HomeMy WebLinkAboutEIR 13-02; GENERAL PLAN UPDATE; Final EIR Part 2C; 2015-06-01Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
D. Received after close of comment period for Draft EIR
Comments and Responses
This section provides each letter received after close of comment period for the Draft EIR in
response to the DEIR, with specific comments identified with a comment code in the margin.
Following the letters, responses to the comments are provided.
2-1181
From: Allen Sweet [mailto:allen.sweet@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 10:29 AM
To: Jennifer Jesser
Subject: Re: General plan comments
Let me give you a couple of comments from my daughter relative to biking.
For one thing she and fellow bikers do not like lane sharing - so called sharows. They do not give the
bikers adequate safety. Better than sharing a lane is put the bikers one street over from the busy street
on what is otherwise a less busy or residential street. Yes - we need bike lanes and paths, but separate
them from the cars. This concept would also solve my concern of taking so many important streets in
Carlsbad by giving the bikers priority and reducing cars to a lessor role.
A lot of places have put a bike lane between parked cars and the car driving lane. The bike lane should
be outboard and then the parked cars. The parked cars act as a safety barrier for the bikers and the
bikers only need to be concerned for parking cars.
Allen Sweet
2-1182
From: Evelyn Montalbano [mailto:pemont@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 10:53 AM
To: David de Cordova
Cc: Jennifer Jesser
Subject: Re: General Plan Update
I, and other residents on La Costa Avenue, attended the video presentation
given by the City of Carlsbad at the Schulman Auditorium last week. At this
presentation, the Council Members held a Q&A session. Our question was
about The La Costa Avenue Improvement Plan.
We had been told by the Transportation Department that further
improvements would be made. As you know, presently, there is an interim
restriping plan in effect which has created one lane of traffic westbound on
La Costa Avenue ("LCA") from Nuevo/Viejo Castilla Way to Fairways
Lane. The further improvements we thought were going to be implemented
are: roundabouts, landscaped segmented, center medians and an
eastbound one lane of traffic.
Well, to our surprise at the presentation the Council said, "we feel we are
happy with the status quo on La Costa Avenue".
Remember, after the motorcycle accident litigation, the Judge mandated
that LCA be made safe. The City went into overdrive and held extensive
public community meetings to decide what should be done to improve the
safe driving conditions on La Costa Avenue for all drivers [not just for the
homeowners with driveways adjacent to LCA], a secondary arterial
road. The professional traffic consultants put forth an array of solutions.
So far, what has been done is the equivalent of a $50 bucket of paint. The
City of Carlsbad does think they have "Design Immunity". However, a
game changer has been thrown into the mix: The La Costa Avenue Town
Square
The Transportation Department has said that the traffic will not increase on
LCA because people will shop in their own backyards. Well, this remains
to be seen. Not everyone lives in the Town Square's backyard -- but that's
their story and they're sticking to it. They do not want roundabouts for LCA
and yet they have successfully constructed one downtown to much
applause.
2-1183
We all know that perception is everything. It really does look like
generating traffic for the Town Square was made primary and the safety on
LCA was secondary. We do worry about another accident on LCA and
uncontrolled traffic. More condominiums and townhomes have been built
on both sides of LCA.
Here is the most egregious point: The motorcycle accident
occurred when a car exiting a private driveway was making a left-hand turn
and T-boned the motorcyclist. This very issue screams for the
implementation of segmented, center medians. These medians, being
landscaped, would beautify the area. Yes, La Costa Avenue is a
secondary arterial road. Nevertheless, private adjacent driveways and
numerous condominiums and townhomes line both sides of the road.
At the very least, we need more traffic mitigation measures. Landscaped,
segmented center medians would not disturb the traffic flow to the La
Costa Town Square. Eliminating those Evel Knievel left-hand turns, would
have a major impact on the safety of all drivers on La Costa Avenue. The
number of these drivers will increase with the La Costa Town Square -- no
matter how you spin it.
The funds -- approximately $1.1 million for La Costa Avenue traffic
improvements -- are in the Capital Improvements Budget ("CIB"). These
funds have nothing to do with the La Costa Town Square. They were
designated before its existence. No, a $50 bucket of paint is not
enough. In light of all the circumstances listed above, is it really wise
to ignore the Judge's mandate? Will all of the revenue from the La Costa
Town Square be worth taking such a huge risk? Risk assessment is vital
here; perhaps it would be wise to have a bit more cover.
Evelyn Montalbano
2-1184
From: Ian Pierson [mailto:ianpierson@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2014 11:51 AM
To: Council Internet Email
Subject: Buena Vista Reservoir
Hi,
We would like to again express our desire that the BVR be converted to an open space or
park. My daughter is six years old and would love a place to play and run around (we don't have
a lawn in order to conserve water) as well as a place to ride her bike - the neighborhood has
limited sidewalks and many of them are blocked by telephone poles (which is another
issue...). An open space would not only benefit the current residents of the neighborhood, but
also those moving in to the many new developments already in progress.
Thank you,
Ian Pierson
Jenny Fererro
> Subject: Buena Vista Reservoir
> From: ianpierson@hotmail.com
> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:22:36 -0800
> To: council@carlsbadca.gov
>
> Hello,
> My wife, daughter, and I live at 2399 Spruce Street and we were recently made aware of a
proposal to sell the Buena Vista Reservoir to be developed into a residential subdivision. We feel
that converting that land to a subdivision would not only have a negative impact on the
neighborhood - increased traffic, increased noise, changed character - but would be a missed
opportunity to improve the neighborhood. Converting the land to a park or open space would
benefit not only the people living in this neighborhood, but everyone in Carlsbad as well.
>
> We would like to strongly encourage you to not convert the Buena Vista Reservoir to a
subdivision, but to instead use it for a purpose that will benefit and improve the neighborhood
and Carlsbad in general.
>
> Thank you,
> Ian Pierson
> Jenny Fererro
2-1185
From: Jo Ann Sweeney [mailto:j.ocean92008@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 11:58 AM
To: Jennifer Jesser
Subject: General Plan, Open Spaces, and Proposed Developments El Camino Real
August 11, 2014
To: Mayor Matt Hall , City Council Members: Mark Packard, Michael Shumacker,
Keith Blackburn, Lorraine Wood and Planning Commissioners: Ms. Jennifer Jesser, et
al
Re: General Plan update, concern about “Open Space” issue and planned
developments off of El Camino Real – input from resident of Carlsbad
I have been a Carlsbad resident since 1997. I consider it a pleasure to live in such a
beautifully gorgeous and well-maintained city. I have lived in many other places: the
Lehigh Valley Area in Pa., Washington DC., Northern Virginia, the Sacramento, Ca.
Area, and the Bay Area of Northern California. I love the beauty of Carlsbad.
I continue to be a proponent of the 40% open space for the Carlsbad General Plan.
I have attended city council meetings and listened intently to what the citizens of
Carlsbad want – 40% open space as initially decided in 1986. I attended your July 15,
2014 workshop on open spaces and parks. That workshop clarified many issues for me,
however as the last remaining undeveloped land is being developed, it is still important
to continue to enforce the 40% open space protocol. Many residents of Carlsbad
expressed at city council meetings, that they also want the 40% open space protocol
followed. Imagine, if the remainder of the undeveloped area looked like Aviara Parkway
leading onto College Blvd. Although there is a multitude of residential buildings, one
also sees The Crossing Golf course in the distance and still some open, natural land,
without the distraction of needless commercial mini malls. Aviara Parkway is not as
congested with traffic as the El Camino Real leading to Encinitas. El Camino Real has
an over abundance of many small shopping centers south of Palomar Airport Road.
There is traffic gridlock even during nonpeak hours. This is not the vision I see for the
last remaining undeveloped area of Carlsbad along El Camino Real north of Palomar
Airport Road.
I am for a balanced approach with slow and judicious building for the final build-out of
the properties around El Camino Real, College Blvd., land around the new Sage Creek
High School, and land behind and above Rancho Carlsbad and Sunny Creek Plaza. I
am very concerned about road congestion/gridlock, air pollution from increased traffic,
and high density housing that will have a significant impact on water reserves, public
safety- police, fire and medical responders and city services. Development in this area
should be proceeded cautiously and slowly to keep up with the concerns about our
valuable resources and services. I would anticipate that there would be a building
moratorium if the severe drought conditions continue. I implore the Carlsbad City
Council members to not change any of the zoning in these areas. Please maintain the
zoning for the Sunny Creek Plaza area at the intersection of El Camino Real and
2-1186
College Blvd. as either open space or, if necessary, only allow for low density housing.
The current golf course at Rancho Carlsbad should continue to be zoned as open
space. This would be within the original intent of the plan to allow this land to remain
rural in nature. The current Rancho Carlsbad Golf Course allows an affordable
alternative to many seniors and young adults to enjoy recreation on the only par 3 golf
course in Carlsbad. Most of the other golf courses are too expensive and difficult for
aging seniors to play and young adults to learn to play golf at an affordable cost.
I have reread the City Council’s Priority Projects dated 5/13/14. The Executive
Summary for the City Council’s annual planning workshop 1/22/13 focused on
“continuing to strive for excellence and balancing an excellent quality of life with a
thriving local economy.” Under priority for balancing land use policies with a changing
community….” The city adapts land use policies to address population and
demographic trends. This will ensure that the city maintains its high standards and
balances a thriving community with the need for tranquil, natural spaces.”
The devastating fire in May 2014 was a wake-up call to us all as we are in the third year
of a drought. I am concerned that with increased building, especially shopping
center/retail centers and additional proposed high density housing, there will be
increased water use, an explosion of roadway grid lock during peak traffic hours, and a
drain on our necessary public services. Due to increased traffic, there will be increased
cost for road maintenance, increased costs and slower response times for fire and
police protection, accidents, and medical emergency calls. Lastly, due to the increased
fire hazard, it is imperative that all new building standards call for underground utilities
instead of overhead wires that have been and are a definite fire hazard.
Since I am for a well balanced, well planned, and judicious growth of the city of
Carlsbad, I am also in favor of the revitalization of parts of Carlsbad (especially the
Barrio and the downtown village area). The residents of these areas have waited a long
time for revitalization. I strongly advocate that the Buena Vista Reservoir Area be made
into a park.
Allow Carlsbad to be the unique city by the sea. Continue with the vision to create and
maintain the small downtown feel that so many residents crave, allow for varied
employment opportunities for all ages and affordable housing for all workers to have the
opportunity to participate in the Carlsbad life style in a safe and thriving community
while maintaining open, tranquil spaces. I moved to Carlsbad seventeen years ago
because of Carlsbad’s reputation for excellent schools, planned growth, and it’s
enjoyable quality of life. It is possible to have slow and balanced growth of our city, yet
maintaining some of the natural, open terrain and still have a thriving community.
Sincerely,
JoAnn V. Sweeney
5342 Forecastle Court
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
2-1187
From: Madeleine Szabo [mailto:mbszabo@snet.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 4:01 PM
To: Andrea Dykes
Subject: Development
My husband and I retired to Carlsbad two years ago because of the unique beauty of this city. The vistas
and open space beckoned us to an area with little to moderate traffic and with comfortable living
standards. Now we find the City Council is changing the complexion of this city by approving many more
units.
What happened to the 1986 goal to keep 40% undeveloped in Carlsbad? In light of the water shortage,
of the detrimental strain on our resources, of increased traffic and pollution, the Carlsbad Council must
eliminate the plans for adding 23,000 residents, 7.5m sq ft of commercial buildings, and 2,600 hotel
rooms in the revised General Plan.
Carlsbad is unique. It has a quality of life that is unparalleled by the surroundings towns. Carlsbad should
not be compared to surrounding towns, nor should it emulate them. Just because San Marcos or
Escondido or any other towns have less open space does not mean we have to have less open space
and be complacent about more development.
What happened to the goal of 40% open space at build out? I want to know how development projects
like Dos Colinas and the hundreds of multi-family units planned in the immediate vicinity got approved?
(the area near Rancho Carlsbad golf course off of El Camino Real and College Boulevard extension). The
gorgeous vistas and natural habitat will be gone forever. Please keep in mind, once open space is gone,
it can never return.
I look forward to hearing from you and to receiving a solid leadership plan for keeping Carlsbad as it is
today: a unique beachside community replete with exquisite vistas, little congestion, and ample resources
(water, police, firemen, parks, etc.) for the existing residents.
Respectfully submitted,
Madeleine Szabo
5338 Forecastle Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
760-814-2550
2-1188
2-1189
2-1190
2-1191
2-1192
2-1193
2-1194
2-1195
2-1196
2-1197
2-1198
2-1199
2-1200
Madeleine Szabo
5338 Forecastle Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
760-814-2550
August 19, 2014
City of Carlsbad Council and Mayor:
I am writing on behalf of “Friends of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor, a grassroots neighborhood
organization whose goal is to preserve, protect, and enhance the natural environment
and beauty of NE/NW El Camino Real, formerly designated as a “scenic corridor”.
We implore you to support:
1. Keeping the Rancho Carlsbad Golf Course zoned as Open Space. Thank you for your
continuing support not to change the zoning designation for this property.
Please support:
2. Rezoning Sunny Creek as Low-density housing or Open Space.
* Background: It is now zoned for Commercial, but the Council requested the City staff to
recommend designating that property as commercial/high-density housing.
* The traffic and congestion will be severely impacted. El Camino Real in this area was
always designated a "scenic corridor" in the General Plan. Developing it with
commercial/high-density housing defiles the beauty and scenic habitat along the NE
section of El Camino Real.
Please uphold:
3. The integrity of our zoning standards.
* Council Members, please refrain from excessively awarding zoning variances to
developers, a practice that undermines the zoning laws and provides a precedent for all
developers to request similar variances in order to maximize their financial gain.
* A recent example: the developer of the Encinas Creek Apartments requested, and was
awarded, variances to build more housing units over and above the maximum within the
designated zoning standard. Now, future developers will request similar variances for
their financial benefit, at the expense of disrupting the environment and character of
Carlsbad, for which zoning regulations are originally established.
Please support:
4. Properly and accurately designating all residential units that house "permanent"
residents. 2-1201
* Designate Professional Care Facilities and 2nd Dwelling Units as residential (they are
not temporary housing; they contain residents like any other housing unit does).
Not counting such units as residential results in more development of residential
units in a zone; thus, generating higher density housing, more traffic, increased
congestion, increased noise, increased use of utilities, more pollution, increased
demand for City services, and other negative impacts from increased development.
Together we will make a difference and keep the NE/NW part of El Camino Real a "scenic
corridor" with minimal traffic, congestion, car pollution, noise, glaring lights, and we will
ensure that our water shortage problem is not exacerbated. Most importantly, we will
preserve our unique and beautiful vistas and keep the character of Carlsbad. That should
be your legacy.
Respectfully submitted,
Madeleine Szabo
cc: Friends of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor
2-1202
From: MIchael Kroopkin
Date:08/08/2014 2:32 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: matt.hall@carlsbadca.gov
Subject: Fwd: Important! The traffic is coming. The scenic hills will soon be gone...
Dear Mayor Matt,
I am writing to you because I have great concerns over the plans coming forth for El Camino
Real. Commercial buildings, High Density housing, elimination of open areas and so on. I am a
great supporter of Carlsbad. I see you at many functions whether in my Volunteer police uniform
or not. I know that you overheard me talking about how great our city is while eating Chinese. I
live in Evans Point, just off ECR and the traffic all ready is very heavy. Yesterday and the day
before I left me home at 4:00 and traffic going North was backed up from Jackspar all the way
past College to Faraday. This is not a once in a while situation. The plans for Robertson Ranch
and the addition of other commercial and high density projects will be a detriment to our city and
certainly a negative to the residents that live nearby. I am truly hoping you will reconsider and
guide our city in the right direction. Attached is a letter I received from a neighbor that sheds
some serious concerns for our future. Please revisit these projects and work to keep the open
feeling of this fantastic city.
Thank you
Michael J. Kroopkin
2322 Masters Rd
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
760-931-6786
Please join us to strategize on how we can hold back the bulldozers....
Next Wednesday, August 13th, at 6pm, we will meet at the end of Forecastle Court
cul-de-sac (in front of Tiffany David's house: #5353). Bring a chair and a
beverage. Our presence outside will be more visible and more approachable to
attract people who are interested but not comfortable going to a house meeting.
I spoke a long time yesterday to Jennifer Jesser, the senior planner on the revised
General Plan. There IS something we can do now.
We can write emails/letters and/or call the Council Members and Mayor. We need
to redirect the Council's bias towards developing open land and causing more
traffic and congestion. There is two things we can do now:
2-1203
1) The Sunny Creek Plaza lot across from Camino Hills on El Camino is currently
being redesignated from an "all commercial" lot to a part commercial and HIGH-
density housing. The Council Members have directed the planning staff to
recommend high-density housing in addition to retail stores on this lot. The only
way to change the designation is to prevail upon the Council Members to redirect
the staff to look at designating the property for LOW-density housing or for OPEN
SPACE.
2) Currently the golf course at Rancho Carlsbad, which is privately owned, is
designated "open space." We must show support to the Council to keep the golf
course land designated "open space" in order to keep the property owner from
developing it (which he will be inclined to do to make more money off of the
land). They are looking to change the "open space" designation in order to develop
the land. It is important to express our support of the Council to keep Rancho
Carlsbad golf course zoned as open space.
Similar to the "open space" designation of the Rancho Carlsbad golf course
property, the Sunny Creek lot next to it should also remain open space (or, if it has
to be developed, then it should be developed with only low-density housing, not
high-density as the Council is proposing). The future of scenic El Camino near us
is already bleak. Traffic will be significantly greater with the planned development
of all the other land surrounding Rancho Carlsbad.
If the open lot on El Camino across from Camino Hills is built with stores and
high-density housing, can you imagine the congestion? There will be another
traffic light and a turn lane, many more cars stopping and going (polluting the air
while idling at a red light), high-intensity lighting, more electrical towers, more
blacktop, increased water usage, increased noise, and the propensity for increased
crime and for increased litter. The relative tranquility of this section of El Camino
Real will be gone forever. The increase in cars and increase in pedestrians
crossing at the street walk will make turning onto El Camino at least twice as long.
Please write an email/letter today. We have to stop the madness. There are
enough developments in Carlsbad to provide different residential choices. Why
does every part of Carlsbad have to be developed and crawling with people .....and
cars? At the expense of the beautiful scenery.
Contact:
City Council: council@carlsbadca.gov 760-434-2830
Mayor Matt Hall matt.hall@carlsbadca.gov
Copy the assistant, Andrea Dykes, who will make sure the Council Members get your letter:
2-1204
andrea.dykes@carlsbadca.gov
I look forward to seeing you next Wednesday, August 13th, at 6pm (cul de sac in
front of 5353 Forecastle Court).
Please invite your neighbors.
Best,
Madeleine
760-814-2550
FYI - UPDATE:
Open space area that currently exists behind the equestrian lot and RV parking lot
along the College Blvd. extension/El Camino Real:
Five apartment buildings plus a community building were approved in 2004. That
lot is zoned Residential Density-Multiple (RD-M). However, in April 3, 2013, an
amendment was submitted to the Council and approved that gave the developer
exceptions to the development standards under RD-M (see below). The
elimination of any development restrictions as required in the zoning designation
was given because the developers said they would build more affordable
housing. From the City staff document given to the Council:
"since the project is an “affordable housing” project, less restrictive
development standards than specified in the underlying zone or elsewhere may be
allowed, provided that the project is in conformity with the General Plan and
adopted policies and goals of the City, and it would have no detrimental effect on
public health, safety and welfare".
Some of the "exceptions" given to the developer are:
increasing the number of units {increasing congestion}
increasing the building height {there goes the scenic vista of the hillside
behind}
decreasing the width of the garages {for density purposes}
The project is 56 units above the Growth Management dwelling unit allowance.
However, in the Planning document submitted to the Council, it is stated:
2-1205
"Staff has reviewed the request for the Tentative Map, Planned Development
Permit, and Site Development Plan Amendment and the City Planner has
determined that the project, the addition of 47 apartment units to an 80 unit
apartment project creates no new or significant adverse environmental impacts
above what was identified in the original CEQA document (EIR 02-02
for Cantarini/Holly Springs), therefore a Negative Declaration has been
prepared".
No public comment was given.
Ask yourself, how does an exception to the rules and code get approved so
easily? The exceptions clearly are in favor of the developers (to increase their
revenue stream), and defy the statement: "in conformity with the General Plan and
adopted policies and goals of the City, and it would have no detrimental effect on
public health, safety and welfare." They say "no new or significant adverse
environmental impacts" from more development?
Hope to see you Wednesday night!
2-1206
From: Mike Barnes [mailto:mbarnes4@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 2:27 PM
To: Envision
Subject: General Plan comment
To Whom It May Concern:
I haven’t had the time to go through the entire plan but have previously made comments I want to
reiterate.
I live on Gull Ct, off the intersection of Aviara Parkway and Poinsettia. Perhaps you’ll consider my
concern “nimbyism” but I am very concerned with traffic already and even more so based on proposed
growth along the Palomar Airport Road corridor.
As you may know, Poinsettia Lane to I-5 and Aviara Parkway between Poinsettia Lane and Palomar
Airport have become a common alternate route for non residents traveling to work in the business district
along Palomar Airport.
And sadly, it’s not only the ever increasing volume of cars, but also the speed they drive in their hurry to
get to and from work.
I have lived here since 2002 and definitely notice a significant increase in traffic. In fact, during the week if
we want or need to head towards the beach or freeway after work, it has become increasingly difficult to
get onto the freeway, specifically going south, due to the heavier traffic.
So, my concern and hope is that as part of the future vision, the city will consider how to maintain and
perhaps even improve the quality of life of residents to navigate around the city without having to plan
around traffic due to non residents and business.
Thank you,
Mike Barnes
1313 Gull Court
2-1207
From: Osman Khawar [mailto:okhawarmd@palmedinc.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 7:59 PM
To: Council Internet Email
Subject: Parks and Open space.
I am a concerned Carlsbad resident.
I live in Carlsbad with my wife and two young children and purchased my home here because of all the
open space and parks available.
I am disappointed with the current development plans and ask you to reconsider all of your actions.
Open space is a vital commodity and the reason I came here. At the recent city council meeting I was
disappointed with the people I supported and voted for not acted as they said they would at election
time.
I am NOT interested in a compact, commercialized, retail-ized Carlsbad.
Please re-consider.
More PARKS.
Osman Khawar.
Osman Khawar MD MPH FASN
President, Palomar Medical Group.
President, San Diego Institute of Medical Research.
(O) 760 745 1551
(F) 760 745 5016
2-1208
From: Patricia Parsons [mailto:pat@parsons.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2014 9:11 AM
To: Council Internet Email
Subject: Preserving Open Space in NE Quadrant of Carlsbad
I am writing to express my support of:
(1) Keeping the Rancho Carlsbad Golf Course zoned as open space.
(2) Rezoning Sunny Creek as Low-density housing. It is now zoned for
Commercial, but the Council requested the City staff to
recommend designating that property as commercial/high-density
housing.
We cannot let this happen. The traffic and congestion will be negatively
affected. El Camino Real in this area was always designated a "scenic
corridor" in the General Plan. Developing it with commercial/high-
density housing defiles the beauty and scenic habitat along the NE
section of El Camino Real.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia Parsons
2-1209
From: penny [mailto:pennyofcbad@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 6:40 PM
To: Council Internet Email
Subject: general plan commitment
City Council Members. Please honor the commitment made in the 1986 general plan ...40% open
space!! Veteran’s Park does not satisfy all 4 quadrants at the same time. We need NEIGHBORHOOD
parks that families can walk to, bike to or are a short drive. The BV reservoir fits the bill for what the NW
quadrant needs AND is entitled to. It is insulting to your constituents that the dirt piles behind the Pio
Pico Shell station and the Pio Pico park are considered parks that are useable for us. The noise and
pollution from being right next to the freeway makes these “parks” a health hazard ..they should be
condemned. I challenge you to use these 2 parks in the city brochures that promote our wonderful open
space lifestyle in Carlsbad. And you and your families should be in the pictures relaxing in the dirt next to
the freeway chain link fence. A plan was agreed to in 1986......integrity would demand you uphold that
plan !!
Penny Johnson 1360 Hillview CT, 92008 760 729 4689
2-1210
From: Richard Bethel [mailto:rbbethel@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 2:00 PM
To: Council Internet Email
Subject: OUR WONDERFUL CITY II
I neglected to include some open space compliments on my prior e-mail.
We just took a nature walk as part of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation where we
are members.
The lagoons in our city and our neighbors are one of the areas we receive the most
compliments from flower field visitors and tourists we meet in town on our walks. The
visitors are so impressed with our city's commitment to open space and beautiful spots
of nature. WE also recommend the drive on El Camino Real to see more open space.
They also love the U Pick strawberry stand on Cannon and we certainly hope it doesn't
go the way of an upscale mall which is NOT needed in our town.
We hope the city keeps the movement alive to maintain our lagoons and the wildlife
who live there. they are a true treasure!!!
Thanks for listening!
Ric and Bonnie Bethel
2-1211
From: robert gilbert [mailto:beckola750@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 12:22 PM
To: Council Internet Email
Subject: No Parks in North Carlsbad Planning?
I hope you will consider a neighborhood park in North Carlsbad. RJ Gilbert 1339 BV
Way
2-1212
From: Wesley Marx [mailto:wmarx33@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 2:17 PM
To: Council Internet Email
Subject: Coouncil open space haearing 7/15 9 am
We support the goal of at least 40% open space in the General Plan update.
We are concerned that the amount cited in the draft plan is overstated -- for example, counting
closed/gated school yards as parks.
Judith and Wesley Marx, 2995 Ocean St., Carlsbad, CA
2-1213
From: whitnie rasmussen [mailto:whitnie_8@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 5:59 AM
To: Council Internet Email
Subject: Old Carlsbad
Hello, Carlsbad City Council.
Just a quick note stressing that my family and I would like to see more parks in Old Carlsbad. As of now,
the existing parks: Pine, McGee and Cannon and the 101 are all we have. All three are run down and
need attention. We have no track, as Valley's track is closed during school hours.
I'm requesting as a denizen of Old Carlsbad, and mother of two young children, that you preserve the
land next to the fire station, Buena Vista Reserve, Art and Cultural building and community garden as
public parks.
I'd also like to see the existing Old Carlsbad public-use areas given TLC: The library, Monroe Pool, Pine
Park and McGee Park.
Many young families have bought in Old Carlsbad so we can live a high-quality of life (similar to cities
like Boulder, Colorado), easily walking to our parks, library, pool, museums, stores and beach. It feels as
if there is a focus to take this from us and move it to South Carlsbad. I'm requesting these services stay
where they are and are managed better.
Not all of Carlsbad wants enormous parks and pools, such as Alga Norte. Old Carlsbad residents do not
want Old Carlsbad to become like South Carlsbad. We must truly consider that they are two different
areas.
This is our chance to do something brave and thoughtful for our city, not just develop it like the rest of
Southern California.
Thank you for listening,
Whitnie Rasmussen
2-1214
2-1215
2-1216
From: Ian Pierson [mailto:ianpierson@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 10:48 AM
To: Matthew Hall; Mark Packard; Keith Blackburn; Michael Schumacher; Manager Internet Email;
Lorraine Wood; Council Internet Email
Subject: Buena Vista Reservoir
Hi,
We would like to reiterate our request that Carlsbad not sell the Buena Vista Reservoir land, but instead
convert it to a neighborhood park.
Thank you,
Ian Pierson
Jenny Fererro
From: ianpierson@hotmail.com
To: council@carlsbadca.gov
Subject: Buena Vista Reservoir
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 11:50:37 -0700
Hi,
We would like to again express our desire that the BVR be converted to an open space or park. My
daughter is six years old and would love a place to play and run around (we don't have a lawn in order to
conserve water) as well as a place to ride her bike - the neighborhood has limited sidewalks and many of
them are blocked by telephone poles (which is another issue...). An open space would not only benefit
the current residents of the neighborhood, but also those moving in to the many new developments
already in progress.
Thank you,
Ian Pierson
Jenny Fererro
> Subject: Buena Vista Reservoir
> From: ianpierson@hotmail.com
> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 10:22:36 -0800
> To: council@carlsbadca.gov
>
> Hello,
> My wife, daughter, and I live at 2399 Spruce Street and we were recently made aware of a proposal to
sell the Buena Vista Reservoir to be developed into a residential subdivision. We feel that converting that
land to a subdivision would not only have a negative impact on the neighborhood - increased traffic,
increased noise, changed character - but would be a missed opportunity to improve the neighborhood.
Converting the land to a park or open space would benefit not only the people living in this neighborhood,
but everyone in Carlsbad as well.
>
> We would like to strongly encourage you to not convert the Buena Vista Reservoir to a subdivision, but
to instead use it for a purpose that will benefit and improve the neighborhood and Carlsbad in general.
>
> Thank you,
> Ian Pierson
> Jenny Fererro
2-1217
From: chickensbythesea@yahoo.com [mailto:chickensbythesea@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 7:46 AM
To: Manager Internet Email
Subject: Buena Vista reservoir
Hello,
I have to ask what is the benefit of selling the property? Who is in favor of that?
The benefit of the park is for ALL residents and establishes a trend away from maximizing profits by
continuing to build and build. Carlsbad is an affluent city and the income we receive from, Car Country
Carlsbad, the new upcoming mall, Carlsbad company stores, all the large business companies off
Palomar Airport Road, the Resorts in town, and Legoland is abundant, and more than almost any other
city, our size, in California. When is enough enough? There is no downside to increasing open space and
parks, NONE what so ever.
Thank you for being open to the request of the residents who live in this area,
Jennifer Bradley
2-1218
From: Clay Antonel [mailto:enigma_92107@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 6:53 PM
To: Don Neu
Subject: Objection to Carlsbad zoning changes
To the Carlsbad Planning Board:
My name is Clay Antonel. I am a home owner at and reside in the Terraces at Sunny Creek
community. I chose to live in Carlsbad because it was semi-rural, quiet and lightly populated. I
have recently been informed that zoning near my home has been changed. The zoning changes
will apparently increase population density and alter the peaceful nature of our community. I
STRONGLY object to any and all zoning changes which will increase the population density and
the negative aspects of that density: crime, noise and traffic. I purchased my home with certain
zoning rules in place and believe that those zoning rules should not and must not be changed.I
do believe that the land owners should be able to develop their land. However, they should
follow the rules and receive no special consideration.
Thank you,Clay Antonel5457 Wolverine TerraceCarlsbad, CA 92010
2-1219
From: Peggy Sanchez [mailto:sanchezpeggy@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 6:55 PM
To: Don Neu
Subject: Proposed apartment buildings at College/ El Camino
Dear Don,
We are long term Carlsbad residents and now we are EXTREMELY concern on the proposed land use of
the vacant land next to where our house located at Sunny Creek.
We want to trust the city for doing the right thing for its residents. But building a high density apartment
building next to our house will increase traffic and noise dramatically. Please consider zoning the area
for low to Mid density housing.
Please don't make our corner the low point of Carlsbad, having an existing apartment building and
trailer park is enough!
We care about our house and our city. Please care about us! We live here. I'm not sure if you are but
please consider existing homeowners.
Thank you.
Peggy and Henry Sanchez
Sent from my iPad
2-1220
From: Ron Bedford [mailto:ronbedford@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 5:09 PM
To: Don Neu
Subject: NO TO HIGH DENSITY APARTMENTS ADJACENT TO THE TERRACES AT SUNNY CREEK
Mr. Neu
As a resident of the Terraces at Sunny Creek I highly object to the proposal of high density
apartments being built the vacant land adjacent to our community. HIGH DENSITY apartments
will increase noise, traffic and crime rates. I love Carlsbad as a low density community where I
live. I love it as a bedroom community.
PLEASE if you have to rezone the area rezone it to LOW DENSITY for houses or MID
DENSITY for townhomes.
Please do NOT let High Density apartment go on the 17 vacant acres. It will adversely affect the
community of Carlsbad.
Warmest Regards,
Ron Bedford
2435 Badger Lane
Carlsbad, CA 92010
--
Ron Bedford, MSN, NP-C
2-1221
From: HKHabermann [mailto:hkhabermann@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 10:33 AM
To: Don Neu
Cc: Harry Habermann; Lora Zaroff
Subject: Property Zoning near SunnyCreek
Dear Sir - I'm a homeowner near the vacant lot located at El Camino Real and College in
Carlsbad for which I understand plans are underway for development.
As an original owner of my property (5419 Foxtail Loop), we were promised by the builder that
the adjacent vacant lot (17 acres) would be used for a small shopping center consisting of small
neighborhood stores, etc.
My understanding, now, is that the current property owner of such lot plans to use only 7 acres
for shopping and 10 acres for "high density housing" consisting of approximately 230 apartment
units.
Such a change would obviously negatively impact my property value, along with that of the
other homeowners' and create significant related congestion in the area if this
zoning/development change is approved - i.e., to "high density" housing plus only 7 acres of
shopping.
Accordingly,I emplore the City of Carlsbad to refrain from such zoning changes and respect the
original stated intentions provided to the homeowners and/or at a minimum at least lower the
density to "low density" for houses and not to approve any revised zoning request for apartments
- we already have apartments directly behind our subdivision at present.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
--
Harry
2-1222
From: Manny De Luna [mailto:mdexcellence33@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 11:48 AM
To: Don Neu
Subject: high density apartments
good day,sir.i am aresident at terraces at sunny creek.i am writing to let you know that if you are
going to approve residences near our homes,i prefer lower density homes and more
townhomes.thank you.have a great day.
2-1223
From: giljsoto@cs.com [mailto:giljsoto@cs.com]
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 12:21 PM
To: Don Neu
Subject: development of 17 acres across the street from Sunny Creek Development
Hello Mr. Neu,
I am a homeowner in the subdivision call Sunny Creek which across the street from the 17 acres that is
up for a proposed zone change to increase it's density.
I am adamantly opposed to any increase in density. When we first bought here we were told a shopping
center was to be built there. Those plans have fallen thru and now the new owner wants to put bunch of
apartments there which is what we were told in the first place. This kind of change would most certainly
adversely affect our home values. Please do not cave in to a group of investors that are only looking to
make this development more profitable for them and then leaving us homeowners to suffer economically.
Thank You for your time
Gil Soto
5604 Foxtail Loop
Carlsbad, Ca. 92010
2-1224
From: Corey Funk
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 3:17 PM
To: Madeleine Szabo
Cc: Don Neu; David de Cordova; Kathy Dodson
Subject: RE: Request and Two Questions
Hello Madeleine,
My apologies in not getting back to you sooner. There will not be an underline-strikeout document of
the general plan currently in effect (adopted in 1994). As a point of clarification from your email, the
last time Carlsbad comprehensively updated the GP was in 1994 (rather than 1986). Even though much
of the 1994 GP will be kept unchanged, the document is outdated (such as descriptive information,
formatting, document organization, etc.) and the volume of changes are too many for an underline-
strikeout version. To help you compare the differences between the 1994 GP and the proposed Draft
GP, the please visit the link below and review the Existing and Proposed General Plan Comparison Table
document (this document will also be in the upcoming staff report).
http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/depts/planning/update/documents.asp
The 1994 General Plan did not establish a 40 percent open space goal or standard for the city, nor did
the Growth Management Plan, and the draft General Plan does not propose to reduce the amount of
open space as compared to the 1994 General Plan.
The city’s Growth Management Plan has a requirement that the city maintain 3 acres of park space per
1,000 population, but these park acres do not include beaches. The beaches are counted as open space
however because they are designated in the GP land use map as open space. Schools are not counted
toward the park acreage requirement except for where the city has a joint use agreement with the
school for the play fields. In that case, only those play fields (not the whole school property) count
toward the park acreage requirement. For more detailed information about how the city categorizes
open space and parks, please see pages 4-5 thru 4-9 of the Draft GP Open Space, Conservation, and
Recreation Element, and also see staff’s presentation for the July 15, 2014 City Council Special Meeting
at the link below:
http://www.carlsbadca.gov/cityhall/clerk/meetings/council/info.asp
Sincerely,
Corey Funk, AICP
Associate Planner
Community and Economic Development Department
Planning Division
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Ave.
2-1225
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www.carlsbadca.gov
760-602-4645| 760-602-8559 fax | corey.funk@carlsbadca.gov
Facebook | Twitter | You Tube | Flickr | Pinterest | Enews
From: Madeleine Szabo [mailto:mbszabo@snet.net]
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 10:13 AM
To: Corey Funk
Cc: Don Neu; David de Cordova
Subject: Re: Request and Two Questions
Dear Corey,
Thank you for your prompt response to my inquiries. Regarding the revised General
Plan, you state that the Feb. 2014 draft will be modified -
- http://www.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=23289
and http://www.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=23306
Is there a an "underline-strikeout document" version of the original General Plan of 1986
that shows the evolution of changes to the original General Plan of 1986? What
happened to the goal of maintaining "40% Open Space". I also question why the
beaches were ever included since they cannot be factored into the goal of 3 acres of
Open Space per 1,000 residents as the beaches are not near development projects
(this is the reasoning used by Oceanside as explained to me by an Oceanside Planning
staff member). By the way, I was told by a Senior Planner in Encinitas that Encinitas
maintains a goal of 15 acres per 1,000 residents (which is 5 times the open space goal
of Carlsbad). He also told me that Encinitas does not include schools in their open
space/parks calculations.
Thank you again for your responsiveness.
Regards,
Madeleine Szabo
bcc: Friends of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor
Preserve Calavera
Friends of Sunny Creek
From: Corey Funk <Corey.Funk@carlsbadca.gov>
To: Madeleine Szabo <mbszabo@snet.net>; Don Neu
<Don.Neu@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc: David de Cordova <David.deCordova@carlsbadca.gov>
2-1226
Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2014 6:00 PM
Subject: RE: Request and Two Questions
Hello Madeleine,
Staff is still preparing the revisions to the draft general plan, so they are not available
now. The revisions will take the form of an underline-strikeout document that will be a
manageable size and will only show our revisions to the draft GP, we are not preparing
new revised complete GP document. To see what changes we propose, you would
compare the upcoming underline-strikeout document with the draft GP is already on the
web. The current draft GP (Feb. 2014 version) is available now on the web, so the only
item you will need to familiarize yourself with will be the underline-strikeout
document. This will be available for public review when it gets distributed to the
Planning Commission. We don’t know yet which day it will be available, but expect it to
be 5-10 days prior to the hearing on Nov. 5th.
As for your other questions:
Beaches are currently designated as open space on the current and
proposed GP land use maps, and they are already included in calculations to
determine the percentage of open space in the city.
According to Carlsbad Municipal Code, changes to an ordinance text, such
as the zoning ordinance text regarding professional care facilities, may only
be initiated by the either the (1) City Council, (2) Planning Commission, or (3)
City Planner. Staff then carries out the work preparing analysis and a staff
recommendation, and the City Council is the final decision maker. For a
citizen who wishes to change an ordinance, they would need to make a case
for the change to either the (1) City Council, (2) Planning Commission, or (3)
City Planner.
Sincerely,
Corey Funk, AICP
Associate Planner
Community and Economic Development Department
Planning Division
2-1227
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
www.carlsbadca.gov
760-602-4645| 760-602-8559 fax | corey.funk@carlsbadca.gov
Facebook | Twitter | You Tube | Flickr | Pinterest | Enews
From: Madeleine Szabo [mailto:mbszabo@snet.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 2:36 PM
To: Don Neu
Cc: Corey Funk
Subject: Fw: Request and Two Questions
Dear Don,
I understand that Jennifer Jesser is out of the office on vacation for two
weeks. Corey Funk was kind enough to respond to my request for the latest
copy of the revised General Plan (the one on the Carlsbad website is from
February 2014), which will be discussed on November 5th. He left me a voice
message saying to wait until it is published in the Staff Report the
Friday before the public hearing, October 31st. This does
not give us enough time to review the mammoth document
before the public hearing.
On behalf of The Friends of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor and other neighborhood
organizations, I am requesting that the most current draft of the revised General Plan be
made available immediately. Concerned citizens will then have time to thoroughly
review the document now, ask questions of the staff, and check if any inconsistencies or
concerns were corrected in the Staff Report to be published on October 31st.
Also, in Ms. Jesser's absence, please respond to the other two questions I inquired in
my below email to her.
Thank you for your support.
2-1228
Kind regards,
Madeleine Szabo
bcc: Friends of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor
Preserve Calavera
Friends of Sunny Creek
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Madeleine Szabo <mbszabo@snet.net>
To: "jennifer.jesser@carlsbadca.gov" <jennifer.jesser@carlsbadca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 9:07 AM
Subject: Request and Two Questions
Dear Jennifer,
On behalf of neighboring HOAs and the Friends of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor, I am
requesting a copy of the draft of the revised General Plan that will be discussed at the
November 5th public hearing. Can I access it on the DMS system? If so, where?
I also heard that you count beaches as Open Space? If this is true, then should not
you increase the percentage of Open Space required for the City of Carlsbad since
beaches were not included in the 40% goal per the first General Plan?
How does one change an ordinance? (for example, the ordinance for not counting
Professional Care Facility residents).
Thank you for your support.
Regards,
Madeleine Szabo
2-1229
From: Jim & Antje Hjerpe <jahjerpe@sbcglobal.net>
Date: October 13, 2014 at 9:25:38 AM PDT
To: "don.neu@carlsbadca.gov" <don.neu@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: 17 acre Parcel at the corner of El Camino Real and College Blvd.
Reply-To: Jim & Antje Hjerpe <jahjerpe@sbcglobal.net>
October 13, 2014
Planning Department of Carlsbad,
We decided to retire in Southern California 11 years ago and felt very fortunate finding a new development
with homes being slated along a creek backing up to open land and horse ranches.
Coming from a “green” area relocating to an area with only cacti and palm trees didn’t quite appeal to us, and
finding “The Terraces at Sunny Creek” seemed the perfect solution at the time. Since the nearest grocery store
in any direction is on the average 9 miles away, we were pleased to learn that the adjacent open space of land
was slated to have a small shopping center.
Two years later the developer “Four Square” purchased the property and presented our HOA with a nicely laid
out plan of a small shopping center similar to the one currently in South Carlsbad on El Camino and La Costa
Ave. It was to be the perfect addition, which unfortunately never happened.
The property was sold to Walmart for a reason we can only imagine, but thankfully a super store never
materialized.
Now that Four Square owns the small parcel again, they are proposing a zone change and the plan to our
understanding, is to build high density commercial and adding high density apartments to the mix.
Our question is why more housing? A large Senior community is planned for the property behind the parcel,
homes are being built near the El Camino across the street from the approximately 17 acres of open space and
it seems there is plenty of housing being crammed into a tiny section of north Carlsbad. We can’t allow a
developer who doesn’t even reside here, to change the original Plan and rezone it to make a larger profit.
Even though Robertson’s Ranch is a much larger development, it doesn’t seem right they get permission for a
shopping center and we don’t even though promised many years ago.
Also, there will be enough housing on their property so it seems that this parcel doesn’t need to accommodate
for more.
Our concerns are:
1. The current traffic on El Camino has significantly increased over the past few years and it is impossible
to get anywhere in less than ½ hour to do any grocery shopping, pharmaceutical, gas or bank included. The
more housing we add, the worse this will become, and it will worsen considerably once the Robert's Ranch is
completed and add additional congestion.
As it stands, once College Ave is open, the traffic will be even worse for our development and for the Sunny
Creek apartments
2. I don’t recall the exact number of tentative Senior condos/ homes on the acreage behind the 17 acre lot,
but seem to recall that it was quite high. Where will those Seniors shop, go out for a cup of coffee or a meal in
a nice setting and walking distance? Driving 9 miles north or south impacting the traffic even further?
3. I am sure there are many more arguments against such a high density rezoning in an area already maxed
out with housing, both affordable and regular, and I hope that the City leadership will consider the results, as
not to change the zoning to residential. We would appreciate a small shopping center as promised.
Thank you for your attention and consideration
Jim&Antje Hjerpe
5482 Wolverine Terrace
Carlsbad, Ca. 92010
jahjerpe@sbcglobal.net
760-931-5971
2-1230
From: Dona Wilcox <dewilcox99@yahoo.com>
Date: October 12, 2014 at 10:25:27 PM PDT
To: "don.neu@carlsbadca.gov" <don.neu@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: High Density Housing
Reply-To: Dona Wilcox <dewilcox99@yahoo.com>
Re: Corner of El Camino Real and College
PLEASE lower the density to Low for houses or, at the very least, Medium with townhomes, not apartments.
We've worked hard to enjoy the quality of life that our neighborhood offers. 230 apartments would infringe
upon that greatly. Aside from the obvious, that being noise, our property values, and even more traffic, there is
also the issue of safety. During the wildfires earlier this year I was on my way home when some areas began
evacuating. My neighborhood was not under an evacuation order, yet it was extremely difficult for me to get
home. The last block of my trip home (on El Camino Real from Faraday to College) took 23 min. I walk this
block regularly in just under 10 min. Had we been ordered to evacuate AND 230 apartments along with the
houses that are currently being built across the street on El Camino Real, well...in an urgent situation, many
would be trapped.
It's disappointing that we will not be getting the shopping center we expected...please lower the density and do
not devalue us further by adding 230 apartments. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, Dona Wilcox 5583 Foxtail Loop 92010
2-1231
From: Lora Zaroff <lorazaroff@hotmail.com>
Date: October 13, 2014 at 4:13:04 PM PDT
To: "don.neu@carlsbadca.gov" <don.neu@carlsbadca.gov>, "council@carlsbadca.gov"
<council@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Lot 11
Dear Mr. Neu, Mayor Hall and the City Council of Carlsbad,
As a long time Carlsbad resident, I am opposed to rezoning Lot 11 to high denisty housing on
much of the 17 acres currently available. High density housing on that lot will increase the
traffic in an area that is already very congested. Even with the creation of the new road, the
amount of development already approved along that corridor will drastically increase noise and
traffic. By adding high density housing, the area will become unbearable during peak
commuting hours. In addition, apartments generally have more people coming and going, which
will only add to the congestion and lower property values to the homes nearby (all the
homeowners nearby bought their homes with the constant promise of a local shopping center, not
a Walmart or high density apartments).
I ask that you reconsider and at least lower it to half low density houses and half medium density
townhomes. Putting up shopping, in addition to the high-density housing is overcrowding the
space and it will become an eyesore quickly.
I was hoping that the new Mayor and City Council would continue Bud Lewis' legacy and keep
Carlsbad desirable with more open space, but if you plan to put high denisty housing and a
shopping plaza in Lot 11, plus Dos Colinas, Holly Springs, Cantarini Ranch, and Encinas Apts.,
you are just going to create overcrowding and make this a less desirable area asthetically and
logistically.
Signed a very disappointed angry resident,
Lora Zaroff
Terraces at Sunny Creek
5430 Foxtail Loop
Carlsbad, CA 92010
2-1232
From: Najoo Panthaky <panthan1@yahoo.com>
Date: October 13, 2014 at 6:27:24 PM PDT
To: "don.neu@carlsbadca.gov" <don.neu@carlsbadca.gov>, "council@carlsbadca.gov"
<council@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: LOT 11
Reply-To: Najoo Panthaky <panthan1@yahoo.com>
Dear Mr. Neu, Mayor Hall, and the City Council of Carlsbad,
My husband and I own a property located at 5528 Foxtail Loop (Terraces at Sunny Creek),
Carlsbad. We oppose the rezoning of Lot 11 to high density housing on most of the 17 acres
currently available. High density housing, as proposed, will increase the traffic in an area that is
already very congested during peak hours. Even with an additional lane, the amount of
development already approved along that area, will increase noise and traffic. By adding high
density housing, the area will become unbearable during peak office hours. Also, apartments
tend to create more traffic, and this congestion will have a negative impact on the property value
of home owners of Terraces at Sunny Creek. We bought our property with an understanding that
there will be a local shopping center (not Walmart or high density apartments) on this vacant lot.
We respectfully ask that you reconsider it to develop half area for medium density townhomes
and half area for shopping area.
We hope the council will not disappoint the residents of Terraces at Sunny Creek, and would
follow Bud Lewis' legacy and keep Carlsbad desirable with more open space and not turn this
area into an eyesore.
Sincerely,
Najoo and Rohinton Panthaky
2-1233
From: jose feliciano [mailto:manuletf@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 10:02 PM
To: Don Neu
Subject: Terraces of Sunnycreek
Carlsbad City Planner
Dear Sir/Madame,
I am a resident of Terraces of Sunnycreek which is a neighborhood located along the
corner of El Camino Real and College Blvd. I am concerned of the news that plans for
the vacant lot adjacent to my community has been changed multiple times and it is now
planned for high density housing. My biggest concern is the impact this will make on
increasing traffic, noise and decreasing the value of the properties in my community.
You and your department has been given the goals to improve and maintain the
integrity of the communities in your jurisdiction. I strongly oppose to high density
housing that is planned to be built on the vacant lot on the corner of El Camino
Real and College Blvd. Please use your best judgement regarding this matter as this
will affect hundreds of families.
Thank you for your concern,
Jose M. Feliciano III
Carlsbad Resident
2-1234
2-1235
2-1236
2-1237
From: Jacqueline Gunther [mailto:jacquelinegunther@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 1:50 PM
To: Don Neu
Subject: Sunny Creek Development
Hi,
I am a homeowner in the Terraces at Sunny Creek. I am out of town and not available to attend
the meeting on Nov. 5th but I wanted to submit in writing, my concerns on the plans to add 230
new high density apartments to our community. We were promised a shopping center when we
purchased our home and this affected the value of the property positively. Adding High Density
housing to the area when we already have a low income, high density community there in
addition to the apartments in our gated community is unfair to the us homeowners, and to other
middle income persons in that it overdevelops low income housing all in one area. A
development that is mid density would diversify the options available in our community and
create a nice blended feel rather than over pack our area with almost all high density housing,
high traffic, and without a responsible balance probably lead to higher crime and lower home
values. All these negative impacts would spread out around the surrounding areas, including the
new school, not just the Terraces.
Please develop our area responsibly, and think of the city, it's residents at all income levels
and the community in giving us low or mid density housing in the area.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline Gunther
5548 Foxtail Loop
2-1238
From: Alan Young <ayoung88@yahoo.com>
Date: October 22, 2014 at 6:12:27 PM PDT
To: "don.neu@carlsbadca.gov" <don.neu@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Empty lot next to Sunny creek housing area
Reply-To: Alan Young <ayoung88@yahoo.com>
Hi,
I am currently an resident and an owner in Sunny Creek development. I understand that Carlsbad city
is prepared to put 10 acres of high density housing in the empty lot next to our development. I write
to put in my objection to this plan. I do not want some high density housing to be developed in that
empty lot. It will drive our property value down which just development. I would prefer mid density
housing development like townhomes or better yet low density housing development. Definitely no
apartments.
Thanks,
Alan Young
5410 Foxtail Loop, carlsbad, CA 92010
2-1239
From: Anna Hofmeister [mailto:cacthof4@att.net]
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 5:55 PM
To: Don Neu
Subject: Empty Lot El Camino/College
Don-
It has come to our attention that high density housing is set to be placed on the corner of El
Camino Real and College. This is the worst case scenario for the residents that live in Terraces at
Sunny Creek, which we do. We were promised when we bought our house 9 years ago that a
shopping center was going to be placed in the vacant lot. The value of our home will drop
horribly if apartments are placed in that lot. We already have apartments on Sunny Creek which
generate enough traffic, noise, and trash in the neighborhood. Our community is gated and has a
very safe feel but if more apartments are built our concern is that the safe feel will be lost.
Our first choice for the lot would be for a shopping center to be built just like we were
promised so many years ago. Our second choice would be single family residences. The more
owners we have living in the area the more pride will be established in the neighborhood. Please
do not allow apartments to be built in the lot. It is a huge concern of ours and I assume would be
yours as well if you lived here.
Thank you for your time,
Curtis and Anna Hofmeister
2-1240
From: Brian Ramseier <brian@pakwest.com>
Date: October 22, 2014 at 2:19:21 PM PDT
To: "don.neu@carlsbadca.gov" <don.neu@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: Low Density Apartments of El camino and College
Don,
We moved into our home in Sunny Creek 11 years ago. We were told we would have a grocery
store and shopping center put in right after we bought. The land has been abandoned and now
the are talking about low income apartments being put in. We already have that and do not heed
anymore. I truly hope that Carlsbad will live up to their high standards and do what was
originally zoned for and do not put anymore low income low density Apartment housing
in. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Brian Ramseier
Packaging Consultant
Pak West Paper & Packaging
Pacific Flexible Solutions
4042 West Garry Avenue
Santa Ana, CA 92704
Mobile: 760 250-4480
Email: brian@pakwest.com
2-1241
From: Connie Bunnell [mailto:vasbun@att.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 3:16 PM
To: Corey Funk
Subject: Proposed zoning 925 buena place Carlsbad
Hello Mr. Funk,
Thank you for your timely response after the phone conversation with Connie. Unfortunately it was not
the news we were hoping to hear.
Consider this letter our formal objection to the proposed re-zoning of our property at 925 Buena Pl.
From its current R-3 to R-1. We purchased this R-3 property with the intent to expand it in the future.
That is still our plan. The value of this property is based in no small part on it's multi-unit potential. Our
city's (desire to clean up some lines on a map is costing my family stuff and money)
Connie
2-1242
From: Charvel, Delia [mailto:delia.charvel@nordsonasymtek.com]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 12:24 PM
To: Don Neu
Cc: 'djcharvel@gmail.com'; GC
Subject: Concern on building - Corner of College Blvd and Camino Real
Hello Mr. Neu,
I am writing to express my concern regarding the plan to build high density apartments in the empty lot
on the corner of college blvd and camino real.
As a resident of the Sunny Creek community, we had been told something else would be built in that
empty lot which was one of the factors in making our decision to buy.
I hope you take our concern into account and do not approve the build of the high density apartments.
Thanks
Delia and Gerardo Charvel
Residents of Sunny Creek Comunity
2-1243
From: Ginger Dill <gingail@aol.com>
Date: October 26, 2014 at 7:23:06 AM PDT
To: don.neu@carlsbadca.gov
Subject: Planned housing at El Camino Real & College Blvd
Mr. Neu-
We are homeowners in the Terraces at Sunny Creek development. We understand that the
current proposed use for the empty lot on the corner of El Camino Real and College is slated for
"high density" housing. We would like to voice our opinion that we are against high density
housing in this space. This will drop our property values, make our community less desirable to
potential home buyers and increase traffic in this area. We understand this land needs to be
developed, however we would prefer to see this land developed as "low-density" housing or
possibly "mid-density" with more retail space made.
Thank you for your time and service.
Sincerely,
Ginger & Eric Dill
2416 Badger Lane
2-1244
From: Hemanshu Tyagi <heman4iphone@gmail.com>
Date: October 19, 2014 at 1:01:50 PM PDT
To: don.neu@carlsbadca.gov
Subject: El Camino Real/College Blvd land concern
Hi
We are a new house owner in Carlsbad - Terraces at Sunny Creek . We picked Carlsbad because
of the beautiful and open surroundings. We have heard that the city plans to build high
density/low income apartments next to the open land on El Camino Real/College Blvd.
According to the information there are close to 230 units of apartments planned. The traffic on El
Camino Real is already a concern. Adding all these apartments will :
1. Worsen the El Camino Real Traffic
2. Make our neighborhood extremely crowded
We as residents of Carlsbad disapprove of the plan . Please consider building an park
where kids can go enjoy some productive time with their families. In the worst case the
number of high density apartments should not be this high . Condo or town homes will
be a better alternative
Thanks for your time
2-1245
From: Janann Taylor [mailto:jananntaylor@me.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2014 3:28 PM
To: Don Neu
Cc: Cannon Janell; Debbie Fountain; Michele Masterson
Subject: Before and after photos for our Community Place and Spirit
Dear Mr. Neu and Planning Commissioners:
Thank you for the service that you offer the residents of Carlsbad, of ages and backgrounds, as
you purposefully study and analyze what is the best for the quality of life and functionality of
design for the City. As you evaluate Land Use in the General Plan Update, please support the
zoning the City-owned Lands in Olde Carlsbad for Open Space so that these lands will be
safeguarded for civic use, not residential, commercial or office space. Specifically, the Cole
Agricultural Land which extends from the Cole Library eastward; the Carey Estate property
which is on Elmwood and Laguna where the Cultural Arts Office, Sculpture Garden, and
Community Garden are located now; and the Buena Vista Reservoir site. There is another
property next to Fire Station #1 that is also owned by the City of Carlsbad. The Open Space
designation includes five elements which are defined here from City documents:
Land Use Element
1. Open Space for Preservation of Natural Resources
2. Open Space for Managed Production of Resources
3. Open Space for Outdoor Recreation
4. Open Space for Aesthetic, Cultural and
Educational Purposes
5. Open Space for Public Health and Safety.
Using the Cole Agricultural Land for expanded library, cultural arts, education and a beautifully
landscaped space for people to feel connected to place and community would be a wonderful
focal point for the City of Carlsbad. I believe that organizations and the citizens could partner
with the City to create a unique and world renown site that will benefit the economic resources
of the city. Revitalizing our community to utilize the historic base of Carlsbad and connect to
the Village/Barrio area is prudent as Carlsbad builds its future. Recent studies of city
development demonstrate that having quality public spaces make cities work to the advantage of
all- they promote healthy lifestyles, walkability, social connectedness and sustainability.
Below are some artistic renderings of workable possibilities that can help you to envision the use
of these properties. The City has talented Staff that could work with citizens to plan and partner
to use these lands for the highest and best use. First we must designate the land for public use-
as the General Plan will be our roadmap for the next decades. Let’s safeguard these lands now
so that they will be available for following generations.
Janell Cannon walked the streets of Olde Carlsbad from Park Drive to Buena Vista and ended up
at the Cole Library. These possibilities are from her imagination. As she is out of town for this
Planning Commission meeting, November 5, I respectfully submit them for your consideration.
2-1246
Janell wrote-The drawings are not that epic—they were quick superimposed sketches that were
supposed to make the original photo magically fade into an ideal vision.
This is the Buena Vista Reservoir park—
Before
After
2-1247
The little pocket park by the arts office—
Before
After
2-1248
The garden next to the library
Before
After
2-1249
—J
Janann Taylor
1351 Pine Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
760.213.5318
The life given us by nature is short, but the memory of a life well spent is
eternal.
-Cicero
2-1250
From: Jayce Fitch [mailto:jayce.fitch@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 6:09 AM
To: Don Neu
Subject: Low Density Housing
Hi Don,
I'm a homeowner in The Terraces of Sunny Creek in Carslbad. I understand the empty lot next door to
us has stirred up some controversy. I intended on attending the Planning meeting last night, November
5th, but I did not know where the meeting was being held and the address was not posted on our gate
like I thought it was going to be.
I would like to make it clear that I, along with all of the other residents in our community, would like the
lot to be developed in a Low Density Capacity.
Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to help my voice be heard and prevent this lot being
developed as high density.
Thank you,
Jayce Fitch
2-1251
From: Jim & Kay Hawkins [mailto:jimandkayca@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 4:45 PM
To: Don Neu
Subject: The lot next to Sunny Creek
My name is James Hawkins and I live in the Sunny Creek development. We have been asked to
email you if we oppose the high-density development next door. I oppose the development
because I know it would result in much more noise, traffic, and pollution.
2-1252
From: Jo Ann Sweeney [mailto:j.ocean92008@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 9:18 AM
To: Council Internet Email
Subject: Open Space, Planned and Balanced Growth!!
October 20, 2014
Carlsbad Mayor Matt Hall
City Councilmen- Matt Packard, Keith Blackburn. Lorraine Woods, and Michael Schumacher
I am a seventeen year resident of Carlsbad, Ca. I implore you all…. do not increase the zoning density of
Sunny Creek Plaza to high density. There is already traffic grid lock on El Camino Real and College Blvd.
Increasing this area to high density will only further impact road grid lock, cause grave environmental
concerns with increased noise and air pollution, and additional road issues. I am gravely concerned
about adequate resources such as water, police and fire capability with increased density to this area of
Carlsbad. Some of the existing rural flavor of Carlsbad, as now evident along El Camino Real, can still be
maintained with a continual plan for balanced and conscientious growth. Since Carlsbad is almost built-
out, it is imperative to continue with the original plan for BALANCE AND PLANNED GROWTH WITH OPEN
SPACES/PARKS. Please listen to the voice of the residents of Carlsbad.
For the same reasons listed above, I request you to maintain the current Rancho Carlsbad Golf Course as
open space. I am a proponent of balanced, planned growth with paramount consideration to ensuring
adequate resources to support the balanced, planned growth. There needs to be consideration for both
the citizens of the area and the environment. Open Space was one of Bud Lewis’ top priorities. A
memorial to his name and memory would be to continue his vision for Carlsbad.
Additionally, I also implore you… do not sell the land of Buena Vista Reservoir to developers.. The
downtown village area needs this area as a park/open space…not additional houses. What a fitting
memorial to Bud Lewis, former mayor and outstanding citizen/leader/resident of Carlsbad if the Buena
Vista Reservoir Park would be called the Bud Lewis Memorial Park? Again continue the original planned
growth agenda for Carlsbad and continue with the vision for open space.
Sincerely.
JoAnn Sweeney
5342 Forecastle Court
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Phone # (760) 438-1176
2-1253
From: Joy <joy@adicio.com>
Date: November 9, 2014 at 12:37:35 PM PST
To: <van.lynch@carlsbadca.gov>, <don.neu@carlsbadca.gov>, <velynA@msn.com>, <hap@haplaw.us>,
<martymontgomery@gmail.com>, <vscul@roadrunner.com>, <jeffsegall@roadrunner.com>,
<siekmann1@att.net>
Subject: Sunny Creek Development Proposal - What is the benefit to residents?
We are just starting to see a recovery in property values, this will significantly lower the value of our
homes.
Please consider the following alternative: the project site be rezoned for low-medium residential uses
including a park that is needed for the surrounding communities. High-end single-family homes with
a well-architected park would provide the property owner with a reasonable return on his
investment, and would meet the City’s goal of maintaining architectural and visual consistency with
existing adjacent properties.
Joy, Mike, Keiko, Takehisa Hanawa
5573 Coyote Court
Carlsbad, CA 92010
760-666-2864
Donald Pesce
5244 Don Miguel Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92010
760-438-4323
SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT SUBMITTED BY THE DEVELOPER:
Residential: 141 Townhomes
Retail: Five (5) buildings (3 restaurants, 1 grocery store, 1 large store or strip of smaller stores in one
building)
Parking: 749 parking spaces
As neighbors in the area of Sunny Creek, our number one mission is to preserve the scenic beauty of El
Camino Real hillsides and preserve our tranquil and high quality of life in this area. We want to implore
the planning staff to scale down the development, scale down the zoning, in order to maintain the
scenic beauty and curtail the increased traffic, congestion, pollution, noise, and disruptions to
neighboring residents.
The main issue of concern about this developer's submittal is density (their submittal even exceeds the
high-density inclusion in the Revised General Plan). The City should suppress density, protect existing
zoning standards, scale down zoning, and most importantly protect the housing values of existing
homeowners and existing developers.
2-1254
We can take advantage of the City's general policy to share suggestions/recommendations from
surrounding neighbors and/or other residents with developers for their consideration and knowledge of
the community concerns. The city also gives consideration to these suggestions/recommendations in its
review of development applications. It is critical that we speak up now and be involved in this process.
Issues of the neighbors in the vicinity of Sunny Creek:
Building three restaurants does not comply with providing the City's policy of “neighborhood-serving
stores” nor are they needed due to the disruptions to the peace and tranquility of this area:
1. Restaurants are mostly frequented by those outside of the neighborhood bringing in excess outside
traffic,
2. There are already an abundance of restaurant choices and grocery stores nearby:
a. 1 mile to The Islands at Faraday and Van Allen Way
b. 1 mile to the new East Village at Robertson Ranch
c. 2 miles down to Lowes Plaza
d. 3 miles to Bressi Ranch
e. 3 miles to Vons/Rite Aid on Tamarack
e. 3.5 miles to Westfield Camino Real Mall
f. 3.5 miles to College Blvd. near Walmart
Per City Policy: objectives are established to guard against "creating undue overlaps in trade areas,
while providing desirable diversity without overcommercialization, consistent with the prime concept
and image of the community as a desirable residential, open space community". (SHOPPING CENTER
POLICIES GPA 00-04 and the SHOPPING CENTER REDESIGNATIONS GPA 01-06)
IMPORTANT SUMMARY POINTS:
The need does not exist for additional shopping centers, especially not at the expense of negatively
impacting the "scenic corridor'' and the residential environment.
The City of Carlsbad should not eliminate one of the last minimally congested areas to live in beautiful
Carlsbad.
The guidelines set forth by the aforementioned the Carlsbad Shopping Center policies clearly state that
more shopping centers along the El Camino Real NW and NE quadrant "conflict with adjoining
residential areas" because of many factors including "Controlling lights, signage, and hours of operation
.....that will "adversely impact surrounding uses" (Resolution No. 200146 of the General Plan).
The proposal would result in:
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:.
2-1255
The surrounding area of the proposed shopping center will be impacted by seismic ground shaking from
new building projects. The habitat of the surrounding area will also be negatively impacted by
excavation and changes in topography, specifically by large amounts of blacktop and concrete.
WATER PROBLEMS:
Due to the many creeks in the surrounding area, due to grease runoff from proposed restaurants and
grocery stores, due to disruption of water flow, the shopping centers would result in: a) Changes in
absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards,
c) Changes in the quality and quantity of ground waters.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION PROBLEMS.
The proposed Sunny Creek shopping center will result in increased vehicle trips, increase of cars
entering and leaving the Plaza, traffic congestion, idling cars waiting at lights and waiting to park,
resulting in impact on air quality and on noise.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Displacement of the local wildlife that currently exists on the open lands.
NOISE: increases in existing noise levels; Exposure of people to severe noise levels.
DRAIN ON CITY SERVICES: lncreased need for police surveillance, for road maintenance, and for fire
protection.
INCREASED NEED for utilities, power or natural gas, communications systems, local or regional water
treatment or distribution facilities, sewer or septic tanks, storm water drainage, solid waste disposal,
local water supplies.
NEGATIVE IMPACT ON AESTHETICS: the scenic corridor of natural scenic vistas will be gone and
replaced with concrete, macadam, and rooftops. The proposed project creates light and glare that does
not exist now.
Northeast Carlsbad is over-saturated with commercial uses and dense residential housing. Placing a
neighborhood retail center on the Sunny Creek open space serves no land planning purpose. There are
ample shopping choices within proximity of three miles or five minutes travelling time (especially with
the planned East Village at Robertson Ranch).
As an alternative, we propose that the project site be rezoned for low-medium residential uses including
a park that is needed for the surrounding communities. High-end single-family homes with a well-
architected park would provide the property owner with a reasonable return on his investment, and
would meet the City’s goal of maintaining architectural and visual consistency with existing adjacent
properties.
Parking lot noise - characterized by car door slams, car alarms, vehicle start-ups and tire squealing - can
be especially annoying, as it tends to be high-intensity noise which punctuates the ambient sound
environment. One must also keep in mind that the stores/restaurants at Sunny Creek will keep very late
hours, not closing until 10 or 11 o’clock in the evening. Some stores may even stay open 24 hours a day.
Noise in the evening, particularly after 10 p.m., is especially disturbing to residents. It interrupts
conversations; it disrupts quiet interior activities, such as watching television; and it makes sleep
2-1256
difficult. It is unclear how (or whether) these intrusive noise impacts can be mitigated to acceptable
levels.
Noise from delivery trucks is another serious concern. Retail deliveries, especially those for grocery
stores, often occur late at night or very early in the morning, well prior to the opening of the business
day. Such deliveries are made with semi-tractor trailers and other large vehicles, which generate
significant amounts of noise (e.g., noise from diesel engines, noise from “back up” beepers, and noise
from roll-up bay doors). The disruptive, high-intensity nature of this noise, combined with the inevitable
increase of noise on El Camino Real from at least 2,000 additional cars traveling on ECR at build-out, plus
the very late or very early hour at which it is emitted, will operate to wake residents in the surrounding
area from their sleep and create general annoyance.
Finally, there are the stationary noise sources internal to the commercial project. These consist primarily
of refrigeration and exhaust systems installed on the roofs of the commercial buildings. Not only is this
equipment noisy, it operates continuously (albeit on cycles) throughout the day and night. As with the
truck deliveries and late night parking lot noise, the loud whirring from these mechanical systems will
create noise just when everything else has quieted down and people are trying to sleep.
Light and glare from the project is a tremendous concern: namely in the form of car headlights, store
lights and signs, and parking lot light standards. These will significantly affect those homes nearest the
proposed commercial center. As with the project’s noise impacts, these light and glare impacts are most
disruptive during the nighttime hours, when residents quiet their own interior lights and prepare for
bed. It is doubtful that Sunny Creek Plaza can soften the light and glare impacts sufficiently to mitigate
these impacts to Sunny Creek residents.
Given the overwhelming number of shopping options and housing units within a 3-mile radius of Sunny
Creek, and given the weak demand for this project from neighboring residents due to the potential
traffic, noise, and lighting impacts - both direct and cumulative, increased housing and commercial land
use on the open Sunny Creek land can hardly be justified.
For the numerous reasons stated above, the City of Carlsbad should abide by "the original staff
recommendation {that} contained a policy that would have prohibited new sites for local shopping
centers from being located along El Camino Real...{in order} to preserve the scenic quality of this
designated scenic corridor." (Policy C.2.6, page 32 of Exhibit '1.11").
2-1257
From: Patricia Parsons [mailto:pat@parsons.org]
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2014 10:23 AM
To: Van Lynch
Cc: Don Neu
Subject: CONCERNED RESIDENTS
Mr. Lynch,
We would like to share our concern regarding the Sunny Creek preliminary proposal from the
developer of Sunny Creek, the 17-acre open lot on El Camino across from the new
26-home development going up at the end of Camino Hills. This email is to express our
objections to any possible General Plan amendments to high-density housing which would bring
increased congestion, noise, traffic pollution, and a drain on City services.
Let’s keep Carlsbad a tranquil residential community .
Regards,
Pat & Terry Parsons
5333 Forecastle Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
It is critical that as many people as possible email him with objections to possible
General Plan amendments and high-density housing which will bring increased
congestion, noise, traffic, pollution, drain on City services, etc. to a tranquil residential
community.
Begin forwarded message:
Date: November 19, 2014 at 11:05:01 AM PST
From: Madeleine Szabo <mbszabo@snet.net>
Reply-To: Madeleine Szabo <mbszabo@snet.net>
Subject: Fw: ALERT
To: Alex Szabo <alex@topsailgroup.com>
This morning, I spoke to Van Lynch, the City Planner, about the Sunny Creek
preliminary proposal from the developer of Sunny Creek (again, it's the 17-acre open lot
on El Camino across from the new 26-home development going up at the end of
Camino Hills).
Van has submitted to his management a draft of the review which essentially is telling
the developer to apply for an "amendment to the General Plan" since the density is
higher. He also told me that the developer has to consult the neighbors about their
proposal. Additionally, in support of the developer, Van said that the City must build
more housing; therefore, this is a likely area to put it.
2-1258
It is critical that as many people as possible email him with objections to possible
General Plan amendments and high-density housing which will bring increased
congestion, noise, traffic, pollution, drain on City services, etc. to a tranquil residential
community.
If City Planning thinks we, the residents in this area, don't care and are apathetic, they
will continue to meet Carlsbad's perceived "housing requirements" right here in our
"backyard".
Van said he received only three emails. Please write to him asap and copy the
Planning Director: van.lynch@carlsbadca.gov don.neu@carlsbadca.gov
Please also request that the developer contact us for neighborhood input.
Thanks,
Madeleine
bcc: Friends of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor
Friends of Sunny Creek
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Madeleine Szabo <mbszabo@snet.net>
To: Madeleine Szabo <mbszabo@snet.net>
Sent: Sunday, November 9, 2014 11:09 AM
Subject: Fw: ALERT
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Madeleine Szabo <mbszabo@snet.net>
To: Alex Szabo <alex@topsailgroup.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 9, 2014 8:38 AM
Subject: ALERT
The developer submitted his plan for Sunny Creek Plaza on October 22nd (see
attached). The City Staff has to respond within 30 days. We must act now. Unlike the
other developments in this area (like Robertson Ranch and Encinas Creek Apartments)
which are already finalized, we have a good chance of influencing the fate of the Sunny
Creek open space. I know the below is lengthy, but please read. Incorporate some or
all of the points in an email to City officials listed at the end of this report.
SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT SUBMITTED BY THE DEVELOPER:
Residential: 141 Townhomes
Retail: 60,000 sq. ft. of five (5) buildings: 3 restaurants, 1 grocery store, 1 large store or
strip of smaller stores.
Parking: 749 parking spaces
As neighbors in the area of Sunny Creek, our number one mission is to preserve the
scenic beauty of El Camino Real hillsides and preserve our tranquil and high quality of
life in this area. We want to implore the planning staff to scale down the
2-1259
development, scale down the zoning, in order to maintain the scenic beauty and
curtail the increased traffic, congestion, pollution, noise, and disruptions to neighboring
residents.
The issues of concern about this developer's submittal include comments on density
(their submittal even exceeds the high-density inclusion in the Revised General
Plan!). The City should suppress density, protect existing zoning standards, scale
down zoning, and most importantly protect the housing values of existing homeowners
and existing developers.
It is the general policy of the city to share suggestions/recommendations from
surrounding neighbors and/or other residents with developers for their consideration
and knowledge of the community concerns. The city also gives consideration to these
suggestions/recommendations in its review of development applications. We must
speak up and be involved in this process!
Issues of the neighbors in the vicinity of Sunny Creek:
Building three restaurants does not comply with providing “neighborhood-serving stores”
(as per City policy) nor are they needed:
1. Restaurants are mostly frequented by those outside of the neighborhood,
2. There are already an abundance of restaurant choices and grocery stores nearby:
a. 1 mile to The Islands at Faraday and Van Allen Way
b. 1 mile to the new East Village at Robertson Ranch
c. 2 miles down to Lowes Plaza
d. 3 miles to Bressi Ranch
e. 3 miles to Vons/Rite Aid on Tamarack
e. 3.5 miles to Westfield Camino Real Mall
f. 3.5 miles to College Blvd. near Walmart
Per City Policy: objectives are established to guard against "creating undue overlaps
in trade areas, while providing desirable diversity without
overcommercialization, consistent with the prime concept and image of the
community as a desirable residential, open space community". (SHOPPING
CENTER POLICIES GPA 00-04 and the SHOPPING CENTER REDESIGNATIONS
GPA 01-06)
IMPORTANT SUMMARY POINTS:
1. The need does not exist for additional shopping centers, especially not at
the expense of negatively impacting the "scenic corridor'' and the residential
environment.
2. The City of Carlsbad should not eliminate one of the last minimally congested
areas to live in beautiful Carlsbad.
2-1260
3. The guidelines set forth by the aforementioned Shopping Center policies, clearly
state that more shopping centers along the El Camino Real NW and NE quadrant
"conflict with adjoining residential areas" because of many factors including
"Controlling lights, signage, and hours of operation .....that will "adversely impact
surrounding uses" (Resolution No. 200146 of the General Plan).
The proposal would result in:
1. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:.
The surrounding area of the proposed shopping center will be impacted
by seismic ground shaking from new building projects. The habitat of the
surrounding area will also be negatively impacted by excavation and changes in
topography, specifically by large amounts of blacktop and concrete.
2. WATER PROBLEMS:
Due to the many creeks in the surrounding area, due to grease runoff from
proposed restaurants and grocery stores, due to disruption of water flow,
the shopping centers would result in: a) Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards, c) Changes in the quality and quantity of ground waters.
3. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION PROBLEMS.
The proposed Sunny Creek shopping center will result in increased vehicle trips,
increase of cars entering and leaving the Plaza, traffic congestion, idling cars
waiting at lights and waiting to park, resulting in impact on air quality and on
noise.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Displacement of the local wildlife that currently
exists on the open lands.
5. NOISE: increases in existing noise levels; Exposure of people to severe noise
levels.
6. Drain on City Services: lncreased need for police surveillance, for road
maintenance, and for fire protection.
7. lncreased need for utilities, power or natural gas, communications systems, local
or regional water treatment or distribution facilities, sewer or septic tanks, storm
water drainage, solid waste disposal, local water supplies.
8. Negative impact on aesthetics: the scenic corridor of natural scenic vistas will be
gone and replaced with concrete, macadam, and rooftops. The proposed project
creates light and glare that does not exist now.
2-1261
Northeast Carlsbad is over-saturated with commercial uses and dense residential
housing. Placing a neighborhood retail center on the Sunny Creek open space serves
no land planning purpose. There are ample shopping choices within proximity of three
miles or five minutes travelling time (especially with the planned East Village at
Robertson Ranch). As an alternative, we would propose that the project site be
rezoned for low-medium residential uses including a park that is needed for the
surrounding communities. High-end single-family homes with a well-architected park
would provide the property owner with a reasonable return on his investment, and would
meet the City’s goal of maintaining architectural and visual consistency with existing
adjacent properties.
The proposed commercial project will almost certainly make traffic on ECR worse. The
road noise from the project’s additional cars will directly impact current residents at:
Sunny Creek
Tabata development under construction across the street
Camino Hills
Eagle Canyon
Evans Point
Rancho Carlsbad
Future Planned Developments at Cantarini Ranch and Holly Ranch
Noise from within the commercial center itself will add significant burden to current
residents.
Parking lot noise - characterized by car door slams, car alarms, vehicle start-ups and
tire squealing - can be especially annoying, as it tends to be high-intensity noise which
punctuates the ambient sound environment. One must also keep in mind that the
stores/restaurants at Sunny Creek will keep very late hours, not closing until 10 or 11
o’clock in the evening. Some stores may even stay open 24 hours a day. Noise in the
evening, particularly after 10 p.m., is especially disturbing to residents. It interrupts
conversations; it disrupts quiet interior activities, such as watching television; and it
makes sleep difficult. It is unclear how (or whether) these intrusive noise impacts can be
mitigated to acceptable levels.
Noise from delivery trucks is another serious concern. Retail deliveries, especially those
for grocery stores, often occur late at night or very early in the morning, well prior to the
opening of the business day. Such deliveries are made with semi-tractor trailers and
other large vehicles, which generate significant amounts of noise (e.g., noise from
diesel engines, noise from “back up” beepers, and noise from roll-up bay doors). The
disruptive, high-intensity nature of this noise, combined with the inevitable increase of
noise on El Camino Real from at least 2,000 additional cars traveling on ECR at build-
out, the very late or very early hour at which it is emitted, will operate to wake residents
in the surrounding area from their sleep and create general annoyance.
Finally, there are the stationary noise sources internal to the commercial project. These
consist primarily of refrigeration and exhaust systems installed on the roofs of the
commercial buildings. Not only is this equipment noisy, it operates continuously (albeit
2-1262
on cycles) throughout the day and night. As with the truck deliveries and late night
parking lot noise, the loud whirring from these mechanical systems will create noise just
when everything else has quieted down and people are trying to sleep.
Light and glare from the project is a tremendous concern: namely in the form of car
headlights, store lights and signs, and parking lot light standards. These will
significantly affect those homes nearest the proposed commercial center. As with the
project’s noise impacts, these light and glare impacts are most disruptive during the
nighttime hours, when residents quiet their own interior lights and prepare for bed. It is
doubtful that Sunny Creek Plaza can soften the light and glare impacts sufficiently to
mitigate these impacts to Sunny Creek residents.
Given the overwhelming number of shopping options and housing units within a 3-mile
radius of Sunny Creek, and given the weak demand for this project from neighboring
residents due to the potential traffic, noise, and lighting impacts - both direct and
cumulative, increased housing and commercial land use on the open Sunny Creek land
can hardly be justified.
For the numerous reasons stated above, the City of Carlsbad should abide by
"the original staff recommendation {that} contained a policy that would have
prohibited new sites for local shopping centers from being located along El Camino
Real.,..{in order) to preserve the scenic quality of this designated scenic corridor."
(Policy C.2.6, page 32 of Exhibit '1.11/").
NOTE TO CONCERNED RESIDENTS.....
PLEASE EMAIL A LETTER TO:
City Planner for Sunny Creek, Van Lynch, tel: 760-602-4641
Director of Planning, Don Neu
Planning Commissioner Velyn Anderson
Planning Commissioner Arthur Neil Black
Planning Commissioner Stephen “Hap” L’Heureux
Planning Commissioner Marty Montgomery
Planning Commissioner Victoria Scully
Planning Commission Jeff Segall
Planning Commissioner Kerry Siekmann
Madeleine
Attached: Proposed Sunny Creek Project
2-1263
2-1264
LAND/BLDG. RATIO: 4.47/1 (18.3) incorrectly stated;
Should be 5.47: 328,518/60,000
TOTAL Dwelling Units (DU): 141
Sunny Creek Zoning: currently zoned as Medium Density Residential; Commercial (4-8
dwelling units per acre).*
Revised General Plan wants to change zoning to Medium-High Density (RMH) (8-l 5 dwelling
units per acre).** This submitted project is High Density: 16.2 DU per acre.
PROJECT INFORMATION
LAND AREA
RETAIL 328,518 SF 7.64 AC
RESIDENTIAL 429,606 SF 9.86 AC
TOTAL 758,124 SF 17.40 AC
RETAIL:
LAND AREA: 328,518 SF 7.54 AC
TOTAL BLDG. AREA: 60,000 SF
RETAIL: 20,000 SF
MARKET: 20,000 SF
RESTAURANTS (3): 20,000 SF
LAND/BLDG. RATIO: 4.47/1 (18.3)
PARKING PROVIDED: 431 STALLS
PARKING REQUIRED: 400 STALLS
PARKING RATIO: 7.2/1000 SF
RESIDENTIAL
AREA 9.86 AC
AREA (NET) 8.68 AC
BASIN/SLOPE 0.94 AC
REC CENTER 0.24 AC
2-STORY TOWNHOMES: 71
3-STORY TOWNHOMES: 70
TOTAL TOWNHOMES: 141
DENSITY (NET): 16.2 DU/AC
DU=DWELLING
UNIT
PARKING PROVIDED: 318 SPACES
GARAGE 282 SPACES
GUEST 36 SPACES
TTTTTTTTTTTT TOTAL PARKING SPACES: 749 SPACES
2-1265
Project Proposal is in violation of the Current General Plan and the Revised General Plan.
Revised General Plan on Sunny Creek Plaza: “Foster development of this site as a mixed-use
neighborhood center, with a local shopping center along El Camino Real that provides amenities
for the surrounding neighborhoods, which include residential uses at a density of 8 to 15
dwelling units per acre to the north and west of the shopping center. Residential and commercial
uses should be integrated in a walkable setting.”
Form of Comparison: The new approved Encinas Creek Apartment Homes planned for behind
this Sunny Creek project is 5 apartment buildings, totaling 127 units on about 44 acres (this
proposed project is 141 units on 17 acres plus 5 commercial buildings).
Sources:
*Current Zoning: Envision Carlsbad, Land Use Concepts
http://www.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=23336
**Revised General Plan: http://www.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=26337
Revised General Plan about Sunny Creek Plaza: “Foster development of this site as a mixed-
use neighborhood center, with a local shopping center along El Camino Real that provides
amenities for the surrounding neighborhoods, which include residential uses at a density of 8 to
15 dwelling units per acre to the north and west of the shopping center. Residential and
commercial uses should be integrated in a walkable setting.”
2-1266
From: Madeleine Szabo [mailto:mbszabo@snet.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 5:29 AM
To: Velyn Anderson; Neil Black; Hap L’Heureux; martymontgomery@gmail.com; vscul@roadrunner.com;
Jeff Segall; Kerry Siekmann
Cc: Don Neu; Jennifer Jesser; David de Cordova; Debbie Fountain
Subject: IMPORTANT from Carlsbad Residents
Dear Planning Commissioner,
I was strongly advised to email you the below letter with the important
attachment. Please read and comply.
With gratitude,
Madeleine Szabo
Carlsbad, CA
bcc: Friends of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor
Friends of Sunny Creek
Friends of Aviara
Preserve Calavera
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Madeleine Szabo <mbszabo@snet.net>
To: Debbie Fountain <Debbie.Fountain@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc: Kathy Dodson <Kathy.Dodson@carlsbadca.gov>; "don.neu@carlsbadca.gov"
<don.neu@carlsbadca.gov>; "matt.hall@carlsbadca.gov" <matt.hall@carlsbadca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 10:08 AM
Subject: City Hall Meeting on October 28 with Debbie Fountain
Debbie Fountain
Housing and Neighborhood Services Director
City of Carlsbad
1200 Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008-1949
Dear Debbie,
Thank you for your valuable time to meet with me and Michael Kroopkin yesterday. We
especially appreciate the opportunity you gave us on behalf of many Carlsbad
residents to share our concerns regarding the Revised General Plan's proclivity for
overdevelopment and for depreciating the value of Carlsbad through excess
commercialization and high-density housing.
Please note attached the Summary of Concerns and detailed
Questions/Comments/Suggestions in the Revised General Plan Comparison
document. It is my understanding that you will share this document and our discussion
yesterday with the appropriate city planners and consultants as you encourage them on
our behalf to re-evaluate the revisions to the General Plan.
2-1267
As I mentioned, we love Carlsbad. We want to preserve the quality of life in Carlsbad
and its scenic beauty. We implore the City Planners to use our zoning laws to hold
back high-density growth because it will choke City traffic, strain City services, and mar
the beautiful landscape.
Kind regards,
Madeleine Szabo
Carlsbad, CA
760-814-2550
bcc: Friends of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor
Friends of Sunny Creek
Friends of Aviara
Preserve Calavera
Attachment:
Summary of Concerns: October, 2014
We love Carlsbad. We love the current design and valued living standards of
Carlsbad. We do not want to see Carlsbad change. We understand and
appreciate the herculean task of revising the 1994 General Plan, but we want
to make sure that the defining attributes of the Carlsbad Community Vision
are upheld. We are most concerned about high-density housing, retail, and
commercial, which conflicts with the predetermined character of the “small
town beach community feel.” Carlsbad should continue to have choices of
housing areas along El Camino that are free of traffic, congestion, and noise
associated with high-density housing and shopping centers. Those choices are
diminished by modifications to zoning and approvals to
developers/landowners who want to maximize their financial rewards.
Currently, the NE quadrant of El Camino Real is in danger of overdevelopment
with the current approved development projects that are in the process of
being built. We implore the Carlsbad Planning Department to protect our
existing zoning standards and not allow developers to negatively impact the
scenic beauty with requested modifications.
Our number one mission is to preserve the scenic beauty of El Camino Real
hillsides along the NE quadrant between Faraday and Tamarack. We
appreciate the efforts by the planning staff to enforce mitigation that
minimizes impacts to the environment and surrounding communities.
2-1268
However, we want to implore the planning staff to scale down the
development, scale down the zoning, in order to maintain the scenic beauty
and curtail increased traffic, congestion, pollution, noise, and disruptions to
neighboring residents.
By suppressing density, by protecting existing zoning standards, by scaling
down zoning, you are protecting the housing values of existing homeowners
and existing developers.
Don’t give up on Carlsbad’s high standards, revered as a beautiful “small
community beach feel” with an esteemed quality of life.
Friends of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor
cc: Friends of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor
Friends of Sunny Creek
Friends of Aviara
Preserve Calavera
Note below: Questions/Comments/Suggestions on General Plan Comparison
document
REVISED GENERAL PLAN VERSUS 1994 GENERAL PLAN
CONCERNS/QUESTIONS/SUGGESTIONS (highlighted in red):
Page 2:
2-G.1 “Maintain a land use program with amount, design and arrangement of
varied uses that serve to protect and enhance the character and image of the
city as expressed in the Carlsbad Community Vision, and balance development
with preservation and enhancement of open space”.
QUESTION: Has the General Plan been adhering to “protect and enhance the
character and image of the city as expressed in the Carlsbad Community
Vision” with increased density, traffic, pollution, congestion, noise, lights, use
of City utilities and City services along the NE/NW quadrants of El Camino
Real with the approved developments (not yet built) and the proposed
development in the Revised General Plan?
2-1269
NEW GP:
Eliminates following words from original GP: “preserves and enhances the
environment, character and image of itself as a desirable residential, beach
and open space oriented community.”
NEW WORDS: “balance development with preservation and enhancement of
open space”.
COMMENT: Leaves too much room for overdevelopment and counterbalance
on the side of development not “preservation and enhancement of open
space.”
SUGGESTION: LEAVE ORIGINAL WORDS IN THE REVISED GP
2-G.2
NEW WORDS: “Promote a diversity of compatible land uses throughout the
city, to enable people to live close to job locations, adequate and convenient
commercial services, and public support systems such as transits, parks,
schools, and utilities.”
COMMENT: Eliminates open less-congested and less dense areas where some
people want to live regardless of close proximity to jobs, shopping, etc., which
bring a higher level of traffic and pollution. Not all people necessarily want to
“live close to job locations…. and commercial services”.
QUESTION: Why eliminate all choice of living styles for all types of people as
long as the quality of life adheres to the Carlsbad Community Vision
standards? Allow people a choice of in areas to live that are free of traffic and
congestion and don’t mind driving 3 miles or 5 minutes to shopping.
SUGGESTION: ELIMINATE THE NEW WORDS IN 2-G2
Page 3
2-G.5 (same wording except “Protect” instead of “preserve”) “Protect the
neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing residential areas”.
SUGGESTION: SAY BOTH WORDS “PROTECT” AND “PRESERVE”: “Protect and
preserve the neighborhood….”
2-1270
NEW WORDS: 2-G.6 “Allow a range of mixed-use centers in strategic locations
that maximize access to commercial services from transit and residential
areas.”
COMMENT: Concern: Emphasis NOT on protecting scenic beauty but on
“access to commercial services”
SUGGESTION: ELIMINATE THE NEW WORDS ABOVE IN 2-G6
NEW WORDS
2-G.7 “Ensure that neighborhood serving shopping and mixed-use centers
include shopping as a pedestrian-oriented focus for the surrounding
neighborhood, are physically integrated with the surroundings, and contain
neighborhood-serving stores and small offices. Where appropriate, include in
the centers high and medium density housing surrounding the retail core or
integrated in mixed-use buildings.”
COMMENT: Emphasis on densely populated business, commercial, and
residential silos, not providing open spacious residential areas. People are not
going to walk to stores and carry packages home. Unreasonable expectation.
SUGGESTION: ELIMINATE THE NEW WORDS IN 2-G7
Page 5 “Goals - Community Character, Design, and Connectedness”
NEW:
2-G.16 “Enhance Carlsbad’s character and image as a desirable residential,
beach and open-space oriented community.”
OLD:
“[Goal - Overall Land Use Pattern]”
A.1 “A City which preserves and enhances the environment, character and
image of itself as a desirable residential, beach and open space oriented
community.”
COMMENT: Concern with the original words make it more a directive for
Carlsbad, in all neighborhoods, to “preserve and enhance the environment,
character, and image”; whereas, the NEW WORDING talks only about how
Carlsbad is known as a WHOLE, about its “image” to outsiders. There is a
difference.
SUGGESTION: KEEP THE OLD WORDS IN A-1
2-1271
Page 5
NEW: WORDS ADDED:
2-G.17 “Ensure that the scale and character of new development is
appropriate to the setting and intended use. Promote development that is
scaled and sited to respect the natural terrain, where hills, public realm, parks,
open space, trees, and distant vistas, rather than buildings, dominate the
overall landscape, while developing the Village, Barrio, and commercial and
industrial areas as concentrated urban-scaled nodes.”
COMMENT: Talks about development of the Village and the Barrio as urban-
scaled nodes, but yet it says new development should respect “the natural
terrain” etc.
SUGGESTION: Should add the words: “particularly necessary to respect the
open scenic vistas along El Camino Real and limit the height of buildings and
density of housing developments.”
Page 10
NEW WORDS:
2-P.8 “Do not permit residential development to exceed the applicable
Growth Management Control Point (GMCP) density unless the following
findings are made:
“The project qualifies for and will receive an allocation of “excess” dwelling
units, pursuant to City Council Policy No. 43” The NE quadrant has over 300
“excess dwelling units” after build-out. These NEW WORDS allow all
quadrants to be further developed.
SUGGESTION: Do not qualify “2-P.8” with the words “unless the following
findings are made”. Add the words: “The project does not impact traffic,
congestion, and noise for the surrounding neighbors and complies with City’s
preservation of the scenic corridor.”
Page 12 (POLICY – RESIDENTIAL}
OLD WORDS:
2-1272
C.12 “Require new master planned developments and residential specific
plans of over 100 acres {these words taken out of NEW GP} to provide usable
acres to be designated for community facilities such as daycare, worship,
youth and senior citizen activities. The exact amount of land will be
determined by a future amendment to the Planned Community Zone.”
COMMENT: By eliminating the words “for developments…. over 100 acres”,
there is a requirement for all developments to provide community facilities”.
That should be a choice of the developer and surrounding neighborhoods.
SUGGESTION: PUT THE ORIGINAL WORDS “OF OVER 100 ACRES” BACK INTO
THE REVISED GENERAL PLAN.
NEW WORDS:
2-P.12 “Encourage residential uses mixed in conjunction with commercial
development on sites with Local Shopping Center, General Commercial,
Regional Commercial, and Village designations, provided that “excess”
dwelling units are available, pursuant to City Council Policy No. 43, and the
findings stated in 2-P.8 are made.”
2-P.13 “Encourage medium to higher density residential uses located in
close proximity to commercial services, employment opportunities and
major transportation corridors.” NEW WORDS that “encourage medium to
higher density” housing.
SUGGESTION: ELIMINATE 2.P-13, AS IT DOES NOT ADHERE TO THE
CARLSBAD COMMUNITY VISION
Page 13
2-P.17 “Ensure that all residential areas have convenient access within a 3-
mile/5-minute radius to daily goods and services by locating local shopping
centers centrally within their primary trade areas, as defined in Table 2-4.
Such trade areas should minimize gaps between or overlaps with the trade
areas of other local shopping centers.”
QUESTION: What is “Table 2-4” and what are the “overlaps with the trade
areas of other local shopping centers”? Sunny Creek has close proximity to
Bressi Ranch, Lowes, Westfield Plaza, Costco, Vons on Tamarack, Vons and
Sprouts on El Camino… What happened to the Local Shopping Center
guideline of 5-minute driving standard? With all the shopping in close
2-1273
proximity to the NE/NW part of El Camino Real, there is not a need for
another shopping center at Sunny Creek.
SUGGESTION: QUALIFY 2-P.17 WITH THE WORDS “within a 3-mile/5-minute
radius“AS INDICATED IN RED ABOVE.
Page 14
OLD WORDS:
EXISTING LAND USE ELEMENT
Goals, Objectives and Policies
C.2 “Utilize the following guidelines to determine the appropriate spatial
distribution of new sites for local shopping centers and to assign associated
zoning. In some instances it may not be possible to implement all of these
guidelines fully and some degree of flexibility in their application may be
required.
1. New master plans and residential specific plans and other large
development proposals shall evaluate whether there is a need to include a
local shopping center within the development, consistent with these
guidelines.”
NEW WORDS: “New master plans and residential specific plans and other
large development proposals shall evaluate whether there is a need to include
a local shopping center within the development.”
CONCERN: VERY GENERAL; doesn’t define what the “need” is.
SUGGESTION: KEEP THE OLD WORDS IN C-2; eliminate the new words; do
not change the old version.
NEW GP took out the following words from original GP: “Regional centers
draw customers from outside the City and generate interregional traffic.”
CONCERN:
OLD WORDS: “Utilize the following guidelines to determine the appropriate
spatial distribution of new sites for local shopping centers and to assign
associated zoning. In some instances it may not be possible to implement all of
these guidelines fully and some degree of flexibility in their application may
be required.”
2-1274
NEW WORDS take out the “consistent with these guidelines” because the
guidelines state, “New sites for local shopping centers should not be located
along El Camino Real, so as to minimize the commercialization of this scenic
roadway.” {#6, Page 35, from the Land Use Element (amended March 28,
2013), which is basically concerned with how and where people will live,
work, play and shop in Carlsbad.
Page 34
“PROPOSED LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
Policies – Sunny Creek Commercial”
ALL NEW WORDS:
2-P.82 “Foster development of this site as a mixed-use neighborhood center,
with a local shopping center along El Camino Real that provides amenities for
the surrounding neighborhoods, which include residential uses at a density of
8 to 15 dwelling units per acre to the north and west of the shopping center.
Residential and commercial uses should be integrated in a walkable setting.”
QUESTION: Why so many multi-use properties in the NE and NW quadrants
along El Camino?
COMMENT: Environmental and residential tranquility will be dramatically
affected by more housing and by the proposed commercial project. Increased
traffic along El Camino Real as well as noise from within the commercial
center itself will negatively affect the “environmental and residential
tranquility”. See more comments at end of this document: Additional
COMMENTS on NE Quadrant along ECR
SUGGESTION: ELIMINATE IN THE REVISED GENERAL PLAN THE
STATEMENT IN 2-P.82 Replace with: “Foster development of this site as low
density housing area with a park to serve the residents in surrounding
communities.”
Page 3
NEW WORDS
2-G.7 Ensure that neighborhood serving shopping and mixed-use centers
include shopping as a pedestrian-oriented focus for the surrounding
neighborhood, are physically integrated with the surroundings, and contain
2-1275
neighborhood-serving stores and small offices. Where appropriate, include in
the centers high and medium density housing surrounding the retail core or
integrated in mixed-use buildings.
COMMENT: How would Sunny Creek Plaza be a “pedestrian-oriented focus”
and “integrate with the surroundings”?
SUGGESTION: Include the words “within 3 mile radius or 5-minute driving
time” after “include shopping”. Delete words “pedestrian-oriented focus”.
People will not walk to shopping and carry home bags. The relative
convenience of shopping centers close to resident housing are outweighed by
problems inherent in shopping centers of increased traffic, cars pulling in and
out of parking lots, increased pollution, glaring lights, noise till late at night,
increased crime, impacts on city services, etc.
“Policies - Palomar Corridor”
2-P.85 “Allow small pockets of higher density residential at the edges of
the corridor, as shown on the Land Use Map, to enable residents to live closer
to jobs, with opportunities for enhanced bicycle and pedestrian paths that link
residential and employment uses. Ensure that residential uses incorporate
noise attenuation criteria in accordance with the Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan”.
SUGGESTION: ELIMINATE THE WORDS “higher density residential at the
edges of the corridor” as it conflicts with the overall character of Carlsbad.
Page 39 “PROPOSED MOBILITY ELEMENT
Policies - Street Typology and Multimodal Levels of Service”
NEW:
“3-P.3 Apply and update the city’s multi-modal level of service (MMLOS)
methodology and guidelines that reflect the core values of the Carlsbad
Community Vision related to transportation and connectivity. Utilize the
MMLOS methodology to evaluate impacts of individual development projects
and amendments to the General Plan on the city’s transportation system
3-P.4 Implement the city’s MMLOS methodology by evaluating level of service
(LOS) for prioritized modes. Maintain LOS D or better only for the prioritized
modes of travel by street typology as outlined in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1.”
2-1276
QUESTION: What does this mean? What are the “prioritized modes of travel
by street typology”? Where are the Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1?
3-P.7 “Develop and maintain a list of LOS exempt intersections and streets
approved by the City Council. For LOS exempt intersections and streets, the
city will not implement motor vehicle capacity improvements to maintain the
LOS standard outlined in Policy 3-P.4 if such improvements are beyond what
is identified as appropriate at build out of the General Plan; however, other
non-vehicle capacity-building improvements may be required to improve
mobility, to the extent feasible, and/or to implement the livable streets goals
and policies of this Mobility Element.
To be considered LOS exempt, an intersection or street must be identified as
built-out by the City Council because: a. acquiring the rights of way is not
feasible; or
b. The proposed improvements would significantly impact the environment in
an unacceptable way and mitigation would not contribute to the nine core
values of the Carlsbad Community Vision; or
c. The proposed improvements would result in unacceptable impacts to other
community values or General Plan policies; or
d. The proposed improvements would require more than three through travel
lanes in each direction.
3-P.8 Allow the following streets to be LOS exempt facilities from the LOS
standard identified in Policy 3-P.4, subject to the requirements described in
Policy 3-P.7: “
QUESTION: On the list of “following streets”, why is there no mention of the
increased traffic along El Camino between College Blvd. and Tamarack due to
the planned development and mitigation for all projects along El Camino Real?
SUGGESTION: Designate El Camino Real as a priority bikeway and limit
development that will add to congestion along the above-mentioned section of
El Camino.
Page 41
Policies - Street Typology and Multimodal Levels of Service
NEW WORDS
3-P.9 “Require new development that adds traffic to LOS-exempt locations
(consistent with 3-P.7) to implement transportation demand management
2-1277
strategies that reduce the reliance on the automobile and assist in achieving
the city’s livable streets vision.”
QUESTION: How will they “reduce the reliance on the automobile” without
encroaching on residents quality of life and civil liberties?
SUGGESTION: ELIMINATE 3-P.9
3-P.10 “Update the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan to ensure
consistency with the General Plan. This includes updating the circulation LOS
standards methodologies to reflect a more balanced/multi-modal approach.”
QUESTION: What does “updating the circulation LOS standards
methodologies,” mean?
CANNON ROAD – SDG&E PROPERTY EAST OF 5, STRAWBERRY FIELDS,
OPEN SPACE
Page 29
2-P.68 “Enhance the walkability and pedestrian orientation of the Village,
including along Carlsbad Village Drive, to enhance the small, beach town
atmosphere and improve access to and utilization of transit.”
QUESTION: How does developing the Caruso Development land east of 5 on
Cannon “enhance the small, beach town atmosphere”, when a mall there will
bring thousands of people who will park there, walk to the beach, cause
bottlenecks of traffic, disrupt the scenic vistas, and urbanize Carlsbad?
COMMENT: That area should have the same criteria for protecting and
preserving the “small, beach town atmosphere” as the Village.
Page 62
Policies – Agricultural Resources
4-P.43 “Allow and encourage farming operations in the Cannon Road Open
Space, Farming, and Public Use Zone (such as the strawberry fields) as long as
they are economically viable for the landowner.”
QUESTION: How will the City “allow and encourage”?
2-1278
COMMENT: “economically viable for the landowner” is too subjective a
statement. Needs boundaries. Define “economically viable for the landowner”.
Page 59 Policies – Parks and Recreation
NEW
4-P.29 “Consider the following during the development/re-development of
parkland: expanding minimum buffers around sensitive resources; utilizing
natural plant species in park projects; incorporating plant species that provide
food such as seeds, nuts and berries for wildlife and bird species; protecting
and buffering drinking water sources such as small ponds and wetland areas;
and limiting turf grass use
of recreational areas. Use the Carlsbad Landscape Manual in landscape
refurbishment and new park development projects.”
OLD
“Developing specific sites to minimize impacts to biological resources
{not included in NEW GP}; visual impacts of the development of park sites;
expanding minimum buffers around sensitive resources; utilizing natural
plant species in park projects; incorporating plant species which provide food
such as seeds, nuts and berries for wildlife and bird species; protecting and
buffering drinking water sources such as small ponds and wetland areas; and,
limiting turf grass use to recreational areas.”
SUGGESTION: Include the above bolded words in the Revised General Plan.
Carlsbad needs to continue to follow the Carlsbad Community Vision to
“minimize impacts to biological resources.”
Page 64
4-P.53 Provide, whenever possible, incentives for carpooling, flex-time
shortened work weeks, and telecommunications and other means of reducing
vehicular miles traveled.
QUESTION: How will the City government “provide incentives”?
SUGGESTION: Add the words: “Except when incentives interfere with the
goals of Carlsbad Community Vision”, such as increasing housing development
under the guise that the residents of new housing will work closer to home.
2-1279
Page 10
2-P.9 Incentivize development of lower-income affordable housing by
allowing residential development above the GMCP and maximum densities
permitted by the General Plan, subject to the findings specified in 2-P.8, above,
and an evaluation of the
following: (a) the proposal’s compatibility with adjacent land uses, and (b) the
project site’s proximity to a minimum of one of the following: freeway or
major street; commercial center; employment opportunities; city park or open
space; or commuter rail or transit center.
Additional Questions:
1. What happened to GPA 00-04 in March 2001, the City Council established
goals, policies, and concepts that should be used to determine where and
how new Local Shopping Centers should be developed in Carlsbad:
“The concept of trade areas for shopping centers and their definition in terms
of travel times from home to shopping (five- minutes travel times were
favored)”.
“Basic coverage” meant that all areas of the City would be within a five-minute
travel-time of at least one center”
2. Why is there NO mention of upholding the City’s preservation of quality of
life by reducing impacts on traffic, environmental impact, congestion,
noise, glaring lights, strain on City services?
3. What happened to “3.1 Aesthetics
Environmental Setting
This section of the General Plan provides an evaluation of potential impacts
to Carlsbad’s aesthetic character as a result of the General Plan
The El Camino Real roadway corridor is also considered a scenic roadway -
areas adjacent to the roadway provide rolling hillsides and diverse views.”
Why is this statement from the General Plan not included in the Revised
General Plan?
2-1280
4. What is the status of the following property with respect to zoning change?
Rancho Carlsbad golf course
5. Kathy Dodson’s words (email to M. Szabo: Oct. 14, 2014, 4:52pm):
“As part of an update on the General Plan last fall, staff brought forward these
additional properties for council consideration, council did not ‘request to
change’ the designations.” Planning Staff told me the Council requested the
change. Why does the Council want increased density, other than to
allow the landowner and developer to make more money? Density
permanently impacts the natural environment and special attributes of
Carlsbad. The residents, through countless letters, do not want density of
housing and commercial there.
Kathy’s statement:
“Our General Plan consultants and staff have been analyzing all properties
where there are potential zoning changes, along with updating the many other
components of the General Plan. As you know, Carlsbad is governed by a
voter approved growth management plan, and the final recommendations on
the General Plan will keep overall growth within these limits”.
COMMENT: The high-density housing developments to achieve the housing
cap as defined by the Growth Management Plan does not adhere to the
Carlsbad Community Vision in controlling traffic, congestion, noise, and
“Carlsbad’s defining attributes—its small town feel…”
QUESTIONS:
1. How do the “consultants and staff” justify adding “overall growth” at the
expense of impacting the quality of life of Carlsbad residents?
2. How are the "consultants and staff... analyzing all properties where there
are potential zoning changes" per Kathy’s words? What are their
methodology, criteria, and priorities they wish to fulfill?
Feb. 2014 Proposed General Plan
What happened to the following in the Revised General Plan?
Chapter 21.40: Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone
2-1281
The purpose of the city’s Scenic Preservation Overlay Zone is to supplement
the underlying zoning by providing additional regulations for development
within designated areas to preserve or enhance outstanding views, flora
and geology, or other unique natural attributes and historical and
cultural resources. {The development on Sunny Creek Plaza is in direct
violation to this previous statement}. This chapter establishes criteria by
which standards may be applied. Adopted standards may address, but are not
limited to signs, utilities, landscaping, architectural treatment, setbacks, side
yards, height, bulk, and building spacing. Currently, this overlay zone is
applied to the El Camino Real corridor.
El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards
The El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards were adopted in 1984 to
further the goals of the then-existing Land Use and Scenic Highways Elements
of the Carlsbad General Plan to preserve unique city resources as they relate
to highways. The standards provide a general design concept for the entire
length of the El Camino Real right-of-way, and establish development
restrictions for private properties fronting the roadway. The design concept is
an easily identifiable homogenous corridor that capitalizes on the distinct
design characteristics of five distinct subareas. The standards include design
guidelines emphasizing retention of natural topography; right-of-way
standards for landscaping, street lighting, signage, and furniture; and private
frontage standards for design theme, medians, sidewalks, signage, building
height and setback, grading, street furniture and lighting, roofing, and land
use.
Impact Analysis SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
For the purposes of this Program EIR, a significant adverse impact would
occur if the proposed General Plan would:
2-1282
NE ECR, especially Sunny Creek Plaza land, would be impacted in each of these
criteria:
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; Would the project
substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
Would the project create a new source of substantial light and glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
IMPACTS
Impact 3.1-1 Implementation of the proposed Carlsbad General Plan will not
have
a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. (Less than Significant)
Scenic vistas in Carlsbad consist of the scenic corridors and views to and from
the coastline, open spaces, and hillsides. The proposed General Plan will
continue to regulate development in these areas, and contains policies to
ensure that opportunities to enjoy scenic views are either preserved or
enhanced. Thus, substantial adverse effects are not expected to occur. ”
COMMENT: The developments in the El Camino Real scenic corridor in the
NE/NW quadrants do not “preserve or enhance” the scenic views along El
Camino.
QUESTIONS: Why would the Revised General Plan exacerbate the
development of this area by increasing the housing density of Sunny Creek?
The already approved residential/Commercial/retail developments
throughout this 3-mile stretch of El Camino (Robertson Ranch, Dos Colinas,
Encinas Creek Apartments, Cantarini Ranch, and Holly Springs) will generate
2-1283
disruptive traffic, congestion, noise, pollution, why is more density and
commercial space at Sunny Creek incorporated in the Revised General Plan?
Following quoted passages from the Proposed General Plan of Feb. 2014:
1. “The proposed General Plan introduces land use changes throughout the
city. In the majority of cases, the land use change sites are located in or near
already developed areas and coincide with areas designated for development
under the existing General Plan. By focusing development in infill areas, the
proposed General Plan relieves pressure to develop in open space and
agricultural areas while filling visual gaps in existing neighborhoods. This
allows for the preservation of open space views and the enhancement of
urban views.”
“Along the city’s scenic corridors, the proposed General Plan’s land use
changes are minimal, occurring in areas where some development has
already taken place.”
COMMENT: Additional changes, specifically in rezoning the Sunny Creek
Plaza land, do not represent a “minimal” change in land use along the El
Camino Real “scenic corridor”, per the statement above.
QUESTION: How can the Revised General Plan incorporate this conflicting
policy?}
2. “Proposed policies require that development be located away from visible
ridges, and that larger buildings minimize their visual appearance from scenic
corridors and other vistas.”
QUESTION: Why is this not being followed?
Additional Thoughts
Page 95
7-P.27 “Continue efforts to locate an institute of higher education or a
research organization that capitalizes on the cluster of high technology and
bio-technology uses, and the community’s skilled workforce. Explore tie--ins
2-1284
with institutions in the region such as the University of California San Diego
and the dozen plus medical and technology institutes in the region.”
QUESTIONS:
1. Why bring in so many more people to Carlsbad when there are not enough
jobs for the people who are already here? According to the Employment
Development Department of the State of California in September 2014 – for
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, the current unemployment rate is
Carlsbad is 5.9%. Between August 2014 and September 2014, total
nonfarm employment declined from 1,348,300 to 1,345,500, a loss of 2,800
jobs. The most significant job growth came from government (up 4,600).
Local government (up 4,300) accounted for more than 90 percent of the
job growth in this sector, primarily from seasonal growth in local
government education. State government added 400 jobs, while federal
government declined by 100 jobs.
The reason unemployment rate declined from August at 6.2% to
September is the growth in jobs in the government sector, NOT THE
PUBLIC SECTOR.
2. How does an “institute of higher education or a research organization”
benefit the residents of Carlsbad when Carlsbad already has 37 bio-tech
firms?
3. Why should Carlsbad taxpayers pay for it?
4. If an effort to minimize driving (the reasoning behind putting in more local
shopping centers) is a priority in Carlsbad, then why would we want to
encourage students from higher ed institutions in the surrounding
communities to drive to a “satellite” campus in Carlsbad, putting more cars
on the road?
Additional COMMENTS on NE Quadrant along ECR:
2-1285
Northeast Carlsbad is over-saturated with commercial uses and dense
residential housing. Placing a neighborhood retail center on the Sunny Creek
open space serves no land planning purpose. There are ample shopping
choices within proximity of three miles or five minutes travelling time
(especially with the planned East Village at Robertson Ranch). As an
alternative, we would propose that the project site be rezoned for low-
medium residential uses including a park that is needed for the surrounding
communities. High-end single-family homes with a well-architected park
would provide the property owner with a reasonable return on his
investment, and would meet the City’s goal of maintaining architectural and
visual consistency with existing adjacent properties.
The proposed commercial project will almost certainly make traffic on ECR
worse. The road noise from the project’s additional cars will directly impact
existing residents at Sunny Creek, the new Tabata development across the
street, Camino Hills, Eagle Canyon, Evans Point, and Rancho Carlsbad. Noise
from within the commercial center itself will add significant burden to
existing residents. Parking lot noise - characterized by car door slams, car
alarms, vehicle start-ups and tire squealing - can be especially annoying, as it
tends to be high-intensity noise which punctuates the ambient sound
environment. One must also keep in mind that the stores/possible
restaurants at Sunny Creek will keep very late hours, not closing until 10 or 11
o’clock in the evening. Some stores may even stay open 24 hours a day. Noise
in the evening, particularly after 10 p.m., is especially disturbing to residents.
It interrupts conversations; it disrupts quiet interior activities, such as
watching television; and it makes sleep difficult. It is unclear how (or
whether) these intrusive noise impacts can be mitigated to acceptable levels.
Noise from delivery trucks is another serious concern. Retail deliveries,
especially those for grocery stores, often occur late at night or very early in
the morning, well prior to the opening of the business day. Such deliveries are
made with semi-tractor trailers and other large vehicles, which generate
2-1286
significant amounts of noise (e.g., noise from diesel engines, noise from “back
up” beepers, and noise from roll-up bay doors). The disruptive, high-intensity
nature of this noise, combined with the inevitable increase of noise on El
Camino Real from at least 2,000 additional cars traveling on ECR at build-out,
the very late or very early hour at which it is emitted, will operate to wake
residents in the surrounding area from their sleep and create general
annoyance.
Finally, there are the stationary noise sources internal to the commercial
project. These consist primarily of refrigeration and exhaust systems installed
on the roofs of the commercial buildings. Not only is this equipment noisy, it
operates continuously (albeit on cycles) throughout the day and night. As with
the truck deliveries and late night parking lot noise, the loud whirring from
these mechanical systems will create noise just when everything else has
quieted down and people are trying to sleep.
Light and glare from the project is a tremendous concern: namely in the form
of car headlights, store lights and signs, and parking lot light standards. These
will significantly affect those homes nearest the proposed commercial center.
As with the project’s noise impacts, these light and glare impacts are most
disruptive during the nighttime hours, when residents quiet their own
interior lights and prepare for bed. It is doubtful that Sunny Creek Plaza can
soften the light and glare impacts sufficiently to mitigate these impacts to
Sunny Creek residents.
Given the overwhelming number of existing commercial uses and housing
units within a 3-mile radius of Sunny Creek, and given the weak demand for
this project from neighboring residents due to the potential traffic, noise, and
lighting impacts - both direct and cumulative, increased housing and
commercial land use on the open Sunny Creek land can hardly be justified.
2-1287
From: Madhusudan Gujral [mailto:mgujral2000@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 2:05 PM
To: Don Neu; dan.neu@carlsbadca.gov
Subject: Sunny creek Zoning Change
Good afternoon Don.
I would like to register strong displeasure at city's planning department for considering the zoning
changes in sunny creek area off of the El Camino Real. In addition, as a resident living in that area I
am opposed to the high density apartments being planned in creek area.
best,
--Madhu
2-1288
From: malarks@yahoo.com [mailto:malarks@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 3:22 PM
To: Don Neu
Subject: Development adjacent to the Terraces at Sunny Creek
To Don Neu--Carlsbad City Planner,
As a homeowner in the Terraces at Sunny Creek community, I strongly encourage you to reevaluate the
plan for high density housing for the vacant land adjacent to our neighborhood. Instead, please lower
the density of the housing development to LOW DENSITY single family homes.
A plan for high density housing in the form of 230 apartment units will undoubtedly raise traffic and
noise levels, and raise the potential for disturbances or even crime activity. Our community is home to
many families with young children, and safety is of the utmost importance--many of us purchased
homes in this community for its quiet location. At this time, the plan to add high density housing
acreage is strongly unwanted. Please consider a low density housing plan as the preferred course of
action instead.
I am extremely appreciative of your time and careful consideration of the impact of this land
development on the quality of life for our existing community.
Thank you,
Megan Goodwin
Homeowner, Terraces at Sunny Creek
2-1289
From: MIchael Kroopkin <mikek26@me.com>
Date: August 19, 2014 at 4:44:25 PM PDT
Subject: Congestion on El Camino Real
To: matt.hall@carlsbadca.gov
Dear Mayor Hall,
I have owned my home in Carlsbad for 17 years and have seen some wonderful growth over
those years. My concern is the present congestion and the future of El Camino Real. I
understand the project at Cannon Rd. and ECR is approved and going forward. That will bring an
additional 1200 to 1800 cars on ECR! I also understand new development, even “High Density”
construction is under consideration just South of the small golf course. Just the other day I heard
the owner of the golf course is asking for a change of zoning to sell the property for more
building. Frankly the list goes on and on. The open space we enjoy today will be gone. The
congestion will become 10 times worse and the pollution of all those vehicles stopping and
starting will be a disaster for the area. Today, without all this new development, there are times
when traffic is backed up from Cannon Rd, all the way to Faraday, what will the future hold? I
know it has been suggested the timing of the lights could help BUT it will not. There is just too
much traffic; unless you want to compare it to the “5”. We really need to control the amount of
development in this area, keep as much open space as possible and let all your present residents
continue to enjoy this wonderful city. I really question how many on the planning commission
and the Board live “on this side of town”. For I believe if they did they would agree with me. I
am a huge supporter of Carlsbad, work as a volunteer police officer, and have volunteered in
many ways throughout the area. Please consider the impact all this additional construction and
density the it would create, and don’t do it! Thank you, Michael J. Kroopkin 2322 Masters Rd.
760-931-6786
2-1290
From: MIchael Kroopkin <mikek26@me.com>
Date: October 7, 2014 at 9:25:39 AM PDT
Subject: Congestion on ECR
To: matt.hall@carlsbadca.gov
Good morning Matt,
We have met a few times and I know you are busy with the election coming up but my neighbor
Frank Whitton thinks you are great and tells me you are all ways ready to listen. So here goes. I
am very concerned about the congestion on El Camino Real. Yesterday at 5:20 going North
bound traffic was backed up from Cannon almost all the way to Faraday. At the light at Cannon
and College East bound toward ECR also backed up. At Faraday going North bound also backed
up. In other words traffic is a mess. I know it is a busy time of day, but I have seen this same
situation during other hours. Resetting the stop lights will not cure the situation. The bottom line
is we have a lot of traffic on ECR and it is only going to get worse once the housing project at
Cannon and ECR is complete, adding another 2000 cars to the mix. I am sure much of this you
are aware of BUT it appears that others want MORE building on ECR, High density, more
shopping, etc. Talking about making a bad situation worse!!! You are the leader of our
wonderful city, please do not let that happen. Yes, I am a concerned citizen, yes I am a volunteer
senior police officer , yes I care about our city and yes I understand the desire for some just to
make more money without concern for those of us that live here. You are the leader and I am
counting on you to continue to maintain this wonderful city with open space and concern for all
its citizens.
Sincerely,
MIchael Kroopkin
2322 Masters Rd.
Carlsbad,Ca 92008
760-931-6786
2-1291
From: MIchael Kroopkin <mikek26@me.com>
Date: October 13, 2014 at 11:32:40 AM PDT
Subject: few thoughts
To: matt.hall@carlsbadca.gov
Good morning, I just had an opportunity to review part of the revised General Plan. One item
keeps popping up which is of great concern to me. That is the issue of building medium and high
density within Carlsbad. Before moving here I was an active Realtor for 40 years. I think I have a
good handle on many parts of the GP BUT Carlsbad does not need High Density building! Just
look at the development off Dove and ECR, there is no way you can tell me that enhances our
wonderful city. This is a great city, do not let those only thinking about making more money
influence the decisions of this city. I kept reading about building shopping areas, basically
walking distance to housing. This is 2014, people do not walk to shopping and then carry their
packages home. Lets wake up! I love this city and am very concerned about the impact of higher
population, over abundance of shopping centers, Traffic, Traffic and more traffic and as I
mentioned earlier, High density housing. Please share this with all parties of concern. MY
concern is simple, keep this wonderful city, wonderful for all it’s citizens.
Michael J. Kroopkin
2322 Masters Rd
760-931-6786
2-1292
From: MIchael Kroopkin <mikek26@me.com>
Subject: rezoning
Date: October 14, 2014 at 2:39:37 PM PDT
To: matt.hall@carlsbadca.gov
FYI, I spoke this morning to Chris DeCerbo, Principal Planner for Sunny Creek Plaza open land
on El Camino next to College Blvd. extension. His telephone number is 760-602-4611.
Chris DeCerbo told me they have had meetings with prospective developers who directed them
to institute a Land Use change in the revised General Plan. The Land Use change for Sunny
Creek reclassifies Sunny Creek Plaza as an area for high density housing to address the "need"
for higher density in the City of Carlsbad. They will approve at least 140 townhomes on 4 acres
and 60,000 sq. feet of commercial building on 8 acres.
I am waiting for a call from David DeCordova, the Senior Planner for the Revised General
Plan. More information to follow.
IF THIS IS TRUE THE ANSWER MUST BE NO, NO WAY!!!!!!
2-1293
From: MIchael Kroopkin <mikek26@me.com>
Date: November 9, 2014 at 12:14:54 PM PST
To: van.lynch@carlsbadca.gov, velynA@msn.com, neil_black7@yahoo.com, hap@haplaw.us,
martymontgomery@gmail.com, vscul@roadrunner.com, jeffsegall@roadrunner.com,
siekmann1@att.net
Subject: Fwd: Special ALERT
The developer submitted his plan for Sunny Creek Plaza on October 22nd (see attached). The City Staff
has to respond within 30 days. We must act now....before it is too late. Unlike the other developments
in this area (i.e. Robertson Ranch and Encinas Creek Apartments) that are already finalized, we have a
good chance of influencing the fate of the Sunny Creek open space.
I know the below is lengthy, but please read. Incorporate some or all of the points in an email to City
officials listed at the end of this report.
SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT SUBMITTED BY THE DEVELOPER:
Residential: 141 Townhomes
Retail: Five (5) buildings (3 restaurants, 1 grocery store, 1 large store or strip of smaller stores in one
building)
Parking: 749 parking spaces
As neighbors in the area of Sunny Creek, our number one mission is to preserve the scenic beauty of El
Camino Real hillsides and preserve our tranquil and high quality of life in this area. We want to implore
the planning staff to scale down the development, scale down the zoning, in order to maintain the
scenic beauty and curtail the increased traffic, congestion, pollution, noise, and disruptions to
neighboring residents.
The main issue of concern about this developer's submittal is density (their submittal even exceeds the
high-density inclusion in the Revised General Plan). The City should suppress density, protect existing
zoning standards, scale down zoning, and most importantly protect the housing values of existing
homeowners and existing developers.
We can take advantage of the City's general policy to share suggestions/recommendations from
surrounding neighbors and/or other residents with developers for their consideration and knowledge of
the community concerns. The city also gives consideration to these suggestions/recommendations in its
review of development applications. It is critical that we speak up now and be involved in this process.
Issues of the neighbors in the vicinity of Sunny Creek:
Building three restaurants does not comply with providing the City's policy of “neighborhood-serving
stores” nor are they needed due to the disruptions to the peace and tranquility of this area:
1. Restaurants are mostly frequented by those outside of the neighborhood bringing in excess outside
traffic,
2. There are already an abundance of restaurant choices and grocery stores nearby:
a. 1 mile to The Islands at Faraday and Van Allen Way
2-1294
b. 1 mile to the new East Village at Robertson Ranch
c. 2 miles down to Lowes Plaza
d. 3 miles to Bressi Ranch
e. 3 miles to Vons/Rite Aid on Tamarack
e. 3.5 miles to Westfield Camino Real Mall
f. 3.5 miles to College Blvd. near Walmart
Per City Policy: objectives are established to guard against "creating undue overlaps in trade areas,
while providing desirable diversity without overcommercialization, consistent with the prime concept
and image of the community as a desirable residential, open space community". (SHOPPING CENTER
POLICIES GPA 00-04 and the SHOPPING CENTER REDESIGNATIONS GPA 01-06)
IMPORTANT SUMMARY POINTS:
The need does not exist for additional shopping centers, especially not at the expense of negatively
impacting the "scenic corridor'' and the residential environment.
The City of Carlsbad should not eliminate one of the last minimally congested areas to live in beautiful
Carlsbad.
The guidelines set forth by the aforementioned the Carlsbad Shopping Center policies clearly state that
more shopping centers along the El Camino Real NW and NE quadrant "conflict with adjoining
residential areas" because of many factors including "Controlling lights, signage, and hours of operation
.....that will "adversely impact surrounding uses" (Resolution No. 200146 of the General Plan).
The proposal would result in:
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:.
The surrounding area of the proposed shopping center will be impacted by seismic ground shaking from
new building projects. The habitat of the surrounding area will also be negatively impacted by
excavation and changes in topography, specifically by large amounts of blacktop and concrete.
WATER PROBLEMS:
Due to the many creeks in the surrounding area, due to grease runoff from proposed restaurants and
grocery stores, due to disruption of water flow, the shopping centers would result in: a) Changes in
absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards,
c) Changes in the quality and quantity of ground waters.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION PROBLEMS.
The proposed Sunny Creek shopping center will result in increased vehicle trips, increase of cars
entering and leaving the Plaza, traffic congestion, idling cars waiting at lights and waiting to park,
resulting in impact on air quality and on noise.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Displacement of the local wildlife that currently exists on the open lands.
2-1295
NOISE: increases in existing noise levels; Exposure of people to severe noise levels.
DRAIN ON CITY SERVICES: lncreased need for police surveillance, for road maintenance, and for fire
protection.
INCREASED NEED for utilities, power or natural gas, communications systems, local or regional water
treatment or distribution facilities, sewer or septic tanks, storm water drainage, solid waste disposal,
local water supplies.
NEGATIVE IMPACT ON AESTHETICS: the scenic corridor of natural scenic vistas will be gone and
replaced with concrete, macadam, and rooftops. The proposed project creates light and glare that does
not exist now.
Northeast Carlsbad is over-saturated with commercial uses and dense residential housing. Placing a
neighborhood retail center on the Sunny Creek open space serves no land planning purpose. There are
ample shopping choices within proximity of three miles or five minutes travelling time (especially with
the planned East Village at Robertson Ranch).
As an alternative, we propose that the project site be rezoned for low-medium residential uses including
a park that is needed for the surrounding communities. High-end single-family homes with a well-
architected park would provide the property owner with a reasonable return on his investment, and
would meet the City’s goal of maintaining architectural and visual consistency with existing adjacent
properties.
Parking lot noise - characterized by car door slams, car alarms, vehicle start-ups and tire squealing - can
be especially annoying, as it tends to be high-intensity noise which punctuates the ambient sound
environment. One must also keep in mind that the stores/restaurants at Sunny Creek will keep very late
hours, not closing until 10 or 11 o’clock in the evening. Some stores may even stay open 24 hours a day.
Noise in the evening, particularly after 10 p.m., is especially disturbing to residents. It interrupts
conversations; it disrupts quiet interior activities, such as watching television; and it makes sleep
difficult. It is unclear how (or whether) these intrusive noise impacts can be mitigated to acceptable
levels.
Noise from delivery trucks is another serious concern. Retail deliveries, especially those for grocery
stores, often occur late at night or very early in the morning, well prior to the opening of the business
day. Such deliveries are made with semi-tractor trailers and other large vehicles, which generate
significant amounts of noise (e.g., noise from diesel engines, noise from “back up” beepers, and noise
from roll-up bay doors). The disruptive, high-intensity nature of this noise, combined with the inevitable
increase of noise on El Camino Real from at least 2,000 additional cars traveling on ECR at build-out, plus
the very late or very early hour at which it is emitted, will operate to wake residents in the surrounding
area from their sleep and create general annoyance.
Finally, there are the stationary noise sources internal to the commercial project. These consist primarily
of refrigeration and exhaust systems installed on the roofs of the commercial buildings. Not only is this
equipment noisy, it operates continuously (albeit on cycles) throughout the day and night. As with the
truck deliveries and late night parking lot noise, the loud whirring from these mechanical systems will
create noise just when everything else has quieted down and people are trying to sleep.
2-1296
Light and glare from the project is a tremendous concern: namely in the form of car headlights, store
lights and signs, and parking lot light standards. These will significantly affect those homes nearest the
proposed commercial center. As with the project’s noise impacts, these light and glare impacts are most
disruptive during the nighttime hours, when residents quiet their own interior lights and prepare for
bed. It is doubtful that Sunny Creek Plaza can soften the light and glare impacts sufficiently to mitigate
these impacts to Sunny Creek residents.
Given the overwhelming number of shopping options and housing units within a 3-mile radius of Sunny
Creek, and given the weak demand for this project from neighboring residents due to the potential
traffic, noise, and lighting impacts - both direct and cumulative, increased housing and commercial land
use on the open Sunny Creek land can hardly be justified.
For the numerous reasons stated above, the City of Carlsbad should abide by "the original staff
recommendation {that} contained a policy that would have prohibited new sites for local shopping
centers from being located along El Camino Real...{in order} to preserve the scenic quality of this
designated scenic corridor." (Policy C.2.6, page 32 of Exhibit '1.11").
Thank you for helping to preserve and protect the tranquility of our beautiful neighborhood.
Attached: Proposed Sunny Creek Project
bcc: Friends of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor
Friends of Sunny Creek
2-1297
From: Michele Cullen [mailto:michelecullen@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 4:37 PM
To: Don Neu
Subject: Sunny Creek Area - High Density proposed housing
Mr. Neu - My husband and I are homeowners in the Sunny Creek area where we are raising a
family. The proposed high density housing for the vacant lot right near our development is
cause for concern - we already have low income housing outside our gates and have
experienced several problems with our gates being vandalized, etc., which we end up paying for
with our homeowner dues. To now have potentially more high density, overcrowded housing
adjacent to our neighborhood is not why we moved to Carlsbad. As you know, in Carlsbad,
housing costs are high, as well as property taxes. To bring in high density housing would only
serve to increase congestion, traffic and possibly crime, and decrease our property
values. Homeowners and their desires need to be considered. I strongly urge the City of
Carlsbad to rethink this property - there is already traffic and congestion on El Camino Real,
especially in the mornings and from 5-6 p.m. and adding ANY type of housing will only make it
worse. We moved to Carlsbad as there are still parks, open lots, etc., and it is not an
overdeveloped area. Please consider how you would feel if you lived in our neighborhood. I
appreciate your time and efforts on behalf of homeowners at the Terraces at Sunny Creek.
Thank you,
Michele & Steve Cullen
2-1298
From: Patricia Mehan [mailto:whatatrip@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 9:33 AM
To: Don Neu
Subject: Lot 11- "The Walmart Property"
Hi Don,
I spoke at the city council meeting a couple of weeks ago about the zoning change for the property at
College and ECR. I want to repeat what I said at the council and say I am against changing the zoning
change being proposed from all commercial to partial commercial with high density housing.
The only way I would agree to a zoning change is to put a pocket park in the commercial zoned land
since we have no parks in our vicinity.
Yours truly,
Patricia Mehan
5403 Foxtail Loop
Carlsbad
2-1299
From: priscilla gess <priscillagess@gmail.com>
Date: November 1, 2014 at 10:53:30 PM PDT
To: Don.Neu@Carlsbadca.gov
Subject: Sunny Creek proposed changes
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Mr. Don Neu,
We are writing you questioning the importance of and the logic behind the necessity for
the City planning staff to change the zoning designation from Commercial to
Commercial/High Density Housing in Sunny Creek. We are homeowners in the Sunny
Creek Terraces subdivision and are dismayed over the proposed changes.
We are questioning and asking you to question:
1. How might the variance alter the essential character of the area?
2. Is the purpose of the variance based exclusively upon a desire to make more
money out of the property?
3. How might the conditions of the variance apply to another property within the same
zoning classification?
4. Will the proposed variance be detrimental to other property or improvements in the
neighborhood in which the property is located?
5. Will the proposed variance substantially increase the danger of fire, or otherwise
endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within
the neighborhood?
The change of zoning from Commercial to Commercial/High Density Housing appears
to be economy related for the developer and not economically good for the community.
The zoning change will drastically increase traffic, noise pollution, and lower property
values.
We are also dismayed over the not counting Assisted Living, Retirement homes and 2nd
dwelling units as residential units as Assisted Living, Retirement homes and 2nd dwelling
residents all use roadways, water, electricity, trash and sewer services, along with fire
and police protection.
We disapprove of the proposed changes. This just does not fit with the current existing
family residence area built years ago. We want to preserve our neighborhood with
minimal traffic, car pollution, noise and glaring lights and keep our property values from
decreasing exponentially.
Sincerely,
Robert and Priscilla Gess
5550 Coyote Ct
Carlsbad CA 92010
2-1300
From: Samuel Sunil Pattem [mailto:pattems@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2014 6:44 AM
To: Don Neu
Subject: High Density homes by College & El Camino Real -- Sunny Creek Terraces
Dear Mr. Don
Greetings. I am a resident of Carlsbad in Sunny Creek Terraces. I would like to express my concern of
the construction of high density homes in the vacant plot by the El Camino and College Blvd
intersection.
El Camino Real is already over burdened by traffic during the peak hours. Adding 230 apartment units
would add at least 400 cars to enter El Camino Real during the morning peak hours. In addition to it,
many school children who either drive or get dropped by parents will be adding to the traffic, causing
serious bottlenecks.
Needless to mention Carlsbad schools are over crowded and there is a possibility of existing children
getting a compromised quality of education.
Please consider lowering the high density apartments proposal to low or mid density by allowing
town homes.
Thank you for your consideration
Regards
Sam & Rebacca
Residents of Sunny Creek Terraces
--
Samuel Sunil Pattem
5459 Foxtail Loop
Carlsbad CA 92010
2-1301
From: Jo Ann Sweeney [mailto:j.ocean92008@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:19 AM
To: Velyn Anderson; Neil Black; Hap L’Heureux; martymontgomery@gmail.com; vscul@roadrunner.com;
Jeff Segall; Kerry Siekmann; Jennifer Jesser
Subject: Increased Density Along El Camino Real
November 18, 2014
Dear Carlsbad Director of Planning, City Planner, and Planning Commissioners:
We have been residents of Carlsbad, Ca. for seventeen years. We have enjoyed our life here, the beauty of Carlsbad and
originally bought our home in Carlsbad because of Carlsbad’s planned growth and open space visions. We are now concerned
about the increased planned developments, both commercial and residential, along the El Camino Real corridor. This was to
remain a scenic corridor. Please maintain this vision. Drive along El Camino Real and you will now witness the road grid lock,
increased pollution and the problems already occurring because of increased density. Please do not allow for further increased
higher density housing at the Sunny Creek Plaza property. We are especially concerned about water resources, fire, police
resources and the problems that increased high density housing and more shopping areas will bring to this area. There is already
a plethora of shopping centers and restaurants within a five mile radius.
The existing Rancho Carlsbad Golf Course should remain as open space and/or for recreational use. There is already a planned
shopping center at Cannon Road where the Robinson Ranch development is under way. How much more traffic can the El
Camino Real corridor tolerate? How much more pollution do we want in this area? How will our limited water resource be
allocated if continual high density building is allowed? Since this is the last area of Carlsbad to be developed, it needs to be done
in a careful and thoughtful manner. Please consider the needs and wishes of the tax paying residents of Carlsbad. The devastating
May fires were a wake-up call for Carlsbad residents. Consider our available resources when you make your decisions. We
implore you to scale down the proposed developments, reduce congestion, reduce pollution, reduce road grid lock, and reduce
noise in the El Camino Real corridor. Consider the drain on our city services if you allow for higher density housing and
shopping centers in this area.
Continual and careful planning will allow Carlsbad to remain a beautiful, safe, and
environmentally friendly place to live.
Respectfully,
JoAnn V. Sweeney
William K. Sweeney
5342 Forecastle Court
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
2-1302
From: Jerry Hansen [mailto:ljhansen77@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 1:09 PM
To: Van Lynch
Cc: Don Neu
Subject: Sunny Creek Proposal
Hi, Van
We’d like to go on record with our neighbors as being opposed to amendments to the General Plan to
add more higher density development in our area. Since we’re in a drought season and area, adding
more and more development will further strain the scarce supply and will change the character of the city
as described in the current General Plan.
Thanks for listening,
Jerry & Ana Hansen
5349 Forecastle Ct.
L. Jerry Hansen
Attorney at Law
Estate Planning & Elder Law
2244 Faraday Ave #144
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Web: HansenElderLaw.com
(760) 458-3640
2-1303
Kira Linberg
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
>
>Greetings Mr. Blackburn,
>
Lisa McKethan < lisalee2828@cox.net>
Tuesday, June 24, 2014 7:46 PM
Council Internet Email
BV Reservoir
>When I attended and spoke at the most recent council meeting I got the impression that you are empathetic to the
concerns of residents in Olde Carlsbad. I have been attending meetings since becoming aware of the possible sale of BVR
and been told repeatedly that my quadrant meets the park/open spaces standards. City staff held a meeting last night
and again stated that according to policy that we meet the standard set in 1984. Staff also recommended that I attend
more meetings, maybe even attend 'citizen's academy'.
>
> I have been a resident since 1960 and have participated in civic events, volunteered and enjoyed our quaint village for
all these many years. Will attending more meetings help me understand this pretzel logic that is used to defend this
policy? This policy adds in school playgrounds as park space. We all know that we no longer can access school grounds.
My question to you is, can we agree that this policy is outdated and flawed and come up with another way to calculate
parks for the NW quadrant?
>
>I am curious about how many homes and multi-unit dwellings have been added to Olde Carlsbad since 1984? We have
not had any parks added since then that I'm aware of .... The park adjacent to the Twins Inns and railroad tracks was
reduced when the Neiman's complex went in. Holiday Park is a lovely park but has become so noisy because of constant
freeway noise, that it is impossible to enjoy. The 'park spaces' adjacent to Pia Pica and hwy 5 exceed noise levels and do
not m eet clean air standards.
>
>I want to help maintain the Carlsbad that I treasure. Adding an 'adventure pa rk' in the south does not address the
needs of my neighborhood. As well, adding a 'multi generational facility' in the south does not meet the needs of the
barrio residents who have been waiting for their facility for years. 'Activating the waterfront' does not sound like beach
access for surfers, swimmers and Carlsbad families. I look forward to meeting with you and discussing this further. Thank
you for your time and attention to this matter.
>
>Kindly,
> Lisa Mckethan
> 1343 Fore st Ave
> 760.803.9933
>
> Sent from my iPad
11 2-1304
Kira Linberg
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Diane,
Gerardeen Santiago <gerardeen@hotmail.com>
Thursday, July 10, 2014 5:05 PM
dandd2@peoplepc.com
Council Internet Email
FW: SOS for Parks and Open Space: City Council Workshop 9 AM Tues July 15
My husband and I live at 2890 Highland Drive, on property abutting the Buena Vista Reservoir. Because of
work commitments, we are unable to participate in this workshop but would like to formally voice a request
for the City to consider. We em ailed the City Council a couple of months ago stating our concern and would
like to ensure due consideration moving forward.
Would it be possible to give residents directly adjacent to the reservoir the option to purchase a small
extension to their property (eg, a 20-30 ft deep extension of land) in order to maintain our privacy? We
purchased our property in 2000 primarily because of the privacy afforded by the backyard and are very
concerned that we may lose this privacy in the not-too-distant future.
Many thanks,
Gerardeen M . Santiago, PhD
2890 Highland Drive, Carlsbad 92008
760-500-1137
Subject: Fwd: SOS for Parks and Open Space: City Council Workshop 9 AM Tues July 15
From: maryanneviney@dslextreme.com
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 07:59:19 -0700
To: maryanneviney@dslextreme.com
Dear Olde Carlsbad Residents
The City of Carlsbad has scheduled a special workshop to discuss parks and open space 9:00 AM on Tuesday,
July 15.
THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO voice your opinion and request the City create a neighborhood park at the
Buena Vista Reservoir. It can be done! The City of Carlsbad has excess reserve funds of over$ 70 million. For
more information, see forwarded message below.
Best regards,
Mary Anne Viney
Begin forwarded message:
From: "diane nygaard" <dandd2@peoplepc.com>
Subject: SOS for Parks and Open Space: City Council Workshop 9 AM Tues July
15
8 2-1305
Date: July 10, 2014 at 7:20:54 AM PDT
To: "Diane Nygaard" <dandd2@peoplepc.com>
Hi SOS for Open Space Supporters
The proposed General Plan for Carlsbad ignores the 1986 promise of 40% open space city wide
and the mandate for a minimum of 15% open space in each Local Facility Management Zone-
open space in your neighborhood where it affects your quality of life, property values and the
health and wellbeing of your family.
The City Council has scheduled a special workshop to discuss parks and open space:
When : 9am on Tues July 15
Where : Carlsbad City Hall, 1200 CBV Dr.
Staff will say how great the new General Plan(GP) is-and every quadrant will have more than
enough parks. But their numbers are based on smoke and mirrors.
The City Council needs to hear from all of us !
They will give direction to staff that will either fix the General Plan-or allow it to go forward as
is-with less than 40% open space, double counting of some park acres, counting school yards as
parks and no commitment to neighborhood parks.
What Can You DO 7
1. Attend and speak at this workshop if you can.
We know that is hard for many-they didn't schedule it for 9 am to make it easy.
2. Uncomfortable speaking-come and show your support by your presence.
3. Send an email with your concerns-to council@carlsbadca.gov
(if you have submitted comments about this for the GP-don't assume they have gotten
them-send them again)
The standard for parks has not been updated since 1986. The world has changed since 1986
and it is time for the park and open space standards to reflect those changes, be consistent
with the community values oftoday, and assure that every neighborhood, and every child has
access to a park and open space.
We want to see real parks-not fenced school yards that are behind locked gates.
We want to see a commitment to neighborhood parks-ones people can walk and bike
to.
We want to see an equitable distribution of parks-not one park counted in all 4
quadrants. (Veteran's)
9 2-1306
We want to see parks people can use-no double counting of hard lined open space as
parks.
We want to see at least 40% open space-that was promised since 1986.
We want to see parks and open space that are balanced with development=
Not 0 parks while they add 23,000 residents ,7.5 m sqft of commercial and 2,600
hotel rooms.
Together we can fix the General Plan-and make sure the Carlsbad of the future does not
compromise parks and open space !
Diane
Preserve Calavera
10 2-1307
Kira Linberg
From:
Sent:
Kim Berkshire <kimqberkshire@roadrunner.com>
Friday, September 12, 2014 2:24 PM
To: Council Internet Email
Subject: sale of buena vista reservoir
Hello,
I have a very simple argument regarding the sale of Buena Vista Reservoir. The drought is way worse than anyone wants
to admit.
How are these homes going to afford water?
Thanks,
Kim Berkshire
Carlsbad resident since January 2000
760 994-0134
6 2-1308
Kira Linberg
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Carlsbad City Council,
Lindsey Cohn <Lindsey@gurze.net>
Monday, October 20, 2014 11:16 AM
Council Internet Email
Buena Vista Resevoir
I am out of town for the month of October, but it has been brought to my attention that there is a possibility of a
community park for the northwest quadrant at the Buena Vista Reservoir. As a 27 year resident of this area of
Carlsbad, I am strongly supportive of open space in the Olde Carlsbad area and I urge you to save the Buena
Vista Reservoir area for public use as a park. We desperately need it!! And we have enough density in our area~
Thank you, Lindsey Cohn
Lindsey Cohn
3420 Woodland Way
Carlsbad, CA 92008
3 2-1309
Kira Linberg
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sandra Meador < meador.s409@gmail.com >
Monday, October 20, 2014 1:55 PM
Council Internet Email
Reservoir
The Northwestern quadrant needs more open space.
i lease use the Buena Vista Reservoir land for a
Thank you.
Sandra Meador
$098 Harbor Drive
Carlsbad 92008
2 2-1310
Kira Linberg
From:
Sent:
To:
Dear Carlsbad City Council,
Steven Borso <sdborso@gmail.com>
Tuesday, October 21, 2014 8:07 AM
Council Internet Email
I am unable to attend the city council meeting on Tuesday,October 21st, at 6:00pm, but I would like to express my
support for saving the Buena Vista Reservoir for a community park space which is sorely lacking in the NW quadrant of
Old Carlsbad. Selling this property to developers is not, in my opinion, a wise use of this land which cold be better used to
serve the public needs with a park or open space.
Thank you for your time in governing our wonderful city and for your consideration of my views.
Steven Borso
1 2-1311
Kira Linberg
From:
Sent:
To:
Ziv Ran <ziv.ran@gmail.com>
Friday, July 11, 2014 8:18 AM
Council Internet Email
Subject: Parks Needed
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Follow up
Completed
"The City Council has scheduled a special workshop to discuss parks and open space:
When : 9am on Tues July 15
Where : Carlsbad City Hall, 1200 CBV Dr. "
Dear Carlsbad City Council:
It's unfathomable and unfortunate you've chosen a time for this workshop when most of us
potential park users are at work and unable to attend. Here are some thoughts from a local
resident:
We want to see real parks-not fenced school yards that are behind locked gates.
We want to see a commitment to neighborhood parks-ones people can walk a short
distance and bike to . I don't live in a quadrant. I live in a neighborhood, namely the one just
north of City Hall. I need some park space within a 5-10 min walk, and not right next to the
Freeway. Now, I have none. At the very least, TURN BV RESERVOIR TO A PARK ! !
We want to see an equitable distribution of parks-not one park counted in all4
quadrants. {Veteran's)
We want to see parks people can use-no double counting of hard lined open space as
parks.
We want to see at least 40% open space-that was promised since 1986.
We want to see parks and open space that are balanced with development NOT 0 parks
while they add 23,000 residents ,7.5 m sqft of commercial and 2,600 hotel rooms.
Sincerely,
Ziv Ran
Forest Ave.
7 2-1312
Kira Linberg
From:
Sent:
To:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Pru Sweeney <pvsweeneyl@msn.com>
Friday, July 11, 2014 11:28 AM
Council Internet Email
Follow up
Completed
As a resident of Carlsbad, I plan to be at your meeting on Tuesday. First, why so early? Are you trying to
avoid a crowd of people who are concerned about parks, but have to work? I am concerned about the
way Carlsbad has added 23,000 more residents, 2,600 more hotel rooms, but no additional parks in every
quadrant of the city. I don't consider school playgrounds that are locked when school is out to be parks
for the use of all of us. When could we use them? I shall be very interested in hearing your
report. Prudence Sweeney 2349 Longfellow Rd. Carlsbad
6 2-1313
December 19, 2014
Jennifer Jesser, Senior Planner
Carlsbad Planning Division
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: San Diego Coastkeeper’s Comments on Carlsbad General Plan
Sent via email
Dear Ms. Jesser:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Carlsbad General Plan Update.
This letter is submitted on behalf of San Diego Coastkeeper, a non-profit whose mission is to
protect and restore swimmable, fishable and drinkable water in San Diego County. We have
a few concerns regarding the City’s Draft General Plan and its associated Draft Environmental
Impact Report. Our concerns are as follows:
Significance Criteria: The General Plan’s Impact Analysis (3.12-25) states that a significant
impact would occur with full implementation of the proposed General Plan if it would… “have
insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or require new or expanded entitlements.” While recognizing the plan could create
an additional demand for water, it fails to include any substantive detailed analysis and
expected impacts, and instead summarily concludes that implementation of the UWMP and
SDCWA’s plans will makes these impacts less than significant. Given the assumptions upon
which this Plan and the 2010 CWMD UWMP are based, Coastkeeper believes the impacts
would, in fact, be significant.
The water supply and demand tables (p. 3.12-37) show water supplies for single and multiple
dry years as being equal to or greater than projected supplies for normal years. The charts
project the city as having the greatest water supply during the third year of a multiple dry year
cycle. We understand that the increase is expected to come from increased SDCWA
purchases.1 We seriously question whether such additional sources will be available, and
request further justification and explanation of where additional sources will originate. Further,
even if such sources are somehow available, we are concerned that the impacts of diverting
or obtaining additional water, especially during dry years, are not adequately addressed. If the
impacts of diverting more water are addressed in SDCWA reports, please provide a reference
to that analysis. If no analysis exists, one should be provided, and alternatives such as potable
reuse and aggressive conservation measures should be considered.
The General Plan bases the “no significant impact” finding on assumptions based on the 2010
CWMD UWMP that are now out of date and/or no longer appropriate. Assumptions in 2010
UWMP state that in multiple dry years, MWD will be allocating supplies. Given nature of
drought, with climate change’s potential to lead to more frequent and intense droughts, the
assumptions should be changed. As we have seen in this year, allocations from the State
Water Project are a fraction of normal year (5% allocations in 2014 to initial projected
1 Carlsbad Urban Water Management Plan 7-2
2-1314
allocations for 2015 of 10%). Thus, assumptions that MWD will be allocating supplies that
might not exist are not proper. As new studies mention the possibility of a mega-drought and
the expected impacts on water supplies due to climate change, it is important for Carlsbad to
plan for all scenarios, including worst-case zero allocation scenarios. The impacts of a plan
that increase water use but that have no water available must be assessed in more detail than
what is present in the draft General Plan. As it currently stands, significant impacts will result
from implementation of the General Plan as they relate to water supplies and availability.
To help mitigate for these issues, Coastkeeper urges Carlsbad to consider potable reuse
projects and stress aggressive conservation measures to surpass the SBx7-7 requirements
of 20% reductions. It is possible, and perhaps necessary, for residents to reduce their use be
below 50 gallons per capita per day (see the U-T San Diego Nov 3, 2014 article on how little
water we could use as a community2). The Carlsbad UWMP states “SDCWA could take steps
to increase development of transfers or seawater desalination” (p. 4-7 of CWMD 2010
UWMP). Coastkeeper urges Carlsbad, in order to have a Plan that moves forward with ample
water supplies to account for the growth expected under this plan, to not rely solely on
SDCWA supplies but to independently and aggressively seek conservation measures and
investigate in or participate in potable reuse projects of all scales.
Further, p. 3.12-30 is very speculative as to what “could” happen, but what we actually see
happening today is reduced allocations from the State Water Project, in what is perhaps worst
drought we have seen in recent history. And surprisingly, p. 3.12-3 mentions the lifting of
drought restrictions from several years ago. However, mandatory drought and water use
restrictions have been issued Countywide, and the State Water Board has issued Emergency
Drought Regulations to deal with the serious water supply issues facing our state and our
region. These new measures should remain as permanent conservation measures to help
ensure adequate water supplies will be present to meet requirements of growth that will result
from General Plan Update. Due to the serious nature of our water supplies and the expected
growth that will result from the General Plan, the impacts of this Plan will be significant.
Ground and Surface Water: Page 3.12-28 of the DEIR states “Improvements may include the
need to utilize local groundwater and surface water supplies.” There have also been reports
that the city initiated litigation asserting its right to use percolating groundwater.3 Neither the
DEIR nor the City’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) address the impacts associated
with using local ground or surface water. Again, if that analysis was done in connection with
the UWMP, please provide a reference to that analysis. If no analysis has been conducted,
one should be conducted in connection with the General Plan update, and alternatives should
be considered.
Furthermore, rights to groundwater have not been secured and may not be. Groundwater
availability and feasibility to meet the reduced water supplies and growth expected from
implementation of this General Plan is too speculative at this time.
Sea Level Rise: The EIR briefly notes the threat sea level rise presents to the coastal city.
However, few details are given regarding mitigation measures or adaptation strategies. We
2 U-T San Diego: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/oct/31/environment-water-conservation-
home/
3 “The City of Carlsbad in a Fight for Water,” San Diego Reader, Dec. 2013
2-1315
are concerned that the City is will not be adequately prepared for the rise in sea level that is
likely to occur as the climate changes. Statewide guidance documents recommend that cities
make specific plans to prepare for a rise of 10-17 inches by 2050 and 78-176 inches by 2100.4
We encourage the City to review statewide sea level rise guidance documents and prepare
more detailed plans.
Goals and Policies: The Plan summarily concludes that “through compliance with existing and
future regulations, and implementation of the proposed General Plan policies, impacts would
be less than significant.” (p. 3.12-31.) However, the policies throughout the plan do not go
far enough to ensure future water supplies are present and that implementation of the General
Plan would not have a significant impact. Many policies and goals merely “encourage” actions
rather than “require” them. And instead of having policies and goals “strive” to accomplish the
sought measures, they should require measurable milestones and goals toward reducing
reliance on imported water via conservation and recycling, instead of continuing to rely on
more energy-intense water sources such as imported water and desalination. In particular,
measures that “consider” changes for golf courses should instead require those changes. And
instead of “promoting gray water and rainwater collection”, the City should require such
measure to ensure impacts will be mitigated.
In closing, and based upon the above, Coastkeeper believes the impacts of the General Plan
are not “less than significant” as the Plan concludes.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Carlsbad General Plan. Please feel free to
contact me with any questions or for additional feedback. We look forward to working with
the City of Carlsbad toward development of a General Plan that adequately consider impacts
on and to our water resources.
Sincerely,
Matt O’Malley
Waterkeeper, Legal & Policy Director
Kathryn Kriozere
Legal Fellow
4 State of CA Sea Level Rise Guidance Document, October 2010 (Updated March 2013) Developed
by the California Climate Action Team (CO-CAT)
2-1316
2-1317
2-1318
2-1319
2-1320
2-1321
2-1322
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
Received After Close of Comment Period Responses
D1: Allen Sweet
D1-1: The commenter asserts that bikers sharing lanes with autos, known as “sharrows”, are not
safe for bicyclists, and that a better solution is for bikers to ride on less busy streets and to
have bike paths that are separated from autos.
Both the Carlsbad Bicycle Master Plan and the draft Mobility Element plan for and
encourage the use of bicycle facilities that are separated from autos. The Carlsbad Bicycle
Master Plan identifies approximately 6.5 miles of new Class I (separated) bike paths. The
draft Mobility Element policy 3-P.13 encourages the use of separated bicycle
infrastructure, and policy 3-P.17 proposes implementation of new bicycle and pedestrian
pathways that are separated from auto traffic. The shared lane marking (sharrow) is
outlined in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for use on
roadways without a marked bike lane that may be too narrow for a motor vehicle and
bicycle to travel side by side. It can also be used on roadways with parallel parking to help
define the lateral position of a bike on a shared roadway to reduce open door
conflicts. The shared lane marking is intended to increase safety. Safety studies prepared
by the Federal Highway Administration indicated that sharrows are acceptable for use in
a variety of situations. Although the draft Mobility Element is designed to implement a
livable streets vision that plans equitably for all users of public street system, including
pedestrians and bicyclists, it does not include policies that specifically address or plan for
the use of sharrows.
D1-2: The commenter expresses a general concern about designating important streets (in the
Mobility Element) as prioritized for bicycles instead of autos. The Mobility Element
attempts to provide for all users of the system, including bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and
vehicles. As such, vehicles are provided for on all roadways within the city and are
prioritized on all arterials in the city. The street typologies developed for the Mobility
Element were based on the information from the Envision Carlsbad process, input
from city staff, and input received from City Council at a council workshop process.
It is most similar in nature and reflects the recommended practice in the Institute of
Transportation Engineers’ Urban Roadway Systems.
D1-3: The commenter reiterates a preference for bike paths that are separated from auto lanes.
Please see response to comment D1-1 above.
D2: Evelyn Montalbano
D2-1: This comment letter is in regards to recent restriping of La Costa Avenue east of El
Camino Real and the need for future additional safety improvements along this stretch of
La Costa Avenue. Please see response letter from City Manager dated 9/30/14, below.
2-1323
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
D3: Ian Pierson and Jenny Fererro
D3-1: This commenter voices a desire for the Buena Vista Reservoir property to be converted to
open space or a park for the neighborhood, as was expressed in a previous email dated
February 25, 2014. Please see master response MR2-2 and MR2-5 in final EIR Chapter 2
regarding the Buena Vista reservoir site. The comment will be included in the materials
presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making
their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D3-2: This comment, which consists of the commenter’s February 25, 2014 email to the City
Council regarding Buena Vista Reservoir, encourages the City Council to use the
property as a park or open space rather than sell the property for development as a
subdivision. Please see master responses MR2-2 and MR2-5 in final EIR Chapter 2
regarding the Buena Vista reservoir site. The comment will be included in the materials
presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making
their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D4: JoAnn Sweeney
D4-1: The commenter, who has been a resident since 1997, is a proponent of the 40% open
space standard and is concerned that the last remaining undeveloped land is being
developed. Please see master responses MR1-2 and MR1-3 for a discussion of the 40%
open space “requirement” and the amount of open space provided under the draft
General Plan.
D4-2: The commenter expresses concern for the future development of properties generally
located east of the intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon (Rancho Carlsbad Golf
Course, Sunny Creek Plaza, and land around Sage Creek High School) that could result in
traffic, air quality, public safety, water supply and public service impacts from high
density housing. See Chapter 3.2 Recirculated DEIR for impacts to air quality, and see
draft EIR Chapter 3.11 for analysis of impacts to public facilities and services, Chapter
3.12 for impacts to public utilities and infrastructure, and Chapter 3.13 for impacts to
transportation.
The commenter requests that there be no changes to the existing zone designations of
these areas. Please see staff recommendations in the Planning Commission staff report
regarding draft land use changes in this area.
D4-3: This comment references the executive summary of the City Council 2012 Planning
Workshop, which focuses on a number of quality of life policies, and no response is
required.
D4-4: The commenter states a concern that there will be additional impacts to traffic and public
services, and increased fire hazards as a result of increased commercial and high-density
residential construction. The commenter also suggests that new building standards
should require undergrounding of all utilities to reduce the fire hazard of overhead wires.
These potential impacts are analyzed in the draft EIR. See sections 3.11 for analysis of
2-1324
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
impacts to public facilities and services, 3.12 for impacts to public utilities and
infrastructure, and 3.13 for impacts to transportation.
D4-5: This comment supports revitalization of the Barrio and downtown Village area, and
advocates for using the Buena Vista Reservoir property as a park. The draft General Plan
identifies the Village and Barrio for special planning considerations and has specific
policies for these areas. A new master plan for the Village and Barrio is currently in
development. Please see master responses MR2-2 and MR2-5 in final EIR Chapter 2
regarding the Buena Vista reservoir site.
D4-6: The commenter expresses a desire to maintain the vision for a small downtown feel; to
provide a variety of housing and employment opportunities; to maintain open space
thorough slow and balanced growth. Each element in the draft General Plan contains a
discussion of its relationship to the Community Vision’s core values. The Land Use and
Community Design Element is particularly intended to support the core value to
maintain a small town feel, beach community character and connectedness. The
comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and
City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General
Plan.
D5: Madeline Szabo
D5-1: The commenter has been a resident for two years and states a concern about meeting the
40% open space goal and asks that the Council eliminate plans for adding more residents,
commercial development and hotel rooms because of water shortages, a strain on
resources, and increased traffic and pollution. Please see master responses MR1-2 and
MR1-3 in final EIR Chapter 2 for a discussion of the 40% open space “requirement” and
the amount of open space provided under the draft General Plan. The comment will be
included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D5-2: The commenter asks how development projects can be approved in areas such as Dos
Colinas and the vicinity, particularly in light of the requirement for 40% open space at
build out. Please see master responses MR1-1, MR1-2 and MR1-3 in final EIR Chapter 2
for a discussion of the city’s open space policies.
D5-3: This comment requests a response and a commitment for maintaining Carlsbad as it is
today. Comments, and responses will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City
Council for their consideration.
D6: Madeleine Szabo
D6-1: The commenter states her opposition to additional commercial development along El
Camino Real north of Palomar Airport Road, specifically at locations known as Sunny
Creek Commercial and Robertson Ranch, and states that these sites should remain as
open space or zoned as low density housing. The commenter also suggests that the city
should buy these sites to preserve them as open conservation land.
2-1325
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
Although these two sites are currently undeveloped, they are not designated as open space
in the existing General Plan. Please see staff recommendations in the Planning
Commission staff report regarding proposed land use changes in this area. The Planning
Commission and City Council will be informed of commenter’s opposition to future
development of these sites and recommendation to purchase for open space.
D6-2: The commenter references two previous General Plan amendments (GPA 00-04 and
GPA 01-06), and asserts that these amendments do not indicate a need for new shopping
centers along the subject portion of El Camino Real. Previous actions by the City Council
designated these sites for commercial land uses, and the draft General Plan does not
modify these designations, except for a proposed modification of the Sunny Creek
commercial property to allow for residential uses in addition to local commercial. The
Envision Carlsbad Working Paper 2 includes a study shows that residents must shop in
adjacent jurisdictions for certain needs, such as grocery, gas and dining. The local
commercial land use designation is intended to include these types of local serving
commercial uses.
D6-3: The commenter asserts that in 2001 staff recommended against additional shopping
centers along the subject portion of El Camino Real due to this being a designated scenic
corridor; however, that the Planning Commission did not concur with this
recommendation. Previous actions by the City Council designated these sites for
commercial land uses, and the draft General Plan does not modify these designations,
except for a proposed modification of the Sunny Creek commercial property to allow for
residential uses in addition to local commercial.
D6-4: The commenter states that even if a shopping center project follows strict design
guidelines, it will not preserve the scenic quality of the area, which will be detrimentally
affected. The draft EIR analyzed full buildout of the proposed land use map at a
programmatic level, (which includes commercial at Robertson Ranch and
commercial/residential at Sunny Creek Commercial) and found that the adoption of the
draft General Plan is not anticipated to have significant adverse impacts on scenic
resources. Future development allowed under the draft General Plan will be subject to
site-specific environmental review, including analysis of the potential impacts on
aesthetics and visual resources.
D6-5: The commenter references city “Shopping Center Policies” that guard against creating
undue overlaps in trade areas, and provides a list of nearby existing shopping centers, as
reasoning that there is no need for more shopping centers in the subject portion of El
Camino Real. Please see response to comment D6-2 above. The comment will be
included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D6-6: The commenter references city “Shopping Center Policies”, and asserts that more
shopping centers in the subject portion of El Camino Real would adversely impact
adjoining areas. Please see response to comment D6-2 above.
2-1326
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
D6-7: The commenter references language from the CEQA Guidelines and states that the city
must conduct an environmental impact assessment to determine if environmental factors
might be impacted, and that these two commercial sites were reviewed with a negative
declaration. The Robertson Ranch commercial project was analyzed in the Robertson
Ranch Master Plan EIR that was previously certified by the City Council. The Sunny
Creek Commercial site was analyzed at a programmatic level in the draft EIR, and will
also undergo site specific CEQA review when development is proposed on the property,
which to date has not occurred.
D6-8: The commenter claims that shopping center development in the subject portion of El
Camino Real will result in significant impacts under CEQA and lists a variety of potential
impacts. As a program EIR, the draft EIR focuses on the overall effects associated with the
adoption and implementation of the draft General Plan. Individual development projects
will continue to require project level environmental assessment. Please see Section 1.2 of
the draft EIR for a discussion of the purposes and applicability of the program-level EIR.
Please also see response to comment D6-7.
D6-9: The comment expresses a concern about the financial impact on the city resulting from
installation of infrastructure, such as road widening and traffic lights, which would be
needed to accommodate future development along El Camino Real. The city’s Growth
Management Plan requires infrastructure to be provided concurrent with development,
and that a financing plan be prepared for this infrastructure. Generally speaking, private
development pays for the infrastructure needed to serve their projects in order that
existing residents do not bear the financial burden of new development. Please see
response to comment D6-7.
D6-10: The commenter asserts that the Carlsbad market for office and retail space is
oversaturated and states that tax revenue from retail space should not occur at the
expense of quality of life. The Envision Carlsbad Working Paper 2 includes a study
showing that the city leaks retail dollars to adjacent jurisdictions for certain commercial
uses, such as grocery stores, gas stations and limited-service eating places; the implication
being that there is an unmet need in Carlsbad for these types of retail establishments. The
Local Commercial land use designation is intended to include these types of local serving
commercial uses for current and future residents.
D6-11: The commenter expresses a disagreement with the concept that more shopping centers
are needed in Carlsbad so residents won’t have to drive as far for commercial services.
See response to comment D6-10 above. The comment will be included in the materials
presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making
their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D6-12: The commenter states a belief that a future traffic light modernization planned by the city
will not effectively resolve the additional traffic created by future shopping center
developments. The draft General Plan Mobility Element describes a variety of means to
reduce peak traffic generation, including street infrastructure improvements, better traffic
signal management, and implementation of transportation demand management
2-1327
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
strategies to reduce reliance on the automobile. Please see section 3.13 of the draft EIR
for the draft General Plan for an evaluation of potential impacts on traffic.
D6-13: The commenter references a Commercial Development Survey Report included in GPA
00-04, and states that it showed Carlsbad residents prefer, along El Camino Real,
preservation of open space, minimization of visual and noise pollution, and reduction of
traffic consumption. Please see response to comment D6-2 above. The comment will be
included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D6-14: The commenter petitions the City Council to prohibit the development of additional
shopping centers along El Camino Real for reasons stated previously, and summarized in
this comment. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning
Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to
the draft General Plan. Also, please see responses above addressing the comments
reiterated in D6-14.
D7: Madeleine Szabo
D7-1: The commenter states she is writing on behalf of “Friends of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor”,
whose goal is to preserve, protect and enhance the natural environment and beauty of
NE/NW El Camino Real. No response is required.
D7-2: The commenter implores the City Council to keep the Rancho Carlsbad Golf Course
property zoned open space. The property is designated Open Space in the current
General Plan, and no change to this designation is proposed as part of the draft General
Plan. The city proposing to change the zoning from Limited Control (L-C) to Open
Space (O-S) in order to make the zoning designation consistent with the existing General
Plan designation.
D7-3: The commenter implores the City Council to rezone the Sunny Creek Commercial
property to open space or low density housing, due to concerns about aesthetics impacts
and increased traffic congestion that will occur if the property is developed either for
commercial (as currently designated) or commercial and high density housing (as
proposed).
The draft EIR analyzed full buildout of the proposed land use map at a programmatic
level, including commercial and high density land uses for the Sunny Creek Commercial
property, and found that the draft General Plan is not expected to have significant adverse
impacts on scenic resources (Section 3.1), and that the traffic level of service for El
Camino Real north of Palomar Airport Road is projected to be LOS C (not a significant
adverse impact, see Section 3.13). As a program EIR, the document focuses on the overall
effects associated with the adoption and implementation of the draft General Plan.
Individual development projects will continue to require project level environmental
assessment. Also see Section 1.2 of the draft EIR.
2-1328
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
The draft General Plan Land Use and Community Design (LUCD) Element plans for
future growth in the city. The Mobility Element is correlated to the LUCD Element,
meaning that it identifies improvements and contains policies and programs necessary to
accommodate the anticipated growth. Potential impacts to the transportation system
from implementation of the draft General Plan are thoroughly analyzed in the draft EIR,
Section 3.13.
D7-4: The commenter requests that the City Council refrain from excessively rewarding zoning
variances. Encinas Creek Apartment Homes received zoning standards modifications
(not variances) in return for providing additional affordable housing, a process that is
outlined in the zoning ordinance. This project was fully compliant with city’s zoning
ordinance and General Plan policies, and the reports and findings for documenting the
project’s approval are available for review at the city and through its Document
Management System.
D7-5: The commenter asserts that professional care facilities and Second Dwelling Units
(SDUs) should be designated as residential, rather than temporary housing, because they
house permanent occupants and their construction results in development impacts.
State law mandates that SDUs not be counted against residential growth caps, such as
exists in Carlsbad’s Growth Management Plan, and mandates that SDUs not be counted
in calculations of residential density (ie. SDUs may exceed the permitted density for a
lot). Carlsbad’s practice in implementing the GMP and residential density calculations
are fully consistent with the requirements of state law. Development of new SDUs would
typically be considered exempt from CEQA under Sections 15303 or 15332.
City policy considers professional care facilities to be commercial living units because
they are institutional housing/group quarters, and therefore different than conventional
housing. This city policy has been upheld by courts in recent legal action related to the
Dos Colinas project. Construction of new professional care facilities are subject to
CEQA, and any development impacts would be addressed through the CEQA review
process, similar to a residential project. For more information about commercial living
units and SDUs, please see sections 2.4 and 2.6 of the Land Use and Community Design
Element.
D7-6: The commenter reiterates a desire to keep the NE/NW part of El Camino Real a “scenic
corridor” with minimal impacts from development. The draft General Plan includes
policies to minimize development impacts on the visual quality of major transportation
corridors, intersections and scenic vistas (see policies 2-P.41, 2-P.43, and 3-P.19). The
comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and
City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General
Plan.
D8: Michael Kroopkin
D8-1: The commenter lists several areas of concern including traffic congestion, commercial
development, high density housing and elimination of open space and asks the City
2-1329
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
Council to reconsider adding more commercial development and high density housing.
The draft EIR analyzed the potential impacts of the draft General Plan, including the
concerns raised in the comment. For example, impacts on land use and open space is
discussed in Section 3.9, and impacts on traffic is analyzed in Section 3.13 of the draft
EIR.
D8-2: This comment consists of a neighborhood letter that the commenter received. The
neighborhood letter identifies two specific sites of concern: the commercial-designated
property at El Camino Real and College Blvd (“Sunny Creek Plaza”), and Rancho
Carlsbad golf course. With regards to the Sunny Creek site, the City Council, on 11/5/13,
directed staff to analyze, as part of the draft General Plan, a potential land use change of
the approximately 17.6 acre property from Local Commercial to a combination of High
density Residential (R-23) and Local Commercial. That analysis was incorporated into
the draft General Plan and is reflected in the draft EIR. The staff recommendation
regarding the site will be included in the report to the Planning Commission.
Regarding the Rancho Carlsbad golf course, no change in land use is proposed in the
draft General Plan. Its current and proposed land use designation is Open Space. The city
proposing to change the zoning from Limited Control (L-C) to Open Space (O-S) in
order to make the zoning designation consistent with the existing General Plan
designation.
With regards to concerns about potential impacts associated with the proposed land use
change at the Sunny Creek site, please see response to comment D8-1 above.
Lastly, the neighborhood letter refers to previous planning approvals for nearby
properties. As the comment does not address the draft General Plan or the draft EIR, no
response is necessary.
D9: Mike Barnes
D9-1: The commenter identifies that he is reiterating comments that he has made previously
related to traffic along Palomar Airport Road. Please refer to section 3.13 of the draft EIR
which analyzes the potential impacts of the draft General Plan on traffic.
D10: Osman Khawar
D10-1: The commenter, states that one of the reasons he moved to Carlsbad is because of open
space. The commenter expresses disappointment with the current development plans
and the city’s elected officials in this. Please see master responses MR1-1 through MR1-10
in final EIR Chapter 2 for a discussion of the city’s open space and parks policies. The
comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and
City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General
Plan.
2-1330
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
D11: Patricia Parsons
D11-1: The commenter expresses support for keeping Rancho Carlsbad Golf Course as Open
Space and re-zoning Sunny Creek from its current commercial designation to low density
housing, rather than to commercial/high density housing as proposed. Please see staff
recommendations in the Planning Commission staff report regarding proposed land use
changes in this area.
D11-2: This comment expresses a concern that traffic and congestion would be negatively
affected as a result of the proposed land use designations. Please see response to comment
D7-3 above and section 3.13 of the draft EIR.
D11-3: The commenter believes that developing Sunny Creek with commercial/high density
housing is inconsistent with the El Camino Real Scenic Corridor will detract from this
scenic corridor. Please see responses to comment D7-3 and D7-6 above.
D12: Penny Johnson
D12-1: This comment expresses concerns related to Veteran’s park and the “requirement for 40%
open space. Please see master response MR1-2 for a discussion of the 40% open space
“requirement” and MR1-7 regarding Veteran’s Park.
D12-2: The commenter believes that the Buena Vista Reservoir property is needed as a
neighborhood park within walking and biking distance of the residents of Olde Carlsbad.
Please see master responses MR2-2 and MR2-3 in final EIR Chapter 2 regarding parks in
the northwest quadrant.
D12-3: This comment expresses disappointment with the quality of the two parks Pio Pico.
Please see master response MR1-5 in final EIR Chapter 2 regarding the Growth
Management Program (GMP) parks performance standard.
D13: Richard Bethel
D13-1: The commenter states that the open space around the lagoons, flower fields and
strawberry fields are valued by residents and tourists alike, and furthermore, that an
upscale mall is not needed (on Cannon) and that the u-pick strawberry stand should be
maintained. The draft General Plan is a long-range policy document that addresses land
use, but does not contain or propose any specific development project that might occur
on a particular site. As this comment does not address the draft General Plan itself or the
accuracy of information provided in the draft EIR, no further response is necessary.
D14: Robert Gilbert
D14-1: The commenter requests that the city consider a neighborhood park in North Carlsbad.
Please see master responses MR2-1 in final EIR Chapter 2 regarding parks in the
northwest quadrant. This comment will be included in the materials presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration of the draft General Plan.
2-1331
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
D15: Judith and Wesley Marx
D15-1: The commenter supports the goal of 40% open space in the city and has concerns that the
amount stated in the draft General Plan is overstated, particularly with regard to counting
school athletic fields. Please see master response MR1-2 in final EIR Chapter 2 for a
discussion of the 40% open space “requirement”, MR1-3 regarding the amount of open
space provided under the draft General Plan, and MR1-6 regarding use of school sites for
recreation purposes.
D16: Whitnie Rasmussen
D16-1: These comments are in regard to Olde Carlsbad and state that the commenter would like
to see more parks, asks for preservation of public lands (vacant land next to Fire Station,
Buena Vista Reservoir property, etc.) as public parks, and requests care be given to
existing parks, the Monroe Pool and the Cole Library. Please see master responses MR2-
1 MR2-2, MR2-3, MR2-5, and MR2-6 regarding parks in Olde Carlsbad and the status of
the city-owned properties around City Hall.
D16-2 The commenter states a preference for parks, libraries, stores and beaches within easy
walking distance and does not want to see the area developed with enormous parks and
pools (such as Alga Norte Park). Please see response to comment D16-1 above. This
comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and
City Council for their consideration of the draft General Plan.
D17: Cindy Molin
D17-1: The commenter states she lives in the La Costa Oaks area of Carlsbad and that she is
surrounded by construction noise, mess and traffic due to the La Costa Towne Square
project currently under construction. As the comment does not address the adequacy or
accuracy of information provided in the draft EIR, no further response is required.
D17-2: The commenter states that including a multi-family housing area at La Costa Town
Square is not reasonable or acceptable. This comment is in reference to a proposal in the
draft General Plan to change the land use designation of property within the La Costa
Town Square project from Office (O) to R-23 Residential. The commenter states their
opinion about multi-family housing at this site. This comment will be included in the
materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration
of the draft General Plan. As the comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of
information provided in the draft EIR, no further response is required.
D17-3: The commenter states they have been lucky to enjoy their lifestyle over the last 10 years,
but now they are living in a mess and have lost their ocean view (due to the La Costa
Town Square project). Please see response to comment D17-1 above.
D17-4: The commenter states another housing area (at La Costa Town Square) will bring much
more congestion. The draft General Plan Land Use and Community Design (LUCD)
Element plans for future growth in the city, including the proposed land use designation
change from O to R-23 at La Costa Town Square. The Mobility Element is correlated to
2-1332
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
the LUCD Element, meaning that it identifies improvements and contains policies and
programs necessary to accommodate the anticipated growth. Potential impacts to the
transportation system from implementation of the draft General Plan are analyzed in the
draft EIR, Section 3.13. The potential noise and traffic impacts associated with future
development allowed under the draft General Plan will be subject to environmental
review when site-specific proposals are submitted.
D17-5: The commenter states an opinion that development of low income housing doesn’t
belong in their area because people paid a lot of money to live there and it will potentially
lower property values. Property values are not evaluated as part of the draft General Plan
and EIR. This comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning
Commission and City Council for their consideration of the draft General Plan.
D18: Ian Pierson
D18-1: The comment expresses a desire that Carlsbad not sell the Buena Vista Reservoir land to a
residential developer, but rather that the land be converted into a park or open space for
the benefit of the area. Please see master responses MR2-1 and MR 2-2 regarding the
need for parks in the Northwest Quadrant, and master response MR2-5 regarding the
city’s recent evaluations to dispose of certain city-owned properties, including the Buena
Vista Reservoir site.
D19: Jennifer Bradley
D19-1: The comment expresses a concern that Carlsbad doesn’t need the income from selling the
Buena Vista Reservoir and states that a park would be a benefit for all residents. Please
see master responses MR2-1 and MR 2-2 regarding the need for parks in the Northwest
Quadrant, and master response MR2-5 regarding the city’s recent evaluations to dispose
of certain city-owned properties, including the Buena Vista Reservoir site.
D20: Clay Antonel
D20-1: The comment expresses concerns about, and states an objection to, any zoning changes
that will increase density in the area near his residence in the Terraces at Sunny Creek
due to concerns about increases in crime, noise and traffic. Please see master response
MR3-2 regarding the land use change proposed for the Sunny Creek Commercial site.
Two additional Sunny Creek properties have proposed land use changes as part of the
draft General Plan from RLM Residential 0-4 du/ac. to R-15 Residential 8-15 du/ac., and
if approved, would result in increased densities. However, staff is recommending against
approval of these two land use changes because the density range proposed on both of the
properties does not meet Housing Element objectives, and one of the properties is
impacted by flood hazards that restricts development potential. The comment will be
included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
2-1333
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
D21: Peggy Sanchez
D21-1: The comment expresses a concern about a proposal to change the land use to allow high
density apartments on the vacant property adjacent to the Terraces at Sunny Creek, and
requests that if the zoning must be changed, that it be changed to low or mid-density
residential uses instead. Please see master response MR3-2 regarding the land use
change proposed for the Sunny Creek Commercial site. The comment will be included in
the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration
in making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D22: Ron Bedford
D22-1: The comment expresses an objection to high density apartments being proposed on the
17 acre vacant property adjacent to the Terraces at Sunny Creek, and requests that if the
zoning must be changed, that it be changed to low or mid-density residential uses instead.
Please see master response MR3-2 regarding the land use change proposed for the Sunny
Creek Commercial site. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with
respect to the draft General Plan.
D23: Harry Habermann
D23-1: The comment explains that as a homeowner on Foxtail Loop, they were promised by the
builder that the adjacent vacant 17 acre lot would be used for a shopping center. Please
see master response MR3-2 regarding the land use change proposed for the Sunny Creek
Commercial site. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with
respect to the draft General Plan.
D23-2: The comment states their understanding that the property owner now intends to use a
portion of the property for high density housing, and expresses concerns that this change
would negatively impact property values and would add congestion, and requests that the
City Council respect the original intentions for the property or at minimum change it to
low density housing instead of high density housing. Please see master response MR3-2
regarding the land use change proposed for the Sunny Creek Commercial site. The
comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and
City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General
Plan.
D24: Manny De Luna
D24-1: The comment explains that as a resident of the Terraces at Sunny Creek, if housing is
going to be approved nearby, their preference is for lower density and townhomes. Please
see master response MR3-2 regarding the land use change proposed for the Sunny Creek
Commercial site, and also see response to comment D20-1. The comment will be
included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
2-1334
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
D25: Gil Soto
D25-1: The comment explains that as a resident of Sunny Creek, they were told that the vacant
17 acre site across the street would be a shopping center, and expresses opposition to a
proposed change to allow high density apartments on the property instead due to impacts
on property values. Please see master response MR3-2 regarding the land use change
proposed for the Sunny Creek Commercial site. The comment will be included in the
materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in
making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D26: Madeleine Szabo
D26-1: This comment includes staff’s response to an earlier question as part of an email chain.
No response is required.
D26-2: The comment requests that staff provide an “underline-strikeout document” version of
the current General Plan. While there is no such document, the commenter was directed
to the city’s website, on which is posted an element-by-element comparison table of
existing and draft General Plan goals and policies.
D26-3: The comment asks what happened to the goal of maintaining “40% Open Space”? For
information about the percentage of open space in Carlsbad, please see master responses
MR1-2 and MR1-3.
D26-4: The comment questions the logic of including beaches in the goal of 3 acres of open space
per 1,000 residents as beaches are not near development projects, and provides
comparative information from other jurisdictions. No city policy, ordinance or other
requirement includes as a goal 3 acres of open space per 1,000 residents. Beaches qualify
as Category 1 open space and as such are designated as OS on the land use map. For more
information about what is counted as open space, please see master responses MR1-1
thru MR1-4.
The comment may be referring to city’s Growth Management Plan (GMP), which
requires the city to maintain 3 acres of park or special use area per 1,000 population.
Beaches are not counted toward this park acreage requirement. For more information
about the GMP park requirement, please see master response MR1-5.
D26-5: The comment states that Encinitas does not include schools in their open space/parks
calculations. Please see master response MR1-6 regarding use of school sites for
recreation purposes.
D26-6: This comment includes staff’s response to an earlier question as part of an email chain.
No response is required.
D26-7: This comment makes a request related to the time when the draft General Plan staff
report will be made available. The staff report will be made available prior to the first
2-1335
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
Planning Commission hearing; the commenter will be notified when the report is
available. Also see comment D26-6.
D26-8: The comment requests a copy of the revised draft General Plan. The draft General Plan
will not be revised. The final EIR and staff report to the Planning Commission and City
Council will include recommendations to revise the draft General Plan. The final EIR
and staff report will be made available for public review prior to the first public hearing.
Also see comment D26-6.
D26-9: The comment asks if beaches count as open space, and if so, should the percentage be
compared to what was included in the previous General Plan. Beaches qualify as
Category 1 open space and count toward the city’s overall percentage of open space.
Beaches are designated OS on the land use maps of both the 1994 General Plan and the
draft General Plan. For more information about what qualifies as open space, and how
the overall percentage of open space is calculated, please see master responses MR1-1 thru
MR1-4. See also response to comment D26-4 above.
D26-10: The comment asks how one can change an ordinance. Per Carlsbad Municipal Code
Chapter 21.52, amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, General Plan and Local Coastal
Program may be initiated by an application of the property owner, resolution of the
Planning Commission or City Council, and by the City Planner. Also see comment D26-
6.
D27: Jim Hjerpe
D27-1: The comment explains that they live in the Terraces at Sunny Creek and need to drive
nine miles for commercial services, and that they would like to see the vacant 17 acre
parcel developed as a shopping center as originally promised. The comment questions
why more housing would be added to this part of Carlsbad, and states it already has
plenty. Please see master response MR3-2 regarding the land use change proposed for the
Sunny Creek Commercial site. The proposal would leave a portion of the site designated
as L, which would allow for the construction of commercial services that would serve the
Sunny Creek area. The draft General Plan, including the proposal a combination of R-23
and L on the Sunny Creek Commercial site, would not cause the Proposition E dwelling
unit caps to be exceeded (see draft EIR section 3.9). The comment will be included in the
materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in
making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D27-2: The comment expresses a concern that traffic on El Camino Real has increased in recent
years and it will only get worse for the Terraces at Sunny Creek after Robertson Ranch is
constructed and College Ave. is open. Please see master response MR3-2 regarding the
land use change proposed for the Sunny Creek Commercial site. The comment will be
included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D27-3: The comment expresses a concern that future residents of a nearby future senior condo
project east behind the 17 acre lot will not have anywhere nearby to go for commercial
2-1336
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
services. The proposal would leave a portion of the site designated as L, which would
allow for the construction of commercial services that would serve the Sunny Creek area.
The comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission
and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft
General Plan.
D27-4: The comment reiterates concerns about adding high density housing in an area already
maxed out with housing, and reiterates the request for a shopping center as originally
promised. Please see master response MR 3-2 regarding the land use change proposed
for the Sunny Creek Commercial site. In approximately the last 10 years, several nearby
projects have been approved in the Sunny Creek area that have not yet been constructed.
All of these projects were found to be consistent with the General Plan and Growth
Management Plan. The draft General Plan, including the proposal for R-23 and L on the
Sunny Creek Commercial site, would not cause the Proposition E dwelling unit caps to be
exceeded (see draft EIR section 3.9). The comment will be included in the materials
presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making
their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D28: Dona Wilcox
D28-1: The comment expresses disappointment about not getting a shopping center at the
corner of El Camino Real and College as expected, and concerns that high density
housing at this site would cause negative impacts such as noise, traffic and lower property
values. Please see master response MR3-2 regarding the land use change proposed for the
Sunny Creek Commercial site.
The comment also explains that traffic was severely impacted during the recent wildfires
and expresses a concern that the addition of 230 apartments would make this much worse
if these areas were told to evacuate. The draft General Plan Mobility Element is
intended to provide for the safe and efficient movement for all users of the system.
One of the concerns that arose with the Poinsettia fire was that roadway connections
that have not been completed (such as the final connection of Poinsettia and the
College connection). These connectivity improvements will assist with evacuations in
the future. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning
Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to
the draft General Plan.
D29: Lora Zaroff
D29-1: The comment states opposition to rezoning a portion of the 17 acre site referred to as Lot
11 for high density housing due to concerns about increased traffic, lower property values
and noise. Please see master response MR3-2 regarding the land use change proposed for
the Sunny Creek Commercial site. The comment will be included in the materials
presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making
their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
2-1337
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
D29-2: The comment requests that the City Council reconsider the request for high density
housing and change it to low and medium density housing instead. Please see master
response MR3-2 regarding the land use change proposed for the Sunny Creek
Commercial site. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with
respect to the draft General Plan.
D29-3: The comment expresses a concern that adding high density housing at Lot 11 in addition
to the projects that are already approved in Sunny Creek will lower the desirability of the
area and cause overcrowding. In approximately the last 10 years, several nearby projects
have been approved in the Sunny Creek area that have not yet been constructed. All of
these projects were found to be consistent with the General Plan and Growth
Management Plan. The draft General Plan, including the proposal for R-23 and L on the
Sunny Creek Commercial site, would not cause the Proposition E dwelling unit caps to be
exceeded (see draft EIR section 3.9). The comment will be included in the materials
presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making
their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D30: Najoo Panthaky
D30-1: The comment explains that they bought their property in the Terraces at Sunny Creek
with the understanding that Lot 11 would be a local shopping center, and expresses
opposition to rezoning a portion of Lot 11 for high density housing due to concerns
about traffic, noise and lower property values. The comment also requests that the City
Council reconsider the request for high density housing and change the proposal to half
medium density townhomes and half for a shopping center. Please see master response
MR3-2 regarding the land use change proposed for the Sunny Creek Commercial site.
The comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission
and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft
General Plan.
D31: Jose Feliciano III
D31-1: The comment states that they are a resident of the Terraces at Sunny Creek and they are
opposed to high density housing on the vacant lot at the corner of El Camino Real and
College Blvd due to concerns about traffic, noise and lower property values. Please see
master response MR3-2 regarding the land use change proposed for the Sunny Creek
Commercial site. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with
respect to the draft General Plan.
D32: Chuck Rodgers
D32-1: The comment requests that the proposed OS boundary on APN 1563500200 be moved 30
feet to the west so that it is entirely off of the parcel and follows the easement line granted
to Mr. Rodgers on the adjacent property APN 1563500100.
2-1338
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
One of the mapping “clean-up” tasks for the General Plan update includes fixing
designation boundaries where they do not align with the feature they are intended to
follow (such as property lines, existing development, topographic features, easements,
etc.). These two APNs are part of a larger area designated both RLM and OS where the
OS boundary on the Land Use map does not follow the physical features it is intended to
follow with reasonable accuracy. This OS boundary originated from the 1994 General
Plan and was intended to designate a large steep slope over multiple property boundaries
which contains habitat.
On the draft General Plan Land Use Map, the OS boundary is proposed to be moved to
represent the top and/or bottom of the slope (where applicable) using a combination of
the following GIS information: (1) topographic contour lines, (2) location of 40% slopes,
and (3) aerial imagery to determine the location of natural vs. developed areas. The 1994
General Plan designated a portion of APN 1563500200 as OS, and the above information
shows the top of slope beginning on the rear yard portion of the property.
D32-2: The comment requests that the proposed OS boundary on APN 1563500100 be moved 20
feet toward the hillside in the southerly direction. The comment also requests to move
the OS boundary to the current OS boundary or for 100 feet along Jefferson. This second
request does not clearly describe where the OS line should be, and therefore it is not
possible to respond to this portion of the comment. Please see response to comment
D32-1. The above analysis determined that the RLM portion of the property should
include the access road and the adjacent flatter area that does not appear to have natural
vegetation in the northern corner of the property. Future refinement of the OS boundary
may be possible with preparation of a detailed constraints analysis.
D32-3: The comment explains that they would like their residence land free from the OS
designation (APN 1563500200), and that they hope to clear fire hazard foliage on APN
1563500100. Please see responses to comments D32-1 and D32-1. The comment will be
included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D33: St. Patrick’s Catholic Church
D33-1: The comment indicates that two of their three parcels are identified in the draft General
Plan for a land use change to VC (Visitor Commercial), while their third parcel is
proposed to be designated R-4 Residential 0-4 du/ac (as currently designated). The
comment requests that this third parcel be changed to VC as well so that all of the
church’s parcels have a consistent designation to allow the church to better plan for the
future needs of the campus. The church campus was identified for a land use change as
part of the effort to fix properties with inconsistent land use and zoning designations.
The campus currently has two land use designations: Residential Low Medium 0-4 du/ac
(RLM) and Private School (P), but the zoning is Commercial Tourist with a Q Overlay
(C-T-Q) and One Family Zone (R-1). The C-T-Q zone does not implement either the
RLM or P land use designations. The proposal would correct this by changing the land
use designation to VC and the zoning designation to C-T, which implements the VC
designation. The third parcel was not originally identified for a land use change because
2-1339
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
there is no inconsistency between its two designations (land use is RLM and the zoning is
R-1), and as such, a land use change is not necessary. Furthermore, because churches are
allowed in either the R-1 or C-T zones with approval of a conditional use permit (CUP),
and because a CUP would allow consistent application of development standards over the
entire campus, future development of the site is not restricted if the third parcel remains
R-4/R-1.
D34: Jacqueline Gunther
D34-1: The comment states they are a homeowner at the Terraces at Sunny Creek, and expresses
concerns about the proposal to add high density housing to their area due to traffic, crime
and lower property values. Please see master response MR3-2 regarding the land use
change proposed for the Sunny Creek Commercial site.
The comment also states a concern that this proposal would overdevelop low income
housing in an area where it already exists, and references the affordable apartments
adjacent to the Terraces at Sunny Creek. These apartments were constructed for that
project’s compliance with the city’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and this ordinance
would apply equally to the Sunny Creek Commercial site as it would any residential
project. Because it applies to all projects equally, it does not concentrate low income
households in a single area. The comment will be included in the materials presented to
the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions
with respect to the draft General Plan.
D35: Alan Young
D35-1: The comment notes that they are an owner and resident in Sunny Creek, and they object
to high density apartments on the empty lot next to their development (the Sunny Creek
Commercial property). The comment expresses concerns that the proposal will lower
property values, and stated a preference for mid or low density housing instead. Please
see master response MR 3-2 regarding the land use change proposed for the Sunny Creek
Commercial site. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with
respect to the draft General Plan.
D36: Anna Hofmeister
D36-1: The comment notes that they were promised a shopping center when they bought their
house in the Terraces at Sunny Creek, and expressed a concern that apartments would
lower their property values and increase traffic, noise and trash. Please see master
response MR 3-2 regarding the land use change proposed for the Sunny Creek
Commercial site. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with
respect to the draft General Plan.
Landfill capacity was analyzed in Chapter 3.12 of the draft EIR, which found that buildout
of the draft General Plan would result in less than significant impacts to landfill facilities
at a programmatic level. Future development allowed under the draft General Plan will
2-1340
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
be subject to site-specific environmental review, including analysis of the potential
impacts landfill facilities.
D36-2: The comment states that their first choice for the lot would be a shopping center as
promised years ago, and their second choice would be for single family housing, and
expressed an objection to apartments. Please see master response MR 3-2 regarding the
land use change proposed for the Sunny Creek Commercial site. The comment will be
included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D37: Brian Ramseier
D37-1: The comment notes that they were promised a shopping center when they bought their
house in Sunny Creek, and expressed a concern about apartments at this location. The
comment also stated that the property should be developed with what it was originally
zoned for. Please see master response MR 3-2 regarding the land use change proposed
for the Sunny Creek Commercial site. The comment will be included in the materials
presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making
their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D38: Connie Bunnell
D38-1: The comment objects to the city’s proposed rezoning of the property at 925 Buena Pl.
from R-3 to R-1, and explains they purchased the property with the intent to expand it in
the future with multiple units, and losing this opportunity will negatively affect the value
of the property.
The General Plan designates the subject property for single family residential uses (RLM
Residential Low-Medium Density 0-4 dwelling units per acre), and the zoning designates
it for multifamily residential uses (R-3 Multiple-Family Residential Zone). This property
is one of many that are included in the draft General Plan in order to resolve mapping
inconsistencies such as this, where the General Plan and zoning designations are
inconsistent with each other. Staff’s proposal is to change the zoning to R-1 One-Family
Residential Zone so that it is consistent with the existing RLM/R-4 land use designation.
The reason for this proposal that the General Plan designation takes precedence over the
zoning designation, and the zoning designation is supposed to implement the General
Plan designation, and also because the single family designations will be compatible with
the existing use of the property as well as the existing uses along the remainder of Buena
Place, which also is zoned R-1 and developed with single family residences.
Property values are not evaluated as part of the draft General Plan and EIR, and no
response is required for these comments. The comments will be included in the materials
presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making
their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
2-1341
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
D39: Delia Charvel
D39-1: The comment expresses general concern about the proposal for high density apartments
on the empty lot at the corner of College and El Camino Real. Please see master response
MR 3-2 regarding the land use change proposed for the Sunny Creek Commercial site.
The comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission
and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft
General Plan.
D40: Ginger Dill
D40-1: The comment notes that they are homeowners in the Terraces at Sunny Creek, and object
to high density housing on the empty lot on the Corner of El Camino Real and College
due to concerns about lower property values, lower desirability for the area, and increased
traffic. The comment also expresses a preference for low or mid density housing with
more retail space on the property.
Please see master response MR 3-2 regarding the land use change proposed for the Sunny
Creek Commercial site. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with
respect to the draft General Plan.
The draft EIR analyzed full buildout of the proposed land use map at a programmatic
level, (which includes commercial/residential uses at the Sunny Creek Commercial site).
See Chapter 3.13 for impacts to transportation. Future development allowed under the
draft General Plan will be subject to additional site-specific environmental review.
D41: Hemanshu Tyagi
D41-1: The commenter notes that they are homeowners in the Terraces at Sunny Creek, and
expresses a concern that high density low income apartments at the corner of El Camino
Real and College will increase traffic and make the neighborhood crowded. Please see
master response MR 3-2 regarding the land use change proposed for the Sunny Creek
Commercial site. All development in Carlsbad has occurred consistent with the policies
and requirements of the General Plan and the Growth Management Plan.
The draft EIR analyzed full buildout of the proposed land use map at a programmatic
level, (which includes commercial/residential uses at the Sunny Creek Commercial site).
See Chapter 3.13 for impacts to transportation. Future development allowed under the
draft General Plan will be subject to additional site-specific environmental review.
D41-2: The comment disapproves of the proposal for high density housing on the subject
property, and suggest that a park or condos be constructed on the property instead of
apartments. Please see master response MR 3-2 regarding the land use change proposed
for the Sunny Creek Commercial site. The existing designation of the site is for
commercial uses, and the draft General Plan analyzed the site for commercial and
residential uses. The draft General Plan Open Space and Recreation Element and
Chapter 3.11 of the draft EIR did not identify the Sunny Creek Commercial site as
2-1342
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
necessary to meet the park facility needs of the community. The comment will be
included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D42: Janann Taylor
D42-1: The comment requests that the Planning Commission support a change of zoning to
Open Space for various city owned lands in Olde Carlsbad, and provides a description of
the potential benefits of such a change and photo renderings what these properties could
look like as open space. Regarding city owned lands around City Hall, open space in Olde
Carlsbad, and the Buena Vista Reservoir; please see master responses MR2-1, MR2-2,
MR2-4 and MR2-6. The comments will be included in the materials presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with
respect to the draft General Plan.
D43: Jayce Fitch
D43-1: The commenter notes that they are homeowners in the Terraces at Sunny Creek, and
expresses opposition to high density housing being developed on the empty lot next door
(Sunny Creek Commercial site), and a preference for low density housing on the property
instead. Please see master response MR 3-2 regarding the land use change proposed for
the Sunny Creek Commercial site. The comment will be included in the materials
presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making
their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D44: James Hawkins
D44-1: The commenter notes that they live in Sunny Creek and are opposed to high density
development in the vacant lot due to concerns about noise, traffic and pollution. Please
see master response MR3-2 regarding the land use change proposed for the Sunny Creek
Commercial site. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with
respect to the draft General Plan.
The draft General Plan provides goals and policies for future development, but does not
authorize any specific development project. The draft EIR analyzed full buildout of the
proposed land use map at a programmatic level, (which includes commercial/residential
uses at the Sunny Creek Commercial site). See Chapter 3.2 of the Recirculated DEIR for
impacts to air quality, and draft EIR Chapter 3.10 for impacts to noise, and Chapter 3.13
for impacts to transportation. Individual future development projects allowed under the
draft General Plan will be subject to additional site-specific environmental review.
D45: JoAnne Sweeney
D45-1: The comment expresses concerns about the proposal to allow for high density on Sunny
Creek Plaza due to concerns about impacts to traffic, noise, air pollution, water, police
and fire capability. Please see master response MR3-2 regarding the land use change
proposed for the Sunny Creek Commercial site. The draft General Plan provides goals
2-1343
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
and policies for future development, but does not authorize any specific development
project. The draft EIR analyzed full buildout of the proposed land use map at a
programmatic level, which includes commercial/residential uses at the Sunny Creek
Commercial site. See Chapter 3.2 of the Recirculated DEIR for impacts to air quality, and
draft EIR Chapter 3.10 for impacts to noise, Chapter 3.11 for impacts to public facilities
and services, Chapter 3.12 for impacts to public utilities, and Chapter 3.13 for impacts to
transportation. Future development allowed under the draft General Plan will be subject
to additional site-specific environmental review.
D45-2: The comment expresses concerns about the proposal to allow for high density on Sunny
Creek Plaza due concerns about impacts to rural flavor in this area of Carlsbad, and the
desire for balanced and conscientious growth. Please see draft EIR Chapter 3.1 for
impacts to aesthetics. All development in Carlsbad has occurred in compliance with the
General Plan and Growth Management Plan. The comment will be included in the
materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in
making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D45-3: The comment requests that the city maintain the Rancho Carlsbad Golf Course as open
space. Staff concurs with this comment. The current and proposed land use designation
for Rancho Carlsbad Golf Course is Open Space. The city proposing to change the zoning
from Limited Control (L-C) to Open Space (O-S) in order to make the zoning
designation consistent with the existing General Plan designation.
D45-4: The comment implores the city not to sell the Buena Vista Reservoir to developers
because the downtown village area needs a park/open space. Please see master response
MR2-1, MR 2-2, MR 2-5 and MR 2-5.
D46: Joy Hanawa
D46-1: The comment expresses concerns about the proposal to allow for high density housing on
the Sunny Creek Plaza due to concerns about property values, and proposes an
alternative for the site of low-medium residential uses and a park instead of
commercial/high density residential development. Please see master response MR 3-2
regarding the land use change proposed for the Sunny Creek Commercial site. The draft
General Plan Open Space and Recreation Element and Chapter 3.11 of the draft EIR did
not identify the Sunny Creek Commercial site as necessary to meet the park facility needs
of the community. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with
respect to the draft General Plan.
D46-2: The comment is a repeat of comment D55, please see responses to comments D55-1 thru
D55-5.
D47: Patricia Parsons
D47-1: The comment expresses concern about the Sunny Creek preliminary proposal for the 17
acre open lot on El Camino Real, and expresses objection to any possible General Plan
2-1344
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
amendments to high density housing for the property due to concerns about congestion,
noise, pollution and a drain on city services. Please see master response MR 3-2
regarding the land use change proposed for the Sunny Creek Commercial site. The
comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and
City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General
Plan.
The draft EIR analyzed full buildout of the proposed land use map at a programmatic
level, which includes commercial/residential uses at the Sunny Creek Commercial site.
See Chapter 3.2 of the Recirculated DEIR for impacts to air quality, and draft EIR Chapter
3.10 for impacts to noise, Chapter 3.11 for impacts to public facilities and services, and
Chapter 3.13 for impacts to transportation. Future development allowed under the draft
General Plan will be subject to additional site-specific environmental review.
D47-2: The comment reiterates comments from D62-1 and asks concerned citizens to email the
city about the project. See response to comment D62-1. The comment will be included
in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D47-3: The comment is a repeat of comment D55, please see responses to comments D55-1 thru
D55-5. An additional comment states that the project will make traffic worse on ECR,
and road noise will impact a list of nearby residential developments. The draft EIR
analyzed full buildout of the proposed land use map at a programmatic level, which
includes commercial/residential uses at the Sunny Creek Commercial site. See Chapter
3.10 for impacts to noise, and Chapter 3.13 for impacts to transportation. Future
development allowed under the draft General Plan will be subject to additional site-
specific environmental review.
D47-4: The comment includes a site plan and project information for the Sunny Creek Plaza
preliminary review application. Project information in this attachment was provided by
the commenter and was not independently verified for accuracy by city staff. Staff
provided preliminary review comments to the developer on Nov. 20, 2014, which are on
file at the Planning Division offices and available to the public (reference Sunny Creek
Commercial PRE 14-36).
D48: Madeleine Szabo
D48-1: The comment requests that the Planning Commission read and comply with a referenced
letter and attachment. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with
respect to the proposed General Plan.
D48-2: The comment thanks a city staff member for meeting with the commenter and the
opportunity to share the commenter’s concerns about the draft General Plan’s proclivity
for overdevelopment, excess commercialization and high density housing. The comment
will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council
for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the proposed General Plan.
2-1345
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
D48-3: The comment references an attachment to the email that summarizes the commenter’s
concerns, questions and suggestions; and asks that the attachment be shared with city
planners. The referenced attachment has been reviewed by city planning staff and
responses to the attachment are provided below starting with response D48-5.
D48-4: The comment states a desire to preserve Carlsbad’s quality of life and scenic beauty and
requests that the city hold back high density growth due to traffic, strain on city services
and scenic impacts. The draft EIR analyzed full buildout of the proposed land use map at
a programmatic level; future development projects will be subject to site-specific, project-
level environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15168. Please see draft
EIR Section 3.1 for analysis of impacts on scenic resources, Section 3.11 for analysis of
impacts to public facilities and services, and Section 3.13 for analysis of transportation
impacts. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning
Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to
the proposed General Plan.
D48-5: The comment expresses the commenter’s love for Carlsbad’s current design and standard
of living and that the commenter does not want Carlsbad to change. The comment states
that the General Plan should uphold the Carlsbad Community Vision, and that high
density housing, retail and commercial conflict with the community value of “small town
beach community feel”.
As described in Chapter 1 of the draft General Plan, the draft plan is based on strategies
to achieve the nine core values of the Carlsbad Community Vision; also, each element of
the draft General Plan describes how that element relates to one or more of the values of
the Carlsbad Community Vision. The comment references one of the nine core values of
the community’s vision; no single community value has more weight than another, and in
some instances the values represent competing desires. For example, the value of a small
town feel and beach community character may at times conflict with the value for a
strong and diverse economy and the value for community design that promotes a greater
mix of uses in closer proximity to one another to reduce distances to destinations. The
draft General Plan aims to find common ground between competing community values,
as well as maintain compliance with local, state and federal laws.
D48-6: The comment states that there should continue to be housing choices along El Camino
Real that are free of traffic, congestion and noise from high density housing and shopping
centers; and that those choices are diminished by modifications to zoning standards.
The draft EIR analyzed full buildout of the proposed land use map at a programmatic
level; future development projects will be subject to site-specific, project-level
environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15168. Please see draft EIR
Section 3.9 for analysis of impacts related to land use, housing, and population, Section
3.10 for analysis of impacts related to noise, and Section 3.13 for analysis of
transportation impacts. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with
respect to the proposed General Plan.
2-1346
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
D48-7: The comment states that the northeast quadrant of El Camino Real is in danger of
overdevelopment and requests that no changes be made that will negatively impact the
scenic beauty. Buildout of the draft plan will comply with the city’s Growth Management
Plan and all city standards for public facilities; see master responses MR1-3 and MR1-5
related to open space and parks standards, and see draft EIR sections 3.8, 3.9, 3.11, 3.12,
and 3.13 for analysis of impacts related to other public facilities and Growth
Management, and section 3.1 for analysis of impacts related to aesthetics. The comment
will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council
for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the proposed General Plan.
D48-8: The comment states the commenter’s priority to preserve the scenic beauty of El Camino
Real between Faraday and Tamarack. No response required.
D48-9: The comment requests that that the city “scale down” development to maintain the scenic
beauty and curtail increased traffic, congestion, pollution, noise and disruptions to
neighbors. The draft EIR analyzed full buildout of the proposed land use map at a
programmatic level; future development projects will be subject to site-specific, project-
level environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15168. Please see draft
EIR Section 3.1 for analysis of impacts on scenic resources, Section 3.2 for impacts to air
quality, 3.10 for analysis of impacts related to noise, and Section 3.13 for analysis of
transportation impacts. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with
respect to the proposed General Plan.
D48-10: The comment states that suppressing density and scaling down zoning will protect
housing values. Property values are not evaluated as part of the draft General Plan and
EIR, and no response is required. The comment will be included in the materials
presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making
their decisions with respect to the proposed General Plan.
D48-11: The comment asks the city to not give up on Carlsbad’s high quality of life as a small
beach community. No response required. The comment will be included in the materials
presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making
their decisions with respect to the proposed General Plan.
D48-12: The comment references draft General Plan Land Use and Community Design (LUCD)
Element goal 2-G.1, which is to maintain land uses that enhance the character of the city
as expressed in the Carlsbad Community Vision and balance development with
preservation and enhancement of open space. The comment asks if the draft General
Plan achieves this goal with increased density, traffic, pollution, congestion, noise, lights,
use of city utilities and services along north El Camino Real. See response to comment
D48-5 related to the Carlsbad Community Vision and response to comments D48-4,
D48-7 and D48-9 related to analysis of impacts related to density, traffic, pollution,
congestion, noise, lights, use of city utilities and services.
2-1347
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
D48-13: The comment states that the draft General Plan eliminates the following existing General
Plan text: “preserves and enhances the environment, character and image of itself as a
desirable residential, beach and open space community.” The comment states that the
draft General Plan replaces the existing text with the following: “balance development
with preservation and enhancement of open space.” The comment requests that the
existing text be included in the draft General Plan.
The draft General Plan does not eliminate/replace the existing General Plan text
referenced in the comment. While not verbatim, the existing General Plan text is
included in the draft General Plan as LUCD Element goal:
2-G.16: Enhance Carlsbad’s character and image as a residential, beach and open space
oriented community.
D48-14: The comment references draft General Plan LUCD Element goal 2-G.2, which is to
promote a diversity of land uses to enable people to live close to jobs, commercial
services, transit, parks, schools and utilities. The comment states that this will result in
elimination of less congested and less dense areas where people may want to live
regardless of proximity to jobs, shopping, etc., which bring traffic and pollution. The
comment states that not all people want to live close to jobs, etc. The comment asks why
the city should eliminate all choice of living styles for all types of people as long as the
quality of life adheres to the community’s vision. The comment states that people should
be allowed the choice to live in areas free of traffic and congestion and don’t mind driving
3 miles or 5 minutes to shopping. The comment suggests deleting draft goal 2-G.2. The
comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and
City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the proposed
General Plan.
The comment is correct, not all people want to live close to jobs and there should be a
choice of living styles. The draft General Plan and LUCD Element goal 2-G.2 do not
eliminate choice of living styles; rather, it establishes a land use plan to meet the housing,
employment and service needs of all residents. The draft General Plan promotes a choice
of living styles and provides opportunities for development of a variety of housing types
to meet a variety of housing needs and preferences; there are areas designated for low
density housing, medium density housing and high density housing; these areas will offer
a diversity of housing choices to meet the needs of a broad spectrum of people – those of
varying income levels, single person households, families with children, couples with no
children, empty nesters, seniors, and those who prefer a single family detach home and
those who prefer a condo or apartment in areas where they can walk to many services.
The draft General Plan is not intended to only plan for the needs of one segment of the
community, but rather, for the many housing, employment and service needs of the
entire community.
Providing a wide variety of housing choices, including housing close to jobs, schools,
parks, shopping, etc., achieves the values of the Carlsbad Community Vision, which
include a future where there is a greater mix of uses, density is linked to public
2-1348
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
transportation, and services are available closer to existing neighborhoods. See draft EIR
sections 3.2 and 3.13 for analysis of the draft General Plan related to air quality and
traffic.
D48-15: The comment suggests adding the word “preserve” to draft General Plan LUCD Element
goal 2-G.5, which is to “protect the neighborhood atmosphere and identity of existing
residential areas.” Adding the word “preserve” is redundant with “protect” and does not
add value to the policy. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with
respect to the proposed General Plan.
D48-16: The comment states the draft General Plan LUCD Element goal 2-G.6 emphasizes access
to commercial services and does not emphasize protection of scenic beauty. The
comment suggests deleting goal 2-G.6. The comment is correct that goal 2-G.6 does not
emphasize protection of scenic beauty because that is not the purpose of the goal; the
purpose of the goal is to “allow a range of mixed-use centers in strategic locations that
maximize access to commercial services from transit and residential areas.” As stated in
response to comment D48-5, the draft General Plan aims to find common ground
between competing community values. Goal 2-G.6 is intended to guide the city toward
achieving the Carlsbad Community Vision of “a future in which there is a greater mix of
uses, density is linked to public transportation, services are available closer to existing
neighborhoods…” The draft General Plan also provides goals and policies to ensure
development is designed appropriately with respect to natural terrain and scenic vistas
(e.g., draft General Plan goal 2-G.18 and policy 2-P.43). The comment will be included in
the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration
in making their decisions with respect to the proposed General Plan.
D48-17: The comment references draft General Plan LUCD Element goal 2-G.7, which is to
“ensure that neighborhood serving shopping and mixed-use centers include shopping as
a pedestrian-oriented focus for the surrounding neighborhood, are physically integrated
with the surroundings, and contain neighborhood-serving stores and small offices.
Where appropriate, include in the centers high and medium density housing surrounding
the retail core or integrated in mixed-use buildings.” The comment states that this goal
places emphasis on densely populated business, commercial and residential silos, not
providing open and spacious residential areas; the comment also states that it is
unreasonable to expect people to walk to stores and carry packages home. See response
to comments D48-5, D48-14 and D48-16. The comment will be included in the materials
presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making
their decisions with respect to the proposed General Plan.
D48-18: The comment refers to draft General Plan LUCD Element goal:
2-G.16 Enhance Carlsbad’s character and image as a desirable residential, beach and
open-space oriented community.
The comment compares draft goal 2-G.16 to existing General Plan goal:
2-1349
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
A.1 A city which preserves and enhances the environment, character and image of
itself as a desirable residential, beach and open space oriented community.
The comment expresses concern that the wording of draft goal 2-G.16 applies to
Carlsbad’s image as a whole to outsiders and is not a goal for all neighborhoods to
preserve and enhance the environment, character and image. The intent of draft Goal 2-
G.16 is to recognize that Carlsbad is known to those within and outside the city as a
desirable residential, beach and open space oriented community and the goal is to
enhance and improve upon that image and character. Goals and policies regarding the
protection of the environment can be found in the draft Open Space, Conservation and
Recreation Element, such as goals 4.G.1 and 4-G.2 and policies 4-P.8 to 4-P.18. The
comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and
City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the proposed
General Plan.
D48-19: The comment refers to draft General Plan LUCD Element goal 2-G.17, which is to
“ensure that the scale and character of new development is appropriate to the setting and
intended use. Promote development that is scaled and sited to respect the natural terrain,
where hills, public realm, parks, open space, trees, and distant vistas, rather than
buildings, dominate the overall landscape, while developing the Village, Barrio, and
commercial and industrial areas as concentrated urban-scaled nodes.”
The comment states that the goal refers to the Village and Barrio as urban-scaled nodes
but also says new development should respect natural terrain. The comment suggests
adding the words “particularly necessary to respect the open scenic vistas along El
Camino Real and limit the height of buildings and density of housing developments.”
Draft goal 2-G.17 applies to all areas of the city, including along El Camino Real, and
clarifies that the Village, Barrio and industrial areas are where development is to be more
concentrated at an urban-scale. In regard to the comment and concern about vistas,
building height and density along El Camino Real, draft Mobility Element policy 3-P.19
requires maintenance of scenic transportation corridors as identified in the Carlsbad
Scenic Corridor Guidelines; the guidelines designate El Camino Real as a scenic corridor
and identify guidelines for right-of-way treatment and landscaping of property adjacent
to the right-of way. In addition, the existing El Camino Real Development Standards,
which are intended to enhance the appearance of the El Camino Real roadway area, place
emphasis on retaining the natural topography adjacent to the roadway; and for properties
fronting the roadway, the standards restrict building height, and establish minimum
building setback standards from the right-of-way. The General Plan regulates the allowed
density along the corridor.
D48-20: The comment refers to draft General Plan policy 2-P.8, which specifies findings that must
be made for the city to allow residential development to occur at a density above the
Growth Management Control Point density; one of the findings is that the project must
qualify for an allocation of excess dwelling units per City Council Policy No. 43. The
2-1350
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
comment states that the northeast quadrant “has over 300 excess dwelling units after
buildout” and that policy 2-P.8 allows for all quadrants to be further developed.
Regarding the number of dwelling units in the northeast quadrant, it is assumed that the
commenter refers to language in the draft General Plan (Tables 2-5 and 2-9 of the draft
Land Use and Community Design Element) that states the city cannot approve all of the
proposed residential sites in the northeast quadrant and must deny some of the proposed
residential land use designation changes to ensure compliance with the Growth
Management dwelling unit limits. Please see master response MR3-1 for an explanation
of this issue. The comment is correct that policy 2-P.8 allows for further residential
development and does so consistent with the city’s Growth Management Program; the
policy ensures that residential development only occurs if such development is consistent
with the city’s Growth Management dwelling limits and that adequate public facilities are
provided concurrent with the development.
D48-21: The comment refers to an existing General Plan Land Use Element policy (C.12) that
requires new master and specific planned developments over 100 acres to provide
community facilities (e.g., daycare, worship, youth and senior activities, etc.). The
comment states that the draft General Plan eliminated the words “…over 100 acres” and
states that the words should be put back and the provisions of community facilities
should be the choice of the developer and surrounding neighborhoods.
The existing General Plan has two policies that require the provision of community
facilities; one that applies to new master plans and residential specific plans over 100 acres
and a second that applies to “new and, as appropriate, existing master plans and
residential specific plans.” The existing policy that applies to residential master/specific
plans over 100 acres is not proposed as part of the draft General Plan because the city is
nearing buildout and it is not likely that there will be new master or specific plans over
100 acres in the future. The other existing policy that applies to new and existing
master/specific plans (with no size limitation) is proposed as draft General Plan policy 2-
P.14.
The comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission
and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the proposed
General Plan.
D48-22: The comment refers to draft General Plan LUCD Element policies 2-P.12 and 2-P.13,
which encourage residential uses, including medium to higher density residential uses,
mixed in conjunction with or in close proximity to commercial development. The
comment suggest deleting these policies because they encourage medium to higher
density housing and are not consistent with the Carlsbad Community Vision. Please see
response to comments D48-5, D48-14 and D48-16. The comment will be included in the
materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in
making their decisions with respect to the proposed General Plan.
2-1351
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
D48-23: The comment refers to draft General Plan LUCD Element policy 2-P.17, which is to
“ensure that residential areas have convenient access to daily goods and services by
locating local shopping centers centrally within their primary trade areas, as defined in
Table 2-4. Such trade areas should minimize gaps between or overlaps with the trade
areas of other local shopping centers.”
The comment suggests adding text to state convenient access is within a 3-mile/5 minute
radius. It is not necessary to add such text; the policy refers to Table 2-4 of the draft
General Plan LUCD Element, which specifies that the primary trade area for a local
shopping center is within a 5-10 drive time or within 1.5 miles. The trade area criteria in
Table 2-4 was established when the Local Shopping Center land use designation was
created, and was based on a commercial land use study conducted during the city’s
drafting of the land use designation. The draft General Plan does not propose to change
the commercial trade area criteria in Table 2-4.
The comment asks what is Table 2-4 and what are the “overlaps with the trade areas of
other local shopping centers?” Table 2-4 is part of the draft General Plan LUCD Element
and identifies the characteristics of commercial land uses; overlaps of trade areas means
that the trade area driving time/miles radius, as specified in Table 2-4, of one shopping
center crosses or overlaps the driving time/miles radius of another shopping center.
The comment states that the Sunny Creek commercial site is in close proximity to other
shopping centers (Bressi Ranch, Lowes, Westfield, Costco, Vons Tamarack, Vons El
Camino) and asks what happened to the local shopping center guideline of a 5-minute
driving standard? The comment also states there is not a need for another shopping
center at Sunny Creek. Of the shopping centers listed, one is a community shopping
center (Lowes), two are regional shopping centers (Westfield and Costco) and four are
designated as local shopping centers (Sunny Creek, Bressi and the two Vons centers), all
of which were evaluated per the trade area criteria in Table 2-4 (including the drive
time/distance criteria) at the time the sites were designated as community, regional and
local shopping centers (note the drive time/distance criteria only applies to centers that
serve the same type of trade area – local neighborhood, community, regional, visitor).
The draft General Plan does not propose to change the location or affect the trade area of
any of the commercial sites referenced in the comment. A portion of the Sunny Creek
commercial site is proposed to be designated for residential use; however, the site will
retain a Local Shopping Center designation to serve the daily shopping needs of the
surrounding local neighborhood.
The comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission
and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the proposed
General Plan.
D48-24: The comment references the following existing General Plan policy for commercial land
uses:
2-1352
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
C.2 Utilize the following guidelines to determine the appropriate spatial distribution of
new sites for local shopping centers and to assign associated zoning. In some instances it
may not be possible to implement all of these guidelines fully and some degree of
flexibility in their application may be required.
1. New master plans and residential specific plans and other large development proposals
shall evaluate whether there is a need to include a local shopping center within the
development, consistent with these guidelines.
The comment compares the existing policy referenced above to draft General Plan policy
2-P.18:
2-P.18 New master plans and residential specific plans and other large development
proposals shall evaluate whether there is a need to include a local shopping center within
the development.
The comment states that the new policy does not define what the “need” is and suggests
that policy 2-P.18 be eliminated. Staff does not recommend deleting the policy. “Need”
for a shopping center is determined by city decision-makers based on the shopping center
policies and guidelines (Table 2-4) of the General Plan. The comment will be included in
the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration
in making their decisions with respect to the proposed General Plan.
D48-25: The comment states that the draft General Plan does not include text that is part of the
existing General Plan: “Regional centers draw customers from outside the city and
general interregional traffic.” It is not clear what the concern of this part of the comment
is; it is not directly related to the rest of the comment that pertains to guidelines for local
shopping centers. However, the referenced text is part of the description of the Regional
Commercial land use designation; the text is not included as part of the written
description of Regional Commercial in the draft General Plan because it is redundant
with draft General Plan Table 2-4, which identifies that the primary trade area of the
Regional Commercial designation is “regional” (i.e. Regional Commercial shopping
centers serve a regional customer base from within and outside Carlsbad).
The comment also refers to the first paragraph of existing General Plan policy C.2 for
commercial land uses (see response to comment D48-24 for the text of existing policy
C.2). The comment expresses concern that the draft General Plan does not include the
words “consistent with these guidelines” because guideline #6 on page 35 of the existing
General Plan states “new sites for local shopping centers should not be located along El
Camino Real so as to minimize the commercialization of this scenic roadway.”
The existing General Plan designates the location of eight local shopping centers, two of
which are not developed, along El Camino Real (from the city’s northern and southern
city boundaries). The draft General Plan does not propose any new local shopping center
sites. The draft General Plan does not include portions of existing commercial land use
policy C.2, which pertains to the spatial distribution of local shopping centers; as noted
above, the reason the draft General Plan does not include the part of existing policy C.2
2-1353
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
regarding no new local shopping center sites along El Camino Real is because the trade
area criteria in draft General Plan Table 2-4 controls/minimizes the number of local
shopping center sites along El Camino Real and elsewhere in the city. Currently, the
number and location of local shopping centers along El Camino Real are sufficient to
serve the trade areas identified in draft General Plan Table 2-4; however, if one of those
sites were developed/redeveloped in the future with a use other than a local shopping
center, the city should have to option to identify a new local shopping center site to
ensure all neighborhoods in the area are adequately served with daily goods and services.
D48-26: The comment refers to draft General Plan policy 2-P.82, which encourages the Sunny
Creek Commercial site be developed as a mixed-use neighborhood center. The comment
asks “why so many multi-use properties in the NE and NW quadrants along El Camino
Real?” It is not clear which properties the comment is referring to. On the Sunny Creek
Commercial site, the draft General Plan encourages a combination of residential and
commercial uses as a means to achieve values of the Carlsbad Community Vision, which
include a future where there is a greater mix of uses, density is linked to public
transportation, and services are available closer to existing neighborhoods (see response
to comments D48-5, D48-14 and D48-16).
The comment also states that environmental and residential tranquility will be
dramatically affected by more housing and commercial projects; traffic and noise are
specifically referenced as having a negative impact on environmental and residential
tranquility. See draft EIR Section 3.9 for analysis of impacts related to land use, housing,
and population, Section 3.10 for analysis of impacts related to noise, and Section 3.13 for
analysis of transportation impacts. The comment also references comments made at the
end of the comment letter, which are responded to beginning to response to comment
D48-56.
The comment suggests that draft General Plan policy 2-P.82 be replaced with: “Foster
development of this site as a low density housing area with a park to serve the residents in
surrounding communities”. The site referred to in policy 2-P.82 is the Sunny Creek
Commercial site, which is currently designated by the General Plan as a future local
shopping center. The draft General Plan proposes that a portion of the site be designated
for multi-family residential and a portion of the site be retained for a local shopping
center. Staff does not support changing the designation to low density housing and park
uses; such uses would not assist the city in meeting the objectives of the draft Housing
Element and would not support the values of the Carlsbad Community Vision that
envision services located close to housing.
D48-27: The comment refers to draft General Plan policy 2-G.7, which is to ensure that
neighborhood serving shopping and mixed-use centers include shopping as a pedestrian-
oriented focus for the surrounding neighborhood, are physically integrated with the
surroundings, and where appropriate, include high and medium density housing.
The comment asks how the Sunny Creek Commercial site would be a pedestrian oriented
focus and integrated with the surroundings. When the site is developed, the shopping
2-1354
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
areas will be located and designed in a manner that is easily accessible and attractive to
pedestrians, particularly surrounding neighborhoods (e.g. pedestrian access directly to
surrounding residential neighborhoods); also the shopping center will be located and
designed in a manner that integrates with the surroundings (i.e., direct and easy access
from surrounding neighborhoods, architectural compatibility, etc.).
The comment suggests adding the words “within 3 mile radius or 5-minute driving time”
after “include shopping” in draft General Plan policy 2-G.7. This suggestion is not
appropriate in the context of the policy. The suggested words apply to the location of a
local shopping center; however, the policy applies to the physical design of a local
shopping center, not the location of the center itself.
The comment also suggests deleting the words “pedestrian-oriented focus” from draft
General Plan policy 2-G.7, because people will not walk to shopping and carry home bags.
The comment states that the convenience to shopping centers close to residences is
outweighed by problems inherent in shopping centers increased traffic, cars pulling in
and out of parking lots, pollution, lights, noise, crime and impacts on city services. See
response to comments D48-5, D48-14 and D48-16. The comment will be included in the
materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in
making their decisions with respect to the proposed General Plan.
D48-28: The comment refers to draft General Plan policy 2-P.85 for the Palomar Corridor:
2-P.85 Allow small pockets of higher density residential at the edges of the corridor, as
shown on the Land Use Map, to enable residents to live closer to jobs, with opportunities
for enhanced bicycle and pedestrian paths that link residential and employment uses.
Ensure that residential uses incorporate noise attenuation criteria in accordance with the
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
The comment suggests eliminating the words “higher density residential at the edges of
the corridor.” Staff does not recommend approval of the proposed residential sites within
the Palomar Corridor and, therefore, this policy is recommended to be deleted entirely.
D48-29: The comment refers to draft General Plan Mobility Element policies 3-P.3 and 3-P.4,
which require a multi-modal level of service (MMLOS) methodology be utilized and
implemented by evaluating level of service for prioritized modes as identified in Table 3-1
and Figure 3-1 of the draft General Plan.
The comment asks what these policies mean, what are prioritized modes of travel by
street typology and where are Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1? The draft General Plan Mobility
Element describes what is meant by prioritized modes and MMLOS methodology
(beginning on page 3-8 to 3-18), and Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1 are part of the draft
Mobility Element (pages 3-11 to 3-15).
D48-30: The comment refers to draft General Plan Mobility Element policies 3-P.7 and 3-P.8,
which specify that certain streets and intersections are considered exempt from level of
service (LOS) standards. The policies identify certain criteria that must be met to be
2-1355
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
considered LOS exempt and identify certain street segments that are proposed to be LOS
exempt.
The comment asks why the list of streets that are LOS exempt in draft policy 3-P.8 does
not mention increased traffic along El Camino Real between College Blvd. and Tamarack
due to future planned development and mitigation for all projects along El Camino Real.
The draft EIR (pages 3.13-26 to 1.13-30) does evaluate the impact of future traffic
volumes on vehicle prioritized streets, including those listed in draft Mobility Element
policy 3-P.8. The future traffic volumes include all proposed land uses per the draft
General Plan. As shown in draft EIR Table 3.13.10, at buildout of the draft General Plan,
vehicle level of service on vehicle-prioritized streets is anticipated to operate at LOS D or
better, except for the streets listed in draft Mobility Element policy 3-P.8, which are
anticipated to operate below LOS D.
The comment suggests that El Camino Real be prioritized for bicycle mode of travel and
to limit development that will add congestion along the street. El Camino Real currently
and is planned in the future to operate as an arterial street, which are the primary street
facilities that move vehicles through the city; therefore, it is appropriate to continue to
prioritize vehicle mode of travel along El Camino Real. In addition, bicycle and
pedestrian modes of travel are identified in the draft Mobility Element as non-prioritized
travel modes on arterial streets (including El Camino Real). Bicycles and pedestrians will
be accommodated along El Camino Real and other vehicle prioritized streets, but bicycle
and pedestrian service levels will not be prioritized above vehicle service levels.
Regarding the suggestion to limit development along El Camino Real, draft EIR Chapter
3.13 evaluated the transportation impacts of the draft General Plan, including all
proposed future land uses. The comment will be included in the materials presented to
the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions
with respect to the proposed General Plan.
D48-31: The comment refers to draft Mobility Element policy 3-P.9, which requires new
development that adds traffic to LOS exempt streets to implement transportation demand
management (TDM) strategies to reduce the reliance on the automobile. The comment
asks how TDM strategies reduce reliance on the automobile without encroaching on
quality of life and civil liberties. The comment suggests eliminating draft Mobility
Element policy 3-P.9.
TDM consists of programs and policies to reduce the demand for the single occupant
automobile. Common techniques include carpool programs, flexible work hours,
telecommute provisions, shuttle services to nearby transit stations, employee transit
subsidies (e.g. employers subsidize bus or rail tickets), installation of bicycle facilities
(lockers, racks, lanes, showers at employment areas, etc.), or other measures that would
reduce the demand to drive. TDM increases the number of travel mode options and
increases the ability for residents and employees to make choices regarding how they
travel through the city. TDM enhances quality of life by providing residents with more
mobility options. Providing increased mobility options does not encroach on civil
2-1356
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
liberties. The comment does not state how quality of life and civil liberties are
encroached upon by TDM; no further response is possible.
The comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission
and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the proposed
General Plan.
D48-32: The comment refers to draft Mobility Element policy 3-P.10, which requires the Citywide
Facilities and Improvements Plan (CFIP) to be updated for consistency with the General
Plan; this includes updating the CFIP circulation LOS standard methodology to reflect a
multi-modal approach. The comment asks what it means to update the circulation LOS
standards methodology.
As part of the city’s Growth Management Plan, the CFIP identifies performance
standards for 11 public facilities, including circulation facilities. The current circulation
standard is as follows:
“No road segment or intersection in the Local Facility Management Zone (LFMZ) nor
any road segment or intersection out of the zone which is impacted by development in
the zone shall be projected to exceed a [vehicle] service level C during off-peak hours, nor
[vehicle] service level D during peak hours. Impacted means where 20% or more of the
traffic generated by the local facility management zone will use the road segment or
intersection.”
The current CFIP circulation performance standard was established based on the
automobile-focused circulation plan of the existing General Plan. The proposed draft
Mobility Element establishes a new livable streets plan for mobility within the city; the
livable streets plan focuses on creating a street network that provides for the mobility
needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit uses, and automobiles – a multi-modal street
network.
To measure the performance/success of the street network’s ability to serve multiple
modes of travel, it is necessary to establish a multi-modal performance standard that will
guide the implementation of a successful livable streets network. This network, as
identified in the draft Mobility Element, prioritizes transportation modes (pedestrian,
bicycle, transit, and vehicle) by street typology and accessibility to users of the system.
D48-33: The comment refers to draft General Plan policy 2-P.68, which is to “enhance the
walkability and pedestrian orientation of the Village, including along Carlsbad Village
Drive, to enhance the small, beach town atmosphere and improve access to and
utilization of transit.” The comment asks how developing the Caruso land east of I-5 on
Cannon Road “enhance the small, beach town atmosphere”, when a mall there will bring
thousands of people who will park there, walk to the beach, cause bottlenecks of traffic,
disrupt scenic vistas, and urbanize Carlsbad? The comment suggests that the area (I-5
and Cannon Road) should have the same criteria for protecting the “small, beach town
atmosphere” as the Village.
2-1357
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
The property referenced in the comment (east side of I-5 north of Cannon Road) is
currently designated by the existing General Plan for visitor-serving commercial use. The
draft General Plan does not propose any change to the current planned land use on the
site. Regarding the suggestion to require that development of the property enhance the
small, beach town atmosphere, “small town feel, beach community character and
connectedness” is one of nine core community values identified in the Carlsbad
Community Vision, and as described in response to comment D48-5, no single
community value has more weight than another, and in some instances the values
represent competing desires. For example, the value of a small town feel and beach
community character may at times conflict with the value for a strong and diverse
economy. The Village is an area of the city that represents the city’s small town feel and
beach community character and where there are prime opportunities to enhance this
element of the community’s character; draft policy 2-P.68 recognizes this opportunity in
the Village.
D48-34: The comment refers to draft General Plan policy 4-P.43, which is to “allow and encourage
farming operations in the Cannon Road Open Space, Farming, and Public Use Zone…”
The comment asks how the city will allow and encourage. By implementing the
provisions of the Cannon Road Open Space, Farming, and Public Use Zone (part of the
Zoning Ordinance), the city allows and encourages open space and farming uses (the
zone has been approved by the City Council and is pending approval by the Coastal
Commission. The comment states that the term “economically viable for the land owner”
is too subjective. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with
respect to the proposed General Plan.
D48-35: The comment references draft General Plan policy 4-P.29, which identifies issues to
consider during development and re-development of park land. The comment states that
policy omits language (“developing specific sites to minimize impacts to biological
resources”) from the existing General Plan that the commenter would like to add to
policy 4-P.29. The existing General Plan policy that the comment refers to is policy C.19
of the Parks and Recreation Element, which identifies issues to consider during
development of park master plans. Draft General Plan policy 4-P.29 is an updated
version of existing policy C.19; draft policy 4-P.29 accomplishes the same objectives as
C.19 and reduces redundancy. In combination with the city’s HMP, policy 4-P.29 does
not diminish any existing requirement to protect biological resources. The comment will
be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration in making their decisions with respect to the proposed General Plan.
D48-36: The comment references draft General Plan policy 4-P.53, which is to provide incentives
to reduce vehicle miles travels as a means to reduce air quality impacts. The city asks how
the city will provide incentives and suggests adding language to indicate that the
provision of incentives shall not interfere with the goals of the community’s vision. The
provision of incentives that encourage reduced vehicle trips is a discretionary policy
decision and is not defined by the General Plan. However, one example of how incentives
may be provided is through implementation of a transportation demand management
2-1358
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
(TDM) ordinance. See response to comment D48-31 regarding TDM. The comment will
be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration in making their decisions with respect to the proposed General Plan.
D48-37: The comment consists of a reference to draft General Plan policy 2-P.9, which is to
incentivize development of lower-income affordable housing. No response required.
D48-38: The comment asks what happened to GPA 00-04 (March 2001) that established policies
for local shopping centers; the comment specifically refers to shopping center trade area
travel times. Draft General Plan Table 2-4 identifies the primary trade area travel time,
radius and population for commercial land uses (consistent with Table 3 of the existing
General Plan Land Use Element, as established by GPA 00-04).
D48-39: The comment asks why there is no mention of preserving quality of life by reducing
traffic impacts, environmental impacts, congestion, noise, light, and strain on city
services. Throughout the draft General Plan are policies that aim to improve mobility
and manage traffic impacts (Mobility Element), protect the environment (Land Use and
Community Design Element, Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element;
Sustainability Element), minimize noise impacts (Noise Element), minimize impacts
from development, including lighting impacts (Land Use and Community Design
Element), and ensure adequate public facilities are provided to serve the community
(Land Use and Community Design Element; Mobility Element; Open Space,
Conservation and Recreation Element; Public Safety Element; Arts, History, Culture and
Education Element).
D48-40: The comment refers to Chapter 3.1 Aesthetics of the draft EIR, which identifies that El
Camino Real is a scenic roadway. The comment asks why the statement regarding El
Camino Real is not in the draft General Plan. The draft EIR references information from
various sources. Draft General Plan policy 3-P.19 requires that scenic corridors be
maintained as identified in the Carlsbad Scenic Corrido Guidelines. The guidelines is the
document that provides specific discussion about El Camino Real and its attributes as a
scenic corridor.
D48-41: The comment asks what is the status of the Rancho Carlsbad Golf Course with respect to
a zone change. Consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation of the
property, the draft General Plan designates the property as open space; concurrent with
the proposed draft General Plan, a zone change is proposed for the property to change the
existing L-C (Limited Control) zone to O-S (Open Space), which implements the open
space land use designation.
D48-42: The comment asks why the City Council wants to increase density on properties; and
states that density permanently impacts the natural environment. To clarify, the draft
General Plan identifies various properties throughout the city where increase residential
density is being considered. Consideration of these density increases are the result of a
community process that developed a preferred land use plan identifying sites where such
residential development may be preferred; the City Council considered the preferred land
2-1359
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
use plan and directed staff to utilize it in the drafting of the General Plan. In addition,
various property owners submitted requests for density increases to be considered for
their properties as part of the General Plan update. Staff presented a report to the City
Council regarding these property owner requests, and the City Council directed staff to
include the requests during the environmental review of the draft General Plan. No
approval has been granted for any of the density increases evaluated by the draft General
Plan. The Planning Commission and City Council will consider all land use changes
proposed by the General Plan, including the environmental impact analysis, and
determine which, if any, of the changes are desirable.
Regarding impacts to the environment resulting from residential density, the draft EIR
evaluated full buildout of the draft General Plan, including all residential density
increases proposed; all environmental impacts are identified and discussed in the draft
EIR.
D48-43: The comment states that high-density residential development does not adhere to the
community’s vision. See response to comment D48-5 related to the Carlsbad
Community Vision and response to comments D48-4, D48-7 and D48-9 related to
analysis of impacts related to density, traffic, pollution, congestion, noise, lights, use of
city utilities and services.
D48-44: The comment asks how adding growth is justified at the expense of quality of life. See
response to comment D48-5 related to the Carlsbad Community Vision.
D48-45: The comment asks how the proposed land use/zone changes are being evaluated and
what the priorities are. The land use/zone changes have been evaluated in regard to
environmental impacts (see the draft EIR); also, other examples of how staff has evaluated
the changes include evaluating: compliance with the city’s Growth Management
Program, objectives of the community’s vision, compatibility with surrounding land uses,
appropriateness of the site for the use, city and state housing objectives (including the
city’s regional housing needs assessment – RHNA), and all other applicable city standards
and other laws. The primary objectives of the residential site evaluation are to implement
the community vision (see response to comment D48-5), ensure compliance with the
city’s growth management program, and ensure compliance with city and state housing
objectives, including the RHNA, and ensure compliance with all other applicable
standards and laws. Also see Section 1.5 of the draft General Plan for a summary of the
key strategies of the draft General Plan.
D48-46: The question asks why the draft General Plan does not include Chapter 21.40 – Scenic
Preservation Overlay Zone. Chapter 21.40 is a chapter of the city’s Zoning Ordinance,
which is a separate document that implements the policies of the General Plan. The draft
General Plan does not propose a change to Chapter 21.40, it remains in effect. The
comment also refers to the El Camino Real Corridor Development Standards, which is
also a separate document that provides specific standards for development along El
Camino Real; the draft General Plan does not propose a change to the corridor standards.
2-1360
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
D48-47: The comment refers to the draft EIR significance criteria for aesthetic impacts, and states
that the Sunny Creek site and El Camino Real would be impacted by the criteria. At a
programmatic level, the draft EIR did not identify any significant aesthetic impacts
resulting from the draft General Plan. Any future development project, such as on the
Sunny Creek site, will be subject to additional CEQA analysis to determine what the
project-specific impacts may be.
D48-48: The comment refers to draft EIR Impact 3.1, which pertains to impacts on a scenic vista,
for which the draft EIR concludes the draft General Plan will have a less than significant
impact. The comment states that development along El Camino Real does not preserve
or enhance scenic views; and the comment asks why the draft General Plan exacerbates
development in the area with increased housing density on Sunny Creek; the comment
also refers to previously approved projects that will generate traffic, congestion, noise,
and pollution. At a programmatic level, the draft EIR did not identify any significant
aesthetic impacts resulting from the draft General Plan. Any future development project,
such as on the Sunny Creek site, will be subject to additional CEQA analysis to determine
what the project-specific impacts may be. The draft EIR included previously approved
projects in the growth assumptions utilized for the environmental analysis, including
traffic impacts, noise impacts and air quality impacts.
D48-49: The comment references text from the draft EIR (page 3.1-9) analysis of impacts to scenic
vistas. The referenced text states that “Along the city’s scenic corridors, the proposed
General Plan’s land use changes are minimal, occurring in areas where some
development has already taken place.” The comment disagrees that the proposed land use
change on the Sunny Creek site represents a minimal change. The reference to “minimal”
land use changes in the draft EIR is in the context of overall citywide change in land use;
not in the context of a site-specific change. As individual development projects are
proposed in the future, they will be subject to site-specific environmental review pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines section 15168.
D48-50: The comment references text from the draft EIR (page 3.1-9) analysis of impacts to
scenic vistas. The referenced text states that proposed policies require development be
located away from visible ridges, and larger buildings minimize their visual appearance
from scenic corridors and vistas. The comment asks why this is not being followed.
Development projects approved by the city are and will continue to be evaluated for
consistency with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Because the comment does
not identify how the policies are not being followed, no further response is possible.
D48-51: The comment consists of a reference to draft General Plan policy 7-P.27, which is to
continue efforts to locate an institute of higher education that capitalizes on the city’s
high-tech and bio-tech industries and the city’s skilled workforce. No response required.
D48-52: The comment asks, in regard to draft policy 7-P.27, why the city should bring so many
more people to Carlsbad when there aren’t enough jobs for the people who are already
here. The draft General Plan is a long-range planning document that provides policies to
guide the city into the future. Please see the draft General Plan Land Use and
2-1361
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
Community Design Element, which identifies where future commercial, office and
industrial uses may develop (i.e., a land use plan for future uses that create future jobs);
also see the draft General Plan Economy, Business Diversity, and Tourism Element,
which provides policies to support existing and future business growth (i.e. job growth).
D48-53: The comment asks, in reference to draft policy 7-P.27, how an institute of higher
education or a research organization benefits the residents of Carlsbad when the city
already has 37 bio-tech firms. Institutes of higher learning support existing industries in
Carlsbad, as well as the creation of new high quality jobs. As stated in the draft General
Plan Economy, Business Diversity, and Tourism Element, a goal (8.G-6) of the draft
General Plan is to “establish a strong talent pipeline that can serve the needs of local
businesses in the short and long term, as well as serve regionally important industry
clusters.”
D48-54: The comment asks, in reference to draft policy 7-P.27, why the Carlsbad taxpayers should
pay for it. The draft General Plan does not identify the funding to establish an institute of
higher education and does not state that the City of Carlsbad or city taxpayers shall pay
for it. Policies within the draft Arts, History, Culture and Education Element and the
Economy, Business Diversity, and Tourism Element promote forming partnerships with
other organizations, such as universities.
D48-55: The comment asks that if an objective of the draft General Plan is to reduce vehicle trips,
then why would we want students from surrounding communities driving to a satellite
campus in Carlsbad. The draft General Plan identifies goals and policies to accommodate
future growth and development and reduce vehicle trips by providing multi-modal
options for mobility in the city and by managing traffic/vehicle use through TDM
strategies (see response to comment D48-31).
D48-56: The comment expresses opposition to a retail center on the Sunny Creek site. See
response to comments D6-1 and D6-2. The comment will be included in the materials
presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making
their decisions with respect to the proposed General Plan.
D48-57: The comment states that a commercial development on the Sunny Creek site will result in
traffic and noise impacts. At a programmatic level, the draft EIR did not identify any
significant traffic or noise impacts resulting from the draft General Plan. The potential
impacts of any future development project, such as on the Sunny Creek site, on traffic
and noise will be subject to additional CEQA analysis to determine what the project-
specific impacts may be.
D48-58: The comment expresses additional concerns regarding noise from a commercial
development on the Sunny Creek site. The potential noise impacts of any future
commercial development project on the Sunny Creek site will be subject to site-specific
environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168. See response to
comment D48-57.
2-1362
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
D48-59: The comment expresses additional concerns regarding noise from a commercial
development on the Sunny Creek site. See response to comment D48-58.
D48-60: The comment expresses concerns regarding light and glare from a commercial
development on the Sunny Creek site. The potential impacts on light and glare of any
future commercial development project on the Sunny Creek site will be subject to site-
specific environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168. See response
to comment D48-57.
D48-61: The comment expresses reasons why it is not appropriate to allow commercial
development on the Sunny Creek site. See response to comments D6-1 and D6-2. The
comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and
City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the proposed
General Plan.
D49: Madhusudan Gujral
D49-1: The commenter states opposition to high density apartments being proposed in the
Sunny Creek area. Please see master response MR 3-2 regarding the land use change
proposed for the Sunny Creek Commercial site. The comment will be included in the
materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in
making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D50: Megan Goodwin
D50-1: The commenter notes that they are homeowners in the Terraces at Sunny Creek,
encourages the city to reevaluate the plan for high density housing on the adjacent vacant
land (Sunny Creek Commercial site) for lower density single family homes. Please see
master response MR 3-2 regarding the land use change proposed for the Sunny Creek
Commercial site. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with
respect to the draft General Plan.
D50-2: The comment expresses a concern that high density housing on the subject property will
increase traffic, noise and crime activity. Please see master response MR 3-2 regarding
the land use change proposed for the Sunny Creek Commercial site. The draft EIR
analyzed full buildout of the proposed land use map at a programmatic level, which
includes commercial/residential uses at the Sunny Creek Commercial site. See Chapter
3.10 for impacts to noise, Chapter 3.11 for impacts to public facilities and services, and
Chapter 3.13 for impacts to transportation. Future development allowed under the draft
General Plan will be subject to additional site-specific environmental review.
D51: Michael Kroopkin
D51-1: The comment expresses general concerns about traffic congestion on El Camino Real and
the additional traffic impact of the project at Cannon and ECR. This project is assumed
to be the Robertson Ranch West Village, which is currently under construction. Traffic
impacts for this project were analyzed in environmental documents for that project. The
2-1363
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
draft EIR evaluated full buildout of the land use map at a programmatic level, which
included the Robertson Ranch West Village project, and does not anticipate significant
traffic impacts for this area of El Camino Real. For the section of El Camino Real
between north city limits and Palomar Airport Road, the future traffic level of service is
projected to be LOS C, which is not a significant impact (see draft EIR Chapter 3.13,
Table 3.13-10). These traffic projections also included the combination L and R-23
proposal for the Sunny Creek Commercial site in its future assumptions. Note that the
EIR is a Program EIR and focuses on the overall effects associated with the adoption and
implementation of the draft General Plan. Individual development projects will continue
to require project-level environmental assessment. The comment will be included in the
materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in
making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D51-2: The comment expresses concerns about high density development under consideration
just south of the small golf course. This comment is assumed to be referencing the
proposal in the draft General Plan for a land use change at the Sunny Creek Commercial
site Please see master response MR 3-2 regarding the land use change proposed for the
Sunny Creek Commercial site. The comment will be included in the materials presented
to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their
decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D51-3: The comment expresses concerns about the request by the golf course owner for change
of zoning to sell the property for more building. The property is designated Open Space
in the current General Plan, and no change to this designation is proposed as part of the
draft General Plan. The city proposing to change the zoning from Limited Control (L-C)
to Open Space (O-S) in order to make the zoning designation consistent with the existing
General Plan designation. The golf course owner has objected to the city’s proposal to
change the zoning to Open Space, please see responses to comments B3-1 thru B3-9.
D51-4: The comment expresses concerns that the open space that exists today will be gone and
congestion will increase significantly, and requests that the additional density and
construction not be allowed. The comment may have concerns with lands that are
currently vacant but are designated in the draft General Plan for future residential,
commercial or land uses other than open space. No lands designated for Open Space in
the current General Plan are proposed for land use changes in the draft General Plan, and
the amount of open space will not be reduced in the draft General Plan. Regarding the
comment about increased traffic congestion, please see response to comment 51-1. The
comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and
City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General
Plan.
The commenter states a belief that a future traffic light modernization planned by the city
will not effectively resolve the additional traffic created by future shopping center
developments. The draft General Plan Mobility Element describes a variety of means to
reduce peak traffic generation, including street infrastructure improvements, better traffic
signal management, and implementation of transportation demand management
2-1364
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
strategies to reduce reliance on the automobile. Please see section 3.13 of the draft EIR
for an evaluation of potential impacts on traffic.
D52: Michael Kroopkin
D52-1: The comment expresses general concerns about traffic congestion on El Camino Real,
and states that if will become worse after the housing project at Cannon and ECR is
complete. This project is assumed to be the Robertson Ranch West Village, which is
currently under construction. See response to comment D51-1. The comment will be
included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
The commenter states a belief that a future traffic light modernization planned by the city
will not effectively resolve the additional traffic created by future shopping center
developments. The draft General Plan Mobility Element describes a variety of means to
reduce peak traffic generation, including street infrastructure improvements, better traffic
signal management, and implementation of transportation demand management
strategies to reduce reliance on the automobile. Please see section 3.13 of the draft EIR for
an evaluation of potential impacts on traffic.
D53: Michael Kroopkin
D53-1: The comment expresses general concerns and objections to medium and high density
housing within Carlsbad. State law requires each general plan to have a housing element
that plans for housing at a variety of densities that can accommodate a variety of income
levels. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning
Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to
the draft General Plan.
D53-2: The comment disagrees with the concept of building shopping near housing, stating that
people would rather drive than walk to shopping. According to Envision Carlsbad
Working Paper 2, future demographic shifts are expected to show growth in age groups
that exhibit a growing preference for multifamily housing in close proximity to urban
amenities, services and retail opportunities. The comment will be included in the
materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in
making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D53-3: The comment states there is an overabundance of commercial development and
expresses general concern with higher population, traffic and high density housing. The
Envision Carlsbad Working Paper 2 includes a study showing that the city leaks retail
dollars to adjacent jurisdictions for certain commercial uses, such as grocery stores, gas
stations and limited-service eating places; the implication being that there is an unmet
need in Carlsbad for these types of retail establishments. Additionally, the Carlsbad
Community Vision indicates a desire for increased specialty retail and dining
opportunities. Also see response to comments D51-1 and D53-1. The comment will be
included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
2-1365
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
D54: Michael Kroopkin
D54-1: The comment expresses an objection to the proposal in the draft General Plan for a land
use change to allow high density housing at Sunny Creek Plaza. Please see master
response MR 3-2 regarding the land use change proposed for the Sunny Creek
Commercial site. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with
respect to the draft General Plan.
D55: Michael Kroopkin
D55-1: The comment notes a developer has submitted a plan for Sunny Creek Plaza, and
provides a summary of the proposal, and requests that the development be scaled down
in order to preserve the scenic beauty of the El Camino Real hillsides and the quality of
live in the area. The proposal referenced by the comment is a preliminary review
application, for which city staff reviewed and commented on the proposal. To date, no
applications for development have been received by the city. The comment will be
included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D55-2: The comment expresses concern about the project’s residential density, stating that it
exceeds the high-density inclusion in the draft General Plan, and requests the city to
suppress density. The draft General Plan proposes to change a portion of the Sunny
Creek Commercial property to the Residential R-23 land use designation, which allows
residential uses between 15 – 23 dwelling units per acre. The referenced preliminary
review application showed residential uses at 16.2 dwelling units per acre, which is within
the R-23 density range. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with
respect to the draft General Plan.
D55-3: The comment expresses an opinion that restaurants do not comply with the city’s policy
of “neighborhood-serving stores” and that there are an abundance of nearby restaurant
and grocery choices nearby. The comment also references Carlsbad Shopping Center
policies and previous related General Plan amendments that guard against creating
undue overlaps in trade areas, avoid over-commercialization, and do not negatively
impact the residential environment and scenic corridor. Please see responses to
comments D6-2, D6-3, D6-5, D6-6, D6-10, D6-11 and D6-13. The comment will be
included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D55-4: The comment claims that shopping center development at Sunny Creek Plaza would
result in a variety of environmental impacts. Please see responses to comments D6-7 and
D6-8.
The comment also proposes an alternative for the site of low-medium residential uses and
a park instead of commercial/high density residential development. The draft General
Plan Open Space and Recreation Element and Chapter 3.11 of the draft EIR did not
2-1366
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
identify the Sunny Creek Commercial site as necessary to meet the park facility needs of
the community. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with
respect to the draft General Plan.
D55-5: The comment reiterates earlier comments and requests that the city prohibit new sites for
local shopping centers on El Camino Real. Please see responses to comments D55-3 and
D55-4. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning
Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to
the draft General Plan.
D56: Michele Cullen
D56-1: The commenter notes that they are homeowners in the Terraces at Sunny Creek, and
expresses concerns about the proposal for high density housing on the vacant lot next
their development (Sunny Creek Commercial site) related to traffic, crime, lower
property values and over-development. Please see master response MR 3-2 regarding the
land use change proposed for the Sunny Creek Commercial site. All development in
Carlsbad has occurred consistent with the policies and requirements of the General Plan
and the Growth Management Plan.
The draft EIR analyzed full buildout of the proposed land use map at a programmatic
level, which includes commercial/residential uses at the Sunny Creek Commercial site.
See Chapter 3.11 for impacts to public facilities and services and Chapter 3.13 for impacts
to transportation. Future development allowed under the draft General Plan will be
subject to additional site-specific environmental review.
D57: Patricia Mehan
D57-1: The comment states opposition to changing a portion of the zoning for the Walmart
property from commercial to high density residential, and that the only acceptable
change would be for a pocket park on the commercial land. Please see master response
MR 3-2 regarding the land use change proposed for the Sunny Creek Commercial site.
The comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission
and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft
General Plan.
The draft General Plan Open Space and Recreation Element and Chapter 3.11 of the draft
EIR did not identify the Sunny Creek Commercial site as necessary to meet the park
facility needs of the community. However, nothing in the commercial or residential land
use designation would prevent an integrated pocket park being built on the site of a
future development project.
D58: Priscilla Gess
D58-1: The comment expresses dismay at the proposal to change a portion of the Sunny Creek
Commercial site from commercial to high density housing, and questions the reasoning
of the proposal. Please see master response MR 3-2 regarding the land use change
2-1367
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
proposed for the Sunny Creek Commercial site. The comment will be included in the
materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in
making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D58-2: The comment asks how the variance might alter the character of the area. As a point of
clarification, the proposal does not include a request for a variance. What has been
requested by the property owner is consideration of an amendment to the General Plan
land use map in order to change the land use designation. Please see master response MR
3-2 regarding the land use change proposed for the Sunny Creek Commercial site.
The draft EIR analyzed full buildout of the proposed land use map at a programmatic
level, which includes commercial/residential uses at the Sunny Creek Commercial site.
See Chapter 3.2 for impacts to aesthetics. Future development allowed under the draft
General Plan will be subject to additional site-specific environmental review.
D58-3: The comment asks whether the proposal is based on a desire to make more money out of
the property. Please see master response MR 3-2 regarding the land use change proposed
for the Sunny Creek Commercial site. The comment will be included in the materials
presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making
their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D58-4: The comment asks whether the proposal would apply to other properties with similar
zoning classifications. This proposal only applies to the Sunny Creek Commercial site,
and was made at the request of the property owner. Other properties with similar land
use and zoning designations would need to apply for designation changes for their
respective properties in order to do what is proposed at the Sunny Creek Commercial
site.
D58-5: The comment asks if the proposal would be detrimental to other property in the
neighborhood, if it would endanger public safety or substantially diminish property
values in the neighborhood. Please see master response MR 3-2 regarding the land use
change proposed for the Sunny Creek Commercial site. The draft EIR analyzed full
buildout of the proposed land use map at a programmatic level, (which includes
commercial/residential uses at the Sunny Creek Commercial site). See Chapter 3.11 for
impacts to public facilities and services. Future development allowed under the draft
General Plan will be subject to additional site-specific environmental review.
D58-6: The comment expresses concerns about changing a portion of the Sunny Creek
Commercial property from commercial to high density residential due to concerns about
traffic, noise, and lowered property values. The comment also expresses an opinion that
the proposed change only provides economic benefit for the developer while is an
economic detriment for the community. Please see master response MR 3-2 regarding the
land use change proposed for the Sunny Creek Commercial site. The comment will be
included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
2-1368
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
The draft EIR analyzed full buildout of the proposed land use map at a programmatic
level, which includes commercial/residential uses at the Sunny Creek Commercial site.
See Chapter 3.10 for impacts to noise and Chapter 3.13 for impacts to transportation.
Future development allowed under the draft General Plan will be subject to additional
site-specific environmental review.
D58-7: The comment states concerns that assisted living facilities second dwelling units are not
considered residential units as their occupants use roadways, water, electricity, trash,
sewer, fire and police services.
State law mandates that SDUs not be counted against residential growth caps, such as
exists in Carlsbad’s Growth Management Plan, and mandates that SDUs not be counted
in calculations of residential density (ie. SDUs may exceed the permitted density for a
lot). Carlsbad’s practice in implementing the GMP and residential density calculations
are fully consistent with the requirements of state law. Development of new SDUs would
typically be considered exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303 or
15332.
City policy considers professional care facilities to be commercial living units because
they are institutional housing/group quarters, and therefore different than conventional
housing. This city policy has been upheld by courts in recent legal action related to the
Dos Colinas project. Construction of new professional care facilities are subject to
CEQA, and any development impacts would be addressed through the CEQA review
process, similar to a residential project. For more information about commercial living
units and SDUs, please see sections 2.4 and 2.6 of the Land Use and Community Design
Element.
D58-8: The comment reiterates opposition to changing a portion of the Sunny Creek
Commercial property from commercial to high density residential due to concerns about
traffic, car pollution, noise, light and lowered property values. Please see master response
MR 3-2 regarding the land use change proposed for the Sunny Creek Commercial site.
The comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission
and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft
General Plan.
The draft General Plan provides goals and policies for future development, but does not
authorize any specific development project. The draft EIR analyzed full buildout of the
proposed land use map at a programmatic level, which includes commercial/residential
uses at the Sunny Creek Commercial site. See Chapter 3.2 of the Recirculated DEIR for
impacts to air quality, and draft EIR Chapter 3.1 for impacts to aesthetics, Chapter 3.10
for impacts to noise, and 3.13 for impacts to transportation. Future development allowed
under the draft General Plan will be subject to additional site-specific environmental
review.
2-1369
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
D59: Samuel Sunil Pattem
D59-1: The commenter notes that they are residents of Sunny Creek Terraces, and expresses
concerns with the proposal for high density housing on the vacant lot at the intersection
of El Camino Real and College related to increases in traffic. Please see master response
MR 3-2 regarding the land use change proposed for the Sunny Creek Commercial site.
The comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission
and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft
General Plan.
The draft EIR analyzed full buildout of the proposed land use map at a programmatic
level, which includes commercial/residential uses at the Sunny Creek Commercial site.
See 3.13 for impacts to transportation. Future development allowed under the draft
General Plan will be subject to additional site-specific environmental review.
D59-2: The comment states that Carlsbad schools are overcrowded, which could lead to
compromised education. Chapter 3.11 of the draft EIR analyzed impacts of the draft
General Plan on school facilities and found the impacts to be less than significant. Future
development allowed under the draft General Plan will be subject to site-specific
environmental review, including analysis of the potential impacts school facilities. The
comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and
City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General
Plan.
D59-3: The comment requests the city to lower the density (of the Sunny Creek Commercial site)
to low or middle density by allowing townhomes. Please see master response MR 3-2
regarding the land use change proposed for the Sunny Creek Commercial site. The
comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and
City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General
Plan.
D60: JoAnn Sweeney
D60-1: The commenter expresses concerns about high density housing at the Sunny Creek Plaza
property, and concerns about commercial and residential developments planned along El
Camino Real. The concerns are related to traffic, pollution, water resources, fire and
police resources, and that El Camino Real is a scenic corridor. Please see master response
MR 3-2 regarding the land use change proposed for the Sunny Creek Commercial site.
The draft General Plan provides goals and policies for future development, but does not
authorize any specific development project. The draft EIR analyzed full buildout of the
proposed land use map at a programmatic level, (which includes commercial uses at
Robertson Ranch and commercial/residential uses at the Sunny Creek Commercial site).
See Chapter 3.2 of the Recirculated DEIR for impacts to air quality, and draft EIR Chapter
3.1 for impacts to aesthetics, Chapter 3.10 for impacts to noise, Chapter 3.11 for impacts
to public facilities and services, and 3.13 for impacts to transportation. Future
2-1370
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
development allowed under the draft General Plan will be subject to additional site-
specific environmental review.
D60-2: The commenter states an opinion that there are already a plethora of shopping centers
and restaurants within a five miles radius. Previous actions by the city council designated
these sites for commercial land uses, and the draft General Plan does not modify these
designations, except for a proposed modification of the Sunny Creek commercial
property to allow for residential uses in addition to local commercial. The Envision
Carlsbad Working Paper 2 includes a study shows that residents must shop in adjacent
jurisdictions for certain needs, such as grocery, gas and dining. The local commercial
land use designation is intended to include these types of local serving commercial uses.
The comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission
and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft
General Plan.
D60-3: The comment requests that the city maintain the Rancho Carlsbad Golf Course as open
space. Staff concurs with this comment. The current and proposed land use designation
for Rancho Carlsbad Golf Course is Open Space. The city proposing to change the zoning
from Limited Control (L-C) to Open Space (O-S) in order to make the zoning
designation consistent with the existing General Plan designation.
D60-4: The comment expresses general concerns about potential overdevelopment of the El
Camino Real corridor. See response to comment D60-1. The comment will be included
in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan. All
development in Carlsbad has occurred consistent with the policies and requirements of
the General Plan and the Growth Management Plan.
D61: Jerry Hansen
D61-1: The commenter expressions opposition to amendments proposed in the draft General
Plan to add higher density development in in the Sunny Creek proposal due to concerns
about water supply and general concerns that the character of the city will change. Please
see master response MR 3-2 regarding the land use change proposed for the Sunny Creek
Commercial site. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with
respect to the draft General Plan.
The draft EIR analyzed full buildout of the proposed land use map at a programmatic
level, which includes commercial/residential uses at the Sunny Creek Commercial site.
See Chapter 3.1 for impacts to aesthetics and Chapter 3.12 for impacts to public utilities
and infrastructure. Future development allowed under the draft General Plan will be
subject to additional site-specific environmental review.
2-1371
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
D62: Lisa McKethan
D62-1: The comment provides introductory statements. The comment is not a comment about
the draft General Plan and EIR, and as such, no response is required.
D62-2: The comment expresses disagreement with city practice to count school playgrounds as
park acreage. Please see master response MR1-6 regarding use of school sites for
recreation purposes. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with
respect to the draft General Plan.
D62-3: The comment states that residential development in Olde Carlsbad has been occurring
since 1984 without any additional park acreage added, states that existing parks in the
area are not satisfactory and that future park plans of the city do not address the needs of
Olde Carlsbad neighborhood. All development in Olde Carlsbad has occurred consistent
with the General Plan and Growth Management Plan (GMP), and the GMP Parks
standard applies to the four quadrants of the city, not to sub areas of the city. Please see
master response MR1-5 about the GMP Parks performance standard. Please see master
response MR2-1 regarding the need for parks in the Northwest Quadrant, MR2-2
regarding the provisions of parks in Olde Carlsbad, and MR2-3 regarding neighborhood
parks. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning
Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to
the draft General Plan.
D63: Gerardeen Santiago
D63-1: The comment is a repeat of Comment C179-1, please see response to comment C179-1.
D63-2: The comment notes time of a city workshop about parks and open space. The comment
is not a comment about the draft General Plan and EIR, and as such, no response is
required.
D63-3: The comment states that draft General Plan ignores the 1986 promise of 40% open space
and 15% open space in each Local Facility Management Zone. Please see master
responses MR1-3 regarding the percentage of citywide open space and MR1-4 regarding
the GMP performance standard open space.
D63-4: The comment notes the time and location of a city council workshop on parks and open
space. This comment is not a comment about the draft General Plan and EIR, and as
such, no response is required.
D63-5: The comment states that parks standard is outdated requests that it be updated. This
comment raises a policy question rather than an environmental issue, and as such, no
response is required. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with
respect to the draft General Plan.
2-1372
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
D63-6: The comment expresses disagreement with city practice to count school playgrounds as
park acreage. Please see master response MR1-6 regarding use of school sites for
recreation purposes. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with
respect to the draft General Plan.
D63-7: The comment expresses a desire for neighborhood parks. Please see master response
MR2-1 regarding the need for parks in the Northwest Quadrant, MR2-2 regarding the
provisions of parks in Olde Carlsbad, and MR2-3 regarding neighborhood parks. The
comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and
City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General
Plan.
D63-8: This comment states that Veteran’s Park should not be counted toward all four
quadrants. Please see master response MR1-7 regarding Veteran’s Park. The comment
will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council
for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D63-9: The comment states that there should be no double counting of hard line open space as
parks. Please see master response MR1-8 which explains that open space is not “double-
counted.”
D63-10: The comment states a desire to see at least 40% open space as promised since 1986. Please
see master response MR1-3 regarding the percentage of citywide open space.
D63-11: The comment expresses a concern that the city proposes to add 23,000 residents, 7.5
million square feet of commercial, and 2,600 hotel rooms without adding additional park
acreage Carlsbad’s GMP requires the city to add park acreage as it continues to grow and
add resident population; however, hotels do not add residents and therefore are not
tracked in relation to the GMP Parks performance standard. Please see master responses
MR1-5 and MR1-7 and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Also, please see Section
3.11 Public Facilities and Services in the draft EIR for a discussion about impacts of the
draft General Plan on park facilities at buildout.
D64: Kim Berkshire
D64-1: The comment expresses a concern regarding drought and water in reference to possible
use of Buena Vista Reservoir for a housing development. The Buena Vista Reservoir
property is designated RLM in the existing General Plan and no change is proposed in the
draft General Plan. Water availability is analyzed for buildout of the draft General Plan in
Section 3.12 of the draft EIR. The comment will be included in the materials presented to
the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions
with respect to the draft General Plan.
2-1373
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
D65: Lindsey Cohn
D65-1: The comment expresses the belief that more parks are needed in Olde Carlsbad, that the
Buena Vista Reservoir property is a good example of property that should be used as a
park, and believes that there is enough density in the area. All approved development
projects were found to be consistent with the General Plan and Growth Management
Plan. The Buena Vista Reservoir property is designated RLM in the existing General Plan
and no change is proposed in the draft General Plan. Please see master response MR2-1
regarding the need for parks in the Northwest Quadrant and MR2-2 regarding the
provisions of parks in Olde Carlsbad. The comment will be included in the materials
presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making
their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D66: Sandra Meador
D66-1: The comment states that the North West Quadrant needs more open space. Please see
master response MR2-1 regarding the need for parks in the Northwest Quadrant and
master responses MR1-1 thru MR1-4 regarding open space.
D66-2: The comment requests that that the Buena Vista Reservoir be considered for use as a
park. Please see master response MR2-1 regarding the need for parks in the Northwest
Quadrant and MR2-2 regarding the provisions of parks in Olde Carlsbad. The comment
will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council
for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D67: Steven Borso
D67-1: The comment expresses concern about the potential sale of city owned Buena Vista
Reservoir to a developer, believes that more parks are needed in Olde Carlsbad and that
the Buena Vista Reservoir property is a good example of property that should be used as a
park. Please see master response MR2-1 regarding the need for parks in the Northwest
Quadrant and MR2-2 regarding the provisions of parks in Olde Carlsbad. Please see
master response MR2-5 regarding the possible disposition of Buena Vista Reservoir. The
comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and
City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General
Plan.
D68: Ziv Ran
D68-1: The comment notes the time and location of a City Council workshop on parks and open
space. This comment is not a comment about the draft General Plan and EIR, and as
such, no response is required.
D68-2: The comment expresses disagreement with city practice to count school playgrounds as
park acreage. Please see master response MR1-6 regarding use of school sites for
recreation purposes. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with
respect to the draft General Plan.
2-1374
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
D68-3: The comment expresses a desire for neighborhood parks and requests that the Buena
Vista Reservoir be turned into a park. Please see master response MR2-1 regarding the
need for parks in the Northwest Quadrant, MR2-2 regarding the provisions of parks in
Olde Carlsbad, and MR2-3 regarding neighborhood parks. The comment will be included
in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D68-4: This comment states that Veteran’s Park should not be counted toward all four
quadrants. Please see master response MR1-7 regarding Veteran’s Park. The comment
will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council
for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
D68-5: The comment states that there should be no double counting of hard line open space as
parks. Please see master response MR1-8 which explains that open space is not “double-
counted.”
D68-6: The comment states a desire to see at least 40% open space as promised since 1986.
Please see master response MR1-3 regarding the percentage of citywide open space.
D68-7: The comment expresses a concern that the city proposes to add 23,000 residents, 7.5
million square feet of commercial, and 2,600 hotel rooms without adding additional park
acreage. Carlsbad’s GMP requires the city to add park acreage as it continues to grow
and add resident population; however, hotels do not add residents and therefore are not
tracked in relation to the GMP Parks performance standard. Please see master response
MR1-5 and MR1-7. Also, please see Section 3.11 Public Facilities and Services in the draft
EIR for a discussion about impacts of the draft General Plan on park facilities at buildout.
D69: Pru Sweeney
D69-1: The comment expresses a concern that the city proposes to add 23,000 residents and
2,600 hotel rooms without adding additional parks in every quadrant of the city.
Carlsbad’s GMP requires the city to add park acreage as it continues to grow and add
resident population; however, hotels do not add residents and therefore are not tracked in
relation to the GMP Parks performance standard. Please see master responses MR1-5
and MR1-7. Also, please see Section 3.11 Public Facilities and Services in the draft EIR
for a discussion about impacts of the draft General Plan on park facilities at buildout.
D69-2: The comment expresses disagreement with city practice to count school playgrounds as
park acreage. Please see master response MR1-6 regarding use of school sites for
recreation purposes. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with
respect to the draft General Plan.
D70: Coastkeeper
D70-1: The comment introduces the commenter and states that the commenter’s concerns are
stated in the letter; no further response is required.
2-1375
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
D70-2: The comment states that there is an inadequate detailed analysis of water supply for the
draft General Plan. Impact 3.12-4, on pages 3.12-35 to 3.12-40 of the draft EIR evaluates
water supplies from CMWD and OMWD, including current and projected water
supplies, normal year and single dry year supply and demand comparison, and multiple
dry year (drought conditions) supply and demand comparison. Under multiple dry year
scenarios for CMWD and OMWD, supplies are demonstrated to be available for ultimate
buildout in 2035.
The analysis of the adequacy of water supply in the draft EIR is based on the best available
and applicable references, namely CMWD’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan and
CMWD’s 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan. These documents evaluate the long-term
demand for water supply and recycled water, respectively. The analysis in the draft EIR is
reflective of the growth contemplated under buildout of the draft General Plan, and
contains a quantitative assessment of existing and future water supply and demand in the
analysis of Impact 3.12-2 on page 3.12-29 through 3.12-33 of the draft EIR.
As described on page 3.12-30 of the draft EIR, the draft General Plan would require an
update to the CMWD Recycled Water Master Plan. A discussion of specific future
impacts and associated mitigation measures for each water supply project is beyond the
scope of the draft EIR; however, future water supply projects can be expected to include
both construction-related and operation-related impacts. Any future water projects in the
city would be required to conduct environmental review pursuant to CEQA prior to
approval. In addition, future development projects will be subject to site-specific
environmental review which includes consideration of whether a proposed project will
require new or expanded water facilities, the construction of which would result in
significant environmental impacts. (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, §XVII (b)).
The comment states that given the assumptions upon which the draft General Plan and
2010 CMWD UWMP are based, the impacts would be significant; however the comment
does not identify the referenced assumptions that cause the analysis of water supply to be
insufficient, no further response is possible.
D70-3: The comment refers to the water supply and demand tables on page 3.12-37 of the draft
EIR and states the information shows the city having the greatest water supply during the
third year of a multiple dry year cycle and that the increase is expected to come from
increased SDCWA purchases; the comment expresses uncertainty that such sources will
be available and asks for further justification of where additional sources will originate
and the impacts of diverting water. As stated on page 3.12-36 of the draft EIR,
purchasing water from the SDCWA is only one source of future water supply identified
by CMWD; other sources include use of groundwater and increasing recycled water
usage. According to the CMWD UWMP, ground water volumes would provide 1,000 afy
of water. These water sources were identified and evaluated as part of the CMWD 2010
Urban Water Management Plan, which was previously approved by the city.
The CMWD Water Master Plan (2011) indicates that the supply recycled water is
projected to be 6,500 AFY (5.8 MGD) by the year 2020, which is an increase of
2-1376
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
approximately 85 percent over the supply of recycled water in 2010 (3,517 AFY). Recycled
water use will increase as the distribution system is expanded into future development
areas and from conversion of existing potable water customers to the recycled water
system.
Below is a copy of CMWD Water Master Plan Table 4-10, which summarizes the types of
water shortage events that could affect CMWD, the assets currently available to the
district to address the shortage event, and the consequences of each event to the district
with existing assets.
CMWD Water Master Plan Table 4-10: Summary of Potential Shortage Events and
Consequences
Event Frequency Duration Existing Response Assets Consequence
1) Drought (or
other prolonged
reduction in
imported water
supplies)
Unknown
(Imported
delivery reliability
is dependent on
State,
Metropolitan, and
Water Authority
actions)
1 year and
longer
a) State, Metropolitan, and Water
Authority response capabilities b)
CMWD drought response
ordinance and rate structure
c) Water Authority Carry-Over
Storage Project (San Vicente
Reservoir expansion) (upon
completion in 2013)
Significant
(Cutbacks to CMWD
customers at same
level as Water
Authority cutbacks to
CMWD)
2) ESP Event
(Earthquake-
induced or other
failure of the San
Diego Aqueduct
pipelines)
Low
(on the order of
one event per
100 years)
2 months (per
ESP design
criteria, based
on aqueduct
repair time
estimates)
a) Water Authority ESP facilities and
Twin Oaks WTP
b) CMWD Treated Water Storage,
including Maerkle Reservoir
c) CMWD interties w/ OMWD,
VWD, and the City of Oceanside d)
CMWD Water Shortage
Contingency Plan
Moderate to
Significant
(No Water Authority
deliveries for 5-7
days; thereafter
deliveries at minimum
75% level of service)
3) Treated Water
Shutdown of
Second Aqueduct
(planned event)
Biannually
(approximately)
10 days (Dec. –
Mar. window)
a) CMWD Treated Water Storage,
including Maerkle Reservoir
b) CMWD interties w/ OMWD,
VWD, and the City of Oceanside c)
Water Authority raw water
pipelines and Twin Oaks WTP(1)
Minor(1) to
Moderate
(Possible drawdown
of District storage to
below preferred
levels) 4) Treated Water
Shutdown of Both
Aqueducts
(planned event)
Rare – Assume
one per five years
10 days (Dec. –
Mar. window)
a) CMWD Treated Water Storage,
including Maerkle Reservoir
b) CMWD interties w/ OMWD,
VWD, and the City of Oceanside
c) Water Authority raw water
pipelines and Twin Oaks WTP1
Minor(1) to
Moderate
(Possible drawdown
of District storage to
below preferred
levels) (1) The consequence to the District of a treated water aqueduct shutdown depends significantly on the ability of the
Water Authority’s Twin Oaks WTP to operate during the shutdown. With current facilities, the plant can be
operated during a Pipeline 4 shutdown from Metropolitan only if the pipeline north of Twin Oaks is not drained
for maintenance or inspection. If Pipeline 4 is drained, the WTP cannot operate, and the consequence of the
shutdown to the District is increased. This consequence would be alleviated if the Water Authority implements its
previously planned project to install an isolation valve in Pipeline 4 north of the plant. The isolation valve would
allow for full plant operations during any type of Pipeline 4 shutdown north of the plant. The Water Authority’s
ongoing Water Facilities Master Plan effort is evaluating project options and may include an isolation valve in its
recommended CIP list.
2-1377
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
The information in the table above indicates that CMWD is well positioned to respond to
and manage interruptions and shortages of imported water supplies. Over the past
decade, the Water Authority, on behalf of CMWD and the other Water Authority
member agencies, has made significant investments in regional supply reliability through
the ESP, the Twin Oaks WTP, the Aqueduct Protection Program, the Carry-Over Storage
Project, and other projects, and these benefit CMWD as reflected in the table. CMWD
also benefits from its interconnections with its neighboring agencies, especially the
OMWD with that agency’s access to raw water storage and treatment at the Olivenhain
Reservoir and WTP, and the City of Oceanside with its Weese WTP coupled with access
to Second Aqueduct raw water supplies.
CMWD also benefits considerably from its treated water storage resources, in particular
Maerkle Reservoir. These resources provide CMWD the capability to sustain water
deliveries to its customers for ten days to several weeks depending on demand conditions
and initial reservoir levels. The supply reliability benefits provided by CMWD’s treated
water storage are considerable, and warrant commensurate investments to maintain the
integrity, water quality, and operability, and availability of these resources.
The CMWD Water Master Plan recognizes the potential for water supply shortage/supply
uncertainty due to drought and other events, as indicated in the table above. Drought, in
particular in California, periodically leads to water supply shortages and the need for local
water agencies to implement water use restrictions and rationing to reduce water
demands. The CMWD Water Master Plan addresses the importance of water supply
planning and the need to evaluate local supply development and demand management
measures to help ensure the continued ability to provide a reliable and fiscally sound
water supply to its customers.
As indicated above, in preparation for periods of water supply shortage, the CMWD
Water Master Plan has identified ways to reduce demand on imported water and increase
water supply from other sources (groundwater and recycled water). Also, the CMWD
Drought Response Plan establishes water waste prohibitions that are in effect at all times
(such as, but not limited to, washing down impervious surfaces and allowing runoff from
inefficient landscape irrigation); the Drought Response Plan also establishes four levels of
drought response actions to be implemented in times of declared water shortage with
increasing restrictions on water use in response to worsening drought conditions and
decreasing available supplies (level 1 measures are voluntary; levels 2 through 4 involve
mandatory conservations measures). Examples of level 1 measures include increased
public education on the need to reduce water use; restricting landscape irrigation to
before 10 am and after 6 pm; and repair of water leaks within five days. Examples of level
2 through 4 measures include level 1 measures, as well as: increased
restrictions/prohibitions on the use of landscape irrigation; restrict/prohibit use of
ornamental fountains, lakes or ponds; prohibit vehicle washing except at commercial
carwashes that re-circulate water; require repair of water leaks within 72, 48 or 24 hours;
prohibit new potable water service; prohibit annexations into the service area; installation
of flow restricting devices; and establish a water allocation for property served by
CMWD.
2-1378
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
D70-4: The comment states that the findings of the draft EIR are based on assumptions in the
2010 CMWD UWMP, which is out of date; the comment states that because climate
change could cause more frequent and intense droughts, the assumptions in the UWMP
should be changed; the CMWD may be relying on water supplies that may not be
available due to climate change. The comment states that the draft General Plan relies on
water that is not available and such impacts should be evaluated in more detail.
Reduced water supplies due to drought are considered in the analysis of the UWMP. The
UWMP is the best available reference for projected and planned water supply. The
comment offers no other source of information which the city could consider and does
not offer any facts, data or other support for its assertion that future potential drought
will be more severe than evaluated in the UWMP; updating the UWMP is not within the
scope of this EIR.
Impact 3.12-4, on pages 3.12-35 to 3.12-40 evaluates water supplies from the CMWD and
OMWD, including current and projected water supplies, normal year and single dry year
supply and demand comparison, and multiple dry year supply and demand comparison.
Under multiple dry year scenarios for CMWD and OMWD, supplies are demonstrated to
be available for ultimate buildout (the future development accounted for under the draft
General Plan) in 2035; therefore, the UWMP states that under drought conditions, there
is expected to be enough water supplies.
The analysis of the adequacy of water supply in the draft EIR is based on the best available
and applicable references, namely CMWD’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan and
CMWD’s 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan. These documents evaluate the long-term
demand for water supply and recycled water, respectively. The analysis in the draft EIR is
reflective of the growth contemplated under buildout of the draft General Plan, and
contains a quantitative assessment of existing and future water supply and demand in the
analysis of Impact 3.12-2 on page 3.12-29 through 3.12-33 of the draft EIR.
As described on page 3.12-30 of the draft EIR, the draft General Plan would require an
update to the CMWD Recycled Water Master Plan. A discussion of specific future
impacts and associated mitigation measures for each water supply project is beyond the
scope of the draft EIR; however, future water supply projects can be expected to include
both construction-related and operation-related impacts. Any future water projects in the
city would be required to conduct environmental review pursuant to CEQA prior to
approval. Furthermore, future development projects allowed under the draft General
Plan would be subject to subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15168, which would include consideration of whether future projects would result
in an increase in demand for water that would require the construction of new or
expanded water supply facilities.
The comment states that the draft General Plan relies on water supplies that will not be
available, but provides no evidences to support the comment, no further response is
possible.
2-1379
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
D70-5: The comment suggests potential mitigation for the impacts expressed in comments D70-
2, D70-3 and D70-4. The suggested mitigation includes potable reuse projects, aggressive
conservation to surpass SB X7-7 20% reduction requirements, require residents to reduce
their use below 50 gallons per capita per day, and do not rely solely on SDCWA supplies.
As stated on page 3.12-36 of the draft EIR, the CMWD does not rely solely on SDCWA
supplies – other water supply sources include use of groundwater and increased use of
recycled water (potable reuse). In addition, draft General Plan policies 9-P.3 to 9-P.7
identify policies to conserve, recycle (potable reuse) and increase water supply, including
“undertake measures to increase the use of recycled water…”, “promote the use of on-site
gray water and rainwater collection…”, and “investigate the feasibility of developing full-
functioning groundwater systems…to reduce the city’s reliance on imported water.”
Regarding SB X7-7, the city’s objective is to comply with the requirements of the law.
The comment will be included in the final EIR for consideration by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
D70-6: The comment refers to information regarding current drought conditions and the
Emergency Drought Regulations issued by the State Water Board; the comment suggests
these new measures should remain as permanent conservation measures to ensure
adequate water supplies for growth resulting from the draft General Plan.
Pages 3.12-3 and 3.12-4 of the draft EIR has been revised in Chapter 3 of this final EIR to
provide updated information on the current drought. In July 2014, the San Diego County
Water Authority declared implementation of stage 2 (supply enhancement) of the water
authority’s drought response plan. In August 2014, the CMWD declared a drought alert
that requires mandatory conservation measures; in addition, as a result of the governor’s
April 2015 order, the CMWD is considering new measures to further reduce water usage.
The comment provides no evidence to justify the need to require the drought
conservation measures remain as permanent measures; however, the draft General Plan
does promote water conservation and recycling (policies 9-P.3 to 9-P.7, and the CMWD
UWMP includes increased use of recycled water).
Reduced water supplies due to drought are considered in the analysis of the UWMP.
Impact 3.12-4, on pages 3.12-35 to 3.12-40 evaluates water supplies from the CMWD and
OMWD, including current and projected water supplies, normal year and single dry year
supply and demand comparison, and multiple dry year supply and demand comparison.
Under multiple dry year scenarios for CMWD and OMWD, supplies are demonstrated to
be available for ultimate buildout (the future development accounted for under the draft
General Plan) in 2035; therefore, the UWMP states that under drought conditions, there
is expected to be enough water supplies.
D70-7: The comment refers to a statement in the draft EIR that indicates the use of groundwater
and surface water may be needed to provide adequate water supply; the comment states
the draft EIR and UWMP do not address the impact associated with using ground or
surface water and that such analysis should be conducted.
2-1380
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
The environmental impact of using ground or surface water is not within the scope of this
EIR and is not required as part of the Urban Water Management Plan (preparation and
adoption of urban water management plans is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15282 and California Water Code Section 10652). Projects to
implement the UWMP are subject to CEQA (per California Water Code Section 10652);
therefore, the environmental impacts of using groundwater and/or surface water would
be evaluated at the time such a project is proposed. For example, the CMWD Water
Master Plan (October 2012) includes two groundwater projects (construction of well
water supply facilities and construction of new facilities to produce, treat and deliver
groundwater to CMWD from the Mission Basin of the Say Luis Rey River); an EIR was
prepared and adopted for the Water and Recycled Water Master Plans, which evaluated
the impact of the Water Master Plan on groundwater quality, groundwater supplies,
aquifer volume, and the local groundwater table; the EIR concluded a less than significant
impact. Although the Water Master Plan identifies two groundwater projects, CMWD
currently does not use any local groundwater or surface water supplies.
D70-8: The comment states that rights to ground water have not been secured and may not be
and that the availability of groundwater to meet the water demands of the draft General
Plan is speculative.
CMWD currently has groundwater rights to extract groundwater from the San Luis Rey
River basin and the California Department of Water Resources does not identify this
groundwater basin as being in overdraft (CMWD Water Master Plan 2011). As stated on
page 3.12-4 of the draft EIR, prior to 1957 the Carlsbad Mutual Water Company supplied
local surface water from Lake Calavera and groundwater from the Mission Basin to the
City of Carlsbad. In August 1957, the water rights and other assets of the Carlsbad Mutual
Water Company were purchased by the City of Carlsbad. In May 1983, through an
agreement, these local surface water and groundwater rights were transferred to CMWD
by the City of Carlsbad. This included rights to Mission Basin of the San Luis Rey River
Valley of five cubic feet per second (cfs) (to 2,382 acre-feet) of groundwater, pre-1914
appropriative rights, and an additional 750 acre-feet per year, up to five cfs, that was
permitted in 1938.
See response to comment D70-4 regarding adequacy of water supplies.
D70-9: The comment encourages the city to review sea level rise guidance documents and
prepare more detailed plans regarding mitigation measures and adaptation strategies.
The draft General Plan and draft EIR do not identify/evaluate which properties will be
impacted by future sea level rise because such impact analysis is not required by CEQA.
CEQA is concerned with analyzing the impacts of the proposed project on the existing
environment and not with the impacts of the future environmental conditions on existing
development. However, the city was recently awarded a grant from the California Ocean
Protection Council to analyze the potential impacts of sea level rise and identify measures
to address those impacts. This work is anticipated to be initiated in spring/summer 2015
and will be incorporated in a comprehensive update to the city’s Local Coastal Program.
Please also see responses to comments B15-77, B15-81, B15-103, and C117-13.
2-1381
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
D70-10: The comment refers to the draft General Plan goals and policies listed on page 3.12-33 of
the draft EIR, which reduce the impact related to the need for construction of new or
expansion of existing water or wastewater treatment facilities; the comment suggests that
the goals and policies be revised to “require”, rather than “strive”, “encourage”, etc.,
measures that reduce the impact. The draft General Plan and EIR have been revised as
requested in the comment – goal 9-G.4 and policies 2-P.34 and 9-P.4 have been revised.
The comment specifically requests that policy 9-P.6 be revised to require the use of on-
site gray water and rainwater collection systems, rather than “promote” the use of such
systems through education, expedited permitting, fee exemption, etc.; however, city staff
does not support the requested change to this policy. Policy 9-P.6 applies broadly and
there may be certain types of projects where installing such systems is infeasible (i.e. site
constraints, small lots, small projects such as single family homes, residential additions,
etc.). The comment will be included in the final EIR for consideration by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
D70-11: The comment states the impacts of the draft General Plan are not “less than significant”
as the draft EIR concludes. See response to comments D70-1 through D70-10. The
commenter has been added to the project contact list and will be notified of future
meetings and opportunities to provide input on the draft General Plan and EIR.
D71: Sierra Club
D71-1: The comment is an introductory paragraph explaining that the purpose of the letter is to
summarize and clarify previous verbal and written comments concerning the draft CAP.
No further response is necessary.
D71-2: The comment states that the CAP must include specific, measurable and enforceable
mechanisms in order to provide certainty and evidence that the city will meet its
greenhouse gas (GHG) targets for both 2020 and 2035, and must include details of what
will happen if reductions are not on track to meet the goals.
CAP goals are measurable and enforceable and not merely guidelines. Each measure has a
quantified reduction target and year. Federal and state mandates are enforced through
their respective programs, and General Plan policies are fully enforceable by the city
through various implementing programs and through the development review process,
which includes verification that proposed development complies with the policies of the
General Plan. Among other mechanisms, CAP measures are enforced through adoption
of residential and commercial energy conservation ordinances (RECO, CECO), and a
TDM ordinances.
Additionally, a number of revisions have been made to the draft CAP, including:
Strengthened RECO, CECO (A-3, B-1) to “adopt” ordinances rather than “evaluate
feasibility”, and “require” vs. “promote”.
Clarified that implementation would occur through the city’s Capital Improvements
Program, fleet Vehicle Replacement Fund, Infrastructure Replacement Funding, annual
2-1382
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
operations budgeting, by placing conditions on development, and through available grant
sources.
Clarified implementation timeframes and accelerated some actions.
Added/expanded sections on CAP Chapter 5 administration, monitoring, and reporting,
and updating.
Added Appendix E which identifies additional site-specific mitigation measures which
may be adopted during project-level environmental review as needed to ensure individual
development projects achieve targeted GHG emission reductions.
Please see also responses to comments B10-23, B10-37, B16-11, B16-33, B16-34, B22-11,
and B22-28.
D71-3: The comment states that progress reports and emissions calculations should occur more
frequently than described in the draft CAP. Chapter 5 has been revised to specify that the
city will annually monitor and report on CAP implementation activities to the City
Council at a public meeting. Emissions inventories would be updated in conjunction with
the first annual report, and then every three years thereafter. Please see also responses to
comments B10-37, B16-33, B16-34, and B16-39.
D71-4: The comment expresses concern with the CAPs exclusion of pass-through trips from the
GHG inventory, and suggests that the city should make greater reductions to make up for
trips not counted by other jurisdictions’ CAPs. Please see response to comment B16-10
regarding the city’s methodology in calculating vehicle miles traveled-related GHG. Trips
that begin and/or end in the city are counted (50%) in citywide VMT totals. Staff
proposes no change to methodology as it is consistent with ICLEI, SANDAG, and CARB
recommendations, and with the methodology used by other cities in the region, such as
Escondido (Escondido CAP p. 3-15), San Marcos (San Marcos CAP p. 2-4), and Chula
Vista (Chula Vista 2012 Revised GHG Inventory, p. 7), which also omit pass-through
VMT from their CAPs. Accepting this recommendation would not resolve any existing
inconsistency in how some other cities account for pass through trips and would result in
Carlsbad’s using an outdated methodology.
The comment also states that the city’s CAP needs to have specific measurable actions to
reduce auto mode share of travel. Measure K of the CAP specifically targets
transportation demand, particularly that created by single-occupant vehicle use. Measure
L aims to increase the amount of low and zero emission vehicle miles traveled. Also, the
draft General Plan identifies a number of policies and programs to encourage other
modes of mobility including bicycling, walking, and transit use. Please see responses to
comments B16-11, B16-16, B16-18, B16-19, B22-32, and B16-43
D71-5: The comment asserts that the CAP relies on voluntary, non-binding traffic demand
management plans, and suggests certain numeric targets to increase biking, walking and
transit use. This is incorrect. Draft CAP calls for preparation of citywide TDM plan (K-1),
which would be enforceable through a TDM ordinance (K-2) on nonresidential
2-1383
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
development. Measure K goal is to increase non-single occupant mode use from 22% to
32%, to be achieved through 40% alternative mode use in new non-residential
development, and 30% in existing non-residential uses. The CAP also quantifies the
amount of GHG reduction expected through implementation of draft General Plan
policies aimed at improving biking, walking and transit use (see CAP Section 3.6). Please
also see response to comment D71-4 above.
In late 2014, city initiated preparation of a multi-modal infrastructure plan to improve
accessibility to transit and para-transit with a focus on first-mile, last-mile solutions.
Transportation improvements Section 3.6 of CAP has been modified to include
discussion of the infrastructure plan.
The comment also references the Sierra Club’s June 20, 2014 letter. Please see responses
to comments B22-1 through B22-41.
D71-6: The comment recommends that the city set a goal, with a target date to achieve 100%
renewable energy. While the CAP does not have a 100% renewable energy goal, GHG
reductions from renewable energy are a significant part of the CAP (see Measures A, B, J,
and M). As structured, the CAP demonstrates it can meet its emissions reduction targets
without the need to incorporate a 100% renewable energy goal. The comment will be
included in the materials presented to the City Council for its consideration with respect
to the draft General Plan and CAP.
D71-7: The comment recommends that the CAP include an action item to present to City
Council for consideration a community choice aggregation (CCA) program that increases
renewable energy supply on the electrical grid. The comment notes that there are two
CCAs operational in the state (Marin and Sonoma counties) that offer renewable energy
plans to electricity customers as an alternative to purchasing power from the local
investor-owned utilities (IOU). The comment also notes that the cities of San Diego and
Chula Vista are considering feasibility of a CCA.
As the comment correctly points out, the CAP does not include a measure to form a CCA
as a means to increase availability of renewable energy. As structured, the CAP
demonstrates it can meet its emissions reduction targets without the need to establish a
CCA for Carlsbad. The state Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) requires IOUs
(including SDG&E) to obtain a minimum of 33% of their electricity from renewable
sources by 2020. The CAP conservatively estimates that emission reductions achieved by
the RPS will continue at this level beyond 2020 to 2035. SDG&E announced last year that
it will have achieved the 33% goal by the end of 2014, six years ahead of the state deadline.
Furthermore, Governor Brown recently proposed expanding the RPS to achieve 50%
renewable energy by 2030. These two developments indicate that 1) reductions assumed
by the draft CAP from the RPS are being realized sooner than expected, 2) and that it is
reasonable to expect such reductions to be equal to or greater than assumed for the
future.
2-1384
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
As pointed out in the comment, there are potential benefits to consumers in forming a
CCA. There are also potential risks to local governments, including challenges related to
energy procurement, cost competitiveness, and meeting regulatory requirements. The
County of San Diego undertook a feasibility study in 2005 that concluded at that time
there would be little benefit to its constituents. The City of Chua Vista considered CCA
from 2003 to 2006, before deciding against moving forward.1
However, recognizing renewed interest in the region for expanding renewable power
options, as evidenced by more recent actions by the County of San Diego, and cities of
San Diego and Chula Vista, the draft General Plan Sustainability Element has been
revised to propose the following policy under the Sustainable Energy subheading:
“Support a regional approach to study the feasibility of establishing Community Choice
Aggregation (CCA) or another program that increases the renewable energy supply on
the electrical grid.”
D71-8: The comment requests that CAP measures for rooftop solar be mandatory, and that
permitting requirements be streamlined. Action A-3 and B-2 have been revised to
“adopt” a PV ordinance (rather than “evaluate the feasibility of”). The CAP goal is to
install an additional 9.1 MW PV by 2035. Action A-1 proposes to suspend PV permitting
fees for one year coupled with a promotional campaign to encourage more rooftop solar.
Also, the city has significantly streamlined the rooftop solar permitting process. In most
cases, permits for small rooftop solar systems are issued the same day or day following
application. The average fee for permit and inspection is $150. Additionally, city staff are
currently working on a PV permit streamlining ordinance to ensure compliance with AB
2188, which is anticipated to be presented to City Council before end of 2015.
Please see also responses to comments B10-23, B16-22, and B16-23.
D71-9: The comment requests that the energy efficiency actions in Measures F and G be clarified.
Measures F and G include a mix of promotion and mandatory actions. Regarding city
facilities, Actions F-1 and G-2 are directory (“undertake” and “commission”). For private
uses, the Commercial Energy Conservation Ordinance would require retrofits under
certain conditions (e.g., renovations valued greater than $50,000).
Measures F and G have been revised to clarify that retrofit targets are to achieve the
“equivalent” of 40% energy reduction in 30% of square footage citywide. The measures
have also been revised to identify that city Infrastructure Replacement Fund would be
used for energy retrofits of city facilities.
Please see also responses to comments B16-11, B16-24, and B16-25.
1 SANDAG, Report to Regional Energy Working Group, “About Community Choice Aggregation”,
7/26/12.
2-1385
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
D71-10: The comment states that the greenhouse gas emissions targets established in the CAP
need to be set beyond AB32 and S-3-05 goals. The comment suggests that a target of 80%
below 1990 emissions by 2020 is the target necessary to achieve climate stabilization. The
2020 reduction goal established legislatively in AB32, and the goals set forth in the
Governor’s Executive Order S-3-05, form the basis for the GHG reduction targets in the
draft CAP. Absent legislation of new goals from the state, the targets established in this
CAP are both appropriate and achievable. It is beyond the scope of the draft EIR and the
CAP to address perceived insufficiencies in state law. However, the request in this
comment to establish reduction targets in excess of those established by the State of
California will be included in the materials presented to the City Council for
consideration with respect to the draft General Plan and the CAP.
Please see also responses to comments B21-1, B21-10, and B22-4 through B22-10.
D71-11: The comment suggests that the CAP include a pilot project to unbundle the cost of
parking at a city facility or at Sage Creek High School. The CAP does not propose such a
pilot project. However, the Mobility Element describes a range of techniques to “right-
size” parking including unbundling the cost of parking (p. 3-25, 3-26) and is described in
Parking Facilities and Policies on pages 3-20 to 3-22 of the CAP. This strategy, as well as
others, will be considered when the city updates its parking ordinances as part of Mobility
Element implementation. The suggestion to carry out a demonstration project at a city
facility will be included in the materials presented to the City Council for its
consideration with respect to the draft General Plan and CAP. The recommendation for
the city to implement such a pilot project at Sage Creek High School is infeasible because
school parking lots are within the jurisdiction and control of the school district and not
the city.
Please see also responses to comments B22-9, B22-11, B22-19, B22-28, B22-29, B22-36,
and B22-38.
D71-12: The comment recommends that the CAP require of all new residential and commercial
construction to install conduit for future photo-voltaics (PV) and electric vehicle (EV)
charging stations. The comment also recommends requirements to install plumbing for
solar water heating and grey water piping systems. The Carlsbad building code currently
requires PV pre-wiring in new single-family homes. CAP measures A and B would take
the further step of requiring new residential and non-residential construction to
incorporate PV in their projects to offset a portion of their energy requirements. Action
J-2 would require new residential and commercial construction to include solar water
heating or heat pumps, or alternative energy use for water heating needs. Action L-6
would require installing EV chargers or pre-wiring for them in new residential
construction and major renovations. Finally, Measure O encourages installation of
greywater and rainwater collection systems, but does not require pre-plumbing for it.
Potential site constraints (e.g., small lots) may make it infeasible to require greywater
systems as a blanket requirement. The recommendation regarding greywater systems will
be included in the materials presented to the City Council for its consideration with
respect to the draft General Plan and CAP.
2-1386
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
D71-13: The comment recommends that the CAP require an energy audit and Home Energy
Rating be conducted by a third party every time a home is sold. The CAP does not
include this measure; however, Measures D and E would require energy retrofit
requirements for existing structures undergoing remodeling over $50,000 in valuation. It
is worth noting that under AB1103, non-residential building owners are required to
disclose their building’s energy use to prospective buyer, lessees, and lenders, as well as to
the California Energy Commission.
D71-14: The comment states that the CAP does not have specific measures related to bike and
pedestrian infrastructure. In fact, the CAP is quite explicit about future bikeway and
pedestrian improvements, which are detailed on pp. 3-16 through 3-19. The CAP has
been revised to clarify how bike and pedestrian improvements are funded and installed,
including through conditions on new development, the city’s capital improvements
program, department operating budgets, and as part street rehabilitation projects and
“road diets”.
The comment also recommends that the city adopt a vision for Carlsbad Boulevard. Draft
General Plan policy 2-P.51 (a) through (j) describes a set of design principles for future
improvements to the Carlsbad Boulevard Coastal Corridor with an emphasis on creating
great public spaces, and improving multi-modal connectivity including bikeways,
pedestrian trails, and traffic calming features.
Please see also responses to comments B16-17, B16-18, B16-33, B22-9, and B22-28.
D71-15: The comment recommends that the CAP have numerical targets for EV charging
stations, similar to the City of San Diego’s draft CAP. Measure L of Carlsbad’s draft CAP
aims to improve the number of vehicle miles traveled by zero-emission vehicles (ZEV),
and establishes a target emissions reduction of 54,158 MTCO2e by 2035. Action L-2 in
Carlsbad’s draft CAP calls for developing a community-wide charging station siting plan,
which will include an evaluation of how many charging stations are needed and where
they should be appropriately located. Action L-4 calls for offering dedicated ZEV parking
with charging stations, and L-5 calls for adopting ZEV parking requirements for new
developments.
D71-16: The comment suggests that the CAP goal to increase the city’s municipal fleet ZEV
miles-traveled to 25% of all city trips is not aggressive enough, and instead calls on the
city to target 50% by 2020 and 90% by 2035. No change to the CAP target is proposed, as
staff believes the CAP target to be reasonable and sufficient to meet its emissions
reduction goals. The comment to increase fleet ZEV miles traveled targets will be
included in the materials presented to the City Council for its consideration with respect
to the proposed CAP.
D71-17: The comment recommends that the city should establish public/private partnerships
between it, its employees, and car manufacturers to incentivize fuel-efficient vehicle
purchases. Measure L includes actions to encourage greater ZEV use for the entire
community which would include city employees. Additional inducement exclusive to city
2-1387
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
employees is unnecessary to meet overall emission reduction goals. This comment will be
included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for
their consideration with respect to the proposed CAP. Please see also response to
comment B22-32.
D71-18: The comment recommends that the city establish a zero-waste goal by 2035, and include
kitchen scraps in the city’s curbside waste collection program. As structured, the CAP
demonstrates it can meet its emissions reduction targets without the need to incorporate
a zero-waste goal. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the City
Council for its consideration with respect to the draft General Plan and CAP. However,
Sustainability Element Policy 9-P.9 calls for adoption of a construction and demolition
waste recycling ordinance to divert 100 % of Portland cement and asphalt debris and an
average of 50% of all of non-hazardous construction/demolition-related debris.
Please see also responses to comments B16-46 and B21-8.
D71-19: The comment suggests that the CAP explain the economic benefits of making
investments in local renewable energy, energy efficient buildings, sustainable
transportation infrastructure, and automated systems to unbundle the cost of parking.
The CAP was prepared to meet CEQA requirements (GL 15183.5(b)). While the CAP
does provide some qualitative descriptions of relative public and private costs and
benefits to each proposed measure, performing a detailed economic benefits analysis of
energy efficiency, renewable energy investments, etc. is beyond the scope of the CAP.
D71-20: The comment recommends that the city expand the Property-Assessed Clean Energy
(PACE) programs currently offered, and that it develop broad public information
campaigns to promote the programs. The comment is unclear as to how PACE would be
expanded. The city has made available to homeowners and commercial property owners
three PACE programs: California First, California HERO, and Figtree. These programs
are administered and marketed by third parties, and the city supports some of those
efforts by providing information about PACE on the city’s web page, through email
blasts, media releases, and so forth. Additionally, CAP Chapter 5 was revised to include
an education and outreach component that the city will undertake as part of CAP
implementation. Please see also response to comment B16-48.
D71-21: The comment requests that the CAP address climate adaptation in addition to
mitigation, or prepare separate climate adaptation plan. The CAP was prepared to meet
CEQA requirements regarding the reduction of GHG emissions (GL 15183.5(b)). Issues
concerning the city’s vulnerability and potential adaptation strategies to the effects of
climate change will be addressed through an update to the San Diego County Multi-
jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (HazMit Plan), currently underway by the County
as lead agency and with Carlsbad as a participating agency. The HazMit Plan update will
evaluate impacts climate change will have on the natural hazards facing the region, which
include fire threat, flooding, coastal storms, and erosion. Additionally, following adoption
of the draft General Plan, the city will address adaptation to the effects of sea-level rise as
part of a comprehensive update to its Local Coastal Program (LCP). The city will utilize
2-1388
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
the Coastal Commission’s draft Sea-level Rise Policy Guidance in preparing the LCP
update.
Please see also responses to comments B16-35, B22-17, and B22-18.
D71-22: The comment recommends that the city develop a plan for how it will fund the capital
projects included in the CAP as well as ongoing maintenance and monitoring of the CAP.
Chapter 5 of the CAP was revised to address funding, administration, monitoring,
reporting and updating of the CAP. Where appropriate, individual measures in Chapters
3 and 4 were revised to identify funding sources.
Please see also responses to comments B16-11, B16-33, B16-34, B16-39, D71-2, and D71-
3.
D71-23: The comment suggests that the city council establish various formal policies that support
greenhouse gas emissions reductions, to be advocated at the regional level by the city’s
representative to SANDAG. Advocacy to regional and state authorities is not appropriate
for the CAP. Instead, advocacy is more appropriately addressed through General Plan
policy and/or as part of the city council legislative platform-setting process. It is worth
noting however, that a number of Mobility Element policies in the draft General Plan
encourage SANDAG and other regional partners to improve regional connectivity, non-
automotive mobility, and transit (3-P.15, 3-P.16, 3-P.18, 3-P.30, 3-P.31, 3-P.32, 3-P.33, 3-
P.39, 3-P.40).
Please see also responses to comments B22-28, B22-29, B22-30, and B22-33 through B22-
37.
2-1389
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
E. Recirculated Portions of the Draft EIR Comments and
Responses
This section provides responses to recirculated portions of the Draft EIR, with specific comments
identified with a comment code in the margin. Following the letters, responses to the comments
are provided.
2-1390
From: Rich Van Every [mailto:richvanevery@me.com]
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 12:39 PM
To: Jennifer Jesser
Subject: Concerned Citizen - Open Space is priority for future generations
Dear Jennifer…
What roll does experiencing nature play in our lives? A huge one right? Sure we have the
ocean…and we have the inland hills…both very key for our well being and why we live in
Carlsbad.
The development in Carlsbad is maxed out. Please do whatever possible to implement the
reduced development alternative. Take a stand for NATURE…its enough already...
We love this land for the LAND…and for the space and not crazy traffic and houses
everywhere. I use the Calavera trails nearly everyday behind my house…This is
a very important issue for me and my family. Let me know if you have ideas on how I can get
more involved to see that greed and corruption from developers does comes to an end here in
Carlsbad.
Praying you give a damn….
In gratitude,
Rich Van Every
http://www.richvanevery.com
www.lightworkscreative.tv
Demo Reel 2012 - http://vimeo.com/60813762
2-1391
From: cisternas [mailto:cisternas@mac.com]
Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 9:29 AM
To: Jennifer Jesser
Subject: Concerns on EIR of Development plan.
Dear Jennifer
I read the executive summary of the EIR for the new City of Carlsbad General Plan and I would like to
make a few comments.
I am seriously concerned about the following entries in the table on impacts of the new development
plan:
"3.2-2 Development under the proposed General Plan would violate air quality standards or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation."
"3.13-1 The proposed General Plan would exceed an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation
including mass transit and non- motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths,
and mass transit as defined below:.... etc."
The development plan calls for an increase of nearly 8,000 new homes raising the population of
Carlsbad by more than 23,000 new inhabitants. These people will naturally need to travel and will add to
the local traffic causing the impact mentioned above. Clearly, the enormous increase in commercial
space (more than 33%) will also add to the traffic problems and related air quality problems.
My questions are: how much of a variation over the previous general plan are these build out targets? Is
all this development strictly necessary? Is there a net benefit to the City of Carlsbad and its citizens
besides an increase on the revenues generated by the larger tax base? Can this extra revenue alone
justify the impacts on air quality and living conditions? It seems troubling to me that the report states in
its introduction the following: "as well as analyzes the “No Project” alternative" and later only mentions
the "No project" alternative in passing in the Impacts section: "setting aside the No Project alternative"
giving it no further consideration. There does not seem to be any active comparison between the
environmental and life quality consequences of not carrying out any development.
I have lived in Carlsbad for over 13 years and in this time I have seen quite a bit of growth throughout
town. While the growth has been sometimes welcome and sometimes not, it was all in the
understanding that the 1994 General Plan would eventually bring all the growth to a conclusion helping
maintain the quality of life of the residents which was the primary reason I moved here. The revision of
the General Plan with its emphasis on additional growth in spite of the environmental consequences and
the impacts on services (schools, fire, police), makes me concerned about the seriousness of the
stewardship of the City. What is there to prevent the city council from further revising the General Plan
in a few more years raising the growth targets even further? How much thought is there to whether the
existing infrastructure and services will be able to keep up with all this extra development?
I am also concerned about the potential hazards caused by traffic congestion in the event of a
mandatory evacuation caused by a wildfire (widlfires being one of the recurrent and inevitable natural
2-1392
hazards in this region). If added traffic congestion is predicted to impact major urban corridors like El
Camino and Palomar Airport Rd. in the EIR, how is that going to be managed in the event of a mandatory
evacuation? What thought has the City given to the safety of the citizens in the event of such a
catastrophe? Along the same lines, I do not see any discussion on additional safety or mitigation
measures intended to address the effects of a wildfire in our community. After the fires we experienced
here in 2014, it would seem to me that this issue should be a very high priority in any future
development plan for Carlsbad.
I would appreciate your comments.
Sincerely,
Ricardo Cisternas
5051 Millay Ct.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
cisternas@me.com
2-1393
David de Cordova, Principal Planner
Jennifer Jesser, Senior Planner
1635 Faraday Avenue,
Carlsbad, CA 92009
April 27, 2015
Dear Jennifer and David:
I am pleased that you have shared with Carlsbad residents the
opportunity to provide input to the updates of the General
Plan.
I appreciate mention of Cumulative Changes to Land Use in
Chapter 3 that the City has goals and policies to have “mature
trees and expansive open space to dominate much of the
city’s landscape”. However, with respect to Cumulative
Changes and Impact, I believe that there are “significant
changes to the small beach town feel”, when the main
thoroughfares are wide suggesting that people rely on motor
vehicles with carbon emissions to connect from one
neighborhood to another.
I trust that Planning will make conscious decisions to find ways
of having safe and pleasant biking and walking. For example,
in years past, I enjoyed biking along El Camino Real and the
Coast Highway. Now, however with the bike lanes so close to
vehicles traveling 45-60 miles per hour, it is difficult to find a safe
route.
In the same section, there is mention of connectedness. Please
note that most of the Zones and Quadrants in Carlsbad have
clear guidelines for the amenities of gathering places,
community services and other recreational areas. It is vital in
Olde Carlsbad to make special effort to continually improve
this core original neighborhood area of the City.
2-1394
Is there some way that the fees paid by the developers of in-fill
property can support common areas where people can
commune with other residents and nature for children to play?
I am thankful that you have made efforts to address the water,
noise, light and habitat disturbance for biological resources of
humans, birds and “other biological species”.
In section 5.3 we know that air quality/ pollution is unavoidable
and significant. Daily we are impacted by carbon emissions
and noise of the Interstate 5, State 78, El Camino Real, Palomar
Airport Road and La Costa Avenue. Hence, the wisdom of
planning and leaders must be to constantly make choices to
improve the quality of social and environmental concerns.
Perhaps by limiting the tractor-trailer trucks in the Village and
Olde Carlsbad would help to improve/reduce the respiratory
issues, mental anxiety and stress and hearing loss for residents,
specifically at Holiday Park.
Could the City work with CALTrans to build a sound wall or at
the least grow plants along the freeway to absorb some of the
carbon and noise? I suggest that we think positively about the
actions that the City can make to be recognized as a world
leader in these areas, as opposed to accepting the status quo.
For Transportation in 5.3, building bigger roads creates even
more traffic. The LOS may be improved slightly for a short
period of time. However, the trends are that the more large
roads we build, the more people depend on driving more trips.
I believe that we should invest in more transportation
alternatives. By accepting that more traffic is inevitable and
unavoidable is not the highest and best standard of the
industry. I trust that you have traffic engineers that have
studied other world-class cities. City planners and leaders need
to use their creativity, resources and engineering knowledge to
develop alternate solutions.
2-1395
The resources must be used to deter sprawl and conserve fuel
and sustainability. Create alternatives.
Increased building uses resources and may negatively impact
the quality of life for the established residents.
I have read through the Impacts Summary and Environmentally
Superior Alternative. There is significant discussion of Housing
(RHNA). I greatly appreciate that we have professionals
working to follow guidelines and provide balanced regulations
for all aspects of our future. It is important to provide housing
options, work options and ensure parking and transportation for
the retail portions of our city. I would like to see the Village
developed as a center that residents, visitors and workers find
favorable.
Thank you for your efforts to develop an excellent environment
for Carlsbad residents. I hope that these comments will be
helpful and lead to positive and effective advancements for
the City of Carlsbad.
Sincerely,
Janann Taylor
2-1396
2-1397
2-1398
Send via email and Hand Delivered
May 4, 2015
Don Neu, City Planner
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
SUBJECT: EIR 13-02/GPA 07-02/ZCA 07-01/LCPA 07-02
Comment on Recirculated Sections of the EIR for the Citywide General Plan Amendment
for the City of Carlsbad
Dear Mr. Neu:
We have reviewed the recirculated sections of the Environmental Impact Report pertaining to Air Quality
and Project Alternatives. It seems that there are no specific impacts to our properties caused by these
revisions, however, we will analyze these sections more carefully as to how they may impact our
properties between now and the Planning Commission public hearing and we reserve our right to
comment at that time,
Also, I would like to reiterate our past written communication with your staff that we are withdrawing our
request for any land use designation changes on our property. Our Lots 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the Carlsbad Oaks
North Business Park (APN’s: 209-120-03, 04, 06, 07) are currently designated as Planned Industrial (PI)
and we would like to request that they remain that way.
Sincerely,
KILROY REALTY, L.P.,
A Delaware Limited Partnership
By: KILROY REALTY CORPORATION
A Maryland Corporation,
General Partner
Robert C. Little
Senior Vice President
Development & Construction Services
cc: Jennifer Jesser
2-1399
Jennifer
I have reviewed the portion of the draft program EIR and have a few comments specifically about the
Reduced Density Alternative that is proposed to scale back future development for vacant, underutilized
and mixed-use sites by 40% including the units proposed and reviewed as part of “Envision Carlsbad”.
Up until now, landowners have relied on proposed units shown on undeveloped properties in the Local
Facilities Master Plan for each zone. The units shown have always been a starting point for the
development process and any approval is based on a comparison of what the zone plan anticipates for
development and what is actually approved based on environmental constraints. For a land owner of
un-mapped property to now face a potential reduction of up to 40% in density is a sever burden and will
significantly impact future development. I don’t think the City will also reduce a developers share of the
required public improvements by 40%.
What appears to me is a staff recommendation to make up for City mistakes in awarding approved
projects with units from the excess dwelling unit bank with units that really were not placed into the
bank based on existing City policy – i.e. units do not go into the bank until the project where the units
came from are actually constructed. To penalize new projects or long time land owners at this point in
Carlsbad development is certainly not in tune with “doing what is right for Carlsbad” which has been the
City policy to-date.
I strongly object to the Reduced Density Alternative discussed in the DEIR.
Bob
Robert C. Ladwig
President
Ladwig Design Group, Inc.
2234 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Ph: (760) 438-3182 Fax: (760) 438-0173
2-1400
2-1401
2-1402
2-1403
2-1404
2-1405
2-1406
The undersigned represents the interests of the Kato Family Limited Partnership, who controls
approximately 73 acres in zone 15 of the Sunny Creek area of northeast Carlsbad. We are aware that an
enabling ordinance is currently being reviewed for possible enactment.
We have also been advised and aware that some landowners have applied for a General Plan
Amendment. Over the years, we have participated in the Envision Carlsbad process and have attended
workshops and reviewed the direction proposed by Envision Carlsbad plan for future growth in the city
of Carlsbad. Nowhere within this plan was there a suggestion or mention of certain proposed
development within the Zone 15 area to add further development to this area. Therefore, at that time
we made no objection to anything within the Zone 15 area plan because there was, in essence, nothing
to object to. Indeed we were advised by personnel of the City of Carlsbad that since there were no
proposed changes to the Zone 15 area, there was nothing to render an objection to. The status quo at
that time did not foresee or envision any changes within the cap on the total number of dwelling units
within the northeast quadrant of the city of Carlsbad.
From the ideas flowing out of Envision Carlsbad, the General Plan was to be revised. However, it would
come as a surprise to the thousands of Carlsbad's citizens who participated in Envision Carlsbad, and the
thousands of hours of work that were entailed in compiling results of this survey of the citizens of
Carlsbad that this entire process has been hijacked, for lack of a better term, for the benefit of some
parties who are now, at a late stage, suggesting major changes to the Zone 15 area by way of a general
plan amendment.
To render a bit of the background of our present objection, on or about April 15, 2014, the City Council
of Carlsbad voted to bypass Policy 33 which provided for a process and procedure for guidelines
regarding bonds and the formation of Community Facilities Districts and assessment districts used to
finance public improvements. On or about June 24, 2014 the City Council adopted resolution 2014‐159
which recognized a pre‐existing agreement dated September 10, 2013 and approved a reimbursement
agreement between the City of Carlsbad and Bent‐West, LLC for an assessment district formation. They
allowed Bent‐West to bypass temporarily the initial Policy 33 approval steps. We raise a question here
as to whether or not the initial bypass of Policy 33 is still valid in view of the multiple changes in the
reimbursement proposals.
On February 17, 2015, the landowners in the Zone 15 were invited to attend a workshop concerning
varying approaches to financing public improvements in the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone
15. This was the first time that many landowners, including the undersigned, became aware that various
plans and decisions have been made concerning, not only the financing of public improvements, but
other plans to develop as well.
It is unknown by this objecting party whether or not increase in density proposed by Wal‐Mart stores,
Inc. was under consideration at the time that the city Council voted to bypass Policy 33. But it is in fact
known that on October 22, 2014, Wal‐Mart Stores did apply for a Preliminary Review Application
requested a preliminary review of a plan for an 114 additional dwelling units with a proposed density of
2-1407
16.2 dwelling units per acre. Of course, this has a huge and dramatic impact upon the Excess Dwelling
Unit Bank.
Therefore, it is with great surprise, that we learned through other parties, including Robert Ladwig Of
the Ladwig Design Group, that David de Cordova of the City of Carlsbad planning department that
densities for undeveloped properties might be reduced by a factor of 40% because of the proposed
General Plan Amendment. I am sure that everyone is aware that the value of undeveloped property is
based upon the price of each lot. As such, this represents such a significant evaluation so as to amount
to a taking of the property.
Therefore, we object to any General Plan Amendment to increase any density or to increase the amount
of available to dwelling units to favor one particular party to the detriment of owners of undeveloped
land within the Zone 15 Area.
2-1408
From: Cepeda, Connery
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 3:59 PM
To: Jennifer Jesser
Cc: Armstrong, Jacob
Subject: RE: Notice of Availability of Recirculated Portions of Draft EIR
Jennifer,
Caltrans’s understanding of the Carlsbad GPU Recirculated DEIR is that even with the addition of the
Reduced Density Alternative, the identified “significant and unavoidable” impacts and mitigation
measures for Transportation remain the same from the previous DEIR, and therefore the previous
Caltrans comments dated June 20, 2014 in response to the DEIR still apply (attached again for
reference).
Again, Caltrans looks forward to continuing coordination with City staff on Envision Carlsbad.
Very sincerely,
Connery Cepeda, AICP
Associate Transportation Planner
Caltrans District 11, Planning Division
Ph: 619-688-6003
connery.cepeda@dot.ca.gov
2-1409
May 4, 2015
[Delivered by Hand Delivery to Carlsbad Planning Division at the Faraday Center and to the City Clerk on
May 4, 2015 with Request to Distribute to the Addressees Below]
Ray & Ellen Bender
1015 Camino del Arroyo Dr.
San Marcos, CA 92078
Email: benderbocan@aol.com
Phone: 760 752-1716
Palomar Airport Blogs: Carlsbad.Patch.com
[Complete articles list at: http://patch.com/users/raymond-bender-79afd24d]
Mayor & Council Member Matt Hall
Mayor Pro Tem and Council Member Keith Blackburn
Council Members Mark Packard, Michael Schumacher, and Lorraine Wood
Carlsbad Planning Commissioners: Velyn Anderson, Arthur Neil Black, Stephen "Hap"
L'Heureux, Marty Montgomery, Victoria Scully, Jeff Segall, and Kerry Siekmann
City Manager (Uncertain of Acting City Manager in light of April 2015 resignation of
former City Manager Steven Sarkozy)
Attn: Jennifer Jesser, Senior Planner & Project Manager for 2015-2035 General Plan EIR
City Planner: Don Neu
City Clerk: Sherry Freisinger
1200 Carlsbad Village
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Comments on the March 2015 Recirculated 2015-2035 General Plan EIR
“The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality. The last is to
say thank you. In between, the leader is a servant.” —Max De Pree
This letter comments on the recirculated General Plan Environmental Impact Report (GP-
EIR) released in March 2015 for review. On June 19, 2014, we commented on the initial
Carlsbad draft General Plan (GP) EIR. The earlier comments listed the qualifications of
Raymond Bender to comment on the Carlsbad 2015-2035 General Plan and related EIR.
Please include our comments in the administrative record that the City would produce in
any action resulting from the City’s General Plan adoption and/or certification of the GP-
EIR.
2-1410
Executive Summary
1. The recirculated GP EIR improperly requests comments only on (a) Carlsbad’s
modified air quality analysis in Chapter 3 and (b) modified Analysis of
Alternatives in Chapter 4. To comply with CEQA, an EIR must address “new
information” arising during EIR processing. In 2014, the FAA began using its Next
Generation aircraft guidance system. This system increases and shifts aircraft noise
over airport neighborhoods by concentrating aircraft flight paths to allow more direct
and frequent landings. Next-Gen community complaints have been loud and clear
and joined by elected representatives where the system has been implemented.
County announced at a recent PAAC meeting that it would start the system at
Palomar in 2017. A legally compliant GP EIR must address this topic.
2. The recirculated GP EIR fails to comply with California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) requirements for at least four reasons:
a. The EIR Improperly Excludes Environmental Analysis for 2020, 2025, and
2030. Carlsbad analyzes only the long term (2035) project impacts. Most
Carlsbad residents will be gone by 2035. CEQA, its guidelines, and case law
require a discussion of short and medium term environmental project impacts.
b. The EIR fails to commit Carlsbad to an effective mitigation program.
Mitigation measures amount to no more than “pie in the sky” promises unless an
EIR requires full disclosure of mitigation measures and enforcement methods.
Carlsbad’s 1994 General Plan in Appendix B created an extensive mitigation
reporting system. The 2015-2035 GP does not and fails to explain what penalties
will be enforced if a project sponsor ignores mitigation measures.
c. The EIR fails to provide meaningful analysis of McClellan-Palomar
(Palomar) development and operational impacts, especially of the noise, air
quality, and safety impacts that will result from (i) Next Gen navigation at
Palomar in 2017 and (ii) the county’s April 2015 announced-intent to
lengthen and relocate the Palomar runway to serve larger aircraft.
d. The EIR fails to explain why its current air quality methodology accurately
discloses the existing air quality environmental baseline or accurate future
air quality changes. The methodology mimics that used in the Carlsbad
1994 GP EIR and the actual Carlsbad emissions between 1994 and now
exceed Carlsbad projections greatly.
3. On a positive note, revised 2015-2035 GP EIR Chapter 4 adds a Reduced Density
alternative that the EIR shows in Table 4.2-14 on page 4-34 ranks as superior
environmentally to the initial GP recommendations. Though the GP EIR raises
questions about Carlsbad’s ability to meet state-mandated low and moderate
housing goals, the comments below show that the Reduced Density alternative
can meet the state mandate.
2-1411
Discussion
Preface: Prior June 19, 2014 Comments
On 6/19/14, we noted the initial Carlsbad draft General Plan (GP) EIR:
Did not properly reflect McClellan-Palomar (Palomar) on-Airport
environmental impacts, especially related to the risks of large aircraft
operating next to the Palomar methane-emitting landfill as discussed in the
county 2013 SCS report entitled “Evaluation of Possible Environmental
Impacts of a Potential Aircraft Crash into the Landfill Cover at Palomar
Airport Landfill, Carlsbad, California”. We provided Carlsbad a copy.
Improperly described the existing environmental regulatory setting as to
Palomar projects as set forth in Carlsbad Municipal Code § 21.53.015 and
Carlsbad Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 172 including a Carlsbad 2015-2035
General Plan administrative attempt to redefine the term “expansion” in MC §
21.453.015 to include only “geographic expansions.”
Violated CEQA, in part, by including an air quality analysis method contrary
to CEQA, CEQA guidelines, and CEQA case law.
Provided no reasonable alternatives to mitigate the EIR-admitted serious
erosions of traffic levels.
Improperly analyzed off-Palomar noise impacts.
Based on Carlsbad’s statements in its March 2015 recirculated EIR, we understand that
Carlsbad in its final EIR will reply to all of our June 19, 2014 comments. However, our
position is that Carlsbad was obligated to address all the issues above in its recirculated
EIR because the draft EIR had fatal flaws beyond the air quality analysis and addition of
an additional project alternative.
1. Carlsbad has improperly limited the scope of new comments related to the
recirculated draft EIR.
The March 2015 Recirculated EIR Introduction says:
“The city has revised portions of the draft EIR to address comments concerning
Chapter 3.2, Air Quality and Chapter 4.0, Alternatives. … The other environmental
issues raised in public comments on the draft EIR will be addressed in the written
responses to comments and other revisions that will be included in the final EIR.
This Recirculated Portions of the Draft EIR was prepared in accordance with Section
15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that “A lead agency is required to
recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public
2-1412
notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review.” Significant new
information includes “a new significant environmental impact [that] would result
from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented” or
“a feasible project alternative or mitigation measure [that is] considerably different
from others previously analyzed [that] would clearly lessen the environmental
impacts of the project. …”
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 describes the procedures for recirculation of
portions of an EIR; subsection (f)(2) provides that, when an EIR is revised … and the
lead agency is recirculating only the revised chapters or portions of an EIR, the lead
agency may request that reviewers limit their comments to the revised . . . portions of
the recirculated EIR.
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD REQUESTS THAT REVIEWERS LIMIT THEIR
COMMENTS TO THE PORTIONS OF THE DRAFT EIR THAT ARE REVISED
AND RECIRCULATED IN THIS DOCUMENT. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON
THE PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED DRAFT EIR WILL BE RESPONDED TO IN
THE FINAL EIR AND NEED NOT BE RE- SUBMITTED.” (Pages 1-1 to 1-2)
The above quoted “public comment limitation” does not comply with CEQA because
the recirculated EIR does not analyze a major issue disclosed by County Director of
Airports, Peter Drinkwater, at the February 2015 Palomar Airport Advisory
Committee (PAAC) meeting. He advises that Palomar will begin implementing the
FAA Next Gen satellite system in 2017. That system will drastically affect Palomar
flight patterns and noise over the houses of Carlsbad residents. The FAA has
implemented Next Gen in other cities, which has brought a howl of protests from the
public and politicians.1 Recall that:
CEQA PRC § 21166 provides in part: “When an environmental impact report has
been prepared for a project pursuant to this division, no subsequent or
supplemental environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency
or by any responsible agency, unless one or more of the following events occurs:
* * * (c) New information, which was not known and could not have been
known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete,
becomes available.”
To assure a supplemental EIR is not necessary, the recirculated EIR needs to
contain sufficient information related to the severe impacts of Next Gen.
CEQA PRC § 21157 provides in relevant part:
1 See Charlie Rose segment on CBS This Morning describing Next Gen flight change noise consequences
http://www.cbs.com/shows/cbs_this_morning/video/Suh7xWS5Jm0FMHOwUZ6KkQy_OLFWBQ_l/faa-
s-new-flight-paths-spark-noise-complaints/ See also Palomar Airport: Next Gen, 112 “The FAA's Next
Gen satellite system will alter Palomar flight paths. Real estate agents should alert Carlsbad home sellers
and buyers,” by Raymond Bender, February 2, 2015 www.CarlsbadPatch.com. See also web
site http://www.savecarlsbad.com.
2-1413
(a) A master environmental impact report may be prepared for any one of the
following projects: (1) A general plan … .
(b) When a lead agency prepares a master environmental impact report, the
document shall include all of the following:
(1) A detailed statement as required by Section 21100.
(2) A description of anticipated subsequent projects that would be within the
scope of the master environmental impact report, that contains sufficient
information with regard to the kind, size, intensity, and location of the
subsequent projects, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(A) The specific type of project anticipated to be undertaken.
(B) The maximum and minimum intensity of any anticipated subsequent
project, such as the number of residences in a residential development,
and, with regard to a public works facility, its anticipated capacity and
service area.
(C) The anticipated location and alternative locations for any
development projects.
(D) A capital outlay or capital improvement program, or other scheduling
or implementing device that governs the submission and approval of
subsequent projects.
(3) A description of potential impacts of anticipated subsequent projects for which
there is not sufficient information reasonably available to support a full
assessment of potential impacts in the master environmental impact report. This
description shall not be construed as a limitation on the impacts which may be
considered in a focused environmental impact report. (Emphasis added.)
* * *
CEQA PRC § 21100 provides:
(a) All lead agencies shall prepare, or cause to be prepared by contract, and
certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on any project
which they propose to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect
on the environment….
(b) The environmental impact report shall include a detailed statement setting
forth all of the following:
(1) All significant effects on the environment of the proposed project.
(2) In a separate section:
(A) Any significant effect on the environment that cannot be avoided if
the project is implemented.
(B) Any significant effect on the environment that would be
irreversible if the project is implemented.
(3) Mitigation measures proposed to minimize significant effects on the
2-1414
environment, including, … .
(4) Alternatives to the proposed project.
(5) The growth-inducing impact of the proposed project.
(c) The report shall also contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons for
determining that various effects on the environment of a project are not
significant and consequently have not been discussed in detail in the
environmental impact report.
* * *
For at least three years prior to Carlsbad’s preparation of its draft 2015-2035
Carlsbad General Plan Update, Carlsbad has been on notice of proposed
significant Palomar Airport changes. Official documents putting Carlsbad on
notice of such changes prior to the time of the 2015-2035 GP EIR include (1)
the July 2012 FAA California Pacific Airlines NEPA analysis related to the
environmental impacts a new air carrier would have at Palomar and
surrounding communities; (2) the $700,000+ County Palomar Runway
Feasibility Study which explains the county’s desire to extend the sole
Palomar runway from about 4900 feet to 5800 feet (about the length of the
John Wayne airport runway in Orange County); and (3) the Palomar Airport
Master Plan, which has been under preparation for 12 months including three
public workshops to date to which Carlsbad representatives and the public
were invited, the third workshop held on April 30, 2015.
Although county operates the airport, Carlsbad and county have reserved to
Carlsbad various planning and zoning functions as set forth in Carlsbad
Municipal Code § 21.53.015 (referring to Carlsbad voter approval of county
Palomar Airport expansion) and Conditional Use Permit 172, which defines
conditions related to county Palomar Airport development and operation.
Accordingly, Carlsbad may not simply claim in the EIR that the
environmental impacts of Palomar Airport operations are beyond its control
because the noted restrictions require Carlsbad to exercise its jurisdiction over
Palomar Airport runway extensions. Recall that Table 1 to CUP 172 – which
defines airport projects that county may undertake as a matter of right (subject
to CUP Conditions 1 – 11) – does not allow county to undertake runway
projects without Carlsbad approval. The Carlsbad council in 1979/1980
deleted from the CUP 172 Table 1 projects the county-requested reference to
“runways.” (Compare the County-Palomar-requested-CUP 172 Table against
the CUP 172 Table that Carlsbad adopted.)
Carlsbad can easily obtain from county drawings showing how the Next Gen
flight patterns will change. Carlsbad’s refusal to include this information in
the EIR places the validity of buyer airport deed restrictions in doubt when it
is clear that Carlsbad and county are concealing information very relevant to
Carlsbad buyers from them.
Moreover, California Government Code § 65302 sets forth the mandatory
2-1415
General Plan elements that Carlsbad must meet. GC § 65302(f) provides in
relevant part that a GP must include:
(f) (1) A noise element that shall identify and appraise noise problems in
the community. The noise element shall analyze and quantify, to the
extent practicable, as determined by the legislative body, current and
projected noise levels for all of the following sources:
* * *
(D) Commercial, general aviation, heliport, helistop, and military airport
operations, aircraft overflights, jet engine test stands, and all other
ground facilities and maintenance functions related to airport operation.
(2) Noise contours shall be shown for all of these sources and stated in
terms of community noise equivalent level (CNEL) or day-night average
level (Ldn). The noise contours shall be prepared on the basis of noise
monitoring or following generally accepted noise modeling techniques for
the various sources identified in paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive.
(3) The noise contours shall be used as a guide for establishing a pattern
of land uses in the land use element that minimizes the exposure of
community residents to excessive noise.
(4) The noise element shall include implementation measures and
possible solutions that address existing and foreseeable noise problems,
if any. The adopted noise element shall serve as a guideline for
compliance with the state’s noise insulation standards. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, the GP EIR recirculation does not comply with CEQA. Recall that an
EIR must discuss issues of reasonable controversy to the public. The nationwide reaction
to NEXT GEN airport implementation shows the importance of the issue.
2. General Format Comment. Carlsbad could simplify the comment process if it
printed draft documents with margin line numbering. Comments and Carlsbad
comment replies could then easily reference questionable language. Clarity would
improve.
/////
/////
/////
/////
2-1416
3. Comments on Revised Recirculated 2015-2035 General Plan EIR (a) Executive
Summary, (b) Chapter 3, §3.2 air quality discussion, and (c) Chapter 4 Analysis
of Alternatives
Page
& ¶
Carlsbad
Concept and/or
Language
Comment
Comments on GP EIR Executive Summary (pp. ES-1 to ES-110)
ES-4,
Tables
ES-1
& ES-
2
New
Development
to Buildout
These tables were accurate before the reduced density
alternative was added;
New tables should be added to show buildout with 40%
reduction.
ES-7,
¶1
¶2
“Although
there are no
clear-cut areas
of
controversy…”
Carlsbad (C)-
identified
conflict
between GP &
Regional Air
Quality
Strategy
(RAQS)
Not accurate. When you have (1) buildout in an air quality
non-attainment area, (2) a large % increase in carbon and
particulate emissions, (3) adverse health effects tied to such
emissions, (4) the ability to reduce these effects by 40% or
more with the reduced density alternative, and (5) other
unidentified mitigation measures that Carlsbad and project
sponsors should be undertaking – you have controversy.
C does not provide the RAQS numbers or state whether a
conflict remains if C adopts the reduced density alternative.
Nor does C explain what happens with the GP if C is unable
to change the RAQS growth projections. Nor does C – as a
mitigation measure – commit to notifying and involving the
public in any C effort to change the RAQS projections.
ES-7
to ES-
8
Air Quality:
Mobile
sources v.
stationary
sources
The discussion is 99% related to mobile sources and 1%
related to stationary sources (presumably when construction
occurs).
Does Carlsbad not have substantial emissions from
stationary facilities including but not limited to waste
treatment plants, desalinization, landfills, industrial sites,
and Palomar Airport? If so, where is the ES discussion?
As to the mobile sources, where is the discussion related to
train and aircraft emissions? Please recall that in the 2012
FAA CPA NEPA air assessment (which Carlsbad reviewed
and commented on) related to proposed new air carrier
operations at Palomar, the addition of Embraer 170 aircraft
by themselves nearly triggered the relevant air quality
threshold further assessment limits. [And the FAA
assessment assumed flights substantially less than CPA
2-1417
identified in its marketing materials to Carlsbad and
county.] Moreover, as the county announced at it’s April
2015 Palomar Airport Advisory Committee meeting, a new
air carrier is starting operations at Palomar in May 2015 that
expects to soon serve several of the routes (such as Las
Vegas and Phoenix) that California Pacific Airlines planned
to serve.
ES-8
to
ES-9
Transportation The analysis is insufficient to allow decision makers to
distinguish between the full buildout and 40% reduced
density new GP alternative that C just added.
Doesn’t a C council member voting on which GP
alternative to accept want to know whether full buildout
means gridlock traffic LOS D and whether reduced density
buildout means LOS C traveling at X mph?
Doesn’t the public need to know what emergency vehicle
response level it may expect with full v. reduced density?
How can Carlsbad council members select the best General
Plan alternative without all the relevant facts?
ES-9
to ES-
10
Environ-
mentally
Superior
Alternative
General comment re: whole report. The GP EIR language is
not consistent regarding number of alternatives. Three issues
cause inconsistencies. First, the Reduced Density alternative
language has been added. Second, the “No Project”
Alternative seems to be excluded as a true alternative. (Our
perception.) [Our view: CEQA requires the “No Project”
alternative to be considered as a full-fledged alternative
because there may be times when no project is better (as
many have argued as to the California Bullet Train).] Third,
the GP EIR is confusing (at least to us) as to the total number
of alternatives. See Table 4.2-5 on p. 4-23, which talks
about the proposed GP, Alt 1, Alt 2, Alt 3, No Project, and
Reduced Alt. The Table could be characterized as
presenting one recommendation + 5 alternatives or a total of
6 alternatives with a recommendation to adopt Alternative 1.
Decide whether the EIR should refer to 3, 4, 5, or 6
alternatives and assure consistency throughout the EIR.
The added Reduced Density alternative refers to less
residential but not to less commercial and industrial. An
inadvertent omission we assume.
Page ES-10 says Reduced Density may not be feasible
because: Objection 1 it hinders C meeting it low/moderate
income housing State allotment obligation and Objection 2
may conflict with core C values.
C’s Objection 1 (housing allotment) incompletely describes
2-1418
the issue:
o (i) C fails to note that increasing C’s population ups
the future C Housing allotment; so reduced density
benefits C by reducing future RHNA allotment
increases;
o (ii) C’s increase in commercial (+1.2 million SF) and
industrial (+2.7 million SF) – even under the reduced
density alt – provides C substantial opportunity to
create mixed uses within such developments thereby
meeting RHNA obligations; and (iii) as GP Chapter
10 (Housing) notes, C has multiple tools to create and
fund RHNA housing requirements – apart from
private developer increased densities.
o (iii) Request: Accordingly, in the final GP provide a
better discussion of how C can meet its RHNA
obligations instead of attempting to simply rely
mainly on housing developer subsidies (which simply
ask middle income home buyers to pay more for a
house in offset the cost of the same unit sold to an
RHNA candidate).
C’s Objection 2 (compliance with C core values) is
incompletely discussed:
o Diverse economy/employment hub:
(i) C’s emphasis on biotech and light
industrial employs mainly highly paid
workers so reducing such development does
not hinder RHNA goals;
(ii) As to lower paid sectors – such as hotels –
creative solutions should be explored such as
single workers living on site [a modified form
of the historical “company town model.”
Positive benefits would include (a) the private
sector providing such workers a” living
wage” including a housing subsidy, (b)
reducing employees absent from work, (c)
providing a “day care” center which may be
attractive to hotel guests who can’t take the
kids everywhere, and (D) reducing air quality
and traffic pollution. In short, C needs to be
more creative in satisfying its RHNA
obligations.
o Connectivity (biking, etc). As noted above, C retains
the ability to create mixed uses and hence enhance
mobility even with reduced densities.
o Sustainability. C’s explanation as to why
sustainability could suffer on pp. 4-37 to 4-38 from
2-1419
reduced density (RD) is factually unsupported. For
instance, reduced density complies with increasing
water restrictions – as evidenced by Governor
Brown’s recent mandate to water agencies to require
a 25% reduction in water use. Hence, RD increases,
not reduces, sustainability.
o Community Services. At p. 4-38, C says that
reducing non-residential intensities reduces goods
and services within the community. True. But C
citizens required C to adopt a growth management
initiative. That initiative takes priority. Otherwise,
there will never be enough stores. Moreover, visit
the new Carlsbad commercial center on Rancho
Santa Fe and La Costa Ave opened in early 2015. As
large as the development is, it has few valuable
services other than the market. How many banks
and credit unions and fast food places do you need?
[What Carlsbad residents likely needed was a gas
station and upscale restaurants but none were
provided.] Moreover, C fails to note that the
Reduced Density alternative would reduce traffic into
Carlsbad. For instance, many San Marcos residents
now go to the Lowe’s that relocated from SM to
Carlsbad last year.
o Neighborhood revitalization. C says that reduced
densities could impede Village, Barrio, and coastline
development. Yet most of what C forecasts for the
next 20 years could have been done in the last 30
years but was not. In other words market forces, not
C restrictions prevented development. The
underdevelopment seems more the result of Carlsbad
failing to develop public facilities rather than private
disinterest. For instance, intensive recreational
coastal uses likely require parking structures
(sensitively built to comply with Coastal Act limits
such as by undergrounding).
ES-11
to ES-
109
Table ES-3
Summary
of
Significant
Impacts
§3.2-1 Air Quality Mitigation Measures (p. ES-19).
o C says it will request air quality agencies to conform
their growth projections to the GP. C does not say
what further mitigation C will undertake if the
agencies use lower numbers than C.
o C does not say that it can or will impose all C air
quality mitigation measures on county’s Palomar
operations. Nor does C say what enforcement action
it will take against county if county fails to comply.
2-1420
o C’s periodic statements that C will require CLUP
mitigation measures is misleading because those
measures apply only off-airport property, not on-
airport property.
o C needs to expressly state what mitigation measures
it will enforce against county at Palomar airport.
§3.2-2 Land Use & Community Design Elements
o Policy 3-P.11 says C will evaluate a “road diet”
apparently to reduce traffic lanes for bicycles. The
State continues to promote HOV roadway lanes when
substantial evidence suggests that HOVs contribute
to rather than reduce pollution; HOVs result in more
frequent and intense bumper to bumper traffic idling
emissions into the air because 5 lanes (including the
HOV lane) of equal use keep traffic moving more
efficiently than 1 HOV lane and 4 regular lanes. We
request the C “evaluation” of possibly converting
vehicle lanes to bicycle lanes analyze the respective
air quality impacts by considering traffic flows before
and after such conversions. In other words, C’s
evaluation needs to prove that eliminating traffic
lanes to serve bicycles will NOT slow motor vehicle
traffic which will result in increased vehicle
emissions greater than any air quality reductions
resulting from bicycle use.
o At page ES-36, C says: “MM-AQ-6: If required, new
stationary sources such as diesel generators shall
obtain appropriate permits from the SDAPCD.”
What happens if SDAPCD allows the stationary
source to operate because the operator has purchased
“emission credits” outside Carlsbad and possibly
outside SD county? Can the operator contribute to an
air quality fund to reduce future emissions as a
condition of obtaining the permit? If so, can/should
Carlsbad be getting SDAPCD assurances that monies
contributed to a fund from Carlsbad operators is
spent on projects in Carlsbad? What policies can C
include in the GP EIR to promote this goal? (Such as
supporting legislation to direct emission credit
funds?)
3.2-4 C says in column 1 that GP “development … will not
expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations.” That statement is inconsistent with the
column 3 statement that the environmental impact will be
“significant and unavoidable.” [By definition,
concentrations of air quality non-attainment pollutants are
2-1421
significant.]
o To fully inform the public and the council members
of the serious health impacts of such pollutants, the
GP and GP EIR should provide links explaining in
more detail pollution health care risks
Impact 3.2-5 (p. ES-38) says “development under the
proposed General Plan will not create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of people.”
o The GP anticipates development of millions of square
feet of commercial, and industrial facilities.
o Where does the GP analyze the odor impacts of
increasing the population? How will odor at the large
stationary plants within Carlsbad such as the
desalinization and Hyperion plant be affected by
increased production? Please cite the GP EIR pages
where these possible odor changes are analyzed.
END OF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY COMMENTS
Preliminary Comments to Carlsbad GP EIR Chapter 3, Section 3.2 Air Quality
Analysis (Pages 3.2-1 to 3.2-46)
The analysis does not comply with the 2013 California Supreme Court decision in
Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority, 57 Cal. 4th
439).
o Simple Explanation: EIRs ID significant adverse project impacts so people can
know how their lives will change. The information allows voters to decide
whether they will support or oppose politicians who approve projects and
whether to move into or out of Carlsbad.
C’s air quality analysis tells us how bad pollution will be in 2035, not how
bad pollution will be in 2020, 2025, or 2030.
In 2010, one out of 10 people moved the year before. [MelissaData, “How
Many People Move Each Year – and Who Are They?” by David Bancroft
Avrick].
The Supreme Court in Neighbors for Smart Rail held that EIR preparers
could use future baselines (such as the GP EIR 2035) so long as the EIR
informed readers of near term and medium term impacts.
The 2015-2035 GP EIR tells the public little about short or medium term
impacts. Most current Carlsbad residents will be gone in 2035 – the only
year for which the GP EIR identifies impacts.
Attachment 1 at the end of these letter comments quotes relevant
Neighbors for Smart Rail language and provides a more complete
analysis.
2-1422
The 2015-2035 GP EIR does not clearly require the reporting, monitoring, or
enforcement of mitigation measures that may be imposed on project sponsors.
o Collectively CEQA PRC §§ 21081(a)(1) and 21081.6(a)(1) & (b) and CEQA
Guideline §§ 15091(d) require imposed-mitigation measures to be verifiable.
o We did not see in the GP EIR a consistent Carlsbad commitment to impose,
enforce, and report migration measures on project sponsors. In contrast, the 1994
Carlsbad GP had such requirements.
o See the 53-page Appendix B of the Carlsbad 1994 General Plan EIR that
expressly referred to PRC 21081.6 compliance and listed the Carlsbad
monitoring agency responsible for various compliance items as well as the
monitoring timeframe. But even that document failed to explain what
penalties apply to project sponsors who fail to live up to their mitigation
obligations.
We expect to file public record requests with Carlsbad to determine how consistently and
aggressively C imposed and enforced its General Plan mitigation measures, particularly as to
Palomar Airport.
3.2-2 Pollutants and
Health Effects
The text incompletely defines the air pollutant abbreviations.
3.2-7
& 3.2-
11
Table PM levels Are Table 3.2-2 levels consistent with Table 3.2-4 footnotes?
We request Carlsbad state how (1) the air quality pollutant
emissions have changed since its 1994 General Plan Update
and (2) why the changes are so drastic if – as Carlsbad says
in its 2015-2035 GP EIR – that the Carlsbad mitigation
policies substantially reduce such pollutants.
Our comparison of the 1994 and 2015 Carlsbad General Plan
EIRs shows the data below. If we have misread the old
and/or new tables, please revise the tables to more clearly
state C’s findings.
Carbon monoxide (CO). C said the 1990 level was
72,000 and forecast 93,000 for 2010. Yet the 2008
emissions were 149,000. C expects 84,000 more by
2035. [Compare Table 5.3-5 at page 5.3-6 of the
Carlsbad Final Master EIR for the General Plan Update
of March 1994 with the Carlsbad Recirculated GP EIR of
2015, Table 3.2-7 at page 3.2-18 and Table 3.2-10 at
page 3.2-28.]
So the 2035 total estimate is 233,000 (149,000 + 84,000).
Hence, Carlsbad projects will grow carbon monoxide
from 72,000 to 233,000 from 1990 to 2035. More than a
200% increase. Likely more than 300% given C’s
accuracy rate.
2-1423
As the 2015 GP EIR notes, excess CO exposure causes
dizziness, fatigue, and impairment of central nervous
system functions. (page 3.2-3 of 2015 recirculated GP
EIR.)
Particulate matter (PMs). The Carlsbad 1994 GP EIR
accuracy for lung-clogging teensy particles was even
poorer. The 1990 existing were 1,800; 2010-projected
4,500; 2008 actual 28,000; and 2035 will add 11,000
more. So the 1994 PMs of 1,800 skyrocket to 33,000 in
2035. (See tables noted above.) Likely even higher
unless Carlsbad’s mitigation measures improve or
growth is limited.
As the 2015 GP EIR notes, PMs can “penetrate the
human respiratory system’s natural defenses and
damage the respiratory tract. … and can increase the
number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or
aggravate bronchitis … and reduce the body’s ability to
fight infections. …”
The obvious question: If C’s mitigation measures work
so well, how can the CO & PM increases be so bad?
Shouldn’t Carlsbad choose its Reduced Growth
alternative just added in the recirculated GP EIR?
We found Tables 3.2-7 (“Table 7”) (page 3.2-18) and
Table 3.2-10 (“Table 10”) (page 3.2-28) confusing at
best and inconsistent at worst for these reasons (numbers
rounded):
o Table 7 says that 2008 CO emissions were
150,000 daily. Yet Table 10 says that the 2035
CO emissions without the proposed GP were
71,000 daily.
What does 71,000 without the project
mean and where does the GP EIR define
it? Does it mean no building from 2015 to
2035? Something else?
Without the project, how do the CO
emissions drop from 149,000 to 71,000 –
especially since the I-5 and I-78 and
Palomar Airport will increasingly produce
CO emissions with or without the GP
project?
o Table 7 refers to 2008 PM emissions as 28,000
2-1424
daily. Table 10 refers to 2035 PM emissions as
28,000 with no GP projects.
How are there no PM increases from 2008
to 2015?
How are there no PM increases to 2035
even without the GP projects when I-5,
SR-78, and Palomar Airport emissions
will increase greatly during the 20-year
planning horizon?
o The page 3.2-27 discussion of Table 7 is
confusing. It refers to “resulting net new
operational emissions from buildout.”
o For clarity, list the total expected daily CO and
PM emissions in 2035 with buildout (including
the existing emissions) so that the public can
compare emission levels to health thresholds of
concern.
The foregoing CARLSBAD numbers suggest
fundamental defects in C’s EIR air quality methodology.
Possible defects include:
o Failure to properly account for mobile and/or
stationary sources. For instance, the EIR makes
no attempt to describe emissions within Carlsbad
traceable to the I-5 and SR-78 freeways. That
failure is surprising since the State within the last
2 two years completed its EIR for I-5
modifications including those to start in Carlsbad
within 18 months. And Carlsbad commented on
that State EIR. The I-5 and SR-78 air quality
discussion at p. 3.2-44 does not cure this
deficiency because the later discussion discloses
only vehicle miles traveled, not the associated air
quality impacts. Nor does the EIR provide any
range of air quality data related to Palomar
Airport emissions – especially odd since county
announced at its Palomar Airport Master Plan
Workshop on April 30 Palomar expansion
alternatives supportive of building facilities to
accommodate a substantial increase in FAA-rated
C and D aircraft.
o It is true that the GP projects will continue to
cause air quality limits exceeding significance
level. But that does not justify Carlsbad omitting
the relevant data. To state the point simply,
Carlsbad residents are entitled to know how C
development will elevate their cancer and other
2-1425
health risks.
o If C estimates the new cumulative air quality
emissions correctly, then by definition, C’s
failure to note the correct unmitigated historical
pollutant levels confirms that C’s mitigation
measures are inadequate.
o Given the above-noted severe inaccuracies in the
1997 MP predictions, C needs to explain why its
2015 GP predictions are credible.
3.2-17
to 3.2-
19
Methodology &
Assumptions
C uses 2008 traffic trip baseline data. The data is at least 7
years old, older if compiled from earlier years. The data
was taken two years into the post 2006 economic collapse.
From 1995 to 2005, construction in Carlsbad boomed, then
cratered. In the last 2 years, Carlsbad approved significant
residential tracts and hotel development. Therefore, the
2008 traffic data likely materially undercounts C 2014 traffic
– as anyone who drives the busier Carlsbad streets know.
Regardless of whether the materially more accurate 2014
missing data helps or hurts the C analysis, the 2008 baseline
is outdated.
Clarify what air pollution data is being used to show the
emissions from the I-5 and SR-78 in Carlsbad in order to
determine the environmental base line that is changing.
Substantial data – at least as to the I-5 – should be available
from the recent State I-5 Improvement Project EIR. Those
emissions are beyond Carlsbad’s control. But they are
relevant to pinpointing the health effects of total emissions
within Carlsbad including the 2015-2035 GP projects.
Whether the Council approves the General Plan project or
the recently added Reduced Density alternative depends in
part on how bad the air quality will be.
3.2-18
& 3.2-
19
Summary of
Impacts
C states the GP impacts may conflict with the SD RAQS
growth projections. What are the RAQS projections and
where did they come from?
Impact 3.2-1 says: “Development under the proposed
General Plan will not conflict with or obstruct the
implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
(Significant and Unavoidable).” The heading is inconsistent
with the noted parenthetical and also with the following text
on p. 3.2-20, last paragraph.
On page 3.2-23 at the end of the Impact 3.2-1 discussion, C
says: “Although the city will recommend that SDAPCD can
and should update the RAQS to include the proposed
General Plan’s growth projections, implementation of the
2-1426
proposed mitigation is within SDAPCD’s jurisdiction and
control and the city cannot guarantee the timing and
implementation of the proposed mitigation. …”
o What happens to C General Plan projects if RAQS
does not update its projections to the Carlsbad-
desired level? For instance (analogously) what if the
Governor’s water restrictions cause state agencies to
reduce population level estimates and water
availability?
o Is C saying that only the SDAPCD can impose
project mitigation conditions? Or is C saying that it
can impose certain mitigation conditions but defers to
the SDAPCD? If Carlsbad says it cannot impose air
quality mitigation conditions, state why. Consider
the following example, which suggests that Carlsbad
can impose air quality mitigation conditions
regardless of what the SDAPCD does.
The 2015-2035 GP says that about 7.5 million
square feet of development will occur. No
doubt many acres of trees and other
vegetation will have to be removed to
accommodate building.
Apart from its aesthetic landscaping
requirements, does C impose landscaping
requirements to mitigate air pollution damage
caused by tree removal? Does C
allow/require compensation payments to
maintain green areas to mitigate for project air
quality impacts?
Bottom Line: ID in the GP and GP EIR the air quality
mitigation measures that Carlsbad will impose and enforce to
minimize air quality impacts.
3.2-23
to
3.2-26
Impact 3.2-2 C says the Encina Power Station is the only existing and the
C Energy Center Project (CECP) the only planned stationary
sources in the city. How is the desalinization plant
classified? Does the plant have capacity increases planned
either via new construction or new equipment? What about
Palomar Airport and the 2012 County Feasibility Report
planned 900-foot runway extension?
C says “it is assumed that EPS would be decommissioned
and the CECP would replace that stationary source. As a
result, there is no net change in stationary source emissions
as a result of the proposed General Plan.” That statement is
wrong. C plans 7.5 million square feet of development
within the GP area. Those undeveloped areas now need little
2-1427
power. The developments will require substantial power.
Even if the existing power station had sufficient capacity to
provide that power, the CEQA baseline rests on the existing
level of service, not the level the existing plant could
produce in 2035.
3.2-27 Mobile
Emissions
Page 3.2-27 refers to mobile emissions calculations and
references the URBEMIS 2007 model and refers the reader
to Appendix B.
o We understand mobile emissions to include
emissions from all moving sources including
vehicles, trains, and planes. We did not see in
Appendix B a list of trip totals for all these sources.
o Recall that the 2012 FAA CPA NEPA analysis noted
that a new air carrier at Palomar -- by itself -- could
add carbon monoxide emissions almost triggering an
air quality threshold. See FAA CPA NEPA Table 4-
2 at page 4-8.
o We recognize that county, not Carlsbad, operates the
airport. But we also understand CEQA to require a
compete disclosure of the environmental setting and
reasonably anticipated growth impacts.
o By spending more than $1,000,000 on consultant and
county staff time on the 2012 County Palomar
Runway Feasibility Study, county has announced its
intent to lengthen the Palomar runway substantially.
County’s on-airport building program over the last 10
years including adding a customs facility confirms its
intent to add more flights. Moreover, county at the
April 30, 2015 Palomar Airport Master Plan
proposed 2 Palomar runway and facility
improvement expansion alternatives that would
length the runway by 900 feet and that would relocate
the runway northward to widen the Palomar Airport
footprint and increase aircraft separation to allow the
routine handling of FAA-rated C & D aircraft.
o The GP EIR should contain data reasonably
reflecting Palomar’s operational and construction
contributions to air quality and traffic problems.
Carlsbad continues to ignore these issues as if (a)
Palomar Airport were not in the middle of Carlsbad,
(b) Carlsbad had no obligation to monitor and
enforce Carlsbad Conditional Use Permit 172 that
restricts certain airport development and operations
without Carlsbad approval, and (c) Carlsbad voters
have no role in Palomar development during the
2-1428
Carlsbad General Plan 2015-2035 timeframe
pursuant to Carlsbad Municipal Code § 21.53.015.
o Ignoring Palomar impacts is inconsistent with
Government Code General Plan preparation
requirements and with the concept that the City of
Carlsbad will grow over the next 20 years –
especially since Carlsbad predicts substantial growth
related to its tourist sector that is designed to attract
travelers from outside the city.
3.2-28 Table 3.2-10 As noted above, C needs to define certain Table 3.2-10
terms; add data to show total emissions for the short,
medium, and long term; and explain apparent inconsistencies
with Table 3.2-7.
3.2-29
to 3.2-
46
General Plan
Policies to
Reduce Project
Impacts
C lists many policies to reduce project impacts. A good first
step.
But where are the reporting and enforcement methods
specified including penalties? The 2015-2035 General Plan
measures are “a hope and a prayer” not an enforced
reduction.
To minimize environmental impacts analyzed, project
sponsors often underestimate project traffic. Alternatively, a
project’s success may surprise even the sponsor. But in
either case, project “traffic” and related impacts that were
never analyzed grow and remain unmitigated unless and
until a new discretionary governmental action triggers a new
analysis.
C can handle the foregoing concerns in its GP in one of two
ways.
o Impose added GP mitigation measures on assessed
projects that trigger automatically but only if the
project approved exceeds activity levels analyzed in
the initial CEQA document. OR
o Approve projects subject to stated activity levels and
further future environmental analysis.
3.2-40 Impact 3.2-3 Likely a typo here. The Impact heading (reference to NOT)
is inconsistent with the heading parenthetical and following
text.
The next to last paragraph on page 3.2-40 contains data NOT
supported by the referenced Table 3.2-9. There appears to be
a miscite.
3.2-42
to 3.2-
Impact 3.2-4 Likely a typo here. The Impact heading (reference to NOT)
is inconsistent with the heading parenthetical and following
2-1429
46 text.
Page 32-43 discusses stationary sources but makes no
reference to Palomar Airport Development. The county at
the April 30, 2015 Palomar Airport Master Plan Workshop 3
announced several Palomar Airport expansion alternatives
including the relocation and extension of the runway north of
its existing location. Palomar Airport has multiple stationary
sources associated with aircraft operation. Carlsbad has
made no effort to show that Table 3.2-9 or any other table
accounts for such stationary source emissions.
In 2008, the EPA prepared a “White Paper” entitled
“Monitoring the Air for Lead Near the McClellan-Palomar
Airport and Gillespie Field. We understand that the County
APCD conducted a subsequent follow-up study entitled
“Lead Gradient Study at McClellan-Pallomar Airport.” We
did not see in Carlsbad’s toxic air quality discussion any
discussion of these and later studies. This failure constitutes
a material GP air quality discussion deficiency.
The Palomar “lead gradient” issue apparently arises from the
continued use of leaded fuel by small planes. Palomar in
2014 had about 135,000 small plane operations. Such flights
fly over much of Carlsbad including schools not distant from
the airport. Please address this issue. We understand that
Carlsbad resident Mr. Graham Thorley raised these issues in
his meeting with Mayor Hall several months ago.
At page 3.2-46, Carlsbad refers to “Mitigation measures
MMAQ-2 through MMAQ-6” as reducing pollution
concentrations to sensitive receptors. Yet the listed
mitigation measures do not discuss what measures will be
taken at Palomar Airport to eliminate leaded fuel used by
small aircraft. Please remember that Carlsbad’s CEQA
obligation is to properly count and disclose project air
quality impacts even if the ability to control such impacts
rests with another agency.
END OF AIR QUALITY COMMENTS
/////
/////
/////
2-1430
COMMENTS ON RECIRCULATED 2015-2035 GP EIR CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES (PAGES 4-1 TO 4-40)
4-1 to
4-2
Background &
Description of
Alternatives
As noted above, the listing of project alternatives needs to be
clarified. The reference to alternatives needs to be made
consistent throughout the EIR.
4-19
to 4-
20
Air Quality Table 4.2-4 provides a “Comparison of Change in VMT
[Vehicle Miles Traveled] and Population Under the
Alternatives.”
o The table and footnote discussion do not discuss
whether the term “Population” refers to trips only by
Carlsbad residents or also by visitor populations. If
Carlsbad adds 4 million + square feet of commercial
and industrial development, Carlsbad will attract a
substantial visitor population.
o For instance, on April 5, 2014 the Union Tribune
reported:
“A developer planning an upscale ‘destination’ mall in
Carlsbad has held more than 100 community meetings over the
past 19 months gathering input, but so far hasn’t submitted a
proposal to the city or otherwise revealed exactly what the
project would include. Excitement is growing nonetheless — the
mall would be built by Caruso Affiliated, the company behind
the wildly popular The Grove mall in Los Angeles and The
Americana in Glendale.”
Please clarify whether Table 4.2-4 includes vehicle miles
traveled by both Carlsbad residents and non-Carlsbad
residents to patronize businesses within the City. Provide
the cites to pages in the Dyett & Bhatia, 2012 and Fehr &
Peers 2012 studies showing the inclusion or exclusion. [We
recognize that table footnote 2 excludes traffic simply
passing through Carlsbad.]
If Table 4.2-4 does not include the visitor VMT, please add
or – if excluded – explain why such VMTs are irrelevant to
assessing the environmental air quality baseline and changes
to the baseline.
Explain why – as Table 4.2-4 footnote 2 states – that the
VMT excludes the impact of Carlsbad pass-through traffic.
Carlsbad air quality depends on all traffic passing through
Carlsbad. To exclude the present and future changes to such
2-1431
levels paints a false picture of actual Carlsbad air quality.
4-22
to 4-
23
Energy,
Greenhouse
Gases and
Climate
Change
Page 4-23 states: “This alternative [the Reduced Density
alternative] may understate VMT to some degree, however,
as lower densities and intensities of land uses may force
drivers to travel greater distances for jobs, services, and so
forth.”
o It is correct that fewer Carlsbad facilities cause
drivers to exit Carlsbad for services.
o But it is also true that fewer Carlsbad facilities avoid
the influx of drivers into Carlsbad from other cities.
As an example, the recently built Lowe’s center
attracts many San Marcos residents who would avoid
Carlsbad if the Lowe’s had not been relocated from
SM to Carlsbad. The same may be said of the huge
new mall under study for the Canon Street area as
noted above.
o Accordingly, either the above quoted statement
should be deleted or modified to reflect a balanced
analysis.
4-24 Hazardous
Materials
The hazardous material discussion continues to ignore the
methane emitting Palomar Airport landfills and the impact of
larger aircraft using Palomar as County itself noted in its
2013 report entitled “Evaluation of Possible Environmental
Impacts of a Potential Aircraft Crash into the Landfill Cover
at Palomar Airport Landfill, Carlsbad, California” dated
October 15, 2013 and prepared for County by SCS
Engineers. County has never publicly circulated this report,
which was obtained by a public records request.
Ignoring the report and related hazardous material issues is
especially egregious given the county’s April 30, 2015
Palomar Airport Master Plan Workshop at which county
made clear it intended to expand Palomar facilities to handle
larger aircraft.
4-25 Airport Safety
& Wildfires
The two short paragraphs on page 4-24, labeled “Airport
Safety and Wildfires” are mislabeled.
o The noted “ALUCP” (Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan) regulates development outside
the airport, not on the airport. Accordingly, the
Carlsbad 2015-2035 says nothing about on-airport
safety. To the contrary, Carlsbad ignores the county
2013 SCS study noted above, that shows an aircraft
crash could have severe safety and environmental
consequences including further underground landfill
2-1432
fires.
o Also, C oddly ignores the 2010 San Diego Regional
Airport Authority “Regional Airport Strategic Plan”
that sets forth Palomar Airport development
alternatives. How does Carlsbad write a State-
mandated 20 year plan requiring serious discussion of
transportation circulation including airports and
ignore a major recent regional planning study related
to Palomar Airport in the middle of Carlsbad?
o The draft report states:
“Although the lower amount of new
construction under the Reduced Density
Alternative would expose fewer people to
hazards, both the Reduced Density
Alternative, and the proposed General Plan
would result in an increase in the
construction of structure with improved fire
safety. Alternative 1 would result in the
greatest increase in the construction of
structures with improved fire safety, followed
by Alternative 2, Alternative 3, the No
Project, and Reduced Density alternatives.
Therefore, the Reduced Density and No
project alternatives would result in more
structures with outdated fire safety systems,
with Alternative 3, Alternative 2 and
Alternative 1, respectively, having a lesser
impact.”
The quoted analysis is strange and strained for
three reasons. First, it ignores the fact that the
City under its police powers can require truly
outdated older structures to be retrofitted to
meet fire safety requirements. Second, the
analysis implies without evidence that new
structures will be built to replace old
structures – as opposed to new structures
being built on the empty land throughout
Carlsbad. In fact, the GP report frequently
says that development will occur on “in-fill”
sites. Third, the analysis does not examine
whether fires occur more on vacant land or
within buildings. If fires occur more
frequently within buildings, then the Reduced
Density alternative results in more vacant
land and hence fewer fires. The Carlsbad
2-1433
analysis is simply incomplete.
4-26
to 4-
29
Land Use,
Housing, and
Population
Tables 4.2-6 through 4.10 focus on future Carlsbad
population and dwelling unit changes – admittedly crucial
information.
But the General Plan proposes new development of 2.1
million commercial square feet, 780,000 office square feet,
and 4.6 million industrial square feet. Where is the analysis
of the environmental impacts of the visitor population that
will work in and use the developments within these areas?
4-29
to 4-
30
Noise These GP pages discuss GP alternatives only in the
context of CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Levels).
o California statutory and case law requires
Carlsbad to identify noise problems generally.
See Health and Safety Code Division 28 “Noise
Control Act”, §§ 46000 et seq and Berkeley Keep
Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port
Commissioners of the City of Oakland (2001),
111 Cal.Rptr.2d 598.
o Carlsbad citizens have complained and continue
to complain about Single Noise Events, namely
individual aircraft flights over their houses.
Carlsbad resident Mr. Graham Thorley has met
several times with Carlsbad Mayor Matt Hall
since December 2014 to express his and his
neighbor concerns about such Palomar aircraft
noise problems.
o This comment letter has several times previously
noted the noise problems that the FAA NEXT
GEN satellite guided navigation will cause to
Carlsbad residents starting in 2017.
o Moreover, in April 2015, a new Palomar Air
Carrier (BIZ Airlines) has announced its intent to
have regularly scheduled commercial flights at
Palomar before 7 a.m. five days a week.
o The GP failure to discuss these issues fails to
comply with the above noted law as well as the
general CEQA principles that EIRs must address
those items in which the community has
expressed substantial concerns.
4-31
to 4-
33
Vehicle Miles
Traveled
Respectfully, pages 4-31 to 4-33 are not in English.
o Rewrite these pages to say simply what the total
VMT annually means and how it was calculated.
o For instance – if true – the language might say
2-1434
something as follows: “Four types of drivers use
Carlsbad roads: (1) residents and non-residents
going to and from work; (2) resident and non-
resident shoppers; (3) residents and non-residents
using Carlsbad amenities such as schools, beaches,
golf courses, and attractions; and (4) non-residents
crossing Carlsbad to reach other cities. The total
Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) in 2014 was X.
These VMT included miles traveled by drivers in
categories _________ above. Table 1234 shows
the estimated VMT that such drivers will travel in
2020, 2025, 2030, and 2035. The VMT was
calculated using the San Diego Association of
Government (SANDAG) transportation model.
That model estimates the VMT by using the
following factors: M, N, O, P, Q, and R.
4-35
to 4-
38
Environmen-
tally Superior
Alternative
The Carlsbad Recirculated General Plan Chapter 4
Analysis of Alternatives rightfully added a Reduced
Density alternative – as many in the community requested.
However, the language at pages 4-35 to 4-38 strongly
suggests that staff is recommending rejection of the
Reduced Density alternative, mainly due to concerns about
Carlsbad’s obligation to meet low and moderate housing
needs.
Pages 7 to 9 of this comment letter have already explained
why pages 4-35 to 4-38 do not support Carlsbad’s
suggestion that the City Council may have to reject the
Reduced Density Alternative because that alternative (1)
does not allow Carlsbad to meet its state-imposed low and
moderate housing goals and (2) does not fully achieve
Carlsbad purposes and objectives.
If the Council is inclined to reject the Reduced Density
alternative, then staff should present to the Council a
detailed explanation showing why state allotted housing
obligations cannot be met with a Reduced Density
alternative. General Plan Chapter 10, Housing, presents a
very good discussion of basic factors affecting Carlsbad
housing demand and production. But Chapter 10 leaves
many unanswered questions such as:
o What alternative housing construction could satisfy
low and moderate housing needs other than buyers
in new housing tracts subsidizing lower income
housing? For instance:
Within the last two years, high housing
costs have prompted great interest in
2-1435
building housing units with less than 600
square feet.
Manufactured housing (upgraded mobile
home like units that can be assembled on
site from 2 or 3 preassembled modules) is
available in various parts of the country.
As noted above, Carlsbad could encourage
hotel and other large commercial unit
developers to incorporate some employee
housing on site.
Alternatively, Carlsbad might require
commercial and industrial developers to
contribute to a Carlsbad housing fund used
to build the small and premanufactured
units noted above.
o How do other cities satisfy the state low/moderate
income requirements and would such solutions
work in Carlsbad?
Finally, as to Reduced Density compliance with Carlsbad
Planning Goals, Table 4.2-14 on page 4-34 already notes
that the Reduced Density alternative is the superior
alternative. Moreover, not all Planning Goals are created
or weighted equally. Carlsbad residents long ago
instructed the Council and City Manager to limit growth.
Accordingly, the goals related to preserving the Carlsbad
community feel and minimizing noise, traffic, and
pollution and maximizing aesthetics trump business
development.
END OF ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS COMMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1 TO BENDER COMMENTS ON CARLSBAD
RECIRCULATION OF ITS 2015-2035 GENERAL PLAN EIRSUMMARY OF
WHY RECIRCULATED GP EIR DOES NOT COMPLY WITH 2013
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT DECISION IN NEIGHBORS FOR SMART
RAIL V. EXPOSITION METRO LINE CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY (2013) 57
CAL. 4TH 439 [“Neighbors”]
In Neighbors, the Metro Line (“Metro”) wanted to extend a light-rail transit line from
Culver City to Santa Monica. Metro prepared an EIR in 2007 analyzing the
environmental impacts of the line construction in 2030. Overall, impacts were beneficial
because light rail paπssengers would reduce vehicle traffic.
2-1436
Neighbors sued claiming “by exclusively employing an analytic baseline of conditions in
the year 2030 to assess likely impacts on traffic congestion and air quality, the EIR fails
to disclose the effects the project will have on existing environmental conditions in the
project area.” (Neighbors, 57 Cal. 4th 439, 445)
The court said:
“We agree with Neighbors on its first claim … . While an agency has the discretion
under some circumstances to omit environmental analysis of impacts on existing
conditions and instead use only a baseline of projected future conditions, existing
conditions "will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead
agency determines whether an impact is significant." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15125,
subd. (a).) A departure from this norm can be justified by substantial evidence that an
analysis based on existing conditions would tend to be misleading or without
informational value to EIR users. Here, however, the Expo Authority fails to
demonstrate the existence of such evidence in the administrative record.”(Emphasis
added.) (at 446).
We and most Carlsbad residents want to know how badly GP projects will degrade air,
traffic, and noise in the next 10 years, not after we may well be gone. The GP EIR does
not tells us that. If Carlsbad disagrees, please in your final GP EIR cite the specific pages
where the relevant data sits.
Moreover, in Neighbors, everyone concluded that the light rail transit project would
benefit not harm the environment by converting vehicle use to less environmentally
impactful train use. In contrast, the GP EIR projects promise increasingly severe adverse
environmental impacts.
Significant quotes from the Neighbors decision supporting the above conclusion include:
Justice Baxter (who partially dissented from the majority Supreme Court
Neighbor’s decision) therefore errs in citing Communities for a Better
Environment for the proposition that an agency's future baseline choice is valid if
it is "a realistic measure of the physical conditions without the proposed project . .
. ." In Communities for a Better Environment, we held an agency's discretionary
decision on "exactly how the existing physical conditions without the project can
most realistically be measured" is reviewed for substantial evidence supporting
the measurement method. (48 Cal.4th at p. 328, italics added.) We did not hold or
imply agencies enjoy equivalent discretion under CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines to omit all analysis of the project's impacts on existing conditions and
measure impacts only against conditions projected to prevail 20 or 30 years in the
future, so long as their projections are realistic.” [57 Cal.4th 450]
‘Even when a project is intended and expected to improve conditions in the
long term--20 or 30 years after an EIR is prepared--decision makers and
members of the public are entitled under CEQA to know the short- and
medium-term environmental costs of achieving that desirable improvement.
2-1437
These costs include not only the impacts involved in constructing the project but
also those the project will create during its initial years of operation. Though we
might rationally choose to endure short- or medium-term hardship for a long-
term, permanent benefit, deciding to make that trade-off requires some knowledge
about the severity and duration of the near-term hardship. An EIR stating that in
20 or 30 years the project will improve the environment, but neglecting,
without justification, to provide any evaluation of the project's impacts in the
meantime, does not "giv[e] due consideration to both the short-term and
long-term effects" of the project (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.2, subd.
(a)) and does not serve CEQA's informational purpose well. The omission of
an existing conditions analysis must be justified, even if the project is designed to
alleviate adverse environmental conditions over the long term.
In addition, existing environmental conditions have the advantage that they
can generally be directly measured and need not be projected through a
predictive model. However sophisticated and well-designed a model is, its
product carries the inherent uncertainty of every long-term prediction,
uncertainty that tends to increase with the period of projection. For example,
if future population in the project area is projected using an annual growth
multiplier, a small error in that multiplier will itself be multiplied and
compounded as the projection is pushed further into the future. The public and
decision makers are entitled to the most accurate information on project impacts
practically possible, and the choice of a baseline must reflect that goal.” [57 Cal.
4th 455] Emphasis added.
[7] Contrary to Justice Baxter's claim, our holding here does not impose any
"wasteful" or "additional" substantive requirement on agencies. … We hold only
that agencies normally must do what Guidelines section 15125(a) expressly
requires -- compare the project's impacts to existing environmental conditions, as
that term is broadly understood, to determine their significance. The question we
would have an agency ask in choosing a baseline is not, "Would an existing
conditions analysis add information to a future conditions analysis?" It is,
"Do we have a reason to omit the existing conditions analysis and substitute
one based on future conditions?" Of course, where an agency concludes an
analysis of impacts on future conditions is also needed in any portion of the EIR,
it may include such an analysis. But any duplication of effort therein involved is
not a product of this decision. [57 Cal. 4th 457] Emphasis added.
We look forward to your response to these comments.
Ray & Ellen Bender
2015 may comments on Carlsbad recirculated general plan eir [ smart file general plan_ ]
2-1438
From: Graham Thorley [mailto:graham.thorley@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 2:12 PM
To: Jennifer Jesser
Subject: Recirculation Comments
In reviewing the revised Recirculation documentation, there seems to be no mention that
McClellan-Palomar Airport is in violation of EPA Federal Lead Laws and its impact on
Carlsbad's air quality. Also, the April 30, 2015 McClellan-Palomar Airport Workshop #3
announcement that there is going to be a major change in the airports operation and that change
will impact Carlsbad's Air Quality dramatically. As such, there needs to be revisions in a
number of the assumptions in your reports to reflect the upcoming Paradigm shift in airport
operations. Additionally, based on the County reports, not only will there be more aircraft
pollution from larger and larger planes, but also 10,000,000 or more annual ground
transportation traffic required to support the new 3,000,000 or more passengers projected to be
flying in and out of McClellan-Palomar.
Thank you. If you have any question please do not hesitate to contact me. Or you can
review http://www.savecarlsbad.com/ for the latest information.
Graham R. Thorley
2-1439
2-1440
2-1441
2-1442
2-1443
2-1444
2-1445
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
Recirculated Portions of the Draft EIR Responses
E1: Rich Van Every
E1-1: The comment makes a statement that natures plays a key role in our lives. The comment
does not raise an environmental issue concerning the draft General Plan or EIR and no
response is required.
E1-2: The comment states that development in Carlsbad is maxed out, that trails and open
space are very important issues and requests that the reduced development alternative be
implemented.
All development in Carlsbad has occurred in compliance with the General Plan and
Growth Management Plan. The comment and its support for the Reduced Density
Alternative will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and
City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General
Plan.
E2: Ricardo Cisternos
E2-1: The comment makes an introductory statement of general concern about, and provides
text for, Impacts 3.2-2 and 3.13-1. The comment does not raise an environmental issue
concerning the draft General Plan and no response is required. The comment will be
included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
E2-2: The comment states that the development plan calls for an increase of nearly 8,000 new
homes and 23,000 new inhabitants, plus 33% more commercial space and asks how much
of a variation over the previous general plan are these build out targets for the proposed
general plan. The comment also states that this increased development will add to traffic
and air quality problems.
Note that the current General Plan has remaining unbuilt capacity above today’s existing
levels of development. The estimated new development referenced in the comment that
is proposed by the draft General Plan (7,880 dwelling units, 22,906 population and
2,132,200 sq. ft. of commercial space) is calculated from today’s existing levels of
development and is not all new capacity added to the buildout capacity of the current
General Plan. To compare the variation in the buildout numbers of the current and draft
general plans, please see as follows: the draft General Plan has an estimated buildout
capacity of 52,320 dwelling units and 131,152 population, which is an increase from the
buildout capacity of the current General Plan of 50,499 dwelling units and 126,587
population. Both the current General Plan and draft General Plan buildout estimates are
within the citywide Growth Management Plan dwelling unit cap of 54,599.
2-1446
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
The increase in commercial space is a result of two sources. The first are proposed land
use changes in the draft General Plan for three sites to be changed to commercial
designations (from non-commercial designations), which contribute an estimated
266,000 sq. ft. and 1,163 hotel rooms of new commercial and hotel uses not included in
the current General Plan. The remaining increases in commercial space are assumed to
be new development and redevelopment on land already designated for commercial uses
in the current general plan (this increase in commercial space could occur whether or not
the draft General Plan is adopted, and does not result from newly designated commercial
land).
The draft General Plan Land Use and Community Design (LUCD) Element plans for
future growth in the city. The Mobility Element is correlated to the LUCD Element,
meaning that it identifies improvements and contains policies and programs necessary to
accommodate the anticipated growth. Potential impacts to the transportation system
from implementation of the draft General Plan are thoroughly analyzed in the draft EIR,
Section 3.13. Potential impacts to air quality from implementation of the draft General
Plan are thoroughly analyzed in the recirculated draft EIR, see Section 3.2.
E2-3: The comment questions if all this development is necessary.
The process to update the general plan began with intensive public outreach that included
the identification of a community vision and core values, and the draft General Plan was
designed to implement the vision and core values. The new sites that are proposed for
commercial land use designations (see response to comment E2-2) are directly related to
items identified in the public outreach process. The city developed land use alternatives
to implement the vision and core values through land use. Through the visioning
process, the community expressed its desire for more waterfront activities—places where
people can eat, shop and passively connect with the ocean while taking in the views of the
sand, water and sunset. Concept B – Active Waterfront focuses on creating an active
waterfront, identifying opportunities to create waterfront activities along the coast. The
Power Plant site (Northwest Coastal/Focus Area 1) and several sites along the coast in
Ponto/Southern Waterfront (Focus Area 9) show commercial uses to accommodate a
cluster of active uses such as restaurants, gathering spaces, shops and cafes (page 5-12 of
the Land Use Concepts Report).
The draft General Plan also identifies new housing sites that are necessary to achieve
Carlsbad’s share of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and other housing
objectives described in the draft General Plan Housing Element.
E2-4: The comment asks if this increased development will provide a net benefit to the city and
its citizens aside from an increase in revenues generated by the larger tax base, and
whether the extra revenue alone can justify the impacts to air quality and living
conditions.
See response to comment E2-3. The draft General Plan also provides the benefit of
implementing the community vision and core values. The draft EIR does not contain a
2-1447
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
cost-benefit analysis, which is not required by CEQA. The comment will be included in
the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration
in making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
E2-5: The comment expresses a concern that the “No Project” alternative is not seriously
considered, and that there does not seem to be an active comparison between
environmental and quality of life consequences of not carrying out any development.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) mandates consideration and analysis
of alternatives to the proposed General Plan. According to CEQA Guidelines, the range
of alternatives “shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic
purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the
significant impacts” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (d) (2)). The discussion must also
include an evaluation of the No Project Alternative to allow decision-makers to compare
the impacts of approving the proposed General Plan against the impacts of not approving
it. In an EIR for a proposed revision of an existing General Plan, CEQA requires the No
Project alternative to assume the continuation of the existing General Plan and to project
what development would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future, based
on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.
(CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(e).) The discussion in recirculated draft EIR Chapter 4
meets these requirements by evaluating the “No Project” alternative which assumes
continuation of the current general plan that allows for continued development in
Carlsbad. Keeping the current General Plan, rather than adopting the draft General Plan,
would not halt development in Carlsbad because the current General Plan has remaining
unbuilt capacity above today’s existing levels of development (see response to comment
E2-2). The comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning
Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to
the draft General Plan.
E2-6: The comment states that they moved to Carlsbad for its managed approach to growth,
and expresses concerns that the potential future growth may exceed infrastructure and
services. The comment also expresses a concern that the City Council could in the future
revise the general plan and raise the growth targets.
The city’s Growth Management Plan requires all necessary public facilities to be provided
concurrent with development, and is monitored to ensure the performance standards are
being met. Please refer to page 2-5 of the draft EIR for an explanation of Carlsbad’s
Growth Management Plan. All development in Carlsbad has occurred in compliance
with the General Plan and Growth Management Plan. The Growth Management Plan
includes dwelling unit caps that were established by a voter mandate, and the City
Council cannot approve a general plan that exceeds the growth caps without a vote by the
citizens of Carlsbad. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with
respect to the draft General Plan.
2-1448
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
E2-7: The comment expresses a concern about the potential hazards caused by traffic
congestion in the event of a mandatory evacuation caused by a wildfire.
The draft General Plan Mobility Element is intended to provide for the safe and efficient
movement for all users of the system. One of the concerns that arose with the Poinsettia
fire was roadway connections that have not been completed (such as the final connection
of Poinsettia and the College connection). These connectivity improvements will assist
with evacuations in the future. Please also see the discussion of the effect of the draft
General Plan on emergency response plans, emergency evacuation plans and emergency
access in Section 3.6 (Hazardous Materials, Airport Safety, and Wildfires) and Section
3.13 (Transportation) of the Draft EIR. The comment will be included in the materials
presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making
their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
E2-8: The comment states that there is no discussion on additional safety or mitigation
measures intended to address the effects of wildfire in our community in response to the
fires we experienced in 2014.
The draft EIR describes wildfire hazards in Chapter 3.6 (Hazardous Materials, Airport
Safety, and Wildfires). As discussed in the draft EIR, impacts related to wildfire hazards
would be less-than-significant, and none of the policies in the draft General Plan would
increase the risk of wildfire in Carlsbad. The draft General Plan Public Safety Element
provides discussion and policies regarding wildfires, fire safety and emergency
preparedness. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning
Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to
the draft General Plan.
E3: Janann Taylor
E3-1: The comment provides an introductory statement of appreciation for the opportunity to
provide input on the updates to the general plan.
The comment does not raise an environmental issue concerning the draft General Plan
and no response is required.
E3-2: The comment expresses a concern that the wide main thoroughfares that require people
to rely on motor vehicles with carbon emissions creates a significant change to small
beach town feel.
The draft General Plan does not propose the widening of any road in Carlsbad. The
Mobility Element is focused on providing livable streets which ensures that appropriate
facilities are provided for all users of the system. Proposed Mobility Element Policy 3-
P.11 would apply to existing four-lane streets carrying or projected to carry 25,000
average daily traffic volumes or less and would require an evaluation of such streets to
determine whether a “road diet” (i.e., reduced lanes) should be implemented to promote
biking, walking, safer street crossing and attractive streetscapes. Proposed Mobility
Element Policies 3-P.6 and 3-P.9 require the implementation of transportation demand
management strategies to reduce reliance on the automobile. Potential impacts to air
2-1449
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
quality and the transportation system from implementation of the draft General Plan are
analyzed in the draft EIR, Sections 3.2 and 3.13, respectively. The comment will be
included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
E3-3: The comment expresses a concern about finding ways for creating safe a pleasant biking
and walking, as bike lanes along roads such as El Camino Real and Coast Highway are not
safe with vehicles traveling 45-60 mph.
Please see response to comment E3-2. The comment will be included in the materials
presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making
their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
E3-4: The comment states that other areas of Carlsbad have guidelines for gathering places,
community services and other recreational needs, and states that it is vital to make a
special effort to continually improve Olde Carlsbad. The comment also asks if there is a
way for developer fees for in-fill properties to support common areas for residents.
Please see master response MR2-1 regarding the need for parks in the Northwest
Quadrant, MR2-2 regarding the provisions of parks in Olde Carlsbad, and MR2-3
regarding neighborhood parks. The comment will be included in the materials presented
to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their
decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
Page 4-27 of the draft General Plan describes the city’s parkland standards (consistent
with the Quimby Act), which require dedications or in lieu fees for community and
neighborhood parkland contributions. This comment will be forwarded to the Parks and
Recreation Department for their consideration with regard to the utilization of park in
lieu fees.
E3-5: The comment expresses appreciation for efforts to address the water, noise, light and
habitat disturbance for biological resources of humans, birds and “other biological
species”.
The comment does not raise an environmental issue concerning the draft General Plan
and no response is required. The comment will be included in the materials presented to
the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions
with respect to the draft General Plan.
E3-6: The comment suggests that traffic from tractor-trailor trucks and Olde Carlsbad be
limited to help reduce pollution in the area as well as related health issues.
Potential impacts to air quality and the transportation system from implementation of the
draft General Plan are analyzed in the recirculated draft EIR Chapter 3.2 (air quality) and
draft EIR Chapter 3.13 (transportation).
2-1450
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 10.32.070 provides certain limitations on freight
vehicles in the business district, and Section 10.32.091 limits truck travel to certain
designated truck routes. In the Village and Olde Carlsbad areas, designated truck routes
include Carlsbad Blvd., Carlsbad Village Drive, Tamarack Avenue and Interstate 5
Freeway. The movement of goods in Carlsbad typically occurs on the rail line, freeway
and via designated truck routes within the city. This connectivity assures that goods can
be moved safely and efficiently in the city. Further limitations on truck routes could
impede goods movement within this part of the city. The comment will be included in
the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration
in making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
E3-7: The comment asks the city to work with Caltrans to build a sound wall or grow plants
along the freeway to absorb some of the carbon and noise.
Carlsbad has reviewed and commented on the I-5 Freeway widening EIR and Public
Works Plan/Transportation Resource Enhancement Program prepared by Caltrans and
SANDAG; however, the city is not the lead agency over improvements to the I-5 Freeway;
to inquire about these projects, please contact Caltrans staff. For more information,
please visit the link below:
http://www.keepsandiegomoving.com/north-coast-corridor/ncchome.aspx
E3-8: The comment expresses a concern that building bigger roads creates even more traffic in
the long run, and expresses support for more investment in transportation alternatives
that deter sprawl, conserve fuel and sustainability.
Please see response to comment E3-2. This comment supports the premise of the draft
Mobility Element, which seeks to enhance walking, bicycling, and public transportation
systems options within Carlsbad, and improve mobility through increased connectivity
and intelligent transportation management. Rather than widening arterial streets such as
Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real, the draft Mobility Element requires
implementation transportation demand management (e.g. promote travel by modes other
than the single-occupant vehicle), transportation system management (e.g. signal timing
coordination and improved transit service) and livable streets techniques to better
manage the transportation system as a whole. The comment will be included in the
materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in
making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
E3-9: The comment makes a general statement that increased building uses resources and may
negatively impact the quality of life for the established residents.
The impacts of future development allowed under the draft General Plan on quality of life
is assessed throughout the Draft EIR in terms of potential adverse changes in the physical
environment (e.g., air quality, water quality, noise, traffic, etc.) The draft General Plan
enhances quality of life by implementing the community vision and core values. The
comment does not raise a specific environmental issue concerning the Draft EIR or the
draft General Plan and no response is required. The comment will be included in the
2-1451
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in
making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
E3-10: The comment expresses support for the Village as a center that residents, visitors and
workers find favorable.
The comment does not raise an environmental issue concerning the draft General Plan
and no response is required. The comment will be included in the materials presented to
the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions
with respect to the draft General Plan.
E3-11: The comment provides a general concluding statement thanking the city for its efforts to
develop an excellent environment for Carlsbad residents.
The comment does not raise an environmental issue concerning the draft General Plan
and no response is required. The comment will be included in the materials presented to
the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions
with respect to the draft General Plan.
E4: Mike Howes
E4-1: The comment requests explanation for how proposed Mobility Element Policy 3-P.28
would be implemented, particularly for developers of infill projects.
Mobility Element Policy 3-P.28, along with 3-P.23, require developers to improve
pedestrian and bicycle connectivity consistent with the city’s pedestrian and bicycle
master plans; the policies also require implementing a program for safe routes to schools
and transit. These policies do not reflect a new requirement, but express the existing
requirement to implement the city’s existing pedestrian and bicycle master plans.
Regarding safe routes to schools, the city will identify potential safe routes and any gaps
in the infrastructure, and establish methods of funding for projects that would complete
the necessary improvements. Residential development projects near affected schools and
transit stations may be required to participate in the funding of the infrastructure
improvements.
E4-2: The comment asks whether the work to establish the performance requirements
referenced in Action K-2 has begun and if there will be an opportunity for the public and
development community to provide input.
The draft CAP proposes GHG reduction measures that describe goals, the amount of
reduction in 2035, and actions to meet the target levels. The actions are categorized as
short-term (one to two years), mid-term (two to five years), or long-term (longer than
five years), based on when they will be implemented following adoption of the CAP.
Action K-2, which commits the city to adopting a TDM ordinance, is identified as a mid-
term (two to five years) measure, and as such, the process for its implementation has not
begun. When the city does implement Action K-2, there will be opportunity for the
2-1452
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
public and development community to provide input, which is the city’s practice when an
ordinance, policy or program such as that proposed by Action K-2 is being developed.
E4-3: The comment asks whether proposed mitigation measure MM AQ-2 will apply equally to
small and large scale development projects.
Mitigation measure MM AQ-2 only applies to projects that are subject to CEQA, cannot
be exempted and are undergoing environmental review. If a project may have potential
impacts on the environment, it would be subject to environmental review and MM AQ-2.
Certain projects that are smaller in scale may qualify for an exemption from CEQA and
therefore would not be subject to environmental review and MM AQ-2.
E4-4: The comment asks whether proposed mitigation measure MM AQ-7 will apply equally to
small and large scale development projects, and states that the analysis required by
measures MM AQ-2 and AQ-7 could add substantial costs to small infill projects.
Mitigation measure MM AQ-7 only applies to projects that are subject to CEQA, cannot
be exempted and are undergoing environmental review. If a project may have potential
impacts on the environment, it would be subject to environmental review and MM AQ-7.
In addition, MM AQ-7 also includes specific criteria that would limit the applicability of
the measure: such as whether a project would locate sensitive receptors in close
proximity to existing pollution sources, or locate a new pollution source in close
proximity to existing sensitive receptors, or the location of toxic air contaminants, etc.
With respect to the possibility that these mitigation measures could add substantial costs
to small infill projects, development costs are not analyzed as part of the draft General
Plan and EIR, and as such, no response is required. The comment will be included in the
materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in
making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
E4-5: The comment questions the value of these requirements for small infill projects in light of
the possibility that they could create significant costs, and requests that the city more
clearly define how these policies will be implemented.
The draft EIR does not contain a cost-benefit analysis, which is not required by CEQA.
Similarly, the draft General Plan does not contain, nor is required to contain a cost-
benefit analysis. Development costs are not analyzed as part of the draft General Plan and
EIR, and as such, no response is required. The comment will be included in the materials
presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making
their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
As for the request that additional definition be provided for these measures, please see
responses E4-1 to E4-4 above.
2-1453
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
E5: Kilroy Realty Corp.
E5-1: The comment notes that after review of the recirculated draft EIR, there appears to be no
impacts to properties owned by Kilroy Realty Corp. After a more detailed review, the
Kilroy Realty Corp. reserves the right to comment to comment at future public hearings.
The comment does not raise an environmental issue concerning the draft General Plan
and no response is required. The comment will be included in the materials presented to
the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions
with respect to the draft General Plan.
E5-2: The comment reiterates a previous request to withdraw a previously proposed land use
change. The property owner’s preference is to retain the currently designated Planned
Industrial (PI) designation. The property owner’s request will be included in the
materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in
making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
E6: ROBERT LADWIG
E6-1: The comment states that the reduced density alternative would result in a severe burden
and impact future development on undeveloped properties. The comment will be
included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for
consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan. The
comment does not raise an environmental issue concerning the draft General Plan and
no further response is required.
E6-2: The comment describes the commenter’s perception that the reduced density alternative
is a staff recommendation that penalizes new development and long-time land owners;
the comment states objection to the reduced density alternative. To clarify, the reduced
density alternative is not a staff recommendation; the alternative was included in the
Recirculated Draft EIR to comply with CEQA requirements regarding the evaluation of
alternatives that can avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts of a proposed
project. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning
Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to
the draft General Plan. The comment does not raise an environmental issue concerning
the Draft EIR or the draft General Plan and no further response is required.
E7: MICHELE STAPLES
E7-1: The comment introduces the letter and requests the reduced density alternative evaluated
in the recirculated draft EIR be rejected. The comment will be included in the materials
presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration in making
their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
E7-2: The comment explains the commenter’s understanding of the reduced density alternative
and that the alternative would result in no excess dwelling units available for properties
2-1454
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
that are requesting new allocations from the excess dwelling unit bank (EDUB). To
clarify, under the reduced density alternative, there would be a reduction in the number
of units needed to be allocated from the EDUB to grant density increases per the
proposed General Plan. The current EDUB balance will remain available; however, fewer
units would be withdrawn from the EDUB under the reduced density alternative. The
comment does not raise an environmental issue concerning the Draft EIR or the draft
General Plan and no further response is required.
E7-3: The comment states that the reduced density alternative treats the newly proposed
residential sites the same as properties with long-established residential unit allocations
and refers to a footnote in Table 4.2-6 regarding residential capacity in the northeast
quadrant. It is true, the reduced density alternative reduces density by 40 percent on the
newly proposed residential sites, as well as sites with existing residential land use
designations. Regarding residential capacity in the northeast quadrant, see master
responses MR3-1 and MR3-2.
E7-4: The comment observes that the reduced density alternative takes density potential away
from sites with existing residential designations and gives the density to sites that
currently do not have a residential designation; the comment states that this is unfair.
The comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission
and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft
General Plan. The comment does not raise an environmental issue concerning the Draft
EIR or the draft General Plan and no further response is required.
E7-5: The comment indicates that the reduced density alternative would conflict with the city’s
EDUB policies by taking units away from existing residential sites and giving them to
other sites. The city’s EDUB policy pertains to withdrawals from the EDUB; the reduced
density alternative does not conflict with implementation of the policy. Allocations from
the EDUB are subject to the City Council’s discretion. The comment will be included in
the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration
in making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan. The comment does not
raise an environmental issue concerning the Draft EIR or the draft General Plan and no
further response is required.
E7-6: The comment states that the reduced density alternative adversely impacts the city’s
infrastructure and mitigations programs because it will make it more difficult to fund
such improvements (less development to pay for the improvements). The existing and
proposed General Plan policies that require adequate public facilities to be constructed
concurrent with development remain under the reduced density alternative; less intense
development may present a greater challenge in regard to funding the facilities, however,
the EIR is not required to analyze the funding requirements associated with General Plan
policies. The comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning
Commission and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to
the draft General Plan.
2-1455
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
E7-7: The comment states that the reduced density alternative would have a negative impact on
infrastructure funding and fees may need to be significantly increased to pay for the
facilities; the comment states that the EIR should evaluate the city’s ability to carry out the
public facility improvements required by the General Plan. See response E7-6.
E7-8: The comment requests that the city reject the reduced density alternative. The comment
will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council
for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft General Plan.
E8: WARREN KATO
E8-1: The comment states that the commenter is aware that an “enabling ordinance” is being
reviewed and that some land owners have applied for a General Plan amendment. The
comment describes the commenter’s participation in the Envision Carlsbad process and
that there was no mention of proposed development within Zone 15; therefore, the
commenter did object during the Envision Carlsbad process. The draft General Plan and
EIR evaluated land use changes on four properties within Zone 15; all of which were
identified during the Envision Carlsbad process. Three of the land use changes were
included on the land use alternatives reviewed by the community at public workshops;
the fourth land use change is the result of City Council direction at a public hearing to
consider the preferred land use plan for the draft General Plan. The comment does not
state what objection the commenter has. No further response is possible.
E8-2: The comment provides background information regarding the formation of facility and
assessment districts to finance public improvements; the comment questions why a
property owner was allowed to bypass a city policy. This comment does not pertain to
the adequacy of the draft General Plan or the Draft EIR and no further response is
required. The commenter is encouraged to contact the City of Carlsbad Finance
Department regarding this topic.
E8-3: The comment references a preliminary application and its impact on the city’s excess
dwelling unit bank. The city is aware of the potential demand for units from the excess
dwelling unit bank. Also see master responses to comments MR3-1 and MR3-2.
E8-4: The comment refers to the reduced density alternative evaluated in the recirculated draft
EIR; the comment expresses concern about how the alternative would impact property
values. The comment also objects to any General Plan amendment to increase residential
density to favor one particular party to the detriment of owners of undeveloped land.
The comment will be included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission
and City Council for consideration in making their decisions with respect to the draft
General Plan.
E9: CALTRANS
E9-1: The comment states understanding that the recirculated draft EIR does not change
identified impacts related to transportation, and therefore the commenter’s previous
comments dated June 20, 2014 still apply. The comment is correct, the Recirculated
2-1456
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
DEIR does not change identified impacts related to transportation. See responses to
comment letter A8 (responses to the commenter’s June 20, 2014 comment letter).
E10: Ray & Ellen Bender
E10-1: The comment provides an introduction to the letter; no response is required.
E10-2: The comment states that the EIR should address the county’s plans to implement a new
navigation system. See response to comment C3-3. The comment does not raise an
environmental issue concerning matters addressed in the Recirculated DEIR, so no
further response is warranted.
E10-3: The comment states that the EIR does not identify short and medium term
environmental impacts. See response to comment E10-44.
E10-4: The comment states that the EIR does not provide a mitigation reporting system, as
provided in Appendix B to the 1994 General Plan EIR. Appendix B is the mitigation
monitoring/reporting program for the 1994 General Plan. If the City Council decides to
adopt the draft General Plan, CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 requires that the city adopt
a program to monitor and report on implementation of the mitigation measures
identified in the final EIR. The mitigation monitoring/reporting program is considered a
separate document and is not part of the draft or final EIR. The city will provide the
Planning Commission and City Council with a mitigation monitoring/reporting program
in compliance with CEQA requirements prior to the public hearing at which they
consider whether or not to certify the final EIR and to approve the draft General Plan.
E10-5: The comment states the EIR fails to provide meaningful analysis of McClellan-Palomar
Airport development and operation; particularly in regard to noise, air quality, and safety
impacts that will result from Next Gen navigation and the county’s intent to extend the
runway. See response to comments C3-3 and C3-44. The comment does not raise an
environmental issue concerning matters addressed in the Recirculated DEIR, so no
further response is warranted.
E10-6: The comment states that the EIR does not explain why the air quality methodology is
accurate, and the comment observes that today’s air emissions exceed the estimates made
in 1994 for future air emissions. The accuracy or inaccuracy of the forecasts made by the
1994 General Plan EIR does not affect the accuracy of the information used for air quality
analysis in the Recirculated DEIR. The methodology used to conduct the air quality
analysis is described on pages 3.2-17 and 3.2-18 of the Recirculated DEIR. The
methodology is believed to be accurate because it is based on the best available
information today and the analysis was conducted with a good faith effort to disclose all
available information and to make a reasonable forecast of future impacts based on the
available information. Future development projects allowed under the draft General Plan
will provide an on-going opportunity for the City to update information regarding air
quality throughout the build-out period because future development projects will require
project-specific air quality analysis pursuant to CEQA; each future project-specific air
quality analysis will identify air quality conditions that exist at the time the development
2-1457
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
is proposed, the potential impacts of the proposed development and appropriate
mitigation measures, in addition to the mitigation identified by the General Plan EIR, will
be required as necessary.
E10-7: The comment states that the Reduced Density alternative can meet state-mandated low
and moderate income housing goals, for reasons stated later in the letter. Please see
responses to comments E10-27 through E10-31, and E10-92.
E10-8: The comment refers to prior (June 2014) comments on the EIR and states that the
Recirculated DEIR should have addressed the referenced comments. Three of the five
referenced prior comments are related to the McClellan-Palomar Airport; responses to
those prior comments are provided in responses to comment letter C3; responses to those
comments did not result in significant new information that required recirculation of the
EIR per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Two of the referenced prior comments relate
to air quality analysis and lack of an alternative that reduces significant impacts; the
Recirculated DEIR provides a revised air quality analysis and a new reduced density
alternative that would reduce a number of the significant impacts of the draft General
Plan.
E10-9: The comment states that the public comment notice for the Recirculated DEIR does not
comply with CEQA because the Recirculated DEIR does not analyze the county’s plan to
implement a new “Next Gen” navigation system at the McClellan-Palomar airport in
2017. See response to comment C3-3. The comment does not raise an environmental
issue concerning matters addressed in the Recirculated DEIR, so no further response is
warranted.
E10-10: The comment states that the city has been notified of proposed significant McClellan-
Palomar Airport changes. See response to comment C3-3. The comment does not raise
an environmental issue concerning matters addressed in the Recirculated DEIR, so no
further response is warranted.
E10-11: The comment states that the city cannot claim that the impacts of the McClellan-Palomar
airport are beyond its control because the city’s zoning ordinance and conditional use
permit (CUP 172) for the airport required the city to exercise jurisdiction over airport
runway extensions. See responses to comment C3-3, C3-27 and C3-28. The comment
does not raise an environmental issue concerning matters addressed in the Recirculated
DEIR, so no further response is warranted.
E10-12: The comment states that the city could easily obtain from county drawings how the Next
Gen flight patterns will change and that city and county officials are concealing relevant
information from buyers. See response to comment C3-3. The comment does not raise
an environmental issue concerning matters addressed in the Recirculated DEIR, so no
further response is warranted.
E10-13: The comment provides reference to the California Government Code requirements for a
general plan noise element. See response to comments C3-3, C3-10 and C3-29. The
2-1458
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
comment does not raise an environmental issue concerning matters addressed in the
Recirculated DEIR, so no further response is warranted.
E10-14: The comment states that, for the reasons expressed on comments E10-9 through E10-13,
the Recirculated DEIR does not comply with CEQA the EIR should discuss the Next Gen
system at the McClellan-Palomar Airport because it is a matter of national controversy.
See response to comments E10-9 through E10-13. The comment does not raise an
environmental issue concerning matters addressed in the Recirculated DEIR, so no
further response is warranted.
E10-15: The comment offers a suggestion regarding the type of paper on which the city should
print draft documents to simplify the comment process. No response required.
E10-16: The comment is the heading for the next section of the comment letter. No response
required.
E10-17: The comment refers to Tables ES-1 and ES-2 (buildout data for the draft General Plan) in
the EIR Executive Summary, and suggests that new tables be add to show buildout with
the reduced density alternative. Information regarding the reduced density alternative is
provided in Chapter 4 (Analysis of Alternatives) of the Recirculated DEIR; the EIR
Executive Summary Chapter provides a narrative description of each alternative,
including the reduced density alternative, and detailed buildout information of the
proposed draft General Plan, as it is the proposed project that the EIR evaluates.
E10-18: The comment refers to page ES-7 of the Recirculated DEIR and disagrees that “there are
no clear-cut areas of controversy.” The comment also states there is controversy
regarding issues addressed in the revised analysis of air quality impacts provided in the
Recirculated DEIR. While this statement regarding the clarity of areas of controversy does
not change the environmental analysis, the language has been deleted from the final EIR.
E10-19: The comment refers to page ES-7 of the Recirculated DEIR and states that the city: a)
does not provide the RAQS numbers; b) does not indicate if conflict would remain if
reduced density alternative were adopted; c) does not explain what happens if RAQS are
not changed to reflect the proposed General Plan; and d) does not commit to notifying
the public regarding effort to change the RAQS.
The RAQS (San Diego County Regional Air Quality Strategy) is described in Chapter 3.2
of the draft EIR and Recirculated DEIR; the RAQS is a plan prepared by the County of
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) for the region to attain compliance
with federal and state air quality standards. The RAQS can be viewed on the SDAPCD
website: www.sdapcd.org/planning/plan.
The existing RAQS is based on the information contained in plans for future
development in the region, including the city’s current General Plan, in regard to future
growth projections. The reduced density alternative, described in Chapter 4 of the
Recirculated DEIR, would reduce development densities and intensities by 40 percent,
2-1459
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
which is less than that allowed by the current General Plan; therefore, the reduced density
alternative would not conflict with the RAQS. As stated in Chapter 4 of the Recirculated
DEIR, the reduced density alternative would avoid or substantially lessen the significant
impacts on air quality.
As stated in Impact 3.2-1 of the Recirculated DEIR, until the RAQS is updated with
growth projections consistent with the proposed General Plan, the proposed plan would
conflict with the RAQS. The RAQS is updated on a triennial basis by the SDAPCD. As
stated on page 3.2-23 of the Recirculated DEIR, although the city will request that
SDAPCD revise the RAQS to include the proposed General Plan’s growth projections, the
city cannot guarantee such revision will occur prior to implementation of the proposed
General Plan. That is the reason a “significant and unavoidable” impact is shown for
Impact 3.2-1.
Because the RAQS is prepared and updated by the SDAPCD, not the city, and the
SDAPCD is responsible for any public notification and involvement regarding revisions
to the RAQS.
E10-20: The comment states that on pages ES-7 to ES-8 the discussion is “99% related to mobile
sources and 1% related to stationary sources.” No response required.
E10-21: The comment asks if there are substantial emissions from stationary sources. As shown
in Table 3.2-10 of the Recirculated DEIR, the proposed General Plan does not result in
significant emissions from stationary sources (no net change in emissions).
E10-22: The comment asks why there is no discussion about emissions from trains and aircraft in
the Executive Summary. The EIR discussion regarding emissions from mobile and
stationary sources focusses on whether the air emissions from future development
allowed under the draft General Plan will exceed regulatory thresholds and result in a
significant environmental impact. The draft General Plan does not propose any changes
in the existing environment which would increase air emissions due to airport or railroad
operations.
E10-23: The comment states that the transportation analysis is insufficient to allow decision
makers to distinguish between full buildout of the proposed General Plan and the
reduced density alternative; the comment indicates a need to compare (between proposed
General Plan and reduced density alternative) traffic LOS and emergency vehicle
response level. The discussion of alternatives in the EIR need not be exhaustive, and the
impact of alternatives may be discussed in less detail than the significant effects of the
proposed project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6). In addition, CEQA Guidelines
permit analysis of alternatives at a less detailed level for general plans and other program
EIRs than that which is required for project EIRs. However, the Recirculated DEIR does
provide information regarding traffic impact related to the reduced density alternative.
Page 4-32 of the Recirculated DEIR states that the reduced density alternative, in
comparison to the proposed General Plan, would have less severe impacts on street
segment LOS, but that there would still remain significant and unavoidable impacts;
2-1460
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
impact to LOS on freeways would also be incrementally less severe, but not enough to
reduce impacts below significant. In regard to emergency vehicle response levels, draft
EIR Impact 3.11-4 identifies that the proposed General Plan will not result in a significant
impact to the need for police and fire facilities, and draft EIR Appendix C shows that the
proposed plan will not significantly impact the city’s standard for fire service response
times. CEQA does not require an EIR to analyze the project alternatives at the same level
of detail as the proposed project. The information provided in the Draft EIR and
Recirculated DEIR provides sufficient information to the public and the city’s decision-
makers to determine that the Reduced Density Alternative would allow 40 percent less
development than the proposed General Plan and thus would substantially lessen the
potential impacts.
E10-24: The comment states that throughout the EIR text reference to the number of alternatives
is not consistent and recommends a different approach to naming and numbering the
alternatives evaluated. To be clear, there are five alternatives to the proposed General
Plan considered in the recirculated Chapter 4 Analysis of Alternatives: 1) Alternative 1 –
Centers; 2) Alternative 2 – Active Waterfront; Alternative 3 – Core Focus; 4) Reduced
Density; and 5) No Project. The comment does not identify specific inconsistencies. City
staff has identified two sections of text in Chapter 4 of the Recirculated DEIR that will be
revised to clarify the references to alternatives. City staff is not aware of any other
inconsistency regarding reference to alternatives. The comment also states that the “no
project” alternative should be included as a full-fledged alternative, but appears that it is
not. As described in Chapter 4 of the draft EIR and Recirculated DEIR, the “no project”
alternative is clearly described as the continuation of the existing General Plan, and is
included as an alternative in all of the alternative analysis provided in this chapter.
E10-25: The comment states that the reduced density alternative does not refer to less commercial
and industrial development. That is not correct; Table 4.2-3a of the Recirculated DEIR
shows that, for the reduced density alternative, the amount of future residential and non-
residential (i.e. commercial, office, industrial, and hotels) development is 40 percent less
compared to the proposed General Plan.
E10-26: The comment describes the reasons, as stated on page ES-10 of the Recirculated DEIR,
why the reduced density alternative may not be feasible. No response required.
E10-27: The comment states that the recirculated Chapter 4 Analysis of Alternatives incompletely
describes how the Reduced Density alternative hinders state housing regional share
requirements. The comment claims that reducing densities benefits Carlsbad by reducing
future housing share allocations, while increasing population (density?) increases future
allocations. The reasoning in the comment is not entirely accurate. First, for a given
region, population growth is influenced by a number of factors, not simply housing
capacity. According to SANDAG, two-thirds of the region’s projected population growth
by 2050 will be due to natural increase in the region (births minus deaths), with the
remainder due to net migration (international and domestic). International migration is
expected to remain constant, while domestic migration fluctuates each year, usually based
on local economic conditions. The growth in population will drive job growth and
2-1461
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
housing demand within the region (SANDAG, “Draft San Diego Forward, Appendix J,
Regional Growth Forecast”, pp. 1-2; Available at:
http://www.sdforward.com/pdfs/DraftAppendixJ-RegionalGrowthForecast.pdf).
Planning to meet regional housing needs, therefore, is a response to projected population
growth, not a driver of it.
Second, the draft EIR evaluated the proposed General Plan’s impact on population
growth and concluded that it would not induce substantial population growth, but would
be consistent with the region as a whole. Furthermore, future housing units at 2035 are
projected to be below the city’s Growth Management Plan housing limit (DEIR, p. 3.9-22;
see also Proposed General Plan Housing Element Table 10-2: Population Growth, p. 10-
12).
Third, the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process distributes projected
housing need to all 19 jurisdictions in the region according to a methodology developed
by SANDAG, and in accordance with state law. The allocation methodology considers a
whole host of factors (“Draft San Diego Forward, Appendix L, Regional Housing Needs
Assessment Plan”, pp. 19-21; Available
at:http://www.sdforward.com/pdfs/DraftAppendixL-
RegionalHousingNeedsAssessmentPlan.pdf), among them the availability of land suitable
for urban development or for conversion to residential use, the availability of
underutilized land, and opportunities for infill development and increased residential
densities. Importantly, SANDAG may not limit its consideration of suitable housing sites
or land suitable for urban development to existing zoning ordinances and land use
restrictions of a locality, but must consider the potential for increased residential
development under alternative zoning ordinances and land use restrictions (see
Government Code Section 65584.04(d)(2)(B)). Therefore, simply reducing planned
densities (“downzoning”) would not relieve Carlsbad of its obligation to accommodate its
present or future share of regional housing need.
Finally, the comment asserts that the Reduced Density alternative will reduce future
RHNA allocation increases. As described in the preceding paragraph, this is not
necessarily the case. Further, the recirculated Analysis of Alternatives raises concerns
with its inability to meet the city’s current RHNA obligations, as well as yet-to-be-
determined future allocations.
E10-28: The comment asserts that the Reduced Density alternative would provide substantial
opportunity to create mixed uses within commercial and industrial uses. While mixed-
use opportunities would still be available under the Reduced Density alternative,
imposing tighter limits on a site’s development envelope (through reduced density, lesser
lot coverage or floor area limits, etc.) would constrain, rather than promote compact
mixed-use development. In addition, Housing Element law limits a city’s reliance on
mixed use developments to satisfy its very low and low income needs. At least 50 percent
of the very low and low income housing need shall be accommodated on sites designated
for residential use and for which nonresidential uses or mixed-uses are not permitted.
(An exception to this limit would be for mixed-use sites that allow all 100 percent
2-1462
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
residential development and require at least 50 percent of floor area to be for residential
use; see Government Code Section 65583.2(h).)
E10-29: The comment requests that the final General Plan provide a better discussion of how
Carlsbad can meet its RHNA obligations other than by simply relying on developer
subsidies. Contrary to the comment’s characterization of Carlsbad’s housing plan, the
proposed General Plan Housing Element describes a comprehensive approach to meeting
the community’s housing needs. The Housing Element addresses preservation of existing
housing stock, creating new housing opportunities to fulfill a range of needs, and
ensuring fair and equal access to housing opportunities. Please see draft Housing
Element, particularly Section 3.7 Goals, Policies and Programs for a complete description
of the city’s approach to housing planning.
E10-30: This comment criticizes the discussion of the Reduced Density alternative’s ability to
achieve Community Vision Core value for business diversity. The argument is that since
the Reduced Density alternative would reduce potential bio-tech and other light
industrial uses that employ mainly high paid workers, the city should still be able to meet
its RHNA goals (presumably for lower income households). The comment does not take
into account the considerable number of future lower paying service and hospitality jobs
that would exist under the Reduced Density alternative. For example, in 2010, there were
6,044 jobs in the professional, scientific and technical services fields, compared to 9,791
manufacturing, 4,969 food services, and 3,633 hotel and lodging jobs (City of Carlsbad,
Working Paper #2, Table 3-1, p.14). Land uses under the Reduced Density alternative
would support lower-wage jobs as well as the high-wage jobs referenced in the comment.
Furthermore, reducing the amount of industrial development potential would not reduce
the city’s current RHNA allocation (see response to comment E10-27 above regarding the
RHNA allocation process).
E10-31: This comment provides further suggestions on how to accommodate housing for lower
wage workers. Please see response to comment E10-29. These suggestions will be
included in the materials presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for
their consideration with respect to the draft General Plan.
E10-32: This comment states that the Reduced Density alternative retains the ability to create
mixed uses, and therefore can enhance mobility. As discussed in the recirculated Analysis
of Alternatives, compact development, by definition, requires that a certain level of
development intensity be achieved in order to increase mobility options (such as through
use of transit, walking, and biking). Reducing density/intensity makes it more difficult to
create compact development. See also response to comment E10-28 above.
E10-33: The comment states that the recirculated Analysis of Alternatives conclusion that the
Reduced Density alternative may not fully achieve the sustainability core value is not
factually supported. The analysis is a qualitative assessment of the relative benefits that
each alternative could bring to achieving the Community Vision. For supporting
evidence, this analysis refers to information in Working Paper #1 (City of Carlsbad,
http://www.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=23346), which
supports the statements that key principles of sustainable development include having a
2-1463
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
mix of land uses, taking advantage of compact building design, creating a range of
housing choices, creating walkable neighborhoods, providing a variety of transportation
choices, strengthening and directing development toward existing communities. The
working paper its draws on a number of authoritative sources for its data and
conclusions, including the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey,
California’s Sustainable Building Task Force, World Business Council on Sustainable
Development, and others. For example, reducing residential densities would constrain the
ability to provide certain types of housing such as apartments. Reducing non-residential
development intensities inhibits the ability to direct development into existing urban
areas, which in turn, makes transit options unattractive if not infeasible.
With respect to water use, per capita water consumption is lower in more compact,
denser communities than in less densely developed ones (State Water Resources Control
Board,
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/drought/conservatio
n_reporting_info.shtml). It should be noted that the comment’s citation of recent
Governor’s Executive Order for mandatory 25% reduction in water use to respond to the
current drought applies to existing water customers, but does not call for curbs on future
development.
E10-34: The comment disagrees with the Reduced Density alternative analysis with respect to the
core value for community services, and questions how much commercial is needed to
serve Carlsbad residents. Such is largely a question of supply and demand and market
conditions, and as pointed out in the analysis, Carlsbad experiences “leakage” for certain
goods and services (p. 4-37). This means that residents must travel to other communities
to fulfill some of their needs for such things as groceries, furnishings, and gas stations.
While the Reduced Density alternative could result in some avoided trips from outside
Carlsbad for goods and services, the point of this part of the analysis was on the
alternative’s impact on services to Carlsbad residents.
E10-35: The comment states that much of the proposed General Plan forecasted development for
the coastal parts of the city could have occurred in the past 30 years, but did not due to
market forces. It is fair to state that market conditions play a large part in the
development of any community; however, land use planning also plays a vital role. For
example, the Encina Power Station (EPS) has dominated the coastal landscape for
decades, and through careful planning there is opportunity in the future to repurpose the
land for visitor-serving and recreational uses, when the existing EPS is eventually retired.
Also, lack of services along the coast is partly attributable to land stewardship and
jurisdiction. The proposed General Plan calls for fostering partnership with the state of
California (which owns and maintains much of Carlsbad’s coastline) to improve access
and public services along the coast.
E10-36: The comment refers to air quality mitigation measure MM AQ-1, which requires the city
to request that SDAPCD revise the RAQS to include growth projections consistent with
the proposed General Plan. The comment states that the city does not say what it will do
if SDAPCD uses lower numbers. As stated on page 3.2-23 of the Recirculated DEIR,
2-1464
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
although the city will request that SDAPCD revise the RAQS to include the proposed
General Plan’s growth projections, the city cannot guarantee such revision will occur.
That is the reason a “significant and unavoidable” impact is shown for Impact 3.2-1.
E10-37: The comment asks if the city will impose the air quality mitigation measures on the
McClellan-Palomar airport. The air quality mitigation measures in Chapter 3.2 of the
Recirculated DEIR are applicable to future development allowed under the proposed
General Plan. The General Plan does not identify or plan for future development of the
airport. See response to comment C3-3 and C3-44.
E10-38: The comment states that it is misleading when the city indicates that it “will require
CLUP mitigation measures” because those measures are off-airport property. It is
assumed that the comment is referring to the McClellan-Palomar Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan (ALUCP); and it is not clear what is misleading in the EIR regarding
the ALUCP. The draft EIR and Recirculated DEIR reference the ALUCP and indicate
that future development within the airport’s influence area will be required to be
consistent with the provisions of the ALUCP. The draft EIR and Recirculated DEIR do
not propose any “mitigation measures” related to the airport.
E10-39: The comment states that the city needs to state what mitigation measures it will enforce
against the airport. The draft EIR is intended to analyze and mitigate significant impacts
on the environment which may occur as a result of the draft General Plan. The draft
General Plan does not propose any changes related to the airport and therefore no
mitigation measures related to the airport are required as part of the draft General Plan
EIR.
E10-40: The comment asserts that HOV roadway lanes may contribute to rather than reduce air
pollution and requests that, when evaluating “road diets” pursuant to General Plan Policy
3-P.11, the City consider traffic flows before and after converting vehicle lanes to bicycle
lanes to determine whether eliminating vehicle lanes will result in an overall increase or
decrease in air quality impacts. Policy 3-P.11 provides for the evaluation of “road diets”
on existing four-lane streets that carry 25,000 ADT or less. Such streets are appropriate
for evaluation because they are functioning at a high level of service and the conversion of
vehicle lanes to bicycle lanes ordinarily would not be expected to result in an
unacceptable level of service that would cause adverse air quality impacts. The city will
consider the information and questions stated in the comment when it evaluates “road
diets” pursuant to General Plan Policy 3-P.11.
E10-41: This comment refers to air quality mitigation measure MM-AQ-6, which requires
stationary sources to obtain permits from SDAPCD; the comment asks various questions
related to the measure but does not question the adequacy of the EIR analysis. In
response to the questions: The SDAPCD is the permitting agency for stationary sources,
and will require a permit to construct and a permit to operate future proposed stationary
sources. As part of that permit process, the SDAPCD will evaluate the emissions
associated with those proposed sources and ensure that they comply with air pollution
control laws. The SDAPCD governs emissions within the San Diego Air Basin, not just in
2-1465
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
the City of Carlsbad, and the SDAPCD thresholds are reflective of that. It is unclear what
type of “emission credits” the commenter is referring to; however, the decision to
purchase those emission credits – as well as whether or not a fund could be set up in
Carlsbad for this purpose – are outside the scope of EIR analysis.
E10-42: The comment claims that the wording of Impact 3.2-1 in the Recirculated DEIR is not
consistent with the revised significance finding. In the Recirculated DEIR, the
significance finding was changed from “less than significant” to “significant and
unavoidable” for Impacts 3.2-1, 3.2-3 and 3.2-4; however, unintentionally, the
descriptions of the impacts were not changed to reflect the change in impact significance.
The impact descriptions for Impacts 3.2-1, 3.2-3 and 3.2-4 will be revised in the final EIR.
The comment also suggests adding links to more detailed information about pollution
health risks. Section 6.0, Bibliography of the Recirculated DEIR provides reference to
sources of data utilized for the EIR analysis on pages 6-1 through 6-3, including reference
to multiple sources of information on health risks associated with air pollution.
E10-43: The comment questions how odor impacts from increased population and increased
production at the desalinization and Hyperion plant were analyzed (Note: there is no
“Hyperion plant” operating in Carlsbad. Perhaps commenter intended to reference the
Encina Water Pollution Control Facility). Page 3.2-47 of the Recirculated DEIR
recognizes that there are land uses that may emit odors; however, future development
allowed under the proposed General Plan will be subject to site-specific environmental
review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168 and will be required to meet local,
state and federal regulations related to odor control, which will ensure odor impacts are
less than significant.
E10-44: The comments states that the analysis of air quality impacts in Section 3.2 of the
Recirculated DEIR does not comply with the 2013 California Supreme Court decision in
Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority, 57 Cal. 4th
439, which held that EIR preparers could compare the potential impacts of proposed
projects against future baseline conditions so long as the EIR informed readers of near
term and medium term impacts. The Supreme Court’s decision in Neighbors for Smart
Rail addressed the question whether an EIR for a proposed light rail development project
could analyze the project’s impacts against only a future baseline (i.e., conditions that
would exist in 2030) or instead was required to follow CEQA’s general rule to evaluate a
project’s impacts against the conditions that exist at the time an EIR is prepared. The
Neighbors for Smart Rail decision does not apply to the EIR for the draft General Plan for
two reasons. First, the General Plan EIR does not use a future baseline, but instead
evaluates the potential impacts of the draft General Plan against existing conditions. For
air quality impacts, the Recirculated DEIR evaluated the potential impacts of
development allowed under the draft General Plan against the thresholds for current
emissions established by the SDAPCD. Second, the EIR is a program EIR for an update
of the city’s General Plan, not a project EIR for a development project as in the Neighbors
for Smart Rail case. The General Plan establishes goals and policies that are intended to
guide future development in the city, but does not propose or authorize any specific
2-1466
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
development projects. The EIR identifies the maximum amount of future development
allowed under the draft General Plan and evaluates the potential impacts of the total
amount of development allowed (i.e., build-out). Unlike a development project with a
long operational life, which can have short- and mid-term impacts, the draft General Plan
will have short- or mid-term impacts only to the extent that individual development
projects are proposed for approval and implementation in the short- and mid-term. All
future development projects allowed under the General Plan will be subject to site-
specific environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168 when they are
proposed for implementation. Therefore, information regarding the short-term and mid-
term impacts that may occur from development allowed under the General Plan will be
provided in the next tier of environmental review, as individual development projects are
proposed over the course of the planning period and undergo site-specific environmental
review.
E10-45: The comment states that the draft EIR does not require a mitigation monitoring or
reporting program. Please see response to comment E10-4. CEQA does not empower a
city to impose penalties for failing to comply with a mitigation monitoring and reporting
program. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15040.) Instead, the mitigation monitoring and
reporting program is implemented in conjunction with the city’s general discretionary
powers including, for example, its power to enforce land use and zoning regulations and
discretionary permits and entitlements.
E10-46: The comment refers to page 3.2-2 of the Recirculated DEIR and the text under the topic
“Pollutants and Health Effects”; the comment states that the air pollutant abbreviations
are not defined completely. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is defined with the referenced text and
all other pollutant abbreviations are defined previously on pages 3.2-2 and 3.2-1. Also,
each air pollutant is defined and described in more detail on pages 3.2-3 through 3.2-5 of
the Recirculated DEIR.
E10-47: The comment asks if the Recirculated DEIR Table 3.2-2 levels are consistent with Table
3.2-4 footnotes. Each table presents different data. Table 3.2-2 displays the ambient air
quality data measurements at air quality monitoring stations throughout the region for
years 2010 to 2013 which measures whether ambient concentration of criteria air
pollutants meets the federal and state standards; Table 3.2-4 displays federal and state
ambient air quality standards, with footnotes that explain the standards. The air quality
monitoring stations are operated by the SDAPCD and it is assumed that the levels
reported in Table 3.2-2 are consistent with the footnotes in Table 3.2-4.
E10-48: The comment requests that the city state how air pollution emissions have changed since
the 1994 General Plan update. Table 5.3-5 of the 1994 General Plan EIR disclosed then
existing (1990) and projected (2010) level of emissions from criteria pollutants at the time
that EIR was prepared; Table 3.2-7 of the Recirculated DEIR discloses the existing (2008)
and projected (2035) level of criteria pollutant emissions now. The 1994 General Plan
EIR and the Draft EIR/Recirculated Draft EIR represent good faith efforts on the part of
the City to find out and disclose all that it reasonably could about criteria pollutant
2-1467
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
emissions and to make a reasonable forecast of future conditions based on available
information.
The comment also asks why the differences between the 1994 and current analyses are so
drastic if the Draft EIR says the proposed mitigation policies and measures will
substantially reduce pollutant emissions. Both the 1994 forecast of future emission levels
and the estimates reported in the Recirculated DEIR are based on mathematical models
which rely on a variety of assumptions and inputs, such as emission sources (e.g., how
many cars, trucks, buses, etc. are operating at a given time), pollution factors (how much
pollution does each type of vehicle emit), projections of future emissions sources (how do
the number and mix of vehicles on the road change over time), assumptions about future
pollution factors (how much more fuel-efficient and “cleaner” will vehicles become in the
future), and so forth. Refinements to models that occur over time, as well as methodology
differences between models themselves could also plausibly explain the difference
between the predicted 2010 air pollution levels and the 2008 modeled estimate. The air
quality model used for the present analysis (URBEMIS) did not exist at the time of the
1994 General Plan; therefore the 1994 analysis was based on a different model, making
direct comparisons between the two data outputs problematic. Given the limited
information at hand, it is not possible to know whether the differences in pollution
estimates is the result of variances in input assumptions, differences between modeling
methodologies, ineffective mitigation policies, or some other cause. Nor is such
explanation necessary in order to provide a good faith disclosure of the proposed General
Plan potential air quality impacts.
The information regarding emissions in 2035 identifies the anticipated emissions from
future development allowed under the draft General Plan without the emission
reductions which are expected to result from implementation of the goals and policies of
the draft General Plan and the other mitigation measures identified in the Recirculated
DEIR. The analysis of criteria pollutant emissions in Impact 3.2-2 of the Recirculated
DEIR compares emissions from the total amount of future development allowed under
the proposed General Plan through year 2035 (i.e., General Plan build-out) to existing
conditions (i.e., baseline) and controlling for changes in emissions factors to determine
the net operational emissions associated with the proposed General Plan. Impacts from
operational emissions were considered to be significant if they exceeded any applicable
air quality standard. The applicable air quality standards for the San Diego air basin are
established by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). The SDAPCD
has adopted screening-level thresholds to evaluate whether emissions from individual
development projects could cause a significant impact on air quality, but has not adopted
thresholds to evaluate the significance of emissions at the plan level. Accordingly, the
Recirculated DEIR uses the SDAPCD’s project-level thresholds to evaluate the
significance of criteria pollutant emissions. (See Recirculated Draft EIR, § 3.2, Table 3.2-
5, p. 3.2-16.) The Recirculated DEIR’s use of project-level thresholds to evaluate plan-
level emissions results in a conservative analysis of air quality impacts because the
potential impacts of build-out under the proposed General Plan will not occur all at one
time. Instead, future development will occur on a project-by-project basis over time to
2-1468
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
year 2035, in various locations throughout the City, and will be subject to site-specific
project-level environmental review and mitigation.
Contrary to the comment, the Recirculated DEIR does not claim that the air quality
mitigation measures “substantially” reduce the emission of air pollutants resulting from
the proposed General Plan. Pages 3.2-39, 3.2-41, and 3.2-46 of the Recirculated DEIR
state that after mitigation air quality impacts would be reduced, but the impact is still
considered significant and unavoidable.
E10-49: The comment refers to the existing (1990) and projected (2010) levels of CO emissions
reported in 1994 and compares in to the CO levels reported in the Recirculated DEIR. For
the reasons stated in response to comment E10-48 above, drawing such a comparison is
neither appropriate nor necessary to inform the public about the proposed General Plan
impacts on air quality.
The arithmetic in the comment is a misreading of the data contained in Tables 3.2-7 and
3.2-10 of the Recirculated DEIR. The approximately 84,000 lbs/day of CO cited in the
comment is the estimate of future (2035) total CO emissions, not the incremental
increase; therefore it should not be added to the existing (2008) estimate of approximately
149,000 lbs/day CO as was done in the comment. Put another way, the air actually gets
cleaner in the future with respect to CO. The aggregate CO emissions in 2035 will be
lower than aggregate CO emissions in 2008 by about 65,000 lbs/day (84,000 lbs/day –
149,000 lbs/day). This is largely due to modeling assumptions that predict more fuel-
efficient, cleaner burning vehicles, more zero-emission vehicles in the fleet mix, use of
low-carbon intensity fuels, improvements in pollution control technology, and so forth.
Because changes in future emissions factors would otherwise mask the effect of the
proposed General Plan’s contribution to future air emissions, it is more appropriate to
focus on net new emissions. Table 3.2-10 shows the net new emissions attributable to
future development under the proposed General Plan, after controlling for changes in
emissions factors over time. For CO, the net new future (2035) emissions is estimated at
13,509 lbs/day. The 1994 General Plan EIR also estimated net emissions changes (Table
5.3-5). For CO, the 1994 plan predicted a net increase of 21,653 lbs/day. While it is
problematic to make direct comparisons between the two estimates for reasons explained
in the response above, it is instructive to point out that the difference between the 1994
and 2008 net estimates is not nearly on the order of magnitude suggested in the
comment.
The comment also notes that the Recirculated DEIR identified the adverse health effects
that may result from excess CO exposures. No further response is required.
E10-50: The comment refers to the existing (1990) and projected (2010) levels of PM emissions
reported in the 1994 EIR and compares them to the PM levels for 2008 and 2035
discussed in the Recirculated Draft EIR. The comment also notes that the Recirculated
Draft EIR identified the adverse health effects that may result PM emissions. Finally, the
comment also asks how CO and PM increases can be so bad if mitigation measures work
2-1469
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
so well. For reasons described in response to comment E10-48 above, the comment
draws an inappropriate conclusion from the cursory comparison of PM estimates. And
for similar reasons explained in response to comment E10-49 above, the comment uses
incorrect arithmetic to make its point. Rather than the “skyrocket” increase claimed in the
comment, a look at the net new PM emissions predicted in the 1994 analysis (2,714
lbs/day; Table 5.3-5) compared to the net new emissions estimated for the proposed
General Plan (4,172 lbs/day PM10; Table 3.2-10) reveals a much smaller difference.
The comment also poses a rhetorical question as to whether the City should choose the
Reduced Density Alternative. The City Council will consider this question at the time it
considers whether to certify the EIR and to approve the draft General Plan and no further
response is required.
E10-51: The comment says the information in Recirculated DEIR Tables 3.2-7 and 3.2-10
regarding CO and PM emissions is confusing and asks whether there will be increases in
emissions between 2008 and 2035. Table 3.2-7 shows the estimated daily operational
emissions of criteria pollutants from mobile, area and stationary sources under existing
conditions (2008). For a given level of land use activity, some criteria pollutants (such as
CO) would decrease over time due to changes in emissions factors such as more fuel-
efficient, cleaner burning vehicles, more zero-emission vehicles in the fleet mix, use of
low-carbon intensity fuels, improvements in pollution control technology, and so forth.
Others (such as PM) would remain fairly constant. Because changes in future emissions
factors would otherwise mask the effect of the proposed General Plan’s contribution to
future air emissions, it is appropriate to focus on net new emissions. Table 3.2-10 shows
the net new emissions attributable to future development under the proposed General
Plan, after controlling for changes in emissions factors over time. The upper portion of
the table (“Estimated Emissions without Proposed General Plan (2035)”) shows future
emissions with development levels held constant from existing (2008) conditions. The
middle portion of the table (“Estimated Emissions with Proposed General Plan (2035)”)
shows future emissions with existing and new development at 2035. The lower portion of
the table (“Total Net New Emissions”) is the difference between the two estimates, and
represents the incremental contribution of future development under the proposed
General Plan. The anticipated increases in CO and PM emissions attributable to the
proposed General Plan are provided in Table 3.2-10.
E10-52: The comment states that the discussion on page 3.2-27 regarding Table 3.2-7 is confusing
– it refers to “resulting net new operational emissions from buildout”. It is assumed that
the comment meant to refer to the discussion of Table 3.2-10, as the discussion on page
3.2-27 does not pertain to Table 3.2-7. In regard to Table 3.2-10, the emissions reflected
in the table are those that result from net increase in land uses and vehicle trips at
buildout (i.e. land uses that are established between 2008 and 2035 will result in
operational emissions and vehicle trips – “net new operational emissions”). See also
response to comment E10-51 above.
E10-53: The comment requests that the EIR indicate the total CO and PM emissions in 2035,
including existing emissions. Please see the section of Table 3.2-10 titled, “Estimated
2-1470
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
Emissions with Proposed General Plan (2035)”. Total future CO emissions are estimated
at 84,263 lbs/day, total future PM10 is 22,671 lbs/day, and total future PM2.5 is 10,863
lbs/day.
E10-54: The comment indicates that the Recirculated DEIR does not describe emissions from I-5,
SR-78 and the airport. As stated in response to comment C3-3, the draft EIR evaluates the
impacts of the draft General Plan, and the draft EIR is not required to evaluate or mitigate
the impacts of existing airport operations. As such, the draft EIR does not evaluate the air
quality impacts associated with operation of the existing airport, except to the extent that
such emissions constitute a part of the existing conditions in the SDAPCD air basin.
In regard to I-5 and SR 78 air quality impacts, as stated in response to comment C3-109,
Recirculated DEIR evaluates existing and future traffic operations on I-5 and SR 78
associated with trips that result from implementation of the proposed General Plan; in
other words, pass-through traffic (trips without an end point in Carlsbad) was not
included in the mobile emissions estimates provided in Tables 3.2-7 and 3.2-10 of the
Recirculated DEIR. However, all traffic on I-5 and SR 78 was considered in the evaluation
of potential exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations
(Recirculated DEIR Impact 3.2-4, pp. 3.2-42 through 3.2-46). Please see Chapter 3.2 of the
Recirculated DEIR for the description of the air quality analysis methodology and
assumptions (p. 3.2-17 and 3.2-27).
E10-55: The comment states that residents are entitled to know how future development will
elevate cancer and other health risks. Please see Recirculated DEIR Impact 3.2-4 (pages
3.2-42 through 3.2-46), which provides an expanded discussion/analysis of health risks
associated with air quality impacts, including cancer risks associated with emissions from
stationary sources and mobile sources such as the I-5 and SR-78 freeways; the impact is
found to be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation is identified that will reduce the
impact; however, in the absence of site-specific information required to perform a health
risk assessment, it is not possible at this time to quantify that the mitigation will reduce
exposure to pollutant concentrations to a level below significant.
E10-56: The comment states that the city failed to note correct unmitigated historical pollutant
levels, which indicates the city’s mitigation is inadequate. The comment does not identify
how the mitigation is inadequate except to make reference to unmitigated historical
pollutant levels. The Recirculated DEIR identifies existing air quality conditions and
makes reasonable forecasts that conclude significant impacts to air quality, and mitigation
is identified to reduce the impacts. Also see responses to comments E10-6 and E10-48.
E10-57: The comment requests that the city explain why the air quality forecasts made by the
Recirculated DEIR are credible. See responses to comments E10-6 and E10-48.
E10-58: The comment states that the 2008 traffic trip baseline data is outdated. The 2008 traffic
data represents the most current data available (SANDAG traffic model) at the time the
2-1471
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
notice of preparation of the Draft EIR was published and the traffic impact analysis was
conducted for the EIR.
E10-59: The comment asks what air pollution data is used for emissions from I-5 and SR-78. See
response to comment E10-54.
E10-60: The comment asks what are the RAQS projections and where did they come from. The
RAQS (San Diego County Regional Air Quality Strategy) is described on page 3.2-12 of
the Recirculated DEIR; the RAQS is prepared by the County of San Diego Air Pollution
Control District (SDAPCD) and is a plan for the region to attain compliance with federal
and state air quality standards. The RAQS can be viewed on the SDAPCD website:
www.sdapcd.org/planning/plan.
E10-61: The comment notes that the wording of the heading for Impact 3.2-1 in the Recirculated
DEIR is not consistent with the revised significance finding. In the Recirculated DEIR,
the significance finding was changed from “less than significant” to “significant and
unavoidable” for Impacts 3.2-1, 3.2-3 and 3.2-4; however, the headings for each of the
impacts inadvertently were not changed to reflect the change in impact significance. The
headings for Impacts 3.2-1, 3.2-3 and 3.2-4 will be revised in the final EIR.
E10-62 & 63: The comment references Impact 3.2-1, which includes, as a mitigation measure,
that the city will recommend that the SDAPCD update the RAQS to incorporate the
proposed General Plan growth projections. The comment asks what happens to General
Plan projects if the RAQS are not updated per the mitigation. The comment appears to
misunderstand the relationship between the RAQS and the growth projections in the
draft General Plan. The RAQS is a regional strategy prepared by the SDAPCD to achieve
air quality goals based on growth allowed under regional and local land use plans. The
SDAPCD updates the RAQS every three years to take into account, among other things,
updated growth projections. If the RAQS are not updated to incorporate the increased
growth projections for the draft General Plan, the impact to consistency with the RAQS
(Impact 3.2-1) will remain significant and unavoidable.
E10-64: The comment asks, in regard to Impact 3.2-1, if the SDAPCD is the only entity that can
impose project mitigation, or if the city can impose mitigation but defers to SDAPCD.
The comment appears to misunderstand the relationship between the RAQS and the draft
General Plan. The RAQS is a regional strategy prepared by the SDAPCD to achieve air
quality goals based on growth allowed under regional and local land use plans. The
SDAPCD updates the RAQS every three years to take into account, among other things,
updated growth projections. The mitigation for Impact 3.2-1 is for the city to request that
SDAPCD revise the RAQS to include the growth projections of the proposed General
Plan. . Although the SDAPCD has jurisdiction and control over updating the RAQS,
which is the mitigation measure recommended for Impact 3.2-1, the city has the
authority to impose the mitigation measures identified in the Recirculated DEIR for
Impact 3.2-2, Impact 3.2-3 and Impact 3.2-4.
2-1472
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
The comment also asks if the city imposes landscape requirements to mitigate air
pollution caused by tree removal and if the city requires payment to maintain green areas
to mitigate air quality impacts. For Impact 3.2-2, the EIR requires mitigation measures
that use vegetation to mitigate construction impacts and the planting of trees in parking
lots to mitigate operational impacts. The city does not require a fee for landscape
maintenance to mitigate air quality impacts.
E10-65: The comment asks that the General Plan and EIR identify the air quality mitigation
measures that the city will impose to minimize air quality impacts. The EIR does identify
the air quality impact mitigation measures for Impact 3.2-2, Impact 3.2-3 and Impact 3.2-
4 on Recirculated DEIR pages 3.2-22, 3.2-37 to3.2-39, and 3.2-46.
E10-66: The comment asks if the Encina Power Station is the only existing and the Carlsbad
Energy Center Project is the only planned stationary source in the city. The comment
also asks how the desal plant is classified, if the plant has capacity increases planned, and
how expansion of the airport runway is classified. The Recirculated DEIR indicates that
“the Encina Power Station (EPS) is the only existing and the replacement Carlsbad
Energy Center Project (CECP) the only anticipated large stationary source in the City.”
The CECP is proposed as a 632-megawatt power station, and is therefore construed as a
“large” stationary source. There are no other known proposals at this time for new “large”
stationary sources in the City of Carlsbad.
For purposes of the air quality analysis, it is assumed that the approved CECP project
would replace the existing EPS, and thus not represent a new stationary source of
emissions. It is true that implementation of the proposed General Plan will result in
future new development that will require power. Power produced by the EPS/CECP is fed
into the broader electrical grid, as is power produced by other sources outside Carlsbad.
The electrical grid supplies power from a variety of sources to customers both inside and
outside Carlsbad. For purposes of the air quality analysis, only the pollution source within
Carlsbad (EPS/CECP) is considered.
The desalination plant is not an energy provider nor is it a large stationary source; rather,
it is a large energy user. Additionally, as stated in response to comment C3-3, the draft
EIR evaluates the impacts of the draft General Plan, and the draft EIR is not required to
evaluate or mitigate the impacts of existing airport operations. As such, the draft EIR does
not evaluate the air quality impacts associated with operation of the existing airport. In
addition, future proposed airport operations are not anticipated to include new large
stationary sources.
E10-67: The comment refers to discussion on page 3.2.27 of the Recirculated DEIR and states
understanding that mobile emissions include all moving sources, including vehicles,
trains, and planes; and states that there is not a list of trip totals for all these sources in
Appendix B. As stated in response to comment C3-3, the draft EIR evaluates the impacts
of the draft General Plan, which does not propose any changes in train or airplane
operations. As such, the draft EIR does not evaluate the air quality impacts associated
with existing or future train and airport operations; therefore, Appendix B does not
2-1473
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
include trip information for trains and airplanes. It should be noted that the numbers
presented in air quality analysis (Table 3.2-10) are not intended as a comprehensive
“inventory”, but rather a snapshot of the emissions that would result from two scenarios
– with and without the proposed General Plan. Emissions from trains and planes are not
included because they are not affected by the proposed General Plan.
E10-68: The comment refers to a 2012 FAA NEPA analysis and a new air carrier at McClellan-
Palomar Airport. See response to comment C3-3.
E10-69: The comment states that CEQA requires disclosure of the environmental setting and
anticipated growth impacts and that the county has announced its intent to lengthen the
airport runway. See responses to comments C3-3 and C3-40.
E10-70: The comment states that the General Plan EIR should contain data reflecting the airport’s
operational and construction contributions to air quality and traffic impacts. As stated in
response to comment C3-3, the draft EIR evaluates the impacts of the draft General Plan,
which does not propose any changes to existing airport operations. As such, the draft EIR
does not evaluate the air quality impacts associated with operational and construction
contributions of future airport expansion to air quality and traffic impacts. Also see
response to comment C3-44.
E10-71: The comment repeats comments E10-44, 46, 51 and 52. See responses to comments E10-
46, E10-51 and E10-52 regarding Tables 3.2-7 and 3.2-10; and see response to comment
E10-44 regarding short and medium term impacts.
E10-72: The comment asks where the reporting and enforcement methods are for the mitigation.
See response to comment E10-4.
E10-73: The comment suggests ways that the city can handle concerns related to projects with
traffic impacts that remain unmitigated, including suggestions such as additional
mitigation measures if a project exceeds the approved activity levels, or approving
projects subject to stated activity levels and further environmental analysis. The city’s
review and environmental analysis of development projects is consistent with the
suggestions. Any proposal to change or intensify a previously approved land use is
evaluated for compliance with CEQA. As clearly stated throughout the Draft EIR and
Recirculated DEIR, the General Plan does not propose or approve any specific
development project, but instead provides goals and policies to guide future development
in the city. Future development allowed under the draft General Plan will be subject to
site-specific environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15168(c), which
provides for implementation of mitigation measures identified in the General Plan EIR as
well as additional measures deemed necessary to address site-specific issues.
E10-74: The comment notes that the wording of the heading for Impact 3.2-3 in the Recirculated
DEIR is not consistent with the revised significance finding. In the Recirculated DEIR,
the significance finding was changed from “less than significant” to “significant and
unavoidable” for Impacts 3.2-1, 3.2-3 and 3.2-4; however, the heading of these sections
2-1474
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
inadvertently were not changed to reflect the change in impact significance. The
headings for Impacts 3.2-1, 3.2-3 and 3.2-4 will be revised in the final EIR.
E10-75: The comment identifies inconsistencies between the text on page 3.2-40 of the
Recirculated DEIR and the referenced table. The inconsistencies will be corrected in the
final EIR.
E10-76: The comment notes that the heading for Impact 3.2-4 in the Recirculated DEIR is not
consistent with the revised significance finding. In the Recirculated DEIR, the
significance finding was changed from “less than significant” to “significant and
unavoidable” for Impacts 3.2-1, 3.2-3 and 3.2-4; however, the headings of these sections
inadvertantly were not changed to reflect the change in impact significance. The
headings for Impacts 3.2-1, 3.2-3 and 3.2-4 will be revised in the final EIR.
E10-77: The comment states that the future expansion of the McClellan-Palomar airport runway
is not mentioned in the discussion regarding stationary sources, and that the county has
announced plans to expand the runway. See responses to comments C3-3 and C3-40.
E10-78: The comment references a study concerning the use of leaded fuel by small aircraft at
McClellan-Palomar Airport and associated lead emissions and states that the EIR air
quality analysis does not address this issue. See response to comment C3-3 and C3-44.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for overall regulation of
aircraft fuels. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for setting
emission standards from aircraft engines. In December 2008, EPA strengthened the
health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for lead based on new
scientific evidence about lead and health. EPA revised the standard from the level of 1.5
micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) averaged over a calendar quarter established in
1978, to 0.15 μg/m3 averaged over three consecutive months. In December 2010, EPA
also revised air monitoring requirements for this lead standard. State and local air quality
agencies are now required to monitor near industrial facilities with estimated lead
emissions of 0.5 tons or more per year and at airports with estimated emissions of 1.0
tons or more per year. EPA also required a 1-year monitoring study of 15 airports with
estimated lead emissions between 0.5 and 1.0 tons per year in an effort to better
understand how these emissions affect the air near airports.
In February 2012, EPA worked in partnership with the San Diego County Air Pollution
Control District (San Diego APCD) to install a monitor by the primary runway of
McClellan-Palomar Airport and Gillespie Field to gather data for this study. The
McClellan-Palomar Airport and the Gillespie Field monitors were sited at locations
representative of the highest expected airborne lead particulate concentration in areas the
public can access. Data indicate that concentrations of lead at the specific McClellan-
Palomar Airport monitor location measured a maximum three-month average of 0.17
μg/m3, which exceeds the national ambient air quality standard for lead that EPA revised
in 2008. The San Diego APCD has installed a new lead monitor at McClellan-Palomar to
allow for sustained monitoring.
2-1475
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
The one-year airport air monitoring study is helping EPA to better understand impacts
from the use of leaded aviation gasoline and to inform future airport monitoring needs.
EPA is currently collecting and evaluating information nationwide regarding lead
emissions and air concentrations of lead resulting from aviation gasoline (avgas)
combustion by piston-engine aircraft. The information, along with information from
McClellan-Palomar and Gillespie Field will be used to determine whether there is
potential for “endangerment” from aircraft engine emissions due to the use of leaded
avgas. Endangerment refers to the potential for these aircraft engine emissions of lead to
cause or contribute to concentrations of lead air pollution that may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. If EPA finds that there is potential for
endangerment, EPA would establish lead emission standards from this source and the
FAA would establish standards for the composition of aircraft fuel to control lead
emissions.
The comment also notes that the draft EIR does not include mitigation measures to
eliminate the use of leaded fuel by small aircraft. The Recirculated DEIR does not include
any mitigation measures to eliminate the use of leaded fuel by small aircraft because the
draft General Plan does not propose any change in operations at the McClellan-Palomar
Airport and the city does not have any jurisdiction or authority to require small aircraft to
eliminate the use of leaded fuel.
E10-79: The comment states that references to project alternatives throughout the EIR need to be
clarified and consistent. Any necessary revisions will be made to ensure consistency in
the final EIR. See response to comment E10-24.
E10-80: This comment asks whether the vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) shown in Table 4.2-4
includes travel by both Carlsbad residents and non-Carlsbad residents. Yes, the VMT
estimates capture trips that begin and/or end in Carlsbad, as well as vehicle trips that
begin outside Carlsbad, but end inside Carlsbad. The specific methodology utilized to
estimate VMT by SANDAG can be found at:
http://www.sandiegoite.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/VMT-Paper_Final.pdf
The applied methodology is also consistent with the recommendations from the
Association of Environmental Professionals, which can be found at:
http://califaep.org/docs/AEP_Next_Steps_White_Paper.pdf
The methodology quantifies the VMT that Carlsbad has control over – e.g. VMT
generated when at least one trip end occurs in the city. As noted in the comment, trips
that “pass through” Carlsbad are not included in the VMT estimates as Carlsbad has no
control over those trips.
E10-81: The comments requests explanation as to why visitor VMT would be excluded from
estimates in Table 4.2-4. As explained in Response E10-80 above, trips that originate
outside Carlsbad and end in Carlsbad (such as a visitor trip) are included in the data.
2-1476
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
E10-82: The comment requests explanation as to why pass-through VMT are excluded from the
estimates in Table 4.2-4, and expresses concern that such omission “paints a false picture
of air quality.” As explained in the paragraph preceding Table 4.2-4, the VMT data were
used as a proxy to determine the alternatives’ relative impacts on air quality. As noted in
the discussion, implementation of the proposed General Plan would result in significant
impacts on air quality, primarily due to motor vehicle emissions. To the extent that the
amount of motor vehicle emissions is a function of the number of vehicle miles traveled,
VMT is a useful metric in comparing the relative effects that the alternative growth
scenarios would have on air quality. In this analysis, because emissions are not directly
estimated, exclusion of pass-through trips (which would be constant or near-constant for
all alternatives) does not alter the air quality impacts of the alternatives relative to one
another.
E10-83: The comment states that the claim that the Reduced Density Alternative VMT estimate in
Table 4.2-5 may be understated is unbalanced and should either be re-written or
removed. Because the inclusion or exclusion of the statement does not change the
analysis in the Draft EIR, it has been removed from the Final EIR.
E10-84: The comment states that the EIR ignores hazardous material issues related to the airport.
See responses to comments C3-3 and C3-39.
E10-85: The comment raises concerns regarding on-airport safety. See responses to comments
C3-3 and C3-39.
E10-86: The comment references the county’s airport strategic plan and questions why the EIR
does not address airport transportation circulation. See response to comment C3-3.
E10-87: The comment critiques the analysis in the Alternatives subsection “Airport Safety and
Wildfires” and disagrees with the conclusion that Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would have less
impact than the Reduced Density and No Project alternatives because they would provide
for more new construction with updated fire safety features. Although it discusses all of
the potential impact areas, the analysis of alternatives in Chapter 4 is primarily concerned
only with those impact areas in which the Draft EIR is expected to have a significant
impact. The draft General Plan is not expected to have a significant impact on airport
safety or wildfires. (See, e.g., Draft EIR, § 3.6, Impact 3.6-5.) The comment also cites
three reasons why the alternatives analysis of this issue is incomplete. First, contrary to
the comment, the analysis acknowledges the city’s police powers to require buildings to
meet modern safety requirements. Modern building requirements apply to new
construction, and retrofits are typically triggered for renovations/expansions of existing
development requiring permits. Second, the analysis acknowledges that, over the 20-25
year planning period of the proposed General Plan, aging existing buildings will be
replaced by new buildings. The term “infill development”, as used in the General Plan is
not confined to apply to new construction on vacant sites, but also to underutilized non-
vacant sites that can expand or convert to another use. As it relates to future residential
development, the draft General Plan Housing Element contains an extensive analysis of
2-1477
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
the potential for development/redevelopment of underutilized sites (see Housing Element
pages pp. 10-51 through 10-55, and Appendix B). Third, this section of the Alternatives
analysis includes sufficient information to allow a meaningful comparison of alternatives’
wildfire hazards relative to the proposed General Plan. Draft EIR Chapter 3.6 contains a
thorough discussion of potential hazards in the city as they relate to the proposed General
Plan, including assessment of wildfire hazards. Please also see responses to comments
B14-3 and B14-4.
E10-88: The comment cites projected residential, commercial, office and industrial development
under the proposed General Plan, and questions where the analysis of the environmental
impacts of the visitor population can be found. All of the impacts analyzed in the draft
EIR are based on the projected development in the proposed General Plan, which can be
found in the draft EIR Project Description (Chapter 2). In addition to the projected
development cited in the comment, the draft EIR also incorporates future job levels and
hotel rooms as inputs to impact analysis (see Project Description Table 2.4-2), thereby
directly or indirectly capturing activities attributable to workers and visitors, as well as
residents. For example, the transportation, noise, air quality, and greenhouse gas
emissions analyses are based in significant part on the number of vehicle trips entering,
leaving, and circulating within the city, whether such trips are made by residents, workers
or visitors.
In addition to the population and housing comparisons provided in Tables 4.2-6 through
4.2-10, the recirculated Chapter 4 Analysis of Alternatives also compares non-residential
uses: commercial, office, and industrial; as well as projections for future hotel rooms and
jobs. This information can be found in Tables 4.2-1 through 4.2-3a, and Table 4.2-13.
E10-89: The comment raises concerns about noise generated by the airport and the county’s
future plans for a new navigation system and new air carrier. Although CEQA requires
an EIR to analyze the potential impacts of a proposed project on the existing
environment, CEQA does not require an EIR to mitigate the effects of existing
conditions. The Draft General Plan does not propose any changes in airport operations
and does not authorize any future development that would increase airport noise impacts.
See responses to comments C3-3 and C3-132.
E10-90: The comment suggests another way to re-write the subsection under the subheading,
“Vehicle Miles Traveled” (pp. 4-31 through 4-33), for greater clarity. Staff believes this
portion of the recirculated Analysis of Alternatives accurately and clearly describes the
methodology used by the city to evaluate vehicular transportation impacts associated with
each of the alternatives. Furthermore, the term “Vehicle Miles Traveled” is defined in the
Glossary section of the EIR. However, in an effort to be responsive to the comment and
improve readability of this subsection, the VMT metric has been defined in the text and
the subsection has been reorganized in the Final EIR. In addition, the inclusion of this
comment in the final EIR ensures that the comment’s alternative articulation of the issue
is available to the decision-makers and the public.
2-1478
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
E10-91: This comment characterizes the description of the environmentally superior alternative
(pp. 4-35 through 4.38) and refers back to comment letter’s earlier reasons why the
Reduced Density Alternative should not be rejected. Please see responses to comments
E10-27 through E10-35. This comment will be included in the materials presented to the
Planning Commission and the City Council for their consideration in connection with
the decisions whether or not to certify the final EIR and to approve the draft General
Plan.
E10-92: The comment requests explanation for why the Reduced Density Alternative cannot
accommodate state housing (RHNA) obligations. For purposes of Housing Element law
and meeting RHNA obligations, cities must identify sufficient sites at densities
appropriate to accommodate housing for lower and moderate income households. The
city has determined that sites designated at a minimum of 12 dwelling units per acre
(du/ac) can accommodate moderate income housing, sites designated at a minimum of
20 du/ac can accommodate low income housing, and sites designated at a minimum of 23
du/ac can accommodate very low income households (see draft Housing Element p. 10-
50). Above-moderate income housing may be appropriate at any of the land use density
categories. The total RHNA through 2020 is 4,999 dwelling units; the city’s future RHNA
is expected to increase for the period 2021-2035. The Reduced Density alternative would
accommodate less than that, at 4,728 dwelling units. Even with an adjustment to the
Reduced Density alternative to match the current RHNA, there would still remain the
challenge of distributing the units at various densities. The Reduced Density alternative
assumes that densities would be reduced evenly across all available sites. Doing so would
result in minimum densities no higher than about 17 du/ac, which based on the Housing
Element analysis, would not be adequate to accommodate lower income housing need.
Also, if dwelling unit capacity under the Reduced Density alternative could be distributed
such that some housing sites could achieve the minimum densities to accommodate lower
and moderate income housing need, then dwelling unit capacity would need to be
transferred from the remaining sites. This could have a number of negative consequences
including inequitable and inefficient distribution of housing, potential land use
incompatibilities and nonconformities in infill areas, and significant loss in land value
and development feasibility of sites from which density was removed.
The comment also suggests a number of alternatives to encourage affordable housing
construction, all of which (except for the commercial/industrial housing impact fee
suggestion) are provided for in the city’s various housing policies, programs, and
ordinances (see draft Housing Element, Provisions for a Variety of Housing Types, pp.
10-73 through 10-80).
The comment also asks how other cities satisfy state low/moderate income requirements
and whether other solutions could apply in Carlsbad. In developing the goals and policies
of the Housing Element, the city considered the strategies employed in other
jurisdictions. This is reflected to some extent in the fact that the state Department of
Housing and Community Development reviewed the draft Housing Element and found it
satisfies the requirements of Housing Element law.
2-1479
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
E10-93: The comment correctly notes that Table 4.2-14 (p. 4-34) identifies the Reduced Density
alternative as the environmentally superior alternative. The comment also argues that not
all “Planning Goals” are created or weighted equally, that goals related to preserving
community feel and minimizing noise, traffic, and pollution, and maximizing aesthetics
trump business development. It is in their application to specific development activities
that decision-makers balance the various goals, policies and community values as
expressed in the General Plan. The comment regarding relative priorities of Planning
Goals will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for their
consideration of the draft General Plan and EIR.
E10-94: The comment references and quotes portions of the court case Neighbors for Smart Rail
v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority. No response required.
E10-95: The comment states that most Carlsbad residents want to know how badly General Plan
projects will degrade air, traffic, and noise in the next ten years and says the EIR does not
provide that information. As discussed more fully in Response E10-44, the General Plan
does not propose any specific development projects. Information about “how badly
General Plan projects will degrade air, traffic, and noise in the next ten years” is provided
in the Draft EIR and Recirculated DEIR on an aggregate basis for evaluating the potential
impacts from all future development allowed under the Draft General plan at build-out in
2035. Short-term and medium-term impacts will not be known until specific General
Plan projects are proposed. All future development projects allowed under the General
Plan will be subject to site-specific environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
section 15168 at the time such projects are proposed, including project-level analysis of
potential impacts to air quality, traffic and noise. Please also see Response E10-44 above.
E10-96: The comment provides additional quotes from the court case referenced in comment
E10-94. No response required.
E11: GRAHAM THORLEY
E11-1: The comment states that the EIR air quality analysis does not mention that the
McClellan-Palomar Airport is in violation of EPA lead laws. See response to comment
C3-3.
E11-2: The comment refers to the county’s plans to change airport operations that will impact
Carlsbad’s air quality. See response to comment C3-3.
E12: DELANO & DELANO ON BEHALF OF NORTH COUNTY ADVOCATES
E12-1: This comment introduces the purpose of the letter. No response required.
E12-2: The comment references the commenter’s previous comment letter on the draft EIR and
states that the recirculated EIR does not address all of the comments made in the previous
letter. See responses to comment letter B10.
2-1480
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
E12-3: The comment states that the recirculated EIR fails to consider, as required by CEQA, a
realistic reduced development alternative that reduces impacts and meets some or all of
the project goals; the comment references the Watsonville court case.
A reduced density alternative was included in the Recirculated DEIR to comply with
CEQA's requirement to evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives that could avoid or
substantially lessen any of the project's significant impacts and in response to public
comments, including the commenter’s previous comment, which requested consideration
of a reduced density alternative.
In accordance with the holding in Watsonville, the recirculated draft EIR included the
reduced density alternative because it would reduce some of the significant impacts of the
draft General Plan while achieving some of the objectives of the proposed project.
The Recirculated DEIR determined that the reduced density alternative would reduce
some of the significant impacts of the draft General Plan but may impede the city's ability
to meet its share of regional housing needs and may not meet certain project
objectives. However, the fact that the reduced density alternative ultimately may be
deemed to be infeasible by the City Council does not mean that it should not be
considered in the recirculated draft EIR.
The portion of the Watsonville decision quoted in the parenthetical in the comment refers
to the “no project” alternative, which the City of Watsonville contended served essentially
the same purpose as a reduced density alternative. Unlike the circumstances in
Watsonville, the recirculated draft EIR for the draft General Plan included both a no
project alternative and a reduced density alternative that would reduce some of the
significant impacts associated with the future development allowed under the draft
General Plan while achieving some of the project objectives.
E12-4: The comment states that the city draft Climate Action Plan (CAP) and draft EIR fail to
address Governor Brown’s Executive Order B-30-15, which sets a statewide interim GHG
reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. This would make sense since EO
B-30-15 was issued on April 29, 2015, long after the City of Carlsbad issued the Notice of
Preparation for the General Plan EIR (12/29/10), and its release of the draft General Plan
and Climate Action Plan (February 2014), and the draft EIR (4/4/14) for public review.
The executive order applies to state agencies under the governor’s authority, and is not a
legislative act that is binding on cities. The state legislature, in adopting the Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32), codified the 2020 goal of previous EO S-3-05,
but did not legislate the longer-term goal to reduce emission to 80 percent below 1990
levels by 2050. Nor has the legislature established any mandatory GHG reduction goals
beyond 2020.
Nevertheless, the city’s CAP demonstrates that its implementation will meet the 2020
target set by AB32, and shows continued reductions to 2035 on a trajectory consistent
with the 2050 goal in EO S-3-05. Also, assuming linear reductions throughout the
2-1481
Final Environmental Impact Report for Carlsbad General Plan Update
Chapter 2: Comments and Responses on the Draft EIR
planning period, the city’s CAP measures would also achieve the more ambitious 40
percent by 2030 reduction goal in EO B-30-15, as follows:
Year
Modified
Baseline
Forecast
(From CAP
Chapter 3)
(MTCO2e)
CAP GHG
Reduction
Measures
(Phased in
Linearly)
(MTCO2e)
Forecast Community
Emissions with CAP GHG
Reduction Measures
GHG Emission
Targets
AB 32 (1990 level by
2020)
B-30-15 (40% below
1990 level by 2030)
% Below
1990 level
(535,763
MTCO2e)
2020 473,082 53,120 419,962 535,763 22%
2030 452,762 141,654 311,108 321,458 42%
The draft CAP has been modified to include interim targets for 2025 and 2030 consistent
with the S-3-05 goal, and to show forecasted emissions reductions for these milestone
years (see revised CAP Table 4-3, shown in Chapter 5 of this FEIR). For these reasons
both the CAP and EIR adequately address the issue of greenhouse gas emissions and
climate change, and no further analysis is required. In addition, the CAP provides for
continuous monitoring and updating to respond to changing circumstances, which
would include any new laws or regulations applicable to cities.
E12-5: The comment states that the EIR is lacking and should be revised. See response to
comments E12-2 through E12-4.
E12-6: The comment consists of a copy of information from the State of California website
regarding the state’s new greenhouse gas reduction targets. No response required.
2-1482