HomeMy WebLinkAboutEIR 2018-0001; AVIARA APARTMENTS; FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; 2020-11-01
|
Aviara Apartments Project 0.1-1 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
SECTION 0.1
Introduction
0.1.1 Overview
This Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resource Code Section 21000
et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.).
According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR shall consist of the following:
a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft;
b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, either verbatim or in summary;
c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR;
d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review
and consultation process; and
e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.
In accordance with these requirements, the Aviara Apartments Project EIR is includes the following:
This Final EIR document, dated November 2, 2020, that incorporates the information
required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, including responses to comments received on
the Draft EIR; and
The Draft EIR document, dated June 17, 2020 (SCH# 2019011034).
0.1.2 Format of the Final EIR
This document is organized as follows:
Section 0.1: Introduction. This section describes CEQA requirements and the contents of
this Final EIR.
Section 0. 2: Responses to Comment Letters Received on the Draft EIR. This section
provides copies of the written comment letters received and individual responses to comments.
In accordance with Public Resources Code 21092.5, copies of the written responses to public
agencies will be forwarded to the agencies at least 10 days prior to certifying an EIR. The
responses will conform to the legal standards established for responses to comments on EIRs.
Section 0.3: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This section includes the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which identifies the mitigation
measures for the project, timing and responsibility for implementation of the measures.
0.1 – Introduction
Aviara Apartments Project 0.1-2 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
This page intentionally left blank
Aviara Apartments Project 0.2-1 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
SECTION 0.2
Response to Comments
Section 0.2 contains the comment letters received on the Draft EIR and the City of Carlsbad’s
(city’s) responses to comments related to the Draft EIR and/or issues related to efforts on the
environment. The comment period opened June 17, 2020 and closed July 31, 2020.
Each letter, as well as each individual comment within the letter, has been given an assigned letter
and number for cross-referencing. Comment letters are ordered by the date they were received. A
total of six written comment letters were received by the city. The comment letters are listed in
Table 0.2-1.
TABLE 0.2-1
DRAFT EIR COMMENT LETTERS
Letter # Commenter Date of Comment
A Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians, Cheryl Madrigal,
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 6/26/2020
B San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc.,
James W. Royle Jr., Chairperson 7/1/2020
C San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc.,
James W. Royle Jr., Chairperson 7/29/2020
D California Department of Transportation (Caltrans),
Maurice Eaton, Branch Chief
7/30/2020
E California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW),
Jessie Lane, Environmental Scientist
7/31/2017
F Steve Linke 7/31/2020
Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians
CULTURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
One Government Center Lane | Valley Center | CA 92082
(760) 749-1051 | Fax: (760) 749-8901 | rincon-nsn.gov
Bo Mazzetti
Chairman
Tishmall Turner
Vice Chair
Laurie E. Gonzalez
Council Member
Alfonso Kolb, Sr.
Council Member
John Constantino
Council Member
June 26, 2020
Sent via email: chris.garcia@carlsbadca.gov
City of Carlsbad
Chris Garcia
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Aviara Apartments project; Case no.: CT 2018-0002/SDP 2018-0002/CDP 2018-0005/HDP 2018-
0001/EIR 2018-0001 – SCH#2019011034
Dear Mr. Garcia,
This letter is written on behalf of the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians (“Rincon Band” or “Band”), a federally
recognized Indian Tribe and sovereign government. Thank you for providing us with the Notice of Availability of
a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the above referenced project.
The Band has reviewed the provided documents and we have no further comments at this time. We kindly ask that
the Rincon Band be notified of any changes in project plans. If you have additional questions or concerns, please
do not hesitate to contact our office at your convenience at (760) 297-2635.
Thank you for the opportunity to protect and preserve our cultural assets.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Madrigal
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cultural Resources Manager
Comment Letter A
A-1
A-2
0.2 – Response to Comments
Aviara Apartments Project 0.2-3 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
Comment Letter A
Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians,
Cheryl Madrigal, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
June 26, 2020
A-1 This comment acknowledges receipt of the Notice of Availability of the Draft
EIR. This comment does not raise any issue concerning the adequacy of the
information presented in the EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.
A-2 Comment noted. The Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians is included on the project
information list.
e C 0 C to % o& + t' +A
67 A
San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc.
Environmental Review Committee
1 July 2020
To: Mr. Chris Garcia, Associate Planner
Planning Division
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report
Aviara Apartments
CT 2018-0002, SDP 2018-0002, CDP 2018-005, HDP 2018-0001,
HMP 2018-0001, EIR 2018-0001 (DEV2017-0033)
Dear Mr. Garcia:
Last month, SDCAS received the Notice of Availability for the Aviara Apartments
project. Going on the City's website, I located the DEIR and its cultural resources
appendix, Appendix D.1. Unfortunately, the posted Appendix D.1 is only a placeholder
for the confidential version of the document, not the usual redacted and unrestricted
version normally provided.
Our letter in response to the Notice of Preparation said "Also, in order to facilitate our
review, we would appreciate being provided with one copy of the cultural resources
technical report(s) along with the DEIR."
We request that a version of Appendix D.1 with the confidential portions removed be
made available. To us so that our review of the DEIR can be completed.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
City of Carlsbad
'JUL' 0 8 2r')
Planning Division
hies W. Royle, Jr., Chakpson
Environmental Review Committee
cc: Helix Environmental
SDCAS President
File
P.O. Box 81106 San Diego, CA 92138-1106 (858) 538-0935
Comment Letter B
B-1
0.2 – Response to Comments
Aviara Apartments Project 0.2-5 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
Comment Letter B
San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc.
James W. Royle Jr., Chairperson
July 1, 2020
B-1 This comment requests a copy of Appendix D.1 that includes the confidential
portions of the document. On July 20, 2020, the full Cultural Resources Survey
and Assessment (Appendix D.1 of the Draft EIR) was sent to James W. Royle via
email. This is acknowledged in the San Diego County Archaeological Society’s
July 29, 2020 comment letter. As this comment does not raise a significant
environmental issue regarding the adequacy of the information presented in the
EIR, no further response is required.
Comment Letter C
C-1
C-2
0.2 – Response to Comments
Aviara Apartments Project 0.2-7 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
Comment Letter C
San Diego County Archaeological Society, Inc.
James W. Royle Jr., Chairperson
July 29, 2020
C-1 This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter. The comment does
not raise a significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy of the
information presented in the EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.
C-2 On July 20, 2020, the full Cultural Resources Survey and Assessment (Appendix
D.1 of the Draft EIR) was sent to James W. Royle via email from ESA, the city’s
consultant for preparation of the EIR. This comment indicates that the commenter
concurs with the impact analysis and mitigation measures presented in the cultural
resources report included in the EIR. The comment notes that there is slight variation
in the mitigation measures presented in the Draft EIR as compared to the cultural
report. These adjustments were made as a result of input from the San Luis Rey Band
of Mission Indians and the Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians during the consultation
process (see page 4.4-17 of the Draft EIR). The comment does not raise a significant
environmental issue regarding the adequacy of the information presented in the EIR.
Therefore, no further response is required.
“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability”
STATE OF CALIFORNIA------- CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY Gavin Newsom, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 11
4050 TAYLOR STREET, MS-240 SAN DIEGO, CA 92110 PHONE (619) 688-3137 FAX (619) 688-4299 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov
Making Conservation a California Way of Life.
July 30, 2020 11-SD-5
PM 46.362
Aviara Apartments
DEIR/SCH#2019011034
Chris Garcia
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Garcia:
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in
the environmental review process for the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Aviara Apartments located near Interstate 5 (I-5). The mission of Caltrans is to
provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to
enhance California’s economy and livability. The Local Development‐
Intergovernmental Review (LD‐IGR) Program reviews land use projects and plans
to ensure consistency with our mission and state planning priorities.
Caltrans has the following comments:
Traffic Impact Study
• On page 19 of the Traffic Impact Analysis the Trip Distribution &
Assignment section states: “The Project will take access from Aviara
Parkway to either Palomar Airport Road or Poinsettia Lane, as these roads
are the most direct routes to the I-5 freeway or to destinations east of the Project site.” Please include analysis of the I-5/ Palomar Airport Road interchange and the I-5/ Poinsettia Lane interchanges in the traffic
analysis.
• A Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) based Traffic Impact Study (TIS) should be
provided for this project. Please use the Governor’s Office of Planning
and Research Guidance to identify VMT related impacts.i
i California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) 2018. "Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA." http://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190 I 22-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf
Comment Letter D
D-1
D-2
D-3
Chris Garcia
July 30, 2020
Page 2
“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability”
Complete Streets and Mobility Network
Caltrans views all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve
safety, access and mobility for all travelers in California and recognizes bicycle,
pedestrian and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation system.
Caltrans supports improved transit accommodation through the provision of
Park and Ride facilities, improved bicycle and pedestrian access and safety
improvements, signal prioritization for transit, bus on shoulders, ramp
improvements, or other enhancements that promotes a complete and
integrated transportation system. Early coordination with Caltrans, in locations
that may affect both Caltrans and the City of Carlsbad is encouraged.
To reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve California’s Climate Change
target, Caltrans is implementing Complete Streets and Climate Change policies
into State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) projects to
meet multi-modal mobility needs. Caltrans looks forward to working with the City
to evaluate potential Complete Streets projects.
Land Use and Smart Growth
Caltrans recognizes there is a strong link between transportation and land use.
Development can have a significant impact on traffic and congestion on State
transportation facilities. In particular, the pattern of land use can affect both
local vehicle miles traveled and the number of trips. Caltrans supports
collaboration with local agencies to work towards a safe, functional,
interconnected, multi-modal transportation system integrated through
applicable “smart growth” type land use planning and policies.
The City should continue to coordinate with Caltrans to implement necessary
improvements at intersections and interchanges where the agencies have joint
jurisdiction.
Noise
The applicant must be informed that in accordance with 23 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 772, the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is not
responsible for existing or future traffic noise impacts associated with the existing
configuration of I-5.
Comment Letter D
D-4
D-5
D-6
Chris Garcia
July 30, 2020
Page 3
“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability”
Environmental
Caltrans welcomes the opportunity to be a Responsible Agency under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as we have some discretionary
authority of a portion of the project that is in Caltrans’ R/W through the form of
an encroachment permit process. We look forward to the coordination of our
efforts to ensure that Caltrans can adopt the alternative and/or mitigation
measure for our R/W. We would appreciate meeting with you to discuss the
elements of the EIR that Caltrans will use for our subsequent environmental
compliance.
An encroachment permit will be required for any work within the Caltrans’ R/W
prior to construction. As part of the encroachment permit process, the applicant
must provide approved final environmental documents for this project,
corresponding technical studies, and necessary regulatory and resource
agency permits. Specifically, CEQA determination or exemption. The supporting
documents must address all environmental impacts within the Caltrans’ R/W
and address any impacts from avoidance and/or mitigation measures.
We recommend that this project specifically identifies and assesses potential
impacts caused by the project or impacts from mitigation efforts that occur
within Caltrans R/W that includes impacts to the natural environment,
infrastructure (highways/roadways/on- and off-ramps) and appurtenant
features (lighting/signs/guardrail/slopes). Caltrans is interested in any additional
mitigation measures identified for the DEIR.
Right-of-Way
• Per Business and Profession Code 8771, perpetuation of survey monuments
by a licensed land surveyor is required, if they are being destroyed by any
construction.
• Any work performed within Caltrans R/W will require discretionary review and
approval by Caltrans and an encroachment permit will be required for any
work within the Caltrans R/W prior to construction.
Additional information regarding encroachment permits may be
obtained by contacting the Caltrans Permits Office at (619) 688-6158 or by
visiting the website at http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/ep/index.html.
Comment Letter D
D-7
D-8
Chris Garcia
July 30, 2020
Page 4
“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability”
Early coordination with Caltrans is strongly advised for all encroachment
permits.
If you have any questions, please contact Kimberly Dodson, of the Caltrans
Development Review Branch, at (619) 688-2510 or by e-mail sent to
Kimberly.Dodson@dot.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
electronically signed by
MAURICE EATON, Branch Chief
Local Development and Intergovernmental Review
Comment Letter D
D-8
(cont.)
D-9
0.2 – Response to Comments
Aviara Apartments Project 0.2-12 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
Comment Letter D
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans),
Maurice Eaton, Branch Chief
July 30, 2020
D-1 This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter. The comment does
not raise a significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy of the EIR.
Therefore, no further response is required.
D-2 The comment requests that the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) include an analysis
of the Interstate-5 (I-5)/Palomar Airport Road interchange and the I-5/Poinsettia
Lane interchange. Carlsbad's TIA Guidelines state that "[a]ll intersections within
0.25 miles of a project access points serving vehicles will be included in the
study area. Additional intersections within 0.25 to 0.5 miles from the project
access points may also be added to the study area at the discretion of the City
Engineer / City Traffic Engineer." The two interchanges mentioned in the
comment do not fall within this geographic boundary.
Per the San Diego Traffic Engineers Council/Institute of Transportation
Engineers (SANTEC/ITE) TIA Guidelines, the guidelines are intended to
“identify when a TIS is needed, what professional procedures must be followed,
and what constitutes a significant transportation impact." The TIA study area
includes intersections and/or roadway segments where the project adds 50 or
more trips per direction to a facility pursuant to the SANTEC/ITE TIA
Guidelines. As shown in Figure 4-2 of the TIA, the project does not add 50 or
more trips per direction to either the I-5/Palomar Airport Road or the I-
5/Poinsettia Lane interchanges. Therefore, these intersections were not included
in the project study area.
D-3 According to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR), public
agencies did not have to take any formal action to start analyzing projects using
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) ahead of the required July 1, 2020, implementation
date. Agencies could elect to apply the VMT metric on a project-by-project basis
until that time. Per the City of Carlsbad City Council Resolution 2020-114 (June
16, 2020), a VMT analysis would only be mandatory for projects for which the
city makes a CEQA determination for an exempt project or releases an
environmental document for public review for a project that is not exempt from
CEQA on or after July 1, 2020. As the Draft EIR was released for public review
on June 17, 2020, the project was not required to prepare a VMT analysis.
Public agencies generally have the discretion to devise their own thresholds of
significance, and an agency’s choice of a threshold should be supported by
0.2 – Response to Comments
Aviara Apartments Project 0.2-13 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
substantial evidence. (Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment &
Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 160, 206; see also CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15064(b)(1).)
D-4 This comment provides information on the Complete Streets and Climate Change
policies being implemented by the commenter. The comment does not raise a
significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy of the EIR. Therefore, no
further response is required.
D-5 The comment provides the commenter's opinion on the link between
transportation and land use. The comment does not raise a significant
environmental issue regarding the adequacy of the EIR. Therefore, no further
response is required.
D-6 The comment refers to future traffic noise impacts associated with the
configuration of I-5. The comment does not raise a significant environmental
issue regarding the adequacy of the EIR. Therefore, no further response is
required.
D-7 The comment indicates that a portion of the project lies within the commenter's
right of way (ROW). The commenter is mistaken as the project is fully outside of
commenter's ROW. As such, no encroachment permit is required.
D-8 Please refer to response to comment D-7.
D-9 This is a closing comment, which does not raise a significant environmental issue
regarding the adequacy of the EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.
From: Lane, Jessie@Wildlife <Jessie.Lane@Wildlife.ca.gov>
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2020 3:06 PM
To: Chris Garcia <Chris.Garcia@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc: Turner, Jennifer@Wildlife <Jennifer.Turner@wildlife.ca.gov>
Subject: Aviara Apartments Project (SCH# 2019011034)
Dear Mr. Garcia,
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has reviewed the above-referenced
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) dated June, 2020, for the for the Aviara Apartments
Project (SCH# 2019011034). The Department is a Trustee Agency and a Responsible Agency
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; §§ 15386 and 15281,
respectively) and is responsible for ensuring appropriate conservation of the state's biological
resources, including rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species, pursuant to the
California Endangered Species Act (Fish and Game Code § 2050 et seq.) and other sections of
the Fish and Game Code (1600 et seq.).
We appreciate your consideration of biological resource avoidance and minimization outlined in the
Mitigation Measures of the DEIR. Should you have any questions pertaining to biological resources for
this project or if further coordination is needed, please contact CDFW.
Thank you,
Jessie Lane
Environmental Scientist
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
South Coast Region, Habitat Conservation Planning
3883 Ruffin Road
San Diego, CA 92123
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless you recognize the sender and
know the content is safe.
Comment Letter E
E-1
E-2
0.2 – Response to Comments
Aviara Apartments Project 0.2-15 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
Comment Letter E
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW),
Jessie Lane, Environmental Scientist
July 31, 2020
E-1 This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter. The comment does
not raise a significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy of the
information presented in the EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.
E-2 This comment notes that the commenter appreciates the EIR's consideration of
biological resource avoidance and minimization outlined in the proposed
mitigation. The comment does not raise a significant environmental issue
regarding the adequacy of the information presented in the EIR. Therefore, no
further response is required.
1
July 31, 2020
Chris Garcia
Associate Planner
Carlsbad Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Aviara Apartments Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), June 17, 2020 – public comment
Mr. Garcia:
Disclaimer: I am a member of the Carlsbad Traffic and Mobility Commission (T&MC). We have been
tasked with reviewing traffic-related guidelines that are used for development applications, but not with
the review of individual applications, so I am commenting here as an individual.
I am neutral on whether the Aviara Apartments project gets built, and the addition of affordable housing
would be desirable, but I feel that the City and developer need to follow the proper rules, and they
should fully participate in programs to reduce traffic impacts. Therefore, I believe several areas need to
be addressed in a revised environmental report, as summarized here and detailed below:
•The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) traffic analysis should have been done using
the same method as Carlsbad’s Growth Management Plan (GMP) traffic analysis, consistent with
the Carlsbad Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines.
•The roadway segment methods used in the project’s TIA are not consistent with Carlsbad’s TIA
Guidelines.
•The trip distribution step under-estimates traffic impacts on the Palomar Airport Road (PAR)
street facilities.
•The project has significant traffic impacts on PAR (and perhaps elsewhere) under CEQA, despite
claims that it does not.
•A detailed Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to mitigate the traffic impacts on
PAR needs to be included in the EIR—not proposed for future submission with unilateral review
by the City Engineer.
•The cumulative conditions analysis is missing critical information, some of the data are
incorrectly presented, and the results support the need for additional mitigation.
•Horizon year traffic analysis should be provided due to non-conformances.
•Public transit is of poor quality in the area. Estimates of ridership should be provided.
•Given a settlement agreement with an environmental group, vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
analysis should have been done for this project.
•VMT analysis would have indicated a requirement that project VMT be reduced by about 16%.
•The TDM plan should be Tier 3, rather than Tier 2.
•The TDM program needs to be more aggressive.
•No Scoping Agreement was filed for this project, in violation of the TIA Guidelines.
Comment Letter F
F-1
2
CEQA traffic analysis should have been done using the Carlsbad TIA Guidelines
The DEIR states (Section 2 of Appendix J): “This TIA report was prepared consistent with the City's
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (2018) for the GMP analysis and the regionally accepted
SANTEC/ITE Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines (2002) for the CEQA analysis.”
It is not evident why the project’s TIA includes a different analysis for CEQA purposes than for GMP
purposes. The very first paragraph of Carlsbad’s TIA Guidelines1 indicates that the processes described
therein are to be used for both CEQA and City regulations (i.e., GMP/General Plan requirements):
Projects in the City of Carlsbad may require an analysis and evaluation of project-specific
transportation impacts to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and City
regulations. These Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines provide direction for this review
consistent with the General Plan Mobility Element vision that “seeks to enhance vehicle,
walking, bicycling, and public transportation systems options within Carlsbad, and improve
mobility through increased connectivity and intelligent transportation management.” The
Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines define the process used to review projects to reflect
the Carlsbad Community Vision core values related to sustainability, neighborhood
revitalization, access to recreation, active transportation, and healthy lifestyles.
Please respond to the following:
• Why were different methods used for CEQA and GMP analysis?
• Shouldn’t the CEQA and GMP traffic analyses have been done using the same methods
described in the TIA Guidelines?
TIA roadway segment methods are not consistent with Carlsbad’s TIA
Guidelines
The project’s TIA inappropriately creates its own new CEQA method to assess level of service (LOS) for
street segments, which uses a modified form of the service volume table from the TIA Guidelines and
then applies a SANTEC/ITE LOS grading system. The Carlsbad TIA Guidelines Facility Service Volume
Table entry for Aviara Parkway is as follows:
1 Carlsbad TIA Guidelines (April 2018):
https://cityadmin.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=22758
Comment Letter F
F-2
F-3
F-4
3
The entire Aviara Parkway corridor is a single entry, and the best LOS possible is “D” due to the traffic
signal spacing being so close (**). The facility fails the GMPLOS D standard when the directional vehicle
volume exceeds 1,130 per hour, and the directional “capacity” (LOS E max.) is 1,630 vehicles per hour.
However the project TIA creates a never-before-seen “Segment Capacity Table,” which splits Aviara
Parkway into five sub-segments (the following is derived from “Segment Capacity Table” in DEIR
Appendix A of Appendix J):
And then the TIA applies the following SANTEC/ITE-type volume to capacity (V/C) ratio LOS grade table,
which does not appear in the TIA Guidelines (DEIR Appendix J, Table 2-5):
Using this method, all of the Aviara Parkway sub-segments get LOS grades of “A” or “B,” even though
“D” is the best grade possible with the actual service volume table (DEIR Appendix J, Table 7-4):
Comment Letter F
F-4
(cont.)
4
Please respond to the following:
• Where did this method come from, and why was it used?
• Was this method approved by staff? If so, please provide some proof of approval.
• Was this method approved outside of staff?
Trip distribution under-estimates traffic impact on PAR facilities
The project’s TIA predicts that 60% of vehicle trips will occur to the north of the project (to/from PAR),
and that 40% will occur to the south (to/from Plum Tree Road and Poinsettia Lane). However, the
project site is very close to PAR, so, even many trips that will end up going southbound will likely occur
via PAR to I-5. In addition, there are far more destinations (e.g., employment and retail) in the PAR
corridor, with predominantly other residences to the south. Thus, the 60/40 split seems implausible and
contributes to an under-estimation of the impact on the PAR street facilities to the north. That ratio
requires more detailed justification, and perhaps an 80/20 split is more realistic.
Please respond to the following:
• Please provide a detailed justification for the trip distribution percentages given the above
discussion or use an 80/20 split.
Project has a significant CEQA traffic impact on PAR
Even without adjusting the trip distribution, as described above, the project still has a significant CEQA
traffic impact on PAR. The CEQA traffic analysis was done using the older level of service (LOS) approach.
Section 8.1 of the TIA Guidelines includes the thresholds of significance that require mitigation of vehicle
impacts. Table 6 states:
Any trip added to a segment forecast to operate at deficient LOS requires project mitigation…
The segment of PAR between I-5 and El Camino Real, which includes the project area, has been
exempted from the GMP vehicle performance standard due to its operation at deficient LOS, as
acknowledged, for example, on Page 6 of DEIR Appendix J. Therefore, all of the vehicle trips north of the
project (to/from PAR) represent significant impacts that require mitigation.
Please respond to the following:
• Doesn’t the project have a significant traffic impact under the GMP that requires mitigation?
• Given that the CEQA traffic analysis was supposed to be done using the same method as the
GMP traffic analysis, doesn’t the project then also have a significant environmental impact
due to traffic under CEQA?
Comment Letter F
F-5
F-6
F-7
F-8
5
TDM plan to mitigate traffic impact on PAR needs to be included in EIR
Section 8.2 of the TIA Guidelines goes on to state:
If the project adds traffic to a facility that has been previously classified as exempt from the auto
LOS standard, project mitigation will include appropriate Travel Demand Management (TDM)
and Traffic System Management (TSM) measures. Examples of TDM measures will be provided
by the City Engineer / City Traffic Engineer at the time the Scoping Agreement is approved.
Section 3 of the TIA Guidelines require that the TIA Scoping Agreement be filed with and reviewed by
the City before initiation of the TIA, and that examples of TDM measures can be provided at that time.
However, for the most part, the completed TIA in the project DEIR still only provides broad examples of
TDM measures, which are only suggested by the traffic consultant for possible implementation, stating:
“A Tier 2 TDM Plan will be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to issuance of any
building permits.”
This project is adding significant traffic to a street facility (PAR) that has been exempted from the GMP
vehicle LOS performance standard due to non-compliance with the GMP. The TIA seemingly confirms
that finding by showing that the main intersection within that facility to which the project is directly
adding a majority of its traffic (PAR-College Boulevard-Aviara Parkway) is already operating at a deficient
LOS E. Thus, every vehicle the project adds to these facilities during peak travel periods is going to
further exacerbate the already heavy congestion, which is a significant impact that the developer is
legally required under the TIA Guidelines, GMP, and General Plan to mitigate.
Because the older LOS-based approach is being used to assess traffic impacts under CEQA for this
project, and because TDM is the required mitigation strategy, it is not acceptable to propose creating a
TDM-based mitigation plan at some point in the future at the sole discretion of the City Engineer. A
detailed , quantitative TDM plan needs to be provided in the EIR for public review to assess whether it is
sufficient to mitigate the traffic impacts to a less than significant level. And given the fact that the
facilities are already failing the performance standard, the TDM plan needs to very aggressively reduce
vehicle ownership and usage by the new residents.
More detailed critiques of the so-called “TDM plan” and the lack of a Scoping Agreement are included in
sections below.
Please respond to the following:
•When a project is determined to have a significant environmental impact, is it sufficient in an
EIR to state that the mitigation plan will be created in the future (after the project is approved
but before permits are issued), as long as it is approved by a single city official?
•Because this project has a significant traffic impact under both GMP and CEQA, the detailed
(quantitative) TDM-based mitigation plan should be presented in the EIR.
Comment Letter F
F-9
F-10
6
Cumulative conditions analysis – missing information
Section 4.14.4 of the DEIR describes traffic analyses based on the “cumulative with project” scenario. It
describes the existence of eleven other projects. Additional detail on the cumulative projects is provided
in Table 5-1 of Appendix J. That table indicates that one of the eleven projects does not contribute any
trips to the study area, leaving ten projects for the cumulative analysis.
Section 5 of Appendix J goes on to state: “Worksheets summarizing the methodology for developing the
baseline volumes and information on cumulative projects are provided in Appendix D.” However,
Appendix D (of Appendix J) is just an unorganized compilation of selected pages from the environmental
studies of six of the projects. One of the projects (the Agua Hedionda Lagoon mall) was rejected by
voters, so it is probably not appropriate to include that one. However, pages from at least four other
projects are missing, and, more importantly, there are no “worksheets” or any methods contained in
that appendix.
Please respond to the following:
•Please include all background information and more detailed methods and worksheets to
describe how the cumulative volumes were calculated and used in the cumulative conditions
analysis.
Cumulative conditions analysis – PAR intersection issues
When comparing the LOS data on the PAR intersection (#5) between Table 4.14-6 (existing and existing
plus project) and Table 4.14-8 (cumulative and cumulative with project), the reported delays do not
make any sense. It is possible that the AM and PM values were swapped, or perhaps they are
completely incorrect.
Assuming the values were swapped, it should be noted that the for the cumulative condition, the AM
peak hour delay increases significantly—from 77.9 to 86.8 seconds—causing the intersection to go from
LOS E to LOS F. And the PM peak hour delay increases even more—from 57.6 to 67 seconds (LOS E
before and after). In addition, under cumulative conditions, the northernmost segment of Aviara
Parkway will become deficient (LOS E) based on the Carlsbad TIA Guidelines Facility Service Volume
Table—northbound in the AM and southbound in the PM (volume exceeds the 1,130 vehicles per hour
GMP LOS D maximum, see above).
Note that these are immediate effects that are not based on a horizon year, and they assume the 60/40
north/south trip distribution, so the situation could be even worse—both now and in the future—than
presented in the TIA. This further amplifies the need for aggressive TDM to try to prevent those extra
vehicle trips that will contribute to gridlock at the PAR intersection and surrounding street segments.
Comment Letter F
F-11
F-12
7
Please respond to the following:
•Please correct the cumulative analysis data tables, as discussed above.
•Given that the cumulative effects of the projects are causing significant traffic impacts,
shouldn’t each project pay its proportional share for mitigation, even if no individual project
exceeds its separate significance threshold.
Horizon year traffic analysis should be provided
The TIA Guidelines include a list of elements to be included in TIAs, which depend on the land use and
vehicle trips forecast to be generated by the project (Table 1 of the TIA Guidelines). Based on the 1,974
average daily trips (ADT) forecast for this project, a “horizon year analysis” should have been done
(assessing transportation impacts 20 years into the future or at build-out), because the project does not
“conform to” the General Plan and zoning codes (i.e., “Level VI” analysis). Instead, the DEIR includes only
a “Level V” analysis that does not include horizon year analysis.
The DEIR includes numerous requests of the decision-making body for waivers of requirements in the
General Plan, zoning codes, and other development guidelines. Among several others, there is a request
for a waiver of the dwelling unit density (the R-30 land use designation of the project site allows a
maximum of only 30 units per acre, while the project requires 40 units per acre). In addition, there is a
request for a waiver of the height limit associated with the zoning code (the RD-M zoning designation
allows a maximum height of 35 feet, while the project requires 60 feet). Also, the project includes
several setbacks and landscaped borders that are narrower than minimum requirements in the
development standards. These are significant deviations.
It is argued that the municipal code enables the decision-making body to allow all of these non-
conformances, so the project can still be considered “generally consistent with” the General Plan and
zoning codes. However, the waivers have not yet been granted, and perhaps the environmental review
process will impact whether they are granted. In fact, for the most part, the requested waivers are
intended to allow many more residents to be packed into a smaller area with a concomitant increase in
traffic that is not accounted for in the GMP/Zone 5 Local Facilities Management Plan, or the General
Plan. Thus, it is logical that the higher level of environmental review should be conducted.
It is not appropriate to reduce the magnitude of the environmental analysis under the assumption that
the waivers will be granted. While the decision-making body may eventually find that the environmental
review justifies the waivers to make the project “generally consistent with” city requirements, the
project does not strictly “conform to” them (as required by the TIA Guidelines to do only Level V
analysis), so the more comprehensive traffic analysis that includes horizon year analysis is warranted
(Level VI).
Comment Letter F
F-13
F-14
8
Please respond to the following:
• Given the non-conformance of the project described above, isn’t it appropriate for a Level VI
TIA to be conducted, which includes horizon year analysis?
Public transit issues
Three bus stops are characterized in the DEIR—one each on westbound PAR, eastbound PAR, and
northbound College Boulevard. On Pages 4.7-21 and 4.10-23 of the DEIR, the following statement is
made in apparent reference to the westbound PAR bus stop: “…Public transit (e.g., NCTD BREEZE Routes
444 and 445) is located along Palomar Airport Road approximately 660 feet (0.015-mile) north of the
project site…”
First, 660 feet is 0.125 miles, not 0.015 miles. Second, while it might be accurate that the northernmost
boundary of the project site is 660 feet from that nearest bus stop “as the crow flies,” that creates a
misleading impression of how far residents would actually have to walk, on average, to get there. If they
could fly like a crow, they would just fly all the way to their destinations rather than taking a bus.
For an actual walking route based on the locations of the sidewalks, I estimate that the average walking
distance (from the center of the West Parcel) is about 1,200 feet for both of the PAR bus stops and
about 1,600 feet for the College Boulevard bus stop. The following Google Map shows the three bus
stops (blue icons) and a distance measurement to the one on westbound PAR.
Comment Letter F
F-15
F-16
9
Further, none of these bus stops is very inviting. Even after the improvements proposed in the DEIR, all
three will still be on narrow sidewalks with little buffer from heavily traveled high-speed (50 to 55 MPH)
roadways. The proposed benches may be helpful, but none of the stops will have any sort of covering
from the weather, and the idea that a new trash can is going to meaningfully increase ridership is
laughable. Also, the College Boulevard stop is at the bottom of a relatively steep slope.
And the most significant barrier to ridership is the fact that the North County Transit District (NCTD)
routes that serve these stops only come by twice in the morning and twice in the afternoon at most,
each pair of stops being separated by about 1-1/2 hours. Not surprisingly, ridership is extremely low.
Based on the current draft Sustainable Mobility Plan, the eastbound PAR and College stops average less
than 10 riders per day, and the westbound PAR stop averages 10-50.2
The following photographs show the three bus stops in their current state (Google Street View, 2/2020),
with their approximate distances from the middle of the West Parcel and average ridership. It is very
unlikely that the minimal proposed improvements will meaningfully incentivize more ridership.
2 Figure 2-15 of the draft Carlsbad Sustainable Mobility Plan (2/2020):
http://edocs.carlsbadca.gov/HPRMWebDrawer/RecordHTML/575971
Comment Letter F
F-17
F-18
10
Comment Letter F
F-18
(cont.)
11
Please respond to the following:
• Please accurately describe the distances to the bus stops.
• Please provide estimates of additional daily ridership at these stops expected from residents of
the project with the proposed improvements?
• The project should fund more bus stop amenities, such as covers, lighting, and bicycle parking.
VMT vs. LOS based traffic analysis
Based on a March 14, 2017 settlement agreement between the City of Carlsbad and an environmental
group3, as well as the CEQA traffic analysis rules applied to another project4, a formal VMT analysis
should have been conducted for this project.
Paragraph 4.3.6 of the March 2017 agreement required the City to start reviewing all discretionary
development projects for actions that aim to reduce VMT:
As part of the development review process, the City shall evaluate all discretionary projects for
consistency with applicable General Plan policies and CAP measures and actions that aim to
reduce roadway congestion and vehicle miles traveled (VMT), through Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) techniques and multi-modal improvements…
The agreement went on to require the City to update its TIA Guidelines to ensure that VMT analysis was
consistent with final guidance from the State of California and SANDAG:
…Within twelve (12) months of the state Office of Planning and Research (OPR) issuing final
amendments to the CEQA Guidelines regarding the use of VMT as the primary metric to analyze
transportation impacts rather than vehicle level of service (LOS), the City, in collaboration with
SANDAG and applicable working groups, will revise the updated TIA Guidelines to be consistent
with OPR's final amendments to the CEQA Guidelines...
OPR issued draft guidance documents on VMT analysis in December 2013, August 2014, and January
2016.5 Their final guidance was issued in December 2018.6 And SANDAG issued their final VMT guidance
in May 2019.7
3 Carlsbad City Council Resolution No. 2017-044 (North County Advocates Settlement Agreement, 3/14/2017):
http://edocs.carlsbadca.gov/HPRMWebDrawer/RecordHTML/467762 4 State of California Clearinghouse CEQAnet Web Portal entry for Marja Acres:
https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/Project/2018041022 5 OPR Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Proposed Updates to the CEQA Guidelines:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/20171127_FAQs_Nov_2017.pdf 6 OPR Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA: https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-
743_Technical_Advisory.pdf 7 San Diego Area ITE TIA Guidelines (May 2019): https://tinyurl.com/y2nyc4w6
Comment Letter F
F-19
F-20
F-21
F-22
12
The TIA was not conducted for this project until November 2019. The Notice of Completion for the DEIR
was not filed until June 9, 20208, and the DEIR was first published for public review on June 17, 2020.
The DEIR states in at least four different sections that the State of California was not requiring lead
agencies to adopt VMT (or equivalent) until July 1, 2020, and that the City of Carlsbad was going to wait
until that deadline, which is what happened.9 However, the DEIR also acknowledges in all of those
passages that lead agencies could elect to adopt VMT at any point, and the language in the March 2017
agreement executed with the environmental group effectively required that earlier adoption, which did
not occur.
Further, the City is applying the traffic analysis rules inconsistently to different projects. For example,
the Marja Acres project (cited earlier) used VMT instead of LOS for its CEQA traffic analysis, even though
its Notice of Preparation, Notice of Completion, and DEIR publication all occurred earlier than the
corresponding documents for Aviara Apartments.
Please respond to the following:
• Given the settlement agreement, shouldn’t VMT analysis have been implemented prior to July
1, 2020?
• Given that the TIA was not conducted for this project until November 2019, and given the fact
that the Marja Acres TIA used VMT, why did this project use LOS instead of VMT?
TDM-based traffic mitigation based on VMT analysis
If a VMT analysis had been done, it would have shown that the project VMT per capita exceeds the
significance threshold by approximately 16%, as summarized in the following table and described below.
aFehr & Peers SB 743 VMT table by TAZ (SANDAG Series 13 data)
When normalized to the number of units in each parcel (78.7% West plus 21.3% East), the overall
project exceeds the significance threshold by 16.3%.
Method. The City’s mean VMT per capita is 22.52, so the 85% threshold is 19.14.10 The West Parcel is
located in Master Geographical Reference Area (MGRA) 14208 within Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 1182.
8 CEQAnet Web Portal entry for Aviara Apartments: https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2019011034 9 Carlsbad City Council Resolution No. 2020-114 (VMT Analysis Guidelines adoption):
http://edocs.carlsbadca.gov/HPRMWebDrawer/RecordHTML/577938 10 Fehr & Peers SB743 VMT table by TAZ (SANDAG Series 13 data)
Parcel MGRA TAZ
Carlsbad
mean
VMT/capitaa
Significance
Threshold
(85% of City
Average)
TAZ mean
VMT/capitaa
Project
VMT Over
Threshold
% Project
VMT Over
Significance
Threshold
West 14208 1182 22.52 19.14 23.11 3.97 17.2%
East 22957 1161 22.52 19.14 22.05 2.91 13.2%
Comment Letter F
F-22
(cont.)
F-23
F-24
13
The City’s VMT per capita in TAZ 1182 is 23.11, which is 3.97 VMT higher than the threshold. Therefore,
project VMT exceeds the threshold by 17.17% in the West Parcel. The East Parcel is located in MGRA
22957 within TAZ 1161. The City’s VMT per capita in TAZ 1161 is 22.05, which is 2.91 VMT higher than
the threshold. Therefore, project VMT exceeds the threshold by 13.19% in the East Parcel.
Regardless of whether a formal VMT analysis is included in the EIR, the 16% level of TDM-based
mitigation is appropriate for the project.
Please respond to the following:
• Based on the above analysis, the project should be required to reduce project VMT by about
16%.
TDM plan should be Tier 3
The DEIR states: “A Tier 2 plan requires implementation of TDM measures totally [sic] nine points. Four
points are achieved through three required measures (designation of a transportation coordinator,
promotion of one citywide event each year, and distribution of a citywide program flyer to new
tenants). The other five points will be achieved through site specific measures.”
This TDM approach comes from Carlsbad’s TDM Handbook. However, Table 2-1 in the handbook
indicates that new developments that generate >275 ADT must implement a “Tier 3” TDM plan, which
requires a total of 18 points, so nine additional points should be required through additional
infrastructure improvements and programmatic strategies for this project.
That said, as described in the previous section, the project should implement TDM measures sufficient
to achieve at least a 16% reduction in estimated project VMT, for example, as calculated using the
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA)’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emission
Measures.
Please respond to the following:
• Why is the project only subject to a Tier 2, rather than a Tier 3, TDM plan?
• The project should achieve at least a 16% reduction in VMT, either through a Tier 3 TDM plan,
CAPCOA, or another method.
Specific TDM measures
The DEIR states that the project will use a TDM plan to reduce single occupant vehicle trips resulting in a
reduction of 10% to 15% in vehicle miles traveled. However, only a broad outline of a plan is presented
with no quantitation. The following measures are suggested by the traffic consultnat: (1) up to two car-
share parking spaces on the east and west side of the project, (2) transit passes for residents who forego
on or more parking spaces, (3) telework resources, and (4) bicycle storage facilities.
Comment Letter F
F-24
(cont.)
F-25
F-26
F-27
14
As described above, the project should implement a Tier 3 TDM plan with measures sufficient to achieve
at least a 16% reduction in estimated project VMT. That said, it seems highly unlikely that the TDM
measures currently outlined in the DEIR could achieve even a 10% reduction, let alone a 16% reduction.
(1) The availability of “up to two” car-share spaces can mean zero, one, or two spaces. And assuming all
four car-shares per day are applied to work commuting, each with an average of three passengers, that
only eliminates the equivalent of eight trips out of the nearly 2,000 forecasted trips from the project.
There need to be more car-share spaces and some sort of incentive program to use them. In addition,
the project should fund off-site ride-sharing.
(2) As detailed above, transit quality is very low in that area. The minimal bus stop improvements are
very unlikely to have big impacts, and neither the project nor the City has any control over bus service
frequency. Even if some of the residents are willing to take transit occasionally for certain trips, it seems
highly unlikely that they will forgo having a vehicle with a parking space.
Free or highly subsidized transit passes should be offered to all residents to try to maximize usage. And
there probably should be substantial fees for parking by any non-affordable units, in order to create a
meaningful disincentive of vehicle ownership. I am not pleased with that prospect, but I guess that is the
new cost associated with high-density housing placed adjacent to streets that are already failing the
GMP congestion standard.
(3) I applaud the telework resources approach, which should be expanded, if possible. That probably has
the best hope of making a meaningful impact. (4) The bicycle storage facilities are fine. However, I do
not feel it is realistic that many residents will be taking their bikes out on PAR, College Boulevard, or
Aviara Parkway as a substitute for regular vehicle trips, given the speeds and traffic volumes.
Other CAPCOA approaches should also be implemented to achieve a 16% reduction. Most importantly,
though, the TDM plan needs to include a monitoring program to track the success or failure of the
various strategies with the requirement that strategic changes be made, if necessary.
Please respond to the following:
• There need to be more car-share spaces and some sort of incentive program to use them.
• The project should fund off-site ride-sharing.
• Even if some of the residents are willing to take transit occasionally for certain trips, it seems
highly unlikely that they will forgo having a vehicle with a parking space.
• How will the Traffic Impact Fee payments be used to further improve the transit situation?
What specifically is planned?
• Free or highly subsidized transit passes should be offered to all residents to try to maximize
usage.
Comment Letter F
F-27
(cont.)
F-28
F-29
F-30
F-31
F-32
F-33
F-34
F-35
F-36
F-37
15
• Will there be parking fees substantial enough to create a meaningful disincentive of vehicle
ownership?
• Please calculate the estimated reduction in project VMT to be achieved for each of the
measures to be used.
• A TDM monitoring program needs to be in place.
Non-conformance with TIA Guidelines – lack of Scoping Agreement
The TIA Guidelines were created in April 2018 to comply with the March 2017 settlement agreement
between the City and the environmental group, as described above. These guidelines indicate, beginning
in Section 3 (TIA Scoping Requirements), that “Prior to initiating a TIA, a scope of work shall be
submitted, reviewed, and approved by the City staff,” and that “[a] Scoping Agreement with City of
Carlsbad shall be filed prior to initiating the Transportation Impact Analysis report.” The execution of
such Scoping Agreements to guide TIA preparation and reporting is a good public practice used by many
cities.
The TIA Guidelines go on to state that “[t]he Scoping Agreement ensures an understanding of the level
of detail and the assumptions required for the analysis.” In many subsequent sections, the TIA
Guidelines go on to list the many components to be included in the Scoping Agreement, including the
type of TIA and methodologies, a study area map and list of facilities to be studied, a traffic data
collection plan, scenarios to be studied, VMT discussion, trip generation and distribution methods, trip
reduction plans, etc. A sample Scoping Agreement form is even included as the sole appendix in the
guidelines.
Aviara Apartments is a large project that includes numerous requests for deviations from land use,
zoning, and development standards, and it requires a full CEQA EIR review. However, no TIA Scoping
Agreement was apparently filed by the applicant with the City. My public records request for scoping
documents resulted only in a copy of the City’s contract with the consultant that compiled the DEIR,
which contained none of the details on the TIA. Thus, the proper TIA process has not been followed for
this project.
There is a sentence in Section 3.1 of Carlsbad’s TIA Guidelines that refers to the use of a telephone call
or email, and Staff has argued that they can do the TIA scoping over the telephone based on that
language. However, that reference to a telephone call or email is clearly only intended as an optional
substitute for in-person consultation with staff to help prepare the Scoping Agreement—not as a
substitute for the Scoping Agreement itself.
Please respond to the following:
• Doesn’t Carlsbad’s TIA Guidelines require that a Scoping Agreement be filed and reviewed
prior to initiation of the TIA?
Comment Letter F
F-38
F-39
F-40
F-41
F-42
16
Miscellaneous
In Section 4.14.1 of the DEIR, it is stated: “Poinsettia Lane is a four-lane Arterial that generally runs east-
west and provides direct access to I-5 connecting the project site to the regional transportation
system…” However, Poinsettia Lane actually alternates in various sections between one and two lanes in
each direction.
Sincerely,
Steve Linke
Carlsbad, CA
Comment Letter F
F-43
0.2 – Response to Comments
Aviara Apartments Project 0.2-32 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
Comment Letter F
Steve Linke
July 30, 2020
F-1 This comment provides an introduction to the comment letter. Please refer to
response to comments F-2 through F-43.
F-2 The TIA is prepared in two sections: Growth Management Plan (GMP) and
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CEQA transportation
analysis was prepared pursuant to the thresholds of significance contained in the
SANTEC/ITE TIA Guidelines (2000), which require an analysis of intersection
and roadway segment operations and rely on thresholds of significance based on
the Highway Capacity Manual level of service methodology. After release of the
TIA Guidelines, the city elected to continue to rely on the thresholds of
significance in the regional SANTEC/ITE Guidelines for CEQA purposes,
particularly since the TIA Guidelines did not include thresholds of significance
that meet CEQA requirements per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(b).
After the release of the TIA Guidelines in 2018, in close coordination with city
staff, the project TIA was updated to be consistent with the requirements of the
TIA Guidelines. Specifically, the GMP analysis was updated to address
intersections, roadway segments and multimodal analysis pursuant to the 2018
TIA Guidelines. Analysis required by the TIA Guidelines was included in the
EIR for informational purposes and was not used to evaluate the project's
transportation impact for CEQA purposes.
In general, public agencies have the discretion to devise their own thresholds of
significance, and an agency’s choice of a threshold should be supported by
substantial evidence. (Mission Bay Alliance v. Office of Community Investment &
Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 160, 206; see also CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15064(b)(1) (“The determination of whether a project may have a
significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the
public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual
data.”).)
F-3 Please refer to response to comment F-2
F-4 The comment addresses the methodology used for evaluating vehicular level of
service for roadway segments pursuant to CEQA. Methodologies based on the
SANTEC/ITE Guidelines require separate evaluation of intersections and
individual segments, rather than entire corridors. Roadway corridors are made up
of a series of segments and intersections. Roadway capacities developed by the
0.2 – Response to Comments
Aviara Apartments Project 0.2-33 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
city for corridors are not intended to apply to individual roadway segments.
Therefore, segment-specific capacities developed by the city using ARTPLAN
were used for each of the roadway segments analyzed for the CEQA analysis.
F-5 Please refer to response to comment F-4.
F-6 This comment questions the trip distribution included in the EIR. Trip
distribution was based on engineering judgement, existing travel patterns, the
project's proximity to retail, schools, and other activity centers.
F-7 For purposes of the GMP analysis, the TIA Guidelines state that “[a]ll
intersections within 0.25 miles of a project access points serving vehicles will be
included in the study area. Additional intersections within 0.25 to 0.5 miles from
the project access points may also be added to the study area at the discretion of
the City Engineer / City Traffic Engineer.” Intersections along Palomar Airport
Road do not fall within the study area, with the exception of Palomar Airport
Road / Aviara Parkway which is included in the study area.
Furthermore, the TIA Guidelines also states that non-freeway roadway segments
should be included in the study area when they “are subject to Auto [multi-modal
level of service (MMLOS)] Criteria and expected to experience an increase in
project traffic equal to 50 or more peak-hour trips in either direction of travel.”
As shown in Figure 4-2 of the TIA, the project does not add 50 or more trips per
direction to segments of Palomar Airport Road. Therefore, Palomar Airport Road
falls outside of the project study area.
For the purpose of the CEQA analysis, the study area includes intersections
and/or roadway segments where the project adds 50 or more trips per direction to
a facility pursuant to the SANTEC/ITE TIA Guidelines. As shown in Figure 4-2
of the TIA, the project does not add 50 or more trips per direction to segments of
Palomar Airport Road west of Aviara Parkway. Therefore, Palomar Airport Road
falls outside of the project study area.
The CEQA thresholds of significance are based on the SANTEC/ITE TIA
Guidelines, as the thresholds of significance in the city's TIA Guidelines have not
been approved by the city for use in CEQA documents. Project-related trips
added to the exempt section of Palomar Airport Road are addressed via Mobility
Element Policy 3-P.11, and the project will comply with those mandates.
Therefore, the project would not result in a GMP deficiency or a CEQA impact.
F-8 Please refer to response to comment F-7.
F-9 The project has no GMP or CEQA impacts on Palomar Airport Road. In
accordance with Mobility Element policies, the project proponent will complete a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan based on the city’s TDM
program and will participate in fair share payment toward the city’s
0.2 – Response to Comments
Aviara Apartments Project 0.2-34 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
Transportation System Management (TSM) strategies in order to reduce single
occupant trips and to improve traffic operations along the corridor. Participation
in these two programs is clearly described in the TIA and a proposed TDM plan
was included in the TIA. Please refer to response to comment F-7.
F-10 Please refer to response to comment F-9. The comment does not raise a
significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the
information provided in the EIR.
F-11 This comment addresses the project's potential cumulative impacts. To assist in
the preparation of the analysis, the Agua Hediona South Shores Specific Plan for
85% Open Space and 15% Retail Transportation Impact Analysis (2015) was
reviewed as it includes half of the cumulative projects considered in the TIA. A
copy of that report was provided in Appendix D of the TIA. Trips from the
additional five projects (Crossings at Carlsbad, Poinsettia 61, Dos Colinas,
Encinas Creek, and West Oaks) were added to the project and cumulative trip
counts included in the Agua Hediona report to determine the total volume of
cumulative trips applicable to the project analysis. The cumulative volumes are
included in the TIA (Figure 5-2). The cumulative volumes were then added to the
existing volumes to determine the existing plus cumulative volume (Figure 5-3).
F-12 This comment questions the project's cumulative impact analysis. It is important
to note that the cumulative year volumes considered for the project include the
extension of College Boulevard from Cannon Road to El Camino Real as shown
in Figure 5-2 of the TIA. The TIA explains that "the College Boulevard
extension is approximately two miles from the project site. The construction of
the road extension has little impact on traffic volumes in the study area because
the shift in volumes is relatively negligible compared to the overall volume
through the intersections. However, the cumulative year volumes considered in
this report include the extension of this roadway. Cumulative project trips
through the project study area are illustrated in Figure 5‐2. Negative volumes are
due to shifts in traffic associated with the College Boulevard Extension.” As a
result, the change in volume results in changes to the level of service between the
existing and cumulative conditions evaluated in the TIA. Therefore, the volumes
presented in the EIR are consistent with the volumes included the LOS
worksheets provided in Appendix F to the TIA.
F-13 As adequately demonstrated in the EIR, the project would not result in a direct or
cumulative traffic impact. Therefore, no mitigation is necessary. Please refer to
response to comments F-7, F-9, F-11 and F-12.
F-14 This comment states that a horizon year analysis was required. Because the land
uses proposed for the project are consistent with the General Plan, the Level V
TIA was appropriate and no horizon year analysis was required.
F-15 Please refer to response to comment F-14.
0.2 – Response to Comments
Aviara Apartments Project 0.2-35 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
F-16 This comment references the transit stops included in the project's TIA. The
comment does not raise a significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy
or accuracy of the information provided in the EIR. Nevertheless, the following
text has been revised within Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, page 4.7-21
of the Draft EIR:
Public transit (e.g., NCTD BREEZE Routes 444 and 445) is located
along Palomar Airport Road approximately 660 feet (0.125-mile) north
of the project site. A safe route to existing transit routes on Palomar
Airport Road is provided by the existing sidewalks along Aviara
Parkway.
In addition, the following text has been revised within Section 4.10, Land Use
and Planning, page 4.10-23 of the Draft EIR:
Public transit (e.g., NCTD BREEZE Routes 444 and 445) is located
along Palomar Airport Road approximately 660 feet (0.125-mile) north
of the project site. A safe route to existing transit routes on Palomar
Airport Road is provided by the existing sidewalks along Aviara
Parkway.
F-17 This comment provides the commenter's opinion on the current and improved
status of nearby bus stops. The comment does not raise a significant
environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information
provided in the EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.
F-18 This comment also provides the commenter's opinion on and photographs of the
nearby bus stops. The comment does not raise a significant environmental issue
regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the EIR.
Therefore, no further response is required.
F-19 Please refer to response to comment F-16.
F-20 This comment requests an estimate of daily ridership expected from the project.
The comment does not raise a significant environmental issue regarding the
adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the EIR. Nevertheless, it is
necessary to point out that since the TIA does not include a transit reduction in
the trip generation, the analysis did not need to forecast transit trips.
F-21 The comment requests transit infrastructure improvements. The comment does
not raise a significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of
the information provided in the EIR However, with the proposed improvements,
the transit stops in the study area would meet the level of service standards for
transit. Therefore, no additional mitigation is necessary.
F-22 Please refer to response to comments D-3 and F-2.
0.2 – Response to Comments
Aviara Apartments Project 0.2-36 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
F-23 Please refer to response to comment D-3.
F-24 Please refer to response to comment D-3.
F-25 Please refer to response to comment F-9.
F-26 The comment does not raise a significant environmental issue regarding the
adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the EIR. Please refer to
response to comments D-3, F-2, and F-9.
F-27 Please refer to response to comments D-3, F-2, and F-9.
F-28 This comment provides the commenter's opinion on what should be included in
the project's TDM plan. The comment does not raise a significant environmental
issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the EIR.
Nevertheless, there are two car share spaces clearly identified on the project site
plan provided in Figures 1-1 and 1-2 of the TIA.
F-29 The comment provides additional opinions on what the commenter believes
should be included in project's TDM plan. The comment does not raise a
significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the
information provided in the EIR. Nevertheless, the proposed TDM program
included in the TIA includes transit passes for residents who forego a parking
space. Please refer to response to comment F-9.
F-30 The comment provides additional opinions on what the commenter believes
should be included in project's TDM plan. The comment does not raise a
significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the
information provided in the EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.
F-31 The comment provides additional opinions on what the commenter believes
should be included in project's TDM plan. The comment does not raise a
significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the
information provided in the EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.
F-32 The comment provides additional opinions on what the commenter believes
should be included in project's TDM plan. The comment does not raise a
significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the
information provided in the EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.
F-33 Please refer to response to comment F-28.
F-34 Please refer to response to comment F-29.
F-35 The comment questions whether residents would forgo a parking space in
exchange for transit subsidies. The comment does not raise a significant
0.2 – Response to Comments
Aviara Apartments Project 0.2-37 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the information
provided in the EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.
F-36 The comment asks about Transit Impact Fees. The comment does not raise a
significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or accuracy of the
information provided in the EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.
F-37 Please refer to response to comment F-29.
F-38 This comment asks whether the project would charge for parking. The comment
does not raise a significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy or
accuracy of the information provided in the EIR. Therefore, no further response
is required.
F-39 Please refer to response to comment D-3.
F-40 Please refer to response to comment F-9.
F-41 The comment refers to the requirement in the city's TIA Guidelines that require a
Scoping Agreement. Whether a scoping agreement was completed pursuant to
local requirements does not have an impact on whether an analysis complies with
CEQA. Therefore, the comment does not raise a significant environmental issue
regarding the adequacy of the information provided in the EIR and no further
response is required. Please also refer to response to comment F-2.
F-42 Please refer to response to comment F-41.
F-43 The comment states that the TIA incorrectly references Poinsettia Lane. The
comment does not raise a significant environmental issue regarding the adequacy
or accuracy of the information provided in the EIR. Nevertheless, the section of
Poinsettia Lane between Aviara Parkway and I-5 includes four through-lanes
(two in each direction), as stated in the text of the TIA, with the exception of the
following:
300 feet west of the intersection of Aviara Parkway / Poinsettia Lane where
the eastbound approach transitions from two through lanes to one through
lane as the outside through lane transitions to two right turn lanes, and
375 foot west of the I-5 NB on-Ramp where the westbound approach
between Paseo del Norte and the I-5 on-ramp includes three through lanes.
This segment serves as a transition where the inside through lane becomes a
trap left turn lane on the west side of the I-5 ramp. Both of these sections of
roadway have been striped to provide capacity for the adjacent intersections.
These exceptions do not have an impact on the impact analysis included in the
TIA. Therefore, no further response is required.
0.2 – Response to Comments
Aviara Apartments Project 0.2-38 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
This page intentionally left blank
Aviara Apartments Project 0.3-1 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
SECTION 0.3
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR for the Aviara Apartments Project to reduce
or eliminate potential environmental impacts associated with the project. The city is required to
implement all adopted mitigation measures. In order to ensure compliance, the following
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been developed. This program
consists of a checklist followed by a detailed description of the mitigation measures.
Table 1 summarizes the mitigation measures for the project. Information contained within the
checklist clearly identifies the mitigation measure, delineates the monitoring schedule, and
defines the conditions required to verify compliance. The following is an explanation of the seven
columns that constitute the checklist.
Column 1 Mitigation Measure: An inventory of each mitigation measure is provided with
a brief description.
Column 2 Type: Each mitigation measure is classified as Project Design Mitigation (PD),
Project Construction Mitigation (PC), Ongoing Mitigation (OM), or Long-Term
Mitigation (LT) in order to identify at what stage in the project development
process the mitigation measure can be implemented based upon the following
definitions:
PD - Project Design Mitigation: Mitigation that has been incorporated into
the project at the design phase of project development (e.g., traffic control
plan, landscape plan);
PC - Project Construction Mitigation: Mitigation that is to be initiated at the
project site prior to and/or during construction to avoid construction related
impacts (e.g., dust or noise control measures);
OM - On-going Mitigation: Mitigation associated with the project over a
period of time (e.g., success of revegetation); or
LT - Long-Term Mitigation: Mitigation that requires monitoring over a
greater period of time (e.g., five-year revegetation monitoring program).
Column 3 Monitor: Identifies the City department or other public agency that is
responsible for determining compliance with the mitigation measure and for
informing the Planning Department about compliance.
0.3 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Aviara Apartments Project 0.3-2 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
Column 4 Schedule: The monitoring schedule depends upon the progression of the overall
project. Therefore, specific dates are not used within the “Schedule” column.
Instead, scheduling describes a logical succession of events (e.g., prior to
construction, annual) and if necessary, delineates a follow-up program.
Column 5 Compliance Action: The monitor can easily determine a mitigation measure’s
completion by referring to “Compliance Action.” Upon satisfaction of the
requirement listed in this column, the mitigation measure is considered complete.
Column 6 Verification of Compliance: The monitor verifies completion of the particular
mitigation measure by initialing and dating in this column. Where the “Schedule”
column indicates annual or other ongoing mitigation measures, verification of
compliance may not occur until completion of the project. Provision of all
required signatures within the Verification of Compliance column signifies
conclusion of the monitoring program.
Column 7 Remarks: The status of ongoing and cumulative mitigation measures is to be
documented during each visit. The space provided for remarks is obviously too
small for inclusion of the remarks. It is intended that this space be used to
indicate whether there are specific comments pertaining to the status of the
mitigation measure. If there are additional comments they are to be attached to
the checklist.
This program is to be adopted by the lead and responsible agencies upon formulation of findings
in order to comply with the requirements set forth by Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources
Code Section 21081.6).
0.3 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Aviara Apartments Project 0.3-3 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
TABLE 0.3-1
AVIARA APARTMENTS PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Type Monitor Schedule Compliance Action
Verification of
Compliance
Remarks Initial Date
Air Quality
AQ-1: Reduction of Dust Particulate Matter
Emissions During Construction. Off-road diesel
equipment greater than 50 horsepower used for the
project shall meet EPA Tier 4 final off-road emission standards or equivalent. Such equipment shall be
outfitted with Best Available Control Technology for
Toxics (T-BACT) devices including a California Air
Resources Board certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate
Filter or equivalent.
PC City of Carlsbad
Community
Development
Department
Prior to and during
construction
Off-road diesel equipment shall meet
EPA Tier 4 final off-road emission
standards or equivalent. Equipment
shall be outfitted with T-BACT devices.
Biological Resources
BIO-1: Temporary Construction Fencing and Grading. Temporary construction fencing (with silt barriers) shall
be installed at the limits of project-related impacts
(including construction staging areas and access routes)
to prevent sensitive habitat impacts and to prevent the
spread of silt from the construction zone into adjacent
habitats to be avoided. Fencing shall be installed in a
manner that does not impact habitats to be avoided. The
applicant shall submit final construction plans to the city
for approval at least 30 days prior to initiating any
clearing, grubbing, grading, or other construction
activities. These final plans shall include the type and
location of fencing, including permanent fencing along
any urban/wildlands interface to deter unauthorized
access (if deemed necessary by the city) and/or
temporary fencing to delineate the construction footprint, impact zones within the footprint, protected areas, and
no-construction buffer zones.
Employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles,
equipment, and construction materials to the fenced
project footprint. All equipment maintenance, staging, and
dispensing of fuel, oil, coolant, or any other such activities
shall occur in designated areas within the fenced project
impact limits. These designated areas shall be located in
previously compacted and disturbed areas to the
maximum extent practicable so as to prevent any runoff
from entering adjacent open space and shall be shown
on the construction plans. Fueling of equipment shall take
PC City of Carlsbad Community
Development
Department
Prior to and during
to construction
Temporary construction fencing (with silt barriers) shall be installed at the
limits of project-related impacts, and
shall incorporate all the measures listed
in BIO-1.
The applicant shall submit final
construction plans to the city for
approval at least 30 days prior to
initiating any clearing, grubbing,
grading, or other construction activities.
A biological monitor shall be present
during all vegetation clearing activities.
0.3 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Aviara Apartments Project 0.3-4 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
Mitigation Measure Type Monitor Schedule Compliance Action
Verification of
Compliance
Remarks Initial Date
place within existing paved areas greater than 100 feet
from Encinas Creek. The contract shall check equipment for leaks prior to operation and repair, as necessary. “No-
fueling zones” shall be designated on construction plans.
Fugitive dust will be avoided and minimized through
watering and other appropriate measures.
A biological monitor shall be present during all vegetation
clearing activities to help ensure that habitat is not
cleared beyond established limits and that no native
species are harmed.
If work occurs beyond the fenced or demarcated limits of
impact, all work shall cease until the problem has been
remedied to the satisfaction of the city. Any
riparian/wetland or upland habitat impacts that occur
beyond the approved fence shall be mitigated in
accordance with ratios specified in the Carlsbad HMP or
as otherwise determined by the city, USFWS, U.S. Army
Corp of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control
Board, and/or CDFW. Temporary construction fencing
shall be removed upon project completion.
Grading activity shall be prohibited during the rainy
season (October 1–April 1). All graded areas shall be landscaped prior to October 1 of each year with either
temporary or permanent landscaping materials to reduce
erosion potential. Such landscaping shall be maintained
and replanted if not well established by December 1
following the initial planting.
The October 1 grading season deadline may be extended
with the approval of the City
Engineer subject to implementation by October 1 of
special erosion control measures designed to prohibit
discharge of sediments off-site during and after the
grading operation.
Extensions beyond November 15 may be allowed with
the approval of the City Engineer in areas of very low risk
of impact to sensitive coastal resources and may be
approved either as part of the original coastal development permit or as an amendment to an existing
coastal development permit.
0.3 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Aviara Apartments Project 0.3-5 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
Mitigation Measure Type Monitor Schedule Compliance Action
Verification of
Compliance
Remarks Initial Date
If any of the responsible resource agencies prohibit
grading operations during the summer grading period in order to protect endangered or rare species or sensitive
environmental resources, then grading activities may be
allowed during the winter by a coastal development
permit or permit amendment, provided that appropriate
best management practices are adopted, which may
include, but are not limited to: silt fencing, gravel bag
barriers, fiber rolls, construction road stabilization, dust
control, concrete wash out areas, and covering and
secondary containment for temporary storage areas and
stockpiles.
BIO-2: Preservation and Management of Open Space.
The project applicant shall record two types of
easements: an open space easement that will be
recorded on the final map, and a conservation easement
or restrictive covenant that will be recorded by the County
of San Diego. The easements shall be recorded over
those portions of the property identified as proposed on-
site preserve in Figure 9 of the approved Biological
Resources Letter Report (Appendix C.1 of the EIR).
Prior to recordation of the final map, issuance of a
grading permit or clearing of any habitat or vegetation,
whichever occurs first, the following items shall be
submitted to the city and approved as final by the City
Planner or designee: Recordation of Conservation
Easement, Restoration Plan, Preserve Management Plan
(PMP)/Property Analysis Record (PAR), long-term
management funding, and a management agreement
(contract) with qualified preserve manager.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit or clearing of vegetation, the project applicant shall prepare a
Restoration Plan for the revegetation of the temporary
impact areas and proposed creation/substantial
restoration areas within the preserve with coastal sage
scrub for review and approval by the city or appointed
designee. The Restoration Plan shall include 5 years of
maintenance and monitoring to ensure the restoration
effort is successful.
LT City of Carlsbad
Community
Development
Department
Prior to
construction
The project applicant shall record an
open space easement that will be
recorded on the final map, and a
conservation easement or restrictive
covenant that will be recorded by the
County of San Diego. The project
applicant shall incorporate all measures
listed in BIO-2.
0.3 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Aviara Apartments Project 0.3-6 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
Mitigation Measure Type Monitor Schedule Compliance Action
Verification of
Compliance
Remarks Initial Date
The project applicant shall prepare a perpetual
management, maintenance, and monitoring plan (PMP) according to the standards contained in Section F.2 of
the HMP, Volumes 2 and 3 of the Multiple Habitat
Conservation Program and the citywide open space
management plan for the on-site biological conservation
easement or restrictive covenant areas for review and
approval by the city or appointed designee. The PMP
shall include area-specific management directives for
treatment of non-native invasive plant species within the
project site’s open space, in addition to those required to
meet HMP adjacency standards. The initial treatment of
non-native invasive plant species shall occur within the
first year following issuance of grading permit, and
periodically thereafter, according to a schedule approved
by the city and as funding allows.
The applicant shall also establish a non-wasting
endowment for an amount approved by the city based on
a Property Analysis Record (PAR; Center for Natural
Lands
Management, 2008) or similar cost estimation method to
secure the ongoing funding for the perpetual management, maintenance, and monitoring of the
biological conservation easement area by an agency,
non-profit organization, or other entity approved by the
city.
Upon approval of the draft PMP, the applicant shall
submit the final PMP and a contract with the approved
land manager to the city or appointed designee, as well
as transfer the funds for the non-wasting endowment to a
non-profit conservation entity.
The project applicant shall install appropriate permanent
fencing, such as three-strand smooth-wire fencing, along
the boundary of the open space to discourage human
access and allow wildlife to move through unobstructed.
The project applicant shall also install signage on the
fence to educate and inform the public about the open space and to prohibit access. The fencing and signs shall
be shown on all final project plans.
0.3 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Aviara Apartments Project 0.3-7 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
Mitigation Measure Type Monitor Schedule Compliance Action
Verification of
Compliance
Remarks Initial Date
BIO-3: Coastal California Gnatcatcher Protection. No
clearing, grubbing, grading, or other construction activities shall occur within Diegan coastal sage scrub
during the breeding season of the coastal California
gnatcatcher (February 15 to August 31). All grading
permits, improvement plans, and the final map shall state
the same. If clearing, grubbing, grading, or other
construction activities would occur during the breeding
season for the gnatcatcher, a pre-construction survey
shall be conducted to determine whether gnatcatchers
occur within the impact area(s). The pre-construction
survey shall consist of one clearance survey by a
permitted biologist no more than 3 days prior to the
beginning of clearing, grubbing, grading, or other
construction activities. If there are no gnatcatchers
nesting (includes nest building or other breeding/nesting
behavior) within that area, clearing, grubbing, grading, or
other construction activities shall be allowed to proceed.
If, however, any gnatcatchers are observed, but no
nesting or breeding behaviors are noted, additional
surveys for breeding/nesting behaviors shall be
conducted weekly. If any gnatcatchers are observed nesting or displaying breeding/nesting behavior during
the pre-construction survey or additional weekly surveys
within the area, a no-work buffer shall be placed on
clearing, grubbing, grading, or other construction
activities within 500 feet of the nest location at which
birds have been observed. The no-work buffer shall
remain in place until all nesting behavior has ceased and
all young have successfully fledged the nest, as
determined by the qualified biologist, or until August 31,
whichever happens first.
PC City of Carlsbad
Community Development
Department
During construction No clearing, grubbing, grading, or other
construction activities shall occur within Diegan coastal sage scrub during the
breeding season of the coastal
California gnatcatcher (February 15 to
August 31). The construction contractor
shall incorporate all measures listed in
BIO-3.
0.3 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Aviara Apartments Project 0.3-8 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
Mitigation Measure Type Monitor Schedule Compliance Action
Verification of
Compliance
Remarks Initial Date
BIO-4: Nesting Bird and Raptor Avoidance. If
construction activities requiring earthwork, clearing, and grubbing of vegetation must occur during the general bird
breeding season for migratory birds and raptors (January
15 to September 15), the project applicant shall retain a
qualified biologist to perform a pre-construction survey of
potential nesting habitat to confirm the absence of active
nests belonging to migratory birds, including raptors and
non-listed sensitive birds (e.g., yellow-breasted chat),
afforded protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
and California Fish and Game Code. The pre-
construction survey shall be performed no more than 3
days prior to the commencement of the activities. If the
qualified biologist determines that no active migratory bird
or raptor nests occur, the activities shall be allowed to
proceed without any further requirements. If the qualified
biologist determines that an active migratory bird or
raptor nest is present, a no-work buffer shall be placed on
construction activities within 500 feet of any active nest at
which birds have been observed. The no-work buffer
shall remain in place until the young have fledged the
nest and the nest is confirmed to no longer be active, as determined by the qualified biologist.
PC City of Carlsbad
Community Development
Department
Prior to and during
construction
If construction activities requiring
earthwork, clearing, and grubbing of vegetation must occur during the
general bird breeding season for
migratory birds and raptors (January 15
to September 15), the project applicant
shall retain a qualified biologist to
perform a pre-construction survey of
potential nesting habitat. The
construction contractor shall incorporate
all measures listed in BIO-4.
BIO-5: Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Mitigation. The
project applicant shall compensate for the unavoidable
impacts to 0.1 acre of unoccupied Diegan coastal sage
scrub at a ratio of 2:1 to include substantial restoration
and/or creation onsite within the project site’s open
space. Any mitigation must also be approved by the
California Coastal Commission.
The project applicant will submit final habitat restoration plans to the city for review and approval at least 30 days
prior to initiating project impacts. The Restoration Plan
shall be prepared and implemented consistent with
MHCP Volume II, Appendix C (Revegetation Guidelines,
pages C-1 to C-2), and Volume III; HMP pp. F-8 to F-11;
and Open Space Management Plan Section 3.1.5. The
Restoration Plan shall, at a minimum, include an
evaluation of restoration suitability specific to proposed
habitat types, soil and plant material
salvage/translocation, planting and seeding lists, discussion of irrigation, maintenance and monitoring
program, and success criteria. All areas shall be
LT City of Carlsbad
Community
Development
Department
Prior to, during,
and after
construction
The project applicant shall compensate
for the unavoidable impacts to 0.1 acre
of unoccupied Diegan coastal sage
scrub at a ratio of 2:1 to include
substantial restoration and/or creation
onsite within the project site’s open
space.
The project applicant will submit final habitat restoration plans to the city for
review and approval at least 30 days
prior to initiating project impacts.
All areas shall be monitored for a
minimum of 5 years to ensure
establishment of intended plant
communities.
0.3 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Aviara Apartments Project 0.3-9 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
Mitigation Measure Type Monitor Schedule Compliance Action
Verification of
Compliance
Remarks Initial Date
monitored for a minimum of 5 years to ensure
establishment of intended plant communities.
BIO-6: Project Lighting. All exterior lighting adjacent to
Existing Hardline and open space associated with
Encinas Creek shall be of the lowest illumination allowed
for human safety, selectively placed, shielded, and
directed away from preserved habitat to the maximum
extent practicable. Any lighting that faces preserved open
space shall use low wattage, long wavelength bulbs (560
nanometers or longer; amber to red). The lighting shall be
shown on all final project plans and approved by the city.
PD City of Carlsbad
Community
Development
Department
During construction All exterior lighting adjacent to Existing
Hardline and open space associated
with Encinas Creek shall be of the
lowest illumination allowed for human
safety, selectively placed, shielded, and
directed away from preserved habitat to
the maximum extent practicable. The
construction contractor shall incorporate
all measures listed in BIO-6.
Cultural Resources
CUL-1: Cultural Resources Monitoring and Recovery
Program. Based on the potential for subsurface cultural
resources, a cultural resources monitoring program,
including participation of Native American groups with
interest in the project site, shall be implemented for initial
grading and other ground-disturbing activities, including removal of pavement and structural foundations
associated with the warehouse within the project site.
The following measures are required for the project,
consistent with the Tribal, Cultural, and Paleontological
Guidelines (City of Carlsbad, 2017a: pp 75-77):
a. Prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing
activities, the project developer shall contract with a
qualified professional archaeologist and shall enter
into a Tribal Cultural Resource Treatment and
Monitoring Agreement (also known as a pre-excavation agreement) with the San Luis Rey Band
of Mission Indians, or another Traditionally and
Culturally Affiliated Native American tribe (TCA Tribe)
for monitoring during ground-disturbing activities. The
agreement will contain provisions to address the proper treatment of any tribal cultural resources
and/or Luiseño Native American human remains
inadvertently discovered during the course of the
project. The agreement will outline the roles and
powers of the Luiseño Native American monitors and
the archaeologist and shall include the provisions
below. A copy of said archaeological contract and
Tribal Monitoring agreement shall be provided to the
PC City of Carlsbad Community
Development
Department
Prior to and during construction A cultural resources monitoring program, including participation of
Native American groups with interest in
the project site, shall be implemented
for initial grading and other ground-
disturbing activities, including removal of pavement and structural foundations
associated with the warehouse within
the project site. The construction
contractor shall incorporate all
measures listed in CUL-1.
0.3 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Aviara Apartments Project 0.3-10 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
Mitigation Measure Type Monitor Schedule Compliance Action
Verification of
Compliance
Remarks Initial Date
City of Carlsbad prior to the issuance of a grading
permit.
b. A Luiseño Native American monitor shall be present
during all ground-disturbing activities. Ground-
disturbing activities may include, but are not be
limited to, archaeological studies, geotechnical
investigations, clearing, grubbing, trenching,
excavation, preparation for utilities and other
infrastructure, and grading activities.
c. The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all
cultural resources collected during ground disturbing
activities and from any previous archaeological
studies or excavations on the project site to the
contracted TCA Tribe referenced in CR-1(a) for
proper treatment and disposition per the Cultural
Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement for
reburial and treated in accordance with the TCA
Tribe’s cultural and spiritual traditions within an
appropriate protected location determined in
consultation with the TCA Tribe and protected by
open space or easement, etc., where the cultural
items will not be disturbed in the future, and shall not be curated, unless ordered to do so by a federal
agency or a court of competent jurisdiction. When
tribal 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.
d. All historical cultural resources uncovered by the
archaeologist will be collected and treated following
the guidelines and regulations set forth under 36 CFR
79, federal regulations for collection of cultural
materials.
e. The archaeologist and Luiseño Native American
monitor shall be present at the project’s onsite
preconstruction meeting to consult with grading and
excavation contractors concerning excavation schedules and safety issues, as well as to consult
with the principal archaeologist concerning the
proposed archaeologist techniques and/or strategies
for the project.
0.3 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Aviara Apartments Project 0.3-11 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
Mitigation Measure Type Monitor Schedule Compliance Action
Verification of
Compliance
Remarks Initial Date
f. Luiseño Native American monitors and
archaeological monitors shall have joint authority to temporarily divert and/or halt construction activities
within the immediate vicinity of a find. If
archaeological artifact deposits, cultural features or
tribal cultural resources are discovered during
construction, all earth-moving activity within 100 feet,
or otherwise determined as appropriate and
necessary by the archaeologist and Luiseño Native
American monitor, around the immediate discovery
area must be diverted until the Luiseño Native
American monitor and the archaeologist can assess
the nature and significance of the find.
g. If a significant tribal cultural resource(s) and/or
unique archaeological resource(s) are discovered
during ground-disturbing activities for this project,
the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians and the
Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians shall be notified
and consulted with by the city regarding the
significance of the resources and the respectful and
dignified treatment of those resources. All sacred
sites, significant tribal cultural resources and/or unique archaeological resources encountered within
the project area shall be avoided and preserved as
the preferred mitigation, if feasible. If, however, a
data recovery plan is authorized by the city as the
lead agency under CEQA, San Luis Rey Band of
Mission Indians, Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians,
and the contracted TCA Tribe referenced in CR-1(a)
shall be notified and consulted regarding the
drafting of any such recovery plan. The recovery
plan shall be finalized with the TCA Tribe. For
significant artifact deposits or cultural features that
are part of a data recovery plan, an adequate
artifact sample to address research avenues
previously identified for sites in the area will be
collected using professional archaeological collection methods. If the Qualified Archaeologist
collects such resources, the Luiseno Native
American monitor must be present during any
testing or cataloging of those resources. Moreover,
if the Qualified Archaeologist does not collect the cultural resources that are unearthed during the
ground-disturbing activities, the Luiseno Native
0.3 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Aviara Apartments Project 0.3-12 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
Mitigation Measure Type Monitor Schedule Compliance Action
Verification of
Compliance
Remarks Initial Date
American monitor, may at their discretion, collect
said resources and provide them to the contracted TCA Tribe referenced in CR-1(a) for respectful and
dignified treatment in accordance with the Tribe’s
cultural and spiritual traditions.
h. If suspected Native American human remains are
encountered, California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5(b) states that no further disturbance
shall occur until the San Diego County Medical
Examiner has made the necessary findings as to
origin. Further, pursuant to California Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be
left in place and free from disturbance until a final
decision as to the treatment and disposition has been
made.
Suspected Native American remains shall be
examined in the field and kept in a secure location at
the site. A Luiseño Native American monitor shall be
present during the examination of the remains. If the
San Diego County Medical Examiner determines the
remains to be Native American, the NAHC must be
contacted by the Medical Examiner within 24 hours. The NAHC must then immediately notify the “Most
Likely Descendant” about the discovery. The Most
Likely Descendant shall then make recommendations
within 48 hours and engage in consultation
concerning treatment of remains as provided in
Public Resources Code 5097.98.
i. In the event that fill material is imported into the
project area, the fill shall be clean of tribal cultural
resources and documented as such. Commercial
sources of fill material are already permitted as
appropriate and will be culturally sterile. If fill material
is to be utilized and/or exported from areas within the
project site, then that fill material shall be analyzed
and confirmed by an archeologist and Luiseño Native
American monitor that such fill material does not
contain tribal cultural resources.
j. No testing, invasive or non-invasive, shall be
permitted on any recovered tribal cultural resources
without the written permission of the contracted TCA
Tribe referenced in CR-1(a).
0.3 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Aviara Apartments Project 0.3-13 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
Mitigation Measure Type Monitor Schedule Compliance Action
Verification of
Compliance
Remarks Initial Date
k. Prior to the release of the grading bond, a monitoring
report and/or evaluation report, if appropriate, which describes the results, analysis and conclusions of the
monitoring program shall be submitted by the
archaeologist, along with the Luiseño Native
American monitor’s notes and comments, to the City
of Carlsbad for approval. Said report shall be subject
to confidentiality as an exception to the Public
Records Act and will not be available for public
distribution.
Geology and Soils
GEO-1: Paleontological Resources – Monitoring,
Recovery and Treatment Program. Prior to the
commencement of construction, a qualified Principal Paleontologist shall be retained to oversee the
mitigation program. The city defines a Principal
Paleontologist as a person with a graduate degree in
paleontology, geology, or related field, and who has at
least 1 year of prior experience as a principal
investigator. In addition, a regional fossil repository
shall be designated to receive any discovered fossils.
Because the proposed project is in San Diego County,
the recommended repository is the San Diego Natural
History Museum.
The Principal Paleontologist shall attend the pre-
construction meeting to consult with the grading and
excavation contractors concerning excavation
schedules, paleontological field techniques, and safety
issues. As well, the Principal Paleontologist shall conduct a paleontological resource contractor
awareness training workshop to be attended by earth
excavation personnel.
The Principal Paleontological shall oversee the
implementation of required monitoring, recovery, and treatment of resources within both the West Parcel and
East Parcel. A paleontological monitor (working under the
direction of the Principal Paleontologist) shall be on-site
on a full-time basis during all original cutting of previously
undisturbed deposits of the Santiago Formation (high paleontological potential) to inspect exposures for
unearthed fossils. Site conditions differ slightly between
the parcels.
PC City of Carlsbad
Community
Development Department
Prior and during to
construction
Prior to the commencement of
construction, a qualified Principal
Paleontologist shall be retained to oversee the mitigation program. The
Principal Paleontological shall oversee
the implementation of required
monitoring, recovery, and treatment of
resources within both the West Parcel
and East Parcel. The construction
contractor shall incorporate all
measures listed in GEO-1.
0.3 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Aviara Apartments Project 0.3-14 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
Mitigation Measure Type Monitor Schedule Compliance Action
Verification of
Compliance
Remarks Initial Date
Monitoring is required during earthwork within the
following areas:
West Parcel: Earthwork that is 3 feet below existing
grade or more and any work with any grade changes
to the existing slopes in the southwestern corner of
the parcel.
East Parcel: Earthwork that is 17 feet below existing
grade or more.
If fossils are discovered, the Principal Paleontologist or
paleontological monitor shall recover them. Bulk
sedimentary matrix samples may also be collected for
stratigraphic horizons that appear likely to contain
microvertebrate fossils. In most cases, this fossil salvage
can be completed in a short period of time. However,
some fossil specimens (e.g., a bone bed or a complete
large mammal skeleton) may require an extended
salvage period. In these instances, the Principal Paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) has the
authority to temporarily direct, divert, or halt grading to
allow recovery of fossil remains in a timely manner. Fossil
remains collected during monitoring and salvage shall be
prepared (including washing of sediments to recover microvertebrate fossils), repaired, sorted, and cataloged
as part of the mitigation program. Prepared fossils, along
with copies of all pertinent field notes, photos, and maps,
shall be deposited (as a donation) in the designated fossil
repository. Donation of the fossils shall be accompanied
by financial support for initial specimen storage.
A final summary paleontological mitigation report shall be
completed that outlines the results of the mitigation
program. This report shall include discussions of the
methods used, stratigraphic section(s) exposed, fossils collected, inventory lists of catalogued fossils, and
significance of recovered fossils. The final paleontological
mitigation report shall be submitted to the city or an
appointed designee for review and approval prior to the
release of the grading bond.
0.3 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Aviara Apartments Project 0.3-15 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
Mitigation Measure Type Monitor Schedule Compliance Action
Verification of
Compliance
Remarks Initial Date
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1: Soil Management Plan. The project applicant
shall submit and obtain approval of a Soil Management
Plan from the San Diego County DEH HMD prior to
initiating any earthwork activities on the project site. The
Soil Management Plan shall be prepared for the
proposed project by a qualified environmental consultant
based on the findings of the Phase I and II Environmental
Site Assessments prepared by Arcadis and included in
Appendices to this Draft EIR, and approved by the HMD.
During construction, the contractor shall implement the
Soil Management Plan and cease any earthwork
activities upon discovery of any suspect soils or
groundwater (e.g., petroleum odor and/or discoloration).
The contractor shall notify the HMD upon discovery of suspect soils or groundwater and retain a qualified
environmental firm to collect soil samples to confirm the
level of contamination that may be present.
If contamination is found to be present on-site, any
further proposed groundbreaking activities within areas of
identified or suspected contamination shall be conducted
according to a site specific health and safety plan,
prepared by a California state licensed professional
consistent with Cal OSHA and Hazardous Waste
Operations and Emergency Response Standard
(HAZWOPER) requirements. The contractor shall follow
all procedural direction given by HMD in accordance with
the Soil Management Plan prepared for the site to ensure
that suspect soils are isolated, protected from runoff, and
disposed of in accordance with transportation laws and the requirements of the licensed receiving facility.
If contaminated soil or groundwater is encountered and
identified constituents exceed human health risk levels,
the project applicant shall submit documentation to the
city to verify that the contamination has been delineated, removed, and disposed of off-site in compliance with the
receiving facilities’ requirements prior to any ground-
disturbing activity on the relevant portion of the project
site.
PC City of Carlsbad
Community
Development
Department and
San Diego County
DEH HMD
Prior to and during
construction
The project applicant shall submit and
obtain approval of a Soil Management
Plan from the San Diego County DEH
HMD prior to initiating any earthwork
activities on the project site. The
construction contractor shall incorporate
all measures listed in HAZ-1.
0.3 – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Aviara Apartments Project 0.3-16 ESA / 180764
Final Environmental Impact Report November 2020
Mitigation Measure Type Monitor Schedule Compliance Action
Verification of
Compliance
Remarks Initial Date
Noise and Vibration
NOI-1: Construction-measures to Reduce Noise
Impacts. The following field techniques shall be
implemented by the project construction contractor to
reduce construction-related noise:
a. The applicant shall coordinate with contractors and
sub-contractors to require that equipment and trucks
use the best available noise control techniques (e.g.,
improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake
silencers, ducts, engine enclosures and acoustically-
attenuating shields or shrouds). The installation of
improved mufflers would provide at least 10 dBA
noise reduction at all off-site sensitive receptor
locations (FHWA, 2017).
b. Internal combustion engine driven equipment shall be equipped with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in
good condition. Engines shall be turned off when not
in use. Idling shall be limited to no more than 5
minutes at a time.
c. Impact tools used for this project shall be
hydraulically or electrically powered to avoid noise
associated with compressed air exhaust from
pneumatically powered tools.
d. Impact tools shall use external jackets to reduce
noise generation.
e. Vehicle staging and stockpiling shall be located as far
as practical from nearby residences, such as in the
northern half of the East Parcel or the northern half or
central portions of the West Parcel.
PC City of Carlsbad
Community
Development
Department
Prior to and during
construction
The field techniques listed in NOI-1
shall be implemented by the project
construction contractor to reduce
construction-related noise.