HomeMy WebLinkAbout3466; OLIVEHAIN RD WIDENING AND REALIGNMENT; FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT; 1993-04-15FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
HOME DEPOT SPECIFIC PLAN
AND TENTATIVE MAP
CASE NO. 91-044
SCH NO. 91031068
Prepared for
City of Encinitas
527 Encinitas Blvd., Suite 100
Encinitas, CA 92024
(619) 944-5060
I
Prepared by
CONSTANCE A. WILLENS & ASSOCIATES
4231 Coliwood Lane
San Diego, CA 92115-2010
(619) 583-2870
April 15, 1993
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
FORWARD
/ w
This EIR has been revised /since its certification by the Encinitas
City. Council on January %, 1993 The purpose of the revisions is
to bring together the large amount-'of.-,information that resulted
from the public comments received on the Draft EIR and on the
Preliminary Final EIR, both oral and written. The goal is to
provide a more readable document that does not require the user to
read all of the public comments and responses in order to obtain
all of the information on issues. Relevant information has been
incorporated into the text of the environmental analysis, although
the information and the conclusions have not been changed. The
only revision made on content is an update on the status of the
California gnatcatcher. The following sections have been partially
revised: .
Chapter 1: . Chapter 1:
1.1.1 .7.2.2.4
1.1.2 .7.2.2.5 .
- 1.2.3.1 . 7.2.3.3
1.3.1.2 .
1.3.2.6 .
1.3.3.3 . Chapter 12:
1.3.3.13 . Letter 1 2
.1.3.11.2 .. . . Letter 1 3, Response G
Letter V5., Response C
Letter 1.6, Response C
Letter, .1 10,. Response -P
Letter 1 11, Response A
Response .D
Response E.
Response G
Response H
Response I.
ResponseJ
Letter # 14
Letter # 312, .Response.N..
Letter # 312,' New ''I
-
nformAtion,
'#4.'
Chapter 2:
2.3.1.4.3
Chapter 3:
3.1.2.2
3. 1.. 3. 1
3.2.1
3.2.2.2
3.3.1.1
3.3.1.3.1
3.3.2.1
3.3.2.2.
3.3.2.3
3.3.2.6
3 .3-.3
3.3.3.3
.3•3•34
3.3.1 .5.
3.5.2.3
3.5.2.4
3 .5.2.6
3.5.3.2
3.8.1.1
S
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Number Section Title Page
1. INTRODUCTION/SUMMARY/MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM • . . . • . . . . .. • • • • • s' • •' . 1-1
1.1 Introduction ................... • .. . • . 1-1
1.1.1 Purpose of Document . . . . . . . , . . . . .
1.1.2 Basis for Determining Adequacy of An EIR . . . . 1-3
1.1.3 Level of Analysis in EIR . .° . . .
..
. .' . 1-4
1.1.5 Background and Related Projects 1-6
1.2. Summary . . . . ...... . . . ........ 1-8
1.2.1 Summary of Project Description • . • • • • • 1-8
1.2.2 Specific Plan .. .. .. . . . . . • . ...... 19
1.2.2.1 Potential Significant Environmental Impacts of the
Specific Plan . . . . . 1-9
1.2.2.2 Potential Conflicts With City Policies . . . ... . 1-13
1.2.2.3 Alternatives to the Specific Plan . . . .. ••. . . 1-17
1.2.2.4 Areas of Controversy . • .. . . . '. ......; 1-'17
1.2.3- -Tentative Map 1-18
1.2.3.1 Potential Significant Impacts of the TM 1-18
1.2.3.2 Potential Conflicts With City Policies .......1-22
1.2.3.3 Alternatives to the TM • . . .. .......
..
1.2.3.4 Areas of Controversy: . .
. ...
1.3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. • 1-28
1.3.1 Hydrology/Flooding . ........ • . • • • •
: 1-28.
1.3.1.1 Short-term flooding . 1-28
1.3.1.2 Long-term Sedimentation and Flooding . •. • 1-29
1.3.1.3 Flooding of Designated Development Area in PA 4 • 1-29
13.2 Water Quality .•. • ... • •. 1-29
1.3 2.1 Long-term Erosion and Sedimentation 1-29
Short-term Erosion and Sedimentation . . . . . 1-30'
"1 3.2.3 Water Quality Degradation From Spillage of
Materials . 1-30
1.3.2.4. Water. Quality Degradation from Hazardous
- Materials •,1-30
1.3.2.5 Short-term Water Quality Degradation Due to
Runoff . . . . ....... ' ........ . . 1-30
1.3.2.6 Long-term Water Quality Degradation 'Due to Runoff 1-31'
1.3..2..7 Water Quality Degradation Due to Runoff From 'Future
Development.in PA 3 and 4 . . . . . . . . . .-. . '1-31
1.3.2.8 Erosion Control ............ . . -. . . . 1-32
1.3.3 Biological Resources . ............-. 1-32
1.3 3.1 Degradation of Sensitive Habitats and Vegetative
Communities ... ...... .. .. 1-32
1:3.3.2. Implementation of Restoration/Planting Program- . ' 1-33
1.3.3.3 Degradation of Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-33
1.3.3.4 Degradation, of Coastal Mixed Chaparral from
Invasive Plants and Human Intrusion .......1-34
1.3.3.5 Degradation of Coastal Mixed Chaparral, From the
'Fuel Management 'Program ................ . 1-35
1.3.3.6 Potential Degradation of Wetlands From "Human
Intrusion and Illegal Dumping ..........1-35
1.3.3.7 LossofWetlan4s . . . .
. .'.. .. . 1-35
"1.3.3:8 Wetlands' and Wetlands Buffer Area Impacts. in PA 3 -
- and 4' ..........................1-36,
1 3 3 9 Indirect Impacts on Biological Resources 1-36
1.3.3.10 California' Gnatcatcher Habitat . ........1-36
'1.3.3.11 Southern Mixed Chaparral Impacts . . . . . .. .' 1-37
1.3.3.12 Loss of Del Mar Manzanita and Coast White Lilac . 1-37
13 3.13 Coast Scrub Oak Impacts . . . . . . . . . . 1-37
1.3.3.14 Preservation of Open Space . . . . . . . ... 1-38
.'
1 3.4 Geologic Hazards . . 1-38
1.3 4.1 Potential Liquefaction and/or Settlement of
Alluvial Soils . . . . • 1-38
1.3.4.2 Soil and Slope Stability . . . 1-38
1.3.5 Noise . . .
1.3.5.1 Traffic Noise Impacts on Proposed PA 2 Residences 1-19
136 WaterConservation . ... . . . . . . . 1-39
1.3.6.1 Water Consumption . . . . . ... . 1-39
1.3.7 Cultural Resources . . . •. .. .• . . . . .. . . . ,. 1-39
1.3.7.1 Potential Impact to Subsurface Historic Resources 1-39
1 3.8 Paleontological Resources . . . . . 1-40
1.3.8.1 Potential Destruction ofFossils, . . . . . . . .. 1-40..
1.3.9 Electromagnetic Field Hazards. • . • . . . . . 1-40
1 3.9.1 EMF Hazard Within SDG&E Easement . . . . . 1-40
1A.10 Solid Waste Disposal . . • . . . 1-40
1.3.10.1 Minimize Amount of Solid Waste . . . • . . • . . 140
1 3 11 Traffic Circulation 1-41
1.3.11.1 Internal Circulation Impacts . 1-41
1.3.11.2 Cumulative Regional Traffic Impacts . • • • . . . 1-41-
1.3.11o3 Internal Circulation/Pedestrian Safety 1-42
1.3.11.4 Pedestrian Safety ............... .. . . 1-43
1 3 11 5 El Camino Real Access Rights 1-43
1.3.11.6 El Camino Real Circulation. • •. • . .•. . ••. • . . .• 1-43
2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING/PROJECT DESCRIPTION • 2-1
2 1 Project Location • • . . • . • • . • • • • . 2-1
2.2 Environmental Setting • . • • . • • . . . • 2-1
2.3 Project Description.. • • • 0
.• •. ..•
2-11. ••
0. •.
..
.2.' 3.. 1 Specific Plan . . . . . . . 2-12
- 2.3.1.1 Concept/Objective . ..... . . . 2-12
2 3.1.3 Project Design . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20
.-2.3.1.4 Landscaping/Vegetation Enhancement . . . 2-22
2.3.1.5 Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 2-41
.2.3.1.6 Utility Systems.'. . . . . . . . . . . .' . . 2-47
2.3.2 Tentative Map Proposal . . . . . . . . . . 2-47
2.3.2.1 Concept Proposal and Project Objective . . . 2-47
2.3.2.3 Residential Development . . . . ... .. .. . . . 2-52
2.3.2.4 Grading/Flood Control . . . . . . . . . ... 2-54
2.3.2.6 DesignConcepts ................... 2-62
2 3.2 7 Landscaping/Wetland Restoration Plan . . 2-68
3 ' ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE ANALYSIS . . . . .•.. . . . . 3-1
S 3.1 HYDROLOGY/FLOODING . . . . . . 3-1
3.1.1 Existing Conditions . .
3 .1.2 Impacts ..........................34
3.1.2.1 SpecificPlan ..... 3-4
31.1.2.2 Tentative Map 3-6
3.1.2.3 Cumulative Impacts .......... . . . . 3-8 '
3.1.3 Mitigation . 3-9
3 1 3 1 Specific Plan 3-9
3.1.1.2 Tentative Map . 3-9
3.2 WATER QUALITY 3-11
32.1 ExistingConditions . . . . . . . . . 3-11
3 . 2 2 Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12
3.2.2.1 Specific Plan ............. 3-12
3.2.2.2 Tentative Map . 0 .... . .... 3-13
3.2.2 3 Cumulative Impacts . 3-15
3.23 Mitigation . . . .• .......... •. . 3-15
323.1 Specific Plan
3.2.3.2 Tentative Map . . . . 3-16
3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES •. . '.'.. . . . '. . .... 3-19
3.3.1 Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . • .' . . . 3-19
3.3.1.1 Vegetative Communities . . 3-19
3.3.1.2 Zoological Resources .. . . ... . . . .'.. . . . 3-24
3.3.1.3 Sensitive Species. • .. .
.
. . • ........3-26
3.3.1.3.1 Sensitive Plants . .. . . . • • • 3-26
3.3.1.3.2 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat • . . •" 3-27
3.3.2 . Impacts . .- ....... • . . '• 3-1
3.3.2.1 Specific Plan ............' . ........ 3-31
3.3.2.2 Planning Area 1 . •- . . . . . • • • 3-38
3.3.23 Planning. Areá2. . •
....
• ••• • 3-40
3.3.2.4 PlanningAreã3 ., .... ........3-42
3.3.2.5 Planning.Area 4 . .
' .• .3-42
3.3.2.6 Cumulative Impacts 3-43
H3.3.3. Mitigation. •••••• ... 345
3.3.3.1 Specific Plan ......S •
...
3-45
3-.3.3.2 Planning Area -2. ........... -. 3-46
3.3.3.3 PlanningArea2 ..............'.:... 3-48-
3.4. - GEOLOGIC HAZARDS .......
. .' • .. .
.. 3-58
3.4.1 - Existing Conditions .........
• .
.- ., 3-58
3..4.2 - Impacts . • . . • • .• •. .. •.'•. .: • • .• . . • . 3-62
- - 3.4.3 Mitigation • . • . • . . S. • • • • . . . . . 3-63
3.4.3.1 Specific -Plan .. . . . • • . • . .. . • . 3-63 -
3.4.3.2 Tentative Map .
3.5 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION/PARKING ...... ... . . 3-65
.3.5.1 Existing Conditions . ..... . . . . . 3-65
3 .5.2 Impacts . . . . . . . . . ,• . . . • • • 3-71
3 5.2.1 Tentative Map . . . . . 3-71
3.5.2.2 Specific Plan Impacts . . . . .. . • .' . 3-79-
3.5 2.4 Internal Circulation/Access . • 3-85
3.5.2.5 Parking • . . . . • . . 3-86
3.5.2.6. Cumulative Impacts . • • • .... .. • . . . 3-87
35.3 Mitigation . • .. 3-88
3.5.3.1 Specific Plan ...... . . . . . 3-88
3.5.3.2 Tentative Map . ...... 3-88
3 .6 LAND USE . . . . . • . . . .
.
. .. . . . 3-91 -
3.6.1 Existing Conditions . . . . . . 3-91
3.6.1.1 . Existing and ApprovedLand Uses...-. .•..• .. . ,. 3-91
3.6.1.2 General Plan Designations for the SPA- • • • . 3:99.
3.6.2 Impacts ................ .......3-101
3.6.2.1 Compatibility of Specific Plan With General Plan
Designated Land Uses .......................3-101
3-6.2.2. Compatibility With Existing and Planned Land Uses 3-108
3.6.2.3-General Plan Policy Compatibility 37109
3.6.2'.4 - California Coastal Act Compatibility 3-151
3.6.3 Mitigation ........... .......... 3151
3.6.3.1 Specific Plan' ........................3-151 - -
3.6.3.2. Tentative Map . -. ... . . .- . . . -. . . . . • . 3-153 . .
3.7 VISUAL QUALITY/TOPOGRAPHIC ALTERATION . . . . 3-155
3-7.1 Existing Conditions . . . . . . . 3-155
3.7.1.1 Topography and Vegetation . . . . . .'. . .. . . 3-155
3 7 1.2 Viewshed/Aesthet].c Setting 3-158
3.7.1.3' Scenic Road Status . . .......... . . 3-160
3.7.2 Impacts . . . . . .. . . . . . .......... 3-160
3.7.2.1 Topographic Alteration . . . 3-160
.3.7.2.2. Viewshed Impacts . . . . . . . . .3-161
• 3.7.2.2.1 Specific Plan. . .. . . ; . ..... 3-161
3.7.2.2.2Tentative Map. . . .•. . . . . . . .3-164
. 3.7.2.3. Scenic Road Impacts, . ... .' . ..; . .. . 3-168
3.7.2.4 'Compatibility .with Design Review Guidelines . . . 3-172
3 7 2 4 1 Site Design Guidelines . . . . . . . 3-172
3.7.2.3.2 Building Design -. . ..••. . . . . . . .••. . . . . 3-175
37.2.4.3 Landscape Design . . . . . . . ....... . . 3-178
3.7.2.3.4 Sign DesIgn
. . . . ..'. . . . .. .
. 3-178
3.7.2.3.5 Privacy and Security, . . .• • • • • . ... . . . 3-178
3.7.2.4 Cumulative Visual Impacts . . . . • • . • . . . . 3-179
3.7.3. Mitigation ............ . . . .. . . . . . 3-179
3.8 NOISE, LIGHT AND GLARE . . '. . . . . . . . . ... 3-180
.3.8.1 • Existing Conditions • ............. 3-180
3 . 8 . 1. 1 • - Noise .... ... ..... ...
0
3-18 0
38.12 Light and Glare '.... , • • ........... . '. 3-181
3.8.2 • ................. • .........-• • ... 3-181
3.8.2.1 Noise .......... .- ....... .....3-181.
3.8.2.2 Light and Glare .........• • .. . ... ..........3-l85
3.8.3 Mitigation . . . . . .' . . . . .... . . . , • 3-186 -.
39; PUBLIC. SAPETY/FIRE PROTECTION ••• • • •".. . . ..;. 3-188
3.9.1 EXiSting Conditions • . . •. . • . .' . . . . . . 3-188
- 3.9.1.1 Police
.0 •'
•
Protection . . •.. . . •. . . . •- . . . . . 3-188
3.9.1.2 Fire Protection . .
. • . . .
.....
. 3-188
3.9.1.3 Safety Hazards . . . 3-188
3 .9.2 Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . 3-189
.3.9.2.1 Police Protection . . . . . .. .-. . . . •-... . . 3-189
3.9.2.2 Fire Protection . . . . . 3-189
3.9.2.3 Public Safety ... . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 3-189
3.9.3 Mitigation .. .... ... . 3-190
3.10 WATER --SERVICE/CONSERVATION . . . . . .
. ....
3-191
3.10.1 Existing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . ..-'. ..- . 37191
3.10.2 Impacts . . . . . . . . . 3-192
3.10.3 Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -. 3-195
3.11 SEWER SERVICE . . . ... . . . 3-199
3.11.1 Existing Conditions . . . . . . ....- .. . . . 3-199.
311.3 Mitigation .. . .... .. 3-199
3 .12 SCHOOL AVAILABILITY . . -. • • . . . . . . . . 3-200'
3.12.1 Existing Conditions • . . . . . . . . .. .. ... 3-200
3.12.2 Impacts • ....................3-200
3.12.3 Mitigation .............. ..... ........3-2,00.
3.13 CULTURAL RESOURCES 3-201
3 13 1 Existing Conditions 3-201
3.13.2 Impacts ...............
.
.•• . • 3-203
3 13 3 Mitigation 3-203
3.1.4 AIR QUALITY 3-204
3 14 1 Existing Conditions 3-204
3 14 1.1 General Background . . . . . . . . . • . • 3-204
3.14.1.2 Existing.Standards . .. • • .. -. . ..-••. 0. .- . . 3205;
3 14 1.3 Air Pollutant Reduction Efforts . . . • . . . 3-209
3 14.2 Impacts . 3-211
3 14 2 1 Specific Plan and TM 3-211
3.14.2.2 Cumulative Impacts . . . . 3-211
3.14.,'3' Mitigation . . . . . 3-212
3.15 GROWTH INDUCEMENT . . . . 3-213
3.15.1 Existing.Côndi.tiOns. .... .. '. •. . . .•. . . .3-213
.3.15.2 Impacts . . . . . 3-213
-3. i5.3-. Mitigation ..... ... ...........3-213
3.16 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES o . 3-214
3.16.1 Existing Conditions' . '. . . . . .• . .. .' .. • 3-214
3.16.2 Impacts • . . . . . . . 3-214
3 16.3 Mitigation . . . . • . . . . . . . . 3-215
3.17 ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD HAZARDS . . . . . 3-217
( 3.17.1 ...Existing -Conditions . . .,. . ... . • . • . ... 3-217
3 .17.2: Impacts • •. • • •
• •: • •. •.. • • • • • • • • 3-220
3.17.3. Mitigation ................. . ........ .3-223
3.17.3.1 Specific Plan . '.' •. . . .. . . .'. . . . . . 3-223
317.3.2 Tenáti'cYé.Map . .' . . •. '. . . . . . . . . . . . 3-223
3 18 ENERGY CONSERVATION. . . ............ 3-224
3 .18o2 Impacts, - • • • •- - .. . . ...........3-224
3o18.3 Mitigation 3-224
3.19 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 3-225
3 19.1 Existing Conditions . 3-225
3.19.2 Impacts . ......- . . • . . . .. - . . . , . . •. - . .-3-225
Mitigation . . .,. . . . . .' • . . -.. ..-., .-..... 3-226 - -
4. SIGNIPICAET ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE
AVOIDED IF TEE PROPOSAL IS IMPLEMENTED . . . . . 4-1
.
. :... - ,- - .- .....-- .......... - .. . .. . . ,-- .
S. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEENJ LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF
MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND
ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERMPRODUCTIVITY . . . . . . 5-1
- ANY SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION
SHOULD IT BBINPLEMENTED . . . . . . . .. •. 6-1
ALTERNATIVES TOTEE PROPOSED ACTIONS .. ...... • . . 1.
7.1 ALTERNATIVES TO THE SPECIFIC PLAN . . . . . . . . 7-1
7 .1.1 . No Project . . . . . . • . • . . . • • •. . ... 7-!--l-
7.1.2 Alternative Specific Plan Retaining Al]. Delineated
(Including Degraded) Welands Plus a 50' Wetland
Buffer . . . . . . . ... . • . . . . .. • . . 7-2
7.1.3 EMF Hazard Alternative Open Space Plan . . . . . . 7-4
7.1.4 Steep Slope Mitigation1 Alternative Open Space.
Plan . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . • . . 7-4
7.1.5 California Gnatcatcher Mitigation Alternative . . 7-4
Alternative 7.1.6. Hiking/Equestrian Trail . . . • . . . 7-8
7.1.7 Wetlands, EMP, Steep Hillside and Trail Alternative
• Open Space Plan. .. . . . . .•. . . . . . . . 7-8
7.1.8 Composite Alternative Opn Space Plan .. .. . . . . 7.-11
7.2 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED TENTATIVE MAP . • 7-14
7.2.1 No Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...• . . 7-14
7.2.2 Alternative Project Designs .. ...... • • . '. 7-14
7.2.2.1 25% Reduction in Home Depot Center and Parking
Reduction .....................7-14
7.2.2.2 Realignment of Home Depot Building Alternative . 7-17
7.2.2.3 . Crib Wall Alternative • I .............. 7-17
7.2.2.4 Crib Wall Alternative With PA 3 as. Borrow Site . 7-19
7.2.2.5 Crib Wall Alternative Wih PA 3 as Borrow Site and
Parking Area Plus 25% Reduction in HO me Depot
-. Center . . • . . . . .• I . . • • . . . •. . . . . 7-21
7.2.3 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT SITES . . . . .• • . . 7-21
7 2.3.1 Matsumoto Property . . . 7-21
7.2.3.2 FormerKaypro Site , . . .......... .. . . .7-21
7.1.3.3 Robert Hall, Inc Nursery Site . . . . 7-23
7.2.3.4 Ecke Property/Encinitas Ranch . . 7-23
7.2 4 ALTERNATIVE USES FOR PA 1 . . . . . . . 7-25
AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED . . 8-1
CERTIFICATION OF ACCURACY AND QUALIFICATIONS . . 9-1
9.1 QUALIFICATIONS OF EIR PREPARER AND CONSULTANTS 9-1
9.2 CERTIFICATION OF ACCURACY . . . . . 9-4
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1
PERSONS/AGENCIES/ORGANIZATIONS THAT RECEIVED AND
COMMENTEDON THE, DRAFT- EIR
: PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES. • .. • • . • 12-1
LIST OP FIGURES .. Number Title Page
1.1-1 Areas 'Addressed by Previous EIRs . . ... . . . . 1-7
2.1-1 Regional Location of the Project Site . . . . . . 2-2
2.1-2 VicinityMap . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-3
2.1-3 Jurisdictional BoundarieS . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
2.1-4, Location Within Encinitas . . . ... . .. . - . . . 2-5
2.2-1 Topography of' the Project Area . • . • :. • . • . 2-6
2.2-2 Topography of the Specific Plan Area . '. . . . . 2-8
2.2-3 Slope Analysis of SPA . . . . . . . . . . 2-9
2.3-1 Matter Land Use Plan .............. 2-13.
2.3-2 Areas Designated as Developable -in the Specific
Plan- . . . -. . . . . . . . . •-. . . . . . . . . . 2-14
2.3--a3 Opportunities and Constraints . . . . . . . ... . 2-17
2.3-4 Open Space Plan. . . . . . .........• . . 2-19
2.3-5 -Fence and Wall Plan. . • . • . . ...... . 2-2.1
2.3-6 Wall & Fence Elevations 1 . . .- . . '.- .-. . . 2-21-
2.3"7 Wall and Fence Elevations 2 . . ........ • 2-24
2.3-8 Landscape Zones . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . .. 2-25
:2.39 Fuel-Management Zones . . . . . . • ..,. ! • • . 2-28 2.3-10 - Fuel Management - Zone Section . . • • • . ... . . 2-29
2.3-12 100-Year Floodplain .•. . . . . . . . . . • . . . 2-32-
2.3-13 Propqsed Wetland,,, Mitigation . . -. . . . ..•- .. • . 2-34
2.3-14 Typical Section Easterly (Upstream View) . . 2-35
2.3-15 Proposed Nuisance Water Treátmeñt System .' • . -2-38
2.3-16 RunOff Treatment System Near Garden Center -. • • 2-39
2.3-17. Runoff Water Treatment System • • . . . -. -. • -. . 2-40
2.3-19. Street Sections .............. • •. . . 2-43
2.3-20 Project Access . . • . . • . . . • . -. • • . . . - 2-45
2.3-21 ' Tentative Map and'Grading Plan ..........2-46
2.3-22 Home Depot Market Spheres .............2-49
2.3-23 - Home Depot Site Plan . ... . . . . . . . -. '. . . 2-51
2.3-24 Residential Lotting P1-an . . . .. .•• . .. . . . 2-53
2.3-25 Drainage Facilities ...... . . . . . • .- . . 2-56
2.3-26 Sewer System ..................2-59
2.3-27 - Water System .....................2-60
2.3-28 Easements ......... . . • • ........2-61
2.3-29 ' Home 'Depot: Elevations .........• • . ... 2-63
2.3-30 Home Depot Parking Lot Lighting . . . . -. . . . . 2'-65-
2.3-31. Home 'Depot Signage - North Elevation ......2-6,6
2.3-32 -Home -Despot Signage - West Elevation . . . . -. -. 2-67-
Residential Architecture Styles ........... 2-69
2.3-34 Mediterranean Architecture . . .
• • .2-70
2.3-35 Spanish Colonial Architecture . . . • • -. .' . . . 2-71
.2.3-36 Home Depot Landscape Plan .......- f .....2-72
2.3-37 .El Camino Streetscape Adjacent to Home Depot . • 2-73
2.3-38 El Camino- Real Streetscape South of Home Depot -. 2-74
2.3-39 ResidentialLandscapePlan . • • • •• • • . •' .. . 2-76
3.1-1 Encinitas Creek Drainage Basin • . . • . • • . . 3-2
3.1-2 Areas
1.
of Potential Flooding • . • . • • -. -• • • • 3-5
3.1-3 . Projected '100-Year Floodplain Without -Proposed
HØ
Dredging or Detention Basin D . . 3-7
3.2-1 Recommended Siltation. Control Measures . . . . . 3-18
3.3-1 Vegetation and Sensitive Species . . . . . . . . 3-21
3.3-2 Wetlands Impacts . . . .. .. . . . . .. .......3-36
3.3-3 Mitigation Areas Under Consideration . . . . . . 3-53
3.3-4,1 Potential Mitigation Area . . . . . . . . . . . 3-55
3.3-5 Wetlands and 50' Buffer . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . 3-56
3.4-1 Geologic Map of SPA ... . 3-59
3.4-2 Geologic -Map ofTM Area .. . . . . . . . . . .. 3-60
3.6-1 Existingand Approved Land Uses .........3-93
3.6-2 Ecke Agricultural Preserve . ..........3-95
3.6-3 Designated Land Uses in the Project Vicinity 3-96
3.6-4 General Plan Designations and Environmental
Constraints ... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-97-
3.6-5 ''C of Genera]. Plan and Specific. Plan Land
- Uses . . . . ........- . . o. . . '. . o. . '. .3-103
3.6-6 , Proposed Development Areas and Environmental
Constraints . . . . . . . .........• • • 3-105
3.6-7 Potential Trail Alignments ........ . -. . 3-110
3.6-8 Required Buffers Based on Delineated Wetlands . . 3-123
3.6-9. Steep Slope Encroachment . . . . .. . . . . . . '. 3-135
3.7-1 Specific Plan Area Vjewshed . . . .. ........3-156
Photo Locations . . ... • . . . . . ..3-157
3.7-3 . Selected Profiles. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . .3-165
3.7-4 Locations for Selected Profiles . . . . . . . . . 3-166
3.8-1 NOise Contours ,,. .-. . . . .. . . . -. . . . . . ,. 3-183
3.17-1 Locations for ELF-EMF Measurements . . . . •. . . 3-218
.3.17-2 Sources of Ambient Exposure to 60 Hz EMP . . . . 3-221
.•1
II
LIST OF TABLES
'Number 'Title' S Page
1.2-1 Summary of Potential Significant Impacts of the
Specific Plan ... . . •'.... .'.. . . . . 1-10
1.2-2 Cumulative Specific Plan Impacts On Vegetative Communities...... •I......
1.2-4 Summary of Potential P.anniflg Policy Conflicts
Between the Specific Plan and the General; Plan .. 1-14
2.21 Existing Slope Gradients In the SPA . . . . . . . 2-7
2.2-2 Existing Slope Gradients In TM Area • 2-7
2.3-1 "Proposed Specific Plan Land Uses . . . • . . . . 2-18
2.3-2 Breakdown of Land Uses By: Planning Area • . . . . 2-20
2.3-3 Proposed Wetlands Mitigaion/Etháncemeñt 'Program' 2-36
2.3-4 Proposed Land Uses for t1e Tentative Map. .. . 2-48.
2.3-5 Existing. and Proposed Slppe Gradients - Tentative.
Map . ....... . . . . . . • . . . . . • . 2-57
'3.3-1 Cumulative Specific PlanVegBtation Impacts . . . 3-33
3.3-2. Wetlands Impacts . .' .' ....... . .' . . '.. 3-33
3.3-3 Vegetative Impacts By Pljnn'ing Area. . . . •:. . . 3-35
3.3-4 Cumulative Impacts on Vegetative Communities . 3-45
3.4-1 Relevant Fault Zones and Potential Impacts . . . 3-61
3.5-1 Definitions of Levels of Service . .. •'. . . . 3-67'
3.5-2 Existing Road Volumes, Capacities and Levels of
Service . . . . . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-68
3.5-3. County Road Standards and LOS . .....
' . . • . 369
3.5-4 Intersection Operation in. 1995.Without TM With and
Without Recommended Community Road Improvements . 3-71
3.5-5 Trip Generation Assumptions and. Projected Trip
'Generation .................. . . .3-74
3.5-6 Projected Level of Service With Existing Plus, TM
Traffic Assuming Recommended Community 'Road
Improvements Are Not Made . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-75
3.5-7 Projected LOS At Relevant Intersections With TM
Traffic .........................3-76
3.5-8 Level of Service With Ex.st'ing Plus TM Traffic If
Recommended Community Road Improvements Are
Implemented ............... ... ..'. 3-76
3.5-9 Level of Service for Relevant Road Segments in 1995
With 'and Without the TM Assuming 'Recommended
Improvements Are Not Mad! ........." . . • .3-77
3.5-10 1995 Intersection Operations With and Without the
TM If Recommended Commuxity Improvements Are Not
Implemented ..........................379
3.5711 LOS For, Relevant Road Sgments,' Existing and '1995
With Implementation of t4e Specific Plan' . .' .' 3-82
3.5-12 Buildout Traffic Projections With and Without the
Specific Plan.. . . ., . . . • .. . . • .... 3-83
' Projected Buildout Intersection Operations . • 3-84
3.6-1 Steep Slope EncroachmentlAnalysiè for'the Specific
Plan Area . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . .' 3-134
.'
..
3.6-.2 Steep Slope Encroachment Analysis for 'TM Area . . '3-137
3.8-1 Ambient Noise Levels In the Project Vicinity 3-180
3.8-2 Current and Future noise Contour Locations Adjacent
to El Camino Real 3-181
3.8-3 Current and Future Noise Contour Locations Adjacent
to Olivenhain Road . . . . . .. ........• • 3-182
.3o8-4 Ambient Noise Levels At the Santee Home Depot
Center . . . ......... . . • • . . • • 3-184
3.14-1 Number of Days Federal and State Ozone Standards'
Were Exceed At the s Oceanide Station, 1986-1990 3-206
3.14-2 Number of Hours 'Federal and State Ozone Standards
Were Exceeded At the Oceanside Station, 1986-1990 3-206
3.14-3 Number of Days Exceeding Federal. and State Carbon
' Monoxide Standards at the Oceanside Station, 1986-
1990 ......... 0 ..3-207
3.14-4 Number . of Days and Hours. Exceeding State Nitrogen
Dioxide Standards At the Oceanside Station, 1986-
1990 ..........................3-207
3.14-5 Number. of Days Exceeding State. Sulfur Dioxide
Standards At the Oceanside Station, 1986-1990 o o 3-208
3.14-6 Number of Days Exceeding Particulate Matter (PMIO)
Standards At. the Oceanside Station, 1986-1990 . . 3-208
3.14-7 Total Suspended. Particulates For the Oceanside
Station, 1986-1990 ................3-208
3.17-1 Existing Power Line Standards .......... 3-219
3.17-2 Typical Field Strengths ............. 3-220
3.17-3 'Field Strength Readings In the Speäific Plan Area 3-222
110w 3.19-1 Solid Waste Generation and Disposal Rates for
Encinitas ....................... 3-225
7.1-1 Wetlands Alternative Open Space Plan . .' . . .' . 7-3
7.1-2 EMF Alternative Open Space Plan .........' ' 7-5
7.1-3 Steep Slope Mitigation Alternative ...... 7-6
7.1-4 California Gnatcatcher Mitigation Alternative 7-7
7.1-5 Hiking/Equestrian 'Trail Alternative .......7-9
7.1-6 Wetlands, ENF, Steep Hillside and Trail
Alternative . . . . . . . . . . ' ...... . 7-10
7.1-7 Composite Alternate Open Space Plan' .......7-13
7.2-1 25% Reduction in Home .Depot Center .......7-16
7.2-2 Realignment of Home Depot Building Alternative 7-18
7.2-3 Grading Plan for Crib Wall Alternative ..... 7-20'
7.2-4 . Crib Wall With PA 3 as Borrow Area & Parking Area
Plus 25% Reduction in 'Home Depot Center .....7-22
7.2-5 Alternative Tentative Map Sites ..........7-24
11-1 Persons, Agencies and Organizations That Provided
Written Comment on the Draft 'EIR During the Public
Review Period . . . . . . . . . ,. . . ..• . . .. . 11-2
11-2. Persons'Who Provided Oral Comments at the • January 21, 1992 Planning 'Commission Hearing• . 11-8
11-3 Persons and Agencies That Were Sent the Notice
of Completion and Availability of the'EIR ... . 11-9
11-4 Persons & Agencies That Received. the Preliminary
Final EIR Text . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-12
ii
i. INTOUCT ION/ SUMMARY /MITI GAT ION
MONITORING PROGRAM
2
1. INTRODUCTION/SUMMARY/MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
1.1- Introduction -
1.1.1 Purpose of Document
This document. is a. Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for both
a Specific Plan (SP) and a Tentative Map (TM) in the northern
portion of Encinitas. It is intended to be an informational
document and is designed to provide the public and the
decision-making body with in formation on potential environmental
effects Of both the SP and TM proposals.
This EIR has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended January
1, 1992 (State of California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000
et seq.); the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Encinitas
CEQA/City Environmental Guidelines, and City of Encinitas
Resolution No 89-21 In addition, it is responsive to numerous
court cases that have recently, established more specific guidelines
for the content and adequacy of EIRs. The EIR preparer has based the environmental analysis on the information available, which
includes several technical reports prepared by -subconsultants as
well as input from the public;. All environmental analysis was
Prepared under contract to the City of Encinitas, and the City has
independently reviewed the EIR and approved its distribution as a
City document Agencies that will have to approve portions of the
project and which are Responsible Agencies include the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Game, the
Leucadia County Water District, the California Coastal Commission
And the CaliforniaRegional- water Quality Control Board. The Army
Corps of Engineers has approved a permit for the proposed
developmentand mitigation in Planning Area 1 (see AppendixJ).
An Initial Study, was -prepared to determine potential issues
associated with implementation of the project In fulfillment of
the requirements of Section 4 21153 of the Public Resources Code,
which requires that when a project is located, adjacent to.a city
corporate boundary, the adjacent public agencies must be contacted
prior to completion of the EIR, a scoping meeting was held at the
City of Encinitas with representatives from the City of Carlsbad,
the County of San Diego, and the Encinitas Fire Department. This
EIR is based On issues'raised in the Initial Study, the; scoping
meeting, and responses to the: Notice of Preparation. in
conformance with Section 21153 of the Public Resources Code,
responsible agencies or other public agencies may make substantive
comments regarding those, .activities,involved in a-project which are
within an-area of expertise of the agency or which are. required to
be carried out or approved by.. the agency, providing the comments
are supported by specifià "documentation.
The purpose of this document is to provide information on
potentially significant environmental impacts, direct and indirect,
short-term and long-term, of the proposed Specific Plan and
Tentative Map, and to determine ,if there are environmentally
superior alternatives to the proposed project. Issues determined
to have the greatest potential for environmental impact receive a
larger proportion of analysis in this EIR than the issues
determined not to, be important. CEQA does not require the analysis
of economic impacts unless they result in physical impacts.
The Draft EIR received a full 45-day public review period plus an
extension due to the availability of, a noise addendum and new
information on the presence of the California gnatcatcher that was
presented at a public hearing on January 21, 1992. in addition'to
meeting the statutory requirements, the City. of Encinitas made a
Preliminary Final EIR available for an informal 12-day public
review period. The EIR preparer had no input into the City's
decision on recirculation and review of the preliminary Final EIR.
The City of Encinitas determined that additional information from
comments on the Draft EIR did not change the conclusions in the EIR
and . that the information was not considered significant. The
public had the opportunity to review all of the, data and studies
for the proposed project. Therefore, the City determined that
recirculation of. the Final EIR was not required.
Section 21002 of CEO A states that public agencies should not
approve projects' as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or
feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially
lessen the significant environmental effects of the project. An
agency must expressly reject as infeasible each mitigation measure
identified in the EIR but not adopted in the project approval. The
City Council will make the final decision on the adequacy 'of the
mitigation.
Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines allows' a public agency
to approve a project with significant impacts if it can make one or
more of three possible required findings for each of the
significant effects: (1) changes or alterations, have been required
in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
Final EIR; (2) such changes or alterations are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not
the agency making the finding, and such changes have been adopted
by such other agency or can and should, be adopted' by such other
agency; or (3) specific economic, social, or other considerations
make infeasible the mitigation measures or" project alternatives
identified in the Final EIR. The Findings must be supported by
substantial evidence in the record, and if economic reasons are
used as justification for approving the project, the administrative
record must contain detailed cost analyses proving why project
alternatives are not economically feasible.
1-2 .'
. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the decision-
maker(s) to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its
unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve
the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse
environmental effects may be considered acceptable. Section 15093
of the State CEOA Guidelines requires a Statement of Overriding
Considerations if the adverse environmental effects are considered
acceptable because the benefits of the project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse impacts. This Statement must detail the
specific reasons to support its action.
The determination of whether or not a project is consistent with
the City of Encinitas policies is a planning determination to be
made by the decision-making body following public review and input
from the City's planning staff. The purpose of the EIR is to
fairly disclose the environmental impacts of a project, the
mitigation measures and the alternatives that can reduce identified
potential impacts. It is not the purpose of the EIR to preempt the
right of the City to determine consistency with City policies. The
EIR preparer has addressed the project's conformance with General
Plan policies and Design Review Guidelines to ensure that all
reasonably foreseeable environmental impact are identified. Thus,
the EIR has adopted a conservative "worst case" analysis related to
the interpretation of City policies. However, the decision on the
project's conformance with City policies will be made by the
decision-making body. If the City Council determines that the
project is not consistent with one or more City policies, then the
Council will have to determine whether the inconsistency is
significant. If one or more such inconsistencies is determined to
be significant, the decision-making body can either approve one of
the project alternatives identified in Section 7 of the EIR or make
findings of overriding considerations if this is deemed
appropriate.
1.1.2 Basis for Determining Adequacy of An EIR
An EIR must be certified before a discretionary project can be
considered for approval. However, certification of an EIR does not
mean that a project will be approved or disapproved, but merely
that the document is adequate based on the CEQA requirements.
The Draft EIR was submitted to appropriate public agencies and
interested groups, and was made available for review at the City of
Encinitas. In addition, a Planning Commission hearing was held on
January 21, 1992 to obtain public comment. The purpose of the
public review was to review the content and adequacy of the EIR,
and public comments on these issues, as well as responses to these
comments, are included in this Final EIR. The adequacy of the EIR
is judged on the basis of the statutory CEQA requirements and the
findings in many court cases. Section 15151 of the State CEOA
Guidelines provides the following standard for determining the
1-3
adequacy of an EIR: "An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient
degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information
which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes
account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the
environmental effects of a project is to be reviewed in the light
of what is reasonably feasible.
CEQA recognizes that there may be a difference of opinion among
professionals but that disagreement among experts does not make an
EIR inadequate. The courts have determined that mere
uncorroborated opinion or rumor of an environmental impact does not
constitute substantial evidence of a significant impact and,
further, that an adverse effect on a few particular people (e.g.,
neighbors) is not an effect upon "the environment in general."
In assessing the adequacy of EIRs, the courts have looked not for
perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort
at full disclosure. The courts have determined that, in order to
be adequate, an EIR need address only that information available at
the time of preparation and that the preparation of an EIR does not
need to be interminably delayed to include all potential works in
progress which might shed some additional light on the subject of
the impact statement. The courts have rejected as unreasonable,
and unsupported by CEQA or the Guidelines, an argument urging that,
prior to approving a project for which an EIR is required, the Lead
Agency must conduct every test and perform all research, study, and
experimentation recommended to it by interested parties. In
addition, the courts have determined that an EIR does not have to
include detailed quantitative analyses of speculative impacts as
long as the reasons for not speculating are explained.
The preliminary Final EIR was certified as being adequate and.
accurate by the Encinitas Council on January 6, 1993. This Final
EIR contains responses to all public comments received through
January 6, 1993, and must be certified by the Encinitas City
Council before it can approve the Home Depot Specific Plan and
Tentative Map.
1.1.3 Level of Analysis in EIR
This document has been prepared as a Program EIR for the entire
Specific Plan Area (SPA), which has been divided into four Planning
Areas (PAs). Section 15146 of the State CEQA Guidelines states
that, "The degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond
to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity
which is described in the EIR." Further, "(a) An EIR on a
construction project will necessarily be more detailed in the
specific effects of the project than will be an EIR on the adoption
of a local general plan or comprehensive zoning ordinance because
the effects of the construction can be predicted with greater
accuracy," and "(b) an EIR on a project such as the adoption or
amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance or a local general
plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to
1-4
follow from the adoption, or amendment, but the EIR need not be as
detailed as an EIR on the sp,cific construction projects that
follow." Court cases have detérihined that (1) a "first-tier EIR
may defer to future study those specific impacts of individual
projects that will be evaluated in subsequent "Second-tier" EIRs;
(2)'a program-level EIR may contain generalized mitigation criteria
rather' than project-specific mitigation measures; and (3) a
program-level EIR. may contain generalized policy-level
alternatives.
When 'subsequent projects are proposed within the SPA, the
subsequent project must be examined in the light of the Program EIR
to determine whether an be environmental, document should be
prepared. Section 15168(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines specifies'
that if a subsequent project would have effects that were, not
examined in the Program EIR, a new Initial Study would need to be
prepared leading to either an EIR'or a Negative Declaration. The
Specific Plan EIR includes detailed, project-specific analysis of
the proposed grading' and' development for PA 1 and 2.
Both PAs 1 and 2 are covered,, by. the TM/Grading Plan. Section
21083.3 of CEQA limits the CEQA' analysis to an examination of the
effects peculiar to the project or to effects not addressed in a
prior EIRs as 'long as the project is consistent with a General 'Plan
or Community Plan for which an EIR was certified. Specifically,
the future plans for 'the development of PA 2 will need to be
) analyzed to verify that (1) the project is consistent with the
Specific Plan and (2) the grading is consistent with that proposed
in this EIR and does not entail additional environmental impacts.
No development is currently 'proposed'f or PA 3' and 4, although the
biological report includes' an analysis, of potential impacts of
using a portion of PA 3 as, an optional borrow site for the fill
required for Planning Areas 1, and 2. .The currently proposed
project does not, require the use of PA 3 .f or a' borrow site.
However, if the Crib Wall Alternative is adopted'instead of the
proposed TN, the PA 3 borrow site would be needed.
This EIR has analyzed the potential environmental consequences of
the type and location of uses that 'might' 'be 'reasonably, expected in
PA 3 and 4. However, when these areas are planned for development,
additional environmental review will be required to determine (1)
whether the project is in compliance withthe Spécif Ic Plan and (2)
whether any potential environmental impacts could result that are
not addressed in this EIR.
The 'project plans have been reduced for 'this report. Full-sized
copies of the project maps, the full Specific' Plan' text, and two
color photo boards are available for review at the City of
Encinitas Community Development Department.
1-5
1.1.5 Background and Related Projects • Three EIRs have been previously prepared which address all or a
portion of the current 55.5-acre project area (see Figure 1). The
Draft Environmental Impact Report for the HPI Olivenhain Property.
GPA 86-01 addressed the 37.2 acres that comprise Planning Areas 1
and 2 of the current SPA (see Figure 1.1-1). The Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Pearce Olivenhain Property. GPA
86-02 (RECON, 1986) addressed a 15.5-acre parcel to the immediate
east of the southernmost portion of the Home Depot Specific Plan
Area. It included the southernmost portion of what is identified
as Planning Area 3 in the current Specific Plan.
In addition, the entire project area was addressed in the Encinitas
General Plan Program Final Environmental Impact Report
(Cotton/Beland/ Associates, 1989). Three additional sources of
information on the general project area are the Draft Environmental
Impact Report for the Scott's Valley Property, GPA 85-03 (RECON,
1985), which covers the property to the immediate east, the Final
Environmental Impact Report, Arroyo La Costa Master Plan (Ponseggi,
1990), which covers all of the land north of Olivenhain Road north
of the project area, and the Final. Environmental Impact Report for
the Olivenhain Road Widening Project (Brian F. Mooney Associates,
1991). Relevant information from these EIRs haè been considered
in the preparation of this EIR, particularly in relation to the
environmental setting and potential cumulative impacts.
The Olivenhain Road Widening Project, which includes the
construction of Detention Basin D upstream, was proposed by
Fieldstone/La. Costa Associates and is not part of the proposed Home
Depot project. The two projects are indirectly related because
each project applicant is dependent upon the other. The owners of
all properties in the Home Depot SPA will have to contribute, on a
fair-share basis, to the financing of the Olivenhain Road
improvements. The Olivenhain Road Widening Project is needed to
solve existing regional problems.
The EIR for the Olivenhain Road Widening Project addressed several
alternative alignments. The selected alignment (#2) will traverse
a small portion of the northernmost portions of PA 1 and 4. This
will affect the developable area of PA 4 and the wetlands. in the
northwest corner of PA 1 (which will not be impacted by the
proposed Home Depot project). The development of the final
engineering design and wetlands mitigation program for the
Olivenhain Road Widening Project has yet to be completed, and the
project applicant has not yet submitted an application for a
Section 404 Permit from the Army Corps of. Engineers. The
Olivenhain Road Widening Project will be phased and is expected to
occur within the next 3 to 4 1/2 years.
-. oARD
VsW'
. • . 'A ,'
.1
DRlv ..• ... )
.9.
aLvD '
O 2000
I BASE MAP: 7.5' USGS ENCINITAS & RANCHO SANTA F
!
FEET QUADS 1973
ci L '\:..I_'
PROJECT SITE
3 GPA 85-03
H I. • P80-02 Wae-.
- •
GPASS—Oi
I
ARROVA LA COSTA
I
J (
.. •'fj'- •) '"'—' V ,- ( / :. ••
:
\ (2
- — .
\ ':FU1URf: E CINITA = -1
I ANC FIC
?7PL D4R j ANI
- I. P-14
H
LEGEND ,. . .._.
OLIVENHAIN ROAD Ex
wat
Tan WIDENING I' I I
e.
...
t11 u 1
.. 4
' )
0 AREAS ADDRESSED BY PREVIOUS EIRS
.
FIGURE
1-7
If the Olivenhain Road improvements are not completed by the time
the Home Depot Center is ready for occupancy, temporary but
significant traffic impacts could occur. However, the Home Depot
project is not dependent on the construction of Detention Basin D,
which is part of the Olivenhain Road Widening project.
One additional project that is in the planning process in the
immediate. vicinity of the Home Depot Specific Plan Area is the
development of a Specific Plan for the future development of
Encinitas. Ranch (formerly known as the Ecke property). This land
is located due west, and northwest of the proposed project area,
immediately west of El Camino Real. The Encinitas Ranch Specific
Plan Task Force is currently considering potential environmental
constraints for this property and potential future uses. Uses
being considered include regional commercial, residential, a Green
Valley Town Center, recreation, agriculture, and open space and
trails. The Specific Plan and EIR for this area have not yet been
completed, and any attempt to project future uses and cumulative
impacts related to this project would be purely speculative.
1.2 Summary
1.2.1 Summary of Project Description
The proposed project is multi-tiered. The Specific Plan addresses
a 55.5-acre area in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of
El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road. It divides the area into four
PAs and designates the area for Light Industrial, Residential, and
Open Space uses). The Specific Plan identifies environmentally
constrained areas and potentially developable areas, and includes
specific guidelines for future development related to design,
landscaping and preservation of the natural environment. Once
adopted, the Specific Plan will also serve as the zoning for the
four Planning Areas. Any minor adjustments in existing boundaries
will be made to the City Zoning Nap to accommodate the Specific
Plan as part of the project.
The second tier of the project is the TN/Grading Plan, which
proposes specific land uses for PA 1 and 2, which are in the
westernmost portion of the SPA. The land uses proposed for PA 1
include the development of a Home Depot Home Improvement Center on
10 acres and the enhancement and preservation of 9.35 acres of
wetlands open space. The TM also proposes the development of 19
single-family homes on 6.86 acres and 11.1 acres of hillside open
space in PA 2, of which 7.9 acres will remain natural.
The third tier of the project is the site plan for the development
of PA 1, which will include implementation of a wetlands
mitigation/ enhancement plan. The development of the Home Depot
Center is proposed at a level of detail such that, upon project
approval, project implementation could commence as soon as is
feasible given the biological constraints .and erosion potential.
1-8
If the Specific Plan is approved by the City of Encinitas, it will
become part of the General Plan The development of PA 1 will
require approval of the TN/Grading Plan and Site Plan, an erosion
control plan, an operational plan and a building permit from the
C.ty of Encinitas In addition, it will require a Section 1603
Streambed Alteration Agreement with the State Department of Fish
and Game, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit from the State Water Resources Control Board; a Coastal
Permit from the California Coastal Commission for the dredging
beneath the El Camino Real bridge and street modifications,
approval of the proposed widening of El Camino Real by the County
of San Diego, and approval by the Leucadia County Water District
for the annexation of PA 1 and 2 to the District for the provision
of sewer service A Section 404 Permit has already been approved
by. the U. S.Army Corps of Engineers (see Appendix J).
1.2.2 Specific Plan .
1.2,21 Potential. Significant Environmental Impacts of the
Specific Plan
Potentially significant impacts that could result if the proposed.
Specific Plan is implemented are summarized in Table 1.2-;l.
Development of the Specific Plan could have short- and long-term
impacts to wetlands, steep hillsides, Chaparral, and California
Gnatcatcher habitat, and may not be in conformance with some City
) policies. Issues relatéd,to General Plan policies: are discussed in
Section 1.2.2.2. Various alternatives to the Specific Plan and TN
are discussed in Section 7.
The cumulative effects of development of all four planning areas on
biological' resources are included *in Table 1.2-2. The loss of all
of the Coastal Mixed Chaparral in PA 1 and a substantial portion of
PA 2 will be mitigated to a less than significant level
biologically , by the proposed planting program.'. rogram However, the
biological mitigation dOes not affect the. Specif ic"Plan's potential
nonconformance with City policies related to steep slopes,
Chaparral and wetlands. .
It should be noted that in cases where the biologist determined
there could be a significant impact, either individually or
cumulatively, mitigation has been designed to offset the impact
Although there is technically a loss of wetlands, the proposed
wetlands creation/enhancement program will provide substantially
higher quality wetlands and habitat than exist now because the
existing wetlands include weedy species that thrive in moist
conditions In addition, the 3.1 acres of wetlands enhancement is
not counted as mitigation, although it will upgrade the quality of
the habitat. .
Table 1. 2-1
Summary of Potential Significant Impacts of the Specific Plan and Potential for Mitiqation
ISSUE POTENTIAL IMPACT MITIGATION IS PART SIG. IMPACT AFTER MIT. REQUIRES
OF PROJECT PROJECT MITIGATION ALTERNATIVE DESIGN
Hydrology Flooding ofa small portion of PA 4 development area Yes No No
Water Quality .sScdimeiitation/runoff contamination of Encinitas Creel Yes No No
- -"Cumulative impacts Yes+ No No
Biology wcjands inipicm,. PA I 3 4 Yes No No
'Coastal Mixed Chaparral unpact Yes . No No
Yes No No Indirect Impacts from water quality degradation Yes No No
Califoruia Giiatcatchcr habitat Yes No No
Sensitive plain species - Yes No No
Inappropriate plant species in plant palette Yes+
-
No No
Cumulativc impacts Yes No No
linishcoiilrol impacts
Geology 'Earth srtilcmcistlliqucfsction - Yes No No
Traffic 'Cumulative impacts on nearby roads and Intersections until roads are improved Yes+ Yes* No
Access to PA 3 and 4 Yes No •' No
Noise Iipacts on 7 residences in PA 2 Yes No No
'Potential for impacts on PA 3 front PA I Yes, -. No No
No Yes? . 2 Excessive noise levels in the northern portion of PA 4 .
Visual Quality 'Scenic road impacts .. Yes No No
S,Vicwshcd impacts - Yes No No
*Policy 4.9 of Resource Management Element related to bulk Yes (design and No . No
landscape) ,
Air Quality ' IncrcmeiitalIy insignificant but cumulative ünpata to long term regional air quality Yes + Yes* - No
Paleontology Potential destruction of resources Yes Yes? No
EMF Hazard Potential uhipacts to future developnsent in PA 3 and 4 will require additional Yes Yes? 2
analysis when development is proposed in these areas
Land in Sl)G& E easement should 'be designated for open space
No Yes Yes
Solid Waste •. Incrementally insignificant but cwsiulative inspscts to laisdfills Ycs+ - Yea - , .. No
-5- rrojcci can oniy,miugatc project impacts
Requires statement of overriduig considerations if pioject is approved
2 Additional analysis required, when developiiiriit is proposed, to iiiike a dctcnninstion
Ll
A
A F I
CD :w 0 CL 5 _g) z
EXISTING ACRES —
CRES IMPACTED
U, PERCENT IMPACTED
— XISTING ACRES —
CRES IMPACTED
PERCENT IMPACTED
cp
XJSTINGACRES —
kCRES IMPACTED
'ERCENT IMPACTED
— XIST!NG ACRES — = —
— —
U, -
kCRES IMPACTED ) C C C C C
IMPACTED
.41
1:'ERCENT,
X1STING ACRES —
°
kCRES IMPACTED
cc
'ERCENT IMPACTED
The Corps of.Engirieers has approved the 404 permit required for the
wetland alterations.,Biological impacts are considered to be
biologically mitigated to a less than significant level The City
Council will still, have to. determine whether the project conflicts
with the City's "no net, loss" policy and, if so, whether the
conflict is significant. Wetland impacts are detailed in Table
1.2-3.
Table 1.2-3
Wetlands Impacts of the Specific Plan
Plan
Area
Exist.
Acres
Acres
Impact
. %. .
Impact
'Mitiga-
'tion Ac,
Net Ac
impact
Net %
impact
1 '10.8 3.0*. . 28 0.7* 2.3.. , 21
2 0.0 . 0.0 0 0.0 . 00 0
3 0.4 0.4 100 . 00 0.4 100
4 75 ., 1.4 19 0.0 1.4 . 19
Totals -F-1 8 7. 4.8 26 0.7 4.1 .22
* This does .not
be, enhanced in
quality.
include the: 3.2 acres of wetlandST.thàt will
PA 1, ensuring no net loss of wetlands
.
Similarly, with respect to potentially significant . impacts to
Chaparral and -steep hillsides, 'mitigation including (1)
revegetation with native species and (2) acquisition of an
additional 16 acres of off-site, high-quality habitat consisting of
Coastal Sage Scrub contiguous to other habitat, has been designed
to offset the impact , and reduce it to below a level of
significance. . S
With regard to potential significant impacts for the California
gnatcatcher, mitigation in the form of acquisition of 16 acres of
off-site high-quality habitat supporting two pairs of gnatcatchers
that is contiguous to. other habitat has. been designed to offset the
impact and reduce it to below a. leveI of significance.
The westernmost and northernmost portions of the Specific Plan Area
are expected to .be subjected to noise levels exceeding 70 CNEL.
Development •in, these areas will require noisé.atteñuation. A'
5-foot high solid noise barrier has been incorporated into the
project to protect seven homes to be constructed on the extension
of Scott Place. 'A 5-foot high solid fence is also proposed along
1-12
the east side of the Home Depot Center. If any development is to \} occur adjacent to Olivenhain Road in PA 4, noise attenuation will
be required Because this area is so small and is so visible from
the road, it is likely that any noise attenuation would have to be
designed into the building.
The development ofthe SPA '.ill result in the conversion of what is
currently vacant land to more urban uses However, the project
includes wetlands creation and enhancement as well as a substantial
open space corridor on the north- and northwest- facing hillsides
that connects,-.with other natural open Ispace In addition, the
project will acquire 16 acres of off-site high-quality habitat for
the California gnatcatcher, which will also provide other
biological benefits Therefore, with the implementation of the
recommended mitigation measures, the indirect effects of
urbanization can be mitigated to. a less than significant level.
1.2.2.2 Potential Conflicts With City Policies
The determination of whether or not the proposed project is
consistent with the City of Encinitas General Plan, Zoning
Ordinance and Design Review Guidelines is a planning determination
to be madelby the decision-making body following public review and
input from the City's planning staff. The purpose of the EIR is to
fairly disclose the environmental impacts of the project, the
mitigation measures and he alternatives which can reduce the
identified, impacts. It is not the purpose of this EIR to preempt IMF the right of the City to dSterminé City policy consistency at the
appropriate time.
Several comments on the Draft EIR offered the opinion that the
proje.t is inconsistent with at least some of the policies, of the
City's General plan and zoning Section 3.6.2.'3 includes the EIR
preparer's analysis of the project's potential conformance with
General Plan policies Because it is not the position of the EIR
preparer to determine if such conflict exists, and to ensure that
all reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts are identified,
the Draft and Final ,EIRs .,have. used' a "worst case" analysis.
Wherever there was a question regarding the consistency of the
project with a' City policy.; the EIR has assumed, for purposes of
dis cuss ion. and impäct.analysis, that the project is not consistent.
Potential conflicts are summarized in Table 1 2-4 Following this
"worst case" analysis, it is the conclusion of the EIR that,
whether or not the project is consistent or inconsistent with these
City policies, the only significant,' unmitigated environmental
impacts of' the proposed project are in the areas of cumulative air
quality, traffic and solid waste, '..As discussed in Section 4 of this
EIR.
S. . 1-13. .
Table 1.2-4
Summary of Potential Planning-Policy Conflicts
Between the Specific Plan and the General Plan
ISSUE POTENTIAL IMPACT To BE DETERMINED BY COUNCIL MITIGATION IS PART
OF PROJECT
REMAINING
POTENTIAL PLANNING
CONFLICT AFTER
PROJECT MITIGATION
(10 BE DETERMINED
BY COUNCIL)
POTENTIAL PLANNING
CONFLICT CAN BE
AVOIDED BY
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN
Land Use Potenual future incompatibility of future light industrial uses on southern portion Yes No . N/A
of PA 4 With adjacent residences S
sNmnenclsturc for open space areas Yea No N/A Designated developable areas have environmental COflSt(aiflts Yes No N/A
General Plan Policies Lack of wetlands buffer in PA 1, 3 and 4 . No Yes Yes
Sleep hillside mspacts if PA 4 is dcyelopcd according to the Specific Plan No Yea Yes
(Hillside Inland Bluff Overlay Zone encroachment allowance is exceeded)
Retention of significant natural features . -. - No Yea Yes
Required documentation of paleontological and historical resources Yea . . No N/A
!.Preservation of native vegetation on natural slopes of 25% grade or more to
preserve Coastal Mixed Chaarral -. .. No Yea - Yea
Consideratson for future had system
Nced to establish boundaries of developable areas based on environmental Yea No. N/A
constraints and City policies 0, •. Yes No N/A
Excecdancc of LOS policies
- No+ -Yea' - N/A
Storage and ,handling of hazardous materials Yes No - N/A
Minimization of water quality impacts . Yes. - No N/A
is Visual quality impacts . Yes - No N/A
bnpacLa to paleontological historical and prehistoric resources Yes Yes N/A
'No net loss of wetlands - - -. - No . Yes Yes Minimization of grading and removal of vegetation No No N/A
Erosion control Yea No N/A
sTrad system Yes No N/A
Noise alandards Yes No Yea
-
- Slack of circulation plan for SPA . No - Yes •- - Yes-
No Yea Designation of open apace mSDG&E casement Yea (design and No No
Policy 4 9 of Resource Management Element related to bulk 1. landscape)
i-roject can oniy mitigate pro.J-ecç: impacts
*Requj.res statement of overriding considerations if project is approved
?Additional analysis rec4utred., when development is proposed, to make a determination . ..
,-- •
•
0 •• 0 -f:
If the decision-making body finds that the project is, in fact, not
consistent with one or more planning policies,, then this may result
in a significant planning consistency issue, depending upon the
perceived seriousness of the conflict. If one or more of such
inconsistencies is ultimately found and is determined to be
significant, the EIR has identified alternatives in Section 7 that
can mitigate such conflicts to a level of insignificance or, in the
alternative, findings of overriding considerations can be made to
override these concerns if the decision-making body deem it
appropriate. At this point, the analysis of environmental impacts,
mitigation measures, and alternatives is complete. It remains for
the decision-makers to determine the planning issues through the
planning process. Potential Specific Plan conflicts with General
Plan policies are summarized on the following pages.
Land Use Element:
Policy 6.5: The design of future development shall consider the
constraints and opportunities that are provided by adjacent
existing development. Development of the southern portion of. PA 4
may not be compatible with environmental constraints or nearby
residences.
Policy 8.6: Significant natural features shall be preserved and
incorporated into all development... The Specific Plan preserves
. riparian areas and natural drainage courses but impacts steep
slopes in all four PAs and wetlands in PA 1, 3 and 4. Biological
mitigation for the wetland impacts in PA 1. has been incorporated
into the project design, mitigating potential biological impacts to
a less than significant level. Therefore, for PA 1, the only issue
is one of policy compatibility. The Specific Plan does not include
mitigation for potential wetland impacts in PAs 3 and 4 if they are
developed according to the Specific Plan. This can be mitigated by
a design alternative.
Policy 8.10: This policy discusses natural resources and open
space; uses the designation of Ecological Resource/Open Space/Parks
for active and passive park lands, wetland habitat areas and their
adjacent buffers, and other areas of significant environmental
quality or public resource value; and sets forth the following
standard for wetland buffers: "...Buffer zones sufficient to
protect wetlands shall generally be minimum 100 feet in width,
unless a use or development proposal demonstrates that a smaller
buffer will protect the resources of the wetland/ riparian area
based on site-specific information, including but not limited to,
the type and size of the development and/or proposed mitigation
(such as planting of vegetation) which will also achieve the
purposes of the buffer. The buffer should be measured landward
from the wetland or riparian area...".
A 50-foot wetland buffer from future wetlands, not delineated
existing wetlands, is provided in PA 1. The wetlands have been
1-15
delineated using the federal standards, which are specified in
Section 2.3.1.4.3. The normal wetland buffer required by this
policy is not provided in PA 1, 3 and 4. In addition, the Specific
Plan does not use the land use designation that is appropriate for
the environmentally constrained areas. All open space areas should
be designated for Ecological Resource/Open Space/Parks uses and the
Specific Plan should require that when development is proposed for
any or all PAs, the open space areas should be covered by open
space easements for the purpose of preserving natural resources.
The areas designated as developable in the Specific Plan should be
revised to reflect the minimum required wetland buffers.
Circulation Element:
Policy 1.2: This policy establishes a goal of LOS C for roads.
Several road segments that will be used to access the SPA are
already operating below LOS C. The project will, contribute
incrementally to this cumulative problem. However, recommendations
are ' included that will mitigate potential impacts related to
development of PAs 1 and 2, which are proposed for immediate
development.
Policy 1.3: This policy prohibits development that results in LOS'
E or F at any intersection unless no alternatives exist and an
overriding public need can be demonstrated. The project will
cumulatively impact several road segments and intersections that
are already operating' at an acceptable LOS. However,
recommendations are included that can mitigate potential impacts
related to the development of PA 1 and 2, which are proposed for
immediate development.
Public Safety Element:
Policy 1.2: Restricts the amount of development that can encroach
into steep slopes within the Hillside Inland Bluff Overlay Zone.
The designated development area in PA 4 exceeds the maximum allowed
encroachment into slopes. This can be mitigated through a redesign
of the Specific Plan, as discussed in Section 7.
Resource Management Element:
Policy 10.1: This policy requires that all native vegetation on
natural slopes of 25% grade or more within the Hillside Inland
Bluff Overlay Zone be retained as specified in Public Safety
Element Policy 1.2. Strict compliance with this policy could
significantly reduce the designated development areas in PA 2, 3
and 4, and would require a redesign of the 'development proposed in
PA 1. Alternative plans are included in Section 7.
Policy 10.6: This policy requires the preservation and protection
of wetlands, "no net loss" of wetlands, and establishment of 50-
foot wide wetland buffers (as opposed to Policy8.10 of the Land
1-16
Use Element,' which requires buffers varying from 50 to 100 feet)
Implementation of this olicy would eliminate approximately half of
the area designated for development in the Specific Plan. 'It would
require the virtual elimination of the designated developable area
Iii the northern portion of PA 4 and would slightly reduce the
amount of designated developable area in PA 3 and the southern
portion of PA -4. Strict compliance with the "no net loss" policy
would rule out proposed wetlands mitigation/enhancement plan that
has bee'n approved by the Army Corps 0f Engineers. Ic The proposed
tpian will enhance the quality , of the' wetlands and provide better
habitat The Specific Plan could be revised to incorporate the
required wetland buffers in'PA3 and 4, as discussed under Policy
8.10.of the Land Use Element.
1.2.2.3' Alternatives to the Specific Plan
Section7 of 'this EIR includes the following alternatives for the
proposed. Specific Plan: (1) No Project;' (2) Retention of All
Delineated Wetlands Plus a 50' Wetland Buffer; (3) EMF hazard
'.alternative open space plan;' (4) steep slope miti4ation alternative
open space plan; (5) Calif orniaGnatcatcher/bluff mitigation
alternative; (6) hiking/ e ustriantrai1' alternative;, (7) wetlands,
EMF, steep hillside and trail alternative; and (8) composite
alternative open space plan
1.2.2.4 Areas of Controversy,
The primary areas of controvérsyrelated to the Specific Plan that
have " been raised by local ,,'cItizêns "relate to preservatiOn of
biological resources, visual quality, traffic circulation, steep
slope impacts" and nónconf6rmanceiith various City policies. In
particular, citi'iens have 'éxrssed the opinion that the on-site
California Gnatcatcher habitat should be preserved in lieu of of f-
site acquisition ,of . Gnatcatcher habitat. This view is not shared
by the biological consultants, who feel that "preservation of
isolated areas of habitatsurrounded by urban developmentare not
as effective in the long-term preservation of the species as
x' presevation of larger habitat' ar'eàs' that, provide' more diversity
and larger buffer areas. This", is the' reason why'-local and state
agencies are actively pursuing" habitat preservation plans from a
regional prspective.
The City of Encinitas will have to make critical' decisions
regarding interpretation of General Plan policies - and the
developability of portions of 'the SPA. When all environmental
constraints are taken iñto" account and if City, policies, are
strictly construed and tákeh'. into acount,. 'the area that is
suitable for development is minimal Specifically, the City needs
to determine whether the project is consistent with or qualifies
for exceptions to City policies re1atin to wetland buffer, steep
slopes', rétenti'on of Chaparral and' desired Level of Service (LOS)
on roads.. PA 4 is so constrained by steep slopes, wetlands and
i-i7
wetland buffer areas, access, EMF hazards, compatibility, with
residences and noise from Olivenhain Road that there really is no
acceptable development area based on environmental constraints. 0
In addition, the existing traffic problems are regional in nature
and. not mitigatable by any one 1project. The following road
segments are proj ected to óperate at LOS D or worse in the year
2010, with or without devèlopmenti of the SPA: La Costa. Avenue
between 1-5 and El Cami.no Real, Encinitas Boulevard west of 1-5 and
betwéCn El Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe; El Camino Real from la
Costa Avenue to south of Encinitas Boulevard; Olivenhain Road;
Rancho Santa Fe Road south of 1 Olivenhain Road; and Leucadia
Boulevard between El Camino Real and 1-5. Three road segments are
expected to decrease one LOS in the year 2010 if the SPA is
developed as proposed: (1:) Encinitas Boulevard west of 1-5 (LOS E
to F); (2) Leucadia Boulevard between El Camino Real and 1-5 (not
yet constructed) (LOS E to F); and (3) Rancho Santa Fe Road north
of Olivénhain Road (LOS C to D).
1.2.3 Tentative Map
1.2.3.1 Potential Significant Impacts of the TM
The grading and development proposed for PA 1, and 2 could result in
potential impacts to soil stability, water quality, visual quality,
paleontological resources, biological resources, traffic
circulation, noise, solid waste diposal, air quality, and General
Plan compatibility. Potential significant impacts that could
result from development according to the TM are summarized in Table
1 2-5 Impacts to air quality, traffic circulation and solid waste
disposal are considered 'cumulatively significant, impacts. They do
not result from the project and cannot be mitigated at the project
level.
Flooding has been ,a long-term problem in PA 1, largely because the
culvert beneath El Camino Real ha's not been maintained, and also
because there has been significant development upstream that has
contributed sediment to the creek flow. The proposed Home Depot
building is located outside of theexisting 100-year floodplain and
has no flood hazard. A portion of the parking lot is within the
floodplain and would be subject to flooding,' but the City has
determined, that parking is a suitable floodplain use. The
designated development areas for PA 2, 3 and 4 are not in the
floodplain.
The development of PA 1 includes dredging of the culvert and the
area within 20 feet upstream of he culvert to increase the flow
downstream. The City will be responsible for maintaining the area
beneath the bridge in the future, Jwh.ile, the project applicant will
be responsible t for mainaining, the creek bed along PA, 1. No
additional flood control measures are required for development of
the Home Depot Center.'.
.1
0
'
'
'.
'0 •.
.' ' •'
Table 1.2-5
Summary of Potential Siqnfiicant Imbacts 'and Mitigation for the Tentative MaD
ISSUE , ' . POTENTIAL IMPACT MITIGATION IS PART SIG. IMPACT AFTER , MIT. REQUIRES
OF PROJECT PROJECT MITIGATION ALTERNATIVE DESIGN
Hydrology ' Long-tcrrn'scdinscntaiion of creek bed/flooding ' Yea ' Na No
Water Quality SentMion of Encinitas Creek Yes No - No
Contansination from spills and parting lot runoff , Yes , No' No
Repctstsvc impacts from dredging to inatnLsus the flood channel
Yes+ No No
Cuinulativc runoff impacts No No •' No
Biology 03.0 acre wetland impact (including 2.9 acres of disturbed field wetlands) Yea . ' No No
*Coastal Mixed Chaparral impact '
California Gitatcatciter habitat Yea No No
Yes No No
Repetitive impacts from dredging to maintain the flood channel'Yes No No
Indirect impacts from decfè.ascd water quality .
' ' sScnsitivc plant species inspects ,Yca , No No
Brush control for fire protection 'Yea No , No
Yea No No
(icology. EarthscnlcnsenUliqucfaction Yes No , ' No
Cutting into unstable Delmar Formation , Yes No No
Traffic ' ' " sLong-terns impacts' on exist4ig regional traffic problems Yes+ Yes ' No
Short.tenn cumulative impact on Encinitas Blvd. intersections at 1.5 and El Yes+ Yea'
, ,
No
Camino Real
Short.lcrm c intersection Yca+ ve impact on Olivenhain Rd/El Camino Real intersection Yea' ' No
Noise ' ' ' Impacts on seven residences ' Yea ' No , ' No
Visual Quality - Impacts on El Cansino Real; a scenic rbad' '' , 'Yes ' No Na
Water Conservation' Wetland mitigation and landscaping in PA I will require extensive water but may Yea No No,
offset because a House Depot Center uses less water than most industrial uses .
Cultural Resources 'Potential for remaining sub/urface components of historic site ,
, , Yes ' No .. No
Air Quality lncrcnsciitally. insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts to long-term Yes + , , Yea" . No -
regional air quality
.
Local impacts from traffic and uses , , , Yes No , No
Paleontology Potential destruction of resources ' , ' Yes No No
Solid Waste ': ' ' Incrementally insignificant but cumulative significant impacts to landfills . Yes+ ' Yes' - ' No
w riu,JccI can any iiuua.c piuJcct Uiipacls, ' ncquiic MatclliciitOi ovciiiuuig consiucrausais ii project is approvcu
2 Additional analysis required, when development is proposed, to make a deternsination
One historic site has been researched and documented in PA 2. The
archaeologist has determined that the research potential for this
area has been exhausted but recommends on-site monitoring by a
qualified archaeologist during grading of the southern portion of
PA 2. Because some of the geologic units in PA 1 have been known
to be fossiliferous, a paleontological monitoring and mitigation
program are also recommended.
Potential visual quality impacts are expected to be mitigated to a
less than significant level by the proposed landscaping plan, site
design, color scheme, and building design. However, there may be
significant visual quality impacts relating to nonconformance with
General Plan policies and the City's Design Review Guidelines.
Cumulative impacts were analyzed by using the information provided
in the environmental documents for the Arroyo La Costa Master Plan,
the Byron White project, and the Oliverthain Road Widening project.
In addition, the traffic analysis took into account the traffic
projections for Carlsbad's Zones 11 and 12, which includes
projected traffic from Arroyo La Costa. The projected traffic for
2010 includes traffic from the future Encinitas Ranch/Ecke property
development that is currently in the planning states.
Potential cumulative impacts include traffic. circulation, air
quality, noise and loss of habitat. Noise and loss of habitat
impacts can be mitigated to a less, than significant level. Traffic
and air quality are regional problems that cannot be mitigated at
the project level. The project applicant will contribute to the
widening of Olivenhain Road. Because the San Diego Air Basin is not
meeting State and Federal standards, any project in the region
would incrementally add to air pollution and would be considered a
significant impact.
Development of the Specific Plan and TM as proposed could result in
both direct and indirect, short- and long-term impacts. All
anticipated impacts can be mitigated to a level that is less than
significant, either on-site .or off-site, except fOr cumulatively
significant impacts to traffic circulation, solid waste disposal.
and air quality. Potential impacts related to these issues would
arise because the existing standards are already being exceeded or,
the case of landfills, are close to capacity, and any increase, no
matter how small,, would have to be . classified as cumulatively
significant. Therefore', a statement' of overriding considerations
would be required for these issues if the project is approved.
Air emissions standards, have been, and are still being,
strengthened to control industrial, pollution and vehicle emissions.
However, each year there are more vehicles on the road and more
vehicle miles traveled. With auto emissions being responsible for
about 60% of pollutants in the air, the only way to significantly
reduce pollution is to implement more and better mass transit, and
make it easier for people to leave their vehicles at home. The
1-20
Home Depot Corporation will organize a carpool program for their
employees and will provide ten bicycle parking spaces. The use of
skylights and swamp coolers will minimize energy consumption, which
also contributes to air pollution. These measures are considered
to be adequate to mitigate the Home Depot Center's contribution to
air pollution. However, because the region is not meeting State
standards, the long-term cumulative impact cannot be mitigated to
a less than significant level. Therefore, a statement of
overriding considerations will be required if the project is
approved.
The Home Depot Corporation, which is proposing the development of
PA 1, has agreed to fund the widening of Olivenhain Road along the
-project frontage. In addition, a signal will be installed at
Woodley Road on El Camino Real and El Camino Real will be improved
along the frontage of PA 1. Because the project will contribute
traffic to the already congested conditions on Encinitas Boulevard
and El Camino Real, full mitigation of short-term impacts should
include a fair-share contribution towards either (1) the
improvement of the El Camino'Real/ Encinitas Boulevard intersection
and the improvement of the Encinitas Boulevard/I-5 Ramps
intersection to provide two northbound and two southbound lanes or
(2) the easterly extension of Leucadia Boulevard. The Home Depot
Center should not be certified for occupancy until the El Camino
Real/Olivenhain Road intersection and the portion of Olivenhain
Road along the frontage of PA 1 is completed.
The Encinitas Circulation Element, which' designates future road
size, was based on the assumption that PA 1 would be developed with
light industrial uses, and the Home Depot Center is expected to
generate more traffic, than was anticipated in the General Plan.
This will result in a long-term traffic impact on traffic
,circulation at the time Encinitas is built out. This 'is a
project-specific impact that cannot be mitigated and will require
a statement of overriding considerations if the project is
approved.
Any development of the SPA would generate 'solid waste, which could
have a cumulatively significant impact on local landfill capacity
that cannot be mitigated at the project level. Théref ore, a
statement of overriding considerations will be required if the
project is approved. However, with the addition of the recommended
mitigation measures, it is concluded that the project will minimize
potential impacts and that no further reduction is possible at the
project level.
The following issues were 'examined, and it was determined that
there was not a potential for significant impacts, and that these
issues require no mitigation beyond that proposed as part of the
project: light and glare; public safety/fire protection; water
service/ conservation; sewer service; school availability; growth
inducement; and energy conservation.
1-21
1.2.3.2 Potential Conflicts With City Policies
The determination of whether or not the proposed project is
consistent with the City of Encinitas General Plan, zoning
Ordinance and Design Review. Guidelines is a planning determination
to be made by the decision-making body following public review and,
input from the City's planning staff. The purpose of the EIR is to
fairly disclose the environmental impacts of the project, the
mitigation measures and the alternatives which can reduce the
identified impacts. It is not thepurpose.of this EIR to preempt
the right of the City to determine City policy consistency at the
appropriate time. Potential City policies that require
interpretation related to the Tentative Map are included in Table
1.2-6.
Several comments on the Draft EIR offered the opinion that the
project is inconsistent with at least some; of the policies of the
City's General plan and zoning. Section 3.6.2.3 includes a
discussion of the project's potential confOrmance with General Plan
policies. Because it is not the position of the EIR preparer to.
determine if such conflict exists, and to ensure that all
reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts are identified, the
Draft and Final EIRs have used a "worst case" analysis. Wherever
there was a question regarding the consistency of the project with
a City policy, the EIR has assumed, for purposes of discussion and
impact analysis, that the project is not consistent. Potential
conflicts are listed in Table 1.2-6. Following this "worst case"
analysis, it is the conclusion of the EIR that, whether or not the
project is consistent or inconsistent with these City policies, the
only significant, unmitigated environmental impacts of the proposed
project are in the areas of cumulative air quality, traffic and
solid waste, as discussed in Section 4 of this EIR.'
If the decision-making body finds that the project is, in fact, not
consistent with one or more planning policies, then this may result
in a significant planning consistency issue, depending upon the
perceived seriousness of the conflict. If one or more of such
inconsistencies is ultimately found and is determined to be
significant, the EIR has identified alternatives in Section 7 that
can mitigate such, conflicts to a level of insignificance or, in the
alternative, findings of overriding considerations can be made to
override these concerns 'if the decision-making body deem it
appropriate. At this point, the analysis of environmental impacts,
mitigation measures,, and alternatives is complete. It remains for
the decision-makers to determine the planning issues through the
planning process. Table 1.2-6 presents a summary of potential
conflicts based on a "worst case" analysis. A summary of the EIR
preparer's analysis is included on the following pages.
1-22
ISSUE -: POTENTIAl. IMPACT TO HE l)I3TERMINEI) BY COUNCIL
-
MITIGATION IS PART
OF PROJECT
REMAINING
POTENTIAL PLANNING
CONFLICT AFTER
PROJECT MITIGATION
(TO BEDETERMINEI)
BY COUNCIL)
POTENTIAL PLANNING
CONFLICT CAN BE
AVOIDED BY
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN
Land Use Construction of a vcnj large (nut dcl ed) building if it is incompatible 'with Ye5(ign & : Yes Yes
surrounding dcvclopnicnt landscaping)
Proposed 50 (instead of 100') wetlands buffer, front future (instead of existing) Yes (restoration) No Yes
delineated wetlands
I-Ionic Depot Critter exceeds City's Is igin Iunii (to be superseded by proposed Yes (design & landscape) No N/A
Specific Plan) Yes
No N/A
bwraLc and handling of inatciisls that are toxic to wildlife 'Yes (survey and data
Required docuincntithon of paleontological and historical resources collection No N/A
Preservaiioii of-native vegetation on natural slopes of 25% gradeor more to -Yes (off-site purchase -
prcscrvc Coastal Mixed Chaparral Yea No • N/A
*Considerationfor future hail system Yea
IConilict with Site Design Guidelines requirement that projecLs be designed to Yes
No
No
N/A
-
avoid"excessive" (not defused) gradin, and exposute of graded slopes
Table 1.2-6
Summary of Potential Pl-a-nn-ing Policy conflicts
Between the Tentative Map and General Plan
+Project can only mitigate project impacts
*Requires statement of overriding considerations if project is approved
'Additiona1 analysis required, when development is proposed, to make a determination
Land Use Element:
Policy 1.16: In areas where streetpatterns and extensions are not
complete and significant lands remain for development which: do. not
have direct street access, neighborhood street/access plans shall
be required prior to any further land divisionor development. The
TM indicates potential access to PA 3 and 4 via the main entrance
to the Home Depot Center. In order to guarantee this access, the
TM should include an access easement.
Policy 2.8: Development shall not be permitted where it will
result in significant degradation of ground, surface or ocean water
quality, or where it will result in significant 'increased risk of
sewage overflows, spills, or similar accidents. The location of
the proposed Home Depot Center and parking lot so close to
Encinitas Creek may not be in conformance with this policy. The
project has included substantial mitigation measures and, with the
implementation of the additional recommended mitigation measures,
potential water quality impacts can, be reduced to a less than
significant level.
Policy 6.6: The construction of.very large buildings shall be
discouraged where such structures are incompatible with surrounding
development Although this policy does not define "very large,"
the'proposed 102,000 square foot building (plus a 20,000 square
foot garden center)' 'would appear as a very large building in
comparison to surrounding land uses in the lowland areas. The
building will be set back 90 feet with substantial' landscape
screening proposed between the building and the street. However,
comments received :on the Draft EIR expressed the opinion that the
sheer 'size of the buIlding could constitute a, significant visual
impact. '
Policy 8.6: significant natural features shall be preserved and
incorporated into all development. Such features may include
bluffs, rock outcroppings, natural drainage courses, wetland and
riparian area, steep topography,,1 trees and views". Although
wetlands will be impacted by the proJect, the proposed mitigation
program will result in an increase in the quality of 'the wetlands
habitat. The cutting back of the north-facing hillside in PA 1 and
2 involves Chaparral-covered steep slopes and significant stands of
Coast Scrub Oak. Mitigation measures and alternative designs are
recommended to avoid these impacts.
Polióy 8.10.: ....All areas possessing wetland resource values,
including salt marsh and 'freshwater marsh habitat types, shall be
protected by appropriate buffers. Buffer zones sufficient to
protect wetlands shall generally be minimum 100 feet in width, and
buffer zones, to protect riparian areas shall generally be minimum
50 feet in width, unless a use or development proposal, 'demonstrates
that a smaller buffer will protect the 'resources... Development
permitted in wetland and riparian* buffer areas shall be limited to
1-24
access paths, 'passive recreational. uses, 'fences and, similar
improvements necessary to protect the wetland or riparian resource,
and shail'be restricted to the .upper or lándward half of the
buffer.,'Wetland/riparian areas and their associated buffers shall
be permanently protected from. dévelopmeñt through the application
of an open space easement or other ,siitable instrument. The
proposed development in PA 1 does not include the normally required
.100-foot, wide 'buffers fr the. delineated wetlands. . The
development proposes touse 'the'parking area as a buffer area.
Circulation Element Policies:,
Policy, 1.3: , Prohibit: development which results in LOS E or F at
any intersection unless nó altërnativès :exist and an overriding
public need can be demonstrated. Given the existing and projected
future traffi 'congestion, an. overriding public need will need to
be demonstrated in order for the project to conform with this
policy. By the year 2010, the El Camino,',Real/Leucadia
Boulevard/Olivenhain Road intersection is expected to be operating
at LOS F and the El Cámino .Real/La Costa .Avenue intersection is
expected to be operating at ' LOS E with or without development of
the TM., Thus, an overriding public need should be demonstrated for
'any 'proposed' ,development , that' contributes traffic to the
overburdened road segments and 'intersections.
Public Safety Element:
Policy 3.4: Land 'uses involved in 'the production, storage,
transportation, handling or disposal of hazardous materials will be
located a' safe distance frthn "land' uses that may be adversely
impacted by such activities'. The location of the proposed Home
Depot Center, and parking area, is considered, by some to be a' less
,than safe distance from Encinitàs Creek.' There are numerous
mitigation measures to-Minimize,,contamination of, the ,Creek, and
resulting. impacts on biolàgical resources. However, there could
still be a conflict with this:policy.
ResOurce Management Element:
Policy 3.6: Future development shall maintain significant mature
trees to the extent possible and incorporate them into the design
of development projects. The development proposed for PA 2 will
result in the loss of one mature, planted ,(as opposed to naturally
occurring) Torrey Pine tree. ', .orrey. Pines are included in the
landscaping. plan, so that the pOtential impact is considered to be
mitigated to a less than significant level.' Howéyer, the loss of
the one tree, technically conflicts with this policy. in addition,
the grading propOsed as part of the TM'would impact the coast scrub
'oak in PA 2. This can be mitigated as' discussed in Section
3.3.3.3. (6).
1-25
Policy 4.6: The City will maintain and enhance the scenic
highway/visual corridor viewsheds. Since any type of urban
development generally degrades visual quality, this policy, if
strictly interpreted, would result in the prohibition of any
development within the viewshed of scenic roads. Visual quality is
a very subjective issue. The proposed development in PA 1 will
introduce a relatively large and high building with bright orange-
and-white signs into a lowland area with no immediately adjacent
uses. Therefore, 'it is going to stand out. However, there is
substantial landscaping proposed, as well as enhancement of the
wetlands area, and the building will be placed in an area that is
currently barren as a result of previous on-site uses.
Policy 4.9: This policy requires that development sites along
scenic roads comply with specific design criteria. The criteria
relate to building and vegetation setbacks, bulk restrictions,
scale, roof line, materials, color, massing, and location of the
development in relationto the topography, vegetation and colors of
the native environment. Potential nonconformance with this policy
relates to the bright orange-and-white signs proposed for PA 1, and
to the scale and bulk of the building.
Policy 10.1: Requires, that all native vegetation on natural slopes
of 25% grade or more within the Hillside Inland Bluff Overlay Zone
be retained as specified in Public Safety Element Policy 1.2.
Development in PA 1 and 2 would significantly impact Southern Mixed
Chaparral. The revegetat ion/ landscape plan includes adequate
mitigation, although the Crib Wall Alternative is the preferred
biological mitigation. Thus, though biological impacts may be
mitigated to a less than significant level, the project may not
conform to this policy.
Policy 10.6: Requires preservation and protection of wetlands, "no
net loss" of wetlands, and establishment of 50-foot wide wetland
buffers. Strict compliance with the "no net lOss" policy would
rule out the proposed wetlands mitigation/ enhancement plan that
has been approved by the Army Corps of Engineers. The proposed
plan will enhance the quality of the, wetlands and provide better
habitat, and is considered preferable to no net loss 'because of
this. However, this does not change the fact that the project may
not conform to this policy. -
Policy 14.1: The best strategy to reduce erosion and sedimentation
is to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, grading and removal
of vegetation. The proposed cutting back of the hillside in the
southern portion of PA 1 and the northern portion of PA 2 has been
proposed in order to balance grading on-site and reduce the amount
of fill needed to be imported However, the grading of this
hillside, and the resultant impaôts on vegetation, could be rédüced
by the Crib Wall Alternative or other' alternatives.
1-26 S
1.2.3.3 Alternatives to the TX
In order to. mitigate potential incompatibilities between the
Specific Plan and City policies, a number of alternatives were
investigated that would mitigate potential impacts and conflicts
with City policies. The alternatives are discussed individually
but could be combined. The following project TX design
alternatives are discussed in Section 7: (1) No Project; (2) 25%
Reduction in Home Depot Center and Parking Reduction; (3)
Realignment of Home Depot Building; (4) Crib Wall Alternative; (5)
Crib Wall Alternative with PA 3 as Borrow Site; and (6) Crib Wall
Alternative With PA 3 as Borrow Site and Parking Area Plus 25%
Reduction in Home Depot Center. The design alternatives involve
trade-offs, such as choosing whether to mitigate steep slope,
visual and Chaparral impacts or to reduce wetlands impacts.
An alternative design for the development of PA 1 includes the use
of a crib wall along the base of the north- facing slope in PA 1
and 2 instead of the extensive cutting back of the slope currently
proposed. Although the visual quality of both designs can be
debated, the crib wall alternative would have less impacts on
biological resources because the area disturbed by the grading and
construction of the crib wall would not extend as high up the slope
as the proposed grading. In addition, this alternative would
mitigate potential impacts to the Coast Scrub Oak. This
alternative would also probably have less impacts on water quality,
geologic hazards and City policies.
A smaller Home Depot building was considered as an alternative.
This building would probably not allow the stocking of all of the
materials in standard Home Depot stores and would not fulfill the
project objectives. It could substantially reduce wetlands
impacts. However, the design would likely, cause internal
circulation and pedestrian safety impacts. If combined with the
Crib Wall Alternative, this alternative could also reduce impacts
to steep hillsides, Chaparral, City policies and visual quality. -
A realignment of the Home Depot building was also considered that
would mitigate potential impacts to steep slopes and biological
re.sources, and City policy conflicts. However, this alternative
has associated environmental impacts that have to be weighed
against its benefits. Resulting impacts relate to visual quality,
internal circulation and pedestrian safety. If the same size
building was constructed, it could result in placement of the
building closer to the wetlands.
1-27
Four alternative sites for the Home Depot Center are analyzed in
Section 7. Alternative development sites were investigated in Del
Mar, Encinitas and Solana Beach because these areas are the most
centrally located within the target market area. All of the
alternative sites would require General Plan Amendments, which
require a vote of Encinitas citizens, and possibly rezoning. None
are readily available for development of a Home Depot Center.
1.2.3.4 Areas of Controversy
The primary areas of controversy relating to the TM include
biological resources, particularly relating to the California
Gnatcatcher, visual quality, topographic alteration, location of
the proposed Home Depot Center in proximity to Encinitas Creek, and
traffic circulation. The project may technically conflict with
many City policies. However, the City will have to determine
whether some of these policies are to be strictly interpreted or if
other factors should enter into the consideration of conformance
with the policies. For instance, if there is a policy relating to
no loss of Chaparral but the EIR has concluded that potential
biological impacts to the Chaparral can be mitigated to a less than
significant level, then the conclusions relating to the level of
significance in the biology section are going to differ from the
conclusions relating to the significance in the General Plan policy
compatibility section.
The issue of the California Gnatcatcher habitat is discussed in
Section 1.4 because it is not only the TM, but also the Specific 0
Plan that needs to address this issue. The consulting biologists
have concluded that off-site acquisition of suitable Gnatcatcher
habitat is preferable to retention of the on-site habitat, which is
surrounded by urban development, for the long-range preservation of
the species.
1.3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
With the implementation of the following mitigation measures, all
potential environmental impacts can be mitigated to a less than
significant level except those cumulative impacts associated with
air quality, traffic circulation and solid waste disposal. All
mitigation monitoring, and the results thereof, shall be
documented. The record of monitoring should be maintained by the
Encinitas Community Development Department. All reports should be
submitted within one month of the monitoring.
1.3.1 Hydrology/Flooding (see Section 3.1.3 for details)
1.3.1.1 Short-term flooding
Mitigation: Dredging beneath and within 20 feet upstream of the El
Camino Real bridge to an elevation of 72 feet.
Timing: Prior to grading of PA 1.
1-28
'•'
Responsible for mitigation: "ProjectapplIcánt for PA 1.
'Monitoring: Inspection to ,verify. that the. required dredging has
been completed.
Responsible for Monitoring: 'City Engineer.'.
Monitoring Timing: Upon completion of dredging and prior to
grading of PA 1. Success Criteria: 'Creek bed at elevation 6f.'11-feet above MSL.
I.31.2 Long-term Sedimentation and FloOding,
Mitigation:, Inspection and maintenance ,of the channel floor
beneath 'the El Camino Real bridge at 72 feet' by the project
applicant for PA 1.
Timing: Inspeôtion in early October of each year And 'dredging as
necessary to maintain the elevation.
Responsible for mitigation City of Encinitas Public Works Dept
Monitoring: Verify"that'the Public Works Dept. is:'insecting the
channel elevation and dredging as' ñeed'ed'to maintain the elevation
at'72 feet.
Responsible for monitoring: City Engineer.
Success Criteria: Creek bed elevation at 72 feet above MSL.
1.3.1.3 Flooding of Designated Development Area in PA 4
Mitigation: Redrawing of developable areas in Specific
'Timing:.-Prior-to Specific 'Plian approval'
OF
Resonsible for mitigation: Project applicant
Monitoring: Prior'to püblic"hearing on'Specific Plan
Responsible for monitoring:. City, of Encinitas
Development Department
Plan
Community
Success' Criteria: Withdrawal from development area from within
existing 100-year floodplain.
1.3.2 Water'Quality (see Sècion'3.2.3 for details)
1.3.2.1 'Long-term Erosion and Sedimentation
Mitigation: Development and implementation o "erosion control
plan, including-the desilting basins shown On Figure 3.2-1as well
as sandbags and/or othertypes of barriers placed, at thel limits of
grading and energy dissipators, at the base' of" the storm drain
outlets in' PA 1 and 2..
Timing: Approval of, erosion control plan ,prior to apprOval of
Final Map. Periodic evaluation to' determine whether the erosion
control plan is successful: and, if 1t is not, development of
another plan.
Responsible for Mitigation: Project applicant's engineer.
Monitoring: ' In'spection to ' ensure 'the erosion', control plan is
implemented and successful. '
'RespOnsible for monitoring: Encinitas Engineering Dept.
'Monitoring" Timing: Prior to' 'grading, "during grading,' upon
completion of grading, and once a year each April until 'erosion and
1014W '129
sedimentation are deemed to -be reduced satisfactoT. .ily under
control.
Success Criteria Reduction of sediment in sediment traps such
that the amount of sediment is minimal and not a potential hazard
to water quality. Successful functioning of all devices.
1.3.2.2 Short-term Erosion and Sedimentation
Mitigation: Except. for the surcharge fill, all..graded and clear,
areas must be. revegetated immediately 'upon the. completion of
grading. Exposed cut slopes must be. immediately reseeded with a
suitable erosion control groundcover.
Timing: Upon completion of grading.
Responsible for Mitigation.: , Project applicant.
Monitorina Inspection of grading and revegetation.
Responsible for monitoring Encinitas City Engineer.
Monitoring Timing Upon completion of grading
Success Criteria. Completion of revegetation plan
1.3.2.3 Water Quality Degradation From Spillage of Materials
Mitigation: Development of an operational plan for the, Home Depot
Center.
Timing: Prior to issuance of occupancy permit. .
Responsible for Mitigation: Project., applicant.
Monitoring: Approval of an operational plan and inspections to
verify that the plan is being followed. S
Responsible for monitoring: Encinitas City Engineer.
Monitoring Timing Approval of plan prior to occupancy,
inspections prior to building occupancy and yearly thereafter.
Success Criteria Implementation of operational plan designed to
result in immediate and correct responses to spills.
1.3.2.4. Water Quality Degradation from Hazardous Materials
Mitigation: Water quality monitoring in Encinitas Creek adjacent
toPAl.
Timing: Prior to any project development, then twice yearly,
preferably in April and October. .
Responsible for mitigation; Regional Water Quality Control Board
or water. quality' consultant under contract' to the City of
Encinitas. . . .
Monitoring: Reports to City after each monitoring. - -
Responsible for Monitoring Encinitas City Engineer.
Monitoring Timing: Twice yearly.
Success Criteria No substantial increase in contaminants.
1.3.2.5 Short-term Water Quality Degradation Due to Runoff
Mitigation: Installation of an oil/sediment/water separator
system, drainage detention basins during grading and wetlands
mitigation planting.. .. . . .
1-30
Timing: Upon completion of dredging and prior to grading for the
Home Depot Center.
Responsible for mitigation: Project applicant.
Monitoring: Inspection to confirm that the oil/sediment/water
separator system and wetlands mitigation planting have been done
correctly.
Responsible for monitoring: Biologist under contract to the City
and City Engineer.
Monitoring Timing: Prior to grading of PA 1 (except for dredging
required for the creation of wetlands).
Success Criteria: Correct installation of -the oil/water/sediment
separator system, sediment detention basins and planting of
wetlands as shown in the Specific Plan and Tentative Map.
1.3.2.6 Long-tern Water Quality Degradation Due to Runoff
Mitigation: Maintenance of oil/sediment/water separators and the
runoff water treatment system, marsh vegetation in the detention
basin 'and all erosion and sediment control measures and devices,
including replacement of any devices that are not working
adequately.
Timing: Semi-yearly cleaning out of the sediment traps and the
oil/sediment/water separator system in October and late March
unless it is determined that the amount of materials justifies
maintenance more often. Half of the marsh vegetation, in the
detention basin must be replaced each year to ensure the ability of
the plants to filter out pollutants.
Responsible for mitigation: Project applicant.
Monitoring: Inspection to verify that the oil/sediment/water
separator system and marshy detention basin is maintained by the
project applicant. Inspection to ensure that erosion and sediment
control devices are being maintained.
Responsible Party: Biologist under contract to the City and City
Engineer.
Monitoring Timing: Late October and April of each year for the
life of the project unless otherwise specified by the biologist or
until the biologist deems the mitigation successful.
Success Criteria: Inspection should. ensurethat the (1) marsh
vegetation is partially replaced every two years, with no more than
50% of the plant material removed at one time; (2) the system is
operating successfully; (3) sediment is partially removed"from the
wetland treatment basin, every two years; and (4) the oil/sediment
separators are being cleanedout through pumping and removal of
trapped materials, and not through flushing of the system.
1.3.2.7 Water Quality Degradation Due to Runoff From Future
Development in PA 3 and 4
Mitigation: Additional environmental analysis 'and implementation
of a runoff water treatment system for PA 3 and 4 when they are
proposed for development.
Timing: Environmental analysis prior to development approval for
1-31
PA 3 and 4; installation of appropriately sized runoff treatment
systems. prior to grading of PA .3 and 4.
Responsible for mitigation The Encinitas Community Development
Dept. will be responsible for hiring a. biologist to determine
potential impacts and the adequacy of proposed mitigation when
development is proposed for PA 3 and 4. The projectapplicant will
be responsible for installing and maintaining the system.
Monitoring: Require additional biological .,,analysis when
development is proposed for PA -3 and 4. Treatment system must be
in place prior to grading of PA 3 and 4.
Responsible for Monitoring: Encinitas Community Development Dept.
Success,'Criteria Installation of the recommended runoff water
treatment system The success criteria will be the same as those
discussed in Section 1.3.2.5. above.
1.3.2.8 Erosion Control
Mitigation: All grading should be accomplished during: the dry
months. Grading in upland areas within PA 1, 2 and 3 should occur
in later summer and early fall to minimize potential impacts to the
Califorria Gnatcatcher.
Timing: This should me made a condition of the Final Map.
Responsible for Mitigation. Project applicant will have to
restrict grading. periods.
Monitoring: Field checks to ensure conformance with this
condition...' S
Responsible for monitoring: Encinitas City Engineer.
Monitoring Timing: Once a month after project approval, until
grading is completed.
Success Criteria: No grading from December through July..
1.3.3 Biological Resources
1.3.13.1 Degradation of Sensitive Habitats and Vegetative Commu-
nities S
Mitigation: A detailed restoraiqn/planting program must be
completed It should include specific plants to be used in each
area, using the plant lists included, in Appendix H It should also
include planting specifications for the installation and
maintenance, monitoring of the planting and monitoring of the
success of the planting.
Timing. Prior to approval of Final Map
RespOnsible for Mitigation: Qualified biologist under contract to
the City. S S
Monitoring: Verification of approval of planting program by
consulting biologist. S
.1 ' S
Responsible for monitoring: Encinitas Community Development Dept.
Monitoring Timing:. Prior to grading.
Success Criteria: Completion of pan.
1-3,2 S S
,
•
1.3.32. Implementation of Restoration/Planting Program
Mitigation: Planting and maintenance of the size and type of
plants shown in the restoration/planting program prepared by the
biological consultant, including replacement of vegetation that
does not survive.
Timing: Planting immediately upon completion of grading.
'ReSonsi'ble for mitigation: Qualified biologist under contract to
the project applicant.
Monitoring: Field checks to ensure that the approved plan is
implemented. The monitoring of the revegetation efforts should be
both qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative assessments should
be made at the time of each report to indicate whether the
revegetation is, in general, successful (i.e., if the plants are
healthy and becoming established). If the monitoring indicates
that any of the revegetation effort is not progressing acceptably,
the consulting biologist will need to identify potential reasons
for the lack of progress and make recommendations for any changes
that should occur in the mitigation plan. In addition, the
monitoring reports should include a discussion of avifauna and
sensitive wildlife species observed on-site. The reports should
indicate any trends in increases or decreases in observed faunal
species if any such trends are discernible. If decreases in faunal
species other than those related to seasons are noted, the
consulting biologist should attempt to ascertain potential reasons
for the decrease, and, if the reasons are related to the project,
the biologist should recommend changes in the mitigation plan that
could reverse the trend.
Responsible for Monitoring: Consulting biologist under contract to
the City.
Monitoring Timing: Upon completion of the revegetation plan, then
at 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24,'36, 48 and 60 months.
Success 'Criteria: Quantitative assessments should be made each
year to determine the progress Of the revegetation effort.
Mortality greater than 10% of any species used in the revegetation
effort must be offset by in-kind (size and, species) replacement
funded by the project applicant. The goa] should be on the order
of 50% coverage by the end of the second year, 60% coverage by the
end of the third year, 70% coverage by the end of the fourth year,
and.80% coverage by the end of the fifth year. At the end of five
years, the combined canopy cover of trees should be 40% to 60%;
'shrub canopy covershould be 30 to 50%; herbaceous cover should be
2' to 9%; and open ground should be in the range of 3 to' 9%. If
mitigation fails to meet the success--,'criteria at the end of the 5-
year period, maintenance and monitoring efforts must continue until
the criteria are met.
1.3.3.3 Degradation of Wetlands
Mitigation: A qualified biologist under contract to the city
should be on-site during the 'grading and thedging in the vicinity
of wetland areas to ensure that sensitive areas are fenced and that
1-33
no substantial damage occurs to existing wetlands to be preserved
and that wetland restoration and enhancement is completed according
to the restoration plan.
Timing: During grading.
Resonsib1e for Mitigation Consulting biologist under contract to
the City.
Monitoring: Documentation of on-site monitoring.
Responsible Party: Consulting biologist under contract to the
City of Encinitas.
Monitoring Timing During grading of areas in the vicinity of
wetlands.
Success Criteria: Same as discussed in Section 1.8.3.2.
Mitigation: Preparation of a detailed wetlands restoration and
planting program.
Timing: Priorto approval of the Final Map.
Responsible for Mitigation: Consulting biologist under contract to
the City olf Encinitas through a three-party agreement.
monitoring:Verification of completion of a detailed wetlands
restoration and-planting program.
Responsible for Monitoring pity of Encinitas Community
Development Department and City Engineer.
Monitoring Timing Prior to approyal of the Final Map.
Success Criteria: Completion of a detailed wetlands restoration
and planting program by a qualified biologist.
Mitigation Maintenance and monitoring,of created and enhanced
wetlands for five years The guidelines included in Section
3.j.3.2, # 5, should be considered when the monitoring is done.
Timing: At 3, 6, 9, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months after completion
of the wetlands enhancement and creation, and completion of
monitoring reports within 10 days of each monitoring
Responsible for Mitigation Quali.ed consulting biologist under
contract to the City of Encinitas through a three-party agreement
with the project applicant. -.
Monitoring Review of monitoring reports and periodic field visits
to verify that the wetlands plantings are thriving and growing, and
that weedy and non-native species are not thriving. Responsible
for Monitoring City of Encinitas Community Development
Department.
Monitoring Timing: Within two weeks of receipt of each moriitoring
report. •
Success Criteria Successful establishment of the created wetlands
and weed-frèe.enhanced wetlands at the end of five years.
1.3.3.4 Degradation of Coastal Mixed Chaparral from invasive
Plants and Human Intrusin
Mitigation: Fencing in PA 2 must be located between fuel
management zones .3 and 4. :
Timing: Upon completion of grading and vegetation.
Responsible forMitigation: Project. applicant. .
1-34
Monitoring Field inspection
ResponSible for monitoring: Consulting biologist under contract to
the City of Encinitas.
Monitoring Timing: Upon project completion.
Success Criteria: Placement of fencing as indicated.
1.3.3.5 Degradation of Coastal Mixed Chaparral Prom the Fuel
Management Program
Mitigation: On-site mOnitoring during thinning for the füél
management program to ensure that the recommendations included in
the biological report (Appendix B) are implemented.
Timing: during all thinning operations.
Responsible for Mitigation:.Project Applicant.
ing Monitor On-site field inspection during fuel thinning
Responsible for monitoring: Qualified biologist under contract to
the City.
Monitoring Timing. During all fuel-thinning operations.
Success Criteria Conformance with the conditions and mitigation
measures specified in Appendix .B and Section 3.'3.3.3-.of this EIR.
1.3.3.6 Potential Degradation of Wetlands From Human Intrusion
and Illegal Dumping
Mitigation Construction of minimum 5-foot high fence be the
HomeDepot area and the wetlands. The fence should be covered by
410) spiny plants, either California blackberry or California Rose.
Timing: Upon conipletion of. dredging and wetlands enhancement and
creation.-
Monitoring:. Field inspection.
Responsible; for Monitoring: Encinitas Community Development
Department
Monitoring Timing: Upon project completion.
Success Criteria: Installation of the fence and vegetation as
stated.
1.3.3.7 LOss. of Wetlands
Mitigation: Implementation of the mitigation incIudd in the Army
Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit.
Timing Prior to development of the Home Depot Center .
Responsible for Mitigation Project Applicant
Monitoring Inspection during, and upon completion of, ,wetland
enhancement and creation to ensure that it is completed as
required..
Monitoring timing: During and upon, completion of wetland
enhancement and creation.
Responsible for monitoring: Qualified biologist under contract to
the City of Encinitas.
Success Criteria. (1) Creation of 0.7 acre of Willow Woodland and
enhancement of 1 'acre of Freshwater Marsh and 2.2 acres of Willow
Woodland, as well as a 0.5-acrerunoff water detention basin filled
1-35
with marsh vegetation; (2) removal of non-native species from the
existing wetland, (3) installation of fencing to separate the Home
Depot Center from the wetlards; and (4) installation of the
oil/sediment/water separator system.
1.3.3.8 Wetlands and Wetlands Buffer Area Impacts in PA 3 and 4
Mitigation: The Specific Plan should be revised to restrict
developable areas to the area outside of delineated wetlands plus
a 50-foot wetlands buffer. Additional environmental analysis .,when
development is proposed for PA 3 and 4 to confirm that a 50-foot
wetlards buffer -area-'is included. - Timing: The Specific Plan should be revised prior to its approval.
The environmental analysis for, 'PA 3 and 4 will occur when
develópmént is proposed for those areas.
Responsible for mitigation: The project applicant is responsible
for revising the Specific Plan The Encinitas Community
Development Department will be responsible for analyzing future
development proposals for PA 3 and 4
Responsible Party: Encinitas Community Development' Department
Monitoring: Review of the final Specific Plan 'and future
development plans for PA.3 and 4.
Responsible for monitoring Encinitas Community Development
Department.
Monitoring' Timing: Review of the Specific Plan prior', to a public
hearing on the project. Review of' development plans "for PA 3 and
4 when they are submitted.
Success Criteria Re-delineation of designated development areas
1.3.3.9 Indirect Impacts on Biological Resources
Indirect'impacts to biological resources that,relate"to degradation
of water quality are discussed inSectionl.8.2.6.
1.3.3.10 California Gnatcatcher Habitat
Mitigation: Acquisition of off-site Gnatcatcher habitat.
Timing: The off-site acquisition parcélmust be approved prior to
Final Map approval.
Responsible 'fOr Mitigation: Project applicant. '
Monitoring Review of information submitted by project applicant
on acquisition parcel(s) to ensure conformance with the criteria
Responsible for Monitoring Encinitas Community Development
'Department in consultation with a qualified biologist 'under
contract to the City.
Monitoring Timing: Prior to Final Map approval. '
Success' Criteria: The 'off-site parcel must meet, the following
criteria. (1) minimum 16 acres in size, (2) existing California
Gnatcatcher population;'.(3) must connect to other, established
gnatcatcher habitat, (4) must be compatible with existing and
planned land uses, (5) should be within approximately 5 miles of
.:the SPA; and (6) must be acceptable to the City of Enànitas in
1-36 ''
consultation with a qualified biologist
1.3.3.11 Southern Mixed Chaparral Impacts
Mitigation: Implémentationpf one of the three following options:
(1) an intensive planting program to restore the Southern Mixed
Chaparral, including containerized planting of pretreated plants
and some seeding (not all hydroseeding), (2) implementation of the
Crib Wall Alternative instead of the proposed project, or (3) the
purchase. and preservation, .i a natural state, of good quality
Southern Mixed Chaparral off-site The second option would also
mitigate potential impacts to Coast Scrub Oaks to a less than
significant level. The last option. could also mitigate Gnatcatcher
impacts. .
Timing Selection of mitigation option, and approval by the City
of Encinitas, prior to Final Map approval
Responsible for Mitigation:..Project Applicant
Monitoring Review of project applicant's plans for mitigation
Responsible for Monitoring: City of Encinitas Community
Development Depártmént.
Monitoring Timing: Prior to Final Map approval.
Success Criteria: Selection of one of the three alternatives
discussed above.
1.3.3.1.2 Loss of Del Mar Manzanita and Coast White Lilac
Mit igat ion: Planting and maintenance of liner and 1-gallon sized ~0,1' Lcontainer plants 4 Del Mar Manzanita and 700 Coast White Lilac.
The planting should be conducted during the early winter months to
take advantage of high soil moisture and maximum growing season
A temporary drip irrigation system or intermittent hand watering
will be necessary to carry these plants through a 6-month
establishment period.
Timing Upon completion of grading
Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant
Monitoring Field checks.
Responsible for Monitoring: Biological consultant, under contract
to the City..
Monitoring Timing Upon completion of planting and at 3 and 6
months.
Success Criteria: Four Del Mar Manzanita and 700 Coast. White Lilac
shrubs should be planted in the disturbed areas of the open space
Chaparral and should be surviving.after six months.
1.3.3.13 Coast Scrub Oak Impacts
Mitigation: Any one, of three mitigation measures: (1) an
intensive planting program to restore the Southern Mixed Chaparral,
including the planting of Coast Scrub Oaks; (2) adoption of the
Crib Wall Alternative; pjr (3)' the purchase and' preservation, in a
natural state, of good-quality Southern- Mixed Chaparral including
Coast Scrub Oaks.
j...37
Timing: Prior to project approvalL
Responsible for Mitication: Project Applicant
Monitoring: Review of Final Map.
Responsible for Monitoring: EnFinitas Community Development
Department.
Monitoring Timing Prior to Final Map approval
Success Criteria Adoption of Crib Wall Alternative as the project
or other mitigation measures discused in Section 3.3.3'. (6).
1.3.3.14 Preservation of Open Space
'Mitigation: ',Placement of an pen space easement for the
preservation of natural resources over all areas designated as open
space on the TM.
Timing: Prior toapproval of the Final Map.
Responsible for Miti,gatjon Project Applicant
Monitoring: Review' Of' Final Map.. .1 Responsible for Monitoring City Engineer.
Monitoring Timing: Prior to approval of Final Map.
Success Criteria: Designation of open spaôe easements on Final Map.
inPAsl and 2. I '
Geologic Hazards
1.3.4.1 Potential. Liquefaction and/or Settlement of Alluvial
Soils
Mitigation Surcharging of the building areas and incorporation of S
geologist-recommended, measures into. Final, Map.
Timing. Prior to construction of the Home Depot building.
Responsible for mitigation Projct applicant
Monitoring Review of final grading plans incorporating mitigation
measures. . ' Responsible for Monitoring Encinitas Engineering Department.
Monitoring Timing Prior to approval of grading permit
Success Criteria Surcharging of the building areas and
incorporation of the measures recommended in the final geotechnical
report.
1.3.4.2 Soil and Slope Stability
Mitigation Preconstruction conference at the site with the
developer, grading contractor, and. civil engineer to discuss
special soil handling requirements and potential problems, on- site
monitoring during. grading to Jensure conformance with the
recommendations of the geotechnica1. report (Appendix C), including
testing for proper compaction.
Timing Prior to grading and during grading.
Responsible for.. Mitigation: Project Applicant.
Monitoring: Field check
Responsible for Monitoring Encinitas Engineering Department.
MOnitoring Timing: Prior to and during grading. ,
1-38
Success Criteria Approval of recommendations in final
geotechnical report and confirmation that mitigation measures are
implemented.
1.3.5 Noise
1.3.5.1 Traffic Noise Impacts on Proposed PA 2 Residences
Mitigation: Construàtion of a solid noise barrier along the back
portions of seven lots in PA 2 as indicated on Figure 3.8-1 in
Section 3.8.
Timing: Upon completion of grading.
Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant.
Monitoring: Confirmation of construction of noise barrier. -'
Responsible for Monitoring: Encinitas Community Development
Department.
Monitoring Timing: Upon completion of project.
Success Criteria: Installation of the barrier as recommended.
1.3.6 Water Conservation
1.3.6.1 Water Consumption
Mitigation: Implementation of the measures recommended in Section
3.10.3 of this EIR.
Ow
Timing: Prior to occupancy.
Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant.
Monitoring: Review of material prepared according to Section
3.10.3 and field inspection.
Responsible for Monitoring Encinitas Community Development
Department. . . .
Monitoring Timing: Upon completion of each development.
Success Criteria: Implementation of the measures recommended in
Section 3.10.3.
1.3.7 Cultural Resources
1.3.7.1 Potential Impact to Subsurface Historic Resources
Mitigation: Monitoring by a qualified archaeologist during the
grading of the southern portion of PA 2.
Timing: During grading of the southern portion of PA 2.
Responsible for Mitigation: Funded by applicant, scheduled by
City.
Monitoring: Field monitoring and submission of report to the
Encinitas Community Development Department..
Responsible for Monitoring: Qualified archaeologist under contract
to the City. . .
Monitoring Timing: During the grading of the southern portion of
PA 2 for the residential development.
Success Criteria On-site monitoring during grading of southern
portion of PA 2 by qualified archaeologist under contract to the
139
City and authority for the archaeologist to temporarily halt
grading if substantial subsurface remains are found.
1.3.8 Paleontological Resources
1.3.8.1 Potential Destruction of Fossils
Mitigation: Completion of the three-phased mitigation program
discussed in Section 3.16.3 of the Draft EIR.
Timing: Research and meetings prior to grading, on-site monitoring
during grading, and follow-up preparation of a report.
Responsible for Mitigation: Project applicant funding, qualified
paleontologist under contract to City.
+ - mrt4 M1 1 ,ii+ +h ngs mi-
Responsible for Monitoring: Qualified paleontologist, under
contract to the City.
Monitoring Timing: Prior to and during grading.
Success Criteria: Coordination of paleontologist with project
applicant and grading contractor, preparation of a monitoring and
salvage plan, field monitoring, and preparation.of a conclusionary
report.
1.3.9 Electromagnetic Field Hazards
1.3.9.1 EMP Hazard Within SDG&E. Easement
Mitigation: Allow no uses within the SDG&E easement that would
require people to be continually exposed to '04F hazards. Parking
would be an acceptable use, whereas park uses or uses requiring the
daily presence of employees would not be acceptable.
Timing: Revision of the Specific Plan prior to approval and review
of any future plans for the development of PA 4.
Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant.
Monitoring: Review of the Specific Plan prior to a public hearing
on the project and review of future development plans for PA 4.
Responsible for Monitoring: Encinitas Community Development
Department.
Monitoring Timing: Prior to approval of any and all future
development in. PA 3 and 4.
Success Criteria: Revision of the-Specific Plan to designate all
land within the SDG&E easement for open space uses and review of
future development proposals for PA 3 and 4.
1.3.10 Solid Waste Disposal
1.3.10.1 Minimize Amount of Solid Waste
Mitigation: Use trash compactors in all of the development.
Timing: Upon occupancy.
Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant.
Monitoring: Review of all plans and inspection upon completion of
1-40
.'
0
buildings. 0 -
Responsible for Monitoring: '. Encinitas Community Development
Department
Monitoring Timing Review' -of,plans prior to approval and
inspection upon completion of buildings.
Success Criteria: InstallatiOn of trash compactors in all
development.
1.3.11 Traffic Circulation
1.3.11.1 Internal Circulation Impacts
Mitigation Limit future uses in PA 3 and the southern portion of
"PA 4 to those uses that'will"notgènerate more than 1,00'0''ADT or
100 peak hour trips
Timing: Prior to approval of development for PA '3 and 4. The
Specific Plan should be revised prior to its approval to indicate
these limitations
Responsible for Mitigation The project applicant is responsible
for adding these conditions to the Specific Plan. The Encinitas
Community Development Department is responsible for reviewing
future developments for,PA', 3 and 4..
Monitoring: Review of Specific Plan and future development
proposals for PA 3 and 4
Responsible for Monitoring: Encinitas Community Development
Department.
Monitoring Timing Prior to approval of the Specific Plan and
prior to approval of uses for PA 3 and +.-'
Success Criteria Limiting of traffic coming through PA 1 from PA
3 And ,4 to a maximum of 1,000 trips per day
Mitigation: Access easement through PA I for access to PA '3 and
the southern portion of PA 4.
Timing: Prior to approval, of th&-inal Map.
Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant/applicant's
engineer. '
0•• 0 '
Monitoring: Review of Final Map'.
RespOnSible for Monitoring; City Engineer.
Monitoring Timing: Prior to' approval of the. Final Map.
Success Criteria Designation of access easement for PA 3 and 4
1.3.11.2 Cumulative Regional Traffic Impacts'
Mitigation: Contributory funding, on" a fair-share basis, toward
regional traffic improvements, particularly toward: (1) the
construction of an eastbound right-turn lane on Encinitas Boulevard
at El Camino Real; (2) widening of the 1-5 exit ramps to provide
two left-turn lanes and a right-turn lane, and widening Encinitas
Boulevard to provide three eastbound and westbound through lanes,
(3) widening of El Camino Real between Olivenain ROad' and
Encinitas Boulevard; (4) widening of Olivenhain Road and
improvement of the Olivenhain Road/El Cámino Real intersection; and
NMI 1-41
(5) the future extension of Lèucadia Boulevard.
Timing: Prior to'project construction.
Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant.
Monitoring: Verification of deposit of funds with the City.
Responsible for Monitoring Encinitas Community Development
Department.
Monitoring Timing: Prior to approval of grading permit.
Success Criteria: Deposit of funds, agreed upon by City and project
applicant.
Mitigation: Construction of, or participation in, interim
improvement to the intersection of El Camino Real and Olivenhain
Road to achieve .a LOS C prior to occupancy of the Home Depot
Center, with improvements designed and bonded prior to issuance of
a building permit for the Home Deppt Center.
Timing: As specified in the previpus sentence.
Responsible for Mitigation: Project applicant.
Monitoring: Verification that: (1) engineering' plans for the
improvement of the intersection of El Camino Real and Olivenhain
Road are completed, and that the improvements are bonded prior to
issuance of a building permit for:the Home Depot Center; and (2)
the intersection of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Rolad will be
improved to LOS C prior to occupancy of the Home Depot Center.
Responsible for. Monitoring: Encinitas' Community. Development
Department in consultation with the Encinitas and Carlsbad Traffic
Engineers and the project applicant. ,
Monitoring Timing: Prior to issuance of a building permit and
prior to issuance of an occuOpany permit, as specified in the
previous sentence.
Success Criteria: Construction of the improvements to the El
Camino Real/Olivenhain Road intersection prior to occupancy of the
Home Depot Center.
1.3.11.3 Internal Circulation/Pedestrian Safety
Mitigation: Provision of Bomanite pads along the main driveway in
front of the Home Depot building. These special treatment areas
should be located at the end of each parking aisle: adjacent to the
store front and should alternate, with sections of conventional
asphalt paving. Recommended Bomanite patterns include 6' tile, 9"
tile, 6 1/4" running bond tile,, stacked bond brick, soldier course
brick or other similar patterns. The special paving treatments
should end 4 to 6 feet south of the parking 1t landscape islands
and Should not include . the cusomer pick-up lane. The , same
Bomanite paving should be used at the main entrance near El Carnino
Real.
Timing: Prior to occupancy.
Responsible for. Mitigation: Project Applicant.
Monitoring: Field check to verify correct installation.
Responsible for Monitoring. Encinitas Traffic Engineer.
Monitoring Timing: Prior to issuance of occupancy permit.
Success Criteria: Installation as 'recommended.
Mitigation:' Provision of a min 1i'u'48-foot wide driveway at the
main entry to the Home Depot Center.
Timina Prior to approval of Final Map
Responsible for Mitigation: Project Applicant/Applicant's
Engineer.'
Monitoring Review of the Final Map
Responsible for Monitorin:' 'City Engineer.
'IMonitoring Timing: Prior to Final Map approval.
Success Criteria: Plans showing a minimum 48-foot wide driveway at
the main entry to the Home Depot Center.
1.3.11.4 Pedestrian Safety
Mitigation: "Stripe a minimumàf three crosswalks in front of the
Home Depot building along the main entry driveway on the smooth
asphalt paving The striping should be prominent and extend to the
BOmanite paving,areás On each side.
Timing Prior to occupancy.
Responsible for Mitigation Project Applicant
Monitoring Field check to verify marking of crosswalks
Responsible for Monitoring: Encinitas Traffic Engineer.
monitoring Timing: Prior to issuance of occupancy permit.
Success Criteria: Striping as recommended.
1.3.11.5 El Camino Real Access Rights
Mitigation Relinquishing by the Home Depot Corporation of access
rights to El Camino Real except for the three proposed entrances.
Timing:' Prior to Final Map approval.
Responsible for"Mitigation: Project Applicant.
Monitoring: Confirmation that legal documentation is acceptable to
the County of San Diego.
Responsible for Monitoring Encinitas Traffic Engineer.
Monitoring-Timing: Prior to Final' Map approval.
Success Criteria Legal document signed by the project applicant
and acceptable to the County of San, Diego.
1.3.11.6 El Camino' Real Circulation
Mitigation:' Improve El Camino Real to a. one-half graded ROW width
of 68 feet with 58. feet of asphaltic concrete,, pavement over
approved base with Portland cement concrete curb, gutter,, bike
lanes, and sidewalk, with curb at 58 'feet from the centerline.
Provide a,.raised median for the full length of the frontage on El
Camino Real except at the main entrance intersection.
Timing: Prior to occupancy.
Responsible for Mitigation Project Applicant
Monitoring Field checks to verify construction as specified.
Responsible for Monitoring Encinitas Traffic Engineer
Monitoring Timing Prior to issuance of occupancy permit
'Success Criteria: Construction as specified.
1-43
2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING/PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Project Location
The project site is located in the northwestern part of San Diego
County, within the City of Encinitas (see Figure 2.1-1). It is in
the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Olivenhain Road and
El Camino Real approximately 1 4 miles southeast of Batiquitos
Lagoon (see Figure 2.,1- 2) The site is just within the northern
Encinitas corporate boundary (see Figure 2.1-3). The City of
Carlsbad begins at the northern property, boundary, Olivenhain Road,
and extends to the north and northeast The land to the west of El
Camino Real is an unincorporated island between the cities of
Encinitas and Carlsbad and is included in Encinitas' sphere of
influence as the "Ecke Sphere." It is now known as Encinitas
Ranch.
The Specific Plan Area (SPA) is located in the northwest corner of
the New Encinitas Community (see Figure 2 1-4) The project site
is bounded by El Camino Real on the west, Olivenhain Road on the
north, a residential area within Encinitas on the east, and hilltop
homes and graded but vacant land to the south, in Encinitas It
is nearly midwaybetween La Costa Avenue to the north and Encinitas
Boulevard to the south, and traffic on Olivenhain Road accesses
Interstate Highway 5 (1-5) via Camino Real and both Encinitas
Boulevard and La Costa Avenue (see Figure 2.1-2). The SPA:has been
divided into four Planning Areas (PA) based on parcel boundaries.
2.2 Environmental Setting
The SPA is situated along the east side of Green Valley at its
junction with Encinitas Creek, which enters the site along the
eastern boundary approximately 200 feet south of Olivenhain Road
and traverses the northern portion of the SPA in a westerly
direction (see Figure 2.2-1). On-site, Encinitas Creek is
generally paralleled by a corridor of willow woodland interspersed
with marshy areas Some areas near the Creek are heavily
disturbed. The Creek exits the property at the northwest corner,
under the El Camino Real bridge just south of. the intersection with
Olivenhain Road The drainage beneath the El Camino Real Bridge
currently operates well below its design flow capacity because it
is substantially silted in and filled with debris. Encinitas Creek
flows northwesterly off-site, beneath and then along the west side
of El Camino Real approximately 1.4 miles to Batiquitos Lagoon.
2-1
— —
' . LU' . ZI
RIVERSID COUNTY
CAMP
PENDLETON 76
79
S6
VISTA 0CEANSIDE.:4 15 78 SAN
CARLSBAD;. MARCOS
-
ESCONDIDO PROJECT . SITE S
778
ENCINITAS:.
S6 SOLANA
3.EACH
POWAY
0 DEL MAR.. s.
(
67
A N T E! a
52
SAN
7" A ..............
4 MES
CI T Y
I
CMULA
VISTA
94 I M P E R I A
- - MILE - - - - -TC oFE
FIGURE
REGIONAL LOCATION OF THE PROJECT SITE 2.1-1
2-2
SOURCE THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP, 1991
/ VICINITY MAP
Ak
%V CA
0 1.1
I
MILES
FIGURE
2.1-2
a... •.,... ti •• • •
ol— ••., .. Ui Ci)
. —n...t.a...---------. - - 1 . • •
4r 00
ji'•
04
IL
CC
LU
GIs""•
REAL
.. • z
IL:.............i
o : ,.....a -
•
4 •
•: 1w• • S"S.• .
0 .. ..•• II.
:'o __,_: • •:
04
•
4
a
4
C.,
I •C)
w 0 0 ,z
2-4
4
I
—BAT I 0 U LT 0 S—
E
LAGOON LA c osi& 35 • - --- 6 =- - I.' i!j(3 i•
/
v \\j_\,
•—\=====' 1' \
- •• : - II /'
.•_'_\
4(41 ncvsw~
42
op
Iwo
IT Iffy
00
H 10
rj
300
- - '.•._-_•_-__U _)_' _--. -
Eke
IT 7 \
! t2
0 2000-
--
BASE MAP: 7.5' USGS ENCINITAS & RANCHO SANTA FE
. FEET
-
OUADS 1975 ' --
-- FIGURE
TOPOGRAPHY OF THE PROJECT AREA 2.2-1
2-6
Table' 2.2-1
Existing Slope Gradients In the SPA
Planning No. of Slopes > 25% Slopes < 2-5%
Area.-,. Acres Acres %'of Area Acres % of, Area
1 19.35 , 0.7 ' 4 18.65 96
2 17.96 7.8 43 10.16 57
3 .7.70 3.8 49 . 3.90 51
4 ' 10.50 1.9 ' 18 • 8.60 82
55.51 ac 14.2 ac 26% 41.31 ac 74%
r. '.
• - The SPA slopes upward, from the,low point. of'approximately 78 feet
above Mean Sea Level (MSL) in, the Encinitas Creek floodplain in the
northwest. portion of the property, to a high point on the
chaparral-covered hillsides of about 145 feet above MSL in the
southern portion of the property (see Figure 2.2-2). The. slope
analysis for the 55.5-acre Specific Plan Area is illustrated in
Figure 2.2-3 and detailed in Table 2.2-1 The slope analysis for
the TM area is included in Table 2.2-2.
Table 2.2-2
Existing Slope Gradients- In TM Area
'Plan No, of <- 25% % of - 25-40% % of 40+% % of
Area Acres # Ac. Area # Ac. Area # Ac. Area
1 - 19.35 18.65 96.38% 0.29 1.50% 0.41 2.12%
2 17.96 10.16 56.6% 5.71 31.79% 2.09 11.64%
Total 37..'31ac 28.81ac 77.221 6.00ac 16.08% 2.50ac 6.70%
.2-7
--
\:-
-
312
FEET (
/
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP 1991 . . ..
FIGURE.
TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA. . 2.2-2
2-8
LEGEND
0%-25% L -
25%-40% i::• :..:j
>40%
/.'/.
Ir o
265 FEET__
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP, 1991
FIGURE
SLOPE ANALYSIS OF SPA 2.2-3
2-9
There are several dirt roads and other disturbed areas. on-site.
The disturbed areas are located primarily along El Caiuino Real and
Olivenhain Road. There are numerous dirt trails in the lowland
areas of: the site, one dirt road traversing the central portion of
the site in an east/west direction, and one off-road vehicle trail
evident on the north-facing hillside in the southeast portion of
the site, within a' 150-foot .wide San Diego Gas & Electric Company
(SDG&E) ,easement (see Figure 2.2-2). The higher portions of the
site inthe southwestern area are largely natural, with moderately
steep, eroded hillsides and bluffs that exhibit rock outcrops and
Chaparral. There is, just within the southern bàundary of PA 2, a
portion of a concrete drainage swale system that was constructed as
part of an adjacent project.
The SPA is currently vacant except for two highly disturbed areas,.
In the northeastern portion of the site, three sets of above-ground
high-voltage power ].iñes and petroleum transmission faãilities,,
including an above-ground pump and an underground pipeline, are
within the SDG'&E easement. The western/central portion of the site
includes a driveway from El Camino Real that proceeds easterly to
a cleared area that was previously used for a native plants nursery
and a temporary jobs center. However, some migrants are evidently
still living illegally on the southern portion of the site in the
Chaparral-covered hillsides. The years of unauthorized habitation
on the site has. resulted in a lack of undergrowth in some areas.
Land uses in the project area are discussed in detail in Section
3.6.1. The land to the north of, the project site, north of
Olivenhain Road, is currently vacant and in a largely natural
state, but has been approved for development as part of the Arroyo
La Costa project in Carlsbad. That planned development will
include approximately 1,076 single-family dwellings, a junior high
school,an elementary school', open space, utility facilities and
travel service uses. The portion of the adopted Master Plan for
the Arroyo La' Costa project that will be in view of the SPA will
includi open ' space within the. SDG&E easement, medium-density
residential uses with 0 to 4 units per a'cre east of the SDG&E
easement, public. utility uses west of the SDG&E easement, and
medium-density residential uses on the hilltop in the northeast
corner of the Olivenhain'Road/El Camino Real intersection.
The land to the northeast of Olivenhain Road, which is. in Carlsbad,
is developed with single-family residences in the 'Santa Fe Ridge
and Ponderosa subdivisions. These developments and the remainder of
the vacant land north' of Olivenhain Road that, surrounds these
developments is within the Arroyo La Costa Master Plan.
2-10
The land to the immediate east of the project site, which is within
Encinitas, includes an undeveloped park site, that has been graded
and revegetated. East of this park site is a residential
subdivision with single-family detached homes. A few of the houses
at the westernmost 'terminus of Orchard Wood Road and along Meadow
Glen Lane are adjacent to the easternmost portion of the SPA.
Approximately twoof the homes along Meadow Glen Lane and the backs
of an estimated six homes along Scott Place have views of the
portions of the Plan Area that are, 'currently proposed for
'development. A few of the homes fronting on Orchard Wood Road also
have second-story views'of the eastern portion of the SPA, which
is not currently proposed for development.
There are residences on the tops of the bluffs to the southeast,
the backs of which are clearly visible from various portions of the
SPA. These homes are within the new Highlands at Encinitas
subdivision developed by Dacon.
The parcel to the immediate south of the southwest corner of the
SPA has been graded for the development of office and professional
uses. The Garden View Plaza (Byron White) project (Encinitas Case
No. 90-067 DR) was approved for this site but the Design Review
approval has expired. It will include approximately 37,000
square feet of office and professional office uses when completed.
The land to the west of El Camino Real, which is part of a large
area formerly known as the Ecke property and now known as Encinitas
Ranch, is largely vacant and is used for agriculture. There is a
roadside flower stand across the street, on the west side of El
Cämino 'Real.
2.3 Project, Description
The project includes a Specific Plan, a Tentative Map/Grading Plan
(TM) for the development of PA 1 and 2, and the various permits and
approvals required for these. actions. This EIR is intended to
address potential environmental effects 'associated with the Home
Depot Specific Plan; the Tentative Map/Grading Plan; the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit required for the development
of PA 1; the California Department of Fish' and Game Section 1603
(streambed alteration) agreement 'required for the development of PA
1; the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Permit; the Coastal Permit required for the dredging beneath the El
Camino Real bridge; and the annexation of the portions of PA and
2 that are proposed for development to the Leucadia County Water
District for sewage service. Once'adopted, the Specific Plan will
also serve as the zoning for the Planning Areas. Any' minor
adjustments in existing boundaries will be made to the City Zoning
Map to accommodate the Specific Plan as part of' the project.
2-11 '•/
2.3.1 Specific Plan
2.3.1.1 Concept/Objective
The Specific Plan addresses a 55.5-acre-,area encompassing three
separate private ownerships. The SPA has been divided into four
Rlanñing Areas (PAs) that reflect the ownership boundaries. (see
Figure 2.3-1). PA land 2, which total 37.3 acres, are owned by,
and proposed for development by, the Home Depot Corporation. The
Specific Plan designates PA, 1. for., open space uses. and a home
improvement center. PA 2 is designated for open space, and
residential uses. This EIR analyzes these two areas, which are
included in the TM, in more detail than the two remaining Planning
Areas, which are not currently proposed for development.
The 7.7-acre Pearce property, which is designated as PA 3, is
located immediately east of.both. PA land '2, and west of the.
southern portion of PA 4. The southern portion of the parcel is
covered by an open space easement on the southern slopes.. Access
to PA 3 will require an easement over PA 1.
The 10.5-acre property that includes the SDG&E easement is owned by
Leucadia Blvd., Ltd. and is referred to as PA 4. It is the most
easterly. .of the parcels. The central portion of PA 4 includes
.Enciñitas Creek and the southern portion of ,the parcel .will. have to
be accessed via easements over PA 1 and 3.
Any future development of. the properties in PA 3 and 4 will require
full site plan review based upon the development" guidelines
included in the Specific Plan, as well as additional project- and
site- specific environmental review. Depending on the amount of
time that lapses and new information that becomes available, it is.
possible that the. future development of PA 3 and 4 will require
additional field surveys and/or environmental, analysis., to compare.
the project with new standards and policies that may.bél in effect
at the time. '
PA 3 and 4 are both designated. in' the Specific Plan for
commercial/ light industrial and open space uses, although no
development is 'currently proposed. . In order to estimate the
traffic and other ultimate impacts that may result from future
development oftheSPA, and to also identify potential constraints
for ,future development of these Planning Areas, the Specific Plan
included , list's . of. conceptual uses and , established probable
developable area for each site,, given the:General Plan, zoning.and
environmental constraints (see Figure 2.3-2). In this EIR, it is
assumed that the areas, shown as- potentially developable on the
Specific' . Plan are designated for development and that development
may occur. Since no development is currently proposed for PA 3 and
4, the analysis has been prepared as a constraints study to guide
future development proposals.
2-12
Ptanrng
Area Area Land.Us. Ar..
1 19.3 C. Home Improvement Center 10.0 Ac. Open Space 9.3 Ac.
2 18.0 Ac- Single Family Residenai 6.9 Ac.
Open Space 11.1 Ac.
3 Commercial Light Indust. 2.6 Ac.
Open Space 5.1 Ac.
4 10.5Ac. Commercial - Light lndust. 2.5 Ac.
Open Space 8.0 Ac.
\ -
-
mî.
•
i" ill I J-
-I. •11../ t'-\ -- ('
I ! /I -(( •/
-
I / / " -.• \ '—cj 1
H (---j'- ;j
2 / .
'k
.. 312 j ).:
FEET
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP, 1991 . •.
FIGURE
MASTER LAND, USE PLAN ' . -, 2.3-1
W64 2-13
The potential development area of PA 3 is estimated to be
approximately 2 6 acres The parcel has no wetlands mitigation or
buffer area proposed as part of the Specific Plan On this parcel,
there may be potential wetland mitigation areas on-site The
following were considered to be feasible uses for PA 3
Warehouse use; with an approximate floor area of 100,000
square feet.
Small industrial uses with an approximate floor area of
26,000 square feet. .
Small industrial /business park with an approximate floor
area of 26,000 square feet.
Small commercial office with an approximate floor area of
26,000 square feet.
Free-standing retail uses with an approximate floor area
of 20,000 square feet.
Health Club with an approximate floor area of 26,000
square feet. .
In additiOn, the Specific Plan identifies the following as uses
permitted. by the zoning and land use designation for PA 3:
Oj
.accessory building; antique sales; appliance sales and repair; art
gallery or artist studio, bicycle sales, rental and service,
bookbinding; borrow site (per Specific Plan); burial casket sales;
clock manufacturing, cold storage plant, communication equipment
manufacturing; cosmetic design studio; public education
institution, feed and grain sales, garden supplies, glass and
mirrors retail, glass studio, home and business maintenance
service, ice and cold storage plant, ice sales and storage,
interior decorating service, janitorial supplies and sales,
janitorial service, jewelry manufacturing, lawn mower sales and
service, lithographic service, locksmith, wholesale market, medical
equipment sales, office equipment sales, optical products
manufacturing and sales, orthopedic devices manufacturing and
sales; paper products sales; photographic supplies; recording
studiO; self-storage facilities; self-storage warehouse; One
dwelling unit for the manager of storage facilities; shoe repair;
stationery manufacturing, swimming pool supplies/equipment sales,
tile sales; vending machines sales and service; and veterinarian.
Additional uses could be allowed in PA 3 upon the approval of a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
The designated potential developable area of PA 4, which, includes
a 150-foot wide SDG&E easement along the entire western boundary,
is 2 5 acres (see Figure 2 3-2) Approximately 50% of the area
adjacent to Olivenhain Road and north of Encinitas Creek contains
disturbed field wetlands. The Specific Plan assumes that other
2-15
disturbed areas within the wetlands area of the property could be
revegetated to the satisfaction of the resource agencies However,
sufficient mitigation area may not be available in PA 4 In
addition, the portion of PA 4 that is adjacent to Olivenñain Road
may be directly impacted by the Olivenhain Road Widening Project
and, if not, indirectly impacted by significant noise levels. At
least 30% of the designated developable area in PA 4 that is south
of Encinitas Creek is comprised of slopes with a gradient of 25% or
more. The area within the SDG&E easement could only.be.used for
non-structured development such as parking areas. Some uses that
were considered feasible for the developable area outside of the
SDG&E easement include:
Small industrial uses with an approximate floor area of
20,000 square feet.
Small industrial /business park with an approximate floor
area of 20,000 square feet.
Small commercial office with an approximate floor area of
20,000 square feet.
Free-standing retail uses with an approximate floor area
of 16,000 square feet.
Medical office with an approximate floor area of 16,000
square feet.
The following uses are permitted by the zoning and land use S
designation: accessory building; antique sales; art gallery or
artist studio; bicycle sales, rental and service; bookbinding; book
sales; burial casket sales;. candy and confectionery sales; cosmetic
design studio, public education institution, financing company,
florist shop, garden supplies, glass and mirrors retail, glass
studio, ice sales and storage, interior decorating service, jewelry
manufacturing, lawn mower sales and service, locksmith, newsstand,
office equipment sales, optical products manufacturing and sales,
pet shop/pet grooming; photocopy shop; retail photo . finishing;
photographic supplies, real estate, recording studio, public
school, shoe repair, surf shop, stationery store, swimming pool
supplies/ equipment sales; tile sales; and veterinarian'. Additional
uses would be allowed with a CUP. .
The Specific Plan includes nine general goals that emphasize the
preservation of environmental resources, the implementation of :a
comprehensive open space, design and. landscaping plan; the
development of an open space system; and insurance of. compatibility
with nearby areas. It specifies that all planning efforts should
be responsive, to the opportunities and constraints, that were
developed as. part of the Plan (see Figure 2.3-3). It should be
noted that the opportunities and constraints analysis prepared as
part of the Specific Plan does not take into account all known
sensitive plant and animal species. .
2-16 . .
.. LEGEND
Highpoint Views
Inward Views
Al FQ Mature Trees
. - _PLIVENAo.
DIsturbed Area
Natural Drainage
Encinitas Creek Flowline
Fresh Water Marsh (Low)
KIM
-
c fj 20' Hight
panan Woodland .., ...............:.-.:\:.:...:.: .:•-: .s;4 SaltMarsh(Low)
LU
25% & Greater Slopes
LU Wetland Boundary
IN
is
.1'
\ i . .
* 0 312
I
/ FEET
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP, 1991 - - -
FIGURE
OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS 2.3-3
.j4/4 2-17
2.3.1.2, Phasing and Planned Land Uses
Development of PA 1 is proposed asl soon as possible after project
approval, taking into consideration the grad1 1.ing restrictions
designed to minimize potential biological,. erosion and
sedimentation impacts. It is expected that the residential
development proposed in PA 2 may be sold by the Home Depot
Corporation and constructed by another developer , by 1995 There
are no known development plans fort PA 3 and 4 The Specific Plan
addresses these areas in terms of uses that would be.-allowed given
the current land use designation and the environmental constraints.
Any development proposed for PA 3 land 4 in the future will require
environmental review of grading plans and proposed development If
areas within the floodplain area are proposed to'..be altered,
additiOnal permits may be required from the Army Corps of Engineers
and the State Department of Fish and Game, as well as approval by
the City of Encinitas.
The immediate development project ,ill be completed in two phases.
The first phase will begin immdiately upon project approval
provided this is not precluded by 'biological and erosion
constraints, and will include theimprovement of the drainage
system; implementation of the wet
I restoration program; and
grading for, and construction of, the Home Depot Home Improvement
Center and parking lot. The second phase may be developed by
another firm, and will include the grading for the residences and
necessary utilities for the residences Open Space Lot 20, which
includes the lower portion of the, hillsides with, sensitive species.,
will be included in Phase 2.
The breakdown of proposed land us is shown in Table' 2.3-1. A
more"detailed Jarea is included in Table 2.3-2.
The Open' Space Plan is shown in Fi1gure 2.3-4.
Table 2.3-1
Proposed Specific Plan Land Uses
Proposed Land Use
Open Space
Light Industrial/Commercial
Single-family Residential
TOTALS
# of Acres
33.5
15.1
6.9
55.5
% of Site
60.3
27.2
12.5
100.0
2-18
LEGEND
Wetland Open Space
Natural Open Space
4 Refined Open Space
I
05
-4
0 312
FEET .1 SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP 1991
FIGURE
OPEN SPACE PLAN 2.3-4
2-19
Table 2.3-2
Breakdown of Land Uses By Planning Area.
Plan # of % of %. of Plan
Area Proposed Land Use Acres SPA Area
1 Commercial/Lt. Industrial 10.00 18 ' : 5.2
Lowland/Wetlands Open Space 9.35 17 ' 48
2 Single-family'Residential 6.86 12 38
Hillside Open Space 11.10 .20 62
3 Commercial/Lt. Industrial 2.60 5 34
Open Space 5.10 9 66
4 Commercial/Lt. Industrial 2.50 5 2,4
Open Space 8.00 14 76
SPA = Specific Plan Area
:.•
2.3.1.3 Project Design
The Specific Plan includes, six general design objectives. The
objectives are geared toward minimizing disturbance - to key
environmental features, integrating development areas with open space areas in a manner that provides a natural transition between
the two elements, preserving and enhancing the wetlands along
Encinitas Creek, and minimizing adverse grading impacts In
addition., the Specific Plan includes guidelines for grading
techniques that are designed to minimize the visual impacts of
grading, minimize the need for grading, and minimize erosion and
water quality impacts The Plan also includes architectural and
signage guidelines that stress the blending of development with the
natural environment and somewhat rural/agricultural nature of the
area, given that the land to the west is in agriculture.. Details ,
on the design for the areas proposed for development as part 'of the
TM are included in Sections 2.3.2.3 and 2.3.2.6.
The Specific Plan includes a wall and fence plan based on the land
uses 'currently proposed under the Tentative Map and the areas that
were assumed for development in PA 3 and 4 (see Figure 1.3-!-5.). The
plan' proposes to protect the wetlands area from the:: parking lot
area with a vinyl-clad -chain chin link fence Vines and clinging-type
plants will be planted that will eventually cover the fence. 'The :.
Home Depot outdoor garden center will be enclosed by a 20-f6ot high
chain link fence interspersed with 4-inch wide wood posts.
2-20 ' S '
.OLIVENHAINROAo
o0 Chain Link Fence
-.
Open Fence 'I
-- -
Solid Fence II — \ -
Noise Barrier \ S.
I - \ - t L I
I \WI I:
I ,: L --• --
:•• iLitI.tL .
....\-..\ : ---
- I -S —
-
/ / -
:
S
•
0 312
S.
- FEET
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP, 1991
FENCE AND WALL PLAN:
FIGURE
2.3-5
q4T4S 2-21 • . •
The wetlands/ floodplain area on the northernmost portion, of PA 3
and the northeasterrimost portion of PA 4 will be protected from
future development on that parcel by a fence, with the type yet to
be determined Vinyl-clad chain link fencing would also be used
along the backs of the residential lots on the north side and
western terminus of Scott Place. Solid fencing is proposed along
the backs of the lots on the south ,s .ide of Scott Place. Six lots
along the west and: northwest sides of Scott Place will have a.sound
attenuation wall; separating the upper portions from the lower
portions of the lots The lower portions of the back yards, which
are comprised of slopes, will be separated from adjacent lots by
open fences. Elevations of proposed fence types are shown' in
Figure 2.3-6 'and .2.377.
Additional fences and/or walls may be required when PA 3.and 4 are
proposed 'for development. The potential for noise, visual and.
biological impacts will need to, be evaluated when specific
development is proposed for these areas.
2.3.1.4 Landscaping/Vegetation Enhancement
The SPA is a prominent northerly entry node to the city ' of
Encinitas along'the El Camino Real corridor, particularly PA 1.
The Specific Plan includes an overall landscape plan, that provides'
(1) guidelines for landscaping;' (2) a fuel management program for
fire prevention; and (3) a mitigation/ enhancement plan for 'the
wetlands area along Encinitas Creek.
2.3.1.4.1 Landscaping Guidelines
The, landscaping guidelines in the Specific Plan emphasize the
enhancement and retention of the creek area ,and associated
wetlands; the retention of wildlife habitat corridors and habitat;
the conservation of water; a landscape that blends with the two
distinct natural vegetation environments of the area, ,'the riparian
environment and the drier chaparral environment; and the
development of a streetscape that recognizes the importance of
retaining scenic quality along El Camino Real The Specific Plan
divides the SPA into landscape zones for future planning (see
Figure 2.3-8). A specific plant palette is proposed'f or each of
the landscape zones; these are detailed in Appendix H.
ZOne 11 the Wetland Zone, includes Encinitas Creek and its
associated willow riparian' woodland 'and marsh areas. In this area,
non-native wetland species will be removed and will be replaced
with native wetland species. This zone includes three subzones:
Freshwater/ Brackish Marsh,; Willow Riparian Woodland, wetter areas;
and Willow Riparian Woodland, drier areas.. All areas will be
protected, and no pedestrian crossings will be permitted.
2-22
Stucco
Pilaster w/Cap
Stucco Wall
Wood Fence
fZ
At
SOlid Wall / Fence
Wrought
Iron Cut Stone
Fence Pilaster w/Cap
Wood
Post
Open Fence
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP, 1991
0 WALL & FENCE ELEVATIONS 1
'W 6A 2-23
FIGURE
2.3-6
HØ
- LEGEND
1 Wetland Zone -
2 Wetland Restoration Zone
'A Commercial Area Landscape
TransitIon Zone
.---- / • '.- _. OLIENHAIN - -
: Open Space and ' : •.• 2 . ------
i 4 ConservatIon Zone S I 7 5 Theme Residential Zone
El Camino Real
Streetscape Zone 2- . ., -
.. -: II enhairi i'oad Commercial Area ' 7 Landscape Transition Zone
\ 1
LUCr 0. - I. . • •
I
- I
N
I;
- .
.. . .•
-"2 •
• .-.. I-
.- /i
'I (
•._ J
II \\\ '
1 _LL_LLI
312
FEET
SOURCE: THE AUSTINHANSEN. GROUP, 1991 ,
FIGURE
-LANDSCAPE ZONES -
- 2.3-8 .•. 8
VV' 711 • 2-25
--
Zone 2, the Wetland Restoration Zone, includes the areas along both'
sides of the Wetland Zone and will ultimately evolve into the same
wetland character as Zone 1 This area includes wetlands that will
be created as part of the project, which will also serve as a
buffer'beteen the creek and the developed areas. The goal is to
extend the wetland species mix laterally. Therefore, areas within
Zone 2 that are adjacent' to marshland in Zone 1 'will also be
planted with marshland species. This Zone also includes the
nuisance water treatment wetland zone on the TN.
Zone 3, Commercial Area Landscape Transition Zone, includes much of
the area that has already been disturbed, both in-the floodplain
and within the. SDG&E easement. It includes areas currently
proposed for development as part of the TM and areas that could
accommodate a variety of low to medium intensity commercial uses in
the future. Planting will occur in bands, with species used along
the northern portion of Zone 3 reflecting high-moisture soil
conditions and species used along the southern portion reflecting
the drier Chaparral area. The central band will be a transition
area between these two and will include native, as well as,
ornamental, tree species. The plants designated for --this 'area
include those, that tolerate high water table levels, with
associated high salt content, as well as those that can tolerate
the high stress and drought conditions associated with ,parking
lots. One tree will be planted for every six parking 'spaces.
The proposed grading for PA 1 includes the cutting back of the
north-facing slope to (1) accommodate the proposed Home Depot
building and access road along the south side of the building, and
(2) minimize the amount of fill that has to be imported for the
project. Approximately the uppermost 200 feet of the area to be
cut back is within PA 2, an estimated 2.7' acres in the open space
lot (#20). Of the 2.7 graded open space acres, an estimated 1.7
acres is required for the Home Depot Center and an additional acre
is to be graded for the widening of El Camino Real.
Zone 4, Open Space and Conservation Zone, includes the north- and
west-facing slopes containing dense 'Chaparral. A portion of this
area, within PA 3, is already covered by an open space easement,
and the TM proposes additional natural open 'space. 'Most of the
land in this landscape zone is to remain undisturbed to provide
wildlife habitat and promote floral and faunal diversity. Where
the Chaparral is disturbed, the graded slopes must be planted with
species typically found in the Chaparral plant community and with
an appropriate seed mix to establish native grass and flower
species. Emphasis will be on planting Del Mar manzanita and
reintroducing, the 'coast white lilac. Temporary irrigation systems
will be maintained for approximately 2 years to' promote the
establishment of the plants.
Zone 5, Theme Residential Zone, is the landscape zone for the area
designated, in the ,,General Plan, and proposed 'on the TM, for
2-26
residential development. The objectives are to establish a series
of large canopy street trees along the proposed extension of Scott
Place and provide screening trees in back yards to block views of
nearby development.
Zone 6, El 'Camino Real Streetscape Zone,, is to be densely planted
and will partially screen proposed development on the lower portion
of the SPA.
Zone 7,.Olivenhain Road Commercial Area Landscape Transition Zone,
includes ,1 to 2 acres of land within Pa 4 that is within about 125
feet of Olivenhain Road. This Zone includes transitional riparian
planting along the sOuthern' Zone boundary and appropriate
transitional species for the intermediate areas, which could be
used for parking lot and foundation planting. Predominantly mesic
plant species are recommended.
2.3.1.4.2 Fuel Management Program
The Specific Plan identifies five Fuel Management Zones for fire
protection (see Figures, 2.3-9 and 2.3-10). Zone 1 includes
hillside native vegetation that is to be. retained in its natural
condition. Zone. 2 is a 25-foot wide strip immediately upsiope of
Zone' 1. In this zone, native vegetation will be selectively
maintained to remove older vegetation. The pruning will reduce the
foliage mass but must provide a natural-appearing landscape.
Zone 3 is a 15- to 25-foot wide non-irrigated buffer area
immediately ups lope. of Zone 2, and includes the lowermost portions
of the residential lots. It is to -be a transitional area between
native and ornamental landscapes. A' low plant profile is
recommended. Large native and indigenous trees and shrubs are
encouraged for this area because their extensive root systems aid
in anchoring the-soil. Fire-resistant plants, such as carob, 'are
also encouraged in this zone Zone 4 is a 30-foot wide irrigated
strip immediately upslope of Zone 3, within the back yards of the
residential lots. . It is to contain ànly low shrubs and
groundcovers. Zone 5 includes the landscaping in the back yards of
the residential lots that is closest to the houses. Flammable
species, such as pines, junipers or eucalyptus, will not be
allowed, nor will branches be allowed to overhang the houses. The
Specific Plan recommends the establishment of a well- irrigated
windbreak of fire-retardant trees along fence lines -and in rear
yards..
The 'fuel management program- includes pruning at 3 to 5-year
intervals or as specified by the City. During pruning, older and
dry vegetation will be selectively removed. ' A homeowners
.association will be responsible for maintenance, including fuel
. management within private yard's.
2-27
1 . . !i\
LEGEND
V V • r-, - S .
. .. •. . . Zone 1-Undisturbed
Native Vegetation
_i_. • : T Zone 2-Thinned
/1
\....• V. • ......
Native Vegetation
Zone 3-Non Irrigated
I
• .:; . • . -- V • - • . Buffer
Zone 4-Irrigated
-- V •/• •
.• . . . • • N. - .
Low Buffer
- .............................
'-
• Zone 5-Domestic Planting of Individual Lots
. ' V V •
V \ \ .1
f! - -\: .
\\
("T
-V. • V V - •V \
•
LU cr .,
V
••'
V
to
I itl -77
E'2
\
-• '- / '< p
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP, 1991
FUEL MANAGEMENT ZONES
2-28
Zone ,11: Undisturbed Native ivegetation,
Zone .2.: Thinned iNativeWegetation
Chaparral areasselectively trimmed to a height of
15 ft to remoe dry branches and reduce the fuel load
Zone-3:'Non-irrigated Buffer
Low profile plant material and trees combined in a
15 to 25 ft wide transition zone with low, fuel volume
Zone '4: Irrigated Low Buffer Zone
Zone of well-irrigated plant material with a maximum
height of 18 in -
Zone 5.-'Domestic Planting of Individual Lots
Theme landscaping f individual residnces includes a
well-irrigated band of trees at the edge of zone
SOURCE THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP,1991
Mn FIGURE
FUEL MANAGEMENT ZONESECTION
2-29
2.3.1.4.3 Wetlands Mitigation/Enhancement Program
The SPA includes, land within the 100-year floodplain of Encinitas
Creek and includes approximately 11 2 acres of land that qualifies
as wetlands (see Figure 2.3-11). Wetlands are delineated on the
basis of whether any one of the following three criteria are
present: (1) the land supports, at least periodically, plants
whose habitat is water or very wet places; (2) the substratum is
predominantly, undrained hydric sail; or (3) the substratum is
nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by water at some
time during the growing season of each year.
The proposed Specific Plan and TM will impact an estimated 2.9
acres of disturbed field areas that are currently classified .as
wetlands. These areas may not have been classified as wetlands in
earlier decades, when the floodplin area was smaller. However,
the laôk, of maintenance of the drainage system; the low elevation
and construction of El Camino Real, which acts as a .dam and.
contributes to. flooding in the SPA; and increased development
upstream of the SPA have,. in recent decades, caused flooding along
the portion of Encinitas Creek:-that is east of El Camino Real and,
thus, have expanded the 100-year floodplain. The back-flooding
created emergent wetland areas and.resulted in a decrease in flow
to the wetlands downstream of the SPA. To . alleviate the
flooding, two upstream detentionl basins have been constructed.
This has resulted in a decrease in the size of the 100-year
floodplain on some properties, including the SPA (see Figure
2.3-12).
The portion of Encinitas Creek immediately upstream (east) of the
SPA has been channelized, whiôh insures that the water will flow
through that area properly. Howeser, a hydrological study, in late
1989 indicated that the culvert beneath the El Camin'O Real bridge
was so filled with silt and debris that it was unable to carry the
design flow. It has caused water to back up into .the SPA, creating
flooding of areas that were charaterized in the biological report.
of 1989 as disturbed field areas but which, over recent years, have
been saturated with water and now include hydric soils, creating
habitat for wetlands vegetation.
A third detention basin upstream of the 'SPA was previously planned
for implementation in the near future, as part of' the. widening, of
Olivenhain Road (Detention Basin D). This wOuld result in another'
reduction of the 100-year floodp]Jain, as shown in Figure 2.3-12
However, the City of 'Carlsbad is 'behind schedule on the development
of plans for the widening of Q1ienhain Road and the construction
of Detention Basin D. it is possible that Detention Basin 'D may
not be constructed As part of the Olivenhaiñ Road Widening Project..
2 T ° '
LEGEND
DISTURBED AREA
WETLAND BOUNDARY
RIPARIAN WOODLAND
0. SALT MARSH
FRESH WATER MARSH
ZENCINITAS CREEK
FLOWLINE
WETLANDS DIRECTLY
IMPACTED BY THE
PROJECT
- __ •'
-- . •i r çz p 1
- -.-.--_- - -
1 . ,ocI' U. -1
I. •-•.r . I_
.
41________Vm - _______ •.
UI !
I__I gI — '.•'I 'Zon —'. _____________________ •Y .'II.? ". --
_________________ L.
&•__-,! -- -
1JI1i1iI •T1
/I -- .. .. ., ------. .. O 312
FEET
SOURCEi THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP. 1991
FIGURE
EXISTING WETLANDS 2.3-11
CWc4 2-31
LEGEND
PRE-1982 FLOOOPLAIN
__________
CURRENTpole 7~_N
V, Vo !'R;FL'OOOP-LAIN WITH THE
ADDITION OF DETENTION
BASIN 0
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP 1991
- 100.-YEAR FLOODPLAiN
W6A 2-32
The development of PA 1 includes dredging beneath the existing
bridge and the area immediately upstream to restore the culvert to
its design capacity. The proposed dredging is designed to
alleviate existing on-site flooding problems and result in a return
of a more natural stream flow through the SPA, a decrease in flow
to the downstream wetlands, and less flooding in the SPA in the
future, thereby resulting in an incremental decrease in wetlands in
the loing term. Development of the Specific Plan is expected to
result in a loss of 3.0 acres of wetlands, 2.9 acres of which
consist, of hydric soils in the disturbed field areas. The
expected water level would be approximately 82.4 feet above Mean
Sea Level (MSL). At its lowest point, the parking area would 83
feet above MSL. The proposed building will be at an elevation of
92 feet above MSL. The project applicant will be responsible for
maintaining the Encinitas Creek channel at an elevation that will
not create back-up flooding.
The project proposes a wetlands mitigation/ enhancement plan that
will result in a better quality wetland habitat that will occupy a
narrower band throughout the site. Specifically, the project
proposes a total of 4.4 acres of habitat enhancement and creation
(see Figure 2.3-13). The existing wetlands vegetation other than
wetland weedy species will remain intact except for the selective
removal of exotic species and a negligible amount of willow
woodland removal at the southeastern edge of the proposed parking . lot near the Garden Center... The project includes the removal of an
estimated 3,500 cubic yards of soil from the disturbed field area
at the edge of the floodplain to ensure the expansion of the
existing vegetation. The project proposes to replace this
disturbed field area with a higher quality habitat. As such, the.
replacement causes no net loss of values as determined by the
Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency
and the Department of Army Section III, which is included as
Appendix J. A cross-section of the' floodplain upon completion of
the wetlands mitigation is included in Figure 2.3-14.
A temporary on-grade overhead irrigation system will be used during
early establishment of the created wetlands, eventually
transitioning to natural water source dependency. The preliminary
geology report indicated the presence of a high subsurface water
table, which will maximize the potential viability of the created
and enhanced wetlands. However, to ensure water availability
during months of no rainfall or low runoff, a water-conserving
emitter-type irrigation line will, be installed. A 5-year
biological monitoring and maintenance program will be implemented.
The wetlands enhancement /mitigation planting program is summarized
in Table 2.3-3. Because most of the wetlands being impacted
consist of disturbed fallow fields, the replacement vegetation will
result in higher quality wetlands.
2-33
LEGEND
Oil interceptor System
: Nuisance Water
Treatment Area
Protective Fencing
(Approved by U.S.F./W.
Existing Undisturbed
Vegetation
Wetland Boundary
& Disturbed Field
Enhanced & Created Willow Woodland (3.4 Ac.)
r— Enhanced
j Freshwater/Brackish
Marsh (1.0 Ac.)
\ -\
/ ROAD
50' UnsthCtltOd Paved Area
IiL -. •
-- •• •• ••O.•II '.
•
-
..
JI :1 \-..: I:./I.i
i.. 1..] -------------
*
0 330
FEET
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP
Impact Area 2:9 Acres
Area within Wetland Boundary of development
(identified as disturbed field)
Restoration 4.4 Acres
Area outside development to edge of existing
habitat vegetation (identified as disturbed field)
Enhancement Creation Within I Outside WetIand Boundary! WetIand Boundary I Total
Freshwater Marsh 1.0 Ac. -0 •• 1.0 Ac.
Willow Woodland 2.7 Ac. .7 Ac. 3.4 Ac.
Total 3.7 Ac. .7 Ac. 4.4 Ac.
I PROPOSED WETLAND MITIGATION- AS APPROVED
I IN ARMY CORPS PERMIT 92-459EW
FIGURE
2.3-13
ow-
2-34
•
1 71
Restored - Nuisance
- Willow Water
Willow Wetland Woodland Treatment Parking
'C
4:
- - r S •!/.$,v h x.' -
- - f
.S e.CC C,4
..4•.. -
'S 4 - . . . . /: •/ S - .• ' .
1 4S
C S.
p -.-.' 90' el.
Ln 1 00Year,
Flood -
S4LJ
,-
85' el
I ri,
L 1'L/ j/Transition 80' el
Slope
•
75' el
0 100 200 - - 300 : 400
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP, 1901
.
FIGURE
TYPICAL SECTION EASTERLY (UPSTREAM VIEW) 2.3-14
Table 2.3-3
Proposed Wetlands Mitigation/Enhancement Program
Enhancement Creation
Vegetative Within Wetland Outside Wetland Total
community BOundary (Acres) Boundary (Acres) Acres
Freshwater Marsh 1.0 0.0 1.0
So. Willow 'Scrub 2.7 0.7 3.4
TOTALS 3.7 0.7 4.4
The plant palettes for the wetlands enhancement and creation are
discussed in the previous section on Landscaping Zones The
restoration and enhancement program will be designed and
implemented under the supervision of a qualified biologist/
horticulturalist who is experienced in native plant restoration and
riparian ecosystems The biologist will select the specific plants
to be used in each area, using the plant lists included in Appendix
H. The biologist will provide planting specifications for
installation:,and maintenance and will monitor the planting through
a three-way contract with the City in which the applicant funds the
monitoring. Newly introduced plants will be of container stock
that will be sized to meet agency requirements.
The 'mitigation program includes an oil/water/sediment separator and
water treatment system (see Figure'2.3-15). It is designed to trap
and treat urban pollutants that may be present in runoff water from
the developed portion of PA 1 prior to the entry of the water into
,Encinitas 'creek. 'Storm runoff, 'from the natural hillside south of
the proposed Home Depot building, in PA 2, will be collected in a
separate, drainage system and discharged through, an energy
dissipator into Encinitas'; Creek.' The storm drain system is
designed for a 100-year 6-hour,storm.
Runoff from an estimated 9.47 acres of hardscape, landscaped areas,
and the Home Depot garden center ,will pass through- the
oil/water/sediment separators (see Figure 2.3-16). The
oil/sediment separator system consists of two traps, near the garden
center and four traps along the north boundary of the proposed
parking lot (see Figure :2.3-15). The ,traps separate the' oily
substances from the water, with a rated flow'of 650 gallons per
minute and a total capacity of 156,000 gallons per-hour (see-Figure
2-36
2.3-1
'
7) The oily residue collects in the upper portion of the
interceptors and is periodically pumped out and removed to an
approved disposal site. Sediment that collects in the bottom of
the interceptor is also periodically, pumped out and removed from
the site. The project applicant will be responsible for
maintaining the traps for the duration of the project.
The sand and oil interceptor tank system will be sized to
accommodate the first 10 minutes (first flush), of an expected 2-
year 6-hour storm (31,600 gallons) The tank system for the
runoff flowing into the separators near the Garden Center is
expected to consist of two tanks to contain, the first flush (see
Figure 2.3-17). The tank system for the, separators at the north
end of the parking lot is designed to accommodate a total flow of
2,082 GPM. . . .
'After flowing through one. of the oil/sediment separators, the
runoff will enter a detention pond comprised of marshyvegetation
that acts as.a filtering agent (see Figure 2.3-15). The-wetlands
detention basin for the area just north of the Garden Center is
designed to hold 521 cubic yards, the total runoff expected in this
area for a 2-year 6-hour storm. The wetlands detention basin north
of the parking lot is designed to hold 1,007 cubic yards, the total
expected flow from this area in the same type of storm Because
the marsh vegetation in this detention basin will be periodically
replaced, it has not been counted in the wetlands mitigation
acreage. Treated runoff will flow out of the wetlands detention
basin through a French drain.(see Figure 2.3-17).
'Wetland plant species used in the treatment, area will be cultivated
from healthy and mature plugs grown under, the supervision of a
qualified biologist or horticulturalist Replacement of plant
material that shows signs of irreversible degradation will be made
on a.revolving basis, with only a.portion removed'át one time, to
maintain a constant filtering continuity. The biologist who.
monitors the mitigation program will determine the timeframes for
plant' replacements. During the establishment of the system and
wetlands creation, the project proposes biweekly monitoring, which
would taper off to monthly'and would continue to be performed on an
as-needed basis for three years. The'mitig.ation monitoring program
is included in Section 1.3.
2-37
0 62
FEET
• Existing Riparian Woodland
60 Restored Willow Wetlands / Lot 1
Open Space
: • . .
/ Rip-Rap Energy 9.35 Acres
< . . . . . . Dissipator /
/ .• •.' / /
w . .•.I• • / /// /•,
, • • Emergency Overflow,.'
•• I .. : Wer & Spiliway ///
I •
S • /Wa er Treatment Welland
Detention Pond
/
-
Nuisance Water
< Treatment Area
W
L:•
/
oil Water Separators r. .\• •• •• .
Diversion Structure & Inlet \\ —ç--
p )WetIanndarY T 1 I -_
Basin "A" Water Treatment Pond
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP, 1991
PROPOSED NUISANCE WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
FIGURE
2.3-15
1
0
•
:,•
-.
otol Rip-fl Ew6Y
LL \ 5P/ss/.M7V'E'
1' EJv1Ei2*EWY
FIq FLOW WS.'R
- • • •
- \ rlow POND
L
•
- • -
JB2/yAX \ ç - fwVcN D,w#
17 '14
19
(Et'ø)
••:•
• L --_
72'L4f DRAI'v
FROM
7 Ii
4- Shade Screen t I
Structure - -
•
I,
' GARDEN CENTER
NOT TO SCALE
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP. 1991
RUNOFF TREATMENT SYSTEM. • FIGURE
23-16
•
Guv%. F IF _239
I,
-.6ftO_=
Capacity 1,600 Gal.
- Assumed Flow-650 GPM -1.5 cfs
Plan
IN 0Lrr ..
Section End .
Typical Oil I Water Separator.
Marsh Treatment Area High Water
0 \ Concrete Oyerflow
Wier.&_Spiliway T \\J :Y\U •X
The oil/sediment separator system is designed to catch and treat
the "first flush," an estimated 10 minutes, of a 2-year 6-hour
storm The first part of a storm generally contains the highest
concentration of pollutants because oils and other urban pollutants
have accumulated Therefore, this runoff would be twice filtered,
once in the oil//water/sediment separator and then again in the
wetlands detention basin In a worst case, if the separator flow
capacity is exceeded, such as during a prolonged 'storm, •water
overflowing the 6-inch high curb in the parking area would flow
directly into the nuisance water treatment basin, which will act as
a secondary oil and sediment separator. The basin will contain a
2-year 6-hour storm. Thus, the system is designed to catch and
settle out pollutants from the earliest part of "a storm, which is
when the runoff is most polluted.
It should be noted that the Specific Plan proposes wetlands
enhancement and creation only in PA 1. PA 2' does not 'have any
wetlands, and no 'development is currently proposed for PA 3 and 4.
However, a small portion of the area considered developable
adjacent to Olivenhain Road, in PA 4, does include wetlands.
Therefore, if future development in PA 3 or 4 impact on-site
wetlands, appropriate mitigation will have to be approved as part
of the proposed development by all concerned agencies.
2.3.1.5 Circulation
) The Specific Plan includes a circulation plan for the roads
'affected by the development propOsed by the TM and discusses access
to the areas for future development, PA 3 and 4. 'The Circulation
Plan consists of three public streets:.. El Camino Real, Olivenhain
Road, and Scott Place (see Figure 2.3-18). Cross- sections for the
three streets are, shown in Figure 2.3-19.
El Camino Real, which is a County road in this area, is dèsignãted
as an Augmented Prime Arterial with a 16-foot right-of-way (ROW).
The street will be improved and widened from the existing half ROW
width of 45 feet to 68 feet along the entire frontage of .the SPA.
This width is based on the County's requirements plus an additional
5 feet for &: bicycle lane. The 10-foot wide parkway includes a
5-foot sidewalk and landscaping.
Olivenhain Road,. which is in Carlsbad, is designated in the
Specific Plan as a Prime Arterial with a..126-foot ROW The ROW
will ultimately include a 10-foot wide parkway, an,-'-18-foot, wide
median, and 44 feet,for travel lanes on, both sides. .of"the median.
A 5-foot-wide bicycle lane may also' be included,' which would
increase the required ROW. The Cities of Carlsbad and Encinitas
,are currently reviewing alternate design plans and the EIR for the
proposed widening of Olivenhain Road. The property owners within
the SPA will be required to pay for the improvement of'Olivenhain
Road along 'the property frontage as mitigation for traffic impacts.
1
2-41
LEGEND
EXISTING Augmented Prime Arterial-136' R.O.W.
TRAFFIC Prime Arterial- 124' R.O.W.
SIGNAL -- iii'.." Local Street-60' R.O.W.
ROAD
N -
TI -
N1S
PROPOSED - J, TRAFFIC -r - -
- SIGNAL
I / I
.4. -L2
\L
r Tv
if
-71
I
(
312
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP, 1991
FEET
FIGURE
CIRCULATION PLAN 2.3-18
2-42
iØ)
60'ROW -
'20' 4 20'_:" io'--
•
LOCAL STREET
SCOTT PLACE
- +
- : ' •' 126' R.O.W.
(136' W/BIKELANE)
- -io' 44' ." 18' 44'_10'- -
49! WITH BIKE LANE 49' WITH BIKE LANE
PRIME ARTERIAL
OLIVENHAIN ROAD
- 131' ROW
-' - 63' 68'
- 23' 40' 58' 1 1k 10'-
, -, j. _________-,
AUGMENTED PRIME ARTERIAL 1L5BELE
EL CAMINO REAL
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP, 1991
FIGURE
STREET SECTIONS 2.3-19
2-43
Scott Place, which accesses the residential development on the
ridge top in the southern portion of the SPA, is an existing Local
Street that will be extended westerly. The Specific Plan
designates a 60-foot ROW that includes a 10-foot wide parkway,
which will include landscaping and a 5-foot wide sidewalk. The
cul-de-sac will have a minimum 'radius of 50 feet.
The Specific Plan proposes that access to PA 1, which is currently
proposed' for development of a Home, Depot Home Improvement Center,
will be from El Camino Real PA 2, which includes the proposed
residential development atop the ridge, will be accessed from El
Camino .Real via Garden View Road, 'Buttercup Road', Starf lower Road,
and the existing portion of Scott Place, which will beextended'as
part of the Tentative Map (see Fiqures 2.3-20 and 2.3-21).
PA 3, which is landlocked between the other three planning areas,
is expected to take access from ElCamino'Real, through PA 1. The
most likely access point would be the currently proposed signalIzed
intersection of El Camino Real and Woodléy Road, which will serve
as the main entrance to the Home 'Depot Home Improvement Center.
However, there are currently no development plans for PA 3. ' The
proposed TN includes a potential future access point from El Camino
Real for PA 3 but does not include an' access 'easement. It is
possible that PA 3 could take access from Olivenhain Road, through
PA 4. However, this would require a roadway crossing the wetlands,
which may not be acceptable to the resource agencies and is not
considered to be environmentally sbund.
PA 4 stretches from the north boundary at Olivenhain Road to the
existing residential development on, the ridge top fronting on
Starf lower Road. The only really feasible.,deveiopmeñt area 'is just"
south of Olivenhain Road and would be accessed from that road. The
small potentially developable area in the southern portion of the
property would probably have to be accessed from El.Càmino Real,
through PA 1 and-3, in order to avoid crossing the wetlands. The,
Specific Plan and TN have allowed for future access to PA .3 and 4.
via the main signalized entrance to the Home Depot 'Center. An''
existing open space easement on the southernmost portion of PA 3
eliminates any possibility that access to the southern portion of
PA 4 could come from the north end of Starf lower. Road, which, is
currently a cul-de-sac. The only other option would be access from
the south completely within the SDG&E easement that contains three
sets of high-voltage power lines. Because the transmission lines''
are in the middle of' the easement, houses back up to the SDG&E
easement, and the steep slopes within the, easement, a road behind
the houses could be expected to have noise and visual' impacts and.
is not considered feasible. ' '
.'
2-44
I -
NOTE
III )
NOTE
LOT SUMMARY
0tNIflCO)5
FLOODPLAIN NOTE
RESIDENTIAL LOT DATA
3.0t_3 _0ROL0E. - Y.2 _0A003L - o5oo
1* I lo. 111111,
5 3000 5 5200
12100
SOURCE THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP. 1991
TENTATIVE -'MAP AND GRADING PLAN
-
2-46.
0
2.3.1.6 Utility Systems
The development of PA 1 and 2 of the SPA will require annexation of
the development areas to the Leucadia County Water District. The
Specific Plan indicates the location for new sewer lines within PA
1 and 2; these are discussed in more detail in Section 2.3.2.5.
The development of PA 1 and 2 will include the upgrade of some
water lines and the installation of new lines. This is discussed
in more detail in Section 2.3.2.5. It is expected that future
development within PA 3 and 4 can be serviced by a line extended
from El Camino Real. No additional transmission mains, pump
stations or reservoir facilities will be necessary to serve the
SPA.
2.3.2 Tentative Map Proposal
2.3.2.1 concept Proposal and Project Objective
The TN includes the following proposals: (1) development of 10
acres adjacent to El Camino Real, between Encinitas Creek and the
steeply sloping hillside to the south, for a Home Depot Home
Improvement Center; (2) revegetation, enhancement and preservation
of a 9.35-acre wet],and/open space area north of the Home Depot Home
Improvement Center; (3) preservation of an 11.1-acre natural open
space area on the hillsides south of Home Depot; and (4)
development of 6.9 acres with a 19-lot residential subdivision on
the ridge top and less steeply sloping hillsides to the south,
above the steeper slopes (see Figure 2.3-21). The breakdown of
proposed land uses is included in Table 2.3-4.
The TN proposes both commercial and residential development because
PA 1 and 2 are both within one parcel. However, the primary
objective of the project proposal is the development of a standard-
sized Home Depot Home Improvement Center in an area not currently
served by any other Home Depot Centers, and the Home Depot Center
will be developed first. Other project objectives include the
rehabilitation of a degraded wetland and the provision of an
employment base. It is likely that another developer will later
construct the residential development.
Typical Home Depot shoppers are located within a 6- to 8-mile
radius of the store. Store locations are situated near dense
population areas, single-family residential areas, or areas of
active growth. The anticipated market spheres for
existing stores in Oceanside, Escondido, Clairemont Mes
Diego), and Carmel Mountain Ranch (in north San Diego) are
Figure 2.3-22. The figure illustrates that there is
market area for a Home Depot Home Improvement Center
currently beyond the driving distances acceptable to most
This area includes Del Mar, Solana Beach, Encinitas, and
of Carlsbad, Rancho Santa Fe and north San Diego.
2-47
the four
(in San
shown in
a target
that is
shoppers.
portions
VV,,oVV.-
Table 21.3-4
Proposed Land Uses fo the Tentative Map
Proposed Land Use # Acres % of TM Area fPA
Commercial Building 2.80 7 .5
and Garden Center
V
Commercial Parking 4.08 11 V
Public Streets 2.06 6 4 V
Driveways, landscaped 2.72 7 5
slopes & streetscapes
Open Space . 19.751 53 3,6
Residential Lots 5V90 16 - 11
TOTALS 37.31 100
Based on the current population, the center of the target market
for a new store would be in Encinitas or Solana Beach. . The project
site was selected because it was the only, parcel within. the target
market area that was designated fpr such uses and that was large
enough to accommodate a 102,000-square feet Home .DepotHome
Improvement Center and the required parking.
2.3.2.2 Home Depot Home Improvement Center
The Home Depot Home Improvement Center will,''be unique in its
exterior architectural design Th6 design will incorporate many of
the same dimensions as other Hone Depot Centers However, the
facade has been specifically designed to blend with the surrounding
natural, environment and agricultural/ rural character- :of. Green
Valley, in its earlier years—A,Thp interior will be identical to
some of the more recently, developed stores The store will be open
from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays and from 7 .a... to 8: p.m......on
weekends There will be an estimated 75 employees during the
busiest shift, and it is expected that the project would generate
approximately 1,500 to 1,600 customers, each weekday A large
-
percentage of Home Depot cusuwers. cume an weeicens.
V
2-48 S
The project will provide a minimum of. 525 off-street parking spaces
(1 space per 200 square feet of building area), including 8
handicapped spaces and 5 loading spaces; 10 motorcycle spaces; and
10 bicycle spaces that will include equipment on which to lock
bicycles. Most of the parking will be north of the building and
south of the Encinitas Creek open space. Limited parking will be
available on the west side of the building and on the east side of
the building adjacent to the garden center (see Figure 2.3-23).
The Home Depot Home Improvement Center will include approximately
102,000. square feet of floor area in.a single-story building, and
will have an outdoor garden shop and loading area on the east side
The building will, include the central store, offices, a training
room, an employee lounge., restrooms, a computer room, and storage
and utility rooms.. Deliveries will be made between the hours of 7
a.m.. and 5 p.m.', An estimated 40 to 50 deliveries are anticipated
daily. The building will include a trash compactor, and all trash
will be compacted and retained inside the building until it is
collected by a private firm.
The Home Depot plans several temporary activities that will occur
outside the building. During the Christmas season,,Christmas trees
will be sold in a fenced area in front of the garden center. In
addition, there .are truck load sales three times a year that often
require outside area. These truck load sales will have to comply
with the City's,Teinporary Parking Lot Tent and Canopy Regulations,
which include: '(1) the tent structure shall meet the existing main
building front :'Y' setback; (2) a minimum of 75% of the existing
parking spaces' on-site shall be available for customer parking
during the event; (3) major parking lot circulation', lanes shall;
remain open, (4) no inflatable attention-getting devices or signs
painted on or 'affixe'd to a balloon shall be permitted; and (5) any
temporary signs or banners shall comply with the regulations
established in 'Chapter. 30.60.110, Nonresidential Temporary Sign
Standards, of the Encinitas Municipal Code.
The Home Depot Center will be accessed.. from El Camino Real and will
have three 'entrances (see Figure 2.3-23). The southernmost
driveway will.'.be for service/ delivery trucks only, and will lead
easterly to the unloading area and garden center. The center
driveway; at Woodley Road, will provide the main entrance and will
be signalized as part of the project. The northernmost driveway
will allow, only right-turns .in and out. The TM does not currently
propose to provide, access to the two eastern parcels that are under
separate ownership's. However,' the Specific Plan assumes that
access to, 'PA. 3 will be through PA 1, and the TN indicates a
potential access from El Camino Real at the proposed Woodley Road
signalized intersection.
2-50 S
..•
APE AREAflAIA Wetlands RevegetatlOn 4.4 AcreS
S - Parking Lot Landscape 0.72 Acres (17.5%)
S Other Home Depot Landscape 0.41 Acres
55.
411* :
555 . ..- ..•-.----..- .•. . - ...
44 4ft
Number of Standard Spaces 532
PARKING DATA . •• . -
... \
ROAD --am
Bic"10 10 Otsi spaces
BUILDING DATA
- • - - — — — — — — — -
Home Depot Center Floor Area 102,200±5.1. ' • \ Garden Center Area 20,040±5.1. Maximum Building Height 39'
$
!i..
....•
R.,cm.d w5. wccmcm ---. Lot 1
0 Space 935 Acres
if
\\
-
,.
Em
\\
\c\ . .
\\
-
1. ': - : • : h f:.. . - . . \. •)_ E,..coy
W.V. .Tc. ncc.d r cm O.ndoc Pocm 5oc5F8c8. 2888. • 1 e
cc. • . . •, - -I - PmFucnAara
----suc.. 5O St
Lot
Home Improvement Center • Garden 10.00 Acres Center p .
8. P. 05.888.
.-....• 088 I_.±2-'--_L)3i I mmcm.
IX Tn.8o8...Ooocc-J 0
- __ m._;__ - _ii._i..' '• .. . _i.
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP, 1991 • FIGURE
HOME DEPOT SITE PLAN. 2.3-23
Owl
Th9fl0kWly
2-51.
2.3.2.3 Residential Development
The proposed residential development would include 19 residential
lots and the extension of Scott PLace on 6.9 acres andan 11.1-
acre open space lot (see Figure 2.34-24). The net density (based on
slope adjustments and subtraction ,f roads) is 2.9 dwelling units
per acre (DU/AC), which is less than the designated mid- range.
density of 4.0 DU/AC. The single-family detached houses will have
a minimum lot size of 8,700 square feet, a maximum lot size of
approximately 17,500 square feet"and an average lot size of
approximately 15,700 square feet. To minimize, grading,, some of the
houses will be split level or mutiti-storied to áccomrnodàte the
hillsides, while other lots will have reduced setbacks. The
minimum front yard setback is 25 feet for eight of the, lots, 20
feet for six of the lots, and 15 feet. forf our of the lots. The
minimum side yard setback will be 5 feet, with a minimum of 20 feet
required between buildings on adjàdent lots. The minimum rear yard
setback is 25 feet, and the maximum lot coverage allowed will be
35%. Each unit will have a mininum of two enclosed off-street
parking spaces. '
The development will be accessed,from El Camino Real via Garden
View Road, Buttercup Road and Scott Place (see Figure 2.3-20 in
Section 2.3.1.5). There will .bea minimum of one tree per 1ot'
planted along the street, and lots with frontages exceeding 120,
feet will have two street trees The trees will consist of a
combination of three species seleted from the tree list for the
Theme Residential Zone, Zone 5 in the Landscaping Plan (seeSection
2.3.1.4.1).
The Landscaping Plan also proposes the planting of trees and other
vegetation along the back of lots for selective screening, of views',
both to and from the houses. ForfiVe lots on the'northwést side,
of Scott Place with an average elevation drop equal to or greater
than 25 feet between the pad and the rear property line,' the, plan
proposes that a minimum of four trees be planted at a point.'-,mid-way
between the pad and the rear property line. Native shrub species,
are proposed along the rear prcperty line of the residential
development to soften the transition between the refined landscapes.
and the Open Space and Conservation Zone.
Future homeowners will develop thir own landscaping according to
the guidelines in the Specific Plan, which includerequiiements'for
irrigation,' non-flammable species', and drought-tolerant 'species.
The creation of water-conserving front 'yard areas is encouraged
through the use of warm-season .grassäs, as well asthe installation
of turf alternatives such as lDw water-use groundcovers, low
water-use shrubs,' bark mulches and stone.
2-5i'
. 0
1/
J4Ic2Ac — 5
/:
J /j/ t\ \\ / ( •1//P.L
j
f
Ito
I ~/ ~ kLl
179
I N I
Vr k7 \t
\ \ \
ORAR - TR Lo/ç ' XT\
OPO —/ROW DEDRAXtO
flOP,STO RA Lc Mltq0
_
__
VVV V VVVVV
VV .VV V V ESMT .V
V AL V
•• _ •V
V ___V
545
- - - -
__-
o 100
FEET
~ 0
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP,'1991
FIGURE
RESIDENTAL LOTTING PLAN 2.3-24
2-53
The Specific Plan imposes strict regulations for signs that may be
allowed in PA 2. The number andsize of signs is specific and
limited to strictly residential needs.
2.3.2.4 Grading/Flood Control
The proposed grading for PA 1 includes the cutting back of the
north-facing slope in the southern portion of PA 1 and the northern
portion Of PA to (1) accommodate the proposed Home Depot building
and access road along the south Iside of the building, and (2)
minimize the amount of fill -that has to be imported, for the
project. Approximately the uppermost 200 feet of the area to be
cut back is within PA 2, an estimated 2.7 acres in the open space
lot: (#20). Of the 2.7 open space acres to be graded, an estimated
1.7 acres is required .f or the Home Depot Center and an additional
acre will be graded for the widening of El Camino Real.
The grading for PA 1 is expected to balance, with. 73,000 cubic
yards of cut and fill over approximately 13.4 acres (35.9% of the
TM area). Approximately 50,000 cubic yards of the fill will be
used to surcharge the' proposed building area so that building
settlement problems can be avoided. The maximum height of a cut
slope'will be 60 feet. The lowermost portion of the cut slope just
sôuth.of the Home Depot. site will' have a gradient of: 2:1, which
will transition to 3:1on' the uppe*most portion of the.slope. The
maximum height of a fill slope will be 60 feet, with a maximum fill
slope ratio of 2:1 (horiZontal to vertIcal). This slope occurs in
the western portion 'of PA 2 (see Figure 2.3-21).
The Specific Plan dictates that all manufactured slope banks in
excess of 10 feet must be constructed at a gradient of .2:1 or less
unless a soils engineer verifies that a cut slope of upto1.5:1
will be stable and is approved by the City Engineer. The.project
proposes.a'maximum slope gradient ratio of 1.5:1.
The elevations of the proposed Home Depot building and parking lot
areas will be raised by theadditi9n of approximately 58,000 cubic
yards of • fill material to minimize flooding hazards. The fill
material will come from 'a variety of areas on-site. Approximately
4,500 cubic yards of soil-will be removed from the disturbed field
area at the southern edge of the floodplain, immediately north of
the proposed -parking lot. This area will be dredged to accommodate
the creation. of.-,wetlands. Additional fill will result from the
cutting back of the north-facing slope and excavation for the
widening of El Camino Real in PA 2. The Home Depot building will
have a finished floor elevation of 95 feet. The parking lot
elevations will range from 92 feet at the building to a low of
about 83 feet at the north end. The 100-year floodplain elevation
adjacent to the parking area is estimated to be 82.5 feet and will
be lower upon completion of a third upstream detention basin, which
is proposed as part of the Olivenhain Road Widening Project (Chang,
1990)
,.
2-54
S.
Stórmdrainage from the Home Depot Home Improvement Center in PA 1
will be collected in both above-ground concrete swales and
underground storm drains (see Figure 2.3-25) . All surface drainage
will flow towards a series of oil/water separators. The oil/water
,separator',
'
eparator system is designed to protect Encinitas Creek from urban
pollutants, especially the "first flush" storm . runoff, which
typically contains oils and other pollutants The system consists
of oil interceptors similar to septic tanks that separate the oily
substances from the water.. The oily residue collects in the upper
portion of the interceptors and must be periodically pumped out and
transported to an approved disposal site. This periodic
maintenance will also remove sediment that may collect in the
bottom of
, the interceptors. Larger storm runoff volumes will
bypass the oil/water separators and go directly to the wetlands
treatment area. Overflow weirs will be provided for major storm
flows which exceed the holding capacity of the wetlands treatment
area.
The residential development will direct surface flow generally down
the streets and into storm drains (see Figure 2.3-25.). The
drainage system will be connected to an existing. 24-inch storm
drain that crosses El Camino 'Real about 150 feet north of the
southwest corner of PA 2. In addition, several lots on the south
side of Scott Place will include, in the lower portion, the
existing concrete swales that were constructed as part of adjacent
development. This swale system currently drains PA 2' and empties
onto the property to the south,,.. where it joins the drainage from
the Byron White project.
Grading for the residential development will entail approximately
1241000 cubic yards of cut and an estimated 61,000 cubic yards of
fill. An estimated 49,000 cubic yards of fill could come from the
optional borrow site in PA 3 (see Figure 2.3-21) or from off-site.
The grading will extend Scott Place and provide a house pad and
backyard area on the upper portion of each lot. Some lots will be
graded to utilize split-level or two-story homes that can be' built
into the 'hillside. The pre-project and post-project slope analyses
for PA 1 and 2 are included in Table 2.3-5.
2-55.
I
- LEGEND
3 - Nuisance Water EXISTING BRIDGE - \ Treatment Area
- -- -----k-- -
\ ---- -'---- L!.J Oil Interceptor System %%ss J
-
I OLIVENHAiN R6AD Storm Drains
- _- ------------------i
Concrete Swales --
- \ Direction of Flow
- + - -
+ \\
\
---fl F
1 / \ \1
\. \
0 312 I-.. i.
FEET SOURCE THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP, 1991
FIGURE
DRAINAGE FACILITIES 2.3-25
CT4TG4 2-56
Table 2.3-5 .
Exiáting and Proposed SlopeGradients - Tentative Map
Slope : Pre-Prolect . . Post-Proiect
Gradient # Acres A of. Site Acres
o - 25% 28.8 77 29.4 79
25 - 40% 6.0 16 3.7
>40% 25 7 42
TOTALS 37.3 100.0 '37.3 100.0
2.'3 .2.S Infrastructure Improvements
The project site is within the jurisdiction of the City of
Enëinitas. El Camino Real, to the immediate west, is a County
road, and Olivenhain Road, to the immediate north, is within the
City of Carlsbad The project proposes to widen the portion of El
Camino Real alongthe project frontage to add 13 feet for a turn
lane and 5-foot wide bike lane When this is added to the existing
right-of-way (ROW), it will result in a 68-foot wide ROW for the
eastern half of El Camino Real, an increase of 23 feet (see Figure
2 3-19) The roadbed will be 58 feet wide, adjacent to which will
be a 10-foot -w' parkway, including 5 feet of landscaping And a
5-foot sidewalk. The increased. ROW width, which will be in the
City of Encinitas,will be -dedicated to the City, whichmay later
turn it over to the County:. -
The road and drainage improvements proposed as part of the
Olivenhain Road Widening project have been approved The Home
Depot"Corporation will partiip&te in funding an, appropriate
portion: of the future improvement of Olivenhain Road. However,
there will also likely be compensation required to the Home Depot
Corporation because the selected alignment: will: impact the
northwestern corner of PA 1.
.
The development of PA 2 will include the extension of , Scott Place
as a fully improved Local Street. The parkway will include a
sidewalk and landscaping (see Figure 2.3-19).
The development of the Home Depot Center and the residential
subdivision will require annexation of the development areas to the
0 2-57
Leucadia County Water District. This will take place following TM
approval and prior to recordation of the Final Map. The two open
space lots in PA 1 and 2 will not be annexed because.:, no service
will be required.
The development of the Home Depot Center will include the
installation of an 8-inch sewer line from the Home Depot building
that will tie into one of the two sewer mains paralleling the west
side of El. Camino Real (see Figure 2.3-26). The' residential
development in PA 2 will include the installation of a sewer lihe
that will connect with the same main in El Camino Real that willbe
used for the Home Depot Center. This will require a temporary
construction easement down the west-facing slopes adjacent toEl
Carnino Real.
The development proposes to replace an existing 12-inch steel water
line' that is adjacent to El Cainino Real with a 16-inch line. The
development of the Home Depot Center will include the installation
of an 8-inch loop around the building area that will tie in with
the- 16-inch line on the west side of El Camino Real (see Figure
2.3-27). The domestic water service and the fire service .f or the
Home Depot Center will be provided from the mains in El Camino
Real.. Metered f lows will be used for the domestic. water supply.
An unmetered service will be used for the building fire sprinkler
system and for.the On-site fire hydrants. The proposed residential
development will: include an extension of the existing 8-inch PVC
waterline in Scott Place to serve the new homes.
A landscape maintenance easement will be created for the
installation and maintenance of the revegetated cut slope to the
south of the Home Depot Home Improvement Center. A temporary
construction easement will be used for construction of a storm
dra.in and.a proposed sewer line for the residential units, within
a sewer easement,. that will connect the homes with the sewer line
in El Camino Real (see Figure 2.3-28). The SPA will also include
a storm drain easement in the southwest corner of. the.: site and a-
1-2-foot wide. utility easement for San • Diego Gas & Electric Co.
(SDG&E) along the northern boundary. The project will retain the
existing 150-foot wide SDG&E Easement in the northeastern portion
of the property that contains the high-voltage power, lines. All
new electric and. telecommunication lines will be undergrounded.
Scott Place will, be extended westerly along the ridge top to
provide street frontage for the residential lots. It will be
improved: as a lOcal street with a 40-foot wide roadbed within a
60-foot ROW. The' 10-foot wide parkways on both sides of the street
will include 5-foot-wide sidewalks and landscaping.
2-58
;ÔI
I/o 40 -:
LEGEND gg L;C21) - __00 r%°oO••k - - -. --•\..- -\--- \g tj t
Oo
Existing Sewer Main
00
00- 0000 0 0 New Sewer Main
00
g : - • 00.
- - '-_--_-- - - • : •. - ill
Ii - • - - - - '}: - - - -'-'--' \_ • '. e/___•__••\ -
•.: •\\ N-
39 41ii1i
0-0
00
\
)It •'
00 •
00 0.0 -00
00
oo 00,
00
00 ——s -4
00
001
r 00
1p• •i
•,••
00
1k'- i
00
!- —- - ---
L ---Ji
00
00
0
/ -oig - - •--------..• •-- 1:0
.00 NO
oil" - gig i •.•- •,.
Go. • L 0.92° % o : H /
0 41 00
10 •:-T---: ".. t/:
°° -• '-. —•• i X / ---' 7,7 I. Al
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP, 1991 •
FIGURE
SEWERSYSTEM • 2.3-26
2-59
.16
ho ,0
0.
—o
- g
12 r
11/7
Ti 1:0, ->tk •t,j//
---- 4 YI if' Lf/-'Zt II C
r 4•••
0*0 '000000doopc
21 0.
-- -. J; / I Th 1; /
•
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP, 1991
WATER SYSTEM
2-60
- I
-S.
\\\i • •
't\
i• \ .
c'••- ' t '0 \0
00 0 \ I
1-0000
v 0
00
)
o
1
312-
FEET
FIGURE .• .••
• 2.3-27
Ping
Arm A,.. Lend U.. Ar..
I 19.3 Ac. Horns Improvement Center 9.3 Ac. Open Space 10.0Ac.
2 18.0 Ac, Single Family Residential 6.9 Ac. Open Space I 11.1 Ac.
3 7.7 Ac. Convnercial - tight Indust. 1 2.6 Ac,
Open Space I 5:1 Ac.
4 - 10.5 Ac. CornertiaJ --Light Indust 2.5 Ac. Open Space 8.0 Ac.
01
-
-
IT, ) . NtRQA0: -
it r C
7
I V.11
PROPOSE TEMP ORA RY
CONSTRUCT
I I
_
J1,4 r
U.)...
PROPOSED STORM DRAIN AND SEWER EASEMENT 312
PROPOSED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
FEET
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP. 1991
-
- FIGURE
EASEMENTS -
. 2.3-28
1AIG.A yr i- 2-61
2.3.2.6 Design Concepts
2.3.2.6.1 Home Depot Home Improvement Center
The Hàme Depot building will be designed to reflect a rural/
agricultural theme and, in this rspect, will be different from
other Home Depot stores. The design is transitional between the
commercial/office area to the south, the Ecke' property agricultural
area to the west, and the H&H Feed Store area farther east, at the
intersection of Olivenhain Road and Rancho Santa Fe Road. The
architectural, theme for the Home Deot Home Improvement Center will
carry forth some of the wood beams and brick facing that have been
approved for the Garden View Plaza (Byron White) project to the
irnmèdiàte south and which are also. present in other commercial
areas farther' south along El Camino Real. The cedar siding and
wood at the entry, aswell as the color scheme, will relate to the
natural environment and the rustic character of an agricultural
area. The color scheme emphasizes earth tones and shades of gray
and. green. The concrete tilt-up building will be 'painted an
earthtone shade. The building mass will be softened through the
use of 'wood "pavilions" that will stand out from the main building
walls and will be visually connectd by a pedestrian arcade. The
arcade and the pitched pavilion roofs will be capped by a mill
finish, standing seam metal roof characteristic Of agricultural
areas. Wood sidings will be stained in a cedar or redwood tone.
Elevations are shown in Figure 2.3129.
The roofs,' . of typical Home Depot' Improvement Centers are constructed' S
of a 'light gray to white rock 'surface that blends with the rooftop
paraphernalia. Examples of how this type of roof appears are shown
on one of the photographic display boards for the project that have
been submitted to the City of Encinitas Community Development
Department. However, because, of j the sensitive nature of this
project, and the fact that residences on the hilltops will view the
roof, alternatives -that would blendi with the surrounding vegetation
are being considered. 'The roof will be one of, three colors: light
gray, an, earth tone.,. or a soft green. The final decision on the
color will be made.after consultation with the City and the
community.
2-621
4
The highest points of the building will be the 39-foot high
rooftops on the entry feature on the north elevation, the entry-
type feature on the west elevation, and the barn-like "pavilions"
on three corners (see Figure 2.3-29). The roof parapet, which will
shield the rooftop equipment from view from the ground, will .be
33-feet high. Therefore, the Specific Plan will override- the
General Plan's 30-foot height limit. The rooftop will include
approximately 25 light gray evaporative coolers interspersed with
approximately 150 white plexiglass skylights with light silver gray
mill finish aluminum frames In addition, there will be a white
data communication satellite antenna consisting of a solid
fiberglass dish .that is .6 feet in diameter and mounted on a simple
pipe mast. All of these will be shielded from view from the street
level by the parapet. .There will be no exposed air ducts or pipes
on the roof. The rooftop equipment will operate during normal
store hours between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekdays and between 7
a.m. and 8 p.m. on weekends.
The Home Depot building will be set baOk 90 feet from El Camino
Real, instead of the required 25 feet, to minimize visual impacts.
In addition, the project includes 5 feet of landscaping within the
ROW and an additional 15 to 24 feet within the setback.
"Box-style" luminaires will, be provided in the Home Depot parking
lot to provide even illumination (see Figure 2.3-30). The light
standards will have a cut-off point above 75 degrees .vertical and
will use low-pressure sodium vapor lamps. Light shields will
ensure .that light is reflected downward and does not go beyond.
property boundaries. The light fixtures will be between 18 and 20
feet. They will be dark brown and mounted on a raised, concrete,
footing that will have a light sand blast finish.
The Home Depot Center will be identified by three back-lit neon'
signs on the building. Above the main entrance to the building, on,
the north side, will be 5-foot tall orange letters. The Home Depot
logo will Occupy a 14' x 14' area at the northwest corner, of the H
building, facing north (see Figure 2.3-31). The west- facing side.
of the building will have a 184-square foot sign with 4-foot high' '.
orange letters (see Figure 2.3-32). These are designed to . be
visible from El Camino Real and to provide identifidation well
enough in advance for customers
The Home Depot Center project proposes a two-sided, 11-foot high
free-standing entry monument at the main entry at the signalIzed.;
intersection of Woodley Road and El Camino Real. The 2-foot high
brick base will be topped by a 3-foot 'high wood frame supporting a.
back-lit neon Home Depot sign (see Figure 2.3-32). The sign will
have white letters on an orange background
2-64
I
9
1
I
I.
Sign Detail
ll ki
I
t14
Ul1;1 Ill iiThj
El
Home Depot. North Building Entrance
Individual letters: Internally illuminated channel letters with plexiglass faces
and aluminum sidewalls. Colors: Faces orangei sidewalls dark.bronze.
Cabinet sign: Internally illUminated cabinet with flexfce material face.
Colors: Letters white with black outlines. Background and cabinet orange.
Area: 435 square feet.
14-Ow
Home Depot North Elevation Wall Sign Sign Detail
Internally illuminated cabinet witl
flexface material face.
Colors: Letters white with black Outline.
Background and-cabinet orangeJ
Area: 196 square feet.
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP, 1991
FIGURE
HOME-'DEPOT SIGNAGE - NORTH ELEVATION. :: 2.331
4v4 ...,. 2-66• .
Home Depot West Elevation Sugnage
Inr1ividiiI.Ittpr IntrnIIv iIIiimintd ehinnI letters
with faces and aluminum sidewalls.
. . Colors: Faces orange; sidewa11s dark bronze.
Area: 184 square feet.
Double Faced Sign 8'x8'
Wood Frame / H
IL It
Stamped Brick
Concrete FootingJ itit
Home. Depot Freestanding Entrance Sign
. Internally illuniinated, double faced sign-of flex face
material with aluminum cabinet. Wood frame to match
building materials, set on stamped brick concrete footing.
Colors: Letters white with black äutlines. Cabinet and
background orange. Wood frame, stained redwood.
Area: 64 square feet per face.
SOURCE THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP, 1991
OV
0 FIGURE HOME DEPOT SIGNAGE - WEST ELEVATION I 2.3-32
0 2-67
0
2.3.2.6.2 Residential Development
The Specific Plan includes guidlines for the design of the
residential subdivision in PA 2. The future homes must be
compatible with the existing hémes on Scott Place and the
surrounding terrain, due to the high visibility of the houses from
surrounding areas Three styles are considered appropriate for the
future development Spanish Colonial, Monterey, or Mediterranean
(see Figures 2.3-33, 2.3-34, 2.3-135. Specific Plan guidelines
encourage the use of soft 'earth tones for the houses, with accent,
materials employing wood, brick, title and masonry. Roof colors may
be in the red to reddish-brown tosoft orange range. Entry doors
must be wood and should be either glazed or decorative in nature
Wood and wrought iron entry court gates are encouraged. Any solar
panels must be integrated into the roof design and must be I flush
with the roof slopes. Frames on roof-.mounted equipment must be
colored to complement the roof color, and natural aluminum frames
are prohibited.
2.3.2.7 Landscaping/wetland Restoration Plan
The Specific Plan includes guidelines and requirements for
landscaping in the SPA. Recommeridea plant species are discussed 1n
more detail in Section 2.3.1.4. of this EIR. The Specific.an
emphasizes zonal landscaping, ranging from wetland species to
drought-tolerant hardy species.-' The landscape plan includes lists
of appropriate plant species for the various parts of the SPA and
stresses linkage between the zones and between. the proposed
development and the natural environment.
The landscape plan for PA 1 proposes the planting of more than 10.0
trees in and adjacent to the parking lot north of the building (see
Figure 2.3-36). In addition, the TM proposes a 5-foot wide
landscaped parkway adjacent to the sidewalk, along the street, in
the:northernmost portion of PA 1. IThe parkway will include street
trees, ground covers, and a permanent drip irrigation system. . The
15- to 24-foot landscaped setback adjacent to the ROW will consist
of 3-foot high berms that will be 1anted with low hedges, shrubs,
ornamental grasses and trees to screen views of the parking area
and minimize windshield'glare (see tFigure'2.3-37). The'trées will
be both deciduous and broad-leaf eergreen species, and the mix is
to be weighted with a slightly higher proportion of deciduous trees
closer to the creek. Trees will bd planted in informal groupings.
The minimum number of trees will be the required' number of'trees if
they were planted at an average lof 40-foot spacings along the
street frontage. In the southern part of, PA 2, adjacent to El
Camino Real, the landscaped parkwdy will transition to a simple,
unlandscaped sidewalk at curb to minimize cuttingi into the
hillsides (see Figure 2.3-38).
2-68 ,,.
Mediterranean Style
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP, 1991
FIGURE
RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE STYLES 2.3-33
W •.•
w•.
2-69
Precast or stone cap chimney
provides vertical accent.
Deep set window treatment.
I'
Root treatment highlighted by precast cornice.
Balcony with wrought Iron rail
above arched entry.
Example of architectural massing with belt course provides horizontal relief. 4)
-
OCldH
SemI-clrlar ardios depict typical Mediterranean ij iii
elements and enhances architectural appeal. -
111111 Stepped recess at main entry
features raised panel doors.
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP 1991 Wood trellis creates shady sitting area
FIGURE
MEDITERRANEAN ARCHITECTURE 2.3-34 •
Authentic Stucco chimney design
provides vertical accent.
ifi
Exposed corbel and tile door combine
to enhance Spanish motH.
Typical Spanish Colonial Home.
Simple balcony overhang
encourages outdoor lifestyle.
Entry door highlighted by inland tiles
and wrought Iron hardware.
-
--
-" oil
Recessed window treatment provides
shade for southern California climate.
i'1JIJ.l4 Arcade combines indoor and TWTTlItTi
I 1I. tuJ;1
FIGURE
2.3-35
+
Grouhdcover &'
\ Street Trees
\ In Parkway
ELCAMINO REAL
TTTL a.
Ne ---...
Home Depot Parking Lot Screening
Hedge. KM
E
• Canopy Trees and .
'Screening Hedge on
•
'
Berm Selectively Screen
Views & Reduce Noise .
'C
Home Depot Min. 15'0" 5'-0" 5'-0"
Parking Lot ' Setback Sidewalk Parkway
I' 'El Camino Real R.O.W. • . SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP, 1991
EL CAMINO REAC STREETSCAPE FIGURE
-ADJACENT TO HOME. DEPOT ' ' • •
2.3-31
W6A 2-73
m s ~ tom
41
Deep Rooting Native Undisturbed Natural
Shrubs and Groundcovers Open Space Area
Planted on Cut Slopes
-
51-0" 5'-O"
Natural Open Space El Camino, Real R.O.W.
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP,. 1991
L CAMINO REAL STREETSCAPE FIGURE E
SOUTH OF HOME DEPOT 2.3-38
'WA 2-74
The Specific Plan proposes the planting of ornamental flowering
trees along the main circulation .areas to provide a. defined entry
theme. Throughout the parking lot, trees will be planted in areas
with a minimum interior width of 4 feet and surrounded by a 6-inch
concrete curb.. The groundcovers planted beneath the trees will be
selected from the plant palette for Landscape Zone 3 (see Section
2.3.1.4.1 of this EIR). To enhance pedestrian safety, major
pedestrian crossings on the Home Depot property will be defined
with concrete panels colored red or terra-cotta.
The foundation planting for the Home Depot building will consist of
shrubs and groundcovers, and all plantings will be irrigated with
drip irrigation systems. All trees planted adjacent to the
building will be ornamental in character, with attractive flowering
and branching characteristics.
Encinitas Creek currently flows under El Camino Real through a 2'
x 50' box culvert. The culvert, which is currently operating well
below its design capacity because it is silted into an elevation
of approximately 75 feet, will be cleaned out as part of the
development of PA 1. In addition,. the Oliverihain Road Widening
Project will include the, construction of a third upstream detention
basin. These measures are expected to result in a reduction in the
water flow rate through the project area.
Because the proposed drainage improvements will result in enhanced
water, flow and reduced flooding, some emergent wetlands will likely
be drier in the future, and some wetlands species may recede.
Therefore, the project includes awetlands'restoratfon plan.. This
is detailed in Section 2.3.1.4.3. Prior to approval of the Final
Map, the Home Depot Corporation will provide financial assurance
that the wetland restoration program will be implemented. A bond
agreement will be made with the City of Encinitas and the wetland
restoration program will be subject to approval by the appropriate
State and Federal regulatory agenOies.
The Specific Plan includes a landscape plan for the future
residential area in PA 2 (see Figure 2.3-39). The Plan emphasizes
selective screening of views both to and from the houses to benefit
both the residents and travelers on El Camino Real. One street
tree will be placed in the front yard of each 1t fronting on Scott
Place. Any lot with a frontage in excess of 120 feet will have a
minimum of two trees in the front yard.
.••, 2-75 • .
Chapparal Street Trees, such as California Sycamore,
Amercican Sweet Gum
Torrey Pines Drought Tolerant and Native Trees and Shrubs
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP, 1991
RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
p
2-76
- - -'
The landscape plan for PA 2 also includes landscape g screenin along
back yards in overlooking El Caino Real or PA 1, where the Home Depot
development is proposed Fivelots on the northwest side of Scott
Place that have an elevation drop of 25 feet or more between the
pad and the rear property line will have at least four trees at a
point midway between the pad and the-.'-rear property line The
designated trees will mature to a height of 30 feet Four lots
above El Camino Real will also have trees At.various points on the
lower portions of the lots (see Figure 2 3-39) Native shrub
species are proposed to be planted along the rear property vIine of
the residential lots to soften the transition between the natural
)
open space and the. landthcapéd residential dévélOpinent
I O
. -
-
"H
- 2-77
3 • ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE ANALYSIS
Potential environmental impacts may be director indirect, primary
or secondary, and/or cumulative. The cumulative impacts analysis
in this EIR was based on data relating to all reasonably
foreseeable development in the project vicinity. This included the
Arroyo La Costa Master Plan and "the Olivenhain Road
Widening/Realignment Project. The traffic projections for the year
2010 were based on data from both Encinitas and Carlsbad, and
include traffic expected from the future Encinitas Ranch/Ecke
property.
3.1 HYDROLOGY/FLOODING
3.1.1 Existing Conditions
The project site is within the Encinitas Creek drainage basin,
which is within the Carlsbad Hydrographic Unit.'The drainage basin
includes approximately 7 3 square miles Drainage within the basin
begins northeast of Encinitas and flows southwest then west to the
project area (see Figure 3.1-1). Immediately east of'the SPA, the
Creek is channelized within the residential subdivision
Approximately 1,400 feet of Encinitas Creek traverses the northern
portion of the SPA It enters Planning Area (PA) 4, on the
easternmost portion of the Area, flows westerly, then.nôrthwest-
erly, and .exits the SPA under the El Camino Real bridge just south
of Olivenhain Road The vertical drop from east to west on-site is
approximately 3.2 feet. The Creek continues approximately 1.4 miles
north/ northwest, through the northern, portion of Green Valley, to
Batiquitos Lagoon (see Figure 2.2-1 in Section 2.2).
Encinitas Creek is the lesser of two tributaries that drain into
Batiquitos Lagoon, with San Marcos Creek being the primary
tributary. The Lagoon is nearly half a mile wide, with,, a total
water surface area of approximately 690 acres. It. has,. a watershed
of approximately 52 square miles. However, the damming of San
Marcos Creek to create Lake San Marcos has effectively reduced the
watershed to an estimated 25 square miles.
ASL Consultants, Inc. prepared a site-specific feasibility study
for the specific Plan Area '(SPA) in 1989; a hydrology study in
1991; and a supplemental HEC II study in 1992, when it became
apparent that Detention Basin D, which was part of the Olivenhain
Road Widening/Realignment Project, may never' be constructed. The
hydrology study and supplement are included in Appendix A and are
summarized in this section. Also of major help in the preparation
of this section was Dr. Howard H. Chang, who prepared the, Drainage
Study for Encinitas Creek.
3-1
I o
?I
La
,11
joullos Lagoon A'
11 \7 \/)
FUTURE
k L__ DETENFt6IBASIN C irJ EXISTING BASINS
r PROJECT
10
AOW SITE
IRd
V Blvd --'i-----i 'AW
er
\\ I D
FUTURE CA01
ETENTION BASIN D
I
1p
_,dell
Q) \( Rd
V-3 Of LakS
I
Val
44 Iona cr
2 J
A-,iuoza St i J
c poll
Santa Fe L -
\
~g'
I •/
-
onete of 1 jence
10
\\\ hSi
SOURCE: COTTON/BELAND/ASSOCIATES, 1987, CHANG,1990 •
FIGURE S
•ENCINITAS CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN 3
'WA 3-2
Most of the on-site drainage currently flows northerly toward
Encinitas Creek A small area in the southern portion of the site
flows to a low point near the southwest corner of the site and goes
under, El Camino Real through a pipe culvert The projected flow
across the project site during a 100-year storm is 1,465 cubic feet
per second (cfs). This results in the 100-year floodplain shown in
Figure 2.3-12 in Section 2.3.
Portions of Encinitas creek have, in recent years, flooded some
areas because (1) development and runoff has increased the flow in
the Creek and (2) the existing drainage system has not been
maintained The El Camino Real bridge at the northwestern corner
of the project site currently operates well below its design
capacity due to a lack of maintenance The culvert has been silted
in to an elevation of approximately 75 feet above MSL, while it
should have been maintained at an elevation no greater than 72 feet
above MSL This, plus the fact that El Camino Real has a distinct
sag in this location, has some resulted in flooding of El
Camino Real as well as back-flooding of a 1,500- foot segment of
Olivenhain Road easterly -of its intersection with El Camino Real.
In fact, HEC-2 model studies determined that El Camino Real would
be inundated during the design storm event (a 100-year storm). The
road acts as a. dam because the footings and below-ground portion of
the structure irnpee water flow, and storm water is forced to flow
over the street The road elevation is approximately 80 feet MSL,
while, the water level during ,a loo-year storm would be 86.4 feet
MSL. In recent years, the damming effect and the unmáintained
culvert, have resulted in flooding or water ponding in the SPA (ASL
Consultants, 1989).
In recent years, two detention basins have been constructed
upstream of the SPA to slow the Creek flow and reduce flooding
Dr Howard H Chang (1990) recommended the installation of a third
upstream detention basin, known as Basin D, west of Rancho Santa Fe
Road just south of Olivenhain Road (see Figure 3.1-1). This
detention basin was originally planned for construction as part of
the Olivenhain Road Widening Project, which is being funded by the
developers of the Arroyo La Costa community north of Olivenhain
Road Detention Basin D is not part of the proposed Specific Plan
or Tentative Map, and these projects' are not dependent upon the
completion of this basin. If constructed, Detention Basin D would
have a peak storage of 83.6 acre-feet, with an average storage
depth of 10 feet The maximum storage capacity in the reservoir
would be 83 6 acre-feet This corresponds to a maximum water level
of 110 feet. The basin would range from 250 to 400 feet wide. The.
dike and spillway would be 40' wide (at the base) and 250' long
(Brian F Mooney Associates, 1991) This basin would reduce the
overall peak 100-year storm discharge in Encinitas Creek to 832 cfs
at El Camino Real.
The 1991 floodplain analysis assumed that Detention Basin D would
be in place prior to completion of the PA 1 development and that
3-3
there would be no raise in the elevations in the SPA. The
resulting 100-year floodplain, which would be significantly less-
than , the current 100-year floodplain, as shown in Figure 3.1-2.
The 1991 hydrology study indicated that if Detention Basin D is not
completed prior to devel'àpment of the proposed Home Depot Center,
the floodplain would remain substatial1y'the same as the Current
Floodplain shown in Figure 3.1-2.
The floodplain analysis was updated in 1992 when it became apparent
that Detention Basin D may not be èonstructed. Without Detention
Basin D, the projected 100-year storm will, carry 1,465 cfs. The
100-year flood water surface elevation is projected to be 82.4 feet
above Mean Sea Level (MSL). This would be 6 inches below, the
elevation of the proposed parking lot (83 feet) and approximately
9 feet below the elevation of the proposed Home 'Depot Center
building (92 feet) The location of the projected floodplain
without any dredging. is shown in 'Figure 3.1-3. Based on the
updated analysis, the 100-year flodplãin would remain outside of
the entire Home Depot development area.
3.1.2 Impacts
3.1.2.1 Specific Plan
The Specific Plan may have indirect impacts on hydrology when
various parcels are developed The paving and/or development of
any 'area tends to increase the impervious ground surface and,
therefore, the runoff potential. Approximately the middle third
of PA 4, and a substantial portion:of PA 1 include land within the
existing 100-year floodplain. (see Figure 3.1-2). Future
development within the floodplain must be restricted to appropriate
floodplain uses Development within a floodplain has the potential
for increasing flooding problems die to (1) the actual structural
displacement of functional floodplain acreage and (2) an increased
amount of impervious surface area, causing increased runoff during
storm events The City of Encinitas has determined that parking is
a suitable use in a floodplain; structures are not.
No development is currently, propo1sed for PA 3 and 4. However,
there' is a potential for flooding of a very small portion of' the
designated developable area north of Encinitas Cr'eek'in PA 4 (see
Figure 3 1-2) Since the designation of developable area does not
distinguish between structures and parking, and no development is
currently proposed, potential impac1ts are identified as constraints
rather than definite impacts If Detention Basin D is not
'completed prior to the development of PA 4, there could be a
minimal flooding impact if any structures are proposed within the
designated developable area that is' within the 100-year floodplain
Since the City of Encinitas has determined that parking is a
suitable use in a floodplain, this small area could be used for
parking, eliminating potential flooding impacts
3-4 S
—
LEGEND
PRE-1982 FLOODPLAIN
CURRENT. FLOODPLAIN
FLOODPLAIN WITH THE
ADDITION OF DETENTION
BASIN 0
AREA OF POTENTIAL
FLOODING
I=
• '•,\\• \
'I
312
FEET
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP 1991
AREAS OF POTENTIAL FLOODING IF FIGURE
EXISTING ELEVATIONS ARE NOT RAISED 3.1-2
3-5 • •
3.1.2.2 Tentative Map 0
The commercial. and residential development proposed as part of the
TM are expected to decrease the absorption rate by an estimated 20
to 40% on the developed areas. Since 21 acres within the 37.3-acre
TM are proposed for open space, any increase in runoff or in the
absorption rate is expected to be minimal. In PA 2, over 10 of the
11.1 acres of open space will remain in a natural condition as a
result of the proposed TN. Thus, a significant increase in erosion
or runoff is not expected in this area. The portion of the
northernmost portion of PA 2 that will be disturbed during
construction and revegetated could have a short-term increase in
runoff until the vegetation is established. Standard
erosion-control measures will be employed to mitigate potential
erosion impacts. Sedimentation impacts will be mitigated by the
proposed oil/sediment/water separator system.
The TM proposes a parking area south of the wetlands and north of
the proposed building, as well, as parking in front of and in back
of the Home Depot Center. Without the installation of Detention
Basin D upstream or the raising of the parking area, approximately
0.5 acre of the proposed parking area would be within in the 100-
year floodplain (see Figure 3.1-2). However, this area will be
raised as part of the project. The parking area will be graded to
a minimum elevation of 83 feet, with the building at 92 feet. The
1992 floodplain analysis indicated that, without Detention Basin D,
the 100-year flood water surface elevation is projected to be 82.4
feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). This would be 6 inches below the
elevation of the proposed parking lot (83 feet) and approximately
9 feet 'below the elevation of the proposed Home Depot Center
building (92 feet) (see Figure 3.1-3). The updated analysis, the
100-year floodplain would remain outside of the entire Home Depot
development area. However, this presents a "worst case" analysis
because it does not take into account the proposed raising of
elevations for the Home Depot development. The building will
actually be 11 feet above the 100-year flood level (see Figure 3.1-
2)
The proposed project will alter the configuration of the 100- year
floodplain. This will result from the proposed remedial dredging
to reduce the elevation of the creek bed in the vicinity of the El
Camino Real Bridge and the excavation of the floodplain for the
creation of wetlands and the nuisance water treatment system, as
well as from the proposed elevation of the Home Depot development
area. However, it is not expected to significantly impact the
properties either upstream or downstream. The dredging beneath and
just upstream of the El Camino Real bridge will return the Creek
bed to an elevation such that water flow through 'PA 1 will be
enhanced, reducing the potential for back-flooding that has
occurred in recent years. The increase in exposed soil after
grading and prior to total coverage by the planted vegetation may
temporarily change the absorption rate and/or increase the erosion
-" 0•
1
\4t...
\ t. \-
I •-'.
/
0 265
FEET
' : •- .- . S - \ U -.
..,.,.,
I :
aHi L1rA 4
L1_=
LEGEND
••'-"•'•- EXISTING CONOITION
100 NEAR Ft000 PLAIN
I BOUNDARY
PROPOSED CONDITION
100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN oouuon'r
1J(U/ 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
OOUNDARY FOR BOTH
EXISTING AND PROPOSED
SOURCE: ASL CONSULTANTS, 1992
.PROJECTED 100-"YEAR FLOODPLAIN FIGURE
WITH THE PROPOSED TM 1
3.1-3
1
16W~4 3-7
rate. The reduction in peak flow rates that may occur as a result
of the proposed cleaning out of sediment in the vicinity of the El
Camino Real bridge will be minimal. In general, the proposed
development is not expected to significantly impact the Encinitas
Creek drainage system.
The proposed TM development will incrementally, though
insignificantly, increase the amount of surface water contributed
by the project area to Encinitas Creek and, ultimately, Batiquitos
Lagoon. The wetlands basin will contain this water and release it
slowly to avoid potential scouring effects. The project area is an
extremely small portion of the Encinitas Creek drainage basin (see
Figure 3.1-1). If Detention Basin D is not installed prior to
development of the proposed project, the project could result in an
incrementally insignificant and unnoticeable increase in the amount
of water in Encinitas Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon. The.floodplain
in the SPA is part of the Encinitas Creek drainage basin, which is
only one tributary to Batiquitos Lagoon. The SPA project area
comprises less than 1% of the drainage basin for Batiquitos Lagoon.
The potential increase in runoff from the development proposed by
the TM is considered to be insignificant even when added to the
increased runoff from other approved development projects. The
reasons for this conclusion are three-fold: (1) the very small
percentage of the total runoff that will be contributed by the
project; (2) the proposed remedial dredging in PA 1 that will
improve water flow and reduce back-up flooding; and (3) the
proposed on-site small basin that is designed to mitigate potential
water quality impacts but will also hold and slowly release the
"first flow," thereby minimizing the potential for scouring that
can occur as a result of sudden heavy runoff.
3.1.2.3 Cumulative. Impacts
Development of. the SPA, when added to existing and approved
development, may result in a cumulative but less than significant
impact on hydrology and drainage. The proposed TM, as well as the.
two other major approved projects in the area, includes measures
designed to improve, rather than impact, hydraulics.
The Arroyo La Costa Master Plan area is a 670-acre (about 1 square
mile) area north of Olivenhain Road. This area represents
approximately 14% of the Encinitas Creek Drainage Basin and 4 % of
the Batiquitos Lagoon drainage basin. The Final Environmental
Impact Report. Arroyo La Costa Master Plan (Ponseggi, 1991)
discussed existing and proposed drainage facilities in the area and
concluded that development of the Master Plan could result in
impacts to drainage, and mitigation includes the construction of a
detention basin (Detention Basin C) near El Camino Real and Cal].e
Barcelona. That detention basin will be downstream of the Home
Depot Specific Plan Area. The Final EIR for Arroyo La Costa did
not include a quantification of the increase in runoff expected as
a result of the increase of paved areas.
3-8
The Final Environmental Iinact' Report for Olivenhain Road
Widening /Realignment and Flood Control Prolect (Mooney, 1992)
concluded that project would probably result in a slight increase
in runoff as a result of an 8-acre increase in impervious area,
which equates to an increase of only 0.01 square mile, or 2% of the
Encinitas Creek drainage basin. The construction of Detention
Basin D, which is no longer a definite project, was expected to
reduce the 100-year storm discharge from 3,450 cubic feet per
second (cfs) to 2,926 cfs, resulting in a' reduction of the extent
of the 100-year floodplain downstream of Detention Basin D
The total area encompassed by the proposed project, the Arroyo La
Costa project, and the Olivenhain Road Widening project represents
less than 17% of the total drainage area of the Batiquitos Lagoon
drainage basin. With the implementation of all of the measures
included as part of the three projects, the increase in flow into
the Lagoon is expected to be minimal. In addition, drainage will
be more steady as a result of the detention basins, resulting in
less potential for erosion than currently exists.
3.1.3 Mitigation
3.1.3.1 Specific Plan
In order to minimize potential flooding, which can result in
hydraulic impacts, the Encinitas Creek channel should be maintained
at an elevation that promotes flowage and reduces back-flooding.
The flooding that has occurred in the past in PA 3 and 4 will be
reduced by the dredging beneath and just upstream of the El Camino
Real bridge that is proposed as part of the TM. The project
applicant for each PA should be responsible for maintaining the
channel along the frontage of each respective PA. The applicant
for PA 1 will be responsible for maintaining the stream channel
elevation and creek bed immediately north of the El Camino Real
bridge.
The Specific Plan designates as developable two small areas within
PA 1 and 4 that are within the, current 100-year floodplain (see
Figure 3.1-2). If Detention Basin D is completed upstream, the
100-year floodplain will be reduced so that the two portions of PA
1 and 4 that are now subject to flooding will be outside the 100-
year floodplain. However, since Detention Basin D may not be
constructed, the Specific Plan should be modified to specify that
the only development allowed in these areas is development
considered to be Suitable for a floodplain, as determined .by the
City of Encinitas.
3.1.3.2 Tentative Map
The potential flooding that
parking lot of the Home Depot
be eliminated by the proposed
"I OF
could occur within the northernmost
Center during a 100-year storm will
raise in elevation of the Home Depot
3-9
development area.. However,' even if theparking area wasiflooded,
it would not be considered by the City of Encinitas to be
significant because parking is considered a suitable use in a
floodplain.
The project proposes a runoff water treatment system, including a
marsh-filled detention basin, and remedial dredging that,'will
improve water flow and reduce flooding In the future, the
channel floor beneath the bridge should be maintained at an
elevation of 72 feet Periodic dredging of the bridge area will be
required whenever the sediment level approaches 75 feet. The
maintenance dredging beneath the bridge will be the responsibility
of the project applicant for PA 1 Access to the creek for the
periodic dredging will be taken at a point that is closest to the
area requiring the dredging that does not impact the runoff water
treatment system and has the least sensitive vegetation, which may
change over time However, if Detention Basin D is constructed
upstream, future dredging may not be necessary, At,-,is the backup of
flood waters that causes sediment to settle out and fill in the
channel. Because the bridge abutments extend beneath the surface,
they act as a dam and tend to slow down the flow of water at the
northwest corner :of PA 1. , V
3-10
:.. V •', .
S) 3.2 WATER QUALITY
3.2.1 Existing Conditions
The SPA is within the Encinitas Creek drainage basin Drainage
within the basin begins northeast of Encinitas and flows southwest,
then west beneath Rancho Santa Fe Road Just east of the SPA, the
Creek is channelized within the residential subdivision
Approximately 1,400 linear feet of Encinitas Creek traverse the
northern portion of the SPA before entering the El Camino Real
bridge just south of Olivenhain Road The two tributaries of
Encinitas Creek join on the west side of the culvert The Creek
continues approximately 1 4 miles north/ northwest, through the
northern portion of Green Valley, to Batiquitos Lagoon (see Figure
2.2-1 in Section2.2).
The water quality of Batiquitos Lagoon is addressed in two
certified EIRs, information from which has been considered in the
preparation of this document Final Environmental Impact Report,
Arroyo La Costa Master Plan (Ponseggi, 1991) and Final
Widening /Realignment and Flood COntrol Prolect (Mooney, 1992). The
State Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) maintains water
quality standards for Encinitas Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon.,The
RWQCB routinely sampled water quality in Batiquitos Lagoon until
1982 The results varied with season and year, partly as a result
\,
,,
of natural processes and partly as a result of existing development
and agricultural 'Operations within the basin. Thus, the 1.
baseline
water quality for the Lagoon varies.
The average annual sedimentation rate of Batiquitos Lagoon is
estimated to be 1 to 2 centimeters. The mouth of :the Lagoon ,is
periodically closed by sedimentation, which. has an 'effect on water
quality. When the mouth is closed and the tidal flow is prevented,
evaporation-,in the middle and eastern portions of the Lagoon result
in a concentration of salt In addition, the quality, of the Lagoon
water is affected by the inflow of nutrient-rich water from San
Marcos and Encinitas Creeks. Water quality conditions fluctuate
widely on an annual basis. The water quality is generally the
poorest in mid- to ,late-summer, when the lack of tidal inflows and
limited seasonal freshwater inflows result in stagnant water
(California State Coastal Conservancy, 1986).
Encinitas Creek has a watershed that is approximately 5 miles long
and is approximately 7 3 square miles in size..at its discharge
point into Batiquitos Lagoon Much of the Encinitas Creek basin
has been developed or approved for development The Arroyo La
Costa master-planned community will add substantial development to
the watershed area in the future.
The Encinitas Creek drainage basin is within the Carlsbad
Hydrographic Unit, which is 1 of 11 drainage systems in San Diego
3-11
County. In this Unit, the water duality generally declines with
increased distance downstream as a result of the cumulative
contributions of pollutants in runoff from agricultural lands and
developed areas. The development upstream of the SPA has increased
not only the amount of runoff, but lso the amount of sedimentation
and urban contaminants in the water The increased sedimentation,
as well as the lack of maintenance of portions of the drainage
system, has resulted in ponding and flooding on some properties
along Encinitas Creek, including the SPA If allowed to continue
indefinitely, this flooding can result in a concentration of urban
pollutants in the flooded areas. Two detention basins have been
constructed upstream of the SPA. A third (Detention Basin D) has
been approved and will be constructed as part of the widening Of
Olivenhain Road (see Figure 3.1-1 in Section 3.1.1).
The SPA has been highly disturbed in some areas by dirt roads;
previous uses, including agriculture, prehistoric and historic
occupation; and nursery uses, unauthorized, encampments,
installation and maintenance of utilities, and a former
temporary jobs center. These activities have, during various
periods of time, inevitably increased the potential for erosion and
sedimentation into Encinitas Creek.
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is
responsible for monitoring and ensuring water quality. It has the
authority to issue permits for discharges to surface waters in the
region. The purpose of the National Pollutant 'Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit program is to
quantify, control and reduce urban runoff pollution nationwide to
the maximum extent practicable. Point sources may be.traced to a
specific point where the pollutant enters the stream. Nonpoint
sources of water pollution are typically diffused and are generally
transmitted by storm water or dry-weather flows Nonpoint water
pollution sources include irrigation return water and
which erosion, whic may result in sedimentation of
stream channels and lagoons Since November 1, 1991, all projects
covering more than 5 acres must obtain a NPDES Permit (Merkel,
1991) Therefore, the proposed TN/Grading Plan will require a
NPDES Permit..
3.2.2 Impacts
3.2.2.1. Specific Plan
The Specific' Plan includes specific measure:
water quality and wetlands impacts in 'PA '-1
specific requirements for the SPA as a
implementation of the Specific Plan could
long-terrn'water quality impacts'if adequate
not incorporated into development projects.
s to minimize.potential
and 2 but' provides few
whole.' The ultimate
result in short- and
mitigation measures are
3-12
The future development of PA 4 has the potential for impacting
water quality, both in Encinitas Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon.
Potential grading of upland areas, dredging in the floodplain, and
exposed cut and fill slopes could contribute to the cumulative
degradation of water quality if adequate erosion control and
vegetation plans are not implemented. The construction of any
facilities in the floodplain in PA 3 and 4 will likely require
considerable working of the soils to ensure geotechnical stability.
This could result in short-term erosion and sedimentation impacts,
which could result in indirect biological impacts both on the
project Site and downstream. Additional project- specific analysis
will be required when grading plans are proposed for PA 3 and 4.
3.2.2.2 Tentative Map
The proposed dredging in the floodplain and upland grading during
construction will remove the existing groundcovers in some areas
and expose bare soil. Potential impacts will be largely
mitigated by the proposed oil/water/sediment separator and water
treatment system However, a few additional measures need to be
incorporated into the project for full 'mitigation; these are
discussed in Section 3.2.3.2.
The cleaning out and maintaining of the creek bed sediment level
beneath the El Camino Real 'bridqe that is proposed as part of the
TM will result in reduced flooding. This is likely to result in
reduced potential for the buildup of urban pollutants because
frequent flooding tends to concentrate pollutants in low-elevation
areas. Therefore,, the proposed dredging under and just upstream of
the El Camino Real bridge may contribute to increased water
quality.
The potential for erosion and sedimentation' of newly planted areas
will remain for a substantial period beyond the construction and
planting phase. The repetitive impacts of future maintenance of
the creek channel in the vicinity, of the El Camino Real bridge-
could have, cumulative long-term impacts on sedimentation of
Encinitas Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon, and secondary impacts on
biological resources. ,
The proposed development of PA 1 has the potential for long-term
water quality impacts from erosion and sedimentation, urban runoff
from the parking area, and accidental spills. Parking areas
typically collect oil and other substances that 'may 'be harmful to
both wildlife and vegetation, as well as 'water quality. The
project has incorporated an oil/water/sediment separator system and
nuisance water treatment area that will act primarily to filter the
"first flow" during a storm, considered to be approximately the
first 10 minutes of a 2-year 6-hour storm. It is generally the
runoff from the first storm of the year that contains the, highest
percentage of pollutants that have accumulated during the dry
months., Likewise, the first hours of runoff during any storm are
3-13
likely to contain a higher percentage of urban pollutants than
later hours during the storm. The "first flow" runoff will be
trapped at one of four points, where the oily substances, and
sediment will be filtered out and retained in the separator system.
The filtered runoff will then be released into a proposed detention
pond containing marsh vegetation that will further filter and
purify the runoff. The marsh vegetation and underlying soil will
be periodically replaced on a rotating basis to retain the full
purifying capabilities of the system. The water will flow through
a rip-rap energy dissipator prior to entering Encinitas Creek to
prevent scouring and possible erosion and sedimentation. Once the
nuisance water treatment area is saturated, the remaining runoff
will be directed into the Creek. However, the later runoff will
contain a minimal percentage of urban pollutants compared to the
first runoff.
The typical Home Depot Home Improvement Center stores and sells
various materials that may be toxic to plants and wildlife, such as
pesticides, fertilizers, paints, paint removers, and other
construction-related materials. All runoff from the Garden Center
will drain into the oil/water/sediment separators in the proposed
parking lot. All spills that occur within the building will be
cleaned up and will not enter the storm drain system. All spills
that occur within the parking lot will drain into the oil/water
separators, if they flow that far. However, given the size of the
containers sold in the Home Depot Center, it is unlikely that a
spill of such a size would occur in the parking lot that would
actually reach the oil/water separators.
All sediments and pollutants removed from the oil/water/sediment
separators, as well as material from spills, will be disposed of
appropriately. Fuel oils and oil-based substances are toxics. The
oily substances and the sediment removed from the runoff treatment
system will be transported to a landfill that accepts hazardous
waste (none of which are in San Diego County) or to a hazardous
waste transfer facility. The Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), which was enacted in 1976, regulates and tracks the
safe production, transportation, storage and ultimate disposal of
hazardous wastes from cradle to grave. The project applicant will
be responsible for providing the City of Encinitas with
documentation identifying the location for the disposal of
hazardous substances. Since the actual disposal location may vary
over time, depending on which landfills are available, it will be
considered adequate ifthe project applicant provides the City with
a receipt indicating that the materials have been delivered to a
firm that is licensed by the State to transfer and dispose of
hazardous materials.
Additional mitigation is recommended in Section 3.2.3. Because the
marsh vegetation is probably capable of treating nearly all of the
kinds of materials that might be spilled in or around the Home
Depot Center, it is the opinion of the biologist that development
3-14
of the Home Depot Center is not likely to create any significant
water quality impacts if the mitigation measures discussed in
Section 3.2.3 are implemented
The development of PA 1 and 2 has the potential for significant
erosion impacts from exposed slope faces as a result of new cuts
and fills as well as from the selective clearing for fire
protection. Runoff from the hillside in PA 2, which will be
significantly cut back, will flow into the proposed storm drain
system and thence to Encinitas Creek. It will not pass through the
oil/water/sediment separators and, thus, may include significant
amounts of sediment Additional mitigation measures that should be
incorporated into the project as mitigation are discussed in
Section 3.2.3.
3.2.2.3 Cumulative Impaóts
The repetitive impacts of future mairntenance. of the creek channel
could have cumulative long-term impacts on sedimentation of
Encinitas Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon, and secondary impacts on
biological resources downstream However, the maintenance is
designed to mitigate potential flooding such as that which has
occurred in the project area as .a result of lack of maintenance of
the creek channel In addition, there is a potential for
cumulative water quality impacts from the proposed TM, the approved
Olivenhain Road Widening Project, and the implementation of the
) approved Arroyo La Costa Master Plan. The potential for erosion
and sedimentation of newly planted areas will remain for a
substantial period beyond the construction and planting phase All
three projects include measures for minimizing potential water
quality impacts, and additional measures are discussed in Section
3.2.3 so that potential cumulative impacts are mitigatable to a
less than significant level.
3.2.3 Mitigation
3.2.3.1 Specific Plan
The potential for short- and long-term sedimentation impacts. on
Encinitas Creek and downstream areas can be mitigated to1 a less
than significant level by the additiän of the following measures:
1. Design and implementation of an erosion control plan .f or each
development within the SPA. The plans should be prepared by
a registered civil engineer and approved by the City of
Encinitas. They should include all necessary erosion control
measures, and monitoring should be done before, during and
after grading to ensure that the necessary measures have been
implemented and are effective The on- site erosion control
plan should be revised as necessary to ensure that it is
achieving its purpose. ., .
S
3-15.
All grading should be accomp1ihed during the dry months, from
approximately April 15 to October 15 unless the protection of
sensitive species dictates oterwise. In order to provide'the
most protection, grading should be completed by mid-summer so
that the areas tobe planted may be'established prior to the
rainy season The fill for any surcharge operation may remain
in place during the wet mnths providing proper erosion
control measures are provided as required by •the City
Engineer.
All erosion and sediment control measures and devices must be
periodically monitored after roject completion to ensure that
they are in working order and are successful Defective
and/or damaged devices must be replaced. Monitoring and
maintenance should continue throughout the life of the
project, and if ownership is;changed,. the new owner must 'be
notified of these requirements and must agree to continue the
monitoring and maintenance A covenant to be recorded with
the property title wilF alert future property:owners of these
requirements.
All graded and cleared areas must be revegetated immediately
upon the completion of grading The fill used for any
surcharge operation, as well as exposed slopes, should be
immediately, reseeded with a suitable erosion control ground
cover.
The future development of PA 3 should, include, an
oil/water/sediment separator' system and nuisance water
treatment wetland area simil$r to that planned for PA 1 It
should include a wetland treatment area of at least 0 1 acre
in surface area It should be constructed and maintained to
the north of the development 'area footprint and should treat
all 'runoff from graded and/or developed'areás within PA 3.
The degraded wetland areas could be used for the purpose of
constructing the marsh treatment pond.
The future development oi PA 4 should include an
'oil/water/sediment separator, system and nuisance water
treatment wetland area similar to that planned for Planning 1
for any area developed adjacnt to wetlands that will drain
toward the wetlands and/or Creek. It shóüld treat all runoff
from PA4. '
3.2.3.2 , Tentative Map
1. The erosion control plan fo the development of PA 1 and 2
should include desilting basins as required by the City
engineer. It is recommended that the erosion control plan for
PA 1 include the construction of one desilting basin at the
northwestern toe of the slope within PA 2 because runoff in
that area will not go through the runoff Water treatment
3-16
system and will directly :eñter Encinitas Creek. It is
recommended that the erosion control plan-for PA 2 include the
construction. of one desilting basin near the westernmost
terminus, of the Scott . Place extensioñ and another at. the
bottom of the slope adjacent to. 'El Cmino',Real' near the.
southwest corner of PA 2 (see' Figure 3..2-1). These should be
maintained' during and after construction until erosion and
sedimentation has dwindled'to a level of. insignificance.
Sandbags ;ànd/or other' types of barrIers should also be placed
at the limits of grading, as shown Ion Figure' 3.2-1. 011/
'grease separators should 'be included in the on-site catch
basins.
Energy dissipators should be installed at,the base of the
storm drain outlets in PA 1 and 2.'
A site-specific operational plan should be déveloped'by the
Home Depot Corporation for the handling of accidental spills.
At a' minimum, the plan should' give clear instructions, for
future employees to 'follow as to 'how and where 'potentially
hazardous and/or flammable spilled materials * should be
disposed of, as well as first aid instructions, and emergency ,
phone numbers for the, City of Encinitas Fire Dèpärtment, the"
County Health Department, and, the Regional Water 'Quality
Control Board. The,, operational:plan should be approved by the
City of Encinitas prior to issuance of an.occupancyperm'it.
w w
OF- 3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Pacific Southwest Biological Services (PSBS) completed a biological
constraints study in 1989 prior to the development of the Specific
Plan, and additional field investigations were conducted over the
last two years prior to the finalization of the impact analysis
Various-site-designs were evaluated during the development of the
Specific Plan, and it should be noted that the report in Appendix
B addresses the crib wall alternative as the prOject and. inólüdes
analysis of the currently proposed project as an alternative The
following sections summarize this report, as well as follow-up
communications with PSBS biologists and others
The entire SPA has been surveyed once by PSBS A number of other
areas within PAS 1 and 2 have been surveyed or field checked
several times The original field work for the feasibility study
was conducted in September 1989 Additional field investigations
were completed in June and August of 1991, and in April, May, June
and July of 1992 PA 1 and 2 have been field investigated not only
during the prime growing period, but also during nearly all dry
months of the year. The 1992 field investigations were focused on
checking for specific sensitive species However,"'the amount of
area required to be recheôked was. substantial.
Numerous local citizens have gone onto the project site to conduct
their own biological studies, such as Dave Hogan, Leisa Grajek, Gil
Voss, and Dr. Amadeus Rea The information provided by these
citizens was considered during the preparation of thip- report.
t However, the surveys conduced by these unauthorized individuals
for sensitive wildlife species were not conducted according to
accepted state and federal standards, and most of the studies were
not conducted by qualified biologists with specific relevant
experience The conclusions reached in this document are a result
of several years of study, review of other studies completed in the
general area, consultations with other acknowledged experts in the
field, and review of information submitted by others.
3.3.1 Existing Conditions
3.3.1.1 Vegetative Communities -
The SPA contains a diversity of vegetation due to (1) various past
and present uses and (2) the varied terrain, which includes
flood plain areas, hillsides and a portion of a ridge top The
cleared access road beneath the power lines in PA 4 cuts a wide
swath across the SPA There is another well-traveled dirt road in
the southern portion of PA ,1 along the base of the hillsides in PA
2. Numerous paths exist in the SPA, particularly in the vicinity
of Encinitas Creek.'
Vegetation nomenclature is from --Holland (1986), Beauchamp (1986)
and Munz (1974). The SPA contains Six vegetative communities:
3-19
Southern Willow Scrub, Freshwater/Brackish Marsh, Salt Marsh,
Southern Mixed Chaparral, Diegan Sage Scrub, and Disturbed Field
(see Figure 3.3-1).
Some people have disputed the classification of the on-site
chaparral as Southern Mixed Chaparal and feel that it should be
classified as Southern Maritime Chaparral. A widely accepted
definition of Southern Maritime Chaarral is not yet available, and
botanists in the San Diego region have yet to accept any clearcut
definitions.
The Scott's Valley EIR (RECON, 1985) identified the on-site
chaparral as Coastal Mixed Chaparral, as did the HPI Olivenhain EIR
(RECON, 1986). The Master Environmental Assessment for the General
Plan prepared by Ogden Environmntal ,mapped the project area
chaparral as Southern Maritime Chaparral. However, this
determination was made on the basis of aerial photos and provided
a "broad brush" perspective.
In "Terrestrial Vegetation Communiiés. in San Diego County Based on
Holland's Descriptions," Tom Oberbauer, in December of. 1991, noted
that "Southern Maritime Chaparral occurs in coastal San Diego.
County and has been described as Coastal Mixed Chaparral." In the
November 1991 Draft San Dieczo Reaional Veaetation Classification
clesignatect as .a subtype of Southern Mixed Chaparral. It is also
ironic to note that this document specifically states that "This
system should not be used for finer scale mapping."
Holland's classification describes Southern Maritime Chaparral as
"a low, fairly open chaparral dominated by Wart-stemmed ceanothus
and thick-leaved eastwood's manzanita," notes that it is found in
weathered sands within the cOastal fog belt, and that fire appears
necessary for continued reproduction of many characteristic
species" and states that the distribution of Southern Maritime
Chaparral is "today restricted.to Torrey Pines State Reserve and a
few scattered nearby localities", (State of California Department of
Fish and. Game, Natural Diversity Data Base, 1992).
The Multihabitat Conservation PrOgram (MHCP) is an effort to
coordinate habitat conservation planning among north county
jurisdictions. The MMCP is sponsored by the San Diego Association
of Governments (SANDAG). Encinitas joined the NHCP after the
proposed project was in process. However, general rules were
promulgated for vegetation mapping that provide a.definition for
Southern ,Maritime Chaparral. The MSCP Decision Rules define
Chaparral as "Canopy densá;. darki green to black vegetation . on
slopes (often with reddish tinge)j." The, mapper is directed to
identify. Southern Maritime ChaparEal by LvF3 soils plus coastal
position near Del Mar plus sensitive species. The rules also
contain a note that Southern MarItime Chaparral also, occurs inland
to the Del Dios area on metavolcanics. . . .
. 3-2O
LEGEND
,
TORREY PINE
POTENTIAL DEVELOPMEN
A DEL MAR MANZANITA
I -JAREAS
PROPOSED GRADING
FRESHWATER/ BRACKISH
MARSH
SALT MARSH
DISTURBED DIEGAN SAGE
SCRUB
I ]DISTURBED FIELD
COASTAL MIXED CHAPARR
WILLOW RIPARIAN
WOODLAND
• COAST WHITE LILAC
120 r - m WETLANDS BOUNDARY * CALIFORNIA GNATCATCHEI
I,/21 CA GNATCATCHER HABITAT
U
ii . FEET
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP, 1991; PSBS, 1991
VEGETATION AND SENSITIVE SPECIES
FIGURE
33-1
3-21
According to the Soil Survey, San 'DiecTo Area, California LvF3 soils are loamy alluvial lands within the Huerhuero Complex that
are severely eroded and have slopes ranging from 9 to 50% (USDA in
cooperation with University of California Agricultural Experiment
Station, U.S. Department 'of the Interior and Department of the
Navy. 1973). The geologic report prepared by GEOCON Inc., which
included mapping much more detailed than .the Soil Survey, indicated
that'these soils are not on-site.
Dave Hogan of the San Diego Biodiversity Project believes that the
chaparral in the SPA 'is definitely Southern Maritime Chaparral.
The USFWS notes that Holland indicates that Southern Maritime
Chaparral is characterized by Adenostoma fasciculatuni, Xvlococcus
bicolor, Ceanothus verrucossus, Yucca schedigera, Quercus dumosa,
and Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp.crassifolia. The USFWS concluded that !'a significant amount" and "at least half" of the
vegetation classified by PSBS as Southern Mixed Chaparral was
actually Southern Maritime Chaparral but did not discuss the
criteria used in making this decision or provide a map of what it
considered to be Southern Maritime Chaparral.
PSBS concludes that Southern Maritime Chaparral is strongly
correlated with the presence of native Torrey Pines, Coast Wall-
flower,' Short-leaved Dudleya and Sea Dahlia. It is the opinion of
PSBS, after considering all information submitted, that the
vegetation in the SPA does not have the cumulative components
necessary to categorize it as Southern Maritime Chaparral and has
been classified as Southern Mixed Chaparral. The one on-site Torrey Pine is known to have been planted and the other species
were not found-on-site. Some on-site components, such as Coast White-Lilac, range well inland and are not good indicator species
of Southern Maritime Chaparral. Del Mar Manzanita, such as that
found on-site, is strongly associated with Terrace Escarpments in
the Del Mar and Encinitas area, but regularly occurs at locales
where the other good indicator species are absent.
The definition proposed by PSBS focuses on the relictual habitat of
the Torrey pine and a cluster of very rare plants such as short-
leaved dudleya (Dudleva brevifolia), coast wall-flower (Erys'imum
ammophiluin), and sea dahlia (Coreopsis maritima). PSBS believes
that this provides a natural grouping whose affinities are with
insular plant species are strongly correlated with beach bluffs and
sandstone outcrops, as well as with repeated fogs. Such a conservative floristic grouping has a geographic and, interrelated
climatic identity that provides a scientific basis for
consideration as a distinctive vegetation category. Additionally,
it corresponds very well with Holland's original description of
this community. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Service
(USFWS) believes that Southern Maritime Chaparral is associated
with Torrey pine in less than 25% of its range. Further, the USFWS noted that coast wall-flower has effectively been extirpated
from San Diego County for 30 years, although it is still found on
3-22 '
the northwestern flanks of Carmel Mountain, on the eastern edge of
the Torrey Pines Preserve, near the Flower Hill shopping mall in
Encinitas, and near the Wire Mountain housing project on Camp
Pendleton.
It is the opinion of PSBS that the concept of SOuthern Maritime
Chaparral as originally proposed by Holland was never meant to
encompass the broad spectrum of varied chaparral resources and
microhabitats now scattered throughout coastal San Diego County.
A vegetation category must have some cohesive defining limitations
which would warrant a distinctive designation. PSBS concludes that
the great variety of shrubs being used as indicator species for
Southern Maritime Chaparral by the San Diego Biodiversity Project
are found at literally hundreds of locales
The one premise seemingly accepted by bio,lOgists is that Southern
Maritime Chaparral is one of the most threatened plant associations
in California. In 1991, biologists Tom Obèrbauer and Julie
Vanderwier determined that Southern Maritime Chaparral remained on
less than 2,500 acres.
The lowest portions of the site, which occur in PA 1 in the
northwest corner of the SPA, contain good-quality Southern Willow
Scrub along Encinitas Creek that is bounded by extensive salt marsh
and highly disturbed wetlands. in some areas where Encinitas Creek
is especially slow- moving, Freshwater and- Brackish Marsh has
merged with Salt Marsh vegetation and Southern Willow Scrub so that
mapped borders between these communities reflect a shift in species
dominance rather than distinct changes in vegetation. . South of the
disturbed wetlands in PA 1 is a highly disturbed area that was
previously, used for agriculture, a.native plants nursery, and a
temporary jobs center. It is classified as Disturbed Field. Past
agricultural use in this area is evident, and much of the fallow
fields area is dominated by wetland-associated weedy species and
emergent native species. A very..small portion -of the hillside in
the southernmost part of PA 1 includes Southern, Mixed Chaparral and
another small area within the disturbed fields contains a strong
representation of Coyote Bush.
PA 2 is comprised almost entirely, of Southern Mixed Chaparral
vegetation on moderately steep hillsides except for the presence of
one planted Torrey pine tree and small areas of disturbed Diegan
Sage Scrub (see Figure 3.3-1). The steeper north-facing slopes are
dominated, by a dense canopy of Scrub Oak. The Southern Mixed,
Chaparral includes substantial numbers. of Coast White Lilac. On
less steep portions of PA 2, Chámise is the dominant plant and
shrub density is more moderate. The area is recovering, from a burn
and is still more open than mature Chaparral found elsewhere A
portion of the west-facing hillsides adjacent to El Camino Real and
the area immediately west, of the existing Scott Place residential
development are covered by disturbed Diegan Sage Scrub that is
considered to be principally a successional habitat transitioning
3-23
to Chaparral following soil disturbance and fire. Just inside the
southern boundary some areas have been disturbed by the
installation of a concrete swale system that was part of an
approved adjacent project.
There has been, and continues to be, unauthorized habitation in PA
2 This has created numerous small disturbed areas and clearings
beneath the taller shrubbery. Local horticulturalist Gil Voss
noted that when he made, his second visit to the project area, two
of the on-site scruboaks and one of the Del Mar manzanita plants
had been damaged. In addition, a new foot path had been created.
The lower (northernmost) portion of PA 3 consists, of disturbed
field areas that were previously used for agriculture and are
dominated by wetland-associated weedy species and emergent native
species (see Figure 3..3-1). However, within this area are stands
of Coyote Bush. The moderately steep hillsides in the southern
portion of the PA are covered with Southern Mixed Chaparral within
an existing open space easement.
PA 4 has a wide variety of vegetative types (see Figure 3.3-1).
Immediately south of Olivenhain Road are small areas of disturbed
Diegan Sage Scrub and disturbed field areas. The disturbed.field
areas were previously used for, agriculture but have long been
fallow, resulting in an alluvial fan shrubland. Almost all of the
remaining lowland area within PA 4 has wetlands vegetation or soils
that are indicative of wetlands (hydric soils) Most of the
lowland area east of the SDG&E easement contains Southern Willow
Scrub The easement contains a mixture of Freshwater/ Brackish
o Marsh and Salt Marsh similar t that in PA 1. The moderately steep
hillsides in the southernmost portion of PA 4 have been largely
disturbed by the SDG&E access road clearing Although there is
some Southern Mixed Chaparral on the lower slopes, little
vegetation, even weedy species, remain in the southernmost tip of
PA 4.
3.3.1.2 Zoological Resources
The SPA supports several unique wildlife habitat areas which, in
many instances, are interrelated both functionally and physically.
Six wildlife habitats are present in the SPA: Southern Willow
Scrub, Freshwater/ Brackish Marsh, Salt Marsh, Diegan Sage Scrub,
Southern Mixed Chaparral, and Disturbed Fields In many, instances,
these habitats are highly interrelated both physically and
functionally. The presence; of unauthorized habitations has
severely impacted the quality of the habitat.
The SPA includes approximately 6.3 acres of Southern Willow Scrub.
The northern portion of the floodplain area provides habitat that
is favorable for high wildlife diversity. The cattails are
important nesting, foraging and shelter areas for a variety of
birds The dense riparian vegetation provides habitat for several
3-24
species of amphibians.. The habitat is of sufficient quality that
sensitive riparian woodland species could use the site as breeding
habitat. Sensitive species 'that could potentially use the site,
but which were not found in surveys by PSBS or San Diego Natural
History Museum Curator of Birds and Mammals, Amadeo N. Rea, 1 include
the Least Bell's Vireo, theSouthwestern Willow Flycatcher, and the
Yellow-breasted Chat. It should be noted that, Pampas Grass exists
in the area. This species can have, highly detrimental effects on
native riparian vegetation and its subsequent value to wildlife.
The Salt Marsh on-site does not exhibit the' vertebrate fauna that
is associated with tidal Salt Marsh areas Instead, it is heavily
used by foraging birds that are typically associated with upland
fields and riparian wetlands. Raccoon and opossum tracks were in
evidence in the mud along the Creek.
The 1.1 acres of Freshwater/Brackish Marsh in, the SPA are heavily
intermixed with the' riparian woodland, creating excellent habitat
for several species, particularly birds. The presence of the
woodland canopy shades, and thereby limits, the marsh vegetation.
This creates open water areas, which enhance the potential for the
presence of Mosquito Fish and aquatic vertebrates. These prey'
resources are exploited by mammals and wading birds."
Much of the central portion of the SPA is dominated by fallow
:S fields that support an abundance of large, seeded weeds and few
native species. These fields provide foraging' areas for birds and
habitat for a considerable number of small mammals. Desert
cottontails and California ground squirrels were in evidence. The
'presence of small mammals attracts raptors that prey on them. In
addition, a small grove of eucalyptus' trees above the fields to the
south provides perches and nesting habitat for raptors, as' well as
providing nectar for various types of birds.
The 21.4 acres of Southern Mixed Chaparral in the SPA, are
topographically diverse, which promotes wildlife diversity. These
areas are used as habitat by a variety Of mammals and birds,
including the California Gnatcatcher. Evidence of coyote activity
is present in this area, as are large stick nests of the
dusky-footed woodrat. Much of the understory has been cleared by.
unauthorized encampments.
The estimated 2.6 acres of disturbed Diegan Sage Scrub in the SPA
occurs adjacent to El Camino Real, Olivenhain Road, and adjacent to
the existing residential development at the western terminus of
Scott Place. Most of the species present in Sguthern California
Chaparral also regularly occur in sage scrub. A general exception
to' this is the California Gnatcatcher,' whose populations are
largely concentrated in moderately open sage scrub. However, a,
pair of California. Gnatcatchers has 'made considerable use of the
post-fire successional Chaparral on-site.
'0 H
,
3-25
3.3.1.3 Sensitive Species
Sensitive species are those that have received recognition by
local, state or federal governments, or by a concerned group, as
well as species which are known by local biologists to be in
decline or of very limited distribution in the region. This report
considers as sensitive several species that recently received U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service (USF&WS) Category 2 status. This status
indicates that they may be declining and could warrant future
listing as Threatened or Endangered although further investigation
is needed before such a determination can be made. The California
Native Plant Society (CNPS) ranks each sensitive plant according to
its relative rarity, endangerment and distribution.
3.3.1.3.1 Sensitive Plants
No sensitive plant species were found in PA 1 and 4, although
wetlands, as a whole, are highly sensitive habitat Two sensitive
plant species and one planted Torrey. Pine were found in PA 2.
Between 15 and 25' Del Mar Manzanita plants (ArctOstaphvlos
landulosa ssp. crassifo],ia) are scattered within the Chaparral-
covered bluffs in PA 2 (see Figure 3 3-i) The highest densities
are found on the northernmost crest of the upland ridge line. At
least one of the Del Mar manzanita plants has been damaged 'by
unauthorized use of the site. This species has no federal or state
,protection and is not listed by the CNPS due to a taxonomic
question. It is 'considered to be declining in San 'Diego County due
to the urbanization of its limited habitat.' The USFWS noted that
there are fewer, than 6,000 individuals of Del Mar Manzanita
remaining and that nearly 50% are currently threatened.by approved
and proposed projects.' The one known relocatio&effort 'had an 80%
failure rate after 5 years.
There are between 250 and 350 juvenile Coast White Lilac plants
(Ceanothus verrucosus) in the southern portion. of PA 2, and an
additional 50 plants exist within the existing open space easement
in PA 3; the'plant is relatively common in this area. Due to past
burns on. the site, seedling shrubs are the predominant
representatives, of the population. Coast' White Lilac ,has no
federal or state protection. The CNPS has listed it as a plant
that is rare and endangered in California but is more common
elsewhere. It is found in Southern Mixed Chaparral in San Diego
County and in. Baja California, Mexico. Locally, this shrub was
once common within the coastal canyons of the county but has been
dramatically reduced as a result'of urbanization.
One of the public comments on the Draft EIR included a reported
sighting of the Del Mar Sand Aster (Corethroqvné'fi.lagi'a var.,
linifolia) on-site. In the region, this species generally follows
disturbance. Given the unauthorized encampments and the resulting
extensive soil disturbance, there is a, potential for, the 'species
occurring on-site. However, repeated surveys by PSBS did not turn
3-26
up evidence of this species Numerous flowering specimens were
examined from all portions of the area, all were clearly
identifiable as the regionally common Cudweed Aster (Corethroqyne
filaginifolia var.- virgata) based on their green, glandular
involucres It was concluded that if the Del Mar Sand Aster grows
on-site, it has not been evident in the last two years.
Coast Scrub Oak (Quercus dumosa) is relatively well distributed on
the north-facing slope of PA 2 overioôkThg the disturbed fields.
It is locally abundant and cannot be readily mapped with accuracy.
When the original biological surveys were completed, Coast Scrub
Oak was not considered sensitive by the listing agencies, nor was
it considered a distinct new species'.-This shrub is considered by
some taxonomists to represent '-a distinct species'( I as opposed to the
common inland shrub referred to as Quercus berberidifolia) It is
not currently protected but has recently been propösed'for listing
by the CNPS.
Comments received on the Draft EIR noted that a very sensitive
plant, Encinitas Baccharis (Baccharis vanessae).,' occurs within 1
mile of the project site, and that protection of the SPA from
continued disturbance could allow the species to colonize on the
site Encinitas Baccharis is nearing local extirpation in
Encinitas and is endangered by urban development elsewhere
However, repeated field surveys by PSBS did not, turn up any
evidence of this species on-site
3.3.1.3.2 Wildlife and Wild].ifë Habitat
The biological field surveys have been conducted over a period of
years during a variety of seasons Specific surveys were conducted
in accordance with the standard federally accepted procedures to
determine the presence of specific species Specialized surveys
were conducted for the California Gnatcatcher, sensitive riparian
birds, including the Least Bell's Vireó; small mammals,. focussing
primarily on the potential presence of the Pacific Pocket Mouse
(Perognathus longimembris pa.cificus), arid sensitive reptiles. Nine
sensitive wildlife species were identified on-site Several of
these have received listing status during the fall of 1991 with the
publication of the latest Federal Category 2 list.
Coronado Skink (Euineces skiltonianus interparietalis)
One Coronado Skink was observed on-site in 1989. However,
the locality was not recorded because the species was not
considered sensitive at that time The species is likely to
be present throughout the roper€y and is typically found
beneath moist debris It is a USF&WS Category 2 species and
a CDF&G Species of Special Concern but does not have any legal
protection. The species is limited in rangre'.'but is still
common, it is not viewed as particularly sensitive at this
time.
3-27
Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accip'iterstriatus
The Sharp-shinned Hawk is regular winter visitor to Southern
California, where it is found in a variety of habitat types
It is listed by CDF&G as a Species of Special Concern and is
on the Audubon Blue List. One individual was observed
foraging over the Chaparral during the 1989 fieldwork.
. Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus)
The Red-shouldered Hawk is regularly found in'.woodlands. It
is probably resident in the high-quality woodland off-site to
the northwest or in eucalyptus groves in the.vicinity. The
species is not considered to have a particularly high
sensitivity 'as . it appears to be fairly tolerant of human
activities and persists well in rural areas where sufficient
woodland roosting/nesting habitat is lçcated near productive
foraging lands. One individual was observed in the willow
woodland during the 1989 fieldwork.
Downy Woodpecker (Picoides pubescens)
The Downy Woodpecker has no official listing. It is a
widespread breeder in North American woodlands and, in
southern California, breeds, in riparian woodlands dominated by
:willows' and cottonwoods. It is. a rare to uncommon breeding
species in San Diego County, but has been found to inhabit the
general project area and was known to be breeding off-site
west of the Olivenhain Road/El Camino Real intersection. One
individual was observed in the SPA during the spring 1992
fieldwork. However,: it was only observed on one occasion.
This species, was' also observed on-site during the previous
season Although it is not considered likely to breed in the
SPA at this time, there is some potential for such nesting in
the future if local populations increase.
California GnatàatchCr (Pôliolptila californicá)
TheCalifornia Gnatcatcher has been observed nesting on-site.
This species has been a focus of much controversy at the
local, state and federal levels. .. Last year, the California
Fish and Game Commission refused to advance the ,California
Gnatcatcher to 'candidacy status, 'which is a prerequisite to
full state listing. That decision was challenged incourt by
the Natural Resources Defense. Council. On September 5, 1991,
the USF&WS proposed to add the California Gnátcacher to the
Federal endangered species list. When the Preliminary Final
EIR was certified for the proposed project,, the California
gnatcatcher was a Category 2 species proposed for listing as
Endangered It was federally listed in March 1993 as
Threatened. The species is still not listed'Iby the State.
3-28
S
The future of the California Gnatcatcher is tied to the
presence of suitable habitat, primarily Coastal Sage Scrub.
Large-scale multiple species conservation planning is underway
at the local and state levels. The State Resources Agency is
pursuing a Natural Community Conservation Plan to preserve
portions of the Coastal Sage Scrub ecosystem in San Diego,
Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura and Riverside Counties. The Plan
would serve as a multispecies habitat conservation plan. At
the local level are San Diego County's Multiple Species
Wildlife Habitat and Open Space Program, the City of San
Diego's Multiple Species Conservation Program, the City of
Carlsbad's Habitat Management Program, and the North County
Multiple Habitats Conservation Program (MHCP). The City of
Encinitas is a participant in the North County MHCP which
specifically addresses Coastal Sage Scrub and California
Gnatcatcher issues as well as multi-species issues. These
planning efforts will result in a regional wildlife corridor
preserve system that will be coordinated with the State's
NCCP. All of the San Diego programs are recognized as Ongoing
Multispecies Plans of the NCCP.
The initial field survey of the SPA in 1989 did not turn up
any evidence of California Gnatcatchers. In the August 1991
focused survey, taped vocalizations were used in an attempt to
elicit response calls by any birds that might be present.
Again, no gnatcatchers were detected. Because several
individuals reported seeing the bird on the property and
because the standard methodology for gnatcatcher surveys
requires field surveys one week apart, the surveying was
continued. Two individuals were found by the consulting
biologist on September 29, 1991 (see Figure 3.3-1). However,
these birds could not be relocated during a subsequent field
visit on October 2, 1991. Therefore, the biologist concluded
that these birds were dispersing, rather than nesting on-site.
Later focussed surveys determined that there was a pair of
California Gnatcatchers nesting on-site in PA 2, and that
these birds later renested in another portion of the SPA. It
is believed that they fledged at least two young. The tJSF&WS
band found on the female of the nesting pair indicatedthat it
.was fledged in the spring/summer of 1991 from a property
approximately. 1.5 miles to the north/ northeast; this confirmed
that only one gnatcatcher pair was resident in the SPA in the
spring of 1992.
The California Gnatcatcher commonly occurs in moderate to
large stands of Coastal Sage Scrub habitats in coastal regions
of Southern California. Although this bird has been observed
on an infrequent basis within Chaparral habitats, this is not
the norm. The on-site habitat quality differs greatly from
that typically occupied by resident Gnatcatchers. The most
common areas of use on-site are the area of Coyote Bush at the
Or
base of the north-facing slope in PA 1 and 3, the Chaparral on
3-29
the north-facing slope in PA 2 and 3, and the ecotonal
Chaparral/Sage Scrub area in the southern portion of PA 2.
Areas in between these two primary areas, which include a
canyon and the Chamise-covered mesas, were used for foraging,
although. apparently to a lesser extent. The areas of higher
use on-site are also unusual in that the use of the two areas
requires the birds to cross over a,-minor ridge, which is
atypical of Gnatcatcher activities and territories elsewhere.
The overall area in which the birds were observed in shown in
Figure-3.3-1.
The Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) is
characteristically found in open fields and grasslands. At
least one individual was observed in the SPA during the 1992
fieldwork 7 and regular' use of the site is expected. This.
species is a USF&WS category 2 species' that is proposed for
listing but is not yet listed It is also on the Audubon Blue
- List.
The Southwestern Willow Flycatcher subspecies (idonax
traillii extimus), which breeds in San Diego County, has
greatly declined. It is listed as Endangered .by. CDF&G..
Southwestern Willow Flycatchers are regularly found in
woodland habitat during spring and fall migrations. Willow
flycatchers were observed in the SPA in June 1991, but were
'believed to be migrants, with no, obvious signs of,nesting.
None were found in. focussed surveys for sensitive riparian
birds in spring and summer of 1992. since these.birds can be
predictably seen in highly uncharacteristic habitat during the
migrating seaSàn, the 1991 siting was not unexpected, but
there is no evidence of on-site breeding.
, The Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virens): is a riparian
breeder that is often used to indicate suitability of habitat
for the Least Bell's Vireo. The Yellow-breasted Chat is
listed by.. CDF&G as a Species of Special Concern. When
breeding, this species is usually easily detected due to its
loud and distinctive song. One, individual was observed in
June. 1992, but its lack of a regular occurrence suggests that.
it is not breeding on-site although there is suitable habitat
for the species.. '
The Northwestern San Diego Pocket Mouse (Perognathus fallax)
was found on-site during focussed trapping and surveys in
summer of, 1992. This species has recently been put on the
tJSF&WS Category 2 list due to regional habitat. losses.
However, this species does not appear to warrant inordinate
concern above that given to other scrubland-associated
species. The more sensitive Pacific Pocket Mouse was not
found on-site during the focussed field survey, and trapping
efforts.. .
3-30
The riparian woodland in the SPA provides potential habitat for the
Least Bell's Vireo, a State- and Federally-listed Endangered
species It is typically found in Riparian Woodland throughout
Southern California and Baja California, Mexico, and is declining
due to habitat destruction Vireos were identified in the Green
Valley riparian corridor west of El Camino Real in 1982 However,
there are no recent sitings of vireos along Encinitas Creek despite
numerous surveys No vireos were observed in Encinitas Creek
during focused surveys in the 1986 or 1987 nesting seasons, and
none were observed in the 1989, 1991 and 1992 field surveys for
this project However, the large woodland downstream of the site
is a prime candidate for future expansion if the vireo population
ever reaches a point of expansion.
3.3.2 1 1 Impacts
Impacts to the flora and fauna were determined to be significant or
insignificant based upon sensitivity of the resource and the extent
of the impact Resources are generally considered significant if
they are limited in distribution and their ecological role is
critical within a regional and local context. Habitats' supporting
species listed as rare, endangered or threatened by the agencies
that enforce the California and Federal Endangèrèd SpeciesActs are
also regarded as significant resources The extent of the impact
to the sensitive resource is also considered in determining, the
significance of an impact For certain highly sensitive resources,
10-F any impact would be considered significant However, other
resources with a low sensitivity, such as species with a large,
locally stable population that may be declining elsewhere, could
sustain a relatively large area of impact or population loss and
not be significantly impacted.
A significant impact to a sensitive resource may be. direct,
indirect, or cumulative. An impact is regarded as direct 'when the
primary effects of the project result in loss of habitat that would
cause a reduction in the density or'diversity of biological.
resources within the region. An indirect impact occurs from a
secondary effect of the project. An impact is regarded as
cumulative when the project impact is not significant by itself but
the combined incremental impact of the project plus other projects
in the region is significant.
3.3.2.1 . Specific Plan
Implementation of the Specific. Plan: could result in. potential
direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to biological resources
on-site and off-site downstream along Encinitas Creek and at
Batiquitos Lagoon. Direct impacts on vegetation and, fish and
wildlife habitat will result from dredging and grading, creek
channel changes, wetlands enhancement, clearing and thinning for
fire protection, and soil stabilization measures. Indirect and
cumulative impacts to biological resources could result from
3-31.
increases in erosion and sedimentation and potential water quality
degradation, habitat reduction through increased urbanization,
fragmentation, and long-term reductions. in wetlands as a result of
better flood control. The Specific Plan includes development
guidelines to minimize potential impacts to biological resources,
and Substantial mitigation has been included in'thepro,ject. With
the inclusion gf the additional mitigation measures, recOmmended in
Section 3.3.3,'. potential impacts can be reduced to a level that is
less than significant.
The proposed Specific Plan designates some wetland areas in PAs 3
and 4 for development, primarily in PA 4 If these areas are
developed according to the Specific Plan, wetlands mitigation may
be required Since the Corps of Engineers judges each project
individually on its own merits, and since no specific development
is proposed for PAs 3 and 4, the required mitigation cannot be
determined at this time. Additional project-specific analysis will
be required when PA 3 and 4 are proposed for development in the
future. At that time, additional analysis should determine whether
the required wetland, buffers are present. Alternatives discussed
in Sections 7.1.31 7.1.4 and 7.1.6 would not require wetlands
mitigation.
Impacts to vegetative communities in the SPA are summarized in
Table 3.3-1. Wetlands impacts are summarized in Table 3.3-2.
Impacts to wetlands in PA 1 will be mitigated by the proposed
wetlands creation and enhancement that has been approved by 'the
Army Corps of Engineers 'as part of the Section 404 permit; the
mitigation has' been incorporated into the project. The fact that
the Army'.Corps of Engineers has approved the proposed' project does
not impose any obligation on the City of Encinitas to approve' the
project.
The proposed project will result in a loss of 3.0 acres of wetlands
in PA 1 (2.9 acres of Disturbed Field Wetlands and 0.1 acre of
Southern Willow'Scrub). The project includes the creation of 0.7
acre' of new wetlands, which results in a technical net loss of 2.3
acres of wetlands in PA 1 (21%). The 3.2 acres of wetlands
enhancement and the 0.5 acre of new wetlands to be created in the
runoff 'water detention pond are not counted as mitigation. Because
of this, there is' a net loss of 2.3. acres of wetlands vegetation.
However, the wetlands' enhancement will result in higher, quality
wetlands because disturbed field wetlands will be replaced by
willow woodland, and freshwater marsh. Therefore, there will be no
net loss of habitat quality. However, 'technically there will be a
net loss of acreage because the proposed enhancement. is not
credited as mitigation. Therefore, the project may conflict with
City policies. The only way to lbring the proposed project into
conformity, with the "no net loss" policy is to adopt an alternative
that keeps development areas out of the 'delineated wetlands, with
a minimum additional' 50-foot wide wetlands buffer. This
alternative is discussed in Section 7.1.2.
3-32
Table 3.3-1
Cumulative Specific Plan Vegetation Impacts •
Vegetative Community
Existing
Acres
Acres
Impacted
Percent
Impact
Southern Mixed Chaparral 211A 9 6 45
Diegan Sage Scrub 2.6 'lO 38
Freshwater Marsh 1.1 0.0 0
Saltwater Marsh 3.8 0.0 0
Southern Willow Scrub 6.3 0.9 14
Disturbed Field Uplands 12.8 IL 12.6 98
Disturbed Field Wetlands 7.5 3.9 52
1
4
Table 3.3-2
Wetlands Impacts
Plan Exist. Acres Mitiga- Nét'Ac Net %
Area Acres Impact Impact tidñ Ac Impact Impact
1: 10.8 3•Ø* 28 0.7* 2.3 ' 21
2 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0'
3 0.4 0.4 100 0.0 0.4 1100'
4 7.5 1.4 19 0.0 1.4 19
Totals 18.7 4.8 26 0.7 4.1 22
* This does not include th&3.2 acres of wetlands that,will
be enhanced in PA 1, ensuring no net loss of wetland
quality or habitat value.
The grading' of the north-facing slopes as proposed càuld
significantly contribute to, soil, erosion and downstream
sedimentation impacts, but these are adequately mitigated by
sediment and erosion control measures discussed in Section 3.2.2.2.
In addition, the urbah runoff could significantly 'impact Encinitas
Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon water quality. Additional
project-specific analysis will be required for the future
development of PA 3 and 4.
3-33
The Specific Plan includes no mitigation for the potential loss of
1.4 acres of disturbed field wetlands in PA 4 if the areas
designated as developable in the Specific Plan are developed (see
Figure 3.3-2), and there may not be any land available for wetlands
mitigation in PA 4. When this parcel is proposed for development,
additional environmental analysis will be required. It is possible
that the developable areas may not be as large as that designated
as such in the Specific Plan because the Specific Plan has not
included wetland buffer areas for PA 3 and 4. Wetlands mitigation
might have to occur off-site. Section 3.3.3 discusses recommended
changes in the Specific Plan to address the lack of buffer areas.
The TM indicates that future access to PA 3 and the southern
portion of PA 4 will be provided through PA 1, but does not show an
exact alignment. Since the construction of an access road beyond
the boundaries of PA 1 is not currently proposed, future
environmental analysis will have to determine whether the future
road alignment has impacts on wetlands or wetland buffers.
Vegetation impacts for each Planning Area are detailed in Table
3.3-3. It should be noted that while the vegetation impacts can be
mitigated within the SPA, some impacts cannot be mitigated within
the Planning Area in which the impact occurs. The loss of all of
the small area (1.4 acres) of Chaparral in PA 1 will be mitigated
by the revegetation plan for the north-facing slope, which includes
a part of PA 2.
An estimated 200 to 350 Coast White Lilac shrubs would be lost in
PA 2 (between 45% and 88% of the population within the SPA), with
an estimated 50 plants to remain in PA 3. Approximately 2 of the
estimated 15 to 25 Del Mar Manzanitâ would be directly impacted.
It is possible that additional individuals might be indirectly
impacted by vegetation thinning. Although the loss of two
individual plants is not considered significant by itself, the
USFWS considers any loss to be cumulatively significant.
Nine sensitive wildlife species have been identified in the SPA.
The sensitivity of most of these is derived through their
occurrence in native habitats (riparian woodlands, sage scrub and
chaparral) which are undergoing regional losses due to
urbanization. Most of these species are not individually
significant, with 'the exception of the California Gnatcatcher.
Riparian associates, such as the Yellow-breasted Chat, Downy
Woodpecker and possibly other sensitive riparian breeders, are not
expected to be significantly impacted because the woodland portions
of the wetlands will remain in substantially the same condition,
or, in some areas, will be enhanced. The Southwestern Willow
Flycatcher and the Down Woodpecker are considered to be migrants
and would not be significantly impacted by any potential habitat
loss.
3-34
i• • E • E :E ° -
. & :' a - V) 3
CL E
• C.
.-•• z
cr - ••
-
EXISTING Aci&s
-
0 .4-
CRES IMPACTED .
' PERCENT IMPACTED
-•
EXISTING ACRES -
ikCRES -
cc
IMPACTED PERCENT
• ul
EXISTING ACk
I
is
CRES IMPACTED
RCENT IMPACTED 8 8
è
X1 STING, ACRES -
CRES IMPACTED
ERCENT IMPACTED au
,XISTINGACRES -
kCRES IMPACTED
'ERCENT IMPACTED
CD
La CD Cf
rf I—,.
CD
H
H
Cf CD
'<I
H
.11 CD 0)
SC.
R
Species regularly found in sage scrub or chaparral, such as the San
Diego Pocket Mouse, Desert Woodrat, Coronado Skink, various
whiptails, and other potentially occurring reptiles, may be
impacted by an incremental loss of habitat. Most, if not all, of
these species that are still present will have good potential to
survive in the open space proposed in the Specific Plan. However,
the stability of such populations is reduced as habitat extent
decreases and human intrusion increases. Any use of the area will
incrementally impact such species, including recreational uses such
as trails or increased nature observation. At this time, these
species do not carry sufficient sensitivity recognition for the
individual impacts to be considered biologically significant.
Similarly, the loss of disturbed field foraging habitat for the
Loggerhead Shrike and various raptors is considered to be an
incremental but not biologically significant impact.
The plant' palette proposed in the Specific Plan (Appendix H)
includes some species that are inappropriate for their defined
purposes. In addition, some of the plants defined as drought-
tolerant can survive on little water but are not water-conserving
plants because they tend to take away water from other plants
and/or are wetland species. The following changes in the landscape
plant palette are recommended:
Zone 2 (Wetland Restoration Zone):. The Freshwater/Brackish Marsh . plant list should include Anemopsis californica (Yerba Mansa) and
Lua hayesiana (San Diego Marsh Elder).
Zone 3 (Commercial Area Landscape Transition Zone): Penniseturn
alopeciroides 'Rubrum' (Red Fountain Grass) is a pest species and
should be eliminated. Koelreuteria bipinata should be Koelreuteria
bipinnata. Populus fremontii (Western Cottonwood) and Platanus
raceinosa (California Sycamore) are wetland, non-water conserving
trees and should be deleted from the list. Arctostaphylos
edmundsii (Little Sur Manzanita) and Arctostaphylos uva-ursil
'Point Reyes' (Pt. Reyes Manzanita) are not expected' to survive for
long and should probably be deleted from the list. Instead,
Russelia equisetiforinis (Coral Plant) should be, added to the
groundcover list. Nolina parryi (Parry's Beargrass) and Arcto-
staphylos glandulosa ssp. crassifolia are suitable but are not
commercially available, so advance contract growing will be
required. The conditions of approval should require that the
contract for growing these plants be negotiated prior to the start
of grading and, preferably, within one month of project approval.
Zone 5 (Theme Residential Zone): Liquidainber styraciflua (American
Sweet Gum) and Platanus raceinosa (California Sycamore) consume much
water and should be deleted from the list. It is likely that
Umbelluria californica (California Laurel) and Arctostaphylos spp.
(Manzanjta) will not survive long and should be deleted. The
plantings 'in this zone should emphasize Quercus ilex (Holy Oak),
Ceratonia siliaua (Carob Tree), Olea éuropea (Olive Tree) and Pinus
3-37
torrevana (Torrey Pine) should be emphasized. Yucca schidigera
(Mohave Yucca) is considered too spiny to be used in public areas
and should be deleted.
Zone 6 (El Camino Real Streetscape Zone): LicTuidamber stvraciflua
(American Sweet Gum), P],atanus raceinosa (California Sycamore), and
Populus fremontii (Western Cottonwood) require too much water and
should be deleted from the list. The Specific Plan •does not
include a specific species of Eucalyptus. Eucalyptus are non-
native species and can adversely impact surrounding vegetation.
Some species emit low-level toxins that kill understory plants and,
for this reason, they are being removed in some natural open space
areas. In addition, although Eucalyptus are drought-tolerant, they
have extensive root systems that may take water away from other
vegetation. Therefore, when the biologist/horticulturalist
prepares the detailed planting plan, this will have to be taken
into consideration. Ceanothus 'Cencha' should be Ceanothus
'Concha' (California Lilac).
Zone 7 (Olivenhain Road Commercial Area Landscape Transition Zone):
Populus fremontii (Western Cottonwood) and Platanus racemosa
(California Sycamore) require much water and should be eliminated
from the list. Pennisetum alopeciroides 'Rubrum (Red Fountain
Grass) is a pest species and should be eliminated. Koelreuterip
bipinatta should be Koelreuteria bipinata (Chinese Flame Tree).
Arctostaphvlos edinundsii (Little Sur Manzanita) will probably not
survive for long. Nolina parrvi (Parry's Beargrass) is not
commercially available. 0
3.3.2.2 Planning Area 1
Development of PA 1 would result in the loss of 10 acres of
disturbed fields, including 7.1 acres of Disturbed Field Uplands
and 2.9 acres of Disturbed Field Wetlands. The loss of the
Disturbed Field Uplands is considered to be incrementally adverse
but not biologically significant. Development of PA 1 as proposed
will result in impacts to 3 acres of wetlands (0.1 acre of Southern
Willow Scrub and 2.9 acres of disturbed field wetlands) (see Figure
3.3-2). Due to the wildlife values associated with riparian areas,
the tremendous decline in wetlands over , the past decades, the
potential impacts on wildlife species that are less tolerant of
disturbance, and the general loss of restoration potential in field
lands, this is considered a significant impact. However, impacts
can be mitigated to a less than significant level through
implementation of the measures discussed in Section 3.3.3.
The Army Corps of Engineers has issued a Section 404 Permit based
on no net loss of wetlands values and a minimal loss of wetlands
acreage. Through the creation and enhancement of 3.9 acres. of
wetlands, a higher value wetland will be created and maintained
within the Creek area. However, it should be noted that changes in
Federal regulations, as well as changes in the Specific Plan, TN
3-38
or wetlands mitigation and monitoring plan are grounds for review
and reevaluation of the 404 Permit -by theCorps.
In addition, the dredging and Maintenance of the creek channel in
the area just upstream of the El Camino Real bridge will result in
significant repetitive impacts to wetlands around that area The
project will significantly encroach on existing high quality
wetlands along the flowline of Encinitas Creek and is expected to
result in a reduction of use by wildlife that are not tolerant of
disturbance. These are considered to be ctunulatively significant
impacts.
Indirect biological impacts that could result from degradation of
water quality could be significant Long-term impacts to the
riparian and lagoon system downstream could result from slope
erosion. The project includes a wetlands enhancement and
mitigation plan that has been accepted by the Army Corps of
Engineers as adequate to mitigate impacts to wetlands to a level
that is less than significant'.'However, Section 3 3 3 of this EIR
recommends that additional measures be incorporated into the
project for PA 1.
Development of PA 1 as proposed would entail the cutting back of
the north-facing hillside that Iextends into PA 2 This would
impact an estimated 1.4 acres of well-developed Southern -Mixed
Chaparral, or 100% of this vegetátive type in PA 1. The loss of
) this acreage is considered to be an incrementally adverse but not
biologically significant impact. In- addition, ,the- grading for PA
1 would result in additional losses of this community on the upper
portion of the same hillside that is in PA 2. This will result in
a cumulative impact of 9.2 acres of Chaparral for PA 1 and 2
combined, or 58% of the total acreage in these- areas. However,
implementation of the TM will include the implementation of a
vegetation restoration plan, reducing the potential net impact to
Chaparral in the TM area to less than 50%. Potential, impacts to
Southern Mixed Chaparral in PA I and 2-can be mitigated to a less
than significant-level by (1) an intensive restoration plan using
seeding and containerized planting of pretreatEd plants Or (2) the
purchase and preservation of -off-site land with- high-quality
Southern Mixed Chaparral. Since a restoration planting program has
been incorporated into the project that incorporates Chaparral
species, impacts to Southern Mixed Chaparral are considered- to-be
mitigated to -a less than significant- level by the proposed project.
However, the tJSFWS -considers impacts to chaparral to be
significant and has concluded that on-site restoration alone will
not mitigate impacts'-to' a - less than significant level; off-site
acquisition of Southern Maritime Chaparral is recommended by the
USFWS to ensure that mitigation results in an over improved
situation for this habitat The acquisition of the 16-acres of
land near Lake Hodges would not be sufficient to mitigate chaparral
impacts because sensitive plant species are not present,
particularly the Del Mar manzanita. -
- - - 3-39
The cutting back of the lower portion of the north-facing slope, in
the southernmost portion of PA 1,. could impact approximately 3.7
acres of known. California Gnatcatcher habitat (see Figure 3.3-1).
While the area impacted is a relatively, small portion of the
,overall observed Gnatcatcher use area and lies well away from the
nesting locality,., the patch of. Coyote Bush within the Disturbed
Field vegetation that would' be lost was an area of noticeably
higher utilization, by the resident pair of Gnatcatchers.
There f ore, this impact would be considered significant.
Recommended mitigation is included in Section 3.3.3. Since the
California gnatcatcher has been federally listed, any "take" of the,
species, as well as mitigation, will have to be approved by the
USFWS.
The construction and operation. of the proposed Home Depot Center is
expected to produce an increase in noise from the facility and from
Associated automobile traffic. While 6,0 decibels (dB) is often
used as the threshold for impacts to some birds, such as the Least
Bell's Vireo, this noise level does not appear to be an issue with
California Gnatcatchers; they have been found residing in areas
that:.have much higher chronic or intermittent noise levels than is
expected with the development of.PA,l. Therefore, potential noise
impacts on the California Gnatcatcher are not expected to be
significant.
Development of PA 1 will require, remedial grading measures to
ensure soil stability and will also entail the cutting back of the
north-facing slope The use of PA 3 as an optional borrow site is
also being considered. All of these will expose soils to erosion
and create potential indirect impacts on biological resources
through a potential degradation in water quality. These impacts
can. be reduced to a less than significant level' through the
implementation of the measures recommended in Section 3.3.3.
3.3.2.3 Planning Area 2
The grading proposed for' PA 2 would result in the, loss
,
of an
estimated 7.2 acres of Southern Mixed Chaparral. 'An additional 0.6
acre of Southern Mixed Chaparral would, be degraded as part of the
selective clearing for fire protection, for, a total impact of 7.8
acres in PA 2 ' resulting in a total loss of 54% of the, Southern
Mixed Chaparral in PA 2. By itself, this would be considered to be
of. moderate significance although it would. incrementally, increase
the loss' of habitat in the region. However, the loss of this
habitat would result in the' loss of a majority of the 'major use and
nesting area for a pair of California Gnatcatchers (see Figure 3.3-
1). This loss of potential Gnatcatcher habitat, was considered
significant but mitigatable (see Section.3.3.3). However, since
this species has since been listed as threatened, the project
applicant will have to consult with 'the USFWS.
3-40
The development of PA 2 as proposed in the TM could result in the
loss of an estimated two Del Mar Manzanita plants (out of a total
of 15 to 25 shrubs). It is the biologist's opinion that the
potential loss of two Del Mar Manzanita plants is not significant
because the vast majority of the plants will remain and the
landscape plan proposes the planting of Del Mar Manzanita in the
open space area. An estimated 13 to 23 plants will remain within
PA 2, with an additional 50 plants to-be preserved in PA 3. The
loss of the two Del Mar Manzanita plants is not considered to be
significant by the biological consultant. However, the City of
Encinitas has established a precedent of maintaining the
significance of the Del Mar Manzanita despite the former taxonomic
uncertainty concerning this species, and recent taxonomic work has
supported past concerns relative to this species.' In addition, the
USFWS considers any loss of this •species to be cumulatively
significant. Therefore, mitigation measures are recommended in
Section 3.3.3.
The grading and development proposed for PA 2 would result in a
loss of between 44% and 88% of the Coast White Lilac in the SPA and
100% of the plants in PA 2 (an estimated 200 to 350 plants). An
estimated 50 plants would remain in PA 3. The biologist has
concluded that the proposed landscape and revegetation plan will
mitigate the potential impact to a level that is less than
significant. Coast White Lilac will be planted in the open space
areas. This species has been successfully transplanted, however
this is not recommended for this project. To..-mitigate potential
cumulative impacts to this species, Section 3.3.3 includes
recommendations for planting 600 to 700 Coast White Lilac in: the
open space areas that will be impacted and revegetated.
The one Torrey Pine in the SPA, with a 22-inch diameter at breast
height, will be impacted by the proposed residential development.
However, aerial photos have determined that this tree was one of
four planted in association with previous uses in PA 2. Therefore,
the tree does not have the same protection as would a naturally
occur Torrey pine on the site. The loss of this lone tree is not
considered by the biologist. In addition, the landscaping plan
includes the planting of Torrey Pines in the residential and open
space areas.
A substantial number of Coast Scrub Oaks will be impacted by the
proposed grading on the northern slope in PA 2. This species was
not considered sensitive at the time of the original field work and
has not been considered sensitive by any listing agencies. Given
the ongoing taxonomic reassessment of the Coast Scrub, Oak and the
considerable number of observed locales where this shrub is still
present in the Del Mar and Encinitas region, the loss of a
substantial portion of the on-site population is considered
significant. The impact could be mitigated to a less than
significant level through an intensive planting program including
coast scrub oaks or by the crib wall alternative.
3-41
The grading proposed for PA 2 would have the potential for
increasing erosion from slope faces and new cuts and fills as well
as areas that will be selectively cleared for fire protection.
This potential water quality inpact could have significant
cumulative impacts on biological resources Mitigation is included in. Section 3.3.3.
3.3.2.4 Planning Area 3
Development of PA.. 3 as proposed in the Specific Plan could result
in the loss of 0.4 acre of, Disturbed Field Wetlands.of low quality
(see Figure 3.3-2). This wetland loss,, would 'result in an
incremental adverse impact on thewetland. system and a loss of
restoration potential in this area. The level of wildlife resource
degradation would-be dependent on the future usage of the site and
is not predictable at this time With high intensity uses, or a
substantial amount of activity, impacts on wildlife and wildlif.e
habitat could be significant. Cumulative impacts could also be
significant.
The Specific P . lan' would allow substantial slope grading, which
could be expected to have a negligible and insignificant impact .to
Southern Mixed Chaparral resources The existing open space
easement on the southernmost portion of PA 3 will remain in, natural
open space. However, a portion of the designated developable area
in PA 3 includes Coyote Bush surrounded by disturbed fields that is
known to be used by the on-site pair of California Gnatcatchers.
Development of, the Gnatcatcher use area could result 'in significant
impacts, and would require consultation with the. USFWS. Additional
background on the Gnatcatchers is included in Section 3.3'..l.3.2'and
Appendix B. Recommended mitigation is included in Section 3.3.3.
The., grading of, the north-facing slopes as proposed could
significantly contribute to ;sol erosion and downstream
sedimentation impacts that could result in significant and
cumulative impacts. In addition, the.. urban runoff. could
significantly 'impact Encinitas Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon water
quality. Additional project-specific analysis will be required for
the future development of PA 3.
3.3.2.5 Planning Area
The Specific Plan designates two potential development areas within
PA 4 Development of the designated developable area adjacent to
Olivenhain Road could result in the loss of 0.8 acre of high
quality Southern Willow.. Scrub and: 01. 4 acre of Disturbed Field
Wetlands, tor a total wetland impact of 1.2 acres in the area just
south of Olivenhain Road (see Figure 3.3-2).
Development of the designated development area south. of' Encinitas
Creek could result in the loss. of 0.2 acre of Disturbed Field
Wetlands. A project in this area could incrementally increase the
3-42
amount of contaminants in Encinitas Creek and downstream areas,
resulting in potentially significant cumulative impacts on
biological resources on-site and downstream. In addition, this
potential development area includes 1.3 acres of land with slopes
of 25% or more. While steep slopes are not inherently sensitive
from a biological standpoint, the development of these slopes could
be expected to result in greater levels of erosion and
sedimentation, which could indirectly, but significantly, impact
biological resources on-site and downstream. Future project
proposals for this PA will require additional project-specific
environmental analysis to determine specific impacts and mitigation
measures. Some of the steeper portions within the designated
developable area might be used for a wholesale nursery if no
grading is required. Since the options for on-site mitigation of
wetland losses are limited, it is possible that the development of
PA 4 could require off-site mitigation.
3.3.2.6 Cumulative Impacts
The development of each Planning Area within the SPA will have
cumulative impacts on biological resources. Impacts will be added
to those that have already occurred as a result of other
development in the Encinitas Creek drainage basin. In addition,
several other projects in the vicinity have been approved but not
yet constructed, such as the Olivenhain Road Widening Project and
the Arroyo La Costa Master Plan, and these will also cumulatively
impact biological resources. As the general area continues to
develop, there will be cumulative impacts to a number of vegetative
communities, particularly Grasslands/ Fields, Southern Mixed
Chaparral and wetland-associated communities (Southern Willow
Scrub, Freshwater Marsh, and Saltwater Marsh). There may be
cumulative direct and indirect impacts on wildlife species that use
these habitats. The Final Environmental Impact Report, Arroyo La
Costa Master Plan (Ponseggi, 1990) concluded that loss of habitat
is a nonsignificant regional loss that "can only be mitigated by
city-wide planning action applied to individual projects." That
EIR concluded that the loss of open field habitat is an incremental
regional loss which impacts foraging birds, particularly raptors,
as well as migratory songbirds. In addition, it concluded that the
cumulative loss of Coast White Lilac was regionally incremental but
nonsignificant due to the low rarity of the plant. The same EIR
concluded that the loss of about 70% of the on-site Del Mar
Manzanita and the loss of about 6 acres of riparian habitat was
significant and mitigation was included to reduce impacts.
It is difficult to assimilate data from EIRs prepared by different
firms because various naming systems are used for identifying
vegetative communities and the level of detail is not the same in
all reports. The Final EIR for the Arroyo. La Costa Master Plan was
noticeably lacking in quantification of impacts to specific
vegetative communities. It noted a potential loss of 6 acres of
riparian habitat but did not provide a breakdown into vegetative
3-43
communities. The Final EIR for the proposed residential
development on the Shelley property, which is located east of
Rancho Santa Fe Road in Carlsbad, has not yet been completed.
The Final Environmental Impaát Report, Oliverthain Road
Widenin/Realigninent and Flood Control Project (Mooney, 1992)
concluded that project impacts to Southern Willow Scrub, Freshwater
Marsh and Coastal Salt Marsh were cumulatively significant, as were
potential impacts to 1. several sensitive species such as the
Southwestern Spiny Rush, Downy Woodpecker, Will Flycatcher and
other songbirds Mitigation measures were included in the EIR If
Olivenhain Road is widened/ realigned. using Alignment # 2, which was
approved, it will result in cumulative impacts to wetlands in PAs
1 and 4. In addition, it would affect the developable area in the
northern portion of PA 4 The encroachment into the wetlands would
have to be mitigated Since there are no plans yet developed for
the Olivenhain Road Widening Project, the encroachment is not
considered imminent.
When Olivenhain Road is eventually extended westward to connect
with Leucadia Boulevard, additional biological resources will be
impacted. The Final EIR for the Olivenhain Road Widening Project
included a projection for impacts to wetlands resources, some of
which are within the SPA. Table 3 3-4 includes a quantification of
the potential impacts to vegetative communities from the proposed
Specific Plan, the Olivenhain Road,Widening Project (which also
includes the construction of Detention Basin D upstream), and the
preliminary future alignment of Leücadia Boulevard.
Development of the SPA, in addition to the development approved for
Arroyo La Costa and Olivenhain Road Widening, could have indirect
cumulative impacts on biological resources as a result of a
degradation in water quality Mitigation measures are included in
each project to mitigation potential, impacts.
.. 3-44
Table 3.3-4
Cumulative Impacts on Vegetative Communities
Future Oliven- Home
Vegetative Leucadia Blvd. hain Rd Depot Total
Community Extension Proj. Spec. Impact
(acres) (acres) Plan Area
(acres): (Acres)
Southern 0.05 0.25 0.9 1.20
Willow-Scrub
Disturbed Field Not Determined 8.98 12.6 21.58
Uplands
Disturbed Field Not' Determined 0.40 3.9 4.30
Wetlands
Southern Mixed Not Determined 0.54 9.6 10.14
Diegan Sage Not Determined 0.00 1.0 1.00
Scrub
Saltwater Marsh 0.00 ' 0.00 0.0 0.00
Freshwater 0.17 0.30 0.0 0.47
Marsh'
I;
3.3.3 Mitigation
3.3.3.1 Specific Plan
The following mitigation measures should be included in the
Specific Plan and should apply to all Planning Areas:
To minimize the indirect impacts of erosion and sedimentation
on biological resources, grading and dredging: should be
restricted to the period from April 15 through October 15. In
PA 1, 2 and 3, grading of the upland areas should be limited
to late summer and early fall to avoid conflicts with the
California Gnatcatcher breeding season.
, Temporary desiltation basins and standard construction
sedimentation control measures should be implemented to
prevent siltation of Encinitas Creek. Exposed slopes 'should
be immediately reseeded with a suitable erosion control ground
cover after completion of grading.' Long-term sedimentation
and water quality impacts should be addressed by ensuring
slope stability, adequate slope drainage systems, 'and
' effective revegetation of exposed.slopes.
,•j
3-45
3. Implementation of an erosion control plan approved, by the City
Engineer.
3.3.3.2 Planning Area 1
Impacts to wetlands: will be mitigated through the enhancement and
creation of 4.4 acres- of wetlands. The following measures have
been incorporated into the project:
The creation of 0.7 acre of willow woodland and enhancement of
1 acre of freshwater marsh and 2.2 acres of willow, woodland
The project proposes the creation and enhancement of 1 acre of
Freshwater Marsh and 3.4 acres of Willow Riparian Woodland),
construction of a storm drain system to direct runoff,
construction of oil/sediment traps,and the creation of a
0.5-acre nuisance water treatment area An estimated 3 2
acres of wetlands will be enhanced, 0 7-acre of new wetlands
will be created, and 0.5-acre of new wetlands will be created
,in the nuisance water treatment detention pond.
Maintenance and monitoring of the mitigation measures :f0r 5
years. Monitoring must :be conducted at 3, 6, 9, 12, 36, 48
and 60 months. Monitoring reports must be prepared within 30
days of each monitoring, and annual reports must be provided
to.-the Corps. of Engineers, USF&WS, and the CDF&G
Removal of non-native species from the existing wetland.
D Biological buffer of at least 50 feet A 150-foot planning
buffer must incorporate the 50-100 feet biological buffer and
50' of unstructured paved area in the parking lot.
Release of the performance bond posted with I the 'City of
Encinitas must be contingent upon successful completion of the
mitigation plan, as determined jointly by the Corps, Service,
CDF&G,, and,..the City of Encinitas.
Installation of oil interceptors in the paved areas to collect
urban runoff and the creation. of 0.5 acre 'of nuisance water
treatment wetlands as defined in the Home Depot Specific Plan.
G Installation of fencing to separate the -Home- Depot project
from the wetlands area. .
With, the addition of the general mitigation. required for all
Planning Areas and the measures listed below,, impacts can be
mitigated to a level that is less than significant If these
measures are not incorporated into the project, potential impacts.
could be significant and would require a statement of overriding
considerations for project approval..
3-46
Wetlands in the nuisance water detention/purification pond and
associated silt and grease traps must be cleaned through
pumping and removal of trapped materials, and not by flushing
of the system..At a minimum, traps must be cleaned in early
-October and March of each year The wetland treatment basin
must be maintained by partial removal of sediments and plant
materials on a biennial basis, with o wrk being conducted in
March following the winter rainy period and prior to
initiation of spring riparian bird nesting season. No more
than 50% of the plant material is to be removed at any given
time This must be continued for the life of the project
The Specific Plan proposes, a 47foot high, fence covered by
spiny plants, either California blackberry (Rubus ursinus) or
California Rose (Rosa californica) between the wetlands and
the Home Depot development The biologist recommends that the
fence height be raised to 5 feet and set back from the parking
curb by 5 feet or more to provide greater protection of the
wetlands from access or dumping over the fence Because the
project design includes. the buffer required by the Corps
permit, no further setback is considered necessary. However,
it is. recommended that the fence height be raised to 5 feet.
The project applicant will; dredge the area beneath, and within
20 feet upstream of, the El Camino Real bridge It will be
the responsibility of the City of Encinitas to monitor the
sedimentation under the bridge and dredge the area as
necessary to maintain an elevation of 72 feet.
4 Acquisition of off-site California Gnatcatcher habitat Since
PA 1 and 2 are proposed together on the TM, the recommended
mitigation for both Planning Areas has been combined.; it is
detailed in Section 3.3.3.3.
5. The monitoring of the revegetation efforts should be both
qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative assessments should
be made at the time of each report.-.to indicate whether the
revegetation is, in general successful (i e., if the plants
are becoming established and healthy) If the monitoring
indicates that any of the revegetation effort is not
progressing, the consulting biologist will need to identify
potential: reasons for the lack' of progress and make
recommendations for any changes that should occur in the
mitigation plan.
Quantitative assessments should be made each year to. determine
the progress of the revegetation effort Mortality greater
than 10% of any species used in the revegetation effort must
be offset by in-kind (size and species) replacement funded by
the project applicant. The goal should be on the order of 50%
coverage by the end of the second year, 60% coverage by the
end of the third year, 70% coverage by the end of the fourth-
1-47
year, and 80% coverage by the end of the fifth year. At the
end of five years, the combined canopy cover of trees should
be 40 to 60%, shrub canopy cover should be 30 to 50%,
herbaceous cover should be 2 to 9%, and open ground should be
in the range of 3 to 9%. If mitigation fails to meet the
success criteria at the end of the 5-year period, maintenance
and monitoring efforts must continue until the criteria are
met, or until the Corps and' resource agencies determine
appropriate modifications to the mitigation plan.
The quantitative monitoring of.. the révegetation effort should
include data on the following:
Survivorship assessed by actual counts;
Crown Cover - a calculation based on perpendicular crown
diameter measurements;
Treedensity and species composition - number of trees
(by species);
Diameter of trees at breast height (4.5 feet above the
ground);
In addition, the monitoring program should include reports on
avifauna observed during each site assessment The reports
should indicate any trends in increases or decreases in
avifauna if any such trends are discernible. If decreases in
avifauna are noted, the consulting biologist should attempt to
determine potential reasons for the decrease: and, if the
reasons are related to the project (as opposed to other off-
site or regional circumstances), the biologist should
recommend changes in the mitigation plan that could reverse
the trend.
3.3.3.3 Planning Area 2
The landscape plan proposes to enhance the Chaparral environment in
all areas that are disturbed and not developed. Graded slopes will
be planted with species typically found in the Chaparral community
and with an appropriate seed mix to establish native grass and
flower species Emphasis will be on reintroducing the Del Mar
Manzanita and Coast White Lilac. Above-ground irrigation systems
will be installed for approximately two years to promote the
establishment of native plant materials. With the addition of the
general mitigation required for all Planning Areas and the measures
listed below, impacts can be mitigated to a level that is less than
significant If these measures are not incorporated into the
project, potential impacts could be significant and would require
a statement of overriding considerations for project approval.
3-48
'I. imlémentation of a monitoring and 'maintenance plan to ensure
that plants are successfully established and that the
Chaparral is not degraded by invasive exotic plantings from
above or 'fromhuman intrusion.
-
2. The Specific Plan proposes fencing along the western and
northern edges of the development area to restrict access from
'above. This fencing should instead be. located to correspond
to the boundary between Fuel Management Zones 3 and 4
3 To mitigate pOtential impacts to the Southern Mixed' Chaparral
community, of the following three options should be
implemented to the 'satisfaOtion of the Encinitas "'Community
Development Director
a. "Implementation of the crib wall alternative instead of
the proposed project.
b An intensive planting program to restore the Southern
Mixed Chaparral, inôluding containerized planting of
pretreated plants and some seeding (not all
hydroseeding). The USFWS does not consider this a viable
option
C. The purchase and preservation, in a natural state, of
good qual1ty$outhern Mixed. Chaparral off-site.
4. The thinning of the native vegetation, for fire protection
along the ridge line of PA 2 should be accomplished in the
following manner:
Thinning must be limited to hand clearing of Chamise and
Black Sage.
Selective hand pruning' must be used to thin and reduce
lower vegetative portions of the following shrubs:.' Coast
Scrub 'Oak, Toyon, Lemonade-berry; Laurel-leaf Sumac and
Ramona Lilac.
C. The following species must be retained in an., unaltered
state: Del Mar Manzanita, Mission Manzanita, Coast White
'Lilac, Chaparral Coffeeberry; Mojave Yucca; and Ramona
Lilac. .
d. Annual species and low-growing perennials must remain
unless they are exotic elemènts'to the Chaparral.
Thinning must be limited to cutting of mátèriál, and no
soil disturbance is to occur which may exacerbate erosion
of the slope areas.
,
Zones 3 and. 4 including non-irrigated and'irr I. igated
3-4.9
.,
5.
6.
7.
8.
planting areas should not contain, plants which are. known
to escape from cultivation In particular, various ice
plants, Ngaio, Pampas Grass, Fountain Grass and similar
invasive plants should be prohibited from use within
these zones.
The loss of the Del Mar Manzanita and Coast White Lilac should
be mitigated by the replanting of liner and 1-gallon sized
container plants totalling tw+ce the total number lost (4 Del
Mar Manzanitas and 600 to 700 Coast White Lilac Shrubs).
These should be planted in the disturbed areas: of the open
space Chaparral.. The plant in' should be . con4ucte4 during' the
early winter months to take advantage of high soil moisture
and maximum growing season A temporary drip irrigation
system or, intermittent hand fwatering will be necessary to
carry these plants through. a 6-month establishment period.
A comment received on the Draft EIR expressed the opinion that.
the mitigation proposed -for the Del Mar Manzanita and Coast
White Lilac is tenuous because it focuses only on dominant,
conspicuous shrubs and not the whole floristic picture.
However, it should be noted..that: (1) the potential impacts to.
these species was considered to be less than significant and
do not technically require any mitigation; and . (2). the
recommended California Gnatcatcher habitat off-site mitigation
will result in the preservation of an existing ecosystem that
may include the aforementioned plants.
in addition, it should be noted that the USFWS favors off-site
acquisition of. land to mitigate impacts to sensitive species
as well as to the California qnatcatcher.
To mitigate potential Impacts to the Coat" Scrub Oak, one of
the following three options should be implemented to the
satisfaction oftheEncinitas Community Development Director:
Iinplementationof the crib wall alternative instead of
the proposed project. .
An intensive planting program to restore the Coast Scrub
Oak, including containerized planting of pretreated
plants and some Seeding .('iot. all hydroseeding)'. This is
not considered to be adequate mitigation. by the USFWS.
C. The purchase and preservation, in a natural state, of
good quality: Southern Mixed Chaparral off-site.
The erosion and sedimentationi control measures included in
SectiOn 3.2.3 should be implemented.. .
The potential impacts to California Gnatcatcher habitat can
best be mitigated through acquisition. and preservation of of f-
3-50
OM site land that is suitable' Gnàtcàtchér habitat. This 'is
considered to provide better potential long-term survivability
than would the retention of the on-site Gnatcatcher. habitat
Surrounded by urban development. Off_site: mitigation would
translate into more defensible Gnátcatcher habitat which would
be less susceptible to the secondary impacts associated with
the urban environs of Encinitas. The Off-site land
acquisition should meet the following criteria:
Minimum size: 16acres
Existing California GnatcatcIer population;
C. Must connect to other habitat;
d. Mustbe compatible''with'existing and planned land uses.
= e. Should be within 5-miles of the SPA.
f. Must be acceptable'to the City of Encinitas, a qualified
consulting biologist under contract to the City of
Encinitas after consultation with the California
Department of Fish "and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
The project applicant's representatives have been researching
1 potential off-site parcels that would mitigate potential impacts to
the California Gnatcatcher, and biologists have investigated
numerous parcels that are Ourrentlyprivately"owned and designated
for residentiaI 'development but which are within the' focussed
planning area for the San Dieguito River Valley' Regional Park. The
areas 'considered áreshon in Figure 3.3-3. All of the areas being
considered are considered to be suitable fOr use as a mitigation
area.
A 16-acre-area within the larger study 'area'has. been tentatively
identified as a potential'mitigation site for California
Gnatcatcher impacts of the Home Depot Project (see Figure 3.3-4).
It contains two pairs" of California Gnatcatchers nesting in
Black Sage Scrub and contains additional Disturbed Coastal 'Sage
Scrub (see Figure 3.3-3). The area is beyond the desired 5-mile
criteria for a mitigation site, however, its, other values, in terms
of existing habitat and desirability as part of a' much larger open
space park' (San Dieguito River Valley Regional Park'), outweighs the
distance criteria. The :adjãcent parcels to the 'south and west,
both of which are being proposed for acquisition as permanent Open
space as part of another project,' both have two pairs of
gnatcatchers and a known 'foraging location for, coastal cactus
wrens. All of these parcels:have been surveyed as part of another
project. The acquisition of the 16-acre parcel could be considered
to mitigate potential impacts to the 'California gnatcatcher in all
PAs.
3-51
Because the California gnatcatcher has been listed as threatened,
the project will require approval of mitigation by the USFWS The
USFWS preliminarily indicated that it may favor on-site retention
of gnatcatcher habitat-,and connection of the wetland open space
with the gnatcatcher habitat.
3.3.3.4 Planning Area 3
The future development of PA 3 should include all of the general
mitigation measures discussed in Section 3.3.3.1. With these
measures and the following measures, it is anticipated that
development could be mitigated to a..level that is less than
significant. However, additionalenvirónmental analysis will be
required when specific development is proposed..
Development should be scaled back along thenorthern boundary
of PA 3, with the wetlands and a: minimum 50-foot wetlands
buffer used as the limits of the development area (see Figure
3.3-5). Areas within the degraded wetlands could be used for
buffering the existing wetlands and for water quality
mitigation.
When PA 3 is proposed for development, a, nuisance water
treatment system similar to that proposed' for PA lshould be
constructed and maintained north of the development area
footprint. and should collect and treat all run-off from graded
and/or developed portions of this PAi. The marshy detention
basin should have a surface area of at least 0.1 acre.
Degraded wetland areas could be used fOr constructing the
filtering basin.
3 Potential impacts to California Gnatcatcher habitat should be
mitigated using the criteria specified in Section 3 3 3 3
(#8). If the, Home Depot project includes off-site'acquisition
of the referenced 16-acre parcel, It is possible that no
additional mitigation would be required for PA 3.. The
development of PA 3 will require a consultation with the
tJSFWS.
3.3.3.5 Planning Area. 4
The future development of PA 4 should include all of the general
mitigation, measures discussed in Section 3.3.3.1. With these
measures and the following measures, it is anticipated that
development could be mitigated to -'a level that is less than
significant However, additional environmental analysis will be
required when specific development-is proposed.
3-52
S
. .• : •
. . . . . - .-
- -t - . ..J
,
- T.
I
I 9 6 6 -
I
ir
L - S A "
\ - v I- I - - .i& ( 11
"T\JC\\ ' ;•y . . -
r :A PI
-•:• • L ? .
IRV
MY
' I
Owned Prope.rty T. A
4??)
4
CA - '-•--- -
' N "N A - ... ç LAKE HODGE OL S
r
- r :
63
L
-------------
LEGEND -. \ . . -- -
MIT11GATION SITE ammumm Ltmts of -Mitigation Se - -
California Sagebrush., Black Sage Scrub
-' Disturbed/Burned Coastal Sage Scrub.
--
Bush Penstemon - Suger Bush Scrub
Southern Maritime Chaparral - - - -
Ln j California Gnatcatcher (Pairs) -
- - - Coastal Cactus Wren Foraging Locations
0 300
- -- . S 0 U R C E: 0 G D E N - FEET
- -. FIGUR E' MITIGATION AREAS UNDER-CONSIDERATION
. I
L• •
0
The area just south of'.' Olivénhain Road.' indicated ,as
developable in the Specific Plan should be scaled back using,
at the minimum, the wetland boundary plus 'a'' a minimum 50-foot
wetland buffer as the limit of development (see Figure 3 3-3
in Section 3.3.3,.-4:) This would result in deleting
approximately 1 2 acres from the developable area Because no
buildings can be constructed within the SDG&E easement, this
would, result in. the,northérn half of the SDG&'E:eas'ement being
used, for. access and parking if this can be negotiated. The
remaining area outside of the SDG&E easement that could be
used for development would be approximately 0 05 acre)
However, because this includes a very narrow (approximately 12
to 15: feet wide) strip"ofland'a'long Olivenhain Road, it is
possible that the oly' area where: 'buildings could be
constructed would be aproximaely.I 1110 square feet (0.03
acre). Areas within the "degraded wetlands "could be used for
buffering 'of the existing wetlands 'and for water quality
mitigation
The area.-south of the Creek indicated as'Ydevelopable. in the
Specific Plan includes 'approximately. 0 2-acre of wetlands.
The northern limit of the developable area should be scaled
back, at a minimum, to the wetland boundary plus a minimum" 50-
foot wide buffer.
The designated' developable area :south, o'f Encinitas ,Creek
includes approximately. 1 3 acres of steep slopes If graded
and/or developed, these areas could be expected to have higher
erosion and sedimentation rates, which could result in
indirect biological impacts Therefore, it is recommended
that the uses on -'the steep slopes be restricted to those which
do not require gradingor, exposure of the soil.
A nuisance water,, treatment' wét.and similar 'to' that designed
for PA 1 should' be constructed and maintained .'for any
development in PK 4.' It should, b designed hen 'development
is proposed.
The degraded wetlands should be used for, buffering ,the
existing 'wetlands.
If the developable areas are not reduced as, r 1. ecommended in. #
2 and # 3 above, mitigatiànfor'th& 'lo'ss of wetlands within PA'
4 may require off-site mitigation. .
3-57
3.4 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
3.4.1 Existing Conditions
The preliminary geotechnical report for the Specific Plan and TM
was prepared by. GEOCON, Inc..It is included as Appendix C and is
summarized in this section The primary field investigations were
done in January 1990, and the reprt was updated in April 1991.
The SPA contains six different general soil types and/or geologic
units fill soils, slopewash, alluvial soils, and formational
materials associated with the Lindavista Formation, Torrèy Sand-
stone and Delmar Formation (see Figure 3.4-1). The geologic
formations in the TN area are included in Figure 3.4-2.
A small amount of fill soils occurs along the southern boundary of
PA 2. The fills appear to have been placed during: the recent
grading for the Garden View Plaza (Byron White) project to the
south, and it is not known whether they were, placed under
controlled grading operations and/or compacted.
Slopewash (Qsw) occurs at the base of the north-facing hillsides in
the SPA. Slopewash typically has the potential for both excessive
expansion and consolidation.
Alluvium (Qal) underlies the northern, portion of the SPA within the
Encinitas Creek floodplain and also the major north/south- trending
drainages The floodplain alluvium includes nearly - 0-1 all of the site
proposed for the Home Depot Home Improvement Center in PA 1, the
northern half of PA 4; and .the northern quarter of PA' 3. Alluvium
depths ranged from 56 to 58 feet below grade. These areas are
subject to' settlement upon an increase in overburden pressure.
Soils of the Lindavista Formation (Qin) occur at the surface in a
few areas on the hill:tops'wheré the extension of the Scott Place
residential development is proposed. These soils typically consist
of dense, silty sands with small amounts of clay, and possess
satisfactory foundation-support characteristics.
The Torrey Sandstone (Tt) underlies the hillsides proposed for 'open
space in PA 2 and the upper slopes of both PA 3 and 4. These soils
generally possess a low potential for expansion. and satisfactory
foundation-support characteristics.
The Delmar Formation (Td)-' was found underlying the alluvium and
slopewash at the base of a, portion :of the north-facing hillside in
PA 1. It is in. the. vicinity of the proposed access. road for
delivery trucks and for the Garden.Center. This Formation contains
weak .claystone beds that may require stabilization or removal if
they are exposed during grading. It alsocontains some claystones
that have a high potential for expansion and may require selective
grading if they are exposed at the proposed finish grade.
3-58 .
FEET
01
_265
(,I :. / - 1 \ :•'-
'--N .
r'
' \•.-. ' ,Il_1 ..-_.\
; I •--1
\
Zi
La
./'1;i
•'' .' .QaI '
cm
I
!qa,
Qal Q01. if X
II
Tt
' g
/
LEGEND --
CAMINO REAL
........................ ....• LJ I.
Oaf FILL Qin . -
al------- Tt -ALLUVIUM
. LirüVIsrA FORMATION .
I • • - -- •.- • -
Qsw-----SLOPE WASH
...... .TURRET SANDSTONE' .1/ -
I ---------------
S
-.
DEL H FORMATION I
—
FIGURE
GEOLOGIC MAP OF TM AREA 3.4-2
.: .
Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from 3 to 9 5 feet
below the existing grade, or 75 to 79 feet above Mean Sea Level
(MSL), during a period of abnormally low rainfall within San Diego
County A capillary fringe was found to extend 1 to 2 feet above
the water level It is anticipated that any excavations below
elevations of 77 to 81 feet above MSL will encounter wet to
saturated áônditiôns.
No landslides were observed within or adjaóent. to, the property.
However, some of the claystones within the Delmar Formation may
contain. potential planes of weakness upon which landsliding or
slope movements may occur.
A field investigation and literature review did not indicate the
presence of any on-site or adjacent off-site faults or fault
traces Table 3.4-1 indicates the relevant local, and regional
fault zones,, their distance from the SPA,, the maximum probable
earthquake in Richter Magnitude, and the maximum probable ground
acceleration The probability of the project area experiencing a
Magnitude 6.0 to 6 5 or greater earthquake generated by any of
these faults within the project lifespan would appear to be
moderate, based.-on present information. 0
2 Table 3.4-1
Relevant Fault Zones and Potential Impacts
Fault Name '
Dist-
ance
(miles)
Max.
Prob-'
able
'Quake.
g)
Max..
Prob-
able
Ground
Acei,.
Rose Canyon 7 6.0 0.35
Offshore Zone of Deformation 13 6.0 0.20
Coronado' Banks ' , . . 21 . '6.0 '' 0.12
Elsinore ' . 25 , 6.75 0.14
San Diego Trough 31 6.0 .0 .06
'Newport-Inglewood ' •. 47 .: 6.5 0.06
San Jacinto ' 50 7.0' 0.06
San Cleinente 56 6 5 '0'04
San Andreas (southern portion) 72 7.25- 0.04
w
3-61
3.4.2 Impacts
The small area underlain by the Delmar Formation, along the base of
the hillsides. south of the Home Depot Home Improvement Center,will
be disturbed by the grading and has the potential for causing slope
instability. After the slope is cut back, the soil will be
compacted, and will be temporarily exposed. Cut slOpes created on
the north-facing slope should be observed by an engineering
geologist to evaluate the potential for slope instability and
determine if additional mitigation is required at the, time of
grading.
Alluvial soils underlie the SPA areas within the Encinitas Creek
floodplain. These areas could experience liquefaction if subjected
to minimum ground accelerations ranging from 0.15 gto 0.2 g.
They could liquefy if the expected maximum probable earthquake on
t s either the Offshore Zone of Deformation or the Roe Canyon Fault
occurred. The geotechnical report for the project concluded that,
based on the information available, the potential for this
happening is moderate. Based on statistical projections, this
could happen within the next 100 years However, earthquakes of
less than a Magnitude of 4 are more common. The fill that. is
proposed to raise the level of thebuilding pad for the Home Depot
Home Improvement Center will somewhat decrease the liquefaction
potential due -to the additional vertical streSs induced in 'the
ground. In addition, the fill soil will serve as a' nonliquefiable
cap over the saturated 'alluvial soil. However, it will not
entirely eliminate the potential for liquefaction. Potential
liquefaction at the 'site would likely consist of sand boils at the
ground surface and settlement of the liquefied soils in the range
of 2 to.4 inches. It is possible that the building may be designed
to accommodate the anticipated settlement. However,. if it is not
so designed, the potential liquefaction can be mitigated in several
ways;' these are discussed in Section 3.4.3.
The alluvial, deposits within the entire SPA have significant
potential for settlement. The magnitude of anticipated settlements
of the alluvium is directly related' to the increase in vertical
load resulting from placement of fill soil and/or structural loads.
settlement on-site is expected to be in the range of 4 to . 10
inches, 90%, of which will occur during the first 4 to 6 months.
The additional settlement could be expected to occur over a long
period. of- 'time and is considered to be insignificant. The
potential hazard presented by settlement can be mitigated by
several methods, which are discussed in Section 3.4.3.
The geotechnical report recommends that site preparation begin with
the removal of all deleteriOus matter 'and vegetatiOn in the
building area and export of the material from the project.. site.
Because the area proposed' for the construction of .the'Home' Depot
Home Improvement Center and the adjacent parking area is already
highly disturbed, this recommended action is not expected to result
3-62
in significant secondary impacts. However, the potential siltation
that could result from these operations will need to be trapped.
This is discussed under Water Quality (Section 3.2).
The geotechnical study determined that the slope gradients for the
Crib Wall Alternative have adequate factors of safety. Because the
proposed project involves more grading than the Crib Wall
Alternative, the final grading plan should again be reviewed by
GEOCON. All slopes excavated at gradients of 1.5:1
(horizontal:vertical) possess a potential for sloughing and
erosion. This can be mitigated by the immediate placement of
protective ground cover.
The geotechnical report
constructed on the mes
conventional continuous
significant problems are
3.4.3 Mitigation
3.4.3.1 Specific Plan
determined that
;a top can be
wall and/or
anticipated.
the proposed houses to be
constructed with either
spread footings. No
When development is proposed for each of the Planning Areas, a
project-specific' preliminary geotechnical analysis should be
completed. This analysis should address potential geologic hazards
within the specific project area and should include recommendations
for the mitigation of potential hazards.
3.4.3.2 Tentative Map
The potential for settlement of the alluvium is recommended to be
mitigated in one of two ways. The method proposed is the
surcharging of the alluvium beneath the proposed building footprint
by placing additional fill soil above finish grade, thereby
subjecting the soils to a load comparable to future foundation
loads. The geotechnical report recommends a minimum surcharge
height of 10 feet for this method. This will require approximately
50,000 cubic yards of earthen material, which will be compacted and
used to build up the Home Depot Center development area at the end
of the surcharge period. The surcharge method has the potential
for secondary erosion, visual, water quality and biologic impacts.
Therefore, it is recommended that the fill material used for the
surcharge be seeded immediately after deposition to prevent erosion
and sedimentation and mitigate potential visual impacts.
The alternative method for mitigating alluvium settlement consists
of supporting the proposed building on a pile-driven foundation.
The piles should extend below the compressible alluvial soil into
satisfactory foundation support material. Pile foundation
construction will not be able to commence until the site fill has
settled. The settlement time of the site fill placed to attain the
building finish grade can be decreased with the use of vertical
3-63
wick (strip) drains, which reduce the pore water drainage path,
thereby increasing the rate of settlement.
If the Home Depot Home Improvement Center building cannot be
designed to accommodate the potential settlement, that could occur
with liquefaction of the underlying soils, several procedures are
available. One procedure consists of installing vertical drainage
systems within the soil mass that is susceptible to liquefaction
During ground shaking, the drainage systems accelerate the
dissipation of excess water pressure and prevents liquefaction from
occurring Drainage systems such as these commonly use stone
columns and wick (strip) drains Wick drains are 4- to 6-inch wide
drains that are pushed into the ground. The stone columns are
constructed by placing and compacting 'stone (gravel) in 2--to
3-foot diameter columns. This results in a large volume of soil
and water on the ground surface and would likely 'require
containment dikes to eliminate potential runoff into: Encinitas
Creek. Thus, this mitigation measure could result in indirect
visual, water quality and biologic impacts.
Both stone columns and wick drainswould require a gravel drainage
blanket to collect and drain water' dissipated during earthquake
shaking. Another alternative would-be to support the building on
pile, foundations that extend ,'.below the depth of
liquefaction-susceptible soils The driven piles will not
eliminate the potential for liquefaction, but will mitigate the
potential for settlement of the building if liquefaction occurs
In addition, the use of driven piles would mitigate the potential
for settlement due to building loads The use of driven piles is
considered to be the more environmentally sensitive method for
mitigation of potential liquefaction hazards.
The potential for the sloughing off of cut slopes, and resultant
erosion, can be mitigated by planting the slopes immediately upon
completion of the cuts..
The geotechnical report includes •, recommended grading
specifications, ,and all earthwork should he observed, and all fills
tested for proper compaction, 'by a qualified geologic, engineer.
In -. addition, a soil engineer ,and engineering geologist should
review the grading plan prior to finalization.
3-64
3.5 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION/PARKING
A preliminary traffic study for a conceptual design for the Home
Depot Specific Plan was prepared by Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc.
(BDI) in 1989. A second study was prepared in April 1991 based on
the current Specific Plan (see Appendix B). In addition, Willdan
Associates prepared a supplemental traffic study to address two
specific issues: access to PA 3 and 4 and buildout traffic
conditions (year 2010) (see Appendix K). FORMA and Greenberg
Farrow Architects prepared an internal circulation analysis to
address specific solutions for internal access (see Appendix L).
The information contained in these various technical studies is
summarized in the following sections.
3.5.1 Existing Conditions
The SPA is located in the southeast corner of the signalized
intersection of Olivenhain Road and El Camino Real (see Figure
2.3-20 in Section 2.3). Olivenhain Road borders the site on the
north and is adjacent to PA 1 and 4. El Camino Real borders the
SPA on the west and is adjacent to PA 1 and 2. PA 2 is also
adjacent to, and will extend, Scott Place as part of the TM. PA 3
is landlocked and has no direct access to either road.
Olivenhain Road begins at El Camino Real and extends easterly
approximately 0.9 mile, where it joins with, and becomes, Rancho
Santa Fe Road, which extends north and south through several
jurisdictions. Olivenhain Road is currently one of the
alternatives being considered for the future alignment of SA 680.
The County has designated Olivenhain Road as part of the SA 680
system and has designated it as a 4-lane' Major Road with bike
lanes. Olivenhain Road is expected to eventually connect with
Leucadia Boulevard to the west. Any future westerly extension
would traverse an area that is currently an unincorporated area
known as the Ecke property. However, a Specific Plan is now being
prepared for this property, now known as Encinitas Ranch, and it is
likely that it will be annexed to the City of Encinitas. The
Encinitas General Plan designates the future westerly extension as
a four-lane Major Arterial with a ROW between 85 and 120 feet.
The portion of Olivenhain Road adjacent to the SPA currently has
two traffic lanes, one in each direction, with dirt shoulders and
no curbs or gutters. It is within the city of Carlsbad and is
designated by both Carlsbad and Encinitas as a 6-lane Prime
Arterial with a right-of-way (ROW) of approximately 126 feet. It
is designated by the County as a Major Road. Olivenhain Road is
ultimately to include a median and three travel lanes in each
direction, and will act as the westerly extension of SA 680.
However, its current configuration is that of a 2-lane Local
Roadway. The potential impacts of the approved widening of
Olivenhain Road are addressed in the Final Environmental Impact
Report, Olivenhain Road Widening /Realignment and Flood Control
3-65
Project (Mooney, 1992), and the information in that document has
been considered in the preparation of this EIR.
The existing roadway for El Camino Real is under County
jurisdiction. It is designated in the County Circulation Element
as a 6-lane Prime Arterial with bike lanes.
Traffic circulation is evaluated in terms of Level of Service (LOS)
and Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). Descriptions of the
standard Levels of Service are included in Table 3.51.
Existing traffic volumes and Level of Service (LOS) are included, in
Table 3.5-2. The •City of Encinitas' criteria were used for
defining maximum daily roadway capacities as LOS. At the request
of the County of San Diego Public Works Department, the existing
County standards for LOS are included in Table 3.5-3.
As. shown in Table 3.5-2, the portion of Olivenhain Road between El
Camino Real -and Amargosa Drive,. which currently carries an
estimated 20,747 average daily traffic (ADT) and has a
volume/capacity (V/C) ratio of 1.48, is operating at LOS F. The
Final, :.EIR has been certified :for the proposed. widening of
Olivenhain Road and Alternative Alignment # 2 was approved as the
project. The approved road improvements' will bring the LOS on
Olivenhain Road to -LOS 'C. The Home Depot Corporation will fund the.
improvement of Olivenhain Road along the frontage of its land in PA
1 and the project applicant for PA 4, when it is developed,' will be
required to fund' the improvement of Olivenhain Road. along the
frontage of that PA.
Rancho Santa Fe Road, which "connects Olivenhain Road to areas
farther south and northeast,,. provides differing service levels to
the north and south of Olivenhain Road. The portion north of
Olivenhain Road, within Carlsbad, has been improved as part of
recent residential development It is currently operating at a LOS
A with a V/C ratio of 0 49 Planned development, particularly that
planned for -the Arroyo 'La Costa Master Plan Area, is expected to
result in a LOS C, by. 1995. The portion of Rancho Santa Fe Road
south of Olivenhain Road, within EncinitaS, is currently two lanes.
It is operating at'L'OS F with a V/C ratio of 1.31. The Shelley
residential project, whichhas been proposed in Carlsbad' just east
of Rancho Santa Fe Road, would add additional traffic and may be
required to make road improvements. The City of Carlsbad Local
Facilities Management Plan for Zones 11 and 12 noted that
improvement of this section of Rancho Santa Fe Road would need
improvement by 1995. ' However, the City of Encinitas does not, plan.
to improve the portion of Rancho Santa Fe Road south of Olivenhain
Road prior to 1995. Therefore,, if a developer does not provide the
improvements, the LOS for 1995 is expected to be LOS F, with or
without the development' of the SPA. .
3-66 0..
Table 3 5-1
Definitions of Levels of Service
LOS Description of Operating Conditions
A Free flow, speed controlled by drivers' desires,
speed limits or physical roadway conditions
Typical Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratio for
intersections 0 00 - 0 60
B Stable flow, operating speeds beginning to be
restricted, little or no restrictions on
maneuverability from other vehicles.,Typical V/C
for intersections 0.61 - 0.70.
C Stable flow, speeds and maneuverability more
closely restricted. 'Typical V/Cfor intersections
0.71 - 0.80.
.
D Approaches unstable flow, tolerable speeds can be
maintained, but temporary restrictions to flow
cause substantial drops in speed Little freedom
to maneuver, comfort, and convenience low. Typical
for intersections 0 81 - 0.90.
E Volumes near capacity, flow unstable, stoppage of
momentary duration, ability to maneuver severely
limited. Typical V/C for intersections 0-91 -
i..00. . .
F Forced flow; lowoperating speeds; queues form.
Typical V/C for intersections ,>.1.0O and varies.
11) 3-67 1
Table 3.5-2
Existing Road Volumes, Capacities and Levels of Service
Road Segment Current Current V/C LOS
Capaç. ADT Ratio
La Costa Avenue .
1-5 NB ramp,to'El 20,000 25,000 1.25 F
Camino Real
La Costa, Avenue
El Camino Real to. 32,400 14,8.00 0.46 A
Rancho, Santa Fe
Encinitas Blvd W of 1-5 35,200 30,300 0 86 D
Encinitas Blvd from 1-5 35,200 42,900 1.22 F
NB_ ram p'_to_Saxoñ.y_ Road.
Encinitas Blvd;. from
Saxony Road to El 35,200 43,500 1.24 F
Camino Real
E1'Camino Real- from La 45,400 18,249 0.40 A
Costa' Ave. to
Olivenhain
El CarninoRa1 'from
Oliyenhaiñ Rd. to - 45,400 38,000 0.84 D
Encinitas Blvd.
El Camino Real south of 45,400 26,700 ' 0.59 A
Encinitas Blvd.
Olivenhain Roadfrom El 141 0100 201,747 1.48 ' F
Camino Real to_Amargosa
Olivenhain Road 'from
Amargosa to Rancho 32,400 20,747 0.64 B
Santa Fe Road '
Rancho Santa Fe Road 57,000 27,700 0;49 ' ' A
north.of Olivenhain Rd.
Rancho Santa Fe Road 14 1 d00 18,400 1.31 F
south of Olivenhain Rd.
ADT = Average Daily Traffic: ,
LOS = Level of Service
V/C = Volume/Capacity
3-68
11
0$
Table 3 5-3
County Road Standards and LOS
Road Class Surfaced Width/ No Average Daily Traffic
Circulation Right-of-way of by Level of Service
Element Roads (feet) Lanes LOS C LOS D
Expressway 126/146 6 70,000 86,000
Prime Arterial -, 106/146 . 6 44,600 50,000
Major Road .82/102 . 4 _29,.600,111 33,400
Collector S 64/84 . .4 - 27 40,0 30,800.
Light Collector . 40/60,:., '2 7,100 10,900
Rural'Coi.lector 40f84 .2 '. '7,100 10,900,
Rural Lt Collector .40/60 2' ' 7,100 10,900
Rur,al'Mouñtain 40/100 2 7,100- 10,900
Rereational Pkwy 40/100 - 2 - 7,100.. 10,900
Source County of San Diego, 1991 Part XII Public
Facility Element San Diego County General Plan
El'Carnino.Real is a ñórth/south road"t-hat -extends' throuqh:'several
cities. The SPA was within the San 'Diequito Community Planning
Area prior to the incorporation of Encinitas, and the portion of El
Camino Real adjacent to. the SPA is within County of. San Diego
jurisdiction, designated as a Prime Arterial. However, the
proposed widening will occur within the City of Encinitas
Theréfore,'th.is section of El Camino Real ill'be dedicated to the
City. The -Encinitas General Plan Circulation Element'des,ignätes El
Camino Real as an Augmented Prime Arterial, which: means that the
capacity can be increased by maximizing the utilization of the
basic lane configuration. Augmentation can include such techniques
as adding lanes at intersections-to adding or expanding a median
and/or other midblock measures to improve traffic flow and reduce
side friction. The planned ROW is 136 feet, which' includes a
5-foot wide bicycle lane along both sides of the street.
The portion of El Camino Real ..between Olivenhai-n.Road and La -Costa
Avenue currently has four lanes and is 'operating at LOS A, with a'
V/C ratio of' 0.40. The portion of El. Camino Real between
3-69
Olivenhain Road and Mountain Vista has four lanes while the portion
between Mountain Vista and 'Encinitas Boulevard currently has six
lanes. El Camino Real between: Olivenhain Road . and Encinitas
Boulevard is currently operating at LOS D, with a V/C ratio of
0.84. It is . expected to be operating at LOS F by 1995.
Traffic from the, SPA, will probably access Interstate Highway. 5
(1-5) via Encinitas Boulevard to the south or La Costa Avenue to
the north. The segments of Encinitas Boulevard between 1-5 and El
Camino Real are currently operating at LOS F, with. V/C ratios
varying between 1.22 and 1.24. These segments are expected to
continue to operate at LOS F in 1995. The pàrtion of La Costa
Avenue between El Camino Real and 1-5 is currently operating at LOS
F with a V/C ratio of 1.25. However, with planned improvements, it
is expected to. be operating at LOS C by 1995.
Long-term p].ans:'indicate that all of the roads currently. operating
at LOS F will eventually be improved to Circulation Element
standards. However, the only improvement for which plans are
underway is the widening of Olivenhain Road. Plàns,are not yet
underway to improve La Costa Avenue and Rancho Santa Fe Road Both
are identified in the City of Carlsbad Facilities Management Plan
for Zones 11 and 12 as requiring improvement by 1995.
Intersection efficiency was rated using the Intersection Capacity
Utilization (ICU) methodology. All intersections' relevant to
project traffic I were found to be operating at LOS C or better
during both peak hours except for Olivenhain Road at El, Camino Real
and ,Encinitas Boulevard at the '1-5 ramps, which operate 'at LOS D
during the AN .peákhOur" and LOS E during the PM peak hour. LOS D
is generally considered to be an acceptable operating LOS 'in urban
areas. The. necessary changes in the Olivenhain Road/El Camino Real
intersection are planned as part of the ,road widening.' To mitigate
existing traffic problems, the traffic study recommended
improvements at the .Encinitas Boulevard/ 1-5 ramps intersection.
The recommended improYements and their effects on projected 1995
traffic' levels are included in Table 3.5-4.
There is currently driveway access to the wester ,n portionof PA 1.
That driveway previously provided access to. the temporary jobs
center operation. It may also have been used for access 'as part of
the earlier land uses in PA 1.
3-70
Table 3.5-4
Intersection Operation in 1995, Without TM
With and Without Recommended Community Road -Improvements.
Recommended Without With Improvements
Intersection Improvements,
Improvement AN Peak PM Peak • AN Peak PM Peak
ICU LOS • ICU LOS' ICU LOS, ICU LOS
Encinitas, Blvd. /El
Camino Real
Construct an EB .73 C .89 D .71 C .86 D
R-turn lane on
Encinitas Blvd. ' H
____ ____
Encinitas Blvd. / 1-5 Ramps
widening of 1-5
exit-ramps ap- .99 E 1.1 F .76 C .93 E
proaching'
Encinitas"Blvd. to
provide'for-2
,L-turn lanes &
a R-turn, lane
Encinitas Blvd.]
1-5 Ramps
Widening of 1-5 -
ramps-as above .99 E 1.1 F .60 A .81 'D
& widening of -,
Encinitas Blvd. -
to provide 3 EB - -
and WB through
- lanes
Impacts
3.5.2.1 Tentative Map
The presence of a Home Depot Home - Improvement Center 'in .the- SPA is
expected to generate (3.) new trips (Average Daily Traffic), which
will add to the cumulative community traffic total, and (2)
"passerby trips.'.' Passerby trips -are those trips that would have
used the community •street system without the project, and will
simply stop at the project while passing by or will alter their
travel pattern only slightly to enter the project, they, are not
generated by, but-rather accommodated by, the project. • The traffic
analysis has differentiated between passerby trips and trips
expected tobe generated by the project, which would add traffic -to
0-'
3-71
-0
0
expected to be generated by the project, which would add traffic to
the community. The total of the two represents "driveway trips."
The County of San Diego does not accept a reduction, in the project
impacts due to "passerby trips." However, this concept has been
accepted by the City of Encinitas, which is the. Lead Agency.
The Home Depot Home Improvement Center is expected to have a
substantially higher number of customers on weekend days than on
weekdays. It is probable that some of the weekday peak hour
entries into the Home Depot driveways will be passerby trips. In
addition, the Home Depot Center is open weekday evenings, which
allows customer access when traffic is minimal. Thus, the
development proposed, for PA 1 is not typical from a traffic impact
standpoint. However, the City of Encinitas' required format for
traffic 'analyses does not take this into account.
Projected traffic generation for the Specific Plan and Tentative
Map development is detailed in Table 3.5-5, 'along with the
assumptions made in the traffic projection. The traffic
projections for the Home Depot Center include both cumulative
impact trips (new trips to be generated by the Home Depot-Center
which will be added to existing and projected future traffic) and
driveway trip projections (total traffic entering or leaving the
driveways), which includes passerby trips (trips that would have
already been on the roads and stop at Home Depot on the way to
another destination). As shown inthat table, when both PA 1 and 2
are developed, there would be an estimated 8,132 driveway trips.
An estimated 182 driveway trips are anticipated during the morning
peak hour, with 813 driveway trips expected during the afternoon
peak hour. However, because many of these are passerby trips,
there will only be an estimated 5,072 daily trips added to the
existing traffic. An estimated 121 new trips would be. added during
the morning peak hour. An estimated 507 new trips would be added'
during the afternoon peak hour, based on the standard formula.
To assess potential traffic impacts on community streets, the trips
generated by the project were distributed, taking into account the
type of land uses proposed, the orientation of surrounding land
uses, the road system, and existing travel patterns.. Driveway trip
rates were applied in the immediate vicinity to represent a worst
case analysis, including the , Olivenhain Road/El Camino Real
intersection, the roadway segments of Olivenhain. Road east, El
Camino Real, and the segments of El Camino Real south of Olivenhain
Road. The cumulative community impact rates (new traffic to be
added to the existing traffic) were applied, to the remainder of the
road system analysis. The operation of relevant streets was then
analyzed by comparing the projected volumes to the capacities 'of
the existing.,streets. The results are shown in Table 3.5-6. The
only anticipated changes in LOS would be on El Camino Real between
Olivenhain Road and Encinitas Boulevard, which would change from
LOS D to LOS E and on El Camino Real south of Encinitas Boulevard,
3-72
which would change from LOS,'A to'LO'S B.: Five other
are already operating at . LOS .F -arid would continue
0
street segments
todoso.
If the; Olivenhain Road improvements are not completed by the time
the Home 'Depot Center, is, approved-for 'occupancy , there could be
temporary cumulative and significant traffic impacts until the road
improvements are, completed. The Home Depot -building, should not be
certified for occupancy until the widening of OlivenhainRoad along
the property frontage. and the improvement of the El Camino Real
intersection -are completed, as well as the E1 Camlno. Real
improvements proposed as part of'the project.
Relevant intersections were analyzed for LOS during peak hour with
the addition of the project-related traffic. The results are shown
in Table 3.5-7. All of the intersections will continue to operate
at LOS 'C or.. better except the same two intersections, that are
currently operating at an unacceptable LOS: Olivenhain Road at.El
Camino Real and .Encinitas Boulevard at the 1-5 ramps. The only
change in peak hour will be at the Olivenhain Road/El Camino Real
intersection. With the project traffic, the AM peak hour LOS would
change from D to E; the PM peak hour LOS would change frol E' to F.
However, this intersection will be improved as part of the widening
of OlivnhainRoad, which is already planned. Recommendations were
included in Section 3.5.1 to improve-the Encinitas.Boulevard/I-5
ramps intersection by providing one additional northbound, and one
additional southbound left-turn lane.' Table 3.5-8 indicates the
changes in LOS that could result' with the improvement of both. the
El Camino Real/Olivenhain Road and Enciñitas Boulevard/I-5 ramps
intersections It indicates that the recommended improvements
would 'allow all of the relevant intersections to operate at LOS D
or, better with the, addition of traffic expected 'to be generated
by the TM. The traffic study recommends ,that the proposed project'
contribute on a fair-share basis to the recommended improvements.
3-73
10
, 'Table 3.5-5
Trip Generation Assumptions and Projected Trip Generation
Daily' I Peak HourTrips % of Daily-Traffic
Trip Daily AN Peak PM Peak AM-Peak'PM Peak
Land Use Ràte* Trips IL QL 6i
PA 1
'' •0 "0
'Home Depot
Commercial
102,000 0
sq. 'ft. 0
Driveway 70/ 7,140 86 57 357 357 1.2 0.8 5.0 5.0
Trips KSF
Cumulat. :40/ 4,080 49., 33 204 204 1.2 0.8. 5..9 5.0
Trips KSF 0,
Garden Cen. 4?0/ 802 14 10 40 40 1.7 1.2 5.0 5.0
20,000 KSF 0
'sq. ft.
PA 0
Resident. 10/. 190: 3 12 13 6 1.6 6.4' , 7.0 3.0.
19'-DU DU . .
TM Subtotal
Driveway trips 8,132 103 79 410 403 0
Cumulat. trips 5,072. 66 55 257 250
PA " . •0
Health Club 40/ 1,040 25 17 56 37 2.4' 1.6 '5'.4: 3.6
26,000 0 KSF
sq. ft. . 0
'PA4
Medical 50/ 800 38 10 24 56 4.8 ' 1.2 3.0. 70
Office 'KSF
16,000
sq. ft. 0
.Subtot. PA 3, 4 1,840 63 27 80 93
GRAND TOTALS
DRIVEWAY TRIPS 9,972 166 106 490 496
CTJNULAT. TRIPS 6,799 127 80 331337 0 '
* Assumes most intensive 'allowed use, for each 'PA.
KSF 11 000 sqüàre feet
I/B Inbound trips
0/B Outbound trips
.DU Dwelling Unit
Driveway trips = Proj ect-geerated trips + Passerby Trips
Cumulative' trips = Projected,trip traffic +. existing traffic
Passerby' trips = Trips that would normal.ly'be passing the
project area and are not generated by the project
but will access the driveways on the way. elsewhere.
3-74
1.
Table 3.5-6
Projected Level of Service With Existing Plus TM Traffic
Assuming Recômménded Community Road .Iinpr6vements Are Not Made
Exist.. . 'Exist.
Existing + 'TM V/C Exist. + TM - Road Segment Capacity ADT Ratio. LOS LOS
La Costa Avenue .
1-5 NB.ramp to 20,000 . 25,500 1.28 F F
El Camino Real
El Camino Real to. 32,400 15,300 0.47 A A
Rancho Santa Fe
Encinitas Blvd. .
West of 1-5 35,200 30,600 0.87 D D
I-5-NB ramp to .
SaxOnyRd. 35,200 43,700 1.24 F F
Saxony Rd. to El
Camino-Real 35,200 44,300 1.26 F ' F
El Camino Real to
'Rancho Santa Fe- 35,200 23,700 0.67 B 'B
El Canino Real
La Costa Ave. to 45,400 21,100 0.46 A . A"
Olivenhain Rd.'
Olivenhain Rd. to 45,400 41,300 9.91 D E
Encinitas Blvd
South of Encinitas 45,400 27,500 0.61 A ' 'B
Blvd., ...
Olivenhain Rd.
El Cainino. Real. to 14,009 22,800 1.63 F F
Amargosa Drive; .
Ainargosa Drive to 3,2 1 400 22,800 0.70 B ' B , Rancho Santa Fe
Rancho Santa Fe Rd. . .. ,
North of 57,000 28,500 ' 0.50 A A
Olivenhain Rd.
South of 14,000 18,900 1.35 . F F
Olivénhain Rd. '
ADT Average Daily Traffic .
V/C . Volume/Capacity
LOS Level of'Service
3-75
Table 3.5-8
Level.of Service With Existing Plus TM Traffic IfRecoinmended
Community Improvements Are Implementèd
Proposed Existing Configuration With Improvements
Intersection AN Peak PM Peak AN Peak PM Peak
Improvement ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS
El Camino Real/ 0.92 E 1.03 F' 0.52 A 0.75 C
Olivenhain Rd '
Encinitas Blvd/ 0.87, 0 0.97 E 0.67 .0.82 D
1-5 Ramps '
Table 3.5-7
ProjectedLOS At Relevant Intersections With TM Traffic
AN Peak PM Peak
Intersect ion ICU LOS ICU LOS
El Camino Real/La Costa Ave 0 67 B 0.66 A
Olivenhain Rd/El Camino Real 0.92 .E 1.03 F
Olivenhain Rd/Rancho Santa Fe Rd 0.49 A 0.44. A
'Encinitas Blvd/El Camino Real . 0.66 'B 0.80 C
Encinitas Blvd/Saxony Road 0.56 A 0.78 C
Encinitas Blvd/I-5 Ramps 0.87 D 0.97.. E
:1
Table 3 5-9
Level of Service for Relevant Road Segments in 1995 With and
Without the TM Assuming Recommended Improvements Are Not Made
Without TM With TM
Road Seqment LOS V/C Ratio LOS V/C Ratio
La Costa Avenue
I5 NB ramp to ;. .
El Camino Real C 0 79 C 0.8'6
El Camino Real to
Rancho Santa Fe ::C a.74: . C . .. 0.76.
Encinitas Blvd.
West of 1-5 : 0.98 E. 0.99
1-5 NB ramp to
Saxony Rd. F 1.40 F 1.42.
Saxony Rd. to
El. Camino Real . . F 1.42 - F 1.44
El Camino Real to
Rancho Santa Fe . C 0.80 0.80 :
El Camino Real . .
La Costa Ave. to • •
OlivenhajnRd. • C .0.78 D. 0.84
Olivenhain Rd. to .
Encinitas Blvd. • F 1.04 F : • 1.11
South of Encinitäs Blvd. .. C 0.71 C 0.72
Olivenhain Road
ElCamino Real to . . •• •
Amargosa Drive C 0.72 C 0 78
Amargosa Drive to
Rancho SantaFé . C 0.78 D 0.85.
Rancho Santa Fe Road
North of Olivenhain Rd 0.38 A 0.39
South of Olivenhain Rd. ' • 1.05 . • F.: 1.08
NB .= Northbound
V/C Ratio = Volume/Capacity Ratio
LOS = Level of Service
A traffic projection was prepared for the year 1995 without
implementation of the proposed TM to determine the expected
conditions at that: time if the TM was not implemented. it assumed
no development of PA 1 and 2 but development of PA 3 and 4, as well
as development of the Garden View, Plaza project and the remodeling
of the Mobil Service Station in Encinitas, and scheduled
development within Carlsbad Faciliies Management Zones 11 and 12,
which includes Arroyo La Costa. The "worst case" assuinptionwas
used for traffic generation from PA 3 and 4, based on the potential
land uses identified in the Specfic Plan.. Within the City of
Carlsbad, Carlsbad, base 1995 traffic v01um4 were obtained from the Zone 11
and Zone 12 Local Facilities Management Plan Traffic Analysis.
Based on information from the City of Encinitas, the projection
used assumed that Leucadia Boulevard would not be extended easterly
to connect with Olivenhain Road by, 1995 The only improvements to
the existing road system that were assumed in the 1995 analysis
were those specifically designated in the City of Carlsbad's Zone
11 and 12 Local Facilities Mánàgment Plan Traffic Analysis for
Scenario B, which includes the widening of OlivenhaInRoad. Table
3.5-9 compares the 1995 LOS for relevant road segments with and
without the TM. It indicates that all roads relevant to the TM
will operate at the same LOS with or without the project except:.
(1) the portionof El Camino Rdal between La Costa Avenue and
Olivenhain Road, which would have1 a LOS C without the project and.
LOS D with the project, and (2) the portion of Olivenhain Road
between Ainargosa Drive and Rancho Santa Fe Road, which would
operate at LOS C without the project and LOS D with the project.
The analysis of future intersection operations without the
development proposed by . the TM, which was made using the same
assumptions used for the roadway analysis, is summarized in Table
3.5-10. This assumes that the recommended impróvemènts to improve
existing traffic congestion are inot implemented. The Encinitas
Boulevard/El Camino Real intersection would have LOS "E" during the
afternoon peak hour if the development, proposed by the TM is
implemented, with the TM, the IL0S would be LOS 'D The morning
peak hour traffic would operate at LOS C with or without the TN
The Encinitas Boulevard/I-5 ramp lintersection would operate at LOS
E during the morning peak hour with -.or without the project and
would operate at LOS F during the afternoon peak hour with, or
without the project The Olivenhain Road/El Camino Real inter-
section would operate at LOS B during. the morning 4peak hour and LOS
F during the afternoon peak withlor without the project.
The analysis of future intersection operations without the
development proposed by the TM, which was made using the same
assumptions used.f or the roadway analysis, is summarized in Table
3.5-10 This assumes that the recommended improvements to improve
existing traffic congestion are not implemented The Encinitas
Boulevard/El Camino Real intersection would have LOS "E" during the
afternoon peak hour if the development proposed by the TM is
implemented, without the TN, the LOS would be LOS D The morning
peak hour traffic would operate at LOS C with or without the TM
The Encinitas Boulevard! 1-5 ramp intersection would operate at LOS
E during the morning peak hour with or without the project and
would operate at LOS F during the afternoon peak hour with or
without the project.,The Olivenhain Road/El Camino Real inter-
section would operate at LOS B duringthe morning peak hour and LOS
F during the 'afternoon peak with or without the project.
Table 3.5-10 .
1995 Intersection Operations With and WithouttheTMIf
Recommended Community Improvements Are Not Implemented
Without TN With TM Development
AM Peak PM Peak AN Peak PM Peak
Intersection ICU LOS ICU 'LOS. ICU LOS ICU LOS
Olivenhain Road! 0.63 B 1.11 F 0.65 B 1.19 F
El Camino Real
.
Encinitas Blvd/ 0.73 C 0.89 D 0.73 C 0.91 .E
El Camino Real -
Encinitas Blvd/ 00.99 E 1.10 F .0.99 E 1.11. F
1-5 Ramps
The traffic study included recommendations for improvements, that
could improve the LOS during the afternoon peak hour at two of the
problem ihtersections. The EncinitasBoulevard/I-5' ramps
intersection could be improved from LOS F to LOS D if (1) the 1-5
exit ramps were restriped to provide two northbound left-turn lanes
and two southbound left-turn lanes and (2) ncinitas Boulevard was
widened to provide three.eastbound and westbound through lanes.
The LOS at the Olivenhain Road/El Caminö Real intersection couldbe
raised by: (1) restriping one northbound through lane of El Camino
Real to provide dual right-turn lanes and a second westbound
right-turn lane, and (2) providing two westbound left-turn lanes
and two westbound-right-turn lanes on Olivenhain Road.
•0
3-79
0,•
based on anticipated road conditions in 1995. The "worst case"
assumption was used for traffic generation from PA 3 and 4, based
on the potential land uses identified in the Specific Plan.. Trip
generation rates for Planning Areas and their projected traffic are
included in Table 3.5-5. Within the City of Carlsbad, base 1995
traffic volumes were obtained from the Zone 11 and Zone 12 Local
Facilities Management Plan Traffic Analysis, which includes Arroyo
La Costa. The projections are based on the planned improvements in
Carlsbad and planned and approved projects in Carlsbad. Based on
information from the City of Encinitas, the projection. used assumed
that Léucadia Boulevard would notibe extended easterly to connect
withOlivenhain Road by 1995 and that the Garden View Plaza project
and the Mobil Service Station Remodel project would be completed.
The only improvements to the existing road system that were assumed
in the 1995 analysis were those specifically designated in the City
of Carlsbad's Zone 11 and 12 Local Facilities Management Plan
Traffic Analysis for Scenario B, which includes the widening of
Olivenhain Road. However, it should be noted that the City of
Carlsbad's traffic projections assumed that the portion of Rancho
Santa Fe Road immediately south of Olivenhain Road would be widened
by 1995, and theCity of Encinitas, which will be responsible for
this widening, does not plan for its widening before 1995.
Therefore, the portion of Rancho Santa Fe Road south of Olivenhain
Road' is anticipated to be operating at LOS .F by 1995.
Summaries of expected Levels of Service for. 1995 are compared to
existing Levels of Service in Table 3.5-11. The 1995 numbers
include traffic from approved developments in Encinitas and
Carlsbad and from all .f our areas of the Specific Plan. As shown in
Table 3.5-11, the segments of EnOinitas Boulevard to the west of
1-5 are expected to go from LOS D to LOS E,' and the segments from
the 1-5 northbound ramp to El Camino Real are expected to-remain at
LOS F. La Costa Avenue between the 1-5 northbound ramp and El
Camino Real is expected to go from LOS F to LOS C. Olivenhain Road
will increase its capability from the planned widening and will
improve from LOS F to LOS C. The portion of El Camino Real between
La Costa Avenue and Olivenhain Road will go from LOS A to LOS D,
which is still a good operational level. However, the portion
between Olivenhain Road and Encinitas Boulevard will decrease from
LOS D to LOS F, which is unacceptable even in urban areas. Rancho
Santa Fe Road LOS is expected tobe LOS F by 1995 if this segment
is not widened before then. Thus, the road segments of 'concern 'are
the portion of Encinitas Boulevard from west of 1-5 to El Camino
Real, the portion of El Camino Real between Olivenhain Road and
Encinitas Boulevard, and the portion of Rancho Santa Fe Road south
of Olivenhain Road.
3.5.2.3 Buildout Traffic Impacts
The Draft EIR indicated that development of the Specific Plan would
result in long-term cumulatively significant impacts if the traffic
projections for the Encinitas General Plan EIR assumed' a smaller
3 -'80
traffic. generation from the: SPA than is currently proposed.
Therefore, .Willdan Associates researched the traffic forecast
projections used for the General Plan and determined that
approximately 1,000 daily trips were assumed for the project land
uses. Table 3.5-12 provides a comparison Of street segment
operations in the project vicinity for. the year 2010, the
anticipated buildout year, under the General Plan :.assumptions and
with development of the Home DepotSpecific Plan. As shown in that
. table, the following road segments areexpected to have álOwer LOS
with implementation of the Specific Plan than they would . without
the project: (1) the portion of Encinitas Boulevard west of 1-5,
which would go fro LOS E to LOS F; (2') Olivenhain Road, which
would gofrom LOS D to E; (3) the portion of I Leucadia Boulevard
between El Camino Real and Saxony, whithh would go from LOS E to F;
and (4) the portion of Leucadia Boulevard between Saxony and. 1-5,
which would go from LOS E to F. Encinitas Boulevard between El
Camino Real and Rancho Santa Fe Road and Rancho Santa Fe ROad south
of Olivenhain Road would operate at LOS F with or with Out the
project. .
The analysisof project vicinity intersectionsin the year 2010 is
summarized in Table 3.5-13. The Willdan analysis determined that
all intersections-in the project vicinity are expected to operate
at acceptable levels of service during the morning' peak hpur both
with and without the Specific Plan. However, .:during théafternoon
peak hour, the El Camino Real/ Olivenhain Road signalized
Oul intersection and the El Camino Real/La. Costa Avenue signalized
intersection are expected to, operateat unaceptab1e levels of
service both with and without the Specific Plan. The SPA is
expected to increase the ICU at the El Camino Real/La :Costa 'Avenue
intersection by 0.01. It is expected to increase the ICU at the El
Camino Real/Olivenhain Road/Leucadia Boulevard intersection by
0.06.
3-81
3-8 .•'•
• Table 35-11
LOS For Relevant Road Segments, Existing and 1995 Projection
With Implementation of the Specific Plan
Existing'LOS 199.5 LOS
Road Seqment (W/O secL Plan) (With Spec. Plan)
:La Costa Avenue
1-5 N-bôünd ramp to Fi C
El Camino Real
El Camino Real to A C
Rancho Santa Fe
.Encinitas Blvd.
West of 1-5 E.
1-5 N-bound Ramp F • F
to Saxony Road
Saxony Road to F • F
El Camino Real
El Cainino Real to B C
Rancho .SantaFé
El Camino Real
La Costa Avenue A D
to 01 ivenhain
'Olivenhain to ' D F
Encinitas Blvd. I 'Soüthof A ' C
EncinitasBlvd.
Olivenhain Rd. •
El Camino Real to : F C
Amargosa Drive
Amargosa'Driveto B D
Rancho Santa Fe
Rancho Santa Fe Rd..
N. of Olivenhain A A
S. of' Olivenhain F F
0
Table 3.5-12
Projected Traffic Circulation fOr .Year 2010
With and Without the Project
Street Segment
General
Plan
Desig.
LOS B
Capacity
General Plan Buildout With Project
Volume V/C+ LOS# Volume VIC+ LOS#
La Costa Avenue
1-5 to El Camino Real 4M 35,200 36000, 1.02 F 36,400 1.03 F
El Camino Real to Rancho Santa Fe 4C 32,400 25,000 0.77 C 25,700 0.79 C
Encinitas Boulevard
West ofl-5 4M 35.200 35,000 0.99 B 35,400 1.01 F
I-S to Quail Gardens 6P 57,000 43,000 0.75 C 43,500 0.76 C
Quail Gardens to El Camino Real 6P 57,000 36,000 0.63 B 36,500 0.64 B
El Camino Real to Rancho Santa Fe 4M r35,200 40,000 1 1.14 F 40,700 1.16 F
El Camino Real
La Costa Ave. to Olivenhain Road 6? 57,000 52,000 0.91 B 54,100 0.95 B
Olivcnhain Road to Encinitas Blvd. 6PA 66,000 62,000 0.94 B 64,300 0.97 B
South of Encinitas Blvd. 6? 57,000 50.000 0.88 D 51,100 0.90 0
Olivenhain Road
El Camino Real to Rancho Santa Fe
Road
6P 57,000 50,000 0.88 0 5'1.800 0.91 TE
Rancho Santa Fe Road
North àfOliveithain Road 6? 57,000 45,000 0.79 C 46,100 0.81 0
South of Olivesthain Road 2LA 20,000 27,000 1.35 F 27,700 1.39 F
Leucadia Boulevard
El Cámino Real to Saxony 4M 35,200 35,000 099 E 35,900 1.02 F
Saxony to 1-5 . 4M 35,200 35,000 0.99 B 35,900 1.02 F
Number of Lanes and Circulation Element Designation:
P Prime Arterial
M Major Arterial
C Collector
L Local Roadway
A Augmented
4 Number of Lanes .
+ V/C = Volume-to Capacity Ratio
# LOS = Level of Service
Source: Wilidan Associates, November 4, 1992
3-83
Table 3.5-13
Projected Buildout Intersection Operations•
Generar Plan With Specific Plan
M Peak PM Peak 'AM Peak PM Peak
.Inter- ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS
'section
Encinitas . .
Blvd.! 0.34 .A 0.58 A' 0.34 A 0.58 A
I-5SB
Ramp
Encinitas
Blvd. /1-5 0.40 A 0.68 B 0.40 A 0.69
NB Ramp
Encinitas '
Blvd./El 0.67 'B 0.84 D 0.70 C 0.84 D
.Camino
Real
El Camino .,
Real!
Leucadia 0.86 D 1.04 F 0.87 D 1.10 F
Blvd./
Olivenhain
El Camino
'Real/La 0.64. B. 0.91 E 0.65 B. 0.92 E,
Costa Ave. ,.
In summary, the additional traffic generated by the Specific Plan
will incrementally impact the surrounding street segments and
intersections Two signalized intersections and certain street
segments are expected to operate at lower than LOS D both with and
'without the prbject. Thus, any new traffic' must :be consideed
cumulatively significant under CEQA. However, th.e,existing and
projected deficienc.ies are not a result of the proposed Specific
Plan, but are a regional problem that cannot be mitigated at the
project level. Closure of the Home' Dep9t Center during the'
afternoon peak hours could improve traffic Operations: at adjacent
intersections but, would not affect the road: segments that are
expected to be operating at unacceptable Levels of Service The
project applicant will contribute to the funding of the needed
regional improvements through traffic impact mit igation fees
3-84
3 .5 • 2 • 4 Internal Circulation/Access
The proposed Home 'Depot Center in PA '1 would have three accesses
from El Camino Real. The northernmost driveway will be
approximately 550 feet south of the Olivenhain Road intersection
and will accommodate right turns in 11 and out. ' The main entrance
will be a signalized intersection approximately 1,000 feet south. of
the Olivenhain Road intersection. The third 'driveway will provide
access for delivery trucks along the south side of the 'building.
The TM proposes signalization of the main entrance to the Home
Depot Home Improvement Center. The BDI traffic report recommends
the construction of a raised median on El Camino Real along the TM
frontage with a median break at the main entrance intersection and
a southbound turning bay just south of the main entrance. The
project proposes raised medians along portions of El Camino Real as
required by the City of'Encinitas. The BDI traffic report analyzed
the expected traffic at each 'driveway and concluded that the
proposed project would adequately serve the needs of the Home Depot
Center. However,' 'the City will require a 48-foot" wide driveway
instead of the proposed 40-foot wide 'driveway proposed.
The proposed residential development in PA 2 will be accessed via
an extension of. ..Scott Place.' No Significant impacts' are
anticipated.
'S The BDI traffic; report also analyzed the proposed location of the
signalized main entry to the Home Depot Home Improvement Center.
The required distance from the Olivenhain Road/El Camino Real
intersection is a minimum of 800 feet, with 1,200 feet being the
'desired distance. The proposed entry is approximately 1,000 feet
from the intersection. 'The traffic report concluded that the
proposed configuration and distance from the intersection is
adequate.
Approximately 75 to 80% of the Home Depot customers are expected to-
use the main entry driveway at El Camino Real and Woodley Road.
The 40-foot wide driveway will accommodate two lanes entering and
two lanes out of the site. The two incoming lanes of the driveway
will transition to one through-lane, and a customer pick-up lane in
front of the Home Depot building. Primary customer parking would
be accommodated by 459 spaces' in the ' main parking 1t located
immediately north , of the Home Depot building. After shopping,
customers who have purchased large items Or merchandise which is
awkward to carry through the parking lot may prefer to load their
vehicles at the customer pick-up lane, which would somewhat reduce
the number of customers moving: carts across the main driveway and
along the parking aisles. This lane would be located on the south
side of the main driveway in front of the store. The customer
pick-up lane would be 12 feet wide and approximately 300 feet long.
3-85
Service and delivery vehicles taking egress and ingress from the
south will likely enter the southernmost driveway. Such vehicles
coming from the north will typically enter. the site at the
signalized main entrance and prpced easterly then southerly around
the back of the building.
At the east end of the Home Depot building, .the 40-foot wide main
driveway, would transition to a 30-foot wide driveway and curve
southward: around the Garden center) where:it would become a 24-foot
wide north/south access road.. The Specific Plan and TM propose
that access to PA 3 and the southern portion of PA 4., be in .the
vicinity of the Garden Center whre the road would turn south.
When PAs 3 and 4 are developed, this area would then become a "T"
intersection. . ,
The original traffic analysis by BpI assumed that traffic from the
future development of PA 3 and 4 would access the SPA from
Olivenhain Road However, since this would require access across
the wetlands,, this was considered to not, be a viable option.
Therefore, access to PA 3 and thel southern portion of PA 4 would
have to be from. El Camino Real thrpugh the Home Depot parking lot.
The TM indicates that access to PAs 3 and 4 will be via the main
Home Depot signalized, intersectin and easterly past the Garden
Center. Wilidan Associates completed a supplemental traffic study
that addresses internal circulation and access to PA-3-and 4 (see
Appendix K). The , Willdan supplemental traffic report analyzed
three potential access' routes to PA 3 and the southern portion of
PA 4. It concluded 'that access to these Planning Areas can. be
safely provided via the signalized, main entrance to, the Home Depot
Center provided that (1) certain paving treatments and other
pedestrian safety measures are included in the project, and (2)
future land uses in. PA 3 and the southern portion of PA 4 are
limited to uses that generate, in total, 1,000 ADT or 100 peak hour
trips. The special paving trea1ment measures 'are discussed in
detail in Appendix L and summarized 'in Section '3.5.3.
3.5.2.5 Parking
Primary customer parking for 459 'vehicles is proposed for the area
north of the Home' Depot Center building. Almost all store
customers will park in the main parking lot, which will require
crossing the.main driveway. To the ,south of the driveway will be
sidewalks ranging from 4 to 12 feet wide. Parking for 15., vehicles
will be provided., along the access road on the east. side of the
Garden Center. In addition, ten motorcycle spaces and 12 vehicle
parking spaces will be provided at the rear of the loading area,
Primarily for employees. An aditional parking;, area for 54
vehicles 'would be located west of the Home Depot building- parallel
to El Camino Real.
The proposed parking exceeds the'ity of Encinitas' requirements;.
possibly 40 more parking spaces are proposed than are required by
.. •.
3-86
the City. However, the number of proposed parking spaces is based
on experience at other Home Depot Centers.
3.5.2.6 Cumulative Impacts
In summary, development of both the TM and Specific Plan will
cumulatively impact several street segments and intersections that
are already operating below a satisfactory level. Thus, the impact
is considered cumulatively significant. However, the existing
traffic congestion, to which this project would incrementally add,
is a regional problem and cannot be mitigated to insignificance at
the project level and the courts have determined that if a traffic
problem to which a development contributed was a regional problem,
mitigation should be handled on a regional basis and approval of
the project does not need to await the regional solution. Section
15130(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines advises that, . with some
projects, the only feasible mitigation for cumulative impacts may
involve the adoption of ordinances or regulations rather than the
imposition of conditions on a project-by-project basis.
The impacted street segments include: (1) Olivenhain Road between
El Camino Real and Amargosa Drive (until the Olivenhain Road
widening is completed, expected to occur prior to the complete
development of the SPA); (2) the portion of Encinitas Boulevard
from west of I-S to El Camino Real; (3) the portion of El Camino
Real between Olivenhain Road and Encinitas Boulevard; and (4) the
portion of Rancho Santa Fe Road south of Olivenhain Road.
Olivenhain Road will be improved in the near future and is expected
to operate at LOS D in the year 2010.
There are two road segments that are expected to be operating at
LOS E in the year 2010 and which will drop to LOS F partly as a
result of the increased traffic from the SPA. These segments are
Encinitas Boulevard west of 1-5 and Leucadia Boulevard between El
Camino Real and 1-5. The El Camino Real segment degradation may be
more directly attributed to the Specific Plan than the decrease in
LOS west of 1-5. However, it should be noted that the LOS is
expected to be LOS F in 1995 even without development of the TM but
including the minor development that may occur in PA 3 and 4.. In
addition, the projected LOS for Olivenhain Road is expected to
decrease from LOS D to LOS E by the year 2010 as a result of the
development of the Specific Plan as proposed. The portion of
Rancho Santa Fe Road north of Olivenhain Road is expected to
decrease from LOS C to LOS D.
Already impacted intersections that will be affected by development
of either the TM or the Specific Plan include the Olivenhain
Road/El Camino Real, El Camino Real/Encinitas Boulevard, and
Encinitas Boulevard/I-5 ramps intersections. Since both Olivenhain
Road and the Olivenhain Road/El Camino Real intersection will be
improved in the near future as part of the Olivenhain Road
widening, which will bring it to LOS D, no significant impacts are
3-87
anticipated as a result of implementation of either the TN or
Specific Plan upon the completion of the Olivenhain Road Widening
project. However, the addition of any traffic to already impacted
roads and intersections is considered a cumulatively significant
impact, even if the unacceptable LOS is not caused by the proposed
project.
The, project will 'incrementally, -increase traffic on 1-5, which is
operating at a less than desirable LOS The project traffic will
be an insignificant contribution to the existing traffic, and
mitigation of potential insignificant, though cumulatively.
significant, traffic impacts cannot be achieved' at the project
level. 0
3.5.3 Mitigation
3.5.3.1 Specific Plan
As various parcels within the SPA are proposed for development,
project applicants should be required to contribute, on a fair-
share basis, to regional traffic improvements To mitigate
potential internal circulation impacts, the future land use
proposals for PA ,'3 and the southern portion of PA 4 should be
limited to uses that do not generate more than 1,000 ADT or 100
peak, hour trips.
3.5.3.2 Tentative Map
'
The TM is currently proposing to (1), widen' the portion of El Camino
Realalong. the frontage of PA land 2,including'the installation
of a bike lane, and (2) contribute to the widening of Olivenhain
Road, which includes improvement of the El Camino Real/Olivenhain
Road intersection Upon project completion, the portion of El
Camino Real along the frontag of PA 1 will have three northbound
through lanes, an auxiliary lane, and bicycle lanes The BDI
traffic study included recommendations' for improvements that could
improve the LOS during the afternoon, peak hour at the problem
intersections.
The recommended improvement for the Encinitas Boulevard/El Camino
Real intersection is construction of an eastbound right-turn lane
on Encinitas Boulevard at El Camino Real This could raise the
afternoon peak hour LOS to LOS C in 1995 even with the TN, whereas
it is expected to be LOS F without the improvement.
The, Encinitas Boulevard/I-5 ramps intersection could. be improved
from to LOS D by widening the 1-5 exit ramps to provide two
left-turn lanes and a right-turn lane, and by widening. Encinitas
Boulevard to provide three eastbound and westbound through lanes
The study recommended that, as projects in the P.A.are proposed for
development, the applicants contribute funding for the improvements
on a fair-share basis.
3-88
Since the proposed Specific Plan and TM are not the cause of the
existing traffic congestion, the City of Encinitas will need to
determine whether the development of the TM, as well as any future
development of PA 3 and 4, should participate in the funding for
the needed and recommended road improvements that are needed to
bring the existing deficiencies up to the-required standards.
If Leucadia Boulevard is. extended easterly to El Camino Real, it
could result in an improvement of conditions on Encinitas Boulevard
and El Camino Real. The City of Encinitas: will need to determine
whether it would be more appropriate for the project applicant to
contribute to extending this road than to improvements on existing
roads.
To mitigate potential safety hazards related to access and internal
circulation, and specifically 'access; to PA 3 and the southern
portion of PA 4, the TM should include the following as conditions
of approval: -
1. Provide patterned Bomanite,pads along the main driveway in
front of the Home Depot building. These special treatment
areas should be located, at-the end of each parking aisle
adjacent to the store front and should alternate with sections
of conventional asphalt paving Recommended Bomanite patterns
include 6' tile, 9" tile, 6 1/4" running bond tile, stacked
bond brick, soldier course brick or other similar patterns
The special paving treatments should end 4 to 6 feet south of
the parking lot landscape islands and should not include the
customer pick-up lane.
2 The same Bomanite paving treatment described in # 1 above
should be used at the main entrance near El Camino Real.
The special Bomanite paving is multipurpose It will improve
the driveway appearance in front of the store. It will give
drivers a visual cue to slow down. It will.alert the driver
to a slightly different roadway sound as a further cue to
drive with care. In addition, the special paving is less
hospitable to pedestrians with carts, giving customers an
incentive to use the smoother crosswalk -areas.
3. A minimum of three striped crosswalks should be added 'in front
of the Home Depot building along the main entry driveway on
the smooth asphalt paving. The striping should be prominent
and extend to the Bomanite paving areas on each site.
The crosswalks should be conveniently located in front of the
main store entrance and the two customer exit doors Bomanite
should not extend entirely across the driveway on- the north
side so that a smooth walkway will be 'available for customers
with carts. '
3-89
The main entry must be at least 48 feet wide.
The County of San Diego requested" that the following
mitigation measures' be made conditions of the project:
The project applicant, must relinquish access rights to El
Camino Real except for the-three proposed entrances.
Improve El Camino, Real to a one-half graded ROW width of
68 feel' with. 58 feet of asphaltic concrete pavement over
approved base with Portland cement concrete curb, gutter,
bike lanes, and sidewalk, with curb at 58 feet from the
centerline, and - provide a raised median for the fu11
length of frontage 'on El Camino Real except at, the main
entrance intersection. Most of this has already been
incorporated into the project.
In addition to. the above measures, the County of San Diego
requested that the project mitigation include specific requirements
for the improvement of Oliverthain Road and the Olivenhain Road/El
Camino Real intersection. However, these improvements are part of
the already approved Olivenhain Road Widening/Realignment Project,
over ' which the current project 'Applicant has no -control.,
Alternative Alignment # 2 was selected and is planned for
construction The only connection between the proposed TM and
Specific Plan and the Olivenhain Road Widening Project is that the
property owners'in the SPA will contribute to the funding for the
improvements.
'6. The project applicant should construct, or partià-ipate in the
construction of, interim improvement to the intersection of El
Camino Real and Olivenhain Road to achieve a LOS C prior to
occupancy of the-Home DèpOt Center. Improvements-should be
- designed and bonded prior to issuance of a building permit for
the Home Depot Center
3-90
• 3.6 LAND USE
3.6.1 Existing Conditions
3.6.1.1 Existing and Approved Land Uses
The project site. is currently vacant. The eastern half of the
project site is traversed by above-ground 135-kilovolt (KV) and
230-Ky power lines, an underground gas main and an above-ground gas
PUMP station within a San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E)
150-foot wide easement. -
Generalized land uses existing in the general project area are
shown in Figure 3.641. The single-family residential development
that abuts the Specific Plan Area on the east continues up the
hillsides to the southeast and abuts the brand new Highlands of
Encinitas residential subdivision developed by Dacon Some of the
homes in that subdivision* overlook the project site'. The existing
homes with back yards that abut the Specific Plan Area are already
fenced. The SDG&E easement continues across that subdivision, as
well as. others to the southeast.
The property immediately south of the project site on the western
boundary, kown. as the Byron White project, was approved for the
development of. 37,000 square feet of office space as Garden' View
•
Plaza. It has been. graded 'and partially revegetated, but is
J currently. vacant. The owner may soon apply for a change to
commercial uses'.
The project site is bounded on the west by El Camino Real, west., of
which is the Ecke property, which includes approximately 900 acres.
This land, which is to the southwest, west and northwest of the'
Specific Plan Area, is currently used for agriculture, including a
f lower stand,' and is part 'of a large agricultural preserve (see
Figure 3 6-2) Agricultural preserve contracts are automatically
renewed each year unless thé property owner files a notification to
cancel the contract, in, which case the taxes will be, incrementally
increased' for the following 10 years, at which time the 'land will
be removed' from the preserve contract. Notices of nonrenewal of
the coñtràctshas been filed for two parcels totaling 10 acres
within the Ecke Preserve, Assessors Parcel Numbers 257-030-19 and
257-030-46,' owned by the Thorntons. An additional 30 acres owned
by the Thôrntons may have filed for nonrenewal of the contract.,
3-91
S The Ecke property, which is within the Coastal Zone and comes under
County of San Diego jurisdiction, is largely designated for
agricultural cropland. A small area immediately north of Woodley
Road is designated as Impact Sensiitive, and the land immediately
west of El Camino Real in, the immediate vicinity, and northwest of,
the project site, has a floodplain overlay. In addition, the
entire Ecke property is designate as a Specific Plan Area and,
when developed, must be developed according to a Specific Plan.
Because the Ecke property is a Coupty "island" that is surrounded
by the City of Encinitas, and because it includes Significant
environmental and visual resources, as well as vital links to the
City's circulation plan, the property is included within the City's
Sphere, of Influence. If this property is annexed to the City, it
will, require the preparation of a Specific Plan prior to annexation
or development. The Encinitas Ranch Task Force is currently
preparing a Specific Plan for the development of this. area.
The land to the north of Olivenk
Carlsbad and will, be developed u
Plan, which. amended the Carlsbad C
La Costa Master Plan Area includes
area and existing residential dev
designated in the approved plan th
overlook the Home Depot site inclu
space and a potential park.
tin Road is within the City of
der. the Arroyo La, Costa Master
meral. Plan in. 1990. The Arroyo
vacant land north of theproject
iopment to the northeast. Uses
t would abut Olivenhain Road and
single-family residences, open
The land to the east and southeast iis designated for, and developed
with, residential uses (see Figure 3 6-3) There is also a small
parcel just east of the northeastern corner of the SPA that has
been planned for a, park.. The site I has been graded and revegetated
but has not been developed. .
The Shelley project is a proposed residential project in the city
of Carlsbad.. •..It is located on the east. side of Rancho. Santa Fe
Road, approximately one mile east ?' the SPA (see Figure 3.6-1). It
will be a continuation of the existing residential development to
the north in Carlsbad and the exis1ting residential to the south in
Encinitas, and will retain flood-prone areas in open space.
The., TM area is in the northwesternost corner of the New Encinitas
Community (see Figure 2.1-4 in Section 1.1). It is designated in
the Encinitas General Plan.Land. Use Element for Light Industrial,
Single-family Residential, and Open Space uses (see Figure 3.6-4t)-,
and must be developed under a Specific' plan.' it is currently zoned
for Light Industrial, Residential (maximum 5 units per acre) and
Open Space uses, in general conformance with the 'General Plan
designations, and a rezone is notiproposed. The Light Industrial
category, allows the development of commercial uses such as the
proposed Home Depot Home Improvement Center.
3-9
OS
LAND USES
GARDEN • u_ LT INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL
Ir rAR,DE SINGLE—FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
QJT - I
MULTI—FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
OPEN SPACE/PARK
0 MOUNTAI.N VISTA DR AGRICULTURE
-
co
UTILITY
- VACANT -
- oW" N
NOT TO SCALE
GENERALIZED EXISTING, APPROVED AND FIGURE
PROPOSED LAND USES 3.6-1
El
I*
I!AIED ARROYO LA TCOSTA MASTER PLAN
01.
IPROPOSEI
FARM WORKER
SPECIFIC - PROPOSED PLAN SHELLEY
AREA PROJECT
3-85
A G U A I .V~VV 21
RSA IM.
W 1 / ó- X/ 3f / 314 !ethda Loon
40 \\ H E 0 I 0 N 0 k Jn
6
\ \\ MLA.LAN 1 J r IT
*:18
12
J L4C.&
21 19
14
77 23
I
23 21 2(,
PRdSE(T °%t' •S
28 /1
/ 3 1 8101 .. 4p... .V 6 V J2 ••..••• ....34
V :.
- Leucadia1
. . . .
.-. •- .•.4..._. i 0
4 ./ 4
ECKE I
bs /
Lake
PRESERVE • g I 't'
921
: V. .: ENCINITAS \ V
16
15. 15,14
So •venhain •VV
14
0 i' i : .• ante Fe -Or •• V
VV
V
V V
V
V .
•
\225 \\ .
VSS
2- A. V .!4 V
.
. V)2 - 7S Cardiff by the Sea \ S:
V V V
Vj .
Santa Fe V 2;'
V
SAN V
4) 2! 26
:38
,w-•
SOLANA BEACH 5enF DIE UITO 4
so/ 27 1
4
10
G
DEL MAR ' Rd. I! tn._.:.-'-••--1-
V SOURCE: COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, 1988 AGRICULTURAL PRESERVES MAP
• V. V
V
V FIGURE ECKE AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE V 3.6-2
V. V WI £1 3-95
//C/O/RMH t
MIXED USES/'/ 7/ •////// /
FLOOD PLAIN
VERLAY
C COMMUNITY RELATED COMMERCIAL
0 OFFICE PROFESSIONAL
RMH MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL(8-15 DU/AC)
TS TRAVEL SERVICES
U PUBLIC UTILITIES
RLM
LOW-MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
/ / (0-4 DU/AC)
III 1 I IMPACT
I ACI I IF
AGRICULTURAL
I
CROPLAND
II
I I
SPA (2.8)
Wi ll
OME DEP0
ECIFIC PLA
RES.
-OFFICE 3.0 1-5.
PROFESSIONAL
RESIDENTIAL 5.01-8.00
RES I"
000-0.25
RES. 5.01-8.00-
RESIDENTIAL 2.01-3.00-
RESIDENTIAL 5.01-8.00
City of Carlsbad
County of San Diego
L_] City of Encinitas
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP, 1991 NOT TO SCALE
I FIGURE
DESIGNATED LAND USES IN THE PROJECT VICINITY 33
W§1 3-96
low
. . .#.. .. _•-z4
3.6.1.2 General Plan Designations for the SPA
The project site is designated in the General Plan for a mixture of
uses, with Specific Plan, Special Study and Scenic/Visual Corridor
Overlays. The northernmost portion of the Specific Plan Area that
is just south of Olivenhain Road and includes Encinitas Creek, in
both PA 1 and 4, is designated for Ecological Resource/Open
Space/Park uses, as is the entire area within the SDG&E easement
(see Figure 3.6-4). This designation includes all land that has
been, or is expected to be, permanently set aside for the public's
use or for the preservation of areas deemed ecologically
significant. Some limited private uses, ancillary commercial uses
which serve a public recreation related need, may be allowed.
The land south of the Encinitas Creek area in PA 1, 3 and 4, is
designated for Light Industrial uses on both sides of the SDG&E
easement (see Figure 3.6-4), although the easement is designated
for Ecological Resources/Open Space/Parks uses. This. designation
includes the disturbed areas as well as some riparian areas within
the floodplain. An estimated 40% of the area designated for Light
Industrial uses is within the delineated wetlands area, and a small
portion of the area designated for Light Industrial uses has
wetlands vegetation. Areas designated for Light Industrial uses
may have a retailing or wholesaling function that is related to the
manufacturing activity. The maximum floor area ratio is 0.75.
S The lower portions of the north- and west-facing hillsides in the
southern half of the SPA, within PA 2 and 3, are designated for
Ecological Resource/Open Space/Park uses. The intent is to
preserve the views from El Camino Real as well as sensitive
species.
The remaining hilltop area in the southwestern part of the Specific
Plan Area, in PA 2, is designated for low- density single-family
Residential uses with a density of 3.01 to 5 dwelling units per
acre. Allowed uses include single-family detached units with a
minimum lot size of 8,700 square feet. This area is designated by
the County of San Diego as the Olivenhain Hills Resource
Conservation Area because it contains sensitive plants and the
sensitive Coastal Mixed Chaparral habitat. However, the area is no
longer under County jurisdiction.
The SPA also has a Special Study Overlay designation. This
designation is used for preserving environmentally significant
areas and to indicate where development standards will be more
stringent to minimize potential hazards. This overlay designation
recognizes the numerous environmental constraints within the SPA,
including wetlands, steep hillsides, flood hazards and hazards
associated with the SDG&E facilities (see Figure 3.6-4).
The project area is delineated in the Land Use Element of the
Encinitas General Plan as a Specific Plan Area and requires that a
Specific Plan be developed prior to development of the site so that
sensitive biological, archaeological and visual resources; steep
hillsides; and floodplains may be protected to the maximum extent
by development standards. Section 65451 of the California
Government Code requires that Specific Plans include regulations,
conditions, programs, and proposed legislation concerning the
following: (1) development standards and precise location for land
uses and facilities; (2) standards and location designated for
streets, roadways, and other transportation facilities; (3)
standards indicating population density and building intensity and
provisions for supporting services and infrastructure; (4) specific
standards designed to address the use, development and conservation
of natural resources; and (5) provisions for the implementation of
the Open Space Element and any other measures that may be required
to implement the General Plan. In addition, the Encinitas General
Plan requires that the Specific Plan for the project site include
the following: (1) implementation of all applicable goals and
policies established in the General Plan; (2) compatibility of
allowed uses with land uses designated on the Land Use Policy Map,
with the exact boundaries established between the various uses; (3)
comprehensive development standards, including an emphasis on the
design appearance of development in relation to the visual and
environmental resources of the area, and protection of the area's
floodplain and hillside resources; (4) a complete
circulation/access plan, including the provision of exclusive
access to the residential area at the top of the slope, shared
access for all uses at the bottom of the slope, and minimization of
floodplain impacts and interruptions to the traffic flow on El
Camino Real and Olivenhain Road; (5) consideration of a
reconfiguration of the El Camino Real/Olivenhain Road interchange;
and (6) establishment of processes and procedures for the
implementation of individual uses and structures (application and
review processes).
The Encinitas General Plan identified the following as issues for
the New Encinitas Community: general lack of internal connection of
commercial areas, which increases traffic congestion along
arterials; commercial area design and landscaping, especially a
shortage of landscaping in parking areas; lack of adequate
landscaping in residential areas; traffic congestion; water quality
in San Elijo Lagoon, in the southern portion of the community;
bluff/slope protection; shortage of park land; and community
character. The SDG&E Easement was noted as representing a
potential location for hiking/riding trails and other more passive
recreational activities. However, the steep hillsides and the
wetlands within the SPA could make this difficult to implement.
There is already a dirt road in portions of the SDG&E easement that
provides a significant blight on the hillside. Encouragement of
more use of this road for recreation may not be the most
environmentally sound practice, even though it would provide a
3-100
continuous .hiking corridor. Other locations suggested .for a trail
include, two alternative east/west alignments north :of Encinitas
.',Creek. and south of Olivenhain Road. These are discussed in Section
3.6.2.3.
3.6.2, Impacts
3.6.2.1 compatibility of Specific Plan With-.General Plan
Designated Land Uses
Existing, proposed and approved land uses in the project vicinity
are shown in Figure 3.'6-1. The Specific Plan and the TM propose
generally the same land uses as are designated in the Encinitas
General Plan. The Home Depot Home Improvement Center proposed for
PA 1 will be a continuation 'of the commercial uses to the south
along both sides of El Camino Real in Encinitas Additional light
industrial/ commercial uses are proposed for the land due east of
the proposed Home Depot Home Improvement Center development, in PA
3, which will be an extension of the development proposed' for PA 1.
There are also light industrial/ commercial.. -uses designated along
Olivenhain Road and in the central portion of PA 4.
The area identified in the Specific Plan as developable in the
central portion of PA 4 includes land within the SDG&E easement,
which cannot be used for structures, and mostly steep slope land
east of the SDG&E easement. The only possible access for
development in the eastern portion would be,via the SDG&E easement.
Since access from the south via the easement would require paving
and increased use of the existing dirt road on the steep hillsides
within the easement, access from the south is not considered
feasible. Since access from the northern portion. of PA 4 :would
have to cross wetlands, it is concluded that access would have to
come through PA'3 via PA 1.
The light industrial/office/commercial uses proposed along
Olivenhain Road in the northernmost pOrtion of PA 4 might not be
considered compatible with the adjacent. park land to the east and
wetlands open space that is designated in the Specific Plan for the
area to the immediate west. In addition, this area currently has
a noise level' of 70 CNEL or higher, which may increase, in the
future when Olivenhain Road ,is widened. It also is within the
wetlands boundary and contains riparian' woodland. Even when the
additional detention basin is added upstream, and the floodplain is
smaller, virtually all of the designated allowable development area
in the northernmost portion of PA 4 will be within the wetlands and
wetlands buffer area (see Figure 2.3-12 in.Section 2.3). :The area
along Olivenhain Road that is expected to be outside the wetlands
buffer area includes approximately 1.2-acres, which includes 0.'34
acre within the SDG&E easement.that cannot be used for structures.
3-101
This leaves an estimated 0.86 acre in the.northernmost portion. of
PA 4 that would be developable.for structures. However,, the high
noise levels would req.i.ire special construction to mitigate the
potential impacts of the 70+ CNEL noise level.
The proposed residential development in PA 2 will be:an extension
of the existing residential development along the ridge tops. The
natural hillsides below the 'existing' and proposed residential
development will be retained as natural open space, and that open
space will connect with the existing open space easement in the
southernmost portion of PA 3 'The Encinitás Creek corridor will be
retained in natural open space and'willcbnnect with, but will. not
look like, the drainage channel to the east, which retains an
artificial appearance.
Some of the boundaries of the proposed development differ from
those shown in the General Plan (see Figure 3.6-5). However, the
General Plan land use designations are based on generalized, rather
than site-specific, information. The southernmost portion of PA 3
is designated in the General Plan for Ecological Resources/Open
Space/Parks and is'álready in an open space easement. The point'of
a Specific Plan is to provide a more detailed level of design based
on site-specific information. Therefore, each difference between
the land uses designated in the General Plan and the land uses
proposed in the Specific Plan is, evaluated on a case-by-case, basis,
within each Planning Area. A 'comparison of the environmental
constraints and 'designated uses in the General Plan and Specific
Plan can be made by comparing Figures 3.6-4 and 3.6-6.
The area indicated as an allowable development area within PA 1 on
Figure 2.3-2, in Section 2.3, occupies a. slightly smaller.- area than
the' area designated for Light Industrial uses in the Encinitas
General Plan. The generalized designation in the General Plan
would allow' more development in areas with slopes of 25% gradient
or more, and would allow more development within the floodplain and
wetlands. Therefore, this difference is considered to be a
beneficial impact of the Specific Plan.
In PA 2, six 'of 'the lots at the westernmost end of the Scott Place
extension are' entirely, or partially,' within the area designated
for Ecological Resources/Open Space/Parks on the General Plan (see
Figure 3.6-4) However, a roughly equivalent area of north-facing
hillsides that are designated for. development in the General Plan
are retained as natural open. space in the Specific "Plan. From an
ecological , the 'north-facing Chaparral-covered hillsides
are considered more important for retention, as open :space. 'because
they are immediately wèst'of an existing open space easement in PA
3 (which is designated for residential development in the General
Plan). In addition, the north-facing slopes 'designated for
development in the General Plan contain a greater percentage of
steep slopes,, including most of the open space easement 'in PA 3,,as
shown in a comparison of Figures 3.6-4 .and 3.6-6.
'
3-102
••
'':..-.' •
3-104
r
.e • •%:_,I - •,—-• :
- . .
\
- .. ' ••, ;-.'-
Or
vo 00,
or J4 0
'i 'I
OF2. Phi
..
OF
rwr'
'I. I.
. The General Plan designations could result in the loss of slightly
less Coast White Lilac and an estimated half of the Del Mar
Manzanita plants than would occur under the proposed Specific Plan.
Both plans would result in the loss of the one on-site Torrey Pine.
The General Plan designates a greater amount of wetlands in PA 1
for Light Industrial uses than the Specific Plan. In PA 4, the
Specific Plan designates an area along Olivenhain Road for Light
Industrial/ Commercial . uses that is designated for Ecological
Resources/open Space/Parks in the General Plan. The General Plan
designates for Light Industrial development land in the southern
portion of PA 4 that is comprised entirely of wetlands and steep
slopes, but designates the entire SDG&E corridor for open Space.
The Specific Plan designates Light Industrial/Commercial
development for most of the steep slope area in PA 4, including
some land within the SDG&E easement, but keeps development out of
the wetlands.
The General Plan currently proposes residential development for
the southernmost portion of PA 3, which is comprised mostly of
slopes of 25% or more gradient and is already in an open space
easement. This area will be retained in open space in the Specific
Plan. The Specific Plan designates a slightly smaller area for.
Light Industrial/Office/Commercial uses than the General Plan
because it keeps development out of the floodplain. Therefore, the
proposal for PA 3 is also considered to be an improvement
environmentally over the General Plan designations.
The General Plan designates a triangular- shaped area of
approximately 1.5 acres of largely hillside land immediately west
of existing, residences on Meadow Glen Lane for Light Industrial
uses in PA 4. However, about half of the area consists of slopes
with gradients of 25% or greater. The lower portion, within the
floodplain, includes wetlands (see Figure 3.6-4). The Specific
Plan proposes several acres of hillside land in PA 4 for Light
Industrial/Commercial/Off ice uses. However, the designated areas
include land within the SDG&E easement, which can be used for
parking or open space uses but not for structures. Any future
proposed development in this area would have to be evaluated for
potential electromagnetic frequency (ENF) hazards, as discussed in
Section 3.17 of this EIR. An estimated 90% of the designated Light
Industrial hillside land that is not within the easement consists
of slopes with 'gradients of 25% or more (see Figure 3.6-6). In
addition, access to this area would have to either come across the
wetlands or through PA 1 and 3, and any future development would
have to be deemed compatible' with the adjacent houses on Meadow
Glen Lane. The potential for development in PA 4 is considered to
be extremely limited from an environmental standpoint.
The General Plan designates all of •the land within the SDG&E
easement in PA 4 for open space, as well as nearly all of the
floodplain area in the north half of the site, while-the Specific
Plan proposes the 150-foot wide corridor within the SDG&E easement
3-107
for Light. Industrial/Commercial/Qff ice uses.. The land within the
easement is immediately west of additional Light
Industrial-designated land in the Specific Plan that is designated
for ecological resources/open space/parks in the General Plan. The
land in PA 1 that is immediately west of PA 4 is planned for
wetlands open space and the land to the east of. the northernmost
portion of PA 4 1 along Olivenhain Road, is .a park. Therefore, the
corridor, along Olivenhain Road that, is designated for light
industrial uses in the Specific Plan might be considered as an
extension of the surrounding open .space uses.. However, in light of
the constraints on the remainder of PA 4, discussed' in the above
paragraph, the corridor' along Olivenhain Road may be the only
feasible 'development area. It should be noted, thçugh, that
additional analysis will be required in the future. 'to assess
potential.. EMF hazards associated with any proposed development.
This, is discussed in more detail in Section 3.17.
3.6.2.2 Compatibility With E*isting and Planned Land Uses
The Home Depot Home Improvement Center 'will generate a substantial
amount of traffic near an agricultural area. However, the Ecke
agricultural property is immediately north of existing development
and immediately adjacent to El Camino Real, which already, carries
substantial traffic. In addition, the Encinitas Ranch .Task Force
is currently working on the preparation of' a Specific ' 'Plan, for
future development of, the Ecke property, now known as. Encinitas
Ranch. No significant impacts on agricultural operations are
anticipated.
The TM proposes open space immediately south of Oliverthain Road in
PA 1, and, the open space will act as a buffer between .the
residential development planned for Arroyo La Costa to the north
and the Home Depot Home Improvement Center. The TM also.proposes
to retain 11.1 acres of steep hillsides in PA 2 in. open space.
This open space will connect with the existing open space easement
at the southernmost end of PA 3 and will provide a buffer between
the hilltop residences and the Home Depot Center' below. Thus, the
Tentative Map, is not and to have significant land use
impacts.
The development of Light Industrial/Off ice/Commercial uses on the
portion of 'PA 3 immediately east, of the proposed. Home Depot
building is expected to' be compatible with the Home Depot Home
Improvement Center. The existing open space easement on the upper
slopes of PA 3 will provide a buffer between any future. development
in thatarea and the residential development on the hillsides and
ridge tops to' the south and east. .
The potential Light Industrial/Commercial/Office development of
the southern half of PA 4 that could occur with implementation of
the Specific.-Plan at some future date 'could be incompatible with
the existing residences on Meadow GlenLane. The steepness of the
3-108
terrain would likely require substantial alteration of the
topography, possibly involving extended construction time impacts,
as well as long-term noise impacts. Because most of this area
consists of slopes with gradients in excess of 25 %, is adjacent to
existing residential uses, and is in close proximity, or under,
high-voltage power lines, development of the southern portion of PA
4 could have significant impacts. This can be mitigated by
designating this area for open space in the Specific Plan.
A master trails plan is currently being developed by the City of
Encinitas One of the equestrian/pedestrian trail proposals is
along the north side of Encinitas Creek and south. of Olivenhain
Road, with two alternative alignments. It traverses PA 1 and 4
(see Figure 3.6-7). Although the trail would be between 6 and 10
feet wide, the area of impact during construction would be
approximately 15 feet wide. The trail would impact •wetlands and
would require additional environmental review. It would parallel
Olivenhain Road along the northern boundary of, PA 1. Most of the
trail length within PA 1 would traverse disturbed areas outside the
wetlands boundary except for the .northwesterninost corner of PA 11
where wetlands would be 'impacted if the trail stayed along the
Creek instead of going up to Olivenhain Road. However, the
approved alignment for the Olivenhain Road Widening Project may
preclude a trail in that area anyway. In PA 4, the alignment would
depend on the potential for development. If development adjacent
to Olivenhain Road is not possible, the trail, would have to
traverse a substantial area of wetlands. If development adjacent
to Olivenhain Road is possible,, the trail could stay near the road
and would have far less wetlands impacts.
The trails plan has not yet been finalized, and the Specific Plan
does not include any trails. Because of 'the environmental
constraints, any trails proposal will require additional
environmental analysis. However, it is recommended that any future
trail within the SPA be located outside the delineated wetlands.
3.6.2.3 General Plan Policy Compatibility
The determination of whether' or not the proposed project is
consistent with the City of Encinitas General Plan, Zoning
Ordinance and Design Review Guidelines is a planning determination
to. be made by the Encinitas City Council following' public review
and input from the City's planning staff. It is not the purpose of
this EIR to preempt the right of the City to determine City policy
consistency. Therefore, the following analysis reflects the
opinion of the 'EIR preparer and presents a "worst case" analysis.
It strictly and conservatively interprets" City policies, many of
'which have been considered vague and requiring interpretation.
However, it is the Encinitas City Council that will make the final
determination as to whether there are inconsistencies 'with City
policies and, if so, whether the inconsistencies are considered
significant planning issues. .
3-109 ,
x \\
JACARANDA 1EEEEEEE
OLIVEN ROAD
/
.........•••s•s : I /
,.
_- ,'
ALTERNATIVE ROUTES.
EQUESTRIAN/ PEDESTRIAN •
...................i Li
J TRAIL ••.•e•• / ii' I WILOWHAVEN
- PLANNING ,
PLANNING AREA 1 AREA 4
•
W000
RD I I
I 0 0
Lu
-. 0/ \
SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY
* /
• NOT TO SCALE
S
- * FIGURE
POTENTIAL TRAIL ALIGNMENTS -
• 3.6-7
1jA
0 Land Use Element Policy Compatibility
The following policies are relevant to the proposed project:
Policy 1.1: Office, research and development, and light industrial
development that does not result in land use conflicts with the
quality of other development will be permitted when it fulfills the
needs of the individual community and City.
Analysis: The project will be an extension of the existing
commercial area along El Camino Real in Encinitas and designated
Travel Services Commercial uses to the north along El Camino Real.
The proposed site design for the Tentative Map and the development
standards and guidelines in the Specific Plan are designed to
minimize potential environmental impacts and land use conflicts.
The Home Depot Center, which will draw large numbers of people, is
located on the portion of the Specific Plan Area that is closest to
El Camino Real and to future development within the Encinitas Ranch
Specific Plan Area. The proposed residential subdivision would be
an extension of the existing residential uses. The only potential
for land use conflicts lies in the designation of a portion of the
southern half of PA 4 for development. Development of the rugged
terrain adjacent to the existing residences on Meadow Glen Lane
could create potential impacts.
Policy 1.2: Encourage the development of unified commercial
centers and neighborhood centers rather than the continued
development of "strip commercial."
Analysis: The project will extend the existing strip commercial
uses along El Camino Real farther northward. However, the proposed
uses are in conformance with the land use designations.
Policy 1.3: New office/light industrial, and commercial develop-
ment will only be permitted in areas both served by roadways
capable of handling projected truck traffic, and in areas where
adequate buffering is provided.
Analysis: The proposed Home Depot Home Improvement Center is
immediately adjacent to El Camino Real, which already carries truck
traffic to existing commercial areas to the south. The wetland
open space will act as a buffer between the Center and the future
residential development to the north. The hillside open space will
serve as a buffer between the Center and the proposed and existing
residential development on Scott Place.
PA 3 and 4 are not currently proposed for development but are
addressed in the Specific Plan. Because these properties are
adjacent to residential and park areas, future development for
these parcels will need to be analyzed for compatibility with
adjacent uses during the processing of future development
proposals. These parcels may be used as buffer areas between the
proposed Home Depot Home Improvement Center and the residences to
the east through the use of lower-intensity development that is
deemed compatible with the adjacent uses. However, a more
3-111
environmentally sensitive alternative to the Specific Plan would be
to retain all of the southern hillsides in open space. This would
prevent potential incompatibilities with existing residences on
Meadow Glen Lane and potentially significant topographic
alteration, visual and noise impacts.
Policy 1.8: 'Encourage the types of commercial activities which
will supply the community with a diverse economic base.
Analysis: The proposed Home Depot Home Improvement Center conforms
to this policy. Future light inustrial, commercial or office
development in PA 3 and 4 would contribute to a diversification of
the economic base and provide employment opportunities in
proximity to residential areas.
Policy 1.10: Encourage the reasonable regulation of signs to
preserve the basic character' of the community and to avoid adverse
effects on property values. ' New pole and roof signs are
prohibited.
Analysis: The Specific Plan contains guidelines for signage and is
in conformance with this policy. Since development in all Pas will
have to conform to the Specific Plan, potential impacts will be
avoided. The TM proposes to include signage on the Home Depot
building and at the main entrance. It does not include pole or
roof signs or off-site signs. However, the back-lit neon signs
will have either orange lettering or an orange background. The
large orange letters on the building will be backed by either
redwood or stained cedar and are expected to be somewhat screened
by the landscaping when it matures. The two-sided neon back-lit
sign at the main entry driveway will provide more of a visual
intrusion' on El Camino Real, which is a scenic highway. However,
the proposed signagC is not expected to have a significant adverse
impact on the character of the community, given, the existing
commercial development to the south. The distance of the Home
Depot building from existing residential development in Encinitas
and planned residential development in the Arroyo La Costa Master
Plan Area in Carlsbad will minimize potential visual impacts on
those areas, and no significant impacts on property values are
expected. Future signage oppbrtunities fOr PA 3 and, if
applicable, the southern portion of PA'4, should be provided to El
Camino Real. The Specific Plan does not address' how 'these
otherwise landlocked areas would beprovided signage opportunities.
Policy 1.12: The residential character of the City shall, be
substantially single-family detached housing.
Analysis: The Specific Plan and TM propose 19 single-family
detached homes on the land designated for residential uses.
Policy 1.15: Commercial and industrial uses shall provide easy
and safe pedestrian, bicycle and handicapped access.
Analysis: The Specific Plan and TM propose to include a bicycle
lane along El Camino Real. In addition, the Home Depot Home
Improvement Center will include 10 bicycle parking spaces, 10
3-112
motorcycle spaces, and 8 handicapped car spaces (the required
number). It is expected that most customers of the Home Depot
Center would arrive by car. The building will be accessible to the
handicapped.
Policy 2.3: Growth will be managed in a manner that does not
exceed the ability of the City, special districts and utilities to
'providea desirable level 'of facilities and services.
Analysis: The TM includes some street improvements along El Camino
Real. and the applicant will contribute financially to the future
widening of 'Olivenhain Road. Payment of' additional traffic impact
mitigation fees will be used for making needed community road
improvements. All of the special districts and utilities have
indicated that the proposed TM area can: be served.
Policy 2.4: Require development to pay the capital costs of public
facilities and services to serve those developments.
Analysis: The project will improve El Camino Real. along the
property frontage; will upgrade an existing water line and complete
a water loop system; and will contribute financially toward the
future widening of Olivenhain Road. When PA 2 is developed,
additional funding. may go to the school districts. Also, see the
response to Policy 2.3 above.
Policy 2.8: Development shall not be permitted where it will
result in significant degradation of ground, surfaOe or ocean water
quality, or where it will result in significant increased risk of
sewage overflows, spills, or similar accidents.
Analysis: The Specific Plan includes guidelines, that must be
followed during development to reduce water -quality impacts.. The
proposed development of PA 1 includes mitigation measures to
control erosion and, siltation into Encinitas Creek. Drainage
on-site will be 'directed toward the storm drain system. An
oil/water/silt separator and runoff water treatment system is
proposed as an additional precautionary measure to 'prevent
pollutants that might be present in the parking lot or Garden
Center runoff from entering Encinitas Creek.
Policy 3.1: For purposes of growth management, to ensure that
existing desirable community character' is maintained, and to ensure
that facilities planning is economical and comprehensive, the
ultimate buildout figure for residential dwelling units will be
determined by utilizing the total mid-range density figure of the
Land Use Element.
Analysis: The Encinitas General. Plan designates the proposed
residential portion of the project. for single-family residential
uses with a density ranging from 3.01 to 5.0 units per'acre. The
TM proposes a net density of 2.9 units per acre and is compatible
with this policy.
Policy 5.1: Commercial growth within the City should be sufficient
to support residential growth and provide adequate services to the
low 3-113
citizens of the individual cominuni
Analysis: The, proposed project
through the provision of the Home
which will stock home and garden
addition, it, as well as the futui
the Specific Plan., will provide emp
comments received related to the I
Depot Center targets a regional m
Encinitas.
:ies.
ill support residential growth
Depot Home Improvement Center,
equipment and materials. In
e development of PA 3 and 4 of
.oyment opportunities. However,
raft EIR contend' that the Home
irket. and not, just the City of
Policy 6.1: Permit commercial land uses and other types of
nonresidential development only in those areas where such
development presently is concentrated or where development, does not
result in land use conflicts with. 'surrounding residential
development.
Analysis: The project's conformance with this policy varies with
the Planning Area and is, dependent on interpretation of the
wording. The Specific Plan, as a whole, may not be'in conformance
with' this policy due to its designated development area in PA.4.
The, proposed Home Depot Home improvement Center will be an
extension of the existing commercial land uses along El Camino
Real. The,proposed site design minim'izes the potential for land
use conflicts and" provides a buffer area between the Home Depot
Center and the residences to the est and, planned residences north
of Olivenhain Road and those proposed for PA 2. Noise impacts to
nearby residences is not expected o be significant, and potential
visual impacts can m be itigated to a less than significant level
However, some. of' the responses to! the Draft EIR contend that the
Home Depot-.Center does" not conform'to this policy because there is
no commercial development immeditely adjacent ,to PA 1. This
Interpretation does not .take into1account that PA 1 is designated
for Light Industrial 'uses in the General Plan, that the designation
and zoning allow the ,proposed usei and that: there' are no 'existing
or proposed residences immediately adjacent- to the proposed Home
Depot Center.
The commercial or light industrial development designated for PA 3
would be an extension of the 'Home Depot development. The
residential development to' the south and east would be buffered by
the open space easement in PA' 3 and the expanse of PA 4,
respectively.
The area proposed ,for future light industrial/commercial
'development in. PA_ 4.south of Ençiritas Creek would not' necessarily
be compatible with this policy., Development in this areamight be
an extension of future non- resi'ential development in:PA 3 but
would be immediatelyadjacent to, and below, existing residences on
Meadow Glen Lane and not far, from houses on orchardwood Road to the
east. Therefore, the, designations in the Specific Plan for PA 4
are not the' most environmentally sensitive. However,' the
designation is in conformance with the General Plan designation.
3-114
Since the Olivenhain Road Widening Project may further reduce the
amount of developable land in the northern portion of PA 4,
elimination of the developable area in the southern portion of PA
4 could result in no potential developable area within this
Planning Area.
Policy 6.5: The design of future development shall consider the
constraints and opportunities that are provided by adjacent
existing development.
Analysis: The Specific Plan is considered to be largely compatible
with this policy. The proposed residential development will be an
extension of the existing residential development. The most
intense development, the Home Depot Home Improvement Center, will
be accessed directly from El Camino Real and will be located in the
already disturbed area. The Home Depot Center will be the closest
development to the Encinitas Ranch future development, which may
also include commercial uses. The small amount of developable land
in PA 3 and 4, which is a result of the constraints posed by of
wetlands, steep hillsides, and the power lines, will likely result
in less intense development on small portions of these parcels in
the future. These areas will provide a buffer between the
higher-intensity Home Depot Home Improvement Center and the nearby
residences and park land. The designated developable areas in the
Specific Plan for PA 4 are not in conformance with this policy.
Light Industrial uses should not be proposed for the portion of PA
4 that is south of Encinitas Creek. Development of PA 4 should be
limited to a small area along Olivenhain Road, if any non-
constrained area is left after Olivenhain Road is widened. If
development is not economically viable, the City of Encinitas could
purchase the parcel for an extension of the existing park. No
structures would be allowed in the SDG&E easement, and the presence
of surface facilities in the area could rule out potential use of
the easement for parking because of the traffic hazards.
The development proposed for PA 2. might be considered by some to be
an impact on the agricultural uses on the Ecke property to the west-
in the form of traffic and an associated incremental increase of
pollutants in the area. However, the Ecke property is already
bounded by urban development on the south, additional development
is planned for the Arroyo La Costa Plan Area, and the Encinitas
Ranch Specific Plan is currently being prepared for the Ecke
property. In addition, El Camino Real is already carrying
significant traffic, and development of the project area will be an
unnoticeable increase in comparison to the projected traffic for
the project vicinity.
Policy 6.6: The construction of very large buildings shall be
discouraged where such structures are incompatible with surrounding
development.
Analysis: This policy does not define the size of a "very large"
building. However, it could be argued that the proposed 102,000
square foot Home Depot building proposed for PA 1 is incompatible
3-115
with the surrounding development and land uses because of its
sheer bulk. The land to the west of El Camino Real is currently in
agriculture, and the: area around the floodplain in the general
project vicinity is generally deeloped with residential uses
Potential visual impacts will be mitigated through extensive
landscaping and, specifically, through landscaping designed to
screen the building from surrounding areas. This is discussed in
more detail in Section 3.2 (Visual Quality). The small developable
areas in PA 3 and 4 will not allow very large buildings, so
conflicts with this policy are not likely for those Planning Areas.
Policy 6.7: Require commercial deyelopment to provide, sufficient
landscaping to soften the visual impact of commercial buildings and
parking areas. . Analysis: The TM has included subs1tantial landscaping not only to
soften the visual impact of the Home Depot Center, but also to
screen the Center from.view as much as possible, particularly from
the west, along El Camino Real. .This is discussed in more detail
in Section 3.2. Future development in PA 3 and 4 will have to
conform to the Specific Plan guidelines for landscaping, which
include plant palettes for all of the proposed landscaping. zones.
Policy 7.3: . Although common themes for each. of the communities may
be established, each community mar also promote variety in the
design of individual projects. 1 .
Analysis: The Specific Plan includes specific guidelines for the
design of both the Residential and Commercial/Light Industrial
areas The guidelines for the residential development are geared
to make the project compatible with the existing residential
development and also to make the homes visually pleasing from
surrounding areas. The proposed Home Depot Home Improvement Center
will carry through theuse of extensive wood and brick, as has been
approved for the project to the immediate south. It will introduce
landscaping that has been specifically designed for the site, which
will be compatible with the adjacent native plant communities.
Policy 7.10: Both residential and non-residential development
shall, be limited to a maximum height of two stories and .30 feet.
Limited exceptions for non-residential, uses may be allowed, but
only for designated specific sites as developed and adopted through
area specific plans.
Analysis: The roof on some portions of the proposed Home Depot
Home Improvement .Center extends to 39 feet above the ground level,
which exceeds.. the standard. However, the project area will be
developed under the proposed Specific Plan. The parapet, which
will extend to 33 feet, will shield the rooftop appurtenances from
view at the ground level. Because this policy allows limited
exceptions •for sites developed through 'Specific Plans, it is
concluded that there is no incompatibility with this policy.
Policy 8.2: Development in those areas identified as being within
coastal areas and floodplain areas identified in the Land Use
3-116
Element and Resource Management Element must be limited, designed
to minimize hazards associated with development in these areas, and
to preserve area resources. No development shall occur in the
100-year floodplain that is not consistent and compatible with the
associated flood hazard. Only uses which are safe and compatible
with periodic flooding and inundation shall be considered, such as
stables, plant nurseries, a minimum intrusion of open parking, some
forms of agriculture, and open space preservation, as appropriate
under zoning, and subject to applicable environmental review and
consistency with other policies of this Plan. No grading or fill
activity other than the minimum necessary to accommodate those uses
found safe and compatible shall be allowed. Such grading shall not
significantly redirect or impede flood flows or require floodway
modifications. Exceptions from these limitations may be made to
allow minimum private development (defined as one dwelling unit per
legal parcel under residential zoning, and an equivalent extent of
development under non-residential zoning) only upon a finding that
strict application thereof would preclude a minimum use of the
property. Exceptions may also be made for development of
Circulation Element roads, other necessary public facilities, flood
control projects where no feasible method for protecting existing
public or private structures exists and where such protection is
necessary for public safety or to protect existing development, and
other development which has as its objective the improvement of
fish and wildlife habitat. These exceptions shall be allowed only
to the extent that no other feasible alternatives exist and minimum
disruption to the natural floodplain environment is made. The City
shall not approve subdivisions or boundary line adjustments which
would allow increased impacts from development in 100-year
floodplains. For specific policy provisions regarding wetlands
which may be associated with floodplains, refer to Resource
Management Element Policy 10.6.
Analysis: The Specific Plan, as a whole, is considered to be in
conformance with this policy. All areas designated for development
are outside of the existing 100-year floodplain. When PAs 3 and 4
are proposed for development, the specific project proposals will
have to be further analyzed for conformance to the remainder of the
policy.
The proposed Home Depot building in PA 1 is outside of the existing
floodplain; no structures are proposed within the floodplain. Part
of the parking area is within the current 100-year floodplain.
However, the City of Encinitas considers parking to be a suitable
and safe use in a floodplain, so this does not result in
nonconformance with this policy. In addition, the proposed project
will raise the parking area out of the -floodplain. The project's
remedial dredging of the Creek bed under, and in the vicinity of,
the El Camino Real bridge will slightly reduce the existing
floodplain. When Detention Basin D is completed upstream, even the
parking area will be outside of the existing 100-year floodplain
(see Figure 2.3-12 in Section 2.3). However, Detention Basin D is
not required for the Home Depot project since parking is deemed by
3-117
the City of Encinitas to be a 'suitable use in a floodplain. This
policy clearly states that grading In the floodplain is allowed for
uses that are considered suitable for a floodplain and are not
harmed by inundation.
The proposed development of PA will deepen and somewhat constrict
the existing channel. 'It will not impede,the floddwàters and the
remedial dredging of sediment will, in fact, aid in flood control
The only grading. proposed within the ultimate 100-year floodplain
is the remédial:.dredging to bring the Creek bed elevation down to
the level at which it was supposed to be maintained and the
dredging .that is necessary to create wetlands. The proposed
development of PA 1 is considered to be compatible with this
policy.
Policy 8.3: Residential development on land that has physical
constraints shall exclude ordscount areas subject to specified
constraints from density. allowance Portions of development sites
subject to the following constraints shall be excluded from the net
lot area used to figure density floodplains, beaches, permanent
bodies of water, significant wetlands, major utility easements,
railroad track beds or rights-of-way, and easements for
public/private streèts and roads. The remaining net lot.ar.ea shall
then be calculated for density allowance, based on the assigned
land use category density range, subject to the following discounts
based on:'site slope. (1) Portions of site 0-25% slope - 100%
density; (2). portions. of site 25-40% slope -.. approximately 50%
density allowance; and (3) portions of site. 40%+ slope - no density
allowance.
Density allowance shall be limited to the mid-point of the land use
category range, as specified by the zoning code,. unless findings
can be made that the proposed project excels in design excellence
and/or provides extraordinary community benefits. Upon such
findings, up to the maximum density level of the range may be
allowed. . .
Analysis: The propoed residential development in PA 2 has a net
density of 2.9 units per acre and is compatible with the mid-range
density provisions of this. policy.
Policy 8.5: The Special Study Overlay designation shall be applied
to lands • which, due to their sensitive nature,' should only be
developed with consideration of specific constraints and features
related to drainage courses, bluffs, slopes, geology and soils,
biotic habitat, viewsheds and vistas, and cultural resources
Development within the overlay area shall be reviewed and approved
in accordance with criteria and standards which protect coastal and
inland, resources. '
Analysis: The entire project site is within the Special Study
Overlay area and is designated in the General Plan as a high-
sensitivity area for scenic views and resources. The project
design enhances wetlands and preserves some of the Chaparral-
3-118
. covered hillsides containing sensitive species. The proposed
residential area, which may introduce pets that prey on native
species, will be immediately adjacent to the hillside open space
but as far away from the wetland open space as possible on-site.
The back yards will all be fenced. In addition, the project
proposes a wetlands restoration program that includes the removal
of non-native species and the planting of appropriate species in an
effort to offset the loss of wetlands that may result, in the long
term, as a result of the improvement of water flow through the site
that is expected to occur as a result of (1) the installation of a
third detention basin upstream of the SPA (part of the Olivenhain
Road Widening Project) and (2) the cleaning out of the El Camino
Real culvert and dredging of the area immediately upstream of the
culvert. The proposed improvements will be mitigated by the
restoration program at a ratio of 1-1/2:1. This is discussed in
more detail in the Project Description (Section 2) and in the
biology analysis (Section 3.3).
Policy 8.6: Significant natural features shall be preserved and
incorporated into all development. Such features may include
bluffs, rock outcroppings, natural drainage courses, wetland and
riparian areas, steep topography, trees and views.
Analysis: The Specific Plan is not in total conformance with this
policy. The Plan encourages the preservation of the natural
environment and the blending of development with the environment.
In general, it also bases land use designations on environmental
constraints. However, the Specific Plan designates some
significant natural features as developable. Portions of wetland
areas are designated as developable in PA 1, 3 and 4. Although the
designated developable wetlands in PA 1 and 3 are comprised of low-
quality disturbed field wetlands, the Specific Plan designates
riparian woodland in the northern portion of PA 4 as developable.
In addition, the Plan designates a portion of a steep hillside in
the southern half of PA 4 as developable. Development of these
areas would be in conflict with this policy.
The Specific Plan designates developable areas in PA 3 and 4 that
are not currently proposed for development. The potential
developable area in PA 3 coincides with the optional borrow site.
The Plan does not propose the placement of any open space easements
over sensitive lands on these planning areas other than the
existing open space easement on the hillsides in the southernmost
portion of PA 3. Indeed, this would not be appropriate at the plan
level. However, it would be appropriate for the TM to show all
proposed open space as irrevocable Open Space Easements for the
purpose of preserving biological resources. This provides better
protection than just an open space designation.
The development of PA 1 as proposed on the TM would impact 100% of
the steep slopes within PA 1 and alter a portion of Encinitas Creek
and some wetland areas. Potential biological impacts will be
mitigated by the wetlands creation and enhancement program approved
3-119
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.. However, this ,alteration
could still be considered in conflict with this policy, because, the
project will impact a natural drainage course, wetlands and steep
hillsides.. The Encinitas City Council will ultimately determine
whether. the project conforms with this policy and, if it is
determined that it does not conform, the Council will determine
whether the nonconformance is significant.
Some existing wetlands that have resulted from the sediment-
clogged culvert creating flooding on the project site, will
probably dry up in the future, when the flooding conditions are
eliminated. However, the flooding conditions are an existing
problem, and the improvement of hydrology, and the consequent
expected future decrease in wetlands, is not a result of the
project. Rather, flooding is a problem caused by the previous lack
of maintenance of the drainage system and the various agencies'
continued approval of development that contributes to the system.
The increased flooding allowed the emergence of wetlands that may
not have been in existence without the flooding. '
The northernmost portion of PA, 2, which is also part of.-the TM,
consists of steep slopes covered by Southern Mixed Chaparral, will
be cut back as part of the grading 'for PA 1. The new hillside will
be revegetated with species that are typical of the Southern Mixed
Chaparral. This EIR includes additional recommendations for
mitigating, potential biological impacts.
Policy 8.7:. Non-developable or constrained areas should be
evaluated for possible use as open space or recreational use.
Analysis: The Specific Plan does not propose the placement of any
open space easements over sensitive lands on designated open space
areas, and this would not be appropriate at the plan 'level.
However, the Specific Plan text should include a requirement that
when development is' proposed within the Planning Areas,: all native
vegetation or areas. revegetated-to-native vegetation should be
covered by irrevocable, open space easements for the preservation of
natural resources.,,Active recreational uses. are not generally
compatible with sensitive biological resources, so use of the open
space should be limited to nature observation. This would also be
in conformance with Poliôy 8.10 of the Land Use Element of the
General Plan.
The area along Encinitas Creek within the SPA has been evaluated
for a hiking and/or riding trail. However, this type of use is
generally not compatible with the sensitive biological' resources'.
The biology mitigation focuses on restricting access to the-wetland
areas.
The Specific, Plan discusses PA 3 and 4 in" terms of potentially
developable and undevelopable areas.' Environmentally constrained
areas-on these properties should be designated in the Specific Plan
for open space for the preservation of natural resources. "In
3-120
particular, the northeast corner of PA 4 should be evaluated for
possible use as an extension of the park land to the immediate
east. Because the presence of the high-voltage power lines may
constrict use within the SDG&E easement for recreation, this area
might be used for parking for the park. However, the potential
access from Olivenhain Road would have to be planned around the
existing SDG&E facilities, and would need to be evaluated for
potential traffic and safety hazards, particularly those related to,
horizontal and vertical sight distance. This is discussed in more
detail under Alternatives (Section 7.1.1.9).
The TM proposes to retain a substantial portion of the hillsides
and wetlands in PA 1 and 2 in permanent open space. Since the
purpose of the open space is to protect environmental resources and
to protect people from potential hazards, it may not be suitable to
use these areas for recreation, except for informal passive
recreation, such as nature observation and hiking. They should be
covered by irrevocable open space easements for the preservation of
natural resources. This would also be in compliance with Policy
8.10, which follows.
Policy 8.10: Ecological Resource/Open Space/Parks is a category
intended to be applied to both active and passive parklands;
lagoons; wetland habitat areas and their adjacent buffers; and
other areas of significant environmental quality or public resource
value. Lands in this category, other than public parks, and
similar areas for active recreation, will be limited to uses and
activities related to habitat enhancement; educational and
scientific nature study; passive recreation which will have no
significant adverse impact on habitat values; and, aquaculture
having no significant adverse effect or negative visual impact on
natural processes or scenic quality. All areas possessing wetland
resource values, including salt marsh and 'freshwater marsh habitat
types, shall be protected by appropriate buffers. Buffer zones
sufficient to protect wetlands shall generally be minimum 100 feet
in width, and buffer zones to protect riparian areas shall
generally be minimum 50 feet in width, unless a use or development
proposal demonstrates that a smaller buffer will protect the
resources of the wetland/riparian area based on site-specific
information, including but not limited to, the type and size of the
development and/or proposed mitigation (such as planting of
vegetation) which will also achieve the purposes of the buffer.
The buffer should be measured landward from the wetland or riparian
area. Maps and supplemental information submitted as part of the
application should be used to specifically determine these
boundaries. The California Dept. of Fish and Game and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service shall be consulted in such buffer
determinations and their comments shall be accorded great weight.
Development permitted in wetland and riparian buffer areas shall be
limited to access paths, passive recreational uses, fences and
similar improvements necessary to protect the wetland or riparian
3-121
resource, and shall be restricted to the upper or landward half of
the buffer.. Wetland/ riparian areas and their associated buffers
shall be permanently protected from development through the
application of an open space easement or other suitable instrument
Developments shall be located and designed sá as not to contribute
to increased sediment loading of the wetland-/riparian area, cause
disturbances to its fish and wildlife values, or otherwise impair
the functional capacity of the resource.. Exceptions, from this
policy for intrusion of development into wetland or riparian areas
and their associated buffers shall only be considered as specified
in Resource Management Policy 10.6 (i.e., development for the
primary purpose of the improvement of wetland resource value].
Analysis:
Specific Plan: . The, Specific Plan does'.not use .the designation
required by this policy, although it does designate land for open
space in the Open Space Plan. Because of the sensitive habitats
and plant species, as well as the steep hillsides and bluff that
are easily erodible, the Specific Plan should use the required
General Plan designation and should require that when the Planning
Areas are developed the sensitive areas are covered by open space
easements for the purpose of preserving natural resources.
Figure 3.6-8 shows the extent of a both a 50-foot 100-foot wide
buffer and total required open :space area based on the delineated
wetlands Portions of the designated development areas in PA 1, 3
and 4 are within the wetland boundary and the required buffers are
not present in some areas. However, it should be noted that this
policy allows a 50-foot wide buffer area if "a use or development
proposal demonstrates that a smaller buffer will protect the
resources of the wetland/riparian area based on site-specific
information, including but not limited to, the type and size of the
development and/or proposed mitigation (such as. planting of
vegetation) which will also achieve, the purposes of the buffer."
PA 1: Roughly the eastern half of the proposed parking lot, the
northeast corner of the proposed building, the north half of the
Garden Center, and the access road around the north side of the
Garden Center are within the area mapped as wetlands. Except for
a very small area in the Garden Center access road area that is
comprised of Riparian Woodland, all of the area désignàtèd for
development consists of disturbed field areas that qualify as
wetlands because 'they have hydric soils. The Army' Corps of
Engineers has approved a Section 404 Permit for PA 1. The
California Department of Fish and Game will not consider the
project until the EIR is certified.
S p .
p • p
:
,.
10
[] *7114
Ii
V(
-'2
0 312
BASE MAP SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP, 1991 FEET
S REQUIRED BUFFERS BASED ON FIGURE
DELINEATED WETLANDS 3.6-8
lot 3-1.23
The TM includes a minimum 50-foot wide buffer measured from the
edges of the existing riparian woodland and salt marsh vegetation
and another 50 feet of unstructured parking, as required by the
Army Corps of Engineers permit. The City policy requires that the
buffer area be measured landward from wetland 2oK riparian area.
The City of Encinitas will have to determine whether the proposed
Home Depot development can be considered compatible with this
policy. The project meets the requirements set forth by the Army
Corps of Engineers but may not meet the requirements of this City
policy. Because the policy allows some leeway, the City will need
to determine compatibility with this Policy.
In addition to impacting 2.9 acres of low-quality disturbed field
wetlands, the TM proposes to dredge and create some wetlands
immediately north of the Home Depot parking lot. Although they
will be wetlands, it is the intent of the' project that the created
marsh area, which is part of the runoff water treatment system,
serve as the buffer area. The City of Encinitas will need to
determine if this meets the requirements of this policy. A paved
parking area does not qualify as any of the uses allowed in buffer
areas, but is permitted in floodplains pursuant to Land Use Policy
8.2. If the created wetlands require their own buffer', it would
significantly reduce the parking area and an alternative project
design would be required.
A very minor amount (estimated to be about 0.4 acre) of
disturbed field area identified as wetlands on the basis of hydric
soils is designated for development. In addition, the area allowed
for development does not appear to take into account the required
buffer area for either the riparian woodland or for wetlands in
general, which must generally be a minimum of 50 feet wide. This
potential impact can be mitigated through an alternative open space
plan; this is discussed in the Alternatives section (Section 7).
Additional environmental analysis will be required when PA 3 is
proposed for development, and permits will be required from the
CDF&G and the Army Corps of Engineers,, It is possible that the
northern portion of the designated developable area would not be
approved for development by various local, state and federal
agencies without the required buffer area and probably some
wetlands mitigation.
Both areas designated as' developable within PA 4 include
wetlands, and the required minimum 50- foot wide buffer area is not
accommodated in the Specific Plan. Additional environmental
analysis will be required when this parcel is proposed for
development, and permits will be required from the CDF&G and the
Army corps of Engineers. It is possible that the majority of the
designated developable area adjacent to Olivenhain Road and the
northern portion of the designated developable area south of
Encinitas Creek would not 'be approved for development by various
local, state and federal agencies without the required buffer areas
and probably some wetlands mitigation.
3-124
Policy. 8.11: The property located at the southeast quadrant of El
Camino Real and .Olivenhain Road shall be designated as a Specific
Plan area, and development will be allowed only through prior
approval of a development plan for the entire area as described
below:
1.. The development plan shall implement the land uses: generally
shown on the Land Use Policy. Map:
Residential for the non-constrained portions of the upper
mesa east of El Camino Real (having access from the
VillagePark area).
Light industrial for the non-constrained portionsof the
lower properties having access off of El Camino Real or
Olivenlain Road. . .
C. Open Space for all areas constrained as floodplain,
wetlands and wetland buffer areas, biological resources
areas, steep topography and major transmission lines, as
determined below. . .
2. The development plan shall establish specific boundaries
between the developable portions of the area and constrained
open space lands, through detailed site studies to determine the exact extent of the constraints, and the application of the policies of the General Plan to determine what, if any,
encroachment into those constrained areas is to be allowed.
Once so determined, the constrained floodplain, wetland and
open space buffer, biological resource and steep topography
open Space lands shall be required under the Specific Plan to
'-be protected in their natural condition.
Analysis: The project applicant, in a third-party agreement with
the City of Encinitas, had a feasibility study, prepared in late
1989 and early 1990 to determine the potential biological,
archaeological, hydrological, geological and visual - quality
constraints on the project site. The Specific:Plan was developed
after analysis of the constraints identified in the feasibility
study and proposes the land use categories designated in Policy
8.11. However, the Specific Plan is not in total conformance with-
this policy. '
The Specific Plan does not protect all environmentally constrained
areas as-open space. Development is proposed in areas containing
wetlands, wetland buffer areas, steep topography, floodplain, and
major transmission line corridors. Although the Specific Plan
identifies potentially developable and undevelopable.areas.,. it does
not include open space designations for all of the environmentally
constrained •areas and does not require that all environmentally
constrained areas, be covered by open space easements for the
preservation of natural resources, in addition,,the Specific Plan
does not detail the encroachments into sensitive areas that would
be entailed if PA 3 and 4 are developed as 'designated in the
Specific Plan. .
3-125
The Specific Plan identifies a portion of PA 4. that inôludes .two
sets of high-voltage power lines as being developable According
to this policy, as.well as other City policies, the area under the
power" lines should be designated for open space uses, which could
include- parking. This potentially significant impact could be
mitigated by designating more of the environmentally constrained
areas, including all land within the SDG&E easement, for open
space. Alternatives are discussed inSection 7.1.
Some of the responses to the Draft EIR interpreted this policy to
require the development of more detailed plans for PA 3 and 4.
However, this' is not considered necessary at the plan level. What
is considered necessary is, the restriction of the designated
developable areas to , areas that are not environmentally
constrained.
Policy 9.3: 'Prohibit and eliminate billboards and obtrusive
advertising media along freeway corridors, Highway 101/First Street
and. other scenic 'corridors and routes as, specified in the Resource
Management Element., Figure 3.
Analysis: The project 'is generally compatible with this 'policy.
No billboards or roof or off-site signs will be allowed within the
SPA.' However, the Home Depot Center will include a low two- sided
orange-and-white sign at the main entry and several signs on the
building that wilr be visible 'from El Camino Real,, a' designated
Scenic, Highway ,in the Encinitas,., -Carlsbad and County General Plans.
The bright orange signs on the building will be against wood siding
of either redwood or stained cedar, minimizing the visual 'impact of.
the signs. Some of the responses to the Draft EIR expressed the
opinion that the typical bright orange Home Depot signs will create
a significant visual impact.
Policy 9.4: Encourage all landscaping along major arterials to
enhance, harmonize with,and not detract from the natural features
of the surrounding': area. '
Analysis:. The Specific Plan includes a detailed landscaping plan
that includes specific plant palettes for different areas within
the SPA. The proposed landscaping along the major arterials will
enhance and harmonize with 'the natural features of the site. This
is discussed in more detail -in Section 3.7 (Visual Quality)..
Land Use Policy, Community of New Encinitas:
The General Plan notes that the primary commercial area in the City
is located in New Encinitas along both' sides of El Camino Real,
with a major concentration of this activity at the intersection of
El Camino Real and Encinitas Boulevard. It also notes' that. these
two streets will continue to act as the City's 'main' business
district in the future. In addition, it states that the portions
of El Camino Real within the New Encinitas Community are designated
as target areas to be considered for redevelopment. The objectives
tor the redevelopment 'include: (1) elimination of blighted and
3-126 ' '
underutilized commercial properties located along both El Camino
Real and Encinitas Boulevard as they pass through New Encinitas;
(2) implementation of strategies that would enhance the appearance
of the El Camino Real and Encinitas Boulevard streetscapes; (3)
creation of an attractive commercial district that would serve the
needs of both local residents and visitors to the community; (4)
implementation of design guidelines to provide unity in urban
design; (5) provision of public improvements (including roadway,
parking, traffic control, drainage, etc.) necessary to ensure
continued viability of the district in the future; and (6)
improvement of the economic and revenue base of the City and
community .f or future improvements that will serve the public good.
Analysis: The project is deemed to be compatible with this policy.
The portion of the project adjacent to El Camino Real is
immediately north of the Byron White Garden View Plaza project and
is an extension of the existing commercial development to the
south. The proposed design will incorporate the use of wood to
blend in with the natural environment and the use of brick to tie
it in with existing and planned development in the commercial area
to the south. It will also develop an underutilized property and
substantially improve the economic and revenue base of the City and
the Community. The Home Depot Home Improvement Center will attract
customers from Carlsbad, Del Mar, Solana Beach, Rancho Santa Fe,
and north San Diego as well as Encinitas, thus bringing outside
dollars into Encinitas while also improving the property tax base
for the City. The proposed TM includes the improvement of El
Camino Real along the property frontage, the installation of a
traffic signal, and drainage improvements that will reduce
potential flooding on not only the project site, but on other
properties as well.
Housing Element Policy Compatibility
Most of the policies in the Housing Element are citywide policies
and not related to specific projects. The following policies are
deemed relevant to the proposed project:
Policy 3.8: Adapt residential development to the terrain.
Analysis: The proposed residential development has been located on
the highest portion of the project site, adjacent to the existing
development, and has retained the more sensitive, and highly
visible, lower slopes as open space. Split-level .homes will be
used on some of the lots to minimize topographic alteration and,
instead, incorporate the hillside into the house design.
Policy 3.9: Encourage street planting, landscaping and
undergrounding of utilities.
Analysis: The project includes the undergrounding of utilities and
landscaping, including street planting along El Camino Real and
Scott Place.
3-127
Policy 3.11: 'Discourage residential development of steep slopes,
cànyons, and floodplains.
Analysis: Since PA 1., 3 and 4 arel not designated or pràposed for
residential development, this plicy is not applicable. The
proposed'. houSes in PA 2 have been sited primarily along 'the ridge
top and in already disturbed area's but do encroach into steep
hillsides. Therefore, the Specific Plan and.TN are not.tótally in
conformance with this policy. Steep slope encroachment is
quantified in the analysis of the poject's conformance with Public
Safety Element Policy 1.2, which follows later in this section.
Policy 3.13.: Cost effective energy-efficient housing, including
the use of passive systems, will be encouraged within the City to
decrease energy use.
Analysis The Specific Plan includes guidelines for the inclusion
of solar panels in the roof design ,The Plan could be improved by
requiring 'solar and passive energy systems for all development, to
the maximum extent possible The residences proposed for PA ,2 will
be in an:-east/west alignment, which' will maximize the potential for
using solar heating for water and space heating.
Circulation Element Policies
Policy 1.2::. Endeavor to maintain jLevel of Service. (LOS) C as a
basic design guideline for the local system of roadways,
understanding that 'the guideline may not be attainable in all
cases.
Analysis: The traffic analysis for the project indicated that, if
no road improvements are made by 1995, even without the Specific
Plan traffic, the portion of El Camino Real between Olivenhain Road
and Encinitas Boulevard. and the iporti.o,n of Encinitas Boulevard
between 1-5 and El Camino Real would both be operating atLOS F.
The traffic report recommended that the City 'Consider the'merits of
improving these roads to full Prime. Arterial standards' by 1995,
which would 'improve the operating LOS on the roadway Segments to
LOS C or better. . In addition, the traffic study recómmeñded that
the Encinitas Blvd./I-5 ramps be improved to bring traffic
operations up to an acceptable , level, and that the project
applicant contribute to the various road improvements on a fair
share basis..
PoliCy 1.3: Prohibit development which results in LOS E or Fat
any intersection unless no alternatives exist 'and an overriding
public need can be demonstrated.
Analysis: ' The project area road segments and intersections are
already operating at unacceptable standards. The traffic from
development of the TN,' and ultimate development of all Planning
Areas withinthe SPA, will incrementally'contributeto the existing
problems. The traffic congestion is a regional problem, not caused
by any one project, and not subject to mitigation by any one
project. This EIR includes traffic mitigation measures designed to
mitigate the proposed TM's project impacts through specific road
3-128
improvements and the payment of traffic impact mitigation fees to
aid in alleviating community problems. Potential traffic impacts
are considered to be mitigatable to a less than significant level
for, the project through (1) the road ixnprovementsalong El Camino
Real, (2) a financial contribution to the Olivenhaiñ Road Widening
Project, and (3) the payment of traffic impact 'mitigation fees,
which will be' applied towards funding community road improvements.
The City Counöil will need to determine if a finding for overriding
consideration due to public need is necessary.
Policy 1.6: Minimize freeway, prime, arterial, major, collector,
and augmented local access to, encourage their use as throughways
rather than as access to adjacent properties.
Analysis: The proposed project includes' the construction of
another lane on the east half of -El Camino Real to allow for turns
into and 'out of the property.
Policy 1.9: Minimize private driveway access onto both major and
collector roads.
Analysis: The proposed project includes access from El Camino Real
in order to avoid crossing the on-site wetlands with an access road
from Olivenhain Road. However, 'the inclusion of a turning lane
will minimize the impacts on through traffic on El CaminO Real.
Policy 1.11: Construct roads following the natural contours to
minimize cuts and fills, avoid grid street patterns when feasible
Analysis: The, proposed extension of Scott Place roughly follows the
natural contours along the 'ridge top. ' No other streets are
proposed as part of the current development.
Policy 1.15:'' The City will actively support an integrated
transportationi program that encourages and provides for, mass
transit, bicycle transportation, pedestrians, equestrians, and
car-pooling (COastal Act/3 0252).
Analysis The proposed road improvements include a bike lane along
El Camino Real, as well as-a landscaped sidewalk. No provision is
made for equestrian use. Pedestrians will have limited 'access to
the open space. ;The Home Depot Home Improvement Center, will
include 10 bicycle parking spaces and 10 'motorcycle spaces.
Policy 1.16: In areas where street patterns and extensions. are 'not
complete and significant lands remain for development which do not
have direct street access, neighborhood street/access plans shall
be required prior to any further land division or development.
Analysis: The. Specific. Plan' does not conform to' this policy
because it does not provide a street 'plan for the SPA.' The
Specific Plan assumed that future acces's to PA 3 and the southern
portion of PA 4 would have to come through the Home Depot property.
because access from the north would require the crossing of
Encinitas Creek. However, there is nothing in the Specific Plan
that guarantees access to these areas through PA 1.' 'The proposed
TM does not include any access easements for PA' 3 or 4, although it
3-129
does includea notation that future access to these areas through
PA I is anticipated. The supplemental traffic study by Wilidan
Associates concluded that, with certain conditions, access to PA 3
and 4 through PA i. is acceptable from a traffic safety and
circulation Standpoint. When PA 1, is developed, an access easement
hoüld be granted to the owners of PA 3 and 4. The Specific Plan
could* be seen 'as conflicting with this policy, however, the City
could consider conditioning the Specific Plan to provide access.
Policy 2.2: Require new residential development to have roadways
constructed to City standards before the roads can be dedicated to
the City.
Analysis: The extension of Scott Place will be constructed to City
standards and will, be compatible with this policy. The widening of
El Camino Real ,will' meet County standards because it is a County
road although the portion of the road to be dedicated will be a
City road.
Policy 3.1: The needs of the handicapped will be considered in new
development plans, including handicapped parking, loading, etc.
Analysis: The Home Depot Home Improvement Center includes '8
handicapped parking spaces with the required loading area on each
side of the space. The building will also be accessible to the
handicapped.
Policy 3.3: Create a 'safe and convenient circulation system for
pedestrians (Coastal Act/30252).
Analysis: The Specific Plan and TM include.a landscaped sidewalk
along'El Camino Real. Specific mitigation measures are recommended.
in this EIR to ensure traffic safety in the parking lot of the
proposed Home Depot Center.. No improvement of Olivenhairi Road" is
proposed because that road is planned for widening; in the future.
The project applicant will contribute to the fund for the future
widening. The project is deemed compatible with 'this policy.
Policy 4.2: Promote and encourage roadside and median landscaping
(Coastal Act/30251).
Analysis: The project includes landscaping within the ROW set
aside .f or,. the parkway/sidewalk and is compatible with this' policy.
Policy 4.3: Separate pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic by
encouraging adequate space for walking and biking by 'striping
roadways, excepting freeways (coastal Act/30252).
Analysis:. The project includes the striping of a bikeway adjacent
to the curb and landscaped sidewalk along El Camino Real, and is
compatible with this policy.
Policy 4.12: Encourage undergrounding of. utilities 'within streets
rights-of-way and transportation corridors (Coastal Act/30251).
Analysis: 'The' project will underground all-new on_s.ite:utilities
and is compatible with this policy-. The project area includes a
150-foot wide power line easement granted. to SDG&E. 'The. easement
3-130
includes 138-Ky and 230-Ky electric lines and a 30-inch gas main
that is used for the transmission of liquefied petroleum products.
The gas and electric facilities extend to the north and south and
continue into other jurisdictions. The Specific Plan has taken
these facilities into account. Additional information is provided
in the section on electromagnetic frequency radiation hazards
(Section 3.17).
Goal 5: Leucadia Boulevard between 1-5 and Olivenhain Road is
planned as a. scenic roadway and major arterial with an 85-foot ROW.
Analysis: The project will not affect the future of this planned
road. However, it will provide direct access to the site when it
is developed and will have views of the site.
The Circulation Element designates Olivenhain Road as a 6-lane
Prime Arterial. The design for a Prime Arterial is generally a
six-lane roadway with a roadbed of 100 to 110 feet within a ROW of
120 to 130 feet. The road is generally divided by a median, with
three travel lanes in each direction. The Encinitas Circulation
Element designates the portion of El Camino Real along the project
frontage as an augmented Prime Arterial, which means that the
capacity can be increased by maximizing the utilization of the
basic lane configuration. Augmentation can include such techniques
as adding lanes at intersections to adding or expanding a median
and/or other midblock measures to improve traffic flow and reduce
side friction.
The portion of El Camino Real encompassing the project site is
designated as a scenic roadway by both the County and the City of
Encinitas. This designation is used to aesthetically enhance the
roadways through abundant landscaping, decorative street furniture,
recreational trails, earthen berms for noise attenuation, and
additional ROW to accommodate such features.
The Circulation Element designates both El Camino Real and
Olivenhain Road as bikeways. The project proposes to include a
Class II bikeway on El Camino Real. In addition, the applicant
will contribute funding towards the future widening of Olivenhain
Road, which will also include a.bikeway.
Public Safety Element Policies
Policy i..i.: Development and grading or filling in drainage
courses, floodways and floodplains shall be prohibited except as
provided by Land Use Element Policy 8.2.... When flood/drainage
improvements are warranted, require developers to mitigate flood
hazards in those areas identified as being subject to periodic
flooding.
Analysis: The City of Encinitas has determined that parking is a
suitable use in a floodplain, and Encinitas policy allows grading
in the floodplain for uses that are allowed in the floodplain. The
TM includes the cleaning out of sediment beneath the El Camino Real
3-131
bridge, which has been backing up water onto the project site and
causing flooding in recent years. In addition, the project
applicant for PA 1 will contribute to the funding of the approved
Detention Basin D upstream, which is a part of the Olivenhain Road
Widening Project. This will further reduce on- site flooding. The
project proposes to locate the parking area in an area that has, in
the recent past, been subject to inundation because of the
inadequate drainage system. However, the project will raise the
area out of the floodplain and the City has determined that parking
is a suitable use in a floodplain.
Policy 1.2: Restrict development in those areas where slope
exceeds 25% as specified in the Hillside/Inland Bluff overlay, zone
regulations of the zoning code. Encroacthment into slopes as
detailed in the Hillside/Inland Bluff overlay may range from 0% to
a maximum of 20%, upon the discretionary judgment that such
encroachment is necessary for site development and that the maximum
contiguous area of sensitive slopes shall be preserved.
Modification from this policy may be made upon the finding that
strict application of this policy would preclude any reasonable use
of property (one dwelling unit per legal parcel). Exceptions may
also be made for development of Circulation Element roads, local
public streets or private roads and driveways which are necessary
for access to the more developable portions of a site on slopes of
less than 25% grade, and other vital public facilities, but only to
the extent that no other feasible alternatives exist, and minimum
disruption. to the natural slope is made.
Analysis: The Hillside Inland Bluff Overlay (H/IBO) Zone applies
to areas covered by the Special Study Overlay Zone that: have slopes
in excess of 25% gradient. It requires that the project applicant
submit a slope analysis on a topographic map with contour intervals
not exceeding 2 feet. The slope categories must be <25%, 25-40%,
and >401%. The maximum encroachment allowed per parcel is 20%,
although public roads and public utility systems identified in the
Circulation Element are exempt from the encroachment limit. The
grading of steep slopes required for the widening of El Camino
Real, the extension of Scott Place, and the southernmost driveway
in PA 1, south of the Home Depot Center, are exempt from the limits
of this policy. Where it is necessary to maintain a minimum
development right (total disturbed area) on existing legal parcels,
an exception to the 20% encroachment maximum can be made. No
structure or improvement can be placed, and no grading shall be
undertaken, within 25 feet of any point along an inland bluff edge.
The steep slope encroachment limitations of this policy, relate to
parcels. This somewhat complicates the analysis of the
compatibility of the TM with this policy because PA 1 and 2 are
currently one parcel although they are designated as separate
planning areas and it. is anticipated that, if the TM is approved,
the Home Depot Corporation may sell PA 2 because the. Home Depot
Corporation is not in the residential development business.
However, 'the grading for El Camino Real that is in PA 2 will
3-132
actually. be accomplished as parrt of the development of PA 1
Therefore, the two Planning Areas may logically be combined for the
purpose of analysis Figure j.6-'9 shows the areas to be used for
roads and driveways that are exempted from this policy. Table 3.,6-
i includes the encroachment analysis by Planning Area in accordance
with Policy 1 2 Table 3'-,6-2", includes the same analysis but
combines the areas covered by the TM (PA 1 and 2) in order to
assess TM impacts As shown in both tables, the 60% steep slope
encroachment proposed by the Specific Plan for PA 4 far exceeds the
20% maximum When an actual development plan is submitted, the
steep slope areas used for roads and driveways may be subtracted
out of the steep slope acreage, according to Policy 1 2 However,
it is likely that the net encroachment will still exceed the 20%
allowance.
AS shown in the Tables 3.6-1 and 3.6-2,. ,the development proposed by
the TM conforms to Policy 1.2., This conclusion differs from the
Draft EIR because, when the. Draft EIR was prepared, the steep
slopes to be used for roads and driveways had not been quantified
However, the Specific Plan does not conform to this policy because
the allowable steep slope encroachment will .bé.exceeded in PA 4.
Policy 1.3: The City will--rely on the Coastal Bluff and
Hillside/Inland Bluff Overlay toned to prevent future development
or redevelopment that will represent a hazard to its owners or
occupants, and which may require structural. measures to: prevent
destructive erosion or collapse (Coastal Act/30240/30251/30253)
Analysis: Development of PA 1 will include cutting into the Delmar
Formation at the base of the hillside at the southern boundary of
the PA. The final grading plan should again be reviewed by GEOCON
prior to issuance of a grading permit. An intensive vegetation
restoration plan will be required to mitigate potential erosion
Policy 1.8: New residential and commercial construction shall
provide for smoke detector and fire sprinkler systems to reduce the
impact of development on service levels.
Analysis: The development proposed for PA 1 and .2 will comply
with this requirement. No development has yet been proposed for PA
3 and 4.
Policy 1.15: The city shall establish and implement standards,
based on the 50- or 100-year storm, for flood control and drainage
improvements ... Such standards and improvements shall be consistent
with the policies of this Plan to respect community character and
maintain natural or natural-appearing, drainage courses whenever
feasible.
Analysis: . The project proposes to remove some of the non-native
species in the floodplain area and enhance the wetlands through the
planting and maintenance of native species. The drainage, channel
will .retain a natural-appearing character and is compatible with
this policy.
3-133
. Table 3.6-1
Steep Slope Encroachment Analysis ,for the Specific Plan. Area
# of Acres With 25%+ % Steep
Slope Proposed for Slope En-
Plan #. of Acres Development croachrnent
Area With 25%+ Per Public .
Slope Subject to Not Subject Safety Policy 1,2A Policy 1•20 Policy 12A
1 0.97 0.11. . 0.86 11.3%
2 8.06 1.63 . l.85 20.2%
3 3.72 0.31 NA 8.1%
4 •.. .1.93 • 1.16 NA • . 60.1%:
SPA . 14.68 3.21 2.71 21.9%
A Proposed development not exempted from Public Safety
Element Policy 1.2 •• .
Roads and driveways exempted from Public Safety Element
Policy 1.2. . . • .. .
NA Not: Available .
LEGEND
Indicates Area> 25% Slope
Indicates Area> 25% Slope
j Disturbed for Development
---;:' Indicates Area> 25% Slope
Disturbed for Roads & Drives
Exempt Per General Plan
Public
-
Safety Element Policy 1.2
- 14 33 1 1
1 7 EXIST SDG&E -
_f9O
_\EASEMEHT . - - : . . -.. . •..-. .1 <I - . TYCFS0E/
.': BORROW
SITE GRADIN~ OPTIdNAL
I
7
L
((
fy
1001 YR ___k
I7 .ACc ab i
/ H100 YR FL000PL'AIN / j\ 24
Li
V'i'fr (•A7
>. : .• I .Pf2O
PARKINQ AREA 1z
LOT \ OIL/WATER SEPARATOR I! [:11 .•'ç j1\j .
OF PROPOSED) LNLJISANCE WATER L4.t ')cL-r L EXCAVATION TO TREATMEJT WETLAND SEWER bCREATE REVEGETA3I'EFP' ZONE I DOMESTIC WATER
2251,
12 SOGIE EASEMENT/'1 1) I cIRE SERVICE WATER .. - QZ " 1/ - j 6 _• . . . —. . 1/ fl
TEMP AR
OIT -.9I . OW TR
___ 3 WIDE-PROP0SED . S ' - /'jc PROP- '.
TEMPORA
4 -. s._
30'
- - 9 A :ROW DEOICAT1O - c'-' SEWER /
- L' ' "
3° Z ESRT
7, 3912 COUNTY OF iT - -j
- I CONSTB(JCTIONE
_______ -. ., -4.. -L--- ____ , ••_•__• pOpSTORMDRA . /gNOo2O'13E
TI
-Jo
I) - -
REPLACEMENT.
-V rl---
- —---
FIGURE
STEEP SLOPE ENCROACHMENT IN THE TM AREA 3.6-9
3-135
Table 3.6-2
Steep Slope Encroachment ,Analysis for TM Areas Combined
# of Acres With 25%+ % Steep
Slope Proposed for Slope En-
Plan # of Acres Development . croachment
Area With 25%+ Per Public • Slope Subject to Not Subject Safety Policy 1 2A Policy 1 2B
_
Policy 1.2 A
1 &,2 9.03. 1.74 2.71
3 . 3.72 0.31 NA: . 8.3%
4 . 1.93 1.16 NA 60.1%
SPA 14.68 3.21 :. 2.71 21.9%
A Proposed development not exempted from Public Safety
Element Policy 1.2
Roads and driveways exempted from Public Safety Element
Policy 1.2.
NA Not Available
Policy 2.6: Except as provided in Public Safety Policy 1.1, no
development or filling shall be permitted within any 100-year
fioodplain..
Analysis. No structural development is proposed within the
existing 100- year floodplain; the Home Depot building is proposed
justsouth .of the 100-year floodplain. A portion of the parking
for the Home Depot Center will be within the existing 100.-year
floodplain. However, the project will raise the area out of the
floodplain and, in addition, the City of Encinitas1has determined
that parking is a suitable use ma floodplain. The project is
considered to be compatible with this policy.
Policy 3.4: Land uses involved in the prodution, storage,
transportation, handling or disposal of hazardous materials will be
located a safe distance from land uses that may be adversely
impacted by such activities
Analysis: The terms "hazardous materials" and "safe distance" are
not defined The Home Depot Improvement Center will sell and store
some types of household materials that are considered toxic, such
as paints, solvents, pesticides, etc. None of the materials would
3-137
require evacuation of nearby areas in the event Of any spills. Any
spills within the Home Depot building will be cleaned up and
disposed of in the manner required by law, and will not be poured
into the• sanitary. sewer or storm drain system. The garden shop
area of the Home Depot Home Improvement Center will be located as
far away from the creek area as possible, on the opposite site of
the building, so that runoff that might contain fertilizers and
pesticides does not reach the creek. In addition, the oil/water
separators and runoff water treatment area at the north edge of the
Parking lot will substantially minimize the potential for
potentially hazardous urban runoff from the parking lot from
reaching the creek.
Comments received on the DraftEIR expressed the concern that the
proposed Home Depot Center is not located a safe distance from
Encinitas Creek, as required by this policy. However, it should be
noted that, in issuing the Section 404 Permit,, the Army Corps of
Engineers has indicated their satisfaction with the proposed
mitigation, and the biological conéuItant has concluded the same.
Policy 3.5: Commercial and industrial facilities shall be required
to participate in a hazardous materials and wastes mitigation and
response program.
Analysis: The Home Depot Center will sell and store household
materials that are considered toxic and subject, to special
hazardous waste collection and disposal. In addition, there may be
occasional spills in the store or outside in the parking lot. The
applicant will participate in all hazardous materials waste
collection and disposal-programs required by the City.
The Public Safety Element identifies the northern portion of the
project area as haying a flood hazard and the southern portion as
having a hillside/geotechnical/f ire hazard. In addition, the gas
main traversing the site is considered to be a public safety
hazard. When PA 4 is proposed for development in the future, it
will undergo additional project-specific environmental analysis
that will necessarily include an analysis of potential' safety
impacts on the proposed development.
Resource Management Element Policies
Policy 1.1: Require new development tO utilize measures designed
to conserve water in their construction.
Analysis: The water conservation features. of the Specific Plan
include: (1) use of auto shut-off faucets and low-flow toilets in
the bathroom facilities; (2) use of drip 'irrigation systems for all
planted areas; (3) use of drought-tolerant native and indigenous
plant species and minimization of turf areas, (4) use of mulch on
the ground around all plant materials, (5) use of plant species in
some areas that can acclimate to irrigation, by reclaimed water
(i.e., plants with a high salt tolerance), and (6) use of a rain
switôh to override the sprinkler operation.
3-138
Policy. 1.11: If a development can be connected to the sewer
system, the system must have the capacity to handle the additional
load of the proposed project
Analysis: The Leucadia County Water District has indicated that
sewer service will be available to the project areasproposéd for
development as soon as thèyareannexèd to the District.
Policy 2.3: To minimize harmful pollutants from entering the ocean
environment from lagoons, streams, storm drains and other waterways
containing potential contaminants, the City shall mandate the
reduction or elimination contaminants, entering all such
waterways.... (Coastal Act/30230/30231/30233).
Analysis: The TM proposes to install oil/water/sediment separators
at the north end of the parking lot and near the garden center to
intercept runoff and prevent.contaminationOf Encinitas Creek from
the urban pollutants in the parking area and from sedimentation
from the north-facing hillsides. in PA 1 and 2.
Policy 3.6: Future development, shall maintain significant, mature
trees to the extent possible and incorporate them into the." design
of development projects.
Analysis: The development proposed for PA 2 will result in the
loss of one mature, planted (as opposed to naturally. occurring)
Torrey Pine. The, tree is the only one of the four Torrey 'Pines
that were planted on the site as part of land uses earlier in the
century. The loss of this' one' mature tree could be' seen as a
conflict with Policy 3.6. However, the project proposes the
planting of Torrey Pines in Landscape Zone 4. (Open Space and
Conservation Zone; no significant biological impacts are
anticipated.
Policy 4.6: The City will maintain and enhance. the scenic
highway/visual corridor viewsheds (Coastal Act/3025'1)'.
Analysis: The residences proposed in PA 2 will be atop the hill,
adjacent to the existing residences, and will 'not be' evident when
traveling northbound on El Camino Real. Travelers southbound on El
Camino Real will see the homes in the distance. However, below the
homes the natural hillsides will be in view, as well as the Home
Depot Home ,Improvement Center and!the wetlands open space. The
placement of. a 102,000-square foot building and the accompanying
parking lot will have visual impacts. However, visual quality is
a very subjective issue. The Home Depot project includes extensive
landscaping and wetlands restoration, as well as landscaping along
the sidewalk. The proposed landscaping will be 'more aesthetically
pleasing than the'barren area. formerly occupied by the temporary
jobs center and ravaged by .cars,-and unauthorized habitatiOns. Some
people may feel that the existing visual 'quality in, the lowlands
south of the Creek area should not be maintained, but should
definitely be enhanced. Others feel that urban development is
visually displeasing regardless of the amount' of landscaping and
other mitigation measures. '. The Encinitas City Council will make
the ultimate determination on compatibility with this policy.
3-139
The lower portions of the north -facing hillside in PA 1 and 2 will
be cut back to provide the fill needed for PA 1. The upper 10 to
15 feet of the graded and revegetated slopes will be visible from
some-off-site locations The,.,.graded slopes will be revegetated
with Landscape Zone 4 species that are suitable for Chaparral
habitats. The graded'hillside. will 'transitiàn from a 2:1 slope at
the base to a 3:1 slope in the upper portion. The slope, will be
rolled back at the sides .to create a natural appearance.
Policy 4.7: The portion of El Camino Real between Encinitas
Boulevard and La Costa Boulevard is designated as a scenic
highway/visual corridor viewshed in .the Encinitas General Plan.
Analysis: see Policy 4.6 above.
Policy 4.9: It is intended that development would be subject to
the design review provisions of the Scenic' Visual Corridor Overlay
Zone for those locations within Scenic View Corridors, along scenic
highways and adjacent to significant viewsheds and vista, points,
with the...addition of the following design criteria (Coastal
Act/30251/30253):
Type and physical characteristics of roadway should be
compatible with natural character of corridor, and with the
scenic highway function.
. Building and vegetation setbacks, development design, scenic
easements, and height and bulk restrictions should be used to
maintain existing views and, vistas from the roadway.
Off-site signage should be prohibited and existing billboards
removed.
Development should be minimized and regulated, along any bluff
silhouette line or on adjacent, slopes within view,., of the
lagoon -.areas "and Escondido Creek.
Where possible,..,4evelopment should be placed and set back from
the bases of bluffs, .and .similarly, setback, from bluff or
ridge top silhouette lines; shall leave lagoon areas and
f:loodplains' open, and shall be sited to provide unobstruct'ed
view corridors from the nearest scenic highway.
Development, that is allowed . within the viewshed area must
respond in. 'scale, roof line, materials; color,, massing, and
location on site to the topography, existing, vegetation, and
colors of the native environment.
Analysis: ,
I. . Because the .portion of El. Camino Real between 'Encinitas
Boulevard and Olivenhain Road, which encompasses the project
site, is mostly developed with commercial. uses, except for the
3-140
project site and the Ecke property to the west (which may be
developed in the foreseeable future), the existing road is not
particularly scenic or natural. The proposed widening of El
Camino Real will be compatible with the County of San Diego
road standards. Extensive landscaping is proposed between El
Camino Real and the Home Depot building.
The proposed Home Depot building is set back 90 feet from the
road and will be partially screened from El Camino Real by the
proposed landscaping plan. However, the 102,000-square foot
building may be considered bulky and overly high in relation
to surrounding uses.
No off-site signäge or billboards are proposed. This policy
will eliminate the potential for future development in PA 3
and 4 to place signs on PA 1.
.4. The proposed residential development will be an extension of
the existing residential development higher up on the 'ridge
and is considered compatible with thispolicy.
.5'. The proposed Home Depot Center is sited outside of the
floodplain. The parking for the Center is partially., in the
existing floodplain, however the area will be raised out of
the floodplain as part of the project. Because of the
.
proposed' setback of the building and the location of the
C building south of the reek, the building is not expected to
significantly obstrut view corridors from El Camino . Real to
the Creek.
6. The Home Depot Home Improvement Center will be visible from. El
Camino Real, although it will 'include landscaping along the
street as well as on the project site. The Home Depot Center
does not respond in scale, roofline, colors, massing and
colors of the native environment. Although 'the building will
use earth-tone colors, the bright orange and white signs will
call attention to the structure. The maximum height will be
39 'feet. The Home Depot building will be set back 90 feet
from the new ROW (after road, improvement) , which is compatible
with this policy and will. somewhat minimize the visual
impacts.'Visual quality is addressed in more detail in
Section 3.7. Compatibility with this policy, is discussed in
'detail in' Section. 3.7.2.
Policy 7.1: Require that paleontological,' historical and
archaeological resources in the planning area are. documented,
preserved or salvaged if threatened by,, new development (Coastal
Act/30250).
Analysis: Extensive archaeological surveys and an excavation
program determined that no significant archaeological or historical
sites remain in the SPA.. This is discussed in detail -in. Section
3.13 and,, in Appendices H and' M. Potential paleontological
3-141
resources will be protected through implementation of the
paleontological mitigation monitoring program discussed in Section
3.16.
Policy 9.1: The City will initiate and pursue the landscaping of
appropriate median and parking areas with trees on all new and
existing arterial streets (Coastal Act/30251).
Analysis: The project includes the provision of trees and
landscaping in the ROW adjacent to the sidewalk, as well as within
the parking area and around the Home Depot building. The median
will not be landscaped in order to minimize water consumption. The
project is deemed compatible with this policy.
Policy 9.2: All drainage courses should be maintained in natural
or semi-natural vegetation utilizing existing topography as opposed
to concrete ditches or pipes (Coastal Act/30231/30240).
Analysis: The project will enhance the existing drainage
vegetation by removing non-native species and replanting the area
with suitable native species. Upon completion of the wetlands
mitigation plan, the area in the vicinity of Encinitas Creek will
appear more lush and will be of higher quality than the existing
vegetation. The channel will retain a natural look, as opposed to
the manmade look of the Encinitas Creek drainage channel to the
east of the site.
Policy 9.6: Require landscaping in the design of new residential,
commercial, and industrial areas and buildings as detailed in the
City Zoning Code regulations (Coastal Act/30251/30253).
Analysis: The project includes a landscaping plan that meets the
City requirements.
Policy 10.1: The City will minimize development impacts on
Southern Mixed Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub environmentally
sensitive habitats by preserving, within the inland bluff and
hillside systems, all native vegetation on natural slopes of 25%
grade and over other than manufactured slopes ... Encroachments for
any purpose, including fire break brush clearance around
structures, shall be limited as specified in Public Safety Policy
1.2... (Coastal Act/30240/30250/30251/30253).
Analysis: The fire protection program includes selective thinning
and pruning of native vegetation in some areas of the Chaparral.
The fuel management plan indicates certain species that are to be
left alone, and, in order to ensure that these species are
protected, the mitigation recommends that the maintenance team
include a biologist that is familiar with sensitive native species
in San Diego County. The compatibility of the project with the
Inland Bluff Overlay Zone is discussed under Public Safety Element
Policy 1.2. Policy 10.5 addresses the preservation of Coastal Sage
Scrub and Coastal Mixed Chaparral.
Policy 10.4: The City will develop a program to acquire or
preserve the entire undeveloped riparian corridor within the City
3-142 C
that drains into the San Elijo Lagoon and Batiquitos Lagoon...
(Coastal Act/30231/30241).
Analysis: The portion of Encinitas Creek within the Home Depot TM
is being retained in open space, and would allow future acquisition
if it becomes possible. The Specific Plan does not indicate a
boundary for future open space along Encinitas Creek in PA 4. An
alternative plan that would allow future acquisition of this area
is included in the Alternatives analysis (Section 7.1.2).
Policy 10.5: The City will control development design in Coastal
Mixed Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub environmentally sensitive
habitats by including all parcels containing concentrations of
these habitats within the Special Study Overlay designation. The
following guidelines will be used to evaluate projects for
approval: (1) conservation of as much existing contiguous area of
Coastal Mixed Chaparral or Coastal Sage Scrub as feasible while
protecting the remaining areas from highly impacting uses; (2)
minimize fragmentation or separation of existing contiguous natural
areas; (3) connection of existing natural areas with each other or
other open space areas adjacent to maintain local wildlife movement
corridors; (4) maintenance of the broadest possible configuration
of natural habitat area to aid dispersal of organisms within the
habitat; (5) where appropriate, based on community character and
design, clustering.of residential or other uses near the edges of
the natural areas rather than. dispersing such uses within the
natural areas; (6) where significant, yet isolated habitat areas
exist, development shall be designed to preserve and protect them;
(7) conservation of the widest variety of physical and vegetational
conditions on-site to maintain the highest habitat diversity; (8)
design of development, with adjacent uses given consideration, to
maximize conformance to these guidelines; and (9) preservation of
rare and endangered species on-site rather than by transplantation
off- site (Coastal Act/30240/30250).
Analysis: The project is largely compatible with this policy. The
Specific Plan designates open space areas that are contiguous, so
as to minimize fragmentation of habitats and maximize the
dispersion potential for plant and animal species. The proposed
open space in PA 2 will provide a continuation of the Chaparral in
the open space easement in PA J. This will connect existing
natural areas and maintain local wildlife movement. In addition,
the preservation and enhancement of the Encinitas Creek floodplain,
so that it is maintained in a more natural condition than occurs
east of the SPA (where it is channelized) will maintain wildlife
movement along the Creek within the SPA. Although some sensitive
plant species will be impacted, the revegetation plan and
mitigation monitoring program will ensure that they are replaced
on-site. The one aspect of this policy with which the project may
not conform is related to the presence of the California
Gnatcatcher in PA 1, 2 and 3. Because the territory for the
resident pair of this sensitive species covers such a large portion
of the SPA, and because the SPA is surrounded by existing, approved
and planned development on all sides, the recommended mitigation
3-143
for impacts to the California Gnatcatchers is off-site preservation
of habitat that meets specific criteria specified in Section 3.3.3. 40
This may not be considered compatible with this policy. However,
several consulting biologists have concluded that the species will
have a better chance of survival with the recommended off-site
mitigation, and several off-site areas have been investigated by
biologists and are considered suitable mitigation areas.
Policy 10.6: The City shall preserve and protect wetlands within
the City's planning area. "Wetlands are defined under the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service definition. There shall be no net loss
of wetland acreage or resource value as a result of land use or
development, and the City's goal is to realize a net gain in
acreage and value whenever possible.
Identification of wetland acreage and resource value shall precede
any consideration of use or development on sites where wetlands are
present or suspected. With the exception of development for the
primary purpose of the improvement of wetland resource value, all
public and private use and development proposals' which would
intrude into, reduce the area of, or reduce the resource value of
wetlands shall be subject to alternatives and mitigation analyses
consistent with Federal EPA 404(b) (1) findings and procedures under
the U.S. Army Corps permit process. Practicable project and site
development alternatives which, involve no wetland intrusion or
impact shall be preferred over alternatives which involve intrusion
or impact. Wetland mitigation, replacement or compensation shall
not be used to offset impacts or intrusion avoidable through other
practicable project or site development alternatives. When wetland
intrusion or impact is unavoidable, replacement of the lost wetland
shall be required through the creation of new wetland of the same
type lost, at a ratio determined by regulatory agencies with
authority over wetland resources, but in any case at a ratio of
greater than 1 acre provided for each acre impacted so as to result
in a net gain. Replacement of wetlands on-site or adjacent, within
the same wetland system, shall be given preference over replacement
off-site or within a different system.
The City shall also control use and development in surrounding
areas of influence to wetlands with the application of buffer
zones. At a minimum, 100-foot wide buffers shall be provided
upland of salt-water wetlands, and 50-foot wide buffers shall be
provided upland of riparian wetlands. Unless otherwise specified
in this plan, use and development within buffer areas shall be
limited to passive recreational uses with fencing, desiltation or
erosion control facilities, or other improvements deemed necessary
to protect the habitat, to be located in the upper (upland) half of
the buffer area when feasible.
All wetlands and buffers identified and resulting from development
and use approval shall be permanently conserved or protected
through the application of an open space easement or other suitable
3-144
device. The City shall not approve subdivisions or boundary line
adjustments which would allow increased impacts from development in
wetlands or wetland buffers (Coastal Act/30231).
Analysis: The development proposed for PA 1, as part of the TM and
Specific Plan, will technically result in a net loss of wetland
acreage because wetlands enhancement is not counted as mitigation.
Therefore, not all of the proposed wetland mitigation is credited.
However, there will be an increase in the quality and habitat value
of the wetlands. The Army Corps of Engineers, in consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has accepted the proposed
wetlands plan as adequate to mitigate potential biological impacts
and has issued the Section 404 Permit, and the consulting biologist
has concluded that potential wetlands impacts will be mitigated to
a less than significant level by the proposed development in PA 1.
Therefore, any potential conflict with this City, policy is
strictly a City policy conflict and not a biological issue.
The Specific Plan and TM also fail to provide the minimum required
wetland buffers specified in this policy. This is discussed in
more detail in the analysis for Land Use Element Policy 8.10, and
Section 7 includes alternatives for mitigating this potential
impact if the City of Encinitas determines that there is a conflict
and that the conflict could result in a significant impact.
Policy 10.9: The City will encourage the preservation and the
function of San Elijo Lagoon and Batiquitos Lagoon and their
adjacent uplands as viable wetlands, ecosystems and habitat for
resident and migratory wildlife, by prohibiting actions (subject to
the detailed provision of Resource Management Element Policy 10.6
above) which: (1) involve wetland fill or increased
sedimentation into wetlands; (2) adversely decrease stream flow
into the wetlands; (3) reduce tidal interchange; (4) reduce
internal water circulation; or (5) adversely affect existing
wildlife habitats (Coastal Act/30231).
Analysis: The project area wetlands are not adjacent to Batiquitos
Lagoon. However, because upstream development can affect
Batiquitos Lagoon, potential project impacts on the Lagoon are
analyzed in Section 3.3.2 (Biological Resources) and 3.2.2 (Water
Quality). It is concluded that the sedimentation and pollution
control measures incorporated into the project will reduce
potential water quality impacts, and, indirectly, impacts on
Batiquitos Lagoon, to a level that is less than significant.
Policy 12.2: No "prime" agriculture lands are located within the
City of Encinitas Coastal Zone. However, the Ecke Holdings, et.
al., are within the City's Coastal Zone sphere of influence, and
may, therefore, be influenced by the City's LCP and General Plan
policies. The City recognizes this land as "prime" agriculture
suitability and as such, designates it for long-term preservation
as "Agriculture/Open Space Preserve" (Coastal Act/30241).
Analysis: The proposed project, by increasing traffic in the area
of the Ecke agriculture, may incrementally, increase the amount of
3-145
air pollutants in the area. However, the project is of such a
small scale as to be incrementally insignificant, and the high
volume of traffic on El Camino Real is closer to the Ecke
agricultural areas than the proposed project. In addition, the
Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan Task Force is currently working on
the development of a Specific Plan for the future development of
the Ecke property and the eastward extension of Leucadia Boulevard,
which will result in the phasing out of agriculture on the Ecke
property.
Policy 13.6: Establish and preserve wildlife corridors (Coastal
Act/30231/30240).
Analysis: The Specific Plan will retain the Encinitas Creek
corridor through PA 1, 3 and 4. It will also preserve large areas
of Chaparral on the hillsides in PA 2 and 3 and enhance wildlife
movement by preserving large open space areas instead of small
fragmented open space areas.
Policy 14.1: The best strategy to reduce erosion and sedimentation
is to reduce to the maximum extent feasible, grading and removal of
vegetation. It is the policy of the City that, in any land use and
development, grading and vegetation removal shall be limited to the
minimum necessary (Coastal Act/30240/30250).
Analysis: The nature of the soils, the need to raise building
areas out of potential flood areas, and the variation in topography
will require substantial grading for the development of PA land 2.
It is possible that if a smaller commercial/light industrial
building was proposed, it would not be necessary to cut into the
base of the hillside. It is also possible that if imported fill
was used for surcharging and building up the elevation of the Home
Depot Center development area, the north-facing hillside in PA 1
and 2 would not have to be graded. However, this would likely
result in substantially more traffic during construction to import
the fill.
Policy 14.4: Revegetation and appropriate landscaping of all areas
graded and scraped of vegetative cover shall be required with land
use and development. Plantings, hydroseeding, and irrigation
systems used shall be selected on the basis on minimizing erosion
and conserving water (Coastal Act/30251).
Analysis: The proposed landscaping plan is compatible with this
policy. In addition, the vegetation restoration plan will enhance
the quality of the wetlands.
Policy 14.5: To minimize erosion and allow sedimentation control
systems to work, no grading or vegetation removal shall be allowed
to occur during the wet season, October 1 through April 15, without
all systems and devices per an approved erosion control plan and
program being in place. During other times of the year, such
systems shall be provided and operative as required by a
comprehensive City erosion control, ordinance. No grading shall
occur during the rainy season within, the Special Study Overlay
is 3-146
area, or in areas upland of. Sënsjtiveáreas including lagoons,
flood plains.,''riparian or wetland habitat areas, , unless by
site-épecifiô determination, the grading would notbe occurring on
sensitive slopes, in floodplain areas or upland of floodpia'ins,
where sedimentation might occur in other senSitive habitat äreás.
Then, if grading is 'determined to be 'allowable, all necessary
erosion. control devices must 'be in place and monitored throughout
(Coastal Act/30251).
AnalysiS: Because the entire SPA is. within, the 'Speáial Study
Overlay area, it will be subject tO'thiè'policy. In addition,
because. the, TM includes developmer't adjacent to a floodplain, it'is
'doubly subject to this policy. ,' However, potential impacts to
California Gnatcatcher nesting may require an exception- S to this
policy.
Policy 14.6: To 'achieve the ends of erosionu control, a
comprehensive erosion' control plan shall be 'required with final
building permit and improvement plans, 'subject to review and
approval. prior to.commencementof grading and construction (Coastal
Act/30251)..
Analysis: The project will 'comply with this policy.
Policy 15.2: The patterns of proposed subdivisions'l'and the
..orientation and design of structures on lots shall be designed with
the objective of maximizing the opportunities for solar energy use
and energy conservation. .
Analysis: . The general east/west, orientation of the Scott Place
extension will ' result in maximization of solar energy.
opportunities.
Land Use Policy-Ecological Resource/Open-Space Parks: The Land Use
Policy Map for the New Encinitas Community designated several
on-site areas for Eôological Resource/open Space/Park uses. 'These
areas included the land in the Encinitas Creek floodplain, the land
within the SDG&'E easement, .the lower'.portions of the north-facing
hillsides above the floodplain area, and the' hillsides immediately
east of El Camino Real. This designation is' applied to 'areas
deemed ecologically significant.. The Resource Man'agement Element
'states. that "No -private development is permitted within these area
[sic]; therefore, all land within this'category is within or will
be within the public domain."
Analysis: PA 1 is consistent'with this policy. In PA 2,, all or a
portion of six lots are within the araa designated in the General
Plan for Ecological Resources/Open 'Space/Parks' uses ;,PA' 3 is
compatible, with this policy. ,Both of.thepotential development
areas in PA 4 confiict'with..this policy.' The area'along OIivehhain
Road and the area in the southern portion of PA 4 within the SDG&E
easement are in conflict with the General Plan.' In addition, these
.areas have wetlands and Cteep hillside impacts, respectively.
Land Use Policy/special study Overlay Zone: The project area is
within the Special Study' Overlay Zone "and' is rated' as a hi
3-147
sensitivity area in the Resource Management Element. High
sensitivity areas are those judged to be ecologically significant
by biologists and naturalists. Development proposals for areas
with high sensitivity ratings will be reviewed to determine the
'extent of significant ecological resources on the property and the
potential impacts new development will have on these resources.
Analysis: The TM proposes to retain some of the steep slopes and
all of the 100-year floodplain area in open space. These
biological: reports determined that potential impacts to biological
resources from development of PA 1, 2 and 3 could be mitigated to
a less than significant level on-site. Wetlands mitigation for PA
4 would have to occur off-site or by a design revision of the
Specific Plan.
Land Use Policy-Preservation of Scenic Resources: The project area
is designated as a sceniO view corridor.
Analysis: See the discussion for Policies 4.6 and 4.9 above.
Land Use Policy-Cultural Resource Management: The project area is
designated as a high sensitivity area for cultural resources, which
means that there is a high probability of discovering
archaeological, sites in the course of new development.
Analysis: The archaeological survey for the project area
determined that no prehistoric resources were present on-site but
that historic resources were on-site in the southern portion of PA
2. Extensive field investigations and cataloguing of artifacts has
been completed (see Appendix M). The research indicated that the
site does not appear to have further research potential but
recommended that a qualified archaeologist be present on-site
during the grading in the vicinity of the site.
Recreation Element Policies
Policy 1.11: Develop an open space program that will link the
various communities together with parks, recreation/ pedestrian
access and natural visual corridors.
Analysis: . The propos.ed Specific Plan will retain the natural open
space corridor along Encinitas Creek. In addition, the entirety of
the SDG&E corridor will remain in open space uses, although the
portions containing steep sIopes and wetlands are not encouraged
for use.
Development of a Trail System: The Recreation Element designates
the area within the 150-foot wide SDG&E easement, the area along El
Camino Real, and the portion of the Cowan property south of
Encinitas Creek -as parts of 'a recreational trail system. Because
the entire SPA is covered by the Special Study Overlay, it has been
designated as a possible area fpr future recreational facilities.
Analysis: The proposed Specific Plan does not include any
recommendations for accommodating a future trail system. The steep
hillsides within the souihernr portion of the SDG&E easement may not
make. increased usage. environmentally sensitive recreation.
3-148
1 01 Noise Element Policies
Policy 1.1: ....If a project would cause an increase in traffic
noise levels, the policy of the City of Encinitas is to accept an
increase up to an Ldn (day-night noise level) of 55 dB in outdoor
residential use area without mitigation. If a project would
increase the traffic noise level by more than 5 dB and the
resulting Ldn would be over 5 dB, then mitigation measures must be
evaluated. If the project, or action, would increase" ncrease traffic noise
levels by 3 dB or more and the resulting Ldn would exceed 60 dB in
outdoor use areas in residential development, noise mitigation must
be, similarly evaluated. The impact of non-transportation projects
must generally be evaluated on a case-by-base basis. The following
guidelines will aid in evaluating the impacts of ôommercial and
industrial projects (1) new commercial construction adjacent to
residential areas should not increase noise levels in '.a residential
area by more than 3 dB (Ldn) or create noise impacts which would
increase noise levels to more than an Ldn of 60 dB at the boundary
of the nearest residential area, whichever is more restrictive; and
(2) new commercial projects should not increase noise levels in ,a
commercial area by more than 5 dB or increase noise levels to an
Ldn in excess 'of 70 dB (office buildings, business and
professional) or an LdN of 75 dB (industrial) at the property line
of an adjacent commercial/ industrial use, whichever is more
restrictive. These criteria may be waived if, as determined by a
noise analysis, there are mitigating circumstances (such as higher
existing noise levels) and/or no uses would be adversely
affected... .
Analysis: The noise analysis determined that seven of the proposed
houses in PA 2 should be protected from future traffic noise on El
Camino Real. This is discussed in more detail in Section 3.8.
Policy 1.2: An Ldn of 60 dB is the maximum acceptable outdoor
noise level in residential outdoor use areas.
Analysis: For this reason, the noise analysis, recommended the
installation of a noise barrier along the backyards of seven of
the proposed houses in PA 2. This is discussed in more detail in
Section 3.8.
Policy 1.6: Include noise mitigation measures in the designof new
roadway projects. . . .
Analysis: Noise mitigation measures will be implemented as part of
the development of PA 2.
Policy. 2.1: Figure 2, the Noise and Land Use Compatibility
Guidelines, andthe accompanying discussion, set forth the criteria
for siting new development in the City of Encinitas. Any project
which would be located in a normally unacceptable noise exposure
area,, based on the Land Use Compatibility Guidelines, shall require
an acoustical analysis. Noise mitigation. in. the future shall be
incorporated in the project as needed. As a condition of approval
3-149
of a project, the City may require post-construction noise
monitoring and sign-off by an acoustician to ensure that City
requirements have been met.
Analysis: The Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines indicate
that the maximum noise exposure normally considered acceptable for
low-density single-family residential development is 60 db Ldn or
CNEL. An Ldn or CNEL of up to 70 dB may be considered acceptable
after completion of a noise reduction analysis and inclusion of
noise insulation features are incorporated into the project design.
However, windows will have, to remain closed. The guidelines
indicate that the normally acceptable maximum noise level for
commercial uses is 67 dB Ldn or (Community Noise Equivalent Level)
CNEL, with a maximum of 75 allowed if windows, remain closed and
noise insulation is incorporated into the project design. The
normally acceptable maximum noise level for industrial uses is 70
dB Ldn or CNEL, with a maximum of 75 allowed if windows remain
closed and noise insulation is incorporated into the project
design.
The technical study for the 1988 Noise Element indicated that, noise
levels along El Camino Real are expected to in by 1 to 2 dB
Ldn by the year 2010. The study projected future noise levels
along El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road to be approximately 70 dB
Ldn. The' future noise level in the vicinity of the proposed
residential area was projected to be below 60 dB by the year, 2010.
The future noise level for the area in the vicinity of the Home
Depot Home Improvement Center was projected to be between 60 and 65
dB in the future. Thus, it is anticipated, based on the General
Plan information, that both the, proposed Specific Plan and
Tentative Map will be compatible with this policy. However, a
technical noise study was prepared as part of this EIR to confirm
the accuracy of these assumptions. It concluded that noise
mitigation was necessary for seven of the residences proposed in PA
2.
Noise Reduction Strategies/Site Planning: Proper site planning to
reduce. noise impacts.... includes orienting buildings to shield
outdoor spaces from a noise source.
Analysis: The proposed location of the parking lot, which will be
adjacent to 'the wetlands open space,' will result in a minimization
of parking lot noise impacts on the hilltop residences but may
provide noise intrusions into the open space along Encinitas Creek.
However, this noise will be an incremental increase. The noise
from traffic on El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road already, impacts
the wetlands open space. Because the delivery area of the Home
Depot Home Improvement Center may result in noise impacts on
development in PA 3, any future development proposed for the
property should be analyzed for potential noise impacts and
necessary mitigation. The impacts will vary with the type of use
proposed for PA: 3.
3-150
Noise Barriers To be effective, a noise barrier must be massive
enough to prevent significant noise transmission through it and
high enough and long enough to shield the-receiver from the noise
source A safe minimum surface weight for a noise barrier is 3.5
pounds/square foot (equivalent to 3/4-inch plywood), and the
barrier must be constructed without cracks or openings, and should
be curved toward the noise source at the ends of the barrier. To
be effective, a barrier must interrupt the line-of- sight between
the noise source and the receiver.
Analysis: The noise analysis recommends the construction of noise
barriers along the back yards of' seven residential lots' in 'PA 2.
Various options are offered in the noise analysis for barrier
construction.
3.6.2.4 California Coastal Act'Compatibility
The project site is just east of the Coastal Zone., It includes a
portion of Encinitas Creek, which drains into Batiquitos Lagoon
approximately ., 1. 1/4 miles to, the, north and Encinitas Creek
downstream of the site is within the Coastal Zone The Encinitas
General Plan includes many, policies designed to implement its Local
Coastal Program (LCP). However, the LCP has not yet' been approved
by, the Coastal Commission.
The Coastal Act requires the identification- and preservation of
significant viewsheds within the coastal zone Section 30251
states that "the' scenic and visual 'qualities of'thé coastal areas
shall be. considered and protected as 'a" resource of public
importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to
protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas "
Although'the general area in the vicinity Of the project "is not a
coastal'area, the presence of Encinitàs Creek make it important to
retain water quality in the downstream' 'Batiquitos Lagoon. In
addition, El Camino Real is a designated scenic highway in. the
Encinitas General Plan, so the project area has added' importance as
a visual resource. Some of the hillsides and 19w-lying areas on
'the site are highly visible from'surrounding areas, as is the Ecke
property 'to the west. The project has included lánd'scapé screening
to minimize visual impacts, especially from El Camino Real This
is discussed in more detail in the analysis of Visual 'Quality
(Section 3.7).
3.6.3 Mitigation
3.6.3.1 Specific Plan
The following mitigation measures could avoid potential conflicts
with City policies: '
1. The potential nonconformance of the Specific Plan's
compatibility with Policy 1.2 of the'Public' Safety. Element and
the Inland Bluff Overlay Zone guidelines,, which limit
L ' 3-151
encroachment into steep slopes to 20%, could be mitigated
through an alternative Specific Plan minimizing potential
steep slope encroachment in PA 4 This is discussed in
Section 7.
2. Potential impacts to natural resources, land use conflicts,
steep slopes and environmental hazards in PA 4 could .be
mitigated by restricting development to a very small area
along Olivenhain Road, if there is sufficient available area
after Olivenhain Road is widened and the designated
developable area is redrawn to avoid wetlands and wetland
buffer areas. This is discussed in Section 7. This measure
could mitigate, potential nonconformance issues with Policies
8.6 and 8.10 of the Land Use 1 Element and Policies .10.1 and
14.1 of the Resource Management Element of the General Plan.
It could also avoid potent ial future land use compatibility
problems that could result if light industrial uses were
situated on the hillsides in PA 4 adjacent to existing
residences.
I. The Specific Plan should include ,a circulation plan f or the
SPA including access to PA 3 and 4 and should stipulate that
future land uses for PA 3 and the, southern portion of PA 4.
must be limited,to those uses that could generate a total of
1,000 ADT'. The TM should include anaccess easement across PA
if or future access. to PA'3andI 4. These measures would bring
the project into conformance with Policy 1.16 of the
Circulation Element and Policy 8.11 of the Land Use Element
The Specific Plan should contain a statement that all areas
designated as Open Space must be covered irrevocable by open
space easements for the preservation of natural resources. In
addition, the Specific Plan should include a statement that
all open space. areas within the.SPA are to be retained for the
preservation of natural resources and that, only passive
recreational uses, such as nature observation and hiking, will
be allowed. These measures would bring ,the project into
conformance with Policies .8 .10 and 8.11 of the Land Use
Element and Policy 10.6 ofthe Resource Management Element of
the General Plan.
Potential wetlands impacts in PA 1, 3 and 4 can be avoided by
redrawing the boundaries of the developable areas to exclude
wetland areas and to allow 504f0bt wide buffer 'zones around
the wetlands. This would bring the Specific Plan into
conformance with Policies 8.5 and 8.6 of the Land Use Element
and Policy 10.6' of.,, the Resource 'Management Element of. the
General Plan. However, the City may determine . that the
impeded floodplain 'area does not constitute-'-a 'sufficient
degree of quality of wetland to require its protection,
especially in light of Land Usel Policy S. 2, which permits open
parking areas within 100-year floodplain areas.*
3-152
6 The Specific Plan Open Space Plan should designate open space
areas with the City's standard designation of Ecological
Resource/Open Space/Parks This would bring the Specific Plan
into conformance with Policy 8.10 of the Land Use Element of
the General' Plan.
All of the land within' the SDG&E easement should be designated
for open space uses ,. (which includes parking). This would
bring the Specific Plan' into conformance with Policy 8.11 of
:the Land UseElemeñt of the General Plan.
Redrawing of the designated"developabie areas to exclude all
areas within the SPA known to be California Gnatcatcher
habitat could bring the Specific Plan into strict conformance
with Policy, 10 5 of the Resource Management Element However,
several biological consultants havecOncludéd that off-site
land acquisition offers better potential for the preservation
of this species, and the deletion of. PA 2 and".portions of PA
1' and 3 from designated development 'based ón Gnatcatcher
habitat is not recommended.
3.6.3.2. Tentative Map
'The following mitigation measures could avoid potential conflicts
with City policies:
1.' The potential conflict with Policy 14.1 of the Resource
Management Element, which stresses the minimizing of grading
and removal 'of vegetation, could be avoided if the, Crib Wall
Alternative is implemented (see Section 7). This alternative
would reduce potential biological impacts and steep slope
impacts and would also eliminate potential nonconformance
issues relating to Policies 10.1 and 10.5 of the Resource
Management Element of the General Plan.
Recording of irrevocable open space easements "over all
proposed open space in PA 1 and 2 would bring the project into
conformance with' Policy, 14.1 of the Resource Management
Element and Policy 8.10 of the Land Use Element of the General
Plan. '
Reduction of the area proposed for grading to keep. ,grading out
of the wetlands and wetland buffer areas (see' Section 7).
This would eliminate the need for wetlands mitigation and
bring the project into conformance with Policy 8.10' of, the
Land Use Element and Policy 10.6 of the Resource Management
Element regarding no net loss of wetlands.. An alternative
would be to scale down the size of the development and create
more wetlands.
3-153 ' ' '
4. ELimination of the proposed bright orange-and-white Home Depot
signs would reduce impacts related toPolicy 9.3 of the Land
Use- -Element. and Policy 4.9 of the Resource. Management Element.
5... A scaling down in size of the proposed Home Depot building.
size could reduce the. bulk of the building and minimize
potential conflicts with Policies 4.6 and 4-.9 of the Resource
Management Element and Policy 6.6 of the Land Use Element.
However, given the project objective of providing the same
level of supplies as are sold at other Home Depot Centers, it
is' doubtful that the building could be reduced enough in size
to. meet the project objectives. .
6 Contribution to regional traffic improvements through the
payment of traffic impact mitigation fees, which is part of
the project, will bring the project into conformance with
Policy, 1.3 of the Circulation Element of the Genera]. Plan.
7. Review of the final grading plans by a registered geologist to
ensure geologic stability related to the cuts being made in
the Delmar. Formation will bring the project into conformance
with Policy 1.3 of the Public Safety. Element of the General,
Plan. . .
:S
3.7 VISUAL QUALITY/TOPOGRAPHIC ALTERATION
3.7.1 Existing Conditions V
The project 'area'is within view of and, conversely, views much of
the surrounding area The viewshed is included in Figure 3 7-1
The following paragraphs discuss the existing visual quality of the
general project area Because color reproduction is so costly and
black-and-white photos do ntoadequately illustrate some features,
photographs have not been included in this section Three large
boards with mounted color photographs that illustrate project views
and views of the project are available for review at the City of
Encinitas Community Development Department and are referred to in
this section by letters (A, B, C, etc ) The locations from which
the V photos were taken árè shown in Figure 3.7-72.
3.7.1.1 Topography and '-Vegetation
V The SPA is. situated, along the east side of Green Valley and
'includes great variation in topography; vegetation,' land uses, and
scenic quality The lowest part of the SPA is in the northwest
corner, within the Encinitas Creek floodplain Encinitas Creek
traverses the northern portion of the SPA, within PA 1,'.4, and a
small portion of 3, and is' largely paralleled: by a willow riparian
woodland interspersed with marshy areas and disturbed areas (see
Photos A, B, E and F). ' V 0
The land slopes gently upward from the creek toward the south and
southeast The central portion of PA 1 was previously used for a
native plants nursery and has since been badly disturbed by
activities related to a job center that formerly occupied the site
(see Photos C, P and L) . The area has been Oovered with 'a type of
bark groundcover to allow' vehicles to access the area to pick up
migrant 'workers seeking jobs. Two portable toilets have been
installed adjacent to El ''Camino. Real and are partially screened by
a redwood slat fence Many of the workers apparently live on the
site, although this is unauthorized. The,jbb. ceriter'is open six
days a week. However, workers seeking jobs occupy -the site seven
days a week, and cars driving onto the site are immediately
surrounded by numerous job seekers.
V
There are several. disturbed areas adjacent to.Oliveihain Road. The
largest lies within the SDG&E easement in PA 4 This area includes
unscreened gas facilities and the easement contains two sets of
high-voltage above-ground power lines that are highly visible from
all directions (see Photos G, H and N) These power lines extend
far north and south of the SPA As they extend northward on the
Carlsbad'hil].tops, they are highly visible (see Photos A, K, N and
B).
Ow
V
V 3-I55 V V
4T LAGOON -. Ito : Jr(
,--i'-• . . - - = r 34rT.
COSTA'S --
I
v,
tp
I
S
ft LIVE RD'
Id vy W's
Is
It
Water
arok
it
ul to
or
to Ee
a Ink.
oil
AS
iv
kc
'Lol
TA
0 2000
BASE MAP: 7.5' USGS ENCINITAS & RANCHO SANTA FE I
QUADS 1975 FEET
FIGURE
SPECIFIC PLAN AREA VIEWSHED 371
El
3-156
QA -.
':F I
i C-
'E - .v -
1/
;
- - C
.-
-
- • K
•
-
-
iJ 1;
j •
1 0 312
' ''- •' J'i•) - // ( /;ldt £
• FEET
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP, 1991
•
S - • S
• FIGURE
• PHOTO LOCATIONS 37..
3-157
There are several dirt roads and other disturbed areas on-site.
One dirt road traverses the SPA in an east/west direction along the
base of the southern hillsides and is close to the boundary between
PA 1 and 2 (see Photos C, K, N, 0 and P). Another dirt road
traverses the entire length of .the SDG&E easement and creates a
visual blight on the north-facing hillside in PA 4 (see Photos G
and H) . Numerous trails exist throughout the SPA, particularly in
the vicinity of the creek (see Photos A and B).
The hills to the south of the Encinitas Creek floodplain rise
relatively steeply on-site. PA 2, 3, and 4 all contain rugged,
mostly Chaparral-covered, and often eroded, steep slopes in their
southernmost portions (see Photos H, J, N, 0, P and L). In some
areas, deep gullies have formed as a result of human disturbance
and resulting erosion. Some rock outcrops are visible, and some
areas are littered.
3.7.1.2 Viewshed/Aesthetic Setting
The SPA is literally at a crossroads where different types of land
uses come together: rural/agriculture, urban residential, urban
commercial/off ices, and natural open space strip along Encinitas
Creek. To the south is the primary Encinitas commercial strip
along El Camino Real. The property to the immediate south has been
graded for office buildings, and a road and swale drainage system
have been constructed. However, the Design Review permit has
expired. PA. 1, 3 and 4 comprise the northernmàst limit of
designated light industrial/ commercial uses along El Camino Real
within Encinitas.
The land to the west of El Camino Real is largely vacant and is
used for agriculture (see Photos K and L). It is known as the Ecke
property. There is a roadside flower stand across the street, on
the west side of El Camino Real, just west of the project site.
The visual quality of this area tends to depend on whether the crop
land is vegetated or whether barren dirt is visible. The Encinitas
Ranch Task Force is currently working on.. the preparation of a
Specific Plan for the Ecke property, so the 'visual quality of the
west side of El Camino Real may change substantially in the future.
Farther west of the. flower stand and fields on the Ecke property,
roughly 1/2-mile to the west, is a tree-covered ridge. The .project
site has a very distant view of this ridge and, conversely, the
site can be seen from this ridge (see Photos K and L). However,
there are very minimal land uses in that area and any details of
the site will be lost over the distance.
The land to the north of the project site, north of Olivenhain
Road, is currently vacantand in a largely natural state except for
the SDG&E easement containing high-voltage power lines (see Photos
A, B, K, L). The south-facing slopes have views of, and,
conversely, are in view of, the SPA. However, this area is within
3-158
the Arroyo La Costa Master Plan Area that was approved last year,
And future residential development on the hilltops above Olivenhain
Road may significantly alter the visual quality of the now natural
largely hillsides The future development within Arroyo-'La-Costa
will be an extension of the two existing subdivision within the
Master Plan that are northeast of the SPA, north of Olivenhain
Road. Thus, the property to the north could- be considered to be in
,a'state of transition tourban'u'ses..
The land to the immediate east of the northeast corner of the SPA
is a graded but undeveloped park (Photo I), east and south of which
is a residential subdivision (Photos I, N, and 0) The low
elevation of those homes, plus their, situation so far east, results
in very limited views of the SPA A limited number of homes at the
westernmost termini of Orchard Wood Road and Willowhaven Road have
views,of the SPA, primarily from the second:stories'of the houses.
The area to the east, southeast andsouth of the. SPA is'. already
developed..The residential area to the south of the project is
traversed by the same two sets of high-voltage power lines that
cross the SPA; they present a definite visual intrusion and are
totally out of scale with the adjacent:höüsing: (Photos M, R, 5).
There are two residences on the hillsides to the southeast. They
fronton Meadow Glen Lane and have sweeping' views from their. back
yards. The views include-,the SPA' as well as land far to the west,
north and east (Photos F, K, N, 0, P and C) However, not all of
the views are pleasant. The SDG&E easement traverses not only the
project area, but also the residential area to the south and the
land in Carlsbad to the. north. The two sets of power 'lines .and the
dirt road within the easement are' a visual 'blight on the landscape.
The westernmost home abuts the SDG&E easement and the western
boundary of PA 4. Foreground 'views include the power:lines within
PA 4; rugged hillsides belowthe- homes; and the slopes in PA 3.
The iniddleground view includes 'the greenish vegetation on the lower
portion of the slopes, south of the dirt road;, the dirt road at the
base of the hillsides;, a' large-,brownish area 'in 'the floodplain that
includes most of PA .1 and the northern half,.' of PA '3.' The far view
includes the greenish on-site riparian corridor along Encinitas
Creek; Olivenhain Road; the high-voltage power lines extending to
the northwest,' across the'site and into'Carlsbad;.vacant land that
.will, be developed as part of the Arroyo.' La Costa., Master Plan
'development; the agriôultural fields and tree-covered ridges to the
west of El Cam'ino'Real; and the existing residential development to
the north and east (see Photo K).
The existing residences at the northerninost'end of I Starflower.Road
and on the north side of Scott ,Placeabut the southernmost portion
of,. PA 3, which consists of rugged Chaparral-covered hillsides
within an existing open space easement (see Photos N, 0, P and H)
In addition, they have sweeping views and overlook nearly all of
the. SPA except 'the northeasternmost portion (see Photo' L)'. The
.3-159
foreground views from these residences include the on-site power
lines, various drainage improvements below the residences, the
Chaparral-covered hillsides in PA 3 that are in an existing open
space easement, and part of the sippes proposed for open space in
PA 2. The middleground view is primarily of PA 1,' El Camino Real,
and Olivenhain Road. The distant views include the agricultural
land and tree-topped ridges to the west and the. western portion of
the vacant hills that are planned for development as part of Arroyo
La Costa and which include an extension of the on-site power lines.
3.7.1.3 Scenic Road Status
The Encinitas General Plan and the San Diego County General 'Plan
Scenic Highways Element designate the portion of El Camino Real
between Encinitas Boulevard and La Costa Avenue' as a scenic
highway/visual corridor and includes the entire project site within
this corridor. Properties within this corridor will be subject to
design review., and projects may require more than the, standard
amount of landscaping to protect scenic views. In addition, 'the
City of Carlsbad Scenic Highways Element identifies the portion' of
El Camino Real between the southerly City' limits (Olivenhain Road)
and the northern City 'limits as local routes that are eligible for
City of Carlsbad State 'Scenic Highway designation.
3.7.2 Impacts
3.7.2.1 Topographic Alteration
The development of PA 1 will include substantial grading for the
development of the Home Depot Home Improvement Center and the
implementation of the' wetlands mitigation/ enhancement plan. The
topography of the lowland areas in PA. 1 will not be 'substantially
altered. The existing culvert -beneath the -El Camino Bridge and the
area within 20 feet upstream of the culvert will be dredged to an
elevation of 75 feet to bring it 'back to a satisfactory capacity,
and the area just north of the proposed parking area' will be
dredged to allow the ôreation of th6. wetlands vegetation that will
act as a filter in the runoff water treatment system.
Approximately 50,000 cubic yards of fill will be required for
surcharging the building area to prevent future settlement
problems. After the surcharging is completed, the fill placed on
the building site will .be used to build up the pad area for the
Home Depot building and-parking lot. This is required to raise the
building area sufficiently above the 100-year floodplain. Some of
this fill will come' from the cutting back of the base of the
north-facing hillside at the southernmost end of PA 1. An optional
borrow site on the portion of PA 3 that is immediately east of the
proposed Home he building hasi been examined for potential
environmental impacts. This option is not currently proposed for
development of PA 1. However, it might be 'propose4:' for the future
development of PA 2. If this option is employed,, it would be
considered ,an off-site impact because the excavation would occur in
3-160
j a Planning Area different from the proposed development The TM
identifies the optional off-site grading If this option is
exercised, the base of the hillside in PA 3 would be cut back to
approximately the same elevation as the that proposed in the Home
Depot development.
Approximately the lowermost 70 feet of the north-facing hillside in
the southern portion of'PA .l will be cut back, at 2:1 and 3:1 slope
gradients Cut slopes will be rounded to simulate natural slopes
The graded portion of the hillside will-,be visible to trucks making
deliveries, to those accessing the garden center from the south
entrance, and to future development in PA 3. Approximately the
upper 10 to 15 feet of-the graded slope will be visible from some
off-site locations, including some southbound drivers on El Camino
Real' that happen' to look at that area through the landscape
screening. When the vegetation fills in, the visual iinact will be
softened.
The grading fOr the extension of the Scott Place residential
development would be minimized by incorporating the hillsides into
the design of the residences. Some houses would be single- story,
while others would be two-story or split-level homes to accommodate
the elevation differences on the lot. The houses will all back
onto natural open space. This, combined with the fact that the
houses will be above the level of the roadway, will minimize visual
impacts. The fuel'management program may result inslightly le'ss
visible vegetation on the hillside in the period right after a
maintenance thinning However, the sensitive plant species will
remain intact and will add height and diversity to even the pruned
Areas. 'No significant visual impacts are anticipated.
The 'Specific Plan includes numerous guidelines for grading
techniques that can minimize the 'potential visual, instability and
'erosion impact's. of grading. The guidelines emphasize the
preservation of wildlife habitat and native vegetation areas, as
well as the avoidance of artificial-appearing slopes. The proposed
landscape plan and fuel management plan include specific plant
palettes for all areas within theSPA. Itisexpected that this
will ensure continuity between the four planning areas, as well as
maximizing fire protection and compatibility with existing native
vegetation. When development is proposed for PA 3 and 4, the plans
should be analyzed for conformance with the Specific 'Plan
guidelines.
3.7.2.2 Viewshed Impacts
3.7.2.2.1 Specific Plan -
The views, of the SPA are two-tiered. ' The higher. elevations
surrounding the SPA have views of all four PA from the back yards
-of existing 'and future planned residences on the, ridge tops €othe
north, east and south. Any development proposed in the SPA will be
3-161
viewed from above. Therefore, rooftop design and project layout
may be more important from these areas than the use of landscape
screening, while landscape screening and architectural design may
be more important at lower elevations, particularly along El Camino
Real. An analysis of the potential impact of the project on the
surrounding areas is included in following paragraphs. The primary
visual quality issues related to the views from higher elevations
are the appearance of the roof of the Home Depot building and the
parking area. However, the courts have concluded that the fact
that a project will adversely affect the view of a few does not
constitute an environmental impact.
The proposed development in PA 1 and 2 will be visible from the
agricultural areas to the west of El Camino Real and from the
tree-lined ridge top farther west. However, the agricultural area
already includes a flower stand with a dirt parkingarea, and is
expected to accommodate a proposed farmworker housing center and
the relocated job center in the future. The proposed development
is not expected to adversely impact the agricultural area and may,
instead, improve the visual quality because the barren area along
El Camino Real will be replaced with landscaping.
The future residential development planned for the hilltops north
of Olivenhain Road, within the Arroyo La Costa Master Plan Area,
may have sweeping views of all four Planning Areas, depending on
the specific project layout and setbacks from the steep south-
facing hillsides. Because the Arroyo La Costa Master Plan
proposes primarily open space and utility uses in the area due
north of PA 1, and because this area in Carlsbad already includes
two sets of power lines, the development proposed for PA 1 is not
expected to significantly impact views in that area. The Arroyo La
Costa Master Plan does include plans for limited residential
development north of PA 1. However, the nature of the topography
will set it back and, in addition, the proposed widening of
Olivenhain Road may further cut into this area. The residences
proposed for development in PA 2 will, be a continuation of the
existing residential development on the ridge line' and are not
expected to create significant impacts on views.
The designated residential development in PA 2 will be visible from
and, conversely, will view, the future office or commercial project
that has been approved for the Byron White property to the
immediate south. Landscaping in the back yards may 'aid in
screening views, and no significant impacts are anticipated.
Future development in PA 3 may be visible from the Carlsbad
hilltops north of Olivenhain road. However, since the southern
portion of PA 3 includes natural slopes in an open space easement,
the small amount of development that might occur in the developable
portion of PA 3 would probably not be visually significant. PA 4
is already visually displeasing along the western boundary due to
the two sets •of power lines and the dirt road scarring the
3-162
4 north-facing hillside in the southern portion of PA 4 In light of
the existing hillsides north of Olivenhain Road, it is likely that
any development that could occur in thé future adjacent to
Olivenhain Road would be only marginally visible from the hilltops
to the north If development wwere ultimately proposed for the
central/ southern portion of PA 4, it could have visual impacts and
would need further environmental analysis.
The homes to the east of the, SPA, at the western termini of
Orchardwood Road and Willowhaven Road, are not expected to be
visually impacted by future development Of PA 4 due to the
development constraints and the park buffer between the SPA and the
residences However, when future development is proposed in these
Planning Areas, project-specific analysis will be required. If the
future development is designed in accordance with the Specific Plan
guidelines, no significant visual- impacts are anticipated.
The two homes.fronting on Meadow Glen Lane have sweeping views that
include most of the SPA as well as land far to the west, north and
east The home at the western terminus of Meadow Glen Lane is the
closest to the SPA, and actually abuts the eastèrnboundáry of PA
4. The area immediately west of this house could not be developed
because it is.withinthe SDG&E easement and contains two sets of
power. lines.
0 The home at the west end of Meadow Glen Lane is approximately 800
feet from the proposed Home Depot building The building and a
portion of the parking lOt will be visible from the house's back
yard. However, the distance will tend to diminish visual impacts
(see Photo K), and the proposed development in PA 1 will be much
less of a visual intrusion to these -, residents -than the adjacent
power poles and lines. No significant impact is anticipated.
The hOme at the west end of Meadow Glen Lane has views of the lower
portion of PA 3 that has been identified as. developable, which is
the area immediately east of the proposed Home Depot building.
However, the area is relatively sma11, and really, an insignificant
portion of the viewshed. As long as the future development.
proposals for this area comply with the guidelines in the Specific
Plan; no significant impacts are anticipated.
The two homes along Meadow Glen Lane are located a suffibient
distance from the small potential developable area in PA 4 along
Olivenhain Road so that a significant visual impact is not
anticipated. A portion of the south/central part of PA 4 has
identified as a small potentially developable area. Due to the
steepness-of the slopes below the end house on Meadow Glen Lane,
this area might not even be visible from the house and, If it was,
the developable area is so small, that it would be likely to have
significant visual impacts if it complied with the guidelines in
the Specific Plan. • S
3-163
The homes at the north terminus of Starf lower Road and the homes on
the north side of Scott Place will back up to proposed open. space
within an existing open space easement on the hillsides in PA 3
(see Photos L and 0) Thus, their immediate view downslope from
their property will be of native Chaparral. These homes: will be
approximately 500 to' 700 feet from the designated development area
in PA 1 and views will vary with the exact street location.
3.7.2.2.2 Tentative Map
The homes at the north terminus of Starf lower Road and the homes on
the north side of Scott Place will back up to proposed open space
within an existing open space easement on the. hillsides in PA 3
(see Photos L and 0). Thus, their immediate view, downslope from
their property will be of native Chaparral These homes will be
approximately 500 to 700.feét from the proposed -Home Depotbuilding
in PA 1. The views of the building will vary with the exact street
location. Some sample cross sections are included in Figure 3.7-3.
The map in Figure.*3.74 illustrates the location of the
cross-sections. Due to the intervening topography between some of
the proposed residences in PA 2 and the Home Depot ibuilding, the
building may not be visible from some of the back yards...Other
yards will definitely have the building in view.,Because the
parking lot is proposed for the north side of the building, it will
probably not be visible to the .homes. to the south and southeast.
The proposed homes on the south side of the Scott Place extension 0:
in PA 2 will be visible from and, conversely, will view, the future
office or commercial project that has been approved for the Byron
White property to the immediate south. Landscaping in the back
yards will aid in screening views, and no significant impacts are
anticipated.
The proposed development in PA 1 and 2 will be visible from the
agricultural areas .,to the west, of El Camino. Real and. from the
tree-lined ridge top farther west. However, the agricultural area
already includes a flower stand with a dirt parking area, and is
expected to be developed in the future under the' Encinitas. Ranch
Specific Plan, which is currently being prepared. The .prposed
development is not expected to adversely. impact the agricultural
area and may, instead, improve the visual quality because the
barren areaalong El Camino,-: Real, will be, replaced with landscaping.
3-164
I 0
I I 0 S \ S
\ "I •0 - \-.
LUS(! I S cr
Lb •\ 0 \
$
W w
It oil
ps
-
r-c' • -. - / \
•• I •. _-_i It ,:-:, •.. 0 / I I : \ :
: J O •.. 0 • S II -,
.• 00 0
/
0 312
FEET SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP, 1991 • •0
FIGURE S
LOCATIONS FOR SELECTED PROFILES 374
3-166
The existing residences to the east of PA 4 will have a limited
view of the proposed development in PA 1 due to the distance from
the proposed development and future intervening development that
may occur in PA 3 The low elevation of the existing homes means
that views of the development will primarily be from second-story
windows Because the existing streets in the area east o PA 4 run
in an east/west orientation, there will be no continuous visual
impact along a street The view of the distant development
proposed for PA 'I is considered to be no worse than the view
provided by the existing flood control channel behind the homes in
this area.
The roof of typical Home 'Depot buiidingcoisists' of a light gray
to white rock surface that blends with the rooftop paraphernalia
An example of this type of roof is shown in Photo Q However, due
to the sensitive location of the proposed project, other
alternatives are being considered that might blend better with the
surrounding vegetation The roof will be either light gray, an
earth tone, or a soft green, and all three alternatives are
Analyzed belOw. The roof will include approximately 25: light gray
evaporative coolers interspersed with approximately 150 white
plexiglass skylights that have light silver"gray mill finish
aluminum frames The rooftop coolers will have to be screened as
required by the Encinitas Municipal Code In addition, there will
be a white data communication satellite antenna consisting of a
6-foot fiberglass dish mounted on a simple pipe mast
The light gray rooftop coloring that has-been used on other Home
Depot buildings would prObably tend to stand out when viewed from
higher elevations. It might appear larger than,it'is because it
would be in contrast to the darker colors surrounding it. The
vegetation south and east of the building is a greenish-brown,
depending on the rainfall- and time of year. ' The 'parking lot north
of the building will be asphalt interspersed with ldndsidapingi The
riparian area north of the parking lot generally appears relatively
deep green. 'Therefore, while the light gray color wOuld tend to
mask the presence of the rooftop equipment, it could increase the
visual impact of the building as seen from higher elevations..
The use of an earth-tone color'for the roof of the building would
perhaps come closest to the existing color of the project area for
the Home Depot development, which is currently covered by a bark
type of groundcover. However, it may not be desirable to try to
match the existing color because' the area As not natural. In
addition, this alternative has other drawbacks The earth tone
roof surface would tend. to. accentuate the presence of the
evaporative coolers, plexiglass skylights and the satellite
antenna The skylight domes, in particular, would tend to stand
out in a checkerboard pattern against the slightly darker
background color of the cap sheet and-parapet walls.
3-167
The use of a soft green color for the roof of the building would
have some of the same drawbacks of an earth-toned roof. The roof
color would tend to accentuate the rooftop appurtenances, and the
white plexiglass skylights would tend to stand out in a checker
board pattern. However, a soft green color would seem to blend
best with the surrounding areas, which are shades of green. This
can be seen by reviewing Photos K and L. The Home Depot building
will generally have green native vegetation to the south, bright
green agricultural fields to the west, deep green riparian areas to
the north of the parking lot, and green vegetation in varying
shades to the east. Although the rooftop appurtenances will be
evident, the scale of the building may appear to be minimized by a
shade of green as opposed to a light gray. The rooftop evaporative
coolers should also be screened in the same shade of. green.
3.7.2.3 Scenic Road Impacts
The proposed location of the Home Depot Home Improvement Center
between the riparian corridor to the north and the natural
hillsides to the south could create a visual impact through the
introduction of an urban use into a less urban area. However, it
should be noted that the southwestern portion of PA 1 has already
been heavily disturbed by previous uses (see Photos C and D). The
barren area is currently a visual blight on the area. It is devoid
of any non-weedy vegetation and the portable toilets are adjacent
to, and highly visible from, El Camino Real. The on-site trash
dumpster in PA 1 and the trash left by migrants living on the site
unauthorized have not enhanced the visual quality of the area.
Therefore, a well-designed and landscaped development may be
expected to be an improvement over the existing conditions.
The proposed Home Depot Home Improvement Center will be located in
the currently barren area that was formerly occupied by the
temporary job center. The Home Depot building will be set back 90
feet from the street, instead of the required 25 feet, which will
help to minimize visual impacts on El Camino Real. Within the
project area there will be a 15-foot landscaped setback that will
be adjacent to the public ROW. This setback will consist of berms
up to 3 feet high planted with low shrubs, ornamental grasses and
trees to screen views of the parking area. The trees will be a
combination of deciduous and broad-leaf evergreen species, and the
mix is to be weighted with a slightly higher proportion of
deciduous trees closer to the creek. Trees will be planted in
informal groupings to retain a more natural appearance. In
addition, along the frontage of the Home Depot building and parking
lot there will be a 10-foot wide parkway adjacent to the sidewalk,
within the ROW. This landscaped parkway will include Street trees,
groundcovers, and a permanent drip irrigation system. All of this
landscaping will serve to screen the proposed building and parking
areas to prevent visual and glare impacts. Short-term visual
impacts could occur in the first few years, until the vegetation
3-168
has become established and filled in enough to provide sufficient
screening. However, planting the vegetation closer together would
not be beneficial to the plants in the long run and, as they
competed for the available water and space, the weaker species
would be crowded out. Therefore, it is concluded that the
short-term visual impact is more ecologically sound, and therefore
preferred, over a more dense planting that would completely screen
the development area upon project completion.
The Specific Plan includes guidelines requiring that artificial
slopes be contoured to simulate natural terrain, and the proposed
project includes this concept in the grading. However, the graded
hillside will still be visible to south-bound travelers on El
Camino Real, which is a designated a scenic roadway. This could
result in a short-term significant visual impact until the new
vegetation fills in. However, the lower portion of the slope will
be visually shielded by the Home Depot Building, which has a
maximum height ranging from 33 to 39 feet, and by the landscaping
along the street, in the landscaped setback, and in the parking
areas. In light of the extensive landscaping proposed, it is
considered that the potential visual impact of the graded slope
will be short-term and less than significant.
The proposed design of the Home Depot building will largely use
shades of gray and green, as well as earth tones, and will include
wood siding. These features will relate to, and tie in with, the
surrounding natural areas, and will give a rustic character to what
would otherwise be a typical warehouse building. The extensive use
of wood will also ensure a continuity from the existing and
approved commercial developments to the south, along El Camino
Real. The milled finish, standing seam metal roof of the arcade
has been designed to provide an agricultural character, which will
tie in with the agricultural fields to the west and the H&H Feed
Store farther east along Olivenhain Road. The proposed design is
unique, and should blend well with the mixture of surrounding land
uses.
There are three aspects of the proposed Home Depot Home Improvement
Center that could create adverse visual impacts on travelers using
El Camino Real: (1) the height and bulk of the building; (2) the
signage on the building; and (3) the grading of the hillside to the
south of the proposed Home Depot Center. The 102,000-square foot
building, with a 33-foot high parapet and a maximum height of 39
feet at the top of the "pavilions" on three corners of the
building, will be the only building in the lower portion of the
SPA, for the present. It will be surrounded by low, relatively
flat areas, which may tend to accentuate its bulk and height.
Since this area is designated for light industrial uses, this may
not be considered a significant impact, because it could be
difficult to efficiently accommodate light industrial uses in a
smaller area. . In addition, the agricultural /rustic design and
proposed color scheme will blend with the surrounding natural
3-169
environment, and the proposed landscaping will screen much of the
building from view from El Camino Real.
The typical Home Depot building signage uses bright orange letters
that are designed to notify motorists well in advance of its
location and main entry. The proposed building will have a
two-sided 5-foot high back-lit neon free-standing sign at the main
entry from El Camino Real. It will be white and orange, and will
be most noticeable at night, when it is lit. In addition, the
project proposes (1) 4-foot high letters on the west side of the
building, facing El Camino Real; (2) 5-foot tall Home Depot letters
above the main entrance on the north side of the building; and (3)
a 14' x 14' area at the west end of the north side of the building
that will include the company logo. All of these will also be
backlit with neon. This signage might be considered to cause
significant visual impacts because it will be visible from El
Camino, a designated scenic roadway. However, the building will be
set back 90 feet from the road, and these signs are considered
necessary to give the driver.enough advance notice of the business.
The visual impact will be lessened by both the setback and the
landscaping proposed between the building and the street. In view
of the existing lack of visual quality on the proposed building
site, it is concluded that the proposed development will not
significantly impact views along El Camino Real.
The grading for the residential development will be minimized by
incorporating the hillsides into the design of the residences.
Some houses would be single-story, while others would be two- story
or split-level homes to accommodate the elevation differences on
the lots. The houses will all back onto natural open space, and
the landscape plan proposes the planting of native shrub species
along the rear property line of the residences to soften the
transition between the more ornamental landscapes and the natural
open space. In addition, the project proposes rear yard tree
planting. For five lots on the northwest side of Scott Place with
an average elevation drop greater or equal to 25 feet between the
pad and the rear property line, a minimum of four trees area to be
planted at a point midway between the pad and the' rear property
line. These screening trees will mature to a minimum height of 30
feet and will 'selectively screen views of the residences from El
Camino Real. This, combined with the fact that the houses will be
above the level of the roadway, will minimize visual impacts.
The Specific Plan and the TN have been analyzed for compatibility
with Policy 4.9 of the Resource Management Element, which includes
guidelines for project design along designated scenic roads. Only
PA 1 and 2 border a designated scenic road, and, in most cases, the
guidelines are not relevant to the development proposed for PA 2.
The analysis of the relevant guidelines follows:
1. The type and physical characteristics of a roadway should be
compatible with the natural character of the corridor and with
3-170
the scenic highway, function'. ''
Analysis: The Specific Plan includes specific landscaping
guidelines 'for the streetscape' areas'. b The' radway 'improvements
Along El Camirio Real in PA 1'wi'lI include a landscaped parkway
within the ROW In addition, there will be a 15 to 24 foot wide
landscaped setback from the property, line_, Specific Plan and
proposed TM are considered to be compatible with this guideline.
Building and vegetation setbacks, easements, and height and
bulk restrictions should be used to. maintain, existing views
and vistas from the roadway.
Analysis: The Specific Plan' does' not include any bulk
restrictions. It does specify'a'maximum' lot coverage of 40%, a
maximum height of 39 feet, and .á required front yard setback of 90
feet from the ROW for PA 1. The building setback is three times
that required by the Zoning Ordinance. In addition,' the Plan and
the TM. propose an additional i'5-:to 24-foot 'landscaping setback
from the ROW to maximize landscaping ,along El Camino Real and
minimize the visual impacts of the"proposed building and 'parking
lot. The parking lot will also" 'be interspersed with more. than, 100
trees and landscaping to 'minimize visual and glare impacts.
The back property lines of the houses proposed for PA' '2 will be
approximately 100 feet from the 'road 'and will be elevated above. the
road. The slopes below the back yards will be retained in,' natural
open space, and ..a strip at the base of the hill, adjacent to the
ROW, will be landscaped with plants.: designated for the El Camino
Streetscape Zone.
Off-site signage should be prohibited 'and 'existing billboards
removed.
Analysis: The' project does not' propose any off-site signage, :and
the Specific Plan prohibits-off-site signs. However, si'gnagé for
future uses in PA 3 and the southern, portion of PA 4 may need to be
accommodated as a part Of the planning review.' Therefore, the
Specific plan may need to'b'e' revised to'allói' the 'placement of
signs for PA 3 and PA 4 .uses in PA 1.
S. Where possible, development should be placed- and, set back' from
the bases of bluffs, .and similarly, set back from bluff lor
ridge top silhouette lines; shall leave floodplains.open; and
shall be sited to provide unobstructed' view corridors from El
Camino Real.
Analysis: There is no possible 'way that any, project' could be
developed in the SPA, particularly' within',PA.'1, without .being
visible from El Camino Real. . The proposed Specific Plan and TM
will retain an approximately 400-1oot wide open, space' corridor
along Encinitas Creek,' which will preserve "views across' the
northern portion of PA 1. In, addition,' a' subStantial portion of
the north- and west-facing hillsides in 'PA 2 will be retained in
open :5Pa, much of' it natural.
'.3-17l
The proposed placement. of the Home Depot building and the cutting
into the lower portions of the slope south of the Home Depot Center
conflict with this guideline and this is considered to be a
s ignificant impact The project applicant has indicated that it is
necessary to cut back the slope in order to attain the required
parking and balance the grading within PA 1 However, the amount
of . grading could be. reduced by implementation of the Crib Wall
Alternative (see Section 7).
The placement of the residences along the ridge line in PA 2
conflicts with this guideline. However,, the area is designated for
residential uses and the proposed homes will be an extension of the
existing development, which is already visible from El Camino Real
and will not obstruct any views Potential impacts are not
considered to be significant.
6. Development that is allowed within the viewshed area must
respond in scale, roof line, materials, color, massing, and
location on site to the topography, existing vegetation, and
colors of the native environment.
Analysis.: The 102,000'square-foot Home Depot building proposed for
PA 1 is significantly larger in scale and massing than other nearby
land uses, and this maybe accentuated by the fact that it will be
located in a flat area However, the area is designated for light
industrial uses, and the proposed commercial use is an extension of
the. existing and approved more bulky development to the south,
along El Camino Real. The proposed earth tone colors, wood siding
and, metal arcade will relate the building to the natural
environment, the approved development to the immediate south that
will use wood extensively, ,and to the agricultural area to the
west. The proposed 90-foot building setback will tend to reduce
the, visual impact of the bulky building.' The 15 to 24-foot
landscaping setback and the landscaping,, in the parkway. along El
Camino Real will partially screen the building and the graded slope
to further minimize visual impacts. Trees in the parking lot will
partially screen' the building view for southbound traffic when they
mature.
3.7.2.4 Compatibility with Design Review Guidelines
The City of Encinitas Design Review Guidelines, contains, numerous
policies and guidelines for creating a sensitive design that
protects natural assets and visual quality. -
3.7.2.4.1 Site Design Guidelines
1.1. Generally,, the opportunities and constraints of the site shall
determine the project layout and design.
Analysis: An opportunities and constraints study was prepared
prior to the development of the Specific Plan, and the Plan
generally reflects the recommendations in that. study. The Plan
proposes to retain most of the steep, chaparral-covered hillsides
3-172
and the riparian areas in the 100-year floodplain in open space.
Nearly all of the sensitive plants on-site are being retained in
open space, and no significant impacts on sensitive species are
anticipated. The proposed residential development in PA 2 will
utilize several housing types so that the housing type is designed
specifically for the topography and soils conditions on the lot.
However, a significant portion of the steep slopes in PA 2 and 4
are designated for development. This is discussed further in
Section 3.6, and a steep slope mitigation alternative is included
in Section 7.2.6. The proposed Home Depot building and parking
area will be located in the relatively flat, lower portion of the
SPA and will be elevated out of the floodplain by filling.
1.2 Natural assets, such as valuable trees, rock outcroppings,
creeks and riparian habitats should be preserved and
incorporated into the project. These assets should be used
as aesthetic and functional elements of the project.
Analysis: The Specific Plan emphasizes the retention of natural
features and the TN is preserving a substantial amount of natural
open space that contains sensitive plants, as well as enhanced and
created wetlands. See comment on # 1.1 above.
1.3 The project should be designed to avoid excessive grading as
well as steepness and exposure of graded slopes.
Analysis: "Excessive grading" is not defined in the guidelines.
The Specific Plan encourages the retention of natural hillsides.
The development proposed for PA 1 will require a substantial amount
of fill to surcharge the Home Depot development area and build it
up to avoid potential flood hazards. The cutting back of the
slopes to the south of the proposed Home Depot Center will supply
the necessary fill to balance grading within PA 1. If fill was
imported, a substantial amount of this hillside grading would be
eliminated. If the building was reduced slightly in size, less
parking would be required and, thus, reduce the required amount of
developable area. However, Home Depot Centers are relatively
standardized in size and interior layout, and a smaller footprint-
might not meet the project objective. Another potential mitigation
measure would be the elimination of the access road along the south
side of the Home Depot building that leads to the loading dock and
garden center. However, the Fire Department wants the southern
road so that it can access the water loop line. In addition, this
option would also require the delivery trucks to use the main
entrance to access the loading dock, and this could cause internal
circulation and safety problems. A second option is to move the
building slightly farther north and relocate some of the parking to
the portion of PA 3 that is immediately east of the currently
proposed building. That area is being considered for use as a
borrow pit to obtain some of the fill to build up the development
area. The parcel is separately owned and this option would require
an agreement with the owner that would allow the only developable
portion of his parcel to be used for the Home Depot Center. This
option would result in the loss of access to the garden center from
3-173
the north side of the building, thereby creatingthe same internal
traffic circulation/safety problems as the option eliminating the
south access road. Perhaps the best option is to reorient the Home
Depot building so that it extends into the proposed parking area
and use the developable portion of PA 3 for parking for the Home
Depot Center. This option would probably result in an entrance to
the building on the east side, and require an agreement between the
owners of PA :1 and 3. The owner of PA 3 would basically lose any'
future development rights.
The residential development proposed for PA 2 will minimize grading
by using a mixture of single-story, two-story and split-level
houses that are designed around the topography on each lot.
1.4 Projects should be designed to preserve significant views (a)
from the site; (b) to the site; and (c) through the site.
Analysis:. The site itself currently has views of some undeveloped
hillsides to the north and west. However, the views, of the
hillsides, to the north may be substantially changed with the
development of 'the approved Arroyo La Costa Master Plan. The views
to the west include agricultural fields and tree-topped' ridges .in
the distance. The remainder of the surrounding area contains
development.
The views of the SPA and the TM area have been discussed in 'detail
earlier in this section. There are no views through the SPA.
However,. -a traveler along El Camino Real does have a view over the
lower portions of the SPA, in the northern portions of PAl, 3 and
4. The placement of the proposed Home Depot building in" PA 1 will
impact the easterly view from El Camino Real. However, this is not
considered to be a significant impact for several reasons. The
Home Depot Center is proposed to be constructed in generally the
same area formerly occupied by the job center, a largely barren
area. - In addition, the proposed' development will retain the
riparian open space corridor and will significantly increase the
amount of landscaping along El Camino Real. -
1.5 Parking areas shall be, laid out to accommodate automobile
movements and safe pedestrian movements. Parking spaces shall
be distributed in the project in proportion to: the land uses,
they are intended to serve.
Analysis: The proposed TM is compatible with this guideline.
1.6 When consistent with good neighborhood planning, pedestrian,
bicycle and vehicle movements shall be separated.' Safe,
convenient and continuous walkways shall,, be provided to
buildings from the Street as well as between buildings and
activity areas within the project. Major pedestrian crossings
shall be clearly marked with signs and "special surface
material.'
Analysis: The Specific Plan is compatible with this guideline. It
designates that road improvements along El Cámino Real must include
3-174
a bicycle lane The TM is also consistent with the requirements
for special pedestrian crossing markings and street surfaces.
1.7 The main entrances of buildings should be visible from most of
the parking areas Safe and continuous pedestrian ways shall
be provided between parking areas and building: entrances.
Analysis: The proposed TM conforms to this policy
1.8 Larger parking areas shall be partly screened from public and
neighbor's view by landscaping, berms, walls or fences Shade
trees and landscape islands shall be distributed throughout
the parking area to soften the expanse of pavement and cars
Analysis: The proposed TM conforms to this policy. Fences are
planned along the backs and sides of residential lots, and a
chain-link fence with vines is proposed at the north end of the
parking area Trees Iand landscaping will be provided in the
parking lot and in a buffer area between El Camino Real and the
parking lot.
:1.9 On steeper parcels, roads anddriveways.should rise and fall
generally parallel to the contours, not against them.
Analysis: There are no roads proposed on the Steepest. portions of
the SPA. The extension of Scott Place generally follows the
natural contours and is in compliance with this guideline Because
the road generally f011ows the natural contours, the driveways
will, by necessity, génerãily traverse the contours.
1.10 In commercial and industrial projects, plazas should be
provided for employees and customers which are open and easily
seen but which give a sense of protection and well defined
space. •
Analysis: The proposed HorneDepot Center does not specifically
include any outdoor plazas However, vi i ill be an outdoor area
on the north side of the building near the entrance.
1.11 All outdoor lighting shall beshielded to avoid-glare as seen
from the public street, any neighboring property or from, any
residential unit in the project. -
Analysis: The project is in, compliance with this guideline.
Noise, light añdglare impacts are discussed in Section 3.8.2.
3.7.2.3.2 Building Design.
2.1 Buildings shall be designed with the site potential and
constraints in mind. Predesigned buildings or stock plans
usually do. violence to the site and fail to take advantage of
the potentials.
Analysis The housing proposed for PA 2 uses several types of
housing structures (single-story, two-story and split- level) to
accommodate the varying topography and minimize grading. The
interior of the Home Depot building in PA 1 will be the same as
other newer Home Depot buildings.. However, the rustic exterior- has
: .
3-175
been specifically designed to.. blend with the existing uses and
natural vegetation in the general area. 0
2.2 .Standard plans and designs of corporate chains for such
buildings as supermarkets, convenience stores, fast food
restaurants or service stations shall be avoided .jf; they do
not meet the Design Review Guidelines. Instead, plans and
elevations shall be custom designed to meet the Guidelines and
the circumstances of the particular site..
Analysis: See the resp9nse to 2.1 above.
2.3 No particular architectural style is required or prohibited
However, if a traditional style is used, there should be
elements of consistency with that style throughout the
project. Abrupt stylistic breaks . shall be avoided.
Analysis: The Specific Plan does not dictate a specific
architectural style but does provide numerous guidelines requIring
development to blend with, and enhance, the natural environment.
The Specific Plan dictates styles for PA 1 and 2. It includes
specific guidelines for three different architectural. styles for
the residential area. Future development in PA 3 and .4 1 must be
compatible with the Specific Plan guidelines.
2.4 Variety in exterior materials and colors should be used with
constraint.. Generally, two or three main materials are
adequate to express any architectural style. Additional
materials may be applied to small areas to emphasize certain
features, such as window trim, railings, entrances, etc.
Analysis: The Specific. Plan does not include -any specific
guidelines for PA 3 and 4 to implement this edict. However, the
development proposed in the TM conforms to the requirements.
Future development proposed for PA 3 and 4 will require additional
review. . . .
2.5 The design and appearance of buildings should reflect its
intended use and purpose. Residential buildings should have
a residential scale and proportion.
Analysis: Both the proposed residential development and. the Home
Depot Home Improvement Center conform to this guideline. Future
development proposed for PA 3 and 4 will need additional review.
2.6 The roof is the most visible portion of a building and should
be designed to provide architectural unity to a building. In
cases where the walls and fenestration of a building are very
lively, the roof lines shouldbe continuous and unbroken to
provide visual balance. In cases of larger, plainer, buildings
with minimum visual relief, roof lines should be varied either
vertically or horizontally or both to provide greater visual
relief. . . . .
Analysis: The development proposed in the TM is compatible with
this guideline. Future development, proposed for PA 3 and 4 will
require additional review.
. 3-176 .
.2 -7 The architectural design and materials of the roof shall be
compatible with the architectural design and materials of the
'building.,,
Analysis: The roof for the Home Depot Center will be one of three
colors, which will be decided by the decision-making body This is
discussed 1, in an earlier portion of this section. The Specific
Plan guidelines discuss acceptable architectural styles and roof
treatments,
2.8: Solar panels should be built into the roof plane and not
protrude from it....
Analysis The project does not propose any solar panels However,
the Specific Plan includes specific guidelines relating to the
incorporation of• solar panels into the roof design of the
residences.
2.9 Mechanical equipment on the roof or on the ground shall be
screened from public view.. The screening shall be harmonious
with the design and materials of the buildings. Screening
design shall be part of the Design Review application
Analysis: All equipment on the roof of the Home Depot building
will be screened from public view at the street level by the-33-
foot high parapet The equipment will be visible from the back
yards of homes at higher elevations However, the roof surface
will be colored to blend with the natural environment and minimize
visual impacts. No significant impacts are anticipated.
177 2.10 Buildings on sloping sites should be sensitive to the angle of
the slope. They should not unnecessarily break out of the
natural plane of the slope. Graded s.làpes. can be partly
hidden by placing buildings overtheslope.
Analysis: TheTM is compatible with this policy (see #2.1 above).
2.11 When roof areas are visible from adjoining properties or from
the public street, they shall :be aesthetically designed and
documented in the Design Review application.
Analysis: The proposed Home Depot roof has been discussed in
earlier sections; it is in compliance with this guideline..
2.12 An effort shall be made on non-residential projects to
harmonize' the project with some elements of adjacent
buildings, if the design quality of the adjacent buildings
justify such effort.
Analysis: As explained in earlier sections, the Home Depot
exterior has been designed to blend with existing development and
land uses in the area The building will continue the use of earth
tones and wood that has been established in development to the
south It will employ an agricultural /rustic theme so that it will
blend with the nearby open space and agricultural-areas..:-However,
the a range-nd-white signs will tend to stand out in this area.
3-177
3.7.2.4.3 Landscape Design
The Specific Plan includes a detailed landscape, plan to guide,
proposed and future development. The plan includes 7 1 landscape
zones that are specifically geared to maintaining the native
vegetation while accommodating future uses. Separate plant
palettes are provided for each landscape zone, with. the: palettes
reflecting the amount of moisture available within that zone and
the need for fire protection. A fire management plan identifies
fuel management zones and prescribes plant palettes and maintenance
procedures for each zone. The Specific Plan is deemed to be
compatible with all of the landscape design guidelines.
3.7.2.3.4 Sign Design
The proposed signage for the TM conforms to all of the Sign Design
guidelines except one. Guideline # 4.7 requires that sign colors
be subtle and avoid excessive contrast. The actual colors used
should. relate to, and not contrast with, the colors of the
building. The Home Depot building is proposed to have 4-f dot high
bright orange letters on the west side of the building, facing El
Camino Real, and 5-foot high bright orange letters on the north
side of the building over the entrance, along with a Home Depot
logo. on the northwest corner of the building. The letters will
contrast sharply with the neutral-colored, more earthy building.'
However, the letters will be against wood surfaces of 'either
redwood or cedar, so that the orange will be against a
brownish-orange background. In addition, there will 'be an orange
and white 4 to 5-foot freestanding two-sided sign at the main entry
that whose colors will contrast with the proposed street
landscaping even though the sign will be set on a stamped base and
wood frame that matches the materials of the building. All signs
will be back-lit neon signs.
3.7.2.3.5 Privacy and Security
The proposed TM conforms to, all relevant privacy and security
guidelines included in the Design Review Guidelines. Future
residential development in PA 2 will be required to meet the:
criteria set for residential development. The following policies
are relevant to the proposed Home Depot'.Center.
5.1. Natural barriers, such as dense vegetation, or. topography,
should be used to reduce visual and auditory intrusion.
Analysis: . The proposed development for PA 1 includes extensive
landscaping in a 75-foot setback to reduce visual impacts -from El
Camino Real. The distance from the nearest homes' to the east, as
well as the intervening PA 3 and 4, will minimize potential impacts
on residents to the east of the SPA.' The difference in elevation
between the proposed Home Depot Center and the hilltop houses will
ensure privacy to the above residents.
3-178
S.7 Landscaping shall not provide convenient hiding places Where
low-growing vegetation is desired for screening, thorny and
very dense plant material will -'help-to discourage intruders
Analysis The proposed landscaping plan includes dense planting
The recommended -biologicalmitigation includes the planting of
thorny plants. around the wetland perimeter to discOurage intrusion
into the sensitive areas
5.8r 'Outdoor-1. ighting should be used to illuminate potential hiding
places without causing gla±e' to the :occupántsof the project
or adjacent properties. ..
Analysis. The luminaires proposed for the Home Depot Center
parking lot will aim downward and will conform to this guideline
5.10 The project.sha.11 bedesignéd to prevent, as far as possible,
the spread Of fire within the' project and to neighboring
'properties. Analysis The Specific Plan includes detailed requirements for
brush maintenance for fire control
3.7.2.4 Cumulative Visual:-Impacts
The.. SPA is already designátédfor development in the''Eñcinitas
General Plan. The Specific Plan will pr-6--vide' the required
develOpment guidelines so that development A can occur. s various
Planning Areas within .Lthé'..,SPA area develop, the. increased
urbanization will incrementally add to the amount., of pavement and
structures in the general area. Because the 'project is in a
rapidly 'dveloping area, with: the Arroyo La Costa development
approved to the..nbrth and a' Spè'cific Plan curretIr: being prepared
fort the Ecke property to the west, and existing development' on
other sides, the development allowed by the Specific Plan could be
expected to incrementally decrease the visual, quality of the area.
However the Specific Plan policies and the 'landscaping proposed by
the SpecificS Plan and 7 TM , will, 'reduce the,'overallt impact. No
sIgnificant impacts are anticipated.
3. 7.,3;: Mitigation
No additional mitigation is required for ,the Specific Plan. When
development is proposed for PA 3 and 4, additioflal environmental
analysis will be required to evaluate pOtént'ial 'impacts of the
specific development proposed.
If the Encinitas City Council determines that the signage proposed
for the Home Depot Center, as part of the TM, is not in conformance
with sign Guideline 4._17 and that this is .a significant impact,
revision Of. the. proposed signage may: be required. ' .1
10 1) 3-179
3.8 NOISE, LIGHT AND GLARE
3.8.1 Existing Conditiofls
3.8.1.1 Noise
The SPA is currently undeveloped except for facilities within the
SDG&E easement However, there is evidence of unauthorized
habitation on the project site..There is currently no
significantly noticeable noise emanating from the SPA.
A noise analysis was prepared for the proposed, project. It is
included in its entirety as Appendix E and is summarized in this
section. Ambient noise levels were measured' at 'three locations
within the SPA. Car and truck counts were also made during the
period the measurements were taken to 'correlate to the noise
levels. The measured levels are expressed in values of Leq.
Daytime "off-peak" hourly values of Leq' have. been shown, to be
approximately 2 decibels (dB) less than the 24-hour weighted value
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL is weighted by
penalizing night-time noise to reflect the greater human impact
created by noise at night. The ambient noise level's are included
in -Table 3.8-1. The relative high ,levels are due to the heavy
traf,fic on the adjacent streets, 'El Camino. Real and Olivenhain
Road.
Table 3.8-1
Ambient Noise Levels In' the Project Vicinity
Measurement
Location
Sound Levels in dB-(a) "' Time
' Mm Leq ' Max. ' Min.
1 66.9 80.4 48.8 , 15.8
2 68.5 '• 71.2 53.2 , 14.1
3 , 73.8 ' ' 93.4 48.8 14.6
3.8.1.2 Light and Glare
Since the temporary jobs center formerly occupying PA 1 has been
eliminated, there are no on-site sources of light and glare
However, the heavy traffic on the two adjacent streets, El Camino
Real and Olivenhain Road, produces substantial nighttime light from
headlights and possible daytime glare from windshields
3-180
(1) noise from Gillespie Field Airport; and (2)"°noise from the
adjacent Price Club in Santee Therefore, the noise projections
for the Encixiitás site are 'considered to be the "worst case."
3.8.1.2 Light 'and Glare .
Since the temporary jobs center formerly"occupying PA 1' has been
eliminated, there are. no. on-site 'sources. of light and glare.
However, the heavy traffic:on the two.adjacentstrèe'ts, El Camino
Real and OliveEthain Road, produces substantial nighttime light from
headlights and possible daytime glare 'from windshields.
3.8.2 Impacts ,
3.8.2.1. Noise .
.
.
The traffic projections for the year 2010 were. .used to" project
future traffic noise levels adjacent to Olivenhain Road and El
Camino Real. The current andprojected locations' of traffic
noise contours are tabulated in Tables 3.8-2 and 3.8-3 and
illustrated in Figure 3.8-1. • • • • • •
Table 3.8-2 • Current and . Future' Noise Contour Locations
Adjacent'. to El Camind Real
". • 19.91 Contours ' • 010. Contours
CNEL '
•
Distance from
Centerline (feet)
• CNEL
. .
DiStance from
Centerline' (feet)
78 • 70 113..
• 65 " 247 • • • 65 ' ' 358"-
6Q.- • 780 '. • 60 1112,
Table 3.8-3
Current and Future Noise Contour Locations
Adjacent to Olivenhain Road
1991 Contours 2010 Contours
CNEL Distance from
Centerline (feet)
CNEL Distance from
Centerline (feet)
70 114 70 262
65 362 65 '829
60 1144 60' 2621'
Seven' homes' within the proposed residential development far PA 2
could be impacted by projected future noise levels from traffic on
El Camino Real These impacts are not a result of just project
traffic, but of all traffic on El Camino Real Residences that are
located in areas with noise levels in excess of 60 CNEL must
mitigate outdoor recreation areas to a maximum noise level of 60
CNEL. Therefore,, these seven future homes will require noise
mitigation. '
The projected future traffic noise contours alpng Olivenhain Road
may significantly impact future development on the northernmost
portion of PA 4. The 70 CNEL contour currently extends
approximately 200 feet south of Olivenhain Road (see Figure3.8-1),
and the O].ivenhain Road widening will increase noise impacts to PA
4 The City of Encinitas requires that office buildings be located
in areas that receive 70 CNEL or less Because noise barriers are
only effective in protecting from traffic noise if there are no
openings in the barrier, this generally presents an access problem
It is likely that any future development in the northern portion of
PA'4 will have to incorporate noise mitigation into thedesign.
Additional project-specific ' analysis will be' required when,
development is proposed
The development of the Home Depot Home Improvement Center in PA 1
will 'have noise associated with loading Operations, the parking
lot, garden center'operations, special outdoor sales., and traffic.
Because the'primary parking will be north of the 'building, the
parking lot noise will be directed more toward the wetlands open
space and 'less away from the proposed and existing residential
development on the ridge top.
[I 3-182
A
li
1T1ft fA 70 CNEL
65 CNEL
4
I FA
1)
0 312
FEET
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP, 1991
FIGURE
PROJECTED FUTURE NOISE CONTOURS
'W4 3-183
In order to determine potential noise impacts from the operation of
the .Home Depot Center, the acoustical engineer surveyed several
other local Home Depot stores and did an in-depth investigation at
the Santee store because it is shielded from street traffic and is
similar in layout to the proposed store in Encinitas. The delivery
entrance lies to-the south of the building, adjacent to which is a
trash compactor, and there are four loading docks at the back of
the building. The garden center is adjacent to-the loading docks.
Two noise generators affect the noise levels at the Santee Home
Depot Center: the adjacent Price Club and noise from Gillespie
Field; the site is within the take-off pattern. Therefore, the
measured noise levels, may be considered to be "worst case."
Overall, the Santee store was deemed to be most reflective of the
conditions that are likely in EnciniàS. The ambient noise levels
at the Santee Home Depot Store are included in Table 3.8-4. The
measured noise levels included the arrival of two 2-axle trucks at
the loading dock, aircraft flights overhead, the passing of three
5-axle Price Club trucks, one 5-axle truck idling at'a'dist'ance of
75 feet, several fork lifts with reverse warning signals, Home
Depot public address system announcements, and 21 operations of the
trash compactor.
In addition, noise impacts from he, operation of: , the: rooftop
evaporative coolers was measured It was determined that each
cooler produces 56 dB (a) at a distance of 30 feet Since the
coolers are on 60-foot centers, the expected decrease in the rate
of noise is 3 dB per doubling of distance until a distance of
approximately 240 feet from the, building is, reached. , At that
point, a 6 db reduction per: distance doubling is expected.
Table 3.-4
Ambient Noise Levels At the Santee Home Depot Center
Measurement Sound Levels in dB(a) Time
Period/
Location ' Leq Max. Min. ' Mm
65.4 4 90.1 51.9 ' 69.5
2/1 , ' 67.1 1 86.3 , ''49.3__' 31.0
3/2 65.2 ,91.2 49.8 ' 42.8
In the analysis of potential noisel, impacts to residential areas
from the operation of the proposed 'store in Encinitas, it was
assumed that all loading dock noise measured at the ,Santee store
could be attributed to ,the proposed Store, and that "65 dB(a)will
occur at.:,approxitely'00 feet from the loading dock'. This is
3-184
expected to be, reduced by "square law" spreading. 'In addition,, an
another 10 dB reduction is expected due to the shielding from the
intervening slope between the proposed Home Depot Center and the
nearest homes, which are upslope to the south The projected noise
level at the nearest home to the south is 41 dB(a). The ,'cooling
equipment on the roof could provide an addition 37 dB(a) under the
maximum cooling condition. The total projected noise level at the
nearest house could be 42 dB(a). This would be substantially below
the allowed 60 CNEL noise. level for residences and would be an
insignificant impact.
The nearest residence to the east of the proposed Home Depot Center
is about 1,000 feet from the proposed loading dock. There is no
intervening topography to. provide a' shielding effect.' The "Square
law" spreading -is expected toreduce the loading noise to 45 dB(a),
plus a potential noise impact of 32 dB(a) from the rooftop coolers,
resulting in a total of 45dB(a). This would be substantially
below the allowed 60 CNEL noise level'for residences and would be
an insignificant impact.
InspIteof the'reiatively low noise projected from the Home Depot
Center operations, it is possible that some of the noise sources
may be perceived by residents in the area. Therefore, additional
measures are recommended to minimize annoyances. These are
discussed in Section 3.:843.
The noise standards for commercial and office uses are different,
to that the significance of potential impacts of the proposed Home
Depot Center on PA 3, which is immediately to the east, would be
dependent on proposed uses of PA 3 immediately east of the Home
Depot building The City of Encinitas General Plan requires that
commercial/retail centersmust not receive noise leveisin excess
of 75 CNEL and that office buildings must 'be located in areas with
noise levels of 70 CNEL or less. In addition, the Encinitas Noise
Ordinance requires that where commercial- property abuts residential
property,' the hourly average noise limit at the property line' is 60
dB(A) between-7 a.m. and 10 p.m.
The loading dock noise level is expected to be approximately 65
dB(a) at 100 feet from the loading dock, which is close to the
property line between PA 1 and 3. The project includes the
construct ionof a noisébarrier between PA 1 and 3. No additional
mitigation is considered necesary.
3.8.22 Light and Glare
The development of the 19 residences proposed' in PA 1 will
incrementally, extend the light and activity levels associated with
residential development. They will be visible from surrounding
areas. However, they will be above the roadway level and will not
have, light or zgla.re impacts ' on El Caniino Real traffic. ' No
Significant impacts are anticipated.-.-
3-185
The primary access for the Home Depot Center will have cars
entering in an easterly direction. Thus, headlights may be visible
from the second stories of a few homes at the western end of
Willowhaven Road and Orchardwood Road if the . shades/curtains are
open at night. The parking area is approximately 100 feet from
these houses. No significant glare impacts are anticipated.
The Home Depot Home Improvement Center proposed for PA 1 will have
back-lit orange neon signs on the north and west sides of the
building side that will be highly visible at night, although they
will not cause any glare impacts. the future development in the
Arroyo La Costa Master Plan Area will be sufficiently distant so
that no significant light impacts to that area are anticipated.
The orange neon signs will stand out at night and attract attention
to the Home Depot Center, creating potential distractions, though
not safety hazards, to drivers along El Camino Real. In light of
the heavily developed and lighted commercial area along El Camino
Real to the south, the addition of this night lighting is not
considered to be significant.
Outside the building, in and around the parking areas, will be
"box-style" luminaires that will utilize low-pressure sodium lamps.
The light standards will have a cut-off point above 75 degrees
vertical, and light shields will be used to ensure that light stays
within the development area. The mounting height of the light
fixtures will be between 18 and 20 feet. The light standards will
be painted dark brown, which will not create glare. Potential day-
time glare from car windshields in the parking lot will be
minimized by the extensive landscaping and is not considered to be
a significant impact. The difference in elevation between the
proposed Home Depot Center and the hilltop residences to the south
and southeast, as well as future homes in the distance in the
Arroyo La Costa Master Plan Area, will eliminate the potential for
glare impacts on these areas from automobile traffic. The main
entrance to the proposed Home Depot Center will bring traffic into
the parking lot in an easterly direction, with headlights heading
east. However, the nearest residences are a substantial distance
east, east of PA 4, and the primary streets run in an east/west
orientation. Therefore, no headlight glare impacts on residents
are anticipated.
No development is currently proposed for PA 3 and 4. However, any
future development of the northernmost portion of PA 4 will need to
be analyzed for potential glare impacts on vehicular traffic on
Oliverthain Road.
3.8.3 Mitigation
When the. residences in PA 2 are developed, noise barriers will be
required to mitigate potential noise impacts on the back yards of
Lots 7 through 13, which are the lots closest to El Camino Real.
The noise barriers will have to be a minimum of 5 feet high and may
3-186
3.9 PUBLIC SAPETY/PIRE PROTECTION
3.9.1 Existing Conditions
3.9.1.1 Police Protection
The City of Encinitas contracts with the San Diego County Sheriff's
Department for police protection The project area is served by
the Encinitas Sheriff's Station located at 175 North El Camino
Real. There are currently 14 patrol units serving Encinitas, and.
these units are spread throughout the day to provide 24-hour
coverage and response. Deputies assigned to other stations can
also be called to the area if they are needed The current ratio
of deputies to population in Encinitas if one deputy per 1,903
residents. This includes patrol and traffic staffing A crime
prevention program known as Neighborhood Watch has bèeñ introduced
in numerous areas of Encinitas.
The SPA is covered by Beat Number 223. . The average response time
for this beat is 5.9 minutes for priority calls and 14.3 minutes
for non-priority calls. This is considered to be adequate.
3.9.1.2 Fire Protection
Fire protection in Encinitas is provided by the. Encinitas Fire
Protection District, which is a subsidiary to the City of
Encinitas. The EIR for the General Plan indicated that water
pressures in the area are expected to continue to be adequate with
the buildout projected in the General Plan The fire station that
is closest to the SPA is Station No 4 It is located at 2011
Village Park Way, approximately 1 mile to the southwest The
station is equipped with one engine company, one ladder truck, one
brush engine, and one EMT ambulance The average response time to
the SPA is expected to be 4 to 6 minutes..
..
The backup station for the SPA is located at 415 Second Street in
Encinitas The Encinitas Fire Protection District has an automatic
aid agreement with the Cities of Carlsbad, Solana Beach, Del Mar,
San Marcos, and the Rancho Santa Fe Fire District.
3.9.1.3 Safety Hazards
The nearest fire station is approximately 1 mile from the SPA and
is expected to be able to respond to emergencies in the SPA within
4 to 6 minutes. Paramedics are not available at this station.., The
nearest paramedic service is located at 1015 Devonshire Drive,
adjacent to Scripps Memorial Hospital. The average response time
to the SPA is estimated to be 5 minutes.
3-188
3.9.2 Impacts
3.9.2.1 Police- Protection
The EIR for the Encinitas General Plan noted that the ultimate
development of the city, as proposed in the Genera] Plan would
require the need for an additional 24-hour Sheriff's patrol unit.
The Home Depot Home Improvement Center. and parking area proposed
for PA 1 will be well-lit and are not expected to create any police
problems. The proposed extension of the residential development
along Scott Place will extend the cul-de-sac, which may make police
patrolling slightly more difficult than it would-be on a loop road.
However, this is not expected to be a significant impact. An
indirect benefit of the proposed development of PA 1 and 2 may be
a reduction, if not total elimination of, the unauthorized use of
the on-site open space areas for habitation.
3.9.2.2 Fire Protection
The Specific Plan includes a fuel management plan (see Figures
2.3-7 and 2.378 in Section 2.3) to minimize the potential for brush
fires and to maximize the potential for preventing the spread of
any fires that do occur. The Plan specifically forbids the use of
flammable types of vegetation as landscaping and includes plant
palettes with plant species that retard fires instead of spreading
them. Native vegetation., within a 100-foot zone of the proposed
) residential and commercial properties proposed in PA 1 and 2 will
be managed to reduce the fuel load while maintaining sensitive
plants and a natural landscape.
The Home Depot Home Improvement Center proposed for PA 1 will store
and sell, various types of materials that are flammable or could be
flammable when mixed with certain other materials. The building
will be of Type V construction and will be fully sprinklered.
Three fire hydrants will be located around the Home Depot building,
on the northwest, northeast and southwest corners (see Figure
2.3-23 in Section 2.3). All emergency/maintenance access ,points
will be identified. The Home Depot Corporation will have a fire
protection engineer consultant review the fire sprinkler plans and
merchandising plans prior to construction of the building, and will
also comply with all requirements of the Encinitas Fire Protection
District. The District has indicated that service will be
available to the proposed development, and no significant impacts
are anticipated.
3.9.2.3 Public Safety
The Home Depot Home Improvement Center proposed for PA 1,will store
and sell numerous types of flammable and/or potentially hazardous
materials, such as paints, paint thinners, solvents, fertilizers,
pesticides, and other construction materials.. Most of the containers are not overly large, and can be carried out by
3-189
customers either in a cart or onplatform -type handcarts. However.,
there is a potential for minor spills.by employees or custóiers.
Accidntal spills could result in indirect health and/or water
quality impacts; In the event of an accident endangering, human
health,. paramedics can be expected to reach the sIte in
approximately 5 minutes Potential impacts on water quality, as a
result of accidental spills are discussed in Section 3 2 2
3.9.3 Mitigation
No significant police, public safety or fire protection impacts
have been identified. Therefore, no mitigation i's required.-
3-190. S .:.-
3.10 WATER SERVICE/CONSERVATION
3.10.1 Existing Conditions
The SPA is within the western, portion of San Diego County, which
averages approximately 9.3 inches of precipitation annually. The
entire SPA is already within the Olivenhain Municipal. Water
District (OMWD) and is eligible to receive domestic water service.
There is an existing 12-inch steel water line along the east side
of El Camino Real This line will be upgraded to a 16-inch line
with an 8-inch loop line to serve PA 1 (see Figure 2.3-23 in
Section 2.3). The proposed residential extension along Scott
Place will include the extension of the existing 8-inch PVC line in
Scott Place. Future development in PA° 3 and 4 will require an
extension of the service line from El Camino Real. No additional
transmission mains, pump stations or reservoir storaqe facilities
will be necessary to serve the SPA.
The OMWD receives its water from -the San Diego County Water
Authority (CWA), which receives its water from the Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California (MWD. Water comes from the
State Water Project, which transports runoff from the Sierra Nevada
to the central and southern regions :of the state, and from the Colorado River via the Colorado Aqueduct. In recent years, the MWD
has had decreased water available to sell to its member districts
for a number of reasons. Due to a significant decrease in
precipitation in recent years,, especially in the last five years,
less water has been available from the State Water.Project. In
previous years, California often used more than its allocated share
of Colorado River water, while Arizona was claiming less than its
allocated share. When Arizona completed its Central Arizona Water
Project and started taking its legally allocated share of Colorado
River water, the amount available to the MWD was reduced. The
continuing drought in most portions of California has added to the
problem.
As a result of the recent drought, the MWD • and the CWA requested their member agencies to reduce water consumption by 30%, beginning
on March 1, 1991. An increase in the cutback to 50% was
anticipated prior to heavy rains in March 1991. However, this
additional reduction has not yet been mandated. The emergency
nature of the water shortage has been somewhat reduced by the heavy
rains in March and by increased flows from the Colorado Aqueduct.
In addition, the State of California was mandated by its governor,
Pete Wilson, to organize an emergency water bank to allow the state
to broker water by buying from water-rich areas and selling to
areas affected most by the drought. The MWD initially purchased
215,000 acre-feet of water from the bank and is negotiating to buy
another 175,000 acre-feet, which became available after the March
rains. If the second water bank purchase is completed, the MWD'.s
total supplies for the :year could be up to 2' million acre-feet, or
84% of the 2.4 million acre-feet that is needed to meet normal
Ow 3-191
demands. In addition, there is a possibility that the District
will receive an additional 170,000 acre-feet from the State Water
Project. If this occurs, the MWD would be receiving approximately
90% of its normal supplies. Until it becomes clear which, if any,
of these alternatives, may ultimately be implemented, it is not
known what policies and restrictions may be implemented by the MWD.
Water conservation is becoming increasingly important. Several
public agencies have adopted water conservation ordinances and the
Construction Industry Federation has developed guidelines for
reducing water consumption during construction. The County of San
Diego has adopted a water conservation ordinance relating, to
landscaping. Congressman Duncan Hunter of San Diego has asked the
Army Corps of Engineers to allow construction water trucks to use
water from streams and rivers for construction grading operations
instead of using scarce potable water. Currently, 'construction
crews are allowed to tap fire hydrants for their operations. A
typical construction team with one bulldozer and one grade may use
up to 30,000 gallons of water a day. Another construction option
that has been suggested is the use of gray water for watering down
construction areas for dust control and other uses. However,
because the SPA is adjacent to the wetlands and the 100-year
floodplain, this option may not be considered appropriate. The San
Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board should be consulted
prior to using gray water during construction.
3.10.2 Impacts
The Specific Plan includes landscaping zones that emphasize the use
of plants requiring more water closer to the wetlands and more
drought-tolerant species adjacent to natural areas. Mulch will be
used around plants to maximize water retention. Drip irrigation
systems, which direct water to the root zone of each plant, will be
used wherever possible to maximize water conservation. Automatic
irrigation systems with a rain switch to override the automatic
operation when a preset amount . of rain has fallen.
Drought-tolerant native plant species will predominate, and large
turf areas, will not be allowed. In addition, the plant palette
includes species that can acclimate to irrigation by reclaimed
water (i.e., plants that are tolerant of high salt content).
The wetlands to be created and maintained will require water.
However, they are considered necessary to minimize potential visual
and biological impacts. There are three shrubs in Landscape Zones
1 and 2 that are considered drought-tolerant: Coyote Brush,
Mulefat and Desert Elderberry.
In Zone 3 (the Commercial Area Landscape Transition Zone) and Zone
7 (Olivenhain Road Commercial Area Landscape Transition Zone),
there are two tree species that were identified by the biologist as
species that are not water-efficient species: ' PoDulus fremontii
(Western Cottonwood) and Platanus racemosa (California Sycamore).
3-192
The two species are proposed for these Landscape Zones because they
would provide a natural transition to the wetlands and, once
established, would require little or no irrigation. Therefore, the
potential impact on water resources is considered to be a temporary
and less than significant impact that is more than offset by the
visual quality that is provided by these fast-growing species.
The vast majority of Landscape Zone 4 (Open Space and Conservation
Zone) will be comprised of drought-tolerant, water- efficient
plants.
All of the designated shrubs, groundcovers and vines, as well as
all but two of the tree species., in Zone '5 (Theme Residential
Landscape Zone) are drought-tolerant, water-conserving species.
Some of the residential lots in PA-1 will have reduced setbacks
from the street. Although the Specific Plan does not include any
specific maximum amount of allowable turf coverage, it does
discourage the planting of grass areas and specifies that grass
must be warm-weather (drought-tolerant) species. Two tree species
should be deleted from the Zone 5 plant list because they are not
water-efficient: Liquidamber stvraciflua (American Sweet Gum) and
Platanus racemosa (California Sycamore).
None of the trees included in the plant list for Zone 6 (El Camino
Real Streetscape Zone) are water-efficient, although some species
of Eucalyptus might be considered.
The El Camino Real Streetscape Zone plants at the western edge of
the Home Depot Center and the future residential development will
require more water than the drought-tolerant plants. However, they
are considered necessary to mitigate potential visual impacts.
The development of PA 1 will require water both during and after
construction. Water may be required for minimizing dust during
construction, irrigating landscaping, domestic uses (sinks,
toilets), irrigating nursery plants in the Home Depot Garden
Center, establishing the new wetlands areas and replanted slope,
the evaporative cooling system and for fire protection. The Home
Depot Home Improvement Center will include eight toilets; nine
sinks; four urinals; one drinking fountain; and 24 evaporative
(swamp) coolers., which use a minimal amount of water and require
significantly less' energy than air conditioners. The garden center
will include approximately 3 hose bibs. Metered flows'will be used
for domestic water supply. An unmetered service will be used for
the building fire sprinkler system and the on-site fire hydrants.
During the development of the TM, historical water use data for
eight Home Depot stores in San Diego County was provided to the
Leucadia County Water District. The data showed that the Home
Depot stores typically use only about 1/10 the water projected 'f or
industrial users, and the District concluded' that an equivalent
dwelling:, unit (EDU) value of 10.46 EDU could 'be used for the
assessment of sewer capacity fees. However, the eight stores
3-193
surveyed are in developed areas and/or shopping centers and have
minimal vegetation. Because the topography was relatively flat at
the other stores' locations, little, if. any, revegetation was
required. The proposed project will require a substantial amount
of water for revegetation and wetlands mitigation; it could be
expected that the project would require substantially more water
for irrigation than the other stores.
The development of--PA 2 will require water both during and after
construction. Water will be required for minimizing dust during
construction, irrigating landscaping, domestic uses (toilets,
sinks, showers, tubs, washing machine, dishwashers), and for fire
protection. If future homeowners install, pools and/or spas,
additional water will be required.
It is difficult to quantitatively project the amount of water
required for implementation of Pa 1. and 2 under the TM. The recent
cutbacks in water usage by residents, as well as the incorporation
of water-flow, restrictors and various other water conservation
measures, makes the standard water consumption rates, which were
developed in earlier years of unlimited water consumption in San
Diego, obsolete.
Water will be required for the development of PA 3 and 4. However,
because there are no current development plans for these areas,
actual water consumption cannot be projected. -Development in these
areas will be subject to the same stipulations -- water service'
will not be guaranteed until the meters are installed.
The following measures are, required by law and will 'aid in the
reduction of-water consumption:
All buildings will use water closets, urinals, and associated
flushometer valves, which meet the requirements of the American
National 'Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard A112.19.2. State
law requires ultra-low flush toilets (1.6 gallons/flush) in.
all new construction after January 1, 1992. However, the
project willinclude the ultra-low flush toilets even if the
building is constructed prior to January 1, 1992. As compared
with the use of standard toilets, the incorporation of ultra
low flush toilets could be expected to save approximately 5.4
gallons of water per flush.
All showerheads, lavatory faucets,, and sink faucets in the
proposed development will comply with ,the maximum flow rate
set by ANSI Standard A112.18.lM-1979. A low-flow showerhead
uses approximately 2 to 3 gallons of water a minute, while a
conventional head uses between 5 and .10 gallons a minute.
Assuming that persons spend about 5 minutes in the shower, the
use of low-flow showerheads can reduce the water consumption
for showers by 1/3, or 10 gallons instead'of 30 gallons.
3-194
iThe OMWD has indicated that has adequate. facilities. . in the
project area and that there is capacity in these facilities to
serve the proposed project at this time Water service is
available at, the minimum pressure of :25 pounds per square inch
(psi) at the District's main under normal operating conditions and
upon completion of all necessary. .facilities. However, all water
supplied by the District is imported. Because southern.,-California,
as well as some other areas that are sources of water, has-been in
a drought for several years, and because development', continues to
occur, there is no guarantee that water will be available when
service.is requested. Although the project, has been issued .a water
availability letter and the áplicant has 'paid ' the required
capacity fees, . there is. no commitment to serve water until meters
are set for the -project. In the event Of.a'water shortage, there
is. no guarantee that water.,will"be aailab]e or that meters will be
allowed upon completion of the project The amount of water that
the. project will .be entitled-to - 'receive installation of the
meter will be regulated by the District's-, water conservation
ordinance. ., .
Since the Water District has indicated no problem in serving the
SPA, there areno significant, impacts.; However, because of the.
recent drought conditions, any new development thatrequires water,
incrementally adds to the potential water shortage problems that
may occur if sufficient precipitation . is not: received in the
region.' Therefore,. additional.mèasures. are included below.
3.10.3 Mitigation .
The 'following additional . water conservation measures are
recommended to mitigate potential water consumption impacts:
The Home' Depot C rporation should provide, all employees, upon
hiring, with . printed , material on water, conservation,
particularly those employees 'that will work in, the Garden
Center... Emphasis should-.be--;placed On notif.ying management of
any leaks in plumbing; ',f'audets and toilets that continue
running after use;' and over-watering of plants (evident if
there is excessive water' leaving the Garden Center after plant
watering).
The developer of PA 2 should provide new homeowners with water
conservation information, including the following information:
A. Run dishwashers and washing machines only when they are
full.
b. If taking a tub •bath,,.f ill, the tub, only 'oñe-fàur,th to
one-third full. A filled- bath tub, uses approximately 30
gallons of water, or the equivalent of a five-minute
shower without a low-flow .showerhead.
3-195
C. When brushing teeth, approximately 10 to 2.0 gallons of
water may be used if the tap is left on,'while only about
1/2 to 1 gallon is used if the tap is turned on only
while rinsing the teeth.
When, shaving, approximately 10' to 20 gallons of water are
used if the, tap remains on throughout shaving. If the
basin in filled instead, only' about 1 gallon of water is
used'.
When washing fresh- fruit and vegetables, approximately
150 to 250 gallons per month can be saved if the sink is
filled instead of leaving the faucet running.
Leaky plumbing can waste substantialwater. A slow drip
can requirean additional '15 'to gallons of-water a day.
A 1/16 in'leak can waste up to 100 'gallonS within 24
hours.
A typical low-flow showerhead will use an estimated .10
gallons Of water for 'a, 5-minute shower. When performing
other activities in the shower, such as hair washing, the.
water should be turned off until it is needed for
rinsing..
Pets require water.. A. 40-pound dog drinks at least 1
quart daily; a.10-pound cat drinks one cup daily. Keep
pet water indoors where it will be less likely to
evaporate.
Include regulations in the CC&Rs that landscaping
irrigation must be done between 6 p.m. and 6 .a.m.
Include, in the CC&Rs, a prohibition in the residential
development against oar washing with a hose. Instead,
use a bucket and only use the hose .f or final rinsing.
This can save' up to'IOO gallons of water.
k; Include in the CC&Rs a requirement that driveways . and
sidewalks be swept, and that the use of water to clean
these areas is prohibited.
1. Require that when the residences are constructed, the
water heater and hot water pipes must be fully insulated
to minimize water loss while waiting for hot water.
M. Provide future homeowners within PA 2 with complete
information on the landscaping zones, including the plant
palettes'available for their front and back yards.
n. Lawns should: only be watered when it is absolutely
necessary, and should not be overwatered. A gOodtest to
3-196
determine if the lawn needs watering is to step on the
grass. If it springs back, it doesn't need watering
Each day thà€ a lawn is not watered can save up to 350
gallons of water.. .,.
.:
o In the CC&Rs, require that all homeowners that install an
automatic irrigation system include a soil moisture
override to prevent watering when the soil is moist, and
require that watering be done between ,6 p.m. and .6 a.m.
3 Cover truckloads for dust control during construction instead
of hosing down the load.
4 If any restaurants are proposed for the future development of
• PA 3 and 4, they should be allowed to serve water only' upon
request by the customer. •: '
5. Ornamental fountains and other water. features should be
, prohibited in the SPA.
6 For maximum water conservation, the use of turf in landscaping
should be limited to 15% of the total landscaped area within
the' SPA.
7 In the event that a severe wa1.ter shortage, or mandatory or
voluntary water conservation measures are declared, the new
water conservation requirements should take precedence over
the proposed landscaping plan.
8 When PA 211's developed, the residences should be plumbed with
dual irrigation systems The pipes carrying water to the
interior of the house must carry potable water, and should tie
in with the OMWD line. The landscaping irrigation should use graywater from kitchen,. and bathroom sinks, showers and
bathtubs, and from washing machine outflow
9 The Specific Plan should require that all irrigation systems
be designed to avoid runoff, 'seepage, low head drainage,
overspray or other similar conditions- onto adjacent property,
non-irrigated areas, walks, roadways or structures.
10. The Specific Plan should require that the water delivery rate
of the irrigation system must take into account the 'slope
gradient and the percolation rte of the soil in order to a
minimize runoff.
The irrigation systems for the commercial/ light industrial
areas in- PA 1, 3 and 4 'should be checked monthly by the
landscape maintenanôe 'fim to ensure that all facilities, are
working properly and that water is not being wasted.
The controller units for all automatic' irrigation systems
' should be enclosed in secure, -weather- and vandal-resistañt
3-197
S locking housings manufactured expressly for - that purpose or
located within a structure.
13. All automatic irrigation systems should be adjusted seasonally
and,as weather and plant conditions warrant.
it., Drip irrigation systems should 'be used .as much: as possible
because the very low flow rates of these systems direct water
to the root zone of each plant, and not to bare ground,
sidewalk or weeds. There, is no waste . water to run of f or
evaporate. All'componentsof drip irrigation systems should
be made of non-corrosive materials to minimize the potential
for leaks.
15. An irrigation plan 'should be submitted for review-by the City
prior to the start of grading. . .
The use of 'gray "water for dust control during construction is not,
considered appropriate for the proposed development of Pa 1 and for
the. future -development of PA 3 and 4 because of their proximity to
Encinitas Creek However, this could be incorporated into the
construction "of the development proposed for PA 2 'if it is
acceptable to the City of Encinitas, California Regional Water
Quality Control. Board, the California Department of Fish and Game,
and the U.S Army Corps of Engineers.
The existing and potential' wetlands areas on-site are already being
decreased by the Encinitas Creek drainage improvements", which are
shrinking the 100-year floodplain area Therefore, it is
recommended that water from Encinitas Creek or from on-site wells
not be used during construction',of any of the PA because this could
create impacts on not only water but also on wetlands resources
It is concluded that, with'the implementation of all of the above
mitigation measures, there will be no significant impacts on water.
service. '
S
3-198
3.11 Swzi SERVICE
3.11.1 Existing Conditions
PA 1 and 2 are not currently within a sewer district..They are
within the sphere of the Leucadia County Water District and
annexation of the development areas to the District is proposed as
part of the project.'The two open space lots are not proposed for
annexation because sewer service will not be required in those
areas PA 3 and 4 are already within the District
There are currently two sewer mains along the west side of El
Camino Real, one an 8- to 10-1ine and the other a 12- to 15-inch
line In addition, there is an 8-inch main along the north side of
Olivenhain Road The residential area to the east of PA 2 are
currently served by 8-inch mains in Scott Place and Starf lower
Road, with the latter extending from the north end of
Starf lower Road northeast across the SDG&E easement (see Figure
2.3-22 in Section 2.3).
3.11.2 Impacts
The development of PA 1 and-,.2 will create. sewage flow will
require treatment However, the use of ultra low flush toilets
will minimize the amount of sewage generated, and no significant
impacts are anticipated The development of PA 1-will include the
installation of an 8-inch sewer main that will connect the Home ~p Depot Home Improvement Center with one of the existing mains on the
west side of El Camino Real The development of PA ,.2 will include
the installation of an 8-inch sewer line in the Scott Place
extension Sewage will flow westerly by gravity and will connect
with an existing main on the west side of El Camino Real The
Leucadia County Water District has indicated that sewer service is
expected to be available upon annexation to the District and that
the Homer Depot stores in San Diego County typically use only 1/10 the water of most industrial,uses.
3.11.3 Mitigation
No significant impacts are anticipated. Therefore, no mitigation
is required.
3-199
3.12 SCHOOL AVAILABILITY
3.12.1 Existing Conditions
The SPA is within two school districts. The Encinitas union
Elementary School District provides education for grades from
kindergarten through sixth grade San Dieguito Union High School
District provides education for students in grades 7 through 12.
3.12.2 Impacts
PA 2, which proposes the development of 19 residences, is the only
area within the SPA that will generate school students Elementary
school-aged students from .PA 2 would most likely attend Mission.
Estancia School located at 3330 Calle Barcelona. It is located
within the Arroyo La Costa Master Plan Area, within Carlsbad,
approximately 1.5 to 1'8 miles from the project site. The school
has a capacity of 836 students and the Encinitas Union School
District has indicated that it will be able to. accommodate the 22
anticipated students that might be generated by the development of
PA 2.
Development'of PA 2 may generate an estimated:2 to 3 junior high
school students, who will attend Digueno Jr High School It is
located approximately 1 5 miles from the project area, on Village
Park Way, and has a capacity of 912 students The estimated 5 high
school students that would be generated by the project would attend
San LDieguita High School, which is located approximately 5 miles
from the project site, on Santa Fe Drive The school has a
capacity of 2,187 students, ànd the -San Dieguito Union High SchOol
District has indicated that it can accommodate the anticipated
student increase. :
3.12.3 Mitigation
Since no significant impacts are anticipated, no mitigation is
required.
3.13 CULTURAL RESOURCES
3.13.1 Existing Conditions
Portions of the Batiquitos Lagoon drainage system, including Green
Valley, have been surveyed intensively for cultural resources,
although few excavations have been completed. Numerous resources
have been recorded in the general vicinity of the SPA. Various
portions of the SPA have been surveyed for cultural resources, in
1985, 1988,, 1989 and 1991, with differing results.
In 1985, an archaeological report prepared as part of General Plan
Amendment 86-01 (RECON, 1986) noted evidence of historic occupation
of the southwestern portion of the SPA. The site, which was not
recorded, included a cement foundation, two Torrey pine trees, a
driveway and a disturbed dump area containing artifacts from the
early 20th Century. It was believed that a house on the site was
occupied sometime between 1901 and 1928.
In 1988, a prehistoric site was noted in the SPA. It was.
originally described as consisting of a light scatter of marine
shellfish; fire-affected rock; at least two unifacial, unshaped
manos; several split cobbles cores; and debitage. The maximum
density of artifacts and.debitage was three items per square meter.
The recorded area.was noted to be located "in a plowed agricultural
field that has likely been leveled by grading." Its location
would be almost completely within PA 1, although a small portion
may extend into PA 3.
A field survey report was prepared by TMI Environmental Services
f,r the Home Depot Specific Plan Area Opportunities and Constraints
Study in 1989 and updated in 1991 (see Appendix F). That report
indicated that two archaeological sites had been previously noted
within, the Specific Plan Area, one historic and the other
prehistoric. The 1989 survey relocated the prehistoric site and
noted that there was no evidence of artifacts or midden soils. At
that time, the only evidence of the site was three to five small
pieces of broken shell in, an extremely disturbed context. The site
area was noted to be located within a large modern dump area
containing broken drainage pipes, metal, glass fragments, cement,
and construction debris. The two unshaped manos, three cores and
limited number of flakes noted on the original site form were not
relocated.
Between 1989 and 1991, the general project area was used for
farmworker encampments and the area in the vicinity, of the
previously recorded archaeological site was been used for a jobs
center that has since been discontinued. The 1991 field survey
failed to relocate evidence of the previously recorded prehistoric
site. The ThI report concluded that the examination of the ground
surface indicated that the potential for either surface, or buried
artifacts was extremely limited. Therefore, no additional measures
3-201
were recommended. The additional disruption created by the
temporary job center and the unauthorized use of the SPA by
migrants has additionally eliminated any need for further research.
The 1989 ThI survey relocated the historic house foundation and
associated trash remains, which included machine-molded bottles and
various metal artifacts. No excavations were completed. However,
diagnostic bottle fragments were collected at the time of the 1989
survey to assist in assessing the site. The site was again
relocated in 1991 to verify that it was still in existence. The
Byron White property to the south was being graded during the 1989
survey and the site was checked to verify that the generally high
level of activity to the south had not disturbed the foundation and
historic trash dump area. The 1991 TMI report recommended that
this historic site be further investigated and evaluated for
significance.
Brian F. Smith and Associates conducted extensive research on the
historic site in 1992 to determine its significance. The report is
included as Appendix M. The research program included numerous
types of subsurface excavations as well as a title search, archival
research, and a biographical sketch of former occupants of the
historic site. The excavations confirmed the existence of a
historic subsurface component within PA 2. The off-site area
immediately south of the SPA was also noted as containing historic
resources, including several concrete foundations and associated
trash deposits. 40
The testing program conducted by Brian F. Smith and Associates
resulted in the identification of a moderate to large subsurface
deposit of a mixture of historic and modern materials. The site
appears to have been the location of a rural dump associated with
a nearby farmhouse. The deposit has been disturbed by agricultural
use over a number of decades, illegal modern dumping, bulldozing or
scraping by tractors, illegal habitations, and erosion.
The subsurface deposit sampled during the test excavations included
a moderate to large quantity of fragmented household items such as
glass bottles and ceramic plateware, mixed with smaller amounts of
agricultural, automotive, and building debris. The artifacts
represent an age span from the 1890s to the 1940s, although modern
trash was also scattered in the site area. The majority of the
deposit is representative of the period between 1920 and 1940.
The completion of the testing program exhausted the research
potential of the portion of the site within the SPA. The
consistent recovery of artifact materials from the test units
indicates that the deposit does not exhibit horizontal variation
aside from quantity. In addition, the mixture of artifacts
resulting from years of disturbance has diminished any vertical
variation of the deposit. Therefore, it is concluded that the site
is not significant.
3-202
3.13.2 Impacts ,
S
Portions of historic Site SDI-12891H will be impacted by the
widening of El Camino Real, but I.the impact is not considered to be
significant. However, it is possible that relatively undisturbed
pockets of cultural materials ..rnay'stili exist: in the area of the
historic site Therefore, it is recommended that a qualified
archaeölogis be present düringgrading. of. the southern portion of 11 PA 2 to monitor all grading 'trenching.activitie s.
3.13.3 Mitigation
It is recommended .thatà qualifiàd archaelogist be present' during
grading of the southern portion of PA 2-t I o monitor all grading and
trenching activities. The;archãeôiogist'must have tke.authority to
temporarily stop.. the grading if a pocket of cuItüràl matèriáls' is
.encountered and conuit':..w.ith the City Of Encinitas on the
significance of the material:encounte.red.
.. 3.14 AIR QUALITY
3.14.1 Existing Conditions
3.14.1.1 General Background
The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Encinitas General
Plan and Zoning. Ordinance (Cotton/Be land/ Assoc iates, Inc., 1989)
and the Final Environmental Impact Report, Arroyo La Costa Master
Plan (M.F. Ponseggi and Associates and A.D. Hinshaw Associates,
1990) included good information on meteorological conditions and
air quality in the project area, and are hereby 'incorporated by
reference. The climate of the project area, 'as .well as in all of
Southern California, is controlled -.by the strengthand position of
the subtropical high pressure cell over the .Pacific* Ocean. This
cell influences the direction of the prevailing winds, which are
westerly to northwesterly, and is responsible for the sunny weather
most of the year. As the high pressure cell move northward, it
blocks storms from moving through. When it moves south, generally
during the winter months, cyclonic storms may result in decreased
sunshine and an increased chance of precipitation. Rainfall is
usually concentrated between November and April and averages 10
inches along the coast. Rainfall came late in the 1990-1991 winter
season, and nearly all of the precipitation came during a one-month
period in March.
Encinitas generally enjoys warm summers and mild winters. The
average maximum daily temperature in July is 75 degrees Fahrenheit
(F). The average January maximum temperature is 44' degrees' F. The
project area's climate 'is. tempered by, the maritime' influence.
Although it is approximately 2.3 miles' from the ocean, and is
separated from the ocean by numerous hills and valleys, the project
area experiences some of the stratus clouds and summer' fog that is
typical of a maritime climate. The situation of the 'project area
in a low-lying area of Green Valley, at the junction with Encinitas
Creek, is expected to result in a predominant northerly air flow..
that comes up Green Valley 'from Batiquitos Lagoon.
Two common temperature inversions affect air quality in the San
Diego Air Basin Subsidence inversions occur during the warmer
months as descending air, which is associated with the Pacific
high-pressure cell, 'comes into contact with the cooler marine air.
The boundary between the two layers represents a. temperature
inversion that traps pollutants. Elevations between 1,500 and
2,500 feet above 'Mean Sea Level (MSL) are generally the most
impacted by these inversions, and impacts are worst between 1 p.m.
and 3 p.m., when sunshine is generally the most intense and
temperatures are highest. .The project area would not be expected
to be impacted nearly so severely as the higher elevations farther
east. ."
Radiation inversions develop. on, winter nights when air near the.
ground cools by heat radiation while the air aloft remains warm
The shallow in layer formed between these two air.másses can
trap:,vehicular, pollutants, such as carbon monoxide and oxides of
nitrogen. The project site, which is located at the junction of
two 'major arterials that intersect at the northwest corner of the
site, is subject 'to' the pollution that is typical, of "hot spots"
around intersections. However, the effect may be moderated by the
presence of the vegetation adjacent to the intersectIon. 'On the
site, there -are wetlands and disturbed upland vegetation. TO the
north is natural, vegetationç: and to the west "and', northwest are
agricultural fields on the Ecke.'property. This agricultural area
may be considered as .a sensitive receptor because crop productivity
may be affected by air pollution. However, the agriculture
'currently exists adjacent to El Camino Real, a heavily used .traffic
route. It is substantially closer to El Camino Real than it 'is to
the project area. There are no schools., hospitals, or convalescent
homes, which are considered to be sensitive receptors, in the
immediate vicinity of the project area.
Air quality at any location is dependent on several factors,
including the amount and type' of pollutants being' emitted, into the.
air (locally, throughout the air basin and., transported into' the air
basin from other areas), and ,the dispersion rates' of, pollutants
within the region. The major factors. affecting pollutant
dispersion are wind speed 'and direction, the vertical dispersion of
pollutants (which is affected by inversions), 'and the local
topography. '
The project area is within the San Diego Air 'Basin but: is also
affected by pollutants transported from the South Coast Air Basin
to the north, which includes Los Angeles. Air* quality' is monitored
by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and the Air Pollution
Control' District (APCD), which is responsible for ensuring that the
San, Diego Air Basin attains "state and national air quality
standards.
The SPAT is located at the intersection of two heavily,' traveled
roads. "Hot spots" typically occur in areas such as this, where
vehicles idle while waiting ,,at the. stoplight. However,, the
presence of a substantial amount of vegetation in the area, both
on-site and off-site, may aid in cleansing the air.'
3.14.1.2 Existing Standards
The monitoring station 'that is closest to the project, site is
located in Oceanside, approximately 11 miles to the northwest. The
most recent ambient air data from that station are compared with
the State and Federal standards in Tables 3.14-1 through 3.14-7.
t I OF 3-205
Table 3.14-1
Number of Days Federal and State Ozone Standards Were
Exceeded At the Oceanside Station, 1986-1990
.# Days Exceeding # Days Exceeding
Federal 1-Hour State 1-Hour Maximum 1-hour
Standaird Concen- Standird Concen- Concentration
tration >12 PDhm trptibn >9 pphm (phm)
90 89 87 86 90 L9 8i 87 86 .90 89 88 87 86
4 8 7 7 10 14 21 22 19 31 17 19 25 18 19
pphm = parts per hundred million
Federal •
Table 3 14-2
Number of Hours Federal and State Ozone Standards
Were Exceeded At the Oceanside Station, 1986-1990 :•
# Hrs Exceeding # Hrs. Exceeding
Federal 1-Hour State 1-Hour Date of Maximum
Standard Concen- Standard Concen- •• • 1-Hour
tration >12 Dphm tration >9 hm Concentration
90 89 88 87 86 90 89 88 87 86 90 89 88 87 86
8 15 15 20 24 34 59 57 56 112 10/4 9/14 3/26 10/3 3/27
pphm = parts per hundred million
3206 • •
Table 3 14-3
Number of Days Exceeding Federal and State Carbon
Monoxide Standards at the Oceanside Station, 1986-1990
# Days Exceeding # Days Exceeding
Federal -1-Hour State 1-Hour Date of Maximum
Standard Concen- Standard Concen- 1-Hour
tration >35 ppm tration >20 ppm Concentration
90 89 88 87 86 90 89 88 87 86 90 89 88 87 86
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 011 0 1/9 1/18 12/2 .10/14 1/10
# Days Exceeding # Days Exceeding Maximum 84Hour
Federal 8-Hour State 8-Hour Average
Average Concen- Standard Concen- Concentration
tration >9 ppm tration >9 ppm (m)
90 89 88 87 86 90 89 88 87 86 90 89 88 87 86
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4041454344
ppm = parts per million
Table 3.14-4
Number of Days and Hours Exceeding State Nitrogen
Dioxide Standards At the Oceanside Station, 1986-1990
# Days Exceeding #. Hours Exceeding Maximum
State 1-Hour ..,State 1-Hour . 1-Hour . Average Concen- Average Concen- Concentration
tration >25 ppm tration >25 ppm (pphm)
9089 88 87 86 908988 87.86..9089•. 88:87 86
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 01 3. 0 18 23 1 26 21
ppm = parts per million
pphm = parts per hundred million
• 3-207
;
Table 3.14-5
Number of Days Exceeding. State Sulfur Dioxide
• Standards At the Oceanside Station, 1986-1990
.# Days Exceeding S Hours Exceding Maximum
Federal 3-Hour State 1-Hour. . 1-Hour
Average Concen- Average Concen- Concentration
tration >50 pphm ration >5 Ipphm (pphm)
90 89 88 87 86 90 89 88 87 86 90 89 88 87 86
O 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 d. 0 2 2 .3. 2 2
pphm = parts per hundred million S
S Table 3.11-6
Number of Days Exceeding Particulate Matter (PM10)
Standards At the Oceanside Station, 1986-1990
Annual Arithmetic Annual Geometric Maximum 24-Hr Sample
Mean, Federal Mean, State Federal Standard 150 ug/m3,,
Standard 50 ug/m3 Standard 30 ua/m3 State Standard 50 u/m3
9.0 89 88 87 86 .90 89 88 87 86 , 90 89 '88 87 86
33 38 36. 33 34 30 35 ' 32 30 32 115 ' 89 81 69 7.
ug = microgram; equal to 1/11 000 of a gram
m3' = cubic meter
Table 3.14-7
Total Suspended Particulates For te Oceanside Station,. 1986-19.90
Maximum 24-Hour
% Samples ,.> 100.'uqim3 . % Samples-I> 150 u/m3 . Sample (ug/in3)
90 89 88 87 86 90 89 88 87 86 90 89 88 87 86
11 5 0, ' ** ** 2 •. ' 0 ,** ' ** 168 115 98 •.
** Monitoring Discontinued S '
ug microgram S S
m3 cubic meter
S
3-20'8 S
Smog continues to be San Diego's primary air pollution problem.
The abundant sunlight chemically changes emissions from automobiles
and industry into photoöhemical Smog. These emissioñs (oxides of
nitrogen and hydrocarbons) are generated in the populated coastal
plain and are blown inland by the onshore breeze. The major impact
occurs between a p.m. and 3 p.m., whenthe Sun is most intense and
temperatures are highest.
The overall trend during the past decade has been a decrease in the
number of days with high levels of smog. The improvement in air
quality in the region improved in 1990;' this has béèn attributed to
favorable weather conditions. Pollution from the South Coast Air
Basin in Los Angeles is often carried southward :to the San Diego
Air Basin by the prevailing winds. During mild Santa Anas, when
prevailing winds are from the east, air pollution from the Los
Angeles basin' is pushed out over the ocean and carried south. In
1990, there were fewer Santa Ana conditions and the air wad cleaner
in the Los Angeles area than it has been in previous years'.'
An estimated 60.% of the smog-forming emissions are created by
vehicles, while' residential uses' and industrial uses each
contribute, approximately 20%. While the County's population has
increased by about 3.5% annually, the number of miles driven has
increased"at twice that rate,. with' 84% of the commuters driving
alone. Thus, substantial reductions in emissions will depend on
A reduction in the number of vehicles on the road and the miles
traveled.
3.14.1.3 Air Pollutant Reduction Efforts
Because the San Diego Air Basin exceeded Federal standards in the
years after the passage, of the 1977 Federal Clean Air Act, the
region had to submit a 'State Implementation Plan revision in 1982.
The San Diego. Association of Governments (SANDAG) and the San Diego
APCD jointly prepared the Analysis of Transportation Tactics, 1982
Regional Air Quality Strategy Update (abbreviated RAQS), with
SANDAG responsible for the transportation tactics and the .APCD
responsible for fixed and mobile source tactics.
RAQS was updated in the 1987 Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
Assessment For Air quality (SANDAG, 1988), which evaluated the
effectiveness of the RAQS to determine 'whether the ,emission
reductions were consistent with the targeted reductions. The
document concluded that the transportation air quality tactics were
not substantially reducing the amount of reactive hydrocarbon (REC)
and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions and that the targeted goals were
not met. Since that time, several bond 'issues' have 'been' approved
for funding transportation projects (both for light-rail and
highway improvements), and numerous transportation improvements
have been, constructed. However, it is estimated' that about .60% of
3-209
smog-forming emissions are from cars and trucks, and that the
number of miles driven is increasing at twice the rate of
population growth. Therefore, the key issue in reducing the San
Diego Air Basin's air quality problems is the reduced use of
private vehicles and the increased use of mass transit.
The California Clean Air Act of 1988 requires a 5% annual reduction
in smog-forming pollutants from 1987 to the year 2000 (65% total)
for areas, such as the San Diego region, that were not meeting
state air quality standards in 1987. It also requires that a
revised strategy be submitted to the ARB in 1991. On February 22,
1991, the SANDAG Board of Directors released the Preliminary
Transportation Control Measures for the. Air quality Plan for review
and comment. This document outlines proposed measures to be
implemented in the San Diego region to reduce traffic, known as the
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program.
On March 4, 1991, the APCD completed the Draft Employer-Based Trip
Reduction Requlation (abbreviated as Regulation). The Regulation
outlines the TDM program requirements, including Average Vehicle
Ridership (AVR) performance targets, trip reduction plan
requirements, appeals process, fees and penalties.. On March 12,
1991, .APCD adopted the TDM criteria and released the Regulation and
related rules for review through public workshops. SANDAG and APCD
are continuing to work on parallel tracks, producing two separate
proposed TDM programs. After local adoption, the Regulation will
be reviewed by the ARB and revisions will be made as necessary.
The APCD will then determine which individual tactics will be
included and the priorities of the tactics.
The APCD Regulation tactics focus on reducing reactive organic
gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), the two pollutants that
react in the atmosphere to form photochemical smog. Reducing NOX
will also help the region attain the State's nitrogen dioxide
standard. The APCD Regulation includes 52 separate control
tactics, many of which relate to specific industries. Other
tactics involve areawide emissions controls from smaller businesses
and, consumer products. These include such things as emission
controls on small utility engines and low emission or solar
residential water heaters in new homes or as replacements.
Industrial controls for reducing air pollutant emissions have been
in place for years and have achieved substantial reductions in
emissions. The APCD predicts that, if all of the new .industry
tactics are implemented, they would probably only reduce emissions
by 5 to 7% of the required 65% reduction.
The State ARB plans to reduce residential-related emissions through
more rigorous standards for a wide range of consumer products,
'including such things as air fresheners, windshield- washing fluid
and the propellant used in deodorant sprays. The. APCD Regulation
tactics include additional proposals,' such as a limit or ban on
starter fluid for barbecue charcoal; the required use of
3-210
heat-transfer pumps instead of conventional furnaces in new homes,
required solar water heaters for new homes, swimming pools and hot
tubs; and use of low-emission paints, solvents and lawn mowers.
Because automobiles and trucks,, are responsible- for, an estimated 60%
of the smog-forming emissions produced in the San Diego Air Basin,
t the actics will emphasize transportation control measures In
addition, California has raised the standards for new motor vehicle
emissions, which will help achieve the carbon monoxide standard, as
well as the smog and the nitrogen dioxide standards.
The APCD has Concluded that:, even with the Implementation of all of
the recommended emission reduction tactics, it is likely that the
San Diego region will not be able to achieve the required 65%
reduction in hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides by the year 2000 It
is estimated that, with maximum implementation of the tactics, a
43% reduction in hydrocarbons and a 26% reduction in nitrogen
oxides can be achieved. These are the two primary components of
local smog.
The APCD Regulation includes the charging of fees to employers and
their employees to pay for additional transit funding,
transportation incentives and parking fees The City of San
Diego's Transportation & Land Use Committee of the City Council
expressed concern that the cost recovery, program proposed by APCD
might impose an undue burden on the region's employers and
recommended that, at a minimum, an economic impact report should be
prepared to analyze the fees with,,"respect to employer size,
regional and interregional competitiveness, economic equity, and in
conjunction with mandatory incentive measures also' to be paid for'
by employers (Esquivel, 1991, Report' No. 91-150).
3.14.2 Impacts
3.14.2.1 Specific Plan and TM
Development of the Planning Areas within the SPA will result in
short-term dust impacts during the development of each Planning
Area. It will also result in incrementally insignificant increases
in pollutant emissions as a result of emissions from vehicles,
fireplaces and commercial/industrial 'uses.
3.14.2.2 Cumulative Impacts
Because the San 'Diego Air Basin isexóeédingstandards, the impact
of any new development, even if it is only one new house, must be
considered cumulatively significant The largest contributor of
future emissions in the SPA will be vehicular traffic As more of
the vegetation in the area. is removed for development, both
off-site and on-site, there will be a double impact of increased
emissions and a reduction of air-cleansing vegetation. However,
this is a result of the General 'Plan land use designations; the '
3211
Specific Plan proposes to implement the General Plan., Potential
cumulative air quality impacts are not fully mitigatable at the
project level.
Nearly-.all developmentcontributes either directly or indirectly to
the greenhouse effect and global warming.'The TM proposes the
planting of many trees,'.including more than 100 just in the Home
Depot parking area. This is a globaiProblem and cannotbe solved
at the project level.
3.14.3 Mitigation
Air quality is a regional problem and cannot be mitigated to
insignificance at the project level. The courts have held that a
when there are existing regional problems to which a development
contributes, approval of the project need not await the regional
solution. Section 15130(c) of the State CEQA Güide1ies advises
that, with some projects, the only feasible mitigation. for
cumulative impacts may involve the adoption of ordinances or
regulations rather than the imposition of conditions on a
project-by-project basis. SANDAG and APCD have prepared documents
designed to reduce future emissions in the San Diego region The
Home Depot Corporation has agreed to participate in a carpool
program and to provide 10 bicycle parking spaces. The revised
federal Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency
to develop a nationwide program for the phaseout of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which have been identified as causing
depletion Of the stratospheric ozone layer and which increase
global warming No further mitigation is considered necessary
3.15, GROWTH INDUCEMENT
3.15.1 Existing Conditions
The SPA is located on the southwest edge of an area that is rapidly
being urbanized The residential subdivisions tothe northeast and
east are relatively new, and the Arroyo La Costa Master Plan was
approved in 1990, which will likely result in additional
development north of Olivenhain Road in the near future Farther
east, the Shelley residential project is proposed east of Rancho
Santa Fe Road in Carlsbad (see Figure 1 1-1) The Byron White
property immediately south of PA 2 has already been approved for
office uses. The Encinitas Ranch Task Force is currently preparing
a Specific Plan for the future development of the Ecke property to
the immediate west of El Camino Real Uses being considered for
that area include commercial as well as residential.: Thus, there
are. no parcels of any substantial size in the area that are not
already planned or being planned for development
3.15.2 Impacts
The Specific Plan primarily includes uses that will support the
existing and future residential development No additional
transmission mains, pump stations or reservoir facilities are
needed to implement the Specific Plan The residential development
proposed in PA 2 includes only 19 single- family units and is an
extension of the existing residential development on Scott Place
The Specific Plan and the TM are not expected to induce growth.
3.15.3 Mitigation
since no significant impacts are anticipated, no mitigation is
required.
I
3-213
3.16 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
3.16.1 Existing Conditions
The lower I elevations of the TM, within PA .1, are comprised
primarily' of alluvium, which, is not fossil-bearing material.
However, the area in the vicinity of the proposed crib wall, at the
southern boundary of PA 1, is underlain by material in the Torrey
Sandstone and Delmar Formation, both of,. which are Eocéne-aged
deposits within the, La Jolla Group. (see Figure 3.4-1 in Section
3.4.1).. Most of the Delmar Formation consists of dusky
yellowish-green sandy claystone that is,"interbedded ' with
coarse-grained sandstone, and is typically overlain by Torrey
Sandstone It contains a rich Domengine molluscan assemblage, and,
based on the brackish-water type of mollusk fossils found, is
believed to have a': lagoonal 'origin.' The Torrey. Sandstone
Formation also underlies 'hillsides within PA 2, ' some of which is
proposed for development .on the TM. This formation is believed to
have been deposited along a' submerging- coast on an arcuate barrier
beach that enclosed, and later transgressed, over Delmar lagoonal
sediments In some areas, this formation contains fossils and
fossilcasts (Kennedy and Peterson., 1975).
The hillsides in the southern portion of.PA 3 are.underlainby the
Torrey Sandstone Thrmation PA 4 is not underlain by any
formations or soil deposits that are known to be fossiliferous.
3.16.2 Impacts '
Fossil resources are typically found during excavation, although
some may be exposed by 'long-term, erosion. Therefore, it ' is not
known what resources may lie beneath the surf ace, and some
resources may only be recovered through carefully, monitored
excavation. Therefore, the . analysis of potential impacts to
paleontological resources from the development of the SPA are
analyzed in terms of the potential for finding fossils 'during
excavation and in terms of paleontological monitoring during
excavation in sensitive areas.
Excavation at the base of the slopes in PA. 1 could expose
fossiliferous material in the Torrey Sandstone or Delmar Formation
materials. Likewise, any excavation within PA 2 in 'areas underlain
by Torrey Sandstone could expose fossils. Therefore, in order to
mitigate potential impacts of the TN development, it is recommended
that a qualified paleontologist be responsible 'for the
implementation of ,a mitigation monitoring plan. This is discussed
in the following section.
When development is proposed for PA 3 and 4, there, will be a
potential for impacts on paleontological resources if the hillsides
on the southern portions of the parcels are disturbed and/or
excavated. The environmental Initial Study for any future proposed
3-214 '
development of PA 3 and '4. sliould'4etèrmine whether., the, proposed
development has the pptential', for ctitting: intothe.' area underlain
by Torrey Sandstone. If'.devel'oprnentis proposed in this area, the
same .mitigation as is discussed ,'below for PA 1 and: 2 should be
implemented'during the development of PA 3 and. 4.
3.16.3 Mitigation
Potential impacts to paleontological resources -can -be mitigated to
insignificance through a three-phased mitigation program:
A qualifiedpaleontologist..shoulddo a literature and records
'search;. surface study of' . the port ions .ofthesite underlain by
potentiallyfossiliferous formations that .will'be disturbed
(Delmar and Torrey Sandtoñe.. Formations); ';subsurface testing
if necessary; record :any sites; ,,and make recommendations
regarding the need for further work..
If it is determined.:
'
during,,., .^Phase 1 . that further work is
necessary, it should consist, of the following':
A qualified paleontologist should be.present at pre-
grading conference with the developer, grading
contractor, and the City's project planner or
environmental consultant. The 'purpose of the. meeting . will be to consult and coordinate the role, of the
paleontologist in the grading 'of the 'site. A qualified
:pa1e0flt010gi5t is defined as an individual with 'adequate
knowledge -.and experience with fossilized remains likely
to be present to identify them in the field, and is
adequately experienced to remove the resources for
further study. 'No grading p.errnits should be issued, until
the monitoring plan has been approved by the Planning
Director.
A qualified paleontologist or designate should, be present
during those relevant phases of grading as determined at
the pre-grading conference based on the potential for
finding resources. The.contractor must be made aware of
the random nature of fossil occurrences ' and the
possibility of a discovery of remains -of such-scientific
and/or educational importance that. a long-term, salvage
operation or preservation 'of the resources in-situ might
be warranted. The monitor shall have the' authority to
temporarily direct, divert or halt grading to allow
recovery of fossil remains. At ,the discretion' of the
monitor, recovery may include washing, and picking of soil
samples for micro-vertebrate bone and teeth. 'Any
conflicts regarding the :ro].e of the paleontologist and/or
recovery times should be resolved by' the Community
Development Department Director. Any fossils or
potential resources must be prepared 'and' curated in
OF 3-215
accordance with the standards 6f the profession. The
developer should authorize the deposit of any resources
found on the project site in an institution staffed by
qualified paleontologists, as may be determined by the
Director of the Community Development Department.
3. Within one month of the completion of grading, a
paleontological monitoring report should be submitted to the
Director of the Community Development Department If the
project entails extensive preparation and curation of
resources, the time period may be lengthened. The report
should (a) describe, in general terms, 7the stratigraphic
setting for all fossils found, (b) describe any unusual or
unexpected findings, (c) describe the method(s) used for
collecting, preparing and curating the , (d) provide
a tabulation. of .the number of hours spent on meetIngs.,
monitoring, preparation of the resources, and preparation of
the report; and (é) include a' map showing the geology,
stratigraphy.. and fOssil localities.
3.17 ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD HAZARDS
3.17.1 Existing Conditions
A study of potential hazards that might be associated with the
power lines in PA 4 was prepared by a registered Professional
Engineer. It is included as Appendix and is summarized in this
section. The western boundary of PA 4 of the SPA is traversed by
a 150 foot wide SDG&E easement (see Figure 3.17-1).. This
easement traverses the SPA in a northwesterly/southeasterly
orientation, and extends far north and south of the SPA into other
jurisdictions. The easement is totally within PA 4 but forms the
eastern boundary for PA 1 and 3.
SDG&E has constructed three high-voltage transmission lines along
this easement. Two sets of three-phase, 230-kilovolt (1W) AC
transmission lines are mounted on the steel monopoles on the east
half of the easement. One set of 230-1W lines is mounted in a
vertical plane on each side of these steel monopoles. A single,
three-wire, 135-1W transmission line is mounted horizontally on the
sets of three wooden poles on the west side of the easement.
The closest point of the proposed Home Depot Center improvements is
a minimum distance of 225 feet from the SDG&E easement.
There are two classifications of Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) which
present potential health hazards (1) ionizing radiation, which
includes x-rays, gamma rays and other high-energy radiation that is
capable of changing the chemical structure of living tissue by
knocking electrons out of their orbits; and (2) non- ionizing
radiatiOn, which has a lower frequency and less energy, and is
subdivided into the three categories. The highest energy and
highest frequency category produces heating effectssimilar to
microwave cooking. The middle category is low-level radiation over
an extended period of time. The third category is extra low
frequency (ELF) radiation, which is primarily the 60-Hertz (Hz)
electromagnetic radiation from power lines. Due to the on-site
power lines, the ELF radiation is the concern in the SPA.
The major safety concern from transmission lines has traditionally
been the effects of high voltage. This safety concern included
both the direct shock hazard of contacting the high voltage
conductors, and the charge buildup from the electric field between
the conductors and the ground. The ELF magnetic field produced by
60-Hertz (cycles-per-second, abbreviated Hz) power transmission
lines has long been ignored as insignificant, especially since
these fields are usually at least an order-of- magnitude less than
the earth's own electromagnetic field. However, in 1972, an
epidemiological study of children in Denver, Colorado, who lived
near high-voltage transmission lines showed a statistically
significant increase in certain cancers-in these children. This
led to increased concern and further studies. As a result of this,
3-217
_ S
2VENHA.t ROAD
S
S
/ - ••-•-- ---: •-. '-•
(L*2 f r-S
-4-
I
0 312
-_-•}) r I
FEET
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP, 1991
FIGURE:
LOCATIONS. FOR. ELF-EMF MEASUREMENTS 3.17-1 S 1
3-218
numerous experiments and epidemiological studies have been
performed, with inconsistent and often unrepeatable results
There are no nationally recognized standards for maximum allowable
ELF-EMF field strengths from power lines or from any other 60-Hz
EMF source.. Neither are there any nationally recognized standards
for the maximum safe or, "threshold" ELF-ENF levels Originally,
the magnetic fields from power lines and other 60 Hz sources were
considered insignificant since they were typically small in
comparison to the earth's own magnetic field
Concern over the health effects of these fields has been increasing
over the past twenty years due primarily to a series of
epidemiological studies Various agencies have examined the
existing data from hundreds of studies which have attempted to show
the relationships between ELF-EMF exposure levels and various
biological functions and effects, including cancers They have
found that there is a statistically significant increase in certain
types of cancers in the presence of ELF-EMF exposures However,
there is no identifiable cause-and-effect relationship, no any
proof that the ELF-EMF fields were the cause of these cancers
Also, there is currently no way to predict effects on humans from
any, specific level or durationof ELF
.1
exposure Therefore, the
agencies have concluded that there is currently no technical basis
for establishing threshold ELF-EMF exposure standards at this time
There area few states and foreign.coüntrieswhich have` established
ELF-ENF Power line standards based on both the best available data
IR and the "as low as reasonably possible" (ALARP) principle These
standards are included in Table 3,_17-1. The relative values of
these ELF-EMF numbers may be compared to the numbers of some common
sources of electromagnetic exposure that are listed in Table 3.i7-2
and illustrated in Figure 3 1771
Table 3.17-1
ExistingPower Line Standards
State Power Line Voltage . Threshdld ELF-EMF
Florida 500-KIT Line . 200 Milligauss
230-lW and lower Lines 150 MilliGauss..
New York All Transmission Lines 200 MilliGauss
3-219
Table 3.117-2
Typical Field Strengths
EMF Source Type Field EMF.Field Strenath
Earth's Magnetic Field Steady State 300 mG
Residential Background ELF - '60 HZ 0.05 - 10 mG
Video Terminals ELF - 60 HZP 0.28 - 9 mG at
1 Ft. from source
Electric Blankets ELF,- 60 HZP 10 - 50 mG
3.17-2 Typical Field Strengths
Although there are no formally acepted standards for ELF-EMF
exposure levels, 2 to 4 milli.Gauss (mG) is normally considered
acceptable for continuous (residential) exposure levels No
Industrial and Commercial exposure standard levels exist..'However,
they would be a few orders of magnitude higher than residential
levels due to the fact that the exposures are intermittent rather
than continuous
Measurements of the existing ELF field strength were made at six
locations on the project site (see Figure 3 17-2) Measurements
were taken one meter above the ground level using a MSI Model 20
ELF Field Strength Meter with a unidirectional coil The
measurements are included in Table 3 17-3 They indicate that the
peak ELF field strength is located under the 230-Ky transmission
lines. The highest reading on the project site, 37 mG, was.
obtained at location F, where these 230-Ky lines come closest to
the ground, at the southernmost end'iof PA 4. The highest readings
along the boundaries of theSDG&E easement were all obtained on the
eastern boundary,, which is in PA' 4.. -
The maximum ELF field strength reading on PA 1. was 5.3 mG This
reading was obtained at location A, 1on the northern boundary of PA
4 along Olivenhain Road, within the easement The EMF reading at
the corner of the proposed PA 1 improvements closest to the
transmission lines was 0.6 mG.
3.17.2 Impacts
The strength of. ELF-(F near tranmi'sion, lines decreases as. a
function of the square of the distance from the power line but
increases in proportion to the current
'
flowing in 'them. Thus, the
strongest ground-level fields from these power lines are directly
below them The field strength decreases with increasing distance
from this point. Doubling'the distance reduces the fiéld'.strength
by a factor of four. '
3-220
----
i I
-
60 HZ. MAGNETIC FIELD STRENGTHS (UILLIGAIJSS)
rfl
- AWAY FROM APPLIANCES
30
F NEXT TO APPLIANCES
-
- I ELECTRIC BLANKETS
m Z A
EDGE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY m K
S
z V I- 0 C,)
I : J I WITHIN RIGHT-OF-WAY (I) (flZ
C , 0> Zz I z30 1 -o m - i ______________________ _________________ ____________ ________
C) r F EDGE OFRIGHTOFWAY
LA I •jL. WITHIN RIGHT-OF-WAY-
fn H I I OFFICE
-
I SPECIALIZED HIGH EXPOSURE CA r
• •- -
-. -
- - -
Table 3.17-3
• Field Strength Readings for the Specific Plan Area
Location EAST 230KV 135KV WEST OTHER*
A Olivenhain Rd. 12.3 20 7.3 5.3 -
:PA4
B Base of hill 8.8 10.2 3.4 1.5 -
-within easement
.:pA4
C So. Power Poles 7.4 16.0 9.3 4.0 -
PA
D NE corner of - - - - 0.6
proposed Home
Dépdt center
PA
E Southernmost - - - 5.8 -
prtion of
F PEAK READING - 37.5 - - -
SE corner of
PA 4
* All measurements are in MilliGauss and were taken from
the east and west boundaries-of-the easement, under
each power-line, and at other relevant locations.
Visual inspection of the site indicated that the transmission, lines
were significantly higher above the ground across most of 7 the
project site easement than is required because the towers
supporting these transmission lines are located on the tops of
embankments which are approximately 130 feet high This fact
reduces the strength of the ELF field strength, and thus potential
risk, in-..the SPA. It also accounts for the fact that the highest
reading on the project site (37.5 mG), which was within the
easement, was lower than might commonly be experienced for property
in such a location (see Figure 3.17-2).
The measured field strengths on the portions of PA 1 and 2 proposed
for development are well below any levels of concern and no
significant ENF hazards are considered to be associated with the
• : 3-222 • • -.
development It is possible that future development in PA -3 and 4
could, have associated EMF hàzãrds,, depending on the proposed
development '.and it location. '
'3.17.3 mitigation -
3.17.3.1, Specific Plan
No mitigation is required for the 'development of PA 1 and 2.
Studies are continuing in EMF in an attempt to develop meaningful
standards The issue of ELF-EMF fields should-,be restudied at the
time of the propo,sed 'development' of 'PA 3 and. 4. At that, time, it
may be appropriate to r.èstriätdeVèiopmént'in'certainareas unless
SDG&E is willing to implement, mitigation measures, which is not
considered likely.
There are numerous techniques which can be implemented by SDG&E to
reduce the ENF field strengths in,'three-wire, high-voltage
transmission lines..'Each of these mitigation techniques has an
undesirable side effect, and-use-4k any of these techniques would
have to be based on a clear definition of a pecific s risk The
side effects would. have tô be balanced' against the'advantage to be
gained by the reduced ELF-4F field strength at the specific
location. These potential measures are discussed in' the technical
study, in Appendix G. Because the measures require that SDG&E make
major changes in the transmission line system, which could require
changes well beyond project boundaries, and many of which are
' considered, to be economically infeasible by SDG&E, ,they are not
discussed in detail in this section. '
3.17.3.2 Tentative Map'
No mitigation is 'required for the development of-.' PA land 2 as
currently proposed. '
3-223
3.18 ENERGY CONSERVATION
3.18.1 Existing Conditions
The SPA. does not currently I contain any structures except 'the SDG&E
facilities and does not require any energy.
3.18.2 Impacts.
The uses currently proposed by the TM and the future uses proposed
for PA 3 and 4 will require energy for a variety of purposes
building space and water heating, appliances, mechanical equipment,
signage, parking and street lights, and vehicle trips
The development of the proposed Home Depot Center in, Pa 1 includes
three. options 'for roof color: light gray/white, a light green, or
an earth tone..The light gray color would provide the most heat
reflection and the least heat absorption, minimizing the need for
cooling The roof system will include 150 white plexiglass
skylights, each measuring 4 feet by 8 feet This will
significantly reduce the need for daytime interior lighting The
building will also use evaporative (swamp) coolers, which require
little energy compared to air conditioners. Although most Home
Depot customers generally purchase items that cannot be carried on
a bicycle, bike racks will be provided for bicycle riders to reduce
automobile trips In addition, the Home Depot Center will
participate in a City- wide employers' carpool program Since
there-.is not currently a major home improvement center in
Encinitas, it is' expected that the HomeDepot Center will result in
A reduction in shopping 'trip mileage.
The TM does not 'currently propose to develop PA 2. However, the
Specific Plan does include guidelines for the integration of solar
panels and solar equipment into residential roofs.
There are no current plans for the development of PA 3 'and '4, so
potential energy requirements cannot be determined. However, these
future projects will go through additional site- specific review
when they are proposed. Energy impacts from the development of the
SPA are not'considered to be significant'.
3.18.3 Mitigation
Since no significant impacts have been identified, no mitigation is
required
3-224
Ow
3.19 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
3.19.i. Existing Conditions
Thè"SPA is generally vacant. Encinitas solid waste is currently
transported to the San Marcos Landfill Recent analyses by the
County of San Diego Solid Waste Division indicate that the solid
waste generation rate in Encinitas has remained the same in the
last three years but that the amount of solid waste going: into
landfills has decreased. This is reflected in Table 3.19-1.
3.19-1 Solid Waste Generation and, Disposal Rates for Encinitas
Table 3-19-1.
Solid Waste Generation and Disposal Rates for Encinitas
Rate 1990 ' 1991 ' 1992.
Lbs. /Capita/ Lbs. /Capitá/ Lbs ./Capita/
Day Day. .. ' .. , Day
Generation 10.7 . 10.7 ' 10.7
Rate.
Disposal Rate 9.8 .. 9.7 8.9
Source: Greg Richards, County of San Diego Solid Waste
Division.
All of the landfills in San Diego county are reaching their
capacity, earlier than was projected when 'they were opened because
both the population growth and the amount of 'solid waste generated
per person ' has increased, faster than expected. This has been
'offset by an increase in recycling 'and a decrease :in ' urban
development, which results in less construction material going into
landfills. However, the regional 'solid waste disposal issue is
significant and unresolved.. A recent approval for' a vertical
expansion. of the San Marcos Landfill by the County Health
Department may result in extending the lifespan of this landfill.'
However, this is a short-term solution and-does not solve'the long-term need for another landfill site and the' search for another
North County landfill has not yet resulted in any definite plans
for a replacement for'the San Marcos.Landfill.
3.19.2 Impacts
The Home Depot Center is expected to generate a substantial, amount
of solid waste, particularly in the form of cardboar,d boxes and
packing' materials. It willinclude a trash compactor to reduce the
amount of solid waste that must be taken to a landfill. ' However,
because there is such a shortage of landfill capacity in San Diego
3-225'
County, •and in North County in particular, any increase in the
amount of solid waste going into the landfills could result in a
cumulatively significant impact Because this is a regional
problem and is not solvable at the project level, there is nothing
the project can do to increase landfill capacity. The most that
can be accomplished at the project level is the minimization of
solid waste going into the landfills
3.19.3.. Mitigation
The amount of solid waste contributed to the landfills by the
project can be reduced by maximizing the recycling of materials
It is recommended that the project applicants for the Home Depot
Center provide recycling facilities and implement a program to
recycle paper, cardboard, aluminum, glass, and other recyclable
materials This is considered to be adequate to mitigate project
impacts to a less than significant level Existing regional
problems can only be mitigated at the regional level Community-
wide recycling efforts should be sponsored by the City of
Encinitas
. 4 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
IF THE PROPOSAL IS IMPLEMENTED
There are three long-term significant environmental effects that
cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level by the project
and which will require a statement of overriding considerations if
the project is approved air quality, traffic circulation and
solid waste disposal. All of these are existing regional problems
that cannot be mitigated to "a less than significant level by any
one project Mitigation measures have been recommended which are
considered sufficient to reduce the project's impacts However,
CEQA considers the exacerbation of any existing deficiency to be
cumulatively, significant.
Any new development in, the San Diego Air Basin will incrementally,
O increase air pollutants '.in, an area that is already not 'attaining
state 'and federal standards, thereby 'creating a cum ulatively
significant impact that, by'. itself., would, not generally be
considered significant The long-term reduction of air pollutants
in the San Diego Air Basin, as well as other areas, can only be
substantially reduced by 'a reduction in the number of vehicles on
the road and the number,-,6.f miles 'traveled. Theréf ore, other
potential indirect impacts of air pollution, such as increased
health problems and global warming, can only be reduced to a less
than significant level when vehicle emissions are reduced The
proposed Home Depot Center includes bicycle lanes, bicycle parking ,,. spaces, and a carpool program for employees, which are expected to
mitigate short-term impacts However, air quality is a regional
problem and long-term impacts cannot be mitigated at the project
level.
Long-term impacts on circulation' are expected to occur in' the
future if the remainder of the undeveloped land in Encinitas is
developed according to the General Plan.. .Because the General :Plan
designation of light industrial land uses would be likely to result
in less traffic generation than the proposed Home Depot Center, 'and
because the Circulation Element has'been based on the General Plan
land use 'designations, the project may result in significant
traffic.impacts upon the' buildout of Encinitas.
Landfills :in the San Diego regiom are reaching capacity earlier
than was anticipated, and efforts 'to' locate new landfills have been
hampered by environmental problems with specific sites and the
NIMBI ("Not in My Back lard"). syndrome. North County is
especially short on landfill capacity. Therefore, any additional
development, even one house, would be considered as a cumulatively
significant impact. The project proposal includes measures. for 'the
reduction of the amount of solid wastes going into landfills
Regional impacts cannot be fully mitigated -át the project level..
4-1
S 5. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM-USES OF MAN'S
ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF
LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Encinitas Creek traverses the northern portion of the SPA and
contributes to the wide diversity of habitats and species on- site
Although the Creek has been channelized upstream, the Specific Plan
will retain a natural streambed, which is far superior to the rip
rap channel upstream to the immediate east 'and will help ensure
long-term productivity. The Specific Plan proposes development in
the lowlands adjacent to the 100-year floodplain. However, the
area that is proposed for development is largely disturbed from
uses including agricultural uses, unauthorized habitations and the
former jobs center. In order to comply with City, policies, the
boundaries of the areas désignatéd as developable in'Specific Plan
should be revised to exclüdedelineàted wetlands and a minimum 50-
foot wetland buffer. The City,will need to determine the extent of
the 'viable wetland since a portion of the delineated, wetland 'has
been created by the impeded floodplain due to sedimentation of the
El Camino Real culvert.
Development of the Specific Plan and TM as proposed will result in
the conversion of some existing habitat to urbanized development
The Specific Plan proposes ,to retain large, areas of contiguous open
space on the Chaparral-covered hillsides and along Encinitas Creek
This will minimize potential biological "impacts and provide a
S better opportunity for long-term productivity than would a plan
that fragmented proposed open space areas.
The TM proposes to enhance existing wetlands and to create new'
wetlands. There will technically be a net loss of wetland acreage
as a result of the project because the wetland enhancement that is
part of the project is not counted as mitigation. However, the end
result will be an increase in habitat values. The Corps of
Engineers has approved the' wetlands mitigation/ restoration plan as
adequate to mitigate potential wetlands impacts to a less than
significant level. However,' the- .Project is in conflict with City
policies relating to wetland buffers and the "no net loss" policy
for wetlands. The biological 'consultant has concluded that the
proposed wetlands mitigation program is sufficient to ensure the
long-term survivability of the Encinitas Creek ecosystem
The residential development, proposed for Planning Area 2 will
result in the elimination of approximately 12 of the 'existing Coast
White Lilac populations and 2 of the 7 Del Mar Manzanita
populations, as well as one Torrey pine. However, the landscaping
plan includes these plants, and the'recommended mitigationin'cludes
an intensive restoration program. The elimination of the
unauthorized' campsites 'plus the restoration program will likely
increase the quality ,of the habitat and enhance long-term
productivity. ,. '
0. 5-1
The proposed development areas'in te lowlands of Planning Areas 1,
3 and 4 may cover over areas that could be used for mining sand and
gravel. The California Departmertof Conservation Division of
Mines and Geology has classifiedmost of the land upstream of
Batiquitos Lagoon within the Encinitas Creek drainage basin as
Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 3 This category includes areas
containing mineral deposits for which the significance cannot be
evaluated from available data.' The SPA includes alluvial deposits
that might be used as aggregate naterial. Typically, the IZ-3
designated areas contain areas where there are deposits of both
acceptable and unacceptable quality that are intermixed The
economics of mining and processninglthe acceptable material are not
fully known (California Department of Conservation, 1982)
However, due to the sensitivity of1 the wetlands and the potential
for water quality degradation, it is unlikely that mining would be
y allowed an' p The develoment of a portion of the lowlands is
not considered to be significant.
Development of portions of the lowlands of Planning Areas 1, 3 and
4 will 'eliminate the potential for any further agricultural use.
However, the areas have not been used for agriculture recently, and
future use for agriculture wouldi require the implementation of
substantial water quality protection measures In addition, with
the land now incorporated into Encinitas and surrounded by urban
development, it is probably not economically feasible to use the
land for agriculture.
Development of the SPA will incrementally contribute to long-term
cumulative impacts on traffic, air quality, solid waste disposal,
visual quality related to urbanization, lass of agricultural land.,
and biological resources. HOwe'er, the SPA is small in size
comparedtb the ArroyoLa CostàMaster Plan Area to the north, as
well as to existing development in Encinitas, and will not
constitute a significant impact by itself. The impacts on air
quality are considered cumulatively significant because the San.
Diego Air Basin has consistently Inot met the goals for pollutant
reductions Increased air pollutants in the project vicinity could
affect the agriculture on the Ec)e property. However, the small
contribution of future development within the SPA to the
degradation in air quality will 'be unnoticeable, and since the SPA
is designated far development, this impact could occur with any • development. . Air quality impac1ts to the entire north county
coastal area can only be mitigated to insignificance through the
improvement of airquality in the San. Diego and South Coast Air
Basins. SANDAG and APCD.have proposed more stringent. controls on
industry and substantial incentives to promote the use of mass
transit. . .. .
The California Gnatcatcher, which has been proposed for federal
Endangered listing, has been founi to use portions of PA 1, 2 and
3. The territory used is not typical .Gnatcatcher habitat, but the
resident pair of Gnatcatchers have nested: .in two locations within
5 .
the SPA Development as proposed by the Specific Plan and TM will
result in impacts to California Gnatcatcher habitat However, the
recommended mitigation is off-site acquisition of land meeting
specific criteria because this is deemed best by several biological
consultants for the long-term preservation of the species Because
the SPA is surrounded by existing and planned urban development and
because fragmentation of habitat areas reduces long-term survival
rates, off-site mitigation is considered preferable to on-site
.retentionof Gnatcatcherhabitát.
0
6. ANY SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE
INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION. SHOULD
IT BE IMPLEMENTED .. .
•
- ,-.
. 6. ANY SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH
WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE
IMPLEMENTED .
Development of portions of the SPA lowlands will eliminate the
potential for mining of any agg m regate resources that ay be present
in the alluvial deposits However, if future needs dictate the
need for mining the lowlands for aggregate resources, the
development' cOuld be rémbved; the resources would still be. there.
The development of the. SPA will result In the conversion of what is
currently vacant land to. more urbánuses,. '.The,..developrnent will be.
an extension of existing urban development but the effects on the
nature of the SPA will, be largely irreversible. . The project
includes wetlands enhancement and creation, and the retention of a
substantial amount of Coastal Mixed Chapar±al The.,SPA includes a
natural open space corridor on the north- and northwest-facing
hillsides that connects with other natural open space Therefore,
with the' implementation of the rècommeñdéd mitigation measures, the
indirect .effects of urbanization can be mitigated to a less than
significant level.
H..
., .
6-1
0)
'0
c
7, ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTIONS
An,, EIR for any project subject to. CEQA review must, consider a
reasonable range of alternatives to the project which (1) offer
substantial environmental advantages over the project proposal and
(2) may be feasibly accomplished in, a successful manner considering
the economic, environmental, social and technological factors
involved Various court cases have provided input on the level and
type of analysis required for alternatives to the project. The
California Supreme Court has determined that the nature and scope
of 'alternatives should be guided by the doctrine of feasibility and
the, rule' of reason.
The courts have also specifically addressed the adequacy of the
Alternatives analyses in EIRs. An EIR must contain a discussion of
a reasonable range of feasible alternative sites and a brief
discussion of why sites which are ostensibly feasible were rejected
as infeasible, remote or speculative. An EIR need 'not discuss
sites which are obviously infeasible, remote or speculative.
However, a lead agency may not.,refuse to review sites simply
because those sites do not meet all the project objectives or
because they present economic or environmental difficulties of
their own. Under CEQA, the rule' of reason requires discussion in
the EIR of those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned
choice. The court have determined that CEQA does not require the
study and discussion of every alternative site imaginable. Rather,
the key issue is whether the selection and discussion of
alternatives fosters 'informed decision making and informed public
participation. '
The Courts have held that, in determining whether development of a
particular alternative site is a potentially feasible means of'
satisfying the goals of .a proposed private project, an agency may
properly consider whether the site is owned or can reasonably be,
acquired or controlled by the project proponent because this may
have, a strong bearing on ,the project's ultimate cost and the
chances for an expeditious and successful accomplishment. The
courts have also taken the position that an EIR is not ordinarily
an,,' occasion for the reconsideration or overhaul of fundamental' land
use polices if alternative land uses were addressed in an EIR for
an adopted plan including the project area.
The following alternatives could be adopted alone or in combination
instead of the project.
7.1 Alternatives to the Specific Plan
7.1.1 No Project
This alternative would retain the existing General Plan
designations and would not preclude future development. It would
eliminate potential impaôts that may result'from implementation of
7-1
the proposed Specific Plan. However, it would allow the
continuation of the unauthorized habitations in the SPA, which also
create impacts on the natural environment. The wetlands
enhancement and wetlands creation would not occur, and continued
unauthorized use of the stream area would probably result in
additional degradation of the wetlands vegetation and habitat.
A Specific Plan is required for the SPA. All potential
environmental impacts of the Specific Plan can be mitigated to a
less than significant level through recommended mitigation measures
or alternatives except those impacts that are insignificant at the
project level but cumulatively significant because the City and the
San Diego region are already exceeding air quality and traffic
circulation standards and facing a shortage of landfill capacity.
For these reasons, the No Project Alternative is not considered to
be the best option. The proposed Specific Plan should be modified
to bring it into conformance with City policies and mitigate
potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level.
Because the General Plan requires approval of a Specific Plan
before any specific development proposals can be approved within
the Specific Plan Area (SPA), no development could be proposed
within the SPA until a Specific Plan is adopted. If the proposed
Specific Plan is not adopted and the project applicant withdraws
from any further action, it would be the responsibility of the
owners of.PA 3 and/or 4 to develop a Specific Plan if they wish to
propose any development. is
7.1.2 Alternative Specific Plan Retaining All Delineated
(Including Degraded) Wetlands Plus a 50' Wetland Buffer
This alternative would revise the boundaries of designated
development areas to retain delineated wetlands plus a 50-foot
wetland buffer in all four Planning Areas (see Figure 7.1-1). It
would reduce the developable area of PA 1 by roughly half and would
reduce the developable area in the northern portion of PA 4 so much
as to eliminate any development in this area given that part of the
available area for development is within the SDG&E easement and
cannot contain any structures. Smaller portions of the designated
development areas in PA 3 and the southern portion of PA 4 would be
retained in open space. Since open space uses include non-
structural urban development such as parking, the Specific Plan
should prohibit any type of urban uses in the shaded areas shown in
Figure 7.1-1. All open space should be covered by irrevocable open
space easements for the preservation of natural resources. This
alternative would bring the Specific Plan into conformance with
Policy. 8.10 of the Encinitas Land Use Element and Policy 10.6 of
the Encinitas Resource Management Element of the Encinitas General
Plan. However, it is uncertain that a smaller project that would
fit on the remaining developable portion of PA 1 would maintain the
revenue stream necessary to fund a wetland enhancement project. In
addition, if the development completely avoids the wetlands, there
7-2
would be 'no need for wetland mitigation and none of the wetland
enhancement and creation proposed as part of the project would
occur.
7.1.3 EMP Hazard Alternative Open Space Plan
This alternative would designate as open spaceall land within the
SDG&E easement (see Figure 7.1-2) and would bring the Specific Plan
into conformance with Policy 8.11 of the Land Use Element of the
Encinitas General Plan. It would eliminate slightly more than half
of the designated development area in the southern portion of PA 4.
Since these areas are on steep slopes, this alternative would help
to reduce steep slope encroachment in PA 4. This alternative would
also eliminate approximately the western third of the designated
development area in the northern portion of PA 4. Since this area
contains existing above-ground and underground SDG&E facilities, it
is unlikely that this area could be developed anyway. It should be
noted that open space uses typically allow non-structural urban
uses such as parking. However, parking is not considered an
acceptable use on the steep slopes in the southern portion of PA 4
and should be prohibited in the Specific Plan. The steep slope
areas should be covered by irrevocable open space easements for the
preservation of natural resources.
7.1.4 Steep Slope Mitigation Alternative Open Space Plan
The Specific •Plan allows a 60% encroachment into steep slopes in
the southern portion of PA 4. The alternative shown in Figure 7.1-
3 would reduce the steep slope encroachment in PA 4 to the 20%
allowed by Policy 1.2 of the Public Safety Element of the Encinitas
General Plan. However, it would fragment the remaining designated
development areas, possibly making them undévelopable. Given that
the area within the SDG&E easement cannot contain structures, the
remaining developable area at the base of the slopes that could
contain structures would be extremely small. The, remaining
designated development area farther up the slope in the southern
portion of PA 4., which would be behind existing houses, could be
accessed by a road, which would be exempt from the encroachment
allowance.
7.1.5 California Gnatcatcher Mitigation Alternative
A pair of California Gnatcatchers has nested in two different
places in the SPA and is known to use portions of PA 1, 2 and 3.
Their use area may extend into other portions of the SPA in the
future. Based onthe input from several biological consultants,
this EIR has concluded that off-site acquisition of.. California
Gnatcatcher habitat Offers a better chance for the long-term
survival of this sensitive species than preservation of a patch of
habitat surrounded by urban development. However, Figure 7.1-4
presents an on-site alternative that . would preserve all known
Gnatcatcher territory' in the SPA. This alternative would eliminate
7-4
ON&
ii:
a small portion of the designated1 development area in PA 1 and
would prohibit any. grading of the north-facing slope in PA 1 and 2
except for a small strip adjacent to El Camino Real. It would
leave a very small portion of PA 2 as developable. Approximately
three or four residences might be possible. This alternative would
also eliminate the designated development area on steep slopes in
PA 3, which would have other beneficial impacts. However, it would
enhance the Specific Plan's compatibility. with Policy 10.5 of the
Resource Management Element of the Encinitas General Plan
7.1.6 Hiking/Equestrian Trail Alternative
This alternative could be combined with other open space
alternatives. It would include in the Specific Plan a designation
for a pedestrian/ equestrian trail pralleling Encinitas Creek (see
Figure 7.1-5). The trail would provide access to the existing park
land just east of the SPA and could continue along the stream
channel east of the SPA.
7.1.7 Wetlands, EMP, Steep Hillside and Trail Alternative Open
Space Plan
This alternative would combine the open space plans discussed in
Sections 7.1.2, 7.1.3, 7.1.5 and 7.16 (i.e.., earlier alternatives
except for the California GnatcatcIer Mitigation Alternative). It
would bring the amount of developable steep hillsides in PA 4 into
conformance with the General Plan encroachment allowance, provide
the required wetland buffer, retain land within the SDG&E easement
in open space to reduce EMF hazards, and provide a hikirig/
equestrian trail that would not impact wetland resources. This
alternative would likely eliminate the potential for any structural
development in PA 4 (see Figure 7.1-). :.Limited non-structural
uses micht be allowed 'by SDG&E within the portions of the easement
that are not environmentally constrained.
This alternative' is considered to 'e the environmentally preferred
alternative for the Specific Plan This alternative is considered
preferable to Alternative 7.1.8 bcause several biologists have
concluded that acquisition of off-site habitat for the California
Gnatcatcher is offers a better long-term potential for the species
survival than on-site preservation of habitat ' in the middle of an
urbanized area. .
However, there are other City planning and: policy issues that need
to be considered when analyzing alternative plans Under this
alternative, the developable area in PA. 1 would be reduced to
approximately half of the area designated in the Specific Plan
There would still be developable area, but it would not be large
enough for a Home Depot Center and associated parking. PA 2
development would be limited to three to four.. residences. The
developable area in PA 3 would be1iiñitéd to a strip slightly over
7-8
W.- TRAIL
0 312
I I
FEET
FIGURE
HIKING/EQUESTRIAN TRAILALTERNATIVE 7.1-5
W4 7T9
100 feet wide between the delineated wetlands and the California
Gnatcatcher habitat. Part of this strip would be needed to provide
access to the adjacent portion of PA 4.
The developable area remaining in PA 4 adjacent to Olivenhain Road
would be reduced to a triangular-shaped area that might be large
enough for a very small building. However, the cost of
incorporating the necessary noise attenuation into the building
would probably not make such a small building cost effective.
There is an equally small triangular-shaped area south of Encinitas
Creek in PA 4 that would not require noise attenuation and could
possibly have a small structure. Access to this tiny area would
have to be obtained through PA 1 and 3 and would have to cross the
SDG&E easement. Much of the land within the SDG&E easement in PA
4 is constrained by wetlands and steep slopes. However, there is
an area within the easement adjacent to Olivenhain Road that could
be used for non-structural uses such as parking were it not for the
above-ground SDG&E facilities in the vicinity. There is another
area in the southernmost tip of PA 4, within the SDG&E easement,
where non-structural uses might occur if this is acceptable to
SDG&E. Access would have to come from the south along the
easement.
In summary, this alternative would substantially reduce the
development potential within the SPA and would probably eliminate
any structural development in PA 4. It would eliminate the
proposed access to PA 3 and the southern portion of PA 4 through PA
1. Development of PA 1 would require a totally new site plan that
would have to include a new access route for PA 3 and 4. However,
it is uncertain that a smaller project that would fit on the
remaining developable portion of PA 1 would maintain the revenue
stream necessary to fund a wetland enhancement project. In
addition, if the development completely avoids the wetlands, there
would be no need for wetland mitigation and none of the wetland
enhancement and creation proposed as part of the project would
occur. Thus, the City of Encinitas must consider several other
issues beyond environmental constraints.
7.1.8 Composite Alternative Open Space Plan
Figure 7.1-7 is a composite alternative open space plan that
incorporates the Alternatives 7.1.2 through 7.1.7. It would bring
the Specific Plan into conformance with all City policies.
However, it would reduce the developable area of the SPA to a very
minimal amount and would make access to PA 3 and the southern
portion of PA 4 extremely difficult. The developable area in PA 1
would be reduced to approximately half of the area designated in
the Specific Plan. There would still be developable area, but it
would not be large enough for a, Home Depot Center and associated
parking. However, it is uncertain that a smaller project that
would fit on the remaining developable portion of PA 1 would
maintain the revenue stream necessary to fund a wetland enhancement
7-11
. project. In addition, if the development
wetlands, there would be no need for wetland
the wetland enhancement and creation pro
project would occur. PA 2 development wo
to four residences. The developable area ii
to a strip slightly over 100 feet wide k
wetlands and the California Gnatcatcher h
strip would be needed to provide access to I
PA 4. The developable area remaining
Olivenhain Road would be reduced to a triar,
might be large enough for a very small build
of incorporating the necessary noise attenu
would probably not make such a small bui
There is an equally small triangular-shaped
Creek in PA 4 that would not require noise
- possibly have a small structure. Access t
have to be obtained through PA 1 and 3 and
SDG&E easement. Much of the land within ti
4 is constrained by wetlands and steeD slot
completely avoids the
mitigation and none of
)osed as part of the
id be limited to three
PA 3 would be limited
etween the delineated
Lbitat. Part of this
he adjacent portion of
in PA 4 adjacent to
ular-shaped area that
ng. However, the cost
tion into the building
lding cost effective.
irea south of Encinitas
attenuation and could
this tiny area would
ould have to cross the
a SDG&E easement in PA
as. However, there is
an area within the easement adjacent to Olivenhain Road that could
be used for non-structural uses such as parking were it not for the
above-ground SDG&E facilities in the vicinity. There is another
area in the southernmost tip of PA 4, within the SDG&E easement,
where non-structural uses might occur if this is acceptable to
SDG&E. Access would have to come from the south via the easement.
S . The recommended mitigation for impacts to the on-site pair of
California Gnatcatchers is the acquisition of off-site habitat.
This is considered biologically preferable for the long-term
survival of the species than preserving fragmented habitat
surrounded by urban development, which brings in increased
pedestrian traffic, predation by domestic pets, and even activity
by bird watchers and other nature enthusiasts. Therefore, this
alternative is considered less preferable than Alternative 7.1.7,
shown in Figure 7.1-6.
While this alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed
Specific Plan in many ways, it may create land use planning and
access problems for several parcels in additional to possibly
making development in PA 2, 3 and 4 economically infeasible. It
is likely that this alternative would eliminate any light
industrial use in PA 4. For the small area in the southern part of
PA 4 that might be developed if access can be obtained, a residence
might be a more acceptable use if access can be obtained through PA
1 and PA 3. However, this would not be compatible with the light
industrial General Plan designation and could have land use
compatibility conflicts with designated light industrial uses to
the west in PA 1 and 3. The potential environmental benefits of
this alternative need to be weighed by the City, against the
potential planning and economic aspects.
7-12
7.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Tentative Map
7.2.1 No Project
If the proposed Specific Plan is approved but the Home Depot Home
Improvement Center is not,"developed in PA 11 the potential for
development of PA 1 with other Light Industrial or Commercial uses
will remain PA 1 could be developed with ,a wide variety of uses,
these are listed in Section 2 3 1-11., Development of a Home Depot
Home Improvement Center requires a large rectangular building and
substantial parking An alternative use might be accommodated in
a smaller building(s) that could be designed around the
environmental constraints of PA 1, primarily wetlands, wetland
buffers and steep slopes It is possible that parking for a
smaller building(s) could be scattered around the developable area
instead of in a large parking lot However, this could increase
potential noise impacts
Potential impacts of other development proposals could be more or
less than the proposed TM Mitigation measures and alternative
project designs are recommended in this EIR to mitigate potential
environmental impacts to a less than significant level Because
the Home Depot Center will provide employment and a local source
for home improvement supplies, it may result in a reduction of
vehicle miles traveled as well a reduction in air pollutant
emissions, the type of land use greatly affects traffic generation
and air quality.
If PA' '2 is not developed with the proposed, residences, the
Residential-la nd use designation will remain It is likely that
the Scott Place residential development will ultimately be extended
in conformance with the General Plan or Specific Plan Impacts to
sensitive plants and steep hillsides might be less or greater than
those of the proposed TM Since the proposed density is that
designated in the General Plan, it is likely that any future
development proposal would be similar to that proposed by the TM
7.2.2 ' Alternative Project Designs
7.2.2.1 25% Reduction in Home Depot Center and Parking Reduction
The proposed HoméDepot'Center building could be reduced in size,
which would result in a lesser parking requirement, in order to
reduce potential environmental effects However, Home Depot
buildings are generally a standard size and have the same interior
layOut because the same products are 'carried in all stores. , 'A
substantially smaller building would not meet the project
objectives However, there are some existing Home Depot Centers
that are smaller than the standard desired size and it is possible
that a smaller Home Depot Center could be developed in PA 1 and
still meet the project objectives A 25 percent reduction in size
alternative was selected because it was suggested during the public
01 7-14 •
comment period on the Draft EIR. However, it is uncertain that a
smaller project that would fit on the remaining developable portion
of PA 1 would maintain the revenue stream necessary to fund a
wetland enhancement project. In addition, if 'thea development
completely avoids the wetlands, there would be no need for wetland
mitigation and none of the wetlnd enhancement and creation
proposed as part of the project would occur.
A reduction of the proposed Home Depot center, including the Garden
Center, would result in a 91,500-sqare foot area for 'the building
and Garden Center. This is smaller than any existing Home Depot
Centers but might be feasible. It is also possible to eliminate
the Garden Center so that the range of products, carried in the
building might not have to be reducd The reduction in building
size would result in a lesser requirement for parking spaces. In
addition, the proposed Home Depot Center Includes more parking
spaces than are actually required 1by City standards, because the
parking is based on experience at other Home Depot Centers.
Therefore, if the number of parking spaces proposed was reduced to
that required by the City, a further reduction in parking area
would result.
Figure 7.2-1 illustrates an approximation of the result of
eliminating the Garden Center and reducing the building such that
the end result would' be a 25% reduction in size of the Home Depot
Center while retaining the southern boundary of the building in the
same place. This alternative would substantially reduce, though
not completely eliminate', impacts to wetlands and wetland buffers
according to Encinitas General Plánpolicies. In addition, there
would not be sufficient area left for parking within PA 1. PA 3
would. have to be acquired for parking. The owner of PA 3 has
indicated a willingness to sell the property.
, This alternative
could create a problem for circulation and access to PA .3 and the
southern portion of PA 4. If the northern limit of the. Home Depot
Center is moved southward, it might skew the main entry access
driveway so that it is not aligned with Woodley Road to the west.
In addition, since the, majority of the parking would be. in PA 3,
this alternative would result in the majority of the customer
traffic using the delivery access route around the south of the
building. It is likely that this would cause significant internal
circulation impacts and additional internal circulation analysis of
a new site plan would be required for this alternative.
It should, be noted that this alternative would not reduce the
impacts associated with the cuttinc back of the hillside. This
would. still be required in order to provide the southern access
road. :.
7-15
7.2.2.2 Realignment of Home Depot Building Alternative
This alternative could reduce some of the potential environmental
impacts and could bring the project into conformance with City
policies by realigning the Home Depot Center if (1) the Home Depot
building was turned 90 degrees so that the entrance was on the east
side of the building; (2) the parking area was relocated to the
east side of the building; and (3) the Home Depot building and
southern access road were moved farther north to avoid cutting into
the north-facing slope (see Figure 7.2-2). This alternative would
not reduce wetlands impacts but would reduce impacts associated
with grading of the hillside, such as visual, geologic and
Chaparral impacts. It could reduce the indirect visual effects of
grading; reduce the potential for landslides and unstable-slopes;
reduce impacts on the Coastal Mixed Chaparral; and reduce potential
erosion and sedimentation impacts that can occur when. large slopes
are graded. The parking could be relocated to the east side of the
building, making it less visible but perhaps having greater noise
impacts. The location of the loading dock at the base of the hill
closest to El Camino Real would probably have less noise impacts.
It is likely that a portion of PA 3 would be required to supply the
required number of parking spaces. The northernmost access would
provide an access route to the parking on the east side of the
building.
This alternative has associated environmental impacts that need to
be weighed against its benefits. The rotation of the building
could significantly increase the building frontage that is visible
from El Camino Real, increasing visual impacts along a designated
scenic road. Additional landscape screening along the west side of
the building would be required. It could also block the view of
any development in the southern portion of PA 4. Although this
would not constitute an environmental impact, it could reduce the
commercial viability of this area. In addition, the potential for
other development on PA 3 would be eliminated. There would likely
be circulation and internal access impacts. The location of the
main entrance would no longer line up with Woodley Road to the
west. In addition, if customers access the eastern parking areas
via the south entrance, they would be using the same entrance as
the delivery trucks, causing potential internal traffic congestion.
7.2.2.3 Crib Wall Alternative
This alternative was earlier considered for the project but was
eliminated so that the grading in PA 1 would balance. It would
accommodate the same Home Depot building and parking as the project
but would require substantially less grading of the north-facing
hillside in PA 1 and 2 because a crib wall would be used instead
(see Figure 7.2-3). The 34-foot crib wall would be divided, into
three sections separated by 3.5-foot wide terraces. The: maximum
height of a fill slope would be -60 feet and the maximum 'height of,
a cut slope would be 30 feet with this alternative. An estimated
7-17
BOUNDARY ET LAN Dr
-,I'. d"i
- -
. - 0 312
FEET
low"
- - - . FIGURE
H REALIGNMENT Of HOME DEPOT ALTERNATIVE --7.2-2
7-18
56,500 cubic •yards of fill would have to be imported for the - surcharging and elevation of the development area. Much of this
could come from Pa 3, which is shown on the TN as an optional
borrow site.
This alternative would reduce the amount of Coastal Mixed Chaparral
impacted by approximately half, so that an intensive restoration
program would not be required on the slopes In addition, there
would be less potential for erosion and sedimentation impacts
because substantially less ground wpuid be disturbed. The import
of fill could increase traffic during project development but is
Considered to be biologically superior to the proposed project
Visual quality is subjective, and it is difficult to determine how
the visual impacts of this alternative would compare with the
impacts of the proposed project. I The crib wall, would require
substantially less grading and disturbance of natural hillsides,
thereby reducing visual impacts during grading and construction
However, it could appear more artificial If this alternative is
used, it would. be important to complete the planting Of the crib
wall immediately after grading the slope because it takes awhile
for the vegetation to' fill in the drib wall openings.
This alternative could have less potential for landslides and
unstable slopes because it requires substantially less grading of
the north-facing hillside in PA 1 and 2 The potential for finding
paleontological resources is reduced because fossils are generally
not found on the surface Impacts to Chaparral would be minimized.
Wetlands impacts would remain the same. The potential benefits of
this alternative outweigh the negatives. .
7.2.2.4 Crib Wall AlternativéWih PA 3 as Borrow Site
This alternative is the same as the .Crib Wall Alternative (see
Section 7.2.2.3) except that PA 3 is used. as a, borrow site for
fill, eliminating the need to import approximately 49,000 cubic
yards and reducing the amount of grading. The cut slope would-be
reduced to approximately 8 feet .in :[height and would minimize
impacts on Chaparral. . This alternative would also result in, a
reduction in traffic during construction because it would not
require the import of fill All other impacts and benefits remain
the same as the Crib Wall Alternative.'
1.
-
i1 ) ,. I 1
- EXIST SO 00E -
OPII J LO ROW
t
j L .
0•' I / 0T
I 00 YR. F 00091 AI N.— - I -
$ .,4•6,• L. • 100 YR FL000PLRIN
AP
- 4• I / I i,r i I
- —
WATER JI:oF;AVATIOM:::
ip
5rjJ 0*/w0b91b3009R*b00/
jp
12'
'°° \
Tn- \\ SLo) AD— Vow.- -'
-- —
- ET
J.
ul -Ti
( - l
ci
) 'I - •-- I' ,___J(
- ft
0 340
SOURCE: THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP, 1991 FEET -
FIGURE
GRADING PLAN FOACRIB WALL ALTERNATIVE 72_3
7.2.2.5 Crib Wall Alternative With PA 3 as Borrow Site and
Parking Area Plus 25%. Reduction in Home • Depot Center
This alternative would combine several other alternatives. -It would
entail a 25% reduction in the size!. of the Home Depot Center, the
use of PA 3 as a, borrow site and asia parking area, and the use of
a crib wall on the' (see Figure 7.2-4). This alternative
would minimize wetlands impacts, Igeologic impacts., impacts to
Chaparral, visual quality impacts and impaóts into steep slopes.
It would have all of the advantages of the alternative discussed in
Section 7.2.2.5 and could further reduce impacts to wetlands.
However, it would likely result,ini, internal circulation impacts
Customers accessing the parking. in PA 3 would use the same access
road as the delivery trucks. In addition, it requires the
acquisition of PA 3. The owner of PA 3 has indicated an interest
in selling the property.
7.2.3 Alternative Development Sites
In order to analyze potential alternative development sites for the
Home Depot Center, the, target market area was reviewed (see Figl.ire
2.3-23 in Section 2.3). The market area includes Encinitas, Solana
Beach and Del Mar. Del Mar does not have any parcels-of adequate
size. There are two potential parcels in Solana Beach and two in
Encinitas that might be large enough but which would require
General Plan Amendments. Any General Plan Amendment that proposes
to intensify land uses in Solana Beach must receive a unanimous
vote, and General Plan Amendments tare reviewed infrequently. A
General Plan Amendment in Encinitas also requires a vote of the
public.
7.2.3.1 Matsumoto Property
The 14-acre Matsumoto property in, Encinitas is adjacent to San
Elijo Lagoon and is currently being used 'for agriculture. It is
designated for 'agriculture and open space' uses, and would require
a General Plan Amendment and a rezone The site is surrounded by
3- and 4-acre residential lots, and is accessed through low density
residential areas. It would have significant environmental
constraints and land use compatibility problems, and would.require
extensive time for processing the required permits.
7.2.3.2 Former Kaypro Site
This 10-acre parcel is the former
It is designated and zoned for res
the' western terminus of Jack Drive
mini-warehouse. Commercial uses
This alternative could have sign
impacts and would require exter
necessary zoning and Génerál Plan
site of the Kaypro facilities.
dential uses. It is located at
and is adjacent-to a school and
e not allowed on the property.
ficant land use compatibility
;ive time for processing the
7-21 ..- .-
.
T-22
7.2.3.3 Robert Hall, Inc. Nursery Site
The Hall property consists of about 40 acres located just east of
1-5 and south of the Santa Fe shopping center in Encinitas. The
land is currently occupied by the Robert Hall, Inc. garden nursery
(see Figure 7.2-5). The land is gently sloping and nearly all of
the biological resources have been eliminated by the nursery
operations. The soils were tested previously, and it was found
that the site had a high water table (approximately 8 to 10 feet
below the surface). Concrete drains were installed.
There are two primary environmental constraints associated with the
Hall property site: access and incompatibility with the existing
General Plan designation. Access is from Santa Fe via a narrow
alley. The road could not be widened unless the shopping center
was redeveloped. One of the owners of the shopping center, Roger
Joseph of the Joseph Development Company, is interested in this.
concept. However, redevelopment of the shopping center would
,require (1) approval of all owners of the shopping, center, (2)
demolition of at least one building, and (3) the processing and
approval of a redevelopment plan and environmental documentation
before any new development could; be proposed. In addition,
development of this site for, a Home Depot Center would require
substantial time to' amend the General Plan and zoning, with no
guarantee that the project would ultimately be approved even if the
GPA was approved.
This alternative would be dependent- on redevelopment of the
existing shopping center, improvement of access, and amendment of
the General Plan. A GPA would require a vote of Encinitas
citizens, and 'is not readily available for development. It is
possible that, with recently approved residential development and
additional proposed development to the south, citizens might not
approve a CPA. Even if a GPA wasapproved by the citizens, the
required-redevelopment of the site would have to go through the
planning process and environmental review. At best, the site might
be available for development in five years if the required actions
were begun right'now. For this reason, this alternative site was
not analyzed in detail.
7.2 .3.4 Ecke Property/Encinitas Ranch .
There are two primary environmental constraints associated with the
Hall property site: access and incompatibility with the existing
General Plan designation. Access is from Santa Fe via' a narrow
alley. The road could not be widened unless the shopping center
was redeveloped. One of the owners of the shopping center, Roger
Joseph of the Joseph Development Company, is interested in this
concept. However, redevelopment of the shopping center would
require approval of all owners and would require the processing and
ap'rovál of a redevelopment plan before any new development could
be proposed. In addition, development of this site for a Home
7-23
S
S
Depot Center would require substantial time to amend the General
Plan and zoning, with no guarantee that the project would
ultimately be approved after the GPA was approved. This
alternative would be dependent on redevelopment of the existing
shopping center, improvement of access, and amendment considered a
viable alternative from the environmental standpoint, it is
considered extremely speculative given the number of actions and
approvals upon which it would depend.
The Ecke property consists of many parcels within a 900-acre
agricultural preserve. It is located just west of El Camino Real
across from the Home Depot site, at the northern end of the
commercial development (see Figure 7.2-5). The property is
designated for agricultural uses and is currently being used for
agriculture. Owners of two parcels have notified the County of
their intent to cancel the agricultural preserve contract. The
remaining acreage could only be removed from the contract with a
10-year notification in advance. A Specific Plan is currently
being developed for the Ecke property, now known as Encinitas
Ranch, and the property will be annexed to Encinitas. The property
probably has less environmental constraints than the proposed Home
Depot site because it has been cleared and graded for agriculture.
However, before a development plan could be approved, a Specific
Plan for that property as well as a General Plan Amendment would
have to be approved. Since the ongoing research for the Encinitas
Ranch Specific Plan has not determined that a Home Depot Center
type of development is desirable on the property, it is considered
highly speculative to assume that this type of use may be
acceptable in any portion of the Ecke property.
7.2.4 Alternative Uses for PA 1
The Specific Plan defines light industrial and commercial uses that
could be developed in PA 1; these are listed in Section 2.3.1.1 of
this EIR. Development of a Home Depot Home Improvement Center
requires a large rectangular building and substantial parking. An
alternative use might be accommodated in a smaller building(s) that
could be designed around the environmental constraints of PA 1,
primarily wetlands, wetland buffers and steep slopes. It is
possible that parking for a smaller building(s) could be scattered
around the developable area instead of in a large parking lot.
Without a specific development proposal, potential impacts of other
uses cannot be determined. It is not within the scope of this EIR
to prepare a market study to determine what uses might be
successful on the site. However, a use that generates a minimum
amount of traffic and activity in the area could be environmentally
superior to the proposed Home Depot Center, particularly if it did
not require substantial grading of the north-facing hillside in PA
1 and 2 and provided adequate wetlands protection. Any alternative
use would have to have the same type of runoff water treatment
system.
7-25
8. AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS
CONSULTED •
H
- S
H
•
I'
8. AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
Public Agencies
City of, Encinitas:-
Patrick Murphy, Coxnm-nity. Development Depali 11.rtment
Bill Weedman, Community Development Department
Craig Olsóñ, Community Development'- evelbpinent Department
Diane Langàger, Community ëvéiopment Department
Craig Ruiz, Community Development m Departent
HansJensen, Engineering Department
Will FOSS, Building -Department
Joe Oliva, EngineeringDepartment
George Viliegas, Engineering peartment
Ron McCarver, Encinitas Fire Protection District'
Rob Blough, Traffic' Engineering
City of Carlsbad::
Christer Westman, Plan-ning.Departinent
Clyde Wickham, Transportation Division
COunty of San Diego:
. Dick. Miura, Department'of Planning;. and. Use
Susan Gregg, Department of Planning and Land Use
Maggie Loy, Department of Public. Works Enviroñmentãl Services
Unit
Tim Cass, Department of Public Works Environmental'Services
Unit
Kathy Fulmer- Sheriff's Department
Air 'Pollution Control District .
.
City of Solana Beach: •
S
Steve Apple, P1annii Director
State. of California:
Charles R.White.,' Dept. of Water Resources ' S
Raymond E. Memebroker, Air ResOurcs Board' . S
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: ElizabethWh1te •
5
U.S.. Fish and*.Wild-iife Service: .
. .
h, 11 'r
Brooks Harper
San Diego Association of Governments (ANDAG)
Special Districts: .
.
olivenháin Municipal Water District:
Ed Suhay
Trish Taylor. . .
Frank Fontánesi . .
Encinitas Union School District: Gene Frederick
Consultants: . -• •.
ASL Consultants, Inc.: Rich Moore
Engineering Science: Dan Conaty . .
Basmaciyan-Darnell Inc. (BDI): . .
Herman Basinaciyan •. .
. . Bill Darneil . .
Rob Duboe ..,,.. . . .
GEOCON, . Inc.: Wesley Spang . . .
Pacific Southwest. Biological Services (PSBS):
Mitch Beãuchamp . . .
Keith Merkel .. . ... Kevin Cull.. . . .
Adam Koltz .. . . . .
. David Mayer .
Claude Edwards. . .
Brian Mooney & Associates: Michael Gonzales,
GEOCON, Inc.: Wesley Spang •.
PWS Consultants: Paul. Salter •
.
• ... •,. . •
San Diego AcoUstics: Ed(Kamps, •
Brian F Smith and Associates Brian Smith
T M I Environmental Services/Roth and Associates: .. . •
Judy Berryman . . .• •
Linda Roth • • •
8-2
Applicant and Applicant's Representatives
The ustin Hansen Group and FORNA A
Bill Carpenter
Vonn-Marie May
Jim Hirsch
LorettaDanièls
Robert Haynes
Côisuitánts Collaborative.:
Juan Flores
Terry Barker
Jim Simmons
Hunt Properties: Paul Kluk
Home Depot Corporation: Jim Lyon
OGDEN Environmental: Dr. PátMock
Other Individuals:
Robert H. Hall, Inc. Nursery: Robert Hall
Joseph Development Company:. Roger Joseph.
CERTIFICATION OF QUALIFICATIONS AND, ACCURACY
9.1 Qualifications of EIR Preparer and Consultants
This EIR was prepared by Connie Willens of Constance A Willens and
Associates Ms Willens has 16 years of experience in the
preparation and review of environmental documents She has a B.A.
in Social Science and a M.A. in Geography with an emphasis in
Environmental Conservation/ City Planning Ms Willens has written
the local CEQA guidelines for the Cities of Santee and Oceanside,
and has prepared over 200 environmental documents in compliance
with CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) She
has acted as an extension of environmental staff for the Cities of
Encinitas, Chula Vista, Carlsbad, and,-La Mesa and the County of San
Diego Department of Public Works Environmental Services Unit.
In the preparation of this EIR, Constance A. Willens and 'Associates
has incorporated numerous technical studies prepared by other
consultants. The qualificatiOns of the subconsultants are
summarized below:
Basmacivañ-Darnell. Inc. (BDI
BDI is headed by Herman Basmaciyan and Bill Darnell," both of whom
are registered traffic engineers The firm provides consulting
services in all aspects of transportation planning and traffic
engineering, and has completed numerous studies in the north
coastal portion of San Diego.-County. The firm has offices in San
Diego and Orange Counties.
Herman Basmaciyan has over 30 years experience inmultimodal
transportation systems, demand modelling and forecasting, traffic
engineering and transportation/ land use interrelationships. He has
a B.S. and M.S. in Civil Engineering and is a registered traffic
engineer in California, Arizona, Washington and Florida
Bill Darnell has over 25 years experience in all aspects of
municipal traffic engineering and circulation' planning'. He has a
B S in Civil Engineering and is a registered engineer in
California and Oregon.
Rob Duboe is a transportation planner with five years experience in
demand modeling and forecasting, traffic impact analysis and truck
traffic modeling He has a B A in Urban Planning and a Masters in
Urban Planning.
GEOCON, Inc.
GEOCON is a local consulting firm that provides geological,
environmental, hydrogeological, 'and hazardous 'nàteri is an.aiyss.
Mike Hart, Chief Engineering Geologist, has 20 years experience in
the preparation an management of engineering geologic studies,
soils investigations',, seismicity reports, 'fault investigation,
groundwater studies and seismic rippability surveys. He has a B.A.
and M.S. in Geology. Mr Hart is a certified Engineering Geologist
and a Registered Geologist. He has had numerous articles published
on geologic hazards and seismic safety in San' Diego. County.
Wesley Spang has 8 years experience in earthquake engineering, soil
dynamics and foundation engineering design Mr. Spang has a B.S.
in both Engineering and Geological Engineering and a M.S. in
Geotechnical Engineering He a Registered Civil Engineer and a
Registered Geotechnical Engineer.
Pacific Southwest Biological Services (PSBS)
PSBS is a local biological consulting firm that has completed over S
2,000 CEQA-related biological analyses The firm prepares survey
reports, revegetation/ restoration/ revegetation plans, wetland
delineations, mitigation monitoring reports and state and federal
permit applications. PSBS has extensive experience in north
coastal. San Diego County, and in wetlands impact analyses, and
sensitive species habitat plans.
Mitchel Beauchamp, Chief Botanist, has a B.S. in Botany and a M.S.
in Biology.,He has 17 years experience in the preparation of
botanical studies, including time as a botanist with the San Diego
Museum of Natural History. Mr. Beauchamp is a recognized
authority on floral species in San Diego County, and his book,
Flora of San Diego County, California, is used by public and
private agencies alike.
Keith Merkel, Chief Ecologist, has a B.S. in Biology, with
concentrations in ecology and aquatic biology, and is a Ph .D.
,candidate in EcolOgy. In addition to being a recognized expert on
marine ecology, Mr. Merkel , has extensive experience with
terrestrial ecology and the management of sensitive faunal species
David' Mayer has a B.A. in Aquatic Biology and a M.S. in Biology
with an emphasis on Ecology. He has 12 years experience- in the
preparation of biological studies and is well-versed, in issues'
concerning sensitive species and habitats in San Diego and
Riverside Counties In particular, Mr. Mayer has conducted many
"studies which focused on Coastal Sage Scrub habitat and its noted
sensitive ' species, especially the California Gnatcatcher,
Orangethroat Whiptail, and the Coast Horned Lizard.
Craig Reiser has a B.A. and M.A. in Botany and is recognized as a
San Diego County , expert on locations, habitats and ranges of
sensitive plant species Mr Reiser has conducted over 100
botanical investigations and has identified, in San Diego County,
species that :were thought to be extinct.
'9-2 •. '
. Eric Lichtwardt,, herpetologist' andzoo-logist-,, has' a 'B S. in 'Zoology
and 12 years experience in the preparation of biological studies
He is considered to be one of the foremost authorities on reptiles
and amphibians in San Diego County Mri Lichtwardt authored the
San Diego Herpetological Society's report on Rare and Endangered
Reptiles and Amphibians in san Diego County, which remains a
standard reference for the assessment of impacts' to threatened
herp,etofauna in San Diego County. ,
Claude Edwards has been an ornithologist/biologist for 20 years and
has extensive experience in the identification of birds in the San
Diego region He regularly gives seminars on bird identification
and is recognized as one of the region's leading experts in bird
identification by both, visual and:'auditory means.
Geoffrey L. Rogers is highly skilled in the ,identification of .. birds, their songs, and their call notes.' He is especially
knowledgeable on the status and distribution of birds throughout
the western U.S. and southern California in particular. Mr. Rogers
has performed biological surveys for the 'Point, Réyes ',Bird
Observatory, the Audubon Societyand PSBS, with an emphasis on the
avifauna of- sage Scrub, chaparral,, riparian and shoreline habitats.
John Harris has a B.S. in -W-i'ld).if e- 'Management and has conducted
biological resource surveys and assessments in multiple habitat
types throughout California-. He has assisted in 'multiple' class
trapping programs, and has training and experience in the trapping, . care and release/ relocation of reptiles, birds, and small and large
mammals. His experience includes- -projects' with' the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish--and.Game, and the
- Bureau of Land Management.
San Diego Acoustics, Inc.
,San -Diego Acoustics is a local consulting firm specializing in
environmental noise analyses and architectural acoustics design.
It was founded 15 years ago by Ed-Kamps and James'Berry, and is now
headed by Ed Kamps. The firm conducts'- '-noise measurements and
prepares noise projections, 'Noise- Elements for General-Plans, 'noise
ordinances, and noise impact analyses for all types of projects.
Mr. Kainps has over 30 years experience in acoustical analysis and
design and has prepared more than, 400 technical studies.,
W Brian F. Smith-and Associates
Brian F. Smith and Associates '-is' a -cultural resources consulting
firm providing services to public and private agencies alike It
firm has experience in all facets of cultural resource management,
- including surveys, site testing and 'evaluation, historic site
recordation and research, mitigation programs, and evaluations for
National Register eligibility The firm is headed by Brian Smith,
who has conducted over 400 cultural resource studies in the last, 15
years. - -He has a B.A. and M.A. in History and Anthropology, and has
- 9-3 - - - -
been involved'in several controversial projects related to evidence
of early man at the Del Mar Site And at the Texas Street Site in
Mission Valley. His experience includes numerous studies in the
north coastal county areas of Encinitas, Carlsbad and Del Mar.
TNI Environmental Services
TMI is a cultural resource consulting firm, that provides a range 'of
services including archaeological survey reports, historic surveys,
cultural resource testing programs, and artifact identification and
dating.. it is' headed 'by Judy Berryman, who has 15'years experience
in cultural resource management She has a B.A.,- M.A. and -Ph.D. "in
Anthropology/Archaeology, and has provided consulting services for
many 'public agencies throughout CalifOrnia.
Wilidan Associates
Willdan Associates is a multi-disciplinary civil engineering firm
that has been providing traffic engineering'cónsulting services for
28 years'. The 'firm 'alsO acts as the City Engineer for 12 cities
and the City Traffic Engineer for 11 cities in southern California.
Joe Oliva is a transportation p1ànnr with a B.A.in'Geography and
a M.A. in Transportation Geography His experience includes local
traffic studies and e computerized subregional transportation studies
as well as Circulation Element updates for numerous.'' cities and
communities. ' S
9.2 Certification of Accuracy
The information contained herein is correct, as far as, i,s known,
and is based on information providd by 'téchnicà'l.consultants as
well as information provided during'the public review period City
of Encinitas staff members-,have independently reviewed the Final
EIR as well as the technical studies prior to the distribution of
the EIR. The' City is 'responsible for the, content and adequacy of
the EIR and, upon certification. by the City of Eñcinitas, the EIR
will become an official City document.
S
..'
Constance A.. Willens, EIR Preparer and
Principal, Constance A. Willens and Associates
9-4 'S
HO
'ERENCES
ii
10. REFERENCES
Abbott, Patrick 1989 "The Rose Canyon n Fault, En
Southwest, Winter/Spring, 1989. San Diego Natural History Society.
ASL Consulting Engineers 1989 Encinitas Creek Floodplain Study.
ASL Consultants, Inc 1991 Review of Hydrology/Flooding
Potential and -Water Quality- for the. Home" Depot Speci-fiá. Plan and-
Tentative Map EIR in the City z.of Enc].nitas
Association, of Environmental Profess-idnals.- .. 1991' 'CEQA 1991
Legislative Update. . . .
Association for Protection of: Environmental Values v.. -City of
Ukiah. 1992. 92 Daily JournalD.A.R. 744'(January217,..1992).
Austin Hansen Group. 1991 Dráft'Home Depbt Specific; Plan. June
11, 1991.
.
Austin-Foust Associates, Inc , 1992 Highway 680 Traffic Analysis
General Plan Supplemental Study. '
Basinaciyan-Darneli', Inc. 1.989-.. Traffic Study- for HOme' -DepOt
Specific Plan Concept.
Basmaciyan-Darnell, -Inc. 1991. Traffic ..Studr .fr Home Depot
Specific Plan and Tentative Map EIR in the City of :,Encinitas.
Beauchamp, R. M, .1986. A Flora of San Dieqo County, California.
National: City1 CA:. Sweetwater. River Press.- -
-. Beauchamp, Mitch, 1991. Principal, Pacific Southwest Biological
Services, telephone communications, August 8,;, 1991-.-, --
- Biberman, Thor Kainban, 1991.
, "County Adopts Ordinance on Grading
Water," San-Diego Daily - Transcript, April 8, 1991, .page.4B. -.
Bozung V. LAFCO. 1975. .13 Ca1.3d 2.3, 283.
Browning-Ferris Industries v-. City Council.* 1986. -
California Resources Agency, .,992.- -"Natural -Community Conservation
Planning Process, Coastal Sage Scrub Newsletter," Vol. 1, No. 4, July.,
California, State of. 1976. 'Public ResourCes Code, Section 21000 -' et. seq. (CEQA.)-and 30000' et. seq. .(Califb'rnia Coastal-Act'). -
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and
Geology. 1983. 'Mineral Land Classification:. .,'Aggregatè Materiis
-.0 10--i
California Department of Conservation', Division of Mines and
Geology, 1987 Landslide Hazards In the Rancho Santa Fe
Quadrangle, San Diego, County, California, DMG Open-File Report
86-15.
California Department of Health Services.. 1990. Suggested Protocol
for Measuring 60 Hz Magnetic Fields in Residences
California Division of Mines and Geology. 1975., Geology of the
San Diego Metropolitan Area, California. Bulleti'n 200.
California State, Coastal Conservancy, 1986. Draft .Batiguitos
Lagoon Enhancement Plan.
Carltas Company. 1992. Letter from Chris Calkins to Encinitas
Ranch 'Specific Plan Task Forde, October 14, 1992.
Carson, 'Daniel C., 1991, '. "County picked for coastal ecosystem
protection effort," The San Diego Union, June 28, 1991, p. A-3.
City of San Diego, Water Utilities Department, Water Conservation
Program,, no date. "Conserving Water, San Diego Style."
Chang, Howard ,H., 1990., Drainage. Study for Encinitas Creek.
Prepared for Fieldstone/La Costa Associates, September
Citizens of Goleta Valley v Board of Supervisors, 1988 and 1989
(Goleta I) 197 Cal App 3d 1167, 243 Cal Rptr. 339, modified 198
Cal. App. 3d 859b .
Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Suervisors of Santa Barbara
County, 1989. (Goleta II). 214 Cal. App.:3d 174, Second District
Court of Appeal, September22, 1989.
City of Encinitas. CEQAICITYEnvironmentã1 Guidelines. ' 1987.
City Council Resolution 87-125.
City of Santee v. 'County of San Diego. 1989- 213 Ca1.App.3d 1438..
Conaty, Dan, 1991. Planner, Engineering Science, telephone
communications, May, June, August, September.
Construction Industry Federation, no date. "Draft Voluntary
Conservation and Management Practices for Construction Sites."
Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc., and WESTEC Services, Inc. 1987..
Master Environmental Assessment, City of Encinitas.
Cottony Be land/ Assoc iates, Inc. 1988. Encinitas General Plan
Program. Final Environmental Impact Report. August 17, 1988.
County of Inyo v. .Citv of Los Angeles. .1977. 71 Ca1.App.3d 185,
189
10-2
'
County of San Diego, 199:0.., "OrdinanôeNo. 7735 (New Series), An
Ordinance Amending. the Zoning Ordinance Relating to Water
1,10F Conservation for Landscaping," March 22, 1990.
"Data File: Saving Water," San Diego Union, April 14, 1991.
De Meritt L. 1990. •Sitin.of PowerLines'. and
Towers A Biblioaraohv on the Potential Health Pffrtq ef '1r-i-r,-
and Magnetic Fields, CPL 257, Coundil of PIanñingLibrárians.
Endangered Habitats League, :no date.'...: "Action Alert: . Court
Decision May FQrce Gnatcatçhér Candiacy.Listinq."
Englehorn, CurtisScott, and Associates, 19.92. Daft Supplement to
Final Environmental Imnact. Penort. ni-1 01 Ai,imrii- I-Ti rthv . 680 Deletion and Alternatives. .
.
EnglehOrn, Curtis Scott and Assbciatés, with Ninyb and Moore, F.C.
Springer and Associates, Sweetwater Environmental Biologists and
Scientific Resource Surveys. 1992.. .Encinitas Ranch Specific Plan
Constraints Analysis SümmaryReport. . .
Fitzgerald, K., 199.0. "Electromagnetic Fie1ds: The. Jury's Still
Out," Spectrum, IEEE, Volume 27, No. 8, August., pp. 22-35.
Fontànesi, F.D., 1991. General : Services Director, Olivenhain
Municipal Water District, Water.. Availability Letter, APN 255-
024-01.; .255-ô23-01/02; 255-040-06, May 14, 199.1.
GEOCON,.; Inc. 1989. Geotechnica1Fe'asibjljty Study for Home Depot
Building, Encinitas, California.
GEOCON, Inc; 1991. Updated Geotechnical Study. for Home Depot
Building, Enciñitas, California.'.
Greenbaum v. City of Los Angeles. 1984
Hall, Bob. 1991. Owner,. Robert Hall, Inc. Nursery. Telephone-
communication, June 25, 1991.
Hart, Michael W. 1977. "Landslides In the . San Diego Area,
Geologic Hazards In . San Diego, .edited by Patrick L.. :Abbott and
Janice K. Victbrjá.
Holland, Robert F., 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the
Terrestrial-Natural Communities of California. California Depart-
ment of Fish and Game.
"Hot, Dry Conditions Suit Some Plant Life Just-— Fine, San Diego
Union, July 22, 1990, page F-23. .
"Hunter Wants Water From Streams Made Available for Construction,
San Diego Daily Transcript, March 19, 1991, page 3B.
10-3
"Improved Outlook On Summer Water Supply is Reported, 11 San Diego
UniOn, June 9., 1991, page A-3. •
Joseph, Roger. 1991. Owner, Joseph Development Company, telephone
communication, June 25, 1991.
Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco, Inc.. v.
Regents of the University of California. 47 Cal.3d 376.
Laurel Hills Homeowners' Association et al Appellants and Cross-
Respondents,, v. City. Council of the City. of Los Angeles et. al.,
Respondents and Cross-Appellants, 8941 Muliholland Drive
COrporat ion, Real . Party in Interest and Respondent, Civ. 52606.
Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, August 3, 1978 83
Cal. App.3d 515.
Lockwood, John, 1991. "The City of San Diego Manager's .Report," • March 4, .1991, Report No. 91-125 (City of San Diego's 1991 Drought
Response Plan). . . .
Loy, Maggie, 1991 Biologist, County of San Diego Department of
Public Works Environmental Services Unit, personalcomrnünication,
September 8, 199l.
Kennedy, Michael P. and Peterson, Gary L., 1975. Geology of the
San Diego Metropolitan Area, California. Sacramento: California
Division -of Mines and Geo.logy, Bulletin 200. . .
Lazaneo, Vincent, 1991. . "Californians can't become complacent
after March rains, The San Diego Union, April 28, 1991, p. F-17.
Laurel Heights improvement Assn. v.. Regents of University of
California, Supra, 47 Ca1.3d 296. . . . ..
Laurel Hills Homeowners' Assn. v. City Council, 1978. 83
Càl.App.3d 515.
Mann v. Community Redevelopment Agency of. Hawthorne. .1991. 233
Cal.App.3d 1143. .
Mann Municipal Water District v. KG Land Corporation., 1991. 91
Daily Journal D.A.R. 14332 (November 20, 1991.)..
Merkel, Keith.. Ecolàgist/Wetlands Biologist, Pacific .1991.
Southwest Biological Services, numerous personal comrnuications.
Michael, Linda, 1991. "Commission Stalls on Listing Gnatcatcher as
Endangered," Hi Sierran, p. 9.
Mooney, Brian F., Associates, 1992. Final Environmental Impact
Report for Olivenhain Road Widening/Realignment and Flód Control
Prolect. . . . .
10-4
••
Munz,..P.A., .1974.-,A-Flora of Southern 'California. Berkeley:
University of California Press
Murphy, Patrick S., 1992. Community Development Department
Memorandum, July 29, 1992 Subject Congestion Management Plan
Requirement for Enhanced CEQA Review Process for Large Projects.
National Helium Corp. v. Morton. 1973.
Oceanside Mariña.Towers Assn. V. Oceanside Community Development
Corn., 1986. 187 Cal.App.3d 735.
Pacific Homeowners' Association v Wesley Palms Retirement
Community, 1986 178 Cal App 3d 1147, 224 Cal Rptr
U.
Pacific Southwest Biological Services 1989 A Report of the
Encinitas, California.
Pacific Southwest Biological 'Services. 1991.
['0
.'
Encinitas, California. '
Pacific Southwest Biological Services.: 1992. " 'Biological
Encinitas, California. Revised 12 August 1992. .
Ponseggi, M.F. and As and A.D. Hinshaw Associates, .1990.
Final Environmental Impact Report, Arrôyo La'Costa Master Plan.
PWS. Consultants. 1991. Home Depot Proiect EMF Report.
Regional Environmental Consultants (RECON), 1985. Draft Environ-
mental Impact Report for the Scott's Valley Proertv GPA 85-03
Regional Environmental Consultants (RECON)., 1986. ' Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the HPI Olivenháin Property, CPA
86-01.
Regional Environmental Consultants (RECON), 1986. Final Environ-
mental Impact Report for the Pearce Olivenhain Property. GPA 86-
02.
Resident's Ad Hoc Stadium Committee v. Board of Trustees. 1979.,,
Cal.App.3d 274, 287.
Rio Vista Farm Bureau Center et. al. v. County. of Solana. 1992.
92 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4855.
10-5
San Diego Acoustics,
and Associates, Repo:
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG).,' 1991.
"Transportation Control 'Measures Plan," Board of Directors Agenda
Report No. RB-11, April 26, 1991. - S
San Diego .County'Air Pollution Control District, 1991. i990 Annual
Report.
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, 1991. Resolution
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, 1991 "Ozone,
Number of Days Exceeding Federal and State Standards, San Diego
County, 1986-1990," "Carbon Monoxide, Number of Days Exceeding
Federal and State Standards, San DieoCounty, 1986-1990," "Sulphur
Dioxide, Number of Days Exceeding Fdera1 and State Standards, San
Diego County, 1986-1990," "Nitrogen Dioxide, Number ofDays and
Hours Exceeding State Standards, San Diego County, 1986-1990,"
"Annual Averages, San Diego County, 1986- 1990," "Total Suspended
Particulates, San Diego County, 1986- 1990," "Particulate Matter
(PM10),'San Diego County, 1986-1990."
San Diego, Xeriscape Council, 1990.1! Xeriscape San Diego Style.
Distributed by ASLA/San Diego.
San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San
Francisco. 1984. 151 Cal.App.3d 61.
San Francisco Ecology Center V. City and County of San Francisco.
1975. 48 Cal.App.3d 584, 594.
Schaeffèr Land Trust v. City of San Jose. 1989. 215 Cal.App.3d
612.
Sierra Club v. City of Gilroy. 1990. 222 Cal.App.-3d 30.
Silvern, Drew, 1991. "Endangered otf not, bird gets some land," The
San Diego Union, August 16, 1991, B-i.
Silvern, Drew, 1991. "U.S. favors declaring .gnatcatcher
endangered," San Diego Union, September 6, 1991,.p. Al.
Smolens, Michael, 1991. "Eucalyptus trees in canyon to -be felled;"
The San Diego Union, May 23, 1991, p.. B-b.
Society for California Archaeology iv. County of Butte. '
'-
10-6 .-
STA, Inc., 1989. Draft Environmental Impact 'Report, Arroyo La.
Costa Master Plan.
State of California.' 1992. Public Resources Code, Division 13,
Sections 21000 et. seq.,"Californià Environmental Quality Act,".
State of California. 1992., Administrative Code, Title 14, Chapter
3, Sections 15000-15387, "Guidelines for California Environmental
Quality Act," abbreviated as the State 'CEQA Guidelines.'
State Water Resources Control Board, 1991. News Release No. 91-
08, "State Board to 'Regulate Industrial Storm' Water Discharges,"
,June 18, 1991.
Suhay, Ed, 1991. Olivenhain Municipal Water District, telephone
communication, June 2.
Sundstrom v. Cáunty of Mendocino, 1988. '202 Ca'1.App.3d 296.
Sweetwater Environmental Biologists, no date. "Off -site Mi'tigati'on
Acquisition Criteria; Lessons Learned. - Off-site Acquisition for
Coastal on Scrub .Mitigation"Lands; and Conclusions - Off-site
Acquisition of 'Coastal Sage Scrub Mitigation Lands."
Tan, Siang S. 1986. "Landslide Hazards In the 'Rancho Santa Fe
Quadrangle, San Diego County, California, Landslide Hazard
Identification Map No. 6. , California Division of Mines' and *ft Geology, Open-file Report.86-15 LA.
IF
"The Unthirsty 100," Sunset Magazine, 'October 1988.
TMI Environmental Services. 1991. Archaeological Assessment for
the Proposed Home Depot Project, Encinitas, California.
Towards. Responsibility in Planning v. City' Council' of City of San
Jose. 200 Ca. App. 3d 571, 246, Cal. Rptr. 317 (March 1988).
Voss, Gilbert A. 1992a. Letter 'to' City of Encinitas, 4 February
1992 and Dobe' Point Plant Lis€.'
Voss, Gilbert A. 1992b. Dobe'Point 'Botanical Survey-1 VI 92,
' report of surveys on 1.4 May 1992 and 28 May 1992.
Village of Lagunay. Board of Supervisors' of Orange County, 1982.
134 Ca1.App.3d 1022.
Wertheimer, N.; Leeper,.. E., ' 19,79. "Electrical' 'Wiring
Configurations and Childhood Cancer," American Journal of
Epideinology, Volume 10 (3),"pp237-284.
Willens, Constance A. and Associates. 1989. Home Depot Specific
Plan Feasibility/Constraints' Study. '
.107: . .:
1•
1 11.' PERSONS/AGENCIES/ORGANIZATIONS THAT
RECEIVED AND COMMENTED ON THE DRAFT
EIR
11. PERSONS/AGENCIES/ORGANIZATIONS THAT RECEIVED AND
COMMENTED ON THE DRAFT EIR
Copies of the Draft EIR were distributed for review to the State
Clearinghouse, the City of Encinitas City Council, Planning
Commission, and New Encinitas Citizens Advisory Board Public Works
Department, Community Services Department, Fire Protection
District, City Manager and Planning Director, the Cardiff and
Encinitas public libraries, the City of Carlsbad, the U'S Fish &
Wildlife Service, the Encinitas Sanitary District, the County of
San Diego Public Works Department, the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board, the Olivenhain Municipal Water District, and
the San Dieguito Water District In addition, copies were made
available at the City of Encinitas Community Developient
Department.
The persons, agencies and organizations that provided written
comments on the Draft EIR during the public review period (December
301 1991 to March 6, 1992)are listed in Table 11-1. Becauseof
the large number of letters, each letter has been assigned a
number, which is shown in large bold print on the top right of the
letter. Many people sent in more than one letter The names of
some of the respondents were illegible, in these cases, addresses
were noted if they were given A substantial number, of letters
were duplicates, in which case the dd responses were inclue with
only one of the letters in the interest of saving resources1
In addition, public comments were received at an Encinitas Planning
Commission hearing on January 21, 1992 The people who spoke at
that meeting are listed in Table 11-2
All of the letters received during the public comment period are
included on the following pages, along with responses to the
comments The January 21 Planning Commission Hearing was taped
However, there was a lot of background noise and some of the
comments were difficult to hear on the tape The EIR preparer has
prepared responses to comments made at the hearing by listening to
the tapes and reviewing the draft minutes of the meeting..
TABLE 11-1
PERSONS, AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT .PROVIDED
WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR DURING
THE PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
Person/Agency/Organization Letter No
Manish D Ad.hiya 51
Dorothy I. Ale-son 161
Linda Dance All 219
John Allison and Darlene Allison 284
Aurelia Alioth 224
Thomas Andersi 245
Dale S. Ashley .16.2
Carolyn Tatrall Avalos 272
Douglas M.Avis/Fiéldstone La Costa .277
Kathleen M. Bak ;... 54
Terry Barker/Consultants Collaborative 269
' Lori Barnett 23
Michael J. Barrett 134
Jeffrey G., Batt 227
Cindy Bell , • : 201
Farrell Bell. 199
Dominick A. Bellomo 32
Leah S. Bendill.
Patricia Bendride 210
Charles Benedict and Karen Benedict 173
Dr. Joseph F. Bnzoni . 45
Kim Bess : . 226
Richard :Beyer 168, 174
:PeñnisTBlack .• 49
Katherine Black 48
Beth Brandenburg . .• 209
Erna Braverman. . 193
Kristy Moehn Brehm 288, 289, 290, 291
Lindsay W.: Brehm . 294, 295, .298
Karin S Brock 211
Jack Browivar 194
Julie Esparza Brown 202
Peter Brueckner . . 35,. 260
Giacomo W. Bucci .., 278
Geoffrey S. Butler . 5
James Butler • • 163..
Deborah A. Burke • . • . 65 • Linda Bush • 180
-Cindy Byat • •. .. 172
California Coastal Commission .. • 1 .
Jim Carbaugh •• . • 116, 156
Robyyn Carbaugh 157
Clarice B. Carmichael . 92.
Bill Carpenter The, Austin Hansen Group . 268
11-2
TABLE 11-1' CONTINUED
Person/Agency/Organization Letter No
J. L.:".Cavoulas and Jennifer Cavou'las/., ' 68, .69.j 74., '81, 87
The Cáyouls Family , 96, 10, 112, 120, .152, 158, 175
Donald E.T.Chàrhut
AubreyYqhuch .. . . " 221
Nancy Clermont 98
Bob Cb,rdiz .• ' 126
County of San Diego Department of Public Works 17
Dr. Paul Coyne" . . 105
Ken R. craig ' ' . 166
Wendy R.".'Craig ' ' ' 1 169
Joe .Cr'oke , . ' '" ' 117'
G.. 'ToxnCurrie 118
Alexandra Dale 293
Nicólá Dale 292
J Patrick Davis/Dental Specialty Associates 108
Roger' "D. Davis/Scott's Valle * Association 1183.
' ' Bill 'Dean '
'
, .' 20
Dental-Specialty Associates ' ' ' ' 99, 108
Betty 'L. DDdge ' ' 299, 300, 301.,
Jeff 'and'Therese Doyl ' ' ' 145
Maurice. Dubüe, 234. Mrs. E..' Dubue 233
Denise Dudek.. ' . ' . ' 200' •
Ronald, D. Dudek ' ' '.. '- 215
Jim Dulaney 217
Alyse Eberhardt 293
Jeanine. L. Eberhardt . ' . ' 17,9:'
Darcy. English:: 262
Suzan E'. Ersidar. ' . ' ' 241
F. Maxine Fahlbusch ' ' 244
Miriam Filmañ ' ' " ' 205
Frank'L. Fituk ' ". ' ' . 225
Bill and Mary.-Farrell ' ' ' 31 , J. Lynn Feidner ' ' ' .. ' .. ' ' ' ' 43
Lynn Feidner for Neighborhoods United for Quality 13
of Life
David A. Fogg ' ' ' 274
Gilbert A. Frank ' ' . ' ' . 101'
'KathI'èen'.M. F.usbie . 77, 170, 185 '
Dr. Freeman F. Hall Jr. .
Maureen Gaare ' . ' ' . 41
Liz. Gagnard . . . '.86
Donna Gerky, Mark Gerky and Neighbors . , ' 24
Craig D. Gilmore 50
Debra L. Gilmore ,. . ' '' '52
0 Janice D. Goddard 204.
Neil E'.. Goddard' ' ' 0 203"
11-3
TABLE-11-1 CONTINUED
Person/Agency/Orqanization . Letter -No-.
Rosemary H. Gorski 283.
Greg N Graftt . . 250 .
LeisaR. Grájek 53; .251
Dana Lynn Green ,.,. . .125
Anna Law Gregory . . .
Joyce Grumpe 212.
Samuel Guinto . . 246:
Loy Habinefet .. 10.6.
Brent Haney . 255
Lisa Hàniy .. . 138.
Jeanne Hanson . . . ."24,0
Melanie M. Harmsoln 115
Chriss Harrell 253
Connie. Harris
Richard Harris . . . . .. . .256
Debra Hartley. . 83, 128
JIm Hartley
Earl L. Hehn, Jr. . 271
Janet Hempsey
Jack V.. Hesselbach . '. 33
David Hogan/San Diego Biodivers,ity Project . 4.0
RObert. Isreal . . . 129
Guy.Ito . . 1 . 132
Deborah Johnson and Paul A. Johnson 62, 73, 82, 184
Kevin K Johnson/Johnson; O'Connell & McCarthy 11, 38, 39:
for Neighborhoods United for Quality of Life
Kevin K Johnson/Johnson, O'Connell & McCarthy for 12
Scott's Valley .Homeowners Association . -
Gayle Johnston . .. , 239.
Marcia Jones .. . 21, 22
James A. Justice ' 207'
Kathleen Justi'Oe 208k
Mr. .and Mrs. Bruce W. King 9 .'
. . Jeanétte Kirk., . . ' 131
Jami Kiss . . . 238
S. Klisdostz . .. .
Karin and Gary Kloehn . . ,. 36
Victor loby . , . 286
Diane' Küsunose . . .
Georgia Krelz 139
Randall S. Kusunose . 59
John Kutikek . ..-10
Maedi Lane . 235
Martin A. Lane . - 236
. NánceyLarkin . . 223
League, of Women Voters, North Coast, San Diego' County 18
Jimmy: Lee . ., , . . 258
Maryann G. Lennick . .. . . 30
11-4
TABLE li-i CONTINUED
Person/Agency/Oranization Letter No
Ronald Lieberrnañ a 127,.14,282
Kevin Limbach
Susan Lorrest . . . . 181
Mickie Lotes . 1,33.
Tammy Marabella
Eileen H. Maloney . . 150
George Maloney 144
Bill C. Mason . . 254
E. C. McCorndIen . 232
Dr. John W McCoy 248
Lane 'McDonald .. . . 252
Timothy McGee . . 285 , ReváV. 'McKenzie . . 130'
Rod McKenzie .. . .. . .
. 136
Dr. Lucian'ol Meiorin .. . . . 61..
chrig Meltán, .. , . .287'
Katherine t.. Merideth . . . . . 147
Pam Meridith '
0 155
0 Melissá.Merino . , 229
'Janet Montgomery 34
Rick 'Myers . . . . ' :' '70 , Myers Sara .
0
,
. ,
' ...
.
' SueMyose 0 . .
Mr. and Mrs. Richard Nàgy .
. . . 198
. 28
Neighborhoods United for Quality of Life 11, 13, 38, 39, 42
Mrs. Fred O'Connell 0 ' . '114
Craig Olson/City of Encinitas ,
0
' 266
CraigOkamoto ' ' ' 243'• .
. George. Onderism/Antiinite 0 ' .25. , 0 Bekir Ortabasi . 243 .'..
use Ortabasi ,0 57, 2.76.
Suzan Ortabasi . 0 242
Tere Ort'abàsi . . . . 95, 104,, 151
Tere Ortabasi/Kinder Magic Software 113, 121, 178
Ugur..Ortabasi 47,' 160; 275
O Ugur Ortabasi/Becor International '60, 64, 67,. 75,80,84..
Dr. Jeffrey Owen 182" '
Lisa Owen ''
. . '. . . 17,6
Leven T. Ozelicay ' . ' ' 247 0 ,Isabel-Padilla . . .167' . O Erich' A. Paetow and Rosemary A. Paetow '. 4,6
Darrell.Pearson .237
O Joseph R. Pizzino . ' .'
Mary Renaker . . 0 ' : is
D.H. 'Payhne 0 0 109
Dorothy Pereira ... 0 1970
0 ' . '• Shanbdra G. Pietang
Piets,ch. . . .
0 '164
11-5.
TABLE 11-1 CONTINUED
crson/Agencv/Oranization . LetterNo.
StévenPrime : 220
Mr. and'Mrs. Larry Ritter 107
Kimberly Robertson . . 140
BràdfordRoth . . 279, 280
Lori Sandrew . 72
Valerie Santilla, Santilla - 293
Laurence Schiltz 230
. Judith Schuetz . . 187
Scott's Valley,Homeowners Association 12, 19, :183
Allan D. Severn
Mr. and Mrs. Nicholas Sinantens . 186
J. K. Smith . . . 7
Terry Sonken . . . 119
State of California Office of Planning and Research 4
Lucil]. Stephenson . . .222.
Susan Stomonte 66, 76, 78, 85, 89, 94, 103,
.
. 111, 123, 149,:, 177.
Kim Stone : .189
W. F. Stumpe . 214
Mr. and Mrs. A.V. Sullivan 44
Ursula W Sumenbery 188
Tom Sundeén. 192
Mary L.Sxarn 257
Dennis Szidak 90
Lauren Szidak ... . . : 293
Sandra Szidak . 154
Terry A. Taylor/INTERMEC Corporation 273
William,-Tillotson : . 55
RichardJ.Trembath/Neighborhoods United for Quality .42 -.
of Life
Tommy Trogera . . 1 26.1
Dr. David Trygstad . 267
Grace Turner . 195
Richard H. Turner . . 196
David: and:Marie Ven . .. . 281
Gilbert A Voss/ G.A. Voss Horticultural Consultants 16, 58
Lisa M Walsh 27
Michaél W. Walsh • 265
Pat.-Ward . • . .146
Joel Wasserman. • 6f-.263 .
Gerald M.,Weil . • • 124
K M Weker. 141
Joyce: A. Wells • Geff Wilcox • 29
Jill Wilkens • 165
Mark Wisniewski. 270
Deborah M. Wright 153, 249
JoAnne Wyman. 264, 297
'90
TABLE 11-1C0NTINUED
Person/Agency/Organization Letter No
Laurie Price/Zucker Systems S . 3
Paul Zucker/Zucker. Systems 2
• Addresses for signatures that were not legible: .
23.1 S. Sierra, Solana:Beach. .. . 1O6
1733 Orange Blossom Way,. .Encthitàs' . 91
1525 village View Road, EncinItas: S • . 97
1612OrchardwoodRoad, Encinitas S • S • oo, 122•
1416 WildMeadow Place
1731 Willowhaven Road, EncinitaC. S . 159
1743 Willowhaven Road, Encinitás S S ;. 1.35,
• 27.44 Penrose Street, Encinitas . . •:: 191
2506 Jacaranda Avenue, Carlsbad . : .206
7918 Arbüsto Court, Carlsbad . . . • 219
• 7919 Arbusto Court,. Carlsbad S .. 1. 221
7927. Arbüsto Court, Carlsbad S .......228
4"P 1
. . '.
11-7
TABLE 11-2
PERSONS WHO PROVIDED ORAL COMMENTS. AT THE,
JANUARY 21, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
Person/Agency/Organization Comment
Manish Adhiva.
Lester Bagg, Chairman, Encinitas Planning Commission W
Dr. Joseph Benzoni/Scott's Valley Homeowners A
Bill Dean, Vice Chair, Planning Commission Y
Lynn Feldner C
Taras Gach 0
Greg Grajek G
Leisa Grajek M
Dr. Freeman Hall N
Jim Hirsch/The Austin Hansen Group X
s Dave Hogan/San Diego Biodiverity Project L
Phyllis Isabel D
Ed Kamps/San Diego Acoustics Q
Nancy Kraemer S
John Kutikek F
Robert Lanham, Commissioner, Planning Commission Z
David Mayer/Pacific Southwest Biological Services U
Keith Merkel/Pacific Southwest Biological Services V
Erich Paetow S H
Dr. Patrick Mock/OGDEN Environmental S
Craig Reiser/Pacific Southwest Biological Services T
Brad Roth P
Lee Rotsheck, Commissioner, Planning Commission Z
Jim Simmons/Consultants Collaborative R
Joseph Stumpf, Commissioner, Planning Commission Z
Richard Treinbath K S
S David Veit S 1
Dolores Welty J
:-TABLE: I1-3.
PERSONS AND AGENCIES THAT WERE SENT THE NOTICE
-. OF COMPLETION AND AVAtLABIL'ITY.OF.'THEEIR
State Clearinghouse
City of. Carlsbad . ..
U.S.Fish & Wildlife Service .
Encinitas Sanitary District
County of San . Diego -Department of' Public Works.
State Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Olivenhain Municipal Water District
CardIff, Library
Encinitas Library Community Advisory Board
: Encinitas Planning Commission . .
Encinitas City Council
• City .-of Solana Beach . • .
City of San Marcos . . . .. . . . .
. County of San'.Diego Department of, ....Parks &:Recreation
County of San Diego Sheriff's Department
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Pacific Bell - • '• . . : .
San. Diego Gas '.& Electric C oman-y-' '
Postmaster, Ericinitas '• '' . . .
Caltrans County. of San Diego Health Services Départment,,.Health: and Land .
. . Use Division . ' .. -.- . .• .;
San Dieguito Unioin High School district - - . •': - ,
- Encinitas Union SchoOl District .. :-. •' - . :'-; .
--Daniels Cáble.TV . . . - •"
Dinensio'n Catle TV
Robert & Jean Antt . . . ' .• -
M. & P. •'Haghani - . • . I - -
Leonard & Sherry Reicher
dance Carmichael .. ' ' •' ..'.
Highlands at Encinitas
Fred &'Joànna Irwin
' James & Sandra Glannestras
-Thomas & Dena Amoruso
Steven & Juli.éJohns -
Brian & Teresa, 'Larsen
Joel & Leticia Aroyo
,-
• - Bruce .& -Laurie MaôDiamid '
Kurt & Angela Groseciose
K. Koiestner' & J. Bodner- • : - ' .
Ràger & Pamela Liesengang. ' - • •-
Joseph & Paulette Geiger
' - -Warren& Nicola Dale -' -
'
'.
•
.• - '
Larry & Patricia Brockhaus'
'John , & 'Mary Cooke
'Thomas & Mary Flynn ',, - . ' ' - -'• _;' •'
11-9
TABLE 11-3-CONTINUED
James & Nancy.' Clermont:
George & Sharon Ody 0
Frank & Donna Merrifield
Richard & Catherine Harvey
Edward & Jean Auer
Ronald & Julia- Prange
V.' Bradley & K. Scholtens .
I. Kinoshita & 0. Y.ukiko
David & Sheryl Jenkins 0
•0
Kenneth -& Roxanne Raver .
Robert & Deborah Clavarella . 0
Robert & Jacquelyn Finney
Ronald & JoanDodge
Hui Chiung Ko
John & Linda Alspaugh, '
O Michael. & Mariloyn Poston 0 0
0 Timothy Beck 0 0
Lawrenàe & Catkin Grayson 0 0
O 0 James & Joyce Miller
0 Byron White
- Tamala L. Shartz & Gary D. DeWitt . 0
O Caritas. Company
Samuel & Debra Kresch 0
Yueh & Jaw Lee
O Frederick: & Catrina Moeller
Jack Pearce & David Edwards
O Carlsbad.Partners,.LTD.
Scotts Valley Homeowners Association
John & Margaret Craig
J, 0 Northview Property Owners. 0 0 O - Fieldstone/La Costa Associates 0
Thomas & Terry Sundeen 0 . Beth Brandenburg 0 •0 0
David & Tamra Marabella
Uqur & use Ortabasi
0
The Austin Hansen. Group 0
Home Depot Corporation 0
John & Ursula Sonneñb.erg 0
10. 0 • Dennis & Janet Myose 0
0 Ralph & Lee Miller 0
0
Joseph & Feidner Benzoni •. 0
City of Carlsbad Planning Department 0 •
0 Leucadia Boulevard Limited 0 0
00
0 Joel & Rebecca Peters 0
Ronald & Denise Dudek 0 0
O Karen Minarich 0
0
County of SanDiegoDepartment of Planning and Land.Use
Larry Trammell
Roger Davis
Jack Pearce, Jr. . -. 0
0
• 0
11-10
Kwang Chung
Mike Trambert
Lou Chiarelli
Mr, and Mrs Greg Grajek
Richard Trembath
Friends of Batiquitos Lagoon
Arthur Sullivan.
Laurie Price/Zucker Systems
Man W Chiu
Richard .Hinton
Dave Hogan
Rosemary Gorski
John Cavoulàs .
Eric & Rosemary Paetow
Manish Adhiya
Lynn Feldner
David Shulho
Fred-Morey. . Greg & Wendy Hem •
Stephen Penn
Brock C Tella
Ferril & Corren Capps
Glen & Lénetta Gee
Roger. .& Marva Thomas. . . .
Gilvert & Tami Frank
Rueih-Shianho Lath . . .
F.W,. O'Connell .
Stephen M. Kirkpatrick
James & Debra Stover .
John ,& Carla Watkins
Bryan & Robin Anderson 0 0
Robert & Kathy Greene 0
Giacomo & Pico Buccm
. K.,& N. .,Hasegawa . . . John -&- Gloria Sãfltillo .
Charles ,S. Carter -
Paul & Jeanine Eberhardt 0
Dale S. Ashley :
Michael & Deborah Samuels
Mark .& Catherine Stechschulte
Thomas & Juli Sperla -
Dennis & Sandra Szidak
Larry & Deborah Ritter
Farhad & Neda Nourani. . 11-11
0 CHAPTER 12
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
HOME DEPOT SPECIFIC PLAN
AND TENTATIVE MAP
CASE NO. 91-044
SCH NO. 91031068
Prepared for
City of Encinitas
527 Encinitas Blvd., Suite 100
Encinitas, CA 92024
(619) 944-5060
Prepared by
CONSTANCE A. WILLENS & ASSOCIATES
4231 Coliwood Lane
San Diego, CA 92115-2010
(619) 583-2870
April 15, 1993
LI
CWcA
0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
H
12. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
STATE Of CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY Pill WliSO,l. C--
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
SAN DIEGO COAST AREA
3111 CAAIINO DEL RIO N311K. SUITE 200 -
SAN 01000. CA 92108-1723 -.
(6191 221-8036 -
-
April 1, 1992 0 q
City of Encinitas APR 8Ic$7
Planning Department ___ J
521 Encinitas Boulevard TV flr .Ir.I'lIT,
Encinitas, CA 92024 tUl.J _l
RE: Proposed Home Depot Specici. Flan aid T6lia1ve Hap
To whom It may concern:
Although a letter was recently sent you by our San Francisco office pertaining
to the proposal for the above cited development, further clarification is
necessary. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identified several
off-site improvement projects related to water, sewer and drainage facilities
under El,Camlno Real. As you may know, the existing Inland boundary of the El
Camino Real Right-of-Way Is the Coastal Zone Boundary. Thus, any work on or
under El Camino Real requires review and approval of the Coastal Commission.
In addition, as the proposal includes the widening of El Casino Real eastward
by approximately 23 feet, a Coastal Zone Boundary Adjustment may also be
required. If you have any questions, please give me.a call.
California Coastal Commission
The project proposes to construct road, water, sewer and drainage
facilities, as discussed in Section 2.3.2.5 of the EIR. The
infrastructure improvements include sewer and water lines beneath
El Camino Real as well as storm drains beneath and along El Camino
Real. The project proposes to widen the portion of El Camino Real
along the project frontage to add 13 feet for a turn lane and 5-
foot wide bike lane. This will result in a 68-foot wide right-of-
way (ROW) for the eastern half of El Camino Real, an increase of 23
feet. The increased right-of-way, which is currently outside of
the Coastal Zone boundary and within the City of Encinitas, will be
dedicated to the City, which may later turn over jurisdiction to
the County, which maintains the remainder of El Camino Real. In
addition, the project proposes to clean out the sediment beneath
the El Camino Real bridge to an elevation of 72 feet above Mean Sea
Level. The off-site infrastructure improvements will be in the
Coastal Zone and, based on this new information, will require a
Coastal Permit. The Coastal Commission may choose to extend the
Coastal Zone boundary eastward to reflect the new roadway.
Sincerely
McEachern
Coastal Planner.
(7369A)
12-2
STATE Of CALIFORNIA—THE RSOURCLAGENCY
ci , -
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION APR 8lo745 '. . LvoN7. SUITE 2000
SAN FRANCISCO. CA 9IO3'22I9 . . . - ..o IDO I31 90 -3200 Jurisdiction Lett.c TYOF ENGiT13j
Date: April 6, 1992
City of Encinitas
Planning Deparline:ii
527 Encinitas Blvd.
Encinitas, CA 92024
Project: Home Depot Specific Plan and Tentative Nap
Coastal Commission file no. (if applicable)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Notice No. (If app)icable)
If a nationwide-permit. NWP number
The Coastal Commission staff has received your request to identify Commission
jurisdiction for the,purposes of processing an individual, nationwide, general or regional permit from the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Pursuant to the federal Coastal Zone Management:Act (CZMA), the Corps cannot issue a permit ,for.an act-lvity..ei.therin or,,out,,of the coastal zone,, that affects land and water uses or natural resources of the coastal zone until the applicant has complied with the requirements' of Section 307(c)(3)(A) of the'CZMA:
(16 USC Section 1456(c](3]EA].) These requirements can be met by receiving a
'a CommissiOn concurrence with consistency certification prepared by the,,'.' applicant or conclusion that the activity does not affect the coastal zone. Alternatively, these requirements-can be satisfied by the issuance of a
' Coninission approved coastal development permit. Since the federal consistency authority cannot be delegated to local governments, a coastal developme
n
t
"
'permit issued by a local agency does not replace the requirement for a
consistency certification. However, if an activity is within the Ports of San Diego, Long Beach, Los Angeles-, or Port Hueneme and is identified in the
Commission certified Port. Master Plan,.then,no 'consistency certificat
i
o
n
i
s
necessary.
The Coastal Commission staff has reviewed the information submitted for the
abOve-referenced 'project, and has concluded that it:
Is not 'within the coastal zone and .does not affect the coastal zone.
Therefore no further Coastal Commission review is necessary.
Li Is a non-federal activity within the coastal zone and is In an area where
the Commission has not yet delegatedpermit authority to;the appropriate
local 'agency. ,Therefore, it needs- a coastal development permit from the Commission. Contact our' District'office (see addresses on the following page) for details and permit appllcation,form. (Note: - - Receipt of a Coastal Commission-issued coastal development permit satisfies federal consistency requirements.) - - . S .
S
-2-
Is a federally permitted activity within or affecting the coastal zone and
does not otherwise need a coastal development permit from the Commission.
Therefore, this project needs a consistency certification. Contact Jim
Raives at (415) 904-5280 for information on the federal consistency
process. (Note: Receipt of a local government-issued coastal development
permit, as opposed to a Coastal Commission-issued coastal development
permit, does not satisfy federal consistency requirements.)
/17 Is within or affects the coastal zone and is afederaI agency activity.
Therefore it needs a consistency determination (or, at a minimum, a
negative determination). Contact Jim Raives at (415) 904-5280 for
information on the federal consistency process.
II Is within the port of San Diego, Long 8each, Los Angeles, or Port Hueneme
and'is consistent with a certified Port Master Plan. Therefore, no
further Coastal Commission review Is necessary.
U Is within one of the above ports but is not consistent with a certified
Port Master Plan. Therefore, a Port Master Plan amendment is necessary.
LI We have Insufficient Information on the project location or details to
determine jurisdiction. Please provide the following information:
NOTE: The project does ot affect the coastal zone as long as the wetland ' creation/enhancement plan succeeds. Should there be adverse downstream
impacts, the Commission reserves the right to exert federal consistency
review authority.
Signed, -
HARK DELAPLAINE
Federal Consistency Supervisor
cc:San Diego District, Coastal Commission
Corps of Engineers, Los Angel ei strict
Coastal Commission District Offices:
North Coast District ' ' Central Coast District South Central Coast District
4
45 Fremont St., Suite 2000 640 Capitola Road 925 Del La Vina San Francisco, CA 94105 Santa Cruz, CA 95062-2799 Santa Barbara Office Telephone No. (415) 904-5280 Telephone No. (408) 479-3511 Telephone No. (805) 963-6871
South Coast District San Diego Coast District
P.O. Box 1450 . 3111 Camino Del Rio North, Ste. 200
245 Nest Broadway, Ste 380 San Diego, CA 92108-1725
' . -- Long Beach, CA 90802-4416 Telephone No. (619) 521-8036
. . ..- Telephone No. (310) 590-5071
W A V A- Janudry-20, 1992 2. Paul Zucker of Zucker Systems
This new information is reflected in Section 7.2.2.5 of the EIR,
Planning Commission which discusses the use of Planning Area 3 as an alternative to the ZUCtt:N City of Encinitas proposed project
Community Development Department 5''5ftf'15 527,Encinitas Boulevard, Site 100
Encinitas, CA 92024
Re Draft FIR for Home Depot Specific Plan
Dear Commissioners
We have been retained by Jack Pearce, the owner of Planning Area 3 within
the Home Depot Specific Plan. We are presently reviewing the EIR and will
be submitting written comments on the document in the future and prior to
the completion of the review period.
One issue within the EIR needs to be clarified immediately, and therefore we
are submitting this brief letter priorto our comments. The FIR indicates in a
number of places that the environmental impacts could be reduced if the
Home Depot project were to also utilize Planning Area 3. The assumption
planning .. was made, however, that since PlanjiingArea 1 and '3 are under separate
ownership, this alternative probably wasnotfeasible. .. . ,. .
erwitonmenl
The two areas have much in common. For example: -It is recognized in the
development planning documents that in order to develop Planning Area 3 access and
utilities easements have to be provided through Planning Area 1 Grading of
management the two areas simultaneously would significantly decrease the amount of
grading required Planning Area I Mr. Pearce is willing to co-operate with the
hOU5iflQ HomeDepot planners, and If Home Depot management wishes to acquire the
property he Is willing to sell it at a market price
The alternatives of joint site preparation and/or development of the two
. planning. areas, or of expanding the Home Depot site to include Planning PAUL C ZUCK_R Area 3 should seriously be considered as having the fewest environmental
impacts. -
president -
have any questions regarding this letter, Laurie Price of our office will
be attending your hearing of January 21st and will be happy to answer any
questions you might have 1545 hotel circle souur - •.• - . - -.
rt~c
;€:
123 President Ia.:(619) 260 1138
. . S
. . . VA February 18,1992 3
ZUCN Craig Ruiz
Community Development Department
515Tft15 City of Encinitas
527 Encinitas Boulevard, Suite 100
Encinitas, CA 92024
Re: Response to draft EIR for Home Depot Specific Plan
Dear Mr. Ruiz:
We represent Jack Pearce, the owner of the parcel identified as Planning Area
3 within the Environmental Impact Report for Home Depot Specific Plan.
Although the Specific Plan and EIR includes our client's property as well as
the Home Depot site, we have not been involved with the preparation of
these documents. This letter addresses our concerns with the E[R as it relates
to Planning Area 3. We have four main areas of concern, each of which are
addressed below.
planning Wetlands—The document states that "wetlands" are located in Planning
A environment Area 3. These wetlands are referred to in a number of different ways
including: Willow riparian, disturbed wetlands, and disturbed field wetlands.
The report never distinguishes between the various terms and they are used development interchangeably. So, we must assume that they have the same meaning.
Unfortunately, different pages of the report also give different quantities for
management these "wetlands" as well as differing amounts of possible disturbance to them.
For example:
horsing
Table 1.3-3 0.3-acre of willow riparian
Table 1.3-4 0.4-acre of wetlands with 100% loss
page 3-26 0.39-acre of disturbed field wetland
PAUL C. ZUCKEA page 3-82 0.01-acre is wetland
B Graphic 2.3-3 Indicates no riparian woodland
president C Graphic 2.3-5 Indicates that 100% of the wetland will be restored
Since this draft EIR will be the environmental foundation for any future
development of Planning Area 3, these inconsistencies must be corrected.
1545 hotel circle South
suite 300 DThe Report recognizes the acceptability of a 20% loss of wetlands for Planning
sandiego ca Area 1. This is due to the mitigation program being proposed for the site.
92108-3415 Many of the mitigation measures (nuisance water collection, phased
landscaping, fencing) are also being required for Planning Area 3 as part of the
(619) 260-2680
lax: (619) 260-1138
3. Laurie Price of Zucker Systems
Wet 1 a nd:
Some of the confusion over terminology results from the fact
that wetlands are not defined by specific vegetative
communities. The wetlands on-mite are comprised of species
representative of Riparian Woodland, Salt Marsh, Freshwater
Marsh and Disturbed Fields. However, not all of the Disturbed
Field areas are classified as wetlands; some are upland
communities. In addition, not all of the wetlands will be
impacted through implementation of the Specific Plan.
Additional confusion may have resulted because the EIR
addresses both the Specific Plan and the Tentative Map. The
Biology Report (Appendix B) and Sections 1.3 and 3.3 of the
EIR have been revised as necessary for consistency and to
clarify results. In Planning Area 3, 0.4 acre of Disturbed
Field Wetlands (100% of those in PA 3) would be impacted if
the PA was developed according to the Specific Plan.
This comment states that Figure 2.3-3 does not show Riparian
Woodland. However, Figure 2.3-3 does show Riparian Woodland
in several areas: (1) in the northern portion of Planning
Area 1, beginning at El Camino Real; (2) in the
central/southern portion of Planning Area (PA) 1 and
overlapping an insignificant amount into the northwest corner
of PA 3; (3) within the SDG&E easement in PA 4; and (4) a
substantial portion of the northeastern portion of PA 4.
This comment states that Figure 2.3-5 shows wetlands. Figure
2.3-5 is the Fence and Wall Plan and does not indicate
wetlands.
The proposed TM and Specific Plan will result in a net loss of
2.3 acres of wetlands in PA 1 (21%). However, enhancement is
not counted as mitigation. Thus, the 3.2 acres of wetlands
that will be enhanced in PA 1 are not included as mitigation.
Although there is technically a net loss because enhancement
isn't counted, the project will result in a net increase in
functions and values than currently exists. The Army Corps of
Engineers has accepted the proposed wetlands
mitigation/enhancement program as sufficient to mitigate
wetlands impacts and has re-issued the Section 404 permit.
The proposed Specific Plan designates some wetland areas in PA
3 and PA 4 for development. If these areas are developed
according to the Specific Plan, wetlands mitigation will be
required. Since the Corps of Engineers judges each project
individually on its own merits, and since no specific
development is proposed for PA 3 and PA 4, the required amount
of mitigation cannot be determined. When those areas are
proposed for development, the applicants will have to work
12-4
Specific Plan. Yet, no acceptable disturbance allowance for Planning Area 3 is
discussed in the Report.
E The draft Report also gives an unequal treatment to these two Planning Areas
in regards to wetland buffers. In Planning Area 1, the buffer is 50 feet from
the riparian woodland, plus 50 feet of "unstructured" parking. Planning Area
3 does not have any riparian woodland. In fact, the nearest woodland is well
çver 50 feet, and probably 100 feet away. Yet for Planning Area 3, the Report
suggests either a 50- or 100-foot buffer between any disturbance and the
wetland. Why is a different standard being applied to Planning Area 3 than
Planning Area 1?
The EIR indicates that since there is no project proposed for Planning Area 3,
F no buffer is provided. Why doesn't it recognize the fact that the Specific Plan
establishes setbacks from the property line which would serve as a buffer. In
addition, Planning Area 3 is also being required for protective wetland
fencing. Since the SIR is for the Specific Plan, why doesn't it recognize
protective measures identified within the Plan.
G Access—The EIR identifies access to Planning Area 3 as a major issue. It states
that the only feasible way the Area probably will be served is via Planning
Area 1. It states that this issue is not mitigated because the tentative map does
not indicate an access road. It is hard to understand why the EIR did not
require the granting of an access easement on the tentative map as mitigation.
It is especially disconcerting since access for Planning Area 3 through
Planning Area I was identified in the Encinitas General Plan.
In addition to not requiring the mitigation, the EIR indicates that the traffic
analysis for internal circulation did not take into consideration the possibility
that traffic would cross Planning Area I to El Camino Real. Since this is the
preferred and realistic method of providing access to Planning Area 1, the
internal circulation should be re-evaluated taking this fact into consideration.
Also, new traffic forecasts may need to be performed for El Camino Real and
Olivenhain reflecting this access. However, granting the access easement
should not be delayed pending these additional studies.
H Grading—According to the SIR the present grading proposal for the Home
Depot project includes the grading of a 60-foot cut bank on the north facing
slope. Although we do not wish to impede the Home Depot project, this cut
bank must be considered excessive and measures should be taken to reduce its
visual impact to the community.
closely with the Corps and the California Dept. of Fish and
Game in developing mitigation. Alternatives discussed in
Sections 7.1.3, 7.1.4 and 7.1.6 would not require wetlands
mitigation.
The EIR repeatedly discusses the proposed project's conflict
with the City's required buffer from delineated wetlands
However, the EIR also notes that the proposed mitigation and
enhancement plan has been approved by the Army Corps of
Engineers. The City specifies a minimum 50-foot buffer.
Alternatives discussed in Sections 7.1.3, 7.1.4 and 7.1.6
address alternatives that would bring the Specific Plan into
compliance with City policies. The EIR does not advocate non-
compliance with City policies. However, the Encinitas City
Council will make the final determination on the significance
of nonconformance with City policies...
Although the Specific - Plan does include some wetlands
protection measures, the land use plan (Figure 2.3-2)
indicates that some of the allowable development areas include
wetlands (Figure 3.3-2). If they include wetlands, it is
obvious that some of the development areas would also include
the buffer areas to be maintained around the wetlands. Figure
3.3-3 has been added in Section 3.3.2.1 to clearly show the
potential wetlands impacts of the Specific Plan, including
impacts on wetlands and required buffer areas as currently
defined in the Encinitas General Plan.
Access
This comment questions why. the EIR did not require the
granting of an access easement on the TM for access to PA 3
and 4. An EIR cannot require that an access easement be
granted on off-site private property. The purpose of the EIR
is to identify potential environmental impacts and mitigation
measures; it is up to the City staff and the decision-making
body to make the requirements related to planning issues and
required mitigation measures. Since the previous traffic
study by BDI indicated that access to PA 3 and 4 through PA 1
would probably not be safe, this solution was not recommended
in the EIR. However, since the Draft EIR was, publicly
reviewed, the City's Traffic Engineer and Wilidan Associates
have completed. additional traffic analysis to address internal
circulation and long-term cumulative traffic impacts (Appendix
K). FORMA and Greenberg Farrow Architects have prepared an
internal circulation analysis (Appendix.L).
The SIR indicates that the grading could be reduced by the use of a crib wall
(38 feet) and/or the concurrent grading of the site with Planning Area 3. (The
report does not indicate how much the cut bank would be reduced if
concurrent grading were to occur.) Our client is willing to consider allowing
0 . .
12-5
[D
such grading assuming appropriate compaction and slope stabilization were
preformed on both planning areas. The better solution would be for Home
Depot to acquire Planning Area 3 which we again state is availible.
Whatever the final solution is with regards to limiting visual impact caused
by grading, it appears that there will be a large north facing cut bank.
Assuming that all of the Planning Areas are treated equally, the EIR should
make some mention of what the estimated graded banks will be on Planning
Area 3, and what would be expected as mitigation. This would set the frame-
work for any future development proposal and reduce the need for an
additional EIR.
Sensitive Plants—The EIR discusses the location of sensitive plants on page 3-
16. The report discusses Planning Areas 1, 2, and 4. Planning Area 3 is not
mentioned at all. We are assuming that no sensitive plants were located on
the site, and it was an oversight that the report did not indicate this
information.. For future environmental review purposes, it should be
discussed.
Again I would like to state that this letter only addresses the EIR and how it
relates to Planning Area 3. We have not reviewed the total document for
completeness or adequacy.
If you have any question or wish to discuss the above comments with us,
please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Laurie Price
Manager, Planning Services
CC. Constance A. Willens V
Craig Olson
Jack Pearce
The Specifiá Plan indicates a potential future access to PA 1
just north of the proposed Garden Center. After consideration
of interior traffic patterns and several options for providing
access to PA 3 and 4 by City staff and the City's Traffic
Engineer, it was determined that access to PA 3 and the
southern portion of PA 4 could safely be provided through PA
1 if a sufficiently wide pedestrian walkway and specific
pavement treatment was included to discourage pedestrian
crossings except at designated areas. This would eliminate
any impacts to wetlands that could occur if access was taken
from Olivenhain Road. The specific mitigation measures to
ensure traffic safety are discussed in Appendix L.
Grading
Measures included in the project to mitigate the visual impact
of the cut slope behind (south of) the Home Depot building
include: (1) transitioning from a 2: 1 slope at the base,
behind the building, to a 3:1, more natural-appearing slope at
the upper, more visible portions of the slope; (2) rounding
the cut slopes to simulate natural slopes; and (3) planting
the cut slopes with native vegetation.
The use of PA 3 as a borrow site could eliminate the need to
import approximately 49,000 cubic yards of fill for the
development of PA. 1 or 2. If the material is used for PA 2,
it would not change the grading proposed for PA 1. If the
material is used for building up the development area in PA 1,
it could substantially reduce the number of truck trips needed.
to import fill and could reduce the hillside grading on the
north-facing slope in PA 1 and 2. This concept is discussed
in a new alternative (see Section 7.1.2).
12-6
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GOVERNORS OFFICE OF PLAIUfltJG AND RESEARCH
E Ii. .? . 0
1400 TENTH STREET
.
4 State Office of Planning and Research
SACRAMENTO. CA 95814
.
. ,.
L 0 IC • I This letter does not comment on the
Y OF ENCINIjiLj
accuracy'
the EIR and does not require
or adequacy of
Feb 18, 1992
CRAIG OLSON
CITY OF ENCINITAS
527 ENCINITAS 8OULEVkD
ENCINITAS,CA 92024
Subject: HOME DEPOT SPECIFIC ,PLAN AND TENTATIVE MAP .
SCM I 91031066
Dear. CRAIG OLSON: .
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environm
e
n
t
a
l
document to selected state agencies for review. The r
e
v
i
e
w
p
e
r
i
o
d
i
s
closed and-none of the state agencies have comments. This
l
e
t
t
e
r
acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clear
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
requireuients' for draft environmental documents, pursua
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
0
0
California Environmental Quality Act.
Please call Tom ,Loftus at (916) 445-0613 if you have
..
any questions regarding the environmental review, process. When
0
contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use
t
h
e
e
i
g
h
t
-
d
i
g
i
t
State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond pro
m
p
t
l
y
.
- Sincerely, .. -
0•4.
0
David C. Niinenkacp .0
0
Deputy Director, PermitAssistance
12-7 . . .
5
IECCINITAJ
Geoffrey S. Butler
1433 Uilameodow Plate
Encinitas, Co. 92024
5. Geoffrey S. Butler
A. The person offering this comment has not read the EXit and,
therefore, does not appear to be commenting on the adequacy or
accuracy of the EIR. If considered as such, no further
response is required.
19 January 1992
Community Development Department
City of Encinitas
927 Encinitas Blvd.
Encinitas, Ca. 92024
Dear Sirs
I understand that there is a meeting this Tuesday regarding the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pertaining to the Hone Depot
project proposed for the Southeast corner of the intersection of
Olivenhain and El Canino Real. Although I an not familiar with
A the particulars of the report. I have strong reservations as to
the suitability of this project for the area proposed (see en-
closure). In addition to those reservations, I am also Concerned
that this project will indeed have serious adverse impacts upon
- our community's environment.
As with most of my neighbors, I an very Concerned that this
project will destroy one of the few remaining areas of coastal
B sage. Even more distressing is the fact that this area may
indeed be a nesting ground for one or more endangered species of
birds. I realize that there is a continuing controversy re-
garding the validity of that claim. Out can we, with a clear
conscience, accept the EIR while this controversy remains?
Finally, I would like you to make sure that the EIR adequately C addresses the issue of noise pollution. This is a very large
project in close proximity to family homes. In addition, there
is a proposed park site adjacent to it, and a child daycare
facility within a block. I would hate to see the
project go forward and have the noise it generates ruin the D quality of life of some of our citizens, render the proposed park
worthless, and disturb our young children.
If it were me, I could not approve of the proposed project for
that location,
Sincerely,
01
Mr. Geoffrey S. Boiler
There are no endangered species of birds on the project site.
The California Gnatcatcher is not listed.
Noise impacts are discussed in Section 3.3.2.2 of the EIR. In
addition, Appendix B, page 49, addresses noise issues. None
of the sensitive species known to be on-site are nocturnal.
Some nocturnal animals may, at first, be wary of the
development area. end may be mroe cautious when traveling in
the area. After time has elapsed, some species may adapt.
This letter does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of
the EIR and does not require a response.
12-8
JOEL WASSERMAN
1466 AVENIDA LaPOSTA
ENCINITAS CA 92024 6 Joel Wasserman
jp4 3 112 The EIR addresses traffic circulation in Section 3 5 Section 2.2
of the EIR discusses the underground gas pipeline. -
January' 30, 1992 . •-'- '.
Patrick S. Murphy . .
'Director- of Planning & Community Development
527 Encinitas Blvd .
Encinitas, CA 92024
Dear Mr. Murphy
As a residçnt of Encinitas, in the-Fieldstone area, I would like to
express ,my concerns about the. proposed Home Depot to be built El
Camino Real at Olivenhain. -
Is there, not enough traffic congestion in the area' already?
Needless to say what about the preserving the natural state of that .
area, and has anybody: addressed the underground gas lines that run '
through the property.
Allowing a project of this type or any project on this piece of
land ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN. .
youRs tRULy,
- 12-9
S S S
7
Fr7edkof
K. SMITH'
I
S.
Lcet VJAN32
312 Q\L
La'rLL4 61 £7ZL? / .
jc'ti jiF
4ntit& ti iu-d
d IJ
1J
t!1 .. IJiIU4-i
/1\jjU cK (
Itd- I
7. J.K. Smith
This letter does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR and does not require a response.
/
J4N30, .fl!. 1 8. Diane Kusunose
-I
Traffic circulation is discussed in Section 3.5 of the EIR.
Cm€ /I hM ft(
- C
L
_• 4-
S
rs,I V(K5 ICOáCJQ LL_______
kxro
.5.,... . .. 4. ..... S S S
e c A /L 09oL
St --- ?-------- -
. ... .......... 12-11 5
j . . .
Pt :LLL!._2 c
/ IeJL4-'&- . o S
_rJhyaz,uyp.7a$7pUI.YkIr
—
FAN
S S • - •'
I - •0.
S
j
9. Mr. and Mrs. Bruce W. King
This letter does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the LIR
and does not require a response.
12-12
10
John & Nancy Kutilek
1809 Willowhaven Road
Encinitas, CA 92024-5644
February 25, 1992
Mr. Patrick Murphy
Director
Encinitas Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd.
Encinitas, California 92024
Mr. Murphy:
I need information regarding the Environmental Impact Report of the proposed Home
Depot project. Please call or write in response to my concerns regarding this project and
the apparent shortcomings of the EIR.
As a homeowner and concerned Encinitas citizen, I must state in writing my opposition to
this project as it has been drawn up so far. We have a general Encinitas plan, we have all
agreed to this plan, and yet we do not seem to be sticking to this general plan. -
A The EIR seems to have serious flaws, and does not properly address these issues:
R O Grade F Traffic problems - the EIR admits that traffic cannot be mitigated
C to a 'less than significant" effect. o D 0
Reduction in wel land designated areas
Light and glare - as a member of this New Encinitas' neighborhood E 0 Air Quality
o F Noise - please bring me up to date on the updated EIR which did some
G new noise studies .... resulting in the reply time extension
0 H 0
Water quality of creek behind my house - will it be affected?
Reduction of Biological Resources - will these be mitigated properly?
Please help me in finding the correct information on these concerns / topics.
Thanks in advance for your reply and the information you share with me.
Sincerely,
John Kutilek
10. John Kutilek
The author states that the EIR seems to have serious flaws
relating to certain issues but does not specify what aspect of
the analysis is deemed to be flawed. It appears that the
author is not familiar with the purpose and requirements of
CEQA and did not read Section 1.1 of the EIR. The purpose of
an EIR is to provide information on the potential
environmental effects of a project, specifically the adverse
effects. The EIR is not flawed; it is in compliance with
CEQA in the identification of potential impacts and
recommended mitigation. Section 15091 of the State CEOA
Guidelines allows a' public agency to approve a project with
significant impacts if it can make one or more of three
possible required findings for each of the significant.
effects. This, as well as other information on the purpose of
the LIP and the CEQA process, was explained in Section 1.1 of
the EIR.
The EIR did not "admit" that traffic cannot be mitigated to a
less than significant level; it identified that impact, as
required by CEQA.
The proposed Specific Plan will result in wetlands impacts,
and this is addressed in Sections 1.4 and 3.3.2 of the EIR.
These impacts could be mitigated through several alternatives
discussed in the EIR. The project would include wetlands
mitigation and wetlands enhancement. Because enhancement is
not counted toward mitigation requirements, the project would
technically result in a net loss of wetlands although the
acreage and quality of wetlands will be increased.
Light and glare impacts are discussed in Section 3.8.2 of the
EIR. This statement does not indicate why the author feels
that these impacts are not properly addressed in the EIR.
Air Quality is addressed in Section 3.14 of the EIR. This
comment does not indicate why the author feels that these
impacts are not properly addressed in the LIP.
A Noise Analysis Addendum was prepared by San Diego Acoustics
and is included as an attachment to Appendix E of.the Final
LIP. This analysis included noise monitoring at the Santee
Home Depot Center because this store is shielded from street
traffic noise and-the Santee Home Depot is very similar to the
proposed Encinitas Home Depot. The noise measurements were
made during the period when the greatest volume of deliveries
occurs. Two noise factors at Santee are not 'present at the
Encinitas site: (1) noise from Gillespie Field Airport; and
(2) noise from the adjacent Price-Club in Santee. Therefore,
the noise projections for the Encinitas site are considered to
be "worst case;" The noise analysis determined that a noise
12-13
level of 4$ ,Db(a) would occur at the property line of the nearest residence to the south, which is significantly lass
- than they maximum allowed for -residential uses. The study concluded.:, that the proposed project would not have a significant noise impact on the, surrounding community and • included recommendations for minimizing annoyances: (1) the Garden. Center public address system should'tiave its speakers
mounted at the' extreme limit of the garden area and the
'. speakers should face toward the building; (2) speaker volume for the Garden Center public address system should be reduced
to a minimum (3) the compactor, must not be operated in a . ,• "jammed" condition; and (4-) the use of 'Garden Center 'fork 'lifts, which are .-required.-to haveback-up warning signals,
should be limited to mid-day usage when the ambient noise
might provide a masking effect..
•• . The water quality of Encinitas Creek upstream of the project
- - • site will not be adversely impacted. In fact, the proposed
.. dredging of the channel in the vicinity of the El Camino Real - S •, bridge is expected-..to reduce the back-up of flood waters-,
- . . . which would improve water quality upstream .of.the project.
The proposed wetlands enhancement and mitigation program has
been approved by the Army Corps of Engineers in consultation
with the U.S. Fish and. Wildlife. Service and is considered' adequate by the project biologist However, the project is
not in conformance -with- City's "no net'loss" policy. It is the responsibility of the City,' as Lead Agency, to- determine
- - - whether the ' project should be approved based on the
------
'-- S ----------- ----- --- ----.-.-- ......--.--. —in format -ion-prov-idedin_the_EIR...._,,.,..
-..
12-14
O . .
HS
11
JOHNSON, O'CONNELL & MCCARTHY
AP..UAL,l.CtUOlnC ,OLLLtIOLCOOT,On kttfln K. JOHNSON flrlOkn(15 A. LAW CLAUDIA U [LIN]. 11. Kevin Johnson of Johnson, O'Connell 6 McCarthy for NUOL A. O'COL(t( CAAO. CA Or & (ORBIt C PORAIL C11 ILK o,rict AODLn,Sr,ATOR DANIEL I. ,A,CAUTHY AOwLST C STRICT. LU I 150 A. Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires that HOlD. U. IROWPI 9AT OLUCO. CAL 00211A 921 0I.39a0 JALAS.SIP(S ILL (P1-bAT 11191 196.6211
ICL(COP001691696,5B when a decision-making body makes Findings related to approval CMOUbATL.COULSTOA of a project for which an EIR has 'identified potential
.APRoF(SSLOAMLAW significant environmental impacts, the agency must adopt a CORPORATION March 6, 1992 mitigation monitoring and reporting program. Where a state or
federal agency controls natural resources for which mitigation
measures are imposed, the local jurisdiction may request that
. Via Facsimile ' the state or federal agency submit a proposed reporting or Mr. Patrick Murphy ' ' monitoring program. The purpose of the section, which became Community Development Director effective on January 1, 1989, is to ensure that mitigation City of Encinitas measures are implemented. The program must address the Encinitas City Hall changes to the project which have been adopted or made a 527 Encinitas Blvd. . condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid Encinitas, CA 92024 significant effects on the environment.
Re: Comments by HUOL Upon Home Depot Specific Plj
and Tentative Map Draft Environmental Impact Report (Case No. 91-044)
Dear Mr. Murphy:
Failure to Mitigate significant Environmental Impacts
A The mitigation and monitoring program outlined in the Draft
EIR fails to provide mitigation for the following significant
environmental impacts:
Development of steep slopes in Planning Areas 1, 2 and 4
in contravention of General Plan Land Use Policy 8.6,
Public Safety Policy 1.2, Resource Management Policy
10.1, and Housing Element Policy 3.11;
Lack of adequate wetland buffers in contravention of
General Plan Land Use Policy 8.10 and Resource Management
Policy 10.10;
Sedimentation of Encinitas Creek from construction
related activity, including grading -- mere revegetation of graded and Cut areas fails to provide adequate
mitigation to prevent sedimentation from entering.
Encinitas Creek;
Net loss of 2.3 acres of wetland in contravention of
General Plan Resource Management Policy 10.6;
Significant environmental impacts to wetlands located in
Planning Areas 3 and 4 as described at pp. 3-26, 27 of the Draft EIR;
ignificant encroachment on existing high quality
wetlands along the flow line of Encinitas Creek and
reduction of use by wildlife (Draft EIR p. 3-24);
The EIR preparer has concluded that some of the project's
impacts can only be mitigated to a less than significant level
with an alternative project design, and numerous alternatives
are offered in Section 7. The EIR is an informational document and can only recommend, and not approve, an alternate
design. If the decision-making body adopts an alternative
plan that mitigates potential policy conflicts, then no
further mitigation will be required for this issue. Two new taqbles have been added to clarify significant environmental
impacts: Tables 1.2-1 and 1.2-5.
The EIR preparer has concluded that the project's conflict
with some General Plan policies can only be mitigated to a
less than significant level with an alternative project
design; numerous alternatives are offered in Section 7. With
the adoption of a suitable alternative plan, potential impacts
can be eliminated and mitigation will not be required.
However, it should be noted that the Encinitas City Council,
as the decision-making body, will make the final determination
as to the significance of the incompatibility of the proposed
project with City policies.
Same as response to 11 in above paragraph.
The EIR also included the following as water quality
mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program: (1) approval of an erosion control plan
and monitoring to ensure it is implemented, Including
monitoring during and after grading; (2) the installation and
maintenance of an oil/water/sediment separator system; (3) the
planting and maintenance of marsh vegetation that would
further filter water prior to its discharge into the creek;
and (4) additional mitigation for future development, which is
to be determined when development is proposed for PA 3 and 4
and cannot be defined now since no development is proposed.
12-1S
S.
The proposed TM will result in a loss of 3.0 acres of wetlands
in PA (2.9 acres of Disturbed Field Wetlands and 0.1 acre of Southern Willow Scrub). The project includes the creation of
0.7 acres of new wetlands, which results in a technical net loss of 2.3 acres of wetlands in PA 1 (21%).' The 3.2 acres of Wetlands enhancement and the 0.5 acre of new wetlands to be
created in the runoff Water detention pond are not counted as
mitigation. Although there is technically a net loss because
enhancement isn't counted, the project will result in more
vegetation of a higher quality. It is the opinion of'the project biologist that wetlands impacts would be mitigated to
a 'less than significant level, and the Army COrps of
Engineers, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, has accepted the proposed wetlands mitigation/
enhancement program as sufficient for approval of a Corps
Section 404 permit. However, the project is still 'in conflict with the "no net loss" policy. This potential impact can only
be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through
an alternative design for the TM. Several wetland mitigation
alternatives are discussed in Section 7. Please see the
response :to I 1 above relating to the elimination of the need for mitigation if a suitable alternative is adopted.
This EIR'has been prepared as a Program EIR for the Specific
Plan and as a project-specific EIR for the development of PA
1 and 2. Since there are specific projects proposed for PA 1 and 2, potential impacts and mitigation measures can be more
precisely defined. No, development proposals have been
submitted for PA 3 and 4, so the EIR has addressed potential
impacts in terms of the type of uses that could occur in the:
Si'ncetheEIWdoes not have - specific projects, to address in PA 3 and 4, it deals with impacts and mitigation at the Specific Plan level. Additional project-specific environmental analysis' will be required when
development is proposed for those areas.
Section 15146 of the State CEOA Guidelines states that "The
degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond-. to
the degree of specificity involved 'in the underlying activity
which is described in the EIR." Further, "(a) An EIR on a
construction project will necessarily be more 'detailed in the
specific effects of the project than will be an .EIR on the
adoption of a 'local general plan or comprehensive zoning
ordinance beCause the effects of the construction can be
predicted with greater accuracy," and "(b) An EIR on a project
such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning Ordinance Or a local general plan ' should focus on the
secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the
adoption; or amendment, but the EIR need not be as detailed as
an,EIR on the: specific construction projects that follow." A
recent court case resulted in the court".s determination, that
(1) a "first-tier" EIR may defer to future study' those
Hr. Patrick Murphy
March 6, 1992
Page 2
Significant loss of wetland acreage in Planning Area 4 as
described at p. 3-27 of the Draft EIR;
Traffic impact and reduction in level of service
resulting from the project on El Casino Real - from Olivenhain Road to Encinitas Blvd., on El Casino Real
from La Costa Avenue to Olivenhain Road, and on
Olivenhain Road from Alnargosa Drive to Rancho Santa Fe
Road as indicated in Tables 3.5-4 and 3.5-7 of the Draft
EIR;
Viewshed impact to existing and future planned residences
on the ridgetop to the north, east and south.
Traffic impacts on the 1-5 corridor between La Costa and
Del Mar Heights (Which have not been adequately
addressed)
The Draft EIR's failure to treat the impacts to wetlands
located in Planning Areas 1, 3 and 4 in a comprehensive fashion is B particularly troublesome. The document appears to adopt a wait-
and-see attitude With respect to physical impacts, potential
contaminants and actual loss of wetlands in Planning Areas 3 and 4.
The Draft EIR indicates that the options for on-site
C mitigation of wetlands losses are limited in Planning Area 4 and
development of this area could require off-site mitigation.
Wetlands located In Planning Areas 1, 3 and 4 are part of a single
creekbed system.
It is, therefore, imperative that environmental impacts' from
development of these areas and co-commitment mitigation measures be
considered together and not separately. Norshould environmental
impacts or mitigation be postponed for Planning Areas 3 and 4, but
should be addressed at this time.
Additions to Mitigation and Monitoring Program
D In the section dealing with erosion and sedimentation, the
mitigation and monitoring program fails to refer to or provide for
.the catch basins described at p. 3-10 of the Draft EIR or provide any information as to maintenance of the sediment catch basins.
E With respect to the so-called wetlands enhancement measures,
the mitigation and monitoring, program fails to set out any
timetable for this program. Will the wetlands enhancement measures
including fencing between the Home, Depot area and the wetlands,
enhancement and creation of additional sufficient wetlands buffer
area, and runoff water treatment system be in place prior to
Mr. Patrick Murphy
March 6, 1992
Page 3
construction of the Home Depot project?
The following comments relate to the specific mitigation
measures indicated:
1.7.1.1 Short term Flooding - This measure fails to
F indicate who will be the responsible entity for
inspecting the dredging underneath the El Camino
Real bridge. Encinitas Public Works Department
appears to be a logical candidate.
C. 1.7.2.5 Long term Water Quality Degradation Due to Runoff.
The monitoring section of this measure fails to
specify which criteria will be considered to
determine whether the system is operating
successfully. Will the system be considered to
operate successfully if only oil and sediment are
trapped within the separator system and are not
entering the creekbed? Should not the system
filter all toxins, not just oil? To ensure that
the system is operating properly, periodic creek
water quality sampling and creekbed soil sampling
should occur to determine whether toxic materials,
oil, etc. are present in the creekbed. The
monitoring portion of this measure also fails to
provide where sediment removed from the wetland
treatment basin will be disposed. Will the
sediment be contaminated and will it require
special disposal measures and costs?
H 1.7.3.8 Long Term Impacts to Vegetation. The monitoring
portion of this mitigation measure fails to specify
and articulate the success criteria for the runoff
water treatment system, created and enhanced
wetlands and replanted areas. Such success
criteria is properly included in the mitigation and
monitoring program. Further, impacts to Encinitas
Creek and its associated wetlands from the Home
Depot project will occur well beyond the five year
monitoring period outlined. Monitoring should
occur throughout the life of the project to ensure
the runoff water treatment system, created and
enhanced wetlands and replanted areas are operating
effectively.
Finally, with respect to mitigation measures 1.7.2.4, 1.7.2.5,
1.7.3.1, 1.7.3.2, 1.7.3.3, 1.7.3.5, 1.7.3.6, and 1.7.3.8, an independent biologist, not one employed by the developer, should be
retained by the City to monitor mitigation measure effectiveness and verify developer compliance with these mitigation efforts.
specific impacts of individual projects that will be evaluated
in subsequent "second-tier" EIRs; (2) a program-level EIR may
contain generalized mitigation criteria rather than project-
specific mitigation measures; and (3) a program-level EIR may
contain generalized policy-level alternatives.
See the response to letter I 21, comment A for more detailed
information on how the adequacy of an EIR is judged.
It is the EIR preparer's opinion that the only way to mitigate
the potential conflict of the Specific Plan with the City's
General Plan is to adopt a project alternative. Please see
the response to 1 1. However, it should be noted that the
Encinitas City Council will make the final determination on
the significance of potential conflicts with the City's
General Plan.
A.6. The EIR preparer has concluded that the project's impacts on
wetlands can only be mitigated to a less than significant
level with an alternative project design; numerous
alternatives are offered in Section 7.
A.?. Site-specific wetlands mitigation for PA 3 and 4 Cannot be
defined until actual development is proposed. Mitigation
might occur by excavating and creating wetlands either on-site
or off-site.
A.S. A new section has been added to the EIR to reflect this
information (see Section 1.7.11).
A.9. The EIR did not identify any significant viewshed impacts to
existing and future planned residences to the north, east and
south. Therefore, no mitigation is required.
AiD. The EIR discusses traffic impacts on primary arterials that
are connectors to the 1-5 corridor, as well as proposed
mitigation for these streets. The City of Encinitas feels
that this level of analysis is adequate for the proposed
project.
B. The Draft EIR addressed wetlands impacts in a comprehensive
manner by tabulating wetlands impacts for the entire SPA and
by developing several alternative project designs to avoid
wetland impacts and wetland policy conflicts (see Sections 3.3
and 7). It should be noted that Section 1 of the EIR
specifies that the EIR is intended to be a Program EIR for the
Specific Plan and a project-specific EIR for the TM.
Therefore, project-specific impacts for future projects within
the Specific Plan' Area will have to be evaluated for project-
specific impacts when projects are proposed for PA 3 and 4.
The State CEOA Guidelines encourage the use of a "Program EIR"
for a series of actions that can be characterized as one large
12-17
K In view of the substantial amount of rainfall since the
initial biological survey, the City should require a supplemental
SP ring survey to determine whether additional plants not surveyed
and catalogued previously are now present. The Draft- EIR
acknowledges that the wetlands enhancement mitigation measures may
result in environmental impact to the creek and its associated
wetlands, but it fails to analyze these potential impacts at any L1evl CEQAGutdel'in 152:26(c)provides:- --'-- -------------. ---- , - -
Mr. Patrick Murphy
March 6, 1992
Page 4
Mitigation and Monitoring Agreement/Bond
J In view of the critical environmental resources at stake and
the need to ensure developer -compliance with necessary mitigation
measures, the City of. Encinitas should use a mitigation and
monitoring agreement, similar to a development agreement,
specifying penalties for failure to meet monitoring obligations.
The City could also requirea bond or similar surety to provide
disincentive for non-compliance with mitigation requirements.
Bonding would also provide the City with a ready source of funding
to correct any environmental damage resulting from non-compliance
with the mitigation requirements without having to resort to
judicial relief.
General Comments
If a mitigation measure would cause one or
more significant effects in addition to those
that would be caused by the project as
proposed, the effects of the mitigation
measure shall be discussed but in less detail.
than the significant effects of the project as
proposed? .
Thank you for your consideration of these matters. We look
forward to your responses. - - -
Very truly yours,
JOHNSON, O'CONNELL Mc ARTliY
/ /L
K. Johnso
KKJ:mvc -
C&HOMEDEpO\,,,5,,,Q.e
project and are related either: (1) geographically; (2) as
logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions; (3) in
connections with issuance of rules,- regulations, plans or
other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing
program; or (4) as individual activities carried out under the
same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having
generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated
in similar ways. Section 15168(c) of the State --CEOA
Guidelines specifically, states that "subsequent activities in
the program must be examined in the light of the program EIR
to determine whether an additional environmental document must
be prepared."
The wetlands in the Specific Plan Area are all part of the
Encinitas Creek drainage basin, which includes an estimated 52
square miles (see Figure.-.3.1-1). Because the four Planning
Areas addressed in the EIR are geographically related, they
are being addressed together in one Specific Plan and one
program EIR. There are different owners for Planning Areas 1,
3 and 4, and development is not currently -proposed for PA 3 or
4. Therefore, there are no specific projects in PA 3 and 4 on
which to assess specific impacts and mitigation; potential
wetland impacts and mitigation can only be discussed at the
Specific Plan level. The EIR indicates that if the Specific
Plan Area is developed according to the proposed Specific
Plan, there could be potentially significant wetlands impacts
in PA 1-and 4. Development as proposed could also result in
a very small impact on Willow Riparian Woodland in the
northwest corner of PA 3. Mitigation and enhancement, are
-proposed--as-. part-of.--the.development.in. P& 1. .-potential direct,
impacts to wetlands could be eliminated if the Specific Plan
was revised to keep all developable areas out of the
delineated wetlands, with a minimum additional 50-foot buffer.
This alternative is discussed in Section 7.1.3 of this EIR.
0. Section 1.3.3.3 has been revised to reflect this information.
E. All of the subsections under Section 1.3.3.3, which address
monitoring and reporting on biological mitigation measures
include a time frame. Additional information on the
recommended monitoring and - reporting for the wetlands
enhancement/mitigation program was included inAppendix J, the
previously approved Army 'Corps of Engineers. Section - 404
Permit, and this information has been added to Section 1.7.3..
Sandbags and/or other types of barriers and desiltation basins
are recommended for placement as shown in Figure 3.2-1 prior
to the start of any grading. Temporary fencing will- be - installed around natural open space areas and sensitive plant
areas that are not to be disturbed during construction. Other
measures- may be 'required by the erosion control plan, which
12-18
0
-
--.,'
.
._ .
must be prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved
by the City of Encinitas prior to grading. The dredging of
the creek bed under and just upstream of the El Casino Real
bridge will be completed during the first phase of..grading,
and the grading may require a permit by the California Coastal
Commission (see letter I 1). Approximately 3,500 cubic yards
of earthen material will be removed from the Disturbed Field
area at the edge of the floodplain for the creation and
enhancement of wetlands and the nuisance (runoff) water
detention pond, which would include additional wetland
vegetation to act as filters prior to the water being released
into the creek. The earthen material removed for the creation
of the wetlands and detention pond would be. used to build up
the parking area so that the runoff water treatment system * (oil/water/sediment separator system) can be installed at the
proposed grade. The remainder of the grading for the El
Casino Real improvements and for the development of PA 1 can
then proceed, to be followed by construction of the Home Depot
building and parking areas.
F. The EIR was revised to reflect this recommendation.
The runoff (nuisance)'water treatment system will be deemed to
be successfully operating if it is separating and holding oils
and sediment while allowing water to pass through into the
detention pond for a period of ten minutes (considered to be
the equivalent of the "first flow" of a two-year storm). The
"first flow" is considered to contain the highest percentage
of runoff pollutants. .
Home Depot Centers sell and store hazardous materials such as
fertilizers, pesticides paints, paint removers, drain
cleaners, and other materials commonly used in households and
construction. As explained in Section 3.2.2, all spills that
occur within the building will be cleaned up and will not
enter the storm drain system. All spills that occur in the
parking area will drain into •the runoff water treatment
system, if they flow that far or reach the system during a
heavy runoff period, such as during a storm.- Many of the
materials contain oil, which will be separated out by the
oil/water/sediment separator system. The proposed detention
pond would include marshy vegetation and is designed to act as
a final .filter forpollutants. This vegetation, which is not
counted in the acreage for the wetlands mitigation and
enhancement program, is expected by the biologist, to be
capable of treating nearly all of the kinds of materials that
might-result from the Home Depot Center.
12-19
The Draft EIR did not include a recommendation, for periodic
water quality monitoring because in the past public agencies
have routinely monitored streams in the San Diego region.
However, it is considered prudent to require project
applicants to provide for periodic monitoring. Therefore, the
recommendation for water quality and creek bed soil sampling
- has-been included in Section 1.3.24 of the EIR.
Since fuel oils and oil-based substances are toxics, the oily substanôes and the sediment removed from the runoff treatment
system. will have to be disposed of appropriately; they cannot
be put in a Class III Landfill. The oil and sediment will be
transported to-a landfill that accepts hazardous waste (none
of which are in San Diego County) or to a hazardous waste
transfer facility The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) which was enacted in 1976 regulates and tracks the
safe production, transportation, storage and-ultimate disposal
of hazardous wastes "from cradle to grave." Theproject
applicant will be responsible for providing the City of
Encinitas with documentation identifying the location for the
- disposal of hazardous substances.. Since the actual disposal
location may vary over time, depending on which landfills are
available, it will be considered adequate if the project
applicant provides the city witha receipt indicating that the
materials have been delivered to a firm that is licensed by the State to transfer and dispose of hazardous materials.
The EIR preparer agrees with this comment. Sections 3.3.3.2
and- 1.3.2.4 -have been-modified-to reflect this information.
I. The EIR preparer agrees with this comment. The City, of - - -- --- - --- - ---- -- -- -• - ----- - - - - ----------------Encinitas-Lstadard_practiceforenvironmental• consulting.is
a three-party agreement between - the project applicant, the
- consultant, and the City. The City selects the consultant,
not the developer, the same as was done.-with the preparation
of this EIR. However, just in case the standard practice in
Encinitas, changes in the future, Sections 1.3.3.1, 1.3.3.2,
-
-. -- - - - 1.3.3.3, 1.3.3.4, 1.3.3.7, 1.3.3.10 and 1.7.3.12 have been
revised to require that the mitigation be monitored by a
qualified biologist hired by the City of Encinitas. It is not
considered necessary for a biologist to monitor the,mitigation
included in Section 1.7.3.5; nearly anyone from the Community
Development Department could confirm that the fence is
constructed as required. • - - - -
J. While this comment appears to be a reasonable and prudent•
idea it does not challenge the adequacy or accuracy of the
EIR Therefore no additional response is required However, - • the City may consider this recommendation and include it as a condition of approval of the Specific Plan
- - - -. - K. The entire Specific-Plan Area has been surveyed once, and a
number of areas within PA 1 and 2 have been surveyed or field
- - - 12-20 - - . . .
• . a 4'
V
checked several times. A feasibility/constraints study was
prepared for a different Specific Plan in November of 1989.
The original biology field#work for that Study wasdone in
V September of that year. Additional field investigations were V
V
•V completed in June and August of 1991 and in April, May, June
and July of 1992. PA 1 and 2 have been field investigated not
only during the prime growing period but also during nearly
V
V V all dry-months of, the year. The 1992 field investigations
V were focused on checking for specific sensitive species.
However, the amount, of area required to be re-checked was
substantial No additional studies are deemed necessary by
V V V V the biologist, and a difference in professional opinions is
allowed under CEQA without invalidating the EIR
V V L The EIR preparer concurs with this comment and additional
V a information on the potential secondary, or indirect, impacts.
- of the dredging for the enhancement and creation of wetlands V
V . has been added to Section 3.3.2.2.
V - V
- Vt a
V .
. • V
- V V
- V V vVtVV V
-. r 12-21 *
a , -
JOHNSON, O'CONNELL & MCCARTHY
A 711.1851117 INCLUDING A O1(SSIOAA( CORPORATION
ATIORN(T$ AT LAW
CABOT, CABOT 6 fOAL)) CURPOKAT) CD,it
9506W)! •C.STITLIT. 511. I ISO
SAN DISCO, CALIFORNIA 98101.3590
KEVIN K. JOHNSON-
R08(61 A. OCONNI(I.
DANIELS. MACWINY
11(101 1. ISOWN'
JANNI S. $17(8
CAAOLIN( C. COULSTON
CIAUDI.s B. fLINT,
OLAICI AO,.IINISTCAIOA
iLL (71101156)91 696.62
I(IiCOPIL9 619) 696.7116
A PROFCSSIONAJ. LAW
CORPORATION
VIA Facsimile
Mr. Patrick Murphy
Community Development Director
City of Encinitas
Encinitas City Hall
527 Encinitas Blvd.
Encinitas, CA 92024
March 6, 1992 7 'T'
MAR 91992
Y:
Re: Comments By Scott's Valley Homeowner's Association
re: Home Depot's Specific Plan and Tentative Map EIR
Dear Mr. Murphy:
Please accept the following comments on behalf of the Scott's
Valley Homeowner's Association with respect to the Home Depot
Specific Plan EIR.
A The Scott's Valley Homeowner's Association has already
submitted extensive comments regarding the Olivenhain Road
Widening/Realignment EIR and the lack of information regarding the
impact of that project upon that portion of Encinitas Creek which
flows through the Scott's Valley Associat ion. Those letters are
attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
Interrelationshis of the Home Depot and Olivenhain Road EIRs
B H The Association has recently been told by representatives of
ome Depot that the two EXRs are not interrelated. If this is the,
position being taken by the applicant, it is contrary to the.
specific language in the Home Depot EIR. Notably, the Home Depot
EIR. says that the parking lot of Home Depot will be vulnerable to
flooding unless the reservoir is built. It contemplates that both
the reservoir and the creek dredging projeàt will occur, however,
nèither'.EIR addresses the joint effects of the two projects.
We would request a detailed explanation as to the
interrelationship.'of the two projects and what requirements there
will be regarding completion dates and the expected consequences of
one project being completed before the other.
c Watercourse
With respect to the dredging effort that is contemplated
along the creek (near and under El Casino Real bridge), what will
12
12. Kevin Johnson of Johnson O'Connell & McCarthy for Scott's
Valley Homeowner's Association
The Final Environmental Impact Report for Olivenhain Road
Widening/Realignment and Flood Control Project (SCH I
91011035) indicates that no letters were received during, or
immediately after,, the public review period for that EIR. The
public review period was from November 29, 1991 to December
12, 1991. The attached letters are dated in February 1992.
The Olivenhain Road Widening and Home Depot projects are
proposed by two different applicants, Fieldstone/La 'Costa
Associates and the Home Depot'Corporation, respectively. The
two projects are proceeding through the planning and
environmental process concurrently but separately. The two
projects are indirectly related because each applicant is
dependent upon the other in order to proceed with the proposed
'projects. The owners of all properties in the Home -Depot
Specific Plan Area will have to contribute, on a fair-share
basis, to the financing of the Olivenhain Road improvements;
the Home Depot Corporation is only one of many owners that
will be required to participate in the funding of the
Improvements. The EIR 'for the Olivenhain Road widening
project addressed several alternative alignments. The
selected alignment for the future Olivenhain Road (Alignment
No. 2) will traverse a small portion of the northernmost
portions of PA 1 and 4. This will affect the developable area
of PA 4 and the wetlands in the northwest corner of PA 1. The
Olivenhain Road Widening Project has alieady been approved.
The development of the final engineering design add, wetlands
mitigation program for the project is expected to require
approximately 1 to 1 1/2 years, at which time the project
applicant is expected to submit an application for an Army'
Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit. The encroachment into
the wetlands in PA 1 will have to be mitigated. Construction
on the road is not -anticipated for 3 to 4 years.
The timefrarne for the Home Depot.project is not known at this
time. The project has received a new Corps Section 404 permit
and requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement with the
California Department of Fish and Game. If. the project Is
approved by the City of, Enàinitas, it will then require
approval by the California Coastal Commission and by the
County of San Diego due to the proposed -improvements along and
under El Cimino Real.
If the Olivenhairi Road improvements are not completed by the
time the Home Depot Center, i& apovd'for 'occupancy, . there
could be. temporary cumulative '(and therefore significant)
traffic impacts until the road improvements, are Completed.
The Home Depot. building should not be. certified for-occupancy
until the widening Of Olivenhain Road, along the property
12-22 . . .
F_
L
Mr. Patrick Murphy
March 6, 1992
Page 2
be the specific requirem
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
t
o
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
a
of the watercourse?
Floodino Induced Back-up
D The Association is co
n
c
e
r
n
e
d
a
b
o
u
t
w
a
t
e
r
l
e
v
e
l
s
,
w
a
t
e
r
quality, water velocity
a
n
d
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
i
n
t
e
r
r
u
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
f
l
o
w
through the creek. A p
r
i
m
a
r
y
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
i
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
i
n
g
b
u
i
l
d
-
u
p
o
f
sedimentation in the cree
k
a
r
e
a
s
i
n
s
u
c
h
a
f
a
s
h
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
w
a
t
e
r
i
s
able to back-up and, pe
r
h
a
p
s
,
e
v
e
n
c
r
e
a
t
e
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
a
s
f
a
r
back as the Association'
s
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
Given the nature of th
e
contaminated run-off
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
H
o
m
e
D
e
p
o
t
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
,
including pesticides, fer
t
i
l
i
z
e
r
s
,
s
o
l
v
e
n
t
s
,
s
o
a
p
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
t
o
x
i
c
materials, the Associat
i
o
n
i
s
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
e
d
a
b
o
u
t
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
its common areas.
Permanent Maintenance Obligations E Since the Scott's Vall
e
y
H
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
'
s
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
h
a
s
a
continuous obligation t
o
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
t
h
e
w
a
t
e
r
c
o
u
r
s
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
i
t
s
properties, the applicant
s
h
o
u
l
d
h
a
v
e
a
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
i
n
g
a
n
d
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
obligation to keep the
w
a
t
e
r
c
o
u
r
s
e
c
l
e
a
r
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
i
t
s
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
,
under El Casino Real and
b
e
y
o
n
d
f
o
r
a
r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
.
Planning for the Entire A
r
e
a
F From the standpoint of
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
t
h
e
w
a
t
e
r
course, it appears that t
h
e
E
I
R
h
a
s
f
a
i
l
e
d
t
o
c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
l
y
p
l
a
n
the entire Specific Pl
a
n
A
r
e
a
,
n
o
t
j
u
s
t
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
s
1
a
n
d
2
.
The protection, maintena
n
c
e
a
n
d
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
w
a
t
e
r
c
o
u
r
s
e
a
s
it is effected by the deve
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
a
l
l
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
A
r
e
a
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
be a matter of specific
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
i
n
t
h
e
d
r
a
f
t
E
I
R
.
F
u
r
t
h
e
r
m
o
r
e
,
can the City proceed wi
t
h
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
f
i
r
s
t
h
a
v
i
n
g
a
G comprehensive plan for
a
l
l
w
a
t
e
r
c
o
u
r
s
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
a
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
b
y
the General Plan?
Adjacent Projects and Cu
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
H The impact of reasonably
f
o
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
u
c
h
a
s
t
h
e
Arroyo La Costa project a
c
r
o
s
s
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
f
r
o
m
the standpoint of cumul
a
t
i
v
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
u
p
o
n
t
h
e
w
a
t
e
r
c
o
u
r
s
e
.
Finally, the Associatio
n
w
o
u
l
d
l
i
k
e
t
o
k
n
o
w
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
t
h
e
massive building pad t
o
b
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
i
n
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
1
,
i
n
combination with borrow
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
r
o
m
o
t
h
e
r
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
s
,
w
i
l
l
create additional and c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
a
n
d
s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
problems.
V
frontage and the impro
v
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
E
l
C
a
s
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
intersection are complet
e
d
,
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
t
h
e
E
l
C
a
s
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
improvements.
The proposed Home Depot Ce
n
t
e
r
c
a
n
b
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
completion of the upst
r
e
a
m
d
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
b
a
s
i
n
.
T
h
e
d
r
e
d
g
i
n
g
under, and in the vicinit
y
o
f
,
t
h
e
E
l
C
a
s
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
b
r
i
d
g
e
t
h
a
t
is proposed as part o
f
t
h
e
T
h
i
s
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
potential flooding impac
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
H
o
m
e
D
e
p
o
t
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
a
100-year flood. The City of Encinitas ha
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
t
h
a
t
the flooding of a parki
n
g
l
o
t
i
s
n
o
t
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
a
parking lot is a suitable
u
s
e
i
n
a
f
l
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n
,
a
s
e
x
p
l
a
i
n
e
d
i
n
the first paragraph of S
e
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
1
.
2
o
f
t
h
e
E
I
R
.
The project applicant
h
a
s
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
t
o
h
a
v
e
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
Encinitas maintain the stre
a
m
b
e
d
a
f
t
e
r
t
h
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
d
r
e
d
g
i
n
g
t
o
reduce the creek bed l
e
v
e
l
t
o
t
h
e
l
e
v
e
l
a
t
w
h
i
c
h
i
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
have been maintained (by
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
)
.
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
1
.
3
o
f
t
h
e
Elk has been revised to
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
t
h
e
o
w
n
e
r
s
o
f
e
a
c
h
P
A
t
o
maintain the water cours
e
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
i
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
f
r
o
n
t
a
g
e
.
T
h
e
City will be responsible f
o
r
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
b
e
n
e
a
t
h
t
h
e
El Casino Real bridge.
As explained in the EI
R
a
n
d
i
n
t
h
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
o
l
e
t
t
e
r
1 11,
comment C, on a previous
p
a
g
e
,
n
o
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
m
o
u
n
t
s
o
f
t
o
x
i
c
materials are expected to
b
e
e
n
t
e
r
i
n
g
E
n
c
i
n
i
t
a
s
C
r
e
e
k
a
s
a
result of the proposed
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
o
f
the dredging beneath and j
u
s
t
u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m
o
f
t
h
e
E
l
C
a
s
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
bridge is to reduce th
e
b
a
c
k
-
u
p
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
t
o
u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m
properties. Therefore, fl
o
o
d
i
n
g
i
s
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
b
e
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
even if Detention Basin
D
i
s
n
e
v
e
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
.
See response to comment
C
a
b
o
v
e
.
It is not the purpose or
d
u
t
y
o
f
E
I
R
s
t
o
p
l
a
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
T
h
e
purpose of the Elk is t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
and for decision-makers.
T
h
e
r
e
a
s
o
n
i
n
g
b
e
h
i
n
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
l
e
s
s
detail for PA 3 and 4 i
s
e
x
p
l
a
i
n
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
o
l
e
t
t
e
r
1 11, comment 5. The Specific Plan includes
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
d
e
s
i
g
n
standards for all projects
i
n
t
h
e
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
A
r
e
a
.
This section of the lett
e
r
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
a
c
c
u
r
a
c
y
o
r
adequacy of the EIR and d
o
e
s
n
o
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
a
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
.
Section 3.2.2 of the
E
I
R
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
t
o
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
cumulative water quali
t
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
.
S
e
e
t
h
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
o
l
e
t
t
e
r
I 11, comment E.
12-23
Mr. Patrick Murphy
March 6, 1992
Page3
We thank you for your consideration of these matters. We look
forward to your responses.
- Very truly yours,
JOILNSOk4, O'CONNELL & MCCARThY
Kevin K. Johnson
G(J:mvc -.-
cc: Board of Director's; Scott's Valley
Homeowner's Association - -
-Enclosures '- -
1 - -
€;J 13
n. J.Lynn Feidner ç'
I This letter does not comment on the ac
c
u
r
a
c
y
o
r
a
d
e
q
u
a
c
y
o
f
t
h
e
E
I
R
and does not require a response. The 22
4
l
e
t
t
e
r
s
a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d
t
o
t
h
i
s
letter are included in. this chapter
.
2L (2Lç
March 6, 1992
Hr. Patrick Murphy
Community Development Director
City of Encinitas
Encinitas City Hall
527 Encinitas Boulevard
Encinitas, California 92024
Re: Comments On Rome Depot specific
P
l
a
n
and Tentative Map Draft Environmen
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
Report (Case No. 91-044)
Dear Mr. Murphy:
Enclosed please fi 224 etters regarding comments on
t
h
e
R
o
m
e
Depot Specific Plan Tentative Hap Draft Environmental Impa
c
t
Report (Case No. 91-044. These let
t
e
r
s
a
r
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
o
n
b
e
h
a
l
f
of the citizens' group Neighborho
o
d
s
U
n
i
t
e
d
f
o
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
L
i
f
e
.
Some members of this citizens'
g
r
o
u
p
h
a
v
e
S
e
n
t
i
n
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
independent of the 224 letters which a
r
e
b
e
i
n
g
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
a
t
t
h
i
s
time.
Very truly yo1rs..
, C 2L4
("
nn eldn
Orchard Wood Road
Encinitas, California 92024
tJot 1 f
12-24 JorttJoc3, O 'Ce,jj cc
'.-•... .:. •..
q § j 7 ' 17 January 1992
Fc
Mr. Lester 8agg, Chair .. ,.N2 I'
Planning Commission
City of Encinitas Encinitas, CA 92024 CITY OFENCINI1'AS , 14
Dear Commissioner Bagg:
This letter concerns the Environmental Impact Report on the
proposed HOME DEPOT site. It is my understanding that in the'EIR
your consultant states that there are no resident California
Gnatcatchers'(Polioptila,californica) at..the proposed Site. My
investigations show otherwise. I found pairs of California Gnat-
catchers in the coastal sage scrub there on 22 November and 2
December 1991 and on 10 January 1992., On all of these occasions
I heard the distinctive, kitten-like mew,' call of the birds and
also saw the birds, and their field marks.- lam-highly familiar
with the species, having first identified and studied ynatcatchers
while'working on the Boy Scout, Bird Study merit badge in 1942.
I have birded for 50 years; I'm a member of Buena Vista Audubon
Society and the-San Diego Field Ornithologists, and co-compiler
of the Oceanside-Vista-Carlsbad Audubon Christmas Bird Count.
The habits of the California Gnatcatcher are well known,
- with publications and descriptions dating -back to Charles Emil
Bendire, Curator.at the United States National MuSeum, in 1888. - In .the Smithsonian's twenty-four volume reference on North •. -
American Birds, by Arthur Cleveland Bent,-in Bulletin 196 we
find., "A peculiarity of these birds is theirreluctance to leave
their accustomed surroundings," and, ", . , when they reach-the
boundaries of their arid brushy habitat
I
they seldom go farther
The Blue-gray Gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea) wanders in the
winter but j the California Gnatcatcher.
Perhaps one reason your consultant was notable to find the
birds consistently is the acoustic masking by traffic noise from
El Casino Real. Most often thé.faint 'call of the bird is heard,
before-the bird is seen.' My. strategy is to slowly hunt through
suitable habitat, stopping, often to listen. With my still
adequate hearing,' I'in,usuàlly less than 30-feet from the gnat-
'catchers before I hear them. I birded the, site six times in the
past three months, but found them-on only half of the visits,
spending an average of two hours there eachtime.
I conclude that unequivocally California Gnatcatchers are - -
- resident in the coastal sage scrub at, the proposed HOME. DEPOT site.
2nce el
man F. Ha 1, J ., Ph.D. -.
202 Ocean Street •- - •
Solana Beach CA 92075
' cc: Mr., Bill Weedman • "• •
City of Encinitas Planning Dept . S
14. Dr. Freeman F. Hall, Jr.
The opening comment indicates that the author of the letter has not
actually read the EIR. However, the information- contained in this,
letter is useful and is appreciated'for, its''addition to the data
available. Continuing biological studies have, verified not only
that California Gnatcatchers are in the Specific Plan. Area, but
that' they have, in fact renested The biology report and Section
3.3.2 have been revised to reflect the new information.
S S
15
To: Bill Weedman, Planner, City of Encinitas
Lester Bagg. Chair, Planning Commission, City of Encinitas 2-16-92
From: Mary Renaker
Re: Home Depot Draft EIR ' ipii1iI11JC- '5,c'iJ 1,tdd— 0/4
1ebe7'T i-AS-C
A The Encinitas Planning Dept. has not acquired a competent biologist as requested by
my letter of August 19, 1991. In it. I reported hearing the calls of California
Gnatcatchers on the Home Depot site. Pacific Southwest Biological Services denied
the birds were there, saying that our resident, sedentary bird was "just passing
through in August. September, October, November, and December ...finally admitting
they were onsite and finding sustenance at the January 21, 1992 Planning
Commission meeting. Impacts from proposed developments in this bird's habitat
amount to 10,000 acres and the loss of 550 birds, or one-third of their estimated total
population. Every sub-population matters for the meta-population. At this point, before
known reserves exist, core habitat areas and corridors, cannot be thrown away. A
competent biological firm is still required.
In the decade between 1976 and 1986, knowledge about Scrub and Chaparral
communities grew tremendously. Per my letter of August 19, 1991. I requested a
competent botanist- one who understands more than the taxonomy of single species.
This site is so rare, it requires a botanist who understands plant communities and
especially rare chaparral plant communities. It is not only the plants which identify
these communities, it is soil type (porous sandstone) and location (coastal fog belt).
The Home Depot site qualifies as the rarest of the rare on all three points.
B Following are my comments on the presentations by Patrick Mock, David Mayer and
Craig Reeser at the Planning Commission hearing, Jan. 21, 1992:
Patrick Mock had some very different things to say about California Gnatcatchers when
he spoke to the Endangered Habitats League Annual Meeting on Feb. 8, 1992,
following the Jan. 21st Planning Commission meeting on the Home Depot in
Encinitas.
15. Mary Renaker
A. CEQA recognizes that there may be a difference of opinion
among professionals. The purpose of an EIR is to provide
information, and the EIR is not considered final until it is
certified by the decision-making body. The biological consulting firm which has conducted the authorized studies on
the site has been preparing biological studies throughout the
western states for 14 years, and is on the County of San
Diego's Department of Planning and Land Use (DPLU) qualified
consultants list, a list commonly used by other agencies and
private firms because it indicates that the biologist has both
the appropriate education and experience, Pacific Southwest
Biological Services' reports have been accepted by many public
agencies at the local, state and federal levels. The EIR
preparer has worked with the firm for the past 10 years and
considers the firm to be competent and honest. None of the
local citizens that submitted comments on the biology report
are on the County DPLU list.
After reports of California Gnatcatchers were received in the
summer of 1991, P555 conducted additional surveys for the
Gnatcatchers and for Encinitas Baccharis, which had also been
reported on the site. As stated in the biology report in the
EIR (Appendix B), the scrub habitats of the site were surveyed
using adopted systematic survey techniques and taped
vocalizations to elicit response calls. Two Gnatcatchers were
identified on the site during one of the 10 field survey
dates, but the following survey did not reveal any
Gnatcatchers. PSBS concluded that the two birds represented
young dispersing individuals. Continuing surveys by PSBS
revealed the on-site presence of one pair of nesting
Gnatcatchers. However, the Draft EIR had already been
prepared for public review. PSBS readily revised its opinion
when it had enough data to confirm on-site nesting. The information on the color of the bands on the birds that was
presented at the January 21, 1992 Planning Commission hearing
was helpful in establishing the origin of the birds. The
Gnatcatcher surveys were continued, and the results are
included in Appendix B of this EIR.
The remainder of the comments do not comment on the adequacy
or accuracy of the EIR and do not require a response.
12-26
-'
He requested that Jim Karnik not film him, saying he may have a c3rrt11c1 of interest S
,and was 'afraid tOr his job'. I took careful notes and from his talk and slide show we
learned
His work has:been funded by developers since 1988 and he has a fifteen year contract
to assess impacts on the population of California gnatcatchers. He showed us slides 0
of his study sites including the Sweetwater area and. the San Elijo Ranch in San 0
Marcos. which are now gone.
He has personally banded 350 birds, and has recently witnessed successful double
and even triple clutching.. (Note from Mary Renaker: Bontrager's study for the Santa
Margarita Co. in Orange County describes a pair making 7 unsuccessful nesting
attempts in one season No one can say these birds aren't trying')
In San Diego County, according to Dr. Mock, these birds" candisperse at least 5 miles
and up to Smiles along vegetated corridors. He is currently studying how much
sh'ubland is needed on the corridors
Ho noted that the gnatcatchers vegetation preference is flat-top buckwheat and
California sagebrush (both in abundant supply at the Home Depot site) They prefer
elevations below 1000 feet. (Home Depot site is 233 feet). Slopes can be 40%, but
they-need less than 40% for nesting. They have no slope preference in September. .0
but prefer 20% 40% for nesting Nest shrubs are relatively small and the density is
spread out. They use tall perches like Laurel Sumac (MaIosra lauiina) to vocalize. 5
0
He told us that gnatcatchers can utilize smaller areas along the coast because the
insect population is more stable The coastal climate mediates the weather, so where
there is more biomass there are more insects He also said that where the birds are
constrained by space due to development they are more tolerant of each other.
He admits that gnatcatchers will use utility easements riparian corridors or any other
corridor with sufficient cover when they are young and need to disperse to establish
their own territory. . S S
Dr. Mock showed us slides of numerous degraded sites - much more degraded than
the Home Depot site - including a bermed area next to the 1-5 freeway wflere two pair
survive, in the San Elijo Lagoon Preserve. Another example was the back bay of
Agua Hedionda where agricultural land use and ORV use have tell the area heavily
disturbed" and yet he said there are 34 remnant populations. He said 14-18 pair
were lost at Aviara, but there are 3-4 pair left there.
He admits there are tour gnatcalcher territories near his home in La Costa, in highly
urbanized areas under powerline corridors. He is awareof these remnant populations
because he walks the area.
Please note that Pat Mock describes the gnatcatcher's at the Home Depot site on
January 21, as:
"Worst case scenario, they are a breeding pair."
He recommends "verifying that it is a breeding pair.' It so, then he proposes
"acquisition of habitat within the best area designated for future preservation,
specifically for sage scrub and the California gnalcatcher." This area does not exist
and he knows it. If and when it does, it may be acres of developer-designated habitat,
that may not support gnatcatchers. There is NO process to acquire these preserves in
place, no funding is in place, no interim monitoring is in place. We are supposed to
take all these imaginary gnatcatcher preserves on faith, so that business can go on as
usual until the bird is gone. This bird by its disappearance is telling us that something
is very wrong and that business as usual should not go on.
David Mayer of Pacific Southwest Biological Services describes the area as "disturbed
with a history of disturbance". Is this tricky wording? What history? Disturbed
compared to what? His excuses for not finding the gnatcatcher are a fire, and an
illegal alien encampment.
He also slates that gnatcalcher "mitigation would best be served by acquiring land off-
site".
I heard gnatcatchers in the floodplain area near the Coyote Bush on Feb. 15, 1992.
This area is described by PSBS as disturbed field yet it has large California
sagebrush and flat-top buckwhat throughout.
Craig Reeser of PacificSoulhwest Biological Services refuses to accept the Southern
Manhime Chaparral designation for the plant community on the site. He insists on
picking the plants apart species by species telling us where else in the county some
Individual may exist at this time but he does not tell us whether these areas are slated
for development. He admits that the wan-stemmed ceanothus(aka: coast white lilac,
or Ceanothus verrucosus) is regionally rare but it does still exist inland According to
Tom Oberbauer of the California Native Plant Sociely in 1985 coastal sage scrub was
88/ lost in San Diego County. The sub categories of coastal sage scrub like southern
maritime or succulent scrub or southern dune scrub are rarer still Craig describes
spice bush (Cneondium dumosum) as common None of these plants are common
and even less so when found in these distinct communities Finally, he slates that the
Encinitas Bacchans is locally extinct. This is not true It exists at Oak Crest Park on
Ecke property and within 1/4 mile of the Home Depot site according to Gil Voss
Everychaparral -obligate bird species in San Diego County canyons, exists on this
site. California Quail. California Roadrunner, California Thrasher. California Towhee,
House Wren Bewicks Wren Wrentils ad Gnalcatchers all attest to the biological
richness of this site. Coyote and Gray Fox keep feral cats at bay which helps the birds.
This is to say nothing of the scrub oak woodland at the site,which grows only in
Southern California and Northern Baja where according to_Oaks Of California 1991
It is restricted to rapidly disappearing habitats on bluffs headlands and hillsides
within sight of the ocean. Such habitats are scheduled for development throughout
the region, as slopes are leveled for housing and industry. Coastal Scrub Oak may
now be among the rarest of shrub oaks
Oaks provide food and sheller from the tips of their leaves to their roots for myriad
species The overslory trees and undersfory shrubs help conceal den sites reduce
exposure to harsh weather, provide cover for escaping predators, provide coolness in
summer heat. Small mammals use the network of limbs and trunks for travel and
o..
escape routes. Oak branches, trunks and roots furnish f
o
o
d
t
o
p
o
c
k
e
t
g
o
p
h
e
r
s
,
h
o
s
t
s
of burrowing insects, scale and sap feed birds, pollen fro
m
t
h
e
f
l
o
w
e
r
s
f
e
e
d
s
b
e
e
s
a
n
d
other pollen-gathering insects, while larvae of three spec
i
e
s
o
f
m
o
t
h
s
a
n
d
t
w
o
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
of birds feed on whole catkins. Many other kinds of plan
t
s
,
s
n
a
k
e
s
,
f
u
n
g
i
,
m
i
l
l
i
p
e
d
e
s
,
salamanders, toads, and insects, are also associated wi
t
h
o
a
k
s
.
Michael Soule wrote in 1988: The most effective toot for
t
h
e
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
o
f
e
x
t
i
n
c
t
i
o
n
of chapparat-requiring species in an urban landscape is t
h
e
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
o
f
fragmentation in the first place by proper planning of urban
a
n
d
s
u
b
u
r
b
a
n
development. Corridors of natural habitat, even quite narrow
o
n
e
s
,
a
r
e
p
r
o
b
a
b
l
y
v
e
r
y
effective in permitting dispersal between patches, thereby pre
v
e
n
t
i
n
g
o
r
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
i
n
g
faunal collapse. We just don't know if these urban patches will be worthles
s
i
n
2
0
0
years, to gnatcatchers or any other chapparal obligate speci
e
s
.
T
h
e
y
m
a
y
b
e
w
o
r
t
h
l
e
s
s
for mountain lions, but still be very useful for lizards, quail,
s
m
a
l
l
m
a
m
m
a
l
s
,
p
l
a
n
t
s
a
n
d
thousands of types of invertebrates.
How do we evaluate how the gnatcatchers can adapt to, o
r
c
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
e
f
o
r
,
s
u
b
-
optimal environmental conditions so that they can function a
n
d
m
e
e
t
t
h
e
i
r
n
e
e
d
s
,
when we wipe out 3/41hs of their habitat in a matter of mont
h
s
?
S
o
m
e
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
s
t
s
n
o
w
believe that coastal sage Scrub is the fastest disappearing eco-
s
y
s
t
e
m
i
n
t
h
e
U
.
S
.
How do we factor in drastic global climate change in 50-
7
5
y
e
a
r
s
?
T
h
e
s
e
r
i
c
h
p
a
t
c
h
e
s
of functioning biosphere may be the only places left for s
p
e
c
i
e
s
a
n
d
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
t
o
colonize when they have to move due to climate change.
•The Heritage Division of State Fish and Game has initiated a pr
o
c
e
s
s
o
f
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
i
n
g
,
classifying, and documenting our plant communities with the ob
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
o
f
l
e
g
a
l
l
y
protecting those communities that are rare or endangered. Paci
f
i
c
S
o
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
Biological Services knows that Southern Maritime Chaparr
a
l
a
n
d
t
h
e
D
e
l
M
a
r
Manzanita qualify as the rarest of the rare. Could that be why th
e
y
i
n
s
i
s
t
t
h
a
t
i
t
i
s
M
i
x
e
d
Chaparral?
Home Depot does not qualify as an overriding human n
e
e
d
.
W
e
n
e
e
d
t
o
r
e
m
e
m
b
e
r
that this vulnerable little bird, the California gnalcatcher, is our
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
b
i
r
d
.
I
t
i
s
n
o
t
S
.5
the Least Bells Vireo which flies in and sings its heartoul for a short time, then leaves.
Our little resident was here before we were and there are no plans to save it or to
purchase the large preserves that these biologists refer to.
S
Dr. Dan Silver - Endangered Habitats. League coordinator - S.
- We shoufdfolIow sound conservation principles which means we don't throw
anything away while we're tinkering
Linda Michael - Sierra Club Land Use Chair-
We should treat these birds as if they are already listed and preserve any habitats
where they, already exist
Gil Voss- Environmental Consultant-
The best gnatcatcher habitat is the habitat with gnatcatchers in it. S
. . .
Q/OSS
• 16. Gilbert A. Voss of G. A. Voss Horticultural Consultants
HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANTS
The comments are noted Please see the response to Letter 11 - •' . response K for information on the months during which biological 1751 S. HANNALEI DRIVE • VISTA. CA 92083 • PHONE OR FAX (619) 940-9417 field investigations were completed.
4 February 1992.-
City of Encinitas .. lc—••__ Community Development Department
FEB 610 527 Encinitas Blvd; •. -, Encinitas, CA 92024
To Whom it May Concern,
On the 13 of November 1991, I visited the Dobe Point site, at the
request of the ,Cottonwood CreekConservancy and Neighborhoods 1 United for Quality of Life, to review the land proposed forthe building of a Home Depot store and a new housing development
I spent an hour inventorying this site, which is mixed chaparral
with a permanent riparian habitat, occurring at the intersection of
El Camino Real,andRancho Santa Fe Road. Most of the hilly portion
is a combination of the Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub intergrading with Southern Mixed Chaparral and Southern Maritime Chaparral. All. - species representative of the Southern Maritime Chaparral -are present within 1/4' mile of the site. Habitat evaluations were p . e based on Holland Robert 'R. 1986 California State Department of
Fish and Game'' - ....
. . - .
p. • • '1
I found several environmentally sensitive plant species growing
here-- the most significant being the Del Mar Manzanita. I estimate ther&,to be150-200 plants of this species growing on the t site.- This species has colonized within the various chaparral habitats occurring here.
The threatened Coastal Maritime Chaparralfound here (even though
it has been superficially disturbed and represents only-a small
part of various.chaparral types found on the site), -is none the less important for the following reasons. - - '. • . . . - .q - . . . • .
16 ..Because -this habitat blends into7the more dominant
-,
- mixed chaparral types on the site it allows for animals uiñg it to naturally progress -throughit as,they forage
for food and suitable reeding sites.
There is a great heed to connect,the, various small
native stands of vegetation that'have been preserved in
coastal areas to allow native animals '(and, plants) to move from one toanother to continue the propagation of
their, various species.- Thus allowing fór°nà€ural"
- - conservation of an ecosystem'-
12-27 - -.'--- - -
Specializing in Botanical and Horticultural Consulting (or Natural Habitats. Entironminlal Impact Surveys. Low Water . - •
. -
*
Use Conversions. Trouble Shooing Residential and Corrimercial Landscapes. Historical and Period Landscapes.
Economic Botanist. Fellow. Royal Horticultural Society. .
/
..
One or more endan -ed species ofplan.ts, including the Encinitas Baccharis occur within one mile of the
-
site, and in historical times even cldser. Protection of
'S
the Dobé Point site' froth'continued.disturbance would allow some of these species to redolonjze. It is p9,ssible,that some of these species occur, o
n
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
now. Another plant 'inventory, conducted later this
' spring, would pinpoint seasonally. dormant. species
.
S Our native vegetation represents a living, ecosystem
with many layers of.li,fe forths' dependent 'on each' other. . . .
The various plant species growing 'bnthé site
h
o
s
t
a m'riadof tiny, to microscopic organisms that are i
n
t
u
r
n
prey. for larger animals such as spiders and insects. - '• These arthropods are primary food sources for bo
t
h
t
h
e
.
resident and migratory birds and other small verteb
r
a
t
e
s
.
Sincerely,
Gilbert A. Voss
.5 .
Botanist
1 enclosure: 'Dobe Point Plant List
cc: Mary Renaker, Cottonwood Creek Conaerancy
,. -,Lynn Feldner,'Neighborhoods United for. Qualit
y
o
f
.
L
i
f
e
.
a . " . .
•
GNFOSS HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANTS
DOBE POINT PLANT LIST
13 IX 91
Scientific Name Common Name
AdenostOma rasciculatum Chamise
Ambrosia psilostachya var.
californica Western Ragweed
Anthirrhinuza nuttallianum Nuttalls Snapdragon
Arctostaphylos glandulosa asp.
crassifolia Del Mar Manzanita
Artemisia californica Coast Sagebrush
Arundo donax Giant Reed
Baccharis glutinosa Seep Willow
B. pilularis asp.
consanguinea Coyote Bush
Ceanothus verx-ucosus Coast White Lilac
Cneoridium dumosum Coast Spicebush
Croton californica Croton
Distichils spicata asp.
spicata - Coastal Saltgrass
Dudleya edulis Chalk Lettuce
Eriogonum fasciculatum Flat top Buckwheat
Galium angustifolium ssp.
angustifolium Narrow Leaf Bedstaw
Haplopappus squarrosus ssp.
grindelioides Sawtooth Goldenbush
H. venetus asp. vernonioides Coast Goldenbush,
Helianthemum scoparium var.
aldersoni Rush Rose
Iieterome1es arbutifolia Toyon
1751 S. HANNALEI DRIVE VISTA, CA 92083 • PHONE OR fAX (619) 940-9417
Lonicera subspiata var. .
denudata San Diego Honeysuckle
Lotus, scopari-us -. Deerweed
Malosma laurina Laurel Sumac
Kalecothamnus faciculatus Mesa Bushmallow
Karab macrocarpus Manroot
Mimu1us puniceus . Coast Monkey Flower
Nicotiana glauca. Tree Tobacco.
Opuntia engelmannii Prickly Pear
0. littoralis Prickly Pear S
Pinus torreyana . Torrev Pine,
Quercusagrifo1ia Coast Li'è Oak -
Q. durnosa Scrub Oak . S.
Rhaznnuscalifornicus California Coffeeberry S
P. crocea -. Spiny leaf Redberry
Rhus integrifolia Lemonade Beri-y
Ribes.indecorum Winter Currant -- . P. .speciosa -- . Fuchsia -fld goosberry. .
Salix-sp. Willow
Saivia apiana - White Sage - - - - -. .• .. • • . ••. .
-
S. melli!era Black Sage
Sambucus mexicana Desert Elderberry
Scrophularia californica ssp. - S
florlbunda California Bee Plant
Solanurn parishii Parish's Nightshade
Stipa coronata Giant ,Sipa
Toxjcodendron dzversilobum Poison Oak • -' I • •. - - Xylococcus bicolor Mission Manzlnita
Yucca sciudsgera Spanish Bayonet
. . .
(Iuunt of $au iieo
GRANVLLLL M. BOWMAN
IR IS
ILOC.AYION CODS 5101
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
1559 OULALANO AVE. SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA 92123.1295
February 141 1992
FEB I 8I
TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS
COUNTY SURVEYOR -
FLOOD CONTROL
LIQUID 1 7 SOLID WASTE
.. . 17. Sharon Jasek Reid of County of San Diego Department of Public
Works
l.a. The requested statement has been incorporated into the EIR.
The City of Encinitas has accepted the use of "passerby trips
for the traffic analysis for this project.
1.b. A supplemental traffic study was prepared by Willdan
Associates (Appendix K). The buildout traffic analysis has
been incorporated into the EIR (Section 3.5.2).
l.c. This information has been incorporated into Section 3.5.1.
1.d. The author of this comment has confused the trips generated by
the TM (Planning Areas 1 and 2) with the trips generated by
the entire Specific Plan Area (Planning Areas 1, 2, 3 and 4)
Please see Table 3.5-3 in the text of the EIR.
l.e. The calculations are included in Appendix K, the supplemental
traffic analysis provided by Wilidan Associates. In addition,
the City of Carlsbad ICU analysis for this intersection is
included in the Final Environqiental Impact Report for
Olivenhain Road Widening/Realignment and Flood Control
Project, which has been incorporated by reference into this
EIR.
l.f. The project applicant is dedicating the land for the expansion
of El Casino Real to the City of Encinitas.
l.g. This letter does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of
the EIR and does not require a response.
l.h. Section 2.3.2.2 of the EIR states that the signalized main
entrance to the Home Depot Center will be aligned with Woodley
Road. -
1.i. This project is not responsible for the alignment of
Olivenhain Road. Alternative Alignment I 2 was selected as
the project. The widening and alignment of Olivenhain Road was
addressed in Final Environmental Impact Report for Olivenhain
Road Widening/Realignment and Flood Control Project prepared
by Brian F. Mooney Associates (January 1992). The County
Department of Public Works responded to that EIR, which has
now been certified by the City of Encinitas.
i.j. See response to l.i. above.
l.k. This comment does not specify any particular area. The only
nearby unincorporated land is the Ecke land to the west, and
there are no through roads on the Ecke property connecting El
Casino Real and 1-5 that could be used by project traffic. No
traffic impacts on the Ecke property are anticipated. The EIR
12-28
Mr Craig Olson, Senior Planner
City of Encinitas
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd., Suite 100
Encinitas, CA 92024
Dear Mr. Olson:
Subject: Draft EIR Home Depot Specific Plan and Tentative Nap,
City of Encinitas, dated December 20, 1991, El Casino
Real (SF1411), Olivenhain Road (SA 680)
We have reviewed the subject document and have the following
comments:
Traffic/Circulation
1. Please incorporate the following in the document:
The County of San Diego does not accept a
reduction in the traffic generated due to
"passerby trips. Please revise the traffic study
and text throughout to reflect this.
Include tables and map exhibits displaying
buildcut traffic and percent traffic splits.
Buildout year is approximately 2010.
C. Incorporate the County Standards for level of
service.
Provide information in the main body of the text
that is consistent with the traffic study. For
example, the text shows 9972 trips while the
traffic study shows 8132 trips.
Provide ICU calculations for El Casino Real and
Olivenhain Road. Provide the appropriate number of
left-turn lanes for left-turn movements from El
Casino Real to Olivenhain Road. Also, provide ICU
calculations for the main entrance intersection.
Pr.SI,Jon R,,Ied P.IrTT
City of Encinitas ' 2 - February 14, 1992
These intersections are to be designed and
improved to a level of service "C" or to the
approval of the Director of the Department, of
Public Works. Provide right-of-way adequate to
achieve' level 'of service "C.
Provide right-of-way for the appropriate number of
left-turn lanes into the proposed signalized main
entrance intersection.
Relinquish access rights into, El Camino Real
except fOr the three entrances:
The main entrance shall be aligned with the
existing unnamed road to the west.,
I. The' 'alignment of Olivenhain Road should follow the
alignment on the attaôhmezit.
3'. The intersection of El Camino Real and Olivenhain
Road shall be at right angles.
Identify traffic impacts in the unincorporated
area.
1. Provide the appropriate mitigation measures for
the identified traffic impacts.
rn. On Page 3-39, Table,3:5-1: Under road segment
,Olivenhain Road "El Casino Real to Rancho Santa Fe
Road", please revise this to read "El Camino Real
to Amargosa Road". '.
'2. Identify in the document that the future westerly
extension of Olivenhain Road (SA 680) is a4-lane Major
Road and that El Casino Real (SF 1411) is a 6-lane'
Prime Arterial with bike lanes on the County
Circulation Element. Also identify that Olivenhain Road
(SA'686) 'adjacent to the project is a 4-lane Major Road
with bike lanes on the County Circulation Element.
3. Add the following to the mitigation measures:
a. Improve El CaminoReal to a one-half graded -right-of-way width of 68 feet with58 feet of asphaltic,
concrete pavement over approved base with Portland
cement concrete curb, gutter, bike lanes, and sidewalk with curb'at 58 feet from centerline.
Provide a raised median for the full length'of
frontage on'El Casino Real, 'except at the main'
entrance intersection.
has already addressed traffic impacts on El Camino Real.
1.1. The recommended mitigation measures are discussed in Section
3.5.3 of the ErR.' '
l.m. The EIRhas been revised to reflect this information.
2. 'The EIR has been revised to reflect this information.
The project description (Section 2.3.1.5) 'in the Draft EIR
indicated that El Casino Real would be' improved along ,the project frontage as generally requiredby this comment.
Seátion 3.5.3 'has been revised to reflect the specific
requirement for 58 feet of'asphaltic concrete pavement' over.-. approved base with portland cement concrete.
The project applicant for PA 1 and 2 has agr,eed to
proportionately finance 'the improvement of Olivenhain Road and
its intersection with EI Casino Real. However, these improvements are not part of the TM. The final engineering
design and mitigation have to be completed and an Army Corps
Section 404 Permit and a 'Section 1603 Streambed Alteration
Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game must
be approved before the Olivenhain Road widening project can
begin. This EIR stipulates that the Home Depot Center should
not be certified for occupancy until the improvement 'of
Olivenhain Road along the PA 1 'ftdntage and at th'e 'El' Camino
Real intersection are complete.
City of Encinitas - 3 - February 14, 1992
b. Improve the west end of Olivenhain Road, and
improve the El Casino Real/Olivenhain intersection
concurrent with the improvements on El Camino
Real.
Flood Control
The subject document adequately addresses flood issues.
When the above comments have been incorporated in the subject
document, then the document will be ready for public review.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact
Bill Hoeben at (619) 694-3244.
Very truly yours,
'"SHARON JASEK REID
Deputy Director
SJR:MAL:rfb
Attachment
cc: SA 680 file; SF 1411 file; City of Encinitas file; Bob
Asher, DPLU (0657); Steve Denny, DPLU (0650); Harry
Crossley, DPW (03,38); Brian Headrick, DPW (0336)
. S
distributed 2/25/92
League of Women Voters 18
18. Jane Feezel and Margie Monroy for League of Women Voters,
North Coast Diego County North Coast, San Diego County
'f— A. These comments do not address the accuracy or adequacy of the
fi EIR and do not require a response.
FuIriuiry IA, 1992 B. The proposed wetland mitigation/enhancement is considered by
Fa 5 III the subconsultant biologist and by the Army Corps of
Plotinin Commission - ( f W Engineers, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
City of Cnclnitis Service, to be adequate to mitigate potential wetland impacts.
537 Encinitas Ljvd. '-- :i/, The proposed TM will result in a net loss of 2.3 acres of
Enctnitas Ca 2l24 wetlands in PA 1 (21%). However, the Corps does not count
enhancement as mitigation. Thus, the 3.2 acres of wetlands
tear Commissioners: that will be enhanced in PA 1 are not included as mitigation.
Although there is technically a net loss because enhancement
Tl.c League of Woman Voters f'erth Cost "at: Fie::c' Cocr.ty i S isn't counted, the project will result in more wetland
interested in one concerned about the Environmental Impact report vegetation of a higher quality than currently exists on-site.
for the irorsed home tepot project. The Army Corps of Engineers has issued a Section 404 permit
- based on the proposed mitigation. The alternatives discussed A The League supports u.anagement of land as a finite -resource as in Sections 7.1.2, 7.1.3, 7.1.4 and 7.1.6 of the EIR would
well as a commodity, and supports land-use planning that reflects avoid all wetland impacts. However, each alternative has a
conservation and t.1sc management of resources. We support the greater or lesser degree of various impacts, which have to be
protection and regulation of fragile l ends, such as rare, balanced with the project objectives.
valuable ecosystens, tatlands, significant wildlife habitats,
shorelands and ri!'arian areas. These are resources which have C. This statement does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of
already suffered sitnificant destruction in California and the EIR and does not require a response.
nationally, and where more development could retult in irreversi-
ble damage. D. Alternatives discussed in Sections 7.1.3, 7.1.4 and 7.1.6 in
the EIR provide alternative plans for protecting wetlands and
The Lesue also supmorts reGulation of natural tazard lsndm, such wetland buffers. The Alternative discussed in Section 7.2.4
as flnodpl:tins, m'hcrs developctant could en.i.n:ar life provides an alternative site plan for the Home Depot Center
property. that could have other traffic circulation and visual impacts
- and would only slightly reduce wetlands impacts. Section
As you know, the Cora i'ennt property e.!-races a arsped aid 7.2.7 discusses an alternative that could reduce, but not
lobelcd Cloodplcin as cll as the previcuslv:entioncc ratural eliminate, wetland impacts. Section 7.2.8 discusses an
resources: wetl.at., coastal sane ama chararrcl, the California alternative that would significantly reduce potential wetland
gnatcstcher, Fnd the Encinitas creek and riparian area. All of impacts. Each alternative has a greater or lesser degree of
these are rare -cnd v.luCr1e natural resources, various impacts, which have to be balanced with the project
objectives. B Dur first concern is c:t;:t this project as nr(-enaac t:ould result
in a net lone of 'Cten,. hai solution could bi- propc•sd that E. As explained in the response to comment B above, there is woul. reverse tnis loss.' considered to be a net loss of 2.3 acres of wetlands in PA 1
because the 3.2 acres of enhanced wetlands and the 0.5 acre of C Ficure '. 6-8 on I'e?.e 3-hi shot's CiCnificar,t intrusion of tile wetlands to be created in the detention pond are not counted
;.oue teput building and parking lot into the delineated netistids in the mitigation acreage. Therefore, the ratio depends on
and wetland buffer. Whst is tme rear-or. for such c::ter.sjve use whether the enhancement is included as mitigation. The of ijic u.tlond for dcvulc?-'ect? In it possible to reduce the replacement ratio is just one of several factors considered D size of the buldint, recosin it or relocate it on cj,e property during the development of mitigation. The Disturbed Field
to reduce the irr-acts to ,;etlndc? wetlands, which most people (other than biologists) would
consider to be weeds, will be replaced by Willow Riparian
Woodland and Freshwater Marsh vegetation, which provide a much
higher quality of wetlands habitat. Non-native plant species
12-30
P.O. Box 727, Cardiff-by-the-Sea, California 92007
will be removed from the existing wetlands in accordance with
LV P e 2 the proposed wetlands enhancement program.
Section 3.6.2.3 and Table 3.6-2 of the LIR have been revised
If not, and re,coantrllctio:u '( wetlands 1:: rc irer for .it'ipaticn to accurately reflect steep slope encroachment per City
ofthis loss . sit ppo it a i o I r L Ic ii 1 y oki policies. - E require? how i s this ratio just hid? -
The .EIR preparer is not empowered to require anything, and can
A second concern is l05 of coastal ss'e scruS ad chaparral only make recommendations. It is the decision-making body
encroachment into tie steep qiojec that has the power to require changes in the project (in
accordance with General Plan and municipal (Zoning) Code
The discussion ofencro,ciiii.::rt into cua steep sTones (over , 25%) .. Regulations) ,.adopt an alternative project, attach conditions-
on pane 3-90 indicates that more than 501 of cSe total slcpes to a project, or. determine that the proposed project be denied
will su(fr grading intrusion. Isthis correct? in the based on applicable findings. A number of alternatives are,
ustificaCion for this encroachment? Could the intrusion lie discussed in the EIR that are considered to be 'environmentally
reduced by a redesi1n of the buildn nr the use :f a tnt wall? superior to the proposed project; the crib wall alternative is
only one of them (see Section 7).
The aplicont has decided not to construct a crib wall so that he
can use bluff-Lde nateri-il for till lot Cyst this decision H As discussed in Section 3 3 3 2 of the EIR it will be the
ocans more loss of natural resources. The FIR (Appendix c, responsibility of the project applicant to (1) have a
Eio-loica1 Survey heporc, p. 41) recommends that a crib wall is qualified person experienced with cleaning out sediment/oil
preferred from the biological standpoint. Using a crib wall traps clean the traps in early October and in March of each
reduces Cite requirement for intensive restoration of chaparral, year and (2) set the date:for thecleaning after consulting
causes less disturbance of natural hillsides has less potential with the Public Works Department to arrange for a staff member
Gfor landslides and erosion, requires lass 'radin" and offers less to verify the cleaning prior to the contractor leaving the
impact mr -total. ' Pill you require the applicant to return to a site. The removed residues cannot be disposed of in a Class
' crib wall construction plan? If act u;iv rot? III landfill because oil is a hazardous substance. The
residues will have to be disposed of in a landfill that
,V third-concern it. thot impact of run-off and increaei flow upon accepts these substances (none of which are in San Diego
- - F.iciquitos La.00n. - County) or will be taken- to -a hazardous waste transfer
- - station, from whence they will be later trucked to an , tc arc interested in the proposed us: of il/water sepafators and appropriate landfill (as required by the Mitigation Monitoring
H u. diversion basin for parking lot run-off (p;. 2-37 & 38). and Reporting Program).
:loi,ever , what is Clic schetule for cleautine tie sediment from. the - - - ' ' - - • bótcow of the interceptor and for' periotic:lly nurpinf out' clue Also discussed in -Section 3.3.3.2 is the recommendation that
oily residue frout t he upper portion? hot, lint clin oily residue all of the marsh vegetation in the detention pond be replaced
be stored in the interceptor and there is it stored and/or ' every two years, with no more than 50% of the plant material
deposited when it is pec;eul out? ho is specifically responsible replaced at one time. - A qualified biologist or
for dealing with these r.i:tters? -.lo will inspect the diversior. horticulturalist would have to monitor the vegetation
basir. for needed replanting? nil tie .iiscinnte Cm,: the diver- replacement and report to the City that it was done
sion -basin be tested d uring use., 1hit till be responsible for ' adequately. The biologist would also be monitorning and
testjuu? ' - - •• -' reporting on the success of the mitigation, for a minimum of 5
years, with reports made at 3, 6, 9, .12, 36, 48 and 60 months,
I lc is our understundin, tlat tie applicant already has received a in accordance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
404 permit troe,thie U.S. Army Corps of En.-rs to reloèate cite Program.
-. streanbed. Is this true.? %-1y would rolocatin" the st'rcambed be
a gain in natural r':sources for tn15 area? Iiot are the .
- Section 1.7.2.8 has been added to the LIRto kecommend water
resources that ii itt be lc in I nyu' tl. atrea,be -
quality sampling Samplers must be qualified in water quality
-- -. - - sampling, and will be under contract to the City, with their
services funded by the applicant.
- - . I. The projectpreviously received a Section 404 (Clean Water
- . - 12-31 . . .
LI' V
Finally, we are concerned about tI'e consrr,:ctjos of [e cent ion
8astn "0," whIch the E. IF rco,nen,ls I, built be(orc' conStruction J be.1s on the Done repoL project. lthioiit I:ste,cin,, hasin "0' in
place, the hone Depot project will increase the apount of water
nd the amount of peek (lot, knto the Natiquitos Latoon, sini(i-
cartly imptictino the iaoon. tJhin clii retention Lasin "0" be
built? It is proposed for the lel;,n,I property at 0livenhln and
an:h'.o S.2nt0 ::c loads. Wtit - tin 1 ':::r't rn: plann
for this proposed fliztnitcion P.asin thicht is mn L of zhe proposal
for widening flhivenhj,ln lend?
Thank you for this opportunity Co nke these inquiries. We look
forward Co 'our response.
S)çce . rlY
Jane ee ci Cu rcatd,nt
Margie iionroy, Co-President
Act) Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, in consultation
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for the grading and
filling proposed for PA 1. The Corps had determined that the
project qualified with the terms and conditions of Nationwide
Permit I 26, which authorizes discharges of dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States (which includes
wetlands). The issued permit noted that all of the Nationwide
Permits were scheduled to be modified, reissued or revoked
prior to January 13, 1992. The revised Nationwide Permits
became effective on January 21, 1992. Ten new Nationwide
Permits were adopted and Permit I 26 was reissued with some
changes. When a project is proposed with a discharge of
between 1 and 10 acres, it is subject to a review and
discretionary approval by the Corps. The Corps has issued a
new permit for the development of PA 1 (see Appendix J).
J. The statements made in this comment are incorrect. Section
3.1.2 of the EIR specifically states that the proposed Home
Depot building will not pose a flood hazard and that the City
of Encinitas has determined that parking is a suitable use in
a floodplain subject to flooding (Land Use Element Policy
8.2) . Detention Basin D is not required for implementation of
the project.
The flow in Encinitas Creek will be very slightly increased as
a result of any development that occurs anywhere in the
drainage basin because the addition of impervious surfaces
results in increased runoff. However, Section 3.1.2 of the
EIR, which is based on the hydrology study (Appendix.A),
states that the increased runoff expected as a result of the
project would be minimal and that a significant increase in
runoff is not anticipated. The proposed on-site runoff water
detention basin, which will be planted with marshy vegetation,
is designed to slowly release the water into the creek and to
filter potential contaminants from the water before it enters
the Creek.
The 'I'M, which covers 37.3 acres, comprises 0.8 % of the 7.3-
square mile (4,672-acre) drainage basin for Encinitas Creek,
which itself only comprises 14% of the drainage basin for
Batiquitos Lagoon (approximately 33,370 acres). Therefore,
the TM area comprises approximately 0.1 % of the Batiquitos
Lagoon drainage basin. The 55.5-acre Specific Plan Area
comprises 1.21 of the Encinitas Creek drainage basin and 0.17
% of the Batiquitos Lagoon drainage basin. Therefore, the
hydrology study concluded that no significant environmental
impacts on either Encinitas Creek or Batiquitos Lagoon would
occur as a result of either the TM or the Specific Plan
development proposals.
Detention Basin D is part of the Olivenhain Road Widening
project, which is not expected to be constructed for 3 to 4
12-32
years. The plans for Detention Basin are discussed and
analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report for
01 ivenha in Road Widening/Realignment and Flood Control Project
(SCH 1 91011035), which has been certified and is incorporated
into this EIR by reference in, relation to cumulative
hydrologic and water quality impacts. section 73.8 of that EIR
noted that the water quality of aatiquitos Lagoon varied
- greatly from season to season, and from year to year, and
concluded that the Olivenhain Road Widening Project is not
expected to significantly impact water quality- in Encinitas
Creek or Batiquitos Lagoon. The Road Widening may result in
slight increases in grease and oil residuals but is expected
to result in a decrease in sedimentation due to the increased
paved area.
• •• • • -t,- • -- • •
• • • 12-33 • . . .
, .
STTS VALLEY I- NERS ASSOCIATION
19
1269 ORCHARD Q.EN CIRQE- SEICINITAS, CALIFORNIA 92024 1p11
ii February 22, 1992
Patrick S. Ilurphy
City of Encinitas
Camsinity Development Departirent
527 Encinitas Boulevard
Encinitas.-CA 92024
Dear t.Murphy: -
This letter is being sent to yâu by the undersigned Board tie,ers of the
Scott's Valley Homeowners Association as legal representatives of the
Association. The purpose of this letter is to address the needs and concerns
of .&U Scott's Valley harieowners.
Development of the Pbre Depot project will impact the creek, channel, water
flow, rate of silt deposit ecology, flood plain habitat of wild life
hcsneowners of Scott's Valley, the people of Encinitas and surrounding areas
We hold the City of Encinitas the Council the hone Depot project participants, etc. legally, morally and financially responsible for any and- -
all future negative effects on the Scott's Valley area
The Scott's Valley Haiieowners Associa ion has an obligation to maintain the
flood channel within Lots 49 end 197 pursuant-to Article IX, Sections 1 and 2 (enclosed). The impact of building dams (catch basins) constructing and
expanding various roads (including Olivenhain Road) may well increase the silt
deposit change the flood plain cause increased maintenance du'rping and
other' fees for' the homeowners of the Scott's Valley- hoiieowners Association.
If-you proceed with 'this project in, an area ,that just two short veers ago was
designated park land open space ecological reserve flood plain etc by the
City of Encinitas, then all costs for maintaining the creek through Scott's
Valley should, be picked up by:the Moire Depot 'project and the City of,
Encinitas_: Further, the ,Scott's Valley Park (which was promised befOre our
hones even were 'sold), and was approved as part of the General Plan, has
dragged on so long that the landscaping architectural firm, who was originally
retained by the City of Encinitas on this project is r longer doing business
under the ,same name. Scott's Valley Park should ininediately be developed as
a mnall pert of the mitigation to the area Also by including the parcels
to the west of Scott's ValleyPark,, adequate 'parking, ball fields, etc. would
be available to the citizens of Encinitas
19. Phyllis Isabel, Keith Mantis and Thomas Hammer for Scott's
Valley Homeowners Association
This letter does not comment on the accuracy or adequaày of
the EIR and does not require a response. • General Plan land
use designations are discussed in Section 3.6. Hydrology Is
discussed in Section 1.1. Biological resources are discussed
-
in Section 3.3. -Water quality is discussed in Section 3.2.
12-34
8
1iH
. -
CLL
:
C'L> >---•.-
u1.J
IC >4E
-
I- 10 HL U!13 I S \41
-13 -1 2L Lh
-• -
UI !:hil 2 4 ll'1 d H h 4111 t; !.I4 t, . 4
-- -- _ij
u 1874
MT7CLE IX
?'AINTNPJ10E RispoNsIBrr.ITIEs
Section_i. Association Maintenance. The Association shall
maintain and provide for the maintenance of the Como6n.Area and
all improvements thereon in good repair and appearance. The
Association shall provide landscaping and gardening to properly
maintain and periodically replace when necessary any vegetation
placed in the Coomon Area and otherwise to properly maintain the
Common Area. -The Association shall adhere to the following
management plan which shell apply to the .flcod channel (the
Channel) within Lots 42 and 197 when the same are annexed to
this Declaration.
Section 2. Management Plan. The following management plan
shall apply to the Channel: .
Declarant 's Improvements. Declarant has placed or
shall.plae posts every one hundred (100) feet in the bottom of
the Channel near the 3 to 1 side slope. These posts shall be
marked such that five (5) feet cfthe post shall be above grade,
with one-foot increments clearly marked. These posts shall be
placed on both sides of the Channel for the entire length of the
Channel. .
Clearing. As silt covers the lower two (2) feet
of the posts, maintenance to remove silt from one side of the
Channel shall be performed by the Association. To ensure that
the Channel roughness isñct altered in -a manner harmful to flood
flows, the other side of the Channel shell not be cleared
immediately, but instead, it shall be cleared at the time
recommended by a civil engineer pursuant,to (d) below. Care
shall also be taken not to over-excavate below the concrete
ribbon gutter in the Channel center. -
Frequency of Inspections. The Association shall
inspect the posts for possible maintenance at least annually. It
may be necessary-for more frequent inspection due to the inten-
sity of storms that may occur in any given year or because of
possible changes in land usage in the upstream watershed.
Monitoring By A Civil Engineer. The Association
shall obtain the set-vices of a registered civil engineer to
perform an annual field check for the first three (3) years after
Declarant completes its ioprcvements to the Channel to ensure
that Channel conditions are maintained. This inspection shall be
performed in the spring when the rainy season has passed. A
report shall be submitted to the City of Encinitas, the
u 1-875
California Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service after each inspcton. The report shall discuss
the Channel conditions and the necessary 'remedial measures taken.
(e) Technical Assessment. The Association shall
comply.wih the Technical Assessment attached to this Declaration
as Exhibit 8. Reference to the.0wner in the Technical
Assessment shall mean and refe' to the Association.
Section .-2. Oner,Maintenance. £achOner shall keep and
maintain in good repair and appearance all pdrtions of his Lot
and improvements thereon, including, ,but not limited to, each
fence or wall improved ,on his Lot regardless of whether such
fences separate the Lot from\the 'Common Area or whether such walls were installed for sound attenuation purposes. The-Owner
of each Lot shall -water, weed, maintain and care fr the' land-
scaping. located on his Lot so that the same presents a' neat and
attractive appearance aid shall at, all times keep his Lct free of
weeds and debris
' ARTXLE x'
RIGHTS OF LENDERS
Section 1:' Payments of Taxes or'Prm!msbv Fir st - Mortgagees. First MCrtgagees may, jointly or severally; pay
taxes or other charges which are in' default and which may cr have
become a charge agaihst the Common Area, unless such taxes er - . charges are assessed against the Owners, 'in which ' case, the rights of First Mortgages shall'be governed by the,
provisions c thei r .- ceeds of tust First Mortgagees may jointly or severally, also pay overdie premiums oncásualty insurance policies, or scure a new casualty' insurance coverage
on the lapse of a policy for the Common Area; and First ' Mortgagees making such.- payments shalibe ,ówed immediate rei- bursernent thereof f:-Om'- t"re Association Entitlement to such reimursCméñt'shal-1 beeflected in an agreement in favorof any
First Mortgagee whà.'-reçuests the same to be executed by the Association.'
Section ?. priority of Lien of tdortcac No bach'of the covenants,- conditions or restrictions herein èontai'nëd shCll affect, impair, defeat-or render invalid the lien or, charge of any first Motgage made in good 1aih and for value encu-be-ing any Lot, but all of •iaid -covenants', cdnd-jtiOns' and' 'restriction's ' - ' •' shall be blnd.ng upon and e'ect ye acalnst any Owne- whose title
.'•'::
10
-
-
i -
(.-
ae
e.e-.-i ,iLcr/-'$ 2.0
) P 1iiI
.
14
i) T /eJJ' I C If/
J- /fJ)(
6) 3/J( lki i. —,4,j,'J
(' - f , 4J7
D) //w' W/I yYDC es
'/---
a)&5
-ij 41
' doe, Iite rirj/
s)
7Leuc.. O.'cci,47 (ociv'5.
4) 110-' /L, -'- t1 2iV CA, kt6/!
4' 3, / 4j4J_ c,€--•
bb/d 6 f,'.'s eJ '7: A- /2 Ccyu) c
r) hi/I /" > e
•,J&1C1 C& 4-Qbc e1-J
/-J vcOc.
20. Bill Dean -
Mr. Dean- submitted his notes for the January 21, 1992 Planning
Commission Meeting. The following responses address his
comments that relate to the EIR.
This comment does not question the accuracy or adequacy of the
EIR and does not require a response. See response to letter 1 18, comment I.
Section 7.2.5 has been revised to include the missing
information.
At the Planning Commission meeting on January21, 1992, the
Subdivision. Engineer noted that the present ordinance does not
respond to specific problems of the Chaparral or clearing of
Chaparral. The mitigation proposals address this specific
site.
This comment does not question the accuracy or adequacy of the
EIR and does not require a response. The concept of this
Program EIR is explained in the response to letter 1 11,
comment 1 5. Page LU-2 of the Land Use Element of the
Encinitas General Plan explains the purpose of specific plans
and is hereby incorporated by reference into this EIR.
Section 1.1 of the EIR clearly-states-that public comments on
the content and adequacy of the EIR will receive responses in
the Final EIR.
Public review on the project was extended.
Most, of the remaining pages do not challenge the adequacy or
accuracy of the EIR and don't require responses. Responses
are made to the following comments, which seem to refer to the
EIR:
A.a) The alternative discussed in Section 7.1.5 of the EIR would
ensure a maximum slope encroachment of 20% for the entire.
Specific Plan Area.
b) The alternatives discussed in Sections 7.1.3, 7.1.4 and 7.1.6
would maintain all existing wetlands and provide 50-foot
buffers. Buffers are required by the resource agencies as -
well as by the Encinitas General Plan:
C) The four Planning Areas within the Specific Plan Area have
been delineated -by existing ownerships. Since none of the
owners have proposed lot.splits, dividing a parcel into two
different. Planning Areas could cause difficulties and legal
complications for owners wanting to develop their property.,
Owners are free to purchase one or more other Planning Areas.
12-35 . S .
191
c'A-
V
(nyc d"I"r,u
4)
,4 ,Li j _1l
t4,J- 4.P/(Id,5c e
XCI
4 4
c" C_ j91 fri fr c.-/ C4 k
4) e!/4,J
6) 4ZI • >,*-
(I N • 1 '4 I fl.7 a 4 •
) /%,-'-;7 4tp• a
sl1 .i/y- e,'
) e/i',"- 2-
/7/op€.1/ $/{acJ5 ;A-/ ,1te 5
Owners may also include proposed development plans in the
proposed Specific Plan or amend the Specific Plan at a later
date. Any proposed development in PA 3 and PA 4 may require
additional environmental analysis.
The alternative discussed in Section 7.1.5 would limit
encroachment into steep slopes to 20%.
Specific Plans must show access to all properties within the
plan area. Additional traffic analysis has been completed
related to pedestrian safety and the provision of access to PA
3 and the southern portion of PA 4 (see Appendices K and L).
Access to these areas is proposed to be via the main, entry to
the Home Depot center from El Camino Real.
Section 7.2.3 of the Draft EIR provided a general discussion
of an alternative for a reduction in the size of the Home
Depot Center building. This section has been expanded to
address a 25% reduction in development area. However, such a
reduction may not be compatible with the applicants
objectives or requirements.
Section 7.2.9 has been added to this EIR to address an
alternative with off-site wetlands mitigation.
B. Specific Plan Major Issues:
The compatibility of the Specific Plan and TM design with
General Plan policies is discussed in Section 3.6 of the EIR.
The Encinitas City Council will make the final determination
as to the significance of the project's nonconformance with
some City policies.
Planning Area 4:
The EIR confirms that there is very little land within PA
4 that is not environmentally constrained.
An estimated 25% of PA 4 is constrained by projected
future noise levels. However, this figure underestimates
the significance of the noise impacts because it includes
100% of the designated developable area along Olivenhain
Road.
The SDG&E easement, which mandates only open space uses,
comprises approximately 55 to 60 % of PA 4.
Due to the presence of the Encinitas Creek wetlands in
the middle of PA 4, the southern portion of PA 4 will
most likely have to be accessed via PA 1 and 3, from the
west. The TM includes a designated access route past the
proposed Garden Center.
12-36
5) The designated potential uses for each PA in the SPA are
based on the parcel sizes, constraints and uses that
could be considered compatible with the area.
Planning Area 3: -
1) It is not the purpose or role of an EIR to assess
economic feasibility of potential uses.
2) The EIR notes that the Specific Plan does not include
wetland buffer areas for PA 3 and 4. The developable
areas should be reduced to include these-buffer areas in
-order to be totally compatible with General Plan
policies. However, .the'Encinitas City Council will make
the final determination as to the significance of
nonconformance with City policies.
C. Major Issues
a) Wetlands beneath the El Camino Real bridge will be impacted by
the proposed dredging that is part of this project, and
future dredging that will be required to maintain the
required creek bed elevation. The proposed 'dredging is
required because the channel has not been maintained in the
past. This has been one of the reasons for flooding upstream
of the bridge, which has resulted in more sediment ,-settling
out in these areas.
b) The purpose of desiltation basins during construction and the
• installation of the runoff water treatment system is to
prevent sediment and contaminants from entering the creek.
The system has been deemed acceptable by the Army Corps of
'Engineers, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, as reflected in the. issuance of a Corps Section 404
Permit. See the response to Letter -18, comment I.
Newly created wetlands •will be temporarily -irrigated until.
they are successfully established.
The runoff water treatment system is proposed -as part of the
project inorder to mitigate potential direct water quality -
impacts and indirect biology impacts of the project.
12-37
Ll
0
0
0
r
/
A
I
73
1-411 1 Ch
0
21
191 i
FEB 1992
6 March 1992
0 2 6
LL
Communit Development
527 Encinitas
Department
Encinitas, CAI 92024 .
Sirs.
A I am writing in response to the Environmental. Impact Report
(EIR) regarding the proposed Home Depot at the 'corner of. El Camino
Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinitas California.. The Elk genera115'
relies upon opinion and inadequate,. studies rather than fact, and
erroneously draws conclusions that items in qusiion can be
mitigated to a level which is, "less than significant.' This EIR has
serious flaws along with . a substantial deficiency of evidence
required to support' any 'fidiiigs that have beh made.
-B--'---- _This_.EIR_ violates ._CEQ,_because it defers certain mitioation
measures to long term management plans. Among other signifi.oant
long term impacts, this project will completely disrupt the wetlands
and there is no assurance that the project will 'replace a currently
functioning ecosystem with one of equal productivity. The project
contains little or no contingency plans for, the problems which are
likely to occur after, construction, such as those which occurred after
the construction ofihe Oceanside Ho1ne Depot. The EIR addresses the
effect of this total disruption by pointing to a future managenieni
plan to be completed ,by other agencies, including: the Army Corps of
Engineers. ' Reliance . oti illusory mitigation measures such as fucire
management plans,, permits ' the developer to avoid having to address
the reality 'of feasible mitigation metsures or project alternatives.
c The existing biological impacts stud) Is inadequate since long term
adverse environmental impacts were, not properly addressed. Home
Depot has a duty, to mitigate all such impacts.
Sincerely,
) ?L1u
21. Marcia Jones
A. The author of this comment states that the ER relies upon
opinion and inadequate studies, rather than fact, and makes
erroneous conclusions. 'However, the author does not provide
any substantiation for these comments. Long- and short-term
biological impacts are discussed in Section 3.3. Court cases',
have determined that mere uncorroborated opinion or rumor of
an environmental impact does not constitute substantial
evidence of a significant impact and, further, that an adverse
effect on a few particular people (e.g., neighbors), is not an
effect. upon "the environment in'general" and, therefore, the
"unusual circumstances—exception does not apply.
This Comment also states that the EIR has a substantial
deficiency of evidence required to support its conclusions.
However, the EIR contains a substantial amount of evidence,
and more than is.'generally required, to document conclusions.
Impacts have been quantified as much as possible in all EIR
sections. Ambient noise measurements were made so that future
noise could be projected. Traffic counts' were obtained, and
the hydraulic/hydrologic analysis included field
investigations' and a HEC II analysis. Impacts to vegetation
and to wetlands have been, quantified, by PA and for the
Specific Plan as a whole. Many biological "field
investigations 'have been conducted over a period of several
years, with specific 'recent surveys "for the California
Gnatcatcher, the Least Bells vireo and other sensitive
riparian birds, sensitive reptiles and amphibians, sensitive
.-smal'l..-mamma.ls,.--and_sensitive..plants_that,.,..were_r.epôrted,,,or
suspected to be on the project Site. Only a very few projects
ever have this amount of field verification over'such a long
period of time,. ' 0
Section 1.1 of the EIR explains the basis for determining the
adequacy of an EIR. Section 15151 of the State CEOA
Guidelines provide the following standard for determining the
adequacy of an EIR: "An EIR should be prepared with a
sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with
information which enables , them to make a decision which
intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An
evaluation of the environmental effects of a project need not
be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed
in the light of what is': reasonably feasible. Disegreement
among'.,'experts does not make an' EIR inadequate, but the EIR
. should summarize the main points of disagreement among the
experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for
adequacy, completeness,' and a good' faith effort :at full
disclosure."
12-38
H
S
In one court case, the court determined that an EIR, in order
to be adequate, need address only that information available
at the time of preparation. In another case, the court
rejected as unreasonable, and unsupported by CEQA or the
Guidelines, an argument urging that, prior to approving a
project for which an EIR is required, the lead agency must
"conduct every test and perform all research, study, and
experimentation recommended to it" by interested parties. In
addition, numerous court cases have determined that
preparation of an EIR need not be interminably delayed to
include all potential works in progress which might shed some
additional light on the subject of the impact statement.
The author of this letter did not specify which long-term
management plans were being referred to in this comment.
Additional noise, biology, traffic and archaeology/history
studies have been completed since the Draft EIR was made
available for public review. CEQA requires a long-range
mitigation monitoring and reporting program to ensure that
mitigation measures are implemented. The mitigation
monitoring and reporting program includes specified criteria
for determiWing whether the mitigation measures are
successful. The project includes some road improvements, and
additional traffic mitigation is recommended to remedy
cumulative traffic impacts that are already in existence.
Some of the mitigation measures recommended include requiring
the project applicant to contribute to the funding of future
road improvements. The court has determined that a regional
traffic problem to which a development contributed should be
handled on a regional basis, and that approval of the project
did not need to await the regional solution.
The section of the biology report on "Expected Biological
Impacts and Recommendations" discusses numerous long-term
impacts including, but not limited to:
Loss of Disturbed Field wetlands;
Temporary but repetitive impacts to wetlands surrounding
the El Camino Real bridge;
Expected reduction of use of the area of wildlife species
that are less tolerant of disturbance;
Potential water quality impacts;
Potential secondary impacts from pedestrian movement;
Potential impacts of the required brush management
program;
Potential impacts to the natural open space from invasive
exotic plantings; and
B. Cumulative impacts to wetlands and sensitive species
habitat.
12-39
- tt 22 Marcia Jones
FEB 2 6 W2 A See response to letter # 21 comment A
. The statements made in this comment are incorrect. See
. response to letter, 8, comment J. 6 March 1992 . •.--. . .
. . •.
Community Development Department This comment does not specify which cumulative impacts ale
deemed, not to be adequately discussed in the, EIR. Cumulative 527 Encinitas Blvd impacts are discussed in the hydrology,'.water quality, Encinitas, CA 92024 . biology, noise' and traffic sections.
Sirs, ,
.
. ..
. .
A I am writing in response to time Environmental liipaci Report (EIR) issued by Willuris and Associate:; regarding ilie, proposed Home . Depot at the corner of El ,Camino Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinitas California. This EIR has serious flaws along with a • substantial deficiency of, evidence required io' support any findings . that have been made. The EIR generally, relies upon inadequate
studies or opinion rather than, facts, then erroneously draws
conclusions that items in question can be mitigated to a level which - is 'less than significant."
B The EIR has also attempted to sever issues which are an integral part of this study. For example. although the Hone Depot . . project relies critically upon:' he retention: pond to be built, in
Encinitas Creek (as part of the Olivenhain Road Widening project), 'the
'details of this retention pond and its impact are not included in this • EIR Further, the data taken for the Road • Widening project has not
been updated to take into account upstream developmeni.
- •
C The failure to adequately address and . analyze this projects . - .. . .• . • cumulative Impacts IS in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act and must be corrected befoic ihts EIR can be .ipproed
Sincerely,
• , • . ' "'
•'•:' • . 140 . . .
23 a
- FEB 2511
ji Lori BcirnettjF[:i;;;...
1c, JV'\brr\ I m&v Cps-Qrr\',
DO
I '
booc1ic
{ k d 1°
3)& C' i bt rafL' P!i
11z
& -f
Nc+ (iii
3 o c-{ L, s 1f0r5
'flOr-e crLrS
\'-\O-1 \j\CA.4 )-.-€. H OLOii;4
-s' +ke rJor4-i- Will IcdLct-
D ()0 - -(-h 'cJC "jI-' - o. Poo//-
4h
23. Lori Barnett
This does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR and
does not require a response.
12-41
-
•• •
•• • ±• •..
••
• -
P 21
FEB 25I99 24
L I,
-.:-.--------.-----:- .5:29
11 6A- LL LiJA5 iZJ Z
-i-
---..-c 'n'
- ¼ - r -'--'----'-'--- I '-( '-•.".- -'•- / gi A\d-'L. ' c -t.LC Ii )v:l_, C.-L-
,
24. Donna Gerky, Mort Gerky and Neighbors
This letter does not challenge the information or conclusions
presented in the EIR. Traffic circulation impacts are discussed in
Section 3.5 of the EIR, visual quality impacts in Section 3.7.2,
public safety impacts in Section 3.9.2 and noise impacts in Section
3.8.2.1.
12-42
Termite InspeCtiO11S •
(619)7532330 (619) 753-8535 TEuI .na PEST CONT01. FEB 25 gg
- Some Doy Service to ijcoliors ITY O LNCIiITAS
7 /7t j a
J ,
CtbtJ ,/r6j
S
nt
46/f44'2t
- 2
t'F11#1e _ -
Low inspection fees •
I. /.
25. George Onderism of Antimite
This letter does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR
and does not require a response. *
11
27 February 21, 1992 Lisa M. Walsh
1707 Willowhaven Road
Enciriitos, CA 92024
Community Development DepartmeR L i
527 Encinitas Blvd. !
Encinitas, CA 92024 FEB 2
Re: HOME DEPOT PROJECT I
CITY OF ENGIMTAS To whom It may concern
I would like to voice my objections to the location for the new Home
Depot project. I feel this would cause a tremendous increase in the
traffic situation. El Camino Real is already an extremely busy
road. Where the Home Depot would be located, Is only a two lane
road. This would mean, the road would have to be expanded and
therefore more valuable land would be destroyed...
To destroy land and the natural habitants so another large privately
owned money making store can be built is disgraceful, appalling and
extremely disappointing.
A few factors opposing this project (including the above stated) are:
Destruction of sensitive biological habitat
Traffic gridlock
Incompatibility with the City's general plan
Excessive noise generated
Adverse impact on air and water quality
It appears the only individuals or organization that will benefit
from the Home Depot Project is HOME DEPOT themselves. Encinitas
already has ample shopping sources for home improvement necessities,
another'store* is not needed.
CAN ANYONE ANSWER THIS
QUESTION???
A very concerned citizen.
Lisa M. Walsh
cc: Maura Wiegand
The Blade Citizen
27. Lisa M. Walsh
This letter does not challenge the information or conclusions
presented in the EIR. Impacts to biological resources are
discussed in Section 3.3.2 of the EIR; traffic circulation is
discussed in Section 3.5.2; nonconformance with the General Plan in
Section 3.6.2.3; noise in Section 3.8.2.1; air quality in Section
3.14.2; and water quality in Section 3.2.2.
12-45
28
1335 Neptune Avenue L- 28. Mr. and Mrs. Richard Nagy Encinitas. CA 92024
DTY 1 ENCII41 T- 14 February 1992 This does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR and
does not require a response.
Encinitas Planning Commission
543 EncinitaS.Blvd.
Encinitas, CA 92024
Re:}Iome Depot Site
Members of the planning Commission:
This letter Is an expression of our wish for your
,'approval of the Home Depot site as requested.
The following are our reasons for approval: - S
Gnatcatchers5 are not on the endangered species list
and it would, therefore, be presumptious to make a
decision as though they were. One can then argue
for the preservation of any bird.
Birds a-c ssart enourh to find other nesting places
(3) We know there will be increased traffic; but this
would be a-consequenoe of any new businesscomin; to - S Encinitas. Also, any added-traffic todayw111 be
Insignificant comoared to that time when El Camino S
Real is projected to be lined on bath sides with
businesses all the way to Oceanside.
-
S
(4) Encinitas deserves the comcetition of a low-priced
quality home center (the finest we've seen), and the S substantial tax revenue it will bring in. • S S
Thank you for'considerirg our domm-nts.
Sincerely.
i Pr and Mr Richard Nagy
• 12-46
O .
29 29. Geff Wilcox
.his does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR and
does not require
r
letter t pr rlo1c
- tr,. pJC.
Ic FES 3
\ .
12-47
/
30
ii'kTT1 30. Maryann C.
FEB 2 -I ? This does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR and
does not require a response.
LCITY OF ENCUTAJ
Maryann G Lennick
1726 Willowhaven Rd
Ericinitas CA 92024
February 20. 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas CA 92024
Gentlemen/Madam:
It is with great concern that I write this second letter to
you all regarding the proposed home Depot project.
Surly there are other places less sensitive to the
environment and the resiaents, than the one that has been
chosen, Please do not be,hasty to make political decisions
that will affect the citizens In your jurisdiction. We
elected you and we trust ybu to look Out for our best
interests and not that of large companies who can Persuade.
of en using tactics that individuals can not.
Ver truly your •
-. .
12-48 . . .
31. Bill •& Mary Farrell
This does' not comment on the accuracy' or adequacy of the EIR and
does not require a response.
---7-----------_-_ lik 12-49
-______ -- - ---- —
.'. 32-
.Encinitas Planning Commission 18 Jan '92
pa
Ave, th
st :::::; ::::: :::1::::i r::a:e:::::
communitv
evolve into ,a suüurban ijecca. -
Hone Depot is currently located on H-J' 78 and. -
College ave exit. Isnt that close enough?
National lumber located due south of the projected
Home Uepot .isthe second hardwareand home supply busines
located in Encinitas. Over the years Handymen of Solana
Beach currently the Dixie Lumber and Supply on Lomas Santa Fe
and 01 Iumber and Supply on HWY 101 and Cedros ( currently
vacant ) have all tried to meet the needs of a nonexistent
market.Host, -North County people who can'äfford the
over-inflated real estate'and taxes are business and professional- -
people-.not "Do It Yoursel-fers." -
He do not need another car or truck an Encinitas -
but if we rnUSL utilize the property for the will of. the
investors and property owners not to mention the Tax
reyenies how about the Low Income housing for our,
Agra-Fr-iends". 1sn1 itdisconcertirg to see these p,eople - -
standing on screet corners day and night? Talk about disparity
of incones X leel as though what I moved away from in the
Fast is inecapable
32. 'Dominick-A. Bellorno
This does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR and
- does not require a response.
12-50
1•
33
33. Jack Hesselbach .
1
1-92
This does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR and
does not require a response.
CIWAHAGERSOFFICE
A •. 4 49 'c C
0
L, . . . . .
-- 0
.
..
. .
. TA.i A . - 0
7.
- J iL6--k t''4J
.-'--------
r
Q
..,r-/r
- 0
............Jr...-7-"i'.-/"-'- f. . .
0
.. --
.
- -
.- . I-- ........
.
0• . . - .
12-51 . -
- 0- —
Ecuiitas
Encinitas 'megaprojects"
hurting the homeowners local dents Curious because, as pro. ByJ.L Feldner ______________________________ posed, it isa grossly oversized
- - - It appears that a lax with the
- Community Forum store oss-p e of.properiy that
bsder4..thetlon residential impact of Proposition 13 is again niLl)btiicQd audio-planned to . needed to reign in tax voracious uii ho the last open space in local governments.., ° - Nncinitas. which also hap. Enacted as a means to protect objvct pds-t be a wetlands with more homeowners from runaway taxes;- - The result of this unplanned I th ohs endangered speclesjiv- Proposition 13 curtailed Use spend development is to pit one neighbor in lQt O.., lng habits or local governments —. hood against another in an attempt alternative site desIgnaId at least for a while to prevent unwanted development b5 eIoper according in tall Local governments could not from occurs-log (the not-in-my-back- I forni isvfronniental Quali'TéLY. stand to spend I'ess, of course, and yard.orNtMBY:principlek. (tE s.also in a residOotlaZ, sought to rind a way to generate Of course the only recourse area he,xesidentu of tbat ga-eater revenues. local homeowners/residential corn a neigh are also cryiogQUI tgl Once again homeowners are munitlen have Is to file lawsuits for I at the pto ct of this ecologieal suffering. alUsol1s now the burden which government officials brand I holocausf In tleir back yard In not spread-evenly among all the residents as anti growth or Naturally Ihe residents adja homeowners. -° - - - - "anti-business.' - cent to the'proposed projectwill; - This government malaise has Most local communities are nei i probably uri estp ling 1aw5u14.s manUextedttselfln two ways.Firsl, ther — they just want some nay beforeThewhbjethinginovec an4,r As prices have escalated since 1973 before their goverisment represen i rs City Cou4ctl giie wsU scratch , those who already owned homes tatsvesconliscate their property (by their heads as'iaam that they had taxratesthie1fective1yatayed reducing property values) while
constant, while those who bought attempting to generate tax rev
after 1973 watcHed their (relative) enuep or pursuing some social A rn9r9 reats In pproach tax rate go up xgth the rate of home experiment - - Inflation, Projects that confiscate property devlopment, pnd oceincrease&_,5 taxeevenue -3 pot the akiog 0ft This apparent inequality In tax - and rile the local homeowners — by the lroperty prop,Ay reducing rates is bets éhafl menged ins law- see to be considered regularly in valuall lof:s8ltèd'neIbborboods-*t suit currently, efore the U.S. Encinitas — is'.deeded to get governments r50 Supreme CouPt a ruling is,The City Council ha.s courted a expectpd by thdnd of their next variety of megaprojects The ones and homeownert working together again. ' o session. that have geneahted some of the I boA Ibo Encinitas City Coun The aecond.more insidious, way loudest outcry Include the Leuca- .
- cilwili thinks little harder before that local government entities have din low-income housing hotel coo- : trying to-forcè-unwanteddevelop- - tilt homeowners to by encouraging version the Sports Shinto Hotel ment on homeowners especially development of community land; - - - before they face an angry elec- - - no matter how inappropriate the )'See Encinitas. Page 88 - toraie in November. - - - - - - - FeW eriatth4eazofEnanjias
. . .
C :-
34
)Or LAc,--A' kAjou z-~,
I A 7 I
Jiii] DEC-299j.
1c.Azz.&o CA q I.
-. L! MANAGEWS OFFICE
76 CL Co C-4
sCAI,r1j
7- /ik- j90 E C -vwm fZ
o -
121~
& •..
t1.oc LLL----
te%i Q-A.&. 1frsc
1L) L4JO 7..&
I /
a
34 Janet Nastrogany
This does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR and
does not require a response. S •
12-52
92 35
A. As a citizen of the City of Encinitas I would like to make
City Council. and the City's Development Department aware that 1
am strongly opposed to the further development of 'New
Fcinxtas". Specifically, the present plan to. build a Home Depot
on the corners of El Camino Real and Olivenhein Rds. This is one
of the worst thought out ideas 1 nave personally witnessed in
this area so far. The addition of a Home Depot in this'proposed
spot will add to an already congested traffic area as well as
generate excessive noise levels, not mention drive, Out the small
businessman
However, what'concerns me tne most is .that it is being. built
right on top of a 'wet'land'. It doesn't take a rocket scientist
to figure o'Jt what occurs when you concrete over a sensitive
biological habitat such as,this one. I fail to see howa
B environmental impact report could report anything but negative
findings and a failed'go ahead to build.
We have found that the Blacktailed Gnatcatcher,,an already
endangered, species inhabits this 55 acre land parcel. It is
thought that only 1200 pairs still exist.' There is also a lArge
population of endangered plants on this site.
DI attended the 'story poles" party last Saturday and was
absolutely floored at the size Home Depot is proposing. Its too
big. This land is very beautiful. Flease can we leave it
free. from more development?
35. Pieter Brueckner
This does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR
and does not require a response. Impacts to biological
resources are discussed in Section' 3.3.2 'of 'the EIR and, : traffic impacts in Section 3.5.2, visual quality in Section
3.7.2 and,General Plan compatibility- in Section 3.6.2.3.
The purpose of an EIR is to, provide 'information ,'on' the
potential environmental effects of a c pro)ect spec: the
adverse 'effects. An Elk is supposed to provide mitigation
measures or alternative -projects that .would ' mitigate.
significant impacts The Elk preparer is not empowered to
require anything, but- can only make recommendations. 'It is
the decision-making body that has the-power to require changes'
in the project, adopt an alternative project, attach- -'
conditions to a project, or determine' that none of, the
findings can be made and deny approval of the project.- The
s deciion-making body may require conditions of approval for
many .-reasons, including mitigation of potential impacts and
required conformance with the Municipal Code or General Plan
requirements
A number of alternatives are discussed in the EIR that may, be
environmentally superior to the proposed project. However, it
should be noted that Section 15091 of the State CEOA
GuidelInes allows a public agency to approve a pro)ect with
significant impacts if it can make one or more of the
following three possible findings for each of the significant
effects (1) changes or alterations have been required in or
incorporated, into, the project, that avoid 'or substanial1',
'lessen the effect; (2') the lea 'agency lacks -the' jurisdiction
m to ake the change but 'an I other agency, does have such
authàrity; or., (3) specific economic, social' or , other
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the Final Elk. - All of.
these findings must be supported by substantial evidence in
the admi'nistrátiverecord. If the decision-making body-makes
one of the three specified findings, it must also adopt -a
Statement of Overriding Considerations. This.-is explained in
Section 1.1 of the EIR.
The informatipn is noted. Sensitive plant and animal species
are dj'scusséd 'in the Biological Report (Appendix B) and in
Section 3.3 of the EIR. Biological-impacts are discussed in
Section 3.3.2. '
0. This does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of' the EIR
and does not require'a response,. Visual quality impacts are
discussed in Section 3.7.2 of the Elk.
12-53
0 •
JOHNSON, O'CONNELL & MCCARTHY
A PARTAIRSHIP IIA(LUOIAC A PROIISSIONAL CORPORATIOA
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CABOT, CABOT £ FOlIOS CORPORATE CLNILR
550 WRIT •C 5106(1. 510. 11)0
IAN DIEGO. CAIIIORAIA 91101-3590
38
CLAUDIA B. 9LINI,
09(1(0 ADMINISTRATOR
t0194000 16191 096-621;
SUOCOPI(R 1619) 196-7)16
k(VW K. J0HP410N
Ro000T A. OCONNOLL
DANIEL B. M,CARTHY
9411010. BROWN
JAN01). SIPLI
CORPORATION February 29, 1992
Mr. Patrick Murphy
Community Development Director
City of Encinitas
Encinitas City Ball .
527 Encinitas Blvd.
Encinitas, CA 92024
Re: Comments On Environmental. Impact Report for
Home Depot Specific Plan and Tentative Hap -
(Case BOA 91-044
Dear Mr. Murphy:
Please accept the following questions and comments on behalf
of the Neighborhoods United for Quality of Life organization, a
-citizen's group consisting of residents around the--Specific Plan
Area.
We are submitting under separate cover, a detailed discussion
of the inconsistencies of. the project with the Encinitas General
Plan. We hereby incorporate by reference the comments- and
questions raised in that-- correspondence.
1. Scope of EIR for Specific Plan -
The impact analysi's and related studies with respect to
A Planning Areas 3 -and 4 are obviously incomplete. As. a general
proposition, the EIR defers an analysis of potential impacts from
development of those Planning Areas until a later date. -
- The purpose of a Specific Plan--and an EIR for a Specific Plan
is -to plan the entire area and to consider the impacts from the
entire area asit is likely to be developed. -
The Draft EIR by avoiding a detailed analysis of probable
- impacts from Planning Areas . 3 and 4 makes it functionally
impossible for there to be a meaningful cumulative impact analysis
with respect to such issues as habitat viability;-,wildlife run-off
quantity and control water quality, sedimentation erosion, and
the need for future 'flood control When it io time to build in
C
B Planning Areas 3 and 4, what additional net loss ofvetlands will - be deemed, necessary? - What contig uous open space plan for the entirespecific Plan Area would be-environmentally superior?
We believe the DEIR should be returned to the consultants for
-a comprehensive environmental impact, mitigation and alternatives
38. Kevin Johnson of Johnson, O'Connell & McCarthy for
Neighborhoods United for Quality of Life -
- A. See response to letter I 11, comment A.5.'
The EIR quantifies the amount of wetlands that would be
impacted for each Planning Area if,all of the area designated
as -developable in the Specific Plan is developed. This
information is included in both Table 1.3-4, in Section 1, and
in Table 3.3-3, in Sectlon,3A3. Additional information has
been added on cumulative impacts throughout the EIR.-
The alternatives discussed in Sections,7.1.2, 7.1.3, 7.1.4,
7.1.6, 7.1.7 and 7.2.7. are considered to be environmentally
superior to the proposed project in terms of impacts to
biological resources and steep slopes and retention of natural
open space. The composite alternative discussed in Section
7.1.8 is considered. to be most environmentally sensitive
alternative but necessarily- the preferred alternative due to
theother planning issues it raises. Alternative 7.1.7 is
considered to be the preferred alternative when environmental
and planning objectives are weighed. -
The information contained in the Elk for the Arroyo La Costa
Master Plan project that is relevant to cumulative impacts has
been addressed -in this EIR. The traffic analysis included
traffic projections from City of. Carlsbad 'Facilities
Management ZoneS ii and 12, which include Arroyo La Costa.
The following sections address cumulative impacts that include
impacts* from Arroyo La -Costa: - - Section 3.1.2.3
(hydrology/ flooding impacts), 3.2.2.3 (water quality impacts),
3.3.26 (biological impacts), 3.5.2.5 (traffic impacts), and
3.7.2.4 (visual impacts).
Section 3.6.2.3 discusses the project's lack of conformance
with the City's Resource Management Element Policy 10.6. The
- - intent of the impact analysis conclusion was to indicate that
resource: agencies, as well as biologists, take more into
consideration than just acreage when considering mitigation. - - A more diversified wetland area including a variety of
vegetation 1would have substantially more value for wildlife
habitat than the existing Disturbed Fields.' This does not
change the fact that the project is in-conflict with the
-
City's "no net loss" policy for wetlands. However, it will be
the Encinjtas City Council that makes-the final determination
as to the significance of the project's nonconformance with
some City policies. - -
12-56
•
Mr. Patrick Murphy
February 29, 1992
Page 2
analysis for the entire Specific Plan, Area. Additionally', all cumulativè, impacts; including, traIfic,"associated with the Arroyo
La Costa development, directly across the street should be
considered since the project is reasonably foreseeable.
2.' Proposed Net Loss of Wetlands
As, you. ire aware, the General Plan specifically prohibits a
net loss of wetlands.
D The authors of the. DEIR apparently attempt to justify such a
net loss by stating in a conclusory fashion that there is to be
"enhancement" of the wetlands. They also seem to suggest that the
issuance of ,a permit bythe Army Corps of Engineers somehow makes such a net loss acceptable. E With respect to the Army Corps permit, we note initially that
the-subject entitlement has expired'. ' It will be necessary for the applicant to,start,the processanew, and it is entirely possible
that the Corps will require additional studies and investigation
efforts including updating wetlands delineation The net loss may
be even' greater than estimated.
F In this regard, we' would like an explanation as to whether the
net loss estimate includes wetlands loss as a result of flood
control and drainage changes throughout the Specific Plan Area and
adjacent properties.
With' respect to the wetlands delineation study, we find no
date of performance. Apparently, it was made at a time when the
water table at the site was approximately 2-3 feet "below the
surface with, a, capillary fringe of approximately 1
- 1 1/2 feet. If the' water table was at this level -two or7more-y,ears"ago, it is quite, probable the table is higher as a result of, recent rains. Therefore, 'it is also possible that the , wetland 'boundaries are
deficient.
Accordingly, even larger portions of wetlands could be
affected. by this project..The DEIR should include in analysis of whether t is appropriate to delineate wetlands in the middle of a
'drought." ,
Updated ground water and wetland delineation studies for the
entire Specific Plan Area should be performed.
'
3. Inadeauate Project Alternative Analysis
H There is insufficient discussion in the DEIR of alternative
projects on the subject site. A traditional light industrial use
on the site, 'involving smaller structures could very well have
E. The Army 'Corps of Engineers re-issued a new Section 404 Permit
on August 28, 1992. The wetland impact analysis has not changed.
F The wetland impact analysis includes all grading and dredging
proposed for the TM (PA 1 and 2) and assumes that the wetland
areas in PA 3 'and 4 that are designated as developable will be
developed to the full extent.-
G. The wetlands 1. were delineated in October of 1989 They were delineated' following the methods adopted by the, Federal
Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation and by the Army
Corps of Engineers The amount of wetlands on the site has
been shown to be highly reflective of,, the amount of flooding
caused by a back-up of water into properties upstream of the
El Casino Real bridge. The flooding is more indicative of the presence of the El ' Casino Real, bridge, which creates a subsurface darn, increased runoff from many upstream
developments,, and the lack df.maintenance of the creek
channel than it is indicative of precipitation the wetlands
have increased substantially during recent years despite a
drought Further it is noteworthy that where hydrology is not readily discernible the delineation manuals allow for the
inference of this parameter based on- soils and vegetation. Both of these are considered to be more stable under drought
conditions This was taken into consideration when the
wetlands were delineated Another wetlands delineation is not
considered necessary
H Section 7.2.4 specifically indicates that an alternative use
could reduce wetland and steep slope impacts as well as
traffic depending on the use Section 7 2 4 has been amplified to s discuss posible alternative uses of PA 1
However, regardless of what use occurs in PA 1 the imortant
issue is the Specific'Plan designation for developable 'areas.
In order to guarantee that an alternative use in PA 1 would
have less biological impacts the Specific Plan would have to
be revised to retain all of the wetlands plus a minimum 50-
foot wide wetlands buffer in open space (eee Figure 7.1-2). In addition, the Specific Plan text should require that
development encroachment into steep slopes should not exceed
20% for each PA
I. The EIR provides as much information as is readily available
to the public on alternative sites., Without site-specific.
technical studies available, the en ironmental information 'on'
alternative mites is based on information contained in the
General Plan and the environmental documents prepared for the
General Plan.'
The courts have 'determined that, in 'determining 'whether
development of a particular, alternative site is a' potentially
12-57 '
Mr. Patrick Murphy
February 29, 1992
Page 3
superior environmental advantages and at the same time allow the
land owner reasonable use of the subject property. The multiple
and specific advantages of such an alternate use should be
delineated. By way of example, what could be built on the site
that would not require the relocation and/or importation of massive
amounts of fill?
The alternative site discussions for the Home Depot facility
are inadequate because there is a lack of reasonable detail and
analysis regarding the specific environmental advantages of Home
Depot using another site. Please explain why additional time
requirements for pursuing the project on another site, such as the
Robert Hall and Kaye properties, is a reason to not discuss, in
detail, the environmental advantages of each.
On the' "Reduced Building Size" alternative, please explain, in U detail, why a "substantially smaller building " will not meet the
,project objectives.
Purported Wetlands Enhancement
The claim of wetlands enhancement as a result of this project
seems to rely primarily on proposed revegetation efforts in certain
portions of the. wetlands. There is no analysis of noise impacts
upon th'e wetlands and associated wildlife. 'There is no analysis of
light impacts on the wetlands and associated wildlife.' There is no
anilyEis of the impact of habitat reduction on the various
biological resources in the area and there is no analysis of
specific pollutants which are likely to pass through the oil/water
separators that are proposed adjacent to the parking lot.
Without such analyses, it is impossible to conclude that there
is going to be an enhancement of the wetlands environment.
, On the subject of pollutants being discharged into the system,
there is no. benchmark water quality study which has been undetaken
to determine water quality for the Encinitas Creek and the subject
wetlands. It is, therefore, impossible to even begin the analysis
as ,to whether there will be a significant impact upon water
quality.
M Additionally, we find no specific analysis of the specific
type, life span and quantities of pollutants which will pass into
the wetlands, Encinitas Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon once anything
bigger than a two year storm hits the area. What toxics, if any1
may'become a'permánent part of the wetland system?
Overall, it is hard to imagine an alternate use for the
' property which would offer such a broad spectrum of contaminants
for release into the environment. Operation of Home Depot at this
feasible means of satisfying the goals of a proposed private
project, an agency may properly consider whether the site is
owned or can reasonably beacquired or controlled by, the
project proponent. The courts found: that the' question of
whether a property is owned or can reasonably be acquired by
the project proponent has a strong bearing on the project's
ultimate' cost and the chanceà for an expeditious and
successful accomplishment, and that a project alternative that
cannot be feasibly accomplished need not be extensively
considered. The court has also taken the position that an EIR
is not ordinarily an occasion for the reconsideration or
overhaul of fundamental land use policies if alternative land
uses were addressed in an EIR for an adopted plan including
the project area.
The courts have determined that: (1) an EIR must contain a
discussion of a reasonable range of feasible alternative
sites; (2) an EIR must contain a brief discussion of why sites
which are ostensibly feasible were rejected as infeasible,
remote or speculative; and' (3) an EIR need not ,disàuss sites
which are obviously infeasible, remote or speculative. Under
CEQA, the rule of'reason requires discussion in the EIR of
those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.
CEQA does not - require the study and discussion of every
alternative site imaginable. Rather, the key issue is whether
the selection and discussion of alternatives fosters informed
decision making and informed public participation. However,
a lead agency may not refuse to review sites simply because
those sites do not-meet all-the proposed objectives or because
they present economic or environmental difficulties of their
own. '
The former Kaypro site (Kaye property) was eliminated from
detailed consideration as an alternative site because it is
not large enough for the proposed Home Depot Center and
required parking.
Home improvement centers are only permitted by, right in areas
zoned General Commercial and Limited Industrial. Development
of the Robert Hall property would require revision of the
General Plan designation on the' Hall property as well as a
rezone and a vote, of Encinitas citizens. Policy 3.9 of the
Land Use Element of the General Plan 'states that "With the
exception described in Policy 3.12, once acknowledged as being
consistent with the General Plan and Local Coastal 'Program,
property- designated/zoned for residential use shall not be
redesignated/rezoned to any non-residential use except by the
affirmative vote of a majority of those. voting in the election
approving the change." The tyPO' of General Plan change that
would be required for use of the Hall property as a Home Depot
Center' is not one of the exceptions specified in Policy 3.12.
12-58
a
N.
0.
this EIR. In addition, the analysis of potential water
quality impacts was based on numerous factors related to the
position of '€he site in the watershed, the degree of proposed
surface modification, the identified concerns of siltation and
contaminants entering Encinitas' Creek. and the potential for
significant adverse effects. The concern was not based on
quantified water quality conditions in the Creek at any
particular time, but rather on the potential for 'adversely
affecting water quality on-site and downstream.
The vast majority of pollutants that commonly occur in parking
lots are generally flushed from the parking lot surface during
the "first flow" of a storm. After this first flushing
effect, the amount of pollutants in parking lot runoff are
significantly reduced. Since all of the parking lot runoff
will drain into the water' runoff treatment system, it is
expected that no toxics would become a permanent part of the
wetland system. The runoff will first flow through the
oil/water/sediment separator system. It will then flow into
the detention pond, where any remaining pollutants may settle
outand where the marsh vegetation in the detention pond will
act as a final filter. The oil/water/sediment separator
system will be cleaned out at regular intervals and,the marsh
vegetation and bottom sediment in the detention pond will be
replaced biennially, with a maximum of 50% of the plants
replaced at one time. -
The only source of water pollutants that could occur outside
the building are those associated with automobiles. and-spills
of products by customers." As discussed in-Section 3.22,'the
proposed parking area is sufficiently large and the containers,
sold are sufficiently small enough to conclude that, Oven if
customers spill the contents of some of their containers, it
is likely, that the spilled material would spread out and
possibly dry up before it even reaches the runoff water
treatment system. For spilled materials that reach the runoff
water treatment system, either immediately after a spillage or
after precipitation, the treatment system is expected to
filter Out contaminants in a two-pronged process. Oils and
oily substances would be separated out in,the treatment system
equipment at the edge of the parking area. Remaining
contaminants would likely settle out in the detention pond
that is part of the runoff water treatment system. The marsh
vegetation in the detention pond will act as a filter so that
the water entering the Creek is expected to be of adequate
quality.' The marsh vegetation must be periodically replaced,
as discussed in Section 3.2.3 and the Mitigation Monitoring
and.Reporting Program, to ensure that there is always adequate
vegetation for the filtering.
The runoff water treatment system is designed to accommodate
the flow from the first 6 hours of a 2-year storm because this
67
3. The project objctive for PA Xis the provision of -a standard-
sized Home Depot Center that is sized to accommodate the same
range of products carried in Other Hose Depot Centers'. The
standard size is in the range, of 100,000 square, feet (not
counting' the garden center), and one-local store is 95,000
square feet. Therefore, it is-deemed feasible to meet the
project objectives with a slightly-reduced building size. The
alternatives, analysis has 'beOn revised to, include one
alternative for a 95000 square-foot building' and another
alternative showing a 25% reduction in size per the request in
one of the public comments.
Section 3.3.2.2 has been amplified, including a discussion of - -
potential noise impacts on wildlifà.
The' Final Environmental Impact Report, Olivenha-iri Road ri
Widening Project addressed, in general terms, the water
quality of the Encinitas Creek drainage basin and Batiquitos -
Lagoon. This -EIR accepts-the conclusions of the Olivenhain --
Road EIR, which has already been certified. In addition, the -.
analysis of potential water quality impacts was based on
numerous factors related to the position of the site in the
watershed, the 'degree of- proposed surface'modluicatlon. the
identified concerns' of siltation and contaminants- entering
Encinitas Creek and the potential for significant adverse
effects The concern was not based on quantified water
quality conditions 'in the Creek ,at any particular time., but -
rather on the potential for adversely affecting water quality
on-site and downstream.
K. The vast majority of pollutants that commonly occur in parking
lots are generally flushed from the parking lot surface during
the 'first flow' of a storm After this first flushing
effect, the amount of pollutants, in parking lot runoff -are
significantly 'reduced. Since all of'the'parking lot runoff
will drain into the water runoff treatment system, it is,
expected that no toxics would become a, permanent partof the,
wetland system. The runoff will-- first flow, through ,the
oil/water/sediment separator' system. It will then flow into
the detention pond, where any remaining, pollutants may settle
out and' where the marsh-vegetatión-.in the-detention pond will -
act as a final filter. The oil/water/sediment separator
system. will be cleaned out at regular intervals and the marsh
vegetation and bottom sediment in the detention pond will be -
replaced biennially, with a maximum of 50% of the plants
replaced-at dne time.. -
4. The only source of water pollutants-that could occur outside
the building are those associated with automobiles and spills
of products by customers. ' As discussed in Section 3.2.2, the
proposed parking area is sufficiently- large and the containers,
sold are sufficiently small enough to conclude that, even if
12-59
customers spill the contents of some of their containers, it
is likely that the spilled material would spread out and
possibly dry, up before it even reaches the runoff water
treatment,system. For spilled materials that reach the runoff
water treatment system, either, immediately after .a spillage or
after precipitation, the treatment system is expected to
filter out contaminants in a two-pronged process. Oils and
oily substances would be separated out in the treatment system
equipment at the edge of the, parking area..: Remaining
contaminants would likely settle out in the detention pond
that is part'of the runoff water treatment. system. The marsh
vegetation in the detention pond will act' as'a filter so that
the.water entering the Creek,, is. expected tó.be of.adéquate
quality. The marsh vegetation must be periodically replaced,
as discussed. in Section 3.2.3 and the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program, to ensure that there is always adequate
vegetation, for the filtering. .
The runoff water treatment system is designed to accommodate
the flow from the first 6 hours of.a 2-year storm because this
is the period during which parking lot runoff, in general,
contains the highest percentage of contaminants. It is
expected that the amount of contaminants remaining in a
parking area after 6 hours would be insignificant. The Army
Corps of Engineers, in consultation with the,.. U.. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, has reissued. the Section. 404.Permit for the
project, indicating that it is the Corps' opinion that the
proposed mitigation is adequate. The consulting biologist
that managed the biological studies is a specialist in ecology
and determined that the runoff water treatment system would be
adequate.
Since storm drain flows eventually end up in creeks and
oceans, collecting and pumping the runoff, into the storm drain
system would Only, slightly delay. the entry of the runoff, into
water systems. Pursuant to Section 21002 of' the 'Public
Resources Code,. the purpose of mitigation measures is to
"substantially lessen or avoid" significant adverse
environmental impacts. The courts have determined that once
.an agency has adopted sufficient measures to at least
"substantially lessen" significant impacts, the agency need
not, under CEQA, adopt every nickel and dime mitigation. scheme
brought to its attention or proposed in the project LIR.
CEQA stresses that the level of analysis of potential impacts
should ' be in., proportion to the., severity of the impacts.
Therefore, the EIR .'provides. -a, ,more detailed analysis of
impacts to, biological resources,, cultural resources, traffic
circulation and General Plan incompatibility because these
issues were deemed have the ' potential 'for more significant
impacts than hydrology and water.guality. Sections 3.1.2 and
3.2.2 have been revised to reflect cumulative impacts.
12-60
Mr. Patrick Murphy
February 29, 1992
Page 5
T Secondly, there is very limited analysis, if any, regarding
water flow levels, velocity and fluctuation through all parts of
the Specific Plan. Area. Impacts upon sedimentation processes,
vegetation and other biological resources are only cursorily
reviewed as to the western part of Planning Area 1. What will'be
the impacts everywhere else, including along the water course
through the Scott's Valley area?
7. 'Agency Comments and Concerns
U We have reviewed your list of agencies, organizations and
persons consulted.
However, the only written communication included in the Draft
EIR from any of the agencies is a July 24, 1991, letter from the
Department of the Army. Were other comments received? 'If so, any
of these received prior to the issuance of the DEIR should be
included.' This allows the reviewing public to better analyze the
impacts of the project.
Of. particular importance would be comments from the Regional
Water Quality. Control Board, 'the Resources Agency, the State
Historical Preservation Office and the Coastal Commission all of
which must be Consulted before a new 404 Permit is issued through
the Army Corps of Engineers.
With respect to the Army Corps, we would also note that the
right of the Army Corps of Engineers to issue nationwide permits is
currently in litigation and a decision respecting that right may be
forthcoming within the next few weeks. If the reviewing court
gives the right to the State of California to disallow such permits
within its jurisdiction, we request an analysis of whether an
"individual permit" will be required for'thè project and whether
the different criteria will prove an obstacle to the project as
currently designed.
8. . Creekbed. Wetland Drainage System and Water Treatment Area
Maintenance
V The provisions for continued maintenance of the creekbed,
wetland drainage system and water treatment area system do not
sufficiently identify the maintenance obligations of the applicant
and adjacent Specific Plan property owners after the 60-month
monitoring.period. What will happen after.this period with respect
to sedimentation and 'water quality maintenance and control? The
application obligation to monitor and maintain the creekbed and
water quality should be continuing.
. S
Mr. Patrick Murphy R. ASL Consultants Inc. has been under contract to the City of February 29 1992 Encinitas for the preparation of a comprehensive drainage
Page 6 plan. This firm prepared the hydrologic' analysis for this
EIR. Thepurpose of an EIR is-,to..provide information, notto
act as a project advocate or, explain why a project should be
approved.- we herein adopt by reference all Specific Plan deficiencies
noted in the Draft EIR S If the author feels that the EIR for the Olivenhain Road
Widening Project was not adequate he should have contested
Thank you for your attention in these matters its certification and the approval of that pro)ect Because
thati, EIR was certified as adequate this EIR accepts the
Very truly yours conclusions contained within it Sections .3.4.2, .:3 2 2
- 3.3.2, 3.5.2, 3.7.2, 3.8.2; 3.14.2,. 3-.19.2 and 3.20.2.include
JOHNSON, 0 CON14ELL S MCCARTHY discussions of potential cumulative impacts
() 4 T. The ,hydrology repdrt prepared by ASL Consultants, Inc., / (Appendix A) includes the HEC-2 hydraulic calculations. In'
addition, the report notes that the 100-year flood water-
Keyln K Johnson surface elevation is expected to change by less than 0.1 foote ' for all downstream sections of Encinitas Creek Exhibit B
KKJ mvc compares the existing water levels with projected water,
cc Neighborhoods United for Quality of Life levels
As explained in Section 3 1 the dredging proposed as part of 04H0MEDE the Home Depot project will provide better water flow through
PA 1 and will reduce the - backup of 11 water that has occurred in
recent years as a result of the lack of maintenance of the
Creek bed beneath the El Casino Real bridge Therefore
potential flooding of the Scott's Valley area will be reduced.
by the project When Detention Basin -D is:'60.mpleted, it is
expected that 'flood ing will be eliminated in Scott's Valley
U In accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines the
Final EIR, containsresponses to all comments received, during
the public.review period. The Army.Corps of Engineers has,
reissued the Section 404 permit 'for the proposed Home Depot,
project.
V Section 1.7 (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) has
been revised to require perpetual maintenance of the creek bed'
and runoff water treatment system by, the project applicant.
The runoff, water treatment system includes the physical
equipment'as well, as the detention 'basin.'
W This comment does not challenge the adequacy or accuracy of
the EIR and-requires nO further response'. ..
12-61
JOHNSON, O'CONNELL & MCCARTHY
KIBRS,IP lNCLuOlr',C A PROF ESSIONAL CORPORA 1.01 KEVIN K. JOHNSON- ATIOBILLYS Al LAW ROBERT A. O'CONNELl CABOT CABOT & 1060(6 CORPORATE (011116 ORNIEL I. MLCAOTHY 3,0WB SI C STREIT 611 1150 'B1IOl B. BROWN SAN DIRCO. (61,1001110 92101.3510 JANNI S. SIP(B - CR0011111 1. COULSTOIR
0 PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION February 28, 1992
Mr. Patrick Murphy
Community Development Director.
City of Encinitas
Encinitas City Hall
527 Encinitas Blvd.
Encinitas, CA 92024
Re: Comments Upon Home Depot Specific Plan
and Tentative Mao Draft Environmental Impact
Report (Case No. 91-044
Dear Mr. Murphy:
The firm of Johnson, O'Connell & McCarthy has been retained by
"Neighborhoods United for Quality of Life", an organization of
residents around the Specific Plan Area, to provide comments on
their behalf regarding inconsistencies between the proposed project
and the Encinitas General Plan.
CLAIICIA B. FLINT,
0111CR 001IINISTBATOR
1(1(11-TONE 16191 696.6311
TEL ECOPLER 16191696.7il6
1.
39. Kevin Johnson of Johnson, O'Connell & McCarthy for
Neighborhoods United for Quality of Life
The EIR includes an analysis of compatibility with Encinitas
General Plan policies, The analysis has assumed the "worst case"
in order to ensure that all reasonably foreseeable environmental
impacts are identified. However, the determination of whether or
not the proposed project is consistent with the City of Encinitas
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance is a planning determination that
will be -made by the Encinitas. City. Council with ,input from the
City's planning Staff. The .purpose .f the EIR is to fairly
disclose the environmental impacts of the project, the mitigation
measures .and the alternatives that can reduce potential impacts.
It is not the purpose of the EIRto preempt the right of the City
to determine general 'plan and zoning consistency.
If the Encinitàs City Council finds that the project is, in fact,
not cànsistent with one or more planning policies, then this may
result in a significant, planning consistency issue, depending upon
the perceived seriousness of the conflict. If one or more such
inconsistencies is ultimately found and is determined to be
significant, the EIR has identified alternatives in Section 7 that
can mitigation such conflicts to a level of insignificance, or, in
the alternative, 'findings of overriding considerations can be made
to override these concerns if the City Council. deems it
appropriate. .
A. This interpretation of Policy 5.1 has been added to Section
3.6.2 of the EIR to reflect public input.
Policy 5.1:
INCONSISTENCY WITH L5140 USE ELEMENT POLICIES B. This interpretation of Policy 6.1 has been added to Section
3.6.2 of the EIR to reflect public input. However, future
development of 'the Encinitas Ranch project to the immediate
west' and northwest may very well extend commercial development
in that area.
Commercial growth within the City should be sufficient to
support residential growth and provide adequate services to the
citizens of the individual communities.
A Inconsistency with Policy 5.1:
This policy implicitly recognizes that commercial growth
within the city should only be sufficient to support residential
growth and provide adequate services to the citizens of the
individual communities as opposed to supporting regional growth and
service needs The proposed Home Depot Home Improvement Center
targets a regional market area including the cities of Del Mar,
Solana Beach, Encinitas, Carlsbad, Northern San Diego, and the
community of Rancho Santa Fe. (See draft EIR p. 2-48)
Policy 6,1:
Permit commercial land uses and other types of non-residential
development only in those areas where such development presently is
concentrated or where development does not result in land use
This policy is very subjective in-that it does not define a
"very large building." Section 3.6.2 of the EIR concludes
that the project may be 'incompatible with this policy.
,'Neither the Home Depot Specific ,Plan or Tentative Map propose
the. construction. of Detention Basin D, although they will
contribute to that project and. will benefit by-, it. The
construction of, Detention BasinD is. part of the Olivenhain
Road Widening Project, which has' already been approved.. The
dredging of the Creek bed, that is proposed as part of the
project is considered necessary ,by.thé consulting hydrologist,
the City Engineer, and' the V City Planning Department to
alleviate the, flooding that has occurred in the project area
and 'upstream areas. This back-flooding has occurred because
the Creek bed has not been-maintained as was prescribed when
the El Camino Real bridge 'was constructed and because the
12-62
11 10
Mr. Pitrick Murphy .
February 28, 1992
Page 2
conflicts with 'suriounding residential development.
B Inconsistency with Policy 6,1: -
There, is presently no commercial.- development on land
immediately surrounding the Home Depot site. The site is bordered
by El CaSino Real and agricultural land to the west, Olivenhain
Road and currently" undeveloped but residential zoned property to
the north, residential land to the , east, and undeveloped
residential zoned land and residential development to the south.
Locating the Home Depot Center in the Specific Plan Area will
conflict with surrounding residential development in that it will
result in unaitigable visual and noise impacts to these residences.
Policy 6.6: ' '•
The construction of very large buildings shall be discouraged
where such structures are incompatible with ' surrounding
development. '
C Inconsistency with Policy 6.6:
Due' to its massive warehouse appearance and bulk, the proposed
102,000 square foot Home Depot building is incompatible with the
-small scale residential development surrounding it.
Policy-8.:
Development in those areas identified as being within coastal
areas and floodplain areas identified in the Land Use Element and
Resource Management Element must be limited designed to minimize
hazards associated with development in these areas and to preserve
area resources.' Nb development shall occur, in the 100-year
floodplain that is not consistent' and compatible with the
associated flood hazard. Only uses which are safe and compatible
with, periodic flooding and inundation shall be considered, such as
stables plant nurseries ,,a minimum intrusion of open parking some
forms of agriculture, and open space preservation, as appropriate
under zoning, and subject to applicable en4ronmenta1 review and
consistency'with other policies of this Plan. No grading or fill
activity other than the minimum necessary. to accommodate those uses
found safe and compatible shall be allowed. Such grading' shall not
significantly redirect or impede flood flows or require floodway
modifications. Exceptions-from 'these lithitations may be made to
allow minimum private development (defined as one dwelling unit per
legal parcel under residential zoning, and an equivalent extent of
development under non-residential zoning) Only upon a finding that
strict application thereof would preclude a minimum use of the
underground bridge structure acts as a subsurface dam, -
retaining the water on the upstream side-of the bridge.
The purpose of this policy is to minimize potential, flood
hazards. The only use proposed within the 100-year floodplain
is parking, and Encinitas policy considers parking to be a
suitable use for a floodplain. In addition, the reduction of
the floodplain' will result- in decreased flooding of the
existing development upstream of the project area. -
Section 3.6.2 of-' the EIR - addresses these potential
inconsistencies with General Plan policy.
Section 3.6.2 addresses the fact that' the proposed project';,.
does not conform to the city's required buffer areas.
C. Section 3.6.2 addresses the inconsistencies of the Specific'
Plan with thip policy.
This information is included in the EIR.
This information has been added to the compatibility analysis
for this policy.
This-information has been added to the compatibility analysis
for this policy.
Section 3.6.2 of the EIR includes this information.
This information was -contained in the Draft EIR. 'However, the
analysis of-this policy in the Draft EIR was 'incorrect because'
it did not take into consideration the fact that sOme' of- the
grading on- steep 'hillsides is required to improve El Casino
Real. Table 3'.6-1 of the EIR has been revised.
H. The analysis of conformance with this policy, 'which is in
Section 3.6.2 of the EIR,'has been amplified to reflect this
information. -
N. The analysis of conformance with this policy, which is
included in Section 36.2 of the EIR, has báen amplified to
require City approval of a safety program and hazardous
materials mitigation and emergency, response program. The
program would be required prior to' approval of the Final Map.
0. The EIR has been revised to include an analysis of
compatibility with this policy. '
P. The analysis of conformance with this policy, which is
included in 'Section 3:6.2 of' the EIR, has been amplified to
include this information. '
12-63
Mr. Patrick Murphy.
February 28, 1992
Page 3
property. Exceptions ,may also be made for development of
Circulation Element roads, other necessary public facilities, flood. control projects- where no feasible method for protecting existing
necessary ror puplic saLety or to protect existing development, and
other development which has its objective the improvement of fish
andwildlifehabität. These exceptions-shall be allowed'only to
the extent that no other feasible alternatives exist and minimum
disruption to the natural floodplain environment is made The City
shall not approve subdivision or boundary line adjustments which
would allow increased impacts from development in 100-year
- floodplains. For specific policy provisions regarding wetlands
which may be associated with floodplains, refer to Resource
Management Element Policy 10.6. -
D Inconsistency with Policy 8.2:
We initially question the propriety of plans to reduce the
floodplain through the implementation of detention basin 0 and
dredging, under the El Casino Real Bridge thereby removing portions
of specific plan area lands from the - constrained floodplain,
allowing greater and more intensive use of that land, and avoiding
these clear dictates to limit development in fl000plains.
Further, Policy 8.2 permits flood control projects, such as
detention basin 0 and proposed dredging under El 'Casino Real
bridge, only where no feasible method for protecting existing
public or, private structures existsor •to protect existing
development,, not to permit and facilitate new development such as
the Home Depot project.
Policy 8.6: -
Significant' natural features, shall be preserved and
incorporated into all development. Such features may include
bluffs, rock outcroppings, natural .drainageàourses. wetland and
riparian areas, steep topography, trees and views.
E Inconsistercy with Policy 8.6:'- -
The Specific Plan is incompatible with this
11
policy The Home
Depot project located in Planning Area one will directly impact and
'destroy a substantial portion of existing we,tlands' as indicated in
draft EIR figure 2.3-11. • -
The HomeDepot project will also result in development of one
hundred percent (100%) of steep slopes located in Planning Area 1
contravening Policy 8.6's dictate to preserve such steep
The EIR recognizes that the portion of El Camino Real along
the project frontage is designated as a scenic highway. Since
this, comment does not challenge the adequacy of the EIR, no
further response is required;
The analysis of conformance with this policy, which is
included in Section 3.6.2 of the EIR, has been amplified to
include this information.
This comment does not challenge the adequacy or accuracy of
the EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.
The analysis of the project's compatibility with thispolicy,
which is included in 'Section 3.6.2 :of. the EIR, has been
amplified.
This comment does not challenge the adequacy or accuracy of
the EIR. Therefore, no further response is required.
The EIR stated that an environmental opportunities 'and
constraints study was prepared prior to project design. The
Specific. Plan includes much • verbiage that meets the
requirements of this policy. The analysis of the project's
compatibility with this policy, which is included in Section
3.6.2 of the EIR, has been amplified.
Section 3.6.2 of the EIR discusses the project's
nonconformance with the City's policies regarding no net loss
of wetlands and retention of wetlands buffer areas. ' More
- --- -'—'details-on-the reasoning -beh'indthe-Army-Corps-ofEnineers'-_-- -
approval of the Section 404 , Permit are included in the
response to Letter # 3, Comment D.
This policy requires the City to prepare and implement a plan
for the preservation of wetlands resources. This comment does
not challenge the adequacy or accuracyof the EIR and requires
no further response. However, Section 3.6.2 of the EIR has
'been amplified to- include analysis of this policy.
1., This comment does not 'challenge the adequacy or accuracy of
the EIR.
12-64
a . . Mr. Patrick Murphy
February 28, 1992
Page -
:topography-
Proposed development in Planning Area. 2 fails to preserve
rugged terrain a bluff, and may impact an existing Torrey Pine
tree These impacts should be eliminated by removal of lots
impacting these areas The Specific Plan identifies an area in the
southern half of Planning Area 4 on the northwest facing hillsides
below thehomes on Meadow Glen Lane as developable. Development on
theseslopes is incompatible with policy 8.6.
Poljcv 8.10;
-
Ecological Resource/Open Space/Parks is a category, intended to be applied to both active and passive park-lands;lagoons wetland
habitat areas and their adjacent buffers and other areas of
significant environmental quality or public resource value Lands
in this category, other than public parks"and similar areas for
active recreation will be limited to uses and activities related
to habitat enhancement educational and scientific nature study
passive recreation which will have no significant adverse impact on
habitat values, and aquaculture having no significant adverse
effect or negative visual impact on natural processes or scenic
quality All areas possessing wetland resource values including
salt marsh and freshwater marsh habitat types shallbe protected
by appropriate buffers Buffer zones sufficient to protect wetlands
shall generally be minimum 100 feet in width and buffer zones to
protect riparian areas shall generally be minimum 50 feet lin width
unless a use or, development proposal demonstrates that a smaller
buffer will protect the resources of the wetland/riparian area
based on mite-specific information including but not limited to
a the type nd size of the development and/or proposed mitigation
(such as planting of vegetation) which will also achieve the
purpàses of the buffer.- The buffer should be measured landward
from the wetland or riparian area Maps and supplemental information submitted as part of the application should be used to
specifically determine these boundaries The California Dept of
Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shall be
consulted in such buffer-determinations and their comments shall be
accorded great weight
Development permitted in wetland and riparian buffer areas
shall- be limited to access paths, passive recreational uses, fences
and similar improvements necessary to- protect the wetland or, riparian- resource, and shall be restricted to the upper orlandward --- half of the buffer; Wetlãnd[riparian areas and their associated
- buffers shalibe permanently protected from development through the
application of an open space easement Or, other suitable instrument.
Developments shall be located and designed so as not to contribute
Mr. Patrick Murphy
February 28, 1992
Page 5
to increased sediment loading of the wetland/riparian-area, cause
disturbances to its fish and wildlife values, or otherwise impair
the functional capacity of the resource: Exceptions from this
policy for intrusion of development into wetland-or riparian areas
and their. associated buffers shall only be considered as specified
,in Resource Management Policy- 10.6. (i'è., development for the
primary purpdse.of the improvement-of' wetland resource value).
F Inconsistency with Policy 8,10:
The, Ecological Resource/Open Space/Parks category should apply
to the èpecfic plan area since it contains wetland habitat area
and other -üeas, of significant environmental quality or public
resouce value.' The property 'should, therefore, be limited to uses
and activities related. to habitat enhancement; education and
scientific -nature study, and passive recreat ion.
Substantial portions of the designated development -areas in
-Planning Areas 1, 3 and.4 are, within the wetland - boundary and, the
,buffers.reqüired.by policy 8.1,0 are not present. ._In.Pl'anning Area
'.1 the wetlands boundary crosses the eastern half of the proposed
Hone' Deot parking lot, tb's northeast corner of the proposed
building, the north half of the garden center, and the access-road
around the north side of the garden center
Although the project-meets the buffer requirements set forth
by the Army Corp of Engineers it does not meet buffer requirements
set forth in this policy which should be controlling Moreover, marsh area created as mitigation for adverse impacts to existing
- wetlands constitutes a wetland -itself requiring its own 100 foot buffer.
Poljcv 8.11:
The property located'at the southeast -quadrant of E1'Camino
Real and Olivenhain Road shall be designated as a Specific Plan
area, and development will be allowed only through prior apoval of a development plan for the entire area' as described below:-'
1. The development plan, shall implement the land uses''
generally shown on the Land Use Policy, Map: -
a Residential for the non-constrained
portions of the upper mesa 'east of El Casino - - - Real (having access, from the Village Park
- area). . . .
. I.
Hr. Patrick Murphy
February 28;,1992.
Page
b. Light industrial for the non-constrained
portions of the lOwer. properties háving access
off of El Casino Real or Olivenha'in Road.
C. Open; Space for all. areas constrained as
floodplain wetlands and wetland buffer areas
biological resources areas steep topography
and major transmission lines; as determined
'below.
.2. The development, plan shall establish specific boundaries
between the developable portions of the area and constrained open
space lands through detailed Site studies to determine the exact
extent of the constraints and the application of the policies of
the General Plan to determine what if any encroachment into those
constrained areas is to be allowed Once so determined the
constrained floodplain wetland and open space buffer biological
resource and steep topography open space lands shall be required
underthe Specific Plan to be prote'cted in their natural condition.
G Inconsistency wit Policy 8 ii
The- Specific Plan fails to protect ,all -environmentally
constrained areas in their natural condition as open space
Development is proposed in areas constrained as floodplain
wetlands, wétlandbuffer areas, biological resoirce areas, steep
topography and major transmission lines As indicated under Policy
8 10 above development in Area 1 would impact delineated wetlands
and asdiscussedpreviously would encroach upon steep- slopes. In
addition portions of Planning Area 4 within the SDG&E easement are
incorrectly indicated as developable
The Specific Plan also fails to provide a detailed development
plan ,as required by subsection 2 of the policy-for the entire
spedific Plan Area. -• Detailed development plans for ,:Planning Areas
3 and 4 are not present and future development in these areas is
discussed in a vague and purely hypothetical-fashion.
Policy 9.3:,
- Prohibit and- eliminate billboards and obtrusive advertising'
w c media along freeaycorridors, Highway 101/first Street and other - - -
scenic corridors and routes as specified in the Resource Management
Eleñent,- -Figure -3 - - - - ' -
-- -,
- HI1 ons1stencv with Policy 9,3:
The Home Depot project would result, in obtrusive signs along - -
Hr. Patrick Murphy
February 28, 1992
Page 7
a scenic corridor including large, bright orange and white signs at
the main entry and predominant bright orange and white signs on the
warehouse visible from El Casino Real.
- INCONSISTENCY WITH HOUSING ELEMENT POLICIES.
Policy 3.11;'
Discourage residential development of steep slopes, canyons,
and floodplains.
I Inconsistency with Policy 3.11:
The tentative sap is incompatible with this policy as it
propâses"to develop 37.8% of the steep slopes located in Planning
Area 2 (See Table 3.6-1, p. 3-90 Draft EIR).
IN60N8ITENCY WITH CIRCULATION ELEMENT POLICIES
Policy 1.3:
Prohibit development which results in LOS E or F at any intersection unless no alternatives exist, and an overriding public
need, can be demonstrated.
JInconsistencv with Policy 13: .
This. policy contemplates that there should be no further
development' if LOS E or F is present. The 'project aea road segments and intersections are already, operating at these
unacceptable standards .and further development should be deferred
until the level of service is improved
Policy 1,16:-
in areas where street patterns and extension's are not complete and significant lands remain for development which do,., not have
4irect street access; neighborhood street/access plans shall be
re ,quired- prior to any further 'land division or development.
- k1ncoistency with Policy 1.16: ,
The proposed tentative map fails to include neighborhood
street/acáess plans as required by this policy. Planning Areas 3
a 10
Mr. Patrick Murphy
F6bruary28, 1992
Pige8
-
and':4 are significantlands remaining for development which do not
have direct street access The specific plan and tentative sap should indicate future access 'tothese parcels so that the EIR can
address potential- impacts and recommend alternative access.
IHCOSIBTENCY WITH PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT POLICIES
Policy 1.2:
- Restrict:developmiflt in those areas-where slope exceeds 25% as
specified in the Hillside/Inlai d Bluff overlay zone regulations of the zoning code Encroachment into slopes as detailed in the
Hillside/Inland Bluff overlay may range from 0% to a maximum of
20% upon the discretionary judgment that such encroachment is
necessary for site development and that the maximum contiguous area
of sensitive slopes shall be preserved
L Inconsistency with Policy 1 2
The specific plan and the tentative map are in conflict with
this policy Proposed Development in Planning Areas 1 2 and 4
exceeds the maximum 20% encroachment into steep slopes as indicated
on pages 3-90, 91 of the draft EIR. Alternatives which avoid this-
-. encroachment must be adopted
Policy 1 4
Land uses involved in the production storage transportation
handling or disposal of hazardous materials will be located a safe
distance from land uses that may be adversely impacted by such
activities.
4 Inconsistency with Policy 1-4:
The Home Depot Improvement Center is directly adjacent to a
highly sensitive wetland area The Center will sell store and on
some occasion probably spill toxic materials including paints
solvents pesticides and fertilizers which may reach the sensitive
creek - area. -Run-off from the garden center area containing
fertilizers and pesticides will likely enter the creek. Hazardous
- urban run-off from •the parking lot .directly adjacent -to the wetlands has potential for entering the -creek even with the
presence-of oil/water separators and the run-off water treatment area; •I-short, the Center is not located a safe distance from
Encinitas Creek as required by Policy 3.4.
S - S - -.
- •:--
S
S - -
Mr. Patrick Murphy
February 28, 1992 - - Page
Policy 3.5:
Commercial and industrial facilities shall be required to
participate in a hazardous materials and wastes mitigation and
response program.
Inconsistency with Policy 3.5:
The Home Depot Improvement Center will sell, store and on
occasion prob'ably spill household materials which are considered
toxic and.subject to special hazardous waste collection and
disposal. -As-such, the Home Depot Center should be required to
participate in a hazardous materials and Wastes mitigation and
response program in order to respond to and prevent any intrusion
of such toxic materials into the-creek, the sanitary sewer, or the
storm drain system.
I11CON8I8TEHCIES WITH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ELEMENT POLICIES
Pólicv-3.6
Future development shall maintain significant mature trees to
the extent possible and -- incorporate them into the design of
development.--projects. -
01onsistencv with Policy 3.6:
The draft EIR indicatesthat the develdpmdñt of Planning Area 2 will result in the loss of one mature Torrey Pine without-
examining options for incorporating this tree into the design of
the development project.
Policy 4.6: -
The City will maintain and enhance the scenic highway/visual
corridor viewsheds
P Inconsistency with Policy 4.6:1
- Placement of an 102,000 square foot structure and accompanying
parking lot will neither maintain nor enhance the scenic
highway/visual corridor of El Casino Real.
.-Po-Iicv4.7
The City will designate the following view corridors as scenic . . .
•
M. Patrick Murphy
February 28, 1992 -
Page1O
highway/visual cprridor'viewsheds: ... El Camino Real fr'oh Encinitas
Boulevard north to La Costa Boulevard.
o
-
Inconsistency with Policy 4:7:
- See discussion supra under Policy 4.6.
Policy 4 9
It is' intended that development would be subject td,th"design
review provisions of the scenic/visual corridor Overlay zone for
those locatIons within Scenic View corridors, along scenic-highways
and' adjacent' to significant viwsheds and, vista points with the .
addition of the, following design criteria: ...
Development Degi"c
- Building and vegetation setbacks development design
scenic easements and height and bulk restrictions should
be used to maintain existing-views.and --vistas from the
roadway... : • ' :'
. - Where 'possible, devOl'opnent. . .shall 'leae lagoon are'as'
and floodplains open,. and shall be sited to provide
• unobstructed 'view corridors' from the nearest scenic
" 'highway.
'Development that is al-lowed within th iewshed area must"
,•
-'.'
. ' respond in scale, roofline, materials; color, massing, '
and location I on I site to the topography existing
vegetation, and colors of the native' environment.
R c0nst1 cv with Policy
'The''roposed Home Depot Center dOes' not respond' in, scale, -
roofline, materials, color,'assing,' and locOtion on site, to the rn
vegetation topography, existing ' and colorC, of th environment.' 'Rather than blending ' in to the. surrounding
environment, the center will constitute a massive intrusion on the '
view corridor. - The roof of the proposed cente'r, extends to, 39' '
- above ground level 'which exceeds the standard 30' articulated in ' Land Use policy 7.10. Obtrusive, large, bright orange signs will '
c ,fae E1Camino Real further impacting the corridor.
Policy 9.9; '
- The City shall develop and implement a program to preserve
-
natural drainage courses and their associated vegetation. : '
-
Mr. Patrick Murphy
February 28, 1992
Page 11
S-Inconsistency with Policy 9.9: -
The City's continuing approval of develdpment impacting
natural drainage courses and their associated vegetation
contravenes this policy which mandates that the City develop and
implement. a program to preserve natural drainage course's such as
Encinitas Creek and its associated vegetation.
Policy 10.1;
The City will minimize development impacts on coastal mixed
chaparral and coastal sage scrub environmentally sensitive habitats
by preserving, within the inland bluff and hillside systems, all
native vegetation on natural slopes of -25% grade and over other
than manufactured slopes...
T'Inconsistencvwith Policy 10.1:
As previously discussed under Public Safety element policy
1.2, both the Specific Plan and Tentative Map are in conflict with
this policy.
The City will develop a program to acquire or preserve the
entire undeveloped riparian corridor within the City that drains
into the San Elijo' Lagoon and Batiquitos Lagoon...
U Inconsistency with Policy 10.4-.
As'indicated under Policy 9.9 suorg, the City's continuing
approval of development within the undeveloped riparian corridor of
Encinitas Creek puts it in violation of these policies calling for
'planning-and articulated programs to acquire and preserve these
areas.
Policy 10.5:
The City will control development design on Coastal Mixed
Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub environmentally sensitive habitats
by including all parcels Containing concentrations of theme
habitats within the Special -'Study "Overlay designation. The
following guidelines will be used 'to' evaluate projects for
approval: ('1) conservation of as much existin contiguous area of
coastal mxed chaparral or -coastal sage scrub as feasible while
protecting the remaining 'areas from highly impacting uses; (2)
minimize fragmentation or separation of existing contiguous natural
areas; (3) connection of existing natural areas with each other or
Mr. Patrick Murphy S
February 28, 1992
Page, l2
other open space areas adjacent to.maiñtain local wildlife movement
corridors; (4)', maintenance of the broadest possible configuration
of natural'habitat area to aid dispersal of organisms within the
habitat (5) where appropriate based on community character and
design clustering of residential or other uses near the edges of
the. natural areas rather than dispersing such uses within the
natural areas; (6) where significant, yet isolated habitat areas
exist, development shall-be designed to preserve and protect them;
(7) conservation of the widest variety of physical and vegetatidnal
conditions on-site to maintain the highest habitat diversity (8)
ev design of delopment with adjacent uses given consideration to
maximize conformance to these guidelines;,and (9) preservation of
rare and endangered species on-site rather than by transplantation,,-
off-site.
V~Inconsistency with Policy 10.5: -
There is no indication in the Draft EIR that any of the
factors enumerated in policy 10.5 have been used to evaluate the
SpeclficPlan or the Tentative Map.
Po1icv10.6 ,,-
The City shall preserve and protect wetlands within the City's.,
planning area. "Wetlands are defined under the U.S. Fiih and
Wildlife Service definition. There shall be no net loss of wetland
acreage or resource value as a result of land use or development
and the City's goal is to realize a net gain in acreage and value
whenever possible
Identification of wetland acreage and resource value shall precede
any consideration of use or development on sites where wetlands are
present or suspected With the exception of development for the
primary purpose of the improvement of wetland resourc ,., e value all,
public and private, use and development proposals which would.
intrude into, reduce the area of, or reduce the resource-value Of
wetlands.
'
etlands shall be subjeOt to Alternatives and mitigation analyses
consistent with Federal EPA 404(b) (1) findings and procedures under
the U S Army Corps permit process Practicable project and site
development alternatives which involve no wetland intrusion or
impact shall be preferred over alternatives which involve intrusion
or impact. Wetland mitigation, replacement or compensation shall
not be used to offset impacts or intrusion avoidable through other
practicable project or site development alternatives. When wetland
intrusion or impact is unavoidable, replacement of the lost wetland
shall bereguired through the creation of new wetland of: the same
type lost,, at a ratio determined by regulatory agencies with
authority over wetland resources, but in any case at a ratio of
Mr. Patrick Murphy
February 28,, 1992
Page 13
greater than 1 acre provided for each acre impacted so as to result
in a net gain. Replacement of wetlands on-site or adjacent, within the same wetland system, shall be given preference over replacement
off-site'or within ,a different..system.
The City. shall also control use and development in surrounding
areas of influence to wetlands with the application of buffer
zones At a minimum 100-foot wide buffers shall be provided
upland of salt-water wetlands, and •50-foot"wide buffers shall be
provided upland of riparian wetlands Unless otherwise specified
in this plan, use and development within buffer areas shall be
limited to passive recreational uses with fencing, desiltation or
erosion control facilities or other improvements deemed necessary
to protect the habitat, to be located at the upper (upland) half of
the buffer area when feasible.
All wetlands and buffers identified and resulting from de'elopment
and use approval shall be permanently conserved or protected
through the application of an open space easement or other suitable
device. The City shall not approve subdivisions or boundary line
adjustments which would allow increased impacts from development in
wetlands or wetland buffers.
W Inconsistency with Policy 10.6:
The Hoite' Depot Project will result in the net loss of 2.3
acres of wetlands. Policy 10.6 clearly requires-.w , ithout exception, replacement of lost wetland through the creation of new wetland at
'V ratio' of greater than one acre provided for each acre impacted so
as'toresult'in a net gain. The Specific Plan and Draft EIR fail
to provide replacement mitigation of these lost wetlands as
:required.
¶Ihe Specific Plan and Tentative Map also fail to, provide
adequate buffers as specified in Policy 10.6 and, as: previously
discussed .ujder. Land Use Policy 8.10 They fail to prefer. practicable 'project and site development alternatives-involving no
wetland intrusion including reduction of the Home Depot building
and parking areas and reconfiguration of building and parking areas
- 'to avoid wetlands intrusion.
Policy 10.10;
The City will encourage and cooperate with other responsible
agencies to.'plan and implement an integrated management plan for.
'the long term conservation'and restoration of wetlands resources
- - at.. .Encinitas Creek.. .and significant upstream feeder creeks, -
V
S S S
I. . Mr. Patrick Murphy
February 28,; 1992
Page 14
according to the following guidelines wildlife corridors between
the '.Jet1and shoreline and important upland. areas and upstream
riparian areas should be maintained and enhanced Human uses of
thewetland and adjacent areas should be•compatible with the
primary use of the wetland as a natural value The integrity of
the existing natural system (in particular topography hydrology,
and vegetative cover) should not be disturbed
inconsistency with Policy 10.10;
The Specific Plan andTentative Map fail to analyze, maintain,
or enhance wildlife corridors between the Encinitas Creek
shoreline and the upland areas such as Planning Area 2 by
bifurcating wildlife corridors with the massive Home Depot building
and parking areas Placement of the 102 000 square foot building
and parking lot is wholly incompatiblèwith. the primary use of
Encinitas Creek and its associated watlends as a natural value
The Specific Plan threatens tto disturb the integrity of this
existing natural system; -
Policy 14 5
To minimize-erosion and. al-low sedimentation control systems to
work no gradinj or vegetation removal shall be allowed to occur
during the wet season October 1 through April 15 without all
systems land devices per an approved erosion control plan and
program-, being in place. During 'other times of the .year, such
systems shall be provided and operative as required by a
comprehensive City erosion control, ordinance. • No grading shall
occur during the rainy season within the Special Study Overlay
area or in areas upland of sensitive areas including lagoons
floodplains riparian or wetland habitat areas unless by site-
specific determination the grading would not be occurring on
sensitive slopes, in floodplain areas or upland-of floodplains,
where"sedimentationmight occur in other sensitive -habitat areas.
Then if, grading is determined to be allowable all necessary
erosion co ntro1- devices must be in place and monitored throughout.
Inconsistency with Policy 14.5:
Since the entire Specific Plan Area is within the special
study overlay area and the Home, Depot tentative map includes
development adjacent to a floodplain prohibitions against grading
during the rainy season contained in Policy14.5 must be àomlied-
with • -
Mr. Patrick Murphy
February 28, 1992 - S Page 15
Should you have any questions or comments, please .io not
hesitate to call. -
Very truly yours,
• JOHNSON, O'CONNELL & MCC Thy
S (evA( K. Johnsonf - •
KKJ:mvc
-5-
C4T1d - - S S
. . .
II . oect JAN 2'21992 ,
,.
40. David Hogan or San Diego'Biodiversty Project Sai Diego Biodit'ersir
rO.,'&.)4Jdn.C192O36
r J V
A. This' comment does not challenge the adequacy or accuracy of / LILQ1 ENCINITJ the EIR and requires no further response
January 20, .1902
40 . B. This comment does not challenge the adequacy or accuracy, of
City of Encinitas the EIR and requires no further response. . . . . . V . . ... Community Development Department .
- . - C. This species has been noted -in. the revised Biological Report ,527 Encinitas fllvd . . ..
. (Appendix B) . The species was identified as a migratory bird . Encinitas, CA 02021
and does not make use of the site as a nesting habitat. No V . . . V V
V significance was- specifically,given to this species although Attn; }.r. Cr.,ig Ols'on, Assistant Planner . .
. the riparian system was considered
.
significant. Tic, Biologicaltoport; flame Depot Draft CIIi . .
Dear Ur. 'Distill,V D. This information has been incorporated into the EIR.
: V After reviewing the above doculneilt, we would like to offer the E. The Open: space proposed by. the project will retain a following coiii.aei,tas
. . . continuous band, of open space in PA''2 and 3..
A 1). 'Ye apprsciate Pacific Southwest Biological Service's honesty fli
, '. F. This information has been incorporated into the EI. the, changing of their designation of the chiap&rrul ousite 'froa Vqogtherfl , inlced chaparral to coastal mixed chaparral (from here on refered to as
G Comment noted soutbern- iiaritline chaparral us designated by, holland, l9S6 V &fld the Calif. Dept of rish, and Game's Natural Heritage Program) hhopcfully, thehe will
be no future prohlcos on this site or r elsewhere iii the definition of this habitat. ' . , ,, . . .. .
. ..--
. V
,, V • ,•• . . V B 2) It is enterostin,, that a Downy woodpecker was observe nd i the riparian woodland within the project site, as one pair and ,to fledings were
observed offsite just west of the 01 ivenhain Road/El Casino Real intersection by Brian F. 'looney Associates intheir work on the biological survey for' ''- . .• . . ' . . . . . V the Olivenhisin Road i-ealignusont and flood control daii. It' can be assumed'
from these sightings that the riparian woodland- of .Encinitas Creek through
Green Valley supports a ropulution of this sensitive species, -and un V
. . 10 of this habitat would constitute, a significant impact:
C 3) In addition tO,tlie discovery of ,a poiulatidn of Downy s'ofdpechers
- . off the Home Depot -project site, hiriu,i F. Mooney and Associates 'discovered
two individual outIwest illoeflycatchers (Eopidinax.taillii ss extimus) foruging in Use southern 1,-il low scrub ons ito. Why was this spec ies- potential' occurrence onsite not addressed in t1e biological report?. In' ii;t of the fact that this bird is even rarer than the least boll's" yj and the
California gn.tcatchor, this Lind of omission, is ridiculous.
In a draft statue review (Greater Gila fl'iodiv'ersity Proj'ect'/San'Diogo
D.aiodiversfty. Project/iiodiversity Legal- Foundation)' 8/27/01.) pre1ired"us
. a petition for the USI'VS to 1iStVVEtipidOnax'trai'll'ii ,éxtious as an eiidtndered
species, wo state that there remain only tIr'ee breeding populdtio,s of this
V . species Iii Califoriiia,( less- than'ho pairs), ,e1ov'n"populations in Arizona
. (less than 25 pairs), and ap)roxirlate1y ,oVne hundred pairs in New Mexico. This bird, end its habitat is cr.itically'olldaz,gered, and all remaining
habitat used by this species either for 'foraging-or breeding oust be
- protected without ceiiprdnisc. Any impacts to the southern eil low scrub
habitat on this project site must be eonsidred -si'gnifiiant. . .
. 12-65
:r. f.rai3 Olson S a
Janu.ry 20, 1092
IIn)acts to ipproxetcly Len aCres, of. soutl,ern ,n:,ri ne chnpsrr,,l
Iisbltt caniiot bc5'isiti'.teiionsit, ltiouI, tic ten acres rccfl,inhi,g after
project huildout will be iidiOrtaflt to the continued exie teicO of several
rare plants. As hioloist for Pacific Soutlie-eat. iuloicul .ervice are
aware, no an,.ount of fenc ing, iral F bull ding, or s gi,ae will maintain the viability ofan isolated parcel of any type of ChdjjarraI, and the southern maritime chrtp.rrrrnl to be loft in OjOJI space IL1. be mel ted
F Tire loss of this 1oc2too'ims long tcrsr sialrility is (is SI,I ificu,, a
the loss of one of the lust viable populations of an) elven endanered species. Three vible patcIi'cs of this hubitht-are all that reaei61 no of rrl,icli is ràtcctedat Torrey rues State. les'irvè. The oLlie, trro sites roust 1,0
protected, us they shelter nuicrous spec ies;-dcncrving énluiierod .liting by
USF1S.'un,Is to protect these sites' must come from the destrutjon or
"orderly dve1àpmcnt" of sisal-icr, non-viable patches. Such, is the case rritli the home Depot Property. , •-
G Me enèóur,aget1me- City. of Encinitas and the proponents of time home Depot S project' to 'work wtb the San -Diego fliodiversity Project imnan effort to 'S -
find an offalte eltigatlour parcel containing southern enritine chaparral
(including the Del Mar Hess sand aster) end California gumatcretchmer occupied
iliegan coastal sage scrub thee conditions exist on Cannel Mountain; just
southeast of Del liar, as part of aim area being promoted as an addition to
Penasquitos Canyon Preserve through developr agreersent and outright purchase
This concludes our com.jents on the biolohical survey report for the
Home Depot Specific Plan D-aft EJI1.
- __—z_-- -- David Hogan, Co tor .
41. Maureen Gaare
This letter does not provide specific comments on the accuracy or
adequacy of the EIR. Biological impacts of the project are
discussed in Section-3.3.2, traffic impacts in Section 3.5.2, and
public safety in Section 3.9.2.
i'4 4Li_.
kili WV I 91991
CITY MANAC.Ei'S OFFICE IlAUREEN GAARE
932 OCEAN VIEW AVE. 41 ENCINITAS, CA 92024
619-943-9409
November 14, 1991
Encinitas City Council
Encinitas Planning Commission -• New Encinitas CAB
527 Encinitas Blvd.
Encinitas, CA 92024
Dear City Officials:
I support the preservation of natural wetlands and I am
opposed to destroying wetlands in order to allow development of a HOme Depot on-the cornèr'ofolivenhain Road and El
Camino Ral. Botanical species and habitat that would be
destroyed by this project include:
1: Ouercus dumosa (scrub-oak)
Guercus agrifolia (Coast live oak)
Del Mar Maflzanita
4., Mission Manzanita
TorreyPine
Wort-stemmed cianosa
Not only will this wetland and wildlife corridor b
destroyed but the project will have other negative impacts
on the wildlife as weFlas the citizenry: 1.) Increased
traffic 2) Safety 3-) Increased crime
Please do not ignore all the provisions in our 'general plan
which protect such a wetland This is an opportunity for
all of yoü'.to ,take'a stand which protects our city's natural - heritage........- . . .
Sincerely
27 )
Maureen Gaare
Legend
Dist
Owl UI Wofland Scrub
FWIA Freshwater Marsh
W SWS Southern Willow Scrub
SIVIC Southern Mixed
Rud
Willow Flycatcher
(D'.Downy Woodpecker
Rud
R
- O1I1enh31fl'°_ mud 1-w• - -
Coastal Zone
Planning Area
(Eastern Boundary) sws ,. .sws - SWS Dist
M -- ...ows 0' 0
100-Yee 4F1oodotain
. SWS (w,lhDelenIiønOalnA.B.C)
SWS 'M .- Rud E .-' - . FWM Rud - I -AS-.0• .. . . - -- — N
\0••_• - .- ws.
FWM -. \ 0
S
6 iôo 260'
"V '. CSM fJyenflain Road Allgflmeflt Rud
Biological Resources Map bri an 1.moonap toO_VoerFlOOdPl&fl - S (with Detention Basins &B.C.D)
Fi ure 3
00 ;wr i - Iw'Il -- Pw" Olin 0 Sam ___
.
42 42. Richard J. Trembath for Neighborhoods United for Quality of
. - Life
1. Noise standards are based on 24-hour standards rather than the
maximum single noise event. The projected noise contours in - . Figure 3.8-1 indicate the future contours in terms ofthe
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL is the - February 28, 1992 average equivalent. -sound level, weighted on the A scale,
1669 Willowhaven Road during a 24-hour time period. It is based on the premise that
Encinitas,CA92024 . noise during the evening- and night is. more annoying than
daytime noise. In the calculation of CNEL, 5 Db are added to
the mound levels occurring between 7 and 10 p.m., and 10 Db
are added to the sound levels occurring between 10 p.m. and 7
Community Development Department a.m. The A-weighted scale measures noise levels that
527 Encinitas Bóulevard correspond to the human-hearing range. Ldn is the Day/Night . - Noise Level. It is also a 24-hour average but does not Encinitas, CA 92024 . . . . penalize early evening and late evening noise. - CNEL and Ldn
noise levels are, in general, very close. Leg is the steady
Re: Home Depot Project - ElR . noise- level equivalent to fluctuating traffic noise over4 a
- given period of time.
To Whom It May Concern: -
Noise analyses take into account-the types of surfaces inthe This letter refers to the two reports (No. 91-016 and No. 91-016A) prepared by area Soft surfaces are generally those that consist of San Diego Acoustics. Inc. for the EIR for the Home Depot Project which! have vegetation or barren dirt, which can absorb some sound. Ha'rd
evaluated on behalf of "Neighborhoods United for Quality of Life', surfaces are 'generally those that consist of development, such
On the basis of the following, we disagree with the conclusion that "the project as pavement and buildings. Therefore, each situation must be - assessed individually whenever possible. In the referenced - should not have a detrimental noise impact on the surrounding community". . report (Appendix K) • the analysis indicates the noise
1. On Page 3 of Report No. 91-016A the peak sound levels measured at the - shielding effect from a slope bank. The soft ground and hard
existing Home Depot are indiCated as 90.1, 86.3, and 91.2 dB(A). On Page 5 - 'ground noise analyses are included in Appendix E, the original
of the report the estimated Sound attenuation from 100 ft from proposed report.
loading dock to the nearest Bridgewater residence to the east is shown as 20 - - 2. The noise analysis was prepared by a well-experienced dB(A) (6545). Applying this same attenuation to the peak levels results in an acoustical engineer using standard procedures. As explained
expected peak sound level at the-Bridgewater and Willowcreek residences in the referenced report, the Santee location was selected
(immediately to cast) of-approximately 70 dB(A) (90-20).- The attached sheet . , because, of the Home Depot Centers in San Diego County, this
indicates that this peak sound level at the residences is equivalent to a store was considered to bOat, represent the type of situation
vacuum cleaner at 10 ft and that 'complaints are possible. Report No. 91-016 as the proposed store in Encinitas. See the responses to
states approximately 50 trucks could be expected per day with a pass-by noise - - letter V63 for further.clarification.
level of 86 dB(A) (Page 6). Consequently the foregoing peak-noise levels - The EIR has been revised to recommend that the truck delivery
would not be an infrequent event. This clearly represents a detrimental noise hours be Stipulated in the conditions of approval. impact.
- It is noted that these peak levels will 'actually be higher* due to point 2a below. The EIR has been revised.to include a recommendation.that the
Specific -an be include P1revised to a prohibition on outdoor
These peak noise levels would represent a violation of Goal 3 of the City's
-'
P. A. systems. in the entire Specific Plan Area. ince the
Noise Element which states 'Ensure that residents are protected from - - proposed project is not expected. to violate the standards
harmful and irritating noise sources to the greatest extent possible". established in the Noise Element, jt,will be up to.the
- decision-making body to determine whether this measure should
2. On Page 5.6f Report No. 91-016A the expected IJeq sound level from the - - be imposed. -- - - - project is calculated at 45 dB(A) at the nearest ViIlowhaven and Bridgewater - - - - - - - residences. This analysis is in error and the actual sound level will be higher
for the following reasons:
12-67
DOC,cDo/L
-' - --- S. .-' .- -- ------------- ---...------------ - __iik___, - .- .? •- -
5. The recommended noise mitigation for the, seven- westernmost
residential lots in PA 2 and for PA 3 has already been
included in the project (See Figure 2.3-5) . Since these are-
the only potential lots determined., to exceed Encinitas
standards, these are the only areas that require mitigation.
Other mitigation measures have been recommended to avoid,noise
impacts that may be annoying (although allowed under the
City's Noise E1emert standards.
The author, of- this comment acknowledges that he is aware of
the generally accepted line-of-sight 'principle related to
noise: if a structure -or road can be seen from a point, the
sound waves can travel to that 'point. In order to provide" -
noise- attenuation, a barrier must block the view- of the noise's -, source - Therefore, ,the suggested sound walls around the'.'
loading dock' would not provide any more mitigation 'than the
noise barrier at the eastern extent of PA 1 that is proposed.,..
as part of the project. Sound barriers around the 25 swamp'
coolers on' the 'rooftop could create a 'substantial 'yisual
impact because they would have to be substantially higher thank
the coolers and could thus tend to attract attention Since
the viewshed impacts have been determined to be less 1.than
significant, no viewshed mitigation is requiredunder CEQA..
6 Between the hours of 10 p in and 7 a.m., there will be no
noise outside the building except the remnants of any traffic'
thatmay,be departing :the parking lot.
7.- As the noise analysis indicates', some noises may be annoying
although they-would be allowable - under the Noise 'Element."
standards Therefore some measures are recommended to avoid
this The decision-making body may require these as
conditions of apprOval of the Specific Plan and Tentative Map,
if these are approved. '
8. CEQA requires that all ,appropriate and necessary studies be
conducted prior to certification of the EIR. See response to
letter I 10, comment F. - -
Community Developmeni Department
February 28, 1992
Page
a. The distance from the truck access route to the nearest existing residence
is some 500-600 ft not the 1,000 ft used in the anal'sis. This will increase
noise levels. -
b.. The proposed. Home Depot layout is different to-the Santee project where
the measurements were made. The different layout will increase sound
levels at these residences.
The prevailing wind from the west increases sound levels.
The topographical feature of the valley (funnel effect) increases sound
levs. -
e On Page 3 and 4 of Report No 91-016A- the measurement period Its
shown Ao. have a d Ono f'69.6 f 696 minutes During this period it is stated
that three trucks arrived at the existing Home Depot The Leq for this
period its typical of the other, rao measurement periods On Page 6 of
Report No 91 016 it is stated that an average of 40 to 50 trucks will service
the store per day with an average of five per hour (approximately six trucks
for measurement period I duration) Consequently, on average the
,iiumber of truck arrivals will exceed the 3 trucks arriving during-th'e'
measurement period 1 duration by a factor of two Considering that the
trucks will' not arrive unifomly during the day, there will be periods when
- the number greatly' exceeds3 per measurement period 1. This higher
number of trucks will result in increased noise levels.
It- is requested.tiiat the'analysis be revised to take the fdregoing factors in
account.
3 On Page 6 of Report No 91-016 itis stated that truck deliveries will only be
between 7AM to 5PM Considering that it would be very disturbing to
Willowcreek and Bridgewater residents to experience delivery truck noise
outstde these hours we request confirmation that truck deliveries will be
restricted to these.hours, if this cannot be confirmed we request'that the EIR
comment period be extended to allov"cdmment on what would'be a
significant change. -. -
4., As indicated on Page 5 o Report No. 91.016A- the proposed loudspeakers
and possible beepers on fork lifts would be a very annoying nâise source for
Bridgewater and Willowcreek residents. At these residences the radios of
transient workers along El Carnino Real can be heard very clearly. This is a
qualitative indication of sound propagation in this area: To be able to hear
and understand 'a message from a HOmeDepot loudspeaker'at these
- -. residen6es (in particular at 7AMon a weekend or at 10PM at any time) would
represent a complete erosion of quality of life at these residences. Turning
these speakers to the west and reducing volume (as suggested on Page 5 of
coc,cD°J1.
12-68
Communiiy Development Department
February 28, 1992
Page
Report No. 91.016A),will not eliminate this effect unless this is done to the
point where the speakers would not be effective.
Toavoid unacceptable noise impacts on these residences any development on
this site must preclude the use of loudspeakers and fork lilt truck beepers
On PageS and 6 of Report No. 91-016A i is re'co'mmended that hours of
operation of fork lift trucks be restricted to midday hours Can it be
confirmed that this restriction will apply, and if so what is the definition of
midday hours? Does this include weekends? If this cannot be confirmed it is
requested that the comment period be m extended to allow coment on this
important issue. .
The foregoing noise sources would represent a violation of Goal 3 of the
City's Noise Element which states "Ensure that residents are protected from
harmful and irritating noise sources to the greatest extent possible".
No serious noise mitigation measures have been considered. Why haven't the
following features been coñsidered? .
a.. L shaped sound walls around the loading dock such as provided at the
Anheuser Busch facility in VanNuys.
b Sound barriers around the ,swamp coolers
C. Sound barrier around the whole facility.
It is notedihàt any sound barriers will have to be of sufficient height to
interfere with line of sight from noise source to receptor. Considering the
-ekyation of some hillside houses it may be difficult to provide effective
nitigation through sound walls.
The absence of mitigation measures indicated by the foregoing is in
violation of Goal 4 of the noise ordinance.which states "provide for
measures to reduce noise impacts from stationary sources". S
Nornentionis made of Home Depot activities during the hours of:IOPM to
7AM It is assumed that absolutely no noise generating activities will occur
during this period. if this is not true, please elaborate.
7 On Page 5 of Report No 91 016A it is stated that the compactor must not be
operated in a jammed condition This implies that if operated in a jammed
condition unacceptable noise would be heard by Willowcreek and • •
Bridgewater residents. • .
How can it be realistically suggested that over the life of the project the
proposed Erkinitas Hothe Depot would essentially not operate the compactor • . S
in a "jammed" condition?
DOCICDDIL • S • •
0
Community Development Department I
February 28, 1992
Page
.
8. A determination of existing and post project Ldn or CNEL should be
. . .
conducted. This should be done in part by placing a sound meter al-the critical Bridgewater or Willowcreek residence(s) (including a hillside
Bridgewater residence) to determine existing Ldn. It appears likely that such S .
an analysis will show a post project Ldn of over 60 dB(Ldn) and a project
increment of greater than '3 dB(Ldn).
These sound levels would be in violation of Policy 1.1 a) of the City's Noise . S
Element Goalsand Policies which states that a project should not increase - sound levels by 3 dB(Ldn) above existing or result in sound levels in excess of
60 dB(Ldn).
We believe the foreging demonstrates that the Home Depot project is not . . .5 appropriate for this site in that it will have a detrimental noise impact on the - •
5 - 5 - surrounding residential community.
- 4• - S -. •S 5
S . - Very truly yours, -:. . .
-. S
-. S
• .
(IJ
Richard J. Trem bath, P.E. : •
-.
. .-. S.
- • - S
Diplomate of American Academy of
- Environmental Engineers • •...•.• - S • •.
on behalf of.
Neighborhoods United for S - S - S - •
Quality of Life
5. - - DOCICDD/L •
-
.
5
(tu nnur.,r.vcI. COMMOII Iu000fl COPAI.10Il Ot,TflOOfl (.1(10) ((1)1,1. (.r.VEt.. IlolsE ICv(L5
- rtact
Jet f1jutl at 100011 LOCAl. CR111.11 111 ACI VIII WIll) Inside S..bwoy 110111 t (low Yoi) Ill I nn;. on ((GIll. ACIIOII
Got Lnwt IAowot o1311. i iu.trs
i irs,s or molts; AS tollS) -
-
food flten.leo o311. Diesel buck o150 II. COIAPIAIIIIS LIK(LY lWtCl AS 10116 1101 f;i;I-nqe flispaint at 311 llmsy Uibao Doylime
- _°!:'yY! 0n1(
- - -- __ J!10E yes Mcinim CI oIl ni tO Il Got laws Mowos at 100 (I.
- Haicool SpOIcli 0(3(1 CmocisI Alto cotlrtIllflIS DARt - AS LOUIS - - G honey liøllic ol 3d011. - tnuje fluluneis Office.
AS LOUIS -
- 30 nithwashe. ile.I Room. . o1,I Upbøw ISo;!ime. ACC[I'IAIIC(
- - -sos Small Ilieol.i, I.IIlICoofeI,i.ce Roam Ojinllhtcii ?liqhtIim. (l(ndqlotundl
0uiil5ubuslsdo iliqhl(nn,.
- Lihoniy . --30
flediom of mqhd
Concetl- utlI(flokqraivsI) 0.iI flwI
Ihionilcoil and flOcoidiM Sh,)o-
- - to
--0 IlushioI.l of Ileminq
RELATIVE SCALE OF VARIOUSNOISE SOURCES AND EFFECT ON,PEOPLE
SOIIOCII, CA!. 111*115. 11.0.
43
43. 3.' Lynn Feidner
Same as response to letter'! 21, comment A.
See response' to'letter I 11, comment I A.5. ,
Mitigation is defined in:' the . State CEQA Guidelines as
including: (1) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking
a certain iction or parts of' an, action; (b) minimizing' impacts
by limiting the degree or, magnitude of the action and its
implementation; (3) ' rectifying the impact, by repairing,
rehabilitating,, or restoring the Impacted .environment; (4)
reducing or eliminating 'the impact: 'Over time-'by preservation
and maintenance operations during the life of the action; arid
(5) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing
substitute resources or environments. There are two general'
types of mitigation: (a) measures which are incorporated into
the project prior ,to the EIR public review and are, thus, part
of the project. and (2) measures recommended in the EIR or
required as a condition of approval.
D. The purpose of the Draft, EIR i's' to gather, and. provide
information to, the public. and decision-makers. The public
review period provides an opportunity for-those interested in
the 'project, to comment upon the"adeqi.iacy'and 'accuracy of the,'
Draft EIR. The Final EIR' is: then prepared after the City".
reviews and responds to the public comments. If a project has
significant impacts; it cannot be approved by the decision-
making body without the agenc'y'making one -or more of, three
possible findings for each significant effOct. CEQA requires
the' decision-maker- to balance the benefits, of a proposed
project against its unavoidable impacts in determining whether
to approve a project If the benefits of a proposed project
outweigh' 'the " unavoidable impacts, the ' impacts may be
considered "acceptable."'-However; in this case the agency
must make a Statement of Overriding Considerations explaining
the specific reasons for its conclusions The Findings and
Statement of Overriding 'Cons iderations cannot be prepared
until the Final EIR 'is prepared' because' the analysis may
change a's a result of the public input. 'These sectionsare
not required' to be part. of the Final EIR, although this is the
general practice; they '-are required 'in' the record of the
- - - ' project approval and 'should be mentioned in 'the Notice of
Determination.
E See responses to letter I 11 Comment I 1.4 and letter 1.'21,
Comment C.
F. Section 3.6.2.3'discusses the'project's lack of conformance
with the City's' m 'Resource Management Element policy 10.6. •The
intent of' the impact analysis conclusion was to indicate that
resource agencies, as well as biologists, take more into
12-69
J. Lynn Feldner
1604 Orchard Wood Road
Encinitas, CA 92024
March 6, 1.992
Mr. Patrick Murphy
Community Development Deparimeni
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024
Dear Mr. Murphy,
A I am writing to express my concern over the proposed Home
Depot project, specifically the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR): The El'R for the proposed l'loine Depot project is deficient. The
EIR relies upon inadequate studies and (lien reaches conclusions
without any basis, or does not properly :evaluaie environmental
impacts.
B The EIR fails to address future development to planning areas
3 and 4. Since this is a specific plan. area, the 'EIR should analyze the
impacts frOm development in these planning areas as well.
C Table 1.3-' I in the EIR refers id-`impacts of the specific plan and
the potential mitigation of these impacts., However, how can these be.
considered mitigation measures, since if an adverse impact is
mitigated by the specific plan, it will become part of the project
rather than a mitigation measure? This table also refers to impacts
being unavoidable. The EIR should address all significant
unavoidable impacts under the statement of overriding concern.
Why hasn't this been addressed in the EIR? Will this be addressed in
the final EIR? ,
E Table 1.3-4 indicates that there will be a net loss of 2.3 acres of
wetlands in planning areas I and 2, with only 0.7 acres of mitigation.
This replacement ratio 'is inadequate. The Elk fails to analyze long
term damage to the wetlands from this commercial/industrial
encroachment. Will this issue be analyzed? Further, General Plan
F policy 10.6 mandates 'that the city shall, preserve and proteèt
wetlands within the city's planning area. There shall be no net loss
of wetlands. This policy is clearly being violated. Even if the Army
Corps of Engineers weje to issue a 404 permit, this does not establish
that this plan for the destruction of the weil:jnb is biologically
sound.
G The specific plan and tentative map conflict' with the city's
General Plan' policies' for height limitations steep slopes, wetland
buffers, building in floodplains, and compatibility with adjacent
residential areas. How can this project be justified when it violates
the citysGeneral' Plan?
H- The claim of reduced environmental impact due to less vehicle
miles travelled. (sec 7.1.1). is clearly in error. Indeed, the
construction of this project will 'raise the pollutant Aevels in Encinitas
due to the increased use of local roads. No reasonable prbject
justification is presen'ted. Will a justification ever be produced?
.Sec 7.2.3' 'discusses reduced Home Depot building size and
claims that this design is standard, and that a substantially smaller
building would not meet project objectives. However, no discussion
is ever presented of the objectives of the project. Therefore to reject
this alternative is. erroneous. Such" objectives should appear directly
in the statement of overriding concern -for the project. Will- a
justification for the project ever be conducted?,
J The' EIR fails to sufficiently address the issues of light nd'
glare, such as loading dock lights, car headlights, illuminated signs,
outdoor nursery lights, nighttime parking lo lights, etc. as they
impact surrounding neighborhoods. Will this - issue ever be
addressed? To what extent will the adverse impacts of light and
glare due to the prOject be mitigated by the project prOponent?
K Noise impacts 'on the neighboring residents- lias not been
adequately addressed in the EIR nor in .the supplemental noise study.
an asement"U these impacts have been deferred until after project
completion, and therefore the project impact has not been properly.
addressed.: It' is requested that a proper noise study, in direct
measurements, be conducted at, the residential properties 'bordering
the proposed project.
Sincerely,
LynnFeldner
consideration than just acreage when considering mitigation.
A more diversified wetland area including a variety of
- vegetat ion .would have substantially more value for wildlife
habitat than the existing Disturbed Fields. This does not
change the fact that, the project- is In conflict with the
City's "no net loss" of wetlands policy. -
Section 3.6.2.3 of the EIR discusses the project's conflicts
with these City policies as well as others. The purpose of
the EIR is to provide information' and fairly disclose
potential impacts and mitigation measures. Ultimately, the ,
Encinitas City Council will balance the pros and cons of the
project. Please see the responses to letter 1 39.
The purpose of the EIR is to provide information'on- potential
environmental impacts- and- mitigation measures. The decision
,making bo'dy makes the final determination on the pros and cons
of the project. 'Many of the trips to the Home Depot Center
are expected to be "passerby -trips" (people who 'stop at" the
Home Depot on their way to or from other -destinatiOns. In
addition. the Home Depot Center is expected to provide
different pricing and types of merchandise 'than '-'is. locally
'available-. Therefore, it is the" EIR preparer's opinion that
air quality impacts will not be significant.
This statement is incorrect. The objectives are included in
Section 2.3.2.1 of the EIR.
The EIR preparer is not responsible for the preparation of the Fin'di'ngsor"-Statement—Of- Overri'd-i'ngcons-iderat-i-ons'---These-
statements will have to meet CEQA requirements.
It is 'the responsibility of the EIR preparer to provide
information which can be used in the decision-making process.
Including a justification for the project in the EIR would
conflict with CEQA.
Light and glare' impacts from parking lot lighting and on-site
- signs are-discussed in Section 3.8.2. Thissection has been
amplified to address potential impacts from car headlights,,.
- outdoor- "Garden Center lights -and loading - dock lights.
Potential light and glare-impacts are expected to be mitigated
to a less than significant level by the 'project design-: as
discussed in Section, 3.82. - - -
This' statement,, is incorrect:- Additional 'nOise, analysis was
conducted in December and was made available to the public at
the January 21, 1992 Planning Commission meeting (see Appendix
E). The:pubiic review period was extended so the public would
- have time to 'review the new information'. -
- - - 12-70
:'... -H'."
A9,0A .
.3--
..ii'Cl 4, 1992 44
-
. 44. Mr. and Mrs. A.V. Sullivan, Jr. '
Community lievciojcicceuit l)cci.urtne,l . . . .
City of Ecicinitas . . 1-. See, response to letter I 21, comment A.,
57 Cncinitaa i;ivcl
£ncinitu, CA 92024 This 'fact is noted in the project description in Section
2.3.2.6.1. Land Use Element Poliày 7.10 allows height 'for
Specific Plan Areas to exceed the 30-foot standard See the
.flear Sirs: ' . response to Letter 1'46, comment G. "
;et 'forth I.e1oi are uur coiiu,niil s re'urd i 111t:e ..ccviruni;ientul Section 3.7.2.3 provides a detailed analysis of the project's lm .ict K.eport for the rupisccd coce Leot ( 'i IJOCi ) t Li rumic cc conformence with the City's Design Review Guidelines Section )ecsl uccil LJie,c miii IConl ( Site ) 3.7.2.3 address scenic road impacts
1. ill (,Piterul the Lilt is flawed in tli.i This statement is incorrect Viewshed impacts are addressed
in Section 3.7.2.2.
(ii) here is it ub1icntjI' ileficiecicy of evidence to
su,ort its tiudinCs. .' ' 2(d) The'author ofthis comment does:not provide a reason for the-
conclusionary statement. Seàtion -3.7.2.3.4 identified a'
(I) Its volIcIllsivais ii cci. in, acts ccci be ode 1cii is]> r ltic, t ' conflict with the sign design guidelines of the Design Review
ere bused uiior mile cute or citi it sttidics. Guidelines
2 huro icpc3ficcni1v This fact has been addressed in Section 3.6.2..3 of the Elk
(Resource Management Element Policy 10.6). •, - , . ..
(cc) The proposed hi iidii r ritici of 39 would c coed
the jo licicit ichise ciistinp nude u]lowsd by the This statement is incorrect The EIR states that the traffic
City's General lien projections include City of Carl sbad projections for Public
Facility. Management Zones 11 and 12 which include Arroyo La
() The rioscice size unit coipiexit> of the Project Costa
together vit' its helL it end the large tiniount
of root top e4u1pr1en1 would be inconjalible with (1) The purpose of the Draft Elk is to gather and provide
tie Deve]opiucct Desij n Critei iii of the (cocier, 1 information to the public and decision-makers The
Plan nd time chibi rIutinfl if LI Cinicin Leal .c ii public review period provides an n opportuity for those
"View Corridor' interested in the project to comment upon the adequacy
and accuracy of the Draft Elk The Final Elk is then
1cc iciii1,htiy ir I ct on views from ealstirp hones prepared after reviewing and commenting upon the public has hot hioii ui'clrccsncl comments If a project has significant impacts it
T'ie-?z'oject!a lie
cannot-be-approved by the decision-making body without propose 55(115 i.ociiI in Violution - the agency-making one or more written findings of three of the (..itv's lie icn c evie Cc itleimnes possible findings for each significant effect CEQA
laeveiopment of tie Project oi Id result in a I 'i requires the decision-maker to balance the'benefits of-a
proposed project against its unavoidable impacts in loss of wetlands in contravention of the General determining whether to approve--a roject. -'-If the - - - Plan benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable
((p Ice traffic Liii iiict from the en.tecslve Arroyo a
Costa
impacts the impacts may be considered acceptable
However in this case the agency must make a Statement project hum hcncc iCnored. Even so1 troffic of overrjding 'Cons iderations explaining the specific - would exceed levels established-L), time (.encrcii reasons for its conclusions The Findings and Statement !'Ii-.n us being acceptahic ,ccrtiier vou2' cioi..te of Overriding Considerations cannot be prepared until the 'oiicy3.5, w!.ichc rends as follows: "Coicc:ccrci.J - - - - Final EIR' is,prepâ'red beôause the analysiit may change as' ices smell be deslcc.ited tic iccoid uci hue cun- a result of the public input These sections are not
- cccctratioi,s of coiqien-cini cJeeIo1ic;ent 'which Would ' required to-be part of the Final Elk, although this-is lucre ice tr f'ic In levels 1pvoccd time curicici and the general practice they are required in the record of projected cul bt)mtv I thin City's services tc&
facilities to deal' citm t!cc increased traffic." - - 12-71 - '-:1 - • -
-2-
() It conflicts with the Caiiforiisa Cnviroi,nci&I u
-uulity Act by
(1) luil sng to huvi u stutruient of uv eiridi,i1
i.ierit. s -.
(2) Pci I i lie to eval uutu the cujflul,itjve Ciuvir-
- 'unnentul impact on neighboring huoties
(3) Deferring certain mjtiatiuui meusuies to
-. -. lou,term flubflujenuent plans, it rely S on
ii lusory uIuoIusure l-'uat permit -the Project
Ieve1-ope- to uvod •huusinp to aLlress the
reuljtvoffcuisjb]e ilitjj,utjouu measures or
j)Ioject ulteiuute8.
(h) Its celicluisions -thi,t. there would be no sijnificuuuut
noise iiiuct oil neiChihoring 11o5108 you rcuchuou Without adequate supuurtjluL. technical bases. +
(z) The' Project snulul- result in the dcvelpn:ent of steep
alupcu iii couutracentiouu of the General Plan s policy that, steep to1 ojrethy ho preserved
(j). l)evelopi.ent of the Project would result in the euucroci-
-ment into slopes in excess of thut specified by the
Genes-ui Plén. "
(}) It tails to provide for a detailed development plan
for thao entire specific plan urea its required by the General rluLn.
3. The Project is of such treiuudous oroportions uid complexity
as to be totally incompatible with thue gouuls, ohjecti as, ,,ud' u4lj;;ani-tiosix of the General Plan.
(a) For exaiujulo, Policy I.) reads, iii pert, asfollowe 11~lij!u1 indtustriel .-. development will only
lie permitted in areas both served by rousdw.uys cup'-
able of hundlinj pruijecteci truck traffic, intl in
areas shies-c ade.utc 1-uffering is provided."
In conclusion, it is siubuitted that the Project as ueeloped would
ua be so mssie-ànd o trhffic intensive, and the Site is so traffic sen-sitive, that use of. the Site for the Project is inherently precluded.
Respectfully siubitted,
•
:r ,rs A. V Uullivan, Jt1• 1,275 Green drchuurd Piece
Lruciiiitas, Ct 92024
the project approval and should be mentioned in the
Notice of Determination.
(2) The author of this comment does not provide any specifics
as to which cumulative impacts are felt to be omitted-
from the EIR. Cumulative traffic, biology, hydrology,
noise and water quality impacts are addressed in these
sections of the EIR.
2(g)(3) See response to Letter 1 21, Comment B. -
Two technical noise studies have been prepared by a registered
- engineer who specializes in acoustics.-'(Appenidices E and K).
The EIR preparer conáurs,' and the EIR notes steep slope
encroachment percentages.
The EIR discusses this in Section 3.6.2.3 (Public Safety
Element Policy 1.2) •
The purpose of a Speóific Plan is not to provide detailed
development plans but to provide detailed guidelines for
development in the Specific Plan rea.
3. This does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR
and does not require a response.
12-72
iL.O9 QrLcJ L¼)c (j ~c1 45
CA, -sCs
6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas. CA.02,024
Sirs;
am writing in response io. the Environmental. Impact 'Report A (EIR) issued by Willens and Associates regarding the proposed Home.
Depot at the corner of El Camino Real and OLinh tin Road in
Encinitas;California This EIR has serious along with a
substantial deficiency of e idence required to support in>
with
that have been made The EIR generally relies upon inadequate
studies or opinion rather than facts then erroneously draws
conclusions that items in question c in he initi, tied in it level which'
is less than significant
B A. clear example of this "compliance' by edict is demonstrated
in the noise study lhe Elk reaches the conclusion that there is no
significant impact on neighboring homes but establishes no technical
basis for this conclusion Project technical. consultants could not or
would not scientifically examine ihe impact io the neighboring
residents even though there is it clear impact on these residents
Examples of sound sources which iere -no
.
ot considered include (but
are nót.Iimited to) nighttime loading dock operations. forklifts, trash
compactors, public address systems, heac'y equipment including - .
- diesel engines, rooftop swamp coolers, car doors, etc.' The EIR states
that noise levels cannot be evaluated until the project is built even
though accepted scientific principles exist to perform this evaluation.
- .
Therefore the existing sound study is. inadequate since
measurements were riot petformed. near residences where. Home
Depot has a duty to mitigate.
.
Sincerely. . . ;. •.: . . •
ToerLT T ?LT p.c..
46
1646 Orchard Wood. Road
Encinitas, CA 92024-5653
March 5, 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Boulevard
Encinitas, CA 92024
pear People:
This letter is in response to the'Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
prepared to cover the Home Depot project (case number 91-044)
proposed for the corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road in
Encinitas, California:
We noted the fol)owinginforrnation in the EIR:
The Table 1.3-1. points. Out ... cumulative impacts to long-
term regional air quality; not mitigatable at the project
level. And with regard to Solid Waste, ... cumulative
impacts to landfills, not mitigatable at the project level'.
At the botto rn of the table it is noted that these two issues
raise' the requirement for a statement of overriding
considerations.
On page 1-16, it points out ' ... any project in the region
would incrementally add to air pollution and would be
considered a significant impact. .. . Potential impacts related
- to these two issues (traffic circulation 'and air quality)
would arise because the existing standards are already being
exceeded' dnd any increase,nó matter how small, would have to
A be classified as. cumulatively significant. Therefore, a
statement of overriding consideration would be required for
these issüès'if the project is approved.
The amount of traffic that Currently is using the right turn from
El Camino Real to Olivenhain Road is in excess of what El Camino,
in its'current-construction, can safely tolerate. Having a Home
Depot on this overused corner will only add to an already
intolerable situation by causing the traffic to slowdown even
further back. This report does not even take into consideration
B the,,traffic impaCt,the new.homes being built across the street on
the Northeast corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road will
have on this stretch of road. The road is already six lanes and C that Is not enough to accommodate the traffic. 'How many,more,lanes
will we need' We don t feel that there could be any overriding
D considerations for the above issues: 'The project is-just toobig
for the -area: We also, don't understand'what could compel you to
E want.to' override your standards for the'Encinitas area to approve
- such a project. -
The EIR states that distance would diminish the visual eyesore to
neighborhoods. This 'building will have an approximate length of
over 400 feet which is commensurate with, the distance cited to show
that the project will be 'far enough removed from residents to
-
46. Erich A. Paetow and Rosemary A. Paetow
Comment noted.
The EIR clearly noted that the traffic analysis included the
traffic projected for Carlsbad's Facilities Management Zones
11 and 12, which includes the projected traffic for the Arroyo
La Costa development.
Section 3.5.1 specified that Olivenhain Road is designated as
a four-lane Major Arterial and that El Camino Real is
designated as an Augmented Prime Arterial with a 136-foot
right-of-way.
Comment noted.
The EIR is an informational document and presents information
for the public and for decision-makers. The EIR does not take
a position on the project. However, if the decision-making
body decides to approve a project' with significant impacts,
CEQA requires the preparation if Findings and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
It is commonly accepted that objects farther away appear
smaller than those in closer proximity.
C. The EIR acknowledges that the project planned for PA 1 exceeds
the City's standard height limit of 30 feet for commercial
buildings-. However, Policy 7.10 of the Land Use Element of
the'Enci'njtas General Plan allows non-residential' development
to exceed the 30-foot building height standard as determined
- appropriate by the Specific Plan adopted for the site.
H. See response to letter # 18, 1 J.
12-74
f S •
diminish any impact How can this diminish the visual impact of
the project' The building is also going to be built at a height which is greater than what the City of Encinitas has determined to
be a tolerable level for the city.' The City has set gu'idelines for
what is allowable construction in Encinitas to ensure a quality G of life for its residents and a beautiful city in which to live With this project it appears that it is in excess of those guidelines the City objectively determined to be tolerable Based
• onthis, 'the prdject should be'denied- to beconsistent with City
policy.
• H w
e are also concerned thatio tud' was done for the Elk to
investigate the impact of water runoff from this project into Bataquitos Lagoon and therefore feel the EIR is incomplete
Sincerely, • ••
Erich A. •Paetow: , Rosemary A. aetow •
Ugur Ortabasi
1680 Meadowglen. Lane
Encinitas, CA 92024
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd.
Encmitas, CA 92024
February 27, 1992
Dear Editor,
This letter pertains to the 'Environmental Noise Analysis" (Report No. 91-016) and the
associated Addendum (Report N. 91.016) prepared by San Diego Acoustics, Inc -in
conjunction with the Home Depot planning activities in Encinitas.
A We critically reviewed the above mentioned reports, firstly as the closest neighbors to the
planned Home Depot, secondly as scientists who spent their lives writing proposals and
evaluating similar reports. From either point of view the report is flawed, superficial and
does not reflect thehonesiqualityofan unbiased scientific work.
The'very first sentence of the main- report reveals already the partial nature of the analysis
by saying-:"This study was conducted to show the acoustic suitability of the proposed
project with respect to the' requirements of the City ofEncinitas Department of Planning
and Land Use. "In other words, the report is not a faci.finding effort but a study to induce
a desired result Another stunning faux pas of the first report is the conclusion that No
significant noise impact is expected".-This conclusion was reached by neglecting among Bother things to include an analysis of the loading doèk noises. The treatment of this major
source of noise appeared 4 months later in the addendum.- -
Following are the obvious scientific weak points that minimize the credibility of both
reports.
S
-
C I The analytical model used assumes a square law that describes how the noise
level decreases with Increasing distance from the source of noise This model assumes a
point source in an open environment with no obstructions or reflecting objects
47. Ugur Ortabasi
See the response to letter 21, comment A.
See the response to letter 1 10, comment F.
It is true that sound wave impacts can vary with topography
and surface composition, and can be reflected or absorbed.
Vegetation, as well as soft- surfaces, can absorb some noise,
while ' hard surfaces can reflect some noise, thereby
intensifying it. Microclirnatic conditions also affect noise
transmission, as do the amount of pollutants in the air,
- traffic levels, and humidity. The noise measurements at the
loading docks of another Home Depot store were made at the
time when most deliveries are made.
It appears that the authors of this comment did not read the
noise analysis in the Draft EIR (Appendix C). Table IA shows
the noise levels - for both hard ground and soft ground
surfaces. -
The authors do not state their qualifications as acoustical
analysts. However,, this is not important because CEQA allows
for a difference of opinion among experts, which doesn't
necessarily invalidate the information in the EIR. The noise
analysis was performed according to standard procedures
Since wind speed and direction, as-well as air quality and
hy, ytLemendously over time, a noise analysis
prepared under the recommendations of the authors would have
to include, noise measurements-made under every conceivable
situation. See the response to letter I 21, comment A,
regarding the level of detail- required for determining the
adequacy of an EIR. - -
See the response to comments C and D above; In Soundwalls,
Caltrans (District 7, no date) states that noise levels are
usually measured between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. because peak noise
levels occur then, not at the peak hour. -
The noise measurements were made with a Sound level meter that
meets the IEC 804 Type 1 and ANSI S1.4 1971 Type 1
requirements. - -
There are no anticipated significant noise impacts on the
bluff properties to the north, south and east of the project
site, based on the criteria contained in the city's Noise
Element and using standard noise analysis procedures. -
C. The reader apparently did not read page 2 of the EIR (Section
1.1-), which describes the CEQA process and clearly states that
the-Draft EIR is not -the same as the Final EIR. - --
- - - 12-75 - . . .
O 'O 10
Ii, Loading noise generally occurs when trucks make deliveries and
when fork lifts are operated.
This is a recommended mitigation measure. It does not imply
anything other than that outward-facing speakers could
possibly cause noise that would be annoying to other nearby
uses (even if the overall noise level is in compliance with
Noise Element standards).
This recommended mitigation measure does not state or imply
that the Hose Depot Corporation will pay a full-time employee
to control any kind of noise.
The noise barrier included along the westernmost end of seven
residences is necessary to mitigate current and potential,v-.
future noise impacts from traffic on El Camino Real and would
be necessary even if PA 1 was not developed.
Comment noted.
H. This comment is confusing. As stated in the EIR, the noise..
analysis used the future traffic projections, including the:
proposed project, as the basis for determining future noise
contours. The EIR preparer does not understand which'law is
being referred to in this comment. State noise insulation.
standards require that the interior noise levels of a multi-
family dwelling must not exceed .45 Db Ldn; it sets no'
requirement for detached single-family dwellings. CEQA does:
not provide noise standards but 'indicates that 'a project will
normally have a significant effect on the environment if it
conflicts with adopted environmental plans and goals of the
community where it is located or if it will substantially
increase the abient ^noise levels for adjoining areas. The
City of Encinitas General 'Plan uses a guideline"of 60 Db,(a)
Ldn or CNEL as the guideline for the maximum exterior noise
level for all types of residences. The noise contours
projected upon completion of the Home Depot project are not
substantially different than those projected for the' future
without the project, as shown in Figure 1 of the Noise Element
of the City's General Plan, which is hereby incorporated by'
reference. ''Figure 1 of the Noise Element shows the projected
60 Db Ldn contour within the proposed residential area in PA
2.
The State provides guidelines for noise compatibility.. Those
guidelines indicate that exterior noise levels up to 60 Db
CNEL or Ldn are normally considered acceptable for low density
single-family homes, while noise levels up to 70 Db CNEL or
Ldn may be acceptable if certain noise abatement features are
incorporated into the project. The noise level established by
Federal and State -Agencies 'which must 'be' exceeded-before
neighborhoods impacted by highway noise are eligible for
mitigation is 67'Db(a) Leq (Caltrans, District 7, no date,
12-76
The laws of acoustics however follow closely the ones that control the propagation of light
This means that noise or acoustic waves like liehi can be reflected, scattered, collimated,
funnelled of focussed. In that case 'square law" attenuation does not apply.
This is indeed the situation at the planned site for the Home Depot. The flat wetland and
field areas of the planned building site are almost completely surrounded by bluffs with
steep slopes forming a bol shaped can)on lite noise generated by the 1-lonie Depot and
the associated traffic .Plus the.traffic on El Camino Real and Olivenhain Rd. is reflected
back by the Western bluffs of Green Valley onto the residential areas on the Eastern,
Southern and Northern bluffs facing the wetland are. The effect i so dramatic that for
example at our residence at 1660 Meado glen Lane overlooking the entire area of the
planned building site, the words of the songs that are played on rodeo days* next to El
Camino Real can clearly be beard and understood
The "square law" fails to predict the real situation as it is going to be and therefore the
model does not have the credibility justifyin it's use in the final decision. A very
convincing pioof of the directibility of sound i.e. focussing and funnelling by reflection
are the stethoscopes and headphones used in commercial airlines.
D 2 The test data obtained for the report do not contain information on the wind
direction and strengthduring'measu'rement. intervals. As the carrier of sound, the air, and
ie relative movement of air with respect to the detector affect the results of the
measurement. On the upwind side' of the noise source, the' decibel' levels Will always be less
than on the downwind side. Therefore the results can be misleading,. depending on 'the wind
at a particular time. The report does not include any discussion of this issue. -
E 3. The original study issued on April 16 1991 involves only a I hour measure't'nent
at a particular time (11:00 am - 12:00 am on a Thursday). The equipment used was a level
indicator positioned 5 feet above flat ground.
These are all questionable test conditions reducing the credibility of the data. One hour
rneasuremenI data is correlated with the vehicle count during other limes: The correlation
fails to take into account the vehicle type. For example during mid afternoon, heavy school
bus and Diesel truck traffic increase the noise level dramatically at the corner of El
Camino Real and Olivenhain Road due to the starts and stops at the traffic lights at this
location. -
3
The iieasuremenis have to be carried Out with á'dosimeter" type of device rathehhan a
kvel indicator. This ,'bild provide a more meaningful a'verage Over the peridds measured.
The noise field is accumulative and humans respond to the total, flux emanating from this
field over time periods. Therefore the noise related damage is the physiological response to
the dose" of noise re'ce'iv'e'd'. In addition the maxima andininima bf a noise level indicator
can bestrongly affected by changing the response time of the detector. No information on
this issue exists in the report.
The height of the level indicator i.e. 5 feet is equal of less than the height of the sc?ubs in
many parts of the area Thus without the description of the vegetation surrounding the
equipment ..the results have not much meaning as the vegetation can shield the detector
from noise This is common sense as eerybod) knows that noise levels from the highways
for example can be significantly reduced by proper tree planting between the highway and
residences.
F 4. The report 'ignore s- the effect of noise on the properties on the North, South and
East bluffs surrounding the proposed building site completely. Apparently the idea of
"square law" noise attenuation is once again applied: i.e. as 'the distance from the noise
source grows the noise level goes down with the square of the distance, and therefore the
properties on the bluffs are at distances far enough not to be impacted by additional noise
This conclusion is either a severe neglect in a report which will be used to make decisions
or it is a calculated way to avoid having to lace a non mitigatable situation If for example
at our residence the noise level will exceed the allowable level to the same extent as
reported for the border of the Pearce property, then there will be no possibility to mitigate
this problem by a noise barrier since our property is about 100 feet above the proposed
construction site A fence to cover the line of sight would be impractical because of the
height of the residence
G 5. The report as it stands can not be considered final, because it contains many other
statements which at the least need further qualifications For example
Loading noise only occurs during truck movement or fork lift
operation".
Soundwalls). EPA also has guidelines. However, these are
only guidelines, not law.
N. This does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy'of'the EIR
and does not require a response.
. . .
•
4
H It is not stated what perceiliage of time over a period of 24 hours this occurs. Also
everyone knows that Diesel trucks are most of the time left idling during loading and
unloading opera ions. . . .
' Loud speakers (for paging) should be facing the building. '
-This 'implies that there will be no reflection from the walls of the building. Everyone of us '
has listened to the echo of our own voice in a mountainous area. '
"The compactor (on the East side) of the building should not be
operated in a jammed condition".
It is hard to believe that the I-lome Depot will pay-someone full time to control the noise
levels from a compactor.
Forklift warning signals should be curtailed to midda)
The authors of the report are apparently not aware of other pressin, needs for forklift
operation at a Home. Depot that take precedence over noise control.
"An interposed earth barrier will reduce the noise level further.-
- The report considers only 14 new residences on the South bluffs vhicliare proposed to be
built. An earth barrier of course is of no consequence for the higher resiéncês on the East
and North bluffs that are there now.
L All in. all we believe, that the report does not reflect reality. Present and future decibel
levels reported are not coming from'sound data and they contradict simple common sense.
M A Home Depot with a.p10jected 510 vehicle parking lot, 'about 7800 estimated daily trips in . .
' and out of the.parking area and 784 trips in the peak hour (4:00 pm -5:00 pm) plus fork . .. ' .
lifts loud speakers and40 50 light and heavy duty deliver) trucks daily is bound to exceed
the allowable and tolerable noise levels in adjacent residential properties augmented by the
"canyon configuration" of the area. This will therefore represent a major breah of. the law - - - -
and a non-reversable environmental mistake that will degrade the quality of life' in
Encinitas in general.
5
48 Katherine Black .
1483 Avenida La Pasta 48. Katherine Black.
Encinitas, CA 92024
943-9665, - . A. See response to letter I 21, continent A.
B See response to letter I 18 comment I
March 2 1992 C See response to letter I 11 comment K
CoinmunityDevelopinent Department
527 Encinitas Blvd D. Comment noted. This does .not continent on the accuracy or
Encinitas, 6A.92024 92024 . . . S. adequacy of the EiR and does not require a response. - . S.
Sir:
A -1 ant writing to:. comment in disapproval on the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) issued by Willens and Associates
for the proposed Home Depot project on the corner of El Camino Real
and Olivenhain Road This E I R has blatant serious flaws and
generally relies upon inadequate studies or opinion rather, than
facts then erroneously draws conclusions that the problems
conceded by the authors can be mitigated to a non significant level. The report fails—to' adequately address the cumülátive. environmental impacts of this project further fails to analyze
these cumulative impacts Therefore it iii violation of CEQA
B As an example of the failure to fully address the adverse
environmental impacts the nationwide 404 permit granted by the
Army. Corps of Engineers was obtained by the developer without an
accepted EIR report or at best an out of date study Is this not
an indication of the true character of the developer's business
ethics? Note that this permit has" recently been. revoked and the S . . developer must nw . reapply oreapply.
C Further i in accordance with the Code of Federal
Regulations the proposed activity must not jeopardize a threatened
or endangered species as identified under the Endangered Species
Act or destroy ior adversely modify the critical habitat of such
species The gnatcatcher (documented as living on Site) even by
paid project biologists will certainly be added to the endangered
species list before this project is completed Additional study
and planning will be required to avoid flagrant violation of the
Code, but this has not been addressed.
D As. the Community Development Department, you are charged -
with the difficult responsibility of planning for controlled and S
necessary community growth and enhancement but at the same time
preventing .adownward. spiral of the very community you hope to maintain and develop Is a megastore with its noise pollution traffic wastei wetlands destruction and gnatcatcher erradication
the personal mark you wish to leave on
Sincerely,
.
---- . 12-78
Katherine Black
.
49. Dennis D. Black
Dennis D. Black
1483 Avenida La, Pasta
Encinitas,' CA 92024
March 2, 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd.
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs:
I have serious,-concerns abut the Environmental Impact A •R'epórt'(EIR) issued for the proposed Home Depot project on the
corner 'Of 'El 'Camiio- Real and Olivenhain- Road in Encinitas, and
indeed, about the project itself. ThéEIR'hasmultiple major flaws
along with' a substantial deficit of evidence to 'support its
"findings".
The, EIR. fails, to demonstrate the impact-of water runoff B into the Bataquitos Lagoon, does not adequately address- the negative impact on the gnatcatcher(s) living there,: incorrectly minimizes the 'enormous traffic 'implicáti'ons; and employed faulty
C noise study meth'ods and tecniquès. The -report is so lacking in depth and 'facts that it should not be taken seriously.
Addi1orially, the project, violates the open space goals
D,°f the Encinitas, General Plan, promises to reduce the quality.-of
life for residents of Encinitas and will very likely harm already
-existing busiiesses onEl Casino Real. I am convinced that the
negative environmental commercial and esthetic effects of the
proposed Home Depot project far outweigh the anticipated benefits
and increased revenues to the City of Encinitas.
E I urge to you' act in opposition to the Home Depot
project. Do not fall prey to the short, quick solution and long term problems this project 'is certain to bring to our city.
Sincerely,
Dennis D.-, Black -
The Findings were not included in the EIR. Findings are not
prepared until after the -public comments are received and
reviewed.
See the response's to letter # 18, comment J. Additional
spring surveys for the California Gnatcätcher were conducted
by the biologist. The results of these studies are included
in this Final EIR.
This 'comment does not specify what the author, thinks was
faulty about the, noise study methods, or his professional
- qualifications relating- to acoustical analysis. The noise
analysis was prepared by a -registered engineer who has, been
preparing acoustical analyses for EIRs for nearly, 20 years.
The original acoustical study prepared for the Home Depot
project included a recommendation for a future study. This
additional analysis- has been completed and is included as an
addendum to AppendixD.
Comment noted.
Comment noted.
12-79
4 *A 0 1*
50 CRAIG 1). GILI\IORE 50. Craig. D.Gilmore
1724 Orchard Wood Rood -
Encinitas, California 92024 ' This does not Comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR
and does not require a response. -
This does not comment on the accuracy -or adequacy of the EIR
and does not require a response.
. See'esponse°to letter 1 21, 'comment. A. • March I, 1992 .. . .
- D. . This does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy, of the EIR
and does not. require a response. -. ..
To: The Encinitas Community Development Department . . . .
. 527 Encinitas Boulevard .
. See-the response to letter I 18 comment J.
Encinitas, California 92024
This does not 'comment on•the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR.-
and does not require a response;
Re: Comments regarding the proposed Ilonie Depot project at the .southeastern
corner of El Camino Real and Olisenhain Road does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR.
and does not require a response
A Approval of this project will significantly and negatively impact the entire Ness Encinttas
and Olivenhaun area The negative aesthetics and increased traffic,'sater run off and sound
and light pollution 'sill forever impact the area's eoloil, and level of overall'quality".,The
project is the most extreme example of what 'sould be incompatible ssith the General Plan of
Encinitas:.'. • . , .- -- .-- .. . . -S •, ,
' Aithugh some may find the potestial tan receipts of such -a project appealing, easily., ten . . B existing businesses in the immediate-area will be unable to compete with the marketing and
..
. . pricing power which Flonse Depot utilizes to Completely dominate every area that is moves
'-.. - into. As a'result.l-iome D'epot'oni revenue generation will be Ggnificansly lower than the
$200,000 to $500.000 lirrevenues used to excite those thai have the posser to distribute the .... .
increased tax revenues. Home Depot has no- 'complimentàry b'usittesses, it uses its
phenomenal markeiing'and finiiicial:pwer to deensiate all related retailers within a ten to . twenty mile radius of its stores As existing businesses are driven out of business the areas
aesthejics and appeal will be furtler reduced as even more empty stdte fronts materialize in
the area s surrounding shopping centers
C • The EIR issued by illens &' Associates is seriousy inadequate. As a result, it would be
reckless and show a serious lack of fiduciary prudence if the report is utilized as ,a basis for
approving this project The report raises significant questions regarding the bias displayed
in i'rcview.' of' certain issues and perspectWés In 'addition; the repbrt reliCs on . . --
undocumented opinions, deficient studies and draws conClusiosis based on seriously flawed' ,
logic. - .- • . . . S
5' ' -S
-D • In addition to seriously affecting the aesthetic appeal ofihe area, the increased traffic will S -- -
further reduce the general appeal of a major portion of Encunitas These effects alone will -.
- '"have'subsiañtiiI negative—ec'onomic' impact-as surrounding residential property values are
'dampened or ieduced and autoniobile insurance premiums, increase. as actual and forecasted - - . • - - . -
accidents increase. . • . S - • - . .
- - 12-80
The Enciiias Community Developnient Department
March '. 1992
Page 2 .
E • The issue ofincreased water runoff and its impact on surrounding areas such as the Bataquitos
Lóohhave not been adequately addressed. This is an important issue and one which could
have extremely high future financial and ecological costs
F This type of development at this location is inconsistent with she surrounding areas. it is also
contrary to iheoalsôf the General Plan of Encinitas. The destruction of unique and
sensitive wildlife habitat is simply not being given ade4uate consideration.
G • The importance of maintaining the'feel" and 'look' of Encinitas cannot be over stated. These
are the reasons people live and move to this area. Encinitas is unique and its economy will
be negatively impacted over the long term ifii is allowed to be prostituted by shrewd mass
retailers bearing promises of great lax revenues. .....
ManiSh D. Adhiya
1742 Orchard Wood Road
Encinitas, CA 92024 51
February 20, 1992
Dear Mr. Murphy: . ',-
Re E I R of Home Depot Project Case NO 91 044
A'Aflel. reviewing the LIP for the above mentioned project, I
find that there are several discrepancies with this project and
the General as well as Specific Plans of Encinitas.
B Home Depot-Violates the, following areas in the General-Plan:
No development should reduce a'wetland area. Yet -if
Home Depot is allowed to come, the wetland will be reduced
because of the rPlaAfled darn upstream.'. '
C * The 39 feet building height EXCEEDS the Aimit set forth This
:restr,lctlon is,' for height .above existing grade, not finished
'grade; . . . .
D The proposed evaporating coolers and satellite dish on
the:.roof will'be' v.isable neighbors; The General'Plan'
-states. that such devices 'should not be visible to
neighbors. '
. The data on a San Diego Home Depot site shows that
the Noise tolerance of theGeneral Plan will beexceeded,.
Noise- Level can not increase more than 3dB above existing
conditions nor:exceed 60dB at theboundary of the nearest
residential area..
Fin the Specif.ic.Plan, it states that no building other than
a horse stable and nurseries are permitted in a' flood plane.
Home Depot is-not either one of these.
Mr. Murphy, It Is clear arid evident that Home Depot will
not only violate the General and Specific Plan specifications,
but will blatantly' destroy the pristine-and special lifestyle
we share together as a community here-in Encinitas. I call on
you,tó reject' this prOject. - -
- Sincerely -
- - - Kanish Adhlqa, -
51. Manish.Adhiya
A. The determination of whether or not th'e proposed project is
consistent with the Encinitas General. Plan is a planning
determination to be made by the Encinitas City Council
following public review and input from the.'City's planning
staff. The purpose of the EIR is to fairly disclose the
environmental impacts of the project, the mitigation measures,
and the alternatives that can reduce potential impacts It is
not the purpose of the EIR to, preempt the right of the-City to
determine General Plan and zoning consistency In order to
ensure that all reaso nm nably foreseeable enviroental impacts
are identified the EIR includes a worst case analysis
relating to colnpatibil'ity with City policies and' identified,
potential mitigation measures and alternatives. However, the'-
Encinitas City Council will make the final determination on,
consistency with City policies and the potential significance.
of any inconsistencies. If the City Council finds that the, -
project is,-in fact, not consistèntwith one or more planning
policies then this may result in a significant planning
o cnsistency issue depending upon the perceived seriousness of
the conflict If one or more such inconsistencies is
ultimately found and is determined to be significant the City
Council can adopt an alternative or, make a finding of
overriding considerations related to these concerns
B Additional information on wetlands impacts is included in the
response to letter 1 18; comment B.
C The General Plan allows the City Is standard height limit to be
exceeded if the project is developed in conformance with a
Specific Plan..
Section 3.7.2 addresses the -potantialvisual impacts of the
proposed project. -' -
See the response to letter I 42.
See the response to letter 1 18, comment,J.
Mr. Patrik S. Murphy; Director
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas 'Blvd:
Encinitas., CA 92024.
12-81
Debra L. GILMORE
1724 Orchard Wood Road
Encinitas, California 92024
52 52. Debra L. Gilmore
See response to letter I 50.
March I, 1992
To: The Encinitas Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Boulevard
Encinitas.- California 97024
Re: Comments, regarding the proposed 1-lorne Depot project at the southeastern
corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road.
2 • Approval of this project will significantly and negatively impact the entire 'New' Encinitas
- . and Olive nhain.area. The negative aesthetics and increased traffic, water run-off and sound
and light pollutionwill forever impact the area's ecology and level of overall 'quality'. The
project is the most extreme example of what would be incompatible with the General Plan of
-
2 Encinitas.
Although some may find the potential tax receipts of such a project appealing, easily, ten
existing businesses in the immediate area will be unable tocomete with the marketing and
pricing power which.}lonse Depot utilizes to completely dominate every area that it moves
into. As a result, Home Depot's'ner revenue generation will be significantly lower than the
$200,000 to $500,000 in revenues used to excite those that have the-power to distribute the
'increased', Iaxrevenues. Home Depot has no 'complimentary' businesses, it uses its
phenomenal marketing and financial power to decimate all related retailers-within a ten to
twenty mile radius of its stores. As existing businesses are driven out of business, the area's
aesthetics and appeal will be further reduced at even more empty store fronts materialize in
theárea's surrounding shopping centers.
The EIR issued by Wiltens & Associates is seriously inadequate. As a result, it would be
reckless and show a serious lack 01 uidu iar prudence if the report is utilized as a basis for
approving this project The report raises significant Questions regarding the bias displayed
- - - in, its: review of ceriain isues and perspectives. In addition, the report relies on
undocumented opinions deficient Studies and draws conclusions based on seriously flashed
logic..
In addition to se
.
iiously. affecting the aesthetic appeal of the area the increased traffic will
further reduce the general appeal of a major portion of Encinitas These effects alone will
have a substantial 'negative economic imps t as surrounding residential property values are
dampened or. reduced andautomobile insurance premiums increase as actual and forecasted
accidents increase. -
12-82
A . 0
The Encinitas Community Development Deparinieiit
Mach $, 1992
The issue of increased iaier runoff and its impact on surrounding areas such as the bataquitos
Lagoon have not been adequately addressed. This is an-important issue aid oie-which could - -
have extremely high future financial and ecological costs. S
This type of-development at this location is inconsistent. with the surrounding areas: It is also
contrary to the goals -of the General Plan of Enciniias. The destruction of unique and
sensitive wildlife habitat is simply not being given adequate consideration.
-
S
--: -S
The importance of maintaining the f ci and look of En inicas cannot be over staled These
are the reasons people live and move to this area Encinitas is unique and its e con 0m) will
be negatively impacted o er the long terns it it is alloued to be prostituted by shrewd mass
retailers bearing promises of great tax revenues -
Sincerely
L /
53
Mr. Patrick Murphy March 5. 1992
Community Development Director
City of Encinitas
Encinitas.City Hall
527 Encinitas Blvd.
Encinitas, CA 92024
Re: Comments On Environmental Impact Report for Home Depot Specific Plan
and Tentative Man (Case No. 91.044)
Dear Mr. Murphy:
A lam writing to you regarding the proposed Home Depot and the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) ,generated by Willens and Associates. 1 am very disappointed at the
inconsistencies and conflicts of the proposed Specific Plan in relation to the governing
B policies of this city. I have also found a disturbing number of discrepancies in the EIR, as
are pointed out in the letters from the firm of Johnson, O'Connell and McCarthy.
C I realize the City's need for generating tax revenues and the need to develop, advance and
mature. Home Depot has tempted us with an offer of hundreds of thousands of dollars in
revenues toward this necessity - a new library, a senior center, overall improvements to the
city and so on. However, these tax dollars will be coming from neighboring communities, as
well as,Encinitas residents, while the nearby residenisbear the burden and local businesses
are forced to close their doors due to overwhelming competition. According to the proposal
of the Home Depot found in the EIR the geographic location has been chosen as to saturate
the market and provide for regional growth for the benefit of Home Depot thus providing
service to communities other than as well as Encinitas Our city s General Plan clearly
states that commercial growthis to provide adequate services to the citizens of the
individual communities. This 122.000 square foot business (including the Garden Center)
clearly goes beyond the provisions of adequate service to the citizens of this individual city.
As inviting as (he money mighibe, the City has an obligation to its citizens to uphold-the
laws of the General Plan.,
D I must question why SANDAG was 'not notified by way of an EIR,. Perhaps this was an
oversight. If so one might consider allowing SANDAG the opportunity to give valuable
impute and comment m to this atter. In speaking with Ruth Potter, it was indicated that they
are normally notified on matters of this size and complexity yet they were not One of their
many concerns is-the issue of traffic: Their recommendations for traffic management, along
with those of the City of Enctniias will be far exceeded up to a level F (and possibly
beyond") I also question the amount of trips per, day stated as being less than 5 100 Was E a study done under similar to exact conditions to that of the proposed project in an area as
this? How was this number arrived upon? What specific effects will this have on an already
congested El Camino Real? How many more accidents are expected to occur? How many
53. Leisa R. Grajek
This does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the Elm and does not require a response.
See responses to letters 11, 12, 38 and 39.
This does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR
and does not require a response.
The Draft EIR was distributed to the County Department of
Public Works, which responded to traffic circulation issues
(see letter I 17). The Draft EIR was routed to the State
Clearinghouse and, other concerned governmental'agencies that
responded to the Notice of Availability. Section 15206 of the
State CEQA Guidelines requires that 'a Draft EIR be sent to the
appropriate metropolitan area council of governments (i.e.,
SANDAG) for shopping centers that will-employ more than 1,000
people or which encompass more-than 250,000 square feet of
floor space. The proposed Home Depot project does not meet
these criterion.
The methodology used in the traffic analyses is discussed in
Appendices D, K and L. The traffic impacts are discussed in
these Appendices as well as in Section 3.5.2 of the EIR. The
proposed widening of El Camino Real that is part of the
project plus the widening of Olivenhain Road- and the
improvement of the Olivenhain Road/El Camino Real
intersection, which are part of a separate approved project,
- are designed to improve the traffic flow. The improvements
for the Home Depot project are as required - by the City,
including a new signalized intersection, and these
improvements are required to mitigate potential traffic safety
impacts. -
Figure 3.1-2 indicates the current floodplain. FEMA maps are
generally not site specific. Appendix A includes the site
specific hydrology report. - -
C. This does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR -
and does not require a response.
Comment noted. See Section 3.3.2 of the EIR for a discussion
of wetlands impacts and Sectiàn 3.6.2 for -a discussion of the
- project's compatibility, with the City's required wetlands -
- buffers. -
The project's compatibility with General Plan policies is
analyzed in Section 3.6.2 of-the EIR. - -
This comment is incorrect. After reports of California
Gnatcatchers were received in -the summer of -1991, PSBS
12-83 -
I. . I
conducted additional surveys for the Gnatcatchers and for
Encinitas Baccharxs which had also been reported on the site
As-stated in the biology report in the EIR (Appendix8), the
scrub habitats of the site were ,surveyed using adopted
systematic survey techniques and taped vocalizations to elicit
response calls Two Gnatcatchers were identified on the site
during one of the 10 field survey dates but the following
survey did not reveal any, Gnatcatchers PSBS concludedthat
the two birds represented young dispersing .indivaduals
o t Continuing surveys by PSBS revealed the n-sie 1presence of
one pair of nesting Gnatcatchers However the Draft EIR had
already been repared :for public- review, and -these
observations were not reflected in the public review, copy
although ,the information had been relayed to the Cityand thei-.
project applicant PSBS readily revised its opinion and its.
report when it had enough data to confirm on-site nesting 4
The information on the color of the bands on the birds that
was presented at the January 21 1992 Planning Commission
hearing was helpful in establishing the origin of the birds '
4 - be Pointing Out (ieneraJ Plan Policy 2 only minimum intrusion of open parking ii it is "is to 'proVi professional: t:e :
ifffn
R cle, consistent and compatible with the associated flood hazard is to be allowed According to information'and the EIR is not considered final until it is plans the majority of the parkin, lot will resi in the flood plain certified by the dei in-mk 1 nfl hryh, The hl vli nairai
H Additionally any new wetlands created by thL project are subject to the guidelines of fifty
foot and one hundred foot buffers Accordingto the EIR ta subsntial amounts of land to be
developed in Planning Areas 1 3 and 4 are suthin the wetland boundaries and these stated
buffers arénot accommodated.
Along these lines our General Plan Policy 10.5 specifically addresses this property and its
wetlands flood plain) bioloical resource steep topography, and open space to be protected
in their natural conditiOn I must question the cutlune in to the hillside to accommodate the
massive building as '& way to preserve Also the cut and fill for the proposed residential
area along with the de'truction of an estimated thirty five year old rare native Torrey Pine is
in direct conflict of these by laws Accordinly, the Soithem Maritime Chaparral Coastal
Mixed Chaparral and Coastal Sage Scrub are to be conserved expent.nce minimal
fragmentation and assist in the connection of other open space areas adjacent to maintain
local wildlife movement corridors.
J At this point. I regretfully must question the competency of the biological firm conducting
the observation of wildlife habitat including the activity of the California Gnatcatcher Not,
until my documentation of these birds on videotape did they admit to activity on the
properly. These specially trained supposedly highly knowledgeable scientists ability to
locate and identify the gn asaLcãtcher w subordinate to my inexperience. I must question
what else they might have missed The City must look in to hinn,, a competent biologist or
group of biologists that specialize in this rare bird in order to obtain accurate data
concerning our native resident A full inventory of rare and native vegetation along with
confumation of other rare and native animals such as the least Bells verio, willow fly
catcher quail roadrunners bobcat gray fox (just to mention a few of the animals that nuake
up this biodiverse area of heritage) must be obtalnLd along with data on the impacts this
-. . propcused project will have, in order to knowledgeably uphold General Plan Policy 10.5. The -
- - ---------------._.•
more mortalities could be a direct result of the over taxation? Is the City taking
responsibility for. (possible) lawsuits arrising from this (possible)lack of suitable traflic
management?
F I am concerned about the ietland maps that were used According to FEMA certified maps
from the County of San Diego the flood plain extends almost twice the distance of those
submitted by the Austin hansen firm Thus not only is the parkin,, lot (being more than a
minimal intrusion conflict with Policy 8 2) within the flood plain but the majority of the
proposed building is contained in it as well Whene and how was this data obtained? Were
these maps FEMA certified? Who will be responsible for flood dama,e including loss of
property?: -
G No net loss of wetlands is to occur according to our General Plan, yet the proposal allows for
an over two (2) acre net !oss. According to a letter dated June 27, 1990 From Mr. Jim Hirsh
to you, along with-copies sent io Ms. hiano and Ms. Omsiead, a request io-chaigè,Policy.
106 and 109 from no development in a flood plain to minimal di.velopment was made
This request was not granted then and should not be granted now at this time. An additional
request for the allowance of parking lots in a flood plain a change to policy 842, was made
consulting firm which has conducted the authorized studies 0L the site has been preparing biological'studies throughout the
western states for.l4.years and is on the'County-.of San
Diego s Departme 11 nt of Planning and Land Use 1qua1if1ed
consultants list The firm : reports havebeen accepted by'
many public agencies at the local 'statetand federal levels
The EIR preparer has worked with Pacific Southwest 8iological'
Services (PSBS) for the past 10 years and considers the firm
to be competent and honest
See the response to letter # 11 comment K and Appendix B of
the EIR relating to the dates and types of4studies that have
been completed for the project including field investigations
in the spring and summer of 1992 No additional studies are
deemed necessary by the biologist and a difference in
professional opinions is allowed under CEQA without
invalidating the EIR
-. K. See c response to letter #11, omment S for information
relating to determining the adequacyof an EIR.
-f
- -. - -- a
12-84
City-is responsible for the preservation-of rare and endangered species on-site rather than by
transplantation off-site .
K ln'conclusiofl, the Elk is inadequate and therefore must be rejected. The proposed Home
Depot is unsuitable for;, but not limited to the above mentioned reasons. Our General Plan
Policies that stand-in acourt of law must be upheld-by our City officials as well. Proper land
planning and-management will be this City's attraction. Correct usage of our natural
resources will add value-and excellence to our City's beauty. Sound management skills must
be observed here at the"Gateway to Encinitas as well as every other segment of land within
our bôundariës.
Sincerely
Leisa R:Grajek
2040 Wandering Rd. .
Encinitas, CA,. 92024
. . S
54. Kathleen H. Bak - - -
The Light Industrial land use designation does not require that the
uses be limited to weekdays. Two noise studies (Appendix E) have
determined that noise impacts will not be significant under the
Adopted standards. There are no residences immediately àdjacentto
PA 1, where. the Home Depot Center is proposed. - - -.
- 12-85
54
March (l, 1992
Communiiy.Development Department
527 Encinitas Boulevard -
Encinitas, CA 92024 - -
Re: Horpe Depot Project- EIR -
Sir:
I am writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report (ElR) issued by
Willens and Associates regarding the proposed Home Depot at the corner of El
Camino Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinitas, California
When I purchased my house at WilL. creek I was aware that the zoning to the
west was Light Industrial I as not concerned because I envisioned a project
which would be compatible with the adjacent residential areas that is a facility
which would operate 7AM to 5PM Monda) through Friday In reality, we are faced
with a noise generating monster open 7AM to 10PM seven days a eek How can
this be considered compatible with adjacent residential area'
Sincerely
A.
/ -s (L 9-20
OOC/C001/L
- - - - •: - • - - • - - -- -
. 55 adopts a project using overriding consideration related to socio-
economic benefits. In addition, the original alternative discussed - in Section 7.2.3 was rejected because Itárne Centers must have -a
minimum standard size in order to carry the same materials in all
March 9, 1992 Centers; it was not rejected on the basis of not being economically
viable. Section 7.2.3 has been revised to reflect a 25% reduction
in size, as requested in another public comment. See the response..
to.l'etter #1 57., comment B for an explanation of. CEQA guidelines
- regarding social. and economic impacts. Community Development Department
527 EnciniiasBoulcvard
Encinitas, CA92024
Re: Home Depot Prdjeci . EIR •
Sir:
I am writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) issued by
Willens and Associates regarding the proposed Home Depot at the corner of El
Camino Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinitas, California. .
-The proposed building is too large and is not compatible with the site. A large
building-size results in excavation of-the -existing- environmental ly sensitive slope and - • - -
encroachment into wetlands (as a result of the parking lot). Smaller buildings have
been rejected on the basis of not being economically viable. Willens and Associates
has accepted HouseDepot's -statement tothis effecton face value. An economic- . .
evaluation of smaller building sizes should be presented
- - -
Sincerely, -•
- - .
'7/4L -
.
- - - 7J) - . • ,.
- - • . • .- • ... /6.6 / W(// - -•
-:
- . - 12-86
- - COC;CDD/L . .
10
I?
- - 56. Janet IIempsey
56 Refer to response to letter 1 11, comment 4.
Murch:2,- 1992 0
Coinmumly Development Departmenu -
527Encinitas Boulevard : S
Encinitas, CA 92024
Re: Horne 'Depot Project -EIR
Sir: S.
I am writing in response to the Entronmcntal lmpdct Report (EIR) issued by
Willens and Associates regarding the proposed Home Depot at the corner of El
Camino Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinitas California
The proposed project tnolves a net loss of setlands fhts should not be justified
as the basis of ImpIroving the proposed smaller area of wetlands Thus is contrary
to the Federal Government policy How is this justified?
• 'Since.ely, 0
••
•
S • • 0
JlLilL
0 • -
• S
•, •IJIF , -: • -.5
- \i')JE' -.!. . - • - - -
EttC,v,r'S c
- 00 12-87 •
DOCICODflL - -
LL
57. Else Ortabasi
A. This comment does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of
the EIR and does not require a response. Ilse Ortabasi 57
1680 Meadowglen Lane
Encinitas, CA 92024
Patrick S. Murphy.
Director
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Boulevard
Encinitas, CA 92024
March 5. 1992
Dear Mr. Murphy,
This letter concerns the proposed Home Depot construction plan on the Southwestern
corner of El Camino.Real and Olivenhain.
A Surely you, too have breathed a sigh of relief coming back from a day spent in the polluted
air of the Los Angeles area, in the maze of overcrowded, and over constructed urban
environments of that city. This is how I felt today after a long slow trip home on the
clogged highways and byways to the North of us, arriving home in still beautiful Encinitas.
Let me ask the question whether it makes sense in the long run to make the same mistakes
that were done in other urban areas namely covering the beautiful landscape inch by inch
with buildingi and blacktop in the name of progress and necessity'. It is well known that the
increisèd revenue and business from such short sighted development is always offset by
the creation of new and bigger problems.
I believe it is indeed-necessary that every citizen defends what is happening in their own
neighborhood.,right beyond their back) ards In fact 1 am proud to consider myself a
NIMBY We most definitely want to continue to see coveys of quail scuttling through
our yaids, we most definitely want lo—wake up to noises iiiade'by iiuture,,ratlier tliaii Diesel
trucks backhoes beeping generators humming cars starting and stopping palettes
rumbling on fork lifts, chain saws screeching,' compactors tattling and all those noises
reverberating and echoing back from acres of roof tops and asphalted parking areas as
well as the canyon walls. We can not justify that our children will have to breath air that is
more polluted. We can not tolerate any more traffic jams causing further delays in
commuting to our work places and schools. We can not stand by to watch the last small
enclaves of unique wetland habitats, coastal Chapparal and sage scrub environments'being
Section 15131 of the State CEOA Guidelines states that
economic or social information may be included in an EIR but
that "economic or social effects of a project shall not be
treated as significant effects on the environment."
This does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR
and does not require a response.
Comment noted. Potential biological impacts are discussed in
Section 3.3.2 of the EIR.
The truck traffic is included in the traffic projections.
The noise barrier required as mitigation for the westernmost
proposed residences in PA 2 is required as a result of'the
traffic noise, not the noise from the proposed Home Depot
Center. Even if the Home Depot Center was not constructed,
any residences constructed in this area would require noise
mitigation because the traffic noise levels along- El Camino
Real are already above accepted levels.
C. As required by CEQA, mitigation is proposed for all potential
- significant impacts Section 2.1.1.4.3de5cr1bè5 the wetlands
mitigation that is proposed as part of the project. Section
3.3.2 discusses additional recommended biological mitigation
- - —measures.------ ------.-.-.- --------------------_____
The potential traffic impacts identified in the EIR are a
result of cumulative traffic and are not a result' of just the
proposed TM or Specific Plan. As indicated in the EIR,
several local road segments and intersections are already
operating .below an acceptable Level of Service. This is why
the impacts are defined as cumulative. Mitigation measures
included as part of the project are discussed in Section
2.3.1.5. Other recommended traffic mitigation measures are
discussed in Section 3.5.3..
Measures recommended to mitigate potential impacts relating to
nonconformance with the General -Plan are discussed in Section,
3.6.3. Several alternatives are presented in Section 7 that
- - would provide mitigation 'for nonconformance with the General,
Plan policies (Section 7.1.3, 7.1.4, and 7.1.5).
12-88
0
Section 3.7.2 analyzes potential visual impacts, including
those to nearby residences. Section 3.7.3 -recommends
screening of the rooftop, evaporative coolers to, mitigate
potential impacts.,
Sectio n 3.8.3. discusses noise mitigation measures. Section
3.14.3 addresses air quality mitigation measures. Section
3.2.3 discusses water quality mitigation measures.
B destroyed. Adverse environtnciital and social impacts of auty large devel6pmcnt project
need tobe carefully £Qs1, not just listed. The costs for Initiation efforts and the
mnitoring.of such efforts in the future also constitutes part of that cost. I am convined
that in the case of the proposed Home Depot construction plan the costs of negative
environmental impacts far outweigh the anticipated benefits and increased revenues to the
City of Encinitas.
C Let me now focus on several issues of particular concern which need to be addressed
Firstly, it is our opinion that such a gigantic project oil the proposed site is incompatible
with the:irnmediately adjacent residential areas as well as the City of Encinitas General
Plan. This land should never have, been zoned for light industrial use. This land represents
the last open space in New Encinitas and should be preserved as such.
DThe enormous-decline in.Wetlaltds-not only in California but in the Nation as a -whole over
the past décàdes is the most impoñant reason for not considering at all the proposed ite
for any-kind öf:large construction such as the proposed Home Depot. We can no longer
afford any rdtition in.weiland areas due to development It has been shown many tithes
that attempts at restoration or mittgation of lost wetlands always falls short of the desired
result. In this atiicUlar instance the adverse effects Ion Bataquiios:Lagoon due to changes
of 'riall kinds'-ih the-ter t-uii Off are an additional cocern.
'According to the draft environmental impact report the completion of this project will
- alsörsult1n an excessive increase in frffic. Traffic -will o perate at unacceptable levels in
the segment on El 'Càmino Real between Olivenhain Rd. and Encinitas Boulevard and also
on the segment of.Olivenhaiñ between El Camino Real and Amagosa ,even if all proposed
- E imp rávementswill be implemented. It is unclear from the draft environmental report
whether the estimated increase in traffic includes the anticipated 40-50 daily deliveries to
the Home Depot. Obviously the traffic problem carnot be rnitigated.to insignificance.. -
Concomitant' with'the increase in traffic and the operations at the Home Depot. site will be
an 'increase in noise leels. A task force fomied by a 'grdipof concerned citizens has -
, shown that the noise' levels are already at the limit of acceptable levels now, befdre the
roJeèthas been built. Additional noises in the orderof-atleast 45dB(A)-are expected 'from
no'rmàl Hon-fe Depot operatiotus. Delivery trucks, fork lifts, compactor, coo iing equipment
• etc. According to a technical noise study prepared as part of the draft EIR it-was concluded
F that noise mitigation was necessary for seven of the residences proposed in .Plauning Area
2. It is logical that noise mitigation is also a must for the exiting adjacent residences to the
12-89 -
3
Easi and South as well asfuturc residences to the Sotith pariicularly the ones that are
overlooking the projectAs in the case of our house were the loading dock is in a direct
line of view and hearing, which means that all the noises are channekd up the steep bluff
side and are ãlso increased by reflected sounds from oppdsiie canyon walls and the valley.
The exiting noise studies do not consider this problem at all.
G wouldlike t conclude by uinmarizing that this liter only:touches on the many
problems of this ill conceived development project which is absolutely not suited for the
proposed site. As a very concerned citizenandhole owner on top of the bluff to the East
of the proposed project who ould carr) the brunt of the negative impacts I object
strongly to the construction of the project because of the many inadequacies of the EIR. I
object to the lack of mitigation with regard to the destruction of sensitive biological
habitats;traffic gridlock directly caused by this project, incompatibility with the city's
General Plan, lack of visual aesthetics particularly when having to view the project from
the top day in iid.dáy dut, excessive noise generation, long term adverse impact on air
quality, :adverse'imct on regional water quality and much more.
Su rely yours,'
S
• // [ jA—( L/L 94
0
58
tinR 06 '92 18:48 CD619'431-S610 :.. 0.1
GWOSS HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANTS
1751 S HANNALEI DRIVE VISTA CA 92083 PHONE OR FAX (619) 940f9417:
6 'March' 1992
Mr..Craig Olson
Assistant Planner
I City 'of Encinitas
Comaun.ity Development D.partmsrt' ' 527 Encinitas Blvd, Suite 100
Encinitas, CA 92024 .-
Dear Hr. Olson,
I have reviewed the mitigation proposals for the biologcal
labitats found'at the Home Dpotaite Case No. 91-044.
;."am concerned that the amount o"work detailed for the riparian
habitat will seriously prevent 'Its use by migrating birds during its implementation and subsequ.nt monitoring Specifically in A auction 3-28 item 2 calla for at least a five year monitoring 1 and
implies a possible failure of the mitigation attempts Again, in section 3-28 of the draft EIR, item 8 states that pond and
assooiated silt and grease traps must be cleared twice a year and
B,nno mare:than 50% of'theDlant material is to"tt removed t py given time " 50% of the available habitat being removed during the
'springand fall bird migrations.ie.too much.. Birds .wi1lrefus to, use this habitat with that much activity and vegetation loss
C The mitigation proposed for the chaparral environment and the elan
to. 'reintroduce 'the, Del Mar. Mansenita 'nd Coast White Lilac to the
site are tenuous proposals because they focus only on dominnt
conspicuous shrubs, and not the :Whole floristic picture. Thereare many annual and perennial plant species and the microorganisms (including microrhizal associations) upon which a whole habtat
depends Transplanting a few chaparral plants grown in
cultivation, will not mitigate.,the'loss to the biological- ass4ncé of this habitat Wild native habitats can not be recreated by man -The plan additionally fail',t,o ta)cO "into account the -large mature - - 'scrub oa3s native to the site, for which -the city of -Encinitasjwae' - D named These oaks, massive for their species are the last vestige of the once numerous stands found in Encinitas
Sincerely
- - GilbGrt A. Voss
- Botanist
58. Gilbert A. Voss of G.A. Voss Horticultural Consultants
A. Any good mitigation monitoring and reporting program includes
back-up measures to protect the environment in the event that
the proposed mitigation: is not -successful. '- All
restoration/ revegetat ion , efforts 'for any project should, be
required to: be deemed successful, even if it requires
replanting or developing other mitigation measures.
This comment is'taken,out of context. The statement in the
'EIR that "no more than '50% of the plant material is to be
removed at any given time" refers to the marsh vegetation to
be planted in' the detention basin that is part of the water
runoff treatment system. This basin occupies an area of 0.5
acre and would filter water runoff from the impervious
surfaces prior to the water entering the adjoining creek.
This' opinion has been considered in the EIR.
The oaks are in an area proposed for retention as natural open
space and will not be impacted.
12-90
59. Randall Kusunose-
59 See response to letter # ii, comment 4.
March Ri, 1992
Community Developriieni Department
527 Encinitas Boulevard
Eiicinitas, CA'92024 .-
Re: Homebcpot Project. EIR
Sir:
I am writing in response to the Environmental impact Report (ElR) issued by
Willens and Associates regarding the proposed-Home Depot at the corner of El-
Camino Real-and Olivenhain Road in Encinitas, California. -
:When I purchased my house at Wi}lowcreekl was aware.that the zoningto the
west as Light Industrial I was not concerned because I envisioned a project
which would becompatiblewith the -adj ace ntresidential- areas, -&hai-is;a-facility -- - -
which would operate 7AM to 5PM Monday-through Friday. In reality; we are faced
with a noise generating monster open 7AM to 10PM seven days a week. How can
this-beconsidered compatiblewith-adjacent residcntiäl area?
- Sincerely, - -
- - -
-
0 fti))4LL S0 USLAIoSC_
0 0 0
L-cJ I1pWEi)
- ecj1i (,
'H4
- - - - - - - -- 12-91
DCC/CDOZ/L - - . .
0
- V -
V BECOI1 tRMATONAL
Ittdu,CA92O24 Ugur Ortabasi of BECOR International V
V . V A. See the response to letter I 44,. comment 2(g)(i). .
B. This is an incorrect statement. The EIR -statesVthat the V V
60 traffic analysis incorporates traffic,projections for ivi u ,arCii I,, V . Carlsbad'sFacility Management Zones 11 and 12, which.include
V . .Arroyo La Costa. V V V V
V V
Community Development Department V V V V V
V - 527 EncinhtaS Blvd V C. Refer to the response to letter I 11, comment I 5 regarding V the standards for judging the adequacy of anVElR. Mitigation V
V V Encinitas, CA 92024 V
V measures included as part of the prdject are discussed in V
V V V Section 2 .3 .1.5. V Other recommended' traffic mitigation
V V V measures are discussed in Section 3.5.3.
Sirs. El Casino Real and Olivenhain Road are County. roads. V
V Therefore, they will be maintained by the County . V V V A . 1 am writing to.. express my concern over the proposed Home
Depot project,. specifically the draft Environmental Vln1pa6 V.V Report . V D. This does not ápmment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR
(EIR) This EIR is completely inadequate The EIR does not have and does not require a response
V statement of overriding merit; as required by CEQA. The city V
V
V V V V V
V V
V
councils desire to generate tax revenues does not justify building
this monstrosity on environmentally sensitive la ri d nor creating a
traffic nightmare
41
B The EIR admits that there will be an increase in traffic and
assigns traffic a grade F after the project is built yet it does not
even take into account the traffic which will be created by the 1700 -'
V homes in the . Arroyo La Costa project, and any other future
V development along the El Camino Real corridor. The EIR VdoCs nOt V V
V V V
V C adequately 'addiess mitigation of thistraffic problCr, lior does. V V
V
V
V
V
V . address - who will pay for the upkeep of the roads 'due to this
V increased traffic,. including the, large number of diesel. trucks (100 V • • V V V
V
. per day) making deliveries to Home Depot.
V - D The ,.EIR does admit that traffic cannot be mitigated to a less . V V
V
V •V V
than significant effect The project should not be considered until
V the current: traffic congestion iim /probles along El Caiñino Real. are V V
V
V V
V addressed. Home . Depot should not be allowed to take the position V V
V V V
that , traffic which their "megasiore" will create is "not their concern." V
V
V
V
V
Sincerely
V •V/ . V V 12-92 V.
3
March )2 1992
Community Development Department ..
521 Encinitas Boulevard
Encinitas, CA 92024
Re: Home Depot Project - EIR
Sir:
lam writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) issued-by
Willens and Associates regarding the proposed Home Depot at the corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinitas, California.
,The proposed project involves a net loss of wetlands. This should not be justified
on the basis of "improving" the proposed smaller area of wetlands. This is contrary
to the-Federal Government policy; How is this justified?
. Sincerely, -
tt/PEtr. E
02 Le +el'-24
(0
- 62. Mrs. Deborah Johnson and Mr. Paul A. Johnson
-. See the response to letter # 57.
• .1 ' 62.
Patrick S: Murphy
Director' :
C6mm9nity Development Department
527 Encinitas Boulevard
Encinitas, CA 92024 ,. S
March 5, 1992' S •,' .5. •
S
Dear Mr. Murphy, ' ' •,
' '
•. .
This letter concerns the proposed Home Depot -construction.plan on the Southwestern .
corner of El Caminó Real and Olivenhain Road. •
'
I believe it is indeed necessary that every citizen defends what is happening in their own
neighborhood right beyond their backyards We most definitely warn to continue to see
coveys of quail scuttling throu1,h our yards we most definitely want to wake up to noises
made by nature rather than Diesel trucks back hoes beeping generators humming cars
starting and stopping palettes rumbling on fork lifts chain saws screeching compactors
•' raulingan4-all ,those noises reverberating and. echoing back from acres of roof, tops and
asphalted parking areas as well as the canyon walls We can not justify that our children
will have to breath:,air that, is more polluted. We can not tolerate anymore traffic jams, .
causing -further'delays in commuting to ourwork places and schools. We can not stand by'
, to watch the last small enclaves of unique wetlard habitats, coastal Chappar,al' and sage
scrub environments being destroyed Adverse environmental and social impacts of any
large development project need. to be carefullyçed, nbt.jist listed.,The costs for-,- . . •'
Mitigation efforts and the monitoring of such efforts in the future constitute part of that
cost. I am convinced that-in the case of the 'propEsed Rome Dpotconstruction plan the • • S
costs of *negative environmental impacts far outweigh the anticipated benefits and increased • ' S - S
revenues to the City of Encinitas. • S S • •
•
S •
12-94
... .--
2
I now want to focus on several issues of particular concern whichneed to. be addressed
Firstly, it.is our. opinion that such a gigantic prójêèt:on the proposed-iieis incompatible
with the adjacent residential areas as well as the City of Encinitas General Plan. This land'
should never have been zoned for light industrial use. New Encinitas which is already
very lowiii open space, should have this.,landpreserved as such.
The enormous decline in wetlands not ,only in California but in the Nation as a whole over
the past decades is the most important reason for not considering the proposed site at all
for any kind of large construction such as the proposed Home Depot We can no longer
afford any reduction in wetland areas due to development .it has been shown many. times
that attempts at restoration or mitigation of lost wetlands always falls short of the desired
result. In this particular instance the adverse effects on Bataquitos Lagoon due to changes
of all kinds in the water run off are an additional concern which has not been adequately
considered.
Accordingto thédraft environmental impact report' the completion of this project will
result in an excessive increase in traffic. Traffic will operate at unacceptable levels in the
segment on El Camino Real between Olivciihaiii Rd. and Encinitas Boulevard and also on
the segment of.Olivenhain between El Camino Real and Amargosa , even if all proposed
improvements will.be implemented. It is Unclear from the draft environmental report
whether the estimated increase in traffic includes the anticipated 40-50 daily deliveries to
the Home Depot. Obviousl the traffic proble'm can not be mitigated to insignificance.
Concomitant with the increase in traffic and the operations at -the Home Depot will be an
excessive increase in noise levels. A task force formed by a group of concerned citizens has
shown that the existingnoise levels are already at-the limit of acceptable levels now, before
the project has been built Additional noises in the order of at least 4dB(A) are expected
from normal Home Depot operations in the vicinity of thi site increased traffic delivery
trucks fork lifts compactors cooling equipment chain saws etc will all contribute to this
increase in noise According to a technical noise study prepared as part of the draft EW it
was concluded that noise mitigation was necessary for seven of the residences proposed in
Planning Area 2 It is therefore logical that noise mitigation is also a must for the existing
adjacent residences to the East and South as well as future residences to the North
part icularly-the ones that are overlooking the project. 'The existing noise studies do not
consider this problem at all, neither do they include any consideration of prevailing winds
and their effect on acoustics. . . .
0 0
3
I would like to conclude by summarizing that this 'letter only touches on the many
problems of this illconceived development project which I consider absolutely not suited
for the proposed site As a very concerned citizen I object strongi> to the construction of
the projec because of the many inadequacies of the ,E I object to the lack of mitigation
withiegard to- the destructibn ófseiisitive biological habitats, traffic griJlock directly
caused by this project incompatibility with the city s General Plan lack of visual
- -, aesthetics, excessive noie generation, long term adverse impact on air qualicy,.adverse
impact on regioñalwate quality and much more.
Sincerely yours, .
)2i c'1
/5i OrcJ-r1 \iôod OQd
L1/ 5IO
63 63. Jim Hartley
CommuEtity Development Department Same as letter I 47; refer to response to that letter.
527 Encinitas Blvd.
Encinitas, CA 92024
To whom it may concern, -.
This letter pertains to the 'Environmental Noise Analysis (Report No. 91 0l6) and the
associated Addendum (Report N. 91-016) prepared by San Diego Acoustics. Inc. in
conjunction with the Home Depot planning activities in Encinitas.
We critically reviewedthe above mentioned reports, firstly as the closest neighbors to the
planned Home Depot, secondly as scientists who spent their lives writing proposals and
evaluating similar reports. From 'either point of view the report is flawed, superficial and
does not reflect the honest quality of an unbiased scientific work.
The verfirst siitence of the main reporl reveal already the. partial nature of the analysis.
by saying :This study was conducted to show the acoustic suitability of the proposed
project with respect to the requirements of the City of Eiiciiiitas DepaiiinentofPlairning
and Land Use In other words the report is not a fact finding effort but a study to induce
a desired result. Another stunning "faux pas" of the first report is the conclusion that "No
significant noise impact is expected: This conclusion was reached by neglecting among
other thin'gs to includean analysis of the loading dock noises. The treatment of.ihis major
source of noise appeared 4 months later in the addendum.
Following are the obvious scientific weak points that minimize the credibility of both
reports. . -.
1 The analytical model used assumes a square Jaw that describes how the noise
level decreases with increasing distance from the source of noise This model assumes a
point source in an open environment with no obstructions or reflecting objects
The laws of acoustics however follow closely the ones that control the propagation of light
This means that noise or acoustic waves like light can be reflected, scattered, collimated,
funnelled of focussed. In that case "square law'.attenuation does not apply. 12-95
•
I
This is indeed the situation at the planned sie for the I lome Depot Ilie flat wetland and
field areas of the planned building site are almost completely surrounded by bluffs with
steep slopes forming a bowl shaped canyon. The noise generated by the Home Depot and
the associated traffic plus the traffic on El Camino Real and Olivenitaiit Rd is reflected
back by the, Western bluffs of Green Valley onto the residential *areas on theEasiem,
Southern and Nonhernbluffs facing the wetland area. The effect is so dramatic that for
example at our residence at 1680 Meadowglen Lane,,overlooking the entire area of the
planned building site, the words of the songs that are played on rodeo days next to El
Camino Real can clearly be heard and understood.
The square law fails to predict the real situation as it is going to be and therefore the
model does not have the credibility justifying ii 's use in the final decision A very
onvincing proof of the directibility of sound i.e. focussing and funnelling by reflection
are the stethoscopes and headphones used in commercial airlines
2 The test data obtained for the report do not contain information on the wind
n directto and strength m during measureent intervals As the carrier of sound the air and
the relative movement of air with respect to the detector affect the results of the
measurement On the upwind side of the noise source the decibel levels will always be less
than on the downwind side Therefore the results can be misleading depending on the wind
at a particular time: The report does not include any discussion of this issue.
3. The original study issued on April 16, 1991, involves only a 1 hour measurement
at a particular time (Il 00 am -12:0,0 am on a Thursday) The equipment used was a level
indicator positioned 5 fret above. flat, ground. .
These are all questionable test conditions reducing the credibility of the data One hour
measurement data is correlated with the vehicle count during other times The correlation
fails to take into account the vehicle type For example during mid afternoon heavy school
bus and Diesel truck traffic increase the noise level darnatiCally at the corner of El
CaminoReal and Olivenhain Road due to the starts and stops at the traffic lights at this
location. .
The measurements have to be carried out with a 'dosimeter" type of device rather than a
level indicator. This would provide a more meaningful average over the periods measured.
The noise field is accumulative and humans respond to the total flux emanating from this
3
field over time periods. Therefore the noise related damage is the physiological response to
the dose of noise received In addition the maxima and minima of a noise level indicator
can be strongly affected by changing the response time of the detector. No information on
this issue exists in the report. -
The height of the level indicator i.e. 5 feet is equal of less than the height of the scrubs in
many parts of ihe area. Thus, with out.the description of the vegeátion surrounding the
equipment, the results have not much meaning as the vegetation can shield-the detector
from noise. This is common sense, as everybody knows that noise levels from the highways
for example can be significantl) reduced by proper tree planting between the highway and
residences.
The report ignores the effect of noise on the properties .pn the North, South and
East bluffs surrounding the proposed building site completely. Apparently the idea of
square law noise attenuation is once again applied i.e' as the distance from the noise
source grows the noise level goes down with the square of the distance and therefore the
properties on the bluffs are at distances far enough not to be impacted by additional noise
This conclusion is either a severe neglect in a report which will be used to make decisions
or it is a calculated way to avoid liavitig to face a non mitigatable situation If for example
at our residence the noise level will exceed the allowable level to the same extent as
reported for the border of the Pearce property, then there will be no possibility to mitigate
this problem by anoise
1.
barrier since our property, is.about lOO feet above the proposed
-Construction site. A fence to cover the line of sight would be impractical because of the
height of the residence.
The report as it stands can not be considered 1inal,because it contains many, other
statements which at the least need further qualifications For example
Loading noise only occurs during truck movement or fork lift
operation.
It is not stated what percentage' of time over a period of 24 hours this occurs. Also
everyone knows that Diesel trucks are most of the time left idling during loading and
unloading operations.
Loud speakers (for paging) should be facing the building'. . . .
. 0
This implies that there will be no reflection from the walls of the building. Everyone ofus .•
Pas listened to the echo of our o n voice in a mountainous area.
"The compactor (on the East side)of the building should not be :
operated in a jammed condition'.
It is hard to believe that the-Home Depotwill pay someone full time to control the noise
le'-Js from a compactor.
Forklift warning signals should be curtailed to midday.
The authors of the report are apparently not aware of other pressin, needs for forklift
operation at-a 1-lomeDepot that take precedence over noise control. ': S
An interposed earth barrier will reduce the noise level further
The report considers only 14 new residences on the South bluffs which are proposed to be
built An earth barrier of course is of no consequence for the higher residences on the East
and North bluffs that are there now. . . .
All an all we believe that the report does not reflect 'reality. Present and future decibel
levels reported are not coming from sound data and they contradict simple common sense
A Home Depot with a projected 510 vehicle parking lot about 7800 estimated daily trips in
and out of the parking area and 784 trips in the peak hour (4 00 pm 5 00 pm) plus fork
lifts loud speakers and 40-50, light and heavy-duty delivery trucks daily is bound to exceed
the allowable and tolerable noise levels in adjacent residential properties augmented by the - -
canyon configuration of the area This will therefore represent a major breach of the law
and a non reversable environmental mistake that will degrade the qualtt> of life in
Encinitas in general.,',.
Therefore we ask you to stop this-plan-right now before it is too 'late and Encmnitas suffers
a financial damage much larger than the anticipated revenue from taxes and sales The
major indirect cost source to the Encinitas city government and the residents will be
S Increased traffic problems
&COItWI1RNAT1OIAL 0
0
• •0
-
64. lJgur Ortabasi of BECORInternational-,
A. See response to letter I 21, ,comment'A.
64. - B. See response to letter 1 18, comment J.
6 March 1992 '-
'. •. S - •, . C. There are no projected, significant - impacts on Bat iquitos Lagoon. Therefore, no •mitigatibn.,is required. Community Development Department •
527 Encinitas Blvd • 0 Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs.
A I;,-,am writing to comment .on the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) regarding the -proposed Home Depot at the corner of 'El Camino
Real and Olivenhain Road in Encuiiicas This ElR has a substantial
deficiency of evidence required to support the findings that have
been made The EIR generally relies upon inadequate studies rather
than facts,,then erroneously draws conclusions ::that tiems in question
can be mitigated to a less than significant level
B Approval of the Home Depot project would subvert the intent
of the Clean Water Act.:. No study was conducted to show the impact • , : • • ' • • 0
- 0 • of water runoff from thiii project into Bataquttos Lagoon
Further,. the. ;general p!an of. Encinitas • requires that no • • • • '- 5
development should reduce wetland area although this project in
conjunction with the retention dam planned for the upstream side of
- Encinitas creek will reduce wetland 'a'rea. '
0
5 - • •- • C -. • .'-.':-- :0
• 0 , 0
• 0,
Therefore the existing biological impacts study is" inadequate. • -• 0 ' -• Home Depot has a duty to mitigate any impact on Bataquitos Lagoon. 0
-' Sincerely, • 5 0 ' ' S S
- 0 • •
• 12-96 5
65 65. Deborah A. Burke
See response to letter # 21, comment A.
This does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR
6 March 1992 and does not require a response.
Section 3.7.2.2 discusses impacts to the viewshed illustrated Community Development Department in Figure 3.7-2.
527-Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024 This does: not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR
and does not require a response.
Sirs,
A This letter will serve to memorialize my comments on the Environmental impact Report (EIR) written as part of the proposed -Home Depot project at the corner of El 'Camino Real and Olivenhain
Road in Encinitas California The EIR I is flawed due to a deficiency of evidence required to support any findings thii have.' been 'thadè. Conclusions have been, drawn that items in question can be mitigated to a level which is less than significant'. without the requisite supporting evidence.
H Various inconsistencies with the General Plan of Encinitas
include, but are not limited to, the following. The proposed building
height of 39 feet exceeds'ihe limit of 30 feet above existing grade set forth in the general-plan..' El, Camino 'Real 'is considered a "visual corridor although the Home Depot project as configured in the EIR
does not comply with this intent maskilil, trces itid shrubbery realistically will take a decade to fill out- and in the interim the visual corridor. will -be- lost. Evaporative coolers and a satellite dish
are to' be placed on the roof of the Structure which will be visible to
residents of the properties overlooking the siic ibis contravenes the General Plan.
c. - Views from future neighborhoods 'ich as Arroyo La Costa are
- considered in the ElR but views from existing nei0hborhoods such as
Scotts Valley. Encinitas Highlands and Rancho Ponderosa are not considered..Although one of the project alternatives addresses this project deficiency, it considers only the impact to mssersby ilong El Camino Real and not the local residents
- - - - 12-97
•
.t
.
- ..-''±' :•...-c ...',- - - ,. .,, ..- . . ..
2c.
66 . 66. Susan Stomonte
Same as letter I 64; see response to that letter
6 March 1992
Community Development Department . .
527 Encinitás Blvd .
Encinitas, CA 92024 . .
Sirs,
I am writing to comment on the Environmental Impact Report . .
(EIR) regarding the proposed Home Depot at the . corner of El Camino
Real and Olivenhain Road. in Encinitas. This EIR has a substantial
deficiency of evidence required . to support the findings that have
been made. The EIR generally relies upon inadequate studies rather
than facts, then erroneously draws conclusions that items in question
can be mitigated to a "less than significant level.
Approval of the Home Depot project would subvert the intent
of the Clean Water. Act. No study was conducted to show the impact
of water runoff from this project into Bataquitos Lagoon.
Further;. the . general plan of Encinitas requires that no
development should reduce wetland area, although this project in '
—conjunction with the retention dam planned for the upstream side of
Encinitas creek will reduce wetland area. -
Therefore the existing biological impacts study is inadequate.
Home Depot has a duty tornitigate any inpact on Bacaquitos Lagoon.
Sincere
'
1•
atCOHiTsRNATIC 0
ItOIadowsIer:.
- 67. Ugur Ortabasi for BECOR International
- Same as letter # 45; see response to that, letter. 67
6. March 1992
. Community Deeloprnent Department .
527 Encigiitas Blvd . .
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
I am •writing An response to, the 'Envirotitnenial .lipact Rep'o'rt . .
(EIR) -issued by Willens and Assodates regarding the proposed Home
Depot at the corner of El Camino, ,ial and .Olivenhain Road' in
Encinitas, California. This EIR has serious fla'ws along with a
substantial deficiency of evidence required to support any findings
that have been made The- EIR ee0e1) relies upon inadequate
studies or opinion rather than facts then erroneously draws
conclusions that items in question can be mitigated, to a level which
Js . less than significant
A clear example of . this "compliance by edict is demonstrated. . . in the noise 'study. The,. EIR 'reachesl the conclusion that there is. .no
significant impact on neighboring homes but establishes no technical
basis for this c':* nclusion Project cr.chntcal consultants could not or,
would: not s'cientifically examine the impact to thq.- neighboring . . .
residents, ever 'though there is a clear impact on these residents. .
Examples of sound.' sources • which were" not considercd' include (put -
are not limited to) nighttime loading dock operations, fork lifts, trash . .'
compactors, public address systems, heavy equipment including
diesel engines, rooftop: swamp coolers, car doors., etc. • The EIR states
that noise 4vels cannot be evaluated until the poject is btilt, even
though accepted scientific principles -exist to perform this ..eyalua,tion. .
Therefore the existing sound study is inadequaie since
measurements were not- performed hear residence,, where Home -. 0 0 •
Depot has a duty to mitigate
Sincerely. - 0 0 0 -- • . ' . . •.
12-99
68. John Cavoulas and Jennifer Cavoulas
See response to letter # 21, comment A.
See response to letter # 18, comment I.
See response to letter # 11, comment K. 6 March 1992
- Community Development Department .:
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas CA; 92024
Sirs,
A I am writing to comment on the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) issued by Willens and Associates for the Home Depot project
proposed . for the, corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road in
Encinitas California. This EIR has serious flaws and generally relics
upon inadequate studies 'or opinion rather than facts then
erroneously. draws conclusions that 'items in question can be
mitigated to a level which is less than significant. The EIR has
iáil'd "ádeuately address the cumulative environmental impacts
of this, project and has further failed to analyze these cumulative
impacts. and is therefore in violation of CEQA.
B As an example of the failure to fully address adverse
environmental impacts, the nationwide 404 permit granted by the
Army Corps of Engineers was obtained by the developer without' an
accepted EIR or-.at best an out-of -date- study. Note, that this permit
has recently been revoked and the , developer must now reapply.
C . •. Further, in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, the
proposed activity must not jeopardize a threatened or endangered
'species as identified, under. the Endangered Species Act, or destroy or
adversely modify the critical habitat of such species The
gnascatcher --documented as- living on site even by paid project
bioltists will certainly be added to the endangered species list
before this project is completed..Therefore "additional, studies and
proposals for mitigation must be , undertaken at the 'site to protect the
critical habitat of this bird. :=i Wood Rd..
Encinitas. CA 92024
()i7Q
12-100
6. John Cavoulas and Jennifer Cavoulas of The Cavoulas Family
Same as letter # 62; see response to that letter.
.69
Patrick S. Murphy . . . . . . .
Director
Community Development Department .. . . .
.. 527 Encinitas Boulevard . . ..
Encinitas, CA..92024 . : :•.
March 5 1992
Dear Mr Murphy
This letter concerns the proposed Home Depot construction plan on the Southwestern
corner of El Camino Real and 01ivenhaii Road.
.,
. .
I believe it is indeed necessary that every citizen defends what is happenin in their own
neighborhood right beyond their backyards W most detinitel> ant to continue to see
cove>s of quail scuttling tliiouh our yards most definitel> aiit to wakd up to noises
made b> nature rather than Diesel trucks back hOLS beeping generators hummtng cars
starting and stopping paletiLs iumbling on fork lifts chain saws screeching compactors
attling and alUthose noises reverrating and echoini back frm acres of rooftop aid
asphalted parking areas as well as the can you walls. We can not justify that our children
will have to breath air that is more polluted W can not tolerate ail more traffic,"jams
ca'u'sing further delays in couiiuuuting to our work places and schools. We can iiot stand by . .
to watch the last smaWenclia ves of unique eciland habitats coastal Chapparal and sage
scrub environments being &ksiro>ed Ader nvironmennt and social imp icts of any
large development project need to be .carefully c.Qjed not just lislcd The costs for
-mitigation efforts and the-monitoring of such efforts-in the future constitute pdrtof that
cost. I am convinced that in the .case of the pru5posed HomeDe pot construction plan the - -.
costs of negative environmental impacts far outweigh the anticipated benefits and increased 12-10
revenues to-the City of Enciniias.
I now want to focus on several issues of paiiiular cOilcent which itecd to be addressed
Firstly, it is our opinion that'such a giganift project oil the proposed site is incompatible
with the adjacent residential areas as ell as the City of Encinitas' General Plan. This land
should never have been zoned for light industrial use New Encinitas which is already
.ery lOw in open space, should have this lañdpreserved as such.
The enormous decline in 'ul nds not only in California but in the Nation as .i whole over
thpast decades is the most importantreason for not considering the proposed site at all
for any kind of large coisiruction such asthe propoéd Home Depot.We can nojonger
afford any reduction in weiland areas due to developnint . It Iiabeen shown many times
that attempts at restoration or mitigation of lost etlands alay s falls short of the desired
result. In this particular instance the adverse effects on Batáuiios Lagoon due to changes
of all kinds in the water run off are an additional 6oncern which has not been adequately
considered.
According to the draft environmental impact report the cornpletioii of this project will
result in an excessive increase in traffic Traffic will operate at unacceptable 'levels in the
segment on El Camino Real between Olivenliaiti Rd. and Encinitas Boulevard and also on
the segment of Olivenhain be El Camino Real and Amargosa . even if all proposed
improvements will be implemented. It is unclear from the draft environmental report
whether the estimated increase in traffic includes the anticipated 40-50 daily deliveries to LI
the Home Depot.,Obviously the traffic problem Lan not be mitigated to instn,ficance
Concomitant with the increase in traffic and tltc oératiotts at the Home Depot will be an
excessive increase in noise levels. A task force formed by a group of concerned citizens has
shown that the existing noise levels are already at the limit of acceptable levels novy, before
the project has been buiiltAddiiional noises in the order of at least 45dB(A) are expected
from normal Home Depot operations in tile vicinity of the site. Increased traffic, delivery
trucks fork lifts compactors cooling equipinctit chain .saws etc ill all contribute to this
increase in noise,. According to a technical noise study prepared as pail of the draft EIR it
was concluded that noise mitigation was necessary for seven of the residencs proposed in
Planning Area 2 It is therefor.. logical that noise nittigaiion is also a must for the exiung
adjacent residences to the East and South "Yell as future residences to the North
paiticularty the ones that are overlooking the project. The existing noise studies do not
'consider this problem atall, neither do they include any consideration of prevailing winds
and their effect on acoustics.
- . . .
0 0 0
I would like to conclude by suuninaiing that -this letter only touches oti'the many
' problems of this ill-cón'cived development project which I consider absolute[), not, suited •
for the proposed site As a very concerned iiiii I object stronis to the construction of
the project because of the many inadequacies of the-Elk. ]'object to the lack ofrnitigation
with regard to the destruction of sensitive buoloucal habitats traffic ridhock direcil>
caused b) this project inconip ltibiltt) idmhe ctt s General Plan lick of ViSUal
aesthetics excessive noise Lcncrattotl 1oii, iitni aderst. impact on air qualky, adeuse
impact on regional water quality, and much more..
Sincerely -yours,
- - The Cavou1aSf 1 Y - - • -
Encinlias, CA 92024
53
70
litch Myers 70. Rick Myers
1281 Orchard Glen Circle . Same as letter # 50; see response to that letter.
Encinitas, California. 92024
March I, 1992
To: The Enciniias Consnsuiiiiv Ds'elopment Department
527 Encinitas Boulevard .
Encinitas, California 92024 -,
Re: Continents regarding the pr,poséd Ilonie Depot project at the southeastern - -
corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road.
Approval of this ptojecs will significantly and negatively impact the entire t-4 Encinitas
and01ivenhá1n area. The negative aesthetics and increased traffic, water run-hff and sound
and light pollution will forever impact the area's ecology and level of overall quality. The
project is the most extreme example of what would be incompatible with the General Plan of
Eucinitas.
Although some may I'tssd the potential tax reeipts of such a project appealing, easily, ten
existing businesses in the immediate area 'ill be unable io,compCte'witls the marketing and
pricing power which home Depot utilizes to completely dominate every area that it moves
into: As a result, House Depot's net revenue generation will be significantly lower than the
$200,000 to $500000 its reve-nues.used to excite those that have the power to distribute the
increased sac revenues. Home Depot has no 'complimentary* businesses, it uses its
phenomenal marketing and financial power to decimate all related retailers within a ten to
twenty mile radius of its stores. At existing businesses are driven out of business, the area's
aesthetics and appeal will be further reduced as even more empty store fronts materialize in
the area's surrounding shopping centers. . .
The EIR issued by WiDens & Associates is seriously inadequate. As a result, is would be
reckless and shoe a serious lack of fiduciary prudence if the report is utilized as ,a basis for
approving this proje I The report raises sign ifi ant Questions regarding the bias displayed
in its review of certain issues and perspectives. In addition the report relies on
undocumented opinions, deficient stidies and draws conclusions based on seriously flawed
logic.
In addition to seriousl affecitng the aes [lie ti appeal of the area the in reased traffic will
further reduce the general appeal of a major portion of Encinitas. These alone will ,effects,
have.a substantial negative economic impact as surrounding residential property values are 'dampened or reduced and automobile insurance premiums increase as actual andforecasted
accidents increase.
12-102
• . S
( ....
,
".2-•• ; .
.99 .
9 .o
• i' ••;g -••
• 0,C, C.a
.0
CO 'C... CO •
C, OUJ .' C' • ..,
Cl 0
LU
OC_• S
— 9. 3 0 .C. - - • * : ;Cc
U I
HI
E :-
• ' S * --S S -- °o- •. .. ..
C.0
1.0 -:
-. . .• • . S •
S
- -• * •
-5-
5 5- • :5 5••* •S -
3 -
- 71. Suzie Watt
71
Same as letter 64; see re sppnse to that letter.
6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
I am writing to comment on the Environmental Impact Report -
(EIR) regarding the proposed Home Depot at the corner of El Camino
Real and Olivenhain Road ' in Encinitas. This EIR has a substantial
deficiency of evidence required to support the findings that have
been made. The EIR generally relies upon inadequate studies rather
than facts, then erroneously draws conclusions that items in question
can be mitigated to a less than significant" levàl.
Approval of the Home Depot project would subvert the intent
of-the Clean.Wa,er Act. No.study was conducted to show the impact
of water runoff, from this project into Bataquitos Lagoon.
-. Further, the - general plan of Encinitas requires that 'no
development shouid, reduce wetland area, although this project in
conjunction with the retention darn planned for the upstream side of
Encinitas creek will reduce wetland area. - -
Therefore the existing biological impacts study is inadequate.
Home Depot has a duty to mitigate any impact on Bataquitos Lagoon.
Sincerely,'
A/C
12-103
- -
• S S
72 72. Lori Sandrew
. .
Same as letter # 22; see response to that letter..
6 March 1992
. . - Community Development Deparuiicni
527 Encinitas - Blvd .
Encinitas CA 92024- ••
.
. • .
Sirs-,.
.
I am •writing. in response to the •Environmcuit:il lli)pact Report .
(EIR) issued by Wiliens and AssoLlaues re irdin the proposed Home
Deppr at the corner of El Catituno Real and Olivenhamn Ro ud in
Encinitas California This EIR has serious flaws along with a
substantial deficienL) of evidence required to support an> findings
that have been mad. The EIR enerall> relies upon inadequaie
studies or opinion rather than facts then erroneously draws
conclusions that items in question can . be mmii ik. I to i level v. htch
is less than significant
The EIR has also attempted to. ses r issues which are an
integral part of this study l-or .x mumiple almhou ii iimc liomne Depot
project elies critically upon • the eiêumtion pond to be built in -• 5 5 • - 5
Encinitas Creek (as part of the Olisenhain Road Widening' projeci) the 5
details of this retention pond and its impact are not included in this
EIR Further, the data taken for the Road Wideningproject has not
been updated to take into account upsuream development. elopmmiLni
The failure to adequately address and anal) cc this projects
cumulative impacts is in violation of the California Environmental
- - - • Qualicy.Act and must be corrected before this EIR- can be approved. S - • • S • • .. S
• • S -
Sincerely,
-. S S • • •
.-: •
,•. •. r' andrew
4L5 Via ka/a'i
S CI_ •
-• 5 -• - -
5. 5 -5
- -•. S
-
-•
5
. -
12-104
•, -5- • ••
73
6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527 .Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, .CA 92024
Sirs,
A I am, writing to comment on the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) written by Villens and Associates as part 01 the Home Depot
project proposed for the corner 'of El Camino Real and Olivenhain
Road in Encinitas, California. This EIR is flawed Since there is a
substantial. deficiency of evidence required to support the findings
that have been made. The EIR relies upon inadequate studies and
then draws conclusions that items in question can he mitigated to a
'less than significant' level. -
Since . the site. designated for this project represents the last
open space: in New Encinitas, it should be preserved from any further
development, in-.'accordance with the open space goals of the General
Plan of;Encinitas. New Encinitas alreidy has the lowest percentage of
open ;space in all of Encinitas, as documented in the city general plan.
Although the land under the SDGE power lines is cited in this, report
as contributing to the . stock of open space in Encinitas, this cannot .be
considered viable open space, given the publics concern over
electromagnetic fields. Further, since animal life has been forced to
concentrate on this last open site due to the encroachment of
develm opent on neighboring pmrcels this h is become very
important natural habitat. This developmeniil encroachment
contradicts the goals of the general p1 in for p.reservaiion of open
space and natural habitat. .
C Therefore the EIR is inadequate since no provision has been made to
preserve open space and natural habitat in New Encinitas.
j
c.
J1 115
73. Deborah Johnson
See the response to letter. I 21, comment A.
This does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR
and does not require a response.
There are 28.15 acres of unpaved open space proposed as part
of the 55.5-acre Specific Plan (50% 'of the, area). This
includes 9.15 acres in PA 1, 5.9.acres in PA 2, 5,. 1 acres in
PA 3, and 8.0 acres in PA 4. The designated open space
includes riparian areas in PA 1 and 4, and a large connected
Chaparral open space in PA 2 and 3. Section 7 contains
numerous alternatives that preserve additional open space:
There are 15.05 acres of unpaved open space proposed as part
of the 37.3-acre TM area (40% of the area). This includes
9.15 acres in PA 1 and 5.9 acres in PA 2. The proposed open
space in PA Consists, of wetlands and, uplands species and the
lower portion of the north-facing slope. The proposed open
space in PA 2 includes Chaparral-covered, slopes and a
continuation of the open spaceeasement existing in PA 3.
12-1O5
S . S
•
V 3
S
74. John Cavoulas and Jennifer Cavoulas -
See the response to letter # 21, comment A.
V
The Ecological Resource/Open Space designations shown on the -74 General Plan and Zoning Map are general indications that.a
V 6 March 1992 V ' watercourse, utility Veasèment and steep slope areas are
V V
V V V present on-site. Site-specific eva1uatin and:the project's V
V
V Comniunity Development DepVirtliieni V V V V V design tend to mitigate potential impacts to' these identified
V V V
527 EnciniIas Blvd V V areas.
V Encinitas CA V9202'4 V V
V V As amended' January 30, 1991, Land Use Element Policy 8.2
V
V VV V V V V V VVV V states that open parking is allowed within t,he 100-year
V V V V
V
floodplain. V See the response to letter ji 12, comment B
V V V VVV
V V Sirs, regarding the lack of need on theVpart of the Home Depot V
V V project for Detention Basin D.
VV
V V V
V A V In response to the Enironii,ental lrniaci Report (EIR) issued V V V VVVVVj V
V for the Or6posed Home Depot it the corner of El Cimino Real and
Olivenhain Road in Encinitas this EIR has serious llas al6ng with a
substantial deficiency of evidence required to support my findings
that have been made In addition the EIR encr ill) relies upon
V
V V inadequate Vstudies or opinion rallier, than facts V V V
13, The incompatibility of this project ith the idj'iceni residential V
V V areas. demonstrates, the fallacy of the zoning, of this. area. Atone time
V
V
VV V V
V
V V V
V V the project-.site was far enough away. front-,residential- areas, that light V
V V
V V V
VV V V
indtistrial uses could have been sc.riousl considered Hov.ever, the
current and proposed residenital butldoui oh ih surrounding area
has so significantly decimated the open space and wildlife habitats
that this remaining land must be presered The inappropriateness
of this project for the community in it is situated 5u0ge515 that 'which
V V this project should not only be reconsidered. but the land should be
V . down-zoned to a less intrusive land use. No mitigation for this loss of
V open space has been proposed, nor has the continuity 01 open space V
V V V
V
V VV V
V
V for wildlife been addressed. V V V V V V
V
V
V
V
• '
V The V city.. General Plan further requires no V building other than V V
V V
V V
V stables, nurseries or a V sni,tinial intrusion of parking areas in Vhorse V V V
floodp!ain. To circumvent this restriction, theV V
project proponents
V V
V V
V
V V
have tried to let the Olivenhain Road widening project assume
V V V responsibility for the construction o'f a retention V clam in Encinitas
V Creek . upstream from V theproject site, thereby reducing ihe size of
V the Vfloodplain The subject EIR-,does not' iddress this floodplain/land V V V V • V V
V
V V
V V V use issue directly.
V inceei )'• V V The Cavouias Family V
1624 Orchard
12-106
V V V V
BLCoA tNTIRNAflONI hO Meadowgicn £m:iit.i, CA !2024
75-
6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd ..
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
1 am writing to comment on the: Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) issued .by, Willens and Associates for the Home Depot project
proposed for the corner. 9f El Camino Real and Olivetihuin Road in
Enàinitas 'California. This EIR has serious flaws and, generally relies
upon inadequate studies or !opinion rather than facts, then
erroneously, draws.. conclusions that items in question can be
mitigated to a . level which is "less than significant." The EIR has
failed to adequately address the c'uinulative environmental impacts
of this project and has further• failed to analyze these cumulative
- . . . impacts and is therefore in violation of.CEQA.
As; an example of the .:fai)ure to fully address ,.adverse
environmental 'impacts, the nationwide 404 permit, granted. by the
Army Corps of Engineer's was obtzii'ned by the developer' without an
accepted —EIR or at best an. out-of-date study. Note that this permit
"has recently been revoked and the "de'loper must icon' reapply.
Further, in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, the
proposed activity 'must not jeopardize a threatened or endangered
specie,L,as identified under the Endangered Species Act, or destroy or
adversely modify the critical habit it of such species The
gnatcatcher documented as ltctn,!, on site even by paid project
biologists will certainly. be added to the en&ingered species list
before 'this project is completed. 'l'herefpre additional studies and
proposals for mitigation mis,t be undertaken at the site to proteci the
critical habitat of this bird
Sincerely,
75. (Jgur Ortabasi of BECOR International
Same as letter I 68; see response to that letter.
•
', .
76. Susan Stomonte -
Same as letter I 65; see response to that lette'.
6 March 1992 76
0
Community Development Department - ' •
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
This letter, will serve to iiiciiiorialjze in) Cotitilteults on'
Environmental 1mp4ct Report (Elk) sritteit as part of the proposed
Home Depot project at the corner 01 El Camino Real and Oltvenh tin
Road in Encinttas C,altfornta The [1k is flawed due to a deficiency of
evidence ,required to support .111) findins that liv. bci.n m4de
Conclusions have been drawn that iii.ms in question call be mtiigmted
to a level which is less than sinifmc tnt without the requisite
supporting evidence' -.. ' - . ' ' ' •'
Various inconsistencies with the General Plait of Encinitas '-
-."include, but are not limited to, the follovi'n. .The proposed building
height of' 39 feet exceeds the limit of 30 feet. abovëcxisiing grade set
forth in. the general plan. El' Camino Real •is- coisidered a visual
corridor', although the Home Depot project-as conl'itired in the ElR '
does not comply with this intent maskin g tri.i.' oct shrubbery realistically will take a decade to' fill out, and 'in the iite'rim the
;-'visual 'corridor will be lost. Evaporalive coolers and a satellite dish
are 'lobe pliced on 'the roof of the Structure .which will be visible to:
residents' of the properties overlooking the site; this, contrIvcnes 'the General Plan. ' • '' '
' . . '
, '
-Vies frdm future neighboliood such as Arroyo La-Costa are '
considered' in the -ElR, but views from existing neighborhoods such as
0 , Scotts Valley, Encinitas. Highlands, and Rancho Ponderosa are - not' ' 0
considered. .- Although one of the project alternatives addresses this
project deficiency, it considers only the imp I i to -'ersh) along El
Caminó Real and-not the -local residents,
12-108 ' '
The EIR stales that distance would diminish the visual eyesore
to neighborhoods ev en n though project is is little one building
length from the nearest homes; this building will htive an
approxiriai; frOnt face over 400 feet in length. which is
coñtmensurate with LhC distance cited to show that the project will
be 'far enough' removed from residents to diminish tiny impact.
Therefore, the 'project is either too large and iriappopriate for : this
site or the visual impact to the uieigliboriut residents will not be
Mitigated as stated,:
The EIR further states that the, project 'design violates Encinitas
design review guidelines. For exaiñple. bilti orautee signs tire at
odds with Encinitas design review guidehities..
As noted, the EIR is deficient and therefore defective.
Sincerely, '
Jt \
•
....
-
. . 77 . 77. Kathleen M. Fusbie
- . . . . . Same as letter # 62; see response to that letter.
Patrick S. Murphy . .
Director .
Community Devel6pmeni Department
527Encinitas Boulevard
Encinitas, CA 92024 . . .
.
.
March 5, 1992 . .- ....... .. . . •• . . . ..
. . .
Dear Mr. Murphy
This letter concerns the proposed Home Depot construction plan on the Southwestern
corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road.
I believe tt is indeed necessary that every citizen defends what is happening in their own
neighborhood, rightbeyond their backyards. We most definitely want tocontinuè to see .
coveys of quail scuttling through our yards. we most-definitely want to-wake up to noises - ••0
0 •• . . 0•
made by nature-rather than Diesel trucks, back 1ies beeping, generators humming, cars .
starting and stopping palettes rumbling on fork litis chain saws screeching compactors
rattling and all those noises reverberating and echoing back from acres of roof tops and - •. .. . - . . . ••
asphalted parkiiig.areas as well as the canyon walls: We can not justify thai our children • . -
will have to breath air. that 'is more. ,polluted. We can not tolerate any more traffic jams;
causing further delays in conimuting;to our work places and schools. We -can not stand by -
to watch the làt-small enclaves of unique weiland habitats, coastalChapparal and sage
scrub env ironmentsbeing destrOyed..th_rse environmental and social ii nVacis of any • .• 0 •
0
0 • • largedevelopment project need to be carefull-Qd, not just listed. The cost for • • • • • • 0 0 -
• rnitigationfforts and the monitoring of such efforts in the future constitute pan of that • 0 •
- -
• •
0
cost. 1 am convinced that in the case of the proposed Home Depot construction plan the •.
0
• 0 -
costs of negative ehvironmenfiul impacts far outweigh the anticipated bciiefits and increased 0
revenues to the City of Encinitas. .
0
• 12-109
-
. 0
•
• •.
I now want to focus on several iSSLIeS of particular concern which need to be addressed
Firstly, it is our opinion that such a gigantic project on the proposed site is incompatible
with the adjacent residential areas as well as the City of Encinitas' General Plan. This land
should never have been zoned for light industrial use. New Encinitas which is already
very low in open .space should have this-land. preserved as-suh.
The enormous decline itvweilands not only in California but in the-Nation as a whole over
the past decades is the rnostiinportant reason for not considering the proposed site at-all
for any kind of large construciion such as the proposedliorne-Depot. We can no longer
afford anyreduction in veiland areas'due to development-.. it has been shown inanytirnes -
that attempts at restoration or mitigation of lost wetlands aka) s falls short of the desired
result—In this particular instance the-adverse-effects on Bataquitos Lagoon due to changes
of all kinds in the water run off are an additional concern which has not been adequately-
considered. - - -
According to the draft environmental impact report the completion of this projeci will
result in an excessive increase in traffic. Traffic will operate at unacceptable levels-in the
segment on El Camino Real between Olivenhain Rd: and Encinitas Boulevard and alsowi
the segment of Olivenhain between El Camino Real and Arnargosa even if all proposed
improvements will be implemented. It is unclear from the draft environmental report
whether the estimated increase in traffic includes the anticipated 40-50 daily deliveries to
the-Home-Depot.- Obviously the traffic problem can not be tnitigatdto insignificance.
Concomitant with the increase in traffic and the operations at theHome Depot will be an
excessive increase in noise levels. A task force formed by a group of concerned citizens has
shown that the existing noise levels are already at the limit of acceptable levels 6ow, before
the project has been built. Additional noises in the order of at least 45dB(A) are expected
from normal Home Depot operations in the vicinity of the site Increased traffic delivery
trucks fork lifts compactors cooling equipment, chain saws etc will all contribute to this
:,'increase in noise According to a technical noise study prepared as part of the draft EIR it
was concluded that noise mitigation was necess tr> for seven of the residences proposed in
Planning Area 2 It is therefore logical thai noise mitigation is also a must for the existing
adjacent residences to the East and South as well as future residences to the North
particularly the ones that are,overlooking the project The existing noise studies do not
consider this problem at all, neither do they include any consideration of prevailing winds
and their effect on acoustics. - - . S S
3
I would like to conclude by summarizing that this letter onlytouches on the many
problems of this ill conceied development project which I consider absolutel) not suited
for the proposed site. As avery concerned citizen 1 object s'(rongly:io the construction of
the project because of the many inadequacies of the EIR. I object to the lack of mitigation
with regard to the destruction of sensitive biological habirits traffic gridlock directly
caused by this project incompatibility iih th cii) s General Plan lack of visual
aesthetics excessie noiSe bcneralion lone irni advrse imp ci on air quality, adverse
inacn regionalwater quality and much inoie. - • •
Sincerely yours
E. L
I 3i dtL t & VI
Ci '-
• • •• • .• • • •• •• • -• --•.
78 78. Susan Stomonte
- Same as letter I 73; see response to that letter..
6 March 1992 .
Community Development Department .
. 527 Encinitas Blvd . .
Encinitas, -CA 92024 .
Sirs, .
. I am writing to comment on the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) written by Willens and Associates as part 01 the Home Depot
•. project proposed for the corner of El Camino Real arid Olivenhain
Road in Encinitas, California. This EIR is flawed . since there is a
substantial deficiency of evidence required to support, the findings
that have -been made. The .EIR relies upon inadequate studies and
then draws conclusions that items in question can he rñitigated to a
-"less-than significant level. . . . .. . . - . ..
- - Since .the si te designated for this project represents the last
opeEi 'space in New EnciOitas, it should' be preserved (rdhi any further . . .
development, in accordance with the open space goals 'of the General
Plan of Encinitas:.'-New Encinitas already has the lon'csi percentage of
open'space in all of Encinitas, as documented in the city general plan.
Althoigh thc land under the SDGE power lines is cited in this report
as contributing to 'the stock of open space in Encinitas, this cannot be -
considered viable open spade, given the publics concern over
-,electromagneti,C fields. Further-since animal life has been forced to - •
'concentrate ..on this last open,. site due to the encroachment of
develooinent on neighboring parcels, this has become a very
p'ortant :natural habitat. This developmental enc'ro'àchment
contradicts the goils of the ,cneral plan! tor precr titon of open
space and natural habitat
Therefore the EIR is inadequate since no provisionhas been made. to
preserve open space and natural habitat in New LnLinttas
Sincerel • - • . • - . - •
12-110
•. . \\ -• • .
31
79
- Sara vlvet's 79. Sara Myers 0 -
1281 Orchard Glen Circle Same as letter # 50 see response to that letter
Encinüac,'Caljfor,tia 92024 -.
S
March I, 1992 '
To: The Encinitas Community Development Department -
$27 Encinitas Bules'ard
Encinitas, California 92024
Re: Comments regardingihe proposed home Depot project at the southeastern
-corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road.
Approval of this project will ssgnifi antl and negasi el> impact the entire New Encinitas
and Olivenhain area The negative aesthetics and increased traffic water run-off and Sound
and light poll ulion-will forever impact the areas ecdloy and level of overall Quá1ity. The
• project is the most extreme example of what would be incompatiblewith the General Plan of
Encinitas.
Although some may, find the potential say receipts of such a Project appealing, easily',. ten
existing' businesses in the immediate area .will ill be unable to compete wish the marketing and
pricingpower which Ilome Depot utilizes to completely dominate .eeery areathat it moves
into.''Au a result, Home Depot's "net" res-enue getieration will be significantly lorZ'er than the -: $2,00.000 to $500,000 in revenues used to excite those that have the power to distribute the
increased tax revenues Home Depot has no'complimentary" businesses it uses its
phenomenal marketing and financial power to decimate all related retailers ithin a ten to
twenty mile radius of its stores AS existing businesses are driven oui of business the area s
aesthetics and appeal will be further reduced as even more empty store fronts materialize in
" the area's surrounding shopping centers,
• The EIR issued by Villens & Associates is seriously inadequate. As a result. it"would be . '
reckless and show a serious lack of fiduciary prudence if the report is utilized as a basis for 0
approving this project. The report raises significant Questions regarding the bias displayed
• in its reviexi of certain issues and perspectives,' In addition, the, report relies on -' 0
- - undocumented opinions, deficient studies and draws conclusions based on seriously flawed -
.Jogk. . ' 0 -
- -
In addition to seriously affecting the amheiic appeal of ihe area the increased traffic will
further reduce the general appeal of a major portion of Encinisas These effects alone xx ill
have a substantial negative economic impact as surrounding residential property values are - -
dampened or reduced and automobile insurance premiums increase as actual 'and forecasted
accidents increase.
The Encinitas Community De'elopmeni Department -
March 5,402
Page 2
The- issue 01 increased waterrunoif and its impact on surrounding areas such as the Batáquitos
Lagoon have not been adequately addressed. This is an important issue and one which could
have extemelyhigh future financial and ecological costs.
This spe of development at this location is inconsistent with the surrounding areas it is also
contrary, to the goals of the General Plan of Encinitas. The destruction of unique and
sensitive wildlife habitat is simply not beiisg given adequate consideration.
The importanceo1 maintaining the'feel' and 1ook of Encinitas cannot be over stated. These
are the reasons people live and move to this area.. Encinitas is unique and its economy will
be negatively impacted over thelong term if it is allowed to be prostituted by shrewd mass
retailers bearing promises of great tan revenues.
Sinc
• 0
BECOR WMAIATIONAL - 80
. !680Mead.'s'eLfl ' tncntis, CA 92024 , '
80. Ugur Ortabasi of BECOR International
Same as letter I 74; see response to that letter.
6 March 1992
Community Development Departmni - S
527 Encinitis--Blvd
Encinicas, CA- 92024 . - .• '
Sirs,
In. response to the' Environmental Impact Report (EIR) issued -
for,, the proposed Home Depot at the corner of El Camino Real and
Olivenhain Road in Encinitas this EIR has serious flaws alonc, with a
substantial deficiency or evidence required io support any findings
..t hat have been made in addition the EIR generally relies upon
inadequate studies or opinion raiher tlizin , fact's
The incompatibility of this projc....t tilt the ,idj iceni residential
are demonstrates the fallacy of the ,z6ning of this, ire i At one time
the project site was far enou5h a t> trout residential -areas that light
industrial uses could have been -seriously considered Hoever the
current and proposed residential buuldout oh the surrounding area
has so significantly decimated th. open space and wildlife habitats
that this remaining land must b.. preserved The inappropriateness
of this project for the ,community in which it is situated su,gests thai
this project should 'not only, be reconsidered, but. the' land should be
'down-zoned to 'a less intrusive land use. No mitigaiion lor"this loss of . . .• . .
open'.-space has. been proposed, nor has the continuity 61 open space
for wildlife been addressed. , - • -
. ' '', .- - The' city. General Plan further require's no ' building thher. than
horse stables, nurseries or a niinintal intrusion' of parking areas in a
floodplain. 1.To circumvent this restriction, the project proponents
have tried to - let- the Olivenhain Road widening 'projeCt assume - re,sponsibilicy, for, the construction of a retention' dam in, Encinitas - • S
Creek upstream from the rojecc. sue, thereby reducing the size of .
'the floodplain: The subject EIR does not address, i!iis f!oodplaii/land ' . - - • - - _ - S
use issue- 'directly. - 5 •--. . - S • ,• • S
-
Sincerely, • ' - - • S • - -. - S '
12-112
81. John Cavoulas and Jennifer Cavoulas
81 ' Same as letter .1 45; see response to that letter.
6 March 1992
Community. Dvelopment Department
527 Encinitas, Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
I am writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) issued by Willens and Associates regarding tile proposed Home
Depot .at the corner of El Camino Real ' and Olivenhain Road in
Encinitas, California. This EIR has serious flaws along with, a
substantial deficiency of evidence required to support any findings
that have been made. The .'EIR generally relies upon inadequate
studies .or opinioii.. rather than facts,. then ..erroneously, draws
conclusions that items in question can be miuue,ited in a level which
is 'less than significant.'
A clear example of this 'compliance by edict" is demonstrated
in the noise study. The EIR reaches the conclusion that there is no
significant impact on neighboring homes, but . establishes no technical
basis for this conclusion. Project technical consultants could not or
would not scientifically examine the impact to the. neighboring
residents, even though there is a clear impact on these 'residents.
Examples of sound sources- which were not considered include (but -
are not limited to) nighttime loading dock operations, fork
1.
lifts, trash
compactors, public address systems. ' heavy equipment including
diesel engines, rooftop swamp coolers, car doots etc. The EIR states
that notse levels cannot be evaluated.; until the project is built even
though accepted scientific principles exist to perform this,-evaluation..
Therefore the existing sound study is in idequate since
measurements were not performed near resideiices where HOme .
Depot has a duty to mitigate.
Sincerely, . • . . . - .
- :
The Cavoulas'FamilY
1624 Orchard Wood Rd.
Encinitas. CA,92024 •22-113
(l)9 I7o . . .
•
V V 82 Paul Johnson V
V - 82 Same as letter I 74; see response to that letter. - -
6 March 1992
d&rnunity Development Department
57 Encinita's Blvd
Encinitas CA 92024
Sirs,
V V V
V V In response to the Environmental l'mpaci Report '(EIR) issued
for the proposed Home Depot zt the corner of El Canino Real and V .. •. V
Olivenhain Road in Encinitas this EIR h is srIous hl.is ilon with a
substantial deficiency of evidence required io support auy ftndin,s
that have been madel In 'addition',the EIR generally relies upon V '
inadequate studies or opinion rather ih iii ft
The incompatibility of this project with the adjacent residential
areas demonstrates the fallacy of the zoning of this airea.. At one time
the project site %V.iS far enough ay. > from restdentt ii areas that light
V V V inUustrial uses could have been serio.i'sly considered. H'owevei, the
V current and proposed *residential :buildout 'of the surrounding* . area V has so' sinifianily decimated the open sace and wildlife' -habitats.
- that this 'remaining- land must be peserved The inappropriateness
of this project for the community in which it is sttuaic..d suggests that
V this project should not only. be reconsidered, büi the land should be
V down-zoned to a less intrusive land use. No Iitigatioit for this loss of V V V
open' space has. been proposed,' nor has the continuity of. open space
V
V
' for -wildlife 'been addressed.
The '-city General Plan further requires no - biilding other than
- 'horse stables, nurseries or a nii:tinia! intrusion Of parking areas in a
floodplain. , To circumvent 'this restriction, the project proponents
V ' have tied.. to let the Olivenhain Road videniug. project- assume
V
V respouisibilily for the construction of a reteiition dam in Encinitas
V V • " V V
Creek upstream from the project site. thereby reducing -the' sizi of
the floodplain. The subject. EIR does not address this floodplain/land
use issue directly. V , , . V ' ' V • ' V '
. V
Sincerely 12-114
VVVt O
.
. . .. .'
.
?773'C4
83. Debra Hartley
.03 Same as letter I 45; see response to that letter.
6 March 1992
Community Development 'Department
527 Encinitas' Blvd '
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs, '
I am writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) issued by Willens, and' Associates regarding the proposed Home '
Depot 'at the 'c'oricr of El Camin'o Real and Olivenh'ain Road in
Encinitas,, California. This EIR has seious flaws along with 'a
substantial deficiency ,of 'evidence required to support any findings
that have been made. The EIR. generally relies upon inadequate
studies or opinion rather than facts, then erroneously draws
' conclusions that items in question can he mitigaied to a level' which
is 'less than significant."
A clear example of this compliance by 'edit" is demonstrated
in the noise study The EIR reaches the conclusioh that there is no ,
significant impact on neighboring homes, but establishes no technical
basis for conclusion. Project technical consultants could not o ,this
would' not scientifically examine the impact to the neighboring
residents, even though there is a clear impact on these residents.
Examples of 'sound sources which were not considered include ,(but
are not limited to) nighttime loading dock operaiions. fork lifts, trash
compactors, public address sysienis, heavy equipment including
dieel en'ines, rooftop swamp coolers, car doors, dc. The EIR states - '
that nose levels cannot be evaluated until the project is built even
though accepted scientific principles exist to perform this evaluation.
Therefore the existing Sound stud) ma in idLqu.tte since
measurements were not performed near re',tdLnLe v here Home
Depot has a duty to mitigate
Sincerely,
à46&. ihIe'd
- -
C611 99 DI . •
0
.DECOR 94TtHNA11ONAL
1980 Mi&dow.n Iwe . .
£flC.1iI., CA 92024 . .84
84. Ugur Ortabasi of BECOR International
Same as letter .# 22; see response to that letter.,- 0
6 Marc h'I992
Community Development Departttten .
527 Encinitas Blvd-f . . . . . .
. . .
Encinitas CA 92024
Sirs,
I. am writing iti esponse to the Euivirontueni;ii Impact Report . . .
(EIR) issued b> Wtllctts and Assoctatvs ri..,ardtn, iii, proposed home
Depot at the corner of El Camino Real and Oitienhatn Road in
Encinitas California. :. This •E-IR. has serious- flaws along ith.a - . -.
.
-• .
substantial deficienc> of evidence required to support any findings
•that have been- made. - The EIR generally- reiie upon. i'nadecuate
studies or opinion 1 rather than facts, then erroneousi> dra ws
conclusions that items in* question in he mtti, tied to a level s hick
is less' than significant
The EIR has also attempted to se ci issues which are in w. integral i part of , this study. For ex. iitie, although ike 1-loine Depot
- -. prdject relies critically, upon the retention pond to be built in
Encinitas Creek (as part of the Olt eriltattt Ro td Widening project) the
details of this -retention pond and, its, -impact- are.. not included in this - . -
- EIR. Further, the data taken for the Road Widening project has not
been updated to take into account upstream development.
The failure to adequately . addre.s's and .ataivze this projects - •- . cumulative--impacts is in violation of the - Califörtiia Environmental --- Quality Act and must - be corrected before this EIR can he approved. 0 -
. Sincerely.
12-116
85. Susan Stomonte
Same as letter # 45; see response to that letter.
85
6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527 -Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas CA 92024 .
Sirs, .
I am writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report .
(EIR) issued by Willens and Associates regarding the proposed: Home
Depot at the corner. of El Camino. Real and Olivenhain Road in
Encinitas, California. This EIR has serious flaws along with a
substantial deficiency of evidence required to support any findings
that have been made. The EIR generally relies upon inadequate
scudies or opinion rather than facts, then erroneously draws
conclusions that items in question can he mitigated to a level which -. . .
is less than significant:
A clear example of this compliance by edict" is demonstrated
in the., noise .study;- The EIR reaches the conclusion that- there is no
significant impact on neighboring houses, but establishes no technical
basis for this conclusion. Project technical consultants could not or
would not scientifically. examine the impact to the neighboring
residents, even though there is. a clear iiitp;uct on these residents.
Examples of sound Sources' which were not considered include (but
are not limited to) nighttime loading dock operations, fork lifts, trash
compactors, public address systems, heavy equipment induding
diesel, engines, rooftop swamp coolers, car doors, etc. The EIR states . .
that noise levels 1 cannot be evaluated until thu. project is built even
though accepted scientific principles csusi to perform lists cv ilu ution
Therefore the eusting sound study is inadequate since
measurements were not performed near' residences where Home •
Depot has a duty to mitigate. :
S9ely, . .
c"• . .•
- •
12-117
- . '. . • . S .
A rA •
86
V V Liz Gagiird 86. Liz Gagnard
1712 Orchard liood.Road V Same as letter I 50; see response to that letter..
V Enci:ilias, California 92024 : . V
March I, 1992
To: The Encinitas Community Development Department - V
527 Encinitas Boulevard V
Encinitas, California 92024 V V
V V
- Re: Comments regarding the proposed Home Depot project at the southeastern V V V V
V corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road. . V V
V
•V
V
Approval of this project will significantly and negatively impact the entire"New' Encinitas V V V
V
V V V V
and Olivenhain area The negative aesthetics and increased trafficwater run oil and sound
and light pollution 'ill forever impact the area *s ecology and level of overall qualmi The
V
V project is the most esiemé'esample of hat .would beiricompatible with the Genera! Plan of
V V ••V Encinitas. V V
V V
V
V • V V - Although some may find the.posentiai tax receipts of such a project appealing, easily, tin VV V V V • V V •V
V existing' businesses in the immediate area sVillbe unable to compete with the marketing and V V V
pricing power which Home Depdt utilizes to completely domiiiaieevery area that it moves V - V • V
into. Asa result Honie Depot's ner revenue generation will bisinificantly lower than the'
V
V S200,000 to S500000 in revenues used to excite those that have tlsé'powr to distribute the V V V V increased tà5'revenues. Home Depot has no complimentary businesses, it uses its V phenomenal.marketing and finVancial oWer to decirisáté all related retailers within a ten to
twenty mileradius:of its stores. As existing businesses are driven out of businets, iheareat V
V
V V
aesthetics and appeal mm ill be further reduced as even more enipt store fronts materialize in
the5area's surrounding shopping centers
V • The EIR issued by Willens & Associates is seriously inadequate.: As a result, it w6u1d be . • V V V
Vreckless and show a serious lack of fiduciary prudence:if the report is utilized as a basis for
approving this project The report raises significant questions regarding the bias displayed
in its review of certaimi issuet and erspeiives. • In addition, the report relies. 00
undocumented opinions, deficient studies and draws conclusions based on seriously flamed
V - logic. • - V • V • V • - V
In addition to seriously affecting the aesthetic appeal of the area the increased traffic will
- • Further reducCthegenéral appeal 01ãOsajorVportion of Eninias. These effects alone will •
V • • • V V
have a substantial negative economic impact as surrounding residential properim values are
V
V dimpened or reduced-and automobile insurance premiums increase is actual and forecasted V V V V•
accidents increise. - •
V V V
-
V
- •••
, 5 V
—lie
.
• •• •_c ••'c
e
.°d
• .JC. •t °O n 6JC
.•
: • o'
e3_ •'3• nCQ
E
• ;- ,o - -
• oE
••••-
-
ow= •
• .4-o o,_• . •;5 q• ;c
o•- _-
g 0 •E '
o 2 -- —:
i• , ilH
'fl
-•
CL CL
-• • Cr3,, .CC . I-
• •
•;3 .. .
Am
-
87. John Cavoulas and Jennifer Cavoulas
Same as letter # 60; see response to that letter.
87
. . 6 March 1992 .
Community Development,!De partdient .' . . .
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA .92024
Sirs,
I am writing to express my concern over the proposed Home
Depot project specifically the drift Environmental Impact Report
(EIR). This ElR is completely inadequate. The EIR does not have a
statement of overriding merit is required by CEQA The city
councils desire to generate tax revenues does not justify building
this monstrosity on environmentill) sensitive land nor creating a
traffic nightmare '
The EIR admits that there will be an increase in traffic and
assigns traffic a grade 'F'' after the projct is built. yei, it does -not
even take into account the traffic which will be created b. the 1.700 . .•
homes 'in the Arroyo La Cóstaproject, , and any other, future
development along the El Camino Rel corridor. The EIR does not
adequately address mitigation of this ir iffic probletmi nor does it
address who will pay for the upkeep of the roads due to this
increased, traffic, including the largc"numbcr of diesel trucks. (100 . .. . . . . . . . . .. V
per day) making deliveries to Ilome Depot.
The. EIR does admit that traffic unnL be mitigated to a"less .
than significant" effect. The. project should not be considered until . . . . . .
the current traffic congestion/problems alon0 El Camino Real are
-addressed. Hdme' Depot should not be allowed to take the position - . . . . ..
that traffic which their "niegastore" will create is "not their. conéern. . S . .. . . •, . .
4Sinprely,
FarnilY ;:
- einiitis,C.92O2 ,
12-119,
88. Tammy Marabella
Same as letter see response to that letter.
.88
6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
In response to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) issued
for the' proposed Home Depot at the corner of El Camino Real and
Oli"enhain Road ilf Encinitas. this EIR, has serious flaws along with a su6stantial deficiency of evidence required to support any findings
that have' been made. In addition. the EIR generally relics upon
inadequate studies or opinion rather than facts
The incompatibility of this project with the adjacent residential
areas demonstrates the fallacy of,, the zoning of this area. Al one time,
the project' site 'was far cuiougli away from residential areas that light'
industrial uses could have been seriously considered, 'However, the '
0
current and, 'pioposed residential buildout of the surrounding.* area
has' so significanily decimated the opeti space ,and wildlife habitats, '
that this remaining land, must be preserved: The inappropriateness
of this project for -the community in which it is situated suggests. that
this project should not only be reconsidered, but the, land should be
down-zoned to a less intrusive land use. No mitigation for this loss of
open space has been proposed, nor has the continuity of open space for wildlife been addressed.
The city General Plan 7.4urilier requires no building- other thact
horse stables nurseries or a mt 'tuna! intrusion of parking areas in a floodplain To circumvent thts restriction, the project proponents
have tried to let the Olivenhatn Ro widening tdentn, project as
responsibility for the construction of a reientton dim in Encinitas
Creek upstream from the project site thereby reducing the size of
the floodplain The -subject EIR dOLS not address this floodpl utn/land
use issue 'direètly. ' • ' •
12-120 Sincerely,
/h2tC0 . . .
•
. .
89. Susan Stomonte
Same as. letter I 62; see response to that letter.
.89.
Patrick S Murphy
Director . . . . .
Community Developnn('Depártniént . . . . .
. . . . 527 Encinitas Boulevard . . . ...
.
. .
.
Encinitas, CA 92024
March 5 1992
Dear Mr. Murphy
This letter concerns the proposed Home Depot construction plan on the Southwestern
corner of El-Cãmino Realand Olivenhain Road: :' . . . . •. . •--
I believe it isindeed necessary that every citizen defends wharis happening in-their own . . . ..
neighborhood, right beyond their backyards. We most definitely wan Et b continue to see . . .
coveys ofqLIail scuttling through our yards, we most definitely want to wake up:tb noises .
. made by nature rather than Diesel trucks back hoes beeping generators humming cars
starting and stopping palettes rumbling on fork lifts chain saws:screeching compactors
rattling and all those noises reverberating and echoing back from acres of roof tops and
asphalted parking areas as well as the canyon walls We can not justify that our children
will have to breath air that is more polluted We can not tolerate any more traffic jams
causing further delays in cómmLiiing to our work places and schools. We candt stand.by . • • •
to.watch the last small enclaves of unique wetland habita(s; coastal Chapparal and sage
scrub environmentsbeing destroyed. Adverse environmental and social impacts ofany • -
large development project need to be carefully çjgd not just listed The costs for
mitigation efforts and the monitoring of süchefforis in the future constitute part of that . •
cost. I am convinced that in the case of the proposed Home Depot construction plan the . . •
. costs of negative environmental impacts far outweigh the anticipated benefits and increased • -. -- . . • - • - .
revenues to the City of Encinitas.
•
..
• -
• -. 12-121 '.
I now want to focus on several issues of particular concni which need to be addressed
Firstly, it is our opinion that such a gigantic project on the proposed site is incompatible
with the adjacent residential areas as well as the City of Encinitas General Plan. This land
should never have been zoned for light industrial use New Encinitas which is already
very low in opensace, should have this land :preserved- as such.
The enormous decline in wetlands not only in California but-in the Nation as.awhole over
the past decades is the most important reason for not considering the proposed site at all
for any kind of large construction such as the proposed Home Depot. We can no longer
affordany reduction in wetland areas due to development it has been shOwn many times
that attempts at restoration or mitigation of kiit wetlands always-falls short of the desired
result. In this particular instance the adverse effects on Bataquitos Lagoon due tochanges
ofall kinds in the water run off are an additional concern which has not been adequately
considered. .
According to thedraft environmental impact report the coiIetion of this project will'
re.sult in an excessive increase in traffic. Traffic will operate, atunacceptable levels in the
segment on El Camino R. ii between Oliveuhain Rd and Encinitas Boulevard and also on
the segment of Olivenhain between El Camino Real and Arnargosa even if all proposed
improvements will be implemented. it is unclear from the draft environmental report
whether the estimated increase in traffic includes the anticipated 40-50 daily deliveries to-
the-Home Depot. Obviously the traffic ptoblein can not be mitigated to insignificance.
Concomitant with the increase in traffic and the operations at the Home Depot will be an
excessive increase in noise levels A task force formed by a group of concerned citizens has
shown thii the existing noise levels are already at the limit of acceptable levels now, before
the project-has beenbuilt. Additional noises in the order of at least 45dB(A) are expected
from normal HoneDepot.operations in the vicinity of-the site. increased traffic, delivery
trucks, fork lifts; compactors, cooling equipment, chain saws etc. will all contributeto this
increase in noise According to .a technical noise study prepared as part of the draft EIR it
was concluded that noise mitigation was necessary for seven of the residences proposd in
Planning Area 2 It is therefore logical that noise mitigation is also a must for the existing
adjacent residences to the East and South as well as future residences to the North
particularly the ones that are overiboking the project. The existing noise studies do not
consider this problem at all, neither do they include any consideration of prevailing winds
and their effect on acoustics. . . S
3'
-
9.2o2-
90
6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
I am writing to comment on the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) issued by \\'illens and Associates for the l-Inic Depot project
proposed for the corner -of El Cantino Real and Oliveititain Road in
Encinitas California. This EIR has serious flaws and generally relies
upon inadequate studies or opinion rather than facts, then
erroneously draws conclusions that items in question can be
thitigated'to a level which is less than signuficai. Further, the EIR
has included the impact upon neighboring residences where it
seemed advantageous for them to do -so. but cli them out of other,
crucial issues.
For example, the Arroyo La Costa- project was included in the
viewshed issue, but completely ignored in traffic study. The
additonal development of these 1700 homes in the approved Arroyo
La Costa project will render any short term traffic mitigation efforts
by the city useless.
C Even, though the Arroyo La Costa project was ignored, this EIR
States that an excessive increase iii iraftic will result from the Home
Depot project (Level.of Service F will result on both El Camino Real as
well as Oltvenhain Road if this project is built is proposed) This
level of service will further adversely impact other business
concerns along El Camtno Real as potential customers will avoid this
area due to the risk of 'accidetit and personal injury. lii fa iiitess to
other established businesses-along El Cainino Real, traffic-along this
corridor should be tniiigated before any additional development is
undertaken. .
Sincerely.
90. Dennis Szidak -
See response to letter 21, comment A.
Arroyo La Costa was not ignored in the determination of
traffic impacts. The EIR specifies that the cumulative
impacts' took into account Carlsbad's Facilities Zones 11 and
12, which include Arroyo La Costa.
As explained in the response to comment B, 'the Arroyo La Costa
project was included in,the cumulative traffic analysis. The
project proposes to widen the portion of El Camino along the
project frontage, and will contribute, on a fair-har'e basis,
to the widening of Olivenhain Road. In addition, Section 3.5.3
of the EIR recommends that the project applicant contribute to
the funding of other regional improvements that are already
needed.
12-122 . . .
a 001
52
- 91. 1733 Orange B1ossomWay, Encinitas, CA 92024
Same as letter # 60 see response to that letter.
91 .
.6 Marèh 1992
Comniu m nity. Development Departent .'• -
527 Encinitas Blvd ..
Encinitas, CA 92024 -..
Sirs,
I am writing to express my concern over the proposed- Home -
Depot -project, specifically the.. draft Environmental Impact Report - -
(EIR) This I ELR is completely in- cdcquate The EIR doe's not have .a'
statement of overridtng merit as required by CEQA The city
council S desire to generate tax revenues does noti justify, building,
this monstrosity on cnvlronrnLnt illy sc.nsiiiv. Hind nor cre.ating a
traffic.,nightmare
The EIR admits that there will be an increase:-in traffic and
assigns traffic a grade "F' after the project is built. -yet-'it does not even take into account the traffic which will be created by the 1700
homes in.. the Arroyo La Costa project. aisd any other future 0 . •: - -
development along the El Camino Re al corridor The EIR does not
adequately address mitigation of this traffic.problLm nor does it
address who will pay for thc. upkeep 01 the roads due to this
, increased traffic, including the large nümher 01 diesel trucks (100. -
per day) making deliveries to hiocice Depot. .. . ••• - . . - . -. - - .:
The . EIR does admit - that traffic cannot be mitigated io- a- "less - - - . . . - . -• - . . .
- - than significant'. effect. The project should not he considered until
the •current- traffic congestion/problems along.. El. Camino. Real are
- addressed. 'Home bepot should not, be allowed to take the position
- that traffic which their 'megastore" will create is not their concern. . . S
Sincerely,
- - - . S - 12 12 3 . .
92. dance B. Carmichael
Same as letter # 90; see response to that letter.
6 March 1.992
Community Development Department :
527 Encinitas Blvd •.
.Encinitas,, CA 92024
Sirs, .
I am writing to comment on the Enironmetit:tI Impact Report
(EIR) issued by. Willens and Associates for the lIorite Depot project
proposed for the corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain ;Road -in
Encinitas California. This EIR has. serious flaws and generally relies
upon inadequate studies or opinion rather than facts, then
erroneously draws conclusions that 'items in question can be
mitigated to a level which is"less than significant Further, the EIR
has included, the impact upon neighborin g residences where it
seemed advantageous for them to do so. but left them out of other,
crucial issues.
For example, the Arroyo La Costa "project was included in the
viewshed issue, but completely ignored, in traffic study. The
additional development of these 1700 'homes in the approved Arroyo
La Costa project .'iill, render any short term traffic mitigation efforts by, the city useless. '
Even though the Arroyo La Costa project was ignored, this EIR
states that, an excessive, increase in traffic will result from the Home Depot project (Level of Service .F will result on both El Camino Real as
well as Olivenhain Road if this project is built as proposed) This
level of service will further adversely impact other, business
concerns along El Camino Real as potenital customers will avoid this
area due to the risk of accident tid persona l injury. In fairness to
other established businesses along' El Camino Real, traffic along
corridor should be mitigated before any additional developnient is undertaken.
Sincerely,
~. ----
12-124 '
Cz-1/ • . .
• • 0
9?y .
- 93. John Sanlit.
- Same as letter I 60; see response to that letter.
6 March 1992 .
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
--.
:
Encinitas CA 92024
Sirs.
I am writing to express my concern over the proposed Home
Depot project secifically the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR), This EIR is completely inadequate The EIR does not have a
statement of overriding meit, as required by CEQA. The city
council s desire to generate tax revenues does not justify building
this monstrosity on environmLntally sensliivL I and nor crc ttin a
traffic nightmare
The EIR admits that there nII be an increase in traffic and
assigns traffic a grade F after the project us built: yet it does not
even take into account the traffic which will be created by the 1.700
homes in the Arroyo La Cost i project md an other future
development along the El Camino Real 'corridr: ' The E1R does not
adequately address mitigation of this traffic problem,' or does it ..
address who will pay for the upkeep 01 -the roads due to this
increased traffic including the large number 01 diesel trucks (100
per day) making deliveries to Home Depot
The. EIR does admit that traffic cannot be miticated to, a ' less - - - -
than significant effect The project should not be considered until
the current: 'traffic congestion/probleurns along El 'Camino Real are '
iddresse. Hone peot should not be allowed to. take the position
that traffic which. tfieir megastore- will create is non their concern.
' Sincerely, - •• - • -., - '- .' ' ' • -. :- -
12-125 '
94. Susan Stomonte
Same as letter # 68; see response to that letter.
94
6 March 1992
Community DeieJopnient Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
I am writing to comment on the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) issued by' Willcns and Ass&iate*s for the Home Depot project
proposed for the corttr Of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road in
Encinitas California. This EIR has serious flaws and geiraily relies
upon inadequate studies or opinion r;tthei than facts, then
erroneously draws conclusion's that items, in question can be
Mitigated to a level which is less than significant.' The EIR has
failed to' adequately address' the 'cutjlatiVe environmental impacts
of this project and has further failed to analyze these cumulative
impacts and is therefore tn vtolatton of CCQA
As an 'example ',of 'the failure to fully address adverse
environmental impacts the nationwide 404 permit.. granted by the
Army Corps'. of Engineers' was obtained by ihe developer without an
accepted EIR or at best an out-of-date studs Note that this permit
has recently been revoked and the developer" must now reOpj5ly.
- Further, in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, the
proposed activity must not jeopardize a threatened or endangered
species as identifted under the Endangered Species Act or destroy or
adversely modify the critical habti It of such species The
gnatcatcher documented as 'Iiving on site even by patd project
biologists will certainly be added to the endangered sp.tes list
before' this project i's completed.-.Therefore additional 'studies and
proposals for mitil,atton must be undertaken at the site to protect the
critical habitat of this bird. . 22-126
• a
-
. - -
- . -- fcMkw.C.R9tr24 .
- 95.- Tere Ortabasi of Kinder Magic Software . .
. - 0 Same as letter I 90; see response to that letter.
6 March. 1992
Co'iunity Development Department . .-
. 52-7 Encinitas Blvd - Encinitas, CA ' 92024 - -
-
- -Sirs. -• - .- • - -
I -am 4ritibg to comment on the Environmental impact Report.
(EIR) issued by V lIens and Asso tates for the home Di..pot project
proposed --for the corner. of El --Camino Real and Oliverihain Road, in -
Encinitas California This EIR has serious flaws and generally relies -
upon inadequate studies or opinion rather ili tn facts then
erroneously draws conclusions that items in question can be
mitigated to a level which is "less than significant.". 'Further.- ihC EIR . - - '•- - . - - '
has included the impact upon netghbortn residences where it
seemed advantageous for,:them to do so but left them out of other
crucial issues
For example the Arroyo La Costa project was included in the
viewshed . issue, 'but completely ignored,*'in' "traffic study. The
- additional, development 'of these- 1,700 h6m&s - in ihe approved Arroy.
La Costa project' will' render any 'short iem-, traffic mitigation efforts by the city useless.
Even though the Arroyo La- Costa project was ignored, this EIR
states that an excessive increase iii traffic will result from the Home
Depot- prOject (Level of Service F will result on boil? El Camino Real as well as •Olienhain Road if this project is built as proposed). - This 1evl - of—.service will further,-' adversely impact other business - - •
• - - concerns along El Camino Real as potential customers will avoid this - - - - - - - area due to the risk .of accident and personal injury. In -fairness to
other established businesses- along El Camino Real, traffic along this' . corridor -should be mitigated before any additional development is
- • - - -- 0
.
. -: undertaken. ....•
0 •
Sincerely,
--
0
2-1 7 12
• 96. John Cavoulas and Jennifer Cavoulas
- Same as letter I 22; see response to that letter.
96
6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527. Encinitas' Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs, .
1 am wrttiitg in response to the Environmental Impact Report.
(EIR) issued by Willens. and Assocites retarding the proposd Home
Depot at the corner ..of -El Czmituo Real. -and Olivenhain Road in
Encinitas California. This EIR has. serious flaws along with a
substantial deficiency of evidence required to support any findings
that have been made. The •EIR generally relies upon inadequate
studiCs or opinion- rather than -(acts, then erroneously draws
conclusions, that items in question can be mitigated to a level which
is less than significant.' -
- The' -EIR has also attempted to sever issues which are an
integral prt of this study. For -example, although thtc I-home Depot
project relies critically upon • the retention pond to 'be built in
Encinitas Creek (as part of the Ohuenhaun Gad \\'td un,, project) the details of -this' retention -'pond and its inupaci- are not inCluded in this
EIR. Further, the data taken for the Road Widening project has not
been updaie.d to take into account upstream development.
- - - The failure to adequately address and analyze this projects -
cumulative impacts is in violation of the California Environmental
Qualify Act'and must be corrected before this EIR- can be approved: -
Sincerely
The Cavoulas Farpily - • '
. . ".- t/i-f!''41-"' - - . - 1624 Orchard Wood Ad--.
Encinitas, CA 9202 4.
L63i)7b0
- • -
•
- 12-128 . . .
97. 1525 Village View Road, Encinitas, CA 92024
Same as letter I 45; see' response to that letter.
97 '1992 6 March
Community , :Devclopment Department •, -
.5271 Encinitas Blvd ,
Encinitas, CA 92024 .. .
Sirs, '. S
I am writing in response to the.,- Env ironniental Impact Report .
(EIR) issued by Villens and Associates 'regarding the proposed Home
- ,Depot at the corner of El. Camino Real and 'Olivenhain Road' in . '. Encinitas California This EIR has serious flaws along with -,a
substantial deficiency of evidence required to support any findings
that have been made', The -EIR generally relies .upon inadequate studies or opinion. - rather." than facts, then ' erroneously draws
conclusions that items in question can be mitigated to a level which
is "leis than significanr.' •' ,,. ' . . . . ' -,. . ',
A clear example of this compluance by edict is dcinonstraied
in the noise study The EIR reaches the conclusion that there is no
significant impact on neighboring- homes but Cs i iblishes no ti.chnical
basis for this conclusion Project technical consult ints could not or
would not scientifically examine the impact ' to the neighboring residents, even though there is a clear .impact on these residents.
Examples of sound sources which were, not considered include (but are not. limited to) nighttime loading dock ,operaiions. "fork lifts, trash
compactors,' public address systems, heavy equipment . including diesel engines, rooftop swamp coolers, car doors, 'etc.' The EIR states that noise levels cannot be evaluated until the project is built even
though accepted scientific principles exist to perform this evaluation. Therefore the existing sound study is inadequate since measurements were not performed near residences •where., 'Home • . . S Depot has a duty to mitigate.
Sincerely, ' S , - S • , . S '
55
- ' S ' .' •
- 12129
S - /.c&c k'ii7'
98. Nancy Clermont
Same as letter # 60; see response to that letter.
98
6 Match 1992
Community Development Department .• *
527. Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas'CA 92024 -'
Sirs, ,..
I am writing to express my concern, over the proposed Home
Depot project specifically the draft Environtm.nial luitpaci Report
(EIR) This EIR completely inadcquate The EIR 'does not have a ,is
statement of overriding merit, as required by CEQA. The city
council's desire to generate tax "revenues does not justify building
this monstrosity on environmentally sensitive land nor creating a
- . traffic nightmare. .
The EIR admits that there will be an increase in traffic, and
assigns traffic a grade. F after the proj i.I is hitiht yet it does not
even take into account the traffic which.. will be created by the 1700
homes in ,the Arroyo La Costs project, and any., other future
development, along the El Camino Real corridor..: The EIR'•dues not
adequately address mitigation of this traffic problem, nor does it
address who will pay for the . upkeep of the roads due to this
increased traffic, including the large number of diesel trucks (10.0
per day) making deliveries to Home Dep&.
The. EIR does admit that traffic Cannot be mitigated to a "less
than significant effect. The project should not he considered until
the . current: traffic congestion/problems along 'El Camino Real are
addressed Home Depot should not be allowed to take the position
that traffic which ilicir nu.4astott. will creme i tiut 1116 11 cuticcrtt
Sincerely.
12-130
14 CO . . .
• (0
1ei'tcd 5pec;cii47 /Vl c&e S
/77 N ElCa m i.o ccA
.E1n -5 (._/ 99'. Dental Speciality Associates..
Same as comment I 90; see response to that letter.
V •, -
99
,
6 March '1992 . V V ' V V
' Community Devcldpment Department . V 527 Encinitas Blvd ..
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs.
I am writing to comment on thi. Eriv,ironmenial Impact Report 4 (EIR) isstied by' Willcns ..and Associates for ihe Hoie Depot project V V ,
V . V ç. V
proposed for the corner of El Camino Rear and Olicnliatn Road in
Encinitas California. This EIR has serious flaws and generally rlies
upon inadequate studies or opinion rather than 1-icis then
erroneously draws conclusions th,it items in question can be
-, mici0ated to a level which is less ih.mn significant.- Further the EIR
has included the impact upon itt,iIibortii residences here it
seemed advantageous 101 them to do so but left iliLimi out 01 othcr
crucial issues.
For example the Arroyo La Costa project was included in the
VV viewshcd issue,. -.but completely, ignored in traffic study. I'll C
- additional develdprnent of these 1700 homes in the approved AViroyo
La Costa project will render any short term ii (tic mitigation efforts
by the city 'useless.
V Even though the 'Arroyo La Cosia project was itznored. this EIR
states that an excessive increase in, traffic will iesult from the Home. . .
V Depot project (Level of Service F will result on both El Camino Real'as
. well as Olivenhain Road if this project is built as proposed). '• This
level of service will further, idirseIy impact oilier business
V concerns along El Camino Real as potential customers will avoid this
V ' area due to the risk of accident and personal injury. In fairness to
other established businesses' along El Camino Real, traffic • along this . .
V corridor .should . be mitigated before any :idditiOnal . devel-, opment is
V undertaken. ' . , V - ' V V
- . V V '
- Sincerely,
V , V
V
V. '
. )JjlJ L)f)-' /
• V '
V
V 12-131 V
- ,,'
V ' . • V
100. 1612 orchardwood Road, Encinitas, CA 92024
Same as letter I 45; see response to that letter.
100 '. . 6 March 1992 "
Comnunity Development Department -
527 Enciniias Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs.
I am writin,, In response to the Environmental Impact Report.
(EIR) issued by Wilkits and Associates regardine the proposed Home.
Depot at the cornr of El Camino Real and .Olivenhaiit Road in
Encinitas, California. This EIR has serious flaws along with a
substantial deficiency of evidence required to support any' findings
that have been made. The EIR generally relies upon inadequate
studies or opinion rather that facts, then erroneously' draws
conclusions that items in question can he mitigated' to a level which '
is 'less than significant. .
A clear example of this "coin'pliatice by edict" is deiriotistrated. in the noise study. The EIR reaches the cönclusiott that there is no
significant impact. on neighboring' hotites, but establishes no technical
basis for this conclusion. Project technical' consultants could not or
would not scientifically examine the impact to the neighboring
residents. even Ihough there is a clear' impact on these residents. '
Examples of sound sources which were not considered include (but S are not limited to) nighttime loading dock operations, tork lifts, trash
compactors, public address systems, heavy equipment' including
diesel engines, rooftop swamp coolers, car doors. etc. The EIR states
that noise levels cannot be evaluated until the project is built, even , , S • ' though accepted scientific principles exist to perform this evaluation.
Therefore the extstln,, sound study 'is inadequate. since
measurements were not performed near residences where Home
Depot has a duty to mitigate. ' S , S S • S S
Sin rel)
2-
S • • c •L .;v. ' S . 12-132 5
5 . S .
SO- 00, 1
/ç &1&?t
101. Gilbert A. Frank
- Same as letter 60; see response to that letter.
101
6 March 1992,-
Community, Development Department •. S
527 Encinitas Blvd - .•. .
• Encinitas, CA 92024 .
Sirs.
I am writing to. express my concern over the proposed: Home
Depot project. specificaUy the draft- Environmental -Impact Report .•
(EIR). This EIR is completely. inadequate. The EIR does not have a
stateent of overriding merit as required by CEQA The city
councils desire to egenerate tax revenues does not justify building
this monstrosity on environmenialIy sensitive land nor creatin I
traffic nightmare
The EIR admits that then., will be an incre'a'se- in trafftc and
assigns traffic a grade ."F after thi. project is butli yet ti does not
even take into account the traffic which will be created by the 1700
homes in the •Arryo La Costa project, and-- any :other future .•. ••• • ,•. .
development along the El Camtno Re 1 corridor The EIR does not
adequately address mitigation of this traffic probletil nor does it
address who will pay for the upkeep 01 tIlL roads due to this
increased traffic including,.the large, number 01 clle\el trucks (100
per day) making dehieries to Home Depot
The EIR does admit that traffic cannot be iniiiLated to a less
than significant" effect.. The •project should not bC considered until S • • S '
the current traffic congection/probletiis along Cl Camino Real are
• : addressed. Home-- Depot should not be allowed to take the position . . - ''
that' traffic which their 'megastore" will create is 'not'their concern."
. .
, . •
'Sincerely. •.; • . . S S • • . . ..
.
.
. -,
-
. . . . 12-133
4.
- - . 102. John Cavoulas and Jennifer Cavoulas
Same as letter I 65; see response to that letter.
102
6 March 1992 .
Community Development Department - -
527:-Encinitas Blvd . '
Encinitas, CA 92024 .
Sirs, .
This letter will serve to memorialize my comments on the . . . . . .
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) written as part Of the proposed
Home Depot project at the corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain
Road, in Encinitas, California. The EIR is flawed due ta' a :deficiency of
evidence required to support any findings that have' been made.
Conclusions have been drawn that items' in quetio'ti can be mitigated
to a level which is less than significant", without the requisite
-supporting evidence.-.-
Various, Inconsistencies with the General Plait of Encinitas
Include, but are' not limited to the following. The proposed building
height of 39. feet' exceeds the limit of 30 feet above cxisliitg grocic set
forth in the 'general plan. El Cámino Real is considered a "visual
corridor, although the 'Home Pcpot project as configured in the ElR
does not comply with this :intent; masking trees and shrubbery
realistically will take a', decade to till out, -and in the interim the
visual corridor will be lost. Evaporative coolers and-a satellite dish
are to be placed on the roof of the structure which will be visible to'
residents of the properties overloàking the site; this contravenes the -
General Plan.
Vtew.' from future neighborhoods. such 'as Arroyo La Costa are
'considered in the EIR,, but views from existing neighborhoods such as
Scotts. Valley, Encinitas High!ands, and Rancho Ponderosa are' not
considered. 'Although one of the - ptoject alternatives addresses this
- project deficiency, it 'considers only the impact to passersby along El
Cañino Real'and not the local residents,
12-134 '
O 0
• 1 0
The EIR states that distance would diminish the visual-.eyesore '
to neighborhoods, even though project-is' as:-little as one building
length from the nearest homes this building will liase an
approximate lfrlpm face over 400 feet Jn length, which is
commensurate with the distance cited LO - show 'that the project will
be far enough removed from residents to diminish any impact.
Therefore, the project is either too large and inappropriate for this
site or the visual impact to the neighboring residents will not be -
mitigated as'- stated.
The--EIR further, states that Jhe project design violates Encinicas - -
design review guidelines. For eample, bright orange sign are at - - -
odds with Encinitas design review uidelines
As noted the EIR is 'deficient iiid therefore defective
- Sincerely. : - -
-
-
- .- - - -
- - • - - - -- - - The Cavouiás Family,.
L(v 1624 Orchard Wood Rd
lEncin nes.. CA 92024-.
I b 0
Same as letter 1 60; see response to that letter.
6 March 992 103
Community Development Department.
527 Encinitas Blvd.. -
Encinitas, CA .92024
Sirs. '
I am writing to express tiny concern over the proposed Home
Depot project specifically the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR). This EIR is ompleiely inadequate. The EIR 'does not have a
statement of overriding merit as required b> CEQA The city
councils desire to generate tax revenues' does not justify building
this monstrosity on environmentally sensiiive land nor Creating a
traffic nightmare. ,
'The EIR admiis. that there. will be an increase in traffic, and
assigns traffic a grade' 'F after the project is built, yet it does not
even take into account the traffic which will be created by the 1700
homes in -'the Arroyo La Cosia project, and any other future
development along the El Camino. Real corridor, The EIR does not
adequately address mitigation of this traffic problem, nor does it
address-who will pay.' for th,e upkeep of the roads, due to this
increased traffic, including the large number of diesel trucks (100
per day) making deliveries to Home Depot.
The, EIR does admit' that traffic cannot be mitigated to a "less '
than significant" effect. The project should not be considered until '
the current: traffic congestion/problems' along El Camino Real are
addressed Home Depot should not be allowed to i ike the position
that traffic which their megastore ill create is. not their concern
Sincerely.
• ••) . .. ' ' '
\•,';K . .'. ' ' " . . S
•
104. TereOrtabasi of Kinder Magic Software
. . . . .
Same as letter I 74; see response to that letter.
6 March 1992 . . . . . . . .
Comrnuiity Development Department.
527 Encinitas Blvd .. .
Encinitas, CA 92024. . . . .
.
Sirs, . . . . . .
In response to the Environmental Impact , Rt.pori (EIR) issued
for the proposed Home Deoi t the, c9rner of El Camino Real and . .... ,
Olivenhain Road in Encinitas this EIR has serious flaws along ith a
substantial deficiency of .evidence required to support any findings . . . .
that have been made In addition the EIR generally relies upon
inadequate studies or opinion rather tlt in It i
The incompatibility of this project with the adjacent residential
areas derrionstrates the fallacy of the zoning of this area. Ai one time
the. prôject site w fa s 'rYenoügh away from residential areas .0 at light.
industrial uses could have been seriously considered Hoever the
current and:proposed residential buildoui o -the surrounding .area
has so significantly decimated the open space and wildlife habitats. . .. .... . . . ,
that this remaining land must, be preserved. The inappropriateness .• . . .
of this project for the community in which it is situ tied sugests that
tlth project should. not only be reconsidered, but ihe land should be
down-zoned .to a less intrusive land use. No mitigation for this loss of . . .. .
open spa'c has been proposed, nor has the continuity of open space . . : •
for 'wildlife been addressed.
The city General Plan further requires no building other than
- . horse stables, nurseries or a ,nininial intrusion of parking areas in a , . . .. . . .
.floódplain- To circumvent. this restriction; the project proponents
have, tried to -let the Olivenhain Road Widening project assume , . . . . . • . .. . • .
responsibility for the construction of t reiention dam in Encinitas
Creek upstream from the project site..thereb) reducing the size:_, of
the floodplain. The subject EIR does not address tlti -floodplain/land, . . . . . .
use issue directly. . . . . . . .. .
• • .. . . , . .. Sincerely,
12-136
11Orft5ogSo
..
6March 1992 105
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd --
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
I am writing to comment on the Environmental linpact Report
(EIR) issued by;Willens. and Associates for the Home Depot project
proposed for the corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road in
Encinitas California. This EIR has serious flaws and genetally relies'
upon - inadequate studies or opinion rather than facts, then
erroneously draws conclusions that items in question' can be
-- - mitigated to - level which is• "less than significant.-' Further, the EIR
has included the impact upon neighboring residences where it
seemed dvantageous for them to do so, but left them out of other,
crucial issues.
For example, the Arroyo La Costa. project was included in the
viewshed issue, but completely ignored in traffic study. The
additional development of these 1700 homes in the approved Arroyo
La Costa project will render any short term traffic mitigation efforts
by the city useless.
. Even though the Arroyo La Costa project was ignored, this EIR
states that. an excessive increase in traffic will result from the Home
Depot project (Level of Service F vill result on both El Camino Real as
well as Olivenhain Road if thi,s project is built as proposed). This
level of service will further adversely impact other, business
concerns along El Camino Real as potential customers will avoid;, this
area due to the risk of accident and personal injury., In fairness to
other, established businesses aloni, El'Camino Real traffic along this
corridor should be mitigated before any additional development is .
undertaken. -
Sincerely,
105. Dr. Paul Coyne
Same as letter 90; see response to that letter.
12-137
Ad • a
106. 231 S. Sierra, Solana Beach, CA
.Same as letter 121; see response to that letter.
6 March 1992 '. 106 *
.Comnsunity Development Department'
527-Encinitas Blvd
Enciniias, CA 92024
.
Sirs,
I am writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report
S (FIR) regarding the proposed Home Depot at the corner of El Camino
Real and .Olivenhain Road in Eñcinitas California. The EIR generally
relies po'n, opinion, and inadequate. studies rather than fact, and, - erroneously draws conclusions that items in question can be
mitigated to a level which is less than significant This ElR has
serious flaws along with a substantial deficiency of evidence
required to supporc"any findings that have been made.
This EIR violates CEQA because it. defers certain mitigation
measures to long term manageilent plans Anton,, other significant
long term impacts this project will coinpleiel> disrupt the wetlands
and there is no assurance -that the- project will replace it currently
functioning ecosystem with :one of equal productivity. The project
-contains-11tt1e - or no cottingency' plans for the problems which are, . . likely to occur alter construction, such as those which occurred after
' the construction of -the Oceanside, Home 'Depot. The -ElR addresses the'
effect of this total disruptioii.' by pointing to a future management
, plan to be cornpkted by other agencies including the' Army Corps of
* *
* Engineejs. Reliance on illusory.- mitigation measures such as future
thañagement plans permits the, developer to avoid having to address
the reality of feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives.
The existing biological impacts study is inadequate since long term
adverse environmental impacts ,'ere. not properly ziddressd. Home' Depot has' a duty to mitigate all such impacts.
Sincerely.' • S • - * ' • -. * * . - -- -
107. Mr. and Mrs. Larry Ritter
-. Same as letter I 60; see response to that letter.
107
6 March 1992
Community Development Dcpartrneni
527 Enciñitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92.024 -'
Sirs, . S
I am writing to express (fly concern over the proposed Home
Depot project, specifically the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR). This EIR is completely ,inadequate. The DR does not have ,a
statement- of overriding merit, as required by CEQA. The city
cuncil's desire to generate tax revenues does not justify building
this monstrosity on environmentally sensitive land nor creating a
traffic nightmare.
The DR admits that there will be an increase in traffic, and .
assigns traffic a grade IF" after. the project is. built, yet it does not
even take into account the traffic which will be created by the 1700
hotñes in the Arr.00 La Costa project, and any . other future
development. along the El Camino Real corridor. The DR, does not
adequately, address mitigation of this traffic problem, nor does it
address who will pay - for - the upkeep of the roads due to this
increaed traffic, including the large number of diesel trucks (100
per day) making deliveries to Home Depot.
The. DR does admit that traffic cannot be mitigated to a 'less -
than significant" effect. The project should not be considered until
the ctiriènt traffic congestion/problems along El Camino Real are
addressed Home Depot should not- be allowed to take the position
that traffic which their megastore will create is noi their concern
Sincerely,
.R
Qit
-
. /.4t3• CA-- S
12-139 . . .
•
S
Y77 Al- 108. J. Patrick Davi - S
C . Same as letter # 90; see response to that letter.
-- " 108. - .-
6 March 1992 5 5 S
Community. Development Department --
-. -- - : 527 Encinitas Blvd—'
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs, - S •- S
--
I -am writing to comment on tlie Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) issued, by Willens and Associaics;for the Home Depth project proposed for the corner' of El Camino Real 'and Oliveithain. Road in
Encinitas California This EIR has serious flaws md generally relies
upon inadequate studies or opinion riiher ilnn facts then
-- -- erroneously draws conclusioiis - -that items in - question can 'be
mitiatcd to a'-level which is less than sigiificant." Further-, the EIR - '
has included the- impact - upon , nciglibring 'rcsidciices where It
seemed advahtageous. for them to do, so. but lefi tient out -of r-other,
crucial issues
For example the Arroyo La Costa project as included in the
viewshed issue but completely ignored in traffic study. The
addiii_tional development of these 1700 homes in the approved Arroyo
La Costa project will render any short term tr ill mc ii-mmii muon efforts
by the 'city useless'.'
- Even' though the': Arroyo La Costa project was ignOred, this EIR
-- states that, an excessive, increase in traffi will' result from the Home
Depot project, (Level of- Service F' will - result on both El Camino Real 'as -- - - S
well as Olivenhain Road if this project is built as proposed) This
level of service willf JUrther adversely impact other business
concerns along El Cai'ilino Real is - po'tcntial customeis will avoid this - - - - -
area -due, to the risk of accident and personal injury: In fairness, to
other established businesses along El .Camino Real, traffic along 'this
corridor should be' mitigated before any additional development is - -
undertaken.
'- Sincerely,
12-140
-7-.
-
-
. . 109. D. H. Payne
Same as letter I 65; see response to that letter.
109 6 March. 1992 .
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas CA 92024
Sirs. - ...
.
.
This letter will serve to nuc.moru lize my comments on thi.
Environmental Impact Report (EIR)-written' as part of the proposed
Home Depot project at the corner of El Camino Real md Oltvenhatn
Road in. Enciriiias, California. The EIR is flawed due to it'-deficiency of
evidence required to support any findings that have been made.
Conclusions . have been drawn that items in question can be mitigated
to a level which is "less than significan.C. without the requisite
supporting evidence.
.- .. . Various iflC0flSIStCflCICS with the General, Plan of Encinitas
include, but are not 11m1ted to, the following. The proposed building
height of 39 feet exceeds the limit 01 30 feet ubo . SI at: ill. i, rude set
forth in he general plan El Camino Real is. considered a visual
corridor", although the Home Depot project as configured in the EIR
does not comply with this intent; maskitug tries and shrubbery.
realistically will take a decade to fill out, and in the interim the
visual corridor will be lost. Evaporative coolers and a satellite dish
are to be placed on the roof of the Structure which will be visible to
residents . of the properties overlooking the site; this contravenes the
General Plan..;. ,.
Views from future neighborhoods such as Arroyo La Costa are
cdnsidered in the E1R but views from existing: -neighborhoods such as
Scotts Valley, Encinitas.. Highlands, and. Rancho Ponderosa are not
considered Although, one of the project aliernafives addresses this
project deficiency, it considers otil> the Imp ICi to isserhy lIon0 El
Camino Real and not the local residents.
- - 12-141
. ._
110. Shandra C. Pietang
Same as letter I 60; see response to that letter.
110
6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas,, CA 92024
Sirs,
I am writing to express my concern over the proposed Home
Depot'.project, specifically the 7 draft Eitvirotiriiental Impact Report
(EIR). This EIR is cmpletely inadequate. The EIR does not have a
statement of overriding merit, as required by CEQA. The city
council's desire to generate tax revenues does not justify building
this monstrosity on environmentally sensitive land nor creating a
traffic nightmare.
The EIR admits that there will be an increase in traffic, and
assins traffic a grade F after the project is built .t it do.s not
even take into account the traffic which will be created by the 1700
homes in the Arroyo La - Costa project, and any other future
development along the El Camino Real. corridor. The EIR does not.
adequately address mitigation of tlis traffic problem. nor does it
address who will pay fpr the upkeep of he roads due to this
increased traffic tttcludtn0 the l-ir,e number of diesel trucks (100
per day) making deliveries to Home Depot.
The EIR does admit that traffic cannot be mitigated to a "less
than signtftcant effect Ihe project should not be considered until
the current traffic congestuon/problcrits along El Camino Real are
addressed Home Depot should not be alloved to lake the posttion
thati. traffic which their megastore ill create-is not their concern
Sincerely,
12-142 . . .
0
111. Susan Stomonte
• Same as letter # 22; see response to that letter. • •
•, . .. 111
6 March 1992 ••• 0 •.
Community Devclopinent Deptrimiti
527 Encinitas Blvd
Eninitas; cA; 92024 : 0
Sirs, .
I am writing in response, to the Environmental Impact Report S
(ElR)issued by Willens and Associates- regarding the proposed Home . Depot at the corner of El Camino Real and Olientmain Road in 0S
Enciii(as Califorilia. This .EIR has serious flaws along-with a .01
substantial deficiency of evidence required to support any findings
that have'.been made The EIR l,enerall) relics upon in idequame
studies or opinion rather than facts; lien erroneously, draws
conclusions that items in question can- be niltig lcd to a levcl which
is less than'significant
• - 0 0 0
• The •EIR has also atternpicd io sever issues which are an . 0•
integral party-of this study For example ilihough the Home Depot
0
project relies critically upon the retention pond to be built in
Encinitas1 Creek (as part of the Olivenhain Ro id \Vtdciiitt1, project) the
dctails of this retuttion pond and its impact are not includtd in this -
EIR Further the d.ita taken for tIn. Road Widening project Ii t not
been updated to take into account upsirèam clevekpimmcni: 0
0
• The failure to adequately address and analyze this projects 00
0 cumulative impacts is in violation of :ilie California • Environmental S -
0
Quality Act-and must be corrected before this EIR- call bd approved.
0• 0
0 • •
• 0
Sincerely, 5
5
S S
- •
12-143
- - . 0
112
6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA. 92024
Sirs,
I am writing to comment on the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR.) issued by Willens and Associates for the-1-lo-me Depot project
proposed for the corner of El Camino Real and Olivehhain Road in
Encinitas 'California, This EIR has serious flaws and generally relies
upon inadequate studies or opinion rather than facts, then
erroneously draws conclusions that 'items in question can be
mitigated to a level which is less than significant." Further, the EIR
has included the impact upon neighboring residences where it
seemed advantageous for them to do so, but left theut out of other,
crucial issues.
For example, the Arroyo La Costa project was included in "the
viewshed issue, but completely ignored in traffic 'study. The
additional development of these 1,700 homes in the approved Arroyo
La Costa project will render any short term traffic mitigation efforts
by the city useless.
Even though' the Arroyo La Costa project was ignored this EIR
states that an excessive Increase in traffic will result from the 1-lome
Depot: project(Level of Service F will result on both El Camino Real as
well as Oltvenhatn Road if this projet is built is proposed) This
level of service will further 'idversely impact other business
concerns 'aIot'g El 'Canitno Real as potential' customers will avoid this
area due, to the. risk ,f accident and' personal injury. In fairness to
other established businesses along El Camino Real, traffic along -this
corridor should be mitigated before in> additional development is
undertaken.
Sincerely,
The Cavoulas,family
624 Orchard Wood Rd. 12-144
Encinitas, CA 92024
(tl4)I3I7(cO • . .
• 1•
-
-
. ha; Tere Ortabasi'-of Kinder Magic Software -
': sariie as letter I 21; see ,response to-that léttér.
6 March 1992 113
- - Community Development Department 5'N 'Encinicas Blvd
Encinitas,, CA 92024
Sirs
0
- ' k am writing in response to"the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) 'regarding the. proposed 1-lome Depot at the corner of -El Camino
Real 'and Olivenhaih Roadin 'Encini(zis California.- The EIR generally - -
'
relies, upon' opini'on- and indequai ijdies rather 'than fact, and
erroneously draws conclusions Ihi.it items in question Ican be
mitigated to a level which --is less thin si,nificani This EIR has
serious flaws alone, with a substantial deficienc V. of evidence
required to support any findings lIt ii have been niadF.
This EIR violates CEQA because it defers certain mitigation
measures to long term management plans mon oilier significant
long termi impacts this project ill completel> disrupt the wethi'nds
and there is no assurance that the project will-'replace a currently
functioning ecosystem with one of equal 'ro'duciivity. The p'róject - ' ' ••
contains little' 'or no contingency plans for the problems which ;are
0
. likely to occur after .construction, such as. those which occurred after
." .. •
the construction of the Oceanside Florne Depot. The Elk addresses the
effect of this total disruption by 'pointing to a future' management - • -
. ' ' • plan to be cpmpleted by other agencies, including the Army Corps, of.
Engineers. -Reliance on illusory mitigation measures sich as future I - -'manigement- 'plans permits the developer to avoid having to address -
- • • • • - .
• - - 0 --
. the reality' of feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives. •
0 The existing biological impacts study is inadequate since long: term • • . -
0 , , - - 0 0
•
, adverse environmental impacts were not 'properly addressed. Home
- Depot 'has a' duty -to mitigate rn all such impacts. - . , - - '- 0 • • . - 0
- Sincerely?, -- - - '• -, - - ,. • 0 •
114. Mrs. Fred A. O'Connell
Same as letter I 60; see response to that letter.
.14 6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527,.-Encinitas.'Blvd '
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
-I- am writing to express my conce'rn' over the proposed Home
Depot project, specifically the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR). :-This EIR is completely inadequate. The EIR does not have a
statement of overriding merit, as required by CEQA. The . city
counc ils desire to generate tax revenues does not justify building
this monstrosity on environtñentally sensitive land nor creating a
traffic nightmare.
The EIR admits that there will b an increase in traffic, and
assigns (falffic a 'grade "F" after the project Is built, yet it does' not
even, take 'into account the traffic which will be created by the 1700
homes in the Arroyo La Costa projeci. and any other future
development along the El Camino Real corridor. The EIR does not
adequately.' addres mitigation of this traffic problem, nor does it
address 'who will pay (or the upk,eep 01' the roads due to this
increased traffic, including the large number of diesel trucks (100
per day) making deliveries to Home Depot. -
The EIR does admit that traffic cannot be witiaated to a "less
than significant" effect. . The projec't should not be considered until
the c'urierit traffic congestion/problems along :El Camino Real are
addressed. Home Depot should not be allowed to take position ,the
that traffic which their •'megástore" will create is. "not their concern."
Sincerely. • • '.
4e 6 - •
/7 L/ LCAai,
(I -
-, 't - '
12-146
' •
O
-: 6 March 1992
Community Development Department
.,.527.- Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs.
I am ruing to comment on liii. Ens tronunenial Impact Report
(LIR) ss ritten by Villcuis and Associates, is p ri 01 tIn. I loin. Depot
project proposed, for, the corner of El Camino Real and Olivetihain-
Road in Encinitas California I hits LIR is: -flawed since tlicri. is ,i
substantial deficiency of evidence requircd to- support the lindluls
that have been made The EIR rlies upon inadequate studies and
then draws conclusions that items in question can be nsitibaied to a
less than significant level
Since the site designated for this project 'represents the last
open space Jn. New Enciiiitas it should be preserved from any further
development in accordance with the open spice o Is of the General
Plan of Encinitas. New Encinitas already has the lowest percentage of
open space in all of Lucintias as documented in the ity',eni.ral plan.
Although the land under the SDGL power lines is cited in this report
as contributing to Llii.. siock of open space in Lni.init is this cannot be
considered viable open .space, given the publics concern over
- electromagnetic fields. Further, since animal hf,e has been forced to
concentrate on this last open site due -to the, encroachment of
development on neighboring parcels this has become a very
important natural habitat 'Ihits developmental encroachment
contradicts the-.goals of the general plan for preservation of open
sace and natural habitat.
Therefore the ElK is inadequate since no provision his been made to
preserve open spice and natural, habitat in New'Encinitas.
SincereI , ': A.
( 9) 02 t/
Sirs; -
I am. writing, in response to the Environmental Impact Report - S (EIR) issued by Willeits and Associates regarding the proposed Home
Depot, at the corner of., El Camino- Real- and Olivenhain Road in .
Encinitas. California. This EIR has serious flaws along with a . substantial deficiency of evidence required to support any findings
that have been made. The EIR "generally relies upon inadequate
studies or opinion rather than facts, then erroneously draws
conclusions that items in question can he mitigated to a "level which
is "less than significant."
A clear example of this "compliance by edict' is demonstrated
in the noise study. .The EIR, reaches the conclusion that there is no
significant impact on neighboring ltómes, but establishes no technical . basis for this, conclusion. Project teclmiiical consultants could nor or
would not scientifically examine the impact to mIte neighboring
"S residents, even . thoutih- there. is a clear impact on these residents.
Examples of sound sources which were not considered include (but
. S. are not limited to) nighttime loadmit, cluck- ooerifion.i, fork lifts trash
compactors,, public address Systems. - tkavy equipment including
diesel engines rooftop swamp coolers car doors etc The EIR states
that noise levels cannot be evaluated until the project is built even
though accepted scientific principles exist to perform mItts evaluation.
Therefore the existing sound studs Ji inadequate since
measurements were not performed near. residence here Home
Depot has a'duty to miugate
Sincerely, -
5,
12-148 . S .
• 0 0
—
:t 17. Joe Croke
Same as letter I 60; see response to that letter.
117 6 March 1992
Community Development Departinciti
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas CA 92024
Sir&
I am, writing to express my concern over the proposed Home Depot project specifically the draft Environumienial Impact Report (ElR) This ElR is completely inadequate." Time hR does not have a statement of overriding merii as required by..CEQA The city 'council's desire to'generate- tax revenuesdoes not justify, building this monstrosity on en. tronineult ill> scuistii e I md nor cre uting a traffic nightmare
The EIR admits iliac there .... ill be an increase in traffic and Assigns traffic a grade F after the project is built yet it does not even take into account the traffic which will be created by the 1700 homes in the Arroyo La Costa project and any other future development along the EF Cainmno Reji torridor The LIR does not adequately address mitigation of this tr uffic problem nor does it address who will pay for the upkeep of the roads due to this increased traffic InLIuding the lare number of diesel trucks (100 per day) making deliveries to Home Depot
The EIR does admit that traffic cannot be mitigated to a "less than significant effect The project should not he considered until the current traffic congestion/problems along El Camino Real are addressed Home Depot should not be allowed to take -the position that traffic which their megasiore will create is not their concern
Sincerely,
j U,ta(4As
Z.
12-149
118 Same as letter I 90; see response to that letter.
6 March 1992
Community Devcluptneni Department
527 Encinitas Blvd . . .
. ,. . Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs, . .
I am writing to comment on the Environtnett tit l Impact Report
(Elk). issued by Willens and Associates for the Home Depot project
proposed for the corner of El Camino Real and Olivetihain Road in
Encinitas California. , This EIR has serious flaws and generally relies
upon inadequate studies or opinion rather than facts, . then
erroneously draws conclusions that items in question can be
mitigated to "a level which is "less than significant." Furtlter, the EIR
has ' included the impact upon ncishboring residences where it
' -- seemed advantageous fOr therti to do' so. 'but left iheiti out of other,
crucial issues. '
Foi. example; the Ar'royo La Costa project was included in the'
viewshe4 issue, but completely ignored in traffic study. . The
additional development of. these 1700 homes in the aiproved Arroyo La Costa project will render any short term traffic mitigation efforts
by the city useless.
Even though the Arroyo La Costa project was ignored, this EIR
states that an, excessive increase in, 'traffic will result from the Home
Depot project (Level of Service F will result on both El Camino Real as
well as Olivenhain' Road, if this project is built as proposed). This level of service will further adversely impact other business
concerns along ELI Camino Real as ..potential customers will avoid this
area due to the risk of accident and personal injury In fairness to
other established businesses along El Camino Real traffic along this
corridor should be mitigated before any additional development is undertaken.
Sincerely;
12-150
wo S.
• .
•
11.9. terry Sonken
Same as letter I 65; see response to that letter.
119
6 March 1992
Community Development Department - 0
- 527 Enciniis Blvd - -
- -
Encinitas,- CA 92024 .. -
Sirs, -
-This letter will serve to memorialize - in)- comments on the S -
Environmental Impact Report. (EIR) wriiten as part, of iluc proposed
Home Depot project at the corner of El Camino Re ii mid. Oliveithain
Road in Encinitas California The LIR is flawed due to t deficiency of
evidence reclZiired w suport any findings tlta have beet
Conclusions have been drawn that items in question c un be mitigated
to a level -which is less than 'significant, without' the'. req&isite
'supporting .-evidenç:
Various iiconsis'tencies with the General PLzi of, Encinitas
include but are not ltmiied to the follow tii_ The proposed building
height of 39 feet exceeds the limit of 30 feei ibo t. existing grade set
forth in the general plan El (aintuto Real is considered .a usual
corridor although the Home Depot projLct as confu..ured in the El
does not comply ss tih this iniu.nt ii uskin. trees and.'shrubbery
realistically' will take a- decade to fill out, and in the interim the
visual corridor will be lost. Evaporative coolers and a satellite dish . 'O
are to be placed on the roof- of the structure which will be visible to residents of the properties os-erlookins the site; this contravenes the
General Plan.
Views from future neighborhoods such as Arroyo La Costa are
Considered in the .ElR,: but views from existing neighborhoods such as
Scotts Valley, Encinitas Highlands, and Rancho Poiiderosa -are not
considered.. - Although one of the project alternatives addresses this
project deficiency, it considers only the impact- to passersby along - El
Camino Real and not the local residents.
12151
- tIhWuVuR -
--
-S . .
'A .-'7'7 0 .7 - . 5-
rD
- 120. John Cavoulas and Jennifer Cavoulas
Same as letter I 73; see response to that letter.
120:
6 March 1.992 . . .
Community Development Department -
527 Eñcinitas Blvd . . .
Encinita, CA' 92024 .
Sirs.
- I am writing to,comment on the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) written by Willens and Associates as part of the Home Depot
project proposed for the corner of El Canitno Real and Olivenhain
Road in Encinicas California..,This EIR is flawed since there is a
substantial deficiency of evidence required to support the findings
that have been made...The EIR relies upon inadequate studies and
then draws concIusions that items in question can he - mitigated to a S
"less 'than significant" level. V .
Since the site designated for this project represents the lost
open space in New Encinitas, it should be preserved from any further
development in accordance ith the open sp tee o its of the General
Plan of Encinitas Nec Encinitas already has the bit eti percenta,e of
open space in all of Encinitas as documented in the city general plan
Although the land .under the.SDGE povr lines is cited in this report. - - -.
as contributing to the stock of open space in Encinitas. this cannot be
- considered viable open space, give_n the publics concern over
electromagnetic fields. Further, since animil life has been forced to
concentrate on this last open site due to the encroachment of •
development . on neighborng parcels, this has become a- very - - • •
important natural habitat This developmental encroachment
contradicts the goals of the general plan 101 preservation of open
space and natural habitat
Therefore the EIR is inadequate sinci, no provision has been made to
preserve open space and natural habitat in New EnLinit
Sincerely,
- ( 1 The Cavoulas Family- •
1624 Orchard Wood Rd. •
. . . • .. - S - - • -
- Encinitas, CA 92024
'
- . . 12-152
•
•
tg)o -.
-
- •
- ,
-
-.
. •
--
-
- . -
- • .
0 0 0,
-
121 Tere Ortabasi of Kinder Magic Software
121 '
-• Same as letter '1 64,; see response to that-letter.
6 March 1992
Community Development DeparimLili
527 Enciniias Blvd
S. Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
I am writing to comment on the En ironment ii Imp ict Report
(EIR) regaiding the çropoed Home Depth at The corner of El 'Camino Real and Olivenhain Road in Encittitis This EIR h is a substantial
deficiency of evidence required to support the findin,s that have
been made The EIR generally relies upon inadequate studies rather
than facts then erroneously draws conclusions that item, in question
can be mitigated to a less than st0niftca n level.
Approval of the Home Depot project would subvert the intent
of th Clean Water Act N& stud> was, conducted to show the:.impact
of water runoff from this project into Batiqutios Lagoon.
Further the ,eneral plan of Encinitas requires that no
development should reduce wetland area ilihouglt this project in
conjunction with the retention dam planned for the upire im side of
Encinitas creek will reduce wetland ire
-- Therefore the existing biological.' impacts study is inadequate. - ' . . • '
0
--
• . - - Home Depot has a duty' to mitigate any impact 'on Baiaquitos Lagoon. - 0 • -
. - : ' '0
Sincerely
e 1'A
-,
.
• -: .
. . - 12-153
122 6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527; Encinitas Blvd
Enciiiiis, CA 92024
Sirs,
I am writing. to comment on the Environmental Impact :Report
(ElR) regarding the proposed Hoiie Depot at the corner of El Camino
Real and Ohivenhain Road in Enctititas This EIR has a substantial
deficiency of evidence required to support the findings that have
been made. The ElR generally relies upon inadequate studies rather
than facts, thpn erroneously draws conclusions that items in question
can be mitigated to a•."less than significant.Jevel.. -
Approval of the Home Depot project would subvert the intent
of the Clean Water Ac. " No study was conducted to show the illipact
of water runoff from this project into Bataquitos Lagoon.
Further, the general plan of Encinitas requires tli.it no
development should reduce wetland area, although this' project in
conjuliction with the retention dam planned for' the upstream side of
Encinitas creek Will reduce wetland area.
.Therefore the existing biological impacts study is inadequate..
HomeDepot has a duty to mitigate any impact on iataquitos Lagoon.
Sincere Y.
aoo 69-
J(N4 -
. .
1
.
• •
123. Susan Stomonte
Same as-letter # 90; see response-to that letter. - - -
- --
- -. -
123 - 6 March 1992
Community Development Department
-527 Encinitas' Bld
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
I am writing to comment on the En ironment ii Imp id Report
(EIR) issued by Willens and Associates for the Home Depot project
proposed for the corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road in
Encinitas California This EIR has serious flaws and generally relies
upon inadequate studies or opinion rather thami facts then
erroneously draws conclusions that items in question can be
mitigated to a level which is less than significant Further the ElR
has included the impact upon neighborin residences where it
seemed advantageo'us for-'.ehèni to do so, but left theiti out -of other, crucial issues
For: example, the Arroyo La Costa 'project was included in the
viewshed. issue, but completely —ignored in traffi study. The
additional development df' thee 1700 homes' in- the approveä Arroyo
La Costa project will render, any short term traffic mltl0atton efforts
,by the' city usele"ss.-.
-
- - - Even though the Arroyo La Costa project was ignored, this EIR -
' •. states that an excessive increase in traffic will result from the' Home - -• '
- - Depot p'roject'(Level of Service F will result oil both El 'Camino Real as - - .- -
- well as' Oliveñhain Road if this project is built as proposed). This
level of- 'service will further adversely ,impact - other business - -
concerns along- El- Camino Real as potential 'customers will avoid this
area due to the risk of accident and personal injury. In. fairness to - - • - - -- - other -established businesses alone El Camino Ral, traffic' along- this
corridor, should be mitigated before any addiiional development is -' -
- " undertaken. - - - - - -- - - - -
-
- --- --
Sin erely,
12-155
--
•
124. Gerald H. Well
- Same as letter # 124; see response to that letter.
124
6 March 1992 --
Community Development Dcp;irtunent
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas,' CA' 92024
0
Sirs;
I' am- writing to express iny concern 'over the proposed Home
'Depot 'project specifically' the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR). This EIR is, completely 'inadequate. The EIR does niot..have a
statement of. overriding' merit, as required by CEQA. The city
council's desire to generate tax revenues does not justify building .
this monstrosity on environmentally sensitive land nor creating a
traffic nightmare.
The EIR admits that there will be an increase in', traffic, and
assigns traffic a grade 'F-after the project' is built, yet it does not
even take into account the 'tra'ffi- which will be created by. the' 1-700
homes in . the Arroyo - La' Costa project, 'and an other future
development, along the El. Camino Real corridor, ''The EIR does not
adequately address mitigation ' of this traffic problem.. nor does it -
address who will pay for the upkeop of the roads due to this
- ' - increased traffic; inluding the large number of diesel 'truck's (100
per day) making deliveries to Home Depot.
The, EIR- does admit that traffic -'cannot be mitigated to -a- less
than significant", effect. The projeci should not 'be considered until
the current traffic congestion/problems along El Camino Real are
addressed Home Depot should not be allowed to t ike the position
that.,traffic which their megastorc ss ill create is not their concern
Sincerely.
•A-i
125. Dana Lynn Green . .•
. . . 125 Same, as letter I 69; :see response to that letter: -
Patrick S. Murphy
Director . .
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Boulevard . . . . .
Encinnas CA 92024
March 5,1992 • S.-.•
. - •) . . .- . . .
Dear Mr Murph>
This letter concerns the proposed Home Depot construction plan on the Southwestern • -.
corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road
I believeit is indeed necessary that every citizen defends what is happning, in their own .
neighborhood right beyond their. backyards We most definitely want to continue to see
coveys of quail scuttling through our yards 'we most definitel) want to wake-up to noises
made by nature rather than Diesel trucks back hoes beeping generators humming cars
starting and stopping palettes rumbling on fork lifts chain saws screeching compactors
rattling and all those noises reverberating and echoing. back from acreof roof tops and
asphalted parking areas as well as thecanyon walls. We can not justify that our children '
will have to breath air that is more polluted We can not tolerate an more traffic jams
. causing furtherdélays in commuting-to our work placesand schools. We cannot standby
to watch the last small enclaes of unique wetland habitats coastal Chapparal and sage
scrub environments being destroyed Adverse environmental 'and',social impacts of any
large development project need to be carefully çjed, not justlisted. The costs for S •
mitigation efforts and the-monitoring of such-efforts in the-future constitute-part of that • -
cost Lam convinced that in the case of the proposed l-lome Depot construction plan the
costs of negative environmental impacts far outweigh the anticipated benefits and increased
- . • S. S S - 12-157 revenues to theCity of Encinitas. . S • - S
I now warn to focus on several issues of particular concern which need to be addressed
Firstly, it is our opinion that such a gigantic project on she proposed site is inLompatible
with the adjacent residential areas as well as the City of Encinitas' Géiieral Plan. This.land
should never have been zoned for light industrial use New Encinitas which is already
very low in open space, should have this land preserved as such.
The enormous decline in wetlands not only in California but in the Nation as a whole over
the past decades is the mosi important reason for not considering the proposed site at all
for any kind of large construction such as she proposed Home Depot We can no longer
afford any reduction in wetland areas due to development It has been shown many times
that attempts at restoration or mitiatidn of lost wetlands always falls.short of the desired
result. In this particular instance the adverse effects On Bataquitos Lagoon due to changes
of all kinds in the water run off are an additional concern which has not been adequately
considered.
According to the draft environmental impact report the completion of this project will
result in an excessive increase in traffic Traffic will operaie at unacceptable levels in the
segment on El Camino Real between Qlivenhain Rd. and Encinitas Boulevard and also on
the segment of Olivenhain between El Camino Realand Amargosa , eycu if all proposed -
improvements will be implemented. It is unclear from the draft environmental report
whether lhè estimated increase in traffic includes the anticipated 40-50 daily deliveries to
the Home Depot Ovtously the traffic problem can not be mitigated to insignificance.:
Concomitant with the increase in traffic and the operations at the I-Ionic Depot will be an
excessive increase in noise levels. A task force formed by a group of concerned citizens has
shown that the existing noise levels are already at the limit of acceptable levels n. before
the project has been built Additional noises in the order of at least 45dB(A) are expected
from normal Home Depot operations in the vicinity of the site Increased traffic delivery
trucks fork lifts compactors cooling equipment chain saws etc will all contribute to this
increase in noise According to a technical noise study prepared as part of the draft El it
was concluded that noise mitigation was necessary for seven of the residence's proposed in
Planning Area .2: It is therefoie logical that noise ninigatson is also a must for the existing
adjacent resideiicës to the East and South as well as future residences toihe North,
particularly, the ones that are overlookingthé project. The existing noise studies do not
consider this problem at all, neither do they include any 'consideration of prevailing winds
and their effect on acoustics. . S .
(0 0
The EIR states that distance would diminish the visual eyesore
to neighborhoods, even though project is as little" as oicc building . . ..
I ength from the narest hoities this hui1din0 will have 'in
approximate front face o er 400 feet in lLItilt hich is
commensurate with the distance cited to show iii ii the pro' ill
be far enough reiisoved from residents to diminish any ifflJCt
Therefore, the. project is either too 11rge and inappropriate for this
site or the visual impact to the neighboring resident will not be
mitigated as stated. .. .
The EIR further states that die project design violates Encinitas
design review guidelines For Cxample, bithi orange signs are at
odds with Encinitas' d' review guidelines. ... . . .
- . . ..
As noted the EIR is deficient iiid therefore defeciise
Sincerely, . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .
J\ jrn
(R• JtCt{'Cf . . . .
... . . .. .
Ltltfru), C1 L2U7
() &2-cn2g
126. Bob Cordiz
Same as letter I 64; see response to that letter.
6-March 1992 126
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinita, CA 92024
Sirs,
I am writing to comment on the Ln tronnieittal Impact Report
(EIR) regarding the proposed Home Depot at the corner of El Camino
Real and 01ken11ain Road in Encinitas. This EIR has a substantial
defièiency of evidence required to support the findings that have
been made: The EIR generally relies upon inadequate studies rather
than facts, then erroneously draws conclusions that ilents in question
can be mitigated to a less than signilicani" level.
- -
Approval of the Home Depot project woukl subvert the intent
of the Clean-Water Act. No study. was conducted to show the impact
of water runoff from this project into I3aiaquitos Lagoon.
Further, the general plan of Encihiras requires that no
development should reduce wetland area, although this project in
conjunction with the retention dam planned for the upstream side of -'
Encinitas creek will reduce wetland area. -
Therefore the existing biological ut1paeIs stud) Is inadequate
Home Depot has a duty to mitigate any impact on Bataquitos Lagbn. (
- . 12-158
pw
•
127. Ronald Lieberman
Same as letter #22; see response to that. letter.
127 .. . . . fl . ...
6 March 1992
Community Development Depariment . . .
527 Encintias Blvd
Ecinitas; CA 92024 .
..
. . .. . . . . 0
Sirs, .
I -ant writing. 1ñ - response to'the Environine'ni.il Impact Report . . . (ElR) issued by Willens and Associates 'regarding the proposed Home
Depot at the corner of El Camino Real and OIi-enhuiii Road -.in
Encinitas California This EIR has serious fl iss s aIoii, ss ith a
substantial deficiency of evidence required to support any findings
that have been made The EIR generally relies upon inadequate
studies or opinion rather than 4a c t s then erroneously draws
conclusions that items iii quesiioti caii he miiijied to level which
is less than significant
The EIR has also attempted to ses Cr issues ss htch are an
. : integral part of. this tud For eainpIe, aIihouh the Home Depot
project relies critically upon the retention pond to be built iii
Encinitas Creek (as part of the Olisenhatn Ro id \\ idening project) the
details of this retention pond and'.its impact are not included in this
EIR. Further, the data taken for the Road Wideiiitig projeci hat not
been updated to take into account &tpstre tm des elopinent
0
- The failure to adequately address • and analyze this. projects .
cumulative impacts Js in violation of the California Environmental
Quaiity Act an& must be corrected before this EIR can-,be approved.
Sincerely,
Au
s1t-& . . 0
- -
. . 0 • - . . .. 0
0
• -. . . - . 12-159
128. Debra Hartley
Same as letter I 65; see response to that letter.
128
'6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
This letter will serve -to - memorialize my comments out the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) written as part of the propósèd
Home Depot project -at- the-corner, of El Camino. Real and Olivenhain
Road in Encinitas, California: The ElR is flawed due to a deficiency of
evidence • required to support ally findings that have been made.
Conclusions have bcen drawn that items in question can he mitigated
to - a- level which is less than significant", without the requisite -: - supporting-evidence.
Various inconsistencies with the General. Plan of Encinitas include; but are not litnitd to, ill--'following. The proposed building
height of 39 feet exceeds the limit of 30 feet above existing grade set forth in the general plan.' El Camino Real is considered a "visual
coiridor although the Home Depot project as confturLd in the EIR
does not comply with this
- intent; masking' trees and shrubbery
realistically wiIliake a decade to fill out, and in the interim the
visual corridor will be lost. Evaporative coolers and a satellite dish
are to be placed on the roof of the structure which will b visible to
residents of the properties overlooking the site; this contravenes the
General Plan.
Views from future neighborhoods such as Arro)o Li Costa are
constdered in the EIR but view s front existing neighborhoods such as
Scotts Valley Encinitas Highlands aild Rancho Ponderosa are not
. - considei'ed. Althoughone of the project alternatives ziddrèsses this
project deficiency, it ,considers only the. impact to 'lassersby along El
Camino Real and, not the local residents.
12-160
• .
The EIR stales that distance would diminish the visual eyesore
to neighborhoods, even though, project is as little as one building - Iengt it from the nearest homes tins buildiii ihI hie an
approxiñiale 'froni face over 400 feet- in length, which' is .
commetisurate wiO fz, the distance, cued to show that cite project .will
be far enough- -removed from 4 resid,:ms zi6 dimirl'ish any impact. . .
Therefore, the project is either too large and inappropriate for this
site or the- visual impact to the neighboring residents will not be - -
- : mitigated as stated. - •.' . -• . . . -
The EIR furihersiates that the 'project design violates Encinitas
design review guidelines. For exaunle, bright orange signs are at
odds with EncinitasT dcstgn review guidelines
As, noted, the EIR is deficient and iherefor&'defectise. " - -
-
-- •- . ., - .
.
•
Sincerely
- • --
1-'(cd 77
-
-, ,
-
- -
.
- . --.- - -
lAt42 A ' '3c-1
129. R. Isrèal
- Same as letter-I 60; see response to-that letter.
129. -S
6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA - 92024
Sirs,
I am writing to express my concern over the proposed Home S
Depot project specifically the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR). This EIR is. completely inadequate. The.ElR does not have a
statement of overriding heric, as required by CEQA. The city
councils desire to generate-tax revenues does not justify building
this monstrosity 'on environmentally sensitive land nor creating a
traffic nightmare.
The EIR admits that there will be an increase in traffic, and
assigns traffic a grade "P after the project is built, yet it does not
even take into account the traffic which will be èreated by the 1-700-
homes in the . Arroyo La Costa.. project, and any other future
development along the El Camino Real: corridor. The -EIR- does not
adequately address mitigation of this traffic problem, nor does it -
address whà, will pay for the upkeep Of the roads due to this
increased traffic including the large number of diesel trucks (100
per, day) making deliveries to Home Depot. 5
The .EW does, admit- that traffic cannot be mitigated to a less
than significant effect The project should not be considered until
the current traffic congestion/problems along El Camino Real
es
are
addrsed Home Depot should not be allowed to take the position
that traffic which their megastore will create ts not their concern
Sincerely,
- (
L.
tf3 i(/ . S
131 131. Jeanette Kirk
Community Development Dep ill1tnt Same as letter I 47; see response to that letter.
527 EnciniiasBlvd:
Encinitas, CA 92024
To whom it may concern.
This letter pertains to the "Environmental Noise Analysis (Report No. 91-016) and the
associated Addendum (Re port N. 91-016) prepared by San Diego Acoustics, Inc. in
conjunction with the Rome Depot planning activities in Encinitas.
We critically reviewed the above mentioned reports, firstly as the closest neighbors to the
planned Home Depot, secondly as scientists who spent their lives writingproposals and
evaluating similar reports. From either point of view the report isfiawed, superficial and
does not reflect the honest qualit of an unbiased scientific work.
The very first sentence of the main report reveals already the partial nature of the analysis
by saying This stud) was conducted to show the acoustic suitability of the pioposed
project with respect to the requirements of the City of Encinitas Department of Planning
and Land Use. In ocher words, the report i not a fact finding effort but a study to induce
a desired result. Another scunliing 'faux pas" of the first report is the coiiclusion that 'No
significant noise impact is expected This conclusion as reached by neglecting among
other things to include an analysis of the loading dock noises. The treatment of this major
source of ioise appear6d4 nonths later in the addendum.
Following are the obvious scientific weak points that mininsize the credibility of'bOch
reports. • -
1 The analytical model used assumes a square la that describes ho the noise
level decreases with increasing distance from thc. source of noise Ihis model assumes a
point source in an àpenenvironñient with no obstructions dr reflect mg- objects.
The laws of acoustics however follow closely the nes that control the. propagtion of light.
This means that no or acoustic waves like light can be reflected, scattered, collimated,
funnelled of focussed. In that case "square law" attenuation does not apply.
61
This is indeed the situation at the planned site for the Home Depot. The flat wetland and
field areas of the planned building site are almost complete[), surrounded by bluffs with
steep slopes forming a bowl shaped canyon Fht. noise generated by the Home Depot and
the associated traffic plus the traffic on El Cainino Real and Oltvenhatn Rd is-reflected
back by the Western bluffs of Green Valley onto the residential areas on the Eastern
Southern and Northern bluffs facing the wetland area Fhe effect is so dianiattc that for
example at our residence at 1680 Meadowglen Lane, overlooking the entire area of the
planned buildingsite, the words of thesongs that are played on rodeo daysnexi toEl
Camino Real can clearly be heard and understood. :
The square law fails to predict the real situation as it is going to be and therefore the
model does not have the credibility justifying its use in the final decision A very
convincing proof of the directibility of sound i.e. focussing and fuiuielling by reflection
are the stethoscopes and headphones used in commercial airlines
2 The test data obtained for the report do not contain information on the wind
direction and strength dunng measurement tnterals As the carrier of sound the air, and
the relative movement of air, with respect to the detector affect the results of the
measurement On the upwind side of the noise source the decibel levels will ala)s be less
than on the downwind side Therefore the results can be misleading depending on the wind
-at a particular time. The report does notinclude any discussion ouihis issue
3 The original study issued on April 16 1991 involves only. a 1 hour measurement
at a particular time (11 ,:00 am 1200 am on a Thursday) The equipment used as a level
tndtcator positioned 5 feet above flat ground
These are all questionable test conditions reducing the credibility of the data One hour
measurement data is correlated with the vehicle count during other times The correlation
fails to take into account the vehicle type For example during mid afternoon heavy school
bus and Diesel truck traffic inciease the noise level dramatically at the comer of El.
Camino Real and Olivenhain Road due to the starts and stops at the traffic lights at this
location: .. .
The measurements have to be carried out with a dosimeter type -.of device rather than a
level tndicator. This would provide a more me intngful average over the periods measured
The noise field is accumulative and humans respond to the total flux emanating from this
3
fieldover time periods. Therefore the noise related damage is the physiological response to
the 'dose of noise received. In addition the maxima and nhininIa of it noise level indicator
can be strongly- affected by changing the response time of the detector. No information on
this issue exists in the report. ..
The height of the level indicator i.e. 5 feet is equal of less than the height of the scrubs in
many parts of the area. Thus, without the description of the vegetation surrounding the
equipment the results have not much meaning as the vegetation can shield the detector
from noise. This is common seuise as everybody knows that noise levls from the highways
for example can be significantly reduced by proper tree planting between the highway and
residences. . . .
4. The report ignores the effect of noise on the properties on the North, South and
East bluffs surrounding the proposed building site completely. Apparently the idea of
"square law" iloise attenuation is once again applied: i.e. as the distance from the noise
source grows the noise-level goes down ith the qüare Of thedistance, and therefore the
properties on the bluffs are at distances far enough not to be impacted b) additional noise.
Ibis-conclusion is-either a severe neglect in a report which wilibe used to make decisions
or itis a calculated way to avoid having to fOce a non-mitigatable situation. If, for example
at our residence the noise level will exceed the allowable level to the same extent as
reported for-the,-border of the Pearce property, then there will be no possibility to mitigate
this problem by a noise barrier since our property is about IOU Icu aboe the proposed
construction site. A fence to cover the line of sight would be impractical because of the
height of the residence. .
5 The report as it stands can not be considered final because it contains many other
statements which at the least needfurther qialifications. FOrexample: .
.....Loading noise Only occurs.dring truckmovemntOr fork lift
operation . . . .
It is not stated what percentage of time over a period of 24 hours this occurs. Also
everyone knows that Diesel trucks are most of the time left idling during loading and
unloading operations.
Loud speakers (for paging) should bejacing the building.
. 4
This implies that there will be no reflection from the walls of the building. Everyone of us S -
has listened to the echo of our own voice in a mountainous area. -
The compactor (on the East side) of the building should not be
- operated in a jammed condition:. -
0
It is hard to believe that the Home Depot will pay someone full time to control the noie
levels from a compactor.
Forklift warning signals should be curtailed to midday.
The authors of the report are apparently not aware of other pressing needs for forklift
operation at a Home Depot that take precedence over noise control
An interposed earth barrier will reduce the noise level further
The report considers only 14 new residenccs on the South bluffs which are proposed to be
Wilt. An earth barrier of course is of no consequence for the higher residences on the East
and North bluffs that are there now.
All in all we believe, that the report does not reflect reality. Present and future decibel
levels reporte4 are not coming from sound data and they contradict simple common sense. -.
A Home Depot with a projected 510 vehicle parking lot about 7800 estimated daily trips in
and-out of the parking area and 784 trips in the peak hour (4:00 par 5:00 pm) plus fork-
lifts ,.Ioud-- eakers and 40-50 light and heavy duly delivery trucks daily is bound to exceed
the allowable-and tolerable noise levels in-adjacent residential properties augmented by the
"canyon configuration" of the area. This will therefore represent a major breach of the law S -
and a non-reversable envirotutiental mistake that will degrde the quality of life in
Encinitas in general
-• -- Therefore,.we ask you to stop this plan right now before it is too lale and Encinitas -suffers S
a financial damage much larger than the anticipated revenue from taxes and sales The
major indirect cost source to the Encinitas city government and the residents will be
Increased traffic problems
132. Guy Ito ,..
Same as letter # 90; see response to that letter.
132
6 March 1992
Cmmunity Development Depariment .
527 Enciiiias Blvd
Encinitas CA 92024
.•
I am writing to comment on the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) issued by Willens and Associates for the Home Depot project
proposed for the corner of El Cinuno Real and Olisenhain Road in
Encinitas California This EIR has serious laws and ,enerall) relies
upon inadequate studies or opinion rather than facts then
erroneously draws conclusions that items in question can be
mitigated to a level htch is less than significant." Further, the EIR
has included the impact upon neighborin g" residences '.where it
seemed advantageous for them to do so.'but left them out of other,
crucial issues
For example the Arro)o La Costa project was* included in the
siewshed Assue, but completel) tnored in traftic s .
iudyi The
additional development of these 1700 homes in the approved Arroyo
La Costa project will render an mi° short term traffic ilatton efforts
by the city useless
Even though the Arroo La Costa project was ignored, this EIR
stales that an excessive increase in traffic will result from the Home
Depot project (Level of Service F will result on both El Camino' Real as
well as Olivenhain Road if this project is built as proposed) This
level of service will further, adversely impact other business
concerns along El Camino Real as potential customers will as oid this
area due to the risk of accident and personal injury. In fairness io
other established businesses alone El..Camino Real traffic along this
corridor, should be mitigated before an) a.dditidnal development is
- undertaken. . . •
Sincerely,
12-164
I4o P14CE— • .
,._ (A-) .
133. tlickie Lotes
- Same as letter S 60; see response to that letter.
133
6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd .
Encinita, CA 92024 .
Sirs,
am writing to express my concern over the proposed Home
Depot project, specifically the draft Environmental impact Report
(EIR). This EIR is completely inadequate. The EIR does not have a
statement of overriding merit, as required by CEQA. The city
council's desire to generate: tax revenues does not justify building
this monstrosity on environmentally sensitive land nor creating a
traffic nightmare.
The Elk admiis,ihat there will he an increase in traffic, and ..
assigns traffic a grade F after the project is built et it does not
even take into account the traffic which will be created by the 1700
homes in the Arroyo La Costa project and any other future
development along the El Camino Real corridor. The EIR does not
adequately address mitigation of this traffic problem nor does it
address who will pay for the upkeep of the roads due to this
increased traffic, including the large number of diesel trucks (100
per day) making deliveries to . Home Depot. . .
The EIR does admit that traffic cannot be mitigated to a less
than significant effect The project should not be considered until
the current traffic congestion/problems alone El Camino Real are
addressed Home Depot should not be allowed to take the position
that trafficwhich their megastore will create is not their concern
Sincerely
I yVihotVev- k 12-165 . S S
• S
95
--
134. Michael J. Barrett
Same as letter I 90; see response to that letter.
134
.6 March 1992
Community Dcvelopmen Deparimei . . . . . . . 527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinics, CA .92024 ..
Sirs, •. S
- I am writing to comment on the Environmental Impact Report . .
(EIR), issued by Willens and Associates for the Home Depot project . .
proposed for the corner of El Camino Real and Olienhain Road in
Encinitas California This EIR has serious -..flaws' and ,enerall) relies
upon inadequate studies or opinion rather than facts then
erroneously draws conclusions that items in question can be
mitigated to a level which is "less than sinificani.' Ftriher, the EIR
has included the impact upon neighboring residences where it
-seemed advaAtageous fOr them -to do so, but left them out of oiher
crucial issues.
For example the Arroyo La COSL4 project as included in the
viewsh&d- ,. but completely ignbred in traffic study. The
additionil development, of these 1700' homes in the approved Arroyo . . . . .- .
La Costa project will render any short term traffic mittoation efforts
by the city useless. -. .. . . . . .. . :
Even though the Arroyo -La Costa project was ignored, this EIR
stas",that an -excessive increase in traffic - will result from the Home
Depot project (Leve) of Service F will result on both El Camino Real as
well as Olivenhain Road if this project is built as proposed). This - S
level of service will further adversely impact other -business
concerns along El Camino Real as potential customers ill avoid this
area due to the risk of accident and personal injury. In fairness to
other established businesses along El Camino Real, traffic along- this - - - - • corridor should be mitigated before any additional development is S - unIertakèn: .
S Sincerely,
12-166
rn-2r 1,V'1d 4c.Jf9/4ceL
135. 1743 Willowhaven Road, Encinitas, CA
V Same as letter I 60; see response to that letter.
6 March 1992 135
Community Developutient Department V
527 Encinitas Blvd V V V
V Encinitas, CA 92024 V V
Sirs,
V r Vam writing to express my concern over the proposed Home V V
Depot project, specifically the draft Environmental impact Report
(EIR): 'This EIR is completely inadequate. The EIR does not have a
V
V statement of overriding merit, as required. V by CEQA. The 'city
councils desire to generate tax revenues does not justify building
this monstrosity on environmentally sensitive land nor creating a
traffic nightmare: V V
The EIR admits that there will be an increase in traffic and
assigns traffic a grade F after the project is built )Ci it does not
even1 lake into account the traffic which will be creaied by the 1700 V V
homes in 'the Arroyo La Costa project, and any other future
development along the El Camino Real corridor. The 'EIR does not V
adequately address mitigation of this traffic problem nor does it
addess who will pay for the upkeep. of the roads due to this V V
increased •traffic, including the large number of diesel trucks (100 V V
V
• per day) making deliveries to Home Depot. V
V
V • • The EIR does admit that traffic cannot be mitisated to a "less V •
than significant effect The project should not be considered until
the current traffic congestion/problems along El Camino Real are
addressed Home Depot should not be allowed to take the position
that traffic which' thetr megastore will create is not their concern
V Sincerely, V
• V V V
•
?
V
12-167 . S S
. . 136. Rod McKenzie
-
S
Same as letter 1 555; see respànse to that letter.
March,$ 1992 136
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Boulevard
Encinitas, CA 92024
Re: Home Depot Project-,ElR '
Sir: --
lam writing inresponse to the Environmental impact Report (EiR) issued b'
Wiilens and Associates regarding the proposed Home Depot at the corner of El .
Camino Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinitas California
The proposed building is too large and is not compatible with the site A large
building size results in excavation of the existing environmentally sensitive slope and
encrOaëhmeni into wetlands (as a result of the parking lot): Snaller buildingshave
been rejected on the basis of not being economically viable Willens and Assoiates
his accepted House-Depot's statement to this effect on lace value. An economic
evaluation omalIer building sizes should be presented. . • . • - ;. -. :
. Sincerely, •
S
-. S S. . • -.
S • / 2' tK A-e-n, . S
.
S
.
S • S - S 12-168
DOCICDD5. S
•,. -. -. • •. - .5 . - - - S • . - - 5-- 5, -S -
137. 1416 Wild Meadow Place
Same as letter 090; see response to that-letter.
6 March 1992
137
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs.
A. am writing to comment on the Ettvirontnental Impact Report
(EIR) ':issued by Ville,ns and Associates for the Home Depot project
proposed for, the corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road in
Encinitas California. This EIR has serious flaws and generally relies
upon inadequate studies -or opinion rather than facts, then .
erroneously draws conclusions that items in' iluestion can be
mitigated 'to 'a"-level 'which is "less 'than significant." --FtIrther, the EIR -.
has in,cluded,, the impact upon neighboring residences where it
seemed advantageous for then to do so, but left them out of other,
crucial isues.
For exaj'nple; the Arroyo La Costa project was included in the
'iewhed issue, but completely ignored in traffic - study.. The
additional development of these 1700 homes in the approved Arroyo .
La Costa project will 'render any short term traffic mitigation efforts
. by the city useless. .
'Even. though the Arroyo La Costa project was ignored, this EIR . .
- . states that an excessive increase in •uaft'ic will result from the Home . . •
Depot project (Level Of Service F will result on both El Camino Real as • • • " . .
well as Olivenh'ain Road if this project is built as proposed). This . . ' - . •
level of 'service will further adversely .impact outer business
concerns along El'Camino Real as potential customer II avoid this
area due to the risk of accident and :personal injury. In fairness to
other' established businesses along El Camino Real. traffic along this - • •
corridor should be mitigated before an' additional • development is ,, , "' .' . ' " . • • . • '.
undertaken. . - . •• . •, •
Sincerely, • . . • . • 12- 169 .
I
. .
o a a
- 138. Lisa Hanly
.• • - Same as letter I 64; see response to that letter.
138
6 March 1992.
Community Development DepariunenV, 0
527 Encinitas Blvd ....
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs, .
I am writing to comment on the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) regarding the proposed Home Depot at the corner of El Camino
Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinitas This EIR has a substantial
deficiency of evidence required to support the findings that have
been made The ElR generally relies upon inadequate studies rather
than facts then erroneously dra s conclusions that Items in question
can be mitigated to a less than significant leel
. '_ . .: •-.:- . . .. . .
'•.•.
Approval of the Home Depot project would -subvert- the intent
of the Clean Water Act. No, study was -conducted to sho the impact . . . .
of water runoff, -from this project into Bataquitos Lagoon.
Further the general plan of Encinitas requires that no
development should reduce etland area althouli this project in
conjunction with the retention dam planned for ihe upstream side of 0
Encinitas creek will reduce wetland area. S
.•
0 - 0
Therefore the existing biological impacts stud) is inadequate
Home Depot has .:a duty to mitigate ahy impact on Bataquitos Lagoon. 0
Since ly;
-
. •0 : - •- . .. :
. 0 0 12-170 -
139. C. I(relz
Same as letter I 90; see response to that letter.
1OC
6 March 1992-- .. 139
Community Development, Departmeni
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024 . '. .
Sirs.
I am writing to comment .on the Environmental Impact Report
(ElR) issued ;by Willens and Associates for the Home' Depot project
prop6sed for the corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road in
Encinitas California. This ElR has serious flaws and .senerally relies
upon inadequate studies or opinion rather than facts, then.
erroneously draws conclusiOns' that items in question can be
mitigated to a level which is "less than significant.' Further. the ElR
has included the impact upon neighboring residences where it
seemed advantageous for , them to do so. hut left them out of other,
crucial issues.
:FOr example. the Arroyo •La Costa project was included in the
viewshed . issue, but completely ignored in. traffic, study. The
additionaP development of these 1700 homes in the approved Arroyo
La 'Costa .poject will render any short term traffic initiation efforts
by: the city useless,'
Even though the Arroyo 'La Costa project was ignored, this EIR
states that' an excessive increase • in traffic will result from the Home
Depot project (Level of Service 'F will result.on both El Camino Real as
well as Olivenhain Road if. this project is built as proposed). This
level of service will further adversely impact other business
concerns along El Cimino Real as potenttal customers will avoid this
area due to the risk of accident and personal injury In fairness to
other established bustnesses along El Camino Real traffic along this
corridor' should' be, mitigated before any additional development is
undertaken.
' Sincerely.
yt /tztLJ . S
It
140. Kimberly Robertson
Same as letter.# 64; see response to that letter.
.' '.
6 March 1992 • . ., ... ... . . . . . . . . S
Community Development Department . . . . .•. . .. .:
521. Encinitas Blvd. . . . . . .
Encinitas..CA .92024
,, . . ,: . •" ': .5
Sirs, ..
.1 am writing to comment ott the l:itvirottntentil - Impact Report. . . . . '• S.
(Elk) regarding the proposed Home Depot It the corner 01 LI C Imnitto
Real and Olienhatn Road in Enctmuii is Thus Elk has t substantial
deficiency of evidence required to support the littdings that have
been made.; The ElR,genërally relies upon . inadequate studies. rather
than facts,, then, erroneously 'draws conclusion'srih:tt, itenuS in question . . . can be mitigated to a less than st,nmftc tot leet
Approval of the Home Depot project-would su6veri the intent
of the Clean Water Act. No study was conducted, to show the impct . ' . ., .. ... .
of water ..run'off from this project into 43aiaquitos Lauoiu,'
Further,—.,the general plan of Encinitas requires that no
development should reducewetland area. aiihou Ii this project in
conjunction With for the th the reention dam planned tIptre am side of
Encintias creek Will reduce s etland area.
Therefore the existing biological . impacts study i's inadequate.
Home Depot has a duty to mttteate It\ impact on13 it mquttos L,L.00n
Sincerely,
/73/ bl, 7ZZI tl-le_10— frIcr-
12:-172
:
6 March 1992 141
Community Development Departiticiti
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024.
Sirs.
In response to the Environmental Impact, Report I EIR ) issued
for the proposed. Home Depot at the corner of El Cauttino Real and
Olivenhain Road in Encinitas, this [IR has serious thaws along with a
substantial, deficiency of evidence required to support any findings
that have been made. In addition. the ElR eiierahly relies upon
inadequate studies or opinion rauhiet than facts
The incompatibility, of this project with . the adjacent residential
areas demonstrates the fallacy of, the zoning oC this.area. At one time
the project site was far enough away from residential areas that light '
industrial uses could have been seriously considered. However, the
current and proposed residential buildout"oh' i1i.e. sinrouiiding area
has so significantly decimated the open space and wildlife habitats,
that this, remaining land must be, preserved. The inappropriateness
of this project for the community in which 'it is situated suggests that
this project should not only be reconsidered. but the Land should be
dowA-zoned to a less intrusive land use. No mitigation for this loss of
open spice has been proposed, nor has the continuity of open space
for': wildlife been addressed.
The city General Plan further requires no building other than
horse stables nurseries or a :ni,ut,uial intrusion 01 parking, areas to a
floodplain - To circumvent this restru&,ttouu the project proponents
have tried to let tIlL Olt enhain Road udeittit l)f0jCCt issutne
responsibility for the construction oh u retentuout d ito ut Lncinttas
Creek upstream frotit the project site thuereb) reducun_ the size of
the floodplain. The subject EIR does not address ' this floodplain/land
use issue directly:
Sincerely,
7.4
-
,I
Si''. .;. •, •,
1'P'
141. K. H. Weker
Same as letter # 74; see response to that le
(03
V V V V 142. M. S. Klisdostz V
Same as letter I 64; see response to that letter. V V V
V V
142
V 6 March 1.992 V
V
V V V
V
V
V
Community Development Departmen V V V
V V V V V V
527 Encinitas Bld
V V V V
Enciniias CA 92024
V 'Sirs,
I am writing to comment on the Ln ironmenial Impact Report
(EIR) regarding the proposed Home Depot at the corner oi El Camino
Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinitas This EIR has a substantial
deficiency of evidence required to support the ftndin..s that hae
been made The EIR generally relies upon inadequate studies rather
than facts then erroneously draws conclusions that items in question
can be mitigated to less than sunificani leel
V Approval of. the Home Depot project would VSUb.ei thã Viñterft V V
V V V
V
V V
VV V V V V V of. the Cleãn.Water Act.'VI stud was conduciedib show VVthV impact'
of ater runoff from this project into Baiaquiios Li non
V
V
VV Further; the oVeneral plan V of Encinitas requires that no
V development VV should redude- wetland area" although this project it V V VVV, V V
V V V VV
V
V V conjunction, with the V retention dam planned for the upstream side of
V
Encinitas creek will reduce wetland area
Therefore the existing biological impacts study js inadequate.. V V
V V V V
V V V
HOme Dep6thas a duty to mitisate any impact on 8aiziqsiios Lagoon.
S incere
,
V V :17 tc.
12-174 V
V V
V
____ V V V . V VV V VV V . V V VVVVV VV
143. Craig Okamoto
Same as letter # 60; see response to that letter.
6 March 1992 143
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas CA 92024
Sirs; .
1, am writing to express my concern over the proposed Home
Depot prójëct, specifically the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR). This EIR is. completely inadequate. The EIR does not have a
statement of overriding merit, as required by CEQA. The city
council's desire to generate tax revenues does not justify building
this monstrosity on environmentally sensitive land nor creating a
traffic nightmare. . . .
The EIR admits that there will be an increase in traffic, and
assigns traffic a grade F after the project is built )ei it does not
even take into account the traffic which will be-.created by, the 1,700
homes in the Arroyo La Costa project and an other future
id development along the El Camino Real corror. The EIR does not
adequately add'ess mitigation of this traffic problem, nor does it
.p addres who will ay. . for the upkeep of the *roadi due to this
increased traffic, including the large number of diesel trucks (100
per day) making deliveries to Home Depot.
The -EIR does admit that traffic cannot be miiigamed to a "less
than significant effect The project should not be considered until
the current traffic congestion/problems alone, El Camino Real are
addressed Home Depot should not be allowed to take the position
that traffic which their 'megaslore will create is not their concern."
Sincerely, . ..
. .
7 .
12-175
144 George Maloney
Same as letter I 90; see response to that ltter.
144 6 Mrch 1992
Community Development Department
527 Eniiuitas Blvd
Encinitas ''CA 92024
Sirs,
.1 am writing to comment oil the Lnvirouimeiital Impact Report
(EIR), issued by ViIlens and Associates for,*,the liome Depot project
proposed for the corner of LI Camino Real and Olt.enhatn Road in
Encinitas California This EIR has serious fla%% s md generahl> relies
upon inadequate studies or.,opinion rather ihiait facts then
erroneously draws '—conclusions that items in question can be
mitigated to a level which is less thiiii significant Further the EIR
has included the impact upon -neighboring. residences where it
seemed. advantageous for them ido so. but left them out of other,
crucial issues
For example the Arroyo L Cost projec t o -s included tn the
viewshed issue but completely i,uiored in trfttc Stud) The additional development of these 1700 homes in the ipproed Arroyo
La Costa project will render 'any short teriit tr (ftc inttt,iuon efforts
by the CII) uieles-s.-
Even though the Arroyo La Costa project was Ignorea this EIR
slates that an excessive Increase in traftuc will result from the Home
Depot project (Level of Service F will result on both El Camino Real as
well as Olivenhain Road if this project is built as proposed) This level of service will further adversely impact oilier business
concerns along El Camino Real as potential customers will a oid this
area due to the risk of accident and personal injury. In fairness to
other, established businesses along El Camino Real, traffic along this
corridor should be mutug ited before;in), additional development is
undertaken -
Sincerel
- 76 12 1
C1.
- -
145. Jeff & Therese.Doyl
Same as letter I 73; see response to that letter.
6 March 1992
. 14
Cdniiiunity' Developneiit Departine in
527 Eniritas Blvd .
. Encinitas. CA. 92024 . . . . . .
Sirs ..
I am writing to comment out tlie Luu'irotumcnt;uI Impact Report
. :(EIR) written 'by Willens and Associates as part of the Home Depot
project proposed for the corner of LI C umtno Ru. ul md Oluvenitaun
Road in Encinitas, California !'his Elk m II iss ed uumu.e thcre ts a
substantial deficiency of evidence required to support the 1mndtns
'. that have been umiade The EIR rues upon tn (Iu.qu me studies and
then dras conclusions that items in ctuesttott can be initigated to a
less than signifu..ant level
' the site designated for this project rupresents the last open space in New Eutcmnutas ii' should be l)CCi ed trout any further
development, in ,acordahce with' ih open space COIs ol the General
Plan of Encunttas New Encinti is Ire ids has the lt)wesi percentage of
' open. space in lI of Enciimiias, as documented in' the city general plan.
Although' the land under the'SDGE power hues is cited in this re6rt
as contributing to the stock-of open space in Encinii,as. this cannot be considered viable 'open space, given the publics' ëoticern' over electromagnetic fields. Further, since animal life has been forced to
concentrate on this last open site due to the encroachment of '
'developmeri't on' ndghboring parcels. this bas become a very
importanu natural habitat. -This developmental encroachment
contradicts the.'g'omls' of the. general plait for preservation of open
space and natural habitat.
Therefore the EIR is inadequate since' no provision ,has been made to
preserve open space and natural habitat in Ness- Eutciiuitas,
S - - Sincerely,'
l -177 -.
r771d 1 .
12-178
6 March 1992 146
Community Development Department -.
527 'Encinitas Blvd ,.
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
I am writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report.
(EIR) regarding the proposed Home Depot at the corner of El Camino
Real and Oliverihaiñ Road in Encinitas California. The EIR generally
relies 'upon opinion and inadequate studies rather, than fact, and
erroneously draws conclusions that iiems in question can be
miligated to a level which is 'lss than significant. This EIR has
,seri6tis flas along with a substantial deficien' of evidence
required to support any finding that have been made.
This EIR violates CEQA because it defers certain mitigation
measures to long term management plans. Atnone other sianificant
long term impacts, this project will co'mpletel> disrupt the wetlands
and there is 'no assurance that the project will iplacë' a .urrently
functioning ecosystem with one of equal producti it The-.'project
contains 'little or' no contingency plans for the problems which are
likely to occur after cOnsliuction, such, as those which occurred after
the tr consuction of the Oceanside Home Depot. The EIR addresses the
effect of this total disruption by pointing to a future management
plan to be completed by other aencies including the Army Corps of
Engineers Reliance on illusory mitigation measures such as future
management plans permits the developer to avoid hivin to address
the reality of feasible mitigation measures or project ilternati es
The existing biological impacts study is inidequ tic since long term
adverse environmental impacts ere not properly addressed. Home
Depot has a duty to mitigate all such impacts. •. '
Sincerely'
t7.Vc
. . - lo t
147. Katherine F. Merideth
Same as letter '1 45; see response to -that letter.
'6- March. 1992 , 147 '
Community Development' Departmcni
527 Enciñics Blvd.
Encinit'as, CA 92024
Sirs,
I' am writing in response to the Environritental Impa't Report
(EIR) issued by VilIens and Associates regarding the proposed Home
Depot at the corner of El Camino Real and Oli enhain Road in
Encinitas' California This EIR has serious fla s alonc ith a
substantial deficienc) of evidence required to support any ftfldinmS
that ha vi been made The ElR generally relies upon in
'studies or..opinion rather than facts,. then erroneously draws
co tic, lusions that items in question ,c4 .
an he mitt aied to i level.-which
is less than significant
A clear example of this compliance by edict is demonstrated
in the noise Study. The EIR reaches the conclusion that there is no
significant impact on rueighboring homes but establishes no technical
basis for this conclusion Project technical consultants could not or
would not scientifically examine the impact 'to the neighboring
residents, even though' there is 'a' 'clear impact on these residents.
Eaniples of Sound sources which were not, considered include '(but
are not limited to) nighttime loading dock operations, fork lift's,- trash -'
compactors, public address systems-,'heavy equipment - including ' - - •
diesel engines, 'rooftop, swamp coolers, car doors. etc. The EIR states •- ' ' - ' • -
that noise leels cannot be evaluated until* the project is built even
though accepted scientific principles exist to perform this evaluation.
'Therefore' , the existing Sound' study .-is inadequate •since - • • ' • " ' ' measurements. were not performed near- residences where Home . ' '-'
-
- • '
- Depot has a duty to initiaie: ' - - •
- '
'
- ' • - - Sincerely, - ' - •''•"_' ' - ' -
' .. ' "'
•
12179
-
-
•
148: Ronald Lieberman
Same as letter I 21; see response to that letter.
6 March 1992 148
Community Devlopnieni bertitient
527 Enci?iitas Blvd
EncinitasCA 92024
Sirs,
I am writing in response, to the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) regarding the :proposed Home Depot at the corner of El Camino
Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinivas California. The Elk generally
relies upon opinion and inadequate studies rather than fact, and
erroneously drgws conclusions that items in question can be
mitigated to a level which is"less than significant." This Elk has
serious flaws along with a substantial deficiency of evidence
required to support any, findings that Iiaye been utiade.
. This Elk violaics CEQA because it defers-certain uititigaion
measures to long term management plans. Amon other stmntftcant
long term" impacts, ..this project will completely disrupt the wetlands
and Were is no assurance that the project will replace a currentl)
functioning ecosystem with one of equal producuts ti) The project
contains •litrleo. no contingency plans for, the problems which are
likely to occur, after colistruction. such as those which occurred after
the 'construction of the Oceanside I-Ionic Depot The Elk addresses the
effect of this total disruption by pointing to a future management
plan to be completed by other a encucs uncludin the Arni> Corps of
Engineers Reliance on illusory utiutuatuon measures such as future
management plans permtts the developer to ivoid havinQ to address
the realit> of (eastble mitigation measures or protect aherna6ves.
The existing btologucal tnlpacts stud) is inadequate since long term
adverse environmental impacts" n,ere not.. properly addressed. Home
. Depot has a duly • io mitigate"all-,such impacts.'' • •
Sincerely. • • .:
•, i1i
12-180
• .
11 0 •
- ,- -S
.. 149. Susan Stomonte
Same as letter I 74; see response to that letter.
149
6 ,March 1992
Community Development Department ,
527 Encinitas Blvd S
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
In response to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) issued
for the pràposed Home Depot at the corner of El Camino '-Real and .•'
Olivenhain Road in Encinitas this EIR has serious fla a along with a
substantial deficiency of .&vidence required to support any findings ,
that-have been 'made. In addition, the' EIR enerilly relies' upon
inadequate studies or. opinion rather than facts
--Th'e incompatibility of this project with 'the adjacent residential
areas demonstrates the fallacy of the °zoiing of this area. At one time '
the project stte was far enough _away from residential areas that light
. Industrial 'uses could have been seriously considered. However, the .
ctrrent' and :proposed residential buildou't of the surfounding area
has so ,significanl' decimated the open space and wildlife habitats, .
,that this'remaining land must be preserved. The inapprppriateness .
of this project for the community in which it is. situated suggests that
ticis 'projec should not only 'be reconsidered, but the land should be
d.zned,to a less intrusive land use No mitigation for this loss of
open space has been proposed, nor has the continuity of open space
for, wildlife been addressed, . .• 5
The city General Plan further requires no - building other than
horse stables, nurseries or a nti,inta1 intusion of parking areas in a .
flàodplain. To circumvent this restriction, the project proponents
have tried to let the Olivenhain Road widening project assume
responsibility for the construction of .t retention darn in Encinitas
. Creek upstream from the project site, thereby reducing the size of • •. •
- the floodplain The subject EIR does not address this lloodpl.tin/land
use issue directly. •
.
5-.
. . • . .
- ' .
12-181
(Li
150. Eileen H. Maloney.
Same as letter I 22; see response to that letter.
15.0 6 March 1992
-
Community Developnient Department
527 Encinitas Blvd 0
Encinitas, CA 92024
0
Sirs
I am writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) issued by Willens and Associates tegardiutg the propose - d roposed Home
Depot at the corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinilas California. This EIR has serious flaws along wih a substantial deficiency of evidence required to .suppOu any findings that have been made. The EIR generally relies upon inadequate
- studies or --opinion ratWer- titan facts, then errouicously draws - conclusions that items in question can be mitigated to a level which is "less than significant.'
The EIR has also attempted to sever issues •hich• are an integral part of this study For example. although the. I-home Depot project relies critically upon the retention pond to be built in Encinitas Creek (as part of the Olvenhiaiii Road \Videnhuig project), the. 0 details of this retention pond and its impact are not included in this EIR. Further, the data taken for the Road Widening project has not 0
been updated to take into account upstream development. 0
The failure; to adequately address and analyze this toject's
S • cumulative impact is in violation of the California. Environmental
.
•
.. : -- Quality Act and muse be corrected before this EIR can he appioed. . 0
Sincerely, ...
•
0 • -
'-5
\(5,c
•
0 ' 0
0
. • .
•
a . V . . 151. Tere Ortabasi
Same as letter # 60; see 'response to that letter.
- . 151 6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527. Encinitas Blvd.,' V , • .
V
V Encinitas, CA 92024
. .
Sirs.
I am writing to express my concern over , the proposed Home
V. Pepot project,' specifically the draft Environmental Impact Report ,(EIR). . This EIR., i's compJetely, inadquate. The EIR does not have a
statement of overriding merit .is required by CEQA The city
council's desire to generate- taxV r'evetiues does not justify building
this. monstrosity on 'environmentally sensitive land nor Creating a traffic nightmare
The. EIR admits . that there will 'be an increase in' traffic, and V assigns 'traffic a grade."F after the roject is built, yet it' does not
V even take into ., account. the 'traffic which will. be .b '. created ''.the 1700 . V ,i homes'n the Arroyo .La V Costa project.: and any other 'future
development along the El'Camino Real' cdrridor. The EIR does' not
adequately address mitigation of this tr iffic problem nor does it
,address who will , pay 1 (or .the upkeep of the' roads due .to this
increased traffic, including the large. number 'of diesel trucks (100 per day) making deliveries to Home Depot.
The, EIR does admit that :traffic cannot be mitigated to a 'less . •,
' . 2 than significant effect The project should not be considered until V V
- the current' traffic congestion/problems along El Camino Real are V V " V • • V addressed. Home Depot should not be allowed to take the position V V V , • , that traffic which their "megasiore" will create is VViCII their concern."
V
, Sincerely, V ' V , V ,V ' ' : '. 'V
V 'V
' ' 12-183
152. John Cavoulas and Jennifer Cavoulas
Same as letter .1 21; see response to that letter..
. 152 6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527, Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas CA 92024
Sirs.
. S
I am writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report . - . (Elk) regarding the proposed Home Depot 'at the corner of El Camino 0
Real :and Olivenhain Road in Encinitas California The .EIR generally
relies upon opinion and inadequate studies rather than fact, and
erroneously draws conclusions that items in question' can be
mitigated to a level which is "less than significant.' This EIR has
serious- flaws along with a substantial deficiency of evidence required to support any findings that have been made,
This EIR violates CEQA . because it defers certain mitigation
measures to long term management plans. Among other significant
long term impacts, this project will, completely disrupt the' wetlands and there is no assurance, that the project will replace a currently '
functioning ecosystem with one of equal produciiviiy. The project
contains little or no contingency plans for the problems which are '
likely to occur after construction, such as those which occurred after
the construction of the Oceanside Home Depot. The EIR addresse's the
effect of this. total disruption by pointing to a future management
- plan to bç completed by other agencies, including the Army Corps of
Engineers Reliance on illusory mitigation measures such as future
management plans permits the developer to avoid h i Ing to address
the reality of feasible mitigation me isures or project Itern'iti'.es
The existing biological impacts study is inadequa te- since long term
adverse environmental impacts were not properly, tdchressed Home
Depot has a duty to mitigate all such impacts.
Sincerely,
The
5 ' Cavoulas, Family
1 24 orcha(dWood Rd.
Encinitas. CA92024 12-184
(J9t AD
1 f
. S
((I
.
Febr6ary25, 1992 - . '- .- 153. Deborah H. Wright Community Development Department
Attn: Home Depot Project This statement is 'incorrect. The EIR stated that the 527. Encinitas Boulevard, .' cumulative traffic analysis included the traffic projected.for
Encinitas CA 92024 Carlsbad 's Facilities Management Zones 11 and 12 which
include Arrdyo'La Costa. - -
Dear Sirs. ', - :. . - - The "quality of life" is -a subjective term that is interpreted
- differently by everyone, depending on each person's values. I'm writing, in. regard to the proposeHome Depot pro)ect...• I The EIR addresses potential lJnpacts on traffic circulation am a citizen of Carlsbad I-:1 ve in the Rancho Ponderosa development air quality, water quality, biological resources visual which is located on the north side of olivenha'i-n Road. . quality and noise, which are generally considered as
indicators of quality of life. - - A I feel the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) failed to address S
the adverse effect the .proposed Home Depot will have on our neigh- - borhood. When considering the increase of traffic oo.Olivenhain Road
and El Camino Real, the EIR gave no consideration to the increase of
traffic which will occur with the already approved Fieldstone project
in Carlsbad (also at Plivenhain Road and El Camino Real). Field-.-
stone is preparing to start grading on this, project about May -1992
according to CherylBradstreet-of theS"F'ie'ids tone. Company.
B I want the EIR to address the decline on our quality of life
such a '? would create How are we to maintain our health and 'Foject
well being with yet more traffic more pollution more noice and
:less natural area. Hoi are we o,rvive with so much of-what is re- - - -
quired under asphalt' I want the EIR to address these issues and I
want a,response that, favors the human race and not the, almighty
dollar in Encinitas coffers and Home Depot's cash registers
Sincerely,
- Deborah M. Wright - . - . '.. -.
''7966, Los PiflOs Circle • . - -. -
Carlsbad, CA' 92009
cc: Maura Wiegand
John Davis, S -
Gail Hano
' Anne Omsted
Pam Slater
-
S 5 12-185
154
v_ 154. Mrs. Sandra Szidak
I90 cnc
LLD 01.
Same as letter 1 .69; see response to that letter.
Patrick S. S. Murphy.
Director
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Boulevard
Encinitas, CA 92024
March 5, 1992
Dear Mr. 'Muphy,
This letter concerns the proposed Home Depot construction plan on the Southwestern
comer ofElCamino Real and Olivenhain Road.
I believe it is indeed necessary that every citizen defends what is happening in their own
neighborhood, right beyond their backyards. We most definitely want to continue to see
coveys of quail scuttling through our yards we most definitely want to wake, up to noises
made by nature rather than Diesel trucks back hoes beeping generators humming cars
starting and stopping, palettes rumbling on fork lifts, 'chain saws screeching, compactors
rattling and all those noises reverberating and echoing back from acres of roof tops and
asphalted parking areas as well as the canyo . n,%YaUs. We can not justify that our children
will have to breath air that is more polluted We can not tolerate any more traffic jams
causing further delays in commuting to our work places and schools We can not stand by
to watch the last small enclaves of unique wetlarid habitats coastal Chapparal and sage
scrub environments being destroyed.,Adverse environmental and social impacts of any
large development project need to be carefully çjd not just listed The costs for
mitigation efforts and the monitoring of such efforts in the future constitute part of that
cost. lam convinced that' in the-case of the proposed- Home Depot construction plan the
'costs of negative environmental impacts far outweigh the anticipated benefits and'Thèreásed
revenues to the City ofEncinitas. 12-106
I now want to focus on several issues of janicular concern which need to be addressed
Firstly, it is our.opinion that such a gigantic project on the proposed site is incompatible
- ' with the adjacent residential areas as well as the City ofEncinitas General Plan. This land
should never have been zoned for light industrial use. New Encinita which is already
very low in open space, should have this land preserved as such.
The enormous decline in wetlands not, only in California but in the Natioii is a whole over
the past decades is the most important reason for not considering the proposed site at all
for any kind of large construction such as the proposed Home Depot. We can no longer
afford any reduction in wetland areas due to de\-,elopment. It has been shown many times
that attempts at restoration or mitigation of lost wtIands always falls short of the desired
result. In this. instance the adverse effects on Bataquitos Lagoon due to changes
of all kinds in the water run off are an additional concern which has not been adequately
considered.- . .
According to the draft' environmental impact report the completion of this project will
result-in-an excessive increase in traffic. Traffic will operate at unacceptable levels in the
segment on El Camino Real- between Olivenhain.Rd:'andEncinitas Boulevard and also on
the segment of Olienhain between El Camin'O' Realand Amargosa even if all proposed
improvements will be implemented. It is unclear from the draft environmental report
whether the estimated increase in traffic includes the anticipated 40-50 daily dCliveries to
the Home Depot. Obviously the traffic problem can not be mitigated to insignificance.
Concomitant with the increase in traffic and the operations at the Home Depot will be an
excessive increase innoise levels. A task force frnied by a group of concerned citizens has
shown that the existing noise levels are alreadyat the limit of acceptable levels now, before
the project has been built Additional noises in the order of at least 4dB(A) are expected
from normal Home Depot operations in the vicinity of the site Increased traffic delivery
trucks fork lifts compactors cooling equipment chain saws etc will all contribute to this
increase in noise.,According to a technical noise study prepared as part of the draft EER it
was concluded that noise mitigation was necessary for seven of the residences proposed in
Planning Area2. It is therefore logical that noise mitigation is also a must for the existing
• adjacent residences to the East and South as well as future residences to theNorth.'
particularly the ones that are overlooking the project. The existing noise studies do not
consider this problem at all, neither do they include any consideration of prevailing winds
and their effect on acoustics.
I would like to conclude by sunmarizing that this letter ónty touJies on (lie many
problems of this ill-conceived development project which I consider absolutely not suited
for the proposed site. As a VCF) concerned citizen I object siron,ls to the construction of
the project because of the many inadequacies of the EIR I object to the lack of mitigation
with regard to the destruction of sensitive bioloical habitats traffic gridlock directis
caused by this project inconipatibilit) with the city's General Plan lack of visual
aesthetics excessive noise generation long term adverse impact on air quality, adverse
impact on regional water qiahiiy and much more.
Sincerely yours. -
S
1•
155. Pam Merideth
- S
Same as letter #22; see response to that letter.
6 March 1992 S 155
0
Community Development Depariiifeni
.. 527 Encinitas Blvd -
Encinitas, CA 92024 .--
Sirs;
-
I - im writing in response to the Eiis'ironmenial Impact Report
(EIR) issued by V thetis and Associates regarding the proposed Home Depot at the corner oNEl Catnino Re.tl and Oht enhain Road in
Encinita California ,:'This EIR has serious fla s along
, with a substantial deficiency of es idence required to sttppori an findings that have beerf'- made The EJR 2enerally relies upon intdequate
studies or opinion rather than facts then erroneousl> dra
w
s conclusions that items in question can be mttt aied to i
t level which is less than significant
The EIR has also attempted to sei Cr issues ii hiclt are an integràl-part of this study. For example. alihoush the- Home Depot, .
S
project relies critically upon the retention pond io be b
u
i
l
t
i
n
Encinitas .Creek (as pail àf the Ohivenhiain. Road .ViUening project). the
S S S
details of this retention pond and its impact are not included ii thi
-EIR. Further, the data. taken far, the Rod Widening project has not
been updated to take into account upstream development.
-.
- The 'failure to adequately address atd analyze this projects
. cumulative impacts is in violation of the California Environmental
Quality Act and must be corrected before this EIR can he approved.
CA
156. Jim Carbaugh
Same as letter I 21; see response to that letter.
156 6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd.
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,. . .
I am writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report
(ElR) regarding the proposed Home Depot.a the corner of El Camino
Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinitas California. The EIR generally .
relies upon opinion and in-adequate studies rather than . fact, and V
erroneously draws conclusions . that items in question can be
V mitigated to a level which is less than significant." This EIR has
serious flaws .along with a subianiil deficiency of evidence
required to support any findings that have ben made.
This EIR violates CEQA because it defers certain miigation V
measures to long term management plans. AmOng other significant
long term impacts, this project will completely disrupt the wetlands
and there is no assurance that the project will replace a. currently
uc.coning ecosystem with one of equal productiviy. The project .
contains little or no contingency plans for the problems which are V
. likely to occur -after construction, such as those which occurred after
the constrution of We Oceanside Homc Depot. The EIR addresses the
effect of this total disruption by pointing to a future management
plan to be completed'by. other agencies, -including the Army Corps. of . V .
Engineers. Reliance on illtsory mitigation measures such as •future V
management plans permits the. developer to avoid having to address V
the reality of feasible milig"átion m'easures .or project alternatives.
.
The existing biological inpacIs study is inadequaue since long term
- adverse environmental -impacts were not properly - addressed. Home Depot has a duty to nhiligate all such impacts.
'Sincerely
12-188
Id • .
. V
V 157. Robyn Carbaugh . . .
-
V Same as letter 174; see response to that letter.
V VV V V 157 V
•.
VV V
.. . 6 March 1992
Community Development Departiieni
52.7 Encinitas Blvd
V Eninitas,CA, 92024 V V V V
V
Sirs,
V
V in response to the, Environmental impact: Report V(EIR) issued
for •the prop6sd. Home Depot at the coiner of El Camino Real and V :
Olivenhain Road in Encinitas this EIR has serious flaws alone v. ith a
substantial deficiency of evidence required to support .In> findings
that have been made in addition the EIR generally relies upon
V V inadequate . studies or opinion rather thar.V Vfacts V V V V V V V V
The incompatibility of this project adjacent residential
areas demonstrates the fallacy, of the zoning' of this area At one lime
V the project' UeVwas far enough V aw' from residential areas that light V
V industrial . bses V could have been seriously considered. However, the V V V V
current, and 'proposed residential büildout of the surrounding area
has. so significantly decimated the open space and wildlife habitats, V
that this remaining land must be preser ved. The inappropriateness
of this project for the community in which it is situated suggests that
this projet should not only be reconsidered but the land should be
V V down-zoned to 'a less intrusive land.use. No iniiigaiion VfOrVVthis loss of
V ' . open space has been proposed, nor has the continuity of o,pen space
for 'Wildlife- been dressed.
The city General Plan further requires no . building other than V V V • V V -
horse stables, nurseries or. a :iiisiimo/ intrusion of parking areas in a V V V
floodplain To circumvent this restriction the project proponents
V V
V have tried let the Olivenhain Road widening project assume V V V ,
. V V
responsibility for the cOnstruction of :i retention dam in Encinitas
Creek upstream from the Vproject site, thereby reducing the size of V
the VfloodplainV V The subject EIR does not. address this floodplain/land V V
VV V V V
V
- - . use issue directly.
V Sincerely,.. • - V V 12-189 V V V
158. John Cavoulas and Jennifer Cavoulas
Same as letter I 47; see response to that letter. 158
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd.
Encinits, CA 92024
To whom it may concern,
This letter pertains to ihe"Environmental Noise Analysis" (Report No. 91-016) and the
associated Addendum (Report N 91-016) prepared by San Diego Acoustics Inc in
conjunction with the Home Depot planning activities in Encinitas.
We critically reviewed the above mentioned reports, firstly as the closest neighbors to the
planned Home Depot, secondly as scientists who spent their lives writing proposals and
evaluating similar reports. From either point of view the report is flawed, superficial and
-: does not reflect the honest quality of an unbiased scientific work.
The very..uirst sentence of ihe.inain report reveals .alieady the partial nature of the analysis.
by-saying :"This study was conducted'to show the acousiicsuiiability of the proposed
project with respect to the requirements of the City of Encinitas Department of Planning
and Land Use In other words, the report is not a fact finding -effort but a stud) to induce
a desired result Another stunning faux pas of the first report is the conclusion that No
signifmanr noise impact isexpecred'. This'conclusion was reached by neglecting among
other things to include an anal> sms of the loading dock noises The treatment of this major
source of noise appeared 4 months later in the addendum..
Following are the obvious sciemific.weak points that minimize the credibility of both
reports.,.-
1 The analytical model used assumes a square la that describes how the noise
level decreases with tncreasin.. distance from the source of noise This model assumes a
point source in an open environment with no obstructions or reflecting objccrs
The laws of acoustics however follow closely the ones that control tltepropagarion of light.
This means, that mioise oracousiic waves like light can be reflected, scattered, collimated,
funnelled of focussed. In that case 'square law' attenuation does not apply.
12-190
S
This is indeed the situation at the planned site for the'Iloitie Pepth. The flat wetland and
field areas of the planned building site are almost compkiel' su'rrounded by bluifs with
steep slopesforming a bowl shaped canyon. The noise generated by the Home Depot and
the associated traffic plus the traffic onEl.Carnino Real ad Olivctthaiii Rd. is reflected
back by the Western bluffs of Green Válleyoniothe residential areas on the Eastern,
Southernand Northern bluffs facing the wetland area. The effect is so dramatic that for
example at our residenceat 1680 Meadovglen Lane, overlooLiii the entire aria oftlte.
planned building site, the words of the sotigs that are played on rodeo days next to El
Camino Real Can clearly be heard and understood. .•
The square law fails to prLJlu the real situation as it is going to be and therefore the
model does not have the credibility jusitf>tng its use in the final decision ..A very
convincing proof of the dtrectlbtltt) of sound i.e. focussing and funndittig by reflection
are the stethoscopes and headphones used in commercial airlines. . •.
2.. The test data obtained for the report do tot contain information on the wind
direction and strength during measurement intervals. As the carrier of sound the air, and
the relative movement of air with respect to the detictor affect the results of the
r.teasurenent. On the upwind side of the noise source, the decibeF levels will always be less . .
than on the downwind side Therefore the results can be misleading depending on the wind
at a 'p:articular time. The report does not, include any discussion of this issue. . . . . ••.
3 The ,original study issued on April 16 1991 involves on[); a I hour measurement
at a particular time (11:00 am -12:00 am oriajliursday). The equipment used was a level
indicator positioned 5 feet above flat ground.
These are all questionable test conditions reducing the credibility of the data One hour
measurement data'is correlated with the vehicle countduring other times. The correlation
fails to take into account the vehicle type For example during mid afternoon heavy school
bus and Diesel truck traffic increase the noise level dramatically at the-comer of El .
Camino Real and Olivenhain Road due to the starts and stops' at the traffic lights at this
location. • .
.
. •
The measurements have to be carried out with a 'dosimete" type of device rather than a
level indicator. This would provide -a more meaningful average over the periods measured.
The noise field is accumulative and humans respond to the total flux emanaling from.iltis
: •
3
field over time periods, Therefore the noise related datitage is the physiological response to
the dose of noise received In addition the maxima and nitninta ol a tiotsc level indicator
can be strongly affected 'by changing the response time of the detector. No information on
this issue exists in the report.
The height of the level indicator i.e. 5 feet is equal of less than the hciJit of the scrubs in
mans parts of the area Titus without the description of the vegetafion surrounding the
equipment, the results have not much meaning as the vegetation can shield the detector
from noise. This is common set)se, as everybody knows that noise levels from the highways
for example can be significantly reduced by proper tree planting between the highway and
residences. . -.
.
4. The report ignores the effect of noise on (he poperties on the North. South and
East bluffs surrounding the proposed building site completely. Apparently the idea of
"square law" noise attenuation is once again applied: i.e. as-the distance from the noise
source grows the noise level goes down with the square of the, distance, and therefore the
properties on the bluffs are at distances far enough not to be.inipacled by additional noise.
This conclusion is either a severe neglect in a report which will be used to make decisions
or it is a calculated way to avoid having to face.a non-mitigatable situation. If, for example
at our residence the-noise level will exceed the allowable level to the same extent as"
reported for the border of the Pearce property, then there will be no possibility to tnitigate
this problem by a noise barrier since our property is about 100 feet aboe the proposed
construction site A fence to cover the line of sight would be impractical because of the
height of the residence.'-
S The report as it stands can not be considered final because it contains many other
statements which at the least need further qualifications For example
Loading noise only occurs during truck nioement or fork lift
operation
It is not stated what percentage of time over a period of 24 hours this occurs Also
everyone knows that Diesel trucks are most of the time left idling during loading and
unloading operations.
Loud speakers (for pa,ing) should be facing the building". . S .
. . This implies that there will be no reflection from the walls of tle biilditi.Everyone of us
has listened to the echo of our own voice in a mountainous area.
The compactor (on the East side) of the huildinui should not be
operated in a jammed condition".
-
it is hard to believe that the l:lome Depot will pay someone full time to control the noise
levels from a compactor.
Forklift warning sinals should be curtailed 10 midday
The authors of the report are apparently not aware of other pressing needs for forklift '
operation at a Honié Dept ihat take. precedence or noise control.
An interposed- earth barrier will,reduce the noise level further
The report considers only 14 new residences on the South bluffs which are proposed to be
built An earth barrier of course is of no conscquence for the higher residences on the East
and North bluffs that 'are there now.
All in all we beliee that the report does not reflect reality:' Present and future decibel
levels reported are not coining from sound data and they contradict simple common sense
A Home Depot with a projected 510 vehicle parking lot, about 7800 estimated daily trips in
and out of the parking area and 784 trips in the peak hour (4:06-pin -5:00 pm) plus fork-
lifti, loud speakers and 40-50 light and hea) dut) deliver) trucks daily is bound to exceed
the allowable and tolerable noise levels iii adjacent residential properties augmente
J.
d by the
canyon configuration of the rea This o ill therefore represent a major breach of the law
and a non-reversable environmental mistake that will degrade the quality of life, in
Encinitas in geiieral.
Therefórë, wêãsk you to stop this plan right now before it is too late and Encinitas suffers
a financial damage much larger than the anticipated revenue from taxes and sales. The
'major indirect cost 'source. to the. Encinitas city government and the residents will be:
Increased traffic problems
5
159. 1731 Willowhaven Road, Encinitas, CA 92024
Same as letter 1 45; see response to that letter.
1.59 6:.March 1992 .,...
Community Development Department
527.'En6initas Blvd .
.. Enëiniias, CA 92024
Sirs,
I am writing in response to the Envirouititeittal -Impact Report
(EIR) issued by Villeits and.Asociates regarding the proposed Udme
Depot at the corner .of El Carnitio Real 'and Olivenhain Road in
Encintias California This EIR has, seriou,;flawS along with a
substantial defictenc> of evidence required 10 support any findings
that have been made The EIR generally rAes upon in idequate
studies or opinion rather than fat. ts (lien erroneously dray 5
conclusions that items in question c in he rntti_ ited io a level which
is less than significant
A clear example of this conipli ince b1 ..dtci I demonstrated
in the noise study. The EIR re aches ihe ConciJst0it that there is no
significant impact on itetghbortn,, homes. but'%esiablishes no technical
basis for this conclusion: Project iechnical ,constIt:tiits- could not or-.' would not scientifically examine the impact to the neighboring
resident, even though there is a clear impact on these residents.
Examples of sound sources yhicli nert. 1101 considered - include (but
are not limited to) nighttime loading' dock operations, fork lifts,, trash
compactors,- public-address systems', heavy eqtiiputeiit including
• ' diesel engines, rooftop swamp coolers. car doors. etc. The EIR slate's - • • ' ' • tha,t: noise':Ievels cannot be , evaluated until the project is built, even
, •' though 'accepted scientific principles exist to perform this evaluation.
Therefore. - -the eisIing Sound udy is inadequate - since
mea'sure,,ënts were not performed tIeIr residence where Flame
Depot has a duly to mitigate
-
12-191
,//73,,
0 E,&//--,e?5.C,
160. Ugur Ortabasi
Same as letter 0 160; see response to that letter.
" 160 6 Maráh 1992
Coinmunity> Development Department
527 Ecinitas Blvd. 0
..Encinitas CA, 92024 •' 0 0 0
'Sirs,
1 am writing to comment on ilic Environmental Impact Report (EIR)- issued by Willens and Associates' for the Home Depot project proposed for the corner of El 'Camino Real "and Olivenliain Road in Encinitas California; This. EIR has serious"flaws and generally relies upon inadequate studies or opinion rather than facts, then
erroneously draws conclusions that 'items in question can be 0 . • mitigated to. a'level which is"less'-Man si'g'nificant.- Further, the EIR: . .• . •.: . 00
has included-the impact upon, neighboring residences, where it seemed advntageous for them to do so. but left ihciii out of other.
0 0 crucial issues. '
, •.
0 , 0 ,,
0 For. example. the Arroyo La Costa project was included in the
0 vie.wshed issue, but completely ignored in traffic . study. The
0 •• additional. development of-these 1700 homes in the approved ,Arroyo La Costa 'project will render any short term traffic miti...mtiOn ' efforts 0 0
0 0 by, the city useless. .
Even though the Arroyo La Costa project was ignored, this EIR
states that an excessive increase in traffic will result from the Home 0 ,••
0
• • . 0 • Depot project (Level of Service F will result out both El Camino Real as 0 , O
, well 'as Olive,nhain Road ,if this project is built as, proposed). This 0 level of service will further adversely,. impact oilier business
concerns along El Camino Real as potential%cusioniers will avoid this area due to the risk of accident and personal injury In fairness to other established businesses alon,, El Camino R61, traffic uloit,, this corridor 'should be miuigated before any additional' development is . • 0 • • 0 0
• undertaken.,' 0
0 0 0
0
Sincerely,
0 •0 0 12-192 • . •
0 /O4 LtvC44/', 0
O 90.-
0 --
0 0 •
0, -.
0 • ,
0 0 •
'
O . .
• .
. .. 161. Dorothy I. Aleson
Same as letter 68; see response to that letter.
61 6 March 1992
Community Development Deparcmc'nt
527 Encinitas 'Blvd
Encinitas, CA- 92024
Sirs, -
1 am writing to comment on the Ens'ironmenial Impact Report
(EIR) issued by Willens and Associates for the Home Depot project proposed for the corner of El. Camino Real' and Olivenhain Road in
Encinitas California. This EIR has serious flaws and generally relies upon iàadequate studies or opinion rather than facts,- then erroneously draws conclusions that items in qüesIin can be
mitigated' to a level which is less 'than significant." The EIR has
failed, to 'adequately address the cumulative énvironmental'inIpacts'
of this project and has further failed to analyze' these cumulative
impacts and is 'therefore in 'violaiion of CEQA..
. . ' ' ' '
'
•.
As an example of the failure to fully address adverse
environment-al impacts, the 'nationwide .404 permit granted by the Army Corps of Engineers was obtained by the developer without an ' accepted EIR- or at best an out-of-date study. Note that this permit
has recently' been •revoked and the developer must now reapply.
Further, in accordahôe with the Code of Federal'Resulations, the
-' proposed activity must not jeopardize a threatened or endangered " species 'as identified under the Endangered Species Act, or desttoy or
' - adversely ' modify the critical habitat 'of such species. The . gnatc'atcher - documented, as living on site even by paid project ' biologists -. will certainly be added to the endangered species list
before this project is completed. Therefore additional studies and proposals for mitigation must be undertaken at the site to prbtect 'the - '-- critical habitat of this bird.
Sincerely,
/ 12-193 p.,3, .. ean
En::it CA '92C24 .
, '
162
162. Dale S. Ashley
. Same as letter I 69; see response to that letter.
Patrick S. Murphy
Director
Community Development Departtiient
527 -Encinitas Boulevard
Encinitas-, CA 92024 0
March 5, 1992
Dear Mr. Murphy,
This letter concerns the proposed Home Depot construction plan on the Southwestern
corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road. 00
I believe it is indeed necessary that every citizen defends what is happening in their own
neighborhood.right beyond their backyards. We most definitely wahi to continue to see
coveys of quail scuttling through our yards we most definitely waiii to wake up to noises
made by nature rather than Diesel trucks, back hoes beping generators humming, cats
starting andstopping, palettes rumbling on fork lifts, chain saws screeching, compactors
rattling and all those noises reverberating and echoing back from acres of roof tops and
asphalted parking areas as well..as the canyon walls .'We can not justify that our children
will have to breath air that is more polluted We can not tolerate any more traffic jams;' causing further delays in commuting to our work places and schools We can not stand by
to watch the last small enclaes of unique etland habitats coastal Chapparal and sage
scrub environments being destroyed Adverse en ironmental and soct il imp of any
large development project need to be carefully jgd not just listed The costs for
mitigation efforts and the monitoring of such efforts in the future constitute part of that
cost I am convinced that in the case of the proposed Home Depot construction plan the
costs of negative environmental impacts far outweigh the anticipated benefits and increased
revenues to the City of Encinitas.
. . . .
.. 12-194 ..
-
•0 . .
I now want to fous on several issues of particular concern which need to be addressCd
Firstly, it is our-opinion that such a gigatitic project on the proposed site is incompatible
with the adjacent residential areas as well as the City of Encinitas General llan This land
should never have been zoned for lightindustrial use. New Ettcinita's which is already.
very low-in open space, should have this land preserved as such.
The enormoui. decline in wetlands not only in California ,but in the Nation as a whole over
the past decades is the most important reason for not cons,iderin'6 the proposed site at all
for any kind of large construction such as the proposed Home Depot. We can
,no longer
afford any reduction in wetland are-as due to development . It has been shown many times
that attempts at restoration or mitigation of lost wetlands always falls, short of the desir
e
d
result. In this particular insiance the adverse effects on Bataquitos Lagoon due ochanges
of all kinds inthe water run 'off are an additional concern which has not been adequately
considered. . -
According to the draft environmental impact report the completion of this project will
result in an excessive increase in traffic Traffic will operate at unacceptable levels in th
e
Segment on El CaminoReal between Olivenhaiñ Rd. and Encinicas Boulevard and also on
the segment of Olivenhain between El CamitioReal and Amargosa
. even if all proposed
improvements willbé implemented. It is unclear from the draft envirbiinie'otal rep
o
r
t
vheiher the estimated increase in traffic includes the anticipated 40-50 daily deliveries to
the Home Depot. Obviously the traffic problem can not be mitigated to insignificance.
Concomitant with the increase in traffic and the operations at the Hb'nie Depot will be an
excessive increase in noise. levels. A task fore.fqnned by a broup ofconcerned citizens has shown that ,the existing noise levels are already it the limit of acceptable levels now, before
the project has been built.*Additional noises in the order of at least -bdB(A) are expected
from normal Home Depot operations in the vicinity-'of the site. 'Increased traffic, del
i
v
e
r
y
trucks, fork lifts, compactors, coohingequipment, chain' saws etc. will all contribute to this
increase in noise According to a technical noise stud) prepared as part of the draft El
R
it was concluded that noise mitigation was necessar) for seven of the residences proposed in
Planning Area 2 It is therefore logical that noise mtttgatton is also a must for the existing
adjacent residences to the East and South as well as future residences to the North:
particularly the ones that are overlooking the project. The existing noise studies do not
consider this problem at all, neither do they include anconsiderat ion of prevailing winds
and their effect on acoustics.
1 would like to.conciudeby sti mina rizine tf,itt this lecer only touches on the many
probleiñs.of this ill-conceived development project which I considerabsoluiely not suited
for the proposed site. As a very concerned citizen I-object strongly ti the construction of
the project because of the mans inadequacies of the EIR I object to the lack of mitigation
with reeard to the destruction of sensitive biolojcal habitats traffic .jidlock directl
caused by this project; incompatibility wit thecity's General Plan. lack of visual
- aesthetics, excessive noise generation, long ienii adverse impact on air quality, adverse
impact on regional water quality and much hiore.
Sincerely yours.
-
V.
S
• . )Jf
163: James..8utler
•
Same as letter I 74.;. see response to that 'letter.
163 - 6 March 1992 . • .
Community Development Department .
527 Encinitas Blvd. .• . . .. ' . Encinitas, CA. 92024 .
Sirs, .
In respons 10 the.. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) issued . . for the proposed Home Depot at the, corner of El Camino "Real and . .
Olivenhain Road in Encinitas this EIR has serious flies alone with a
substantial deficiency of evidence required to support any ftndins
that have been made In addition, the ElR ener ill1 relies upon
inadequate studies or opinion rathe..r iii in I tci\
The incompatibility of this project with the adjacent residential
. areas demonstrates the fallacy of the zoning of this area. At one time the project site was far enough 4say, from residential areas that light
industrial uses could have been seriously considered However, the
current and proposed residential buildout 01 the., surrounding area
has so significantly decimated the open space and wildlife habitats
that this remaining land must be preserved The inappropriateness
of this project (Or the community in which it is situated suggests that
this project should' not only be. reconsdered, but the land should be . . .
'. •' . . ed down-zon'.to a less' intrusive land use. No mitigation for this loss of . .' . . ope'i space has been proposed, nor has the continuity of open space •
. for wildlife been addressed,
•. . . . • , • .
The city General Plan further requires no buildin, other than
horse stables, nurs'eries or a 'rni,tinta'I intrusion 'of parking areas in a ' . . . . . • . . .. -. floodplain To circumvent this restriLiion time projeci proponents
have tried to let the Olivenh tin Road widenin g project assume
. responsibility for the construction of a retention dam in Encinitas '. , . . . , • . Creek upstièam from the project site, thereby reducing the sizet of, - . . .. • . the floodplain. The subject EIR does not address this fIoodplain/lnd . . . . . , • .., . . . . • use issue directly. . .. .. . . •
12-195
164. Pietsch, 523 N.Vulcan I 14, Encinitas, CA 92024
Same as letter I 73; see response to that letter.
164 ,
6 March 1992
Community Development Department '
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024 ' ••.
Sirs',
I am writing to comment on the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) written by Willens and, Associates as part of the Home Depot
project proposed for the corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain
Road in Encinitas, California This EIR is flawed since there is a
substantial deficiency of evidence required to support the findings
that have been made. The EIR •relies• upon inadequate studies and
then' draws conclusions that items in question can he mitigated to a
less than significant level..
Since the site designated for this, project represents the last
open spacein New Encinitas, it should be preserved from any' further
development,,, in accordance with 'the open space 'goals of the General
Plan of Enciniias. New Encinitas already has the lon'cst percentage of
open space in, all of Encinitas, as documented in the city general plan.
Although the land under the SDGE power lines is.ciied in this report
as contributing to the stock of open space in Encinitas, this cannot be
considered viable open space given the publics concern over
electromagnetic fields. Further, since animal life has been forced to
concentrate on this last 'open site due to the encroachment of
'development on neighboring parcels, this has become a very
important :natural. habitat. This 'developmental encroachment
contradicts the goals of the general plan for preers muon of open
space and natural habitat
Therefore the EIR is inadequate since no provision has been made to
preserve open space and natural habitat in New Encinitas.
Sincerely, ( ,"
' '
5-Z .1/. --a- /3L
•
' . 12-196 . . .
'
'
CA 'e22.V . .
O
._.. •_-_. -.
165. Jill Wilkéns
- Same as letter # 90; see response to that letter.
165
6 March 1992 - S
Community Developineitt Department -
527 Encinitas Blvd -
En2initas,CA 92024 S
Sirs, : -- .
I arii writing to comment on the Environmental 'Impact Report
(EIR)' issued by. Willens and Associates foi the,.,Home -Depot projeci
proposed for the corner of El Camino Real and Olienhain Road in
Encinitas California This EIR has serious flaws and -generally relies
upon inadequate studies or opinion rather than facts then
erroneot'sIy draws conclusions itiai jiènis• in question.,,can! be - •. mitigated to a level which is less than significant Further, the EIR
has included the impact upon :tethboring residences where it
seemed advantageous for them to do so but heft iheiii out of other,
crucial issues
For example. the Arroyo La Costa project was included in the - viewshed. . isue, but completely, ignored in traffic study.- The
additional development of these 1,700 homes in the approved Arroyo
La Cost project will render any short- term traffic mitigation- -efforts - - by the -city useless.
. --
0
,
Even though the Arroyo La Costa project was ignored, this EIR -. states that an excessive increase in traffic s'villiesuli from the -Home • -. • . - • - Depot project- (Level, of Service F will result on both El Camino 'Real as - S - - well as Olivenhaii', Road if this project is built as proposed). This . - • - - level of service ,ill further adversely impact - other business
-. - concerns 'along El Camino Real as potential customers will avoid this . - • - area due to' the risk of accident and- personal injury In fairness to - - - -. . other established businesses along El Camino Real, traffic along this' • S - corridor- should be mitigated bèfóre any additional-, development i_s - - - - -- undertaken. - - 0 ,•,• -
- - - - - -•-• - - - 0
Sincerely, -- - •,: - - . S
12-197
- - -,- - -
v•
166. K. R. Craig
- 6 Same as letter 121; see response to that letter.
6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd.: . . .
Encinitas, CA 92024 .
Sirs,
I am writing in response to the Environmental Impact. Report
(El R) regarding the_proposed Home Depot at. the corner of El Camino
Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinitas Cal ifonia... The EIR generally
relies upon opinion and inadequate studies rather than fact, and
erroneously draws conclusions that items in question can be
mitigated to a level which is 'less than significant.' This EIR has
serious flaws--along - with a substantial deficiency of. evidence .. .
required to support any findings that have been nade.
This EIR violates CEQA. because it defers certain 'mitigation
measures to long term. managemeni, plans. Aunoitg other significant
long term impacts, this project . will completely disrupt the wetlands
and -there is 'no' assurance that the project will replace a currently
functioning ecosystem with one of equal productivity. The project
contains little :or no, contingency plans for the. problems which - are
likely to 'occur alter construction, such as those which occurred after
the construction of the Oceanside Home Depot. - The EIR• addresses the -
effect of this total- disruption by pointing to a future management
plan to be completed by other agencies, including.,the Army Corps of
Engineers.... Reliance on illusory mitigaion measures such as future
management plans permtts the di.eloper to avoid hav ing to address
the reality -of feasible mliigaion measures or project alternatives. .
The. existing biological impacts study is inadequate since long term - . .. .
adverse eivironmental impacts were not properlyaddressed. - I-lóme - - - Depot has :a'duty to mitigate. all 'such impacts. - . . . .
S
•
Sincerely,
.. 12-198
S .
•• S I mA
167 167. Isabel Padilla
Same as letter I 65; see response to that letter.
6 March 1992 -
Community Development Departinen -.
•. 527 Encinitas Blvd -
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs.
This letter will serve to itteitiorialize my comments on the
Environmental impact Report (EIR) writtenas part, of the proposed
Home Depot project at the corner of El Camino Real and Oliverhain
Road in Encinitas California The EIR is flayed due to a deficiency of
evidence required to support .in findin0s itt it Ii it e been made
Conclusions have been drawn that items in question c iii be mitigated
to a level which is less than si0nitic tnt tt ithout the requisite
supporting evidence
Variou:iiiconsistencies witti the- General Plair of Enciniia
ude incl but are not limited to,'the following.The proposed building
height of 39 feet exceeds the limit of 30 feet iboe existing , I-ac/e. set
forth inthe -g'eneral-plan. El Camiri'o Real is considered i visual
corridor although the Home Depot project as coritu,ured in the EIR
does not comply with this intent; masking trees and shrubbery
realistically will takea decade to fill out',--and in . the interim the
visual c6irridof-willi. be lost Evaporative- coolers afid a s itellite dish
-are'to be placed 0nthe,.roof of he structure which vill be visible •to
residents' or the propertie overlooking the siie;.-ihis- contravenes he
General Plan
Views from future -iiétghbórhoods such as Arroyo La Costa are . -
considered in the EIR w but vies from existingnei,hborhoods such as
Scotts Valley, Encinitas Highlands. and Rancho Ponderosa- are -not
considered. •- Although one of the project aliernatives addresses this
project deficiency, 'it considers only the impact to passersby along El
Camino Real and. not the local residents.
.•u •I_.-•_' .
••
- 12-199
- -jecI Jcicd A22
.5
anD,eco -
.
-
The EIR states that distance would diininislt the visual eyesore
to neighborhoods even though project is as little is one building
length from the nearest homes this building will hase an
approximate front face over 400 feet in leiigth which is
commensurate with the distance cited to show that the project will
be far, enOugh removed from residents to diminish any impact.
Therefore, the project is either, too large and inappropriate for this
site- or the- visual impact to the .neighboring rcidents will not be
mitigated. as stated.
The Elk further states that the p(oject design violates Encinitas
design review guidelines. For example, bright orange signs are at
oddswith Encinitas design review guidelines.:
As noted the Elk is deficient and tltcretore defective.
Sincerely, .
i[L)
• . •
H
.
. .
168 168. Richard A. Beyer
Community bevelopmeni l)ei;ariincin - Same as letter #.47; see response to that letter.
527Enciniias.Blvd.
Encinitas, CA 92024
To whom it may concern.
-
This lettr pertains to the Environmental Noise Analysis' (Report No. 91-016) and the
associated Addehdum (Report N. 91-016) prepiired by San Diego Acoustics, Inc. in
conjunction With the Home De'pot.planning acti iiies in Encinitas.
We criticall> re tewed the above mentioned reports firstly as the closest neighbors to the
planned Home Depot secondly as scientists who spent their lies writing proposals and
evaluating similar reports lroin either point 6f .view the report is flawed, superficial and
does not reflect the honest quality of an unbiased scientific work
The very first sentence of the main report reveals already the partial nature of the analysis
by saying This study was conducted to show the acoustic suitability of the proposed
project withrespect to the equirenents.of the City of.Encinitas Department of Planning
and Land Use In other words, the report is not a fact finding effort but a stud> to induce
a desired result Another stunning faux pas of the firsi report is the conclusion that No
significant noise impact is expecied This conclusion was reached b> neglecting among
other things to include an analysis of the loading dock noises The treatment of this major
source of noise appeared 4 möiñhs later in the addendum.
0 0
FoHowinj a"re.the obious scientific weak points that minim ize the credibility of both
" .• 0 reports. ' 0 • • 0 • -
I The analytical model used assumes a square law"'that describes how the noise
level decreases with increasin, distance from the source of noise This model assumes a
point source in' an open environment with no obsiructions or reflecting objects. •
-
. .
The, laws of acoustics however follow closely the ones that control the propaga tion of light.
This means that noise or acoustic waves like light can be reflected scattered collimated
12-200 funnelled of focussed. In that case "square law" attenuation does not apply. 0 •
This is indeed the situation aithe planned she for the I lOiitc. DLpoi flte blat wetland and
field areas of the planned building site are almost coiipleiely surrounded by bluffs with
steep slopes forming a bowl shaped canyon. The noise generated by the I-Ionic Depot and
the associated traffic plus the traffic on El Camino Real and Oliveultain Rd. is reflecied
back by the Western bluffs 'of Green Valle), onto the rest&niial arLas on the Eastern,
Southern and Northern bluffs facing the wetland area. The effect is so dramatic that for
example at our residence at 1680 Meadowglen Lane, overlooking the entire area of the
planned building site, the words ofthe songs that are played on rodeo days next to El
Camino Real can clearly be heard and understood.
Tli square law fails to predict the real situation as it is going to be and therefore the
model does not hate the credibility justify in its use in the final decision A very
convincing proof of the directibility of sound i.e. focussing and funnelling by reflection
are the stèLhoscpes and headphones used in commercial airlines.
The test data obtained for the report do not contain information on the wind
direction and strength during measurement iniers 'tIc As the carrier of sound the air, and
the relative movement of air with respect to the detector affect the results of the
measurement On the upwind side of the noise source the decibel levels will always be less
than on the downwind side. Therefore the results can be rnisleadingdepending on the wind
at a particular time The report does not include any discussion of this issue
The original-study issued on April 16, 1991 involves only a 1 hour measurment
at a particular time (11:00 am -12:00 am oil a Thursday). The equipniéitt used was a level
indicator positioned 5 feet above flat ground.
These are all questionable test conditions reducing the credibility of the data. One hour
measurement data is correlated with the sehicle count during other times The correlation
fails to take into account the vehicle type For example during mid afternoon heavy school
bus and Diesel truck traffic increase the noise level dramatically at the corner of El
Camuio Real and Olivenhatn Road due to the starts and stops at the traffic lights at this
location. •. .
The measurements have to be carried out with a."dosimeier" type of device rather than a
level indicator. This would provide a iiiore meaningful average over the periods measured
The noise field is accumulative and humans respond. to the total flux emanating from this . . .
•
field over time periods. •lheiefore the noise related ainaee is the pliysiologicalresponse to
the dose of noise received. In addition th. maxima and utitituta of a iloise level indicator
can be strongly affected by changing the rcspo:isc time of the dctcctor No information on
this issue exists in the report
The height of the level indic nor i.e. 5 let is equal of 'less di an the hc..i,ht of the scrubs iii
many parts of the area Thus' without the description of the vegeiation surrounding the
equipment. the resOlts have not much nieaning as the vegetation can shield the detector
from noise. This is common sense, as everybody knows that noise levels from the highways
for example can be significantly reduced by proper tree planttn, between the highway and
residences.
4 The report tgnoies the effect of I1oIsc on the properties on the North South and
East bluffs surrounding the proposed building site completel) Apparently the idea of
square law noise attenuation is once aatn applied t e as the distance trom the noise
source grows the noise le'. el goes down with the square of the distance and therefore the
properties on the bluffs are at distances far eiiou,h not to be impacted by additional noise
Thts conclusion is either a severe neglect in a report which will be used to make decisions
or it is a calculated way to avoid having to face a non mitigatable situation If, for example
at our residence the noise level will exceed the allowable level to the same extent as
reported for the border of the Pearce property, then there will be no possibility to mitigate
this problem by a noise barrier since our .property is about 100 feet above the proposed
construction site A fence to cover the line of sight would be impractical because of the
height of the residence:
5 The report as it stands can not be considered final because it contains mans other
statements which at the least need futhcr qualifications. For example
" Loading noise only occurs during truck movement or fork lift
- operation.
It is not stated what percentage of-time over a period of 24 hours this occurs. Also
everyone knows that Diesel trucks are most of the time left idling during loading and
unloading operations.
" Loud speakers (for jaiitg) should be facing the building".
This implies that there will he no reflection from the walls of the building. Everyone of us
has listened to the echo of our own voice in a itiountainous area.
The compactor (on the East side) of the building should not be
operated in a jammed condition'.
It is hard to believe that the Home Depot vill pay someone full time to control the noise
levels from a compactor.
' Fork-lift waril sigtials should b curtailed to.niidday'.
The, authors of the report are apparently not aware of other pressing needs for forklift
operation at a Home Depot that take precedence over noise control.
"An interposed earth barrier will reduce the noise level further.
The. I port considers only .14 new residences on the South bluffs which are proposed to be
buili.- An earth barrier of course is of no consequence for the higher residences -on the East
and-Nrth bluffs that are there now.
.
All tn all we believe that the report does not reflect reality. Present and future decibel
levels reported are not coming 'from sound data and the), contradict simple common sense.
A Home Depot with a projected 510 vehicle parking lot about 7800 esttntated daily trips in
and out of the parktng area and 784 trips tn th. peak hour (4 00 pm -5:00 pm) plus fork
lifts loud speakers and 40.-50 light and heavy duty delivery trucks daily is bound to exceed
the allowable and tolerable noise levels in adjacent residential properties augmented by,the
canyon coicfiguracton csf the area This will therefore represent a major breach of the law
and a non 4reversable environmental mistake that wtll degrade the quality of life in
Enctnitas in general
Therefore we ask you to stop this plan right now before it is too late and Encinitas suffers
a financial damage much larger than the anticipated revenue from taxes and sales. The
major indirect cost snhirr in the Pnrnii,, r',,, i iS ...,.... II h'. -'_'--------------------..........&•%J 5%J%IlIflIIt UJ4U (Ilk. lk.aluLlII SVIII tiC.
Increased traffic problems
f
., •/ )'h -. //7( 'IIitt.----
169. Wendy H. Craig
169 Same as letter I 60; see response to that letter.
6 March 1992
- Community Development Department -
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
I am writing to express my concern. over the proposed Home
Depot project, specifically tIme draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR). This EIR is completely inadequate. The EIR does not have a
statement of overriding merit, as required by CEQA. The city
council's desire to generate tax revenues does not justify building
this monstrosity on environmentally sensitive land nor creating a
traffic nightmae.
The EIR admits that. there will -be an increase in traffic, and
assigns traffic a grade "F after ilte project is built, yet it does not
even take into account the traffic w.hich will be created by the 1700
homes in the Arroyo' La Costa project, and any other future
development along the El Camino Real corridor. The EIR does not
adequately address mitigation Of this traffic problem. nor does it
-address who will pay for the upkeep of the roads due to this
increased traffic, including the large number of diesel trucks (100
per day) making deliveries to Home Depot.
The. EIR- does admit that traffic cannot be mitigated to a "less
than -significant" effect The project should not be considered until
the current traffic congestton/probleiiis along El Camino Real are -'
addressed Home Depot should not be allowed io take time position
that traffic which their megastore will create is mom their. concern
Stncerely,
'L/Ztr
. . - . . 12-201
• .
Ow. I . •' . 13,.
170. Kathleen Fusbie
Same as letter I 90; see response to thatletter.
i-b 6 March 1992
Community Development Department .
527: Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024 •0
-
.
Sirs . . . .
I am writing to comment on the Environmental Impact Report . . .
. . (EiR) issued,. by Willens. and .-Associat' 'for 'th'e Home Depot project proposed for the corner of El Camino Re a[ and Oliveuhain Road in Encinitas Califonia. This ElR' has serious flaws and -generally relies. . . . . upon inadequate studies or opInio rather than facts then -erroneously-'draws conclusions that items in question can be miugated to a level which is less than significant Further. the EIR has included the impact upon neighboring residences where Ju seemed advantageous for them to do so but left them out of other crucial issues:
For. example, the Arroyo .La' Costa project. wis.- inclided in the . vicwshe4', issue. completely- '.ignored'-'in traffic study. ' The .,but.
. . additional deveiopment 6f1 1700 homes in the approved Arroyo La Costa project will render any short term traffic mitigation efforts
. by the city use1es.
Even, though the Arroyo' La Costa project was ignored, this ElR states that an excessive increase in traffic will result Jrbm the Home Depot project (Level of Service F will result on both El Camino Real as
well as Olivenhain Road if this project is built as proposed) This level .,f:-servIce will further adversely impact other business
- 0 - • concerns along El Camino Real -as 'pOtential customers will avoid this.
- • - . •
area due to the risk of accident and personal injury In fairness to other established businesses along El Camino Real traffic along this -' - corridàr should be mitigated before any additional development is - -, . . 0 • undcrt3kcn. • - -. -- • •
-'
. .•
. •
. - 0 -. • SincereIy - •
-
- -LL.- , .. .. 0 12-202
- 0• ;-2.P, 1.
'. : • - Yoe C ,, fg,. ..,,i
171. Kathleen Fusbie
Same as letter I 65; see response to that-letter.
6 March 1992 171
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Bhd
Eicinitas. CA 92024
Sirs,
This letter will serve to memorialize my continents on the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) written as part of the proposed
Home Depot project at the .corner of El Camino Real- and Olivenhain
Road in Encinitas, California. The EIR 7is,flawed due to a deficiency of
evidence ,reqtired to support any findings that have been made.
Conclusions have been drawn that items inquestion can be mitigated
to a level which is less than signific nm without the requisite
supporting evidence. .
Various inconsistencies with the General Plait of Encinitas
include but are not limited to the following. The proposed building
height of 39 feet exceeds the limit of 30 feet above xtlsimltg grade set
fo rzl in the general. plan. El Camino Real is considered-a "visual
corridor although the Home Depot project as contt..ured in the EIR
does not comply .with this . intent; . .maskimtg. trees- and shrubbery
realistically will take a decade to fill out and in the interim the
visual corridor will be lost. Evaporative coolers and a satellite dish
are to.-be placed on the roof of the structure which will be visible to
resident's of the , properties overlooking ilue site; this contravenes the
General Plan., :
. .,,Views from -future neighborhoods such as Arroyo La, Costa are
id consered in the ElR but views from existing neighborhoods such as
Scous Valley Encinitas Highlands and Rancho Ponder osa are not
considered Although one of the projeci altmrn itu'.es addresses this
project deficiency; .it considers only the impact to passersby along El Camino Real and riot the 'local residents; -.
12-203
1•
,The EIR stales that distance would diminish- the visual eyesore
to neighborhoods, even though project is as little as one building
length from the nearest homes; this buildid will have' an
approximate front face over 400 feet in knt.uli wlilch is
commensurate with the di'stance ciied'to show ihat tle project will
be far enough removed from residents to diminish my impact:
Therefore, the project is either too large and inappropriate .for this
site or the visual impact to the neighboring resideimis will not be
mitigated, as stated.
The EIR further states that The projeci' design violates Encinitas
design review guidelines For e insple brm lit orange signs are at
odds with Encinitas design review ,uideltnes
As noted time EIR is deficient and therefore defective.
Sincerely
.-
I
172. Cindy L. Byat, 1231 Green Orchard, Encinitas, CA
Same as letter # 22; see response to that letter:
6 March L992 172
Community' Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
I am writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report
- •(EIR) issued by Willens and Associates regarding the proposed Home
Depot at the corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road in
Encinitas California This EIR has serious Il iss along with a
substantial deficiency of evidence required to support any findings
that have been made. The EIR generally relies upon inadequate
studies or opinion rather - than facts, then erroneously draws
conclusions that items in question can be mitigated to a level which
is "less than significant.
The EIR has also attempted, to seer issues which are an
integral part of this study. For example, although the Home Depot
project relies critically upon the retention pond to • be built in
Encinitas Creek (as part of the Olivenhain Road Widening project), the
details of this retention pond and its impact are not included in this
EIR. Further, the data taken for the Road Widening project has not
• - •
been updated to take into account upsireaun development.
•
The. failure to adequately .'address and -analyze this project's
cumulative impacts Js in violation of the California ' Environmental
Quality Act and must be corrected before this EIR c in be approved
Sincerely
kIJ
I ?- 6 ( ii
• 12-204 . •, .
--
- 173
L-naa
7Offmãa
Patrick S Murphy.
Director
Community Development Depaiiment
527 .Ericinitas Boulevard
Encinitas, CA 92024
March-5,:1992 -
Dear Mr. Murphy
This letter concerns the proposed Home Depot construction plan on the Southwestern
corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road
I believe it is indeed necessary that every citizen defends hat is happening in their own
neighborhood right beyond their backyards We most definitely want to continue to see
coveys of quail scuttling through our yards we most detinitely want to wake up to noises
made by nature rather than Diesel trucks back hoes beeping generators humming cars
starting and stopping palettes rumbling on fork lifts.,chain saws screeching compactors
rattling and all those hoisesreverbdraiin,.z,aiid echoing back from acres of roof tops and
asphalted parking areas as well as the canyon ails We can not justify that our children
will have to breath air that is more polluted We can not tolerate any more taffic jams
causing further delays in commuting to our work places and schools We can not stand by
to watch the last small enclaves of unique wetland habitats coastal Chapparal and sage
scrub environments being destroyed Ad erse en ironmenral and social impacts of any
large development project need to be carefully çQjgd not just liste& The costs for
mitigation efforts and the monitoring of such efforts in the furure constitute part of that
coscI am convinced that in the case of the proposed Home Depot construction plan the
costs of negative environmental impacts far outweigh the anticipated benefits and increased
revenues to the City of Eninita.
173. Charles and Karen Benedict
Same as letter I 69; see response to that letter.
12-205
mow want to focus on severalissues of particular. concern which-,[ eed to be addressed
Firstly, it is our opinion that such a gigantic project on the proposed site is incompatible
with the adjacent residential areas as wc1l as the City of Encinitas General Plan This land
should neyer have been zoned for liglu industrial use New Encinitaswhich is already
very low in open space should have this land preserved as such
The enormous decline in weilands not only .in California but in the Nation as a whole over
the past decades is the most important reason for not considering the proposed site at all
forany kind of large construction such as the'proposedl-lonie Depot. We can no longer
afford any, reduction in wetland areas due to development . It has been shown many times
that atternptst restoration or mitigatioti of lost wetlands always falls short of the desired
result. In this particular instance the adverse effééts on Baaquitos La'goon due to changes
of all kinds in the water run off are an additional concern which has not been adequately
considered.
According to the draft environmental impact report the completion of this project will
result in an exces ie increase in traffic Traffic will operate at unacceptable levels in the
segment on El Camino Real between Olivenliain Rd.and Encinitas Boulevard and also on
the segment ofOlivenihain between El Camino Real and Amargosa , even if all proposed
improvements will be implemented. It is unclear from the draft environmental report
hether the estimated increase in traffic includes the anticipated 40-50 daily deliveries to
the Home Depot Obviousl) the traffic problem can not be mitigated to insignificance
Concomitant with the increase in 'traffic and the opeations at the Home Depot will be an
excessive increase in noise leels A-. task force tomied by a group of concerned citizens has
shown that the existing noise levels are alreadv at the limit of acceptable levels before
the project has been built Additional noises in the order of at least 4dB(A) are expected
from normal Home Depot operations in the emit) of the site Increased traffic delivery
trucks fork lifts compactors cooling equipment chain saws etc will all contribute to this
increase in noise Aicordino to a technical noise stud) prepared as part of the draft EIR it
was concluded that noise mitigation was necessary for seen of the residences proposed in
Planning Area 2 Ii is therefore logical that noise mitigation is also a must for the etsting
adjacent residences to the East and South as well as future residences to the North
pañicularly the ones that are ovel 'ooking the project. The existing noise studies-do not
consider thisproblem at all, neither do they include any consideration of prevailing winds
and their effect on acoustics. . . .
174. Richard A. Beyer
- Same as letter I 65; see response to that letter.
174
6 March 1992
Community Development Department -
527 Encinitas Blvd
'Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
This. letter will serve to memorialize my comments on the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) written as part of the proposed
Home Dpot projecç' at the corner. of, El Camino Real and Olivenliain
Road in Encinitas, California. The EIR 'is flawed due to it deficiincy of
evidence required to support any findings that have been made.
Conclusions have been drawn that items in question can be mitigated
to a level, which is "less than siniiicant".. without the, requisite supporting evidence.
Various inconsistencies with, the General "l'lauu ' of Encinitas
include, but are not Iinited to, the following. The proposed building
height of 39 feet exceeds the limit of '30 feet above e,ri.cgin' grade set
forth in the general plan. El Camino Real is considered it "visual ' corridor", although the :Home Depot project as configured in the EIR
-does not, comply with this intent: inaskin- --trees and shrubbery
realistically will take a' decade to fill out, and in the interim the
visual corridor will be lost Evapprailve coolers anq it satellite dish
are to be placed on the roof of the structure hi It will be isible to
residents of the properties overlookin the site: Illis coitirasetues the
General Plan
Views from future neighborhoods such is Arro) o La Costa are
considered in the EIR but views from ex isfihg itct,jtbouhoods such as
Scotts Valley Encinitas Highlands 'ad Rancho Ponderosa . are not
considered Although one of the project alterti its u.s addresses this
- project 'deficiency, it considers only the impact to pissershy along El - - - • • -• - Camino Real and not the local residents.
• • , : • -- ' 12-206 • . .
. .
The EIR slates that distance would diminish 11w visual eyesore
to neighborhoods; even though project is as liitle as uiie, building
length from lte nearesi homes; this building will have an
approximate front face over 400 feet ill leiigih.-' which i
commensurate with the distance cited to show thair. the project will
be far eough removed from res•ident to diminish any impact.
Therefore, the project is either too large and inapproriaIe for this
site or the visual impact to the neighboring residents avill not be
mitigated as stated.
-
The EIR further states that the project design violates Encinitas
.design review .guidelines. For eaniple. bright orange signs are at
. odds with Encinitas design review guidelines ...--
As noted thes EIR is deficient ilid therefore defective.
Sincerely,
A
tc rd)
-
- 175. John and Jennifer Cavoulas
Same as letter I 64; see response to that letter. 175
.6 March 1992
Community Development Department .
527 Encinitas Blvd .
Encinitas CA 92024
Sirs,
I am writing to comment on the Environmental Impact Report
. (EIR) regarding -tIre proposed Home Depot at the corner of El Camino
Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinitas. This EIR has a substantial deficincy of evidence required to support tIre findings that have been made. -The EIR generally relies upon inadequate studies rather than facts, then erroneously draws conclusions that items in question. can be mitigated to a less tli.in stiiificjnt level.
Approval of the Home Depot project would subvert, the intent of the Clean Water Act No stud) was conducted to slro the impact
of water runoff from this project into Bataquitos Lasoon.
Further', the . general plan of Encinitas requires that no development should redude wetland area, although this project ih conjunction with the retention dam planned for the upstream side of
- • - Encinitas creek will reduce wetland area. -
Therefoe the existing biological iiipacis study is inadequate.
Home Depot has 'a duty to, mitigate any impact on l3ataquitos' Lagoon. - - -
Sincerely,'
"v The Cavoulas Family
1624 Orchard Wood Rd
Encinitas, CA 92024 •
12-207 . . .
• . .
.176. Lisa Owen '
Same as letter I 74; see response to that letter.
6 March 092 . 176 :.
"Community Development Department
57 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024 . .
Sirs,
In response to . the EnvironmeniaF Impact Report (EIR) issued
for the proposed Home Depot at the 'corner of El Camino', Real and '
Olivenhain Road in Encinitas this EIR has serious tlays along with a
substantial deficiency of evidence required to support an-y,.findings
that have been made In addition the EIR generally relies upon
inadequate studies or opinion rather than f ict
The Incompatibility of this project with the idj u_cut residential
areas dimontrates the falltcy of the zoning of this area. At one time
the project site was far enough as i> from residential areas that light
industrial uses could have been seriously considered However, the
currents-' and proposed residential 'buildbut of the surrounding area*-,'S
has so significantly -decimated' the open 'spac'è arid wildlife habitats, that this remaining land mts 13'epresrved. The inappropriateness
Of this project for the community in which ii is situated suggests that this,: project. should not only be reconsidered, but the land should be .
ddwn-zoned to a less intrusive land use. No mitigation for this loss of . . . . .
open space has been proposed; n_Or has the coiltinüitS' of open space
for wildlife been addressed
The city -General Plan further requires no building other than
horde stables, nurseries or a ,n'ini,nal intrusion of parking areas in a
floodplain: To circumvent this restriction, the project proponents . .'
have tried :to let the Olivcnhain Road widening project asstime
responsibility -for the Construction of a retention dam in Encinitas
5 Creek upstream from the project site.' thereby reducing the size of
S the floodplain. The subject EIR does not address this - floodplain/land .
use issue- directly. . . . . .
Sincere'. 12-208
i5L LLj- . ...•- . . 'S
6 March 1992 177
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
I am writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) regarding the proposed Home Depot at the corner 01 El Camino
Real and Olivenhairt Road in Encinitas 'Cal ifornia. The Elk generally
relies upon opinion and inadequate studies rather than fact, and
erroneously draws conclusions that items in question can be
mitigated to a level which is less thait significant. This EIR has
serious flaws along with a substantial deficiency of evidence
required to support any findings that have been macic,
This EIR violates CEQA because it defers certain uiitigation
measures to long term manageAlent plans. Among other significant
long term impacts, this project vill completely disrupt the wetlands
and th'ie is no assurance •that the project 'will replace a currently'
funcioning 'ecosystem with. on of equal productivity. The project
contains little or no' contingency plans for the " p'roblei'its which are
likely to 'occur after, construction, such as those which occurred after
the construction of the Oceanside Home Depot. The EIR addresses the
effect of this total disruption by pointing to a future management
plan to be completed by other agencies.' including the Army Corps of
Engineers Reliance on illusory mitigation measures such as future
management plans permits the developer to avoid having to address
the .tCality of feasible mitigation measures or project aiie,natives."
The existing biological impacts study is intdequate since long' term
adverse environmental Impacts were not properly addressed. -Home
Depot has a duty to mitigate all such impacts.
Sincerely,
S S
12 —2 09
'5.
S. . 14JkJOfrSwr .. . S .
. '--' . - - 178 . . S .. . . 178. Tere Ortabasi of K inder Magic Software
. . --.
. . Same as letter 1 22; see response to that letter.
.... ,. 0 .• .
6 March '1992 .
Community Development Department
527' Encinitas Blvd ' •- . Encinitas CA. 92024 -' S
Sirs . . . . . 0
- ani writing in response to the Environmental Impact. Report
(ElR) issued by Willens ''and Associ'ates. regardi'n-. the proposed Home o
Depot at-,the corner of El Camino''Real,and Olivenliamn Road in
Encinitas California This EIR has serious flaws along with a
substantial deficieny of evidence required to support an> findings
that have been made The ElR generally relies upon inadequate
studies or opinion rather than facts then erroneousl> draws
conclusions that items in question can be mlimimg tied to a 'level ,,.which
is less than significant.
The 'EIR has- also attempted to sever issues which are an • - S
integral part of this; study. For example although the Home Depot
'roject relies critically upon the retention pond to b6 -'built in 0 Encinitas Creek (as part of the Olivenh'ain 'Road Widening project), .the • details of this retention pond and its impact are, not included in this
EIR Further the data taken for the Road Widening projeci has not
been updated to take into account ,upsireanv development
The..'failure to adequately address and anal> ze this projects
cum u1tive impacts is in violation of the Culif6tnia Environmental . •
Quality Act: and must,- be corrected before this ElR-. can :-be"a'pprov'ed.. - - S -
Sincerely,
S
- - • - -. S - •
S
12-210
179
179. Jeanine L. Eberhardt
/7/i Same as letter S 69; see response to that letter.
Patrick S Murphy
Director
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Boulevard
Encinitas, CA 92024. .
March 5. 1992 .
Dear Mr. Murphy,
This letter concerns the proposed Home Depot construction plan on the Southwestern
corner of ElCarñino Real and Oliveiihain Road.
I believe itis indeed;nëcçssary that ever) -citizen defends what is happening in their own
neighborhood, right beyond their backyards. We most definitely want to continue to see
coveys of quail scuttling through our yards, we most defiltitely want to wake up to noises
made by nature rather than Diesel trucks back hoes beeping generators humming cars
starting and stopping,;palettes rumbling on fork -lifts, chain saws screeching, compactors
rattling and all those noised reverberating and echoing back from acres of roof tops and
asphalted parking areas as well as the canyon walls. We can not justify that our children
will have to breath air that is more polluted We can not tolerate any more traffic jams
causing firther delays in commuting to our work places and schools We can not stand by
to watch the last small enclaves of unique wetland habitats, coastal Chapparal and sage
scrub environments being destroyed Adverse environmental and social impacis of any
large development project need to be caretully gjd not just listed The costs for
Mitigation efforts and the monitoring of such efforts in the future constitute part of that
cost I am convinced that in the case of the proposed Home Depot construct on plan the
costs of negative environmental impacts far outweigh the anticipated benefits and increased
revenues wthe Cityof Encinitas. - 12-211 . . .
1• . O
I now want to focus on seeral issues of paoicutar concern which need to be addressed.
Firstly, it is our opinion that such a 012a. liroject on the proposed site is incompatible
with the adjacent. residential areas as wel!.': the City of Encinitas General Plan. This land
should never have been zoned for light induerial use. New Enciiiicas which is already
very low in open space, should have ihis lard preserved as such. .
The enormous decline in wedands not only in California but in the Nation as a whole over
the past decades is the most important reason for not considering the proposed site at all
for any kind of large construction such as the proposed Home Depot. We can no longer
afford any reduction in wetland-areas due to development . It has been shown many times
that attempts at restoration, or mitigation of lost wetlands always falls short of the desired
result. In this particular instance the adves..' effects on Bataquitos Lagoon-due to changes-
ofall kinds in the water run off are an additional concern which has not been adequately -
consideted
According to the draft environmental impact report the completion of this project will
result in an excessive increase in traffic Traffic tic will operate at unacceptable levels in the
segment on El Camino Real between Ohienliain Rd and Encinitas Boulevard and also on
the segment of Olivenhain between El Camino Real and Amargosa even if all proposed
improvements will be implemented. It is unclear from the draft environmental report "
whetier the estimated increase in traffic includes the anticipated 40-50 daily:deliveries to
the Home Depot. Obviously the traffic problem can not benitigaied to insignificance.
Concomitant with the increase in traffic and ihe operations at the Horiie Depot will'bé an
excessive increase in noise leels A task biLe formed b) a group of concerned citizens has
shown that the existing noise levels are at iv at the limit of acceptable levels now,before
the-project has been buil. Addi(ional noises in the order of at least 45dB(A) aré'èxected . . '.
from normal Home Depot operations in the vicinity of the site Increased traffic delivery
trucks, fSrk.lif compactors, cooling equi -n.-nt, chain'saws etc. will all contribute toihis
increase in noise According to a technical noise studs prepared as part of the draft EIR it
was concluded that noise mitigation was necessary for seen of the residences proposed in
Planning Area 2. It is therefore loicaI that noise miti2acion is also a must for theexisting - -
adjacent residences to the East and South II as future residences to the North - -
particularly the ones that are overlooking iii: project. The existing noise studies do-not '
consider this problem at all, neither do thc include any consideration of prevailing winds
and their effect on acoustics.
.
I would like to conclude by summarizing that thiskiter only touches on the many
problems of thisill-coneived development poject.vtiich I c'oisider absolutely not suited
for.the proposed site. Asa very concerned citizen lobjeci sironly to the construction of
the project because of the many inadequacies of the EIR I object to the lack of rniiiganon
with reard to the destructiotiof sensitive biolOicl habitais, trãfuic eridlock.directly
caused by this project incompatibility ith the city's General Plan, lack of visual
aesthetics, excessive noise generation. lon- terni adverse impact on air quality, adverse
imact'on regional ter quality and niuch móe.
Sincerely yours.
.
.
U . ....
. . .
•
ISO 55
5-- - 180. Linda Bush
Same as. letter I 90; see response to that letter..
6 March :1012".
S .
Community Development Department,. . . . 527 Encinitas Blvd . . . ., En'cinitas, CA 92024 . . .
.
Sirs, . . .
.
I am writing to comment on the Environmental Impact Report - (EIR) issued b. Willens and Associates for the Home Depot project
. .. . proposed ,for., the corner -of- El Camino Real and Olivenitain Road in -
Encinitas California This EIR has serious flaws and generally relies upon inadequate siudies or optnion r muter lIt in fact's,."then erroneously drsss c0nc1usi0im55 that items in - question can be: mitigated to a level which is less than significant Further, the EIR has-jndluded the impact. upon neighboring residences where it
seemed advantageous for them to do so but left thuit out of other,
- crucial isues. -. . - -• S.. S . S - -
For example the Arroyo La Costa project as included in the viewshed issue but completely ignored in traffic study. The S additional development of tlse 1700 homes in the approved Arroyo . S La Costa proje will retider any short term iraffic mitigation efforts
.- - by th .city-useless.. - - .• -
- :
- - Even though the Arroyo La Costa project was ignored, this EIR states -that an excessive increase in ii:affic will. result from the Home S 5 - Depot- prjèc (Level of Service F will result on both El Camino Real as
well as Olivenhain Road if this project is built is proposed) This level of service v. ill further adversely impact other business concerns along El Camino Real as potential customers will as oid this area 2due to the risk of accident and person ii injury. In fairness to other established businesses aIon, El Camino Real, traffic alon this
- corridor should be mitigated before any additional development is - - - -- - - -- - S - - - - undertaken. - - • •
- -
- -•
-. - - Sincerely,
• -
116 t5 1 -
-
- . -
- - 12-212 - • - -
- -
181 181. C. Lorrest
Same as letter 1 65; see response to that letter.
6 .March.1992
Communu) Development Dp riot it
521 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas CA 92(124
Sirs,
This letter will serve to - nicutiorialize my Counoleutis on the
Environmental Inip iLl Report (ElR ) wriiien as part at the proposed
Horne- Depot pojct at the corner of El Camino Real and Ohivenhain
R id in Encinitas, California. The EIR is flawed duc to a deficiency Of
evidence required to support any findings that have been made.
Conclusions have been drawn that keins in question can be mitigated
tol a - level which is 'less than sinific:tAt. without the requisite ,. •. supporting evidence.
Various inconsistencies -with - the General Plait- of Encinitas
include, but are not limited to, the following. The proposed building
height of 39- feet éx'Ceeds the liiiiut of 30 feet above existing grade set
forth in the general plan. El Canuino Real- is considered a "visual
corridor", although the Home Depot project as configured in -the EIR
does not comply -v:ith this inteuti: -toasking trees and shrubbery
realistically will take a decade to fill out, and in the interim the
visual corridor will be lost. Evaporative coolers and a satellite dish
are to be placed -ott the roof of the structure which will be visible to
residents of-- the properties overlooking thud site: this cohiravenes the
General Plan.
Vieiss from future net0hborhoods such as Arro)o La Costa are
considered in the '-EIR; but views from exusttn neighborhoods such as
Scotts Valle) Encinitas Highlands and Rancho Ponderosa 1.are not
considered Although one of the project 'alternative addresses this
project deftciency, it considers 'only the impact, to p tcerb> uhon., LI
Camino Real and not the local residents.
. - - - 12-213 . .
)
The EIR states thav'distance would diminish lie visual eyesore
to neighborhoods even though project is is little i one bulldlnb
length front the nearest ItOUlLS this buuldin g situ I haiL an
approximate Trout face over 400 feet in Icheult. which i
commensurate- with the ditance cited to show tlti1- the project will
be far 'enough removed from reSidents to duiritnish atty impact. 0
. 0
Therefore the project is either. too large and inappropriate for this
site or. the. visual impact to the neighboring, residetuts will not, be
mitigated as stated.
The EIR further states that the project violates Encinitas . . .
design review guidelines For umple bright orange signs are at
odds with • Encinitas design eviess- iUidelities
As noted the EIR us deftctLultand uherelore dekLttse
Sincerely, . .-. . 0 . . 00 0 0•• . •0
/73,4i,z4)ØJ4t,fr'E,j 0
ki9.1'75,6 0' '•• 0 . . 000 ' 0 '0
On
182. Dr. Jeffrey Owen
Same as letter I 45; see response to that letter.
6 March 1992 182
Community 1eveIoprnent Department
527 Encinitas -Blvd -
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs.
I am writing in response to the Environmental impact Report
(EIR)- issued by \\'illens .and Associates regarding the proposed Home
Depot at the corner of El Camino Real and Olienhain Road in
Encinitas, California. This EiR has serious flaws along with a
substantial deficiency of evidence required to support any findings
that have been made; ThEIR generally relies upon inadequate
studies or opinion rather than facts, then erroneously draws
conclusions that items in quetion can he mitigated to a level which
is 'less than significant."
A -clear example of this compliance by edict is demonstrated
in the noise Study. The EIR reaches the conclusion that there i no
significant impact on neighboring homes, but esiablishes no technical
basis . for -this. conclusion: Project technical consultants could not. or
would not scientifially examine the impact to the neighboring
residenis, 'even though there- i a clear impact on these residents.
Exantples of sound sources which ware not considered include (but
are not limited to) nighttime loading dock opettiOmts, fork lifts, trash
compactors public address systems heavy equipment including
diesel engines rooftop swamp coolcrs car doors eic The EIR states
that noise levels cannot be evaluated until the project is built even
thOughacceptêd scientific principles -exist to p-.rfornm this ealjation. - - Therefore the existing sound stud) is in idequate since
- measurements were not, performed near rsideimces - - where -Home - -
Depot has a duty to mitigate. - - - - -
Sincerely.
&r 14 1iu.(d Uj.-t'1
- -- •
12-214
I . S II
.
5
.5
183 --:
183. Roger D. Davis of the Scotts Valley Homeowners Association
-
Same as letter I 69; see response to-.that letter.
Pairick.S. Murphy -
Director : -- • s
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Boulevard
Encinitas,-CA 92024 S
March 5,1992 .. 5.
Dear Mr 'M,urph)
This letter concerns the proposed Home Depot construction plan on the Southwestern
corner of El Camino Real arid Olivenhain Road
I believe it i's indeed necessar) that ever) citizen defends what is happening in their own
neighborhood right beyond their backyards We most de` want to continue to see
coveys of quail scuttling through our yards we most definitely ."want to wake up to noises
made by nature rather than Diesel trucks back hoes beeping generators humming cars
starting and stopping paleties rumbling on fork lifts chain saws screeching compactors
rattling aid-ällthose flois reérberating and echoing back from acres of roof tops and
asphalted parking areas as well as the canyon walls. We can not justify that our children
will have to breath air that is more polluted We can not tolerate an) more traffic jams
causing further delays in commuting to our work places and schools We can not stand by
to watch the last small encla es of unique wetland habitats coastal Chapparal and sage
ru scb environments being destroyed Adverse environmental and social impacts of any
large developmdit project need to be careful!) cosied, not just listed The costs for
mitigation efforts and the monitoring of such efforts in the future constitute part of that
cost I am cotvined that in the case of the proposed Home Depot construction plan the
costs of negative environmental impacts far outweighthe anticipated benefits and increased - - revenues-to the Cityof-Encinutas..
S -
S 12-215
I now want to focus on several issues of paricular concern which need to be addressed
Firstly, it is our opinion that such a gigantic project on the proposed site is incompatible
with the adjacent residential areas as well as the Cu) of Encinitas General Plan This land
should never have been zoned for light indusirial use New Encinitas which is already
very low inopeli space, should have this land preserved as such. '
The enormous decline in wetlanth not only in California but in the Nati6n as a whole over-
the past decades is the most iinportart reason for not considering the proposed site at all
for any kind of large construction such as the proposed Home Depot We can no longer
afford any reduction in Liland areas due to dtelopment it has been shon many times
that attempts at restoration or mitigation of lost wetlands ala>s falls short of the desired
esuit. In this paniular insiaice'the adverse effects on Bat i'qiiios Lagoon due to changes
of all kinds in thewater run- off are an additional concern which has not been adequately
considered
According, to the draft environmental impact report the completion of this project will
result in ane e551ve inccase in traffic. Traffic will operate at unacceptable levels in the
segment onEl Camino Real between01keitha1n Rd. and Encinitas Boulevard and also on
the segment of Olivenhain between El Camino Real and Amargosa even if all proposed
improvements will, be implemented. It is unclear from the draft .éiivirownenlal report
whether the estimated increase in traffic includLs the anticipated 40-50 daily deliveries to
the Home Depot Obviously the traffic problem can not be mitigated to insignificance
Concomitant with the Increase in traffic and the operations at the Home Depot will be an
excessive increase in noise levels. A task force formed by a groipof.concerned citizens has
shown that the existing noise levels are already at the limit of acceptable levels n, before
the project has been built. Additional noises in the order of at least 45dB(A) are expected
from normal Home Depot operations in the vicinity of the site Increased traffic delivery
trucks fork lifts compactors cooling equipment chain saws etc will all contribute to this
increase in noise According to a technical noise study prepared as part of the draft ElR it
was concluded that noise mitigation was necessary for seven of the residences proposed in
Planning Area 2 It is therefore logical that noise mitigation is also .a must for the existing
adjacent residences to the East and South as well as future residences to the North
particularly the ones that are overlooking th&. project The existing noise studies do not
consider this problem at all, neither do the>' include any consideration of prevailing winds
and their effect on acoustics. . . .
7
I would like to conclude b> sumniariziuL. that this letter ouR iouchLs on the man>
problems this ill-conceived development project which 1 consider absolutely not suited
for the proposed site As? very concerned citizen I object strongly to the construction of
the project because of the many inadequacies "61' the HR I object to the lack of mitigation
with regard to the destruction of :sensitive biological h ubutais traffic gridlock directly
caused by this project incompatibility '. uih thu. city's General Plan lack of isuil
aesthetics excessive noise- generation long terni advu.rse impact on air quality, adverse
impact on regionaiwater quality and much iuior. -
0
Sincerely, yours,
14 7
/tf 3 5 1 1
'3 -
0
6. March 1992
Community Development Departm2ni
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024 .
Sirs, . . .
I am writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) regarding the proposed Home Depot at the corner of El Camino
Real and Olivenhaun Road in Encinitas California. The EIR generally
relies upon opinion and inadequate siudies rather than fact, and
erroneously draws conclusions that items in question can be
mitigated to a level which is less than significant. "This EIR has
serious flaws along with a substantial deficiency of evidence
required to support any findings that have been made.
This EIR violates ChQA bLc iuse it dek.rs certain mitiatuon
measures to long term mana0enieuit plans Amon other stgutificant
long term impacts, this project will completely disrupt the wetlands
and there is no assurance that the project will replace a currently
functioning ecosystem with one of equal productivity. The project . ....
contains little or no conhingenéy plans for the problems which are
likely to occur after construction such as those which occurred after
the construction of the Oceanside Home Depot. The EIR addresses the
effect of this total disruption by pointing to i future management
plan to be completed by other agencies including the Arm) Corps of
Engineers Reliance on illusory mitigation measures such is future
management plans permits the developer to avoid having to address
the reality of feasible mitigattoru -measures or project alternatives.
The existing biological impacts study is inadequate since long term
adverse environmental impacts svert. not properl) Idclre'Ld 1-lonie
Depot has a duty to mitigate all suJi tunp icis
Sinc Y-
n 12-216
IL, bi drck,c&rcJ \jc'uc( kd
i Lj5
. S S
3 . . - - 185. Kathleen Fusbie 18.5
Same as letter I 47; see response to that letter.
Community :Pevelopnleiii Department
527 Encinitas Blvd.
Enciriitas, CA 92024
•-.
To whom it may concern, . . .
This letier pertains to the "Environhienial Noise Analysis" (Report No. 91-016) and the
associated Addendum (Report N. 91-016) prepared by San Diego Acoustics, Inc. in
- -conjunction with the Home Depot planning activities in Encinitas.
- We critically reviewed the above mentioned ieOns, firstly as the closest neighbors to the
.- .. planned Home Depot secondl> as scientists ho spent their lives writing proposals and
evaluating similar reports From either point of view the report is flawed superficial and
does not reflect the honest qualit> of an unbiased scientific work
The .very first sentence of the main report reveals. alread the-partial nature of the analysis
-.
. by saying This study was conducted to show the acoustic .suitability of the proposed
project with respect to the requirements of the Cii> of Encinitas Department of Planning
and Land Use. "In other words,-the report is nol a fact finding effort but a study to induce
. . . a-desired result: Anothe'r siunhing 'faux pas' of. the first report is the conclusion that "No
. -.•- S significant noiseimpact is expected'. This conclusion was reached by neglecting among
. . .
. . otlër things io include an analysis of the loading dock noises. The treatment of this major
. . source of noise appeared 4 months later in the addendum.
Following are the obvious scientific minimize points at miniiLe the credibility of both
reports. - • . . . .. .
. .
- 1. The analytical model used, assumes a 'sqtiáre kiw' that describes how the noise
level decreases with increasing distance from the source of noise This model assumes a
point source in anopen environment with no obst?uciions or reflecting objects.
•
.. - - - .
The laws-of acoustics hówevr follow closely the ones that control the propagation of light.
S. This means that noise or acoustic waves like light can be reflected',scattered, collimated, :. 12-217 funnelled of-focussed. In that case—square law" attenuation does not apply.
This is indeed the situation at the planned site -for the Home Depot. The flat wetlandand
field areas of the planned building site are almost completely surrounded 13y bluffs with
step slopes forming a bowl shaped canyon. The noise generated by the HomC Depot and
the associated traffic plus the traffic on El Caiitino.Reiil and Olivenhain Rd. is reflected
back by the Western bluffs of Green Valk onto the residential areas on the Eastern
Southern and Northern bluffs facing the wetland area The effect is so dramatic that for
eample at our residence at 1680 Meadowgkn Lane, overlooking the entire area of the
planned building site the words of the songs that are played on rodeo days next to El
Camino Real can clearly be heard and understood. .
.
The square law fails to piidmct the real situation as it is ,oti1g to be and therefore the
model does not have the credibility justifying its use in the final decision. A very
convincing proof of the dirccmibility of sound i.e. focussing and funnelling by reflection
areihesiethoscopes and headphones ud in commercial airlines.
The test data obtained for the report do not contain information on the wind
direction and strength dm.mrmnt. measurement in(erals As the carrmir cit sotind, time air, and
the relative movement of air with respect to the detector affect the results of the
measurement .'On theupwind side of the noise source, the decibel levels will always be less
than on the downwind side. Therefore the results can be misleading, depending on the wind
at a particular time The report does not include any discussion of this issue
The original study issued on April 16, 1991 involves only a 1 hour measurement
at a particular time (Il 00 am -12:00 am on a ['hursda)) The equipment used was a level
indicator positioned 5 feet above flat ground.
These are all questionable test conditions reducing the credibility of the data One hour
measurement data is correlated with the vehicle count during other times The correlation
fails to take into account the vehicle type For example 'during. mid afternoon heavy school
bus and Diesel truck traffic increase the noise level drarnattcall) at the corner of El
Camino Real and Olivenhain Road due to the starts and stops at the traffic lights at this
location
The measurements have to be carried out vith'a "dosimeter" type of device rather than a
level indicator. This would provide a more meaningful averaoe over the periods measured.
The noise field is accumulative and humans respond to the total flux emanating from this . S .
•
field over time periods. lliercfore the noise related damage is the.pliysioloàical response to
- - the dose of noise received. In addition-the maxima and minima of a noise level -in licaior
can be strongly affected by chngingiherespoiise time of the detector. No ihiormation on
this issue exists in the report. -s.. -, : ," '•'- '
The height of the level indicator i e 5 feet is equal of less than the height of the scrubs in
many parts of the area Thus without the description of the vet,etatIoi surrounding the
equipmentthe results havenot.nsuch meanhiig as the vegeiaiiotYcii shield-the detector
from noise. This is common sense, ag everybody knows that noise levels from the highways
. for example can b&sinificaiitly reduced-by proper tree 1planting between the highway and
0 residences,,:-
4. The -r.eport ignores the effect of noise on the properties on the North, .South and 0
East bluffs surrounding the proposed building site completely Apparently the idea of
'sarelaw"noise attenuation is once ágãin applied:,i.e.-asilie disianèe from the noise qu
source grows the noise level goes down with the square of the distance and therefore the
properties on the bluffs are at distances far enough not to be impacted by additional noise
Thii concluion is either a severe neglect in a rep&t which will be used to make decisions 0
or it is a calculated way to avoid having to face a non-mitigatable situation. If, for example
at our resideñ'ce,the'noise levelwill exceed the.ailOwablejevel to the sai-extent as
- •0 reported for the.boider of the -Pearce propeny.-then there will be no possibility to mitigate
this problem by a noise,barrier since our property is about 100 feet above the proposed
construction site. A fence to cover the line of sight would be impractical because of the 0 0
0 height of the residence. 0
0 0 5. The report as it stands can not be considered final, because it contains many other
statements which at the,leàst need further qualifications. For example: :
0
- "'Loading noise only occurs during -truck .movement or fork lift
operation.- 0 - • •0
- - -- • - Ills HUt staicu wnai percentage or time over a perioaot. 24 flours this-occurs. Also, - - - -
everyone knows that Diesel trucks are most of the time left idling during loading and
- unlpading-rations. -
' 0
-
0 -
-
- • -
Loud speakers (for paging) should be facing the building'. - 0
-
4
This implies that there will.be no reflection from the walls of the building. Everyone of us
has listened to theecho of our own voice in a mountainous area.
The compactor (on the East side) of the building should not be
operated in a jammed condition.
It is hard to believe that the Home Depot will pay someone full time to control the noise
levels from a compactor.
Forklift warning signals should be curtailed to midday".
The authors of'ilie report are apparently not aware* of other pressiiig needs for forklift
operation at a Home Depot that take precedence over noise control.
- "An interposed earth barrier will reduce the noise level further. -
The report -considers only 14 new residences on the South bluffs which are proposed to be
built. An earth barrier of course is of no consequence for the higher residences on the East
and North bluffs that are there now.
All.in allwe believe, that the report does not reflect reality. Present-and future decibel
levels reported are norcoming from sound data and they contradict simple common sense.
A Home Depot with a proJtLted 510 vehtcle parking lot about 7800 estimated daily trips in
and out of the-parking area and78446ps in the peak hour (4:00 jn -5:00 pin) plus fàrk
lifts loud speakers and 40-50 light and heavy duty deliver> trucks dail> is bound to exceed
the allowable and tolerable noise levels in adjacent residential properties augmented by the
canyon configuration of the area This will therefore represent a major breach of the 1a
and a non reversable environmental mistake that will degrade the quality of life in
Encmnitas in general
Therefore we ask you to stop this plan right now before it is too late and Encinitas suffers
a financial damage much larger than the aziticipatd revenue from taxes and sales. The
major indirect cost source to thEncinitas city government and the residents will be:
Increased traffic problems - . !,1
186. Mr. and Mrs. Nicholas Sinantens
Same as letter I 65; see response to that letter.
186
6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas' Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs
This letter will serve to memorialize my collilneilts on the Envirohmencal Impact Report (EIR) written as dart of the proposed
Home Depot project at the collier 01 El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinitãs, California. The EIR is flawed' due to a deficiency of
evidence required to support any findings that have been made. Concluions have been drawn that itemsin question can be ntitigated to a level which is less than significant iliout the requisite supporting evidence. ,.
Various Inconsistencies with the General Plan of Encinitas include, .but are not limited to, the following. The proposed building heigh.c of 39 feet exceeds the limit of 30 feet above existing grade set forth, in the general. plan. El Camino Real is considered a "visual córridor'l,-although the Home Depot project as configured in the EIR
does. 'not comply, with this intent; maskin trees and shrubbery' realistically will take a- decade to fill out, and in the interim lIfe
. -visual corridor will be lost.. Evaporative coolers and a satellite dish are to be'.placed on the roof of the structure which will be' visible to residents of the properties overlooking the site: this, contravenes the
General Plan. - - • - '•' .
Views from future neighborhoods such as Arroyo Li Costa are considered in the ElR but views front existing neuhborhoods such as
Scotts Valley Encinitas Highlands and —Rancho Ponderos I are not considered Although rone of the project alim,rmi iii s iddresses this project deficiency it considers only' the imp ict to p merb>'along El Camino Real and not the local residents.
- • • - .. • - - 12-218 • . .
• . r. The EIR states that disance would diminish' ihe visuals eyesore to neighborhoods even though project is ts Iiitle t out. building length from he nearest homes this buildin II have in approximate front face over 400 feet in lcnth hitch is commensurate with., the distance cited to sho th ii the project will be far enough removed from diminish to ditnish my impact Therefore; the project is either ;too large and inapprop 1. riate for this site or the visual impact to the neighboring residents ill not be mitigated as - stated.
- -
The ElR furthit.r stJtes that the project desi,n violates [ncinitas design review guidelines For example bright orange signs are it odds with Encinttds design review uidLhines
As noted the EIR is deftctcnt md thereform. clehecttme
Sincerel)
Pcs --
V -
(iq)7,4
187
Patrick S. Murphy
Director -
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Boulevard
Encinitas, CA 92024
March 5, 1992.
Dear Mr. Murphy,
This letters concerns the proposed Home Depot construction plan on the Southwestern
corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road.
I believe it is indeed necessary that every .citizen defends what is happening in their own
neighborhood,right beyond their backyards. We most definitely want to continue to see
coveys of quail scuttling through our yards, we most definitely want to .%vakze up.to noises
made by nature rather than Diesel trucks back hoes beeping generators humming cars
starting and stopping paleltLs rumbling on fork lifts chain saws screeching compactors
rattling and all those noises reverberating and echoing back from-acres-of roof iops and
asphalted parking areas as well as the canyon walls We can not justify that our children
will have to breath air that is more polluted We can not tolerate any more traffic jams
causing further dela)s in commuting to our work places and sthools We can not stand by
to watch the last small enclaves of unique eiland habitats coastal Chapparal and sage
scrub environments being destroyed. Aderse en iroiimeiiial and social impact s of any
large development project need to be carLfull) not just listed The costs for
mitigation efforts and the monitoring of such efforts in the future constitute part of that
cost Lam convinced that in ihe case of the proposed Home Dcpot construction plan the
costa of negative environmental impacts far outweigh the anticipated benefits and increased
revenues to the City of Enciiiiias. 12-219
H
I now want to focus on several issues of particular concert which need to be addressed
Firstly, it is our opinion that such a gigantic project on the proposed site is incompatible
with the adjacent residential areas as well as the City of Encinitas General Plan. This land . .'
should never have been zoned for lieht industrial use. New Encinitas which is already . .
verylow in open space. should have this land preserved as suèh.
The enormous decline in wetlands not only in California but in the Nation as a.whole over
the past decades is the most important reason for not, considering the proposed site at all
for any kind of large construction such as the proposed Home Depot. We can no longer
afford any reduction in wetland.areas due to development . it has been shown many times
that attempts at restoration or mitigation of lost wetlands always falls short of the destred
result in this particular Instance the adverse effects on Bataquitos Lagoon due to changes
of all kinds iii the water run off are an additional coiicétn'which has not been adequately
considered. .. . .. .
According to the draft environmental impact report the completion of this project will
result in an excessive increase in traffic. Traffic will operate at unacceptable levels in the
segment on El Camino Real between Ohivenhain Rd. and Encinitas Boulevard and also on
the segment of Olivenhain between El Camino Real and Amargosa even if all proposed S
improvements will be implemented. it is unclear, from the draft environmental report .
hethêr.the estimated increase iiitraffic includes the anticipated 40-50 daily deliveries to .
the Hóm&Depoi. Obviously the traffic problem can not be mitigated to insignificance.- . .
Concomitaitwith the iñrèase in traffic and the operations ahhe Home Depot will be an . ..
excessive increase in noise levels. A task force formd by a groui ofconc'erned citizens has
shàwn that the exisiing noise levels are already at the limit of acceptable levels now, before
the project has been built. Additional noises in the orderdf at least 45dB(A) ate expected . . . . .
from normal Home Depot operations in the vicinhy of the site. Increased traffic delivery
trucks, fork lifts,.compaciors, cooling' equipment, chaiñsaws etc. will all contributeto this
increase in noise According to a technical noise study prepared as part of the draft EW it
was concluded that noise mitigation as necessary for seveff of the residences proposed in
Planning Area 211 is therefore logical that noise mitigation is also a must for the existing
adjacent..residences to the East and South as well as future residences to the North
particularly the ones that are overlooking the project. The existing noise studies do not .
consider this problem atall, neither do they include any consideration of prevailing winds • .. .
and their effect on acoustics.,
I would like to conclude by swnmarizing that this letter only touches on the many
problems of this ill-conceived development project which 1 consider absolutely not suited
for the proposed site. As a very concerned citizen I object strongly to the construction of
the project because of the many inadequacies of the EIR I object to the lack of mtttatIon
with regard to the destruction of sensitive bioloicaI habitats traffic gridlock directly
causedby this project, incompatibility with the city's Geiieral Plan, hick of visual
aesthetics. éxessive noise generatioti, long term adverse impact on air quality, adverse - -
impact on regional water quality and much more.
~Jilrelo) surs
-
----c-s- - -
L5
. .
188. Ursula W. Sumenbery
-. Same as letter # 22;. see responae to that letter.
188
6 March 1992
Community Development Department - -
527 Encinitas Blvd -.
Encinitas CA 92024
Sirs,
I am writing in response 10 the, Environmental Imp tci Report
(EIR) issued by \Villens and AssOccaiLs reardin'the proposed Home
Depot at the corner of El Camino Re ii icid Ott'. cntcatn Road in
Encinitas California This EIR has serious flaws along with a
substantial deficienc> of evidence required to support an> findings
that have been made The EIR 0enera11y relies upon inadequate
studies or opinion rather than facts then erroneously dra'.'.
conclusioi that items in question c in be mitt ted to Ie'.el htch
is less than significant
The EIR has also attempted to se'. er issues '.'. lttch are an
integral'.part of this study. For example, althou,h Ihc I-lowe Depot
project relies crittc.all> upon the retention pond to be built in
Encinitas Creek (as part of the Ott'. LUll tin Ro u(l Widening project) the
details 'of this retention pond and its illipaci arenot included in this
. EIR. Further, the data -1aken for. the Road Widening, projet has not
been updated to take into account upstream development.
The failure to adéqutely address and analyze this projects
I - . cumulative impacts is in violation of the California Environmental
Quality Act-and must be corrected before this ElR- can be approved.
Sincerely,
6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA. 92024
Sirs,
I am, writing to comment on the Environmental Impact Report
(ElR), issued by Willens and Associates for the Home Depot project
proposed for the corner of El Camino Real and Oltvcnh tin Road in
Encinitas California. This EIR has serious flaws and oenerally 'relies
upon inadquate studies or. opinion rather tltait facts, then
erroneously, draws conclusions that 'items in questioti can be
mitigated to a level which is less tItan si,titftcant The EIR has
failed to adequately address the cumul te ii'.ti'. c tronmental impacts
of this-,'project and has further failed to analyze these cumulative
impacts and is therefore in viol'iuioit of CEQA .
As an example of the failure to . fully address adverse
environmental impacts, the nationwide. 404 permit granted by the
Army Corps of Engineers was olitaitted by the developer without an
accepted EIR or at best an out-of-date stud',. Note that this permit
has recently been revoked and the developer must now ,'CaPPIY.
Further, in accordance with the Code of Federal. Regulations, the
,proposed activity must not jeopardize a threatened o endangered
species as identified under the Endangered Species Nct, or destroy or
adv'ersely' modify , the critical habitat of such seies. The
gnatcatcher documented as ltvtitg wt site even by paid project
biologists will certainly be added .to the endangered species 'list '
before this project is completed Therefore additional scudtes. and
proposals for mitigation must be undertiken it ilt. site to proteLt the
critical habitat of this bird
Sincrely,,,., r'.-.
•
-
- 190. Donald E. Charhut
190 Same as letter I 22; see response to that letter.
6 Marh 1992
Communiiy Development Dpariineni . . .
- . 527 Encinitas Blvd .. •.
Encinitas, CA 92024
-Sirs,
I ant writing in response to ilie Enviróninenial Impact Report . . .
(EIR) issued by Willens and Kssociaics regarding. the pthposcd: Home
Depot at the corner of El Caunin.o RI aid Olivenhain- Road in
Encinitas Cliforniu This EIR bus serious flus .ilon,, with a
substantial deficiency of evidence required to support any findings
that have been made The EIR generally relies upon inadequate
studies, or opinion rather than fuels then erroneously draws
conclusions that 'items, in question can he mili, it..d to a level which
is less than significant
- ;,The. EIR has 'also attempted to sevèr issues -which are an
integral part of this study. ,-For cxa'niple, although the Home Deàt
project--relics, ciiticaIiy upon the retentLon- pond to be built in
: • Encinitas Creek (as -part of the Olivenhain Road Widening projct). the . .
details of- this retention pond and its impact are, not included in this
EIR Further, the data taken for the Road Widening project has not -
been updated to .,take into account upstream derelopunen.-
The failure. to adequately address and analyze this rojects - -. -
cumulative impacts is in violation of the California Environmental
Quality Act- andmust be corrected befOre this EIR- can be approved. - - -
Sincerely, - - -
e
/'- -- - - - - - -- - - -
73.I55L/• - '-- 12-222
4J: 4)
N
0
N 11 4) N a.
N
Q. N 0 a.. - -
4) a,
4) 4) -
Ai N
41 Lo N 0- W I. -
a, a, i.a 0. 4) 4) -
-
--
N 4
•
4'
a, 4) N N
4
0) N
-CL z
•
'a_ 2_J•3. 0Nu
56 L 2
M.0UN0 '— -02 ...o
—LJ —- —
--
U
-
-a°- •-' U. ,o •••'•4,uJ. 0 .—u d.'•04)
€
-, ') -— 00 U =
o r _JJ • •
0
- -
-=22 o "—
- 3 .-
, -o2 •
_QU •
-•
u u > u 0 dl Og 4)o
0 0 2 o '•\
-E
a-i E L>.0 D 0 0
2O . •' . C = s
- E 2-C O :--•-; N 0.0 C
Q• -, — -' )•_•-
Ol ULF \\
'• -.
02 0—'u ç-
-_ 2 . 2 CL t-. ...- >\\
-- - U - U 0. ... u -= U 0 _ U
10 u c ilil•( ' ••:
192
I ~Dd
192. Tom and Terry Sundeen
- Z : J Same as letter ,# 90; see response to that letter.
-: 6 March 1992
Community De%elopmeilt Deparitneiii -
527 Encinitas Blvd -
Encinitas, CA- 92024
Sirs,
I am yriIung to con)mei1t- oil the Environmental- Impact Report
(EIR) issued by- Wtllens and Associates for the Home Depot project
proposed for the corner of El Camino Real' ittd Olivenh tin Road in
Encinitas California This ElR h is serious. flaw's a nd generally relies
upon inadquate studies or opinion r ither than facts then
erroneously draws conclustoits that items i ll question can be
mitigated,co a level which is less than si5ni1ic iii Further, the EIR : has included the impact.upon neighboring residences where it - seemed advantageous for then) to do so but left ihiem out of other,
crucial issues
For example.. the Arroyo La Cosia rojeci:was included in the
viewshed issue, but completely ignored in traffic study. The
- additional developrnnt of these 1700 homes in the approved Arroyo ---
La Costa project ill render an), short term ii tfttc iiiifigatioii efforts
by the city useless.
Even though the Arroyo La Costa project was ignored, this EIR
states that an excessive increase in traffic will result from the Home
Depot projct(Level of Service F will result on both El Camino Real as
well, as Oliyenhain Road if this project is built as proposed). This
level of- service -wilL, further adversely impact oilier business - concerns along El Camino Real as potential customers will avoid .this area. dde, to the risk of accident and personal injury. In fairness to
other established businesses along El Caminó Real, traffic along this - - - - - - - corridor should be mitigated before any additional development is,
- - undertaken. .•-'- • - -- - ' :
- - - • -- - - : - • - -
Sincerely, -
12-224
c e a) O
a)
> ,.. a) a) - - 4.4 .4.4 1.I a) a) -4
> a) '4
a)
•- C - a) Q
ni; U!
. '- 0-0
• -
- __U
CL
a) U -u _- VU 'D
• 0' -
_)_ -
-'
Uc•_ U
U - • -- - LU '2-
•
9
LU U 3
r-• -0C O'
c> -c - - J0 a) °E_ .1.- E -;;= -o ' -J U . cr 2e6_-p.a
: c:)
E -. --.- ij --j ._z •- .U.DO
o,_. .2 J
- - OJ — -) C.) c -. -Is
--o
CL
a)u_ -
-41 -
j 0 d
UJ-2 U eC 0 •_>, _C
c
a) 41
- E0 E '$
. U ,E5 c41 D
c u
-
- Eu. - — U— EEu f..,,,1 .,U>.4 cO a)es U
h
Comnuniiy Development Deparimeni
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas CA 92024
Sirs,
I am writing in response to the Environmental Imp4cu.. Report (El R) regarding the proposed Home Depot at the corner of El Camino
Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinitas California The EIR generally relics upon opinion and inadequate Studies-.rather than fact and
erroneously draws conclusions that items in question can be
mitigated to a level which is less than significant This El has
serious flaws along with a substantial deficiency of evidence
required to support any findings that have been made
This ElR violates CEQA because it defers certain mitigation
measures to long term 'management plans Among other significant
long term impacts this project will completely disrupt the wetlands
and there is no assurance that the project will replace a currently, functioning ecosystem with one of equal productivity The project
contains little or no contingency plans for the problems which are
likely to occur after construction such as those which occurred after
the construction of the Oceanside Home Depot The ElR addresses the
effect of this total disruption by pointing to a future management
plan to be completed by other agencies including the Army Corps of
Engineers Reliance on illusory mitigation measures such as future
management plans permits the developer to avoid' having to address the reality of feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives
The existing biological impacts study is inadequate since long term
adverse environmental impacts were not properly addressed Home Depot has a duly to mitigaie all such impacts
Sincerely
&
12-226
CQ Q •
195. Grace Turner
195 Same as letter #21; see response to that letter.
6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Enciñitas, CA . 92024 S
Sirs,
1 am writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) regarding the proposed Home Depot at the corner of El Camino
Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinitas California The Elk generally
relies upon opinion and inadequate studies rather than fact and
erroneously draws conclusions that items in question can
•be mitigated to a level which is "less than significant. This EIR -has serious flaws along with a substantial deficiency of evidence
required to support any findings that have been. made.
This Elk: violates CEQA because ii.- defers certain mitigation
measures to long term management plans Among other significant long term Ampacts, this project will completely disrupt the wetlands
and thee is no assuranc5e that the project will replace a currently
functioning ecosystem with one of equal productivity. The project
contains little or no contingency plans - for the - problems.which are
likely tooccür after construction, - such as those which occurred after
the construction of the Oceanside Homer Depot. The Elk addresses the
effect of this total disruption by..pointing to a future management
plan to be completed by other agencies including ihc Army Corps of
Engineers Reliance on illusory mitigation measures such as future management plans permits"the developer to avoid having to address
the reality of feasible mitigation measures or project alternafives.
The existing biological impacts stud) is inadequate since long term
adverse environmental impacts were not properly. uddressed Home Depot has a duty to mitigate all such impacts
Sincerely. - - •
• : •
C L
12-227 . S S
0
..
0
- 196. Richard It. Turner
Same as letter I 60; see response to that letter.
196
0• ..:'
6 March 1992,'
Community Development Department . .
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas. CA . 92024
Sirs,
I am writing to express 'my concern over the proposed Home S Depot project specifically the draft En'. ironnsentah Impact Report
(FIR)...,. This EIR is completely inadequate-.- The EIR •ioes not have a
statement of overriding merit as required by CEQA The city S . council's-desir"e to generate tax' reve'hues' does not justify building
. S. ••' this monstrosity on environmentally sensutu'. e land nor Icreating a
traffic nightmare
The EIR admits that there sill be an Iincrease in tratftc and
assigns traffic a grade F after the project is built yet it does not
even take into account the traffic which will be created by the 1700' . . . . homes in the Arroyo La Cost t project and any' other future 1.
ong development al the El Camino Real corridor. The EIR does not
adequately address mitigation of this traffic probleui nor does it
address who will pay 'for the upkeep of the roads due to this
increased- traffic, including 'the large . 'number of diesel . trucks (100 -
per day) making deliveries to Home. Depot. . •• . ' . • 0•
The EIR does admit that traffic cannot be uniuiated to a 'less-
than-significant" effect. The project should, not be considered until
O the current traffic congestion/problems along El' Cimino. Real. are ad,dressed. • Home Depot should not be allowed to take the position • - that traffic which their "megãstore will create is "not' their concern.
Sincere'ly, . .- S . S •
;s/(, / / . , •
S (?//- (.-- - -
55•
"S - 12-228 .
S
' . .
'
• . •
197. Dorothy Pereira
Same as letter I 60; see response to that letter.
197
6 Match 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
am writing to express my concern over the proposed Home
Depot project, specifically the draft Environmental lthact Report
(EIR): This ElR is compktely inadequate. The EIR does not have a statement of overriding 'merit, as required by CEQA. The city
council's desire to generate tax revenues does not justify building
this monstrosity on environmentally sensitive land nor creating a
traffic: nightmare. •. --
The EIR admits that there will be an increase in traffic, and
assigtis, traffic a grade" F after the project is buil. yet it does"not
even take into account the traffic which will be created by the 1700
homes in the Arroyo Là Costa project. and any other future
development along the El 'Camino Real corridor. The EIR does not
adequately address mitigation- of this traffic problem nor does it
'address who will pay for the upkeep of the roads due to "thi
increased traffic, including the large number of diesel trucks (100
per day) making deliveries to Home Depot.,
The EIR does admit that traffic cannot be mitisated to a "less
. than significant" effect. The project. should not be 'considered until
the current traffic congestion/problems ,ilon El Camino Real are
addressed Home Depot should not be allowed to take the position
that traffic which their megastore ill create i not their concern
Sincerely,,
.
. . . . .• ..
-oi I 4a
4hót' '-exy 12-229 . 41 .
0 •
c' 9-b
• 198. Sue Myose'
-
Same as letter # 68; see response to that letter.
6-March 1992
5 —
Community Development Department . S 527 Encinitas Blvd S
S SS
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs. ..
I am writing to comment on the Environmental lntpaci Repori S S (EIR) issued by Willens and Asoc'iates' for the5: Home Depot project
S proposed for the corner of LI Caittino Re il Ohienh tin RQtd in
'Encinitas California.. This ElR Iias, Idiots .'tlaw 'and generiIIy iehe
upon inadequie studies or opinion- ratlte - than facts,, then . S •
•. erroneously draws conclusions that iietns in quesiion can be
mitigated to a level which is less iht.iii si0niticant flie EIR has S
- failed. to adequately address the cumulative environmental impacts of this project and h.ts further failed, to an il', / C ihi.c cuniul.ttive
impacts and is therefore in viol Lion of CEQA
As an example of the failure to full) tddress adverse
environmental Impacts the nationwide 404 permit o" by ihe
Army Corps of Etigineers was óbtained by the developer without an S
accepted ElR or at best an out-of-date study. Note that this permit S has recently been revoked- and the developer must nv icapply.
Further, in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, the
s proposed activity must not jeopardize a threatened or endangered
• species as identified under the Endangered Species Act, or destroy or . S • -: • , adversely modify the critical habitat of such species., The S S gnatcatcher -- documented as living on site even by paid project S - biologists ,-- will certainly be added to the endangered species list .. S before this project -is completed. Therefore additional studies and ' •- -. . . S • S prOposals for mitigation must be ipdercakeii at the site 'to protect the - • - -
S critical habitat of this bird. - ' . - . • - • -. • . , - ' •
- : •
Sincerely. - . .
-
-.
- ' . -- . . . '1 -
12230 S
199. Farrell Bell
Same as letter I 21; see response to that letter. 199
6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd . ',•
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
am writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) regarding the proposed Home Depot at the corner of El Camino
Real. and Olivenhain Road inr Encinicas California. The EIR generally
relies upon opinion' and inadequae studies rather than fact, and
erroneously draws conclusioñs. that items in question can be
mitigated to a level, which is 'less than significant.' This EIR has serious flaws along with a substantial deficiency of evidence
required ,to' support atiy"findings that 'have b'é'etI
This EIR violates" CEQA because it defers certain mitigation
measures to long term management plans. Among other significant
long term impacts this project will compleiely disrupt the etlands and there is no assurance that the project ,will replace a 'cu'rrently functioning ecosystem with one of equal jiroduciivtt> fhe project contains little or no contingency plans for the problems which are
likely to occur after construction, such, as 'those .vliich occurr'e after" the construction of the Oceanside Home Depot. The EIR 'addresses the
effect of . this total disruption by pointing to a future ' management . . plan to be completed by other agencies, including the Army Corps' of . . Engineers. Reliance on illusory ' t'nitigation measures such as future
management plans permits the developer to avoid having to address
the reality of feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives
The existing biological impacts study is inadequate since long term
adverse environmental impacts were not properl> addressed Home Depot has .a duty to mitigate all such impacts. '
'
S . ' ' . ' , . ' , : ' • '
Sincerely,
£4O L Ulocar ---_-
-\'., . . ' ' ' 12-231 . . .
®R, Or
200. Denise Dudek
• Same as letter I 64; see response to that letter.
200 6 March 1992 •
Commtinty Development Department
527. Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
I am writing to comment on the Enviro:imenial Impact Report
(ElR)regardingtheproposed Home Depot at the. corner of El. Camino
Real and Oliveiihàin. Road in Encinitas .Tliis,ElR• has a substantiál
deficiency of evidence required to support the fundutt,s that have
been ma" The lR generlI) relies upon tn.idequ tie studies rather
than facts then erroneousl> draws conclusions ih it 11cm. in question
can be mitigated (6--a''? less than signific tnt level
Approval of the Home Depot project ould subvert the intent
of the Clean Water Act No stud) was conducted to show the impact
of water runoff from this project into IB aaquitos.Lagoon.
.
- Further, the •. general plan of Encinitas requires that no
development should reduce wetland area,. although this project in
conjunction with the reténtion dam planned for the upstream side of •
Encinitas creek will reduce wetland ire t
Therefore the existing biological impacts study is • inadequate. • 0 •
Home Depot has a duty to mitigate any impact on Bataquits Lagoon.
Sincerely
0 •
• --5-
/gç
e,5 8AI,(24 9r2oô7
-S • • 12-232
201. Cindy Bell
Same as letter 0 60; see response to that letter.
20.1 6 March 1992
Community Development Department S
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs.
I am writing to express my concehi over the proposed I-lonie
Depot p'roject. speci'fiaIly the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR). This EIR is completely inadequate. The EIR does not have 'a
statement of overriding merit, as required by CEQA. The city
councils desire to generate lax revenues does not justify building
this monstrosity on environnteniall,v sensitive land nor creating a
traffic nightmare. - -
The EIR admits that there will be an increase in traffic, and
assigns -tafIic a giad "F' after the project'. is •bjili yet it does not
even take into account the'triffic which will be created by the 1700
homes" in 'the Arroyo La Costa project. and any other future
development along- the El Camino Real corridor. The EIR does not
adequately address, mitigation of this traffic- problem. nor does, it
àddièss who will- pay for the upkeep of the roads due to this
increased traffic. "including the large number of diesel trucks (100
.per day) making deliveries to Home Depot.
The .EIR does
-
admit that traffic cannot be mitigated to a "less
than significant effect The project should not be considered until
the current traffic congestion/problems along El Camino Real are
addressedI Hom'e ' :Depot should not be allowed to take the position
that traffic which their. "megastore" will create is 'not -their concern."
Sincerely.-
--
?'aJ
12233 . . .
. 0
• 202. Julie Esparza Brown
Same as letter I 21; see response to that letter.
202 6 March 1992
.
Community Development Department • 527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas CA 92024 • -
Sirs,
1 am writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report
. • (EIR), regarding the proposed Home Depot at the corner of El Camino
Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinitas California The EIR generally relies upon opinion and inadequate studies rather than fact and
erroneously draws conclusions that items in question can be
mitigated to a level which is less than significant This EIR has seriOus 11aws along witha substantial deficiency of evidence
• . . . require . to support any, findings that have been rnide.
This EIR violates. CEQA because it defers :certain mitigation
0 measures. to long term matiagenient plans. AmOng other significant
long,term impacts this project will completely disrupt the wetlands
and there is nor. assurance that the project will relace a currently
. •. functioning, ecosystem-,with one. of equal prodictivity.,. The project'
. contains little or no contingency plans- for the problems which :are
likely io occur after consiruclion, such as those which.
,occurred after •
• the construction of the Oceanside Home Depot. The EIR addresses the
• . effect of this total disruption by pointing to a future mangement
- - • plan to be completed by other agencies, including the' Army Corps of Engineers. Reliance on: illusory mitigation measures such as future
. • • - management plans permits the developer to avoid having to address
. • •• • the reality , of feasible mitigation measures or project .ilternati..es
The existing.: biOlogical impacts study is inadequate since long term
adverse environmental impacts were not properly. addressed. Home Depot has -.a duty to mitigate. all such impacts.
. .-• . . • . -
Sincerely.
-e--4s'-- u-- - - 12-234 Ist._ .
CA
'i—'7o 9
• .. . •
-
P, ru'/Lr' ii,-l•i.n . • . .
.
203. Neil E. Goddard
Same as letter # 60; see response to'that letter.
6 March 1992 203
Community De'.elopment Department
527 Encinitas.Blvd .. ,.
Encinitas, CA 92024 .'
Sirs.
I am writing to express my concern over the proposed home
Depot project '. ruun specifically the drift En iroeni.il Impact Report
(EIR) This EIR is completely inadequate. The Elk does not have a
stacemenI of overriding merit, as required by CEQA. The city
councils desire to generate tax revenues does 1101 justify building
this monstrosity on environmentally sensilive land nor creating a
traffic nightmare. . .... .
'.Th. EIR admits that, there will be. an increase in iraffc, and
assigns traffic a grade F after the project is built yet' it does not
even take Into account the traffic which will be cre'at'ed by the 1700
homes in the Arroyo La Costa projeci and my oher future
development along the El Camino Real corridor. The EIR does not
adequately address mitigation of this traffic problem nor does it
address who will pay for the upkeep of ihe roads due to this
increased: traffic, including the large number of diesel trucks (100
per day) making deliveries to Home Depot.
The EIR does admit that traffic cannot be unuiioated to a less
than significant",effect The project should not be considered until
the current traffic congestion/problems alone El Camino Real are
addressed Home Depot should not be allowed to take the position
that traffic -which'..their-.'"megasioie'- will create is not their concern. • - • • • • • . - .
Sincerely,- • • • : ' - . • ,. . .
H ' ; •
2q7C rl C.
- 12-235 . . .
0
- . . 204. Janice D. Goddard
Same as letter # 60; see response to. that letter..
204 .. . . S. 6 March. 1992.
Community DeVvclopment Department - 527 Encinitas Blvd . . . . . Encinitas. CA 92024 . . . . . . .
Sirs. .- . .
I am writing to express, my concern,, over the proposed Horn . Depot project specifically the draft Environmenial Impact Report
(EIR): This EIR is completely inadequate. The EIR'-does' not havVe a
statement of o%erriding merit as required by CEQA The city
councils desire to generate tax revenues does not justify building
this monstrosity on environmeniall sensitive lind nor creating a traffic. tiightmare: .. . . •••
The EIR admits thai there ill be an increase in traffic and
assigns traffic a grade F after the project is built yet it does not
even take into account the traffic which n ill be created by the 1700
homes in the Arroyo La Cosia project and an other future
development along the El Camino Real corridor. The EIR does not
adequately address mitigation of this traffic problem nor does it
address whó will. pay for the upkeep of the roads due to this • S • :. increased,.traffiâ including the large number of diesel trucks (100 0 - 0
per day) making deliveries to Home Depot. V 0
• V • -
The EIR does admit that traffic cannot be miiigated to a less r
- -- .
..
. V V
V
• -
than significant effect The project should not be considered until
th& current traffic congestion/problems- along El Camino Real are V S - • S addressed. Home Depot shouldT not bd allowed to take the position . • V
S that traffic which their megastore will create is "noi -their concern.
Sincerely, - • 5;
- . .• - . -- .••
V S •
V
C-12-, C/f S S •
12-236 V
V
VS
V • V
Same as letter # 21; see response to that letter.
205 6 March 1992
Community Development Dcpartrnen,i
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas CA 92024
Sirs,
I am writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report
(ElR) regarding the proposed Home Depot at the corner of El Camino
Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinitas California The EIR generally relies upon opinion and inadequate studies rather than fact and
erroneously draws conclusions that items in question can be
mitigated to a level which is "less than significant. This ElR: has serious flaws along with a substantial deficiency of evidence
required to iupport any findings that have been made,
This Elk violates CEQA her inse it defers certain mitigation
measures to long term management plans. 'Among other significant
long term impacts;.,this project will completely disrupt the weilands
and there is no assurance that the project will replace a currently
functioning ecosystem with one of equal prod uccivit. The ',project contains little or no contingency plans for the problems which are
likely to occur after construction, such as those which occurred 'after
the, construction of the Oceinside Home Depot. The ElR addresses the
' effect of this total disruption by pointing to a future management
plan to be, completed by other agencies, including the Army Corps of
Engineers Reliance on illusory mitigation measures such as future
management plans permits the developer to avoid having to address
the reality of feasible mitigation measures or project ihternatives
The existing biological impacts study is inadequate since long term
adverse 'enviionmentall impacts were not properl) addressed Home Depot has a duty to mitigate all such impacts
Sincerely,
12-237
'-
-.
_tt ,/'i I 7'C 7 /7 .
-
. .
206. Kathy Joulu, 2506 Jacaranda Avenue, Carlsbad, CA 98009
- Same as letter 160; see response to that letter: 206.
6' March 1992 '
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas. CA 92024 1
Sirs.
I am'writiiig to express _my concern over the -proposed Home-
Depot,,' project. 'specifically the draft Environmental -lmpat Report
(EIR) ' ThisElR is cornletel'y inadequate. The :EIR does not have 'a
. statement of overriding merit.,as required b CEQA The ctt
council's desire,,', to' geñérate' lax revenues does not justify building
' this monstrosity on en ironmeniall', sensitive land nor creating a
traffic nightmáre.'
The EIR admits, that !heré will be an increase in traffic, and
assigns traffic a grade F after the project is builtyet it does not
even take into account the traffic which will be created b) the 1700
homes in the ,Arroyo La Costa,. project: and :ànv other future'
development along the El Camino Real corridor The ElR does not
adequately address mitigation- of this traffic problem nor does it
address who will pay for the upkeep of the roads due to this
increased' traffic'. incitiding the large number of diesel trucks: (100
per day) making deliveries to Home Depot,
The EIR does admit that traffic cannot be mitigated to a 'less
thin 'significant effect, The project should not be considered until
the. 'current' traffic, congestion/problems along El Camino Real, are
addressed.' Home, ,,Depot, should not be allowed to lake the position
that 'traffic' which 'their "megastore" will create is "not their concern."
Sincerely."
uU
12-238
LItI,JJJAJ4L.L.
"'
207. James Justice
Same as letter I 21; see response to that letter.
207 6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Ehcinitas. CA 92024
Sirs,
I am writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) regarding the proposed Home Depot at the corner of El Camino
Real and Olivenh.tin Road in Encinitas California The EIR generally relies uponJàpinin' and inadequate studies rather than fact, and
.erroneously draws conclusions that items in question can be
mitigated to a level which is less than significant. This EIR has erious flaws along with a substantial deficiency of evidence
required to. support any findings that -have been made.
This EIR ,.violates CEQA b
m
ecause it defers certain mitigation
measures. to long term manag'etheni plans. Among other. significant long term impacts this project will completely disrupt the wetlands
and there is no assurance that the project will replace a currently functioning ecosystem with one of equal productivity The project contains little or no contingency, plaits for the problems which are
likely to occur after construction such as those which occurred after
the construction of the Oceanside Home Depot. The EIR addresses the
effect of this total disruption by pointing to a future management
plan to be completed by other agencies, including the Army Corps of
Engineers. Reliance on illusory mitigation measures such as future
management plans permits the developer to avoid having to address
the reality of feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives
- The existing biological impacts study is inadequate since long term
adverse environmental impacts were not properly addressed Home Depot has 'a -duty to mitigate all such impacts;
.
)
Sinceel.y, ,-
ACI
:>j,
421
(,
Ci1! - . . .
4
•
.•. 208. Kathleen Justice
Same as letter I 21; see response to that letter
6 March. 1992 • 208
;
Community Development Department V
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
writing in response to the, Environiiientul Impact Report (EIR) regarding the proposed Home' Depot at 'thë'corner of El Camino
Real and Olivenhamn Road in Encinitas California The Elk generally
relies upon opinion and inadequate studies rather than fact and
erroneously. draws conclusions that items in'. question can be
mitigated' to a. level, which is' "less'. than significant.. This EIR has
serious flaws along with a substantial deficiency of evidence
required to support any findings that haie been made
This EIR violates CEQA because it defers certain mitigation
measures to. long term management plans. Among other significant'-
Ion g term impacts, this project will completely disrupt the wetlands
and 'ihere is 'no assurance, that the •projéci' will replace a currenily
functioning ecosystem with one of equal productivity
... The project
contains little or no contingency plans for the problems which are
I
ikely to occur construction, such as those which -occurred after
, the construction, of the Oceanside Home Depot, ,The EIR addresses' the-"
Effect of this total disruption by pointing 'to a future management
plan to be completed by, other agencies, including the Army Corps of
Engineers. . Reliance on illusory mitigation measures such as future
. ' .. •: management 1auis permits the developer to avoid having to a'ddtss
the reality of feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives.
The existing biological impacts study is inadequate since long term
. -• adverse environmental' impacts were not properly addressed, Home . Depot has a duty to. 'mitigate all such impacts. . . ' ' . . .. '• ' ' ',
Sincerely,
(C
12-240 0 gja c
)OC
209. Beth Brandenburg
Same as letter I 21; see response to that letter.
6 March 1992 209
Community Development Department
521 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs. .. -
I am writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) regarding the proposed Home Depot at the corner of El Camino
Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinitas California. Thie EIR generally
relies upon opinion and inadequate studies rather . than fact, and
erroneously draws conclusions that items in question can be
mitigated to a level which is less titan significant. This EIR has
serious flaws along with a substantial deficiency of evidence
required to support any findings that have been made.
This EIR violates CEQA because it defers certain' mitigation
measures to long term, management plans. Among other significant
long term impacts, this project will completely disrupt the wetlajids
and there is no, assurance that the project will replace . a currently
functioning ecosystem with one of equal productivity. The project
contains . little, or no contingency plaits for the problems which are
likely' to occur: after construction, such as those which occurred 'after
the construction of the Oceanside I-lottie Depot. The EIR addresses the
effect of ttis total disruption by pointing to a future management
plan to be completed' by oilier agencies, including the Army Corps of
Engineers Reliance* on illusory mitig tion measures such is future
management plans, permits the developer to avoid havinj to address
the reality of feasible mitigation measures or project aliernatives.
The existing biological impacts Study is. inadequate since long term
adverse environmental impacts were not properly addressed. Home
Depot has a duty to mitigate all such 'ittipacis..
.:sincerely.
ku 4IJViLk1q-'
('ILLL..,E/./(
12-241
S
I am writing to comment on the litis'irotiitiéntil Impact Report
(EIR) written by Villens and ..Associates as. part 01 (Iii. home Depot
project proposed for the corner, of El C imino -Real and Ohtvenhain
Road in Encinitas California 1 his EIR is flawed since there is a
substantial deficiency of evidence required to support the findings
that have been made The ElR relies upon in idequ tIe studies and
then draws conclusions that items in question can he ifituig tied to a
less than significant level
Since the site designated for this project represents the last
open space-.tn New hncinttas it should be preserved lrotn any further
development in accordance with the open spice ,o Is oh the General
Plan of Encinitas New Encinitas already has the 1m vest percentage of
open space in all of Encinitas as documented in the city general plan
Although the land under, the SDGE power lines is cited in this report
as contributing to the stock of open space in Enctntt is this cannot be
considered viable open space given the publics concern over
electromagnetic fields Further, since aninial life Aias been forced to
concentrate on this Jist open sue due to the encroachment of
development on neighboring parcels this has heLoi1e a very
important natural habitat This developmental encroachment
contradicts the goals of the general plan for prsery it ion of open
space and natural habitat
Therefore the EIR is inadequate since no pros ision has been made to
preserve open space and natural h ubit ii in Ness Encinitas.
Sincerely. -
12-242
-.
CP1LSOQ1 cI 6o9
211. Karin S. Brock
Same as letter I 21; see response to that letter.
211 6 March. 1992
:Communiiy Development Department
- 527. -Enciniiai.-Blvd
Encinitas- CA 92024
Sirs,
\ 1 am writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) regarding the proposed Home -Depot at the corner of El Camino
Real and Olivenhain -Road in Encinitas California: The Elk generally relies upon opinion and inadequate .-studies rather than (act, and - - -
. - erroneously draws conclusions that items in question can be
mitigated to a level which is 'less than significant.' This EIR has serious flaws along with a substantial deficiency of evidence
required, to. support any findings that have been made.
-
- This EIR violates CEQA because it defers certain mitigation
. - - measures -to long teliji. management plans. Amdng other significant
long term impacts, this project will completely disrupt the wetlands
'and there is no assurance that the project will replace a currently
- functioning ecosystem with one of equal productivity. The project contains little or no contingency plans for the problLms viiich are
likely to occur after construction, such as those which occurred after
the construction of the Oceanside Home Depot. The EIR addresses the
effect of this total disruption by pointing to a future management
plan to--- be completed by other agercies, including the Army Corps of
Engineers Reliance on illusory mitigation measures such as future
rnanàgèrnent plans-.permits the developer to avoid having to address
the reality of feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives.
The existing biological impacts study is inadequate since long term
adverse environmental impacts were not properly addressed.- Home Depot has a duty to mitigate all such impacts
Sincerely. • - - - - - - • : -
. • - 12-243
: Z 9
- - V - - • - • --
* 0
-. (3
212. Joyce Stumpe
-- Same as letter I 90; see response to. that letter.
6March 1992' 212
Community- Development Departirie iii'
527, Encinitas. Blvd -.-
Encinitas, CA 92024 -
Sirs.
I am writing to Comment out the linvironmetial Impact Report •.. •I (EIR) issued- by Willens urd Associates: for the I-lowe Depoi 'project
proposed (or the corner of El Camino Re il and Oh enhain Road in
Encinitas California This EIR has serious flaws. mud cenerall> relies
upon inadequate studies or opinion rather than facts-,, then
erroneously draws conclusions that items in question cams be
mit igated to ,a level hich is less than st,ntficani Further the DR
has included the impact upon netohhoring residences ss here it -
- seemed advantageous for them -to to do só but left them out of other,
crucial issues
- - - For ëxaniple the Arroyó' La Costa' project was included in the .
viewshed issue, but completely ignored - in traffic suidy. The - -'
additional development of -these 1700 homes in the approyed Arroyo-
La. Costa project csill render -any short term traffic imsitiaiio'ñ efforts
- .
. by the city useless.
Even though the Arroyo La Costa project was ignored, this EIR
- • - states that an excessive increase in traffic will result from the Home . . . .
Depot project (Level - of Service F will result on both: El' Camino Real as. - - 0 • •
welI--ás OIiienhain Road if this project- is built ss -proposed). - This - - : • . level of service will further ads ersel) impact: other business
concerns along El Camino Real as potential customers will avoid this
area due to the risk of accident and personal injury.In fairness to
other established businesses along El Camino Real. traffic along this - . - '• .. . - corridor should be mitigated '.:before' -any additional. development is - 4' ' - .' -- - • .
undertak6nt - - '- . - " ' - - : . •
Sincerely.
12-244
- - -
0 - 0 -
-
- - - -
'S •,
- - 213. Leah Bendil
S S Sane as letter 1 74, see response to that letter.
213 S
6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinilas Blvd
Encinitas. CA 92024 , S
Sirs.
In response to the' Environmental Impact Report (EIR) issued
for the proposed :'Iloune Depot at the' corner of El Camino Real and
Olivenhain Road in Eutcinits. this EIR has serious flaws alone with a
substantial deficiency of evidence required to support any findings
that have been made. In addition, the EIR generally relies upon S
inadequate studies or opinion rather titan facts
The incompatibility of this project with the adjacent residential .
.
areas' demonstrates the fallacy of the zoning of this area, At 'one time
the project site was far enough away from residential areas that, light
industrial uses could have been seriously considered. l'ioweve," the
current and proposed residential huild'out of the surrounding area
has so significantly decimated the open space and wildlife habitats.
that 'this remaining land-must be preserved. The inappropriateness
of this 'p,roject' for the community in' which it is situated suests that '
this project should not only be reconsidered, but the land should be
'down-zoned to a less, intrusive land use. No mitigation for this loss of
open space has been proposed, nor his the continuity of open space
for wildlife been addressed.
The city General Plan further requires no building other than
horse stables nurseries or a sntt,ttnua/l. intrusion of pi-irking areas in a
floodplain. To 'circumvent' this reslriclioiu, the project - poponenIs
have tried to' let' 'the' Olivenhain Road' widening' project assume
responsibility, for the construction of it , retention dam in Encinitas
Creek upstream' from the project site. thereby r'ducing the size of
the floodplain. The subject Elk does not addess this floodplain/land
use issue directly.
12-245 .
•
• 4
214 W. F. Stumpe
. . Same as letter I 45; see response to that letter.
.
5
2.14 5 .
6 March 1992, ,.5_•.•
Community5 Development Deparumeni
527 Encinitas Blvd . . • . Etcihitas, CA. . 92024 •0•
. . -. . ....• . ..
..
S
. . 0 .
S
-Sirs,
. : . . .
I am writing in response to the Environiitiit:tl Impact Report . .• (EIR) •issued by Villens5 and Associates regirding the proposed Home . . •.. .. . •.. Depqt at the .corn'ep of El Camino Real and Olienhain Rbad in
Encinitas. California. This EIR •ha serious fhhws along with a . .
substantial deficiency of evidence required to support any findings
that have been made The EIR generally relies upon inadequate
studies or opinion .rather than. facts. then erroneously dr'ws . - ' ' . ..,• . . - conclusion"that.items in question can be mitigated to a level 'Which . . . . . . . is less than significant
A clear example of this "compliance by edict is demonstrated .
. . .
. in the, noise study. The EIR . reaches the con cclusion ill-at there is no -: sigiiificant impact on neighboring homes: but estabhish no technical basis for this conclusion Project technical consuli tins could not or
would not scientifically examine the impact to the neihbortng
residents, even though there is a clear impact on these residents.
Examples of sound sources . which were not considered include (but • . .. . . are not. -limited :to). nighttime loading dock operations, fork lifts, trash . . - . compactors, - public .. address . -systems. heavy equipment including
- diesel engines, rooftop swamp coolers, car doors. etc. The EIR states . t hat" .noise-levels cannot be evaluated until the project is built, even . . though -accepted scientific principles exist to perform this evaluation.
Therefore . the existing sound study is inadequate since . S . . • measurementswere not performed near residences where Home Depot has a duiy- to mitigate. • -. .
- .
Sincerely, •• - :- . . .
. •. . . . . - . • 5- ' .
U-246
. .29(Q
- - - . - •
. c5 GO.;cA' .
. . .. .. ' .
(EIR) issued by Willens and' Associates for the 'home Depot project
proposed, for the corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road in
Encinitas' California. , This EIR has serious (laws and generally relies
upon inadequate' studies or opinion rather than (acts, then
erroneously draws conclusions that kenis in question can be
mitigated: to a-level which is "less timaim significant' The EIR., has
failed to adequately address the cumulati'e environmental impacts
of this project' and has further -failed to analvi,e these cuinulzttive
impacts and is therefore in violation of CEQA
As an •. example of the, failure, to fully address adverse
environmental Impacts the nationwide 404 permit r mmcd by the
Army Corps of Engiimeers 'was obtained by the d,6-elo&i without an
accepted EIR. or at best an out-of-date study - Nóie -that , this' permit
has receritl.y been revoked and the developr must now reapply.
Further, in accordance with time Code of Federal kesulations, the
proposed activity, must not jeopardize t thre itencd or endan,ered
species as identified under. the Cndan,cred Species Act,.or destroy or
adversely modify the critical habitat of such species. The
gnatcaccher, documented as lit iim oil site even- by paid project
biologists will certainly, be idded to the endangered species list
before this project is completed Therefore additional studies and
proposals for mitigation must be undertaken ii the site to protect the
critical habitat of this bird
Sincerely,
- 2-247
ç,44 d . S
W
- 1,-
• 216. Joseph Pizzino
216
Same as letter I 21; see response to that letter.
6-.Mach 1992
S
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitàs, CA 92024
- Sirs.
'1 am writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report
- (Elk) regarding the proposed HOme. Depot at the corner of El Camino
- S Real and Olivenhain Road in Enciniias California. The EIR. generally
. relies upon opinion and inadequate studies rather than fact and erroneously draws conclusions that items in question can be mitigated to a level which less than significant. - •This ElR has'' serious flaws along with a substantial deficiency of evidence required. to support any findings that have been made. .
This EIR violates CEQA because it defers certain mitcgaiion measures- to long term management plans. Among other 'significant
long term impacts this project will completely disrupt the wetlands,. and there is no assurance thai the project will replace a currently functioning ecosystem with one &f equal prodticivity. The project, contains little or no contingency plans for the problems which are likely to' occur after construction, such as thoe which occurred after - the construction of the -Oceanside Home Depot. The EIR addrsse the . S effect of this total disruption by pointing to a future management
- - ' planaio..be completed by Other agencies, including the Army Corps of • Engineers. Reliance on illusory mitigation measures such as future . '. management plans permits the developer' to avoid having to address
S the reality of fesible- mitigation measures .or project alternatives. - -
. :,
1
• ,, -
The' existing- biological impacts study is inadeqUate- since .long term
. S adverse environmental. impacts were not properly addressed, Home . - . ' • Depot'häs a. duly*to initigate all such impacts. S
. . ,, ,
Sincerely,
/
..
S ,•
- - ' 12-248 S • •J(7'' '- ''2.v-'-O -
- -
- •'-/:.'.,", • / ...'5
'
217
6 March 1991
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas. CA :92024
Sirs.'
I am; writing in response to the Environmental lnpact Report
(EIR) .regarding the proposed Home Depot at the corner of El Camino - 'ReaL and Olivenhain Roád" in Encinitas California. The EIR generally
relies-upon opinion and- inadequate studies' rather than fact, and
erroneously draws conclusions that items in. question- can - be mitigated to a level which is "less than significant." This EIR has
serious flaws along with a substantial deficiency of evidence
required to support any finditigs that lias:e been made.
This EIR violates CEQA because it defers certain mitigation
measures to long term management plans.- Among - other significant long-term --impacts, this project will completely disrupt the wetlands
and there is no assurance that the project - will replace a currently
functioning ecosystem with one of equal productivity. - The project contains little or - no contingency . plans foi the problems which are
likely to occur after dohstr'uctión, such - as - those which -occured after
the construction of the' Ocenside Home Depot. The Elk addresses the
effect- of this -total disruption by pointing to a future management
plan to be completed by other agencies, including the,Army Corps of
Engineers. Reliance on illusory mitigation measures such as future
management plans permits the des eloper to avoid has tng to address
the reality of feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives.
The existing biological impacts study is inadequate stnce long term
adverse environmental impacts were not properly addressed Home -
-
- - Depot has a -duty to mitigate all such impacts. - - -
Sincerely
--
- Lo
n r -
217. Jim DuLaney -
Same as letter 1:21; see response to that letter.
- 12-249
17
- 218. Kim Limbach
218 Same as letter I 21 see response to that letter.
6 'Mar ch 1992
Cómmünity D0evelopmeu Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Enèiniias, CA 92024 ..
Sirs. •'
I am writing in response to the Euivironmenial Impact Report
V'
(EIR) regarding the proposed Home Depot at the corner df El Camino - V:
0
Real and Otivenhain Rod in Encinitas California. The EIR generally
relies upon opliion anTd -inadequate studies 'raiher than fact, and
eiróieously draws V conâlusions that''item's in ;question can be
mitigated to a level which is less than significant This EIR has
serious 'flaws along with a subsuntal Vdeficienc of evidence V
required to sipporI any findings that have-,,been made,
This EIR violates CEQA because it defers certain mitigation
measures, to long term management, plans. Among oilier, significant
lo'ng term impacits,'chis pr, will completely disrupt the wetlands
and thre is no assurance that ih project will replace a currently
functioning ecosystem ;with one of equal productivity. The project '0 .
contains liule,or no contingency .'plans. for the problems which: are 0 V
likely 10 occ!lr, after construction"such as: those which occurred after.
the construction of the Oceanside Home Depot The EIR addresses the
effect of this total disruption by pointing to a future management
.plan to :be -completed by other agencies',' including the Army Corps of.
Engineers.; Reliance on illusory mitigation measures such as 'future . .
management plani permits the developer, to avoid having to address V "
the. reality of feaile mitigation' measures or project alternatives.
The existing biological impacts study.:is Anadequate since long term
adverse, environmental impacts were not properly addressed. Home
Depot, has a duty to mitigate all such impacts.
Sincerely. V
0
V 12-250
V V
' V
V
, •' -
- -
219. Linda Dance All, 7918 Arbusto Ct., Carlsbad, CA 92009
Same as letter # 60; see response to that letter.
219
6 March 1992
Community Develoment Department
527 Encihitas Bird
.Encinitas CA 92024 - -
Sirs.
I am writing to'-'express my concern over, the proposed Home - Depot project, specifically the, draft Environmental Impact 'Report
- (EIR).;' This I Elk is completely.'-iiiadequate. The ElR does not have a
statement of overriding merit, as, required by CEQAt The -city
council's desire to generate • tax revenues does not juslify building
this monstrosity on environmentally sensiiive land nor creating a .
- -traffic nightmare.
The Elk admits that there will be an increase in traffic, and - assigns traffic a- grade, ......after he-i project is bLiilt. yci it dues not eyen' take -into account the traffic which will be rated y the 1700 - - homes' i'n the .Arro'o'. La Costa project and any other future - development along the' El Ca'mino Real corridor. -Tlé' EIR does not . adequately address -mitigation' of this traffic problem nor does it - - - address who' will pay for the upkeep-of the roads du'e to this increased traffic, including the large. number of diesel trucks (100
per day) making deliveries to Home Depot. - - -
The. Elk does admit that traffic - cannot be mitisated to a "less - -. than significant effect. The project should not be considered until the current traffic cogestion/problems along El Camino Real are
addressed Home Depot should not be .tIlo%ed to take the position
that traffic which their megastore will create not their concern
Sincerely. - - -- , - ,' - - -, , - --- - - - • "
- / III %L06 CI
Ca\Sbjd, c, q'c - -
- -
12-251 -
-
- - - • -
S
0
220. Steven Orine, 7918 Arbusto Court, Carlsbad, CA 92009
220 Same.as 'letter # 21; see response to that letter.
6 Makh. 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024 S -
Sirs,
S
I am writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) •regarding the proposed Home Depot at the corner of, El Carnino
Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinius California The Elk generally
relies upon opinion and inadequate studies rather than fact and
erroneously draws conclusions that items in question can be
mitigated to a level which is less than significant This EIR has
serious (laws along with a substantial deficiency of evidence
: required to support any findings ihat have been made. .
. - . .• .5
This EIR violates CEQA because it defers certain mitigation
measures to long term management plans Amon1, other significant
long ,term impacts, thi'sprojeci will .completely disrupt the wetlands
and there is no assurance that the project will replace a currently
functioning ecosystem with one of equal productivity. The project
contains little or no contingency plans for the problems which are
likely to.
.-
occur after construction, such as those which occurred after •0
. the construction of the Oceanside Home Depot. The Elk addresses the
- effect, of, this total disruption by pointing to a future' management
plan to be completed by other agencies including the Army Corps of
Engineers.,,Reliance on illusory nhitiatIon measures such as future
management: plans permits the developer to avoid
, having to address
S the reality of feasible mitigation measures or, project alternatives
The existing ' biological impacts study is inadequate since long term
adverse environmental impacts were not properly addressed. Home
Depot has a duty to iñitigate all 'such impacts.
Sincerely.
-
- 7/ S ' -
5 .• 12-252
, 5
r
- Same as letter 1 60; see resposne to tnat letter.
221
6 March 1992 S
.Coiuimunity Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024 '•
Sirs.
I am writing to express my concern Over the proposed Home
Depot projeci, specifically the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This EIR is completely inadequate. The EIR does 'not hive a
statement of overriding merit as required by, CEQA. The city
councils desire to generate tax revenues does not justify building
this monstrosity on environmentally sensitive land nor creating a
traffic nightmare.
The Elk admits that there will be an incease in traffic, and
assigns traffic a grade. 'F after the project is built, yet It does not .even take into, account the traffic which viIh 'be created by the 1700
homes in the Arroyo La Costa project and :iny other future
development along the El Camino Real corridor. The DR does not
adequately address mitigation of this traffic problem nor does it
address, who will pay for the upkeep of the, roads due to this increased traffic, including the large number of diesel trucks '(100
per day) making deliveries to Home Depot.,
The EIR does admit that traffic cannot be mitigated to a "less
than significant effect The project should not be considered until
the current traffic congestion/problems alone El Camino Real are
addressed Home Depot should not be allowed to take the position
that traffic which their megastore ill create is not their concern
Sincerely
12-253
1
-
- - 222. Lucille Stephenson
: S Same as letter 1 60; see response to that letter.
222
6 March 1992'
S
Cmmunity Development Department
527 Enctniias Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024 -'
Sirs.
I am writing to expressin), c,oncern over the proposed Home Depot project specifically the draft En'. ironmental Impact Report
(EIR)..This EIR is completely indequaie,- The EIR, does not have a
statement of overriding merit as required b> CEQA The city
council s desire to generate tax revenues does not justtf> building
this monstrosity on environmentallv sensiti.e l'ind nor creating a
trafftc nightmare
The EIR admits that there will be an increase in traffic and
assigns traffic a grade F after the project is built ci it does not
even take into -account the traffic which will be created 'by the '1700
' homes in the Arroyo La Costa project and any other lucure
deveIopmént along' the El Camino Real 'o'rridor, 'The EIR doe's not :
adequately address mitigation of this traffic problem..nor does it
address who will pay for the •u'pkep of the roads due to'• this
increased traffic including the large number of diesel trucks (100
per day) making deliveries to Home Depot.
Thç' EIR does 'admit that 'traffic cannot be iniiigaied to"'a "lessthan significant" effect. The p'ojèct should not 'be considered until
' • • ' S the current traffic congestion/problems along El Camino Real are
addressed. Home' Depot should not, be allowed to take the position
that traffic which'.their megastore" !-ill create is not, their concern.
Sincerely. S S • , ' - S , ,• - S '
12-254
223. Nancey Larkin
- Same as letter 0 60; see response to that letter.
223
6 March 1992
Community Developñent De'partment
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024 '
Sirs.
I am writing to express my concern over the proposed Home
Depot project specifically the draft. Environmental Impact Report
(EIR). This EIR is completely inadequate. The EIR. goes not have a
statement of overriding merit, as required, by CEQA. The city
council's 'desire to generate tax revenues does not justify building
this monstrosity on environmental!)'sensitive hod nor creating a
traffic nightmare.
The FIR admits that there ill be an increase in traffic and
assign's traffic a, grade F after ,the project is built, yet it does not
even take in10 account the traffic which will be created by the 1700
homes,, in the Arroyo La Costa projct.. and any other future
development along the El Camino Real corridor. The EIR does not
adequately address mitigation of this traffic problem,,nor does it
address who will pay for ' the upkeep of the roads due, to' this
increased traffic, including the large number" of diesel trucks (100
per day) making deliveries to Home Depot.
The, EIR does admit that traffic cannot be initiated to a 'less ,
than significant effect The project should not be considered until
the cu 1rrent t r c afftc ongestton/piob!enis along El -Camino Real are
addressed Home Depot should not be allowed to take the position
that traffic which their megastore .ill create is not their concern
Sincerely, , ' •,..
WIX M 12-255
S S
3 1 • (0)
224. Aurelia Alioth
Same as letter I 60; see response to that letter.
• .
2 24
6March 1992 .
Community Development. Department . 527.Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 22024 . .
. ... . .
. .
Sirs.
I am writing to express iny. concern over the proposed Home Depot project;. specifically, the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR-). This. EIR . is completely inadequate. The EIR does not have a statement of overriding merit'as.required by CEQ The city council s desire io generate tax revenues ,,does- not jusiify building this 22 monstrosity on environmentally sensitive land nor, creating a traffic nightmare
The EIR admits that there ill be an increase in traffic and assigns traffic a grade F after the project is built yet it does not even take into account the traffic which' will be created by the 1700 homes in the Arroyo La Costa project and an> other futur development alông the - El Camino Real corridor. The EIR does not adequately address mitigation of this traffic problem nor does it 22
address who will pay for the upkeep -of the roads due to this increased traffic including the large number of diesel trucks (100 per day) making deliveries to 'Home Depot. . S • • •
The EIR does admit that traffic cannot be mitigated to a less Ihan significant effect. The project should not be considered until the curient- traffic congestion/roblems along El Camino Real are . . addressed Home Depot should not be allowed to take the position that traffic wliiéh their megàsiore will create is not their concern."
-. •.
Sincerely, ,4L10 7
/22ñPL 4 2. • - •
5
114 le 15 elf-C4 920a7 12-256
-• • . • - S. - . . • - -- - - ...5
225. 2406 La Plancha, Carlsbad, CA 92009
Same as letter I 60; see response to that letter.
- 225
6 March 1992
Comriiüiiiiy Devlopnient .Depariincni
527 Eninitas Blvd
Encinit. CA 92024
Sirs.
I am writing to express my concern over the proposed Home
Depot project, specifically the draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR). This EIR is complete!)' inadequaie.s The EIR does not have a
statement of overriding merit, as required by, CEQA. The city
councirs desire to generate tax revenues does- '1101 justify building
this monstrosity on environmentally sensitive land- nor creating a
'traffic, nightmare,
The EIR admits that there will be an increase in traffic, and
assigns traffic a grade "F after the project is built, yet it does not
even take into account the traffic which will be created by the 1.700
hOmes in the Arroy.o La Costa project. 'iid any other future
development along the El .Camino Real corridor. The EIR does not
adequately address mitigation of this .traffic' problem. nor does it
address who will, pay for the upkeep of the, roads due to this
increased traffic, including the large number of diesel trucks (100
per ,day) making deliveries to Home Depot.
The EIR does admit that traffic cannot be mitigated to a "less
than significant effect The project should not be considered until
the current traffic congestion/problems along El Camino Real are
addressed Home Depot should not be allowed to take the position
that traffic which their megastore will create i not their concern
Sincerely, ) /
- f
0 i2-257
• 4
- 226. KiiS Bess -
- . Same as letter 1 .21; see response to: that letter.
. . . 226 °.
. 6 March 1092 :
Community Development Department
. . 527 Encinitas Blvd ., . . . Encinitas, CA 92024 . .
. . . . .
Sirs. -.
I am writing in response to the 'Environmental Impact Report
- .• (Elk) regarding the proposed Home Depot at the corner of El Camino' . . . . Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinitis California. The EIR generally . • . relies upon opinion and inadequate studies rather than (act. 'and erroneously draws conclusions :that items in question can be. . . mitigated to a, level which .is :"lei's.than significant. This ElR has
. .,. . serious flaws along with a substantial deficiency of evidence required to support. any findings that have been made.
This. EIR. violates CEQA because it defers, certain mitigation measures to long term management plans. Among other significant . long'- term impacts. this project will completely disrupt the wetlands and there is ho'assurance that the project will replace a currintly . . . . funcioning .eéosystem with one of equal productivity. The project contains little or no, contingency plans fOr the problems which are likely to ocCur after. construction, such as those which occurred after
- the construction of the Oceanside Home Depot. - The EIR addresses the effect of this total disruption by pointing 10 a future management plan to be, completed by - other agencies, including the Army Coqis of
.future Engineers. Reliance on 'illusory mitigation measures such as -future . management plans permits the developer to avoid,-having to address the reality of feasible, mitigation measures or project alternatives.
The existing biological impacts study is inadequate since long term . . . . . - . • . adverse' environmental impacts were not properly addressed.' Home - Depot has a'- duty to mitigate all such impacts. - . .
,, •. .
.
, . - . , - '. Sincerely, -. . . ... . . . •
-'-- .- . . • . - .
12-258
- i' C - , -• :. . . . - -
-
S.
•
0
C' rjl •
C'
a
-S C IS. a) . a)
S.J -
IS, IS.
ISIS Qa -
ai UI • S - I-) a) • *
N UI C' C • . . •
C' U)
0 >.•u'.'u >.C) U) a •'°. -' 42
-. S 5)• LLJ u,— • -2 —
— - ' = — -= — =w-,-1-. •u. , - — — — •1 - •Sd
-u •>,
2 <
=
— " C -a • 0 — -' ao;2— -
'
'— -
. .
! 1
N
>= •
N
' N '<
— U ca E 116 uuooS_,.,*z E • Si
' '-, "4
-r _a)= jU.
2.- .--°--e e > 1 — -. -" " — — ' o —
. L1 .O Co."I
. ''-o • ,Eu os
- —.
o
0 - :
4
•. - 228 7927 Arbusto Court, Carlsbad, CA 92009
Same as letter # 21; see response to that letter. -. 228 6 March 1992 .
Community Development Department .
527 Encinitas Blvd Encinitas, CA 92024
. Sirs, ..
I am writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report.
.(EIR) regarding the proposed Home Depot at the corner of El Canino
keaU and Olivenhain Road in Encinicas California The EIR generally
relies upon opinion and inadequate studies rather than fact and
erroneously draws conclusions that items in question can be
mitigated to a level which is less than4 significant This EIR has serious flaws along with a substantial deficiency of evidence
required to sqpppt.a -findings that hive been . • . . . . .
This EIR violates CEQA because it defers certain mitigation
measures to long term management plans Among other significant
long iern..impacts. this project— will càmpletely disrupt the wetlands
.. • and there is no assurance that the project will replace a currently
functioning ecosystem with one of equal productivity. The project contains little or no contingency plans for the problems which are
likely to occur after construction such as those which occurred after
the construction of the Oceanside Home Depot The EIR addresses the
effect of this total disruption by pointing to a future management
plan to be completed by other agencies including the Army Corps of
Engineers. Reliance on illusory. mitigation measures • such as future • • management plans permits the developer to avoid having to address
feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives the reality of
The existing biological impacts study is inadequate since long term
adverse enviionmental -. impacts were not properly addressed. Home . • . . Depot has a duty to mitigate all such impacts
12-260
( 7
fJO
229. Melissa Merino
Same as letter I 21; see response to that letter.
229 6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024 . 4.
-
Sirs,
I am,wriiing in response to the Environmental. Impact Report
(EIR) regarding the proposed Home Depot at -the corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinitas California The EIR generally relies upon opinion and inadequate studies rather than fact and
erroneously draws' 'conclusions that items in question can be
mitigated to a level which is "less than significant." This EIR- has serious flaws along with a substantial deficiency of evidence
-required to support-any findings that have been -made.
-
This EIR.. violates CEQA. because it defers certain mitigation
measures to long 'term maña'gerhent plans. Amng" other significant
long term impacts, this project will completely disrupt the wetlands
and - there is no assurance that the projeát yill replace a. currently functioning' ecosystem with one of equal productivity. The -project contains little- or no contingncy- plans' for the problems which are likely to occur after Vconstruction. such as those which 'occurred- after the Constriction of the Oceanside Home Depot. The EIR, addreses the effect of this total disruption by pointing to a future management
plan to be completed by other- agencies, including the Army Corps of Engineers. -Reliance on illusory mitigation measures such as future
management plans permits the developer to avoid having to address
the reality of feasible mitigation measures or project Ialternatives.
The existing biological impacts study Js in since long term
V - adverse environmental impacts were not properly addressed. Home
- - . Depot has a duly :to, mitigate. all such impacts.--
Sincerely.
- --
"(t"1
- 12-261
-
V V
V 230. Laurence Schultz
Same as letter # 60; see response to that letter.
V 6tMarch 1992
V 230 V V V V
Community D,evelopiiieni Department
527 Encinitas Blvd •V V . ,
V
: V V.:
V Encinitas, CA 92024 V V
.• V
V
V
V
Sirs,
V am writing to express my concern over the proposed Home V V V V Depot project, specifically the draft Env.irbnmental Impact Report
(EIR) This EIR is completeR tnadcquaie The EIR does not have a
V - statement of overriding:- merit, required by CEQ.A. The city. V V V
V V V
VV V V council's -Aesire to generate tax revenues does not Justify, building V
this'Mons trosityr on envtronme:itall sensitt'.e land nor creating a V traffic nightmare.
The EIR admits that there will be an increase in traffic, and - assigns traffic a grade F after the project is built )et it does not
even take into account the traffic which will be created by the 1700 . V V •V V V
V homes in the Arroyo . La Costa project. .and any V other fuiure V V
development along the El Camino Real corridor. The EIR does not
adequately address mitigation of this traffic problem nor does it
address who will pay for the upkeep of the roads due to this increased traffic, .includiii the. large number of diCsel .iruèks (!00 per day) making deliveries to Home Depot
VTheV EIR ,does admit that traffic cannot be nIitisated to a 'less
than significant effect The project should not be considered until
thC current traffic ongestion/problems along El Camino Real are
addressed Home Depot should not be allowed to take the position
that traffic which their megastore ill create i not their concern
V Sincerely.
1262
- 231. Allan D. Severn
Same as letter I 60; see response to that letter.
231
6 March 1992
Community Development, Department
527 Enciñicas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
I am writing to express my concern over the proposed Home Depot project specifically the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This EIR is completely inadequate. The EIR does not have a
statement of overriding merit, as required by CEQA. The city councils desire to generate tax revenues does not justify building this monstrosity on environmentally sensitive land nor creating a traffic -nightmare. .
The -EIR admits that there will be an increase in traffic, and assigns traffic a 'grade "F" after the project is built., yet it does not -- even take into account the traffic ulitch will be created by the 1700 homes tn the Arroyo La Costa project and any other future,
development along the El Camino Real corridor. The EIR does not adequately address mitigation of this traffic problem nor does it address who will pay- for the upkeep.. of the roads due to this increased traffic, including the large number of diesel trucks (100 per day) making deliveries to Home Depot.
The EIR does admit that traffic cannot be mitigated to a less than significant" effect The project should not be considered until
the current traffic congestion/problems along El Camino Real are addressed. lime Depot should- . not be allowed to take -the position
that traffic which their megastore ill create i. not their concern
Sincerely, - : - - •'
OL
aLt('7 Lc. P(uct- -
12-263
oc,c . 11 .
•
- . 232. E. McCorndlén
Same as letter I 60; see response to that letter.
232
6 March 1992 .' .
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Enciiiitas.-CA 92024 :
Sirs. . . •-
I am writing to express. my concern over the proposed Home-- Depotp1piect. specifically the draft Environmental Impact Repot (EIR). This EIR is cothpliely inadquaie.-. The EIR . does not have a .- . . statement of overriding merit as required b) CEQA The city .
councils desire to generate tax revenues does not justify building this monstrosity on environmeniall> sensitive-,,land nor creating a traffic Aiighimare.
The EIR admits that there will be an increase in traffic and assigns traffic a grade F after the project is built yet it does not even tske mb' accbnt the traffic which will be created by the 1700 homes in the Arroyo La Costa project and any oiher future development along the El Camino Real corridor..-,The EIR does not adequately address mitigation of this traffic problem nor does it address who will pay for the upkeep of the roads due to this increased traffic including the large number of diesel trucks (100 per day) making deliveries to Horn Depot. - • •
The EIR does admit that traffic cannot be mitigated to, a less . -. than significant" effect. The projeci should not be considered until
• the cunent traffic congestion/problems along El Camino Real are addressed. He" Depot should not be allowed to take the position - • that traffic which their "megasibre" will create is 'not their concern."
Sincerely. - . .•
•
. . .
- . . .
. 2 •
--
-
• • 12-264
233
6: March 1992
Community. Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA, 92024
Sirs,
I in,: writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) regarding the proposed Home Depot at the corner of El Camino
Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinitas California.The EIR generally
relies upon opinion and inadequate studies rather than fact, and
erroneàusly draws conclusions that items in question can be
mitigated to a level which is "less than significant. This EIR has
serious flaws along with a substantial deficiency of evidence
required to support any findings that have been made.
This EIR violates CEQA because it defers certain .miligaiion
measures to long term management plans Anson, other significant
long term impacts, this project will completely disrupt the wetlands
and there is no assurance that the project will replace a currently
functioning ecosystem with one of equal productivity. The project
contains little or no contingency plans for the problems s hich are
likely to occur after constrtion. such as those which occurred after
the construction of the Oceanside Home Depot. The EIR addresses the
effect of this total disiuption by pointing to it future management
plan to bç completed by other agencies, including the Army Corps of
Engineers. Reliance on illusory mitigation measures such as future
managemeAt, plans permits the developer to avoid having to address
the reality of feasible mitigation measures or projec t ltcrn itives
The existing biological impacts study is inadequate- since Ion0 term
adverse environmental impacts were not properly addressed. Home Dept has a duty to mitigate all such impacts. .
Sincerely,
233. Mrs. E. Dubue
Same as letter # 21; see response to that letter.
12-265
4
234. cZLe ¼.--'C,9 foto9
234. Maurice Dubue
Same as letter # 64; see response to that letter.
6 March 1992
Community Devclopinent Deparimcni
527 Encinitas Blvd
. 0
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
I am writing to comment on the Environiniital Impact Report ' (EIR) regarding;ihe proposed Home Depot at the- corn& of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinitas This El his subst.inti.l
deficiency of evidence required to support the findings that have
been made The EIR generally relics upon indequ tie studies rather
than facts;;,then erroneously drs s conclusions that items in question can be mitigated to a less than significant ' level..
Approval of the Home Dejoi project , would subvert the intent . . . of the Clean 'Water' Act;: No study was conducted to show the impact of water runoff from this project into Bataquitos Lagoon.
Furche'r, the general plan 'of :Encinitas requires' that no
development:" ho,ld, reduce wetland area, although this project in
conjunction with the retention dm planned for the upsire tin side of Encinitàs crèèk will reduce wetland ire'ii.
-
- Therefore the existing biological' impacts study is inadequate.
Home Depot has a duty to mitigate aii> iinpcL on Bataquitos Lagoon.
Sc'creIy,'
12-266
, '.
I
co
'c0C0
- -' - - -D u 0, CO
2_u -4 -a
- 0 C o u o_
- C
- >-.
—
e-- Eo
- C)
-- 0 •CEC) co
0' 0. 0. --
--j_ n- =3 0 •j._ Il, u
o.c
" 2 - 0 _C) 0 CS)
WUi,CC,) — E'lI —:i' '0 U — U 0o - - . = - = _4) ---'0 - 2 D--,'- C.
E4 U . '-5Z€
2 ' —
°uj 0. C CL
- •C,0>C _C a
-'0
o ;—_-_
- U o=2
.-430 .0 oo 1>1 Nu o >Ul
— — E=
C o - — 0. __CJU 0 ..' 0C c0_4J
0C U€.'
0. 00 'oo'' o oo 2 . C'D ) '
C' • C C C . 2 ca
ri
-= o C o C'
UJ -
SI > SI C j • SI - '0 '0OOC,)_N C' -C - - .
0C'
— - U7'
- ; -'C fl d ffl h U 0, kA
S
•
• 11
236. Martin A. Lane
Sameás letter I 68; see response to that letter. .
.6 March 1992 .236 . .
Community Development Department . . . 527 .Encinitas Blvd ..... . . . Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
I am writing to comment on the Environmenial Impact Report . . (EIR) issued by Willens and Associates for the Home Depot project
proposed for the 3rner of El, Càthino Real and Olivenhain Road.-In
Enciniias California. This EIR has serious flaws and,"eherally relies . upon dequate studies or opinion rather than facts then f erroneousl
ina
y draws conclusions that items in question can be
mitigated to a level which is less than significant The EIR has
failed to adequately address the cumulative7 environmental impacts
of this project and has further failed to analyze these cumulative
impacts ãnd is therefore in violation of CEQA
As an example of the failure to fully, address adverse
environmental impacts the natiowide 404 permit ranted by the Army Corps of Engineers was obtained by the developer without an . . . . . accepted 'Elk or at best. an óut-of-daie study. Note that this permit . . .: has:receitly been revoked and the developer mus . v now reapply. •
Further, in accordance with the. Code of Federal Regulations, the .. . . . . proposed activity must not jeopardize a threatened or endangered
• species as 'identified under the Endangered Species Act, or destóy or -
. . . • adyersely.!nodify -'the' critical habitat of such species. The . gnatcatcher documented as isvins -9h.,siu even by paid project biologists will certainly be added to the endangered species list before' this project is. completed.' • Therefore additional studies and proposals for mitigation must be undertaken at the site to protect the . . .. critical habitat of this bird.. . . • . . . - • . . . .
Sincerely; . .' . • • . . . . . . . .
12-268
. .
....•
0
t'i e '
237. Darrell Pearson
- Same as letter 1 64; see response to that letter.
37 6 March 1992 '
Community 'Development Department 0
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, 'CA 92024'
Sirs, 0
I ant writing to comment on the ' Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) regarding the"proposed Home Depot at the corner of El Camino
Real' and Olivenhain ;Road in Encinitas. This Elk has a substantial
deficiency of evidence required to support the findings that have
been made. The LIR generally relies upon inadquate studies rather
than. facts, then erroneously draws conclusions that items in 'question
can be mitigated to a "less than significant level.
Approval of the Home' Depot project would subvert the intent ' 0
Of the Clean Wthèr Act. No'study was conducted to "show the impact
- of water runoff from this prject into Bataquitos Lagoon.
Further, the genetal plan of Encinitas requires that no
de'velopment should 'red
'
6ce wetland area, althoueli this project in
conjunction with the retntion darn planned for 'the upstream side of -
- Enciiiitas creek will' reduce 'etland area. -
Therefore' the existing biological impacts study is inadequate.
Home Depot has i duty to mitteate an impact on l3ataquitos Lagoon.
Sincerely,
_//
L- -r
- ,/ .-• - - '
.
' '•
0
0
'
0 12-269
•
• *
238. Jami Kiss
Same as letter # 22; see response to that letter.
238
6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527 'Encinicas Blvd
Encinicas;CA .,92024
Sirs,
I am writing, in response to the Environmental . Impact Report
(EIR) issued by Willens and Associaies regarding,the proposed Home
Depotat. the corner of El Camino Real and' Oli.verihain Road in'
Encinitas California This EIR has serious flaws alonm with a
substantial, deficiency. of evidence., required to Support any findjngs .
-' that havebeçn made. The EIR ',generally. relies upon inadequate '
studies or opinion, rather than facts then 'er'roncously driws
conclusions that items in question can be untii ted to level which
is less than"sigriifica nt. "
-,
"
The .EIR has also attempted to sever issues which, are an
integral part of. this study For, example, although the Home Depot
project relies''critically.,upon the retention pond to be built in
Encinitas Creek (as part of the Ohivenh tin Road \\'tdening project) the
details of this".tetention pond and its impact are not included in this' • . -
EIR Further, the data taken (or the Road \Videntn, project has not
been updated to take into account upstream development.
The, failure to adequately address and analyze'this projects
cumulative impacts' 'is in violation of the California - Environmental - .- Quality, Actand must be corrected before this EIR' can be approved.
0
.Sincerel,''. - .•• - 0 ,, 0 ' 1 ' ' '
, ,
"- 3 ,. QoGq ' •• ''.: ' • f 0
)
12-270
- 239. .Gayle Johnston
- Same as letter I 60; see response to that letter.
239
6 March 1992
Community Development Deparitnent
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinicas, CA 92024
Sirs,
I am ,writing to express 114 concern over the proposed Home
- Depot project. specifically the draft Environmental . Impact Report (EIR). This EIR is, completely inadequate. The EIR does not have a
statement of' overriding merit, as required by CEQA. The city
council's desire to generate tax revenues does not justify building
this monstrosity on environmentally sensitive land nor creating a
traffic nightmare.
The EIR admits that there will be an increase in traffic, and
assigns traffic 'a grade F alter the project is built yet it does not
even taki into account the traffic which 'Will be created 'by the' 1700
- homes in 4he Arroyo ,La Costa projeci, and any "oilier future S
development along the El Camino Real' corridor. The EIR does not
adequately, address mitigation of this traffic tc problem, nor does it
address who will pay for the upkeep of the roads due to this
increased traffic, including the large number of diesel trucks (100 . . .
per day) making deliveries to Home Depot.
The. EIR does admit that traffic cannot be mitigated to •a "less
than significant effect The project should not he considered until
the current traffic congestion problems along El C tinino Real are
addressed Home Depot should not be illowed to tike the position
that traffic which their megasiore ill crejie is not their concern
Sincerely
(22c/zc /
9/L ?1
12-271
• .
IT
- 240. Jeanne Hanson
- Same as letter 1 68; see response to that letter.
6 March 1992 240
- ,
Community Dcvelpnient Deparimeiti
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024 ••,• -.
Sirs.
I am writing to comment on die Environmental Impact Report - (EIR) issued by Willens and Associates for the 1-lome Depot project
- '• proposed for the corner of El Camino Ret! and Olivenhain Road in
Encinitas California This Mhas serious Haw,, md ,enerally relies
upon inadequate 'studies or'- opiaion- rather titan facts, 'then
••- erroneously dras conclusions that items tim question can be
mitigated to a level which is less than si,,nific nt The ElR has failed to adequate!> address the cuntuhati e en iroilnteni ml impacts
of this project añd has- further failed to a na Iy-/c these cumulative
S -- impacts and: is therefore 1n violation of CEQA. ;- -
-
As an example of the failure to lull) tddress aderse
environmental impacts the nationss ide 404 permit granted by the
Army Corps of Engineers was obtained by the developer without an
accepted ElR or at best an out-of-date study. Note that this permit
has recently been revoked and the deueloper rnusi now reapply. - - -- - -
0
- • Further; in accordande wiih the Code - of Fede'rzti Regulations, the
S - proposed activity must not jepadize a theiiened or endangered - - - - - • • -- • - - species as identified under the End'angered Species Act, o destroy or
- - - adversely rnodifyJthe critical - habItat of such peces.'•-The - - • S • . gnatcatcher documented as living out S IL even by paid project -• • biologists -- will-certainly be added 'to the endangered species list • S -- - , : - before this project 'is conpleted. Therefore additional studies and • • • - • • • •prposaIs 'for mitigation must be undertaken ;it the site to protect the - critical habitat of this bird*.
- • • • S - - • - -
Sincerely,
JE,i,sjm'-)L It)4(.,SJA) - , S
• 12-272 - -
- ' • S - 151 AZ7Z Sr -
- -
- •
. - (S I • S
- '- - 241. Susan E. Ersidar
Same as letter I 68; see response to that-letter.
6. March 1992 .
' ' 241
Community Development Department,.
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinits, CA ' 92024 .'
Sirs,
I am writing to comment on the Environmental Impact Report
-(EIR) issued by Willens and Assoctatesior the Homi. Depot project prmposed'for the corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road in
Encinitas California. This EIR has serious (laws and genraliy relies upon iriadeqüa'Ié studies or opinion rather than facts, then
erroneously draws conclusions that Itenis in question can be
mitigated to a level which is less than significant The EIR has
failed.- to I'adequ'aiely -address the cumulative environmental impacts , of this project and has"further failed to analyze ihcc cumulative
impacts and is therefore in violation of CEQA
As an example of the failure to full)address adverse
environmental Impacts the nationwide 404 permit granted by.,the
Army Corps ,of Engineers was obtained -by 'the developer: without an
- accepted EIR or at best an out-of-date Study. Note that this permit
has recently' been revoked rid the developer must, low' ,'capp1y.
Further, in accordance with the Code of, Federal Regulations, the
- proposed activity must not jeopardize a threatened or endangered
species as identified under the Endangered Species Act, or destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of such species The gnatcatcher documented as living on site even by paid project
biologists will certainly 'beo added to the endangered species list
before this project is completed Therefore additional studies and
proposals for mitigation must be undertaken at the situ, to protect the
critical habitat of this bird
Sincerely,
12-273 . IS f
•
20
-t'- La Cèi32 ..
C.A '42i2 z 242. Susan Ortabasi
.
Same as letter .# 45 see response to that letter
6 March 1992 242 "- S
Community Development Department
527 Enciñicas Blvd
.'. Encinitas, CA ;92024
Sirs, .
'
I am writing in response to the Environmental impact Reii'ori
- (EIR) issued by. Willens and Associates regarding the proosed Home Depot at the corner,of El Carnino Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinitas, California This EIR has serious flaws along with a substantial deficiency of evidence required to support any findings
that have been made The EIR 0enerall relics upon inadequate
studies or opinion rather than facts then erroneously draws concl6sions that, items -in question can be mitigated IC a level which
is less than significant
A clear example of this compliance by edict is demonstrated
in the noise study. The EIR' 'reaches the conclusion that there'is no
significant impact ott neighboring homes but esi bIi'he no technical basis for this conclusion Project technical consultants could not or would not, scientifically. examine , the 'impact to '(lie" neighboring
restdents even though there is a clear impact on these residents
Examples of Sound sources which were not considered include' (but
are not limited to) nighttime loading dock operations, fork lifts trash
compactors public address systems',' heavy equipment including
- diesel engines, rooftop swamp coolers, car doors, etc. The EIR states
that noise levels cannot ..be evaluated until the project is built, even
though 'accepted scientific principles exist. to perform this evaluation.
Therefore the existing sound study is inadequate since measurernents,-,'were not performed near residences where 'Home Depot la's a duty to 'mitigate.
- Sincerely,
- S 12-274
Sc L..r 'r-i ,
,
243
243. Bekir Ortabasj
Same as letter I 73; see response to that letter.
6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
I am .writing to comment on the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) written by Willens and Associaie as part of the, Hàrne D4ot
project proposed for the corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain
Road in Encinitas; Ca,liforn,ia. This EIR is flawed since there is a
substantial, deficiency :of evidence required to support the findings
that have been made. The EIR relies' upon inadequate studies and
then draws conclusions that hems in question can he mitigaied to a
less than significant level.
Since the site designated for this project repreeocs the last
open spac'e in New. Encinitas, it should be preserved from any further
development, in accordance with the open space goals of the General
Plan, of Ecinitas. New. Encinitas already has the low,sg percentage of
open space. in all of Encinitas, as documented in the city' general plan.
Although. the Iand under the SDGE power lines is cued in this report
as contributing to the stock of open space in Encinitas, this cannot' be
considered .iable open space; given the publics' concern over
electromagnetic fields. Further, since animal 'life has been forced to
concentrate on this 'last open site due to the encroachment of
development on neighboring parcels, 'this- has become a very
important natural habitat This developmental encroachment
contradicts the goals of the eneral plan for preservadon of open
space and natural habitat
Therefore the EIR is mnadequaic since no provision has been made to
preserve open space and natural habitat in New Encinitas.
'0
244. F. H. Fahlbusch
Same as letter I 45; see response to that letter.
244 6 March 1992 '
Commtinity Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs.
I am writing in. response . to the Environmeiii.il Impact Report
(EIR) issued by WilIens and Associates regarding the proposed llome
Depot at the corner of El Camino Real and OluvLnh un Road in
Encinitas California...This EIR lids serious flaw's aloit, with a
substantial deficiency of evidence required to support any findings
that have been made The EIR generally .lies upon inadequate
studies or opinion rather than facts iltin erroneously draws
conclusions that items in question c in h. ntitu Led 0 lcvd which
is'"Iess. anignificant." . . -• --
.
. . .
..
. . .
A. clear example of this "compliance by edict is demonstrated
in the noise study. The EIR reaches the conclusion that there is no
significant impact on neighborin, homes but establishes esiablishes no technical
basis for this conclusion Project technical consult lulls could not or
would not scientifically-examine the iinp,uct to' the neighboring, .:
residents, even though there is a clear impact on ihtese residents.
Examples of sound sources which were not considered include (bit
are not limited to) nighttime loading dock operations, fork lifts, trash
compactors, public address sysiems, heavy equipunenL including
diesel engines, rooftop swamp coolers. car doors: eic. The EIR states
that noise--levels cannot be evaluated until the proect is built, even
though' accepted scientific prinèiples exist to perform this evaluation.
Therefore the existing Sound s(ud) is inadequate since
measurements., were not performed near residdnces where Home - ..
Depot has a uty to mitigate: - - •-
Sincerely, - - . -:
12-276
Ix-
.. •. S 245
6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
I am writing to comment on the Environmentil Impact Repprt
(EiR), regarding the proposed Home Depot at the corner of El Camino
Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinitas. This Elk has a 'substantial
-,-deficiency of,, evidence, required to suppoit-.the findings that have
been made. The EIR generally. relies upon inadequate studies rather
than facts, then erroneously draws conclusions that tents in question
càn,be mitigated to a "less than significant" lvel.
Approval of. the Home Depot project would subvert the intent
of the Clean Water Act No study was conducted to slio the inipact
of water runoff, from this project into Bataquitos Lagoon.
Further, t he general plan "of Encinias requires that no
development should reduce wetland area, :flthouh this prOjeci in
conjunction with the 'retention dam planned' for the upstream side of
Encinitas creek will 'reduce wetland area. '
Therefore the existing biological impacts study is inadequate.
Home Depot has -a duty to mitigate any impact on Bat:iquitos Lagoon,
S Sincerely,' • '
" 75
' -2.i22-
12-277
'.:• ;, S ', ,, 5', 5'. 771
i.
5
246: Samuel Guino
Same as letter # 73; see response to-that letter. 'S
6 March1992 246
5 S
Community Development Department . S
527 Encinitas Blvd S 5
Encinitas, CA 92024
•S
S
S
S Sirs.
I am writing to comment on ilte Environincittal Impact Report
(EIR) written by Willens and Assoclittes is p iii 01 (lie home Depot
project proposed for the corner of El Camino Real and Olivenh'din
Road An Encunitas California This EIR is flawed sincethere is a
substantial deficiency of evidence rcqutred to support the ftndins
that have been made The EIR relies upon titadequ lie studies and
then draws conclusions that neitta in question can h mitt0 ited to a
less than significant level
Since the site designated for this project r..preseitts the lost
open- space in New - Encilsitas; it should -be preserved From- iny further
development, in accordance: with the open space rgoals. of the General. Plan of-Encinitas. New Encinitas already has ih loncst prcentae of S 5 open space. in all of Encinitas, as documented in the cit>.geneal plan.
Although the land under the SDGE poer hues is cited in this report
as contributing to the stock of open space in Encintt is this cannot be
considered viable open space, • given the publics' concern over • S S 5 S electkomagriëtic fields. Further, since animal life has been forced to S . S concentrate 'on 'this last open site clue to the encroachment • of
development on' neighboring parcels, this has become a vei'y. - • S important natural habj(at. This developmental encroachment • contradicts the goals-of the generi1 plan 101 preservation of open . .• S • ' space- and natural habitat.
• Therefore the EIR is inadequate since no provision has been made to • S preserve open space and natural habilat in New Ettcinitts. S
S
S • . • -
Sin
12-278
•• S 0z 0c,f lZiZ —Z-5i S S . S
S ('i) 5S3,j3
247. L,event ozelicay
Same as letter I 90; see response to that letter.
247
6 March 1992
Community Development Department
. 527 Encinitas Ri'd
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs, .
:1 am writing to comment on the Environmental ep Impact Rort (EIR) issued by. Willens and Associates for the Home. Depot project
'proposed for the corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road in
Encinitas California. This EIR has serious flaws and generally relies
upon inadequate studies or opinion rather than facts, then
erroneously draws conclusions that items in question can be
mitigated to a level which is "less than significant." Further, the EIR
has included the impact upon - neighboring residences where it
' seemed advantageous for them to do so, but left them out of other,
crucial issues.
For example the Aroyà La Costa prdject was included in the
viewshed issue, b.ui completely ignored in traffic' study. The additional 'development of these 1700 ;home's in the approved
. Arroyo La Costa project will render any short term traffic mitigation efforts
by the city. useless.
Even though the Arroyo La Costa project was ignored, this EIR
states that an excessive increase in traffic 'will result',, from the Home
Depot project (Level of Service F will result on both El Camitso Real as
well- as Olivenhain Road if this project is built 'proposed). This 'lcvel of service will further
- ádvCrsely impact other business
concerns along El Camino Real as potenital customers will avoid this
area due to the risk of accident and personal injury. In fairness to
other established businesses . along El Camino. Real, traffic 'along this
corridor should be mitigated before any additional development is
undertaken
Sincerely,
12-279
-
4L 0-4 91
O
•••'' ,
(0
248. Dr.. John W. McCoy
Same as letter I 21; see response to that letter.
248 6 March 19.92
Community Development Department - 527 Encinitas Blvd
, Encinitas, CA 92024 -
Sirs,
I am writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) regarding the proposed Home Dcpoi at the corner of El Camino
S Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinitas California.The EIR generally relies upon opinion and tnadequ.ue studies r tthir than fact, and erroneously,.draws conclusions that items in question can be mitigated to a level which is less tItan stntftcanI This EIR has serious flaws along with a substantial defucuenc> of evidence .required to..support, any findings that have been made.
Tht ElR violates CEQA because it defers certain mitigation measures to long term. management plans A molig oilier significant long term impacts,-this projeci 'will completely disrupt the wetlands . and there is no assurance that the project will replace a currently functioninj ecosystem with one of equal productivity. The project. contaths little or no contingency plans for the pro bleuiis which are • likely to occur after cOnsirtction. such as those which occurred after the construction of the Oceanside Hotute Depot. The EIR addresses the effect of this total. disruption by pointing' to a future management . . plan to be.—Completed—by other agencies, including the Army Corp of Engineers. Reliance on illusory mitigation measures such as future
• • management plans permits the developer to avoid having to address • • the reality, of feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives. . . .
The existing biological impacts study is inadequate - since long- term . adverse •environmental -impacts' Were-not properly addressed. Home
., Depot.has a. duty to mitigate all such impacts.
- . • Sinceiel'y
J-L.. 0'.PD 12-280
- JA. W. MC. 1. PI.D • •' . . . . . . • tti.c..1. '
. - S. De3°. c 1Ii, gu,. ce•aQ°a ' -
. - -
. .- . . - - -. . ,•.
249 March 4. l992 249. Debby Wright
Community Developmeit Department This does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR and -
Attn:. Homes Depot Project . does not require a response.
527 Encinitas Boulevard
Encinitas, CA 92024
Dears Sirs,
Less than two weeks ago, my neighbors to the south of me brought
my attention to the Home Depot project proposed for El Camino Real and
Olivenhain Road. in ncinitas. . . .
Considering this project is astones throw away' from my home, in
Rancho Ponderosa in Carlsbad, I felt it was important to bring it to
the attention of my neighbors. '
As you can see from the enclosed 143 signatures, there is a lot
of interest-in your proposed plan. Though time did-not, allow me to
reach each and every home in our development, I think this sampling
says something. We don't want a project such as the Home Depot
across the Street 'from us. .
Our neighborhood would appreciate receiving correspondence/notices ,
regarding' meetings on this matter.
If you need a contact for our neighborhoOd, please call or write me.
Thank you,
Debby Wright -
7966 Los Pinos Circle
Carlsbad, CA 92009
436-1423 .
12-281 • .
's:.
February 25, 1992.
CommuIity Development Department
Attn:.-Home Depot Project
Encinitas Boulevard
Encinitas, CA 92024
As citizens of Carlsbad, we feel the Environmental impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Home Depot project in Encinitas failed to address
a project would have on the residents of the negative impact such
Rancho Ponderosa. -
Lack ofopen space, grid-lock traffic, increased smog, increase of dust and grime, and an increase of noice from cars, diesel/deliyery trucks, forklifts, public address systems, etc. will all be contributing
factors to a decline in our quality of life and a threat to our good
health. We feel the EIR fails to adequately address these issues. En- vironmental impacts do not miraculously disappear at city boundary lines.
SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS
12' Zt8uAI-4 M. LAN ic,'r 74 LO Pio.C4..
(7 1/VI[TIj 7f 7'-/ L,15 111,
./ y AP ;
Dar±d 1CLR.l.0,/ ieIsA
7 r Jc 't46ZS fe.cs
iCL
rn1E/ ,/( is,i'1.
>- 7 4 73z L0-2 A24SLL,
çjep.,,z i3L çAe
, • .. .. /.
• f3 Ely J-'f-'/' • 79/'
-• 7I , 14
C i1i 1'5 • - L1 ichLc. (ccc7vict%' 'i2 ( /%,j (
• ,4' i: V 7972 • c c
- ." ,'-•— t -
-A-ii :-- '5o c-
Fèbr.uary 25, 1992 -
Community Development Department -
Attn: Home Depot Project
527 Encinitas Boulevard
Encinitas, CA 92024
As citizens of Carlsbad, we feel the Environmental Impact Report
IEIR) for the proposed Home Depot project in Encinitas failed to address
the-negative impact such a project would have on the residents of
n Rachó. Ponderosa.
.Lack of. open space, grid-lock traffic, increased smog, increase of
dustand grime; and an increase of noice from cars, diesel/delivery
trucks,forklifts,. public address systems; etc. will all be contributing
factors toa decline in'our'quality of life and a threat to our good
health. We feel the EIR fails to adequately address these issues. En-
vironmental impacts do not miraculously disappear at city boundary lines.
SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS
Ck
1t fl-t, 7'-
-.,
.4 i(4,',z( ,Ty) 793a 12,;
/4A')9 (.
-r'iR3 'r°' uiEcke±
Zlcd
I67 --
-
,iI,sca Tohn Soil- 2'7iCII'dIiaI
,91- /6 77j q 44 /I;M4',f
?-io' LSTPI(_CL1 I,aJ
, /42.' 42.
I-
February -25. 1992
Community Development Department
Attn: Home DepotPro.ject
527-Encinitas Boulevard
Encinitas, CA 9202.4
As citizens of Carlsbad, we feel the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for .the proposed Home Depot project in Eñcir'itas failed to address
the negative impact such a project would have on the residents of
RanCho. Ponderoéa. •' • .
.Cack of open space, grid-lock traffic,. increased smog, increase of
dust-and grime, and an increase of noice, from 'cars, diesel/delivery trucks', forklifts- public address systems. etc. will all be contributing
factors 'toa decline in: ,our 'qua! lity of life and - a threat to our good'
health. Weteel the EIR,;fails to'adequately address these issues. En- vironmental impacts do- not miraculously,. diappear at city boundary. lines
SATURE7 PRINT NAME - APDR
llLçfrd' fT1c,4 A -/NOICd¼ C/LS(HC4 Qoc1 -. . . .6oc a"- f4ZvC 4L'tJ/,A . (4 it.,.,.
I. fiiRLc f
tP?A'i4i' ,cP 4-1
f LL. 15'YCL 4{.PcD.k- AO) .
. J-- -' , • - - ' - --''•
- .•
. . • e ' 27o. Cer,cç
. (,("'1 rct- ccc2.x.r 4 .-. •- . - S,ra Ic -11-' CJ1 Ca .9
'. - L%L £. &'(ttJ(- '.L,4.i/E 4 ,V1vN.b '
-7C'/
.... •-• -
1 Jo//L' !:R1(•7I.),1I .
.d(1IIc,Mt)eTr't<iXL4 OA-'
- -
e,;, . flL.: &'a. '4 ;Te/M; ... Ca(C 9,jc9
Mdlo
•
. ri -JJL / -1) - '' /2 • / 'JC''ifc.,. /4
. • - rr.VL-2_./( — iri L-'c.rt, • (-/JcS -Cc. '-i
--- 71 •-- /-/(I13,i , .AfA'
-1 fli4i iy A4(
(w'f b•-?.(2 (-hrri
)
February 25, 1992
Community 'Development Department -
Attn: Home Depot Project
527 Encinitas Boulevard
Encinitas, CA .92.024
- As citizens of Carlsbad, we feel the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR). for the proposed Home Depot project in Encinitas failed to address
the negative impact such a projectwoüld have on the residents of
Rancho. Ponderosa.
Lack of open space, grid-lock traffic, increased smog., increase of
dust, and grime and an -increase of noice'from cars, di'esel/delivery
tr6cks4 'forklifts, public address systems, etc. will all be contributing
factors to a decline in our quality of life and a threat to our good
health. We feel the EIR fails to adequately address these issues. En-
vironmental i impacts do not miraculously disappear at city boundary lines
S
•
February. 2S, 1992
Community Development Department -
Attn: Home Depot Project .. 527 Encinitas Boulevard
Encinitas, CA 92024 .
As citizens of Carlsbad, we feel the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for the,proposed Home Depot project in Encinitas failed to address
the negative impact such a project would have on the residents of
Rancho. Ponderosa. . . . Lack of open space, grid-lock traffic, increased smog, increase of dustand grime, and an increase of noice from cars, diesel/delivery . trucks, forklifts, public address systems, etc. will all be contributing
factors to adec1ine in our quality of life -and a threat- tcour'good
- health. We feel,the EIR fails toadequately address these issues. En- - vironmental. impacts do not miraculously disappear at city boundary -lines..
SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS
/ 97M La ?nas Crdc-
(J,J,' -,/,-t1. F,',' 17? r•
---, V
JV
i--;- ,-',-i.j - -_.•i- - V
f-fJJ '-f
;
rt 1 -
-
(J"fl(J14 l (2zt i i kH ,Me1 1 f14
- : ,J7 5pp4 V --• - . •. -
- . -• .5PRAG,E - '/o
WcriAy //- '#07 X
-- -_
1•7qL c_f'.
February 25, 1992
Community Development Department
Attn: Home Depot Project
527 Encinitas Boulevard
Encinitas, CA 92024
As-citizens of Carlsbad, we feel the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR):for the proposed Home. Deliot project in Encinitas failed to address
the negative impact such a project would have on the residents of
Rancho Ponderosa. -
- '-. Lack of open space, grid-lock traffic, increased smog, increase of
dust and grime and an increase of noice from cars diesel/delivery
trucks forklifts public address systems etc will all be contributing
factors tà a decline, in our quality°of.life and a. threat to our good
health., We feel the EIR fails to adequately address these -issues. En-
vironmental impacts donotrniraculously.-dlsappear at city boundary lines
SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS
0
February 25, 19 92 -
Community Development Department - - - Attni Home Depot Project
527 Encinitas Boulevard
Encinitas, CA 92024 -
A7s citizens of Carlsbad, we feel the Environmental Impact Report
(Elk) for the proposed Home Depot project in Encinitas failed to address
the negative impact such a project, would have on the residents of
Rancho Ponderosa. . .. .• . . Lack of open space, grid-lock traffic, increased smog, increase of
dust and grime, and an increase of noice from cars, diesel/delivery
trucks; 'forklifts, public address systems, etc. will'all be contributing
factors to a decline in our quality of life and a threat to our good.
health.' We feel the EIR fails to adequately' address these issues. En-
vironmental impacts do not miraculously disappear at city, boundary lines.
SIGNATURE PRINT NAME - ADDRESS
"4''-'
A.
LA
'offr /t6,NS 7'X 77 SA ce!
February 25,,'1992
Community Development Department
Attn: Horse Depot Project
527 Encinitas. Boulevard
Encinitas, CAr 92024
As citizens of Carlsbad, we feel the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for the proposed Home Depot project in Encinitas failed to address
the negative impact such a project would have on the residents of
Rancho Ponderosa.
Lack of open space, grid-lock traffic, increased smog, increase of
dust and grime, and an increase of nOice from cars, diesel/delivery
trucks, forklifts, public address systems, etc. will all be contributing
factors to a decline in our quality of life and a threat to our good
health. We feel the EIR fails to adequately address these issues. En-
vironmental impacts do not miraculously disappear at city boundary lines.
SIGNATURE PRINT NAME .. ADDRESS
ThOf ii t-14iZ.fl,--, 3e'3 TQcct,/
February 25, 1992
Community Development Department
Attn: Home Depot Project
527 Encinitas Boulevard
Encinitas, CA 92024
As citizens of Carlsbad we feel the Environmental Impact Report
(ErR) for the proposed Home Depot project in Encinitas failed to address
the negative impact such a project would have on the residents of
Rancho Ponderosa
Lack of opèn.space, grid-lock traffic, increased smog, increase of
dust and grime, and an increase of noice from cars, diesel/delivery
trucks forklifts public address systems etc will all be contributing
factors to-a decline in our quality of life and a threat to our good
health. Wé feel the EIR fails to adequately address these issues. En,
vironmental impacts do. not miraculously-disappear at city boundary. lines.
. --
sIdNA'ruRE - - PRINT NAME ADDRESS - I (zL
H. -(L... --- -.
e I
:
250. Greg N. Graft
Same as letter # 65; see response to that letter. 250
6 March 1992
Community Development Deparimeiti
527 Encinitas' Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024
S
Sirs,
This letter will serve to memorialize my comments on the
Environmental Impact Report (ElR) written as part of the proposed
Home Depot project at the corner of El Camino Real and Olivenh'ain
Road in Encinitas California. The EIR is flawed due to a deficiency of
evidence required to support any. 'findings that have been made.
Conclusions have been drawn that items in question can be mitigated
to a level which is 'less than significant, without he requisite
supporting evidence.
Various inconsistencies with the General Plan of Encinitas
incIude but are not limited to. the following. The proposed building
- height of 39 feet exceeds the limit of 30 feet above c.vistin'grade set.
-forth in the general plan. El Cainino Real is considerd 'a "visual
corridor", although the Home Depot project as configured- in the 'ElR
does' not comply with this intent; masking trees anJ shrubbery
. realistically will take a decad to fill out, and in the interim the
visual coffidor will be lost. Evaporative coolers and a .sat.tllite dish
are to be placed on the roof of the structure which will be visible to
residents of. the properties overlooking the site: this contravenes the
General.'Plan.
Views from future neighborhoods such is Arro>o L Costi are
considered in the EIR but views from existing neighborhoods. such as
SCotcs Valley, Encinitas Highlands, and Rancho , Ponderosa are not
considered Alchouh one of the project alternati ves, addresses this
project deficiency it considers only th impact to passersby _alone El
Camino Real and not the local resident's.'
12-282
The ELR states that distance would diminish the visual eyesore
to neighborhoods, even though project is as little as one building
length from the nearest homes this buildin ill h. e an
approximate from face over 400 feet in le n6 th litch is
commensurate- with the distance cited to ltOw that the project wi11
be far enough removed from residents to diminish any impact
- Therefore, the project is either too Iare and inappropriate for this -
site or the visual Impact to the net hborin residents ill not be
mitigated as stated.
The EIR further , states that the project design '. tot ties Encinitas
design :ieview guidelines. For example bri hi or iii slns are at
odds with Encinitas desi n review uid lines
As noted the EIR is deficient and therefore dere tte
Sincerely','
\ct
251
6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
I am writing in response to the Environmeival Impact Report
(EIR) issued by Wtllens and Associates regarding the proposed Home
Depot at the corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road in
Encinitas, California. This EIR has serious flaws along with a
'0 substantial deficiency of evidence required to support any findings
that have been made. The EIR generally relies upon inadequate
studies or opinion rather than facts, then erroneously draws
conclusions that items in question can be mitisated to a level which
is "less than 'significant.
A. clear example of this compliance by edict' is demonstrated
in the. noise study. The EIR reaches the conclusion that there is no
significant impact on neighboring homes. but, establishes no technical basis for this conclusion. Project technical consultants could not or
would. not 'scientifically examine the impact to .the neighbo'ing;
residents, even though there is a clear impact on these residents.
Examples of sound sources which were not 'considered include (but
are not limited to) nighttime loading dock operations, fork Jifts.' trash
compactors, public address systems, heavy equipment inclu4ing
diesel engines rooftop swamp coolers car doors etc The EIR states that, noise levels cannot be 'evaluated until the project i's' built, even
though accepted scientific principles exist to perform this evaluation
Therefore' the existing sound study is ' inadequate since. measurements were not performed near' residences' where Home
Depot' has ii 'duty to mitigate.
Sincerely',
o4o
C. C-
12-283
0 4 4
. . . .
252. Lane McDonald -
Same as letter I 65; see response to that letter.
6Mar.1992 . 252 . .
- Community Development Department . . . - . ..
527. -Encinitas Blvd ..
Encinitas, CA 92024-
Sirs, .
. This letter will serve to memorialize my coimmient's 'oum time
Environthental Inipact Report (ElR) written as part- of tIme, proposed
Home Depot project at the corner of El Caiiiino Reml and Olivenlmaiii 0
Road in Encinitas, 'California. The EIR is ftawei:'dmie to, a deficiency of
- . evidence required to support any findings -that 'have been made. . .
. -.
-. Conclusions have been drawn that items in question' 'Can be mtigáted . . . . . .
to a level which is less than si ntfim.. tnt ithemum the requisite
supporting 'evidence.
Various inconsistencies u'itlm the General Plan of Encinitas -
include, but -are not limited to. the following. TIle proposed building - -
- height of 39 feet exceeds the limit. of 30 feet above cxistimm''grcu1e set
- forth in the' general plan. -El Camino Reml is considered a visual-
corridor', although the Home Depot prbjec'i as cotmftgured in tte ElR
- - does not - comply with, this intent; masking ire-s and. shrubbery . -
- realisticlly- will take a decade to fill out, and in the iim'teriin the - - - - . . - -
. visuaftcorridor will be lost. ''Evaporative coolers and a satellite dish - - - - - -
are to be placed oil the roof of the stiuemure uvlmiclm will be visible to - -
residents of'-the properties overlooking the site: livis cotmtravetmes the
- General Plan-.
- Views from future iieighbofhoods such as Airoyo La Costa are - -- - - . -- - -- - -
• considered in', the ElR' but views- from existing iieiehborhoods such . - -
- , Scotts Valley,. Encinitas Highilands - and Rancho . Potiderosa are not -
-
considered Although one of tlte projet alterim mtmes addresses this
. . -
project deficiency it considers onl) thc impaq. to Passersby mlon, El
- - Camino Real and not the' local, residents. - - - -
-
- -
- -
- - • - 12-284 - - - -. -
The EIR States that distance would iliininih the viiitl eyesore
to neighborhoods, even though projeci is as link as out. building
length from the nearest bounce: this building will lu:ive an
approximate front face over 400 feet iii length: which is
commensurate with tle:distance cited to show Iltat the project will
be -Jar enough removed from residents to diminish any impact.
Therefore the project is either too large and inappropriate for this
-site or the. visual impact to the neighboring residtits will not be
mitigated as stated,..
.
. . •
The EIR ;further states that the pojeci desigtt violates Encinitas
design review, guidelines. For example, bright orange signs are at •
odds with Encinitas design review guidelines..
As noted, the Elk is deficient and therefore defective.
Sincerely, .
• 1
:
253. Chris Harrell
Same as letter'# 22; see response to that letter.
253- 6 March 1992
,
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Einitas, CA 92024 .'
Sirs,
I am 'riting in response to the Environinèncal Impact Report
(ElR) issued by WiI!ens an'd Associates eardtng the proposed Home
Depot at the'cornier of El Camino Real and Olurnhain Road in
Encinitas California. This EIR has serious flaws along with a
substantial defIcieruc) of evidence required to support any findings
that have been made The EIR enerally relies upon inadequate
- studies'4 or 'oinion r ther thait -facts, then erroneously draws . . . '•. conclusions that items in question cn be mitt ted 'to i level which
is less than significant
The EIR has also attempted -to sever' issueswhich are an integral par
elit
of this stud) For exiutipi alihou h the HomeHomeDepot
project res critically upon the retention pond to be bu'ilc in
Encunitas Creek (as part of the Oht.enitain Road V id inn project) the
details of this retention pond and i ts impact are not included in this
- EIR. Further, the data tak-eri for the Road \Videthng project has not : been .updated to take into account upstream development;' • . . -.
. .......The failure to adequately address and analyze this project's
cumulative impacts, is in violation of. the California Environme'nal . Quality A'ët and müst be corrected 'before this .ER can he approved.
.'
Sincerely.• - - -
- • . •
12-285
ZIS
254. Bill C. Mason
Same as letter I 21; see respOnse to that letter.
254
6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd .
Encinits, CA 92024
Sirs, - ..
1 am writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) regarding the proposed Horse Depot at the corner of El Camuno
Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinitas California. The EIR generally
relies upon opinion and inadequate studies rather than (act, and
.;erroeosIy draws conclusions that items in question can be
mitigated to a level which is 'less than sianificani. This EIR has
- serious flaws alons with a substantial deficiencs of evidence
required to support any findings that have been made.
This EIR violates CJlHQA because it defers certain mitisalion
measures to long-term management plans Among other significant
long- term impacis. this project will completely disrupt the wetlands
and there is no assurance that the project will replace a currently
functioning ecosystem with one of equal productivity.- The project
contains little or no contingency plans for the problems which are
likely to occur after construction, such as those which occurred after
the construction of the Oceanside Home Depot. The EIR addresses the
effect of this total disruption by pointing to a future management
uilan to be completed by other agencies, including the Army Corps of
Engineers Reliance on illusory mutt atuon measures such as future
management plans permits the deselop r to avoid having to address
the reality of feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives.
The existing biological impacts Study is inadequate since long term
adverse environmental impacts were not proper!) iddressed HomeDepot has a duty to mitigate all such impacts.
6 March 1992 255
Conlinunti) Development Department
527 Encmnitas Blvd
Encinitas CA 92024
Sirs,
I am writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) issued by, Wtllemms and Associates regsrdtn, the proposed Home
Depot at the corner. of El Camino Real and Olts enh,mmn Road in
Encmnitas California.'This Elk has serious flas along tth a
substantial 'deficiency of evidence required to support an findings
that have been made The EIR generally relies upon inadequate
studies or,"opinion rather than facts then erroneousl> draws
conclusions that; items in question can he mitigate, to 1 le el 's hich
is less than significant
The EIR has also attempted to sever issues which are an
integral part of this study.,For cx mimiple although the Ilome Depot
project relies:critically upon the retention pond to be built in
Encinitas Creek (as part of the Olisenh mitt Road \'mdeiitn, project) the
details of this retention pond and its impact are not included in this
Elk Further the data taken for the Road Videntn0 project his not
been updated to take into account upstream development. - -
- The failure to adequately address and unalyze this --projects
cumulative impacts is in violation of the California Eti ironmemital
Quality Act and must be corrected before this Elk can be approved.
incerely
(3.'etI- /IAMxf -
13323 (.C.-C 10 - - -
eôO ZiZt(
(en)Wil -2 2.~~Z
256. Richard Harris
Same as letter 1 60; see response to that letter.
256 6° March' 1992 .
Community. Development Department . . 527 Eñcinitas Blvd.
. ..Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs.
. 0
I an' writing to express niy concern over ilie proposed Home Depot project..specifically the draft Environmental. Impact Report
(EIR). This ElR is completely inadequate The EIR does not have a statement of overriding merit as required by CEQA. The city
council's desire to generate tax revenues does not justify building
this monstrosity on environmentally sensitive land nor creating a, traffic nightmare-.,
The 'EIR admits that there will be an increase ill traffic, and assigns traffic a grade "F" after the project . is built, yet. ii does not ' even take into ,account the traffic which will be created by the 1700
loms- in, the Arroyo La Costa project: and any other future , development along the El Camino Real corridor. The EIR does not adequately address mitigation of this traffic problem nor does it address who will pay for the upkeep of the, roads due to this increased traffic,-- including the large number of diesel trucks (100 iier day) making deliveries to flume,Depot.
The EIR does admit that traffic cannot be mitiaied to 4less
than significant effect. The project should not be considered until the current traffic congestion/problems aloni, El Camino Real are addressed Horne Depot should not be allowed —to take the position that traffic which their megasiore will create' is tot their concern
Sincerely
4-1QL,.,/-'4' G4 '°
-
- 12-288 . S .
•
-
257. Nancy L. Sxarn
Same as letter 1 73; see response to that letter.
257
6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs. S
I am writing to comment on the Eiivironiiienial 'Impact Report
-. (EIR) written by Willcns and Associates as hart MI the H6me Depot
project proposed (Or the' 'drner of El Camino. Real and ,Olivenhain
Road in Encinitas California This Elk is flawed since there is a
substantial deficiency of4 evidence, required to support the findings
that have been made The EIR relies upon in idequ tie studies and
then dras conclustotis that items in question ciii he miit,'uied to a
'less than ignificaiii'
Since the sue -'designated for this project represents the lai
open space in, New 'Encinitas it should •b'e preserved l'roin any further
development in accordance with the open spire o ils of' the General
Plan of Encinitas New Encinitas alreai.h has the lot t. ii percenta...e of
open space in all of Encinitas as documented in the tii> eneral plan
Although the land under the SDGE pooer hues is cited in this report as contrulu,Ing to the stock of open spice in Encinitas. this cannot be
considered viable open space, ,isen the publics* concern over
electromagnetic fields: 'Further, since animal 'life liis been forced to- concentrate on this last open site due to the encroachment of • ' • • • deselopment on neighboruiig parcels, this has become ' a very ' • • ' ' important'-.natural , habitat. ' This developmental encroachment •
". • - S contradicts ihe-g6a1s' of 'the general plan for prescrva1in' of open . ' '. • ' •• space- and natural' habitat. • • .' ' -' ',•,
Therefore ihe' EIR is inadequate since no provision has heei made ,to • - • S - ' - - •
-
• - preserve open space and natural habitat in New Enciniias. , -' , • S • -•
-Sincerely, • -
-
,
S • •
Aill
. S. • • •
• S
- • 5 12-289
• '-4.: S
- • S • S
Lfr.. (,el
7 S
•
q1
-
5
'S --
12-290
258
6 March' 1992'
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas; CA 92024
Sirs,
In, response • to ihe' Enviroiimcntal Impact Report (Elk) issued
for the proposed Home Depot-at the corner of El Camino Real and
Olivenhain Road in Encinitas. this Elk has serious flaws along with a
substantial deficiency of evidence required to support any findings
that have been made. In addition, the Elk generally relies upon
inadequate studies, or opinion rather tItan facts
The incompatibility of this project with the adjacent residential
areas demonstrates the fallacy of, the zoning of this area. At one time
the pojecIsite' was far'cnough away' Iron, residential areas that light
industrial, uses could have be'en seriously. considered. However. the
current and "proposed residential 'buildout' of the surrounding area
has ,so significantly decimated the open space and wildlife ''habitats,
that this remaining land 'must be preserved. The inappropriateness
of 'this project, for the community itt which it is situated suggests that
this project should not only be reconsidered, but the land should be
down-zoned to a' less intrusive, land use, ,No mitigation for this loss of
open space has been proposed,, nor has the continuity of open space
for wildlife 'been addressed.
The "city.Gàneral Plan further requires no building other than
horse stables nurseries or, a mtntntal Intrusion of parking areas in a
floodplain To circumvent this restriction the project proponents
have tried to let the Olivenhain Rod wideni.n.n project assume
responsibility for the construction of a retention dam in Encinitas
Creek upstream from the, project site, thereby reducing the size, of
'the floodplain. The' 'subject EIR does 'tot' iiddress il,k floodplain/land
use issue directly.
Sincerely
• .
258. Jimmy Lee
Same as letter I 74; see response to that letter,
•
259. Connie C. Harris
- Same as letter I 90; see response to that etter.
259
o March 1992
Community .Development Department
527 'Encinitas Blvd. ,
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
I am- writing to comment on the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) issued by \Villeiis and Associates for the: Home Depot proj6cl, .
proposed for1he c'orner of E! Camino Real and Olivenhain Road iii
Encinitas California 1 his EIR has serious flaws and enerally relies
upon inadequate studies or opinion rather tli itt I icts then
erroneously -draws conclusions that items in question can be
mitigated to a level which is less than significant.": Further, the ElR
has included the impact upon neighboring residences s here it
seemed advantageous for them to do so but left them out of other,
crucial issdés.
For example, the Arroyo La Costa project was included in the .. ": '• viewshed issue but completely, ignored in traffic. stud) The
additional development of these 1700 homes in the ipprosed Arro>o
La Costa project will render any short term traffic inii.ighdon efforts . . . by the city ..useless:
Even though the Arroyo La Costa project was ignored, this EIR . .. states that an excessive increase in traffic will result from the Home
Depbt project. (Level'of Service F will result on both El Camino Real as
- well• as Olivenhain Road if this project is built as proposed). This .- -
level of service will further adversely impact other business ' concerns along El 'Camino Real as potential customers will avoid this area due to the, risk of accident and' personal S injury. In fairness iq- . other established businesses althig El Camino Real; 'traffic along this
S corridor should be mitigated before any iddiumonul des elopmeni is - udertaken
O-s\ CtoJe -( o-,- £ C.t Ld? 2--7-5
Sincerely, &1 I.t.it) l''<a (--t ' .'
5. .12-291
:l4sQAe Ls-L, '1-0 li o{ CWtL&u . "S •, S S
260. Pieter Brueckner
- Same as letter I 64; see response to that letter.
260 6 March 1992
Community Development Department . . ..... . . . ., 527 Encinitas Blvd . - Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs.
I am' writing to comment on the Environmental Impaci Report .
(EIR) regarding the proposed Home Depot. at the corner of 'El Camino . Real and Olivénhaiti Road in Encinitas, This ,EIR has a substantial
deficiency of evidence required to support the findings that have
been made. ' The EIR generally relics upon inadequate studies rather
than, facts'. then erroneously 'draws 'conclusions that itenis in question
mis can be itated to a less than si nittL tnt level.
Approval of the Home Depot pr.)jecl would subvert the intent ' of the Clean Water Act, No study cas conducted to show the impact ' of water runoff' from this project into Bataquitos Lattoon,
Further,, the general plan of Encinitas equires that no development should, reduce wetland area, although this project in conjunction with the' retention dam planned for the upstream side of
Encinit's. creek will reduce wetland area.
-Therefore the existing 'biological impacts study is inadequate -
- Home Depot has a duly to mitigate an' iuhpaci on Bitaquitos Lagoon.
Sincerely,
12-292 .
S
0
261. Tommy rrogera
Same as letter if 68; see response to that letter.
261
6 March 1992
Communily Development Depzirtrneni
- 527 Encinitas Blvd
.Encihiias, CA 92024
Sirs.
I am writing to comment on the Environmental Impact Report
(ElR) issued by Villens and Associates for the I-Ionic Depot project
proposed for the corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road in
Encinitas California This ElR has s0iousl flaws and generally relies
upon inadequate studies or opinion rather than facts then
erroneously 'draws conclusions that items in question can be
mitigated to a level v.htch is less titan sinnificarit The ElR has failed to ad-equate address the cumulative e ens ironnicntal impacts of this project and has further, failed. to analy ze-? these cuinul ins e impacts and is theretore in violation of CEQ A
As an exiiiple of the failure,' to full), isJdress adverse- environmental impacts the nationis ide 404 perniit granted b> the
Army. Corps of En0tneers sias obtained by ihe developer w ithout an accepted EIR- or at bet an- out-of-date studs'. Note that this permit has recently been [evoked, and the developer iiiuct now reapply.
Further, in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, the
proposed activity must noj jeopardize a threatened or endangered
species as identified under the Endangered Species Act or destroy or
adve sely modify the critical habit ii of such species The gnatcatcher documented as I,wn on siu even by paid project biologists will certainly be added to the endangered species list before this project is completed.-- Therefore additional studies and
proposals for mitigation must be utidert ken it the site to protect the
critical habitat of this bird
Sincerely.- - -
J1/)9
fej c4/37O9.i -
1-573
c..drch.-,
262. Darcy English
Same as letter # 68; see response to that letter. - -
262 6 March 1992 V -
Community Development Department V V 527 Encthitas Blvd
Encinitas1, CA 92024
Sirs. . V
I am writing to comment on the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) issued by Willens and Associaies for the I-lottie Depot project
proposed for tlieorner of EL Camino Real and Olivenhain Road in
Encinitas California. This EIR has serious flaws and generally relies
upon inadequate studies or opinion rather than facts, then
erroneously draws conclusions that. items in queslion can be
mitigated- to a -level which is "less than significant. The EIR has (ailed to adequately address the cumulative environmental impacts
of this project and has further failed to analyze these cumulative
Impacts and is therefore in violation of CEQA.
As an example, of the failure to fully address adverse
environmental . impacts, the nationwide 404 permit granted by - the Arriy Corps of Engineers was obtained by. the
-- developer without an accepted.- EIR or at best in out-of-date study. Note that this permit
has recently been revoked and, the developer oust tiow 'reapply.
Further, in accordance with' the Code of Federal Regulations, the
proposed activity, must - not jeopardize a threatened or endangered
species as identified under the - Endangered Species Act, or destroy or
adversely iiodify the critical habitat of such species. The gnatcatcher doiumenced as on site even b) paid project
biologists -- will. certainly be added:, to the endangered sliecies list
before this project is completed Therefore additional studies and
proposals for mitigation must be uiidcii iken it the site to protect the
- critical habitat of.this bird. - -
Sincerely, ( t1)
- - - V - - - VI't1 C1 v-- (t - --
V
12-294
•
263
—
'FEB 20 263 Joel Wasserman
- V Some biological mitigation measures have been incorporated into the
I : r project; these are discussed in Section 2.3.1.4.3 of the EIR. CIT-Y UI '- - Additional mitigation is discussed in Section 3.3.3 and-Appendix B
of the .EIR. V
Februa-y C. gg'
- Traffic mitigatiàn is included in Section 3.5.3 and Appendices 0,
V -- K and I. of the EIR.
General Plan compatibility mitigation is included inSection 3.6.3. Community De-vo;.'vrr P•rtr: V and Section 7 of the EIR. - 527 Encinitas 1'd V E,.cir,ita. CA 52024 V V Visual quality mitigation measures are discussed in Section 3.7.3 V
- V
V and in Section 3.6.3 of the EIR. V Genremer. VV •- V -
Noise attenuation measures are discussed in. Section 2.3.1.3, As. re.iclart of Encir.itos in the FielUstcis- VVIV to Section 3.8.3,and Appendix E. of the EIR. V V express to ynu -- opposition -to the cor.struz Ion -1pr oposed
V V V V home Depot. V
•V V - V
Sections 2.3.2.6.1 and 3.8.2 of the EIR discuss-light and glare mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the project. I refer i' particular to the or non-existnt V No additional mitigation is considered necessary.. - V ff,itiçation In th ER reçjardir.çj these items-.
V V Section 3 i4'..3 of the EIR discusses air quality mitigation V V
- 01 rlerive h.loicôl ha:izCcV V meãsures.
V Trsu(ic gridlock caused by tnls project V V V: V
V Iricomptibilivy eith the city's (u Plan Isn Section 3.2.3 and 'Append ices A andVBV address mitiation measures - Lack Of V viSulV aesthc V V - for water quality impacts. V
- V - Exassive nogenaratin V • V V •V V V 5 Creat ion V•C5Z of Hn: V.5VVVV
- V
'V
V
V : Lone term aaverse impact on our air qiaHty V
- V ' Adverse impact or-regional wa,cer quality
V Please do not let this project.. proceed m1zhut the proper - addressing these matter in the 1i.11st detaii. and their impact the ~ommunity
V
-
V -.
-
• V
- - - -
-
V
- 12295 - - -
264
TTiT1/.
MR 6I992 6 March 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs.
I am writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report
(ElR) regarding 'the -proposed Home Depot at: the corner of El Camino
Real and Olivenhain Road in -Encinitas California. The EIR generally
relies upon opinion and inadequate studies rather ihan fact, and
erroneously draws conclusions that '-items' in question can be
mitigated to a' level which is "less than significant." This ElR has
serious flaws along with. a substantial deficiency of evidence
required to support any findings that have been made.
This. ElR'violate CEQA bec.'ose it defers certain mitigation
measures to long term management plans. Among other significant
- 19ng term impacts, this project. -will completely disrupt' the wetlands
and there is no assurance ihit the project will replace - a currently
functioning ecosystem with one of equal productivity. r Tlte project
cn!ains little or :no contingency plans for the problems which are
likely to occur 'alier construction, such as those which occurred after
the construction of the Oceanside Home Depot. The Elk addresses the
effect of this total d,iruption by pointing to a future management
plan to be completed. by 'other agencies, including the Army Corps of
- Engineers Reliance on illusory mIti, thou me tsurcs such as future
management plans permits the developer 'to avoid, having' to address
the reality of feasible midgatioii.measures or, project ahernadves.
The existing biological impacts study is inadequa te since long term
adverse environmental impacts were not properlyaddressed:..Home
Depot has a duty to mitigate all such impacts.
264. Jo-Anne Wyman - -
Same as letter 1. 21; see response to that letter.
A
:
0
Fdr -
f,)!. 265
- - 265. Michael T. Walsh -• -
This does not comment on the ccuracy. or 'adequacy. of -the EIR and
does not require a response
1992
CflY MANACERS
52?:-:::trBI-
Enc i-
I.epC,t
:e,. yor 6aCt
C -.::ider.: c-; Er.:r.::or ::j- i -c a nrn-, I ar d r: zr.:ad h!
-ia-ma j--t:t 6 Hcme Lect r:.c:-e :i.i C ---.-:-cr
i 'ti t s t a z
n for th' o 1 dtn.
'i ia'r-'ii ci rt- 'c r s-id or n re"den ri E c I -i te
c pollt t J c;n, ir 1 C or. t h neihborhotds 1inr on the wtIa id 6'
.:--,: z-lnr.jn& thr itthe ar-a and énei'al lack r, t need fzr fit-:: - - - - - 0 -- 0 "• - - .-
n r con ri n m tar]y
t.ct -J'a.. -. •- 0 •. . -:- •. -
6ryc.I- :rr5.t -o w'-.ar. at :c.r - •- - - . . ---- . : -: c.:c-r z-.et.ail --
- of he sna type za JeES - . -
fr he :. r--' W-zy . a-zr t j -j a Hc.zzza rlezoy d
-- :- ........ar -thi ..... LC -nC: lav -Ca zitptrt Ca. W: i:w Cr-ee:
- deer e.i
is a i's -1 :dea for th:s. Ioc-tion.
:7 17 : zc'thever. Ed. -. 0 0• - - - - . - . - .
Encinitas, (: - 0 - - . . : - •0
- EtO
- 0
0
•- . -,
-
. . - ,. . - -.
12-297
February 6, 1992
266
Connie Willens
CONSTANCE-A. WILLENS S ASSOCIATES
4231 Collwood Lane
San Diego,. CA 92115-2010
RE: Preliminary Comments Related to the Draft Environmental Impact Report- for the Home Depot Specific Plan and Tentative- Map; Case 91-O44
Dear Ms. Willens:
Thank you for attending the Planning Commission meeting on January
21, 1992 to receive comments from the public and direction from the
Planning Commission related to the content and adequacy- of the
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Home Depot
- Specific Plan and'Tentative Map. The intent of this letter is to
summarize my notes-related to the comments received-at the hearing and the direction provided by the Commission concerning the DEIR.
_Coments.receive4$romthe.publ.ic_and_thegene'raLconsensus ofthe_ - - Planning Commission, as I understood them, - related to the following
issues which'wjll require further attention-and discussion in the
Final-Environmental Impact Report; -
A (I) Addendum to the Noise Study: The Planning Commission, received an addendum to the Noise Analysis conducted by San Diego
Acoustics at their meeting on January 21. The addendum identifies
noise impacts from delivery and unloading of goods, operation of
the 24 roof mounted -evaporative coolers, the operation of the
garden center, and the operation of trash compacting equipment and
how the noise will impact residences to the south and east of the . - Home Depot site. The City has extended the review and comment period for the Draft EIR from February'20 to March 6, 1992 to allow - . additional time for public review of the addendum to the Noise
Analysis.
-
B (2) Traffic- -Impacts: The Traffic Study prepared by Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. (BDX) assumes that access to Planning Area
3 (Pearce- prOperty) and the southern portion of P1anningArea 4 - '('Cowan property) will be taken from Olivenhain Road; However, the
Site Plan for the Home Depot indicates "potential future access" to
- -the two areas to be taken from the parking area adjacent to the
northeast corner of the proposed Home Depot struct.ure'which is accessed to El Camino Real. Access from the Home Depot parking
,area to the Pearce and Cowan properties was-included in the site
266. Craig Olson for City of Encinitas
Comment noted.
After this letter was written, it was decided that Wilidan
Associates would prepare the additional traffic analysis. The
supplemental report (Appendix K) analyzed internal access
related to PA 3 and 4 as well as buildout projections.
The numbers in the referenced table were reversed; the table
has been revised to reflect this change.
0. The revised table also reflects the changes related to the
encroachment 'allowance for roads.
More information 'on the crib wall alternative is'discussed in
Section 7.2.6 of the EIR. The use of a crib wall would entail
impacts to the. vegetation on the hillside above the crib wall
because equipment would need access to that area in order to
- install the footings. However, the area -of impact would be
substantially less than it is with the currently. -proposed design; this is discussed in more detail in Section 7.2.6 of
the EIR. -
The visually prominent sandstone bluff in PA 2 will be
impacted by grading for the residences; it is not in the
vicinity of the cut slope in the southern portion of PA I.
Therefore, the bluff will be impacted regardless of whether
—the--devel-opment-of--PA--1---includes--a--crib--wall -or- a --contoured—.- - slope as proposed. Since the bluff 'will, be graded as part of . a residential lot, it will be replaced by a structure and/or
landscaping. There is no mitigation for the. -loss of the
bluff, although landscaping will soften the visual impact.
The table has been revised to reflect the correct numbers.
The alternative discussed in Section 7.1.5 would reduce steep
slope encroachment. - The purpose of the EIR is to identify
potential -impacts and sake recommendations for mitigation. It
is the responsibility of the decision-making body to determine
whether that alternative is preferred.
-Policy 10.1 states that "The City will minimize development'
- impacts on coastal mixed chaparral and 'coastal sage scrub
environmentally sensitive habitats by, preserving within the
inland bluff and hillside systems all nat'ive'. vegetation ,On
natural slopes of 25% grade and -Over r other than manufactued
slopes A deviation from this policy may be permitted only
upon a finding that strict'application thereof .would pteclude
any reasonable- use of the property- (one .,dwelling unit per
lot). This 'pOliOy shall not apply -to construction of roads of
the City's Cirâulation Element, except to the extent that
12 -2 98 . S .
design to avoid impacts to the wetland area that an access roadway
to Olivenhain Road would pose.
Page 58 of the BO! Traffic Study states: "If the Cowan and Pearce
properties are forced to take access via the proposed Home Depot
site, two primary issues will-need to be addressed. The forecasts
used to analyze the 1995 traffic conditions will be different at
the intersection of El Casino Real/01jvenhain Road. The impacts.of
this change should be minor, but they will need to be addressed
In addition, internal circulation on the Home Depot site would need
to be reevaluated to' 'i'ncorporate the additional traffic from the
- Cowan and/or Pearce properties. The impacts of this addi'ti'onal
traffic could have potential traffic and safety impacts on the
proposed Home Depot parking lot and driveways. Analysis may indicate that revisions tothe current site plan may be warranted."
Since the Site Plan ,indicates access from the Home Depot site to
the Pearce and Cowan properties, why did 'BDI fail to provide the
analysis needed to determine if "revisions to the current site plan
may be warranted"? BDI is hereby directed to address the two
issues identified above (which were clearly shown on the Site Plan
that they'were contracted to review) so that the discussion can be
included, in the Final EIR.
The BDI Traffic Study analyzes 1995 traffic conditions based on
cumulative impacts from 'proposed'developments in "Encinita and
Carlsbad: as. well as proposed road improvement programs for, the
street segments and intersections that will be impacted by the Home
Depot project.. Why were the ,traffic conditions for 1995 utilized?
What are -the traffic impacts of the project based on the City's
General Plan buildouE.in accordanc'e with the traffic study prepared
for -the EIR for, the Encinitas General Plan? Are the traffic generation
'
.numbers estimated for the Home Depot project and
Specific Plan area consistent with the estimated traffic generation,
figures for similar land use.designatioi,s used'in the traffic study,
for the EIR for the-.-Encinitas General Plan?' Provide more'
discussion on the-extension of Leucadia' Blvd. to the El Camino
Reäl/olivenhain 'Road. intersection as indicated on the Circulation
Element Plan of the General Plan 'and the impacts the extension
would have on future traffic counts on impaàted street segments and
intersections. Please coordinate with BDI to have them address
these issues in a. letter format acceptable to the. City Traffic
Engineer, George Villegas.
.
- C (3) . Encro'achznent Into Areas of 25% '8bps or Greater: Table
3.6-1 on-page 3-90, of the DEIR concludes that 25.9% of the steep - slope (25% or greater) area of ,the Specific Plan would be impacted
by development areas proposed by the Specific Plan. In accordance
with General Plan Public Safety Element., Policy 1.2, èncroáchment into steep slopes of 25% or more is limited to a maximum of 20% of,.
the site. Table 3.6-1 (SPECIFIC PLAN AREA ENCROACHMENTS INTO STEEP.
SLOPES) indicates that', Planning Area 4 has 1.93 acres with 25%+
slopes. However, the Table indicates 2.50 acres of development
within 25%+ slope areas in Planning Area 4. How can more acres be
adverse impacts on habitat should be minimized to the degree
feasible. Encroachments for any purpose, including fire break
brush 'clearance around structures, shall be limited as.
specified in Public Safety Policy 1.2... .". The biology-report states that "While steep slopes are'not inherently sensitive - from a biological standpoint, the development of, these, slopes
would be expected to result in a greater: level' of erosion and
higher levels of sedimentation within lower portions of the
watershed."- This could result in, indirect impacts, on
biological resources. - In 'addition, Policy 10.5 of the
Resource Management Element provides guidelines., for
controlling development' to protect Coastal Mixed .Chaparral,and
Coastal Sage Scrub.. It would seem -that if it is the City's
intent to control development to protect'these resources, "the
City 'would not want to encourage land uses that require - removal of the native vegetation. '
Grading and/or disturbenèe of the vegetative cover should be
- avoided-as much as possible. The removal of the vegetative.
cover, 'whether it be for ,agricultural uses, a commercial
nursery, or .urban development,' has direct' and indirect impacts-
on erosion, water quality, visual quality, and, biological resources Because Coastal Sage Scrub and Chaparral are
considered sensitive habitats the removal of the vegetative
cover áan have indirect impacts on wildlife. In the caseof'
the Specific Plan Area, it could have impacts of California
Gnatcatcher habitat.
The additional spring surveys for the California gnatcatcher
were completed and are summarized in,Appendix B' and in Section
3.3.2 of the EIR.
The Army Corps of Engineers has reissued the Section 404
- Permit.
CEQA does not require a separate section - on cumulative impacts, and they are discussed in the,rel,evant issue analyses
(traffic, water quality, air quality, solid waste, biology,.
noise and visual quality).' Section 3.21 has been added to the
EIR to specifically address cumulative impacts.
12-299
impacted b- development than the number of total acres of 25%
slopes within Planning Area 4? If there was an error in the calculation for Planning Area 4, does the correct percentage of
encroachment reduce the total encroachment to less than 20%?
D In addition, Table 3.671 does not provide a column for Circulation
Element-Roads, local public.streets, or private roads and driveways
which are necessary for access to developable areas of the Specific
Plan site. In accordance with Policy 1.2, these access ways are
deleted from the acreage that counts towards steep, slope
encroachment if it is determined that they are necessary to access
the development and minimum disruption to the natural 25% slope is
made. It may be beneficial for you to know that the driveway along
the rear of the Home Depot structure (as it is currently proposed)
Was requested by the Fire Marshal to provide access to all points
around the building in an emergency. Please determine if deducting
Circulation Element Roads, access roadways aid/or driveway from
the acreage. counted towards steep slope encroachment would bring
the prd)ect into conformance with the provisions of Public Safety
Element Policy 1.2.
E Please Identify the impacts associated with the graded slope
alternative in lieu of a crib-wall to the south of. the proposed
Home Depot structure. Is it accurate that it the crib-wall is
constructed it would require cutting into the slope to construct
fOotings and.heavy equipment access above the crib-wall to back
fill the-open crib-wall areas with earth? Would this essentially
have the same impact as the contoured slope design currently
proposed? A visually prominent sandstone outcropping is located in
the vicinity of the area of the slope proposed to be.graded. Will
the outcropping. be affected by either the crib-wall or the
contoured slope design? Can the affects of the grading be
mitigated by requiring' the graded slope to be revegetated with
coastal sage chaparral plant types?
F Table 3.6-2 (STEEP SLOPE MITIGATION ALTERNATIVE) on page 3-91 of.
the DEIR indicates 50% of. Plan Area 1-A with 25% slope This was identified at thePlanning Commission meeting to be only 5% of Plan
Area 1-A. In 'addition., to this change, the totals at the ends ,of
the 3rd, 5th', and,6th'columns of Table 3.6-2 need to-be reviewed
since .they . are missing or askewed. Would it be a 'practical
alternative to reduce steep slope encroachment in Planning Areas 3
and the,southern portion of 4? Could a mitigation be to allow, some
uses (ie: agriôultural planting) of the steep slopes in Planning
Areas 3 & 4, but prohibit grading?
•,•
G . (4) Biology Report and California gnatcatcher - Sightings: Some of the residents who spoke to the. Planning Commission
testified and/or provided evidence that CalifOrnia ynatcatchers
have been sighted within the Specific Plan area Keith Merkel of Pacific Southwest Biological Services recommended that additional
field surveys be condüdted during the Spring to determine if the
birds are nesting on the property, or if they are, transitory. Representatives of the Home Depot project agreed that additional
S . .
field surveys should -be conducted this Spring. Should the Spring surveys determine that nesting buds utilize the site the Final
EIR must recommend a mitigation pin to reduce impacts to the
California gnatcátdhcr to below a level, of significance. Dependent
on the Spring surveys, off-site mitigation may be appropriate. Can
H you.address'the status of the Army ,cVorp'sof Engineors 404(b) (1) permit for the wetland enhancement program in light .of the potential listing by the U. S. Fish &, Came of the California .gnatcatcher?
Please find enclosed with this correspondence a letter (dated
January 20, 1992) commenting on the Biological Study prepared fok
the DE'IR from David Hogan of the SanDiego Biodiversity, Project. In addition to Mr. Hogan's letter, the City has received' written
comments from Mr. Geoffrey Butler, Mr. Joel Wasserman, Mr. -J.Kevin Smith, Mr. and Mrs. Bruce King; 'and Randy and Diane Kusunose since
the Planning Commission meeting I have enclosed these written
comments for your review.
(5) Cumulative Impacts At the Planning Commission meeting
an area resident stated that the DEIR was not in compliance with
Section 15130 of CEQA which requies discussion of significant
cumulative impacts Please address
r
this issue in the Final Elm especially as it relates to the Arroyo La Costa project approved in
Carlsbad Cumulative Impacts should be included as a Section to
the Final LIR under Environmental Issue Analysis
The above list of ltems summarizes my notes of the major concerns
related to environmental impacts expressed by the public and the
n Planing Commission at the meeting on January 21 The City twill be noticing an on-site workshop for Saturday February' 22nd from 9 30
to 11 30 a a and additional written comments may be forwarded to
the.City after the.workshop. Please be advised that as written
comments regarding the DEIR are received by the City, they will be forwarded to you Should you require any further clarification of
the concerns raised at the meeting as I perceived them please do
e nothesitat- to 'contact me at your convenience. V V
Sincerely,
Craig LOlson Assistant'Plánner
cc: CityCouncil
Planning Commission Commission .
New Encinitas community 'Advisory Board
- Bill Carpenter, The Austin Hansen Group
Warren H. Shafer, City Manager
' Patrick S Murphy, Community Development Director
Ge6r4é Villegas, City. Traffic Engineer V - Ron MbCarver, Fire Marshal
Bill Weedman, city Planner
V
267
267. Dr. David Trygstad
February 2, 1992
- This does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR and - does not require a response.
Community Developiiieni Department - . . 527 Encinitas Blvd.MAR 2 IM
Encinitas. CA 92024 . .
Dear. Sir:
1 am writing this letter in opposition to the Home Depot Project that, is
under consideration for Encinitas. I find it hard to believe that in order to
geherate a little'extra income for the 'city, rather than living within our .
'means, a project such as. Home Depot is being considered. The traffic is
alrdd bad enough, why bring it to all L.A. style gridlock? If the project
were to be built it should be next to the, freeway, not in the middle of
town, so thatcustomcrs would have easict- access. The area on the corner
of Olivenhain and El Camino - Real is also one of the Iasi areas in Encinitas on
El Camino Real . with some semblance of nature remaining; what about a
park?. Do we rea11y need five' inór'e 'acres' of concrete packed With cars? I
left L.A.20 years ago because of that kind of goernrncntal thlnkin Look
at, L.A. .today...should we look like that and more important live like that
when there is still a chance to save some of Eiinitas' 'quality oflivihg?
What we don't need is a, two story orange monstrosity surrounded by
concrete and smog producing cars where there used to be trees.
,
gnatcatcher"s, and native plants: Please remember we have to Lj_g here!
Sincerely.
David 'fiysad DDS
.-
. -'Ti1 • . . . - . . . . . .
- i23OO
0
.2 6.8
March 5 1992
THE .
A U' S N Mr. Craig Olson
H A N S E N Community Development Department
G R o u p City of Encinitas
527 Encinitas'Boulevard
cwrcruw Encinitas, CA '92024
'041E5OR0iiGN
Re: Draft EIR for Home DepOt SpecificPlan ànd Tentative Map
LANDSCAPi Case No. 91-044 ' J3CIIJlECiL5i
OwL - INGEE6aG Dear Mr. Olson, STRUCTURAL
ENGINEERING
DOLGLAS FAiA After reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Home Depot cwTrc1 •Specific Plan and Tentative Map, the following comments are presented: DA,LOKA5SiN,/JA
C411iCT
"10V ROSMS. AJA 1 California Gnatcatcher. Pages 3-18 and 3 19
pAmcjc o-coo
G5QRY.9MON. PEE A Gnatcatcher spring survey should be conducted on the Specific Plan area to
document the presence or absence of the birds If Gnalcatchers are found to
be nesting on the site during the spnng survey, an agency approved on site
mitigation program wilt be developed If on site mitigation proves infeasible a
back up off site mitigation program will be developed
For a more detailed explanation of the Gnalcatcher situation please refer to the
enclosed Ietteflrom Dr. Patrick Mock dated February 18, 1992.
2 Traffic Circulation/Parking Paoes 3-38 through 3-54
CORPORATE Several potential traffic issues were raised at the Planning Commission Home
HEADQUARTERS Depot EIR preliminary review hearing of January 21, 1992 The items are i.iscvcte addressed;bet6w, '
SANDeG3,CA92121
i69i 555.I50 '
FAX ioiciS52-1I A. There was discussion regarding a potential roadway from Olivenhain
NORTHERN Road extending southward to provide an alternative means of access to
- cAuro6NiA planning A(eas 1 3 and 4 Previous discussions with U.S Army Corps of 3434 MOw AVE.Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicated any additional
CA 95521 crossings of the creek would be strongly opposed by the agencies. - iQtAi 463-36w -- '
B The EIR traffic study assumed all traffic from PlanAjUkning Areas 3 and 4
1131 uos66Au5nN would take access'fiom Olivenhain Road. Therefore, since the Encinitas, -
HANMN GROUP General Plan-
requires traffic from Planning Area 3 and the South portion-
63 )G MS STRut 21T
CAUSEWAY MY
-HGKG
10111-652-8OS-1373 '
FAX olli-632-6O64433
268. fill Carpenter of The Austin Hansen Group
A spring _survey- was completed for the California Gnatcatàher.
A supplemental traffic study has -been completed by Wilidan
Associates (Appendix K) . This study analyzes potential access
routes to PA 3 and the southern portion of PA'-4and concludes
that the most suitable: access would be. via the -proposed
signalized main entrance to the proosedHome Depot site from
El Casino. Real, with specific'stipulations.
This comment has been noted and the EIR has been revised to
reflect this information.
The EIR has been revised accordingly.
The EIR has been revised accordingly.
Comment noted The City will,-,have to decide whether the
native vegetation on steep slopes can be disturbed it is not
only grading that can have effects on erosion and biological
resources.--
Comment' noted-.
4-.A. This alternat ive, was added at the request of.the City planner -
working on the master trails plan.', Section 7.1.7 has been
amplified to discuss the environmental impaàts associated with
this alternative. - - - - -- - -
4.B. This information has been incorporatedinto the discussion in
Section 7.2.4.
12-301
of Planning Area'4 to take access from El Camino Real, that project au-
site traffic circulation should be restudied. Additional study does not
appear warranted for the following reasons:
Page 58 of the ElR traffic study indicates that the impacts of
redirecting the Planning Area 3 anJ 4 traffic to El Camino Realshould be
minor.
Worst case traffic projections for Planning Area 4 were based on a
16,000 s I medical office building located along Olivenhain Road Any
traffic generated byev delopment from the south side of the creek in
Planning Area 4 which woütd'lakO'áccess from El Camino Real is'
expected to be only a small portion of the Planning Area traffic. Only
Planning Area 3 traffic will-pass through Planning Area 1.
Ills suggested that the City Engineer review possible impacts of routing
Planning Area 3 traffic through Planning Area 1 to El Camino Real: One
possible mitigation measure would be to provide a 2-lane, south-bound
left turn lane from El Camino Real into Planning Area I at the Home
Depot entrance.
3. Public Safely Policy 1.2. Pages 3-89 through 3-91.,
A. The EtR does nol-include the last sentence of the hillside grading
policy whichdescribes exceptions to the policy. The sentence reads as
follows:
"Exemptions may also be made for development of circulation
element roads, focal public slreetsor private roads and driveways
Which are necessary for access to the more developable portions
of a site on slopes of less than 25% grade, and other vital public
facilities, but only to the extent that no, other feasible alternatives
exist and minimum disruption to the natural slope is-made."
,The exemption applies to development for circulation element roads
(widening of El Camino Real), local piiblic.streets (extension of Scott
Place) and pnvale roads and driveways (roadway on South side of
Home Depot building) Enclosed are two copies of the Home Depot
Tentative Map (Planning Areas. 1 and 2) showing areas in which slopes
exceed 25% (9.03 acres). The map also shows steep, slope, areas where
grading will be required for road access (2 71 acres or 30.01'/ of the steep slopes and the remaining steep slope areâs.planned-tor'
development (1:74 acres or. 19.3% of the steep slope areas).
B. Table 3.6-1 on page 3-90 should be. revised to'include a column for If
2
.. . ..
•
acres of development with 25%+ slopes which are exempted by Policy - 1.2., and the final column (% Steep Slopes Proposed Fbr Deyelopmenl)
sh0ij1d be adjustedàccordingly.. .'
The numbers for Planning Area 4 in Table 36.1 are inconsistent. The'
- # Acres Proposed for Development should be 2.50: The # Acres of
- -Development With 25%+ Slopes should be 1.16. The resulting sums for . ttiesetwo columns should be adjusted accordingly.
The result of the above corrections indicates 3.21 acres or 21.8%'of
. . . . . . . the steep slope areas ae proposed.for development It the steep slope
areas in Planning Area 4 are used for agricultural purposes such as
wholesale'nursery or tree farm, ills questionable as to whether such
uses are. technically considered development areas since no significant
grading would be-required.
E.:Two,additional factors should be considered when applying Policy 1.2
.. '. . . to the proposed development First grading into the hillside to the south
of the Home Depot building allows the entire development area to be
located southward thereby permitting more of the wetlands to the north
to be preserved and enhanced Second utilization of a cribwall (as
described byAlternatiye 7.2.6 on pege 7-15) creates construction.
' ' impacts similar to the proposed contour grading of th hillside but does notáltow'forbalanced site grading. . . . . . . . .. .
4. Alternatives-To The; ProosedAclions. Pages 7-1 through .7.17
• .
Two of the .project alternative plans offered by.the EtR present significant problems which make them infeasible.
A'AHiking/Ecjuestrian Trail Alternative is presented in the EtA on page
7-9. The introduction ofan equestrian trail near the wetlands is not - . • . •- . - desirable per U.S. Army Corps staff. Furthermore, equestrian crossings at the El Camino Réal/Olivenhain Road intersection will have a ' .' - ; '• signifiàant negative effect on local traffic circulation.
.
- . . . B. A-Realignment of Home Depot Building Alternative is shown on page
. . . . 7-13 of the EtA This alternative is infeasible for s?veral reasons
Planhing Area 3 isnot owned by Home Depot and additional land
- - - acquisition funds are not available.
This alternative moves the parking area much clOser to ihiè neighbors to the east and away, from the building entrance
The loading area would be located at the southwest corner of the
building, requiring ascreen wall which would increase the width at the
building along El Camino Real, a scenic roadway.
Thank you for your consideration 01 these comments.
Sincere1j,. . .
. •
. .
. . ..
Bill Carpenter .
Senior Associate .
THE AUSTIN HANSEN GROUP
cc: Jim Lyon, The Home Depot • Jack Frask, Greeiiberg Farow
Terry,Barker, Consultants Collaborative, Inc.
Jim Hirsch; AHG
Bob Há,rlès, AHG
enélosues .
4
I. IMF
CONSULTANTS •V 'V
.
0 V
V
COLLABORATIVE 269 --
________________ 269. Terry Barker'of Consultants Collaborative
1 Comment noted
March 6, 1992 62 2 This sentence has been revised as requested.
tVV, Vj L- -.-
0
This table has been revised as requested. V Craig 0150fl \CII( Q V Community Development . 'V.- . Comment noted.
City of Encinitas - 527. Encinitas Boulevard V This section has been updated.
V Encinitas, CA 92024
Table 3.3-2 has been revised.
Deer Mr. Olson:
- . . . V 7 Comment noted. V The f011owing comoents are directed to the Draft EIR for the Home
Depot Spcific Plan and Tentative Map; dated December. 20,1991. V 10. Section 7.1.7 has been revised to reflect this information. Most -of the comments are addressed specifically to wetlands
V V V issues that relate to the U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers. Nationwide 11.. This page has been revised. V Permit No. 26, application number 917354-EW which Consultants
Collaborative processed for The Home Depot in July of last Vyear. V Due to changing wetlands regulations, the 404 permit was valid
V. only until January of this year. The Army, Corps has requested V
V V that Home Depot reapply for the Nationwide Permit .wjVth the ame
mitigation plan as previously proposed.'-'-
1. General Comments
The Army Corps UationwidePermit was granted based on no net V V V V V
loss of wetlands values and a minimal loss of wetlands
V V V V acreage. The rthnovalV bf silt and debris from the El Casino V •
V V Real- bridge and the addition of desiltation basins upstream V
V V V wi-i-i- cause the marginar disturbed fie1d,wetlands to V V V V • V
V V diminish. The, loss' of 2.9 acres of'wetlands willbe primarily -in the disturbed field portion of the site. V V V V V Through the. creation and mitigation of 3.9 acres of wetland, V
V
- a higher value wetland will be created and maintained within
V
V the creek area.
V it is important'-to,reognize that changes in Federal V V V V V
V regulations and alterations to the Specific Plan, TM, and V V V . Wetlands Mitigation:-and Monitoring Plan are grounds for
V review and reevaluation ofV the 404 permit by the Army Corps. Additionally later plans for Planning Areas -3 and widening of Olivenhain Road, trails systems, etc., which may
V V V V effectEncinjtas Creek within the Specific Plan area, are
V V V V potential areas of concern for the. Corps as they consider
V cumulativeimpacts to the Creek.
V
V V V V
VV V
V
V V 12-302
V
V 570 Rancheros Drive, Suite 201
V San Marcos, CA 92069
619/471.2365 FAX 6191471V2383 V
V
V V
Page 1-8. paragraph 1. line 9
Revise to reed:
"Although there is a loss of wetlands acreage, there is no
net loss of wetlands vplues.
Page 1-9. Table'l.3-4
An asterisk.note on the Plan Area 1 net loss indicating the
approved:mitigation plan ratltha1e for acreage vs.. value
loss would-be helpful.
page 2-40 23.1,5 - -Circulation. paragraph .3-
Widening of Olivenhain Road to, the south of its existing
alignment would impact additional wetlands. While some.
contribution to road--improvements .s considered fair by the
propertyowner and the Hose Depot, additional compensatián
for wetlands mitigation would be burdensome and should be
assumed by the agency constructing the road. '
Page 3-18. paragraph 3 Comments or references to regional
gnatcatcher planning efforts are outdated.
ElRshouldplace Project in regional Context of
current, ongoing species planning and including reference to: ,
- San Diego Clean-Water -Program "Multiple Species
Conservation Plan (MSCP) 1 .
-. Carlsbad - Habitat Management Plan (MN?) .
-. Carisbad/SANDAG sponsored effort to accomplish
Coordinate planning in the North county through the North County Wildlife- Forum
Reference to state sponsored NCCP process is incorrect
an be expanded to describe how State process;
if successful,would combine existing and new locally
sponsored plans into a sub-state preservation system.
Reference to Alliance for Habitat Conservation (A.HC)
mapping effort is
- not correct mapping effort was countywide
extending to an elevation of approximately 2000-.
- has essentially been made obsolete by more
detailed mapping undertaken by MSCP MM? and
SANDAG listed above In any event the AHC is not
proceeding with any sort of management or
preservation plan. . .
4 (;
4. Page 3-18. paragraph4 I have attached a copy of a letter. from Pat Mock describing the status of
.. Gnatcatchers on the Home Depot site.
Page 3-20. Table 3.3-2
Asterisk is missing from chart connecting the note to Plan.. :. Area-i.
Page 3-78. paragraph 3. line 4 and page 3-97. paragraph 2
.. .
Thè.U.S. Army corps of Engineers approves streambed -. -' alterations (404 Permits) and. is advised by the U.S. Fish arid' Wildlife .Service. It would be mostaccurate and less
. . . confusing .to reference the Army Corps rather than Fish &- --- wildlife throughout the EIR when- describing the wetlands
determination..
Page 7-9. 7.1.7 . .
The Hiking/Equestrian Trail Alternative should describe the . significant problem of compatibility.of- equestrian use with ... wetlands Equestrian uses attract cowbirds which are-.
- parasitic to native bird species An equestrian trail paralleling and crossing the wetland is threatening from an
environmental standpoint and the additional land area
required for it would remove more wetlands depending on the ultimate alignment of Olivenhain Road
Page 8-1
Elizabeth.White is with the U.S. 'Army Corps of Engineers;
- • not the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. .. . V,-. - - . •• - . I apreciatO this opportunity to provide-. additional, information
• - - . - that, may, clarify some of the complex environmental issues • . - described in the EIR
. •
Since'rely, -•
- - - -
Terry Barker - • . .
- . •
- . • Senior Planner - - . -•
-
. - . . - • - -
- . - - -
270 March 3, 1992
From: Mark wisnlewski 541 Hermes Ave. 61992 Lèucadia, CA 92024
To Community Development Department C 527 Encinitas Blvd. L_. .
Enc'initas., CA 92024
Re: PROPOSED HONE DEPOT PROJECT
A lam writing to comment on the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) -issued by Willens and Associates for the Home Depot project
proposed for the corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road in
Encinitas, California. This EIR has serious flaws and generally
relies upon inadequate studies or opinion rather than facts, then erroneously draws conclusions that certain Items In question can
be mitigated to,a level which is "less than significant." The
'EIR 'has failed to adequately address the cumulative environmental
impacts of 'this project and has further, failed to properly analyze these cumulative impacts and is therefore In violation of CEQA.
B As an example 'of the failure to fully address adverse environmental impacts, -thenationwide 404 permit-granted by the Army Corps of
Engineers was obtained by. the developer without an accepted EIRor at'best an out-of-date study. Note that this permit has recently been revoked and the 'dereloper must now reapply.
CPurthermore, In accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations,
- the' proposed activityniust not jeopardise,a threatened-,or en-dangere'd speCies as identified under the Endangered Species Act,
or' destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of such spcies.
DThe gnatcatcher, dOcumented as living on the site even by paid
project'biologists, will certainly-be added to the endangered species
list before this project is completed Therefore additional studies and proposals for mitigation must be undertaken at the site to
protect the critical habitat of" this bird.
SiflC::rcjJLi '
Mark' Wisnlewskl '
270. Mark Wisnikewski'
A. See response to letter #21, comment A.
8. See response to letter I 18, comment I.
Comment noted.
AdditiOnal California Gnatcatcher surveys have been completed.
See response to- letter I 11, comment K. '
IF
-
S 1755 Willowhaven Road. 2 7
5 5
S Encinitas, CA 92.024 - 271. Earl L. Hehn, Jr.
March 5, 1992 .- ' '14'.; This does not comment on the accuracyor -adequacy of the FIR and
- - - does not require a response. -
Community Development Dept. S S
527 -Encinitas Blvd. S
. Encinitas, CA 92024
Dear Sirs:
- We are writing this letter 10 express our opposition io'the 1-lottie Depot Project planned for - S
the corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhaiii Road. Our specific objections and concerns
S S S are:
The developiiieiit in this area to date has been residential and this project is
Inappropriate for the immediate area - as you can see from our address we
live in the Willow Creek development;, only a few hundredyardsfrom the,
proposed project. Such an iiiompaiible development will certainly adversely
Impact existing property values
Vehicular traffic at the intersection of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road is
already very heavy at times Future residential development already approved
such as Arrovo La Costa and 'Asiara will areatly add to this congestion If the
proposal to connect Leucadia Blvd. to-El Camino'Real is acornplished, traffic - will become extremely heavy without the gridlock hat this project will cause.
Noise, duit,-dir,- soot and smell iroin.dksel truck exhausts and light glare from
- this project will adversely impact ths neighborhood. The prevailing wind will
- S aggravate these cotidijions for those bf. us -residing in the Willow.Creekl
- . - .' Bridgewater communities.
:-
. Additionally, we are concerned about the possibility of flooding and/or Increased
.- - - siltingof the creek channel caused by this project. - The illegible map - reproduction accompanying your. notice of diaft EIR sheds no light on the
S
- manner in which the creek would be handled.
VivaIIy,- this 'rdject would be a blight on this otherwise extremely attractive
. ••.
neighborhood..
We hope that consideration of she above objections and concerns, as well as other negative
environmental impacts already raised with the Cli) will result in your recommendation for
disapproval to she City Council.
- - Sincerely, - - . .
- 12-304 - -
- - BarhaHehn
(ro1n 1ab%l A100
-' MAR 5t92
272
LeucctaCaj.orir...c
CifA 0 £11nI#A5
OUev.,-c oo
LrCt.4,4lS Ojvcs
kt
(ELR)
61 A S od A otia-i-ô .er iU- tiS& I)ejxf 10 ect
A -
ap- n. oive
d
A, T to i& ait 4dLt4
I e'iew 0/ .WdioIo--( c';½,j IoIE9La- ae-id Itia..Zit (tia14j ....
(' O44JtO tk (1 dtj1 )uieA t1- i oo-
tz d-i •
s
e1- •
•
e coutour d,A
&
Ai 0L410/ jLr)twrzLe ' c i JZJ IV- 52) JU.J aJlL,VJ
jj IL! tw E) C4
arJ
to~d' , AaZ, ci dii€tui e Q,75° c-PS, J4Jf a-10O
t~tOtDdQg,
).-,.
CPS. engk Jj
Ud CU4tZ2J
1t
VA4?L p inh i/d
owf&S -ccL S c!s ve
-: 10O
C e i; g.,a,
272. Carolyn Tatrall Avalos
The FEMA maps are general in nature and severely outdated;
more recent studies have been completed in the general project
area, including the studies prepared by Dr. Howard Chang and
ASL Consultants. Figure 2.3-12 illustrates the current
floodplain as well as the earlier floodplain and the
-floodplain that would result with the completion of Detention
Basin D, which is part of the Olivenhain Road Widening
Project. Likewise,: data obtained from a report dated 1976,
for which the data was gathered at an earlier date, could not
be expected to be accurate 16 years later. Two upstream
detention basins have been completed. Detention Basin C has
been approved for a site downstream-of the Specific Plan Area
and Detention Basin D has been approved for a site Upstream. of
the Specific Plan Area. A new graphic showing the existing
and proposed detention basins has been added to Section 3.1.1
of the EIR.
See response to comment A.
The General Plan designations were considered at public
hearings and the General Plan was adopted by the City Council
on March 29, 1989. Therefore,-portions of PA 1, 3 and 4 are
likely to be developed with some sort of light industrial
uses Prior to the City 's adoption of the Light Industrial
zoning and General Plan designation âf Specific Plan, the
County-zoning of PA 1, PA 3 and PA 4 was C-32, which allowed
- uses similar to the City's current designation.
See the response to comment A -regarding the 100-year
floodplain boundary. The floodplain has been reduced, not
expanded, by the two upstream detention basins, and will
continue to be reduced when Detention Basin D is completed.
The dredging beneath and immediately upstream of the El Casino
Real bridge that is proposed as part of the development of PA
1 will remove decades of sediment deposition and bring the
creek bed, to an elevation appropriate for maintaining water
flow, further reducing the floodplain. -
- - 12-305
C
Ffl'4
- ;4u T41
-
i14i-3
cr %1 Lj10 ft!$ i•
i. i, I iu 110 • d h
Al *
Iiiii INTERMEC
2-7-3.1 273 Terry A Taylor of INFERMEC
This does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR and
- .:._. • does not require a response.
"'92
ily -LLLUJ
Community Development Department
.527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024
I an writing in regards to the Environmental Impact report prepared for the
proposed Home Depot project on the corners of El Casino Real and Olivinhain
Road.
As :a resident of Encinitas-and a homeowner in the area of the proposed Home
Depot project I am strongly opposed to the commercial development of that
site die to the most Certain destruction of the sensitive biological
habitat of that site Both the Gnatcatcher bird and several species of
endangered plants have been found on this land
In addition the increased noise and traffic associated with development of
this nagnitude will greatily decrease the quality of life for those in the
area of the development El Camino-Real is already an excessively congested road;
Please don It turn El Casino Real into another sports arena blvd There is
alrsady enough commercial development in the area and .a project the size of
a Hose Depot would certinally adversely affect the area
The destruction of sensitive boilogicel habitat traffic gridlock
excessive noisej snd a creation of increased light and glare far outway any
possibje benefits associated with the creation of a Home Depot development
Terry A Taylor
855 Starflower Road
Encinitas Ca 92024
S. 12-306
INTERMEC Corporation 6540 Lush Boulevard. Suite C115, San Diego, CA 92121
274
March 3, 1992 66fl,
Community Development Department "''-• 527 Encinitas Blvd . Encinitas, CA 92024
Gentlemen/Madam:
A I- am writing to -express myopposition to the development of
the Home Depot Project on El Camino Real in Encinitas. The
draft environmental impact report fails to mitigate several
important items: Namely,' the traffic report assigns this
project a grade "F" after.., the project is built without any. consideration of the future 1700 homes in the Arroyo. La
Costa project and any future development of the neighboring
Eckeproperty known locally 'as"Green Valley".' The EIR does not adequately address not only this additional traffic but
also the estimated 100 diesel trucks delivering on a daily
basis.
B Secondly,-,there. should' absolutely -be an- analysis of the
- impact that this projectwill have on noise levels in a,
surrounding community. that" is exclusively residential. With
the significant increase in trAffic plus the continuous
operation of rooftop HVAC equipment and the constant noise
of forklifts, deisel trucks, and general loading dock - commotion, I feel-an accouti'cal study ,is a must.
C My final and most important comment, the- City 'of EncinitaS
in drafting their general' plan apparently envisioned an
industrial, low traffic type of use to allow for a gradual
transition to the heavier retail of the Weigand Plaza
Shopping Center"and other adjacent shopping areas. Allowing
the Home Deport project, which is a huge shock to those
entering' Encinitas from the north, will turn Our beautiful
city into a 2 mile long strip mall. We do not want' the
'image of a National 'City Mile 'of Cars in Encinitas
This project must be rejected' for the good of our.community.
Very truly yours,.,
? 4 avid A Fogg
1730 Orchard Wood Road
Ehcinitas, CA 944-7755
274. David A.Fogg -
The proposed project includes roadway improvements on El
Camino,Real', and the project applicant for PA 1 will fund the
widening of Olivenhain Road along the frontage'of the Planning
Areas, although the widening will be completed as part of the
larger Olivenhain Road widening project in accordance with the
- Arroyo La Costa project approved by the City of Carlsbad. The
EIR -recommends additional mitigation'in the form of. fair-share
'develOper, contributions toward Other road segment improvements
that are already needed as a result of cumulative traffic from
existing devlopment. The EIR con'cluded that traffic impacts
were unmitigatable at the project level due to, existing
regional traffic impacts. This will require that the
decision-making body adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations if it approves the Specific Plan and TM.
Traffic projections for land uses include all traffic expected
to be associated with the land use. Therefore, the truck
deliveries to the proposed Home Depot Center have been
included in 'the traffic generation factor. -
See the response to letter I 10, comment F.
This does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR
and does not require a response. -
12-307
4
cc_*.
275
•• - 92':9-?r 275. llgur Ortabasi-
Ugur Ortabasi " --•
1680 Meadowglen.Lane -
same as letter # 47; see response to that letter.
Encinitas CA 92024
City-Council Member
Arnie Omstad
City Hall
527 Encinitas; Blvd.
Encinitas—CA 92024
February 27, 1992
Dear Ms. Onstad, .
.
This leuer.pertains to the Environmental Noise. Analysis" (Report No. 91-016) and-the
associated Addendum (Report N 91 016) prepared b> San Diego Acoustics Inc in
conjunction with the Home Depot planning acti'. ities in Encinitas
We critically reviewed the abo'.e mentioned reports firstl> as the closest neighbors to the
planned Home Depot secondly as scientists who spent their lives '.'.riting proposals and
evaluating-similar reports From either point of view the report is flawed superficial and
does not reflect the honest quality of an unbiased scientific work-.
The yery first sentence of the main report reveals already the partial nature of the anal> sis
by saying This study was conducted to sho'.% the acoustic suitabihil> of the proposed
project with respect to the requirements of the Cii> of Encinitas Department of Planning
and Land Use In other words the repoic is not a fact finding effort but a study to induce
a desired result Another stunning faux pas of the first report is the conclusion that No
significant noise impact is expected.'.,This conclusion was reached by neglecting among
other things to include an analysis of the loadin2 dock noises The treatment of this major
source of noise appeared 4 months later in the addendum
Following are the obvious scientific weak points that minimize the credibility of both
- reports.' • .' . -- • •
•
• • • ••
-- •
• -
--
• i. The analytical model used, assumes a 'square l'.v' that describes how the noise
-
- -'-
level decreases withincreasing distance, from the source of noise. This model assumes a -
point source in an open en'. ironment with no obstructions or reflecting objects - 12-308
The laws of acoustics however follow closely the ones that control the propacation of light.
This means that noise or acoustic waves like lieht can be reflected, scattered, collimated,
funnelled of focussed. In that case "square law' attenuation does not apply.
This is indeed the situational the planned site for the Home Dpot. The fiat wetland and
field areas of the planned building site are almost completely surrounded by bluffs with
steep slopes forming a bowl shaped canyon. The noise generated by the Home Depot and
the associated traffic plus the traffic on El Camino Real andOlivenhain Rd. is reflected
back by the Western bluffs of Green Valley. onto the residential areas on the Eastern.
Southern andNonhetn,bluffsfacing the wetland area. The effect is so dramatic that for
example at our residence at 1680 Meadowglen Lane, overlooking the entire area of the
planned building site, the words of the songs that are played on rodeo days next to El
Camino Real can clearly be heard and understood.
The "square law' fails to predict the real situation as it is going to be and therefore the
model does not have the credibility justifying its use in the final decision. A very
convincing proof of the directibility of soundi.e. focussing and funnelling by reflection
are the stethoscopes and headphones used in commercial airlines.
2. The test daia obtained for the report do not contain information on the wind
.drectidn and strength during measurement intervals. As the carrier of sound, the air, and
the relative movement of air with respect to the detector affect the results of the
measurement. On the upwind side of the noise source, the decibel levels will always be less
than" on the downwind side. Therefore the results can be misleading, depending on the wind
at a piiiculartime. The report does not include any discussion of this issue.
.3. The original.study issued on April 16. 1991 involves only-a 1 hour measurement
at a.particular. time (11:00 am 712:00 am on Thursday). The equipment used was a level
indicator positined 5 feet above flat ground...
.
These are all questionable tçsc conditions reducing the credibility of-the data. One hour
measurement data is correlated with the vehicle count during other times. The correlation
fails to take into account the vehicle type. For example during mid afternoon, heavy school
bus and Diesel truck traffic increase the noise level dramatically at the corner of El
Camino Real and Olivenhain Road due to the starts and stops at the traffic lights at this . .
location. . .
.----
.
-
Y,_
3
The measurements have to he,carried out with a "dosimeter" type-of d'ice rather than a -- S
level indicator. This would provide a more iiitaningful as tra2e over ihe periods measured.
The noise field is ácudiulztiive and humans respond to Ihe total flux eniai1iing from this
field over time periods 1 IlerLfore the noise rLl tied damage is the physiological response to
the dose of noise received. In addition the maxima and minima of a noise level indicator
can be strong l'affected by changing the respñse time of ihedetecior. Noihformation on
this issue exists in the report.;
The height of the level indicator i.e. 5fe:i is equal of less ihaii the height of the scrubs in V
many parts of-ihe area. Thus, without the description bfthe vegetatioiiurroundidg the -
equipment the results have not much nIeaning as the vegetation can shield the detector
from noise. 1'his is common sense, as everybody knows that noise levels from he highways . . . •. : for example can be significantly reduced;by proper tree plantinbetween-th highway and
residences
4 The report Ignores the effect of noise oil the properties on the North South and
East bluffs surrounding the proposed building site completely Apparently the idea of
"squire law" tois'eitenuatioii is once aainapplied: i.e. as thedistance from the noise
source grows the noise level goes'down with the square of the distance, and-therefore the -.
properties on the bluffs are at distances' far enough not to be impacted by additional noise. -
'This conclusion is either a severe neglect in a report which-will be used to make decisions S.
or it is calculated v.a) to avoid having to face a non mitigatable situation If for example.
at our residence the noise level will exceed the allowable level to the same extent as - -
reported for the border-of the Pearce property, then there will be no possibility to mitigate
this problem-by a noise barrier since our property is bout 100 feet above the proposed
construction site. A fence to cover the line of sight would be impractical because of the - -
height of the residence.
- -
5. The report as it stands can not be considered final, because it contains many other
- - -
statements which at the least need further qualifications. For example: -
..." Loading noise only occurs during truck movement or-fork lift - -
operation
4
It is not stated what percentage of time oer a period of 24 hours itis occurs. Also
everyone knows that Diesel trucks are most of the time left idling during loading and
unloading operations. . .
Loud speakers (for paging) should be facing the building".
This implies that there will be no reflection from the walls of the building Everyone of us
has listened to the echo of our own voice in a mountainous area.
The compactor (on ihe East side) of the building should not be
operated in a jammed condition'. ..
It is hard to believe that the Home Depot will pay someone full-time to control the noise
levels from a compactor.
Forklift warning signals should be curtailed to midday":
The authors of the report are apparently not 'aware of other pressing needs for forklift
operation at a Home Depot that take precedence over noise control..
- "An interposed, earth barrier will reduce the noise level further":
The report considers only 14 new residences on the South bluffs which are proposed to be
built. An earth barrier of course is of no consequence for the, higher residences on the East
and North bluffs that are there now: . .
All in all we '.believe, that the report does not reflect real u) Present and future decibel
levels reported are not coming from sound data and they contradict simple common sense
A Home Depot with a projected 510 vehicle parking lot about 7800 estimated daily trips in
and out of the parking area and 784 trips in the peak hour (4 00 pin 5 00 pm) plus fork
lifts loud speakers and 40-50 light and heavy duty delivery trucks daily is bound to exceed
the allowable and tolerable noise levels in adjacent residential properties augmented by the
' "canyon configuration' of the area. This will therefore rep?e'sent a' major breach of the law
and a ñon-reversable environmental mistake that willdegrade the quality of life in
Encinitas in general.
S
cc'. c-.'--&o 276
?0
Ilse Onahasi -2 '
1680 .Meadowglen Lane
'
Encinitas, CA 92024
276. use Ortabasj
Same as letter I 69; see response to that letter.
Anne Omsied
City Council Member
City Hall,
527 Encinitas Boulevard
Encinitas, CA
February 26, 1992
Dear his. Omsted.
This letter concerns the proposed Home Depot construction plan on the Southwestern
corner of El Camino- Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinitas.
I believe it is indeed necessary that every citizen defends what is happening in their own
neighborhood, right beyond their backyards. We most definitely want to continue to see
coveys of quail scuttling through our yards, we most definitely want to wake up to noises
made by 'nature rather than Diesel-trucks, back hoes beeping, generators hunirning, cars
starting and stopping palettes rumbling on fork lifts chain saws screeching compactors
rattling and all those noises reverberating and echoing back from acres of roof tops and
asphalted parking 'areas as well as the canyon walls. We can not justify that oui children
will have to breath air that is more polluted. We can not tolerate any more traffic jams,
causing further delays in commuting to our work places and schools. We can not stand by
to watch the last small enclaves of unique wetland habitats; coastal Chappáral and sage
scrub environmernsbeing destroyed. Adverse environmental and social impacts of any
large development project need to be carefully not just listed The costs for
mitigation efforts and the monitoring of such efforts in the future constitute part of that
cost j am cons inced thai in the case of the proposed Home Depot construction plan the
costs of negative en ironnental impacts far outweigh ,the anticipated benefits and increased
revenues to the City of Encinitas. .
I now want, to focus on several issues of particular concern which need to be addressed
Firstly, it is our opinion that such a gieantic project on the proposed site is incompatible
viththe adjacent residenttal'areás as well as 11
1 City of EncinitasGeneralPlan. This land
-
S
should never have been ztiecl for light industrial use. iltis is the jjj open space in New
Encinitas and should have this land preserved as such.
The enormous decline in wetlands not only in California but in the Nation as a.whole over
the past decades is the nost important reason for not considering the proposed site at all
for any kind of large construction such as the proposed Home Depot. We can no longer
afford any reduction in wetland areas due to development It has been shown many times
that attempts atresioration or mitigation of lost wetIaids always falls short of the desired
result. In this particular instance the adverse effects on B,.taquitos Lagoon due to changes
of all kinds in the water run off are an additional concern which has not been adequately
considered.
According to the draft environment al iiHpact report the completion of this project will,
result in an excess ive Increase in traffic. Traffic will oprate at unacceptable levels in the
segment on El Camino Real between Oliciihatn Rd and Encinitas Bouleard and also on
the segment of Olivenhain between El Camino Real and Amargosa even if all proposed
improvements will be implemented. It is unclear from the draft environmental report
vhethèr the estimated increase in traffic includes .the anticipated 40-50 daily deliveries to
the Home Depot. Obviously he traffic problem can not be iniiigated to jsirtificance.
Concomitant with the increase in traffic and the operations at the Home Depot will be an
excessive increase in noise levels. A task fore furrnd by a group of concerned citizens has
shown that the existing noise levels are already at the limit of acceptable lecls now before
the project has been built Additional noises in the order of at least 4dB(A) are expected
from normal Home Depot operations in The vicinity of the site. Increased traffic, delivery
trucks fork lifts compactors cooling equtpmLnt chain saws etc will. all coniribute to this
increase in noise. According to a technical noise study prepared as part of the draft EIR it
as concluded that noise mitigation was necessar\ for seen of the residences proposed in
Planning Area 2 It is therefore logical thaiiiots intttgation is also a must for the existing
adjacent residences to the East and South aswcil as future residences to the North,
particularly the ones that are overlooking the project 'lite existing noise studies do not
consider this problem at all neither do the) include an consideration of prevailing winds
and their effect on acoustics.
I would like to conclude by summarizing that this letter only touches on the many
problems of this ill-conceived development project which I consider absolutely not suited
for the proposed site. As a very concerned citizen I object strongly to the construction of
4 4
277
HE!.DSTONE •LA COSTA 4' 277. Douglas H. Avis of Fieldstone La Costa
Figure 7 in Appendix 0 indicates that only 25% of the project
- ),O .1 March-.6, 1992 ' ., Lu! ) traffic is expected to use Olivenhain Road, or. 21033 new daily trips (Figure 8 of Appendix 0),., The November 4, 2992 report by Willdan Associates (Appendix'K) indicates that in the year 2010,; Mr. Patrick Murphy' .- - . Olivenhain Road is expected to operate at Levei,of. Service (LOS) D Community 'Development Director without the project and at LOS E'with the project. In2010, .Rancho City of Encinitas ' ' ' ' ' . ' Santa Fe Road south of Oljienhain Road is expected to ópêrate at 527 Encinitas Boulevard'" S , unacceptable nd without development 'of the LOS 'F with a Specific Encinitas, California. 92024 . ' , Plan Area. For the same year, Rancho Santa Fe Road north of • 0 Olivenhain Road is expected to operate at LOS C without the project Re: Draft EIR -'Home Depot Specific -Plan-and Tentative Nap' and LOS 0 with the proposed project. See Section 3.5.3. of the EIR
- for recommended mitigation measures. Dear Mr. Murphy:
Fieldstone/La Costa Associates is the owner'of subCtantial property
' in the City of Carlsbad; d portion of 'which is the approved Master
. . . Plan-project-of. 4,076 single family. homes'known,as-Arroyo La Costa
located immediately north of Olivenhain Road and adjacent to the proposed Home Depot Specific' Plan drea (Home Depot)'.
Our review of the draft Environmental Impact Report suggests one
comment only related to the appropriate fair share contribution
from these proposed future projects toward the construction of a
number' of road fa: dil-ities. Oür'comment shó'uld not be construed, as
opposition to the project but merely a request to examine potential cost sharing for major public improvements in the 'vicinit'yof'the:proposed Specific Pian'area.
A We note'-from the'trip 'generation summary that the total community
impact trips for' the' Home Depot project ('including all uses) is
5:,072;trips,per-day." This'is approximately 47% of the impact of
.''• : thé'Arroyo La Costa project.' 'As such, Home Depot would appear to.
have impacts not only to Olivenhain Road but also to Rancho Santa Fe Roathtlorth, Rancho Santa Fe Road South, and El Cámino Real north'.
of Olivenhain Road.
All of these road segments are slated for improvement as part of
Carlsbad's facilities planning. Although we take note that the.
'Home' Depot Corporation has agreed to fund the widening of 011venhain Road along its project frontage, we would request-that
consideration be 'given to both' the evaluation of the Home Depot's
'. . impact on all surrounding circulation facilities, and that
consideration be given €'oan appropriate contribution.
. '- •, . -- ' '
Thank you for the opportunity to submit-comments on this document.
Sincerely,,.
M. AVIS
12-310 DMA:jb. '
P.0, H.. a'e, n- • C.oI.lud. CA 0411-S0 I 1 S7 47 • FAX l'Li i-1 "In
278
278. Giacomo W. Bucci Patrick S. Murphy
" MPJ 51992 ' Director Section 3.5.2.1 of the EIR states that the cumulative traffic Community Development Department I : projections included projected traffic from the Garden View 527 Encinitas Blvd ' ,,.,. Plaza project (the office project to the immediate south), the Encinitas, CA 92024 .--------- ' Mobil Service Station remodeling, and the traffic projected
from Carlsbad's Facilities Zones 11 and 12, which include
Arroyo La Costa. The EIR noted that, even with the mitigation
proposed by the project, any development would have
cumulatively significant impacts because some road segments
and intersections are already exceeding their capacity. The
EIR recommends that the project applicant contribute, on a -. . Dear Mr. Murphy: . fair-share basis, to the funding of improvements along road
eegments and : at intersections that would carry project As a concerned resident in the city of Encinitas, I feel compelled traffic. However, these are regional improvements that are to address the issue of the proposed' Home Depot. Having attended a not the responsibility of any one project; they are a result meeti,iy of. the planning commission at which the Environmental of all of the existing development. The EIR concluded that - Impact Report, was discussed I found many of the issues were not . traffic could not be mitigated at the project level. adequately. addressed.
This does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR A On February 22, 1992 a neighbor and I went to the proposed location and does not require a response.
and viewed the 'story poles" erected. The location of the building
is very close to El Camino Real, a street I frequently travel on The project does not propose the purchase of wetlands off-
way to and from my residence. This street is a - heavily ,he site. The EIR does not recommend this as a mitigation measure travl1ed highway in Hew Encini€as and presently cannot 'handle the -because there are no anticipated significant unmitigated flow of traffic that travels. upon it. With the advent of new impacts to wetlands. The EIR addresses water quality in developments a1ready'in progress primaily in the La Costa area -. Section 3.2 and biological resources in Section 3.3.
see no way that this project along with the propoced home sights
- CEQA requires the assessment' of potential phvsiàal impacts of - could not have anything but an negative impact on driving
projects. Quality of life issues are, subjective and are conditions. The meeting I attended did little to address the issues
addressed in various sections of the EIR on biological regarding traffic. There was a proposal that Olivenhain Road would
resources, water quality, air quality, traffic circulation, be widened but that proposal would only alleviate the current land use compatibility, visual quality and provision of problem of-congestion. New homes and the Home De'pot would create a
nightmare, situation . In addition, the proposed structures along community services.
Garden View and El Camino Real have been quietly overlooked. It is
The remainder of the comments do not challenge the adequacy or without a doubt that these structures once erected will also contribute-to our traffic woes. accuracy of the EIR and require no further response.
The additionof-a structure of that magnitude in a location that
- - - - was and continues to be dominated by the present resort of La Costa
and the future Four Seasons resort isclearly incompatible with the
- city's generalpian. The -city is clearly considering this project for.- the revenue -it- would generate immediately. Does the city owe, - its residents the foresight to look to the future" of course it
- does -Short.-Cigited--ci-vic leaders have ruined other cities. -Let's.
- not let-the gratification of immediate income destroy the bright
- future of-this city.
Cour -city is located between two of the most polluted areas in - - - - southern California, Los Angeles and Tijuana. The fact that Home
Depot may not be an industrial giant still does not limit the impact such a structure would have on a community such as ours.
With the flower fields directly across the street from the proposed
. - - structure and the fact that the area itself is a wetland, there has - 12-311 • . .
*
been absolutely no consideration to our environment in the immediate vicinity. Purchasing wetlands in another location does
. . not, address -the situation in Encinitas which. will be impacted -. . -• directly by this structure. .
-.
Consider the'fact that Oceanside has a Hose Depot located not more
than twenty five minutes from the proposed sight itself and a Builders.EmpOrium is located in a shoppingcenter not five minutes-
way.- is, there such a pressing need for this monstrosity to go up
in bur backyard? The answer is obviously a -resoundingO!
I do not necessarily oppose growth but the answer is 'planned 0 growth. ..*growth that 'will enhance the beauty of our city. The -- people in the community -have-rallied to oppose th'is proposal and yousir, should heed their cries.
)est fully
f
.-/aacorn~o~.. ci 1678 Orange Blossom Way
Encinitas, Ca. 92024 - - - - - - - - - -
0 0
279 279. Bradford Roth
Same as letter # 60; see response to that letter.
6 March 1992 .. 61992
Community Development Department ...- 527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
I am writing to express my coucerli over the proposed Home
Depot project, specifically the draft Environuiientsl Impact Report
(ElR). This-EIR is completely inadequate. The EIR does not have a
statement of overriding merit, as required by CEQA. The city
council's desire to generate tax revenues does not justify building
this monstrosity on environmentally sensitive laud nor creating a
traffic nightmare.
The ElR admits that there will he an increase in traffic, and
assigns traffic a grade "F". after the pr6ject is built, vet it does not even take into account the traffic which will be created by the 1700
homçs in the Arroyo La Costa project. -and any: other future
development along the El Camino Real corridor. The EIR does not :
adequately address mitigation of this traffic problem nor does it
address .who will pay for the upkeep of the roads due to this increased traffic, including the large number of diesel trucks (100
per day) making deluertes to Home Depot
The EIR does admit that trafficcannot be unutu %Lcd to a less
than significanC. effect The project should not N considered uttitl the current traffic congestion/problems 'ilOn El C. ImiuIo Real are
addressed Home' Depot should not be al lowed, to tike the position that traffic which their "megastore" will creité is "nC5u their concern.'
Sincerely, ....
- -
- v4ord. RLL
' R-L&etLs\ Ave . . ('A 9a7
12-312
• o
4 --
280 BRAD ROTH
1507 Rubenstein Avenue, Cardiff, CA 92007 (619) 436-2632 280.. Bradford Roth
- March 6, 1992 A. These facts have been noted in the EIR.
-
Community Development Department Ii -, B. The compatibility of the Specific Plan land use designations Attn: Home Depot Project with the General Plan.is discussed in Section 3.6.2.1 of the 527 Encinitas Blvd. : -' o EIR. The, compatibility of the proposed TM with General Encinita5,CA 92024 :- PUn UI Policies is discussed in.Section 3.6.2.3. -
A This is in response to the Envlronme'n'tal :ImPct Report for the proposed C. This does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR Home Depot iat El Camino Real and 011venhj Rád..,.._--proiect as and does not require a response. proposed-Is In conflict with the city of Encinitas Land Use 'section of
the General Plan;' In addition, care and sensitive plant communities D. See response to letter # 15, comment A. and bird habitat could be destroyed. These fact's are not addressed - . - - -, - adequately i-f at all in the EIR. E. The--biology report indicated the presence of 15 to 25 Del Mar - -' - ManZanita plants. It concludes-that the loss of two of these B The map on page LU-67 (attached) of the General Plan shows the build ing plants is a less than significant impact because the site as being surrounded on three sides by land designated Ecological preservation of the remaining population will allow the Resource/Open Space/Park. And in- fact it appears that the site of the - continuation of the species on-site in natural open.space. proposed 19 homes on the south,end of the project sits 's€rlde a - - - - portion of said land. This would be a conflicting use of this land. - On page LU-24 -policy 8.10 defines this land use designation, Including
passive -recreation which will have no significant adverse -impact on habitat values ........In additlbr," All'- aieás possessing wetland .
resource values...shall be protected by .appropriate buffers.' The - - - project Is in conflict with close proximity, to such an area,:the - -- - -,' wetland, buffers' are- inadequate, 'and the EIR does not, adequately address - - - - elher of -these Issues. It woàld appear In view of these facts that
the
zoning ofthe--proposed -building site as Light Industrial is a c -
- - mis take
-- D Re9arding the California gnatcatcer habitat',, Craig Reser of Pacific - - -. - Southwest Blolog.Icai in testimony on the EIR in late February,
questioned whether the area where gnat'catchers were sighted was
- - Southern Maritime Chaparral plant community (deflnàd on. page 5-2 of - - - - MEA), and thus of dubiou, habitat value to these birds. But on Figure
- - 5-1 of the''Haster -Environmental Assessment of 10-20-87 -(section - -- - attached), the site of the 'proposed 19 homes Is shown as being said - - plant community and thus gnatcatcher habitat, as well as a rare and sensitive plant community In its own right.
Among the plants present onthe site is the Del Mar Manzanita (see Table, 5-1 of MEA), a particularly rare species. I have personally - counted and recorded 10 specimens on the site, some of which will be - - - destroyed by grading for the loading dock area on the hill on the south
- -: side of-the proposed store. The EIR does not-adequately address the
destruction and degradation of this particular plant or offer 'any.- ' - - mitigation measures:
I would greatly appreciate your response to these concerns. - - -
Yours,truly,
- - - -
-
12-313 -
28.1
March •• I'II2
Community f)evd pnieni liepariwent
527 Encinitas ftjvi
Encinjias. CA'92112-j
?:ei Home' iepcit f-rc:t . -
Gentlemen.
I a at writing to voice my objection to the proposed construction of a Home
Depot on the ijtc just oiith if Olivenhain Rd.-On Ei Caiiiinn Real. We havc
lived in the Fieldstone area for just over live. vea?s and have noticed. a fliajcir
increase in, traffic in the area generally and in El Camini in particular with
accidents hecnmtiig pratiiallv a daily event on El Camino between
cilivenhain Rd. anJ Encinitas Elva. The addition of the Home Depot-will onlY
make this situation worse.
Like most citizens, my Wile and I do not welcothe the additional noise. dirt
and genraI pollution this type of installation will bring to the area. I do
understand the prOperty tx cohtrihutico tothe C(iflimUnitv a i'aciliis ni this
Is pe will make. In the lung run. it in a ell serve Io drive down home
p'rices'in tñ'e area as well asyalLies of commercial properties With which it ill surety compete fur business, with the net'aiiect perhaps even being
negative IflCOMe for the city.
The present entrance to our'citv on El 'Camino is reasonably attractive. The
addition of a Home Depot at the gateway to Encinitas can and will only he a
visual 'detriment. There are manv'lvpes ol"developnients. for thiS site which
' ould he much more drcil able in all recpcci and uld ntaiin.iin the
qualits 01 li in as well as, PlC Ci 15 5 aiuec
I trust all agencies of our cits which has e a recponfahilit\ in the approval al or rction cf this project will c011sider all aspects of this situation.
U.1 5(1
t _)t
[land ani.Marie Veit
15'J I .tvènida La PO$La.
Encinitp. CA ()()2.
281. David and Marie Ven
This does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR and
does not require a response.
•
282
282. Ronald E. Lieberman
- - -
- Same as letter # 73; see response to that letter.
6 March 1992
Community Development Department '. ).1 5 992
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encintias CA 92024
-.
Cii V C L
Sirs.
I am writing to comment on ilie Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) written .by Willens and Associates as pail of llte Home Depbt . project proposed for the corner of. El .Camino Real and Olivenhain . . Road in Encinitas. California. This EIR is flawd since there zis a . substantial deficiency of evidence required td supori the findings
that have beeh made. The EIR relies upon inadequate studies and
then draws conclusions that ileitis in question can he mitigated to a
less than 'significait level.; . . . . .
. .
.
.
Since the site designated for this project represents the last . open space in New Encinitas, it shduld be preserved from any further
. . development, in accordance with the Open. space goals of the General
Plan of Encinitas. New Encinitas already has the lowest perceiitage of
open space in all of Encinitas,- as documented in t1te city general plan.'
Although the land under tile SDGE power lines is died in this report as contributing to. the -stock of open--space n Enciniiis. this cannot be - considered viable open space, given the publics concern over
electromagnetic fields. Further, since animal. life has been forced to concentrate on this last open site due io the encrortchtietit of development :on neighboring parcels, this has become a very important natural habitat. This developmental encroachment
contradicts the goals of the geticril plan for preservation of open
space and natural habitat.
. Therefore the EIR is inadequate since no provision has been made to .
. preserve open space and natural habitat in New Encinitas. . . .
Sincerely,
- . .. . 12-315
I'71 ()t.LLce j tI4.t.',J ?jD
283
283. Rosemary H. Gorski
Same as letter 1 22 see response to that letter.
6 March 1992 --
MAR 61992, ' Community Devtlopinent Dep4rtlnLllt
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024 l.., L,
Sirs,
1 am writing in response to the Environnietital Impact Report
(EIR) issued by Villcns and Associates regarding the proposed Home
S Depot at the corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhaiti. Road in
Encinitas California. This EIR has serious flaws along with a
substantial deficiency of evidence required to support any findings
that have been made. The EIR generally relies upon inadequate
studies- or opinion rather than. 1facts. then erroneously draws
conclusions that items in question can he mitigated to a level which
is less than significant.
The EIR has also attempted to sever iues which are an
integral part of this study. For example, although the I-lottie Depot
project relies critically upon. the-,retention pond to be built in
Encinitas creek (as part of tte Oliveniain Road Wideing project). the
details of this retention pond and its'impact are not included in this
Elk. Further, the data taken for thie Road Widening project has not . • been updated to take into account upstream development.
S
The failure to adequately address and analyze: this project's -• -cumulative impacts is in violation of the California Environmenta!
Quality Act- and must be corrected before this Elk can he apprOved.
0 Sincerely, -
• S .
12-316
,-
•
284 1439 Willowercen Court
Fncinitas. CA 92024
March 6. 1992 9 f*I 284. John Allison and Darlene Allison
... -" The Mayor ,•- .;
A. The California Gnatcatcher has not yet been listed by the U.S.
Members of the City Council . ............---..-.----.... .
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Chairman and Members of the Planning.Coiiiniissioui S. If the proposed Specific Plan and TM are approved by the City Chairman and Members of New Encinitas CAB of Encinitas, the Home - Depot project will still require
Director and Staff of City Planning Office approval of a California Department of Fish and Game Streambed
Citv of Encinitas . Alteration Agreement for the floodplain-activities, and a
cutliall - . Coastal permit for the -improvements to El Camino Real. The
. Encinitas Boulevard at Westlake
.
Amy. Corps of-Engineers has reissued a Section 404 Permit.
Encinitas, CA 92024 Since a decision on whether or not the California Gnatcatcher
. will be listed is expected to occur prior to the' final
approval of the proposed project, the' decision-making body Ladies and Gentlemen: will probably have this information available.
Pleãe take notice that the undersigned John and Darlene Allison hereby submit written Other comments are noted. -
comments on the draft Environmental Impact Report concerning a proposed adoption - . . . - . . . . . of a Spectftc Plan District concerning a situs located at and near El Camino Real and C Using the standards adopted in the Encinitas Noise Element,
Oluvenhatn Road, -City of Encinitas. whichwhichproposed Specific Plan contemplates the the only areas requiring noise mitigation are the seven
proposed construtton of a Home Depot building and home improvement supplies in 2 (which require mitigation of westernmost residences PA
Warehouse store within the Specific Plan District proposed - the existing and projected'' future noise from traffic on El
Camiflo Real) and PA 3 Noise attenuation barriers have been
- ENDANGERED SPECIES
included in the project for both of these areas. -
D
. - The EIR preparer concurs with this comment and additional
A The U. S. Department of Interior and other Federal- and California state agencies are - information has been added to Section 7.2.2.2.
currently conducting a notice comment and hearing process initial phase of which
currently expected to end March 16 1992 concerning whether to list the cnatcatcher bird E The alternative discused in Section 7 2 3 has been revised to
within species protected by the Endangered Species Act. According to officers and consider a 25% reduction in the size of the Home Depot Center
- - -
directors of the Scotts Valley Homeowners Association, which represents homeowners F. It- is the General Plan land use designation that dictates the whose property is located near the Site the City of Encinitas and its representatives type of land uses for the Specific Plan Area State law
previously maintained that noes idence existed that gnatcateher feeding and nesting areas requires that zoning be in conformance with the General Plan
existed within the proposed Specific Plan District. However, the City and its The County zoning of PA 1, PA -3 and PA 4 prior to the City's
representatives have allegedly recently changed this position andadmitted the possible adoption of General Plan and Zoning Ordinance was C-32, a -its
presence of the natcatcher. ' . g . .
commercial zoning district that allowed uses similar to those
- - allowed under the current Limited Industrial zoning.. The
B The staff planner responsible for this project estimated that, if-approved, eight to twelve General Plan was adopted after the preparation of an EIR.
Prior months would be required for approval of the Specific Plan District and Home Depot to the adoption of the Encinitas General Plan, a number
construction through City Council approval. It seems appropriate to defer further action 'to of public hearings were conducted obtain input from
Encinitas citizens. A formal General Plan Amendment would be on the proposal pending the outcome of-the US Departnieni of Interior's rulemaking required t9 change the designated land uses in the SpecifiO concerning applicability of the -Endangered Species Act to the gnatcatche-r, as an Plan Area.-
affirmative action by DOI will at a-minimum require substantial revision to the EIR and -
could possibly make impracticable any substantial development within the proposed G. This does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR
Specific Plan District. Even if DOI does not act affirmatively to list the gnatcaicher, any and does not require .a response. - -
-species thar is threatened to the extent that DOI would seriously consider such action - - - -
i warrants far more concern than the present EIR addresses t, not even listing t as a i H. - See - .the response to letter I ii, comment 5. - -
major consideration in the Executive Summary of the EIR.
- I.
NOISE
The referenced statement has been deleted."
- 12-3i7
AnaddentJum to the EIR concerning noise dated January Ill, l')92 st.tcs that the closest C
residence to the proposed Home Depot building is 5(11) feet away, and estimates
unmitigated noise levels between 60-ill DI) and mitigated noise levels between 40-50Dh.
The tone ofthe analysis suggesfstllat mitigation-is possible to reduce noise levels below
threshold danger or adverse-impact levels, and thus has the tone of'disuiissiiig the noise
issue as a major concern. I lowever, 500 feet is less thin two football fields, a closer
distancà than emphasis on the 500 number might make one realize. 40-50 Db'is the
volume of a TV or radio on medium volume, which may not seem-like an adverse impact
unless one does not care to listen to the tttu'sic Home Depot is playing. Several
residences located on bluffs near 1-5 in North City West and Solana Beach are
considered nearly unsalable which have traffic noise levels between 20-40 DI) in the rear
yards. - -
-The EIR proposed an alternative layout of the Home Depot where the longer side of the
rectangle will parallel El Camino- Real rather than Olivemihain Road. In the alternative
scherria the parking lot will be located on the cast boundary impacting nearby residences
and the loading dock and speaker for the gardeit shop will face the south, rather than in
the original, proposalwhich would have the loading dock and speaker face east and
D impact nearby residences. The EIR does not contain an adequate analysis and
comparison of the ldvel and character of noise from cars in the parking lot as opposed
to the level and character of noise from trucks in a loading dock and speakers for the
garden area. The only work here is a suggestion that Home Depot use the speakers on .the lowest-possible volume but does not analyze what that volume would be nor its
impact compared to. other alternatives. The EIR also suggests the possibility of
downsizing the original proposal but does not suggest various sizes nor estimate noise
----EIevels-corresponain-to-tltese-.sizes. --For--these-reasons-theE1R.is.entirclyinadequate,
ague and imprecise in its noise analysts and these sections need a complete rewrite.
ZONING -
F Evidence exists that the city made an error in zoning the concerned area light industrial
in the first place because of the wetlands and other issues. While the city may decide to
change the zoning if it finds that light industrial development in the proposed area is
incompatible with the General Plan for wetlands or other reasons, the zoning should not
be the only controlling factor concerning the proposed Specific Plan District and Home
Depor project. In other words the city should not approve the project rnecly because G it ,sa peimitted use in a light industrial zone if the project otherwise fails to comply with
the Genèfal Plan or other environmental standards.
At several points.the draft EIR refers to Pas 1-4, indicating that each has a different
owner and that some owners' development plans Iare uncertain. The principal staff
H planner concerning this proposal stated that incremental development plans do pose
planning problems but that the city could not force all landowners to submit development
plans at a given time. Nevertheless, the vagueness of references to some of the PA areas
suggest that this proposed Specific Plan District may be advanced primarily to justify the
Home Depot proposal. Unless development of the entire area is coordinated in advance,
due to the cumulative effect of four different proposals the resulting cumulative
The EIR contains a number of alternatives that would avoid any
direct impact to wetlands (see Sections 7.1.2, 7.1.3, 7.1.4,
and 7.1.6).
The Corps is required to consult with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service in the issuance of Section 404 permits and
must comply with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
requirements. Section 3.6.2.3 of the EIR discusses the
nonconformance of the project with. Resource Management Element
-. Policy 10.6. - - -
The second page of the EIR, in Section 1.1, discusses the CEQA
process. related to Findings and Statements of Overriding
Considerations.
N. The EIR addresses cumulative traffic impacts from allrecently
approved projects- in the vicinity in both Encinitas- and
Carlsbad. This includes projected traffic from the Byron
White (Garden View Plaza) project, the Mobil Service. Station
remodel, and all relevant projects within Carlsbad's
Facilities Zones 11 and 12, which includes Arroyo La Costa.
The EIR includes recommendations for additional mitigation
measures for the mitigation of regional traffic problems.
However, because these regional problems cannot be mitigated
by any one specific project and require a multitude of funding
sources, regional traffic impacts cannot be mitigated to a
less than significant level by the proposed project.
SpecificPl-an- and - EIR -- are --current ly--being-prepared-for.the_ -•--- -. --
Ecke property to the west. When development is proposed for
that area, it is -1ike1y that Leucadia Boulevard, will be
planned tâ be extended -easterly to Olivenhain Road
Air quality is also a regional problem. Because the San Diego
air basin has not attained some State and Federal standards,
according to CEQ additional development, even the
construction of one house, as well as the addition of evenone
car, must be considered a significant cumulative impact. The
EIR includes recommendations for mitigating air quality
imnpactsat the project level. Regional air quality impacts
cannot- be mitigated at the project level-; they can only be
mitigated through increasingly strict emissions requirements
for home and - business uses as well, as for cars, 'and by a
reduction in the use of fossil, fuels.. -
The type of analysis proposed. could require knowledge of
exactly where, every Builders Emporium customer lives and
whether the customer would -abandon that store to use Home
Depot, conti'nue to use Builders Emporium, or use both. Any
assumptions. made would be -highly subjective and subject to
contest because there is no such data available. Traffic
analyses are prepared using standard trip generation rates
12-318
: • IF I
incremental environmental degradation will likclv exceed that aitiiciliaied at the outset.
Forthis reason the city should aiteniptuitsolar it., possible to coordinate all development
plans in all Pas of the proposed Specific l'lari District. that change over time as more information becomes available.
VETLA\DSAt',DTOPO(,lsAllI\ The EIR does conclude that several types of impacts, including traffic, air quality, and solid waste, are regional impacts
On page 1-15 the draft EIR refers to Encinitas General Plan Resource Management
that cannot be mitigated to less than significant at the
project level and can only be remedied by regional mitigation
Element Policy lOt> and states "Strict compliance with the 'ito net loss" policy would rule measures. See Sections 3.14.3 and 3.5.2.5.
Out the proposed wetlands mit igation/etiliancetnent plan that has been approved by the
Army Corps of Engineers The proposed plait will enhance tile (Itt tltty 01 [tic, wetlands Section 15151 of the State CEO Guidelines provide the
and provide better habitat, and is considered preterable to no net loss because of this. following standard for determining the adequacy of an EIR "An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of
This statement is ludicrous and insults the intelligence of concerned parties. Essentially
analysis to provide decision makers with information which
enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes it says "The proposed Specific Plait District does not comply with the General Plan.- account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the 1 - I However. the Army issued a permit and we can pass the buck to then] because they say environmental effects of a project need not be exhaustive, but
that Home Depot's man-made wetlands will he better than [lie existing ones that God the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of
created. .
what is reasonably. feasible. Disagreement among experts does
not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the.
In 1984 former New York City Mayor Ed Koch commented on a similar proposal to main points of disagreement among the experts. 'The courts
have looked not-for perfection but for adequacy, Completeness,
enhance fish habitats that sould have bcen destroyed by a proposed highway which and a good faith effort at full disclosure
would have been called Westwav near ili>. ciisttflL Henry Hudson Park-way by saying the - - The courts have determined that an EIR in order to be -
,, - -
proponents of the "enhancement" plait essentially would build the fish a motel in adequate, need -address only that information available at the
Poughkeepsie"(a suburb 30 miles north]. Westway was never built and perhaps the time of preparation and rejected as unreasonable and unsupported by Or the" Guidelines, 'an argument ". .CEQA urging Home Depot should not be either that prior to approving a project for which an EIR is required the lead agency must conduct every test and perform
The draft EIR States on piec 1-9 that the overall net loss in the proposed Specific Plan all research study, and experimentation recommended to it by
district will be 22% with a 100% net loss in PA3 Numerous times the EIR cites points interested parties In addition numerous court cases have
of noncompliance with the General Plait concerning wetlands, steep clitls, and other determined that preparation of an EIR need not be interminably
J topographic and ecological problems. then proceeds to attempt to dance around 'the delayed to include all potential works in progress which might
noncompliance issue with sarious mitigation strategies Anyone who knows the history
shed some additional light on 'the subject of the impact statement
of development in North County and San Diego and Southern California generally should
have little,confidence in the efficacy of these mitigation proposals. No Net Loss should 0. This-does 'not comment on the'accuracy or adequacy of the EIR
mean just that The burden should be upon the applicant and project proponents to and does not require 'a response
propose a use consistent with the General Plan.P Sections 7.2.2 and 7.2.3 have been amplified to include
K As a final note the draft EIR states,, as referenced above, that the 'Army Corps of additional discussion of the alternatives.
.
Engineers permit does not comply with the General Plait This raises the issue of Q This does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR
adequacy of compliance of that permit with the National Environmental Policy Act and does not require a response
INEPA) and whether the Army 'Corps provided adequate notice and/or conducted an .
adequate rulemaking or adjudication proceeding with respect to the permit. The EIR
. R of the EIR concludes that the proposed'TM wi'll
not' result in3significant suggests this noncompliance but provides no information that would enable the city or
other interested parties to analyze or determine these issues The EIR needs to address Therefore no additional mitigation is required..However
CEQA does encourage the lessening of all potential impacts this point and the elimination of orange-and-white neon signs would
minimize visual quality and light impacts
AIR QUALITY AND TRAM C
The EIR includes an.analysis of the projects compatibility
The draft EIR indicates 'that the proposed Specific Plan District is currently in with the City's Design Review Guidelines. In order to ensure
noncompliance with Federal and California air qLiality standards, and thus states of page - 1-14 that any possible degradation of air quality will require a -statement of overriding
12-319
L considerations if project is ;i1,1trovcd. It does not state what permissible grounds apply
to such a statement of overriding considerations nor analyze facts and evidence available
to make a determination ott whether such a statement is appropriate to the proposed
Specific Plait District and/or Ilotne Depot project. The EIR does however mention that
the project proponent has agreed to make a monetary contribution to the widening of
Olivenhain Road and suggests further COIIIrIbULIOIIS to the improvement of Encinitas
Boulevard and the I-S interchange and the proposed extension of Leucadia Boulevard.
This recominend'a.tion opens up two key areas--economics vs. the environment; and
regional long-term planning vs. shortsighted 'railroad and shoehorn the EIR
through now and worry about the rest later planning. -
M On the second point, the EIR fails to address adequately the whole problem or regional
traffic planning and-air quality control. The proposed site for the Home Depot is perfect
from the applicant's standpoint in that several newresidences are planned intntediately
nortIf of the project areit in the City of Carlsbad. At the sante-time, Olivenhain Road is
overcapacity and -£proposed linkup with Leucadia Boulevard is uncertain at best because
of long-term and determined opposition to this plan by, parties in Rancho Santa Fe,
Olivenhain and Leucadia. A real danger is intensified use in the Specific Plan area and
new residences to the north with no relief in sight due to an aborted Leucadia extension,
or alternatively a forced unwise Leucadia extension ten years downstream because of a
gradually created intolerable situation at El Camino and Olivenhain.
N'The principal staff planner concerning the draft EIR stated that the EIR did not make
an analysis of alternative traffic p-titern vis-a-vis traffic to and from the existing Builders
Emporium, because the analyst essentially considered that effect a wash with potentially
improved air quality and traffic from local residents no longer having to go to the Home
Depot in Oceanside orthe Home Club in San Marcos. Guessing that the effect is a wash
is no substitute for doing the proper analysis and crunching the hard numbers. The EIR
takes an approach on traffic and air quality similar in character to its approach to the
wetlands issues by saying that the proposal does not comply with traffic or air quality
standards and solving the problem by charging the developer to build a road extension
that may or may.not solve the problem and may or may not ever be politically viable to
build, Instead, the EIR should point out that the proposal does not comply with air
quality standards and cannot be mitigated to comply and place the burden back on the
applicants and project proponents to come up with,a prpposal that does comply.
OA better qpproach to adopting-a specific plait for this site would follow the logic of many
environmental'and planixing advocates that suggest improving and bringing infrastructure
and environmental considerations into compliance with applicable standards BEFORE
approving intensive development. Instead of approving the development and trying to
play catchup the ctty, should first determine what the long term traffic and air quality
infrasiructure and compliance plans will be before approving a project that it knows and
admits does not comply and hoping it can fix the problem hater. While waiting to resolve
the-traffic issue might take years and seem unfair to an applicant or project proponent
who wants an answer within a reasonable time, far worse would be the impact upon
existing home and business owners and other citizens of approving a project in certain
noncompliance with hopes of later initigaiioii which may never materialize.
that all reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts were
identified, the FIR adopted a "worst case" analysis and
identified potential mitigation measures. , However, the
determination of whether or not the proposed project is
consistent with City policies is a planning determination to
be made by the Encinitas City Council following public review
and input from the City's planning staff. The purpose of the
EIR is to fairly 'disclose the environmental, impacts of the
project, the mitigation measures and the alternatives that can
reduce potential impacts. It is 'not thepurpose -of the EIR to
preempt the right of 'the City to determine policy consistency.
If the City Council finds that the project is not consistent
with one or more planning policies' then this may result in a
significant planning consistency issue, depending upon the
perceived seriousness of the conflict. If one or more such
inconsistencies is ultimately found and i determined to' be
significant, the City Council may adopt an alternative or make
findings of overriding considerations if they are deemed
appropriate.
The FIR includes alternatives for reorienting the Home Depot
Center and for reducing the Center by 25%. Given the
objective of the project to construct a standard-sized Home
Depot Center that can carry the full range of products carried
at other Centers, "àréductiOn of 35% t0 50% because it' could
not meet this project objective. The Home Depot 'Center has
been set back'' beyond' the' required standard to provide
- sufficient landscape screening to minimize visual impacts.
Since construction of the building as close to El Casino Real
as possible could create significant visual impacts, this
alternative was not considered.
12-320
On a related point the dral t Elk on page 1-17 attempts to ainilvze project alternatives.
It however cnugb in'dilalory and irrelevant, analysis on two points. It quickly dismisses
-P the concept of alternative sites in cousial North County s;iylils that oilier sites would
require general plan amendments in the applicable cities. It also dismisses downsizing
the project because downsizing would require Home Depot to reduce the scale of their
desired merchandise stock inventory.
Q Neither of these factors has anything whatever to do with etivironitiental quality or -
environmental analysis. A project proponent has the burden of selecting a. site and
propdsing a'-develop
'
menr on tltt site, that cotiiplic"s with' eutvironinental and other
planning standards and requirements. While a landowner or project propottetit'lius the
right to a reasonable use of the land in question, a reasonable uses presupposes
compliance with applicable laws, regulations, standards and policies. This project does -
not contemplate a national defense facility or need for a: school, water treatment plant,
or other facility to promote a governmental interest or the public good, where the need
for the facility may require a choice of various sites, Jtottc of which is ideal, and warrant
a "statement, of overriding consideration" as referred to on page 1-14 of the draft LIR.
The proponnt is contentpluting the construction of a store to sell lumber, paint and
hardware,.an'l while the goal should be ettcouraged to promote business,'com'ttterce and
the o cnorny and maximize consumer choices, it should require. tlie project proponent to
select a 'project sitç.where" the intended usc will comply with environmental standards-and'
general plan requirements. , Other similar projects, including the l'loitte Club in
Oceanside.and the Home Depots in Santee, Oceanside and on University Aettue in San.
Diego near La Mlsa. are all .constructed in intctiscly developed commercial areas'niuch -.
more similar to the intersection of Ençinitas.l3oulevard and 'El Camino Real than to the
proposed site. .
AESTHETICS. SIGNAGE AND COMPATIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS -
As noted above, the entire proposed Specific Plan District and 1-Ionic Depot Project may
be impracticable of implementation due to endangered species, wetlands,, air.qualily
and/or traffic considerations. Assuming. however, that these problems can be solved, the
next section 'df comments addresses issues of aesthetics, sigtiuge and compatibility'with
surrounding uses, primarily nearby residences,,.
R Some of,the,'hat,e pieces" put out by persons and groups connected with the Scotts Valley
Homeoi,vners.Association and local hOnteowners and 'residents'decry various perceived
problems concerning these issues. . The Bright ,,Orange Sign, the chain link fence
..proposed to surround the project, the loading dock proposed to operate between 6 am
and midnight, and the loudspeaker in the garden shop are used to strike fear and
loathing in the hearts of nearby residents. These factors; however, seem susceptible to
mitigation. The Home Depot does not HAVE to have_ a. bright orange sign merely
because oiher,s do. Many cities.and areas within cities restrict sizes and colors of,sig'ns
to comply with ordinances atid other ignage considerations. If planners and residents
- feel a small sign in-wood-or-in earth.tones is more appropriate, then'ihe Home'Depot,
should be required to-,comply with applicable sign restrictions. A Chain link fence can
easily be replaced by an aesthecially pleasing wooden fence, especiilIv by l'lomc Depot
which should be capable',of getting themselves a great price on the lumber. The loading'
dock may have to restrict-its hotirs of operation. If the iroposed Price Club in Carlsbad
is willing to restrict it hours of operation to close between 4 and ( pm then Home Depot
should similarly aerce to operate its loading dock only l)ctween Ili urn and 3 pin or some
similar hours. Similarly, the (aLldspeaker in the garden area can be repositioried.and the
applicant plant vegetation including .large trees to shield noise from adjacent
homeowners Indeed if th rily ts looking for money (ruin home DcpOl for traffic
improvements it can mitigate environmental factors and solve problems of oinpatibility
with adjacent residential uses by having the project proponent fund construction of the
proposed but long dormant park site located between the proposed llornc Depot and
nearby residences. It might even be able to solve.the wetlands problem by building a
- smaller faciIiy, notwithstanding the onerous burden of not "stocking . . all the
materials in standard Home Depot stores", and integrating mitigritioneflorts on -the site -
with -theadjacent Encinitas creek area in the Scotts Valley residences nearby.
S At a minimum the project should be dowascaled by 35.50%, turned 90 degrees as
suggested in the draft. EIR located as Close as practicable to El Camino Real with
minimum setback and maximum location of parking and loading activities away from
uieurbyThsidences, auiiJ adöptionof other aesthetics mitigation as indicated herewith.
Respectfully submitted,
ohn Allison
Darlene Allison - -
4
4 * 4
'S
. . WJR 610 ' S.
S I . 285. Tjmothy.McGee S . -
IJ._!Ijj3 285 Same as letter # 256; see response to that ietter.
March 6, 1992 . . . .' . .
Community Development Department
Home Depot Project ,Atn:
527 Encinitas Blvd.
Encinita CA 92024 .. '.• S .
5, . ... 5
Sirs,
i am writing to express my concern over the proposed Home Depot project, specifically the draft Environmental . Impact Report (ElM). This tIM is completely. inadequate.' The EIR does not have a statement of overriding merit as required by CEQA."'The city council's 'desire to generate tax . '. revenues, does not' justify building5 this- monstrosity ó'I
environmentally sensitive' land' nor' creating a traffic
nightmare
The EIR admits tha't'there 'will •be an increase, in
traffic, and assigns.traff'ic a gade "F' after the 'project is built, yet .it does' not even 'take into account the 'traffic which will be created by the 1700 homes in the Arroyo La 'Costa project, and ariy'other future development along the El - Casino Real corridor. The EIR does:not' adequately address mitigation of this traffic problem, nor does it address who will pay for.. the.u'pkeep 'of' the. roads due to this i'icreased " ' S • ' , ' S traffic, includi'ng' the large numbe'r of diesel trucks (100 per • I. ' •' 5 ' ' ' ' ' day) making deliveries to Home Depot
The EIR does admit that traffic cannot be mitigated to a , ' ' ' ' • ' " " .' ' '' "less 'than significant" effect, . The project should not be considered until the current traffic congestion/problems along, El Casino Real are 'addressed. Home Depot should not be
' - ', • • '' '
allowed, to take the position that traffic which their ' ' "mégastore"'wi,li"create is "not their concern". ' S •• ' ' ' ',
' ' Since ly, - ' ' - ' S , • , .'
imoth cGee
893 De Rio Avenue ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' , • Encinitas, CA 92024 , ' ' ' S ' ' S ' • ' ' '
-
'
' ' ' •
' '
• 12321
r --- MAR 6 Me -'
March 6, 1992 -. 286
Community Development Department
Attn:-Home Depot Project
527 Encinitas Blvd.
- Encinitas, -Ct, 92024
Sirs, - -
I am 'writing to express my concern over the proposed
Home Depot project,:specifically Ike theft Env iruii,iiental
Impact Report (EIR). This EIR is completely inadequate. The
EIR does not have a statement of overriding merit as
required by CEQA. The city counciP,s desire to generate tax
revenues does not justify.' building this monstrosity on
environmentally sensitive land nor - creating 'a traffic
nightmare. -
The EIR admits that there will be an cncrease - in traffic, and assigns traffic a grade 'F' after the project is
built, yet it does not even take into account the traffic - -which wi-il be created by the 1700 -homes in the ArcoyoLa Costa project, and any other future development along the El
Camiño Real:"cor-r-idor. - The EIR does not '-adeuately address
- mitigation of this, traffic problem; nor, -does it address who
wili-pay for the- upkeep of the roads 'due to this increased
traffic, including the large number of diesel trucks (100per
- - day) making deliveries 'to, Home Depot - . -
The EIR does admit that traffic cannot be mitigated to a
"less, than significant" effect. The project should not be
- - considered . until the current traffic congestion/problems
along El- Camino'Reslare addressed. Home Depot should not be
allowed -to take the posit-ion -that traffic which - their "megastore" will create is "not their concern". - -
Sincerely,
- - - -
- Victor Koby - ------ - - - 2912 .Corte Celeste - - - Carlsbad, CA 92009 - - - - -
266, Victor Koby
Same as letter # 256; see response to that letter.
4
287. ChrIs Melton
)4AR 6. Same as letter # 256; see response to that letter.
287 L't'''
' March 5, 1992 .
Community Development Department
Attn.: Home Depot Project 527 Encinitas Blvd.
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
I am to express my concern, over.- the proposed -,writing
Home Depot project, specifically the draft Environmental
Impact Report (ElM). This tIM is completely inadequate. The EIR does not have a statement of overriding merit, as ' required by CEQA. The city council's, desire to generate't7ac
revenues does -not , -. justify building 'this monstrosityon. environmentally',sensitive land nor creating a traffic nightmare-.
The ErR 'admits that there will be an increase in
traffic and assigns traffic a grade F after the project is built', yet, it does not even take into, account the, traffic, , which will b 'created by the 1700 homes in. the" Acroyo' La
Costa project, and any other'future development, along th'e.EI
Camino Real corridor. The ElM does' not adequately address mitigation of this traffic problem, nor does 'it :adress who will pay for the upkeep, of the 'roads due to this increased traffic, i'ncludiiig the large number of diesel trucks (100 per day) making deliveries to Home Depot.
The ElM does admit that traffic Cannot be mitigated to a' "less than significant" effect. The project should not be
- considered until the current traffic congestion/problems
along El 'Camino Real are addressed. Home Depot should not be allowed to.. take the position that traffic which their "megasrore will create is'"not their concern"..
1637 Scott Place
Encinitas, CA 92024 • ' " ' '' - ' - '
12-323
! UIb2 " . 288. Kristy Moehn Brehm
Same as letter # 21; see response to that letter.
A 6 March 1992
Community Development Department
'
un
Encinitas Blvd .
Eñcinitas, CA 92024
Sirs.
.1 am writing in response to, the Lnvironnietiial Impact Report
(EIR) regarding the proposed 'Home Depot at the corner of El Cainino
Real and Olivenhain Road in Encinias' California.' The EIR -generally
relies upon opinion and inadequate studies rather aha6 fact, and
erroneously draws conclusions that items in question can' be
mitigated to a level which is less than sigtifica'nt:" This EIR has
serious flaws aloutg with a substaniial deficiency of evidence
required to 'support. any findings that have been made.
This EIR violates CEQA because it defers certain mitigation
measures to long term managellient plans. Amon other significant
long term impacts, this prOject will completely disrupt the- wCjlãAds
and there is 'no assurance, that the project will replace, a currently'
functioning ecosystem with, one of equal producti-itv: The project
'contains little or, no contingeny plans., for the problems which' are
likely to occur after construction, such as those which occurred -after
the construction of the Oceanside Home Depot. The EIR addresses the
effect' of this total disruption by pointing to a future management
j5lar to be completed by other agencies, including the Army Corps of
Engineers Reliance on illusory mttt,aiion measures such as future
management, .plans'perinits the diveloper to avoid having to address.
the reality of feasible mitigation tnte'lsures or protect aliernatives..
The existing biological impacts study is inadequate since long term
adverse environmental impacts were . not properly ;iddr'ssed. .Home
Depot has a duty to mitigate all uc'h impacts.
Si cerely.
€'
•
.•.
289. Kristy Moehn Brehm
6 /99(2 Same as letter # 65; see response to that letter.
28 March 1992
Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinilas, CA 92024
Sirs, •. - . .
Thjs letter will serve to memorialize my comments on the . Environmental Impact Report (EIR) written as part of the prposed . -• Home Depot projct at the cornet of El Camino Real atid Olivenhain Road in Encinitas, California. The EIR is flawed due to a deficiency of .
evidence required to support any. findings that have been made. . . . . Conclusions have been drawn that items in question can be mitigated
to a level which is less than significant, without the requisite stipporting evidence. . . -. . . . • .
Various inconsistencies with the General Plan of Encinitas . . . . . . . . . include. but. are. not limited to, the following. The roposed building . . height of 39 feet exceeds".the limit of 30 feet above existing grade set
forth in the general. plan. El Camino Real is considered .a 'visual
orridor", . although the Home Depot project as configured in the EIR. . . does not comply with.,this intent; masking trees and shrubbery . . . realistically will take a decade to fill out, and in the. interim the . . . visual corridor will be lost. Evaporative coolers and a satellite. -,dish . are to be placed on the roof of the structure which will be visible to . . residents of-c the properties overlooking the site; ihk contravenes the General Plan. . . S.-... ,,. . .
Views from future neighborhoods such as Arroyo La. Costa are . . . • considered in the EIR, but views from existing neighborhoods such. as
- Scotts Valley.. Encinitas Highlands, and Rancho Ponderosa are not .
considered. Although one of the project alternatives addresses this . project deficiency it considers only the impact to passersby along El . . . Camino Real and not the local residents. .
12-325
The EIR states that distance would diminish the visual eyesore
to neighborhoods, even though project is as little 'as, one building '
le rig t it fro,rn the nearest homes; 'this building will have.- an
approximate front face over 400 reel in ".lcngth, which is '
'commensurate with the distance cited to show that the project will .
be ,far enough removed from residents to diminish.: any 'impact. '
Therefore, the project is either too large and inappropriate for: this
site or the visual impact to the neighboring residents will not be
mitigated as 'stated.
'The EIR further states that the project design violates Encinitas .
design review guidelines. For example, bright orange signs are at
odds with., Encinitas design review guidelines,. .
As rtoted, the EIR Js defcient and therefore defective.
Si erely,'
KrIstyHehn Srehrn
1616 Scott, Place '.
Encinitas, CA 92024
, 4 0 'i"
• 290. Krity Moehn Brehm
S
Same as letter # 60; see respànse to that letter. S I •';'•i•___
:•,
290 5
•• -•
6 March 1992 5
S
Community Development Department S S S S 527 Encinitas Blvd
S Encinitas, CA 92024 S
S S
Sirs, •. - S : S
- I am writing to express. niy.concern over the proposed Home'- 'Depot project. specifically, the I draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This Elk-is completely inadequate. The EIR does not have a
statement., of overriding merit as required by CEQA The city councils desire' to generate tax revenues does not justify building'
[his mons(rosityon environmentally sensitive land nor creating a traffic nightmare. •. -
S ' S
- . S -
- - S S -
The EIR admits that there will be an increase in traffic, and
assigns traffic ,a gradè'F" after the project is built; yet- it'.does not . S -- evei. take into account the traffic which will be created by the 1700 , - • S - - -
- homes in the Arroyo La Costa project, and any other future
development along the El Camino Real corridor. The EIR does not S
S • S ' .• adequaiely address mitigaiion of this traffic problem, nor does .it S 5 S • - S •
- • - 'address who will pay for the upkeep of the roads due to this S - S ' • • increased traffic. - -including the large number of diesel trucks ()00 5 - per day) making deliveries to Home Depot.
-, - The EIR des admit that traffic cannot be mitigated to a 'less - - • than signific'ant effect. The project should not be considered until S ' S • - S the current traffic congestion/problems along El Camino Real aye
- S
addressed. Home' Depot should not be allowed to take the position
that traffic which their "megaslore" will create is "not their concern.'
vi,_:
erely
5-
S
S -S ' -
5
- Kristy t(pehn Brehnm
S S 1616 Sco'tt Place
Encinitas, CA 92024 S - S • • 12-326 5
-
291. Kristy Moehn Brehm
6199?
- Same as letter 1 22; see response to that letter.
6 March 1992 -291
Community Development Department
527 Encinits Blvd
Encinitas, CA 92024 . .
Sirs.
.
I am writing in response to the Environmental Impact Report . (EIR) issued by. Willens and Associates regarding the proposed Home
Depot at the corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road in
Encinitas California. This EIR has serious flaws along with a
substantial deficiency of evidence required to support any findings that have been made. The EIR generally relies upon inadequate. - studies: or, opinion rather than facts, then erroneously draws
conclusions ,that items in question can he mitigated to a level which
.5.. is less than significant." . S
The Elk has also attempted to sever issues which are an integral part of this study. For example, although the Home Depot
project relies critically upon the 'retention pond to be built in
Encinitas Creek 'Jas part of the Otiverihain Road Widening project), the - - details of this retention pond and its,impact are not included in this • EIR. Further, the data taken for the Road Widening project has not
been updated to take into account upstream aevelopnient. S
S
-. ,..,The :.failure _ to adequatcly address and analyze this project's cumulative 'impacts' is in violation of the 'California Environmental Quality 'Act and must be corrected before this EIR can he approved. -
5
Sirjcërely, ';
..
- . -. - 0 ••0 - 0
-. O - Kriaty Hhn Brehm - 1616 Scot"t P1-ace-
- Encinitas, CA 92026
- - . - 12-321
II MAR592
}'atrick S. .rphy. Director I .. 292. 292. Nicola Dale Community Development Department
527 Encinitas Boulevard ' Ii This does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR and Encinitas CA 92024 does not require a response
i.ar'ch5, 1992 l-tne IiC ç d -
Dear r. liurphy; . 0
As a mother. I know that my children's experience
of the chaparral has been invaluable... Firstly, it has
taught them-that chaparral is not just, sagebrush; it is
a orld; large, living, breathing, scintillating, and
perennial as the sea. They 'clamor to go there. To them ' it is an adventure, one thatThever gets.':old. They have '.
renamed certain areas e.g.., bottle-cap lane bone city
butt-burner slide and sicret tunnel To them it means stories dreams, fun and danger When their cousins
come to our house each Thanksgiving it has become
tradition to take all nine kids on 6-hike into the
chaparral They always cone back with treasures This experience has been invaluable for all of us It has
made living here a pleasure and it has helped to make healthy, thildrer
For me the chaparral has provided serenity beauty, and life. Watching the profusbn of birds after a heavy . rain is a,jdy". To me it supplies'the' same qualities that
those who live along the beach find in the ocean It is a refuge a place of peace or a place for fun a colorful I . and dramatic tapestry with texture and design, an integrated whole whose basic 'elerients are wildlife, plants, and
geologic formations. Like t;e ocean it is alway, there for
us when we need it. or it should be'.
So why destroy it' To gain tax dollars to destroy
other habitats to find other tax dollars If we would all
just sit still for a moment and learn to appreciate these
'beautiful natural sanctuaries I 'think, we could begin to
see that God has'0provided us with'gifts. When we destroy
God's glfts we destroy part of ourael es and we are un-
happy."
We dxdn t move here because of the chaparral as people
do to the ocean But only because of ignorance fly eyes
are open to. its beauty now. Our proximity to the chaparral has made the difference between a fine quality o,life and, a poor quality of life
Sincerely, '
Nicola Dale 5
0 5
12-328
Eli o i-#i
Pk 5 Mcrpky . . 293
CC- Oe ie1ofm-
5.7
E:;jc.A q2o2G
,A,O1'*1 jqqZ
v/TLJ C)o3Q. .chopQcrQl.30
r'e. beJrc'our Fexe 1,5 C( UJoc\ck 04'
.hafuce..Q,d eroj 7LoIIrj q j1,
.waeco cA.iccV,1*2 co.\. C%cJ Qf
o.ni. jQchunc
bircA6 •Coc +1, cc* ooa us.
Jiece. ar tics
ciuf s- cd .cou
cac.jor, a -vcoue.A..Or\.
chopQrruI (AJI ruc 1 D ckuac\&a\\
WQ c&j\\ ve.. \e -- orE. OUC 06cc5 o4. :\ •
.
•.
(LL
293. Valentine Santilla, Alexandra Dale, Alyse Eberhardt and Lauren
Szidak
This does not comment on the accuracy or adequacy of the EIR and
does not require.a response.
I
. 12-329
)
4k
T
294. Lindsay W. Brehm
I :.. . Same as letter j 60; see response to that letter..,
294 6 March 1992
Z. Community Development Departineuii
527 Encinitas Blvd
.Encinitas, CA 92024 .
Sirs. .
. . . . .
I an writing to exprcss' my concern over the pthposed' Home Depot project,' specifically :the' draft Environmental' ln\paci Rep'rt . . (ElR) This EIR is completel> tnadequie The LIR dOLS not have a
statement of overriding .merit as required by. CEQA The Cii)
councils desire 10 generate t.i. rtLnues doe, not justify' building
this monstrosity ron environnientall> sensitive land nor creating .m
traffic nightmare
The EIR admits that there will be an increase in traffic and
assigns traffic a trade 'F' after the .projeci is built. 'el it does not eve'itake. into account the traffic shich will he ciesied by the 1700 homes An th 'Arroyo -La,. Costa' project,- and any, other future
development., along the EL Camitmo Real corridor The
11
ElR does not adequately address mitigation of this traffic problem nor does it
du 'address .whó will pay for the upkeep of' the roads e to this . . . . . increased traffic including the large number 01 diesel trucks (100
per day) making deliseries to Hotne Depot...'
The EIR does admit that 'traffic caniiot be ittitigated to a 'less
,than significant" effect,. The project should' not he considered until the current traffic congestion/problems along El Camino Real .are addressed. Home Depot should not be allowed to take the position.
that traffic which their "megasiore will create is 'not their concern,"
Sincerely;
Lindsay W. Brehm
1616 Scott. Place
Encinitas, CA 92024 . . , . . 12-330
6I 295. Lindsay W. Brehm
- Same as letter I 22; see response to that letter. 295
6 March 1992
Community Development Depariunciti
527 Encinitas Blvd 0
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs,
- I - am.writing in response to the Environmenial Impact Report
(EIR) issued by Willens and Associates regarding the proposed Home
Depot at the corner of El Camino Reil and Olivenhain Road in
Encinitas California. This EIR has serious flaws along with a
substantial deficiency of evidence required to support any findings
that.- have been wade. The Elk generally relies UOfl inadequate
studies or opinion rather than (acts, then erroneously draws .
conclusions that items in question can he mitigated in a level which
is 'less than significant." . -.
The EIR has' also attempted to sever issues which are an
integral part of diii study. For example, although the Home Depot
project relies critically upon the retention pond to be built in
Encinitas Creek (as part of 'the Olivenitain Road Widening project), the
details 'of this retention pond and its impact are not included in this
EIR. Further, the data taken for, the' Road Widening project has not
been updated to take into account upstream developitieuit.
The failure to adequately address and analyze tlis projects
cumulaii'e- impacts is in violation -of the California Environmental 0 Quality Act-and must be corrected before this Elk can he approved. -:
Since rel)
-
- - Lindsay:W. Brehm
1616 Scott Place
Encinitas, CA 92024 - - -
- 12-331
'>
* 4 4
MAR '6l92 - 296. William A. Wyman
- Same as letter 22; see response to that letter.
296 " 6 March 1992
.
Community Development Departinc ni
527 Encinitas Blvd '.
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs.
I am writing in response to the Ens-ironniettial Impact Report
(EIR) issued by Willens and Associates regarding the pró'posed Home- - 0
'Qepoi at the corner of ElyCaniiiiô Real and Ohivenhain Road -in' 0.
0
Encinitas California.This EIR, has serious Il i s along wiih a
substantial 1deficiency of . evidence required to support any findings . . . •.
'.
'• . ". 0 ' 0
that have been made. The' EIR generally relies ' upon inadequate.
studies or opinion rather than facts, ihn erroneously' draws conciisions that items in, question- can he miiigitiecl to a - level,' which
is 'less than significant.'
O The EIR has also attempted to, sever issues which are in
integral.. parr of this study. For exainple although the' Home Depot
project relies critically upon the - retention pond to be" built in Encinitas Creek (as part of the Ohi ejihain Road \\ dLning project) the
:detajls of this retention pond and its intpáct.- are not included in this
O .'EIR. Further, 'the data taken for the Road Widening project' has not
been, updated to cake into account ipsiream develctpinent..
The- failure. to , adequately address ' and analyze this projects
O cumulative impacts is in violation of the California Environmental
Quality Act and must be corrected before this EIR can he approved.
Sincerely,
O William A~1.
-- 1608 Scott P.Iace 0
Encinitas, CA 92024
12-332 - - -
297. JoAnne Wyman
M4R 6192 Same as letter # 60; see response to that letter.
6 March 1992 'i'. ' 297 Conmuniiy Development' Department '
527 Enctntias Blsd
Enëin'itas, CA 92024 "
Sirs.
I am 'writing to express my concern Over the proposed Home
Depot project, specifically the draft Environmental .hnpa'ct 'Report
(EIR). This -EIR is con pletely inadequate. The EIR does not have a
statement of overriding merit, as required by CEQA. The city
council's., desire to generate tax revenues does not ' justify building
this mànstrosity on environmentally sensitive'--'land nor creating a traffic nightmare.
The , EIR admits' that iheie will be 'an incréace'in traffic, and
assigns 'traffic a grade 'F' after the project' is 'built, yet it 'does riot
even take into account the traffic v,liich will he created by the 1700 homes in the Arro> o La Costa project.and tfl\ other future
' development along the El Camino Real 'corridor. The Elk' does not adequately •address mitigation' of this traffic problem. "nor does, it
address who will pay for the upkeep .of the roads due' to this
'
0
increased traffic, including' the large number of diesel' tricks (100
per day) making deliveries to Home Depol.
The EIR. doesadmit that traffic cannot be ni'digated to a "less' than significant efleLt The project should not be considered until
the. current traffic congestion/problems along 'El 'Camino Real are addressed. Home Depot should, not be allowed to take' the position ' that traffic which their "megastore' will create is 'not their concern."
Sincere, ',
L&Lm a
JO nne,W yman .
16 'Scott Place
12-333" Encinitas, CA 92024
*
: MAR 61992 298-. Lindsay W. Brehm I Same as letter I 65; see response to that letter.
6 March 1992 298
Community Development Department -- 527 Encinitas Blvd
Encinitas; CA 92024
Sirs,
0
This letter will serve to menorialize toy coittilletits on the Environmental Impact Report (ElR) stilteD 35 part of the proposed
Home Depàt project at the Corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain
Road in Encinitas., California The LIR is flawed due to a deficiency- of evidence required to support any findings that have been made. . -. . Conclusions have been dras n that items in question can be mtttated
to a level which is less than si nuficant s thom the requisite
supporting evidence..--
Various. inconsistencies with the General Plait of Encinitas -- - - include, but are not limited to: the following. - The 1pfoposed buildin- ' • height of 39 feet exceeds the limit of 30 feet above. cxL:in'g grade set
forth in the general plan. El Camino Real is considered a visual corridor although the Home Depot project ac configured in the EIR -
does not .comply with this intent; masking trees and shrubbery -
. . realistically ill take a decade to fill out and it the interim the visual corridor will be lost. Evaporative coolers and a satellite dish are to be placed -on the roof, of the structure -whidli will be visible to
. residents of the properties- overlooking the site; this contravenes 'the
General Plan.--
- Views from future neighboilioods such as Arroyo La Costa are - . . .• - considered in the EIR, put views from existing neighborhoods such as
Scotts Valley, Encinitas Highlands, and Rancho Ponderosa are not - considered. Although one of the project alternatives addresses this
- project deficiency, it considers only the impact to passersby along El
•• -- Camino Real and not the local residents. . - - 0 - - : •: •
12-334 -
The EIR states that distance would diminish the visual eyesore
to neijhborhoods, even though project is. as little is one buildiii
length from the nearest homes; this building will have an
approximate front face over :400 feet iii length. which' is
commensurate with the distance. cited to show that the project will
be far enough removed front residents to diminish any impact.
Therefore, the project is either too large and inappropriate for this
site or the visual impact to the neighboring reideimts will • not be
mitigated as stated. •
The EIR further states that the project design violates Encinitas
design review guidelines. For example, bright • or;iimge signs are at
odds with Encinitas design review guidelines,. •
As noted, the EIR is deficient and therefore defective.
Sincerely, • -'
Lindsay Brehmn
1,616 Scott Place • -
Encinitas, CA 9-2024
* *
299
299. Betty L. Dodge
F - J.. - Same as letter # 60; see response to that letter.
LW/e 2;
,. •0 ,',, S
LL24
I am' writing. ki, express my- concern over the jiroposed Home . . . .
Depot project,,. specifically'.the draft Environmental -Impact Report . . .
(EIR). This EIR is completely -inadeuate' The EIR does not have a . . S. . . .
statement of overriding merit: as required by CEQA. Th y . .. . .5
councils desire to generate tax revenues does not justify building . . . .
this monstrosity on environmentally sensitive land nor creating a .
traffic nightmare.
,'The. EIR admits that there will be an. increase in traffic, and . . . .5
. assigns craffic...a;:grade 'F after the project is built, yet it does not
. even take into account the , traffic which will be ceated by the 1700
homes ;in. the Arróyo La Costa project-, 45nd any other future . .
development along the . El Camiiio. Real corrid'or'. The EIR, does not
- adequaeIy address mitigation of this traffic "problem' no does . it-
address who will pay for - the upkeep of the roads due to this .
increased traffic,, including the large number 'of diesel trucks (100
per day) making deliveries io Home Depot:
,The EIR does admit that traffic cannot be mitigated' to a 'less
than significant" effect. The project should not he considered until
the current traffic c.óngestion/probleitis along El Camino Real a're
addressed., Home Depot should not be allowed to take the position
O . . that traffic which their megastorc' will create is :not their concern.'
Sincerely; - . S •. . S
O
9J 5 12-335
MAR 21992 300. Betty L. Dodge
oo Same as letter # 21; see response to that letter.
6 March 1992
Community Developiticut Department -
521 Encinitas Blvd S 0
Encinitas, CA 92024
Sirs.
I am writing in response to the •Eiivitouitttctitat Impact Report
(EIR').,regarding the proposed Home Depot. at the coiner of El Camino
Real and Olivenhaiii Road in Encinitas California. The'-EIR generally S
relies upon opinion and inadequate studies rather than fact. . and
erroneously draws conclusions that -items in question can be
mitigated, to a level which is 'less than significant.' ' This EIR has
serious Tlws aloits with a substaittial dfici'edcy of evidence
required to support any findings that have been made.
This. EIR violaics CEQA because it, defers certain mitigation
. • -. measures to long Ienn management.plans:; Among other significant
long term tmpacts this project will completely disrupt time eilands
and there is no assu'ranàe that the project will replace a currently
functioning' ecpsystetn with., one of equal produc,tivity. The project
contains little or no contingency plans for -the- problems which are
likely to occur after construction, such 'as those which occurred after.
the -construction of the Oceanside Home Depot. The EIR addresses the
effect of this total disruption by pointing to a future management
plan to be completed by other agencies, including th. \rry Corps of
Engineers Reliance on illusory mitigation measures such as future
management plans permits the developer to avoid hav ing to address
the realtty of feasible mitigation measures, or project alternatives.
- The existing biological impacts - study is inadequate since 'long term
adverse environmental impacts ere not properly addressed.Home
Depot has a duty to rtrtttgate all such trimp mets
Sincerely, , - - , ' S - 0
•
12-336
14ra
•
•
301
301. Betty L. 0odge
- Same as letter # 90; see response to that letter.
6 March 1992 -
-
Community Development Department -.
527 Encinitas Blvd
- - Encinitas, CA 92024 - - a4t,: O—,t-n- -• - -
Sirs. -
I am writing to comment on the Eu virouimctuual Impact Report -
(EIR) issued by Willens and Associates for the Ilouuie Depot project .
proposed for the corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road in .
Encinitas California This EIR his serious ai.id generally relies
upon inadequate studies or -opinion rather than facts, then erroneously draws conclusions that items- in question can- be'
mitigated to a level which is less than st5ntftc.tttt Further the Elk - - - has, included the impact: upon - neighboring residences, - vhere it--. seemed advantageous for them to do so. but - left them , out of other, - - - - - - - - - - crucial issues. - - - -
. -. -- - - -- - -
For example. the Arroyo La Costa project was included in the viewshed issue, but completely - ignored in traffic- study. - The
additional development of these 1700 homes in the approved Arroyo La.Costa project will, render any short term traffic tnitigition efforts .
- by the city useless.
Even though the Arroyo La Costa project was - ignored. this EIR - . -- - - states that an excessive increase in traffic will result from- the Home Depot project (Level of Service F will result on both El Camino Real as -
- well as Olivenhain Road if this project is built as proposed). This level of service will further adversely impact - other . business - -. -
concerns along- El Camino Real as potential -customers will avoid this
area due, to the risk of accident and personal injury. In fairness to - other established businesses along El Camino Real. traffic along this - - ' - - . - • - . '. - corridor should be mitigated before any additional development is undertaken.
- - - Sincerely,
nn 302. UU LIE. rii fl ENVIRONMEiVTAL AND ENERGY SERVICES
5510 Morehouse Drive
San Diego, CA 92121
619 458 9044
Fax 619 458 0943
302. Dr. Patrick J. Mock of OGDEPI Environmental, and Energy Services
This letter does not challenge the adequacy or accuracy of the EIR
and requires ndfurther response.
92-19431Bl
February IS, 1992
Mr. Ken Harrison
KCEO AM Radio Station
P.O. Box 393
Cardiff-by-the-Sea, California 92007
Subject: Horn: Depot Project, Encinitas
Dear Mr. Harrison:
On behalf of The Home Depot. 1 have been ask to provide technical details
regarding the presence of a California gnaicaichrr pair at the proposed Hdln Depot project
site. I am a SeniorBiologist in Ogden's Biological Resources Branch and am the principle
invesugator/project manager for Ogden's intensive, multi-year ecological studies of the
Caforsia gnalcatcher. lam a recognized authority on the ecology of this species and have given numerous presentations in both technical and general public forums. My other quäliñcauonsarè presented in the aztachcc resume.
California gnatcatchers were first observed on the site in August, 1991. July
through Octobcr is the time of yea: when newly independent fledglings disperse from their natal home rasige to establish their own territories in unoccupied habitat. One of the two
individuals sighted and,subsequenth' video-taped was banded with a U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service metal leg-band. Banding of nestling gnatcatehers on Fieldstone properties
northeast of the Home Depot project site was initiated during the 1991 breeding season.
The presence of this banded individual in atvpicaFhabitat during the gnatcatcher dispersal
period initially suggested that these birds were in transit.
The Horn: Depot site supports very little coastal sage scrub habitat (2.6 acres), the
preferred breeding habitat of California gnatcaicheis. There is also a heavily disturbed area
onsite that supports a patch of covot brush (Boccharts ptlu!aris) a shrub known to be used by gnatcatchers 0-cup) trig disturbed sag scrub habitat The horn: range requirements of
California gnatcatchers are unusually large. In San Diego Counts the average breeding home range is 18 acres (range 6 to 0 acres). The Home Depot site dots not appear to have
suffictent preferred habitat believed to be required to support a breeding pair of
gnaicaichers. . ••
- . :
The Horn: Depot ad noled'es the presence of California natcatchers on the
proposed Encinitas site Hosever, the obsersatto-is to date suggest that these individuals are juvcnile.birds occupying marginal habitat. The marginal nature of the habitat makes it
12-338 questionable whether this inexperienced pair will actually attempt to breed atihissite. Field
ooserations will be conduct d this month and next month to determine whether the pair
will initiate breeatng beha vior. if the paiz att mots to breed at the project site, the project
. proponent has agieed to miusate the loss of the documented gnatcatcher breeding territory.
. . •
S •1'
4 4
Mr. Ken Harrison
February IS. 1992
- Page 2
The habitat on the home_Depot site is considered to be marginal gttairatcher habitat
and the site currently suffers from direct and indirect impacts due to human activities - - (presence of migrant workers, edge:efiecti -of-adjacent residential and Comrnercii)
development, and traffic iioisc from ElCatniiio Real): Tne ISite will beco'me fuiserisoItited
- from primary gnatcatcher populatiofts to the easi when the approed Arroyo La Costa
development. north of.Olivenhain Road, is implemented in late 1992. Therefore, the proposal to preserve the Home Depot site as biological open space for California
gnatcatchcrs is not biologically viable. Thc.rnárginal nature of the habitaionsileand the current and intensifying impacts of adjacent land uses make the expectation that
- gi-tatcatchern can indefinitely persist aithissite ujtrcalitdc.
- If th gnatcaichers are doèurnented as a breeding pair this spring, then.an offsite
- - misigation.program in the form of acquisition of a gnatcatchcr ierritory that is adjacent to a larger biological-open space area and accessible to a larger gnatcatchirpopülanon is - . - - -- - -- --- :- - - - - - biologically appropriate. , - --
V -
- •
V
V
V
-. ,, . - - - V V
V V
Thank you forth opoo—untt to pros ayou wtth this te..hntcal infommanon V 'V ••V •
V
Sincerely
- - - - -. Patrick I. Mock, Ph. D.
Senior Biologist
PM/ct.
Attachment - - - V - - V -
. .
cc: Jim Hirsch, AHG
Terry Barker. CCI - V - - V -- - --
- V V V •
303. Comments from the public at the Planning Commission meeting on January 21, 1992.
The following comments were given at the Planning Commission
meeting on January 21, 1992. The EIR preparer has used a tape 'recording of the meeting and a draft set of minutes prepared by the
City that was based on the tapes. However, there was substantial
background noise on the tapes that made it difficult to understand
some speakers. Therefore, if some comments are overlooked or
misinterpreted, it is not intentional.
A. Dr. Joseph Benzoni representing. the Scott's Valley Homeowners Association and Neighbors United for Quality of Life and the
following: Karen Pohn', Diana Pohn, Roger Davis, Giacomo
Bucci, Ron Lieberman, Lou Chiarelli, David Marebella, Dennis
Black, and Katherine Black. -
A.l. The EIR has serious flaws along with a substantial deficiency
of evidence required to support any findings made. It relies
upon inaccurate studies or opinion rather than facts, then
erroneously'draws conclusions that the items in question can
be mitigated to less than significance.
This compliance by edict can be shown in a simple example:
- the Privacy and Security section states . "The proposed Tentative Map is in total conformance with all privacy and
security guidelines; therefore no mitigation is necessary.'
Further, the lK tends to dismiss issues which project
technical consultants could not or would not resolve
scientifically or which have a clear impact upon the community
(i.e., the noise study)-.
The EIR has included the impact upon neighboring residents
where it is advantageous to do so, but left them out of other
crucial issues such as the La Costa project wa's included in
viewhed' issues but ignored in the traffic study.
A.S. The. EIR has tried to sever issues which are, in fact, an
- integral part of this study. Although the retention pond to
be built in Encinitas Creek is, in fact, part.of this project,
the details of this project and its environmental- impact are
not included inthe.report.' -
.- -
A.6. The means through which the 404 wetlands permit was obtained,
without an accepted EIR or at best an out-of-date study, was
also not included. The intent of federal law is that a 404-
Permit must be obtained with an approved EIR. Since this
process is still in progress, this permit probably has been
- obtained illegally.-
303. Planning Commission Hearing on January 21, 1992 -
See response to letter 1 10, comment A. -
The EIR preparer stands by this conclusion. However, Section
3.7.2.3.5 has been amplified by quoting all of the privacy and
security guidelines.
A.]. It was announced..at this meeting that additional noise
analysis had been performed and would be, madeavailable to the
public (Addendum to Appendix E).
A.4-. This is an incorrect statement. Page 28 of Appendix D
includes an explanation of the methodologies used for the
traffic projections. It specifically states that "Within the
City of Carlsbad, base 1995 traffic volumes were obtained from
the 1995 Growth Management Traffic l'cirecasts provided by the
City of Carlsbad Traffic Engineer." Section 3.5.2.1 of the
EIR states that, "Within the City of Carlsbad, base 1995
traffic volumes were obtained from the Zone 11 and Zone 12
Local Facilities Management Plan Traffic Analysis." This' information is also mentioned in Section 3.5.2.2. The Arroyo
La Costa traffic is 'included in these two zones.
This-statement is incorrect. The proposed on-site detntion - basin', which *is designed to provide the final filtering of
runoff water prior to its entering Encinitas Creek, is
discussed and illustrated in detail in Section 2.3.1.4.3
(Wetlands Mitigation/Enhancement Program). -Figures 2.3-15 and 2.3-17 show two different views of the proposed detention
basin. Figure 3.3-2 in Section,3.3.2.1 indicates that the
area in which the detention basin will be constructed is
currently disturbed fields. This is why the creation of the
marshy detention basin is considered to be enhancement; the
vegetation planted will be superior in quality to that
currently existing. -
This statement is totally incorrect-. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which is the governing
environmental law relating to environmental analyses where the
federal government is involved, does not require an approved
EIR prior to approval of a federal permit. In fact, 'the term
Environmental Impact Report is not even used in NEPA. The
NEPA is-similar to the CEQA process in many ways, but the NEPA process generally, proceeds separately from the .CEQA process,
and there are differing requirements. NEPA's Environmental
Assessment is often the equivalent of an EIR in the level' of
analysis, butNEPA does make provisions for the preparation of
-. Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) . These documents
require equal analysis of all alternatives, and there are
other differences in the content of FIRS and EISs. CEQA has
a provision that allOws the use of a joint EIR/EIS to satisfy
12-339
I
A.7. Further, in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations,
Sectibns 350.5b(3), "The proposed activity must not jeopardize
a threatened or endangered species as identified under the
Endangered Species Act or destroy or adversely modify the
critical habitat of such species." The sighted gnatcatcher"
pair'requires that the 404 Permit be revoked and any permits
to develop this land be denied..
A.S. The FIR failed to adequately address cumulative impacts and
failed to analyze these cumulative impacts, and is therefore
in violation of CEQA Section 15130.
A.9. The FIR further violates CEQA because it defers certain
mitigation measures to long-term management plans.
A.10 Among other long-term ,impacts, this project will completely
disrupt the wetlands,, and there isvery little assurance from
the project that it will replace the currently functioning
ecosystem with one of equal productivity.
A.11 The project contains little or no contingency plans for the
problems that are likely to occur after construction. The EIR
addresses' the, effect of this total disruption by 'pointing to
a future management' plan to be completed by other agencies,
permitting the lead agency to not address the reality of
feasible miti'gation measures or project alternatives.
A.12 The Commission should reject this project as it fails to;
minimize environmental damages required by Section 15021.of
CEQA In accordance with Section 15092, ' "A public agency
shall not decide, to approve or carry out a project for which
an EIR was prepared unless the agency has eliminated all
significant effects on 'the environment." In view' of . the
stated unmltigatable traffic and 'noise associated with the
project, the Commission must reject the Home Depot project..
A.13 This project contradicts the stated policy 'of the federal
government of no net'loss of wetlands in preserving wetlands
for wetlands' sake as a precious natural resource to ensure
the "health, safety, recreation and economic well being of all
of our citizens of the nation" (U.S. Code 390A).
A.14 Approval of the Home Depot project would further-subvert the
purposes of mitigation under the Clean Water Act. Throughout
the EIR, a clear bias is shown for the project conceived by
the developer. The No Project Alternative, which is required
by law, is dismissed with a cursory and ,erroneous argument.
No true environmentally gentle alternative is presented. One
possible alternative to reduce size by at least 50% has been, ignored. The concerns of the neighboring residents have
certainly not been addressed.
12-340
CEQA requirements. The decision as to what type offederal
environmental', document is required is left to the, federal
agency. The Army Corps of Engineers', in consultation with the
U.S.. Fish and Wildlife Service, has reissued the permit, and
it was.not issued illegally.
A.7. This statement .1 s incorrect because there are, no federally
listed endangered species on-site. The California gnatcatcher
has not yet been listed, and numerous field surveys did not
reveal any other,federally endangered species on-site.
A.S. CEQA does not require a separate section on cumulative
impacts' Cumulative impacts are discussed under the relevant, 'issues', such as biological resources, traffic, air quality,'"''
and 'solid waste. .
A.9. This, statement is incorrect., Section 21081,.6. of CEQA
specifically requires long-term mitigation monitoring and
reporting programs to ensure that the mitigation is
implemented and successful.
A.lo This statement is incorrect. The, mitigation program in
Section 1.7, ái well asthe biological report (Appendix B) and
the Army Corps of. Engineers 404 Permit, specify the 'required
monitoring program and criteria for determining the success of
the mitigation The mitigation program specifically allows
,for replanting and, monitoring until the-program is deemed '
successful.
A.11 See the response to comment A.10 above.
A.12 This inaccurate statement, was clarified by the environmental
consultant, at this hearing. Portions of 'the State CEQA
Guideline's (not 'CEQA, as stated) were quoted out of context.
Section 15021 of the State CEOA Guideljnesstates that:
(a) CEQA establishes a duty for public agencies to avoid or
minimize OnvironmOntal damage,where feasible.
In regulating public or private activities,'
agencies are required to,.give major consideration
to preventing environmental damage.
A public agency should not approve a project as
proposed 'if there are feasible alternatives or
mitigation measures available that would
substantially lessen ,any significant effects that
the project would, have on the environment.
(b) In deciding
'
whether changes,in a project arefeasible, an
agency may, consider specific economic, environmental,
legal, social, and technological factors."
(c) The duty to prevent or minimize environmental damage is
implemented through the findings, required by Section
15091.
(d) CEQA recognizes that in determining whether and how a
A.15 This sampling or overriding concerns is inadequate. The Commission must reject this Home Depot project because the EIR
is inadequate. Adverse environmental impacts have not been
shown to be reduced to an insignificant level.
A.16 Specific issues of concern in the EIR which are at fault
include:
A.16.a Water quality issues have been inadequately addressed or
not addressed at all, including the General Plan, which
states no development should alter a floodplain. This
project, in conjunction with the retention dam, will
alter this floodplain and water runoff will adversely
affect Batiquitos Lagoon.
A.16.b Overriding deficiencies relating to biological resources
include: (1) an ornithologist was not used in
documenting bird life on-site;.. (2) the endangered plants
identified, the Torrey pine tree and Maritime Chaparral,
should be protected; (3) deep hillside cutting affects
endangered species, makes hillsides unstable, and further
violates the City's Specific Plan.. A 40,000 square fàot
building might eliminate this problem.
A.16.c Traffic and parking issues include:
A.16.c.l The EIR admits an excessive, increase in traffic will
result.' A Level of Service (LOS) F will result on El
Camino Real and Olivenhain Road., This LOS will adversely
impact 'other business concerns along El C amino Real as
potential customers will leave this area due to an
increase in accidents and personal injury. - This. can- be documented from City of Encinitas and County of San Diego
records.
A.16.c.2. The 'EIR admits traffic cannot be mitigated and the
project must be rejected under CEQA law .
A.16.c.3. The 1700 homes in the approved Arroyo La Costa project
were considered in the visual quality' part of the report
but were not considered in the traffic study.
A.16.c.4. The permanent closure-of the gates at Village View and La
Posta have not been addressed.
A.16.c.5. The report states that more than 100 diesel trucks per
day will come to' the Hose Depot.'. ,Who will pay for road
upkeep?
A.16.d.. ,Land Use/General Plan Compatibility
A.16.d.1. The project is incompatible with adjacent land uses, the
12-341
project should be approved, a public agency has an
obligation to balance, a variety of public objectives,
including economic, environmental, and social factors and
in particular the:'goal of providing a decent home and
satisfying living environment for every Californian. An
agency shall prepare a statement of. overriding
considerations as described in Section 15093 to reflect
the ultimate balancing of competing. public objectives
when the agency decides to approve a project that will
cause one or more significant effects on the environment.
The quotation from a subsection of Section 15092 given by the
speaker del iberately.omitted the remainder of that subsection.
Section 15092 (b) states:
A public agency shall not decide to approve or carry out a
project. for which an EIR was, prepared unless either:
(I) The project. as approved will not have a significant
effect on the environment, or (underline added)
(2) The agency has: - (A) Eliminated or substantially lessened all
significant effects' on the environment where
feasible as shown in findings under Section
15091, and - -
- (B) Determined that any remaining significant
effects on the environment found to be
unavoidable under Section '15091 are acceptable
due to overriding concerns as described in
Section 15093. -
A.13 The federal policy on "not net loss" of wetlands varies from
the City of Encinitas' policy. The federal policy takes into
account not only acreage of wetlands,, but also wetlands
habitat quality,'whereas the City policy appears to require no
net loss of only 'acreage. The Army Corps Permit was granted
based on no net loss of wetlands value's and -a minimal loss of
wetlands acreage. The removal of silt and debris from beneath
the El Casino Real. bridge and the proposed runoff water
treatment system will reduce the amount of marginal disturbed
field wetlands. The loss of 2.9 acres-of wetlands will..be
primarily in the disturbed field portion of the site Through
- the creation and enhancement of 3.9 acres of wetland, a higher value wetland will result and will be maintained.
A. 14 Since the speaker did not define specifically what is meant. by
a "true environmentally gentle alternative,"'a response is
difficult. Howàver, the Draft EIR included 15 alternatives in
Section 7, and several detailed alternate plans were
graphically-presented for evaluation. -
A.15 It' is not clear what the speaker was,referring to because the
Draft EIR dia not include a Statement of overriding
Cánsideratjons; these statements are not prepared until later
- J. • 4
inappropriateness of this project shows that this land
in the process. - should be down-zoned to a less intrusive land use.
A.16.a Section 3.1.2 of the EIR clearly stated that the Home A 16 d 2 The Specific Plan requires no building other than horse
Depot project will alter the configuration of the 100- stables, nurseries or minimal intrusion of parking areas
year floodplain. The dredging proposed by the project in a floodplain To remove this restriction the project will alter the floodplain and return the creek bed proponents have tried to circumvent the EIR process by
elevation to the level at which it was supposed to-be letting another project assume the responsibility for the
maintained. This will help to alleviate some of the construction of a detention basin on Encinitas Creek flooding caused by the back-up of water upstream of the upstream from the project site. This dam and its effects bridge in recent years. The EIR foç the Olivenhain Road should certainly be included, in this report.
Widening Project, which included the analysis of the A.16.d.3. Although the spaceunder the SDG&E power lines is cited impacts of Detention Basin D upstream as well as this EIR, determined that potential impacts on Batiquitos in this report as contributing to the stock of open space
Lagoon would be insignificant The project area is only in Encinitas, this cannot be considered open space given
a very small part of the drainage basin for Batiquitos the public's concern over electromagnetic fields no more Lagoon (55 5 acres out of 52 square miles) This is than a toxic waste site can be considered open land discussed in Section 3.1.1 and 3.1.2. This site represents the last open space in New Encinitas
and therefore should be preserved in toto Furthermore A 16 b All biological personnel used on the project have New Encinitas already has the lowest percentage of open
extensive experience and are qualified and experienced in space in all of Encinitas as noted in the City's General the identification of birds The remainder of the Plan This project violates both the spirit and the comments are no letter of the law embodied in the General Plan
A 16 c 1 This comment does not challenge the adequacy or accuracy A 16 e Visual Quality
of the EIR and does not require a response
A 16 e 1 The proposed building height of 39 feet exceeds the limit
A 16 c 2 See the response to comment A.12 above set forth in the General Plan This restriction applies to heights above existing grade not finished grade A 16 c 3 See the response to comment A.4. above Therefore finished height is far in excess of the GeneralPian. The project must be downsized or rejected.
A.16.c.4. The project does not propose closure of any off-site A.16.e.2. The General Plan states- that El Camino Real is a visual
-
gates. -
corridor Home Depot clearly is not in keeping with this A 16 c 5 Since El Casino Real is a County road the County • intent and is not compatible. Plans include evaporative maintains it. -- coolers and, a' satellitedish will be on the roof even
- - though the General -Plan states that such devices should
A.l'6.d.l. Comment noted. not be visible to neighbors overlooking the property. - - -- - -
- A.1'6.d.2. The Specific Plan has not yet been adopted. The upstream A 16 e 3 The EIR considers the view from future neighborhoods detention basin (Detention Basin D) is required for the (e.g., Arroyo. La Costa), but not from existing
• development of the Arroyo La Costa project-.' It is-not neighborhoods None of the project alternatives required for the Home Depot project since the only addresses this deficiency, but considers only the portion of Planning Area 1 that is in the floodplain is passers-by along El Casino Real and not the local the Hose Depot parking which is allowed The residents Distance from home sites will be only one or environnenta1 impacts of Detention Basin D are discussed two building lengths from homes. - - - -. in the Final Environmental Impact Reportfor Olivenhain -- -- - • Road Widening/-Realignment and Flood Control Project, A.16.f. - - Project Design violations of the Design Review which has been certified. - Guidelines: -
- ' • • - -
A.16.f.l. - - - Signs, are not in accordance with Sign Design Review A.16.d.3. open space is-technically defined as land containing,no
permanent structures, although everyone seems to have • Guidelines. - •
• their own definition. ,
- - 12-342
•
A.16.f.2. Light and glare have been inadequately addressed related A.16.e.1. The EIR addresses the proposed project height and notes to loading dock lights and night time parking lot lights, that the standard height limit can be varied when the
project is part of a Specific Plan. A.16.f.3. The orientation of the primary access with respect to-the nearest residence has not been considered. Cars entering 16.e.2. Comment noted. - at night will be aimed directly at neighbors. No mitigation has been proposed. A.16.e.3; Section 3.7.2:2. specifically discusses the viewshed
impacts from the ridge tops to the east and south, as A.16.g. Air Quality issues: - wellas to the north. References are made to views from particular streets. In addition, there is an entire A.16.g.l. The .EIR states that the project will have an adverse paragraph on visual impacts to the homes to the east of long-term cumulative impact. An increase in pollution the Spbc4fic Plan Area. cannot be justified. • A.16.f.l. This has been noted in Section 3.7.2.3.1 of the EIR. A.16.g.2. This violates CEQAsection 15130.
A.16.f.2. Section 3.8.2 discusses the Visibility of the signs at A.16-h. Noise issues; ,- night and the type of lighting to be used in the parking • lot. This section has been amplified. A.16.h.l. The no significant impact conclusion haà no technical basis. This study is incomplete. Therefore, the' EIR is A.16.f.3. comment noted. - incomplete and should be rejected.
- A.16.g.1 Comment noted. However, this policy would prohibit any A.16.h.2. The EIR'--erroneously states that noise levels cannot be development, even a single house. evaluated until the project is built even though sound
scientific principles exist to perform this evaluation. A.16.h.1. The technical noise analysis is included in Appendix E.
A.16.h.3. The sound study is inadequate since measurements were not A.36.h.2. The 1EIR consultant agrees with this comment, and performed near residences where Home Depot has a duty to additional analysis has been completed (Addendum to mitigate. Only adjacent comlnerciai;prbperty which has Appendix E). not been developed, has been considered. Data has been collected by residents bordering the project' which A.16.h.3. The noise measurements and analysis. were conducted in indicate that 'bound levels- are current at borderline accordance with standard accepted procedures and-the City acceptable levels. The data included from two, existing of Encinitas Noise Element. If residents have data Home Depots in the San Diego area show an increase in prepared by qualified acoustical engineers that is mound levels generated by this project would far exceed different from that prepared by the consultant, it-has the limits set -forth in the General - Plan. Noise not been-made- available to the City, although it was
- generated by night- time loading dock operations, fork requested at this hearing that the information be. lifts, trash compactors, public address systems, heavy submitted.
- e equipmnt including diesel engines, rooftop swamp - coolers, car doors, etc. have not been considered in this A.16.h.-4. Comment noted. - - EIR.
A.16.h.5. These factors were considered in the analysis. This type A.16.h.4. Calibrationprocedures of sound measuring- devices used in
- - of information is entered into the noise model. the EIR are. not included.
- -- - - - A.16.h.6. - These faàtors were considered in the analysis. - This type A.16.h.5. Prevailing atmospheri'c conditions such as pressure, wind -of information is entered into the noise model. speed: and-direction, and the specific bowl shape of the
- project site have not been considered. 'The prevailing A.16.h.7 The technical noise analysis, indicates that no - - - wind is toward-the residences to the east, significant noise impacts on residences are expected.
A.16,h.6. Acàtistic- principles such as the natural - sound A.17. This comment does not challenge the accuracy or adequacy intensifiers which -exist on this site have not been of the EIR and does not require a response.
12-343 - - . . .
considered in the Elk.
A.16.h.7. Acceptable noise levels, in the General Plan would be
exceeded. The General Plan' states that a project can
only increase the noise level by 3 dB above the existing
condition and cannot exceed 60 Db, whichever is more
restrictive at the boundary of the nearest residential
area. This level would certainly be exceeded.
A.17. The 'consideration of tax revenue generation as a policy
issue should be left Solely to the City Council.
A.18 There is a need to assess the EIR in comparison with the
General Plan and the higher standard set forth by a
Specific Plan. Since this project is demonstrably at
odds with the General and Specific Plans, the CommissiOn
has no choice and must reject it. ' --
Manish-Adhiva
B.i. It took me 12 minutes to travel 1.5 miles from Encinitas
Boulevard to Olivenhaih Road on El Casino Real. ..The -traffic problem Js already out of hand and the project will only.
worsen the traffic. Traffic cannot be'sitigated to a less
r than significant effect. With 100 o more diesel trucks and
traffic from 1700 homes from Arroyo La Costa, traffic will be
disastrous.: 'This"èxcèssive traffic volume will be an added
liability Many, will use Rancho Santa Fe Road which will
adversely-affect olivenhajn.
8.2. The building is huge. This last open space in New Encinitas
should be protected. The answer is to eliminate this proposed
development.
B.3. Assess the project as it relates to the General Plan and the
Specific Plan and reject the project.
Lynn !eldner (with time donated from Carolyn Cady)
C.I. The EIR has numerous deficiencies. This Elk is basically form
over substance. The document lacks substance by 'reaching
conclusions without facts. The EIR has not met the requirements of CEQA.
The biological resource study concluded that the gnatcatcher
is an oddity' 'rather than the rule. Then tonight the consultants say a mistake was made.
'The noise study indicates that the project cannot be evaluated
until the project is there. No measurements were taken-from
exiStingHäme Depots. No measurements were taken from7 the
residential side and wind direction was not considered. Noise
12-344
A.18. Since part of the proposed project is the Specific Plan,
this. statement 'does not make, sense. The project's
compatibility with the General Plan is analyzed in detail
in Section 3.6.2.
B.l. This comment does not challenge the adequacy or accuracy of
the EIR and does not, require a response. -
8.2. This comment does not àhallenge. the adequacy or accuracy of
the EIR and does not require a response. -
B.3. See the response to comment A.18 above.
C.l; See the response to letter 1 21, comment A.
C.2. Appendix B has been revised to reflect continuing field
surveys onthe site.
CI. An addendum to the noise, analysis was presented at 'the
meeting, and the public review period was extended so the
public couldreview this report (Appendix E). -The noise
analysis did take into consideration the factors mentioned in
this comment
-C.4. The -EIR did 'address restricting the hours of use of the
forklifts. Because there are no anticipated significant noise
impacts except to Planning Area 3, -which is designated for
Light Industrial uses, no mitigation beyond a noise barrier is
- required as' a' result of'the Home Depot development.
See the response to comment A.16.h.3. above.
The- purpose of the -Draft EIR is to'present information and
obtain, input from others. The public review period, as well
as the Planning Commission hearing, have upheld the, CEQA'
process.
C.6.a. This comment does not challenge the adequacy or accuracy
of the EIR and 'does' not require a response.
C.6.b. This comment does not challenge the adequacy or accuracy
of the EIR and does not require a response.
C.6.c. It is the Municipal Code that requ'ires the evaporative
coolers to be screened; they are not prohibited:'
C.6.d. This commeht does not challenge theadequacy or accuracy
of the EIR and does not require a response.
C.6.e. The EIR idCitifies potentially significant, impacts in
several-areas 'other than traffic and air quality. Also,
this is a misstatement of the EIR. The EIR notes that
measurements were taken from the Ecke side. The residents to the lack of attainment of air quality standards is a the east 'were not considered, including noise from night regional 'problem, not justa City problem. Likewise, loading dock, fork lifts going 24 hours, trash compactors traffic is a regional problem, particularly since the located in the loading dock zone (which is pointed toward the project area is right on the boundaries between residents to the east and the Highlands above), PA system in Encinitas, Carlsbad, and the County. the Garden Center, diesel engines, rooftop swamp coolers, car
doors, baskets that squeak along the asphalt. 0.1. This comment does not challenge the adequacy or accuracy of - the EIR and does not require a response. The EIR has not considered the mitigation by reducing the hours of this project. 0.2. This comment does not challenge the adequacy or accuracy of
the EIR and does not require a response.
Data collected by residents show noise levels will exceed the
limits 'met forth in the General Plan. Staff has requested 0.3. This comment does not challenge the adequacy or accuracy of that an additional noise study be done, the EIR and does i'ot require a. response.
The EIR process should be started o'er. Besides the fact that 0.4. This comment does not challenge the adequacy or accuracy of conclusions are reached without any foundation in terms of the EIR'and does not require a response. technical- aspects of the project, the EIR also reaches . Conclusions which should be of great concern to those who - 0.5. This comment does not challenge the adequacy or accuracy of 'drafted the General Plan, the Specific Plan, and the Encinitas the EIR and does not require a response. Design Review Guidelines: -
E.l. The consultants present at the meeting discussed their C.6.a. The 39' height above finished grade exceeds the General experience and qualifications The EIR has been revised to Plan. - include qualifications of subconsultants.
C.6.b. Cutting into the slope exceeds the Specific Plan. Anyoff-site parcel that is acquired for biological mitigation
- will have to meet the criteria specified in the Mitigation C.6.C. Swamp coolers 'and the TV dish violate the General Plan. Monitoring and Reporting Program. -The site will have to be - --. - - -.--- - - l-and-th-at--ou'l-d- -otherwi-sebesubjct 'to 'dev--l-pment'; - Anarea' C.6.d. The project design violates the Design Review Guidelines. - of- 16 acres near Lake Hodges has been tentatively identified This 'Specific Plan Area should' be held to a higher . asa mitigation site-. It contains Coastal Sage Scrub and two
- standard. pairs of California gnatcatchers. The area has been targeted
- for San Dieguito Regional Park but is' currently' subject to C.6.e. The only problems that the EIR admits are significant are development. Additional details are discussed in Section
- increased traffic circulation and increased cumulative -3.3.3 of the EIR. effects on air quality. The EIR tries to circumvent this by saying it is the City'.s problem. The mitigation of Planning Area 3 has no specific development proposed as part widening the roads is not the answer. Reject the EIR. of the Home Depot Specific Plan. The Specific Plan identifies
- - types of uses that would be allowed in Planning Areas 3. and 4, D. Phyllis Isabel and add-itio'nal environmental analysis-will be required when
- those areas are proposed for development.
- D.l. The project will impact the creek, the channel, the., water • - - - flow, the' rate of silt- deposition, the ecology of the -1.1. This statement does not challenge the adequacy or accuracy of floodplain, the habitat of.. the wildlife, the homeowners of the EIR.and.does not requirèa response. Scott's Valley, and- the people of Encinitas and the - • - . - surrounding areas. F.2. This statement does not challeng the adequacy or accuracy of
the EIR and does not require a response.
D.2. I hOld the City Council and the Planning C6mmiss1on responsible: for future negative impacts and costs 'for C. - These comments do not challenge t,h& adequacy or accuracy of maintaining the creek through Scott's Valley should be piàked the EIR and do' not require -a response. - - uli Home 'Depot and the City. ' :It was' designated park land/open space/ecological resource only three-years ago.
- H.l. -- - Without more specifics, this comment cannot be addressed.
12-345 -' -
-4
-• 1'.: - -- :-- -"
--- .--
lew`
-
The Scott's Valley Park, promised before homes were built, However, the issues of cumulative effects, which include the needs to be developed as, a small park as a mitigation if the development of Arroyo La Costa, have been discussed in the site is developed. By including the parcels for the rest of responses to other public comments. the Scotts Valley Park, adequate parking, ball fields, etc. would be available. - H.2. This comment does not challenge the adequacy or accuracy of
the EIR and does not require a response. Other project impacts include increased traffic, 24-ho6r -. deliveries flood lights noise a large building etc i These comments do not challenge the adequacy or accuracy of
the EIR and do not require.a response. D.5 When the City approved single-family detached homes in Scott -s
Valley instead of a large commercial/ industrial area, it J. These comments do not challenge, the adequacy or accuracy of assumed a responsibility to compatibly plan for surrounding the EIR and do not require a response. - -development. The Home Depot project is not what we, the
- people, envision for. this sensitive area. K. 1. This comment does-not challenge the adequacy or accuracyTof
the EIR and does not require a response. E., Nancy Kraemer, with time donated by Marie Veit
-
- K.2. The EIR consultant concurs, and the additional noise analysis E.1. Credentials for Connie Willens are listed in the EIR but not was completed and presented at this meeting It is included for otier consultants. I would like to know the credentials
- in Appendix E. - - - of Mr. Mayer and Mr. Merkel and their experience with the - - gnatcatcher (especially on recent site visit) K.3. The noise analysis explains that while noise from the Home
Depot ICenter may, be heard from nearby residences the noise E.2. Have other gnatcatcher habitat areas been identified for levels will not exceed the standards in the Noise Element acquisition' How would we know that the habitat selected The noise studies did take into account noise from trash could support another pair' If the California gnatcatcher is compactors rooftop coolers etc (see Appendix E) listed as an endangered species (and even if it is not) would those areas'o'f Coastal Sage Scrub selected for. relocation have K.4. As Section 1.1 of the EIR states, the purpose of the Draft'TEIR been subjected to development anyway? Why should thisarea be is to provide information and offer an opportunity for public traded for habitat which would, have been developed? Why input. The public comments are then answered by the 'EIR - shoul'd- we buy habitat preserves that may not have been '-' preparer and the EIR is revised to become part of the Final' developed at all, particularly if this bird is listed 'as ' EIR. - endangered and it becomes critical habitat?
- - L. These comments are noted. The biological report and the EIR E.3. If'PA 3 is 'incorporated into the project now, we need- to know have been revised to reflect the ongoing field surveys. what is planned for PA ,-4., Cumulative impacts could be significant. There could be impacts of road widening on the M.l. This comment does not challenge the adequacy or accuracy of riparian habitat along El Casino Real and Olivenhain Road.
' the FIR and does not require a response.'
F. John-Kutikek S ' S - This statement-does not include details as to why the speaker
considers the EIR deficient. See the responses to: letter # F. 1., General Plan policies will not be followed as stated in the 21, comment A; letter'# 10, comment A;letter I 11, comment Draft EIR.T
A.5; and letter 1 15, comment A. - - -'
F.2. The ,,project should follow the General Plan Comment noted S
-
The biologyreport (Appendix B) and the EIR have,been revised
-
-
- -- ' - to reflect the results of ongoing field surveys.
This comment does not challenge the adequacy or accuracy of
the EIR and does not require a response. -
-
- P1.6. 'This table has been revised. -
- 12-346 -
G. Greg Grajek N. 1. Gnatcatchers are resident on' the. site. The biology report (Appendix B) and the EIR have been revised accordingly. We must adhere to the General Plan and CEQA for a better quality of life for all Encinitians. Nineteen homes would use N.2., Comment noted cut and fill and not build on the terrain as proposed in the
General Plan. Traffic is bad already and accidents will O The neighborhood environment was discussed in the traffic, increase. Forget the "quick fixes". Soon the recession will noise, visual quality, and land use sections of the EIR. pass and other business will generate revenues needed. There - -. are other solutions redevelopment is one which would generate P This comment does not challenge the adequacy or accuracy of tax revenues. . . 'the EIR and does not require a response.
H. Erich Paetow Comments .noted.
H.l. There are a lot of problems with the EIR: ' traffic, 1700 -Comments noted., - • additional homes in Arroyo La Costa.
-
- ' - S. 'Comments noted: H.2. I can't imagine a' Home Depot so close to residences.' I am - - concerned about the open space, noise, land use (project is T. - Comments noted.,.,,
. . not compatible), and visual quality of the huge building.
- From the EIR: "Traffic and air quality are regional problems Comments 'noted. and cannot be mitigated at the project--level.'.. Any projebt'in5 -. the region would incrementally add to the air pollution' and Comments noted. wouldbé considered a significant impact... Potential impacts related to these two issues would arise because the existing I.. Comment noted. - standards are already being exceeded, and any increase, no matter how small, would have to be classified as cumulativeIy 142. Comment noted. significant. Therefore, a statement of 'overriding '- - considerations would be required." '(Page 1-16). What could W.3. Since gnatcatchers, have been sighted in both the upper. and poss1bly_override_those-concerns'------That-is why people-live-in - - lowerportions,.,of planning_Area 2 the,_,elimination_Of_the a rural area -- because it is rural. - ' , grading in the western half, of Planning Area 2 would not provide adequatemitigation. I. David Veit
14.4. Commnt noted. Maintenance of the, culvert and the grease-catching 'basins would be ongoingproblem. I am concerned with the possible W.5. Comment noted. pollution of the lagoon, as maintenance tends 'to be ignored. - , 14.6. Comment noted. •, We already have plenty of traffic problems.
' X. ' Comments noted. J. Dolores Welty, with time donated by Mary Renaker
- ' ,' ' • • • Y. See the responses to letter #20. About a year and a half ego Home Depot asked that City policy
The biology report (Appendix B) and the EIR have been revised be changed and that they be allowed to put a parking lot in
the floodplain This was voted down A new City Council to reflect new information The mitigation monitoring program later said yes With this policy change this large project is included in Sections 1.7 and 3.3.3. It should be noted was able to be sited in an inappropriate place People are that the presence of gnatcatchers does not Constitute an not yet ready to see the General Plan changed and are not unmitigatable impact The species is not federally listed ready to see natural resources impacted by large or small and-off-site acquisition of suitable habitat is considered to development The Ecke property would like to see Home Depot be adequate mitigation on that site If Home Depot was around long enough they, could investigate that site. • • ' •' - Comment noted.
12-347 . . .
Figure 3.6-8 (page 111-81) shows impacts on the wetlands.
Page 111782 states that to add. the buffer-to that wetland
would make it come right through the middle of the building,
almost to. the southern side and, out the back. A 50-foot buffer is required. A 100-foot buffer should be required around a wetland. ... , ..
3.3. The project proposed' for the original EIR had a curved wall
around the slopes. Appendix B, page 41, states that as
proposed, because of slope grading, the project in PA 1 "would'
result in a greater loss of Chaparral habitat than that being
preserved 50.5t. This alternative is not preferred from a
biological standpoint. The developer should return to a crib
wall 'design as first proposed or pull back an equivalent
degree from the top of the slope."
3.4. 'InPA 1, all Coastal Mixed Chaparral would be lost. In the
total area, there will be a 43% loss, of Coastal Mixed
Chaparral a 38% loss of Diegan Sage Scrub a 26% loss of
wetlands (even after mitigation'there will be a 22% loss). The
City policy is not only to maintain no net loss of wetland,'
but the'goal Is to realize a net gain in acreage. The project
for this site -leaves 'a lot to be,' desired and it is not 'in
keeping. with, citizen desires for this city.
K. Richard Trembáth'
K 1 I knew that the zoning was Light Industrial but was confident
that City decision-making bodies would allow development
consistent with the surrounding development The project is not such a development.,
The 'EIR is', inadequate.' , Regarding, noise', 'the- EIR states, "Noise level' meaaur&mens should be,made 'when Home Depot-is in
full operation- to determine' the alley truck noise at the
eastern boundary.. At that time,, the, appropriatebarrier should be constructed so the operation will be in compliance
with the Encinitas Noise 'Ordinance" This is not 'in accordance with CEQA requirements
The EIR concludes that there are no impacts to eastern
properties. The EIR states, "It is noted that the Home Depot
truck loading- area may, produce levels that are in excess of
the-ordinance limits on the Pearce property immediately to the
east." The EIR references noise levers for,commerc-ial zoning.
The levels allowed in residential zoning are less than those
forcommercial'. I do not see how the conclusion that there
won t be any impacts on the residential areas can be reached
A new noise Study needs to be done to show how noise would
impact properties torthe east. The-noise study should include
noise from trash compactors the parking lot diesel trucks
the PA system,, the.coolers on the,'rdof, activities in the
12-348 ,
The EIR includes detailed analysis of the project's visual
impacts and compatibility with City policies.
A Specific Plan is to act as a guide for future development in
the area. It is not supposed to include the same level of
detail, as would a Tentative Map proposal.
Comment noted. ' '
nursery, taking into account the prevailing winds (west 'to
east) and the topography, and shoulddevelop noise contours
for both.evéning Arid' day. I am interested in the legal Aspects of the EIR being prepared on. such a basis and then
something happening, five years' from now. The 'City 'should proceed to revise the EIR or prepare a supplement to the EIR.
.There should be . a 30 or 45-day review of the
revision/supplement
L. Dave Hogan for San Diego Bi'odiversity Project..
I hav'e' found: gnatcatchers on other sites' studied by Pacific
Southwest Biological Se'rvi'ces where none were found [by PSBSI.
.There :hae: been nine sightings. The birds are foraging
across the bite'.: Leisa Grajek stated she has-been on the site
and has sighted and heard the gnatcatchers again in December
and January.,..No'colored,bands were seen on the birds.
The Southern Mixed Chaparral designation was granted to the
Chaparral On this site prior to. the publicoutcry. Pacific
Southwest haé determined it is a Coastal Mixed Chaparral. The
area is known by the natural diversity data base of the State
of California as Southern Maritime Chaparral. This habitat is
considered the rarest of the rare. If it were an endangered
species, it wouid be,down to three minimum populations.' At
one time-It existed from-La Jol-la to Carlsbad and up to three
miles 'inland. The natural diversity is saying any of this
habitat that is left which is viable must be protected. The
habitat on-site may, not be viable due to noise, flght and additional housing... After buildout, we would be left with
only a habitat for plants (a couple of Del Mar manzanita,
white lilac)'.
In addition to the Chaparral issue, ,Brian Mooney 'found' the
Southwest Willow Flycatcher (North America's rarest bird
species) in the. riparien zone; this is not mentioned.in the
EIR. A, brief mention is, given to the Least Bell's Vireo. The
Southwest Willow Flycatcher is considered an indicator of
vireo quality habitat. Any impacts to the riparian scrub,
specifically for PA 4, would have to be considered significant
because the project is all floodplain. Transitory or migrätory.area is critical to the continued existence of the
Southwest-Willow Flycatcher. . .
M Leisa Grajek
Ms. 'Grajek showed a video she made which
, showed the - gnatcatcher on the project site She filmed them on November
15, 16 and 17 (.1991). in the morning. '
M.i. The Home Depot project will continue to destroy habitat.
12-349
*
Not only is the EIR deficient but the proposal goes against
CEQA and the General Plan building in a tloodplain creating a net loss of wetlands, disturbing wetlands, : cutting and filling for the 19 homes and destruction of rare habitat
There is a rare habitat of Coastal Sage Scrub On-Site Approximately 40 species Of native vegetation, including New Oaks (which Encinitas is named after) are found-on-site as well as an assortment of wildlife including the gnatcatcher.
I question the completeness and accuracy of the EIR regarding the gnatcatcher in particular. I am not an ornithologist but I heard them saw them and was able to track them (1) in the finger canyon (2) north of the brow ditch and (3) in the three-finger canyon. They hopped from sagebrush to buckwheat
and into the scrub I saw two the first day The second day I saw two (one was'banded on the right foot) 'plus a smaller
juvenile I heard the vocalization all three days
why destroy the last virgin land in People would love to come to this special mix of wetlands floodplain endangered species gnatcatchers and Coastal Sage Scrub It only happens here from southern Orange County to just'south
of the Mexican border We should protect preserve and enhance it If this land were the rain forest would we burn it down'
H 6 There are discrepancies on Page 1-9 vegetative Impacts Table 1 3-3 The Coastal Mixed Chaparral acres of impact is shown
as 9.2 when the numbers,add upto.10.4 and the-,percent loss is
shown as 43% when it should be 46'6%.
N Dr. Freeman Hall
N.I. Please verify if gnatcatchers are resident, on the site'. Thereis a letter in the packet regarding sightings: they found one
• pair, possibly two pairs; one was banded. The'land maybe
large enough for two pairs.
N.2. Gnatcatchers were found (1) at the southernend of the site,
(2), near the Torrey Pine and Chamise (around the residential
area) and (3) in the northern canyon (in the Chamise in front
of the Chaparral. I was out 'six times. -. I saw-them three ' ' times in November,- December, January. They could be the same • pair The territory is over 10-20 acres
0. Tarás Gach ' • • - . . . . ' ,
'
The neighborhood environment was not addressed' 'I cán.t 'see how the traffic noise and dirt will improve the City or the
-' -- neighborhood. . Consider voting against this project. -
. 12-350
Brad Roth
The General Plan Land Use and Resource Management Elements
speak to' this not,being a.good site for Home Depot as it is in
the floodplain. On page LU-la of the Land Use Element, Goal
8 says: "Environmental and topographically sensitive and
constrained areas within the City should be preserved to the
greatest extent possible to minimize the risks associated with
de,elopment in these areas." On page .Lb-19 of thelend Use Element, Goal 8.2 speaks tothe 100-year'floodplain and lists
potential uses. 'Page LU-47of the Land Use Element, Flooding, states that the FEMA maps indicate there is potential 'for
flooding, from Encinitas Creek to smaller streams in the
planning area. In 1916, people were rescued from Olivenhain
by boat. The site 'is in the floodplain. See pages LU-41 to
LU-42,for a discussion of guidelines for the Spedific Plan
Area. The oaks which Encinitas is named after occur on -the hill to the south.
Ed Kamps of San Diego Acoustics
I have done many studies of a similar nature.' I did the
additional studies on the proposed Home Depot project (1) to
address noise from the swamp coolers and (2) to try to take
Sound level data from existing 'Home Depot sites relative to
'tru'k&' coiipactors, fork lifts" with reverse' bell signals,
etc., to better predict noise levels which neighbors to the
south and-east of the proposed project might expect
The. Home. Depot located on Carmel Mountain ROad was the
original choice formaking -measurements because the loading
doàk is shielded from the effects of Carmel 'MountainRoad
traffic. 'However, a four-lane road.exists immediately east of
the loading area, which resulted in noise which exceeded the
loading noise much of the time. The' Santee store was selected
for the measurements because it li very similar 'to the
proposed project;, the delivery truck entrance 'lies ,to the
south of the building, the loading docks -are atthe',back Of
the building, and the garden, area is beside the loading area.
Also,- 'the Santee store is shielded from street traffic, so
that the noise from the Home Depot. can be more accurately
- determined. 'However, -other noise sources were, encountered.
The Price Club is behind :and 'adjacent to 'the Santee Home Depot I and the area is within the take-off pattern for
- Gillespie' Field.
The, noise measurements u were made on Thursday Janary 9 1992
between 9 'a .m,. and 12 noon The greatest volume of deliveries
are made during this period.
Details on the ahalysis'are includedY in the' 'Noise Add'enaum.
The projected noise level for the proposed project would l 41
12-351
•
Db(A) at the nearest residence to the south. Tiie projected
noise level for the project would 6eV45dB(A) at. the nearest residence to -the- east. Traffic noiseèven at i.;000 'feet from S
the proposed Site will be the prevailing noise homeowners will
hear. All noise levels are projectedr to be -beloi, the City V standards,. The 'fans on the swamp coolers are relatively
quiet. The noise levels are lower than the original noise Study indicated.
R. Jim Simmons for Consultants 'Collaborative
- We were hired- over 'a year ago to contact ..state, agencies
- regarding wetlands-issues relating to biological resources and
flood control. The proposed' Home Depot building will be - - outside the 100-year floodplain. The proposed cleaning out.óf.
V sediment beneath the El Casino Real bridge will facilitate the
V
enhancement of wetlands. Figure-3.-S-2 shows wetlands 'impacts. - -
The desiltation/detention prä)ect'.,is notpart of this -project; V
it is part of a project to be completed 'pziOr to this project. - -- '
All issues of the 404 Permit were -addressed in the EI,'andit
is appropriae..-and within', the law to -proceed with the. federal, . • - - ' ' V V agencies prior to the approval of the EIR in order, to set the - -
parameters for the plan prior to time/energy/money being spent
on the development of plans
Regarding the listing of endangered species, the Home Depot V - V - - •
- - buildingis not in the area of sighting and the 'gnatcatcher is
r
not listed at this point The 404 Permit remains valid The V
- - flood .control problems, biological problem' and federal
-agencies' problems were, resolved prior'to'coming to the City.
- - Home Depot,'the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. 'Fish and - _• - V - Wildlife Service feel that all, criteria to mitigate wet-lands
-
-. - impacts have been Vmet ' The acreage involved is fringe - • -
acreage. Because V,of the cleaning-out of the Creek,' the
- , V
floodplain will 'change. We want 'to insure, that quality
habitat is maintained. There is - a three- 'And" a' five-year - V V - ,•
monitoring period for this site by the Army Corps and the
- -'
U.S.Fish and,Wilduife Service (to-be coordinated through the
City); -it will insure the long-term Vstability of- this site in - -
- - • ' - - - V relation to its biodiversity- arid, its wetland capacity. The V
- - - -
- ' problems brought up have been addressed, very carefully with - -- V - -
staff.
The Section 404 Permit is-valid through January 18, 1992, at which time the Permit could be rescinded, reissued or modified. -It- is felt that the Permit will receive the -same -
V , consideration andbe reissued.
- - - -
In response to the question -regarding the- amount of water - --- - - • V needed' to -maintain the etlands, -and whether' opening the - V drainage,ditch-and the siltation basins wi-lihave a dramatic - -
V - - 12-352 - - -
impact--on the amount of water, the elevation will be lowered
where required to ensure the success of the wetlands. The
Corps agrees that enough progress has been made-to accomplish
this. The application for the-California Department of Fish
and Game 1601 Permit will be submitted after the EIR is
certified;; - -
S. Dr. Patrick Mock for OGDEN Environmental
I have conducted quantitative ecological research on the
California- gnatcatcher since 1988. 1 own the most
comprehensive data base on the gnatcatcher ecology. - Most
sightings have occurred in-the dispersing season. The banded
bird is from the Carlsbad project begun last spring. - -
There is very little classic gnatcatcher - habitat on the
property, and 'the rest is disturbed although it is suitable
habitat.. This is atypical ....The on-site habitat is marg'inal
and -dominated by coyote bush. When coyote bush occurs in
large quantities, it may act as a good indicator - of
gnatcatcher habitat.- - -
The breeding pair is not documented. - I recommend that in
February and March the consultants document breeding on-Site.
If they are breeding on-site, some form of mitigation will be
;required. We need to look atthé régioñal perspective. Givèn
area development, it is not likely that a sufficient number of
gnatcatchers will be found so that this area will be suitable. -for a gnatcatcher -preserve. My recommendation is to - (ii) verify if there is a breeding pair and (2) obtain habitat off-
site within, :'an area designated for - -future preservation,
especially for sage scrub 'and California gnatcatcher.
The U.S-.Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that listing
of the California gnatcatcher is potentially warranted. The
one-year. comment period closes September 1992. 98% of the
listing 'packages result in ,listing.. . . If the California
gnatcatcher is listed, it will not -affect the Section 404
Permit. -
In response to a question as to whether the Carlsbad project
.will eliminate the gnatcatcher: a large area of habitat will
be preserved as partof the Rancho Santa Fe Road/Fieldstone
- project. - - - - -
- -
- T. Craig:Reiser for Pacific Southwest Biological Services -
Regarding therequest for'myquali-ficat ions: Ihave surveyed
approximately 200 000 acres in coastal San Diego County over
the last decade covering over 250 pro)ects I am considered
one of the foremost experts on sensitive plants and recently
found the:one plant of 1500 species-considered extinct in San
12-353
Diego County (Orcas spinefork at Oakcrest' Park)
Regarding Dave iIogan's comments on the sensitive Southern
Maritime Chaparral we differ regarding the concept of this
being Southern Maritime, Chaparral. In a letter from a person
from Sacramento six designator species are mentioned that are
to be used to distinguish Maritime Chaparral. We have reviewed each plant and havestated that all are inland except
one. Very few are found on this site.
I did come across two gnatcatchers on the southwest portion
(in Planning Area 2) of the. site near disturbed scrub and.
would assume they are a resident Pair. The original biological assessment was performed in the fall of 1989. An
earlier fire had affected the scrub area this area has
recovered. The large illegal alien encampment which existed
before -the 1989 visit could have precluded the gnatcatchers.
Ihave reviewed the legaistatus of the gnatcatcher -- it is being looked at but has no legal status at this time. Large
preserves are best fOr the species. Potential impacts would
best be mitigated by the acquisition of off-site habitat
In response to the question of whether eliminating the western
half of the planned residential development (Planning Area 2)
would suffice 1f off-site habitit is not ' available for gnatcatcher mitigation It is not possible to determine this
with-the current information. Another alternative would be to
- involve some level of monitoring over a period of 3 to 5
yeüs'. Afáir 'amount Of the habitat is within the open space
area.' We need first to determine if the pair is a resident
breeding pair. -
U. David Mayer for Pacific Southwest Biological Services
I' have worked at Pacific Southwest for. 3 years and haveworked
with sage scrub habitat in San Diego, Orange and Riverside
Counties I have a M.S. in Biology from San Diego State I have done banding studies on what might turn out to be the - largest population of gnatcatchers, located 'near Sweetwater Reservoir. I , was the principal investigator in -terms of
monitoring the banded birds and watching their habits and
preferred use areas breeding etc I was on the Home Depot
site-from 7:30 to 9:15 a.m. last Saturday morning.
V Keith Merkel-for-Pacific Southwest Biological Services
-' I have been In biology consulting for 9 years, including the
last 7 years with Pacific Southwest. -My background is in
zoology and ecology,' primarily community ecology.
- I have u focsed ontheInteractions between systems and species within
their systems. I am primarily involved in wetland issues.
12-354
- Finding an endangered species on-site would reopen the issue
of the 404 Permit. The California gnatcatcber is not an
endangered species at this time.
W. Lester 8agg, Chairman of the Planning Commission.
W.I. Woodley Road appears on old maps but has not existed for 25
years.
There is a letter from the owner of Planning Area 3 stating
that he would -like to sell it. There isno information on
Planning Area 4.
If: off-site 'mitigation for th gnatcatcher is not, possible,
would eliminating the' western half of the planned residential
development (Planning Area 2) suffice? -
Access to Planning Area 3 and 4 need to be addressed.
The project has excessive encroachment into the steep slope
areas: 29.6% instead of the 20% standard in the General Plan.
The baseline for determining traffic impacts should be from
Light Industrial uses to Home' Depot generated traffic. -
X. Jim Hirsch for The Austin. Hansen Group
The environmental document is adequate, but there are some
concerns with some of the conclusions regarding wetlands, the
gnat'datche and traffic issues. We have taken direction
regarding visual resources issues in the LIR and have a
simulation prepared showing a gateway view and a-view from up - -
on the-hill from the cul-de-sac. -
V. Bill Dean, Vice Chair, Encinitas Planning Commission
Mr.Dean's oral comments and notes from the meeting are
included as letter # 20. ' See the responses to # 20.
Z. '-Planning Commissioners Joseph Stumpf, Robert Lanham and Lee
Rotsheck. - --
- Planning Commissioners are not required -to state their name
before speaking, as are members of the public. Therefore, the
tape recording of the Planning Commission meeting did not
indicate which Commissioner, was speaking. The draft.minutes
of the meeting idertifiàd the Chairman's,and Vice Chairman's
-comments.',, - Therefore, it is assumed that the- following
comments were made by one or more of the remaining
Commissioners.•-
Z.l. The EIR needs to deal with biology issues,, particularly the
- 12-355
O-k *
gnatcatcher. The' EIR..:needs to say it.has been sighted by people present at this hearing. The Final EIR should include
an outline of the mitigation plan for the gnatcatcher. This
is ..a significant unmitigated environmental impact.
••
Z.2. The main noise impact is' on wildlife. If the noise is 90 dB . or. greater. 'these impacts should be addressed mor,e fully. Species are more impacted by loud sharp noises rather than a . constant d&one averaged over two hours.
Visual impacts, buildin'heights and cutting info the slopes
need, to be dealt with. Perhaps the potential. mitigation - involving the Lie of Planning Area 3 should be pursued more • • ' -. fully. . - • " -
The Specific 'Plan includes almost no in on Planning Areas 3 and 4; it is really a Specific Plan for Planning Areas ' •• • • • 1 and 2. • •
• •
A recommendation might be made to change the zoning for
.Planning-- Areas 3'and 4 to take into account what is 'takin,
• ' '. - • •, ':' - plá'cä on Plahning Areas 1 and 2, as access to at least one'of ' :. ,. • • •-. • ' -• them is across 'Planning Are1. - • ,- - '
' .- ' •
12-356
304
JOHNSON, O'CONNELL & MCCARTHY
* .A,rnicnl, I,.ctUOriC • P'OfL$$IONflL cOi,POa*,o.
1O1 VS ATI*W MICHELL D. RLILLY
011I0. *.00O.*tt C'.$OT. CMOT 6 ,O,au COIPOA1I CL*II* LtC.6 ADMINISTRATOR D*.tt I. 6*TP'T 630 W6? C 5fl1rT. $TI. 1 Iso - ,Ol,p, I. rRowN, 66* 00O3 CALIFORNIA 92101.O6OO TELEPHONE I693 6966111 CK5TT*9 6. C..kol*O ' - litcopli, 3e 4.1536
• .._I*• flw COfl04*V*
December 29, 1992
VIA FACSIMILE
LILJ (q e I Mr. Patrick -Murphy
Community Developsent Director
City of Encinitas
Encinita3 city Hall
505 S. vulcahAvenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
Re: Comments by NI.10L and Scotts Valley )iOA on
Promosed Final Draft of Home Depot's-Specific
Plan and Tentative May Environmental Impact
Report (Case No. 91-044
Dear Mr. Murphy:
A On behalf of the Neighborhoods United for Quality of Life ("NUQL). and Scotts Valley Boise Owners Association, we have exerted best efforts -over the holidays to review - the substantial documentation that sakesup theproposed final EIR. Since it took
the city almost nine months to evaluate and respond to the public
coents previously made regarding this controversial project, we
are sure .you understand that the allowed 12 day review period (over the holidays) for written comments makes it very difficult to
comment comprehensively and in detail with respect to the many
changes, additions and oromissions in the proposed final 11R.
on behalf of NUQL and Scotts Valley, we formally object to the functionally ispracticle reviewperiod allowed for -the final EIR. We believe the truncated review period is unfair, in violation of fundamental due process standards; violative of the Encinitas -General -Plan. and inconsistent with the goals Of CEQA to foster and
encourage ibfóred public participation in the review process- We
also note at the onset that there are multiple material omissions and COnfUSing section references in the proposed final EIRwhich
Lake, the- document incomplete and incapable of meaningful public
comment, 4ind subsequent certificaton. -'
,dequacv of Responses to Comitejitri;
B L oe Letter 2Pa 12-3: Response regarding 7.2.4 of the
EIR.' That section contains no such discussion.
- RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE PRELIMINARY FINAL EIR
HOME DEPOT SPECIFIC PLAN AND TENTATIVE MAP
Case No. 91-044
SCM No. 91031058
The following public comments and responses to the comments are Intended to be appended to the end of Section 12 of the Final EIR.
304. Kevin K. Johnson of Johnson, O'Connell & McCarthy for
Neighborhoods United for Quality Of Life (NUOL) and Scott's
Valley Homeowners Association
The City of Encinitas Community Development Department staff is of the opinion that 'a formal recirculation of the Final EIR
is not required. The Preliminary Final EIR was made available
for a 12-day informal review even though CEQA does not require
additional public comment on the Final EIR. Additional information from Draft EIR comments does not change the
conclusions in the EIR and is not considered significant by
City staff.
The section referenced in this response should have been Section 7.2.2.5, on page 7-19, instead of Section 7.2.4.
The response referenced in this comment includes an
explanation of why the wetlands mitigation is deemed adequate:
the project will result in increased wetlands function and
increased habitat value. The City Council will make the final
decision on the adequacy of the mitigétiOn.
The public had the opportunity to review all of the data and
studies for the proposed project. The conclusions.ontraffic
are based on the studies included in the EIR. The information
Contained in these studies did not change the conclusions in
the Final EIR and was determined by City staff not to be
significant new information.
There is no development proposed for PA 3. Therefore, there
are no proposed cut or fill slopes. If the project was to Use
PA 3 as a borrow site to obtain fill material, instead of
cutting back the slope in PA 1, the graded banks would be
approximately 8 feet high. However, this is not proposed by
the project.
This statement is incorrect. All known sensitive plants are
discussed in Section 3.3.1.3.1 of the Final EIR and-are shown
on Figure 3.3-1. In addition, pages 22-26 of the Biology
Report (Appendix B) includes more details on the sensitive
species. The Only sensitive plant species in PA 3 are man
existing Open Space Easement on the upper half of PA 3; this
area will remain undeveloped. -
12-357 . S S
001
:
DEC E8 F;,-.E. 002
The potential noise impacts to sensitive species is-included Mr. Patrick Murphy in the Final EIR. The references in the response should have December 29, 1992 been to Section 3.3.2.2, page 3-34 and Appendix B, page 49. Page 2 The FIR preparer is not aware of any definitive studies that
• have shown that light and glare have an impact on wildlife
species, and none of the sensitive species are nocturnal.
Some nocturnal animals may, at first, be wary of the - Letter 3 Pace 12-4k Column 2. ResponSe 0. The city C development area and may be more cautious when traveling in cannot rely upon the issuance of a 404 Permit by the Army the area. After time has elapsed, some speciesmay adapt. Corp. of Engineers as evidence of nor, a basis - for a conclusion that there issufticient mitigation of wetland Section 3.2.1, pages 3-9 and 3-10, includes available -impact. Citizens For quality Growth v. The City of Mount information on water quality in Encinitas Creek. While it Shasta, 198 Cal.App.3d 433 (1988). - would be ideal to-have baseline data, it is not essential to
- - , measure impacts. - 3. page 12.5. Column 1. Response G: The D Letter
-additional traffic - analysis to address internal - The reference should have been to Tables 1.2-1 (page 1-10) and recirculation and long-term Cuslative traffic -impacts - 1.2-5 (page 1-19). - - (Appendix K and L) represents-significant new information
- - - - - requiring recirculation of the FIR for public review. All reasonably foreseeable development has been considered in Sutter Sensible Planning. Inc. X. board of Supervisors, the Final FIR. The cumulative effects of the development of 122 Cal.App.3d 813;- 822 (1981). By way of example, the the Specific Plan Area, Arroyo La Costa, and the Olivenhain public should be able to review and comment upon (1) the Road Widening Project have been addressed in the Final FIR. study data used to support the recommendation for an - The Encinitas Ranch/Ecke property was included in the buildout -, access road along the wetland boundary in Planning Area (year 2010) projections.
1; and upon the unsupported conclusions that the project
- - - - will"incrementally impact" the surrounding street K The statement is accurate and an EIR is not required to give segments and intersections. (Page 4, Exhibit K.) - citations for court cases. Also, see response to Comment 3
- - above. - - E Letter 3. Paae 12-6, Column 1. First 2 Full Paragp; - There are no meaningful responses to these comments in L The Final EIR determined that there were no significant view Planning Area 3. There is no discussion of what the impacts. - -- - - - - estimated graded banks will be on Planning Area 3. There - - F is no response whatsoever to the absence of -a sensitive - K. The City of Encinitas Community Development Department staff plant analysis in Planning Area 3. - (A program FIR - have concluded that the traffic analysis is adequate. The requires such.an analysis.) City Council will review all information and make the final -
- determination on the adequacy of the report. Traffic- impacts G Letter 5. Page 12-8 yplwnn 2; Response C references are assessed : using 2010 projections and Carlsbad 1995 Section 3.8.2 of the FIR and Appendix -F as discussing estimates, which provide the most current information noise impacts. Neither Section 3.8.2-nor Appendix F available. addresses noise impact on the habitat and the wildlife in the planning areas. - - - - N. The response to comment D should have referred to Section -
1.3.2.1, which includes the installation and maintenance of Failure to analyze the impacts of noise as well as light desilting basins and glare upon the-habitat and wildlife, requires further V - - environmental studies on this project. - Section 1.3.3.3 should have been referenced instead of Section
- 1.7.3. Because the mitigation measures required by the Army
V 10. Pace 12-14. Response; The conclusionary H' Corps of Engineers have been incorporated into the project statement that the, water quality on Encinitas Creek will. description, they are technically not mitigation measures. not be adveraly impacted is not supported by specific - - However, 'Section 1.3.3.7 includes the requirement for - references to empiric-al information, scientific authority - implementation of the Corps' mitigation measures. and/or explanatory information. The FIR contains no - - - - information regarding the existing water quality of 0. For a discussion of these issues, see Section 2.3.1.4.3 and Encinitas Creek and, therefore, has no basis to conclude
- that there will be no adverse impact upon the creek. The - 12-358 LIE functionally says "we don't know what the existing
water quality for the creek is, however, we don't think
- we're going to adversely affect it." - -
('E S
Mr. Patrick Murphy
December 29, 1992
Page
Letter ii. Pag 12-15, Response A. Last Sentence: This
commenting individual cannot find Section 1.5.2 in the
document.
Letter 11, Page 12-16. Response A.5.: CEQA Guidelines
Section 15168(c)'(S) provides that a program SIR must be
at once, both comprehensive and specific. It must
concentrate on a project's long-tore cuelative impacts
and Lust also contain enough detail to anticipate many
subsequent activities within the scope of the project.
Therefore, deferral analysis of reasonably foreseeable
impacts and mitigation measures is improper both from the
standpoint of CEQA but also from. the standpoint of
specific plan requirements. Reasonably foreseeable,
cumulative impacts from Planning Areas 3 and 4 as well as
Ecks/icthitas Ranch; the Olivenhain Road prOjOct and
Arroyo/la Costa need to be considered in detail. -
Letter 11. Page 12-17. Response A.5. Continued: I Reference to a recent court is useless without a specific
nsueand'case cite. Jr. the recent court case a Superior
CoOrt case and, therefore, not authority for purposes of
intárpretation of CEQA? Specific impacts which are
reasonably foreseeable must be evaluated. A mere listing
of mitigation criteria is only acceptable when.it is not
possible to identify impacts.
L tt0r ii. Page 12-17, Response' A,9: Adverse view
impacts are reasonably foreseeable with respect to the
subject project. 'Failure of the draft EIR to identify
significant view impacts,is not an excuse for failing to
address-the subject impacts in the proposed final SIR.
M tatter Ii. Page 12-17. Response A.lP:' This response
appOars to admit that there is no Study of traffic
in on the 1-5 corridor. It then asserts a purely
conclusory statement that the City of Encinites thinks
the traffic analysis is adequate As previoulsy pointed
'- out,remponses must manifest 'a good-faith reasoned
analysis., Conclusory statements unsupported by factual
information will not suffice. (CEQA Guidelines Section
15088(b); Sierra Club vs. Gilroy city Council, (6th
District 1990) 222, Cal.App.3d 30, -46.
A lead agency must speclfcially explain its reasons for
rejecting suggestions received in comments and proceeding
with the project despite its environmental impact.
It defies common sense that a traffic analysis would not
discuss impacts on 1-5, when 1-5 is,the main regional
the response to Letter # 11, Comment G.
The reference should have been to Section 1.3.2.4 instead of Section l7.2.8.
'Replace the reference to Section 1.7.3.8 with Section 1.3.2.4.
Sections 1.7.3.1, 1.7.3.2, 1.7.3.3, 1.7.3.4, 1.7.3.6, and
1.7.3.8 should, be 'replaced by Sections 1.3.3.1, 1.3.3.2,
1.).3.3, 1.3.3.4, 1.3.3.5, 1.3.3.7, 1.3.3.10, and 1.3.3.12.
As stated in the SIR preparer's response, the recommended use
of a mitigation monitoring agreement. appears to be a good
idea. However, this js a policy decision that will reqOire
more thought by the City of Encinitas because, if this policy
is ,adopted, it would have to be applied to all projects, not
just Home Depot.
All comments received during the public review period tor the
Draft SIR received responses in-the-Final SIR, based on CEQA
and The State Guidelines requirements. Other comments are in
the record for review by the decision-makers.
To the extent possible, the project wetlands mitigation will
avoid the Olivenhain Road Widening area. However, the City of
Carlsbad is behind schedule on the-development.-of engineering
plans for the widening of Olivenhain Road and no detailed
plans are available at this time. Therefore, it is impossible
to predict' exact areas.
The water quality, traffic, biology, air quality, visual
quality, noise and solid waste sections address cumulative
impacts of the project plus other projects expected to be
developed in the reasonably foreseeable future and for which
plans were available.
The projected floodplain upon completionof Detention Basin 0 is
shown in Figure 2.3-12. The dredging proposed. as part of the project is ' designed to alleviate existing On-site flooding
problems. Detention Basin D is designed to mitigate long-term
flooding problems and will delay the flow from upstream areas.
However, it is now, possible that Detention Basin -D may not, be.
constructed., Therefore, -. a follow-up' floodplain analysis was
prepared by ASL. consultants, the' firm -which prepared the original
floodplain analysis. The supplemental study includes a HEC-2
hydraulic analysis,,for the floodplain assuming that 'Detention Basin
0 is not constructed but that the proposed Home Depot Center is
constructed as shown on the Tentative Map/Grading Plan. The
hydraulic analysis indicates that a 100-year storm would result in
a water elevation of approximately 82.4 feet-. The elevation of the
proposed parking area at ,its lowest point is 83 feet',while the
12-359 . . .
10W
LE C i 6 i i'IiE - EA,E.O3i
building will be at 92 feet.
The supplemental floodplainstudy,will be appended to Appendix A;
it is attached to the Errata Sheet.. Exhibit A of that reportshows
the projected 100-year-flood-line uponcompletion of the.,.project
and without the construction of Detention Basin D. As shown in
that exhibit, the flood line will move to the east between 80 and
160 feet so that, upon completion of the project,-it will be at the
edge of the proposed parking area.
If and when Detention Basin 0 is Implemented, it may result in a.
further reduction of the extent of the.existing wetlands because,',
by alleviating flooding, it will cause some areas to slowly become
drier. The proposed project will not actually result in a loss of
wetlands because, in addition to the creation of wetlands, the
project in the enhancement of wetlands. When quality and - quantity are considered, there will be an increase in quality of
wetlands habitat and no decrease in area.
The runoff water treatment system is, designed for a 6-hour
storm because this period is. what 'Is considered to be the first flow," which generally contains .the highest percentage
of pollutants, on streets and, parking areas are washed off and
into drainage systems The proposed runoff water treatment
system includes a'bypais so that once the oil/water/separator
system is full (i.e., contains the amount of runoff expected in "a 2-year 6-hour storm) the excess runoff will be diverted
directly to the marshy detention basin, which will provide'
limited, filtration for, the water containing a smaller
percentage of pollutants. This filtered water will enter " Encinitas Creek below thegroUnd ('see Figure 2.3-l7) Thus, .the,system has been designed so that no. signif icant amounts of
pollution ever reach .Encinitas Creek.-
Also ,:it shOuld be noted that the created,wetland vegetation .in the runoff system detention basin is not counted in the
acreage for wetland creation or enhancement because it will.be, periodically replaced, in sections, to maintain the filtering
ability of the vegetation. '
Figures 2.3-16'and. 2.3:17 show ,how..water will enter the
stream.' The treated runoff from the HomeDepot development
will be released intd Encinitas Creek below the ground. The,
runoff from the north-facing open space hillside.that is south
of the Home Depot development will be contained in a storm drain and will enter the Creek just northeast of the proposed.
Garden Center.
Section 3.1.3.1 of the Final EIR specifies that the applicant
for the development of each PA should be responsible for
maintaining the Creek channel along the frontage of. the PA.
Section'3.1.3.2 specifies that after the initial dredging of
12-360
Mr. Patrick Murphy
December 29, 1992
Page 4
corridor which will clearly be impacted by the subject project. It does no good to talk generally about driving
on surf act streets in 'the City of Encinitas when
travelers are stuck in aLOS "F" traffic jaon I-S.
TheCity of Carlsbad has recogized the freeway traffic
impacts associated with the recent Price Club
construction on Palomar Road. Specifically, there are
signs at the Price Club which say that the facility is
closed weekdaysbetween the hours of 3:30 and 6:00 p.m.
until the, pending completion of on-and off ramp
improvements. .. '
The. public 'is entitled to a good-faith 'and reasoned
analysis as to what the impacts' of the project will be
'upon the 1-5 corridor.: -
I .
N Letter il.- Page 12-18. Responses 06 E: This commenting
individus)cannot tindSection1.7.2.7 nor-section 1.7.3.
0 Letter 11.-P 12-19, Resppnee: This response does
not reflect a reasoned analysis of the effectiveness of
the water treatment"system'as'proposed. . The ability of
a filtration system to handle 'the "first flow" of a "two
year storm" is clearly, inadequate with respect to
protecting a highly sensitive wetland system. The City's
response indicates that the ."first flow" is considered to
contain the highest' percentage of run-off .polutants.
Whatl is the percentage and types' of pollutants in the subsequent' flow?,
The original comment contained on Page 3 of Letter 11
addressing long-tern water quality, notes the draft' EIR
has no bench mark standards for existing water4quallty- in
the creek. The EIR only talks, generally, about water
quality, in Batiquitos Lagoon and not -in the creek itself.
'If the creek is highly'polluted at this'time, that fact
should be established and the reliability and
reasonableness of the limited capacity water-treatment system evaluated accordingly. -
We note that in the last sentence in Response C on Page 12-19, that the biologists expect that the wetlands
mitigation-'and enhancement program will be capable of
treating nearly all of the kinds of materials that night
result from Home Depot Center." What types of materials
will not be treated? Will they be toxic and what will be
the impacts to the water quality of Encinitis creek and to the wetland system?
Encinitas Creek in the vicinity of the El Casino Real bridge
to bring the -floor down to an elevation of 72 feet above Mean
Sea Level, the County ofSan Diego or the project applicant will- be responsible for maintenance dredging to maintain this
elevation. Access to the Creek for the periodic dredging
beneath the El Casino Real bridge will be taken just east of
the bridge, at the northern end of the parking lot If
channel maintenance is required along the watercourse flowing
through PA 1, access will be-taken at a point that is closest
to the area requiring 'the dredging that does not impact the
runoff water treatment system: and has the least sensitive
vegetation, which may change over time.. However, if Detention
Basin D is constructed as approved, maintenance dredging along
the watercourse should not be necessary; it is the backup of
flood waters that -causes sediment to settle out and fill in
the channel. Because'thebridge abutments extend beneath the
surface, they act as a dam and tend to slow down the flow of
water at the northwest corner of PA 1. Thus, some amount of
dredging will probably always be - required. However, the
construction of Detention Basin 0 would significantly, reduce
the frequency of the need for dredging. -. -
See the response to comment V.
This was clearly addressed in the response to Comment F on pages 12-23 of-the Final EIR.
The proposed mitigation measures and monitoring program for
wetlands' impacts are addressed in Section 1.3.3.3, 1.3.2.1,
1.3.2.2, 1.3.2.3, 1.3.2.4, '1.3.2.5, 1.3.2.6,. 1.3.2.7, 1.3.2.8, and 1.3.3.8. - One additional measure has been added
to Section 1.3.3.3: the requirement for the preparation of a
detailed wetlands restoration and planting program (see Errata Sheet).
AA.' The focus of the EIR is to determine-whether there is a
potential for significant environmental impacts; the General
Plan process is a separate issue.
BB. The analysis in •the SIR is based on the best available
information. Cumulative impacts have been addressed. When PA
3 and/or 4 are, proposed for development, runoff may be
quantified for the specIfically proposed project. Section
1.3.2.7 includes- a requirement for runoff water treatment '-systems when PAs 3 and 4 are developed.
CC. The California gnatcatcher issue has been analyzed by several
-biologists. The City' öf Encinitas is satisfied-:with the
resolution of the issue and mitigation of the potential
impacts - - -
DO. Gil Voss and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service feel that
12-361
EEC 5.E Si Z 1 23 PAiE.00I
Mr. Patrick Murphy
December 29, 1992
page -
P-I, 11. Pace 12-20. -Response 0 'Contjnijs: The
commenting party cannot find Section 1.7.2.8 of the SIR.
Q Response H: The commenting party cnnot find Section
-1.7.3.'B -of the SIR.
RResponse I: The commenting party cannot find any of the
loves sections to determine the extent and nature of the
revisions.
S'ietter It. Pace 12-20. Response 3; CEQA requires that
proper monitoring be ensured. The. recommendation in
Letter '- 11- -proposes' specific measures for ensuring-
compliance with all necessary' mitigation measures. The
merits, -or lack thereof, of the comment should be
responded to in good faith and with a reasoned, detailed
analysis.
TLetter 12, Page 12-22. -Response A. This response is
irrelevant and misses the point. Scott's Valley did not
receive timely notice of the Olivenhain, Road
Widening/Realignment SIR. Further, the fact that a
coaflts letter was submitted,, post-review period,
regarding problems with the Olivenhain SIR is not
relevant to the Home Depot SIR preparer's obligation to
respond to the points-raised in the subject letters which
were a part of the March .6, 1992 correspondence. We note
that the letters, while received by the EIltpreparer are
not even included in -the proposed draft final SIR. This
is a--clear material omission.
U Letter 12. Pace 12-22. Response B: This--response does
not address the issue of the joint effects of the two
projects rorexamp1e,with a fully dredged' El Casino
Real Bridge RiI the completion of the- flood'càntrol basin
will -this further limit the extent of the existing
wetlands? - - - -
-
- - -
Further, since the Home Depot Center is not to be
approved for occupancy until the widening of Olivenhain
Road along the property, it is clear that the Rome DepOt
and Olivenliäin projects are interrelated. Therefore, the
loss of wetlands, which is inevitable as result of the
expansiOn of Olivenhain Road must be taken into consideration with, respect to the net loss of wetlands
for the Hose Depot project. Mitigation obligations
cannot be deferred when and impact is- foreseeable and
inextricably, linked to the present project. The lead
agency cannot defer its responsibilities in this regard.
to an outside agency such as the Army Corp. of Engineers.
6 •5i jI4 p,,.
S
Mr. Patrick Murphy
December 29,'1992
Page 6
Ij Letter 12. Pane 12-23. Response B. Continued: If the
Hose Depot Center is constructed, without completion of
the upstream detention basin, the SIR preparer admits
that thó parking lot will be vulnerable to 100-year flood. The proposed filtration system for run off from
the project is only designed to handle'e two-year storm.
Therefore, in the event a storm is larger than a two-year
storm, there will be contamination from the parking area
which goes into the vetland'ànd into the watercourse. If
a 100-year flood is Zoreseeable prior to the construction
of the detention basin, then there must,
'
be mitigation.
measures taken with' respect to contamination associated
with flooding of the parking lot. The City has' no
evidence to conclude that such impacts will be
insignificant. '
WLetter- 12. Page 12-23. Response -C: , Standards,-and
guidelines Suet be provided for majntanance of the' 'subject watercOurse. -How will'the watercourse be entered
and what restrictions wIll there be to prevent damage to
the riparian -habitat.- The comment asks about ,- the
specific requirements , for maintainance of the watercourse. The response identifies who will be
responsible but does not provide details of how the courses, will -be maintained.
X Latter 12. Page 12-23. Response 0: Thereis no evidence
in the record to support a conclusion there will be "no
sigiifIcant toxic materials" entering Encintias Creek as a result of the project. The EIR, for example, admits
'that' without the deteCtion basin, the parking lot will be
'subject to flooding in a 100-year storm. If any storm
greater than a two-year' storm hits the area, there will
be toxic run off into the Creek.
Ytetter'12. Page 12-23, Response F: This is not a good
faith' and reasoned- analysis regarding the alleged
inability of the SIR preparer to plan in reasonable
detail the entire specific plan area. ' This SIR Z commentator incorporates herein reference 'his criticisms
of the EIR preparer's response to Consent A.5 'of Letter
A etter 12. Pace 12-23. Comment G: This response is
inadequate. The consent raises the issue of general plan
consistency as it relates to incremental and short'
sighted planning for the City's watercourse resources. - General Plan consistency issues are repeatedly discussed,
in the course of the EIR, and there is no reason why
- consistency should not be discussed in this context.
there is some Coastal Maritime Chaparral onsite, yet even they
disagree on the amount. Ogden Environmental and Energy'-
Services concluded that Coastal Maritime Chaparral was present
on-site when the City's Master Environmental Assessment was
prepared for the General Plan. , on -page 10 of the Biological - -
Report (Appendix B), PSBS disputes the opinion-that Coastal Maritime Chaparral is present' on-site.
EE. The City of Encinitas staff requires that all access points in
PA 1 other than the three proposed accesses be relinquished.
FF. The realignment of Olivenhain Road is not proposed;' it is an -- adopted project. Cumulative, traffic impacts from all
reasonably foreseeable projects in the project vicinity have'
been analyzed in detail and are quantified in the EIR.-.,';', Construction now depends on the completion of engineering-. - plans.
CC. The' updated traffic analysis is based on the most current - information available. -
MM. The exact ratio depends on whether or not one is counting the
wetlands enhancement and the created wetlands in the runoff,,
-. water treatment system detention basin. For generarpurposes;'.
It is assumed that the detention basin wetlands will not be' counted because they will be periodically impacted in order to' ensure the filtration capability of the vegetation.
Development of PA 1 will result •in a loss of 0.1 acre of'-
Southern Willow Scrub and 2.9 acres of fallow (disturbed),
field wetlands, for a total of 3 acres of wetlands. The -
project prOposes theenhancement of 3.2 acres-of wetlands and
w the'creation of 0.7 acres'of newetlands, for a total of 3.9 acres ' of wetlands mitigation. This would result- in 'a
replacement: loss ratio of 1.3:1. The periodically maintained
nuisance water treatment wetland totals 0.5 acre and is not
included in this ratio. - -
II. Section'3.1.2.3 of the EIR includes an analysis of cumulative
impacts, - including impacts from Arróyo La 'Costa and the
Olivenhain Road Widening Project, using the data available'.
The Encinitas 'Ranch Specific Plan has not yet been completed;-
it would be premature to make land use and runoff assumptions
at this point
JJ. The runoff water treatment system is designed to protect the'
water quality in Encinitas Creek and, further, in Batiquitos
Lagoon.' If the downstream water between the project site and
the Lagoon' is polluted, it will be a. result of downstream
activities. - '- -
KK. The EIR contains a reasonable range of alternatives.
12-362
PE ES 52 21:29
Mr. Patrick Murphy
December 29, 1992
page
'attsr 12. Page 12-23. Response ii. Reference to Section
3.2.2 dose not cons itute a good faith reasoned analyiia
of the cumulative impacts of the Arroyo/La Coats project
o n the watercourse. There are no details in that section
regarding the impact. Section 3.3.2 only generally
recognizes that-there will be an impact. We note that at
Page 3-7 of the Elk (Section 3.1.2.3 Cumulative Impacts),
that the final Era for Arroyo/La Costa did not include
quantification of the increase in run-oft from the
project.
Al a consequence, there is still no basis for an analysis
of reasonably foreseeable impacts. We also note that
there tsno attempted quantification of run-off from
Pla eas:3 and 4. These are reasonably foreseeable
impacts wiiich must be, analyzed- and (mitigated.
CC
-
Latter
faith a 15
Page 12-26, Response 8:- This s not a good
nd reasoned analysis with respect to the facts and
issues raised in the 2/16/92 letter by Mary Renaker.
Response A to the letter acknowledges that subsequent
studies confirm that there are Gnatcatcbers on the site.
RoweVar, the letter focuses primarily on the issue of the
viability of the habitat that exists on the Site. Rn
app'ropriat.--reapoflse to this information would bean
acla%pwimdgeoent that the information is true and correct
and should- be relied -upon for purposes of mitigation
measures or, alternatively, a specific recitation of why
this 'information is not true or is considered unrealiable.
DDLatter
16. Pages 12-27. -Response J. _.,d: An appropriate
response' to, the botantical 'data is to confirm, if
possible, that the subject project studies and the
referenced field investigations. are consistent and that
impacts upon sensitive rare and endangered plant species
are appropriately mitigated..- Merely acknowledging the
comments La an inadequate response.
Le ter
17
Li
Page 12-28. RespOnse 1-2: This is not a good
faith- nor reasoned response to the suggestion made by the
County of San Diego. Department of Public Works. The
relinquishment of othe access rights from El Casino Real
would create certainty with respect to future specific
plan development impacts, upon El Camino Real. The-cents
of such a proposal should' be discussed and analyzed in a
detailed response by the Elk preparer, particularly
because of, specific planning requirements under both a
Program LIP and a specific plan.
LL. The Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction under. Federal
law. The Corps has, issued a Section 404 Permit. Although the
Corps has approved the Permit, this approval does not provide
-a justification for approval of the project, and it doesn't
obligate the City to approve the projeàt.
M.M. This commentjs well taken: If the City is to approve the
project with overriding considerations, supporting information
will have to be jn.the record to support the Findings. This
will need t6be considered at the time the prO-jectis before
the City Council for adoption: '
NH. While a general comment may be made that any development could
adversely affect wildlife in the general area, there are few
definitive studies available. The known studies have been
considered in the 'assessment of impacts. ' Please see the
response to comment C. '
00. All comments on the Draft Elk that were received during the
public review period. All comments received are included in
the public record and are available to decision-makers.
PP. The portions of the Elk that were relied upon were considered
adequate.
QQ Please see the response to Comment A.
12-363 . . .
fl33 S
Xr. -Patrick )Iurpby.
Decem_ber 29, 1992. - Pages
F Wtter 17 PacTe 12-28 Response li The Hose Depot and
Olivenbain Road EIRs are interrelated and interdependent
Rcoended reallgr3nent of Olivenhain Road with respect to traffic impacts and other significant impacts of the
project can and should be discussed There is no reason
to, believe that the Olivenhain Road realignment as
currently proposed cannot be altered to mitigate the
cumulative impacts on the Home Depot site. Similarly,
Response i-i is non-responsive.
G GLattCt 17, Paae 12-28.,Response 1-k Cumulative and foreseeable traffic impacts including theme from the EckelEncinitas Ranch Property should be considered in the
EIR when the impacts are reasonably. foreseable The general plan for Encinitas provides for maximum trip
generated capacity for the fckefEncinitas Ranch area
That data should be part of a study to reflect the cumulative impacts in and around the Hose Depot site as
well as adjacent areas This includes Arroyo/La Costa and other Fieldstone projects in Southern Carlsbad work
as Southeast XI
The comment from the county obviously refers to the
Ecke/Encinitas Ranch area which is the only incorporated
area immediately adjacent to the pro)ect site
H_L-I.
Page 12-30. 12-31. Rest eã onse E: ThèLgue:of riwoman Voters inquired regarding the need for a
replacement ratio for wetlands and asked what specific
standard us would be ed The response does not address
these questions 'At -',a minimum the EIR p
t
reparer should relate alternate standards for mitigation raios and make
specific recommendations in this regard. -
i lAtter •l8 Page 12-32. RéspônsèJ: Theris no gppd
I I faith reasoned analysis regarding water flow impacts on
the Creek and Batiquitos Lagoon There is simply a
jumbling of • abstract -. percentages without -any quantification of water amounts water speed and water
quality. In addition, there is no cumulative impact
- - analysis covering Arroyo/La Costa, the Olivenhain.-Rdad
widening -WA-and-the Ecke/Encinitas Ranch projects
•The responseanalysiS fails to recognise the creek as a UUsignificant separate resource. It attemptsto avoid this
fact byconsidering Encthitas Creek only as it impacts
&atiquitoa. --
EEC £8 82 21:38 P.E.CiOI
r. patricl Murphy
December 29, 1992.
Page 9
KK Istter 19, Page 12-34. Fifth Full Paragraph: This is not - a good faith reasoned analysis of the mitigation
suggested in Letter 19 The response should address the
marità of the specific mitigation proposal.
L LLetter 20. Page 12-35, Response 2Q 11: This is not a
good faith andz reasoned analysis' with respect to the
first ieätjon of the subject letter. The question raises
the issuó of the 'credibility and meaning of 'a '404 Permit
being issued by the Army. Corp of Engineers when the
Corps. 'policies have been severely criticizdd. The
coenting individual is entitled to reasoned analysis as
- tó-'the significance ofthe Army Corp. permit since it is
beingze1ied upon to conclude that proposed wetlands
mitigation is sufficient.
.iI Letter 32. Page 12-50 Response 32; This is not a good
IVilVifaith and ásoned analysis with respect to the issues
raised in the- subject letter. The commenting individual
raises the básLc question as to whether there ic'economic
need for such project in the Encinitas area. He notes
thecux-rent 'availability of home improvement stores in
the Encinitas and Solana Beach areas and questions the
need .fo an additional facility. 'The, goal of the Home
Depot project, as admitted b the applicant, is to
fulfill . a . regional need'-'7 - There is therefore a
fundamental question as to the actual benefit-to the-City
of Encinitas.
itically since the SIR has a number of significant
impacts which cinnot be mitigated, it is presumed that
- the: city will be issuing 'a statement of overriding
consideration with respect' to 1pkoject. 'It economic, -
Wainass, and revenue considerations, are an, element of
such a statement of overriding considerations then the
public is entitled to a fair and reasoned analysis as to
what exactly the economic business and revenue needs are
for the community. Letter 32 squarely places this
questionberore'the EIR'preparer.' The writer and the
public are, entitledto a detailed response and analysis.
The analysis must be factual and must be supported with
specific references to empirical information scientific
'authority and/or explanatory information. CQA
Guidelines Section 1508.8 Subdivision(b). '
N N1ttl$. Page 12-59. Response K: Section 3.3.2.2 has
been modified, to include a discussion of potential noise
impacts upon, the California Gnatcatcher but not upon any
other wildlife and' habitat. The response therefore is
Wk
6 'BI il:4 ..E.00JI
'tr. Patrick Murphy
December 29', 1992
Page 10
non-responsive. Comment K also raises the- issue of the ispaàt of 'bà.bitat reduction on the -various biological resources in the area as well as an analysis of specific pollutants that are likely to pass through the oil-water eeparator6. There is-no response to. these comments.
00 Letter 38. page 12-59. response L
Acceptance of the conclusions of the. Oiivechain"Road
Widening EIR is not permissible of "the- Olivenhain Road' Elk-is incomplete and defective. Consents upon that EIR
- were attached to the Johnson, O'Connell 5. )4dCarthy -correspondence dated March 6, 1992, appearing as letter 012 to the Hose Depot Elk. -
Letter 38.Daqe 12-61. response S F p •. Fwi
The Elk prep arer is 1.not entitled to rely upon a certified Elk if the docLusent is clearly, inadequate on a given 1 _1issue
Letteri9 paoes 12-62:,- Based, on, the EIR preparer's
0'..ifrank responses to the multiple inconsistencies with the general plan that are pointed out- in 'Letter 39, it is
clear that there have been multiple. and sulstantial additions, to the EIR'both with rdspedtto.inconsistency
- - lsiu"I and with respect-to alternative 'project designs
-: - and :àonsiderations.
Considering these, additions•'and changes, plus -other
modifications like the 'additional traffic studies, there is
significant new information" and "Substantial change" which
require the city. of Encinitas-to issue a new Elk notice and to
recirculate 'the Elk for additional , commentary and consultation. Pub. Rem. Code Section 21092.1.
- -
The, proposed final 'Elk is obviously a substantial
improvement' over the draft Elk in that it recognizes and
admits to'a large number of.inconsistencies with the
General Plan of the City of iFlicinitas and recognizes a number of adverse environmental impacts which cannot be
- mitigated to the levels of insignificance. '
These admissions are obviously a major consideration with respect 'to approval 'of the project and with respect to a
' potential statement of overriding considerations. -
The City is 'therefore urged to circulate the Elk and obtain further public comments and evaluation with
respect' to the 'various alternatives for the proposed
project.
DEC E 'sa a14C PAiE.üOi
*r. Patrick Murphy -
December 29, 1992
Page It
Conclusion:
Time restrictions prevent the submission of additional written comments prior to the deadline on today's date Additional coonts however will be provided prior to and/or at the time of
the public bearing scheduled for January 6, 1993. The I City. however is encouraged at this time to decide to renotico and to
recirculate the Elk Detailed comments from such agencies as the
Coastal Commission California Fish and Game the Regional Water
Quality Control Board would be- instructive with respect to what
type of -project, if any, ,should be approved.
Further circulation and review is also necessitated at this
time because many specified additions and. modifications to the
draft Elk cannot be foun& in the proposed final ELk document Such additions and modifications either were omitted from te documents
or they are fundasentalily 'buried (not intentionally) in such a
way as to render meaningful review and commentary is impossible
Thank you for your consideration of these matters.
Very truly yours,
JOHNS OLV d THY
Rev K. Johnson
EXJ as
cc Neighborhoods United for Quality of Life
- Scott's Valley Homeowner's Association .
• -.
-
VA 305. Laurie Price for Zucker Systems
December28,1992 305 The project applicant's representative indicated that the.
developable area in PA 3 was drawn along the boundary of the ZUCKER wetlands. However, based on the maps provided, the biologist
- Mr. Craig Ruiz has concluded that 0.39 acre of Disturbed Field Wetlands are
within the area designated for development.
5Y 57 Community Development Department -
City Of Encinitas As a result of the proposed project dredging and the expected
505 South Vukan future construction of Detention Basin D, it is possible that
Encinitas, CA 92024 the wetlands boundary in all of the Planning Areas (PAs) may - change. If the wetlands boundary shifts inward, toward the
Re: Response to Proposed Final EIR for Home Depot Specific Plan Creek channel, it is possible that the developable areas could
-be extended. However, since the Specific Plan did not include
wetlands buffers for PAs 3. and 4, it is likely that if the
DeàrMr.,Ruiz: .- - wetlands boundary shifts the former wetlands will be needed
for the minimum 50-foot wide wetlands buffers. In addition,
As stated in our February 1992 letter, we represent Jaik Pearce, the owner of the future of Detention Basin D is uncertain- and, if it is
the parcel identified as Planning Area 3 (PA 3) within the Environmental constructed, it will take a number of years to see any change
Impact Report for Home Depot Specific Plan. Although the Specific Plan and in the wetlands. However, this possibility is noted for the
EIR includes Our client's property as well as the Home Depot site, we have not record.
-
been involved with the prepa'ration of these documents. It should also be The 16 off-site acres required for California Gnatcather
noted that we requested to be included in meetings with staff and Home mitigation represents mitigation for ynatcatcher impacts fOr
Depot representatives as well as to participate in the development of the - the entire Specific Plan- Area. The owners of PAs 3 and 4 havd
planmrg specific :plari as it relates to our. property. Unfortunately we have been not-been asked to contribute to the acquisition of the off-p'
excluded from the planning process. .
site mitigation.
environment
This letter addresses our concerns with the Final EIR as it relates to PA 3, and
- An access road beyond PAl is not proposed as part of the Home
Depot project, and the TM does not indicate any access
development not the document as a whole. Since this EIR will be used as a basis for future -
-
. easement. If the owner of PA 3 proposes an access road that
environmental review on any proposed development in PA 3, it is important . impacts wetlands, the-owner-will be responsible for mitigating
management that the area is evaluated fairly, and mitigation be consistent with that wetlands impacts. Since the easement is not shown on the
proposed for the Home Depot site. Five areas of concern have been identified proposed TM, there is no mitigation required for the -project
and are addressed below: applicant for PA 1. -HOwever, if the Final Map is revised to hOuSrflg - - show an access easement that-impacts wetlands, the proposed.
- AWetlands_The northern boundary of the development envelope for PA 3
project will require additional environmental analysis and
possibly additional-wetlands mitigation. was not delineated by the PSBS, the biological consultant. Instead they
evaluated the development limit set by Home Depot consultants. The This is a. planning issue and does not challenge the adequacy PAUL C. ZUC( En delineation of the wetlands to be retained coincides with the pre-1982 flood or accuracy of the EIR. Therefore, the comment is noted-and
plain-and is described as "disturbed field wetlands." According to theEIR,-this no further response is required. . . -
preeceni 0.4-acre area Is not to be developed, but is to be retained as wetlands. 'In direct
conflict with this statement is Table 1.2-3 which indicates all the wetland area It should be noted that the Highlands in Encinitas development
will be lost to development. Which is correct? Also, is the requirement to -
is substantially higher than the site for the Home Depot
Center. The homes are visible from a substantially greater
retention the disturbed wetlands on PA 3 equivalent treatment to PA 1. area than the, site for the Home Depot Center. The' EIR 1545 hotel circle SOSS
suite 300 - proposed handling of their wetlands? . - . . - concludes - that the development of PA '1 will not have
significant view impacts but also identified inconsistencies sandego.ca BThe EIR states that area PA 3 is identified aswetlands on the basis of hydric 92108-3415 with the Encinitas Design Review Guidelines and General Plan
soils (pg. 3-116). The EIR also discusses the blockage-of the culverts at-the El policies. The EIR indicates that the alternatiye of using PA
1619) 260.2650 Camino Real intersection and an additional detention basin proposed on 3 as a borrow site and constructing a crib wall is more
12-364
a,. (619)260.1138
environmentally 'sensitive than the proposed project. If PA 3 is used as a borrow, site, the graded banks ar'O' expected to be,
about 8 feet-high, which would impact a very small portion of
Coastal Mixed Chaparral at the ba'se 'of the hillside.
Mitigation could be accomplished through the implementation of
an intensive planting program such as that proposed for the
impacted hillside in PAs 1 and 2.
C. The placement of business signs for PA'S 3 and 4 along El
Camino Real, within PA 1, would not have any significant
'environmental impacts and no mitigation would be required.
H. 'The EIR preparer overlooked the comment on" the last page of
Zucker System's February 18, 1992 letter. The following is a'
response .to those cdmment's
.The only sensitive plant species found within PA 3 is Coast
White Lilac (see' Figure 3.3-1). Sectio'n'3.3l.3.l, on page 3-
21, indicates'that there'are'approximately 50 plant's near the
southern boundary of the existing open space easement. Thus,
development of PA 3 as proposed in the Specific Plan would not
impact any sensitive plant-species.
'Approximately half of PA 3 has' been' identified as California
gnatcatcher habitat, and a pair of gnatcatchers has'nested in
'the 'northern' half of 'PA 3, within the area designated as
'developable in the Specific Plan (see Figure 3.3-1). However,
the off-site gnatcatcher mitigation being proposed by the
—applicant-for-PA -1-already-Ancludes- mitigation_-kor_ impacts to
the gnatcatchers within PA 3.' No additional mitigation' is
considered necessary.
Olivenhain Road. Regular maintenance of the culverts and/or construction
of the detention basin could significantly affect the watertable and soil
condition. The Army Corp of Engineers appears to have acknowledged this
possibility, and did not require wetland fencing for PA 3 along the Elk's
delineated wetland line; but instead, placed the fence, generally along the
northern propefty line of the planning area.
Since this EIR will be the environmental foundation, for any future
development of PA 3 it appears appropriate that the OR make some mention
of the possibility that. the, Oorthern portion of the site (now delineated as
wetland) might no longer be environmentally constrained after completion
of' the planned drainage improvements. ''Thus, the option 'of future
utilization of this area for development would riot-be, precluded
C California Gnatcatcher—The Elk proposes that 16 acres of off-site land should
be set aside for mitigation of project impacts to the gnatcatcher habitat. Is this
'for the total specific planning area, or only for., the I-lotne Depot site?
Development in PA I would significantly disturb the whole habitat, and
therefore, there should be mitigation prior to any development in the specific
planning area.
D Access—The EIR now states that access to PA 3 will be through PA I. lt'also
Indicates that the tentative map d6es not grant an easement, for an access road
at this time. The Planning Department has indicated that they will condition
- _____._..,___,,_the map_requiring -the-gran ling -of a_roadeasern,pt. This easement will run
parallel to, and in front of, the Home Depot structure. It will continue east to
connect with PA 3. The pOint of connection is within the area 'designated
"disturbed retland." The biological impact of this access point was not
evaluated within the E, this is'a deficiency in the document,
EA new traffic study evaluated the safety impacts of allowing traffic to cross PA
I to PA 3.' It determined that it would be safe-for 1000 ADT or 100 peak hour
trips'to be permitted. However, the EIR also stated that in the worse case
situation (Table 35-5) PA 3,and PA 4 would generate a total of 3840 ADT. By
providing an access easement, and not requiring a publ,iê road; the utilization
potential of PA 3 has been significantly reduced. It should be noted that the
own érs 1. ö( PA'3 1iere required by the City to provide a public road to PA 2,
when developing the upper portion of their property Why aren't the two situations being handled the same'
FGrading—When:the Highlands in Encinitas was processed, we were required
Jo minimize grading in this very high profile area. This' was accomplished at
great expense.: Custom designed, daylight basement house, plans were 'utilized
and extratime and money was required to meet the city's stringent land,use
12-365
• (I
requirements. The need for the highly sensitive design was that this is a
highly visible "entrance" to the city.
We feel that the present proposal for Home Depot does not conforming to
this need for sensitivity in grading and is inconsistent with the City's stated
goals for grading. According to the ErR, the present proposal for the Home
Depot project includes the grading of a 60-foot cut bank on the north facing
slope. Justification for this cut bank is that it will allow the developer to .
balance the movement of dirt on site. Although we do not wish to impede
the Home Depot proposal, this cut bank müst,be considered excessive. We
concur with the EIR that the alternative of constructing:a crib wall should be
utilized to reduce the land form modification impact to the community.
The EIR-indicatesthat the grading of the hillside could be substantially .
reduced by the use of a crib wall (38 feet). However, additional dirt would be
necessary if this alternative is used. Our client is willing to consider such
grading of his site, assuming appropriate compaction and slope stabilization - -
were preformed on both planning areas. This would eliminate the need for ,
hauling import dirt by truck (an adverse impact resulting from the crib wall
alternative).
A better solution, would be for Home Depot to acquire PA 3, whkh we again ,
state is available at fair market value. This would allow them to reorient the -
building .and parking lot, eliminating many of the environmental impacts . . . . which' need to be mitigated.
Whatever the final solution is with regards to limiting visual impact caused
by grading, it appears' that there Will be a north facing Cut bank. Assuming .
that all of the Planning Areas are treated equally, the EIR should make some . mention of an estimated height of -the graded banks on PA 3, and what would
-be expected as mitigation. This would set, the frame-work for any future -
development proposal,, and reduce the possibility for an additional ErR.'
G ig.ns—The EIR mentions in the review of the General Plan policies that
allowing signs for PA 3 and P.4 along El Camino Real would be in conflict '
with the City's Policy. 4.9 of the Resource Management Element. Such signs
would be essential for the development of the two interior planning areas.
Would, the 'placement of these Signs have any environmental impact, and if'
so, what,kind of mitigation would be appropriate?
HFinally it should be noted that the document's Response to Comment
Section, it overlooked the third page of our Feb. 18, 1992 letter. In particular,
we still desire a response to our comments on sensitive plants.. .
306
COUNTY ENG'NLEA - COUNTS AIIIPOATS
Coup. ry 0040 COMMI5SsOplE1l
TOANSPOOTAnON OPERATIONS
Counry SuACCYOR
FLOOD CONTROL
LIQUID WASTE
SOLID LYASIE
(1Io1114i. of itt piego
OACCTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
FAA liii 2O.AI 6555 OVUI.Ar.O AVE. SAN DIEGO CALITOANIA 021231795
January 7, 1993
Craig Olson
Assistant Planner
City of Encinitas
505 S. Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024-3633
Dear Mr. Olson:
Subject: Responses to County Public-Works letter of February 14,
1992, Draft EIR Home Depot Specific Plan and Tentative
Map, City of Encinitas, dated December 20, 1991, - -El Casino Real (SF1411), Olivenha'in Road (SA 680)
We have reviewed the subject responses -and find that some of our ( previous, commentshave not been adequately addressed. We have the
following comments: -
Traffic/Circulation
Please incorporate the following in the Draft EIR:
The County of San Diego does not accept a reduction
in the traffic generated due to "passerby trips".
Please revise the traffic study and text throughout
to reflect this comment. -
Include tables and map exhibits displaying buildout
traffic and percent traffic splits. Buildout year is
approximately 2010.
C. Provide ICU calculations for El Camino' Real and
01ivenhain road. Provide the appropriate number of
left-turn lanes for left-turn movements from El
Camino Real to Olivenhaiji Road. Also, provide
ICU. calculations for the main entrance intersection.
These intersections are to be designed and improved
to a level of service "C" or to the approval of the
Director of the Department of Public Works, Provide
right-of-way adequate to achieve level of service" "C',.
306. County of San Diego Department of Public Works
l.a. This statement is included on page 3-65 of the EIR, in Section
3.5.2.1.
1.b. Expected traffic conditions on relevant road conditions upon
buildout, with and without the project, are included in Table
3.5-12, on page 3-75. Expected intersection operations upon
buildout are included in Table 3.5-13, on page 3-76, in
Section 3.5.2.1. The percent distribution oftraffic expected
to be generated by the Home Depot project is included in
Figure 7 of Appendix 0, the original traffic analysis. The
supplemental traffic analysis contained in Appendix K includes
graphics showing the following for the year 2010 (buildout):
Estimated ADT-Without the Project, Estimated ADT With the
Project, Estimated AM Peak Hour Turning Movements Without the
Project, Estimated PM Peak Hour Turning Movements Without the
Project, Estimated AM peak Hour Turning Movements With the
Project, Estimated PM Peak Hour Turning Movements With the - Project (see Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7). Tables 1 and 2 of - Appendix K include the most current- projections for traffic
operations at buildout. These tables are included in the text
of the SIR as Tables 3.5-11 and 3.5-12, respectively.
l.c. Appendix K' includes the ICU calculations using the most.
current data. - Improvements to El Camino Real and
construction of the, signalized entrance will meet County
requirements.
l.d. As stated in the previous response to County comments, the
project applicant will dedicate the land for the expansion of
El Camino Real-to the City of Encinitas because it is under
the City's jurisdiction, east of current right-of-way for El
Casino Real. It will 'be up to 'the City to then dedicate the
land to the County.
I.e. The City of Encinitas requires that all access rights other
than the three proposed accesses be relinquished, and this
will be done. -
l.f. Please seethe earlier response to Letter # 17 by the'County,
Comment 1.1.
l.g. Please see the earlier response to Letter I 17 by the County,
Comment I.i.
- -• -
1.h. The only area in the project vicinity that is currently
unincorporated is 'the area to the west and northwest of, the
project area previously known as the Ecke Sphere, Ecke
property, or Ecke Agricultural' Preserve. However, a Specific
Plan is under preparation for this area, which is now known as
Encinitas Ranch and is going to be annexed to Encinitas. The
12-366
Mr. Olson
-. traffic analysis in the EIR addresses El Casino Real,,which is Page 2
- immediately adjacent to. the Ecke/Encinitas Ranch property, and January 7, 1993 LeucdiaBoulevard-;which'js expected to be extended west from
Olivenhain Road through the Ecke/Encinitas Ranch property.
The. only other unincorporated areas are approximately 2.5
miles to the soütheast'and northeast. Rancho Santa Fe is
located to the southeast, and a small portion of trips generated by the project may use El Casino Del Norte. -
', . . . However, theme trips are not expected' to significantly impact d. Provide right-of-way for the appropriate number of this road: To the northeast is-unincorporated land between left-turn lanes into the proposed signalized main.- Carlsbad and San Marcos. 'The unincorporated. area south of La - entrflce intersection.
- Costa Avenue is primarily undeveloped but could take access
from Rancho Santa Fe Road, which is addressed in the EIR. e. Relinquish access rights into El Casino Real except
- ' for the three entrances. Please be advised that - 1.i. The author of' this letter does not define appropriate El Casino Real is on the County Circulation Element. - - - mitigation measures." Sections 3.5.3 and 1.3.11 of the EIR
include recommended traffic mitigation measures. f. The alignment of Olivenhain Road should follow- the alignment of the attachment. '' 2.a. Ksstated in the response to' this comment in the County's
previous letter, this information has already been added to g. The intersection of El Casino Real and Olivenhain the EIR. It is included in Section 1.3.11.6. and 3.5.3.2, I Road shall be at right angles. 4.B.-
h. Identify traffic impacts associated with the above 2.b. Please' see the response to Letter I 17, comment 3.b. The in the unincorporated area. - tsituation has not changed.
i. Provide the appropriate-mitigation measures for the
- ( identified traffic impacts. -
-
2. Add the following to the mitigation meaüres:
Improve El Camino Real toTh one-half graded right-of-
- way width of 66 feet with 56 feet of asphaltic - concrete pavement over approved base with portland
cement-. concrete curb, gutter, bike lanes, and -
--' sidewalk 'with 'curb at 56 feet from centerline. - - - - - Provide a raised median for the full length 'of -
- - - frontage'on El Camino Real, except at the main' - - - entrance intersection. - -
--
Improve the west end of Olivenhain Road, and improve
the-El Casino real/Olivenhain intersection concurrent
with the improvements of El Casino Real Provide an
- - - -- additional- left-turn lane for southbound to eastbound - - - - traffic at 1.1 Camino Real/Olivenhain
- - - - - - 12-367 • . .
307
DEC Attention;
Mr Craig Olsen
City of. Encinitas 505 S. Vulcan Ave.
Encinitas, Ca. 92024-3633 December 19. 1992
Subject: Case e 9170
Dear Sir,
I am wr iting this letter to suport trie thought or xl lowing the oevelornent of The home. Depot project to go in a: the
ocation of El Camino Real and 011veha)n Road.:
feel that in tns bresent oeriod'of time of uncertair
revenues and cut oacks to be proposed by the goerrr-ng 3OCCS of the city that tnis center would be a bright light for tne
fut.re rf this city.
We, as resident tax payers and troperty owners know tnat we
can not shoulder all of the costa and ôo need C proper business tax base-to help with the Costs tokeeo the city
functioning and supply us with the needs tnat a growing city
must have.
can see that the improvements made to this area will more
than off-set any environmental concerns that have beer: raise:
by certain groups.
it will certainly carry traffic into the center that 15 flOw
going to Escondido and to Oceanside to get oroducts- wrich
homeowners need in thir every aay life in our city, not to
mention that ever needed sales tax b-ase which will be
returned to help with the operation of said city.
urge staff to give the ut-most cooperation to tnis cer:e
and to work with the owners of tris store to get tr'.e
- operation in and done a soon as oossible. -
We do not have, and haven't had a place to purchase the izemts
that this store will have, and at a price that we can afforc. for several years in-this area At least, they will have the
items as advertisec and availabl.è for sale wtn• out the ever present comment of another store in town., "We will give y:.
a Rainy-Check-".'
We do not need any more Rain Checks that wii send our
-- taxable do-lIars out.'of this city. Again, tnank'3c-u for your
considering this letter and hopefuily join with cur fam- iy that this will- helo all families in our city to help better
it's business and most importantly, the tax base.
307. Harold F. Crosby
This letter is advocating approval of the proposed project and does
..not challenge the adequacy or accuracy of the EIR. Therefore, no
further response is required.
12-368
FJ
*
This letter is bein9 submitted to comply itKi your 'advertisec!
deadline of December 29th for comments.
Respectively yours. .. -
Harold F.. Crosby ..
1541 Orangeview Drive - -
Encinitas, Ca. 92024
61.9-753-782-7
r-.-:il-. ca cuc.LtE.- ;I L7
308
City of -Carlsbad 1. • 308. City of
The updated information is The development appreciated.
proposed by the TM is ote upon the completion of Detention Basin D, as thought earlier. This point is
clarified in a follow-up study in September 1992 by ASL
Consulting Engineers. This study has been appended to the EIR
(see the Errata Sheet). However, the EIR doeà state that the
December 29,1992 Hose Depot Center should not be certified for occupancy until
the widening of Olivenhain Road along the-northern bàundary of
Planning Area 1 and the improvement of the Olivenhain Road/El
Patrick Murphy Casino Real intersection have been Completed.
Director.of Community Development 2. The City-.of Encinitas Engineering Department and Community ci of End ' Development Department staff have concluded that it is
. -505 S. Vulcan Avenue appropriate for the project applicant to contribute to the
Encinitas, CA 92024-3633 . funding of the-widening of Olivenhain Road and the improvement
of the intersection of El Casino Real and Olivenhain Road.
PREMUNARY FINAL F.I.K. FOR HOME DEPOT SPECInC'PIAN AND TENTATIVE
The project applicant -is not responsible for developing the engineering plans for the road- widening or intersection
- because the project is a result of cumulative traffic-from a
large area, of which PA 1 and 2 are only 'a small part.
DearPat, 3. Section 1.3.11.2, on page 1-40, has been revised to include
City of Carlsbad has completed review of the "Preliminary Final E.I.R" for the Home Depot this requirement as a mitigation measure (see Errata Sheet).
Specific Plan and Tentative Map and would offer the following comments and concerns: 4. The dredging proposed as part of the project will help to
alleviate -existing flooding problems.
1. The project analysis assumes that the Olivenhain Road Widening and
- Realignment and construction of Detention Basin D will occur in the near
5. Since the County of San Diego has not maintained the culvert
future. This was a reasonable assumption during early preparation of the
in the past, it has been deemed appropriate by; the City
Engineering Department staff- that the project applicant have DraftE.I.R Under the current economic climate itu unlikely that the project the responsibility for maintaining the creek bed elevation.
will happen in the foreseeable future. The project should be conditioned
assuming that these elements are not programmed at this-time. -
6. The median is required to prevent left-turns into the right- in, right-but only driveways. - This is discussed in Section
- 2. -The FUR conditions the project to contribute to the Realignment of 1.3.11.6 of the EIR. Also, the City of Encfnitae Engineering Department is requiring two left-turn lanes into the main
- Olivenitain Road through the projects frontage. It should be made clear titat entry for the Home Depot Center.
tüii-;iIz (halt) street improvements are to be provided Including all.curb, -
-
gutter sidewalks, trails, median islands, utility relocation costs, grading, - intersection d
bloloØcal mitigation and anyrequired rights of Way. should also :EJtin.ates Olivenhain Road and El Camino Real and WoodleyRo:d (the main
-
- -
Home Depot entrance) should -be interconnected. Additional
analysiswill be required to ensure that the two signils are
appropriately programmed However, these are technical
3. The project ahouldbc conditioned to construct or participate in Interim - engineering analyses that will not change the overall '
Improvement to the intersection of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road to conclusions and should not hold up the EIR
a achieve LOS C prior to occupancy of the Rome DCPOI. ImprovemenU should 7 The comment is noted -. be designed and bonded for prior to issuance of a building permit for the Home - Depät.
lmprovcmcntsto the intersection should be approvcd by the City Engineer of the City - of Carlsbad and incorporate as much of theisltinsate intersection design as pc*aibtc. 12-369
4 Detention Basin P will not be complete for a number of years. Any cugroochnimni - into the flood plane should bcdesigzscdastolnnowuyimpcdc the natural flow or Increase the lncidcncc of flooding of El Camino Real. - -
- • .
•
E.':rI. OF .eor• ;i--Z 1:Ic.Fn -
December 29, 1992
Patrick Mu yLetter .
PRELIMINARYFfNAI.. E.IR. FOR HOME DEPOT SPECIFIC PLAN AND TENTATIVE MAP
Page 2,
5 Adequile praviasos should be made to insure maintenance of the culvert, at the
intersection of El Camino Real and Olivenham Road prior to approval of any
encroachments into the flood planc. County maintenance has not proven adequate
in the P44 49441 may not occur in the future. The propcmcd maintenance does not
appear adequate to improve thecaiming condition.
Carlsbad concurs with the County that a median IsInd would be necessary to pivvcnt.
left turn amass to the most northerly drive entrance to Home Depot. Ills not clear
that this is included in the El Camino Real condition of approval.
Prior to approval of the final plans for El Camino Real further detail traffic studies
should analyze access to the site from El Camino Real and the Influcncc of the
entrance signalization on the intersection of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road.
The desirability of a signal interconnect should be-evaluated.
Should a median island be required impacts on drainage'should be carefully
considered.
& No mitigation for the project should be constructed within the future Impact zone of
the Olzvcnhain Widening and Realignment proeci and this area should remain free
of any casements or encumbrances that would Inhibit future construction or
permitting of that project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions please (ccl free to contact my
offlcó at any time.
Cordially, -- -.
- UBBS,P
ary
LBRiz -
C - CityMansgcr
- . Community Development Director -
Traffic Engineer
309
309. Sari Diego Biodiversity Project
San Diego Biodiversity Project DEC 91992
P0. Box 1944 j.1.,,,. Cl 92036
City of Encinitas Decembar 22, 1992
Planning Department
SOS South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas,- CA 92:24-;
Attn: Mr. Craig Olson, Assistant Planner
Re: i-lame Depot Preliminary Final EIR
Dear Mr. Olson,
A we have reviewed the biological resources report ior the
above project and would like to offer the following comments. But
a couple of questions come tornir,d first. Why, after releasing
this Controversial EIR during the holiday season, do you e:pect
folks to comment on its contents by December 29, 1992? That 's
only twelve days during the busiesttime of year, and we . feel
this action is totally inappropriate. The City of San Diego
grants a minimum of thirty days to make comments on a given
project, as do the Cities of Carlsbad, Poway, Escondido, Chula
Vista, Oceanside, etc... Please consider an e::tension to the
length of the public comment peTod. wi oZiF Ei ntsT - -
B 1) In the Draft EIR, Pacific Southwest Biological -Service
stated clearly that southern maritime chaparral occurs on the
Home Depot SPA. PSES only'made this admission aftr our group
- brought this issue to their attention. Now we find that all
chaparral on -the project -site has been- r-e-claisifiedas southern
mised chaparral. What happened? -
Even Holland's description of the-southern maritime chapr-
rai encompass the type of chaparral which occurs or. the Home
Depot SPA, and, this definition is etremeI restricti'e. We have
formulated a new description based or. Hollands. and ha-.-e cicu-
lated it through much of the acadaa.ic and, respcnsibl' -cc:su(tirg
ccmunty. Ou Draft definition-has been rev.ieuei andtentativelv
accepted by biologists with the Cit--cf San Diego, State of Cali-
forni tlaturalHeritage Program, US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Sweatwater Environmental Consulting, and Dudel: and Associates.
Although Recon Consulting has not re-.-iewed our definition, they
a:cept Holland 's definition of this vegetative community. Our
point ithat Pacific Scuthut- biologital Services is one of the
Only cnsulting firms that blatertiv ignc-rs this vegetative
community,: ever, after its 90Z reduction in range.
- The facts are treee:-The main indicators Of tr,e southerr,
maritime chanarral -egetative ccJemur,i incluOe presence of moist
m sumer and fall ocean fogs, usu!l- ip to tnreC miles inland,
unusual soil t:pes including the ,-,ei known L-.F2 sandstone, the presence of the Del liar man:inita, srz-s-temmed cesrothus, icrrey
and scrub-oal-, all in differant -phases ranging from, thick to very sparse (as or, sandstone cutcrop 5).. 0 be trCnk, - we
co:.u!dii t urite a better description of. the ch rral or, the Home
Please see the response to Letter I 304, Comment A.
The concept of Southern Maritime Chaparral as originally
proposed by Holland was never meant to encompass the broad
spectrum of varied chaparral resources and microhabitats now
scattered throughout coastal San Diego County. A vegetation
category must have some cohesive defining limitations which
would warrant a distinctive designation. Holland's original
classification notes that the distribution of Southern
Maritime Chaparral is "today restricted to Torrey Pines State
Reserve and a few scattered nearby locales." It was never
meant to encompass the broad spectrum of chaparral
microhabitats found in the region.
The smorgasbord of shrubs being touted by the San Diego
Biodiversity Project (SDBP; see letter to the City of
Encinitas of December 22, 1992) as indicator species of a more
broadly -defined Maritime Chaparral are found at literally
hundreds of locales; not the few envisioned by Holland. The
SDBP definition has already undergone several permutations
over the last year as past critiques have precipitated
substantial alterations. It becomes increasingly difficult to
rationally respond to any comments regarding a maritime
chaparral community whose very .,definition is consistantly
shifting. This amorphous and capriciously defined chaparral
as defined by SDBP, still cannot be readily separated from the
- regionally common.SouthernMixed Chapar.a1.._. -
A widely accepted definition of Southern Maritime Chaparral is
not yet available as the SDBP contends. Key botanists in the
region have yet to acceptany clear-cut definition. H. Weir
favors a strong edaphic tie of this habitat with sandstone
substrates as a critical ingrediant, but would like to further
consider the variables (pars. comm. January 1993). T.
Oberbauer sees a geographic limit to maritime chaparral which
unfortunatley becomes blurred to the east and northeast; he
also favors further consideration towards a workable
definition (pars. comm. January 1993). P. Bunch finds that
existing vegetation category definitions can be articifial,
and they may or may not reflect- the associations found in the
field; he sees a possible conflict between regulatory "need"
for categorization and scientific biological assessments
(pers.- comm. January 1993). - P.
define
is -looking
towards a spectrum- of traits- to maritime chaparral
including species richness, vegetation structure, and
sandstone. substrates, (pers. comm. January 1993). J. Messina,
an ecologist,' recognizes the dangers in an overly subjective
interpretation of this vegetation type (pers. comm. January
1993), but is provisionally identifying likely, areas of
maritime chaparral; If the basis for a distinction between
12-371
-, --.
-. -
Southern Mixed Chaparral and Southern Maritime Chaparral is on
strictly botanical grounds, a definition proposed by botanist
Craig Reiser of Pacific Southwest focuses on the relictual
habitat of the Torrey Pine and a cluster of., very rare plants such as Dudleya brevlfolia, Erysimum aramophilum, and Coreopsis marltima. This provides a natural grouping whose affinities
are with insular plant species (already well documented as
distinctive plant associations), are strongly correlated with
beach bluffs and sandstone outcrops, as well as with repeated
fogs uncommon on a regular basis elsewhere along the County
coastlines. Such ,a conservative floristic grouping has a
geographical and inter-related climatic, identity which
provides a scientific basis for consideration as a distinctive
vegetation category; moreover, a grouping which quite
obviously includes endangered elements, and is worthy-of
regional protection and some official status cumulatively as
a sensitive resource. Additionally, it corresponds very well
,with Holland's original description of this vegetation
community. .A consensus opionion is 'obviously not yet forthcoming.
The- SDBP definition includes a. number of diverse shrub
elements to define a maritime chaparral. Coastal Scrub Oak
(Quircus dumosa, excluding the Inland Scrub Oak form knownas
Quercus berbarldifolia), a species still not adequately
published in a scientific journal, is wide-ranging away from
the coast. It is locally common in Poway, in the canyonlands
througout Linda Vista, Clairemont, and Kearney Mesa; as well
as on HAS Miramar and south onto Otay Mesa'.. Are these areas
to be included under the auspices of an umbrella category
known as Maritime Chaparral? This does not seem a practical
approach.
Coast White Lilac is a dominant shrub of the hills west of
Interstate 15 from San Marcos south to Rancho Penasquitos. It
occurs by the many tens of thousands in such higher numbers
than anywhere near the coast; nevertheless, it 'is a Type 1
indicator species under the SDBP definition? Are all these
Inland locales Maritime-Chaparral? Many of these areas are,
within the Cieneba soil series, a soil type with low fertility
quite widespread in cismontane San Diego County, and certainly
well beyond a viable expanded range for a maritime chaparral
community.
Del Mar Manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa'var. crassifolia)
is less common than the previous two ' species and is
substantially more sensitive. This shrub is found on' Cerro
Jesus Maria in Baja California, the small mountain south of
Otay Mountain. and just across the U.S. border which is largely
metavolcanic in origin. . The manzanita ranges southward in
Baja to four miles "east" of Cerro Coronel and also at Mess de
Descanso east of Medio Casino. Is this a good indicator
12-372
The loss of 21.4 acres of this habitat from the buildout of
the SPA will require mitigation. IT IS A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT. With the drastic reduction in range of this habitat, a 3-
4:1 mitigation ratio will be required depending on the quality of
the site chosen for purchase. The only way impacts to this habi-
tat can be mitigated onsite is through the elimination of Plan-
ning Area 2 (Bluff Top Residential) and preservation of the
majority of e::tant chaparral. Appropriate offsite mitigation
locations include the Ecke Ranch and Carmel Mountain. If the SPA
is built out as planned, any remaining habitat value will be
eliminated through isolation and edge effect. Critters presently
using this property will be impacted by the much increased human
presence, and will not survive in this area for more than ten
years. This is why we state that all 21.4 acres WILL BE LOST.
Last year, we submitted a letter to the City of Encinitas
addressed to our group by Mr. Todd Keel er-Wolf of the California
Natural Heritage Program. Mr. Ieeler Wolf is an e::pert vegetation
ecologist,, and having visited the Hose Depot property, was of the
opinion that the site supported southern maritime chaparral. Did
the City lose or ignor this letter? How does the City . feel in
that they are allowing a consultanting firm that differs in
opinion on this subject from just about EVERYONE else to continue
working on this issue? Remember, in science, majority rules.
Please consider requiring Home Depot to hire a Consulting firm
not presently involved in this mess to offer a second opinion on
the issue of the southern maritime chaparral on the Home Depot..
SPA. Perhaps then, an agreement can be reached.
This concludes our comments on the biological resources
report for the Home Depot SPA Preliminary Final EIR.
Sincerely, -? /i-.s.r-_ avid Hogan, Coordinator
species of Maritime Chaparral or just a western element of a
much wider ranging complex that includes another coastal and
foothill subspecies in the region (.arctostaphylos glandulosa mapzacaensis)?
Bush Poppy (Dendromecon rigida 6sp. rigida) is considered a
very poor choice as a Type ,.1 Indicator Species (as noted by
SDBP definition) for maritime chaparral. In San Diego County
this showy shrub is concentrated in the Laguna Mountains with
some outlier populations lightly scattered along the coast
It ranges northward to Shasta County.
Mohave Yucca (Yucca schidigera) is another very questionable
Type 1, Indicator Species (as noted by SDBP definition). This
large, shrub has a strong desert t,affinity with a sizeable
population at the western edge of the Anza-Borrego Desert
This is. further reflected in both its common name and its
localized abundance on the southern Mohave Desert:
It is time, that USFWS and other local agencies re-examine
their support for a vegetation category which is currently
being utilized ambiguously. Such , a concept ' must have
scientific merit and not merely the weight of generalized
agreement amongst disparate and largely non-critical groups.
' That Pacific Southwest, with unparalleled botanical experience
in, the region, does-not always acquiesce to such expansive
delineations of this very rare habitat type, is
. . . understandable. ' The San Diego Biodiversity Projects
contention that "majority 'rules" in science (and in the matter
of this issue of Southern Mixed Chaparral) is both ludicrous
from a scientific standpoint, and untrue from a project
specific standpoint. Mr. Hogan of SDBP cites no San Diego
County botanists, in his unsubstántiatéd generalization
maintaining that "everyone els.e".;supports his much expanded
definition. -
Employing a single, specific plant species as the-deciding
factor to delineate Southern Maritime, Chaparral--such. as
Coastal Scrub Oak, Coast White Lilac, or Del Mar Manzanita--
canndt be supported from a scientific. perspective; -
partIcularly if an assessment (disregarding this., single," on
site species) is just as readily applicable to the more
regionally'common Southern Mixed Chaparral.. Apparently, still
another revised definition by SDBP advocates the presence of
four traits selected from a series of indicators We have not
been given a copy of this latest draft definition Curiously
the SDBP did not provide Pacific Southwest with its previous
definition for input, this despite its contention it has been
seeking consensus H Weir (senior botanist at Dudek and
Associates) could not recall (Pere. comm January 4 1993) Hr.
Hogan asking for his- assessment of.. the SDBP definition. '..of
Southern Maritime Chaparral,'as claimed in Mr. Hogan's letter.
12-373
o .
The absence of a consensus definition for maritime chaparral
does- not discount the importance of individualpiant resources
(e.g., Del Mar Manzanita- or Orcutt's Spineflower) and.
of significant populations; but nt -does discount the inappropriate use of "umbrella" vegetation
categories designed for ex post facto preservation of specific
sites. Any chaparral near the coast of San Diego County is
not necessarily Southern Maritime Chaparral (as it is most
recently being perceived in its broadest context) I nor is there necessarily some intrinsic value for such habitat not - found in tracts of chaparral further inland: The USFWS letter
notes that at least half the chaparral on site should be
considered Southern Maritime Chaparral,'1 indicating the.,'.,
Service* itself pórcejves up to half, of the chaparral as-
belonging to a Southern Mixed Chaparral designation. What specific criteria are they utilizing to make such a
distinction between the two types? Is it merely the presence
of the Del -Mar Manzanita in localized areas on-site? Pacific
Southwest's assessment of the chaparral at the Home Depot site
has already addressed -the extensive loss of chaparral habitat
along the'coast,.-and the perceived sensitivity of the
chaparral at this áite. A 50% maximum threshold for impacts V V was recommended. • -
V
•--. -
V The absence of .a consensus definition for maritime chaparral
does not discount the importance of individual plant resources-.
(e.g., -Del Mar Manzanita or 0rcutts Spineflower) and- V conservation/protection of significant populations but it
does discount the inappropriate use of 'umbrella' vegetation
categories designed for ex post facto preservation of specific
sites Any chaparral near the coast of San Diego County is
not necessarily Southern Maritime Chaparral (as it is most
recently being perceived in its broadest context) nor is
there necessarily, some intrinsic value for such habitat not
found in tracts of chaparral further., i-nland The USFWS letter, - notes that at least half the chaparral on site should be
cOnsidered -Southern Maritime Chaparral indicating the Service itself perceives up to half of the chaparral as
belonging to a Southern Mixed Chaparral designation What specific criteria are they utilizing to make such a
distinction between the two types? Is it merely the presence
of the Del Mar Manzanita in localized areas on-site? Pacific
Southwest's assessment of the chaparral at the Home Depot site
has already addressed the extensive loss of chaparral habitat
V V - along the V cOast, and V the- perceived sensitivity - of the . - . - V chaparral at this site. • A 50% maximum threshold for impacts
V - - was recommended. V -
-
V •
The site was specifically discussed by Pacific Southwest with
the COFO J Vanderwier, then a'-representative of CDFG was
consulted concerning the site and regarding the local issue of
the Orcütt Is' Spineflower. Todd'Keeler-Wolf of the State's
12-374
Heritage Program was directly consulted regarding the use of
Southern Maritime Chaparral designation At the time, he agreed with the project botanist that the definitions for this
vegetation "type .needed to be redefined, and that he would
attempt additional field work on this issue.
It is timethat USFWS ana other local agencies re-examine
their support for a vegetation category which: is currently being utilized ambiguously. Such a concept must have scientific merit and not merely the weight of generalized
agreement amongst disparate and largely non-critical groups
That Pacific Southwest,"with unparalleledtanca n boil experiece in the region does not always acquiesce to such expansive
delineations of this very rare habitat type is undestandable. The San Dieó. Biodiversity Project's
contention that 'majority rules" in science (and in the matter
of this issue of Southern Mixed Chaparral) is both ludicrous
from a scientific standpoint and untrue from a project
specific standpoint Mr. Hogan of SDBP cites no San Diego
County botanists in his unsubstantiated generalization
maintaining that "everyone else" supports. his much expanded
definition.
12-375
V V.
DEC-29-92 TUE 17:28 Us PUS FAX NO. 6I91319624 P.02
310.
United States Department of the Intel- ioi VRM -
Full ANU WILDUFE SER\10E FISH AND WILDLIFE ENHANCEMENT - S
Cl'bad Field Office
2730 Loker Avenue West -
Carlsbad, California 92008
December 29, 1992 Mr. Craig Olson,
Assistant Planner
City of Encinitas
505 S. Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024-3633
Re: Preliminary Final. Environmental Impact Report for Home Depot Specific Plan and tentative Map, Encinitas, California
Dear Mr. Craig:
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the Preliminary Final Environmental Impact Report (ELK) for Home Depot Specific Plan and Tentative Hap and we have the following comments.
The proposed project consists of the development of a 55.5•acre site into four
Planning Areas and deeignsres the areas for Light Industrial, Residential and
Open Space. Once adopted the Specific Plan will also serve as zoning for the
four Planning Areas. The land uses for Planning Area 1 and 2 include the
development of a Home Depot Home Improvcmanc Center on 10 acres, residential
development on 6.86 acres, 935 acres of wotland enhancement, and 11.1 acres
of hillside open apace, of which 7.9 acres consist of natural hillside. The
cumulative effects of development of all four planning areas on biological resources are discussed in .the document. The Final Elk contains an updated
analysis of the impacts to the California gnatcatcher, additional mitigation
measures have been proposed. and a California Cnatcatcher Mitigation
Alternative has been added.
CENERAL COMMENTS
The Service has the legal responsibility for the welfare of all migratory
bird,, enadromous fish, and endangered animals and Plants occurring in the
United States. The Service has responsibilities under the Clean Water Act and
the Endangered Species Ace of 1973, as amended (Act). Our mandates require
that we provide comments on any public notice issued for a Federal permit or
license affecting the Nation's waters, in particular, Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) permits pursuant to section 404 of the Clean Water Act and section 1.0
of the River and Harbor Act of 1899. The Service is responsible for the
administration and enforcement of the Endangered Species Act, including
listing and recovery of endangered species, 10(a) permit issuance and..
consultation with Federal agencies for actions which may affect federally
listed endangered species. Section 9 of the Act additionally prohibits the
°take (e.g. harm, harassment, pursue, injure, kill) of federally listed fish
and wildlife species.'Harm" is further defined as an act which may result in
significant habitat modifica:ion or degradation where it actually kills or
310. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
A. The concept of Southern Maritime Chaparral as originally
proposed by Hollandwas never meant to encompass the broad
spectrum of varied chaparral resources and microhabitats now
scattered throughout coastal San Diego County. A vegetation
category must have some cohesive defining limitations which
would warrenta distinctive designation. Holland's original
classification notes that the distribution of Southern
Maritime Chaparral is "today restricted to Torrey Pines State
Reserve and a few scattered nearby locales." It was never
meant to encompass the broad spectrum of chaparral
microhabitats found in the region. -,
The smorgasbord of shrubs . being touted by the San. Diego
Biodiversity Project (SDBP; see letter to the City of
Encinitas of December 22, 1992) as indicator species of ,a more
broadly defined Maritime Chaparral are found at literally
hundreds of loóales; not the few envisioned by Holland. The
SDBP definition has already, undergone several permutations
over the last year as past critiques have precipitated,
substantial alterations. It becomes increasingly difficult to
rationally respond to. any comments regarding a maritime
chaparral community whose very definition is consistantly
shifting.- This amorphous and capriciously defined chaparral
as defined by SDBP, still cannot be readily separated from the
regionally common Southern Mixed Chaparral
9 On Page 54, Item 14 of our report, the cribw all design is
recommended to mitigate potential impacts to the Coastal Scrub
Oak.- Potential habitat for the Del Mar Manzanita is also
protected by such a cribwall design. -
C. The concept of Southern Maritime Chaparral as - originally
proposed by Holland was never meant to encompass the broad
spectrum of varied chaparral resources and microhabitats now
scattered throughout coastal San Diego County. A vegetation
category must have some cohesive defining limitations which
would warrent a distinctive designation. Holland's original
classification notes that the distribution of Southern
Maritime Chaparral is "today restricted to Torrey ?nes State
Reserve and a few scattered nearby locales It was never
meant to encompass - the broad spectrum of chaparral
microhabitats found in the region. .
The smorgasbord of shrubs being touted by the San Diego
Biodiversity Project (SDBP; - see letter to the City of
Encinitas,of December 22, 1992) as indicator species of a more
broadly defined Maritime Chaparral are found at literally
hundreds of locales; not the few envisioned by Holland. The
SDBP definition has .already undergone several permutations
over the last year as past critiques have precipitated
l2-376
DEC729-92 TUE 11:28 US EWS FX NO. 6194319624 P.03
injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behaVior patterns
including breeding, feeding or sheltering (10 CFR 17.3). lake' can only be permitted pursuant to the pertinent language and provisions In sction 7 and eectton 10(a). The take provisions apply upon the effective data of listing
In the Fi,,al Rule published in the Federal Peierer.
The proposed project will advrae1y impact one pair of the proposed endangered
California gnatcatcher (ZS1I.slililll californica). Project impacts to the California gnatcatcher and its habitat are proposed to be mitigated through the-off-site acquisition of at least 16 acres of suitable inatcaccher 'habitat
that is occupied by California gnatcatchers, connects with other habitat, and
is compatible with existing and planned land uses. A site,is proposed near
Lake Hodges.
Should the California gnatcatcher become a federally listed endangered
species: the above stated take prohibitions would apply,' regardless of the
acap- in the iseuance.of City. County or State developmeiit permits. The
Service will be carefully considering. the impacts of the subject project and
other projects in the region to determine whether on-site or off-sits
mitigation i, best advised for this species.
We commend the City and the project applicant for developing a California
Gnetcatcher Mitigation Alternative, V. recommend that the Service, the City
of Encinitas. the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the
project applicant meet ons'lto to review this alternatie. Pcel'imihari1', •fj
Service recommends that tha open space designated for the California
gnatcatcher be directly connected to the wetland open space in Planning Areas
1.and-4,-possiblybyadjoIning--co-theSDc&C power-l-ine -easement- -- ----------- -
The Service, however, remains opposed to the proposed project based, in part, on the impact to wetlands and the inadequacy of the proposed uitigation of Impacts to these wetlands. The proposed project will impact 6,8 acres of wetland habitat, The proposed mitigation includes .7 acres of wetland
creation and 3.2 acres of wetland enhancement. Thus, the proposed mitigation
allows a 4.1 acre net loss of wetland habitat to occur, It is Service policy
to oppose actions which result in a net loss of wetland habitat. Giveuthat
the State of California has lost 911 of its wetland resources, the Service
strongly rec'ommends against the City of Eacinitas allowing a net loss of
wetland habitat, acreage.
SPECIFIC COM.5iEiIS
The document. describes chaparral-as 'southern mixed chaparral". The Service believes that a significant amount of this habitat 'is actually, "southern maritime chaparral which is cor.sidsribly more rascri'cted in its current distribution and abundance. The table states' chat 'impacts to this habitat and sensitive species of plants are not significant after mitigation. .' Since a significant portion of this 'chaparral is actually southern maritime chaparral,
any,off.site acquisition should specifically target this association
(1.3.3:11. pg. 1-36).
substantial alterations. It becomes increasingly difficult to
rationally respond to any comments regarding a maritime
chaparral community whose very 'definition -is consistantly
shifting. This amorphous and capriciously defined chaparral
as defined by SDBP, still cannot,be readily separated from the
regionally common Southern Mixed Chaparral.
On Page 54,' Item #4 of our report, the cribwall design is recommended to mitigate potential impacts to the Coastal Scrub Oak. Potential habitat for the Del Mar Manzanita is also
protected by such a 'cribwall design.
A widely accepted'definition of Southern Maritime Chaparral is
not' yet available as the SOUP contends. Key botanists in the
'region have yet to accept any clear-cut definition. H. Weir
favors a strong edaphic tie of this habitat with sandstone
substrates as a critical i'ngrediant, but would like to further
consider the variables (pers. comm. January .1993). T. Oberbauer sees a geographic limit to maritime chaparral which unfortunatley becomes blurred to the east and northeast; he also favors further consideration towüds ' a workable definition (pers. comm. January 1993). 'P. Bunch finds that existing vegetation category definitions can be articifial, and they may or may not ref lect the associations found in the field; he sees a possible conflict between regulatory "need"
for categorization 'and scientific biological -'assessments
(pers. comm. January 1993)'. P. Gordon-Reedy 'is lOoking
towards a spectrum of traits to define maritime chaparral
-- -- -including- _species. —richness , ..vegetation . structure,_ -and-sandstone substrates (pers. comm. January 1993). J. Messina, an ecOlogist,, recognizes the dangers in an overly subjective
interpretation of this vegetation type (pers. comm. January
1993), but is provisionally identifying likely areas of
maritime chaparral*. If the basis for a distinction between Southern Mixed Chaparral and Southern Maritime Chaparral is on
strictly botanical grounds, a definition -proposed by botanist Craig Reiser of Pacific Southwest focuses on the relictual habitat of the Torrey Pine and a'cluster of very rare plants
such as Dudleya brevirol.f a, Rrysimum ammophilum, and'C,oreopsiS
saritima. This provides a natural grouping whose affinities
are with. 'insular plant species (already well documented as
distinctive plant associations), are strongly correlatOd with
beach bluffs and sandstone outcrops, 'as well as with repeated
fogs uncommon on ,a regular basis elsewhere along the County
coastlines. ' Suáh 'a' conservative f1oisic 'grouping has-a
geographical and inter-related crimatic identity -. which provides a scientific basis for consideration as a distinctive
vegetation category, moreover, a grouping which quite
obviously "includes endangered elements, and is worthy of
S regional protection and some official status cumulatively as
a sensitive resburáe'. Additionally, it corresponds very well with Holland's original description of this vegetation
12-377
A Tables: 1.2'1. 1-2.2 end 1-2.1. Sn.znmary. of Poteniially,jjgcjjicanr Impacts, Poses-I-ID. 1-11 and 1-19: . . .
DEC-29-92 TUE I129 US FUS FAX NO. 8943124 P.04
HE. Craig Olson
B The crib wall alternative has been"dismissed" according to language on page
-l?.. It is unclear whether this alternative is cili being concidered as a
possible mitigation measure. The EIR should clarify this point. Because of
thesignificance of southern maritime chaparral '(see comment under 3.3.1.1), avoidance of impacts to this habitat type should be addressed in the L1R. In
Cthe event that avoidance is not feasible than off-ire mitigation should be
sought in addition to restoration or enhancement on the project site. The Service recommends a 2:1 replacement ratio. The Service estimates that at
least half the chaparral on site should be considered southern maritime
chaparral.
1.3.3.12 loss of Del Mar ilencanita and Coast White Lilac. Page l)j,
The loss of Del Mar aanzauita (Arcto "pliylos g1snd1osa asp. rrssffol1s) and coast white lilac (Ceanoth,a 'e4rtncoe(Is) is of concern to the Service. The
success criteria for mitigation of impacts to these species is baàed on
insufficient monitor ing.tioe, success should be based on successful
establishment 3-3 years after planting not six months. Although direct D Impacts through grading will only impact four Del. Her raanzanita plants.
another dozen individuals are within the vegetscion-thinning zone of the fuel
modification zone.. Indirect impacts from fragentacion could potentially
threaten considerably more individuals (Del Mar -mancanita is more Widespread
than indièated on the maps within this document, the map show impacts to only
two individuals,) The effects of vegetation thinning on Del Mar ,manzanita are
unknown and potcntia1ly'dtrimental for long term preservation. This should
be reflected in. the document. At this time the Service is' aware of only one
relocation effort and it had a BOX failurerare' for Del Mar 'canzanita after 5
years. IC-is important to note that there are fewer than 6,000 individuals of
Del Her manzanita remaining and that nearly 501 are currently threatened by
approved and prdpoeed project. The Home Depot project contributes to the
cumulative loss of this sensitive—species and its habitat. -
3.3.1.1 Biological Reeources. Papa 3.16 - -. -
G
E
As previously stated the Secvice. considers much of the chaparral. on the 1-loins
Depot site to be southern maritime chaparral, not soucharn-mixed chaparral.
The document state, that' southern maritime chaparral is strongly correlated
with the occurrence ofTorrey Pine (fjg correvena sip. torrovana), coast
wall-flower (rvsimuo asmophiliun), short-leaved dudleya (Dudleva brevifolia),
and sea dahlia (Csrapets aritima). - The Service believes this 'to be, incorrect. Southern maritime chaparral is associacedwith Torrey pine in less than 25% :of its range. Coast wall-flower has effectively been extirpated from FSan Diego County for 30 years and short'leaved-dudlsya is associated with
specific soil,. According to Holland (CDFC) Southern maritime chaparral is characterized by Adenostoma fasciculatun, Xylocpccus bicolor, Ceanothue
verrucossus. Lg,g eche4lpra, OXIArcus diiinoss, and Arctostastiyloa vianduinsa
asp.- crassifolia. All these species are present and in some cases, abundant, on the Home Depot site. -
In 1991 Tom Obetbsuer and Julie Vanderwier determined that southern maritime chaparral remained on lass than 2,500 acres in San Diego County (out of an
- community.A consensus opionion is obviously not 'et
forthcoming. - - - -
F. The. USFWS letter im,incorrect in stating that the Coast
Wallflower (Erysisum ammophilum) has been extirpated from the
County for thirty years. It. survives on the northwestern --
flanks of Carmel Mountain, the eastern edge- of the Torrey
Pines Preserve, near the Flower Hill Mall in Encinitas, and
near the Wire Mountain housing project on Camp Pendleton. -
C. The concept of Southern Maritime Chaparral as originally
- proposed by Holland-was never meant, to encompass the broad
spectrum-of varied chaparral resources and microhabitats now
scattered throughout coastal San Diego County. A vegetation - category must have some cohesive defining limitations which would warrent a distinctive designation. Holland's original
classification notes that the distribution of -Southern
Maritime Chaparral is 'today restricted toTorrey Pines State
Reserve and a few scattered nearby locales." It was never - meant to encompass the -broad spectrum of -chaparral - - microhabitats found in the region.
The smorgasbord' Of shrubs being touted by the San Diego'
Biodiversity Project (SDBP; see - -letter to the, City of
Encinitas of December 22-, 1992) as indicator species of a more
'broadly defined Maritime Chaparral are found at literally hundreds of locales; not the few-envisioned by Holland. The
-. SDBP definition has already undergonO several permutations - over the last year as past critiques have precipitated
substantial alterations.' It becomes increasingly difficult to
rationally- respond to any comments regarding a maritime
chaparral, community whose very - definition- is consistently shifting. This amorphous and-capriciously defined chaparral
as defined by SDBP, still cannot be-readily separated from the
regionally common Southern Mixed Chaparral.
H. The project botanist' agrees that thisplant is located at
numerous locales within several miles of the site. He has
noted it at dozens of such nearby locales over the last. two - decades.- During late spring 1992 several hundred plants
throughout the 'Home:-Depot site, were examined; all had the
distinctive glandular involucres of CorethrOgyno fllaginifolia
var. virgata, not var. 1in1to11a Both are common in the
region. Variety linitolia is not being, maintained as
distinctive within- the new Jepson botanical treatment for
California due out in early 1993. The purportedly -key trait - of a hairy involucre is noted at a variety of varying habitats
and in very different regions. Pacific Southwest recognizes
a strong geographic trend for reputed variety linifolla-in the
region, and in the absence of more detailed genetic testing
will take a conservative approach and continue to maintain its
integrity within our reports. It has not been identified on
12-378
DEC-29-92 TUE 11:30 US FWS FAX NO. 6194319624 P.05
the Home Depot site. Nr. Craig Olson 4
Chorizanthe parryl var. fernandlna has always been questioned
as a valid taxon for San Diego County, by the project botanist. estimated original 20.000 acres). Currently., over 600 acres of this is In fact, there are no known specimens for the County,-an old proposed or approved for development. It Is one of the most threatened plant collection was found to be incorrectly annotated. J.L. Reveal associations in California. Because of decline and the large of does not consider San Diego as within thehistoric or present sensitivu plants associated with this community, any impacts should be avoided range of this species. or mitigation should result in an overall improved situation for the habitat
on a regional bazii, V Chox-izanthe orcuttiana, the rarest specie's in the County, is - presently known onlyfrom Oak Crest Park where it was found by S V Del Mar sand aster, iina filgia var. fljfjjg) is found within the project botanist in 1991. VIt was specifically searched
V)1 mile of thVe site aiid,Wa occurrence at the Home Depot site, is likely. The V for at the Hose Depot site but could not be located. document .state'a'that plants were checkcd.and found not to be the sensitive variety. The Service would like to examine the species on site to confirm
-:--
V - lieinizonia australis is presently only known from one coastal this determination, locale in San Diego County where it was observed by the project botanist in the salt marshes near the 'Del Mar The tars plant discussion should also include discussion concerning Otcutt'g Racetrack. It-is'-not expected on site. V I spine-flower (Chorizanthe .g,g.jgg) which is known within '2 miles of the , - site thread leaved brodisea (irodisea iflI.jJjg) [federal Category 1 ilazaz-dia orcuttii is only known from a single U S locale candidate for listing as endsngèred or. threatensdj, 0rcutt'a brodiaca This site lies several miles to the south of Home Depot. (Brodiaca otcutrii) (Federal Category 21, San Fernando Valley spine-flower
V (Chorizanthe-.g.gy.j vat, farna,ndjn) (Federal Category I). knotweed Brodiaea fillfolia has not been collected in the vicinity of spineflower IcNPS List lb epeciis and a recommended Federal Category 21, the project site; this area is well south of all but one known summer holly (Comarostaohylns diverstfolig asp. diverzilolt-a) (Federal - collection. V Cagegory 21. 0rcutt'a hazardia (Hazardia puttii) (Federal Category 21 and V V southern spikeweed (Ijemizonia ac..gjjg) (CNPS List 3 and 'e recommended Comaz-ostaphylis djvorsifolia ssp. diversifolla is potentially F.doa1Category2 ). Bssd on tnforsacton,within our files. cheespece present in very limited n'umbers on site. This shrub, which have been found in the vicinity of the project site. ...-
- 2i1 beii'fàubd Vat sëvèialV dàien new rocare....by thd' project botanist within the last five years, could not be located on 3.3.1.3.2 Wildlife and Wildlife. Habitat, Page 3.25: V site. - -
- V
J It is very isportant.,that the method and time of trapping for -the Pacific The USFWS letter is incorect in asserting this information is pocket souse Is stated in the tla. It is a difficult species to find and licking-from the technical-report. Page 3 of the PSBS report hibernates in the winter. The report should clarify trapping methods. (from 23 September 1992) inclüdesen entire paragraph clearly
- noting'.methodhlogy and trapping dates for this species (i.e., - Note that the report does not discuss a number of candidates cleat could occur July 10, July 13) on-site including the coastal rosy boa, southern California rufous-crowned
sparrow. San Diego banded gecko San Diego ringnack snake, San Diego horned The USFWS letter is incorrect in V asserting a lack of lizard coast patch nosed snake and two-striped garter snake fasod on discussion of the San Diego Horned Lizard and the Two-striped Information within our,' files., several oT.thesa species are known to occur Garter Snake. Half a page is devoted to the former on.Page 40 within-3 miles-of the 'projeci site on similar habitat.
- (from PSBS report of -23 September 1992) ,. while a similar space is devotedto, the latter on Page 42. TaMe. 3:3-1 and 3.3.3 Impacts. Pages 3-21 and 329:
rock habitat is not developed at the sandstone L Suitable Add southein maritime chaps cal to the tjbles and determine extent of twpat dominated Home Depot site for the San Diego Banded Gecko
r Lawence Klauber s historical maps for this species show no 3.3.2.2 Plonin, Area I Page 3-331 collections for San Diego County closer to the project site
the rocky areas surrounding Lake Hodges and none near M than Impacts to southern maritime chaparral sl'suld be considered signi fica the immediate coast from Oceanside to La Jolla Why does the Restoration alone will not mitigate impacts to below significant off site CDFG consider this species likely to occur on the "site on acquisition should be Includsd as a mitigation measure.
V similar habitat" than known occurrences? V This species is not
V - - 12-379
. 07'
4
expected on-mite,
The Coast Patch-nosed Snake, the San Diego Ringneck Snake, and
the Rosy Boa are wide ranging in San DiegoCounty. The Coast
Patch-nose is apparently uncommon from the immediate coast
with historical' collections at Del Mar and Enciñitas; it
usually is collected further inland. The San Diego Ringneck
Snake is potentially present on site in mesic'situations, The
Rosy Boa historically occurred 'in the area, though it is more
common' inland; this unaggressive species may not' readily
survive on the urban periphery such as at the Home Depot site.
Presence of any of these three species 'would not significantly
alter-the biological assessment of the site report..
The Southern California, Rufous-crowned' Sparrow,'.is 'still
locally common in;sage scrub in the-region. It prefers a more'
open shrub canopy than is found throughout mast of the site.
Nevertheless, it can potentially occupy limited habitat on the
property, but was not observed on-site
L The concept of Southern Maritime Chaparral as originally
proposed by Molland:was never meant to encompass the, broad spectrum of varied chaparral resources and microhabit,ats now
scattered throughout coastal San Diego County. A vegetation
category must have some, cohesive defining limitations which.
would warrent a distinctive designation Holland's original
classificátián notes that, the distribution .of 'Southern
Maritime Chaparral is 'today restricted to Torrey Pines State
Reserve and a few scattered nearby locales " It was never meant to encompass the broad spectrum of chaparral
microhabitats found in the region
The smorgasbord of shrubs being touted by the San Diego
Biodiversity Project (SDBP; -see letter to the City. of Encinitas of December 22, 1992) as. indicator 'species of a. more
broadly defined Maritime Chaparral are found at literally
hundreds of-locales;-not the few envisioned by Holland. The.
SDBP definition has already undergone several permutations
over the -. last, year as past critiques . have precipitated
substantial alterations. It becomes increasingly difficult,to
rationally respond to any comments regarding a.maritime
chaparral community whose 'very, definition 'is consistently
shifting. This amorphous and capriciously defined chaparral
as defined by SDBP., still cannot bereadily separated from'the
regionally. common - Southern Mixed Chaparral. '
M. . The concept of Southern Maritime Chaparral as originally
proposed by Holland was never meant to encompass the broad
spectrum of varied chaparral resources and microhabitats now
scattered throughout. coastal San Diego County. -A vegetation category must have some cohesive defining limitations which
would warrent a distinctive' designation. Holland's original
12-380
DEC-29-92 TUE 17:31 US FWS FAX NO. 6194319624 P.08
Hr. Craig Olson . I
3.3. .2.3 Planning Area 2, - -
N Direct Impacts to two Del mar OanZas,ita plants may not be significant, however, fuel modification and fragmentation will threaten considerably more individuals. Locality snaps do not appear to be complete and it is likely that
direct impact, will effect more than two individuals.
3,3.3.3 Planning Ares Hlcig.tJ.pna, Paee 3-43:
0 The document states that oft-site mitigation for gnatcatcher may be
appropriate to mitigate loss of the rare plants on the project site, however, the Lake Hodges site generally does not support the rare plant species found
on-site, particularly Del Kar caiicantca.
Summery
In summary, the Service is groatly concerned regarding the impacts to
biological resources resulting from the proposed project including: 1) the
inadequacy of the mitigation for sensitive plant species; 2) the lack of
mitigation for southern maritime chaparral; 3) the lack of information on
numrous candidate species which could occur on the project site; 4) the Inadequacy of the mitigation for wetland habitat; and 5) the need for
assessing the California gnaccatcher impact from a regional perspective to
determine whether on-site or off-site mitigation is appropriate.
We apprectat. the opportunity to comment on the subject project. If you have any questions or comment, regarding this letter, please contact Carrie
Phillips or Nancy Cilbert of this office at (619) 431-9440.
Sincerely.
-4 ,LL
affray D.- Opdycke
- }'ield Supervisor
cc: CDFC, Long Beach, CA
classification notes that the -distribution, distribution, of Southern Maritime Chápärrai is !'today restricted to.Torrey 1Pines State Reserve and afew scattered nearby locales." It was, never
meant to encompass the . broad spectrum of chaparral sicrohabitats found in the region.
The smorgasbord of shrubs being touted by the San -Diego
Biodiversity Project (SDBP; see letter to the City of
Encinitas of December 22., 1992) -as indicator species of a more
:broadly defined Maritime Chaparral are found -ate, literally huñdrèds of locales; not the few envisioned by Holland. The
SDBP definitionhas already.', undergone several permutations
over the, last year as '. past critiques have precipitated
substantial alterations. It becomes increasingly difficult to
rationally respond to any comments regarding a maritime
chaparral community whose very definition is consistantly
shifting This amorphous and capriciously defined chaparral
as defined by SDBP, still-cannot be readily separated from the
regionally common' Southern Mixed Chaparral.
N. A six month's assessment is recommended to appraise the
satisfactory initial "take"- of. the 'Del Mar Manzanita. An
additional three year monitoring program as recommended by the
USFWS is ,not .unwarrénted given the difficulties of
establishing this, species. Container stock is much more
likeiy,tb pro',idea áuccéssful planting, than is seed-grown or
trnsplanted material.
- T" '' -- -'- - - -- ------- _'--' - -• -- -'--Recommended--purchase--of-gnatcatcher-mitigation-habitat-near------. ------ Lake Hodges focuses speàifically on habitat for, this species,
not on mitigaing floristic impacts. A comparison of floras
from Home'Depot and this site could-be made available; however
such a comparison would not be apropos to concerns regarding
chaparral impact's on-site. The recommended Lake Hodges site
is considered substantially better gnatcatcher habitat than
the marginal habitat still extant at the Home Depot site, it
also retains a breeding gnatcatcher territory and has a strong
connectivity to similar, and extensive open space habitat.
-
. .12-381 . . .
(. 4
Pacfic Southwest Biological Services, Inc
Post Office Box 985: National Cj,r.Cah)ornj 919510985 '(6)9)477.5333 • FAX 6)9) 477.1245
19 January 1993
Mr. Craig Olson, Assistant Planner..
City of Encinitas.
Community Development Department
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas CA 92024-3633
Gentlemen
Mr. JameaDice's letterof January 11, 1993 concerning the Home Depot Specific Plan
raises a number of Issues which warrant a response from the biologists at Pacific Southwest
Biological We believe several of his comments reflect a previous general lack of involvement
by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) on this project, and afailure to
adequately review this project perhaps due to CDFG time constraints within an histoncal
context. This project has involved extensive prior design changes, as well as a receiit deluge
of twelfth hour public and agency comments received at the January 6 1993 public hearing
on certification of the final environmental impact report.
Mr. Dice begins his letter with a note* that, "because of vacancies in key positions within
the California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) during important milestones in the
environmental review process for this project-,CDFG had not previously had the opportunity to
comment on this project Tlus pronouncement underscores Pacific Southwest s inability to
maintain a consistent dialogue with a single involved CDFG staff member regarding this project
Our first indication of Mr. Dice's concerns were voiced at the January 6 public meeting.
Previous public meetings were not attended by CDFG and ample opportunity over an extended
time period cert4inly had been available to CDFG to submit timely written comments allowing
City of Encirutas staff as well as Pacific Southwest to factor in such a response into both the
biological technical report and the EIR. :
The allegation that Pacific Southwest is guilty of "duplicitous treatment" of the southern
maritime chaparral issue iv based on incorrect assumptions by Mr. Dice regarding the
provenance of his information The figure (i.e.,3.3-3) he references in his letter mapping
Southern Maritime Chaparral at an inland Lake Hodges mitigation site for. California
Gnatcatchers is drawn from information supplied by Ogden Environmental to the EtR preparer.
It is clearly labeled as such aiid was definitely not included within Pacific Southwest's technical
appendixed report. The figure is drawn from a iegional MSCP mapping program for the City
of San Diego being performed by Ogden. Pacific Southwest does not concur with the
categorization of this habitat as Southern Maritime Chaparral, and we see no inconsistency in
our stance on the issue of habitat characterization at Home Depot.
Mr. Craig Olson 2 19 January 1993
PSBS #845
To briefly reiterate that position, Pacific Southwest has identified the chaparral habitat
at Home Depot as sensitive, based on the floristic constituents onsite. We do not contest that
some other firms, biologists, and,agency personnel would idenLif the habitat on-site as Southern
Maritime Chaparral and we have so stated on numerous occasions. We merely wish to reserve
any use of thin term by our office until such a time as a consensus of opinion, more clearly
establishes the parameters for this vegetation category, in a scientifically convincing manner
The present useof the term is being applied quite differently by different biologists, as pointed
out in our letter of January .0. Mr. Dice himself, disagrees with Ogden 's use of the term at
Lale Hodges A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) letter significantly differs with the
CDFG letter on what is and what isisotSouthem Maritime Chaparral at the-Home Depot site.
We fail to see how a conservalve approach to this issue by Pacific Southwest should generate
such rancor and debate, particularly since we have maintained since the initial site visits of 1989
that sensitive chaparral habitat is present at the Home Depot site.
The contention that Pacific Southwest has chosen not to accept Holland's definition and
characterization of southern maritime chaparral, but instead to provide 'an 'interpretation' of
what they believe Holland really meant,' is only correct if that same comment is applied to the
many other definitions presently being utilized to characterize this habitat type. Classification
systems are inherently .a matter of interpretation. Mr. Holland's original defuiiuon,intended at
the time to bà an evolving draft, and never a static prescription for regulators, has apparently
been substantially modified at the state level to be less ambiguous; moreover, Mr.-Todd Keeler-
-Wolf chief-ecologist-at-the- CaliforniaNatural-Diversiiy-Data-Base-(CNDDB)-recommends
further refinernentutilizing scientific field research methods (pers. comm. toC. Reiser January
14, 1993), a recommendation we heartily support. We respectfully note Mr. xeeler,Wolrs
latest letter received by the City âf Enciñitas on January 11, 1993 (although dated December 28,
1992) providing .a perspective from the CNDDB.
- Comments in the Dice letter concerning 'belittling the efforts of some others to refine'
Holland's definition,', form the basis of an cmdtional tone of this letter which is quite
iriappropnatè under, the masthead, of a CDFG sanctioned response. -Pacific Southwest does not
equate professional disagreement.s in print concerning the use of specific terminology, with the
belittling of adherents 'of those pursuing different approaches. To'typify our comments as such,
is to completely misconstrue ,the intent of Pacific Southwest' -response to comments, and to
invent an insulting chiracierization of such intent, -- -
Furthermore, he critiques a provisional Pacific Southwest definition of Southern Maritime
Chaparral by noting that the naturalness of this grouping of Toney pine short leaved
lieforever, sea dahlia and coast wallflower is arguable and its scientific basis non existent
This is interesting in that three of the four species mentioned here are Indicator I species for
Southern Maritime Chaparral under the provisional definition being utilized by CNDDB The
."fourth, the wallflower, is-an extrèmel, rare species strongly correlaied regionally .with the
Torrey Pines plant associations. Mr. Dice apparently supports the CNDDB definition, yet finds
no scientific basis :-fOr the naturalness of the grouping.
•
Mr. Craig Olson 3 19 January 1993
PSBS #845
- -
Pacific Southwest agrees with Mr. Dice that our conservative definition will largely
"confine the distribution of southern maritime chaparral to Torrey Pines State Reserve arid Del
Mar", but 'strongly disagree with his contention that this somehow is "convenient" and "is what
the consultant set Out to prove." The,fouowing is the entire characterization by Holland of the
disu-ibution of Southern Maritime Chaparral: "Today restricted to Torrey Pines State Reserve
and a few scattered nearby localities." This is the same classification system we supposedly only
"purport" to follow. Should additional scientific investigation provide sound support for a more
broadly defined maritime chaparraL community; Pacific Southwest would revise our initial
conservative approach. In the meantime, we feel that the widespread use of a broader definition
of this habitat will trigger two results. The first is a deletion of the rigid sensitivity standards
established for Southern Maritime Chaparral basedL on its restriction to few sites worldwide. -
This would increase the probability of losses of this-habitat by lessening- its significance. The
second result with which we are concerned is that the numerous definitions will result in
extremely inappropriate mitigation exchanges involving very different habitats which both meet
an expanded definition of Southern Maritime Chaparral. -
-
-
-S
Keith W. Merkel - - --
Vice President
jls
cc: Glenn Black, CDFG, Natural Heritage'* Supervisor
-- Curt Taucher, CDFG, Environmental Services Supervisor
Tim Dillingham, CDFG, Wildlife Biologist -
' - 0 TerriStewart CDFG, Wildlife Biologist - -
' Tod-Keeler-Wolf, CDFG, Vegetaton-Ecologist, CNDDB -- -
' -- 2.- - Fred Roberts, USFWS, -Carlsbad Field Office' - - - - -, -: - Boyd Gibbons, CDFG, Director
- -
- - ' Jim Dice, CDFG, Plant Ecologist
311. '
QF 311. G.A. Voss Horticultural Consultants HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANTS
There has been much unauthorized human intrusion in the project
.j W area in the last decade. In the past-year, the amount of husan
in the activity has increased, as local citizens who are interested
I ) Home Depot project have added foot traffic to the damage already DEC 291992 , created by the people that have unauthorized emcampments on the
site. This report is very informative and-provides good-data. It
DOBE POINT BOTANICAL SURVEY-1 VI 92 ...
is sad to find-that two of the on-site, scrub oaks have been removed This report reflects two surveys I made at the Do L' 1C JITAS I and that one of the Del Mar Manzanita plants had been damaged in Depot site in Encinitas for Home Owners United for Quality of Life addition to the creation of a new foot path Yet this is evidence as follows that the "Ha Project Alternative' may not provide the maximum
biological -protection.. A.- 14 May 1992. A vegetation survey and video taping by
- Jim Karnack.
-. B. 28 May 1992. Damage report and -additions to plant
existing plant list (16 species marked by asterisk.)
ENVIRONMENTAL DA1(AGE REPORT
-
On 28 May 1992 I surveyed the proposed Home Depot site for
- damage incurred by human intrusions.
It was 7 days since I last visited the Dobe point site.. At the time of my. first Visit I observed 4, to five-main trails. On my . first visit I also noted that vehicle access to sensitive biological zones on the property was-confined to just two areas.
.. ' . These roads are probably necessary for public law enforcement and
fire protection.
Between the time I first sew the site in 1991, and the first
I visited this year, the rainy season began. Annual vegetation thus crated by this windfall of rain served to conceal old trails
and accumulated debris. Following are my current observations since this annual vegetation has died down.
A. A new foot path to recent human living excavations.
These new incursions have opened's path that has been
unused for several years. New "homes", have 'damaged
undisturbed watershed and created a fire hazard of' 'Cut
'•' '-' - - " - - '' ' ' brush These new dwellings are to be found above the small valley between'the' eroded bluff of Chamise -. - Chaparral habitat to the West and the eastern slope of the Scrub Oak dominated terrain terminating before the
,main north eastern'drãinage of thO southern part of the
- property.
12-382 .
1751 S. HANNALEI DRIVE VISTA, CA 92083 • PHONE OR FA?( (61) 940-9-117 . . .
. - - - ' - '- .- 1S"'-. •
B. Removal of naturally dwarfed Scrub oaks. The removal • of these ancient and diminutive trees from the -naturally- - -'eroded bluffs of -Chamise Chaparral habitat, has caused gross landslides and -erosion. A few of 'these ancient oaks with fire. resisting buns grow along the western' -
- portion of' the Del Mar'-Sandstone,blu,ffs -from which they - - were removed. - OUy, persons knowledgeable about the value
of "bonsai" trees would be interested in exploiting these
- - now lost' living plant treasures. Damage indicates two -. -
- -plants were removed within this vegetation type.
- S C Manzanita decorative wood removal and birdnest
-- ' destruction.. Near the -highest point of the site, and
within an area of mixed chapa'r'ral, ,I noted a large plant
of 'the Del Mar Manzanita that had two or. three branches-
- two, plus inches in diameter sa'wed off and - the tops removed. The wood was removed 'from the site, but the -
- brushy tops remained. Within the'brushy tops left on the
- ground' was the remains of a Bushtit nest from -this
spring.
D. Homeless people/migrant workersare still living in
- - S - - - S - the'coaStal maritime chapaFral on-.the.site. ..Some of
S • , • ' , • ' S , - 'these homesteader's. have enlargOd their dugouts, but trash
- .,does not seem to have. icreased. Some shrubs are still - - S -.- being c, ut for firewOod. and standing deadwood from an area
- . - S - S . S that, 'had burned several years ago is being removed for
-
.
- -' ' S S S • ,
.5
- -- -•. - -'
, use by-these-people.
:' - - ---.•.-...•S ••• ..--S -
DOSE POINT PLANT LIST
4 VI 92
Scientific Name Common Name
Adenostoma .fasciculatum Chamise
Ambrosia psilOstachya var.
californica Western Ragweed
AnthirrhinulD nuttallianum NuttaiPs Snapdragon
Apium graveolens Smallage *
Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp.
crassifolia Del Mar Manzanita
Artemisia californica Coast Sagebrush
Az-undo donax Giant Reed
Daccharis giutinosa
-- Seep Willow
B. pilularis ssp.
consan guinea Coyote Bush
carol triquetra
- Triangular. Fruit Sedge *
Ceanothus verrucosus Coast White Lilac
Chorjzanthe coriacea Spinef lower
Cirsium occidentale Cobweb Thistle *
Cneoridium durnásum Coast Spicebush
Croton californica - - Croton -
Cyperusnigervar. capitatus Brown Umbrella sedge *
Distichlis spicata ssp.
,spicta - Coastal Saltgrass
Dryopterss arguta Coastal Woodfern *
Dudleya edUl.Ls Chalk Lettuce
Er1ogonu fasccu1atum Flat top Buckwheat
Erophy11um coflfertiflorurn war
conferti-fl9rum Longstem Golden yarrow *
Galiumangustifolium ssp.
1751 S. I-4ANNALEI DRIVE • VISTA, CA 92083 • PHONE OR FAX (619) 940-9417
•
angustitolium - Rarrow Leaf Bedstraw -
cnaphalium'californicum California Everlasting *
llaplopappUs squarrosus sap.
grindelioides '-'
- Sawtooth Goldenbush
H. venetus ssp. veinonjoides Coast Goldenbush ,
HelianthemUm scoparium var.
aldersonj Rush- Rose
keteromeles axbutitolia Toyon
Keckiella cordi-tolia Clitabijig Bush Penstemon '*
Lonicerasubspicata var. -
denudata San Diego Honeysuckle
Lotus scoparius Deerweed
Malosma laurina Laurel Sumac'
Malacothamnus taciculatus Mesa Bushmallow Marsh macrocarpus
Mimulus puniceuS Coast Monkey Flower Nicotana glauca Tree Tobacco,
Oenothera elata ssp
hirsutissima. -Great Marsh Evening lrimrose *
Opuntia enge4mannhi Prickly Pear ' 0
0. littoralis- ' Prickly .pear
Pinus tbrreyana Torrey Pine.
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak
dumosa- - . ' Scrub Oak
Rhamnus californicus ' California Coffeeberry S
crocea Spiny leaf Redberry - -
Rhus integrifolia Lemonade-Bèry
'
- Ribes indecorum', Winter Currant -
- - R. specLosa Fuchs ia. fld goosberry
Rumex conglomeratus Whorled Dock -
Salix laevigata Var. .araquipa Large leaf Willow
Saivia:apiana-... -- •- White Sage -- - - -- - melLitera - Black Sage Sambuciis mexicàna - :- - Desert Elderberry - -
-.
-
Scirpus acutus Hardstem Bulrush a
S.crophularia californica ssp.
flotibunda California Bee Plant
Sidálcea malvaeflora
sparsifolia Checker a
- - Silene lacinata ssp. major Southern Pink -a -
Solanum parishii Parish's Nightshade
Stipa coronata - Giant St:ipa
Tori codendron diversilobum Poison "Oak '
Xylococcus bicolor - iiission Manzinita
Yucca, schidigex-a Spanih Baonet
P.
COi\IMENIs ON IIOlL I)LPOI I IN-L EIR
(Ill) FEW)
DEC 291992
CONTENTS
I) inadequacy of'Final.EIR CITY OFENCINITA5
" 2) New Information (unavailable during Draft LIR piblic coinnient period)
3) Inadequate analysis of SP t.oinpli.snce with k.isuiiitas, Guiii.sl Plan
INADEQUACY OF FINAl. EIR (GENERAl. OUTLINE
I) LIR preparer has not based sn:ilysis on a reason:ible amount of available inforivaiioii.
(contrar)710 claims on p:1-1) Therefore, responses to public cunillients are inadequate.
This infdrmaiion.is readily avail'abl 'and should bekiibttYn to exist by an experienced Writer .ofElRs,
Many inacuracies result from lack of properly and reasonably exploring available information.
E111 presents information in an unclear, fragmented or significantly distorted manner.
This does not a11ow for a reasonable-understanding of the infonnaion presented.'
E jriseiii itraictory iuloriiiation throughout the EIR related to:
Acreage m aouists
.Significance 61 impacts .
. --
Quality of habitats on and adjacent to the site
'Project %lteniatives"(Off Site) are indequatefy. aualyed. ,. -.
Aalysis 'of off site alternatives are extremely limited and lack subscahiial evidnce in the record to support conclusions:
5) For the SP 'is proposed mitigation for loss ol estreitiely valuable upland habitats is lacking
Most mitigations recommended art, based on alierng project deai&ns not as the SP is proposed
6) Em d*i'esnot give reasonable aiialysis of opinions .6f noted Eaperisnd agencies with espe'iise.
Profeisional opinions do differ; however, the EIR tends to downplay the opionions-of noted experts
and agencies. This doesnot allow a reasonably oniparison of opinion differences,
Important information and impacts were not reasonably disclosed or analysed.
Quality of off site habitat mitigation was not reasonably analysed. .
No species list, level of quality, or comparison to SP site habitat was given for proposed ofisire
mitigation.ares. This does not allow an informed decision by the.ublic"or city officials.
NE%V LNFORIATiON-(unavaiIable during Draft EIR publiccoinitient pejid)'
Due to the significance Of the new information (not available during Daft EIR public comment period) a
subsequent EIR. should address the following:
I) Nev' Giiatcatcher-sitings and evidence of long tcrmmm survivability ,
New species found on site
North County Wildlife F,oruni-City of.Encinitas has,signettan agreelilemie to participate. Batiquiios Lagoon Restoration Projt has beenapiiroved.
The-increased iinportancenow.given to the Bamiquitos Laoon.ecoscein and upland ecosymemum
Connections warrants 1unhir study.
First Etkt plilperi) conoir minis study is cornlilit ii
The El t. h;mrcls,touclied,on potential species and liibit,tis in the l;I4t ,lariae ti:idevelopcd lands bemwcim ' - - - Encinit i intl southern Carl'b id iusd sinifucinm n iiilorm 1111)11 inn t he reasonably analysed., Carlsbad rincrl'roiirIy constraints study has (prcsummialily) lit'rimciiiisileiCd. "
- , - . ...'• .-. •,, -. . -. -. . - . - ,.&., -
4 312. Julie Fisher.:
1) A review of the references -consulted .(see Sect'iors 10 of the EIR) will., confirm .,)that"- •the'l EIR r'epater/ evi'eued and'"
consideteda reasonable .arn'ount of information...'. . . . ...
A) . . . . . ,. 1) Conditions of approval of projects are.. not included in
EIRsp they are part of thel administrative'record. arid'
conditipns"-that relate.-',to the .project design are
specified ,on'the Final.Map;
The open space ;easement in PA 3 s.has not .been used. "counted" -fore- anything 'in. the .proposed project
except as providing a-continuous .open space
connection. It has not boOn used' for any density . calculation. . .. . . . , . .
Density calculations are required forresidential
:projects, not for, commerci'at'or.light,,Industrial
.projects'. The open' sac,e, in PA- 3- isLnotbei'ng- •.: - used toioffset any increased density because none
is proposed.,The land use designated in the
Spec
•
ific Plan 5f0r PA 3 is the same as the General
Plan dOsignated"use. '
;c) .. Undec'the StateSubdivis'i,on:Map.Act, any :approvals'," . •; . . , -,
including-J.:conditidns 0f approval,' of the CPA 86-01's
have, expired and, are no longer relevant'.
d), ' .Any -property ...covered by an open space ,easemeht
cannot be developed 'if the easement is 'irrevocable.
Since ttiey.Spen ;space. in PA3 w'as,réquiredto. -' compensate for'a density increase on the-ridge top, '. it cannot'be-developed. Therefore, the open. space
. is piotected.
B) ' ;. - : - • - ' - .--
- . -.... ,,-,_,-'s- •5.. ' ,. '- '.- ! -1) - The EIR.pr&parer used the' floodplain' map provided byASL
- hydraulic , analysis. .. The, pre-1982 floodplai'n'wasvtbased on-the
topography'at that -A,follow-up study prepared by
AS Consultants in jSeptember 1992', .which has ,.been
appended to the Final EIR via the ErrOtaSheet, indicates
that the'lowest:portión of the.piking-àrea will''bO 6 -
--inches4 Obové rth'e projected However, eeni'f this' verd'nottrüO ánd'appttiorfpf' the'
parking, area, wou1d,.be'-fl'oodedas was 'd.lscussed'in the. '
- Draft.EIR',1t would not: be ., ', considered. asignificant". impact because the city of Encjnitas,has determined-that'
parking(isa, suitable use in -a floodplain (Le.',areaS
, 12-383
i_.- y
INADEQUATE ANALYSIS OF SF COMPLIANCE WITH dENERAL PLAN I) Iniporlant General Plan and lunicapnl Code policies were not adequ lid) addreased subject to periodic flooding) The E!R did address many General Plan unconslslencie5 and many very significant General Plan and I - Municipal Code policies were not adequately analysed for their impacts on the SP. 2) Regar4less of, the past history of the 100-year floodplain, the important point is that' the proposed development' will not result in a significant flooding impact.
C)
See the responses to item B above.
See the response to B)2) above.
The design for the flood channel when the El Casino Real
bridge was constructed was 72 feet, and this is the recommended maintenance elevation. When the sediment level reaches 75 feet above mean sea level, the channel
must be dreaged.back to 72 feet.
See the response.to C)3) above.
- D)
1) The sapping for the General Plan was done at the "plan
'. level;" meaning that -it was' -baséd largely on aerial
photos and limited field mapping. Mapping-was-not done - based on field surveys for every undeveloped acre-within Encinitas. In addition, there are nearly as many definitions of Southern Maritime Chaparral as there are
San Diego biologists with the definition depending on
specific indicator species The important issue is that
the Chaparral- --an the Home Depot 'site was considered by
the consulting biologists- as 'sensitive. -
The concept of Southern Maritime Chaparral as originally
- - - ' - - proposed by Holland was never meant to encompass-' the
- broad spectrum of varied chaparral resources - and - - : - - sicrohabitats now scattered throughout coastal- San 'Diego - - -
- County. A vegetation category must have soiè cohesive
-, -- - -- - - defining limitations which would,warrent 0 distinctive - - -- designation. Holland's -original classification notes - •- that, the distr1buti'oi-of Southern Maritime-Chaparral Is - "today restricted to Torrey. Pines State Reserve and a few
- - scattered nearby locales." It was never meant to encompass the broad spectrum of cha parra 11 microhabitats
- - - found in the region. - - - -
-
- - - -
The smorgasbord of shrubs being touted by the San Diego
Biodiversity Project (SDBP see letter to the City of
Encinitas of December 22 1992) as indicator species of
- - a more- broadly defined Maritime Chaparral are found at
literally hundreds of locales not the few envisioned by
' - - - - --
- - - 12-384 - . .
.4
5,.
INADEQU,CV OF FINAL LIR (Detailed listing)
-I) EIR preparer has not based analysis oil a reasonable amount of available
information. (contrar) to claims on p. I-I pgli 2). Therefore, responses to public
comments are inadequate.
This information is readily available and should be known to exist by all experienced writer of Elks.
Many inacuracies result from lack of properly and reasonably exploring available information.
-'4,-
• List of available information not adequately unalvsed or explored: "
A) Final LIR for, Pearce Oliveuhaiit Property, CPA 8602, (Recon 1986) The EER claims to have incorporatd'pemiinent information from this report, however, several key - pieces of information'wére not included.
I) No analysis was given regarding conditions of approval for the subdivsion that became Parcel
257-490-(l thiough 24).' Lot 24 is now described asPlanning Area 3 (PA 3) in the SP.
Thissiibdivsion was aPRD and required an opin apaie easement ofapproxiniately 5 acres. This
,permanetit open space easement is reeatedly'noted in the HD Elk, but it is never.disdosd that
the I-ID SP is essentially"Double Counting this open space by tnvludinl, it as part of the
proposed open space presei-4e for the HID SP This is dearly not an oersihht Bill Carpenter
(Forrna and previously Austin Hasen) conr,nbuted to the EER for the Pearch 01t4enhain Property
subdivision and Mi Carpenter is also a contributor to the Hom Depot SP He nust cenain.Jy 41 haveknown about this double counting 'ofope'spate. The EER preparer would surelS' have
disco'ered this problëth with ani reasonable eplor'ation of.the Pearce Olivnhain ELR and a quick
corOarison of the HID SP proposed open space.
Du
`e tàthe inclusion of this open space (now part of the 7.69 acres of PA 3) in the SP several.
;
questions arisè.' " . .
. .. - AM density calculations for PA 3 based on anf the area that is already set asidè.as
- . . permanent open space'- Ifso, I believe this would bean error'under and space
easement rules. This -would constitute a "Double Use" ofdenaiiy'allowancea since this open .space
was already used in 198610 allow an up'zone of the parcel.from Res 2.9 to Res 7.3. Is any of this open space used indensity calculations anywhe're else in the SP area (PA l,'2 'or 4)? Are there S ' similar problems with any other parcels in the SP regarding their history? .,' , There is no discussion of the final PRD requirements for delopntent of 'the north portion of the
Parcel. Was it designated Res 7.3 (minus floodplain) or was there another agreement made? Was
there any, restriction or zonin put on development of the north part 01 lot 24 (the portion north of
open space easement) -as a result, of the PRD? Conditions of the PRD should be included in the
Elk since this' takes predent over new proposals and even over thecurrent zoning of Light
Industrial. (I requested tWe Final E/R for iha' Pearce p,-ope:vfru,,, the Cui bat ... aA'oIv ri -ea i/w Drt,/E El/i.vo mc infwtnoilon is itic'mpLie)
d) It is clear that the a'signiflcant portion ofthe northern part of lot 2-I was upzoned in I39 to light industrial.. This upzoning should not have includedany area within the already dedicated
open apace easeinegit, but it appears that at least some of the Wen space wa included in
this upzonirig (see p. 3-95 FEIR) This should be corretted. .
.3
Holland. The SDBP definition has already undergone
several permutations over the last year as past critiques,
have precipitated substantial alteratiOns. "it becomes
increasingly difficult-' to ratiènally' respond, t'o'any'
commentsregardinga maritime. haparraPcommunIty t.,hoe, very definition is consistently shifting. This a u morphos and capriciously def-inedchaparràl' as 'defined byaSDOP,..
still cannot be readily áeparated frorn',.the 'regionally
common Southern Mixed Chaparral.
A widely accepted def-initiârs' of Southern' Maritime
v Chaparral i's not yet aailable"as the-SUP . conterds. key...'- botanists in the region have yettto accept'any clear-cut definition.'- H. Weir favorsra strong edaphic tie of. this.-
habitat with sandstone substrate's as1'-a critical,
ingrediant, but would 'like toO-further consider the-
variables-'(pers. cottis. Jttnuiry 1993)-. T. Oberbauer sees
a.. 'geographic'.limit .to:Smaritime chaparral, which' unfortunatley. tn .becoes blurred to the east anal northeast;
he alsofavors- further -consideration towardsia'workable"
definition (pers comm January 1993) P 't&unch finds that- existing.vegetatiOn.cat'egory -definitions''can "be—c-articifial,, and. they ctnày Or may *not ref1ect'the assàciations"found in 'the field; he. sees ia,, possible conflict between regulatory need' for categorization and
scientific c un ,biologica1asséssmènts".(pers. oñaJanuary
1993) P Gordon-Reedy islooking towards a spectrum of
traits -to define :maritime, chapartal incl lading species
richness, 'veetat ion 'structure,and'sandstone-rsubstratas' (pers. '.conuu'.43anuary 1993).' -J. Messina' an ecologist,
recognizes 4the - dangers, ..in" attoverly"'subjective
interpretation of thjs,veetätior type"'.(pers..comm - January 1993)-, but.isrovisionai1y' identifying likely
areas, of-- maritime "ch'aparral'. - 'If the baslsfor"a
distinction between Southern-Mixed Chaparral. and Southern
Maritim'Chaparral'is,onn strictly botanical' grounds,-a
- definition proposedbybdtabist- Crai'g"Rèiser,'of.Pacific.
Southwest-focuses onthérëli'ctuàl habitat'of'the.Torrey'.
Pine'ind- aucluster4 of,very ráré-plants 'such as' Dudleya bra vifolia Ex-ysimum ammoph11thttand coreopsss ritima
This,. provides 'a-' natural'..grdupi
' ata
ng- whose- àffinitiesare
- - with, insularpla'nt species (already -well, doC'umented'as'.
distinàtive plant associations) ,,are stronlycorrelated
with beach bluffs'andsandstonObutcrops, as;vei1.'as.with ,,. - - repeated -f 6gm uncommon on- atreguiar basis. elsewhere alOng. the-,County,-coattt-l-ines.'Such-"a -conservative -, f1oristi-.. -gz'oupinghas a geographical-, andintèr-rOlated'clitnatic,,' - - identity- which provides 'a scientific basis,'- for - cons ideration,as at distinctive, vegetation category;
moreover;-a grouping -which- qulte obviously Sincludes
endanered elements,', and is worthy ofregiona1protection
and some - official 'status cumülatively.asa sensitive.
12-385
I-.' .-'•' - - ..- -.-. - _.,--t_ ' __-,_.,,'_._,ia_-_..,,4__•,' ---
2) The Pearce Elk clearly states that .8 acres on the nuith part of the parcel was zoned floodplain
(FP) and that this roughly coincided with the 100 year floodplain. A quick look at the Master
Land Use Plan for the SP (with topographic lines included) shows that .8 areas would cover
roughly an area 140 (in a north south direction) x 250' (in an east west dircctionon) in the north
part of PA 3. This would put the 100 year floodline at about elevation 88' to 90'.(as measured on
the Current Master Land Use .Map for ND SP) or at 87' to 88 (as measured on the County of San
Diego Topgraphic'Surs'ey Map 1975). Consequently, the 100 je'ar flood elevation in 1986 was,
roughly 88. This significance of this is:
The ND EIR (p.2-32 EIR) depicts only the pre-1982 floodplain as extending into the ND building
area and some of the proposed developn'ient in PA 3 & 4. But the Pearce EIR-clearly indicates
that the floodline rnust.hve been at least 88 in the year 1986. The 88' elevation line (as seen on
the 6idiffi topography from the HD SP Master Land Use Map) clearly runs through the back.
portion of the RD building andGarden center, and nearly:eaches the south wall of the proposed
HD building! Obviously, as recently as 1986 the floodplain line would hac'ç covered most of the
proposed development area inPA I, all of the nun-steep area of PA 4, and much of the non-steep
northern part ofPA 3.' (Remember. the 88' flodhitte was measured on the culrcnt ND
topography map'and so takes into account the I' or so of fill that occurred in parts ofPAllhat
occurred after 1975 although on the current topo map there also appears to be a slightly lower
elevation inthe central area of the proposed hiD building than existed in 1975),
The HD EIR floodplain map (p. 2-32) shows the pre-1982 floodline as being significantly higher
than the current floo'dline, but the EIR also claims t!1,sL the current floodplain'is'aniticially higher
now than compared to past years because of siltation of the culvert and development upstream of
the site. (This' is an obvious contrdiction-See contradictions). Nevertheless, information in the
Pearce EIR demonstrates that the current floodline is not artificially elevated by the recent
upstream developments. The floodplain in 1986 wasbetween 88' and 90' een though the
BridewaterfWillow Creek subdivision did not exist at this time (The TM for
.BridgewaterlWillowcreek'was.betng'processvd at the time the Pearce'E'IR was being reviewed.)
and so could not have contributed 10 increased t'unoft'and a higher 11odplain.
lnformatiànin the Pearce Elk also demonstrates that the floodline is not currently anit'icially
elevated by'the siltation of the El Camino Real culvert over the past everal'years. The culvert in
1986 obviously did not contain silt deposited between 1986 and 1992 (Six YC1S of silt' buildup),
yet the 100 year floodplain was still up toelevaion 88' or 90'.
The ibO year flodplain'infonnation in the Pearce EIR more closely reflects the historic floodplain
(the past 20 years). The 100 year floodplain elevation of 88' so 90' is equal to or slightly higher
thai the San Diego County Floodplain Map(1982) which set the 100 year floodline between 85'
(west end.of PA I) up to 87' (south central PA I and extending to PA 3 and PA 4). Son
Diego C',w,,n' Ftoodplain tiap /9.52)
3) Note:
It is unclear what year.DetentiouBasiiis "A" and "B" (upstream in Carlsbad) were built. If tlte' were
built after 1986 then the floodplain elevation since 1986 may or may not have bLn low r,,d
cl!pending on whether more development offset the affects 01 the basins N.venlieleas the
historically high floodplain'on the project site refutes the Elk claim that the,floodplain is currently
artificially high. ....
Fbodploo, .11p 1982 awl con,,i',.f,',a
resource. Additionally, it corresponds very well with
Holland's original description of this vegetation
'community. A consensus opionion is obviously not yet
forthcoming.
The' SDBP definition includes a number of diverse shrub
elements to define a maritime chaparral. coastal Scrub
Oak (Quercus dumosa, excludingthe Inland Scrub Oak form
known as Quercus berberlditoljá), a 'species still not
adequately published in',,a scientific journal, is wide-
ranging away from thà coast. It is locally common 'in
Poway. 'in the 'canyonlands, througouta Linda Vista,
Clairemont, and Kearney Mesa; 'as'well as'-on HAS-Miramar
and south' onto'Otay Mesa. Are these areas, to be included
under the auspices of an umbrella category known' as
Maritime Chaparral?.'. This does not 'seem' a practical
approach.
Coast White Lilac is a1dotinant 'shrub of the hills west
of Interstate 15 from' 'San Marcos south to Rancho
Penasquitos. It'.occurs by the many tens of thousands in
much, higher' numbers than anywhere near ' the coast;
nevertheless, it Js a Type'l indicator species under the
SDBP definition? Are all these inland'locales Maritime
Chaparral?:' ,Many of these areas are within the Cieneba
soil series, a soil type with low fertility quite
widespread in cismontane San Diego County, and certainly
well beyond a viable expanded range for a maritime
chaparral community.
'Del Mar Hanzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa var.
crassifolia) is-less comtnon'tha'n the previous ,two' species
and is'substantially;more sensitive. This shrub is found
on Cerro Jesus Maria in Baja California; the small
'mountain south of Otay Mountain and just across the. U:S.
bor,der.'which is i'argely..aetavolcanic in origin. "The.
manzanitä ranges southward in Baja to four miles "east'
of Cerro Corone'land also at Mesa ' de Descanso' east of
Medio Casino. Is this a good indicator species 'of
Maritime Chaparral or just a western element of a such
wider ranging Complex that includes another coastal and
foothill subspecies in the' region (Arctostaphyl'os
gianciulosa ssp. zacaensis),?
Bush Poppy (Dendromecon riglda ssp rsglda) is considered
a very ipoor Choice as "a'Type 1 Indicator Species (as
noted by SDBP definition) fOr maritime chaparral. In San
Diego County this.,showy shrub is Iccincenteated in the
Laguna" Mountains with some outlier populations lightly
scattered along the Coast It ranges northward to Shasta
Courtly.
12-386
9
It.
2) The Pearce EIR clearly slates that .8 acres on the north part of the parcel as zoned floodplain
(FP) and that this roughly coincided with the 100 year floodplain. A quick look at the Master
Land Use Plan for the SP (with topographic lines included) shows that .8 areas would cover
roughly an area 140 (in a north south direction) x 250 (in an east west directiotson) in the north
part of PA 3. This would put the 109 year fioodliiié at about elevation 88 to 90 (as measured on
-the current Master Land .We Map for ,RD SP) or at 87 to 88 (as measured on the Counsy"'óf-San
Diego Topgraphic Survey Map 1975). Consequently, the 100 year flood elevation in 1986 was,
roughly 8'.j.This significance of this is:
a) The I-ID E (p.2-32 EIR) depicts only the pre-1982 floodplain as extending into the lID building
,-.area and some oftihi proposed development in PA.) & 4.'-But the Pearce EIR clearly indicates
that the floodline must have been'it least 88' in the year. 1986.. The 88' elevation line (as seen on
the gsjn toporahi front the HD SPMaater Land Us'e Map) clearly-runs through the back
portion of the HD building and Garden center, and nearly reaches thesduth wall of the proposed
HD. building! Obviously, as recently as 1986 the floodplain line would have covered most of the
proposed development area in PA I, all of the non-steep area ofPA 4, and much of the non-sleep
northern.part'ofPA 3. (Remember, the 88' floodline was measured on the current HD
.topography map and so takes into account tha I' or so of fill that occurred in parts ofPA I that
occurred after 1975, although on the current topo map, there also appears lobe a slightly - lower
ele'vation-in the central area of the propoaed'HD.building than existed in 1975)
The HD EER. floodplain map (p. 2-32) shows the pre-1982 -floodline as being significantly higher
than the current floodline, but the EIR"also claims that the current floodplain is a'niflcially higher
now than compared to past years because of siltation of the culvert and development upstream of
the-site. (This is an-obvious contradiction-See contradictions). Nevel-shelesa, information in the
ParceER demonsirates.tha; the current floodline is not artifici'allyelevated by the recent.
upstream developments. The-floodplain in 1986 was between 88' and 90' even though the -
Bridgewater/Willow Creek subdi'.ision did not exist at this time (The TM for
Bridgewater/Willowcreek was being prócesséd al the time the Pearce EIR was being reviewed.)
and.so could not have contributed to increased runoff and a higher floodplain.
Information in the Pearce EIR also demonstrates that the floodline is not currently artificially
elevated-by. the siltation of the El Camino Real culvert over the past several, years. The culvert in
.1986 obviously did-not contain silt deposited between 1986 and 1992 (six ytrs of silt buildup);
yet the 100 year floodplain.svas still up to elevation 88' or 90'. " '-
d).'The. .1
100 tear floodplain information in the Pearce EIR more closly reflects the histbric floodplain
(the past 20 'ears). The 100 yar'floodplain elevation-of 88' 1090' is equal to or slightly higher
than the San Diego county FloOdplain Map (1982) which set the 100 year floodline hetwéen 85'
(west end ofPA I) up to 87'(south central PA I and extending to PA 3:aisd PA 4). (See S,'rn
Diego C',rn:e Floodplain Slap 5952)
3) Note:
It is unclear what year Detention Basins A" and "B' (upstream in Carlsbad) were built. If they were
built after 1986, then the floodplain elevation since 1986 may or may not have been lowered
depending onwhether,more development offset the affects of the basins. Nveuheless, the
historiclWhih floo'dplain on the,projecistte refines the EIR claim that the floodplain is currently ll
artificially high.
'" J-t' !'
,,, Mohave Yucca (Yucca schidigera) is another, very
questionable Type 1 Indicator Species (as noted ,bySDBP
definition). This' large shrub has a- strondeertn affinity 'with a sizeable popülation at the western edgi
of the Anza-Borrego Desert. This ,is further ref iécted'in.;.t'
both 'its 'common name añdjtl5ca1izedabundance'
.
àn the
southern Mohave Desert.''
- -
it is time that USFWS and other, agencies local re-examine -
their ssipport for,, a vegetation- category - which
currently, being utilized aasblguously."I'. Such .a 'concept,
must"have scien m tific erit and-not merely the weight of
generalized agreesentainoitgst disparate and1arIj.non- critical, 'Vyroups —.That - Pacific 'SOuthwest,'. with
unparalleled botanical experience in the region, does not
always acquiesce to such-expansive delineations of this
very rare habitat type," is understandable. The San Diego
Biodiversity-Project's cohtéhtión that -"majority rules'.' -
inscience (andin the matter of this issue of Southern
Mi)"ed"Chaparral) is both 'ludicrous' from ascientific
standpoint; and " untrue" from a ,project. . .péci-fic
standpoint. 'Mr. Hdganóf,sDBP cites n0 Diego County
botanists -,in'-, his., unsubstantiated''genèra-lizatiors
nsaintainingthat 'everyone - else" supports his' much -
expanded definition'.'5s -.' " - - .' - .' :.• -
Employing; a ,'single, specific- plant. species as the.
deciding'factorto-delixi'eate Southern. Maritime Chaparral-' .
-suchkas .CoastálScrub Oak,1 Cost Whité:Lilac"är'De1-Ma
Manzarsita--cannot'be "süpportd' from: tia, 'scjentific
perspective; particularly ifa&asseCsthent.(di'sregarding" -
this. single; onsite1speãies) 'i's just asreadi-1y.
applicable to' the 'more regiortally-'commonSouthern"Mixed -
- Chaparral. Apparently: sti1laother revised definition'
bySDBP advocates thepresenceof four traits selected
th
- -
fro'a'series of indicators?'''We have not been given'a
copy'of'this latest- draft :def1ti01 u '-Criously;"the
-SOaP did not provide Pacific-Southwest with'its previous
- definition for input; this, despite its contention;it has
been seeking consensus. H. -Wdir (senior'botanist,at
-Dudek ands Associates) c6u1d not recall (pers. c0m15' -
January 4, 1993) Mr., Hogan asking, for his assessment of'
the .SDBP definition of Southern" Maritime Chaparral, as
claimed in Mr. Hogan'sletter. 2 . a
' - s ,,s," I .
Theabsence of a con'sens'us" defirition "for maritis-
chaparral'does not'discount theimpdrt'ance of individual.
plant resources.; (e'g., Del 'Mar Manzanita' or Orcutt's ,
Spineflower) and; conservation/protection, of significant"
popula€ions, but--it does discount'the inappropriate use
.of"umbrella" vegetation categories' designed for ex post
facto preservation of specific sites. Any chaparral near - -
12-387
.--: .. ..':. ...
Sn,, Diego County Floodplain \I ip (19S2)
The .., Diego C'ou,v .%I.,.(19.12) ,., h,ue,l ,,, h.p..,,,,j.luc' ljae, ,h,,i ,r,,t,',1 ,, 1175 f/he sen, the
orih..plui(ographic j,p,,n.'c ,VOV IuA,'#i)
I) The EIR preparer probably refrcuiced this map since the pre-1982 floodline (p. 2-32 EIR) has the
same shape as the 160 year floodline shown on the County of San Diego Floodplain Map (1932).
However, there appears to be an important difference between these two maps. -
a) The County ofS.D. Floodplain Map (1932) shows the 100 year tluodplaiti at roughly 81 in PA 3,
PA 4, and the south central and south eastern part of PA I. The floodline slowly drops to about
85' in the southwest and central west pars of PA I. The significance of this is that even with the
recent I' of fill that has occured in the central west portions ofPA I. this floodline elevation of
87 and 85 feet would, under current topographic conditions, extend about 3/4 of the way into the
Garden Center and the Home Depot Building (more than is depicted on p. 2-32 EIR) and would
cover over 1/2 of the parking north of the building (less than that shown on p. 2-32 EIR)! From
the standpoint of allowable uses in floodplains, this is a significant issue: It appears the pre-1982
floodline on p.2-32 is based on the old topgraphic conditions, not the current conditions.
2) The HD EIR repeated claims that the current floodplain is artificially high due to siltation and
upstream development. But even as early as 1932, the floodplain was quite high (87' and 85). The
culvert in 1982 obviously did not contain silt deposited between 1982 and 1992 (ten years of silt
buildup), nor was the floodline affected by development that occurred in the Encinitas Creek basin
between 1982 and 1992, yet the 100 year floodplain was still 87 and 85'. There is substantial
evidence that there is a long history of relatively high floodplain elevations in the SP area contrary to
what the EIR claims.
County of San Diego Topographic Survey
I) The San Diego County Floodplain Map (1982) topography is based on the Counry of San Diego
Topographic Survey Maps which in turn'were based on orshophotographic image's taken in 1975.
Consequently,. the topographic lines in the S.D. County Floodplain Map are the amé topographic
lines which existed in 1975 (lOng before much of the developm'ent in the Encinitas Creek drainage
basin existed). A comparison of topographic lines in the 1975 image, with the topographic lines in
the current Master.Land Use Map for the Home Depot SP, clearly shows that there has been about I
foot of till added in the.central west portions ofPA I (and an'-apparent alight drop in elevation in what
would be the center of the I-ID building) since 1975. Lw B(I)a abowfu, cw-t-,,n lopoaphic effects on /982 floodplain eleiotio.',s -
The pr-1982 flóodline shown on p-2-32 EIR appears to be based on old topographic conditions
(1975). Under the old conditions, sty measurement show the Home Depot building would have
been a little more impacted under past topographic conditions than is shown in the I-ID EIR map, but
the shape olthe1982 floodline is the same. Neverthless, it is the floodwater elevation of 1982 that is
particularly, important. Ifapplied to the site as it eXIStS today, the impacts would be as described in
B(l)a above..
The HD EIR claims that the culvn at El Camino Real has filled-with silt to an artificially high level
over the past several years and. thercfore, recommends dredging toss elevation of 72'.(p. 1'28ElR).
l-iowever..a'quick look at the County of San Diego Topographic Maps (based on 1975
orthophotographic images) clearly shows that the area 20 north and 20 'south of the culvert, and 270'
upstream of the culvert had an elevation of 75' i the year .1975. It is clear that as long as Il years
ago, thc lLv1tton was about 75 'roughly the same is today (I-ID M'tst i Land Use \l tp with curretti
topo lines) Why has the OR not acknowledged that .72 elevations did sot historically exist scar the
culvert. Ill. fitctl a closer inpeetiitnol'the 1975 map reveals that there were no 72 elevaticitts
anvwlterç on the project site, nor ire there any today!
the coast of San Diego County is rtotnecessárily Southern
Maritime Chaparral (as it is most recently being
perceived in its broadest context) • nor is there
necessarily some intrinsic value for such habitat not
found in tracts of chaparral further inland. The (JSFWS
letter notes that at least half the chaparral on site
should be considered Southern Maritime Chaparral,"
indicating the Service itself perceives up to half of the
chaparral as belonging to a Southern Mixed Chaparral
designation. What specific criteria are they utilizing
to sake such a distinction between the two.types? Is it
merely the presence of the Del Mar Manzanita in localized
areas on-site? Pacific Southwest's assessment of the
chaparral at the Hose Depot site has already addressed
the extensive loss of chaparral habitat along the coast,
and the perceived sensitivity of the chaparral at this
site. '" A 50% maximum threshold for impacts was
recommended. -
Pacific Southwest Biological Services strongly recommends
that chaparral sites In the region be assessed on their
individual sensitive plant and animal resàurces in
concert with their cumulative logistical value (e.g.,
wildlife corridor' utility). Southern Maritime Chaparral
stustbe-conceptually refined to delimit the more unique
traits-.of- a distinctive vegetation type. Pacific
Southwest does not believe the numerous and varying
definitions for Southern Maritime Chaparral (including a
MEIA mapping for Encihitas), most rapidly evolving over
the last six months (well after the original field work
and report submittal for the Home Depot proposal) merit
alteration to the original report. Significant 'site
resources (e.g., DelMar Manzanita and chaparral) are
addressed as such within the original report.
Recommendations are made to protect, in situ, significant
portions of these resources; additional recommendations
address off-site mitigation.
If Loamy alluvial land of the HuerhuOro complex were the
sole indicator soil type for Southern, Mari tjme Chaparral,
than sizeable blocks of habitat mapped as Terrace
Escarpment (includirig predominantly east-facing bluffs
south of Oak Crest Park southward to San Elijo Lagoon).
and areas mapped as Rough broken land (including the
east-facing bluffs of the Ecke Ranch) could be excluded.
Both soil types are well distributed in Encinitas and
locally retain good populations of Del Mar Manzanita. In
fact, the San Diego MSCP mappingat 11=2000' scàle1s a
generaliied. mapping program which is.meant to be further
interpreted by site specific biological investigations.
While much of the' chaparral habitat at the Home, Depot
12-388
51 . . .
site is underlain by lands mapped by the USDA Soil
Conservation Service as loamy alluvial land of . the
Huerhuero complex, further investigation clearly reveals
several distinct microhabitats on-site. Pacific
Southwest recognizes that the lower-growing, more open,
and eroded west-facing'slopes with Del Mar Manzanita and
Chatnise are a significantly different floristic mix than
the denser, north-facing slope dominated by Coast Scrub
Oak. Both vegetation areas occur on tho.same ,substrate.
Slope aspect and greater moisture availability would
account for some of these perceived differences.
D)
2)
The EIR concludes that the ,'on-'site Chaparral Is.
sensitive habitat. If, it was not, then"the EIR,
would not require mitiation.
The Tentative Map and Specific Plan' p'rose to
- retain Encinitas Creek as a natural' corridor, -as'
opposed to the upstream channélization. ' . In
addition, 'the proposed development' project includes
wetlands enhancement, which will' improve the'.
quality of the existing habitat. .
C) See the response to C above.
The standard federal method' was. Used to delineate
'wetlands;, this definition is required by the
'resource agencies.
The dredging and creation of wetlands will
temporarily interrupt the Encinitas Creek corridor.
However, the end result will be enhanced wildlife
habitat that will benefit the corridor.
See the response to'D)2)a) above.
The project will retain much ofthe on-site habitat
diversity through the retention of natural open
space and a revegetation program that includes a
wide variety of species, including on-site species
that will be impacted by the project.
1) The EIR identified all sensitive species in the
project area and included recommended - mitigation
measures..
J) The project will not adversely affect the
12-389
4) The EIR recommends dredging to a new elevation of 72 in order to clear silt that has alkdgedly built
up inthe culvert. This 72 elevation to to extend tiir a distance of 20 uiistreain of the culvert.
According to the 1975 topo lines, elevation 71.5 is 430' duwnstreamofthe culvert (west of.El'
Camino Real):. The difference i ti elevation between the approx. ekistiiig (and historic) 75' elevation
at-the culvert and this 71.5 elevation west oithe culvn.resulta in a'slope of about o:s % 100.7%
(barelyenough to drain). If the culvert is dredged to 72. this will create a slope ofO. 1% (so
drainage). This recommendation on p 1-23 EIR does not make sense. However, it appears that the
EIR gives two different recommended (and existing) elevations for the culvert. (See EIR c'rnfrs,/icl,u,is)
Note::
It is unclear when Detention Basins 'A and "B (upstratii in Carlsbad) were built. (See A(3)
above).Regatdlessofsihen they,were built, there is substtntial evidence that the HO SP area has hail
a historicly high floodplain, at least betweei 1975 and 1986,'Contrary to claims in the EIR that the
current floodplain is artificially high.
D) Master Environmental Assessment (?ilEIA 1987) for the Enciniia General Plait
I) The NI one of the Technical support documents for the General Plait, and is, therCfore, pan of the
General-Plan. General Plan policies relied heavily on information in the NIEIR. The HO EIR goes to
great lengths to persuade the reader that there i's no southern maritime chaparral (S.bt.C.) in the SP.
Yet the MEIA (which led'to an approved Gen'eral Plan under CEQA) clearly depicts southern
maritime chaparral in only'4 areas within ihe city limits.' .
0
Ofthe four sites within city linsits,' Oak Crest Park is the smallest. The3 other larger site's are:
The bluffs south bfSanta Fe and east ofEl Carnino Real, the bluffs between Encinitas Blvd
and Manchester and-east of El Camino Real (These bluffs face southeis't overlooking the San
Elijo Lagoon); and i,hg fflflre hill_s 3n4 bluffs on the 1J.5E jj jci continue eastward
towards Olivenhaiti:The hills in th HD SP currently connect with protected open space that.
extends'eastwary towards Oli'eiThiin (A point not raised in the EIR). l'lowever 'some of area
has been developed since 1987. -. .
The only.other Southern Maritime Chaparral in the MEIA is the Ecke (Encinitas Ranch) and
Carlsb'ad'Partners,bluffs which can be sien front Green Villey. This land is outside the city
boundaries and:is the largest connected S.NI.C. habitat in the Encinucas area. The Ecke and
Carlsbad Partners lands lie minediat'ely west and north of the I-ID SP. The bIEIA labeled
all 4 remaining S.M.C. sites as "Important Biological Areas"
C) The MEIA also lists) species typical of Southern Maritime Chaparral, all of which occur on
he HD SP site.
d) The I'D EM goes to great'lengths to avoid labeling any of the vegetation on the HO SP as
southern maritime chaparral: Instead, they call it southern mixed chaparral or coastal mixed
chaparral. (The use of these two terms in an inrerchangeable'manner is erroneous.) The term
coastal mixed chaparral is more appropriate, but the HD EIR claints that this is distinct from
southern maritime chaparral. Although professional opinions do difl'r,'tlte EIR does not fairly
disclose that two 'import ant sources have a very different opinion. Both the NIEIA and the
Terrestrial Vegetation Cotnittunites in San Diego County (Based on Holland's Description)
suggested by Thomas Oberbauer 12-91, describe coastal mixed chaparral as being a term that
has been used.to described soLtthern marititite chaparral. (See "a" and 'b" above and "c'
below)
6
e) By avoiding labeling any vegetation on the lID SP as southern iiiaritiil,e chaparral, the EIR
also avoids having to analyst the fact that this type ofcomtnunity is the highest rated
vegetation community in the state (SI - I by the Fish and Game Natural Diversity Date Bssc
NDDB). The NDDB provides foundation information for the Natural Communities
Conservation Program (NCCP) and related programs like the Noah County Wildlife Forum
(NCWF). ofwltich Encinitas is a member, and the Multiple Species Conservation Program
(MSCP). The MSCP has. in turn, provided criteria guidelines to the NCCP and NCWF to
assist in identiflng'southern maritime chaparral. iS,,c.tISC'Pi. The southern maritime chaparral
designation would necessitate an analysis of the impacts of the ND SP on this extremely rare
vegetation type (less than 6 viable populations remaining in the world, all ofthein confined to
the area between Carlsbad and Torrey Pines Park), with one of the largest aft as being the
bluffs west of the ND SP site, and the ND SP site itself beings valuable connector leading
inland to, as yet, undeveloped lands with significant natural resources still reaunainirig.
2) The MEIA also includes important discussions of
The rarity of native habitats in general in within the city (contrary to EIR claims that there is
plenty of habitat remaining in the city and therefore the impacts of the ND SP are insignificant)
The Encinitas Creek corridor being oneof the few remaining habiats in the city..
Importance-of southern maritime chaparral due to its rich diversity and cáncentration of rare and
endangered species, many of which are endemic to this habitat. The NtE1A notes that the 4 (or S
ifbluffswest ofEl Camino Real are counted) sites mentioned above are high quality S.M.C.
habitats. -
Coastal Commission definition of wetlands
Thé'Batiquitos-LagoonlEnciniias'Creek is one of only two wetland ecosystems, both of which
serve as the primary wildilife corndors in the city. (In other wods,'wetlands and timnctioning
corridors are exceedingly rare within the city)
-- "' OWttlhdcvaluefor'increasingthe'diversiLy'of'adjacent-habjtsts'(jncludjng.upland habitats)--- --
g) The diversity of Green Valley and the bluffs.
Sensitive species that occur in and near the.Encinitas Creek; in the northeast past of the City
planning area (example: Iva Hsyesiana and Consnsaroatyphylos diversifolia asp. diversifolii, etc.)
The proposed Batiquitos Lagoon enhancement plan (now approved), and emphasis on this
lagoon's equally important role compared to San Eli rio Lagoon.
Importance of the two remaining corridors ha habitai for resident and migratory birds.
I) County of SanDiegoResource Conservation Areas (RCA's). Areas within the city designated
RCA's include.' "Olivenhain hills..". Page-5-11 of this report notes "The Olivenhain [(ills RCA is
now largely developed, but stands ofsoutherrs msntsie chiparral still occur southeast of the
junction ofOlivenhain Road and El Camino Real This includes the hills within the ND SP area'
m) The rarity of oak woodlands occasional stands of oak woodland occur along Encinitas Creek
The ND EIR claims that oak habitat is not'rare and thaf there are many areas left in the city. - The
MEIA dearly refutes this since there are few areas within the city that have any native vegetation,
much less oak woodland (S I pa rant i fir i I i p in e not reasooahita i Ii-sed or disclused-
E) Draft EIR for IIPI Olivenhain Property
'-I) Did We HD EIR 'analyse the HPI Olienhain Elk for aeiisitive or S.M.C. species or habitat types
found' TIn Lould help to clarity the ND SP colitrovers> rvg-srdIn existence olS MC
Was,thcre mv floodplain inioriiiatioim'that would tell the historic floo'dlii'ic?
The I-Il) llR slid not state whether this Elk had any of ilie above int'oi',iiaiiiin. -
F) Scotts Valley Flit $985
Batiquitos Lagoon enhancement plan.
)c) The proposed project will retain the Encinitas
Creek wildlife corridor in a natural condition and
will enhance the quality of the habitat in the
corridor.
1) The project area is no longer, under County
jurisdiction. However,, the sensitive species and
habitats are discussed in the EIR.
M) Coast scrub oaks are not a protected species and
they are, not anywhere near Encinitas Creek; they
are on the hillsides. This quotation from the
General Plan Master Environmental Assessment is not
relevant to the project area.
E)
The, HPI Olivenhain EIR was prepared in 1986 and - identified the on-site chaparral as Coastal -Mixed
Chaparral. Biological studies, particularly those
discussing sensitive species, are generally considered
obsolete after two years because conditions change as
well as sensitive species and habitats. A good example of-this is that-the 1986 EIR -stated' that there-were no
listed species in the project area. In addition, photos
-from 'the 19205 indicate there were ,faur Torrey Pines
- -- today only one remains. Gill Voss of Voss--'Horticultüral'
Consultants has noted changes in PA 2 within just a 2-
week period. The 1986 EIR was reviewed. However, the
Home-Depot EXR's Existing Conditions sections were based
on current conditions, not past conditions, which is
correct under CEQA; - -
It is not the historic flood line that is important, but
the current and future flood lines. Historic flood lines
are based on situations at a specific point in-time. New
development as well as sedimentation, -channelization and
vegetation change the flood line overtime. The HPI
Olivenhain Draft EIR included a map 'that was entitled
County Floodplain. However, that map indicated the
project area; no floodplain boundary is readily
discernible onthat sap.
The HPIOlivenhajn EIR by RECON was cited as 'a reference
that, was considered during the preparation of the Home-
Depot EIR. As diCcussed in 1 .1 and' 2, 1986 conditions
are not relevant now; 1992-93 conditions and . future
projected conditions are relevant.
12-390
7 . . S
a, I
I) Did the l-tD Elk analyse the ScoitiValley Elk for.ciiitive or S.MC. species or habitat types
found' This could help to cktruf', ilie HD SP controversy regarding existence of S MC F) 2) Was there any floodplain inform titan that would tell the Itistorit. floodtiii,,9
3) The l-LD Elk did not slate Whether this Elk had any at the abovt. infornittion 1) The Scott's Valley EIR was prepared in 1985 It
-C) Olireiihai'n IlilIResoursceCoiiserv;itioii Are;,? identified the Chaparral-,on-site as-- Coastal Mixed, - --
I) Did the ,RD Elk analyse the studies for the RCA for sensitive or S NI .C. species or habitat >'i Chaparral. Biological studies particularly those
found? This could help to clarity the HO SP controversy regarding extstenceo•fS,M.C. -
discussing sensitive species are generally considered
2) Was there any floodplain information that would tell the historic floiadhin& obsolete after two years because conditions change as
well as sensitive species and habitats This is a) Were there any protections in theRCA that miht atlet.t the LID SP or indit.aie the resource value of recognized on page 15 of the 1985 EIR which states that
the site' Since the original survey in 1976 this (riparian]
4) The i-ID ELK did, notstate whether this study had any iii the above iii1t, habitat has undergone considerable growth arid currently
-lt. . - - - EIR OvenhaanRoadViideiiiiig represents a habitat resource of marginal
0 Dr Changs hydrology analysis is grossly misrepresented. He did not 'advise the construction of significance... " The 1985 EIR was, reviewed. However,
Detention Basin ,"D". In fact he said ."D" was not necessary in order to improve drainage at the El the Home Depot EIR's Existing Conditions sections were
based on Current conditions not past conditions which Camino Real Culvert. Removal of some silt from the culvert would suffice. (Tech Appendix p4, Ii) - - is correct under CEQA. -
He also said that was not needed for the functioning of the La Costa culvert downstream (Tech - -
Appendix p 15) My notes of this EIR indicate that Dr Chang noted that the El '.Camino
1.
Real culvert 2) The Scott 's cited as a reference
cr ec curbinREC6N,was
could function adequately even sithout the remoal of silt howeer, I need to recheck this page to that was the Home g, the preparation of
verify whether I have understood this completely and whether this applied to current demands .or Depot EIR Historic flood conditions are no longer
relevant because flood lines vary as vegetation Increases future demands (Tech Appendix p 16) He also suggested anew floodway study and decreases as creeks are channelized as development
2) Olivenhain Road ELK noted that the project would significantly change the flood flow. In the city of
- .........................- -. . .. - -
increases runoff and as:,,sedimentation from runoff
Encinitas this is not allowed (sonic exceptions apply) Given Dr Changs statements I ant unsure settles out in the flood channel Appendix B of the 1985
why detention basin D is proposed at all I have heard that this basin was requested by a property Scott's Valley,'-EIR stated- that the-, proposed channel
ownerjust east of BndgewaterAVillow Creek (lb believe it was the Wie,and Property) Addition of an design flow for a 100-year storm was 2 900 cubic feet per
unnessesary basin that alters the tloodplauns within the city of Enctniias and lands to be annexed to second (cfs) The September 1992 study by ASL indicated
that with current conditions the projected 100-year this city, as well as lands further downstream in Carlsbad only serves to reduce open space lands that storm flow would-be 1,465, cfs The 1985 EIR did not
have natural resource aesthetic and human trail use potential include a map of the floodplain at that time It noted
3) HID Elk claimed Home Depot would need to be compensated for the wetland intrusion by the that the Scott's' Valley would' result in- 'a
relocation Of the floodp1aiibo3
ect
Olivenbatn Road widening project This is ridiculous since it is partly due to their project that the udies and id locate
road needs widening This needs further analysis as it defies logic residential uses in areas that were in the floodplain at
the time the EIR was prepared
I) MSCP guidelines for Southern Maritime Chaparral Identification (October 7 1991) 3) CEQA does not require irrelevant and obsolete information
I) The EIRfailed to note that the NCCP and NCWF are using the MSCP guideliiigea for southern in an EIR.
maritme chaparral (S.M.C.) identification. These guidelines clearly indicate that S.M.C. will be
differentiated by a) Known localities b) position relative to Coast c) soil t)pe and d) occurrence of G) - -
sensitive plant species The NISCP Decision Rules clarifies the indicator soil type mentioned above is The project area is now within the City of Encinitas and LvF3 soils The significance of this is that there are only three sites in Encinitas that have LvF3 soils there is no designation in the General Plan for Resource (cc U.S SaiL %(apbclow) Conservation Areas In addition detailed environmental 2) Considering that the MSCP is the source of this information which was distributed by SANDAG at studies were not ptepared fr the County RCAs. Most of
the NCCPmeetings, it seems unlikely that the Elk preparer did not know about this. This only adds what is known of the, County RCAs is in the memories of a
credibility to the argument that the site does contain S.M.C. Given the rarity of the soils, its extent few County employees.
eastward, species indicators on, adjacent, and historically in the area, and open space easements east See the i) - of the site that protect what remains, it seems remiss not to acknowledge that there are qualified
response to G) above.
experse,agcnciea with expertise, and substantial evidence to support the strong likelihood that S.M.C.3) See the response to G)1) above.
- exists in the SP area. - - . 4) CEQA requires only a list of references that were
12-391
J) U.S. Soils Map
I) The U.S. Soils Map clearly shows that LvF3 soils-in Encinitas are extremely rare. There arc only
three areas in Encinitas that contain these soils: The uplands near Manchester and i-S (now largely
developed). Oak Crest Park (a very small site and threatened with development), and a significant
portion of land cast of El Camino Real between Olivenhainand Manchester, nearly all of this is now
highly developed. The only large remaining undisturbed LvF3 soils left in the city are the hills in' the
RD SP area as well as the hills that extend east of the RD SP site and connect to Olivenhain. (The
hills east of the RD SP are mostly in open spice casements). (&e %ISCP a I o,,d 4 2 ubon'j
K) State Fish and Game-Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB)
I) The EIRfailed to acknowledge the likelihood of southern maritime chaparral (S.M.C.) on the 1-ID. SP.
site. S.M.C. is rated Sl.l by the NDDB which means that it has the highest rating in the State for
rarity and threat ofdevelopment. The rating indicates that there are fewer than six populations
remaining (in the case of S.M.C., it means anywhere in the world) Populations exist at Torrey Pines
Park, Del Mar, the bluffs west of El Camino Real (Green Valley) which are due west and north of the
RD SP site and a-location in Carlsbad. There are some smaller S.M.C. areas remaining in Encinitas
such as Oak Crest Park. There is substantial evidence(current and historic) that the RD SP site has
some S.M.C. and that this vegetation type extends eastward to the edge of Olivenhain within existing
hillside easements. Due to the size of this existing connected habitat and its close proximity to the
bluffs west of El Camino which have S.M.C, the EIR should have more thoroughly analysed the
significance of this SI. I- rated community, the likelihood of S.M.C. on the MD site, and tliii.SP
impacts to this last habitat type on the site as well as the impacts on the bio-connectivity between
inland and coastal habitats. (See also .5 ,, laster Envi,o,asvcal .lsses.sment. .5IEJR)
The Califoritia Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base Natural Communities
(List) November 1990 and NDDB Communities Descriptions-November 1986 depicts-the indicator
species for southern maritime chaparral. On this list, the HD SP site contains Ii of the 18.
In a conversation with Todd Keeler Wolfe Biologist-NDDB), I was Riven a list of indicator species
that was compiled by Dave Hogan. Mr. I-lOgan's opiiiion is that a site most contain 4 pririfary
indicator species (in any amount) to quality as S.bl,C. TheHD SP site contains 4 of these indicators
and possibly a fifth. (A repent by Hall had indicated the presense of Corythrogyne filaginifolia linifolis
on the site but EIR biologists could nOtconfirm) However, Fred Roberts of U.S. Fish and Wildlife
has seen the ipecies very close to the MD SP sitC. The RD site also has several of Mi. Hosan's
second level indicator species for S.M.C., Todd Keeler Wolfe said it is unrealistic to expect many
indicator speciis given the extreme rarity of the remaining vegetation and its often fragmented state.
L) Home Depot Mister Land Use Mip
I) The Master Land Use Map contains current topographic lines. A comparison of current floodplain
elevations (The EIR gave'cbntndictory elevations) clearly shows that the 84 floodline (One of the
figures given ihe EIR) would go well into the I-ID Building, at least 1/2 of the parking lot, and much
- -of development area of PA 4, and'some of the development area in PA 4. The EIR claims, however,
that only a small part of the parking area is within the current floodplain (The EIR also contradicts
this with other information that sass the building'needs to be elevated out of the floodplain)
2) It appears that the slope calculations for the SP may be in error. On closer eaniination of the 2
contour lines it appears that the some of the slopes were averaged over a 10 span My analysis
showed a ditlerent distribution and amount of step slope areas (I do not own a scanner). Considering
that many steep areas are not accurately represented this affects both the net acreage used in den I
sity
calculat ioas'as well as required Wit fi setbacks (front bluff Of certain height) Fiirih tniorc, it is
unclear iiticcp slope allowances'ere used in'PA- 3 open space.
considered during the preparation of the EIR.
H)
The proposed project does not require Detention Basin D,
and this was stated in the EIR.
The Final EIR clearly stated that Detention Basin D was
no,t proposed by, or required by, the Home Depot project.
The Olivenhain Road Widening and Realignment Project,
which was approved, included the Detention Basin.
However, the basin may not .be constructed.
Olivenhain Road already has LOS F and requires widening.
The widening is not caused by the Home Depot project, nor
by any one project. The Home Depot project is dependent
on the road widening because the LOS is already so poor.
I)
The Home Depot project Is exempted from the NCCP and HCWF
guidelines because the City joined the programs after the
Home'Depot project was already in the planning process.
Seethe response to 1)1) above.
J)1) To date, no soils have been identified as rare or
sensitive.
See the response to D)l) above.
- Seethe response to B)1) above.*
'The slope analysis was prepared by a civil engineer.. The
tabular slope analysis for compatibility with. General
Plan' policies included the open space in PA 3.
H)
The Tentative Hap addresses how the parcel lines are to
be revised to make up PAsi and 2.
The shift inparcel boundaries will not require a,General
Plan amendment because - 'it is adding land to PA 1 that
will allow the development -to be moved -farther away from
the wetlands.
H) The proposed project will retain Encinitas Creek in a
natural state, as opposed to the channelized section east
12-392
tl) San Diego County Assessor's I':ircel M;t1t
I) The Elk preparer has failed to make a critical obscrvaiiuii despite availability of information. PA I
includes portions of two parcels: 255-024-01 (north west part ofSl') and 257-040- I'S (southeast part
of SP). These two parcels were purchased in 1991 by I'Ionie Depot, however, the boundary lines
remain the same 255-02401 is curienily a 13 65 acre parcel whose southern boundary matches the
north boundary of PA 3. 257040215 is,currenily 323 66 acre parcel whose north boundary also
matches the north boundary of PA 3. But a quick look at the various SP maps showing planning
areas 1-4 clearly shows that there is a proposed boundary line shift between the two parcels that make
up PA I and PA 2. The southern boundary line for 255-024-01 (northwest pars of SP) is shifted
about 380' south of itscurreni alignment. This shift adds 5.7 acres to the northern parcel (which now
makes it PAl) and the same 5.1 acres is deducted from the southern parcel (which now makes it
PA 2). The EIR failed to not&tliis proposed change and its significance. (See #,2 below)
2) The massive boundary line shift would clearly require a General Plan amendment since LU 8.2 and
R.M 10.6 says that the city shall not approve subdivisions or boundary line adjustments which would
allow increased impacts from development in the 100 year floodplains, or in wetland or wetland
buffers, .respectively The Elk's failure to notice this is surprising given the number of tithes these
two policies were referenced. Nevertheless, the implications of the Last sentence in those policies was
completely by-passed. Is clear ,tlist without this-boundary change the Home Depot could never fit on
the'original parcel, and with the boundary line shift it is equally clear that this constitutes a drastic
increase in impact's on floodplains and wetlands and wetland boundaries. L-".
N) Riparian Parkways Tank Force Report . .
I) Task Force'rated Encinitas Creek as highes priority for preservation. Valuable information was
not acknowledged .
0) Trail Committe Reports and Goals -
I) The EIR acknowledges that the trails plan will be severly restricted or eliminated, but it does not
talk about the quality that results when massive projects a located next to trails. The end result is that
years of citizen effort are lost on a trail that will neither be safe, nor desireable to use The General Plan
cal!ed"for connecting Parks and Greenways and pursucing a large regional park system. The SP will
isolate the communities by not allowing quality trail connections Further, if the trail is put in, it will be
forced to encroach into the remaining sensitive habitat as a direct result of the SF'.
Morning Sun Development southeast of the HD site
I) According to Gil Voss, the Morning Sun development southeast of the site had numerous S.M.C.
indicatorapecies. including Enctiiitas Baccharii which were transplanted foi mitigation (All
transplants failed) This is another reference to the historic S NI C that occurred around the lID site
before developments destroyed most of the habitat. It is another indicator that the LID site likely
contains S.M.C.
(;EQA
I) The Elk contends that the wetlands and floodplains are artificially enlarged. However, under CEQ.k
if the site has habitat'value (natural or man-influenced), the habitat is still according the same
treatment and impacts cannot be dismissed simply becSuse the habitat may have expanded or even
been created by man's influence. (The Torrey Pine tree included) The Elk repeatedly attemplsIo
downplay habitats allegedly created by maim's influence.
of the Specific Plan Area. In addition, the wetlands
will be enhanced to provide a higher quality wildlife
habitat than exists today'.
0) The location of the potential trail in'the Specific Plan,
Area is dictated by the need to,k'eep the trail 'out of. the
wetlands and, preferably; away from sensitive riparian
areas.
P) See the response to 1)D)l) above.
Q. This comment fails to, acknowledge that the EIR does treat
artificially enlarged wetlands and the Torrey Pine the
same as if they were nat6ral. Mitigation is required in
the EIR for both. However, the planted Pinus. torreyana
found on site, one of a group historically planted in the
vicinity (the others apparently removed during a prior
development to the immediate south of the site) is not a
significant CEQA issue. Introduced plants do not fall
under the same purview as man-made wetlands.
2)
Section'l of- the Final EIR contains' this information.
CEQA'allows for a difference of opinion among experts..
-
- The fact remains that the Rose Depot project does not
require the construction of Deterstion'Basin D
C).
In the section(s) where 'the EIR states that the Specific
Plan Area is surrounded by% development, it 'referred to
the residential development to the east and south and
planned residential development to the'north, and also
indicated that the currently undeveloped Ecke property is.
being planned for development as Encinitas Ranch.
CEQA does all ow forgeneralized- assumptions' for,
projecting future conditions and for program-level EIRs.
D) ' Building height is measured from the round elevation.
The- EIR attempted -to clarify differences in acreages of
biological impacts, particularly to' wetlands. It is somewhat
confusing because PA, 1 contains disturbed fields. ' Some
portions Of the disturbed "fields are uplands, while other'
portions are, wetlandà. Therefore, it is easy to become
confused if. One tries to reconcile acreage. of vegetative-
communities and'wetlands. However, the most important issue
is the sensitivity'of wetlands and the need formitigation.
12-393
2) Elk presents information in an unclear, Fragmented or significanlly ditorted
manner. The EIR has addressed this issue, and the Army Corps of
This does not allow for a reasonable understanding of the information presented. Engineers approved the Section 404 Permit based on the numbers
in the EIR.
A) Mitigations are discussed, but it is not always clear which arc actually proposed III the SP. The Final EIR contains updated information on potential B) Dr Chang s hydrology study continents for the Olienli'iuii Road widening .,re inaccurate. flooding impacts as a result of an updated hydraulic study by
C) Biologist's comments on urban conditions for Cnatcatcher viability is grossly misleading. ASI. Consultants. The most recent study indicates that all of
I) The HDSP site is not suirounded by urban *development despite inference in EIR that it is. The EIR the proposed parking will be at least 6 inches above, the 100-
was especially misleading in this case since other areas did admit that the site has large unde% eloped year flood line
areasadjâcent to it'thatcontain potentially valuable habitat. The significance of 1300 acres of 4) The EIR indicates that development of the Hall site would undeveloped land west of the site whcih borders on the Ba(iquitos Lagoon is largely downplayed. require a vote of Encinitas , citizens on a General Plan 2) tEQA does not allow for vague assumptions of what might happen in the future. A project cannot Amendment and, for this reason, the EIR did not rcontain a
downplay its impacts.based on what'jghi happen in the future. .. . detailed environmental analysis of this alternative. Because
D) Building height is not just 39 feet its 40 plus fill! the Hall site would require a Vote the site is definitely not
EIR presents contradictory information throughout the Elk related to: guaranteed to' be available for the -proposed uses. In addition, the Gener'al' Plan designation would have to be Acreage amounts: (Wetlands impacted. chaparral impacted, flood plain levels, relationship of building changed from residential to commercial or , light industrial
footpnnt to existing floodplain etc) uses and the home improvement center would be immediately
Significance of impacts (Some statements call habitat excellent quality others say low quality) adjacent to residential uses probably closer than the
Quality of habitats on and adjacent to the site (Open spaces east, and undeveloped lands west) proposed development Is to. the existing residences. The use
Project Alternatives,(OIf Site) are inadequately analysed. .
of the Hall site would also require redevelopment of the
existing shopping center for adequate access, and this is also
Analysis of off site alternatives are extremely limited and lack substantial evidence in the record to a tenuous condition and would, at best, be probably five years
support conclusions. . . . . away before the plans for redevelopment could go through the
planning and environmental process. -.
There is a lack ofanalysis regarding significant benefits of offsite alternatives. The Hall property
- The project proposes to mitigate impacts to chaparral through would allow the revitalization of a depressed shopping center it would not require any new hii,hts traffic an .-.intensive_ plantingprogram which_ includes Del Mar impacts would be limited to less than I/S of a mile, traffic improvement funds from the developer would . Manzanita, Coast Scrub Oak and Coast White Lilac. This is - -
go farther since they would be focused on thefreeway ramp improvements and addition of I more left mentioned in numerous sections of the EIR. In addition, the
turn lane into the.Vons center. on Sant Fe. Furthermore, ?.tr. Hall, one major owner of the,center are in EIR discusses in detail the proposed off-site mitigation for
favor of this. Mark Eisen (Home Depot) said that this site would be much beiterfor Home Depot due to the California Gnatcatcher.
thefreeway access. Therewould likely be considerable less expensein developing ihis property due to few environmental constraints. . . The iisforsatibzs prepared by Gil Voss- was considered
during the preparation of the EIR. Some of his
5) For the SF as proposed mitigation for loss of extremely valuable upland habitats information was quoted in the Final EIR. The EIR
is lacking. recognizes differences of opinion among experts CEQA
. Most rnitugationsrecommended are based on alternative project designs, not as the SP is proposed. does not .require that the EIR biologist change opinions
simply 'because there is other information available; it
requires only that the Information be considered.
Dr. Rea's information was considered during the
preparation of the Final EIR. The biology section of the
Final EIR indicates that-,his information was considered.
1) The California Department of Fish and Game were sent a
Notice, of Preparation at the béginniAg of the EIR
preparation and were sent Draft and Final EIRs.
12-394
•
6) EIR dues not give reasonable analysis of opinions of noted experts and agencies
with expertise.
Professional opinions do differ however, the Elk tends to downplay the opionioris of noted experts
andagencies. This does not allow a reaaonble comparison ofopiiiion differences..
Gil Voss Reports
I) Two reports from Mr. Voss were submitted to the city (One during the Draft Comment Period and
one after). The EIR fails to glean the éssente of these reports. Mr. Voss (Ex-curator of Quail
Botanical Gardens and a consulting horitculturalkt) is clearly impressed with the extreme diversity of
the site. Yet the EIR downplays the opinion of this expert.
Dr. Amadeo Rca Ph. D. Reports
I) These reports were submitted after the draft comment period. However, the purpose of these reports
was to study the long term residency of the Gnatcatchers (throughout the summer while young were
fledging) as well as to receive another opinion front a noted expert (Curriculum Vitae was submitted
to the City) regarding the sites habitat value. Despite Mr Rca's report on the wonder diversity ot'the
site, the value of the Oak Bosque, and the significance of the residents Gnatcatchers as well as visitors
from adjacent properties, the EER continues to downplay the overall value of this site as a rich and
diverse habitat and as an irreplaceable connector habitat between two largerhabitat, one inland and
one coastal.
State Fish and Game
I) It appears that the slate Fish and Game has not been adequately consulted. Conversations with
numerous Fish and Game personn I led me to the conclusion that they had not been consulted
regarding the MD SP Given that die General Plan of Encinitas requires that the opinions of the state
Fish and Game be afforded great weight there appears lobe a need to analue this project's non
compliance with this General Plan policy.
2) The EIR attempts to conclude that the MD SP sit&does irot have the cumulative compotient
necessary to indicate the presence of southern mantime chaparral (S hI C) However, the site does
contain the proper soils and pro'uituty to coast The site sits wtthin a known location of S hi C and
the site has indicator species. According to Todd Keeler Wolfe Fish and Game-Biologist NDDB), a
ie does not need to have all indicator species of S.M.0 in order to quality. Opinions differ, but as
little as 3 or 4 indicator species can warrant the labeling of the vegetation as S.M.C. These 3 o 4
indicator species vary according to different opinions of experts. .. -
See List of available in orniatiun no: adequately analysed or explored:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
I) In conversations with Fish and Wildlife representatives, it was conveyed tome that the I'l.D SP was
not viewed with favor. Apparently, the Fish and Wildlife Service had wanted to look at the bigger
local and regional issue regarding bio-connectivity (A goal of the NCWF). However, their
suggestions were not given great weight. Given that the General Plan requires the city to afford the
opinions of the Fish and Wildlife great weight, it appears that an analysis of this project's non
compliance with this General Plan policy is warranted. -
2) Conversations with Fred Roberts reveal that Encinitas and southernC'arlsbad are a hub of rare and
endangered species The EIR does not adequately address the significance of this in fact, it claims
off site mitigation will .,suffice. How can you mitigate irreplaceable resources? The mitigation will not
be a like kind!
7) Important information and itupacts were not reasonably disclosed or .iiialvsed.
A) Oaks and Scrub Oaks
I) The I-ID EIR gives little attention to the fact that the "Los Encinituss" or Litile Oaks. area
valuable cultural resource since they are the naitiesike of the city. Thchillsinilie I ID SP area are
2) See the response to l)D)1) above.
See responses to l)A). -
-
The EIR noted, in numerous places, that the Specific Plan
would ,(l) retain a large open space corridor on the
north-facing hillsides (as well as a connecting open
space on the lower portion of the west-facing slopes),
and (2) retain the Encinitas Creek corridor in a natural
condition and enhance the wetland habitat.
The; proposed off-site mitigation is known gnatcatcher
habitat and is considered to provide a better habitat and
'a better chance for the birds to survive than the much
disturbed chaparral in the Specific Plan Area. The "
proposed mitigation area is included in San. Dieguito
River Valley Regional Park and is immedia.tely,adjacent to
other - parcels being 'acquired for preservation as
mitigation. for other projects. - The proposed off-site
mitigation area will becovered by an irrevocable open
space- easement for. the preservation of natural resources.
7) A) - . - - .
The Final EIR recommends that potential impacts to Coast
Scrub Oak be mitigated-through one of three alternatives:
The project proposes mitigation through one of those
alternatives:, . inclusion in the proposed planting
program. .
The EIR biological consulting firm did not find four,
species of oaks on-site. -
Runoff- gerierallyinoeases with development. - In -
addition, the subsurface flow may .very well increase
because the future residents will likely irrigate their ,
landscaping substantially more often than the areas have
received rainfall, and subsequent runoff, in the past.
The level of analysis was considered adequate for the
project location, which is between El Casino Real and
existing residential-development. - Wildlife in the area
has already been subjected to noise, light and glare, and
the species that have continued to use the area may be
used to urban development.
The SDG&E easement will remain the primary connective
corridor- between the wetlands and the open -space
hillsides.
12-395
one of the few remaining sites in tile Encinicas area thai has slarge mature (and regenerating) oak
and scrub oak grove. Its value as a natural and cultural resource has been given very inadequate
analysis by the EIR preparer considering moat of ihc grove with be destroyed or severly reduced
even with the crib wall alternative. The Qiiercus dututosa is nearing-endangered listing which was
mentioned in the EIR.
2) There is also a rich mixture of 4 oak types on the site. This was not revealed in the EIR.
B) No abaorbtion rate t4udy was done.
This can seriously affect water availability for plants and wetlands. Upland habitat is dependent on a
dry summer and a wet-winter (runoff from upslope provides much of this). Redirected runoff upslope
can destroy a habitat within a few year's.'-
t) Noise, light glare, and urban proximity impacts on upland and wetland species is only
- addressed in a very limited fashion. .
The.importance of this habitat and its use as a corridor warrants further analysis on noise, !,ight glare,
and crowding.
B) Bio-connectivity impacts between wetlands siid uplands on the site is barely mentioned.
'1) Some discussion is made of connections between PA 2 and PA 3, but SP impacts on connections
- bátwecn the uplands and wetlands (critical for the survival of many species and maintenance of
No species diversity is barely acknowledged.) (See .IIEL and other reports)
RD SP area as Goatcatcher stepping stone between inland and coastal habitat
I) One of the biologist hired by either Constance Willen or the Ciiy, was on site when Ainadeo Rea was
studying the site (June 17,1992). This biologist and Mr. Rea clearly saw the intruding Gnatcatchers
which appeared to be coming from the Ecke property. This is strong evidence that the HO site is a
functioning cdnidor in the movement of Gnatcatchers not only from the east (Fieldstâne) but also
from the west (bluffs west of El Camino Real). I ca,, see no evidence in the EIR that the oilier
biologist ever noted this occnrw we. The HD SP will destroy or severely degrade the last
consector (stepping stone) between two large undeveloped areas, one coastal (inc. Baliquitoa
Lagoon) and one inland. This impact is not given reasonable attention in the ELR.. No mitigation can
compensate for the loss of this large functioning ecosystem.
Vetlands lost as a result of Dredging and Detention Basin "D"
,l) The HD"ElR did not adequately address the floodplain (and wetland) reduction that will result from
dredging, filling, and implementation'of"D' in terms of loss of natural resource space, aesthetic open
space, nd trail useOpen space. There is a potential loss of much more wetland vegetation and
quality. No mitigation is offered for this potential loss.
PA 4 will cut off habitat connections to existing open spaces east of the site.
This was not adequately revealed in the EIR. . .
Letters from Jim Hirh and other consultants show they knew the Site was diflicult before the
bought it. . ..'
These letters which are part of the 9GPA 90-226 record clearly show that Home Depot representatives
knew the difficulties of the site One letter even stated that if they did not get the requested change,
the Home Depot SP would not b able to be implemented. They did not et all the changes they
wanted and so are still in gross lion compliance (EIR states developable are is 1/2 that proposed). It
.is clear that an alternative Site should be explored more thoroughly. Approval of this project will
violate extension General Plan and ocher city policies. 10 sotd this an extensive GPA would be
.reuired. However, a GPA for another site would certainly involve fewer chiatiges (Hall property).
Also, i1a'pr'iect is going to be approved that violates the General Plan. it would be easier to violate
fewer policies (l'lall) then more (Current site). So this is not an adcqu:iie reason t'or the Elk to
conclude that other sites are iiil,iiblc due to violations of the General l'laii or a necd for
amen,li,ici,is
The Specific Plan retains a wide open space corridor along the north-facing slopes that may continue to act as
a "stepping stone" for wildlife movement.
The Final EIR clearly states that Detention Basin D is
not proposed as part of the project, and that is a
separate project already addressed In the Olivenhain Road
Widening/Realignment EIR. However, if Detention Basin D,
or, any, other.' measure, slows the water flow in. the area
and reduces. flooding,, it may result in a. long-term
reduction of wetlands. Without continued flooding, some
wetlands that are delineated wetlands because ot,hydric
soils, both in the Specific. Plan Area and along Encinitas
Creek dOwnstream, may convert to uplands species over a
long period of time. If this happens,, it could reduce
the' habitat value of the riparian corridor but could also
provide more opportunity for trails in the area;
The large open space corridor along the north-facing
hillsides and the riparian corridor along Encinitas Creek
will retain habitat connections to the east.
The City Council will have to , make the final
determination on whether the Specifiâ Plan and/or
Tentative Hap conflict with General 'Plan policies. If
the Council determines that there' are conflicts, it must
then determine whether the conflicts are significant. If
conflicts are determined by the Council to be significant
,environmental Impacts, then, a statement of overriding
considerations will be required for each significant
impact. Seethe response to 4) above.
The off-site parcel already has two known pairs of. California
Gnatcatchers. The adjacent parcels €o the, south and west,
both of which are being proposed for acquisition as permanent
open space, both have'two pairs of Griatcatchers and a known
foraging location for coastal Cactus Wrens. It Is highly
possible that 'the Coastal Cactus Wrens wil,l also use the
proposed mitigation area because it is comprised of the same
vegetative types. All of these parcels have been surveyed by,
Pacific Southwest Biological Services as part of another
project. .
NEW INFORi4ATION'
Since the Final EIR has not been certified, there is no need for a
subsequent EIR; information is still being added to the Final EIR
and public record. The public comments (both written and verbal)
and responses have,' been incorporated into the Final EIR. The EIR
can be amended until final certification.
12-396
13
.,.
*
8) Quality of off site mitigation was not reasonably- analysed. '
No species list, level of quality. or comparison to SP site habtiat was given for proposed offsite The reported presence of gnatcatchers on-site was discussed in mitigation areas. This does not allow an informed decision by the public or city officials. the Draft EIR. The presence of the species on-site was Black sage habitat mentioned is relatively common and lacks the diversity of the 1-113 site. confirmed by the consulting biologist at the January 21, 1992
The MD Site has potentially more than just a pair of Gnatcatchers and two young (Unclear ifsitings public input meeting. The presence of the gnãtcatchers was
were of the same or different birds: two adults. two young, possibly two different visitors (June 91). I not new information.
on north part ofPA 3 (Jive witnesses), and three'un the south and southeast pan fPA 4 (on video) - - The orangethroat whiptail is a Candida1.te. 2 species for
- . listing. It is-not listed, and-its presence:on-site was not-
confirmed by the consulting biologist. This is not considered' -
- to be significant new information.
- ' The Home Depot project was In the planningprocess before the
City of Encinitas joined the tJCWF It is, therefore, exempt
- V V from the program.
-
V A) The Hose Depot' site is designated .for Light Industrial
- uses, not open apace,, parks or -ecological reserve. V - - - Therefore, it isV assumed that the Home Depot site will
ultimately be developed.
- - The proposèd,projeát will dredge the Encinitas Creek channel - -
and maintain -it at the level for which the bridge was design. - V - - - It will reduce-existing flooding problems and, by doing so, - - - -- V - - - there may be a long-term incremental reduction of the wetland -
acreage. The dredging will, in the long s term, result in an - --
• - insignitic,jt c derease amount— of, in the amountof water going into -t
- - - 8atiq4itos Lagoon. - The effect is --not expected to be V5:
- - noticeable. The.Creek wjthin the Specific Plan-Area. will be
retained ma náturalcóndition, as opposed-to the upstream.
chartnelization, and 'will retain its function as aVWjldl.ife
corridor. '-,The proposed development will -enhance-the quality
- - - - of wetlands so that more- habitat .,is available for animals
- . - using the Creek corridor.
- 5) The EIR addresses the project area for project-specific
impacts and also considers impacts known- for approved
- V developments at the time of the preparation of the EIR.
- , - Although the biological information- from- the Encinitas Ranch,
V Constraints Study'provides good base-data, it cannot analyze - - - - specific impacts because the Specific Plan haC not yet been:
completed. In addition, several- 'court cases have determined,
that the certification of an EIR does' not 'require the
completion of all possible studies-and that certification of
an EIR does not need to be held up indefinitely pending the -
- completion of studies. - - - -.
- V - A) The riparian corridOr between the. Encinitas Ranch
property and the SPA, will be retained in a permanent open:
space corridor V that will - be -retained, as a- natural
- wildlife: corridor. The area. in the vicinity, of - the- -
bridge and under the bridge will -be periodically dredged -
to retain the Creek channel between 72 and 75 meet above
V
- -
- - 12-397
-
ILk - -
NEW INFORMATION
(unavailable during I)ralt EIR public comment Period)
Due to the significance of the ne ii,l'oriiiation (not available during DratI Elk public comment period) a
subsequent EIR should address the following;
I) New Gnatcatcher sitings and evidence of long lerill survivability
Gnatcatchers found in PA 3 below the slopes. (Five witnesses)
Gnatcatchers found in PA 4 in the southern and'south east portion. (On vidio tape)
New species found on site
Orange whiptail lizard spotted by Mary Reneker.
North County Wildlife Foruiti-City,of Encinitas hits signed into an agreement to participate.
The potential to greatly improve piotection for local resources through the goals of the NCW'F
warrents further analysis of NCWF impacts on the SP proposal.
A) The EIR-spends much effort assuming the ultimate urbanization around the HD SP site, but it does
not give equal or reasonable analysis of the possibility of an extensive preserve based on efforts of
agencies like the NCWF.
Batiquitos Lagoon Resioraiioii Project approved.
Fifty million dollars has been allocated to drastically renovate the Batiquitos Lagoon. The impacts of
narrowing the wetlands and adjacent habitat was not addressed in light of the increased
importance now given to the Batiquitos Lagoon ecostem and upland ecosystem connections.
First Ecke property constraints study is completed.
The EIR barely touched on potential species and habitats in the last large undeveloped lands between
Encinitas and southern Carlsbad, and significant new information must be reasonably analysed.
A) The Ecke '(Encinitas Ranch) constraints study, clearly demonstrates that-the Home Depot SP site is
adjacent to one of the richest, rarest, largest, and most diverse natural habitats remaining its coastal
San Diego County. It's importance cannot be over emphasized, nor can the critical bio-connections
that the Home Depot site offers for this larger habitat due west.
I) The constraints study clearly reveals that the Ecke site (and bluffs) contain numerous rare and
endangered species including Gitatchatchers, orange whiptailed lizard, Encinitas Baccharis, Del
Mar. Sand Aster, and Summer Holly. The Elk did not give reasonable' analysis to this extremely
rich site and its potential bioconnectivity to the HD site. Instead, the EIR tended to downplay the
830 acre area as a place that will likely be urbanized in the near future.
2) The constraints study (Oct. 92) reveals that despite the size and complexity of habitat on the Ecke
lands, the l-LD SP site (only 55 acres) actually has 7 more native species than the entire Ecke area!
(70 on HD site and 63on Ecke site) This clearly attests to the rich diversity of the HD site. The
EIR greatly downplays the fantastic diversity and bio.connectiity on the HD SP.
Carlsbad Partners Property constraints study. has (presumably) been completed. -
mean sea level. The frequency of need for dredging will
depend on the amount of sediment coming downstream.
There is no connection between the Hose Depot uplands and
the Encinitas Ranch uplands because they are separated
by El Casino Real and agricultural fields.
6) As mentioned above, the.CEQA process does not require that the
certification of an EIR be held up until every possible study
is completed
INADEQUATE ANALYSIS OF 'SP. COMPLIANCE WITH THE ENCINITAS GENERAL
PLAN .
1) The City of Encinitas community Development Department staff
has determined that is the 'responsibility, of the City.Council,
not the EIR preparer, to. sake determinations on the
compatibility of the project with General Plan policies. If
the City Cduncil determines the project to be not in
conformance with General Plan policies, the Council will have
the responsibility of determining whether, the . lack 'of
conformance with each, policy say result in environmental
impacts and whether. ,these impacts are significant. If
nonconformance with -a policy doesnot create an environmental
impact, it is a .pla'nning issue, not, an environmental issue.
For each General Plan. policy conflict, that may result in a
significarit unmitigable impact, the City Council will have to
make. a 'finding' of overriding considerations justified by
evidence in the record.
A)
The most recent.' traffic analysis completed for the Home
Depot Specific Plan and Tentative Map was based on the
Encinitas Traffic Model Data Volume 1 dated September 4,
1992. It was the most current information available at
the time. The existing' traffic problems are, a'result of
existing development, which cannot be corrected by any
one project,, "and it is this existing deficiency that
requires the generation of any 'additional traffic to be
cumulatively significant. The EIR does. not downplay
traffic impacts and clearly notes the road segments that
are expected to result .in a reduction in Level of Service
ama result of the project.
Internal and external access is, discussed in Section
3.5.2.4 of.theEIR.' The 1989 feasibility study for the
SPA considered Olivenhain Road access to PA 1. However,
this access was later discarded as an option because it
would have to cross..the 'wetlands. .
B) - •. . .
1) The City of Enclnitas Community .Development Department
staff have determined that the'. proposed Home Depot Center
12-398
-Of '11~
INADEQUATE ANALYSIS OF SP COMPLIANCE WITH THE
ENCINITAS GENERAL PLAN
Note: The EIR preparer claims that a compatibility study o(ilw SP and the General Plan is not the
purpose ofan EIR. However, general discontent with rapid and *inappropriate developments was a
primary reason for City incorporation Once incorporat d the Encinitas General Plan was formed with
significant public input. A primary of concern ofciins was to-protect significant natural resources and
the quality of life in Encinitas by controlling development via a careliully prepared General Plan.
Therefore'; an incompatbilityssudyof the Home Depot SP with the General Plan is a valid area of
thorough research for the EIR preparer since developments that are incompatible with the General Plan
will greatly affect the quality.oflife. the habitat: open spice, and property values in the Encinitas area.
Important General Plan and Municipal Code policies were not adequately
addressed.
The ,EIR. did address many General Plan inconsistencies, however, very significant General Plan and
Municipal Code policies were not adequately analysed, for their impacts on the SR.
A) Trafflc
I) The EIR drastically downplays the excessive density being proposedfor the HD SR. The June 1992
ETA".l Traffic Model Data Vol l,,'clearl' shows that the entire SR area was to have only about 1000
ADT allowed The EIR acknowledges this but turns around and claims that traffic is a regional problem
not mitigatable at the project level! The EIR does reveal the impacts that will result from the nearly
10,000 ADT proposed for the SR The E even shows that as far into the future as 2010 the 1-ID SP
Will still have an enormous impact by reducing traffic flow on three major roadways one whole level into
the unacceptable range! Despite the long and short ten'n consequences the EfR claims the traffic
problems are fbi the result of the LID SR. -This,is clearly unacceptable since it is clear that the project is
far to dense for the site Road widths improvements other zoning in the city were all based on the
cumulative contributions of various areas of the city. For the SR logo 9000 ADT over what was plailned
(nearly 10 times) and then to dismiss this impact as a regional not a project level problem is beyond
reason and does not reflect an unbiased and good faith effort of revealing impacts and possible
mitigations.
Access is not adequately addressed either internally or externally.. The E[R'does not mention that the
General'Plan states that new develonsents will take their access ofFof roads other than El Camino Real.
The Specific Plan rules for this site in the General Plan do thention access off of El Camino Real,
'however. Nevertheless, this is an important impact on the flow of traffic since this new signal will slow
traffic and create more pollution.
is compatible with the designated land use and zoning.
The proposed Home Depàt Center does not,, require any
change in zoning or land use designation
The EIR determined that the Hall site was not a feasible
alternative because it would require a General Plan
Amendment (GPA), which would. require a vote of Encinitas
citizens Since it would require a vote there is no
guarantee that the CPA would be, approved;' without
approval the Home Depot project is not possible The
Hall property is immediately adjacent to existing and
approved houses at the same elevation. It is not
unreasonable, to'essume that the existing residents and:
the future residents of-brand new homes would be apposed
to approval of the GPA. . In addition, adequate access to
the Hall property would require the detholition of a
portion of the chopping center and redevelopment of the
shopping center. This would probably require at least
three years before the redevelopmentproject-could get to
the 'decision-making body, because there are' no current
plans 'for-redevelopment: j a GPA and redevelopment plan
was approved for. the Hall site the earliest it would be
available would probably be 5 years from now.
D)
The purpàse' of the EIR is to analyze potential
environmental impacts of the project; , Planning' issues -
will be'resolved by the City Council.
As stated in -'the General 'Plan, all land within, the
Coastal/Inland Bluff Overlay Zone are subject to 'the
steep slope encroachment analysis except public roads;
etc Please see the discussion of Policy 1.2 of the
Public Safety Element in th'e'EIR, including Table 3.6-1.
The Zoning: Ordinance 'defines' a 'bluff as ia scarp, or
steep face of rock, decomposed rock, ',mediment Or soil
resulting. 'from'erosion, faulting,': folding, filling, or
excavation of the land mass. The bluff may be simple'
planar' 'or curved surface or it may be steplike in section.hi' -Policy .1.6' of the Public Safety Element
requires new structures and improvements to existing
structures to be set' back 40 feet, from the bluff top
edge, with some exceptions allowed with appropriat
,
e
documentation in a geotechnical report The proposed
residential' development in PA 2 is in conformance with -
this policy.
The density calculations were reviewed and approved for
use by the City's community Development Department 'staff.
12-399
B) 'Zoning
I) It appears that light industrial coiling (General Plan p. LU 31) is allowed a retailing or wholesaling flincition related to the manufacturing activity. This does not seem to indicate that General Commercial is an allowed use in the light industrial zoning.
The Ilk ntes that the Hall property and others s%outd require a zoning change wh
i
c
h
e
i
t
h
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
a vote of the people or a CPA. llowever, LU 3.12 4(c) does not list Light Industrial as
a
c
l
a
s
s
w
h
i
c
h
can be interchanged with another similar classification. Does this mean that the HD S
P
s
i
t
e
w
o
u
l
d
n
e
e
d
a
vote of the people or a GPAin order allow General Commercial?
- The EIR claims that lack of zoning or'need to change zoning makes an alternative site infeasi
b
l
e
.
T
h
i
s
is not justifiable under CEQA ifan alternative project site would meet the needs of the proj
e
c
t
w
i
t
h
f
e
w
e
r
environmental impacts. The city can make a finding of clear public benefit and avoid havi
n
g
t
o
g
o
t
o
a
vote of the people (a survey is recommended, however).
C) Preservation'of re'sources
The General plan has numerous policies that State the city shall pursue all avenues to preserve
resources, including TDRs, PRD'a, coliservatton easements, etc. Yet the EIR fails to
m
e
n
t
i
o
n
t
h
i
s
alternative which could be -a clear benefit for the city and for the owners of propertiesto which
T
D
R
'
s
a
r
e
transfelTed. The Hall proterty isan"é'aample. Ifa clear public benefit
-would result the city can change zoning without a vote of the people. However, a survey of nearbly residents to the
H
a
l
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
w
o
u
l
d
be wise.
D)Other
I) Net acreage (excluded acreages)and density calculation rules for industrial zoning l
a
c
k
i
n
g
.
2) Steep slope encroachment allowance very unclear as to what is allowed to be encroac
h
e
d
b
y
2
0
%
Does this mean 20% allowed encroachment into the gross or net acreage? Is
it only a 20% encroachment into the steep slope areas and if so which level of steepness? The EIR did not give
a clear indication of how various rules in the General Plan and Municipal Code would
cumulatively affect the SPprupusal.
a) Also, the ELR. claims that roads leading to developable areas are excenspt for the steep s
l
o
p
e
density reductions: The EIR fails to address that this exception is only allowed if the road
leads to slopes with 25 % or less, not the steep slope areas that are slated for devel
o
p
m
e
n
t
!
3) In the E, no definition of bluffs was given according to Encinitas General Plan and Mun
i
c
i
p
a
l
Code. How would the SP be affected by the required bluff setbacks of 40' which was also n
e
v
e
r
discussed in ,the Em.
4) It appears that density allowances were used in areas that are not Supposed to used s
u
c
h
a
s
ROWs,'easements, floodplarns, wetlands, buffers, steep slopes etc. in all four PA's
5) Very limited analysis was givenregarding the significance of fioodplains, wetlands, butlers,
a
n
d
easement related to: .
Lost open space and a decline in quality of life
Lost trails connections to open apace around SP site
-Lost habitat value
. 6) Rules for use ot'Floodplains, wetláiids, buffers; steep Slopes, and easements
' is-erroneous. (exmple,- roads in easements are not allowed'
.
for residentiahor commercial.) 7) Lack ofconauliion with F & C and its impacts on GeneralPlan rules
8) Lack of consultation with F & W and its impscti on General Plan rules
5)
"Quality of life" is a nebulous term that is
interpreted differently by different people. The
issues discussed in the EIR are generally those
considered when discussing the 'quality of life:
air quality, 'water quality, traffic circulation,
biological 'resources, land use compatibility,
visual quality,, hydrology/ flooding; and noise. The
- EIR clearly identifies the -acreage of open space
lost in each PA in Table 1.2-2. a,.
Because of the sensitivity of some portions of the
open space within the SPA, in general, trails
should not be encouraged. The project does not
preclude a trail along the north boundary of PA 1 outside of the wetlands. Two alternatives encompassing a 'trail are discussed in Sections
7.1.6 and 7.1.7 of theEIR. The EIR also notes
that many of the alternatives can be combined to
provide additional composite alternatives.
The EIR makes it clear that the quality of the
wetlands wildlife habitat will be improved by the
project.
6) Roads would not be allowed in the open space easements,
but would be allowed in access easements.
-
7) The California Department of Fish and Game was consulted.
They responded in writing that they would not comment on
the project until the project had gone through the CEQA
- process.
8) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was consulted as part
of the Section '404 Permit process.
9) The EIR recommended that the Specific Plan be amended to
show a circulation plan allowing access to PA 3,and'the
southern portion of PA 4. .The EIR also recommended the placement that the TM include an access 'easement 'over
part of PA 1'for'future access to PAs 3 and ,4... The
project applicant will not benefit from this easement
the benefit' would accrue to the owners of PAs 3 and 4
The recommended easement would be through the Hose Depot
parking 'lot, adjacent to the building, and past the
Garden Center. The.exact alignment, would be determined
when' PA is is developed; and '•PA 3 would be.' expected to prOvide"an access easement for PA 4.
There are no density rCquirements for lig ht'induStrial
- uses,' as there are for residential uses. The only calculations required are those for the steep slope
12-400
I7
a •
.
.
-
,. '-
* ,'- '
0
4
The EIR discussed the lack of easement granted in PA i and PA 3. However, it does not indicate
- how this could be an advaniae to the applicant (despite noted violation to General Plan policies) encroachment analysis because the project area is within It appears that without a granted easement there is more available net acreage to determine the Coastal/Inland Bluff Overlay Zone and this is not allowed density. (Existingand future road casements are deducted from Gross acreage). Will the related to density
EIR preparer clarify the General Plan and \luncipl Code rules and its impacts on density
The Light Industrial zone development standards do not - calculations9
include any density standards Instead the development General Plan protections for migratory birds not addressed standards include requirements for setbacks lot coverage floor/area ratio and other criteria The Submitted by density allowance for residential developments is Julie Fisher (Neighborhoods United. 12-29-92) explained in Policy S. 3 of the Land Use Element of the
General Plan. Thd density for the residential portion of
Clanflcstion of outline topics will follow Some documents requested were not available at the City I the project in PA 2 was calculated according to the
guidelines in Policy B'-."3,. and the proposed development is will be receiving those soon and will comment ASAP in conformance with the policy
-4--i C 10) The EIR preparer did not. find a specific policy relating
birds in the E - Ei p pone to migratory, General Plan
C,O Se4tLLI * The portion of PA :3 that is shown as an- optional borrow site
-(c( is the same area designated as developable in the Specific
4 i go.- Pacr ' i p,-? 1? Co. Plan Using PA 3 as a borrow site would impact the same area -tLU ts l&c1- "3.. that is designated for light industrial uses in PA As 6 shown in Table 3.6-1 of the EIR the steep slope encroachment
i ot.ce-e- (cSocvrcS c-c -f -+L od Vi / / in PA3 wouId;be, 8.5%, ,wéll. below.thé 20%. :allowable encroachment into steep slopes c± •Jt-a. c<
HOME DEPOT SPECIFIC PLAN EIR WETLANDS IMPACT INCONSISTENCIES
Wetlands Impacts
Wetlands impacts are clearly identified in Table 1 2-3 of the
Final EIR The consulting biologist provided Tables 1 2-2 and
o included in 1.2-3 specifically for the Final EIR they are no-,
Appendix B The intent of these tables is to clarify many
questions that arose from the Draft EIR
Table 1.2-2 of the Final EIR breaks down the Disturbed Field
category into wetlands and uplands Tables 1 2-2 and 1.2-3., indicate that the proposed TM will ispact 3-of the 10.8 acres of existing, wetlands - Implementation of the Specific Plan
- will rèsult--inimpacts to 4.8 acres of the 18.7 -acresof wetlands in the SPA Upon completion of the proposed wetlands
creation thereyill be a net impact of 2 3 acres (21%) for the TM and 4 1 acres (22%) for the SPA
Asi shown in Table 1.2-2 of the Final EIR 100% of the Disturbed Field Uplands in PA 1 will be impacted while 55.6t of, the Disturbed Field Wetlands will be Impacted in PA 1. The total area of Disturbed Fields that will be impacted by the TM
is 10 acres out of the existing 12.3 acres (81% of the
existing acreage in PA 1)
- 12-401
HOME DEPOT SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
WETLANDS IMPACT INCONSISTENCIES
Julie Anne lislier
126 Village Run West
Encinita, CA 92024
•. July 11, 1992
Updated August 3l 1992
Wetland Impacts 1 through 10
-1) Please see Tables 1.2-2 and-1.2-3.
The impacts to Willow Riparian Woodland 'from the
development of PA 1 will' result from the grading and
filling of the area north of the northeast corner of the
proposed Gàrden'Ceñter (see the revised Figure-.3.3-2). The dredging will occur in areas of Disturbed Field
Wetlands. "Neither the Freshwater Ma'rsh nor the Saltwater
Marsh will be'impacted' by the proposed 'TM.
North of the proposed' parking lot, the runoff water
treatment system -will remove 0.5 acre.of Disturbed Field
Wetlands and replace this area with marsh vegetation.
Although this is technically wetlands enhancement, 'the
detention pond proposed ,.as 'part of the runoff water
treatment mymtem has not been, counted - as enhancement
because port Ions of the 'marsh vegetation will be
periodically replaced to retain the filtering capability
of the vegetation.
'
4) Specific grading impacts from the development of PAs 3
and 4 cannot accurately be ascertained, at this time
because-there is no development/grading plan available.
The EIR impact estimates are based, on the, areas
designated as developable in the Specific Plan. It 'is
possible that development as designated in the Specific
beyond the boundary of the development.area. It is also
possible that wetland-impacts in PAs 3,and 4 will be less e' . than estimated in th EIR if the mandated wetland buffers
are retained in open'mpace. The areas designated in the
Specific Plan as developable in PA 3 does not contain Willow Riparian Woodland. In the original biological
study, it was thought that 0.8 acre of Willow Riparian
Woodland was' located in the northwest corner of PA 3.
However, additional investigation determined that this
area is not in PA 3, but, in P 1,. It could be.,Impacted
,by a, future access road to PA 3. However, the grading
plan for ,the future access road will likely avoid the
Willow Riparian Woodland Definite impacts cannot be
assessed until the' grading plan for the' road is
developed.'
Please see the response to 4) above
The fifl slope area has been taken into account in the
wetlands impact calculation for PA 1. - Figure 3.3-1 -is,
designed to illustrate' the existing vegetation: and
sensitive species; it is not the, grading plan.
12-402 . . .
Dear Mr. Hirsh,
Several inconsistencies within the Home Depot Specific Plan EIR are noted in this report.
Many of these inconsistencies are due to arithmetic errors Other problems stein from conflicting
data In many cases it is difficult to quantify the errors due to a lack of sufficient iiifonnation Pui
report describes some 0/the errors re.wdiigwetku:ds.
The itdlci:ed,5oriions of this report are clar!Jicatioiis to the initial report oJ July II, 1992
TABLE 1.3-2 on pI8 of the Draft EIR
Vegetative Community - jsii'.Acre Ares linoacted
Coastal Mixed Chaparral -., 21.4 9.2
Diegan Sage Scrub 2.6 1.0
Freshwater Marsh 1.1 0:0
Salt Marsh 3.8 0.0
Willow Riparian Woodland 6.3 0.1
Disturbed Field 20.3 20.3
Wetlands (Salt Marsh.'.18 .7 4.8
Willow Ripanan Woodland
Freshwater Märsh, Fields)
Jim Hirsh.
8910University Center Lane, Suite 250
San Diego'. CA 92122
Please see the response to 3) above. -
The northern portion of PA 4 will have to be accessed
from Olivenhain Róad.to minimize wetland impacts.
Alignment I 2 has been approved for the Olivenhain Road
Widening Project. Figure 3.3-2 has been revised --to
include an estimate of the impacts to wetlands in -theSPA
that cduld be expected to resu]t from the implementation
of Alignment I 2 e This Figure replaces the prvious
Figure 3.3-2. It is estimated that. approximately. 0.3
acre would ,be impacted that will y. not be impacted b the
Home Depot development.
Figure 3.6-8 of the Final EIR includes a delineation of
50- and 100-foot wide buffers in relation to . the
wetlands. The Army Corps of Engineers and the City ,'.of-
,Encinitas Encinitas Community Development Department have agreed to
count the unstructured parking area as part of the buffer
area Therefore the parking lot impact has already been
counted as an impict -to Disturbed Field Wetlands.
Corrected Wildlife Impabts .,
Please see Tables 1.1-2 and 1:2-3 of the Final EIR for the
correct°calculatjons. . .
Excerpts and:Report on the' Home Depot. Site South of Carlsbad by Dr.
Amadeo Rea
This'-report was considered in the preparation of the Final-
EIR, and: is referenced on page 3-19. It isinteresting to
note that Rea considers the southern portion of the-project
area to be a "biological gem," while his associate in the
field, Gill Voss, indicated that the area-was highly, disturbed
as a résultof unauthorized habitations on the site. Voss
indicated that a substantial degradation had occurred in just
a two-week period of observation. ... . .
It should also be notedthat Dr. Rea categorizes the on-site
scub as Coastal Sage Scrub. Others have indicated that it.- is
all of partially Coastal Maritime Chapaeral, Diegan Sage Scrub,,and Southern Mixed Chaparral. The consulting biologist
- identified it as Southern Mixed Chaparral. There is clearly.-
a difference of opinion among the experts However CEQA
allows for this, and as along as the differing opinions are
presented, the EIR can be certified as accurate and adequate.
Excerpts and Home Depot Gnatcatcher Report II -
This information has been considered in the preparation of the
Final .EIR - -
12-403
%Vetlaiids Impacts
It is difficult to discern from the home Depot Elk the amount of wetland acres that will be
impacted by this project. For example, the Disturbed Field category (20.3 acres) includes both upland
and wetland disturbed field, but acreages of these subtypes (upland and wetland Disturbed Field)
could not be found in either the Elhi. or the Appendix. However, they can be found indirectly by
referring to Table.1.3-2 and doing the following arithmetic.
The category %Vetlands (Table 13-2 p 1-8 Draft EIR) is comprised of four wetland types:
Freshwater Marsh, Salt Marsh, Willow Riparian Woodland, and Fields ("Wetland Disturbed Field).
Table 1:3.2 gives -acreages for three weiland types but does not list any acreage'for Wetland
Disturbed Field. However, by subcracting.the wetland acres of the following:
Freshwater Marsh . 1.1
Sail Marsh 3.8
Willow Riparian Woodland 61
Subtotal . 11.2
From the total acres listed in the Wedands category
Total %Vetlaiida acreage 18.7
Subtotal (Fresh. Salt. Willow wetlands) J1.1
Fields (Wetland Disturbed Field) 7.5
The remaining 7.5 wetland acres must be acres from Fields (Wetland DisturbedField)
From this we can also find the acres of Upland Disturbed Field.
'Total Disturbed Field '. 20.3
' Wetland Disturbed Field -75
Upland Disturbed Field 12.8
With this information, one can now see the inconsistency regarding the number of wetland
acres that will be impacted by this project Notice from Table 1.31-2. (part is shown below) that all the
acres of Disturbed Field (20.3) will be impacted by this project. From the, above calculations it is
shown that the .Disturbed Field category is composed of 7.5 acres of Wetland Disturbed,Field and
12.8 acres ofUpland Disturbed Field.
If all 20.3, acres.will be impacted, then it follows that 7.5 acres of Wetland Disturbed Field will
also be impacted since it is a subset of the Disturbed Field category! Yet Table 1.3-2 indicates that
only 48 acres of Wetlands will be impacted.
Vegetative Community Eiires Acres lmg
Disturbed Field.. .. . ' . 20.3 . 20.3
Wetlaindi. Disturbed Field ( 7.5)
Upland Disturbed Field (12.8). .
Wetittods (Salt Marsh, ' 18.7 • 4.8
WillowRip;iri:in.Woodland,
Freshwater Mzirsli.. Fields)
0 *
Even without considering the Impacts to Freshwater Marsh. Salt Marsh, and Willow Riparian
Woodland. there would havetobe a minimum of 75 acres of impacted weiland(WcLland'Disturbed . .' Field). When impacts to the other wetlands are added to this 7.5 acres, it becomes clear that far more
than 4.8 acres of.wetlands-will be impacted by this project.
.
The 4.8 acres noted in the fletkuicLt category 7ublc 1.3-2 is composed of 11w Jul/acing:
(See Baa-report p. 31-39 Ell? Technical Appendices)
PA 1 P:-1 2 PA 3 P.4 4 Subtotal Wet/uuLi
Salt Marsh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Freshwater Marsh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Willow Riparian 0.1 0.0. 0.0 . 0.8 . 0.9 Wetland Disturbed Field 2.9 -i2 Wétland'Totals . 3.0 0.0. 0.39 1.4 4.79 (or 4.8)
Notice that 3.89 acres of Wetland Disturbed Field has bee,, accounted for in Table 1.3-2. f1oweer.
since a total of 7.5 acres of Wetland Disturbed Field will be impacted Table 1.3-2 is underestimating Wetland Disturbed held Impacts by 3.61 acres...
Wetland Disturbed Field Impacts 7.5 Wet/rind Disturbed Field Impacts noted in Table 1.3-? -389- . •- Wet/and-Disturbed Field underesti,nabfdin Table /3.7 . - 3.61 -
.
• .•, .
- -. . -
" cun.rta,,cc I Villens -taid the Fic!c11 in the Weiland Caki,nry rich/c /3-2. ncjrssed to llcticwc/
Disturbed Fiddv..hc r.thk,uiirled,,'ci/ i/list i/ic Wetland Disturbed Fieliliuris riiulil/,c ,lc,iiiJ b_1- - - . • the nu.q/us,l ilescribed an p. 2 of this ri/sort.
-: -.
c.
Wetland Impacts I through 10 (not accuratel depicted in Table 1.3-2) -
I) PA I has impacts of. I acres to the Willow Riparian Woodland.noiedaspart oft/se 4.8 acres in
Table 1.3-2)- This needs to be added to the corrected total of Weslw,d Disturbed Fickle that will
be impacted. . --
PA I has Impacts to Willow Riparian Woodland and/or Freshwater Marsh due to routine :- clearing of the vegetation near the El Camino Real Culvert. A-20 foot depth was noted on
p. 1-12 paragraph 4 EFR, but the length was not noted. This impact 10 wetlands was not
included in Table 1.3-2; it is an impact in addition to she t acres ef Willow Ripurian note j,g
Table 1.3-2 (Bio-report Tech. Appendix p. 3/paragraph 3). Assumingilengthof 160,feet, this
would impact another 07 acres of wetlands Ths.s is .a rou/,/ eatsmisatC to c:couist for the cleared
area:.however: the actual disturbed area is Ithelim lobe much more to account for nsaneulering
equipment. etc. (The acres impacted should be noted realistically and quantitatively in the,ElR
and 1s Figure 3.3-1)
-PA 3 Nuisance Water Treatment Wetland "north of the development area Footprint"
(Appendix Bio Report p 37) will impact a minimum of I acres of Wetlands The location is
not shown on Figure 3.3-I. p. 3-14 EIR and the acreage is not-in Table 1.3-2. The .39 acres of
Weila,zd Disturbed Field impacts (part of she 4.8 acres in the Wetlands category Table 1.3-2) is
referring to impacts within the dese!opmen: area footprint. It doci not refer to the Nuisance
Water Treatment .Weiland that will be outside ibis footprint.
PA-3 and PA 4&ill likely have Tacre impacts in the wetlands than is discussed in the EIR.
This additionwiIl be due to the likelihood ofa fill slope. (Figure 3.3-I p. 3-14 oftheEER did
not show the fill area for. PA I and it is presumed that liii for PA 3 and PA 4 was also not
noted). * Assuming a 10 foot wide border for the fill slopes in PA 3 and PA 4. this would add
roughly IS aces of wetlands impacts Some of slits s osild likely Impact Willow Rscssr,a,, amid
Freshwa1r Marsh an well as Wetisuid Disturbed Field. -
PA 4 has impacts of.8 acres to the Willow Riparian Woodland (Appendix Bio-Report p. 38).
This is part 0/the 4.8 acres nose1 in Tab1 1.3-?. This .8 acres should be added to :h
corrected total of 7.5 acres of lVethinsls Disturbed Field which was nolfully accounted ill
Table 1.3-2.
$ *
6) Fill slope on the north and east edges of Home Depot parking area (PA I) is not noted
quaisniatively n writing of-on-maps etcher in the EIR or the Appendix. Thi.re is discussion of a
lofootfihl. hut the acres impacted is not given. Constance Willens said 1hi5enor had
not been previously'noticed. She said thai the-fill slope:extended about 1045 feet north and east of the parking area., • Assuming n average of 12 fiset, this would mcasire .15 to .20,.
Acres of impact within the wetlands boundary for PA I.
City staff said a 2,"1 ratiO,, is ti/lot dfor fill slop a Aasn,n,,, ,h,. Home Depot parktI.,, lot
slopes 2/to the north there ould still be rot ,hl) 8/ to/fl/la, the north i.d1,e oft/i parkt,t&
lot With a / a/opt this iou/ti be a /5 16/001 hurt oat i/Impact ('hot the /'feet ass,,,,, ii
abo Ye) from fill that H ould bord r till sides of i/ic park:it, lot (Fl/,'14r 1-34. S e,,,s to indicate
that theft/i slope ünpac: was not included in the ca/culutio,,s a/ wetland impacts.)
Figur2.3-25p.2-54J1R does show what appears to bc.a fill slope. However, the fill slope
ho,,ldaisó be shot/n ii, Figure 3.3-' since this is a 0:0th hiorepromitiem:: graphic.
7)' Created Nuisance'Water Treatment Wetland within PA I is about .5 acres. -his noted in writing . . . -. and on some maps. it lies on the northen, edge oft/ic pei,'-kii:g lot wit/ti,, the lVt,lam.1 Dis,'bed . . Field boundary This should b s/tow,, in Figure 13-] as an impact area since 1/ic N:aaw,cc
Water. Treoimne,iiJVeila,id i/ill be dtstt.irbed/or deeming at least twice a;ear. and it would lie
adjacent too noisy parking lot (lb Report p 33A litigadwi Measure 2 Technical
Ap5ent1kés).
) it iüncIai if the nohn portion of PA 4 will be accessed off of Olivenhain Road. If this is not
. . . . . .. allowed, where would access be provided 9. Would an alternative'access involve more
encroachiien( ihtó'wetl'nds?
The E1Rass,unes that Olivenhain Road will not be widened to the south of the existing
- "- al (p ignment . 3-38EIR). This assumpti9n could be erroneous. Ifihe roadis widened to the . . south, much of the wetlands that the proposal claims.will be preserved may be destroyed. An
" Analysis ôfthis Situation would be helpful in order to ahow a worst case senario.
10) A minimum 50 foot wetland/or riparta,, and /00 fool ho f/cr/or 01/i C uetia,td,s (required by the
Encinitas General Plan) is not included in the EIR. :Fi'tire 3.3-I should show the respective
'buffer :o,,es amid the wetland acreage impiictct.L A buffer, area by definition is a'zone of potential
disturbance and should be included as an impact; the additional acreage should also be noted. I, is isiteres:ii.g that as Figu?e .3.6-8 (ô. 3-8/ EIR) shows, a buffer from the existing wetlands is
. . impossible 'since'thc' Hothe Diepoi and parkisig lot will be i,,sidet/,e u'ttli,,ids boundary. PA 3
. . . . ant/PA 4 also lack a wet/and bit//er :0/Ic since tIe velopiu:ei:t lies withi,, or immediately . adja'ceii: it) the tm'etlands boundary.
(Measurements taken from 8 5 a II maps in the Elk are very roLigh estiniates and should . . . be verified frotn the original maps) ' . .
Corrected Wetland Impact,
The following corrected wetland simpacts address the errors noted above. As nicittioiied earlier,
Wetland Disturbed Field accoünts,for 7.5 acres ofintpscte'd wetlands. Additional impacts will be
added .ti) this figure. (See Wetlands Impacts I through IC))
Wetland Disturbed Field'
'7.5
Willow Ripariãn'Wodland PA 'I (Wetland Impacts I) .1
Willow Rinarian Woodland PA 4 (Wetland Impacts 5)
Subtotal - -' ,84
This represents a bare minimum of wetlands impacted. These acres were either explicitly stated or
were logically derived from information in,the EERor Appendices.
Subtotal - 8.4
Wetlands PA l'Culvert area (Wetlands Impacts 2). .. .07
PA 3 Nuisance Water Treatment fVetljnd Impacts )
-
Subtotal '' ' . 8.57
This subtotal represents a conservative best guessfrom incomplete information in the EIRI
Subtotal 8.57
PA 3 & PA 4 fill slope (Wetlands lmpt4 is
Corrected %Vé'tlands Impacts Total , . 8.72-
This total is also a càni'rvative best guess from incomplete information in the EtR.
It appears wetland impacts 6) and 7) could be included in the calculated 7.5 'acres of Wetland
Disturbed Field impacts so they were not added into the Corrected Wetland Impacts subtotals.
Likewise, due to the lack of complete information, Wetland Impacts 8, 9 and 10 were also not
included, Consequently the Corected Wetland Impacts Total-is a conservative estimate and is
intended to show thelinconsistencies of the EIR.
Corrected Wetland Impacts I through 7 should be shosn on the colored map ,Figure 3.3-1
p 3 14 of the EIR Thts would allow for a clear visual understanding of all the impacts without
having to lookat several dmft'erent maps some ofwhtch are at different scales Furthermore Wetland
Impacts 8 fu 9 and 10 should be rther analyzed These posatble addmttonal Impacts puri,cular!; 10 wetlands should be depicted on a separate cumulative impacts map similar to Figure 3.3-1.
*
.
1i!F
Excerpts (Repon I iiiadcu M. Rc:i) [1111 DEC 2 9 1992
Diversity and Oak Basque CITY OF ENCINITAS I The north and northwest facing slopes below the housing division on the mesa_aic•,
biologically, very interesting. There is a high diversity of plants combining elements of
several .coastalpIant communities. . .
There .i5c0nsiderab1e vertical stratification here, with the canopy composed unosily, of
Coastal Scrub Oaksof considerable maturity and an understory of many annuals and
perennial shrUbs. . . .
The Coastal Scrub Oak bosque, with its great diversity of plant species, should by all
means beprotectéd. Fèw'such places exist aisy longer in coastal southern California.
Species diversity, community maturity, and community type interdigitation are factors that
must be considered in evaluating this bosque and 'the community to the south of it.
Coittrary to what I had been led to believe, this southern area is a biological gem of the
sort one rarely encounters in San Diego County today. .,..it appears to be very good bird
breeding aM foraging habitat. .
Burned Area . .
A srnall.portion of one knoll with chaparral has been burned and has not yet crown
spiouted. This opening should increase the overall bio'tic diversitwitliin the next few:
years as this is afire dependent plant community. ..
South and Southwest portions -
.. The suth and southwest facing southern end of the plot has a stand of excellent southern
,coäs'ál'sagescrub that isunusual in its high plant diversity. This is the center of the
territyof a pair of California Gnatcatchers, which are nesting here.
nli • Uke much gnitcatcher habitat in San Diego County today, composed printarily of two
dominants (Ancmisia.californica and Edogoitum fascicdlatttin) with an admixture of
various grasses and forbes, this site is a mosac of the following species, with no individual
speies dominating: ••' - .
... unlike the more typical gnatcatcher habitatof coastal southern California-this parcel is
quite verticallystratified. In both it-dive'rse speèies composition and its stratification, this
community appears more like much of the gnatcatcher habitat in the maritinse desert scrub
of northwestern Baja California.
Again contrai'y.to théreports that I had heard from several people, this coastal sage scrub
area occupied by the pair of gnatcatchers is in quite good condition.. The total area, if
improved, is large enough to support a'econd pair of gnatcatclters.
Even though it currently supports only one pair of gnacatchers, the. south -facing coastal
sage scrub is near enough 'to other existing populations to receive recruitment
It is an island close enoUgh to others to be rcpopulatcd when necessary. In other words,
these are notrelictual pairs-just hanging on.
Biological ValUe orSit Overall
In suunmary the southern approximately two thirds of thissite are presently in very
good 'to ecellentconditioiu and arc biologically significant. 1'lteiiksiruictiouu wotild be must
unfortunate for the long term-interests of local citizens. The reuutaiiidcr of uhe site could be
enhanced by various means (Solute as I havesuggesicd above) to tic it in with the biologically
diverse sotttltcrn portion.
El
00 O• • Y' S
a 3.-• 3.— .2
•
3 • 0 000 a OS
=.•.5
>5
'2 >
0 '0 cd !I. U
o _ . - o• & - .2 3
-':-
2 .5
S -= . U - . 0
C
5.Co . a.,' U S 2 Co ' =
• >.
a .° S
. .;, •
-
• a
- ..3 t : 2 .2 a . E :' 4
i!I
U '• . 0
I . 1. - I .1 i .
-. .-- • 0 . •
2
.UU> u>_
w
U9 • • :
U . U 2'- - 3 .2 • S S S p - .° •3 -
ti -So •0 C Co .
a U 0 2 - a - g ,
0-. . 3.
- 5 •= -,
-a S
. . on M 0...
'39 U
00
9 --; >3 2
2 2 :
. . S • • • . '2 Cl •- Cl E - a,
- S P 3 '2 ' • 2
C 0- - • i; =
.E-
ga S S E
'- .2 o 0 0 0 Cl 2 .0 in .0 U U U U C0
Wk
Scrub Jay
Califoinia Thrasher
Wrentit -
- Bewick's Wren - -
Rufous-sided Towhee
Bushtits (onenesi destroyed)
hummingbirds, apparently Costa's •.
I doubt this list is exhaustive. A small portion of one knoll with chaparral has been burned
and has not yet crown sprouted ihis opening should increase the overall biouc diversiiy
within the next few years as thisisa fire dependent plant community.
Sme south and. southwest facing southern end of the p, has a-stand of excellent
outhern coastal sage scrub that is unusual in its high plant diversity. This is the center of the
territory of a pair of California Gnatcatchers, which are nesting here. Unlike much gnatcatcher
habitat-in San Diego County today, composed primarily of two dominants (Arienlisia
V • • - - V
californica and- Erioonum faJciculaium) with an admixture of various grasses and forbes, this • V
'site is-a mosaic 'of the following species, with no individual species dominating: • V •
,
- -Salviãmelliféra ••, V V V V
Malacothamnus dm.nsitlorus
Ceanothus vernscous
• •
.-- • V
Adenostoma fsciculaium
- V Yucca shidigera
' V V V :; V • V : • V -
V.. Artemisia california
V
V
V • - • V V - V
Enogonum fasciculatum
V
,
- -
-.
- V
• V
I3acchans piliohrus
V • • Malosma (Rhims) kumrina • - • - • -- V V
V V
Qiicrcus dtiuiiosa - V
V - V -
V
0. -o
o =
2 g
75
ol
0
..-
C u
-0 9
•
cr .
um
.•- i E C - - - 0 -
-- a°- oc
mo
sr
-2 2
I1J11I 11111 11 o .
O = = - o c • .0
75 0 - - -
a- 1 U C 0 • u • = 5
4. Even though it curcnily supports only one pair of gnaictchers, the south-being
coastal sage scrub is near enough to other existing populations to receive rceruiiinent,as
demonstrated by e banded female from another site that is now nesting here. It is an island
close enough to others to be repopulated when necessary. In other words, these are not
relictual pairs just hanging on. A bit ofjudicious and diplomatic action could reaiily
encourage the motados or itinLruit workers to relocate to some more disturbed less valuable
habitat Their presence is detrimental, to the pr itisial plant community as branches arc
broken at and afound their caiiips.
5. The south facing slope does not now contain Coastal Cactus Wrens. There area... '-
few clumps of dispersed prickly pea!_. However, with some planting of Coastal Cholla -
Opuntia prolifera the area would probably be suitable for this species as well. Birds would
have to be relocated as their numbers are now so low and their dispersal potential so poor that
they are not colonizing or recoloniitn suitable but vacant habitats So tar as-] know, such
expenrnentshave not 'et been attempted.
In summary the southern approximately two thirds at this site are presently in very good to
excellent condition and are bioliigically significant. -Their destruction would be most
unfortunate for the long term interests of local Citizens The remainder of the site could be
enhanced byvarious means (sonic as I have suggested above) to tie it in with the biologically
diverse säuihern portion
WO:fl'flh
A!
DEC 2992 V
Excerpts (Report II Aiiiadeo M. Rea) CITY OF ENCINITAS I
The immediate area the gnatcathers are now centered in is vegeiationally.nch, at least for
typical southern California gnatcatcher habitat.
From a distance there appears to be gnatcatcher habitat below the bluff to the west of El
Camino Real. IrAij is in rifereitce to the undeveloped lands it.est olE! Camino Real. one
large area being the Ecke-lands.) •
The Home Depot site is a stepping stone in the movement of young gnatcatchers.
The sigificance of this observation is that this parcel of land is nut an isolated tract as tar
as the dynamics of gnatcatcher colonization is concerned. •
Recruitment-is continuing. It the vegetation is left undisturbid, and the sight is not • • • •
fragmented by development gnatcatchCrs will continue to occupy the coastal sage scrub
here even after the original occupants have did • • • -
HOME DEPOT SITE GNATCATCIIER REPORT H :
AmadeuM: Rea. ph. 0.
Ornithologist
On 17 June 1992 I spent-3 ho6rsI0 minutes observing California Gnaicatchers on the
Home Depot Site near the cornet of El CaminoReal and Olivenhain Road between 6:16 and
9:26-1.m. (On my earlier visit '8 May 1992 there wire 3 eggs in the:nest being incubated.)
This màrning the three juvenal inatcatchers had fledged and werewesi of the nest on-a west.
facing slope dominated by Blak Sage(jj tttellilera).
The young were closely attended by both parents that foraged within 5 to 10 yards
(most frequentiy only .3 to 5 yards) from them.. The entire area-occupied during my visit is
roughly a rectangle 35.x 35 yards. (The female once flew west to a ridge just bo"e El
Caminó ReaL perhaps in-pursuit of an-intruder.) The, parents defended the area against Scrub
Jays and BushtitS but tolerated a &wtck s Wren and an immature Costa a Hummin,bird
within the area of the fledglings. . ..
The immediate area the gitaitatchers are now .etuered In is ve,etauonally nch at least
for typical southern California gnatatcher habitat Within a 20 foot radius of the young grew
Mexican -Elderberry, Sanibticus mexicans
Spanish Bayonet, Yijcca shidigera
Spiny-leafed Redberry, Rhamnus crocea
Coast Spicebush, Cneoridium dumosuin --
Black Sage, Salvia titellifera .. . .
Coast Sagebrush, Artensisia californica .
Deerweed, Lotus scoparius .
Lemonade Bush, Rhus integrifolia .
Bush Monkey flowe('Mtmulus puniceus
The most important observation was that two itmes during my visit the adults chased
off stray gnaicatchers Presumably these were wandering juvenals either front an earlier
nesting by this pair or vagrants lrotu some other pairs nein, elsewhere in the* Enunitas area
(I am unable to say whethei the intruder was the same on both bouts or different individuals.
- ... The episodes were about an hour or more apart.) Durihg the-first encounter, the intruder was
chased southward by the male at least as fai as the slope rcvegecaced with non-native plants. In
the second encounter the intruder was chased by both members of the pair westward as far as
I could see from my position (I could not see over the nd,e whether the parents chased it just
to the road edge or completely across El Camino Rat From a distance there appears to be
gnatcatch.r habitat below the -bluff to the west of El Catnino Real
o - E 0
-
:0 -E .
0
0 .
0' - CO .- .- 0
. •0 . " 1.fl 0 ••
• ;
. . . 0 .2 . . •0
•
. :.
•
0 Ta1. _,.=•0u
•
; 0UC, ,9:_> •0
HD'U 22u 0
-R - 0• . 000 . •
v_S-u '-; c rs CC .0 • _•9_=••• 0
D_
,0
• •
• •0
•
0
0 ;i • -• 2 -u-.' C •.iO • 0 •0 -
h•II 9ij11 IF
2u:.o V V >, '— — .0 0 •
0 0
•
Cericzl,zn Vitae CITY OF. ENCINITAS I V
Nam ?imadeo Hicheajl R.a V VV
V
V
Born: 15 October 1919
V
§V8.VVs: Single, Hale
Educatiofl: . V
V Elementary and secondary education: El Dorado County School System, CA
1963 - Hay. Graduated from San Lois Ray College, 5fl Diego County, CA. Major: Philosophy V V V
Minors: History and literature V V
1968 - September. Began full-time pat-graduate york at Acizco.a State V V V University, Tempo. AZ. •V - V V V V V V
V
1969 - May. Received MS. 5OVVV3VVV VV A State UO:,oVV.jtV. Tenpe.
V
Ti.. lV V Thesis: Te Ltoirdjng OtwO sunpcie of lracklaV V CassjdzxVmexjcanay ,o2s0ni and Cassidjx maajcanys moilsOV1i, in secondary
V V V V
V
V contact in central Arizona. V V V V V
V V
1977 -May.,,, V Received PhD. from University of Arizona, Tusbn. AZ.
V V
Hajor Zoology VV V V V
Dissertation Historic Change in the avitauna of the Gila Ri cc
Minor: Anthropology
Indian Reservation central Arizona aVV
J.
Work Esperienc:
1960- .uly. Formally entered Francis-.. .cder. c' I :•:_. VVVV•VV VlV V V V V VV serving in thatV capacity for -/zar. V has c isaiV.J VV,aViL ic',,, V V - V V V
V manseum disp1ay, and mission restoration ucik at ace... V
V
monasteries. V V
1963-1968 '- Stationed at-St. Johns Indian SahocI, Kornacke lVl,.. Lavee, AZ. Taught for five years high school sciences (lniolcyy, g..eral sViCn;c,
V V V V anthropology, chCistry, V iiilcnductory pilyzical SOLC!:.. -idEV3li5i,V V V
Adrlitouial, a:t.vitis included director of .ijIi sVI:V. I : V V:.V r VVVVI V
V V V BOY ScOuts. V VV V V V V V
V
V 1971-1973 - Instructor i, )VVVICVJV, I e;-r-,tc CO)IVJC, ICVVOVV V, VVViVaVVJn,V C.i V V three ycan: oIOVr, V tI)OIVj 01 a inn f o li acjio 1,(,:. V V• V V
V
V 1974-1917 - Assiata,I. I_uintV OC brda. Uni-norsicy VO hr, cVV.. V V
V
V V
V V V V 1977 - 1991. .I..;art.t IIVVI CI ':u,-o,VLVi- yf BA ran Vand H I V V IVV)VO V V V
V V V V V VV UaLaral IIioL.Vil ::V..V V. V V V V V
V V
V V V V V
V Memhet'hIP3: V V V V V V
V
V V
Cooper Ornithological Sci,-,- ))96jj
V V -American Ornithologists (II V)I (ISiS)
Wilson ornithological Society (1971)
V
V V
a , .
•- St
• C C -w ..0 0, 0 - - .4
• 1-54 1•4 0 0 --4 3 si-i 01-4 > ci -.
,
C,
COfl in 0 .14,0. 0' uC. . - -. . . .
0.. a
Cl .0 04 0
Cu i. 1.414
-, 4 - 0 00 C.. .a -0I. o
2)2 Cu- (2
in -
00 - "4 0. X - .5
00 0.44 -4
'5 0.0 ..2 0
.>Z2
0 1Z = -
>.in c .5'-
'0 C....
cc -4 00 s. 00 j... - CD ---- --
-
- --
04-4
-
i2 C '-4-0 00,0 -.0'- UL -
Sw 0 04 '0 40 (00 On 1'OZ
U - C I
'0-dOin0
'0 '4.0 00. U'S
,.2 -u ...... 4.0(0 0
Cu
00
14.5 .5 C 0--a' 'a' CC
0..ni
04114 .40 '40 UJO
'40
0-4 0 0.4 '.4-4 --'4-4 00 OCO 01411.50 CL. 'SO, .4.5 00 35 0
00 X05 C'0 0 '00 CIX 04. -
--duo a .4 - COW' - 0,4.4.
• 0 .5-u C -2 -.4 nsa QUC 12.5 Ca our. 12. .as
4,. .5 0C'..
C 0 0 0 0 -U'. 20 34 I C--C 1140.0 -
- 0 .5 'C .0 U.W OI.0 --c o -n PC... 14 0 0 ç)iq) 44"
0 -0. 0.0 IC C' 0 00th .40... '4 Id 0 - 2.4 .5 0 QC1& 0-40 00 C. CO
- COO o in o' - '0,42.4. 0044'C '00 u,_4
0-14 U--C 445 0.4 CO
0 OCt. € 0 - on O'd 4 42.Z 00.5
S . -4 -4 0 'OX> 4 - 0 41 4.4 - 4.140 00 12.0 4 0- 0., --dit U S 00 C 0 -a-u, .4 . 0 0.. -- - -4 0044 '41 .5 00
C O .5 .I00 34 0 '.4.25.5 '.40.1414. .40
'5 .4 14 44 Sin COO 0-0
0 c 0 14.214 '.0 .5140 00.4 00 50 - -a 0 42, in 0141 Eoa 00 €0. ZOO 00,5 -aso Zn 0. XC in - 2.4
0 '0 ..45 ,00a . - . . 2 44 0C ZOO 00 ZO, -- 'U.0' A. 04.20 ---.5-- '13152.1(2.5 '0 -- .0 - ' '-- - 7 •\- - X U. 0 0 - C - U - 1 4-. 0 0 '.5 Z 0 - in (6
014
C
41 C U
-411 ., "ii 12. 0. ij U --
C. -a-
C >. C
0 LI 0
-I:-
o
11(11
-ci.•- a'
N ua- U 0
05_I CLI 1CC -.1
LIC LIC --4 0 0 3 -Cl LJLI
IC LI C-Cl
- Ca. Q.'4 vi U a CII -
'0 C >d C--I -C
• 3 .3 . 0 U . .
-- a 0o -I CCC C LI C ac -, u• a u 0.-. o.
4 'LI , --.
0-
0,30 LI C • 0 'LI S IC Cm S 0 Cli C 0.-1 CII C IC' 'C . LI rO 0 '•LI LI. 1.1 0 '-' LIC LI El 3.0 _C: J C Cl. C 0-3 0 LI.il 0.0 0 0.0 'I 'C .4,1 -- 'LI 0_f. ,M.LI'...I LI I0LI'U ,a o I-. 0 0' .
• C' . 00 11 -. 3 a '0 -IC C CXLI 0. U --I LI LI = C C a a 510 LI Ian • •
- C 0 uo c a 0--C is c
LI
-s
C
-'a 3'
0
C i'U 0 1 U 1 LI CII t. 0 uo an a-
0CElC
CO. ala '30 •- _I a CCC 0' - C U -. -.-. .1 ILIC 0.. COO 01 -00 ,- LI_I C C C a C LI - a - c C ... LI.0 CLI 0 0 Li-a 00--
01 '0 C 5e -. -, 00, al U LI_I -I.-.' 1 • CLI Oc IC C .0 C a-
ULIO C auto CC -a C -LI C C a c-s a a. 0i . ,, CC • .uva.o, .s. OC C- LI nc rIQ C _ILI - 0 -;.- 3.w CO LI_I 0.0 1 C
'30 00 11 CLI CC CLI 011 .- JLILI
'0 ,LI Co C C 4 Vi 1,3 4 LI-I .010151C = CC 1411 C lID' 00 LI. LI. -101 LI
0 C 0 C - U. - Ca - O -1 LI I .0.0 .3 3 oc,o - U U C -. - ca. Os 0 .'.Co, .. -LI.0 LI >...E.C.-1 -LI,Cuw 30. 0-0 0 0.I. 000 0
-' 'QIa C a. as.. 0 -0.-I 0.0. CU 143 Our. >0.' o a. CO 0 -LI - C C -1 II' - .0 0 -- 0 I-' LI a a' U 0 S us LI 4 0 00 3 C 0 0 LIa 0 00 Ca LIII' -10.-_l.aI - LII... .4), 4 C -LIC,o. oi--.a C -- U--I C 0 - 0 = -Z LI-LI 110-C -5435 (0 LIC LI C. - 3LI-I 0 O C. '0 a C C -.4 a,. aLI -w.a..o. (-1 -ow. za - C'S OLI' LI
I
CC- dLIaC J5IJ'OJ CI-'
CO 44-LI 0
CCUOC.CLI U LI .00 CC --ICC'. CUD'LI OOC OLI o
Cl C .4 I 0. 0 I C ..- .-'Z 0 C Li -lu '0 C-COO--Ia 11.10-C eta CC 110 --I CI
- C'
LIV
0- - - -
.0 -I. 0 a' N C 0 -0 -'-0 -' -. '-I 0.1.-I LIOI - - C... a. -- C'ü U 00--I C-C-. C--a LI II C LI -- C -I 'I' CC,CS _f'.LI 0' 0 4011.0 - OC U - 01 _f.-I CCO5 4._ItJ,3 XC 0.0 DC -. COC CCC
.14 11. - '3..l 0 00- 50.1 )I.. - .51 -LIII -'0
CI
- - C D' - -CCa C cc_lu, C CO -LIO' 00'' -va.. LI LIrn C S LI CI ..1LI LI a. so - LI LI- 0'I C C. -0.0.0 01-l0C a'ia CLI p.s., -1 01-I 00 C .0 C - CI 311.4. 3 N is N C 3 I taG CC 0 ,.CO .05' Cu-_I.e LI 0. - .LI.I C --3' 0,01 LISLI
0--I a- U o J 0. _ • ,,0 C 05 0' C LI - -'ci 0 ,-CC SILl C 0-1 C'.3'CIU C-b-LI me 00 GO 3.... a, cc LI
7 _'\
III - a' a IC a .0 - C C
lu
C 35 Cc
,S a. -
0, .0-_f LIC CLI CC 00-lU COW .LICI CIC
LIII. 3005 0.5.
-.d0 DC DC
05CC OLI ..LI_IC
II - 0.
0. • LI LI N LI 'C C LI .0 Cc - C Q.LI
- LIO -a-. u 0.1 U CU C. --l0.,WC - o alU Cia' UQ..II Ca CU -.3_Ia 0 CC 515CC' C 0 c LI LI 0 - 0 LI 0. C Cl WI C C -). 01 _I.0 N 14 0 - C --I - 3 -C C 0 C U -C C C C
44 0 0 5 O C C 0 0.. C
A,nadno n: Pa S - -. V 4
OLctin.,cited Lecturor (Invited1, (irst International Congress of Ethn1'i -''c'qy. Belém, Bracil. 1989.. V V V
Vsy Tax sjbed;
c1li-.'pl. suns hrgravci. Pea 1973 S V
Par-in ,.o1I;,;Ii Vandeenoderj Pea 1986 V
--
Cistothorus p stri...brountnyi Ra 1996 V
V V
CisrotI;or. sl'.stri. deserccola Pea 1984
CampylorhynchusVbrunneicapiilum..andiegenss Pea 1586
Tcoqlodytes tro710dyte5 cchroleucua Pea 1986 V V
V V
V Troglodyte, troglodytes obscerior flea 1986 V
Tro00dyt55 trnI....Jytx. nmiti Pea 1986
V lro.liodyte. Lewicki.i aothonyi Pea 1906, floe, ..: V
V
ViCe0 hutP.uui,5j.urae Pea 1991
v; ra.' h';toni ,.";tti Pea 199! V V
V v tn;:' h';I:o'u • V PVQS i?91
V
IALQs.irib4d_iu honor of A. M. Pea;
V I.c'xia curvicostr,t real. Monson 6 Phillips 1981
Cnrvua Phi I V 86 V V
Cerorhinca'-reai Chandler 19°0 V
Peadyt.ea Phillips 1991, gen. nov.
V
Bibliography: V
V
1963 The nesting of White tailed Kites Western Bird Bander 38:36-39.
1964 Chestnut sided Warbler in Southern Cal fornas Condor 66:303.
V 1967.. Age detormination.of Corvidae, Part I. Common Crow . Western Bird Bander 47;44_47; V V
V
1967 Cr,mn h I eVrIa f ., ego County California Condor V • - 69:3l41lU.. V V
1968 (with ,D. rI;eee;a) Age determination of Corvidaa, Part II Common and
V - White-necked Pavens. Western Bird Bander 43:6-9.
1968. Aqe. sex, and race determinatio6 of Yellow-bellied Sapsuckers. - -
-
V Western Bird Sander 43:46-47. V
J 0"
•
Ana.Iec H. Pa
1969. mcin'. age, and e .dete:.in:tiou in the genus Tynnus. Western Bird Bander 44:32-35. . . .,
1969.-- The.intsrbrQeiing of the Boar-tailed crackl'ó in secondary contact
In central Ari.Ona. (14.5. Thesis, unpubliehed; Arizona State Univerntty
. 1910. winter territoriality in a Rub-ccond Kinglet.- Western Bird Bander 45:4-7. -.
.
ino. The c' .:ue of the Summer Tana;er on tn Paitic Slope.- Condor 2:23023i.
.
2970. (A rCvRI VerC,brazes 61,ehe United ltaes, Blair e- at.. Second £djt!fln. Western,Bird Bandnr 4541. - ---
Inc. re do?. cen-'t i: i, the Red-shafted Flicker. Western Bird Bander
1911.. A proposal age-see manual for i.eatern.birds. -Western Bird Bander 41:36-37.
. 1971. (..itll G. '.1. Anetin)".Key to th,age and sea determination of Verdina.
- .
..
Western Bird Bander 46:41. . . - . . . ..... 0 1972 Notna on the Sua.m..r lana'le We,lt-rn Bird Bander 47:52-53.
1971. Turkey Vuiuree casting pellets. Auk 90:209-210. . . .1 73 The Scaled QuaIl, .Cafl4opla squamaca Vigo, in the Southwest:
. systematic and historical cone idirat ions .. Condor 75:322-329. . .
. . . 1973. (with ;L. Koatrituky) 0b1tuar1i Maria Koepcke. Auk 90:735-136.
- 1913. - A case of. tnterordinai copulation. Wilson Bull. 85i3)7-3)8.
1976. (vith.G. T. Austin) Recent southern Nevada bird records. Condor . .. . 78:405408.
1977. piet0r1: changes in-the-avifauna of the Oils Ri"er Indian Reservation,
- - central Acizons. (rh.fl. flI :c.jon; UnLvereity of Arizona.
1977. (vith M. -:Wilson)"Late PleletôcineWjlliamoon. Sapsucker from
:-
- . Wyoming.- Wilson Bull. 89:622. - . .. ..... - 1978. (ArevieuiJ ,Tho Aiduhon Lccecy field guide to North American birds: Western Region by Miklos D. F. Udvardy. Wilson Bull. 90:412473.
1978. The ecology of Pica fields." Environment Southeat 484:8-13. ..,..-.
1978.-Identification of- (aj bird bone. p. 76 in F. Barnett, Las Vegas Ranch
- Ruin-EJSC and Las Vegas Ranch Ruin-West: co small prehistoric Prescott Indian culture ruins in west central Arizona. flue. Northern Art:. Bull.
- - - . -
-• . Si.
•
1979 Vl:'qt mesquite: (tree of life for desert lndianej. Environment - South:.°8t. 186:1-7. . •0 0
. 1919. (ul'll H. II5mhIIn) rp acifauna ar:eold.ica de Cozumel." Boletin de la tfl.......'I Ciencias Antropológjcas.de to Unieersidsd do Yucatan
0 J1:l-19.
Amadeo H. Pea 6
1979. nunting lesamic categories of the Pima Indiana.- Kin., 44:113-119.
1980. Haw World vultures: dminishtag and misunderstood. 1't. 1." Environment Southwest 489:3-1.
1980. Hew World vultures: the scavenging niche. Pt. 2. £nniron,nent Southest 490:12-13.
1980. - Late,Pleiatocea and Holocene turkeys in the Souinaeat. Los Angelus Co. Has. COfltrlb. Sci. 330;209224. -
1981. •P.sourc.iitilisation and food taboos of Sonoran Desert peoples. - J. £thnObiology 1:69-83. S -
1981.-California Condor captive breeding: a racoveryproposal. Environment 5outhwosi 492:8-12.
1981. Avian remains from Las-Colinas, . 1a ...kn OiL. 'henix. pp. 297-302 In L. C. P-nmzzk er.d A. P. Sullivan (ed... Thu 1968 excavations at Mount 81 Las Colinas Rains g,.oup. Phaa::,.n, .iiz. Aria. State Hue. Archaaol. Sac, no. 154. -
1981. (with G. T. Austin, E. P. 81a1e, P. 8rodkorb, .14. P. 8r0...ning, H. E.
Godfrey, J. P. Hubbard, C. I4cCaskie, J. T. Marshall, C. )40n30n, S. L. Olson, H. ouellet, P. S. Palmer. A. P. Phillips, H. H. PoUch, H. A. - - Ramon, and 0. A. Zimmerman)-Ornithology as science. Auk 98:636-637.
1982. (with C. P. Nabian, K. L. Relchhard, B. Heilink, C. F. Hutchinson) Papago influences on habitat andbioic diversity: Quitonac Oai& ethnoecology. J. tthnobiology 2:124-143.
1983. Sonoran desert oases: plants, birds ad native penrU. Eo,lrorur.ant Southwest 503:5-9.
1983- Cathartid affinities: a brief overview.- pp. 26-54 1:, S. K. I)iti,ar and J. A. Jackson, The biology and management of eulturou of cha world.
- Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley.
1983. once a river: bird life and hbie.0 changes on the Middle Oils. sin 300 pp. Univ. Aria. Press, To:a-.:i.
1983. (with A. Fecg) Pr,.I.iat ..,-i, ui ri r..na frc.e, the di 3 •. I i,,.5.,I.u::.
Site, Arizona.- .3. Lchr...biuIb. ),i6-Id5.
1983 ( 1984) L.. C I ).n ala a a r d) J £r.hnoL, ..1 jy a IS! ida
. 1984. Paymo:u1 Maurice (.iln:or€, 1 .Januacy 1907 - 31 D4cnIe, Ennir:uaotSLI,ae..c 50.).,I.) - -
-1984."Obituary. II is...,.JIIa,,ri.a- Giimjc.,. -
. 1904... )with.L..l.. Haryr.in,,. deceased) 'Its p5leaavitauna of Stanton's Cane,
Grand Canyon. - pp. 1191 inK. C! euler IeU.I,.Tho drch.uo...yy. 0"°'°oy and paledLAulogy Of C4ncon's Cana. 'Grand Canyon Hacion,l Park, Arizona. Grand Canyon Natural Histocy Association Monograph No. 6. •
1985. (with T. P. Van Denender and H. L. S..ith) - 'rl:o Sa,,).i:na,, interglacial - vertebrate. fauna fcc..n II.,,icln, Li Dida)o Soc. Nat. Hiat. 21(2):2)-1.
•
AmadaoH. Rea
1985. (with N L. Hamblin) Iut. C.,,n.,( ar;I olog&cil aoif..,,,,.,. 175-192 in N. P061 (ed. I. Pr..I,isC3:-, I :1-'h.ya -,,m.:lt and subsistence economy. Peabody Nu. ('..p. VI. 17. Harvard U,hv. press, mass.
1986. So what good's a dead bird?- Enoironnen; Southwest 513:12-11.
-: 1986. (with S. (.. •olaon and P. •8r0d60cb) 'Comments on-the application to give .precedence to Threakiornithidac Richmond, .1917, ovsr Piataleinae Bonaparte, 1838. Z. N. (S.) 2136. BuLL.. tool. Homencl. 4312l3.
1986."Black Vulture.' and -huaan victims: archaeologicalevccIence ftm- pacatnamu.' pp. 139-144 in Christopher B. Donna n and.Gatllermo A. Cock (edo). The Pacatnamu papera, vol. 1. HuJ. Cultural luSt.. Univ. California, Lou Angel... -
1986. Ver ification and roverification; problems in archanof canal scodiea.' J. Ethnob[otogy 6(1)9-18. -
1986. The following conrributlono-.jn Allan B. PhilLipa'The Known birds of North. and Iliddi. America, Part-I. (Privately published Dec.. 19861, . - -• Denver, Colorado. .
•. . -
Geogèaphic variation (of Corvus corax I.I.pp. 65-66 * map.
(Geographic variation of) Corvus br=tjorhynchoa Brehm. pp. 68-10. : (?)-Corvu:'caurinus Baird. p 10. - 5 5
5• (Geographic variation of) SW'(P.:ifjc) races !,:I,ejcianus I.J. pp. 78-79.
Geographic Variation: (1) 11W rcas .(of Parus wollwebu:i (8onapar1(. - 90 pp. 89. -.
Geographic variation, (1) -Brown-crowned.n Pacific racea (of Auqichaios- S - - minimua (Town000d)). pp. 95-96. -
(Geographic variation at) .12') Pacific lowland and SW racea (of Ciscothorus pa.Zustris (Wilson)-). pp. 114-116. 5
Geographic. Variation: (1) NW, *peninsular, and lr'..uiar-r.c,,a (of Campyjorhynchua brunne.icapilium (Lafresnaya;. pp. 118-119. - S
(Geographic variation of) (2). W r.. (of r----: •.,.,..: :-,!..,J.-ces (L)(. .
pp. 138-140. S
Geographic Variation: (1) Pacific coast races (of Trq bfwjciji Audubon). pp. 18-151.
Appendix B. Species Li mite in some II. American C:.'ss. P. 213.
Appendix C. Hcour1:..c:,t3 of II. Aoericz.,: C: you c......... •.. -. I I •
-• Aipondix fl.
1987. (05IJ4 C. P. Nili..o) P1ant donoat Lent ia, a,I (.11 L,aL.a. c..l eI.n:j.. ho no,Uo.sn I'n.t.,/1oo :1 (1a,.. S
89:51-73.
•
NIP
S.
.10.
5.00 CC -fl U
• a
00 -- - ca- . .. t ,.cj'c a, C, - l.a a, - = . •-
•
:co-ox 0.1. ,. a -,021 ,,
0 02 , 0 000 -0.
.0
'0 Cl = 00 (''C C GO
.0. 0. :. - C 00.1 .a.c C-
O o wa .0 .2 a 12 -" I - I I '0 . ('1 .0 0a0Ca3-'O'C,'l 4 Ii 'C 0 '0 U ou C C 1.1 - 0
t'M'0C 80-0
- 0. Id). .dIfl1.•) * 00 Sod. ._Lp.C'' 0 1. C 0. 0 -: C ' a .j0CU 04 - fl- 00 SO -&dO Urn -CO ' C -CC. a ic
.44)'.. o Ga. 13 101 0' 0 -'a '0.4 120' Cl. 000' 00.5 0.00 12005.1.1 JO
.3 5.0 "''WU ot- 1400) 00,4 .''- .0 U .0' 3 .0 00 0 "0:: '2 0.0 0 00.0 00.0 : .0 000 00 'Ca 00.3 0.0 Coo 0 ,0' .00.0 '-a. C . a .w 0 E C). - 00 U- '4) Cc a Cl 4)5 0 a, C .0' 'C Oil CC 000 C '.5.5 3a. 00 0- 'C. 0 0.0 C CC ' 3
14 00 .4 0 E0a V C 0 0 C C 00 O . 500 0440 II] 14 05 . 1.1 CC.' 000' 0012 f CEO '.4.0'., CCI U' a,
Cl 0,0 ' Ii ' 'C C C 0.1. 1.1 . - C' - a 04 Cl
'III tOam CUPOla
COO CC 0GW C,1 CO OW
.0 0 l.a 0' 0' 0 2 .. .0_a, .40 0110 50.0 0100. 0'. 001 Sd a OP 9 0 ''00 '00 00 OS U 000' waa '.1... 00. "*0 - C'C -0'j a Co -- c..on 10002 .0 .013 warn EPIC 'u0 .0.00 00 41CC. 0 0'. 0 00 U- - 00 5 0 0.'-
-. I.. CL.- 01 01 ....a 0 0 . 0.1 .0U U 1. 0 -. 0.00 . 0 CIO .u.c-u.a. 0.., B' -cc'.., 8• Cl. taCO. ii a 'C 3.0 U Iot.. 0.. '.4 CC >5aq 00 >.. 53'> ,.i,i '.5
O4.0 0' 0 '0 . ala, -'oc * 0 ' 'OS ic-COt, 01. .4 'a .3,0 - .10 'S C0'C .0CC... 00' .flas.'a.o C51 00 0 0130 ii- 011 SC 5') uS 00
O 00 0.0 autO • U 0 .0 C. 0-3 0 ,Ii,a .0 - flI .OI'0 > 0.1 ego 0.0- .130 0. U 311' - 0 O '3 0 53 -a.a, 003 C CO a00 0 . 0,0 3. 0. 0 0'C'O 000. .4 30 3cC 1.00 '.0 .0.0 00.00 101.al .00 .4 3 0. 5.3 CO 00 0.0 0..S 05 C C LII 00 £00 .4 0.00 Uo.'u.o . 3 '03 0.0.10 0 C U 5 04)0- L.a ..ICt '0. G0 -G03 5.500 .0 .0 C 310.50.0.0 I.C.0 30-. 00.-IC 00 051 O .. .15 -*000 000 1.100.-U 00.0 C. 9 00.30 ->0 a10 r
• . - •-. •• •0,
"O ' .•
a'
•- • . • 0-•: Id • .4 _,l •.rJ II (.4
XCI COO. 0 - • - -
C. •
4
OC.-4 -
I - -• 4. • -. • u.s C = S.0 _•4•• - .64= - • • '-4. to 4,0-05 -. - • •
- - - -, U o-e.:,u,-t., 0-,=..-CI,. U 40 -4 • - - '0 a,-- r -c C,>. --.0-to C 4. - - - - $ • -
-- . - - 0 U
40.-I .-o..0..0 44-0004.-U. 0300040 E
S --- ,C $ ..to - • • • '- •
-, .'fl tdfl'0I &I'0. oc—.j-c - -.
- -
C
'•'•ldCOIS
C>'-USCDC .to3UuS. - 3C
0 • C' '•- - -4.- -4 C - •----. -. • • -> -
5.
-r - II4J'C --00. 0 ... , ,. . • - 0. 'O
.8C50 -I
CC .0 •j CS' QUWta 4,
- - -
tI ?- CUSC,U. 14054.4040
• 4. - ';... . • •' 3 -.0-0 0-4544 '0
•
.0 0' CO.0.4,C 0 0'C-.rz C 0 - •- - - U S - - - , ' • - . -' - -4 fl I4SU-060 £ - •. - . • . - C&IU II C 0-0S00 4. •
-' a - -- - . •. . to oe>vct>. hp0a.-.,s
to
• 40 04 I35U40 5-1 ..05.044 0 • CI . . - -
. -. -5 4,0.45-,.., 105=5.0 -0 - • •
• • 14 -
U .00XS-.cI0 4I - •0 - - • CI •---'.- - . .-
. - - to SC'S C_ •-4u5 -I - - • C -,. . - '..-,,.• .0 -*-OOJC. D . - • - 4. . . •• .• •. • •
-
- - - -- - , -
.03 .44, C
. 00-4:
4..OSCCSO • Id"oOd.C.
1 - - •. '
'145 -- - - - - 3 . C
1,0 B.c
4 O •eSea' .CSC. -105
.014100 040 - - I - - - • _..-. - • - 4.s 0B>,o4.C'B 5- -e --S - . - S-I 005C4' . - .••-• - . - --
ATTACHMENT "A"
ROME DEPOT PROJECT
SUMMARY OP ISSUES -RAISED DURING. PUBLIC TESTIMONY
AT- CITY COUNCIL REARING ON JANUARY 6,-1993
REGARDING., THE FINAL EIR '
BETSY SCHREIBER:
1. Supports the project EIR. Grading occurred on site -18
years ago and slopes & creek bed are only remaining natural areas.
Believes that Overriding Considerations can be made for traffic and
air quality impacts since the project will reduce number of vehicle
trips made by Encinitas residents to the store in Oceanside.
Stated that approximately 6,000 pair of mating Gnatcatchers reside
in Mexico.
RESPONSE: None required.
. KEVIN JOHNSON:
2. (a) Traffic impact of 10,000 Average Daily Trips (ADTs)
will be added to roadway system by project. Traffic generation
from Encinitas (Ecke) Ranch SPA is not adequately addressed by
document. Estimates an additional 70,000 ADTs from Encinitas Ranch
SPA. Land Use Element (pg. LU-22; Policy 8.8) states that total
traffic from Encinitas Ranch SPA shall not generate in excess of
25,000 ADTs. (b) ' Cumulative impacts of the Arroyo La Costa-
(Fieldstone) , Hunt Property (Carlsbad Partners)' and Encinitas Ranch
SPA were not adequately addressed. Cumulative analysis of traffic
impacts is required. (C) Can't find sections as referenced in the
"
.
document.
.
. .
RESPONSE: (a). Trip generation from the project is summarized
in Table 3.5-5 on page 3-66 of the document. Total driveway trips
(Passer-by + Project Generated Trips,) for the project SPA are
estimated to be 9,972. ' Planning Area (PA) '1 is estimated to
generate 4,882 Cumulative Trips (excludes 3,060 Passer-by Trips)
and PA 2 is estimated to generate 190 ADTs, for a total of 5,072
Cumulative Trips. PAS 3 and 4 are estimated by the traffic studies
to generate 1,840 ADTs.' The EIR mitigation only allows future
development in Planning Areas 3 & 4 to generate. 1,000 ADTs.
Therefore, the maximum new vehicle trips generated within the
Project SPA is estimated to be 6,072. The Specific Plan for the
Encinitas Ranch has not been completed as a proposed project. T
date, no land use plan has been established as a proposed project.
it is unknown at this time what th proposed project will be. The
.Home Depot Supplemental Traffic Analysis (Appendix K) considers a
land use scenario' of 31,695 ADTs for the Encinitas Ranch Specific
Plan Area. '
(b) The Traffic Studies for the project SPA take into account the
Carlsbad Zone 11 and 12 traffic generation estimates for 1995 which
includes the Arroyo La Costa and Hunt projects. Staff contacted
Steve Jaiitz with the Carlsbad Engineering Department to confirm
that the Arroyo La Costa and Hunt projects are included in the Zone
11 and 12 traffic generation estimates The numbers for traffic
generation for all three project areas (Arroyo' La Costa, Hunt and
the Home Depot SPA) have also been considered in the.2010 traffic
projections for the City of Encinitas as discussed in Section 3.5
of the EIR. The, Home, Depot Supplemental Traffic Analysis (Appendix
K) is based on the GerieralPlãn 2010 forecast mcd. which is the
most up-to-date and accurate estimation of traffic generation for
the Encinitas traffic corridors
(C) The EIR preparer has responded to issues in Kevin Johnson's
letter dated December 29, 1992. The response was distributed to
the City Council at the meeting on January 6, 1993 and the section
numbers referenced were clarified.
LYNN FELDNER:
(a) Section 4 of the EIR discusses three environmental
impacts which cannot be mitigated below 'a level of significance
including air 'quality, traffic circulation and solid waste
disposal. The EIR does not discuss any findings for a Statement of
overriding Considerations for these impacts which would be required
if the project were to be approved as presented by Home Depot
(pursuant' to Sec. 15043 of the CEQA Guidelines). Public should
have the opportunity to review and comment on the required
findings.' (b) The EIR indicates that tax revenue and employment
opportunities are benefits of the project, yet no analysis of
competition with local businesses or loss of employment was
included in Final EIR even though these issues were raised in Draft
comment period.
RESPONSE: (a) CEQA Guidelines (Sec. 15080) encourage
projects to be processed concurrent with EIR preparation in order
to reduce the amount of time required for project review. However,
the City of Encinitas first certifies an EIR as being prepared in
compliance with CEQA prior to processing the application requests
so the document may be used as an informational resource Should
the project be approved at a future date as submitted, a Statement
of Overriding Considerations for the above stated impacts would 'be
necessary at that time. However, the project may be revised' during
the review process to include one or more of, the alternatives
discussed in the EIR and a Statement of Overriding Considerations
may not be necessary for one or more of the currently identified
significant impacts. In 'any event;' should the project be
considered for approval at a future date, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations pursuant to CEQA'Güidelines 15091 to 15093 would be
prepared for the public and decision-makers to review if impacts
are not reduced below a level of significance by the project
design.
(b) CEQA addresses the evaluation of potential physical
environmental imoacts and does not require the analysis of economic
impacts (CEQA Guidelines 15131). Although economic information is
not required at this time to make the EIR adequate, if the City
makes Overriding Consideration findings during the project approval
process, and if such findings are based upon eOonomic
considerations, it will be necessary to support any such findings
with substantial evidence at that time (CEQA Guidelines 15093,).
JULIE FISHER: '
(a) Biology study fails to identify Southern Maritime
Chaparral (SNC) habitat City's Master Environmental Assessment
(MEA) for the General Plan identifies the site as containing SMC.
Holland's description of Southern Coastal Chaparral is synonymous
with SMC. The Multi-Species ,Conservation Plan, Natural- Communities
Coservation Program and the North County Wildl..fe Forum describe
SMC based on Holland's criteria. Site proposed to mitigate
Gnatcatcher impact contains Black. Sage habitat 'and, does not.
compensate for loss of -SMC. (b) EIR fails to recognize importance
of the site as a corridor to Batiquitos Lagoon and the reduction to
wetlands cannot' be 'mitigated by enhancement program... (c) Failed
to identify site as Gnatcatcher habitat even though HPI Olivenhain
Property (RECON) .EIR identified two Gnatcatchers on-site in the
October 1985 report.
RESPONSE:. (a) The- issue of Southern Maritime Chaparral (SMC)
was raised by the U. S Fish & Wildlife Service (USF&WS) in their
December 291 1992 correspondence and responded to in detail by
Pacific Southwest Biological Services (PSBS.) in"their January -6,
1993 response.' Both 'letters 'were provided to the. City Council at
the meeting on January 6th and are attached to this report for the
City Council's review. PSBS contends that the cOncept of SMC as
originally proposed by Holland was never meant to encompass the
broad spectrum of varied chaparral resources and inicrohabitats now
scattered throughout coastal San Diego County. A vegetation
category must have some cohesive defining limitations which
warrants a distinctive designation, otherwise, the uniqueness is
lost. Holland's original classification notes that the
distribution of SMC is restricted to Torrey Pines State Reserve and
a few scattered nearby locales. Key botanists 'in, the region have
yet to accept a clear-cut dfjnition of SMC and CEQA Guideline
Section 15151 states that disagreement among experts does not make
an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of
disagreement as it does on this matter on page 10 of Appendix B and
on page 3-16 of the EIR and in the PSBS response to the USF&WS
letter. The Biology section of the City's .MEA states that
biological resources were identified using biological studies
prepared. in and around the City and aerial photographs. The site
specific studies conducted by PSBS for the SPA conclude that the
site is the more common Coastal or Southern Mixed 'Chaparral, not
Southern Maritime Chaparral.' Approximtely 9.6 acres' of. the. 21.4,
Acres of this vegetation type will be affected by the propoed
development in PAs 1 & 2. The remaining acres of this vegetation
type'-would be protected in Open Space by the proosed'project. In
reference to Table 3.3-3 on page. 3-29 and the discussion on page 3-
33 of the EIR, the acreage of' Mixed Chaparral breaks down as
follows:
Total Mixed Chaparral Within SPA = 21.4 acres
Totái Mixed Chaparral on Home Depot Property (PAs 1 & '2) = 15.8
Total Mixed Chaparral Impacted by Project Within SPA = 9.6 acres or 44.9% of SPA
Total Mixed Chaparral Impacted by Home Depot Project =9.2 acres or
56% of Home Depot Property '
Mitigation of the impact to Mixed Chaparral vegetation due to
grading is the revegetatiori to enhance the disturbed area of Mixed
Chaparral species within the 11.1 acre-Open- Space in Planning Area
2. This mitigation is detailed--: on page 3-42 of the EIR. Additionally, 'acqu'iition ofi" 'cres' of off-site ±ábitat to
mitigate impacts to the California Gnatcatcher is required by the
'• EIR. This habitat area consistsóf Coastal Sage Scrub contiguous to other similar vegetation habitat Although the 16 acre off-site
purchase is for the California Gnatcatcher 'mitigation, it is noted
'that this mitigation will 'also preserve important chaparral
habitat. Regardless of the label to describe the type of sensitive
vegetation .cominunity, the Biology sub-consultants (Pacific
Southwest Biological Services) have determined the mitigation to be
adequate.
(b) The Biology report recognizes the significance. of the wetlands area and concludes that the enhancement program (as conditioned by
the Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit) is adequate on-site
mitigation.
(C) The Biology Report for the HPI Olivenhain Property (RECON;
Oct. 1985) EIR identified two Gniatcatchers on-site but did not
identify the site as a nesting area. This report also identifies
the steep slope vegetation within the Specific Plan Area to be
"Coastal Mixed Chaparral" as opposed to "Southern Maritime
Chaparral". Although the Gnatcátcher was identified as sensitive,
no mitigation was proposed by the RECON EIR since the steep slopes
were not proposed for development by the General Plan Amendment
request. Relative to the Home Depot SPA, discussion related to
California Gnatcatcher and the -Biological Sub-consultant's survey
for the, species is contained on page 3-23 of the EIR. I The off-site mitigation requirements are listed on page 3-44 (Item 8)
MARY RENAKER:
5. Coastal Scrub 'Oaks on property and 2/3rds of site is
viable habitat. The site is excellent'Gnatcatôher habitat or the birds would not 'nest there. Noted that California Ghatcatcher is
a separate species from the Mexican Gnatcatcher. 'Avoidance, of
impacts is the first choice 'of CEQA. 16 acres of off-site
mitigation is inadequate; destruction of area would destroy habitat
corridor, Lake Hodges habitat is different than project site and the area is part of a park site and is not designated as a
'preserve.
RESPONSE: The Biology Sub-consultants, Pacific Southwest
' Biological Services, have established the Coastal Scrub Oak' and
California Gnatcatcher mitigations as discussed on 'pages 3-43 (item
6) and 3-44 (item 8) in' the EIR. PSBS has surveyed the 16 acre
area proposed as off-site mitigation for these resources and,has
found the area to be adequate. -Off-site mitigation 'is, an area of controversy discussed in detail on page' 1-17 and in Section 3.3
beginning on:page 3-16 of the document. The City would require as
a condition of approval that the 16 acre site be preserved as a
non-revocable permanent open space. Staff has contacted Diane
Coombs with the San Dieguito Riverpark Joint Powers Authority (JPA)
who oversee the habitat area adjacent to the, proposed off-site mitigation property. The proposed site is adjacent 'to City df San . ,Diego owned property that, has: Gnatcatçher habitat.' San Dieguito
Riverpark JPA has a 9 member Board made of representatives from the
County and City of 'San Diego, and the cities of Del Mar, Solana
Beach,' Escondido and Poway. The JPA has been established to
preserve the area near Lake Hodges as a natural open space park for
the future preservation of existing habitat.
WILLIAM DAUGHERTY (BUENA VISTA AUDUBON SOCIETY):
6. (a) Site is a wildlife corridor connecting the Batiquitos
Lagoon, Green Valley and an inland preserve system. Southern
Maritime Chaparral is not present at Lake Hodges site. Statement
that wetlands will be improved and that 16 acres near Lake Hodges
mitigates impacts are statements of ignorance. The State of
Florida has admitted a 87% failure rate in wetlands restoration
projects. Success of the replanting program is problematical. The
site is critical Least Bell's Vireo habitat and Oceanside had two
CALTRANS wetlands restoration projects that failed. (b) Project
is a taking under the Endangered Species Act. Should wait on
certification until Multiple-species Habitat Conservation Program
is established and the mitigation measures for Home Depot are
submitted for review.
RESPONSE: (a) The wetlands mitigation program proposes to
protect and enhance 'the wetland vegetation types and place into
permanent open space the creek corridor which flows through the
property and under El Camino Real. The creek connects to Green
Valley and the Batiquitos Lagoon'. It is a riparian corridor. The
upland vegetation cannot serve as a wildlife corridor further to
the west since El Camino Real and the broad agricultural fields of
the Ecke property have precluded this. There is a common
connection between the on-site uplands and the wetlands along
Encinitas Creek. The Biology Survey (page 21, Appendix B)
discusses the Least Bell's Vireo and indicates-that the species has
not, been observed in the region for approximately 10 years. While
the wetlands habitat may be sufficient for future colonization by
the Vireo,. the number and, regular observation of the Brown-headed
Cowbird would probably have a major effect on the Vireo's nesting
attempts at this time. According to the Biology Sub-consultants,
the common Cowbird utilizes the Vireo's nest to lay their eggs and
the Vireo tends to feed the larger Cowbird hatchlings in lieu of
their own young. Development of the disturbed field area within
the SPA would tend to displace the Brown-headed Cowbird population.
(b) The California Gnatcatcher is currently being considered for
listing as endangered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
Although the bird is not currently listed and, therefore, not
considered a taking, the project proposes off-site mitigation as
discussed in item 8 on page 3-44 of the EIR. Implementation of the
Multiple-species Habitat Conservation Program is under
consideration at this time and is speculative. In accordance with
City Council Resolution (CC-92-62), projects which had
Environmental Review & Comment periods prior to the City's
commitment to enroll into the State Natural Communities
Conservation Program are exempt from its provisions. It is noted
in response to this comment that CEQA does not require the EIR to
be a "crystal ball" to foresee the future, nor does CEQA require
that the processing of this project be halted until studies are.
completed or made more definitive. The EIR is considered adequate
if it reasonably discloses anticipated impacts based upon
information available at the time it is evaluated. The EIR need
not speculate as to possible future changes or actions that cannot
be known at this time with, reasoiable certainty (CEQA Guidelines
Sec 15151, 15145)
KEVIN JOHNSON:
7 Up to City Council to determine weight of evidence and if
testimony is true concerning EIR Reads summary of USF&WS letter.
Needs more time to review.'responses received by City Council at 1-
6-93 meeting.
RESPONSE: See response It51 above related to' USF&WS 'letter.
City Council allowed-'additional time to review information
presented at 'the meeting on' .January 6th and requested any
additional comments be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on January 11th.
Responses to those comments -are presented in Attachment ."B" of this
report.
JIM DICE (CAL FISH & GAME):'
8. EIR is inadequate because of impacts to plant species.
Due to staff shortages, Cal Fish & Game has not had time to
comment Southern Maritime Chaparral is one of rarest habitats in
California. EIR' does not adequately address .remaining wildlife
corridors in Encinitas Delay certification until more work is
coordinated between agencies to establish corridors. '
RESPONSE: See responses to "5" and 11 7" above.
JULIE FISHER:
9. (a) Previous subdivision of Pearce property established
an Open Space easement on steep slopes in PA 3. Now Home Depot
- wants to "double-dip" and include Open Space to add to Specific
/ ) Plan area. (b) PA 1 includes portions of two parcels Assessor
ap shows 13.65 acres in PA 1' and 23.6 acres in PA 2 and the lot
line between 'the two parcels corresponds to, the north 'boundary of
PA-3. The EIR fails to' notice this shift 'of the boundary line
which reduces the southern parcel and increases' the northern
parcel Without this adjustment, the Home Depot would not fit in
'PA-1 and the.adjustment conflicts with General'P'lan Land Use Policy,
8.2. and Resource. Management 'Policy 10.6. 'which do not allow
subdivisions or boundary adjustments that increase impacts. 'This
boundary adjustment increases impacts to the wetlands. (c)
Contradictions in EIR as to whether or not the building is in the
floodplain.' San Diego County "1982 Floodplain Map shows floodplain
at about 85 to 87-foot elevation. This putt half of parking lot
and 1/3 of building into flooaplain EIR has,,glaring
contradictions regarding- elevations mentioned. Document states
that the project is not in the floodplain but then states that fill
will be necessary to get it out of floodplain. ,EIR states that the
culvert elevation under El Camino Real 'should be 72. 'feet while
topographic maps indicate 75 feet.(d) No indication of the
definition: of n'-Iand bluffs' nor the reqiired 40-foot setback.
Slope analysis seems to be based on 10-foot contours and: cOnflict
with. my slope analysis.
' RESPONSE:' (a) ...Figure .2.3-28 on page .2-60 of, the -EIR
identifies easements within the SPA The southerly portion of PA
(3 is shown to have an existingOpen Spade easement over steep slope
areas. Since no development ,of PA 3 is proposed at this tide and
the property is not zoned for futur.e residential development, the
Open Space is not needed to determine project density calculations.
Land Use Policy 8.2 and Resource Management Policy 10.6 are to
Th prohibit subdivisions and lot line adjustments that create an
increased impact. to floodplains and wetlands. For, example, to adjust a lot line that reduces the buildable area of a parcel
within or near a floodplain would be of concern. In this case, the
lot line is being adjusted through a Tentative Map away from the
floodplain and wetland areas allowing for a greater amount of area
for development purposes reducing floodplain impacts. This is
consistent with the General Plan.
Figure 2.3-12 on page 2-32 of the EIR identifies the pre-1982
floodplain which was reduced in size by the construction of two
upstream detention basins. A portion of the parking area would
encroach into the current floodplain but maintenance of the El
Camino Real culvert and proposed fill of the area to be developed
will result in the parking area being raised above the 100-year
floodplain. The Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit allows for the
culvert to be cleaned to an elevation of 72 feet as originally
constructed and to be maintained at an elevation not to exceed 75
feet. The ASL study dated September 10, 1992 which was included in
the Errata Sheet presented to City Council on January 6, 1993 with
the Environmental Consultant's response to written comments,
concludes that the parking area at an elevation of 82.4 feet will
not be impacted by the 100-year floodplain elevation of 82.4 feet.
This analysis is based on the peak storm discharge in Encinitas
Creek without the proposed upstream Detention Basin "D". Cleaning
of the culvert and a maintenance program will be subject to Coastal
Commission approval and will require a 1603 Streambed Alteration
Agreement with the California Department of Fish & Game. Home
Depot would be responsible for future maintenance of the wetland
elevation adjacent to the culvert.
The steep slope areas have not been identified as "Inland
Bluffs" since they do not conform to the Zoning Code definition for
"Bluff" which Reads: "BLUFF shall mean a scarp, or steep face of
rock, sediment or soil resulting from erosion, faulting, folding,
filling, or excavation of the land mass. The bluff may be simple
planar or curved surface or it may be steplike in section." An
example of an.Inland Bluff occurs west of the project site on the Ecke property. The-slope analysis submitted for the subdivision of
PA 2 has been determined by staff to be adequate for this level of
review. Additional analysis of the subdivision request will be
conducted during the project review process.
JOSEPH BENZONI:
10. (a) Pages 3-172 through 3-178 of the EIR discuss noise
and light & glare impacts and is prominently inadequate. Noise
impacts on nearby residential property -is not addressed. Noise
contours should be done on the boundaries, not within the site.
Study does not address engineering facts related to prevailing wind
direction and topographic contour of the site and the impact these
physical attributes have on carrying noise to the residential
properties. No discussion of the noise impacts the project will
have on wildlife. The EIR assumes point source instead of line
source noise generators (i.e., roof top coolers). Noise levels
will. not _fall. due to. inverse square law since the property is
shaped like a bowl and points to residential properties Not true
that nearest home is 1000 feet from proposed Home Depot building,
more like 750 feet (b) Discussion on light and glare does not
W include analysis of nearby residences Can see the stationary
lights on the flower stand across El Camino Real.
RESPONSE: (a) The EIR concludes that noise levels from the
Home Depot at the nearest residential properties will not exceed 45
dB(a) This would be substantially below the allowed 60 CNEL noise
level for residences and, therefore,* the impact is seen as
insignificant. As shown on the site plan submitted. to the City,
the edge of the Home Depot building measures 750 feet 'to the
easterly property line of PA 4.. Review of the aerial photograph
submitted with the project application (Specific Plan'.,Schematic)
indicates-that the closest residence to the east is approximately
800 feet from the eastern elevation of the proposed Home. Depot
structure and the nearest residence to the south is approximately
75.0 feet from the structure.
('b) Light and glare to .residential buildings to the east is not
anticipated to be a significant impact due to the distance from the
parking lot to the residences In addition, a 5 to 12-foot high
solid wall is proposed along the east side of the Home DeSpot center
to help block noise and landscaping will help to block light
sources from the parking area.
BRAD ROTH:
11 Chaired Riparian Parkways Task Force (RPTF) and their
7 • report was not included nor referenced in EIR Specific goals in
) ) RPTF report should be included in the EIR.
RESPONSE: . The. Riparian Parkways Task Force report was
accepted (not adopted) by City Council.
ROSEMARY PAETOW:
12. 50-foot wetlands buffer and alternatives of preservation
of Gnatcatcher on-site have-not been addressed in sufficient
detail. New sections have been added to the EIR and it should be
recirculated for additional review & comment period. Believes a
combination of the alternatives 'is the best design. For example,
reduce the size, rotate building 90 degrees and purchase PA 3 for
additional marking and as a buffer. to residential properties.
Wants minial impact to wetlands if the project goes 'forward. Only
cursory discussion of the "no project" alternative and' no
alternative uses for the site were discussed.
RESPONSE: The EIR discusses Resource Management Policies 10.6
and 10.9 as well as Land Use. Policy 8.10. These policies relate to
wetlands preservation and reauirements ,for buffer areas. While a
50-foot buffer is the general ule, the policies, do allow for a
lesser width of setback area if 'it can be demonstrated' that the
smaller 'buffer protects the wetland resource. That determination
will need to be made during the project review portion Of the
planning process. ' Planning. staff is of the opinion that ( information contained in the Final EIR has not changed
significantly enough to warrant recirculation of the document. How
the design of the project will be amended to address al
t
e
r
a
t
i
v
a
s
raised in tne EIR is a function of the planning review pr
o
c
e
s
s
.
KEVIN JOHNSON:
(a) Concerned with the amount of time that the Final EIR
was available to the public for review and comment.
It was difficult to contact resource agencies during Holidays to
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
information related to responses. Sections cited in EIR re
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
could not be located. EIR is inadequate if public cannot
f
o
l
l
o
w
the document with reasonable effort. Information concerning alternate sites is inadequate. (b) The Hail proper
t
y
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
more appropriate than proposed site given the projéct"
s
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
the General Plan.
RESPONSE: (a). AlthôughCEQAGuidelines (Sec. 15089 (b)
)
d
o
not specify that Lead Agencies provide a separate review
p
e
r
i
o
d
f
o
r
the Final EIR, Home Depot has agreed to the additional
R
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
Comment period. After receiving public testimony on Ja
n
u
a
r
y
6
,
1993, the City Council allowed additional time for writ
t
e
n
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
—
to be received regarding responses to comments on the Final
E
I
R
a
n
d
for staff to prepare this response to oral testimony. Res
p
o
n
s
e
s
presented to City Council on January 6th corrected the mis
-
c
i
t
e
d
sections in the response to comments of the Draft EIR.
(b) The Hall property alternative is discussed in Sect
i
o
n
7
.
2
.
3
.
3
on page 7-22 of the EIR. Staff is of the opinion tha
t
t
h
e
H
a
l
l
property is not a viable site due to the fact that the
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
i
s
zoned Residential-3. In accordance with Land Use Element
P
o
l
i
c
y
3.9, a residentially zoned property may not be rézoned
'
t
o
a
n
o
n
-
residential use except by the affirmative vote of the m
a
j
o
r
i
t
y
i
n
a general election. In addition, traffic impacts ne
a
r
t
h
e
I
-
S
interchange adjacent to the Hall property have been ide
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
a
s
an area of concern. Access to the Hail property is only
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
from residential streets to the south or would require a r
e
m
o
d
e
l
o
f
existing commercial structures in order to be accessed f
r
o
m
S
a
n
t
a
Fe Drive on the north. The original City Council, upon recommendation from the General Plan Ad Hoc Committée and P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Commission, designated the Home Depot site as Light Indus
t
r
i
a
l
a
n
d
the Hall property residential after deliberation during the
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
Plan adoption process. The Zoning Code Use Matrix identifie
s
"
H
o
m
e
Improvement Centers" as a permitted use within the.Ligt Ind
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Zoning District. Staff -is of the opinion that it woul
d
n
o
t
b
e
consistent with CEQA to require Home Depot to seek rezonin
g
o
f
t
h
e
Hall property in light of the requirement for a vote of app
r
o
v
a
l
b
y
the electorate and due to the uncertainty of traffic im
p
a
c
t
s
a
n
d
access to the site.
DOLORES WELTY:
.
(a) This project could never have been proposed unless
the General Plan Policy prohibiting development in a f
l
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n
hadn't been' amended by City Council to permit op
e
n
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
facilities. (b) Mitigation is only 60% effective. Shou
l
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
4:1 mitigation or 16 acres of. mitigatidn for the wet
l
a
n
d
s
i
m
p
a
c
t
alone. Legally, the mitigation is suppose to increase
productivity.
. Protests any impact to steep slope areas.
RESPONSE: .(a). General Plan Land Use Policy 8.2 allows consideration of those uses (such as open parking,
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
)
within a floodplain which are considered safe and compatible with
periodic flooding. TheASL Report dated September 10, 1992 and
submitted to City Council on January 6, 1993 with the Errata Sheet
prepared by theEnvironmentál' Consultant, donciudes that the
) parking area at an elevation of 82 4 feet will not be impacted by
the 100-year fl'oodplainelevátion of 82.4 feet. This analysis is
based on ,the peak storm discharge in Encinitas Creek without the
proposed upstream Detention Basin "D". Cleaning of the culvert and
a maintenance program will be subject to Coastal commission
approval, and will require a 1'603..Streambed Alteration Agreement
with the California Department of Fish & Game. HOme Depot would be
responsible for future maintenance of the wetland elevation
adjacent to the culvert.
(b) The Environmental Sub-consultant •f or Biology and the Army
Corps of Engineers concur. . that the proposed wetlands
creation/ enhancement program will provide a substantially higher
quality wetlands habitat, than currently exists. The-.U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, in consultation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, has issued a 404 Permit required for wetlands alteration.
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program requires a 5-year
monitoring period' to ensure that the enhancement program is
established. Mitigation for impacts to steep slope vegetation is
discussed in the response to #5 above.
EDGAR KINGARIC:
(a) City Council is elected to serve the will of the
people. Council knows that the EIR is faulty to a. point of
embarrassment. Effect of the project on General 'Plan policies is
outrageous. (b) Plant community is one of only six sites left.
RESPONSE: (a) Comments dc not specifically address adequacy
or accuracy of EIR. (b) This .i..ssue is responded to in #5 above.
DEBBIE WRIGHT:
EIR does not address impacts to residents in Carlsbad.
Points she wishes to make have jeen presented. Submitted written
comments rais.e issue of how t project will effect human lives
(i.e., air quality, traffic --...:)acts, visual quality and noise
impacts).
RESPONSE: The EIR' discus s these impacts in Sections
3.5, 3.7 and 3.8, resctively and requires mitigations for those
impacts 'considered significant. Should the project be considered
for approval as currently pr, Dosed, a Statement of Overriding
Consideration., supported by firings, would need to be adopted for
non-mitigatable Air Quality, fraf ,ftc and Solid Waste Disposal
Impacts. The EIR includes discussion of Cumulative Impacts which
looks at potential impacts regardless of political boundaries.
MICHELLE FERGODA:
EIR ignores significant body of informatIon'prepared by
the County regarding this property. Market studies should be
required to determine need for additional commercial in this area.
increase in development will lead to growth inducement to this
( \V area. Staff report with recommendation should have, been made
available.
RESPONSE: This comment does not provide specific- information
related to specific information prepared.,by th County regard1n'
this property CEQA addresses the evaluation of potential physical
environmental impacts and does not require the analysis of economic
impacts (CEQA Guidelines 15131) en The project proposes developmt
in accordance with the current overlying Zoning Districts on the
property Therefore, the development of the property with the
proposed.or a similar use is not seen as a groth iiidui6ement out of
character with the General Plan Designations or the Zoning
Districts.
ADAM BIRNBAtJM:
- IS. Felt compelled to speak after reading aboit oil spillin
South Shetland Islands a This is not n oil spill, but these our
own sensitive environmental resources.
RESPONSE: No specific information provided concerning the
adequacy, or accuracy of the EIR. ,.
S.-
I
H
ATTACHMENT "B"
WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED
APTER PUBLIC HEARING ON JANUARY 6, 1993
AND RESPONSES
The City has received eight written comments since the Public
Hearing held by City Council on January 6, 1993 The comments were
written by Todd Kee ler-Woif Ph .D. (dated December 28, 1992),
James C Dice, Plant Ecologist, California Department of Fish &
Game (dated January 11, 1993), Michael Beck, San Diego Director,
Endangered Habitats League (dated January 10, 1993), Julie Fisher,
Neighborhoods United (dated January 11, 1993), Kevin K Johnson,
Attorney representing Neighborhàods United fbr Quality of Life and
the Scott's Valley Homeowners' Association (dated January 11,
1993), Sharon Denver Brossman (dated January 11, 1993), Kay DeWelse
(dated January 11-, 1993), and Auriole Wist (dated- January 8, 1993).
The written comments listed above and responses, prepared by City
staff and the City's Biology Sub-consultant, Pacific Southwest
Biological Services (PSBS), are attached for the City Council's
Review The three letters from :'Keeler-W611" Dice and Beck contain
similar concerns related tothe type-of vegetation on steep slopes
within- the SPA.- The comments basically relate to the Southern
Maritime Chaparral definition vs the Coastal or Southern Mixed
Chaparral definition which was discussed in the response to letter
#5 and the U S Fish & Wildlife Service response in Attachment "A"
An additional response to the Keeler-Wolf, -and Beck- letters is
provided by PSBS and follows the-attahed letters. A more detailed
response to the ,Dice letter is being prepared - at the time of the
writing of this report and will be distributed to the City Council
pri or' to the January 20th meeting,.-
The Fisher letter (Neighborhoods United) is also attached for City
Council's review along with ''.a response prepared by Rob Blough of
the City's Traffic Engineering Department with assistance from Joe
Oliva of Wilidan. In. addition,' a memoràiduin from Senior Planner
Craig Jones is attached to clarify one of the comments made in the
letter. The Johnson letter, with 'a response to the comments made,
follows the Fisher letter.'. Also attached are the Brssman, DeWeise
and ist letters which express their concerns and disapproval of
tne proposed project, but co not relate to the adequacy or accuracy
Of:the-EIRänd-,-therefore, -do not require ,a response.
Todd Keeer.Wo Ph.D. • Consuttin
CITY OF ESCI CITY c RK TAS
___7I967pM. 3:27 '
The City Council •--'- ."------•
City of Encinitas •
505 South Vulcan Ave. .
Encenitas, CA 92024
P'r\WL L/ December 28, 1992
r __ Dear Councilmembers, . ••-
t has come to my attention that a decision- is pending-6n an area
of bioloical co'-' y'r ct lim.s ie--u—
called "'Home Depot Site" The area is known, among other things,
as a location for the natural community listed by the Department of
Fish and Game as. "Southern Maritime Chaparral't.
The question ,of just what is Southern Maritime Chaparral and how
rare is it, has arisen in several discussions with a number of
biologists and land managers recently. I would like to offer my
opinion, on the subject with the hope of clarifying some of. the
misconceptions about this particular natural community.
It is well known that chaparral dominated by various species of
manzan.ita, Ceanothus, and scrub oaks is a common and characteristic
vegetation type of much .of southern California west of the deserts.
HOwever, there are many types of chaparral, dominated by different
species and with a varied mixture of sub-dcmnant shrubs and herbs
The many types of . chaparral correspond with differences in soils,.
elevation,' moisture availablity,. fire frequency,' and other
environmental factors. .
Most of the California chaparrals are found inland -From or above
the typically cool' moist maritime . layers. Those types
occ'rring within the summer fog-mart-Le zone are cnaracterzec. mv
ceran species aaapted to this climate Because chaparral, in
ceneral, is a vegetation formation that is adapthd 'to summer-dry,
exosed situations, the maritime forms Iare typically associated
with very dry or well drained soils that compinsats for the
additional moisture and cool climate afforded by the proximity to
the ocean. These are typically marine sandstones and other
sedimentary rocks.
Southern Maritime Chaparral is thus, a uniq-ue assemblage of species
brought together by the forces of soil and climate. Because it is
associazec with a restricted set of environmental conditions, it
has naturally become rather rare Although the dominant species
may be chamise, a widespread chaparral shrub throughout the State,
several of the subdomjnant species are unique to the',counity.
These include the Del Mar Mnzanita, Ceanothus vercosus,
Ccreocsis maritima, Ccrethrogyne !i1agini61ia var. liniolia,
Dudleya brevi!oJ.ia, and Chorizarthe crcutia.na .
S.
On top of the natural restriction of this community, is. layered the
impact of development and land alteration The coastal area where
this _community* occurs .is prime real estate and agricttltural. land
and'has been for many 'years. The result is that the' naturally'
small extent of the .commumity has shrunk to a few fragements.' As
a likely result'of the fragmentation, the species-,comp , ositi on of
this community varies from place' to place. The tiny 'fragments
typical of most remainirg stand's Of this community are unlikely to
represent:the full diversity of the once larger stands. Therf ore,
a species list at one site may not be the same as aspecies list at
another, site. This creates, a problem for land managers and
biologists alike who are trying to.. understand the characteristics
-of. this community. . .
' One way to individuate southern maritime -chaparral from more
widespread inland types is.to develop a list of indicator 'species
which, in represent the com'ny k ll ltt, Dtve
Hogan (San Diego Biodiversity Project) has done,, this. He suggests
that any site with, four ormore of these indicator species (all—
species which are largely 'restricted to maritime San Diego County)
should be considered SouthernMaritime Chaparral.'
The Department..of Fish and Game has provisionally accepted Hogan's
criteria until we can quantitatively sample a number of stands of
this community and statisticelly analyze the data. Fornów,'.. the'
OF" PI
unique combinations of rare plant species found at any of these
sites, is' "sufficient to describe the community. As I saidsariler
these' rare species need meerly be present at each of the sites.,
they do 'not. have to dominate the sites.
Currently we believe that southern maritime 'chaparral., , with some or
all of the characteristicspecies,.occurs in 20 or so small patches
from the south. Carlsbad aria to the Mexican border. Using.-the
indicator species criteria it is clear that the _Home Depot Site
constitutes a location for Southern Maritime: Chaparral. -
The Home. Depot Site also is a known breeding location for
Ca 1. iforni I a Gnt.catcher and is an important natural .:corridor between
relatively large and natural areas of open space.. It isa logical
Cr to siar i:. te Naiai.. omunities Conservation
Planning process undertkan bv the Resources Agency and; the various
local county and city governments and landowners.
If you have further questions about this community please feel free
to contact me at the address below.
Sincerely,
:1
Todd Keeler-Wolfh.D. g5?7
.} . Vegetation Ecologist
LI -,,c -<:-:-t
F : :'c;2M ; so EO1\ —oc.— 61S 633 2627;; 2
DF ALIRNIA—THE 50*CZ AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF FISH ,AND GAME
330 GOLDEW ,SHOL. £UTTE 30
LONG UACM.' CA O$02
January 11 1993
Mr. Craig Olson, Assistant Planner
City of Encinitas
community Development Department
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024-3633
Dear Mr. Olson:
This letter is to provide you with written notice of the
comments I made at the January 6, 1993, Public Hearing on
Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for
the proposed Home Depot Specific Plan and Tentative .Subdivision Map
- (SCH #91031068), before the Encinitas City Council.: Those' comments were abbreviated in order to avoid duplicating facts and
information presented by others in earlier testimony that evening.
In addition, I would like to address issues raised in the January
6, 1993, letter, from Mr. Keith Merkel of Pacific Southwest
Biological Services, which I only obtained a copy: of on Friday,
January 8th.
In my comments before the 'City Council, I noted that 'because
of vacancies in key positions within the California Department of
Fish & same (cD?c.) during important milestones in the environmental
review process for this project, cDP'G had not previously had the oportunity to comment on this project. I further, stated that CDFG had reviewed the 'Propoàed 'Final ZIR and that the :Departmen: believed that the document fails to adequately identify, describe and analyze- the., significant impacts to sensitive biological
resources 'on site and fails to adequately address t h e regional significance of the site as part of the open space and wildlife corridor along Encinitas Creek connecting Green Valley with Bata.quitos Lagoon.
Specifically, I noted that the biological resources report for the EIR failed to identify southern maritime chaparral, one of the rarest and most sensitive of California's terrestrial natural communities, as being present on the project site. Based on the information provided in the biological survey report, I stated that neither I, nor the California Natural Diversity Data Base's Vegetation Ecologist, Dr. Todd Keeler-Wolf agree :with the biological consultant's decision to characterize- the chaparral' vegetation on site as "southern mixed chaparral." I further noted the duplicitous treatment of southern maritime chaparral in the ropo'sed final ZIR. On the one hand the consr.1tant attempts to rede fine- southern maritime chaparral with their own 'assemblage O lt species, in order to conveniently restrict its occurrence to the -
ET .3 i- -3 4C 22W S EON -43C- $ 1 i 533 215211;z
10 -j - - - i
Mr. Cralg Olson
January 11, 1993
Page two
immediate vicinity of Torrey Pines State Reserve, while an page 3-
45 (Figure 3.Y-3) they clearly indicate that southern maritime
chaparral occurs on the north slopes of Lake Hodges, near the
proposed California gnatcatacher mitigation site, where none of the
'plant taxa, involved in their "definition." ,are known to, occur. I observed that the logic used by the biological consultant in
denying, the presence of southern maritime chaparral on the site,
could just as easily have been used to deny the presence of any
other form of chaparral (including southern mixed chaparral) on the
site.
I concluded my rernarki to ,the' City Council by asking that the
Council not certify the EIR until these Issues could be adequately
addressed Finally,.! asked that the City of Encinitas..Community
Development Department seek a resolution to the southern maritime
chaparral issue involving the I S Fish and Wildlife Service, the
California Department of Fish and Game, the project's biological
consultants and the North County Wildlife Forum's Multi-Habitat
Conservation Program, in which the City of Enclnitas is
participating.
.
Since my testimony that evening, I have obtained a pack-age of
supplemental information provided by the City of. Encinitas,
including correspondence with the Community Planing Department
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the',Sn Diego Biodiversity
Project and Pacific Southwest Biological Servi ce's. I was oa:-cularh disturbed by both the suostance and tone of the , letter rcn ?ac if, ..c Southwest Bi ologi cal" Serices' Vice.Presiaent Keith
Merkel (letter to the City of Encinitas, dated January 6., 1.993).
:oliand's "Preliminary Descriotions of the TerrestrilNatural
Comm ..nies of California" is not perfect classfcation Of egetaton There is no urtersally accepter- classfica:on 01 "aura vegeaicn However, snce its puolication in 1986 Dr .
Foiland's :lass iica'tior has oeen vael'used and accepted by
governmental agencies, local jurisdictions: and professional
botanists, 'nd recognized as the best available treatment of California's natural vegetation. Included among these agencies and
jursdicions are the Caliorna Department of Fi sh and Game, the U.S.Fish anc Wildlife 'Service, the County of San Diego, the North
County Wild-life Forum Mul'i-Habitst Conservation Program, and the
City of San Diego's' C1 ea Water Pogram Multi-Species Conse'r'vation
Program Ever the biological consultant's report for the home Depot Specific Plan purports to follow Holland's classification
Pac i fic Southwest Biological Services has chosen not to accent
Holland's oeriilon and characterization of southern maritime
chaparral, Instead, they provide an "interpretation" of what the
oeleve holland really meant Further after beLttling te
SENT 5Y DEFT F ;ARKS & E; 1-11-93 ;:23PM SO REGION 519 533 2527: L
6
Mr. Craig Olson
January 11, 1993
Page three
efforts of some others to refine Holland's definition of southern
maritime chaparral, they propose their own definition of this
community. Their definition, which they claim is "a natural
grouping" with a "geographic and inter-related climatic identity,"
is touted as providing "a scientific basis for consideration as a
distinctive vegetation catego'y." In reality, the, naturalness of
this grouping of Torrey pine, short-leaved liveforever,.sea dahlia
and coast wallflower is arguable and its scientific basis non-
existent.. What it does do is confine the distribution of southern
maritime chaparral to Torrey Pines State Reserve and Del Mar, which
is what the consultant set out to prove. Convenient, but hardly
scientific. Until such time as someone or some group can provide
quantitative data on species composition, percent cover, relative
abundance, site factors, etc., within the chaparral communities of
western San Diego County (and thereby provide .& real scientific
basis for consideration), the City of Encinitas and other
jurisdictions would be ill-advised to allow individual consultants
or advocacy groups to make up their own definitions for plant
'communities on a project-by-project basis. Without some sort of
consistent treatment for sensitive resources within the City., the
planning and environmental review processes will quickly become
both 'a mockery and a nightmare.
Pacific Southwest Biological Services' phone poll of "key
botanists in the region" (see page 2 of their January 6, 1993
letter to the City), and the comments attributed to them, should
not in any way be construed as supportive of either the
consultant's newly-defined southern maritime chaparral or their
assessment of the some Depot Specific Plan project site. ?our Of
the fie individuals named in the letter, that I was able to reach,
acknowledged that they had little or no familiarity with the site,
and indicated that their comments were reflective of problems
inherent in all vegetation classifications, not res:r±ct'ed..merely
to The discussion of southern maritime chaparral. Three out of the
four indicated that, based on their discussion with Mr. Reiser of
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, they felt southern maritime
chaparral was robably present at the proposed Home Depot site..
Pacific Southwest Biological Services state ' that they
'specifically discussed "the site" with CDG. According 'to their
letter of 'January 6, 1993, (see page 7): "J. Vanderwier, then a
:ep:esentatjve of CDG, was consulted concerning the site and
regarding the local issue of the Orcutt's Spineflower." However,
in my conversation with Ms. Vanderwier of January 9, 1993, she
could recall no such consultation. 'Ms. Vanderwier, my predecessor,
in the position of Plant Ecologist here in San Diego, has not
visited the site and could recall only that Mr. Reiser talked with
her concerning the population of Orcutt's spineflower at Oak Cres.t
Park. Likewise, 'Dr. Keeler-Wolf has not visited the site, nor does
0-
SEC SY A ET Or- PARKS &PE 1- - .10 23PM SO REGION' Q-LO- 619 633 2627;; 5
Mr. CraigOlson
January, 11, 1993 ..
Pagà four
he agree with Pacific Southwest Biological Services' interpretation
of southern maritime chaparral
An additional concern'.,,,,;o me with respect to the botanical
resources of the project site has to do with the directed search
for Orcutt's spineflower (Chorzarithe orcuttiana), a. state-listed endangered pecies. The methods' section of the.'biological. survey
..report indicates that the botanical survey for this property was
carried out by the project botani&t. on September' 30, .1989,.a bad
time of year to survey for annual species, in a. dry year following
an extended period of drought There is ample mention of the
status of 'this species at nearby Oak Crest Park in Encinitas and of
'Mr. Re.iser's andMr. moe's collection of. it there in 1991. Also
.Tnentioned.is Mr. Reiser's repeat: visit to Oak Crest Park in. 1992,
as well as surveys of Torrey Pines State Reserve and other areas in
an attempt to relocate other populat ions, What I cannOt find In ,
(
• the !IR, however, is any n _ mentio that the Home Depot site was examined at any time other than September 30, 1989, for the
\_- presence of Orcutt's spinetlower Were there, in fact, any
additional visits to the Home Depot Specific Plan site' to look for
this endangered plant species?
In conclusion, I would like to, rei-terate my concerns about
f certification of this BI beore these lesues have been resolved and before the North County Wildlife Forum's Multiple-Habitat
Conservation Plan has had the opportunity to finish their mapping
arid analyses of sensitive habitats and regional wlclfe corridors
The Department cf-Fish and Game- would very much like,to work with the City of Encinitas to 'resolve these is'Sues and to preserve the sensitive. biological resorcesof this region. I can be reached at
(619) 37_7973
Since rely,
nes 'C. Dice
?ant Ecologist
c: Glenn,.,.Black, CDG, Natural Heritage Supervisor
Curt Taucher, CDFG Ensironmentel Serices Suer.isor
TirnDillingnam, CDG, Wlclife Biojogist
Tern i Stewart, CDFC, wildlife Biologist
Todd Kee ler-woif CDFG Vegetation Ecoiogst, CNDDB
red Rocerts, USFWS, Carlsbad Field Office, 2730 Loker venue
Wst,. Carlsbad, CA 92008 , ' ''
Pacific Southwest Biological Services, P0 Box 985, National - Ci t, y , CA 91951-0985
-
) MxcPEL DECK
ENDANGERED MABrrA.TS LcuE
Ddicat.4 to thc Ppotxbion of Ctal 5c ScnD and OMr Thrwene4 Lwysum
Dan Silver • Coordinator
8424.A Santa Monica Blvd., #592
Los Ange5 CA 90069
TEL/FAX 213 • 634 • 1456
61976 1469
prow" OMMAhbal
January 10, 1993
Mayor and City CoUnc1lembers
City or Encinitas
50 South Vulcan Ave.
Encinitas, CA 92024
RE:Home Depot E 1 Certification . Dear Mayor and Council Members,
The Endangered Habitats League is a coalition of 53 environmental and
conservation groups dedicated to land use solutions and to the protection of
coastal sage scrub and other endangered ecosystems. We are voting members of
the MHCP, MSCP and SANDAG Regional Open 5Dace Program advisory committees
5ecause of our concern for the coastal sage scrub ecosystem, and our involvement
wltn tnese regional multi-species piannina errorts, we would like to take this
opportunity to commenton: the certlflcatlonof the EIR for the proposed
aeveloprnent of tne Home Depot.slte in Encinitas.
There are a number or biologic and strategic reasons that remain unresolved with
respect to tnis proposed development. Certification or theEIR must not take place until tnese issues are resolved. 0
igr1ficartt biological resources are found on this site including breeding
California Gnatcatcners and 5outhernMarltlme Chaparral, a plant community so
ra'e tnat losses simply cannot be mitigated Strategically, this property
) repNsents a key llnv between the coastal and Inland coastal sage scrub plant
communities, and as Such is subreglonally significant Recent studies have shown
gnatcatcher dipesals to and from this site
ICHAEL BECK .. 6197 1469 p
Tre rgiora1 picture triat is aeveloping from me various County wioc multi-species
planning efforts Indicates that the future of the costal sage scrub ecosystem and tne Calitornia Onatcatchers Is grim in our opinion, aevelopment or this site will precipitate losses that cannot be Or,, The MHCP is presently evaluating tne status of gnaicat.cher populations for tr 1'sregion..it is Imperative that
irreversible decisions are not made regarding this proposed aevelopment until
More information IS available from that program ood planning demanas that
certification of this EIR must not take place until the MHCP can evaluate this site
within a subregiOnal context;.
.
I
We thank you (or this opportunity to comment, and for your consideration
MIC ael Beck . .
San Diego Director,
Endangéed Habitats League
:.3iilWedrn2i, $efliOr Planner
PacfIc Soutlywest Biological Services, Inc.
Post Office Box 985, National City, Ca
Mr.; Craig Olsen, Assistant Planner
City of Encinitas
Plnning Department
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Eñeinitas CA 92024-3633
Dear Mr. Olsen:
91951.0985 • (619) 477.5333 . FAX (619) 477.1245
13 January 1993
PSBS #845
I have reviewed my notes and those of others concerning the testimony of the 6 January 1993 hearing
of the Home Depot Final EIR and I have read the addiuoial comment documents presented at that hearing and
received to date since that hearing, including the response by Mr. Keeler.
In light of these additional comments, there is no change in our statements or opinions regarding the
significance of impacts from the proposed project or the a4equacy of the proposedmitigadon measures, insofar
as biological resources are concerned. Our mapping and report of the biological resources of the site are
accurate and reflect the present conditions of the site.
With regard to your responses to the various items of comment from the hearing and subsequent
comment correspondence I have the following suggested amplifications:
CHA.PARBAi.. VEGETATION ClASSIFICATION
The comments by Jim Dice (not Dyson), Fish and Game botanist, regarding he confusion of Southern
Maritime Chaparral just confirms our position on the misuse of this name as a vegetation type. The eleventh
hour letter from Mr. Keeler indicates that, based upon hisicriteria, the vegetation is much more widespread than
any of the other commentors dited in our 6 January 1993 letter. The issue is that the vegetation, whatever it is
called, is sensitive since is has endemic plants and those endemic plants are also sensitive. That's what we said
in the biology report and the EIR The impacts to these sensitive resources are significant and are fully
mitigated by the redesign of the project to preserve 50% of the chaparral vegetation on the Home Depot sites,
i.e., Planning Area 1 & 2.
CoaiuDoRs
The biology report and EIR indicate that Encinitas Creek is a wildlife corridor to Green Valley and
Bauquicos Lagoon. It is a riparian corridor. The upland vegetation cannot serve as a wildlife corridor further
to the west since El Camino Real and the broad agiciilrural fields of the Ecke Ranch have precluded this.
There is come connection between the on-site uplands and the wetlands along Encinitas Creek.
LAJE HODGES MITIGATION SITE
We recommended that the gnatcatcher habitat be mitigated off-site in an area of greater regional context
where the functional value of the open space would serve a greater diversity for did foreseeable future. The
comments that the 16 acre Lake Hddges:site mitigates for chaparral or sensitive plants is incorrect. It is to serve
only as gnatcatcher habitat. Vegetation and plant. species mitigation occurs fully in the open space on the Home
Depot sites. Comments that the Lake Hodges site will be used solely as a park with trails and will be impacted
by public use is incorrect, based upon the mandate for acquisition of habitat in the San Die .911 River Valley.
LL4sr BEU's VIRO
Our investigation indicated that no Least Bell's. Vireo currently utilize the willow riparian vegetation in
Encinitas Creek on-site The proposed project will inerease the tree canopy as mitigation for impact to adjacent
degraded wetland habitat which currently cannot support this migratory bird Such mitigation measures could
enhance potential vireo habitat
WETlAND MITIGATION
Wetland revegetation projects are only as successful as the competence I fof,the-,coniractor, site selection
and design, and strength of the financial backing of such an effort. As consultants and revegetation contractors
we have a very good record over the past 10 years with the restoration of willow riparian habitat in Vista and
Poway. The planting of wetland vegetation in Agua Hedionda Lagoon in Carlsbad was only a partial success
due to the lack of proper funding by the developer and follow through on an important water diversion system
Proper bonding by the city of the project proponent for this mitigation measure insure its success
Forthcoming agreements and permits with wildlife agencies for the project will further insure that revegetauon
efforts are realistic and can :be achieved.
RARE PLANT MrrIGATIoN
One of the proposed measures is to augment the number of individuals of two sensitive plant species
by a planting program. Our firm operates a wholesale plant nursery to support our revegetation work and to supply the industry with native and low-water use plants. We currently are growing Del Mar M2n7in1ta and
Coast White Lilac at our facility. The M2n-2nIta is being grown for alan repting mitigation program being done
by San Diego Gas and Electric on the north rim of Penasquatos Canyon. The mitigation measure is supported
by the City of San Diego Similarly, a planting program of Coast White Lilac is proposed for the Leucadia
Hghli'nds project, located to the northwest of the Home Depot site Other shrubs which have been replanted
in wild conditions include Summer-holly at a project in San Marcos. The replanting of native chaparral shrubs,
including endemic species, has been proven successful in.such projects.
I believe these comments will assist anyone interested in assessing this project and its biological- impacts
to have a clearer understanding of what the facts àr for each of these issues.
Sincerely,
R: Mitchel Beauchamp
President
I 11C,.4 14 allowed for. review of staff responses to public responses submitted prior Dec. 29,
1992 is very constrained. Staff reports were distribued Jan. 6 and 7, 1993. This allowed a inaximum of
about '_7.5 working days to collect information from vrious agences and inciviauals (One half day must
be allowed for compiling thenal results of research.) Nevertheless; we have attempted to gather
pertinèrft data to the best of our abilities given to limited time.
TRAFFIC. .
A Response to staffs response to Kevin Johnson's response to Final E.
(Staff Reôrt 12-357-D, J, M, FF,.GG,)
Staff has concluded that the traffic analysis is adeuate However, that does not address the public's
right to review the basis of this conclusion The Home Depot EIR has had numerous problems with
accuracy and consistency. (E'en representative for Mr, Pearce noticed the inconsistencies). It is
therefore, important for the public to have access to the supporting data used in the Ho 'me Depot traffic
studies in order to alleviate concerns of similar problems regarding traffic
There has been a question as to the traffic flgures (ADTs) used in the Home Depot traffic studies. In
particular, we wished to know what ADT figures wetle used from the following areas:
Ecke Ranch (Encinitas Ranch) ..
Carlsbad Partners (norhpfEninitasRanch-Green Valley)
Fieldstone Development lands (northeast of the Home Depot site)
Prior to the Jan 6, 1993 public hearing, I had reque4d these ADTs City staff was unsure wmch figures
were used. I recuested the latest ETAM traffic model studies but was told that there were numerous
errors in the model that were currently being correcte. Staff was unsure if the traffic study..was done
with the corrected or the non-corrected figures. In m' effort to track down the exact XDT figures used,
I was referred to the following people and consulting firms:
Forma
EDI
Austin Faust
City Staff-Craig Olsen. Rob Blough
On Jan. 5, 1993 Rob Blou2h faced a coov of the T.M.P.ost 2010 trip generation tables to Kevin
Johnson. The hearing was Jan. 6. 1993 and we were unable to incorporate this information into our
reort at that time. Mr. 31ouh's told me Jan. 11, 193 that these, figures were deflceiy used in the
i-iorne Depot traffic estimates. On January 3, 1993, 1ca1led Craig Olsen for more. clarification on the
traffic. He said BD[had done the first traffic study fr Home Depot. The city had wanted a further
study based-on 2010 buildout figures. Willdan Assoc] did this study. Mr. Olsen refeed me to Rob
Blouh who said that Terry Austin used the EncinitasTraffic'model (ETAM Vol l-Set 4, 1992). Mr.
Blough said this St 92 update inciuded mare trc impacts than 'the previous model.
The A.DT traffic contributions From the Ecke, Carlsbad Partners, and Fieldstone were still not
evident. Rob Bowih selected the ETAM traffic zones which he beleived covered the Ecke and Carlsbad
Partners (Hunt properties). The Eke traffic zones 2it'en in his list are: 157 & 153 and 160 though 170
nc'usive 1-hint traffic zones are171-173 inclusive A table of Suotor! and Total ADTs for the Ecke and
Carlsbad Partners land is on the Following page.
&L .Fs€ra LiTE
7 Hom.e.Depok Final EIR
Neighborhoods United Reponses..to Staff Responses
to Comments on thePreiiimary Final ErR Report
ff Responses distributed Jan. 6. & 7. 11993. Public responses due Jan. 11, 1993)
? 4'
ET IM Post 2010 Zonal Land Use and Trip Generation Subtotals and Totals
(Data from Rob Blo ugh Fax Jan 5, 1993 of ETAM Tables)
Ecke TrifTic Zones-Subtotals
157 . .119
153 1.1'
160 126
161 36 ..
162 3142
163 1319
164 137 -
165 158
166 348.
S
• 167 173 Hunt Traffic Zones-Subtotals
• 168 1000 171 2000
169 17242 172 20340
170 7779 J.fl,: 20340
Total 31,695. Total. - 42,680.
Total A.DT Contributions (excluding Fieldstone):
Ecke.- 31,695
Carlsbad Partners 42.680.
Total 74,375 .
-S S .
S.
B It is the figures abov that Rob Blougn faxed and claimed were used in the Home Depot moaeL.
I called Wifldaii Associates (Jan. 11, 1993), the company that did the follow up traffic study for the year
2010, Joe Aliva of Wifldan told me he had'this same ETAM list in his file (above).. However, he also had
another list called the ETAM zoned Lnd,IJse and Trip Generation-post 2010-Preferred Plan, Dated
Sect '4, 1992. Mr. BEau h'had told th the.ETAM traffic figures-from above were dated Seflt, 4, 1992
(there was no date on the faxed copies). However, in spite of the aparnt same date, there seemed to be•
two ETAM lists. The 2010 and the 2010-Preferred Plan.
We cpmared traffic zones fromthe'2010 vs. the 20.10-Preferred Plan, and the ADTs for those zones
were different. Steve Denny-S.D. County (Jan. 5, 1993) told me that TAZ boundaries do not change,
oiy the land use within that boundary. It was clear that the 2010 had different land use assumprions.than
the 2010-Preferred Plan. Mr. Avila added up the zones on' the 2010-Preferred Plan iist'cke
conznu:ion) and came up with less than 20,000 ADTs (19.670). This is quite a bit different than the
1,695 ADTs from the ETAlf-2O10 list! Mr Aliva was unsure if the 2010 or the 20 10 Plan
was used in the Home Depot traffic model. So the, cuestion is, which land use assumption was used in
the Home Depot traffic studies?
C Furthermore, the ETAlM list z1ven to me by Rob Blouh did not hve always have an acreage amount
(in the LITS column) that corresponded to the iand use tve(s) within the zone. This is aprentiv. an
. . . error.' .1 County emoloyee told me that the T.2 zones and land uses within thezones"shouid have
corresponding acreages. Otherwise it is dicuit to understand the density being proposed.
,' [was also told 'by a county employee that the traffic model for the Home Depot should include an
-existing, and a worse-case traffic scenario fr adjacent lands: It is difficult to determine what scenario the
'.'J•• Home -Depot model used, much less whether it was a worse case scenario. S
E It is important that the public be given access ro enough information to understand the traffic study
anid"the major assumptions that went into the modeL City staff has attempted to answer our questions
but as of Jan. II, 1993, no'one has been able to confirm if the ETAM 2010(noted above), the ETAM
2010-Preferred Plan or some other assumption otiADTs for the Ecke Carlsbad Partners, and
Fieldstone lands was made in the Home Depot traffic study.
Traffic is a major issue for this project considenhg Home Depot is proposing a 10 fold increase in
traffic over what the General Plan originally intended for this site These questions need to be answered
in order for the public to make a reasoned response ho the staff report The limited review period has
prevented us from gathering the information we need to make an informed response to staffs conclusion
that the traffic study is aaecuate Supporting data for staffs conclusion is still lacking
F Also Craig Jones indicated that past ETAM figires had numerous errors wruch are currently being
corrected. When I asked for the ETAM figures in er1y January, staff was unwilling to give me these
figures due to the numerous errors On Jan 5 199, we were given the ETAM figures which are listed
aoove If these figures contain errors, and if the Home Deoot traffic model used these figures (we do not
know if they were), is it possible that the Home Depot traffic study is incorrect? If so., is the error
significant or not? :
Other
G We.have attempted to get information from Cal Trans regarding the turning radius for the La Costa/I-
5 off ramp. The citGenera1 Plan does not allow for trucks on Leücadia Blvd. from 1-5 to Sidonia. Even
if this road is built in the future, Home Depot trucks could not use this road Either Encinitas Blvd or La
Costa would be used Is the radius large enough at the La Costa interchange to accomocate semi-trailer
trucks from Home Depot" If not, this would serlou?Lv trnnact Encinitas Blvd since it would be the only
major road near the site that could be used What is,the turning radius at La Costa & 1-5? Is it enough to
accornodatesemi-traiiortrucks? S
Due to the time constraints for public response, we have not found this information. We have left
messages with Cal Trans with no return call to date.
S
- CITY.- 07. ENCINITAS
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO Craig Olson, Assistant Planner
FROM Rob Blough, Associate Traffic Engineer
DATE: January. 13, 1993
SUBJECT: Response to Neighborhoods United Hole Depot Traffic
Comments -
All
A The Encin.tas Triffic Analvs].s Model Volume 1 (ETAM), dated"
September 4, 1992 wasused to project the Post-2010 Buildout
traffic volumes in the Home Depot Traffic Study. The ETAN
assumes buildout of the Encilutas Ranch (Ecke Ranch), Carlsbad
Partners (Hunt Properies), 'Fieldtone Development lands, as
well as the remaining areas inside the City limits and it also
includes Post-2010 traffic generated by land uses outside of
the City limits. The traffic study was conducted in a
professional manner.
The Average Daily Traffic (ADT).. figures indicated for the Ecke:
and Hunt Traffic Analysis Zones were used in the Home Depot
Traffic Study and are based on the Encinitas Traffic Model
Data Volume 1, dated September 4, 1992 The 2010-preferred
plan was not used in the'Home Depot Traffic Study 20 10--
preferred
2010
preferred plan is an older version of the traffic model that
was prepared back in 1988, and it is no longer valid. Please
see Wilidin Associates Inc.. response (attached).
The trafficstudy considered-the appropriate units for land use in the. trip 'generáti'on-. Acreage is primarily used for
open space and parks. A1xot all other land uses base the
trip generation on either dwelling units or square footage.
The Home Depot Traffic Study iñcludéd an existing analysisand
a Post-2010 Buildout analysis for adjacent and regional land
uses. The Post-2010 Buildout analysis assumes a worse, case
scenarjo.
The Encinitas Traffic Model Data Volume 1, dated September 4,
1992, land uses were utilized in the Home Depot Traffic Study.
The 2010-preferred plan land uses is an olderversion 4of the
traffic model that was prepared in 1988. The 2010-preferred
plan land use was not used in the Home Depot Traffic Stud'.
The Home Depot Traffic Study utilized the Encinitas Traffic
'Model Data Volume 1,' dated September4, 1992. Cürréztly, the
ETAM is being recalibrated for the Encinitas Ranch Specific
Plan.; As part of this recalibration process, staff is
1M3245
WILLDAN ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS & PLANNERS
\ / , ProtessIndi Consulfing Services Since 1964
January 13, 1993
Mr. Patrick Murphy
CITY OP ENCThITAS
505 Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
Re: Response to Comments on Uome Depot Specific Plan EIR Traffic 'Mialysls
Dear Patrick:
This letter will' serve as bur formal response. to.the Home Depot EIR's neighborhood's united respOnses' to comments on th"City staff's responses to public comments on the preliminary 'final E.IR submitted to staff January 1.1, 1993.. The general context Of this letter are the land use assunwttons used for the Ecke Ranch, Carlsbad Pax'mers property, and Fieldstone Development lands._After a thorough review of this letter sent to City staff, it is our professional opinion that land use assumptions utilized for the Some Depot Specific Plan,..EM traffic analysis were correct and represented reasonable densities proposed for those properties. '.
The reference between the 2010 and 'the 2010-preferred plan land use trip generation is documented in the Encinitas Traffic Model Data Volume 1 dated September 4., 1992 The land use trip generation' for the year. 2010'preferred plan was contained in Section 1.1 and referenced Land Use and Trrn Generations contained in the original Encinitas Traffic Analysis Model (ETAM) prepared in 1988 tor the City's General Plan by Austin-Faust Associates The year 2010 trip generation summary provided. to the neghbornood re.ects the most recent land use assumptions contained in the ETAM These land use assunioons were contained in the travel fôteast model used for impact purposes for the Home' Depot Specific B1ai afflc an.aiysis.
'
It is'our understanding that subsequent environmental documentation for adjacent propertie,s is under preparation at this time and that land use assumptions may be different than contained in the ER for the Home Depot Soecflc Plan However, it should be noted that the most recent land use infor-mation available at the time or the prenaration of the Home
Depot Specific Plan was utilized Again, we reel the Home Deoot Specific Plan EIR traffic analysis oorays an accurate representation of the oroject, its transportation related impacts, and feasibiernidgation.
' • • '
135 LJOEIOS227LL jwar 13 1993 c 44c0
:3 GREENWICH DV SUE 250 SAN OIGC C-_ONIA 92122 3939 (619) 457-1,199'.AX (619 452680
FROM Craig Jones, Senior Planner
DATE January 13, 1993
SBJECT* Response to comments from Neighborhoods United on
proposed final EIR, Home Depot Specific Plan
In the comments received by staff on Jan 11, third page, paragraph
31 t i is noted that I indicated that "past ETAM figures had
numerous errors which are currently being corrected 11 The question
is, are there errors in the assumptions made for background traffic
analysis used in the Home Depot EIR.
The City's traffic model (the ETAM) has been updated since the
adoption of the General Plan in 1989 Specifically, in 1990 when
starting traffic analyses for the Downtown Encinitas and 101
Corridor specific plans, staff became aware of some errors in land
use build-out assumptions which had been made in the 1989 model
run Staff, took the opportunity to correct those errors in
updating the model before completing traffic analyses for the
coastal specific plans That corrected model data was used as the
basis for General Plan build-out traffic modeling for the Home
Depot EIR, and represents the most up-to-date land use assumptions
available to date To the b elim best of our ability, staff inated
errors in land use assumptions prior to the completion of the
traffic analyses for the Home Depot EIR
Re:
., KEVIN K. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. OCONNELL
DANIEL 8. McCARTHY
HEIDI E. BROWN
CHRISTINE A. CARLINO t
JEANNE L. MaKINNON
APIOfiSSIONU LAW COIPOtATION
ALSO ADMITTID IN NIW hillY
ANO PSNNSYLVANIA
JOHNSON, O'CONNELL & MCCARTHY
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CABOT, CABOT & FORBES CORPORATE CENTER
550 WEST C STREET; STE. 1 150
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101.3540
January 11, 1993
VIA FACSIMILE
MICHELE 0. REILLY
LEGAL ADMINISTRAT
TELEPHONE (619) 696-6211
TELECOPIER (619) 696-7516
Mr. Patrick Murphy
Community Development Director
City of Encinitas
Encinitas City Hall
505 S. VulcanAvenue
Erinitas, CA 92024
Dear Mr. Murphy
Since receiving the City's comments on the evening of January
6, 1993, we have had insufficient time to fully review, analyze,
A investigate and comment upon the City's subject responses The
deadline of 5 00 p m. on Monday, January 11, 1993, constitutes an
unreasonable time limit which prohibits effective public review and
comment. It further prcludes obtaining relevant data from public
agencies.
Under the circumstances, preparation of a detailed listing and
analysis of all responses, including the multiplicity of
"corrections" to the text of the proposed final draft ZIR, is not
possible.
The record should reflect, however, the , objections of my
clients to the' responses as being incomplete, evasive and, in
several cases, inaccurate.
The use of the so-called "errata" is inappropriate prior to
certification of ' the document and it is not an acceptable
substitute for r'enotice and recirculation of the, document. It,
certainly is not a basis for avoiding a text revision.
The reference to the Notice of Completion and Availability,
with the related listing of people so notified, demonstrates the
-'' strong and wide-spread public interest in' this 'document. It is
unreasonable to expect that so many people would, in the time
allowed for formal written comment, be able to obtain copies of,
• analyze and investigate the proposed draft final EIR. •
407
. •
'
Mr Patrick Murphy
January 11, 1993 . .
Page
The attachment of Appendix A,, sated. September 10, 1992, is an
untimely ( J untimely and ineffective effort to supplement the EIR It
precludes appropriate public review and comment on the study.
In several places, the EIR preparer attempts to excuse a lack
of analysis of adverse impacts by stating that there is a "lack of
definite studies" on the issues raised The absence of such
studies does not excuse a reasonable analysis of the impacts If
appropriate, a study must be done as part of the EIR process.
The EIR preparer's responses - with respect to traffic and
7 '
cumulative impacts are incomplete and'evasive. The project will
have major growth inducing impacts Studies by the County of San
Diego on the impacts of commercial development in North County,
referenced at the public hearing on January 6, 1993, are evidence
of such a phenomenon The EIR preparer fails to recognize the
growth inducing impacts of the project, as well as to take into
cOnsi4eration the cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable
projects in the immediate area.
On the subject of growth inducement, a review of the Home
Depot project and adjacent parcels in the City of Oceanside,
through City of Oceanside Planning Department records, reflects a
practice of Home Depot seeking to expand its operations on the site
and to add additional related businesses on adjacent parcels Time
does not permit the listing of specific City of Oceanside files,
however, this information will be obtained and submitted to the
City of Encinitas at the earliest possible time
On the issue of traffic impacts on I-s, there is, still no
reasoned explanation as to why it is excluded For the record,
attempts have been made by representatives of NtJQL since January 4,
1993, to determine whether there is a sufficient turning radius for
tractor-trailer rigs at the southbound off-ramp for La Costa Avenue
for southbound vehicles to turn eastbound on La Costa Avenue. An
inquiry was made last week to the, Engineering Department, of the
City of Encinitas. The Department said that the inquiry would have
to. be made to caltrans. My clients have been unable to get the
subject-information from Caltrans as of this date.
The City is, once again, urged to approach the further
processing of this ^EIR in a manner which is fair and reasonable to.
the public This would include adequate time being given to both
the City and the public to read, analyze, research and respond to
the large amount of information and data made available to both
sides when the proposed final EIR was made available and during the
course of the hearing on January 6, 1993. The hundreds of people
who cams to the hearing on January 6, 1993, to express their
concerns about the EIR are entitled to this basic right.
RESPONSE TO KEVIN X. JOHNSON:
LETTER DATED JANUARY 3.1, 1993-
(A)_ The, appropriate time to comment on the', EIR was during the
Draft EIR Review-'& ..Comment:-- period which was the time period between
January 6, 1992 and March 6,-.1992 Comments received during that
time period were included, in the Final EIR' along with responses.
CEQA Guidelines 'Sec.- 15089' (b) does not require a public hearing
nor an additional Review and Comment periOd.. .for the Final EIR.
However, the applicant, requested 'the public hearing to provide the
public with. an additional opportunity to comment. At the meeting
on January 6, 1993, City COuncil established the additional time
limitation to review and provide responses to the material received
at that meeting.
The, Errata Sheet provided by, the 'City's Environmental
Consultant and distributed to the City Council, and the public on
January 6, 1993, contains some clarifications of text within the
EIR, a list of those who were provided copies of the Draft EIR, a
list of. those who received, a Notice of Completion and Availability
of the EIR, and an appendix (dated September 10, 1992) to the Flood
Plain Analysis, prepared ASL Consulting Engineers. The
information is not considered by staff: to be significant new
information that would require recirculation of the Final ::R
.The additional time to review the material presented to
the City Council and the public on January 6, 19.93 was established
by the City Council. This comment does not relate to the adequacy
or accuracy of the Final EIR.
The ASL Consulting Engineers report dated September 10,
19.92 'supplements their original study included in the EIR as
Appendix A. The additional information is not considered by staff
to be significant new information that would require recirculation
of the. Final EIR.
The project proposes development in accordance .with the
current overlying Zoning Districts on the property. Therefore, the
development of the property with the proposed or a siinilar.use is
not seen as a growth inducement out of character'with the General
Plan Designations or the. Zoning Districts.
This'coininent does not relate to the adequacy or accuracy
of the EIR.
Traffic Studies typically end their review of impacted
street segments and intersections as the distance from the project.
site increases to a point where the impacts are seen to be
insignificant. The amount of traffic added by the Home Depot
Specific' Plan to Interstate ' 5 has been calculated to be
insignificant since it consists of less than one-third of one
percent of the projected Post 201.0 buildout traffic on Interstate
5. The Supplemental Traffic Analysis prepared by Willdan
Associates considered the Post 2010. buildout traffic on Interstate
5 with and without the Home Depot Specific, Plan and this is
' \ illustrated in Figures 2 and 3 of Appendix K to 'the EIR. There is
sufficient turning radius for tractor trailer trucks at the
Cc
January
Encinits C' Cunc
' : Vul Ccfl .'vC
Encints,
Dear- Council Members
n ar-tide n the San Diego Union i/1n'3 stated -
The inle bigest wldl threat is not disease =
po1 lution or redation -- t's eole Habitat destruction
or'imar'i blame, and a1.ter that comes toe an IT r-
cornnercicl e :loitaton nd the main o4ender-' The United
H . .
Tan i ot.t al 1 r: ng te OLLt1C an 0000r'tunit to
H . comment on Home Depot ElF: ol I aw 4 nq the Council meeting
orJant.lary 6, 1'
: :a in, e -o tr mcer s an Lin iniormed :iti:en n
orer t es more aoout te issues. I had not seen the
ES or any ri,zac-erwork on tre orocosed site From that
Me r'sm-2c,tIve 1 :anot ::Es1 ' :on:eive how we :ou gave a n
o :L'tr a a haraware store.on a Eits 0+ that
tjvjv. Th -hr'e5eE S.-1 and -1 er'e nw to me
:i t.-i;4 a.cn that this meart tere were 'eer
?n i aes . re i'' T'e .n-:ar:e CT t
To nir:: na'c s.u:n a zr cure right .
-c -c -- c.- -- ?nd we -c t - - k in c- cn
zr-.wre store :n Home Dect can iocate on ancther site
thcr. j' 0L1b t5OCvCr,
-- ::
LTh:t :ort. - .ties rnt
s - -- - ...: so:nes 0 L.a-t
g o
Z 71
-
10
I tel ''OL Ve botr the ,orturit'' and :the ,duty
ie i it uncor: 1on.a. tZ
.unte j te mn cerer c ha1 eEtr'UCt1'r jr
t - wr1 I OU :ar 0 9S . re that 'u h a VE
:rur:tV toEave - hita:. Grab
£1ncerev.
: Srar-r enverBroesman S S
ST 4 Fe. s. 1, $1ra veue S •
•: L.eua1a, Ca.
S
c5
City Clerks Office
527 Encinitas Blvd.
Encinitas, CA 92024
Members of Encinitas City Counci.l:
-
We are present home owners and former residence in
Rancho Ponderosa. On a recent visit back there we
discovered .the: proposed Home Depot at the corner of
01i'...ehaim and El Camino Real e are adamantly opposed to
this commercial development in the area of our -home. The
increase of traffic and noise would have .a dramatic and
negative effect on the quality of.. our lives and the value
of the surrouding property.
p •
s the city. struggles with appropriate deeIopment there
are serious issues to consider. A commercial center at this •.•
site would decrease values in all the area and not be in •he
best interest of either residence in tie area or the city at
e e'pect o re -urn to our riorne i Rancho
-
ct - agair -ic t- 3L c -'
d -'s at --a Do IliCL a1 c' - ore :e ID 0 t
oec to a iiisn the essence of zns area There are
0 "e- areas E'c as it s' n --s' ft co-- me - c 46 al
C.e\e 1 o.ec s roec 'oc. .e appropriate
- -* r oj dt I ifl uli I n
a -J he cal cf -
t'e Ltin d ra
:e
look or'ad IC)
C j4 January 6, 1993
My name i; Debby Wright I livs at 7966 Los Pinos Cir , Carlsbad,92009
This is not my first experience with an Environmental Impact Report.
What always amazes me about EIR's is that they're so concerned with
gnat catchers and trees and chaparral and creek beds. There's never
any mention: about the human population. Ther&salwa's deals made for
mitigation for the birds and creeks, etc.; but what kind of mitigation
are you going to offerme, myf'amily, and-neighbors? Are you willing
to buy me a few acres of land, up on a hill to prot'ectme from develop-
ment? 'How are you going to protect me -from-the increase in smog which
will be generated by the increase in traffic? And how are you going to
give me baék my peace of mind when I'm fighting traffic just -to get to.
the, grocery store? And what's going to happen to my peaceful, night's'
sleep?, Am I going,to be hearing the rumblings of semi-trucks and the
beeping of fork lifts? -
I'm not against development, but I do expect apro.priate/responsible'.
development. I feel this Home Depot proposal. is' neither appropriate nor
responsible.' It's too big a project for the. surrounding.resid.enial
area. It's a 24 hbur'a day' operatiOn and' it has ,no quick freeway access.
IwOuldn't obj.ect to a small commercial development. In fact, 'I expect
t But a Home Depot at the corner of El Camino Real and Olivenhain
Roads 'is riot acceptable.
This Environmental Impact Report is not adequate because it fails
to address the impact this project will have on human lives. '
Statement of 'William Daugherty, Buena Vista Audubon Society president,
regarding Home Depot FEIR hearing.
We understand the desire of the City to gain the tax revenue derived
from Home Depot operations. Hovever, we are unalterably opposed to
the development on this site.
The preliminary results of Carlsbad's "Habitat Management Plan" have
indicated to us that this parcel is located at the base of a vital
wildlife corridor connecting the Batiquitos Lagoon, "Green Valley" and
an inland preserve system.
The proposed mitigation measures are in error and misleading to the
public. The proposal to provide 16 acres near Lake Hodges to mitigate
the loss of the uplands habitat and 'the statement that; "Nearby wet-
lands will be improved and rare plant species will be replanted else-
where.", are statements made in ignorance.
First of all, you can't mitigate a corridor 10 miles away.. Further,
.1 can assure you that no one should ever try to develop -,a Southern Maritime Chaparral habitat at Lake Hodges because 'the plant-life assà-
ciated with this rare habitat will not growthere. The success of
wetlands improvements and rare plants species replantings is very
problematical. The State of Florida, one of the few that keeps sta-
'tistics', has admitted an 87% failure rate in wetlands restoration
projects. In Oceanside, two of CàlTrans' wetlands restoration pro-
jects, to replace destroyed Bell's Vireo willow'habitat, have failed.
We consider the willow forest leading to, and on, the proposed Home
Depot site as critical Bell's Vireo habitat. Any "taking" of this
habitat should comply with Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act.
I wish to remind this council that the City of Encinitas entered into
an agreement with SANDAG, the San Diego Water Authority, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game-and (11)
other local governments to develop a Multiple Habitat Conservation
Program. In fact, the advisory committee is chaired by Councilwoman
Wiegand. One of the'guidelines adopted at our last meeting., relating
to projects which should be selected •for the coo -dinated review pro-
cess, states "a project proposal should be submitted if it has wet-
lands, riparian habitat, coastal sage scrub, or southern maritime
chaparral, or any sensitive plant •or animal species". This project
site has all of the above. A decision to destroy the habitat and
corridor would violate this City's commitment to the success of North
County's habitat conservation programs.
Since we understand that Home Depot is delaying building the subdivi-
sion, it would appear to be prudent for this council to delay their
decision until the MHCP Plan is completed and verifies the vital na-
ture of this site to the sub-regional preserve system. Audubon would
concur with such action. In the meantime, we suggest the the City
work with the Home Depot Corporation to locate a far less biologically
sensitive site for their project
A decision to decimate this site could prove to be very expensive to
the environment and to all concerned. S
Thank you. .
. (Exhibit F-i).
.
. Statement of William Daugherty, Buena Vista Audubon Society president,
regarding Home Depot FEIR hearing
We understand the desire of the City, to gain the tax revenue derived
from Home Depot operations. Hovevér, we are unalterably opposed to
the development on this site.
The preliminary results -,of Cärlsbad,'s 'Habitat Management Plan" have
indicated to us that this parcel is located at the base of a vital
Wildlife corridor connecting the Batiquitos Lagoon, "Green Valley" and
an inland preserve system.
The proposed mitigation measures are in error and misleading to the
public The proposal to provide 16 acres near Lake Hodges to mitigate
the loss of the uplands habitat and the statement that, "Nearby wet-
lands will be improved and rare plant species will be replanted else-
where.", are statements made in ignorance.
First .of all, you can't. mitigate a corridor 10 miles away. Further,
I can 'assure you that no one should' ever try to develop a Southern
Maritime Chaparral habitat at Lake Hodges because the plant-life asso-
ciated, with this rare habitat will not grow there. The success of
wetlands improvements and rare plants species replantings. 'is very
problematical The State of Florida, one of the few that keeps sta-
tistics, has admitted an 87% failure rate in wetlands restoration . projects. In Oceanside, two of CalTrans'.wetlands restoration pro-
jects, to replace destroyed Bell's Vireo willow habitat, have failed.
' .We consider the willow forest leading to, and on, the proposed.Home
1' Depot site as critical Bell's Vireo habitat. Any "taking" of this'
habitat should comply with Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act.
I wish to remind this council' that the City of Encinitas entered into
an agreement with SANDAG, the San Diego Water Authority', U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game and (11)
other local governments to develop a Multiple Habitat Conservation,
Program In fact, the advisory committee is chaired by Councilwoman
Wiegand One of the guidelines adopted at our l
1.
ast meeting, relating
to projects which should be selected for the coordinated rev'ièw'pro-'
cess, states "a project proposal should be -submitted if it has. wet-
lands, lands, riparian habitat, coastal sage scrub, or southern maritime
chaparral, or any, sensitive plant or animal species". This project
site has all of the above. A decision to destroy the habitat and
corridor would violate this City's commitment to'the success of North
County's habitat conservation programs.
0:
Since we understand that Home Depot is delaying building the subdivi-
sion, it would 'appear to be prudent for this council to delay their
decision until the MHCP Plan is completed and verifies the vital na-
ture of this site to the sub-regional preserve system. Audubon would
concur with'such action. In the meantime, we, suggest the the City
work with the Home' Depot Corporation to locate a far less biologically
sensiti.ve site for their project.
A decision to decimate this site could prove to be very expensive ta..'
the environment and to all concerned.
Thank you.
(Exhibit F-i)
Statement of William Daugherty, Buena Vista Audubon Society president,
regarding Home Depot FEIR hearing.
We understand the desire of the City to gain the tax revenue derived
from Home Depot operations. Hoveve'r, we are unalterably opposed to'
the development on this site.
The preliminary results of Carlsbad's "Habitat Management Plan" have
indicated to us that this parcel is located"at the base of a vital
wildlife corridor connecting the Batiquitos Lagoon, "Green Valley" and
an inland preserve system. -
The proposed mitigation measures are in error and misleading to the
public. The proposal to provide 16 acres near Lake Hodges to mitigate.
the loss of the uplands habitat'and the statement that, "Nearby wet-.
lands will be improved and rare plant species will be replanted' else-
where.", are statements made in ignorance.
First of all, you can't mitigate a corridor 10 miles away. Further,'
I can assure you that no one should ever try to develop, a Southern
Maritime Chaparral habitat at Lake Hodges because the plant-life asso-
ciated with this rare habitat will not grow' there. The 'success of
wetlands improvements and rare plants species replantingsis very
problematical. The State of' Florida, one of the lew that keeps sta-
tistics, has admitted an 87% failure rate in wetlands restoration
projects. , In Oceanside, two of CalTrans' wetlands restoration pro-,
.jects, to replace destroyed.-Bell's Vireo willow habitat, have failed,.
We consider the willow forest leading to, and on, the proposed Home )
Depot site as critical' Bell's -Vireo habitat. Any "taking" of this
habitat should comply with Section 10 ,of the Endangered Species Act.
I wish to remind this council that the City of Encinitas entered into
an agreement with SANDAG, the San Diego Water Authority,',U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game and (11)
other local governments to "develop a Multiple Habitat Conservation
Program In fact, the advisory committee is chaired by Councilwoman
Wiegand One of the guidelines adopted at our last meeting, relating
to projects which should be selected for the coordinated review pro-
cess, sates "a project proposal should be submitted i"f' it has wet
lands, riparian habitat, coastal sage scrub, or southern maritime
chaparral, or any sensitive p'lant or animal species". This project
site has all of the 'above. A decisioh to destroy the habitat and
corridor would violate this City's commitment to the success of North
'County's habitat conservation programs.
Since, we understand that Home Depot is delaying building the subdivi -
sion, it would appear to be, prudent for this council'to delay their
decision until the MHCP Plan, is completed and verifies the' vital na-
ture of this site to the sub-regional preserve system. Audubon would
conc-ur with such action. In the meantime, we suggest the the City
work with the Home Depot Corporation to locate a far less biologically
"èn'sitive site for their project.
A decision to decimate this site could prove to be very expensive to S
the environment and to all concerned.
Thank you. '
(Exhibit F-i)
S Statement of William Daugherty, Buena Vista Audubon Society president,
regarding Home DepotFEIR' hearin.
We understand .the desire of the City to gain the tax revenue derived
from Home Depot operations. Hovever, we are unalterably opposed to
the development on this site.
The preliminary results of Carlsbad's "HabitatMa,agement Plan" have
. indicated to us that this parcel is located at the base of a vital
wildlife corridor connecting the Batiquitos Lagoon, "Green Valley" and
an inland preserve system.
The proposed mitigation measures are in error and misleading to the
Public.. The proposal to provide 16 acres near Lace Hodges to mitigate
the loss of. the, uplands habitat and the statement that, "Nearby wet-
lands will be improved and rare plant species will be replanted else-:
where.", are statements made in ignorance.
First of all, you can' .t mitigate
1 .
a corridor 10 miles away. Further,
•, I can assure you that no one should ever, try to develop a Southern
Maritime Chaparral habitat at Lake Hodges because the plant-life asso-
ciated with this rare habitat 'will not grow there. The success.of
wetlands improvements and rare plants species replantings is -very ...
Problematical. The State of Florida, 'one of the few that keeps sta-
tistics, hasadmitted an 87% failure rate in wetlands restoration
prbjects. In Oceanside, two'.of CalTrans' wetlands restoration pro-
jects, to replace destroyed Bell's .Vireo willow habitá't, have failed.
We óonsidér the willow .forest leading to, and on, the proposed Home
Depot site as critical Bell's Vireo habitat. Any "taking" of this
habitat should comply with Section 10 of the Endangered 'Species Act.
I wish to remind this council that the city Of Encinitas entered into
an agreement with SANDAG, the San Diego Water Authority, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game and (11)
other local governments todevelop a Multiple Habitat Conservation
Program. In fact, the 'advisory committee is chaired by Councilwoman
Wiegand. One of the guidelines, adopted at our last meeting, relating
to projects which s'hould be se'lected for the coordinated review pro-
cess, states "a' project proposal should be submitted if it has wet-
lands, riparian habitat, coastal sage scrub', or southern maritime
chaparral, or any sensitive'plant or animal species". This.project,
site has all of the :above. A decision to destroy the habitat and
corridor would violate this City's commitment to the success of North
County's habitat conservation programs.
Since we understand that Home Depot is delaying building the .subdivi-
sion, it would appear, to be prudent for this council to delay. their
decision unt•il 'the MHCP Plan is completed and verifies the vital na-
ture of this site to the sub-regional preserve system. Audubon would
concur with such action. In the meantime, we suggest the the'. City
work with the Home Depot Corporation to locate a far less biol.ogical]y
sensitive site for their project. . . . .
A decision to decimate 'this site cb.uld' prove to be very expensive to
the environment and to all concerned.
Thank .you.
(Exhibit F-i)
Statement of William Daugherty, Buena Vista Audubon Society president,
regarding Home Depot FEIR hearing. " •,
.'
We understand the desire of the City to gain the tax revenue derived'
from Home Depot operations. Hovever, we are unalterably opposed to
the development on this site.
The preliminary results of Carlsbad's"Habitat Management Plan" have
indicated to us that this parcel is located at the base of'a vital.
wildlife corridor connecting the Batiquitos Lagoon,' "Green Valley" and
an inland preserve system.
The proposed mitigation measures are in error and misleading to the
public. The proposal to provide 16 acres near Lake Hodges to mitigate
the loss of the uplands habitat and the statement that, "Nearby wet-
lands will. be improved and rare plant species will be replanted else-
where.", are statements made in ignorance.
First of all, you can't mitigate a corridor 10 miles away. Further,
I can assure you that no one should ever try to develop,a Southern
Maritime Chaparral habitat at Lake Hodges; because the plant-life' asso-
ciated with this rare habitat will not grow there The success of
wetlands improvements and rare plants species replantirigs is very
problematical. ,The State of Florida, one of the few that' keeps sta-
tistics, has admitted an 87% failure rate in wetlands restoration
projects. In 'Oceanside, two of CalTrans' wetlands restoration pro-
ject's, to replace destroyed Bell's Vireo willàw habitat, have failed.
We consider the willow forest leading to, and on, the proposed Home
Depot site as criticel Bell's Vireo habitat. Any "taking" of'this
habitat should comply with Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act.'
I wish to remind this council that the City of Encinitas entered into
an agreement with SANDAG, the San Diego Water AUthority, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game and (11)
other local governments to develop a Multiple Habitat Conservation
Program In fact, the advisory committee is chaired by Councilwoman
Wiegand One of the guidelines adopted at our last meeting, relating
to projects 'which should be selected for the coordinated review p'ro-
cess, states a project proposal should be submitted if it has wet-
lands', riparian habitat, coastal sage scrub, or southern maritime
chaparral, or any sensitive plant or animal species". This project
site has all of the above. A decision to destroy the habitat and
corridor would violate' this City's commitment to the success of North
County's habitat conservation programs.
Since we understand that Home Depot is delaying building the-subdivi-
sion, it would app'ear to be prudent for this council to delay their
decision until the MHCP Plan is completed and verifies the vital na-
ture of this site to the sub-regional preserve system. Audubon would
concur with such action. 'In the meantime, we 'suggest the the City.
work with the' Home Depot Corporation to locate a far less biologically
sensitive site for their, project.
A decision to decimate this site could prove to be very expensive to
the. environment and to all concerned.
Thank you.
(Exhibit F-i)
Statement of William Daugherty, Buena Vista Audubon Society president,
regarding Home Depot FEIR hearing
We understand the.desire of the City to gain the tax revenue derived
from Home Depot operations. 'Hovever, we are unalterably opposed to
the development on this site. "
The preliminary 'results of Carlsbad's "Habitat Management Plan" have
indicated to us.that this parcel is located at the baseof a vital
wildlife corridor connecting the 'Batiquitos Lagoon, "Green Valley" and-
An inland preserve system.
The proposed mitigation measures are in error and misleading to the
public. The proposal to provide 1.6, acres near Lake Hodges to mitigate
the loss of the uplands habitat and the statement that, "Nearby wet-
lands will be improved and rare ,plant species will be replanted else-
where.", are statements made in ignorance.
First of all, you can't mitigate 'a corridbr'lO, miles away. Further,
I can assure you that no one should ever try to develop a Southern
Maritime Chaparral habitat at Lake Hodges because the plant-life asso-
ciated with this rare habitat will not grow there The success of
wetlands improvements and rare plants species rep'l'antings' is very
problematical. The. State of Florida, one of'. the few that keeps sta-
tistics, has admitted'an 87% failure rate in wetlands'rstorati,on
projects. In Oceanside, two of Cal-Trans' wetlands restoration pro-,
,. jects, to replace destroyed Bell's Vireo willow habitat, have failed.
' We consider the willow forest leading to, and on, the proposed Home
Depot site as critical Bell's, V'ireo habitat. Any "taking" of this—
habitat should comply' with Section 10. 'of the Endangered Species Act.
I wish to remind this council that the City of Encinitas entered into T
an agreement with. SANDAG, the San Diego Water Authority, U.S.., Fish and
Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game and (11)
other local governments to develop a Multiple Habitat Conservation
Program. In 'fact, the advisory, committee is chaired-,by Councilwoman'
Wiegand. ,One "of the guidelines adopted at our last meeting, relating:'
to, projects which should be selected for the coordinated' review pro-
cess, states "a project proposal should be submitte,d if it has wet-'
lands, riparian habitat, coastal sage scrub, or southern maritime
chaparral, or any sensitive 'plant "or 'animal 'species". This 'project '
site has all of the above. A decision' to destroy the hab1tat "and
Corridor would violate this City's commitment to the success of North
County"s habitat conservation programs.
Since we understand that Home Depot is' delaying. building the subd'i'v't-:'
sion,,' it would appear to be prudent for this counci,l to delay their
decision until the MHCP Plan is completed and verifies the vital na-
ture of this site to the sub-'regional preserve system. Audubon would
concur with such action. In the meantime, we' suggest the the City
work with the Home Depot Corporation- to locate a far less biologically
sensitive site. for their project.
•
' .'
A decision to decimate this site could prove to be very expensive to
the environment and' to all concerned. ' • ,
Thank you.
(Exhibit F-i)
Statement of William Daugherty, Buena Vista Audubon Society,p,resident,
regarding Home Depot FEIR hearing.
We understand the desire of the City to gain the tax revenue derived
from Home-Depot operations-. Hovever, we are unalterably opposed to
the development on this site.
The preliminary results of Carlsbad's "Habitat Management Plan" have
'indicated to us that this parcel is located at the base of a vital
wildlife corridor connecting the Batiquitos Lagoon, "Green Valley" and
an inland preserve system.
The proposed mitigation measures are in error and misleading to the'
public. The proposal to provide 16 acres near Lake Hodges to mitigate
the loss of the uplands habitat and the statement that, "Nearby wet-
lands will be improved and rare plant species will be replanted else- -
where.", are statements made in ignorance.
First of all,:-'t'mitigate a corridor 10 miles away'. Further,
I can assure you that no one should ever try to develop a Southern
Maritime Chaparral habitat at Lake Hodges because the plant-life -ásso-
dated with this rare habitat will not grow there. The success of
wetlands improvements and rare plants species replantings is very -
problematical. The State of Florida, one of the few that keeps sta-
tistics, h'as admitted an 87% fai lu-re rate' in wetlands restoration
projects. In Oceanside, two of CalTrans' wetlands restoration pro'-
jects, to replace destroyed Bell's Vireo willow-habitat, have failed-.
- - We--consider the willow forest leading,to, and on, the proposed Home
Depot--site 'as critical Bell's V-i-reo habitat. Any "taking" of this
habitat should comply with Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act.
I wish to remind this council that the City of Encinitas entered into
an agreement with SANDAG, the San Diego Water Authority, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game and. (11)
other local' governments to develop a Multiple Habitat Cqnservation
Program. In fact, the advisory committee i-s chaired by Councilwoman
Wiegand. One of the guidelines adopted at our last' meeting,' relating
- to projects which should be selected for the coordinated review', pro'-
cess, states "a project proposal 'should be submitted if it has wet--
- 'lands, riparian habitat, coastal sage scrub, -or southern maritime
chaparral, or any sensitive plant or animal species`. This project
site has all of the' above. A decision to destroy the habitat and
corridor would violate this City's commitment to the success of North
'County's habitat conservation programs.
Since we understan'd that Home Depot is delaying building the subdivi-
s'ion, it would appear to be prudent for thi,s council' 'to delay their
decision until the 'MHCP Plan is-completed and verifies the vital na-
ti're of this site to the sub-regional preserve system. Audubon woul-d
'concur with such action. In-the -meantime, we suggest the the City
work with the Home Depot Corporation to locate a far less biologically
' sen's1tive site for their
Adecisi'on'to decimate this site could prove to be very expensjye to. -
the environment- and to all concerned.
Thank you..
(Exhibit F-i)
.'-
.,
Statement of William Daugherty, Buena Vista Audubon Society president,
regarding Home Depot FEIR hearing. '.
We understand the desire of the City to gain the tax revenue der.i:véd
from Home Depot operations. Hovever, we are unalterably opposed to
the development on this site.
The preliminary results of Carlsbad's "Habitat Management 'Plan" have
indicated to us that this parcel is located at the base of a vital
wildlife corridor connecting the Batiquitos Lagoon, "Green Valley" and
an inland preserve system.
The proposed mitigation measures are in error and misleading to the
public. The proposal to provide 16 acres near Lake Hodges to mitigate
the loss of the uplands habitat and the statement that, "Nearby wet-
lands-will be improved and rare plant species will be replanted 61-se-
where. 7 , are statements made in -ignorance.
First of all, you can't mitigate a corridor 10 milesaway. Further,
I can assure you, that no one should ever try to develop a Southe.rn
Maritime Chaparral habitat at Lake Hodges because the plant-life asso-
ciated with this rare habitat will not grow there. The success of'.
wetlands improvements and rare plants species replantings is very
problematical. The Stat.e of Florida,-one of the few that keeps sta-
tistics, has admitted an 87% failure rate in wetlands restoration
projects. In Oceanside, two of CalTrans' wetlands restoration pro-
jects, to replace destroyed Bell's Vireo willow habitat, have failed.
We consider the willow forest leading to, and on, the proposed Home
Depot site as critical Bell's Vireo habitat Any taking of this
habitat should comply with Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act.
I wish to remind 'this council that the City of Encinitas entered into-
an agreement with SANDAG, the San Diego Water Authority, U.S. Fish'and
Wildlife-Service,- California Department of Fish and Game and (11)
other local governments to develop a Multiple Habitat Conservation
'Program. In fact, the advisory committee.is chaired by Councilwoman
Wiegand. One of the guidelines adopted at our last meeting, relating
to projects which-should be selected for the coordinated review, pro-
cess, states "a project proposal should be submitted if it has 'wet-.
lands, riparian habitat, coastal sage scrub, or southern maritime : chaparral, or any sensitive plant or animal species'. This 'project,
site has all of the above. A decision to destroy the habitat and
corridor would violate this City's commitment to the success of North
County's habitat conservation programs.
Since we understand that Home Depot is 'delaying building the subdivi -
sion, it would appear to be prudent for this council to delay -the'i.
decision until the MHCP Plan is completed and verifies the v;ital ça-
ture of this siteto the sub-regional preserve system. Audubonou:1d
concur with such action In the meantime, we suggest the the City
work with the Home Depot Corporation to locate a far less biolog,c]ly . sensitive site for their project.
- -''--.' 7-, '. ,. '' ''•' A dec
"iC sion to decimate this s-ite' could prove' ' to be very' ' ecpen,sive, to -
- the environment and to all concerned.--
Thank you'.
0' '--
', - (Exhibit F-i) •
'
' '
Pacific Southwest Biological Services Inc.
Post Office Box 985, National City, California'91951-0985 • (619)477.5333 • FAX (619) 477.1245
6 January 1993
Mr. Craig Olson, Assistant Planner PSBS #845
City of Encinitas
Planning Department
505 South Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas CA 92024-3633
Dear Mr. Olson:
We have reviewed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife letter to the City of Encinitas dated December 29, 1992.
Our response to their comments, those of the San Diego Biodiversiry Project, and the Fisher comments address
the key topics within these three letters.
WE11ANDS MITIGATION
Net loss of wetlands for this project should-be assessed on the wetland values criteria utilized by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Pro'tectioii Agency; particularly in light of the 'highly degraded
situation of the wetlands which will be impactód. These existing wetlands, termed 'fallow-field wetlands" within
our report (PSBS #845, Home Depot, September 23, 1992) can be adequately mitigated on-site With 0.7 acre
of wetland creation and 3.2 acres of wetland enhancement. As pointed out previously in the City 'Policy,
enhancement would substantially upgrade the very poor quality of much of the existing wetland habitat' which
will remain outside of the area of direct impacts. Under these specific circumstances, a Service policy 'of
opposition to any and all actions which result in a net aeal loss of wetland habitat is unduly rigid and should
be reconsidered. Our mitigation 'proposal is a pragmatic solution which will result in substantially upgraded
wetland values at this site.
No attempt has been made to downplay the significance of wetland habitat on-site within the-technical
report. In fact, opportunities to substantially enhance th6 riparian areas still retaining good quality habitat are
recommended. CEQA concerns were a primary factor inthe extension of the wetland delineation into areas
which were extremely surliciallv disturbed and largely dvoid of characteristic wetland plants;
SOUTHERN ?IARIII\'IK CIIAI'AR1AI.
The concept of Southern Maritime Chaparral as originally proposed by Holland was never meant to
encompass the broad spectrum of varied chaparral resources and microhabitáts now scattered throughout coastal
San Diego County. A vegetation category must have some cohesive defining limitations which would warrent
a distinctive dcsignaiion. Holland's original classification notes that the distribution of Southern Maritime
Chaparral is today restricted to Torrey Pines State Reserve and a few scattered nearby locales." It was never
meant to encompass the broad spectrum of chaparral microhabitats found in the region.
The smorgasbord of shrubs being touted by the San Diego Biodiversity Project (SDBP; see letter to the
City of Encinitas of December 22 1992) as indicator species of a more broadly defined Maritime Chaparral are
found"at.-literaliv hundreds of locales not the few envixoned by Holland The SDBP definition has already
undergone' cvcral permutations over the last year as pat critiques have precipitated substantial alterations. It
becomes irldi-casi6giv difficult to rationally respond to any comments regarding a maritime chaparral community
'whose very definition is cô'nsistantly shifting. This amorphous and capriciously defined chaparral as defthed by
SDBP, still cannot be readily separated from the regionally common Southern Mixed Chaparral.'.
__,--.- .r't .-"'--'-
"H
:
4I '-
•D -
Mr Craig Olson 2 6 January 1993
PSBS #845
A widely accepted definition of Southern Maritime chaparral is not yet available as the SDBP contends
Key botáiists in the rcion have yet to accept ani'cicar-cut definition. H. Weir favorsa strong edaphic tie of, /
this habitat with sandstone substrates as a critical ingrediant, but would like to further consider the variables \
(pers. comm. January 993). T. Oberhaucr sees a geographic limit to maritime chaparral which unfortunatley .•.•"-,.'
becomes blurred io thô east and northeast; he also favors further -consideration towards a workable definition
(pers. comm. January 1993). P. Bunch finds that existing vegetation category definitions can be articifial, and ' ..--
they may or may not reflect the associations found in the field; he sees a possible conflict between regulatory
need" for categorization and scientific biological assessments (pers. comm. January 1993). P. Gordon-Reedy
is looking towards a spectrum of traits to define maritime chaparral including species richness, 'vegetation
structure, and'sandstonc substrates (pers. comm January 1993). J. Messina, an ecologist, recognizes the dangers
in an, overly subjective interpretation of this vegetation type (pers. comm. January 1993), but is provisionally '
identifying likely areas of maritime chaparral. If the basis for a distinction between Southern Mixed Chaparral
and-Southern Maritime Chaparral. is on strictly botanical grounds, a definition proposed by botanist Craig Reiser'
of Pacific Southwest focuses on the rclictual habitat of the Torrey Pine and a cluster of very rare plants such as
Dudleya, breu'iJ/ia, En'si,,iun, aniniop/zi/um, and Coreopsis maritima. This provides a natural trouping whose
affinities,are with insular- plant species' (already well documented as distinctive plant associations), are strongly
correlated with beach bluffs and sandstone outcrops, as well as with repeated fogs uncommon on a regular basis
else'here aking the County coastlines. Such a conservative floristic grouping has a geographical and inter-related.-
climatic- identity which provides a scientific basis for consideration as a distinctive vegetation category; moreover, '
a grouping which quite obviously includes endangered elements, 'and is worthy-of regional protection and some
official status cumulatively as it sensitive resource. Additionally, it corresponds very well with Holland's original -
description of this vegetation community. A consensus opionion is obviously not yet forthcoming.
- The SDB'P. definition includes a number of diverse shrub elements to define a maritime chaparral.. -- t.
Coastal Scrub Oak (Qiwrcus ,dwnosa, excluding the Inland Scrub Oak form known as Quercus berberidifolia), -.
a species still not 5dequately published in a scientific journal, is wide-ranging away from the coast. it is locally' --
common in Poway, in the canyonlands througout Linda Vista, Clairemont, and Kearney Mesa; as well-as on NAS '
Miramar and south onto Otav Mesa. Are these areas to he included under the auspices of an umbrella category
known as MaritirneChaparral? This does not seem a practical approach.
Coast White Lilac is a dominant shrub of the 'hills west of Interstate 15 from San Marcos south to -
- Râncho Penasquitos: It occurs by the many tens of thousands in much higher numbers than anywhere near the --
coast; nevertheless,- it is a Type 1 indicator species -under the SDBP definition? Are all these inland locales -
Maritime Chaparral? Many of these areas are within the Cieneba soil series, a soil type with low fertility quite
widespread in cismo'ntanc San Diego County, and certainly well beyond a viable expanded range for a maritime
chaparral cothmunit'. '
Del -Mar Mat-i-ianita (..-lrciostap/ivfos gicindulosa var. crassifolia) is less common than the previous two ,
species
-
spcies and is'substantiilly more sensitive. This shrub is found on Cerro Jesus Maria in Baja Califonia, the • •
small mountain souih oi Otay Mountain and just across the U.S. border which is largely metavolcanic in origin. '•..
The manzanita'ranges southward in. Baja to four miles "east" of Cerro' Coronel and also at Mesa de Descanso - •' .
east of Medio Ciamino. Is this -i good indicator species of Maritime Chaparral or just a western element of a
- much wider ranging complex that includes another coastal and foothill subspecies in the region (Arctostaphylos. .
glandulosa ssp. zacuensis)? : '- .,
- Bush: Poppy (Dendroniecon rigida ssp. rigida) is considered a very poor choice as a Type :1, Indicator ,''
Species (as noted by SDBP delinition) for maritime chaparral In San Diego County this showy shrub is ,
concentrated in the L igun i Mountains with some outlier populations lightly scattered along the coast It ranges f
County. - ' -s--- - -.''" ' - , . --• -,- ...-, ,, '.':jv caw
" L
, ' "
Mr. Craig Olson . . 3 6 January 1993
P$45
- Mohave Yucca. (Yucca sc/zidigera) is another very: questionable Type 1 Indicator Species (as noted by
SDBP definition). This large shrub has a strong desert affinity with a. sizeable population at the western edge.
of the Anza BorrLgo Desert. This is further reflected in both its common name and its localized abundance on
.;,:,,t..he..s9uthcrn Mohave Dscrt. .
I' s time that USF\VS ad other local agencies re examine their support for a veg.tation category which
is currently being u1117cd ambiguously. Such a concept must have scientific merit a'id not merely, the weight of
generalized agreement. amongst disparate and largely i1on critical groups That Pacific Southwest, with
paralleled botanical experience in the region, does not always acquiesce to such expansive delineations of this
very rare habitat type is understandable The San Diego Biodiversity Project's contention that*majority rules
in science (and in the matter of this issue of Southern Mixed Chaparral) is both ludicrous from a scientific
: standpoint, and untrue from a project specific standpoint,. Mr. Hogan of SDBP cites no San Diego County
botanists in his iinsuhstintiitcd gencrati7ation maintaining that everyone else supports his much expanded
definition. . . .
Employing a singiL specific plant species as the deciding factor to delineate Southern Maritime
Chaparral--such as Coastal Scrub Oak, Coast White Lilac, or Del Mar Manzanita--cannot be supported from
a scientific perspective; particularly if an assessment (disregarding this single, on site species) is just as readily
applicable to the more regionally common Southern Mixed 'Chaparral. Apparently, still another revised definition
by SDBP advoctcs the presence of lout traits selected from' a series of indicators We have not been given a
copy of this latest draft definition Curiously, the SDBP did not provide Pacific Southwest with its previous
definition for input this despite its contention it has been seeking consensus H Weir (senior botanist at Dudek
and Associates) could not recall (pers. comm. January 4 1993) Mr. Hogan asking for his assessment of the
SDBP definition of Southern Maritime Chaparral, as claimed in Mr. Hogah's letter. :.
The absence of a consensus definition for mariime chaparral does not discount the importance of..
individual plant resources (e.g., DA Mar Manianira or Orcutt's Spineflower) and conservation/protection of
significant popul muons but it does discount the inappropiate use of umbrella vegetation categories designed
for ex post facto prLservalion of specific sites. Any chaparral near the coast of San Diego County is not
necessarily Southern Nlaritime Chaparral (as it is most recently being perceived in its broadest context), nor is
there necessarily some intrinsic value for such habitat not found in tracts of chaparral further inland. The
.USFWS letter notes that at least half the chaparral on site should be considered Southern Maritime Chaparral,
indicating the Service itself perceives up to half of the chaparral as belonging to a Southern Mixed Chaparral
designation What specific criteria are they utilizing to make such a distinction between the to types? Is it
merely the presence of the Del Mar Manzanita in localized areas on-site? Pacifi Southwest's assessment of the
chaparral at the Home Depot site has already addressed uhe extensive loss of chaparàl.habitataipng the coast,
and the perceived sensitivity of the chaparral at this sile. A 50% maximum threshold for: impacts was
recommended.
We strongly recommend that chaparral sites in the rcaion be assessed on their individual sensitive plantS
and animal resources in concert with their cumulative logistical value (e.g., wildlife corridor utility) Southern
Maritime Chaparral must be conceptually refined to delimit the more unique traits of a distinctive vegetation
type. Pacitic.Southwcst does not believe the numerous and varying definitions, for .Southern Maritime Chaparral
(including a MEIA mapping for Encini(cis) most rapidly evolving over the last six months (well after the original
field work and rcporr suhmitt ii for th.. Home Depot propóal) merit alteration to the original report Significant
..Siteresourccs..(.g.,-Dc( Mar Manzanita and. chaparral) are addressed as such within the o,rinal report.
Recomthendations arc made to protect, in situ, significant . portions of these, respurces;. . additional
recommendations address off-site mitigation. . . .
. . .- . . .
S
MTug Olson 4 6 January 1993
PSBS #845
COR1.ELATIo. OF Soil TYi'i WI III CHAPRRAI 1'PE / 12
.71
If Lo-imv alluvial land of the Hucrhucro complex were the sole indicator soil type for Southern Maritime
Chaparral, than sizeable blocks of hahitth. mapped as Terrace Escarpnieit (including predOmiñ'ntly east-facing
bluffs south' .f. Oak 'Crest Park southward to San Elijo Lagoon) and areas mapped as' Roüghbraken land
(including the: cast licing bluffs of the Ecke Ranch) could be excluded Both soil types are well distñbuted in
Encinitas and local!) retain good populations of Dcl Mar Manzanzta In fact, the San Diego MSCP mapping
at 1'=2000' scale is a generalized mapping program which is meant to be further interpreted by siteipeciflc
biological investigations.
. . .. Vh ile, much of the chaparral habitat at the, Home Depot site is underlain by lands thae'd"b'y the
USDA Soil Conservation Scr ice as loamy alluvial land of the Huerhuero complex, further investigatoxiiclearly
reveals several elistinci microhabitats on-site. Paciric'Sotthwest recognizes that the lower-owinthoe'bpen,
and eroded west-lacing slopes with Dcl Mar Manzanita and Chamise are a significantly different floristic mix
than the' denSer, north-I'icing slope dominated by Coast Scrub Oak. Both vegetation areas occur oñtffësame
substrate Slope aspect and greater moisture availability would account for some of these perceived differences
COAST -WALLFLOWER I I OVI R
The USF\VS k,ucr is incorrect in stating that the Coast Wallflower (Erysirnuni ammophilum) has been
extirpate'd"from the County for thirty years.. It survives on the northwestern flanks of Carmel Mountain, the
easternedgc of ihi Torrey Pines Preserve, near the Flower Hill Mall in Encinitas, and near the Wire Mountain
housing project on Camp Pendleton. . . . .
DEL: MAWSANI) AsT!:R
';?The'preij ct botanist agrees that this plant is located at numerous locales within several' milesof the site.
He has notcd it at dozers of such ncarby locales over the last two decades During late spring 1992 several
hundred plants dii oughout the ,home' Depot site were examined, all had the distinctive glandular involucres of
Corethroync:fi1aqin:fo/ia var. viri,'ata, not var. liiiifo/ia. Both are common in the region. Varietyiinifolid'is:not
being maintained as distinctive within the new Jepson botanical treatment for California due out in earl"1993.
The purportedly-key trait of a hairy involucre is noted at a variety of varying habitats and in vérydifféient
regions. Pacific Southwe'st recognizes a strong geographic trend for reputed variety linifolia in the region, and
in the absence of more dct iiled genetic testing will take a conservative approach and continue to maintain its
integrity within our' reports. It has not been identified on the Home Depot site.
. .;
ADDfl10NAL RARE P1AN1'S
C/iorizanthc parr1 V ir fcnuinthna has always been questioned as a valid taxon for San Diego County by
the project bot'intst In fact, there in.. no known specimens for the County, an old collectiOn was found to be
incorrectly 'innot ncd I L Reveal does not consider San Diego as within the historic or present range of this
species
. .... . . ''
Clion:wii/ (,c!1tI1(l/ui thc. r irest species in the County, is presently known only frorn10ak Cfest park
where it.: Was' found 'by' the project botanist in 1991. It 'wa spècificalleàrched"fór athe Hd&2si but
could.notbc1o'tcd. ,... . .. , , •. :. ., . •, ..-, .. .......'. .
I-kvnizon:d ausum'is is presently only known from one coastal locale' in San Diego County Where i was
observed by the l)rolcct botanist in the salt marshes near the Del Mar Racetrack It is not expected on site
Mr Craig..Olson
, ..
,15-January 1993
ic?S845i •
Hazardia orcuutii is only known from a single U.S. locale. This site lies several miles to the south of
Home Depot. - •'
Jilifolta h is not been collected in the vicinity of the project site, this area is well south of all
but one known collection
CoinarosuipIz1v diii..issfolia ssp dicrs:foha is pote'ntially present in very limited numbers on site This
shrub which has ht.n hiuud Cit several dozen new locales by the project botanist within the lst five years, could
not be located on siic
The pt intcd Pi'zu. wrrcana found on site, one of a group historically planted in the vlcl.nity (the others
apparently removed during Cl prior development to the immediate south of the site) is not a significant CEQA
issue Introduced plants do not Nil under the same purview as man made wetlands
CALIFORNIA GN\1cIc1II R
FácificSouiliwcst has not disputed that the California Gnatcatchers on-site have dispersed here from
other sage scrub habitat off-site. In fact, we have consistently stressed this occurred with the publi;p.rticularly
during the Previous City of Encinitas public meeting. One of the gnatcatchers now found on-site was banded
at another s igc scrub site sevcral iriilc iway after the initial site investigations by Pacific Southwest biologists
Such a banding strongly supports our contention this bird was not present on site during these mvestigations, but
has subsequcntly dispersed onto the Home Depot property. To believe otherwise would imply this bird has
tiavèlledrto the band;niz site and then returned to the Home Depot property, a highly unlikely uifncegiven-
the distance between these sites. ..
r J Correl ulorl lctvccn h ibitat of the gnatcatcher and the Del Mar Manzanita is poor The presence of
both of these as the key etcncnts at a single mitigation site is not considered conceptually , advisable Typically,
the California Gnatcatcher eschews the chaparral habitat of this manzanita. While they-are"tar1y found
together, Pacific Southwest strongly recommends a Diegan Sage Scrub dominated territory as mitigation for the
gatcatcher Impacts. Mitigation for the Del Mar Manzantta is recommended for on site locales within the
dedicated open space.
The ibscncc of i sizeable tract of sage scrub on ihe Home Depot property inexorably argues against
its consideration as high quality habitat for the California Gnatcatcher. The conversion of additional sage scrub
to chaparral following the most recent fire will continue to undermine the marginal viability of this habitat for
the long-term survival of breeding gnatcatchcrs on-site. The suitability of the Home-Depot site to support more
than one pair of breeding gnatcatchers is not supported by current data on the territorial requirements of this
species.
Rend'i" piurhL of gnatcatcher mitigatiOn habitat near Lake Hodges-focuspeifically on
habitat for this- pctics, -not on mitigating floristic' impacts A comparison of [bras from Home Depot and this
site could be made available; however such a omparison would not be apropos to concerns regarding chaparral
impacts On-sue. The r,9com mended Lake Hodges site is considered substantially better gnatcatcher habitat than
the marginal h thu it still r tnt at the Home Depot site, it also retains a breeding gnatcatcher territory and has
a strong connccLi\it to sinidar,and c tensive open space habitat
....
..-
1, 4 rr ( .,
fiiW:L z
iiOlson 6Jnuary 1993
PSBS'#845
.,
.. .,
ORANGE'rHROAT \VIi t i'r,ui.
I
kShwest's rcport'noes this species is expected on-site '(Appei4i B, Page' )1,çfirmation
would not altLr our asscssmcht,61'the,property.This lizard still occurs in most of the sage scrub aid cha,prri
throughout this ruiion
'••- ., .. -.. ••'••
PACIFIC PouF I'--MOUSE,;,
t;• z. 'fl
The US FWS letter is incorrect in asserting this information is lack ingfrom'thetechnicaPtedrt.,•Page 3
of the PS S cppr1 (lrom 23 September 1992) includes an entire paragraph clearly noting mçthodology and
trapping daes or this species (i.e., July 10, July 13)
- ... •.._i_.(°j
ADDITIONAL •SENSmVE,.ANIMALS - -• -' '
I.) L
..The USFWS letter is incorrect in asserting a lack of discussion of the San Diego Horned Lizard and
the Two strqx.d Cz irtcr Snake. Half a page is devoted to the former on Page 40 (from PSBSreportof 23
Septemer 1992) whik. a sun ii it space is devoted to the latter. on Page 42
ut4bk rock h ibitdr is not developed at the sandstone dominated Home Depot site for the SanDiego
Banded G,ckoa I ircncc K! tuber s historical maps for this species show no collections for San Diego County
closer ti ie projict st than the rocky areas surrounding Lake Hodges, and none near the immediate oast
from Qcensidi. t& La Jolla \\'hj does the CDFG consider this species likely to occur on the site on similar
habitat' than known occurrences? This species is not expected on-site •3:.
.-Zhc
gp
Qcnst Patch noscd Snake the San Diego Ringneck Snake, and the Rosy Boa are wide ranging in
San Di q&' 1 hc Coast Patch nose is apparently uncommon from the immediate coast with historical
collections at Dcl M ir and Encinitas; it usually is collected further inland The San Diego- Ringneck Snake is.
potentially prcs_rtrri itc .i-n mcsic situations. The Rosy Boa historically occurred in the area, though it is moie
common ml md this un-iggrcssivc spccics may not rcadily survive on the urban per phery such as at the Home
Depot site PrcscriLc it my -Of Lhese 01ree species would not significantly alter the biological assessment of the
site report. -; . . . . . ' ,•
The .Southern California Rufous crowned Sparrow is still locally common in sage scrub in the region
It prefers a more open shrub canopy than is found throughput most of the site. Nevertheless, it can potentially
occupy limited hahitu on the property, but was not observed on site
CRIB WALl
,.
OnPgc 4 Itcrn #4 of our report the cribwail design is recommended to mitigate potential impacts
to the Coa4a} Scrib Oik Potential habitat ,.:for the Del Mar Manzanita is also pr0tectediJy such a cribw,ll
dcsign..,. ....... ;.:. •. •. • .-•- . •. •-•'. •. - •. .
SENSITIVFSIJIUII lIJI( IIO\
it lL
A six month s asscssrncnl is recommended to appraise the satisfactory initial take of the Del Mar.
Manzanita. An.hdditional three year monitoring, program as recommended by the USFWS is nót.unwarrented
given the difficulties of establishing this species. Container stock is much more likely to providea successful
planting, than is seed-grown or trnsplanted material.
Craig Olson 7
PSBS #945
URBAN PERIPIIEI1Y J
..,.... le• site is- hounded t .he south and.eat by. industrial and residential development. Hea'ily utilized
urban roads ig Un che nuu'in and wc.stcrn boundaries of the site An .,extensive tract of.agricultural land lies
beyona the narrow \Ltl md Jr in ig.. o (he west Homes he to the north east While Encmnitas ('reek provides
coininuitywiih some miidcvclo1icd li n di to theeast "and evcrniallv Baiquitos Lagoon to the northwest, the area
can no longer be characterized as rural.
RESOiJRC!. Co\sl RV%UO\ AR!
The RCA's arc a County of San Diego designation which were not addressed within the .technical report.
The Olivenhain Hills RCA specifies a number of sensitive plants as the focus of preseryaion including Del Mar
Manzanita, along with the presence. of Coast Mixed Chaparral [the vegetation type used to categorize the
chaparraLon site!................ .. .
NOTED EXI'ER IS . .
The site was specifically discussed by Pacific Southwest with the CDFG. J. Vanderwier, then a
representative. of CDFG, was consulted concerning the site and regarding the local issue.pg..the Orcutt's
Spirieflower. Todd Kccicr.Volf of the State's Heritage Program was directly consulted regarding the use of
$.p.uthern Maritime Ch, designation. A the time, he agreed with the project botanist that çe definitions
foi this veguition t%pL ncedcd to be redefined, and that he would attempt additional field work on this issue
Dr. 'Ren's ornithological viewpoints are typically given substantial credence by Pacific Southwest.
Mr. .Voss' opinion concerning Iloristic diversity on site must he measured against, sirnilar,highplant diversity
found hrougbnui this rewofl of San Diego County, including Leucadia, Cardiff, Del Mar, Oceanside, and
Carlsbad.
Fred Rogers uI hc LJSFWS met specifically with-the project botanist to examine the'onenown locale
of Orcutt's Spineflowcr at Oak Crest Park. During this meeting numerous local botanic64ssues were discussed
including tangentially the Home Depot project.
ECKE PRoPEIm' & HATtQurios LAGOON
The Home Depot. site does not have greater plant diversity than the much larger Ecke Ranch. A
thorough and focused botanical survey in the spring of 1993 on the Eçke Ranch would reveal a substantially
greater flora on the ELki. siLt.. The 830 -acre Eckc Ranch is a much more biologically significant area and has
much-better linkage with Baliquitos Lagoon than does the Home Depot site. Connectivity between Home Depot
property and thL Eckc. Ranch m-, prLscntiv quite tenuous Not only is El Camino Real a very heavily travelled
'road, a broad agricultural liekl also scparatesthc.areas of native habitat. 0
Tics between the Home Depot property and the Batiquitos Lagoon Restoration Project are principally
via Encinitas Creek. This 'trea is recommended as a focus for wetland mitigation and work in concert with
restoration plans (see Page I9 of Appendix B). Linkage has always been a consideration within the
recommended \vLtllnd open sp'icc, Lnh incement of these wetlands is a response to valid concerns of corridor
utility.
W.
*
fçat S 61rdi.3
PSBS #845
OAKS AND SCRUB OAKS
V te do tfldrm thc stub d ikis 'no'[-" ncaring'ehdagered listing In fact th taxonts working
n this i1h rliigi5 fitiblish ane\v species acconn separating it froni çle more conziOz .&apd toi grou1tc*F
(reputed entilThi.'4pedics is adluaiclypublished nd recei's peer e¼'ie.nb litthg r - .. can beforthcomini. . . -
The. pro'umi1 of2Coist Scrub Oa k, scrub oak hybrids with Engelmann Oak, and Coast Live Oaks are
not atkall unconimon in ihc '&ibn Generally the Coast Live Oaks are conce'ntrated all5iij driiii9g69 U19' e.
scrub-oaks indhybrds.arc reIr constitucnts.ofchaparral. ... ..
ft ,;"51 r r ' - - r -
SECONDARYtjfl'11O1II\1 I\I'ACTS
Noise, lighi gi ,rc. md uib in proximity are cumulative effects which can affect different 'anwiiii es
differently. Snsmtic vertebrates sign ilicintly impacted by such effects would focus on large mammals like
Mountain Lion as well aslireeding raptors such as the Golden Eagle. These large. prd'~a.iii4slle andBadger;
lack good habitat on site or mc been hrgcly cxcludcd by prior urban pressures
-.
LoncMfBshcLl rc'idcntial -development on the crest of ridgelmnes in the Encinitas aIeae g ridiie
soutl thr e?rst A"-to San Elijo Lagoon), above terrace escarpments with chaparral`&!b:1.el Már
Manzta'don pehcr regularly h-ie significant impacts via the alteration of hydrolic regimes. lloAre"et,
.; the. i f ëocic iiiväsi''es have been' notea within our rport (Ap Bpas
53.54).. . .
. ;.:;-')Uo3 D!Dfi r--:y-............. . . . . ,•f .-. .j -
477-5333 questions please call Keith Merkel of Pacific! Southwest at (619)
Sincerely,
4/
Keith W. Merkel
• - Vice President . . . . ..............................
Jls,
_-(
, i)J'C
r •- - 1
- - . . . . : '. .. •- ....: ,...- . -: .W i.':: :;;'.i . ...
-:
. t-U LL ri L!.fl •r -. r12:;............. -. .: :.
- . . - . • - - .
: . . - •