HomeMy WebLinkAboutEIR 93-02; Green Valley; Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (57)BATIQUITOS LAGOON FOUNDATION
F
Mr. Christer Westman
City of Carlsbad
2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Re: GREEN VALLEY MASTER PLAN EIR - RESPONSE TO PUBLICATION OF
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
Dear Mr. Westman, 5 May 1993
The Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation (BLF) is in receipt of your
formal publication of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed project titled
the Green Valley Master Plan (GVMP) . We apologize for the delay in
submitting our comments and hope the City can incorporate them into the EIR in spite of the late submittal. The Foundation notes that
a contract was not executed with Coleman Planning Group until the
end of April so the EIR must still be in the planning stage.
As you know the BLF primary mission and concerns are focused
on the ecological well being of Batiquitos Lagoon. Our concerns
also extend beyond the edge of the waters of the lagoon to include the following:
1. Selected areas of the watershed where stormwater runoff
(and associated pesticides, herbicides, trace metals, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and other contaminants, excess nutrients, and
pathogens), and suspended sediments may drain directly to the lagoon.
2. The adjacent viewshed and its alteration by the imposition
of un-natural structures and increased human activities.
3. Construction of city and county utilities within the flood
plain, placing unnecessary constraints on "management" of the
lagoon and its wildlife resources and jeopardizing the stability
and health of habitats connected with the lagoon.
4. Maintenance of wildlife corridors that connect directly or
indirectly with the lagoon.
5. Excessive traffic that competes with lagoon wildlife and
contributes to the load of contaminants to the lagoon through
nonpoint runoff.
6. Increased liqht inq that disturbs wildlife.
7. Continuous construction activities that have persisted
constantly since construction of I - 5 and the La Costa resort.
P.O. Box 3103
Carlsbad, CA 92008
x
P The BLF was disappointed to find that the City of Carlsbad
elected not to include an Initial Study and an Environmental
Checklist with publication of the Notice of Preparation.
As an alternative to distribution of an Initial Study, we note that
the City of Carlsbad has identified the titles of 15 Environmental
Effects/Areas of Analysis through which the EIR will address
potential impacts. Each section provides a brief description of
the project background as it applies to each area. However it does not identify "probable environmental affects of the project" as required by CEQA and it is therefore inadequate.
The BLF has reviewed the NOP and offers the following views as to the scope of the project and content of the environmental information that will be needed in order for the BLF to fully
evaluate the adequacy of the baseline information, competency of
the impact analysis, rigor of the project alternatives,
thoroughness of the cumulative effects evaluation, and depth of the
evaluation of the long term effects (i.e. maintenance of long term
productivity, irreversible losses, and growth inducement):
General Comments.
1. The BLF hopes that the City of Carlsbad, as the lead
agency, will take an unbiased approach to development of a rigorous and substantive EIR and that all public forums will assume a fully
representative posture, including the equal possibility of
selection of the no project alternative as selection of the
proposed project alternative.
rc
2. If limited data or no data exist, or if the data are now
outdated, then new studies should be initiated to provide adequate
information. Regurgitation of information from previous EIRs or
extrapolations from few data points is not acceptable.
3. All analytical chemistry and soils analyses should be
conducted by competent laboratories and all raw data and quality
assurance and control results should be appended. Compositing of samples is not encouraged.
4. All recent draft and final EIR/EIS documents that are
relevant to establishing baseline information or to interpretation
of impacts or cumulative effects should be identified and formally
incorporated into this EIR along with all the public and agency
reviews and comments that are part of the individual project files. The relevant information from these documents should be summarized
in the EIR. These documents should by identified in the EIR and be
made available for public and agency review. As a minimum we
suggest inclusion of the following EIR/EIS document files:
0
0 Arroyo La Costa EIR 1989.
0 Home Depot EIR
0 Carlsbad General Plan EIR
Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement Project Final EIR/EIS 1990.
-.
0 Carlsbad General Plan, specifically the open space and
0 Carlsbad Growth Management Plan
0 Carlsbad Facilities Management Plan
conservation elements.
5. Specific criteria for interpretation of the significance
of impacts should be established for each environmental topic area and a discussion of how they were derived should be included. Interpretation of significance of impacts based solely on opinion or hearsay is not acceptable.
6. The BLF understands that a similar but larger scale
project is also being proposed for an adjacent property that is
also located in Green Valley. The prospect of dual projects of
such enormous scope is cause for grave concern! The BLF is very
concerned about the ability of two different cities, acting as lead
agencies, to effectively coordinate and communicate an
environmental review of two concurrent projects at every level.
For example, the assumption that traffic would be treated as separate issues in each EIR and trivialized in the cumulative effects section is unacceptable.
7. The BLF is particularly concerned the topic of mitigation of significant impacts be treated very carefully and in a tractable manner. We urge the City insure that substantive methods for mitigation be adopted. It is noteworthy and well known that most
mitigation measures are failures. Thus we urge that a rigorous
program of mitigation monitoring be identified along with
publication of the draft EIR so that the public and agencies can
review its adequacy simultaneously with that of the draft EIR.
rc
Specific Comments.
1. Geology and Soils.
This subject should be treated more rigorously than is typical of most EIRs. There is very serious concern for erosion of sediments and their deposition in the adjacent creek bed, riparian zone, and in Batiquitos Lagoon. The sediments structure and composition should be quantitatively sampled and fully described and the results interpreted beyond just presentation of data in tables in the form of engineering reports. Each individual sample should be analyzed, not pooled, and all raw data should be appended so that an independent review is possible. Due to the addition of
hard substrate to the property (i.e. buildings plus parking lots and roads), stormwater runoff will be accelerated and so will erosion of the sediments "down stream". This should be modelled for each predominant sediment type, and for both average runoff conditions and for catastrophic runoff conditions. The model selected should be characterized, source cited, and fully - justified. The location and significance of all local seismic constraints (e.g. faults, etc.) should be identified, discussed, and interpreted.
r 2. Hazardous Materials.
It is well known that the proposed property has a history of agricultural spraying. The history of spraying should be
summarized; including an inventory of chemicals used (including,
pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, petroleum carriers, etc.),
frequency, pounds used, and half life of each chemical. These data
should be summed to reveal the total chemical burden that has been
applied by acre times the total number of acres. The entire
property, including adjacent canyons, should be inspected to insure that there are no sites in which illegal dumping has occurred. If sites of concern are found they should be characterized and interpreted. We anticipate that a burden of plastics may exist,
especially with repeated agricultural tilling of the soil. All
underground utilities should be identified and dates of approximate
installation should be given. General classifications of proposed
types of stores planned for the development should be given and
typical stocks of hazardous materials should be discussed. For
example, in the case of a major fire and/or spill what is a worst
case scenario for aerial and creek bed/lagoon contamination. How
would the City plan to prevent such a spill from entering the creek
bed and the lagoon. Will stormwater runoff from the buildings,
parking lot, and roads drain to the wastewater treatment plant or
to the adjacent creek and lagoon or to some combination of these?
3. Hydrology and Water Quality
F
The BLF is very concerned about the existing hydrology of the
property and how these conditions will change with development for
each of the proposed project alternatives. What will be the
characteristics and composition of the stormwater runoff and how
will this alter the water quality in the existing creek and the
adjacent lagoon? What will be the individual and combined
stormwater runoff and chemical burden from the existing roads and
shopping centers in contrast to that associated with each project
alternative with and without construction of a new freeway arterial
through the property? What will be the projected use of
chloroflurocarbons associated with the proposed mix of stores
proposed and will there be a requirement to retrofit the proposed
facilities as some future date?
4. Grading and Erosion
Grading and erosion are of concern during both construction
(onsite and offsite erosion) and after the project has been completed (offsite erosion). The BLF wants to see a very detailed grading plan as well as a discussion of how the City will document
that the grading plan has been actually executed as planned and
approved. We are very concerned about requests for variances that
may follow after the environmental review process has occurred and
when there is limited opportunity for public and agency review.
P Grading should be part of the environmental review and project
documentation process and it should be monitored during construction. We would like to know specifics plans for control of
rc- erosion during construction and what will be the schedule for
grading. For example, all grading should occur after the rainey
season and not just before it starts. This analysis should be
based on average runoff conditions as well as catastrophic runoff
conditions. The draft EIR should summarize applicable grading ordinances now enforce by the City. Provide specific plans for treating major new slopes that result from construction (cribwalls?) and their revegetation? The locations and designs for
all sedimentation basins should be described. Their effectiveness
and type of maintenance required should be described. We specifically want to know what grain sizes of sediments will be trapped and which grain sizes will not be trapped and then relate this information to the types of sediments likely to be eroded and
which kinds of chemical contaminants are likely to be found
associated with fine sediments (silts and clays) versus coarse
sediments (sand) ?
5. Topographic Alteration and Visual Quality.
Each of the project alternatives should treat the aesthetic value of the natural slopes and bluffs such that their visual
attributes are maintained and not blocked by the project. This
should be true for residents located on adjacent bluffs, residents
east of El Camino Real, and for the public views while traveling
along El Camino Real. Aesthetics and ecological functions of the
existing creek, riparian habitats and corridors on both sides of El
Camino Real should be maintained and enhanced (especially where
this has been altered by past practices). The attributes and
deficiencies of any overpasses or corridor on-ramps and off-ramps
should be evaluated in detail according to criteria recognized by
professionals. The existing property values of residences within the viewshed of the proposed project should be fully catalogued and projected out for the life of the project.
P
6. Biological Resources.
Although much of the property of the proposed project has been significantly perturbed and eroded due to past agricultural practices, we expect to see a rigorous evaluation of the existing wildlife resources. This evaluation should be comprised of more than just lists of species. The distributions, abundances, and species composition of each habitat type should be given and
interpreted. This is necessary in order to establish a benchmark
against which any revegetation or habitat restoration requirements
would be measured against. Maps of dominant habitat types, e.g. coastal sage scrub and southern maritime chaparral, etc. should be
presented. Additionally, general locations of endangered or other
categories of listed plants and animal species should be identified
and the methods by which these maps were prepared and verified
should be given. If any of these species/habitats are likely to be
lost due to the design of the proposed project then an
c environmentally sensitive alternative design should be defined rather than evoking a large mitigation effort which may have a
marginal chance of success. Where mitigation efforts are still
- required by the project, a specific, detailed mitigation plan
should be defined along with the specific content of a mitigation
monitoring plan. This section should also fully discuss the
concepts of wildlife corridors and how they apply to the proposed
project. The BLF expects to see a rigorous wildlife corridor
map (s) and plan (s) developed independently of the proposed project
and then overlayed on to the project. These maps should not be prepared to "fit" the project. Rather the project should be designed to ''fit" the wildlife corridor requirements!
7. Cultural Resources and Paleontology.
Provision should be made at the outset so that all cultural
resources and paleontological sites of note should be fully and
reputably disclosed and examined. During excavation regular site
investigations should be made and documented according to a
published plan.
8. Land Use and General Plan Compatibility.
We expect the EIR to contain a thorough presentation of the General Plan, Carlsbad Habitat Management, Batiquitos Lagoon
Enhancement Plan EIR, Coastal Conservancy Enhancement Plan policies
concerning this property especially as they pertain to control of
erosion, sedimentation, conservation of biological resources and
growth management.
9. Agriculture.
/I
Also needed is a discussion of California Agricultural law and
policies concerning the proposed conversion of this coastal
property. What Agricultural Conversion Fee will be assessed under the Coastal Act? What agency will be responsible for collecting and managing this fee, and what restrictions will be put on the fee's use? The Foundation also does not agree with the characterization of the area as natural open space as described in
the NOP. More accurately the area represents fallow agricultural
lands which hardly qualify as natural open space.
10. Traffic.
Traffic that will result from implementation of the proposed project should be fully disclosed and the methods by which the projections were made should be given. Traffic projections should be carried out for more than just 5 or 10 years. Rather they
should be scaled to the General Plan for development of adjacent
areas as far as their development would influence traffic in the
area of the proposed project. These projections should also
evaluate a number of conditions and alternatives. For example,
they should evaluate traffic with and without a new freeway as well as periods and seasons of peak congestion such as early morning and
-c later afternoon during work days and holidays, especially Christmas. The traffic analysis should be done by an independent firm, and it should include a critique of existing studies prepared
P for other recent project, e.g. Home Depot and Arroyo La Costa. If
the traffic analysis will be based on existing information then the
validity of this decision should be documented. If additional
traffic lights are planned for El Camino Real, then present and
project travel times from Encinitas Blvd. to La Costa Avenue should
be projected out over 5 and 10 years. The traffic analysis should
discuss how the proposed project is in conformance with the general
plan. If a new freeway is proposed with the project, then a number of alternative designs for on- and off-ramps should be given. Public transportation should be fully evaluated. If land will be
required to accommodate public transportation, then this area
should be identified at this time not after the project is
completed and this variable should be included in the analysis.
11. Noise.
A thorough noise analysis should be prepared for both the
construction and completed project phases. Maps of isopleths of
projected noise should be prepared. If a new access roads are proposed then projected noise from this route should be fully disclosed particularly in areas with existing residences and wildlife corridors and habitats.
12. Air Quality.
The short term effects on air quality during construction and
the long term effects after the project is completed should be
evaluated and discussed. This analysis should be integrated and
derive from the data and projections presented in the traffic
analysis.
c
13. Public Services.
The BLF is particularly concerned with how the magnitude of the proposed project will cause additional pressure on other community services, such as the following:
o Utilities. What will be the projected effects on the
ability of the existing Encina power plant in Carlsbad to continue to supply power to the community without having to expand?
o Sewage. What will be the projected effects on the ability
of the Encina sewage treatment plant to continue to furnish
secondary wastewater treatment without having to expand?
o Schools. What will be the projected effects on the ability
of the existing elementary and secondary schools to continue to
furnish the existing level of education without having to expand?
o Waste disposal. What will be the projected effects on the ability of the existing solid waste disposal services to continue - to furnish the existing level of disposal services without having to expand? What are the projected solid waste requirements projected out for 5, 10, and 15 years? Data on the solid waste
- generated by existing projects similar to that being proposed
should be readily available and presented and evaluated in the
draft EIR. How will these requirement be satisfied if the life of
the San Marcos land fill is limited?
In addition to the above topics, the BLF has identified the following "environmental effects/areas of analysis" in which
information is needed to for us to make a "meaningful response".
14. Light and Glare.
Anticipated glare from the proposed project (and freeway if proposed) should be given and evaluated. The results should be
related to existing shopping centers so that the public can visit these sites and *'see" the expected effect of the proposed project. The draft EIR should evaluate the effects of glare on the adjacent undeveloped properties, wildlife corridors, and sensitive habitats as well as that which would be seen from local residences on both
sides of El Camino Real and by travelers on El Camino Real. The
visual effects of the proposed lighting should be evaluated.
15. Growth Inducement.
The NOP provides a brief description of the growth inducement
potential related to this project. A more complete assessment that
considers the growth impacts associated with development of
warehouse stores, housing, and other enterprises on the site. What
will be the effect of the projected customer load on El Camino Real, Olivenhain Road, Encinitas Boulevard and La Costa Avenue?
The draft EIR should also discuss the proposed types of stores, whether they will attract local or regional customers, and consider
the future use and expansion of Leucadia Boulevard/Olivenhain Road
as a stimulus for growth.
-
16. Economics.
Although not required by CEQA, in the interest of quality
comprehensive planning the City should require the project
proponents to evaluate the economic impacts of the proposed project. We would like to see a rigorous discussion of projections
of assumed revenue from new businesses.
It would be helpful if the EIR would evaluate the impact of the
proposed project on existing business and existingtax revenues for
all businesses within the City of Carlsbad. What specifically will
be the economic impact of the proposed project on the viability of
adjacent business areas, such as Wiegand Plaza, Ralph's shopping center, Target, the Pacific Coast Highway, and downtown Encinitas?
The EIR should also categorize and describe all anticipated indirect "hidden" costs and demands for services the can result from the proposed project, e.g. road maintenance, police - protection, fire protection, schooling, utilities, sewerage, solid
waste disposal, mass transportation, sedimentation basin
maintenance, condemnation of adjacent properties to enable
construction of transportation corridors, irrigation, etc.
The BLF very much appreciates this opportunity to comment on
the NOP and your efforts to communicate. The BLF is very
interested in how the proposed GVMP develops and would appreciate
receiving all future announcements regarding this project.
Sincerely,
Seth Schulberg, President
Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation