity for future growth. After taking into account units already
constructed, under construction, and approved (through December 31 2006), the City's remaining
RHNA to satisfy through 2010 is as follows:
• Very Low Income: 1,719 units !„„„,..,
. Low Income: 676 units } 2,395 "lower" mcome units
• Moderate Income: 1,171 units
• Above Moderate Income: 0 units
Total 3,566 units
As the above list indicates, Carlsbad must demonstrate it has adequate sites to accommodate
all but units for the above moderate income category. While state law requires jurisdictions
to provide adequate sites to meet their RHNA obligations, they are not required to develop
the sites nor ensure the sites actually develop. Instead, cities and counties must have the
appropriate land use designations in place so developers can propose projects consistent with
the programs of the Housing Element.
2005-2010 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
January 8, 2009
PAGE 6
Generally, HCD considers land designated by a city's General Plan for high density, multi-
family residential uses to be appropriate for very low and low income households
(collectively "lower income" households), land designated for medium or medium-high
density uses to be suitable for moderate income households, and land designated for low
density, single family uses to be appropriate for above moderate income households. HCD
has accepted Carlsbad's position that a minimum density of 20 dwelling units/acre (du/ac) is
adequate for lower income uses and a minimum density of 12 du/ac is adequate for moderate
income uses.
In Carlsbad, high density lands have a General Plan designation of "RH" and allow 15 to 23
du/ac, with a Growth Management Control Point of 19 du/ac. Medium-high density lands
have a designation of "RMH," and allow 8 to 15 du/ac, with a Growth Management Control
Point of 1 1.5 du/ac. The Growth Management Control Point is typically the density below
or at which development has historically occurred, although some projects, such as
Robertson Ranch (see Table 1 below), have developed or been approved at higher densities.
Factoring vacant and underutilized land currently designated RH or RMH yields about 700
high density units for lower income families and about 330 medium-high density units for
moderate income families. These figures are based on potentially achievable unit yields
from vacant properties and underutilized properties (properties with low improvement to
land values, such as an older single-family home on a large lot designated for high density
uses).
Based on the preceding paragraph, current programs, policies, and land use designations,
which yield about 1,030 units, do not accommodate all of Carlsbad's remaining share for
very low, low, and moderate income households, which total over 3,500 units. To make up
the shortfall, the City has proposed a number of programs that:
• Increase minimum densities for all RMH and RH designated properties from 11.5
du/ac and 19 du/ac to 12 and 20 du/ac, respectively;
• Permit mixed use residential projects in the City's shopping centers and commercial
zones at 20 du/ac. This affects properties such as Plaza Camino Real.
• Change land use designations on existing residential and non-residential properties to
help meet its remaining RHNA. These changes are in addition to projects proposed
by private developers that the City has counted toward meeting its regional share
obligation. This affects properties such as Quarry Creek and the Barrio Area, the
latter an existing neighborhood bounded by the Village Redevelopment Area,
Tamarack Avenue, Interstate 5, and the railroad tracks; and
• Establish minimum densities in the Village Redevelopment Area of 18 and 28 du/ac,
depending on land use district.
Details about these proposed changes generally may be found in programs 2.1 and 2.3 of the
draft Element.
The following tables, from Section 3 of the draft Housing Element, provide detail about the
sites and densities proposed to help Carlsbad meet its remaining RHNA.
2005-2010 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
January 8, 2009
PAGE?
Table 1
Existing and Proposed RH Sites
Property APN Acres Density Number of
Units'
Vacant Residential Sites currently designated RH
Robertson Ranch
Unentitled Land
Subtotal
Portions of 168-050-47, 208-010-36
Various (see Appendix C)
22
12
20-22.3 du/acz
20du/ac}
465'
237
702
Vacant Residential Sites proposed to be designated RH
Bridges at Aviara Affordable
Housing Component4' 5
Subtotal
Portions of 215-050-44 and 47 2.6 25 65
65
Vacant Non-Residential Sites proposed to be designated RH
La Costa Town Square4' *
Ponto4
Quarry Creek4
Subtotal
Other
Underutilized RH Sites
Proposed Barrio Area4
Subtotal
Total
223-060-31
216-140-17
Portions of 167-040-2 1
Various (see Appendix D)
Various (See Appendix G)
6.0
6.4
15
0.26
14
20 du/ac
20du/ac
20 du/ac
20 du/ac3
28 du/ac
120
128
300
548
8
256
264
1,579
Notes:1 Number of units does not always reflect acreage multiplied by density because of rounding and other factors.1 General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Master Plan approved to allow the densities and number of units shown. Number of units includes
78 high-density, lower income units under construction (Glen Ridge) as of October 2008. These units are not reflected in Table 3-2.J City commits to process a GPA to increase minimum density to 20 du/ac on these sites (New Program).
'More information about these projects is provided in Section 3 of the draft Element
*These arc private, developer-iniriated projects.
Source: City of Carlsbad, December 2008
2005-2010 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
January 8, 2009
PAGE 8
Table 2 identifies properties that would permit "mixed use" developments, or developments
that combine residential and commercial uses on the same or adjacent properties.
Residences in mixed use projects would be developed at the minimum densities shown.
Table 2
Existing and Proposed RH Mixed Use Sites
Property APN Acres1 Density Number of
Units1
Proposed Vacant Mixed Use Sites
Commercial Mixed Use La Costa
Town Square2'4
Commercial Mixed Use Porno1
Portion of 223-060-32
Portion of 216-140-18
1.0
(appro*)
2.8
(approx)
N/A
20du/ac
14
28
Proposed Shopping Center Mixed Use Sites
Various (see Table 3-7)*Various Various 20du/ac 377
Existing Milage Mixed Use Sites (underutilized and vacant)
Village Redevelopment Area*Various (see Appendix F)71.5 18 and 28
du/ac'
875
Proposed Barrio Area (primarily underutilised)
Barrio Area'
Total
Various (see Appendix 0)5 28du/ac3 45
1339
Notes:1 Number of units does not always reflect acreage multiplied by density because of rounding, planned mixed use developments, and other
factors. Number of units also reflects deductions for any existing uniu.1 More information about these projects is provided in Section 3 of the draft Element1 The City commits to adopting a policy to establish the minimum densities shown. Only 50% of the potential yield for both Village and
proposed Barrio Area Mixed Use sites is considered. For the Village, only 1.7 acres of the total acres shown are vacant.
'This is a private, developer-initiated project.
Source: City of Carlsbad, August 2007 and March 2008
2005-2010 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
January 8,2009
PAGE 9
As Table 3 identifies, also proposed are changes to existing and planned medium-high
density residential sites,
Table 3
Existing and Proposed Medium High Density Residential (RMH) Sites
Property APN Acres Density Number of
Units1
Vacant Residential Sties currently designated RMH
Robertson Ranch
Vacant Ummtitled RMH
Land
Subtotal
Portions ofl 68-050-47,208-01 0-36
Various (see Appendix C)
7
8
12,4du/ac*
12du/acJ
84
92
176
Vacant Non-Residential Sites proposed to be designated RMH
Quarry Creek4 Portions of 167-040-21 17 200
Other
Underutilized RMH
Land
Underutilized RH Land
in the Beach Area
Overlay Zone
Proposed Barrio Area4
Subtotal
Total
Various (see Appendix D)
Various (sec Appendix E)}
Various (see Appendix G)
10
5.5
3
12 du/ac3
ISdu/ac
12du/ac3
102
60
31
193
569
Notes:1 Number of units docs not always reflect acreage multiplied by density because of rounding and other factors.1GPA and Master Plan approved to allow (he densities and number of units shown.1 City commits to process a CPA and/or other legislative changes necessary to increase minimum density to 12 du/ac on these or
portions of these situ (new program).4 More information about these sites is Section 3 of the draft Element5 The minimum density of 15 du/ac is the existing lower end of the density range for the Residential High Density (RH) designation.
City of Carlsbad, August 2007 and March 2008
2005-2010 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
January 8,2009
PAGE 10
Based on the land use changes proposed in the above tables, the City is able to meet its
remaining RHNA, as Table 4 shows, since units allocated to the lower income category may
also help fulfill the unit need of the moderate income category.
Table 4
Adequacy of Sites in Meeting Remaining RHNA
Sites
Residential Sites
Mixed Use Sites
Recently approved Proposals
with Affordable Components'
Second Units2
Total
RHNA Remaining
Difference
Lower
Income
1,579
1,339
16
80
3,014
2,395
+619
Moderate
Income
569
0
8
0
577
1,171
-594
Above
Moderate
Income
1,675
0
0
1,675_
+1,675
Total
3,863
1,339
24
80
5,266
3,566
+1,700
'These projects, indcntified in Table 3-11 of the draft Housing Element, are in addition to those found in the tables above and
represent affordable housing approved since December 31,2006.
JThe City has also counted toward its high density yield the estimated number (80) of second dwelling units to be built
through 2010.
Source: City of Carlsbad, May 2008.
Housing Needs
Programs are proposed to address the housing needs of various individuals as required by
state law. Highlights of these programs are as follows:
• Program 3.11: Housing for Persons with Disabilities. Adopt an ordinance to
establish a formal policy on offering reasonable accommodations to persons with
disabilities with regard to the construction, rehabilitation, and improvement of
housing. A reasonable accommodation may take the form of a front setback
reduction to allow an access ramp; and
• Program 3.14: Housing for the Homeless. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit
emergency shelters in the City's industrial zones; and
• Program 3.17: Alternative Housing. Adopt an ordinance to conditionally permit
managed living units in the Village Redevelopment Area. Managed living units are
small, studio-like units designed for transient or permanent occupancy.
IV. SUMMARY
As with the current Housing Element, the draft Housing Element identifies strategies and
programs that focus on:
• Conserving and improving existing affordable housing;
• Maximizing housing opportunities throughout the community,
• Assisting in the provision of affordable housing;
• Removing governmental and other constraints to housing investment; and
2005-2010 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT
January 8,2009
PAGE 11
• Promoting fair and equal housing opportunities.
The draft Housing Element is designed to provide the City with a coordinated and comprehensive
strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent, and affordable housing within the
community. Accordingly, it continues the successful, relevant programs adopted in 2000 as part of
the current Element and contains new programs as necessary that achieve compliance with state law
and that recognize current housing conditions and opportunities in Carlsbad. By so doing, the draft
Housing Element complies with state Housing Element law.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The GPA for the draft Housing Element update will undergo the appropriate level of
environmental review pursuant to CEQA. This review will take place concurrent with
processing of the GPA before the Planning Commission and City Council.
VI. EXHIBITS
1. Housing Commission Resolution 2009-001.
2. November 21,2008, letter of compliance from HCD.
3. "City of Carlsbad Draft 2005-2010 Housing Element December 2008" (provided
earlier to the Housing Commission and available on the City's website at
hrtp://www.carlsbadca.gov/pdfdoc.htmt?pid=528).
4. Meeting notice.
Rovnmnr
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
1800 Third Street, Suits 430
P.O. Box 952053
Sacramento, CA 94252-2053
(916)323-3177
FAX (916) 327-2643
November 21,2008
Mr. Don Neu, Director
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Neu:
RE: Review of the City of Carlsbad's Revised Draft Housing Element
Thank you for submitting the City of Carlsbad's draft housing element received for
review on September 24,2008. The Department is required to review draft housing
elements and report the findings to the locality pursuant to Government Code
Section 65585(b). In addition, the Department considered comments submitted by
Ms. Diane Nygaard, pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(c). The review was
also facilitated by several communications with Mr. Scott Donnell, Senior Planner,
Mr. Gary Barberio, Assistant Planning Director, Mr. Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner,
Mr, Dave de Cordova, Principal Planner, Ms. Debbie Fountain, Housing and
Redevelopment Director, and your consultant, Ms. Veronica Tam.
The revised draft element addresses the statutory requirements described in the
Department's August 4, 2008 review. For example, the element now demonstrates
adequate sites and includes programs to encourage development on nonvacant sites.
As a result, the revised draft element will comply with State housing element law
(Article 10.6 of the Government Code) when adopted and submitted to the Department,
pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(g).
The Department recognizes Carlsbad's efforts to adopt effective housing and land-use
strategies to address its existing and projected housing need, including encouraging
redevelopment and lot consolidation in the Village and Barrio Areas. Programs to
provide adequate sites and encourage redevelopment in the Village and Barrio Areas,
including Program 2.1 (Adequate Sites), are critical in demonstrating compliance with
housing element law. The City must monitor and report on the results of these
programs through the annual progress report, required pursuant to Government Code
Section 65400, and should amend programs as necessary if existing programs or
strategies are not effective in providing needed housing opportunities.
Mr. Don Neu, Director
Page 2
For your information, pursuant to Government Code Section 65863, local .governments
must ensure the Inventory of sites or any sites program accommodates the regional
housing need throughout the planning period of the element. In addition, no local
government action shall reduce, require or permit the reduction of, the residential
density for any parcel to, or allow development of any parcel at, a lower residential
density than identified in the site inventory or program unless the local government
makes written findings, the reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan,
including the housing element and the remaining sites identified in the housing element
are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need.
The Department appreciates the City's efforts to address its housing needs and is
thankful of Mr. Donhell's hard work and cooperation during the housing element update.
The Department looks forward to receiving Carlsbad's adopted housing element. If you
have any additional questions, please contact Paul McDougali, of our staff, at
(916) 322-7995.
Sincerely,
Cathy E. Creswell
Deputy Director
City of Carlsbad
You are invited to attend a
Housing Commission meeting on
Carlsbad's draft Housing Element
WHEN: Thursday, January 8, 2009, at 6:00 P.M.
WHERE: Carlsbad Council Chambers
Carlsbad City Hatl
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
WHAT: The Housing Commission will hold a
public meeting to consider recommending
approval of a General Plan Amendment to adopt the
draft Housing Element for the 2005-2010 Housing
Cycle.
More information: The Housing Commission's recommendation will be sent to the
Planning Commission and City Council. The Planning Commission and City Council
will hold public hearings on the General Plan Amendment to adopt the draft Housing
Element in the first half of 2009. These hearings will be separately noticed.
The draft Element, dated December 2008, has been revised from the previous
version dated June 2008. The proposed Element may be viewed at the City's website
at http://www.carlsbadca.gov/pdfdoc.htrnl7pidg528. A copy is also available at the
City of Carlsbad Planning counter, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008.
About the Housing Element: The City of Carlsbad is updating its General Plan Housing
Element. The General Plan is the City's long range planning document The update
evaluates the effectiveness of the current Housing Element, identifies Carlsbad's current
and future housing needs, and presents goals, policies, and programs to meet those
needs through 2010.
If you have any questions, please contact Scott Donnell, Senior Planner, at (760) 602-
4618 or sdonn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us.
EXHIBIT 5Bii
Minutes of: HOUSING COMMISSION
Time of Meeting: 6:00 P.M.
Date of Meeting: January 8, 2009
Place of Meeting: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Smith called the Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Wrisley led with the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners: Emelda Bradwell
Craig Kirk
Bobbie Smith
Hope Wrisley
Absent: Doris Ritchie
Staff Present: Housing and Redevelopment Director: Debbie Fountain
Senior Planner Scott Donnell
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of December 11, 2008, were approved as written.
VOTE: 2-0
AYES: Kirk and Smith
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Bradwell and Wrisley (absent from meeting)
ABSENT: Ritchie
ITEM NOT ON AGENDA
There were no items that were not on the agenda.
NEW BUSINESS
Debbie Fountain, Director of Housing and Redevelopment, presented the item on the agenda which is the
2005 to 2010 draft Housing Element. This is a request for a recommendation from the Housing
Commission to the Planning Commission and City Council to adopt the update and the revisions to the
General Plan Housing Element for the noted cycle. Scott Donnell, Senior Planner, is the project planner
and will make the presentation. He is assisted by Veronica Tam, our Housing Consultant.
Mr. Donnell said this is the staff report on the 2005-2010 Housing Element. It covers this housing cycle,
which is this five-year period mentioned here. First I would like to give a summary. We will have an
introduction and start off with some basic project and meeting information. We will also discuss staffs
recommendation, what your action is and what it means, as well as some parameters for public input for
tonight's meeting. I will then turn the presentation over to Veronica Tarn, and she will provide you with the
basics on the Housing Element; what its purpose is, what some state mandates are, and how Carlsbad,
just like every other city and county in California, is affected by a host of new state housing laws that are
reflected in our proposed Housing Element.
Speaking of the proposed Housing Element, we will go over what the contents of that Element are and
highlight some of the programs. Much of the effort staff has put in towards this Housing Element has
been to find adequate sites in order to meet some growth projections the state has established. Those
growth projections are known as RHNA or the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. While many of our
HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 8, 2009
PAGE 2 of 20
programs deal with RHNA, there are also other programs as well in the Housing Element; we will briefly
touch on those too. Finally, the presentation will wrap up with a discussion about what the ramifications
are to cities and counties that do not adopt a Housing Element. Last of all, we will look at the review
schedule from when the Housing Commission finishes its review through when the Housing Element
would be certified.
As the Housing and Redevelopment Director mentioned, Veronica Tam and I are available to answer any
questions as well as Ms. Fountain.
The draft version of the Housing Element that is recommended for approval is that with the date of
December 2008. You received a copy earlier. That document is also available on the city's website on
the Planning Homepage. That is important because there have been two earlier versions of this draft.
The first was released in April 2007, the second one was released in June 2008, and then finally this third
and hopefully the final draft which was just released last month. It is that final draft that reflects the
approval or the desires of HCD as to what they would like to see in our Housing Element. HCD has sent
the city a letter of compliance indicating the draft Housing Element that you have before does comply with
state law. That letter as well as the Housing Element are both available on the city's website. Copies of
this PowerPoint presentation, should you desire any information in it, has been provided to the Housing
Commission. There are also copies of this presentation in the foyer in the back should any members of
the audience like to have it.
Some additional meeting information: The Housing Element is part of the City's General Plan. The
General Plan is our blueprint for how we want to grow. Because it is part of the General Plan, approval of
the Housing Element ultimately requires an amendment to the General Ran. It is an element of the
General Plan. It is one of the mandated elements by the state, and any time one of those elements is
changed an amendment is required. The purpose of tonight's meeting is to consider that amendment by
receiving this staff presentation, by considering any public comments that are made tonight or in writing on
the proposed update to the Housing Element, and then finally to consider making a recommendation on
the Housing Element update. Our recommendation is approval of this Housing Element update, and that
would be a recommendation of approval of a General Plan amendment to adopt the Housing Element
update. Your recommendation will then be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council, and it
is the City Council that makes the final decision on whether or not to approve the Housing Element Your
action is a recommendation only. It will not result in approval of the Housing Element, nor will it result in
approval of any of the land changes or programs that are proposed in this document. It is the City Council
that approves the Housing Element. Even with that said, the Housing Element, like the rest of the General
Ran, is just a policy document. It does not implement any land use changes once it is approved. Instead,
the bulk of the programs and all of the programs that call for land use changes will require a separate
review and approval at later hearings that will take place after the Housing Element if it is adopted.
Public comment, of course, is welcome tonight. This meeting was extensively noticed to encourage that
public comment. We have developed a mailing list that includes organizations, individual housing
advocates, business, as well as homeowner's associations. Should anybody desire to speak tonight,
there is no need to fill out a speaker's slip. Also, there will be further public comment opportunities in
addition to tonight's meeting. There will be the Planning Commission public hearing as well as the City
Council public hearing. Both of those meetings will be noticed. Everybody that received a notice of
tonight's meeting will also receive a notice of these future meetings before the Planning Commission and
City Council. If anybody did not get a notice of tonight's meeting, there is a sign-up sheet in the foyer.
They are welcome to put their name and mailing address or e-mail address and we can make sure
notices are sent to them once they are ready for these upcoming meetings.
The basics of Housing Element 101: Why we do it and what the state requires us to do will be presented
by Veronica Tam, our Housing Element Consultant.
Ms. Tam will give an overview of what the Housing Element is. It is a major achievement the city was able
to get a compliance letter from the state. It is something that is very difficult to come by. Many
communities, even in San Diego County, are still struggling in trying to get a compliance letter from the
300
HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 8, 2009
PAGE 3 of 20
state. The Housing Element recognizes that housing is an essential commodity for every single
household and every single person in California. Every person is entitled to decent and adequate housing
within the state of California, including those people who have special needs; elderly, disabled, homeless
and large households. In many situations the state recognizes it is the local community's responsibility to
actually address housing needs for all economic segments of the community because the market usually
takes care of the upper income households. The Housing Element inherently implies the emphasis to
providing housing for low and moderate income households. Further in the Housing Element law it
emphasizes you have to provide housing for all income groups, including those who are low and moderate
income.
As Mr. Donnell mentioned before, the Housing Element is an integral component of the General Plan. It
recognizes that the housing market is more volatile and therefore needs to be updated frequently. The
General Plan is updated every ten to fifteen years or even longer, twenty years. It has a longer horizon.
The housing market is so volatile that it needs to be updated more frequently. Previously, the law says
every five years. There has been new legislation that it could actually be extended to eight years or it can
be shortened to four years. We will explain that later when we get to the ramifications. The timeframe is
usually between four to eight years that you can update the Housing Element. It applies to all jurisdictions,
all 478 cities in the state and 57 counties in the state. Each jurisdiction has to meet this requirement. The
Housing Element has to go through a very rigorous review by a state agency, the State Department of
Housing and Community Development, is responsible for that review. This review is extremely stringent
and onerous. That is why we have mentioned it is an achievement to get a compliance letter from the
state.
When we look at the Housing Element, the basic content of the Housing Element has several
components. One, we must look at the current needs of the residents and also projected needs of the
residents; what is needed in the community, what will be needed in the community, based on the
demographics of the community and projected trends in terms of the demographics. We need to do fairly
extensive needs assessment. Then we have to identify the constraints and opportunities within the
community. When we talk about constraints, we are really talking about the market constraints, the
environmental constraints, and the governmental constraints. Even though we have to recognize market
constraints and environmental constraints, the state law recognizes you have very little control over those
two elements. However, governmental constraints, things you do, your policies, your regulations, and your
standards, those are the things you have control over. If your policies and regulations are found to be
constraining to the Housing Element, you are obligated to mitigate or eliminate that constraint. That is
something the Housing Element focuses on; the policies and regulations you have as a community in
dealing with housing. In terms of opportunities, financial resources you have, incentives you offer, and
most importantly, the land resources, the residential sites you have available to meet the housing needs of
the community, and not only just now, but in the next few years. The Housing Element has to identify a
strategy, which Mr. Donnell will cover later in the proposed programs and how you are going to deal with
your housing needs.
In looking at the Housing Element, the most critical component to getting a certification of compliance
status from the state is something called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. What that really entails
is the State of California Department of Finance working in conjunction with the State Department of
Housing and Community Development to project how much housing is needed in the state over the next
five to ten years. Then they allocate to each jurisdiction within the state. Every single jurisdiction gets an
allocation. The San Diego Association of Government is the regional body that is responsible for taking
that allocation from the state, from San Diego County, and allocating to each individual jurisdiction within
the county. To get that number that you must meet, you must be able to accommodate that housing need
within your community. Your obligation is to make sure you have planned for the residential growth that
can accommodate the need. If the market is such that the housing doesnt get built, it is okay because
you are not in control of the market. However, you must be able to plan adequate sites in order to
accommodate that growth should the market turn around and allow the housing to be constructed. That is
the legal obligation of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Once given an allocation, the City of
Carlsbad conducted a lot of meetings such as the Planning Commission and the Housing Commission in
order to gather input. That process of developing the Housing Element is critical in reflecting in what we
HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 8,2009
PAGE 4 of 20
have in the Housing Element that is consulting with a lot of different groups including staff and different
agencies. There is also negotiating with the state in terms of what would be an acceptable Housing
Element. The drafting of the Housing Element took quite a few months and then it was sent off to the
state for their review. The state's review takes two months every time you submit a revision to the state or
some kind of changes to the state. Throughout that process we have to negotiate policies, we have
negotiated incentives in order to put it in the Housing Element. That negotiation took quite a bit of time.
Ultimately the draft we had in December got an approval letter from the state. Once we got that letter on
the draft Housing Element, we are moving forward right now with the adoption process. Once the Housing
Element is adopted by the City Council, we have to send it back to the state for their review again because
they want to make sure you actually did adopt the Housing Element they have reviewed and approved. If
any changes we have done would constitute any substantial policy change, we need to restart that whole
process again.
The Housing Element is a very stringent review because Housing Element laws probably are the most
extensive in California among all states in the nation. Housing in California is the most regulated aspect of
planning compared to the rest of the country. There are many different laws that govern how the Housing
Element should be written with other housing policies and programs that need to be included in the
Housing Element. Recognizing there are so many different issues with local land use planning, there have
been a lot of changes to the state law, particularly relating to housing land use planning.
We wanted to quickly go over some of the key laws. The first one is SB520, Housing for Persons of
Disabilities. We have to address the constraints in local policies relating to providing housing for persons
with disabilities. Specifically, the state requires the adoption of a reasonable accommodation policy or
ordinance in order to provide housing for persons with disabilities. AB2292 establishes minimum densities
for housing developments. In the Housing Element if you use a certain density to estimate your capacity,
you need to stick to that and making sure you have the capacity to accommodate your RHNA. It stems
from the fact a lot of jurisdictions would raise the density to very high but continue to approve projects at
very low densities. If you run into situations where you approve very low density projects on very high
density sites, you are required by law to replenish your sites' inventory.
Housing is the most difficult to achieve for extremely low income households, that is households making
30% of the county median income. That is primarily people working in the service industry or the
hospitality industry; those are the people who are making minimum wages. Housing must be available for
persons with extremely low income, and stemming from that particular piece of law, we have to deal with
housing for persons with disabilities again recognizing that many disabled people do not make a high
income.
SB2 is something that was adopted just recently last year in September. It relates to housing for the
homeless. We do not have to build emergency shelters, but we must allow that to occur by zoning. You
must identify zones within your community that you would permit emergency shelters to be located should
a non-profit request that. So you must be able to identify a zone. It also requires people to do single-room
occupancy units.
Another new law that was passed in 2005 was AB1233. That relates again with the regional housing
needs allocation. If you do not identify adequate sites in this Housing Element for your RHNA, you will not
get a certified Housing Element. It is also a penalty that RHNA doesn't just go away. The next time you
update the Housing Element, you get a new RHNA for the new Housing Element cycle, but you will also
get a penalty for not meeting the RHNA in this cycle. You will have to add on top of the new RHNA in the
future cycle with whatever is not being met right now from a planning perspective; whether you have
zoned adequate land for it or not.
SB375 was passed in October 2008 that requires the alignment of Housing Element and regional
transportation planning. It does have an incentive to some extent. That particular law allows jurisdictions
and regional governments to do a regional forecast in terms of growth over an eight year period. If you
have a certified Housing Element, the Housing Element planning period becomes an eight year Housing
Element so you don't have to update every five years.
HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 8,2009
PAGE 5 of 20
The one that is very difficult for a lot of communities is AB2348. It establishes some minimum densities in
order to accommodate the RHNA. The state has automatically established thirty units to the acre as the
density considered to be adequate to facilitate and encourage the development of housing for lower
income households in metropolitan areas, which includes Carlsbad.
Mr. Donnell said Ms. Tarn's presentation, her overview, and the discussion of the laws especially,
including AB2348, are a good segue into talking about what our proposed Housing Element actually
contains.
Briefly we will talk about the first six sections of the Housing Element. The first section, the Introduction, is
a lot of what Ms. Tam just discussed in the way of the basics; why we do the Housing Element and what
the state law mandates. It also provides discussion about previous public input that you as the Housing
Commission have heard regarding the proposed Housing Element. For example, there is a write-up in
Section 1 that discusses the comments received at your last meeting on this subject in April 2007.
The Housing Needs Assessment is Section 2. That looks at census information, data regarding
population, ethnicity, characteristics of households, overcrowded households, single family, female
headed households, housing prices, homeless counts, census data, etc. A lot of the information in this
section is outdated because it is based on the census. That will be updated next year and the years
following once the 2010 census results are out. This Section 2 is what establishes what the housing
needs are for Carlsbad.
Section 3, Resources Available, analyzes what we have to offer in the way of land for future residential
development. It also discusses things such as financial resources, the City's affordable housing trust fund
and other monies that are available for example to assist developers with the building of affordable
housing.
Section 4, Constraints and Mitigating Opportunities, looks at different kinds of constraints, whether they
are private sector constraints, governmental constraints or environmental constraints. Environmental
constraints in Carlsbad include things like hillsides, habitat areas, areas that have to be set aside and
preserved based on various state and federal mandates. Governmental constraints might include things
like the City of Carlsbad's permitting process. Private sector constraints would include the cost of land,
the cost the developers have to pay in order to build housing. That all influences the programs we have to
have to assist developers when necessary to build housing that is affordable to families with very low and
low incomes.
Section 5 is a review of the 1999 Housing Element, the previous Housing Element which was adopted in
the year 2000. When you read that section in conjunction with Appendix B, you can see the results of how
effectively the city was able to implement the various programs and policies of that previous Housing
Element.
Finally, Section 6 is our Housing Plan. It contains the various programs, policies, objectives to address
and help establish and provide housing based on the needs that have been identified for this housing
cycle.
After all of those sections, we have various appendices, many of those appendices constitute our detailed
land inventory. For every program we have recommended that has been based on a certain type of area
from which we hope to see some sort of unit yield, there is a detailed parcel by parcel inventory that
explains what each parcel can yield in terms of numbers of units. That is important.
As mentioned before, our previous Housing Element was adopted in 2000. Most of the Housing Element
programs from that Housing Element have been carried forward. That is to say they are successful and
still valid. For example, we have a program, 2.5 in the previous Housing Element, which encourages
mixed-use development. You will see we do that in the Village Redevelopment Area and we will be
encouraging it in other areas as well. It remains a valid program in Carlsbad.
HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 8, 2009
PAGE 6 of 20
Another program we kept was Program 3.68 to continue our inclusionary requirements. That has been a
wonderful asset for the City in terms of producing housing that is affordable to very low and low income
families.
An example of a program that was deleted, and I believe there are probably about four or five programs
that did not get carried forward to the new proposed Housing Element, was 4.1, A Housing Impact Fee.
That was a fee that would have been placed on developers of non-residential construction. The money
that would have been generated from that fee, for example, would go to assist in the construction of
affordable housing. That impact fee has not been adopted. It is recommended to be deleted as a
program.
The majority of the programs that are new have been proposed to comply with state law. The state law
that has gained our attention and effort has been AB2348 dealing with the regional housing needs
assessment. This is a growth projection the State Department of Finance and Housing and Community
Development develop. These numbers are then transmitted to the various councils of government, which
in our case is SANDAG. It is the job of SANDAG to distribute these growth projections to the different
cities and county here. This exact same process happens everywhere, whether you are in Shasta County,
San Francisco, Sacramento, but we are just focusing on San Diego, but you can rest assured the process
is similar elsewhere in California. That Regional Housing Needs Assessment gets translated into a 7 1/£
year number from January 2003 through June 2010. As you can see, Carlsbad's share of that growth
projection is about 8,400 units. In other words, the state is saying, through SANDAG, the City of Carlsbad
needs to show it has the land available and the programs provided to accommodate about 8,400 units.
You can see those 8,400 units then get broken down by income group. Each one of us falls into one of
these income groups. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment estimates we need to provide 40% of
our housing to people who earn above moderate incomes. It also says 40% of our housing needs to be
made affordable to very low and low incomes. As Ms. Tam mentioned, the State Department of Housing
and Community Development considers densities of 30 units or more per acre to be a de facto density
that is acceptable or appropriate for very low and low income families. In Carlsbad we have been able to
convince the state that densities appropriate for very low and tow incomes households are at least 20 units
per acre, which is below the state minimum. We also have some programs that are proposing densities
of 28 units per acre. We must provide the land to meet the RHNA. We do not need to provide the units.
The city is not obligated to build 8,376 units. We just simply have to show we have land at the appropriate
densities to accommodate those 8,376 units in this program. To do that, we prepare an inventory. That
inventory is very detailed. It breaks down all of the residential land in Carlsbad by parcel, indicating what
its general plan designation is, indicating how many units can be realized from each parcel. That is in the
back of the Housing Element.
In terms of our progress in meeting the RHNA, if you recall I said the number begins in January 2003 and
it is a great thing to be able to report that Carlsbad has built over 1,200 units since then, affordable to
lower income families, as well as moderate income families. Despite all of the progress we have made
since 2003, the city is still obligated to find land to accommodate 3,566 units that are considered
affordable to lower and moderate income families. That means in Carlsbad we need to provide land at
densities of 20 units per acre or more for lower income units and 12 units per acre for moderate income
units. When you analyze the City's General Flan and Zoning Ordinance as they exist today, we cant meet
the figure. This is a constraint. Obviously our policies and programs as they exist are inadequate. To
meet RHNA, therefore, we have to devise programs to figure out how to accommodate these 3,500 units.
When I mention the General Ran and the Zoning Ordinance maps, this PowerPoint slide shows a
segment of the General Ran Land Use map. If you were to look at the entire city, you would see a map
that regulates all types of land uses in Carlsbad. As an example, the City Council is located in the
government designation. A lot of the area around here and around the high school is designated for
residential. If you included the rest of the City of Carlsbad, all of these different residential land use
designations, when they are added up, don't enable us to meet our RHNA. That is how we get into
programs.
3o M
HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 8,2009
PAGE 7 of 20
The inventory we did counted not only vacant land, but it also counted properties that are considered
underutilized. Underutilized properties are those which maybe are a one-acre parcel with a single-family
home that is actually designated for multifamily residential. There is a good opportunity that such a
property might redevelop. In addition to counting vacant land towards meeting our RHNA we can count
properties such as that because they have a potential to redevelop with more units. Even if we count the
vacant and the underutilized, we still fall short of meeting our RHNA, those 3,566 units. For the first time
in Hs history, Carlsbad has, through its Housing Element, had to introduce programs that would increase
minimum densities, identify sites for higher densities, and develop standards for mixed use. All of these
programs are subject to more and substantial review before the Planning Commission and the City
Council. The adoption of the Housing Element ultimately by Council will tell the City staff what the
marching orders are to implement the programs. It will still require separate applications to come back
before we actually do make land use changes.
In addition to counting programs that are self-initiated or City-initiated, we are also relying on some private
development proposals to help us meet our RHNA.
Carlsbad, as a city, would be proposing some programs in the Housing Element to help meet our RHNA
and these programs can be found in program 2.1, which is in Section 6 of your Housing Element. These
are sites the City has identified to help us meet our RHNA. The first site is Quarry Creek. This is in the
northern part of the city along the Oceanside border. This is a property that currently has General Ran
land use designations of residential and open space. The proposal is to take that current residential land
use designation and change it to allow a greater density. That property presently allows about 160
dwelling units. We are proposing to change the land use designations to allow 500 dwelling units. We
have also looked at the Village Area in Carlsbad to increase the allowable minimum densities there.
Presently they range anywhere from 15 to 35 units per acre. By increasing that minimum density from 15
units to a higher number, we can realize potentially a yield of 875 units. The Barrio Area, which is south of
the Village, west of Interstate 5 and north of Tamarack, is another area we see that has the potential for
density increases and also to allow mixed use. If we factor in those density increases, we think there is a
yield of about 330 units. We also think some of the shopping centers in Carlsbad, such as Plaza Camino
Real, are opportunities for mixed-use residential development. Also our Ponto area on the southern part
of the city, you may recall a vision plan was adopted, and if that vision plan is implemented, it would
enable perhaps 160 units. This program would put in place the land use designations that would enable
developers to come in and build units at these increased densities or based on mixed-use standards.
That same program, 2.1, also proposes additional changes.
We have two General Plan density categories that are suitable for moderate income and lower income
families. They have minimum densities and would be affected by new densities proposed in the Housing
Element. The same holds true for the Village. We have also called out the mixed use in the Barrio Area.
Just to highlight that Barrio Area, presently it allows residential densities of four or eight units per acre.
The proposed density under the Housing Element would be 12 units per acre or 28 units per acre. These
would be minimum densities. As I mentioned, we are also counting some private proposals by
developers. These are projects that either were already approved or are now going through the process.
The first is Bridges at Aviara, which has a 65 unit affordable housing project. This is a project that is in the
Dove Library area, west of El Camino Real. La Costa Towne Square is a large residential commercial
project in the La Costa area. That should yield about 135 units of high density housing that we can count
as being appropriate for lower income families. Finally, Robertson Ranch is a project that was approved
in 2005. It is developed today in terms of grading and pads have been created. That project will yield
about 465 units at a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre. That is the magic figure for us to be
considered as having a density acceptable for lower income units.
I want to assure the Housing Commission that just like all of the affordable- housing projects that exist
today in Carlsbad, whether it is Villa Loma or other projects, the programs we are recommending to
change land use designations are on sites scattered throughout the city.
Speaking of scattered sites, let's first take a look at Quarry Creek at the northern part of the city. We also
have a shopping center that we think might be a suitable site for mixed use. That is the Smart and Final
HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 8,2009
PAGE 8 of 20
Center along the east side of El Camino Real. Also, we have Plaza Camino Real, the Village Area, the
Barrio Area, the shopping center at Tamarack and Interstate 5, and a little commercial area known as the
country store along El Camino Real. Once again, these are sites potentially either for residential or mixed-
use residential at high densities. Other sites include the Robertson Ranch area that I mentioned, the
Ponto area down at the southern part of the city just south of Poinsettia, the Bridges at Aviara project in
the vicinity of Dove Library, and a shopping center at the comer of La Costa and El Camino Real. We
think this shopping center, where there is a Von's today, is a potential site for a shopping center with
mixed-use development. Also we are counting the La Costa Town Square project along Rancho Santa
Fe. We are not concentrating all affordable housing in any one location. It has taken quite a bit of time to
develop sites that are located throughout Carlsbad. There has been an extensive effort done to try to find
sites to meet our RHNA.
When all is done and said, when you look at the sites we just discussed, when you take a look at the
vacant land and the underutilized land we have, here is the result: We have that remaining RHNA figure
of 3,566 units. When we take a look at all of our proposals, we end up with over 619 units more of lower
income units than we need. But if you take a look at moderate income, we have almost 600 units fewer
than what we need. Fortunately, the lower income makes up for the moderate income. We end up with a
surplus of about 25 units. We are 25 units over our RHNA figure.
While certainly the emphasis tonight has been on how we meet our RHNA, we have additional programs
that tie in well with some of the laws that Veronica mentioned earlier. Program 3.4 requires the city to
create 70 units of non-inclusionary affordable housing, and actually we have met that program through the
construction of Cassia Heights on El Camino Real as well as the Roosevelt Gardens project that is in
construction in the Village. Program 3.11 requires us to develop a reasonable accommodations policy for
persons with disabilities. Case in point would be someone who needs to add a bedroom onto the first
floor of their house because they are no longer able to climb the stairs. There would need to be a policy to
accommodate that type of thing, or perhaps a garage that has to be widened or expanded to
accommodate a special vehicle. We also need to amend our industrial zones to permit emergency
shelters or homeless shelters. Finally, we have a program that requires us to adopt an ordinance to
permit managed living units; these are single-room occupancy units like a studio where someone may live
on a temporary or a permanent basis.
Now Ms. Tam will present on Housing Element ramifications, what will happen if the Housing Element is
not adopted.
Ms. Tam said previously the Housing Element law didn't have a lot of incentives. That is why in the 1990's
Housing Element compliance was minimal. Probably about half of the jurisdictions in the state complied
with the Housing Element law. Increasingly the state recognizes it is really important so they have
continued to rework the Housing Element law and provide more incentives and also more penalties
relating to Housing Element compliance. In the last round, Housing Element compliance was close to
80% compliance for all the jurisdictions in the state. One of the key reasons for getting a Housing
Element that complies with state law certified by the state is the fact it is an integral component of your
General Plan. If your Housing Element is out of compliance with state law, that renders your General Plan
overall legally inadequate. In many situations, that can be risky. In the event of a lawsuit, which has
happened to some other jurisdictions, if you have a Housing Element that does not comply with state law,
the court can actually withhold the city's ability to issue building permits. That is not just housing permits.
It can be commercial permits, and it can also relate to rehabilitation and improvement additions. This
recently happened to the City of Folsom. Because its Housing Element was litigated by a nonprofit
organization for not complying with state law, the court ordered the state to renegotiate a settlement
agreement, rework the Housing Element, and withholds Folsom's ability to issue building permits on about
600 acres of land within the city until the lawsuit is settled.
When a state agency has already stated in a letter that you do not comply with law, you, as a jurisdiction,
have to prove otherwise to a court, which becomes very difficult because a state agency has already
determined you do not comply. If you have the state letter saying you do comply, in the event of a lawsuit,
HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 8,2009
PAGE 9 of 20
it would be the litigants responsibility to prove that you do not. The burden would then be on them, and it
is much more difficult. That is a protection for the city, depending on the risk of litigation you have. Most
recently, the state has added incentives for Housing Element certification. In 2005 and 2006 there was
Proposition 46 and 1C. Those were funded specifically created to provide housing in the state. Really
Housing Element compliance, particularly for Proposition 1C, requires that you have the Housing Element
compliance before ypu can be eligible to apply for such funding. That funding is not only limited to
affordable housing development, it also provides funding for amenities and infrastructures in association
with mixed-use development and association with urban development. In a few months you will see a
$200,000,000 funding availability for urban parks because a lot of communities, in providing affordable
housing, have limited ability on land to provide parks and recreation opportunities for the low income
households. You will not be eligible for it if you do not have a Housing Element that complies with the
state law.
SANDAG is a leader in the state in tying regional transportation funds with Housing Element compliance.
There are certain regional transportation funds that you will not be eligible to apply if you do not have a
Housing Element compliance. Earlier I mentioned SB375; SB375 aligns regional transportation planning
with Housing Element planning and extends the Housing Element planning period to eight years, which is
to many communities an incentive because you don't have to update the Housing Element as frequently.
If you do not have a Housing Element that complies with state law, you are not eligible for that. You will, in
fact, actually be penalized to update your Housing Element every four years, even more frequently than
we do currently. With SB375, if your land use policies are inadequate in meeting your regional housing
needs allocation, in the event of a lawsuit, the court can take over the land use jurisdiction of the
community and actually rezone the land for you. Those are the major ramifications of not having a
Housing Element.
To summarize the presentation, Mr. Donnell presented the review schedule. Once the Housing
Commission makes a recommendation to the Planning Commission and the City Council, this is what will
happen next. In early 2009, from now until about April, we will circulate the environmental document for
public review and we will hold adoption hearings for the Housing Element at Planning Commission and the
City Council. After the City Council takes its action, we will submit the Housing Element to the state for
that final certification. They have as much time as 90 days to do that certification. Once that is obtained,
we will hold the hearings to carry out the various programs that we have discussed, the land use changes,
an ordinance to permit emergency shelters, that type of thing. Since all of this is supposed to take place
within our Housing Element cycle, which ends June 30, 2010, we need to complete these programs. We
have already started to work on the reasonable accommodations policy and another program regarding
farm worker housing. There is a lot of work that has to be done in the next year and a half.
Once again, our recommendation is that you recommend approval of this update to the Planning
Commission and the City Council.
Chairperson Smith said she would like to acknowledge the Housing Commission did receive letters and
staff has extra copies if you would like them. Are there any questions?
Commissioner Wrisley said we have certain elements that have been identified with each unit, proposed
program 2.1, Quarry Creek, the Village, the Barrio, shopping centers and Ponto. If we do not accept all of
those, then we will be out of it and we won't be able to comply with our numbers, is that correct?
Mr. Donnell said that is correct. Each of those components that you mentioned is important. If any one of
them is taken out, then we can't meet our RHNA.
Commissioner Wrisley said as I understand it, if we accept those numbers, that doesn't mean we have to
build those numbers.
Mr. Donnell said that is correct.
Commissioner Wrisley asked is there any way you can adjust these to come up with the same total.
Sol
HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 8, 2009
PAGE 10 of 20
Mr. Donnell asked if she means, as in finding other sites.
Commissioner Wrisley said either find other sites or take some units out of one and add them to another.
Mr. Donnell answered yes, is the quick answer. I don't think the state necessarily cares where the sites
are as long as you meet your RHNA. That is what is important. To the city, on the other hand, the
difficulty is finding if we take something away from here, how are we going to make up for it elsewhere.
Commissioner Kirk asked in terms of the Quarry Creek site, given it is a fairly large number of units, I
would take it to confirm this is a very critical site to the overall Housing Element.
Mr. Donnell said yes.
Commissioner Kirk said along that line, have you considered the opportunity to up zone or rezone other
areas, and what is the possibility of achieving that?
Mr. Donnell said at the April 2007 hearing before the Housing Commission there was quite a bit of public
comment about Quarry Creek. In response to that, city staff did try to find alternative sites. At the same
time, we realized one of the projects we were counting on at that time, we could no longer count. With the
loss of Quarry Creek and the loss of that other project it would have totaled about 900 units that we would
have to replace. We were able to replace a portion of that by identifying the Bridges at Aviara project,
which has a 65 unit affordable component. We also made up for some of that loss by up zoning or
increasing the density in the Village area. We also then counted the Barrio Area, which I believe in April
2007 we weren't considering. That made up for the shortfall of one of the projects. Nevertheless, without
Quarry Creek we were still unable to meet our RHNA. We did also look at additional sites in the vicinity of
College and El Camino Real. One involved a property owner who was not willing to consider a land use
change. The other involved a site that was not ready for high density development. It did not meet the
criteria. So there were efforts made to try to find replacements for Quarry Creek. I think the City would
acknowledge that if there was a way to avoid a controversial site, then we would do it. The difficulty is
there just isn't. It has been a tough road to hoe to try to find a replacement.
Commissioner Kirk said in terms of the proposed sites, is there a prioritization in terms of which would be
built first.
Mr. Donnell said no, there is not a prioritization. We realize Quarry Creek is going to be the most difficult
to effectuate the land use changes to reach the unit yield we think we need; the 500 units. That is
because of the multitude of permits, actions that are necessary. Neither site is more important than the
other; all involve programs that will be begun simultaneously. Some will finish sooner than others.
Commissioner Bradwell wanted to know of the various groups represented in RHNA, which one, if any, is
targeted for priority, and are there any recommendations?
Mr. Donnell said I am not sure I understand your question.
Commissioner Bradwell said for development.
Mr. Donnell said the City has a RHNA need only for very low, low and moderate income families. We
have already met the need for above moderate income. We don't need to rezone or redesignate any land
for the typical single-family home. What we do need to redesignate land for is multifamily at 20 units per
acre because that is what HCD says is the minimum density we need to provide. That is our priority and
all of the programs try to do just that.
Commissioner Kirk said I am sure we will be talking much more about Quarry Creek, and I would like to
ask a couple of questions just to develop my understanding. I understand the City of Oceanside has
508
HOUSINGCOMMISSIONMINUTES
JANUARY 8, 2009
PAGE 11 of 20
jurisdiction in some aspect over Quarry Creek. Can you explain how that might impact the Quarry Creek
proposal?
Mr. Donnell said the jurisdiction Oceanside has regards the reclamation. There was an agreement some
years ago between our two cities. They have a mining ordinance, and at the time, I think this was in the
80's, the Quarry Creek site has an active mine. The City of Carlsbad, even though that portion of Quarry
Creek is in our City, did not have a mining ordinance. They were given the lead agency status to take
care of the reclamation, which is once that mine is closed down and it has been now for ten years,
Oceanside would be responsible to restore that land, remove the mining scars, revegitate it, and put it in a
state that is consistent with its General Plan designation, which is open space and low density residential.
Commissioner Kirk asked will that still have to occur.
Mr. Donnell said that would still have to occur. Another state mandate is mined properties in California
need to be reclaimed. There is an environmental impact report that has been released and the public
review on that has occurred. The public hearings to finalize the reclamation plan to adopt the EIR still
need to occur. That is all done by the City of Oceanside. There are permits that will be required through
Carlsbad to implement that reclamation work. That does need to occur. Whether it needs to occur before
it can be considered suitable for development in HCD's eyes, I am not sure. It doesn't prevent the City,
however, from implementing the land use designations that Program 2.1 proposes.
Commissioner Kirk commented it might well impact the ability to implement.
Mr. Donnell said it might well impact the ability to implement. There is a representative from McMillan
here who might be able to provide more information on developing that site.
Commissioner Wrisley asked if we have any kind of a timeline on how this is going to occur.
Mr. Donnell asked if she means the reclamation.
Commissioner Wrisley said, yes, the reclamation and getting that land ready for development. Is that
going to be two years from now or twenty years from now?
Mr. Donnell said I don't think it will be twenty years from now. I am sure two years from now is a more
realistic minimum. There certainly is a lot of work to be done even just beyond the City; the reclamation
plan approval, the permits from various agencies, the widening of the creek channel that goes through
there, the restoration of the land, etc. I am sure a minimum of a couple of years is realistic to see that
reclamation work to begin.
Commissioner Wrisley commented it would just "begin."
Mr. Donnell answered right.
Commissioner Wrisley asked what about to completion?
Mr. Donnell said that I don't know.
Commissioner Kirk asked what percentage of the underutilized will contribute towards RHNA?
Mr. Donnell said there is a table in the Housing Element in Section 3. For example, Table 3.9 on page 3-
21 mentions underutilized RMH land and underutilized RH land in the Beach Area Overlay. If we count
those properties, they yield 162 units toward the RHNA. Percentage wise I am not sure what that would
be.
Commissioner Kirk said that is all right. It is fairly small.
HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 8, 2009
PAGE 12 of 20
Mr. Donnell said it is fairly small. The same holds true with RH designated land or high density land. The
yield there is eight units.
Ms. Tam said the State's criteria for accepting underutilized sites is far more stringent than vacant sites.
To get them to actually accept the units that we have provided required a lot of analysis and work and also
convincing. We have to prove projects can be done on an underutilized land. The sites need to be big
enough or they can be consolidated, which may require you to provide incentives to encourage the
consolidation. It is very different in trying to get the State to accept the underutilized sites, whereas vacant
land will usually be accepted.
Mr. Donnell said Commissioner Kirk, to follow up on that, that is one thing about the Village, as you know
driving through there, there aren't a lot of vacant properties so we had to convince the State that small
sites in the Village, which is the typical 2/10ths of an acre or less, are being redeveloped. You will see a
discussion in Section 3 about a list of projects that have developed on formerly developed sites where a
couple of units or a commercial building have been removed. In other words, we had to demonstrate a
track record that what we say will happen actually is happening.
Commissioner Wrisley asked are infill sites considered underutilized.
Mr. Donnell said they can be. Certainly anything that was vacant was counted. Although there was a
minimum parcel size established outside the Village. I think that minimum parcel size was a quarter of an
acre. HCD frowns upon very small parcels being considered because they say you just can't get the unit
yield from them that would be considered to be affordable. It wouldn't be viable.
Commissioner Kirk asked is there a desirable contribution of distribution in terms of affordable units within
a geography. Is 500 in one area a large amount or an expected amount for a City of our size?
Ms. Tam said the difference is we are not saying the units are going to be affordable. We are zoning it at
a density that should affordable housing projects be located in those areas, it is considered an adequate
density. That is just your obligation. We are not saying that all 500 units will be affordable, low-income
housing. We are just saying the density is feasible.
Commissioner Kirk asked if we could say all 500 could be affordable, on the other hand, if we needed it.
Ms. Tam agreed.
Commissioner Wrisley asked if we go under this assumption that we have these designated but they are
not necessarily going to be built, is the State likely to come along and say we have to build them?
Ms. Tarn said no, that is not the legal requirement of the State law.
Chairperson Smith opened up to the public and invited interested parties to come and speak.
My name is Mel Vemon, Chairman of the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, and I live in Escondido,
1044 North Ivy. I have been following this process of Quarry Creek for quite a while. I have been down to
SANDAG and met with Mr. Millich with McMillan and gotten to know a little bit more of the process. I was
real excited back in April 2007 where the Planning Commission said no this can't happen. It goes back
and forth, and we see it is a process. One I was listening to says it is a very punitive process if you don't
step up to the plate for the State. The other part of this is that the State is sinking in itself. What was
rational at one time in a certain economy doesn't make sense in an environment where everybody seems
to be upside down in a world of hurt. Not to say with Brian and a lot of the people we have met aren't
concerned about what their part is and also as a Native American, I am concerned about the value of what
is concerned here also. It is interesting to follow this through. I have always said that no build would be
wonderful. I am not sure that is possible, but if no one says it, then the possibilities are limited to a
compromise that never really existed. I would like to thank you for the process we are going through.
Carlsbad is a beautiful place, and it is putting growth that it needs to do to have its economy going
HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 8, 2009
PAGE 13 of20
forward. Oceanside has its struggles with the Pavilion up there. They were looking to have some cultural
elements as a part of their shopping center, and then we find out that Westfield wants to conquer the
world and own all the shopping centers in it, which is from Australia. Just to share with you that following
the process I hope to hear a lot more people than just myself that just got up here first. I will just start the
rippling the process to participate this further. Thank you very much.
My name is Don Christiansen, and I live at 3715 Longview Drive. First of all, I really take exception to
calling this project Quarry Creek. Quarry Creek is the name of the shopping center development that laid
asphalt to within a few feet of one of the tallest waterfalls in all of Southern California, next to a Native
American sacred site, El Salto Waterfalls, and crowned with a giant Wal-Mart and Kohl's sign. That is
Quarry Creek. This project is in the Buena Vista Creek Valley. It is not called the Quarry Creek Valley.
Every meeting I come to, for whatever reason, it is consistently referred to as Quarry Creek. That is a
marketing strategy. It is not correct so I would appreciate it in the future if all concerned could start
addressing this project by something other than Quarry Creek because at this point in time, it is not Quarry
Creek. Secondly, as far as where this housing will go within Carlsbad that has been mandated by the
State of California, I appreciate a variety of different sites have been checked out. I am curious if any time
and energy was put in along the Palomar Airport Road corridor. It is a major traffic corridor. There are
lots of jobs there, which is my understanding are two of the key requirements of smart growth. Also,
during the last down cycle there are see-through office buildings, and I would speculate a fair number of
office buildings that are considered non-performing assets by those people who have gone in and built
them that are just standing there and deteriorating. I would think a higher and better use for those
buildings rather than just standing there and deteriorating would be to do something creative like turn them
into smart growth housing. Then we wouldn't be having this ongoing controversy about desiring to place
500 units or making it possible to place 500 units in one of the few remaining open spaces that we have in
North San Diego County. Please keep in mind, there was a lot of effort put in over the years to acquire the
west end of the valley, 134 acres which is commonly called the Sherman Property or Sherman Acquisition.
We have potential to build on that, to move east, and to acquire the rest of that valley. I see Dennis
Huckabee is here tonight and some time ago I heard him use the phrase, "from waterfalls to waves." That
really gets my attention if you can think back thousands of years when Native Americans lived here, I'm
sure their life was between the waterfalls and the waves. To the best of my knowledge, we don't even
have a trail to connect that unique natural resource, El Salto Waterfalls, with another unique natural
resource, the Pacific Ocean. I think there is a lot more that could be done with this property than just
building more units. I encourage you to please consider taking the Buena Vista Creek site off the list and
perhaps having another go around at trying to identify other sites where we might be able to come up with
the needed units. Another location I am especially interested in is in the Westfield Plaza Mall. It is my
understanding the City owns all of that parking lot area, and I don't think I've ever seen that parking lot fully
utilized with the possible exception of a staging area for major events. Right across the river on the north,
which is currently in Oceanside, is ten acres of vacant space. Perhaps someone with some vision and
with some capital to put it all together could acquire that ten acres, move the ....
Chairperson Smith asked him to please complete his point.
Mr. Christiansen asked if the existing transit center over on the other side of Buena Vista Creek could be
moved and increase the proposed density of units at the Westfield Shopping Center.
Chairperson Smith reminded the audience to limit their comments to five minutes.
My name is Dennis Huckabee, and I live in Oceanside. I am the president of Buena Vista Audubon
Society. Buena Vista Audubon Society consists of about 1,350 members, almost all of them from here in
Carlsbad, Oceanside, Vista and Encinitas. We operate a nature center on the shore of Buena Vista
Lagoon where we bring in over 3,500 school children from Carlsbad, also from Oceanside, to do nature
studies out of our nature center. We are quite constrained because we don't have too many places
alongside the lagoon to take them and show them nature. Yet now with the acquisition of the Sherman
Property, we have 134 acres just upstream from the lagoon which is now being developed as the Buena
Vista Valley Ecological Reserve. There are plans underway to restore Buena Vista Lagoon to make it a
functioning wetland. It is rather in peril at the moment. We have the potential, particularly if the land to the
HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 8,2009
PAGE 14 of 20
east of the Buena Vista Valley Ecological Reserve is allowed to be open space, is allowed to show future
generations what the cultural and ecological open space values are. I am sure I am preaching to the choir
here because I think all of you are aware of what a unique, irreplaceable place that is. We have the
potential to educate our children about nature; like it was said before, from the waterfalls to the waves. It
is an absolutely irreplaceable opportunity to maintain open space. I am no planner, and I appreciate the
bind that Carlsbad is in and the need to provide affordable housing, but there has to be a better place than
the Buena Vista Valley. There has to be a way of redoing the numbers, investigating more thoroughly the
opportunity to provide housing in the Westfield Mall area, anywhere else but the Buena Vista Creek Valley.
My name is Anne Bums and I live at 2855 Carlsbad Blvd, #N209. I recently came to Carlsbad from
Tucson, Arizona. I want to say first, when it's gone, ifs gone. When our natural habitats are developed,
they are gone. I saw a tot of that happening in Tucson, Arizona, where I lived. It was breaking my heart. I
think that Carlsbad is such a beautiful place and maybe doesnt realize that this is one corridor that goes
from native historical site to the Pacific Ocean with a lot of natural area on the way to the ocean. I
understand it is the only corridor left in San Diego County that goes all the way to the ocean. It seems to
me this is a wakeup call that we don't allow things to happen the way they have happened in other
communities where these natural resources that are irreplaceable are gone and there is no way to reverse
that. I used to teach Spanish and Buena Vista means "good view." Wouldn't it be wonderful to have that
from the El Salto Falls all the way to the ocean so there could be walking trails, hiking trails, maybe even
horseback trails, and a lot of natural vegetation that could even be replenished along that area. I don't
know what else to say except that I don't want to see something happen here that I was seeing happening
in my home state where all this vegetation you would not believe, beautiful desert vegetation and they
come and bulldoze it down. They dig up the saguaros and supposedly to replace them someplace else,
but many times will not take. This is a different environment, but the principal is the same. Let me
conclude with saying, when it is gone, it is gone.
My name is Shelly Hays Carron and I reside in the Buena Vista Creek Valley in the Marone adobe. I have
lived there for 40 years as an adult and as a child. I have seen dramatic changes. This Housing Element,
as proposed, I believe is flawed as far as the time use because of the remediation of these biopiles.
There was a meeting in the quarry by Hansen's, which now doesnt own the quarry anymore. They sold
their holdings to Heidelberg Cement out of Germany. On the 8th of November there were different
consultants there. I was speaking with the consultants from Brown and Caldwell. I learned this type of
remediation is a pilot. It has never been done in San Diego. There is no data on the success of this, this
type of remediation.. This is benzene from a diesel spill in the quarry that was left undetected for years,
and they excavated the soil out. However, right across the highway is Costa Serena Community and
eyewitnesses of that community have actually, when these biopiles were being established, seen trucks
coming from outside of the quarry and depositing on these concrete slabs. That brings a lot into question
as to what is being remediated from another source. We know about benzene. We know that benzene
causes leukemia, and if this kind of remediation has never been done in the County of San Diego and
there are no results that show success, the other success they were able to tell me was in Orange County
on an industrial site for an industrial use. We are proposing housing here. Remediated soil, under their
criteria, can be designated in one, two and three. One being clean and can be used in any place. Two
being used for roadbed five feet above ground water and three feet above the road surface and that it has
to be removed. The reason why this toxic soil is being remediated on site is for financial reasons, not to
truck it off to see if they can remediate it. Benzene, when it is reduced by aeration, clumps and it adheres
to whatever it is connected to in the soil. I am not an expert, but this is what I was told from their experts.
This brings a lot of question to my mind. If Oceanside is the lead agency and you are going to be
responsible for how this soil is used, I think you are putting the cart before the horse if all these things
arent brought into compliance before you are submitting a site for a Housing Element. I think that is
questionable. I think RHNA or the state agency would be really interested to know about the remediation
of this soil and whether this site really is prepared. As it was spoken earlier, there are a lot of hoops this
has to go through and we are talking about a water shed. We are talking about artesian wells that have
been there for thousands of years that are being affected by this benzene spill. This was a cross gradient
plume that was migrating toward the creek, and they had to drill wells where they had to oxygenate the
water so they could cure this. I pump water from a well. I use well water that has been my family's
tradition, and my well even had to be tested downstream to find out. Now, you as the City of Carlsbad,
\n
HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 8,2009
PAGE 15 of20
have an active recycling going on there of crushed asphalt and concrete. There are no berms to protect
when it rains, whatever drains out of those crushed asphalt piles to protect that from going into the creek.
When we were in the creek for that November 8th meeting, there was standing water, and oil had risen to
the top surface in the reclamation area. So that is another place to question whether this site even is
ready. This site is only zoned for a 160 homes, but yet you are proposing 500. It is up to Carlsbad; it is
not up to SANDAG; it's not up to Oceanside, it is up to Carlsbad to make these decisions. That whole
area over there on the hillsides where these slopes have been mined up further where I am across, when
it rains heavy, those hillsides slide and there is a liquefaction that takes place. I am bringing up those
things of great concern.
Commissioner Wrisley asked if she had brought these things up with the Oceanside City Council since
they are the lead agency in doing this reclamation.
Ms. Carron said we bring it up with everybody, and we are willing to go to Sacramento if we have to.
I am Ann Hallock and I live on Tamarack in Carlsbad. You have already before you Preserve Calavera's
position paper, and I will elaborate on it in my comments. In 2002, the citizens of Carlsbad approved
Measure C, indicating their desire for more open space. In fact, 82% of the citizens of Carlsbad have
listed as their number one priority open space. The so-called Quarry Creek land with its unique, sacred El
Salto Waterfall and the adjacent 134 Buena Vista Creek ecological reserve would be the enviable jewel in
any city's crown. Carlsbad has that opportunity to have it as its jewel. In addition to the natural resources
of the El Salto Falls and the Buena Vista Creek, the site is an extraordinary microcosm of early California
history. The Native American site was recorded by the El Portal expedition in 1769. Then they had the
Rancho Hedionda and Shelly* home is the adobe of that rancho, and then the early city of Carlsbad
fledgling town had as its water source the artesian springs and pond in that area. Also, it used this fertile
soil for their first orchards. This is a tiny area, but it is the core of our city's history. Of all of Carlsbad's
open space, none is so richly endowed in natural, cultural and historical resources. This land's
extraordinary overriding conditions demand its maximal preservation for generations to come. This is
what you can do. Tonight there is no urgent need to recommend approval of the proposed 500 unit, 30
acre, low income housing project, so called Quarry Creek. In fact, the developer's plans, as of this
morning, are not available to the public. They will be disclosed later this month. So we do not know what
is actually being planned as of now. Toxic waste has yet to be cleaned up, and completed land
reclamation is years away. No units will be built before 2010, and the filing year of this draft will have been
met at that point. As the facts become available, this site's actual suitability can be determined. Changes
may occur in the next cycle and in state law. With the current economic downturn, projects that are
projected to continue for several years, jobs are being lost and low-income families are moving away out
of Carlsbad. Thus the number of mandated affordable housing units may in fact decrease. The current
housing downturn has left a glut of homes on the market with little justification for adding new homes. In
fact, Carlsbad is currently second in all North County coastal cities in the amount of houses available on
the market. This condition will most likely continue for years. Moreover, alternative sites for the proposed
500 low-housing income units need to be creatively explored and found using existing built space, not
further open space. We can, as has been suggested, use parking lots, built above them, the spaces are
still there for the parking and we get the use of the air space. We have parking lots all over, including the
library, including here, along near the train depot. We are going to also need to look at the stalled housing
developments because they could be revisited and their allotted density for the housing units could be
increased. I would like to ask that you not approve this. That you, therefore, grant us more time to
explore this further. To create a committee of those who are actively interested, including preservationist
so we may get it right because we don't have another opportunity.
Thank you Madam Chair and Members of the Commission, my name is Brian Millich with the Corky
McMillan Company at 2750 Hybrid Street, San Diego, 92106. I am here to answer questions you may
have regarding the Quarry Creek project. Even though the meeting tonight is about your Housing
Element, the focus seems to be on Quarry Creek, which is our project. Before I ask if you have questions,
I wanted to clarify a few points and make just a couple of very brief comments. While I don't disagree with
what a number of the speakers have said, Quarry Creek is a unique site and it has some remarkable
environmental resources. I think it is important, if you haven't been out to the site and maybe you aren't
HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 8,2009
PAGE 16 of20
familiar with some of the specifics of the site, that you do familiarize yourself with that. It is important to
understand that Quarry Creek very recently was identified by the San Diego Association of Governments
as a smart growth site. With that designation comes a desire to see areas like Quarry Creek develop at a
slightly higher density than maybe some other areas in order to appropriately accommodate housing in
areas that are best suited to accommodate housing. You are probably familiar with the fact that Quarry
Creek is located directly adjacent to a large shopping center, it is a highly urbanized area, it is directly
adjacent to public transportation to the 78 freeway, it is not a pristine site. Over 50 acres of the 150 acre
site has already been significantly and heavily impacted by a mining operation so it is not a pristine site,
yet it does have some very unique environmental resources on it. In addition, the Habitat Management
Plan, which probably is the City's overriding environmental document, was adopted in 2004 and
designates well over half of Quarry Creek for development. That document was not only adopted by the
City but it was endorsed and adopted by the resource agencies, US Fish and Wildlife Service and
California Fish and Game. It has always been contemplated that Quarry Creek would develop. I think the
question is not really before you, it will be before the Planning Commission and the City Council, is what
type of development and what is the appropriate balance between conservation and development. As one
of the speakers said, those plans aren't out yet, but we are busily working on a master plan for Quarry
Creek and actually hope to submit that master plan next month to the City of Carlsbad because we do
understand that at least the ability to have the General Plan designate the appropriate densities on Quarry
Creek is important for that to be done in a relatively short period of time. We are working closely with your
staff and we are working with the City of Oceanside staff. We had a meeting this week with the US Fish
and Wildlife Service and Fish and Game to get their input on what type of development and what type of
conservation should occur on Quarry Creek. We also met with Mel Vemon and the San Luis Rey Band of
Indians this week and we have met with them on three or four other occasions. We will continue to meet
with the community. I have made offers and have met with a number of the speakers tonight, and we will
continue to do that throughout the process. It is absolutely premature for anybody to make a decision as
to what type of development and exactly how many units should be placed on Quarry Creek. We will work
with your staff and the public to help make those decisions and ultimately the City Council to make the
determination. It is not inappropriate to identify that Quarry Creek is an appropriate site for residential
development, and it is an appropriate site, I believe and it appears your staff does as well as does
SAN DAG and other organizations, that it is an appropriate site for a little bit higher density of development
because of its location and because of its unique attributes. We will preserve the falls. We will not only
preserve, but we will enhance Buena Vista Creek. We will preserve well over half of the open space, and
we will return much of the impacted area to open space. I will make commitments tonight that there will
be the appropriate balance between conservation and development on that site. Quarry Creek is the ideal
site for a sustainable project. It is the poster project for a sustainable development. It has all the
attributes of a highly impacted site. As it has been mentioned, it did have an oil plume on it. For a number
of reasons, it is a perfect project for sustainability, and we will make sure that project is ultimately adopted
and approved. I would be more than happy to answer any questions that you have about that process or
the reclamation process.
Commissioner Wrisley asked when you do go to build here, will you be building on the areas that have
already been disturbed and not be building on areas that are still pristine at this point?
Mr. Millich said the site itself is 157 acres approximately in the City of Carlsbad. There is a small little four
acre piece in the City of Oceanside. About 50 of those acres, so about a third of the site has been
impacted by the mine. We will be looking to develop on that 50 acres. Some of the 50 acres will most
likely be returned to naturalized areas, and there are some areas that haven't been impacted yet but are
identified for development, and that don't have sensitive resources on them that we are also looking to
develop. Right now our plan is to develop roughly half of the site and preserve half of the site. Those are
roughly our plans. We are finalizing that master plan. The answer to your question is: In addition to
returning some of the areas that have already been impacted and developed by the mining operation, we
will be developing some areas that have yet to be impacted by some type of development. It has been
impacted by agriculture but not by development.
Chairperson Smith asked Mr. Millich if he has met with the concerned citizens or the residents.
X,
HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 8,2009
PAGE 17 of20
Mr. Millich said we have actually started an outreach program. We have met with Imagine Carlsbad as a
large group on two occasions and with the smaller groups on two or three occasions. We have met with
Preserve Calavera. We have had meetings at the Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce where we have
invited twenty or thirty people Also the Native American groups, the Buena Vista Lagoon Foundation, the
Buena Vista Audubon Society, and we actually have a meeting that we are planning later this month with
those same groups. We have met with the resource agencies, also with the San Luis Key Band of
Mission Indians, and we will continue to offer to have those meetings. We are trying to get as much input
as early in the process, the planning process, as we possibly can so that we can reach a consensus
project that meets, if not all, at least most of everybody's goals and objectives. One other minor point, but
I think it is an important point, if you think about 500 units on a 150 acres, that actually is a very low
density project. What we will be doing though is clustering those units so that we can preserve significant
amounts of open space. We are talking a project that is not even four units to the acre, which is well
below the densities that have been discussed tonight. When you factor in though the smaller parcels that
they will be situated on, they actually do meet the HCD requirements for densities. In total it is a pretty
large site with actually very few units. Right now we can build about 280 units on that site under current
zoning in General Plan designations. But the City, appropriately I believe, is asking for slightly more units
but clustering those units in the appropriate locations.
Commissioner Wrisley asked if those would be three-story units.
Mr. Millich said most likely they would be. There will probably be some two-story units. We are going to
provide a range of density as you move further to the west which is closer to the Sherman Property that
was recently acquired by the State of California. It will probably be lower density in those areas and a little
bit higher density when you get right next to the shopping center where that is appropriate to have a higher
density. Up against the freeway, I think those are areas that are appropriate for higher density.
Commissioner Wrisley asked if these would be the low income and very low income.
Mr. Millich said they would be a combination. The City has its affordable requirement, which requires low
income housing. We will certainly meet that. Then we will be building market rate housing, whether it is
market rate in terms of apartments or for-sale units, but by definition because of the densities, they qualify
under the categories that the State has established for the site.
Commissioner Kirk asked Mr. Millich to tell the Commissioners about his concerns regarding the
reclamation of the property.
Mr. Millich asked, "Our concerns?"
Commissioner Kirk said the concern regarding the reclamation of the property that Shelly Hays brought
up.
Mr. Millich said McMillan is not doing the reclamation. That is actually being done by Hanson Aggregates,
the owner of the property. We are doing the master plan, which takes it from the point that they complete
the reclamation work and we then take it from that point and complete the project.
Commissioner Kirk said then you would no doubt have a risk mitigation.
Mr. Millich said Hanson is in the process as we speak, you saw the biopiles as they call them, of working
with an environmental mediation firm that is under a permit under the County Health Department to
remove the petroleum plume that is on the site. The reports we have received by Hanson is in fact that
process is not only under way, but it has been extremely successful and they are expecting that the site
will be fully remediated, that the soils will be returned to a non-hazardous condition, probably within the
next six months or so. I am not by any means an expert on that process. Our company was not involved
in that, but we are very comfortable that Hanson is going through the appropriate steps to fully remediate
the site. The information that was presented tonight is news to me, but I am not at all concerned. They
HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 8, 2009
PAGE 18 of 20
have their experts out there, and they are under a permit under the County Health Department and they
are being heavily regulated to make sure the site is fully remediated.
Commissioner Kirk asked Mr. Donnell what agency would approve that.
Mr. Donnell asked if he meant the reclamation plan.
Commissioner Kirk said yes, who do you go to for review of the soil analysis.
Mr. Donnell said the County Department of Health I believe.
Commissioner Kirk said okay. A couple of more questions as well. Once you have your plan in place for
the 500, if we determine that we don't need that density, what is the likelihood of the plan being modified?
Mr. Donnell said one thing to keep in mind is the next housing cycle after this current cycle completes in
2010, which will once again impose some kind of growth forecast on Carlsbad and more than likely the
majority of those units we'll need to provide will be in the very low, low and moderate income categories.
There will always be a need, therefore, to meet those number of units so I think a site like Quarry Creek,
even if it weren't redesignated in this cycle, would be looked at again in the next cycle.
Commissioner Kirk said another question regarding the Housing Element: Can this plan be amended
before the completion of the cycle?
Mr. Donnell asked, the Housing Element itself?
Commissioner Kirk yes.
Mr. Donnell said yes it could depending on what the amendment is. It may need to go back to the State
for review.
Commissioner Bradwell said other than Quarry Creek, are there any proposed sites that could be
considered for development that would accommodate the number of units?
Mr. Donnell said there are other sites in Carlsbad that could accommodate that number of units. The first
sites that come to mind are in the Sunny Creek area, east of El Camino Real, the Mondano and Cato
properties, these are properties that are currently being farmed. They meet the criteria in terms of
acreage. They are as large if not larger than Quarry Creek. However, due to environmental constraints,
topography, habitat and their distance from major roads, commercial centers, employment areas, they
would not qualify per our General Plan as being suitable for high density development.
Commissioner Wrisley questioned Sunny Creek and the Mondano property would not be near a major
road?
Mr. Donnell said correct. The infrastructure does not exist to those properties today such as a major
circulation element roadway that provides access to them.
Chairperson Smith interrupted and asked if there were any more questions for Mr. Millich.
Commissioner Kirk has one final question. When do you expect to have your plan completed?
Mr. Millich said if we had our way, it would be a lot sooner possibly than is possible. We are ready
probably in February to submit our master plan. That will go through some level of staff review initially,
and then an environmental impact report will be prepared. I would say those two processes will take
roughly nine months to a year to get to the point where people start to become more comfortable with the
document. I think we can comfortably meet the June 2010 requirement to have the General Plan and
hopefully the Master Plan approved, which I think are the key points to meet the Housing Element
HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 8, 2009
PAGE 19 of20
requirements. Since the site is already impacted by the quarry operation, a large portion of it will be
graded by the time we get through that process so hopefully not too long after that, maybe some time in
2011 we hope to be out there getting the site ready for whatever development ultimately is approved on
the project.
Chairperson Smith closed the public comment.
Commissioner Kirk said regarding Mr. Christiansen who mentioned Palomar Airport Road and I know we
have talked about looking at other options, but I think it is important to certainly explore every opportunity
while we have this time. Can you talk a little bit about Palomar Airport Road and the opportunity there in
which you looked at.
Mr. Donnell said sure, Mr. Christiansen brings up very good points, he is right, it is a major transportation
corridor and there is a lot of employment in that area; several large business parks, industrial buildings,
office buildings, etc. There is also some vacant land still in those areas, especially east of Melrose along
Palomar Airport Road, there are a couple of business parks there that have not fully developed. One
constraint though that causes that area to be developed with industrial parks is the airport. The parks are
under the approaches for airplanes, and because of that, it is very difficult to locate residential there. In
fact, most of that area has been planned the way you see it due to the limitations imposed by the airport.
In addition to that, and this is certainly more minor to the restrictions imposed by the airport, because that
area has developed industrially, most of the properties, by their CC&R's prevent any type of residential
use. Certainly things like that could change, but the airport is the paramount reason why that wasn't
considered for residential construction.
Commissioner Kirk asked could an area such as that be designated within the Housing Element as a
potential area even though we might not know whether it is a viable development area?
Mr. Donnell said he thinks it would be fairly simple to do an analysis based on our comprehensive land
use plan for the airport, which dictates which uses may be located in proximity to it. It would be an easy
process to eliminate those properties which dont qualify, and I think you would probably find that the areas
that are residential, which are near the airport, are those that would qualify. Anything that hasnt been
designated for residential is due to the airport. One other item I forgot to mention, because of the
proximity of industrial businesses that are there, there might be certain hazards associated with
chemicals, wastes, whatever that they use, that would make it difficult to locate residential close to an
industrial use.
Commissioner Wrisley said she remembers several years ago they tried to put farm worker housing in an
industrial building. I remember they were going to do it, but I don't remember why it never came to fruition.
Mr. Donnell said you are right. That plays well into a proposed program we have right now, which doesn't
say farm worker housing, but which does say emergency shelters should be located in industrial zones. I
am not quite sure if an emergency shelter for homeless individuals qualifies as residential, but just
assuming it does, we. have looked at the properties, which in Carlsbad are those that are industrially
designated, and they have these CC&R's which prohibited residential uses. That eliminates probably 90%
of the properties in the industrial areas. We also have to factor in the concern about hazards as well as
the airport approaches. When all is done and said there is maybe about 15 acres of vacant land that
could accommodate an emergency shelter, not residential but an emergency shelter. It was the same
difficulty we had with trying to find farm worker housing. There were just so few sites where it could be
done.
Chairperson Smith thanked Mr. Donnell and Ms. Tam for their input. I did go by and look at the Quarry
Creek site. I would also like to thank the audience for coming and for your input. I wish I could wave my
hands and say this is over, but it is not like that. We will not make a decision tonight. We have to take
things into consideration.
HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 8, 2009
PAGE 20 of 20
Commissioner Kirk made a motion that we continue this meeting and give us an opportunity to have some
further analysis discussions in this area, because this is extremely important to Carlsbad and I want to
make sure we are absolutely as educated as we need to be to make the appropriate decision.
Commissioner Bradwell seconded that motion.
Chairperson Smith said it has been moved and seconded we continue this meeting to a later time.
Ms. Fountain said it will be continued until the next available Housing Commission Meeting which is
February 12, 2009.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Ms. Fountain does not have any further reports. For the next meeting staff will be present if you have any
more questions we need to answer or if after your thinking, you have some additional information you
need, you can let us know so we can have it available to you.
ADJOURNMENT
By proper motion, the meeting of January 8, 2009, was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
^Deborah Fountain
Housing and Redevelopment Director
PATRICIA CRESCENT!
Minutes Clerk
MINUTES ARE ALSO TAPED AND KEPT ON FILE UNTIL THE WRITTEN MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
-7