HomeMy WebLinkAboutGPA 11-09; Quarry Creek Project File Part 3 of 4; General Plan Amendment (GPA)__Jf~.A_ CITY OF
VcARLSBAD
Community & Economic Development
December 12, 2012
Stephanie Ponce
California Department of Fish and Game
4949 Viewridge Avenue
San Diego, CA 92123
Janet Stuckrath
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101
Carlsbad, CA 92009
V\C-Ultd \ ~~~·~\ 11 .. /
F\LE COP~
www.carlsbadca.gov
RE: REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF EQUIVALENCY FOR THE QUARRY CREEK MASTER PLAN
PROJECT (GPA 11-09) (FWS/CDFG-10B0707-12TA0202)
Dear Ms. Ponce and Ms. Stuckrath:
The Quarry Creek Master Plan project, located in northeast Carlsbad, proposes to modify to the hard line
boundaries as shown on Figure 13 of the Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City
of Carlsbad (HMP). Pursuant to Section E, local Plan Implementation Process, equivalency findings must
be made for the minor changes to HMP maps. This letter is providing written notice to the Agencies for
the equivalency findings for the minor change to the HMP.
Please find attached a report that discusses the HMP determination findings and supporting
information. The Quarry Creek Master Plan DEIR (SCH# 2012021039) was previously distributed and
contains additional information regarding the details of the Master Plan project.
If you have any questions regarding the information above, or require additional information, please
feel free to contact me at (760) 602-4613 or van.lynch@carlsbadca.gov.
Sincerely,
~~
Senior Planner
Vl:bd
Enclosure
c: Roseanne Humphrey (via Mike Grim)
Quarry Creek Investors LLC, Todd Galarneau, 2750 Womble Rd, San Diego CA 92106
File Copy
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559
Michael Bullock
1800 Bayberry Drive
Oceanside, CA 92054
Honorable President Richard Holober and
Members of the Board of Trustees
San Mateo County Community College District
Via E-mail
July 27, 2011
RECEIVED
Dr:~ 0 7 20t2
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DIVISION
Subject: An Updated Parking Policy, in Light of the Controversy Surrounding the
Removal of Building 20, Greenhouse, and Gardens, to Add Parking
Dear President Holober and Trustees:
Please consider this unsolicited parking-policy proposal.
Allow Me to Introduce Myself
I am a retired satellite systems engineer. I worked for Lockheed Martin in Sunnyvale, for 36
years. I now live in north San Diego County, to be close to my two grand daughters. I also
have a younger grandson in Walnut Creek. I volunteer my time to various environmental and
political organizations, with some success. I am the 2011 Volunteer of the Year at a 14,000-
member environmental organization here in San Diego County. I successfully amended the
Platform of one of our two large California Political Parties with the following two bullets:
• Provide support for alternatives to driving, from bicycle education to high-speed rail;
• Work for equitable and environmentally sound road and parking use
In the same party (I think you have to pick one), I authored a resolution on Battery Electric
Vehicles. As you might guess, I am very concerned about global warming.
I feel that I will always be a systems engineer. Last summer, after many rejections, I finally
had my car-parking policy paper peer-reviewed and published by a prestigious organization.
Topic Introduction
The purpose of this letter is to describe and advocate for a parking policy change that would
increase fairness and choice while it simultaneously results in smarter, healthier students and
employees. It would also reduce driving. I assume you want plenty of parking. However, as
you will see, this policy change will result in a drop in driving sufficient to allow for a decrease
in needed parking of at least 15%
1
c
Reference 1 describes a policy that will efficiently and conveniently unbundle the cost of
parking in all circumstances. It is available at the following URL:
http://www.moderntransit.org/parking/Modern Transit Society.html.
However, the system described herein requires fewer features. Features not needed are
congestion pricing, price predictions, and policies unique to on-street parking.
Two assumptions allow the elimination of these features. First, it is assumed that there will be
an adequate supply of parking, so no congestion pricing is needed. Since the price will be
fixed, no price predictions are needed. It is also assumed that students and employees can
be successfully required to park only at the school. Therefore there is no need for new, on-
street parking policies, designed to protect adjoining neighborhoods from the intrusion of
additional parked cars.
For employees, the policies in this paper can still be described as "unbundling the cost of car
parking". Parking is expensive to provide. Therefore, if no parking had been provided, the
saved money could have been invested to increase employee salaries. The methods
described in this paper allow employees to gain some of that lost salary back, by driving less.
The status-quo policy of charging nothing to use the parking is only beneficial to those
employees that would drive every single day, even if they were given a method to recover
some of the lost salary. The employees that would choose to drive less, to recover some of
their lost income, are being treated poorly by charging nothing. With this policy, the
employees are shown the value of their parking and are given the ability to recover some of
their lost salary, by parking less than every single day.
For students, the policy is better described as "extending the parking lot benefit to all
students, regardless as to how often they choose to use the parking". It could also be
described as "equalizing the parking-lot benefit", for all students.
Methods
The parking is operated on the behalf of the students and employees, as if it were their
business. Students and employees that choose to use the parking are therefore their own
customers.
Earnings (net revenue, minus the cost of collection and distribution) are given to students
and employees in proportion to the time they spend at the school. This could be based on
their schedule or, to be more precise, could be based on the data collected using personal
radio frequency identification units (RFIDs) and detectors that are tied to a central,
implementing computer. The algorithm used to compute the amount of money given to a
student or to an employee is shown on Slides 18, 19, and 20 of Reference 2. Drop-off policy
is described on Slide 23 of Reference 2.
2
Charge for parking is per unit time. A charge rate that is acceptable to all must be
established. For example, if sixty cents per hour is selected, the charging software could
round off the parking duration time to the minute and apply a one-cent-per-minute charge.
The method could be implemented with RFID's on cars being detected at campus entrances
and exits. The collected data is supplied to the implementing computer.
Parking statements are automatically sent out monthly, showing the individual's charges and
earnings. This is shown on Slide 21 of Reference 2.
Implementation
A San Diego vendor has stated that both the design and the installation of a fully-automated
system would be easy to perform. This is shown on Slide 22 of Reference 2, where the
vendor is identified, with all of his contact information. Since this is a new system, it would be
prudent to contract with the vendor so that the vendor also operates the system for the first
10 years. This arrangement would ensure that the vendor would fully debug the system and
continue to look for operational efficiencies over the 10 year period. The vendor could
operate the system for 1 0% of the revenue, for 5 years; 5% of the revenue, for 3 years, and
2% of the revenue for the final 2 years. If it is assumed that, on average, 6000 cars are
parked for 8 hours, for 200 days per year, at a rate of 50 cents per hour, then the yearly
revenue would be $4,800,000 per year. The vendor would therefore collect $2,400,000 over
the first 5 years, $720,000 over the next 3 years, and $288,000 over the last two years.
Advocacy
Table 1 shows that even high schools are starting to charge significant prices for parking. It
should be noted that the method described here is much more than just "charging for
parking", because the earnings are given back to the students and employees.
Table 2 shows that introducing a price differential into the choice of how often to drive will
decrease the amount of driving. This table is the basis for my assertion, in the Introduction,
that this policy change would result in a drop in driving sufficient to allow a decrease in
needed parking of at least 15%. The smallest decrease shown in Table 2 is 15%. Given the
problems you have had trying to generate increased parking, I am sure you recognize the
value in needing 15% less parking. If the baseline amount of parking happened to be 8000
cars, 15% would be 1,200 spaces. Since only about 120 cars can be parked on an acre of
surface parking land, this would equate to 10 acres. An acre of land in the Bay area is
generally worth several million dollars. Therefore, the 15% reduction could easily yield land
worth $20 million dollars.
S-3-05 is a California Governor's Executive Order to drop Year 2020 levels of greenhouse
gas (GHG) to the level of 1990 emissions and to drop our Year 2050 level of GHG to 80%
3
c
below 1990 levels. If the world achieves similar reductions, the earth's level of atmospheric
C02 will be capped at 450 parts per million (PPM). Figures 1, 2, and 3 show how large 450
PPM is, compared to values over the last 800,000 years. Reference 3 shows that the goal of
S-3-05 is to limit atmospheric C02 to 450 PPM and it also shows that even if this cap is
achieved, the risk of a human catastrophe caused by global warming is significant.
Reference 4 shows that decreasing the amount of driving is necessary to achieve the GHG
reductions of S-3-05. This is stated on Page 9 of Reference 4 and is illustrated in Figure 1 of
Reference 4. Reference 4 shows that, using the best assumptions about the future efficiency
of California's fleet of cars and light-duty trucks, a significant reduction in driving is critically
needed.
Table 1 American High Schools that Charge for Parking
Eleven u.s. High Schools that Charge Students to Park
Price
High Per
State City County School year Link to Price Link to Location
htt12:/_Lwww.servitehs.orgLa1212S htto://en.wi ki oedia.om/wi ki/ A California Anaheim Orange Servite $25 L12agesLindex.js12?uREC ID=864 naheim, California 92&tvoe-d
Illinois Maple DeKalb Kane land $150 htt12:LLwww.kaneland.orgLkhsL htt12 :Lien. wi ki 12edia.orgLwi kiL
Park Ma12le Park, Illinois
htt12:1_Lwww .anoka.k 12.mn. usL
educationLcom12onentsLdocmg http:/ /en. wi ki pedia.org/wi ki/ A Minnesota Andover Anoka Andover $100 rLdefault.!;1h 12 ?sectio ndetai lid= ndover, Minnesota 27646S&fil e ite m=96679&catfi It
er=24892
Wisconsin German Wash-German $150 htt12:1_Lwww.germantownnow.c ht1J:!;ill n. wi ki oed ia .or.,/wi ki /G
Town ington Town omLnewsL92202694.html ermantown1 Wisconsin
Virginia Herndon Fairfax Herndon $200 htt12:LLwww .fc12s.ed uLHe rndon htt12:LLwww .fai rfaxcou nt:t.gov L HS/stud life/oark reg,htm
htt12: LLh o II :<SI2 ri ngshs. wc12ss. ne
North Holly Wake Holly $153 tLParki ngLHSHS %20PARKI N G%2 http:/ /en.wi ki pedia.org/wi ki/H
Carolina Springs Springs OREGULA TIONS%202010-oll:t 5!;1rings, North Carolina
2011.&.df
New Newton Sussex Kittatinny $50 htt12:LLwww.krhs.netLnew08LA htto://en. wi ki oed ia.org/wi kilN
Jersey Regional ctivit:tFees.gdf ewton, New Jerse:t
httg :LLwww. wicked I ocal.comLi
Massa-Ipswich Essex Ipswich $50 gswi chLnewsLx 1146471597 LStu httg:LLe n. wi ki ged ia.orgLwi kiLl
chusetts dent-garki ng-fee-set-ove rri de-gswich, Massachusetts
nixed#axzz1Qv0d7dfi
Massa-Andover Essex Andover $200 htt12:LLwww.a12sl.netLDocume htto:/ /en. wi ki oed ia.org/wi ki/ A
chusetts ntView.aS!;1X?DID=1409 ndover, Massachusetts
Massa-htt12:LLwww.masslive.comLnew htt12:/Le n. wi ki 12ed ia.orgLwi ki/P Palmer Hampden Palmer $100 sDndex.ssfL2009L09Lschool co chusetts almer, Massachusetts mmittee defends 100 12.html
htt12:LLwww.thewesterl:tsun.co
mLm:tsticrivergressLnewsLscho
Connec-Stoning-New Stoning-$100 ol-board-121 ans-12arki ng-fees-htt12:LLe n. wi ki 12ed ia.orgLwi ki LS
ticutt ton London ton reassignment:L;Jrticle d72199e4 tonington, Connecticut
9d9f-lle0-8406-
001cc4c03286.html
4
c
Table 2 Eleven Case of Pricing Impact on the Amount of Driving
Impact of Financial Incentives on Parking Demand
1995 dollars Parking Use
r mo. Decrease 1
1 Parking vacancy would be higher! 2Not used, since transit & walk/bike facilities also improved.
Figure 1 Atmospheric C02, Increasing Over Recent Decades
;================-=--=-,-=-=:;·---,------
' Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide _l __
1960 1970
I
I
~---J...
'
1980
5
I
I
jan Apr jul Oct Jan
1990 2000
390 ->
380 E a... a... -370 c 0 :;::;
360 ~ ....... c Q)
350 u c 0 u
340 Q)
"0 ·x
330 .Q
"0 c 0 320 .a ..... ro u 310
2010
G 10
0
..2:-t'O E 5
0 c
t'O
~ .a 0 r: <lJ c.. E ~ -5
c
Figure 2 Atmospheric C02 and Mean Temperature,
800,000 Years Ago, with 450 PPM C02 Shown
Temperature and C02
C07 (!:PICA Oome C)
CO, CEPICA Dome C)
CO, CEPICA Dome C)
S-3-05's goat is to cap
C02 at 450 PPM
-10
so~o~--~7~o~o~---6~o~o~--~5~o~o~---470~o~--~3~o~o~--~2~o~o----~l~o~o~--~o
Thousands of Years Ago
Figure 3 Atmospheric C02 and Mean Temperature,
Over the Last 1,000 Years
-T....._,.tu<., tn degt&es oent>g<-(eompa<ed _.. 196()..1900 t>a....un.e)
-A~>e .;arbon d10-(C02 m pa<t:a pa< m,..lltoon.;...:..) ------L....,
700
6
S-3-05's Goal is to cap
C02 at 450 PPM,
()
f>
04
l
00
-O:Z
•
• (}(i
• I .. i I ...
-3so E c.. c.. -d'
300U v ·c
<lJ .c. c.. 250 g;:
200
E <
Conclusion
As shown in the above section, decreasing the amount of driving is critical to human
survival. School Boards are government entities. The first job of all government entities is
health and safety.
Adopting this program will help the students gain an understanding of economics and
technology. If they understand the harsh realities of global warming, they will have a deep
sense of gratitude for this program, as well as a life-long feeling of school pride for San
Mateo College. Students will be grateful that the future of any children that they might have
will be significantly improved by this pioneering effort. It is a demonstration of the
fundamental features of Reference 1. It will set an example for other schools and
employers. It will let the world know that the United States has leaders that understand the
climate crisis and are willing to take the bold measures needed to help avert disaster.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions or comments.
Respectively submitted,
Mike Bullock
760-754-8025
Retired Satellite Systems Engineer, 36 years
Co-author, "A Plan to Efficiently and Conveniently Unbundle Car Parking Cost"
References
1.) A Plan to Efficiently and Conveniently Unbundle Car Parking Costs, Paper 2010-A-554-
AWMA of the proceedings of the 1 03rd Conference and Exhibition of the Air And Waste
Management Association; Mike R. Bullock and Jim R. Stewart, PhD; presented on June
22nd, 2010. Also available at
http://www.moderntransit.org/parking/Modern Transit Society.html
2.) CarlsbadHS2010_2.pdf, a "pdf' file of a Power Point file created in 2010, Mike Bullock.
Available upon request from Mike Bullock, mike bullock@earthlink.net
3.) Letter from Center for Biological Diversity, to Elaine Chang, Deputy Executive Officer of
Planning, Rule Development, and Area Sources of the South Coast Air Quality
Management District; Comments on Survey of CEQA Documents on Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Draft Work Plan and Development of GHG Threshold of Significance for
7
Residential and Commercial Projects; April 15, 2009. Available upon request from Mike
Bullock, mike bullock@earthlink.net
4.) Communities Tackle Global Warming, Tom Adams (California League of Conservation
Voters), Amanda Eaken, and Ann Notthoff (Eaken and Notthoff are employees of the
Natural Resources Defense Council); June 2009. Available at
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/sb375/files/sb375.pdf
8
PLANNING I
SYSTEMS -
December 4, 2012
Mr. Van Lynch
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
LAND USE/COASTAL PLANNING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • LA3900
POLICY AND PROCESSING
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
RE: QUARRY CREEK PROPERTY
HMP HARD LINE EQUIVALENCY DETERMINATION
Dear Mr. Lynch:
As you know, the applicant for the proposed Quarry Creek project is requesting modification to
the adopted HMP hardline in order to accommodate the proposed development design, and to
increase the beneficial value of habitat protected. Procedurally, this modification will necessitate
Equivalency Findings by the City of Carlsbad pursuant to Section E.3(A) of the HMP.
To this end, please consider this letter and attachment an official application for HMP Hardline
Equivalency Determination for the proposed Quarry Creek Plan. Attached with this letter please
find three (3) original copies of a HMP Hardline Analysis intended to provide the basis for
findings of approval of this HMP Hardline Equivalency Determination. Please review this
information and consult with the Resource Agencies as necessary per the requirements of the
Carlsbad HMP.
Let me know if you need any further information on this. I am providing this to you in electronic
version via email also, so that the analysis can easily be distributed. We look forward to a finding
of Equivalency Determination by the City.
Sincerely,
{3UvW1J~
Paul J. Klukas
Director of Planning
cc: Todd Galarneau (with attachment)
Don Mitchell (with attachment)
Barry Jones (with attachment)
RECEIVED
DEC 0 ~ 2012
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING OtVlStON
1530 FARADAY AVENUE • SUITE 100 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • (760) 931-0780 • FAX (760) 931-5744 • info@planningsystems.net
_4f~A._ CITY OF ~'CARLSBAD
Community & Economic Development
December 4, 2012
Todd Galarneau
Quarry Creek Investors LLC
2750 Womble Rd
San Diego CA 92106
'{v\~ct l ~1 ~ \ I ·Z---
LJ FILE
www.carlsbadca.gov
SUBJECT: GPA 11-09/ZC 11-04/MP 10-01/CT 11-04/SUP 11-04/HMP 11-07/HDP 11-04-QUARRY
CREEK MASTER PLAN
Your application has been tentatively scheduled for a hearing by the Planning Commission on January
16, 2013. However, for this to occur, you must submit the additional items listed below. If the required
items are not received by December 24, 2012, your project will be rescheduled for a later hearing. In
the event the scheduled hearing date is the last available date for the City to comply with the Permit
Streamlining Act, and the required items listed below have not been submitted, the project will be
scheduled for denial.
1. Please submit the following plans:
A) 10 copies of your vesting tentative map, landscape plans, and Hillside Development
Exhibits on 24" x 36" sheets of paper, stapled in complete sets folded into 9" x 12" size.
B) One 8Yz" x 11" copy of your reduced plans. These copies must be of a quality which is
photographically reproducible. Only essential data should be included on plans.
Thank you for your prior submittal of the required public notice materials.
Sincerely,
~~
Senior Planner
VL:bd
Attachment
c: File
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559
_.if~.A,. CITY OF
VcARLSBAD
Community & Economic Development
November 15, 2012
Therese O'Rourke Bradford
Chief, South Coast Branch
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch
6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 105
Carlsbad, CA 92011
RE: QUARRY CREEK MASTER PLAN DRAFT EIR 11-02
Dear Ms. O'Rourke:
www.carlsbadca.gov
Please find enclosed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Quarry Creek Master Plan for your
review and comment. The 45 day CEQA review period ends on December 7, 2012.
If you have any questions regarding the information above, or require additional information, please
feel free to contact me at (760) 602-4613 or van.lynch@carlsbadca.gov.
Sincerely,
J~
VAN LYNCH
Senior Planner
enc
c: File Copy
Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559
(t~ CITY OF
¥CARLSBAD
Community & Economic Development
November 7, 2012
Diane Nygaard
5020 Nighthawk Wy
Oceanside CA 92056
FILE COPY
11·1·/.;>
www.carlsbadca.gov
RE: QUARRY CREEK MASTER PLAN DRAFT EIR 11-02 (FWS/CDFG -1080707-
12TA0202)
To whom it may concern:
The City of Carlsbad released the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
Quarry Creek Master Plan for your review and comment. The DEIR contains a CD of the
appendices which are the technical reports associated with the preparation of the DEIR. It has
been brought to our attention that there is information on the CDs that should not have been
released. Please find enclosed a replacement CD. Please remove and either return or destroy
the original CD.
If you have any questions regarding the information above, or require additional information,
please feel free to contact me .at (760) 602-4613 or van.lynch@carlsbadca.gov.
Sincerely,
J VA~~
Senior Planner
Enclosure
c: File Copy
~; Planning Division
' 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559
(~CITY OF
• CARLSBAD
Community & Economic Development
November 7, 2012
Caltrans
Development Review Branch -Jose Marquez
Department of Transportation -District 11
4050 Taylor Street M.S. 240
San Diego CA 92110
FILE COPY
(1.7./;J
www.carlsbadca.gov
RE: QUARRY CREEK MASTER PLAN DRAFT EIR 11-02 (FWS/CDFG -1080707-
12TA0202)
To whom it may concern:
The City of Carlsbad released the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
Quarry Creek Master Plan for your review and comment. The DEIR contains a CD of the
appendices which are the technical reports associated with the preparation of the DEIR. It has
been brought to our attention that there is information on the COs that should not have been
released. Please find enclosed a replacement CD. Please remove and either return or destroy
the original CD.
If you have any questions regarding the information above, or require additional information,
please feel free to contact me at (760) 602-4613 or van.lynch@carlsbadca.gov.
~ely,
VAN YNCH
Senior Planner
Enclosure
c: File Copy
(~CITY OF
FILE COPY
11·7·/..;>
• CARLSBAD
Community & Economic Development www.carlsbadca.gov
November 7, 2012
John Ambersom
City of Oceanside
Development Services Dept. Engineering Division
300 North Coast Highway
Oceanside CA 92054
RE: QUARRY CREEK MASTER PLAN DRAFT EIR 11-02 (FWS/CDFG -1080707-
12TA0202)
To whom it may concern:
The City of Carlsbad released the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
Quarry Creek Master Plan for your review and comment. The DEIR contains a CD of the
appendices which are the technical reports associated with the preparation of the DEIR. It has
been brought to our attention that there is information on the COs that should not have been
released. Please find enclosed a replacement CD. Please remove and either return or destroy
the original CD.
If you have any questions regarding the information above, or require additional information,
please feel free to contact me at (760) 602-4613 or van.lynch@carlsbadca.gov.
Senior Planner
Enclosure
c: File Copy
. Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ®
Van Lynch
From:
Sent:
To:
Allison, Eric <EALLI@parks.ca.gov>
Tuesday, November 06, 2012 2:59PM
Van Lynch
Subject: RE: follow up re Quarry Creek Master Plan confidential info disclosure
Thanks a lot-I appreciate your responsiveness.
Regards,
Eric Allison
CHRIS Coordinator
California Office of Historic Preservation
1725 23rd St, Ste 1 00
Sacramento, CA 95816
ealli@parks.ca.gov
(916) 445-7044 (ph)
(916) 445-7053 (fx)
From: Van Lynch [mailto:Van.Lynch@carlsbadca.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 2:53PM
To: Allison, Eric
Subject: RE: follow up re Quarry Creek Master Plan confidential info disclosure
Eric, The redistribution of the CDs should not be a problem and I will do so. Since I have a good idea of who has
received the EIR, I will send them a new CD with the request that they either return or destroy the original. Doing so
may bring to light the fact that they do have the sensitive material, but I will simply state there has been a revision and
that it should be replaced to be updated. I should have them from the consultant tomorrow AM and sent by the
afternoon.
We are willing to do what we can to rectify the situation.
Sincerely,
Van Lynch
Senior Planner
1635 Faraday Av
Carlsbad CA 92008
T (760) 602-4613
van.lynch@carlsbadca.gov
www.carlsbadca.gov
.;~·
<.({ ·~ c1n or
CARLSBAD
From: Allison, Eric [mailto:EALLI@parks.ca.govl
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 2:31PM
To: Van Lynch
Subject: follow up re Quarry Creek Master Plan confidential info disclosure
1
•
Hi Van:
Thanks for your time yesterday discussing the accidental online publication of Quarry Creek Draft EIR confidential
archaeological information. Although the subject matter was sensitive and I'm sure you were dismayed when you
discovered/were informed of the issue, I appreciated your straightforward and clear discussion and explanation of what
had happened and what had been done to correct things. After some thought, I have an additional request regarding
the Draft EIR CDs that were distributed with confidential information them. Since you are redoing the CDs with the
confidential info removed, would you please distribute the updated CDs to the entities that have inappropriately
received the confidential info, and have those entities either destroy the CDs they have (plus any copies of the them or
the confidential documents on them) or have them return original CDs to you, so that the archaeological information is
not left with entities who may not treat it properly, and/or may not realize they have that type of info. I realize this will
take some level of effort (I'm not sure how much), but it would be the cleanest way to resolve this lingering item. It
would also be consistent with your response to the online publication of the info in question.
Thanks again, and please let me know your intent in this matter.
Regards,
Eric Allison
CHRIS Coordinator
California Office of Historic Preservation
1725 23rd St, Ste 1 00
Sacramento, CA 95816
ealli@parks.ca.gov
(916) 445-7044 (ph)
(916) 445-7053 (fx)
2
•
October 15,2012
Ms. Tecla Levy
Land Development Engineering
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Review of Quarry Creek Traffic Impact Analysis (September 4, 2012)
Dear Tecla:
We have completed our review of the TIA and technical appendices for the
Quarry Creek development. Our review consisted of the following items:
• Reviewed the technical appendices to ensure that the results were
accurately displayed in tables. Spot checked critical locations for proper
data inputs. Checked to make sure all analysis worksheets were
included.
• Reviewed our previous comments to ensure that they were addressed.
Specific comments are listed below:
1. Page 6-19, Table 6-3, Intersection 14. The PM Peak Hour delay should
be 31.6 and the PM Peak Hour LOS should be C.
2. Page 6-20, Figure 6-3A. Intersection 14. The PM Peak Hour LOS
should be C.
3. Page 8-25, First Bullet. Typo "seconds".
4. Appendix D. Add the LOS worksheets for intersection #2.
The above corrections are minor and would result in changes to the study
conclusions.
Mitigation
The Project applicant has taken the approach of not providing any mitigation for
the Project's direct traffic impacts. The project has direct traffic impacts on two
roadway segments located in the City of Oceanside:
• College Boulevard between Vista Way and Plaza Drive
• Vista Way between College Boulevard and SR 78 WB Ramps
While the City of Oceanside apparently does not desire to widen these facilities,
doing nothing does not seem like a good policy. Oceanside has indicated that
they would like to have other measures undertaken, such as advanced signal
control or intersection turn lanes. One means to address these direct impacts is
by improving the intersection ofthese two arterials. The City of Oceanside has
TEL 619 234 9411
• 401 B Street
Suite 600
San Diego, California
92101
Ms. Tecla Levy, June 21, 2012, Pg. 2
an unfunded improvement they would like to make that would improve flow on
both College Boulevard and Vista Way:
• College BoulevardNista Way Intersection: Add a westbound right turn
lane.
Similarly, the project has fair share impacts at the following locations, where no
mitigation is proposed and statements of overriding considerations are being
sought by your City Council. These locations are:
• College Boulevard between Plaza Drive and Marron Road
• College Boulevard between Marron Road and South City limit
• College Boulevard/Marron Road
Again, perhaps improving the College Boulevard/Marron Road intersection by
adding a northbound right turn lane, another City of Oceanside unfunded need,
would serve as project mitigation for its cumulative traffic impacts.
Sincerely,
KIMLEY -HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
David K. Sorenson, P.E.
k:\snd_tpto\quarry creek\2nd tia review kha.docx
Van Lynch
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
-----Original Message-----
Council Internet Email
Tuesday, October 09, 2012 10:45 AM
Gary Barberio
Don Neu; Van Lynch
FW: Quarry Creek
Follow up
Completed
From: Cynthia McPherson [mailto:cynthimc@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2012 3:45 PM
To: Council Internet Email
Subject: Quarry Creek
Please approve the compromise that
0
Removes Quarry Creek from the panhandle. As a resident of Carlsbad since 1937, I am very partial to this section of
town--it's about all that is left of the original footprint in its original form. There is nothing more historical.
Sent from my iPhone
1
Van Lynch
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
0
Council Internet Email
Tuesday, October 09, 2012 10:45 AM
Gary Barberio
Don Neu; Van Lynch
FW: Quarry Creek
Follow up
Completed
From: penny [mailto:pennyofcbad@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2012 1:33 PM
To: Council Internet Email
Subject: Quarry Creek
Council Members, I am so disappointed and DISALLUSIONED by your refusal to listen to the citizens that elected you
concerning our vision for the Buena Creek /EI Saito Falls and its importance to the historical and environmental landscape
of Carlsbad. One hates to think that the$$$$$ of politics has come down from the federal government[ that has been
bought out by big business and no longer listens to their constituents]and has filtered down to small town politics that is
also blinded by $$$$. I weep for the land /environment that you are destroying . Penny Johnson 1360 Hillview Ct.
Carlsbad 92008
1
From: Thomas Gibbs [mailto:tomgibbs26@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 9:03 AM
To: Council Internet Email
Cc: Laura Koop
Subject: Quarry Creek Development
Dear Carlsbad City Council:
As President of the Knolls Home Owners Association I would like to express my thoughts and
concerns regarding the proposed Quarry Creek development as proposed by McMillin.
Our properties are those most significantly impacted by this proposed development. We are
located just south of the proposed grading and construction and share a common boarder.
I have personally attend meetings in which I have been able to hear presentations by both the
"Preserve Calavera" group as well as by the developer, McMillin.
1. I do not believe that this proposed development is good for my community or for the
community of North East Carlsbad. We utilize access to the shopping centers and Highway 78
via College boulevard. College boulevard is already heavily congested. The additional 656
residences can only enter and exit this proposed development through this already congested
area. 656 residences will add approximately 1 ,312 cars (2 for each household) to this morning
and evening commute. That equals 2,624 vehicle trips per day?
College boulevard is poorly designed with major choke points and has little or no room for any
significant improvement. The addition of the new High School will add more pressure to this area
as well. I believe this potential congestion will cause major safety issues with emergency
responders struggling to navigate to potential emergency situations and transporting patients to
Tri-City hospital. Traffic will be backed up on Highway 78 as commuters attempt to exit into this
congested area.
2. This being said: If the council still insists on approving this project then its is of the best
interest of my Knolls community that this project is developed to encourage "Owner" occupied
units. "Owner" occupied units will help maintain our property values as opposed to tenant
occupied. It is my understanding from my conversations with the developer that with less space
available the more multi-storied units would be built and that these multi-storied units would be
more likely to be rental apartments (with tenant occupancy).
Multi-storied units would be less attractive and more visible from our community. This along
with tenant occupancy would most likely cause a decrease in our property values.
If this project is going to be built then please utilize all available land including the "panhandle".
To block construction on this Panhandle only benefits one resident at the expense of the 93 home
in the Knolls community. The views of the "Preserve Calavera" group as to the environmental
sensitivity and historical value of this area seems rather extreme in my point of view.
If you can provide me with up coming dates in which the Council plans to discuss this issue, I
will be sure to attend.
Thank you for reviewing this e-mail.
Sincerely,
Tom Gibbs
President
Knolls Home Owners Association
Jessica J. Auck, M.A., RP.A., C.E.S.
jessicajauck@yahoo.com 0 (951) 662-2132
Archaeology, Architectural History & Environmental Compliance Management
September 12, 2012
City Representatives of Carlsbad:
Please accept this letter as support for the preservation of the viewshed offered from the Marron-
Hayes Historic Adobe District. It is my understanding that current plans intend to develop the
hillside and viewshed surrounding the Marron-Hayes Historic Adobe District. Such development
would impair the historic value of one of Carlsbad's oldest and historically richest gems. As the
property currently stands, a whiff of what prehistoric and historic peoples understood about the
surrounding environment has been maintained. When one visits the property and absorbs the
nature of the historic structure and environment, if one is to look away from the highway adjacent,
one can truly grasp what Northern San Diego County looked and felt prior to the development of
track homes and retail establishments; one can easily be transplanted to an historical moment in
time and gain a fresh understanding of what the San Diego landscape looked and felt like to
Prehistoric Native Americans as well as European Pioneers. Should the untouched landscape
surrounding this historic gem of a property be impeded by development the opportunity to see
through the eyes of those that lived in Northern San Diego County will be lost-a sense of what
prehistoric peoples saw when they looked upon the landscape will be lost, a sense of what the
Spanish settlers saw will be lost and a sense of what European settlers coming from the east-coast
and mid-west will be lost forever-and a sense of how this significant historic district belonged to
the landscape will also be lost.
Preservation of a historic district means just that-preserving the district. It is not limited to only
the property area itself, but also the interpretive sense allowed by visitors to the district, which
includes the emotive response that occurs when a visitor steps away from the structures and
breathes in the surroundings through multiple senses. Should the viewshed surrounding this
significant historic district be destroyed by the development surrounding it, the historical value of
the district will be significantly altered to the extent that the district itself may simply become
some random preserved adobe structures within an alien environment limiting its use as a tourist
attraction and historic landmark.
I'm a firm believer that development must go on all the while protecting significant historical
resources. There are areas in which it is appropriate to develop into modernity, but the viewshed
of the Marron-Hayes Historic District is simply not appropriate. The visual effect of such
development would forever harm the very integrity of this historical resource and its value to the
comprehension of human history.
Sincerely,
Jessica J. Auck, M.A.
Registered Professional Archaeologist
From: Sam Kab [mailto:sam@urbansystems.net]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 10:07 AM
To: Van Lynch; 'Todd Galarneau'; 'Don Mitchell'
Cc: 'Tim Gnibus'
Subject: RE: Traffic Mitigation
Van: The mitigation at College/Plaza was for Alternatives 3 and 4, without the ROO interchange,
which increased the College Blvd. volumes higher than for Alts. 1 and 2. With the revised report,
there is no mitigation recommended at College/Plaza, which is consistent with the Oceanside
Circulation Element Update FEIR. The northbound to eastbound right turn lane on College to
eastbound Plaza Dr. is planned by Oceanside, but there is no project significant impact at this
location.
Sam
Sam P. Kab, II
Urban Systems Associates, Inc.
4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106
San Diego, CA 92123
858-560-4911
From: Van Lynch [mailto:Van.Lynch@carlsbadca.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 8:49 AM
To: Todd Galarneau; Don Mitchell
Cc: Sam Kab; Tim Gnibus
Subject: Traffic Mitigation
Todd/Don, What happened to the proposed traffic mitigation at the College/Plaza
intersection? I recall a right turn lane pocket eastbound Haymar to southbound College (at gas
station) and another improvement for a right turn lane pocket northbound College to eastbound
Plaza Drive (Mexican drive thru).
Sincerely,
Van Lynch
Senior Planner
1635 Faraday Av
Carlsbad CA 92008
T (760) 602-4613
van.lynch@carlsbadca.gov
www.carlsbadca.gov
-~ <;~(
~CiT'' Oi
CARLSBAD
Van Lynch
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
diane nygaard <dandd2@peoplepc.com>
Tuesday, August28, 20121:14 PM
Farrah Douglas; Mark Packard
Van Lynch
FW: Quarry Creek = Not Smart Growth
Follow up
Completed
Council Members Douglas and Packard
0
Thank you for meeting with me today about the proposed Quarry Creek development.
Here is the link to the most recent technical update of the SANDAG smart growth concept map from Jan 2012.
CB-3 is based on the data in the SANDAG 2050 Regional Growth Forecast: 372 dwelling units on the site in 2060; 7
du/ac; and no SGCM qualifying transit service. That is why it is shown on the SGCM as a Potential Smart Growth
Opportunity Area (SGOA). The area is a Community Center, which are geographically defined as a circle with a X mile
radius around a point. Depending on where the circle is located it could include a portion of the shopping center and
the existing and planned density on that site.
http://www.sandag.org/uploads/projectid/projectid 296 14002.pdf--See pp. 6 and 7 for specific information on
Quarry Creek site.
You will note that this remains a" potential" smart growth site-it does not meet the land use or transit
criteria. SANDAG staff also informally reviewed this with an increase to 656 units and confirmed it still does not meet
the criteria for a smart growth site.
According to the SANDAG definitions the Quarry Creek project does not qualify as smart growth-it remains very dense
development that will substantially add to terrible traffic congestion in this area.
Diane Nygaard
1
0 0
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
ENGINEERING
City of Carlsbad
JUL 2 7 2012
Date: July 19, 2012
Community & l::.(..unomic
Development Department
Van Lynch, Senior Planner
City of Carlsbad, Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Quarry Creek Master Plan Traffic Impact Analysis Report Review and Comments
Dear Van:
The City of Oceanside Transportation Section review and comments are outlined below:
1. Page 1-4, (and 4-2) last paragraph: While the project does not apply trip reductions for
"mixed use", it is not realistic to state that trip reductions could be allowed for this
project. The project is almost entirely residential without access to the nearest major
transit transfer area located at the Westfield Mall to the west. Furthermore, work trips
will not be reasonably reduced given the adjacent commercial uses which are all general
retail or fast food.
2. Page 2-5, Roadway Segments:
a. Bullet 1 states that a significant impact occurs when the LOS is D and degrades to
E or F. While this is true, it is also true that if the LOS is E and is degraded to F
under project conditions, then that is also a significant impact. Moreover, it is
not entirely clear if this statement refers to intersections or segments. Please
address and clarify.
b. It should be stated that if a facility is operating at LOS E or F with and without the
project, even if the affected facility is not significantly impacted by project traffic,
then a peak hour segment analysis must be completed under project conditions.
Regardless of peak hour LOS, and if there is no significant project impact, then
the project will be required to contribute its fair share for improvements (to be
approved by the City of Oceanside) aimed at enhancing peak hour segment
capacity and/or intersection operations. Project fair share is calculated based on
the project traffic proportion of projected growth on the impacted facility. This
must be completed for all scenarios. The City of Oceanside has planned
1
300 NORTH COAST HIGHWAY • OCEANSIDE, CA 92054-2885 • TELEPHONE 760-435-5099 • FAX 760-435-5027
improvements on College Blvd. at Plaza Dr., College Blvd. at Vista Way., and on
College at Marron Road.
c. Peak hour segment analyses must be completed for roadway segments in
Oceanside operating at worse than LOS D.
d. The roadway classification for Vista Way between SR78 WB ramps and Thunder
Drive is currently a 4-lane secondary collector with 30,000 LOS E capacity. Please
revise the segment analysis tables for all scenarios to reflect the proper
classification and analysis.
3. Page 3-3, Marron Road: It should be stated that the City of Carlsbad intends not to
extend Marron Road to connect with El Camino Real.
4. Page 3-5, Figure 3-2:
a. The ADT on Vista Way between College and the SR78 WB ramps should be
approximately 28,000 ADT existing and 31,000 ADT at buildout. The count taken
for this traffic study was taken east of the SR78 ramps which has a lower daily
volume at 16,000 ADT.
b. In the report appendices, the ADT count data sheet shows that the count was
taken for the segment of Vista Way between College and the Tri-City Hospital
driveway, while Figure 3-2 shows 10,700 ADT for Vista Way between the SR78
ramps and Thunder Drive. I cannot find the count data sheet for Vista Way
between SR78 ramps and Thunder that shows 10,700 ADT. The count taken
should be used for this segment and a new count taken on the segment west of
the SR78 ramps.
c. A new segment count must be completed for Vista Way between College Blvd.
and the SR78 WB ramps. The City can provide this count data to the traffic
consultant if need be. This must be addressed in all scenarios.
5. Page 4-1, 2nd Paragraph: The project trip generation values shown are those before the
transit reduction. The values with the transit reduction (per Table 4-1, Trip Generation
Adjustments) should be stated and discussed in this section.
6. Page 5-1, Street Segments, Figure S-4: Figure 5-4 shows Existing+ Project A.M. and P.M.
intersection turn movement volumes and not Existing + Project segment volumes. A
separate figure must be developed that illustrates the Existing + Project segment ADTs.
Similar to figures 5-1 and S-2.
7. Page S-3, Intersections: A review of the intersection LOS Short Report sheets in the
appendices revealed that inappropriate cycle lengths were assumed in the intersection
2
analyses. In particular, the traffic signals on College Blvd. are all in coordination and run
at 100 seconds in the A.M. peak and 110 seconds in the P.M. peak. The intersection
analyses for all scenarios must apply the proper cycle lengths. Signal timing sheets are
available upon request.
8. Page 5-10, Table 5-1: Segment of Lake Blvd. between Thunder and Sundown is shown
as not significant in "Notes". This segment is shown as LOSE without project and LOS F
with project which is therefore a significant impact. Please adjust the table accordingly.
9. Page 5-11, Mitigation Recommendation:
a. The project will be required to mitigate their significant and cumulative impacts
to the extent possible to improve traffic progression along affected roadway
segments and intersections, regardless of planned overriding considerations.
b. Lake Blvd. between Thunder and Sundown LOS degrades from LOSE to F. This is
a significant impact when the LOS degrades E to F. While ov.erriding
considerations has been recommended for this segment, the project will be
required to address this impact. The City has completed traffic calming
measures on this segment and will require to project install a driver feedback
sign or similar measure.
10. Page 6-6, Table 6-1:
a. Segment ADT and LOS result for Lake Blvd. between Thunder and Sundown is
reversed with the segment of Haymare/Piaza between SR78 EB ramps and
Thunder. Please correct accordingly. The ADT shown in the table for Plaza
between SR78 ramp and Thunder doesn't match Figure 6-3.
b. The roadway classification for Plaza Drive between SR78 EB ramps and Thunder
Drive will become a 4-lane secondary collector with 30,000 LOS E capacity by the
near-term. Please revise the segment analysis tables for the near-term and
buildout scenarios to reflect the proper classification and analysis.
11. Page 6-7: A figure that illustrates assumed intersection geometries for planned
intersection improvements for all scenarios (near-term and Buildout) must be included
in the report. This was requested in the December 21, 2011 comments letter, comment
#7a-g.
12. Page 7-1, Street Segments:
a. An exhibit that illustrates the near-term plus project ADTs must be included in
the report.
b. For cumulative impacts on the El Camino Real Bridge over SR78, a fair share
contribution by the project toward the future widening of the bridge will be
3
required. A fair share calculation must be completed for this improvement in
the report.
c. For significant cumulative impacts on College Blvd. between Vista Way and Plaza
Drive, the project will be required to mitigate the project impact to the extent
possible. The current proposed mitigation is not adequate.
d. Cumulative impacts on Vista Way between SR78 WB ramps to Thunder and on
Plaza Drive between SR78 EB ramps and Thunder go away when the appropriate
LOS E capacity is utilized. Both Vista Way (existing) and Plaza (near-term and
buildout) are 4-lane secondary collectors with 30,000 LOS E capacity. Revise
segment analyses for these two segments.
e. The traffic report needs to add a discussion on the project's proposed near-term
mitigation (to be reviewed and approved by the City of Oceanside) for the
significant project impact on Lake Blvd. between Thunder and Sundown. Traffic
calming measures will be required on this section of Lake Blvd (i.e., driver
feedback sign or similar measure).
13. Page 7-7, Table 7-1:
a. Plus Project volume for Lake Blvd between Thunder and Sundown shows
"15,00". This ADT should be higher than the ADT for the same segment in Table
6-1. Please revise.
b. The segment ADT for Plaza Drive between SR78 EB ramps and Thunder is
incorrect. Please revise.
14. Page 9-6 & 7, Table 9-1:
a. Peak hour analysis must be completed for all deficient roadway segments. For
those segments that have a cumulative project impact, creative measures must
be developed, approved by the City of Oceanside and implemented by the
project to improve peak hour congestion on the affected segment/s.
b. Roadway segments significantly impacted by the project must be mitigated to
the extent possible by the project. A description of the proposed mitigation (to
be approved by the City of Oceanside) must be included in the body of the
report for all analysis scenarios. I would like to work with the traffic consultant
to finalize the recommended mitigation measures and fair share contributions
for proposed project mitigation measures.
15. Page 9-20, Table 9-3:
a. The intersection of College at Lake Blvd. was identified in the Circulation Element
Update to be operating at LOS E in year 2030. The traffic report identifies this
intersection as operating acceptable at LOS D with the project. The City of
Oceanside intends to install an additional northbound to eastbound right turn
4
pocket for dual right turn movements. I would like discuss this result with the
traffic consultant as it relates to comment #7 above.
b. In the December 21, 2011 comments letter from the City of Oceanside, it was
requested that planned improvements to the intersections of College at Vista
Way and College at Plaza Drive be assumed in this traffic report. This request
was ignored. The project will be required to contribute and/or construct these
improvements to offset the expected project impacts to the segments of College
Blvd. between Vista Way and the south City limits.
16. Page 14-4, Existing Plus Project: The report must also state the cumulative project
impacts. Creative measures must be developed to improve cumulative project impacts
and reviewed and approved by the City of Oceanside. Under Existing Plus Project
conditions, the segment of lake Blvd. between Thunder Dr. and Sundown ln. was
identified in the traffic report as a cumulative impact and must be included in this
section.
17. Page 14-5, Near-Term Plus Project Conditions: It is stated that there are no additional
significant project impacts. Table 7-1 on page 7-7 shows significant project impacts on
College Blvd. between Vista Way and Plaza. Moreover, there are cumulative impacts on
El Camino Real, Vista Way and lake Blvd. that must be discussed in this section.
Creative measures must be developed to improve cumulative project impacts and
reviewed and approved by the City of Oceanside.
18. Page 14-7, Buldout Alternative 2:
a. A cumulative impact has been identified on College Blvd. Creative measures
must be developed to improve the cumulative project impact. Creative
measures developed and proposed by the project shall be reviewed and
approved by the City of Oceanside.
b. The project will be required to mitigate significant project impacts identified
along College Blvd. While the physical widening of College Blvd is not feasible,
the project will be required to participate in planned intersection improvements
along the affected segment of College to improve traffic flow through the
segments. The proposed mitigation measure described on Page 14-7 is not
acceptable.
c. Revise the LOS E capacity and roadway classification for Vista Way east of SR78
WB ramps and on Plaza east of SR78 EB ramps per comments #2d and lOb
above.
19. Page 14-8.
a. The planned intersection improvements on College Blvd. (and other locations
specified in the December 21, 2011 comments letter) must be assumed in the
5
• ' • f
traffic report. The proper intersection cycle must be used in the intersection
analyses as described in comment #7 above.
b. The traffic report did not analyze the eastbound off-ramp consolidation with
intersection of College at Plaza/Haymar as requested by the City of Oceanside in
order to off-set project traffic impacts to College Blvd.
20. Page 14-13, Table 14-1:
a. The proposed mitigation measures outlined in Table 14-1 are not acceptable to
the City of Oceanside. All significant and cumulative project impacts must be
addressed in the mitigation summary as described in the comments above.
b. All fair share calculations must be shown in the report for verification. The fair
share formula required by the City of Oceanside is: Project Trips divided by
Buildout + Project minus Existing without Project = percent project trips of
expected growth. The City of Oceanside will provide detailed costs associated
with each improvement the project participates in. I would like to discuss this in
more detail with the traffic consultant.
c. The City's TMC conduit, hardware and various infrastructure needed to support
TMC operations along College Blvd. is currently installed. The City of Oceanside
would like work with the project representatives and the City of Carlsbad to
identify appropriate off-site mitigation measures to offset project traffic impacts.
At some point, I would like to review and discuss the City's comments letter with you in order
to reach an understanding regarding the projects off-site mitigation measures. Please feel free
to contact me if you have any question or concerns.
John Amberson, Transportation Planner
cc: David Dipierro, City Traffic Engineer
Scott Smith, City Engineer
George Buell, Development Services Director
6
d~A._ CITY OF
VcARLSBAD
o FILE
Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov
June 19, 2012
Ms. Elizabeth Lucas
California Department of Fish and Game
4949 Viewridge Avenue
San Diego, CA 92123
Ms. Janet Stuckrath
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101
Carlsbad, CA 92009
RE: QUARRY CREEK MASTER PLAN MP 10-01 (FWS/CDFG-1080707-12TA0202)
Dear Ms. Lucas and Ms. Stuckrath:
Please find enclosed a revised copy of the Quarry Creek Biological Technical Report for your review and
comment. I had previously sent to you in March the first draft of the BTR for review and comment.
Please discard the BTR dated March 28, 2012. The project is in the process of drafting the DEIR and
these documents are being released prior to the circulation of the DEIR.
If you have any questions regarding the information above, or require additional information, please
feel free to contact me at (760) 602-4613 or van.lynch@carlsbadca.gov.
Sincerely,
Senior Planner
Enclosure
c: File Copy
1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ®
Memorandum
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
Suite 200
La Mesa, CA 91942
SallyT@helixepi.com
619.462.1515 tel
619.462.05521ax
www.hellxepi.com
To: Van Lynch
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Date: June 13, 2012 From: Barry Jones
0
HELIX
Environmental Planning
Subject: Response to HDR Comments on the Quarry Creek Master Plan Biological Resources
Report
Message: Provided below are comments received from HDR dated May 11, 2012, and the
responses to those comments.
1. Arid West Supplement requirements.
Response: The delineation for the project included the use of the Arid West
Supplement. The text has been revised to reflect this.
2. Identify Buena Vista Creek on graphics.
Response: Buena Vista Creek has been added to the graphics.
3. San Diego thornmint should be listed as 'SE'.
Response: Change made
4. Tables and text numbers need to match.
Response: Table 8 includes off-site impacts. The text has been revised to reflect these
additional acreages. Wetland acreages are carried out to the hundredth, which is a
standard convention for wetland habitats. The one upland habitat that is carried out to
the hundredth is non-native vegetation where the on-site and off-site impacts are
combined to total 0.4 acres.
5. No Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) discussion.
Response: A discussion of the MBTA has been added to Sections 4.3, 5.1.4 and 6.14.
Page 1 of 2
Memorandum t;ont.)
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
Suite 200
La Mesa, CA 91942
619.462.1515 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
6. Discussion of least Bell's vireo impacts.
0
HELIX
Environmental Planning
Response: Indirect impacts to the vireo are discussed in Section 5.2.8, and mitigation
measures are outlined in Sections 6.2.1 and 7.3. A statement has been added to
Section 5.1.3 that there is no direct take of occupied vireo habitat resulting from the
project.
7. Significance of Palmer's grapplinghook.
Response: The reference to the regional significance of the population has been
deleted.
8. Incorrect table reference.
Response: The reference has been corrected.
Page 2 of 2
-~ J~~ CITY OF
VcARLSBAD
Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov
April 27, 2012
Todd Galarneau
Quarry Creek Investors LLC
2750 Womble Rd
San Diego CA 92106
SUBJECT: 4TH REVIEW FOR QUARRY CREEK MASTER PLAN -GPA 11-09/ZC 11-04/MP 10-01/CT 11-
04/SUP 11-04/HMP 11-07/HDP 11-04
The City has completed another review of your General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Master Plan,
Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, Special Use Permit, Habitat Management Plan Permit, and Hillside
Development Permit, applications no. GPA 11-09, ZC 11-04, MP 10-01, CT 11-04, SUP 11-04, HMP 11-07,
and HDP 11-04.
Please find attached a list of items that need to be addressed.
The City asks that you provide five (5) complete sets of the revised development plans (VTM and
landscape plans), five (5) copies of the revised Master Plan and LFMP, five (5) copies of the Traffic
Impact Analysis, three (3) copies of LFMP Zone 25 plan, and three (3) copies of the Biological Technical
Report.
In order to expedite the processing of your application, you are strongly encouraged to contact your
Staff Planner, Van Lynch, at (760) 602-4613, to discuss or to schedule a meeting to discuss your
application and to completely understand this letter. You may also contact each commenting
department individually as follows:
• Land Development Engineering Division: Tecla Levy, Associate Engineer, at (760) 602-2733.
• Fire Department: Fire Inspections, at (760) 602-4661.
Sincerely,
CHRIS DeCERBO
Principal Planner
CD:VL:bd
c: Hansen Aggregates Pacific Southwest, Inc, P.O. Box 639069, San Diego CA 92163-9069
Planning Systems, Paul Klukas, 1530 Faraday Av, Suite 100, Carlsbad CA 92008
Don Neu, City Planner
Tecla Levy, Project Engineer
Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner
File Copy
Data Entry
1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ®
:J Jl;;~;~~t04/MP 10-01;;. 1HJ4/SUP 1HJ4/HMP 11-07 /HDP 11-04 -?uARRV CREEK MASTER PLAN
April 27, 2012
Pa e 2
ISSUES OF CONCERN
Planning:
1. Comments on the Master Plan have been provided via a marked up copy of the plan. Following
are some specific comments regarding the Master Plan.
a. The Falls Management Plan shall be revised prior to the adoption of the Master Plan.
b. Please remove "driveways" from the Planning Buffer (Page IV-4,11,16 and other locations).
The concern is that a long linear driveway may be proposed to be constructed within the
planning buffer. Even shorter driveways that may circulate around a building shall be
precluded.
c. Please address the development within the Fire Suppression Zone for R-5. Special design
criteria should require fire resistive designed homes, reduced landscaping in the buffer,
address fencing materials, and precluding accessory structures or only allowing structures as
approved by the Fire Prevention department.
d. The development in Planning Area P-4 (open space lot) will not require a minor SDP as the
site is only a detention basin, landscape areas and trail. It can be reviewed concurrent with
the development of R-4 as per the Master Plan.
e. The Master Plan shall address the provision for public parking within the R-1 or R-2 areas for
access to the public trails to the falls.
2. Vesting Tentative Map comments:
a. Please review item 6 of the General Notes. The total project acreage does not match the
LFMP or other documents.
b. Please review items 17 and 18 as they do not match the LFMP numbers. Please add "water"
to item 17.
c. Please justify the extensive grading shown for Lot 11. There appears to be a significant
impact to the grading and habitat in this area and the resultant grading does not appear to
serve any purpose. Please consider alternatives to provide for the infrastructure in this area
without the amount of grading shown.
d. Please note that the Environmental Fences will be temporary on Sheet 11.
3. Zone 25 Local Facilities Management Plan.
a. Comments on the LFMP have been provided via a marked up copy of the plan.
4. Comments on Quarry Creek Master Plan Biological Technical Report (dated 10/20/11)
Plan Comments:
a. On page 28, Table 8, please change the column heading of Open Space to Preserved. Open
Space is ambiguous and it is not clear as to what the open space pertains.
b. Please correct footnote 4 of Table 11 to "The shortfall of 2.3 acres will be met by on-site
restoration of 2.3 acres of grassland habitat or payment of HMP in-lieu fees. Please see
Section 6.1.1 for details.
c. Please correct the title of the Buena Vista Creek Ecological Reserve (not Preserve) on page
42.
\
C .............. ....,;
GPA 11-09/ZC 11-04/MP 10-01/CT 11-04/SUP 11-04/HMP 11-07/HDP 11-04-QUARRY CREEK MASTER PLAN
April27, 2012
Pa e 3
Engineering:
A) Site Plan:
1) Revise private driveway "C" to have a minimum curb to curb width of 34' to accommodate two
11-foot travel lanes, and two 6-foot bike lanes and two 5.5-foot sidewalks (see comments on
sheet 2). A general utility easement will be required over all public utilities.
2) Since the tentative map does not show an approved turnaround for private driveway "C", the
tentative map will be conditioned to provide private driveway "C" connections to Lots 1 and 2
internal streets/driveways or parking lots for adequate circulation or turn around.
3) Address parking spaces near the trailhead near the terminus of private driveway "C". This can
be addressed at the master tentative map stage by a note indicating "need for public parking
spaces and access to the El Saito Falls trailhead to be evaluated during subsequent discretionary
review and approvals" or similar wording.
4) Bike lanes are required for streets A, B, C and Haymar Drive to meet complete streets design
criteria. Please revise street cross-sections shown on sheet 2 to include 6 foot bike lanes on both
sides. Travel lanes may be reduced to 11 feet wide lanes to accommodate 6-foot sidewalks.
Street parking, if desired, will require an additional7' of pavement.
5) Revise the street "B" roundabout detail to show a complete circle with a 45-foot radius. Reduce
the sizes of the islands to accommodate the 45-foot radius. See red-lined comments. Show the
inside and outside tire tracks of a truck with a 42 feet turning radius per Caltrans 404.SF.
6) Add a street cross-section of Street "B" south of the bridge, between the two proposed
roundabouts. Show two 10 foot travel lanes, two 6-foot bike lanes and a 10 foot median.
7) On sheet 3 and sheet 10, clearly identify the limits of existing and proposed public-right-of way
along Haymar Drive. See comments on the red-lined plans. ·
8) The portions of Parcels 1 & 2 of the relinquishment map number 15091, relinquished to the City
of Carlsbad by Caltrans on November 24, 1967, in excess of the required right-of-way for
Haymar Drive shall be conveyed by the city to Quarry Creek via a separate action. Please contact
with Joe Garuba,. Municipal Property Manager, Property and Environmental Management
Department, at (760) 434-2893.
9) On sheet 3, lot 1 grading should be shown independent of the grading of the adjacent Oceanside
parcel. Show how lot 1 should be graded without offsite grading. Show temporary slopes, and
drainage ditch or berm on top of slope. Grading on the offsite parcel can be shown with light
lines and labeled as 'future grading' or 'ultimate grading'.
10) Show all existing and proposed easements.
11) Comply with all other comments shown on red-lined plan.
c 0 GPA 11-09/ZC 11-04/MP 10-01/CT 11-04/SUP 11-04/HMP 11-07 /HOP 11-04-QUARRY CREEK MASTER PLAN
April27, 2012
Pa e4
B) Waiver Requests:
1) Submit a revised focused study supporting the waiver request to allow 240 feet separation
distance between intersections as previously requested.
C) Hydrology Report:
1) Engineering has no additional comments.
D) SWMP Report:
1) Engineering has no further comment.
E) SCCWRP Analysis:
1) Engineering has no additional comments.
F) Hydraulic and Scour Analysis:
1) Engineering has no additional comments.
G) Sewer Study:
1) Engineering has no additional comments.
H) Water Study:
1) Engineering has no additional comments.
I) LFMP:
1) See minor red-lined comments in the report.
J) Traffic Report:
1) The city did not receive a revised traffic report with this submittal. Second review comments
remain outstanding.
K) Master Plan:
1) Previous comment: On page Vll-3, Figure 44, shows intersection spacing at two locations that
does not meet engineering standards. Intersection spacing variance must be approved by the
city engineer prior to approval of the vehicular circulation plan. As previously requested, please
submit a revised focused study to justify intersection spacing variance (see tentative map third
review comments dated April19, 2012).
2) Revise Figure 35 and 36 to show 6 foot bike lanes on all street cross-sections.
0 0 GPA 11-09/ZC 11-04/MP 10-01/CT 11-04/SUP 11-04/HMP 11-07/HDP 11-04-QUARRY CREEK MASTER PLAN
April 27, 2012
Pa e 5
3) On page Vl-28, section 6.5.4.2, revise first paragraph to state that local street A and B will
provide two 6 foot bike lanes. If desired, an additional 7 feet of pavement may be provided on
each side to provide for parallel street parking.
4) Previous comment not adequately addressed: The proposed Quarry Creek vehicle circulation
plan should show adjacent existing developments and existing streets beyond the project
boundary lines. Show how the proposed on-site circulation system ties into the existing
circulation system. On Figure 43, show the two main access points to the project, Plaza Drive
and Marron Road. Show the existing Haymar Drive cul-de-sac to the west to indicate that there
will be no project access at this location.
5) Please comply with all red-lined comments in the master plan document.
L) Soil Report:
1) Appendix D, Recommended Grading Specifications, listed in the table of contents is missing in
the report.
2) The soils engineer letter dated January 27, 2012 included in the soils report is not signed and
stamped by the soil engineer.
3) Resubmit a soils report that is not marked as "DRAFT".
M) Resubmittal:
1) Please submit the following documents in the next review submittal:
a. 3rd review redlined plans and red-lined reports.
Landscape:
Master Plan repeat comments:
1-9 Completed.
10. 6.4.1 -Entry Treatments and Signage, Page Vl-6: Please provide conceptual sketches of the
Community Entry Monumentation with landscaping to clarify scale, materials and design. 2nd
Review: Figure 37: Please provide additional detailing in the "Entry A" and "Entry B" conceptual
layouts showing the approximate proposed size of the area and conceptual layout of the
planting areas. More information is needed in order to establish direction and desires. 3'd
Review: The applicant has responded: "Inasmuch as the entry monumentation design is very
important to the project applicant, it will take a little longer to provide this information. We are
hopeful that the design of the entry treatments will not hold up the processing of the Master
Plan." Please address the comment. 4th Review: The applicant has responded: "This
information will be forthcoming as the process proceeds."
11-31 Completed.
1A-SA Completed.
GA. Figure 42: Please delete invasive species from the plant legend (i.e. Echium). Check all plants
against the California Invasive Plant Inventory as published by the California Invasive Plant
Council. 3'd Review: Please address the comment. 4th Review: The applicant has responded:
"We will delete Echium and any other invasive plants on the final landscape plans for the area.
Note that a note is placed on Figure 43 directing that "The plantings on these slopes shall not
l'"""' '0 '-' . GPA 11-09/ZC 11-04/MP 10-01/CT 11-04/SUP 11-04/HMP 11-07/HDP 11-04-QUARRY CREEK MASTER PLAN
April27, 2012
Pa e 6
include any plants identified on the current List A andiist B of the California Exotic Plan Council's
List of Exotic Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in California. 11
Echium is currently listed as an invasive. Please delete this species from the plant legend.
7 A. Figure 33: The Master Plan proposes a 5' parkway for Streets A and B. When the curb width is
subtracted there is a width of 4.5' of planting area. large trees (i.e. Platanus racemosa and
Quercus agrifolia, etc.) are listed as proposed street trees in these parkways. These large trees
will ultimately create problems for the adjacent curb and walks. The parkway width needs to be
increased or the tree species revised to coordinate. Please resolve insuring plant species
selections are appropriate for the landscape widths provided. Check all plant lists to insure
coordination. 3rd Review: The applicant has responded: "large trees have been eliminated from
the plant list for the collector roads Streets 'A' and 'B'. large trees remain on the plant list for
Marron and Haymar, since the plantable area for those streets is larger."
The Master Plari is confusing since it still lists large trees (i.e. Quercus agrifolia) for collector
Streets 'A' and 'B'. These streets have parkway landscape widths of 4.5'. Please clarify and
distinguish between different species to be used in different parkway widths. Please clarify that
street tree selection shall be as approved in the City of Carlsbad Community Forest
Management Plan, Chapter 6, Tree Selection. Insure the Master plan lists in all sections follow
these selections. 4th Review: The applicant has responded: "These changes have been made as
requested. 11
Quercus agrifolia is still listed as a street tree for Hayman Drive and Marron Road. Cross sections ·
indicate parkway widths as small as 4' which with the curb subtracted equals 3.5'. Quercus
agrifo/ia requires a minimum 6' width per Chapter 6. Please address, review and revise all tree
selections as appropriate.
8A-12A Completed.
13A. Figure 40: It is not clear why a view fence is proposed along the north side of R-1 and R-2. There
will be traffic noise from highway 78 and views may not be desirable. Please review/explain.
Please clarify where tubular steel view fencing versus sound/view wall and solid block walls are
to be used. 3rd Review: The applicant has responded: "Solid view fencing will be used only to
attenuate noise if the EIR determines that noise wall mitigation is required. The EIR analysis will
begin in January. We have estimated the locations of the fencing at this preliminary stage. We
will finalize the location of solid view fencing after the EIR analysis has been conducted."
Please clarify in the Master Plan. 4th Review: The applicant has responded: "The final draft
Master Plan will reflect the findings and mitigation measures articulated in the Final EIR. II
14A-16A Completed.
landscape plan comments:
REPEAT COMMENTS
1. Please note that the Quarry Creek Master Plan is currently under review by city staff and is not
yet approved. Final comments are reserved pending completion and approval of the Quarry
Creek Master Plan.
2-4 Completed.
5. Please select street trees from the tree selection list provided in the City of Carlsbad Community
Forest Management Plan. Insure appropriate species as determined by the parkway widths. 2m1
Review: Please provide a cross section that specifies the parkway width for Haymar and Street
GPA 11-09/ZC 11-04/MP 10-0Str 11-04/SUP 11-04/HMP 11-07/HDP 11-04 ~ARRY CREEK MASTER PlAN
April 27, 2012
Pa e 7
6-10
11.
12-24
25.
1A-2A
3A.
'C'. Insure appropriate tree species selections to fit the space. Indicate street tree selection for
Street 'C'. 3rd Review: Several street tree selections appear to be too large for the parkway
width. Please review and revise as appropriate.
Completed.
Landscape elements over 30" in height (including planting measured at maturity) are not
allowed at street corners within a triangular zone drawn from two points, 25' outward from the
beginning of curves and end of curves. (See Appendix C.4). In addition to the requirement
above, on collector streets and greater, Cal Trans Sight Distance Standards shall apply to the
height restriction stated. Please clearly label 25' vehicular sight triangles and show and label all
Cal Trans sight lines and address plantings within these areas. 2nd Review: The applicant has
responded: "Sight distance lines have been added at all corners. Notes have been added that all
shrubs in these areas shall be no higher than 30-inches in height." I see no reference to plant
sizes where located within vehicular sight lines and Cal Trans sight lines do not appear to be
shown. Please address. 3rd Review: The applicant has responded: "We apparently still have not
accomplished this task. We will ensure that the Co/Trans sight Jines and the note are placed on
the final set of conceptual plans."
Completed.
RETURN REDLINES and provide 2 copies of all plans (concept, water conservation, fire
protection, and water use plan) for the next submittal.
Completed.
Please provide appropriate conceptual design for the entry monumentation (i.e. sections,
elevations, materials, etc.). 3rd Review: The applicant has responded: Entry monumentation
details have not yet been prepared. We are still at the planning stage of the project."
NEW COMMENTS
lB. Trees shall be provided at the mmrmum rate of one per every four parking stalls. Trees
pertaining to this requirement shall be located within the parking area, exclusive of parking lot
setbacks. The trees shall be located in close proximity to the spaces they are to shade. Please
address at parking areas.
28. Planting or any combination of planting, mounding, and decorative walls shall be used to
provide screening from adjacent property or streets of the parking area to a height of 3'. Please
address at parking areas.
3B. At least three percent of parking areas shall be planted and maintained with trees or approved
shrubs. The plantings shall be contained in planting areas with a minimum dimension of 4' and
bounded by a concrete or masonry curb of a minimum of 6" in height. The plantings shall be
located throughout the off-street parking areas in order to obtain the maximum amount of
dispersion. Please provide a calculation proving the percentage of landscape area provided in
the parking areas.
48. Please revise tree layout locations to coordinate with the street.
Van Lynch
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Van Lynch
Monday, April16, 2012 2:30PM
Gnibus, Tim
RE: April10 Quarry Creek SB18 meeting
Tim, I don't have any formal minutes of the meeting. We will have another next month after they have had time to
review information presented to them.
From my meeting notes from 4/10/12 with Michelle Fahley, Deputy General Counsel, Pechanga Indian Reservation,
Anna Hoover, Cultural Analyst, Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, Paul Macario, Cultural Curator Pechanga
Tribe via phone, Carmon Majado, San Luis Ray, Merri Lopez-Keifer, Tribal Counsel, San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians.
The Pechanga Tribe will be providing information and support to the San Luis Ray band of Mission Indians.
J.P Harrington, ethnologist in the late 20's early 30's, toured Indian landmarks and recorded Indian
language/dialects. Spoke of the history and cultural significance of the Falls.
Much concern over the El Saito Falls and the Buffer Management Plan.
They need to know how the Management Plan will interface with the Master Plan.
They will be asking for more info on the northern Archeo site not addressed in the Archeo report.
Review Impacts of roadway Street A on the Situs 1 site (may need more buffer).
Review potential to combine "Historic District' with Cultural sites to make a more cohesive/comprehensive preserve
area.
Will request a new letter from the Native American Heritage Commission to correct " ... resources were not identified ... "
comment.
A copy of the Archeological report and El Saito Falls Management Plan was provided to Michelle.
Next potential time for follow-up SB 18 meeting will be May 111h, 2012 at Pechanga.
1
4~.A, CITY OF
0 ri\Mili~ ? )~0 11'2-
VcARLSBAD LJ FILE
Planning Division www.carlsbadca.gov
March 30, 2012
Ms. Elizabeth Lucas
California Department of Fish and Game
4949 Viewridge Avenue
San Diego, CA 92123
Ms. Janet Stuckrath
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101
Carlsbad, CA 92009
RE: QUARRY CREEK MASTER PLAN MP 10-01 (FWS/CDFG -10B0707-12TA0202)
Dear Ms. Lucas and Ms. Stuckrath:
Please find enclosed a copy of the revised Quarry Creek Master Plan and Biological Technical Report for
your review and comment. The project is in the process of drafting the DEIR and these documents are
being released prior to the circulation of the DEIR.
If you have any questions regarding the information above, or require additional information, please
feel free to contact me at (760) 602-4613 or van.lynch@carlsbadca.gov.
Senior Planner
enclosure
c: File Copy
1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559 ®
• . Memorandum C
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard
Suite 200
La Mesa, CA 91942
SallyT@helixepi.com
619.462.1515 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
To: Chris DeCerbo
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Date: March 28, 2012 From: Barry Jones
HELIX
Environmental Planning
RECEIVED
CITY OF CARLS
PLANNING DIVISION
Subject: Response to City Comments on the Quarry Creek Master Plan Biological Resources
Report
Message: Provided below are comments received from the City, and the responses to those
comments.
7. Comments on Quarry Creek Master Plan Biological Technical Report (dated
10/20/11)
Plan Comments:
a. Proposed revisions to HMP Hardline Preserve boundary require processing and
approval of a HMP Equivalency Finding, including an analysis of the changes in acreage
by vegetation community and quality of each community. Please see page E-3 of the
HMP for more information.
Response: Section 7 of the previous draft did include an analysis of HMP equivalency,
including changes by acreage for each vegetation community as well as an assessment
of overall habitat viability. The section has been further updated to discuss comments c
and h.
b. All HMP long term management requirements must be satisfied and secured prior to any
project impacts, not per schedule shown on page 3.
Response: This change has been made in the document.
c. Street "A" is adjacent to CDFG's Buena Vista Creek Ecological Reserve -are adjacency
standards proposed? See Section 5.2.4-not enough detail provided.
Response: This section has been expanded to include additional discussion regarding
lighting.
Page 1 of 3
Memorandumgont.) 0
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard HELIX Suite 200
La Mesa, CA 91942
619.462.1515 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
Environmental Planning
d. Brush management zone for Lot 5 not shown on Figure 8 -is this included in impacts
area?
Response: All brush management occurs within the impact area.
e. Table 8 -categories not consistent with HMP Habitat Groups, (e.g. CSS shown as
Category "8", should be Group "C"), please revise to be consistent.
Response: This change has been made in the document.
f. Section 5.1.4 -need to reflect changes already processed through previous Equivalency
Finding -please amend to read, "The original HMP showed ... " and " ... were amended
through an Equivalency Finding, dated October 13, 2010." Also explain second
paragraph mention of bridge for wildlife movement-where is this shown?
Response: This change has been made in the document and Figure 8 has been revised
to call out the location of the bridge.
g. Will disturbed and developed areas be revegetated?
Response: These areas are not proposed to be revegetated.
h. HMP consistency discussion should include adjacency standards (e.g. brush
management, lighting, and erosion control).
Response: Section 7 now includes a discussion of adjacency standards.
i. There appear to be discrepancies in the boundaries shown in some figures (e.g. Figures
4 and 11 ). Please confirm that no brush management zones are included within the
proposed HMP preserve and are not counted as "gain" areas.
Response: No brush management is included in the HMP preserve boundary.
j. The proposed development area truncates the existing connectivity of the preserve north
of Simsbury Court. Please provide information on wildlife movement in the area to show
that this connectivity can be eliminated without impacting overall movement.
Response: The revised project includes restoration of the slope with sage scrub
vegetation to facilitate wildlife movement and the discussion has been expanded to
explain that the pinch point in this area is actually reduced overall by the proposed
project.
Page 2 of3
~""""'
Memorandum ~ant.)
HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc.
7578 El Cajon Boulevard HELIX Suite 200
La Mesa, CA 91942
619.462.1515 tel
619.462.0552 fax
www.helixepi.com
Environmental Planning
k. Regarding proposed mitigation:
1. Wetlands (Group A) appear to have no net loss but propose a mix of different habitat
types -please confirm that the wetland permitting agencies agree these habitats
provide equivalent function and valyes.
Response: We are anticipating that the agencies will allow for some mixing of habitat
types. The impacts are to 3 riparian vegetation types and any restoration effort will likely
create of mosaic riparian types.
2. Occupied CSS (Group C) appears to be mitigated at 2:1 yet footnote states a 0.6
acre shortfall-please explain. If shortfall exists, occupied CSS cannot be mitigated
with another habitat type.
Response: The project will mitigate any shortfall with CSS restoration. This change has
been made throughout the document where appropriate ..
3. No tiering of habitat group mitigation exists in the HMP (i.e. cannot mitigate impacts
to lower groups through preservation of higher groups) therefore Group D, E, and F
impacts must be mitigated in kind on site or through payment of in lieu fee.
Response: The document has been revised to state that mitigation will occur through.
either payment of the in lieu fee program or restoration of grassland.
Page 3 of3
Van Lynch
From:
Sent:
To:
Don Mitchell <DMitchell@mcmillin.com>
Tuesday, March 27,2012 1:29PM
Tecla Levy; Bryan Jones
Cc: Todd Galarneau; Paul Klukas; Van Lynch
Subject:
Attachments:
FW: NCTD response to bus route/park & ride questions.
Bus Stop Development Handbook -April2003.pdf
Tecla and Bryan, NCTD has replied with concurrence to transit reduction percentage for ADT and the bus route shown in
the current VTM. With regards to the pedestrian and bike trail within the Buena Vista Preserve, we have been trying to
arrange a meeting with DF&G over the last couple of months and have now asked CNLM to assist in setting up the
meeting.
Don
Don Mitchell, PE
Senior Vice President
McMillin Land Development
619-794-1252-(office)
619-244-8481 -(cell)
619-336-301 0-(fax)
From: Sam Kab [mailto:sam@urbansystems.net]
sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 4:56 PM
To: Todd Galarneau; Don Mitchell
Cc: 'Sam Kab'
Subject: FW: NCTD response to bus route/park & ride questions.
Todd, Don: For your files/info.
Sam Kab
From: Timothy McCormick [mailto:tmccormick@nctd.org]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 2:24PM
To: Usa Diaz
Cc: sam@urbansystems.net
Subject: RE:
Hi Sam,
First, yes I agree with the reduction estimate.
In terms of service, we are intending to extend bus 323 into your development. This line runs from the College Avenue
SPRINTER station to three different termini, servicing Quarry Creek Shopping Center on all three. We would service the
development by coming west on Marron Road, going right on the internal roadway that will lead up to Haymar
Drive. The bus will then enter the park and ride lot. At certain times of day, this lot will serve as the end of the line, and
as such the bus will need a spot to remain for a few minutes where it doesn't block any cars in, and preferably where it
can board passengers. The bus will always exit the lot and return the way it came, taking the internal road south to
Marron and going left on Marron to exit the development.
I anticipate that the primary desire for transit will be connections to the SPRINTER station to connect with the wider
transit network. To a lesser extent, we also expect requests for service from this development to whatever high school
and middle school are assigned to it. Should this development be assigned to the new high school at College and
Cannon, this would require additional service that we don't have programmed at this time.
1
Partly due to the fact that the 323 runs only on weekdays, and also because of the attractiveness of more frequent
service on route 302 and 309, I anticipate that people in the the development will seek to walk west out ofthe
development to access the much richer service network at the corner of Marron Road and El Camino Real. I am hopeful
that you are making a pedestrian path to facilitate this connection between the two sections of Marron Road. Between
the attraction of the numerous businesses at that intersection, and the transit access, this will be a key connector for
people in the development to avoid auto based trips. This will also turn Marron Road into an excellent bike route to
avoid the Carlsbad Village Drive hill, or the narrqwness of Vista Way. All in all, from my point of view, the non auto
based trips may well number as many from the west end as from the east as long as the pedestrian bike connection is
made.
I have attached our bus stop development handbook, which includes needed turning radii. Please feel free to forward
my comments to the city. Thanks for including us and we look forward to continued partnership.
Tim McCormick
Director of Service Planning
NCTD
From: Lisa Diaz [mailto:Lisa@UrbanSystems.net]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 11:08 AM
To: Timothy McCormick
Cc: sam@urbansystems.net
Subject:
Tim,
Thank you for discussing during our phone call on Friday the NCTD interest in extending bus service from the Quarry
Creek Shopping Center through the future residential development to the west and u-turning at the future park & ride
lot. Can you describe the route to be taken and the design needed for turning the buses at the park & ride lot? We are
also assuming a 5% reduction in residential trips based on SANDAG's Trip Generation Rates. Do you agree with the
reduction? Can I share this information with City of Carlsbad and Oceanside staff?
Thanks for your help
Sam P. Kab, II
Senior Transportation Planner
Urban Systems Asscociates, Inc.
4540 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 106
San Diego, CA 92123
858-560-4911
2
PLANNING I
SYSTEMS -
March 27, 2012
Mr. Van Lynch
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Department
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
LAND USE/COASTAL PLANNING
LANDSCAPE ARCillTECTURE • LA3900
POLICY AND PROCESSING
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
RECEIVED
MAR 2 7 2012
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DIVISION
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO 3rd REVIEW
Dear Mr. Lynch:
GPA 11-09/ZC 11-04/MP 10-01/CT 11-04/HMP 11-05/HMP 11-07/HDP 11-04
QUARRY CREEK
Per your letter dated January 31, 2012, identifying Staff items and issues with the submittal package of the
above-referenced application package and plans, McMillin Companies has commissioned modifications to
the documents and plans as requested. To this end, attached with this cover letter please find the following:
• Four (4) copies of the revised Master Plan (Strike-out version) (Planning Systems)
• Four (4) copies of the revised Master Plan (Clean) (Planning Systems)
• Four (4) copies of the revised Zone 25 LFMP (Strike-out version) (Planning Systems)
• Four (4) copies of the revised Zone 25 LFMP (Clean) (Planning Systems)
• Seven (7) copies of the revised Master Vesting Tentative Map+ Landscape Plans (PDC/Howard)
• Four (4) copies of the revised Drainage Report (PDC)
• Three (3) copies of the revised Preliminary SWMP (Rick)
• Three (3) copies of the Water Quality/Hydromodification study (Chang)
• Three (3) copies of the LESA report (Planning Systems)
• Three (3) copies of the revised Biological report (Helix)
• Three (3) copies of the Cultural Resources Study (ASM)
• Three (3) copies of the EIR-Ievel Geotechnical Reconnaissance report (Geocon)
• Three (3) copies of the Draft Geotechnical Investigation (Geocon)
• Three (3) copies of the Hydraulic and Scour Analysis (Chang)
• Three (3) copies of the Water System Analysis (Dexter Wilson)
• Three (3) copies of the Preliminary Sewer Report (PDC)
• Two (2) CDs of Master Plan and Zone 25 LFMP documents
• One (1) CD of Master Vesting Tentative Map
• One (1) CD of revised Drainage Report
• Redlined plans (return)
Below are responses and methods that we are addressing the City comments, in the order of comments
listed in the January 31 letter.
ISSUES OF CONCERN
Planning:
I. The Intersection Spacing on Street B, Quarry Creek Master Plan study, does not address the
minimum intersection spacing potential. The study suggests that 200 feet curb to curb is "more
than adequate" and implies the distance could be reduced Planning is asking that Street A be
moved southerly 25 feet to remove the roadway from the Planning Buffer (curb line at Planning
Buffer edge to keep the roadway out of the buffer).
1
1530 FARADAY AVENUE • SUITE 100 • CARLSBAD, CA 92008 • (760) 931-0780 • FAX (760) 931-5744 • info@planningsystems.net
Response: Street A has been realigned to remove the roadway from the Planning Buffer.
2. Please verify who the applicant is on the application and correct all documents to reflect the
applicant (McMillin Real Estate Services, L.P. (per State of California} vs McMillin Real Estate
Services LLC (disclosure statement) vs Quarry Creek Investors, LLC (plans)).
Response: The applicant is Quarry Creek Investors LLC.
3. Please provide a constraints map with slope analysis and slope profiles per Section 2I.95.1 10,
Hillside Development Regulations, of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Response: A constraints map was previously completed for the property in conjunction with the
LFMP analysis. We have not provided an additional constraints map with this submittal. We can provide
one if necessary.
4. Comments on the Master Plan have been provided via a marked up copy of the plan. Following
are some specific comments regarding the Master Plan:
a. On Page 11-18, Table H, Land Use Summary Table, please revise the table to reflect 306 dwelling
units at a density of Residential High. In the footnotes of Table H, each respective planning area
will need to meet the requisite density minimums. No averaging between planning areas to achieve
the overall density numbers will be allowed The Planning Areas that would potentially develop
under the requisite density individually would not qualify as affordable housing units per the
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) even though the total average may meet the
minimum density. This is also consistent with Section 5,3.2 of the Master Plan. Please review
other text, tables and figures to reflect the correct numbers (i.e. each respective PA, Table I and
Figure 12).
Response: The modifications requested above have been made to the Master Plan. Wording has
been modified so that each planning area must meet the minimum net densities on its own, as shown on p.
IV-3 ofthe MasterPlan.
b. On page IV-7, Figure 16, please identify the remnant Open Space area in the northeast corner of
R-1 and what is to become of this area. The existing improvements (pump stations?) should be
identified as existing uses and permitted by the Master Plan.
Response: Wording has been added to the Master Plan which indicates the land uses that would be
allowed in this area on Master Plan p. IV-6.
c. Section 5,2 should reference Table 1.
Response: This change has been made on p. V-2.
d Street "A" is shown to encroach into the "Planning Buffer" near its intersection with Street "B".
Please move Street "A" 30 feet southerly to remove it from the planning buffer. The project is
already required to process a standards deviation for the reduced intersection spacing.
Response: Street A has been relocated as indicated.
e. On Page Vll-3, Figure 43, the street section for a "Local Street" does not match that as shown in
the Vesting Tentative Map. Please compare the parkway widths.
Response: The street sections have been modified on the Master Plan so that they now are consistent
with the VTM street sections.
II PLANNING I
SYSTEMS
•,
----------------··--··-~------·
f On Figure 45, please identify the offsite sewer lift station described in Section 7.4 (Quarry Creek
Shopping Center lift station).
Response: The Quarry Creek Shopping Center lift station is now called out and identified on Figure
45, as requested.
5. Vesting Tentative Map comments:
a. Please revise the vicinity map to include more Major streets. Please refer to the Landscape Plans
vicinity map as an example.
Response: The vicinity map has been revised and includes the major streets in the area.
b. On the title page, sheet 1, General Notes, please change Planning Director to City Planner.
Response: The wording on Sheet 1 General Notes has been revised to City Planner.
c. Please move Street A along Lots 9 and 12 southerly to eliminate/reduce the retaining wall heights.
Response: The wall height has been minimized to a maximum 6-feet in height. It will be
constructed with split face block to minimize its aesthetic impact. Vegetation exists on the adjacent
property which also will serve to minimize the visibility of the wall.
d. Please coordinate with Hansen Aggregates regarding the proposed recordation of the Tribal
Access Easement and levee maintenance easement in conjunction with the proposed Conservation
Easement presently being reviewed for recordation, The easement rights for the tribe and flood
management have already been incorporated in the Reclamation Plan conservation easement.
Response: The applicant is coordinating with Hansen regarding the recordation of the easement.
e. Please show the retaining walls along the northerly portion of Lot 9 and 12 to be a plant able wall.
This is to reduce any visual impacts of the walls.
Response: We have proposed that the wall be constructed with split face block and be no higher than
6-feet in height to minimize visual impacts, rather than plantable. We are trying to minimize costs for
future resident's HOA fees, and also the potential for liability on the neighboring property.
f Please provide for the access trails on Lot 9 to loop and interconnect. There will be a natural
tendency for these to interconnect and a connection should be provided. Also, please review the
possibility of the easterly trail accessing the ridgeline to a viewpoint as views could be had in both
easterly and westerly directions.
Response: The trail on Lot 9 has been redesigned to loop. This is shown on Sheets 5 and 6.
g. Provisions should be made for a future trail easement to the west to connect to the Buena Vista
Ecological Preserve. This will need to be coordinated with the CDF &G.
Response: Provisions have been made in the Master Plan (see Figure 25 on p. VI-6, and on Sheet 6
of the VTM, which contains a note providing for future trail access.
6. Zone 25 Local Facilities Management Plan.
a. Comments on the LFMP have been provided via a marked up copy of the plan. Staff will confirm
the number of persons per household to use for the facilities calculations.
Response: The p=on, pe< hou,hold figm-e ha' beon modified to 2.349 ""1 r~~t J•il
0 0
population assumptions have been revised to use this figure.
b. Please review the size (acreage) of the Robertson Ranch ball fields in Table 19, Park District 2
Buildout Future Parks on Page 34. The Parks and Recreation Department reports that the park
size is 13.2 acres,
Response: The acreage for the Robertson Ranch ballfields has been modified to 13.2 acres on LFMP
p. 37 and throughout the Parks analysis.
Biological Technical Report (dated 10/20111 )Comments:
a. Proposed revisions to HMP Hard/ine Preserve boundary require processing and approval of a
HMP Equivalency Finding, including an analysis of the changes in acreage by vegetation
community and quality of each community. Please see page E-3 of the HMP for more information.
Response: (Awaiting response from Helix Environmental.)
b. All HMP long term management requirements must be satisfied and secured prior to any project
impacts, not per schedule shown on page 3.
Response: (Awaiting response from Helix Environmental.)
c. Street "A" is adjacent to CDFG 's Buena Vista Creek Ecological Reserve-are adjacency
standards proposed? See Section 5.2.4-not enough detail provided.
Response: (Awaiting response from Helix Environmental.)
d. Brush management zone for Lot 5 not shown on Figure 8-is this included in impacts area?
Response: (Awaiting response from Helix Environmental.)
e. Table 8 categories not consistent with HMP Habitat Groups, (e.g. CSS shown as Category "B",
should be Group "C''), please revise to be consistent,
Response: (Awaiting response from Helix Environmental.)
f Section 5.1. 4-need to reflect changes already processed through previous Equivalency Finding-
please amend to read, "The original HMP showed. .. " and " ... were amended through an
Equivalency Finding, dated October 13, 2010. " Also explain second paragraph mention of bridge
for wildlife movement-where is this shown?
Response: (Awaiting response from Helix Environmental.)
g. Will disturbed and developed areas be revegetated?
Response: (Awaiting response from Helix Environmental.)
h. HMP consistency discussion should include adjacency standards (e.g. brush management,
lighting, and erosion control).
Response: (Awaiting response from Helix Environmental.)
i. There appear to be discrepancies in the boundaries shown in some figures (e.g. Figures 4 and 11).
Please confirm that no brush management zones are included within the proposed HMP preserve
and are not counted as "gain" areas.
I PLANNING I ••I SYSTEMS
0 0
Response: (Awaiting response from Helix Environmental.)
j. The proposed development area truncates the existing connectivity of the preserve north of
Simsbury Court. Please provide information on wildlife movement in the area to show that this
connectivity can be eliminated without impacting overall movement.
Response: (Awaiting response from Helix Environmental.)
k. Regarding proposed mitigation:
I. Wetlands (Group A) appear to have no net loss but propose a mix of different habitat types-
please confirm that the wetland permitting agencies agree these habitats provide equivalent
function and values.
Response: (Awaiting response from Helix Environmental.)
2. Occupied CSS (Group C) appears to be mitigated at 2: I yet footnote states a 0. 6 acre shortfall-·
please explain. If shortfall exists, occupied CSS cannot be mitigated with another habitat type.
Response: (Awaiting response from Helix Environmental.)
3. No tiering of habitat group mitigation exists in the HMP (i.e. cannot mitigate impacts to lower
groups through preservation of higher groups), therefore Group D, E, and F impacts must be
mitigated in kind on site or through payment of in lieu fee.
Response: (Awaiting response from Helix Environmental.)
Map Comments:
a) Layout of new preserve must make biological/ecological sense and not include brush management
zones. That said, mid-slope preserve boundaries could be allowed (see comment #c below).
Response: This comment is acknowledged by the applicant.
b) Is proposed disturbance all outside of existing HMP preserves, except those proposed for removal
from preserve?
Response: Areas proposed for disturbance within the hardline will be revegetated with appropriate
native vegetation, typically DCSS.
c) Sheet 3-Lot II:
I. What is 50 foot buffer for?
Response: The 50-foot buffer is the Planning Buffer imposed by the City of Oceanside.
2. HMP preserve to include manufactured slopes-what will these be planted with? Are these
mitigation areas or voluntary? Will the future preserve manager be willing to manage these
manufactured slopes?
Response: Areas proposed for disturbance within the hardline will be revegetated with appropriate
native vegetation, typically DCSS. The preserve manager will manage these slope areas after they have
sufficiently grown in (5 years typical). The developer will manage the revegetation areas until this time.
I PLANNING I I -~~ SYSTEMS II
0
Engineering:
Master Plan
I. Previous comment: On page Vll-3, Figure 43, shows intersection spacing at two locations that
does not meet engineering standards, Intersection spacing variance must be approved by the city
engineer prior to approval of the vehicular circulation plan.
The waiver request has not been approved a,t this time. A revised focused study and review of
alterhative solutions has been requested (see tentative map second review comments dated
January 27, 20I2).
Response: We are aware that a waiver for intersection spacing must be approved. This waiver is
requested based on the fact that the intersection spacing in this location is due to the Planning Department
requirement to avoid travel lanes within the Buena Vista Creek "Planning Buffer" imposed by the City of
Oceanside. Thus, the intersection spacing waiver is beneficial to the protection of the open space planning
buffer.
2. On Figure 43, remove the note: "Haymar has sidewalk on south side only". Show sidewalk on the
north side of Haymar Drive for full pedestrian circulation.
Response: The proposed sidewalk locations are shown on the Master Plan Chapter VII, and on the
VTM Sheet2.
3. On Figure 43, proposed access road to the future off-site development of the adjacent Oceanside
Parcel to the east. This future development is not a part of this project. Traffic generation for this
future development was not included in the traffic report. It is more appropriate to not show this
access road at this time unless the traffic generation is included in the traffic impact analysis.
If water and sewer lines are shown to serve the future off-site development, on page Vll-6, section
7.4 and 7.5; add discussions that any future connections to water and sewer lines to serve future
development within the City of Oceanside will require an agreement between the City of Carlsbad
and the City of Oceanside.
Response: The Planning Department has requested that a conceptual location of vehicular access to
the Oceanside Parcel be included in the Master Plan, so that this option does is not eliminated in the future.
Water and sewer will also be provided from the Quarry Creek development side.
4. On Figure 45, show the existing Quarry Creek Shopping Center lift stations in Oceanside,
However, do not show sewer main connection. Add discussion in section 7.4 that the sewer main
has been designed to handle additional capacity from the existing Quarry Creek Shopping Center
lift stations in Oceanside; however, future connections will need an agreement between the City of
Oceanside and the City of Carlsbad.
Response: The referenced wording has been added on p. VII-6 and on Figure 46 of the revised
Master Plan.
5. On page Vll-6, section 7.4, Sewer Plan, last sentence referring to Figure 44 appears to be in
error. It appears that the correct figure is Figure 45.
Response: This correction has been made and the text now references the correct figure.
6. On page Vll-6, section 7.6, Drainage Plan, should clearly identifY which drainage systems should
remain private, and include discussions regarding perpetual maintenance responsibilities of the
private storm. drain systems.
I PLANNING I
SYSTEMS
Response: A sentence has been added to the Master Plan on p. VII-7 indicating that a number of the
storm drain facilities will be privately maintained. The Master Plan typically does not provide the level of
detail to include specifically which facilities are public and which are private. The VTM does provide the
appropriate notes regarding maintenance responsibility.
7. On Figure 47, identifY all private storm drain systems. Differentiate between public and private
systems using different symbols.
Response: Please see response to comment #6 above.
8. On Figure 46, show two water mains at bridge crossing and the loop system within R-2. Do not
show water main connection to the City of Oceanside.
Response: These changes have been made to Figure 4 7.
9. Revise Figure 17 to show two access points to R-1.
Response: Figure 17 has been revised to show two access points to Planning Area R -1.
10. Previous comment not adequately addressed: On page V-6, under section 5.14.1, in the last
paragraph, state that the Master HOA is responsible for the maintenance of the existing levee
within Buena Vista Creek located in both the City of Carlsbad and the City of Oceanside.
Response: This wording has been changed to include the levee on p. V -6.
11. Previous comment not adequately addressed: The proposed Quarry Creek vehicle circulation
plan should show adjacent existing developments and existing streets beyond the project
boundary lines. Show how the proposed on-site circulation system ties into the existing
circulation system. On Figure 43, show the two main access points to the project, Plaza Drive
and Marron Road. Show the existing Haymar Drive cul-de-sac to the west to indicate that there
will be no project access at this location.
Response: We have modified Figure 44. The surrounding roadways in the vicinity of the subject
project are shown on Master Plan Figure 3.
12. Please comply with all red-lined comments on the Quarry Creek Master Plan report, 3'd draft.
Response: The redlined comments on the Quarry Creek Master Plan have been made.
13. Please return the 3'd red-lined master plan document in the next review submittal.
Response: This redlined document is included with this resubmittal package.
Tentative Map
A) Site Plan:
1) Complete Streets has been identified as a priority for the City of Carlsbad in the City Council
annual goal setting workshop held January 17, 2012. Complete Streets are streets that
accommodate and encourage all modes of transportation not just cars. This also includes the use
of street design to create a sense of place and community through green spaces, medians and
signage. Please show how Quarry Creek street design can satisfy complete street design criteria.
Revise site plan and street cross-sections to show "complete street" features such as green spaces,
signage, medians, bike lanes, pedestrian paths, traffic calming devices, etc ...
lrli ~ps\r~~NN~TE~~~;=jlliiiiiiii •• :::.~~~
0 0
Below are some resources on "complete streets":
http :/lwww. completestreets. orglwebdocs/resources/cs-bestpractices-chapter 5. pdf
http://www. completestreets. org
Response: Please see the updated Master Plan regarding Complete Streets proposed designs starting
on p. VII-4. The VTM has incorporated numerous traffic calming features, such as traffic circles, roadway
neckdowns and mid-block pedestrian crossings. This information is provided both in the Master Plan and
in the VTM.
2) Speeding in residential areas is a major concern for Carlsbad residents. We recommend reviewing
the Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Program, available online at:
http://www. carlsbadca. govlservices/traffic/operations/Documents/CRTMP20 11. pdf
Consideration should be given to the implantation of traffic circles and other traffic calming
devices to create a safer, more walkable community.
Response:
designs.
Please see the VTM and the Master Plan (Chapter VII) for the proposed traffic calming
3) Portions of existing Haymar Drive are located within Parcels 1 & 2 of the relinquishment map
number 15091, relinquished to the City of Carlsbad by Caltrans on November 24, 1967. It is not
clear from available relinquishment documents whether the City owns Parcels 1 and 2 in fee title
or owns public street right-of-way. The relinquishment documents are currently being reviewed by
the city attorney to determine ownership status of the parcel. If Parcels 1 and 2 are street rights-
of-way, excess right-of-way shall be vacated. If the City owns Parcels 1 and 2 in fee title, the
portion in excess of the required RIW for Haymar Drive shall be conveyed to Quarry Creek via a
separate action.
Response: Based on the title research by First American Title Company, the land relinquished by
Cal Trans is owned in fee by the City of Carlsbad (fronting Lots 11 and 15) and owned in fee by the City of
Oceanside (fronting Lot 1). Please see Sheet 10 of the VTM for further details. Portions of land needed in
excess of the right-of-way will be acquired by separate document.
4) The existing Haymar Drive located within Parcels 1 & 2 ofthe relinquishment map number 15091
must be improved to a collector street standard at the project frontage, including along frontages
of open space lots 11 and 15.
Response: Subject to the approved waiver, Haymar Drive is proposed to be improved to a local
street, fronting Lots 1, 2 and 11 and will not be improved fronting Lot 15. Please see Sheet 2 of the VTM
for the street sections in this area.
5) The plan shows a varying right-of-way width for Haymar Drive, from 50 feet to 60 feet between
stations 11+25 to 16+93.14, Please revise to provide a complete 60 foot street right-of-way for
Haymar Drive. Show a standard collector street cross section with complete curb and gutter and
sidewalk on both sides. This may require shifting the proposed street alignment to the south.
Response: Subject to the approved waiver, Haymar Drive's ROW will vary, with a minimum of a 3-
foot wide shoulder along the northerly CalTrans boundary, with full parkway improvements along the
southerly side fronting Lots 1 and 2. Please see Sheeet 2 of the VTM for the street sections in this area.
6) The proposed grading shown on the adjacent property east of lot 1 located within the City of
Oceanside is not a part of this project and must be deleted from the preliminary grading plan.
Please revise preliminary grading plan to show no proposed offsite grading.
lrl ~PL~A~NN~IN~G=-.... .== ••:::::ill
SYSTEMS
·.
Response: A separate grading permit will be obtained from the City of Oceanside for the proposed
offsite grading east ofLot 1, shown on Sheet 3 of the VTM. A note has been added to the VTM to indicate
this requirement. For purposes of the EIR and all other technical studies, the proposed offsite grading and
infrastructure impacts have been included in all technical assessments.
7) The site plan shows proposed sewer and water mains on lot 1 intended to serve the future
development of the adjacent parcel to the east in Oceanside. This future development is not a part
of this project. Any future utilities connections will require agreements between the City of
Carlsbad and the City of Oceanside.
Response: The applicant is aware that any future utility connections on the offsite parcel will require
agreements between the City of Carlsbad and the City of Oceanside. The utility analyses have included the
offsite parcel. The updated Sewer Report has included a statement regarding the required agreement
between the two agencies. The VTM proposes to extend a sewer and water lateral to the easterly boundary
of Lot 1. The proposed EDU's generated from the offsite grading is included in the sewer report for
conveyance capacity.
8) The site plan shows proposed access road to serve future development of the adjacent parcel to
the east of Lot 1. This future development was not included in the traffic impact analysis. If access
road is included as part of this project approval, revise the traffic impact analysis to address
traffic generation of this future off-site development,
Response: The Traffic Report will be updated to include the projected future traffic impacts from the
adjacent offsite parcel to the east of Lot 1.
9) Sheet 3 shows a dashed line labeled "proposed tribal access easement". What is the width of this
easement? Are you proposing an access road or a trail? If so, please show on the plan. ClarifY
who the easement will be granted to, and how access will be controlled,
Response: The VTM has been revised to show a 3-foot wide access easement strip. No specific
access road or trail is being proposed at this time.
10) Please describe (call out sizes and lengths) and label as "Private" all proposed private storm
drain pipes and drainage structures. Clearly differentiate private storm drain system from public
storm drain system by using different symbols. -
Response: The VTM has been updated to call out storm drain sizes and lengths for the proposed
private storm drain mains and sizes for the proposed public storm drain mains. Please see Sheets 3 through
8 of the VTM for this information.
11) On sheet 4, do not show sewer connection to the existing Quarry Creek Shopping Center lift
station in the City of Oceanside, The City of Carlsbad sewer main will be designed to handle
additional capacity from the adjacent shopping center lift station, and will be available to the City
of Oceanside if request for connection is made by the City of Oceanside. Future connections will
require an agreement between the City of Oceanside and the City of Carlsbad. ·
Response: Per our discussions with Bill Plummer, the VTM shows the sewer connection up to the
existing sewer stub in Marron Road, but does not propose to connect until the agreement referenced in this
comment is in place. A note has been added to this effect on the VTM (see Sheet 4) and the Sewer Report.
Sewer flows generated by the shopping center have been included in the sewer analysis for conveyance
capacity purposes.
12) On sheet 4, lot 7 drainage is shown connecting directly into the proposed street storm drain system
without treatment. However, the SWMP report shows an extended detention basin, EDB 2-3-7,
sized as treatment and hydromodification facility for lot 7. Revise lot 7 grading to include the
extended detention basin, EDB 2-3-7 as shown in the SWMP BMP map. II PLANNING II
. . SYSTEMS I ' • 0 0
Response: Sheet 4 of the VTM has been updated to reflect the proposed EDB basin in Lot 5.
13) Previous comment not adequately addressed: Coordinate and obtain approval from City of Vista
for proposed sewer connection at Haymar Drive. Please provide approval letter from City of
Vista.
Response: Per our discussions with Bill Plummer, it has been determined that the City will take the
lead on obtaining the capacity rights from the City of Vista for the proposed sewer connection at Haymar
Drive.
14) As previously requested, provide separation dimensions between utilities (proposed and/or
existing) within Haymar Drive,
Response: The requested dimensions have been added to the revised VTM. Please see Sheet 14.
15) Add a BMP map sheet to the tentative map/site plan, showing all proposed BMP locations and
their dimensions (area (L & W), volume and orifice sizes) as calculated in the SWMP report.
Include a detail of the outlet structure including mechanism to prevent clogging of the proposed
orifices. The BMP map must agree with the SWMP report.
Response: A BMP map has been added to the revised VTM on Sheet 14, as requested.
16) Previous comment not adequately addressed: With the proposed elimination of the westerly
extension of Marron Road from the project site, the project must provide cul-de-sac improvements
at the existing easterly terminus of Marron Road located west of the project site, Show proposed
improvements on the site plan.
Response: A detail for the westerly terminus of Marron Road has been added to the VTM as
requested. This detail is found on Sheet 2 of the VTM.
17) Previous comment not adequately addressed: Coordinate and obtain approval from NCTD for the
design of the proposed Park and Ride facility on lot 6. At a minimum, provide a letter from NCTD
indicating conceptual approval of the size and location of lot 6 as a Park and Ride facility.
Response: We have provided NCTD with all of the information necessary to provide us with a letter.
They are still in the process of reviewing the proposed bus layout and route. We inquire regularly of any
issues or comments they may have. We cannot make them move any faster to provide us with a letter.
18) Comply with all other comments shown on red-lined plan.
Response: So noted. Also, please see the resubmitted redlines with additional responses.
B) Waiver Requests:
19) Staff cannot support the waiver request to allow existing overhead power lines to remain from
Street B to the west. Per comment number 2 above, standard frontage improvements, including
undergrounding of utilities, are required across lots 11 and 15 frontages.
Response: The existing overhead utilities along the frontage of Lot 11 will be undergrounded by the
developer. No undergrounding is proposed along Lot 15 frontage. This is because the property abutting
Haymar Drive in front of Lot 15 is City property.
20) Staff can support the waiver request not to construct benches and terrace drains in slopes in
accordance with city standard drawing GS-14 as recommended in the December 19, 2012 from
the soils engineer. II PLANNING II
. SYSTEMS I ••. if!
0 0
Response: OK.
2I) Staff can support the waiver request not to construct benches and terrace drains in slopes in
accordance with city standard drawing GS-I4 and to reduce grading setback from the property
lines of lot I2 from I 0 feet to 2 feet or zero setback. The slopes must be constructed in accordance
with recommendations December 20, 20 I2 letter from the soil's engineer.
Response: OK.
22) The waiver request to allow 240 feet separation distance between intersections is not supported at
this time. The traffic volume (ADT) used in the focused traffic study evaluating the adequacy of
240 feet intersection separation distance along Street B between Street A and Marron Road
appears low, and is inconsistent with the Quarry Creek Traffic Impact Analysis. The traffic
distribution percentages are also incorrect, Consider use of alternative devices such as traffic
circles. The project engineer can set up a meeting with Bryan Jones, the Deputy Transportation
Director, to discuss options.
The focused traffic study is recommending that the "tee intersections at Marron Road and Street B
to be controlled with stop signs at all approaches. " Please include this information on the
tentative map/site plan. Show all stop signs on the plan as recommended by the traffic engineer.
Response: Please see the updated Master Plan Chapter VII for the incorporation of Complete Streets
and proposed traffic calming measure to be included in the design of the roadways in the community.
C) Hydrology Report:
23) The points of compliance (POCs) identified in the hydrology report do not match the POCs in
SCCWRP report by Chang Consultants.
Response: The POC's in the PDC Hydrology Report have been updated to match the SCCWRP
report by Wayne Chang.
24) Please comply with some minor comments in the hydrology report.
Response: Please see the updated report for revisions to the minor comments.
D) SWMP Report:
25) Please provide a drainage basin map to showing the locations of drainage basins I to 4 and its
sub-basins mentioned in the SWMP report. The third paragraph on page 4 refers to the exhibit in
Appendix Efor locations of drainage basins. However, the Storm Water Management Exhibit
found in Appendix E includes only the DMAs, lMPs/BMPs exhibits but not the drainage basins.
Response: The appropriate changes have been made to the SWMP Report.
26) The SWMP exhibit in Appendix E must include a summary table that shows the required sizes of
each of the proposed IMP 5/BMPs, including the. length, width, orifice diameter, and details of the
outlet structures, including mechanism to avoid orifice clogging. A full size SWMP exhibit must be
added to the tentative map/site plan.
Response: The requested changes have been made in the SWMP. A full size SWMP exhibit has
been added as Sheet 14 ofthe VTM.
27) The points of compliance (POC5) in the SWMP report do not match the POCs in the SCCWRP
analysis. I PLANNING I I .I
~~S~Y~ST~E~M~S~~~~~~~~
-
Response: The POC's have been updated to match the SCCWRP report.
E) SCCWRP Analysis:
28) Engineering has no additional comment.
F) Hydraulic and Scour Analysis:
29) Engineering has no additional comment.
G) Sewer Stuciv:
30) The study is currently being reviewed by Utilities Engineering. Comments will follow.
Response: A revised sewer study is being submitted with this resubmittal package.
H) Water StucJv:
31) The study is currently being reviewed by Utilities Engineering. Comments will follow,
Response: A revised water study is being submitted with this resubmittal package.
1) LFMP:
32) The study is currently being reviewed by Utilities Engineering. Comments will follow.
Response: A revised LFMP is being submitted with this resubmittal package.
J) Traffic report:
33) Please comply with the attached comments from Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. the third party
reviewer. Please note that due to some fundamental shortcomings in the report, a detailed review
was not performed at this time. Additional extensive comments are anticipated in the next review.
Response: The revised Traffic Report is undergoing revision and is not being resubmitted with this
resubmittal package.
34) The TIA should include evaluation of near-term plus project condition for the four street network
alternatives,
Response: Please see response to issue #33.
35) The tentative map shows vehicular access road to serve the future development of the adjacent
Oceanside Parcel to the east. Please revise the traffic impact report to include an assumed traffic
generation of this future development. Coordinate with the City of Oceanside and obtain accurate
land use for the site.
Response: Please see response to issue #33.
36) Please ensure that the input data and parameters in the LOS worksheets are correct and
consistent with the City of Carlsbad and the City of Oceanside design criteria. Verify lane
configurations, lane group, peaking factor, phasing, timing, etc. Several inconsistencies were
found in the current version of the TIA report.
Response: Please see response to issue #33. I PLANNING I ••I SYSTEMS
3 7) Please ensure that the results shown in the summary tables and figures match LOS results from
the worksheets. Inconsistencies were found in the current version of the TIA report.
Response:
K) Resubmittal:
38) Please return all redlined documents and plans to facilitate further review.
Response: All redlines are being returned with this resubmittal package.
LANDSCAPE
Please make the following revisions to the master plan so that it will meet the requirements of the
City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual.
REPEAT COMMENTS
1. Completed. The large landscape slope will provide adequate landscape buffers along Haymar
Dr.
2-9 Completed.
10, 6.4.1-Entry Treatments and Signage, Page Vl-6: Please provide conceptual sketches of the
Community Entry Monumentation with landscaping to clarifY scale, materials and design. 2nd
Review: Figure 37: Please provide additional detailing in the "Entry A" and "Entry B"
conceptual layouts showing the approximate proposed size of the area and conceptual layout of
the planting areas. More information is needed in order to establish direction and desires, 3'd
Review: The applicant has responded: "Inasmuch as the entry monumentation design is very .
important to the project applicant, it will take a little longer to provide this information, We are
hopeful that the design of the entry treatments will not holdup the processing of the Master Plan."
Please address the comment.
Response: This information will be forthcoming as the process proceeds.
11-27 Completed.
28. 6.4.6.3-Production Fencing, Page Vl-17: Please provide conceptual sketches of the production
fencing to clarifY scale, materials and design. ClarifY where non-combustible fencing will be
required when located adjacent to fire suppression zones. 2nd Review: The applicant has
responded: "The revised Master Plan stipulates that wood fencing shall not be used within fire
suppression zones on p. Vl-37, No conceptual sketches of the wood fencing have been provided in
the Master Plan. "
Please provide a conceptual sketch of the wood fencing. 3'd Review: The applicant has responded:
"The applicant believes that it is not necessary or productive to include sketches of wood fencing
to be installed between the residential lots in a master plan. No determination on the details of the
wood fencing has been made at this time, "
If not to be addressed at this stage then please clarifY that fencing design will be provided at the
conceptual planning stage and shall be subject to City approval.
Response: The applicant acknowledges that fencing design will be provided at the conceptual
planning stage and shall be subject to City approval. II~~:' t .1•11
29-31
JA-5A
6A,
Completed.
Completed.
Figure 42: Please delete invasive species from the plant legend (i.e. Echium). Check all plants
against the California Invasive Plant Inventory as published by the California Invasive Plant
Council. 3'd Review: Please address the comment.
Response: We will delete Echium and any other invasive plants on the final landscape plans for the
area. Note that a note is placed on Figure 43 directing that "The plantings on these slopes shall not include
any plants identified on the current List A and List B of the California Exotic Plant Council's List of Exotic
Plants of Greatest Ecological Concern in California."
7 A. Figure 33: The Master Plan proposes a 5 'parkway for Streets A and B. When the curb width is
subtracted there is a width of 4. 5' of planting area. Large trees (i.e. Platanus racemosa and
Quercus agrifolia, etc.) are listed as proposed street trees in these parkways. These large trees
will ultimately create problems for the adjacent curb and walks. The parkway width needs to be
increased or the tree species revised to coordinate. Please resolve insuring plant species
selections are af!.ropriate for the landscape widths provided. Check all plant lists to insure
coordination. 3' Review: The applicant has responded: "Large trees have been eliminated from
the plant list for the collector roads Streets 'A ' and 'B '. Large trees remain on the plant list for
Marron and Haymar, since the plantable area for those streets is larger."
The Master Plan is confusing since it still lists large trees (i.e. Quercus agri'folia) for collector
Streets 'A' and 'B'. These streets have parkway landscape widths of 4.5'. Please clarifY and
distinguish between different species to be used in different parkway widths. Please clarifY. that
street tree selection shall be as approved in the City of Carlsbad Community Forest Management
Plan, Chapter 6, Tree Selection. Insure the Master plan lists in all sections follow these
selections.
Response: These changes have been made, as requested.
8A-12A Completed.
13A, Figure 40: It is not clear why a view fence is proposed along the north side of R-1 and R-2. There
will be traffic noise from highway 78 and views may not be desirable. Please review/explain.
Please clarifY where tubular steel view fencing versus sound/view wall and solid block walls are
to be used. 3rd Review: The applicant has responded: "Solid view fencing will be used only to
attenuate noise if the EIR determines that noise wall mitigation is required. The EIR analysis will
begin in January. We have estimated the locations of the fencing at this preliminary stge. We will
finalize the location of solid view fencing after the EIR analysis has been conducted. "
Please clarifY in the MCfster Plan.
Response:
the Final EIR.
The final draft Master Plan will reflect the findings and mitigation measures articulated in
14A. Figure 40: Fencing along Streets B and C may need to be reviewed with the submittal of the
conceptual landscape plans of the appropriate tentative map submittal. Please review/address.
3'd Review: The applicant has responded: "We anticipate that fencing and other design aspects
within neighborhoods will be addressed with site plan review of those development plans. It is not
feasible at this early stage to design and provide materials for all of the planning areas. This will
be accomplished with the "B-Maps ". " Please address the final review process of these areas in
the Master Plan. If already addressed, please indicate where.
Response: The 'ite pion ond building layom entitlement review proce" ;, artin~=· ":1•11
0 0
of the Master Plan.
15A-16A Completed
Please make the following revisions to the Tentative Map Conceptual Landscape plans so that it
will meet the requirements of the City ofCarlsbad's Landscape Manual.
Numbers below are referenced on the red line plans where appropriate for ease in locating the
area of the comment concern.
REPEAT COMMENTS
1. Please note that the Quarry Creek Master Plan is currently under review by city staff and is not
yet approved Final comments are reserved pending completion and approval of the Quarry
Creek Master Plan.
Response: This is acknowledged by the applicant.
2. Please clearly label the Carlsbad/Oceanside city limit lines, property lines and easements on all
appropriate sheets. Insure no trees are located within easements.
Response: The revised conceptual landscape plans show the city boundaries and easements. Trees
have been eliminated from easement areas.
3. Please address landscaping of all slopes. Check all sheets and all areas.
Response: All slope areas have been landscaped on the revised plans.
4. Completed
5. Please select street trees from the tree selection list provided in the City of Carlsbad Community
Forest Management Plan. Insure appropriate species as determined by the parkway widths. 2nd
Review: Please provide a cross section that specifies the parkway width for Haymar and Street
'C '. Insure appropriate tree species selections to fit the space. Indicate street tree selection for
Street 'C'.
Response: The street cross sections with the requested information are shown on Sheet 9 of the
Landscape Plans.
6. Completed
7. Generally identifY all existing woo~ plant material to be removed or retained Trees over 12" in
caliper diameter shall be identified on the plan individually as to caliper size and type and
labeled to be retained or removed, 2nd Review: Please indicate if these trees are to be removed or
to remain.
Response: The existing tree survey including sizes are shown on Sheet 14 of the Landscape Plans.
8. Completed
9. Please obtain review and approval for all trails from Liz Ketabian in Recreation Administration.
2nd Review: The applicant has responded: "We are hopeful that one of the 7 sets of submitted
plans would be routed to Ms. Ketabian for her comments. " The planner for the project has
indicated that one set has been forwarded to Ms. Ketabian. Any review comments will be
forwarded to the applicant.
I PLANNING I ••J SYSTEMS
0 0
Response: We await any comments from Ms. Ketabian.
10. Completed
11. Landscape elements over 30" in height (including planting measured at maturity) are not
allowed at street corners within a triangular zone drawn from two points, 25' outward from the
beginning of curves and end of curves. (See Appendix C.4). In addition to the requirement above,
on collector streets and greater, Cal Trans Sight Distance Standards shall apply to the height
restriction stated Please clearly label 25' vehicular sight triangles and show and label all Cal
Trans sight lines and address plantings within these areas. 2" Review: The applicant has
responded: "Sight distance lines have been added at all corners. Notes have been added that all
shrubs in these areas shall be no higher than 30-inches in height. " I see no reference to plant
sizes where located within vehicular sight lines and CalTrans sight lines do not appear to be
shown. Please address.
Response: We apparently still have .not accomplished this task. We will ensure that the CalTrans
sight line and the note are placed on the final set of conceptual plans.
12-13 Completed.
14. Please explain why the entire Lot 8 park area is proposed for potable water use. 2"' Review:
Please revise the note to indicate only the pool area as potable water use.
Response: The requested note has been added to Sheet 7 of the Landscape Plans.
15-19 Completed.
20. Maintenance of fire protection zones does not appear to be defined on the plans. Please address.
2nd Review: The applicant has responded: "This information has been added to Sheet 3. "
Maintenance notes were not found Please address.
Response: The maintenance of the fire protection zones is indicated on revised Sheet 3.
21-22 Completed
23. Please provide typical details of the view and other fencing, pedestrian trail, sidewalk overlook,
trail overlook, bench seating area and shade trellis. 2"" Review: Details have been provided;
however they show minimal amenities and lack interest. Please review the incorporation of
additional amenities and more interesting design (i.e. Lot 9 trail might connect the 2 overlooks to
allow users a loop rather than walking in and out on the same trail; addition of exercise stations,
picnic tables, trash containers, dog waste disposal units; etc.) (review potential for enhancement
of bridge overlook areas).
Response: The requested details have been shown on Sheets 7 and II of the Landscape Plans.
24. Please list the amenities and provide conceptual detailing of the passive recreation areas. 2nd
Review: Amenities seem minimal. Please explore options for additional amenities.
Response: The amenities are shown on Sheet 7.
25. RETURN REDLINES and provide 2 copies of all plans (concept, water conservation, fire
protection, and water use plan) for the next submittal.
Response: Redlines are being returned with this resubmittal package.
.I PLANNING I •• , 'I SYSTEMS
0 0
NEW COMMENTS
/A. Please correct the sheet number.
Response: The sheet number has been corrected in the revised Landscape Plan set.
2A. Prints are very light and difficult to read Please provide darker prints for the next submittal.
Response: The attached set of prints are darker.
3A Please provide appropriate conceptual design for the entry monumentation (I.e. sections,
elevations, materials, etc.)
Response: Entry monumentation details have not yet been prepared. We are still at the planning
stage of the project.
Please provide the attached information to the EIR consultant for their review. Please let us know if you
wish to meet to discuss any of the items in this resubmittal package.
s~~J~
Paul J. Klukas
Director of Planning
cc: Todd Galarneau
Don Mitchell
Enclosures
I PLANNING I I -~~ SYSTEMS !j
-
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Matthew Rodriquez
Secretary for
Environmental Protection
March 15, 2012
Mr. Van Lynch
Deborah 0. Raphael, Director
5796 Corporate Avenue
Cypress, California 90630
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Governor
CITY OF CARLSBAD 1
MAR 2 0 2012
PlANNING DEPARTMENT
NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) FOR QUARRY CREEK MASTER PLAN
(SCH# 2012021 039)
Dear Mr. Lynch:
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted
Notice of Preparation Report for the above-mentioned project. The Quarry Creek
Master Plan project consists of a 656 unit residential development on a 156 acre site
which is divided by the Buena Vista Creek valley. High density residential (306 unites at
120 units per acre minimum density) is proposed on the northerly side of Buena Vista
Creek and residential medium to medium high density (200 units at 12 units per acre
minimum) is proposed on the southerly side of the creek".
Based on the review of the submitted document DTSC has the following comments:
1) The EIR should evaluate whether conditions within the project area may pose a
threat to human health or the environment. Following are the databases of some
of the regulatory agencies:
• National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA).
• Envirostor (formerly Cal Sites): A Database primarily used by the California
Department of Toxic Substances Control, accessible through DTSC's
website (see below).
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS): A
database of RCRA facilities that is maintained by U.S. EPA.
• Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability
Information System (CERCUS): A database of CERCLA sites that is
maintained by U.S.EPA.
Mr. Van Lynch
March 15, 2012
Page 2
• Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database provided by the
California Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both
open as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and
transfer stations.
• GeoTracker: A List that is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control
Boards.
• Local Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup
sites and leaking underground storage tanks.
• The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard,
Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213) 452-3908, maintains a list of
Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS).
2) The EIR should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation
and/or remediation for any site that may be contaminated, and the government
agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If necessary, DTSC would
require an oversight agreement in order to review such documents.
3) Any environmental investigations, sampling and/or remediation for a site should
be conducted under a Workplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency
that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. The findings of
any investigations, including any Phase I or II Environmental Site Assessment
Investigations should be summarized in the document. All sampling results in
which hazardous substances were found above regulatory standards should be
clearly summarized in a table. All closure, certification or remediation approval
reports by regulatory agencies should be included in the EIR.
4) If buildings, other structures, asphalt or concrete-paved surface areas are being
planned to be demolished, an investigation should also be conducted for the
presence of other hazardous chemicals, mercury, and asbestos containing
materials (ACMs). If other hazardous chemicals, lead-based paints (LPB) or
products, mercury or ACMs are identified, proper precautions should be taken
during demolition activities. Additionally, the contaminants should be remediated
in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies.
5) Future project construction may require soil excavation or filling in certain areas.
Sampling may be required. If soil is contaminated, it must be properly disposed
and not simply placed in another location onsite. Land Disposal Restrictions
(LDRs) may be applicable to such soils. Also, if the project proposes to import
soil to backfill the areas excavated, sampling should be conducted to ensure that
the imported soil is free of contamination.
Mr. Van Lynch
March 15, 2012
Page 3
6) Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected
during any construction or demolition activities. If necessary, a health risk
assessment overseen and approved by the appropriate government agency
should be conducted by a qualified health risk assessor to determine if there are,
have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may pose a risk
to human health or the environment.
7) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the
proposed operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the
California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code,
Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations
(California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5). If it is determined that
hazardous wastes will be generated, the facility should also obtain a United
States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number by contacting
(800) 618-6942. Certain hazardous waste treatment processes or hazardous
materials, handling, storage or uses may require authorization from the local
Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Information about the requirement for
authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA.
8) DTSC can provide cleanup oversight through an Environmental Oversight
Agreement (EOA) for government agencies that are not responsible parties, or a
Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VCA) for private parties. For additional
information on the EOA or VCA, please see
www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCieanup/Brownfields, or contact Ms. Maryam Tasnif-
Abbasi, DTSC's Voluntary Cleanup Coordinator, at (714) 484-5489.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at
ashami@dtsc.ca.gov, or by phone at (714) 484-5472.
ami
Project Manager
Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program
cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, California 95812-3044
state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov
Mr. Van Lynch
March 15, 2012
Page4
CEQA Tracking Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Office of Environmental Planning and Analysis
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, California 95812
nritter@dtsc.ca.gov.
CEQA#3476
Van Lynch
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
c
Van Lynch
Thursday, March 01, 2012 7:57AM
penny
RE: quarry creek
EIR1102.vl.pdf
Ms, Johnson, The build out projections for the Quarry Creek site has been 167 units based on the Existing General Plan
Land Use designation of Residential Low Medium (RLM). Last year, the City Council identified the site as a location that
the City could partially fulfill our Regional Housing Needs Allocation as defined by the State . During the City General
Plan Housing Element update, the 100 acre portion of the Quarry Creek site (old Quarry) was allocated 506 dwelling
units to meet this need. The project is a total of 156 acres and has additional development potential. The project is
preserving 87 acres of open space.
Also adopted in 2004 was the Habitat Management Plan (HMP). Under the HMP, the Quarry creek property was given
a specific number of acres of habitat to preserve (referenced as a "hardline area"). The project proposes to provide
roughly six additional acres of open space than identified in the HMP. An Open Space and Trails Ad Hoc Citizen's
Advisory Committee did review a variety of properties for open space acquisition. The properties selected were of
better habitat value and connected with existing open space areas to provide for a better comprehensive open space
plan. The Quarry site owner was not a willing seller. Additional properties in Carlsbad have been and are in the
process of being purchased for mitigation land and preserved as open space.
The city will be holding a Scoping Meeting for the preparation of an EIR for the Quarry Creek Master Plan tonight. I've
attached a copy of the notice in the event you would like to attend or to comment on the Notice of Preparation.
Sincerely,
Van Lynch
Senior Planner
1635 Faraday Av
Carlsbad CA 92008
T (760) 602-4613
F (760) 602-8559
van.lynch@carlsbadca.gov
www .ca rlsbadca.gov
'~ \~C ~CITY Oi
CARLSBAD
From: penny [mailto:pennyofcbad@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 12:18 PM
To: Van Lynch
Subject: quarry creek
Questions of concern : what ever happened to the general plan that gave a niumber of 150 for build out homes ? Why is
the # 1 opoen space area of concern to be saved of no interest to the city council and planners? Why ask about open
space if you have no intention of honoring it as the #1 area you citizens want saved. It is a big stretch from open space to
over 650 homes. Penny Johnson
1
Van Lynch
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
c
andesite1 @aol.com
Thursday, March 01, 2012 5:39 PM
Van Lynch
Quarry creek
Make sure you warn the planners about the cancer cluster around Hope elementary! Which is next to the Quarry-soil
contamination?
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
1
-
Van Lynch
From: Van Lynch
Sent:
To:
Monday, February 27, 2012 9:27AM
'William Tayrien'
Subject: RE: EIR 11-02-Quarry Creek master Plan EIR
Mr. Tayrien, Thank you for the comment. It is as you've noticed inaccurate. The statement should be: u The project
proposes to eliminate Marron Road from the Circulation Element such that Marron Road would not be completed within
the Buena Vista Creek Ecological Preserve between El Camino and from the western terminus of Marron Rd, westerly of
College Blvd." I hope this clears up the statement.
Sincerely,
Van Lynch
Senior Planner
1635 Faraday Av
Carlsbad CA 92008
T (760) 602-4613
F (760) 602-8559
van.lynch@carlsbadca.gov
www.carlsbadca.gov
<"-~ ~CIT\/ Of
CARLSBAD
From: William Tayrien [mailto:william.tayrien@kohls.com]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 9:08AM
To: Van Lynch
Subject: EIR 11-02 -Quarry Creek master Plan EIR
Mr. Lynch,
As the Store manager of Kohl's in Oceanside, I have been copied by Kohl's Corporate on the Public Notice Of
Preparation and Public Scoping Meeting.
I am attempting to understand the following statement:
"The project proposes to eliminate Marron Road from the Circulation Element such that Marron Road would
not be completed within the Buena Vista Creek Ecological Preserve between El Camino and College Blvd."
Our location is located on Marron Road in between El Camino Real and College Blvd.
Thank you,
1
SM700 c
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This is a transmission from Kohl's Department Stores, Inc.
and may contain information which is confidential and proprietary.
If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution or use of the contents of this message is
expressly prohibited.
If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy it and notify us immediately at 262-703-7000.
CAUTION:
Internet and e-mail communications are Kohl's property and Kohl's reserves the right to retrieve and read any
message created, sent and received. Kohl's reserves the right to monitor messages by authorized Kohl's
Associates at any time
without any further consent.
2
(~~ CITY OF
~CARLSBAD
c -
Memorandum
February 17, 2012
To: Marina Wurst, Project Design Consultants
From: Glen Van Peski, City Engineer
Re: CT 11-04 Quarry Creek
Haymar Drive Frontage Improvements
Your February 13, 2012 memo requested that the existing street improvements on Haymar
Drive (approximately 34 feet of paving) be considered as adequate improvements, and that the
Quarry Creek project not be conditioned to construct standard 'half street plus 12'
improvements to Haymar Drive west of Street B (across proposed open space lots 11 and 15).
Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) 20.16.040 requires that:
The subdivider grade and improve or agree to grade and improve all/and dedicated or to
be dedicated for streets or easements, bicycle routes and all private streets and private
easements laid out on a final map or parcel map in such manner and with such
improvements as are necessary for the use of the lot owners in the subdivision and local
neighborhood traffic and drainage needs ...
This is commonly applied as requiring half street improvements across a project's street
frontage. In this particular case, road improvements to Haymar west of Street Bare not
necessary for the residents of the Quarry Creek project. Since Haymar is a cul-de-sac, the
improvements are also not needed for general neighborhood circulation.
Other factors include:
Environmental considerations
Widening Haymar Drive west of Street B will require additional grading in sensitive habitat, and
additional pavement will create new impervious surface, triggering hydromodification
requirements.
Development potential
The development potential of the property west of Street B is limited under current General
Plan and Zoning restrictions to approximately 9 dwelling units. When the property develops, it
may make sense to vacate portions of existing city right-of-way for Haymar Drive and allow that
property to be incorporated into the underlying fee ownerships. Without a specific
Community & Economic Development
1635 Faraday Ave. I Carlsbad, CA 92008 I 760-602-2710 I 760-602-8560 fax I www.carlsbadca.gov
Quarry Creek
Feb. 17,2012
Page 2
development proposal at this time, there is no need to require specific street improvements
that may prove to be incompatible with future designs.
For the reasons cited, it is acceptable to show no improvements to Haymar Drive adjacent to
the proposed lot 15 on the vesting tentative map. However, since the project is grading and
developing lot 11, Haymar Drive should be improved across the frontage of lot 11, with a
modified local street: 34 feet curb-to-curb, non-contiguous sidewalk on the south side in a 13-
foot parkway, north curb face a minimum of 3 feet from the CaiTrans right of way or fence,
whichever is closest to the road.
cc: Don Mitchell, McMillin Development
Tecla Levy, Associate Engineer
Van Lynch, Senior Planner
Bryan Jones, Deputy Transportation Director
Van Lynch
From:
Sent:
To:
c
Christine Asiata <Christine.Asiata@OPR. CA. GOV>
Thursday, February 16, 2012 2:12PM
Van Lynch
0
Subject: RE: NOP for EIR 11-02-Quarry Creek Master Plan EIR
Thank you so much Van, yes, you answered all my questions. Your NOP will go out for tomorrow and the review period
will also start tomorrow and will end 30 days from tomorrow's date.
Appreciate your quick response.
Cfiristine }lsiata 1{pariguez
go-vernor's Office ojPfanning ancf~searcfi
State Cfearingfwuse
CJ'.O. (Bo.t3044
Sacramento, CJl 95812
916 445-0613
'F~· 916 323-3018
From: Van Lynch [mailto:Van.Lynch@carlsbadca.gov]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:58PM
To: Christine Asiata
Subject: RE: NOP for EIR 11-02-Quarry Creek Master Plan EIR
Christine, Yes, this is the actual NOP. The project does require state review. This project has not come before State
Clearinghouse for distribution prior to this notice. This is a new projec_t. The "South Coast Quarry Reclamation Plan
SCH# 2005111124" was a prior project I referenced as it is on the same site. This project is the post reclamation project.
Hope this explains what you need. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Sincerely,
Van Lynch
Senior Planner
1635 Faraday Av
Carlsbad CA 92008
T (760) 602-4613
F (760) 602-8559
van.lynch@carlsbadca.gov
www.carlsbadca.gov
,.~,, \~ '.i.:' !•
~ crrr or
CARLSBAD
From: Christine Asiata [mailto:Christine.Asiata@OPR.CA.GOV]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:45 PM
1
To: Van Lynch c
Subject: NOP for EIR 11-02 -Quarry Creek Master Plan EIR
Hi Van,
The State Clearinghouse received the Public Notice of Preparation and Public Scoping Meeting today for the above mentioned
project. We wanted to confirm if this is the actual NOP? And if this project requires state review? And if it has ever came to the
State Clearinghouse for distribution prior to this notice? In the notice it mentioned "South Coast Quarry Reclamation Plan SCH#
2005111124.
Please advise us if this is your NOP notice so that we may move forward and circulate this out to state agencies for review.
Thank You.
Cliristine }lsiata CR.9ariguez
(jO'fJemor's Office of cpfanni1lfJ ana C]?ssearcli
State CCeari11fJiiouse
cp,o. (]3oJ(3044
Sacramento, CJl95812
916 445-0613
Pa.x:; 916 323-3018
2
Van Lynch
From:
Sent:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
0
Van Lynch
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 3:07PM
Van Lynch; Todd Galarneau
0
Quarry Creek Master Plan Notice of Preparation and Public Notice of Scoping Meeting
EIR11 02.vl.pdf
Please find attached the Quarry Creek Master Plan Notice of Preparation and Public Scoping Meeting for the
preparation of the Quarry Creek Master Plan Enviromnentallmpact Report.
Sincerely,
Van Lynch
Senior Planner
1635 Faraday Av
Carlsbad CA 92008
T (760) 602-4613
F (760) 602-8559
van.lynch@carlsbadca.gov
www.ca rlsbadca .gov
-~~ ~ .... ,
~ CITY Of
CARLSBAD
1
0
Van Lynch
From:
Sent:
Todd Galarneau <TGalarneau@mcmillin.com>
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 2:49PM
To: Van Lynch
Cc: 'Paul Klukas'
Subject: Email list of stakeholders
'bruce.coons@SOHOsandiego.org
cjmojado@slrmissionindians.org
''diane@preservecalavera.org'
'donchristiansen@pacbell. net'
'melvern@aol.com'
'lopezkeifer@gmail.com'
'adobegal@sbcglobal. net'
'joanherskowitz@yahoo.com' -~L F/411..f:if;:, 'tO ~,,;§,t
'pdecino@hotmail.com'
'jdhuckabay@sbcglobal. net'
'jhittleman@ci.oceanside.ca.us'
'dandd2@peoplepc.com'
0
'tomgibbs26@yahoo.com'
Jonathan.spp-cook@fws.gov -AAt~t~T~ 1o~!-''fHJ.A}.~r,'/>-t.~J~tp/LIFevf.(;o,} {_r,.,J'#f Filt,~&.t> liP~,
karen. merrill@att. net
Todd Galarneau, Senior Vice President
The Corky McMillin Companies
P.O. Box 85104, San Diego, CA 92186-5104
P: (619) 794-1204
T galameau@mcmillin.com
Please note my telephone number change effective 7/15/11
1
,,-;, \\'l--
• _df~ CITY OF
VcARLSBAD
c 0 FILE COPY
Planning Division
January 31, 2012
Todd Galarneau
Quarry Creek Investors LLC
2750 Womble Rd
San Diego CA 92106
www.carlsbadca.gov
SUBJECT: 3rd REVIEW FOR QUARRY CREEK MASTER PLAN -GPA 11-09/ZC 11-04/MP 10-01/CT 11-
04/SUP 11-04/HMP 11-07 /HOP 11-04
The City has completed another review of your General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Master Plan, Vesting
Tentative Subdivision Map, Special Use Permit, Habitat Management Plan Permit, and Hillside Development
Permit, applications no. GPA 11-09, ZC 11-04, MP 10-01, CT 11-04, SUP 11-04, HMP 11-07, and HOP 11-04.
Please find attached a list of items that need to be addressed.
The City asks that you provide five (5) complete sets of the revised development plans, Master Plan and
Traffic Impact Analysis and four (4) copies of all other technical studies so that the project can continue to be
reviewed.
In order to expedite the processing of your application, you are strongly encouraged to contact your Staff
Planner, Van Lynch, at (760) 602-4613, to discuss or to schedule a meeting to discuss your application and to
completely understand this letter. You may also contact each commenting department individually as
follows:
• Land Development Engineering Division: Tecla Levy, Associate Engineer, at (760) 602-2733.
• Fire Department: Fire Inspections, at (760) 602-4661.
Sincerely,
CHRIS DeCERBO
Principal Planner
CD:VL:bd
c: Hansen Aggregates Pacific Southwest, Inc, P.O. Box 639069, San Diego CA 92163-9069
Planning Systems, Paul Klukas, 1530 Faraday Av, Suite 100, Carlsbad CA 92008
Don Neu, Planning Director
Tecla Levy, Project·Engineer
Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner
File Copy
Data Entry
T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559
,, ..........
GPA 11-09/ZC 11-04/MP 10-01)'a 11-04/SUP 11-04/HMP 11-07/HDP 11-04 -"t:fuARRY CREEK MASTER PLAN
January 31, 2012
Pa e 2
ISSUES OF CONCERN
Planning:
1. The Intersection Spacing on Street B, Quarry Creek Master Plan study, does not address the
minimum intersection spacing potential. The study suggests that 200 feet curb to curb is "more than
adequate" and implies the distance could be reduced. Planning is asking that Street A be moved
southerly 25 feet to remove the roadway from the Planning Buffer (curb line at Planning Buffer edge
to keep the roadway out of the buffer).
2. Please verify who the applicant is on the application and correct all documents to reflect the
applicant (McMillin Real Estate Services, L.P. (per State of California) vs McMillin Real Estate Services
llC (disclosure statement) vs Quarry Creek Investors, llC (plans)).
3. Please provide a constraints map with slope analysis and slope profiles per Section 21.95.110,
Hillside Development Regulations, of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
4. Comments on the Master Plan have been provided vi~ a marked up copy of the plan. Following are
some specific comments regarding the Master Plan:
a. On Page 11-18, Table H, land Use Summary Table, please revise the table to reflect 306 dwelling
units at a density of Residential High. In the footnotes of Table H, each respective planning area
will need to meet the requisite density minimums. No averaging between planning areas to
achieve the overall density numbers will be allowed. The Planning Areas that would potentially
develop under the requisite density individually would not qualify as affordable housing units
per the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) even though the total average may meet
the minimum density. This is also consistent with Section 5.3.2 of the Master Plan. Please
review other text, tables and figures to reflect the correct numbers (i.e. each respective PA,
Table I and Figure 12).
b. On page IV-7, Figure 16, please identify the remnant Open Space area in the northeast corner of
R-1 and what is to become of this area. The existing improvements (pump stations?) should be
identified as existing uses and permitted by the Master Plan.
c. Section 5.2 should reference Table I.
d. Street "A" is shown to encroach into the "Planning Buffer" near its intersection with Street "B".
Please move Street "A" 30 feet southerly to remove it from the planning buffer. The project is
already required to process a standards deviation for the reduced intersection spacing.
e. On Page Vll-3, Figure 43, the street section for a "local Street" does not match that as shown in
the Vesting Tentative Map. Please compare the parkway widths.
f. On Figure 45, please identify the offsite sewer lift station described in Section 7.4 (Quarry Creek
Shopping Center lift station).
5. Vesting Tentative Map comments:
a. Please revise the vicinity map to include more Major streets. Please refer to the landscape Plans
vicinity map as an example.
b. On the title page, sheet 1, General Notes, please change Planning Director to City Planner.
c. Please move Street A along lots 9 and 12 southerly to eliminate/reduce the retaining wall
heights.
d. Please coordinate with Hansen Aggregates regarding the proposed recordation of the Tribal
Access Easement and levee maintenance easement in conjunction with the proposed
Conservation Easement presently being reviewed for recordation. The easement rights for the
GPA 11-09/ZC 11-04/MP 10-05'2 11-04/SUP 11-04/HMP 11-07/HDP 11-04 QARRY CREEK MASTER PLAN
January 31, 2012
Pa e 3
tribe and flood management have already been incorporated in the Reclamation Plan
conservation easement.
e. Please show the retaining walls along the northerly portion of Lot 9 and 12 to be a plantable
wall. This is to reduce any visual impacts of the walls.
f. Please provide for the access trails on Lot 9 to loop and interconnect. There will be a natural
tendency for these to interconnect and a connection should be provided. Also, please review
the possibility of the easterly trail accessing the ridgeline to a viewpoint as views could be had in
both easterly and westerly directions.
g. Provisions should be made for a future trail easement to the west to connect to the Buena Vista
Ecological Preserve. This will need to be coordinated with the CDF&G.
6. Zone 25 Local Facilities Management Plan.
a. Comments on the LFMP have been provided via a marked up copy of the plan. Staff will confirm
the number of persons per household to use for the facilities calculations.
b. Please review the size (acreage) of the Robertson Ranch ball fields in Table 19, Park District 2
Buildout Future Parks on Page 34. The Parks and Recreation Department reports that the park
size is 13.2 acres.
7. Comments on Quarry Creek Master Plan Biological Technical Report (dated 10/20/11)
Plan Comments:
a. Proposed revisions to HMP Hardline Preserve boundary require processing and approval of a
HMP Equivalency Finding, including an analysis of the changes in acreage by vegetation
community and quality of each community. Please see page E-3 of the HMP for more
information.
b. All HMP long term management requirements must be satisfied and secured prior to any project
impacts, not per schedule shown on page 3.
c. Street "A" is adjacent to CDFG's Buena Vista Creek Ecological Reserve-are adjacency standards
proposed? See Section 5.2.4-not enough detail provided.
d. Brush management zone for Lot 5 not shown on Figure 8-is this included in impacts area?
e. Table 8 -categories not consistent with HMP Habitat Groups, (e.g. CSS shown as Category "B",
should be Group "C"), please revise to be consistent.
f. Section 5.1.4-need to reflect changes already processed through previous Equivalency Finding-
please amend to read, "The original HMP showed ... " and " ... were amended through an
Equivalency Finding, dated October 13, 2010." Also explain second paragraph mention of bridge
for wildlife movement-where is this shown?
g. Will disturbed and developed areas be revegetated?
h. HMP consistency discussion should include adjacency standards (e.g. brush management,
lighting, and erosion control).
i. There appear to be discrepancies in the boundaries shown in some figures (e.g. Figures 4 and
11}. Please confirm that no brush management zones are included within the proposed HMP
preserve and are not counted as "gain" areas.
j. The proposed development area truncates the existing connectivity of the preserve north of
Simsbury Court. Please provide information on wildlife movement in the area to show that this
connectivity can be eliminated without impacting overall movement.
k. Regarding proposed mitigation:
1. Wetlands (Group A) appear to have no net loss but propose a mix of different habitat types
-please confirm that the wetland permitting agencies agree these habitats provide
equivalent function and values.
GPA 11-09/ZC 11-04/MP 10-0~ 11-04/SUP 11-04/HMP 11-07/HDP 11-04 -~ARRY CREEK MASTER PLAN
January 31, 2012
Pa e 4
2. Occupied CSS (Group C) appears to be mitigated at 2:1 yet footnote states a 0.6 acre
shortfall-please explain. If shortfall exists, occupied CSS cannot be mitigated with another
habitat type.
3. No tiering of habitat group mitigation exists in the HMP (i.e. cannot mitigate impacts to
lower groups through preservation of higher groups) therefore Group D, E, and F impacts
must be mitigated in kind on site or through payment of in lieu fee.
Map Comments:
a) Layout of new preserve must make biological/ecological sense and not include brush
management zones. That said, mid-slope preserve boundaries could be allowed (see comment
#c below).
b) Is proposed disturbance all outside of existing HMP preserves, except those proposed for
removal from preserve?
c) Sheet 3 -Lot 11:
1. What i's 50 foot buffer for?
2. HMP preserve to include manufactured slopes-what will these be planted with? Are these
mitigation areas or voluntary? Will the future preserve manager be willing to manage these
manufactured slopes?
Engineering:
Master Plan
1. Previous comment: On page Vll-3, Figure 43, shows intersection spacing at two locations that does
not meet engineering standards. Intersection spacing variance must be approved by the city
engineer prior to approval of the vehicular circulation plan.
The waiver request has not been approved at this time. A revised focused study and review of
alternative solutions has been requested (see tentative map second review comments dated January
27, 2012).
2. On Figure 43, remove the note: "Haymar has sidewalk on south side only". Show sidewalk on the
north side of Haymar Drive for full pedestrian circulation.
3. On Figure 43, proposed access road to the future off-site development of the adjacent Oceanside
Parcel to the east. This future development is not a part of this project. Traffic generation for this
future development was not included in the traffic report. It is more appropriate to not show this
access road at this time unless the traffic generation is included in the traffic impact analysis.
If water and sewer lines are shown to serve the future off-site development, on page Vll-6, section
7.4 and 7.5, add discussions that any future connections to water and sewer lines to serve future
development within the City of Oceanside will require an agreement between the City of Carlsbad
and the City of Oceanside.
4. On figure 45, show the existing Quarry Creek Shopping Center lift stations in Oceanside. However,
do not show sewer main connection. Add discussion in section 7.4 that the sewer main has been
designed to handle additional capacity from the existing Quarry Creek Shopping Center lift stations in
Oceanside, however, future connections will need an agreement between the City of Oceanside and
the City of Carlsbad.
GPA 11-09/ZC 11-04/MP 10-0Q 11-04/SUP 11-04/HMP 11-07/HDP 11-04 ~ARRY CREEK MASTER PLAN
January 31, 2012
Pa e 5
5. On page Vll-6, section 7.4, Sewer Plan, last sentence referring to Figure 44 appears to be in error. It
appears that the correct figure is Figure 45.
6. On page Vll-6, section 7.6, Drainage Plan, should clearly identify which drainage systems should
remain private, and include discussions regarding perpetual maintenance responsibilities of the
private storm drain systems.
7. On Figure 47, identify all private storm drain systems. Differentiate between public and private
systems using different symbols.
8. On Figure 46, show two water mains at bridge crossing and the loop system within R-2. Do not show
water main connection to the City of Oceanside.
9. Revise Figure 17 to show two access points to R-1.
10. Previous comment not adequately addressed: On page V-6, under section 5.14.1, in the last
paragraph, state that the Master HOA is responsible for the maintenance of the existing levee within
Buena Vista Creek located in both the City of Carlsbad and the City of Oceanside.
11. Previous comment not adequately addressed: The proposed Quarry Creek vehicle circulation plan
should show adjacent existing developments and existing streets beyond the project boundary lines.
Show how the proposed on-site circulation system ties into the existing circulation system. On
Figure 43, show the two main access points to the project, Plaza Drive and Marron Road. Show the
existing Haymar Drive cul-de-sac to the west to indicate that there will be no project access at this
location.
12. Please comply with all red-lined comments on the Quarry Creek Master Plan report, 3rd draft.
13. Please return the 3rd review red-lined master plan document in the next review submittal.
Tentative Map
A) Site Plan:
1) Complete Streets has been identified as a priority for the City of Carlsbad in the City Council
annual goal setting workshop held January 17, 2012. Complete Streets are streets that
accommodate and encourage all modes of transportation not just cars. This also includes the use
of street design to create a sense of place and community through green spaces, medians and
signage. Please show how Quarry Creek street design can satisfy complete street design criteria.
Revise site plan and street cross-sections to show "complete street" features such as green
spaces, signage, medians, bike lanes, pedestrian paths, traffic calming devices, etc ...
Below are some resources on "complete streets":
http://www.completestreets.org/webdocs/resources/cs-bestpractices-chapter5.pdf
http://www.completestreets.org/
2) Speeding in residential areas is a major concern for Carlsbad residents. We recommend
reviewing the Carlsbad Residential Traffic Management Program, available online at:
http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/traffic/operations/Documents/CRTMP2011.pdf
,....""' """"
GPA 11-09/ZC 11-04/MP 10-01')et 11-04/SUP 11-04/HMP 11-07/HDP 11-04 -"'CiJARRY CREEK MASTER PLAN
January 31, 2012
Pa e 6
Consideration should be given to the implantation of traffic circles and other traffic calming
devices to create a safer, more walkable community.
3) Portions of existing Haymar Drive are located within Parcels 1 & 2 of the relinquishment map
number 15091, relinquished to the City of Carlsbad by Caltrans on November 24, 1967. It is not
clear from available relinquishment documents whether the City owns Parcels 1 and 2 in fee title
or owns public street right-of-way. The relinquishment documents are currently being reviewed
by the city attorney to determine ownership status of the parcel. If Parcels 1 and 2 are street
rights-of-way, excess right-of-way shall be vacated. If the City owns Parcels 1 and 2 in fee title,
the portion in excess of the required R/W for Haymar Drive shall be conveyed to Quarry Creek
via a separate action.
4) The existing Haymar Drive located within Parcels 1 & 2 ofthe relinquishment map number 15091
must be improved to a collector street standard at the project frontage, including along
frontages of open space lots 11 and 15.
5) The plan shows a varying right-of-way width for Haymar Drive, from 50 feet to 60 feet between
stations 11+25 to 16+93.14. Please revise to provide a complete 60 foot street right-of-way for
Haymar Drive. Show a standard collector street cross section with complete curb and gutter and
sidewalk on both sides. This may require shifting the proposed street alignment to the south.
6) The proposed grading shown on the adjacent property east of lot 1 located within the City of
Oceanside is not a part of this project and must be deleted from the preliminary grading plan.
Please revise preliminary grading plan to show no proposed offsite grading.
7) The site plan shows proposed sewer and water mains on lot 1 intended to serve the future
development of the adjacent parcel to the east in Oceanside. This future development is not a
part of this project. Any future utilities connections will require agreements between the City of
Carlsbad and the City of Oceanside.
8) The site plan shows proposed access road to serve future development of the adjacent parcel to
the east of Lot 1. This future development was not included in the traffic impact analysis. If
access road is included as part of this project approval, revise the traffic impact analysis to
address traffic generation of this future off-site development.
9) Sheet 3 shows a dashed line labeled "proposed tribal access easement". What is the width of
this easement? Are you proposing an access road or a trail? If so, please show on the plan.
Clarify who the easement will be granted to, and how access will be controlled.
10) Please describe (call outsizes and lengths) and label as "Private" all proposed private storm
drain pipes and drainage structures. Clearly differentiate private storm drain system from public
storm drain system by using different symbols.
11) On sheet 4, do not show sewer connection to the existing Quarry Creek Shopping Center lift
station in the City of Oceanside. The City of Carlsbad sewer main will be designed to handle
additional capacity from the adjacent shopping center lift station, and will be available to the
City of Oceanside if request for connection is made by the City of Oceanside. Future connections
will require an agreement between the City of Oceanside and the City of Carlsbad.
12) On sheet 4, lot 7 drainage is shown connecting directly into the proposed street storm drain
system without treatment. However, the SWMP report shows an extended detention basin, EDB
GPA 11-09/ZC 11-04/MP 10-0~ 11-04/SUP 11-04/HMP 11-07/HDP 11-04 QARRY CREEK MASTER PLAN
January 31, 2012
Pa e 7
2-3-7, sized as treatment and hydromodification facility for lot 7. Revise lot 7 grading to include
the extended detention basin, EDB 2-3-7 as shown in the SWMP BMP map.
13) Previous comment not adequately addressed: Coordinate and obtain approval from City of Vista
for proposed sewer connection at Haymar Drive. Please provide approval letter from City of
Vista.
14) As previously requested, provide separation dimensions between utilities (proposed and/or
existing) within Haymar Drive.
15) Add a BMP map sheet to the tentative map/site plan, showing all proposed BMP locations and
their dimensions (area (L & W), volume and orifice sizes) as calculated in the SWMP report.
Include a detail of the outlet structure including mechanism to prevent clogging of the proposed
orifices. The BMP map must agree with the SWMP report.
16) Previous comment not adequately addressed: With the proposed elimination of the westerly
extension of Marron Road from the project site, the project must provide cul-de-sac
improvements at the existing easterly terminus of Marron Road located west of the project site.
Show proposed improvements on the site plan.
17) Previous comment not adequately addressed: Coordinate and obtain approval from NCTD for
the design of the proposed Park and Ride facility on lot 6. At a minimum, provide a letter from
NCTD indicating conceptual approval of the size and location of lot 6 as a Park and Ride facility.
18) Comply with all other comments shown on red-lined plan.
B) Waiver Requests:
19) Staff cannot support the waiver request to allow existing overhead power lines to remain from
Street B to the west. Per comment number 2 above, standard frontage improvements, including
undergrounding of utilities, are required across lots 11 and 15 frontages.
20) Staff can support the waiver request not to construct benches and terrace drains in slopes in
accordance with city standard drawing GS-14 as recommended in the December 19, 2012 from
the soils engineer.
21) Staff can support the waiver request not to construct benches and terrace drains in slopes in
accordance with city standard drawing GS-14 and to reduce grading setback from the property
lines of lot 12 from 10 feet to 2 feet or zero setback. The slopes must be constructed in
accordance with recommendations December 20, 2012 letter from the soil's engineer.
22) The waiver request to allow 240 feet separation distance between intersections is not supported
at this time. The traffic volume (ADT) used in the focused traffic study evaluating the adequacy
of 240 feet intersection separation distance along Street B between Street A and Marron Road
appears low, and is inconsistent with the Quarry Creek Traffic Impact Analysis. The traffic
distribution percentages are also incorrect. Consider use of alternative devices such as traffic
circles. The project engineer can set up a meeting with Bryan Jones, the Deputy Transportation
Director, to discuss options.
!""" '""""
GPA 11-09/ZC 11-04/MP 10-0~ 11-04/SUP 11-04/HMP 11-07/HDP 11-04 ~ARRY CREEK MASTER PLAN
January 31, 2012
Pa e 8
The focused traffic study is recommending that the "tee intersections at Marron Road and Street
B to be controlled with stop signs at all approaches." Please include this information on the
tentative map/site plan. Show all stop signs on the plan as recommended by the traffic engineer.
C) Hydrology Report:
23) The points of compliance (POCs) identified in the hydrology report do not match the POCs in
SCCWRP report by Chang Consultants.
24) Please comply with some minor comments in the hydrology report.
D) SWMP Report:
25) Please provide a drainage basin map to showing the locations of drainage basins 1 to 4 and its
sub-basins mentioned in the SWMP report. The third paragraph on page 4 refers to the exhibit in
Appendix E for locations of drainage basins. However, the Storm Water Management Exhibit
found in Appendix E includes only the DMAs, IMPs/BMPs exhibits but not the drainage basins.
26) The SWMP exhibit in Appendix E must include a summary table that shows the required sizes of
each of the proposed IMPs/BMPs, including the length, width, orifice diameter, and details of
the outlet structures, including mechanism to avoid orifice clogging. A full size SWMP exhibit
must be added to the tentative map/site plan.
27) The points of compliance (POCs) in the SWMP report do not match the POCs in the SCCWRP
analysis.
E) SCCWRP Analysis:
28) Engineering has no additional comment.
F) Hydraulic and Scour Analysis:
29) Engineering has no additional comment.
G) Sewer Study:
30) The study is currently being reviewed by Utilities Engineering. Comments will follow.
H) Water Study:
31) The study is currently being reviewed by Utilities Engineering. Comments will follow.
I) LFMP:
32) The study is currently being reviewed by Utilities Engineering. Comments will follow.
J) Traffic Report:
33) Please comply with the attached comments from Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. the third
party reviewer. Please note that due to some fundamental shortcomings in the report, a detailed
GPA 11-09/ZC 11-04/MP 10-0~ 11-04/SUP 11-04/HMP 11-07/HDP 11-04 9uARRY CREEK MASTER PLAN
January 31, 2012
Pa e 9
review was not performed at this time. Additional extensive comments are anticipated in the
next review.
34) The TIA should include evaluation of near-term plus project condition for the four street network
alternatives.
35) The tentative map shows vehicular access road to serve the future development of the adjacent
Oceanside Parcel to the east. Please revise the traffic impact report to include an assumed traffic
generation of this future development. Coordinate with the City of Oceanside and obtain
accurate land use for the site.
36) Please ensure that the input data and parameters in the LOS worksheets are correct and
consistent with the City of Carlsbad and the City of Oceanside design criteria. Verify lane
configurations, lane group, peaking factor, phasing, timing, etc. Several inconsistencies were
found in the current version of the TIA report.
37) Please ensure that the results shown in the summary tables and figures match LOS results from
the worksheets. Inconsistencies were found in the current version ofthe TIA report.
K) Resubmittal:
38) Please return all red lined documents and plans to facilitate further review.
lANDSCAPE
Please make the following revisions to the master plan so that it will meet the requirements of the City of
Carlsbad's Landscape Manual.
REPEAT COMMENTS
1. Completed. The large landscape slope will provide adequate landscape buffers along Haymar Dr.
2-9 Completed.
10. 6.4.1 -Entry Treatments and Signage, Page Vl-6: Please provide conceptual sketches of the
Community Entry Monumentation with landscaping to clarify scale, materials and design. 2nd
Review: Figure 37: Please provide additional detailing in the "Entry A" and "Entry B" conceptual
layouts showing the approximate proposed size of the area and conceptual layout of the planting
areas. More information is needed in order to establish direction and desires. 3'd Review: The
applicant has responded: "Inasmuch as the entry monumentation design is very important to the
project applicant, it will take a little longer to provide this information. We are hopeful that the
design of the entry treatments will not hold up the processing of the Master Plan."
Please address the comment.
11-27 Completed.
28. 6.4.6.3 -Production Fencing, Page Vl-17: Please provide conceptual sketches of the production
fencing to clarify scale, materials and design. Clarify where non-combustible fencing will be required
when located adjacent to fire suppression zones. 2nd Review: The applicant has responded: "The
revised Master Plan stipulates that wood fencing shall not be used within fire suppression zones on
p. Vl-37. No conceptual sketches of the wood fencing have been provided in the Master Plan."
Please provide a conceptual sketch of the wood fencing. 3'd Review: The applicant has responded:
"The applicant believes that it is not necessary or prqductive to include sketches of wood fencing to
~-~
GPA 11-09/ZC 11-04/MP 10-0iirT 11-04/SUP 11-04/HMP 11-07/HDP 11-04 -"rr'GARRY CREEK MASTER PLAN
January 31, 2012
Pa e 10
29-31
1A-5A
6A.
7A.
be installed between the residential lots in a master plan. No determination on the details of the
wood fencing has been made at this time. 11
If not to be addressed at this stage then please clarify that fencing design will be provided at the
conceptual planning stage and shall be subject to City approval.
Completed.
Completed.
Figure 42: Please delete invasive species from the plant legend (i.e. Echium). Check all plants against
the California Invasive Plant Inventory as published by the California Invasive Plant Council. 3'd
Review: Please address the comment.
Figure 33: The Master Plan proposes a 5' parkway for Streets A and B. When the curb width is
subtracted there is a width of 4.5' of planting area. Large trees (i.e. Platanus racemosa and Quercus
agrifolia, etc.) are listed as proposed street trees in these parkways. These large trees will ultimately
create problems for the adjacent curb and walks. The parkway width needs to be increased or the
tree species revised to coordinate. Please resolve insuring plant species selections are appropriate
for the landscape widths provided. Check all plant lists to insure coordination. 3'd Review: The
applicant has responded: "Large trees have been eliminated from the plant Jist for the collector roads
Streets 'A' and '8'. Large trees remain on the plant list for Marron and Haymar, since the plantable
area for those streets is larger. 11
The Master Plan is confusing since it still lists large trees (i.e. Quercus agrifolia) for collector Streets
'A' and '8'. These streets have parkway landscape widths of 4.5'. Please clarify and distinguish
between different species to be used in different parkway widths. Please clarify that street tree
selection shall be as approved in the City of Carlsbad Community Forest Management Plan, Chapter
6, Tree Selection. Insure the Master plan lists in all sections follow these selections.
8A-12A Completed.
13A. Figure 40: It is not clear why a view fence is proposed along the north side of R-1 and R-2. There will
be traffic noise from highway 78 and views may not be desirable. Please review/explain. Please
clarify where tubular steel view fencing versus sound/view wall and solid block walls are to be used.
3'd Review: The applicant has responded: "Solid view fencing will be used only to attenuate noise if
the EIR determines that noise wall mitigation is required. The EIR analysis will begin in January. We
have estimated the locations of the fencing at this preliminary stge. We will finalize the location of
solid view fencing after the EIR analysis has been conducted. 11
Please clarify in the Master Plan.
14A. Figure 40: Fencing along Streets B and C may need to be reviewed with the submittal of the
conceptual landscape plans of the appropriate tentative map submittal. Please review/address. 3'd
Review: The applicant has responded: "We anticipate that fencing and other design aspects within
neighborhoods will be addressed with site plan review of those development plans. It is not feasible
at this early stage to design and provide materials for all of the planning areas. This will be
accomplished with the "8-Maps11
." Please address the final review process of these areas in the
Master Plan. If already addressed, please indicate where.
15A-16A Completed.
Please make the following revisions to the Tentative Map Conceptual Landscape plans so that it will meet the
requirements of the City of Carlsbad's Landscape Manual.
Numbers below are referenced on the red line plans where appropriate for ease in locating the area of the
comment concern.
GPA 11-09/ZC 11-04/MP 10-0Q 11-04/SUP 11~04/HMP 11-07/HDP 11-04 2ARRY CREEK MASTER PLAN
January 31, 2012
Pa e 11
REPEAT COMMENTS
1. Please note that the Quarry Creek Master Plan is currently under review by city staff and is not yet
approved. Final comments are reserved pending completion and approval of the Quarry Creek
Master Plan.
2. Please clearly label the Carlsbad/Oceanside city limit lines, property lines and easements on all
appropriate sheets. Insure no trees are located within easements.
3. Please address landscaping of all slopes. Check all sheets and all areas.
4. Completed.
5. Please select street trees from the tree selection list provided in the City of Carlsbad Community
Forest Management Plan. Insure appropriate species as determined by the parkway widths. 2nd
Review: Please provide a cross section that specifies the parkway width for Haymar and Street 'C'.
Insure appropriate tree species selections to fit the space. Indicate street tree selection for Street 'C'.
6. Completed.
7. Generally identify all existing woody plant material to be removed or retained. Trees over 12" in
caliper diameter shall be identified on the plan individually as to caliper size and type and labeled to
be retained or removed. 2nd Review: Please indicate if these trees are to be removed or to remain.
8. Completed.
9. Please obtain review and approval for all trails from liz Ketabian in Recreation Administration. 2nd
Review: The applicant has responded: "We are hopeful that one of the 7 sets of submitted plans
would be routed to Ms. Ketabian for her comments." The planner for the project has indicated that
one set has been forwarded to Ms. Ketabian. Any review comments will be forwarded to the
applicant.
10. Completed.
11. Landscape elements over 30" in height (including planting measured at maturity) are not allowed at
street corners within a triangular zone drawn from two points, 25' outward from the beginning of
curves and end of curves. (See Appendix C.4). In addition to the requirement above, on collector
streets and greater, Cal Trans Sight Distance Standards shall apply to the height restriction stated.
Please clearly label 25' vehicular sight triangles and show and label all Cal Trans sight lines and
address plantings within these areas. 2nd Review: The applicant has responded: "Sight distance lines
have been added at all corners. Notes have been added that all shrubs in these areas shall be no
higher than 30-inches in height." I see no reference to plant sizes where located within vehicular
sight lines and Cal Trans sight lines do not appear to be shown. Please address.
12-13 Completed.
14. Please explain why the entire Lot 8 park area is proposed for potable water use. 2nd Review: Please
revise the note to indicate only the pool area as potable water use.
15-19 Completed.
20. Maintenance of fire protection zones does not appear to be defined on the plans. Please address.
2nd Review: The applicant has responded: "This information has been added to Sheet 3."
Maintenance notes were not found. Please address.
21-22 Completed.
23. Please provide typical details of the view and other fencing, pedestrian trail, sidewalk overlook, trail
overlook, bench seating area and shade trellis. 2nd Review: Details have been provided; however
they show minimal amenities and lack interest. Please review the incorporation of additional
amenities and more interesting design (i.e. Lot 9 trail might connect the 2 overlooks to allow users a
loop rather than walking in and out on the same trail; addition of exercise stations, picnic tables,
trash containers, dog waste disposal units; etc.) (review potential for enhancement of bridge overlook
areas).
24. Please list the amenities and provide conceptual detailing of the passive recreation areas. 2nd
Review: Amenities seem minimal. Please explore options for additional amenities.
25. RETURN REDLINES and provide 2 copies of all plans (concept, water conservation, fire protection,
and water use plan) for the next submittal.
~ "1
GPA 11-09/ZC 11-04/MP 10-oi)'et 11-04/SUP 11-04/HMP 11-07/HDP 11-04 -~ARRY CREEK MASTER PLAN
January 31, 2012
Pa e 12
NEW COMMENTS
1A. Please correct the sheet number.
2A. Prints are very light and difficult to read. Please provide darker prints for the next submittal.
3A. Please provide appropriate conceptual design for the entry monumentation (i.e. sections, elevations,
materials, etc.)
• STATE OF CALIFORNIA-BUSINESS TRANSPORTAOAND HOUSING AGENCY 0 EDMUND G. BROWN Jr. Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 11, DIVISION OF PLANNING
4050 TAYLOR ST, M.S. 240
SAN DIEGO, CA 92ll 0 .• II. r'\1
CITY OF Ct\trtU1dNJ\ PHONE (619) 688-6960 Flex your power!
FAX (619) 688-4299
JAN 1. 2012
PLANN!N~i iJE.PARTMENT
Be energy efficient!
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
January 17, 2012
Mr. Van Lynch
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314
Dear Mr. Lynch:
11-SD-78
PM 3.32
Quarry Creek Master Plan Traffic Impact Analysis -GP A 11-09
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has reviewed the Traffic Impact Study
(TIS) dated October 20, 2011, for the proposed Quarry Creek project located south of State Route
(SR-78) and west ofthe College Boulevardinterchange on SR-78.
As an information item, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDA G) and Caltrans are
developing a Corridor Study for SR-78. SANDAG and Caltrans staff is working with North
County jurisdictions, including Carlsbad. The study will assess corridor needs that may affect
local transportation planning decisions. Coordination by the City is recommended.
Caltrans has no comments on the TIS.
If you have any questions, please contact Jose Marquez of the Caltrans Development Review
Branch at (619) 688-3193.
J COB ARMSTRONG, Branch Chief
Development Review Branch
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
_df~.A_ C I T Y 0 F
VcARLSBAD
Planning Division
January 17, 2012
Mr. Alex Jewell
RBF Consulting
c
9755 Clairemont Mesa Drive, Suite 100
San Diego CA 92124-1324
Mr. Joe Power
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
5355 Avenida Encinas, Ste. 103
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: EIR 11-02 -QUARRY CREEK MASTER PLAN
Dear Mr. Jewell and Mr. Power:
~C4.Qtd \ \ \1 \ \1-
LJ FILE
www.carlsbadca.gov
Thank you for submitting a proposal for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for
the Quarry Creek Master Plan project. A total of two proposals were submitted and one firm
has been chosen. We regret to inform you that the RBF Consulting/Rincon Consultants, Inc.
team was not the firm selected to prepare the project EIR.
We understand the time and expense involved in participating in this process and we sincerely
appreciate the efforts of your respective firms in preparing a proposal. The Planning
Department will continue to consider your firms when soliciting proposals for future projects. If
you should have any questions regarding the matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(760) 602-4613 or by e-mail at van.lynch@carlsbadca.gov.
Sincerely,
Senior Planner
VL:bd
-~~~CITY OF c ~~CARLSBAD
Planning Division
January 17, 2012
Mr. Richard Coles
HDR Engineering, Inc.
8690 Balboa Avenue, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92123
SUBJECT: EIR 11-02/MP 11-09-QUARRY CREEK MASTER PLAN
Dear Mr. Coles:
Mcu1& \ j \1 ~ r2-
FilE Cur.
www.carlsbadca.gov
Thank you for submitting a proposal for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for
the Quarry Creek Master Plan project. A total of two proposals were submitted and we are
pleased to inform you that HDR Engineering, Inc. has been chosen to prepare the EIR.
We understand the time and expense involved in participating in this process, and we sincerely
appreciate the efforts of your firm in preparing this proposal. Please contact me at (760) 602-
4613 or by e-mail at van.lynch@carlsbadca.gov to schedule a meeting to go over the next steps
in the process.
Sincerely,
Senior Planner
VL:bd
c: Fife Copy
1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 T 760-602-4600 F 760-602-8559