HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-11-18; Planning Commission; ; GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENTThe City of Carlsbad Planning Department
A REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Item No.
P.C. AGENDA OF: November 18, 2009
Application complete date: N/A
Project Planner: Scott Donnell
Project Engineer: N/A
SUBJECT: GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT - Request for a
recommendation of adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a
recommendation of approval 'for a General Plan Amendment to adopt the
update and revisions to the General Plan Housing Element for the 2005-2010
Housing Cycle as required by the California Government Code.
I. RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission ADOPT Planning Commission Resolution No. 6547
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and ADOPT
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6548 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a
General Plan Amendment (GPA 03-02) based on the findings contained therein.
II.INTRODUCTION
The City of Carlsbad is updating its General Plan Housing Element. The Housing Element
addresses a variety of housing topics, including need, availability, and affordability for a
specific period, or housing cycle. The last housing cycle ended June 30, 2005, and the City
adopted the Housing Element for that cycle in 2000. The current housing cycle began July
1, 2005, and ends June 30, 2010. An update to the Housing Element requires an amendment
to the General Plan.
State law requires every city and county in California to update its housing element for each
housing cycle. The state Department of Housing and Community Development, Division of
Housing Policy Development (HCD) reviews and certifies Housing Elements for
compliance with state law. With revisions made since its initial release in April 2007, HCD
has found Carlsbad's proposed 2005-2010 Housing Element for the current housing cycle
will comply with state law. A copy of the compliance letter is attached.
Unlike other General Plan Amendments, since the proposal would amend the Housing
Element, it requires the review of the City's Housing Commission. The Housing
Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the general plan amendment at
meetings in January and February of this year. Additionally, following consideration by the
Planning Commission, the City Council will also review the 2005-2010 Housing Element
("Draft Housing Element") at a public hearing. If the City Council approves the Draft
Housing Element, it will be sent to HCD for certification. As the state has 90 days to
complete its final review, the City expects to have a certified element by early 2010.
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18,2009
Page 2
If approved and certified, the City will need to implement the various programs of the Draft
Housing Element. Some of these simply continue previously approved programs that are
successful and underway. Other programs are new and would require amendments to the
General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other city requirements. These amendments would be
subject to separate and additional public review and hearings.
The programs that require amendments to the City's land use documents, such as its General
Plan, are proposed to accommodate projected growth and address recent changes in state
law. For example, a proposed program would implement a recent state law that requires
cities to identify zones in which emergency shelters can be permitted by right, without a
conditional use permit.
Other proposed programs respond to housing unit needs estimates developed by the state
through HCD to accommodate projected growth throughout California. The San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG) then distributes the forecasted housing units
through a complex formula to all San Diego jurisdictions and for all income groups. This
SANDAG process is formally known as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, or
"RHNA."
Carlsbad's share of the RHNA requires the accommodation of 8,376 housing units over a
7.5 year period from 2003 to 2010. While Carlsbad does not have to build or require the
building of units to meet the projections, the City must provide the opportunities needed to
enable developers to construct these units. These opportunities exist in the form of land use
policies and standards, such as General Plan land use designations and minimum densities
and zoning requirements.
With existing standards, developers have constructed several thousand units in Carlsbad
since 2003. However, the City's existing policies and requirements are not adequate to meet
all projected growth in the lower and moderate income categories. Therefore, amendments
are proposed. These amendments, which include redesignating specific properties to higher
densities and allowing mixed use residential at shopping centers, have been the focus of
public comment on the Draft Housing Element.
Despite the need for amendments, Carlsbad has successfully worked hard to produce
substantial affordable housing. This is demonstrated in the draft element, particularly in
Section 3, and is evidenced in the 2007 report, Affordable By Choice: Trends in California
Inclusionary Housing Programs. Commissioned by several housing-interest groups, the
report identifies Carlsbad as one of California's top producers of affordable housing.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
Draft Housing Element Purpose and Contents
The Housing Element of the General Plan is designed to provide the City with a coordinated
and comprehensive strategy for promoting the production of safe, decent, and affordable
housing within the community. A priority of both State and local governments, Government
Code Section 65580 states the intent of creating Housing Elements:
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18,2009
Page 3
The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of
decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian, including farm
workers, is apriority of the highest order.
Per State law, the Draft Housing Element has two main purposes:
(1) To provide an assessment of both current and future housing needs and constraints
in meeting these needs; and
(2) To provide a strategy that establishes housing goals, policies, and programs.
As a five-year plan covering a specified period of time (in this case, the 2005-2010 housing
cycle), the Housing Element differs from the City's other General Plan elements, which cover
a much longer period. The Housing Element serves as an integrated part of the General Plan,
but is updated more frequently to ensure its relevancy and accuracy. The Draft Housing
Element identifies strategies and programs that focus on:
(1) Conserving and improving existing affordable housing;
(2) Maximizing housing opportunities throughout the community;
(3) Assisting in the provision of affordable housing;
(4) Removing governmental and other constraints to housing investment; and
(5) Promoting fair and equal housing opportunities.
The City's Draft Housing Element is divided into the following six topic areas, each a section
of the document:
• Introduction. An introduction to review the requirements of the Draft Housing
Element, public participation process, and data sources (Section 1 of the Draft Housing
Element);
• Housing Needs Assessment. A profile and analysis of the City's demographics,
housing characteristics, and existing and future housing needs (Section 2);
• Resources Available. A review of resources available to facilitate and encourage the
production and maintenance of housing, including land available for new construction
and redevelopment, as well as financial and administrative resources available for
housing. This section also documents Carlsbad's efforts to meet its RHNA through an
analysis of existing land use policies, an inventory of residential land and projects, and
proposed programs that recommend, among other things, revised minimum densities
(Section 3);
• Constraints and Mitigating Opportunities. An analysis of constraints on housing
production and maintenance, including market, governmental, and environmental
limitations to meeting the City's identified needs (Section 4);
• Review of 1999 Housing Element. An evaluation of accomplishments under the 1999-
2005 Housing Element (Section 5); and
• Housing Plan. A statement of the Housing Plan to address the City's identified
housing needs and a formulation of housing goals, policies, and programs (Section 6).
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18, 2009
Page 4
The Draft Housing Element also contains appendices, which provide the following
information:
• Eligibility for Housing Element self-certification (Appendix A);
• Summary of Housing Element accomplishments for the previous (1999-2005) housing
cycle (Appendix B);
• Available land inventories for proposed or existing residential development, prepared
to demonstrate compliance with RHNA, discussed in Analysis below (Appendices C -
G);and
• A sample staff report and meeting noticing materials (Appendices H and I).
Because of their continued success and relevancy, review of Appendix B demonstrates that
most housing goals, policies, and programs found in the Housing Element adopted in 2000 are
included in the Draft Housing Element. For example, proposed Program 3.1 states the City
will continue to implement the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. Carlsbad's inclusionary
requirements have been quite successful in producing housing affordable to lower income
families. In fact, developers constructed over 650 units of affordable housing in Carlsbad from
2003 to 2006.
Staff has received a June 27, 2009, memorandum from the University of San Diego
Environmental Law Clinic criticizing the datedness of some information found primarily in
Sections 2 and 4 of the Draft Housing Element. The memorandum and staffs response are
provided as attachments to the staff report.
Previous Draft Housing Element Review
The preparation of the Draft Housing Element has taken several years and involved frequent
public notice and comment opportunities. The Housing Commission held three public
workshops on the Draft Housing Element from October 2004 to May 2005 and additional
meetings on the matter in 2007 and 2009. Additionally, drafts of the Housing Element were
released for public review in April 2007, June 2008, and December 2008.
In April 2007, the Housing Commission met to (1) provide city staff formal comments on
the Draft Housing Element and (2) consider a recommendation to support submission of the
draft element to HCD. While not required by state law, jurisdictions typically seek a review
body's support to submit the draft. The meeting was well attended by the public, particularly
because of a component of proposed Program 2.1 (found in Section 6 of the Draft Housing
Element) that would redesignate portions of a large vacant property known as Quarry Creek
for medium and high density housing at densities considered by the state to be appropriate to
develop housing affordable to lower and moderate income persons.
Quarry Creek is the name commonly given to an approximately 100 acre former quarry at
the Carlsbad and Oceanside border, just west of the Quarry Creek shopping center in
Oceanside. The Housing Commission, by minute motion, voted 2-1 on the recommendation
to support filing the draft with HCD. Since the affirmative vote of three commission
members is needed for any Commission action, the Commission did not act on the
recommendation. More information about Quarry Creek may also be found in Section 3 of
the Draft Housing Element and in Tables 1 and 3 below.
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18,2009
Page5
Subsequent to the Housing Commission meeting, the City Council, in July 2007, approved
the filing of the Draft Housing Element to HCD. The Planning Department then submitted
the document to HCD for the first of three separate reviews by the state.
Section 1, under Public Participation, contains a recap of the Council meeting and the
Housing Commission meetings and workshops. The recap also identifies the issues and
concerns raised as well as staffs responses to them.
Following the three separate reviews of the Element by HCD, the Housing Commission
again reviewed the Draft Housing Element at public meetings on January 8 and February 12,
2009. At its last meeting, the Housing Commission voted 3-2 to recommend approval of the
amendment to the Planning Commission and City Council. The staff report and minutes of
the recent Housing Commission meetings are attached.
As with all previous meetings and workshops at which the Draft Housing Element has been
discussed, staff has publicized the current meeting by sending meeting notices to a list of
interested citizens, government agencies, housing advocates, developers, lenders, Realtors,
Carlsbad homeowner associations, large farmers, and major employers.
Self-certification
Pursuant to special legislation (Government Code 65585.1), jurisdictions in the San Diego
region are eligible to self-certify their Housing Elements and avoid the lengthy HCD-
certification process. For a jurisdiction to self-certify, it must meet specified affordable
housing goals. Additionally, a self-certified element must substantially comply with state law.
Having exceeded self-certification requirements (as shown in Appendix A), Carlsbad is
entitled to self-certify its Draft Housing Element and initially planned to do so. However,
after further consideration, the City chose instead to pursue HCD certification. One reason for
this decision is that certification by HCD provides Carlsbad with a rebuttable presumption that
the Housing Element is legally valid, which shifts the burden of proof to the challenger to
show the element is inadequate. Another reason to pursue HCD certification is that a self-
certified element may cause a jurisdiction to be ineligible for certain funds and grants
distributed by HCD. In September 2006, the City Council directed staff to pursue HCD-
certification. More details about self-certification may be found in Section 1 and Appendix A
of the draft element.
IV. ANALYSIS
This analysis section focuses on different aspects of the Draft Housing Element and its
consistency with land use documents such as the General Plan. Information this section provides
on Quarry Creek and the Draft Housing Element Site Study were largely written by staff in
response to public and commissioner comments raised during this year's Housing Commission
meetings. The following aspects of the Draft Housing Element are discussed in this section:
• Proposed Housing Element Policies and Programs
• Adequate Sites and RHNA
• Quarry Creek
• Draft Housing Element Site Study
• Housing Needs
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18,2009
Page 6
• Consistency with the General Plan, Local Coastal Program and Growth Management
• Certified Housing Element Benefits
Draft Housing Element Policies and Programs
The Housing Plan, found in Section 6, sets out the City's long-term housing goals and identifies a
menu of shorter-term objectives, policy positions, and programs to achieve the long-term goals.
The goals, objectives, policies, and programs comprise a broad-based Housing Plan for the
creation of housing opportunities throughout the City. Through this Housing Plan the City
demonstrates its understanding of the magnitude of the housing problem, as well as its
commitment of City resources to providing the necessary solutions.
Generally, the programs identify how and when Carlsbad will address a housing need. They
identify funding, implementation responsibility, and the objectives and time frame. For example,
several programs require the City to adopt or amend ordinances. These amendments must be
accomplished within the housing cycle.
Before devising a new five-year housing plan for the Draft Housing Element, staff reviewed the
housing goals, policies, and programs contained in the Housing Element adopted in 2000 for
effectiveness and continued appropriateness. Based on this review, most programs remain relevant
and effective. However, some programs, such as Program 3.13 of the previously adopted Element,
are no longer necessary and are proposed for deletion. A complete analysis of the prior Housing
Element is contained in Section 5 and Appendix B of the Draft Housing Element.
As mentioned, the Draft Housing Element makes no changes to the City's successful
inclusionary housing program. Additionally, no programs are proposed to modify Zoning
Ordinance requirements regarding the planned development ordinance, density bonus, senior
housing regulations, or growth management regulations. However, Zoning Ordinance (and thus
Local Coastal Program) changes are needed to help Carlsbad meet it's RHNA (such as through a
program to allow housing in the commercial zones) and comply with state law (see Housing
Needs below). Finally, Draft Housing Element programs propose no changes to the City Council
Policy Statement 43, which establishes the criteria for awarding units from the City's Excess
Dwelling Unit Bank.
Adequate Sites and RHNA
Carlsbad's share of the regional housing need for the current cycle is allocated by SANDAG to
each of the four income groups listed below and is based on factors such as recent growth trends,
income distribution, and capacity for future growth. For the current housing cycle, Carlsbad's
share is 8,376 units. After taking into account vacant residential land and housing units already
constructed, under construction, and approved (through December 31 2006), the City's
remaining RHNA to satisfy through 2010 is as follows:
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18,2009
Page 7
• Very Low Income: 1,719 units -i
• Low Income: 676 units J 2,395 "lower" income units
• Moderate Income: 1,171 units
• Above Moderate Income: 0 units
Total 3,566 units
As the above list indicates, Carlsbad must demonstrate it has adequate sites to accommodate
units in all but the above moderate income category. While state law requires jurisdictions
to provide adequate sites to meet their RHNA obligations, they are not required to develop
the sites nor ensure the sites actually develop. Instead, cities and counties must have the
appropriate land use designations and standards in place so developers can propose projects
consistent with the programs of the Housing Element.
Generally, HCD considers land designated by a city's General Plan for high density, multi-
family residential uses to be appropriate for very low and low income households
(collectively "lower income" households), land designated for medium or medium-high
density uses to be suitable for moderate income households, and land designated for low
density, single family uses to be appropriate for above moderate income households. HCD
has accepted Carlsbad's position that a minimum density of 20 dwelling units/acre (du/ac) is
adequate for lower income uses and a minimum density of 12 du/ac is adequate for moderate
income uses.
In Carlsbad, high density lands have a General Plan designation of "RH" and allow 15 to 23
du/ac, with a Growth Management Control Point of 19 du/ac. Medium-high density lands
have a designation of "RMH," and allow 8 to 15 du/ac, with a Growth Management Control
Point of 11.5 du/ac. The Growth Management Control Point is typically the density below
or at which development has historically occurred, although some projects, such as
Robertson Ranch (see Table 1 below), have developed or been approved at higher densities.
Factoring vacant and underutilized land currently designated RH or RMH yields about 700
high density units for lower income families and about 330 medium-high density units for
moderate income families. These figures are based on potentially achievable unit yields
from vacant properties and underutilized properties (properties with low improvement to
land values, such as an older single-family home on a large lot designated for high density
uses).
Based on the preceding paragraph, current programs, policies, and land use designations,
which yield about 1,030 units, do not accommodate Carlsbad's entire remaining share of
very low, low, and moderate income households, which total over 3,500 units. To make up
the shortfall, the City has proposed programs that require amendments to the General Plan,
Zoning Ordinance, and Village Redevelopment Master Plan and Design Manual, including:
• Increasing minimum densities for all RMH and RH designated properties from 11.5
du/ac and 19 du/ac to 12 and 20 du/ac, respectively;
• Permitting mixed use residential projects in the City's shopping centers and
commercial zones at 20 du/ac. This affects properties such as Plaza Camino Real;
• Changing land use designations on existing residential and non-residential properties
to help meet its remaining RHNA. These city-initiated changes are in addition to
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18,2009
PageS
privately-initiated projects, such as Robertson Ranch (already approved) and Bridges
at Aviara, which the City has counted toward meeting its regional share obligation.
City-initiated amendments affect properties such as Quarry Creek and the Barrio
Area just south of downtown; and
• Establishing minimum densities in the Village Redevelopment Area of 18 and 28
du/ac, depending on land use district.
Details about these proposed changes generally may be found in Section 3 and programs 2.1
and 2.3 of the draft Element.
The following tables, from Section 3 of the draft Element, provide detail about the sites and
densities proposed to help Carlsbad meet its remaining RHNA.
TABLE 1
EXISTING AND PROPOSED RH SITES
Property APN Acres Density Number
of Units1
Vacant Residential Sites currently designated RH
Robertson Ranch
Unentitled Land •
Subtotal
Portions of 168-050-47,
208-010-36
Various (see Appendix C)
22
12
20-22.3
du/ac2
20 du/ac3
4652
237
702
Vacant Residential Sites proposed to be designated RH
Bridges at Aviara
Affordable Housing
Component4' 5
Subtotal
Portions of 215-050-44 and
47 2.6 25 65
65
Vacant Non-Residential Sites proposed to be designated RH
Ponto4
Quarry Creek4
Subtotal
Other
Underutilized RH
Sites
Proposed Barrio
Area4
Subtotal
Total
216-140-17
Portions of 167-040-21 j
Various (see Appendix D)
Various (See Appendix G)
6.4
15
<*
0.26
14
20 du/ac
20 du/ac
20 du/ac3
28 du/ac
128
300
428
8
256
264
1,459
Notes:
factors.
2 General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Master Plan approved to allow the densities and number of units
shown. Number of units includes 78 high-density, lower income units under construction (Glen Ridge) as
of October 2008. These units are not reflected in Table 3-2.
3 City commits to process a GPA to increase minimum density to 20 du/ac on these sites (new program).
4 More information about these projects is provided in Section 3 of the Draft Housing Element.
5This is a private, developer-initiated project.
Source: City of Carlsbad, December 2008
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18, 2009
Page 9
Table 2 identifies properties that would permit "mixed use" developments, or developments
that combine residential and commercial uses on the same or adjacent properties.
Residences in mixed use projects would be developed at the minimum densities shown.
More information on the proposed shopping center mixed use sites and other sites identified
in the table may be found in Draft Housing Element Section 3.
TABLE 2
EXISTING AND PROPOSED RH MIXED USE SITES
Property APN Acres Density Number
of Units1
Proposed Vacant Mixed Use Sites
Commercial Mixed Use
Ponto2 Portion of 2 16- 140- 18 2.8
(approx)20 du/ac 28
Proposed Shopping Center Mixed Use Sites
Various (see Table 3-7)2 Various Various 20 du/ac 525
Existing Village Mixed Use Sites (underutilized and vacant)
Village Redevelopment
Area2 Various (see Appendix F)71.5 18 and 28
du/ac3 875
Proposed Barrio Area (primarily underutilized)
Barrio Area2
Total
Various (see Appendix G) 5 28 du/ac3 45
1,473
Notes:
' Number of units does not always reflect acreage multiplied by density because of rounding, planned mixed use
developments, and other factors. Number of units also reflects deductions for any existing units.
2 More information about these projects is provided in Section 3 of the draft Element.
3 The City commits to adopting a policy to establish the minimum densities shown. Only 50% of the potential
yield for both Village and proposed Barrio Area Mixed Use sites is considered. For the Village, only 1.7 acres of
the total acres shown are vacant.
Source: City of Carlsbad, August 2007 and March 2008
As Table 3 identifies below, also proposed are changes to existing and planned medium-
high density residential sites.
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18, 2009
Page 10
TABLE 3
EXISTING AND PROPOSED MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(RMH) SITES
Property APN Acres Density Number
of Units1
Vacant Residential Sites currently designated RMH
Robertson Ranch
Vacant Unentitled
RMH Land
Subtotal
Portions of 168-050-47,208-
010-36
Various (see Appendix C)
7
8
12.4du/ac2
12du/ac3
842
92
176
Vacant Non-Residential Sites proposed to be designated RMH
Quarry Creek Portions of 167-040-21 17 12 du/ac3 200
Other
Underutilized
RMH Land
Underutilized RH
Land in the Beach
Area Overlay
Zone
Proposed Barrio
Area4
Subtotal
Total
Various (see Appendix D)
Various (see Appendix E)5
Various (see Appendix G)
10
5.5
3
12 du/ac3
15 du/ac
12 du/ac3
102
60
31
193
569
Notes:
1 Number of units does not always reflect acreage multiplied by density because of rounding and other factors.
2 GPA and Master Plan approved to allow the densities and number of units shown.
3 City commits to process a GPA and/or other legislative changes necessary to increase minimum density to 12
du/ac on these or portions of these sites (new program).
4 More information about these sites is found in Section 3 of the Draft Housing Element.
5 The minimum density of 15 du/ac is the existing lower end of the density range for the Residential High Density
(RH) designation.
City of Carlsbad, August 2007 and March 2008
Based on the land use changes proposed in the above tables, the City is able to meet its
remaining RHNA, as Table 4 below shows, since units allocated to the lower income
category may also help fulfill the unit need of the moderate income category. Overall, Table
4 reveals the City has a 39 unit surplus of housing considered affordable to lower income
persons.
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18,2009
Page 11
TABLE 4
ADEQUACY OF SITES IN MEETING REMAINING RHNA
Sites
Residential Sites
Mixed Use Sites
Recently approved
Proposals with
Affordable
Components1
Second Units2
Total
RHNA Remaining
Difference
Lower
Income
1,459
1,473
16
80
3,028
2,395
+633
Moderate
Income
569
0
8
0
577
1,171
-594
Above
Moderate
Income
1,675
0
0
1,675
—+1,675
Total
3,703
1,473
24
80
5,280
3,566
+1,714
Notes:
found in the tables above and represent affordable housing approved since December 31, 2006. Two
of the lower income units identified are in an approved mixed use (commercial and residential)
development.
2The City has also counted toward its high density yield the estimated number (80) of second
dwelling units to be built through 2010.
Source: City of Carlsbad, May 2008.
Errata to recommended Planning Commission Resolution 6548
Planning Commission Resolution 6548, which recommends approval of the General Plan
Amendment for the Draft Housing Element, includes an errata. The errata propose minor
changes to the text and tables of Draft Housing Element Sections 3 and 4. Since the
preparation of the latest version of the Draft Housing Element (dated December 2008), the
applicant has modified and the City has approved La Costa Town Square. Among the
changes were the deletion of the residential/commercial mixed use component. In addition,
in August 2009 the City Council approved the project, but without its proposed high density
residential site. Both the mixed use component and high density residential site were
acknowledged in the Draft Housing Element as they helped Carlsbad meet its remaining
RHNA in the form of units affordable to lower-income persons.
To make up for the loss of 134 high density units from La Costa Town Square as counted by
the Draft Housing Element, two additional shopping center sites with high density mixed
use potential are proposed for addition to Table 3-7 of the Draft Housing Element. These
sites are identified in the errata.
Besides these changes, the errata also contain other minor revisions; staff has revised section
4 to clarify the ability of all water and sewer districts to serve the remaining RHNA units.
Finally, the section's discussion on environmental constraints with regards to Quarry Creek
has been modified to note that groundwater contamination is being remediated.
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18,2009
Page 12
Quarry Creek
Of the many programs in the Draft Housing Element, Program 2.1 has generated the most public
interest because one of its components would increase minimum densities for the property
commonly referred to as Quarry Creek. This program would redesignate approximately 32 acres
of Quarry Creek to accommodate 500 housing units, as compared to the approximately 165 units
the site can accommodate under its current residential land use designation. The present General
Plan designations for Quarry Creek are Low-Medium Density (RLM, 0-4 units/acre) and Open
Space (OS). The current zoning for the property is Manufacturing (M) and One-family
Residential, minimum 10,000 square foot lot size (R-1-10,000). The General Plan Land Use
Map also shows the extension of Marron Road across the Quarry Creek site. Under the City's
Habitat Management Plan, portions of the property are designated as either Proposed Hardline
Conservation Areas or Development Areas.
Public comments have included suggestions that Quarry Creek should be entirely set aside as
open space, because of its location and important natural and cultural resources, and concerns
that soil and groundwater contamination may pose threats to future residents there.
Approximately half of the mostly vacant, 100-acre Quarry Creek property has been disturbed by
mining operations that ended in 1996. An additional four-acre portion of the former mine,
consisting of a steep-walled pit just west of and below Mossy Nissan, is in Oceanside and is not
part of the site considered by this Draft Housing Element. Also not part of Program 2.1 but in
Carlsbad is an approximately 57 acre "panhandle" parcel adjacent to and west of the Quarry
Creek property. This vacant property, which has not been mined, also has RLM and OS land use
designations. Details about all of these properties have been previously provided to the Planning
Commission in the "2005-2010 Housing Element Information Packet," which is referenced as a
staff report attachment.
As a formerly mined property, the Quarry Creek site is subject to reclamation as required by the
state Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. The proposed reclamation plan and accompanying
Draft Subsequent EIR were released for public review in September 2008. It is estimated that
both documents may be ready for public hearing in early 2010. Reclamation of most of the
Oceanside portion of the former mine, now occupied by Kohl's, WalMart, and other businesses
in the Quarry Creek shopping center, was completed earlier this decade.
While significantly disturbed, the Quarry Creek property also features significant natural and
cultural resources, including Buena Vista Creek and El Salto Falls. According to the Draft
Subsequent EIR, the California Native American Heritage Commission has recognized the falls
as a sacred site for the Luiseno people, in particular the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians,
because of its cultural significance, including for religious, ceremonial, and historical reasons. As
required by state law, staff has officially consulted with the San Luis Rey Band regarding Quarry
Creek and the entire Draft Housing Element.
The Draft Subsequent EIR also notes El Salto Falls meets the criteria of a "traditional cultural
property" as established by the National Park Service (NPS). According to the NFS, such a
property ".. .can be defined generally as one that is eligible for inclusion on the National Register
[of Historic Places] because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living
community that (a) are rooted in that community's history, and (b) are important in maintaining
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18,2009
Page 13
continuing cultural identity of the community." The National Register of Historic Places is an
official list of America's historic places worthy of preservation maintained by the NFS.
The need to preserve the falls, as well as the need to maintain an appropriate setting around
them, is acknowledged in the proposed reclamation plan for Quarry Creek. However, the Draft
Subsequent EIR states that no specific boundaries have been placed on El Salto Falls as a
traditional cultural property, making it difficult to assess potential impacts resulting from
reclamation activities. Furthermore, since an overall objective of the proposed reclamation plan
is not to develop Quarry Creek but instead to "reclaim.. .the site to a safe, usable condition that is
readily adaptable for future land uses ..." the Draft Subsequent EIR concludes that establishment
of an appropriate boundary around El Salto Falls would occur as part of the review of
development plans for Quarry Creek. Moreover, staff notes that El Salto Falls, the creek, some
hillsides, and a large riparian area are already protected by an Open Space designation per the
existing General Plan Map.
Based on earlier agreements between the two jurisdictions, Oceanside, not Carlsbad, is
responsible for overseeing the review and approval of the reclamation plan and the Subsequent
EIR. This EIR does not analyze any impacts associated with redesignating Quarry Creek to
accommodate 500 units. Accordingly, implementation of Program 2.1 with regards to this
particular property will require separate environmental review.
If the planned reclamation plan for Quarry Creek is approved by Oceanside, approval of permits
from Carlsbad, including a Habitat Management Plan Permit, Hillside Development Permit,
Special Use Permit (floodplain), and other permits will be needed to actually begin grading and
other improvements to restore the site. Furthermore, site reclamation must be permitted and must
occur before Quarry Creek is ready for residential or other development. Reclamation includes
restoration of Buena Vista Creek, which bisects the site, and remediation of contaminated
groundwater and soils, a process which is well underway.
According to the Draft Subsequent EIR for the proposed reclamation plan, now-removed
underground storage tanks for gasoline and diesel fuel contaminated soil and groundwater at
Quarry Creek. Remediation of groundwater, the Draft Subsequent EIR reports, is anticipated to
be complete by this year, although continued monitoring will occur. Remediation of soils is
anticipated to continue until site grading activities to implement the reclamation plan begin. The
Draft Subsequent EIR concludes that with respect to hazards and hazardous materials on the
Quarry Creek site, no mitigation is required.
Due to the presence of historic agricultural operations, soil remediation in Carlsbad is not
uncommon as properties develop. The Final EIR for Robertson Ranch, for example, noted the
presence of fuel storage tanks and the residue from certain now banned chemicals in some areas
of the former ranch. As necessary, soil was removed from the ranch and used as fill material for
College Boulevard. The Final EIR also contains a mitigation measure that requires, prior to site
grading, the removal and proper disposal of any stained soil to eliminate a potential health hazard
from the project site. The measure also requires verification of proper disposal by a hazardous
materials specialist before site grading.
In response to concerns expressed about Quarry Creek, the City has attempted to find additional
sites that would provide affordable housing opportunities besides Quarry Creek and other
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18,2009
Page 14
properties already identified. Though the effort failed to identify additional vacant land or
significant gains in individual underutilized properties, the City was able to propose new
programs that recognize a substantial number of units from the proposed Barrio Area plan.
Additionally, an increase in the permitted density for some land use districts in the Village
Redevelopment Area also enabled the City to continue to meet its RHNA. While the City still
finds Quarry Creek as a critical component of its affordable housing portfolio, with increased
opportunities in the Village and Barrio areas, the City has reduced the site's anticipated yield
from 600 units (as originally reported in the City's April 2007 Draft Housing Element) to 500
units. More information about the City's site selection process is provided below.
More information on Quarry Creek may be found in the Environmental Review section at the
end of this staff report.
Draft Housing Element Site Study
Along with Quarry Creek, at the Housing Commission meetings held in early 2009, both
commissioners and the public expressed interest in understanding the criteria for selecting the
sites identified in proposed Program 2.1. As a result, staff produced the "City of Carlsbad 2005-
2010 Housing Element Site Study" map that is part of the "2005-2010 Housing Element
Information Packet" provided earlier to the Planning Commission and referenced as a staff report
attachment This map identifies the sites or areas selected or rejected for inclusion in the Draft
Housing Element, constraints to locating housing, primarily due to open space and airport and
industrial uses, and present affordable housing projects.
Since Carlsbad's entire RHNA consists of lower and moderate income housing units, the City
must propose sites suitable for minimum densities of 12 and 20 units per acre. At these densities,
housing will be multi-family. Constraints applicable to identifying multi-family sites include the
following:
• Restrictive General Plan Policies. Residential policies of the General Plan Land Use
Element state medium and higher density residential developments are to be located near
commercial centers, employment centers, major transportation corridors, community
facilities, open space, and other amenities. Existing affordable housing developments in
Carlsbad are located consistent with these policies, as the attached Housing Element Site
Study map shows. Program 2.1 sites proposed for redesignation, such as Quarry Creek
and the Barrio Area, also meet these General Plan criteria. Staff further notes that
SANDAG has identified Quarry Creek as a potential smart growth area. SANDAG
defines smart growth as:
A compact, efficient, and environmentally-sensitive urban development pattern. It
focuses future growth and infill development close to jobs, services, and public
facilities to maximize the use of existing infrastructure and preserve open space
and natural resources. "
Smart growth is characterized by more compact, higher density development in
key areas throughout the region that is walkable, near public transit, and
promotes good community design. Smart growth results in more housing and
transportation choices for those who live and work in smart growth areas.
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18,2009
Page 15
In its effort to identify sites appropriate for the densities required, staff did consider two
vacant properties along El Camino Real, between College Boulevard and Jackspar Drive,
and a vacant property at the intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road. While
these sites, identified on the map, meet the above General Plan policies, they were
rejected due either to lack of property owner interest, access constraints, or issues that
staff believes the property owner must address and resolve before development may
occur.
• Limited Available Land. Comparing current state Department of Finance estimates on the
number of existing housing units in Carlsbad (44,320, as of January 1, 2009) with city
staff and SANDAG projections of housing unit numbers at buildout (approximately
48,360 and 49,899 units, respectively, as of 2030) shows Carlsbad at present has reached
about 89 to 92 percent of its residential capacity. These buildout figures, based on recent
growth projections, differ from the estimates that resulted in the 54,600 dwelling unit cap
established by the 1986 Growth Management Program.
Furthermore, review of the attached map shows most of Carlsbad's remaining
undeveloped land is preserved as open space. Large tracts of undeveloped lands in the
Calavera Hills and La Costa areas and along and east of Agua Hedionda Lagoon have
been set aside as open space. Another large area of undeveloped property exists along the
south side of the 78 Freeway east of El Camino Real. Some of this area, such as the 134-
acre Sherman property, has been permanently preserved as open space. Most of the
balance consists of the 100-acre Quarry Creek parcel and an adjacent 57-acre property
that are General Plan designated for residential development and open space.
The significant vacant lands dominating the Sunny Creek area east of El Camino Real are
designated either for open space or low density residential. Much of the Sunny Creek
area is not ideally suited for medium and higher density housing as it is not near major
roads and conveniences as General Plan policies require.
• Constraints on residences in industrial areas. Proposed Draft Housing Element Program
2.3 states:
The City will encourage mixed-use developments that include a residential
component. Major commercial centers should incorporate, where appropriate,
mixed commercial/residential uses. Major industrial/office centers, where not
precluded by environmental and safety considerations, should incorporate
mixed industrial/office/residential uses.
• As described in Program 2.1, the City shall amend the zoning ordinance
and other necessary land use documents to permit residential mixed use at
20 units per acre on shopping center sites and commercial areas.
The first part of this program, a carryover from the previous Housing Element,
encourages mixed use development in commercial and industrial/office areas. With the
Draft Housing Element, the City proposes to implement this program in commercial
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18,2009
Page 16
areas, as indicated by the second, bulleted paragraph. Review of the proposed Program
2.1 and the first three tables above indicates the City's extensive reliance on mixed use
commercial and residential development to help it meet the RHNA.
The program also encourages mixed industrial/office/residential uses where not
precluded by environmental and safety considerations. The central core of Carlsbad,
surrounding McClellan-Palomar Airport, is dominated by business parks with industrial
and office uses. Some of these parks have undeveloped properties, and Carlsbad Oaks
North, the most recently developed industrial park, is entirely vacant. Because they are
employment centers and situated near public transit and major transportation corridors,
the City's business parks offer potential locations for residential uses. At this time,
however, staff has not proposed a program to encourage mixed-use developments in
Carlsbad's major industrial/office centers for several reasons.
First, business parks in Carlsbad are zoned Heavy Commercial-Limited Industrial (C-M),
Manufacturing (M), or Planned Industrial (P-M). These zones permit residential uses by
conditional use permit. (For housing units to be counted for RHNA purposes, they must
be permitted by right rather than by conditional use permit.) The City's business parks,
however, including Carlsbad Oaks North, did not incorporate residential uses when their
master planning occurred. An exception to this statement is Bressi Ranch, the master
planning for which included industrial, office, commercial, and residential uses. General
Plan Land Use Element Policy C.I5 states:
Consider residential development, which houses employees of businesses
located in the PM zone, when it can be designed to be a compatible use as an
integral part of an industrial park.
Furthermore, unlike the City's commercial areas and because they generally have not
been planned for residential uses, Carlsbad's business parks tend to lack the convenient,
day to day commercial uses and amenities required for multi-family uses by the General
Plan policies identified above.
Second, lacking the comprehensive planning upfront to provide for mixed
industrial/office/residential uses, business parks generally have developed with industrial
and manufacturing uses that may pose safety and health hazards to residents if they lived
in close proximity. Businesses that generate or use chemicals and hazardous materials are
permitted in the City's industrial zones. Because they are permitted, these zones are
generally not safe locations for uses such as schools, day cares, and residences. And, if
these uses were to locate in an industrial zone, they may preclude industrial uses from
locating there, thus defeating the purpose of having industrial zones. General Plan Land
Use Element Industrial Policy C.I states,
Limit the amount of new industrial land uses to those which can feasibly
be supported by desirable environmental quality standards and the
current growth rate of the trade area and the City. Protect these areas
from encroachment by incompatible land uses. [Emphasis added]
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18, 2009
Page 17
Third, airport noise and safety are other factors that limit the ability to locate residential
uses in the business parks. Due to the proximity of McClellan-Palomar Airport, many
properties in the M and P-M zones are located in the airport's Flight Activity Zone
(FAZ). The FAZs mark the primary airplane approach and departure paths, and
properties within them are unsuitable for residential use. Moreover, noise from aircraft
operations limits properties near the airport to non-residential uses.
In response to constraints caused by airport operations, General Plan Land Use Element
Industrial Policy C.4 states, "Concentrate more intense industrial uses in those areas least
desirable for residential development — in the general area of the flight path corridor of
McClellan-Palomar Airport."
Fourth, many properties in the City's industrial zones are governed by private conditions,
covenants, and restrictions (CC&Rs). Due likely to potential incompatibilities between
industrial and residential uses and the presence of the airport, these CC&Rs generally
prohibit residential uses of any kind.
Draft Housing Element Section 4 provides more information about limitations on
residential development in the industrial areas. Though written primarily to address
potential locations for emergency shelters, the information is generally applicable to all
residential uses.
Limitation on Mixed-Use Projects. California housing law states no more than 50 percent
of the lower income housing need as identified in a city's RHNA can be accommodated
on sites designated for mixed uses (e.g., commercial and residential development in one
building). Carlsbad's remaining lower income housing need is 2,395 units and half of that
number is 1,198 units. Based on proposed Program 2.1, Carlsbad would provide more
than enough units (3,028) to meet its lower income housing need. As identified in Table 4
above, more than half of these units (1,553), which include 80 second dwelling units,
would be provided by strictly residential projects. The remaining mixed use residential
units (1,475) would be available to satisfy the balance of lower income need. The 633
"surplus" units resulting from the difference between Carlsbad's remaining lower income
housing need (2,395 units) and lower income units potentially achieved from
implementation of Program 2.1 (3,028 units) have been redesignated for the moderate
income housing need to make up for the unit deficit in that category.
Based on the state law restrictions, retaining Program 2.1 properties such as Quarry
Creek that are planned for "pure" high density residential uses are important.
Housing Needs
Programs are proposed to address the housing needs of various individuals as required by state
law. Highlights of these programs are as follows:
• Program 3.11: Housing for Persons with Disabilities. Adopt an ordinance to establish a
formal policy on offering reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities with
regard to the construction, rehabilitation, and improvement of housing. For example, a
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18,2009
Page 18
reasonable accommodation may take the form of a front setback reduction to allow an
access ramp;
• Program 3.14: Housing for the Homeless. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit
emergency shelters in the City's industrial zones; and
• Program 3.17: Alternative Housing. Adopt an ordinance to conditionally permit managed
living units in the Village Redevelopment Area. Managed living units are small, studio-
like units designed for transient or permanent occupancy.
Consistency with the General Plan, Local Coastal Program, and Growth Management
• General Plan. California law requires that the General Plan contain an integrated and
internally consistent set of policies. The Draft Housing Element programs and policies
are directly related to several elements, namely the Land Use, Circulation, Public Safety
and Noise elements. Of these, the Draft Housing Element is most affected by
development policies contained in the Land Use Element, which establishes the location,
type, intensity and distribution of land uses throughout Carlsbad. While the Draft
Housing Element is not necessarily related to some elements, such as the Arts Element, a
discussion of the consistency between these elements is also included below.
o Land Use Element. The Draft Housing Element uses the residential goals and
objectives of the City's adopted Land Use Element as a policy framework for
developing more specific goals and objectives in the Draft Housing Element. The
numerous goals and objectives of the Land Use Element encompass four main
themes:
• Preservation: The City should preserve the neighborhood character, retain the
identity of existing neighborhoods, maximize open space, and ensure slope
preservation.
• Choice: The City should ensure a variety of housing types (single-family detached
or attached, multifamily apartments and condominiums) with different styles and
price levels in a variety of locations for all economic segments and throughout the
City.
• Medium and High Density Uses in Appropriate, Compatible Locations:
Medium and higher density uses should be located where compatible with adjacent
land uses and where adequately and conveniently served by commercial and
employment centers, transportation and other infrastructure, and amenities.
Further, the City should encourage a variety of residential uses in commercial areas
to increase the advantages of "close-in" living and convenient shopping.
• Housing Needs: The City should utilize programs to revitalize deteriorating areas
or those with high potential for deterioration and seek to provide low and moderate
income housing.
The Draft Housing Element was also reviewed for consistency with the Growth
Management Program, the provisions of which are incorporated into the General Plan.
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18, 2009
Page 19
Consistency with Growth Management is summarized near the end of this Analysis
section.
Since the Draft Housing Element uses the residential goals and objectives of the
City's adopted Land Use Element as a policy framework for development of its goals
and policies, the Draft Housing Element is consistent with the General Plan.
Examples of this include the consistency of proposed Program 2.1 with the Land Use
Element policies that: (1) Encourage residential and commercial mixed uses, (2)
Establish location criteria and constraints for medium and higher density (multi-
family) housing and for residential uses, including emergency shelters, in the City's
industrial areas and near the McClellan-Palomar Airport, and (3) Set forth density
ranges for the PJVIH and RH land use designations, with which new proposed
minimum densities are consistent.
o Circulation Element. Draft Housing Element programs and policies do not prevent or
preclude the provision of adequate circulation within and around future housing
developments. All residential development is still required to conform to the City's
Growth Management Program, thereby providing all necessary infrastructure
concurrent or prior to development. No adjustment to the alignment or provision of
General Plan Circulation roadways is necessary to accommodate the Draft Housing
Element programs and policies. Therefore, the Draft Housing Element is consistent
with the Circulation Element.
o Noise Element. The Land Use Element designates a substantial amount of residential
land bordering Interstate 5 and the railroad corridor; it also designates residential land
near the 78 Freeway. These major transportation corridors are significant sources of
noise in the City. Proposed Draft Housing Element programs, particularly Program
2.1, build upon the existing residential land use designations by recommending
density increases. Areas that would experience density increases under the proposed
Draft Housing Element and which are adjacent to these major noise sources include
the Barrio Area, the Village, and Quarry Creek.
The General Plan Noise Element states that the negative impacts of transportation
noise, which it identifies as the most extensive noise problem faced by Carlsbad, can
be averted through noise mitigating design and building sound insulation. These
measures are required by the Noise Element of any multi-family project that is
subject to excessive noise, such as from Interstate 5. Therefore, the Draft Housing
Element is consistent with the Noise Element.
o Open Space and Conservation Element. This element contains policies and maps that
indicate the allowable development in open space and environmentally sensitive areas
of the City. The proposed policies and programs of the Draft Housing Element do not
require residential encroachment into open space areas. Land inventories prepared by
staff to determine Carlsbad's ability to meet its RHNA did not count lands either
General Plan-designated or zoned as open space or with open space easements.
Accordingly, the 2005-2010 Housing is consistent with the Open Space and
Conservation Element.
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18, 2009
Page 20
o Public Safety Element. As with the Circulation Element, some of the programs and
policies of the Public Safety Element are implemented through the City's Growth
Management Program. Facilities and services, such as police and fire protection, have
performance standards that must be met with each new development. The Draft
Housing Element proposed contains no programs or policies that would conflict with
this requirement.
The remaining programs and policies of the Public Safety Element deal with various
potential hazards, such as those from floods, geologic instability, and airport
operations. While all potential hazards cannot be determined without site specific
review, land inventories prepared by staff to determine the City's ability to meet its
RHNA generally excluded properties or portions of properties constrained by
floodplains, electrical transmission corridors, and steep hillsides. Furthermore, no
properties within the McClellan-Palomar Airport's Flight Activity Zone are counted
for housing unit yield or emergency shelters by proposed Draft Housing Element
programs. Any development on property that is part of a proposed program will be
developed consistent with Public Safety Element policies. Therefore, the Draft
Housing Element is consistent with the Public Safety Element.
o Parks and Recreation Element. The Parks and Recreation Element calls for the
provision of park and recreational opportunities for the enjoyment of all Carlsbad
residents, activities that attract tourists and recreational amenities for the City's
industrial park occupants. The provision of park land is implemented through the
City's Growth Management Program and the state Subdivision Map Act. No
programs or policies of the Draft Housing Element decrease the opportunity to
acquire park dedications or develop park lands. Accordingly, the Draft Housing
Element is consistent with the Parks and Recreation Element.
o Arts Element. The Arts Element deals with the provision of art and artistic
opportunities for the enjoyment of all Carlsbad residents and visitors. There is very
little that relates the Draft Housing Element with this element. No proposed programs
and policies preclude the implementation of the Arts Element programs. Since there
is no conflict between the two elements, the proposed update of the Draft Housing
Element is consistent with the Arts Element.
• Local Coastal Program. A portion of Carlsbad lies within the Coastal Zone and is
therefore subject to the regulations of the City's Local Coastal Program, or LCP. While
the LCP has six segments, the goals and policies of each segment are substantially
similar: preservation of agriculture, scenic resources, and water quality, protection of
environmentally sensitive areas, provision of shoreline access, and prevention of geologic
instability and erosion.
The Draft Housing Element recognizes the constraints of development in the Coastal
Zone and does not conflict with LCP goals or objectives. None of the proposed policies
or programs allow for degradation of agricultural or scenic resources, encroachment into
environmentally sensitive areas, restriction of coastal access, or creation of geologic
instability or erosion. The proposed updates in the Draft Housing Element also contain
programs intending to preserve and/or replace affordable housing within the Coastal
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18, 2009
Page 21
Zone, as required by state law. Given the above, proposed Draft Housing Element
policies and programs are consistent with the LCP.
The City's Zoning Ordinance is the implementing ordinance for the LCP. Implementation
of Draft Housing Element programs will require amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.
Some programs also affect properties in the Coastal Zone. Any Zoning Ordinance
changes will require amendments to the LCP.
• Growth Management. Furthermore, affecting all development in Carlsbad is the Growth
Management Program, the provisions of which are incorporated into the General Plan.
Adopted in 1986, the Growth Management Program ensures the timely provision of
adequate public facilities and services to preserve the quality of life of Carlsbad residents.
Accordingly, a purpose and intent of the Growth Management Program is to provide
quality housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community and to balance
the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of Carlsbad's residents
and available fiscal and environmental resources.
The Draft Housing Element was reviewed with regard to the Growth Management
Program. As demonstrated in Section 4 of the document, the City can meet its
obligations under the law with respect to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation under
the Growth Management Program.
Certified Housing Element Benefits
State certification of a Housing Element provides a local jurisdiction with a rebuttable
presumption that the Housing Element is legally valid. Thus, challenges brought against a
certified element shift the burden of proof to show that it is inadequate to the challenger.
Additionally, Housing Element certification is important for jurisdictions to compete effectively
for certain funding and grants awarded by SANDAG and HCD. Both agencies award points to
jurisdictions with certified elements; thus, a city or county that does not have a certified element
is at a disadvantage to those jurisdictions that do. Affected SANDAG funding, for example,
includes that from the Smart Growth Incentive Program, TransNet and the Transportation
Development Act (TDA). Previously, Carlsbad has received over one million dollars in TransNet
and TDA funds for various transportation projects.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Previous Environmental Review
Since it is a policy level document, adoption of the Draft Housing Element will not directly
result in any housing being approved or constructed, land use designations being changed, or
minimum densities being raised. Adoption will also not amend any other General Plan policies
or provisions of the Growth Management Plan, Zoning Ordinance, or Local Coastal Program or
any other policy or standard adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental
impact.
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18,2009
Page 22
However, it is recognized that housing facilitated by the Draft Housing Element could have a
potentially significant effect on the environment. Accordingly, and pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Environmental Protection Ordinance (Title 19) of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code, staff conducted an environmental impact assessment. That
assessment resulted in staffs publishing of a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) and circulating the MND for a 30-day public review from May 29 to June
28, 2009.
Public review of the MND follows the January-February 2009 circulation of a Negative
Declaration for the Draft Housing Element. Based on the comments received, the environmental
analysis was reconsidered and the MND prepared. The MND supersedes the earlier Negative
Declaration. No changes have been made to the Draft Housing Element programs analyzed in
either environmental document.
Because HCD would certify the Draft Housing Element, staff mailed both the Negative
Declaration and subsequently the MND to the State Clearinghouse (SCH), which distributed
them to a number of different state agencies for review. Staff also sent copies directly to the
California Coastal Commission (CCC) and HCD. Additionally, both the MND and Draft
Housing Element were made available on the City's website and at the Dove and Cole libraries.
The MND contains an expanded project description with an overview of the Draft Housing
Element and the RHNA process, a list of all proposed Draft Housing Element programs, and a
detailed section on environmental review. The environmental review section focuses on the
projects (both city and privately-initiated) and the programs proposed to help Carlsbad meet its
RHNA. These programs, specifically 2.1 and 2.3, recommend land use changes to achieve
specific densities, land use designations, and unit yields. This section also describes the
environmental documents approved, underway, or needed to address the environmental impacts
associated with implementing the programs. By way of example, the Program 2.1 component to
increase densities at Quarry Creek is subject to future environmental analysis. Conversely, the
Program 2.1 component to change land use designations in the Ponto area is not subject to
further environmental review because the proposed change is consistent with assumptions
considered in the certified EIR for the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan.
In the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) attached to Planning Commission
Resolution 6547, mitigation measures are included to reduce identified potential significant
impacts to a less than significant level for housing facilitated by the Draft Housing Element.
However, these mitigation measures will not be applied to approved city and private projects that
have already undergone environmental review. At a minimum, projects still pending completion
of environmental review will comply with all applicable mitigation measures identified in the
MMRP and/or they will comply with equal or better mitigation measures specifically developed
as each project progresses.
In response to the public circulation of the MND, staff received four letters and one email. A
brief summary of the commenters and their comments are provided below.
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18,2009
Page 23
SUMMARY
Commenter
Ann Hallock
California Indian Legal Services on
behalf of San Luis Rey Band
Department of Toxic Substances
Control
Preserve Calavera
USD Environmental Law Clinic -
legal representative of Diane Nygaard
Focus of comments
Quarry Creek - soil and groundwater
contamination
Cultural resources - emphasis on Quarry
Creek
Hazardous Wastes - past and future
Inadequacy of MND/Broad criticism -
all potential housing sites
Inadequacy of MND/ Need for EIR
/Quarry Creek - multitude of issues
Each of the letters and email received are attached. Following each, detailed responses to every
comment are provided by staff.
Additionally, the list below responds to some of the primary comments raised. Since many of the
comments regard Quarry Creek, the responses add to and in some cases repeat information
provided in the earlier staff report section on Quarry Creek.
1. Need for an Environmental Impact Report. USD Environmental Law Clinic argues that
an EIR must be prepared as there is a fair argument that the Draft Housing Element may
result in significant environmental impacts. In response, staff concurs that development
facilitated by adoption of the Draft Housing Element may have a potentially significant
effect on the environment. However, these potential effects, including those identified in
the letter, can be adequately analyzed and mitigated to a point of no significance through
the proposed MND and MMRP.
In addition, as a policy document, while adoption of the Draft Housing Element may
facilitate housing development, it would not result in the approval or construction of any
housing. Furthermore, as explained earlier in this section, many projects and proposed
programs the City has considered in the Draft Housing Element to help meet its RHNA
have already completed or are currently undergoing environmental review. At a
minimum, projects still pending environmental review, such as proposed actions
regarding the Quarry Creek site, will comply with all applicable mitigation measures
identified in the MMRP and/or they will comply with equal or better mitigation measures
specifically developed as each project progresses through its own environmental and
public review process.
2. Project-level environmental analysis. Issues raised by different commenters suggest
project-level environmental analysis of a program-level document (the Housing Element
Update). As discussed in the MND, subsequent environmental review and CEQA
compliance will be required for both the implementation of proposed Housing Element
programs and for any future development projects facilitated by the Housing Element.
The Housing Element does not change land use designations in Carlsbad and does not
propose the physical development of any site. Development of any site listed in the
Housing Element will be initiated at an undetermined future time by private developers.
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18,2009
Page 24
Project details are unknown at this time; therefore project-level environmental analysis is
not appropriate for the Housing Element. Future private development projects will be
subject to City standards and CEQA.
3. The Draft Housing Element falls -within the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) definition of "project.'1'' Staff concurs with this comment, and, accordingly, has
prepared a MND as required by CEQA.
4. The 161-acre Quarry Creek property is the site of a former mining operation. Former
mining operations were contained on about one-half of a 100-acre property in Carlsbad
and a four acre adjacent parcel in Oceanside. Draft Housing Element Program 2.1
regarding Quarry Creek affects this 100-acre parcel. An adjacent 57-acre parcel to the
west of the mining operations was not mined, is undeveloped, and makes up part of the
161 acres to which Preserve Calavera and others in their comment letters refer.
5. Examples of post-mining activities include open space uses and activities. The USD
Environmental Law Clinic memorandum lists grazing, agricultural lands, and open space
are suitable activities that may occur on Quarry Creek following reclamation to restore
the site. The site is designated by the City's General Plan and Habitat Management Plan
for open space and residential development and by the Zoning Ordinance for residential
and industrial purposes. Furthermore, an overall objective of the proposed reclamation
plan for Quarry Creek is "reclaim...the [Quarry Creek] site to a safe, usable condition
that is readily adaptable for future land uses ..." Therefore, it is logical to expect that
portions of Quarry Creek will be developed with uses other than the open space uses
identified in the letter. Furthermore, an overall objective of the proposed reclamation
plan is "reclaim...the [Quarry Creek] site to a safe, usable condition that is readily
adaptable for future land uses..."
6. Quarry Creek is home to many sensitive species that would be severely impacted by the
project's proposed development of 500 homes. The Draft Housing Element does not
approve the development of 500 homes at Quarry Creek. The City recognizes, however,
that housing facilitated by adoption of the housing element, including housing that may
be built at Quarry Creek, may significantly impact important resources. Accordingly, a
MND and MMRP have been prepared to sufficiently address and mitigate impacts that
may result from construction and post-construction impacts. At a minimum, projects still
pending completion of environmental review will comply with all applicable mitigation
measures identified in the MMRP and/or they will comply with equal or better mitigation
measures specifically developed as each project progresses.
7. Regarding hazardous materials, there have not been consistent improvements in levels of
contaminants at Quarry Creek. The "Fuel Impact Remediation Program" a February
2009 handout produced by the Quarry Creek owner and included in the "2005-2010
Housing Element Information Packet" provided to the Planning Commission earlier and
referenced as a staff report attachment, states "the project [to decrease impacts from fuel
contamination] is on track to meet goals for remediation and to make materials available
for site work during reclamation, once Hanson's proposed reclamation plan is approved."
Hanson is the owner of Quarry Creek. The handout further describes and graphically
depicts reductions in contaminants from 2004 to 2008.
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18,2009
Page 25
Remediation of soils is anticipated to continue until site grading activities to implement
the site reclamation begins. The Draft Subsequent EIR concludes that with respect to
hazards and hazardous materials on the Quarry Creek site, no mitigation is required.
Additionally, the MND and MMRP contain mitigation measures to reduce potential
hazardous material impacts to a less than significant level. As will all future residential
development that may be facilitated by adoption of the Draft Housing Element, these
mitigation measures will apply to any development of the Quarry Creek site.
Furthermore, staff has contacted the San Diego County Department of Environmental
Health (DEH) and verified that DEH concurs with the remediation process and methods
underway at Quarry Creek. DEH also noted that status reports and other information
regarding the remediation efforts are available to the public at the State's Geotracker
website, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov.
8. Regarding cultural resources, state law requires consultation with Native American
tribes prior to adoption or amendment of a General Plan. In 2007, staff began
consultation with San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians on the Draft Housing Element.
Consultation with the Band concluded earlier this year.
Revisions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration
As discussed earlier under the Analysis section, staff has proposed minor changes to the Draft
Housing Element, to delete references to La Costa Town Square, among other things. These
minor changes also affect the project description part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
These revisions have been noted in Planning Commission Resolution 6547 and shown on the
project description, which is an attachment to the resolution. Consistent with California
Environmental Quality Act Section 15073.5(c)(4), the resolution clarifies the changes do not
require recirculation of the MND as the revisions result in only insignificant modifications to the
Draft Housing Element and the MND.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6547 (MND)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6548 (GPA)
3. November 21, 2008, letter of compliance from HCD
4. "2005-2010 Housing Element Information Packet" (provided earlier to the Planning
Commission and available at the City of Carlsbad Faraday Center, Planning Counter, for
review):
a. City of Carlsbad Draft 2005-2010 Housing Element, dated December 2008.
b. February 12, 2009, Housing Commission meeting items:
i. Staff report and resolution;
ii. Errata;
iii. Minutes (draft);
iv. Staff PowerPoint presentation.
c. January 8, 2009 Housing Commission meeting items:
i. Staff report;
GPA 03-02 - 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
November 18, 2009
Page 26
ii. Minutes;
iii. Staff PowerPoint presentation.
d. Information provided to the Housing Commission by staff and the public at the February
12 meeting:
i. Information submitted by the public;
ii. "City of Carlsbad 2005-2010 Housing Element Site Study" map prepared by
staff;
iii. "Quarry Creek Facts and Information," prepared by McMillin Land Development
Services, LP;
iv. "Fuel Impact Remediation Program," prepared by Hanson Heidelberg
Cement Group.
5. June 27, 2009, University of San Diego Environmental Law Clinic memorandum, and city
staff response, regarding outdated data used in the Draft Housing Element.
6. Correspondence received and city staff response provided in regard to Notice of Intent to
adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration:
a. Department of Toxic Substances Control letter dated June 25, 2009
b. Preserve Calavera letter dated June 26, 2009
c. Ann Hallock email dated June 26, 2009
d. University of San Diego Environmental Law Clinic memorandum dated June 27, 2009
e. California Indian Legal Services letter dated June 29, 2009
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GovernorJSI&IILQE-CALIFORNIA -BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
1800 Thfrd Street, Suite 430
P. O. Box 952053
Sacramento, CA 94252-2053
(916)323-3177
FAX (916) 327-2643
November 21, 2008
Mr. Don Neu, Director
Planning Department
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Neu:
RE: Review of the City of Carlsbad's Revised Draft Housing Element
Thank you for submitting the City of Carlsbad's draft housing element received for
review on September 24, 2008. The Department is required to review draft housing
elements and report the findings to the locality pursuant to Government Code
Section 65585(b). In addition, the Department considered comments submitted by
Ms. Diane Nygaard, pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(c). The review was
also facilitated by several communications with Mr. Scott Donnell, Senior Planner,
Mr. Gary Barberio, Assistant Planning Director, Mr. Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner,
Mr. Dave de Cordova, Principal Planner, Ms. Debbie Fountain, Housing and
Redevelopment Director, and your consultant, Ms. Veronica Tarn.
The revised draft element addresses the statutory requirements described in the
Department's August 4, 2008 review. For example, the element now demonstrates
adequate sites and includes programs to encourage development on nonvacant sites.
As a result, the revised draft element will comply with State housing element law
(Article 10.6 of the Government Code) when adopted and submitted to the Department,
pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(g).
The Department recognizes Carlsbad's efforts to adopt effective housing and land-use
strategies to address its existing and projected housing need, including encouraging
redevelopment and lot consolidation in the Village and Barrio Areas. Programs to
provide adequate sites and encourage redevelopment in the Village and Barrio Areas,
including Program 2.1 (Adequate Sites), are critical in demonstrating compliance with
housing element law. The City must monitor and report on the results of these
programs through the annual progress report, required pursuant to Government Code
Section 65400, and should amend programs as necessary if existing programs or
strategies are not effective in providing needed housing opportunities.
Mr. Don Neu, Director
Page 2
For your information, pursuant to Government Code Section 65863, local governments
must ensure the inventory of sites or any sites program accommodates the regional
housing need throughout the planning period of the element. In addition, no local
government action shall reduce, require or permit the reduction of, the residential
density for any parcel to, or allow development of any parcel at, a lower residential
density than identified in the site inventory or program unless the local government
makes written findings, the reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan,
including the housing element and the remaining sites identified in the housing element
are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need.
The Department appreciates the City's efforts to address its housing needs and is
thankful of Mr. DonnelPs hard work and cooperation during the housing element update.
The Department looks forward to receiving Carlsbad's adopted housing element. If you
have any additional questions, please contact Paul McDougall, of our staff, at
(916) 322-7995.
Sincerely,
Cathy E. Creswell
Deputy Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Carlsbad, Planning Department
FROM: Richard Wharton, University of San Diego Environmental Law Clinic, legal
representatives of Diane Nygaard, President of Preserve Calavera
SUBJECT: Comments Re: City of Carlsbad, Amended 2005-2010 Housing Element
DATE: June 27, 2009
INTRODUCTION
The Carlsbad Housing Element Amendment is not in substantial compliance with
Government Code § 65583 because the data relied upon are not based on current information in
that it relies predominantly on out-dated economic data and projections, such as property values,
rental prices, and income levels prior to 2005. Since the Housing Element Amendment relies on
obsolete data, conclusions based on the data are systematically flawed. The requirement that the
Housing Element be updated every five years shows a clear legislative intent that the Element be
based on current information. Since 2007, the municipalities of the San Diego County, and the
entire nation, have suffered a unique and unprecedented economic downturn. Housing markets,
income levels, unemployment rates, foreclosure rates, and home sales have all turned for the
worse. Despite the unprecedented economic changes, none of the current, yet relevant economic
factors have been taken into account in the Housing Element Amendment. By relying on out-
dated, obsolete, and essentially useless data, the proposed Housing Element is not in substantial
compliance with § 65583 of the Housing Code.
The proposed Carlsbad Housing Element should not be adopted because it is
economically impractical and inconsistent with the clear legislative intent to provide current
information for up-to-date project planning. Furthermore, during the initial review of a housing
element, "any interested party" may challenge the element, and the court's review "shall extend
to whether any portion of the housing element substantially complies with the specific
requirements of section 65583." " 'Substantial" compliance means actual compliance in respect
to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute, as distinguished from
'mere technical imperfections of form.' " Buena Vista Gardens Apartments Assn. v. City of San
Diego Planning Dept., 220 Cal.Rptr. 732 (Cal.App.3d 1985); Camp v. Board of Supervisors, 176
Cal.Rptr. 620 (Cal.App.3d 1981).
I. DISCUSSION
The city of Carlsbad is relying on out-dated, yet vital information. The majority of the
tables, graphs, charts, and figures rely on information prior to 2005. After 4 years, almost all of
the information is now obsolete and counters the purpose of updating the housing element.
Thus, the Housing Element Amendment is not in substantial compliance with the specific
requirements and its legislative intent to maintain current information. In order to provide
sensible and practical housing projections, the city must take into account any economic, fiscal,
or circumstantial factors that may prevent the projects from being feasible. Many of the projects
proposed in the Housing Element Amendment are not practical because the costs and estimations
are based on data prior to the unprecedented economic downturn. The Housing Element based
most of their projections on market value and rental prices in the early 2000's; however, those
prices are outdated and cannot be relied upon for planning purposes. They do not account for
real wages, the current consumer price index, and inflation. Another example is the lack of
availability of mortgages for lower-income households. The current housing element assumes
that these lower-income households can obtain a mortgage loan as easily as 2003, when banking
institutions such as Countrywide were not requiring income verification to obtain loans. Without
current data the amended housing element is useless in determining who can qualify for
mortgage loans.
This memorandum analyzes the information presented in Section 2 of the Carlsbad
Housing Element Amendment. Tables from section 2 of the Housing Element Amendment with
outdated information are listed below. The tables are the raw data inputs used by the City of
Carlsbad to evaluate the sufficiency of their low-income housing.
Overall, the data used in the Housing Element is deficient in three ways. First, the data
is not current. Second the data is selected from a range of dates in a manner that is not
systematic. Third, the data does not cover the years 2005-2010 adequately.
Most of the tables are based on information that is out of date. The tables are all based
on data prior to the 2008 economic downturn. Given the 2008 economic downturn, tables 2-6, 2-
8, 2-10, 2-14, 2-15, 2-16, 2-17 and 2-22 are presently inaccurate. These tables represent
employment, income or housing and rental costs. All of these figures would have changed based
on the economic downturn late in 2008. The most recent of the tables is based on information
from 2007. The data does not present an accurate picture of the current housing situation in
Carlsbad.
Likewise, the data also does not accurately reflect the timeframe the Housing Element
is intended to cover. The Housing Element should cover the years 2005-2010. However, the
Housing Element was not written until late last year. Much of the data is from before 2005.
In addition, the data is taken from a range of dates, covering at least a 7-year time
frame. There is no consistency in the method of selecting the dates for the data.
The goal of the Housing Element is to create a cohesive image of the state of
affordable housing in Carlsbad and to provide concrete solutions for adequate housing, if it is
lacking. Since the data here is not coherently and systematically culled together, the conclusions
reached based on the data are also flawed. Accordingly, the City of Carlsbad does not meet the
goal of putting together concrete and reliable plans to ensure adequate low-income housing.
Therefore, it does not substantially comply with Government Code § 65583(a).
TABLES SHOWING OUT OF DATE INFORMATION - FROM SECTION 2 OF THE
HOUSING ELEMENT
Table 2-6 Average Yearly Salary taken from the State Employment Development Department in
2004.
Table 2-8 Household Income by Tenure and Household Type taken from the Comprehensive
Housing Affordability Strategy in 2006.
Table 2-9 Special Needs Groups in Carlsbad based on the 2000 census and Task Force on
Homelessness 2004.
Table 2-10 Homeless Population by Jurisdiction from the Task Force on Homelessness 2004.
Table 2-11 Homeless Shelters and Services in North County from the San Diego Regional Task
Force on Homelessness 2004.
Table 2-12 Housing Unit Type from the Census in 1990 and the Department of Finance in 2005.
Table 2-13 Housing Vacancy taken from the 2000 Census.
Table 2-14 Home and Condominium Sales from DataQuick 2004.
Table 2-15 Median Home Prices from American Association of Retailers in 2007.
Table 2-16 Apartment Rental Rates from Appartments.com January 2006.
Table 2-17 Housing Affordability Matrix taken from sources and date not specified.
Table 2-19 Housing Assistance Needs of Lower Income Households HUD January 2006.
Table 2-20 Inventory of Assisted Rental Housing from City of Carlsbad 2007.
Table 2-22 Market Value of at Risk Housing Unit from Table 2-16.
The Housing Element contains table 3-1 which lists housing production in Carlsbad
during the period of 2003-2006 based on income level availability. Given the recent changes to
the housing market and the slowdown of construction, this data is no longer relevant to the actual
needs of lower income families and thus should be reformulated by the City of-Carlsbad.
Similarly table 3-3 lists recent affordable housing projects and the subsidies used to keep them
affordable. It is not clear from the graph when this information is dated from and it should thus
be updated and more clearly labeled. Doing so will give the Housing Element a more clear
statement of the current true cost of low income housing subsidies to the City of Carlsbad.
Section 4 of the Housing Element addresses constraints and mitigation opportunities on
creating affordable housing in Carlsbad. Table 4-1 states the price of land in Carlsbad, but is
based on MLS listings from September of 2004, more than 5 years ago. The prices have
plummeted since then. There have been multiple fluctuations in the price of land and housing
since 2004 and given the severity of the latest financial crisis this data should be updated before
the Housing Element is approved. Table 4-2 depicts the availability of financing for new
homes to families of different income levels. The data for the table comes from 2003 which does
not reflect the dire situation that the lending industry is currently in—many are no longer in
business. Below is a comparison of table 4-2 and an updated version using data from 2008. It is
clear that lending opportunities, especially for low income households has dropped significantly.
The Housing Element states that an additional obstacle for homebuyers continued to be the
downpayment required by lending institutions. Given the current housing situation, a high FICO
score, in conjunction with strong verification of income, would not guarantee the approval for a
mortgage. Additionally the mitigation measures listed after the 2003 data in the Housing
Element are insufficient at best.
Comparison
Table
Low Income
(<80%)
Moderate
Income (80 to
120%)
Above
Moderate
Income (>120%)
Total
2003 (City of Carlsbad)
Total
Apps
178
513
3320
4011
%
Org
69.4
66.9
72.5
70.9
%
Denied
11.9
11.3
8.5
9.3
%
Other
18.7
21.8
19.0
19.7
2008 (County of San Diego, San
Marcos, Carlsbad)
Total
Apps
12317
28033
148457
188807
%
Org
51.8
56.7
55.7
55.6
%
Denied
26.0
19.7
19.0
19.5
%
Other
22.2
23.6
25.4
24.9
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), 2008.
Table 5-1 displays the progress the city has made toward the RHNA housing construction
goals. These numbers are based on data from June of 2005, and have changed significantly in
the mean time. Also of note is the huge disproportion of above moderate income housing built
as compared to all other categories, displaying the true lack of affordable housing options in the
City of Carlsbad.
II. CONCLUSION
Due to the reliance on out-dated and inconsistent data as a result of the unique and
unprecedented 2008 economic downturn in San Diego County and the entire nation, the amended
Carlsbad 2005-2010 Housing Element is not in substantial compliance with specific
requirements of Government Code § 65583. Reliance on the projections of the amended
Housing Element is economically unviable and contradicts legislative intent for up-to-date
projections. The Buena Vista case concludes that a court has full discretion to review "whether
any portion of the housing element substantially complies" with § 65583. Buena Vista Gardens
Apartments Assn. v. City of San Diego Planning Dept., 220 Cal.Rptr. 732 (Cal.App.3d 1985);
Camp v. Board of Supervisors, 176 Cal.Rptr. 620 (Cal.App.3d 1981). Thus, until the City of
Carlsbad applies the most current or economically applicable data for its projections, the
proposed amendment to the Housing Element does not substantially comply with §65583.
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
November 10, 2009
Richard Wharton
University of San Diego School of Law
5998 Alcala Park, Room WH317
San Diego, CA92110
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT DATA
Dear Mr. Wharton:
Thank you for your memorandum of June 27, 2009. In the memorandum, you opine that the
Draft Housing Element is not in compliance with Government Code § 65583 because of the
datedness of some its information. Section 65583 identifies required housing element contents.
It is part of state Housing Element Law, which begins with § 65580. City staff disagrees with
your position that the Draft Housing Element does not comply with state law.
By way of background, state law requires all California cities and counties to update their
housing elements not less than every five years. Typically, updates have occurred in five year
increments, or housing cycles; the current housing cycle for which the Draft Housing Element is
proposed began July 1, 2005 and ends June 30, 2010.
The state Department of Housing and Community Development, Division of Housing Policy
Development (HCD) reviews and certifies housing elements for compliance with state law. With
revisions made since its initial release in April 2007, HCD has found adoption of the Draft
Housing Element will comply with state law. After public hearings before the Planning
Commission and City Council (Housing Commission hearings have already taken place), city
staff anticipates adoption of this Draft Housing Element in early 2010.
For the current housing cycle, Government Code 65588(e) (5) specifies adoption of housing
elements for San Diego County jurisdictions shall occur before July 1, 2005, or by the beginning
of the cycle. For this timely revision to occur, data must be collected, the regional housing needs
assessment completed, the housing element prepared, HCD review of the draft document
finished, and workshops and hearings by the local jurisdiction held. This lengthy pre-adoption
process typically takes 18 to 24 months or more. Accordingly, Carlsbad began the process to
revise its housing element in 2003 and published its first draft in April 2007, not late last year as
the memorandum suggests.
The City has produced a draft document that, as noted earlier, will comply with state law upon
its adoption. Accordingly, and based on the background information presented above, staff
disagrees with your comments that the Draft Housing Element contains outdated information for
the following reasons:
• If Carlsbad had adopted its Draft Housing Element by July 2005, that element and its
policies, facts, and figures would have applied until the end of the housing cycle in June
2010. Therefore, data collected prior to July 2005 is useful regardless of when a housing
1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 '• www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us
MR. RICHARD WHARTON
NOVEMBER 10, 2009
PAGE 2
element is adopted and appropriate for establishing policies that will be in effect during the
several years of the housing cycle.
• Government Code § 65583(a) (1) indicates the use of Census data is appropriate to
determine a certain household type.
• The Draft Housing Element relies on Census data; the last available Census data is from
2000, and new Census data will not be ready until after 2010. Additionally, to ensure a
relevant comparison, 2000 Census data is sometimes compared with 1990 Census figures.
• HCD's "Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements," available on the HCD website at
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/housing element2/index.php, extensively cites use of the
Census as an appropriate information source. The Building Blocks also encourage use of
data sources besides the Census, which the City has done.
• Contrary to the memorandum, the Draft Housing Element provides a relatively cohesive set
of data. Other than Census data, the economic and population figures, household
characteristics, and building activity data provided all reflect dates in the 2003 to 2006 time
frame; this is generally true of the information presented in tables and figures found in Draft
Housing Element sections 2, 3, and 4. An exception to this can be found in the tables that
report Carlsbad's efforts to demonstrate it has adequate sites to accommodate its share of
the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Because of the difficulty in finding adequate
sites, tables that show how the City will meet its RHNA, such as Table 3-4, have dates as
recently as December 2008. More information on RHNA may be found in Section 3.
• As previously mentioned, HCD has found the Draft Housing Element will comply with state
law upon its adoption. This is contrary to your assertion that Draft Housing Element data is
"...not in substantial compliance with Government Code § 65583 because the data relied
upon are not based on current information..." A copy of the HCD letter is attached.
• Proposed Program 3.20 of the Draft Housing Element recognizes the need, if necessary, to
update the document. It states:
Program 3.20: Housing Element Annual Report
To retain the Housing Element as a viable policy document, the Planning Department will
undertake an annual review of the Housing Element and schedule an amendment if
required. As required, staff also monitors the City's progress in implementing the Housing
Element and prepares corresponding reports to the City Council, SANDAG, and California
Department of Housing and Community Development annually.
Funding: Departmental Budget
Lead Agency: Planning Department
Objectives and Time Frame:
• Prepare Annual Housing Production Report and report on implementation of the
General Plan, including the Housing Element.
• Submit annual report on implementation of the General Plan, including the Housing
Element and Annual Housing Production Report, to the City Council, HCD, and other
government agencies as necessary.
MR. RICHARD WHARTON
NOVEMBER 10, 2009
PAGES
Additionally, the memorandum cites the apparent out datedness of Table 5-1, citing that the
figures are based on data from June 2005. Actually, this table intentionally reports housing
constructed only for the previous housing cycle (July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2005) as it is part of a
report on the 1999 Housing Element, which addressed housing needs during that time period.
The memorandum also claims tables 2-17 and 3-3 lack dates of preparation and Table 2-17 does
not have its source cited. Table 2-17 clearly identifies that it provides 2006 information.
Furthermore, the paragraph preceding the table indicates the table provides figures based on data
produced by HCD. Regarding Table 3-3, which reports subsidies for affordable housing projects,
relevant date information is given for each project the table identifies. For every project, the year
of project completion and the relevant agenda bill that discussed project subsidies are provided.
Finally, just before the memorandum's conclusion, it suggests there exists "...a true lack of
affordable housing options in Carlsbad." To the contrary, as the Draft Housing Element reveals,
Carlsbad's inclusionary requirements have been quite successful in producing housing affordable
to lower income families. In fact, developers constructed over 1,150 units of affordable housing in
Carlsbad from 1991 to 2006. The City's hard work to produce a substantial amount of affordable
housing is evidenced in the 2007 report, Affordable By Choice: Trends in California Inclusionary
Housing Programs. Commissioned by severaL housing-interest groups, the report identifies
Carlsbad as one of California's top producers of affordable housing.
Sincerely,
SCOTT DONNELL
Senior Planner
Diane Nygaard, Preserve Calavera
File Copy
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Linda S. Adams
Secretary for
Environmental Protection
Maziar Movassaghi
Acting Director
5796 Corporate Avenue
Cypress, California 90630
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor
June 25, 2009
Mr. Scott Donnell
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND) FOR 2005-2010 DRAFT
HOUSING ELEMENT GPA03-02 (SCH# 2006051076)
Dear Mr. Donnell:
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted
document for the above-mentioned project. As stated in your document: "The project is
the adoption of the City of Carlsbad Draft 2005-2010 Housing Element, which requires a
General Plan Amendment. California Housing Element law requires that local
jurisdictions update their housing elements every five years. The housing element
represents a chapter of the City's General plan; a planning document that identifies the
community's long term goals for development. The housing element chapter provides
guidance and directions for city policymakers to address the specific housing needs of
the community.
The Housing Element includes goals, policies, and programs to further facilitate
increasing the supply of affordable housing; however, it does not directly provide for
housing construction nor directly change any land use designations use, or
development standards. Individual development projects and proposed land use and
code changes pursuant to adoption and implementation of the Housing Element will be
subject to separate environmental review by the City".
Based on the review of the submitted document DTSC has the following comments:
1) The ND should identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the
project area may have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances.
Printed on Recycled Paper
Mr. Scott Don nell
June 25, 2009
Page 2
2) The document states that the ND would identify any known or potentially
contaminated sites within the proposed project area. For all identified sites, the
ND should evaluate whether conditions at the site may pose a threat to human
health or the environment. Following are the databases of some of the
regulatory agencies:
• National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA).
• EnviroStor, a database primarily used by the California Department of
Toxic Substances Control, at www. Envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov.
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS):
A database of RCRA facilities that is maintained by U.S. EPA.
• Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability
Information System (CERCL1S): A database of CERCLA sites that is
maintained by U.S.EPA.
• Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database provided by the
California Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both
open as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and
transfer stations.
• GeoTracker: A List that is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control
Boards.
• Local Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup
sites and leaking underground storage tanks.
• The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard,
Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213) 452-3908, maintains a list of
Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS).
3) The ND should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation
and/or remediation for any site that may be contaminated, and the government
agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If hazardous materials or 3
wastes were stored at the site, an environmental assessment should be I
conducted to determine if a release has occurred. If so, further studies should be T
carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the
Mr. Scott Donnell
June 25, 2009
Page3
potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. It
may be necessary to determine if an expedited response action is required to
reduce existing or potential threats to public health or the environment. If no
immediate threat exists, the final remedy should be implemented in compliance
with state laws, regulations and policies.
4) The project construction may require soil excavation and soil filling in certain
areas. Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of the excavated soil.
If the soil is contaminated, properly dispose of it rather than placing it in another
location. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to these soils.
Also, if the project proposes to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, proper
sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported soil is free of
contamination.
5) Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected
during the construction or demolition activities. A study of the site overseen by
the appropriate government agency might have to be conducted to determine if
there are, have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may
pose a risk to human health or the environment.
6) If during construction/demolition of the project, soil and/or groundwater
contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area should cease and
appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. If it'is
determined that contaminated soil and/or groundwater exist, the ND should :
identify how any required investigation and/or remediation will be conducted, and
the appropriate government agency to provide regulatory oversight.
7) If weed abatement occurred, onsite soils may contain herbicide residue. If so,
proper investigation and remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted at
the site prior to construction of the project.
8) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the
proposed operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the
California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code,
Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations
(California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5). If it is determined that
hazardous wastes will be generated, the facility should also obtain a United
States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number by contacting
(800) 61 8-6942. Certain hazardous waste treatment processes or hazardous
materials, handling, storage or uses may require authorization from the local
Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Information about the requirement for
authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA. .
Mr. Scott Donnell
June 25, 2009
Page 4
9) DISC can provide guidance for cleanup oversight through an Environmental
Oversight Agreement (EOA) for government agencies that are not responsible
parties, or a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VGA) for private parties. For
additional information on the EOA or VGA, please see
www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Brownfields, or contact Ms. Maryam Tasnif-
Abbasi, DISC'S Voluntary Cleanup Coordinator, at (714) 484-5489.
If you have any questions;regarding this letter, please contact me at (714) 484-5472 or
at "ashami@DTSC.ca.gov".
Sincere)^,
Al-Snami
Project Manager
Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program
cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, California 95812-3044
CEQA Tracking Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Office of Environmental Planning and Analysis
1001 I Street, 22nd Floor, M.S. 22-2
Sacramento, California 95814
nritter@dtsc.ca.gov
CEQA #2615
Response to June 25, 2009 Comments by California Department of Toxic Substances
Control
On
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Draft 2005-2010 Housing Element
(Note: The number of the response below corresponds with the comment identified by the number in the
right margin of the comment letter)
1. Comment noted. This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a
program-level document (the Housing Element Update). As discussed in the MND,
subsequent environmental review and CEQA compliance will be required for both the
implementation of proposed housing element programs and for any future development
projects facilitated by the housing element. The Housing Element does not change land
use designations for any property and does not propose the physical development of any
site. Development of any site listed in the Housing Element would be initiated at an
undetermined future time by private developers and project details are unknown at this
time; therefore project-level environmental analysis is not appropriate for the Housing
Element.
However, the MND recognizes that large areas of the City that currently or previously
have been in agricultural use are designated for residential development by the General
Plan and agricultural chemicals and pesticides may have been used and stored on these
properties, which could impact future residential development. Likewise, other areas of
Carlsbad, such as the Quarry Creek site discussed in the MND or commercial areas,
may have contaminated soils or groundwater due to the presence of former or existing
non-agricultural uses, such as gas stations, above or below ground storage tanks,
dumps, or industrial operations. Furthermore, redevelopment in older parts of Carlsbad,
such as in the downtown Village or Barrio Areas, may expose construction workers to
hazardous materials during demolition activities. Development of sites with such
contamination may expose people to release of hazardous materials, a potentially
significant impact.
In response, mitigation measures HM-1 thru HM-9 will require future projects to study
and identify the existence or release of any hazardous substances. For any future
housing project facilitated by the implementation of the Draft Housing Element, if a site
has the potential of containing agricultural chemicals .pesticides or other soil
contaminants, a soils testing and analysis report is required. Monitoring and sampling of
groundwater may also be necessary along with groundwater and soil remediation to
ensure that all contaminants are removed. As identified in the MND and as may be
further refined during project review, any recommended mitigation measures would be
made conditions of any project approval. Adherence to these measures and existing
federal, state, and local regulations will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant
level.
Though most sites require further environmental analysis to identify if contamination
exists, at the Quarry Creek site, contamination is known to exist and cleanup efforts are
ongoing. The Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Former
South Coast Quarry Amended Reclamation Plan ("Draft Subsequent EIR"), the CEQA
document prepared for the reclamation of the Quarry Creek site, describes soil and
groundwater remediation efforts underway. The Draft Subsequent EIR notes that
cleanup is anticipated to occur prior to or during site reclamation; this means that
remediation would be complete before residential development of the site. Because
remediation is being conducted according to all applicable requirements, the Draft
Subsequent EIR includes no additional mitigation measures with regards to hazardous
materials. Further, the Draft Subsequent EIR concludes that all remediated soils would
remain on site and there would be no hazards associated with their redistribution on the
site.
RESPONSE TO JUNE 25, 2009 COMMENTS BY CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC
SUBSTANCES CONTROL
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page 2
2. Comment noted. This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a
program-level document (the Housing Element Update). When future applications are
submitted to redesignate the land use of a property or propose development or
redevelopment, Mitigation Measure HM-9 requires disclosure of the site's inclusion on
the Cortese List. Because development of such sites could create a significant hazard to
the public or environment if their cleanup was not conducted in accordance with all
federal, state, and local regulations, a mitigation measure requires compliance with
applicable regulations for any site identified on the Cortese List. As suggested by this
comment in the DTSC letter, during future environmental analysis, all databases
maintaining lists of contaminated sites will be reviewed as appropriate.
3. See proposed mitigation measures HM-1 thru HM-9. Though the Housing Element does
not propose the physical development of any site, the MND proposes measures that will
require identification of potential contamination and necessary remediation as well as
appropriate regulatory oversight for any future project facilitated by the Housing Element.
4. For future projects that may require soil excavation, the MND proposes mitigation
measures HM-1 and HM-5, which require detailed soils testing and remediation for
contaminated soils. Adherence to these measures and City standards will reduce
potential impacts to a less than significant level.
5. Comment noted. This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a
program-level document (the Housing Element Update). However, for future projects
facilitated by the Housing Element, staff has prepared a list of mitigation measures that
would be applicable to projects with the potential to be significantly impacted by the
routine use or accidental or unexpected release of hazardous materials. Through future
project-level environmental analysis, these mitigation measures could be made
conditions of a project approval, or the measures may be refined or found unnecessary
as detailed planning and study specific to the project occurs. In any case, adherence to
mitigation measures HM-1 thru HM-9 and City standards will reduce potential impacts to
a less than significant level.
6. Comment noted.
June 26, 2009
Scott Donnell, Sr Planner
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Comments on MND- Housing Element 2005-2010
Dear Mr. Donnell:
Preserve Calavera is a grassroots organization focused on preserving and protecting the natural
resources of coastal north county. We are concerned about the 2005-2010 Housing Element
because of its direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on north county watersheds, sensitive
habitat, and native plants and wildlife. These concerns have been raised previously at two
hearings before the Housing Commission, correspondence to city staff, and memo from the USD
Environmental Law Clinic dated February 26, 2009.
This MND fails to address numerous issues raised about this project over the last two years.
The project as proposed potentially has significant direct, indirect and cumulative temporary and
permanent impacts that have not been addressed in the MND.
The following are our specific comments on the environmental impacts of the Housing Element.
Further comments will be submitted on our behalf by the Environmental Law Clinic of USD.
Land Use
Statement is made that "Housing units constructed or issued certificates of occupancy
during this period can be credited toward the RHNA for this housing cycle." (1/1/03-
6/30/10) However there is no explanation in the Housing Element that explains how
numerous projects included in the plan can be constructed or issued certificates of
occupancy during the specified time period. For example, it is clear that the property
identified as Quarry Creek which is still subject to remediation of contaminated soil and
water as well as reclamation of the prior mine site could have residences constructed by
6/30/10. Since the Housing Element is for a specified time period the impacts must be ev
aluatged for that specific time period. There is no assurance as to how much of this plan
will actually be implemented within the specified 5 year period. There is consequently
no assurance that impacts will be as stated in the MND as no time frame is defined..
5020 Nighthawk Way - Oceanside, CA 92056
www.prcservecalavera.org
The list of smart growth criteria listed here is not a complete or accurate list of the Smart
Growth criteria actually adopted by SANDAG. This includes very specific items for each
type of smart growth site. Proximity and frequency of service for public transit is a key
criterion for most of the categories of smart growth. Many of the locations identified are not
within the specified distance and/or do not have the required service frequency to qualify as
a smart growth site. The Smart Growth map issued by SANDAG includes all sites
recommended by the respective city, whether they meet the specified SANDAG smart
growth criteria or not. Mere inclusion on the map does not mean it actually meets the smart
growth critieria as is stated in the MND. It only means that the reporting city says it does and
requested that the site be included on the map.
For example, the Quarry Creek site is identified on the SANDAG Smart Growth map as a
Community Center. This category of smart growth site requires "high frequency local"
transit service. Such transit service is not in place now at this location, nor is it included in
the "revenue constrained" alternative of the RTF adopted by SANDAG. Furthermore, recent
transit funding cuts and resultant service cuts make it even more apparent that there is
essentially no potential for such transit service to be in place within the next 5 years.
Furthermore the Independent Transit Peer Review Panel of SANDAG report states that a
viable smart growth plan would concentrate on the core urban area as the place with the
greatest potential to actually achieve smart growth. None of the four smart growth sites in
Carlsbad are within the urban core, and none have any potential for transit service at the
required levels to meet Smart Growth criteria. —
Furthermore the project descriptions for the four Smart Growth sites in Carlsbad all include
substantial development in addition to the residential units.1 For example CB-1 Plaza
Camino Real would include " mixed-use complex that would add floor area to the existing
retail development", CB-2 Quarry Creek would include "commercial(office and/or retail) A
uses and possible public gathering places", CB-3 Carlsbad Village would include " mixed
residential/retail development", and CB-4 Ponto beachfront would include "live-work units
and mixed retail-residential development." These additional land uses are integral to the
designation of these sites as "smart growth" yet none of these additional land uses and the
associated environmental impacts have been analyzed or mitigated.
The MND assumes that the changes proposed in the Housing Element constitute "Smart
Growth" yet the analysis has failed to identify which of these units are consistent with the
smart growth criteria, what other potential smart growth development would be precluded if 5
these projects were approved (because of the housing unit cap in city ordinances), and the
cumulative effect of these proposed density changes on transportation and open space- two
other critical components of any smart growth project evaluation.
The statement about the provision of public transit to smart growth sites is not accurate. I
The adopted Regional Transportation Plan proposes a split of transportation dollars |
between transportation modes with public transit receiving about 1/3 of the anticipated fa
revenue. However the current economic downtown has reduced revenue to the local I
Smart Growth Concept Map - Site Descriptions, SANDAG
transit district (NCTD) resulting in significant service cuts. There are no assurances that
anywhere in north county will have reliable, high frequency transit service. The MND
has assumed that the proposed Housing Element will result in smart growth, thereby
offsetting many of what could be significant impacts from thousands of housing units.
No analysis has been done to support this claim, and in fact the areas where development
will impac t existing natural lands in areas without transit service will have exactly the
opposite effect. The Housing Element could actually have greater adverse impacts than
the existing land use as proposed in the General Plan- there is no information upon which
to base such a judgment.
Air Quality
This list of proposed air quality mitigation measures is insufficient to reduce adverse air
quality impacts to a level of insignificance. This generic list has been included with
several recent city development projects, often where overriding considerations were then _
used to allow development to continue in spite of significant temporary and permanent /
air quality impacts. (See Robertson Ranch as one recent example). There is absolutely
no basis for the conclusion that applying this mitigation measure for this project will
reduce impacts to level of insignificance when on several recent projects they have not
been sufficient.
Item III.c- Air quality impacts are cumulative and this project could result in a
cumulatively significant increase in air pollutants and exceed ambient air quality
standards- this would not be less than significant as is stated in the MND. Each
constructed project included within the Housing Element adds to local air quality
impacts. This Project proposes the redistribution of thousands of housing units within the
city, and the resultant automobile trips associated with those units. This will result in
both temporary (construction related) and permanent impacts (both traffic and stationary o
sources). Doing future project specific air quality assessments ignores the need to assess
the cumulative impacts which can be considerable. The description of how the use of the
four sites designated as smart growth could reduce auto emissions has no basis. In fact
such dense development, above what is currently proposed for those areas could result in
significant localized increased impacts. There is no discussion about impact of air quality
hot spots from congested traffic near residential uses and several of the intersections that
will be effected by the 4 designated smart growth sites are already highly congested.
Item Ill.d Several of the locations proposed for housing density increases areas are
adjacent to residences for sensitive receptors- primarily seniors at College and Lake and
along El Camino Real. All of the four designated smart growth locations propose, and to
be consistent with the smart growth criteria, include, commercial or other mixed use
development in addition to the residential uses. These non-residential uses could
generate the types of pollutants of concern to sensitive receptors. Furthermore the
combined effects of the housing and non-housing uses would add significantly more air
quality pollutants than the current general plan, at these specific locations. The MND has
failed to adequately evaluate or mitigate for such potential impacts. The MND has
provided no basis for the conclusion that such impacts would be less than significant.
Hazardous Materials
The MND indicates that using the Cortese list, the city has numerous sites where cleanup
of hazardous materials is underway or has been completed. It then goes on to identify 2
hazmat clean-up actions underway on one specific site— Quarry Creek. It then specifies
the nature of one of those two clean-ups underway- - the clean-up of soil and water from
a leaking underground gasoline tank. The MND implies that other sites included for
zoning changes for housing may include active clean-up sites but fails to identify such
sites,, and it fails to identify the nature of the second of the two clean-ups currently
underway at the Quarry Creek site. The standards for clean-up established by the County 1 _
of San Diego Environmental health Division vary depending upon the ultimate land use 1 U
of a site. Land currently zoned for industrial/commercial use may not be cleaned up to a
level acceptable for high density residential land uses. The MND has failed to provide
sufficient information to determine the nature and extent of such clean-up activities at the
locations proposed for housing density increases. Such contamination could affect both
the ability to use a site for housing, and the timing of such land being available for
housing. Both the location and timing are key factors in the Housing Element. There are
also no contingency plans that address what would happen if some locations are found to
not be acceptable, or that they could not be converted to residential use within the
specified time period. .
- HM -9 is inadequate to address the potential impacts from placing housing on
contaminated sites. It merely proposes that documents be submitted at some future time
that describe what will be required to remediate the site. It does not require that all such
remediation has been completed prior to any such land use redesignation. The purpose of 11
the Housing Element is to provide a Plan capable of actually addressing the City's
affordable housing needs within a reasonable period of time. The uncertainty of site
remediation, and lack of any time frame for their completion provides no such
assurances. Furthermore any such sites not capable of clean-up to residential standards
would require substitution of other sites. This could cause additional impacts that have
not been addressed in the MND.
Vll.h states that there would be a less than significant impact from risk of wildland fires
and states that the city is a medium fire hazard area for wildland fires. This is not an
accurate statement. Attached is the draft map of Fire Hazard Severity Zones from
CALFire. Much of the City of Carlsbad is classified as "High" and "Very High" fire
hazard severity. See website at www.fire.ca. gov/fire_prevention to view higher 12
resolution maps. We were told that while this map is marked as draft there are very few
changes pending in the City of Carlsbad and that fire hazard severity ratings have been at
this level for many years. Note that areas marked as high and very high include portions
of the Quarry Creek site, and several other areas proposed for housing density changes.
This is of particular concern for the Quarry creek site as the city of Oceanside is already -, ~
on record for raising concerns about their ability to provide emergency services for this * -^
area. Portions of the city do pose a high wildland fire risk and the MND has not
adequately evaluated or mitigated for this risk.
Transportation
On page 37 it is stated that" the Draft Housing Element does not propose to increase or
significantly redistribute the number of housing units designated in the General Plan."
The accuracy of this statement relies on an assumption that redistributing thousands of
housing units is not significant. This statement is not accurate. It is reasonable to assume
that redistributing thousands of housing units is a significant action. If it were not
significant there would be no requirement to do a CEQA review. If it were not i A
significant there would be no need to spend over 4 years revising the Housing Element to
accommodate the redistribution. According to the trip generation criteria of SANDAG2
each single family residential unit generates an average of 12 automobile trips per day
and each multi-family unit generates 8. Caltrans requires additional congestion analyses
studies for any project that generates 50 or more peak hour trips on local freeways. The
redistribution of even a few housing units can have major effects on local roadway
congestion.
The MND has failed to identify the changes in trips associated with the redistribution of
thousands of housing units. Some local roadways are already at failure for traffic
congestion. Others are close to failure. The traffic changes associated with the project
will cause both temporary and permanent increases to local traffic in some areas. The
project has failed to properly identify or mitigate for these changes. Instead it has
improperly deferred their analysis to an unspecified future time when individual
development projects are being considered. Since many of the changes proposed with the
Housing Element are too small a number of units to even trigger a full traffic analysis the
cumulative impacts of the entire package of changes is never considered.
On page 38 it is stated that the General Plan included a circulation system designed to
accommodate the number of housing units included in the plan. It then concludes that
since the draft Housing Element does not include any increase in the number of units
beyond those in the general Plan that only project specific traffic needs to be addressed i c
and this has been done through mitigation measures T-l through T-5. Such future
mitigation could conceivably include roadway extensions or widening. Such roadway
modifications could result in additional indirect impacts which have not been identified
or mitigated with the Project.
The MND has not properly identified or mitigated for impacts on adjacent jurisdictions.
T-4 provides that "for projects that may potentially impact the circulation networks of
adjacent jurisdictions, the City shall coordinate the project's environmental review with
these jurisdictions to determine the need for any mitigation of the potential impacts."
This project includes projects that could impact adjacent jurisdictions, yet there is no
evidence that the environmental review has included such coordination. The residential
units proposed at Westfield Mall effect El Camino Real- a roadway on the list of
2 San Diego Traffic Generators, San Diego Association of Governments, updated July 1998.
5
regionally significant arterials that crosses multiple jurisdictions, has several failing
segments and intersections and is supposed to have had a corridor specific traffic analysis
done to assess cumulative impacts. Such a comprehensive analysis is necessary to
determine if it is even possible to reduce traffic impacts from any furture project to less
than significant.
The City of Oceanside is on record with concerns about adding traffic from the Quarry
Creek Project to Oceanside roads, primarily College Blvd which is already highly
congested in the area proposed for 500 additional housing units. The memo from the
Oceanside City Manager specifically says the c ity is opposed to the proposed dense 1 H
housing proposed in the Housing Element. The MND has not identified these regional
conflicts or provided any mechanism for resolving them. It has failed to even comply
with the mitigation measure it proposes for project specific impacts.
T-5 includes only a very general statement of compliance with pedestrian and bicycle
linkages. The City has adopted both bicycle and pedestrian Master Plans, in addition to \ $
the trail system. All projects should be required to comply with all of the programs and
policies included in these two master plans for bicycles and pedestrians.
Biological Resources
- The MND cites the EIR for the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) as part of the
assurances that adequate analysis and mitigation has been provided. The RCP assumed
that applying smart growth principles would accommodate more housing and population 1 y
but preserve more undeveloped land. However, there is nothing in the RCP, and or the
mitigation measures for this MND ,that provides any such assurances.
How much additional open space will be provided to mitigate for the increases in density
and housing that are proposed?
Wildlife corridor zones are the corridors linking wildlife habitat patches which are essential
as pathways for genetic and demographic interchange and must be protected to minimize
problems associated with habitat fragmentation. They are also important for facilitating
daily, annual, and seasonal movements and, for some species, for permitting dispersal to
breeding and foraging areas. The HMP identifies key wildlife corridors and linkages. The
MND fails to identify or provide adequate mitigation for protecting either the regional or
local wildlife movement corridors from design, through construction and post construction
conditions. It is not sufficient to consider wildlife movement during design. This is an on-
going requirement, particularly as construction can cause temporary disruption and wildlife
do not always redistribute in patterns assumed in early project planning. The MND needs
to require more comprehensive analysis and protection of wildlife movement through all
phases of project planning and implementation.
Existing linkages should be maintained within the City and particular care is needed in assessing
linkages across city boundaries. Linkages or corridors that are currently constrained (e.g., by existing
development) should be prioritized for acquisition and enhancement, if necessary, to preserve or
increase their value to wildlife.
Sediments and pollution mobilized by construction and operation of the Project could result
in runoff into local waters. This is a particular concern with the Quarry Creek site because
it includes a key reach of Buena Vista Creek which flows to the Buena Vista Lagoon and
marine waters. Once run-off from this site enters the watershed system, these sediments o 1
have the potential to cover the stream bed where fish spawn and fish food sources live,
where fish rest and feed, and may reduce oxygen and visibility for fish and light for
underwater plants and algae. Therefore, increased sedimentation of the already impaired
Creek due to the Project also creates a risk of potentially significant environmental impacts
on aquatic life.
The MND concludes that providing site specific biological surveys is sufficient to assure that
sensitive plant and animal species will not be adversely affected. However breaking this
large project into smaller components could result in numerous project locations being
under the de minimus limitations and thus not subject to the mitigation rules of the HMP.
However, the entire Housing Element is well over the limit and should be considered as a
whole. Piecemealing projects are in contravention of CEQA and frustrate the goals of the 2,2*
HMP. The separation of this project into individual projects is "inconsistent with the
mandate of CEQA that a large project shall not be divided into little ones because the
division can disguise the aggregate environmental impacts of the total project." Citizens
Assn. for Sensible Dev. of Bishop Area v. Invo (1985) 172 C.A.Sd 151, 167). The court also
found "large projects shall not be divided into little ones because the division can submerge
the aggregate environmental impacts of the total project."
The MND should include a vegetation map that includes an impact overlay/fuel ^ o
modification zone to ensure that sensitive habitat is not impacted by the Project (either
directly or indirectly).
We also request that consistency findings with the HMP are prepared and submitted to the
Wildlife Agencies concurrent with the processing of the CEQA documents. Consistency
with the regional and local conservation plans should be demonstrated during the public
review period for CEQA. Delaying this until the final projecta approval before City Council
circumvents the public review process specified in CEQA and is also not consistent with the
process described in the HMP Section E.2.
There are no project specific conditions that address landscaping , assure the optimization of
the use of native plants, restrictions on the use of invasive plants, or irrigation regimes that o c
would not be disruptive to watersheds or nearby native habitat. Failure to address
landscaping and associated chemical and run-off issues could cause significant impacts and
no mitigation has been proposed.
7
Geology and Soils
The MND has provided no information upon which to base any understanding of
compliance with hillside development restrictions, which can effect erosion and sediment
discharges to the watershed, as well as failures and loss of habitat. The Hill side
Development Ordinance includes specific conditions related to development on steep
slopes. There is no discussion about such restrictions, possible impacts from such
construction, and no conditions that assure compliance with the provisions of the existing
City ordinance. The MND has failed to assess the potential impacts from construction on
steep slopes which could occur at numerous locations within the sites in the Housing
Element. The Project as proposed has not complied either with the spirit or intent of the
hillside development provisions to maintain an environmental equilibrium consistent with
existing vegetation, soils, geology, slopes, and drainage patterns and has failed to preserve
the natural topography. Further, designs are needed to preserve the natural appearance of 0 f\
hillsides. By placing no restrictions on the amount of imported fill dirt or things like crib
walls, it is hard to understand that these impacts have been considered at all.
Complying with the ordinance should be required to evaluate existing conditions including
slopes, drainage, vegetation, soils, geologic factors, and hydrology, and are reviewed
together with the Development Plan and a proposed landscape plan. Findings must be
made that the development is consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and
Hillside Development Ordinance. Subsequent grading and building permits must then be
required to be consistent with the Hillside Development Ordinance. No such plan or
compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance was analyzed nor is there anything in
the record to indicate it was ever evaluated.
Public Facilities
- The City of Oceanside is on record by memo from the City Manager that Oceanside
objects to the dense housing proposed at Quarry Creek in part because the city of
Oceanside ends up having to provide police and other emergency services to this area on
the border between the two cities. This issue of regional impacts has not been identified
or mitigated with the MND.
The City of Carlsbad Growth Management Plan requires the provision of specified
number of acres of parkland for each 1,000 residents. The Housing Element includes
some redistribution and increase of housing within the 4 quadrants of the city. The
MND has failed to demonstrate that each area of the city has sufficient parkland with the
proposed redistribution of housing units and number of residents. The potential need to
provide additional public parks is another indirect project impact that has not been
properly addressed in the MND.
Utilities and Service Systems
The MND states that the city is served by 4 water districts and that each has an approved
master plan to evaluate the adequacy and determine improvements necessary to provide
for future developments. However there is no analysis about how the Housing Element
will change the number of future residents served by each of these districts and whether
the approved master plans can accommodate the increase in number of residents for a
particular district. Furthermore the City of Carlsbad recently imposed Level 2 drought
conditions and regional water districts have indicated that conditions may worsen in the 2,y
near future. Level 4 conditions require curtailment of any new water hook-ups. The
MND has failed to provide any substantive analysis of reasonably expected redistribution
of water demand, changes to local water supply or to provide appropriate mitigation for
such future conditions. ~~
- Will each of the 4 water districts be impacted the same? Should there be any
consideration of reducing units served by water districts that project reduced future
supply? There is no evidence that current water supply conditions have been addressed 3 0
in the project analysis. This is another issue with significant cumulative impacts- both on
the city of Carlsbad and on the region because of interjurisdictional coverage by water
districts.
Hydrology and Water Quality
There is substantial evidence from which it can be fairly argued that there is a reasonable
possibility that the Project will have a significant effect on hydrology and water quality due
to unusual circumstances. The Project includes several sites that include steep slopes,
special hydrologic features like artesian ponds, and that are located in 303(d) listed impaired
waterbodies. None of these specific conditions are identified or addressed in the proposed
mitigation measures. This is of particular concern with the Quarry Creek project where any
sediments mobilized by erosion and pollutants released during and after the construction of 31
the Project, chemicals and fertilizers used for landscaping of the Project, as well as oils,
gasoline, grease and chemical contaminant runoff from the existing and proposed buildings,
parking lots and roads of the Project will then filter down to the Buena Vista Creek, which
is currently 303(d) listed as an impaired water body for sediment toxicity. This, in turn, will
have significant environmental impacts on the coastal watershed that terminates at the
highly sensitive Buena Vista Lagoon and downstream marine waters.
There is no analysis of the changes to impervious cover within sub-watersheds. The
percentage of impervious cover is directly related to watershed health. While the MND
proposes to add project conditions on new development that does not address the already
degraded conditions of all of our coastal sub-water sheds. The Carlsbad Watershed
Management Plan includes recommendations for the entire Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit. The 3 2*
recently issued Agua Hedinda Watershed Management Plan includes conditions specific to
the Agua Hedionda sub-watershed. The MND has not identified or evaluated compliance
with these two key watershed protection plans. The project needs to be evaluated for
consistency with these plans and appropriate mitigation measures need to be added to
assure that both cumulative and project specific impacts to the watershed are addressed.
The M^lsas jailed to idmfifywhi^ of the pippo^
located wflJan the 100 year fioodtplain, Iniivmy parts of C^lstad the FEMASoodpIain
mapping has jwtbeen updated to .reflect cunerU conditicms. FmHifirmore these maps have
inrt been uqpdal^ to .reflect risii^ sea levdsa^
floodplain niaiageincttt regulations specify flat new construction can not inducte fecititips
wMrinthe!0(^yearf]c)odpkininfactlhiaha8nQtbeenfQl{cwetL The result is thaUhe
floodploin has been and will continue to be mx>dified with the construrtioa of pr^ecis that
ccmstrnrtionbelevaled(Rober^^ There is no analysis
of how the combined hoofimg units proposed JOB ^ie Housing Btementvnll impact the
OiiBehfllf of Preserve Calavera
Alt: CAfire Fire Hazard severity Map
10
- Low nnpact dfivelopment criteria and asseasmfint appears to be almost whtfiymissingiiom
the documentation. At flw feast flte prefect should te Teqnir^tobeiftexmfonnancewd&tbe
l#ti> Impact Desetofmtent GwMotes for Sbe County of San IS^o. Soch ifent? as nrfnimiTflffna
of impemous areas, in particular conservation of natural soils and slopes/odninuzagan of
addition imperviot#&xife<M to ejdstm^ 34
^ have beroflMirougMy discussed aiuJanaly^tytlteHoasin^ Jtisastitoagh
the huge potential increase in acreage rfimpanrknisJStttfacesarenotcooalderedatalLItifi
iinportant flxai adjacaot iuqpcrvious surfaces be minimize ami nat^»^8Iope8 and jdiainage
be preserved yefthat was clewly tnjt done here.
Ciumilativ^bidHrect Ipopacts
This project has completely failed to consider cumulative impacts including transportation,
biological resources, air quality, hydrology, geology, and failed to consider potential indirect
eff«issachasImpacteframraadwideni]^OTexterc;icms, EaDed to consider connectlvi^ of
icoperviuus areas, failed to consider previous studies and dociunems relative to &e area and Ae
muoaerows specific sites ptCFpcwed for housing dtrottyincreasea^and.feiled to c»nsid« the OC
iwesaU linpacl to water quaB^ m the wafeBiaihe^
TVouIdindude habitat isdatfon, vehicle and <onBtor«rticffi noise, invasive or noiwiattve species,
aesthetics and other such imparts partteubrfy into the oiarfal zone £» in olhCTara^adjacentto
wnsltive natural rescnuoss.
Tliis MND has failed to meet the basic Teqoxrexnents qfCEQAanditeedstoberqected,
10
DRAFT Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA
Response to June 26, 2009 Comments by Preserve Calavera
On
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Draft 2005-2010 Housing Element
(Note: The number of the response below corresponds with the comment identified by the number in the
right margin of the comment letter)
Introduction
1. Comment noted. Many of the past issues expressed by Preserve Calavera have
regarded Quarry Creek specifically. As anticipated in the comment, the USD
Environmental Law Clinic submitted a comment letter on the Draft Housing Element
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND); staff has issued a separate response to this
letter.
Land Use
2. Draft Housing Element Section 3.1, beginning on page 3-1, clarifies that the Housing
Element is a five-year planning document covering the housing cycle July 1, 2005 to June
30, 2010. However, the growth projection, or RHNA, assigned to the five-year cycle is
actually developed for a 7.5-year time frame beginning January 1, 2003 and ending June
30, 2010. Therefore, housing units constructed, under construction, or approved between
2003 and July 1, 2005, can be credited toward the RHNA for this Housing Element period.
These units are identified in tables 3-1 and 3-2 of Section 3.1. These tables also identify
such units through the end of 2006.
State law does not obligate jurisdictions to construct units to meet RHNA during the
housing cycle. Instead, cities and counties must provide adequate sites, with appropriate
land use requirements (e.g., general plan designations, zoning, and development
standards), that enable both for-profit and non-profit housing developers to build the units
during the housing cycle. Of course, market forces and the availability of governmental
subsidies such as tax credits that are outside the control of the City of Carlsbad can
significantly influence how many homes are actually constructed during a particular target
period. As Carlsbad does not have sufficient sites with appropriate land use requirements
to meet its RHNA, staff has proposed Draft Housing Element Program 2.1 to provide them
within the cycle. This program proposes amendments to various land use documents of
the City, such as the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. There is no mandate, however,
regarding when or if the units must be built.
Upon drafting Program 2.1, city staff estimated completion dates for the implementation of
the different program objectives, all of which were within the housing cycle. Due to delays,
these dates will not be met. If Program 2.1 components are not completed within the
housing cycle, state law requires their achievement within the first year of the following
cycle. It is reasonable to conclude some program objectives will be completed by mid-
2011. Other program objectives, because of complexities, may not be completed until
2012.
As the MND project description notes, completion of two of the Program 2.1 objectives -
increasing minimum densities in the Village Redevelopment Area and changing land use
designations for certain properties in the Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan area - will
be facilitated by the fact that environmental review has already been completed for these
projects.
Completion of Draft Housing Element programs would effectuate only land use changes,
not actual housing construction. It is speculative to say when housing construction might
occur.
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 2009 COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVERA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGE 2
3. The MND does not state that sites meet the San Diego Association of Governments'
(SANDAG) smart growth criteria, as the commenter indicates. Instead, the MND indicates
the sites meet SANDAG's definition of smart growth as stated in the Regional
Comprehensive Plan. The RCP defines smart growth as:
A compact, efficient, and environmentally-sensitive pattern of
i development that provides people with additional travel, housing, and
employment choices by focusing future growth away from rural areas and
closer to existing and planned job centers and public facilities, while
preserving open space and natural resources and making more efficient
use of existing urban infrastructure.
The SANDAG Smart Growth Concept Map identifies four smart growth opportunity areas
in Carlsbad, all of which are proposed in the Draft Housing Element as sites for high
density residential and/or mixed use development. These sites were identified for smart
growth planning because they are in or near developed areas and are proximate to
major transportation corridors, transit facilities, job centers, and public facilities and
amenities. They also comply with the City's General Plan policies (Land Use Element
policies C.2, C.4, C.5, C.7, C.8, and C.10) guiding the location of high density housing
and mixed use projects. As identified in the Draft Housing Element, these sites are the
Barrio Area, Village Redevelopment Area, Quarry Creek, Ponto, and Plaza Camino
Real. The Barrio and Village Redevelopment areas are counted as one smart growth
area on the SANDAG Map.
4. Further, three of the four sites in Carlsbad identified on SANDAG's Smart Growth Concept
Map qualify as potential smart growth sites only. While recognized they do not meet the
criteria today, their development potential, location, and proximity to employment centers
and existing and planned transit services, for example, suggest they are good candidates
to meet SANDAG's smart growth criteria in the future. However, even if one or more of
these sites ultimately do not satisfy smart growth criteria, they are still suitable areas for
meeting the City's housing needs. The MND is intended to analyze the potential impacts
of the Draft Housing Element, a programmatic/policy level element of the General Plan.
The MND is not intended to analyze any actual development proposals, whether on one of
the four potential smart growth sites or elsewhere in the City. Land use policies and
zoning standards of the Carlsbad Village existing/planned smart growth site (CB-3, the
designation applied to the site by the Smart Growth Concept Map) already permit a mix of
commercial and residential. For the Ponto Beachfront (CB-4) potential smart growth area,
the certified environmental impact report analyzed both high density residential and mixed
use development. The proposed Draft Housing Element Program 2.1 component would
implement new land use designations consistent with this analysis. Further discussion
about the other potential smart growth sites - Plaza Camino Real (CB-1) and Quarry Creek
(CB-2), may be found in the MND project description.
5. Citing Growth Management dwelling unit cap concerns, the commenter questions what
other smart growth development potentially would be precluded upon approval of the
smart growth sites identified. An analysis of Draft Housing Element compliance with
Growth Management is found in Section 4, and Table 4-5 specifically identifies the
significant number of allowable units for development remaining in each of the City's four
quadrants after program implementation. Further, it is speculative to identify what, if any,
smart growth projects may be proposed in Carlsbad's future.
As to cumulative impacts, the adoption of the Draft Housing Element will not have
cumulatively considerable impacts as the MND demonstrates. SANDAG projects
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 2009 COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVERA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGE 3
regional growth for the greater San Diego area and local general plan land use policies
are incorporated into those SANDAG projections. Based on these projections, region-
wide standards, including but not limited to, storm water quality control, air quality
standards, habitat conservation, and congestion management standards are established
to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City's
development standards and regulations are consistent with the region-wide standards.
The City's standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and
drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resources protection
regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that future development within the City
will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. Mitigation measures are
included in the MND to ensure future projects consistent with the Draft Housing Element
comply with all applicable standards.
An issue of regional concern with regard to cumulative impacts is transportation. With
regard to circulation, SANDAG, acting as the County Congestion Management Agency
(CMA) has designated four roads (Olivenhain Rd., Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino
Real, and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments (portions of I-5 and State
Route 78) in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. According to
SANDAG's 2008 Congestion Management Program (CMP) Update, these designated
roadways functioned at an acceptable peak-hour Level of Service "E" or better as of
2007, with the exception of the segment of El Camino Real from Plaza Drive to the
northerly city limit. With implementation of planned CMP roadway improvements (as
identified in the 2030 SANDAG Regional Transportation Plan), this deficient segment of
El Camino Real will function at acceptable levels of service in the short term and at build
out.
It is important to note that regional growth projected in the CMP analysis incorporates
Carlsbad General Plan build-out assumptions. Draft Housing Element programs are
consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan growth projections. Mitigation measures (T-1
through T-6) are included in this environmental document to ensure compliance with the
City's Growth Management and Traffic Impact Fee programs, coordination with other
neighboring cities, and improvements to Carlsbad's pedestrian and bicycle circulation
network occur.
Overall, achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service "E" standard assumes
implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacities of the
designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, these
designated transportation routes will function at acceptable levels of service in the short-
term and at buildout.
The commenter specifically mentions cumulative open space impacts. It is unclear if this
concern refers to open space preserved in a natural state or for active recreation
purposes. However, as discussed in the MND's Biological Resources Section IV, direct
and indirect impacts to sensitive habitats resulting from development facilitated by the
Draft Housing Element should not be cumulatively considerable with application of
mitigation measures BR-1 through BR-11 to new development in conformance with the
MHCP and the City's HMP.
The MND also notes that the Growth Management Plan requires planning for public
facility needs through build out, concurrent with development, which include active
recreation facilities such as parks. The Draft Housing Element does not affect the
Growth Management Plan, and does not propose policies to facilitate housing beyond
the total dwelling units anticipated by the City's existing General Plan and Growth
Management Plan. Implementation of the Draft Housing Element will not require
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 2009 COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVERA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGE 4
additional public services beyond those already anticipated. Developers of every new
development facilitated by the Draft Housing Element will be required to pay all
applicable impact fees, including required school impact fees, to support additional
public services as the demand for those services increases with population growth.
6. See responses 3 and 5 above. It is not clear what "natural lands" the commenter is
referencing.
Air Quality
7. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 in the Housing Element MND specifically applies to temporary
construction related impacts, not to long term operational impacts. The comment letter
incorrectly asserts that the Robertson Ranch EIR found temporary construction related
impacts to be significant and unavoidable, even after mitigation was applied. On the
contrary, the Robertson Ranch EIR found that temporary construction impacts were
significant, but mitigation measures reduced this impact to a less than significant level.
As discussed in the MND, subsequent environmental review and CEQA compliance will
be required for both the implementation of proposed housing element programs and for
any future housing development projects facilitated by the housing element.
8. As stated in the MND, the build out assumptions of the General Plan were incorporated
into the regional air quality planning process. The location of future residential units
within city boundaries does not substantially affect the build out assumptions of the
General Plan related to regional air quality plans. The Housing Element does not
propose residential units in excess of that allowed by the General Plan. Therefore,
cumulative impacts on a regional level would not be substantially different if the Housing
Element is adopted, as compared to the build out of the existing General Plan.
Cumulative ambient air quality impacts with adoption of the Draft Housing Element
would be less than significant since the General Plan has already been considered in the
regional air quality planning process and the State Implementation Plan, and it is
consistent with those programs.
Growth Management limits the number of dwelling units in Carlsbad on a citywide scale.
Additionally, Growth Management divides the City into four quadrants and also limits the
number of dwelling units for each of these four quadrants. The Housing Element does
not propose dwelling units in excess of either the citywide limit or the individual quadrant
limits. Furthermore, the majority of the units accommodated in the Housing Element
would be built on land that is already designated for residential uses in the General Plan.
The Housing Element does not propose to change the land use in large areas of the city
from non-residential to residential uses. Commercial areas counted for mixed use units
already allow residential mixed use with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The
Housing Element proposes a program to eliminate the CUP requirement and allow
residential by right, but does not propose to re-designate this land from commercial to
mixed use. Therefore, contrary to the claim in the comment letter, the Housing Element
does not propose to significantly redistribute the number of housing units designated in
the General Plan.
Regarding construction related impacts, this comment suggests project-level
environmental analysis of a program-level document (the Housing Element Update). As
discussed in the MND, subsequent environmental review and CEQA compliance will be
required for both the implementation of proposed Housing Element programs and for
any future development projects facilitated by the Housing Element. The Housing
Element does not change land use designations in Carlsbad and does not propose the
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 2009 COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVERA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGE 5
physical development of any site. Development of any site listed in the Housing Element
will be initiated at an undetermined future time by private developers. Project details are
unknown at this time; therefore project-level environmental analysis is not appropriate for
the Housing Element. Future private development projects will be subject to City
standards and CEQA.
The comment that there is no basis for the concept that the four sites in the Housing
Element that are designated as smart growth could reduce auto emissions is incorrect.
The link between air quality and smart growth is Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). A
substantial portion of our region's air quality impacts are from automobile tailpipe
emissions. Measures to reduce VMT will reduce these emissions, thereby lessening air
quality impacts.
Research has established a link between smart growth and reductions in VMT.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (Our Built and Natural
Environments, 2001) mixing land uses can result in shorter automobile trips and
automobile trips being replaced with other modes of transportation, such as walking or
public transit. Both results reduce VMT, and corresponding auto emissions. This is true
for both mixed use development, as well as compact, higher density residential
development. Mixing uses within residential neighborhoods reduces the number of auto
trips as well as their length as compared to single-use residential neighborhoods
(McCormack and Wilkinson, 1996, as found in Our Built and Natural Environments).
Transit oriented development has been found to result in less auto trips than those
initially estimated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual for
this type of development (Cervero and Arlington, 2008). Carlsbad's Housing Element
proposes significant portions of the RHNA in the Village and Barrio areas, which are
already mixed use neighborhoods well served by transit and services. Also proposed
are mixed use for commercial areas, and new housing near commercial services, as in
Quarry Creek. In light of the studies cited above, it is reasonable to conclude that mixed
use developments may result in less air quality impacts than typical single-family
residential subdivisions. Note that some of the mixed use sites counted toward the
RHNA would need to be redeveloped in order to add housing, and the exact amount and
type of commercial uses is unknown. It is possible that the future mix and intensity of
commercial uses could be less than exists today, thereby lessening the impact of adding
housing on these sites.
The Housing Element is an element of the General Plan, and as such, affects property at
a citywide scale. At the citywide scale, the Housing Element is consistent with the
General Plan and its air quality impacts would be less than significant as stated above.
Carbon Monoxide "hot spot" analysis requires a project specific traffic analysis report
and modeling for potentially impacted intersections in order to determine whether hot
spots occur and if their impacts are considered significant. This comment suggests
project-level environmental analysis of a program-level document (the Housing Element
Update). As discussed in the MND, subsequent environmental review and CEQA
compliance will be required for both the implementation of proposed housing element
programs and for any future housing development projects facilitated by the housing
element.
9. This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a program-level
document (the Housing Element Update). Sensitive receptors are members of the
population who are especially sensitive to air pollutants, such as children or elderly
persons, or land uses where these members of the population live and gather.
Examples are residential neighborhoods, schools, convalescent care facilities. The Draft
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 2009 COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVERA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGES
Housing Element, if adopted, would become a programmatic/policy level element of the
General Plan. The Draft Housing Element does not propose any specific development
project and certainly does not propose to locate incompatible development near sensitive
receptors.
While not directly relevant to the MND on the Draft Housing Element, the commenter
might be interested to know that mixed-use developments are typically designed to
encourage pedestrian and bicycle use and reduce vehicle trips by combining residential
with compatible non-residential uses, such as employment, shopping and recreation in
close proximity. However, the Zoning Ordinance prohibits industrial and manufacturing
uses in the commercial zones that are identified by the Housing Element for mixed use.
Therefore, the Carlsbad Housing Element does not propose mixed use or residential
land uses adjacent to industrial or manufacturing uses. Furthermore, within a mixed use
building, the California Building Code both limits the non-residential uses to types that
are compatible with the residential portion of the building and requires separation
features to limit potential negative effects on the building residents. Due to these use
compatibility features, air quality impacts for residents of mixed use projects should be
less than significant. Likewise locating compatible mixed use projects adjacent to
existing residential uses would not create a significant air quality impact on the existing
residents or sensitive receptors. Any impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than
significant and therefore no mitigation is necessary.
Carlsbad's General Plan has anticipated mixed use and the compatibility of residential
and industrial uses. Mixed use and higher density housing is encouraged by the
Carlsbad General Plan near commercial areas, employment areas and transportation
corridors (see Land Use Element, Residential C.5 and C.10). Mixed use development
in the Village was also anticipated by the Carlsbad General Plan (see Land Use
Element, Village Policy C.5). Existing General Plan policies limit intense industrial uses
to areas least desirable to residential development (Land Use Element, Industrial Policy
C.4), and require compatibility of the industrial areas with surrounding residential areas
as well as limiting incompatible uses within the industrial areas (Land Use Element,
Industrial Policies C.1, C.2 and C.6). However, it must be emphasized that the Housing
Element is an element of the General Plan, and as such, affects property at a citywide
scale. Environmental impacts should be reviewed at the citywide scale as well. At the
citywide scale, the Housing Element is consistent with the General Plan and its air
quality impacts would be less than significant as stated above.
Hazardous Materials
10. Comment noted. There are two active cleanup efforts at Quarry Creek. One is in
response to a leaking underground fuel tank, as the commenter notes and as identified
in the Draft Housing Element. According to the Department of Environmental Health
(DEH), a case file for the other effort was opened in 2000 to address any other
remediation needed in addition to that of the leaking tank. At that time, concerns about
surface oil spills or waste suggested opening a second case file. Ultimately, according to
DEH, there is no separate cleanup action associated with this second case file at this
time.
The MND acknowledges the Draft Housing Element may allow (and in that sense
facilitate) residential construction, including mixed use development and emergency
shelters, on sites known to be on the Cortese List. The MND also notes active or past
hazardous materials cleanup sites in Carlsbad primarily occur in commercial and
industrial areas. Accordingly, appropriate mitigation measures have been proposed.
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 2009 COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVERA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGE?
However, the Draft Housing Element does not propose to redesignate any industrially-
designated land to residential uses. Furthermore, areas proposed for density increases
already (1) are designated for residential uses, (2) permit residential and
residential/commercial uses (the Village Redevelopment Area), (3) conditionally permit
residential/commercial uses (the City's commercial zones), or (4) have completed the
environmental review (Ponto) that analyzed the uses contemplated by the Draft Housing
Element.
As the MND notes, city staff has reviewed the California Environmental Protection
Agency's Cortese List data resources
(http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/default.htm) and the federal
Environmental Protection Agency's CERCLIS Database and Superfund Site Information
list website (http://epa.gov/superfund/sites/cursites/index.htm). The federal government
identifies no active cleanup sites in Carlsbad. The State Water Resources Control Board
listing of cleanup sites per the Cortese List website identifies many locations in Carlsbad,
most in its industrial and commercial areas, where cleanup of hazardous materials is
completed or underway. Many of these are related to leaking underground tanks and
gasoline spills, and many cleanup operations shown are closed rather than open, active
efforts.
11. It is speculative to determine site-specific remediation requirements, including
acceptability of a site for a particular use or the timeframe for clean-up, until a
development application is submitted and the need for any remediation is determined.
Any remediation plans or timetables to address contamination are the responsibility of
the County Department of Environmental Health and Regional Water Quality Control
Board. Other involved agencies may include the City of Carlsbad, the Air Pollution
Control District, and the California Environmental Protection Agency. Mitigation Measure
HM-9 anticipates this and is adequate to address actual or potential contamination
issues that may arise with development facilitated by the Housing Element.
12. Staff has reviewed the "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA" for Carlsbad,
produced by Cal FIRE and dated June 11, 2009
(ftp://frap.cdf.ca.gov/fhszlocalmaps/san_diego/Carlsbad.pdf). This and similar maps for
other jurisdictions in California are identified as drafts. Carlsbad is identified as a city that
contains some areas that constitute "Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones." However,
no portion of the Quarry Creek property is within such a zone. All other properties
affected by Draft Housing Element programs proposing housing density changes are not
within such zones either except for (1) scattered and small individual properties,
primarily in the La Costa area, affected by the proposed minimum density increase for
the RMH and RH land use designations; and (2) the Plaza Camino Real West shopping
center, a shopping center identified in Draft Housing Element 3-7 as a potential site for
high density, mixed use housing. Apparently, the south and west portions of the
shopping center could be affected by wildfire in the Hosp Grove and Buena Vista
Lagoon areas.
13. Comment noted. The MND acknowledges and evaluates the risk wildland fires pose to
Carlsbad residents. It also reports that development facilitated by the implementation of
the Draft Housing Element and also consistent with adopted land use policy could place
additional homes in or near areas with wildland fire hazards. See also Response 12.
As discussed in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the MND, adoption and
implementation of the Draft Housing Element will not impair implementation of
Carlsbad's adopted emergency response plan. Further, through the development review
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 2009 COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVERA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGES
process, the Carlsbad Fire Department reviews projects to verify, as necessary,
appropriate landscaping and building materials for fire-prone areas, and adequate
access for fire safety equipment as well as evacuation routes. Adherence to such
requirements and existing city standards will reduce the potential impacts to a less than
significant level. Thus, wildfire risks are adequately evaluated and addressed by existing
requirements.
Transportation
14. Growth Management limits the number of dwelling units in Carlsbad on a citywide scale.
Additionally, Growth Management divides the City into four quadrants and also limits the
number of dwelling units for each of these four quadrants. The Housing Element does
not propose dwelling units in excess of either the citywide limit or the individual quadrant
limits. Furthermore, the majority of the units accommodated in the Housing Element
would be built on land that is already designated for residential uses in the General Plan.
The Housing Element does not propose to change the land use in large areas of the City
from non-residential to residential uses. Commercial areas counted for mixed use units
already allow residential mixed use with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The
Housing Element proposes a program to eliminate the CUP requirement and allow
residential by right, but does not propose to re-designate this land from commercial to
mixed use. Therefore, contrary to the claim in the letter, the Housing Element does not
propose to significantly redistribute the number of housing units designated in the
General Plan.
15. Comment noted. This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a
program-level document (the Housing Element Update). As discussed in the MND,
subsequent environmental review and CEQA compliance will be required for both the
implementation of proposed Housing Element programs and for any future development
projects facilitated by the Housing Element. The Housing Element does not change land
use designations for any property and does not propose the physical development of
any site. Development of any site listed in the Housing Element would be initiated at an
undetermined future time by private developers. Project details are unknown at this
time; therefore project-level environmental analysis is not appropriate for the Housing
Element. Future land use changes and private development projects will be subject to
City standards and CEQA.
However, it must be emphasized that the Housing Element is an element of the General
Plan, and as such, affects property at a citywide scale. Environmental impacts should
be reviewed at the citywide scale as well. At the citywide scale, the Housing Element is
consistent with the other elements of the General Plan because the Housing Element
does not propose units in excess of that allowed by the General Plan, and the City's
circulation system has been designed to accommodate the build out of the General Plan.
Complex traffic studies and modeling at the project-level are required in order to
determine where road widening or extensions may be necessary. The Housing Element
does not contain project-level details necessary to assess the type and magnitude of all
potential traffic impacts. Future projects and any resulting traffic impacts, including
possible road widening and extensions will be subject to CEQA and City standards.
16. Comment noted. This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a
program-level document (the Housing Element Update). Please see Response 15
above. The Housing Element is an element of the General Plan, and as such, affects
property at a citywide scale. Environmental impacts should be reviewed at the citywide
scale as well. At the citywide scale, the Housing Element is consistent with the General
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 2009 COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVERA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGE 9
Plan because the Housing Element does not propose units in excess of that allowed by
the General Plan, and the City's circulation system has been designed to accommodate
the build out of the General Plan.
Mitigation Measure T-4 is intended for the future implementation of proposed Housing
Element programs and for any future development projects facilitated by the Housing
Element. Mitigation Measure T-4 requires project-level environmental analysis of the
type and detail unavailable for the program-level Housing Element project. If the
Westfield Mall site is redeveloped with housing in the future, this project will comply with
T-4. It is anticipated that compliance with T-1 would also include a corridor specific
traffic analysis for El Camino Real impacts.
17. Comment noted. Please see Response 15 above, this comment suggests project-level
environmental analysis of a program-level document (the Housing Element Update).
The Housing Element is an element of the General Plan, and as such, affects property at
a citywide scale. At the citywide scale, the Housing Element is consistent with the
General Plan because the Housing Element does not propose units in excess of that
allowed by the General Plan, and the City's circulation system has been designed to
accommodate the build out of the General Plan
Quarry Creek currently has a General Plan land use designation of single family
residential that would allow the potential for development of approximately 165 dwelling
units. The Housing Element is a planning-level document which envisions increasing
the residential densities permitted on Quarry Creek to allow the potential for higher
density development on the site, but the Draft Housing Element is not proposing 500
units where none were previously allowed nor proposing to increase the existing density
designation by 500 units. Moreover, adoption of the Draft Housing Element does not
grant approval of any actual development proposal on Quarry Creek or any site within
the City; applications for any specific development proposal would have to be processed
and would be subject to environmental review at a project-specific level of detail that
simply is not available when considering a programmatic document like the Draft
Housing Element.
18. Comment noted. The purpose of the Carlsbad Bikeway Master Plan (December 2007)
and Pedestrian Master Plan (August 25, 2008) is twofold: (1) to provide
recommendations and strategies for enhanced pedestrian and bicycle mobility in
Carlsbad, and (2) to allow Carlsbad to apply for grant funding for Capital Improvement
Projects that construct pedestrian and bicycle linkages. The documents do not contain
requirements or conditions of approval for private development projects. However,
where applicable, it is the practice of the City to require developers to install pedestrian
and bicycle pathway and sidewalk linkages, which would help implement the master
plans.
Biological Resources
19. Smart growth as envisioned by the .Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) would result in
increased open space at both the regional and local levels. By increasing the density of
development within developed areas, development that otherwise would occur in rural
areas of the county can instead be concentrated in cities. Where increased densities occur
in urban and suburban areas, land can be used more efficiently, improving opportunities
for affordable and mixed use housing and open space preservation.
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 2009 COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVERA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGE 10
Without a development proposal, it is speculative to estimate additional open space that
may be realized within Carlsbad and the region through the promotion of smart growth
development in the City of Carlsbad. However, it should be noted that the Draft Housing
Element does not propose that any area designated for open space currently be re-
designated to promote residential development. Instead, the Draft Housing Element
promotes an increase in the allowable density of development on sites already designated
for development as the primary method to meet Carlsbad's "fair-share" housing
obligations.
As the MND describes in the Recreation section, the City's Growth Management
Performance Standard for Parks requires 3 acres of park space for every 1,000 people
in the city. As population (and corresponding demand for parks) is increased, Growth
Management policies require park acreage to be concurrently increased, thereby
ensuring that existing park facilities are not overburdened.
20. HMP Figure 4 identifies HMP Cores, linkages, and Special Resource Areas. The latter two
can serve as wildlife corridors between the Cores. Cores and linkages depicted on Figure
4 do not represent entire areas to be preserved but instead encompass habitat,
developable, and developed areas, such as in the Robertson Ranch, Aviara, and Villages
of La Costa areas. Draft Housing Element Programs do not propose housing in linkages or
Special Resource Areas.
21. The Draft Housing Element is a policy document that does not recommend or approve
any particular development project. However, implementation of Draft Housing Element
policies and programs will facilitate housing construction, which in turn could generate
additional urban stormwater runoff and affect water quality. The quality of stormwater
runoff is regulated under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act and the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
The NPDES stormwater permit provides a mechanism for monitoring the discharge of
pollutants and for establishing appropriate controls to minimize the entrance of such
pollutants into stormwater runoff. As part of the NPDES permit, each jurisdiction must
prepare programmatic guidance documents, including the Watershed Urban Runoff
Management Plan (WURMP), a Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Plan
(JURMP), and a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP).
The SUSMP and Municipal Storm Water Permit require the City to prevent stormwater
pollution and improve the quality of water flowing into the stormwater system for all new
and existing development through the implementation of Best Management Practices
(BMPs). Through the development review process, the City applies Source Control and
Treatment Control BMPs to all new development projects. Any project facilitated by the
Draft Housing Element would be subject to the BMP requirements, as well as all federal,
State, regional and local stormwater requirements. Furthermore, future projects are
subject to requirements for a hydrology report to assess impacts relating to drainage and
stormwater runoff. Projects must demonstrate adequate capacity in downstream
drainage systems or show that the development does not increase runoff.
Runoff from new residences contemplated by the Draft Housing Element can potentially
generate non-stormwater discharges. Specific development plans will be required to
include best management practices (BMPs) specifically targeted to the anticipated
pollutants.
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 2009 COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVERA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGE 11
The mitigation measures recommended by the MND ensure a project's compliance with
all standards promulgated to ensure water quality. Projects facilitated by the Draft
Housing Element will comply with these measures; furthermore, once project details are
known, these mitigation measures may be refined, supplemented or replaced by more
appropriate, specific measures.
22. The North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP) was designed to
compensate for the loss of biological resources throughout the program's region;
therefore, projects that conform to the MHCP, as specified by the City's HMP, would not
result in a cumulatively considerable impact for those biological resources adequately
covered by the program. As discussed in the MND's Biological Resources category, the
direct and indirect biological impacts resulting from development facilitated by the Draft
Housing Element should not be cumulatively considerable if the mitigation measures as
contained in the MND are implemented in accordance with the MHCP and the City's
HMP.
23. The Draft Housing Element is a policy document that neither recommends nor approves
any particular development project. Specifics regarding impacts a project may have to
sensitive biological resources, such as through establishment of fuel modification zones,
can only be analyzed upon submittal of a development proposal. No analysis can be
done as necessary and meaningful information is not yet available.
24. Per HMP Section E.2, Consistency Findings are required with conversion of standards
areas to proposed hardline areas. Property in standards areas must be designed,
permitted, and developed according to the requirements of HMP Section D. This occurs
upon submittal of a development proposal or other specific action.
25. Mitigation measure BR-10 requires compliance with HMP Adjacency Standards. These
standards, beginning on HMP page F-16, include landscape and irrigation standards that
address the commenter's concerns.
Geology and Soils
26. Comment noted. Please see Response 15, this comment suggests project-level
environmental analysis of a program-level document (the Housing Element Update).
For this reason, it is speculation to try and determine what, if any, unique natural
features would be disturbed by development facilitated by Draft Housing Element
programs. However, implementation of Draft Housing Element policies and programs will
facilitate housing construction, which in turn could generate additional water quality
impacts from soil erosion. Mitigation measures require future projects to comply with
requirements for a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Best
Management Practices (BMP), which will address this issue during future project-level
environmental review when development details are known (see Mitigation Measures
GS-3, GS-4 and GS-5).
Regarding the Hillside Development Ordinance, development of any property in
Carlsbad which meets the criteria outlined in the Hillside Development Ordinance is
subject to the regulations of that ordinance. Please note that the compliance with the
Hillside Ordinance is not listed as a mitigation measure for the Geology and Soils section
of the MND. As the Housing Element does not contain a proposal for the physical
development of any site listed in the Housing Element or any other property, it is not
possible to know the potential specific impacts of future projects regarding the
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 2009 COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVERA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGE 12
development of steep slopes as suggested by the comment letter. Furthermore, without
specific grading and engineering designs, it is not possible to discuss in the Housing
Element how future projects may comply with the Hillside Development Ordinance.
According to Carlsbad Municipal Code, a Hillside Development Permit shall be
processed with any other associated development permit(s), such as a Tract Map, Site
Development Plan or Coastal Development Permit. As a legislative action, the Housing
Element Update is not the appropriate project for which to impose detailed compliance
with the Hillside Development Ordinance.
Public Facilities
27. Currently and at build out, all fire station districts within Carlsbad are and will be in
compliance with the Growth Management standard for the provision of Fire services,
which is as follows: the number of dwelling units outside of a five minute response time
, from the nearest fire station shall not exceed 1,500 dwelling units.
As the Housing Element is consistent with the citywide Growth Management dwelling
unit cap, as well as the individual quadrant dwelling unit caps, units facilitated by the
housing element will not exceed Carlsbad's Growth Management standard for Fire
services. In addition, Carlsbad's Growth Management Fire Service standard can be met
with the proposed density increases for Quarry Creek. Carlsbad can provide fire service
to all areas of the city and implementation of the housing element will not result in new
need for additional fire stations; therefore the any fire service impacts would be less than
significant.
Carlsbad Police Department's response time goal is to respond to all priority one calls
within an average of 6 minutes. Priority one calls are those where there is an
immediate threat to life or property. The police department has been able to consistently
meet this goal and does not anticipate that additional incremental development will affect
their ability to meet this goal. Carlsbad Police Department is the primary law
enforcement agency for all of Carlsbad; neighboring law enforcement agencies do not
respond to police calls for service in Carlsbad except in very unusual circumstances
such as an officer down; development in Carlsbad along city borders will not create a
police service impact for other jurisdictions.
28. Carlsbad's Growth Management standard for Parks requires 3 acres of park land per
1,000 increase in population. As population grows over time, the standard requires the
City to add additional park acreage to maintain this ratio. As such, in the FY 08-09
Capital Improvement Program list of projects, as well as the Parks and Recreation
Element of the General Plan, the following parks have already been identified to be
constructed prior to build-out and are necessary for Growth Management compliance:
Alga Norte Park, Veteran's Memorial Park, Zone 5 Business Park Recreation Facility,
and Robertson Ranch Park.
Construction of these parks would provide enough park acreage to serve the build-out
population projected for each quadrant based on Growth Management housing unit
caps. Since the Housing Element does not propose dwelling units beyond what is
anticipated by Growth Management, either citywide or in each individual City quadrant,
the adoption of Housing Element Update will not create a need for additional parks
beyond what is already contemplated.
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 2009 COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVERA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGE 13
Utilities and Service Systems
29. Water service is provided to the residents of Carlsbad by the three following water
districts: Carlsbad Municipal Water District, Vallecitos Water District and Olivenhain
Municipal Water District. As stated in the letter and the MND, the water districts base
their future demand projections on Carlsbad's General Plan. These three districts are
member agencies of the San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority), and each
district receives its water from the Water Authority via the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California (Metropolitan). Due to cutbacks from Metropolitan, the Water
Authority issued a Level 2 Drought Condition effective July 1, 2009, which affects all
member agencies equally. Carlsbad Municipal Water District's issuance of a Level 2
condition is the implementation at the local level of the Water Authority's Level 2
condition. If more restrictive drought measures are implemented, these would be region-
wide measures that would equally affect all jurisdictions receiving water from the Water
Authority, and Carlsbad would need to comply with these measures. However,
determinations on drought conditions are made by the Water Authority and Metropolitan,
and are beyond the authority of Carlsbad. The timing of such determinations is unknown.
Until such determination is made, the water districts intend to accommodate growth as
planned for in the General Plan, and Carlsbad must do the same.
As discussed in Section 4 of the Draft Housing Element, Carlsbad is served by different
water and sewer agencies. These are the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD),
which along with the City of Carlsbad, provide water and sewer service to approximately
75 percent of Carlsbad. The southeastern part of the City is served by Leucadia
Wastewater District (LWD), Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD), and Vallecitos
Water District (VWD).
As the Draft Housing Element describes, both CMWD and the City can adequately serve
the approximately 3,400 of the 3,566 remaining RHNA units. The remaining units, all
located in the southeastern part of Carlsbad, can be sewered by LWD. There are no
remaining RHNA units in the VWD Service area.
In the OMWD service area, the Draft Housing Element identifies 91 potential units to
help meet the City's remaining RHNA need. These units are either multi family or second
dwelling units. OMWD anticipates no to minimal impacts on the District's ability to serve
the majority (49) of these units with the District's current capacity.
The additional 42 of the 91 units potentially would result from the construction of mixed
use residential at the existing Von's center at the southeast corner of El Camino Real
and La Costa Avenue (see Draft Housing Element Table 3-7). Subject to additional
evaluation upon review of an actual project proposal, OMWD believes it can also serve
these units with minimal impact under the assumption that the new use of water created
by the 42 potential housing units would be offset by reducing the number of current
water users on the shopping center site. OMWD also notes that water use by the new
residential units would be further offset because of the District's requirement that the
shopping center by retrofitted for reclaimed water use as part of any water improvements
proposed there.
It is not possible to determine with certainty whether new water demand would be offset
by a reduction of current water uses without a specific development proposal. This is
beyond the scope of the Draft Housing Element, which as a program level document
would result in no land use changes or approval or construction of housing if adopted.
Any development project for mixed use residential at the Von's center, when and if
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 2009 COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVERA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGE 14
proposed, would require separate review and approval. In any case, OMWD's comments
indicate its ability to adequately serve all RHNA units within its service area.
30. See Response 29 above. As stated previously, the Water Authority issued a Level 2
Drought Condition effective July 1, 2009, which affects all member agencies equally.
The comment letter also questions whether there should be any consideration of
reducing units due to potential future water supply reductions.
The determination of the number of housing units that a Housing Element must plan for
is beyond the scope of Carlsbad's Housing Element Update. The State of California,
through the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Department
of Finance, determines a regional growth forecast for each 5-year housing element
update cycle. This regional growth forecast is provided to the local regional planning
agency (SANDAG) which then determines the number of housing units each individual
jurisdiction must plan for. This number is the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA). This RHNA is a fixed number provided to each jurisdiction prior to the Housing
Element Update, and cannot be changed during the update process. The appropriate
time for consideration of a reduction in the number of housing units is during the RHNA
distribution process.
Hydrology and Water Quality
31. As a policy document, the Draft Housing Element neither recommends nor approves any
particular development project. For this reason, it is speculation to try and determine
what, if any, unique natural features would be disturbed by development facilitated by
Draft Housing Element programs. However, implementation of Draft Housing Element
policies and programs will facilitate housing construction, which in turn could generate
additional urban stormwater runoff and affect water quality. The quality of stormwater
runoff is regulated under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act and the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
The NPDES stormwater permit provides a mechanism for monitoring the discharge of
pollutants and for establishing appropriate controls to minimize the entrance of such
pollutants into stormwater runoff. As part of the NPDES permit, each jurisdiction must
prepare programmatic guidance documents, including the Watershed Urban Runoff
Management Plan (WURMP), a Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Plan
(JURMP), and a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP).
The SUSMP and Municipal Storm Water Permit require the City to prevent stormwater
pollution and improve the quality of water flowing into the stormwater system for all new
and existing development through the implementation of Best Management Practices
(BMPs). Through the development review process, the City applies Source Control and
Treatment Control BMPs to all new development projects. Any project facilitated by the
Draft Housing Element would be subject to the BMP requirements, as well as all federal,
State, regional and local stormwater requirements. Furthermore, new development is
subject to requirements for a hydrology report to assess impacts relating to drainage and
stormwater runoff. Projects must demonstrate adequate capacity in downstream
drainage systems or show that the development does not increase runoff.
Runoff from residences pursuant to the Draft Housing Element can potentially generate
non-stormwater discharges. Specific development plans will be required to include best
management practices (BMPs) specifically targeted to the anticipated pollutants.
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 2009 COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVERA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGE 15
According to the Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan (2008), Clean Water Act Section 303(d)
listed waters in the Carlsbad watershed include the following: the Pacific Ocean
shoreline at the mouth of Buena Vista Creek and Moonlight State Beach (located in
Encinitas, CA), Buena Vista Lagoon, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and the Agua Hedionda
Creek. These waters currently do not meet established water quality standards.
Implementation of Draft Housing Element programs may result in significant impacts
associated with the listed impaired water bodies. However, compliance with the water
quality mitigation measures WQ-1 to WQ-4 would reduce any impacts to less than
significant.
32. Concerns related to increases in impervious surfaces are adequately addressed through
compliance with the requirements for LID techniques and hydro modification provisions
discussed in Response 34 below.
Neither the Carlsbad Watershed Management Plan nor the Agua Hedionda Watershed
Management Plan is a regulatory document; therefore, a compliance evaluation with
these documents is not required. However the City recognizes the value of these
documents and the work of the Carlsbad Watershed Network (CWN), a group formed in
1998 to support and develop coordinated efforts for the protection and improvements of
the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit. To this end, Section 6 of the City's Drainage Master Plan
states:
The City of Carlsbad will continue to collaborate with the CWN on the
implementation of the Carlsbad Watershed Management Plan, the Agua
Hedionda Watershed Management Plan and any other future
subwatershed planning addressing the Carlsbad Hydrologic Units. The
City will endeavor to incorporate the various watershed planning goal
elements, watershed management opportunities and action items into the
planning, design, construction and maintenance of future drainage
projects.
33. While no site affected by Draft Housing Element Program 2.1 is entirely within a
floodplain, portions of some developed and vacant sites are. These include Quarry
Creek, two properties in the Village Redevelopment Area along Buena Vista Lagoon,
and property along Sunny Creek. Some commercial properties, affected by programs
2.1 and 2.3 which permit residential mixed use in shopping centers and commercial
areas, are also .partially within the floodplain. These include the Vons/Fusion Fitness
center, Plaza Camino Real, and North County Plaza adjacent to Buena Vista Creek; the
undeveloped shopping center property at College Avenue and El Camino Real and
adjacent to Sunny Creek; and the Albertson's center at El Camino Real and La Costa
Avenue and alongside San Marcos Creek.
Based on the policies and standards of the City, and as required by mitigation measures
WQ-5 through WQ-7, it is anticipated that housing constructed as a result of a Draft
Housing Element program will not expose people or property to flooding risk or impede
or redirect flood flows. The Flood Hazard goal of the General Plan Public Safety Element
is "a City which minimizes injury, loss of life, and damage to property resulting from the
occurrence of flooding." Further, an objective of the Element is "to restrict or prohibit
uses which are dangerous to the health and safety of people or adversely affect property
due to water and erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or
flood height or velocities."
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 2009 COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVERA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGE 16
Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.110, Floodplain Management Regulations, implements
the Public Safety Element policies regarding floodplain development. It establish
restrictive provisions regarding construction of structures within a 100-year floodplain
and requires the installation of protective structures or other design measures to protect
proposed buildings and development sites from the effects of flooding or wave action. It
also recognizes that controlling the alteration of natural floodplains and stream channels
and controlling the filling, dredging, and grading of these features helps reduce flooding
potential.
Regarding the Quarry Creek site, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
Former South Coast Quarry Amended Reclamation Plan, in the Hydrology and Water
Quality section, indicates the reconfiguration of Buena Vista Creek would be designed to
accommodate 100 year storm flows. Further, the EIR notes "all proposed project
drainage facilities implemented as part of the reclamation would be designed to
accommodate flows from ultimate development conditions including off-site portions of
the project site watershed, with no associated significant impacts related to capacity or
flooding hazards."
New updated FEMA maps will be effective July 6, 2010, and have already been made
available by FEMA to local governments for review.
34. The Hydrology and Water Quality section of the MND notes the 2007 Regional Water
Quality Control Board permit requires new development to implement Low Impact
Development (LID) features. LID techniques help to mimic more closely the pre-
development runoff characteristics. Accordingly, recommended mitigation measures
WQ-2b states:
• WQ-2b. Projects shall be required to show compliance with the applicable
hydromodification provisions of Order R9-2007-0001 and to show they are designed
so that post project runoff flow rates and directions do not exceed pre-project runoff
flow rates and directions for applicable design storms. Projects shall incorporate LID
design techniques to reduce the amount of runoff by mimicking the natural hydrologic
function of the site by preserving natural open spaces and natural drainage
channels, minimizing impervious surfaces, and promoting infiltration and
evapotranspiration of runoff before runoff leaves the site. LID techniques include,
but are not limited to:
o Vegetated buffer strips
o Vegetated bio swales
o Rain gardens
o Porous pavements
o Bioretention areas
o Vegetated roofs
o Stormwater planter boxes
o Infiltration trenches
o Dry wells
Consistent with Mitigation Measure WQ-2b, the City requires LID design techniques per
the following standard condition:
Developer shall incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) design techniques, on all
final design plans submitted to the City, to reduce the amount of run-off by mimicking
the natural hydrologic function of the site by preserving natural open-spaces and
natural drainage channels, minimizing impervious surfaces, and promoting infiltration
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 2009 COMMENTS BY PRESERVE CALAVERA
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PAGE 17
and evaporation of run-off before run-off leaves the site. Developer shall incorporate
LID techniques using current County of San Diego Low Impact Development
Handbook (Stormwater Management Strategies). LID techniques include, but are not
limited to: vegetated swale/strip, rain gardens, and porous pavement, which can
greatly reduce the volume, peak flow rate, velocity and pollutants.
Cumulative/Indirect Impacts
35. Contrary to the commenter's assertion, the MND has adequately considered and
demonstrated that implementation of Draft Housing Element programs would not have
cumulatively considerable environmental impacts. SANDAG projects regional growth
policies for the greater San Diego area and local general plan land use are incorporated
into SANDAG projections. Based on these projections, region-wide standards, including
but not limited to, storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation,
and congestion management standards are established to reduce the cumulative
impacts of development in the region. All of the City's development standards and
regulations are consistent with the region-wide standards.
With regards to biological impacts, for example, the North County Multiple Habitat
Conservation Plan was designed to compensate for the loss of biological resources
throughout the program's region; therefore, projects that conform to the MHCP, as
specified by the City's HMP, would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact for
those biological resources adequately covered by the program.
Furthermore, as. discussed in the MND's Air Quality section, Draft Housing Element
policies will not provide for housing beyond that accounted for in SANDAG's regional
plans and thus, are within the scope of regional air quality management plans. While
future projects will contribute to regional emissions, those emissions have already been
accounted for in regional planning efforts. Additionally, mitigation measures are included
herein to reduce to less than significant the short term air quality impacts that occur
during construction.
Overall, the City's standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality
and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resources protection
regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that future development within the City
will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. Mitigation measures are
included herein to ensure projects comply with all applicable standards.
The commenter cites "previous studies and documents relative to the area and the
numerous specific sites proposed for housing density increases..." It is unclear what the
specific studies are.
Scott Donnell
From: annhhallock@yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 12:12 PM
To: Scott Donnell
Subject: MND regarding the "Quarry Creek" site
Dear Scott,
The contamination of both soil and groundwater on the Quarry Creek" site proposed for affordable housing
units is so significant that it has been under DEH jurisdiction for almost a decade. In lumping together several
of the properties presented in the 2005-2010 Draft Housing Element, the current, cursory MND fails to
address in any substantive manner the serious contamination (including two known carcinogens) found at the
"Quarry Creek" site.
Notably, the Element itself makes no mention of the contaminated groundwater and states only in passing that
"Restoration includes...the remediation of soils, a process that is well underway" (p. 4-42). Such a statement is
fallacious, misleading, and utter supposition, since no testing of the thousands of cubic feet of contaminated soil
has yet to be done.
At the very least, the proposed low-income residents of the "Quarry Creek" site deserve a thorough
EIR dedicated solely to that site. The EIR must address the contaminated soil and groundwater and determine
the environmental impact they will present. The MND fails to do either.
Best,
Ann H. Hallock
Response to June 26, 2009 Comments by Ann Hallock
On
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Draft 2005-2010 Housing Element
(Note: The number of the response below corresponds with the comment identified by the number in
the right margin of the comment letter)
1. According to the Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Former
South Coast Quarry Amended Reclamation Plan, investigation and remediation of soil
and groundwater contamination at Quarry Creek has been underway since at least
1998, three years after the cessation of mining activities. According to the EIR, Quarry
Creek was listed in eight different environmental databases maintained by federal, state,
and local governments. The majority of listings related to underground and aboveground
fuel storage tanks. Site assessments determined that fuel leaking from the tanks had
contaminated soil and groundwater. It should be noted that remediation efforts are
separate from and not a part of the proposed reclamation plan.
Beginning on page 23 of the Initial Study, the Draft Housing Element Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) addresses the contaminated soil and groundwater present at Quarry
Creek as well as the ongoing cleanup efforts. It reports that cleanup of groundwater is
anticipated to occur prior to or during site reclamation; this means that remediation
would be complete before residential development of the site. The MND further points
out that because remediation is underway according to all applicable requirements, the
EIR includes no mitigation measures with regards to hazardous materials. Further, the
EIR concludes that all remediated soils would remain on site and there would be no
hazards associated with their redistribution on the site.
In February 2009, Hanson Heidelberg Cement Group, owner of Quarry Creek, produced
a handout on the Quarry Creek remediation. "Carlsbad Site Update: February 2009 Fuel
Impact Remediation Program" reports that "some soils are close to meeting the
thresholds for use in reclamation grading pending agency approval" and "groundwater
impacts have been reduced significantly in both extent and concentrations." The handout
also notes "the project is on track to meet goals for remediation and to make materials
available for site work during reclamation..."
The MND proposes several mitigation measures to ensure potential impacts caused by
past or current handling, storage, or use of hazardous materials are mitigated to a level
of insignificance; these apply to all properties affected by Draft Housing Element
Programs, not just Quarry Creek. Those mitigation measures that specifically address
the commenter's concerns are the following:
• HM-1 Prior to approval of discretionary permits for projects within (1) an existing
or former agricultural area, or (2) an area believed to have contaminated soils due to
historic use, handling, or storage of hazardous materials, a detailed soils testing and
analysis report shall be prepared by a registered soils engineer, and submitted to the
City and the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) for
approval. This report shall evaluate the potential for soil contamination due to historic
use, handling, or storage of chemicals and materials restricted by the DEH. The
report shall also identify a range of possible mitigation measures to remediate any
significant public health impacts if hazardous chemicals are detected at
concentrations in the soil which would have a significantly adverse effect on human
health.
• HM-9 When applications are submitted to the City of Carlsbad Planning
Department to redesignate the land use of a property or propose development or
redevelopment, disclosure of inclusion on the Cortese List (Government Code
RESPONSE TO JUNE 26, 2009 COMMENTS BY ANN HALLOCK
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page 2
Section 65962.5) shall be required. If an application is for property included on the
Cortese List, the applicant shall provide evidence that describes the required
remediation process, through text and graphics, and (1) demonstrates compliance is
occurring or has occurred with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations; (2)
describes all necessary actions and approvals to remediate the property and
includes evidence of any approvals so far obtained; (3) describes the estimated
remediation timeframe, current status, and any monitoring required during and
following remediation; (4) discusses any restrictions on use of the property upon
reclamation completion; (5) includes all other required information as deemed
necessary by the City, DEH, and other agencies having regulatory authority with
regards to remediation of the site.
2. The purpose of the Draft Housing Element is not to provide a detailed environmental
assessment of sites, including Quarry Creek, affected by its proposed programs. Rather,
state housing law requires housing elements to provide a general description only of a
site's known environmental constraints. In the Draft Housing Element, such information
is provided at the end of Section 4, Constraints and Mitigating Opportunities, beginning
on page 4-40. Besides describing the soil remediation efforts underway, as the
commenter notes, the Quarry Creek discussion in Section 4 mentions the site's
significant habitat areas and proposed reclamation of the mined areas and restoration of
Buena Creek. In Draft Housing Element Section 4, staff has also amended the Quarry
Creek environmental constraints discussion (page 4-42) to note remediation of
contaminated groundwater, in addition to soils, is occurring.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for the Draft Housing Element
provides a comprehensive environmental assessment. Specifically, the Initial Study
discusses groundwater contamination on page 24 in the section that specifically
addresses and proposes mitigation for potential hazards and hazardous materials.
Regarding the commenter's statement that "...no testing of the thousands of cubic feet
of contaminated soil has yet to be done," staff notes the EIR and handout cited in
Response 1 give no indication of soil or groundwater contamination or any remediation
efforts other than from the leaking tanks described in the response. Furthermore, and as
noted earlier, the MND reports that because remediation is underway according to all
applicable requirements, the EIR includes no mitigation measures with regards to
hazardous materials. Nevertheless, if additional contaminated soil or groundwater
remains, mitigation measures, including those identified in the previous response are
proposed to reduce any potential negative impacts to a level of insignificance.
3. Regardless of the income status of future residents or users of the site, a thorough
assessment of potential hazards to public health and safety is required under CEQA.
Responses One and Two above effectively address the commenter's request for
analysis of contamination issues and their potential impacts.
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Carlsbad, Planning Department
From: Richard Wharton, Paul Chen, Jeffrey Reid, Edward Petrus and Katherine Old,
University of San Diego Environmental Law Clinic, legal representatives of
Diane Nygaard, President of Preserve Calavera
Subject: Comments Re: City of Carlsbad, 2005-2010 Housing Element Mitigated Negative
Declaration
Date: June 27, 2009
INTRODUCTION
Review of administrative orders or decisions are judged under the "abuse of discretion"
standard provided in California Code of Civil Procedures § 1094.5. Such orders or decisions are
defined as where by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and
discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or
officer. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5(a). Under that standard, abuse of discretion is established
if the administrative body (1) has not proceeded in the manner required by law, (2) the order or
decision is not supported by the findings, or (3) the findings are not supported by the evidence.
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1094.5(b). Pursuant to 1094.5, certification of a negative declaration of a
project, despite substantial evidence that the project may result in significant environmental
impacts, constitutes an abuse of discretion as a failure to proceed in the manner required. See
Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma, 6 Cal. App. 4th 1307, (1992).
I. Failure to Produce an EIR for a Project, Despite Evidence of Significant
Environmental Impacts, is an Abuse of Discretion Pursuant to 1094.5.
According to the Guidelines to CEQA, a decision making body shall adopt a proposed
negative declaration "only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the
initial study and any comments received), that there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect on the environment" (Emphasis added). 14 CCR 15074. However,
the Guidelines also state that "[i]f there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record
before a lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the agency
shall prepare a[n] EIR." (Emphasis added). 14 CCR 15064. See Sierra Club, 6 Cal. App. 4th
1307, 1316 (1992); See also No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal. App. 3d 68, 75 (1974).
A "significant" effect on the environment means "a substantial, or potentially substantial,
adverse change in the environment." Lauren Heights Improvement Assoc. v. Regents of the
Univ. ofCal, 1 Cal. App. 4th 1112, 1123-1126 (1993). The low threshold requirement for initial
preparation of an EIR "reflects a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental
review when the question is whether any such review is warranted." Sierra Club, 6 Cal. App. 4th
at 1316-17.
Here, the 2005-2010 Housing Element for the City of Carlsbad ("Housing Element") clearly
falls within the definition of a "project" under CEQA. CEQA mandates ".. .that environmental
considerations do not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones, each
with a minimal potential impact on the environment, which cumulatively may have disastrous
consequences." See Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com., 13 Cal. App. 3d 280, 283-284
(1994); Rural Landowners Assn. v. City Council, 143 Cal. App. 3d 1013, 1024 (1983). In part,
CEQA avoids such a result by defining the term "project" broadly. The Guidelines define a
"project" as:
"Project" means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a
direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical
change in the environment, and that is any of the following:
(1) An activity directly undertaken by any public agency including but not limited to
public works construction and related activities clearing or grading of land,
improvements to existing public structures, enactment and amendment of zoning
ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of General Plans or elements thereof
pursuant to Government Code Sections 65100-65700. (Emphasis added). 14 CCR
15378(a).
The Housing Element is an element of the General Plan for the City of Carlsbad, and falls
within the statutory provisions specifically mentioned in the Guidelines. See 14 CCR 7559- -
65589.8.
In the present case, at the very least, there is a "fair argument" that can be made that
significant environmental impacts will result from the Housing Element, and therefore an EIR
must be prepared. See Sierra Club, 6 Cal. App. 4th at 1316.
A. It Can be Fairly Argued that the Housing Element May Have Significant
Environmental Impacts, so an EIR Must Be Prepared.
The Housing Element has potential for resulting in direct physical changes in the
environment because it encourages and anticipates large scale development in currently c
undeveloped land, so an EIR must be prepared. Section six (6) of the Housing Element provides I
the details of the City's "Housing Plan." One of the stated goals of the Housing Plan is to create
"New housing developed with diversity of types, prices, tenures, densities, and locations, and in
sufficient quantity to meet the demand of anticipated city and regional growth." Housing
Element, §6 "Housing Plan" at 6-5. The Housing Plan goes on to state: "The City encourages
the production of new housing units that offer a wide range of housing types to meet the varied
needs of its diverse population." Id. (Emphasis added).
The City then provides a list of ways that it will accomplish these goals. Specifically, the
City proposes to adopt general plan amendments, and process all necessary amendments to the
zoning ordinance and other planning documents to redesignate a minimum net acreage of Quarry
Creek and Ponto to "Residential High Density" and require that the redesignated sites be
developed at a minimum density of 20 units per acre. See "Table 6-1" at 6-6. According to
"Table 6-1," the City is planning to rezone the areas of Ponto and Quarry Creek to allow for 128
units and 300 units, respectively. Id. Furthermore, the City plans to redesignate a portion of
Quarry Creek "Residential Density-Multiple" and require that the redesignated site be developed
at a minimum density of 12 units per acre. See "Table 6-2" at 6-7. This redesignation will allow
for 200 units on the 17 acres of land at Quarry Creek. Id.
Presently, Quarry Creek is a 161-acre, privately owned parcel of open land which is the
home to the sacred El Salto waterfall and borders preserved lands.1 Quarry Creek was also the
site of a former gravel-mining operation. This former mine is currently going through the
reclamation process, pursuant to section 27123 of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
("SMARA"), which attempts to reverse the negative environmental impacts of mining by
requiring that the former mined land be returned to a second, productive use. Examples of post-
mining uses include: open space, wildlife habitat, agricultural land, grazing, park lands, etc. The
un-mined portions of the site includes sensitive habitat, and the area subject to reclamation
includes significant cultural, historic, and natural resources.
The proposed Housing Plan will allow for approximately 500 units to be built on this site.
Furthermore, the current owner of the site, Hanson, is already in the process of selling the land to
a developer, McMillon, who plans on building the 500 residential units provided for in the
Housing Element. This planned development clearly requires an EIR as the planned
development will clearly result in "reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the
environment."
Specifically, development of this magnitude at Quarry Creek will have direct impacts on El
Salto waterfall, the functioning of Buena Vista Creek, the coastal watershed that terminates at
Buena Vista Lagoon, and this valley with its irreplaceable combination of natural, cultural,
1 Please note that the Housing Element may also have significant environmental impacts to Ponto, however, I
will limit my comments to the Quarry Creek site.
historic, and spiritual resources. The project will also have significant direct and indirect impacts
on the functioning of the larger adjoining preserve area. Because the Housing Element has a
potential for resulting in "direct physical change in the environment" and because it may be
fairly argued that the development that will occur on Quarry Creek as a result of the Housing
Element may have significant impacts to noise, great traffic, geology and soils, water quality,
biology, air quality, and cultural resources, an EIR must be prepared.
ARGUMENT
The City of Carlsbad, 2005-2010 Housing Element Amendment proposes the construction of
500 residential units in Quarry Creek; hereafter referred to as the project. The Housing Element
Mitigated Negative Declaration (M.N.D.) includes an initial study of the project. The initial
study finds there are potentially significant effects on the environment due to the project,
identifies a mitigation plan, and concludes the mitigation plan would mitigate the effects so that a
less than significant effect on the environment would occur overall. However, there is
substantial evidence that the mitigation plan, with respect to the project, is inadequate because
even as mitigated, the project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment.
Therefore the City of Carlsbad, Planning Department, should prepare an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for the project rather than adopt the M.N.D.
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) a mitigated negative declaration is
prepared for a project for which the initial study has identified potentially significant effects on
the environment, but revisions in the project proposals would avoid the effects or mitigate the
effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and there is
no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as
revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. (Need site). Potentially significant
effects on the environment occur when there is a reasonable probability that the project will have
a significant environmental impact. Mejia v. City of Los Angeles, 29 Cal. App. 3d 788, (2005).
If this is established for a project, an M.N.D. may be appropriate, provided revisions to the
project are adequate and as a result there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record
the revised project may have a significant effect on the environment.
The adoption of an M.N.D. may successfully be challenged if there is substantial evidence
that the proposed mitigation measures are inadequate and that the project as revised and/or
mitigated may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Citizens for Responsible
and Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace, 73 Cal. App. 3d 202, (2008).
Additionally, a negative declaration which requires formulation at a future time of measures
to mitigate the environmental impact of proposed project violates the rule that members of the
public and other agencies must be given an opportunity to review mitigation measures before a
8
negative declaration is approved. San Bernardino Valley Audubon Soc. v. Metropolitan Water
Dist., 83 Cal. App. 2d 836, (1999). Mitigation measures stated in an M.N.D. are not required to
specify exact details of design; if it is determined that mitigation measures may reduce the
impact to insignificance. Ocean View Estates Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Montecito Water Dist.,
Cal. App. 3d (2004).
There is a reasonable probability the project will have a significant environmental impact;
this is identified in each of the sub-categories in this document. There is also substantial
evidence that the mitigation plan identified in the M.N.D. is not adequate to mitigate the effects
to so they are less than significant. In some cases, the M.N.D. fails to make findings with respect
to the potential impacts. In others, the M.N.D. makes findings with respect to the potential
impacts, but the findings are not supported by the evidence. The failure of the M.N.D. to provide
an adequate mitigation plan in the initial study evidence that the project, as mitigated, may have
a substantial negative impact on the environment and strongly indicates that an M.N.D. should
not be adopted.
I. There is substantial evidence from which it may be fairly argued that there
may be significant environmental impacts and the proposed mitigation
measures do not reduce these impacts to a level of insignificance to the
following areas:
A. Aesthetics
1. It can be fairly argued from substantial evidence in the record that the project
may have significant environmental impacts with respect to aesthetics.
The Initial Study admits that "[t]he City of Carlsbad is a coastal city comprised of a diverse
scenic landscape with coastal bluffs, several lagoons, and various valleys and canyons
surrounded by rolling foothills. Much of the City is an open space, with scenic resources
prevalent throughout the City." Initial Study, p. 6. However the City initially concluded in that
study that there would be no significant environmental impacts to aesthetics caused by the ^ ^
amendment of the Housing Element. Id. That conclusion was incorrect, the amendment of the
housing element may have significant environmental impacts to aesthetics as a result of the
planned construction of 500 residential units in Quarry Creek. Presently much of this part of the
City is open space, as such a development of the magnitude proposed in the Draft Housing
Element creates a large potential for significant impacts to the aesthetics of the City. —
2. The proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impacts to a level of 11
insignificance. I
The Draft Housing Element states that there are potentially significant threats to the
aesthetics of the City unless the City takes steps to mitigate. The proposed mitigation steps
however will not reduce the impact to the City's aesthetics to a level that is less than significant.
The primary mitigation plan cited in the Draft Housing Element is that the project will comply
with the following measures: Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 21.53, California Environmental
Quality Act, City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan, El Camino Real Corridor Development
Standards, Hillside Development Ordinance, Planned Development Ordinance and Guidelines
Manual, Landscapes Guideline Manual, City Council Policy No. 44, City Council Policy No. 66,
Growth Management Ordinance, Zoning Regulations, City of Carlsbad Local Coastal Program
and several General Plan Policies. Draft Housing Element, p.6-7. While this list of mitigation
measures is impressive, the Draft Housing Plan makes no effort to explain how it will comply
and use all of these measures at the Quarry Creek site, it only states that it will. Simply stating I 1
that the City will comply with the necessary ordinances, plans and codes is not sufficient to show
that the environmental impact has been mitigated. See Sundstrom v. County ofMendocino, 202
Cal. App. 3d 296, 305-306 (1998). The City must go beyond that and explain and demonstrate
how all of these ordinances, plans and codes will prevent any significant environmental impact.
Id.
Given the importance of the great beauty of the City of Carlsbad to all the members of the
local community the protection of the City's aesthetics is of great importance. The mitigation
measures in the M.N.D. are nothing more than a list of ordinances, plans and codes which the
project is already subject to and do not represent any actual mitigation plan as required by the
holding in Sundstrom. Additionally the M.N.D. doesn't contain any evidence to support their
finding that following these ordinances, plan and codes will prevent significant negative impacts
to the City's aesthetics. Thus there is a fair argument that an EIR is necessary because there is
substantial evidence that there may be environmental impacts even with mitigation. _
B. Agricultural Resources
1. It can be fairly argued from substantial evidence in the record that the project
may have significant environmental impacts with respect to agriculture.
The 2005-2010 Housing Element admitted that according to the San Diego County Important
Farmland 2006 map, published by the California Department of Conservation, Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program, the City of Carlsbad contains a limited number of areas
considered Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance. The report also stated that 1 o
"The Draft Housing Element will not alter existing General Plan policies and designations or
Zoning Ordinance standards regarding agricultural resources." Draft Housing Element, p. 8.
Where important and prime farmlands exist, premature conversion to urban uses could result in
significant impacts to the environment, diminishing any future prospects of agricultural
production in the proposed sites. The City of Carlsbad contains some of the richest agricultural
soil in the San Diego County. The Local Coastal Program pointed out that the city contains
Class II to Class VIII classification of soils. Local Coastal Program, Exhibit 4.2 (2006). The
majority of the city's agricultural soils, classified by the Local Coastal Program, are Class III and
IV, which are designated by the Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
as suitable for growing truck crops, such as tomatoes, flowers and other crops. Class I through
IV can be used for any of the following purposes: Crop production, floriculture, horses (private
use), nursery crop production, poultry, rabbits, chinchillas, hamsters and other small animals, and
roadside stands for display and sale of products produced on the same premises, with a floor area
not exceeding two hundred. Id., p. 44-45. The conversion of these soils to urban uses will
significantly inhibit its agricultural use in the areas where the planned projects are situated. The
mitigation measures outlined by the M.N.D. suggest that the city does intend to convert farmland
within the Coastal Zone, and Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance. Thus, it can be fairly argued that all of these conversions will have significant
impacts on the ability to grow agricultural products in the future.
2. The proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impacts to a level of
insignificance.
The proposed mitigation measures with respect to agricultural resources in points a and c of
the Housing Element do not reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance. The first mitigation
measure proposed by the Draft Housing Element merely states that for projects "within the
Coastal Zone, the projects would convert farmland in compliance with the agricultural
conversion requirements of the Local Coastal Program." Draft Housing Element, p. 8. Without
knowing the specific measures chosen amongst the mitigation options outlined by the California
Coastal Act of 1976, and as applied by the Local Coastal Program, it would be impossible for the
city and its constituents to determine whether the measures will ultimately reduce the
environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. Many of the mitigation measures must be
approved prior to the inception of the entire project. Some of the mitigation measures of the \ 3
Local Coastal Program will have significant environmental impacts on not only agriculture, but
also surrounding areas.
Furthermore, the City of Carlsbad failed to provide substantial evidence to support the
mitigation measures. The Local Coastal Program clearly outlines three mitigation options;
however, the City did not state which option they would follow. Each option has further duties
and preservation requirements. For example, 1) Under § 30241 of the California Coastal Act,
where the maximum amount of prime agricultural land shall be maintained in agricultural
production to assure the protection of the areas' agricultural economy, and conflicts shall be
minimized between agricultural and urban land uses, the City must establish stable boundaries
separating urban and rural areas, including, where necessary, clearly defined buffer areas to
minimize conflicts between agricultural and urban land uses. In addition, the City must limit
conversions of agricultural lands around the periphery of urban areas to the lands where the
. viability of existing agricultural use is already severely limited by conflicts with urban uses and
where the conversion of the lands would complete a logical and viable neighborhood and
contribute to the establishment of a stable limit to urban development. It is essential to know
prior to the approval of the project not merely whether the city will abide by the requirements of
the Local Coastal Program, but also as to how the city plans to fulfill any subsequent duties in a
detailed fashion. 2) The California Coastal Act, § 30242 further states that all other lands
suitable for agricultural use shall not be converted to nonagricultural uses unless (1) continued or
renewed agricultural use is not feasible, or (2) such conversion would preserve prime agricultural
land or concentrate development consistent with Section 30250. In addition, the Local Coastal
Program states that if the feasibility of continued agriculture is questionable, either the City or
involved landowners may complete an agricultural feasibility analysis. That portion of the study
area determined not to be feasible for continued agriculture could be converted only after: a) the _
City approves the feasibility study; b) a Local Coastal Program amendment is prepared and *• -*
submitted to the Coastal Commission that provides for the conversion; and c) the Coastal
Commission certifies the Local Coastal Program amendment as to its conformance with the
Coastal Act. Local Coastal Program, p. 42, 43 (2006). 3) The final option with regards to
coastal agriculture involves an "Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Fee", where in lieu of the
procedures established by the above options, property may be converted to urban uses upon
payment of an Agricultural Conversion Mitigation Fee. However, the fees shall be paid prior to
the issuance of building permits for the project and all mitigation fees collected under this
section shall be deposited in the state Coastal Conservancy Fund and shall be expended by the
State Coastal Conservancy to further other environmentally related projects.
In conclusion, without being informed as to the details of the mitigation measures that the
Housing Element chooses to undertake, there is not substantial evidence to support the current
proposed mitigation measures. As such, the proposed mitigation measures on its face do not
reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance. Thus an EIR is the appropriate measure to
undertake.
C. Air Quality —
1. There is substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
environmental impact with respect to air quality.
14The Housing Element will have reasonably foreseeable significant environmental impacts to
air quality as a result of construction of the 500 residential units in Quarry Creek that the project
allows for. Increased emissions due to construction of the proposed development, including dust
emissions caused by moving vehicles, excavation, earth movement and grading will have
significant negative impacts to air quality. For example, emission from construction vehicles,
commuting workers, as well as eventual emissions from the increased traffic from the inhabitants ' >
of the residential units, will result in significant increases in the emissions of greenhouse gases,
namely carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (NaO), and methane (CILt). These emissions, in
turn, will significantly impact human health and sensitive species in the area, as well as have 1 A
significant cumulative impacts on global warming. Additionally methane is a precursor to ozone
(Os). The project site is located in the San Diego Air-Basin. This area is a state non-attainment
area for ozone. —
2. The finding that the mitigation plan is adequate regarding air quality is not
supported with evidence; there is substantial evidence the mitigation plan is
inadequate and the project may have a significant adverse effect on the
environment.
A negative declaration which requires formulation at a future time of measures to mitigate
the environmental impact of proposed project violates the rule that members of the public and
other agencies must be given an opportunity to review mitigation measures before a negative
declaration is approved. San Bernardino Valley AudubonSoc, Cal. App. 2d at 836. The
M.N.D. proposes State Implementation Plans (SIPs), currently being drafted, pursuant to the
National Air Quality Act will adequately mitigate the potentially significant effect on the
environment caused by the increase in criteria pollutants as a result of the project. The SIPs are
inadequate to mitigate the significant effects to the environment because they will be formulated -i ^
at a future time. This violates the rule that requires the public and agencies have an opportunity
to review the mitigation measures before the negative declaration is approved. If the M.N.D. is
approved before such time as the SIPs have been completed and approved it will be in violation
of this rule.
Given that the SIP is not available until it is formulated in the future, it is impossible to
conclude the SIP is an adequate mitigation of the significant effects. There is no evidence in
support of this finding. As indicated in the initial study and also in this document, there is a
reasonable probability the project will have a significant environmental impact due to decreased
air quality. And with no viable mitigation plan to allay this impact, it follows that there is
substantial evidence the project (as mitigated) may have a significant adverse effect on the
environment.
D. Biological Resources
1. There is substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
environmental impact with respect to biological resources, and there is 16
substantial evidence that there may be significant impacts.
a. Sensitive Species
Quarry Creek is home to many sensitive species which would be severely impacted by the
project's proposed development of 500 residential units. Specifically, Quarry Creek and the
surrounding vicinity are the home to the California coastal gnatcatcher, the least Bell's vireo, the
Orange-throated whiptail, the white-tailed kite, the yellow warbler, and the yellow-breasted chat.
There have also been recent sightings of juvenile Cooper's hawks in the tress on the western
boundary of the project site.
Extensive development in the surrounding areas has also caused significant impacts to habitat
of avian species, often resulting in relocation and concentration of these species in open areas.
Due to this concentration, development in open space of Quarry Creek will arguably further
impact greater numbers of these avian species.
Additionally, the development of 500 residential units will result in night lighting and noise
that will significantly impact these sensitive species and their habitat. Night lighting exposes
wildlife species to unnatural light regime and may alter behavior patterns, causing them to have
lower reproductive success, and thus reducing species diversity. Noise from grading,
construction and vehicular traffic will have significant impacts to sensitive species such as the
least Bell's vireos, coastal California gnatcatchers or raptors in that increased noise will affect
breeding of these sensitive species, reducing species diversity. Therefore, there is a fair -j /-
argument that construction of 500 residential units on this presently open land may have
significant negative environmental impacts on the habitat and viability of these sensitive species.
Lastly, sediments and pollution mobilized by construction may end up in the Buena Vista
Creek, the Buena Vista Lagoon and marine waters. If they enter the watershed system, these
sediments have potential to cover the stream bed where fish spawn and fish food sources live,
where fish rest and feed, and may reduce visibility for fish and light for underwater plants and
algae. Therefore, increased sedimentation of the creek due to the project also creates a risk of
potentially significant impacts on aquatic life.
b. Vegetation
The proposed project site supports several vegetation communities including but not limited
to: southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest, southern willow scrub, freshwater march,
riparian woodland, channels and streambeds, open water, Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern
mixed chaparral, non-native grassland, and eucalyptus woodland. Several of these vegetation
communities are listed as sensitive habitats. Additionally, recent studies have observed over 77
plant species on the project site, and the presence of Palmer's grappling hook, a sensitive plant
species.
10
Construction of 500 residential units will have reasonably foreseeable direct significant
environmental impacts on this habitat and vegetation. Furthermore dust released during
construction activities could cover revegetation in adjacent habitat areas.
2. The finding that the mitigation plan is adequate regarding biological 1 6
resources is not supported with evidence; and there is substantial evidence that
the mitigated project may have a significant adverse effect on the
environment.
A negative declaration which requires formulation at a future time of measures to mitigate —
the environmental impact of proposed project violates the rule that members of the public and
other agencies must be given an opportunity to review mitigation measures before a negative
declaration is approved. San Bernardino Valley Audubon Soct., 83 Cal. App. 2d at 836. The
M.N.D. mitigation measures to address the potentially significant impacts to biological resources
are inadequate because they will be formulated in the future. This violates the rule requiring the
public and agencies to have an opportunity to review the mitigation measures before the negative
declaration is approved. If the M.N.D. is approved before such time as the mitigation measures
have been formulated it will be in violation of this rule. i ^i
There is no evidence to support a finding that the mitigation measures are adequate. As
indicated in the initial study there is a reasonable probability the project will have a significant
environmental impact on biological resources. And with no viable mitigation plan to allay this
impact, it follows that there is substantial evidence the project (as mitigated) may have a
significant adverse effect on the environment.
E. Cultural Resources
1. There is a reasonable probability the project will have a significant
environmental impact with respect to noise, and there is substantial evidence
that it may cause environmental impacts.
The El Salto waterfall is a sacred site for the San Luis Rey band of Mission Indians, and has
been listed as a sacred site by the California Native American Heritage Commission of the State
of California. State law requires consultation with Native American Tribes and the Native A *
American Heritage commission prior to the preparation or amendment of the general plan for the
purpose of protecting cultural places in lands affected by the proposal. Cal Gov Code §§ 65351,
65352-65352.4. Additionally, the presence of the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians and
many past discoveries of cultural resources at Quarry Creek makes it highly probable that there
are significant cultural resources on the project's site that have yet to be discovered. These
11
resources will not be detected until they are uncovered and damaged during the grading process. A
The presence of potentially unknown cultural resources on-site, as well as the close proximity of I
known cultural resources, creates a reasonable possibility of significant environmental impacts.
Therefore there is a fair argument that there may be impacts such that an EIR must be prepared.
2. The proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impacts to a level of
insignificance.
The proposed mitigation of the project's environmental impacts to undiscovered cultural
resources will not reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. The only mitigation
measures that will be used protect the any paleontological resources on the site is a walkover
survey and review of grading plans by a paleontologist prior to grading. Draft Housing Element,
p. 1 8. Only if the report generated from the walkover finds evidence of significant environmental
impacts will a monitoring program be put into place. Id. Because paleontological resources are
most commonly found underneath the soil surface it is unlikely that a simple walkover survey
will be able to identify the negative impacts to the project site's paleontological resources. As a 1 Q
result, such resources will only be uncovered by the blades of heavy grading equipment and
without a monitoring program in place would likely not be recognized and preserved properly.
Thus there is no evidence that mitigation plan in the M.N.D. to preserve paleontological
resources are adequate to mitigate potential impacts. Given the importance of these resources
the only way to ensure no significant impact is to conduct an EIR so that presence or absence of
paleontological is confirmed by proper methods by a professional as opposed to by a
construction worker with the blade of a heavy grading machine.
Similarly the project's proposed mitigation plan for damages to cultural deposits will not
prevent significant environmental impacts. Again the only preconstruction requirements, before
heavy grading begins, is contingent on a simple walkover by an archaeologist. Draft Housing
Element, p. 17. Only if significant cultural deposits are found on the surface during this survey
will an updated archival search be conducted along with field testing that permits for the digging
of shovel test pits. Id. While this approach could seem reasonable for an ordinary site it must be 20
noted that the Quarry Creek site has a history of containing cultural deposits and that disturbing
the unexcavated soil at the site will very likely cause major impacts to cultural resources. Any
damages done to such resources will be egregious and irreversible and in order to protect against
such damages an EIR must be conducted prior to any construction in order to indentify and
protect these precious resources.
There is strong evidence that the Quarry Creek project site contains undiscovered
significant cultural resources. Presence of such resources on a site where major grading of soil is
going to take place creates a great risk of a significant negative environmental impact. The Draft 2 1
Housing Element mitigation steps are not sufficient to prevent such an environmental impact.
There is no evidence presented by the City which supports the Draft Housing Element
12
conclusion that using preconstruction surface only surveys will be sufficient to mitigate the
impact to the Quarry Creek's cultural resources before the grading process begins. Thus there is O 1
a fair argument that an EIR is required to accurately access and address all threats to Quarry
Creek's cultural resources.
F. Geology/Soils
1. There is a reasonable probability the project will have a significant
environmental impact with respect to noise.
The Housing Element will have a reasonably foreseeable significant impact to geology and
soils. The grading done during construction of the proposed development at Quarry Creek
would displace soils, increase the potential for soils to be subject to wind and water erosion and
have potential to impact the Buena Vista watershed and the Buena Vista Lagoon. Additionally,
there is a reasonable possibility of the site's soil being unstable to the point that there is risk to
life and property as well as not being adequate to support the use of septic tanks where sewers
are not available. These geological factors pose a reasonable threat to significantly impact the
environment.
2. The proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impacts to a level of
insignificance.
The Draft Housing Element States, "[d]ue to the sensitive habitats at the lagoons and creeks
located in Carlsbad, erosion as a result of development can significantly impact water quality.
Erosive soils may be located on future project sites facilitated by the Draft Hosing Element, and
as such, the potential for erosion is considered significant". The mitigation measures contained
in the Draft Housing Element are not sufficient to reduce the environmental impacts of the
erosion of soils to a level that is insignificant. The Draft Housing Element simply proposes that
they will create a Storm Water Pollution Plan and comply with the Carlsbad Standard Urban
Stormwater Mitigation Plan, General Construction Stormwater Permit and the General o o
Municipal Stormwater Permit. Draft Housing Element, p.20. While following those measures
will hopefully positively affect the level of soil erosion, the Draft Housing Development plan
does not explain or provide any evidence that they will be able to take all of those steps. Simply
stating that the City will comply with the necessary laws and codes does not show that they will
in fact be able to mitigate the environmental impact of soil erosion to less than significant levels.
See Sundstrom 202 Cal. App. 3d at 305-306. The only way to determine if these mitigation
measures will be adequate to ensure no significant impact on the environment during the
construction of the Housing Element at the Quarry Creek site is for an EIR to be conducted.
Although the City of Carlsbad General Plan EIR states that in general soil types present
throughout the City can support development, geotechnical characteristics of soils types vary and
13
all new development applications require a site-specific soil analysis. In order to mitigate the
potential of the soils being unstable to the point that there is risk to life and property as well as
not being adequate to support the use of septic tanks where sewers are not available the Draft
Housing Element again simply states that they will conduct the required geotechnical report and
comply with the Uniform Building Code. Draft Housing Element, p.20. There is simply not
enough evidence contained in these mitigation measures to eliminate the reasonable possibility
that the construction of the Housing Element will have a significant impact on the environment
through the unsuitableness of the soil for this kind of development. The Quarry Creek site was
once a mine and as such there is an elevated possibility for the presence unusual soil conditions
due to heavy mining activities. The Draft Housing Element presents no evidence that the site's
former usage is not of concern and that these mitigation measures will be sufficient. Also the
mitigation measures do not specify how the results of the geotechnical investigation will be dealt
with other than stating that they will be reviewed by soil and geological engineers before 93
finalizing the grading plan. Id. Simply having the suitability of the soil reviewed before the final
plan does not ensure that the subsequent manipulation of the soil during the construction process
will mitigate potential environmental impacts.
The Quarry Creek site contains significant potential for causing environmental damage due
to its soil properties and as such there should be strong prevention and mitigation plans in place
before any construction can commence. The Draft Housing Element mitigation steps simply
state that the City will only comply with the required ordinances and does not contain any
substantive plan to deal with the specifics of the Quarry Creek site as is required by Sundstrom.
The City presented no evidence to support their findings that these minimal mitigation steps will
eliminate all potentially significant environmental impacts. Therefore there is a fair argument
that an EIR must be conducted in order to ensure that the significant risk of environmental
damage posed by the soil at the Quarry Creek site is dealt with properly. _
G. Hazardous Materials.
1. There is a reasonable probability that the project will have a significant
environmental impact with respect to hazardous materials.
Remarkably and significantly, the Initial Study of the Housing Element identifies three key
and significant environmental impacts with respect to hazardous materials. The first is the 94
General Plan, which designates residential developments in large areas of the City that currently
or previously have been used for agricultural. Agricultural chemicals and pesticides have been
used and stored on these properties, which have a high probability to negatively impact the
environment in regards to future residential development of this area.
14
Second, the use of hazardous materials during the construction and/or occupation of new
residential units and nearby commercial use in this mixed use project cannot be accurately
estimated or quantified without the issuance of an EIR.
Thirdly and most importantly, many areas designated by the Carlsbad Housing Element and
in particular, Quarry Creek, have contaminated soils and groundwater due to the presence of
former or existing non-agricultural uses, such as gas stations, above or below ground storage
tanks, dumps, and industrial operations. The California Environmental Protection Agency on its
website maintains the Cortese list, which is the name commonly given to the requirements
referenced by Government Code section 65962.5. According to the website's Cortese List,
Carlsbad has many sites where cleanup of hazardous materials is underway including sites in the
Carlsbad Housing Element. In fact, Quarry Creek, proposed in Draft Housing Element Program
2.1 as a site to be re-designated from lower density to high density residential housing is
identified as a location where two active cleanup efforts are underway, including one due to a
leaking underground tank. Thus the existence and potential existence of hazardous materials on
site clearly presents a significant environmental impact to and because of the proposed
development of residential units in the Housing Unit that can only be properly addressed by the
required issuance of an EIR.
2. There exist no findings to show that the substantial environmental impacts caused
by the hazardous materials are mitigated to a level of insignificance and the
evidence does not support the findings.
Section 1094.5 (b) of the California Code of Civil Procedure provides that an abuse of
discretion is established if the respondent city has not proceeded in the manner required by law,
the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the
evidence.
The California Supreme Court explained how this requirement is met in Topanga, "[w]e ...
concluded that implicit in section 1094.5 is a requirement that the agency which renders the
challenged decision must set forth findings to bridge the analytic gap between the raw evidence
and the ultimate decision or order." Topanga, 11 Cal. App. 3d, at 515. The requirements for
findings " serves to conduce the administrative body to draw legally relevant sub-conclusions
supportive of its ultimate decision, the intended effect is to facilitate orderly analysis and
minimize the likelihood that the agency will randomly leap from evidence to conclusions. In
addition, findings enable the reviewing court to trace and the agency's mode of analysis. Id. at
516.
Finally, a negative declaration which requires formulation at a future time of the measures to
mitigate the environmental impact of a proposed project, violate not only the rule set forth by the
15
Supreme Court in Topanga, that findings to justify the analytical gap between the evidence and
the ruling, but also violates the rule that members of the public and other agencies must be given
an opportunity to review and analyze whether the proposed mitigation measures will actually
make the environmental impact insignificant before a negative declaration will be approved. In
this case the M.N.D. mitigation measures to address the potentially significant impacts in regards
to hazardous materials are inadequate because they are to be addressed or formulated in the
future. See San Bernardino, 83 Cal. Rptr. 2nd at 836.
The City of Carlsbad has committed an abuse of discretion in violation of section 1094.5 of
the California Code of Civil Procedure because the City has altogether failed to set forth
adequate findings to support the decision to approve the MND. The Initial Study admits that the
Carlsbad Housing Element project will cause potential significant environmental impacts; but
they claim they have all been mitigated. However, the findings in the Initial Study fail to support
the City of Carlsbad's decision that all impacts have been mitigated in that the findings are
merely conclusions and fail to " bridge the analytical gap" between the evidence and the decision
to certify the M.N.D. More specifically, the findings fail to demonstrate how the M.N.D. meets
the requirements of CEQA and how the mitigation proposed will reduce all environmental
impacts to a level of insignificance in a manner required by the Supreme Court in Topanga.
The findings in the Initial Study consist of only potential future measures to mitigate which ^ ,.
are totally inadequate as set forth above. Indeed the Initial Study is replete with conclusory
futuristic statements such as, "While it is not possible to determine if such conditions exist until a
specific site is identified, mitigation measures can be developed to ensure due consideration is
given to potential hazards", and "Monitoring and sampling of groundwater may also be
necessary along with groundwater and soil remediation to ensure all contaminates are removed."
Every mitigation factor listed in the Initial Study, from HM-T through HM-9, fall into one of
only two categories. First, a general conclusory statement that all Federal, State and local
regulations and statues will be followed; or second, that some type of testing will be completed
with the actual mitigation factors to be determined later. Not only do these so-called mitigation
factors fail miserably to show the environmental impacts have been mitigated to an insignificant
level in violation of the Supreme Court's holding in Topanga, but altogether fail to provide the
public with the opportunity to review the mitigation measures BEFORE an M.N.D. is approved.
Here once the M.N.D. is approved the genie is out of the bottle and cannot be put back. There are
no requirements to mitigate, just to test. This is insufficient, and as such abuse of discretion has
occurred in violation of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
In conclusion, there are no findings to show that the significant impact caused by hazardous
materials are mitigated at all, let alone they are made insignificant by the mitigation procedures
set forth in the M.N.D. The evidence does not support the findings because there is no evidence
16
or finding because everything depends on what is found in the future. The M.N.D. must be
denied and an EIR needs to be issued after a full and complete investigation of all possible
environmental impacts.
H. Hydrology/Water Quality
1. It can be fairly argued from substantial evidence in the record that the project may
have significant environmental impacts with respect to hydrology and water
quality of the land.
25The Initial Study and the subsequent Draft Housing Element admits that, "implementation of
Housing Element policies and programs will facilitate housing construction, which in turn could
generate additional urban stormwater runoff and affect water quality. Development typically
results in increased impervious areas resulting in more rapid runoff of stormwater". Initial Study,
p. 18; Draft Housing Element, WQ, p. 26. The future development of 500 residential units at
Quarry Creek anticipated in the Housing Element will have reasonably foreseeable significant
environmental impacts on hydrology and water quality. —
Specifically, development of this magnitude at Quarry Creek will have direct impacts on the
Buena Vista Creek, which is currently 303(d) listed as impaired water for sediment toxicity.
Therefore, sediments mobilized by erosion and pollutants will have a direct and rapid path to the
creek, and from there to marine waters. This, in turn, will have significant environmental
impacts on the coastal watershed that terminates at Buena Vista Lagoon, and downstream marine
waters. Any sediments mobilized by erosion and pollutants released in the construction of the
proposed development will have potential to impact the entire watershed, including the El Salto
waterfall, Buena Vista Creek, Buena Vista Lagoon, and the downstream reaches of the creek
including marine waters. Development at Quarry Creek also has potential to have indirect and ^ /-
cumulative impacts on the El Salto waterfall. Furthermore, the Quarry Creek site currently
contains remnants of contaminated soil and groundwater, further increasing the danger of the
harmful pollutants entering our waters. Soils can, also be contaminated with pollutants left over
from past activities. The Quarry Creek is best known for its mining activities and it is reasonably
foreseeable that pollutants left from these activities will contribute to the toxicity of the creek's
hydrology. The Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan lists the following pollutants found
on similar developments which could affect water quality: sediment, nutrients from fertilizer
(phosphorus and nitrogen), trash and debris, oxygen-demanding substances from landscaping, oil
and grease from parked vehicles, pesticides from landscaping, and organics. —
Hydrology studies are therefore necessary to analyze the impacts from impervious cover,
drainage stormwater runoff, and the potential for direct impacts as a result of pollution and 27
sediments deposited into the creek and the waterfall, and potential cumulative impacts to
downstream reaches of the creek and on the entire watershed.
17
The significant environmental impacts to hydrology and water quality are, at the very least
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment resulting from the
construction and habitation of the Housing Element's proposed development in Quarry Creek.
2. The proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impacts to a level of
insignificance; the Carlsbad City Council failed to provide adequate findings
supported by evidence to support the mitigation measures.
The proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the environmental impacts to
hydrology/water quality to a level of insignificance. The mitigation measures for points k
through q of the Draft Housing Element admits that "Implementation of Draft Housing Element
programs may result in significant impacts associated with the listed impaired water bodies.
However, compliance with the water quality mitigation measures WQ-1 to WQ-4 listed above
would cause any impacts to be less than significant." Id., at p. 29. There have not been any 2 8
hydrological tests performed to substantiate this mitigation measure. While it can be reasonably
foreseeable that the project will have significant environmental impact on hydrology and water
quality, we cannot assume that the proposed measures will lower the impact to a level of
insignificance without proper hydrology tests and reviews. The city failed to provide substantial
evidence to support the mitigation measures.
Therefore, an EIR is required because there is substantial evidence in the record which
constitutes a fair argument that there may be significant environmental impacts to the hydrology
and water quality of the land and the proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impacts to
a level of insignificance.
I. Mandatory Findings of Significance —
1. There is more than a reasonable probability that the project will have significant
environmental impact with respect to findings of significance.
The Initial Study identifies three areas of mandatory findings of significant environmental
impact. First, the City finds it potentially significant that the project has the potential to degrade
the environment, substantially reduce the number and restrict the range of a rare animal and 90
plant. Second, the City finds the project has the potential to degrade air quality and regional
traffic circulation. Third, the City finds that the project's environmental effects will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings. These environmental adverse finding are of such
import it's hard to imagine how they can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. What is clear
that on the record is that there is no evidence or findings of mitigation let alone mitigation, which
would render these significant environmental impacts insignificant.
18
2. There have been absolutely no findings which show that that the mandatory
findings of significance have been mitigated to a level of insignificance and what
findings if any that exist are not supported by the evidence.
The finding do not support in any way that the mitigations factors will reduce the substantial
environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. In fact the findings are mere conclusions. For
example, and with respect to the first mandatory findings of significance, the Initial Study simply
states: "... the project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment and reduce the
number and the range of a rare animal and plant. However, the project's compliance with
mitigation measures, which requires compliance with the HMP, ensures these impacts would be on
reduced to a level of insignificance." But how?? And why?? As stated above, this conclusion "
begs the question" by simply restating the statue's requirements In hac verba. The finding of the
City does not "bridge the analytical gap between the raw evidence and the ultimate decision or
order." Topanga, 11 Cal. 3rd at 517.
The exact same observation is applicable to the two other areas of mandatory significant
findings of air quality, traffic circulation and adverse effects on humans. The City provides only
conclusions that beg the question. That is the City merely states that compliance with some
regulation or rule will mitigate the significant environment impacts to levels of insignificance
without an explanation of how and why. As stated above, this is insufficient and an EIR is
required in this case.
J. Noise
1. There is substantial evidence that the project may have a significant
environmental impact with respect to noise.
The Housing Element anticipates and provides for the construction of 500 residential units on
the Quarry Creek site, which is currently open, undeveloped land. Construction of these
residential units will have reasonably foreseeable significant environmental impacts on noise due
to the traffic that will result from the extensive construction required to build these residential o A
units as well as the actual noise that will result from the construction process itself. For example,
noise from grading, construction and vehicular traffic will have significant impacts to sensitive
species such as the least Bell's vireos, coastal California gnatcatchers, and raptors, in that
increased noise will affect breeding of these sensitive species thus reducing species diversity.
Furthermore, once construction is complete, the additional 500 residential units will generate
significant amounts of new and permanent traffic, and thus significantly impacting the noise
quality of the area.
19
2. The M.N.D. fails to set forth findings supported by the evidence that
mitigation measures during construction will adequately mitigate the
substantial effect due to noise; and there is a reasonable probability noise due
to the increased population may have a significant negative impact on the
nearby sensitive habitat.
The M.N.D. fails to provide evidence in support of findings that mitigation measures
adequately address the effect of construction noises on sensitive species in Quarry Creek.
Although the M.N.D. lists several mitigation measures for construction of the project, it fails to
provide evidence about the adequacy of these mitigation measures. Mitigation measures, such as
locating construction machinery as far from sensitive habitat, are unlikely to be adequate given
the proximity of the project to sensitive habitats. The close proximity would make it
impracticable to locate machinery far enough away from sensitive habitats to protect them from
construction noise. There is no evidence this would be sufficient; on the contrary the proximity
indicates this measure would be inadequate. The same is true for the remaining mitigation
measures. Keeping construction equipment in good working order and complying with machine
noise regulations does not ensure sensitive habitats will be adequately protected from o -i
construction noise. It may reduce the noise, but it does not reduce the impact to a level of
insignificance. Compliance of the City's noise ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.48.010)
does not ensure sensitive species will not be exposed to significant noise; the ordinance
addresses hours of construction rather than prohibiting noise entirely. Minimizing the use of
generators will not mitigate the noise adequately since other large construction vehicles that
make noise will be required nonetheless. Noise buffers may also be inadequate since it may not
be feasible to construct a buffer surrounding enough construction to shield all sensitive habitats
nearby. The remaining mitigation measures are addressed under biological resources.
With respect to noise from the additional population, the Initial Study concludes there will
not be a substantial increase in noise. The study reaches this conclusion because, as it states, the
noise level from the additional population will be comparable to the noise level of the current
urban environment. However, the evidence does not support a finding the effect of the
additional population will be less that significant. The Quarry Creek area is currently
uninhabited. So Quarry Creek cannot be considered an urbanized environment at present. It is
reasonably probable the introduction of 500 residential units into a previously uninhabited area
may result in a significant increase in noise. Since a mitigation measure has not been introduced
to assuage the increased noise there is substantial evidence the project may have a significant
adverse effect on the environment due to increased noise from the project.
K. Population and Housing
20
1. It can be fairly argued from substantial evidence in the record that the project
may have significant environmental impacts with respect to population and
housing.
It can be fairly argued from substantial evidence in the record that the project may have
significant impacts with respect to population and housing. The Housing Element states, "For
the 100 acre Quarry Creek property in Carlsbad, the City's General Plan currently designates
about 76 acres of the site for residential development and 24 acres as open space. The program
proposes two new residential land use designations to replace the property's current residential
designation that would increase the density currently allowed and in turn increase the housing o o
unit yield." Draft Housing Element, p. 6. The approximate minimum acres to be re-designated to
RMH is 17, yielding a density of 200 units, and the acres to be re-designated to RH is 15,
yielding 300 units. This project alone would directly induce substantial growth in the area. The
Housing Element also admitted that the "development of the Quarry Creek site.. .may result in
the extension of Marron Road." In addition, because Quarry Creek is already served by two
roads (the present terminus of Marron Road to the east and Haymar Drive to the north), it is
likely that a traffic study, submitted with a development proposal at Quarry Creek, will
determine the need for the extension. Currently the Housing Element states that the development
will have "No Impact," although it shows inconsistencies in the report as stated above. —
Furthermore, the Draft Housing Element proposed programs that propose and encourage
increased densities for residential and mixed use projects, such as in the proposed Barrio Area
and the Village Redevelopment Area, which may require the demolition of housing units. Draft
Housing Element, p. 6. These units would be replaced by new housing, either as a standalone 3 3
residential product or in combination with commercial uses. The replacement of current housing
units is a significant environmental impact to population and housing. It will not only induce
substantial growth directly, but will displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. —
The Program EIR mitigation measures apply to projects in general and recognize that
proposed smart growth projects, such as Quarry Creek, Ponto, Barrio Area, Village
Redevelopment Area, and Plaza Camino Real, will be subject to subsequent environmental
review to address potential individual environmental impacts. The mitigation measures do not
reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance. In a relatively small community and population, -^ ^
to build 500 units at Quarry Creek and 128 units at Ponto would have significant impact to the
population and would induce substantial growth. Thus, it can be fairly argued from substantial
evidence in the record that the project may have significant environmental impacts with respect
to population and housing.
2. The proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impacts to a level of
insignificance.
21
The proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance.
Although the Housing Element states that the projects have "No Impact" on the environment
with regards to housing and population, for the reasons stated above, it can be fairly argued that
the projects will have significant impacts. While the proposed measures are within the limits of
population and housing projection, that does not exclude the fair argument that the mitigated
measures could have significant environmental impacts to the population and housing.
Furthermore, the City Council, in its mitigation measures, does not address the two proposed
projects identified as the Bridges at Aviara and La Costa Town Square, which will have units to
help meet the City's RHNA. Id., at p. 7.
3. The Carlsbad City Council failed to provide substantial evidence to support
the mitigation measures.
The City Council failed to provide substantial evidence to support the mitigation measures.
The City Council merely explains that the projects will not exceed the policies of the General
Plan Land Use Element and Growth Management Plan and the figures originated by Proposition
E. Id, at p. 34. While the Housing Element considers additional housing opportunities within the
limits of the policies, it does not exclude the possibility that such projects may have significant
impact to housing and population. Furthermore, none of the mitigation measures are supported
by substantial evidence.
Thus, an EIR is required because there is substantial evidence in the record which
constitutes a fair argument that there may be significant environmental impacts to population and
housing and the proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impacts to a level of
insignificance.
L. Public Services
1. It can be fairly argued from substantial evidence in the record that the project
may have significant environmental impacts with respect to public services.
It can be fairly argued from substantial evidence in the record that the project may have
significant environmental impacts with respect to public services. When government or public
facilities are physically altered or newly constructed, each facility in itself may pose significant
environmental impacts. The Housing Element admits that the "Growth Management Plan
requires planning for public facility needs through building out and for public facilities to be
provided concurrent with development." Id., at p. 34. Although the current Housing Element
does not affect the Growth Management Plan, and does not propose policies to facilitate housing
beyond the total dwelling units anticipated by the City's existing General Plan and Growth
Management Plan (54,600 dwelling units), the Housing Element does acknowledge that
22
additional public services will be needed as the demand for those services increases with
population growth. Id.
The Housing Element recognizes that there are two exceptions to the notion that
implementation of the mitigation measures will reduce public service impacts to an insignificant
level. It can be fairly argued from substantial evidence in the record that these two exceptions
may have significant environmental impacts with respect to public services. First, the Local
Facility Management Zone 25 is an undeveloped site and not all public service needs are known
at this time, however, the City's General Plan and Habitat Management Plan do anticipate future
development within Zone 25. Second, the San Diego Association of Governments has identified
that the Quarry Creek portion of zone 25 is a potential smart growth area, or an area suitable for
a compact, efficient, and environmentally-sensitive urban development pattern. Once housing
and commercial developments increase on these potential sites, concurrent public services are 3 7
required. Id. Even if the public services grow within the anticipated rate predicted by the City's
existing General Plan and Growth Management Plan, a reasonable person must acknowledge that
construction of public services due to increasing housing and population growth will have a
cumulative effect over time, not merely that of a individually erected buildings or facilities.
Thus, more fire protection, police forces, schools, parks, post offices, and other government
buildings will be required as the population grows. Construction of each building will have
significant environmental impacts on the soil, water quality, air quality, noise, traffic, and other
environmental issues, such as depleting biological resources and flooding. Each constructed
facility will require its own environmental review and the City fails to anticipate the substantial
environmental impacts of necessary public services in the future as a result of the project.
2. The proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impacts to a level of —
insignificance.
The proposed mitigation measure does not reduce the environmental impacts to a level of
insignificance. The measure merely shows that a Local Facility Management Plan shall be
prepared and adopted by the City Council for Zone 25. This is not sufficient to constitute an
adequate mitigation measure. Consistent with the Carlsbad Growth Management Plan and its
performance standards for public facilities, this plan shall show how and when the following "5 O
facilities will be provided: Sewer systems, water, drainage, circulation, fire facilities, schools,
libraries, city administrative facilities, parks and open space. However, this plan does not
demonstrate how the measure will reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance. Even if the
project in itself does not have significant environmental impacts, because it will require the
construction of the facilities addressed above, the construction phases would, as admitted by the
Housing Element, be considered a significant impact. Id. —
3. The M.N.D. failed to provide substantial evidence to support the mitigation 3 9
measures. I
23
Similar to many of the mitigation measures taken, the M.N.D. failed to provide substantial
evidence to support the mitigation measures. It merely promises to acquire approval of the first
tract map or building map in Zone 25. It does not provide any evidence to support how the
construction of concurrent public facilities and services will reduce the environmental impacts to
a level of insignificance.
M. Transportation/Traffic
1 . There is substantial evidence that the project may have a significant
environmental impact with respect to noise.
The Housing Element may have significant environmental impacts to traffic caused by
construction and operation of the development. Reasonably foreseeable impacts to traffic AC\
include the delivery of materials by trucks for the construction of 500 residential units
anticipated on site. Once construction is finished, the inhabitants of these 500 residential units
will generate large amounts of trips and traffic causing a significant increase in traffic on the
already congested streets and freeways of the City of Carlsbad and San Diego.
2. The proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impacts to a level of
insignificance.
In an attempt to mitigate the potentially significant impact of traffic generated by the Draft
Housing Element the city states that "[t]he Draft Housing Development is a policy document that
does not recommend or approve any particular development project. Implementation of Draft
Housing Element policies and programs will facilitate housing construction, which in turn could
generate new vehicle trips". Draft Housing Element, p. 37. While it is true that the Draft
Housing Element does not include specific plans for what kind of residential units are going to
be built on the Quarry Creek site as a result of its passage, the general purpose of the Draft
Housing Element is to "encourage infill, higher density and mixed use development". Id. In
order to mitigate the inevitable increase of traffic that will occur from this type of development A i
the City proposes that they will provide "a traffic analysis report... as may already be required
by the City Engineer. This repot shall evaluate specific traffic impacts and identify mitigation
for impacts". Id. Thus the first method of mitigation of traffic proposed in the Draft Housing
Element is that they will make a report, which may already be required, to find ways mitigate the
effect of traffic. Planning to create a report with the goal of mitigating a negative impact in
future is not a true mitigation measure. The Draft Housing Element needs to propose a actual
comprehensive and binding mitigation plan to ensure that the substantial negative impacts it will
have on traffic are correctly dealt with. The other mitigation measures proposed in addition to
the mitigation report are simply that the Draft Housing Element will comply with regulations and
plans such as the Growth Management performance standards, the Traffic Impact Fee and
complying with other affected jurisdictions' mitigation requirements. Id., at 37-38. As
24
N. Utilities and Services
1. There is a reasonable possibility of substantial environmental impacts with respect
to wastewater treatment and water drainage facilities.
The Initial Study identifies four separate areas of significant environmental impact, all
arising from wastewater treatment or water drainage facilities. The first, second and forth are
identified as problems associated with new residential construction presented by the Housing
Element and the efficiency, or lack thereof, of treating wastewater at the Encina Wastewater
Facilities, whether a new facility would be required, whether new wastewater treatment
requirements and/or capacity are needed which in and of itself would cause significant
environmental impacts.
The third area, the construction of new storm drain facilities or expansion of existing
facilities may in and of itself cause significant environmental impact. These are substantial
environmental impacts that cannot be addressed by mitigation. An EIR is needed to address these
complex, important and substantial environmental impacts.
2. There are absolutely no findings to show that wastewater environmental impacts ~
have been mitigated and no findings are supported by the evidence.
The first environmental impact as it pertains to utilities and service systems involves the
Encina Wastewater Treatment facility (EWA) and the fact that new development brought on by
Carlsbad Housing Element of current vacant areas could cause significant impacts on EWA. The
proposed mitigation measure found in USS-1 has absolutely nothing to do with the impact.
Indeed, USS-1 simply requires the City to submit, in the future, a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Program, which requires only that the City will comply with existing law and
regulations. But simply stating that the City will comply in the future with all the required
ordinates, codes and regulations is insufficient to show the environmental impact has been
25
discussed before the Sundstrom holding stated that agreeing to simply comply with ordinances,
plans and codes does not suffice as mitigation. Sundstrom 202 Cal. App. 3d, 305-306. The City
needs to have a specific plan, supported by actual evidence to show how the significant effect on
traffic caused by the approval of the Draft Housing Element will be mitigated.
41
Because the City has made no findings to demonstrate how they will be able to mitigate the
potentially specific impact the Draft Housing Element will have on traffic and has presented no
evidence to support those findings there is a fair argument that an EIR must be conducted to
ensure that the Draft Housing Element does not lead to a significant environmental impact
because of the traffic that it creates once constructed. _
43
CONCLUSION
Approval of the amendment to the Housing Element must comply with CEQA. If the project
will cause an environmental impact then an EIR must be conducted before the project is
approved. The construction of the Housing Element will cause several environmental impacts,
as discussed above. The mitigations measures proposed by the City will be insufficient to ensure
that there will be no environmental impact. Thus an EIR must be conducted prior to the approval
of the amendment to the Housing Element.
mitigated. Sundstrom, 202 Cal. App. 3d at 305-306. Also of concern is that mitigation factors
implemented in the future, are inadequate to support a M.N.D. for approval.
Finally, there must be a cause and effect and a logical relationship between the problem and
the mitigating factor which the City must explain pursuant to Topanga. Topanga, 11 Cal. App. 43
3d, at 515. The capacity of EWA is at issue and the City's only suggestion is the simple Band-
Aid of reaffirming its commitment to following the law will mitigate EWA's ability and capacity
to process and treat polluted storm water.
O. Cumulative Impacts
1. There is significant evidence the project will have a significant environmental
impact taking into consideration cumulative impacts.
Due to the sensitive nature of the habitat and species in Quarry Creek the cumulative impacts
must be given special consideration. The addition of 500 residential units to a presently 44
uninhabited area will encompass a wide range of changes from the construction itself to the
support services, infrastructure, transportation, traffic, noise, air and water impacts. It will be a
veritable onslaught for the sensitive species that reside in close proximity to the project. There is
substantial evidence that, taken as a whole, the cumulative impacts may have a significant and
negative impact on the environment. —
2. There are no findings to address the reasonably probable cumulative and
significant environmental impacts.
The M.N.D. fails to address the cumulative impacts from the project. The initial study finds
there are significant impacts and this document has identified other reasonably probable 4 J
significant impacts. However the cumulative nature of these impacts is not addressed. Based on
the initial study there is substantial evidence that the project as mitigated may have a significant
negative impact on the environment because the cumulative impacts have not been addressed.
26
Response to June 27, 2009 Comments by University of San Diego Law Clinic
On
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Draft 2005-2010 Housing Element
(Note: The number of the response below corresponds with the comment identified by the number in the
right margin of the comment letter)
Introduction
1. Comment noted.
2. Comment noted. The City has prepared a mitigated negative declaration (MND), not a
negative declaration, for the Draft Housing Element. A MND has been prepared because
implementation of Draft Housing Element programs may result in construction that could
significantly impact the environment. However, pursuant to Title 14 of the California
Code of Regulations, Section 15070 (14 CCR 15070), use of a MND is appropriate when
impacts can be mitigated to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. The
Draft Housing Element MND demonstrates that potential impacts associated with
implementation of programs can be mitigated accordingly.
The discussion contained in Section 15070 notes use of a MND provides efficiencies in
the environmental review process because it eliminates the time and costs involved in
preparing an EIR and still provides for public review and comment on the sufficiency of
the MND.
Furthermore, Section 15070 (b) (2) notes use of a MND is appropriate when "there is no
substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as
revised may have a significant effect on the environment." Comments submitted on the
Draft Housing Element MND do not produce the substantial evidence necessary.
3. Staff concurs the Draft Housing Element meets the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines definition of "project." The MND considers the Draft Housing
Element's potential environmental effects comprehensively and cumulatively.
4. See response to comment 2.
5. The commenter fails to identify which component of Draft Housing Element Program 2.1
proposes "large scale development in currently undeveloped land." The largest
undeveloped properties impacted by the program are a 17.5 acre vacant shopping
center site identified for mixed use residential and an estimated 7 acres of an
approximately 40 acre vacant parcel identified for high density residential. These parcels,
both in the Sunny Creek area, would yield approximately 88 units and 120 units,
respectively. Additionally, Housing Element programs would not convert any land
designated open space, and, with the exception of the Residential Medium High (RMH)
and Residential High (RH) land use designations, they do not increase the currently
allowable densities of any residential land use designation.
However, presuming "large scale development in currently undeveloped land" is a
reference to Quarry Creek, staff believes labeling the site as "undeveloped" or "open
land" is misleading. Slightly less than one-half of the 100 acre property has been
significantly disturbed by decades-long hard rock mining that ceased in 1995. The
effects of mining, along with various related structures, site modifications, and dirt roads
remain. Furthermore, remediating contaminated soil and groundwater and recycling of
construction materials at Quarry Creek continue. While Quarry Creek is bordered by
preserved open space, it is also adjacent to a shopping center, car dealership, and
freeway.
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 2009 COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page 2
Proposed Program 2.1 proposes to increase the density of residential land use
designations already applies to Quarry Creek. The target of these designations is the
already disturbed, rather than undeveloped, portions of Quarry Creek. This program also
focuses on the 100 acre parcel containing the formerly mined area and not the adjacent
57 acre undisturbed property.
Following reclamation of the 100 acre Quarry Creek site, the commenter notes that post-
mining activities include open space and agricultural activities. Post-mining activities are
not limited to only these uses; the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, Public
Resources Code Section 2733, defines "reclamation" as a process that returns land to a
useable condition that is readily adaptable to alternate uses. This may include uses
consistent with the General Plan, which, in the case of Quarry Creek, are residential.
City staff acknowledges the impacts that may result from implementation of Housing
Element programs, particularly the land use changes proposed by Program 2.1. Contrary
to the commenter's assertion, the MND thoroughly demonstrates these potential impacts
can be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
6. The Draft Housing Element will not allow for 500 units to be built at Quarry Creek, as the
commenter suggests. Instead, if approved, a Draft Housing Element program (Program
2.1) states the City will change the land use designations on the Quarry Creek site to
allow increased residential densities. However, this action to increase densities at Quarry
Creek or any other Carlsbad property is subject to review and approval that is separate
from that required to approve the Draft Housing Element.
Contrary to the commenter's assertion, until development plans are proposed and
submitted to the City of Carlsbad, it is speculative to state that a project developed at
Quarry Creek will have direct impacts to El Salto waterfall, the functioning of Buena Vista
Creek, or other aspects of the site or its surroundings. Recognizing the potential for
direct and indirect impacts, the MND contains adequate analysis and findings to mitigate
any potentially significant impacts. The commenter is referred to the appropriate sections
of the MND for further information.
7. Comment noted. See Responses 2 and 6.
8. Comment noted.
9. The MND clearly notes that all identified possible impacts can be mitigated to a level of
insignificance. As demonstrated throughout these responses to comments and in the
MND itself, the comprehensive analysis of potential impacts is linked to mitigation
measures (findings) so the relationship between the analysis and mitigation is clear. The
mandatory questions in each potential impact category (e.g., Aesthetics, Air Quality, etc.,
as contained in the Initial Study, MND Part II) are addressed with background that is
appropriate and relevant, analysis of applicable regulatory requirements and standards,
reasons why the Draft Housing Element would or would not potentially impact the
particular category, and explanations of how mitigation measures, if appropriate, would
lessen potential impacts to a level of insignificance. Furthermore, these responses to
comments do not modify the analysis or findings of the MND, but they do amplify the
information within in the MND to effectively respond to the comments.
A. Aesthetics
10. Much of the City is in protected open space due to the preservation requirements of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code, Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan, Local Coastal Program,
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 2009 COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page 3
Growth Management and CEQA. These areas of open space will remain as they are
today, as the policies of the Housing Element do not propose residential development in
areas that are designated as open space.
There are undeveloped areas of the City that are designated in the General Plan for
residential development. These undeveloped areas may be developed at a future time,
and the visual character of these undeveloped sites would be changed and views that
are considered scenic could be negatively affected. However, if scenic resources are
located on undeveloped properties, these would be preserved through application of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code, Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan, Local Coastal Program,
Growth Management and CEQA which will reduce impacts on aesthetics to a less than
significant level. Further, in undeveloped areas currently designated for residential
development, the above policies would require additional dedications of open space,
thereby increasing the amount of preserved open space in the City.
With regard to Quarry Creek, the former land use for about one-half the site was a rock
quarry while the remainder of the site was left undeveloped. Quarry Creek is adjacent to
larger undeveloped areas which together comprise Local Facility Management Zone 25.
A large portion of Zone 25 has been purchased and dedicated as permanent open
space by the California Department of Fish and Game. About 24 acres of the 100 acre
Quarry Creek site are designated as Open Space by the General Plan, and a portion of
the property also has been designated by the HMP as habitat preserve. However, for the
residentially-designated portion of the Quarry Creek site that is identified in Housing
Element Program 2.1 Adequate Sites, the visual character is currently degraded due to
the industrial nature of the former mining operations. Once the planned mining
reclamation process is underway, the property will be restored to a condition which
would allow development consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use
designation, which is single family residential. The result of the reclamation process
would be graded pads, also not considered a scenic resource. Quarry Creek is also
located in close proximity to highly urbanized areas; specifically, it is adjacent to
Highway 78 and developed commercial areas in the City of Oceanside.
The Housing Element Program 2.1 proposes to increase the General Plan Land Use
density of the Quarry Creek site from single-family residential to medium and high
density multi-family residential. The sensitive habitat in Zone 25, as well as the creek
and El Salto Falls located at the Quarry Creek site could be considered scenic
resources; however, these resources would be preserved by the existing policies in
Carlsbad Municipal Code and the Habitat Management Plan if development of Quarry
Creek were to occur. As single family development is currently allowed in Quarry Creek
by the General Plan, exchanging single family for multi-family development would not
constitute a significant impact on aesthetics because the Carlsbad Hillside Ordinance
and Architectural and Neighborhood design guidelines in City Council Policies 44 and 66
would provide adequate mitigation by ensuring a high quality design for the site and
building architecture, regardless of the residential product type.
11. Undeveloped portions of the City are designated by the General Plan for residential
development, and future development on these properties could lead to a sense of
urbanization that may be objectionable for some. Also, some of the undeveloped
properties in Carlsbad could contain important scenic resources, such as creeks, steep
hillsides, and habitat. For properties with important scenic resources, the Carlsbad
Municipal Code, Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan, Local Coastal Program and CEQA
will preserve these resources. Furthermore, Growth Management requires 15% of the
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 2009 COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page_4
developable land in a Local Facilities Management Zone (such as Zone 25 in which
Quarry Creek is situated) to be set aside for permanent open space.
With regard to aesthetics, Carlsbad policies and standards such as Hillside Development
Ordinance, Planned Development Regulations, Landscape Guidelines Manual, El
Camino Real Scenic Corridor Development Standards and Council Policies 44 and 66
will ensure a high quality of grading and architectural design, thereby mitigating aesthetic
impacts to a less than significant level.
According to the General Plan EIR (1994), substantial aesthetic impacts were expected
to occur as the city developed; however, with the application of General Plan policies,
such as those listed in Mitigation Measure A-2, it is reasonable to suggest that when
these same policies are applied to future residential projects in the City, visual impacts
will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
B. Agriculture
12. Comment noted. This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a
program-level document (the Draft Housing Element). As discussed in the MND,
subsequent environmental review and CEQA compliance will be required for both the
implementation of proposed Housing Element programs and for any future development
projects facilitated by the Housing Element. The Housing Element does not propose the
physical development of any site. Development of any site listed in the Housing Element
will be initiated at an undetermined future time by private developers. Project details are
unknown at this time; therefore project-level environmental analysis is not appropriate for
the Housing Element. Future private development projects will be subject to City
standards and CEQA
Conversion of agricultural land to urban uses without mitigation is considered a
potentially significant impact; however, implementation of Mitigation Measures AR-1 and
AR-2 will reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. The mere conversion of
Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance to urban uses does
automatically constitute a significant agricultural impact as suggested by the comment
letter. Detailed project level analysis associated with a development proposal would be
necessary. Measure AR-2 requires future projects to perform Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (LESA) analysis, which is the method for determining the
significance of converting agricultural land to urban uses, including Prime Farmland and
Farmland of Statewide Importance. The LESA model analyzes specific property
information such as soil quality, acreage used for agriculture, water availability, and
adjacent land uses, which would be necessary in order to make a determination of
significance with regard to impacts to important farmland.
None of the land presently designated for agricultural uses will be converted to
residential uses as a result of the Housing Element.
13. Comment noted. This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a
program-level document (the Draft Housing Element). The Local Coastal Program
allows three mitigation options for the conversion of coastal agricultural land to urban
uses. Option 1 requires preservation of one acre of prime coastal agricultural land for
each acre impacted, option 2 requires an agricultural feasibility study, and option 3
requires payment of an agricultural mitigation conversion fee. Note that the Housing
Element does not propose development on any property, and selection of one of the
above three options cannot occur until a future project proposes to develop on property
with coastal agriculture. The City and California Coastal Commission have already
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 2009 COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page 5
accepted all three options as adequate mitigation for impacts resulting from the
conversion of coastal agriculture within city boundaries to urban uses. It follows that for
any projects facilitated by the Housing Element that are subject to these requirements,
as stated in Mitigation Measure AR-1, their impacts will be mitigated to a less than
significant level.
C. Air Quality
14. Comment noted. This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a
program-level document (the Draft Housing Element). As discussed in the MND,
subsequent environmental review and CEQA compliance will be required for both the
implementation of proposed Housing Element programs and for any future development
projects facilitated by the Housing Element. Specific project details of future
development proposals are necessary to determine the levels of emissions to expect
from future projects and whether they would be considered significant impacts.
The growth assumptions used by the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and the Regional
Air Quality Strategies are based on the Carlsbad General Plan, and the Housing
Element does not propose residential units in excess of that allowed by the General
Plan, therefore no significant impact, including cumulative impacts, with regard to air
quality would occur from the long term operation of the residential units (See Response
C.2. below).
With regard to global warming, SB 97 directed the Governor's Office of Planning and
Research and the California Air Resources Board to draft and adopt guidelines for the
mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions by Jan. 1, 2010. In the absence of these
guidelines, as well as specific development project details, it is not possible to determine
whether a project will have a significant air quality impact in relation to global warming.
15. The Housing Element MND was noticed and circulated for the standard 30 day review
and copies were sent to relevant outside agencies consistent with State law. Through
this process, other agencies and the public have been given adequate opportunity to
review and comment on the Housing Element's proposed mitigation measures.
Contrary to that suggested by the letter, the MND does not propose to adopt a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) as an air quality mitigation measure for the Housing Element.
The letter also incorrectly states that the SIP is in draft form and that the mitigation in the
SIP is not yet formulated.
The SIP for San Diego County has been in existence since after the passage of the
Federal Clean Air Act, though it has been periodically revised thereafter. The SIP was
most recently revised in 2007 to meet the federal 8-hours ozone standard, but this
revision is still in draft form as it has not yet been approved by the EPA (the 2007
revision has been approved by the State). The applicable SIP that San Diego County
operates under is the 2002 revision, which has been approved by both the State and the
EPA. The mitigation and strategies to meet the federal air quality standards have
already been formulated and approved in the applicable 2002 SIP, and the appropriate
time to comment on this mitigation would have been during the 2002 SIP public review
process.
The regional growth assumptions in the SIP use growth forecasts provided by the San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and SANDAG's forecasts are based on
the build out of each jurisdiction's general plan. Based on these regional growth
assumptions, the SIP then proposes mitigation and strategies to meet Federal air quality
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 2009 COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PaqeS
standards. Therefore, the air quality mitigation for the General Plan, and any project
found consistent with the General Plan, has already been adopted in the SIP. As the
MND states, because the growth assumptions used by the SIP are based on the
Carlsbad General Plan, and since the Housing Element does not propose residential
units in excess of that allowed by the General Plan, no significant air quality impact
would occur.
D. Biological Resources
16. Comment noted. Quarry Creek and nearby areas have important biological resources.
Hillside, creek, and riparian portions of the Quarry Creek site are already in protected
open space and the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan, in recognition of the property's
natural habitat and wildlife, establishes standards for parts of it to be preserved.
Along with its undisturbed areas, Quarry Creek has also been extensively mined for
decades such that nearly half of the 100 acre site has been disturbed. Appropriately, the
HMP identifies portions of the site as "development area" and the General Plan shows
portions of the site as suitable for residential development.
Beginning on page F-16 of the HMP, adjacency standards are listed to address
development in the urban-wildland interface. The introduction to this list states:
The HMP will result in an urban wildlife preserve system in which
conserved habitat areas are adjacent to development of various types. In
order to prevent negative effects of either area on the other, these
adjacency standards must be addressed in the planning of any
development/habitat interface:
• Fire management
• Erosion control
• Landscaping restrictions
• Fencing, signs, and lighting
• Predator and exotic species control
The MND contains an extensive set of mitigation measures that require compliance with
these adjacency standards and other measures to protect water quality, habitat, and
wildlife. These measures are commonly applied throughout the City of Carlsbad and
require, among other things, surveys by professional biologists to determine the
presence of sensitive plants and animals. While the Draft Housing Element would not
directly result in the construction of any housing, projects facilitated by its programs
would comply with these measures; furthermore, once project details are known, these
mitigation measures may be refined, supplemented or replaced by more appropriate,
specific measures.
17. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
were circulated for a 30 day public comment period. No comments from the Wildlife
Agencies (i.e., California Department of Fish and Game and United States Fish and
Wildlife Service) were received.
Without the filing of a proposed development application with studies and plans, it is not
possible to analyze and determine all the specific biological impacts a project may have.
However, construction of housing pursuant to the proposed Draft Housing Element could
result in the following potentially significant impacts:
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 2009 COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page?
• Per the City's HMP, housing construction could result in long-term impacts if
sensitive species or habitats are permanently destroyed or degraded. This would
also result in a cumulative impact to biological resources.
• Long-term or permanent impacts could result from loss of sensitive habitats
within the Coastal Zone. This would contribute to the regional loss of sensitive
habitats, resulting in a cumulative impact.
• The loss of state and/or federally listed plant species is considered a significant
impact. The loss of sensitive plant species at a regional level would contribute to
a cumulative impact.
• Development that results in substantial vegetation clearing or impede wildlife
movement within Core Areas and linkages would result in a significant impact.
• Construction and occupancy of housing adjacent to sensitive species or habitats
may have permanent or temporary direct and indirect negative impacts, such as
from invasive species, runoff, and construction noise.
Contrary to the commenter's assertion, the MND adequately reports and provides
mitigation for projects with the potential to impact sensitive habitats and species. These
mitigation measures could be made conditions of a project approval, or the measures
may be refined or found unnecessary as detailed planning and study specific to the
project occurs. In any case, adherence to these measures and City standards will
reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
E. Cultural Resources
18. Comment noted. Staff consulted with the San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians, as
required by SB 18 (Government Code 65352.3) on the Draft Housing Element General
Plan Amendment. This consultation concluded in March 2009.
City staff recognizes Carlsbad's rich cultural (and paleontological) resources, including
those at Quarry Creek; these resources, whether existing or potential, are acknowledged
in the Former South Coast Quarry Amended Reclamation Plan Draft Subsequent EIR,
which is listed as supporting information source in the MND. This document has been
prepared to analyze the proposed reclamation of former hard rock mining at Quarry
Creek, which disturbed nearly half of the 100 acre site.
Due to the presence of these resources, the Draft Housing Element's environmental
assessment includes mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3) to
ensure (1) sites with known and potential resources are properly surveyed and
monitored during construction and (2) resources are evaluated and protected as
necessary.
With regards to Quarry Creek in particular, staff also notes that cultural resource
surveys, impacts, and mitigation have been and will be considered as part of the
environmental review underway for the proposed reclamation of the mined portions of
the property, which disturbed nearly one half of its 100 acres. Through the environmental
review, cultural resources on the Quarry Creek site and in the surrounding area will be
considered. Accordingly, it stands to reason that significant knowledge of known and
potential cultural and paleontological resources will be gained through this effort and
implementation of reclamation. More information on these resources may be found in
the Former South Coast Quarry Amended Reclamation Plan Draft Subsequent EIR.
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 2009 COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
PageS
19. The Former South Coast Quarry Amended Reclamation Plan Draft Subsequent EIR, in
Section 4.2, Soils, Geology and Paleontology, states:
Paleontology is the science dealing with pre-historic plant and non-human
animal life. Paleontological resources (or fossils) encompass the remains
or traces of hard and resistant materials such as bones, teeth, or shells,
although plant materials and occasionally less resistant remains (e.g.,
tissue or feathers) can also be preserved. The formation of fossils
typically involves the rapid burial of plant or animal remains and the
formation of casts, molds, or impressions in the associated sediment
(which subsequently becomes sedimentary rock). As a result of this
process, the potential for fossil remains in a given geologic formation can
be predicted based on known fossil occurrences from similar (or
correlated) geologic formations in other locations. Accordingly, while there
are no recorded fossil occurrences or collection efforts known from the
[Quarry Creek] site, paleontological resource potential can be inferred
from on-site geology and off-site fossil occurrences in similar materials...
Further, because paleontological resources are largely a buried resource, there is no
way to accurately predict what fossils are present within a site or their individual
significance to the scientific community before they are discovered. However, the
geotechnical report required by Mitigation Measure GS-1 would assist in identifying
geological formations and thus the potential for fossil remains.
20. The commenter is directed to Mitigation Measure CR-1a, which states "Preconstruction
Requirements - Prior to the start of construction, a pedestrian survey shall be conducted
under the supervision of a qualified archaeologist for previously undisturbed areas that
have not been surveyed or adequately surveyed (e.g., the area was surveyed with
outdated or non-protocol methods)." It is these pedestrian surveys that identify the
presence of any unknown cultural resources. CR-1a and CR-1b describes the detailed
steps that take place if a pedestrian survey finds cultural resources.
21. See Response 20 above. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure CR-2 establishes the
requirements for construction monitoring by a qualified archaeologist and, if applicable, a
qualified Native American monitor.
F. Geology/Soils
22. Regarding water quality impacts from soil erosion and construction activities, Mitigation
Measures GS-3, GS-4 and GS-5 are similar to those used in the Ponto Beachfront
Village Vision Plan EIR, which is also a program level document. It states that future
projects within the plan boundaries will prepare SWPPPs that include BMPs (as
proposed in the Housing Element MND), which will reduce significant short-term impacts
to water quality to a less than significant level. It is reasonable to suggest that similar
mitigation measures in the MND will reduce water quality impacts from soil erosion and
construction activities to a less than significant level.
With regard to the soils at Quarry Creek and their ability to support development and
septic systems, this comment suggests project level environmental analysis for a
program level document (the Draft Housing Element). Note that if Quarry Creek were
developed, Carlsbad Municipal Code regulations would require it to be tied into the
sewer system of the Carlsbad Sewer District. As to the soil stability and its ability to
support development in Quarry Creek, complex geotechnical studies at the project-level
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 2009 COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page 9
are required in order to determine whether soil in Quarry creek can support development
and what mitigation measures are needed, if any. The Housing Element does not
contain project-level details to assess the type and magnitude of geologic and soils
impacts.
23. The MND also acknowledges that there are areas of the City that have unstable and
erosive soils and that if these areas were developed without the benefit of geotechnical
studies and mitigation measures, significant impacts to geology and soils could occur.
However, the MND does not propose development without mitigation.
This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a program-level
document (the Draft Housing Element). For vacant and undeveloped land, Mitigation
Measure GS-1 requires a geotechnical report to be submitted for City review along with
an application to develop property, such as a Tract Map, Site Development Plan or
Coastal Development Permit. The report would identify any negative soil conditions and
propose a remediation plan as mitigation.
As for the special conditions at the Quarry Creek site, according to geotechnical study of
the Former South Coast Quarry Amended Reclamation Plan Draft Subsequent EIR, a
significant impact was noted for the settlement of soils, but can be mitigated to a less
than significant level, as stated in the EIR.
G. Hazardous Materials
24. Comment noted. This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a
program-level document (the Draft Housing Element). The Draft Housing Element does
not contain project-level details necessary to assess the type and magnitude of all
potential impacts. The Housing Element is an element of the General Plan, and, as such,
affects property at a citywide scale. Environmental impacts should be reviewed at the
citywide scale as well.
As discussed in the MND, subsequent environmental review and CEQA compliance will
be required for both the implementation of proposed housing element programs and for
any future development projects facilitated by the housing element. The Housing
Element does not change land use designations for any property and does not propose
the physical development of any site. Development of any site listed in the Housing
Element would be initiated at an undetermined future time by private developers and
project details are unknown at this time; therefore project-level environmental analysis is
not appropriate for the Housing Element.
However, the MND recognizes that large areas of the City that currently or previously
have been in agricultural use are designated for residential development by the General
Plan and agricultural chemicals and pesticides may have been used and stored on these
properties, which could impact future residential development. Likewise, other areas of
Carlsbad, such as the Quarry Creek site discussed in the MND or commercial areas,
may have contaminated soils or groundwater due to the presence of former or existing
non-agricultural uses, such as gas stations, above or below ground storage tanks,
dumps, or industrial operations. Furthermore, redevelopment in older parts of Carlsbad,
such as in the downtown Village or Barrio Areas, may expose construction workers to
hazardous materials during demolition activities. Development of sites with such
contamination may expose people to release of hazardous materials, a potentially
significant impact.
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 2009 COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page 10
In response, mitigation measures HM-1 thru HM-9 will require future projects to study
and identify the existence or release of any hazardous substances. For any future
housing project facilitated by the implementation of the Draft Housing Element, if a site
has the potential of containing agricultural chemicals .pesticides or other soil
contaminants, a soils testing and analysis report is required. Monitoring and sampling of
groundwater may also be necessary along with groundwater and soil remediation to
ensure that all contaminants are removed. As identified in the MND and as may be
further refined during project review, any recommended mitigation measures would be
made conditions of any project approval. Adherence to these measures and existing
federal, state, and local regulations will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant
level.
Though most sites require further environmental analysis to identify if contamination
exists, at the Quarry Creek site, contamination is known to exist and cleanup efforts are
ongoing. The Former South Coast Quarry Amended Reclamation Plan Draft
Subsequent EIR (Draft EIR), the CEQA document prepared for the reclamation of the
Quarry Creek site, describes soil and groundwater remediation efforts underway. The
Draft EIR notes that cleanup is anticipated to occur prior to or during site reclamation;
this means that remediation would be complete before residential development of the
site. Because remediation is being conducted according to all applicable requirements,
the Draft EIR includes no additional mitigation measures with regards to hazardous
materials. Further, the Draft EIR concludes that all remediated soils would remain on site
and there would be no hazards associated with their redistribution on the site.
The MND acknowledges the Draft Housing Element may allow (and in that sense
facilitate) residential construction, including mixed use development and emergency
shelters, on sites known to be on the Cortese List. The MND also notes active or past
hazardous materials cleanup sites in Carlsbad primarily occur in commercial and
industrial areas. Accordingly, appropriate mitigation measures have been proposed.
Furthermore, areas proposed for density increases already (1) are designated for
residential uses, (2) permit residential and residential/commercial uses (the Village
Redevelopment Area), (3) conditionally permit residential/commercial uses (the City's
commercial zones), or (4) have completed the environmental review (Ponto) that
analyzed the uses contemplated by the Draft Housing Element.
As the MND notes, city staff has reviewed the California Environmental Protection
Agency's Cortese List data , resources
(http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/default.htm) and the federal
Environmental Protection Agency's CERCLIS Database and Superfund Site Information
list website (http://epa.gov/superfund/sites/cursites/index.htm). The federal government
identifies no active cleanup sites in Carlsbad. The State Water Resources Control Board
listing of cleanup sites per the Cortese List website identifies many locations in Carlsbad,
most in its industrial and commercial areas, where cleanup of hazardous materials is
completed or underway. Many of these are related to leaking underground tanks and
gasoline spills, and many cleanup operations shown are closed rather than open, active
efforts.
It is speculative to determine site-specific remediation requirements, including
acceptability of a site for a particular use or the timeframe for clean-up, until a
development application is submitted and the need for any remediation is determined.
Any remediation plans or timetables to address contamination are the responsibility of
the County Department of Environmental Health and Regional Water Quality Control
Board. Other involved agencies may include the City of Carlsbad, the Air Pollution
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 2009 COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page 11
Control District, and the California Environmental Protection Agency. Mitigation
Measure HM-9 anticipates this and is adequate to address actual or potential
contamination issues that may arise with development facilitated by the Housing
Element.
City staff disagrees with the commenter's assertion that "there are no requirements to
mitigate, just to test." The specifics of mitigation measures HM-1 thru HM-9 clearly
require otherwise.
H. Hydrology/Water Quality
25. Comment noted. Mitigation Measures WQ-1 to WQ-4 ensures a project's compliance
with all standards promulgated to ensure water quality. Projects facilitated by the Draft
Housing Element will comply with these measures; furthermore, once project details are
known, these mitigation measures may be refined, supplemented or replaced by more
appropriate, specific measures.
26. According to the Carlsbad Drainage Master Plan (2008), Clean Water Act Section 303(d)
listed waters in the Carlsbad watershed include the following: the Pacific Ocean
shoreline at the mouth of Buena Vista Creek and Moonlight State Beach (located in
Encinitas, CA), Buena Vista Lagoon, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and the Agua Hedionda
Creek. These waters currently do not meet established water quality standards.
Implementation of Draft Housing Element programs may result in significant impacts
associated with the listed impaired water bodies. However, compliance with the water
quality mitigation measures WQ-1 to WQ-4 would reduce any impacts to less than
significant.
The Former South Coast Quarry Amended Reclamation Plan Draft Subsequent EIR
(Draft EIR), prepared for the proposed reclamation of the Quarry Creek site, states in
Section 4.3 on Hydrology and Water Quality "...existing surface and groundwater quality
within the [Quarry Creek] site and vicinity is assumed to be generally poor. This
conclusion is based on...surface water monitoring data from up- and downstream
waters, the largely urban nature of the associated watershed, and the presence of
groundwater contaminates related to previous [underground storage tanks] within the
site." Locations where monitoring data was collected include Buena Vista Lagoon and
Buena Vista Creek just east of the Quarry Creek site.
The Draft EIR also notes "....historic and current surface water quality monitoring has
been/is being conducted within the Buena Vista Creek watershed in association with
local/regional water agency programs and requirements under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and related Municipal Storm Water Permit
requirements. Specifically, these efforts include bioassessment studies and ambient
lagoon/bay monitoring conducted pursuant to the NPDES Municipal Permit beginning
with the 2001/2002 storm season, as well as bioassessment studies conducted by the
RWQCB between 1998 and 2002. In addition, quantitative sampling was conducted
along Buena Vista Creek (among other locations) in 2002 under the State Surface Water
Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP)."
With regards to hydrology and water quality, the Draft EIR concludes "... proper
implementation of the proposed project design measures and conformance with all
applicable regulatory/industry standards would avoid or reduce all associated hydrology
and water quality impacts below a level of significance before mitigation."
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 2009 COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page 12
27. Mitigation Measure WQ^4 adequately addresses the need for a hydrology study. The
measure states: "As required by the City Engineer, a hydrology report to assess impacts
relating to drainage and stormwater runoff shall be prepared. The report shall
demonstrate compliance with current applicable hydromodification standards and
demonstrate adequate capacity in downstream storm drain facilities, or shall
demonstrate no increase in runoff peak flows through onsite detention." With regards to
downstream waters, see also Response 26 above.
28. See Response 25 above. The commenter notes no hydrological tests have been
performed to substantiate the effectiveness of Mitigation Measures WQ-4 to ensure
water quality. Such tests can only be performed after a project is built.
The Draft Housing Element, a program level policy document, does not propose the
physical development of any site. As discussed in the MND, subsequent environmental
review and CEQA compliance will be required for both the implementation of proposed
Housing Element programs and for any future development projects facilitated by the
Draft Housing Element.
I. Mandatory Findings of Significance
29. The commenter misstates this section's conclusions. For each mandatory finding of
significance, city staff has recommended a finding of "potentially significant unless
mitigation incorporated," rather than "potentially significant" as the commenter suggests.
The latter suggests impacts that cannot be mitigated.
The analysis and conclusion provided for the mandatory findings of significance serve
two purposes: First, to explain why the Draft Housing Element, with recommended
mitigation, does not have cumulative impacts. Second, to respond to questions and
demonstrate the Draft Housing Element will not (1) result in substantial adverse impacts
to specific aspects of the natural environment (e.g., reduce the number of a rare plant);
(2) eliminate an important example of a major period of the state's history or prehistory;
and (3) cause substantial adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly.
For both purposes, the responses in the mandatory findings of significance section rely
and build on the analysis and findings contained in the rest of the MND. Throughout the
section, the reader is referred to relevant parts of the MND for additional and sometimes
more comprehensive information. The section on mandatory findings of significance was
not written as a stand-alone component of the MND. Therefore, when the commenter
questions how and why an impact can be mitigated to a level of no significant impact,
the commenter needs to refer to the applicable environmental impact discussion section.
J. Noise
30. Regarding the noise environment in and around Quarry Creek, the existing noise
conditions at the Quarry Creek site include noise impacts from the adjacent State Route
78, an adjacent Kohls and Wal-Mart shopping center, and nearby College Avenue.
Although undeveloped, Quarry Creek is located in an urbanized area with large numbers
of existing residences located to the south of the site and across State Route 78 to the
north. Additional residential development in Quarry Creek would not significantly impact
the ambient noise levels of the surrounding area.
Characterizing Quarry Creek as "currently open, undeveloped land" as the commenter
does is misleading. Almost half the 100 acre property has been significantly disturbed by
decades-long hard rock mining that ceased in 1995. The effects of mining, along with
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 2009 COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page 13
various related structures, site modifications, and dirt roads remain. Furthermore,
remediating contaminated soil and groundwater and recycling of construction materials
at Quarry Creek continue.
Regarding construction impacts at Quarry Creek to sensitive species such as the least
Bell's vireo, coastal California gnatcatcher, and raptors, the noise study in the Former
South Coast Quarry Amended Reclamation Plan Draft Subsequent EIR (Draft EIR)
found that mitigation measures that avoid construction during the breeding season of the
sensitive species listed above would mitigate this significant noise impact to a less than
significant level. The Housing Element MND proposes similar mitigation measures;
therefore it is reasonable to suggest that noise impacts on sensitive species will be
mitigated to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure BR-4 prohibits construction
activities during the breeding season for sensitive bird species.
Mitigation Measure N-1 requires applicable future residential projects to prepare a noise
impact study. If projects include large recreation or gathering areas, this noise impact
study may include an analysis of noise generated by these areas. As no development is
proposed by the Housing Element, a noise study submitted with future projects is
necessary to identify and mitigate these potential impacts.
It is also important to note the HMP designates portions of the Quarry Creek property as
"development area" and the General Plan shows portions of the site as suitable for
residential development.
31. Comment noted. This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a
program-level document (the Draft Housing Element). The Draft Housing Element does
not propose the physical development of any site. As discussed in the MND,
subsequent environmental review and CEQA compliance will be required for both the
implementation of proposed Housing Element programs and for any future development
projects facilitated by the Housing Element.
See Response 30. While not directly relevant to the MND on the Draft Housing Element,
the commenter might be interested to know that the Former South Coast Quarry
Reclamation Plan EIR found that construction noise impacts to sensitive species could
be mitigated to a less than significant level. Therefore, if a future residential project were
proposed on the same property it is reasonable to suggest that noise generated by its
construction could also utilize similar measures to mitigate construction noise impacts to
a less than significant level.
Though Quarry Creek is uninhabited, it is part of a larger highly urbanized area and is
located immediately adjacent to State Route 78, which generates significant ambient
noise. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that a future residential project in Quarry
Creek would not significantly increase the ambient noise levels of the area.
K. Population and Housing
32. Staff disagrees with the assertion that the increased densities proposed for the Quarry
Creek site "alone would directly induce substantial growth in the area." First, present
General Plan land use designations would allow up to 165 housing units; as proposed in
the Draft Housing Element, the maximum number of units would increase by
approximately 335, or a total 500 units. Second, the extension of Marron Road is already
planned by the General Plan Circulation Element; its extension would not open an area
to unanticipated development. Third, the Quarry Creek site is in an urbanized area and
adjacent on three sides to commercial uses, residences, roads, and a freeway.
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 2009 COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page 14
The MND determined a "No Impact" finding for population and housing because, as the
MND explains, the Draft Housing Element considers additional housing opportunities
within the limits of the policies of the General Plan Land Use Element and Growth
Management Plan. Though the Draft Housing Element includes programs proposing
residential density increases and residential mixed-use in commercial areas for
purposes of meeting the RHNA for lower and moderate income housing, the Draft
Housing Element does not propose policies to facilitate housing beyond the total
dwelling units anticipated by the City's existing General Plan and Growth Management
Plan.
33. None of the programs or policies in the Draft Housing Element would displace either
substantial numbers of existing housing or persons. Draft Housing Element proposed
programs that propose and encourage increased densities for residential and mixed use
projects, such as in the proposed Barrio Area and the Village Redevelopment Area, may
result in demolition of housing units. However, these units would be replaced by new
housing, either as a stand-alone residential product or, as permitted by applicable
regulations and policies, in combination with commercial uses. Furthermore, sites
identified in Program 2.1, such as Quarry Creek and the proposed Barrio Area, are
consistent with the SANDAG Regional Comprehensive Plan's objectives of developing
smart growth areas as a way to accommodate additional housing in an efficient,
compact, and resourceful manner.
34. Environmental review, in the form of a certified Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR,
Ponto Beachfront Village Vision Plan, cited as a supporting information source in the
MND), was completed for the Ponto area in 2007.
Staff disagrees that the Ponto or Quarry Creek projects would induce substantial growth.
See Response 32 above for further information.
35. Both the Bridges at Aviara and La Costa Town Square projects are addressed in the
MND. For example, see "Private Proposals" under the Environmental Review section of
the MND project description. Subsequent to the preparation of the MND, the La Costa
Town Square project was approved by the Carlsbad City Council. However, the portion
of the project counted by the Housing Element for high density housing was deleted by
the City Council.
With regards to the Bridges at Aviara proposal, as indicated in the MND project
description, an environmental impact report is currently being for the project. In addition,
the Bridges project proposes amendments to the General Plan and other regulatory
documents as needed to provide the land use designation, density, and housing unit
numbers as identified in Draft Housing Element Table 3-4. Accordingly, the MND notes
no subsequent environmental review will be necessary for this project.
At a minimum, projects still pending completion of environmental review will comply with
all applicable mitigation measures identified in the MMRP and/or they will comply with
equal or better mitigation measures specifically developed as each project progresses.
36. It is unclear as to what mitigation measures the commenter is referring. It is also unclear
what the substantial evidence is to support the commenter's claim that "...there may be
significant environmental impacts to population and housing and the proposed mitigation
measures do not reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance." To the contrary, staff
encourages the commenter to read Responses 32 and 33 above, and Responses 44
and 45 under Section O., Cumulative Impacts.
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 2009 COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page 15
L. Public Services
37. The Housing Element plans for housing opportunities to meet the RHNA within the
dwelling unit limits of the General Plan and Growth Management. Even though
Carlsbad's population will continue to grow in the future creating additional demands for
public services, through Growth Management, these services have been anticipated and
planned for. These public services will be provided as the population grows independent
of whether the Housing Element is approved or not, as the City has not yet reached build
out. The Housing Element itself does not cause a significant public services impact
because the need for these services does not originate with the policies of the Housing
Element. As future public facilities are constructed, they will be subject to CEQA
environmental review.
The letter asserts there is a cumulative impact on public services due to continual
population increases over time. However, Growth Management regulations set a finite
limit to the number of dwelling units that may be constructed in the city. At build out,
planned public service ratios will meet Growth Management standards. As the number
of dwelling units will not increase, any population increase due to natural increase or in-
migration would be negligible and as such, any impact to public services after build out
would be less than significant.
38. Comment noted. This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a
program-level document (the Draft Housing Element). The Housing Element does not
propose the physical development of any site. As discussed in the MND, subsequent
environmental review and CEQA compliance will be required for both the implementation
of proposed Housing Element programs and for any future development projects
facilitated by the Housing Element.
Zone 25 is the only remaining Local Facility Management Zone in Carlsbad that is
undeveloped and where all public facilities needs are not known. Prior to development
in Zone 25, a Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) must be adopted that plans for
the provision of services for Zone 25 in compliance with the adopted Growth
Management standards. The Housing Element does not propose development in Zone
25, and until such time, public services needs will remain unknown. If and when
development is proposed, a future LFMP for Zone 25 will identify necessary public
facilities needs, and environmental review pursuant to CEQA will be performed at that
time. Implementation of Mitigation Measure PS-1 will mitigate environmental impacts to
a less than significant level because development in Zone 25, and the associated
construction of any necessary public services, will not be permitted without an LFMP and
thorough environmental review pursuant to CEQA.
39. See Response 28 above.
M. Transportation/Traffic
40. Comment noted. This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a
program-level document (the Draft Housing Element). As discussed in the MND,
subsequent environmental review and CEQA compliance will be required for both the
implementation of proposed housing element programs and for any future development
projects facilitated by the housing element. For sites listed in the Draft Housing Element
Program 2.1, land use changes are necessary to develop at the densities proposed by
the Housing Element, but these land use changes are not a part of the Draft Housing
Element. The Housing Element does not propose the physical development of any site,
and future project details are unknown at this time, therefore project-level environmental
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 2009 COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page 16
analysis is not appropriate for the Housing Element. Future actions by either the City or
a private developer would be necessary to develop at densities proposed in the Housing
Element, and these actions will be subject to CEQA.
Complex traffic studies and modeling at the project-level are required in order to
determine where potential road segments and intersections are impacted by a project,
and whether impacts are significant and mitigation is necessary. The'Housing Element
does not contain project-level details to assess the type and magnitude of traffic impacts.
41. Comment noted. This comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a
program-level document (the Draft Housing Element). For projects that may generate
traffic in excess of a certain level, a traffic report is required not only for identification of
mitigation measures, but also for identification of the specific impacts that may result
because of the project. The requirement for a traffic report is an appropriate level of
mitigation for a program level project. Mitigation Measure T-1 is the necessary first step
in a proposed mitigation program for the Housing Element. Future identification of
specific impacts through project-level environmental analysis provided in a traffic report
would yield evidence of specific impacts as well as appropriate mitigation, if any is
required.
N. Utilities and Services
42. The impact identified in Item A of the Utilities and Services Systems section of the MND
involves stormwater runoff and whether it meets the water quality requirements of the
Regional Quality Control Board. Please see Response 43 below. The only impacts
identified in items B - D that are considered significant relate to Local Facility
Management Zone 25, for which no Local Facility Management Plan (LFMP) has been
prepared. Development in Zone 25 without an LFMP would be considered a significant
impact with regard to utilities and services; however, preparation of an LFMP would
mitigate these impacts to a level of less than significant, as stated in Mitigation Measure
PS-1. Furthermore, approval of an LFMP for Zone 25 and any associated utility
improvements would be subject to CEQA. However, note that the issue of whether
construction of new storm drain facilities or expansion of existing facilities will cause a
significant impact requires project level analysis, and the Draft Housing Element is a
program level document. Details of future development projects and their need for storm
drain facilities is currently not known, but would be identified in an LFMP.
All water and sewer districts serving Carlsbad have indicated they have sufficient
existing and planned capacity to serve the number of housing units in Carlsbad's RHNA.
This includes any density increases required as part of Draft Housing Element Program
2.1 on Adequate Sites.
43. Contrary to that stated in the letter, the capacity of EWA is adequate for the number of
housing units in Carlsbad's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). The
completed EWA Phase V Expansion provides sufficient capacity to accommodate the
build-out of the General Plan and the number of units allowed by Growth Management,
and therefore can accommodate the RHNA as well.
However, with regard to water quality of stormwater runoff, the Housing Element
recognizes that for construction on an undeveloped site, there exists the possibility that
significant impacts could occur if mitigation is not incorporated into a project. Note that
this comment suggests project-level environmental analysis of a program-level
document (the Draft Housing Element). When project details are known, Mitigation
Measure USS-1 requires that any future project facilitated by the Housing Element
RESPONSE TO JUNE 27, 2009 COMMENTS BY UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO LAW CLINIC
ON MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DRAFT 2005-2010 HOUSING ELEMENT
Page 17
prepare a SWPPP that includes BMPs to prevent water quality impacts resulting from
polluted runoff.
O. Cumulative Impacts
44. While wide ranging, it appears the thrust of this comment regards the potential impacts
to adjacent habitat and sensitive species a project built on the Quarry Creek site may
have. Accordingly, the commenter is referred to responses provided in Section C., Air
Quality; Section D., Biological Resources; Section H., Hydrology and Water Quality; and
Section J., Noise. Regarding cumulative impacts, the commenter is referred to the
response below.
45. Contrary to the commenter's assertion, the MND has adequately considered and
demonstrated that implementation of Draft Housing Element programs, incorporating
recommended mitigation measures, would not have cumulatively considerable
environmental impacts. The reader is referred to the MND's section on Mandatory
Findings of Significance, which discusses cumulative impacts. That section is also
summarized below.
SANDAG projects regional growth policies for the greater San Diego area and local
general plan land uses are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based on these
projections, region-wide standards, including but not limited to, storm water quality
control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, and congestion management
standards are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the
region. City regulations are consistent with the region-wide standards.
For example, the North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan was designed to
compensate for the loss of biological resources throughout the program's region;
therefore, projects that conform to the MHCP, as specified by the City's HMP, would not
result in a cumulatively considerable impact for those biological resources adequately
covered by the program.
Furthermore, as discussed in the MND's Air Quality section, Draft Housing Element
policies will not provide for housing beyond that accounted for in SANDAG's regional
plans and thus, are within the scope of regional air quality management plans. While
future projects will contribute to regional emissions, those emissions have already been
accounted for in regional planning efforts. Additionally, mitigation measures are included
herein to reduce to less than significant the short term air quality impacts that occur
during construction.
Overall, the City's standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality
and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resources protection
regulations, and public facility standards, ensure that future development within the City
will not result in a significant cumulatively considerable impact. Mitigation measures are
included herein to ensure projects comply with all applicable standards.
Conclusion
46. Comment noted. Staff acknowledges the potential for housing constructed pursuant to
Draft Housing Element programs, if implemented, to have environmental impacts.
However, as demonstrated in these responses and the MND, the recommended
mitigation measures are adequate to reduce potential impacts to a level of
insignificance.
CALIFORNIA INDIAN LEGAL SERVICES
Escondido Office
609 South Escondido Boulevard, Escondido, CA 92025 y Phone 760/746-8941 y Fax 760/746-1815
www.calindian.org y contactCILS@catindian.org
EUREKA Michele Fahley, Staff Attorney BISHOP
ESCONDIDO 760/746-8941, Ext. 121 SACRAMENTO
mfalJey@calindian.org
June 29. 2009
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Mr. Scon Donnell. Planner
Carlsbad Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsad, CA 92008
Re: Comments on MND 2005-2010 Housing Element; GPA 03-02
Dear Mr. Donnell:
These comments are submitted by California Indian Legal Services on behalf of the San
Luis Rey Band of Luisefio Mission Indians ("San Luis Rey Band" or "Tribe"), regarding the
Housing Element ("Element"). The San Luis Rey Band is a San Diego County Tribe whose
traditional territory includes the current cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad. Vista. Escondido and
Bonsall, among others. The San Luis Rey Band is concerned about the preservation and protection
of cultural, archaeological and historical sites within the area affected by the proposed Element.
The Tribe understands that the Element itself is simply a "paper" project: however, the Element will
determine where Carlsbad will focus its efforts to meet the housing Element. The Band's concerns
are focused on the particular properties that are mentioned in the Element.
The San Luis Rey Band is concerned about the protection of unique and irreplaceable
cultural resources and sacred sites which may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed Element
and subsequent projects. The Band held two SB 18 consultations with the City on March 16 and
31. As you know, the Band is very concerned about identifying the Quarry Creek site as potentially
meeting the City's housing needs. The Band believes that any development in this area will harm
irreplaceable cultural resources. The site is home to a sacred site, many cultural sites and unique
natural features.2
In addition, the entire valley from the El Salto Falls to the ocean is considered a "cultural
corridor" by the Band and has traditionally, historically and contemporaneously been an area of
significance for Luiseno peoples. As such, the Tribe does not agree that the Quarry Creek site is
appropriate for meeting Carlsbad's housing element. The Band again urges the City to remove the
Quarry Creek site from its list of sites identified for use to meet the City's housing element.
In addition, because of the site's significance, the Tribe disagrees with the MND's I
conclusion that there are potentially significant impacts, unless mitigated. The Band firmly believes 3
I
Michele Fahley
Attorneys for the San Luis Rey Band
Comment Letter to Scott Donnell
Re: Draft 2005-2010 Housing Element
June 29.2009
Page 2
that impacts to the Quarry Creek site cannot be mitigated. While this particular Element does not
directly impact the site, it opens the door for future development, which will directly impact the A
area. The MND should be revised to indicate that there are indeed potentially significant impacts.
The Element fails to adequately consider the impacts to identified sites should development occur to
meet the City's housing needs. The MND does not address this issue, even though the Tribe spent
several hours with City staff discussing their concerns.
In regard to the other areas identified in the Element, the Band did discuss concerns with the
City during the SB 18 consultation. Those areas as well may have important cultural resources that
could be impacted by future development. Therefore, as the MND correctly notes, any individual
project must have its own environmental assessment to determine how, if at all. impacts on cultural
resources may be impacted. The Band will comment separately on any environmental review.
However, the Band would also request that tribal representatives be involved in the creation of any
environmental review document, including the initial study and preparation of cultural resource
surveys.
We look forward to working with the City to guarantee that the requirements of the C-EQA
are rigorously applied to this project. We thank you for your continuing assistance in protecting our
invaluable Luiseno cultural resources.
Sincerely,
CALIFORNIA INDIAN LEGAL SERVICES
Melvin Vernon, Tribal Captain
Carmen Mojado, Secretary of Government Relations
Response to June 29, 2009 Comments by California Indian Legal Services
On
Mitigated Negative Declaration for Draft 2005-2010 Housing Element
(Note: The number of the response below corresponds with the comment identified by the number in the
right margin of the comment letter)
1. Comment and concerns noted.
2. Comment noted. Staff acknowledges consultation with the Band, as required by SB 18
(Government Code 65352.3). This consultation concluded in March 2009. City staff
recognizes Carlsbad's rich cultural (and paleontological) resources, including those at
Quarry Creek. For this reason, the Draft Housing Element's environmental assessment
includes mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3) to ensure (1)
sites with known and potential resources are properly surveyed and monitored during
construction and (2) resources are evaluated and protected as necessary.
Staff is aware Quarry Creek is a property with not only cultural but also biological
resources as well. Hillside, creek, and riparian portions of the site are already in
protected open space and the Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan establishes
standards in recognition of its natural habitat for the property's preservation and
development. Quarry Creek has also been extensively mined for decades such that
approximately half of the 100 acre site has been disturbed. Appropriately, the HMP
recognizes a portion of the site is suitable for development. Considering its significant
amount of disturbed acreage and proximity to transit, major roads, and services, Quarry
Creek is a fitting location for increased residential density as the Housing Element
proposes.
3. As evidenced in the Draft Housing Element's environmental assessment, and as noted
in the response to comment 2 above, staff believes significant impacts to cultural
resources, whether at Quarry Creek or elsewhere, are mitigable. The mitigation
measures proposed are typical of projects throughout Carlsbad.
Contrary to the comment, the Draft Housing Element does not "...open the door for
future development..." The Quarry Creek site is already designated for residential
development in addition to open space preserve and already has been significantly
disturbed by mining. Furthermore, the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) does
acknowledge the presence of potentially significant cultural resources at Quarry Creek
and other Carlsbad locations, which is why the MND includes mitigation measures as
described above.
4. Staff notes that some housing sites identified in the Housing Element, such as Ponto
and Bridges at Aviara, have completed or are currently undergoing environmental
review. The San Luis Rey Band is already on the Planning Department mailing list to
receive notices of intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative
declaration. Staff will also add the Band to its mailing list for notices of preparation of an
environmental impact report. Such notices are also published in local newspapers,
posted on the City's website, and available through a free email subscription service the
City provides. The commenter is also likely to receive notices through the state Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for those projects which affect the interests of
state agencies and are routed through the State Clearinghouse.
Furthermore, by law, the City must directly contact California Native American tribes
when it proposes any general plan amendment. General plan amendments are needed
for several sites identified by Draft Housing Element programs, such as Quarry Creek.
The city-initiated contact begins the formal consultation process described in the
commenter's letter and noted in Response 2 above.