HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-08-25; City Council; 22073; Elections Code 9212 Agua Hedionda South Shore Plan Initiative MeasureITEM EXPLANATION:
Background: On May 12, 2015, Edmond W. (Bill) Dominquez, Maureen Simons and Carlton Lund
(Proponents) delivered a Notice of Intent to Circulate a Petition to the City of Carlsbad City Clerk
for a proposed citizen-led initiative measure for the "Agua Hedionda 85/15 Specific Plan." On
May 26, 2015, the initiative proponents received the Ballot Title and Summary written by the City
Attorney, which titled the initiative as "The Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan." The Ballot
Title and Summary were published, along with the Notice of Intent, in The San Diego Union-
Tribune newspaper (May 28, 2015) and the Coast News newspaper (May 29, 2015) and posted in
five (5) public places in the City of Carlsbad where the city regularly posts public notices (May 28,
2015). A proof of publication was delivered to the City Clerk on May 29, 2015.
The petition was circulated for signatures and was filed with the City Clerk on July 8, 2015, with
20,479 signatures. The City Clerk completed a prima facie review ofthe petition and delivered the
petition to the County of San Diego Registrar of Voters on July 8, 2015. As allowed by the
Elections Code, the County of San Diego Registrar of Voters had up to 30 working-days (until
August 18, 2015) to examine the filed petition and from the records of voter registration ascertain
whether or not the petition was signed by the requisite number of registered voters in the City of
Carlsbad. On August 13, 2015, the Registrar of Voters completed its review and delivered a
certificate ofthe results to the Carlsbad City Clerk. The certification indicated that the Registrar of
Voters has verified the petition as sufficient under the provisions of Elections Code section 9211,
and that it was signed by not less than 15% of the registered voters of the city pursuant to
Elections Code section 9214. The Elections Code provides that the City Clerk shall certify the
results ofthe review ofthe Registrar of Voters examination to the City Council at its next regular
meeting. On August 18, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2015-208 certifying the
results of the Registrar of Voters sufficiency examination on the petition filed for the Agua
Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan. Under the Elections Code, the City Council must meet to
consider its actions on the initiative measure within 10 days of adopting the resolution certifying
the results of the County of San Diego Registrar of Voters examination of the petition.
Elections Code Section 9212 Report and Citv Council Action Options: On May 19, 2015, the City
Council adopted Resolution No. 2015-127 authorizing the city staff to initiate the preparation of
an informational 9212 Report, pursuant to Elections Code 9212, analyzing the proposed Agua
Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan Initiative Measure and the separately and voluntarily
submitted 4,000-plus page Environmental Analysis report. The City Council directed staff to
prepare a report to examine the following areas relating to the proposed initiative, as authorized
by the Elections Code:
(1) Its fiscal impact,
(2) Its effect on the internal consistency of the city's general and specific plans,
including the housing element, the consistency between planning and zoning, and
the limitations on city actions under Section 65008 of the Government Code and
Chapters 4.2 (commencing with Section 65913) and 4.3 (commencing with Section
65915) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code,
(3) Its effect on the use of land, the impact on the availability and location of housing,
and the ability of the city to meet its regional housing needs.
(4) Its impact on funding for infrastructure of all types, including, but not limited to,
transportation, schools, parks, and open space. The report may also discuss whether
the measure would be likely to result in increased infrastructure costs or savings,
including the costs of infrastructure maintenance, to current residents and
businesses,
(5) Its impact on the community's ability to attract and retain business and
employment,
(6) Its impact on the uses of vacant parcels of land,
(7) Its impact on agricultural lands, open space, traffic congestion, existing business
districts, and developed areas designated for revitalization, and
(8) Any other matters the City Council requests to be in the report.
City Council also requested staff to include an evaluation of the Environmental Analysis report
submitted with the initiative measure which included analysis ofthe following areas:
Aesthetics
Agriculture and Forest Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hydrology
Water Quality
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Fire Protection
Police Protection
Schools
Libraries
Parks and Recreation
Traffic and Circulation
Water Service
Sewer Service
Solid Waste
Energy
Socioeconomic Effects
Cumulative Effects
Staff, together with third party subject matter experts, completed the 9212 Report and made it
available to the City Council and the general public on August 7, 2015. As a part of this Agenda
Bill item for the August 25, 2015, City Council meeting, the City Council will receive a
presentation on the Elections Code 9212 Report and then, consistent with the timelines
outlined in the Elections Code and as authorized by Elections Code section 9214, will consider
the following options:
1) Adopting the Ordinance proposing the Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan, without
alteration; or,
2) Immediately ordering a special election, to be held pursuant to subdivision (a) of Elections
Code Section 1405, at which time the Ordinance proposing the Agua Hedionda South Shore
Specific Plan, without alteration, shall be submitted to a vote of the voters of the City of
Carlsbad; and consider the following options:
i. Authorizing certain City Council members to file a written argument in
opposition regarding the Ordinance proposing the adoption of the Agua
Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan; and,
ii. Directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the Ordinance
proposing the adoption of the Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan; or,
3) Authorizing up to thirty additional days, from the August 18, 2015, City Council certification of
the results of the Registrar of Voters sufficiency examination, to further study the 9212 Report
and consider the effects of the Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan Initiative Measure.
More specifically, the options now available to the City Council and the actions necessary to
implement the City Council chosen option are as follows:
Option No. 1:
To implement Option No. 1, the City Council would adopt City Council Ordinance No. CS-283,
attached to this Agenda Bill as Exhibit 1. Section 9214(a) ofthe Elections Code provides that the
City Council may adopt the Ordinance, without alteration, within 10 days ofthe August 18, 2015,
adoption of the resolution certifying the results of the County of San Diego Registrar of Voters
examination ofthe petition.
Option No. 2:
To implement Option No. 2, the City Council would adopt City Council Resolution No. 2015-222,
attached to this Agenda Bill as Exhibit 2; and consider the following actions:
i. Adopt City Council Resolution No. 2015-223, attached to this Agenda Bill as
Exhibit 3; and,
ii. Adopt City Council Resolution No. 2015-224, attached to this Agenda Bill as
Exhibit 4.
Option No. 2 requires that the City Council order a Special Election, to be held pursuant to
subdivision (a) of Section 1405 of the Elections Code. (Exhibit 2) At the Special Election, the
ordinance, without alternation, is submitted for a vote by the citizens of Carlsbad. If the City
Council chooses this alternative, the Special Election would occur at a date set between 88 and
103 days of the date the City Council acts.
Option No. 2 also allows the City Council to consider several different procedural options. First,
the City Council decides whether it would authorize one or more ofthe City Council members to
file arguments against the measure on behalf of the City Council. (Exhibit 3) If the City Council
does not choose to file arguments in opposition to the initiative measure, registered voters or
bona fide associations of voters can file the arguments. Elections Code Section 9285 establishes a
hierarchy for the City Clerk to choose which argument to print in the Ballot Pamphlet if more than
one argument in favor or against is filed.
With Option No. 2, the City Council must also decide if it wants to have the City Attorney prepare
and file an Impartial Analysis of the Ordinance. (Exhibit 4) The City Attorney would have up to
five hundred words "showing the effect ofthe measure on the existing law and the operation of
the measure." (Elections Code Section 9280)
Due to the length of the Initiative Measure, it is recommended that the text of the Initiative
Measure not be put in the Ballot or Ballot Pamphlet. Ifthe text is not included, special note is to
be made in the Ballot Pamphlet. Below the Impartial Analysis, the following quoted language
must be inserted to show that the entire text of the measure is not contained in the Voter
Pamphlet or on the Ballot:
In the event the entire text ofthe measure is not printed on the
ballot, nor in the voter information portion ofthe sample ballot,
there shall be printed immediately below the impartial analysis, in
no less than 10-point bold type, a legend substantially as follows:
"The above statement is an impartial analysis of Ordinance or
Measure . Ifyou desire a copy ofthe ordinance or measure,
please call the elections official's office at (insert telephone
number) and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you."
Option No. 3:
To implement Option No. 3, the City Council would adopt City Council Resolution No. 2015-225,
attached to this Agenda Bill as Exhibit 5. Section 9212(a) ofthe Elections Code provides that the
City Council may authorize up to thirty additional days, from the August 18, 2015, City Council
certification of the results of the Registrar of Voters sufficiency examination, to further study the
9212 Report and consider the effects of the Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan Initiative
Measure.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The next known regular election in the City of Carlsbad will be the General Municipal Election that
will occur on November 8, 2016, which is outside of the 88 to 103 day timeline, which would
preclude this initiative being on that ballot. (Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 1.12.020) Given the
timing requirements of the Elections Code, this would cause a Special Election. The date of the
Special Election will be determined at a future date. Ifthe Special Election is called for bythe City
Council on August 25, 2015, it would have to be held between November 21, 2015, and December
6, 2015. The Tuesdays in this range of dates are November 24*^^ and December r*.
According to the Registrar of Voters, a stand-alone special election would cost between $450,000
and $550,000. With a stand-alone special election, the city would be responsible for paying 100
percent ofthe cost. Election costs are typically budgeted from the General Fund in the City Clerk's
Office budget.
6
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The actions contemplated within this Agenda Bill are not considered a "project" subject to
environmental review. Citizen-led initiatives are not required to comply with the California
Quality Act (CEQA) therefore, the Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan Initiative Measure is
not subject to environmental review under CEQA. An Elections Code 9212 report provides the
exclusive means for assessing environmental impacts of a qualified citizen initiative and the 9212
Report ordered by the City Council on the citizen-led Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan
initiative was completed by city staff and made available to the City Council and the general public
on August 7, 2015, and will be presented to the City Council as a part ofthe actions contemplated
in this Agenda Bill item for the August 25, 2015, City Council meeting.
EXHIBITS:
1. City Council Ordinance No. CS-283, adopting the Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan,
without alteration.
2. City Council Resolution No. 2015-222, immediately ordering a special election, to be held
pursuant to subdivision (a) of Elections Code Section 1405, at which the Ordinance proposing
the Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan, without alteration, shall be submitted to a vote
of the voters of the City of Carlsbad.
3. City Council Resolution No. 2015-223, authorizing certain City Council members to file a
written argument in opposition regarding the Ordinance proposing the adoption ofthe Agua
Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan.
4. City Council Resolution No. 2015-224, directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial
analysis ofthe Ordinance proposing the adoption ofthe Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific
Plan.
5. City Council Resolution No. 2015-225, authorizing up to thirty additional days to further study
the 9212 Report and consider the effects of the Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan
Initiative Measure.
6. EXHIBIT A - Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan Initiative Measure. (On file in the City
Clerk's Office and available on the City website at www.carlsbadca.gov)
7. Elections Code Section 9212 Report on the Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan. (On file
in the City Clerk's Office and available on the City website at www.carlsbadca.gov)
8. Addendum to the Elections Code Section 9212 Report on the Agua Hedionda South Shore
Specific Plan. (Letters from Outside Agencies, Organizations, and Proponent Rebuttals)
Exhibit 1
1 ORDINANCE NO. CS-283
2
3
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE AGUA HEDIONDA
4 SOUTH SHORE SPECIFIC PLAN, WITHOUT ALTERATION
14
15
16
17
25
26
27
28
Space The Right Way" submitted to the City Clerk's office a Notice of Intent to
Circulate a Petition for a citizen-led initiative measure for the purpose of proposing
to the voters of Carlsbad the enactment of the Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific
5
g WHEREAS, on May 12, 2015, Edmond W. (Bill) Dominquez, Maureen
7 Simons, and Carlton Lund (Proponents), representing "Preserving Carlsbad Open
8
9
10
11
12 Plan for 85% Open Space and 15% Retail (Agua Hedionda 85/15 Specific Plan
13 Initiative), and,
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2015, the Proponents also voluntarily submitted
an extensive Environmental Analysis report which included twenty-five technical
areas of analysis and evaluation, and,
18 WHEREAS, on May 19, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
2015-127 authorizing the city staff to initiate the preparation of a report pursuant
20
21
22
23 WHEREAS, on May 26, 2015, the initiative proponents received the
24 Ballot Title and Summary written by the City Attorney, which titled the initiative as
"The Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan"; and,
WHEREAS, the Ballot Title and Summary were published, along with the
Notice of Intent, in The San Diego Union-Tribune newspaper (May 28, 2015) and
the Coast News newspaper (May 29, 2015) and posted in five (5) public places in
to Elections Code 9212 (9212 report) for the Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific
Plan Initiative Measure; and.
1 the City of Carlsbad where the city regularly posts public notices (May 28, 2015)
2
3
4
5
24
25
26
27
28
and a proof of publication was delivered to the City Clerk on May 29, 2015; and,
WHEREAS, the initiative petition was circulated for signatures and was
filed with the Carlsbad City Clerk on July 8, 2015, with 20,479 signatures; and.
6 WHEREAS, the City Clerk completed a prima facie review of the petition
and delivered the petition to the County of San Diego Registrar of Voters on July 8,
2015; and,
WHEREAS, per the Elections Code, the County of San Diego Registrar of
7
8
9
10
-l -| Voters had up to thirty working-days, or until August 18, 2015, to examine the filed
12 petition and from the records of voter registration ascertain whether or not the
petition was signed by the requisite number of registered voters in the City of
Carlsbad; and,
WHEREAS, the 9212 Report for the Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific
13
14
15
16
17 Plan Initiative Measure was completed by city staff and made available to the City
^® Council and the general public on August 7, 2015; and,
19
20
21
22 certification indicated that the Registrar of Voters had verified the petition as
23 sufficient under the provisions of Elections Code section 9211, and that it was
WHEREAS, on August 13, 2015, the Registrar of Voters completed its
review and delivered a certificate of the results to the Carlsbad City Clerk. The
signed by not less than 15% of the registered voters of the city pursuant to
Elections Code section 9214. The Elections Code provides that the City Clerk shall
certify the results of the review of the Registrar of Voters examination to the City
Council at its next regular meeting; and,
1 WHEREAS, on August 18, 2015, at the next regularly scheduled City
2
3
4
5
28
Council meeting after receipt by the Carlsbad City Clerk of the Registrar of Voters
sufficiency certificate, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2015-208 certifying
the results of the Registrar of Voters sufficiency examination on the petition filed
6 for the Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan Initiative Measure; and.
WHEREAS, at the regularly scheduled August 25, 2015, City Council
meeting, the City Council received a presentation on the 9212 Report prepared for
the Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan Initiative Measure; and.
7
8
9
10
-11 WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized by Elections Code section
12 9214(a) to adopt the ordinance proposing the Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific
13 II
Plan, without alteration, within ten days after certifying the results ofthe Registrar
14
of Voters sufficiency examination on the petition.
15
16 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad ordains as
follows that:
SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
SECTION 2. That the City Council hereby adopts, without alteration, the
17
18
19
20
21 Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan, as incorporated herein by reference. Said
Ordinance shall be on file with the City Clerk
23
24
25
25 Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan Ordinance to the California Coastal
27 Commission, as required by law, to obtain Coastal Commission certification thereof.
SECTION 3. That the City Council hereby directs city staff, pursuant to
Section B.D ofthe Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan Ordinance, to submit the
with submittal to occur no later than 30 days after City Council adoption.
Exhibit 6: On File in the City Clerk's Office and available on the
City website at www.carlsbadca.gov
Exhibit 7: On File in the City Clerk's Office and available on the
City website at www.carlsbadca.gov
9^
Exhibit 8
City of Carlsbad
Addendum to the
Elections Code Section 9212 Report
on the
Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan for 85% Open
Space and 15% Retail AH-SP Initiative
August 19, 2015
7\
Addendum Notes
On August 7, 2015, the City of Carlsbad released the Elections Code Section 9212 Report on a
developer proposed Initiative referred to as the Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan for
85% Open Space and 15% Retail (AH-SP) Initiative (AH-SP Initiative). The purpose ofthe 9212
AH-SP Initiative report is to provide the City and the public an impartial planning, policy, and
environmental analysis associated with the proposed AH-SP Initiative.
Agency and organization letters have been received in response to the AH-SP Initiative. Letters
received prior to August 7, 2015 have been taken into consideration during the preparation of
the 9212 Report for the AH-SP Initiative. Letters received as of August 19, 2015 have been
included as part of this addendum to the 9212 Report as Attachment D. Table 1 provides a
summary of the letters received.
Table 1. Letters Received on the Elections Code Section 9212 Report for the AH-SP
Initiative
Letter
No. Commenter Letter Date
1 San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians June 12,2015
2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife June 12, 2015
3 Delano & Delano (Pless Environmental, Inc) June 24, 2015
4 California Coastal Commission June 25,2015
5 Caltrans July 24, 2015
6 Delano & Delano (Dr. Horner) July 28, 2015
7 Caruso Affiliated (re: San Luis Band of Mission Indians) July 29, 2015
8 Surfrider Foundation August 3, 2015
9 Caruso Affiliated (re: Delano & Delano - June 24, 2015 ) August 4, 2015
10 Caruso Affiliated (re: Delano & Delano - July 28, 2015 ) August 4, 2015
11 San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians (Merri Lopez-Keifer) August 5, 2015
12 Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation Augusts, 2015
13 Caruso Affiliated (re: USFWS) August 7, 2015
14 Buena Vista Audubon Society August 10, 2015
15 Caruso Affiliated (re: City of Carlsbad Elections Code 9212 Report) August 14, 2015
16 Westfield August 19, 2015
This page intentionally left blank
ATTACHMENT D
Letters Received
on the 9212 Report
9212 Report Addendum August 19, 2015
This page intentionally left blank.
9212 Report Addendum August 19, 2015
Summary of Letters Received on the Section 9212 Report for the AH-SP Initiative
Letter
No. Commenter Letter Date
1 San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians June 12, 2015
2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife June 12,2015
3 Delano & Delano (Pless Environmental, Inc) June 24, 2015
4 California Coastal Commission June 25, 2015
5 Caltrans July 24, 2015
6 Delano & Delano (Dr. Horner) July 28, 2015
7 Caruso Affiliated (re: San Luis Band of Mission Indians) July 29, 2015
8 Surfrider Foundation August 3, 2015
9 Caruso Affiliated (re: Delano & Delano - June 24, 2015 ) August 4, 2015
10 Caruso Affiliated (re: Delano & Delano - July 28, 2015 ) August 4, 2015
11 San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians (Merri Lopez-Keifer) August 5, 2015
12 Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation Augusts, 2015
13 Caruso Affiliated (re: USFWS) August 7, 2015
14 Buena Vista Audubon Society August 10, 2015
15 Caruso Affiliated (re: City of Carlsbad Elections Code 9212 Report) August 14, 2015
16 Westfield August 19, 2015
9212 Report Addendum August 19, 2015
This page intentionally left blank.
9212 Report Addendum August 19, 2015
SAN LUIS REY BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
18H9 Sunset Drive • Vista, California 92081
760-724-8505 • FAX 76(f-724-2172
www.slrmissionindians.org
June 12. 2013
Letter 1
Van Lynch
Pianning Departinenl
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday
Carlsbad. CA 92008
VLV ELECTRONIC MAIL
Van.Lynch@carlsbadca.gov
RE: .SLR CONCERNS REGARDING TIIE AGUA HEDIONDA SOUTII
SHORE SPECIFIC PLAN FOR 85% OPEN SPACE AND 15%
RETAIL (AH-SP) INITIATIVE AND THE IMMINENT THREAT
TO LUISENO CULTUR.\L RESOURCES AND POTENTIAL
ANCESTRAL BURIAIi*
Dear Mr. Lynch:
Thc ballot initiative process has become a cornerstone of California poUtics. At
issue with the Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan for fi5% Open Space and 15%
Retail (AII-SP) Initiative ("initiative") is the preservation and developmenl of land
surrounding Agua Hedionda. Agua Hedionda is sacred to thc San Luis Rey Band of
Mission Indians ("SLR" or "Trihie") and thc Luiseno people. For thousands of years our
ancestors lived, worked, and worshiped in and around this sacred water source.
The land lieing discussed within the initiative is pri.stine coastal land. Besides the
past and cultural agricultural uses, the land is as our ancestors left it. The life sources
remain intact water, fish life, native vegetation all remain I'Mesent. Tlie places where
our ancestors slept, prepared their food, created their tools, and performed their
ceremonies still remain. Agua Hedionda is sacred for what it was and what it remains
today to the Luiseiio people.
Il must first be noted that many of the Tribe's concerns regarding this initiative
could have been resolved and pui to rest ifthe initiative's authors would have involved
the Tribe in their assessment and planning pixx:ess. ilie I'nbe would have, and is still
open to. visited our sacred land with them and shared our concerns. To be afforded the
opportunity lo share our history, share our experiences in preserving land, and to
contribute our knowledge in the respectful placement of walking trails when our sacicd
cultural resources may be adversely impacted, as Ihis initiative proposes, would have
been the preferred method of engagement. But. unlike what would have occurred during
SLR CoiKTnix Regarding Hie Agua Hedionda Sauih Shore Specific Phn fiir 85% Open Space and 15%
Retail (.AII-SP) Initiative And The Itiiniiitent Threat To Ltdsetlo Cahura! Re.wiirre,'!
And Poientiai Ancestral Bitriah
Page I of 4
Page 1 August 2015 9M
the California Environmental Quality Acl ("CEQA") process and the Cily of Carlsbad's
("City's") current practices involving the protection and preservation of Native American
culmral resources, we were not granted that opfxirtunily.
SLR understands lhat thc City's responsibility regarding the initiative is to preseni
its leadership, the City CViuncil, with an impartial and unbiased analysis of the initiative
as it relates lo current City poUcies and regulations, as well as if Ihe initiative is
consistent with current land use provisions for similai' development projects. SLR further
understands lhat the City may either adopt the initiative as il reads, or may submit the
initiative to a special election to allow thc City's voters to decide its fate. Thc Tribe is
awaic of current California case law as it relates to California initiatives and the
inappUcability of CLQA review, as well as that no amendments and/or modific^Uions
may occur to the initiative's language. The Tribe is also aware ofthe remedies afforded
to it, and other members oflhe public, ifthe initiative is adopted either by the City or the
electorate. Therefore, after long and thoughtful consideration, thc Tribe opines that the
City should NOT adopt the initiative as it reads and should submit the initiative to the
people of Carisbad to be voted on in accordance with California Itlections C(xle Section
9214.
I'he reasons why SLR believes the Cily should not adopt the initiative are based
on thc following: (1) the initiative lacks any appreciation and/or understanding regarding
the protection and preservation of Luiseiio Native American cultural resources located
within Carlsbad: (2) Ihe inilialive's proposal for "active" use ofthe ofien space is counter
to current City policies where wildlife and Native American cultural resources are
preseni: and (3) the initiative's statement of law regarding Califomia Public Resources
Code Seclion .'i097.98 is erroneous and should nol be adopted.
It is clearly evident lhat the inilialive's authors consulted with the agricultural
stakeholders to resolve their potential concerns regarding their endeavor, and lhat they
enlisted the guidance of professional ccmsultanis to assist them in "dealing with" Native
American concerns. Iiowever. what has been completely absent from the initiative, which
wouid be in direct conflict with current City practices and policies, is inviting tlie
involvement and/or partnership wilh the Luiseiio Native American community on how
best to approach thc preservation and development of this well-documented sacred land.
Thc initiative's authors arc well aware that their endeavor, while providing more open
space to the community and additional economic opportunity, will be devastating to at
least two (2) large and densely previously populated Luiseno villages. They have been
educated by their consultants that the depths of our cultural resources go beyond the soils
impacted by agricultural uses, creating a situation whereby any ground disturbing
activities very well could necessarily adversely impact our cultural resources. They have
been told lhat 15 habitation areas, tool processing areas, food processing sireas, and
ceremonial places are within their initiative's boundaries. "Hiey have liccn told that many
more ai eas evidencing our ancestor's existence will be found and will potentially be
adversely impacted. Yes. they include ".Native American iTioniloring,"in certain areas
and yes. they include a preference for avoidance measures, but they have failed to assess
what they will be negatively impacting and they have stood ignorant lo the fact that
SLR ',s ConceiJi.% Regarding Tlte .A.qua Heitiondu Sotith Shore Specific Plan fiir S5%' Open •'ipace and J.5%
Retail (,AII-SP) Initiative And Tlte Imminent Threat To l.tiisei\o Cultural Reaources
And I'oieaiiat Aiicesiral Burials
Page 3 of 4
Page 2 August 2015
Native American monitors need to be everywhere ihey will be disturbing the earth. These
are our cultural resources and we must be allowed to protecl them.
'I'he iniliative proponents did not ask for Native American involvement during
their assessments and thcrefoie ABSOLUTELY no Native American involvement
benefited this initiative. If they had. then they truly would have done the work they said
they performed - that Ihey identified the presence of absence of significant cultural
resources. A review of Apficndix F. [noves that a valid assessment has not occurred on the
land encompassing this initiative. Too many questions about the signil'icance levels of
our ancestors habitation areas arc unknown, yet if thc City adopts thc initiative (based on
thc 15% of signatures received for their ballot petition), then thc entire City population,
native and non-native, will be pariy to the desecration of this sacred land. The City has
evolved from their 1990's written policy on the treatment of Native American cultural
resources and this initiative .simply does not reflect how the City protects and preserves
the Native American cultural resources within their borders today.
Moreover, the initiative's proposal for "active" use of the open space is counter to
cunent City policies where wildlife and Native American cultural resources are present.
Of course the Tribe is in favor of a developer providing the City with more open space
areas. 'I'he Tribe is also in favor of walking trails, for healthier hving and brining people
closer to nature puiposes. What the Tribe is not in favor oL however, is when trails aie
within in too close of proximity to our sacred cultural resources. As the City is aware,
"pot hunting" and/or "grave robbing" of our ancestors belongings are both a distressing
and offensive reality for Native Americans. Therefore, without more information being
provided to the City, and Tribe for that matter, regarding Ihe placement of these trails, the
Tribe is concerned that the trails contained wilhin the iniliative will have damaging and
destructive impact on our satTed cultural resources. As the City is aware, but perhaps the
iniliative proponents are nol, our cultural resources are non-renewable resources; once
they are destroyed, they arc gone for all time and cannot be replaced. Therefore it is
essentiid lhat Ihe assessment of this land be done conectly and with the piirtnership ofthe
Luiseno Native American community,
I'lirthermore. while the 'Tribe appreciates the initiative's authors attempt to
translate the laws involving thc discovery of Native American ancestral remains into
plain F.nglish, they have failed to accurately slale the law as it relates to the respectful and
dignified treatment of our Native American ancestral remains and burial goods. Hence,
due to the fact that the initiative's Environmental Piotection Feature ("EFP") CUL-2
misstates the law of California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. the Cily shouid
not adopt the iniliative as it reads. California Public Resources Code Seclion 5097.98(a)
reads as follows, "...The descendants may. with thc permission ofthe owner ofthe land,
or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the .Native
American human remains and may recommend to the owner or thc person l esponsible for
the excavation work means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, ofthe
human remiiins and any associaied grave goods, 'llie descendants shall complete their
inspection and make recommendations or [references for treatment within 48 houis of
being granted access to the site." Not as Ihe initiative says in HFP CUL-2 (2)(1) that the
SLR's ConcenLi Regarding Tlte Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan for S5% Open Space and J.5%
Retail (.AII-SP) Initiative Atid The Imminent Ttireat To Luiseiio Cultural Resource.^
And Poieniiai Ancestral Burials
Page 3 of 4
Pages August 2015
3^
descendant must make their recommendation wilhin 24 hours after being notified by the
Native American Heritage Coimnission. It's imperative that the law and the intent of the
law be accurately reflected in the initiative, not only for legal and public policy reasons,
but because this land was once heavily and densely occupied by our ancestors. They not
only lived, worked and worshiped here, but they also died here. There is an extreme
likelihood that with the proposed development that would be created by this initiative that
our ancestor's burials will be desecrated and/or disturbed. Therefore, it is crucial that the
public and the applicant landowner be given accurate meaning and language of the law as
it relates to the respectful and dignified treaunenl of our ancestor's burials and burial
goods.
.More troubling to the Tribe, however, is the initiative's lack of appreciation for
the laws that the State has carefully created and actively enforced for the protection and
respectful treatment of our Native American cultural resources, ancesu^al burials and
burial goods. Unlike a CEQA document, a review ofthe Specific Plan by City Staff, or
Native American Cultural Resources Treatment and Tribal Monitoring Agreement would
have accomplished, the initiative lacks any understanding about what the laws of
California require of landowners if Native American cultural resources, ancestral remains
and/or burial goods are unearthed. For instance, completely lacking in the initiative is any
mention that the landowner shall discuss and confer with the Most Likely Descendant of
the ancestral remains or burial goods all reasonable options regarding the descendant's
preferences for treatment of their ancestor's remains and/or burial goods. This is a basic
tenant of Native American law in California. Yet, it is completely absent from the
initiative. If the City adopts the initiative as it reads, then the City will be adopting an
inaccurate and misleading translation of Califomia law.
The San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians appreciates the City according to it the
opportunity to provide our concerns during your impartial analysis of the Agua Hedionda
South Shore Specific Plan for 85% Open Space and [5% Retail (AH-SP) Initiative. We
are hopeful that a sound and respectful use of our sacred land will prevail.
Sincerely,
Merri Lopez-Keifer
Chief Legal Counsel
cc: Mel Vemon, SLR Captain
Cannen Mojado, SLR Secretary of Government Relations
Terrie Robinson, General Counsel for the Native American Heritage Commission
SLR '.V Concerns Regarding The Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan for H57c Open .Space and 15%
Retail (AH-SP) Initiative And The Inuninent Threat To hiiseiio Cultural Resources
And Potential Ancestral liui ials
Page 4 of 4
Page 4 August 2015
Letter 2
U.S. Fish and V\ ildlile Service
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Ot1ic
2177 Salk Avenue. Suite 250
Carisbad. California 92008
760-431-<>440
FA.X 760-131-')624
Califomia Depanmem of Fish and Wildlife
Soulh Coast Region
3883 Ruffin Road
San Diego. California '>2123
8.S8a67^20l
FA.X 85X-467-42W
JUN 1 2 2015
In Reply Refer To:
FWSCbF\V-SDG-LSB0233-l.iCPA02.>5
Mr. Van Lynch
Senior Planner
Cily of Carlsbad
1635 Faradav Avenue
Carlsbad. California 92008-7314
Subject: Comments on the .Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan. Cil\ of Carisbad. San
Dicgo Countv. Califomia
Dear Mr. Lynch:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the Califomia Department offish and Wildlife
(Department), hereafter collcctivelv referred lo as thc Wildlife Agencies, have reviewed vour Ma>
28. 2015. email requesting our comments on the Agua 1 ledionda South Shore Specitic Plan's
(Specific Plan) coiLsisiencv with thc requirements and conservation standards ofthe Citv of
Carlsbad's (Citv) Habitat Management Plan (HMP). The Specitic Plan is a citizen-led initiative
(California Flections Code Sections 9200-9215) that proposes future land uses on 203.4 acres east of
Interstate 5 (1-5) between Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Cannon Road. Caruso Aftlliaicd is the
primarv Specific Plan sponsor. The comments provided herein are based upon information provided
in the Specific Plan's Fnvironmenta! .Analysis (Dudek 2015). our knowledge of sensitive and
declining vegetation communities in the County of San Diego, and our participation in regional
conservation planning clTorts including the City's HMP.
The primarv concern and mandate ofthe Service is the protection offish and wildlife resources and
their habitats. The Service has legal responsibilitv forthe welfare ofmigratorv birds, anadromous
fish, and threatened and endangered animals and plants occurring in the L'nited Stales. The Serv ice is
also responsible for administering thc Federal Fndangcred Species .Act of 1973 (.Act), as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 el .set/.), including habitat conservation plans (HCP) developed under section
IO(a)( I) ofthe Act. The Department is a I rustce Agency and a Responsible Agency pursuant to the
Calilomia Lnvironmenlal (Quality .Att (CLQA; (fi;l5386 and 15381. respectively) and is responsible
for ensuring appropriate conservation ofthe State's biological resources, including rare, threatened,
and endangered plant and animal species, pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CKS.A,
Fish and Game Code i;-050 e/. sec/.) and other .sections ofthe Fish and Game Code. The Department
is also responsible for the administration ofthe Lake and Stream /\lterali(>n Agreement program
(Lish and Game Code >; i 600 ei st't/.). The Department also administers the Natural Communitv
Conservation Planning (NCCP) program (NCCP, Fish and Game Code ;;28()0 ci. .sei/,). I he City
participates in the NCCP and the Service's HCP programs through the development of its HMP.
1 he Specific Plan area currcntiv supports active and fallow agriculture areas; disturbed and native
upland habitats: and wetland habitats along the southern side of .Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The
Page 5 August 2015
3Si
Mr. Van Lynch (FWS/CDFW-SDG-15B0233-15CP.A0255) 2
Specific Plan proposes to designate 26.7 acres for commercial use; 45.6 acres for agriculture; 16
acres for agriculture support; and 39.4 acres for passive open space, including public trails, picnic
and rest areas, lagoon vistas, an outdoor classroom, a roadway, restroom faciiities. parking, dining, a
farm .stand, and educational signage, Thc remaining 75.8 acres is designated as proposed hardline
preserve in the HMP and would be converted to hardline presei-^e (Preserve) and managed in
pcrpetuitv in accordance with the HMP.
because the Specific Plan is a citizen-led initiative, the Specific Plan proponents must obtain valid
signatures of at lea.st 15 percent of registered voters in thc Citv. Once signatures are verified, the City
Council may adopt the iniliative without any changes or put the initiative on the ballot for a public
vote. It is our understanding that ifthe Specific Plan is approved by the voters, no additional
environmental review (i.e., CEQA) would be required. However, the Specific Plan would need a
Coastal Development Permit from the Califomia Coastal Commission in order to proceed,
•fhe Wildlife Agencies otTer the comments and recommendations in the enclosure to assist in
avoiding, minimizing, and adequately mitigating project-related impacts to biological resources, and
to ensure that it is consistent with, and does not adversely affect, thc City's HMP and ongoing
regional habitat conservation planning efforts.
We appreciate the opportunitv to comment on the Specific Plan and look forward to further
coordination with the City. Ifvou have questions regarding our comments, please contact Lauren
Kershek ofthe Service (760-431-9440 extention 208, Lauren Kershek'aftvs.gov) or Christine Beck
ofthe Department (858-637-7188, Christine.Beck'awildlife.ca.gov).
0 Sincerely,
Karen A. Goebel —• Cjail K. Sevrens
Assistant Field Supervisor Environmental Program Manager
U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service Califomia Department of Fish and Wildlife
cc:
Rick Casswell. Califomia Coastal Commission. San Diego Distriet OlTiee
Mike Grim. City of Carlsbad
Enclosure
Literature Cited
Dudek. 2015. Environmental analysis for the Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan for 85%
open space and 15% retail. Carlsbad. Calitornia. Prepared for Camso Acquisition Co. II. LLC. May.
Page 6 August 2015
37
KNCLOSURK
Wildlife .Agencies' Comments Recommendations,
,Agua Hedionda Soulh Shore Specific Plan
1. Tlie Draft Biological Tedmical Report (OTR. page 36, Dudek 2015) slates lhat San Diego
fairy shrimp is a covered species under llie City of Carlsbad's (City) Habitat Management
Plan (HMP). Please note that the HMP does not currently provide coverage for this species as
tlic conditions for coverage have not yet been met.
2. The BTR stales that there are 19 depressions along dirt roads or within agriculture areas on
the Specific Plan sile. 'llie B TR indicates that these pools arc nol likely suitable for fairy
shrimp due to the sandy soils, frequent disturbance by vehicles, and use of pesticides in tlie
active agricuhurc areas, TIK coastal bluffs in San Dicgo County (County) historically
supported and or currently support federally listed branchiopods, including thc venial pools
.at the Poin.settia Train Station in the Cily. In addition, road pools in other areas ofthe Couniy
eoninionly support federally listed branchiopods, despite their disturbed condition. 'Iliereforc,
protocol surveys for the federally endangered San Diego fairy shrimp {Hi anchinecta
sancliegomnsis) and Riverside fairy shrimp {Stfeptocephaltis wooltoni) should be conducted
to detennine ifthe Specific Plan area supports federally listed fairy shrimp. Because thc
City's HMP does not currently cover federally listed fairy shrimp, any impacts to these
species would need to undergo separate pennitting consultation with the Service,
3. Measures EW BK)-12 to 14 in the B'TR propose minimum bulTcrs of 20 feel for native
upland habitats. IOO feel forall environmentally sensitive habitat areas, including riparian
and wetland habitats, and 50 feet for streambeds within the Specific Plan area, which are
consistent with the HMP. However, the figures in the BT R do not clearly illustrate where the
bulTers are proposed and the B TR does not slale what uses are proposed within the buflers.
Tlie HMP includes the following requirements for buffers:
a. No development, grading, or alterations, including clearing of vegetation, shall occur
in the bulTcr area except for:
i. Fuel modification to a maximum of 20 feet for upland and non-riparian habitat,
ii. Recreation trails and pubiic pathways within the first 15 feet ofthe buifer
closest to the development, provided lhat constmction ofthe trail or pathway
iind its proposed use is consistent with the preservation goals for the adjacent
habitat, and that appropriate measures are t;»ken for physical separation from
sensitive areas.
b. Buffer areas that do nol conlain native habitat shall be landscaped using native plants.
Signage and physical barriers such as walls or fences shall be required to minimize
edge elfects of development.
Page 7 August 2015
.Mr. Van Lynch (FWS CDFW-SDG-15B0233-15CPA0255) Enclosure. Page 2
.Agriculture, power line maintenance roads, picnic areas, restroom facilities, parking, fann
stands, and any olher incompatible uses proposed fbr the passive use ai eas should remain
outside of thc buffers and Preserve.
4. 'Hie Specific Plan includes Passive Open Space areas that vvill be revegetated with native
habitat and used for public trails and picnic areas. Wc arc concerned about the increase in
public access adjacent to the Preserve. In order for the Specific Plan to be in confonnance
with thc HMP. the Specific Plan must adhere to thc .Adjacency Standards stipulated in
Section V oftiie HMP. llicsc standards include guidance on public access, recreational
activities, seasonal resfrictions, fire management, erosion control, and landscaping
restrictions witliin the Preserve and its bulTer zones.
5. Measures EPF BIO-18. 19. and 21 in the BTR indicate that both conservation and open space
easements vvill he recorded over portions ofthe Specific Plan area, and that these areas will
be managed in perpetuity by a tiiird party non-profit entily using an endowment provided by
ihc project proponent. However, a figure depicting where these easements would be placed
was not provided in the H I R. .As required by the HMP, all mitigation areas mu.st be secured
with a conservation easement in favor ofthe Wildlife .Agencies.
6. If clearing of native habitat is required upon written order of thc Carlsbad Fire Department
(as discussed in liPF BIO-20 in the HTR), we request that the Wildlife .Agencies receive
documentation of this requirement. Impacts lo native habitat due to fuel modification musl be
mitigated at the ratios stated in the I IMP and are not allowed in the I IMP Preserve or buffers
to thc Preserve (page F-I 7 ofthe HMP).
7. Measures KPF BIO-22 lo 23 in the B I R provide the ratios at which impacts to native and
disturbed habitaLs will be olTset. but do nol specify impact locations, quantify anticipated
impacts, or propose a mitigation location. 'I'herefore, we are unable lo detennine whether the
project is consistent with the mitigation strategy set I'orth in the HMP. llie Wildlife Agencies
request the opporttmity lo review any mitigation plans reqtiired for consistency whh the
HMP prior to the City's issuance oflhe grading pennit.
8. Because the infonnation needed to confinn ih.it the Specific Plan in consistent wilh the HMP
is nol available, the Cily and or Specific Plan sponsor should provide this infonnalion to the
Wildlife Agencies prior to approving constmcting the projecl. Ifthe Specific Plan is found lo
be inconsistent with tlie II.MP, it will not be covered by tlie ILMP ;ind may requii e separate
state and'or federal pennits consuhation.
Pages August 2015 \^
Letter 3
DELANO & DELANO
June 24. 2015
VI.4 E-hUIL & U.S. MAIL
City Manager
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carfsbad, CA 92008
Re: Environmental Analvsis ofthe proposed Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific
Plan
Dear City of Carlsbad:
This letter is submitted on behalf of North County Advocates regarding the
discussion of air quality impacts in the Environmenlai Analysis ("EA") for the proposed
Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan. The EA acknowledges several significant air
quality impacts associaied with the Project, yet claims that no feasible mitigafion has
been idenfified. See e.g., EA at 4.3-22. As the enclosed comments of Petra Pless note,
however, there are several feasible mitigation measures that were not adequately
considered or discussed in the E.A. See City uf .Marina v. Board ofTruxtees ofthe
California State Univ. (2006) 39 Cal.4* 341, 360 (City was required to adopt feasible
mitigafion and altematives thaf can lessen or avoid fhe significant Project impacts).
Accordingly, the EA is insufficient to address the Project's impacts. These issues
should be addressed in the Section 9212 Report currently under preparation.
Thank you for your considerafion of these concems.
Sincerely.
Everett DeLano
~4 -4
Is
'-ft 9 ?
'j\ '-ft
www. DFIANOANDL^IE LANO.com
Page 9 August 2015
Pless Environmental, inc.
iji,o Nova Albion Way, Suite 2
San Rafael, CA 94903
((,15)492-2131 voice
(815) 572-8600 fax
June 15, 2015
Via email
Everett DeLano
DeLano & DeLano
220 W. Grand Avenue
Escondido, CA 92025
everett@iielaiionitddelano.com
Re: Agua Ffedionda South Shore Specific Plan Initiative, Carlsbad, California
Dear Mr. DeLano,
Per vour request I reviewed the Environmental Analysis for the Agua
Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan Initiafive.i The Specific Plan would cover
approximately 203.4 acres between the south shore of the Agua Hedionda
Lagoon and Cannon Road in the City of Carlsbad ("City"). The Specific Plan
would include a new pedestrian-oriented outdoor promenade with up to
585,000 square feet of visitor-serving commercial, shopping, dining,
entertainment, and recreational uses on approximately 26.7 acres ("the Project").^
Significant Impacts on Air Quality
The Environmental Analysis identifies a number of significant impacts on
air quality during construction and operafion of Uie Project, specifically
emissions in excess of applicable standards of siipiificance of volatile organic
compounds ("VOCs") during Project construction and of VOCs, nitrogen oxides
("NOx"), carbon monoxide ("CO"), and particulate matter equal to or smaller
than 10 and 2.5 micrometers ("PMIO" and PM2.5") during Project operation.^
' Environmental Analysis for the Agua Fledionda South Shore Specific Plan for 85% Open Space
and 15% Retail, Carlsbad, Califomia, prepared for Caruso Acquisition Co. II, LLC, prepared by
Dudek, May 2015;http://wwvv.carlsbadca.gov/citvhall/cleri^/initiativedocs.asp.
2 Ibid, pp. 1-1 and 1-2.
' Ibid, pp. 4.3-20 through 4.3-2
Page 10 August 2015
4^
DeLano, Agua Hedionda Specific Plan liiitiatife
Page 2
The Environmental Analysis proposes implementafion of a number of
environmental protectton feattires ("EPFs"), "intended to avoid or substantially
reduce all potenfial envuronmental impact to the maximum extent feasible," as
well as transportafion demand management ("TDM") measures. The
Environmental Analysis finds that after implementation of these measures,
impacts related to conflicts with an applicable air quahty plan, the violafion of air
quality standards and the cumulattvely considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the Specific Plan region is m nonattainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air qualily standard would remain sigmficant
nnd tiniwoidable.* However, review of the proposed EPFs shows that there is
considerable potenfial for improvement which would achieve substanttal
reducttons of air pollutant emissions during Project constructton and operatton.
Additional Feasible Mitigation for Construction Emissions
The proposed EPFs contain only one measure intended to reduce air
pollutant emissions during Project consttnction, EPF AQ-2, which requires
conttol of fugitive dust by watering areas of the construction site with the
potential to generate fugitive dust twice a day. The control efficiency of this
measure for fugitive dust particulate matter emissions is already accounted for in
the emission estimates presented by the Environmental Analysis.5
The Environmental Analysis proposes no EPFs to address the significant
emissions of VOCs during Project construction, which are estimated at almost
8 times the apphcable threshold of significance.* These emissions are mostly
attributable to the use of architecttiral coatings used during building
consttuctton. The Environmental Analysis notes:
The Specific Plan will comply with SDAPCD [San Diego Air Pollution
Control District] Rules and Regulations that require the use of low-VOC
coatings to minimize the potential VOC emissions. It also is noted that the
analysis conservatively used default assumptions regarding tlie
application of architectural coatings to on-site structures (e.g., parking
garage) that, in actuality, likely will use fewer archittKtviral coatings than
^ Ibid, p. 4.3-29.
5 Ibid, Appx. C, p. 1. (The construction emission estimates include a fugitive dust control factor for
watering, which is expected to ensure the Specific Plan is in compliance with SDAPCD Rule 55.)
«Ibid, Appx. C, Tables 2 and 9: (1078 lbs/day) / (137 lbs/day) = 7.9.
Page 11 August 2015
DeLano, .Agua Hedionda Specific Plan Initiative
Page 3
quantified. Additional feasible mitigation measures were not identified;
therefore, impacts would be significant.'
First, addittonal VOC mittgation for architecttiral coatings beyond
compliance wifii SDACPD rules and regulations is feasible, confrary to the
conclusion drawn by fiie Environmental Analysis. For example, fiie mitigation
and monitoring program prepared under the California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA") for the Gless Ranch Shopping Center in Riverside requfred:
The project developer shall use zero-VOC<ontent architectural coatings
during project construction/application of paints and other architectural
coatings to reduce ozone precursors. If zero-VCXT paint cannot be
utilized, developer shall avoid application of architectural coatings
during die peak smog season: July, August, and September.*
This measure is equaOy feasible here and should be required to reduce the
significant VOC emissions during Project consttuction to fiie extent feasible.
Further, the Envfroimiental Analysis appears to focus on reducing
VOC emissions. VOCs are ozone precursors and the San Diego Air Basin is
currently in nonattainment of the state ozone ambient air quafity standards.
However, Project construction would also result in substantial emissions of INOx,
which are also ozone precursors. Thu.s, one optton to reduce file impact of Project
construction on the region's air quaUty is to reduce .NOx emissions during
constructton. Such inter-pollutant offsetting approach is often taken by fiie
California Energy Commission and ofiier regulatory agencies for ofisetting
emissions from power plants and other stattonary sources. Reducing NOx (and
VOC) emissions from constructton equipment can be achieved by requiring fiiat
the constructton fleet aclueve a certain percentage reducHon compared to the
most recent California Air Resources Board fleet average. The Sacramento
MetropoUtan .Mi Quality Management Disttict ("SMAQMD"), for example,
requires a project wide fleet-average NOx reductton of 20% for heavy-duty
off-road vehicles (50 horsepower or more).''
' Ibid, p. 4.3-20 (emphasis retained).
s City of Riverside, Final Environmental Impact Report for the Gless Ranch Proposed Shopping
Center, SCH No. 2010121049, prepared by Dudek, February 2012, Mitigation .Measure AQ-3,
p. 4-1; http://vvww.riversideca.t;ov/planning/pdf/eir/i>lcssranch/plessranch-feir.pdf.
" SMAQMD, Enhanced Exhaust Control Practices, CEQA Guide, Revised October 2013;
http://www.airqualiK.orp,/ceqa/Ch3EnhancedExhaustControl 10-2013.pdL
Page 12 August 2015
^3
Delano, Agua Hedionda Specific Plan Imlialioe
Page 4
In addition to on-site measures, project appUcants should look beyond fiie
project boundaries where numerous opportunifies exist to reduce emissions. For
example, the Specific Plan appUcant could a) purchase offsets from fiie SDATCD;
or b) enter into a Voluntary Emission ReducHon Program ("VERA") with the
City, County, or SD,A.PCD to fund emission reduction programs (see below).
Implementation of aU measures should be overseen and verified by a
dedicated conshaiction mifigafion manager.
Additional Feasible Mitigation for Oi>eratioiinl Emissions
Wifii respect to emissions during the operational phase of fiie Project, the
Environmental Analysis states:
Emissions associated with the Specific Plan would exceed the criteria
pollutant thresholds... for VOCs, NOx, CO, PMIO, and PM2.5 during
operation. Although EPF AQ-2 through EPF AQ-12 would serve to
reduce the Specific Plan's operational emissions, no feasible mitigation
measures capable of reducing the Specific Plan's emissions to levels
below the mass daily significance tliresholds were identified. Therefore,
because no feasible mitigation measures were identified, the Specific
Plan's impacts would be significant.i»
The Environmental Analysis provides no discussion how it arrived at the
conclusion tiiat no feasible measures were identified. Furtiier, the EPFs proposed
by file Environmental .Analysis are not adequate to reduce fiie significant impacts
on afr quaUty during Project operation and additional mitigation measures exist
and should be requfred.
EPF AQ-3 requires that fiie Specific Plan applicant design the visitor-
servicmg commercial structures to adhere to tiie Leadership in Energy and
Envfromnental Design ("LEED") GoM Oire and Sliell design standards. This
measure is poorly worded and not stringent enough. First, the measure should
be revised to require LEED certification, rather than adherence to LEED
standards. Secomi, die Gold Core and SheU building design and construction
standards cover only tiie design and construction of tbe entire mechanicaL
electtical, plumbing, and ffre protection system-called the core and shell—but
not the design and construction of file tenant fit-out or future operations and
"> Environmental Analysis, p. 4.3-22 (emphasis retamed).
Page 13 August 2015
DeLano, Apia Hedionda Specific Plan Iniliatioe
Page 5
maintenance." In order to minimize impacts to the extent feasible, the City
should amend EPF AQ-3 to require a) that future tenants of the promenade are
certified to fiie applicable LEED Building Design and Construction and Interior
Design and Constmction standards for Retail HospitaUty, and Commercial
Interiors and b) that the Project is certified for the applicable LEED Operations and
Maintenance standards.'- EPF AQ-5, which retiufres that commercial retail
structures uHlizo a computer-based energy management .system capable of
reducing and opttmizing operational energy consumption, can be incorporated
into the latter.
EPF AQ-4 requires fiiat fhe Specific Plan's nonresidenttal sttuctures shaU
exceed Califomia's 2013 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Sfandards by 5%.
The measure is deficient in .several ways. First, Title 24 addresses numerous
elements of building energy efficiency, e.g., plumbing, iighttng, roofing,
insulafion, heafing, venfilation, air-conditioning, etc.; the measure fails to specify
how and whether the 5% increased efficiency applies to each and every one of
these elements and fails to specify a code enforcement procedure to determine
the efficiency and ensure compliance; without such verificafion, this measure is
but a hollow recommendation. Second, the measure is not sttingent enough and
is not adequate to meet the LEED Gold Core and Shell standards required in
EPF AQ-3. Many projects analyzed under the California Enviroimiental Quality
Act ("CEQA") or incentive programs developed for local ordinances routinely
require considerably higher efficiencies. For example, the Cify of San Diego's
56,100 .square foot Human Resources Service Center was required to exceed
Title 24 requirements by over 30%;'' the City of Redland's Fulffiment Center
Project requfres a nux of measures including exceedance of natural gas efficiency
requirements in Title 24 by 35%;'^ the University of California's Sustainable
Practices Policy requires that new consttuction and renovattons achieve energy
performance 20% better than that mandated by Title 24 and strive to
achieve 30%,i5 etc.
" U.S. Green Building Council, LEED, Building Design and Construction: Core and Shell;
http://w>vw.uspbc.org/discoverleed/certification/bd-c-core-and-shell/.
Ibid, Certification; http://www.usgbc.org/discoverleeJ/certification/all/.
" Straub, Human Resources Service Center; http://5traubinc.e0m/portfolio/renewable-
energy/human-resources-scrvice-center/.
CitV' of Redlands, Redlands Fulfilment Center Project, Filing of Notice of intent to Adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration in Compliance with Section 21092.3 of the Public Resources
Code, July 2, 2013; http://ci.redlands.ca.us/cierk/2013sfaffreports/130903L1-attF.pdf.
I' University of Califomia, Sustainable Practices, July 1, 2004, pp. 5-6;
http://policv.ucop.edu/doc/3100155/SustainablePracfices.
Page 14 August 2015
DeLano, Agua Hedionda Specific Plan Initiative
Page 6
EPF AQ-6 requfres that the Specific Plan design include photovoltaic
panels to cover a minimum of 60% of the parkmg sfructtire roof. This measure
could be substanttally improved by requiring fiiat aU available Project roof space,
including tiiat on commercial/retail struchires, be equipped wifii photovoltaic
solar panels, hi addition, energy storage systems, e.g., batteries, could be
incorporated to store excess capadty and provide flexibUity for night time
electricity demand.
EPF AQ-8 requires instaUatton of six electtic vehicle charging stations and
preferential parking locations for electric vehicles. Considering thc size of tiie
Specific Pian - 585,000 square feet of visitor-serving commercial, shoppmg,
dining, entertainment, and recreafional uses - fius number appears inadequate to
sati-sfy the growmg demand for fiie rapidly uicreasing number of electric vehicles
in service.
EPF AQ-12 requires that the Specific Plan's commercial land uses .shaU be
landscaped and maintained witii electrical equipment, to the extent feasible. The
measure contains no guidance on how "feasibiUty" would be determined and
who would be responsible for verification. As such, tiie measure is not effective.
Furtiier, additional feasible mitigation exists, is frequently required
elsewhere, and should be requfred here. For example, the proposed Carlsbad
General Plan Update, requttes:
For projects that exceed daily operational emissiotis thresholds
established by the SDAPCD, the following measures may be required as
needed to reduce project-level impacts. These measures may be updated,
expanded and refined when applied to specific fiiture projects based on
project-specific design and changes in existing conditions, and local, state
and federal laws. Measures may include but are not limited to:
A. Implement CALGreen's voluntary Tier 1 or Tier 2 standards.
Tier 1 standards caU for a 15% improvement in energy requirements,
more strict water conservation, 65% diversion of construction and
demolition waste, 10% recycled content in building materials,
20% permeable paving, 20% cement reduction, and cool/solar
reflective roofs. CALGreen's more rigorous Tier 2 standards call for a
30% improvement in energy requirements, more strict water
conservation, 75% diversion of construction and demolition waste,
15% recycled content in building materials, 30% permeable paving,
25% cement reduction, and cool/solar reflective roofs.
Page 15 August 2015 4&
DeLano, Agua Hedionda Specific Plan Initiatixv
Page 7
B. Include project features that encourage alternate transportation
modes:
1. For pedesttians: sidewalks; safe street and parking lot crossings;
shade trees; off street breezeways, alleys, and over crossings;
placement of parking lots and building enU-ances to favor
pedestrians rather tlian cars; shower and locker facilities.
2. For transit riders: all of the above plus safe, sheltered transit stops
with convenient access to building entrances.
3. For bicyclists: tiieft proof and well-lighted bicycle storage facilities
witli convenient access to building entrance; on-site bikeways
between buildings or uses; shower and locker facilities.
4. For carpools and vanpools: preferential parking.
C. Use electric equipment for landscaping and property maintenance.
D. Plant shade trees in parking lots.
E. Instail solar cooling/ heating. «•
AU these measures are feasible for the Project and would reduce
operational emissions, as would the foUowing:
• The measure regarding zero-VOC in architectural coatings, discussed
above for construcfion emissions, is equaUy appUcable to operational
emissions (and has been required as mittgatton, for example, for the
Gless Ranch Shopping Center.")
• Contribute to a voluntary emission reductton agreement in
cooperation with the SD.4PCD to reduce emissions elsewhere. For
example, the Hydrogen Energy California Project, a proposed power
generation and ferttlizer production facility in the San Joaquin VaUey,
has entered into a VERA with the San Joaquin Valley Air PoUution
Control District ("SJVAPCD")."* The funding provided under the
VERA was required by the SJVAPCD fo sattsfy CEQA nutigatton
requirements and will support the air district's Emission Reductton
'* City of Carlsbad, General Plan Update, Recirculated Portions of the Draft EIR, 3. Air Qualit)',
Mitigation Me.isure AQ-4;
http://wiv-w.carlsbadca.gov/civica\/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BloblD=27595.
Gless Ranch FEIR, op. cit.. Mitigation Measure AQ-4, p. 4-4.
'"SJVAPCD, Hydrogen Energv' Califomia Power Plant Project, Mitigation .Agreement 201.30092
and Voluntar)' Emission Reduction Agreement 20130026;
http://www.energv.ca.gov/sitingcases/hvdrogen energv/documents/others/2013-04-
26 SIVUAPCD Mitigation Agreement TN-70496.pdf.
Page 16 August 2015 ,
iy\
DeLano, Agua Hedionda Specific Plan Initiative
Pages
Incenttve Program which, for example, provides assistance to replace
older agriculttiral equipment. A similar requfrement could be
developed with assistance from tiie SDAPCD to address emission
reductions from mobile and/or stationary poUution sources in the San
Diego afr basin.
. Reduce asphalt-paved areas to minimize use of land and increase open
space and reduce tiie Project's conttibution to the urban heat island
effect, which contributes to regional ozone formation. This could, for
example, be achieved by relocating parking struchires underground.
• Offer free shuttle services to minimize patron movement on site.
• Require fhe Project appUcant to enter into a conttact to acquire
100% renewable energy.
• Require an on-site operations and maintenance manager who oversees
unplementation of aU measures.
Recommendation
I recommend tiiat the City consider the above discussed measures and
evaluate other CEQA doc-uments to identify and requfre all feasible mitigation
measures to reduce tiie Project's significant impacts on afr quaUty to the extent
feasible.
If I can be of furtiier assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me via
emaU at pctra.pless@^niaii.com or phone (415) 492-2131).
Sincerely,
Petra Pless, D.Env.
Principal
Pless Environmental, Inc.
Page 17 August 2015
Letter 4
In response to the City's request for a statement from Commission staff regaiding how the
proposed .Agua Hedionda SouUi Shore Specific Phui complies with Ihc policies oflhe City's
certified Ixical Coastal Program (LCP), it is importaiil lo reanimi that Ibis portion ofthe Cily
does nol have a certified LCP and therefore the Coastal .Act is the current standard of review for
the subject site, wilh the certified .\gua Hedionda Land Use Plan (LLT^) lo be utilized as
guidance. Given that the LLiP for this area was approved by the Commission over 35 years ago,
it will be important to reassess approved land uses for the subject sile in the context of today's
development and in liglit of current coastal policy issues.
Hie approval of any Specific Plan Ihrough this initiative process would slill require future review
and approval by the Commission tlirougji an amendment to the Ll"P, a separate coastal
development pennit (CDP), or both, and the Comnussion may require additional modifications
or condhions at that time. .At this point in time the Specific Plan proposed in the initiative has
not been reviewed for consistency w ith the Coastal .Act. Such revievv would occur as a part of
any future submittal to the Commission. The summary on the City's webshc that states that.
""Hie Califomia Coastal Commission will be required to approve the Specilic Plan afier its
adoption."' is inaccurate and should be revised. Tlie Commission is not required to approve any
Specific Plan approved through an iniliative process, and as described above, the Commission's
review also allows for future modification of any development proposal or LL^P amendmeiit
subniitlcd pursuant to a Specific Plan adopted tiirough ihc initiative process to assure consistency
with the Coastal .Act.
Commission slafi'also take this opportunity lo restate our concem over the proposed initiative
process being used as a vehicle for land use planning choices, and suggest lhal a more Iradilional
coordinated cITort wilh the City lhat would result in thc certification oflhe entire .Agua Hedionda
I .agoon segment of llie LCP be considered and pursued.
We will continue to track this projecl as it moves forward at llic local level.
><>><.>><>><>><>><>>^>><>><>><.> »<.>><»><>><>><> ><;>><>>^,s ><,>><>,><>,><>
Gabriel Buhr
Coastal Program Manager
California Coastal Commi.ssion
San Diego Districi Office
Meiropolitan Driv€, Suite 103
S.in Diego, CA 92108
(619) 767 2370 <><<><<><<><<><< >«><.<•><<><<>«•><<><<>€< ><<><<'><<><<><<:><<><<><<><
Page 18 August 2015
^1
Letter 5
•STATE OF CAUFORNIA-CALIFOiiKlA STATE TRANSPORTATION AOEN-CY EPiVlUMP Q, BROWW ft. QmmH.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 11, DIVISION OF PLANNING
4050 TAYLOR ST, .M.S. 240
SANDIEGO, CA 921 to
PHONE (619)688-6960 Sericus drought.
FAX (619)688-4299 Help save Merl
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
July 24,2015
ll-SD-5 (PM47.8)
Agua Hedionda SP
Patrick Thomas
Public Works Director
CityofCarlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Thomas,
The Califomia Department of Transportation (Caltrans) would like to take this opportunity to
provide comments to the City of Carlsbad (City) on the "Agua Hedionda 85/15 Specific Plan
Initiative" (Project) and Environmental Analysis (EA). These comments reflect input from the
City on an initial draft comment letter dated July 17,2015.
The initiative and accompanying Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA - Appendix N, May 7,2015)
propose the following Enviromnental Protective Features (EPFs):
• Project will pay fair-share contribution towards improvements on 1-5 from La Costa Ave.
to Carlsbad VUlage Drive. (EPF TRA-12)
• Project wUl pay fair-share contribution towards improvements to the 1-5 Southbound On-
Ramp at Tamarack Ave. (EPF TRA-13)
• Project will pay fair-share contribution towards improvements to the 1-5 Southbound On-
Ramp at Cannon Road (EPF TRA-14)
• Project will pay fair-share contribution towards improvements to the 1-5 Northbound
Ramps at Cannon Road (EPF TRA-15)
The comments below are based on Caltrans' initial review. Additional analysis and discussion
wiU be requked to determine specific improvement details, costs and timing of those
improvements. Based on the scope and cost of the Cannon Road Interchange mitigation
improvements, a permit application review and development of a Permit Engineering Evaluation
Report (PEER) or appropriate Project Initiation Document (PID) may be required.
Based on initial reviews, the Project's anticipated trip generation appears consistent with the
traffic forecasts used by Caltrans to design fitture ramp improvements and auxiliary lanes at
Cannon Road as a part of the 1-5 North Coast Corridor Project (1-5 NCC). However, it is
unportant to note that per the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the 1-5 NCC funded
improvements to the Cannon Road Interchange are not anticipated to be completed prior to 2035.
Interchange improvements required for the Project should be phased in a manner that avoids
significant congestion impacts in the interim.
"Provide a safe, sustainable, inlegraled ond ejpcient transportatioti system
loenhance California's economy and livaitility"
Page 19 August 2015
5^
Patrick Thomas
Public Works Director
July 24,2015
Page 2
Caltrans anticipates woridng wilh the City and Project Developer on other items including:
1. Assessment of queuing caused by the northbound Cannon Road ramp meter on the
Project's westerly driveway.
2. Assessment of the scope and timing of improvements to the northbound and southbound
Caimon Road off-ramps to avoid intersection queuing extending onto the 1-5 main lanes.
3. Caltians requests that the development be planned and consttucted in a manner consistent
with fhe 1-5 Express Lanes project to avoid any fitture conflicts that would restrict or
increase the cost of the project. Caltrans also recommends thaf the Project dedicate
property required for the ultimate express lane project and implement a joint use bike
path.
4. It is important to note, as part of the 1-5 Express Lanes planning process Direct Access
Ramps (DAR) had been recommended at Cannon Road, The DAR would improve ttavel
and reduce congestion for carpool and Fastrak users from Carlsbad and sutroundmg
cifies. Additionally the DAR, if constructed, would improve operations at the I-5/Cannon
Road Interchange and tlie I-5/Palomar Airport Road interchange. Although the DAR was
included m the Draft 1-5 EIR/EIS, Calttans deferred a final decision on the DAR until
local decisions on land-use and circulation were finalized. For this reason, the DAR was
removed ftom the Final EIR It is important to note that the proposed development would
limit or preclude the region from implementing a DAR at this location. Previous plannmg
studies determined that there are no other feasible sites for a DAR in Carlsbad.
5. Consistent with the State's goal of reducing Green House Gas (GHG) emissions, Calfrans
encourages the Project to include multi-modal and Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) mitigation strategies to reduce vehicular trips.
Calttans appreciates the opportunity to provide comments and feedback to the City on the "Agua
Hedionda 85/15 Specific Plan Initiative." We look forward fo the continued coordination wifh
the City and the Project Developer leading to the execution of a Mitigation Agreement prior to
submittal of the encroachment pennit.
Sincerely, isuiccreiy, /
Allan Kosup
Interstate 5 Corridor Director
"Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and effKient transportation system
to enhance Califomia's economy and Uvabitity"
Page 20 August 2015 /,
Letter 6
DELANO & DELANO
July 28. 2015
VI.4 E-MAIL & US. MAIL
City Manager
City of Carisbad
1200 Carisbad Village Drive
Carlsbad. CA 92008
Re: Environmental Analvsis oflhe proposed Aqua. Hedionda South Shore Specific
Plan
Dear City of Carlsbad:
This letter is submitted on behalf of North County Advocates regarding the
discussion of waler quality impacts in the Environmental Analysis ("EA") for the
proposed Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan, As the enclosed comments of Dr.
Richard Homer note, the analysis of water quality impacts and consideration of
mitigation measures is insufficient. See Laurel Heights Improvement Assoc. v. University
of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392. Accordingly, the EA is insufficient fo address
the Project's impacts. These issues should be addressed in the Seclion 9212 Report
currently under preparation.
Thank you for your consideration of these concems.
Sincerelv,
Everett DeLano
Enc.
cc: City Clerk
a- ~
5 >
? 5
II. rr fi S' c
a
r
I
11
9 9
www. D E LANOA N D D E LA NO.com
Page 21 August 2015
5'A
RICHARD R. HORNER, PH.D.
I752NWMARKETSTREET,#551 TELEPHONE: (206)782-7400
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98107 E-MAIL: rrhomerl^msn.coni
July 24, 2015
Everett DeLano
DeLano & DeLano
220 W. Grand Avenue
Escondido. CA 92025
Dear Everett:
As you requested I reviewed water quality aspects of the Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific
Plan for 85% Open Space and 15% Retail, specifically the Draft Waler Quality T echnical Report
("the report") presented in Appendix J of the Environmental Analysis. In my evaluation 1 relied
on my experience in all aspects of urban development on aquatic ecosystems, particularly
forecast of water quality likely to result from watershed land use alteration and the management
practices that can be applied to prevent or minimize water quality deterioration. Attachments A
and B summarize my experience in resume and paragraph form, respectively.
My review concentrated particularly on: (1) the management practices identified for the
commercial portion ofthe plan area to control storm runofi'water quality, and (2) the outcomes
of applying those methods projected through a numerical modeling exercise. As a general
assessment, I found the report to provide a good catalogue of measures lhat can be taken lo guard
vvater quality in Agua Hedionda. However, it falls short in not going farther to emphasize and
recommend the practices lhat can best serve this purpose in the circumstances existing in the
Agua Hedionda situation. 1 consider that defect to be a lost opportunity to delineate the optimum
path forward in the next stages of project development. Modeling forecast fhat some pollutant
concentrations and loadings in stormwater runoff will decrease relafive to pre-project levels but
that others will increase. I believe that specifying the best management practices applicable to
the Agua Hedionda setting have the capability to mitigate those predicted increases, and should
be emphasized now and going forward. I elaborate on these points and opinions below.
Stormwater Best Management Practices ("B.MPs")
The report lists candidate wafer qualily managemenl practices for the commercial portion ofthe
project in the areas of (1) erosion and sediment control BMPs to be implemented during
construction, (2) post-constmction source control BMPs, (3) low impact development ("LID'')
site design BMPs, (4) structural LID BMPs. and (5) trash management controls. It similarly lists
potential source control and structural BMPs for the agricultural open space area.
Page 22 August 2015
Everett DeLano
July 24, 2015
Page 2
Each of these lists is just that, a bullet-point catalogue ofthe practices in the respective groups
that could be chosen. The catalogues are relatively complete and well constructed. However,
there is no sense given that tiiey are not all equal in effectiveness and applicability to tiie site, nor
are there any recommendations on prioritizing certain ones for the project.
A key example oftiie unfortunate lack of guidance fo build on during further project
development lies in the failure to point out the primacy of retention BMPs over other options
within the stmctural LID category, both in general and in relation to the Agua Fledionda site.
Retention practices avoid surface runoff discharge, and the added volume and pollutant load it
entails in an urban situation, al least up to the design condition, through evapotranspiration,
infiltration, and/or harvesting the waler for some water supply purpose. The other altematives
within the category, termed partial retention and biofiltration BMPs in the report, achieve less
retention, all else being equal, and allow more discharge of pollutant-conveying urban
stormwater. The report's Figure 2 shows the commercial area to lie almost entirely on
Hydrologic Soil Group B soils, which lend to be highly favorable to infiltration.
This fortunate correspondence ofthe need for treatment and the strong opportunity to apply the
best option to accomplish it should be noted and expanded into a firm recommendation to
pursue. In this situation it is likely that feasibly sized, land-based retention BMPs could extract
more mnoff from surface discharge than represented by the 85* percentile, 24-hour rainfall event
minimum design siandard. There is thus a substantial probability that these BMPs would prevent
the post-project increases in some pollutant concentrations and loadings predicted by modeling.
Furthermore, water-harvesting retention BMPs would provide water supply for landscape
irrigation, and possibly building toilet flushing, thus making a contribution to alleviating the
region's critical vvater shortage.
The section on consiruction BMPs provides another example of the missed opportunity to
highlight outstanding practices. Among other B.MPs applicable to construction, it gives buUeted
lists of erosion control practices and sediment control practices. Practices in the first group act to
prevent or minimize the release of sediments and can be highly eft'ective if selected, installed,
and maintained properiy. Those in the second group function to extract sediment already
released into runoff. They never reach a high level of effectiveness, unless a polymer treatment
is applied to boost particle setiling. However, such treatment is not addressed, representing a
deficiency in the list. It is now conmion in Pacific Northwest construction with potentially
negative impacts on sensilive receiving waters. .Another deficiency in the list is lack of practices
that avoid or greatly limit soil disturbance, such as performing ground-disturbing work in fhe dry
season and limiting the amount of soil disturbed at any one time. In sum, the catalogue of
constmction BMPs would be more useful if it presented a hierarchy of practices: first,
disturbance avoidance or limitation; next, erosion controls to stabilize disturbed areas; then,
sediment controls as needed when and where higher priority practices do not fully protect tlie
receiving water.
The report authors .should di.ssect each of the buUeled lists in relation to the development plan
and site physiographic characteristics lo designate specific BMPs for detailed consideration as
the project proceeds. Ifthe auitude in producing the draft repon was that it is too eariy to do so.
Page 23 August 2015
Everett DeLano
July 24,2015
Page 3
1 disagree. I believe certain points are sufficiently clear and pertinent to long-term protection of
the ,\gua Hedionda resource that their consideration should start now.
The report covers trash management controls in one sentence, obviously without any detail
helpful lo project designers. This .section should be expanded to cover source controls and.
should they be necessary, mechanisms to capture trash before it travels into the water.
The report also briefly discusses hydromodification (water quantity) controls bul notes that the
results of a technical study could exempt the plan area from control requirements. The site is
potentially eligible for the exemption because the commercial area discharges to a marine vvater
body with relatively low susceptibility lo hydromodification impacts, and the agricultural area
will be in essentially the same land use as presently. I it is likely in my view that fhe exemption
will ultimately be granted. 1 wish to note, though, that retention BMPs again ofTer the best
option for waler quantity control, just as they do for water quality management, should a
hydromodification plan for the commercial area be necessary.
Modeling Predictions
The report covers a modeling exercise that I regard as thorough and appropriately executed, with
one major exception. It is based on non-retentive BMPs for the commercial area. As I
contended above, I believe lhat this area is highly suited to the retentive altematives. The model
should be rerun on this basis.
T he model forecast volumes and pollutant concentrations' and loadings' in stormwater runotT
from the area to be occupied by the commercial development before and after the project. It
predicted a volume increase and. for pollutants, increases in some and decreases in others.
Increa-ses are forecast for dissolved copper, total zinc, and dissolved zinc loadings and tolal zinc
concentrations. Total suspended solids, nutrients (phosphoms and nitrogen), total copper, and
total lead loadings and concentrations are predicted to decrease. Thus, the expected outcome is
relatively favorable even with the assumption of non-retentive BMPs. Still, the predicted
increases involve metals that are highly toxic to aquatic life, especially in their dissolved forms:
and the Califomia Toxics Rule prescribes concentration limits for them in water bodies. The
project design should aim for decreases in these contaminants too, and thc modeling should
support achievement ofthat goal.
1 want to nole that many contaminants foimd in urban runoff were not modeled. While controls
placed on those that were modeled would tend to decrease thc others as well, some are less
amenable to control for various reasons; and ability to keep them to harmless levels while putting
in over 25 acres of urban development is an unknown. That unknown can best be addressed by
' Concentration is the mass of a pollutant per unit volume of a water sample. It represents the short-term burden on
receptor organisms inhabiting the receiving water.
" Loading is the mass of a pollutam released per unit time (e.g., a year) and is the multiplication product of
concentration and water volume. It represents the cumulative burden on a receiving water aquatic ecosystem,
including the effects of long-tenn exposure on receptor organisms and the potential for accumulation of the pollutant
in the receiving water sediments.
Page 24 August 2015
Evereu DeLano
July 24, 2015
Page 4
maximizing application of retention BJMPS in the favorable soils environment of the proposed
development site.
I finally wish to comment on the 22 acres draining from off-site onto the project area. This area
includes urban commercial and road development. The report does not incorporate analysis of
its implications. Receiving off-site runoff conveys responsibility to the receiver. Extra water
can complicate efforts by the receiver to manage the quantity and quality ofthe runoff it
produces itself. The report should face this issue and state in a general way how it should be
handled. Again, I believe that adding some specificity is possible at this point in project
detinition and would be a service to future analysts.
1 would be glad to discuss my comments and invite you to contact me ifyou wish.
Very truly yours
Richard R. Homer
Attachments: A. Curriculum vitae
B. Background and Experience
Page 25 August 2015
Letter 7
CARUSO
AFFILIATED
July 29, 2015
By Email: Van.Lynch@carhbadca.gov
Van Lynch
Planning Department
CityofCarlsbad
1635 Faraday
Carlsbad, Califomia 92008
Re: Response to San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians Letter on the Agua Hedionda
Soutii Shore Specific Plan for 85% Open Space and 15% Retail ("Specific Plan")
Dear Mr. Lynch:
We received and reviewed tiie June 12, 2015 letter from the San Luis Rey Band of Mission
Indians ("Band") expressing concems tiiat tiie Specific Plan could tiu^eaten Luiseiio cultural
resources and potential ancestral burials. This letter responds to the Band's questions and
concems, and is intended to assure tiie City we have carefiilly considered and addressed cultural
resources in our environmental assessments, and have provided for comprehensive cultural
resource protection features in the Specific Plan.
As an initial matter, we are committed to consulfing witii tiie Band and other Indian tribes (both
federally and non-federally recognized) witii respect to Specific Plans and cultural resources.
Consultation, in our view, is critical to our goal of producing the best plan possible as we move
forward. To that end, we are in contact with the Band to discuss the issues raised in their letter
and to establish ongoing lines of communication so tiiat any fumre concems can be resolved
cooperatively and any misinformation can be clarified.
As to tiie June 12 letter itself, the Band is concemed tiiat tiie Specific Plan and accompanying
environmental analysis do not adequately assess and protecl cultural resources. We do not agree.
As part of our environmental analysis, which the City has received, we retained Micah Hale,
Ph.D., of Dudek to (i) conduct an intensive search of archaeological records pertaining to tiie
Specific Plan area; (u) perform field surveys of archaeological sites identified as being on or near
tiie Specific Plan area; and (Ui) conduct shovel probe tests to determine the integrity of cultural
101 THE GROVE DRIVE • LOS ANGELES. CA 90036 • T323 900.8100 • F 323.900 8I0I • CARUSOAFFILIATED.COM
Page 26 August 2015
deposits located beneath the ground surface of such sites.' Dr. Hale's work indicates that there
are 13 cultural sites within the Specific Plan "Area of Potential Effect" or APE. Only one of
these sites is considered significant, and that site wdll not be affected by the Specific Plan. The
remaining 12 sites have been severely dismrbed due to decades of past and ongoing agricultoral
activity. This informafion is set forth in the Cultural Resources Constraints Report (May 2015)
prepared by Dr. Hale and his associate, Scott Wolf:
Of the 13 sites, 3 are located in the westem portion of the Specific
Plan area (CA-SDI-6831, -17078, and -17959), and 1 is in a
proposed road constmction area (CA-SDI-6134); all 4 of these
sites are considered heavily disturbed, if not redeposited [by prior
agricultural activity]. Shovel probing for buried archaeological
deposits indicates that it is urtiikely that sigruficant archaeological
deposits remain that warrant archaeological test excavation. To the
east, prehistoric site CA-SDI-13008 contains significant
archaeological deposits exposed on the surface, which will remain
untouched by Specific Plan-related improvements. Specific Plan
activities in the area near to or overlapping the CA-SDI-13008 site
boundary will consist of open space, trails, and agriculture. None
of these planned activities is a departure from existing uses and
thus no new impacts will occur to CA-SDI-13008. Given the long
history of agriculture in tius area, any intact sigiuficant
archaeological deposits there would be deeply buried.
Cultural Constraints Report, at pp. 15-16 (emphasis added).
In short, the culmral consttaints analysis shows that tiie Specific Plan will not affect any known
archaeological resource, and that no additional significant deposits are likely to be discovered
during implementation of the Plan. Furthermore, over 176 acres of the Specific Plan area wiU
remain in open space including agriculmre and habitat preserve.
In the unlikely event any culmral resources not previously identified are discovered, the Specific
Plan's environmental protection features (EPFs) will ensure they are properly evaluated,
preserved and treated with care and respect. The EPFs require tiiat qualified, professional
archeologists and Native American monitors to be preseni, and if a discovery of cultural
resources is made, preservation in place will be the primary preference.
' Dr. Hale received his Ph.D. in Anthropology from U.C. Davis in 2009 and has been certified through the Register
of Professional Archaeologists (RPA) since 2001. Dr. Hale also has considerable expertise specific to Agua
Hedionda Lagoon. In 2004, he conducted and published a Cultural Resource Inventory for the lagoon as part of
bridge replacement project for the North County Transit Distfict.
101 THE GROVE DRIVE • LOS ANGELES. CA 90036 • T 323.900.8100 • F 323.900 8101 • CARUS0AFFIUATED.COM
Page 27 August 2015
IfP
Furthermore, in the unlikely event Native American human remains are detected and discovered,
tiie Specific Plan's EPFs require tiiat contacts must be made to the Native American Heritage
Conunission, along witii tiie Most Likely Descendants, lo ensure tiiat such remains are treated
appropriately, wiUi dignity, as prescribed by section 7050.5 of tiie Healtii and Safety Code and
other Califomia law.
Finally, during tiie coastal development pemiit stage, we will continue tiie review process as
required under the Coastal Act. The Band and otiier interested ttibes wUl be invited to consuh in
that process as well and, we hope, provide us witii their insights and recommendations.
Very tmly yours.
Bryce Ross
Vice President
Camso Affihated
101 THE GROVE DRIVE • LOS ANGELES, CA 90036 • T 323.900 8100 • F 323 900 8101 • CARUSOAFFILIATED.COM
Page 28 August 2015
Letter 8
Surfrider Foundation San Diego County Chapter
9883 Pacific H eights B Ivd, Suite D
San Diego, CA 92121
SURFRIDER (SSS) 622-seei Fax: (858)622-9961
FOUNDATION
August 3, 2015
Mayor and City Council Sent via email
City' of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Dr., Carlsbad, CA
Subject: Caruso 85/15 Initiative
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council:
The Surfrider Foundation is a non-profit, environmental organization dedicated to ttie protection and
enjoyment ofthe world's oceans, waves and beaches for all peopie, through a pcMferful activist
network. The Surfrider Foundation has over 250,000 supporters, members, and activists and 80H-
chapters in the United States. Piease accept these comments on behaif of the San Diego Chapter of
the Surfi'ider Foundation.
We are concemed about a number of the provisions included in the proposed Caruso Affiliated 85/15
initiative. I_arge developments like this, within the protected coastal zone, should require extra care in
evaluating their potential impacts to our coastal resources, instead of extra care, this developer is
proposing to circumvent CEQA (Caiifornia Environmental Quaiity Act), which is of great concern.
CEQA has a participation mandate, as well as a substantive mandate to avoid or mitigate
environmental impacts. As elected representatives of the peopie, it would be ill advised to preclude
the transparency that CEQA provides.
Due to ttie proximity to the Agua H edionda Lagoon and the ocean, this project stands to have
significant environmental impacts. Those impacts should be addressed through an open public
process. Atthe very ieast, this project needs to be sent to a vote of the people.
Surfrider San Diego urges you to place this initiative on the ballot. Do not rush to approve such a
major coastal project without assuhng the opportunity for informed decisions.
Sincerely,
Julia Chunn-Heer
Policy Manager, San Diego County Chapter
The Surfrider Foundation is a non-profit grassroots organization dedicated to tfie protection and enjoyment of ourworld's
oceans, waves and beaches ihrough a powerful actf/ist nefwort. Founded in 1934 tiy a handful of visionaiy surfers in
Maiftw, California, the Surfrider Foundation now maintains over250,000 supporters, sctf/ists and members worldwide^
For an overview ofthe Surfrider Foundation San Dlego Chapter's current campaigns, programs and Initiatives go to
www.sutfridersd.org orcontact us at Info&.suifridersd.org or(858) $22-9661.
Page 29 August 2015
Letter 9
Angus! 4th, 2015
By Email
Van LyiKh
Planning Department
Cit>' of CarLsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carisbad, Calilbmia 92008
Rc: Response to June 15,2015 Pless Linironmenlal, inc. Letter
(Agua 1 ledionda South Shore Specific Plan Initiative, Cari.%bad, California)
Dear Mr Lynch:
We received and reviewed the June 15. 2015 letter from Pless Environmental, Inc., which
questions Ihe etTectiveness of the Environmental Protection Features ("EPFs") presented in thc
Lnvironmeniai .Analysis for the Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan (May 2015)..
To preface, we are strongly conimitled to designing, constructing, and operating the Specific
Plan's proposed land uses in a inanner thai is environmentally conscientious, responsible and
sus^inable. j\s such, thc S[K-ciftc Plan proposes development shat not only complies with the
existing comprehensive regulatory framework governing air quaiity issues, hut also exceeds the
tcquiremems of existing standards where feasible The Specific Plan provides for and requires
the impieineitiahon of hundreds of EPFs, which logether bring a comprehensive and cumulative
approach to ensuring protection of ihe environmens. Further, tt also is important to bear in mind
that the environmental review process for thc Specific Plan is ongoing, lo (he extcni thaf
additional EPFs prove to be feasible, reasonable, and etTective at reducing air pollutants, such
EPFs witl be considered in accordance with the Coastal .Act process thai will follow the City's
public initiative process.
f onjtt luctio n - Rela ted Emissions
. Xrchiteclural Coatings
Dn fMigcs 2 and 3, Ihe comment Ictlcr questtons fhe omission ofan EPF to address the volatile
organic compound ("VtX."') emissions diuing the Specilic Plan's construction phase, arul
requests lhat the Specific Plan lx: required lo: (i) use archilecfural coatings with zero VCX"
content and (ii) prohibit she application of coatings during the peak smog sea.son (July through
September) In response, first, the San Diego Air Pollution Control District ("San Diego
APCD") adopts and enforces standards regulating the VOC content ofarchiiectural coatings on a
Page 30 August 2015
basm-wide basis, and Ihe Specific Plan vvill comply with she applicable standards at she time of
buiiding construcfion
Second, the construction-rclaicd VCX2 emission cs.timates presented in the Environmental
Analysis are con.servative.' As discussed on page 4 3-20 ofthe Environmental Analysis, the air
qualily modeling u.sed conservative assumptions regarding the amount of square footage
requiring ihc application of" architedural coatings Further, in June 2015 afier release of (he
Environmental Analysis, ihe San Diego APCD adopted a new architectural coatings regulation
iRulc 67 0.1) That new regulation, which goes into efiect in January 2016. will apply (o the
Specific Plan's building construction activities and imposes lower VOC content limits than those
assumed in the Environmental .•Analysts. Thus, ihe emissions estimate presented tn the
Environmenlai Analysis is very likely higher than what may occur during Project construction.
Third, the choice of architectural coatings requires consideration of multiple factors beyond
V<X' conlenl Specifically, fhe coatings need to provide she proper protecfion to the building
mateiial.s, and must be able lo wiihsland environmental factors, tf an architectural coating is
chosen solely based on VDC content, then olher poientiai negative impacts may occur. For
example, building maierials may need to be replaced sooner, thereby generating more wasSc to
be transjxirled to landfills.
Fourth, there is no requirement set forth by the San Diego .APCD to curtail VOC emissions
during specific times ofthe year The APCi5 is responsible for ensuring healthful air quality and
attainment of the air qualify standards in our region To the extent that VOC emissions need to
be curtailed during specific times of year, the ,\PCD vvill enact rcgulaliortS providing as much
Finally, the San Diego APCD's June 2015 update to i(s architectural coalings regulation did nul
impose a zero VOC conlenl limil on archilecfural coatings, thereby supptirttng the
Environmental .'\nalysis' conclusion that no additional feasible mitigation is available.
{Equipment f leet Mix
On page J, she comment letter recommends that the Specific Plan be required to achieve a 20
percent reduction in the conslruclion fleet's nitrogen oxides i"NO\"t emissions In response,
firsL please note that she Specific Plan's constniction-related NOx emissions are not significant,
as shown in Table 4.3-6, Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions, of thc
Environmental .Analysis As such, there is no need for additional EPFs
Second, the California .Air Resources Board ("CARB ") alreiidy regulates off-road equipmenL
which IS thc primary source of NOx emissions durmg conslruclion CARB's regulations require
that otT-road equipment Heels conimuallv reduce iheir emissions level ihrough fleet turnover and
Thc wr qualify analysis pn»ented in thc Environmenlai Analysis was prepared hy Enc Lu (MS.
PE, CPP), a principal witii Ramboll ENVIRON. Mr. Lu received liis Masters of Science (Chemical
rngineenni!! from ilie l.nivcrsity of California. Berkeley, and has over 15 years of cx|>ericiiec in an
quality luialysis; additional information rejiarding Mr. Lu is available at iiijp:;;..M
cnv non com viinl.-icl envisoi) clii.
Page 31 August 2015 i
i
retfotii requirements Any consiruction flees used to I'aciliiale build-out under the Specific Plan
necessarily will be a CARB-cenifted fleet as a master of law.
Third, while the commeni letter's recommendation is based on an emission conU"ol practice used
by thc Sacramenio Metropolitan Air Qualily Management Distnct ("Sacramento Metropolitan
AQMD"), consistent with our first response point, the Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD only
recommends imposition of fhis requirement where a projecl "will generate ma,ximum daily NOx
emissions thai exceed the District's threshold of significance, even wilh impleinenLalion ofthe
Basic ConsSrxiction Eini.ssion Confrol Practices Here, the Specific Plan is nos subject to ihc
jurisdiction ofthe Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD's rules, regulations or guidance. Further,
the Specific Plan would not trigger this requirement, even ifil was subject to is, because she NOx
emissions are beiow the significance threshold Finally, the San Diego APCD (which is thc
regional agency responsible for air qualily where she Specific Plan is located) does not have any
such similar requirements.
Offsets and VERA
On page 4. she comment letter recommends shas the Specific Plan purchase "offsets" from the
San Dicgo APCD, or enter into a Voluntary Emissions Reducsion .Agreement ("VER,A") with fhe
San Diego .APCD In response, please note that she San t>iego APCD does nol have offsets or
the VERA programs. Absent an established legal mechanism for participjilion m such
established programs applicable to the City of Carlsbad or the County of San Diego, tbe
recommendation is not feasible.
Ofersighl Meckani.fnK
(Jn page 4, the commeni letter recommends lhal a dedicated construction manager overwc
implemenlasion ofthe Specific Plan's EPFs. In response, the City of Carlsbad has mcclianisms
lo ensure thai the EPFs ate implemented. And, as discussed in the Environmenlai Analysis, the
City retains full aulhorily so enforce each of the Specific Plan EPFs
OocralionaERelated Emissions
I.EHD Standards
On pages 4 and 3, Ihe commens letter challenges thc stringency of EPF AQ-3, ajid requests thas
the EPF be revised to: (i) require LEED certitication, and (ii) encompass 1 EED's Bwh/sn^
ih'.s.'ffn and Comtruction and Inter mr Desij^n and Ct>m(rucnan standards, and 1-EED's
Operuimm and .Mainiemincc standards In response, she Spc«cific Plan docs not result in
signilkans air qualily impacls dial achievemeni oflhe referenced LEED siandard.s would help
address Thus, formal LEED certification is not required in she context uf fhe significance
SMA(^MD, 2015. Available
hrtp:;Vww.airqualitv\oraccqa.cxqupuidc»pdatc/Ch3Constni>:tiCT
Accessed; Julv 20f 5.
Page 32 August 2015
/
crileria evaluated Ralher, fhe Specific Plan has proactively included the subject EPF to further
ihe cnvironmcnlally responsible and sustainable development ofthe site
Title 24
On page 5, she commeni letter opines that EPF AQ-4 is not strmgeni enough, and does not
contain a sufficfenlly clear compliance pathway In response, as to thc stringency ofthe EPF, thc
fcasibilily of Title 24 exceedances must bc determined on a case-by-case basis in light of the
anticipated buildmg uses,' Here, the EPF was delineated based on the best infomiatton avaiiable
af the time of the Environmental Analysis' preparation Relatedly, the California Energy
Commission ("CEC") updates the l ille 24 standards approximately every three years. Following
relea.se of the Environmental Analysis, the CEC adopted the 2016 Title 24 standards, which will
go into effect in Januarv' 2017, To the extent that building permit issuance occurs at or after shas
time, ihc Specific Plan development necessarily will comply with the CEC's new 2016
standards, which provide incremental improvemenls in building energy elTiciency relative lo she
2013 standards. As lo fhe sufficiency ofthe compliance palhway, the EPF is dralfod to allow she
improved energy efficiency to he achieved in she most technically feasible manner The City of
Carlsbad wnll evaluate and confirm compliance.
Photovoltaic Panels
On page 6, the comment letter recommends that EPF AQ-6 be revised to require thc instaliation
of photovoltaic panels on ull available roof space, as well as the mslallation ol" energy storage
systems (e g . batteries) In response, the estimate of photovoltaic panet coverage provided in the
Environmental Analysis is based on what ri»f area can elTectively be used for photovoltaic
panels since - in many cases ihe enure roof area of any siruclure is often not suitable for
phoiovollaic panels. However, for a variety of reasons, she most efllclenl and efTecSive
placement ofthe photovoltaic panels tbr thc Specific Plan is on she top oftiie parking garage, as
such, this is the localion where such panels are anticipated. Additionally, the technology
as.sociated wuh energy storage systems for photovoltaic panels is slill emerging and will
Thc conirncnl letter provides incomplefc examples of projccfs that appear to evccsxl Title 24
standards
For thc City of San Dicgo example, Ihc provided link does nof indicate what Title 24 standards
that project would exceed, Without additional information, it is nol known whether that prcvjccl
committed to exceed thc 2005 or 2001* title 24 standards, which would bc less lhan thc Specific Plan's
commitmenL
For ihc City of Redlaiid example, tiic fulfilhiietil cemei i.s a veiy diffeietsl lyi>e of laiid use
comparetl to the Specific Plan Whal was dclcmiincd feasible for a completely different land use does not
indicate wliat is feasible for oilier land uses. Like the City of San Diego example, the City of Redlaiuls
cjsample also is not explicil as to which Title 24 standards will be exceeded
Finally, the l^nivasity of tralifomia poiicv has an important qualifying provision: "thc University
will strive lo design, construct, laid cammission buildings shal oulpcrfonn CBC enerifj' cOiciency
standards by 30% or more, whenever pus^tihk wtthin the ani'Hraintx of program neeih ami Hkmdaril
budget parameters." (llalics added » As such, the comimtnient is not absolute.
Page 33 August 2015
0
tl
continue to be evaluated for feasibility as the Specific Plan's environmenlai review process
proceeds.
Electric Vehkie Charging Stations
On page 6, the comment letter opines thai EPF AQ-8 does not reciuire a sufficient number of
electric vehicle cliarging station.s In rcspoasc. ihe existing commitment is based on the
anticipated demand for electiic vehicle charging stations, To she extens that cfcmands for such
services increases, thc Specific Plan dt>es not prohibit the installation of additional eleciric
vehicle charging siafions.
l.andscaping Equipment
On page 6, the commeni letter stales that EPF AQ-12 docs not .suftlcicntly define Ihc cntena that
will be u.sed lo estiiblish whether ihe use of electnc landscaping equipment is feasible. In
response, ihc i"easibility oflhe use of electnc landscaping e<]uipmens is dictated by She suiiabilily
of the available electric equipment to fulfill thc landscaping needs. At ihis point in time, it
would be speculative to impose more stringent rcquircmcnLs. Thc Specific Plan dtics nof limit
thc potcnlml future use of electric landscaping equipmenf Funhcrmorc, nothing precludes the
City or olher agencies from calling for such equipment Ihc landscaping plan for this facility
has nos yel been tlnatt/ed, con.sequcnsly fhe specifications for the latidsca|>e equipment required
cannoi presently be a.scerfatned, however the criteria in ihc Specific Pian is fo favor such electric
landscaping equipmeni when such equipmeni is "feasible"" tbr a given task. No l"urlhcr
spectficisy is reasonably possible.
(ieneral Plan Update Mea.iures
On pages 6 thiough 7, the commeni knter highlights text Irom the Carlsbad General Flan l.ipdatc.
As stated in the excerpt provided by the comment, "the following mea.sures iture be required as
needed to reduce project-level impacts." (llalics added.) in evaluating the estimated air qualisy
emissions, lite Specific Plan s operational NO.x, carbon monoxide, and particulate mailer (PM.,!
and PM;5) are pnmanly due to mobile sources (i e., vehicles), which compnse more shan W
percent ofthe emissions; she operational VOC emissions are due to mobile sources, architectural
coalings and consumer producss
In response fo the specific measures cited from thc General Plan Update:
Hem ,A: The requirements of ihe CALGreen building code would not address any of thc
emission sources of concern Iisted above.
Item B: I he Specific Pian has already incorporated such design features as part of its
Transportation Demand Management ("TDM") program, which is anficipated to
achieve at leasi a six (6) percent reduction in the number of trips associated with the
Specific Plan's retail, iheatcr and supcnmarkct land uses
Item C: EPF AQ-12 is consistent with and implements this recommendation.
Page 34 August 2015 ^
Item D: Thc Specific Plan iiKludes a landscape plan that will result in the plansmg of shade
trees in any open-air parkmg areas. Note lhat this lype of recommendation is nol
applicable to the fwirking garage.
Item E: EPF AO-6 is consistent wilh and implemenis ihis recommcndasioa Nonetheless,
please note lhat soiar ci>oling''hcaling does not address the emission sources lhat
confribute to the Specific Plan's operational emissions
Miscellaneous Recontmendations
On page 8, the comment letter recommends thai thc Specific Plan (i) reduce the on-site, asphalt-
paved areas, (ii) offer free shuttle services lo minimize thc on-siic mtwement of patron.s; (iii)
enter imo a coniraci to acquire 100 percent renewable energy, and, (iv) require an on-siie
manager to oversee implemcnlaiion of all EPFs, tn response, first. She Specific Plan preserves H5
percent or 176 acres oflhe site as open space, ihereby elTedively and significantty minimizing
she amount of asphals paving Second, ihe request for on-site shuttle service is not necessary
bccaasc the Specific Plan's retail development is designed to be compact, wish a pedestrian-
oriented design that minimizes thc need for vehicle movement. Third, the Specific Plan"s
electricify needs will bc met by San Diego Oas and Electnc; thai utility provider's use of
renewable energy is regulated ihrough the Slate's Renewable Portfolio Standard, which currenlly
requires thai 33 percent ofthe provider's energy come from renewable sourcics by 2020, and may
require that 50 percent of the provider's energy come from renewable sources by 2030 (sec
Senate Bill 350). Fourth, implemensation of die Specific Plan's EPFs will be overseen by the
City of Carlsbad, as welt as our office, conssructton contraclors and building managers, thereby
ensuring a diverse and multi-layered oversight network.
In closing, we again reilerate our commitment so bring sustainable development to the City of
Carlsbad that protccls the infegriiy and history of Ihi.S site, while coupling long-term open space
w ith a resident- and visitor-serving reiail opportunity. Thank you for your consideration of these
rc,spon.scs, and please do not hesitate to contact me wilh any questions.
Very iruly yours,
«K('r
Bryce Ross
Vice President
Caru-so AlTiliaied
Page 35 August 2015
August 4, 2015
Letter 10
Van Lynch
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
By Ismail
Re: Response to .luly 24. 2015 Dr, Richard Horner letter (.Agua Heilionda
South .Shore Specific i'lan Initiative. ( arlsbad. Califtirnta)
Dear Mr Lynch:
We received and reviewed the July 24, 2015 letter from Dr. Richard Homer, which questions the
best management practices identified for the development, the water qualily modeling results
contained in the Environmenlai Assessment's water qualily section, and the technical reptiri for
the Specific Plan (collectively, "water quality assessmenl"). Specifically, Dr Horner questions
whether the waler quality a.ssessmenl sufficiently emphasized and recommended the most
efiective best management practices (BMPs) for water quality protection, and whether water
quality modeling lo assess waler qualily impacls adequately modeled the BMPs' elYecfs.
This letter responds to Dr Homer's concems and is inlended to assure the City thaf we have
carefully considered and addressed the Specific Plan's waler qualily impacls. Wc also arc
committed lo designing, constructing, and operating thc facilities implemented within the
Specific Plan in an environmentally conscientious, responsible, and sustainable manner. The
Specific Plan's environmental review process remains ongoing and consideration of water quality
issues will also occur in accordance wilh applicable laws and regulations, .
He.\l Manaisemeni Practices fHMl'sf
Dr Homer indicated that the water quality assessmenl lists candidate construction and post-
construction BMPs, but does not provide guidance on prioritizing BMPs during Specific Plan
implementation In particular, Dr Homer believes the Specific Plan does not point out the
primacy of retention BMPs, preseni a hierarchy of construction-phase BMPs, or provide enough
delail regarding trash management controls. However, Dr. Homer docs not acknowledge the
Specific Plan applicani is not required by law lo provide a water qualily BMP hierarchy and lhal
such guidance is already available in .San Diego County's Siandard Urban Stormwater Mitigation
Plan (SUSMP) Manual (August 2012) and Low Impact Development Handbook (July 2014)
And, Ihc Specilic Plan musl adhere to such requirements. (See Specific Plan, chapter I 5 7 p
1.0-14.)
101 THE GROVE DRIVE • LOS ANGELES, CA '«H06 • T 323 '»0 81WI • F 323 '^OO KIOl • CARUSOAmLI.ATED COM
Page 36 August 2015
Relentiim BMPs
The Specific Plan's waler qualily assessmenl lists tow impaci development (LID) BMPs that the
Specific Plan could implement consistent wilh the municipal stormwater permit requirements.
.Accordingly, the Specific Plan is organized in such a way that retention BMPs must be
considered first and other treatment BMPs may be inipiemented only if retention BMPS are
infeasible. fhe wafer quality assessment acknowledges lhat retention BMPs generally achieve a
greater pollutant load reduction lhan non-rclcntion BMPs. The Specific Plan will implement
retenfion BMPs if feasible at thc time of final Plan design, as required by the Plan review process
detailed in chapter 6,0 ofthe Specific Plan,
In addition, the Specific Plan's water quality assessment presents planning level soils data from
fhe U S Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, which indicate that
the soils in the Specific Plan area would support infiltralion of the pemiit-required water qualily
design storm On-site infiltration testing will be [icrformcd at a subsequent Plan design phase lo
evaluate if infiltralion can be implemented, t he Plan also wili be required to evaluate the
feasibility of stormwater harvesting and use as a retention BMP, as part of the Plan review
process in the Specific Plan.
('<m,\lruLlt<m Pha.\e B.Ml's
As So thc hierarchy claim, the Specific Plan more than adequately assesses water quality and
provides an exhaustive list of BMPs that vvill bc implemented during the Specific Plan's
construction phase, including requirements for erosion control, sediment control, waste and
material managemenl, non-stormwater managemenl, iraining and education, inspections,
maintenance, monitoring and samplmg. All such Specific Plan requirements are consistent with
thc Constraction General Permii (Waler Qualily Order 2009-0009-DW(,), Slale Waier Resources
Conlrol Board National Pollutant Discharge l-liminaiion System (NPDES) General Permit for
Stonnwater Di.scharges Associated with Constmction Activity (NPDES No. CAR000002;
adopted by the Stale Water Board on September 2, 2009)).
In additton, the Specific Plan will develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
consistent wilh the Plan's risk level. The SWPPP must include Plan-specific BMPs that will be
evaluated for efi'ccliveness in meeting the liesl Conventional Pollutant Control Technology
performance standard through a prescriptive BMP moniloring and reporting program. This
moniloring program includes visual inspections of BMP perl'ormance and a water quality
sampling program. In instances where traditional erosion and sediment control measures do not
adequately protect vvater quality, and the water quality monitoring program shows Construction
General Permit Nuincnc Aclion Levels are exceeded, site-specific conditions may require the
use of advanced treatment syslems (e.g., polymer treatment, etc.). Such irealmcnl BMP details
would then be included in the SWPPP and be consistent with the California Stonnwater Quality
A.ssociations (CASQA) California Stormwater BMP Handbook, Conslruclion. BMP SE-11
(Active Treatment Systems),
Page 37 August 2015 ID
I'osi-( 'imstrucliim BMPs
The Specific Plan's waler qualily assessment also dcscnbcs the site design and source controls
that the Specific Plan would implement, which are consistent wifh fhe requirements of the
municipal stormwater permit for thc San Diego Region (e g,, protection of trash storage areas,
and BMP requirements for food service facilifies). The Specific Plan must implement these
prescriptive BMPs to meet regulatory requirements.
Tra.<ih .Managemenl ('onirtils
Dr. Homer lakes issue with the amount of detail regarding trash management controls contained
m the Specific Plan's vvater quality assessment. Fhe assessment provides more than enough
information about trash management controls consistent wilh the Slale Waler Resources Conlrol
Board's amendments — and those requirements include prescriptive requirements (ot full trash
capture syslems,
.Modeling
Dr. Horner suggests that modelmg should be rerun wilh retention BMPs to decrease certain
contaminants. However, the Specific Plan's waier quality model was more lhan conservative.
Presently, the water quality assessment modeled biofiltration BMPs to evaluate the Plan's
impacts on water qualily. Thc assessment demonstrates lhat even without retenlion BMPs, the
Plan's impacts on water quality would be less lhan significant. Because of the conservative
nature ofthe water quality models, the BMPs implemented as pan oflhe Plan will result in lower
pollutant concentrations than what was predicted by the water quality model
Impacts trom Offsite .-Ireas
Finally, Dr Homer indicates lhal the Specific Plan's water quality assessmenl not address the
implications oflhe 22 acres draining from ofT-sile ihrough the Plan area. However, the olTsile
area currenlly discharges to desilting basins that the Specific Plan will nol affect. Ttiis discharge
will not comingle with the stormwater runofT f"rom thc Specific Plan's developed area. As a
result, there are no Specific Plan-associated impacts from this discharge lhal need to be evaluated
in the Specific Plan's water quality assessment.
Very traly yours.
fBryce Ross
Vice Presidem
Caru.so Affiliated
Page 38 August 2015
Letter 11
From: Merri Lopez-Keifer rmailto:lopezkeiferPgmail.coml
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2015 11:26 AM
To: Van Lynch
Cc: Mel Vernon; Carmen Mojado
Subject:
Dear Van,
There has been much reported in the press and social laedia regardmg the Tribe's position and'or concems regarding the Ama
Hedionda Initiative, Please read the statement below ,
The protection and preservation of our tribal cultural resources is of paramount im portance to us. At this time, the San Luis Rey Band
of Mission Indians remains neutral regarding the Agua Hedionda 85/15 Iniliative, Furthermore, the tribe abstains from any further
public comment.
Please be aware that statement was forwarded to Reserve Calavera and mcluded a request for the removal ofthe San Luis Rey Band
of Mission Indians from their roster of entities in opposition to the initiative. Also, we are in consultation with thc developer, Caruso
-Affiliated, regarding the preservation of cultural resources but there is no resolution to report at this time.
Best,
Merri
Merri Lopez-Keifer
Chief Legal Counsel
San Luis Rev Band of Mission Indians
(925) 457-3395
lopezkeiferffl? amail .com
•Hie infonnation in this e-mail message is intended for the
confidential use ofthe addressees only. 'Hie infonnation is subject to
attoniey-clieiit privilege and/or may be attoniey work product.
Recipients should not file copies of this e-mail with publicly
accessible records. If you are not an addressee or an authorized agent
1
Page 39 August 2015 1^
Letter 12
Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation
f^vs^riv, lYolccL Mil Fnb.-iitcc
Augusts, 201S
Mayor and Cify Council Sent via email
Cfty of Carlsbacl
1200 Carisbad Village Drive
Carlsbacf, CA 92008-1949
Sol^t: Caruso 85/15 Initiative
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council:
The Bafiquitos Lagoon Foundation (BLF) wa$ established as a 501(0(3) public benefit non-
profit organization on January 7, 1983 dedicated to presorving. proiecling and enhancing the
batiquitos Lagoon Ecological Reserve and its associaied waterehed Coupled wfth this focus is
cur mvolvemenf in environmental issues, especially concerning our coastal wetlands and
lagans. We are very concemed about the Caruso Affiliated 85/15 initiative, the impacts thaf ft
might have on tiie residents ofthe City of Carlsbad, and. most importantly, ttw potential to by-
pass the ti-adrtional project review and vetting process that has been in place for many years
The Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), while a long process, was established to
ensure that key environmental factors are well researched and decisions to proceed based on
impartial review fay subject-area experts before any decisions are made.
The position of the BLF on the proposed Caruso 85/15 Devetopment Plan and associated
documentation was prepared by the developer and needs to be very carefully reviewed ft is
our view that it should be placed on a special election ballot and the voters of Cartsbad afforded
tt>e opportunity to make an infomied decision on tfie proposed project. To simply approve the
plan and project as submitted to expedrte this process, in our view sets a ven/ dangerous
precedent that appears to oni y benefit tbe develops r.
When the time comes for you to make a decision, -we encourage you let the citizens of Carlsbad
Sincere^ ^
' Fried C. Sandquist •
President
Attacliment: BLF Position on the Proposed Caruso 85/15 Development Project
P.O. H.,x 13041)1 CarbKuLCahft.nii« f»2013-04>)I • 7Ca;i:> I .CWO - www.b:,rtq„ilosfoi.ndatk>n....s
Page 40 August 2015
Proposed Caruso Affiliated 85/lS Development Project along the Southern
Shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon
As you are aware, developer Rick Caruso is proposing to build a high-scale shopping mall along
the south shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon, He states that it will preserve open space and the
Strawberry fields while providing a regional mall with Nordstrom one of its anchor stores. He
report:edly has paid gathers to collect 20,000 signatures fi-om residents of Carlsbad for an
initiative that is currently being reviewed by the San Oiego County Registrar for verification and
certification. The Carlsbad City Council will have the opportunity to review his proposed projert
later this summer or early fall and decide to: adopt the Caruso plan as submitted which would
allow the development project to proceed while fast-tracking it and bypassing the traditional
projert review and approval process; or place it on a special ballot initiative letting the citizens
of Carisbad decide.
The position of the Batiquitos Lagoon Foundatiors is that there is a lot of information and
statements being presented in the media that needs to be researched, and objective fact-based
analysis conducted and reviewed before determining whether the project is good or bad for the
citizens of Carlsbad. In essence, we feel that we, the City Council and citizens of Carlsbad need
more fart-based InfonnaHon before making an informed decision, and more importantly, that
the Cftlzens of Carlsbad be given the opportunity lo vote on it. We also feet that any project of
this magnitude should follow the established review and approval process, and receive
Independent and objective evaluation. The Catifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), while
considered cumbersome and time-consuming by many (especially developers), was put In place
to ensure devetopment projects properly consider and add ress key environmental factors, with
an eye towards ensuring mitigation factors are in place for imparts deemed significant. It is our
position that factors such as: aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources,
cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gases, hazards and hazardous materials,
hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and
housing, publk services, recreation, transportation and traffic, utilities and service systems,
mandatory finding of significance, mitigation measures and best manogement practices, and
cumulative imparts be vciv carefully researched and reportied. Let the voters decide based on
a critical review ofthe facts associated with the proposed project!
Fred C. Sandquist, President. Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation
Page 41 August 2015 l4
Letter 13
CARUSO
A f FILIATED
August 7th. 2015
By E-mail to Vm.Lynch@carhbadca.gov
Van Lynch
Flamting Department
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday
Carisbad, Califomia 92008
Rc: Response to U.S. Fi.sh and Wildlife Service and California Department
offish and Wildlife on the Agua Hedionda Soutii Shore Specific Plan
for 85% Open Space and 15% Retail (Specific Plan)
Etear Mr, Lynch;
We have received and reviewed the June 12, 2015 letter frora the U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) and the Califomia Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) lhat offcre comments and
recommendafions to assist She Specific Plan in avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating Specific
Plan-related effects on sensitive biological resources, and in ensuring the Specific Plan mmains
consistent with habitat management and regional habitat conservation planning efforts.
As an initial matter, we are stiongly committed So designing, constiticting, and operating the
Specific Plan's proposed land uses in an eavironmentally conscientious, responsible, and
sustain^le manner. As such, the Specific Plan provides its own stiingcnt comprehensive
framework, and, in general, matters not specifically regulated or required by the Specific Plan
will remain subject lo thc Carlsbad Municipal Code and other applicable, adopted mles,
regulations, or official policies of Calsbad. in addition to all applicable, adopted federal, state,
and regional laws and regulations. (See Specific Plan, Chapter 1,5.4, Specific Plan's
Relationship to die Carlsbad Municipal Code.) Specifically, tiic Specific Plan will comply witb
Chapter 21.210 of tbe Carlsbad Municipal Code (Habitat Preservation and Management
Requirements) to thc extent die provisions of that chapter do not confiict with die Specific Plan,
(for a discussion of die Specific Plan's consistency witii the Habitiit Management Plan (HMP),
please refer to ihe Environmental Analysis, Appendix D,
In additton, the Specific Plan provides for and lequires unplementation of hundreds of
environmental protection features (EPFs), which togclhcr bring a comprehensive approach to
ensuring environmental protection, including EPFs directed at habitat management,
conservation, and restoration. Further, the Specific Plan's environmental review process remains
ongoing and will include Coastal Act compliance following the City's public initiative process.
Page 42 August 2015
Fairy Shrimp
Thc agencies point out that the San Diego fairy shrimp is not covered by the City's HMP and
would require separate permitting/consultation with USFWS should die Specific Plan impact the
species. Wc appreciate this correction and recognize the San Dicgo fairy shrimp is not a covered
species under the HMP; and, as stated, the Specific Plan will remain subject to all applicable,
adopted federal, stale, and regional laws and regul^ions.
Presendy, protocol surveys for San Diego fairy shrimp and Riverside fairy shrimp were not
conducted in the 19 depressions identified because tiicy were unsuitable for fairy shrimp due to
the historic use of pesticides, amount of disturbance, and die frequency of re-contouring and
regukr road ttaffic. hi addition, these areas do not function as vernal pooLs because fhe sandy
soils contained in the Specific Plan area do not have tbe necessary hardpan required for ponding
and vernal pool creation. All but two of the depressions occurred wilhin active agricultural areas
tiiat experience constant disking and reconiouring, Thc two other depressions ate situated on a
dirt road that experiences heavy traffic and is within a cieated detention basin. Standing water
within a dirt mad and a detention basin is not considered suitable habitat for Usted fairy shrimp.
Nonetheless, we witl continue to evaluate the Specific Plan site as the environmental review
process proceeds, and if necessary, conduct further protocol surveys for fairy shrimp during the
Coastal Act process.
BufTcrs
Thc agencies sugge^ it may be helpful to provide figures iUusttating proposed Specific Plan
buffers and land uses within diose buffers. In respon.sc, the Specific Plan's allowed land uses are
generally consistent with the HMP-required buffers. (See Specific Plan, Chapter 3.0. which
details the land uses tbat are allowed widtin tiic buffers.) Additionally, the Specific Pian will not
place new access roads within the buffers, but allows existing access roads that currently occur
witiiin the buffers to remain.
To that end, and consi^ent with the HMP, tbe Specific Plan docs not allow new development,
grading, or alterations, including clearing of vegetation, in the buffer area, except for thinning of
vegetation for fiiel modification to a maximum of 20 feel for upland and non-riparian habitat.
Also, for example, no fuel modification can uike place within 50 feet of riparian areas, wetiands,
or oak woodland. (Sec Specific Plan, Chapters 3.0-16 through 3.0-18.) In addition, buffer areas
that do not contain native habitat must be landscaped using native and non-invasive plants.
Signage and physical barriers wiil be required to minimize any development edge effects.
This letter encloses a figure illustrating proposed Specific Plan buffers and land uses within those
buffers. The figure does not include buffers within die HMP.
Page 43 August 2015
Adjacency StAndards
The agencies raise concerns regarding increased public access adjacent to preserve areas. Wc
have been, and continue to remain, mindful of the preserve's sensitive nature. As such, die
Specific Plan addresses and is committed to die Adjacency Standards stipulated in the HMP.
Secfion F. Ple^e note that Oic Specific Plan does not require creation of additional habitiit and
serves only to further enhance the preserve.
Fire Management
All Specific Plan constnictton will conform widi tbe County Fire Code, which provides
minimum requtrements for access, water supply and dislribution, constniction type, fire
prot«;tion systems, and vegetiition management (see Specific Plan. Chapter 1.5.5.1, Fire
Protection; and see EPFs FP-1, BIO-12, and BiO-7). In addition, thc Specific Plan provides for a
minimum of 50 feet of defensible space for sttuctures. (See Environmental Analysis for the
Specific Plan, Section 4.10, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, page 4.10-17.)
Erasion Control and Slope Stakility
The Specific Plan also requires a detailed geotechnica] report to analyse the necessary setbacks
to achieve tbe safety standards outiined below for any specific development proposed on site.
Stmcmres requiring foundations, pools, and fountains must be set back a minimum of 50 feet
from tiic bluff edge. AU development must be removed or relocated landward when tiireatened
by erosion. A qualified geologist or property surveyor must determine tiie bluff edge according
to die definition includ«i in California Code of Regulations, title 14. section 13577(h)(2}.
A licensed certified engineering geologist and/or geotechnica] engineer, or a registeicd civil
engineer wilh experience in soil engineering also must perform slope stability analyses and
erosion rate estimates. All unpermeablc. permanent stmctures must be setback to ensure a
minimum factor of safety of \ ,5 (static) and 1.1 (pseudo static). Thc long-term erosion setback
(for stmctures requiring structural foundations, pools, and fountains) must be the distance that
the bluff might bc expected to erode over the design life of tbe structure (expected to be 75
years) and inciude an allowance for possible acceleration of historical bluff retteat rates due to
sea level rise. Bluff erosion rati: estimates must be established by examining hisloricai records,
surveys, aerial photographs, studies, or other evidence tiiat shows die location of the bluff edge
dirough time and bc based on a minimum of 50 years of historical information.
In addition, EPFs W<M, WfJ-S, and WQ-31 are included in die Sp»;Ulc Plan to reduce erosion
associated widi construction and operation of the Specific Plan.
For further information regaiding erosion control and slope sfabihty, please reference Chapter
3.5.1 of the Spedfic Plan.
Page 44 August 2015
Landscaping and Control of Exotic Plant Species
The Specific Plan includes landscaping restrictions allowing only native vegetation within the
HMP-OS and P-OS designated areas. No invasive plants are permitted. The landscaping must
adhere to the ministerial landscape construction documents requirements of Chapter 4 of the
City's landscape manual (additional detiiils reganling landscaping are found in the Specific Plan,
Chapter 4.0, Design Guidelines).
Landscape and design in tiw EAG-OS and AGS-OS areas must keep with indigenous and native
vegetation and not interfere with or intrude on agricultural operation or crops. Native plant
materiais will be used in conjunction with non-invasive and drought tolerant ornamental
landscape to identify public areas and soften the appearance of structures in these areas. There
wiil be no invasive plant species used anywhere within the Specific Plan area (additional details
regarding landscaping is found in thc Specific Plan, Chapter 4.0. Design Guidehnes).
All development withm thc VSC area must identify and implement a landscaping plan lhat
installs native and non-invasive plant species and omamenlal landscaping. Further, all
landsc^ing widiin die buffers must bc native, non-invasive, and drought tolerant. Thc
landscaping must adhere to the ministerial landscape constmction document requirements of
Chapter 4 of the City's landscape manual. Lamlscaping must be provided to screen paridng
structures from the lagoon, adjacent open space uses, and the 1-5 corridor, to Ihc extent
practicable. The Specific Plan also will promote thc rapid restoration of graded slopes with fire
resistant, drought tolerant landscapmg (additional details regarding landscaping is found in die
Specific Plan, Chapter 4.0, Design Guidelines).
Fencing, .Signs and Lighting
The Specific Plan, Chapter 4.0, Design Guidelines, details the specific requirements and
restrictions as they will be applied to each land use proposed as part of thc Specific Plan its they
relate to fencing, Ughting, and signage. In particular, Qiapter 3.5.1 of the Specific Plan outlines
the goveming .standards for fencing, si^s and lighting wilhin die HMP. Fencing is permitted to
the extent it does not impede wildlife movement Perimeter signage will be allowed in she HMP
for interpretive signs, wayfinding signs. ADA signs, and restrictive USE signs. Lighting in the
HMP-OS designaied areas is prohibited unless e.s.sential for facility use, safety, and security
purposes, and must remain downcast widi Ught patterns directed away from n^ral areas. For
futdier information regarding fencing, signs, and lighting, please refer to Chapter 3.5.1 of tiic
Specific Plan.
Ccwtscrvation/ODen Space Easements
The agencies suggest the Specific Plan provide a figure illusttating placement of die
conservation and open space casement. Tbis suggestion will be implemented as tiic public and
Page 45 August 2015
environmental process evolves. For example, foilowing the City's pubUc initiative process, die
Specific Plan will undergo scmtiny consistent widi die Coastal Act. The Coasta] Act prtxsss
will provide die forum for all figures and illusttations.
Also, the agencies suggest dial according to die HMP, all mitigation areas must be secured with a
conservation easement in favor of the wildlife agencies. Currentiy, thc Specific Plan dews not
contain any mitigation areas within thc HMP tiiat would need to be secured widi a conservation
easement in favor of the wildlife agencies.
Fire Deparbnent and Fitel Modifioition
The agencies request documentation of and mitigation for die clearing of native habitat should
such be necessary. The Specific Plan does not envision fuel modification witiiin tiic HMP, and
fuel modification within the buffers to tiie preserve would only occur upon written order of thc
Carlsbad Fire Etepartment. The Specific Plan also requires mitigation for such impacts, pursuant
toEPFBIO-4-
MitigatiMi
The agencies request the opportunity to review any mitigation plans prior to grading permit
issuance. The agencies will have tiic opportunity to review any mitigation plans required for
consistency witii tiie HMP prior to die City's issuance of die grading permit (see EPF BIO-21).
Thank you for your interest.
Very tmly yours,
Bryce Ross
Vice President
Camso Affiliated
Page 46 August 2015
DUOEK FIGURE 1
Sfegetation CDmmunities with Habitat Buff^
^ua Hediontfa 85/IS Spediic Ptan Biological Resoirces Repon
Page 47 August 2015
Letter 14
Buena Vista Audubon Society
P.O. Box480, Oceanside, CA92049-0480
August 10, 2015
Mayor and City Council Sent via email
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Dr., Carlsbad, C A
S ubj e ct; A gua H e dionda 8 5/15 Ini ti ative
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council:
The BVA3 Board has significant concems about the Agua H edionda 85/15 Specific Plan
Initiative (The "85/15 Initiative'^, and have outlined our major concems below.
Exemp ting the Agua Hedionda Specific Plan from env iiDnmental review under CEQA
The Agua Hedionda Specific Plan is going thraugh the Citizens' Initiative process, which
allows projects to be exempt from CEQA. Instead, all Specific Plan sign-offs, actions and
approvals are to be ministerial, i.e., processed as an administrative function without judgment or
discretion as to the merits or impacts of Ihe project.
Instead of conflicting environmental review under CEQA Caruso Affiliated prepared a
lengthy environmental document They feel lhat this is an acceptable substitute for fhe
environmental analysis process under CEQA. We disagree.
Most development proj ects go through the process ouUined in Carlsbad's Municipal
Code, chapter 19.04, which administer s the city's responsibility under CEQA. The process
includes reviews of a proposed proj ect by the ci^ planner and other staff at various steps ofthe
process. If there is likely to be an impact on the environment an Environmental Impact Report.
(EIR) must be done, containing a range of reasonable alternative including a "No Action"
Altemative.
This process allows for public participafion 1) The public is given opportunity to
comment throughout the EIR process; 2) the city planner may approve a request from members
oftiie public for an additional review period; 3) the cify planner shall set a hearing if required;
and 4) the process allows for appeal of the environmental impad report.
Page 48 August 2015
T he sp e cifi cPlanexemptsallthe above fi om b eing done as it bypas se s C EQ A:
1. There are no range of altematives in the environmental document
2. The third parfy review by city planning staff and city council members is ministerial
3. There are no hearings
4. There is no ability of the putdic to request extra time for review
5. There is no ability of the public to appeal.
We feel that this is wrong. Because of aH these unknowns and concems, tiie Board would Uke to
see this put to a public vote, with enough time for a thoughtful review of some of the inevitable
impacts associated with any developm ent proposal.
Caruso Affiliated presented the 85/15 Initiative assoinetliing that would go on theliaUQt
According to both campaign literature and the Specific Plan Initiative itself, Caruso
AffiE ated intended to put the initiative on the ballot Several mailers by Preserving Carlsbad
Open Space the Ri^t Way (the groi;^ promoting ihe Initiative) to households in Carlsbad
contain this statement "We'U be oat in fhe commayafy, at farmers markets and around town to
get your signature on the dotted hne to put fhe 85/15 Plan on fhe ballot. " And, the Specific Plan
itself slates on each page: "Initiafive measure fo be submitted direcfiy fo fhe voters. "In addition,
signature gatherers told the public that their sigiature would put it on the ballot We would Uke
Caruso Affiliated to uphold this promise.
85/15 Initiathfe documents are lengthy and controversial
The 85/15 Initiative is complex, with extremely lengthy docum ents that are tim e-
consuming and difficult to read. The whole process began only two months ago, and there is
much inform ation to digest in a short time period. We have noticed much debate over issues in
this proj eel, wifh both sides of the issue presenting their own interpretations. Thisis why it
shouldgotothebsdlot for a vote, in or der to give citizensmore time to fully under stand thi s
project
Page 49 August 2015
Doesthe 85/15 Initiative really "pemtanenflvprotect" open qiace?
Proponents of the 85/15 Initiative argue their plan really permanentiy protects open
space. It is true that under Proposition D, when agnculture is no longer economically feasible,
certain uses are permitted, such as museums and perfomiing arts centers. However, in actuality
the 85/15 Initiative does not permanentiy protect open space: it proposes a 6500 square foot
dining area and fann ers market coffee shops, classroom s, restrooms, paiking lots, and roads in
the "open space areas." In our view, buildings and parking areas on open space do not constitute
"p erm anentiy pr ote cting."
A develop ment this size close to a sensitiife lagoon is not approp riate
We are concemed with a 58 5,000 square foot development proj ect so close to a sensifive
lagoon, with only 50-100 foot buffers between the development and shoreUne habitat. While
mifigafion factors are included in the lengthy environmental assessment; we don't know how
effective they are, which is why it is critical that we are gven the time to adequately review fhe
Initiative and associated environmental analyses.
Increased TrafBti: is a concem
The traffic analysis notes thatthe proposed developm ent is expected to have a significant
impact at nine intersections and some on-ramps, but that there are mitigation factors to reduce
these impacts. It notes that there are expected to be about 24,100 new daily weekday trips, 910
new morning peak hour trips; and 1,820 new afternoon peak hour trips. This is a concem, and
again citizens of Carl sbad need lime to consider these impacts and mitigiation factors. The
increased traffic also will impact nei ^boring communities such as Oceanside, Vista, and
Encinitas. They should have the chance to weigh in onthis.
Thank you for considering our concems.
Sincerely,
J oan H er skowits
NataUe Shapiro
C o-Chairs, C onservationC ommittee
Buena Vista Audubon S ociety
Page 50 August 2015
Letter 15
C * R O S O
A r riLIA TED
August 14, 201 S
By Emafl: Don.Neugpc3rlsb3dai.gov
Van. L ynchca>C3risbadC3.go v
Don Neu
Van Lynch
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
1535 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad. California 92008
Re: City of Carlsbad's Elections Code Secr/on 9212 Report on the
Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan Initiative
Dear Mr. Neu and Mr, Lynch
We have completed our review of the City of Carisbad's Elections Code Section 9212
Report {9212 Report) on the Agua Hedionda South Sl^ore Specific Plan for 85% Open
Space and 15% Retail AH-SP Initiati'/e {Initiaiive). We appreciate the City's
comprehensive, independent, and impartial analysts of the Specific Plan initiative and
!5eparate environmental assessment fEA) of its impacts. We recognize the City worked
tirelessly over the past three months, with help from independent outside experts, to
provide the City and Carisbad residents with the information they need to make an
informed decision. The 921 2 Report affirms our belief from the outset - there is a
responsible, sustainable, and environmentally conscientious way to provide the
community with a place to spend time with friends and families, make strawberry
farming sustainable, and provide accessible open space at no cost to Che taxpayers.
Additionally, white we have carefully considered and addressed she Specific Plan's
impacts to environmental quality, the Specific Plan process remains ongoing, and
considerations of ail issues wilt continue in accordance with ali applicable laws and
regulanons. We are committed to designing, constructing, and operatmg the Specific
Plan in a manner that will benefit the City and the community. With that said, this
letter responds to and provides additional support for certain City determinations in
the 9212 Report.
Page 51 August 2015
Page 2
QraMAMinaqement Program Compliance: Traffic/Circulatipn
The 9212 Report focuses on the Specific Plan's comptiance with the City's Growth
Management Program (CMP), First, the 9212 Report aptly notes the Specific Plan
exceeds the City's open space requirements. Second, the 9212 Report concludes the
provisions of Specific Plan at al! affected intersections "a) meet the CMP standard, or b)
improve traffic conditions to a point where congestion will be reduced to less than
significant levels." (9212 Report, pp. 3-4.) The report correctly states traffic wilt be
better at all eight intersections impacted by the Specific Plan than compared to the "no
project'alternative. We are pleased to provide the City and the community with such a
positive outcome.
At the same time, 'we acknowledge that regional traffic is an important concern to the
City and its residents. To that end, we note the Specific Plan Itself provides for
modifications to avoid or minimize environmental effects and several mechanisms to
ensure CMP compliance. In addition, we are committed in the Specific Plan to
implementing other strategies to minimize vehicle trips to and from the Specific Plan
site, in addition to the environmental protection features (EPFs) contained In the
Initiative. The Specific Plan's Traffic Demand Management (TDM) measures considered
for implementation, in addition to those set forth in the Specific Plan's traffic: Impact
analysis (TIA) section 11.4.4, include:
• Providing bus stops to service the Specific Plan site;
• Advocating extending bus service to one or both of the City's coaster stations:
• Constructing a shared-use bike path along the entire length of the north side of
Cannon Road from Car Country Drive to the northeast corner of the 1-5
northbound on ramps,
• installing a network of pedestrian paths and. or sidewalks:
• Incorporating bicycle racks and/or bicycle tockers m the design of the visitor-
serving commercial area;
» Encouraging employees to ride share and/or bike to and from the Specific Plan
site to reduce parking and traffic demand; and
• Providing and installing adaptive signals at seven intersection locations along El
Cammo Real. Palomar Airport Road, Paseo del Norte and Cannon Road, (See
Specific Plan, pp. 5.0-3 to 5.0-4.)
Page 52 August 2015 ^0
Page 3
The TIA aiso found that implementation of TDM measures will reduce traffic impacts by
six percent (6%). fTIA, p. 116, Tabte 32.) As an added benefit, the TDM measures were
found to reduce air quality impacts. To reiterate, we are committed to implementing
the TDM measures, which will provide significant enumerated benefits to the City and
the community as a whote,
In addition, we continue to coordinate efforts with the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) to address anticipated traffic Impacts on the 1-5 system. We
wili work with Caltrans and the City to enter into a mis;igation agreement to implement
interchange improvements in a phased manner that avoids congestion impacts. Also,
we will work with Caltrans and the City to implement the Specific Plan development
consistent with Caltrans' 1-5 North Coast Corridor project to avoid conflicts, including
ensuring the availability of the necessary property to support the North Coast Corridor
project. Finally, the Specific Plan EPFs include fair share contributions to'wards freeway
improvements in Carlsbad.
We acknowledge the City's comments concerning sensitive plant and wildlife species
present on portions of the Specific Pian site. The Specific Plan designates
environmentally sensitive habitat areas for open space, and provides buffers and
fencing to prohibit disturbance of those sensitive resources, consistent with all Habitat
Management Plan rtlMP) standards.
Cultural Resources
We acknowledge the City's comments as to the amount of data collected for the 1 3
cultural sites identified within the Specific Plan "Area of Potential Effect" or APE. As you
know, the E/\ notes shat only one of these sites is considered significant and that site
vi\\\ not be affected by che Specific Plan. Testing demonstrated that the remaining 12
sites had been severely disturbed due to decades of past and ongoing agricultural
activities. In the unlikely event any cultural resources not previously identified are
discovered, the Specific Plan's EPFs will ensure they are properly evaluated, preserved,
and treated with care and respect. To that end, we are engaged tn consultation with
Page 53 August 2015
Page 4
the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians for monitoring and safeguarding important
cultural resources.
Haiards
We appreciate the City's careful analysis related to the soils condition at the Specific
Plan site. We are mindful that portions of the Specific Plan site were formerly used for
agricultural activities, and preliminary environmental site assessments call for further
investigation. As this process continues, we will properly coordinate with City, county,
and state authorities to ensure adequate remediation of the Specific Plan site to the
appropriate stale and local standards.
imorovement Plans
Further, we appreciate che City's detailed assessment of the Specific Plan's proposed
hydrology and stormwater facilities. During the Plan Review process required by the
Specific Plan, which ensures City oversight, we will prepare all necessary final
improvement plans, including hydraulic and on-site stormwater drainage facilities
analyses to meet City standards.
Communitv forest Management Plan
We acknowledge the City's comments regarding the Specific in relation to the City's
Community Forest Management Plan (CFMP), Our analysis indicates the Specific Plan is
outside the CFMP coverage area, and the CFMP does not apply to the Specific Plan
setting. (Pers. comm. with Michael Huff. Dudek Principal.) More specifically, the City
Council created the CFMP as a set of advisory procedures to guide the City on planting,
maintaining, removing, replacing, and presen.'tng public trees in the City's right of way.
{Id.\ CFMP, Introduction, p. I.) Trees and trees planting sites in privately owned areas
are not covered by the CFMP. {CFMP, p. 5.)
According to the CFMP, "it is only enforceable in those areas withm the [Street Tree
Benefit Zone]", which Is located primarily north and southeast of the Specific Plan site.
{Id., pp. 3 [Fig. 2], 6.) Nonetheless, to the extent lhat Specific Plan improvements may
Page 54 August 2015
Page 5
relate the City's right of way, we will work with the City in the context of its CFMP
guidelines.
In closing, we again reiterate our commitment to bring a sustainable, beneficial
Specific Plan to the City that preserves the site's integrity, while ensuring long-term
open space and visitor-serving opportunities for the entire community. Thank you for
your consideration, and please do noc hesitate to contact us with any questions.
Very truly yours,
Bryce Ross
Vice Presidenc
Caruso Affiliated
Page 55 August 2015
1
Letter 16
225 Braadvmf
AuiiUSl 19. 2015 Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101
T 619,544.8100
F 619.;3B.9*a.S
Honorable Matt Halt and Memliers oftiie
City Coiuicil i'or the City of Carlsbad
1200 (.:ar!sl>ad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 920O8
1*6- .Xgua Hedionda Soulh Shore Specific Plan
l>ear Mayor and Members ofthe (Council:
On behalf of Westfield LLC (''Westfield"), I am sending you tiiis letter to address
the Sjiecific Plan proposed by Camso Alfiliated (the "Caniso Plan"), As you know,
Westfield owns Westticld Carlsbad, a retail center lhal has been in operation .«ncc 1969.
Westfield recentiy completed a major renovation ofthat center in late 2014. In pursuing
thc City pemiits for dial project Westfield fully complied witii tiie requiremenis of die
Califomia Environmental Quality Acl ('*CEQA"). fn contrast however, the C^mso Plan
will not be subjeci to any CEQA review by die City Council. We believe thai such an
approach fails to insure that all potential environmental impacts are properly analyzed. In
fact our initial review of die "Lnvironniental /\ssessmeni" of the Camso Plan and thc
City'.s 9212 Report anal>'zing that Assessment is that there are numerous deficiencies in
she environmental analysis of the Canwo Pian, including the feet that a nutnber of
technical studies will not be required ofthe applicani or will f>c dcfcncd until vtcll after
The public review process has concluded. Therefore, we urge the City Council to adliere
to all of tiic reqturcmciiis of CEQA for thc Caniiio Plan, including CEQA'.s public re\'iew
process, and not bypass CEQA by odoptuig the Caruso Plan at the Council's meeting on
August 25, 2015.
Sincerely your^.
Stephen Fluhr
Vice PresidentDevelopmenl
cc; Cctia Brewer, City Attorney
Kathy Dodson, Acting Cily Miulager
Barbara Bnsleson, C!ity Clerk
Don Neu, City Planning Diicctor
Page 56 August 2015
The Agua Hedionda South Shore
Specific Plan Initiative
Celia Brewer, City Attorney
Gary Barberio, Assistant City Manager
Aug. 25, 2015
Legal Overview
•California Constitution
•California Elections Code
•Initiative vs. CEQA process
•Council authoirty
2
California Constitution
•1911 amendment granting the “power of initiative”
•Applicable to local government
•Form of direct democracy to be safeguarded
3
California Elections Code
•Establishes procedures for exercising right of initiative
•Exclusive procedures
•Extremely prescriptive
4
Section 9203
5
Initiative Measure to be
Submitted Directly to the
Voters
true and impartial
Petition
Commercial: Retail development is
proposed on 26.7 acres (approximately
15% of the Specific Plan area) of a
48.30 acre site designated
“Travel/Recreation Commercial.” The
Specific Plan allows up to 585,000
square feet of commercial uses in an
outdoor shopping, dining and
entertainment promenade.
6
Section 9214
7
(a) Adopt the ordinance,
without alteration …
(b) Immediately order
a special election
Initiative Process vs. CEQA
•Tuolumne Jobs and Small Business Alliance v. Superior
Court –August 2014
–9212 report exclusive means for assessing potential
environmental impacts
–CEQA inconsistent with timelines in initiative process
–Legislature aware of Elections Code before passing CEQA
8
Initiative Process vs. CEQA
•Direct adoption without CEQA
–“Direct adoption has been available to local governments
from the outset of legislation by initiative”
–“… voters who amended the Constitution intended to
empower local governments to enact a qualified initiative
immediately without the need for an election and its
attendant delay and cost.”
9
Council Authority
•City, as an entity, may not spend public resources to
advocate for or against
•Council members act in “legislative capacity”
•Political Reform Act
–No conflicts exist
10
Overview
•Initiative process
•Property background and history
•Proposed Specific Plan
•“9212 report”
•Council consideration
11
California Elections Code
1.Approve initiative without alteration
2.Submit the initiative to the voters (special
election)
3.Further study findings of 9212 report for up to 30
additional days, then decide within 10 days
12
Citizen Led Initiative Process
•Notice of Intent (May 12, 2015)
•Request “9212 report” (May 19, 2015)
•Ballot Title and Summary (May 26, 2015)
•Publish in newspaper and file affidavit (May 28, 29)
•Collect petition signatures (May 29 –July 7)
13
Citizen Led Initiative Process
•Submit signed petition to City Clerk (July 8, 2015)
•Complete 9212 report (Aug. 7, 2015)
•Registrar of Voters verification (Aug. 13, 2015)
•Certificate of Sufficiency (Aug. 18, 2015)
•Council action (Aug. 25, 2015)
14
Property History
•Owned by SDG&E
•Leased for farming uses
•Western 48.3 acres visitor-serving commercial since
1982
15
Property History
•1995 Growth Management Program “Zone 13 Local
Facilities Management Plan”
–463,600 sq ft of visitor-serving commercial
–All Growth Management Program facilities planned and
sized accordingly
16
17
Proposition D
•Passed by voters in 2006
•Preserved open space, but no provision for public
access or maintenance
•Preserved strawberry fields as long as “financially
feasible” for land owner
•Did not affect existing 48.3 acres of visitor-serving
commercial property
18
19
The Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan
•Approximately 203.4 acres of land
–26.7 acres (15%) allows for up to 585,000 square feet of new
shopping, dining, entertainment uses
–176.4 acres (85%) for open space, including farming, passive
recreation, public access trails, habitat
21
Proposed Land Use
Current Land Use
22
23
“Plan-Level” Document
•Establishes land use and regulatory framework
for future site development plan
•Not at the project level
–Engineering, architecture plans to follow
24
Voluntary Measures
•Plan based on 3 ½ years of public input
•Community meetings, tours
•Developing about half of acres allowed
–Rest converted to open space
•Comprehensive, CEQA-like environmental analysis
–Voluntarily provided
25
Voluntary Measures
•$10 million to 16.5 million in improvements
to/maintenance of open space
–Trails, picnic areas, look outs
•Habitat management
•Ensuring continued agriculture
•Protected and funded in perpetuity
26
9212 Report
27
9212 Report
•Typically requested when Certificate of Sufficiency
is presented to City Council
•30 days from Certificate of Sufficiency to
presentation of report
•Requested May 19 to allow more thorough review
•Completed Aug. 7
28
California Elections Code 9212
Allows City Council to request a report (9212 Report) examining
impacts such as:
29
5.Business & employment attraction and
retention
6.Use of vacant parcels
7.Agricultural lands, open space, traffic,
developed areas
8.Other areas as determined by City
Council
1.Fiscal Impact
2.Internal consistency of the city's
general and specific plans
3.Land use, local and regional
housing needs
4.Funding for infrastructure of all
types
Environmental Analysis Report
•Aesthetics
•Ag and Forest Resources
•Air Quality
•Biological Resources
•Cultural Resources
•Geology and Soils
•Greenhouse Gas Emissions
•Energy
30
•Hazards and Hazardous Materials
•Land Use and Planning
•Mineral Resources
•Noise
•Population and Housing
•Fire and Police Protection
•Schools
•Libraries
•Hydrology
•Water Quality
•Parks and Recreation
•Traffic and Circulation
•Water and Sewer Service
•Solid Waste
•Socioeconomic Effects
•Cumulative Effects
Staff Approach to 9212 Report
•Does the plan meet city standards?
•Economic/fiscal impacts
•Environmental impacts
•Staff analysis
•Third party peer reviews
31
9212 Report Findings
•Plan’s environmental analysis is similiar to other large
projects
–“Environmental Protection Features”
•Plan will provide significant economic benefits
•Plan largely meets city standards
32
Growth Management
•Passed by voters in 1986
•Strict requirements for new development
•Protects quality of life
•The plan complies with, exceeds or will not impact 10
out of 11 Growth Management Program standards
33
Traffic
•32 roadway segments
•34 intersections
•3 scenarios
–Existing conditions
–Year 2019 (opening year)
–Year 2035 (long range)
34
Traffic
•All 32 road segments meet growth management
standards in all 3 scenarios
•Intersections
–All meet standard today
–All forecasted to meet standard in 2019
–8 forecasted to fall short of standard in 2035
36
2035 Traffic
•Won’t meet Growth Management Program standard
with or without plan
•Regional growth, not Carlsbad growth
•Traffic would be better with plan than no plan
–Plan improvements to roads and signals
37
Regional Traffic Growth at Intersections
Peak Hour Volumes: 2014 –2035
Benefits of Environmental Protection Features
Reduced Traffic Signal Delay: Year 2035
Increased Traffic vs. Reduced Signal Delay
41
42
43
Estimated Traffic Impact Fees
•District 3 Bridge & Thoroughfare Fee: $5.9 million
•Citywide Traffic Impact Fee (TIF): $3.6 million
City Planned Projects
•El Camino Real widening (TIF/Transnet)
–Widen ECR from 4 lanes to 6 lanes between Tamarack Avenue
and Chestnut Avenue
•El Camino Real/Cannon Road (TIF)
–Widen bridge to add third northbound lane on El Camino Real
45
City Planned Projects
•Aviara/Alga/El Camino Real (TIF)
–Add n/b right turn lane
•Palomar Airport Road/Paseo del Norte (gas tax)
–Add e/b right turn lane and extend left turn pocket on PAR
(TIF)
•PAR/College
–Add second s/b thru lane
46
Additional Traffic Improvements
•ECR/Tamarack (3%, will front cost of improvements at $100,000)
•ECR/Faraday (1%, will front cost of improvements at $50,000)
•PAR/Paseo del Norte (4%, will front cost of improvements at
$75,000)
•PAR/Armada (5%, will front cost of improvements at $50,000)
•Adaptive Signal Program ($140,000)
47
Fiscal/Economic Impacts
•Conservative staff estimate; less than projected by
proponents
•At least $2,575,000 net annual increase in ongoing
general fund revenues
•2,298 to 2,440 FTE jobs ongoing operations
•Does not include tourism-related revenue or jobs
48
Environmental Analysis
•CEQA level analysis
•Meets standards
•Overrides typical of large projects
•Plan not a project
–Some issues are addressed later in the process
49
Next Steps
•If approved by Council
–Goes to Coastal Commission
•If a special election is called
–Registrar has 88 to 103 days to schedule a special election
–If passed, goes to Coastal Commission
50
Council Actions
1.Approve initiative without alteration
2.Submit the initiative to the voters (special election)
3.Further study findings of 9212 report for up to 30
additional days, then decide within 10 days
51
Questions
52
Major Projects Approved Without Public Vote
•La Costa Town Square
•Carlsbad Company Stores
•Westfield Carlsbad
•The Forum
•Quarry Creek Master Plan
•Robertson Ranch Master Plan
53
•Desalination Project
•New power plant
•Ponto Beachfront Plan
•Calavera Hills Master Plan
•Bressi Ranch Master Plan
•Villages of La Costa Master Plan
•Palomar Forum, Raceway &
Oaks North Industrial
Agua Hedionda 85/15 Plan
Paid for by Preserving Carlsbad Open Space the Right Way, with major funding by Caruso Affiliated.
85/15 Specific Plan: Vicinity Map
AHLF
Discovery
Center
Agua Hedionda
Lagoon
NRG Encina
Power Station
Car Country
Poseidon
Water
Strawberry
Fields
Habitat Area
(HMP)
Open Air, Shopping, Dining and
Entertainment Promenade
(15%, 26.7 Acres)
2
3
85/15 Specific Plan: Overall Plan Area
Not-a-Part
Lagoon
Foundation
Discovery
Center
Hiking and Walking Trails
Outdoor Classroom
Picnic Areas
Restaurants
w/ Lagoon Views
Nordstrom
Parking
Orchards
Farm-to-Table Restaurant
Farm Stand
Outbound Driveway
Inbound Driveway
Bike Lane
Strawberry
Fields
Agriculture
Habitat and
Wildlife Area
(HMP)
85/15 Specific Plan Boundary (203.4 Acres)
-85% Open Space (176 Acres)
-15% Visitor Retail (26 Acres)
Open Air, Shopping, Dining and
Entertainment Promenade
(15%, 26.7 Acres)
Trail to Discovery Center
Agua Hedionda
Lagoon
85/15 Specific Plan: Open Air Promenade
Not-a-Part
Hiking Trails
Outdoor Classroom
Picnic Areas
Restaurants w/ Lagoon
and Open Space Views
Parking (w/ Solar Panels)
Orchards
Farm-to-Table Restaurant
Farm StandOutbound Driveway
Inbound Driveway
Bike Lane
Strawberry
Fields
Habitat and
Wildlife Area
(HMP)
Open Air, Shopping, Dining and
Entertainment Promenade
(15%, 26.7 Acres)
Agua Hedionda
Lagoon
4
85% or 176 Acres of Open Space
5
6
Open Space Vista Point
6
7
Open Space Trails
7
8
Open Space Trails
8
9
Carlsbad Strawberry Company Farm Stand
9
10
Farm-to-Table Restaurant
10
11
Shopping and Dining Promenade
11
12
Shopping and Dining Promenade
12
13
Shopping and Dining Promenade
13
14
Shopping and Dining Promenade
14
15
Shopping and Dining Promenade
1515
CANNON ROAD
I
-5PASEODELNORTECOUNTRYCARLSBADNOT TO SCALE
CARI-5
O
N
RAMPI-5OFFSPECIFIC PLAN AREA
AGUA HEDIONDA
WESELOH
CHEVROLET
TOYOTA
CARLSBAD
R
A
M
P
CANNON ROAD
I
-5PASEODELNORTECOUNTRYCARLSBADNOT TO SCALE
CARI-
5
ON
RAMPI-5OFFSPECIFIC PLAN AREA
AGUA HEDIONDA
WESELOH
CHEVROLET
TOYOTA
CARLSBAD
R
A
M
P
SITE ACCESS - PROPOSED
SITE ACCESS - EXISTING
PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS
DL-I 11-ttl'! tJ (:JffhfFJi'., Ct11 L8V~ He_. {l}6Lff--/ .~~
& ? 0 t. Fe o /!-) ,+< /L., c~~rJ!ffb · .
Coastal Act, Noticing issues & Petition & Votes on Initiative
Attended CCC meeting earlier this year. Aware CCC places great importance on process.
If the City Council approves the Caruso 85/15 Plan tonight, then the council will not be able to comply
with the Coastal Commission's regulations concerning public participating for Local Coastal Programs.
A Local Coastal Program by definition has two elements: a Land Use Plan and a Local Implementation
Plan. A Land Use Plan has been approved by the Coastal Commission for the Agua Hedionda Lagoon
area. But there is not a Local Implementation Plan. That means the Caruso 85/15 Plan would act as an
amendment to the existing Land Use Plan, which must be approved by the Coastal Commission to be
effective.
The section is 13515 of the Coastal Commission's regulations. It sets forth mandatory requirements that
a local agency must satisfy when preparing a Land Use Plan. Here is a copy of the relevant regulations
for the city clerk's review. Under subsection D, it provides that notices of hearings held by the local
government on the Local Coastal Program or an element thereof must be provided to the public 10
working days before the hearing. Notice for this hearing was formally provided on Friday, the 215\ or if
you count from the 18th when the signatures were accepted -7 days ago. Therefore, the council has
failed to satisfy the requirement of Section 13515, subsection D and cannot approve the 85/15 Plan
tonight.
Additionally, subsection C provides another public participation requirement that the city has not
satisfied. C provides that materials concerning the proposed Local Coastal Program or element thereof
must be made available to the public six (6) weeks prior to the local government's final action.
Subsection A defines those Local Coastal Program materials to include "studies." The city's 9212 report
falls within the category of such studies, but it was released for public review only two (2) weeks ago.
Since the city has failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 13515 subsection C, the city council
cannot approve the 85/15 Plan tonight.
Petition: 3 days 1,000 names. Read comments of Carlsbad residents.
Vote: This is not 20,500 signatures in support of this project. Eliminate 20% as not verifiable according to
the Registrar's numbers. That leaves 16,500 or thereabouts. About 9,860 were certified after counting
12,700 or so. We don't know how many were pro project or con. There are 40K who refused to sign.
Don't think Caruso Affiliated missed opportunity to talk to registered voters at least twice. Where is the
support for this project?
A Los Angeles mall developer, Caruso Affiliated, is attempting to circumvent 30-years of
Carlsbad planning policies -its checks and balances -in an effort to develop the banks of one of
Southern California's few remaining lagoons.
Caruso Affiliated has unleashed a sophisticated $2.5 million marketing campaign run by political
pros with nationwide credentials who have paid record-setting bounties on voter signatures to
obtain 9,800 voter signatures in support of its proposal.
We believe many ofthose signatures were obtained under false pretenses. However, we strongly
believe the citizens of Carlsbad deserve a vote on a project of such magnitude. Carlsbad's City
Council appears poised to tum over 200-plus acres to a mall developer with no oversight, appeals
or changes for the next 15 years.
The public has not seen engineer drawings of the mall itself.
Carlsbad deserves transparency, truth and a chance to vote on the facts.
-Citizens for North County
Petition:
We, the undersigned, oppose adoption of the Caruso Affiliated Agua Hedionda 85115 Plan by the
Carlsbad City Council on the basis of the signatures obtained by Caruso's signature gatherers.
We call on the Carlsbad City Council to let the people vote in a special election on the 85/15
Plan.
Letter to
Carlsbad city council
Mayor Matt Hall
Keith Blackburn
and 3 others
Lorraine Wood
Mark Packard
Michael Schumacher
We demand a VOTE of ALL the PEOPLE on the Agua Hedionda 85/15 MALL
Updates
Keep your supporters engaged with a news update. Every update you post will be sent as a
separate email to signers of your petition.
Post an update
change.org
Citizens for North County
Recipient:
Letter.
Carlsbad city council, Mayor Matt Ha~l. Keith Blackburn, Lorraine Wood, Mark
Packard, and Michael Schumacher
Greetings,
We demand a VOTE of ALL the PEOPLE on the Agua Hedionda 85/15 MALL
Comments
Name Location Date Comment
Amanda Mascia OCeanside, CA 2015-08-19 I'm signing because I believe a project of this magnitude should be FIRST put
to a vote by ALL of the people, and SECOND have to go through all of the
normal checks and balances.
CharmAgnos Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 The citizens of Carlsbad deserve to vote! Period! Our City Council has not
remained neutral. We have not been shown any plans for this project, only
pretty drawings. Signatures were gathered with lies! I did not vote for the
majority of the city council, therefor, they do not speak for me!
Lynn Young Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 1 personally witnessed many signature gatherers falsely telling people that their
signature on the petition meant that they wanted the issue placed on the ballot.
Please let the citizens of Carlsbad vote on this!
James McLane Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 Caruso purposely mislead Carlsbad residents while gathering signatures, done
to use a legal loophole to circumvent normal review procedures.
Barbara Morgan Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 this was a deceptive advertising campaign to "sell" the "save the strawberries"
to the citizens of Carlsbad. This Mall will not only destroy the natural beauty of
the lagoon but reek havoc on traffic, pollution and loss of small retailers in the
village.
Sandra whitehead Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 i oppose this development. Not appropriate for this location. This project needs
a vote.
Lance Dumais Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 This development is unnecessary. We have more than enough retail in
Carlsbad. We do not want the addition traffic and pollution. We should leave
the lagoon as it is for future generations.
Richard Marshall Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 I live nearby and commute through the area in question daily. The freeway and
streets will not bear the increased traffic that comes with the proposed
development. Caruso Affiliated has done an outstanding job of hiding the
opportunity costs that would accompany this development.
Emily wright Goleta, CA 2015-08-19 I do not want a shopping mall built on the lagoon. I am the future generation of
Carlsbad and I am not okay with he environment being damaged by another
huge shopping mall that is completely unnecessary when there are already 2
malls in Carlsbad
Collin Stephens Fallbrook, CA 2015-08-19 Carlsbad is one of the few remaining cities with any open space left in southern
california. The city politicians need to listen to the entire population for once
and not focus only on making money for themselves. Protect the lagoon and
strawberry fields; it's all we have left.
Melanie Larsen Oceanside, CA 2015-08-19 I love my beach community! I don't want to see it become the next LA
andrew wright Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 Its the citizen's right to vote on topics that impact our city and our way of life
Brittany Penyak San Diego, CA 2015-08-19 I enjoy going to the strawberry fields and we don't need another mall!
Christine AbreU Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 1 want to stop this destruction of a beautiful lagoon front and the reckless greed
of developers and the consumption obsessed.
Tiff Boyd Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 Please reject the plan, or let us residents vote.
Kelsey Swann Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 This is our home, we deserve the chance to ALL vote on something of this
magnitude
Rachel Finn carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 The residents of Carlsbad deserve to Vote!!
Michael Yarbrough Lake Elsinore, CA 2015-08-19 I love carlsbad
Name Location Date Comment
S Roberts Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 I think a lot of people got tricked into signing the petition and I don't think this
project is what our city needs. it wall have a lot of negative impacts on
Carlsbad's citizens and enviorment.
george Threlfall Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 I want to be represented .. as an American Carlsbad resident, its my right to be
able to vote ..
Scott Simpson Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 I witnessed blant fraud and deception in the collection of signatures in front of
Ralphs.
Sam Ward Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 This development proposal deserves a great deal more scrutiny, transparency
and consideration by Carlsbad voters.
Jacqueline Blackburn Oceanside, CA 2015-08-19 We already have two malls and not enough open space.
stephen ,susan sauter Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 we were both lied to on a number of occasions ,this is a sensitive area, there
should be a complete review and all citizens should have a say. more then 2.5
million dollars has been spent on this ad campaign much of it misleading. let
the people decide.if the majority approve then so be it
Mary Jean Tibbals Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 Of the increased traffic that this project will bring, don't need a Nordstrom, & will
take away the village lifestyle we presently have.
Georgia Innes Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 Carlsbad does not need the added congestion or added shopping centers.
Steve Lundqvist Carlsbad, CA 2015-08·19 No new malls in Carlsbad!!!
Whitney Vickers Carlsbad, CA 2015-08·19 I do not want another mall in Carlsbad. I also do not want that open space to
be developed.
Paul Apanowicz Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 I love Carlsbad and realize a new mall will not benefit Carlsbad, but only the
people with big money behind it.
Richard Numrich Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 This project will change and impact our community forever.
It is simply too big of a decision for 5 people to make. The entire city needs to
decide this.
Put it on the ballot, as Caruso himself told us it would be.
Tamara Stapleton Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 I oppose the 85/15 plan and believe Caruso has used misleading and
dishonest tactics to get signatures. I want this to go on a ballot for an actual
vote and for those against the plan to have a voice.
Usa Ash Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 Carlsbad residents deserve to chose what's best for Carlsbad. Not be smoozed
with dazzling marketing and bait n switch ideas.
alice reysbergen carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 Voting Is the democratic way of doing business!
Richard & Pauline Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 Please let us vote. When we signed the petition, they said it was to bring this
Dimond development to a vote. We would request, if approved, after a vote, to move
the buildings east for traffic & view purposes. We have lived in Carlsbad since
1958.
Dirk Jensen Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 I want to vote on this project.
Jamie Feyk Oceanside, CA 2015-08·19 I'm signing because Carlsbad does NOT need another mall. Utilize the mall we
already we have!
Joshua Hatch Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 All development that affects our poorly planned transportation corridors
deserves a vote by the people affected.
Jeanie Buc Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 we have no need for another mall!!
Chris Cereghino Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 I'm signing because I want to vote on this initiative.
jane geasland oceanside, CA 2015-08-19 Finish the mall that is started and scrap this idea totally! Needs to go to a real
vote.
Mandy Barre Oceanside, CA 2015-08-19 This is a highly complicated measure. Democracy must ensure a public vote.
Name Location Date Comment
John Baer Carlsbad, CA 2015·08·19 LET THE PEOPLE VOTE!!!!
Cassie Dubourdieu Carlsbad, CA 2015-08·19 I feel the council is rubber stamping this issue, rushing it through this way. So
what if it costs some money to have an election that's what the city government
is for, the will of the people.
Christopher Atwood San Diego, CA 2015·08·19 I demand that people not be deprived of the voting process on this issue.
Gary Reed Johnson Oceanside, CA 2015.08·19 I am longtime north county resident
Since 1957
I feel Caruso is not going through legal channels to get a development in a
protected lagoon area
I am opposed because of added traffic, pollution and overal do
Not see need for another mall in the area. I favor open space with no mall with
trails and park space
Andrew Lissner Carlsbad, CA 2015·08·19 As a scientist with substantial experience studying the lagoon and surrounding
area I am shocked there is a possibility to bypass the
CEQA process for evaluating the proposed project.
Elizabeth Banks Carlsbad, CA 2015·08·19 Voting is the hallmark of America!
I did not sign the petition to develop the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Please allow
my voice to be heard. Please put this issue on the ballot so you can truly see
what is the will of Carlsbad citizens
Nicole Harris Carlsbad, CA 2015·08·19 I don't want another mall. I vote to preserve our Carlsbad!
ANDREW PAWZUN Murrieta, CA 2015-08·19 I grew up in North County with the fields. We don't need anymore shopping
centers we have plenty already. If they want a Nordstrom put it in the El
Camino mall we don't need it
Heather Pregerson Carlsbad, CA 2015·08·19 I don't believe we need another mall and the traffic it would bring
Anne Roy Carlsbad, CA 2015·08·19 We need to let the people Vote!! I for one do not want this Mall.. .. It was under
false pretenses they got my signature.! asked the man many times if this was
to put it to a vote and he said it was.
Debra Montoya Carlsbad, CA 2015-08·19 Please keep Carlsbad beautiful. No more shopping mall!
Lynda Woodin Carlsbad, CA 2015·08·19 I do not want a mall or a Nordstrom built a few blocks from my home in
Terramar. The traffic is already horrendous traveling on Cannon from my home
off Cannon in the morning and late afternoon.
Thank you
Kayla Sexton Lawton, OK 2015-08-19 This mall is ridiculous and not needed!!
richard wilson Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 I dont like an L.A. developer buying our politicians.
Francesca Clavier Smith Vista, CA 2015-08-19 I'm signing this because I care what happens to Carlsbad, my home town, and
I do not want it to become more like LA.
Jonathon Vargas Carlsbad, CA 2015-08·19 I'm signing this petition because both me and my grandmother were lied to to
get our signatures. Neither one of us want the mall and we signed so that it
could be put to a vote.
Kyle Baroni Carlsbad, CA 2015·08·19 This project is all for the developers best interest not the carlsbad residents
Diane Bedrosian Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 The city needs to let the residents VOTE! This was not a "citizen led initiative".
It was started and paid for by a developer. This needs to go to the actual
citizens.
Anne Kalscheur Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 I believe Caruso has misled Carlsbad residents into signing his proposal to
develop a mall.
sean dominguez carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 No more traffic. Sorry we're built out
Name Location Date Comment
Gina Eckert Carlsbad, CA 2015-08·19 I'm signing because i have lived in Carlsbad for 20 years and I want my kids to
be able to enjoy it like I have. Building commercial shopping in an already
crowded area and on the pristine Agua Hedionda Lagoon will ruin Carlsbad's
quaintness and natural beauty that locals and visitors love so much.
Andrea Bearden-Kuhns Carlsbad, CA 2015·08·19 There has been over-kill on the promotion of this project. Every few days our
mailbox contains more slick hit pieces which try to convince us what's best for
Carlsbad . . . by an outsider with deep pockets. Why? Follow the money. The
TV ads continue on FOX and other channels. Plus, You Tube. I had someone at
my door who told me even if I didn't sign, "It was a done deal." Oh, Really?
With new housing developments all around us, open space is being gobbled up
bit by bit.
I would love to see trail access on that side of the lagoon. Perhaps going as far
down as the small sandy beaches which can only be accessed currently by
boat. A small footprint for a parking lot and leave it at that.
Too many things are being crammed down our throats these days • like it or
not.
Let the people VOTE!
JeffWillix Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 I want to vote on this project. As a frequent user of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon,
I oppose any development of the area!!!
Caitlin Verkleeren Carlsbad, CA 2015·08·19 I'm signing because I don't want this plan to go through .... More traffic. More
People. We have bad enough traffic. I don't want any corporation building on
that piece of land. There are lots of animals and plants that use that land.
Leave it alone.
Danielle Raines Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 This is not a good situation for Carlsbad residents
Frederick Chambers Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 We can choose a better, greener, use for the land. Remember Hosp Grove?
That land was slated for sprawl by the mall, but the people voted to save it for
recreation and openspace.
Marny Bassett Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 We need more sports parks and playgrounds. A project this size, this close to
the lagoon and ocean will be an environmental catastrophe
Deborah Garrett Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 I don't need another mall here
jeff justus Surprise, AZ 2015-08·19 I vacation in Carlsbad and I don't want to see a mall in that pristine area!
Susan Smith Carlsbad, CA 2015·08-19 I don't believe this decision should be only based on the revenue to be
generated.
Laura Rowland Carlsbad, CA 2015·08-19 The developers' own written propaganda, as well as the paid petitioners, stated
that a signature on the petition would allow for the matter to go to ballot. Rick
Caruso has even offered to pay for the election. City Council, please hold him
to his word! Carlsbad citizens are under a multi-million dollar public relations
campaign barrage (millions spent on outgoing messaging -· not "soliciting our
opinion"), the likes of which have NEVER before been seen in our history. We
deserve the time to consider his plan and the City's newly released report on it.
We deserve the opportunity to vote, which was promised to us by the
developer himself. City Council, please don't shut down this process ... please,
allow us to vote.
Rob Mayers Carlsbad, CA 2015-Q8·19 City of Carlsbad is supposed to be impartial to the 85115 initiative. If they
approve this without a vote of the public, then they are siding with the
developers.
Name Location Date Comment
PeterGach Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 I have been inundated by slick mail marketing for this project and frankly, it
stinks of BIG money. Carlsbad deserves better. We DONT NEED another
shopping mall, when the one we have is barely alive. Stop this big money
greed NOW!
Karen Johnson Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 Misleading signature collection process
Donald Dominguez Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I'm anti development
Mary Larson Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 The process of this project has devious buried defaults. It says its for doing this
"the right way" yet avoids normal vetting such as a coastal commission review.
If you have to hide something on page 14 it can't be right.
Laura Navarro carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 Carlsbad does not need another mall.
Uma lakshmipathy Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 As a Carlsbad resident, the proposed plans does not protect the residents or
the environment. We don't need another mall or development on an already
overdeveloped city line.
Carrie Greagrey Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I am a local and enjoy the beauty of our natural setting. Enough malls, enough
big business enough crowds
Patrick Emerick Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 A development of this magnitude needs to go through the proper vetting
process, not a shortcut funded by the developer. The sheer amount of money
spend on their PIR campaign makes one suspicious of their ultimate intent.
Barbara Tanksley Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I think its the only fair way!
Jo-Ann Dillon Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 One of the special things about Carlsbad are the lagoons. The arrogance and
dishonesty of this well financed campaign for another mall is disgusting.
Jennifer Jacobs Santa Rosa, CA 2015-08-20 The idea of ANOTHER mall in Carlsbad disgusts me, as does this sleazy
misleading Caruso ad campaign.
Nancy schaefer Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I live within walking distance of the proposed area. The area Is . residential.
The infrastructure is and could not be changed to accommodate such
development without losing the qualities that make the area a healthy area in
which to live. It should also be obvious that our area has been greatly affected
by the drought. With the rationing imposed on residents, it is neither fair nor
practical to provide water to such a large development. It's water we don't
have.
Kim Bryant Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I received a brochure in the mail from "OpenSpaceTheRightWag.org" with
major funding by Caruso Affiliated (the developer). No mention of the 500,000
sq. ft. mall. Many Carlsbad citizens are unaware of this. Please do what is right
for the people you serve. Don't adopt the 85/15 plan.
alishia penk Oceanside, CA 2015-08-20 I love our lagoon, I grew up on it and we don't need anymore malls around
here. Fix up the crappy one we have on el camino.
Cindy Conner Aliso Viejo, CA 2015-08-20 I grew-up in Carlsbad. My family's grassroots, dating back 60 years, is
Carlsbad. I have plans to return home in the very near future. If the "elected"
city council truly represents the "people" this will go to vote. I don't want to
suspect collusion between council and Caruso, however, this whole deal reeks
to epic levels. Council can remove the burden of responsibility by allowing the
"People" to decide by vote. Caruso's marketing has been deceptive from the
onset. City Council, please consider carefully the consequences of poor
leadership if you don't put this to public vote.
Patricia Gussler Anaheim, CA 2015-08-20 NO MORE DEVELPOPMENT OF OPEN SPACES!!!
Name Location Date Comment
Mark Johnson Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I so disagree with this being approved without our say! This is undermined,
didn't know our Mayor Matt Hall had this on his agenda when he took office.
We r getting frustrated with all the growth and ugliness of that proposed mall. I
think the City Council should b looking out for the future of Carlsbad. Miss
Mayor Lewis!! I!!!
mary waits Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I do not want to approve 85/15 proposal
Elizabeth Alvillar Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I care!
Carolyn Marko Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 We should have the right to vote on this. It's our beautiful city & we are the
current care takers of this precious city & it's natural gifts!
Theresa Chino vista, CA 2015-08-20 Carlsbad doesn't need another mall & to much traffic already!
Timothy Harrington Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 This was not what the canvassers presented to the people and this should be
voted on, not rubber stamped for a wealthy developer. Make him pay for the
vote like he promised and let the people decide! We do not need another mall
in Carlsbad that will cause traffic gridlock and ruin our open space!
Diana Weber Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 When asked to sign the petition, I voiced my opinion that I was concerned
about the initiative and not sure if I was in support of it, I was told that is exactly
why I should sign so that the issue would be put to a vote. Now I understand
that the ballot initiative could be skipped if the City Council wants to move
ahead. I do not support that move. This development is too important and has
too many irreversible consequences to Carlsbad's natural beauty to not have
the citizenry voice their opinion with a vote.
Linda Farnsworth Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I live on the lagoon and would like to have a say in what happens in my
backyard.
Eric Yokes Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 We were mislead!
Jeremy Waits Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I like the lagoon area the way it is. Besides there's a perfectly good mall not 1
mile from it.
erin padilla Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I believe the people of Carlsbad should have the opportunity to vote on such an
impactful change. The actions of Caruso Affiliated are questionable and their
message seems to be deliberating misleading. Put the facts out there and
allow the informed people to choose!
Alissa Alvarez Vista, CA 2015-08-20 I don't want this project to cause more traffic then the horrible traffic we already
have. And we have a mall that just needs to be remodeled not ignored!
candy chesnut carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 The petition was misleading
Clement Lopez Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 The citizens of Carlsbad should have the right to vote on this issue.
Rhonda Short San Marcos, CA 2015-08-20 We need to preserve our wildlife
TBuss Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 carlsbad needs to vote and get the remaining info that is missing.
Joel Tarquin Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 This needs to be about the people, NOT about the money ...
Carmela arstill Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 Everyone, including developers, need to go through the right
protocol/processes in order to get approval. It means full EIR's if that's what is
needed, and a vote by the citizens when it comes to developing OUR city.
Especially when the issue is divisive.
Todd Macey Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 This development is neither needed nor wanted!!
Gabriel robinson Carlsbad, CA 2015-08·20 almost everybody I talk to (who lives in Carlsbad) disapproves of this project
and we want to have a say in what happens in our city
Name Location Date Comment
kasey cinciarelli Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 Prop e said there would be a vote if approved zoning changed. Signature
gatherers said it was to put the development to a vote. you pay silly consultants
way more than the half million cost of a special election. Let the people VOTE.
This is America. Traffic, a bioretention swale and particulate reductions need a
more thorough review. CEQA does this, court ruling not with standing. Kc
kathy clark bonita, CA 2015-08-20 I grew up in Carlsbad !
Brigitte Porte Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I want a chance to hear the unbiased facts and vote on this project.
Gabby Troconis Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 This is completely wrong!!! It's enough with the outlet and West field mall. Stop
constructing , stop the greed and be conscious about the the choices that are
being made, it is not all money, go camping , go hiking , connect with nature
and maybe you will get a better understanding . This is sad and not necessary
at all.
Shirley Anderson Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 This should be a vote by the people of Carlsbad.
Leslie Caton Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 Do we need another shopping area?
Patrick Finn Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I am totally opposed to another needless mall and the congestion it brings to
our community. Leave our beautiful coastal areas alone.
Hugh Kollar Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I'm signing this because as a 20 yr resident and small business owner in
Carlsbad, the last thing we need is another mall.
joshua tieman Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I have lived in this beautiful city all my life 35 and am sad to see that the last
remaining natural areas are being over developed, I grew up enjoying the
lagoon with family and friends water skiing, intertubining, and picknicks on the
south shore and it would be a shame to develope it before my future children
could experience. I personally was at my parents house when the pushy paid
signature gather from the developer pressured them into signing before they
knew the facts on the project. We told the young representative that we wer
late and in an extream hurry to leave for a wedding but he pushed and pushed
until they signed to get him to leave. He said that it was for a park only and not
a business development as well. My parents are dissapointed about the decet
and the project and we insist that there be a real vote on something this big in
carlsbad!
Susan Blosch Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I think the citizens of Carlsbad need the opportunity to vote without the premise
of "saving the flower fields". The more information voters are allowed to
receive, the better!
Olivia Wheeler Encinitas, CA 2015·08-20 My parents, brothers and sisters live in Carlsbad, I visit every week. They were
tricked to signing the petition with impression signing would put the devlopment
ona ballot to be voted on by the residents.
Ray Kieffer San Diego, CA 2015-08-20 I want a voice
Melissa Waldron Carlsbad, CA 2015·08-20 Strawberry Fields Forever!
Avi Kovzi Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 This is required to be voted on. I'm strongly opposed and concerned with the
repercussions it will have on our beautiful city. Let people go to Nordstrom
elsewhere. We don't need this kind of traffic.
Olesya Khleb Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 To Preserve Environment!
keith bishop Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I am totally against this! Of all places to put a mall next to the Agua Hedionda
Lagoon!!
Greg Gutierrez Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 Caruso is misleading.
Name Location
Kathleen Ossiander Oceanside, CA
dwayne smith Oceanside, CA
Jacqueline Montano Oceanside, CA
Mylene Merlo Carlsbad, CA
Wendy Frame Orlando, FL
Laura Cains Carlsbad, CA
Shawna Boyer Oceanside, CA
Lewisvann San Diego, CA
william billing Carlsbad, CA
Tara Rozzi Carlsbad, CA
John Hughes Carlsbad, CA
Christa Grau San Marcos, CA
Maria Ieupold Carlsbad, CA
Date Comment
2015-08-20 California has less than 1 0% of open Coastlands left. This land was already
protected but through loop holes it is endanger of being lost forever. Our
wetlands are nurseries for fish, nesting areas for animals, migratory birds use
these places for resting and watering between journeys. It is our duty to protect
these jewels and not let them be bulldozed over forever. People gathering
signature were paid 20$ per signature, you know they were not completely
honest in their representation of what was being signed.
2015-08-20 I grew up in carlsbad 50 years and all they want to do is take our city away.
Why don't those assholes move to LA and leave us alone
2015-08-20 We dont need more malls!
2015-08-20 Caruso is spending millions of dollars trying to convince us that his shopping
mall is good for Carlsbad. His campaign has blatantly lied to the people. The
people do NOT want our precious open space close to the ocean bulldozed
into a shopping mall.
2015-08-20 I left Carlsbad 12 years ago and just recently returned. There has been so
much growth and development in Carlsbad in these years. I understand some
growth and development is inevitable. I understand development brings in
money. BUT why on do we need yet another mall i? How can building a mall
PRESERVE open space. And if our environment is not enough of a compelling
reason, think about the traffic implications. Please THINK. This is so short
sighted. How does building a Nordstrom's and more shops and more
restaurants help preserve open space? Please let the lagoon remain as open
space. STOP and THINK.
2015-08-20 We need to preserve Agua Hedionda as is. We do not need any more "malls"
in our area. Traffic is already highly congested in that area. The Premium
Outlets Mall is enough!!
2015-08-20 Dude .... The traffic! F no!!!!!! No! No! No! We do not need another pretentious
mall ....
2015-08-20 It's more unchecked and unrequire capitalism, and 10 years done the line we'll
find out about all the kickbacks-Carsbad's beauty and the 15 don't need this
tacky, chain store crap
2015-08-20 This stupid mall has no place in our community! tell this greedy developer to
move on.
2015-08-20 I'm nauseated by losing more natural lands. The traffic is already awful every
day through this portion of 5. There are too many malls already and online
shopping is getting more and more popular.
2015-08-20 Not good for Carlsbad.
Save the WHOLE HILLSIDE. As is
2015-Q8-20 The lagoon and all that inhabit it are so much more important than a mall.
2015-08-20 I feel the people of Carlsbad was misled in the initiative petition collection.
don't want to give up the beautiful view of the lagoon from the road and
highway and be obstructed by a mall. If Caruso's mall gets built, the other retail
businesses will suffer. I don't feel that this mall will complement the other shops
in Carlsbad.
Name Location Date Comment
Cynthia Senior Oceanside, CA 2015-08-20 JYSTSAYNO!
THIS IS AGAINST EVERYTHING a PROTECTED AREA SHOULD BE. WE
DONT WANT "OUR"TO NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RUINED!
NO!! We DON'T NEED another SHOPPING Mall! CARUSO+ Affliates Have
Been Underhanded + Deceptive Regarding This Proposal!
JUST SAY NO!
Tanya Brooking del mar, CA 2015-08-20 Long term Carlsbad resident.
Laura Geiselhart Carlsbad, CA 2015.08-20 I have lived in Carlsbad for 46 years. I hate what Caruso Affiliates is trying to
Andlauer do by using slick marketing and sneaking an end run around stricter
environmental permits to build a mall that is NOT RIGHT FOR CARLSBAD!
Denise Martin Encinitas, CA 2015-08-20 People have the right to a vote. Democracy
Ashley Gallagher Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 The preservation of a wild, beautiful, Eco system rich lagoon surpasses the
importance of a generic, ugly, concrete, dime a dozen mall. It will truly be a
shame if the construction of this ridiculousness occurs. What a dismal future
this mall will bring.
J Cannon Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I want a transparent, honest community assessment of the Caruso 27-acre
shopping center deal.
Alan Alchalel Tucson,AZ 2015-08-20 I want to
Donald Burton Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I believe in democracy.
Madeleine Szabo Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 In a democracy, the people should vote, especially since the project will so
radically change the character of Carlsbad's "small town community feel".
Atsuko Suzuki Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I believe America is the greatest country. That is why I move here from Japan.
People have right to vote. Keep the lagoon beautiful not ruin with big shopping.
Toshiko Suzuki Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I love Carlsbad. I love America. Please stop bad men who love money to hurt
lagoon.
Stacey Quartarone Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I am worried about the horrible traffic on Hwy 5, Cannon Road and Hwy 78. I
am extremely concerned about the pollution to our lagoon, the environment
consequences the shopping center will bring to Carlsbad, the water supply that
we do not have for our own families,
the lost of revenue to our village and Westfield Mall and the change in our
precious city. Our lagoon is a gem.
Please do not destroy it. I visit it daily, the center will turn Carlsbad
into an Orange County and L. A.
People from the North and East and South will be traveling to come. Where will
they go? Our Fwy 5 will be dead stopped.
FRED SANDQUIST Carlsbad, CA 2015·08-20 I believe that the citizens of Carlsbad, CA deserve the right to vote on such a
project that will affect us for many generations to come. To approve and adopt
the Caruso Affiliated plan as is without a detailed review by independent
experts and to circumvent the CEQA process sets an extremely bad precedent
for the citizens of both Carlsbad, but for California and the nation. Fred
Sandquist
Suzanne Burg Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 This development isn't necessary and does not constitute "preservation of
nature" in any real terms, despite the campaign's claims.
David Gumner Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 The taxpayers and voters in Carlsbad should decide democratically how our
city should be developed -NOT a developer making back-room political deals
and engaging in elicit signature gathering. We are smart enough to see through
85115 as nothing more than deceptive marketing.
Name Location Date Comment
Lori Juskie Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I love Carlsbad just the way it is!!
joe james Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 lack of transperancy by the Caruso Clan
Dove Coltharp Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 The community needs to vote. Not miss led and circumvented . Where is the
oversight on "Bounties for signatures' ??? Does any ethics or values come
into play here ....... ???? Oversight??????
Dave Voss Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 The citizens should be allowed to vote on such a large and polarizing project,
just like the Chargers stadium.
stanley stanert Encinitas, CA 2015-08-20 the people should decide.
Melissa Genewich CARLSBAD, CA 2015-08-20 I'm signing this because I do not support this initiative and feel it should
absolutely be left up to our community to vote (not a select few individuals) as
to whether it should pass or not! Many were tricked into signing the original
petition that was brought door to door •.• rep said it was to take it to a vote and in
no way a signature in support of the initiative. Let our community decide!
Douglas Evans Vista, CA 2015-08-20 Let the Carlsbad citizens vote on the 85/15 proposal.
Chris Rossman Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I'm signing because I do not want this development. The 1-5 is already in such
a gridlock that our quality of life has been adversely affected. This
development will only make it worse. At least give the citizens a chance to vote
on it.
Linda Taylor Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I want to keep our open space as it is.
Tracy Green Austin, TX 2015-08-20 This land is precious and must be protected
Mary Jo Poole Vista, CA 2015-08-20 Tired of development and traffic.stop already!
John Chavez Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 This is a terrible Plan.
Theresa Henk Escondido, CA 2015-08-20 I love the lagoon and kayaking in it without having to look at overdevelopment.
We have enough malls!!
Abby Rowland Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 This might be a great development--but it is IN THE WRONG LOCATION. A
shopping center of this magnitude does not belong this close to a sensitive
lagoon. Please put the matter on the ballot. The petitioner stated that my
signature was so that residents could vote on the matter. Please don't get in
our way, City Council!
John Giles Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 Tired of being shafted by developers and real estate people. Tired of the
monied class making the rules. Tired of politicians in bed with them.
Maureen Macdonald Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 We do not need another shopping center which would cause major traffic
issues as well as more people in Carlsbad. We have enough shopping with the
Mall by the 78, the Outlet Mall and The Forum.
Cynthia Towle San Jose, CA 2015-08-20 Don't need another mega-mall!
Karen Aho Brown Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I chose Carlsbad to live in back in 1978 because of its beaches and
undeveloped nature areas. If I wanted sprawl malls and congested traffic I
would have chosen LA to live in. I also signed because the developer does not
live in Carlsbad yet wants to change the quality of life here with a freaking
overpriced mall!
Michael Palm rsf, CA 2015-08-20 I care.
isabel bond es, CA 2015-08-20 I want to see the plan first.
Eileen Desilets Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 i don't want a mall on land that was voted as a preserve
Phil Rogul Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I strongly believe Caruso needs to comply with the existing planning process
that City of Carlsbad has used over many years. No exemptions -period!
Name Location Date Comment
Christine Evans Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I think that they have misrepresented the project and because I believe that the
residents of Carlsbad have the right to vote on this project.
Danny Brooking Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I am sick of the corruption for profit based development here in Carlsbad. We
do not need another mall PERIOD!
AshleyOchs Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I believe most of the signatures were obtained under false pretense. My
financed signed a document believing he was preserving the nature of the
strawberry fields not for some mall.
Carol Jefferies Vista, CA 2015-08-20 Carlsbad's infrastructure cannot support this traffic. Our natural spaces
deserve respect. Carlsbad will no longer be a desirable place with no open
space.
Wendy Dube Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 We, the citizens of Carlsbad, have a right to be heard.
Leanne Schwartz Encinitas, CA 2015-08-20 It's distressing to see our local open land developed with more awful shopping
malls. Parking, materialism, and lack of nature--say no!
ROBERT FIERROS Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 This issue is to important to the future of our city for the mayor and the city
council NOT to allow its citizens to vote on this issue.
Margaret Kessler Encinitas, CA 2015-08-20 There needs to be environmental impact studies doen before this development
starts ...
Colin Craig Oceanside, CA 2015-08-20 My wife and i commute to carlsbad everyday for work. In fact, her job is located
on the other side of the outlet malls. It is hard enough to get to work on time as
it is with the freeway being congested. I don't even want to imagine what the
commute will be like when if this project is approved. In addition, we frequent
the strawberry fields often with our daughter
craig taylor carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 This mall is completely unnecessary. We have the outlet mall, the Forum, and
Westfield North County Fair all within a 5 mile radius. Why in the hell would we
need more shopping and congestion in Carlsbad.
Denise Ratfield Escondido, CA 2015-08-20 I am a resident a Carlsbad.
Jen Styn Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I have received countless marketing materials in support of the 85/15 plan
which sends red flags up all over. I'm very skeptical of this plan and want to
know more details. I also want the opportunity to cast my vote, whether for or
against, in the end.
Luan Lissner Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 It would be a disgrace and disaster if one of our very few naturally beautiful
areas was ruined. Another mall is not worth it. Please do not let this happen.
Luan Lissner
ALLERT BOERSMA Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 Signatures were obtained based on misleading and incomplete statements.
This project deserves a vote of ALL informed people, NOT just the City
Council.
billy walsh Oceanside, CA 2015-08-20 We don't want any more malls!
Michelle miller Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 Let us vote.
Tamara Mcdonald Oceanside, CA 2015-08-20 Keep this beautiful lagoon !!
Sherri Schottlaender San Diego, CA 2015·08-20 Deceptive marketing practices are a huge red flag. Caruso's Grove in L.A. is a
horrible mall with fake "streets" smashed up against the iconic Farmer's
Market. No thanks!
Jessica Dooley Carlsbad, CA 2015-08·20 I'm signing because I feel we should have the right to vote on this.
Tom Fanale Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 We do not need more traffic and more stores
Mary Schwalen Encinitas, CA 2015-08-20 There is already a lot of Mall space in Carlsbad that's not being fully utlilized.
Use the space that's already in place instead of tearing up open space that will
bring more traffic and impede views of our beautiful coastal landscape.
Name Location Date Comment
Candace Brown Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I believe the public should weigh in on this project which, when once approved,
will be outside the normal oversight protections of the Carlsbad Municipal code
and the CEQA guidelines.
Linda McDevitt Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 We do not need this mall. I think a lot of people were lied to, to get them to
sign the petition!!!
Donald Winslow Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I believe this development of this size and magnitude should be subject to an
all Carlsbad citizen vote. I also want to know who will monitor and enforce no
direct lagoon (water) access with such a minimal"habitat plan hardline"
Already I have seen late evening activity and overnite camping on the west
shoreline.
Edgar Eastman carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 It is retarded what is wanted there. My family helped build Oceanside and
Carlsbad. They are in heaven shaking their heads at this. There is enough
traffic and tourists in that area!! Leave it alone or make something nice for our
kids kids instead of more concrete jungle!! Lame$!!
Alexander Bowlin Oceanside, CA 2015-08-20 This is ridiculous!!!
Adeline Burton Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 I believe Americans have a right to vote on issues that concern the entire
community and wealthy corporate interests are not going to take over our
country.
Mary Oren carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 People need to be informed correctly and have a say in shaping the community
in such a potentially big way. Please provide a vote to insure a voice. Thank
you.
terri turner fierros Carlsbad, CA 2015-Q8-20 we in Carlsbad are lucky to have our lagoons. The nature and lifestyle they
provide is why people move here. Does the city council want a city where
people love to live? or do they want a city where people like to shop? Have
they taken into consideration the diminishing of our nation's wetlands? Do they
really want to do that without dire necessity? I don't.
Barbara Segal Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 the people who live and work and drive here certainly have the right to vote for
a project that will impact us all. It's wrong to develop by the lagoon, create
traffic problems .... Why should a few people make the decision for us.
George Bechtloff Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 The tax paying citizens of Carlsbad have the right to be completely informed
then allowed to Vote.
Laurie Torkelson Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 This is wrong. A developer never gives away anything for free. If he wants to
do this, let him go through the proper channels and put it to a vote of the entire
city.
Mary D'Esposito Oceanside, CA 2015-08-20 I am signing because I grew up near this lagoon and don't want to see it
destroyed by a frivolous mall which will most likely take away the view and
beauty so many have come to enjoy!!!
nadia swanson Plainfield, NJ 2015-08-20 I oppose the development of the strawberry fields
andrew miller oceanside, CA 2015-08-20 I am signing because I do not want Carlsbad to turn into LA.
Susan Kent West Hills, CA 2015-08-20 My sister lives in Carlsbad, I am a frequent visitor, and I would oppose
developing this beautiful land.
Lezlie Metcalf Oceanside, CA 2015-08-20 We don't want another mall, especially on the lagoon! There are already plenty
of places to shop, including a mall nearby. This guys $ shouldn't be influencing
Clsb. council members to let him ruin our remaining wildlife habitats. And
citizens absolutely should be given the opportunity to be part of this decision.
This man just wants to build his investment and go back to New York and leave
us to deal with the damages and loss of our lagoon.
Name Location
Teresa Juliano Mazzella Carlsbad, CA
Nancy Bruce
liana Collings
mireille blot"sampson
Casey Mulgrew
Marek Liyanage
Julie Vincent
Anthony Case
Marek Liyanage
Jeffrey Gross
Philip Goodman
alyceoreilly
Sonia Gardner
Carlsbad, CA
Oceanside, CA
Marseille, Paraguay
Oceanside, CA
San Diego, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Carlsbad, CA
San Diego, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Date Comment
2015-08-20 I strongly oppose another mall being built and because the traffic will directly
impact me. Leave the remaining space we have open. Preserve what is left of
this city's land. We don't want to live in a concrete jungle. Let Carlsbad vote on
this!!
2015-08-20
2015-08-20
2015-08-20
I signed at my door, because the lady circulating the petition lied to me. I told
her I was very against the development and she told me it was to stop it. We
should be bring back our old mall, not creating another monster like the mall
Caruso is so proud of, in Los Angeles. I have been to that mall, more than once
and the crowds are unbelievable. One has trouble even finding a spot to park in
the 5 story garage.
Save our lagoon!!!!!!! Fuck corporate America
I don t think we need that type of construction in the area. Traffic is already
terrible and we have too many malls around. What about the ecological
effects?
2015-08-20 There needs to be more oversight and public input concerning a development
project of this size. We are running out of open land.
2015-08-20 1. The traffic situation around the 1-5 corridor is bad as it is right now. 2. There
are sufficient local malls to service this area already. 3. Paid interviewers had
too much incentive to slant the pitch in a way, that sufficient people were led to
believe they are saving the lagoon by signing (even though the developer may
be doing things beneficial to the lagoons preservation). That calls into question
the credibility of the campaign. 4. Lagoons are precious ecospace, let's not
mess around with it. Do San Elijo lagoon or Mission Bay have a mall right by
the shore line? 5. Carlsbad has done very well so far balancing open space vs
livable community, let's keep that up.
2015-08-20 I believe that the residents of Carlsbad have the right to vote on this project.
2015-08-20 I want have say on what happens in the City may tax dollars go to.
2015-08-20 there's simply too many reasons NOT TO bypass due process ... 1. The traffic
situation around the 1-5 corridor is bad as it is right now. 2. There are sufficient
local malls to service this area already. 3. Paid interviewers had too much
incentive to slant the pitch in a way, that sufficient people were led to believe
they are saving the lagoon by signing (even though the developer may be
doing things beneficial to the lagoons preservation). That calls into question the
credibility of the campaign. 4. Lagoons are precious ecospace, let's not mess
around with it. Do San Elijo lagoon or Mission Bay have a mall right by the
shore line? 5. Carlsbad has done very well so far balancing open space vs
livable community, let's keep that up.
2015-08-20 Petition gatherers boldly lied to signers about the nature of the petition. They
told signers that it was a proposal to save the open space, and did not mention
building a mall. Buried in the small print was a reference to the 85/15, but that
was not mentioned verbally, and was obscured by the language of the petition.
2015-08-20 Many people were misled (including my wife) with the circulated petition. The
voters of Carlsbad should have the opportunity to vote on this.
2015-08-20 I demand a vote on 85/15!
2015-08-20 Carlsbad residents already voted on this a few years ago to keep this area
open space. How can this developer overrule it? How gullible & dense can
Carlsbad residents be? Did anyone of them who fell for Caruso's dog&pony
show ask about Impact on traffic, the existing power lines? Obviously not. Do
your freakin' homework people before signing your name to something. 85/15
is NOT good for Carlsbad.
Name Location Date Comment
Sherine Parker Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 Keep the natural beauty
Jimmy Chang Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 WE WANT A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT AND PASS IT ON TO OUR NEXT
GENERATION.
Lauren Messinger Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-20 It is only fair that the citizens that live here get the opportunity to put the 85/15
Plan to a vote. We are the people that are living here and dealing with the
already crowded roads! The development of Robertson Ranch on El Camino
Real will be adding to the congestion. What will we do in the event of an
evacuation??
PLEASE give the Carlsbad citizens the right to vote on this!
Janelle Scheftner Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 I oppose the 85/15 plan.
ron bedford San Diego, CA 2015-08-21 We do not need any new shopping malls in Carlsbad. Leave the land alone!
Karen O'Brien Carlsbad, CA 2015-Q8-21 I deserve a vote
John Mclaughlin Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 Let all the people vote and have the time to be educated. Who doesn't want
more parks or open space. But this is not what this is about and to make a
decision on project with details as thick as a phone book can not be done while
leave the grocery store.
Robert Witton Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 A 27 acre mall will cause a lot of traffic. Is there really anything wrong with just
leaving it alone?
nancy knott carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 i'm a resident of Carlsbad and 24,000 more cars in our already impacted area
is a terrible idea. Millions of$$!$$ have been spent by this developer in order to
push this plan through. We pay the taxes around here. We deserve to have our
voices heard
Gloria Carranza Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 I raised my family here and I plan to retire here. I care about our quality of life
and the environment and the future of our city. Let the taxpayers and residents
of Carlsbad decide on the future of the lagoon and surrounding areas. Let's
stop the Los Angelization of our city and say no to the 85/15 plan. There is
already way too much traffic and congestion in that part of the city. We don't
need more shopping centers or retail stores. Build walking trails, parks, scenic
paths, picnic areas. Let's be proud to say no to big developers.
Lauren Auerbach Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 I disagree with the process for this development. I feel those seeking
signatures for this project used dishonest tactics to gain signatures. I'm sure
they were well trained by the developer. I am actively seeking to rescind my
and my husbands signatures as I don't feel we were given accurate
information. I was told we were signing to support for a vote of the public to
determine the development of the lagoon property and I'm learning otherwise.
meital stotland Oceanside, CA 2015-08-21 We need a lagoon more than we need another mall
Ruth Triglia Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 I think the community deserves the opportunity to vote on something of this
magnitude.
Katy Sell Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 I do not want this mall!
Joshua Murray Portland, OR 2015-08-21 This is what makes Carlsbad wonderful! Why hurt this last untouched natural
gift from god???
Christina Moran Valley Center, CA 2015-08-21 I disagree with development that has any chance of impacting the wetlands in
San Diego county.
Jane Nielsen Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 There's way too much traffic off Canon already and we've been waiting way too
long to have our Carlsbad mall upgraded. Put the Nordstroms there!!!!
Kelly Mclaughlin Smithville, TX 2015-08-21 I'd like for the project to transparent so that all citizen can decide that is best of
Carlsbad.
Name Location Date Comment
Steve Patrick Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 I'm signing because I believe the residents of Carlsbad should vote on this
issue and not leave it up to the city council to decide.
Gretchen Vurbeff Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 I want to be able to vote on a project that is going to directly impact my family
every day because we live off of Cannon Road. The traffic along the 1-5
corridor in this area already slows down due to the S curve next to the lagoon.
It is only going to get worse. There is no reason why Nordstrom cannot go to
Westfield. Let's develop Carlsbad with the people's vote for what we want.
Let's be transparent and do this the right way, please.
Debbie Beers Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 I don't like the way it is being pushed without the vote of the people and full
discloser
Richard Riehl Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 I was tricked into signing the Caruso petition.
Kristin Peters Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 I have a right to vote.
Daniel Haun Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 I think that a decision that involves the quality of life for a community (pollution,
freeway congestion, etc.) should be put on the ballot for to vote on it.
Erica Gross Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 We need open space, not more traffic!
micah clothier Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 WE SHOULD
Wendy Retzer Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 I want to see a vote in Carlsbad for the 85/15 plan. I believe the developer has
been deceptive about this process. I do not believe this plan is good for
Carlsbad.
Kimberly Dotseth San Diego, CA 2015-08-21 Carlsbad is awesome and this wolf in sheep's clothes can tear up some open
space in Los Angeles. The last thing anyone in San Diego County needs is
another mall.
Teresa Manguso Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 I do not want another Mall that will destroy our Community and any more traffic
in an area that is already bursting at the seams. PUT THIS SO CALLED
PROMANADE (85/15) project at the Weisfield Mall off 78and El Camino Real
while the existing Mall is dying. It has no anchor tenants that bring in business.
This area will be an eye sore for Carlsbad if this area isn't developed as
proposed.
Jim Tighe Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 We don't need a mall on our rare coastal/agricultural space.
William Pearse Carlsbad, CA 2015·08-21 The city is making a mistake if they do not put this development through the
city's own vetting process. Citizens have never seen an engineering plan.
Slick "85/15" promotion never mentions traffic; sewage; parking; waste; water;
noise; carbon emissions. Let voters vote, after complete discussion. Our
coastline and lagoons are our sovereign legacy.
Ray Striler Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 The people of Carlsbad need to have their voices heard. I do not trust a
developer who uses divisive and deceptive means to build in pristine areas
against the wishes of the majority.
Jan Neff-Sinclair Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 I'm signing because the signature gatherers paid for by Caruso Affiliated
conned me into signing one of their petitions by telling me it was the only way
to save the strawberry fields. They said nothing about the 500,000+ sq foot
mall they want to build near the Aqua Hedionda lagoon. The citizens of
Carlsbad are being flim-flammed by this large developer and need to be
informed and have a vote on such an impactful project.
Stanley Montijo carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 We do not need anymore major retailer outlet, especially ones the destroy our
natural resources and our local independent economy.
Eva Kerckhove Cardiff, CA 2015-08-21 We have an abundance of shopping and this will not be good for the shops at
the Forum shopping area.
Name Location Date Comment
Lisa Ortega Oceanside, CA 2015-08-21 We already have too much traffic! Finish upgrading the mall in Carlsbad and
put the Nordstrom there!!!!
Norma Parker San Marcos, CA 2015-08-21 Outside developers must not be able to come in and circumvent the process.
Diana Lincoln Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 Let us VOTE!
John Maxwell Solana Beach, CA 2015-08-21 I grew up on the agua hedionda lagoon. I do not want the shores of the lagoon
developed. Where are the drawings of the plan?
Jessica Leibovich Cardiff, CA 2015-08-21 I do not want more traffic or congestion in North County
Catherine Ohlin Davis,CA 2015-08-21 I grew up in Carlsbad and have loved the coast and Lagon. I would hate to see
its beautiful habitats destroyed for something as silly as a mall (Carlbad already
has plenty of!!!)
Mario DeMatteo Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 Save the strawberry fields!!! No more malls!!!
Nancy Hill Sonoma, CA 2015-08-21 I feel there should be a special election to determine the vote of the People of
Carlsbad. I am opposed to the adoption of the Caruso Affiliated Agua
Hedionda 85115 Plan by the Carlsbad .ity Council on the basis of signatures
obtained by the Caruso signature gatherers.
Malgorzata Kolinski San Marcos, CA 2015-08-21 voting NO Caruso Affiliated project
LannelleTan oceanside, CA 2015-08-21 I'm an Oceanside/Carlsbad local,
destroying a lagoon to create a new mall is ridiculous. There's another mall in
Carlsbad that is in dire need for a remodel. I just believe we should be smarter
and use resources we already have rather than destroying another habitat.
Hayley Gordon Encinitas, CA 2015-08-21 The people should decide!
Nathan Mascia Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 Carlsbad city council has always been known as the most easily bought and
paid for "whores" of North County. Can we park 24,000 cars at their homes as
they obviously don't have to drive through the congestion this area already
has?
John Quartarone Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 We have enough traffic.
Katy Heineken Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 This land was set aside as 1 00% open space to develop elsewhere. We need
more open space. Update the malls we currently have. We don't need another.
Sandra Andre Vista, CA 2015-08-21 Transparency is important.
Natalie Shapiro Homer,AK 2015-08-21 citizens need more time to understand the project
Shannen Mitchell Magee Oceanside, CA 2015-08-21 Keep our Coast Beautiful
Matt Hicks Orlando, FL 2015-08-21 I'm signing because I spent many years of my life in Carlsbad and I care deeply
about this city and its natural habitats and wild life. It would be absolutely wrong
for a mall to destroy one of the last remaining lagoons in Carlsbad and thus
take way homes for wildlife and disrupt the beautiful Eco system in Carlsbad.
Arthur DePinto Oceanside, CA 2015-08-21 Development with water shortages, traffic gridlock increasing, etc.?? Politician's
approve to the highest contributors. Developers are in that group. It's
disgusting.
Courtney Krehbiel Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 This is very important to the people of Carlsbad, and the community should be
given a chance to vote.
Kathleen Bevilacqua Oceanside, CA 2015-08-21 I used to live in Carlsbad and would like to return there some day. Adding this
project is not a necesity. Just ruining another open space. There are plenty of
other shopping centers.
Mary Coffman Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 I was not given the truth in signing the original petition.
Mary Hinger Temecula, CA 2015-08-21 The people should vote!!!!
Name Location Date Comment
Chris Ohlin Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 Carlsbad has enough retail development. Natural preserves are the heart of
this city's allure and beauty. Leave them be for the love of all our citizens and
visitors.
Dani Renee Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 Why destroy nature just to build a shopping mall? We already have plenty.
Instead how about make the area an environmently friendly hiking trail and
leave the strawberry field alone.
Sean Geisterfer Long Beach, CA 2015-08-21 My Hometown, and my family lives here!
Name Location Date Comment
Sara Healy Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 To: Carlsbad City Council
Re: 85/15
It is respectfully requested that Carlsbad City Council (Council) delay its vote of
85/15.
Development of this land will have a negative impact on the Carlsbad
environment. There is no way that additional building and traffic will NOT
negatively affect local environment.
It is asked that the Council keep in mind how data is complied and summarized
can be slanted in either direction to persuade a deciding board. An issue is also
present as to the "neutrality" of the expert in the preparation of the
environmental report. Is the expert neutral or is there a relationship to Caruso,
and or the Council?
It is asked that the Council request Caruso resubmit new petitions bearing the
signature of Carlsbad registered voters. The signed petitions currently before
the Council were obtained by providing misleading information to Carlsbad
registered voters. As such, the petitions should be viewed as "invalid." This
issue has been brought to the Council's attention already. Be clear that a
majority of the signatures previously obtained were signed "unknowingly" by
Carlsbad registered voters. Such deceptive means are not hard to fathom
given the amount Caruso paid the petitioners per signature. It is known that the
petitioners were the temporary employees of Caruso, and as such, he is
accountable for the petitioner's actions. Further, requesting that Caruso
resubmit petitions would not cause an undue hardship of him and if he makes
that argument he would have to prove this burden wherein he would likely not
prevail. Requiring that Caruso resubmit new signed petitions is more than
reasonable as what 85/15 seeks is permanent, and without a thorough and fair
investigation irreparable harm could be done to Carlsbad. No one wants to see
this.
It cannot be impressed upon the Council enough that local city governments
are not immune to the authority of higher jurisdictions. Should the Council
decide to forego the strongly expressed concerns of its citizens, it is within the
rights of the citizens to reach up to a higher authority to investigate the actions
of the Council, as well as Caruso, in the handling of this matter.
Finally, we should be reminded that California is in a water crisis. This is not
going away any time soon. The Council's allowance of continued development
of Carlsbad falls disturbingly short of what the Governor of California has
directed. Irrespective of what the Council does on 85/15, it is clear that the
Council does indeed need to be brought to the attention of the Governor for its
flagrant disregard of California's current environmental needs.
It is respectfully requested that the Council take additional time to review 85/15
allowing for citizen interaction. Anything short of that would be negligent on the
part of the Council.
Please make the right decision.
Thank you for your time.
LeoWelnick Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 I don't trust L.A. Interests and they don't represent mine.
Name Location Date Comment
Marco Gonzalez Encinitas, CA 2015-08-21 I have numerous friends who live in Carlsbad and believe they should have the
right to weigh in on the future of this important piece of land.
Gina Alta villa Cardiff, CA 2015-08-21 As a long-time Carlsbad and Encinitas resident, I'm very alarmed that the City
of Carlsbad would advance a commercial project on/around protected habitat--
especially, in the absence of transparency. Where does the coastal commission
and fish and game weigh-in on this project? Is the EIR available to the public
before ground breaking? It's nice that we enjoy a lot of tourist dollars, but it's
even nicer to enjoy our own, unique, natural environment--including the
estuarine environments that serve as "primary productivity" to the world's
oceans. We need to chose healthy oceans over shopping malls, because the
cost of the latter is always the former when we're talking about our coastline.
Walter Casteel Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 I want this "voted on" by citizens of Carlsbad such as myself.
Miranda Jones Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 I'm signing because Carlsbad is my hometown and I don't want a mall on the
place I used to go with friends and where I would like to take my son to catch
frogs in the future.
Glenna Citron Culver City, CA 2015-08-21 I am signing because no matter what the merits of the project are, I don't
believe that circumventing the planning process through initiative is a benefit to
the city of Carlsbad.
Blake hartzell Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 Let's vote on it.
Tammy Farris Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 I GRE up on the banks of that lahoon, I drive by it every day for work. Can you
imagine the traffic that would be caused? The destruction of natural habitat?
The actuatuality of not needing another mall,when there is a large mall right
down the street that is capable and in perfect traffic flow location?
Gerald McMurray Encinitas, CA 2015-08-21 We deserve a vote.
Andrew Howard Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 I'm signing this because the flower fields and lagoon are an essential part of
Carlsbad. Removing those landmarks would rip the soul out of my hometown.
Kind of like if you removed legoland, or the beach, or the power plant.
Bridget Smith Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 I have concerns about traffic and misinformation that the developer is giving the
public.
Amy Hayashi Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 The residents of Carlsbad should have a voice in the kind of growth there is in
our City and how it affects those of us who do not want another mall with a high
end department store.
James Muehlhausen Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 I don't trust our city council to make an unbiased decision on this project. Let
the people vote.
C Bauknecht Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-21 We don't need more development in Carlsbad
Douglas Holstein Carlsbad, CA 2015-08·21 I signed the petition upon the assurances of the petitioner that the 85 15 plan
would be voted upon by the Citizens of Carlsbad. Caruso has stated that this
project wouldn't cost the city anything, and I want them to pay tor this
vote/public referendum as promised by their petioner.
Christopher Davis Vista, CA 2015.08-21 I live here, this affects my community, we like our North County a certain way,
protect the lagoon, we have enough Malls as it is
Amanda Solie Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 I think it is important for every Carlsbad citizen to have a chance of our opinion
of what happens in our town. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Glenn Garbeil Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 I'm signing this petition because this project will affect so many Carlsbad
residents for many decades to come, and so it demands input from the entire
community.
Chris Roman Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 I don't want another mall on our beautiful coastline. But more importantly,
Carlsbad residents should get to vote to decide.
Name Location Date Comment
patricia bleha bleha Carlsbad, CA 2015-Q8-22 I am not willing to take their word that this will be a wonderful project. They
have been devious about the details and no specific plans. The City Council
would be fools to pass this outright with so many unknowns and give up any
control on the project! THEY ARE NOT USING STATE OF THE ART
METHODS. So concerns about soil contaminant into the lagoon , water usage,
garbage disposal. We need a complete review to answer these and many other
questions.
Mary Wilkinson Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 I am apposed to this development.
Maxwell Spielmaker Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 Because f*ck establishment! That's why!
Kayla Hansen Oceanside, CA 2015-08-22 This is ridiculous and completely unneccesary.
Liz Kruidenier Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 Agua Hedionda Lagoon land is ALREADY PRESERVED WHICH CARUSO
FORGOT TO MENTION. IT IS WRONG TO BUILD ANOTHER HUGE
INTENSE SHOPPING CENTER ON FALSE PRETENSES AND SUBVERT
THE NORMAL APPROVAL PROCESS.
Mitchell Davis Oceanside, CA 2015-08-22 I don't agree I want to vote
David Rouse Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 I dont want any more developer pushed projects in Carlsbad. My stomach is
still sick from the Robertson Ranch development, and the seemingly clear
picture that McMillan Construction has " special relationship" status with the
city counsel. Now Caruso wants to by pass the voters with misinformed
Signature gatherers who tell lies.
I demand a vote by the citizens of Carlsbad to decide if we need another "Mall"
at the cost of agricutural space
City Counsel members, will you please respect and protect the rights of this
city's residents and make this half baked idea go to a vote
Susan sullivan Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 I believe in the democratic system
Sharon STERNFELD Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 Need to make informed decision
Margaret Basile Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 I'm signing this petition because I want a voice in deciding what happens to
strawberry fields.
Geraldine Afshari Encinitas, CA 2015-08-22 My children and I have kayaked for years in the lagoon. It is a fragile habitat
and no development who proceed without an independent environmental
impact report. In addition, there is no information as to the actual real plans, no
traffic studies, no public info, no renderings. This is an outrageous secret plan.
Heather Brunton Long Beach, CA 2015-08-22 I grew up in Carlsbad. We moved to Carlsbad around 1977. It was a great
place to grow up. However, every time I go there it becomes less and less
recognizable. It's more crowded, there are more lights, more stores, more
people etc.
I understand that a city needs to grow but Carlsbad is teetering on the edge of
becoming like Orange County. It's losing its uniqueness that makes it such a
great place.
Adding a mall will only bring more crowds, trash etc.
Why do I care if I'm not living there? My parents, sister, niece, nephew and
many friends still live there. It's still "home" in many ways to me.
I want my children to grow up loving Carlsbad like I do.
I also don't want to have to sit in backed up traffic every time I visit my family.
Please don't build this mall. Please don't do something that can never be taken
back but will forever take some of the beauty out of that wonderful town.
Kimberly Pines Carlsbad, CA 2015-Q8-22 We have the right to vote on this issue. This project is detrimental to the city
and the citizens should be heard on the matter.
Audrey Oberman Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 I believe this potential development should be subject to an environmental
impact report.
Name Location Date Comment
Stephanie Mikulecky Littleton, CO 2015-D8-22 This is my home. Don't destroy it's beautiful lagoons.
juneWestem Oceanside, CA 2015-08-22 Yes, save the beauty
Amy savoy Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 I'm signing because ... leave our lagoon alone!
sylvia quintero LA,CA 2015-08-22 the signature gathering process for 85/15 plan was deceitful and included lies
about preservation, the land was already preserved!
hugh afshari Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 For Opposing the Mall
Deborah Glaser Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 We don't need another mall. I've watched the flower fields on Garden View
disappear, the cow fields off RSF disappear, the home of the gnat catcher
where Home Depot is now disappear ... Enough is enough.
Pamela Doze Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 We don't need to ruin Carlsbad!
Kirstin Filliez Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 We don't need any more malls.
varton berian Carlsbad,CA 2015-08-22 Disgusted with the idea of Los Angeles developers coming in and taking
advantage of Carlsbad residents the way they have. Seems to me that they
went on with trying to insidiously fool Carlsbad residents into thinking that this
would somehow preserve the lagoon. It is very important to me and my
neighbors that we preserve this Lagoon and not continuously have outsiders
come in and develop our city as they have already done.
Robbert Bruins Oceanside, CA 2015-08-22 Future Carlsbad resident
Jewell Ford Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 We don't need another mall and i'm worried about the traffic.
PLMOTZER Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 We don't need Caruso Affiliated Agua Hedionda 85/15 in Carlsbad, CA.
debbie foley Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 I'm signing because I do not want another mall in Carlsbad.
Hannah O'Brien Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 We have too many shopping centers and we should not develop one on the
lagoon
kevin elliott Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 concerned about traffic and parking structure
Alexandra Houston Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 I'm signing because I love my hometown, and love our lagoon.
Sean Smith Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 We don't need another mall. The best way to preserve open space is to leave it
alone.
Shannon London Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 I am opposed to another shopping mall in Carlsbad
Diana Meyer Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 I do not want a mall!
We have a crappy mall already that is in serious need of updating and we have
the outlet mall. I feel that this 85/15 has been totally misrepresented.
Linda Grant-Scott San Marcos, CA 2015-08-22 I lived in Carlsbad for more than 15 years. I love the lagoons, the views and
the beautiful serenity of one of the few remaining natural waer environments in
our county. WHY IN THE WORLD DO WE NEED ANOTHER MASSIVE
COMPLEX or retail that's going to completely disgrace that area? We have to
fight this mighty marketing with great citizen support.
Harry McDevitt San Diego, CA 2015-08-22 A vote should be taken.
chelsea main Charlottesville, VA 2015-08-22 I'm moving back home and there is NO NEED for a hideous mall on the
lagoon!!
Sara Badertscher Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 I live near Agua Hedionda and see the horrid traffic jams every day. The
changes will just make the area more congested without really adding that
much. Hold off until 15 is expanded and the power plant changes have occurred
to make any decisions on this land. Better yet, leave it as it is!
Katherine Cleary Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 We cannot continue developing commercial properties around sensitive
wetlands.
Name Location Date Comment
Mary Peterson Encinitas, CA 2015-08-22 This project will affect all those communities around it. There are too many
empty malls already in this area that can be used by this project without
subjecting a pristine natural area like the Lagoon area to development.
Runoff, trash, too many people affecting the wildlife in this area are just a few
results. Can you, the Carlsbad Council, mitigate against this kind of intrusion
and destruction?
I think not and the people of this area should have a say if this project is to go
forward.
Christie Lange Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 The report estimates an increase of 24,000 traffic trips per day in our area.
The 5 freeway traffic nightmare coupled with a lack of water make this plan a
bad choice for Carlsbad. Let the citizens decide with a vote!
Amanda Day Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 Carlsbad needs businesses that pay living wages, not another shopping mall.
Protecting our delicate ecosystem is more important than adding more stores
our city doesn't need.
Dr. Noralee Sherwood Oceanside, CA 2015-G8-22 We do not need another mall. We do need to preserve more open space.
Larry Roel Oceanside, CA 2015-08-22 Because I feel there is enough shopping around and we need to preserve
some "open" space around one of the few remaining natural envirionments
around a coastallagoon!Thank you
Howard Sonkin Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 The people shod decide, not the money.
Johnny Hardisty Encinitas, CA 2015-G8·22 Because this devolpement is not good for north county
Ken Cariffe Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-22 I believe citizens should have a right to vote on land they protected by voter
initiative on previous occasions.
Maha Calderon Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-23 Too much traffic already.
ERIN RILEY Encinitas, CA 2015-08-23 Keep L.A. in L.A. We don't want chain restaurants and Nordstroms. We don't
want more traffic!
Susanlgoe Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-23 no on this 85/15 plan
Shelby Anaya Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-23 This is a waste of space that already has local and close enough shopping
centers. It will cost the city and the state valuable sources that we are already
trying to conserve--such as water.
Reece Rowlett Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-23 The city council was elected in order to preserve the voice of the people and
make decisions that would benefit the community as a whole. Instead, council
members are taking matters into their own hands despite the outcries and
disapproval voiced by the citizens of Carlsbad. It is time city council begins
doing their jobs for the people instead of for themselves
John Maycen Keaau, HI 2015-08-23 I lived in Vista for 30 yrs ... .this a really bad idea. Enough is enough
Joseph Burba Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-23 There is insufficient infrastructure to support the development. It will not benefit
San Diego residents, particularly those that drive the 15 corridor or live in
Carlsbad.
Hailee McOmber Vista, CA 2015-08-23 Carlsbad does not need more stores
Laura Crow Federal Way, WA 2015-08-23 The citizens have the right to decide how their community is developed. They
are the ones who live, work, and thrive here.
janell Hull Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-23 Somebodys going to get rich and it
wont be carlsbad and its residents!!
Kathryn Antonacci CARLSBAD,CA 2015-08-23 I'm signing this petition because I don't believe citizens were given a fair
chance to realistically evaluate the plan and it's impacts. Please give all
citizens an equal and fair vote on this issue.
Lindsay Cowan Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-23 I live in Carlsbad and don't want to stare at a mall from my balcony.
Name
Diana McFarlane
Kim Hutton
Andrea Jesse
Serena Stuve
Tammy Pollock
Keaton Davis
barbara knight
Jean Isbell
Rhonda Maschka
tom king
Sean Knuth
Samantha McCarvel
Gia Doloresco
Shelly Duignan
Nathan Stringer
Karen Merrill
janice vogliardo
Location
Carlsbad, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Los Angeles, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Sierra Vista, AZ
Carlsbad, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Date Comment
2015-08-23 I do not think this plan is in the best interest of the entire population of
Carlsbad.
2015-08-23 I was way-laid at my local grocery store by the 85115 proponents. They told me
that a local family that owned the land and wanted to pass the land on to their
children and grandchildren. That do this they needed to open some land to
development. And then proceeded to tell me how much open land would be
saved. I told them I had just read an article that touted Carlsbad as having the
most open land along the San Diego Coast and that was by DESIGN and all
ready protected. He said "I don't know about that. .. don't you want to protect
open land". I just got the feeling I was dealing with a slick salesman and said I
needed to do my research.
2015-08-23 Traffic and too much of another mall!
2015-08-23 Carlsbad has been a long time hang out place for my friends and I, and we love
the mom n pop shops! Stop hurting small businesses, which give Carlsbad a
unique ambience that one cannot find elseWhere.
2015-08-23 I am not in support of a shopping center next to the lagoon
2015-08-23 i want to have a voice
2015-08-23 I grew up in calrsbad and would love to see my home town remain beautiful.
2015-08-23 I'm a lifelong Carlsbad resident and want to preserve the natural beauty around
the lagoons and beaches
2015-08-23 I utilize the lagoon fot water sports and want to see the preserve protected for
the wildlife there. WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER MALL!!!
2015-08-23 As a Past President of Aqua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation, I spent a lot of time
and energy to ensure this Lagoon and surroundings are protected and
"Developed Responsibly" and remains accessible for my Children and all
Citizens of Carlsbad. This is a much too important of an issue to bypass the
necessary citizens input and required checks and simply hand over the future
of this very special Resource and Lagoon to an out-of-area developer who's
ultimate goal is to turn a Profit.
Rancho Santa Margarita, 2015-08-23 We should fight for informed voting
CA
Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-23 We already have two malls. We don't need to ruin a place that is part of
Carlsbad's history.
Oceanside, CA 2015-08-23 We already have enough malls .. .lets preserve the beauty and wildlife of these
Dallas, TX
Carlsbad, CA
Oceanside, CA
Carlsbad, CA
lagoons ....
2015-08-23 Let the people who live here decide .... This is a "dirty deal". Real Carlsbad
locals know it.
2015-08-23 I want a public vote
2015-08-23 l,m signing because the intent of an initiative is to put it to a VOTE of the
people!
2015-08-23 I live within 3 miles of this location and do NOT want a large parking structure
or Nordstroms Store in this location. We have a mall for those large stores. We
are losing our open land to housing developments and now what started out as
trails and small restaurants is growing into a monstor. I drive by this location
daily, very disappointed it the citizens do not get to vote
Name Location Date Comment
William Davis Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-23 I believe the 106,000+ Carlsbad residents deserve to vote on this important
issue. I am not convinced that the 9,800 signatures obtained by Caruso
Affiliated are a true representation of Carlsbad voters.
Crystal Mayers Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-23 It's important!
Richard Taylor Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-23 We already have three malls in a five mile radius. Thats enough!!!
Jennifer James Temecula, CA 2015-08-23 I don't want a developer degrading precious wetlands. Also the people of
Carlsbad have a right to see the plans and to know that the signatures were not
obtained in any fraudulent manner.
Jaime Ross Oceanside, CA 2015-08-23 There are thousands of mini malls i fell in love with this area for its natural
beauty, i would like my children to have strawberry farms rather than just be
told stories of remember when!
Ana Gonzalez Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-23 Say no to the concrete jungle. Traffic will be insane. Help local businesses stay
in business
kathy Kinane Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-23 I think the development should go through the normal planning process and
comply with all codes and standards
Gary Nessim Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-23 the petition is for voting, not for project approval. Every other project in
Carlsbad earned approval through regular channels and this one will be better
at each step.
Kristi Thompson Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-23 We voted to keep this space open. That vote should not be ignored!
Alma Lueschen Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-23 I was given false information when asked to sign at my front door from a
woman who could not look me in the eye. I should have trusted my intuition
and not signed.
Lance Smith Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-23 We don't need more traffic, pollution, people. We need to preserve our natural
land, not pave it over. Plenty of places to shop already. All the developer cares
about is money. He doesn't even live here.
Jeanne McCartney Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-23 This area was designated open space by Carlsbad voters. Any change in the
designation should be done by the voters of Carlsbad.
Richard Oceguera Brooklyn, NY 2015-08-23 We do NOT need yet another mall in San Diego!
Kathrena vega Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-23 What??? I say we protest!!! This is insane!!!! Caruso SUUUCCKKKSSSS!!!
Tom Dever Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-23 L.A. Is a congested shit hole and I don't want Cbad ruined by more
development
Mary Steely Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-23 I'm signing this to support the people's right to be heard & to participate in the
democratic process
Andria Chandler SAn Diego, CA 2015-08-23 I think this is a scam against the people of Carlsbad, Oside, and Encinitas. We
the people need to vote! Save the lagoon, if this mall goes in it will be lost
forever.
Jon Sherman San Marcos, CA 2015-08-23 I need to preserve what's left of our coastal wetlands, not develop them!
Olle Andersson Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-23 This "citizen-led initiative" is not what it claims to be.
Allyson Dunn San Diego, CA 2015-08-23 We need more information on a huge project like this.
les abeyta Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-23 I want the people to vote on the agua hedionda 85/15 plan. I don't want
something of this magnitude decided by the city council.
Bernice Rizzi Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-23 There's already to much traffic in Carlsbad.
Brad Roth Cardiff, CA 2015-08-23 Enough malls!
Lisa Trent vista, CA 2015-08-23 I want Carlsbad to stay as it is, with our family owned business area and
exemplary non-chain restaurants. We have malls in Carlsbad already; we don't
need more "big box" stores. I won't shop there.
Name
Jane Palmer
Gerry Ann Yaryan
Melissa branum
Betsy Shapiro
Donald Isbell
Camille Sowinski
Ray Flores
Bob Rickman
wayne mascia
Kathleen Taylor
yvette saville
Catherine Belderes
Morgan Dixon
Lynn Thompson
Mike Cole
Luis Carranza
Stephanie Williams
Bianca Lasche
Greg Millard
Stan Hayduk
Location
Carlsbad, CA
Encinitas, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Ocasndie, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Oceanside, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Soquel, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Oceanside, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Oceanside, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Encinitas, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Date Comment
2015-08-23 Jane D. Palmer
2015-08-24 I care about saving our nation's natural wildlife habitat.
2015-08-24 Transparency is necessary
2015-08-24 I have never seen the actual plans of the mall and people were
misrepresenting of the petition. One man said " It preserves the lagoon"so we
wrote the city for a vote because how many signatures were without informed
consent?
2015-08·24 I witnessed a petition gatherer at the Carlsbad Farmer's market tell people to
"sign this to save the nature lagoon" not even mentioning the commercial
development or giving them the opportunity to read to petition before signing it.
You do not know the will of the people based on the numerous petitions signed
and must put this to vote so that there Is time for people to be informed. We are
very concerned about the traffic problems this huge project will cause, as 1-5 is
not scheduled for widening or accommodating this project until many years
after it is built.
2015-08-24 A vote will settle the matter.
2015-08-24 Carlsbad deserves transparency.
2015-08-24 Of the increase we will see to traffic in the area.
2015-08-24 This is just another example of special interests owning our country. Every city
council member in favor of this plan should be, at a minimum, removed from
office as they are obviously motivated by their bank accounts and have failed
the citizens of Carlsbad who , mistakenly, voted them into office. Luckily the
people caught "this one", how many more didn't they catch that these crooked
politicians made out on? Not enough of these people go to jail to deter this.
White collar crime should be punished more severely. Just DISGUSTING!
2015-08-24 We don't need another maii.Traffic is bad enough! Leave the strawberry fields
alone. The open space is wonderful. They're beautiful the way they are!!
2015-08-24 I love Carlsbad and this plan isn't good for the city!
2015-08-24 We do not need another development in Carlsbad. Many already vacant
shopping areas. Save the lagoon.
2015-08-24 I dont want a mall in the strawberry fields
2015-08-24 this was already designated as open space years ago! We don't need another
mall and traffic congestion at Cannon!!!
2015-08-24 We have two malls in carlsbad we do not need anymore. Please finish
westfield plaza camino real first
2015-08-24 Because it is an issue that should be decided by the voters. We don't need
more shopping centers, more traffic, more pollution, nor big developers calling
the shots
2015-08-24 We have enough malls. The lagoons are a beautiful and unique part of our
landscape here in North County.
2015-08-24 I think the Carlsbad Westfield mall should be upgraded instead. This planned
mall would probably put the Westfield out of business. I don't want that to
happen.
2015-08-24 full disclosure would be healthy
2015-08-24 We have very little protection in leadership for over development based on the
performance of the city counsel!
Name
Katie Barr
Rose Mohnacky
lan Wolinski
Cheryle DeWitt
Vincent Vanoni
Mary Bennett
Alec Madison
Kyle Switzler
Geri Suster
Carolyn Krammer
Dee Conradie
Mina Hernandez
KashaCohen
Laura! Davis
Walter Georgescu
Douglas Desjardins
Mirella Wentz
Scott Miller
Helen Stamatelatos
Helen Stamatelatos
Kathleen Gerhard
karen cavanaugh
Location
Carlsbad, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Alpine Meadows, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Encinitas, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Oceanside, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Oceanside, CA
San Marcos, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Oceanside, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Date Comment
2015-08-24 I believe
2015-08-24 I like the open space and don't want more traffic
2015-08-24 We don't need a third mall.
2015-08-24 I am against development next to a lagoon causing pollution to air and water.
What about our drought situaton?
2015-08-25 because this country is being ruined by money and this is a small way to fight
back
2015-08-25 I have a office space in Carlsbad. It is way too crowded in that city. There is not
enough open space left. People upon people. Stop the building of yet another
shopping center.
2015-08-25 The people have the right to vote on this issue. The mall would increase traffic
and pollute the lagoon
2015-08-25 I'm signing because the people deserve a chance to be heard
2015-08-25 I have lived here since 1976 and would like vote as this will impact us all in one
way or another.
2015-08-25 The people should have a say in the decision of a project that affects their
environment
2015-08-25 This developer has spent a fortune on marketing, and a fortune on obtaining
signatures in support of its proposal. I believe it is vital that the proposal go
through normal approval procedures followed by all Carlsbad residents having
an opportunity to vote on whether or not it should be approved.
2015-08-25 We need to have independent disclosure and not only Carusso's reports.
2015-08-25 We have become too over populated! We don't want the stress of being
another of LA' suburbs. No more cars, no more traffic, no more fumes, no
more malls-of any sorts -after al, shopping of the future is not more brick and
mortar stores but online shopping. In 20 years, we will have to figure out what
to do with yet another shopping mall -take a look at the Carlsbad Weisfield
Mall. It's disgraceful to look at. Yuck. I vote NO. If "it's open space done right,"
leave it open!
2015-08-25 I believe the Lagoon should be left as it is as homes for wildlife and adding to
the beauty of Carlsbad.
2015-08-25 The developer uses a misleading petition to claim support for the mall
development project.
2015-08-25 This has been dishonest campaign from the start. And if the City Council
approves this, it sets a precedent that will allow other developers to bypass
established protocols.
2015-08-25 I believe the people of Carlsbad should be able to vote for a project as big as
this, and owe this to our future generations.
2015-08-25 I want a full examination of this project before it goes forward.
2015-08-25 I would like this issue brought to a ballot so we can ALL vote on it!
2015-08-25 I don't like the fact that this project will increase the already congested area
carlsbad is known as being a "village by the sea"! Leave the malls to the bigger
cities!
2015-08-25 Our land use has been overdone to death for human beings. I want to Save
the lagoons and wildlife here!
2015-08-25 i want more information and i want all of the facts before i make my decision
about what is best for Carlsbad.
Name Location Date Comment
lim Stipe Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-25 There are three ways for the north county to drive south, El Camino Real, 5
freeway, and highway 101. All three are congested at peak hours. One of the
three (101) has already given up a lane to the bikers. Talks are on the table to
do the same on El Camino Real. This Development will pretty much put North
County at a stand still during these times. Not to mention put the burden of new
traffic on alternative routes. So far I haven't met a Carlsbad resident that is for
this.
Gunnar Biggs Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-25 Citizens have a right to vote on this!
Cina Gerhardt Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-25 I believed this was going for a vote. I had no idea this was a slam dunk. I feel
tricked. I'm upset.
CM Gerhardt
John Andersen Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-25 Caruso has been dishonest in acquiring their petition signatures and that is
clearly a red flag warning.
James Gerhardt Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-25 Carlsbad belongs to us so we should decide what happens here!
Leslie Gomez Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-25 I do not want to see another mall developed when so much developed space
sits empty. Also sensitive to environmental impact.
Joyce Halliburton Vista, CA 2015-08-25 I am opposed to this shopping center because we already have shopping
halliburton center close to the freeway and the traffic will be increased. Most important is
preserve our lagoon for our future generation. Don't allow the billions of dollars
of Caruso take away the voice of the people.
Caitlin Vanoni Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-25 There are already updating our current mall, not to mention the outlet mall right
near this space.
Laura Drelleshak Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-25 I signed the Caruso petition to under false pretenses. The signature taker lied.
It's too late to remove my signature, so hopefully this signature will help
balance out my mistake.
David Hill Encinitas, CA 2015-08-25 I am a concerned citizen that the State's Environmental Regulations are being
bypassed without due process notwithstanding the fact that California's coastal
lagoons are under stress from urban activities & the construction & operation of
a shopping mall adjacent to a lagoon is a tragedy in the making.
kelly steffen Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-25 I feel that Carlsbad is losing quality of life by allowing another shopping center
to be built on Prime Agricultural land in a location that should be 1 00%
agricultural and open space use only.
Bonnie Biggs Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-25 Citizens should be able to vote on this issue!
Brian Carter Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-25 I want a review of the Caruso project.
Neil Sheaffer Bloomington, IN 2015-08-25 I was told by multiple solicitors supporting this project that signing the petition in
favor of the project would only put it on the ballot. This was a lie. I am happy to
say that I did not sign.
Cheryl Thornburg Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-25 A vote would conform with what signers signed the original petition for.
Miriam MacAllister Half Moon Bay, CA 2015-08-25 APC has a history of falsifying voter signatures. The voters of Carlsbad have a
right to vote on issues affecting their environment and their city. More
development in a sensitive geographical area that is already overdeveloped
deserves careful study and consideration.
Sandra Poehlman Carlsbad, CA 2015·08-25 oppose 85115 plan and construction of mall at Aqua Hediondo lagoon. Want
issue to go to vote of the residents of Carlsbad,CA
jeffrey ross Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-25 This shopping center can wait tilll-5 is expanded and can handle the additional
traffic.
Name Location Date Comment
Emily Wheatley Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 I'm signing because transparency with the citizens of Carlsbad has always
been a major force about why Carlsbad is such a great place to live, work, &
play. In our city, the citizens are respected and the citizens, in tum, work well
with the City Council and the different commissions and boards to keep
Carlsbad a wonderful place. The five signature gatherers that contacted me
(accosted?) about the petition signatures all lied to me in different ways. I
refused to sign the Caruso petition because I knew that what they were telling
me was not true. 3 of the 5 were physical, hitting or shoving me, while spewing
4-letter descriptions. I'm also against the project because of TRAFFIC and
because the negative impact this project will have on existing Carlsbad
businesses, especially those in the Village, the Premium Outlets, and
Westfield mall, where renovation work has been halted. Mayor & Council,
please respect the quality of your own citizens and stop this nonsense with
Caruso NOW!
Brian Flock Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 A signature-taker FOR the development proposal attempted to deceive me that
this was the only way for open space to be maintained. He mentioned the open
space and didn't mention the development AT ALL I wasn't swayed and could
smell the dripping, corporate interests.
Lynne PETTERSSON Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 Please don't ruin the lagoon. We do not need another mall.
Kate Joiner Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 I believe it's a bad idea to build this mall because of impact on traffic. I was also
lied to when a campaigner came to my door.
Jobe Parket Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 As a 49 year resident of Carlsbad, I don't want a mall at the lagoon!
David Clark San Marcos, CA 2015-08-19 There are hundreds of malls across North County that fulfill all of our shopping
needs. Given the uniqueness of this Lagoon and the privileges that the
general public is able to enjoy by its continued preservation, there is no
compelling value proposition that any developer can provide for its
development into a shopping area.
Maggie Adams Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 I'm signing this petition because I want the residents of Carlsbad to vote!
Lucina Kalscheur Madison, WI 2015-08-19 My daughter in law and my son know what is good for their community.
Erica Livingston Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 I don't like the sneaky tactics being used and it isn't appropriate for the council
to approve something for which we have no drawings.
Jennifer Threlfall Carlsbad,CA 2015-08-19 We deserve the right to vote on this.
Erin Mcilroy Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 I want the opportunity to vote on the 85/15 plan.
Richard Rajabi Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 Against this for many reasons. Primarily, why pave over one of last remaining
nature preserves to build a fifth area shopping center, i.e. already existing
Carlsbad Mall, Carlsbad Outlets, Forum, North County Fair. Other issues
include: Lagoon land already protected per previous Props. Developer
misrepresented plans in order to gather 'initiative' signatures, circumvent EIR,
and "fast-track" development without a pesky public vote. Will only add to
already horrible traffic on surrounding freeways and arterials with no
guaranteed mitigation.
One need only visit LA's La Brea district to see what a traffic and development
nighmare our area will become.
Pearl Nash Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 I am against any new shopping development in Carlsbad, Ca.
Happy Martinez San Diego, CA 2015·08-19 Grew up in Carlsbad
Name Location Date Comment
Linda Hendrickson Menlo Park, CA 2015-08-19 1 am really unhappy with the idea that a wealthy developer can circumvent the
normal review process!
Michelle Alfonso Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 We deserve the right to vote on how land should be used.
Ruth OSullivan Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 I believe this is not in the best interest of the people of Carlsbad. We need true
impact of this project, not lies and manipulation and pay outs. The Truth we
need your help
Sarah Rudolph Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 I am signing because we have been misled by the Developer.
Susie Cratty Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 Let the People Vote! Voters need facts, not developer's propaganda, and time
to make a well-informed decision.
Joel White Fallbrook, CA 2015-08-19 dont develope the lagoon!
Sans Hartzell Vista, CA 2015-08-19 Even 15% is too much for that location. That location is not appropriate for a
dense commercial development.
Karen Collins Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 I demand this issue be brought to the voters -the residents of carlsbad
Diane Nygaard Oceanside, CA 2015-08-19 The EA has not adequately assessed the impacts of this project on our lagoon,
natural lands, waters and the people of this area.
Lisa Wood Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 I feel we deserve the right to vote on this since so many of the signatures
collected were misled as to what they were signing for. What is the rush to
make this happen without a vote?
Amy Schaefer Carlsbad, CA 2015-Q8-19 We deserve to see more specifics regarding Caruso's development. I am
currently opposed to the plan due to high traffic volume. We can barely get our
kids to high school and activities by the freeway under current traffic conditions.
It is a 20.30 min drive from south Carlsbad to north in traffic now. We simply
can't support a higher traffic volume that this development will no doubt bring.
Nordstrom belongs in the mall not in this new development.
caroline wright Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 I want to preserve our lagoon the RIGHT way. Leave it alone.
Heather Day Livermore, CA 2015-08-19 Carlsbad really needs to protect the few natural areas it has left. So much has
been developed since I was a kid ....
jessica Hill Bellingham, WA 2015-08-19 I grew up here and the lagoon is a crucial part of the community and culture
Janine Korf Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 Keep land beautiful! Carlsbad already has plenty of shopping areas ... No more
traffic is needed in the plan developed area. There is already enough
congestion in that area ..
David Posey encinitas, CA 2015-08-19 I want ensure the current quality of life.
Donna Fanelli Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 carlsbad residents deserve a vote. I was deceived into signing a petition
saying it was for a vote. Not a vote FOR the Mall.
CLAUDIA MUNOZ Oceanside, CA 2015-08-19 I been living in O'side/Carlsbad since 1984 ... it is home and i feel it is upto us to
make the changes
Phil Shale Carlsbad, CA 2015-08·19 Traffic is already bad enough on that corridor. And the deceptive behavior of
the signature gatherers was disgusting.
Paul Hodgens Carlsbad, CA 2015-08-19 People deserve to have a choice in this matter, especially since folks were
mislead in the first place.
Carlsbad City Clerk
August 24, 2015
Page 2 of4
specificity for when or how they will be utilized. Initiative at Q-138. Chapter 6.3 is
titled "Financing Plan," but no such plan is provided. Id at Q-141. Because managing
funds is an essential function of the Carlsbad City Council, the Initiative is invalid.
Citizens for Jobs and the Economy v. County of Orange (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1311,
1331. Likewise, because it does not allow the city to make decisions in the future, the
Initiative conflicts with state law. Indeed, the Initiative also violates the City Charter by
limiting the City's future discretion.
Additionally, because the possible "financing mechanisms" are not adequately
explained or how the various Environmental Protection Features ("EPF's") will be
funded or performed, the Initiative is illegally vague. See Citizens for Jobs and the
Economy, 94 Cal.App.4th at 1335 ("Who is to decide what spending is necessary, or for
what purposes that are sufficiently related to the project?").
Furthermore, as the Report acknowledges, the Initiative is inconsistent with the
City's Growth Management Plan circulation requirements. Report at 28-30.1
Proposition E, passed by the City's voters in 1986, established a part of the Growth
Management Plan. It stated:
NO DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE APPROVED by the City of
Carlsbad unless it is guaranteed that concurrent with need all necessary
public facilities be provided as required by [the 1986 growth
management plan] with emphasis on ensuring good traffic circulation,
schools, parks, libraries, open space and recreational amenities;
It also stated:
The City Council or the Planning Commission shall not find that all
necessary public facilities will be available concurrent with need as
required by the Public Facilities Element and the City's 1986 growth
management plan unless the provision of such facilities is guaranteed.
Thus, Proposition E cemented the requirement that the Public Facilities Standards
laid out in the City's 1986 Growth Management Plan must be guaranteed before
development can be approved. The failure to comply with these requirements is a
violation of Proposition E. Marblehead v. City of San Clemente (1991) 226
Cal.App.3d 1504, 1509.
II. The Section 9212 Report is Inadequate
The Report claims that matters not regulated by the Initiative "shall be subject to
the Carlsbad Municipal Code and other applicable city regulations and policies." Report
1 A July 24, 2015 letter from the California Department of Transportation raises several
concerns with potential circulation impacts.
Carlsbad City Clerk
August 24, 2015
Page 3 of4
at 15. This is misleading and incorrect. The Initiative states that the project shall be
exempt from, among other things, the zoning code (Initiative at Q-14 7), exempt from the
"Environment" section of the municipal code (id. at Q-148), and exempt from certain
portions of the storm water management plan requirements (id. at Q-149).
The Report notes that the California Coastal Commission has required open space
easements along Agua Hedionda Lagoon, yet it fails to discuss whether the Initiative is
consistent with these requirements. Report at 18. Likewise, the Report fails to discuss
the Project's consistency, or lack of consistency, with the Coastal Act. !d. at 20. An
April15, 2015 letter from the Coastal Commission raises several concerns with potential
Coastal Act inconsistencies, including concerns about biological resources, bluff setback,
visual resources, and agricultural resources. Indeed, Commission staff noted "serious
concerns regarding the use of an initiative process." The letter is attached hereto and
hereby incorporated by reference.
The Report fails to provide an adequate analysis of aesthetic and community
character impacts, since no specific details of the project are provided. Report at 38. No
analysis of public view blockage by specific building massing was provided, and no
discussion of aesthetics of the proposed project or compatibility of the proposed changes
to the community character has occurred. Attached is a visual simulation of just one
view, which demonstrates some of the project's potential impacts.
The Report fails to provide an adequate analysis of agricultural resource impacts.
Report at 39. No mechanism has been put into place to ensure maintenance of
agricultural uses on the project site. Although the Environmental Analysis ("EA'') makes
a vague claim that the "applicant would subsidize the cost of restoring the currently
fallow agricultural land on site" (EA at 4.2-9), the Environmental Protection Features
("EPFs") of the Initiative only require recordation of an easement and contain no funding
requirement. See Initiative at Q-276. Indeed, no reference is made to any financing
requirements for agricultural lands within the vague statements made in Table 6.0-1,
"Improvements and Financing." !d. at Q-141 to 142.
The Report acknowledges that "portions of the [Passive Open Space] area contain
elevated levels of [ organochloride pesticides] in the soil." Report at 46. It also
acknowledges that "no EPFs require soil testing for contamination" and "[n]o discussion
about potential soil remediation efforts has been included in the EA." !d. at 47. Oddly
and despite these uncertainties, the Report concludes that the "methodology utilized in
the hazardous materials analysis generally conforms to accepted practices ... with a few
exceptions ... " !d. Indeed, the technical report prepared by HDR, Inc. concludes that the
reports included within the EA "lack the detail necessary to support the recommendations
and conclusions presented, and do not provide sufficient detail for development of an
actionable Phase II plan for portions of the" site.
The Report acknowledges the environmental analysis failed to provide sufficient
detail regarding air quality impacts. Report at 40. However, there is no discussion of the
Aprill5, 2015
Page2
2. BluffSetback
The proposed bluff setback distance of 50 feet from the edge of bluff is sufficient
provided that a factor of safety of 1.5 or greater can be achieved in this location as a pat1
of any geologic stability analysis (which should include sensitivity to future sea level rise
conditions). This setback also is important in order to provide visual relieffi·om proposed
structures as well as allowing for the accom!)1odation of public trail elements. In cases
where a biological buffer from adjacent habitat areas or wetlands is also applicable,
whichever buffer distance is determined to be greater shall be required. No development ·
(including accessory structures) shall be located within this buffer area, with the
exception of public trails and passive recreation features (excluding shade structures or
anything with a roof).
3. Visual Resources
In order to be consistent with surrounding development patterns and to preserve the
existing open space character available across the subject site, buildings should measure .
no higher than a maximum of35 feet in height from existing grade. Strategies that would
step back buildings from adjacent Open Space areas and break up the mass of structures
through the incorporation of view corridors and structural at1iculation should be
implemented. Oppm1llnities to build into the existing topography or the accommodation
of underground levels may provide opportunities to accommodate additional volume or
square footage within a structure.
The sigt1age component of the draft plan will require significant fm1her review and
specificity. Fm1her details on illumination methods (such as the use of neon or flashing
lights, halo/backlit vs internally illuminated, etc.) are warranted and any digital or
electronic signage should not be included in the plan. Additionally, no large freeway
oriented freestanding signs should be hicluded in the Specific Plan, as traditionally,
throughout the San Diego Cm.inty Coastal Zone this type of signage has been discouraged
-this would include freeway pylon sigt1s, illuminated signs, and landmark signs.
There should be no night lighting of natural ar~as. Lights should be shielded to shine
downward and away fi·om habitat areas.
As discussed previously,the Specific Plan should include a Public Access and Trails
Plan. Currently the draft Specific Plan identifies only one public vista point for the entire
200 acre subject site (located in the nm1hwest corner of the site), any future Public
Access and Trail Plan should clearly identify all anticipated vista points and view
corridors for the entire plan area. Also, throughout the Specific Plan it is impm1ant to
identify that all trails within the plan are public trails.
The language in the Design Guidelines regarding flexibility for future project design is
too generic. Cet1ain components within the Specific Plan should be identified as set
' standards that do not allow for future interpretation, these details would include specific
restrictions placed on heights, setbacks, permitted uses, signage and lighting.
April15, 2015
Page4
Finally, Coastal staff has serious concems regarding the use of an initiative process being
conducted to support the conceptual Specific Plan. We would like to discuss what the anticipated
benefits would be associated with this approval mechanism compared to a more traditional
approval approach developed in coordination with City staff.
Coastal staff again emphasize that these comments are preliminary, and are provided to facilitate
ongoing project development. Additional and more detailed feedback will be provided once
additional Specific Plan details are refined. We appreciate the opportunity to provide early
guidance on this substantial project, if you have any questions please contact me directly at our
San Diego District Office.
Sincerely,
~
Rick Casswell
Coastal Planner
s E L rz E R I c A p l A. N r M G M A H n N I v t T E K www.semv.com ts<> B STRE£T, SI.JlTE z1oo
61 g •. 68S->·""J SAN l}l EGO, CAt i fO RN fA ~ z\ o.i
s·1-g~6~5·31oo ri'.:f.
['f0.R~Atf T<. $.CL1'Zirt
{HaS.•lDU)
"ROS-ERT t;APL:A!'i
G':!:RI\LD t.~ MCMAW:OU
·~e:G.iN"A.t..D-A.~-VU:SK
oAvn; j; .boi'Jis .iAM~S it~ bt.W'E
S:RWI! T.-Sfi."tZ~R
JrlYa: ~ Mt~~DY
0£NNtS J. WICKHAM
;:_Of!:_N: _tl~ AL.SPAU~
J~t.t~~ P. CHP~IEY
MicHAEL G. NAI\[:'1
r.ttoti!A.S F. srs-uu:;e:
N~At.· ~· Y~Nl%H
$::EA1\l T. HAll:($")!.~
DAVa:i:J~ ~usK(iF~ MicHAEt. A. t~o-~E -. . . . . . . -~
J •. so·orr s.CHeP.E~ hA~l-Et. ~~,_e:ArON.
¢Rfsiat:r· A:::.v£:UA.
. ~.:..vto "M. -G.R~L!v
JtHOu~A -c~iND~i:.t.:
JCSEP.I'f P..---M:A~Tt.~S'Z
$. Seon w.ii.t..iA~'S
·E:r;lK :t... ·.sc:H:RAN~R 1;~~~:~:1~-~~~i!!=~~
MttH.iu;£:. B... l.~S ~fll~~ew ;. P-!lcibtc;s
MAfTliew t):_._ S£1. TZi;ft ~AvrD "-·· U·tiHt:~RS~::i!i -
. Ata»l£4't4:, MY.t:.R.S:
Mi\R!S~A ·A. M-e~RTti~P.
a!:1~~~ ~~!~~== ~ea~e~;, 1-w.i. Lqll'N
i~SON-R.-fA!It.S" PA~~~ F. ~e.l~S
~H.t.AR.V ~. ~oruiE
-CeRTiFtEG SP"6C:IA:I..IST
8:.Eliftllltill .rr~~ing. 1"~~-& Pi.obate:u:w
THE S'tA:'tt.~t{ or ceil.;;;:.t:~.r~· . :P~ "l:"S_q,A:L SP.r.C.1A"J,.t~~~Ot.1"
OA,VJ:Q· P.-~ui~ 1.Au-M.f.1~· t/.,~S *' ..
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
A LI,W CORPORA'I'iON
August24, 2015
Honorable M11ttHall and Members ofthe
City Council forthS-l City o£ Carls{)ad
1200 Ca,dsbadVitlage Dijve
Carlsbad CA 9200s . . . . ' .
G. Scon vAUd:i9eeive -Agenda Item #. \ S
swllliam•®•cmvf49rnthe Information of the:
'6'9! 685•315' CITY COUNCIL
(6• 9l }02·6i.q,2 'AcM,L cA v cc v" Date~ City Manager i:7'
Re: Agp:a Jkdion4a South Shor~ Specific Plan.
:Dear Mayor Hall and Members of the City Council,
r representSimon Property Group ("Simon'')~ which h8$ OVvlled Cru;lsbad
Prenuum Outlets in the. City of Carlspad since 2004, I Write 6n {Jehalfof Simon
to: urge !he City Councilto decline to approve the Agua Hedionda Soutl! Shore
Specific Plan and the $hopphlg. mall that will be col1Sfi1icted pursuant to that plan
{"Project") and inst~d n;;· (i} require the l?foject to und~1:go a public CEQA review
process, and (n}place the Project on the ballot so it. c~ be con:gidered by Carlsbad·
'voters after CEQA review~ Without these measures, the. Couneii would deprive
the City and its residents of the safeguards created by CEQ I\, which is designed
to ensure Careful CO!lsidet~on of the environmental impaCtS of aproject through
a public process with public input. · ·
Before the Carlsbad Ptenrlum Outiets originally opened:. it was required to
undergo CEQA review;· as were other major projeets in Car1sbad !n recent years;
fuclu4ing ~to name just a few-'-the~ Poseidon DesalinationPiant, Legoland, the
Quarry Creek housing project, the Westfield Carlsbad shopping center expansion
and the Gen,eralPtanUpdate. These CEQA efforts demonstrate Carlsbad;s
longstanding ·corinllitrrtentto oareful development with maximum public
participation.
In light of Caruso's collection of sufficient sigilawres forits proposed initiative,
the City Councihiow faces the choice of whether tO' ap-prpve the Project outright
or put the Project on the ballqt for consideration by tl1e City'~ resi9ents .. It would
1;e totally out ofcharacterror the City Council to bypass CEQAreview and
approve the Project before it can be vetted through a public process. ,Further> it
would: not be accurate for anybody to suggest that the public has p&-ticipated in
s E lT l E R I c A Ill AN I M 11 M A H!] N l v l T E K
Carlsbad City Council
August 24, 2015 ·
· :i· '' '· ''.':.,,. Page2 ·
the process because some portion of the electorate signed the petition, after an
expensive public relations campaign conducted by the Project proponent that has
been short on details. Similarly, the City's 9212 Report is no substitute for true
CEQA review. Not only does the report (and the Project's Environmental
Assessment) lru::k adequate analyses of numerous important issues (e.g., water
supply, aestheti,cs, traffic, agriculture, biology at~d.economic·itnpacts),.it also
lacks any diseu$sion of potential alternatives to the Project. And without a public
review process via the circulation of a draft EIR with \¥ritten respouses to public
comments, the process lacks the safeguards necessary to instill public confidence
in the results.
Rather than short-circuit the public participation in and careful review of this
Project, the City Council should instead place the Project on the ballot ant\ in the
time leading up to the election, require the Project to undergo traditional CEQA
review, including a thorough analysis of all issues, public comments and a
response to those comments, and consideration of potentiai alternative;; to the
Project. Surely the community deserves such a careful review before the
development of one of Carlsbad's most pr~cious and visible locations~
~J;fuL-
G. Scott Wtlltams
Seltier Caplan McMahon Vitek
A Lavj Corporation·
GSW/sc
''.--2-
;.
· Lastly, in the City,~ 9412 report1 the City States that they wiU not make a Coastal Act consistency
determination because that is ultimately within the purview of the Coastal Commission.
However, this is clear and improper deferral. The City must make a determination as to
whether the Plan is consistent with the Coastal Act, even if the Coastal Commission will make a
determination on their own in the future.
We continue to encourage! you to let the citizens of Carlsbad vote by deciding to hold a special
election on this project! There are simply too many unanswered questions that need to be
addressed and more information provided to the public and to you.
Thank you for considering our comments.
President
Carlsbad City Clerk
August 24,2015
Page2 of4
specifi~ity for when or how they will be utilized. Initiative at Q-138. Chapter 6.3 is
·titled. .~'Finaii8:fig: rtlan/~ butn-o·s'uch plan is provided. Id at Q-141. Because managing
:fullds is <m e~s:~htial' futictiori~ofthe Carlsbad City Council, the Initiative is invalid. . ·.· . . ..... , . th Citizens for Jobs_ q_nd!he Economy v. County of Orange (2002) 94 Cal.App.4 1311,
1331~Likewisv,J5,ecause 'it noes not allow the city to make decisions in the future, the
Irlltiative conflicts'with-state;1aw. Indeed, the Initiative also violates the City Charter by
limiting the City's future discretion.
Additionally, because the possible "financing mechanisms" are not adequately
explained or how the various Environmental Protection Features ("EPF's") will be
funded or performed, the Initiative is illegally vague. See Citizens for Jobs and the .
Economy, 94 Cal.App.4th at 1335 ("Who is to decide what spending is necessary, or for
what purposes that are sufficiently related to the project?").
Furthermore, as the Report acknowledges, the Initiative is inconsistent with the
City's Growth Management Plan circulation requirements. Report at 28 -30.1
Proposition E, passed by the City's voters in 1986, established a part of the Growth
Management Plan. It stated:
NO DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE APPROVED by the City of
Carlsbad unless it is guaranteed that concurrent with need all necessary
public facilities be provided as required by [the 1986 grmvth
management plan] with emphasis on ensuring good traffic circulation~
schools, parks, libraries, open: space and recreational amenities;
It also stated:
The City Council or the Planning Commission shall not find that all
necessary public facilities will be available concurrent with need as
required by the Public F acUities Element and the City's 1986 gro·wth
manag~ent plan unless the provision of such facilities is guaranteed.
Thus, Proposition E cemented the requirement that the Public Facilities Standards
laid out in the City's 1986 Growth Management Plan must be guaranteed before
development can be approved. The failure to comply with these requirements is a
violation of Proposition E. Marblehead V; City of San Clemente (1991) 226
CaLApp.3d 1504, 1509.
ll. The Section 9212 Report is Inadequate
The Report claims that matters not regulated by the Initiative "shall be subject to
the Carlsbad Municipal Code and other applicable city regulations and policies.'' Report
1 A July 24, 20151etter from the California Department of Transportation raises several
concerns with potential circulation impacts.
Carlsbad City Clerk
August 24,2015
Page 3 of4
at 15. This is misleading and incorrect. The Initiative states that the project shall be
exempt from, among other things, the zoning code (Initiative at Q-147), exempt from the
"Environment" section of the mmricipal code (id. at Q-148), and exempt from certain
portions of tl1e storm water management plan requirements (id. at Q-149).
The Report notes that the California Coastal Commission has required open space
easements along Agua Hedionda Lagoon, yet it fails to discuss whether the Initiative is
consistent with these requirements. Report at 18. Likewise, the Report fails to discuss
the Project's consistency, or lack of consistency, with the Coastal Act. Id. at 20. An
April15, 2015letter from the Coastal Commission raises several concerns ·with potential
Coastal Act inconsistenciesl including concerns about biological resources, bluff setback;
visual resources, and agricultural resources. Indeed, Commission staff noted "serious
concerns regarding the use of an initiative process." The letter is attached hereto and
hereby incorporated by reference.
The Report fails to provide an adequate analysis of aesthetic and community
character impacts, since no specific details of the project are provided. Report at 38. No
analysis of public view blockage by specific building massing was provide~ and no
discussion of aesthetics of the proposed project or compatibility of the proposed changes
to the community character has occurred. Attached is a visual simulation of just one
view, which demonstrates some of the project's potential impacts.
The Report fails to provide an adequate analysis of agricultural resource impacts.
Report at 39. No mechanism has been put into place to ensure maintenance of
agricultural uses on the project site. Although the Environmental Analysis ("EA") makes
a vague claim that the "applicant would subsidize the cost of restoring the currently
fallow agric,ultural land on site" (EA at 4.2-9); the EnVironmental Protection Features
("EPFs~') of the Initiative only require recordation of an easement and contain no funding
requirement. See Initiative at Q-276. Indeed, no reference is made to any financing
requirements for agricultural lands within the vague statements made in Table 6.0.,1,
"Improvements and Financing... Id at Q-141 to 142.
The Report acknowledges that "'portions of the [Passive Open Space] area contain
elevated levels of ( organochloride pesticides] in the soiL" Report at 46. It also
acknowledges that "no EPFs requite soil testing for contamination~' and "[n]o discussion
about potential soil remediation efforts has been included in the EA." Id at 47. Oddly
and despite these uncertainties, the Report concludes that the "methodology utilized i11 ,
the hazardous materials analysis generally conforms to accep~d practices ... with a few
exceptions ... " !d. Indeed, the technical report prepared by HDR, Inc. concludes that the
reports included witlrin the EA "lack the detail necessary to support the recommendations
and conclusions presented, and do not provide suffiCient detail for development of an
actionable Phase II plan for portions of the" site.
The Report acknowledges the environmental analysis failed to provide sufficient
detail regarding air quality impacts. Report at 40. However, there is no discussion of the
April IS, 2015
Page2
2. Bluff Setbac],;
The proposed bluff setback distance of 50 feet from the edge of bluff is sufficient
provided that a factor of safety of 1.5 or greater can be achieved in this location as a part
of any geologic stability analysis (which should include sensitivity to future sea level rise
conditions). This setback also is important in order to provide visual relief from proposed
structures as well as allowing for the accomiJiodation of public trail elements. In cases
where a biological buffer from adjacent habitat areas or wetlands is also applicable,
whichever buffer distance is determined to be greater shall be required. No development ·
(including accessory structures) shall be located within this buffer area, with the
exception of public trails and passive recreation fea~es (excluding shade structures or
anything with a roof).
3. Visual Resources
In order to bf~ consistent with surrounding development patterns and to preserve the
existing open space character available across the subject site, buildings should measure .
no higher than a maximum of 3 5 feet in height from existing grade. Strategies that would
step back buildings from adjacent Open Space areas and break up the mass of structures
through the incorporation of view corridors and structural articulation should be
implemented. Opportunities to build into the existing topography or the accommodation
of underground levels may provide opportunities to accommodate additional volume or
square footage within a structure.
The signage component of the draft plan will require significant ftuther review and
specificity. Further details on illumination methods (such as the use of neon or flashing
lights, halo/backlit vs intemally illuminated, etc.) are warranted and any digital or
electronic signage should not be included in the plan. Additionally, no large freeway
oriented freestanding signs should be included in the Specific Plan, as traditionally,
throughout the San Diego County Coastal Zone this type of signage has been discouraged
-this would include freeway pylon signs, illuminated signs, and landmark signs.
There should be no night lighting of natural ar~. Lights should be shielded to shine
downward and away from habitat areas.
As discussed previously, the Specific Plan should include a Public Access and Trails
Plan. Currently the draft Specific Plan identifies only one public vista point for the en1ire
200 acre subject site (located in the northwest comer of the site), any future Public
Access and Trail Plan ·should clearly identify all anticipated vista points and view
corridors for the entire plan area. Also, throughout the Specific Plan it is important to
identify that all trails within tl1e plan are public trails.
The language in the Design Guidelines regarding flexibility for future project design is
too generic. Certain components within the Specific Plan should be identified as set
' standards that do not allow for future interpretation, these details would include specific
restrictions placed on heights, setbacks, permitted uses, signage and lighting.
Mayor and City Council
City of Carlsbad
Sent Via Email
August 25, 2015
All Receive -Agenda Item #, l C
For the Information of the:
CITY COUNCIL
ACM t./"CA ~CC ~
Date ~City Manager~
Subject: Caruso Environmental Assessment/
Initiative and 9212 Report
Honorable Mayor and City Council:
There are a number of things to like about the Caruso project-and they have spent over
$ 2.7 million dollars to try to get everyone to focus on those items. But you must
consider the entire project-how well the project fits with the community, its risks to the
environment that your residents value so highly, the precedents it will set, and the
impact of turning over so much of your local control to a private business.
The two key questions are: Is the Environmental Assessment (EA) adequate? Has your
9212 Report done a thorough job of assessing the impacts of this project on Carlsbad?
The answer to both questions is a resounding uno". Our conclusion is not based on a bus
trip to an LA shopping center, disinformation provided by the project proponent, or
review of an artist's impression of what this project might look like. Our conclusion is
based on the review of the thousands of pages of information submitted; technical
reviews by experts; and experience gained from reviewing hundreds of environmental
documents, numerous technical studies related to protecting our natural resources, and
basic common sense.
The following will highlight just a few of the problems with these documents and the
huge risks that you will assume .if you were to adoptthe Specific Plan outright.
Environmental Assessment
Caruso claims their EA is not required, is equivalent to the information that would have
been included in a CEQA analysis, and that the environmental protection measures they
have included fully address the adverse impacts caused by their project. None of these
statements are true.
-Requirement for an adequate environmental assessment
Court interpretations allows Caruso to bypass the formal CEQA environmental review
with the initiative process but of course there are nu-merous other laws and reviews that
5020 Nighthawk Way -Oceanside, CA 92055
www.preservecalavera.org
Nonprofit 50l(c) 3 ID#33-0955504
1
require them to provide this information :permits by the state and federal wildlife
agencies(WLAs), storm water permits by theRegional Water Quality Control Board and of
course approval by the California Coastal Commission(CCC) are just a few of those.
Caruso didn't voluntarily provide this information-it will be required as part ofthe
approval process that the initiative does not allow them to bypass. Four agencies (WLAs,
Caltrans and the CCC) and the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians have already
submitted letters that say the EA was not adequate and identified additional steps that
must be taken (consultation) and further studies that will be required. And of course the
city would not have even considered approval without being able to demonstrate the
environmental impacts had at least been considered. We believe early submission of this
information was done to provide political cover-it sounds good. But you should not be
fooled by such false claims.
The EA is not equivalent to CEQA
The CEQA process details numerous opportunities for public and agency input-
meaningful input after seeing the full details about a project and the analysis that has
been done. The process is intended to support informed decisions by lead agencies. ·But
you are being asked to make your decision without:
• Any detailed engineering drawings
• Three rounds of staff review that assure submittals are complete and can be
fully evaluated
• Consideration of outside expert input
• Responses to agency comments that information is insufficient
• Adequate analysis that supports their conclusions
• No cumulative impacts analysis
• No statement of over-riding considerations where the EA documents impacts
in excess of allowed thresholds
The EA fails to address numerous significant environmental impacts
We have reviewed hundreds of environmental documents submitted to several cities in
North County. Some are complete and thorough and provide solid documentation of the
conclusions reached. In a single word we would describe this one as "shoddy." It is like a
freshman essay that uses lots of words that are strung together and sound like they might
mean something, but would get an 'T' by the professor. Unfortunately this is not just a
college essay. This analysis is being used to justify a huge project that could cause
substantial damage to the health of-local residents and risks to the natural resources that
are treasured by us all. ,. . ·· ·--------· · ;;-'. ··.: · _·,-:,_
~.;? -:·.~ ;;' .i
The following will discuss just a few of these:
· .. -·.
Visual Impacts Assessment
Every day thousands of us experience the lagoon and historic strawberry fields when we
drive by them on 1-5. This is a scenic view corridor, a protected public view. The EA
analysis of these impacts should have included discussion about how that scenic corridor
view changes when 35' high buildings are placed along the freeway. Typically that
includes simulations that show current views from key locations and then what those
views would look like with the project added. The discussion of impacts is then based on
an understanding of what is being added to the view and how it changes the experience
of the viewer, the sense of place.
The EA simply showed a map of where there are public views noted as scenic in the Agua
Hedionda Local Coastal Plan-and then concluded that because most of the land would
remain open space there would be no impacts. But it is the changes to the view that are
potentially significant-the addition of 585k sq. ft. of shopping center, three lanes of traffic
going in and five coming out, the 160 sq. ft. of allowed marquee sign up to 35' high in the
scenic corridor.
Additional concerns include that there are regionally significant public view sites across
the project site. No analysis of public view blockage by specific building massing was
provided. No discussion of aesthetics of the proposed project or compatibility of
proposed changes to the local community character context has occurred. Without the
inclusion of the 1-5 and Cannon Road corridors specifically included with key observation
points and simulations, the supposition of no impacts on Scenic Views is unfounded.
The Lagoon is not the only potential scenic resource, although it is the most dominant.
Views of the coast, views of the distant hillsides, open valley floors and canyons are all
important visual resources found in the area and all must be assessed.
None of these were depicted or discussed.
The April15, 2015 letter from the CCC identifies numerous visual issues that must be
addressed that have been ignored. Caruso of course knows this information will have to.
be submitted to the CCC ,but they don't want you or the public to know what this
project will look like before you make your decision.
Hazardous Materials
Much of this land was historically used for agriculture which commonly results in high
levels of chemical applications, some of which remain in the soil. There are standard
procedures for addressing this-but these have been ignored. The measures they propose
do not assure you or the public that the documented hazards on this site will be
adequately addressed.
Here are a few of the issues identified with Caruso's EA, Appendix 0
Hazardous materials reports were done in 2012 for the attorneys doing due
diligence on the land purchase agreement-not for this specific development
Report uses outdated 2005 standards of American Society for testing and
Materials (ASTM) and will be required to be redone using current 2013 .standards
There is no requirement for soil testing, although reports documented the .
presence of known hazardous materials} including carcinogens above the allowed
limits in both 2012 and 2004
The 2004 soil testing found 21 of 25 sample sites had Toxaphene above the EPA
allowed limits. The 9212 Report 3rd party review by HDR notes {/ Toxaphene ... lt is
one of the so-called Dirty Dozen1 a Group of 12 chemicals that are considered
highly toxic and associated with numerous diseases and birth defects in livestock
and humans.'1
The report concluded new land uses proposed will likely require removal of up to
1911000 cubic yards of contaminated soil from both passive open space where
trails are proposed} and habitat areas. The impacts of that soil removal were not
even mentioned.
The 9212 3rd party review was limited to parcel 81 the 48 acres zoned for
commercial. It ig'nored the other 155 acres i.e. -Parcel10. The 2012 report
identified three iissues with parcel10: 1. Toxaphene that exceeded the Human
Health limits, 2. Presence of wetlands that would require agency consultation (not
done) and 3. Part of the land is in the flood zone-which would also require
consultation (not done).
App 0 report also recommended that because of these elevated levels, and
abandoned storage sheds with {/poison11 placards that the "property be entered in
the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health Voluntary
Assistance Program prior to redevelopment. {/
The EA does not adequately address hazardous materials on site-creating a potential
huge health risk for this community. You need to make sure this project foHows ali
requirements related to the handling ofhazardous materials-with new reports using
todays, standards and addressing the entire project site1 not just part of it.
Biological Resources
The EA concludes that a few mitigation measures commonly applied in projects like this
will adequately protect the sensitive natural resources on and adjacent to this site.
Some of the measures included are inadequate to protect the resources. For example it
is not adequate to say you will provide a biological monitor during construction if nesting
•,
birds are present if you have not done surveys in advance to determine if there are
nesting birds.
That conclusion ignores much of the input from the CCC which they received almost a
month before the initiative was submitted. In their April15, 2015 letter the CCC noted
numerous areas where additional information was required. This included things like
identifying existing ESHA and wetlands not just on, but nearby the site (as were noted in
the reports submitted by Dudek to the attorneys doing due diligence for the purchase
agreement for the land) figures that show where buffers are located, a Natural Habitat
Restoration, Maintenance and Monitoring Plan, a Public Access and Trail Plan, assurances
that a safety factor of 1.5 is achieved with bluff setbacks.
Of course this information will have to be submitted later to the CCC-but failure to
provide it now means that both you and the public are being asked to make key
decisions without having any of these questions answered.
Both the EA and the 9212 note that key surveys of sensitive species are still being
developed. It is not possible to assure protection of resources if you do not even know
what resources you need to protect! Adequate mitigation measures need to be site
specific.
Of great concern is the lack of detail about management ofthe natural lands. The general
statements about this is that there will be u one or more qualified environmentally-
focused non-profit entities, land conservancy organizations, land managers, public
agencies and/or farming and agricultural interests to ensure responsible conservation,
management, operations and maintenance of the designated open space/agricultural
areas."
This allows a single organization to provide oversight of the habitat, passive recreation
and agricultural lands-each with very different requirements for management and
expertise required. This in one more thing left to chance-"trust us."
Of great concern to us is the failure to provide any details about the management of the
natural lands and the in perpetuity funding for such management that Caruso has said
they will provide. The standard city process would have the developer submit a Property
Analysis Report (PAR) which would detail all ofthe necessary management actions and
provide a cost estimate for each. They would include things like feet of fencing required,
annual surveys for sensitive species, frequency of ranger patrols, management plan to ,
limit public access to only the areas so designated, erosion control, location and kind of
trash containers and pick-up schedules; limits on use such as restricting dogs. In the
absence of this kind of information there is no way to know if the land is being managed
to the standards of the HMP. Furthermore without knowing the costs and having a
mechanism in place that assures the funds needed there is no assurance that the
sensitive resources will be protected and certainly not that they will be protected in
perpetuity.
Traffic/ Air Quality
The traffic assessment properly started with the SANDAG "Not so Brief Guide ... " but then
proceeded to take deductions from the projected trip numbers in ways that are not
defensible and that have not been used to such an extent for any other project in
Carlsbad. Their deductions included internal circulation on site, pass-by-trips on Cannon
Rd, diverted trips from near-by roads, and TDM. All of these are appropriate to consider.
But no other project arbitrarily applied every possible deduction factor, to the maximum
extent allowed, with no consideration for the cumulative, real world impact of making
such deductions; They used this method to reduce trip projections by over 30%-an
unheard of level. Other projects making such a claim would provide actual data from
other similar projects to demonstrate that such reductions could be achieved in the real
world. Their similar sized Grove project in LA has more annual visitors than Disneyland,
with the traffic and parking issues to match. That real world example does not support
their conclusion that it is valid to make all of these deduction and that there will be no
significant impacts.
Furthermore paying money to Caltrans and contributing to future roadway
enhancements does not assure that necessary mitigation is completed in time to actually
address the traffic congestion from this project. Caltrans letter confirms the construction
of the needed improvements to the Cannon Rd. ramps will not be done until 2035-that
leaves residents of this area sitting in traffic jams for many years. Proper mitigation
would condition the project to have such improvements in place when they open-not
years later.
In addition Caltrans noted several other issues that had not been adequately addressed in
the EA-yet none of these have had any substantive discussion. Again-we are suppose!d
to trust that somehow these will get addressed over time-even though the city is being
asked to give up all discretionary oversight for 15 years.
Water Quality
The EA provides a list of potential BMP's that could be used to control run-off, but no
process for prioritizing and selecting the ones that actually will be used. A hydro-
modification study will be required to support the application for a storm water permit.
These studies are included as part of the CEQA documentation, but here it is another
essential piece of information that is being deferred-neither you nor the public will getto
comment on it or make modifications. In the absence of that information you have no
· way of knowing that they have adequately controlled run-off and that no pollutants can
reach the waters of the lagoon and ultimately our coastal waters. Caruso is basically
again saying ''trust me"-I will do this right.
The EA documents that there will be an increased volume of run-off from the project
site, and that while the levels of many pollutants will be reduced, others will actually
increase. There is no discussion of the potential impacts oft~ose that will increase-in
spite of the fact that some of them included dissolved solids of copper and zinc-heavy
metals that are known to be toxic to marine life.
The EA discussion focusses on the operation of the project but provides inadequate
discussion of the actions that protect the lagoon from polluted run-off during
construction. For example, how will de-watering be done?
9212 Report
The 9212 Report cannot fairly be considered an independent review of Caruso's EA-or the
true significant health and environmental impacts that will potentially be caused by this
project. Both you and the public deserve better than this. Our key concerns include the
following:
It failed' to identify all of the constraints staff and your consultants were operating
under
For example how can you conclude it has addressed fire safety when there are no
engineering drawings that show basic things like the turning radius for a fire truck, or
conclude there are no impacts to wildlife when the report says the biological surveys are
"not available?" Engineering drawings are critical for a complete staff review.
Furthermore limitations on the type and quality of technical data limit the ability to do
comprehensive analysis and calls to question the ability to make any accurate conclusions
about the true impacts ofthe project.
3rd part reviewers were not really independent
Many of the consultants used for what was called "third party review" have on-going "as-
needed' contracts with the city. Work is contracted on a task order basis. If the city does
not like the results it is clearly understood that future work can be reduced or eliminated.
Of course this colors what is written in those reports. In this case it could hardly have
been made more clear that the city wants this project to proceed-starting with the
Mayor's State of the City address last year where he said one of his three long term goals
was to have Caruso build a shopping mall at the strawberry fields to photos of several
council members at Jimmy's July 4th party captioned 11SUpporters of the 85/15 initiative".
But supporting the project and turning a blind eye to all of the potential risks are two
different things. Now is the time for you to get past your support of the project and
make sure it is being done right.
Local community organizations tried to hire technical consultants to address a number of
the areas we are concerned about. We were unable to hire any local technical
consultants. The reasons we got were that they do work for the city and would not
jeopardize that by working for organizations who were challenging aspects of the project.
Cleary they understand the culture of Carlsbad-do not buck city hall without expecting
that there will be repercussions.
Agency input was not included
A real third party analysis would have provided all possible technical input to the
reviewers-not just what Caruso put in their own EA. The letter from the CCC was
'7
submitted months ago .. Letters from Caltrans and the WLA's should have been sought
and included in the analysis. The Caltrans letter says the Cannon Rd ramps will not be
constructed until 2035 and that further identifies five additional issues that were not
adequately addressed in the EA on traffic. This is exactly the kind of input that would
have been essential to balance the findings in the EA-and assure you and the public that
this is not just the fox guarding the henhouse.
Some of this input is now included as an attachment in the staff report. But the only
rebuttal to it is Caruso's-hardly an independent review.
Technical expert input was ignored
North County Advocates submitted technical input from both air quality and water quality
experts. Both of these E~xperts raised substantive issues with the adequacy of the analysis,
lack of key information,, and need for better mitigation measures. These letters were
included as attachments to the staff report, but it does not appear that they were
provided to the city's 3rd party reviewers nor is there any,evidence that they received any
consideration.
On water quality1 Dr. Horner notes that retention on-site would likely result in reduced
pollutant concentrations, and would provide a further benefit for potential water-
harvesting and reuse of water on site. On items like trash control-a one sentence text
description is insufficient for an engineer to design a proper system. Some of the
increased pollutants are heavy metals that are highly toxic to marine life-these are
especially problematic in their dissolved forms as will occur here. Many contaminants
found in urban run-off were not modeled. There are 22 acres of off-site land that drain
through the project site that were not even mentioned in the analysis.
Conclusion by Dr. Horn,er:
"It falls short, in not going farther to emphasize and recommend the practices that can
best serve this purpose in the circumstances existing in the Agua Hedionda situation. I
consider that defect to be a lost opportunity to delineate the optimum path forward in
the. next stages of project development. Modeling forecasts that some pollutant
concentrations and loadings in storm water run-off will decrease relative to pre-project
levels, but that others will increase. I believe that specifying the best management
practices available to the Agua Hedionda setting have the capability to mitigate those
predicted increases, and should be emphasized now and going forward. "
Certainly you want to make sure that storm water control is the optimum for this
sensitive location-and not the cheapist one.
Additional technical input on aesthetics and hazardous materials
I While community groups were not able to secure paid technical experts to provide input
on many of the issues of concern, experts on aesthetics and hazardous materials did
review and provide anonymous input. Part of their comments are included in the
discussion ofthe shortcomings with the EA as discussed above. However they also made
comments about shortcoming with the 9212 Report as follows:
On Aesthetics:
The 9212 report fails to evaluate many critical factors. For example it talks about night
lighting, but fails to mention there are no visual simulations provided. Key Observation
Points should be identified from the Lagoon, from North and South-bound 1-5 and along
the Cannon Rd which should be treated as a community Scenic Corridor.
Conclusion:
"If the Specific Plan was not requesting the future CEQA exemptions, then subsequent
visual analyses of each project phase would allow for design adjustments to minimize
potential visual impacts associated with the project. By requesting future exemption from
CEQA, the Specific Plan needs to demonstrate in more detail how the proposed
development will not cause significant visual impacts to its immediate surroundings. The
current depth of analysis is inadequate and the lack of detail and simulation products
makes it difficult for the report preparer to conclude no visual, view, community
character, or aesthetic impacts and it makes it equally difficult for the reviewer or
elected officials to determine if the proposed project changes will have a negative
impact on the built or natural environment.
On Hazardous materials
The 9212 report concludes there are "no significant impacts" ... from assessment of
hazardous materials on site but notes "However, there are outstanding issues ... .'1
In fact, there are major outstanding issues that invalidate the conclusions that there are
no significant impacts as is stated in the technical consultant's report. In fact the city's
own third party reviewer notes those and specifically qualifies their review to make it
clear they do not agree with the conclusions in the EA. Their conclusion is
"The reports lack the detail necessary to support the recommendations and
conclusions presented." IE There are potential significant impacts associated with
hazardous materials on this site-a health risk for people and wildlife.
Both the EA and the 3rd party reviewer identify numerous issues with the analysis of
hazardous materials-issues that leave this community at risk until they are adequately
addressed-as they should have been in the EA.
In many cases the conclusions are vague and minimize the impacts
For example questions that should be addressed with a "yes" or "no" response are
qualified instead of being clearly stated. For example the project is "substantially" in
compliance with the General Plan-this is a yes or no question-and the· answer is no.
()
It calls out that the project provides less parking and allows larger signs than is currently
allowed-but minimizes the impact ofthose changes. It discusses the review process and
confirms that the "ministerial" review Caruso proposes takes all approvals out of the
hands of the Mayor andl City Council, for 15 years, but fails to call out that change could
result in a final project with lots of problems-and no recourse for 15 years.
What the 9212 report re?IIY does is demonstrate numerous issues with this project-
issues that require the kind ofthorough review that can only come by putting this on the ·
ballot and letting the people vote.
We wish that instead of spending millions of dollars on TV ads and slick mailers that
Caruso had put that money into fixing the traffic, air pollution, heavy metals being
released to the lagoon, visual impacts, and the thousands of other problems with his
project. We have to live with his mess-he just has to count his money.
Sincerely,
Diane Nygaard
Preserve Calavera
·I am confidentth;;:tt.,YQ11 will do::tJle)ight thing and approve of the Agua Hedionda 85/15 plan.
". ~-~· ';, •' -~: ' ._,. . .
'':
Regards,
Mat Huff.
~CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION -
THIS MESSAGE AND ANY ATTAClli~ENTS ARE INTENDED SOLELY FOR THE USE AND VIEW OF THE
ADDRESSEE AND MAY CONTAIN INFORVffiTION THAT IS
PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF YOU ARE NOT
THE INTENDED RECIPIENT
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY
PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE
RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE AND
RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE
TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA EMAIL COMMUNICATION ..
41
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Frank Whitton
Tuesday, August 25, 2015 7:21 AM
Council Internet Email
Support the Agua Hedionda 85/15 Plan
Dear Mayor Hall and Carlsbad City Council,
The City Council, past and present, has consistently provided exceptional leadership for our City over the years. I am
most confident the Council will continue to guide the growth of the City in the same manner. I am also confident the
City Council will again exercise its initiative b'f. voting, as our representative, for the approval of the Caruso Project. To
allow dissenters to force a public vote would set an extremely dangerous precedent, one which fllture dissenters could
utilize to force a public vote on future projects of significance. Moreover, many of the dissenting groups are compose of
personnel who reside beyond City limits and have little or no vested interest in Carlsbad issues which involve the
development of our fine City.
Moreover, those environmentalists groups concerned about open space fail to acknowledge that "open space" allows
selected/authorized types of construction to take place thereon; nor, do they acknowledge that in view open space is
land set aside and immediately fenced off with no trespassing signs put in place precluding public access. We should
have the courage to ask these groups what their source of funding is.
Frank Whitton
33
Andrea Dykes
From: · Matthew Hall
Sent:
To:
Tuesday/ August 251 2015 10:10 AM
Council Internet Email
Subject: Fwd: Agua Hedionda "85/15" plan.
Sent from my Ve1izon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
--------Original message --------
From: Grant Kuhns
Date: 08/25/2015 7:57AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Matthew Hall
Subject: Agua Hedionda "85/15" plan.
As I understand it: The plan involves 176 acres. 150 acres (85%) agriculture, city park and trail development; 26
acres (15%) commercial development adjacent to 1-5. Funding will be 100% by private investment; 0% by taxpayers
-i.e. City of Carlsbad. As a taxpaye~r. I like the "0/1 DO" part.
I'm not sure my wife and I will ever visit Nordstroms or other parts of the commercial development, but we will
certainly enjoy the trail and park "freebie." Moreover, I'm quite sure many citizens of Carlsbad will patronize the
proposed shopping area, or private investors would have no interest in the project.
. Whether the project goes on the ballot or not-or sidesteps the bureaucratic plethora -I'm in favor of it.
Grant Kuhns
7
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Matthew Hall
Tuesday[ August 251 2015 10:08 AM
Council Internet Email
Fwd: Supporting 85/15 project
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G L TE smartphone
--------.Original message --------
From: Harold Donnelly
Date: 08/25/2015 9:08AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Matthew Hall
Subject: Supporting 85/15 project
As a resident of Carlsbad for over 20 years, please support this project and not let a small group of self
interested, non-progress people miss a great balanced issue before yolL Intelligent minded people who support
this project are the people who want to preserve the unique beauty of our city .I am confident you will see the
balanced compromise and beneficial revenue opportunity before you,
Sincerely,
Harold Donnelly
15
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Joan Wilson
Monday, August 24, 2015 11:41 PM
Council Internet Email
Support the Agua Hedionda 85/15 Plan
Follow up
Flagged
Dear Mayor Hall and Carlsbad City Council, APPEASEMENT NEVER WORKS. Do not give in to the Demands of the so
called preservationists. They were happy with Proposition D. Now another developer has come along to bring us
something better than we would have planned for ourselves, and improves Prop D. They wm continue their efforts to
stop all construction plans. You have all the information that you need to make a decision Tuesday, and the authority
rests with the Council. I hope that you will vote Yes on the 85/15 Plan. It will be another outstanding facility in our
community, and part of your legacy as a Council member.·
Joan Wilson
\
34
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ross Derogatis
Monday, August 24, 2015 10:25 PM
Council Internet Email
Support the Agua Hedionda 85/15 Plan
Dear Mayor Hall and Carlsbad City Council, I am in support of the Agua Hedionda 85/15 Plan and passionate about the
execution of this project. I am in full support and can't stress the importance, as homeowners on the lagoon, of this plan
being a success.
Ross Derogatis
36
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
j a mie drew
Monday, August 24, 2015 8:37 PM
Council Internet Email
support 85/15
i was born and raised in Carlsbad and have called Carlsbad my home for 30 years. I am now raising my own
family here. Even with a baby I've found the time to let you know that I support the 85/15 plan and ask you to
also.
39
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
·Subject:
Mayor Hall and Council,
Catherine Miller
Monday, August 24, 2015 4:24 PM
Council Internet Email
85/15
You have our confidence to make a decision on the fate of the 85/15 Plan. I trust your decisions. Thank you.
Catherine And Steve Miller
Sam {17), Henry (13)
mobile I
46
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Lorraine Wood
Tuesday, August 251 2015 11:02 AM
Andrea Dykes
Subject: Fwd: Support the Agua Hedionda 85/15 Plan
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Joan Wilson
Date: August 24,2015 at 11:41:09 PM PDT
To:
Subject: Support the Agua Hedionda 85/15 Plan
Reply-To:
Dear Mayor Hall and Carlsbad City Council,
APPEASEJ\1ENT NEVER WORKS. Do not give in to the Demands of the so called
preservationists. They were happy with Proposition D. Now another developer has come along
to bring us something better than we would have planned for ourselves, and improves Prop
D. They will continue their efforts to stop all construction plans. You have all the information
that you need to make a decision Tuesday, and the authority rests with the Council. I hope that
you will vote Yes on the 85/15 Plan. It will be another outstanding facility in our community,
and part of your legacy as a Council member.
Joan Wilson ·
5
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Lorraine Wood
Tuesday/ August 25/ 2015 10:58 AM
Andrea Dykes
Subject: Fwd: supporting 85/15 project
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Harold Donnelly
Date: August 25,2015 at 9:11:08 AM PDT
To:
Subject: supporting 85/15 project
As a resident of Carlsbad for over 20 years, please support this project and not let a small group
of self interested, non-progress people miss a great balanced issue before you. Intelligent
minded people who support this project are the people who want to preserve the unique beauty of
our city .I am confident you will see the balanced compromise and beneficial revenue opportunity
before you.
Sincerely,
Harold Donnelly
13
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Monday, August 24, 2015 4:59 PM
Counc:il Internet Email
85-15 plan
Please pass the 85-15 plan or at miniimum put it to a vote. We lived in LA and loved the Grove. The builders did a great
job preserving the integrity of the farmer's market while adding an open space with wonderful restaurants and
shopping, making it a meeting spot for local residents.
I have been a long time resident of Carlsbad. I went to Kelly School, Valley Jr High and graduated from CHS. I want to
make Carlsbad a special place and preserve our small town feel, and I believe this builders will be able to accomplish
that. I now live in South Carlsbad at
Regards,
Christa Shapiro
45
promises to pay for Environmental Protection Features to fix the problems, the city
evidently relying on the sterling record of trustworthy developers.
As for the, "We're gonna be rich" justification for taking a risk to the environment based on
a developer's plans, I guess that depends on how you measure wealth.
If Caruso Affiliated's development plan is as strongly supported as claimed by the "citizen led" paid signature
gatherers' success, I'd advise city council members to adopt a "trust but verifyn approach by allowing voters to
decide.
27
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ray Hughes
Monday! August 241 2015 5:08 PM
Council Internet Email
Re: agua hedionda 85/15 plan
regarding caruso development initiative proponents valid signatures of at least 15 percent of reg.
voters--the signature solicitors outside of my local vans were being paid $20 per signature. guess
who paid them. come on, carlsbad! we live in a special place. please don't turn our paradise into
orange county. request a public vote on this issue!
On Monday, August 24, 2015 4:17PM, Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> wrote:
Hello,
Thank you for your email regarding the Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan citizen-led
initiative. As a citizen-led initiative the roles and responsibilities of the City Council and staff are
defined by law, including California Elections Code sections 9200-9215.
Please keep in mind that when it comes to elections, the City of Carlsbad may not use public funds to
advocate for or against the initiative. City staff can provide fair and objective data. City staff has
evaluated the information that has been provided and conducted its own analysis, including
the possible land use, environmental, infrastructure, economic and other impacts of the proposed
plan. All of this information has been provided to the City Council and is available to the public.
If you would like information about the citizen-led initiative, please visit the city website at
http://www.carlsbadca.gov/citvhall/clerkfinitiative.asp where we have posted public documents related
to the initiative as well as commonly asked questions and an overview of the process. We strongly
urge interested parties to use the City of Carlsbad as a source of accurate information;
Since the initiative proponents gathered valid signatures from at least 15 percent of registered voters
in the City of Carlsbad, the City Council may adopt the initiative without any changes or put the
initiative on the ballot for a vote.
If you want to be notified of upcoming City Council agendas, please be sure to sign up for email ·
notifications through this link.
Again, thank you for contacting the City of Carlsbad. We welcome your input.
City of Carlsbad
From: Ray Hughes [mailto:
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2015 3:44 PM
To: Council Internet Email
Subject: agua hedionda 85/15 plan
43
this so called plan will benefit the o.c. developer only. it will wreak havoc in an already congested
area due to increased traffic. please put this issue up to vote on a ballot so we who have lived here
for a while can quelch this nightmare before it happens. i have recieved more than 50 junk mails from
carlsbad says support the agua hedionda 85/15 plan. guess who paid for these? if we have to have
a nordstrom, there is a lot of vacant space in the mall off the 78. please tell mr. caruso to keep his
hands off of what's left of the natural beauty in our city. thanks, ray hughes.
44
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:·
To:
Patrick Finn
Monday! August 241 2015 4:05 PM
Council Internet Email
Subject: Re: Mall development
Thanks for the response. So no concer:ns from the council's point of view regarding irregularities around how the
petition signatures were gathered?
Patrick J. Finn Ph.D.
On Aug 24, 2015, at 3:53 PM, Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> wrote:
Thank you for your email regarding the Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan citizen-led
initiative. As a citizen-led initiative the roles and responsibilities of the City Council and staff are
defined by law, including California Elections Code sections 9200-9215.
Please keep in mind that when it comes to elections, the City of Carlsbad may not use public
funds to advocate for or against the initiative. City staff can provide fair and objective data. City
staff has evaluated the information that has been provided and conducted its own analysis,
including the possible land use, environmental, infrastructure, economic and other impacts of
the proposed plan. All of this information has been provided to the City Council and is available
to the public.
If you would like information about the citizen-led initiative, please visit the city website at
http://www.carlsbadca.gov/cityhall/clerk/initiative.asp where we have posted public
documents related to the initiative as well as commonly asked questions and an overview of
the process. We strongly urge interested parties to use the City of Carlsbad as a source of
accurate information.
Since the initiative proponents gathered valid signatures from at least 15 percent of registered
voters in the City of Carlsbad, the City Council may adopt the initiative without any changes or
put the initiative on the ballot for a vote.
· If you want to be notified of upcoming City Council agendas, please be sure to sign up for email
notifications through this link.
Again, thank you for contacting the City of Carlsbad. We welcome your input.
City of Carlsbad
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Finn [mailto:
47
Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2015 10:55 AM
To: Council Internet Email
Subject: Mall development
I am writing to you to express my concerns about the new Caruso funded mall development. It appears
to me that there may not be a majority of the Carlsbad residents in favor of the development. Of
particular concern are the reports that many locals may have been misled early in the development
process, having signed papers supporting the proposal when their opinions were to the contrary.
Furthermore it appears that the resid~nts of Carlsbad will not get a chance to vote on the development.
Independent of your opinion on whether the development is right or wrong I fear you are failing in your
role to represent the people of Carlsbad.
Can you please take the chance to explain to myself and fellow residents the legal precedent that allow
you to approve this proposal without a vote from the people.
Respectfully looking forward to your reply.
Patrick J. Finn Ph.D.
10 year resident.
48
Andrea Dykes
From: Matthew Hall
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, August 25, 2015 10:12 AM
Council Internet Email
Subject: Fwd: Vote on 85/15 Plan
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
--------Original message --------
From: Kim Bryant
Date: 08/25/2015 10:09 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Matthew Hall , Lorraine Wood
Michael.Shumacher Mark Packard Keith Blackburn
.·
Subject: Vote on 85/15 Plan
Dear Carlsbad City Council,
As a resident of Carlsbad I believe that all of Carlsbad should have the right to vote on Agua Hedionada 85/15
Plan. Caruso Affiliated should not be exempted from CEQA. The mall is 585,000 sq. ft. to be built on an
environmenta~y sensitive lagoon, and next to an already congested freeway. Let us vote!
Thank you,
Kim Bryant
3
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Anne Estes
Tuesday, August 25, 2015 10:08 AM
Council Internet Email
Subject: Caruso Mall Development
Sent from my iPhone,
Subject: Caruso Mall Develo1pment
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
Open Letter to Carlsbad City Council
I would urge Councilmembe:rs to postpone a decision regarding the Caruso Mall Development until more
is known about the actual merchant mix and its potential impact on existing malls. Thoughout Caruso's
intensive campaign, there has been little or no discussion of the mall itself and its potential tenants. The
word "upscale" has been used liberally and the developer has claimed there will be a full-line
Nordstrom's.
I am skeptical that Nordstrom would sign-on on for a full-line store. I took a quick look at their plans
posted online, and their new store listings through 2018 do not include one in Carlsbad. Nordstrom's is
investing more in technology infrastructure because it expects more than 50% of its future sales to come
from online channels and Rack stores. There's even a new Rack going in La Jolla Village. I tend to
believe that ifNordstrom was going to open a full-line store in the area it would have done so years ago
and in a much larger mall than what Caruso is proposing.
The threat frqm Westfield to pull its $300 million planned remodel should also be considered in the
equation. Westfield contributes to our local economy, so it should be encouraged to improve, not
undermjned. That said, it has a tough demographic to satisfY.
Please consider giving this decision more time. A TV ad with a little girl running through an unspoiled
field sends a misleading message. Let's insist that Caruso give us more facts and fewer distractions.
Sincerely,
Anne Estes
4
Andrea Dykes
From: Matthew Hall
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, August 25, 2015 10:10 AM
Council Internet Email
Subject: Fwd: Let the People Vote
Sent from my" Verizon Wireless 40 L TE smartphone
--------Original message --------
From: Janet white
Date: 08/25/2015 6:53AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Matthew Hall
Subject: Let the People Vote
Do not hijack democracy in Carlsbad. LET THE PEOPLE VOTE!
Sent from my iPhone
5
Andrea Dykes
From: Matthew Hall
Sent:
To:
Tuesday/ August 25/ 2015 10:10 AM
Council Internet Email
Subject: Fwd: Caruso
Sent from my V erizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
--------Original message --------
From: r b
Date: 08/25/2015 7:32AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Matthew Hall
Cc: Lorraine Wood , Michael Schumacher
, Mark Packard , Keith Blackburn
RE: Caruso
We vehemently OPPOSE this development on sensitive Agua Hedionda
We demand transparency.
Follow the proper processes.
Rosanne and Jeff Bentley
·Jason and Sophie Groves
6
Andrea Dykes
From: Matthew Hall
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, August 25, 2015 10:09 AM
Council Internet Email
Subject: Fwd: Let The People Vote!
Sent from my V erizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
--------Original message --------
From: Leslie Gomez
Date: 08/25/2015 8:01AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Matthew Hall
Subject: Let The People Vote!
Matt,
No shortcuts for Caruso!
Leslie Gomez
8
Andrea Dykes
From: Matthew Hall
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, August 25, 2015 10:09 AM
Council Internet Email
Subject: Fwd: We need a VOTE!
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
--------Original message --------
From: GbUJIDy
Date: 08/25/2015 8:05AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Matthew Hall
Subject We need a VOTE!
Please put the 85/15 proj~ct to a VOTE. There are way too many people who signed the petition based on lies and deception. It is also
highly irregular for a developer to basically buy his way into a project for a city. This is not acceptable and it needs to go to a vote.
Thank you.
Diane Bedrosian, :MD
Sent from my iPhone
9
Andrea Dykes
From: Matthew Hall
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, August 25, 2015 10:09 .AM
Council Internet Email
Subject: Fwd: Carusco project
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
--------Original message --------
From: Renee Huston
Date: 08/25/2015 8:27AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Matthew Hall ~ Lorraine Wood , Michael
Schumacher , Mark Packard , Keith
Blackburn
Subject: Carusco project
The right thing to do is let all the citizens hear the arguments for and agamst the Carusco shopping center. They have read and heard
the marketing messages in favor of this shopping center but now it's time for you to allow an election so that an opposing view can be
heard. Let the voters choose.
Renee Huston
Sent from my iPad .
10
Andrea Dykes
From: Matthew Hall
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, August 25, 2015 10:09 AM
Council Internet Email
Subject: Fwd: 85/15 -please let us vote
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
--------Original message --------
From: Ian Pierson
Date: 08/25/2015 8:46AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Matthew Hall , Lorraine Wood , Michael
Schumacher , Mark Packard Keith
Blackburn
Subject: 85/15 -please let us vote
Hello,
My wife, daughter, and I live on Spruce Street and are writing to ask you to please l~t the people of Carlsbad have a vote on whether
or not to approve the 85/15 plan. ·
Thank: you,
Ian Pierson ·
Jenny Fererro
11
Andrea Dykes
From: Matthew Hall
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 10:08 AM
To:
Subject:
· Council Internet Email
Fwd: Let the People Vote
Sent from my V erizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
~-------Original message --------
From: Kelsey Swann
Date: 08/25/2015 8:51AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Matthew Hall
Subject: Let the People Vote
Mayor Hall, I'll get straight to the point. Let the people vote. I'm sure you already have your mind made up about how you
are going to vote tonight, so I will spare launching into all the many reasons WHY you should let the citizens vote on this
plan and leave you with one question -How certain are you that people truly support this? A third mall within a two mile
radius, more traffic, more pollution; based on zero plans shown so far, on a lagoon with endangered species, when it is
widely known that Caruso has paid off everyone he possibly can to buy their support? I've heard 'We believe they do" and
'We think they do". "Believe" and "think" provide no certainty.
You may choose tonight to let the people vote. And then, there will be no question as to where the community stands. Or-
you will choose to make the decision yourself, and I imagine that will be to pass the 85/15 plan. The public, supportive of
the plan or not, is very aware that deceptive and misleading tactics were used to gather their signatures. And while we
may not be given the courtesy and opportunity to vote on the plan ourselves, we most certainly will remember tonight and
the outcome when it comes to voting in the next election. So I ask you again -how certain are you that the people support
this? That's something only you can answer. ·
I will be there at the meeting, with my toddler, because I want to teach him from a young age that money may buy politics,
but it does not buy citizens, and while we may not prevail in this instance, we'll know that we tried.
Regards,
Kelsey Swann
Thirty+ Year Carlsbad Resident
12
Andrea Dykes
From: Matthew Hall
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, August 25, 2015 10:08 AM
Council Internet Email
Subject: Fwd: Let the people vote on 85/15
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
--------Original message --------
From: Neil Sheaffer
Date: 08/25/2015 9:05AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Matthew Hall
Subject: Let the people vote on 85/15
Mr. Hall,
My name is Neil Sheaffer and I am a Carlsbad resident. I am unable to attend tonight's
meeting due to the early time, but I still wanted to share my concern about the 85/15
initiative and the way the supporting signatures were gathered. I was aggressively
approached multiple times outside of grocery stores in my area. I was told by each of
these solicitors that signing the petition would put it on the ballot for the public to vote
on. I did not sign, because I do not sign and support things that I don't understand
100%. I said this politely to the solicitors and each was somewhat rude and dismissive,
and one was confrontational about it. I'm not intimidated by much, so I walked away
without being bothered, but I wonder about others who were confronted by the same or
similar solicitors. Additionally, I am very concerned about the fact that this initiative
does not necessarily have to go on the ballot. I am absolutely certain that I was told by
each of them that signing the petition would only give the initiative a chance to be put ·
on a ballot for all to vote on, and I was surprised to learn that this is not necessarily the
case. It would be wrong for the City Council to approve this massive project without
putting it to a public vote.
And, for the record1 I am strongly opposed to this project .. I love development as much
as the next guy, but our prime agricultural land, which is how this land is classified, is an
incredibly rare and ever-diminishing natural resource. To sacrifice it for a shopping mall
would be .incredibly disappointing.
PLEASE LET THE PEOPLE VOTE ..
Sincerely,
Neil Sheaffer
13
Andrea Dykes
From: Matthew Hall
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, August 25, 2015 10:07 AM
Council Internet Email
Subject: Fwd: Vote on the 85/15 Plan
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G L TE smartphone
--------Original message --------
From: Kim Bryant
Date: 08/25/2015 10:03 AM (GMT-08:00)
To:
Subject: Vote on the 85/15 Plan
Dear Carlsbad City Council,
As a resident of Carlsbad I believe that all of Carlsbad should have the right to vote on Agua Hedionada 85/15
Plan. Caruso Affiliated should not be exempted from CEQA. The mall is 585,000 sq. ft. to be built on an
environmentally sensitive lagoon, and next to an already congested freeway. Let us vote!
Thank you,
Kim Bryant
16
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kathy & Darryl Tell <kdtell@gmail.com>
Tuesday/ August 251 2015 10:03 AM
Council Internet Email
Caruso Project
We urge that you let Carlsbad's registered voters approve or disapprove the Caruso project on Aqua Hedionda lagoon.
Thank you,
Darryl and Kathy Tell
'
17
Andrea Dykes
From: Matthew Hall
Sent:
To:
Tuesday/ August 251 2015 9:59 AM
Council Internet Email
Subject: Fwd: 85/15 Vote
Sent from my V erizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
--------Original message --------
From: Claudia Kuepper
Date: 08/25/2015 9:38AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Mark Packard Matthew Hall Lorraine
Wood Michael Schumacher , Keith
Blackburn
Subject: 85/15 Vote
Dear Council Members/
Please consider the requests of the Carlsbad citizens to be given the opportunity to have a say in the Caruso mall
development.
The deceptive tactics employed by this developer are reprehensible, and this is certainly not the type of development
we want in our town. We have enough malls-we can drive 20 min. and have anything our hearts desire! But we can
never reclaim open space once it is developed. Our lovely lagoon should remain open space in perpetuity for all to
appreciate, not just Nordstrom shoppers.
Please consider your constituents when you make your decisions today to approve this development and LET US VOTE.
Sincerely,
Claudia and Aubrey Kuepper
15 year Carlsbad reside ts
19
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Council Members,
betsy Iineberger
Tuesday/ August 25, 2015 8:48 AM
Council Internet Email
initiative
first of alt thank you to Keith who was taking calls yesterday and took ~he time to
discuss tonight's vote on the 85/15 plan. I'm sorry Matt, Lorraine, Michael, and Mark
weren't taking calls or had a full mailbox .... I would have liked to discuss verbally my
fears for this beautiful piece of land. We have so little lagoon or waterfront land
left in Carlsbad .... I can't believe you would really make this decision in session rather
than letting it go to the voters. I realize you've invested a tremendous amount of
time and money analyzing this proposal, but I still have some concerns. The increased
traffic will be a terrible blight on Carlsbad .... we already have traffic issues on the 5
freeway through our town, and a mall the size and scope of Caruso's mall will make
traveling in Carlsbad a nightmare!! You've seen the statistics .... 3,500 parking spaces
(as opposed to 2,100 at Horton Plaza), 30,000 projected-visitors per day. As a
resident of Carlsbad, I don't want this increased density in my beautiful city. We
moved here because Carlsbad has a history of careful, thoughtful, slow growth, with
much attention on the quality of life of its residents. These extra cars, traffic,
people add nothing to the quality of our life here. I also have a concern that the
council wiiJ have no opportunity to regulate this project for 15 years. Keith explained
that many outside experts: had reviewed the plan and promise it meets all
specifications for our city, so there is no need to have a regulatory say .... you've
already had it.
I just don't believe that a project of this magnitude should be decided in council
session ..... I think ALL the voters in Carlsbad should make this decision.
Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. I must admit, many neighbors have
told me they haven't responded because it's clear the council has made up their
minds. Please prove these neighbors wrong and consider letting this matter go to a
vote.
thank you for your time,
Elizabeth Lineberger
28
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
zell dwelley
Tuesday/ August 25r 2015 8:22AM
Council Internet Email
Caruso project
Dear honorable Mayor Matt and Council,
If you had not noticed, this seems to. be a highly controversial, and emotionally charged issue. I for example am still on
the fence. It seems that a very good case for either side can be made.
As representatives, and caretakers of this fine city,· I urge you to let the citizens you represent Vote. It seems a small
price to let the people speak. Is that not the American way?
Respectfully,
Zell Dwelley
Sent from my iPad
30
Andrea Dykes
From: Help
Sent:
To:
Tuesday/ August 251 2015 8:07AM
Council Internet Email
Subject: FW: Agua Hedionda Vote
-----Original Message-----
From: Gregory Corso [mailto:
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 5:00PM
To: Help <Help@CarlsbadCA.gov>.
Cc: Jennifercorso
Subject: Agua Hedionda Vote
Elected officials,
As a resident along the shore of Agua Hedionda lagoon, , I request that the proposed development on
the lagoon is placed on the ballot for residents to vote on.
My underlying concern is that this project will not be built to the highest environmental standards unless the citizens of
Carlsbad are afforded the opportunity to vote on it.
Please vote for the vote.
Respectfully,
Gregory Corso
31
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Margaret Torres
Tuesday, August 25, 2015 7:54 AM
Council Internet Email .
NO on 85/15
Dear Carlsbad City Council Members,
I am a resident of Carlsbad. I vote and attend some City Council meetings. ·I am active in
·local matters.
Do *not* give up your right and responsibility to manage the area of Agua Hedionda.
Vote not on the grotesque development known as 85/15. Protect our land.
Sincerely,
Margaret Torres
Peace and love begin with simple kindness,
And joy to the world happens one heart at a time ..
32
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kim Berkshire
Monday, August 24, 2015 11:08 PM
Council Internet Email
More study needed
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I'm proud of the way Carlsbad has developed over the years. That has happened because of high standards, a
comprehensive project review process, and astute observations and actions by you, our elected leaders. Thank
you!.
At this time, I cannot support the Caruso project due to one issue, which is traffic. The current status quo of
traffic isalready impacting our quality of life. For instance, last summer we chose to forego healthcare
treatment until the tourist season was over-50 minutes or longer to go 11 miles (to Scripps Encinitas any day
of the week & any time) was unreasonable to us.
Is Caruso's answer to the traffic issue really to throw money to Cal Trans for responsibility of expanded
freeway ramps? Cal Trans' estimate (are they ever on time) for ramp completion is 2035? 20 years from
now? Cannon will become a clogged artery. Caruso's traffic study calls for yet another lighted intersection on
Cannon Rd between Paseo Del Norte and Car Country Dr. This will be 3 traffic lights within 2/lOths of a
mile! And the North 40 project is only a few hundred yards up from the proposed Caruso project.
Please do not adopt the initiative "Without any changes. If you adopt it outright, any problems discovered later
will come back on you. I'd like to see the City study the impact of the initiative for another 30 days, then have
it on a ballot for people to vote on because people signed the petition with the understanding they would be able
to vote.
Sincerely,
Kim Berkshire
35
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To Whom It May Concern,
Michelle Briandi
Monday, August 24, 2015 9:08 PM
Council Internet Email
85/15 special election
As a Carlsbad resident for the last 18 years, I am asking for the opportunity to vote on the 85/15 initiative. My name is
Michelle Briandi and can be reached at I reside at
. Thank you for your consideration, Michelle
37
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
8-24-2015
Richard Duquette
M'ondayr August 24r 2015 8:55 PM
Council Internet Email
8S/15 request for a vote
Dear Honorable Mayor Hall & Councilpersons,
I'm requesting you allow this project be voted on.
Democracy and Capitalism are best served by respecting the voting publics opinion.
The voices of Carlsbad residents should be heard in this important matter.
You have the power to ensure this issue is transparently handled with integrity.
An open vote will accomplish this.
Respectfully,
Richard L. Duquette
Carlsbad Resident
Sent from my iPad
38
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Honorable Mayor and Council
Emily Wheatley
Monday, August 24, 2015 6:19 PM
Council Internet Email
Agua Hedionda 85/15 project
REGARDING TilE PROPOSED AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON 85/15 PROJECT
Ok, so I've finally come to my opinion on this project. I was encountered by signature gatherers five times,
shoved or hit three of those times, & lied to all five times. I do not believe that studies or models predicting that
existing Carlsbad businesses & traffic will not be materially impacted. I could go on, but here is what bothers
me:
I loved doing business and I loved doing deals, BIG DEALS ... Here's the trick: If you can't in good conscience
close a deal with a handshake & a look into the eyes, then it's just not right..
You know the old saying, "it seems too good to be true"? Yep, common sense tells you that if you don't trust the
person that you're dealing is really telling the whole truth, then it probably isn't TOO GOOD & it probably isn't
TOO TRUE either ... isn't that what we're dealing with here with Caruso Affiliated? Fool me not...
I trust each of you to make good decisions for the City we love. You & your predecessors on Carlsbad
Council have long applied a basic test: "Sometimes what is popular isn't right; sometimes what is right isn't
popular.;." & here's my addendum: sometimes you just gotta tell yourself, there's something just not right here.
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council, please let your informed citizenry of Carlsbad see ALL the facts, hear
ALL the arguments, ask ALL the questions, and VOTE their conscience.
Respectfully,
Emily Wheatley
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
42
Andrea Dykes
All Receive -Agenda ftem #, .12
F<;>r the Information of the: c!J couycu ·
ACM CA CC l/
Lorraine Wood Date,.:zsfi!l City Manager 7 From:
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 11:04 AM
To: Andrea Dykes
Subject: Fwd: Los Angeles Times: Legislature, close loophole exempting building projects from
CEQA
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: "dianalincoln " <diana.lincoln >
Date: August 24,2015 at 9:07:11 PM PDT
To: <Lorraine.Wood
Subject: Los Angeles Times: Legislature, close loophole exempting building projects from
CEQA
Hi Lorraine, Thanks for meeting with DeAnn and I at La Costa Roasters. One concern I brought
up to you at our meeting was the concern that Carlsbad could be an example, a bcid example of
why this loop hole initiative should be closed. I thought this very recent La Times article shows
that in a state so environmental sensitive this loop hole will be closed soon. This must not
become the future of development in California. Let's not be the example used to close this loop
hole. Carlsbad is too precious and beautiful to be the ugly example of what destruction·a wealthy
developer can do to pristine coastal land through a deceitful signature gathering initiative. Diana
Lincoln
Legislature, close loophole exempting building projects from CEQA
This message was sent to you by
To unsubscribe click here.
1
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Lorraine Wood
Tuesday, August 25, 2015 11:03 AM
Andrea Dykes
Subject: Fwd: please let us vote
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: "molina''
Date: August 24, 2015 at 10:27:49 PM PDT.
To: <Lorraine. Wood
Subject: please let us vot'~
Dear Ms. Wood,
Please Jet us vote on the Caruso development project. Carlsbad has been managed very well and is such
a lovely place to live. This project has the potential to make a huge impact on our community and on our
environment. It is an important issue, worthy of public debate. The citizens deserve the right to vote on ·it.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
MaryBeth Molina
Carlsbad Resident
3
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Lorraine Wood
Tuesday/ August 251 2015 11:03 AM
Andrea Dykes
Subject: Fwd: Caruso Mall
Sent from my iPad
Begjn forwarded message:
From:
Date: August 24,2015 at 11:32:26 PM PDT
To: <Matt.Hall <Lorraine.Wood
<Michael. Schumacher <Mark.Packaid(
<Keith.Blackbmn
Subject: Caruso Mall
Dear Council members,
As a concemed.citizen of 58 yrs please consider the impact the Caruso proposed mall will have
not only on Carlsbad residents but all ofNorth County. The property of the proposed mall is not
like any other property in the area. Its beauty is unparalleled. At least give Carlsbad voters a
chance to weigh in,
Respectfully,
Jim-Justus
4
Andrea Dykes
From: Lorraine Wood
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, August 25, 2015 11:02 AM
Andrea Dykes
Subject: Fwd: LET THE PEOPLE VOTE
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Leslie Gomez
Date: August 25, 2015 at 8:02:38 AM PDT
To: <Lorraine.Wood
Subject: LET THE PEOPLE VOTE
Lorraine,
No shortcuts for Caruso!
Leslie Gomez
6
Andrea Dykes
From:.
Sent:
To:
Lorraine Wood
Tuesday[ August 251 2015 11:02 AM
Andrea Dykes
Subject: Fwd: 85/15 plan
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kathy
Date: August24, 2015 at 11:45:21 PM PDT
To: 11Lorraine. Wood <Lon-aine. Wood
Subject: 85/15 plan
As a resident of Carlsbad for 38 years I STRONGLY object to the Caruso plan. I'm appalled that
the council would even consider this without input from the planning commission. Doesn't the
amount of money that Caruso is spending to promote this give you pause?
Kathryn Casler Parker
7
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Lorraine Wood
Tuesday, August 25, 2015 11:01 AM
Andrea Dykes
Subject: Fwd: VOTE
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Janet white
Date: August 25, 2015 at 6:54:25 AM PDT
To: "Lorraine. Wood <Lorraine. Wood
Subject: VOTE
Do not hijack democracy in Carlsbad. LET THE PEOPLE VOTE!!
Sent from my iPhone
8
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Lorraine Wood
Tuesday, August 25, 2015 10:58 AM
Andrea Dykes
Subject: Fwd: Let the People Vote
Sent from my iPad·
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kelsey Swann
Date: August 25,2015 at 8:52:45 AM PDT
To: "Lorraine. Wood <Lonaine. Wood
Subject: Let the People Vote
Reply-To: Kelsey Swann
Ms. Wood,
I'll get straight to the point. Let the people vote. I'm sure you already have your mind made up about how
you are going to vote tonigh~ so I will spare launching into all the many reasons why you should let the
citizens vote oh this plan and leave you with one question -How certain are you that people truly support
this? A third mall within a two mile radius, more traffic, more pollution, based on zero plans shown so far,
on a lagoon with endangered species, when it is widely known that Caruso has paid off everyone he
possibly can to buy their support? I've heard 'We believe they do" and "We think they do". "BeHeve" and
"think" provide no certainty.
You may choose tonight to let the people vote. And then, there will be no question as to where the
community stands. Or-you will choose to make the decision yourself, and I imagine that will be to pass
the 85/15 plan. The public, supportive of the plan or not, is very aware that deceptive and misleading
tactics were used to gather their signatures. And while we may not be given the courtesy and opportunity
to vote on the plan ourselves, we most certainly will remember tonight and the outcome when it comes to
voting in the next election. So I ask you again -how certain are you that the people support this? That's
something only you can answer.
I will be there at the meeting, with my toddler, because I want to teach him from a young age that money
may buy politics, but it does not buy citizens, and while we may not prevail in this instance, we'll know that
we tried.
Regards,
Kelsey Swann
Thirty+ Year Carlsbad Resident
10
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Lorraine Wood
Tuesday, August 25, 2015 12:23 PM
Andrea Dykes
Subject: Fwd: 85/15
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kathryn Metcalf
Date: August25, 2015 at 11:23:35 AM PDT
To: Lorraine"Wood
Subject: 85/15
All Receive -Agenda Item ~ 15
For the Information of the:
CITY COUNCIL
ACM ../ CA ........-CC / Dat@~ity Manager V
Please do what the people ofYOUR town want-fix the Westfield Mall. We don't
need another one. ·
Kathryn Metcalf
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Lorraine Wood
Tuesday, August 25, 2015 12:23 PM
Andrea Dykes
Subject: Fwd: 85/15
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Glenna Citron
Date: August 25,2015 at !1:46:00 AM PDT
To: "Lorraine. wood( <LoiTaine. wood
Subject: 85/15
Reply-To: Glenna Citron
Dear Councilwoman Wood,
'I ask you to vote for placing 85/15 on the ballot.
Why? Not because I don't think it's an attractive project but because I fear
that by approving this project it would set a precedent for future
development. I don't believe that circumventing the normal development
process is a benefit to Carlsbad. I believe it is important that those who have
the appropriate education and expertise, and are independent from the
developer, have the opportunity to determine if environmental, economic,
and social requirements for a project have been met.
Development is more than a popularity contest or a propaganda campaign.
Sincerely,
Glenna Citron
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Kathy & Darryl Tell
Tuesday/ August 25/ 2015 1:28 PM
Council Internet Email
Subject: Re: Caruso Project
It's clear the fix is in.
On Aug 25, 2015, at 11:17 AM, Council Internet Email <CityCouncil@carlsbadca.gov> wrote:
Hello,
Thank you for your email regarding the Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan citizen-led
initiative. As a citizen-led initiative the roles and responsibilities of the City Council and staff are
defined by law, including California Elections Code sections 9200-9215.
Please keep in mind that when it comes to elections, the City of Carlsbad may not use public
funds to advocate for or against the initiative. City staff can provide fair and objective data. City
staff has evaluated the information that has been provided and conducted its own analysis,
including the possible land use, environmental, infrastructure, economic and other impacts of
the proposed plan. All of this information has been provided to the City Council and is available
to the public.
If you would like information about the citizen-led initiative; please visit the city website at
http:ljwww.carlsbadca.gov/cityhall/clerk/initiative.asp where we have posted public
documents related to the initiative as well as commonly asked questions and an overview of
the process. We strongly urge interested parties to use the City of Carlsbad as a source of
accurate information.
· Since the initiative proponents gathered valid signatures from at l~ast 15 percent of registered
voters in the City of Carlsbad, the City Council may adopt the initiative without any changes or
put the initiative on the ballot for a vote.
If you want to be notified of upcoming City Council agendas, please be sure to sign up for email
notifications through this link.
Again, thank you for contacting the City of Carlsbad. We welcome your input.
City of Carlsbad
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathy & Darryl Tell
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 10:03 AM
To: Council Internet Email
Subject: Caruso Project
13
We urge that you let Carlsbad's registered voters approve or disapprove the Caruso project on Aqua
Hedionda lagoon.
Thank you/
Darryl and Kathy Tell
14
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Heather Bensen
Tuesday! August 251 2015 1:20 PM
Council Internet Email
Let Carlsbad VOTE on the 85/15 Plan
Dear Esteemed Mayor Hall and Carlsbad City Council Elected Officials,
I am emailing you today to ask you to let the residents of our fine city of Carlsbad VOTE on the 85/15 Plan.
I ari1 an active community member of 15 years, serving on the PTA Boards of our local schools for many years,
I am a PSAC (Parent-Superintendent Advisory Council) representative for Magnolia Eiementary and am
involved in local non-profits benefiting our city.
I will try to keep this brief because I know you will be busy today:
-Caruso Affiliated has brought their deep pockets, multi-million dollar marketing campaign to our beloved city
with a calculated and deceiving force. If Caruso TRULY wants what is best for Carlsbad, he shouldn't mind a
vote and to follow ALL of the development processes that are in place. I was asked FIVE times to sign a
petition to 'Get the 85/15 plan on the BALLOT' ... the paid-per-signature gatherers who were totally inept at
answering any questions in depth were very misleading and deceptive in their plea to get any and all
signatures. I did not sign the petition.
-I attended the State of the City address and watched the video. Throughout the video, it was stated how we
want open space and how we want to preserve it. I believe Mr. Blackburn said we want to keep the balance of
our "small town feel" and Mr. Schumaker said it is "vital to be a steward of our natural resources". I do not
believe letting Caruso develop another incredibly large mall directly on top of our lagoon achieves these goals.
This 85/15 plan coupled with the lOO's of homes being built on El Camino !Zeal near Kelly are not in sync with
what the video promotes.
-Caruso has not shown ANY actual plans that show the mega-mall from a 3-D vantage point, the nice sketch of
an overview drawing doesn't show people what this will really look like from the freeway, from the homes .
across the lagoon, etc. There is a lack of transparency on what this mall will REALLY look like. The tons of
flyers (none of which seem to printed on recycled material!??} only show happy kids in flowing dresses playing
in open space. Not the huge mall and TRAFFIC that will be reality. ·
-Traffic .... one word, enough said. I don't see how we handle this tra:ffic ... and I have heard the plans on what
Caruso says he will do. I attended one ofthe hosted events by Caruso where questions in respectful opposition
were dismissed and people in favor of the 85/15 plan were strategically called upon.
-I am disturbed by the fact that our Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation has a board member that works for
Caruso and also that the environmental organization that is supposed to look out for the best interests of area is
on board with this plan.
-We have ONE CHANCE to get this right for current residents and FUTURE generations. It deserves our full
attention to every detail and not a Fast Pass for Caruso because he was able to pay his way through .. .!
cannot imagine that each one of you, in your heart, can deny the people of Carls bad a vote.
I respectfully implore you to let our city VOTE on the 85/15 plan.
15
Sincerely,
Heather Bensen
16
Andrea Dyl<es
From: Matthew Hall
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, August 25, 2015 2:01 PM
Council Internet Email
Subject: Fwd: Let the People Vote
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartph~ne
--------Original message --------
From: Susan Neptune
Date: 08/25/2015 10:50 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Matthew Hall <Matt.Hall
Subject: Let the People Vote
Let the people vote!
I will be at the cmmcil meeting today to hear your decision!
Susan Neptune
6
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Help
Tuesday( August 25r 2015 10:39 AM
Council Internet Email
FW: AB #221073
From: Bishop, Keith [mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 10:18 AM
To: Help <Help@CarlsbadCA.gov>
Subject: AB #22,073
Carlsbad City Council,
As a citizen of Carlsbad, I want the Carlsbad City Council to Request a Special Election for AB #22,073. While the land set
aside for open space in the plan is impressive, I feel that there are better places to build a mall. I believe all of the open
space around the lagoon should be set aside for people to enjoy for generations to come.
Thank you for your consideration,
Keith Bishop
21
Andrea Dykes
From: Matthew Hall
Sent:
To:
Tuesday/ August 251 2015 2:03 PM
Council Internet Email
Subject: Fwd: 85/15 Plan Should be put on the ballot as promised by the citizen-led initiative
Sent from my Velizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
--------Original message --------
From: Kelly Steffen
Date; 08/25/2015 10:38 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Matthew Hall <Matt.Hall
Subject: 85/15 Plan Should be put on the ballot, as promised by the citizen-led initiative
Hello,
The solicitors gathering signatures were misleading the people at the shopping centers,
and this is a hijacking of the democratic process, and can not be allowed to pass. As a
resident of Carlsbad, I demand this be put to a vote by residents of the community.
Kelly Steffen
1
Andrea Dykes
From: Matthew Hall
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, August 25, 2015 2:01 PM
Council Internet Email
Subject: Fwd: MALL on our priceless coast
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
--------Original message --------
From: David Hees
Date: 08/25/2015 10:45 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Matthew Hall <Matt.Hall lorraine.wood Mark Packard
<Mark.Packard Keith Blackburn. <Keith.Blackbum
Subject: MALL on our priceless coast
Dear Counsel Members,
Let me preface by saying I am a successful business person who has administered a number of successful startups. I've been a resident
of Carlsbad for most of the last 2 decades.
We need to have a sense of selL ... we have a say in what matters here. Cocooning to this defensively lacks strength and clearly says
we aren't getting the best deal ..... and Caruso's lackeys have been selling that and know they are running roughshot over our
community.
We are a gem in a region that for the most part has been overrun by developers.
Let's stand up for our communities distinguished future ..... I'd much rather be known for the desalinization plant than congestion and a
malL
Please allow this to go to a popular vote.
Regards,
David J Hees, CPA
2
Andrea Dykes
From: Matthew Hall
Sent:
To:
Tuesday/ August 251 2015 2:00 PM
Council Internet Email
Subject: Fwd: Let's Vote on the 85/15 Plan
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
--------Original message --------
From:
Date: 08/25/2015 1:33PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Matthew Hall <Matt.Hal , Lorraine Wood <Lorraine.Wood , Michael
Schumacher <rnichael.schumacher , Mark Packard <Mark.Packard Keith
Blackburn <Keith.Blackbum
Subject: Let's Vote on the 85/15 Plan
Dear Representatives,
PLEASE LET THE PEOPLE VOTE ON THIS!! My elderly neighbors were told if they did not sign the
initiative, thousands of homes would be built on the land. Other friends were followed to their car by
aggressive signature gatherers. Someone came to my door and said the strawberry fields would
close for good if we didn't try to save them but he never mentioned the mall at all. There is too much
mis-information to let this thing go off without a real vote.
Sincerely,
Rosie Marks (20 year Carlsbad resident)
9
Andrea Dykes
From: Matthew Hall
Sent:
To:
Tuesday! August 251 2015 2:00 PM
Council Internet Email
Subject: Fwd: Caruso Project ·
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
--------Original message --------
From: Michael Haslam
Date: 08/25/2015 1:46PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Matthew Hall
Subject: Caruso Project
You have another chance to show you are not owned by the developers. You let everyone down with your vote on Quany Creek. It is
already chocking us. Stop the out of control growth!!
Mike and Lynne Haslam
Sent from my iPad
10
Andrea Dykes
From: Matthew Hall
Sent:
To:
. Tuesday, August 25, 2015 2:00 PM
Council Internet Email
Subject: Fwd: Let the People Vote.
Sent from my Ve1izon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone
--------Original message --------
From: Rob:in Marks
Date: 08/25/2015 1:53PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Matthew Hall <Matt.Hall Lorra:ine Wood <Lorra:ine.Wood , Michael
Schumacher <michael.schumacher Mark Packard <Mark.Packard Keith
Blackburn <Keith.Blackburn . -
Subject: Let the People Vote.
Dear City Council Members,
Given the serious considerations that must be taken :into account :in the proposed mall project, I respectfully
request that it be put through a complete evaluation, :includ:ing a vote by citizens like myself.
While the project may well be the best option, right now it appears to shortcut a more thorough assessment and
leaves many people with a bad taste :in their mouths.
Let's make the :investment and do th:ings 100% correctly and above board.
Thanks and regards,
R. Marks (Carlsbad Village residentof20+ years)
11
Andrea Dykes
From: Matthew Hall
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, August 25, 2015 2:00 PM
Council Internet Email
Subject: Fwd: Caruso Project
Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G L TE smartphone
--------Original message --------
From: Stephanie Obrien
Date: 08/25/2015 1:54PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Matthew Hall <Matt.Hall
Subject: Caruso Project
Dr. Mr. Hall,
As a lifetime resident of Southern California, I've seen my share of building projects. Some good, some not.
I'd like this proposal to be put on the ballot. Let us the voting public of Carlsbad decide if we need a shopping
center, etc. along the I-5 corridor. We reside above the lagoon, and are struggling with the negative impact on
this area.
We only have one chance to keep Carlsbad looking "ruraP'. This is why it's such a popular destination for so
many.
Thank you for addressing this issue from both sides. You had my vote in the election, now please let us decide
this one.
Sincerely,
Stephanie O'Brien
12
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To Whom It May Concern:
Ann-Marie Knox
Tuesday, August 25, 2015 1:17 PM
Council Internet Email
CARUSO'S 85/15 -PUT ON A BALLOTT!!
I am writing to ask you to please put Caruso's 85115 on a· ballot. As a resident of Carlsbad I feel that the people
of Carlsbad should be allowed to vote for or against this. The traffic through Carlsbad is already heavy and we
already have a full sized mall, the Forum and an outlet mall. We don't need or want another mall; or any of the
riffraff I traffic I pollution that comes with it.
We deserve to vote on this!
Thanks!
Ann-Marie Knox
Carlsbad resident
17
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tal Surfer
Tuesday, August 25, 2015 12:47 PM
Council Internet Email
The Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan
My wife and I are unable to attend tonight's Council meeting. However, we would like to encourage
the Mayor and the City Council to place "The Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan" initiative on
the ballot and call for a special election. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Regards,
Dane and Michelle Merkel
18
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
lhendricksonS@sbcglobal.net
Tuesday, August 25, 2015 11:23 AM
Council Internet Email
let the people vote on 85/15
I urge you to put the 85/15 plan to a vote of the people. As a voter and taxpayer in Carlsbad, I am interested in quality of
life, and good government. I see no credible indication that the traffic impact of a new proposed mall.would be
successfully mitigated, and our traffic is already a serious concern. This impacts not only our qua lit'{ of life, and the
enjoyment for visitors, and the viability of existing local businesses.
Equally importantly, the process that Caruso has employed is deceitful.petition-takers obtain signatures with false
information cannot be tolerated. Furthermore, bypassing the normal review processes for a project of this magnitude is
unacceptable. I hope you willl:ie convinced by the League of Women Voters concern, as well as the concerns of local
environmental groups. But simply driving on Highway 5 should also convince you that we have a traffic problem and
there is no reason it should be made worse.
I was a child living in Oceanside when the Westfield mall was created. I remember the marsh and lagoon space that was
taken up by shopping centers. Allowing the Westfield Mall to become derelict would be a terrible waste of resources.
Please allow the existing Westfield Mall to become the lovely magnet that it can be with an appropriate renovation,
instead of damaging another pristine lagoon with a massive development. Let the people decide. Let the people vote on
85/15.
Thank you. Linda Breen,
19
Andrea Dykes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Patricia McFarlane
Tuesday, August 25, 2015 10:59 AM
Council Internet Email
85/15 request for a vote
Dear Honorable Mayor Hall and Councilpersons,
I request that you allow this project to be voted on.
Our cities are adjacent. We share the same north-south corridors with their considerable traffic problems and air
pollution. How you deal with this current problem will affect us as well as your residents. Please consider our concern
for all of us in making this request for allowing an open vote.
Patricia A. McFarlane
Sent from my iPad
20
Leticia Reyes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Help
Tuesday, August 25, 2015 11:14 AM
Leticia Reyes
FW:85/15
From: cbalcar33 [mailto
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 10:36 AM
To: Help <Help@CarlsbadCA.gov>
Subject: 85/15
Dear City Council Members,
All Ree~lv® = Agenda Item # l5
For the Information of the:
CITY COUNCIL
ACM vCA v--CC ~ Date~City Manager ..........----
I have been a resident·of Carlsbad since April of 1990 and I have always approved how you ran our city .... until
now. I am very troubled that the 85/15 initiative is passing through the council without letting ALL Carlsbad
residents have a voice as to whether we want this in our city or not.
I too had a person, representing Caruso, say if I signed the petition it would be put to a vote, which now I
know to be false. I urge the council to Please put this initiative to a vote so all Carlsbad residents have a say in
this project. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Louise Balcar
Sent from Samsung tablet
(
1
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2010 & 2011 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of San Diego
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident
o~ t he County aforesaid: I am over the age of
e1ghteen years and not a party to or interested in
the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk
of the printer of
The San Diego Union Tribune
Formerly known as the North County Times and
U~ N?rth County and wh ich newspaper has been
adJUdicated as a newspaper of general circulation
by the Supe:ior ~ourt of the County of San Diego,
State of Callforn1a, for the City of Oceanside and
the City of Escondido, Court Decree numbers
171349 & 1_72171 , for the County of San Diego,
that the not1ce of which the annexed is a printed
copy (set _in typ~ not smaller than nonpariel), has
been published 1n each regular and entire issue of
said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof
01 Lhe following dates, to-wit:
September 05th, 2015
I ce rtify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at Oceanside, California
On This OSth, of September 2015
Jane Allshouse
The San Diego Union Tribune
Legal Advertising
This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp
Proof of Publication of
D~~ cs -..:L~ ~·-~-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD,
CALIFORNIA, ADOP11NG THE AGUA HEOIONDA SOUTH SHORE SPECIFIC PLAN.
WITHOUT ALTERATION
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2015, Edmond W. (Bill) Dominquez. Maureen Simons, and
Carlton Lund (Proponents), representing 'Preserving Carlsbad Open Space The
Right Way• submitted to the City Clerk's office a Notice of Intent to Circulate a Peti·
tion for a citizen-led Initiative measure for the purpose of proposing to the voters of
Carlsbad the enactment of the Agua Hedlonda South Shore Specific Plan for 85%
Open Space and 15% Retail (Agua Hedlonda 85/15 Specific Plan Initiative), and,
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2015, the Proponents also voluntarily submitted an extensive
Environmental Analysis report which included twenty-five technical areas of analy-
sis and evaluation, and, WHEREAS, on May 19,2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2015-127 au-
thorizing the city staff to initiate the preparation of a report pursuant to Elections
Code 9212 (9212 report) for the Agua Hedlonda South Shore Specific Plan Initiative
Measure; and, WHEREAS, on May 26, 2015, the Initiative proponents received the Ballot Title and
Summary written by the City Attorney, which titled the Initiative as "The Agua He-
dionda South Shore Specific Plan'; and, WHEREAS, the Ballot Title and Sum111ary were published, along with the Notice of
Intent, in The San Diego Union-Tribune newspaper (May 28, 2015) and the Coast
News newspaper (May 29, 201 S) and posted In five (5} public places In the City of
Carlsbad where the city regularly posts public notices (May 28, 2015) and a proof of
publication was delivered to the City Clerk on May 29, 2015; and,
WHEREAS, the Initiative petition was circulated for signatures and was flied with the
Carlsbad City Clerk on July 8, 2015, with 20,479 signatures; and,
WHEREAS, the City Clerk completed a prima facie review of the petition and deliv-
ered the petition to the County of San Diego Registrar of Voters on July 8, 2015; and,
WHEREAS, per the Elections Code, the County of San Diego Registrar of Voters had
up to thirty working-days, or until August 18, 2015, to examine the flied petition
and from the records of voter registration ascertain whether or not the petition was
signed by the requisite number of registered voters in the City of Carlsbad; and,
WHEREAS, the 9212 Report for the Agua Hedlonda South Shore Specific Plan Initia-
tive Measure was completed by city staff and made available to the City Council
and the general public on August 7, 2015; and, WHEREAS, on August 13,2015, the Registrar of Voters completed Its review and de-
livered a certificate of the results to the Carlsbad City Clerk. The certification indi-
cated that the Registrar of Voters had verified the petition as sufficient under the
pro-visions of Elections Code section 9211, and that It was signed by not less than
1 S% of the registered voters of the city pursuant to Elections Code section 9214.
The Elections Code provides that the City Clerk shall certify the results of the review
of the Registrar of Voters examination to the City Council at Its next regular meet-
ing; and, WHEREAS, on August 18, 2015, at the next regularly scheduled City Council meet-
Ing after receipt by the Carlsbad City Clerk of the Registrar of Voters sufficiency cer-
tificate, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2015-208 certifying the results of
the Registrar of Voters sufficiency examination on the petition filed for the Agua He-
dionda South Shore Specific Plan Initiative Measure; and,
WHEREAS, at the regularly scheduled August 25, 2015, City Council meeting, the
City Council received a presentation on the 9212 Report prepared for the Agua He-
dionda South Shore Specific Plan Initiative Measure; and, WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized by Elections Code section 9214(a) to adopt
the ordinance proposing the Agua Hedionda South Shore Specific Plan, without al-
teration, within ten days after certifying the results of the Registrar of Voters suffi-
ciency examination on the petition. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad ordains as follows that:
SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. SECTION 2. That the City Council hereby adopts, without alteration, the Agua He-
dionda South Shore Specific Plan, as incorporated herein by reference. Said Ordi-
nance shall be on file with the City Clerk. SECTION 3. That the City Council hereby directs city staff, pursuant to Section 8.D of
the Agua Hedlonda South Shore Specific Plan Ordinance, to submit the Agua He-
dionda South Shore Specific Plan Ordinance to the California Coastal Commission,
as required by law, to obtain Coastal Commission certification thereof, with submit-
tal to occur no later than 30 days after City Council adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED, pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9214(a}, at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad on the 25th day of Au-
gust, 201 S, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Hall, Blackburn, Schumacher, Wood, Packard.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Is/ CELIA A. BREWER, City Attorney
/s/ MATI HALL, Mayor
ATIEST: /s/ BARBARA ENGLESON, City Clerk pub: 9/05/15