HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-08-05; City Council; Resolution 2008-2291
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-229
2
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT EIR 04-02, ADOPTING THE CANDIDATE
4 FINDINGS OF FACT, THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM AND APPROVING A LOCAL COASTAL
5 PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO REVISE AND DELETE
REFERENCES TO THE MASTER DRAINAGE AND STORM
6 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (MDSWQMP), MODEL
EROSION CONTROL ORDINANCE, AND GRADING ORDINANCE
7 FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN AND
CALAVERA, AGUA HEDIONDA CREEKS PROJECT AFFECTING
8 PROPERTIES CITYWIDE AND PORTIONS OF AGUA HEDIONDA
AND CALAVERA CREEKS IN AND NEAR THE RANCHO
9 CARLSBAD RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY AND IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONES 8, 14, 15 AND 24.
10 CASE NAME: DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN UPDATE/
CALAVERA AND AGUA HEDIONDA CREEKS
11 CASE NO.: EIR 04-02/MCA 07-01/ZCA 07-04/LCPA 07-06
12 The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does hereby resolve as follows:
13 WHEREAS, on January 16, 2008, the Carlsbad Planning Commission held a duly noticed
14 public hearing to consider a proposed Environmental Impact Report (EIR 04-02) and adopted
j5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6376, recommending to the City Council certification of EIR
, 04-02, as modified by Exhibit "EIR-C" attached to Resolution 6376, and adoption of the Candidate
Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and adopted Planning
Commission Resolutions No. 6377, 6378 recommending approval of ZCA 07-04 and LCPA 07-
18
06, respectively, subject to the City Council certification of EIR 04-02 and adoption of the
19 Candidate Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
20 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, did on August 5, 2008, hold a public
2* hearing to consider the recommendations and heard all persons interested in or opposed to EIR
22 04-02; and
23 WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared and submitted to the
24 State Clearinghouse and a Notice of Completion was filed, published, and mailed to responsible
25 agencies and interested parties providing an initial 45-day review period that was extended an
26 additional 15 days; and
27
28
1 WHEREAS, all comments received during the review period are contained in the Final
2 EIR; and
3 WHEREAS, following publication of the Final EIR and distribution of responses to
4 commenting parties, certain parties continued to submit comments up to, during, and after the
5 testimony given at the project's public hearing held by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission
6 on the project on January 16, 2008; and
7 WHEREAS, in order to address all issues raised by the public on the proposed project
8 and provide comprehensive disclosure and documentation of environmental issues associated
9 with the project, the additional comments and responses to comments were prepared as attached
10 Exhibit 1; revisions to the Final EIR as attached Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 2a; revisions to the
11 Candidate Findings of Fact as attached Exhibit 3; and revisions to the Mitigation Monitoring and
12 Reporting Program as attached Exhibit 4 and as hereby incorporated into the Final EIR for
1^ consideration by the Carlsbad City Council; and
14 WHEREAS, the information contained in the additional responses and revisions to the
15 Final EIR, Candidate Findings of Fact, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program do
16 not constitute "significant information" as defined in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
I n11 Guidelines Section 15088.5(a). Instead, the information provided merely clarifies and amplifies
1 O
discussion already contained in the Final EIR. As such, recirculation of the Final EIR is not
1Q required because the new information added to the EIR only clarifies, amplifies and makes
20 insignificant modifications to an adequate EIR (CEQA Guideline, 15088.5(b)).
21 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad,
22 California, as follows:
23 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
24
2. The City Council does hereby find that the Final EIR 04-02, as modified by Exhibits
25 1,2, and 2a attached hereto, the Candidate Findings of Fact, as modified by Exhibit 3 attached
hereto, and the Mitigation and Monitoring Program, as modified by Exhibit 4 attached hereto,
26 have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act,
the State EIR Guidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
27
28
1 3. The City Council has reviewed, analyzed, and considered Final EIR 04-02, as
modified by Exhibits 1, 2, and 2a attached hereto, the environmental impacts therein identified for
2 this project, the Candidate Findings of Fact, as modified by Exhibit 3 attached hereto, and the
Mitigation and Monitoring Program, as modified by Exhibit 4 attached hereto, prior to approving
3 the project, and they reflect the independent judgment of the City of Carlsbad City Council.
4 4. The City Council does accept as its own, incorporate as if set forth in full herein,
and make each and every one of the findings contained in the Candidate Findings of Fact, as
modified by Exhibit 3 attached hereto, including feasibility of mitigation measures pursuant to
Public Resources Code 21081 and CEQA Guidelines 15091, and infeasibility of project
6 alternatives.
7 5. The City Council hereby finds that the Mitigation and Monitoring Program, as
modified by Exhibit 4 attached hereto, is designed to ensure that during project implementation
and operation the Developer and any other responsible parties implement the project
components and comply with the feasible mitigation measures identified in the Candidate
Findings of Fact, as modified by Exhibit 3 attached hereto, and the Mitigation and Monitoring
Program.
6. The Record of Proceedings for this project consists of the Environmental Impact
Report, as modified by Exhibits 1, 2, and 2a attached hereto, Candidate Findings of Fact, as
12 modified by Exhibit 3 attached hereto, and Mitigation and Monitoring Program, as modified by
Exhibit 4 attached hereto; the "Record" upon which the City Council bases these Candidate
13 Findings of Fact and its actions and determinations regarding the project includes, but is not
limited to, the Draft EIR, together with all appendices and technical reports referred to therein,
14 whether separately bound or not; all reports, letters, applications, memoranda, maps, or other
planning and engineering documents prepared by the City, engineering consultant, environmental
15 consultant, or others presented to or before the decision-makers as determined by the City Clerk;
all letters, reports, or other documents submitted to the City by members of the public or public
16 agencies in connection with the City's environmental analysis on the project; all minutes of any
public workshops, meetings, or hearings, including the scoping sessions, and any recorded or
17 verbatim transcripts/videotapes thereof; any letters, reports, or other documents or other
evidence submitted into the record at any public workshops, meeting, or hearings; matters of
18 common general knowledge to the City that the City may consider, including applicable State or
local laws, ordinances, and policies, the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Local Facilities
19 Management Plans, and all applicable planning programs and policies of the City; and, all
findings and resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the project, including all
20 documents cited or referred to therein.
21 The custodian of the full administrative record shall be the City Clerk's Office, 1200 Carlsbad
Village Drive, and the Planning Director, 1635 Faraday Avenue, both in Carlsbad, CA 92008.
22
7. That the Environmental Impact Report (EIR 04-02) on the above referenced
project, as modified by Exhibits 1, 2 and 2a attached hereto, is certified; and that the Candidate
Findings of Fact, as modified by Exhibit 3 attached hereto, and the Mitigation Monitoring and
24 Reporting Program, as modified by Exhibit 4 attached hereto, are adopted and that the condition
of the Planning Commission contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 6376, on file with
25 the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference and as modified by Exhibit 4, is the condition
of the City Council.
27
28
8. That the amendment to the Local Coastal Program (LCPA 07-06) is approved as
shown in Planning Commission Resolution No. 6378 on file with the City Clerk and incorporated
herein by reference.
9. That the approval of LCPA 07-06 shall not become effective until it is approved by
the California Coastal Commission and the Coastal Commission's approval becomes effective.
"NOTICE TO INTERESTED PARTIES"
"The time within which judicial review of this decision must be
6 sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6,
which has been made applicable in the City of Carlsbad by
Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. Any petition or other paper
seeking judicial review must be filed in the appropriate court not
later than the ninetieth day following the date on which this decision
becomes final; however, if within ten days after the decision
becomes final a request for the record of the proceedings
.„ accompanied by the required deposit in an amount sufficient to
cover the estimated cost of preparation of such record, the time
, within which such petition may be filed in court is extended to not
later than the thirtieth day following the date on which the record is
either personally delivered or mailed to the party, or his attorney of
record, if he has one. A written request for the preparation of the
record of proceedings shall be filed with the City Clerk, City of
Carlsbad, 1200 Carlsbad Village Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008."
H"
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad,
California, on the 5th day of August, 2008, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Hall, Packard, Nygaard
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
(SEAL)
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
Comment Index
Agency/Organization
Preserve Calavera
Carlsbad Watershed Network
Preserve Calavera
Carlsbad Watershed Network
Bataquitos Lagoon Foundation
N/A
Commenter
Diane Nygaard
Isabelle Kay
Diane Nygaard
Brad Roth
Fred Sandquist
Diane Nygaard and
Isabelle Kay
Comment Date
January 24, 2008
January 24, 2008
January 14, 2008
January 14, 2008
January 14, 2008
February 26, 2008
Letter Reference
PCa*
CWNa
PCb*
CWNb
BLF
DNIK
"Note: These letters contain responses prepared by the City that originally appeared in Appendix F of the Final
EIR. In some cases, the letter only quotes a portion, rather than the entire, response. The reader is referred to
Appendix F for the complete response.
Comment Letter PCa Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
Mayor and City Council
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Dr
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mayor and City Council
January 24,2008
Subject LCP Amendment
Comments on FEIR
Drainage Master Plan Update
HMP Consistency
These comments on the LCP amendment related to the Master Drainage Plan (MDP) and
associated documents are made on behalf of Preserve Calavera. Preserve Calavera is a
grassroots organization of residents of Carlsbad, Oceanside, and Vista and users of the open —
space around Mount Calavera in northeastern Carlsbad. The area is the largest remaining natural
land in a coastal North County city.
We are concerned about the public notice associated with the proposed LCP amendments, and
the Coastal Development Permit(CDP) for the Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks dredging
project. The Planning Commission staff report stated that the City Council would consider
approving the DMP and LCP changes following review of all comments on the LCP after a 6
week public review period from December 14 - January 24, 2008. As a commenter on this
project we believe we should have received notice of such public comment period for the LCP.
The only mailed notice we received for this project was for the FEIR and this did not include
any notice of the proposed LCP amendment The first public notice of the LCP amendment that
we are aware of occurred with the posting of the Planning Commission Agenda for the January
16, 2008 meeting which we believe was received via email on January 10,2008. The 45 day
public comment period on the LCP amendments was not posted on the city website until about
January 16 ( see email from Scott Donncll), just a few days before the end of the comment
period.
Furthermore this was not sent out to the list of interested parties who have notified the city in
writing that they wish to be informed of such notices. While notifying agencies and putting legal
notices in two local newspapers meets the letter of the law, it certainly is not consistent with the
intent of providing reasonable public notice nor is it consistent with the standard city public
notice procedures.
Furthermore, we were not aware until January 23, 2008 (during a phone call to CA Coastal
Commission staff) that the city had processed the Coastal Development Permit for the dredging
project based on the EIR certification by the Planning Commission. The public comment period
PCa-1
Comment
Reference
PCa-1
'tr.-;-?:**,,'^?"^ . ^<-,u*s^Response to Comment----e.t*g»yrjr »• ~^.~%3*>s~>f~
Comment noted. This comment relates to the processing of the Local Coastal Plan Amendment
and Coastal Development Permit, not the adequacy of the EIR. However, the City desires to be
responsive. In accordance with the requirements of the Coastal Act, notice for the Local Coastal
Program Amendment (LCPA) was sent to the Coastal Commission, various agencies, and others
on the interested parties list and was also published in two local papers on December 14, 2007,
the beginning of the required six-week public review period. For the convenience of the public, the
Planning Department also posts LCPA and other notices on its website, to which people may
receive an email notification when such posting occurs. Unfortunately, this posting did not occur as
it should have when the notice was published; the City corrected this oversight and the notice was
posted on the website by January 18, 2008. Furthermore, staff did not find that the commentor or
the commentor's organization were on the interested parties list of individuals and agencies that
have requested to receive LCPA notices. The public comment period on the proposed LCPA
closed January 24, 2008.
Secondly, the Planning Commission's approval of the Coastal Development Permit (CDP 04-41)
for the dredging of Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks was not subject to approval of either the
proposed Drainage Master Plan or Local Coastal Program Amendment. This is because the
dredging of the creeks is a component of the current Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality
Management Plan adopted in 1994 and referenced in the current Local Coastal Program. .
In addition, CDP 04-41 was described and noted as a permit for the dredging project in the
project's public hearing notice published in the newspaper, posted on the City's website, and
mailed to property owners at least 10 days prior to the January 16, 2008, Planning Commission
hearing. The permit was also discussed in the Planning Commission staff report for that meeting.
5020 Nighthawk Way - Oceantide, CA 92DS*
www.preMrvecftlAvera.org
for the LCP was still underway, the MDP had not been approved, yet the notice of final action
for this permit was submitted.
We request that an LCP amendmom and coastal development permits be treated the same
at all other city project notice*- with potting on tke city website and email notUkatioa to
those person* who have signed op for the city's routine notice system.
The projects included within tbe Master Drainage Plan are located throughout the city - with
several in the Coastal Zone or immediately adjacent to the Coastal Zone where they can have
both direct and indirect impacts on sensitive coastal resources. Our concerns are the impact oa PCa-2
the Buena Vista and Agua Hcdionda watersheds including the associated lagoons and coastal
waters, the effect on the regional and local wildlife corridors, the proximity to existing regional
and state reserves, and the cumulative impacts to sensitive wetland resources. Development of
the projects as proposed doesn't just impact the few acres identified for direct impacts, it could
impact hundreds of acres of high quality wetland and upload habitat causing further damage to
our coastal watersheds.
At the Planning Commission hearing on January 16,2003 they certified the Final EIR associated
with both the ptogiam and project level components of the MOP. But at that hearing it was
stated that approval of the MDP and LCP amendments tint reference the MDP were the "PCa" 3
authority of the City Council. Those additional items were just submitted to the Planning
Commission for information and would be bean) by the Council at a future hearing. We believe
the content of the MDP and adequacy of me EIR and mitigation measures are critical to any
decision to amend the LCP mat win then incorporate thcjc by reference. Our comments therefor
include all of these related document*.
We reviewed the responses to comments and changes made to the FE1R, submitted further
comments to the Planning Commission, and testified at the hearing on January 16, 2006. We
believe thai many of the written responses and verbal responses made at the hearing failed to
address key issues, or provided incomplete information. The result is that what sounds like very
innocuous amendments to the LCP, in fact would incorporate this MOP and the mitigation
proposed in the FEIR in a way that is not consistent with related documents that better protect
coastal resources.
The following are our concerns about the MDP and the proposed LCP amendments that
incorporate the MDP into the LCP. The following will identify key issues with first the program
and following mat the project level dements of the MOP. Reference numbers are those used in
the responses to comments to the FEW., Comment is identified in plain text Applicant response
is shown in Italics. Current comment is in bold. Please note that these are preliminary
comments, prior to close of tbe public comment period, and prior to release of the staff report on
the MND and LCP.
Section 1 discusses tbe MND and analysis of impacts shown in tbe FEIR - particularly concerns
related to the Coastal Zone, Section II HMP Consistency and Section III Proposed LCP
Amendment.
Scctieal Program Level MDP CompooemU
L3-5 We arc particularly concerned about assumptions about land use and watershed
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
PCa-2 As addressed in response to comment L3-1 in Appendix F of the Final EIR, the City continues to
note this comment. This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a program-
level planning document (the DMP Update). As discussed throughout the EIR, subsequent
environmental review will be required for individual program-level DMP Update components as
they proceed to project-level design. Except for the two projects receiving project level review in
this FEIR, the proposed facility type and sizing of project components described in Table 3-1 are
representative of current/general facility needs and are used to develop planning level project cost
estimates for inclusion in the PLDA fee program. The DMP Update does not commit the City to a
particular design solution or preclude the use of alternative designs that may be more
environmentally sensitive. Final design of a specific DMP Updated facility is subject to all
applicable City policy and regulatory documents including the General Plan, Habitat Management
Plan, Local Coastal Program, City Standards, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and State and Federal permitting requirements. Furthermore, Section 4.9 of the EIR explains that
guidance for complying with storm water management requirements and design and construction
best management practices is contained in other documents including the Jurisdictional Urban
Runoff Management Plan (JURMP), Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP),
Watershed Urban Runoff Management Plan (WURMP), and RWQCB Permit No. R9-2007-001.
PCa-3 Comment noted. This comment refers to the permit process for the approval of the DMP Update,
not the adequacy of the EIR. To clarify, the Planning Commission recommended to the City
Council certification of the Final EIR and approval of the Zone Code amendment and Local
Coastal Plan Amendment, but does not maintain approval authority of these actions. The City
Council has the authority to render a determination on the DMP, associated code amendments,
and certification on the FEIR. Furthermore, the DMP Update alone was submitted to the Planning
Commission for information only; as noted above, the Local Coastal Program Amendment was
recommended for approval by the Commission.
PCa-4
improvement efforts that could dramatically reduce volume and velocity of flows entering
Carlsbad. What efforts have been made to coordinate plans with the upstream parts of the sub-
watersheds that are outside of the city of Carlsbad boundaries?
The Gly made efforts to disaas improvements that may impact other jurisdictioni, suck as the
California Department of Transportation, However, because the DMP Update did not require
detailed hydraulic calculations, coordination with upstream Jwtsdicaou HOJ not necessary,
Tb« point b not that the drainage system proposed in Carlsbad woakJ effect the ether
jurisdictions- it a that what the upstream jurisdictions art doing could dramatteaO}>
change the volute and velocity of water entering Carbbad. "Making efforts" eouM be
leaving a phone message. The response doesn't even indicate that there b aa intent to
property coordinate- aid to consider alternatives should thert be a dramatic change la
land use, run-off contra), or other factors that impact flic volant aid velocity of flow*
catering Cartebad.
How will the city update the MDP to incorporate sncb changes?
L3-7 The MDP should include some guidelines about how choices were made to use such
measures( bardacapc engineering solutions) rather than a bioengineering/acquisitiorVrestorarion ~~
choice that would allow natural creek function. Please particularly identify the decision to install
or increase the size of culverts and/or concrete channels instead of using more natural means to
control flows.
The me of adverts and/or concrete channels is In part based on tke slope of the conveyance,
expected discharge volume, depth, and velocity of flow. In most instances flow velocities that are
greater tkan 5 to 7 feet per second introduce instability in uniixed channel*. The other factors
are associated wilh the soil properties, suck as toil type, cohesion, in/illratioa. etc. These play a
role In the channel stability.
Putting a natural creek Into a culvert or Using It with coaeret* is damaging to the natural
functions of a creek. Repeated drcd^ng of • creek instead of addrestkig the Dpstream
issues Oat are cawing silt deposit la also usually not tke best solution for the plants aid
animal* that need a functioning creek t» survive- or to reduce the sit and poB*tant load
that reaches the downstream lagoo*. The comment was t* inchd* guideline*- guidelines
that would provide the conditions under which * culvert b determined to be the best
lotatfou, and conditions under which k b not. At the hearing staff stated there are polioa
in place that make it dear that things tike culver-ring creeks are a bat resort- however none
of this was included in the MDP- and it It the MOP that b referenced ta the LCP.
U-21 It appears that this U really a flood control program and that any benefits to water quality
are accidental. If water quality improvements are really pan of the project objectives then this
requires much more analysis and discussion in both the MDP Plan and the EIR
... The objectives of the DMP Update relative to water quality have been clarified in section 3.2
of the Elf...-
What was done was to eliminate" Indirect benefits to water quality- from tht project goals. PCa-6
Instead of integrating water quality Improvement planning with flood control the rw» ar*
PCa-5
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
PCa-4 See response to comment L3-5 in Appendix F of Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Only drainage
Basins B and D include facilities that accommodate drainage originating outside the City. Facility DM located
within Basin D is a proposed facility to enhance the natural elements of the existing drainage channel. To the
maximum extent feasible, Facility DM will employ natural processes to stabilize the channel from erosive
impacts created by existing and proposed development. For this reason, there was no need to prepare
detailed hydrology or hydraulic studies until the project is brought forward for final design and construction.
There are several facilities proposed within Basin B, including Facilities B and BN (comprising the Agua
Hedionda and Calavera Creek Dredge and Improvement Project), BNB, BJ-1, BJ-2, BJB, BL-L and BP.
These facilities accommodate flows originating outside the City limits. Because Facilities B and BN include
project level review within the FEIR, a detailed hydrology study was prepared for the watershed that took into
account the latest available general plan land use information for properties located within Carlsbad and the
neighboring jurisdictions. The 1998 and 2004 Rick Engineering Studies referenced in Section 3.4.2 of the EIR
include hydrology modeling calculations based upon the latest available land use information to project 100-
year stormwater flows for each of the Drainage Master Plan (DMP) Update facilities/project components
noted above. The 2004 Rick Engineering Studies included provisions within the hydrology model to account
for lag times associated with installation of Low Impact Development (LID) designs within the general
watershed. LID design principles are aimed at mitigating after-development hydrologic impacts for storms in
the 2 to 10 year range. LID does not significantly diminish the flooding impacts resulting from a 100 year
storm event. The referenced hydrology studies represent the latest land use information available and
adequately address the impacts of flows originating from both within and outside the City limits.
Because the DMP Update is primarily a planning level document used to assess local needs and develop
cost estimates for inclusion in the City's PLDA fee program it is not the appropriate document for addressing
coordination issues with neighboring upstream jurisdictions. The City has partnered with all neighboring
jurisdictions with which it shares a common watershed boundary and, has worked extensively to develop the
Carlsbad Watershed Management Plan. The cities have formed the Carlsbad Watershed Management Plan
committee comprised of staff from the cities of Carlsbad, Solana Beach, Encinitas, Vista, San Marcos,
Oceanside, and Escondido and, with the County of San Diego. The committee meets regularly to discuss
issues of common interest with regard to the shared watersheds, identify sources of water pollution and
develop positive measures to reduce pollutant loads.
PCa-5 See response to comment PCa-2 and response to comment L3-7 in Appendix F of Final EIR. Additionally, the
DMP Update is primarily a planning level document used to assess local needs and develop cost estimates
for inclusion in the City's PLDA fee program. It is documents such as the Local Coastal Program and others
mentioned in response to comment PCa-2 above that more appropriately establish regulations and policies to
guide flood control enhancements.
Additionally, Final EIR Section 3-5 states, in part, "impacts associated with DMP Update components would
be minimized through implementation of project design features/methods, regulatory requirements, and
construction measures that would be incorporated as applicable into individual project designs and
implemented during construction, which are summarized in Table 3-6. These are not mitigation measures,
but rather features, methods, or measures that are incorporated into the project design and implementation.
Table 3-6 in the Final EIR."
Among other things, Table 3-6 requires projects to incorporate Habitat Management Plan provisions that
specifically address hydrology and flood control. For example, one of the provisions, which are found on page
F-14 in Habitat Mangement Plan Section F, states "maintain existing natural drainages and watersheds and
restore or minimize changes to natural hydrological processes." Another standard requires use of "...Best
Management Practices both within and outside the preserve system to maintain water quality."
PCa-6
the Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Plan (JURMP), Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan
(SUSMP), Watershed Urban Runoff Management Plan (WURMP), RWQCB Permit No. R9-2007-001 and the
Habitat Management Plan. Because the DMP Update is primarily a planning-levet document used to assess
local drainage needs and develop cost estimates for inclusion in the City's PLDA fee program, it is not the
appropriate document for addressing water quality issues.
being treated as completely separate activities. All over this country public jurisdictions
•re working to Improve water quality- doing things like taking creeks oat of culverts and
creating more natural wetlands as part of that effort- a practice that when property
designed can abo have significant flood control benefits.
Instead of eliminating any reference to water quality, the MDP and LCP should clearly
state bow flood control will be integrated with the required run-off control program of the
RWQCB. It ihoald abo include a statement that where there arc conflict! between flood
control and water quality provisions or HMP how thew wtB be resolved.
L3-23 ....The hydrology study needs to assess the impacts of lesser flow volumes and assure that
these, 13 well as the 100 year floods, are being addressed.
...By proposing DMP Update components thai would accommodate the 100-year floods
cityvtide, the City is addressing any lesser degree oj'flooding....
Our point was that much smaller levels of run-off than the 100-year flood are causing
damage to our local creeks and adding tilt and other pollutant* to oar lagoons. Of course
the flooding fa less- but the damage occurs much more frequently and cumulatively may
even be worse than a single large Rood. The response completely ignores this by only
considering flooding- and only at the 100-year flood level. This is another example of why
it fa important to integrate this with broader watershed protection - that doesn't just
consider flooding- but looks at scouring and andercutting. buffers along creeks, and
opportunities for retrofits that accomplish flood control bat also address the impacts from
the lesser storm events.
L3-26 .... The EIR should identify the total amount of the system that is culvened/channdizcd
or otherwise precluded from natural function and compare what is proposed with the current
MDP update and current conditions. The EIR then needs to evaluate the impact of the full extent
of such changes on natural hydrology and wetlands function.
A description of each project component proposed in the DMP Update is provided in Tables 3-1
and 3-2 of the EIR.
Tables 3-1 and 3-2 appear to include a total of 17,885 feet of cnKertint/channelizatioa for
the PDLA projects and 1,290 for the noo-PDLA for a total of 19,175 linear feet or over 3.6
miles. The explanation has failed to identify how this massive Increase In hardscape has
minimized either wetlands impacts, or permeable cover. Even though a significant part of
these are within developed areas, many are areas with some existing biological functions
that will be essentially destroyed. At the hearing staff stated that the prior MDP reduced
the amount of creeks that were being cnrvtrted/channelized. However 19,175 feet remains
a substantial impact The MOP and FEIR failed to adequately consider the cumulative
Impacts of such significant changes to existing creeks and drainage channels.
L3-31 The EIR says that no beneficial uses are identified for Calaven Creek. This is not
correct.
Section 4.9.1.} of the EIR has been revised to identify the beneficial uses ofCalavera Creek.
PCa-7
PCa-8
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
PCa-7 See response to comment L3-23 in Appendix F of Final EIR, The City acknowledges that lesser-
degree storms have a potential for contributing to bank erosion and sediment transport. To
address these needs, the City is working with other co-permittees of the Municipal Stormwater
Permit (RWQCB Order No. R9-2007-001) to develop Stormwater hydromodification standards that
will be applied to future development beginning 2009. Until such a time as appropriate standards
are developed by the co-permittees and adopted by the RWQCB, the use of the 100-year storm
flow criteria is the most appropriate method for establishing planning-level project descriptions and
cost estimates needed for inclusion in the PLDA fee program.
Additionally, impacts caused by more frequent, but lesser degree flooding will be addressed
through operation and maintenance activities included and described in Section 3.3 and 3.4 of
Final EIR.
PCa-8 See response to comment L3-26 in Appendix F of Final EIR and response to comment PCa-2. To
clarify, approximately 16,000 linear feet (over 90%) of the proposed concrete encased drainage
facilities are proposed within existing developed areas where Stormwater flows currently drain
along improved roads and/or other impervious surfaces. The environmental impact of
undergrounding or channelizing such facilities will be negligible. The remaining 10%
(approximately 1,800 linear feet) of the proposed concrete encased facilities are located at future
road crossings, within areas programmed for extensive private developments and/or along the
NCTD railroad right-of-way. Thus, the majority of channelization referenced would occur in areas
currently or likely developed with non-permeable cover. In all cases, the final design and
construction of these facilities will require environmental review and must comply with al! City,
State and Federal regulatory requirements.
The FE1R w*i modified to correct tkii error by adding in the list of btnefld*) ases.
However, the point u not to juit list the beneficial ases- the intent b to analyze whether
litre are My adverse impacts to »> of tbe beneficial net from what It being proposed.
Tbe city has fsUed to demonstrate that any analyst* was done OB die effects of dredging
over 3,000 feet of this treek channel on tht beneficial uses of the creek- and the
downstream Lagoon which b a 303{d) listed impaired waterbody.
L-33 The condition oft creek bottom has a significant effect on the biological resource* of the
erect This project should not just return the creeks to then-current degraded condition-it should
restore them to a reasonable level of biological function. This should include providing some
variations in creek bottom to create riffles and poods and allow for natural variability of flow
conditions.
... .11 is anticipated that A* existing biological function of tin creeks will in restored following
implementation of tat project.
There is nothing IB the MDP, analysis of impacts, project description or evea project goals
that Indicates that the biologic*] function of the creek b evea IB bsue of concern. Toe EIR
process itqnlrei tint Impacts from the project art addressed. However given the degraded
condition of most of our creeks returning then to post project condition b SHU taflldeBL —
Wtthoit real actions to address the biological function, of the creeks the statement that
they will be restored b really just empty words.
L3-55 Alternatives analysis is a key dement in the CEQA process... The alternatives analysis in
the FEIR is insufficient u it does not include a feasible environmentally superior alternative to
the selected project at the program or project level. Feasible alternatives do exist therefor the
city must deny the project as currently proposed and revise the MDP.
Feasible alternatives at the program and project level include a relatively modest change hi land
use- with greater emphasis OB Low Impact Development and control of bydromodification.. A
modified version of Ahemati v« B from the Rick Engineering study could both substantially meet
objectives- and spue Calavera creek from such extensive dredging.
Refer to response to comment L3-51. Alternative Bfrom the Ritdi Engineering Study HUB
considered and rejected because U clearly did not meet the project goal to maximize to At extent
feasible tne mmber of lots that would receive 100-year flood protection.
The response to comment only discussed alternatives for tbe project level nod not tfae
program level components. There was an environmentally preferred alternative. Why has
tbe city chosen to move forward with tfae MDP when their own analysis shows it could be
done better? Fvrthermorc there u no diicnukw about whether an environmentally
preferred altemattve conld at least have been considered for the Coastal Zone.
L3-59 The DE1R assumed there arc no cumulative impacts to biological resources because there
is a regional conservation plan that protects the resources. A plan is a pile of paper. A plan
doesnt protect resources,
.. .because mitigation measures, are consistent oath the goals and policies of tin City's HUP
cumulative impacts would be considered less than significant after implementing mitigation.
PCa-9
PCa-10
PCa-11
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
PCa-9 See response to comment L3-31 in Appendix F of Final EIR. Although the Final EIR was revised
to list beneficial uses of Calavera Creek in response to previous comments by Preserve Calavera
(letter dated August 30, 2007), both program-level and project-level analyses of potential adverse
environmental impacts to these beneficial uses (and by association to Agua Hedionda Lagoon) are
discussed in Sections 4.1 (Land Use), 4.2 (Agricultural Resources), 4.7 (Recreation), 4.9
(Hydrology/Water Quality) and 4.10 (Biological Resources) of the Final EIR. The EIR concludes
that at the project-level (Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creek Dredge and Improvements project),
less than significant impacts will occur to land use, agricultural resources, recreation,
hydrology/water quality; and that specific mitigation measures are available which would
substantially lessen the environmental impacts of the project on biological resources to a level less
than significant.
PCa-10 See response to comment L3-33 in Appendix F of Final EIR. Additionally, all potential adverse
environmental impacts associated with the project have been disclosed in the Final EIR, and the
project will not be approved without appropriate mitigation measures to substantially lessen the
significant environmental effects of the project. Impacts to biological resources are discussed in
Section 4.10 of the Final EIR, and specific mitigation measures are identified that will substantially
lessen the environmental effects of the project on biological resources. Although improvements
and benefits to water quality and the biological functions of lagoons, creeks, streams, etc. are not
direct objectives of the DMP Update, the Update does reference indirect beneficial impacts to
overall water quality within the City's four drainage basins.
PCa-11 See response to comment L3-55 in Appendix F of Final EIR. Additionally, Section 7.0 of the Final
EIR evaluates five alternatives at the program-level and two alternatives at the project-level. Four
of the five program-level alternatives analyzed did not meet the objectives of the DMP Update.
Analysis of the remaining program-level alternative (Reduced Use of Impervious Materials
Alternative) concludes that the alternative is: 1) environmentally superior to the DMP Update as
proposed; 2) capable of meeting the objectives of the DMP Update; and, 3) feasible overall. Both
of the project-level alternatives were identified as feasible; however, they did not meet the project
objectives to provide 100-year flood protection to the maximum number of lots as feasible and
practicable.
The EIR acknowledges that the proposed DMP Update has already given careful consideration to
the development of the program-level facility descriptions to reduce environmental impacts to the
maximum extent possible. Being a program-level planning document, the DMP Update must
conservatively estimate project descriptions in order to develop an adequate and reasonable fee
program. Consistent with the requirements of the City's Stormwater Program, Habitat
Management Plan and Local Coastal Plan as discussed in the Final EIR, the City will pursue ways
to minimize environmental impacts by designing each proposed facility to reduce footprint impacts,
using impervious material alternatives when appropriate, and employing stormwater low impact
design methods.
PCa-12
It is BOW over 3 years since tbc city of Carlsbad adopted their BMP- yet the contract for
the land manager has yet to be executed, aad the regional funding source that ii essential to
met all of the conditions of the HMP has been delayed (or yean. The city cannot rdy on a
"plan" to address cnmulative impacts- they rouit fnDy be meeting aU of the conditUai of
theplaa. The eiry has not met all of the conditions of the HMP - specifically the city o»n«i
hardlne preserve land is not being managed as tlicrc is BO contract im place with a land
manager. Therefor the HMP dots not mitigate for the identified, significant cumulative
Impacts of thli project, or any other project that impact! sensitive habitat or the watershed.
L3-61 .. ..Recent estimates arc that ibe Aguz Hediooda watershed is already at 32% impervious
cover. (Tetratech presentation to AH WMF Stakeholders). Studies show i direct correlation
between the health of the watershed and the percentage of impervious cover. Watersheds with
10*4 or more impervious cover are already considered impaired. ...
...the DMP Update would not substantially increase the amount cfimptnious surfaces within
the cily (relative to ihe current 32K cover) and would sent to improve tin overaS flood and
storm voter conveyance In the city.
PCa-13Cumulative Impacts analysis is not concerned with just the direct project impacts- bat with
the impacts of the project aloag with an of the Mher projects thai are causing adverse
impacts. The problem It that there is nothing in place to assure that the watershed will not
be subject to further degradation and it is already impaired. Tht MDP doc« not even have
any goab that show this b cren a consideration in the project design.
13-65 Poor integration of wetlands mitigation. Because several related projects arc being
addressed independently, the wetlands impacts and mitigation arc also being addressed
Independently.... There is no evidence to support the conclusion that BMP's on new construction
alone are sufficient to prevent adverse cumulative impacts to hydrology and the adverse impacts
on the lagoon and coastal waters.
... see response to comment L3-6I regarding impervious cover...The questions regarding water
quality do not relate to tht EIR. The cumulative analysis has appropriately addressed the
potential impacts of other proposed projects.
This was not responsive to the comment which is poor integration of planning of wetland
mitigation. Failure to adequately coordinate planning for numerous projects - both ctty
wide, and in the Agua Hedionda/ Calavera creeks project area, fails n> address the
cumulative impacts to ail of the watersheds in this part of the CHI). The city needs to
develop better procedures to properly coordinate mitigation planting for anticipated
projects at • sub-watershed level- with clear preference for mitigating impact! within the
same sub- watershed and with some mitigation sites available within the Coastal Zone.
Project Level MDP Issues
Our priority concerns with the project level components are :
Direct and indirect impacts to wetland and buffers
PCa-14-
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
PCa-12 See response to comment L3-59 in Appendix F of Final EIR. The critical elements of the Habitat
Management Plan (HMP) necessary to ensure effective implementation of habitat mitigation are in
place. It is worth noting that the majority of the preserve lands in the City are located on privately-
owned property. Management of these lands is the responsibility of the property owners. As
required by the HMP, the City has hired a preserve steward to oversee and coordinate
management of the privately-owned and managed preserves. With respect to City-owned
preserve areas, the City has been working closely with the wildlife agencies to finalize a Preserve
Management Plan (PMP) that will prioritize management needs and specify actions for the City
lands. Once the PMP is approved, the City will then contract with a preserve manager to begin
the biological management and monitoring program for City-owned preserves. Finally, the lack of
a regional funding source to provide for management of certain lands (e.g., pre-HMP created open
space areas), does not impair the City's ability to carry out other habitat protection responsibilities
under the HMP, particularly the evaluation, impact avoidance and impact mitigation of new
development. It was agreed among the City, resource agencies and Coastal Commission that
implementation of the HMP could occur pending a resolution to the regional funding issue. The
City continues to cooperate with other jurisdictions and resource agency staff to satisfy the
remaining funding and implementation requirements of the HMP.
PCa-13 See response to comment PCa-4. Additionally, see response to comment L3-61 in Appendix F of
Final EIR; Section 5.1 of Final EIR. In accordance with CEQA the Final EIR document analyzes
all reasonably foreseeable cumulative impacts from existing and proposed projects. All
reasonably foreseeable projects (including proposed, approved and completed projects)
contributing to potential cumulative impacts will be subject to applicable stormwater
regulations/requirements.
The EIR concludes that construction of the DMP Update facilities would not substantially increase
imperviousness in the watershed and would have an indirect beneficial impact to overall water
quality within the City's four drainage basins. For these reasons the EIR found that the project's
cumulative impact on Hydrology and Water Quality is less than significant. Additionally, all
foreseeable projects within the DMP Update and City's watershed are subject to stormwater Low
Impact Development (LID) design standards pursuant to the City's Municipal Stormwater Permit
(RWQCB Order No. R9-2007-001). By 2009, all significant projects in the Carlsbad watershed will
be subject to new hydromodification standards designed specifically to address the changes in
ground surface imperviousness resulting from development activity.
PCa-14 See response to comment PCa-13. Additionally, see responses to comments L3-61 and L3-65 in
Appendix F of Final EIR. All potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the DMP
Update implementation have been disclosed in the Final EIR document and the DMP Update will
not be approved as proposed unless there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation
measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the
DMP Update implementation. Additionally, Section 5.0 of the EIR analyzes and evaluates all
reasonably foreseeable cumulative impacts from existing and proposed projects. Mitigation
measures that would reduce impacts on biological resources—including those that may occur in
wetland areas—to a level of less than significant have been integrated into a comprehensive
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15097. As
noted in the original response to this comment, improvements to water quality are not a direct
objective of the DMP Update, but rather an indirect benefit. Therefore, the questions raised
regarding integration of the DMP Update with wetlands mitigation planning do not relate to this
EIR.
Protection of viable wildlife movement
Insufficient mitigation measures to address all project impacts
Insufficient alternatives analysis
Lack of integration with CWN Watershed Management Plan and currently
underbuy Agua H«Jionda Watershed Management Pirn
L3-8 It w^ald appear th* the small area to be dredged west of El Camino Real «od south of
Cumon could be done by hand- eiimi ruling toe need lor storage «nd «n access road in this area.
This is of particular concern because most of the sensitive resources identified in (he biological
survey ( Appendix D- Recon bio survey Figure 4) are located west of H Camino Real so
minimizing impacts in this area is most important
...The amount of silt ami debris that hat accumulated linct the emergency dredge project is
estimated to be Ike same or more than what was previously dredged.
Tb« area of greatest Impact is la the Coast*) Zone and H will be subjected to on-going
impacb from planned future dredging. Such » hug* amount of tOt deposit IB the snort
tine period fine* th« imergcncy dredging is a dear Indication of •pstream proMems. The
MDP/FEIR doe» not Indicate any action to address tk* upstream problems. Of course the
flit nerds to be removed. B»t without addressing tbe root problem ttere will jn»t b« a
continuous cycle of dredging and contmnmg impacts to this area. This Is an example of
BOW Important it is to integrate die flood coatrol system with watershed planning. Failing
to do rhls will resuh la continuing cumulative impacts to this area - impacts that have aot
been adequately addressed to the MDP or FEIR.
U-* Please clarify exactly where tbe mitigation for die Phase I emergency dredging mitigation
for permanent impacts to .45 acres willow riparian and .03 acre* southern willow scrub is
located, plus the Phase II temporary mitigation for 3.06 acres WUS.
_..X conceptual mitigation plan lua been prepared. The dry is in the protest of coordinating
willi tlit resource agencies to identify a suitable offsile mitigation area.. Impacts to willtnt
riparian and southern willow scrub are considered permanent and will be mitigated by the
emergency dredge project in accordance with the permits issued by the resource agencies ....
It b now almost 2 year, sine* this sensitive habitat was destroyed by the emergency project.
Of course emergency projects require Immediate action- but that does not excuse the fact
that almost 2 years later this habitat has not been replaced and the plan has not even been
completed. If thb DMT were integrated with watershed planning there would be projects
pre-Ueotified am) ready to uc for exactly such circumstances. Tfcere needs to be a real
effort to pre-identlfy mitigation sites and have a time frame for replacement wbe» habitat
tt destroyed. The plants and wlldllff who depended on thb hablut could not wait that long
for action- U'l too tote for them.
U- 34 The wildlife agency comment letter on the project scope, Att item 4.e asked for a
discussion of possMe conflicts resulting from wildlife-human interactions at the interface
between the project sites and natural habitats
PCa-15
PC3-1 6
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
PCa-15 See response to comment L3-8 in Appendix F of Final EIR and responses to comments PCa-4
and PCa-11. The Final EIR found that the Dredge and Improvement Project would have beneficial
effects upon overall water quality, stormwater conveyance and flood control. One of the
impairments to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon is sedimentation. Removal of the sediments within the
channel prior to reaching the lagoon will help alleviate the lagoon impairment. It should be noted
that the stretch of Agua Hedionda Creek encompassed by the dredge project is a natural sediment
trap due to the flat gradient of the creek bed which results in a slowing of the creek flows leading
to the deposition of sediments. The specific origin of the sediment deposited at the project site is
unknown; however, the sediment is as likely and perhaps more likely to originate from
undeveloped open space areas and agricultural lands as from the more impervious areas of
developed property. Whether or not more effective watershed planning is put into place upstream
of the project does not alter the fact that whatever sediment remains in the stormwater flows will,
by virtue of the reduced channel gradient, be deposited at the project site. Additionally, impacts
associated with excessive accumulation of sediment will be precluded by operation and
maintenance activities described in Section 3.4.4 of the EIR and within the DMP Update itself.
PCa-16 See response to comment L3-9 in Appendix F of Final EIR. As an update to the original response,
the City mitigated for the permanent willow riparian impacts caused by the emergency dredge
project through purchase of .96 acres of wetland/riparian mitigation credits from the North County
Mitigation Bank. The City submitted its latest mitigation plan to the wildlife agencies for approval
on October 19, 2007, and is awaiting a response. The additional comments are noted.
... During project level environmental review for ipectfif DMP updates components impacts to
specific wildlife movements would be evaluated and specific mitigation •Mould be identified.
The proposed project work will impact» BdUfc movement- in an area already experiencing
a high rate of roidkill because of disruption In the wildlife movement corridor. (See Alt
Report by Karen Merril). Thfa condition will be exacerbated by further dredge activities
in tkc one part of the wildlife corridor that bai not already been cat off by the comln»ctk>n
• tbc actual creek corridor. During the bearing staff stated that the only sensitive species In
the project area are birdi therefor wildttfe movement was aot a concern. They also (tared
that tU) was reaOy jut a lack of understanding aboot the "level of significance" of the
impact- and It wa> detertnued that these impacts were Icti than significant Protecting the
movement corridors of terrestrial spedes, particularly the mesopredators, it key to
protecting the ecosystem. Impacti In this area are significant BOW- and could be
dramatically worse if they are not addressed. Further mitigation is required to protect
wildlife movement through this area- both during and post construction.
13-38 and 39 ... There it no explanation for the statements that there is no need to assess
presence of any rare plant species.... The surveys for Light-footed Clapper Rail, Least Bell's
virco and Southwestern willow flycatcher art all out of date. ...
.. the study area for Agua Hedionda anil Calavera creeps was surveyed in August
2005 Additionally rare plain species were not were aot detected within or along Agua
.Hcdionda Creek during the wetland delineation in 3002 (KECON 2002).
These survey* are 2 and I/I to 5 years old and wlS be even more obsolete by the dme work
is actually done. Standard protocol is to provide a survey within one year of the EIR issue
date- particularly when prior surveys have found endangered species present. The surveys
are out of date and should be updated as current information could effect mhigaUon.
Avoiding active nests alone (the only direct mitigation for these Impacts) is not sufficient
given the history of damage to this area and the fact that mitigation for the emergency
work still has not been done.
L3-4 V46 Bio 1 a defers description of program and project level mitigation until agency
permitting.
The requirement for a mitigation plan is only appropriate for project level components where
impact! are tnown....A mitigation plan is being prepared for the proposed Agua Hedionda and
Calavera creeks dredging ... and will be presented to the resource agenda at part of the permit
process.
Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks are project level components, therefor the mitigation
plan should have been included In order to meet public review requirements- both for the
mitigation plan and the BMP consistency determination. Failure to Include this violates
provisions of CEQA and the BMP.
L3-49/5I Alternative B in the Rick Engineering report was rejected as 33 lots were still subject
to flooding. Similarly, the 2:1 Side Slope Alternative was rejected because 26 tots were subject
K> flooding -yet the selected alternative has 9 lots subject to flooding. What is the threshold for
PCa-17
PCa-18
PCa-19
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
PCa-17 See response to comment L3-34 in Appendix F of Final EIR. See also Section 4.10.2 of Final EIR
which establishes thresholds of significance pertaining to impacts on biological resources. As
stated, potentially significant impacts would occur to biological resources if implementation of the
proposed DMP Update would, "interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the
use of native wildlife nursery sites." Furthermore, Section 4.10.5.3 of the Final EIR identifies that
implementation of mitigation measures Bio-5 through Bio-7e would reduce significant and
cumulative impacts at the project-level to a level below significance.
As a point of information, recent grading of the Robertson Ranch project resulted in the completion
of a wildlife corridor between the Calavera Hills area and El Camino Real. This corridor is located
across Cannon Road from Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks and across El Camino Real from
the Agua Hedionda Creek floodplain. Culverts under Cannon Road and El Camino Real provide
wildlife connections to the creeks and the floodplain from the corridor. With dredging and
improvements proposed to occur to Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks no earlier than fall 2009,
the Robertson Ranch wildlife corridor may provide another route for animals.
PCa-18 See response to comments L3-38 and L3-39 in Appendix F of Final EIR. The comment refers to
separate studies prepared for evaluation of biological resources within the area of influence for the
project. These studies include a Rare Plant Survey (conducted August 2005); a Focused Survey
for the Least Bell's Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (conducted May-July 2005); and a
Focused Field Survey for the Light-footed Clapper Rail (conducted February-March 2006). None
of these studies is more than three (3) years old. Additionally no sensitive/rare plant species or
any of the above-referenced avian species were identified as a result of the aforementioned
studies. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-7a through 7e (as discussed within
Section 4.10.5.3 of the Final EIR) will ensure that potential impacts to biological resources are
reduced to a level of less than significant. Such mitigation measures include the requirements for
additional surveys within and surrounding the project area prior to commencement of construction
activities.
PCa-19 See responses to comments L3-45, L3-46, and F1-2 in Appendix F of Final EIR. See also
Mitigation Measures Bio-2b on Page 4.10-75 and Mitigation Measure Bio-5 on Page 4.10.76 of
Final EIR, which further assures HMP consistency (beyond that incorporated into the project
design) in coordination with the appropriate resource agencies. The Agua Hedionda and Calavera
Creek Dredge and Improvement Project, as mitigated through the aforementioned biological
resources mitigation measures, will be consistent with CEQA and mitigation will ensure that
environmental impacts will be less than significant.
acceptability? Dredging of Calavera creek could be avoided while impacting only 15 more lots
than the selected alternative- most of the direct biological resource impacts would be avoided .
... The primary objective of the dredging and improvements to Agua Hedionda and Calavera
creeb is to provide 100-year flood protection to the maximum number of loa feasible and
practicable. J» this caie, all but 9 lots Kvuld receive protection from a 100-year flood event.
Tbt errata distributed at the Planning Commission bearing changed this to
"approximately" 9 tots, ID addition, testimony by staff made It clear that IB all but one
case "flooding" meant part of a lot was wet for a limited period of time not the actual
homes. The response falls to provide any explanation for bow it was determined that still
flooding parts of 9 lots meets the criteria- and that protecting all but "approximately'' 9
lots is tile maxlmnm level practicable and feasible. The ACOE 404 permit requires
justification for the least damaging practicable alternative. The FEIR has failed to provide
any justification for the conclusion that what is proposed represents a reasonable trade-off
between minimal flooding and damaging the biological function of the creek. Waal Is the
LEDPA? Since part of this proposed dredging Is m the Coastal Zone there should be
further discussion that justifies the impacts to coastal resources.
Section II HMP Consistency
The proposed MDP is not fully consistent with the HMP and the analysis of consistency was
inadequate in the FEIR and staff report. Either the project needs to be revised, project
conditions need to be added, or a minor amendment to the HMP needs to be processed to address
the areas of inconsistency. Furthermore, the LCP has already been amended to incorporate
provisions of the HMP, and to add more specific requirements in the Coastal Zone. This lack of
consistency could therefor cause even greater impacts in the Coastal Zone.
The following are four specific areas where the project is not consistent with the HMP:
PCa-20
1. Spcci fie mitigation for the identified wetlands impacts is not provided. In the absence of
such information it is impossible to determine if the requirements for no net loss have been
met Furthermore, it is stated throughout the FEIR and staff rcpott that mitigation for the
impacts from the emergency dredging project of 2006 have yet to be implemented. There is
already a net loss of wetlands function in the project area- a condition that will be
exacerbated by the additional impacts from the proposed project
2. There is no discussion of protection of wildlife movement in spite of this area having been
identified as a problem area for wildlife movement. The HMP includes specific provisions
to protect wildlife movement but these have been ignored in project design and conditions.
There is a requirement for a project biologist- to mark project boundaries, and assure no
impacts to nesting species. But this biologist is not tasked with assuring that wildlife
movement is not disrupted. This is of particular concern with the Agua Hedionda and
Calavera Creek dredging project. This is the area of highest roadkill and it is right on the
border of the Coastal Zone, at El Camino Real and Cannon Rds.
3. L3-42 states the project is consistent with the provisions of the HMP sections F.2.A
restoration and revegetation and F.3.C landscaping. However the mitigation measures do not
PCa-21
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
PCa-20 See responses to comments L3-49 and L3-51 in Appendix F of Final EIR.
The commenter raises a question as to how the City determined that the proposed project that
protects up to 279 lots from a 100-year storm event (thus leaving 9 lots remaining without flood
protection) meets the stated objective of providing maximum feasible 100-year flood protection.
Dating back to 1996, the City became aware of the potential flood hazard when the residents of
the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park community presented a park conversion plan for
resident-ownership of the park. It was discovered that approximately 288 of the 504 unit sites
would be subject to flooding. The City Council agreed to acquire the drainage channels and take
actions to reduce flood exposure to the park. Over the ensuing years the City conducted a number
of technical studies that resulted in the design of several of drainage facilities including the Agua
Hedionda and Calavera Creek Dredge project. As individual flood control elements were
constructed, hydrology studies were updated.
Taking into consideration site conditions, basin size, design issues, project cost and environmental
constraints, Engineering Department staff concluded that the maximum feasible number of unit
sites that could be removed from the 100-year flood zone to be between 276 and 279. It was
determined that the cost of upsizing facilities and the resulting environmental impacts were
infeasible and impracticable; and outweighed the benefits of completely removing the remaining 9
to 12 lots from the flood zone. With the proposed project, City engineers estimate that the floor
elevations of the units on eight of the nine lots would be sufficiently above the post-project flood
level to qualify for some type of flood protection certification.
The Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creek Dredge and Improvement Project meets the objective of
the DMP Update to provide 100-year flood protection to the maximum number of lots as feasible
and practicable and would leave approximately 9 lots within the Rancho Carlsbad community
subject to 100-year flood. The project meets this goal better than the no project alternative or
other alternatives analyzed in the Final EIR. The alternatives do not meet the project objectives
given that they would result in 26 and 210 lots remaining without 100-year flood protection.
PCa-21 See responses to comments PCa-14 and PCa-19, as well as response to comment L3-43
in Appendix F of Final EIR.
See response to comment PCa-17 and response to comment L3-34, L3-40, and L3-41 in
Appendix F of Final EIR. Also, Table 3-6 of the Final EIR lists a number of project design
features, methods, and construction measures with which Drainage Master Plan
components must incorporate as applicable. Among other things, the Table lists various
provisions of the Habitat Management Plan and, for projects within or adjacent to an HMP
Hardline Preserve area, the Table specifies that a qualified project biologist shall be made
available for both the preconstruction and construction phases to review plans, address
protection of sensitive biological resources, and monitor ongoing work.
The comment refers to previous comment/response L3-43 (not L3-42) in Appendix F of
Final EIR. As stated in L3-43, all DMP Update projects would be designed to be
consistent with the restoration, revegetation, and landscaping policies of the HMP. Since
the DMP Update, as designed, is consistent with the HMP, mitigation measures are not
necessary to ensure HMP consistency. See Table 3-6 for a description of the project's
consistency requirements with the HMP.
See response to comment PCa-10.
require this. Without project conditions to require this there is no assurance that these provisions
will be met
4. The proposed mitigation measures do not fully address all of the potential edge effects of
development- in spite of the project area being adjacent to state of CA preserve land, on the west
and city of Carlsbad HMP preserve land on the east
Section III LCP Amendment
In addition to concerns about public notification, we object to the proposed LCP amendment for
die following reasons as discussed above:
1 . The project as proposed is not consistent with the HMP as discussed in Section tl .
2. The MDP and FEIR is inadequate as discussed in Section 1 .
3. The LCP discusses methods to protect water quality- an item that was specifically removed
from the MDP Update.
4. The project as proposed could have significant adverse cumulative impacts on coastal
resources. The MDP includes proposed cul verting of 19,175 linear feet or over 3.6 miles of
natural and disturbed wetlands. There is essentially no discussion of avoidance or
minimization measures.
5. Discrepancies in the hardline preserve description between the HMP and the proposed
project have not been adequately explained
Recommendation!
We believe these comments fully support oar recommendation to:
1 . Make a real commitment to integrate plans for flood control with comprehensive watershed
planning - including water quality and habitat conservation. Include language that says the
plans are all intended to be consistent and establish a process for resolving any
inconsistencies that might later be identified. Require that future projects are integrated with
the recommendations of the Agua Hcdionda Watershed Management Plan and any future
plans for watersheds mat extend into Carlsbad. .
2. Add a project condition that requires establishing guidelines for when a creek can be
culverted or a natural creek channel can be lined with concrete.
3. Provide the full project level Mitigation Plan for the Agua Hcdionda and Calavera creek
dredging project for public review and comment
4. Integrate planning for wetlands mitigation for the prior emergency dredging project, the
current project, and any others that might be anticipated in the project area to assure the best
outcome for the watershed. This is especially critical for projects like this wher the direct
impacts extend into the Coastal Zone.
5. Add a mitigation measure to address the wildlife movement corridor issues in the project area
that will only be made worse by this project.
6. Require the city to have the HMP required habitat land manager contract signed and in place
before allowing any further coastal development permits, or any further loss of wetland
habitat anywhere in the city
PCa-22
PCa-23
each of the MHCP edge effect conditions will be addressed.
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
PCa-22
PCa-23
1. See responses to comments PCa-7, PCa-10, PCa-14, and PCa-19. See also responses
to comments L3-34, L3-40, L3-41 and L3-43.
2. See responses to comments PCa-4 through PCa-20.
3. See response to comment L3-21 in Appendix F of Final EIR and response to comment
PCa-6. See also responses to comments L3-21 and L3-24. As previously noted, the
purpose of the DMP Update is to provide adequate storm water conveyance throughout
the City. Water quality protection is not a direct objective of this project, but is an indirect
benefit. Just as the City's LCP Land Use Plan contains policies to protect water quality,
so too does it contain policies requiring protection of coastal resources from flood hazards
through installation of storm drainage facilities. Implementation of water quality policies is
carried out through the City's Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Plan (JURMP),
Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), Watershed Urban Runoff
Management Plan (WURMP), and Grading and Stormwater Ordinances. Implementation
of the LCP flood control policies is carried out through the projects identified in the
Drainage Master Plan. The two sets of policies are harmonized by requiring that
individual projects are designed to be consistent with adopted ordinances and Stormwater
management plans, and that appropriate mitigation measures and design measures as
identified in the Final EIR are carried out.
4. See responses to comments PCa-8 and PCa1 1 .
5. See responses to comments L3-17 and L3-59 in Appendix F of Final EIR and response to
comment PCa-12. Regardless of whether portions of the Agua Hedionda and Calavera
Creeks Dredge and Improvements Project is located within the Hardline Preserve Area,
adequate mitigation measures (Bio-2b, Bio-5 and Bio-6) and design measures (Final EIR
Table 3-6) are provided to ensure that potential impacts will be reduced to a level below
significance.
This comment refers to updates to the City's Local Coastal Plan (LCP) and the Zoning Ordinance,
which implements the LCP, and not the adequacy of the EIR. The City has prepared draft
modifications to these documents presented at the January 16, 2008 Planning Commission
meeting. At that meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously approved Resolutions 6377 and
6378 recommending approval of modifications to the LCP, which would reference the DMP
Update.
Comment noted. See responses to comments PCa-5, PCa-6, PCa-12, PCa-13, PCa-14, PCa-17,
PCa-19 and PCa-22, as well as responses to comments referenced therein.
We urge you to adopt these recommendations and assure that this project does what it is intended
to- but doesnt cause unintended damage to our coastal resources or the upper watershed through
piecemeal planning.
Sincerely,
Diane Nygaard
On Behalf or Preserve Calaven
Cc: David Mayer CDFG, David Zoutendyk USFWS, Mike Porte RWQCB , Toni Ross CCC
AH - Report by Karen Merrill. Vtana Dnuaite Fta *P J" OH
NowmbCT 19, 2007
RE: Review of Report oa Road-4afl « H Ctrnxsa Real and Cum Road
This leUW is in response to Ifae Read-tan report by Mctiari Booker , biologica] monitoc fa the Robertson RarRb EMI
Village Project We vuitcd Ifac area fcr • look at tie mnJiuu«» calM oM ia Ibc report. We inspected > much larger
•jet than ikown M Ftiwe I *4ud> is Hfcety w*y ire came lo i*«hl]y dUfcra* cccclutxxu
The bwk question arc :
I .Why tn we Kcn| •> ncrane i» rwAdl at El Omao RalCHinoat
2. ISIbecoiwnictkHlaiiMaa^i^dieiUicwttoalUaKa
nrci?
3, Wh« correcliw acuoc • needed ?
The following ducima cacti of dj«e &ne c-KHioru,
1. Why are w« lerbic M iHcnut to r**** u D CM** RniCanaK?
Iiiipoisft>]elb>l11iiai>j>a»K«{X>c>ryteaiOBal>Kre*K- Htuwcwi, conaioctKB U occumog urouruincously
tlong College, Caoooa, «nd H CmiK> Real- «U «l leotma mociMfd «nd> exiawg ttd »ew »ildlifc
uixiercrcwunp. White 00 sx^le of &e% anas wooid be expected to c0BeaGhK3caKmro«didU(tiiey*til3 have
qvil« a iew alternate routes possible} , it seeoas msouble tbvt die corobinttioa of caafttvcfion akx^ icad«a^'5 at
the lime of aonoii] scsuonal dupcnwa 8 a ftdor.
•> l
area?
Our asscssmea is tb»t
wildlife moving eastfwes rmme&Mery «wi rf Gaum rod ace MXcSccJcd by Ike RR coastnictkm
They likely are followrag A^na HedkMda Creek, are oft of the coaatndkB zone aai crow UKfcr El Camino Reil at
Ihe under»ossiag at flic creei be samr ax wm oone prior lo Ibe comracfioo
wildlife moving CIU'MTM bzmedusdy «TSI of Caneoa Rn«d haw had fear wraal raovemoH patiena
diarapled
This disruption bat occurred a> ae«nl Kagm cncr tine , pnbaMy >taiftia( Ibaa fanfaer to Ike wen* oonhwci: after
crowing CoUege. Ttctc amiaiA angfal Wve been fc*V>moi Calannm Creek. Tkc cyjwcrtod crcdc » no lontict
tunelkmil for wiWIifc wwoxtiL The orck near the cnhcn it btmt "*°^ •* * buna* UHint and hai numcrout
pile* of fresh and tuttorK human 6xa aad >o«k< papa. Tku alooc would muk ia wMKfe avoMiaf Uiu traa ( il
ian made to leaw quickly). The roodn»y ire* ii« rcoa^iiy p*raaVl> Ae onfua) oraek aKgameid it aowMocltcd
byj-bar. T^ n^ umknrouin( of CoSc^ a<v die crock vill evcntoaJl; help- biit rcowm a oocimicUo^
Ibc KUthera tide- and fcu no feaciaf in place on iiMhtr tide » direct wildUfe laoveatM my from ffa« road «nd to
the wildlife ttadercroMnf. Toorc ma cojnai uf v *xH*> "°e» of *e «e* widUfe ««>dc«fO«wj «l College Blvd.
The movement pMtem ra« Amajk die pcoervcd hrtim vcat of *c pro>«< fcoVral lo H Camino Real wiicrc they
are croajiiig m jrade level. (We *d KM aee evideace of wikdrJc raove»x3X ak»jCa«»iiio»dbcn«ie«lhej-b*r«ijid
new boundary waB- but Baddog coodtaom »«re poor.)
The delcrminaikn dai aaiaMla ttt wi»« the ramM Road box cvhntt (Kepon Ft(«n< 4 & 5) from the Aqua
Hedioada Creei corridor lo reach *c area NVk' ofCa«ai» and N ofH C^araoo Real biocomict The culveru (tee
Pl»to»PCl)»r»)*eJiio»i4mofreoM»iWl^p«Hi»*lhro^kOaec/«W«a«
used by bnran. Mcrvemeal ben lac oeek corridcr » Mocked by *e old flood waB at Raneko Oriibad and a
fenced off Cfwmag (see Paoto JTFC2). Tkere ii a tanall cut n tat feocbuj bul »M coocWrw? » wildlife ptiiing
.12
through because if tbcy m in ihe creek corridor already toty mold condone under O CaxoiDo Real following the
CTKk.
- ndldlircroDvii«ea«Hi^ farther aonl^ IB? 10 devek^
potential movaaciH paaeaa through d» area- ho they «re KX curreariy mine *» exi»»ing underpaid oTEl
CaraiaoRnl
Tbe home II (he W(h pom) of tkb area probtWy kimnkalfr divided witdti/c oxiviacM into two routct around ii.
The one to (tie cart i> DOW fully graded vMb rormkBr K covet for tcvcral kindred feet sad lot* of b»\7
equipment But tbc p«th « tbc wat u nil) BMoral IvtMtt >fi Ac <ny t^ito B CunilK) Rc^.
The culven in El Cwniao R<*l (Rcpoo Fijorc 6) tbowi M(a of KM! mtrnmri <uc oo!y. Coyote «vgn it evtient
Bloni lhc foolp»l)» on Ihe N <tde of El Camiao RcW- Cn»iB| M fndc *ppem to be die prefaird roovctncnl
pailcm.
3, What corrective tciKB a seeded •?
With the otpeniag of Cannon M, Act iottntelk* te> «te« kmmcd bmffic vokioe *kich it likely coMritatiog lo
the inorcBue in road-kill m lfa» area. Tte b > new ccaddm I»«t wfll cxnamot to be • proMen far wildlife
tnovtroeM-
WiWILft Movement Rccoamiendaion
Wildlife Creasing signije should be kBtsHed *)or« OE faetxn of Cwmft'El Camtoo Seal » «fcn driven aad —
icthicE wildlife n>c«i]«y.
We tyve lbo« o a »eed for fcocm^ along 4e *e«h side of B Caniao Real la tumd myvismm ftoxmglilhe
HI feting currat. It is warned (coald KX velift) tfcts ahat exits beyond d>c aastuc tiain link fcBCiag across
El Cacnin^ Real UocA saca lime as leccnaiamded feaoog n '^^'^^^ &e exuxiag di&i&liBk feactog (CDF&G)
on the £4utfa side of £1 Ciamx? Kcal ban viidBfe fexa •"^^•^ Ac i^arae «rca and ^teir natvra} movement
corridor. Modifcatic* » allow access foe vriUSSc nffl be ctcaaaj is the
-The new wildlife ttadcrcrotisiiig on Co&cge Blvd. sbotdd hive fr*>^^ »•"'••'•'< in borjb »dK of Ihe road lo
facilitate croMmg bdo» tmJc.
Otbef Observacioac
-Installed irrigation dvwtukipe Cofcy; Blvd-* a voy w« w«h a lot of no* nali i ej growing Ihcrc-
-Dy detention qrilrway off College Bind- oW uh feacc a Bill thot feu down. It irritation Hoc Hill in plan here?
Tamarisk growing in detention area.
-Crock channel- the concrete cbarac* Itm nan aodcr CoVegc ID Ike crock- Oc <na-joc« aod nliural arc* dowmlope
from Cottcf e Blvd w Ml of tarn* fees*. Tha noedi to be mored. U « proMr? fcon die woflten ai Ibe adjacent
ijriculture lite.
We apimciate die pfornpl nafocae to our concern oilk incKatcd road kill in ihu viciwljr and hope for remcdul
aciiom in the near future to protect fee wikihfc mowmea conidor.
Karen Merrill
Preserve Calavcra Tracking Team
Photo* PCI-3 boi advent iimfc* Cmmo M, lookH«
- old flood mg *ni law « R»nAt> CxWwi /«•
*en>« (CM) from tt» 3 ban cutvat amkr Omaa R4.
ORIG
Agua Hedionda Lagoon
Foundation
Batiquttos Lagoon Foundation
Buana Vista LagoonFoundation
Canyons Network
Cottonwool Creek
Conservancy
The Escondtdo Creek
Conservancy
Resources Con&ervaBon
District of Greater San .Diego.
County
Preserve Calavera
San Elijo Lagoon
Conservancy
Comment Letter CWNa
am
Mayor and City Council
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Dr
Carlsbad, CA 92008
January 24,2008
Re: Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan Update, Final Environmental
Impact Report, and Local Coastal Program Amendment
Dear Mayor and City Council:
This letter is written on behalf of the Carlsbad Watershed Network
(CWN). CWN is a coalition of organizations whose goal is To protect,
restore and enhance the quality and beneficial uses of water, habitats,
and other natural resources of the watersheds of the Carlsbad
Hydrologic Unit (CHU) and the adjacent coastal shoreline." The
Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit comprises seven watersheds of coastal
north San Diego County watercourses -including all of the streams
and lagoons in the city of Carlsbad.
We submitted a letter addressing the January 16,2008 hearing of
the Carlsbad Planning Commission, during which the Carlsbad
Drainage Master Plan (DMP) Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR) was approved by the Commission. In that letter, we
expressed our disappointment that staff had acted counter to our
recommendations of August 2007 that the Plan be amended to:
Improve integration with the currently underway Agua Hediona
Watershed Management Plan; improve integration with theCarlsbad Watershed Management Plan; and place more emphasis
on the water quality objectives of the plan. In fact, it was stated by
staff that because other plans were being developed within the city
that integration was not necessary. We continue to believe that
this is not in the best interests of the public or the city's natural
resources.
We do appreciate that some Planning Commissioners requested more
information from staff on the other watershed planning efforts in the
City and the advantages to be gained from holistic planning of flood
control projects.
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
Comment
Reference
CWNa-1
CWNa-2
- y- ~^*, \ „' 4 " '; - ~ ~"~ ~ ' 3*-' £%fe Kf 5jSy^ *"~ • ~ ~* *-*"$"",& r * ' * -~~*-"3Tf*\f &->'•• 'T~»- Response to.Comhiehf;" TSS&-35aT* *-*"*^ * '•'__ •*• .»/'-»- ,t -,', i- , ,, Wt.^s-tWCW6S*j!v' **• *-" ^V-*f«- -,;x-.*~
The Planning Commission action was to recommended City Council's certification of the Final EIR,
and to recommend City Council's approval of the Zoning Code Amendment and Local Coastal
Plan Amendment. It does not have approval authority of these actions.
See response to comment PCa-6. See also responses to comments L3-21 and L4-2 in Appendix
F of Final EIR. Additionally, it should be noted that a draft of the Agua Hedionda Watershed
Management Plan was released in July 2008, significantly after the preparation of the proposed
Drainage Master Plan.
CWNa-1
CWNa-2
Mission: To protect, restore, end enhance the quality and beneficial uses of water, habitats, and other
natural resources of the watersheds of the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit and the adjacent coastal shoreline.
www.cartebadwatershednetwofV.org
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
We were, however, extremely disappointed to learn following that hearing that the city of
Carlsbad processed a Coastal Development Project (CDP) for dredging the Agua
Hedionda and Calavera Creeks immediately following the PC hearing, based on the FEIR
approval, but during the open public comment on the issue, due to close on January 24,
2008. This would appear to be a sign that public input is neither desirable nor taken
seriously by the City.
The City of Carlsbad adopted a Local Coastal Program (LCP) in 1996, which applies to
the approximately 9,700 acres (39 percent) of the city within the Coastal Zone. In many
areas, El Camino Real delineates the eastern boundary of the Coastal Zone. In other
cases, the Coastal Zone extends further inland, such as in the case of the Agua Hedionda
and Calavera Creeks within the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile home park.
The City of Carlsbad's Drainage Master Plan Update includes at least 27 projects that are
located within the Coastal Zone. These activities may be subject to a Coastal
Development Permit requirement (CDP). Since Carlsbad has an approved LCP, the City
acts as the local permitting authority for the issuance of CDPs for projects located within
its Coastal Zone, except within areas of deferred certification where the state retains
permitting authority. For example, Agua Hedionda Lagoon lies outside of Carlsbad's
permitting authority, and projects adjacent to the lagoon would require a CDP from the
California Coastal Commission (CCC).
Other projects are likely to have direct or indirect impacts upon resources within the
Coastal Zone, and may therefore be within the purview of the CCC to review for
compliance with the LCP in the case of an appeal. In addition, the Local Coastal
Program for the city of Carlsbad needs to be updated to reflect the DMP projects as well
as changes in the language of the LCP to accurately reference the update (largely the
substitution of the words "City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan" for "Carlsbad master
drainage plan").
Finally, the LCP does not now accurately reflect the current regulations regarding
storm water, since it requires only that "All development must include mitigation
measures for the control of urban runoff flow rates and velocities, urban pollutants,
erosion and sedimentation in accordance with: (l) the requirements of the city's grading
ordinance, storm water ordinance, SUSMP, and the "master drainage plan dated 1994"
as those plans are certified as part of the city's LCP; (2) the city's jurisdictional urban
runoff management program (JURMP) and the San Diego County Hydrology Manual...";
and (3) the additional requirements contained herein." (Section 9)
We strongly suggest that the more current requirements for compliance with the North
County Co-permittees Watershed Urban Runoff Management Program (WURMP) now
be incorporated into the LCP.
It is understood that the Carlsbad DMP has been developed to address the build-out
state anticipated within the city of Carlsbad, as described by the current General Plan.
However, the circumstances on the ground continue to change, and especially relevant
have been the changes mandated by the SD Regional Water Quality control Board with
regard to the handling and discharge of stormwater. The most recent NPDES permit
requires that the north county coastal cities collaborate to implement the Watershed
Urban Runoff Plans for each watershed. The DMP does not appear to comply with these
requirements for watershed-based planning. In fact, this drainage master plan should be
developed to implement the infrastructure needs of the overall stormwater plan. Thus,
www.carisbadwater8hednetwofX.org
Page 2 of 5
CWNa-3
CWNa-4
CWNa-5
CWNa-6
CWNa-7
CWNa-8
CWNa-9
CWNa-3
CWNa-4
CWNa-5
CWNa-6
CWNa-7
CWNa-8
CWNa-9
Comment noted. Final design of DMP Update facility components are subject to all applicable City
policy and regulatory documents including the General Plan, Habitat Management Plan, Local
Coastal Program, City Standards, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State and
Federal permitting requirements. See also response to comment PCb-1. To clarify, Planning
Commission action at the January 16, 2008 meeting consisted of the following:
• A recommendation that City Council: certify the Final EIR; adopt the Candidate Findings of
Fact; and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
• A recommendation that City Council approve the Zone Code Amendment, Local Coastal
Plan Amendment; and
• Planning Commission approval of the Coastal Development Permit, Special Use Permit
and Habitat Management Plan Permit.
Secondly, the Planning Commission's approval of the Coastal Development Permit (CDP 04-41)
for the dredging of Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks was not subject to approval of the Local
Coastal Program Amendment, the proposal for which the referenced public comment was sought.
This is because the dredging of the creeks is a component of the current Master Drainage and
Storm Water Quality Management Plan adopted in 1994 and referenced in the current Local
Coastal Program. .
Comment noted. It should be noted that the Coastal Zone does not encompass Agua Hedionda
and Calavera Creeks within the Rancho Carlsbad community; instead El Camino Real marks the
boundary of the Coastal Zone.
Comment noted. Table 3-7 of the Final EIR notes the need for Coastal Development Permits
within the Coastal Zone and existence of deferred certification and other specific areas where the
Coastal Commission retains permit authority.
Comment noted. This comment refers to updates to the City's LCP and Zoning Ordinance, and
not the adequacy of the EIR. The City has prepared draft modifications to these documents
presented at the January 16, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, the Planning
Commission unanimously approved Resolutions 6377 and 6378 recommending approval of
modifications to the LCP and Zoning Ordinance, which would appropriately reference the DMP
Update.
See response to comment CWNa-6.
See response to comment L3-21 in Appendix F of Final EIR and response to comment PCa-6.
See responses to comments PCa-4 and PCa-6. See also response to comment L3-21 in
Appendix F of Final EIR.
the drainage plan would be one component of a stormwater plan that could also include
upstream source controls, low-impact development methods, reduced impervious
surfaces, daylighting of creeks to improve their water quality and flow characteristics,
and the use of floodplains for water retention, energy dissipation, watertable recharge,
and non-infrastructure recreational or conservation purposes.
The limited approach of the DMP seems to be leading to a plan that may create more
harm and/or fail to take advantage of possible beneficial alternatives to traditional
infrastructure development. This general concern is stated here because, clearly, the
results of any short-comings of this plan will be focused on the coastal zone.
The DMP FEIR as a whole suffers from vagueness and the use of boilerplate language to
justify why there is no mitigation necessary (because impacts are not 'significant"), the
threshold for "significance" of impacts, and planned mitigation when there is a need.
Generally speaking there are references to standards in the City's Habitat Management
Plan and Local Coastal Program that are used to justify the assessment that impacts will
be mitigated below a level of significance. However, there are no details to support this
contention. And in fact, for the two projects that are detailed [the Calavera Creek and
Agua Hedionda Creek dredging) there is'no mitigation plan in place. Furthermore,
impacts that have already been created through the emergency permit (February 2006)
to dredge these creeks two years ago still do not have compensatory mitigation
established.
The descriptions of the construction of infrastructure projects themselves, on the other
hand, are generally detailed to the point where they might not realistically be
implemented in the future as currently planned.
AH/Calavera Creek Dredging project „
This project should have had its own EIR, since the vagueness inherent in the Program
level EIR is not appropriate for these defined projects. While the reader is assured that
there will be adequate mitigation provided to reduce all impacts below a level of
significance, it is difficult to see howthat will actually occur: merely replacing riparian
vegetation elsewhere will not do much to reduce the impacts of increased flow into the
Agua Hedionda lagoon. Neither will it compensate for the loss of wildlife corridor
habitat. This area is designated Link B in the HMP, an area designated as required for
connecting Core habitats 4 (AH Lagoon) and 5 (Lake Calavera). The mitigation for loss
of this connectivity both during construction and subsequently is completely inadequate.
The city of Carlsbad obtained an emergency permit and carried out the work to dredge
the Agua Hedionda Creek within the Rancho Carlsbad community almost two years ago.
Mitigation for that project does not appear to have been carried out to date. Note that
sensitive species habitat in the coastal zone is to be mitigated at a ratio of 4:1. This is not
made clear in the FEIR. We strongly urge that in-kind mitigation for that project be
carried out within the sub-basin and as dose as possible to the immediate vicinity of this
location as soon as possible, and that the resulting habitat restoration or other measures
to provide wildlife habitat connectivity be analyzed and evaluated as a success prior to
permitting the next phase of this project.
We strongly urge that any compensatory mitigation be carried out in such a way as to
restore the ecosystem functions lost in the sub-basin where the impact occurs, or at least
in the same watershed. We object to mitigation funds being paid to obtain credit in the
North County Mitigation Bank, which is outside the city of Carlsbad. There is also no
www.carisbadwat9rshednetworfc.org
Pago 3 of 5
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
CWNa-10
CWNa-11
CWNa-12
CWNa-13
CWNa-14
CWNa-10
CWNa-11
CWNa-12
CWNa-13
CWNa-14
Comment noted.
See response to comment PCa-6 for response to comments on water quality issues. See
responses to comments L3-9, L3-21, L3-35, L3-37 and L3-42 in Appendix F of Final EIR and
response to comment PCa-16 for information on mitigation of impacts associated with acquisition
of offsite habitat/credits for mitigation purposes and mitigation associated with the 2006
emergency dredge project. See also responses to comments PCa-12; as well as, L3-47 and L3-
59 in Appendix F of Final EIR for consistency with (and mitigation of impacts) related to
implementation of the HMP.
Contrary to the comment that the EIR fails to recognize mitigation measures because there are no
significant impacts identified, the EIR analyzes effects of the DMP Update at the program and
project level on a range of environmental issues. It discusses environmental impacts that are not
found to be significant according to specific criteria, and where potential significant impacts have
been identified, the EIR prescribes implementation of mitigation measures to reduce impacts
below a level of significance.
See responses to comments PCa-2 and PCa-3. As stated, the DMP Update is primarily a
planning-level document utilized to evaluate funding for reasonably foreseeable projects. Except
for the two projects receiving project level review in this FEIR, the proposed facility type and sizing
of project components described in Table 3-1 are representative of current/general facility needs
and are used to develop planning level project cost estimates for inclusion in the PLDA fee
program.
See response to comment PCa-16 and responses to comments L3-9, L3-35, L3-37 and L3-42 in
Appendix F of Final EIR for information on mitigation of impacts associated with acquisition of
offsite habitat/credits and mitigation associated with the 2006 emergency dredge project.
Mitigation standards for impacts to environmentally-sensitive habits in the Coastal Zone, including
the 4:1 mitigation ratio cited in the comment, are addressed in Section D-7 of the Habitat
Management Plan. Mitigation measure Bio-2a for the Agua Hedionda/Calavera Creeks Dredge
and Improvement project specifically references these Coastal Zone mitigation standards.
See response to comment L3-42 in Appendix F of Final EIR. The North County Mitigation Bank is
located in the City of Carlsbad east of Costco and along the south side of Palomar Airport Road.
While the comment that there is no "mitigation bank" established at Lake Calavera is technically
correct, the property nevertheless functions as such. Since adoption of the HMP, the City and
wildlife agencies agreed that a formal banking agreement would be unnecessary as only City
projects would be able to use the property for mitigation on an as-needed basis. Municipal
projects that impact upland habitats may use credits at Lake Calavera on an acre-for-acre basis.
Acknowledging that the City is permitted to use the property for mitigation without it being a formal
bank, it is now reported as the Lake Calavera Mitigation Parcel. The name change will be
reflected in the Final EIR.
"mitigation bank" established at Lake Calavera, so such misleading references should be
deleted from the DMP. There is also a major concern that the Carlsbad Preserve
Management entity and program do not yet exist, so that all the requirements, policies
and guidelines referred to as being in the HMP, and which are cited as being the basis for
reducing impacts resulting from the DMP to below a level of significance are largely not
able to be implemented.
Of particular concern is the continued increasing hardscaping of the Agua Hedionda and
Calavera Creeks just above the Agua Hedionda lagoon and the resulting loss of riparian
ecosystem functions. Calavera Creek has already been split and 500 cfs put into a pipe.
Perhaps a more reasonable approach would have been to have moved the entire creek to
that location, away from Rancho Carlsbad, and to have restored as many functions in the
new riparian corridor as possible, including the wildlife corridor function.
Pmiect Specific Alternatives Analysis
The alternatives analysis appears too weak to be taken seriously. The preferred project is
cited repeatedly as the only one that will achieve the goals of the project, but this may be
because the project is so constrained. It certainly appears that Implementation of
upstream watershed improvements might well reduce the necessity for this massive
channelization project. The implementation of the Reduced Impact to Sensitive Habitats
and Wetlands Alternative and the 2:1 Slope Alternative in combination would appear
quite feasible. It does not appear justifiable to rule out the first alternative merely on the
basis that " it may not achieve the level of flood control that would be provided by
implementation of the DMP Update."
Furthermore, the impacts to these creeks and others are described throughout the FEIR
as "improvements". These "improvements", which include hardscaping the banks,
adding gabions, and digging out or widening the creek, may hasten the flow of water into
the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, other lagoons, and the Pacific Ocean; however, they detract
from the creeks' abilities to support other beneficial uses. The total impacts to existing
natural channels through PLDA projects alone is approximately two miles (AFA, AFB,
BRB-U, BQ.) Additional non-PLDA maintenance projects of "enhanced channels" result
in additional permanent impacts.
It should also be pointed out that the goal of preventing the flooding of the Rancho
Carlsbad property is perhaps an unreasonable one, since it is difficult to see the
justification for keeping water off the yards entirely in the rare occasion of a loo-year
flood, when most, if not all of the homes themselves are 3-4 feet above the flood level
since they are built on raised frameworks. One of the more moderate alternatives, which
would do far less environmental damage to wetlands and would cost less would likely be
just as effective at keeping floodwaters out of the homes themselves. The LCP would
seem to require this approach, or even a more pro-active one of reducing threats to life
and property by acquiring the property:
LCP POLICY 4-7 FLOOD HAZARDS: "Development shall continue to be restricted in
loo-year floodplain areas. Continuing the policy of zoning loo-year floodplains as open
space will permit natural drainage to occur without the need for flood control channels.
No permanent structures or filling shall be permitted in the floodplain and
only uses compatible with periodic flooding shall be allowed. "
If the reasoning behind allowing Rancho Carlsbad to be situated where it is, at the
confluence of three creeks in the loo-year floodplain, was that it could be periodically
flooded, then it should be allowed to remain there only under those circumstances.
www.cartsbadwate rshedn9twork.org
Page 4 of 5
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
CWNa-15
CWNa-16
CWNa-15
CWNa-16
CWNa-17
CWNa-18
Comment noted. Moving Calavera Creek north of its current location as the commentor suggests
is outside the scope of this project.
See responses to comments PCa-8 and PCa-11. See also response to comment L3-49 in
Appendix F of Final EIR. The characterization of the DMP Update as a "massive" channelization
project is not accurate. As pointed out in response to comment PCa-8, over 90% of the proposed
concrete encased drainage projects would be placed in existing developed areas where
stormwater flows currently drain along improved roads and other impervious surfaces.
See responses to comments PCa-2, PCa-8, PCa-9, PCa-10. See also responses to comments
L3-7, L3-26, L3-31.
See response to comment PCa-20. See also, responses to comments L3-49 and L3-51 in
Appendix F of Final EIR. Further, it should be noted that the Rancho Carlsbad community is not
located within the Coastal Zone.
CWNa-17
CWNa-18
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
Extraordinary measures to alter the floodplain to save the development from loo-year
flooding of only the yards seem unreasonable and contrary to the guidance and intent of
the Coastal Commission.
In addition, the fact that the City has removed previous language in the DMP Update
including water quality improvements as one if its goals is a great disappointment. In
fact, the LCP clearly makes water quality improvement a high priority
Finally, with regard to the repeated reference to the City's Habitat Management Plan as a
mitigation instrument for the DMP, it may indeed be that compliance with the HMP is
not as easy as it appears in the FEIR. For example, the only drainage projects
specifically called out in Appendix 8-3 are the AH Creek channel "enhancement*, the
Cannon Road Drainage channel, and the South Carlsbad Village Storm drain, and
together they are anticipated to impact 11-33 acres.
Under Management and Monitoring recommendations (App. F, p. 14) those pertaining
to hydrology and flood control, include:
• "Maintain existing natural drainages and watersheds and restore or minimize
changes to natural hydrological processes.
• "Use BMPs both within and outside the preserve system to maintain water
quality."
In conclusion, we ask that you work with your staff to incorporate more of the
opportunities available for protecting our watersheds into the Drainage Master Plan
and/or that that plan become integrated with the other fine plans for watershed
protection being developed by your city staff and others. In particular, we hope you will
take advantage of the information coming out of the Agua Hedionda Watershed
Mangement Plan, which will be released this year. Please also keep us informed of any
and all hearings on this matter.
Sincere regards,
CWNa-19
CWNa-20
CWNa-19 See response to comment L3-21 in Appendix F of Final EIR. See response to comment PCa-6.
Comment about disappointment over removal of water quality improvement as a project objective
is noted.
CWNa-20 j See response to comment PCa-21. See also response to comment L3-43 in Appendix F of Final
EIR. The three projects noted by the commentor as specifically called out in Habitat Management
Plan Appendix B are preceded in the appendix by this clarifying statement: "Future projects
necessary to complete the Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management Plan inclusive
of, but not limited to, the following projects." Furthermore, compliance with cited Habitat
Management Plan hydrology and flood control provisions are noted and discussed in response
PCa-5.
Isabelle Kay
On behalf of Carlsbad Watershed Network
www.carlsbadAatershadnetworfc.org
Page 5 of 5
Comment Letter PCb Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
Planning Commission
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Planning Commission:
January 14,2008
Subject: Comments on FEIR
Drainage Master Plan Update
HMP Consistency
LCP Amendment
Comment
Reference
PCb-1
.- •-.- •.'-•-.-Response to Comment
See responses to comments PCa-4, PCa-6 and PCa-11. See also responses to comments L3-3,
L3-21, L 3-24 and L3-55 in Appendix F of Final EIR. The City continues to note the applicant's
priority concerns. Additionally, it should be noted that a draft of the Agua Hedionda Watershed
Management Plan was released in July 2008, significantly after the preparation of the proposedDrainage Master Plan.
These comments on the Final EIR and associated documents are made on behalf of Preserve
Calavera. Preserve Calavera is a grassroots organization of residents of Carlsbad, Oceanside, —--
and Vista and users of the open space around Mount Calavera in northeastern Carlsbad. The
area is the largest remaining natural land in a coastal North County city.
The projects included within the Master Drainage Plan are located throughout this area. Our
concerns are the impact on the Buena Vista and Agua Hedionda watersheds, the effect on the
regional and local wildlife corridors, the proximity to existing regional and state reserves,
and the loss of sensitive wetland resources. Development of the projects as proposed doesn't just
impact the few acres identified for direct impacts, it could impact hundreds of acres of high
quality habitat in one of the few core habitat areas remaining in coastal north county.
We have reviewed the responses to comments and changes made to the FEIR. We believe that
many of the responses failed to address the key issue raised in the comment. The result is that
this Final EIR still has not adequately identified all of the adverse impacts from this project. We
are particularly concerned about the cumulative impacts. In our original comment letter we
identified the following priority concerns - and these have still not been addressed:
Poor integration with land use planning
Lack of integration with CWN Watershed Management Plan and currently
underway Agua Hedionda Watershed Management Plan
Insufficient alternatives analysis
The following will identify key issues with first the program and following that the project level
FEIR. Reference numbers are those used in the responses to comments. Comment is identified
in plain text. Applicant response is shown in Italics. Current comment is in bold.
5020 Ntshtliawk Way -Ocwuiide, CA 92056
ww-».pre5crvecala vcra.org
PCb-1
1 The majority of comments presented in the January 14, 2008 letter from Preserve Calavera (PCb) are repeated in the
January 24, 2008 letter from Preserve Calavera (PCa) to the Planning Commission. Except where noted here, the
responses to the January 24, 2008 letter (PCa) also respond to this January 14, 2008 letter (PCb).
Section I discusses the FEIR, section II HMP Consistency and section III Proposed LCP
Amendment.
Section I FEIR
Program level Components
L3-5 We are particularly concerned about assumptions about land use and watershed
improvement efforts that could dramatically reduce volume and velocity of flows entering
Carlsbad. What efforts have been made to coordinate plans with the upstream parts of the sub-
watersheds that are outside of the city of Carlsbad boundaries?
The City made efforts to discuss improvements that may impact other jurisdictions, such as the
California Department of Transportation. However, because the DMP Update did not require
detailed hydraulic calculations, coordination with upstream jurisdictions was not necessary.
The point is not that the drainage system proposed in Carlsbad would effect the other
jurisdictions- it is that what the upstream jurisdictions are doing could dramatically change
the volume and velocity of water entering Carlsbad. "Making efforts" could be leaving a
phone message. The response doesn 't even indicate that there is an intent to properly
coordinate- and to consider alternatives should there be a dramatic change in water use.
L3-7 The program level EIR should include some guidelines about how choices were made to
use such measures rather than a bioengineering/acquisition/restoration choice that would allow
natural creek function. Please particularly identify the decision to install or increase the size of
culverts and/or concrete channels instead of using more natural means to control flows.
The use of culverts and/or concrete channels is in part based on the slope of the conveyance,
expected discharge volume, depth, and velocity of flow. In most instances flow velocities that are
greater than 5 to 7 feet per second introduce instability in unlined channels. The other factors
are associated with the soil properties, such as soil type, cohesion, infiltration, etc. These play a
role in the channel stability.
Putting a natural creek into a culvert or lining it with concrete is damaging to the natural
functions of a creek. We recognize why this is often selected as the engineering solution to
"control" the water. However this is rarely the best solution for the plants and animals
that need a functioning creek to survive. The comment was to include guidelines-
guidelines that would provide the conditions under which a culvert is determined to be the
best solution, and conditions under which it is not. Guidelines are necessary to assure that
impacts to biological are being minimized.
L3-21 It appears that this is really a flood control program and that any benefits to water quality
are accidental. If water quality improvements are really part of the project objectives then this
requires much more analysis and discussion in both the Master Plan and the EIR. There are
opportunities for projects that could have dual benefits, such as daylighting of storm drains.
Better integration of flood control and water quality elements would benefit both.
... The objectives of the DMP Update relative to water quality have been clarified in section 3.2
of the EIR....
What was done was to eliminate indirect benefits to water quality from the project goals.
Instead of integrating water quality improvement planning with flood control the two are
being treated as completely separate activities. Of course it is easier to do it this way- but it
is not the best way. All over this country public jurisdictions are working to improve water
quality- and doing things like taking creeks out of culverts and creating more natural
wetlands as part of that effort- a practice that when properly designed can also have
significant flood control benefits. The City of Carlsbad, that prides itself on being a leader
on infrastructure planning, in fact is behind the times on how they are segregating flood
control from the other issues of the watershed.
L3-23 ....The hydrology study needs to assess the impacts of lesser flow volumes and assure that
these, as well as the 100 year floods, are being addressed.
...By proposing DMP Update components that would accommodate the 100-year floods
citywide, the City is addressing any lesser degree offloading....
Our point was that much smaller levels of run-off than the 100-year flood are causing
damage to our local creeks- of course the flooding is less- but the damage occurs much
more frequently and cumulatively may even be worse than a single large flood.. The
response completely ignores this by only considering flooding- and only at the 100-year
flood level. This is another example of why it is important to integrate this with broader
watershed protection - that doesn't just consider flooding- but looks at scouring and
undercutting, buffers along creeks, and opportunities for retrofits that accomplish flood
control but also address the impacts from the lesser storm events.
L3-26 .... The EIR should identify the total amount of the system that is culverted/channelized
or otherwise precluded from natural function and compare what is proposed with the current
MDP update and current conditions. The EIR then needs to evaluate the impact of the full extent
of such changes on natural hydrology and wetlands function.
A description of each project component proposed in the DMP Update is provided in Tables 3-1
and 3-2 of the EIR.
Tables 3-1 and 3-2 identify a total of 17,885 feet of culverting/channelization for the PDLA
projects and 1,290 for the non-PDLA for a total of 19,175 linear feet or over 3.6 miles. The
explanation has failed to identify how this massive increase in hardscape has minimized
either wetlands impacts, or permeable cover. Even though a significant part of these are
within developed areas, many are areas with some existing biological functions that will be
essentially destroyed. The FEIR failed to adequately consider the cumulative impacts of
such signicant changes to existing creeks and drainage channels.
L3-31 The EIR says that no beneficial uses are identified for Calavera Creek. This is not
correct.
Section 4.9.1.5 of the EIR has been revised to identify the beneficial uses of Calavera Creek.
The report was modified to correct this error by adding in the beneficial uses. However,
the EIR should not just list the beneficial uses- the whole intent is to analyze whether there
are any adverse impacts to any of the beneficial uses from what it being proposed. Simply
adding in a list of beneficial uses does not meet the requirements of the EIR process which
is to analyze any potential adverse impacts of these projects on the beneficial uses.
L-33 The condition of a creek bottom has a significant effect on the biological resources of the
creek. This project should not just return the creeks to their current degraded condition- it should
restore them to a reasonable level of biological function. This should include providing some
variations in creek bottom to create riffles and ponds and allow for natural variability of flow
conditions.
..../(is anticipated that the existing biological function of the creeks will be restored following
implementation of the project.
There is nothing in the analysis of impacts, project description or even project goals that
indicates that the biological function of the creek is even an issue of concern. The EIR
process requires that impacts from the project are addressed. However given the degraded
condition of most of our creeks returning them to post project condition is not sufficient.
Without real actions to address the biological functions of the creeks the statement that
they will be restored is really just empty words.
L3-55 Alternatives analysis is a key element in the CEQA process. The city has previously been-
informed of the key issues in this analysis which include ( Delano, 2001): 'The core of an EIR
is the mitigation and alternatives sections." Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors.
52 Cal.3d 553, 564 (1990). An EIR "must produce information sufficient to permit a reasonable
choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects and concerned." San Bernardino Valley
Audubon Society. Inc v. County of San Bernardino. 122 Cal. App. 3d738,750-51 (1984).
"Environmentally superior alternatives must be examined whether or not they would impede to
some degree the attainment of objectives." Kings County. 221 Cal. App. 3d at 737.) the core of
the EIR process. The alternatives analysis in the DEIR is insufficient as it does not include a
feasible environmentally superior alternative to the selected project at the program or project
level. Feasible alternatives do exist therefor the city must deny the project as currently proposed.
Feasible alternatives at the program and project level include a relatively modest change in land
use- with greater emphasis on Low Impact Development and control of hydromodification.. A
modified version of Alternative B from the Rick Engineering study could both substantially meet
objectives- and spare Calavera creek from such extensive dredging.
Refer to response to comment L3-51. Alternative Bfrom the Rick Engineering Study was
considered and rejected because it clearly did not meet the project goal to maximize to the extent
feasible the number of lots that would receive 100-year flood protection.
The response to comment only discussed alternatives for the project level and not the program
level components.
L3-59 The DEIR assumes that there are no cumulative impacts to biological resources because
there is a regional conservation plan that protects the resources. A plan is a pile of paper. A
plan doesn't protect resources Until plans are implemented and funded there is no assurance
that regional resources are protected- therefor every project that proceeds is adding to the
cumulative adverse impacts on both local and regional resources. While this project cannot
mandate actions by other jurisdictions, it can and should require that the city of Carlsbad HMP is
fully funded, with preserve management in place before any additional impacts are allowed.
This should be included as a specific project MM.
.. .because mitigation measures are consistent with the goals and policies of the City's HMP
cumulative impacts would be considered less than significant after implementing mitigation.
It is now over 3 years after the city of Carlsbad adopted their HMP- yet the contract for the
non-profit land manager has yet to be executed, and the regional funding source that is
essential to meet all of the conditions of the HMP has been delayed for years. The city
cannot rely on a "plan" to address cumulative impacts- they must fully be meeting all of
the conditions of the plan. The city has not met all of the conditions of the HMP therefor
the HMP does not mitigate for the identified, significant cumulative impacts.
L3-61 ....- increasing impervious cover in an area already at risk
Recent estimates are that the Agua Hedionda watershed is already at 32% impervious cover.
(Tetratech presentation to AHWMP Stakeholders). Studies show a direct correlation between the
health of the watershed and the percentage of impervious cover. Watersheds with 10% or more
impervious cover are already considered impaired. This project has to be evaluated as to its
contribution to the cumulative impacts. While the project has what sounds like a high percentage -
of the total area remaining in open space, the concern is where is that open space, how well does
it protect the creek, how effective are the buffers? This increase in impervious cover needs to be
assessed in terms of its contribution to continued degradation of this area.
...the DMP Update would not substantially increase the amount of impervious surfaces within
the city (relative to the current 32% cover) and would serve to improve the overall flood and
storm water conveyance in the city.
Cumulative impacts analysis is not concerned with just the direct project impacts- but the
impacts of the project along with all of the other projects that are causing adverse impacts.
The problem is that there is nothing in place to assure that the watershed will not be
subject to further degradation and it is already impaired.
L3-65 Poor integration of wetlands mitigation.
Because several related projects are being addressed independently, the wetlands impacts and
mitigation are also being addressed independently. We are concerned that this lack of
coordination will not result in the best overall wetland mitigation plan for this portion of the
watershed There is no evidence to support the conclusion that BMP's on new construction
alone are sufficient to prevent adverse cumulative impacts to hydrology and the adverse impacts
on the lagoon and coastal waters.
... see response to comment L3-61 regarding impervious cover...The questions regarding water
quality do not relate to the EIR. The cumulative analysis has appropriately addressed the
potential impacts of other proposed projects.
This was not responsive to the comment which is poor integration of planning of wetland
mitigation. Failure to adequately coordinate planning for numerous protects - both city
wide, and in the Agua Hedionda/ Calavera creeks project area, fails to address the
cumulative impacts to all of the watersheds in this part of the CHU.
Project Level FEIR Issues
Our priority concerns with the project level components are :
Direct and indirect impacts to wetland and buffers
Protection of viable wildlife movement
Insufficient mitigation measures to address all project impacts
Insufficient alternatives analysis
Lack of integration with CWN Watershed Management Plan and currently
underway Agua Hedionda Watershed Management Plan
L3-8 It would appear that the small area to be dredged west of El Camino Real and south of
Cannon could be done by hand- eliminating the need for storage and an access road in this area.
This is of particular concern because most of the sensitive resources identified in the biological - -
survey ( Appendix D- Recon bio survey Figure 4) are located west of El Camino Real so
minimizing impacts in this area is most important.
... The amount of silt and debris that has accumulated since the emergency dredge project is
estimated to be the same or more than what was previously dredged.
Such a huge amount of silt deposit in this short time period is a clear indication of upstream
problems. The FEIR does not indicate any action to address the upstream problems. Of
course the silt needs to be removed. But without addressing the root problem there will just be
a continuous cycle of dredging and continuing impacts to this area. This is an example of
how important it is to integrate the flood control system with watershed planning. Failing to
do this will result in continuing cumulative impacts to this area - impacts that have not been
adequately addressed in the FEIR.
L3-9 Please clarify exactly where the mitigation for the Phase I emergency dredging mitigation
for permanent impacts to .45 acres willow riparian and .03 acres southern willow scrub is
located, plus the Phase II temporary mitigation for 3.06 acres WUS. It appears that this new
project will again be impacting much of the same area- when Phase I and Phase II has not yet
been fully addressed.
....A conceptual mitigation plan has been prepared. The city is in the process of coordinating
with the resource agencies ti identify a suitable offsite mitigation area.. Impacts to willow
riparian and southern willow scrub are considered permanent and will be mitigated by the
emergency dredge project in accordance with the permits issued by the resource agencies....
It is now almost 2 years since this sensitive habitat was destroyed by the emergency project.
Of course emergency projects require immediate action- but that does not excuse the fact
that almost 2 years later this habitat has not been replaced and the plan has not even been
completed. If this DMP were integrated with watershed planning there would be projects
pre-identified and ready to use for exactly such circumstances. There needs to be a real
effort to pre-identify mitigation sites and have a time frame for replacement when habitat
is destroyed. The plants and wildlife who depended on this habitat could not wait that long
for action- it's too late for them.
L3-34 The wildlife agency comment letter on the project scope, Att item 4.e asked for a
discussion of possible convicts resulting from wildlife-human interactions at the interface
between the project sites and natural habitats. This issue has not been addressed in the DEIR and
is of particular concern because these creek corridors are local wildlife movement corridors that
are in immediate proximity to residences. ...
... During project level environmental review for specific DMP updates components, impacts to
specific wildlife movements \vouid be evaluated and specific mitigation would be identified.
The proposed project work will impact wildlife movement- in an area already experiencing
a high rate of roadkill because of disruption In the wildlife movement corridor. (See Att
Report by Karen Merrill). This condition will be exacerbated by further dredge activities
in the one part of the wildlife corridor that has not already been cut off by the construction
along Collcge,Cannon and El Camino Real. Further mitigation is required to protect
wildlife movement through this area- both during and post construction. —
L3-3S and 39 ... There is no explanation for the statements that there is no need to assess
presence of any rare plant species. ... The surveys for Light-footed Clapper Rail, Least Bell's
vireo and Southwestern willow flycatcher are all out of date. ...
.. the study area for Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks was surveyed in August
?(J05 Additionally rare plant species were not were not delected within or along Agua
Hedionda Creek during the wetland delineation in 2002 (RECON 2002).
These surveys are 2 and 1/2 to 5 years old and will be even more obsolete by the time work
is actually done. Standard protocol is to provide a survey within one year of the EIR issue
dale- particularly when prior surveys have found endangered species present. The surveys
arc out of date and should be updated as current information could effect mitigation.
Avoiding active nests alonef the only direct mitigation for these impacts) is not sufficient
given the history of damage to this area and the fact that mitigation for the emergency
work still has not been done.
L3-42 It is staled that the project is consistent with the provisions of the HMP sections F.2.A
restoration and revegelation and F.3.C landscaping. However the mitigation measures do not
require this. These conditions need to be specifically addressed in a Project level MM.
.. because ilie project is considered consistent with '.lie referenced provisions of the HMi'. there
is no significant impact and therefor no mitigation is required.
The HMP Consistency analysis for the project level components was not included with the
FEIR. Some discussion of this was included with the Planning Commission staff report
posted to the city website a few days ago. See Section Tl for discussion of three key areas
where this project is not consistent with the HMP/MHCP. Failure to be in full compliance
nilh the UMP does not reduce the impacts to biological resources to an insignificant level.
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
PCb-2 See response to comment L3-43 in Appendix F of Final EIR and response to comment PCa-21.
PCb-2
L3-45/46 Bio la defers description of program and project level mitigation until agency
permitting. This is not consistent with the provisions of CEQA which requires sufficient
information to determine if the proposed mitigation reduces the identified impact to a level that
is less than significant. Failure to provide this information in the CEQA documents does not
afford the public the required opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the mitigation
proposed.
Furthermore, unless mitigation is specified one cannot determine consistency with the HMP. Per
the HMP, project level CEQA documents are required to document consistency with the HMP.
Failure to provide this information therefor also violates this provision of the HMP. Please
include specific plans for sensitive habitat mitigation....
The requirement for a mitigation plan is only appropriate for project level components where
impacts are known....A mitigation plan is being prepared for the proposed Agua Hedionda and
Calavera creeks dredging ... and will be presented to the resource agencies as part of the permit
process.
Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks are project level components, therefor the mitigation
plan should have been included in order to meet public review requirements- both for the-
mitigation plan and the HMP consistency determination. Failure to include this violates
provisions of CEQA and the HMP.
L3-49/51 Alternative B in the Rick Engineering report was rejected as 33 lots were still subject
to flooding. Similarly, the 2:1 Side Slope Alternative was rejected because 26 lots were subject
to flooding - yet the selected alternative has 9 lots subject to flooding. What is the threshold for
acceptability? Dredging of Calavera creek could be avoided while impacting only 15 more lots
than the selected alternative- most of the direct biological resource impacts would be avoided
...The primary objective of the dredging and improvements to Agua Hedionda and Calavera
creeks is to provide 100-year flood protection to the maximum number of lots feasible and
practicable. In this case, all but 9 lots would receive protection from a 100-year flood event.
The response fails to provide any explanation for how it was determined that still flooding
9 lots meets the criteria- and that protecting all but 9 lots is the maximum level practicable
and feasible. The ACOE 404 permit requires justification for the least damaging
practicable alternative. The FEIR has failed to provide any justification for the conclusion
that still flooding 9 lots is the best they can do and that this is the LEDPA..
Section II HMP Consistency
The proposed project is not fully consistent with the HMP. The analysis of this was inadequate
in the FEIR. The following are several specific cases where the project and program level
components are not consistent. Either the project needs to be revised, mitigation measures must
be added, or the a minor amendment to the HMP needs to be processed to address the areas of
inconsistency.
The following are three specific areas where the project is not consistent with the HMP :
1. Specific mitigation for the identified wetlands impacts is not provided. In the absence of
such information it is impossible to determine if the requirements for no net loss have been
met. Furthermore, it is stated throughout the FEIR and staff report that mitigation for the
impacts from the emergency dredging project of 2006 have yet to be implemented- in fact a
final plan is yet to be completed. There is already a net loss of wetlands function in the
project area- a condition that will be exacerbated by the additional impacts from the proposed
project. .
2. There is no discussion of protection of wildlife movement in spite of this area having been
identified as a problem area for wildlife movement.
3. The proposed mitigation measures do not fully address all of the potential edge effects of
development- in spite of the project area being adjacent to state of CA preserve land, on the
west and city of Carlsbad HMP preserve land on the east.
Section III LCP Amendment
The staff report indicates the intent to have the City Council approve the DMP Update and LCP
changes following review of all comments on the LCP after a 6 week public review period from
December 14 - January 24, 2008. As a commentor on this project we believe we should have - -
received notice of such public comment period for the LCP. The mailed notice we received for
this project only mentioned the FEIR and did not provide any notice of the proposed LCP
amendment. The first public notice of the LCP amendment that we are aware of occurred with
the posting of the Planning Commission Agenda for the January 16, 2008 meeting which we
believe was received via email on January 10, 2008. Please verify the dates and method of
public notice for the LCP amendment and explain why we were not notified in spite of our prior
comments on this project.
In addition to concerns about public notification, we object to the proposed LCP amendment for
the following reasons:
1. The project as proposed is not consistent with the HMP as discussed in section II above.
2. The FEIR is inadequate as discussed in Section I above.
3. The LCP discusses methods to protect water quality- an item that was specifically removed
from the DMP Update.
4. The project as proposed could have significant adverse cumulative impacts on coastal
resources. The DMP Update includes proposed culverting of 19,175 linear feet or over 3.6
miles of natural and disturbed wetlands. There is essentially no discussion of avoidance or
minimization measures.
5. Discrepancies in the hardline preserve description between the HMP and the proposed
project have not been adequately explained.
Recommendations
We believe these comments fully support our recommendation to:
1. Make a real commitment to integrate plans for flood control with comprehensive watershed
planning - including incorporating the recommendations of the Agua Hedionda Watershed
Management Plan into the next phases of the project.
2. Add a mitigation measure that requires establishing guidelines for when a creek can be
culverted or a natural creek channel can be lined with concrete.
3. Provide the full project level Mitigation Plan for Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks for
public review and comment.
4. Require the city to have the habitat land manager contract signed and in place before
allowing loss of further habitat from the project level components.
5. Integrate planning for wetlands mitigation for the prior emergency dredging project, the
current project, and any others that might be anticipated in the project area.
6. Add a mitigation measure to address the wildlife movement corridor issues in the project area
that will only be made worse by this project.
7. Provide a complete determination of HMP consistency with the EIR as is required in the
HMP so that the public can be fully informed in order to comment on this issue.
We urge you to adopt these recommendations and assure that this project does what it is intended
to- but doesn't cause unintended damage to the watershed through piecemeal planning.
Sincerely,
Diane Nygaard
On Behalf of Preserve Calavera
Cc: David Mayer CDFG, David Zoutendyk USFWS
Mike Porter RWQCB
Att - Report by Karen Merrill.
Master Drainage Plan feir Jan 08
November 19, 2007
RE: Review of Report on Road-kill at El Camino Real and Cannon Road
This letter is in response to the Road-kill report by Melissa Booker, biological monitor for the Robertson Ranch East
Village Project. We visited the area for a look at the conditions called out in the report. We inspected a much larger
area than shown on Figure 1 which is likely why we came to slightly different conclusions.
The basic questions are :
l.Why are we seeing an increase in roadkill at El Camino Real/Cannon?
2. Is the construction associated with the Robertson Ranch project effecting normal wildlife movement through this
area?
3. What corrective action is needed ?
The following discusses each of these three questions.
l.Why are we seeing an increase in roadkill at El Camino Real/Cannon?
It is possible that this is just a temporary seasonal increase. However, construction is occurring simultaneously
along College, Cannon, and El Camino Real- all at locations associated with existing and new wildlife
undercrossmgs. While no single of these areas would be expected to cause an increase in roadkill (they still have
quite a few alternate routes possible), it seems reasonable that the combination of construction along roadways at
the time of normal seasonal dispersion is a factor.
2. Is the construction associated with the Robertson Ranch project effecting normal wildlife movement through this
area?
Our assessment is that:
wildlife moving east/west immediately east of Cannon road are not effected by the RR construction
They likely are following Agua Hedionda Creek, are out of the construction zone and cross under El Camino Real at
the undercrossing at the creek the same as was done prior to the construction.
wildlife moving east/west immediately west of Cannon Road have had their normal movement patterns
disrupted
This disruption has occurred in several stages over time , probably shifting them further to the west- northwest after
crossing College. These animals might have been following Calavera Creek. The culverted creek is no longer
functional for wildlife movement. The creek near the culvert is being used as a human latrine and has numerous
piles of fresh and historic human feces and toilet paper. This alone would result in wildlife avoiding this area ( it
sure made us leave quickly). The roadway area that roughly parallels the original creek alignment is now blocked
by j-bar. The new undercrossing of College near the creek will eventually help- but remains a construction zone on
the southern side- and has no fencing in place on either side to direct wildlife movement away from the road and to
the wildlife undercrossing. There was coyote sign on both sides of the new wildlife undercrossing at College Blvd.
The movement pattern runs through the preserved habitat west of the project footprint to El Camino Real where they
are crossing at grade level. (We did not see evidence of wildlife movement along Cannon road between the j-bar and
new boundary wall- but tracking conditions were poor.)
The determination that animals are using the Cannon Road box culverts (Report Figures 4 & 5) from the Aqua
Hedionda Creek corridor to reach the area NW of Cannon and N of El Camino Real is incorrect. The culverts (see
Photo #PC1) showed no signs of recent wildlife passing through. One of the three culverts appeared to be regularly
used by humans. Movement from the creek corridor is blocked by the old flood wall at Rancho Carlsbad and a
fenced off opening (see Photo #PC2). There is a small cut in that fencing but not conducive to wildlife passing
through because if they are in the creek corridor already they would continue under El Camino Real following the
creek.
wildlife moving east/west further north- up to development prior to Tamarack have had no disruption in
potential movement patterns through this area- but they are not currently using the existing underpasss of El
Camino Real
The house at the high point of this area probably historically divided wildlife movement into two routes around it.
The one to the east is now fully graded with essentially no cover for several hundred feet and lots of heavy
equipment. But the path on the west is still natural habitat all the way up to El Camino Real.
The culvert at El Camino Real (Report Figure 6) shows sign of small mammal use only. Coyote sign is evident
along the footpaths on the N side of El Camino Real. Crossing at grade appears to be the preferred movement
pattern.
3. What corrective action is needed ?
With the opening of Cannon Rd, this intersection has seen increased traffic volume which is likely contributing to
the increase in road-kill in this area. This is a new condition that will continue to be a problem for wildlife
movement.
Wildlife Movement Recommendations —
Wildlife Crossing signage should be installed along this section of Cannon/El Camino Real to alert drivers and
reduce wildlife mortality.
We agree there is a need for fencing along the north side of El Camino Real to funnel movement through the
existing culvert. It is assumed (could not verify) this culvert exits beyond the existing chain link fencing across
El Camino Real. Until such time as recommended fencing is installed, the existing chain link fencing (CDF&G)
on the south side of El Camino Real bars wildlife from entering the riparian area and their natural movement
corridor. Modification to allow access for wildlife will be necessary in the interim.
-The new wildlife undercrossmg on College Blvd. should have fencing installed on both sides of the road to
facilitate crossing below grade.
Other Observations
-Installed irrigation downslope College Blvd-it is very wet with a lot of non-natives growing there.
-By detention spillway off College Blvd- old silt fence is still there but down. Is irrigation line still in place here?
Tamarisk growing in detention area.
-Creek channel-the concrete channel that runs under College to the creek- the entrance and natural area downslope
from College Blvd is full of human feces. This needs to be removed. It is probably from the workers at the adjacent
agriculture site.
We appreciate the prompt response to our concerns with increased road kill in this vicinity and hope for remedial
actions in the near future to protect the wildlife movement corridor.
Sincerely,
Karen Merrill
Preserve Calavera Tracking Team
Photo* PC 1-3 box culverts under Cannon Rd, looking west-northwest
PhotoS PC2- old flood wall and fence at Rancho Carlsbad just
across (east) from the 3 box culvert under Cannon Rd.
U
ORIGINAL
Comment Letter CWNb
Member Organizations
Agua Hedtonda Lagoon
Foundation
Satiquitos Lagoon Foundation
Buena Vista Lagoon
Foundation
Canyons Network
Cottonwood Creek
Conservancy
The EsconxJido Creek
Conservancy
Resources Conservation
Distort of Greater San .Diego,
County
Preserve Calavera
San Elijo Lagoon
Conservancy
cwn
4 W WatmbJ Network
January 14, 2008
Rarmning Commssion
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Planning Commission :
Subject: Comments on EIR,
Master Drainage Plan Update
These comments on the final EIR are made on behalf of the Carlsbad
Watershed Network (CWN). CWN is a coalition of organizations whose goal
is "To protect, restore and enhance the quality and beneficial uses of water,
habitats, and other natural resources of the watersheds of the Carlsbad
Hydrotogic Unit (CHU) and the adjacent coastal shoreline." The Carlsbad
Hydrobgjc Unit is comprised of seven watersheds of coastal north San Diego
County watercourses -including all of the streams and lagoons in the city of
Carlsbad.
On August 31, 2007, we submitted comments on the Draft EIR for the Master
Drainage Plan Update: We have reviewed the responses to our comments
and the changes incorporated in this final EIR. It was the unanimous vote of
the members present at our last meeting to submit this letter to express our
continuing concerns with this project
Our primary concern is the lack of integrated planning for watershed
protection. We appreciate that the city of Carlsbad is taking a
comprehensive look at the infrastructure needed to control flooding in their
city. We are also pleased to see that this includes guidelines for maintenance
and operation of the proposed facilities -items that are often overlooked. This
kind of comprehensive planning has the potential to address several issues
of concern, and to help reduce further damage to the watershed.
However, instead of improving the coordination of mis drainage plan with .
other related projects that affect the watershed, it appears the city has
decided to do even less coordination. The Master Drainage Plan goals were
revised to eliminate "indirectly protect and improve water quality" from them
We believe there dearly are effects of flood control on water Quality, and the
city is expending considerable resources on improving water quality. The
Master Drainage Ran Update provides an opportunity to further those efforts
-an opportunity that is lost If water quality is no longer a consideration in the
Master Drainage Ran.
The response to our comment to "Improve integration with the currently
underway Agua Hedionda Watershed Management Plan" was,".. .If and
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
Comment
Reference
CWNb-1
CWNb-2
\%7^f, '"- ' ;Response to Comment j "'_*' * •-s *
See response to comment PCa-6 and responses to comments L4-1, L3-21, L2-24 and L3-50 in
Appendix F of Final EIR. The City continues to note the priority concerns of Carlsbad Watershed
Network.
See response to comment
Appendix F of Final EIR.
PCa-6 and responses to comments L4-1, L3-21, L2-24 and L3-50 in
CWNb-1
CWNb-2
Mission: To prefect restore, ana enhance the quality and benofde/ uses of wafer, habitats, and othernatural resources 01 the watersheds of the Carlsbad HyrJraogic Unit ana the adjacent coastal shoreline
www.cartsbaowalersried networtt.org
when the Agua Hedionda Watershed Management Plan is finalized, the City will take the
provisions of the plan under consideration." This does not reflect a real commitment to consider
the health of the watershed in moving forward with the City's drainage system. The Agua
Hedionda WMP will result in recommendations for watershed improvements, including such
things as land acquisition habitat restoration and bioengineering projects. These could nelp
achieve many of the Drainage Plan objectives, and might eliminate or modify the need for some
of the hardscape solutions proposed in your Plan.
The response to our comment to Improve integration with the Carlsbad Watershed Management
Plan" and "Place more emphasis on the water quality objectives of your plan" was again to
eliminate the reference to water quality from the project goals and to add the following :
"As stated in Section 3.1, the DMP Update does not directly address storm water quality because
the city now has separate planning documents for storm water quality control. However, a benefit
of the DMP Update is that it would indirectly protect and improve water quality by improving storm
water conveyance, reducing erosion, and removing sediments and/or contaminants."
The voters of California recently approved Proposition 84, a multi-million dollar bond to support
integrated water planning. The City of Carlsbad and other local agencies are sponsors of our
local Agua Hedionda WMP project - an integrated local approach to watershed planning. There
is increasing recognition of the importance of coordinated planning, and even voter support to pay
for it.
Integration of the Master Drainage Plan with other plans focused on beneficial uses of water and
habitat protections, such as the Agua Hedionda WMP and CWN's Carlsbad WMP, would assist
;he city in avoiding anOJor minimizing environmental impacts resulting from the Implementation of
the Master Drainage Plan. Such a holistic approach could also result in the least expensive and
most effective mitigation planning, where impacts are unavoidable.
We believe this final EIR was not responsive to our comments. The end result is a project thai
will not optimize the huge public investment in flood control infrastructure, resulting in a waste of
public funds. Equally as important, it will not fully support the critically needed effort to restore
and protect our impaired local water bodies.
We urge you to revise this project to assure that flood control will be done in a way that fully
protects our local watersheds and water quality.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We look forward to working with you to
implement flood control projects that are consistent with CWN's Carlsbad Watershed
Management Plan, the Agua Hedionda Watershed Management Plan, and that consider all of the
natural resources of our precious coastal watersheds.
Sincerely,
Brad Roth
On behalf of Carlsbad Watershed Network
CWNb-3
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
CWNb-3
CWNb-4
CWNb-5
See response to comment PCa-6 and responses to comments L4-1, L3-21, 12-24 and L3-50 in
Appendix F of Final EIR. Additionally, it should be noted that a draft of the Agua Hedionda
Watershed Management Plan was released in July 2008, significantly after the preparation of the
proposed Drainage Master Plan.
See response to comment PCa-6 and responses to comments L4-1, L3-21, L2-24 and L3-50 in
Appendix F of Final EIR.
See response to comment PCa-6 and responses to comments L4-1, L3-21, L2-24 and L3-50 in
Appendix F of Final EIR.
CWNb-4
CWNb-5
ywyw.cartsbadwatershedrwtwork.org
Page 2 of 2
Comment Letter BLF
Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation
Present, Pnttrct mill Ejthtnitt
January 14, 2006
Planning Commission
City erf Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject:Drainage Master Plan Update Final Environmental Impact
Report (EIR)
Dear Chairperson Baker and Commissioners:
The Batiquitos Lagoon Foundation (BLF) appreciates the opportunity to comment
on the Final EIR for the Drainage Master Plan Update. We submitted comments
during the regular comment period, and we received a response to our
comments from staff and the EIR preparers which includes the Final EIR with
revisions. Taking into consideration the Draft EIR, response to comments, and
Final EIR, we offer me following observations and recommendations to the
Planning Commission:
1. The BLF recognizes that an update to the Drainage Master Plan is needed at
this time. We also recognize that some specific projects are at an advanced
stage of planning, allowing for the detailed analysis of impacts and mitigation,
while other projects are at a very preliminary stage with less specificity and
more ambiguity. This has resulted in an EIR which includes both Project
Level Analysis and Program Level Analysis, which can be an appropriate
method of analyzing infrastructure master plans. The BLF is primarily
concerned with projects in Basin D, the Batiquitos Lagoon Watershed, where
the projects are entirely at the Program level.
2. Although the BLF understands the reasons behind taking the two-level
approach in this EIR, we have some comments about how it has been done.
Specifically, when projects are at such a preliminary stage that they cannot be
unambiguously described in the EIR, K becomes very difficult for the public to
evaluate the impacts and comment intelligently W« made this comment in
our letter of August 31. 2007 (letter L-1). and we find that it has been
satisfactorily responded to by staff for present purposes. However, our
recommendation for the future is for staff to spend some additional time
developing the project descriptions for individual components that are
included in a Program-level EIR This would prevent misunderstandings and
promote good communication with the public.
BLF-1
BLF-2
P.O BOA U049i Carlsbad. California 92013-0*9! • 760.9M.OBOO • www.bali<)i.ilos'oi!nfla;lon.orQ
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
Comment
Reference
BLF-1
BLF-2
' '-',- ' ; . Response to Comment '-*'•* -.':,
- '- •** "^ , t -• ~* *:. ''" * '
The comment is noted regarding commenter's understanding that EIR contains both project-level
and program-level project descriptions and analyses. It is also noted that commenter is primarily
concerned with Basin D projects.
The comment is noted. See response to comment PCa-2.
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
Rl F ^3 The response to our comment tetter provided in the skJe-by-side format
initially gave the impression that little had been changed in the document in
response to our concerns. Fortunately, a closer reading of the Final EIR
showed that substantial changes had, in fact, been made to certain mitigation
measures, and these changes met the objectives of our comments. For
example, Mitigation Measure Bio-1 now includes a statement that future
project-level environmental review for drainage projects that would impact
habitat will receive review from the wildlife agencies to verify HMP
consistency. Also, Mitigation Measure Bio 1-o requires surveys for sensitive
species prior to construction and Measure Bto-2b now contains a good
discussion of mitigation for wetland impacts of future projects. We are
gratified to see these changes, as they substantially address the issues that
are of greatest concern to us. We would Woe to suggest for future EIR's that
responses to comments in the side-by-side format be somewhat more
explanatory and tell readers where significant changes have been made in
the document.
In conclusion, the BLF is satisfied mat the Program-level components for Basin D
have been adequately analyzed and will be properly addressed if and when they
progress to more a more detaBed planning phase. Aside from our suggestions - -
for improvements to future EIR's, we believe that staff and the EIR preparers
have done a thorough job of communicating with us arid responding to our
comments. We took forward to working with staff on these projects at the
appropriate time.
Sincerely;
Fred C. Sandquist
President
BLF-3 Comment noted. This comment pertains to the format of the EIR, not its adequacy.
cc Scott Donnell, Senior Planner, City of Carlsbad
Comment Letter DNIK
Scott Donncll - List of Key Issues- dredging and MDP
Page I of 2
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
From: "diane nygaard" <dandd2@peoplepc.com>
To: "David Hauser" <dhaus@ci.carlsbad.ca.us>, "Scon Donnell" <Sdonn@ci.carisbad.ca,us>
D»te: 02/26/2008 10:36 AM
Subject: List of Key Issues-dredging and MDP
CC: "Isabclle K.ay" <ikay@ucsd.edu>
Scott and DavkJ
Thank you very much for providing the opportunity for us to discuss our key issues with the dredging project and
MDP/EIR/LCP. We thought the discussion was very productive toward a better understanding of each others
position, finding areas of common concern, and remaining with a small list of items where we "agree to disagree."
Hopefully next time we will be aSte to have a conversation like this much earlier in the process and save everyone
a lot of time and money.
This list incorporates what we see as the key issues remaining from all of the prior letters submitted by Preserve
Calavera and the Carlsbad Watershed Network.
Calavera and Agua Hedionda Creek Dredging
1. Provisions lo protect the viability of the wildlife movement corridor through construction- could be a project
condition that adds this to the list of duties for the already assigned project biologist (per detailed discussion at
prior meeting).
2. Bio surveys are out dated. More current ones are needed prior to initiation of construction.
DNIK-1
DNIK-2
3. Mitigation plan is needed for both the prior emergency dredging and the current project. Although this is not a DNIK-3
CEQA requirement providing such information provides opportunity for public comment and assurances that there
is no net loss of function- and adddresses a concern raised by CCC staff.
4. Project alternatives that avoid and minimize wetlands impacts, particularly in the coastal zone, have not been
adequately described. K sounds like efforts have been made that were not identified in the EIR - and at least one
btotogicalry preferred alternative (hand dedging in the coastal zone) was rejected without a clear justification.
MDP Plan/EIR and related LCP Amendments
5. Improved integration of all of the related programs that effect water quality is desired A statement of intent to DNIK-5
work toward this In future updates would provide better assurances that this is the drection things are going,
(deleting indirect benefits to water quality as a project objective sounds like there wil be less integration and less
concern about water quality and implies the direction is less integration ).
Comment
Reference:
DNIK-1
DNIK-2
DNIK-3
DNIK-4
DNIK-5
DNIK-6
DNIK-7
DNIK-8
, " y»< -~ - , • Response to Comment . " - -._J -} ;.
Comment noted. See response to comment PCa-17.
See response to comment PCa-18
See response to comment PCa-16.
See response to comment PCa-14.
See response to comment PCa-6 and responses to comments L3-21 and L3-24 in Appendix F of
Final EIR.
See responses to comments PCa-2 andPCa-6. See also responses to comments L3-21 and L3-
24 in Appendix F of Final EIR. Further, it should be noted that a draft of the Agua Hedionda
Watershed Management Plan was released in July 2008, significantly after the preparation of the
proposed Drainage Master Plan.
See responses to comments PCa-2 and PCa-10.
See responses to comments PCa-2 and PCa-17. See also response to comment L3-34 in
Appendix F of Final EIR. Comment noted. As discussed throughout the EIR, subsequent
environmental review will be required for individual program-level DMP Update components as
they proceed to project-level design. Subsequent environmental review for these components will
analyze the need to protect wildlife corridors.
6. Acknowledgement that water conveyance and water quality can be improved by things other than the
engineering solutions which are the only items addressed in the MDP. A statement about considering
recommendations of the AHWMP and other future WMPs prior to proceeding with actual projects would make
that connection. Future MDP updates could then include specific restoration and acquisition projects that in effect
serve multiple purposes.
7. Better guidelines and opportunities for mitigation of coastal zone impacts in the coastal zone are needed.
Buying credits in the NC Mitigation Bank doesn't realty benefit Agua Hedionda and Buena Vista watersheds
Need some mitigation land in the coastal zone in each watershed. Identifying these for future project impacts
couM be coordinated with the current effort to identify open space parcels.
6. Protection of wildlife corridor throughout project construcbon.(Same as # 1 above but needs to Include all
projects.)
DNIK-6
DNIK-7
DNIK-8
file://C:\Documents and Settmgs\sdonrALocal Settings\TeinpXXPgrpwise\47C3EB91 GW-... 04/09/2008
Page 2 of2
9. Make proper reference to the JURMP in the LCP amendments. This Hem was deleted from our list per
discussion as SUSUMP reference addresses this.
DNIK-9
Exhibit 1 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Response to Comments Received after Draft EIR Public Review
10. A statement is needed to clarify that as each project moves forward there will be an analysis of wetlands DNIK-10
avoidance and minimization and this will be discussed in the CEQA document.
11. A statement was made at the Planning Commission that upstream coordination (outs de the city limits) was DNIK-11
done with the hydrologlc modeling- implying no further coordination is needed. FEMA maps change, upstream
land use changes, and numerous things can occur that would effect the reaches of creeks within the city. A
statement that upstream issues will be looked a! as a project moves forward would assure this is part of on-going
integration efforts.
12. There is nothing in this document that indicates that culverting of streams and channelizing creeks is
considererd only as a last choice option Other documents establish some policy guidance- like the HMP
protection of streams, and RWQCB requirements for no hydromodification. But these provisions need to be
strengthened.
13. The MDP focus is on trie 100 yr flood- but many of the on-going impacts to our watercourses come from
events that occur much more frequently. Reference to AHWMP and other WMP's per # 6 above could address
this and create future opportunities for fee structure to capture some of these other related costs
14. The HMP required land manager needs to be in place - with actual habitat management and enforcement of DNIK-14
the provisions to protect natural resources that are now just a pile of paper
Diane Nygaard and Isabelle Kay
DNIK-9
DNIK-10
DNIK-1 1
DNIK-1 2
DNIK-13
DNIK-14
Comment noted. This comment pertains to amendments to the LCP, not the adequacy of the
EIR. The City has prepared draft modifications to the LCP presented at the January 16, 2008
Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously approved
Resolutions 6377 and 6378 recommending approval of modifications to the LCP and Zoning
Ordinance, which would reference the DMP Update. The existing LCP already includes
regulations/measures for implementation of the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan
(SUSMP) and the Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Plan (JURMP); these existing
requirements are not proposed for amendment. The City currently satisfies implementation of the
SUSMP through enforcement of the localized (JURMP).
See response to comment PCa-2. Additionally, Section 4.10.5.1 of the Final EIR states that for
various habitat types listed in the HMP (including wetlands), avoidance and on-site mitigation of
impacts are the priorities as DMP project components are implemented. Future project level
environmental review of project components that would have biological impacts would be provided
to the resource agencies to verify consistency with the City's HMP.
See response to comment Pca-4 and response to comment L3-5 in Appendix F of Final EIR.
Comment noted. See response to comment PCa-4 and response to comment L3-5 in Appendix F
of Final EIR.
See response to comment PCa-7 and response to comment L3-33 in Appendix F of Final EIR.
Comment noted. See also response to comment PCa-12. This comment pertains to
implementation of the HMP, not the adequacy of the EIR.
fi]e://C:VDocuments and Settings\sdonn\Local Settings'.?emp\XPgrpwise\47C3EB91GW-.. 04/09/2008
Page 1 of 7 Exhibit 2 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S.6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Table S-l
Summary of Program Level Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and
Residual Impacts
Bio-Id Impacts to Type D (unoccupied coastal sage scrub, coastal sage/chaparral mix,
chaparral), Type E (annual, normative grassland), and Type F (disturbed lands,
eucalyptus, agricultural lands) habitats are not subject to the fee payment. Instead, these
types of impacts will be mitigated at the Lake Calavera Mitigation Baak, Parcel per the
ratios included in HMP Table 11. An appropriate mitigation ratio would be determined
based on habitat quality and quantity as determined in coordination with the applicable
resource agencies at the time of project permitting.
Bio-6 The project shall mitigate impacts to wetland and riparian habiat through on-site
restoration and/or wetland and riparian habitat creation/restoration/enhancement at a ratio
to be determined in coordination with the applicable resources agencies at the time of
permitting, consistent with LCP and HMP policies and provisions, as applicable. If
adequate acreage to satisfy mitigation is not available on-site and/or at the Lake Calavera
Mitigation Bank Parcel, then alternative mitigation credits may be purchased from the
North County Mitigation Bank, or other alternative sites deemed acceptable by the
resource agencies.
Page 2 of 7 Exhibit 2 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
CHAPTER 4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
4.10 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.10.1.1 Program Level
Applicable Plans and Policies
Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan
The State of California implemented the NCCP Program, which is aimed at conserving
and ensuring the biological integrity of entire communities while accommodating
economic development. With the initiating of the NCCP Program in 1991, formal
regional planning for biological resources protection has become widespread and
important in southern California. Regional conservation planning efforts in Carlsbad
have been conducted in accordance with the NCCP Program of 1991. In November
2004, the City adopted a HMP. The overall goal of the HMP is to contribute to regional
biodiversity and the viability of rare, unique or sensitive biological resources throughout
Carlsbad.
The HMP includes conservation goals and measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate
impacts to covered species on a project basis, including measures that apply to drainage
infrastructure projects. The HMP goals and measures are applied citywide to all public
and private projects regardless of whether projects are located within or outside of the
preserve system.
Information about the specific mitigation measures for HMP-covered species is included
in Appendix C of the Carlsbad HMP. City public facility and improvement projects, such
as those included in the DMP Update, are required to provide mitigation based on the
ratios shown in Table 4.10-5. These mitigation ratios apply whether a project is located
inside or outside the preserve system. For Type D habitats (unoccupied coastal sage
scrub, coastal sage/chaparral mix, chaparral), Type E habitats (annual, normative
grasslands) and Type F habitats (disturbed lands, eucalyptus, agricultural lands) as
identified in Table 4.10-5, mitigation fees can be paid in lieu of off-site mitigation as
determined by the City Council. City projects are able to use the future Lake Calavera
Mitigation Bank Parcel for impacts to Type D, E, and F habitats.
Page 3 of 7 Exhibit 2 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
Table 4.10-5
Mitigation Ratios for Impacts to HMP Habitats
Habitat Group and Type
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Coastal salt marsh, alkali marsh, freshwater marsh, estuarine, salt
pan/mudflats, riparian forest, riparian woodland, riparian scrub,
vernal pools, disturbed wetlands, flood channel, fresh water
Engelmann oak woodland, coast live oak woodland '
Beach, southern coastal bluff scrub, maritime succulent scrub,
southern maritime chaparral, native grassland
Gnatcatcher - Occupied coastal sage scrub
Unoccupied coastal sage scrub, coastal sage/chaparral mix, chaparral
(excluding southern maritime chaparral)
Annual (nonnative) grassland
Disturbed lands, eucalyptus, agricultural lands
Mitigation Ratio/
Requirement by Type of
Impacted Habitat
No net loss goal (mitigation
ratio varies by type of
replacement habitat)
3:1 2
2:13
1:14'5
0.5: 14'5
Mitigation Fee4'5
Group A habitats are associated with wetlands. Impacts to these habitat types are
subject to review under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act or Section 1600
of the California Fish and Game Code.
It is assumed that all habitats in Type B will be included in the proposed preserve
system. Small, isolated patches of low quality southern maritime chaparral may be
located outside a preserve area and maximum avoidance and on-site conservation is
preferred.
Maximum avoidance and on-site conservation of Group C habitat are encouraged.
Off-site mitigation for habitat in this group that is not conserved or mitigated on-site
shall pay a per acre in lieu mitigation fee in an amount to be determined by the City
Council. This fee is discussed in more detail in Section E of the Plan.
City projects that impact Type D, E, and F habitats will not pay the fee and will
mitigate at the Lake Calavera Mitigation Bank Parcel. These projects may mitigate
out-of-kind because the objective is to build the preserve system by combining small
mitigation requirements into a larger, contiguous area. City projects that impact Type
A, B, and C habitats must mitigate in-kind at the ratios stated above.
4.10.3.3 Project Level
Consistency with Local Policies or Ordinances
Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan
The HMP establishes a conservation goal for Core Area 4 of no net loss of wetland and
riparian habitat (HMP Section D.7, Standard 7-8). The project would result in the loss of
Page 4 of 7 Exhibit 2 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
wetland and riparian habitat in Core Area 4 as a result of vegetation clearing for dredging
and construction in the area downstream of the El Camino Real Bridge (upgradient or
east of the Cannon Road Bridge). This would result in a significant and cumulative
impact since this would contribute to the regional loss of wetland and riparian habitat.
Agua Hedionda Creek is also referenced in Section G of the HMP, "Take Authorization
and Assurances, and Provisions for Unforeseen Circumstances." Section G.3, Item 2
states "For the purpose of defining Changed Circumstance, Flood is defined as natural
rain runoff events occurring within and causing damage to HMP preserve floodplains
associated with the City's four watersheds ... Agua Hedionda ...and their associated
creeks and tributaries, at less than 50-year levels ..." This section is mostly concerned
with damage to the preserve areas as a result of flooding. The removal of sediment
and/or debris is included as an acceptable maintenance activity following flood events.
The project is therefore consistent with this goal.
The HMP adjacency standards include management recommendations for erosion control
(Section F.3.B). The proposed dredging and improvements in Agua Hedionda and
Calavera creeks (project components B and BN) would be required to incorporate BMPs
into the project design as part of the project's SWPPP, including sediment and erosion
control measures. These measures are described in more detail in Section 4.9
(Hydrology/Water Quality). The long-term maintenance plan for the dredging and
improvements project in Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks also includes BMPs for
long-term erosion control. Although Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks within the
project area are not within an Existing HMP Hardline Preserve, the mitigation plan would
be consistent with the HMP's recommendations for Habitat Restoration and Revegetation
(Section F.2.A) and the Landscaping Restrictions (Section F.3.C), as applicable.
Therefore, proposed project components B and BN would be consistent with the
applicable preserve management goals in Section F of the HMP.
Appendix B-3 of the HMP includes a list of "City Projects Covered by Proposed City-
Lands Mitigation Bank." Under the "Drainage Projects" category, the table lists "Future
projects needed to complete the Master Drainage and Storm Water Quality Management
Plan [DMP] inclusive of, but not limited to the following projects." Channel
enhancement in Agua Hedionda Creek is listed as one of the projects meeting these
criteria. While the City is early in the process of establishing the Lake Calavera
Mitigation Bank Parcel, the HMP contemplates providing mitigation for drainage
Page 5 of 7 Exhibit 2 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
projects in the mitigation bank and specifically identifies Agua Hedionda Creek as a
potential project.
4.10.5 Mitigation Measures
4.10.5.1 Program Level
Bio-Id Impacts to Type D (unoccupied coastal sage scrub, coastal sage/chaparral mix,
chaparral), Type E (annual, nonnative grassland), and Type F (disturbed lands,
eucalyptus, agricultural lands) habitats are not subject to the fee payment. Instead, these
types of impacts will be mitigated at the Lake Calavera Mitigation Bank, Parcel per the
ratios included in HMP Table 11. An appropriate mitigation ratio would be determined
based on habitat quality and quantity as determined in coordination with the applicable
resource agencies at the time of project permitting.
Bio-6 The project shall mitigate impacts to wetland and riparian habiat through on-site
restoration and/or wetland and riparian habitat creation/restoration/enhancement at a ratio
to be determined in coordination with the applicable resources agencies at the time of
permitting, consistent with LCP and HMP policies and provisions, as applicable. If
adequate acreage to satisfy mitigation is not available on-site and/or at the Lake Calavera
Mitigation Bank Parcel, then alternative mitigation credits may be purchased from the
North County Mitigation Bank, or other alternative sites deemed acceptable by the
resource agencies.
CHAPTER 7.0
ALTERNATIVES
7.4.1.2 No Project Components within Sensitive Habitats or Wetlands within the
Coastal Zone or HMP Preserve Reduced Impacts to Sensitive Habitats and
Wetlands Alternative
7.4.1.4 No Project No Build Alternative No Project-No Update to the Existing 1994
MDSQMP Alternative
Page 6 of 7 Exhibit 2 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
7.5.1 Program Level
Table 7-1 summarizes the findings from the program level alternatives evaluation. This
analysis is qualitative rather than quantitative. If any of these alternatives were pursued,
additional environmental review would be required to quantify the anticipated impacts
and to recommend appropriate mitigation measures consistent with the level of impact.
Based on the qualitative evaluation of the alternatives in this section, implementation of
the Reduced Impact to Sensitive Habitats and Wetlands Alternative Reduced Use of
Impervious Materials would be the environmentally superior alternative.
Overall, this alternative would result in fewer impacts than the DMP
Update, as proposed, while achieving the DMP Update objectives. While this alternative
would result in fewer impacts than the DMP Update to Visual Resources, Noise, and
Biological Resources (Table 7-1), impacts would generally still be considered significant
for these issue areas. However, the DMP Update was developed with consideration of
environmental constraints and generally avoids locating facilities within sensitive habitats
or wetlands. A facility is only proposed in sensitive habitats and wetlands if the facility
is necessary to achieve flood control and adequate storm flow conveyance to meet the
objectives of the DMP Update, which would not be achieved with an alternative location.
As with the DMP Update, incorporation of the mitigation measures included in this EIR
would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Neither implementation of the
Reduced Impact to Sensitive Habitats and Wetlands Alternative Reduced Use of
Impervious Materials nor the DMP Update (as demonstrated in the analysis included in
Chapters 4.0 and 5.0) would result in any unmitigable significant impacts directly,
indirectly, or cumulatively. While the Reduced Impact to Sensitive Habitats and
Wetlands—Alternative Reduced Use of Impervious Materials is considered the
environmentally superior alternative, it may not achieve the level of flood control that
would be provided by implementation of the DMP Update, as demonstrated in this
analysis.
Page 7 of 7 Exhibit 2 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
Table 7-1
Program Level Alternatives Comparison of Impacts to DMP Update Impacts1
Issue Area
Land Use
Agriculture
Visual Resources
Transportation/Circulation
Air Quality
Noise
Recreation
Geology/Soils
Hydrology/Water Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Paleontological Resources
Achieves DMP
Update Objectives
Project Alternatives
No
Mechanized
Dredging or
Vegetation
Removal
Greater
Similar
Similar
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Similar
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Fgwer
Fewer
No
Reduced
Impact to
Sensitive
Habitats and
Wetlands
Greater
Similar
Similar
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Similar
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Similar
Similar
Yes No
Reduced Use
of
Impervious
Materials
Similar
Similar
Similar
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Similar
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Similar
Similar
Yes
No Project-
No Update to
the Existing
1994
MDSQMP
Greater
Similar
Greater
Greater
Similar
Fewer
Similar
Similar
Greater
Fewer
Fewer
Fewer
No
No Project-
No DMP Update
Approval
Greater
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Greater
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
No
1 Greater = Alternative results in greater impacts than the DMP Update, even if the DMP Update would result
in significant impacts to the issue area.
Fewer = Alternative results in fewer impacts than the DMP Update but would not necessarily reduce impacts
to a less than significant level.
Similar = Alternative results in similar impacts as the proposed DMP Update.
Page 1 of 7 Exhibit 2a to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Additional Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S.6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Table S-l provides a summary of the environmental impacts resulting from implementation
of the program level DMP Update components. Table S-2 is a summary of the
environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the project level DMP Update
components (i.e., the Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks Dredging and Improvements
Project). These tables are included at the end of this section.
Table S-2. Summary of Project Level Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures,
and Residual Impacts (Continued)
Result of Impact Analysis
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Bio-5 The loss of 0.08 acre of
willow riparian forest is considered
a significant and cumulative
impact and requires compensatory
mitigation (i.e., creation,
restoration, and/or replacement of
in-kind habitat).
Bio-6 Loss of wetland and riparian
habitat, including habitat loss
within the coastal zone boundary,
is considered a significant and
cumulative impact.
Bio-7 Proposed dredging and
improvements within Agua
Hedionda Creek (area adjacent to
Cannon Road Bridge) have the
potential to result in significant
indirect impacts to least bell's
vireo, southwestern willow
flycatcher, and light-footed clapper
rail.
Mitigation
Bio-5 Mitigation measures listed for Bio-1 a and Bio-2a
and 2b shall be implemented as applicable to
address project-specific vegetation impacts within
Agua Hedionda and Calavera creeks.
Bio-6 The project shall mitigate impacts to wetland and
riparian habitat through on-site restoration and/or
wetland and riparian habitat
creation/restoration/enhancement at a ratio to be
determined in coordination with the applicable
resources agencies at the time of permitting,
consistent with LCP and HMP policies and
provisions, as applicable. If adequate acreage to
satisfy mitigation is not available on-site and/or at
the Lake Calavera Mitigation Bank Parcel, then
alternative mitigation credits may be purchased
from the North County Mitigation Bank, or other
alternative sites deemed acceptable by the resource
agencies.
Bio-7a If dredging and improvement activities cannot be
conducted outside the breeding season for
sensitive wildlife species, then prior to
commencement of construction activities, a
preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist to determine presence/absence
of nesting birds. If nesting birds are detected on-
site, vegetation removal shall be delayed until the
chicks have fledged or the nest has failed.
Bio-7b To address potential impacts to the light-footed
clapper rail, a qualified biologist shall survey the
area and surrounding 500-foot buffer area for
light-footed clapper rails prior to implementation
Residual
Impact
Less than
significant
Less than
significant
Less than
significant
Page 2 of 7 Exhibit 2a to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Additional Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
of dredging activities. There is no need to survey
the area upstream of El Camino Real since this
area is void of suitable clapper rail habitat
(freshwater marsh). If clapper rails are detected in
the project area, they should be flushed, prior to
the onset of any vegetation removal.
Bio-7c For potential indirect impacts to least Bell's vireo,
mitigation measures Bio 1-h through Bio 1-j shall
be implemented, as applicable.
Bio-7d For potential indirect impacts to southwestern
willow flycatcher, implementation mitigation
measures Bio 1-k through Bio 1-m shall be
implemented, as applicable.
Bio-7e To discourage sensitive species from entering active
construction areas between El Camino Real and
Cannon Road bridges, a physical barrier
(construction fence) shall be installed on the
downstream side of Cannon Road before dredging
or vegetation removal commences. The barrier
would be removed once the construction activity has
ceased on the south side of El Camino Real.
S.8 ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY
Table S-3
Program Level Comparison of Alternatives Impacts to BMP Update Impacts*
;:: ~y^y^:; • .>.;••' /, .
" Issue Area
Land Use
Agriculture
Visual Resources
Transportation/Circulation
Air Quality
Noise
Recreation
Geology/Soils
Hydrology/Water Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Paleontological
Resources
Project Alternatives
No
Mechanized
Dredging or
Vegetation
Removal
Greater
Similar
Similar
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Similar
Similar
Similar
Fewer
SitTii \OTUIlllI I til
Fewer
Fewer
Reduced
Impact to
Sensitive
Habitats and
Wetlands
Q im j 1*ir13111H idi
Greater
Similar
Similar
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Similar
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Similar
Similar
Reduced Use
of Impervious
Materials
Similar
Similar
Similar
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Similar
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Similar
Similar
No Project-
No Update
to the
Existing 1994
MB§QMP
Greater
Similar
Greater
Greater
Similar
Fewer
Similar
Similar
Greater
Fewer
Fewer
Fewer
No Project-
No BMP
Update
Apflreval
Greater
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Greater
Undetermined
Undetermined
Undetermined
Page 3 of 7 Exhibit 2a to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Additional Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
issue Area
Achieves DMP
Update Objectives
"X.: Pji^ect Alternatives ' c' ' " .:"-v-:,,, ""*' '•• -
- -• No
Mechanized
Dredging or
Vegetation
Removal
No
Reduced
Impact tg
Seasitive
Habitats and
Wetlands
¥es-No
Reduced Use
of Impervious
Materials
Yes
Nb.;iProi<«- ,
No Update
to the
Existing 1994
MDSQMP
No
No Project-
No BMP
Update
Approval
No
a Greater = Alternative results in greater impacts than the DMP Update, even if the DMP Update would result in
significant impacts to the issue area.
Fewer = Alternative results in fewer impacts than the DMP Update but would not necessarily reduce impacts to
a less than significant level.
Similar = Alternative results in similar impacts as the proposed DMP Update.
Environmentally Superior Program Level Alternative
Based on the qualitative evaluation of the alternatives, implementation of the Reduced
Impact to Sensitive Habitats and Wetlands Alternative Reduced Use of Impervious Materials
would be the environmentally superior program level alternative. Overall, this alternative
would result in fewer impacts than the DMP Update, as proposed, while achieving the DMP
Update objectives. While this alternative would result in fewer impacts than the DMP
Update to Noise and Biological Resources (Table S-32), impacts would generally still be
considered significant for these issue areas. However, the DMP Update was developed with
consideration of environmental constraints and generally avoids locating facilities within
sensitive habitats or wetlands. A facility is only proposed in sensitive habitats and wetlands
if the facility is necessary to achieve flood control and adequate storm flow conveyance to
meet the objectives of the DMP Update, which would not be achieved with an alternative
location. As with the DMP Update, incorporation of the mitigation measures included in this
EIR would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Neither implementation of the
Reduced Impact to Sensitive Habitats and Wetlands Alternative Reduced Use of Impervious
Materials Alternative nor the DMP Update would result in any unmitigable significant
impacts directly, indirectly, or cumulatively. While the Reduced Impact to Sensitive
Habitats and Wetlands Alternative Reduced Use of Impervious Materials Alternative is
considered the environmentally superior alternative, it may not achieve the level of flood
control that would be provided by implementation of the DMP Update, as demonstrated in
the analysis in this EIR.
Page 4 of 7 Exhibit 2a to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Additional Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
Environmentally Superior Project Level Alternative
Based on the analysis, the No Project Alternative would potentially result in fewer impacts to
the issue areas of Air Quality, Noise, and Biological Resources. However, the alternative
would potentially result in greater impacts to Land Use, Visual Resources,
Transportation/Circulation, Geology/Soils and Hydrology/Water Quality. Further, the No
Project Alternative would not achieve the objectives of the proposed project because 210 lots
would not receive flood protection during a 100-year storm event.
The 2:1 Side Slope Design Alternative would potentially result in fewer impacts to the issue
area of Geology/Soils. However, the alternative would potentially result in greater impacts
to Land Use, Visual Resources, Transportation/Circulation, Air Quality,
Hydrology/Water Quality, and Biological Resources and would not achieve the objectives of
the proposed project because 26 lots would not receive flood protection during a 100-year
storm event.
Table S-4
Project Level Alternatives Comparison of Impacts"
Issue Area
Land Use
Agriculture
Visual Resources
Transportation/Circulation
Air Quality
Noise
Recreation
Geology/Soils
Hydrology/Water Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Paleontological Resources
Achieves Project Objectives
l»ro|eet Alternatives
* :t2^cF«j«fct^ '<*
Greater
Similar
Greater
Greater
Fewer
Fewer
Similar
Greater
Greater
Fewer
Similar
Similar
No
;
Greater
Similar
Greater
^UTllltir vJICO-LCl
Similar Greater
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Greater
Greater
Similar
Similar
No
Greater = Alternative results in greater impacts than the proposed project, even if the
proposed project would result in significant impacts to the issue area.
Fewer = Alternative results in fewer impacts than the proposed project but would not
necessarily reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Similar = Alternative results in similar impacts as the proposed project.
Page 5 of 7 Exhibit 2a to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Additional Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
Because neither of the alternatives would achieve the objectives of the proposed project and
would potentially result in greater impacts to some of the issue areas, the proposed Agua
Hedionda and Calavera Creeks Dredging and Improvements Project would be the
environmentally superior alternative.
CHAPTER 3.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Table 3-6
Summary of Project Design Features/Methods,
Agency Requirements, and Construction Measures
Biological
Resources
The trimming of trees that could provide roost/nest sites for raptors shall
only be completed between September 16 and December 31 to prevent
possible disruptions to breeding raptors.
Any native vegetation removed shall be cut off at the surface, to allow
maximum resprouting. Areas where vegetation will be removed shall be
revegetated with native species similar to those removed.
For projects within or adjacent to an HMP Hardline Preserve area, a
qualified project biologist shall be made available for both the
preconstruction and construction phases to review plans, address protection
of sensitive biological resources and wildlife movement corridors, and
monitor ongoing work. The project biologist shall review final plans,
designate areas that need temporary fencing, and monitor the installation of
appropriate temporary fencing and construction. The project biologist shall
monitor construction activities within designated areas during critical times
such as vegetation removal and the installation of BMPs and HMP Hardline
Preserve fencing, and ensure that all avoidance and minimization measures
are properly constructed and followed.
Page 6 of 7 Exhibit 2a to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Additional Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
CHAPTER 7.0
ALTERNATIVES
7.5.2 Project Level
Table 7-2 summarizes the findings from the project level alternatives evaluation.
Based on the analysis, the No Project Alternative would potentially result in fewer impacts to
the issue areas of Noise, Air Quality and Biological Resources. However, the alternative
would potentially result in greater impacts to Land Use, Visual Resources,
Transportation/Circulation, Geology/Soils, and Hydrology/Water Quality. Further, the No
Project Alternative would not achieve the objectives of the proposed project because up to
210 lots would not receive flood protection during a 100-year storm event.
Table 7-2
Project Level Alternatives Comparison of Impacts '
Issue Area
Land Use
Agriculture
Visual Resources
Transportation/Circulation
Air Quality
Noise
Recreation
Geology/Soils
Hydrology/Water Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Paleontological Resources
Achieves Project Objectives
Project Alternatives
No Project
Greater
Similar
Greater
Greater
Fewer
Fewer
Similar
Greater
Greater
Fewer
Similar
Similar
No
2:1 Slope Design
Greater
Similar
Greater
Greater
Greater
Similar
Similar
Fewer
Greater
Greater
Similar
Similar
No
Greater = Alternative results in greater impacts than the proposed project, even if
the proposed project would result in significant impacts to the issue area.
Fewer = Alternative results in fewer impacts than the proposed project but would
not necessarily reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Similar = Alternative results in similar impacts as the proposed project.
Page 7 of 7 Exhibit 2a to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Additional Recommended Revisions to the Final EIR
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
The 2:1 Side Slope Design Alternative would potentially result in fewer impacts to the issue
area of Geology/Soils. However, this alternative would potentially result in greater impacts
to Land Use, Visual Resources, Transportation/Circulation, Air Quality, Hydrology/Water
Quality, and Biological Resources and would not achieve the objectives of the proposed
project as up to 26 lots would not receive flood protection during a 100-year storm event.
Because neither of the alternatives would achieve the objectives of the proposed project and
would potentially result in greater impacts to some of the issue areas, the proposed Agua
Hedionda and Calavera Creeks Dredging and Improvements Project would be the
environmentally superior alternative.
Exhibit 3 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Recommended Changes to the Candidate Findings of Fact
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikethrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
3.2.3 Mitigation Measures
Bio-Id Impacts to Type D (unoccupied coastal sage scrub, coastal sage/chaparral mix,
chaparral), Type E (annual, nonnative grassland), and Type F (disturbed lands,
eucalyptus, agricultural lands) habitats are not subject to the fee payment.
Instead, these types of impacts will be mitigated at the Lake Calavera Mitigation
Bank Parcel, per the ratios included in Table 11 of the HMP. An appropriate
mitigation ratio would be determined based on habitat quality and quantity as
determined in coordination with the applicable Resource Agencies at the time of
project permitting.
3.2.7 Mitigation
Bio-6 The project shall mitigate impacts to wetland and riparian habitat through on-site
restoration and/or off-site wetland and riparian habitat creation/restoration/
enhancement at a ratio to be determined in coordination with the applicable
Resource Agencies at the time of permitting, consistent with LCP and HMP policies
and provisions, as applicable. If adequate acreage to satisfy mitigation is not
available on-site and/or at the Lake Calavera Mitigation Bank Parcel, then
alternative mitigation credits may be purchased from the North County Mitigation
Bank, or other alternative sites deemed acceptable by the Resource Agencies.
9
Page 30 of 37 Exhibit 4 to the City Council Resolution certifying EIR 04-02
Recommended changes to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(Note: Underlined words indicate text to be added and strikothrough words indicate text to be deleted.)
PROJECT NAME: City of Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan fDMP) Update
(includes Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creek Project)
FILE NUMBERS: EIR 04-02/LCPA
02/HMPP 06-03/CDP 06-04
07-06/ZCA 07-04/SUP 06-
APPROVAL DATE: [Click Herel
The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental
impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with
and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6).
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Type Monitoring
Department
Shown on
Plans
Verified
Implementation Remarks
Program Level Mitigation Measures - DMP Update Components
Bio- Id Impacts to Type D (unoccupied coastal sage scrub,
coastal sage/chaparral mix, chaparral), Type E
(annual, normative grassland), and Type F
(disturbed lands, eucalyptus, agricultural lands)
habitats are not subject to the fee payment. Instead,
these types of impacts will be mitigated at the Lake
Calavera Mitigation Bank Parcel, per the ratios
included in HMP Table 11. An appropriate
mitigation ratio would be determined based on
habitat quality and quantity as determined in
coordination with the applicable resource agencies
at the time of project permitting.
Pre-
construction/
Post-
Construction
City of
Carlsbad,
Engineering
- Public
Works;
Planning
Project Level Mitigation Measures - Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks Dredging and Improvements Project
Bio-6 The project shall mitigate impacts to wetland and
riparian habitat through on-site restoration and/or
wetland and riparian habitat
creation/restoration/enhancement at a ratio to be
determined in coordination with the applicable
Pre-
construction/
Post-
Construction
City of
Carlsbad,
Engineering
- Public
Works;