HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPA 14-02; College Boulevard Mitigation; General Plan Amendment (GPA)
The City of Carlsbad Planning Division
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No.
Application complete date: N/A
P.C. AGENDA OF: June 3, 2015 Project Planner: Shannon Werneke
Project Engineer: Jeremy Riddle
SUBJECT: GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 – COLLEGE
BOULEVARD MITIGATION – Request for a recommendation of adoption of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum;
and a request for a recommendation of approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone
Change, Hillside Development Permit, Special Use Permit, Habitat Management Plan
Permit and Minor Subdivision to allow for the implementation of habitat mitigation
associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach “A” on two parcels (APN
209-060-71, 72) totaling 17.44 acres (16.43 net acres) located north of the intersection
of College Boulevard and Sunny Creek Road and south of the intersection of Cannon
Road and College Boulevard, within Local Facilities Management Zone 15. The City
Planner has determined that through the implementation of the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program and Addendum,
the proposed project avoids the effects or mitigates the effects to a point where clearly
no significant effect on the environment would occur, and there is no substantial
evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised” may
have a significant effect on the environment.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7102 RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and
Addendum; and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 7103 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a
General Plan Amendment (GPA 14-02) and Zone Change (ZC 14-01); ADOPT Planning Commission
Resolution No. 7104 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Hillside Development Permit (HDP 14-04), Special
Use Permit (SUP 14-03), and Minor Subdivision (MS 14-10); and ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution
No. 7105 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of Habitat Management Plan Permit (HMP 14-02) based on the
findings and subject to the conditions contained therein.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Background
The proposed College Boulevard Mitigation project consists of the enhancement and preservation of
sensitive wetland and riparian habitat, as well as the creation of new wetland, riparian and upland
habitat areas adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek. The creek is currently narrowly incised and flows from
east to west through the central portion of the project site. The proposed project satisfies the biological
resources mitigation measures set forth in Environmental Impact Report, EIR 98-02 (State Clearinghouse
No. 99111082), as it relates to the future construction of Detention Basin BJ and College Boulevard
Reach A, which represents the missing link between the northern and southern extents of College
Boulevard, a major arterial road. In conjunction with development of the road, a bridge will be
extended over Agua Hedionda Creek. The bridge is adjacent to and immediately east of the project site.
The development of College Boulevard, including the bridge, have already been analyzed and approved
1
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 – COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
June 3, 2015
Page 2
pursuant to EIR 98-02. The focus of the subject application is purely on the implementation of the
biological habitat mitigation for the development of College Boulevard Reach A.
Environmental Setting
The existing environmental setting of the subject properties can be generally characterized as semi-
rural. Existing uses consist of an equestrian barn and stables, an equestrian training and riding school
and a vacant single-family residence. Surrounding land uses include a vacant parcel to the north, a
vacant commercially-zoned parcel to the south, the Sunny Creek neighborhood to the southeast
consisting of single-family homes and multi-family apartments, and a single-family home and the Rancho
Carlsbad golf course to the west.
Agua Hedionda Creek, which is currently narrowly incised, flows from east to west through the central
portion of the project site. The elevation of the flow line of the creek drops nine feet through the project
site, ranging from 60’ as it enters on the east side under the College Boulevard right-of-way to 51’above
mean sea level (MSL) as it enters the golf course to the west. The southern half of the project site (APN
209-060-72) is generally flat and ranges in elevation from 51’ to 75’ above MSL. The northern half of the
site (APN 209-060-71), steeply climbs in elevation from 51’ to 112 above MSL. The central portion of the
project site is located in the floodway, while a majority of the overall project site is currently located in
the floodplain. The entire project site is located within a Standards Area pursuant to the Habitat
Management Plan (HMP).
Project Description
The project site, consisting of two privately-owned parcels (APN 209-060-71, 72) totaling 17.44 acres
(16.43 net acres), is located north of the intersection of College Boulevard and Sunny Creek Road and
south of the intersection of Cannon Road and College Boulevard. Access to the site is provided by a dirt
road extending from the southern terminus of College Boulevard. The site is also located within the
boundaries of the Zone 15 Local Facilities Management Plan.
APN 209-060-71, the northern parcel, is 6.49 acres in size (6.02 net acres), and APN 209-060-72, the
southern parcel, is 10.95 acres in size (10.41 net acres). Both properties have a split General Plan Land
Use designation of Open Space (OS) and Residential Low-Medium (RLM) density and a zoning
designation of Limited Control (L-C).
The mitigation area comprises 8.6 acres of the total project area (5.5 acres of upland mitigation area and
3.1 acres of wetland mitigation area). With exception to a few of the stables located at the
southeastern corner of the project site, all of the structures will be demolished to implement the
proposed habitat mitigation project. Ultimately, the remaining stables will be demolished in
conjunction with the development of College Boulevard Reach A.
Grading proposed in conjunction with the creation of the mitigation area includes the addition of a
contour-graded 2:1 slope adjacent to the northern and southern limits of the new wetland area and the
widening of the creek bed. A total of 73,300 cubic yards of cut and 470 cubic yards of fill is proposed.
As a result, a total of 72,830 cubic yards is proposed to be exported from the site. The applicant has
indicated that the exported material will be utilized in conjunction with the development of College
Boulevard Reach A. A 100-foot-wide wetland buffer is proposed from the outer limits of the newly-
created wetland mitigation area. With exception to the bio-retention basin, which is an allowable
encroachment, no development will be allowed within this buffer.
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 – COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
June 3, 2015
Page 3
The applications requested to implement the mitigation project are summarized below.
General Plan Amendment (GPA 14-02). A GPA is required as part of this application since the future
habitat boundaries extend beyond the limit of the existing Open Space (OS) land use designation. The
expanded OS area will allow for the natural habitat to be placed in a separate lot (Parcel C) and
preserved in perpetuity. In addition, an OS General Plan Land Use designation is proposed for Parcels A
(agricultural lot) and B (College Boulevard Reach A detention basin). Based on the current
environmental constraints for the overall project area, the current residential unit yield is 23 units. As
part of the proposed request to change the General Plan Land Use designation from RLM to OS to
accommodate the project, the resulting development yield is 18.50 dwelling units. Therefore, a total of
4.5 dwelling units will be deposited into the city’s Excess Dwelling Unit Bank.
Zone Change (ZC 14-01). A ZC is required to change the zoning designation from Limited Control (L-C) to
Open Space to allow for the creation of the agricultural lot (Parcel A), the detention basin lot (Parcel B)
as well as the natural open space/mitigation lot (Parcel C). Parcel D is proposed to remain as L-C. As
part of the General Plan Update, the zoning designation of L-C will be changed. No development on
Parcel D is proposed in conjunction with the proposed habitat mitigation project.
Hillside Development Permit (HDP 14-04). A HDP is proposed to allow for grading in an area which has
existing slopes which exceed a gradient of 15% and an elevation differential of 15 feet or more.
Special Use Permit (SUP 14-03). A SUP is proposed for grading in the existing 100-year floodplain. As
part of the proposed project, the existing floodplain limits will be modified as a result of the grading
proposed in conjunction with the habitat mitigation area.
Habitat Management Plan (HMP 14-02). The entire project site (APNs 209-060-71, -72) is located in a
Standards Area. Pursuant to the city’s Habitat Management Plan (HMP), Consistency Findings are
required to be processed to remove Parcels C and D from the Standards Area and convert Parcel C to a
Hardline Area. In addition, a HMP is required to permanently preserve the sensitive riparian and upland
habitat.
Minor Subdivision (MS 14-10). A MS is proposed to subdivide the two existing lots (APNs 209-060-71, -
72) into four lots (Parcels A-D). The lot sizes and intended future use are summarized below:
Parcel A: 1.0 acres (gross/net), agricultural-future garden; proposed to remain as an HMP Standards
Area;
Parcel B: 1.12 acres (gross)/0.84 acres (net), bio-retention basin for College Boulevard; to be
constructed as part of the construction of College Boulevard; proposed to be removed from the
HMP Standards Area;
Parcel C: 9.23 acres (gross)/8.81 acres (net), wetland and upland habitat mitigation open space lot,
to be preserved in perpetuity through a biological conservation easement; proposed to be removed
from the HMP Standards Area and converted to an HMP Hardline Area; and
Parcel D: 6.09 acres (gross)/5.78 acres (net); future residential development; no development
proposed at this time; proposed to remain in HMP Standards Area.
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 – COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
June 3, 2015
Page 4
Table 1 below includes the existing General Plan designations, zoning and current land uses of the
project site and surrounding properties.
TABLE 1
Location General Plan Designation Zoning Current Land Use
Site Residential Low-Medium Density
(RLM) and Open Space (O-S)
Limited Control (L-C) Equestrian facility
North
Residential Medium Density (RM)
and Open Space (O-S)
Residential Density-
Multiple (RD-M) and
Open Space (O-S)
Vacant (Dos Colinas
property)
South
Local Shopping Center (L),
Residential Low-Medium Density
(RLM), Residential Medium Density
(RM)
Local Shopping Center
(C-L), Residential Density-
Multiple (RD-M)
Vacant commercial
property, single-family
homes and multi-
family apartments
East Residential Low-Medium Density
(RLM) and Open Space (O-S)
Limited Control (L-C) Vacant
West Open Space (OS) Limited Control (L-C) Golf course
III. ANALYSIS
A. Residential Low to Medium Density (RLM) and Open Space (OS) General Plan Land Use
designations;
B. Open Space (O-S) and Limited Control (L-C) Zones (Chapters 21.33 and 21.39 of the Zoning
Ordinance);
C. Hillside Development Regulations (Chapter 21.95 of the Zoning Ordinance);
D. Floodplain Management Regulations (Chapter 21.110 of the Zoning Ordinance);
E. Habitat Preservation and Management Plan Requirements (Chapter 21.210 of the Zoning
Ordinance);
F. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of the Municipal Code); and
G. Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance), Local Facilities
Management Plan Zone 15
The recommendation for approval of this project was developed by analyzing the project’s consistency
with the applicable regulations and policies. The project’s compliance with each of the above
regulations and policies is discussed in the sections below.
A. Residential Low to Medium Density (RLM) and Open Space (OS) General Plan Land Use
Designations
The existing project site consists of two legal parcels. Agua Hedionda Creek currently defines the shared
property line between the two existing parcels. Excluding College Boulevard, the total project area is
16.43 acres (net). The northern and southern parcels, APNs 209-060-71 (6.02 net acres) and 209-060-72
(10.41 net acres), respectively, each have a split General Plan Land Use designation of Open Space (OS)
and Residential Low-Medium (RLM, 0-4 du/ac). A majority of the northern parcel is designated OS while
a majority of the southern parcel is designated RLM. Collectively, a total of 11.21 acres is currently
designated as RLM and a total of 5.22 acres is currently designated as Open Space. As part of the
proposed project, the two (2) existing properties are proposed to be subdivided into a total of four (4)
parcels.
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 – COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
June 3, 2015
Page 5
Parcels A-C are proposed as OS to align with the proposed uses, including an agricultural lot (Parcel A,
1.0 net acres), bio-retention basin for College Boulevard Reach “A” (Parcel B, 0.84 net acres) and habitat
mitigation associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach “A” (Parcel C, 8.81 net acres).
Designating Parcel C as OS will allow for the long-term preservation of the property in perpetuity, will
provide consistency with the Habitat Management Plan and will satisfy the biological resource
mitigation measures associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach “A”. This action is
consistent with the General Plan Open Space Element and is in accordance with the intent and purpose
of the OS Zone to designate high-priority resource areas as OS at the time of development. Proposed
Parcel D (5.78 net acres) will remain as RLM to allow for future residential development. No
development is proposed on Parcel D at this time. Table 2 below summarizes the proposed changes in
the General Plan Land Use designations.
TABLE 2
Existing
General Plan
Proposed
General Plan
Area
(Net Acres)
Proposed Land Use
Parcel A RLM OS 1.0 Agriculture/garden area
Parcel B OS OS 0.84 Bio-retention basin for College
Boulevard Reach “A”
Parcel C RLM/OS OS 8.81 Creation and preservation of sensitive
wetland and upland habitat
Parcel D RLM RLM 5.78 No development proposed at this time.
TOTAL 16.43
In total, 10.65 acres is proposed to be designated as OS and 5.78 acres is proposed to be designated as
RLM. Therefore, a net gain of 5.44 acres is proposed as OS. As the proposed project does not involve
the construction of residential dwelling units, a density calculation is not required for the area proposed
for habitat mitigation nor is an allocation from the City’s Excess Dwelling Unit Bank (EDUB). However,
because the proposed project entails a request to create additional open space which will be
permanently preserved through a biological conservation easement, as well as other open space uses,
such as a bio-retention basin, any dwelling units that were originally allocated to the RLM-designated
area can be deposited into the EDUB.
Based on the current constraints analysis and current General Plan Land Use designations of RLM and
OS, a total of 23.07 units could be built on the two existing properties (7.21 net acres x 3.2 = 23.07
units). As part of the proposed project, the only property with development potential left would be
proposed Parcel D, which is proposed to be 5.78 net acres. Based on the existing/proposed General
Plan Land Use designation of RLM for Parcel D, a total of 18.50 units could be built on this property at
the Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) of 3.2 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the difference
between 23.07 units and 18.50 units, 4.57 units, is proposed to be deposited into the City’s EDUB.
The proposed habitat mitigation project is consistent with the applicable policies and programs of the
General Plan as demonstrated in Table 3 below.
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 – COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
June 3, 2015
Page 6
TABLE 3 – GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL,
OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM
PROPOSED USES &
IMPROVEMENTS
COMPLIANCE
Land Use Overall Land Use Pattern, Goal
A.1:
A City which preserves and
enhances the environment,
character, and image of itself as a
desirable residential, beach and
open space oriented community.
Overall Land Use Pattern, Policy
C.12:
Develop and retain open space in
all categories of land use.
Agricultural Goal A.2:
A City which supports agriculture
while planning for possible
transition to urban uses.
Environmental Objective:
To establish the preservation of
the natural habitat of the rivers,
river banks, streams, bays,
lagoons, estuaries, marshes,
beaches, lakes, shorelines and
canyons and other natural areas
containing rare and unique
biological resources as a high
priority.
The proposed habitat mitigation
project includes a request to create
and permanently preserve 8.81
acres (Parcel C) of sensitive
wetland, riparian and upland
habitat adjacent to Agua Hedionda
Creek. Proposed Parcel C will be
permanently preserved as open
space through a biological
conservation easement. In
addition, consistent with the
requirements of the Habitat
Management Plan (HMP), the area
will be converted from a Proposed
Standards to a Hardline Area.
Proposed Parcels A and B will also
be designated as Open Space.
Parcel A will be designated as OS
and used as a garden area in the
future. Parcel B will developed
with a bio-retention basin and also
designated as OS. In total, 10.65
acres is proposed to be designated
as OS, which will contribute to the
enhancement and image of
Carlsbad as an open-space oriented
community.
Yes
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 – COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
June 3, 2015
Page 7
TABLE 3 – GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE (CONTINUED)
ELEMENT USE, CLASSIFICATION, GOAL,
OBJECTIVE OR PROGRAM
PROPOSED USES &
IMPROVEMENTS
COMPLIANCE
Open Space
&
Conservation
Open Space Goal A.1.
An open space system of aesthetic
value that maintains community
identity, achieves a sense of
natural spaciousness, and
provides visual relief in the
cityscape.
Open Space Goal A.3:
An open space system that
improves the quality of life for the
citizens of Carlsbad.
Open Space Objective B.12:
To contribute to regional
biodiversity and the viability of
rare, unique, or sensitive
biological resources throughout
the city by maintaining functional
wildlife corridors and habitat
linkage.
Open Space Implementing Policy
C.20:
If open space areas are adjusted,
the proposed open space shall be
equal to or greater than the area
depicted on the Official Open
Space and Conservation Map.
Special Resource Protection Goal
A.1:
A city that protects
environmentally sensitive land
and buffer areas.
Water Quality Goal A.1:
A city with a high quality of water
resources.
As discussed above, the proposed
habitat mitigation project entails
the creation of sensitive wetland,
riparian and upland habitat
adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek
which will be permanently
preserved. The mitigation project
will enhance the overall biological
value of the area adjacent to the
creek and will assist with
maintaining a functional wildlife
corridor and habitat linkage along
Agua Hedionda Creek.
A total of 5.21 acres of the project
site is currently designated as OS in
the General Plan and a total of
10.65 acres is proposed to be re-
designated to OS as part of the
General Plan Amendment. Thus, a
net gain of 5.44 acres of OS-
designated property is proposed.
The proposed habitat mitigation
project is required to comply with
the City’s Standard Urban Storm
Water Management Plan (SUSMP),
which includes the requirement to
implement Best Management
Practices (BMPs) during
construction. Ultimately, the
proposed habitat mitigation project
will improve the water quality since
an existing equestrian use will be
removed from the property.
Yes
B. Open Space (O-S) and Limited Control (L-C) Zone Regulations (Chapters 21.33 and 21.39 of the
Zoning Ordinance)
The 16.43 acre (net) project site is currently zoned Limited Control (L-C). The L-C designation is assigned
to previously-annexed properties and is an interim zone for areas where plans for development have
not yet been formalized. As part of this project, a zone change from L-C to Open Space (O-S) is proposed
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 – COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
June 3, 2015
Page 8
for Parcels A, B and C (total of 10.65 net acres). The OS zoning designation aligns with the proposed OS
General Plan Land Use designation and will allow for the long-term preservation of the sensitive habitat
created as a result of the mitigation project on Parcel C. In addition, the OS zone will allow for the
construction of a future garden on Parcel A and the construction of a bio-retention basin on Parcel B.
No residential development is allowed in the OS zone. Parcel D, 5.78 net acres, will remain as L-C until
development plans are submitted for the parcel or will be rezoned as part of the General Plan Update.
C. Hillside Development Regulations (Chapter 21.95 of the Zoning Ordinance)
As discussed in Section II above, the southern half of the project site (APN 209-060-72) is generally flat
and ranges in elevation from 51’ to 75’ above MSL. The northern half of the site (APN 209-060-71),
steeply climbs in elevation from 51’ to 112 above MSL. As the site contains hillside conditions that
include slopes greater than 15 feet in height with a gradient equal to or greater than 15%, a Hillside
Development Permit is required pursuant to the city’s Hillside Development Ordinance (CMC Chapter
21.95).
Grading proposed in conjunction with the creation of the mitigation area includes the addition of a
contour-graded 2:1 slope adjacent to the northern and southern limits of the new wetland area and the
widening of the creek bed. A total of 73,300 cubic yards of cut and 470 cubic yards of fill is proposed.
As a result, a total of 72,830 cubic yards is proposed to be exported from the site. The applicant has
indicated that the exported material will be utilized in conjunction with the development of College
Boulevard Reach A. The grading design is consistent with the intent of the Hillside Ordinance, Carlsbad
Municipal Code (CMC) Chapter 21.95 since the proposal involves habitat restoration and the proposed
2:1 (minimum) slopes will be contour graded. In addition, the slopes do not exceed a height of 40 feet
and the proposed quantity of grading, 7,595 cubic yards per acre, falls within the “acceptable” range, 0-
7,999 cubic yards per acre. Finally, the slopes will be planted with native species consistent with the
Habitat Management Plan. The required findings are discussed in the attached Planning Commission
Resolution No. 7105.
D. Floodplain Management Regulations (Chapter 21.110 of the Zoning Ordinance)
As the project site is bisected by Agua Hedionda Creek, a majority of the area is located within the
floodplain. As the project proposes development in the flood plain, a Special Use Permit (SUP) is
required pursuant to CMC Chapter 21.110. The SUP is required to ensure that the public health, safety,
and welfare are protected and to minimize public and private losses due to flooding.
A Hydraulic Analysis was prepared for the proposed project by Lyle Engineering (January, 2015). The
Analysis concluded that the grading associated with the proposed habitat mitigation project will
increase flow conveyance volume in the floodplain areas and will significantly reduce the 100-year
starting water surface elevation (WSEL). This reduction will occur west of the College Boulevard bridge,
which will be constructed as part of the College Boulevard (Reach A) expansion project (EIR 98-02).
Specifically, a majority of proposed Parcels B and D will be located outside of the floodplain as a result of
the project due to the proposal to widen the channel (Parcel A located outside of the floodplain pre-
project). In addition, results from the Hydraulic Analysis indicate that flow velocities post project will be
lower or equal to pre-project conditions within the proposed widening of the channel. In addition, flow
velocities are significantly reduced because of the shallower depths spread across the channel bottom.
The required findings are discussed in the attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 7104.
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 – COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
June 3, 2015
Page 9
E. Habitat Preservation and Management Plan Requirements (Chapter 21.210 of the Zoning
Ordinance)
The City of Carlsbad has an adopted Habitat Management Plan (HMP), which is a comprehensive,
citywide program to identify how the City, in cooperation with the federal and state wildlife agencies,
can preserve the diversity of habitat and protect sensitive biological resources within the City while
allowing for additional development consistent with the City’s General Plan and its Growth Management
Plan. In doing so, the HMP is intended to lead to citywide permits and authorization for the incidental
take of sensitive species in conjunction with private development projects, public projects, and other
activities, which are consistent with the HMP. In addition, Chapter 21.210 of the city’s Zoning Ordinance
(Habitat Preservation and Management Requirements) implements the HMP, as well as the goals and
objectives of the city’s Open Space Element of the General Plan. As discussed in the attached Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 7102 and 7104, which includes the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
HMP findings, with the incorporation of mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to a less than
significant level, the project does not conflict with any provisions of the HMP or Zoning Ordinance.
For some key properties within the city which have not submitted proposed hardline designs for
inclusion in the preserve system, the HMP includes conservation goals and standards which will apply to
future development proposals. The goals and standards have been arranged according to the Local
Facilities Management Zones (LFMZ) to which they apply. The standards only apply to those areas
within the LFMZs not already covered by existing and proposed hardline areas, existing take
authorizations or areas shown as development areas on the HMP map. Therefore, the standards only
apply to those parcels which are designated as “Standards Areas” on the HMP map. If individual
properties are proposed for development within a zone, the property owner must show how the
standards, which include goals and objectives of the HMP, will be met. This planning should ensure that
viable biological open space will be comprehensively planned for the zone, rather than having open
space areas planned piece-meal for each parcel within the zone.
The HMP identifies the subject property (APNs 209-060-71, -72) as a Standards Area in Local Facilities
Management Zone 15. While the project site is located outside of any core or linkage habitats (pursuant
to Figure 4 of the HMP), a number of important core and linkage habitats comprise much of Zone 15.
Some of the natural habitat patches in the southern portion of the zone, including the subject site,
border the southern drainage, Agua Hedionda Creek, and add to its value as a wildlife movement
corridor. Agricultural areas north of Agua Hedionda Creek support a mosaic of disturbed coastal sage
scrub patches on rocky hills and ridges, along with a variety of wetland communities. These remnant
natural habitat patches, surrounded by active agricultural fields, comprise part of a stepping stone to
Linkage C for gnatcatchers and other species.
The proposed College Boulevard Mitigation project consists of the enhancement and preservation of
sensitive wetland and riparian habitat, as well as the creation of new wetland, riparian and upland
habitat areas adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek. The creek is currently narrowly incised and flows from
east to west through the central portion of the project site. The proposed project satisfies the biological
resources mitigation measures set forth in Environmental Impact Report, EIR 98-02 (State Clearinghouse
No. 99111082), as it relates to the future construction of Detention Basin BJ and College Boulevard
Reach A, which represents the missing link between the northern and southern extents of College
Boulevard, a major arterial road. In conjunction with development of the road, a bridge will be
extended over Agua Hedionda Creek. The bridge is adjacent to and immediately east of the project site.
The development of College Boulevard, including the bridge, have already been analyzed and approved
pursuant to EIR 98-02. The focus of the subject application is purely on the implementation of the
biological habitat mitigation for the development of College Boulevard.
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 – COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
June 3, 2015
Page 10
A Biological Technical Report (BTR), dated March 26, 2015 and Mitigation Plan (dated March 26, 2015)
have been prepared for the proposed project by Alden Environmental. Implementation of the proposed
habitat mitigation project on Parcel C results in the following impacts:
Habitat Group E:
Non-native grassland, 0.03 acres
Habitat Group F:
Agricultural Lands, 0.37 acres
Eucalyptus Woodland, 0.67 acres
Disturbed Lands, 5.28 acres
Total: 6.32
Impacts to Habitat Group E, 0.03 acres of non-native grassland, will be mitigated at a 0.5:1 ratio through
the payment of an in-lieu fee. Impacts to Habitat Group F, totaling 6.32 acres, will also be mitigated
through the payment of an in-lieu fee. Please note that the habitat impacts associated with the bio-
retention basin on Parcel B are included in the impact footprint for the development of College
Boulevard Reach A. In addition, the impacts associated with the construction of College Boulevard
Reach “A” are not included above as the focus of the proposed project is on the impacts to implement
the mitigation project, not the construction of College Boulevard Reach “A”.
Pursuant to CMC Chapter 21.210, a Habitat Management Plan Permit is required for any development
project which indirectly or directly impacts natural habitat. In addition, the habitat conservation
planning (i.e. conversion from standards area to hardline) requires the processing of Consistency
Findings, which are also generally referred to as “HMP Findings.” The HMP Findings analyze a project’s
consistency with the standards outlined in each zone. The HMP findings for the proposed project can be
found within Planning Commission Resolution No. 7105. As discussed within the Mitigated Negative
Declaration prepared for the proposed project (Planning Commission Resolution No. 7102), with the
incorporation of mitigation measures and compliance with the HMP, the Habitat Management Plan
Permit (HMP 14-02) can be supported. Concurrence from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (i.e., Wildlife Agencies) was received on May 18, 2015. Please see
Attachment No. 18 of the staff report for reference.
F. Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20 of Municipal Code)
The proposed project entails a request for a minor subdivision (MS 14-10) to subdivide the two existing
lots (APNs 209-060-71, -72) into four lots (Parcels A-D). The Land Development Engineering Division has
reviewed the proposed minor subdivision and has concluded that the subdivision complies with all
applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, as well as the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 20). The
project is required to install all infrastructure improvements concurrent with the development. The
developer will be required to offer various dedications (e.g., drainage and sewer easements, street right-
of-way for College Boulevard, etc.) and will be responsible for a number of public and private
improvements including, but not limited to, the construction of the core and frontage improvements
(i.e., curb, gutter, sidewalks) for College Boulevard Reach “A”.
In addition, the project has been designed in accordance with the City’s Stormwater regulations. It has
been conditioned to implement Best Management Practices (BMP) for water quality protection, to
comply with the City of Carlsbad Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Order R9-2007-
0001 issued by the San Diego Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board as well as
the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code. The required findings are discussed in the attached Planning
Commission Resolution No. 7104.
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 – COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
June 3, 2015
Page 11
G. Growth Management Ordinance (Chapter 21.90 of the Zoning Ordinance), Zone 15 Local
Facilities Management Plans
The proposed project is located within Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 15 in the northeast
quadrant of the City. The impacts on public facilities created by the project, and its compliance with the
adopted performance standards, are summarized in Table 4 below.
TABLE 4 - GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE
STANDARD IMPACTS COMPLIANCE
City Administration N/A N/A
Library N/A N/A
Waste Water Treatment N/A N/A
Parks N/A N/A
Drainage Basin D Yes
Circulation N/A N/A
Fire Station No. 2 and 4 N/A
Open Space N/A N/A
Schools N/A N/A
Sewer Collection System N/A N/A
Water N/A (no impacts after temporary irrigation removed) N/A
As the proposed project entails a request to rezone existing RLM-designated property to OS, a total of
4.57 excess dwelling units are proposed to be deposited into the City’s Excess Dwelling Unit Bank
(EDUB).
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection
Ordinance (Title 19) of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, staff conducted an environmental impact
assessment to determine if the project could have any potentially significant impact on the
environment. The environmental impact assessment identified potentially significant impacts to
Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, and Hazards/Hazardous Materials. Mitigation
measures were incorporated into the design of the project or have been placed as conditions of
approval for the project such that all potentially significant impacts have been mitigated to below a level
of significance.
A Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP) was published in the newspaper and the requisite 30-day public review
period for the MND occurred from April 7, 2015 to May 6, 2015.
At the end of the 30-day public review period, comments were received from the following interested
parties:
David Bentley, BENTEQ, dated April 27, 2015;
Michele Staples, Jackson, DeMarco, Tidus, Peckenpaugh, on behalf of Mandana Cal Co., dated
May 6, 2015;
Preserve Calavera, dated May 6, 2015;
Lyall Enterprises, Inc., dated May 7, 2015
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 – COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
June 3, 2015
Page 12
Rancho Carlsbad Owners’ Association, dated May 11, 2015;
San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, dated May 15, 2015;
Wildlife Agency HMP Consistency Letter, dated May 18, 2015; and
Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation, dated May 22, 2015.
The letters are attached to staff report for reference.
As a result of comments received from the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, the cultural resource
mitigation measures have been revised to address the comments. Specifically, CULTURAL-1 has been
revised to add reference to the requirement that the archaeologist consult with the Native American
monitor, if determined to be necessary; and CULTURAL-2 was replaced with a new mitigation measure
which adequately addresses the various comments received from the San Luis Rey Band of Mission
Indians. An addendum has been prepared in accordance with Section 15164 of CEQA. The revisions
have no new significant environmental effects and none of the circumstances require recirculation or
the preparation of a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15162.
In addition, staff’s response to the comments received from David Bentley, Michele Staples and Diane
Nygaard are attached to the staff report for reference. None of comments warrant recirculation or the
preparation of a subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15162.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7102 (Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program and Addendum)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7103 (GPA 13-01/ZC 12-04)
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7104 (HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/MS 14-10)
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7105 (HMP 13-02)
5. Location Map
6. Disclosure Statement
7. Reduced Exhibits
8. City response to David Bentley (BENTEQ) letter, dated May 27, 2015
9. MND comment letter received from David Bentley, BENTEQ, dated April 27, 2015
10. City response to Michele Staples (Mandana) letter, dated May 27, 2015
11. MND comment letter received from Michele Staples, Jackson, DeMarco, Tidus, Peckenpaugh, dated
May 6, 2015
12. City response to Diana Nygaard (Preserve Calavera) email, dated May 27, 2015
13. MND comment letter (email) received from Diane Nygaard, Preserve Calavera, dated May 6, 2015
14. MND comment letter received from San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, dated May 15, 2015
15. Letter of Support, Lyall Enterprises, dated May 7, 2015
16. Letter of Support, Rancho Carlsbad Owners’ Association, dated May 11, 2015
17. Letter of Support, Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation, dated May 22, 2015
18. Wildlife Agency HMP Consistency Letter, dated May 18, 2015
19. Full Size Exhibits “A - G” dated June 3, 2015
EL C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
BADGERLNSUNNYCREEKRD
COLLEGE BLWOLVERINETR
REE
F
C
R
SITE MAP
JPALOMARAIRPORTRD
E
L
C
AMREALL A COSTA AV
C
A
R
L
S
B
A
D
B
LELCAMINOREAL MELR
O
S
E
DRAVIARAPY
RANCHOS ANTAFERDCOLLEGEBLSITE
GPA 14-02 / ZC14-01 / HDP 14-04 /SUP 14-03 / HMP 14-02 / MS 14-10
College Boulevard Mitigation
( (
«~;>
~ CITY OF
DISCLOSURE
STATEMENT
P-1(A)
Development Services
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue
(760) 602-4610
www.carlsbadca.gov CARLSBAD
Applicant's statement or disclosure of certain ownership interests on all applications which will
require discretionary action on the part of the City Council or any appointed Board, Commission
or Committee.
The following information MUST be disclosed at the time of application submittal. Your project
cannot be reviewed until this information is completed. Please print.
Note:
Person is defined as "Any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal
organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, in this and any other county, city and county,
city municipality, district or other political subdivision or any other group or combination acting as a unit."
Agents may sign this document; however, the legal name and entity of the applicant and property owner
must be provided below.
1.
2.
P-1(A)
APPLICANT (Not the applicant's agent)
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having a
financial interest in the application. If the applicant includes a corporation or partnership,
include the names, titles, addresses of all individuals owning more than 1 0% of the
shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE
INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned
corporation, include the names, titles, and addresses of the corporate officers. {A
separate page may be attached if necessary.)
Person Corp/Part ftVI1-We \if l,.,kC..
Title __________ _
Address. _________ _
OWNER (Not the owner's agent)
Title·-------------=--
Address 5=ftll.? Av-m"bb,; fdyjve. Suife 3oD CvtriJ'brJ,~ 1 CA t?/20010 '
Provide the COMPLETE. LEGAL names and addresses of ALL persons having any
ownership interest in the property involved. Also, provide the nature of the legal
ownership (i.e., partnership, tenants in common, non-profit, corporation, etc.). If the
ownership includes a corporation or partnership, include the names, titles, addresses of
all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares. IF NO INDIVIDUALS OWN MORE
THAN 10% OF THE SHARES, PLEASE INDICATE NON-APPLICABLE (N/A) IN THE
SPACE BELOW. If a publicly-owned corporation, include the names, titles, and
addresses ofthe corporate officers. {A separate page may be attached if necessary.)
Person Corp/Part W p &olf .q tq W•drf g 1'1 lA---C-
Title Title ____________ _
Address Address S:rvllo AvmMA 12viV.! Jwi-/e 6Do I
CAvl&[oPlJ M g'2-DDC.0
Page 1 of2 Revised 07/10
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
May 27, 2015
Page 2
shown in Figures 8 and 9 of the Biological Technical Report (Alden 2015) (“BTR”) and the College
Boulevard – Reach A and Basin BJ Project Mitigation Plan (Alden 2015). The existing channel would not
be deepened. The existing streambed would stay in place and no grading would occur within its limits.
The BTR and the Project Mitigation Plan detail the riparian habitat enhancement and creation that
would take place adjacent to the existing streambed.
The mitigation effort would not “radically, permanently and unnecessarily alter and degrade a natural
riparian habitat…” as stated by the commenter. The mitigation effort would not reduce the amount or
quality of native riparian habitat within the mitigation area. The intent is to improve (enhance) and
expand the existing habitat. Currently, much of the mapped habitat is a tree canopy over existing
equestrian center facilities (corrals, roads, buildings, etc.). The grading in this area will remove these
developed/disturbed areas under the tree canopy and provide for a much larger wetland/riparian
habitat.
Presently, the 9.23-acre mitigation site supports 1.93 acres of wetland/riparian vegetation (0.72 acre of
southern willow scrub, 1.17 acres of sycamore woodland, and 0.04 acre of disturbed wetland).
Following implementation of the mitigation, there would be an additional 1.32 acres of wetland/riparian
habitat re-established/created on the site (freshwater marsh adjacent to the central portions of the
creek that experience steady water flows to riparian scrub and forest habitats along the periphery of the
wetland mitigation area) with an additional 1.78 acres of existing wetland/riparian habitat enhanced.
The mitigation plan and BTR for the project (Alden Environmental, Inc., both dated March 26, 2015)
provide details of the impacts of implementing the mitigation and the mitigation proposed for those
impacts, where required. Mitigation measures are also detailed in the MND within the discussion of
each environmental factor as well as in a single list at the end of the MND.
No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 3: Given the superior, lower-impact, lower-cost alternatives that exist for mitigating impacts
arising from the College Blvd. & BJ Basin construction project, the proposed Project does not satisfy the
standard of necessity (ref, HMP) with which any such project must comply.
Response: This comment provides conclusions without providing substantial evidence to support those
conclusions. The Initial Study prepared for the Project and included in the draft MND identified
potentially significant impacts on the environment. However, the proposed mitigation measures, which
were agreed to by the applicant prior to release of the draft MND for public review, would avoid or
mitigate the effects to a point where no significant impact would occur [CEQA §21080(C)(2)]. As a
result, no analysis of alternatives is required.
In addition, as required by the Habitat Management Plan (HMP), the city received concurrence from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Wildlife Agencies) on May
18, 2015 (please see attached letter). Pages 24-32 of the draft MND provides a summary of Carlsbad’s
analysis of the Project’s consistency with the HMP according to the criteria established for such
determinations. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this
comment.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
May 27, 2015
Page 3
Comment 4: In any event, the proposed Project and related impacts cannot be adequately analyzed and
understood, nor can the public be sufficiently informed about the Project, until a comprehensive
Environmental Impact Report, including analyses of project alternatives, is prepared and circulated for
review.
Response: This comment provides conclusions without providing substantial evidence to support those
conclusions. The Initial Study prepared for the Project and included in the draft MND identified
potentially significant impacts on the environment. However, the proposed mitigation measures, which
were agreed to by the applicant prior to release of the draft MND for public review, would avoid or
mitigate the effects to a point where no significant impact would occur [CEQA §21080(C)(2)]. As a
result, no analysis of alternatives is required. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA
documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 5: For your convenience, the following DropBox link provides access to record documents used
in preparing the attached comments and analysis:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/zltzvve5yo35a04/AADQjx_xOBt5Snt5lFpQTKBFa?dI=0
Response: Staff acknowledges this comment
Comment 6: The "Project Description" contained in the City's "Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated
Negative Declaration" and "Initial Study" differs substantially from the Project described in the BTR
prepared by Alden Environmental, Inc. The City defined "Project" is identified as a 17.44-acre property
referred to as the Equestrian Center North & South ("ECNS") and includes a proposed parcel map that
would divide the current 2 legal parcels into 4 parcels for use/development as agriculture, a bio-retention
basin, wetland and upland mitigation, and future development. The BTR, which the City's MND and
Initial Study relies on and refers to, defines the "Project" as College Blvd. & BJ Basin, which were
previously analyzed and approved pursuant to EIR 98-02, and a new bio-retention basin "component".
Please correct and reconcile the BTR, Initial Study & Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration to clearly define and analyze a specific single "Project".
Response: Staff acknowledges this comment. The BTR was prepared to analyze the impacts to
biological resources associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach A and Basin BJ, as well
as the impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed College Boulevard Mitigation
project, the scope and location of which is clearly defined in the MND. The project description included
in the draft MND is consistent within the analysis in the MND, including the Initial Study, and the Notice
of Intent. The project description satisfies the requirements of CEQA as it accurately describes the
proposed habitat mitigation project [CEQA Guidelines §15071(a)]. The BTR was used as a reference in
the preparation of the MND. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a
result of this comment.
Comment 7: If the Project is defined as the proposed subdivision and development of the 17.44 acre
ECNS property into 4 parcels for 4 different uses, that Project should be analyzed and discussed as such.
The extensive references, discussion and analyses of previously approved projects (EIR 98-02) is confusing
and misleading.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
May 27, 2015
Page 4
Response: The project description in the MND satisfies the requirements of CEQA as it accurately
describes the proposed College Boulevard Mitigation project [CEQA Guidelines §15071(a)] and its
relationship to EIR 98-02 (i.e., implementation of mitigation measures associated with EIR 98-02). No
changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 8: Table 1, and related discussion, in the BTR states that the environmental impacts arising
from the proposed creation of the wetland mitigation on the ECNS property are not included because the
"mitigation to be implemented on the ECNS parcels was not part of the Project in the EIR •· (EIR 98-02).
Using that rationale, the impacts of the proposed bioretention basin should not be included in Table l.
Please discuss, analyze and/or correct this inconsistency.
Response: Table 1 in the BTR has been revised to clarify that the impacts associated with the wetland
mitigation on the ECNS property are included in the column labeled “Current Impacts.” The callout for
Footnote 1 has been moved to the column labeled “EIR 98-02 Impacts” as this column includes the
impacts from the EIR and not from the mitigation area impacts on the ECNS parcels. The Project analysis
includes the mitigation area impacts as well as the Reach A/Basin BJ project, with water quality basins.
Comment 9: As proposed, the Agua Hedionda Creek will be substantially graded, resulting in, among
other permanent impacts, a deepened and widened creek and a new manufactured channel into which
water that is currently contained in the existing single natural creek will be diverted/split. Although
significant, no substantive description, analysis or discussion of these impacts is presented in the BTR or
Initial Study. Please discuss and analyze, in detail, these impacts and the requisite mitigation, or
justification for requiring none; include discussion to support the BTR and Initial Study conclusion that
"impacts would be avoided during implementation of mitigation for the Project". (i.e., how does grading
and reconstructing a natural creek not cause significant impacts to that creek?)
Response: The mitigation proposal would avoid impacts to Agua Hedionda Creek as shown in Figures 8
and 9 of the BTR (Alden 2015) and the College Boulevard – Reach A and Basin BJ Project Mitigation Plan
(Alden 2015). The existing creek channel would not be graded or deepened nor would it be
diverted/split. Rather, the existing banks of the streambed would be pulled back to widen the channel
bottom. The existing trees rooted within the channel will remain.
Presently there are 28 western sycamore, 18 arroyo willow, and three black willow trees within the
wetland habitat mitigation area. Trees other than those rooted within the channel that cannot be
avoided during site preparation will be replaced by the plant palette shown on Figure 10 of the BTR
(Alden 2015) to restore and create both wetland and upland habitats. The plant palette provided for in
Figure 10 reflects the species that occur within the mitigation site. One-gallon and five-gallon container
stock will be planted, and impacted willow trees will be spread in the wetland/riparian portion of the
mitigation area so that they can root and grow into trees again. The mitigation plan included installing
container stock at a rate of 100, western sycamore trees per acre; 100, arroyo willow trees per acre; and
100, black willow trees per acre. All of these container stock plants were planned to be one-gallon size.
The mitigation plan and BTR have since been revised to increase 50 of the western sycamore tree from
one-gallon to 5-gallon size to help facilitate faster establishment of habitat.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
May 27, 2015
Page 5
Following implementation of the mitigation, there would be an additional 310 sycamore, 310 arroyo
willow, and 310 black willow trees within the 3.1 acre wetland habitat mitigation area. While not the
intent of the mitigation plan, if all 50 of the existing trees were to be removed, the planting of the 930
trees would result in an 11:1 replacement ratio of sycamore trees, a 17.2:1 replacement ratio of arroyo
willow trees; and a 103.3:1 replacement ratio of black willow trees on the mitigation site. Even if all of
the trees were removed in order to effectively implement the mitigation, the replacement trees (and
inclusion of five-gallon specimens) would more than compensate for any temporal loss of mature trees
and would result in a net gain in habitat quantity and quality over time.
Presently, the 9.23-acre mitigation site supports 1.93 acres of wetland/riparian vegetation (0.72 acre of
southern willow scrub, 1.17 acres of sycamore woodland, and 0.04 acre of disturbed wetland).
Following implementation of the mitigation, there would be an additional 1.32 acres of wetland/riparian
habitat re-established/created on the site (freshwater marsh adjacent to the central portions of the
creek that experience steady water flows to riparian scrub and forest habitats along the periphery of the
wetland mitigation area) with an additional 1.78 acres of existing wetland/riparian habitat enhanced.
The number of trees planted (including the spreading of any cut willows); the re-establishment/creation
of 1.32 acres of wetland/riparian habitat; and the enhancement of existing wetland/riparian habitat
through the removal of trash, cement, and other materials that have been dumped within and adjacent
to the stream over time, will greatly enhance Agua Hedionda Creek and result in a net gain in habitat
quantity and quality over time.
The mitigation plan and BTR for the project (Alden Environmental, Inc., both dated March 26, 2015)
provide details of the impacts of implementing the mitigation and the mitigation proposed for those
impacts, where required. Mitigation measures are also detailed in the MND within the discussion of
each environmental factor and again in a single list at the end of the MND.
As stated in the MND, Standard Impact Mitigation Measures from Appendix A of the Guidelines for
Biological Studies, as well as the other mitigation measures listed in the MND, would be implemented to
avoid/minimize impacts to trees during grading. Mitigation Measure BIO-17, specifically, requires that:
a. The qualified Project biologist shall review grading plans (e.g., all access routes and staging
areas) and monitor construction activities throughout the duration of the Project to ensure that
all practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and any
target species of concern outside the Project footprint.
b. Construction monitoring reports shall be completed and provided to the City summarizing how
the Project is in compliance with applicable conditions. The Project biologist shall be
empowered to halt work activity, if necessary, and to confer with City staff to ensure the proper
implementation of species and habitat protection measures.
Comment 10: Please identify how many trees and/or sensitive, endangered or protected plants or other
species will be impacted (i.e. removed, killed, cut, trimmed, relocated, displaced, etc.) in and along the
Agua Hedionda Creek as part of the mitigation component of the project.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
May 27, 2015
Page 6
Response: Figure 3 of the BTR (Alden 2015) identifies 10 southwestern spiny rush plants that are within
the limits of the existing Agua Hedionda Creek. Because the Project would not impact the creek bottom,
the spiny rush plants would not be impacted by the Project. No other sensitive plant species were
identified within the mitigation area. As a result, implementation of the proposed mitigation effort
would have no impact upon sensitive plant species. As described in the RTC No. 9 above, existing trees
rooted within and along the channel also will be avoided, to the extent practicable. The existing native
wetland habitat along the creek is within the planned wetland habitat enhancement and creation area
and there would be no reduction in wetland habitat. The native trees within the mitigation area are not
considered sensitive individually and impacts would not be considered significant under CEQA.
Three least Bell’s vireo (endangered species) use areas were delineated east of the mitigation site along
Agua Hedionda Creek and its tributary BTR Figure 3 (Alden 2015). The sensitive yellow-breasted chat and
the sensitive yellow warbler also were observed/detected in the area. To be conservative, all riparian
habitat in Agua Hedionda Creek (including on the mitigation site and in its tributary to the northeast) is
considered occupied by the least Bell’s vireo, yellow-breasted chat, and yellow warbler.
The HMP prohibits clearing of vireo-occupied habitat during its breeding season (March 15 to
September 15). With the incorporation of mitigation measure BIO-16 in the MND, however, impacts
would be less than significant. Impacts to the yellow-breasted chat and yellow warbler would be
significant if habitat removal occurred during their breeding season (February 15 to September 15).
According to the HMP, human activities must be restricted in yellow-breasted chat-occupied habitat
during the breeding season, which would also protect the yellow warbler. With the incorporation of
mitigation measures outlined in the MND, the impacts to these sensitive species would be less than
significant.
Sensitive raptor species including Cooper’s hawk (one individual observed), sharp-shinned hawk (one
individual observed), northern harrier (one individual observed), and white-tailed kite (minimum of
three individuals observed) have potential to forage on the mitigation site. The Cooper’s hawk and
white-tailed kite also have potential to nest in woodland habitat on the mitigation site. Direct removal
of upland and agricultural land foraging habitats on the mitigation site may have a substantial effect on
sensitive raptor species and, therefore, would be significant. Direct removal of potential raptor nesting
habitat (or active nest sites) would also be significant. With the incorporation of mitigation measure
BIO-9 in the MND, however, these impacts to sensitive raptor species would be less than significant. No
changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 11: Please discuss and analyze all mitigation for impacts associated with grading, deepening,
widening and re-vegetating the Agua Hedionda Creek.
Response: In addition to the information and analysis that is provided within the MND, including the
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP) and the supporting BTR, please see (Response
to Comments) RTC Nos. 9 and 10 above. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA
documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 12: Please identify and discuss the post-construction impacts up-stream and down-stream (i.e.
hydrologic, hydraulic, erosion, silt, sediment, etc.) that will result from lowering and widening the
channel in this isolated section of the Agua Hedionda Creek.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
May 27, 2015
Page 7
Response: The habitat mitigation project does not propose to lower the existing channel flow line of
Agua Hedionda Creek. Please see the typical cross section of Figure 8 of the BTR. The responses below
relate to the proposed widening associated with the habitat mitigation grading and its effect both up-
stream and downstream of the habitat mitigation Project.
Hydrology. No change to peak flow rates result from the project, either upstream or
downstream.
Hydraulics. An analysis was performed by Lyle Engineering and presented in their report entitled
“Agua Hedionda Creek Hydraulic Analyses, College Boulevard Wetland Mitigation Site” dated
October, 2014 and referenced/cited in the draft MND. The report uses flow rates obtained from
the FEMA Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Agua Hedionda Creek, and was prepared to comply
with the SUP 00-09 for Cantarini Ranch to obtain a CLOMR from FEMA prior to commencing
grading for College Blvd.
a. Upstream. The College Boulevard bridge is directly upstream of the habitat mitigation
Project and was analyzed by sections 12590 and 12710 (see the post-project work map).
Section 5.3, paragraph 5 of that report states, “There are slight increases in 100-year WSELs
due to the proposed bridge crossing. The maximum increase is approximately 0.24 feet at
section 12710.” Since the increase is due to the bridge and not the habitat mitigation
Project, a discussion channel bottom. During the 100-year storm, peak flow is contained in
the wider channel as it traverses through the habitat mitigation Project. The wider channel
banks transition to meet the existing banks at the westerly project boundary. Rip rap
protects this bank transition. The post-project Work map locates section 11650 within the
transition. The 100-YR WSEL increase by 0.01’ in post-project conditions (See the Summary
of Hydraulics model table in Appendix II: HEC-RAS Result) of the report.
b. Downstream. The same table shows three sections downstream of the Project, each of
which has identical pre- and post-project 100-YR WSELs.
Erosion, silt & sedimentation. Within the habitat mitigation Project site, velocities within the
creek are reduced below 6 fps (see the Lyle report section 5.3, paragraph 6 and the Post-Project
conditions Model). Therefore, no increase in erosion is expected within the habitat mitigation
Project and existing offsite erosion, siltation or sedimentation patterns will not be adversely
affected.
No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 13: Please provide discussion, analysis and reference to any technical reports regarding the
probability that the post-construction lowered channel section will naturally fill up with silt or sediment,
effectively returning the creek bottom to its pre-construction elevation.
Response: The College Boulevard Habitat Mitigation project does not propose to lower the existing
channel flow line of Agua Hedionda Creek. The elevation of the creek bottom (i.e., the channel flow
line) will remain unchanged by construction. Please see the typical cross section of Figure 8 of the BTR as
well as the cross sections included in the civil plans associated with the proposed project. No changes
are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
May 27, 2015
Page 8
Comment 14: Please discuss how the lowered and widened section of the Agua Hedionda Creek will be
maintained and, if the creek is not periodically dredged or managed to maintain the lowered channel,
could the flood plain or floodway ultimately return to the preconstruction levels.
Response: Please see RTC No. 13. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a
result of this comment.
Comment 15: Please analyze and discuss how the newly constructed Agua Hedionda Creek will be
maintained long term, how those maintenance impacts will be mitigated and who will be responsible for
the maintenance and costs.
Response: Similar to many other habitat mitigation sites in Carlsbad, a conservation entity acceptable to
the City will hold title to Lot C, the habitat mitigation site. Prior to that entity accepting ownership of
the property, a Property Analysis Record (PAR) will be prepared to estimate the costs of the long-term
management and monitoring of the open space lot in perpetuity. Based on the results of the PAR, the
applicant will be required to provide a non-wasting endowment to the conservation entity sufficient for
the management and monitoring of the open space lot in perpetuity. This is addressed in Mitigation
Measure BIO-8 in the MND. In addition, there are no potential impacts associated with long-term
maintenance of the property. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a
result of this comment.
Comment 16: The BTR states that "Parcel D would be impacted by approved Reach A construction but
otherwise would remain unaffected by the Project". In fact, however, Parcel D will be substantially
affected by the grading of the Agua Hedionda Creek by eliminating nearly 6 acres of floodway and flood
plain, thereby enabling development on Parcel D, which is currently not developable. The BTR should be
corrected and this impact should be discussed and analyzed.
Response: The proposed mitigation will widen a deeply incised channel into a wider, more naturalized
streambed. The widening of the streambed will allow more water to flow through this area during a
rainstorm which will change the boundaries of the existing floodplain and floodway. No development is
being proposed on Parcel D nor is the existing General Plan designation of Parcel D being changed,
therefore it would be speculative to discuss possible environmental impacts of future development
scenarios on Parcel D. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of
this comment.
Comment 17: The grading - lowering and widening - of the Agua Hedionda Creek will remove
approximately 6 acres of the ECNS property (Parcel D) from the floodway and/or flood plain. Please
discuss and analyze the environmental impacts to habitat values and functions resulting from this
substantial reduction in the natural floodway and flood plain, as well as mitigation for said impacts.
Response: As discussed above, the existing Agua Hedionda Creek channel would not be lowered. The
proposed mitigation, as shown in Figure 10 of the BTR and discussed in the MND, would expand and
improve native wetland habitat adjacent to Agua Hedionda Creek. The expanded and improved wetland
habitat in this area would have higher functions and values than currently exist as provided for in the
BTR and the mitigation plan summarized in the BTR and included as an appendix to the BTR. Areas
outside of the proposed mitigation area currently consist of disturbed/developed area associated with
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
May 27, 2015
Page 9
the equestrian center activities. Changes in the floodway and/or flood plain would have no effect upon
the existing disturbed/developed area which comprises Parcel D. No changes are required to be made
to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 18: Proposed Parcel B of the ECNS property is identified as "a new bio-retention basin that
was added to the Project since its previous approval in 2001 in order to satisfy current stormwater
requirements". Please identify when and by what regulatory method the new bio-retention basin was
"added to the Project" and please clearly define the "Project" that said bio-retention basin was added to.
Please specifically identify the "current stormwater requirements" that are referred to in this section of
the BTR and in the City's Initial Study.
Response: In order to comply with current stormwater requirements of San Diego Regional Quality
Control Board Order R2013-0001, to mitigate storm water quality impacts and provide
hydromodification management, eight basins were designed for the College Boulevard Reach A – Basin
BJ Project. These eight basins are shown on Carlsbad drawing 456-3G for College Boulevard and
identified as:
West WQ Basin
West Hydromodification Basin No. 1
West Hydromodification Basin No. 2
RCOA P-3 Basin
College North Basin
EC North Basin
EC South Basin
EC East Basin
The three West basins were approved as part of MS 09-04/GPA 09-02/ZC 09-02/RMHP 96-01(D)/LFMP
15(E)/CUP 09-02/SUP 09-02/SDP 09-02/HDO 09-03/ HMP 09-02. The other five basins were approved as
part of SCE 00-18(C) for Cantarini Ranch. Biological impacts due to proposed grading of these five basins
are accounted for in the BTR for College Boulevard, Reach ‘A’ and mitigated by this habitat mitigation
Project. Since the three basins located on the EC properties are within an existing floodplain area, the
City obtained a consistency determination with the City’s Habitat Management Plan from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (see letter dated 4/9/15), prior to
approval of SCE 00-18(C).
No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 19: Please identify and discuss the drainage, stormwater quality, hydrology or other technical
studies that were completed for this project that support the conclusion the proposed bio-retention basin
being proposed for the new ECNS Parcel B will "satisfy current stormwater requirements".
Response: Although not completed for this habitat mitigation project, the College Boulevard Reach ‘A’ –
Basin BJ project includes studies that respond to this comment. Grading and improvement plans for
College Boulevard Reach ‘A’, Carlsbad drawing 456-3G are under review by City of Carlsbad. Several
associated drainage reports are in plan check for the College Boulevard Reach ‘A’ – Basin BJ project,
prepared by Hunsaker & Associates. The reports that are under review with the City engineer include:
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
May 27, 2015
Page 10
“Drainage Study for College Blvd.” dated 4/22/15,
“Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) for College Boulevard” dated 4/22/15
“CANTARINI RANCH, Hydromodification Management Plan” dated 12/17/14 and revised 3/3/15.
The latter report covers the EC North basin to which the comment is directed and has been determined
to be in compliance with current stormwater permits by the City’s third party review completed by Tory
R. Walker Engineering per their March 19, 2015 technical review memorandum. No changes are
required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 20: Please identify any and all other projects, besides College Blvd., that will use, drain to,
contribute stormwater to, or otherwise benefit from the bio-retention basin proposed for the new ECNS
Parcel B and include discussion and analysis of the associated environmental impacts.
Response The EC North Basin accepts runoff from a storm drain system discharging from College
Boulevard. That system includes runoff from College Blvd, Cantarini Ranch and Dos Colinas as shown in
the “Drainage Study and Storm Water Management Plan for College Blvd.” Based on the studies, runoff
from Dos Colinas will be pre-treated onsite for water quality and hydromodification, therefore, EC North
basin provides no water quality benefit to Dos Colinas. However, the EC North Basin will provide water
quality treatment and hydromodification needs for a portion if Cantarini Ranch. Environmental impacts
for the basin are documented in the BTR. No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a
result of this comment.
Comment 21: If projects other than College Blvd. use, drain into or otherwise derive benefit from the
proposed Parcel B bio-retention basin, please discuss how impacts, costs and benefits associated with
said bio-retention basin are to be allocated among the benefited projects.
Response: The finance breakdown for EC North for College Blvd versus Cantarini Ranch are included in
the proposed Zone 15 College Boulevard finance plan, which are not part of this application.
Comment 22: The Initial Study and BTR present a confusing discussion and analysis of environmental
impacts, in part, by referring to differences in the "Project footprint", presumably referring to a "Project
footprint" found in EIR 98-02 and the newly proposed or amended "Project footprint" that would result
from adding the proposed Parcel B bioretention basin to the College Blvd.+BJ Basin project (the EIR 98-02
project). Please provide a color exhibit with key that clearly depicts the different "Project footprints",
including the specific location and scope of change in habitat impacts.
Response: The BTR was used a reference for the preparation of the MND. The project description and
supporting analysis in the MND accurately outline the scope of the College Boulevard Mitigation project.
Figure 3 of the BTR (Alden 2015) presents the extent of the College Boulevard Reach A and Basin BJ
project; this same figure also presents the proposed adjacent mitigation area which is the subject of the
MND, and clearly described as such, in the project description of the MND. The purpose of the BTR is to
present and analyze the current impacts of the College Boulevard & Basin BJ project, as well as the
impacts of the proposed mitigation project. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA
documentation as a result of this comment.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
May 27, 2015
Page 11
Comment 23: Table 1 (page 10) and related discussion in the BTR seem to conclude that as a result of
ADDING the proposed Parcel B bio-retention basin to the previously analyzed and approved College
Blvd.+BJ Basin project (EIR 98-02), impacts to Riparian (Sycamore) Woodland are REDUCED by 0.47 acre
and overall Wetland/Riparian impacts are REDUCED by 0.18 acre. Please provide discussion, analysis and
a color exhibit with key showing, at a minimum, (a) the original College Blvd.+BJ Basin impact
area/"footprint", (b) the proposed College Blvd.+BJ Basin+new proposed Parcel B bio-retention basin
impact area/ "footprint", and (b) how and where said reductions in habitat impacts occur.
Response: The impact analysis is based on current mapping and current project limits. Additional
impacts associated with the basin located within Parcel B include eucalyptus woodland and agricultural
areas; no wetland/riparian habitat would be impacted. Figure 3 of the BTR (Alden 2015) presents
current vegetation mapping for the overall study area, which includes C. Figure 5a of the previous BTR
(Merkel 2010), which is included as Attachment B to the current BTR, shows the previous vegetation
mapping. A comparison of these two figures shows that the current College Boulevard Reach A and
Basin BJ footprint has been reduced within the wetland/riparian habitat adjacent to Agua Hedionda
Creek. The previous footprint showed an expanded wetland impact area on the southwest side of the
bridge location. This impact has been greatly reduced in the current proposed footprint, which accounts
for the majority of the difference (reduction) in impacts to wetland/riparian habitat. Additionally, this
area that would have been impacted is now included within the mitigation area and will be enhanced,
preserved, and managed. In short, the current proposed College Boulevard Reach A and Basin BJ project
would impact fewer sensitive wetland/riparian biological resources within Agua Hedionda Creek than
the previous design would have. Please refer to Appendix B of the BTR (Alden 2015) for the results of
the previous biological study. Please also see the responses to comments 11 and 23. No changes were
made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 24: Table 1(page10) and related discussion in the BTR state the "impact foot print includes
Reach A and Basin BJ", but "does not include the impacts of the mitigation on the ECNS parcels ... ", then
also states the "differences between the EIR impacts and the current impacts listed in Table 1 are due to
revisions to the previously approved project (Environmental Impact Report [EIR No. 98-02; SCH No
99111082; Recon 2001a}) primarily to satisfy current storm water requirements". However, the proposed
Parcel B bio-retention basin property is approx. 1.12 acres in size while the "Change" shown in Table 1 is
+9.53 acres. Please explain and/or correct this discrepancy.
Response: The 9.53-acre increase is a result of the addition of the five water quality basins added to the
project by SCE 0018(C) described in RTC 20 as well as other changes along the road corridor to match
the final grading limits proposed on the grading plans for College Boulevard Reach A & Basin BJ. The
1.12 acres in Table 1 of the BTR is a portion of the 9.53 acres –that being the basin that is proposed to
be constructed on Parcel C. No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this
comment.
Comment 25: The BTR states the "ECNS parcels (17.44 acres combined) support a former equestrian
facility" (emphasis added). In fact, the property still supports an equestrian facility; please correct.
Response: The BTR has been revised to state that there is an existing equestrian facility on the site which
operates on a lease that can be terminated subject to notification from the property owner. Please note
that the MND does describe the equestrian facility as a current use.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
May 27, 2015
Page 12
Comment 26: Table 2 (page 11) of the BTR shows a total of 1.93 acres of Wetland/Riparian habitat
currently existing on the proposed Parcel C, which includes the section of Agua Hedionda Creek that is
proposed to be extensively graded and reconfigured in order to lower and widen the creek channel, add a
manufactured channel and redirect the creek flow. Please discuss and analyze the impacts that will occur
to the 1.93 acres of Wetland/Riparian habitat, and required mitigation, arising from the proposed
grading and substantial alteration of the natural condition.
Response: As described in the BTR and the MND, wetland/riparian habitat on proposed Parcel C would
not be impacted. Please see RTC No. 9. No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result
of this comment.
Comment 27: Please discuss and analyze the source and survey methodology used to determine the
acreages presented in the BTR and the city's Initial Study.
Response: Survey methods are provided on page 4 of the BTR (Alden 2015). To calculate existing
vegetation community acreages and impacts, ESRI’s ArcGIS software was used to digitize vegetation into
a scaled coordinate system. The project files from the engineer were turned into a polygon, which was
intersected with the vegetation data. The resulting intersected data (impacts to vegetation) was
summarized into an acreage table by vegetation community. These acreages were then used in the BTR.
No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 28: Please discuss and analyze what changes are likely to result from new focused surveys for
the ECNS property and/or the original College Blvd. +BJ Basin project and why they are not required as
part of the City's CEQA review of this proposed Project.
Response: As discussed in the BTR, no new focused surveys are not proposed or required because the
presence of previously-noted or potentially-occurring species is assumed, and mitigation to
avoid/minimize potential impacts is required within the MND. Therefore, no changes are required to be
made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 29: Throughout the BTR (ref., for example, page 12), the Wetlands and Non-Wetlands Waters
present on the ECNS property are omitted/ignored; please explain. In particular, please analyze and
discuss how Waters of the U.S. (WUS) and/or Waters of the State (WS), which are present on the ECNS
parcels, will be "avoided during implementation of mitigation for the Project", particularly since the
proposed mitigation project requires extensive grading in the Agua Hedionda Creek.
Response: Please see RTC No. 10. No changes were are required to be made to the CEQA
documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 30: Table 2 and related discussion in the BTR define the proposed ECNS Parcels as totaling
17.44 acres. Table 5 of the BTR identifies the proposed ECNS Parcels as containing a total of 6.86 acres.
Please reconcile and correct the tables to provide clarity and consistency.
Response: The total acreage of the ECNS parcels, 17.44 acres, corresponds with what is presented in the
MND, and is shown in Table 2 of the BTR (Alden 2015). The proposed Parcel C mitigation site (6.86
acres) occurs within the 17.44-acre area of the ECNS parcels. This is depicted on Figure 2 of the BTR.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
May 27, 2015
Page 13
Table 5 of the BTR shows the impacts to the ECNS parcels (i.e., to 6.86 acres of proposed Parcel C within
the 17.44 acres). No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this
comment.
Comment 31: Page 30 of the BTR, under "Other Areas", states that "Approximately 30.35 acres of other
areas would be directly impacted by the Project as it is currently proposed ... " Table 6 (page 42) of the
BTR shows "Total Other Areas" of"26.39 Acres". Please analyze, discuss and reconcile the difference.
Response: Table 6 lists the proposed mitigation for impacts to sensitive vegetation communities/wildlife
habitats. Of the 30.35 acres referenced on Page 30, Table 6 identifies 26.39 acres as agricultural lands
(16.08), eucalyptus woodland (2.17), or disturbed lands, to be mitigated by payment of an in lieu fee per
Carlsbad’s requirements. The remaining 3.45 acres of developed land and 0.51 acre of ornamental
plantings do not require mitigation of any kind and are not listed in the mitigation table which is Table 6.
No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 32: The BTR study shows impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub (all categories) totaling 1.60 acre
pursuant to EIR 98-02, and 2.61 acres for "Current Impacts". However, the impact analysis in the Merkel
& Associates study, Table 6 (revised March 19, 2010), which is included in the BTR exhibits, shows the
Project Impacts of the original College Blvd.+BJ Basin project to be 3.5 Acres. Please analyze, discuss and
reconcile these numbers.
Response: Figure 3 of the BTR (Alden 2015) presents current vegetation mapping for the overall study
area. Changes to habitats have occurred since Merkel’s study in 2010. The impact and mitigation
analyses are appropriately based on current mapping and proposed project limits. No changes are
required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 33: Please confirm the required mitigation for impacts to Group D Coastal Sage Scrub
pursuant to the HMP or other regulations and/or policies applicable to Zone 15; is the required CSS
mitigation ratio 1: 1 or 2: 1?
Response: The Habitat Management Plan requires 1:1 mitigation for impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub.
However, EIR 98-02 requires that mitigation for the impacts of the construction of College Boulevard be
mitigated at a ratio of 2:1. Mitigation is being provided pursuant to the requirements of EIR 98-02. No
changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 34: The BTR (ref. Table 5 pg. 28) shows total impacts to Wetland/Riparian Communities/
Habitats from its proposed College Blvd.+BJ Basin+Parcel B bio-retention basin Project totaling 0.72
acres. However, the Impact analysis in the Merkel & Associates study, Table 8 (revised March 19, 2010),
which is included in the BTR exhibits, shows the Project Impacts of the Jurisdictional Wetland and
Waterways Impacts-Permanent Impacts of the original College Blvd.+BJ Basin (EIR 98-02) - without the
newly proposed Parcel B bio-retention basin - to be 1.1 Acres. Please analyze, discuss and reconcile these
numbers.
Response: Please see RTC No. 23 and 32. No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a
result of this comment.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
May 27, 2015
Page 14
Comment 35: The BTR (pg. 43) states, "In total, the Project would provide 2.40 acres of wetland/riparian
mitigation"; the referenced "Project” is defined as the original College Blvd.+BJ Basin project, pursuant to
EIR 98-02 +the newly proposed Parcel B bio-retention basin. However, the Merkel & Associates study,
Table 10 (revised March 19, 2010), which is included in the BTR exhibits, shows total Project Mitigation
for the original College Blvd. +BJ Basin project, pursuant to EIR 98-02, - without the newly proposed
Parcel B bioretention - basin of3.01 Acre. Please analyze, discuss and reconcile the numbers.
Response: Please see RTC No. 23 and 32. No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a
result of this comment.
Comment 36: The Merkel & Associates report (revised March 19, 2010), which is included in the BTR
exhibits, states: "Mitigation ratios to HMP Group A habitats are subject to modification by state and
federal agencies where wetland regulatory authority exists. Mitigation ratios for HMP Group B-F
habitats are based on Table 11 of the City's HMP (page D-113). It should be noted that College Boulevard
- Reach A and the Basin BJ are City approved projects; thus, city projects that impact Type D, E and F
habitats and require off site mitigation, will not pay the in lieu fee and will mitigate at the Lake Calavera
Mitigation Bank, as available. If lands are not available at the Lake Calavera Mitigation Bank, the in lieu
fee will be required. In lieu fees are based on the City's Development Processing Fee Schedule, effective
September 1. 2008 and updated July l, 2009." Please confirm the accuracy of this footnote and its
applicability to the proposed College Boulevard Mitigation Project.
Response: The 2010 Merkel report is provided as an appendix to the BTR to provide historical
information in connection with the College Boulevard Reach A & Basin BJ project certified under EIR 98-
02. The 2010 Merkel report does not fully address the mitigation for the College Boulevard Reach A &
Basin BJ project as it has been modified to satisfy current stormwater regulations. The current Alden
BTR addresses the modified project and the mitigation requirements for its impacts. In addition, as
required by the Habitat Management Plan (HMP), the city received concurrence from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Wildlife Agencies) on May 18, 2015
(please see attached letter). No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this
comment.
Comment 37: HMP compliance requires Projects be designed to avoid wetlands to the maximum extent
practicable. As noted in the BTR, Section 06 of the HMP (pg. D-90) states that Projects that affect
wetlands must demonstrate that the impacts: (i) Cannot be avoided by a feasible alternative; (ii) Have
been minimized to the maximum extent possible; (iii) Would be mitigated in ways that assure no net loss
of habitat value and function. Based on the foregoing criteria, and any other applicable standards or
policies, please discuss and analyze:
Response: As required by the HMP, the city received concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Wildlife Agencies) on May 18, 2015 (please see attached
letter. No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 38a: What alternative wetland mitigation projects were considered, including but not limited
to the lower impact, lower cost Bepton Dartford/Lubliner wetland mitigation project that was approved
by the City, USACE, CDF&G & RWQCB in 2010.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
May 27, 2015
Page 15
Response: The proposed College Boulevard Habitat Mitigation project is a private development
application and is not a city-initiated project. The city is not required to evaluate the differences or pros
and cons between implementing the habitat mitigation project on the Lubliner property and the
West/ECNS properties. Pursuant to EIR 98-02, “Agency policy recommends that mitigation occur within
vicinity of the impacts and within the same watershed.” The proposed project meets this policy and the
Wildlife Agencies are supportive of the proposed location as demonstrated by the issuance of the HMP
Concurrence letter on May 18, 2015. No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of
this comment.
Comment 38b: As designed and approved, the 2010 Lubliner wetland mitigation project (which was
inexplicably abandoned/terminated by the current Applicant/West), provided over 3 acres of high quality
wetland mitigation (creation and enhancement) utilizing floodway and flood plain land adjacent to the
Agua Hedionda Creek, without radically altering the creek or substantially impact existing wetland
habitat, as is proposed by the current West Project. The West/ECNS property also offers several acres of
floodway and flood plain land outside of and adjacent to the Agua Hedionda Creek that could be
designed and utilized for wetland mitigation, with minimal impacts and at a much lower cost.
Response: Please see RTC No. 38a above. No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a
result of this comment.
Comment 38c: The Applicant's/West's property, formerly part of its Dos Colinas project, located adjacent
to the Agua Hedionda Creek and the Terraces Apartments, offers opportunities for wetland mitigation
and a bio-retention basin with much less environmental impact and at a lower cost.
Response: Please see response 38a regarding the issue of HMP compliance. No changes were made to
the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 38d: What alternative upland/CSS mitigation properties were considered, i.e. the Bepton-
Dartford/Lubliner property, the Basin BJ site, the Lake Calavera Mitigation Bank?
Response: Please see response 38a regarding the issue of HMP compliance. No changes are required to
be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 38e: Upland/CSS mitigation can be achieved through purchase of "credits" in approved
mitigation banks, or payment of in-lieu fees, at lower costs and without causing new impacts.
Response: Please see response 38 regarding the issue of HMP compliance. No changes are required to
be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 39: The required wetland mitigation is reportedly 2.40 acres and the required upland (CSS)
mitigation of 5 .22 acres can be satisfied through alternatives that are less impactful, less costly, and
offer higher probability of success and/or higher quality existing habitat. The proposed Project would
impact approx. 15 acres overall (of a 17.44 acre site) including the grading and reconfiguring of a natural
creek and the reduction of floodway and flood plain function and values, while providing no guarantee of
habitat creation success. Please analyze and discuss how these facts are consistent with the above
referenced HMP standards, Section 06 (pg. D-90), or any other applicable regulatory provision or policy.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
May 27, 2015
Page 16
Response: The mitigation effort will not deepen the existing Agua Hedionda Creek, nor will it reduce the
functions and values of existing habitats within or adjacent to the current and/or proposed
floodway/floodplain. The impact to sensitive biological resources associated with the mitigation effort is
6.86 acres, as shown in Table 5 of the BTR (Alden 2015). The BTR (Alden 2015) and the draft MND
include requirements to successfully carry out the proposed mitigation effort. Please also see responses
to comments 10, 18, and 38. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a
result of this comment.
Comment 40: As noted, this proposed Project is intended to satisfy mitigation requirements for offsite
infrastructure (College Blvd.+Basin BJ) in LFMP Zone 15 and the Applicant is seeking reimbursement for
the costs of this Project from Zone 15 property owners through its proposed LFMP Zone 15 financing
program. Accordingly, please analyze and discuss the relative cost v benefit value of this Project by
comparing its estimated costs with the estimated costs of the available mitigation alternatives.
Response: A significant effect on the environment is a substantial or potentially substantial adverse
change in the physical conditions of the area affected by the project. [CEQA §21068; CEQA Guidelines
§§ 15002(g), 15382]. The issues raised are not related to an environmental issue pursuant to CEQA nor
are they at variance with the existing content of the draft MND. No changes are required to be made to
the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 41: Please discuss and analyze when focused surveys should be conducted for projects of this
magnitude and why they are or are not appropriate or necessary for this Project.
Response: Please see RTC 28. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a
result of this comment.
Comment 42: El Camino Real is a designated Scenic Corridor; please discuss and analyze the Project
impacts to this Scenic Corridor. Please include identification and analysis of any visual/view-shed impacts
arising from the removal, relocation or killing of existing mature trees and plants and replacing a narrow
natural single creek with a wide manufactured dual channel basin.
Response: The Project site is not adjacent to El Camino Real and is, therefore, located outside the
boundaries of the El Camino Real Scenic Corridor. The Project site will be bordered on the north and
south by residential development, to the east by College Boulevard, and to the west by a golf course.
The draft MND at pages 7-8 addresses potential impacts to aesthetics. Impacts have been determined
to be less than significant or that there will be no impacts, pursuant to the CEQA significance thresholds.
The replacement of the existing equestrian facility with restoration and creation of wetland habitats and
creation of uplands habitats is not expected to result in impacts to the El Camino Real Scenic Corridor or
any other aesthetic resource. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a
result of this comment.
Comment 43: The Project proposed for the 17.44 acre ECNS property will substantially alter the local
community character. The ECNS property is currently a rural equestrian and open space amenity that is
consistent with and serves as the gateway into the Sunny Creek rural estate specific plan (SP191) area. In
its current state, the 17.44 acre ECNS property provides substantial natural wetland, riparian, floodway
and flood plain habitat function and value as well as a high demand regional service (equestrian). The
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
May 27, 2015
Page 17
proposed Project will replace this unique and appealing historic land use with a large graded,
manufactured and landscaped basin that substantially alters the natural environs as well as the flow and
function of the Agua Hedionda Creek. Please discuss and analyze the impacts to community character
and appropriate mitigation.
Response: The majority of the Project site is highly disturbed and covered with older buildings, stables
and paddocks. As shown by Figure 3 in the BTR, very little of this site can be classified as natural
wetland/riparian. As explained previously, the existing creek is deeply incised and lined with broken
concrete to minimize erosion. The proposed mitigation will remove these structures, lower the area
around the existing streambed and bring this site into a more natural configuration. The equestrian use
is on a lease with the property owner which can be terminated at any time. Replacing an equestrian use
with natural habitat in conformance with the goals HMP as well as the General Plan, and will not have a
negative impact on the community character. Carlsbad’s Habitat Management Plan Annual Report
2015 identifies this area as one of the City’s major east-west wildlife corridors. The widening of the
existing narrow streambed and establishment of upland habitat adjacent to the future wetland area is
expected to have a beneficial impact on wildlife movement in this corridor. No changes are required to
be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 44: Please discuss and analyze, with reference to the relevant regulatory standards or policies,
how a landowner removing trash from their own property constitutes "habitat enhancement" or
"mitigation" for development impacts.
Response: The habitat mitigation plan introduced in the BTR and discussed at length in the referenced
Mitigation Plan (Alden 2014) provides for a complex of tasks that together are proposed to both
enhance habitat and mitigate for impacts of the College Boulevard Reach A & Basin BJ project. Removal
of trash is only a component of the mitigation effort and is not intended, in and of itself, to result in
habitat enhancement or mitigation. The mitigation effort, as described in the BTR and Mitigation Plan
incorporates grading, planting, seeding, and irrigation to increase both the size and quality of the
wetland/riparian habitat within the mitigation area. Removal of trash during installation of the
mitigation will serve to facilitate the improvement of the habitat. Furthermore, the mitigation effort
includes a 5-year maintenance and monitoring period, followed by long-term management, to ensure
success. Given that the project does not propose to rely solely upon trash removal for its mitigation,
there is no regulatory standard or policy to discuss, as requested by the commenter.
Mitigation Measure BIO-6 of the draft MND notes that the applicant must obtain the approval of
Carlsbad, the Wildlife Agencies, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of a final wetlands/riparian
restoration plan prior to Carlsbad’s issuance of a grading permit and/or the clearing of any habitat on-
site. In order to obtain these approvals the mitigation effort must comply with applicable City and
agency regulatory standards, guidelines, and requirements. No changes are required to be made to the
CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 45: The Project, particularly the Parcel B bio-retention basin and the Parcel C mitigation site,
(a) is intended to support the previously approved Zone 15 College Blvd.+BJ Basin project (EIR 98-02); (b)
is reportedly allowed to cause significant environmental impacts pursuant to the HMP "critical
infrastructure" exemption; and, ( c) is dependent on funding/ financing through an LFMP Zone 15
financing program that is not yet formed or approved and is widely opposed by many of the Zone 15
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, BENTEQ
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10-COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
May 27, 2015
Pa e 18
property owners. Given these facts, please discuss if/haw the Project entitlements, approvals and/or
permits will be subject to and/or conditioned upon (i) completion of a Zone 15 LFMP financing program,
(ii) the construction of College 81vd.+8asin 8J, (iii) the recording of an open-space easement over
proposed parcels 8 & C, and (iv) the funding of an endowment for perpetual maintenance and
management of the mitigation and open space.
"
Response: As concluded in the MND, with the implementation of the mitigation measures, the project
impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. In addition, HMP concurrence was received from
the Wildlife Agencies on May 18, 2015. The financial details, including the financing of the project, is not
a CEQA matter. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure BI0-8 of the draft MND, the applicant must record a
conservation easement or restrictive covenant over the habitat mitigation Parcel C and must fund an
endowment for the long term maintenance and management of Parcel C. Therefore, no changes are
required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Thank you for providing comments on the College Boulevard Mitigation project Should you have any
additional questions, please contact the project planner, Shannon Werneke, at {760) 602-4621 or by
email at shannon.werneke@carlsbadca.gov.
[I~
DON NEU, AICP
City Planner
DN:SW:bd
Enc: Wildlife Agency HMP Concurrence letter, dated May 18, 2015
c: Mike Howes
Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney
File Copy
Data Entry
BENTEQ
Apri l 17. 2015
Ms. Shannon Werneke. Associate Planner
City of Carlsbad Planning
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad. CA 92008
ATIACHMENT9
BENTLEY EQUITY. INC. 7604769572 -ofc
760 809.5216 ·cell
\\ Wl\ .dmlwntlc) .emu
7449 Magellan Street
Carlsbad CA 92011
beoteQ 'f• roadrunner corn
Via E-mai l & U.S. Mail
RE: Project No. GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01 /HDP 1-l-04/SUP 1-l-03/HMP 14-02/MS 1-l-10
Project Name: Co llege Boulevard Mitigation
Dear Ms. Wernel..e:
Thank you for the opportunit~ to revie" and pro\ ide comments in connection "ith the above
referenced Project. In addition to substantial!} and negatively impacting adjacent land owned by my
clients. Bepton & Dartford Investments. and a nearb) property in which an affi liate. Bentley-Wing
Investments. has a substantial interest. the proposed Project will have an unnecessary negative impact
on the overall Sunn) Creek communi!) and environment.
Although purportedly designed to satisf) ce11ain new water quality standards and habitat mitigation
requirements in connection with the construction of Co llege Blvd. and Basin BJ (ref. EIR 98-02). the
Project would instead radically. permanent!) and unnecessaril) alter and degrade a natural riparian
habitat and significant water-\\'a) in order to create. for the benefit of the Project proponent. nearl) 6
acres of nev. de' elopment area that is current I) un-developable flood\\ ay and flood plain land.
Given the superior, lower-impact. lower-cost alternatives that exist for mitigating impacts ari sing
from the College Blvd. & BJ Basin construction projects. the proposed Project does not satisfy the
standard of necessit) (ref. HMP) "ith "hich an) such project must comply. In any event. the
proposed Project and related impacts cannot be adequate I) ana l) zed and understood. nor can the
public be sufficiently informed about the Project. until a comprehensive Environmental Impact
Report, including analyses of project alternatives. is prepared and circulated for revie\\.
For your convenience. the following DropBox link pro\ ides access to record documents used in
preparing the attac hed comments and analysis:
https: "'"'·dropbo:-..com slult.l\\~5,o35a04 AADOtx x0Bt5~nt51Fp01 KB£ a'!di-O
~~ideralion.
David M. Bentley. CCIM-President
Bentley Equity. Inc.
(Copy list al/ached)
Copies via email to:
Don Neu, City Planner
Gary Barberio, Assistant Manager
Glen Van Peski, City Engineer
Jeremy Riddel, Assistant City Engineer
Chuck McBride, Finance
Aaron Beanan, Finance
Celia Brewer, City Attorney
Bob Ladwig, Ladwig Design Group
Bepton & Dartford Investments
Rancho Carlsbad Owners Association
Bentley-Wing Properties, Inc.
Diane Nygaard, Preserve Calavera
Madeline Szabo, Friends of Sunny Creek
Madana Ca!Co
Kato Family Trust
Walmart
Barlow Horse Boarding
Coman Trust
Lyall Ranch
Seaboume Corp./Holly Springs
Pa;o 2
COMMENTS & QUESTIONS
RE: City of Carlsbad Notice oflntent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
Project No. GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10
Project Name: College Boulevard Mitigation
1. The "Project Description" contained in the City's "Notice of Intent to Adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration" and "Initial Study" differs substantially from the Project
described in the Biological Technical Report (hereinafter, the "BTR") prepared by Alden
Environmental, Inc.
The City defined "Project" is identified as a 17 .44-acre property referred to as the
Equestrian Center North & South (hereinafter "ECNS") and includes a proposed parcel map
that would divide the current 2 legal parcels into 4 parcels for use/development as
agriculture, a bio-retention basin, wetland and upland mitigation, and future development.
The BTR, which the City's MND and Initial Study relies on and refers to, defines the
"Project" as College Blvd. & BJ Basin, which were previously analyzed and approved
pursuantto EIR 98-02, and a new bio-retention basin "component".
Please correct and reconcile the BTR, Initial Study & Notice of Intent to Adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration to clearly define and analyze a specific single "Project".
2. If the Project is defmed as the proposed subdivision and development of the I 7.44
acre ECNS property into 4 parcels for 4 different uses, that Project should be analy:r..ed and
discussed as such. The extensive references, discussion and analyses of previously approved
projects (EIR 98-02) is confusing and misleading.
3. Table 1, and related discussion, in the BTR states that the environmental impacts
arising from the proposed creation of the wetland mitigation on the ECNS property are not
included because the "mitigation to be implemented an the ECNS parcels was nat part of the
Project in the EIR" (EIR 98-02). Using that rationale, the impacts of the proposed bio·
retention basin should not be included in Table I. Please discuss, analyze and/or correct this
inconsistency.
4. As proposed, the Agua Hedionda Creek will be substantially graded, resulting in,
among other permanent impacts, a deepened and widened creek and a new manufactured
channel into which water that is currently contained in the existing single natural creek will
be diverted/split. Although significant, no substantive description, analysis or discussion of
these impacts is presented in the BTR or Initial Study. Please discuss and analyze, in detail,
these impacts and the requisite mitigation, or justification for requiring none; include
discussion to support the BTR and Initial Study conclusion that "impacts would be avoided
during implementation of mitigation far the Project". (i.e. How does grading and re-
constructing a natural creek not cause significant impacts to that creek?)
Page3
S. Please identify how many trees and/or sensitive, endangered or protected plants or
other species will be impacted (i.e. removed, killed, cut, trimmed, relocated, displaced, etc.)
in and along the Agua Hedionda Creek as part of the mitigation component of the project.
6. Please discuss and analyze all mitigation for impacts associated with grading,
deepening, widening and re-vegetating the Agua Hedionda Creek.
7. Please identifY and discuss the post-construction impacts up-stream and down-stream
(i.e. hydrologic, hydraulic, erosion, silt, sediment, etc.) that will result from lowering and
widening the channel in this isolated section of the Agua Hedionda Creek.
8. Please provide discussion, analysis and reference to any technical reports regarding
the probability that the post-construction lowered channel section will naturally fill up with
silt or sediment, effectively returning the creek bottom to its pre-construction elevation.
9. Please discuss how the lowered and ·widened section of the Agua Hedionda Creek
will be maintained and, if the creek is not periodically dredged or managed to maintain the
lowered channel, could the the flood plain or floodway ultimately return to the pre-
construction levels.
10. Please analyze and discuss how the newly constructed Agua Hedionda Creek will be
maintained long term, how those maintenance impacts will be mitigated and who will be
responsible for the maintenance and costs.
11. The BTR states that "Parcel D would be impacted by approved Reach A construction
but otherwise would remain unaffected by the Project". In fact, however, Parcel D will be
substantially affected by the grading of the Agua Hedionda Creek by eliminating nearly 6
acres of flood·way and flood plain, thereby enabling development on Parcel D, which is
currently not developable. The BTR should be corrected and this impact should be discussed
and analyzed.
12. The grading -lowering and widening -of the Agua Hedionda Creek will remove
approximately 6 acres of the ECNS property (Parcel D) from the floodway and/or flood
plain. Please discuss and analyze the environmental impacts to habitat values and functions
resulting from this substantial reduction in the natural floodway and flood plain, as well as
mitigation for said impacts.
13. Proposed Parcel B of the ECNS property is identified as "a new bio-retention basin
that was added to the Project since its previous approval in 200 I in order to satisfy current
stormwater requirements". Please identify when and by what regulatory method the new
bio-retention basin was "added to the Project" and please clearly define the "Project" that
Paga.f
said bio-retention basin was added to. Please specifically identify the "current stormwater
requirements" that are referred to in this section of the BTR and in the City's Initial Study.
14. Please identifY and discuss the drainage, stormwater quality, hydrology or other
technical studies that were completed for this project that support the conclusion the
proposed bio-retention basin being proposed for the new ECNS Parcel B will "satis./Y current
stormwater requirements".
15. Please identifY any and all other projects, besides College Blvd., that will use, drain
to, contribute storm water to, or otherwise benefit from the bio-retention basin proposed for
the new ECNS Parcel Band include discussion and analysis of the associated environmental
impacts.
16. If projects other than College Blvd. use, drain into or otherwise derive benefit from
the proposed Parcel B bio-retention basin, please discuss how impacts, costs and benefits
associated with said bio-retention basin are to be allocated among the benefited projects.
17. The Initial Study and BTR present a confusing discussion and analysis of
environmental impacts, in part, by referring to differences in the "Project footprint",
presumably referring to a "Project footprint" found in Em 98-02 and the newly proposed or
amended "Project footprint" that would result from adding the proposed Parcel B bio-
retention basin to the College Blvd.+BJ Basin project (the EIR 98-02 project). Please
provide a color exhibit with key that clearly depicts the different "Project footprints",
including the specific location and scope of change in habitat impacts.
18. Table 1 (page 10) and related discussion in the BTR seem to conclude that as a result
of ADDING the proposed Parcel B bio-retention basin to the previously analyzed and
approved College Blvd.+BJ Basin project (EIR 98-02), impacts to Riparian (Sycamore)
Woodland are REDUCED by 0.47 acre and overall Wetland/Riparian impacts are REDUCED
by 0.18 acre. Please provide discussion, analysis and a color exhibit with key showing, at a
minimmn, (a) the original College Blvd.+BJ Basin impact area/"footprint", (b) the proposed
College Blvd.+BJ Basin+new proposed Parcel B bio-retention basin impact areal "footprint",
and (b) how and where said reductions in habitat impacts occur.
19. Table 1 (page 10) and related discussion in the BTR state the "impact foot print
includes Reach A and Basin BJ'', but "does not include the impacts of the mitigation on the
ECNS parcels ... ", then also states the "differences between the EIR impacts and the current
impacts listed in Table 1 are due to revisions to the previously approved project
(Environmental Impact Report [EIR No. 98-02; SCH No 99111082; Recon 200Ia]) primarily
to satisfy cu"ent storm water requirements". However, the proposed Parcel B bio-retention
basin property is approx. 1.12 acres in size while the "Change" shown in Table 1 is +9.53
acres. Please explain and/or correct this discrepancy.
Pago5
20. The BTR states the "EG'NS parcels (17.44 acres combined) support aformer
equestrian facility" (emphasis added). In fact, the property still supports an equestrian
facility; please correct.
21. Table 2 (page 11) ofthe BTR shows a total of 1.93 acres of Wetland/Riparian habitat
currently existing on the proposed Parcel C, which includes the section of Agua Hedionda
Creek that is proposed to be extensively graded and reconfigured in order to lower and widen
the creek channel, add a manufactured channel and redirect the creek flow. Please discuss
and analyze the impacts that will occur to the 1.93 acres of Wetland/Riparian habitat, and
required mitigation, arising from the proposed grading and substantial alteration of the
natural condition.
22. Please discuss and analyze the source and survey methodology used to determine the
acreages presented in the BTR and the city's Initial Study.
23. Please discuss and analyze what changes are likely to result from new focussed
surveys for the ECNS property and/or the original College Blvd. +BJ Basin project and why
they are not required as part of the City's CEQA review of this proposed Project.
24. Throughout the BTR (ref., for example, page 12), the Wetlands and Non-Wetlands
Waters present on the ECNS property are omitted/ignored; please explain. In particular,
please analyze and discuss how Waters of the U.S. (WUS) and/or Waters of the State (WS),
which are present on the ECNS parcels, will be "avoided during implementation of
mitigation/or the Prqj'ect", particularly since the proposed mitigation project requires
extensive grading in the Agua Hedionda Creek.
25. Table 2 and related discussion in the BTR define the proposed ECNS Parcels as
totaling 17.44 acres. Table 5 of the BTR identifies the proposed ECNS Parcels as containing
a total of 6.86 acres. Please reconcile and correct the tables to provide clarity and
consistency.
26. Page 30 of the BTR, under "Other Areas", states that "Approximately 30.35 acres of
other areas would be directly impacted by the Project as it is currently proposed ... " Table 6
(page 42) of the BTR shows "Total Other Areas" of "26.39 Acres". Please analyze, discuss
and reconcile the difference.
27. The BTR study shows impacts to Coastal Sage Scrub (all categories) totaling 1.60
acre pursuant to EIR 98-02, and 2.61 acres for "Current Impacts". However, the impact
analysis in the Merkel &Associates study, Table 6 (revised March 19, 2010), which is
included in the BTR exhibits, shows the Project Impacts of the original College Blvd.+BJ
Basin project to be 3.5 Acres. Please analyze, discuss and reconcile these numbers.
Page6
28. Please confirm the required mitigation for impacts to Group D Coastal Sage Scrub
pursuant to the HMP or other regulations and/or policies applicable to Zone 15; is the
required CSS mitigation ratio 1:1 or 2:1?
29. The BTR (ref. Table 5 pg. 28) shows total impacts to Wetland/Riparian Communities/
Habitats from its proposed College Blvd.+BJ Basin+ Parcel B bio-retention basin Project
totaling 0. 72 acres. However, the Impact analysis in the Merkel & Associates study, Table 8
(revised March 19, 2010), which is included in the BTR exhibits, shows the Project Impacts
of the Jurisdictional Wetland and Waterways Impacts-Permanent Impacts of the original
College Blvd.+BJ Basin (EIR 98-02) • without the newly proposed Parcel B bio-retention
basin-to be 1.1 Acres. Please analyze, discuss and reconcile these numbers.
30. The BTR (pg. 43) states, "In total, the Project would provide 2.40 acres of wetland/
riparian mitigation"; the referenced "Project ·• is defined as the original College Blvd.+BJ
Basin project, pursuant to EIR 98-02 + the newly proposed Parcel B bio-retention basin.
However, the Merkel & Associates study, Table 10 (revised March 19, 2010), which is
included in the BTR exhibits, shows total Project Mitigation for the original College Blvd.
+BJ Basin project, pursuant to EIR 98-02, -without the newly proposed Parcel B hio-
retention-basin of 3.01 Acre. Please analyze, discuss and reconcile the numbers.
31. The Merkel &Associates report (revised March 19, 2010), which is included in the
BTR exhibits, states: "Mitigation ratios to HMP Group A habitats are subject to modification
by state and federal agencies where wetland regulatory authority exists. Mitigation ratios
for HMP Group B-F habitats are based on Table 11 of the City$ HMP (page D-113). It
should be noted that College Boulevard· Reach A and the Basin BJ are City approved
projects; thus, city projects that impact TypeD, E and F habitats and require offtite
mitigarion, will not pay the in lieu fee and will mitigate at the Lak£ Calavera Mitigation
Bank, as available. If lands are not available at the Lak£ Cal avera Mitigation Bank, the in
lieu fee will be required. in lieufees are based on the City$ Development Processing Fee
Schedule, effective September 1, 2008 and updated July 1, 2009. " Please confirm the
accuracy of this footnote and its applicability to the proposed College Boulevard Mitigation
Project.
32. HMP compliance requires Projects be designed to avoid wetlands to the maximum
extent practicable. As noted in the BTR, Section 06 of the HMP (pg. D-90) states that
Projects that affect wetlands must demonstrate that the impacts: (i) Cannot be avoided by a
feasible alternative; (ii) Have been minimized to the maximum extent possible; (iii) Would be
mitigated in ways that assure no net loss ofhabitat value and function. Based on the
foregoing criteria, and any other applicable standards or policies, please discuss and analyze:
A. What alternative wetland mitigation projects were considered, including but
not limited to the lower impact, lower cost Bepton-Dartford/Lubliner wetland mitigation
project that was approved by the City, USACE, CDF&G & RWQCB in 2010.
Paga7
B. As designed and approved, the 2010 Lubliner wetland mitigation project
(which was inexplicably abandoned/terminated by the current Applicant/West), provided
over 3 acres of high quality wetland mitigation (creation and enhancement) utilizing
tloodway and flood plain land adjacent to the Agua Hedionda Creek, without radically
altering the creek or substantially impact existing wetland habitat, as is proposed by the
current West Project. The West/ECNS property also offers several acres of floodway and
flood plain land outside of and adjacent to the Agua Hedionda Creek that could be designed
and utilized for wetland mitigation, with minimal impacts and at a much lower cost.
C. The Applicant's/West's property, formerly part of its Dos Colinas project,
located adjacent to the Agua Hedionda Creek and the Terraces Apartments, offers
opportunities for wetland mitigation and a bio-retention basin with much less environmental
impact and at a lower cost.
D. What alternative upland/CSS mitigation properties were considered, i.e. the
Bepton-Dartford/Lubliner property, the Basin BJ site, the Lake Calavera Mitigation Bank.
E. Upland/CSS mitigation can be achieved through purchase of"credits" in
approved mitigation banks, or payment of in-lieu fees, at lower costs and without causing
new impacts.
33. The required wetland mitigation is reportedly 2.40 acres and the required upland
(CSS) mitigation of 5.22 acres can be satisfied through alternatives that are Jess impactful,
less costly, and offer higher probability of success and/or higher quality existing habitat. The
proposed Project would impact approx. 15 acres overall (of a 17.44 acre site) including the
grading and reconfiguring of a natural creek and the reduction of tloodway and flood plain
function and values, while providing no guarantee of habitat creation success. Please analyze
and discuss how these facts are consistent with the above referenced HMP standards, Section
D6 (pg. D-90), or any other applicable regulatory provision or policy.
34. As noted, this proposed Project is intended to satisfY mitigation requirements for otT-
site infrastructure (College Blvd.+Basin BJ) in LFMP Zone 15 and the Applicant is seeking
reimbursement for the costs of this Project from Zone 15 property owners through its
proposed LFMP Zone 15 financing program. Accordingly, please analyze and discuss the
relative cost v benefit value of this Project by comparing its estimated costs with the
estimated costs of the available mitigation alternatives.
35. Please discuss and analyze when focussed surveys should be conducted for projects
of this magnitude and why they are or are not appropriate or necessary for this Project.
36. El Camino Real is a designated Scenic Corridor; please discuss and analyze the
Project impacts to this Scenic Corridor. Please include identification and analysis of any
visual/view-shed impacts arising from the removal, relocation or killing of existing mature
trees and plants and replacing a narrow natural single creek with a wide manufactured dual-
channel basin.
PageS
37. The Project proposed for the 17.44 acre ECNS property will substantially alter the
local community character. The ECNS property is currently a rural equestrian and open
space amenity that is consistent with and serves as the gateway into the Sunny Creek rural
estate specific plan (SP191) area. In its current state, the 17.44 acre ECNS property provides
substantial natural wetland, riparian, floodway and flood plain habitat function and value as
well as a high demand regional service (equestrian). The proposed Project will replace this
unique and appealing historic land use with a large graded, manufactured and landscaped
basin that substantially alters the natural environs as well as the flow and function of the
Agua Hedionda Creek. Please discuss and analyze the impacts to community character and
appropriate mitigation.
38. Please discuss and analyze, with reference to the relevant regulatory standards or
policies, how a landowner removing trash from their own property constitutes "habitat
enhancement" or "mitigation" for development impacts.
39. The Project, particularly the Parcel B bio-retention basin and the Parcel C mitigation
site, (a) is intended to support the previously approved Zone 1 S College Blvd.+BJ Basin
project (EIR 98-02); (b) is reportedly allowed to cause significant environmental impacts
pursuant to the HMP "critical infrastructure" exemption; and, (c) is dependent on funding!
financing through an LFMP Zone 15 financing program that is not yet formed or approved
and is widely opposed by many of the Zone 15 property owners. Given these facts, please
discuss if/how the Project entitlements, approvals and/or permits will be subject to and/or
conditioned upon (i) completion of a Zone 15 LFMP fmancing program, (ii) the construction
of College Blvd.+Basin BJ, (iii) the recording of an open-space easement over proposed
parcels B & C, and (iv) the funding of an endowment for perpetual maintenance and
management of the mitigation and open space.
Page9
May 27,2015
Michele A. Staples, Esq.
Jackson DeMarco Tid us Peckenpaugh
2030 Main St 12th Floor
Irvine, CA 92614
ATTACHMENT 10
{'city of
Carlsbad
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 -
COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
Dear Ms. Staples:
Thank you for your comment letter dated May 6, 2015, submitted on behalf of Mandana Cal Co.
("Mandana), responding to the Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
College Boulevard Mitigation project.
The following provides a list of your comments (in italic) and staffs response to the comments in your
letter.
Comment 1: The following comments on the Draft Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration ("MND"} for the College Boulevard Mitigation Project ("Project") are submitted on behalf of
Mandana Cal Co. ("Mandana"}, the owner of approximately 195 acres of land in the Zone 15 Local
Facilities Management Plan area, northeast of the intersection of College Boulevard and El Camino Real.
Response: Carlsbad acknowledges receipt of this comment. No changes were made to the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 2: As discussed below, the Project may result in significant adverse impacts, both individually
and cumulatively, that are not disclosed, analyzed or mitigated in the MND.
Response: This comment states conclusions without providing evidence to support those conclusions.
The Initial Study prepared for the Project, and included in the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
("MND"), analyzed the potential of the Project to result _in impacts on 17 specific environmental factors.
Potentially significant impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, and
hazards/hazardous materials were identified. However, the proposed mitigation measures, which were
agreed to by the applicant prior to release of the draft MND for public review, would avoid or mitigate
the effects to a point where no significant impact would occur [CEQA §21080(C); CEQA Guidelines
§15070(a)]. Therefore, no changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 3: Under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code § 21000, et seq.) and the
CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq.), an environmental impact report ("EIR") must be
prepared due to the Project's potential unmitigated significant impacts.
Community & Economic Development
Planning Division 11635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-73141760-602-4660 1760-602-8560 f I www.carlsbadca.gov
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS – JACKSON DEMARCO TIDUS PECKENPAUGH
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 – COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
May 27, 2015
Page 2
Response: This comment provides conclusions without providing evidence to support those
conclusions. The Initial Study prepared for the Project and included in the draft MND analyzed the
potential of the Project to result in impacts on 17 specific environmental factors. Potentially significant
impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, and hazards/hazardous materials were
identified. However, the proposed mitigation measures, which were agreed to by the applicant prior to
release of the draft MND for public review, would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where no
significant impact would occur [CEQA §21080(C); CEQA Guidelines §15070(a)]. With the implementation
of the mitigation measures, the Project will have no significant effect on the environment. Therefore,
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) is not required. No changes were made to
the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 4: As detailed in the April 27, 2015 BENTEQ letter that was submitted to you, the MND and its
supporting technical reports include inconsistent descriptions of the Project, inconsistent information and
figures in their analyses, and other deficiencies, making it impossible to understand how the City has
concluded that the Project will not result in significant adverse impacts.
Response: The Project Description of the MND clearly outlines the scope of the College Boulevard
Mitigation project. Please refer to city staff response dated May 27, 2015 to the April 27, 2015 BENTEQ
letter, attached to this letter for additional information.
Comment 5: The reader attempting to understand the scope of the Project and the City's analysis of its
potential environmental impacts is unable to follow "the 'analytic route the ... agency traveled from
evidence to action'." Because of the numerous internal inconsistencies, omissions, and errors, the MND is
not "sufficient to allow informed decision making." (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of
University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 404.).
Response: This general comment provides conclusions without providing evidence to support those
conclusions. The Initial Study prepared for the Project, and included in the draft MND, analyzed the
potential of the Project to result in impacts on 17 specific environmental factors. For each of the 17
factors, Carlsbad defines the thresholds of significance applicable to the factor, describes the facts of the
Project related to each threshold, which is based on studies prepared by registered professionals (i.e.,
substantial evidence), analyzes the facts in the context of the threshold, and makes a determination
(i.e., conclusion) of potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation incorporated, less than
significant, or no impact [CEQA Guidelines §15063(c),(d)]. Potentially significant impacts to biological
resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, and hazards/hazardous materials were identified. However,
the proposed mitigation measures, which were agreed to by the applicant prior to release of the draft
MND for public review, would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant impact would
occur [CEQA §21080(C); CEQA Guidelines §15070(a)]. With the implementation of the mitigation
measures, the Project will have no significant effect on the environment. No changes are required to be
made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 6: The MND text and supporting technical studies include differing project descriptions. For
example, the project area described in the MND totals 17.44 acres (16.43 net acres), while the project
area described in the supporting Alden Environmental, Inc. Biological Technical Report ("BTR") includes a
much larger project impact area totaling 27 acres. (Compare Initial Study, p. 1, with BTR, p. 1.)
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS – JACKSON DEMARCO TIDUS PECKENPAUGH
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 – COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
May 27, 2015
Page 3
Response: Staff acknowledges and concurs with this comment. The BTR was prepared to analyze the
impacts to biological resources associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach A and
Basin BJ, as well as the impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed College Boulevard
Mitigation project, and is therefore broader than the scope of the project. The reduced scope and
location is clearly defined in the MND. The project description included in the draft MND is consistent
within the analysis in the MND, including the Initial Study, and the Notice of Intent. The project
description satisfies the requirements of CEQA [CEQA Guidelines §15071(a)]. The issues raised are not
related to an environmental issue pursuant to CEQA nor are they at variance with the existing content of
the draft MND. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this
comment.
Comment 7: As stated in McQueen v. Board of Directors of the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space
District (202 Cal. App. 3d 1136, 1143), "An accurate project description is necessary for an intelligent
evaluation of potential environmental effects of a proposed activity." An incomplete project description
necessarily renders all further analyses and determinations ineffectual.
Response: Staff disagrees with this comment; the project description in the MND and the supporting
analysis throughout the document clearly define the scope of the College Boulevard Mitigation project.
The comment does not identify the alleged inconsistencies or any omissions in the project description.
Therefore, no changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 8: Without a clear definition of the activities to be undertaken, the CEQA process cannot
ensure that all impacts of the Project have been analyzed and mitigated to the extent feasible because
the ultimate extent of project activities is not fully defined. It is critical that the Project Description be as
clear and complete as possible so that the public is provided a meaningful opportunity to comment and
the City and responsible agencies may make informed decisions regarding the proposed Project.
Response: Please see the response to Comment No. 7. No changes were made to the CEQA
documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 9: The inconsistencies, omissions and errors in the MND do not support a finding that all
impacts of the Project have been analyzed and mitigated to a level below significance.
Response: This comment provides conclusions without providing any evidence to support those
conclusions. The Initial Study prepared for the Project and included in the draft Mitigated Negative
Declaration analyzed the potential of the Project to result in impacts on 17 specific environmental
factors. Potentially significant impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, and
hazards/hazardous materials were identified. However, the proposed mitigation measures, which were
agreed to by the applicant prior to release of the draft MND for public review, would avoid or mitigate
the effects to a point where no significant impact would occur [CEQA §21080(C); CEQA Guidelines
§15070(a)]. Therefore, no changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this general
comment.
Comment 10: An EIR must be prepared and circulated for public review and comment that remedies the
numerous errors, inconsistencies and deficiencies detailed in the BENTEQ letter.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS – JACKSON DEMARCO TIDUS PECKENPAUGH
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 – COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
May 27, 2015
Page 4
Response: No evidence was received to substantiate this conclusion. Pursuant to the MND and
supporting documentation, with the implementation of the mitigation measures, all potential
environmental impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, the preparation of an EIR
is not required. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this
comment.
Comment 11: The MND says that the zoning designation of the Project's Parcel D is to be changed to
allow residential development as part of the City's separate General Plan Update process.
Response: As discussed in the MND, the existing General Plan Land Use and zoning designations for
Parcel D are proposed to remain as Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM) and Limited Control (L-C),
respectively, as part of the proposed College Boulevard Mitigation project. While the General Plan
Update (Update) has not been approved at this time (i.e., not considered by the Planning Commission or
City Council as of the date of this letter), the Update currently proposes to change the General Plan Land
Use and zoning designations for APN 209-060-72 (i.e., southern parcel of College Boulevard Mitigation
project, a portion of which is proposed as Parcel D) from Residential Low-Medium Density (RLM, 0-4
dwelling units per acre) and Limited Control (L-C) to Residential, 8-15 dwelling units per acre (R-15) and
Residential Density Multiple (RD-M). However, please be advised that staff’s position on this
recommendation has not been released to the public at this time. The comment does not request than
any changes be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 12: The Project itself advances the development of Parcel D by subdividing it to make it a new
legal parcel, and filling it to raise it out of the flood plain and create new, developable acreage.
Response: The subdivision of the Project property is included in the project description to facilitate the
creation of the habitat mitigation site (i.e., proposed Parcel C); the future habitat boundaries extend
beyond the current boundaries of the Open Space (OS) land use designation and minor subdivision is
required to ensure that Parcel C is placed in a separate OS lot. Two additional parcels are proposed to
be designated as Open Space for agriculture (Parcel A) and a detention basin for College Boulevard
Reach “A” (Parcel B). The remaining area, Parcel D, is proposed to remain as-is, designated as RLM and
L-C.
As discussed in the MND and supporting technical studies, the restoration and creation of wetlands
habitat on Parcel C requires that a portion of the parcel be lowered in elevation. The soil proposed to be
removed from Parcel C will be placed within the proposed fill areas for the development of College
Boulevard Reach A. The soil will not be placed as fill on Parcel D or any other portion of the Project site.
Due to the implementation of the habitat mitigation project on proposed Parcel C, which will increase
the capacity of the floodway, a majority of Parcel D will no longer be located in the floodplain; this does
not equate to “development.” Parcel D is located within a Standards Area of the Habitat Management
Plan (“HMP”) and is proposed to remain as such as part of the proposed project. If a development
application is submitted to develop Parcel D, the application will be reviewed for compliance with the
HMP, Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. The city acknowledges that removing Parcel D from the
floodplain eliminates a hindrance for development which currently exists in Zone 15 of the HMP.
However, this does not guarantee that the parcel can be fully developed. Any application submitted to
develop Parcel D will have to be reviewed on its own merits, will be subject to CEQA, and will require
concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS – JACKSON DEMARCO TIDUS PECKENPAUGH
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 – COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
May 27, 2015
Page 5
No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment nor are
any requested.
Comment 13: The MND says that Parcel D will ultimately be developed, and that the Project results in a
development yield of 18.5 dwelling units. However, the MND does not evaluate or mitigate the potential
environmental impacts of developing residential units on Parcel D on grounds that "no development is
proposed at this time". (MND, pp. 2, 11, 28, 53, 54.)
Response: As required by CEQA, staff acknowledges the existing setting in the MND and discloses that,
given the existing residential General Plan Land Use designation (RLM), it is anticipated that Parcel D will
be developed at some time in the future. However, no development is proposed on Parcel D as part of
the proposed College Boulevard Mitigation project (please see Comment 12 above). Therefore, no
environmental analysis is required. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as
a result of this comment.
Comment 14: CEQA requires that the City define the Project broadly to ensure a complete analysis of
impacts resulting from future expansion or where the future expansion will likely change the scope or
nature of the initial project or its environmental effects (Laurel Heights Improvement Association v.
Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376,395-396).
Response: The MND accurately describes and analyzes the proposed project and impacts which are
likely to result from that project. No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this
comment.
Comment 15: An EIR must be prepared for public review and comment to discuss, analyze and mitigate
the potential impacts of the ultimate residential development of Parcel D.
Response: Please see the responses to Comments 3, 12, and 13. No development is proposed on Parcel
D. Further, the General Plan Land Use and zoning designations are proposed to remain the same for
Parcel D. Therefore, there is not a proposed density or intensification of use to analyze. Finally, as
discussed in the MND, the potential overall residential development area of the Project site is proposed
to be reduced, not increased, through the creation of the three (3) open space parcels. Therefore, no
changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 16: Otherwise, the potential impacts of the ultimate residential development must at least be
evaluated as part of the cumulative impacts analysis. Such impacts would include both temporary
construction impacts and long term impacts to environmental resources, including, but not limited to,
aesthetic/visual, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, drainage, flood plain,
noise, population, public services/facilities, public infrastructure, traffic, water supply, land use,
inconsistency with surrounding agriculture, and cumulative impacts with other existing and proposed
projects in the same vicinity and with the pending General Plan Update.
Response: No development is proposed on Parcel D. The draft MND addresses the Project’s potential
impacts to the 17 environmental factors listed in the draft MND. The analyses address both potential
direct and cumulative impacts, as stated in the draft MND. Therefore, no changes are required to be
made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS – JACKSON DEMARCO TIDUS PECKENPAUGH
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 – COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
May 27, 2015
Page 6
Comment 17: It is imperative that the potential impacts of Parcel D's residential development be
addressed now. To do otherwise would violate the intent and purpose of CEQA on two fronts. First, it
would constitute improper piece-mealing of the proposed Project (CEQA Guidelines §15003(h)). Second,
it would violate CEQA's requirement that environmental analysis be conducted as early as possible in the
planning process (CEQA Guidelines §15004(b)). In the absence of such an analysis, the MND fails to
disclose the Project's potential significant environmental impacts and leaves those impacts unmitigated.
Response: No residential development is proposed on Parcel D at this time; therefore, there are no
potential impacts to analyze. Any future development proposed on Parcel D would require an
independent analysis pursuant to CEQA. The possible future development of Parcel D is not required to
be considered because a commitment has not been made to develop Parcel D; there are no
development plans to review; and, it is purely speculative at this point. The intent of CEQA would not be
served by speculating about the potential environmental consequences of the uncertain future
development of Parcel D.
Therefore, no changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of these
comments.
Comment 18: An EIR must be prepared to evaluate and mitigate the potential environmental impacts of
the Project as a whole, including the intended residential development of Parcel D.
Response: No development is proposed on Parcel D. The Initial Study prepared for the College
Boulevard Mitigation project, and included in the draft MND, analyzed the potential of the Project to
result in impacts on 17 specific environmental factors. Potentially significant impacts to biological
resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, and hazards/hazardous materials were identified. However,
the proposed mitigation measures, which were agreed to by the applicant prior to release of the draft
MND for public review, would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where no significant impact would
occur [CEQA §21080(C); CEQA Guidelines §15070(a)]. With the implementation of the mitigation
measures, the Project will have no significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the preparation of
an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) is not required. No changes were made to the CEQA
documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 19: Under CEQA section 21068, a significant environmental impact is defined as "a
substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment. Because there is substantial
evidence in the record to support a "fair argument" that the Project may have a significant adverse effect
on the environment, CEQA requires preparation of an EIR instead of a MND (Citizens for Responsible &
Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1323,1331; Gentry v. City of Murrieta
(1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359,1399-1400).
Response: No substantial evidence has been submitted to support a “fair argument” that the Project
may have a significant impact on the environment. Pursuant to CEQA, substantial evidence “means
enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can
be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.” (CEQA
Guidelines, § 15384, subd. (a)) Substantial evidence includes “facts, reasonable assumptions predicated
upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts” (id., subd. (b)), but not “[a]rgument, speculation,
unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly erroneous or inaccurate, or evidence of
social or economic impacts which do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the
environment.” (Id., subd. (a).) In the absence of a specific factual foundation in the record, speculation
by non-experts regarding the consequences of a project do not constitute substantial evidence.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS-JACKSON DEMARCO TIDUS PECKENPAUGH
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10-COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
May 27, 2015
Pa e 7
Further, where the initial study identifies potential significant effects on the environment but revisions
in the project plans 'would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no
significant effect on the environment would occur' and there is no substantial evidence that the project
as revised may have a significant effect on the environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be
used.
Therefore, no changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 20: Additionally, the numerous inconsistencies and deficiencies detailed in the BENTEQ fetter
must be corrected in the EIR to provide a meaningful opportunity for public comments.
Response: Please refer to the attached city staff response to the BENTEQ letter, dated May 27, 2015,
which is incorporated herein by reference.
Thank you for providing comments on the College Boulevard Mitigation project. Should you have any
additional questions, please contact the project planner, Shannon Werneke, at (760) 602-4621 or by
email at shannon.werneke@carlsbadca.gov.
Sincerely,
~~
DON NEU, AICP
City Planner
DN:SW:bd
Enc: BENTEQ Response to Comments letter, dated May 27, 2015
Wildlife Agency Concurrence letter, dated May 18, 2015
c: Mike Howes
Jane Mobaldi, Assistant City Attorney
File Copy
Data Entry
ATIACHMENT 11
Jackson I DeMarco I Tidus
Peckenpaugh
May 6, 2015
A L A W C 0 .R P .0 R A T I 0 N
Direct Dial: 949.851.7409
Email:
Reply to:
File No:
mstaples@jdtplaw.com
Irvine Office
7616 I 122588
VIA E-MAIL (Shannon.Werneke@carlsbadca.gov) AND U.S. MAIL
Ms. Shannon Werneke
City of Carlsbad
1635 FaradayAvenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
Re: Draft Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for College
Boulevard Mitigation Project
Dear Ms. Werneke:
The following comments on the Draft Iilltial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration ("MND") for the College Boulevard Mitigation Project ("Project") are submitted on
behalf of Mandana Cal Co. ("Man dana"), the owner of approximately 195 acres of land in the
Zone 15 Local Facilities Management Plan area, northeast of the intersection of College
Boulevard and El Camino Real.
As discussed below, the Project may result in significant adverse impacts, both
individually and cwnulatively, that are not disclosed, analyzed or mitigated in the MND. Under
the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code§ 21000, et seq.) and the CEQA
Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq.), an environmental impact report ("EIR") must
be prepared due to the Project's potential unmitigated significant impacts.
1. Information in the MND and Supporting Technical Studies Must Be Corrected.
As detailed in the April27, 2015 Benteq letter that was submitted to you, the MND and
its supporting technical reports include inconsistent descriptions of the Project, inconsistent
information and figures in their analyses, and other deficiencies, making it impossible to
understand how the City has concluded that the Project will not result in significant adverse
impacts. The reader attempting to understand the scope of the Project and the City's analysis of
its potential environmental impacts is unable to follow "the 'analytic route the ... agency traveled
from evidence to action'." Because of the nwnerous internal inconsistencies, omissions, and
errors, the MND is not "sufficient to allow informed decision making." (Laurel Heights
Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 404.)
Irvine Office
2030 Main Street, Suite 1200
Irvine, California 92614
t 949.752.8585 f 949.752.0597
Westlake Village Office
2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 200
Westlake Village, California 91361
t 805.230.0023 f 805.230.0087
www.jdtplaw.com
1253612.2
Ms. Shannon Werneke
City of Carlsbad
May 6, 2015
Page 2
The MND text and supporting technical studies include differing project descriptions.
For example, the project area described in the MND totals 17.44 acres (16.43 net acres), while
the project area described in the supporting Alden Environmental, Inc. Biological Technical
Report ("BTR") includes a much larger project impact area totaling 27 acres. (Compare Initial
Study, p. I, with BTR, p. 1.) As stated in McQueen v. Board of Directors of the Mid-Peninsula
Regional Open Space District (202 Cal. App. 3d 1136, 1143), "An accurate project description is
necessary for an intelligent evaluation of potential environmental effects of a proposed activity."
An incomplete project descriptioli. necessarily renders all further analyses and
·. ·' determinations ineffectual With01.ita Clear definition of the activitiesto be undertaken, the
CEQA process cannot ensure that all impacts of the Project have been analyzed and mitigated to
the extent feasible because the ultimate extent of project activities is not fully defined.
It is critical that the Project Description be as clear and complete as possible so that the
public is provided a meaningful opportunity to comment and the City and responsible agencies
may make informed decisions regarding tbe proposed Project. The inconsistencies, omissions
and errors in the MND do not support a finding that all impacts of the Project have been
analyzed and mitigated to a level below significance. An EIR must be prepared and circulated
for public review and comment that remedies the numerous errors, inconsistencies and
deficiencies detailed in the Benteq letter.
2. An EIR Must be Prepared to Analyze the Residential Development of Parcel D as
Part of the Project or as Part of a Cumulative Impacts Analysis.
The MND says that the zoning designation of the Project's Parcel D is to be changed to
allow residential development as part of the City's separate General Plan Update process. The
Project itself advances tbe development of Parcel D by subdividing it to make it a new legal
parcel, and filling it to raise it out of the flood plain and create new, developable acreage. The
MND says that Parcel D will ultimately be developed, and that the Project results in a
development yield of 18.5 dwelling units. However, the MND does not evaluate or mitigate the
potential environmental impacts of developing residential units on Parcel D on grounds that "no
development is proposed at this time". (MND, pp. 2, II, 28, 53, 54.)
CEQA requires that the City define the Project broadly to ensure a complete analysis of
impacts resulting from future expansion or where the future expansion will likely change the
scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects (Laurel Heights Improvement
Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Ca1.3d 376, 395-396). An EIR
must be prepared for public review and comment to discuss, analyze and mitigate the potential
impacts of the ultimate residential development of Parcel D. Otherwise, the potential impacts of
the ultimate residential development must at least be evaluated as part of the cumulative impacts
analysis. Such impacts would include both temporary construction impacts and long term
impacts to environmental resources, including, but not limited to, aesthetic/visual, air quality and
greeri.house gas emissions, biological resources, drainage, flood plain, noise, population, public
1253612.2
Ms. Shannon Wemeke
City of Carlsbad
May 6, 2015
Page 4
cc:
. .. ~ .. ·-·· . --..
Kathy Dodson, Assistant City Manager (kathy.dodson@carlsbadca.gov) *
Gary Barberio, Assistant Manager (garv.barberio@carlsbadca.gov) *
Celia A. Brewer, City Attorney (Celia.Brewer@carlsbadca.gov)*
Chuck McBride, Director of Finance (Chuck.McBride@carlsbadca.gov)*
Aaron Beanan, Senior Accountant (Aaron.Beanan@carlsbadca.gov)*
Pat Thomas, Public Works Director (Pat.Thornas@carlsbadca.gov)*
Don Neu, City Planner (don.neu@carlsbadca.gov)*
David De Cordova, Principal Planner (david.decordova@carlsbadca.gov)*
Glen Van Peski, Community and Economic Development Director .
(Glen.VariPeski@carlsbadca.gov) * · ·
Jeremy Riddle, Associate Engineer (Jeremy.Riddle@carlsbadca.gov)*
*via email, with Attachments
1253612.2
May 27,2015
Diane Nygaard
On Behalf of Preserve Calavera
Dandd2@peoplepc.com
ATTACHMENT 12
Ccityof
Carlsbad
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, DRAFT INITIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS
14-10-COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
Dear Ms. Nygaard:
Thank you for your email dated May 6, 2015 received in response to the Notice of Intent to adopt a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the College_Boulevard Mitigation project.
The following provides a list of your comments (in italic) and staffs response to the comments in your
email.
Comment 1: We appreciate that this project will result in a 100' buffer on both side of the reconfigured
Agua Hedionda Creek (AHC) which is clearly an improvement. However it appears that this comes at a
potentially high cast-greatly expended development on the reconfigured buildable parcel that this
project will also create.
Response: This comment provides conclusions without providing substantial evidence to support those
conclusions. As discussed in the draft MND, due to the implementation of the habitat mitigation project
on proposed Parcel C (9.23 gross acres/8.81 net acres), which will increase the capacity of the floodway,
a majority of Parcel D will no longer be located in the floodplain; this does not equate to "development."
Parcel Dis located within a Standards Area of the Habitat Management Plan ("HMP") and is proposed to
remain as such as part of the proposed project. If a development application is submitted to develop
Parcel D, the application will be reviewed for compliance with the HMP, Zoning Ordinance and the
General Plan. Carlsbad acknowledges that removing Parcel D from the floodplain eliminates a hindrance
for development which currently exists in Zone 15 of the HMP. However, this does not guarantee that
the parcel can be fully developed. Any application submitted to develop Parcel D will have to be
reviewed on its own merits, will be subject to CEQA, and will require concurrence from the Wildlife
Agencies. In addition, as part of the College Boulevard Mitigation Project, the applicant is proposing to
deposit 4.57 units into Carlsbad's EDUB. Units must be deposited because a portion of the existing
property is proposed to be rezoned from RLM to OS and permanently preserved as open space.
No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 2: The MND has failed to properly identify the significant indirect impacts associated with all
of the related changes associated with it. We see this as piecemealing of a project. In the absence of a
complete understanding of the entire project it really is not possible to determine if the complete project
increases or reduces overall impacts and consequently if it is an improvement or not.
Community & Economic Development
Planning Division 11635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-73141760·602-4660 1760-602-8560 f I www.carlsbadca.gov
Response to Comments, Preserve Calavera
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
May 27, 2015
Page 2
Response: This comment provides conclusions without providing substantial evidence to support those
conclusions. No development is proposed on Parcel D; therefore; therefore, there are no physical
impacts to analyze on Parcel D. The Initial Study prepared for the Project and included in the draft MND
analyzed the potential of the Project to result in impacts on 17 specific environmental factors.
Potentially significant impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, and
hazards/hazardous materials were identified. However, the proposed mitigation measures, which were
agreed to by the applicant prior to release of the draft MND for public review, would avoid or mitigate
the effects to a point where no significant impact would occur [CEQA §21080(C); CEQA Guidelines
§15070(a)]. Therefore, no changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of
this comment.
Comment 3: Furthermore the more extensive issues associated with the entire project could require a
full EIR.
Response: This comment provides conclusions without providing substantial evidence to support those
conclusions. The Initial Study prepared for the Project and included in the draft MND analyzed the
potential of the Project to result in impacts on 17 specific environmental factors. Potentially significant
impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, and hazards/hazardous materials were
identified. However, the proposed mitigation measures, which were agreed to by the applicant prior to
release of the draft MND for public review, would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where no
significant impact would occur [CEQA §21080(C); CEQA Guidelines §15070(a)]. With the implementation
of the mitigation measures, the Project will have no significant effect on the environment. Therefore,
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) is not required. No changes were made to
the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 4: Impacts to Sycamore Woodland and Southern Willow scrub require mitigation. The
Sycamore Woodland and Southern Willow Scrub communities that comprise this riparian community
should be left intact. Not to the "maximum extent feasible" because it appears it would all be grubbed
and graded away and replaced with a habitat restoration site. Leaving trees/shrubs intact, will
necessitate leaving a 5-10' raised island in the newly reconfigured streambed, where the Western edge
of AHC now resides, and grading behind the tree line on the existing Eastern boundary of AHC. This
would be appropriate mitigation for this significant effect of reconfiguring AHC and will provide the
necessary nesting and perching cover for sensitive birds until the restoration project matures in 5-10
years. These trees are now 50-80 years old. Grading them away and leaving a replanted, exposed
streambed would be a significant impact to a riparian corridor. Whether such impacts are temporary or
permanent is often hard to determine.
Response: The mitigation proposal would avoid impacts to Agua Hedionda Creek as shown in Figures 8
and 9 of the BTR (Alden 2015) and the College Boulevard – Reach A and Basin BJ Project Mitigation Plan
(Alden 2015). The existing creek channel would not be graded or deepened nor would it be
diverted/split. Rather, the existing banks of the streambed would be pulled back to widen the channel
bottom. The existing trees rooted within the channel will remain.
In addition, the mitigation effort would not reduce the amount or quality of native riparian habitat
within the mitigation area. The intent is to improve (enhance) and expand the existing habitat.
Currently, much of the mapped habitat is a canopy of trees over the existing equestrian center facilities
(corrals, roads, buildings, etc.). The grading in this area will remove these developed/disturbed areas
under the tree canopy and provide for a much larger wetland/riparian habitat.
Response to Comments, Preserve Calavera
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
May 27, 2015
Page 3
Presently there are 28 western sycamore, 18 arroyo willow, and three (3) black willow trees within the
wetland habitat mitigation area. Trees other than those rooted within the channel that cannot be
avoided during site preparation will be replaced by the plant palette shown on Figure 10 of the BTR
(Alden 2015) to restore and create both wetland and upland habitats. The plant palette provided for in
Figure 10 reflects the species that occur within the mitigation site. One-gallon and five-gallon container
stock will be planted, and impacted willow trees will be spread in the wetland/riparian portion of the
mitigation area so that they can root and grow into trees again. The mitigation plan included installing
container stock at a rate of 100, western sycamore trees per acre; 100, arroyo willow trees per acre; and
100, black willow trees per acre. All of these container stock plants were planned to be one-gallon size.
The mitigation plan and BTR have since been revised to increase 50 of the western sycamore tree from
one-gallon to 5-gallon size to help facilitate faster establishment of habitat.
Following implementation of the mitigation, there would be an additional 310 sycamore, 310 arroyo
willow, and 310 black willow trees within the 3.1 acre wetland habitat mitigation area. While not the
intent of the mitigation plan, if all 50 of the existing trees were to be removed, the planting of the 930
trees would result in an 11:1 replacement ratio of sycamore trees, a 17.2:1 replacement ratio of arroyo
willow trees; and a 103.3:1 replacement ratio of black willow trees on the mitigation site. Even if all of
the trees were removed in order to effectively implement the mitigation, the replacement trees (and
inclusion of five-gallon specimens) would more than compensate for any temporal loss of mature trees
and would result in a net gain in habitat quantity and quality over time.
Presently, the 9.23-acre mitigation site supports 1.93 acres of wetland/riparian vegetation (0.72 acre of
southern willow scrub, 1.17 acres of sycamore woodland, and 0.04 acre of disturbed wetland).
Following implementation of the mitigation, there would be an additional 1.32 acres of wetland/riparian
habitat re-established/created on the site (freshwater marsh adjacent to the central portions of the
creek that experience steady water flows to riparian scrub and forest habitats along the periphery of the
wetland mitigation area) with an additional 1.78 acres of existing wetland/riparian habitat enhanced.
The number of trees planted (including the spreading of any cut willows); the re-establishment/creation
of 1.32 acres of wetland/riparian habitat; and the enhancement of existing wetland/riparian habitat
through the removal of trash, cement, and other materials that have been dumped within and adjacent
to the stream over time, will greatly enhance Agua Hedionda Creek and result in a net gain in habitat
quantity and quality over time.
The mitigation plan and BTR for the project (Alden Environmental, Inc., both dated March 26, 2015)
provide details of the impacts of implementing the mitigation and the mitigation proposed for those
impacts, where required. Mitigation measures are also detailed in the MND within the discussion of
each environmental factor and again in a single list at the end of the MND.
As stated in the MND, Standard Impact Mitigation Measures from Appendix A of the Guidelines for
Biological Studies as well as the other mitigation measures listed in the MND would be implemented to
avoid/minimize impacts to trees during grading. Mitigation Measure BIO-17, specifically, requires that:
a. The qualified Project biologist shall review grading plans (e.g., all access routes and staging
areas) and monitor construction activities throughout the duration of the Project to ensure that
all practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and any
target species of concern outside the Project footprint.
Response to Comments, Preserve Calavera
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
May 27, 2015
Page 4
b. Construction monitoring reports shall be completed and provided to the City summarizing how
the Project is in compliance with applicable conditions. The Project biologist shall be
empowered to halt work activity, if necessary, and to confer with City staff to ensure the proper
implementation of species and habitat protection measures.
Therefore, no changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 5: Since this is being done to move the floodplain to create developable land on Parcel D, if
impacts cannot be completely avoided they must be mitigated.
Response: Please see the Response to Comment No. 1.
Comment 6: Will this project destroy the sycamore woodland riparian community or not? If so,
Cumulative and project level impacts should be considered and this cannot be done by separating the
mitigation from development of the parcel.
Response: Please see Response to Comment No. 4.
Comment 7: This also may trigger the need for an E.I.R.
Response: This comment provides conclusions without providing substantial evidence to support those
conclusions. The Initial Study prepared for the Project and included in the draft MND analyzed the
potential of the Project to result in impacts on 17 specific environmental factors. Potentially significant
impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, and hazards/hazardous materials were
identified. However, the proposed mitigation measures, which were agreed to by the applicant prior to
release of the draft MND for public review, would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where no
significant impact would occur [CEQA §21080(C); CEQA Guidelines §15070(a)]. With the implementation
of the mitigation measures, the Project will have no significant effect on the environment. Therefore,
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) is not required. No changes were made to
the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 8: - CRAM evaluations should be included as part of on-going monitoring
CRAM (CA Rapid Assessment Method) and Riverine Bio Assessment should be done prior to any work
impacting the stream, and at yearly intervals as a form of monitoring stream and surrounding environs.
Response: A CRAM evaluation (including that for riverine wetlands) is one method for assessing
mitigation site suitability that usually is called for by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or California
Department of Fish and Wildlife during the permitting process. To date, these agencies have not
required a CRAM evaluation for the mitigation site. The Hydraulic Analysis prepared for the mitigation
project (Lyle Engineering, January 2015) concluded that grading associated with the habitat mitigation
will increase flow conveyance volume in the floodplain areas, and flow velocities post-project will be
lower or equal to pre-project conditions within the proposed narrowing of the low-flow channel. Flow
velocities would be significantly reduced because of the shallower depths that would be spread across
the Agua Hedionda Creek channel bottom. Therefore, the Hydraulic Analysis, along with the presence of
currently degraded wetland/riparian habitat, demonstrates site suitability for the wetland/riparian
habitat mitigation on Parcel C.
Response to Comments, Preserve Calavera
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
May 27, 2015
Page 5
The mitigation effort is subject to five years of monitoring and maintenance. If the mitigation fails to
meet the Year 5 standards after the full monitoring term, a specific set of remedial measures would be
developed and implemented, and the monitoring and maintenance period would be extended until all
Year 5 standards are met. Only when the entire mitigation site has attained the Year 5 standards would
the entire site be signed off by the permitting agencies. The criteria to be measured over the monitoring
period include container stock survival, native species richness, native species cover, and weed cover.
Annual monitoring would occur each fall in the wetland/riparian mitigation area, and the criteria would
be measured using quantitative transect data using the point intercept line transect sampling methods
described in the California Native Plant Society’s Field Sampling Protocol (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995).
These methods are widely-accepted as a way to track mitigation success, and it is expected that they will
provide enough information to determine success without CRAM evaluations.
Therefore, no changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 9: - grading in a floodplain. Page 32 states “...The grading proposed in the floodplain is
acceptable because it is associated with a mitigation project which will improve the biological value of
AHC." Actual language is that grading in a floodplain is acceptable for a public works project, not in an
area being MITIGATED for a public works project. We think this is an important distinction that has not
been addressed.
Response: The overarching goal of the floodplain regulations contained within the HMP, specifically
within Zone 15 (page D-79), is to conserve all riparian areas on-site. As discussed in the MND, the intent
of the proposed College Boulevard project is to enhance the quality and size of the riparian area
adjacent Agua Hedionda Creek; it is a mitigation project and no structures are proposed. Pages 24 – 32
of the draft MND provide a detailed discussion of how the proposed project is consistent with the
Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Pursuant to the HMP (page E-4), if the wildlife agencies concur that
the conservation measures are consistent with the Zone, the project shall be considered consistent with
the HMP. The city received concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (Wildlife Agencies) on May 18, 2015 (please see attached letter).
Therefore, no changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 10: -pg. 47 lists 73,300 cubic yards of fill. Correct to 470 cubic yards of fill as stated elsewhere
in document.
Response: Carlsbad acknowledges this comment and typographical error. The correct amount of
grading, as described in the project description of the MND, is 73,300 cubic yards of cut and 470 cubic
yards of fill, which results in the export of 72,830 cubic yards of material.
Comment 11: - Potential Hydrology/Water Quality impacts
Pg. 4 should list Hydrology/Water Quality as a potentially significant impact. Reconfiguring the entire
stream, if you lose the entire riparian plant community, is significant.
Response: As discussed in the MND, the bottom of Aqua Hedionda Creek will not be reconfigured nor
will the entire riparian community be removed. Please see response to Comment No. 4. The MND
accurately cites a “less than significant impact with the incorporation of mitigation” as it relates to
Response to Comments, Preserve Calavera
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
May 27, 2015
Page 6
Biological Resources and the potential impacts to the riparian plant community. In addition, a “less than
significant impact” was concluded for Hydrology and Water Quality. No mitigation measures were
required.
Comment 12: We could not find a clear statement in the hydrology study that indicated adequate
assessment of potential downstream impacts from this dredging.
Response: The Project cannot be categorized as dredging because dredging removes deposited
sediment from a body of water. This project removes upland soils adjacent to the streambed to widen
the channel and expand the wetland area. Any potential hydraulic and/or erosion Impacts associated
with widening of the channel were provided in the “Agua Hedionda Creek Hydraulic Analysis for College
Boulevard Mitigation Site”, prepared by Lyle Engineering. Per the analysis, widening of the channel
results in an increased the carrying capacity of the Agua Hedionda channel. The results of the study
show the proposed channel velocity is reduced from existing velocities to a non-erosive velocity of less
than 6 feet per second (fps). No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this
comment.
Comment 13: Sediment in AHC requires downstream dredging of channel near Cannon & El Camino
Real. Will tripling the width of AHC across project site cause more deposition of sediment downstream?
Response: Please see Response to Comment No. 12.
Comment 14: We could not think of other local projects where streambeds have had such major
alteration to the floodplain, impacting the function of the water body, with an apparent primary
objective to increase the buildable area of an adjacent parcel.
Response: Comment noted. The primary objective of the Project is to satisfy the mitigation measures
for EIR 98-02 to create 2.4 acres of wetland for the construction of a public improvement (College
Boulevard and Detention Basin BJ). As discussed in the MND, the proposed habitat mitigation project
will improve (enhance) and expand the existing riparian habitat. Therefore, the function of the
waterbody in this area will be also be improved as a result of the implementation of the project. No
changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 15: - why is this not being integrated with the General Plan
Response: The proposed project is unrelated to the General Plan Update. The primary intent of the
proposed College Boulevard Mitigation project is to mitigate the impacts to biological resources
associated with the development of College Boulevard Reach A & Basin BJ. A General Plan Amendment
is required as part of the Project application because the future habitat boundaries extend beyond the
limit of the existing OS land use designation. The expanded OS area will allow for the natural habitat to
be placed in a separate lot (Parcel C) and preserved in perpetuity. In addition, an OS General Plan Land
Use designation is proposed for Parcels A (agricultural lot) and B (College Boulevard Reach A detention
basin). No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Response to Comments, Preserve Calavera
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
May 27, 2015
Page 7
Comment 16: Assuming this MND and approvals are secured, the Proposed Carlsbad General Plan
update would change zoning on parcel D to RMH (8-15 du/acre). Post stream reconfiguration would
allow Parcel D = 5.78 acres x 11.5 du/ac = 66 units (if built at the GCP of 11.5 du/ac). If low/moderate
income housing is added and units come out of the EDUB the number of units could be: 5.78 x 15 = 86 du.
It is disingenuous to distribute documents saying this is for 15 units, when it appears the intent is for 66-
86. Furthermore the draft GP has exceeded the Growth management Plan number of allowed
residential units for this NE quadrant. Increasing the number of units for this parcel would seem to
further exacerbate the number of units that will need to be cut before the new GP is adopted. Please
clarify how changes to units with this project will be addressed in the GP. Taking action in advance of the
more comprehensive review with the GP precludes considering a true comparison between Alternative A,
leaving the zoning as is (with development east of Agua Hedionda Creek) and the stream and riparian
habitat intact and Alternative B, allowing the stream to be reconfigured to change the delineation of the
flood plain and free up Parcel D for higher density housing.
Response: Please see the response to Comment No. 15. The College Boulevard Mitigation Project and
the General Plan Update process are unrelated. Comments on the Proposed General Plan Update are
outside the scope of the draft MND for the proposed habitat mitigation project. Further, this comment
is speculative based on the General Plan Update process which is still being reviewed by city staff. The
issues raised are not related to an environmental issue pursuant to CEQA. Therefore, no changes are
required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 17: - potential historic/cultural impacts
There is a cultural and historic loss of perhaps the only remaining horseback riding/training stable in our
community. This should be evaluated as a potential impact.
Response: Comment noted. This comment provides conclusions without providing substantial evidence
to support those conclusions. The thresholds of significance for potential impacts to cultural resources
are listed and analyzed on Page 40 of the MND. Mitigation measures CULTURAL-1 AND CULTURAL-2
would reduce any potentially significant impacts to a level below significance. Therefore, no changes
were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 18: - Hazardous Materials
TPH - Diesel states disposal will be to an appropriate landfill. State landfill and confirm it has capacity to
receive this hazardous waste material. Arsenic, states EPA range of .15mg/kg to 3.89 mg/kg with
.67mg/kg in 10 samples found on site. Even though this may be lower than State Average background
level it should be removed along with any lead or asbestos that may be found.
Response: No substantial evidence was submitted to support the request that the arsenic should be
removed in conjunction with the lead and asbestos. Pursuant to the Phase II Environmental Assessment
dated March 19, 2015, and as analyzed on Page 48 of the MND, the highest concentration of arsenic
found in the soil on the project site (3.89 mg/kg) is below the naturally-occurring background
concentration in California (up to 11 mg/kg). Further, as stated in the MND, if the soil will be exported
from the site, the soil may be reused within the San Diego region in accordance with the RWQCB
Conditional Waiver No. 8. This excludes the soil which had detectable concentrations of TPH. Staff is in
the process of confirming with the applicant which landfill the soil with the TPH-Diesel will be disposed.
No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Response to Comments, Preserve Calavera
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/SUP 14-03/HDP 14-04/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10 - COLLEGE BOULEVARD MITIGATION
May 27, 2015
Page 8
Comment 19: - HMP consistency determination should be provided in advance of project approvals
Since project site is in an HMP Standards Area the timeline for approval of the MND should be moved
back to allow for public review of HMP consistency findings for parcels B & C to remove them from the
Standards Area. Such a determination is essential to determine if project impacts have been properly
evaluated. Please clarify when this essential document will be made available.
Response: Please see attached HMP Concurrence letter received from the Wildlife Agencies on May 18,
2015. No changes were made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this comment.
Comment 20: - Air quality. Air Quality data stops in 2011, please provide more current data. The
sampling stations are far off in Escondido and on Camp Pendleton; San Diego County is, at times in non-
attainment on Ozone and Particulates. Please add construction equipment will have aftermarket
pollution emission controls.
Response: The comment is correct in stating that the monitoring data referenced on page 10 of the
MND was measured at the Escondido and Camp Pendleton stations between 2009 and 2011. The
monitoring data from these two stations was provided for information purposes only. Neither the air
quality nor the climate change analyses are dependent on the information. Therefore, including data
from other monitoring stations or other years, would have no impact on the conclusions included in the
MND.
As the project site will be vacant after the grading activities, the proposed project site will not generate
any long-term stationary or mobile source emissions. The proposed project’s only air quality emissions
would be generated during the construction phase. The most recent version of the CalEEMod model
(Version 2013.2.2) was used to calculate the construction emissions associated with grading the habitat
mitigation area. As shown in the Short-Term Regional Construction Emissions table on page 11 of the
MND, the emissions generated during the construction phases would not exceed any of the County’s
thresholds. In addition, as shown in the GHG Construction Emissions table on page 46 of the MND, the
project's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would not exceed the threshold of 2,500 MT of CO2e/year.
Therefore, mitigation measures, such as aftermarket pollution emission controls, are not required for the
proposed project. No changes are required to be made to the CEQA documentation as a result of this
comment.
Comment 21: The entire project should fully consider the impacts of leaving the stream as is and
developing 25 units on parcel C vs. reconfiguring AHC and moving the floodplain to make Parcel D
developable at the Proposed Revised General Plan zoning of RMH (8-15 du/ac) or a capacity of 66-88
units. This MND has failed to adequately identify, evaluate or mitigate for what is really a much larger
project.
Response: Alternatives are not required to be analyzed as part of the proposed project, which required
the preparation of an MND. No residential development is proposed on Parcel D at this time and the
existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations are proposed to remain as-is, as part of the
proposed habitat mitigation project; therefore, there are no potential impacts to analyze. Any future
development proposed on Parcel D would require an independent analysis pursuant to CEQA. The
possible future development of Parcel D is not required to be considered because a commitment has
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ms Warneke
DandD <dandd2@peoplepc.com>
Wednesday, May 06, 2015 1:12 PM
Shannon Werneke
Comments On MND College Mitigation
ATIACHMENT 13
These comments on the MND for GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14"02/MS 14-10-COLLEGE BOULEVARD
MITIGATION are submitted on behalf of Preserve Calavera.
We appreciate that this project will result in a 1 00' buffer on both side of the reconfigured Agua Hedionda Creek (AHC) which is clearly
an improvement. However it appears that this comes at a potentially high cost-greatly expended development on the reconfigured
buildable parcel that this project will also create.
The MND has failed to properly identify the significant indirect impacts associated with all of the related changes associated with it. We
see this as piecemealing of a project. In the absence of a complete understanding of the entire project it really is not possible to
determine if the complete project increases or reduces overall impacts and consequently if it is an improvement or not. Furthermore the
more extensive issues associated with the entire project could require a full EIR.
The following are our specific comments :
-impacts to Sycamore Woodland and Southern Willow scrub require mitigation
The Sycamore Woodland and Southern Willow Scrub communities that comprise this riparian community should be left intact. Not to
the "maximum extent feasible" because it appears it would all be grubbed and graded away and replaced with a habitat restoration site.
Leaving trees/shrubs intact, will necessitate leaving a 5-10' raised island in the newly reconfigured streambed, where the Western edge
of AHC now resides, and grading behind the tree line on the existing Eastern boundary of AHC. This would be appropriate mitigation for
this significant effect of reconfiguring AHC and will provide the necessary nesting and perching cover for sensitive birds until the
restoration project matures in 5-10 years. These trees are now 50-80 years old. Grading them away and leaving a replanted, exposed
streambed would be a significant impact to a riparian corridor. Whether such impacts are temporary or permanent is often hard to
deterrmine. Since this is being done to move the fioodplain to create developable land on Parcel D, if impacts cannot be completely
avoided they must be mitigated. Will this project destroy the sycamore woodland riparian community or not? If so, Cumulative and
project level impacts should be considered and this cannot be done by separating the mitigation from development of the parcel. This
also may trigger the need for an E.I.R.
-CRAM evaluations should be included as part of on-going monitoring
CRAM (CA Rapid Assessment Method) and Riverine BioAssessment should be done prior to any work impacting the stream, and at
yearly intervals as a form of monitoring stream and surrounding environs.
-grading in a fioodplain
Page 32 states " ... The grading proposed in the fioodplain is acceptable because it is associated with a mitigation project which will
improve the biological value of AHC." Actual language is that grading in a fioodplain is acceptable for a public.works project, not in an
area being MITIGATED for a public works project. We think this is an important distinction that has not been addressed.
pg. 47 lists 73,300 cubic yards of fill. Correct to 470 cubic yards of fill as staled elsewhere in document.
-Potential Hydology/Water Quality impacts
Pg. 4 should list Hydrology/Water Quality as a potentially significant impact. Reconfiguring the entire stream, if you lose the entire
riparian plant community, is significant .. We could not find a clear statement in the hydrology study that indicated adequate assessment
of potential downstream impacts from this dredging. Sediment in AHC requires downstream dredging of channel near Cannon & El
Camino Real. Will tripling the width of AHC across project site cause more deposition of sediment downstream? We could not think of
other local projects where streambeds have had such major alteration to the fioodplain, impacting the function of the water body, with
an apparent primary objective to increase the buidable area of an adjacent parcel.
-why is this not being integrated with the General Plan
Assuming this MND and approvals are secured, the Proposed Carlsbad General Plan update would change zoning on parcel D to RMH
(8-15 du/acre). Post stream reconfiguration would allow Parcel D = 5.78 acres x 11.5 dulac= 66 units 0f built at the GCP of 11.5 dulac).
1
If low/moderate income housing is added and units come out of the EDUB the number of units could be: 5. 78 x 15 = 86 du. It is
disingenuous to distribute documents saying this is for 15 units, when it appears the intent is for 66-86. Furthermore the draft GP has
exceeded the Growth management Plan number of allowed residential units for this NE quadrant. Increasing the number of units for
this parcel would seem to further exacerbate the number of units that will need to be cut before the new GP is adopted. Please clarify
how changes to units with this project will be addressed in the GP.
Taking action in advance of the more comprehensive review with the GP precludes considering a true comparison between
Alterrnative A, leaving the zoning as is (with development east of Agua Hedionda Creek) and the
stream and riparian habitat intact and Alternative B, allowing the stream to be reconfigured to change
the delineation of the flood plain and free up Parcel D for higher density housing.
-potential historic/cultural impacts
There is a cultural and historic loss of perhaps the only remaining horseback riding/training stable in our community. This should be
evaluated as a potential impact.
-Hazardous Materials
TPH -Diesel states disposal will be to an appropriate landfill. State landfill and confirm it has capacity to receive this hazardous waste
material. Arsenic, states EPA range of .15mg/kg to 3.89 mg/kg with .67mg/kg in 10 samples found on site. Even though this may be
lower than State Average background level it should be removed along with any lead or asbestos that may be found.·
-HMP consistency determination should be provided in advance of project approvals
Since project site is in an HMP Standards Area the timeline for approval of the MND should be moved back to allow for public review
of HMP consistency findings for parcels B & C to remove them from the Standards Area. Such a determination is essential to
determine if project impacts have been properly evaluated. Please clarify when this essential document will be made available.
-Air quality
Air Quality data stops in 2011, please provide more current data. The sampling stations are far off in Escondido and on Camp
Pendleton; San Diego County is, at times in non-attainment on Ozone and Particulates. Please add construction equipment will have
aftermarket pollution emission controls.
The entire project should fully consider the impacts of leaving the stream as is and developing 25 units on parcel C vs. reconfiguring
AHC and moving the floodplain to make Parcel D developable at the Proposed Revised General Plan zoning of RMH (8-15 dulac) or a
capacity of 66-88 units. This MND has failed to adequately identify, evaluate or mitigate for what is really a much larger project.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Diane Nygaard
On Behalf of Preserve Calavera
2
Tribal Comments Regarding College Boulevard Mitigation Project, Carlsbad, CA Page 1
SAN LUIS REY BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1889 Sunset Drive • Vista, California 92081
760-724-8505 • FAX 760-724-2172
www.slrmissionindians.org
May 15, 2015
Shannon Werneke
Assistant City Planner VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Planning Division Shannon.Werneke@carlsbadca.gov
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA92008
RE: COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE COLLEGE BOULEVARD
MITIGATION PROJECT (GPA 14-02, ZC 14-01, HDP 14-14, SUP 14-03,
MS 14-10)
Dear Ms. Werneke:
We, the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians (“Tribe”), have received and reviewed the
City of Carlsbad’s (“City’s”) Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
(“MND”) and all of its supporting documentation as it pertains specifically to the protection and
preservation of Luiseño Native American cultural resources that may be located within the
parameters of the College Boulevard Mitigation Project’s (“Project’s”) described boundaries.
After our review, the Tribe believes that with the incorporation of additional measures of
mitigation for cultural resources as proposed in this comment letter, the Project should be
allowed to proceed as planned.
As you are aware, we are a northern San Diego County Tribe whose traditional territory
includes Camp Pendleton, the current cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Vista, San Marcos and
Escondido, as well as the unincorporated communities of San Diego County, such as Fallbrook,
Bonsall and Valley Center. The Tribe is resolute in the preservation and protection of cultural,
archaeological and historical sites within all these jurisdictions.
It is the Tribe’s understanding that the Project will provide for the enhancement and
preservation of sensitive wetland and riparian habitat at, as well as the creation of new wetland,
riparian and upland habitat areas adjacent to, Agua Hedionda Creek. The Project Area is located
north of the intersection of College Boulevard and Sunny Creek Road, south of the intersection
of Cannon Road and College Boulevard (“Project Location and/or Project Site”). In addition, the
Project proposes to demolish existing structures on the property and to subdivide two parcels
within the Project Area into four parcels, with one parcel being set-aside for a future housing
development. This Project is located within the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad.
Tribal Comments Regarding College Boulevard Mitigation Project, Carlsbad, CA Page 2
I. THE PRESENCE OF A NATIVE AMERICAN MONITOR DURING
ALL EARTH DISTURBING ACTIVITIES IS JUSTIFIED, AND AS
SUCH, NATIVE AMERICAN MONITORS SHOULD BE
CONTRACTED WITH DURING THIS PROJECT.
Luiseño Native American monitors should be utilized during ground and/or earth
disturbing activities for this Project as stated in the Project MND. The Tribe has reviewed the
MND for this Project, as well as conducted our own research of the Tribe’s Sacred Land Files
and has spoken with our Tribal Elders regarding the significance of the Project Area. As stated in
the MND, Native American sacred sites are known to be within close proximity to the Project
Site and there is a high probability that our Luiseño cultural resources may be negatively
impacted by this Project. The Tribe is also aware of additional sacred sites not included in the
Project MND evaluation that are in close proximity to the Project Site; however, it is the Tribe’s
belief that those sites will not be negatively impacted by this Project. The Tribe is also aware that
an archeological pedestrian survey was conducted for this Project to evaluate the Project’s
impact to Native American cultural resources; however, is disappointed that a Luiseño Native
American monitor was not present during such survey. Given the above, the Tribe does believe
that evidence of our ancestors habitation may be found during the ground disturbing activities
proposed for this Project, and therefore the Tribe agrees with the City that a Luiseño Native
American monitor must be present during ground disturbing activities.
II. SLR STRONGLY RECOMMENDS AND REQUESTS THAT
ADDITIONAL MEASURES OF MITIGATION BE ADOPTED BY THE
CITY IN ORDER TO LESSEN ANY ADDITIONAL NEGATIVE
IMPACT TO OUR LUISEÑO NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURAL
RESOURCES.
In addition to the Project landowner/developer entering into a Cultural Resources
Treatment and Tribal Monitoring Agreement, or otherwise known as a Pre-Excavation
Agreement, with the Tribe prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activities for the
Project, the MND should reflect additional measures of mitigation in order to lessen any
additional negative impact to our Luiseño Native American cultural resources.
A. The MND Should Reflect That Any and All Uncovered Artifacts of Native
American Cultural Importance Should Be Returned to the Tribe, and/or the Most
Likely Descendent and NOT BE CURATED.
It is the religious belief, custom, and practice of the Tribe to repatriate all cultural
resources that are unearthed during ground disturbing activities. Therefore, any plans to curate
any such items would blatantly disregard the respect due to these cultural resources. Instead, any
such items should be returned to the Tribe and/or the Most Likely Descendant, if applicable, as
determined by the Native American Heritage Commission. Currently, CULTURAL-1(g) of the
MND requires that the collected cultural resources be curated. The Tribe is strongly opposed to
this mitigation measure. The Tribe requests that this mitigation measure be removed from the
Tribal Comments Regarding College Boulevard Mitigation Project, Carlsbad, CA Page 3
Final MND and respectfully requests that our sacred Luiseño cultural resources be returned to
the Tribe so that they may be repatriated in accordance with our spiritual and traditional beliefs.
This Project is located within the traditional and aboriginal territory of our Tribe and our sister
Luiseño tribes. The Tribe considers all cultural items found in this area to belong to their
ancestors, and the ancestors of their sister tribes. This request should be included in the Final
MND.
B. Native American Monitors And Archaeological Monitors Should Have Joint
Authority To Temporarily Divert And/or Halt Construction Activities.
Archaeologists and Native American monitors are trained to perform different
analysis of cultural resources. For instance, in the case of determining the significance of
isotopes we believe adamantly that any determination as to whether the deposits are
“non-significant” should be left to the archaeologist and the Native American monitor
and that both should agree on the deposit’s insignificance. Both entities should agree due to the
fact that each professional weighs the deposits differently based on their training and beliefs. An
archaeologist looks at the deposits value for research purposes and its scientific worth. Whereas,
a Native American monitor looks at the deposits importance as it relates to its religious and
spiritual significance and the items Luiseño cultural relevance. Each opinion is equally important
and both should be taken in equal consideration. Therefore, when including additional
mitigation measures for Cultural Resources in the Final MND, it is the Tribe’s request that
CULTURAL-1(f) be amended to include that any determination regarding the amount to be
recovered and the means of recovery be done so in coordination with the Luiseño Native
American monitor.
Moreover, the Tribe respectfully requests that the following language of CULTURAL-
1(e) and CULTURAL-2(c) be modified and/or amended prior to the adoption of this MND to
clearly state that both monitors will have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground
disturbing activities if a resource needs to be evaluated more closely. Currently, the
CULTURAL-1 states, “In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are
discovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground
disturbance operation in the area of discovery to allow evaluation of potentially significant
cultural resources.” The Tribe suggests that this sentence and/or mitigation measure be clarified,
to include that both the archaeological monitor and the Luiseño Native American monitor shall
have the authority to divert or temporarily halt ground disturbance operation in the area of
discovery to allow evaluation of potentially significant cultural resources.” It is imperative that
Native American monitors share in the responsibility of temporarily halting ground disturbing
activities when a cultural resource or archaeological resource are discovered in order for the
resource to be properly identified and not destroyed by heavy machinery. Therefore, the Tribe
respectfully requests that the language authorizing the temporary halting of ground disturbing
activities be modified as herein stated.
Tribal Comments Regarding College Boulevard Mitigation Project, Carlsbad, CA Page 4
C. The Tribe Must Be Consulted If A Significant Cultural Resource And/or Unique
Archaeological Resource Is Discovered During Ground Disturbing Activities.
If a significant cultural resource and/or unique archaeological resource are unearthed
during ground disturbing activities for this Project, the Tribe respectfully requests that they be
notified and consulted with in regards to the respectful and dignified treatment of those
resources. The Tribe’s preference will always be for avoidance and that the resource be protected
and preserved in perpetuity as provided for in CEQA. If however, relocation and/or a data
recovery plan is authorized by the City as the Lead Agency, the Tribe respectfully requests that
as a condition of any authorization, the Tribe be consulted regarding the drafting and finalization
of any such recovery. These resources are evidence of our ancestors’ lost history and, as such,
we must have a voice and be a part of how those resources are treated and preserved for future
generations.
Furthermore, when cultural resources are discovered during the Project, if the
archaeologist collects such resources, a Luiseño Native American monitor must be present
during any testing or cataloging of those resources. Additionally, if the archaeologist does not
collect the cultural resources that are unearthed during the ground disturbing activities, the
Luiseño Native American monitor, may in their discretion, collect said resources and provide
them to the Tribe for respectful and dignified treatment in accordance with the Tribe’s cultural
and spiritual traditions. Currently the MND is silent in regards to “what” is to happen to those
items not collected, as reflected in CULTURAL 1(d). Therefore, it is the Tribe’s
recommendation that these items be given to the Tribe so that they may be repatriated at the site
on a later date.
D. When Suspected Native American Remains Are Unearthed, Those Remains
Should Remain In Situ And Protected Until The Most Likely Descendant Can Be
Determined By The Native American Heritage Commission.
CULTURAL-1(e) addresses the possibility of the discovery of Native American Human
Remains. If Native American remains and/or associated burial goods are unearthed during the
Project, and prior to a Most Likely Descendant being determined by the Native American
Heritage Commission, it is the Tribe’s request that the ancestral remains be kept in situ (in
place), or in a secure location in close proximity to their discovery and that a forensic
anthropologist perform their analysis of the remains on-site in the presence of a Luiseño Native
American monitor. Any transportation of the ancestral remains would be considered by the Tribe
as disrespectful and undignified treatment. Therefore, the Tribe requests that in addition to the
strict adherence to the protocol stated in the California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5
and California Public Resource Code Section 5097.98, the Final MND reflect that if Native
American remains are discovered, the Native American remains shall be kept in situ, or in a
secure location in close proximity to where they were found, and that the analysis of the remains
occur only on-site in the presence of a Luiseño Native American monitor.
Tribal Comments Regarding College Boulevard Mitigation Project, Carlsbad, CA Page 5
III. LASTLY, ONLY “CLEAN FILL” SHOULD BE UTILIZED DURING
THIS PROJECT
The Tribe is opposed to any undocumented fill being used during the proposed
development. It is unclear from the MND whether fill will be imported to the site and/or
exported from the site. In the event the “fill” will be imported into the Project area, the Tribe
requests that any proposed use of fill be clean of cultural resources and documented as such. It
has been a practice of many in the construction profession to utilize fill materials that contained
cultural resources from other “unknown” areas thereby contaminating the potential cultural
landscape of the area being filled. This type of fill material is unacceptable. Moreover, if the fill
material is to be utilized from areas within the Project Site, such as from the creek bed, then the
Tribe requests that that soil be analyzed and confirmed by an archeologist and/or Luiseño Native
American monitor that such soil and/or fill material does not contain cultural resources. A
requirement that fill material be absent of any and all cultural resources should therefore be
included as an additional mitigation measure of the Final MND.
IV. CONCLUSION
The San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians appreciates this opportunity to provide the
City of Carlsbad with our comments for the College Boulevard Mitigation Project in Carlsbad,
CA. The Tribe hopes the City will adopt the mitigation measures for Cultural Resources as
herein requested and that they will appear in the Final MND. As always, we look forward to
working with the City to guarantee that the requirements of the CEQA are rigorously applied to
this Project and all projects. We thank you for your continuing assistance in protecting our
invaluable Luiseño cultural resources.
Sincerely,
Merri Lopez-Keifer
Chief Legal Counsel
cc: Melvin Vernon, Tribal Captain
Carmen Mojado, Secretary of Government Relations and President of Saving Sacred
Sites
May7,2015
City of Carlsbad
Planning Commission
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
ATIACHMENT 15
(
\--
City of Carlsbad
MAY 11 2015
Planning Division
RE: GPA 14-02/ZC 15-04 SUP 14..03 HMP 14-02 MS 14-10 College Boulevard Mitigation
Dear Commission Members,
We, as owners of the Rancho Milagro property in Zone 15, are writing in support of the
referenced project, which is proposed to mitigate enviromnental impacts relating to the
construction of College Boulevard between Sunny Creek Road and Cannon Road.
We understand that the proposed project will provide a total of nearly 9 acres of wetland
and upland habitat as well as additional open space for agriculture and water quality uses. This
large improved area will be contiguous to natural open space in the adjacent Dos Colinas
planned community, resulting in a significant habitat enviromnent.
The design for the wetlands portion of the project-will add a second channel for Agua
Hedionda Creek and should provide a broad habitat area for plants and wildlife. This project
will augment the current narrow creek alignment with a second source of water, resulting in
significantly enhanced potential for the growth of native plants in the wetland enviromnent
which will be protected in perpetuity through an endowment to the San Diego Habitat
Conservancy.
Please Vf?te to approve this desirable wetlands and uplands enviromnent project. Thank
you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
fttWt~ 4~
Warren Lyall
Lyall Enterprises, Inc.
15524 Highway 76
Pauma Valley, CA 92061
May 11,2015
City of Carlsbad
Planning Commission
~~ e~ Owners' Association, Inc.
5200 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California 92010-7118
Phone: (760) 438-0333 Fax: (760) 438-1808
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
ATIACHMENT 16
City of Carlsbad
MAY 1 5 2015
Planning Division
R~: GOA 14-02/ZC 15-04 SUP 14-03/HMP 14-10 College Boulevard Mitigation
Dear Commission Members,
We are writing on behalf of the Board of Director's for the Rancho Carlsbad Owners'
Association, Inc. to express the Board's support of the above reference project, which is
proposed to mitigate environmental impacts relating to the construction of College Boulevard
between Sunny Creed Road and Cannon Road.
Our organization prefers the new proposed location to that which was considered several years
ago as part of Basin BJ. The currently proposed project should provide a large area of both
wetlands and uplands habitat in the immediate vicinity of our community and we urge the
Planning Commission to approve the project at it upcoming Public Heming.
We also support tl1is plan for the flood water mitigation benefit to our community. Minor,
though it is, any ~~dening or retention of upstream flows help our situation.
Thank you for yow: attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
~~·-A.~L 'Sandn;:J{u~.;;;-
President
~~
Chairperson • .
Extemal·Relations Committee ..
·.,.·
Board of Directors
Maureen Simons.
Chairman
Jan McDaniel
VIce-chair
Graham Beatty
Treasurer
Dee Sodano
Secretary
Jim Brubaker
Michael Gazzano
Kimberly Holmes
Sara Huber
Karen McClune
Becky Moore
Eric Munoz
Rebecca Richards
Sam Ross
Tim Sisk
Wendy Wiegand
Staff
Lisa Rodman
Executive Director
Samantha Richter
Discovery Center
Operations Director
Katie Harding
Administrative Manager
Morgan Wolford
Trail Development Manager
May 22,2015
Howes, Weiler & Associates
Mike Howes
2888 Loker Ave. East, Ste. 317
Carlsbad, CA 92010
GPA 14-02/ZC 14-01/HDP 14-04/SUP 14-03/HMP 14-02/MS 14-10
ATIACHMENT 17
The Agua H.edionda Lagoon Foundation (AHLF) Is a non-profit organization that promotes
lagoon stewardship, water recreation, and engages the community through educational
programs and outreach efforts. The role of AHLF Is typically not to take supporting or
opposing positions on development projects but rather to remain neutral so that our
focus remains on our mission. Projects that do affect lagoon or watershed environmental
Issues are within our sphere of interest.
The subject project involves city roadway and drainage Improvements that comprise the
above-referenced College Boulevard Mitigation Project and our comments are specific to
the realm of public improvements associated by the project, while remaining neutral on
the merits of the development project itself.
Thus in this specific context, and after review of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) published by the city for public review and comment, we see that impacts will be
generated for wetland, riparian, coastal sage scrub, and non-native grassland habitats
with our direct watershed.
Likewise we note and have reviewed the corresponding Mitigation Measures associated
with the MND that In general terms will enhance and preserve these sensitive habitat
types, along with increased water quality protections, In accordance with city
requirements and related resource agency oversight and related actions. AHLFis in
support of these Mitigation Measures that aim to provide environmental protect on within
our city and watershed.
Sincerely,
Usa Rodman
Executive Director
Agua Hedlonda Lagoon Foundation
cc: Board of Directors
Mr. Don Neu (FWS/CDFW-SDG-10B0209-15CPA0241) 2
The project site is located north of the intersection of College Boulevard and Sunny Creek Road,
outside the Coastal Zone, and within a Standards Area in Local Facilities Management Zone
(LFMZ) 15. Although the project site is not within a core or linkage area, as depicted on Figure 4
of the HMP, it includes a portion of Agua Hedionda Creek, an important east-west wildlife
movement corridor (City, ESA, and CNLM 2015). The project will create, enhance, and preserve
3.1 acres of wetland/riparian habitat and 5.6 acres of coastal sage scrub in and adjacent to the
creek as mitigation for the construction of College Boulevard -Reach A and associated detention
basins. The project will also subdivide two existing legal lots (Parcels A and D, totaling 17.44
acres) into four legal lots with the following uses:
• Parcel A (1.0 acre) will be used for agriculture/future garden and will remain as an HMP
Standards Area;
• Parcel B (1.12 acres) will become one of the bio-retention basins needed for the College
Boulevard -Reach A project and will be removed from the HMP Standards Area.
Construction of the bio-retention basin was addressed in our consistency findings letter
for the College Boulevard -Reach A Project (FWS/CDFW -SDG-10B0209-15CP AO 166);
• Parcel C (9.23 acres) will be used for the project and converted to an HMP Hardline
Preserve Area;
• Parcel D (6.09 acres) may be used for future residential development; however, no
development is proposed at this time. The parcel will remain as an HMP Standards Area.
In order to implement the project, the following habitats will be impacted on Parcel C:
nonnative grassland (0.03 acre), agricultural lands (0.37 acre), eucalyptus woodland (0.67 acre),
disturbed (5.28 acres), and ornamental (0.51 acre). These impacts will be mitigated through
payment of the HMP in-lieu fee. All of the natural habitat created and enhanced on Parcel C will
be conserved and managed in perpetuity by an entity approved by the City and Wildlife
Agencies. A non-wasting endowment will also be established for its long-term management.
LFMZ 15 Standards Area Goals
The project is consistent with LFMZ 15 zone-specific standards as discussed below.
• No coastal sage scrub habitat or federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher
(Polioptila californica californica) occurs on the project site.
• No covered species will be impacted due to project implementation.
• The project site is not located in Linkage Area Cor Core Areas 3 and 5; therefore, the
standards that apply specifically to these areas do not apply to the proposed project.
Mr. Don Neu (FWS/CDFW-SDG-IOB0209-15CPA0241)
• All wetland/riparian habitats on the project site are being conserved and no fill or
development is proposed within the existing floodplain as part of the proposed project.
• HMP-listed Narrow Endemic plants do not occur on the project site.
3
• A small portion of the project site is currently used for agriculture. As a component of the
proposed project, a 100-foot wide buffer of native habitat will be created along both sides
of Agua Hedionda Creek. A portion of the bio-retention basin for the College Boulevard -
Reach A project would be located in the northeast side of the buffer as a passive use.
Essential stormwater control facilities, which include detention basins, are allowable
passive uses in the buffer (TAlC 2010). In addition, the proposed project will restore
coastal sage scrub well beyond the I 00-foot riparian buffer on the northwest portion of
the project site to form a better connection with the Dos Colinas Biological Conservation
Easement.
• No housing development is proposed in conjunction with the project; therefore, no fuel
modification zones are required.
• The project includes the removal of nonnative weed species, eucalyptus woodland, and
ornamental plantings as part of the creation and enhancement of native riparian and
upland vegetation. Also, disturbed areas and areas used for agriculture will be restored to
native habitats.
• Many of the HMP Adjacency Standards apply to residential and commercial
developments that are constructed on the boundaries of the HMP Reserve. Since the
proposed project involves only the creation and enhancement of native vegetation, these
standards are not applicable. However, the proposed project will install erosion control
BMPs, as required pursuant to the HMP, to ensure that any graded areas do not cause
sedimentation of Agua Hedionda Creek, and permanent fencing and signs to prevent
trespassing into the project site.
Mitigation Ratios for Habitat Impacts
As shown in Table 2 of the City's April 7, 2015, letter, no impacts to Habitat Groups A, B, C, or
D will result from project implementation. The project will directly impact nonnative grassland,
agriculture, eucalyptus woodland, ornamental, and disturbed vegetation. These vegetation
communities are categorized as Habitat Group E and F in the HMP and are eligible to be
mitigated through the payment of an in-lieu fee. Therefore, the proposed mitigation ratios are
consistent with the requirements of the HMP.
Covered Species-Least Bell's vireo
The federally and state endangered least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus, vireo) is known to
nest in riparian habitat upstream of the project site. The HMP includes species-specific measures