HomeMy WebLinkAboutEIR 98-02; CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN PHASE II, BRIDGE AND THOROUGHFARE DISTRICT NO. 4 & DETENTION BASINS; Environmental Impact Report; 2001-11-29,-
e.
qi
. ..
CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN
PHASE 11, BRIDGE AND
THOROUGHFARE DISTRICT NO. 4,
& DETENTION BASINS
Final Environmental Impact Report
EIR NO. 98-02
SCH No. 99111082
November 200 1
PREFACE TO THE FINAL EIR
This Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Calavera Hills Master Plan
Phase II, Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4, and Detention Basins complies with all
criteria, standards, and procedures of the City of Carlsbad and the California
Environmental Quality Act. It includes the following:
Errata - The Errata indicates where the changes have been made to the text of the final
EIR based on the letters of comment received during the public review period or input
from City staff. The changes to the text of the final EIR are indicated by strikeout
(deleted) and underline (inserted) markings.
Public Review Letters and Responses - The letters of comment received during the
draft EIR public review period and the numbered responses are included as part of the
final EIR.
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program - As required by Section 21081.6 of
the Public Resources Code, a listing of the mitigation requirements and the responsible
parties for implementing the requirements is included.
i
ERRATA TO EIR 98-02
1 I’
i
CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN PHASE II, BRIDGE AND
THOROUGHFARE DISTRICT NO. 4, AND DETENTION BASINS
After completion of the draft EIR, several revisions to the document text of the final EIR
have been identified by City staff in order to correct inaccurate information or reflect
refinements that have been made to the project design based on additional review and/or
current resource agency input. All the modifications have been reviewed, and none of
them affect the impact analysis conclusions or generate additional or increased mitigation
measures. The project revisions are summarized below.
Modification of the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II to add 1.0 acre of
community facilities use to the Village Y multi-family site. This option had
been addressed as an alternative in the draft EIR, but has now been included
as part of the proposed project. Figures 2-1 and 2-4 have been modified in the
final EIR to reflect this change.
The limits of grading and development area have been pulled back at several
locations throughout the Master Plan, including lowering of pads on Villages
U and W to reduce impacts to natural 40 percent slopes and reduce the height
of manufactured slopes. In addition, the limits of grading have been pulled
back on the south side of Village K to eliminate encroachment into the habitat
corridor. Figures 3B-2 and 3B-4 have been revised in the final EIR to reflect
this change.
Pursuant to discussions with the USFWS/CDFG subsequent to the draft EIR
public review period, a modified (customized) fue suppression program has
been prepared for Villages K and X to reduce habitat encroachment while
providing adequate fxe protection.
The draft EIR presented optional locations that would be suitable as
mitigation for project-related wetland impacts. Subsequent to the close of the
EIR public review period, the project applicant, in consultation with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and wildlife agencies, refined the location of
potential wetland mitigation areas. The currently preferred locations include
an area north of Basin “BJB” and an area associated with Basin “BJ.” These
areas consists of disturbed agricultural land as shown in Figure 3G-5 of the
draft EIR, and the creation of a wetland mitigation area would not create any
new biological impacts. The biology section (Chapter 3.G.) of the final EIR
has been revised to include the current status of the preferred mitigation
locations.
d
0 The project description of the final EIR has been revised to clarify that in
addition to the formation of a Bridge and Thoroughfare District, funding for
the construction of College Boulevard and Cannon Road could include other
financing options.
0 The project description of the final EIR has also been revised to indicate that
the timing of the construction of Basin “BJB” would be coordinated so that
the basin would be constructed concurrently with College Boulevard and not
separately.
The Reduced Intersection Elevation for College BoulevardCannon Road
alternative (Alternative 3) described in the draft EIR is now considered the
preferred alternative for the intersection of these roadways as the biological
impacts under this alternative would be reduced. Table 3G-6 in the biology
section of the final EIR has been revised to reflect this condition.
The design of Cannon Road Reach 4 has been modified to provide a buffer
between the roadway and adjacent wetland habitats in Little Encinas Creek.
Figure 3B-11 has been revised in the final EIR to illustrate this change. This
redesign also slightly decreases the impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat and
eliminates the need for a 40-foot-high retaining wall.
0 As a result of the above refinements to the Master Plan, the impacts to
biological resources have been reduced. Tables 3G-5, 3G-6, 3G-7, 3G-8,
3G-9, and 3G-10 have been revised in the final EIR to reflect the revised
biological impact acreages and respective mitigation requirements for all the
habitats within the Master Plan. In addition, the Open Space Equivalency
Determination (Figure 3G-7) has been revised to reflect the increased open
space corridor at Village K resulting from the CDFGNSFWS comments.
0 The biological mitigation requirements (on-site preservation and off-site
acquisition) for impacts have been revised to reflect the current status of the
acreage available for mitigation in the Calavera Nature Preserve (Calvera
Hills Master Plan Village Z). Table 3G-8 in the final EIR has been revised to
reflect the required on- and off-site mitigation acreages by habitat type.
Figure 3D-1 has been corrected to include Village E-1 as an area potentially
affected by blasting operations.
The project applicant has agreed to bit building heights on Village Y to two
stories rather than the three stories described in the draft EIR.
.
I
I I
'I
i
Additionally, several revisions to the final EIR have been made based on letters of
comment received during the public review period on the draft EIR. These revisions do
not constitute significant changes to the project or environmental setting, no new
significant environmental effects have been identified for the project, and the severity of
environmental impacts would not be increased. The more prominent revisions are
summarized below.
e A requirement for a construction traffic management plan consistent with City
engineering policy has been incorporated into the project (final EIR, Chapter
2, Project Description).
The discussion of mitigation options for replacement of the Rancho Carlsbad
Mobile Home Park RV storage and community garden has been added to the
final EIR (final EIR, Chapter 3.A., Land Use).
Additional traffic intersection analyses conducted at CollegeNista Way,
College/SR-78 EB ramps, El Camino ReaVSR-78 WE! ramps, El Camino
ReaVSR-78 EB ramps, Cannod-5 SB ramps, Cannod-5 NB ramps,
Hacienda Dr./SR-78, Melrose Dr./SR-78 interchange, Melrose DrEast Vista
Way, Melrose Dr./Hacienda Dr., Melrose Dr./Sunset Dr., Melrose
DrJShadowridge Dr., and Melrose Dr./Sycamore Dr. In addition, a Year
2020 model analysis of impacts with the elimination of Cannon Road Reach 4
has been performed. Both of these analyses have been included as an
attachment to the traffic report (Appendix C) in the final EIR.
Noise modeling was conducted of Cannon Road Reach 4 at the e,astern end
near the Carlsbad/Oceanside border to address issues raised by the Ocean
Hills development in the city of Oceanside. The results of this analysis have
been included as an attachment to Appendix D (noise technical report).
The Biology section of the final EIR (Chapter 3.G.) has been revised to clarify
what the mitigation requirements would be for disturbed lands, eucalyptus
woodland, and agricultural lands should the City's draft Habitat Management
Plan not be adopted.
A discussion of an ephemeral stock pond within Village W has been
completed and added as an attachment to the biology technical report
(Appendix F).
Testing of the potentially significant archaeology sites within the alignments
of Cannon Road and College Boulevard as prescribed as mitigation in the
draft EIR has occurred since the close of the public review period. The results
of the testing indicate that all of the sites were found not to be significant with
the exception of two sites: one site in Alignment 2 for Cannon Road Reach 4
and another site outside the limits of grading in College Boulevard Reach A.
Should the City Council adopt Alignment 2 for Cannon Road Reach 4, the
additional mitigation described in the draft EIR would be required. The
results of the testing are included as an attachment to Appendix H (cultural
resources report).
0 The Cumulative Impacts section (Chapter 5) of the final EIR has been
corrected to provide consistency in the draft EIR regarding cumulative traffic
circulation and visual quality impacts.
I
I
I
I
j
j
i I
I i
I
I i
I i
I I 1
I
I
I
I
I
1 I
I I
Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase I1
Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4
& Detention Basins EIR
Letters of Comment and Responses
Letters of comment to the draft EIR (DEIR) were received from the following agencies, groups, and
individuals. Several comment letters received during the draft EIR public review period contained
accepted revisions that resulted in changes to the final EIR text. These changes to the text are indicated
by strikeout (deleted) and underline (inserted) markings. Revisions to the final EIR are intended to correct
minor discrepancies and provide additional clarification. The revisions do not constitute significant
changes to the project or environmental setting, no new significant environmental effects have been
identified for the project, and the severity of environmental impacts would not be increased.
State and Federal Agencies
Letter A - State of California Department of Transportation
Letter A-1 - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/California Department of Fish and Game
Local Agencies
Letter B - San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Letter C - North County Transit District
Letter D - Carlsbad Unified School District
Letter E - City of Vista
Conservation Groups and Other Organizations
Letter F - Rancho Carlsbad Owner’s Association
Letter G - Ocean Hills Country Club Homeowners Association
Letter H - Sierra Club, San Diego Chapter
Letter I - Preserve Calavera
Letter 1-1 - San Luis Rey Band of Luiseiio Mission Indians
PR-3
PR-9
PR- 1 8
PR-25
PR-3 1
PR-33
PR-35
PR-41
PR-43
PR-44
PR-112
PR- 1
other Individuals .I
Letter J - Darnell and Associates, Inc.
Letter K - Ladwig Design Group, Inc.
Letter L - McMillin Land Development
Letter M - Law Offices of Everett L. DeLano III
Letter N - Gary Agliatha
Letter 0 - Joan P. Arcelle
Letter P - John Dunzer
Letter Q - Thomas P. and Joan R. Flanagan
Letter R - Gordon M. French
Letter S - Ruth Gans
Letter T - B. A Grouse and E. A. Orlowski
Letter U - James M. Hicks
Letter V - Pamela Hildebrand
**
Letter W - Bernice Hill
Letter X - Jim and Marilyn Hope
Letter Y - Hugh McGrane
Letter Z - Richard A. Reck
Letter AA - Sandra Stamper
Letter AI3 - Loni Todorki
Letter AC - Lynn Tucker
Letter AD - Ted and Katie Wheeler
Letter AE - Bruce Wilson
Letter AF - Caroline Prescott
PR-114
PR-117
PR-119
PR- 120
PR-156
PR-161
PR-162
PR- 167
PR- 170
PR-171
PR- 177
PR-191
PR- 195
PR-196
PR- 197
PR-199
PR-202
PR-204
PR-205
PR-207
PR-209
PR-210
PR-2 1 1
PR-2
+-
.I
'LETTER A
DISTRICT 11
P.O. BOX 06406, M.S. 60
$AN DIE(30, CA 02188-5406 l019) 688-6964 FAX: 18191 688-4299
1.
I
MAH 1 9 2001 11-SD-078 PM 3.32 (K.P. 5.31)
Much 16,2001
MI. Scott Moem
1400 Tonth Stm sl~nrnanm, CA 9511.1
Daar Mr. Morm
8WC c!~hghouae '
General Commentr:
c Caltnns quiw Love1 of Service &OS) Cor betta at State owned fcities, inc1udlng A-1 InterKaionr, If an intemaion is currently below LO6 C, any hcrtase In dolay from pmje
genentod LrPmC must be analyzed tnd mitigated. Ady& of the htcnccdons shall be dom wing Intencctiag Lane hhiclea (ILV) calculations pcr the Hjghway Denga Manual ~DM), Sdon
Dmff EIR, page 94, wction "d)" -CongesW Managomat Plan Enhanced CEQA Review Ouilim - Please provide inore infondon about the dpis of the traffic impact to Intcmate
Route 5 (1.5) and State Route 78 (SR-78). Provide the calcuhtiong that wtra used to de& that tho project's dditioo ~ZI trafic WM less than the 150 peak horn trips criteria.
Appendix D, 'Ltwsponaion Analysis for Calrma Hills Mester Plan 11, Fipm 4-5 and 4-6 - Tba
fipnr indicate that the mlJodry of the peak hour hffic volumu are not accessing Le fromay
AppMdix C, Tmsparmtion Adysh fat Brice and Thoroughfk District No 4, Tables 3-1,5-1,6. 1,7-1,8-l, 84, and 8.7 - A~mllng to the traffio arutly8i8, it appears that the LOS canditia on SR-78 and 1-5 am worsedog in 2020. Page 10-4, however, stst= that the ADT on Scgmenb of 1-5 and SR-78 would dcaeast, Please clarify.
If mrtain Mc mitigation projects ue identified as appmp6iatc, then Cdtrans snpprlr the ioncep~
of "fdr sharo" contributions on the part of the dmloper.
406, page 400-21.
ramps. Plom Cxplrlin.
Letters of Comment and Responses
The state-owned intersections evaluated in the traffic report for Year 202Q are projected to be at
LOS C or better (see page 7-11, Table 7-2, of the DER Appendix B, Transportation Analysis for
Calavera Hills Master Plan, Phase II), except at the El Camino ReallSR-78 westbound ramps
intersection (LOS E in the P.M. peak) and the El Camino Real/SR-78 eastbound ramps (LOS D in
the P.M. peak).
However, these levels of service are also predicted without the Calavera Hills Phase II project
traffic. At each of the ramps in the P.M. peak hour, the project's contribution to the total entering
volume in Year 2020 is less than one percent so that the project's traffic impacts are considered
insignificant at these two locations.
An LVRIR analysis of the state-owned intersections listed in the following table has been
conducted for Year 2020 and the results are summarized below. The capacity analyses have been
included as an attachment to Appendix B in the final ElR.
YEAR 2020 ILVMR COMPARISON
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Location LVMR ILV/HR
w/o Project With Project wlo Project With bjM
College BlvWista Way 1.005 1.068 1,352 1.376
College BlvdSR-78 EB Ramps 714 795 1,030 1.108
El Camino ReallSR-78 WB Ramps 1,291 1,298 1.661 1.678
El Camino RcaUSR-78 EB Ramps 933 940 1.533 1,550
Cannon RM-5 SB Ramps 576 583 590 595
Cannon RdI-5 NE Ramps 481 491 BO 665
The College BoulevadVista Way intersection has recently been extensively reconstructed to a
design that is meant to accommodate future regional growth, which includes traffic from Calavera
fills Phase n. The El Camino ReaYSR-78 east- and westbound ramp intersections are. projected
to exceed the 1,500 ILV/HR capacity as established by Caltrans, with or without the Calavera
Hills Phase II traffic added. However, the project contribution of traffic to the available
intersection capacity utilization is less than one percent so that the project impact is considered
less than significant (see Table 7-2 in the traffic report of the final EIR, Appendix B).
DISTRICT 11
P.O. BOX 86406, M.S. 60, $AN DIE00, CA 92186-5406 L61W 688-6964
FAX: 16101 688-4288
11-SD-078 PM 3.32 (K.P. 5.31) 2. Consistent with the 1994 Guidelines for Congestion Management Program (CMP) Tmportation
lmpact Report for the San Diego Region, Year 2005 and Year 2020 traffic projections were
provided by SANDAG/City of Carlsbad using the TRANPLAN computer traffic model.
Letters of Comment and Responses
To determine the Calavera Hills Phase II project-only contribution to the traffic volumes projected
by the regional computer traffic model; a “select zone assignment” was run from the trip tables
within the traffic model output. The selected zones (Traffic Analysis Zones) were those that
included only trips from the Calavera Hills Master Plan ma. The traffic volume plot from the
select zone run was them used to establish the project-only directional distribution percentages
shown in the traffic report of the EIR.
As described in the trafiic’section of the draft EIR for project-only directional distribution
percentages, the highest percentage of project traffic projected to use either E5 or SR-78 is the 12
perccnt posted on SR-78 near College Boulevard. Table 4-1 in the Traffic Analysis (Appendix B)
includes the daily and peak hour traffic volumes generated from the project. The highest peak
hour flow is in the inbound direction during the P.M. peak hour at 547 trip. Multiplying this
inbound traffic flow by the 12 perccnt project distribution on SR-78 yields 66 peak hour trip.
which is less than the 150 peak hour trips requid for freeway mainline analysis as included in the
CMP Guidelines,
Figures 4-5 and 4-6 of Appendix B, Transpdrtation Analysis for Calavcra Hills Master Plan, Phase
II shows the respective A.M. and P.M. projcct-only trips at study area intrrscctions for the Year
2020. These project-only trips were assigned based on the project directional dismbution
percentages and trip assignment provided in the “select zone run” using the SANDAG/Carlsbad
2020 traffic model. The traffic model has dispersed project trips throughout the region with many
origiddestination linkages within the cities of Carlsbad, Oceanside, Vista, and San Mmos so that
project trips m not heavily concentrated at only one or two hreway inttmhange locations. These
cities adjacent to the Calavera Hills Master Plan ana will provide employment (particularly in the
extensive Carlsbad business parks near Palomar Airport located southerly of Calavera Hills),
shopping (nearby Plaza Camino Real center, proposed Quany Cwk community center, and the El
Camino Real shopping areas). schools (within Calavcra Hills), and recreational opportunities
(local parks and beaches) so that residents will not be required to rely on the freeways as access to
these activities.
,
3.
DISTRICT 11
P.O. BOX 86406, M.S. 60.
SAN DIE00, CA 02186-5406
FAX: (6191 688-4299 ~6191 eae.6964
!
.I
I !
11-SD-078 PM 3.32 (K.P. 5.31)
Caltnns requim he1 of Sewice &OS) C or better at Late owed f&lirleo, including Intersections. If an interdon is currently below LO8 C, any increme h delay from pmjca
genented trafYic must be analyzed ad mitigated. Analyds of the Intersections shall bc done using lntcnerthg Lmc Vahldea (ILV) cllculatioar per th Highway Dtsigp Manual (HDM), Section 406, page 400-21.
* Dmn E!& page 94, section "d)" - Congestion Management Plan Enhanced CEQA Review <fuidslimrr - Please provide mom idomation about tba dysis of &e -IC impact to Intaxare Route 5 0.5) and State Roucc 78 (SR-78). Pmoldr the ultculalions that were used to determine that tho pmjcct's addition lo traffic was less than ths 150 peak bola trips criteria.
Appcnaix D. Mapottation Analysis for Cslrma Hilla Mder Plan 11, Figures 4-5 and 4-6 - The
flgurm Indicate that the msfotity of the peak hour traffic volume8 arc not accessing the freeway
Appendix C, 1t.baspartstion AMysU fix Briw and nKHoughfiuc District No 4, Tables 3-1,5-1,6.
SR-78 and 1-5 am worsening in 2020. Page 10-4, however, states that the ADT on segments of 1.5 and SR-78 would daereast, Plsore ckrifl.
ramps. Pleasecxplaln.
. A4 1,7-1.8-1,84, and 8.7 -According to the traffic dfli:, it rppeus that the LOS conditions on
I If cormin Wit mitigation projects ut identified as appmptiate, then Calmma supports the concept A-501 "hlr share" contributions on the put of the developer.
Letters of Comment and Responses
4. Page 104 of the Transportation Analysis for Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4, Appendix C
of the DEE. provides a summary comparison of street and highway segments for the Year 2020.
with and without the construction of missing segments of College Boulevard and Cannon Road.
Although segments of SR-78 and 1-5 are expected to experience higher traffic volumes in the
future, the construction of the missing segments of College Boulevard and Cannon Road will
provide alternate routes for some motorists. Consequently, the SR-78 and 1-5 traffic volume
increases are expected to be less with these segments in place, thereby providing a benefit to
regional through traffic using these freeways. Table 8-2 from the traffic report compares street
and freeway segment volumes without and with the project, which is the construction of missing
segments of College Boulevard and Cannon Road. This table shows a Year 2020 decrease or no
change in volumes the project roadways when compared to the scenario without the project
roadways.
The Calavera Hills, Phase II project will contribute a fair share contribution to mitigation projects
within the city of Carlsbad through payment of Traffic Impact and Bridge and Thoroughfa
District fees. No other transportation-related fees have been identified in the DER as needed for
mitigation.
5.
I
Letters of Comment and Responses
See response A-1 above. In addition, at freeway on-ramps with meters, impacts caused by ngional
traffic can be expected in Years 2005 and 2020. Project traffic added to these on-ramps would
increase the queue lengths incrementally, and project traffic would be subject to increased delays
at ramp meters, dependent on the ramp meter rate and related freeway main lane vehicular flow.
The result of incrcascd delay at ramp meters typically causes changes in the pattern of traffic
arriving at the ramp meters. The peak period can spread with some traffic arriving earlier and
some traffic arriving later than predicted. Also, a significant portion of the predicted arriving
traffic would use other lower volume ramps or stay on surface streets. Minimization of this effect
could be achieved by setting ramp meter rates to maximize freeway flow while minimizing delay
so that queue lengths do not exceed available surface street storage.
The Calavera Hills, Phase Il traffic contributions to 1-5 and SR-78 are shown in Figure 4-3 of the
traffic report included in the DER as Appendix B. Total project volumes are 907 ADT on SR-78
between El Camino Real and College Boulevard, and 76 ADT on 1-5 between Carlsbad Village
Drive and Tamarack Avenue.
See response A-2 above
The Year 2020 select zone plot for the Calavera Hills, Phase Il project predicted very low project-
only volumes on the El Camino ReaVSR-78 ramps in the A.M. and P.M. peak hours so that these
volumes are consldered nominal.
The SR-78 interchange ramp intersections at the Vista WaylSR-78 eastbound off-ramp and at
Plaza Boulevard/SR-llB eastbound off/on-ramps are projected to have fewer than 50 project peak
hour trips in either direction. Consequently, they were not Included in the project study am in
compliance with the Congestion Management Program Guidelines. However, year 2020 ILVm
diagrams of these locations have been completed in response to this comment, and no additional
project impacts would result. These capacity analyses have been included as an attachment to
Appendix B in the final ElR.
The ramp intersections at ES/Carlsbad Village Drive and 1-5fr'amarack Avenue arc projected to
have fewer than 50 project peak hour trips entering from either direction and are outside the study
area per CMP Guidelines. However, the Year 2020 JLV/HR diagrams for these locations have
been completed in response to this comment and no additional project impacts would result. These
capacity analyses have been included as an attachment to Appendix B in the final EIR.
See response A-9 above.
See response A-IO above.
See response A-1 1 above.
6.
j'
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
..
I.., i4
I
Mr. Erie Mum City of Csrlrbnd P~MII~U~ Depatmnt
Carlsbnl. CA 92008
1635 F8ndaY AvmuC .
Subjcct: Cdavm Hills Master Plan Phaw ll, Briage & Thoroughfate District No. 4 & Dukmtlou Baiinr
SCHU: 19991 I1082
Dca ML Eric Muelm
The SbO Claringhouac submitted Le nbove named DraA EDC ID selected state nyencics for review. On the enclosed Docunvnt hlk RLpM please nolo that rho Clerrin&ou$c has Ilsted the stay ngcncict that revlewd your docvmmr l'he rrviow period clod on Much 19.2001. and the commcm from rhe respunding agency (ler) is (m) enclosed If lhir wmnrni packagc is 1101 in order, plenrc notify thc Smte Cluarighow immcdi~cly. Please rcrrr rn Ihs prolcet'r ten-digit State Clearinghouse nunhr in future com8poDdwcc m tlut vc my rrqrond pmmptly.
.Plasse note bt Section 21 IM(c) of the Califomla Public Rcrowcer Code sinm dut
"A rprpaarlblc or other pbllo 11lcnoy shsll dy makc suhalantlve mnuncnu regarding &ow activities mvolvod in 1 project which M wltbln an arc0 of sxperlisc of rho igeucy or which .re required to bc curid out or approved by the agency. Those wmmLs shall bt rupporkd by specific docu~n~dxHon."
Thaw commsnts M forwarded for we in prcp.ring pur final environnmtal document. Should yw nccd more wonrntion or cldtition of thc enclo~d conmwnts, IL~: reconvnarvl tluri you contact the comnnting apy direclly.
This later aclmowledps thnt you haw complied With the Shk Clearinghouse rcview rrqulremenb for dnfl cnviroillnrmal docmmmh, purrrvnr to tho Califoyia Eavimummlrl Quolily Act PI- contacl the Slate
Clarrl@uus PI (916) 4(5-0613 If you kre my queb*ionr regvrding rh cnvironmnul nvuw prucnr.
Sincerely, 3- Wnr PLplmn. Saw Clearinghow
Letters of Comment and Respome~
.-
Letters of Comment and Responses
***Use intro and list of letters from resp.pm.
. .- ._
F W
I
LETTER A1 Letters of Comment and response^
DearMr. Mm:
ll~e U.S. Pish md Wddlifc Sarvlcs (ssrvlce) and rhs California Dcpuhnsni of Fish and Game
(lJcpMncnt). hafr.~ Calkcrively refeptd to IU tha Wildlife Agendam. have terrlved and reviawed the Pd Environmental Impact Repmt (DBKR) for rhc above-xcfcmeui prqteor. me
pm@t Is locot#l in the somvUt quadrant ofthc City of Carlhd (City). The 819-acn cllpvar
to the south by tho Rdncho Wbnd Mobile Home Park, to the west by Carlsbad Village Drive
and to the cast by the pmpored Crlam Nahva prwtQv6.
The phry con~em ad mandrtc d the Scrvict I8 the protealon af publit fich and wildlifa
~owetll and thsir habitas. The Service has led mspanribility for the wolfam of migratory M, madmmoue fish. Md endanprod mimdi and phta accuning in the UnlM Starer. 'Ihe
Service is dso caspondble for adminl&ng tbo Endulgacd Species Act of 1973. as iinmdtd ,(Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 rf my.). The Dnprtmcnt b P rmstco agency under tho Crlifornir ~vlmnmsntal Quality Act (CEQA) and is rcsponsiblu for cnsurlnp qpqwinte QonMrvrtion of fish and wUdlih rts~1z~c6 ineluding me, threatened, md mdangercd plant and animal specie& pluru&nt U) the Califomin Fn- Species Act (Ces A), and admlnisterp the Natural
Camtnunity Conmion Plmning Pmghn (Nccp).
The DER contdnr thm related pmjccw 1) an orncndmnt to rhe Cdavan Hills Master Plan: 2)
tho exmsiolrr of CoUcga Boulevard and Cannon Road xoutheasc d the Mastet Phn atearhrough
the fonnation of a City-initlatd BtidF and Thoroughhn District; ahd 3) the wnsrmction of two dctantlon basins by drc City In the vicinity of the College Bwlovard and Cmnon Road intarsacdon. The amcndtnant to the -tor Plan involvao modification of the caitting land WE
designations and mngca residenual densities to pmvlde for the residential build-out of
Hills Ww Plm L bauadsd to UIO by the OCeMSids City liiW md Stnts RCU~ 781
2
A
Letters of Comment and Respon~e~
*
1. Comment noted. Although the HMP is proposed and has not bem adopted, the HMP hard line
open space arean anticipated minor change8 based on grading designs for specific projects.
However, as described in the draft EIR, an open space equivalency analysis for the ovdl
development of Phase Il of Calavera Hills was prepared. Subsequent to the release of the draft
EJR for public review, the project applicant and the wildlife agencies have met to discuss the open
space system and have modified the project design for Villages K, U, W, and X, which will ensure
that the Calavera Hills open space system will function as anticipatd by the draft HMP.
Specifically, at Village K the brush management requirements have been customized to ensure the
long-term viability of the habitat. As a result of these discussions. the tentative maps that will
follow the Master Plan will reflex3 a reduction in the impacts to sensitive habitats. The final EIR
includes the tabulation of reduced impacts based on the tentative map grading designs.
I
.. .I
I
W. Eric Munoz
contained approrirwely 30 ms of high quality, gnncrrcher occupied CWIU ayy acrub. A lugs won of VWgc K was (hodom. addcd to rhe apn spm P-C.
3
AI-2
2.
A1-3 2
A1-4
AI-5
Letters of Comment and Responses
2. See response 1 above regarding Village K and the modifications to the brush management
conditions that have been made to the project design subsequent to the release of draft EIR for
public review. In addition, the applicant will be required to secure all resource agency permits
which will either approve or disallow the proposed open space changes.
The biology mitigation section of the final EIR has been revised to clarify the on- and off-site
mitigation acreage required. In addition, the acreage associated with Village L-2 was part of the
Phase I open space program and not included in the Phase I1 calculations.
The recommendation to use undercrossings to accommodate wildlife movement is noted. College
Boulevard has already been constructed adjacent to the wildlife corridor, from the northern portion
of Village U to the southern portion of Village K. No undercrossing exists within this existing
roadway. In response to this comment, however. the City has agreed to provide a north-south
undercrossing at Cannon Road Reach 3, near El Camino Real, to allow for terrestrial travel
between Robertson Ranch and Agua Hedionda Creek. Also, wildlife undercrossings will be
provided on Cannon Road Reach 4.
The ownership and management of the Calavera Heights Mitigation Bank was transferred in
November 1998 to The Environmental Trust (TET), as stipulated in the 1993 Mitigation
Agreement. The Agreement predated gnatcatcher listing M any state or federal requirements to
assess coastal sage impacts. A lag resulted between the Agreement of 1993 and the start Of
management efforts by TET in 1998. The alternative to implementing the 1993 Agreement would
have also resulted in a time lag of site management since the property would have stayed in
private ownership without a plan to convert it to a preserve. Furthermore, the city-level mitigation
for Villages Q and T via the mitigation parcel was done outside the typical context of an EIR or
mitigated negative declaration. Currently, the 1 IO-acre preserve is a community asset that did not,
and will not, require any public monies to finance acquisition or short- or long-term management.
TET has enacted a program of improving the degraded mas, conducting aggressive revegetation
and anti-vandalism efforts, and providing for public trails within the preserve. The Calavera Hills
Phase I1 project habitat impacts would be mitigated through a program of both on-site preservation
and off-site acquisition. It should be noted that the draft EIR inadvertently noted that additional
acreage within the preserve could be used as mitigation for the Phase I1 Master Plan. The final
EIR has been corrected to indicate that a combination of on-site preservation and off-site
acquisition will be used to mitigate the impacts. Table 3G-8 has been revised in the final EIR to
describe the on- and off-site mitigation requirements. A Section 7 consultation has been initiated
for impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub. The results of this Section 7 consultation will determine
the exact amount of Calavera Heights Mitigation Bank credit necessary or available, and the
amount of off-site acreage necessary to mitigate the impact. If this consultation determines that
the bank no longer possesses viable mitigation credits, the purchase of additional, acceptable
Diegan coastal sage scrub acreage of similar quality of that impacted will be required.
3.
4.
5.
Mr. Eric Munoz I
I
6.
Letters of Comment and Respo&
See response 5 above.
A1-6
AI-7
AI-8
3. A1-9
Al-10
4.
7.
8.
I 'i
! I
4
See response 5 above regarding the 38 "excess am'' and the project's mitigation requiremeatS.
The final EIR has been corrected to indicate that a combination of on-site preservation and off-site
acquisition will be used to mltigate the impacts. Specifically. Table 3G-8 in the Biology section
(Chapter 3.G.) of the final EIR has been revised to describe the mitigation requiremtnts that
include both on-site and off-site preservation. In addition, the pmjcct applicant has included the
7.36 acres associated with Village K as part of the mitigation requirement for the Phase II project.
This acreage in included in the updated biology impacthitigation table as part of the final EIR.
This mitigation requirement cited in the August 2, 1999 letter for Village K is ac)nowled@. As
noted in responses 5 and 7 above, the applicant has agreed to include the 7.36 aaeS as part Of tk
overall mitigation requirement for the Phase II project impact% The refmd 1999 letter, which
reflects an agreement between the resource agencies and the project applicant regarding €I"
open space, is included as an attachment to the Biology appendix of the final EIR.
As noted in responses 1 and 5 above, the tentative map designs for Calavera Hills Phase I1 reduce
impacts to biological resources, and the final EIR has been revised to reflect the u@td impact
acreages and mitigation requirements. The final EIR will guide the design of the subsequent
village-level tentative maps.
Revegetated manufactured slopes will not be used for open space mitigation credit calcul8tions.
As such, the mitigation requirements in the final EJR (see Table 3G-8) have been revised to reflect
the wildlife agencies' position on this issue.
i. w
Al-11
Pleaps provlh mcns analpis pf haw the extamion of College Boule& wit1 affect
wildife movement from Calavcn Hilla’ open space in the aauI to the op*l spats of Robateon Ranch In the south. We are concerned that the College Boulcvnrd catension
my impede wlldlih movement through these IWO areas ifundercm&ngs w bridgss are not installed along he ripurm CO~UO~.
11.
I !
I i I I I !
Letters of Comment and Responses
The intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road has been designed to minimize wetland impacts as multiple alternative alignments were examined in developing the preferred alignments. In addition, the 404 permit processing has been initiated for the project and minimization of wetland impacts will be evaluated as part of the pennit issuance. The vast majority (94%) of the anticipated impacts to the creeks and wetlands are a result of construction of College Boulevard and Cannon Road. Efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to creeks and other jurisdictional waters were conducted, focusjng on studying alternative road alignments. Four alternative alignments for College Boulevard and three alternative alignments for Cannon Road were. analyzed. In addition, alternative alignments and locations for the CollegdCannon intersection were also analyzed. Several physical factors regarding the roadways and the creeks exist, which do not accommodate total avoidance of creek impacts. A summary of the roadway characteristics and creek limitations is provided below:
ColIeeeKannon Roadwavs: College Boulevard is a planned north-south arterial, which is presently existing at both ends of the subject project; that is, at the northerly Carlsbad city limit boundary (with Oceanside) and also at El Camino Real to the south. As a result, the College Boulevard link proposed with this project is simply the final connection of two presently “stub” ends of the arterial.
a
Cannon Road is a planned east-west arterial, which also is presently existing at both ends of the subject project; that is, at the easterly Carlsbad city limit boundary (also with Oceanside) and dso at El Camino Real to the west. As a result, this Cannon Road link is also simply the final connection of two presently “stub” ends of the arterial.
All recent traffic studies and projections indicate that this College Boulevard link will pmvide north-south traffic relief along congested El Camino Real near the Plaza Camino Real mall and at the I-56R-78 interchange. It provides more direct Oceanside and Vista resident access to the Carlsbad business parks around Palomar Airport. Also, projections show that the Cannon Road link will assist in relieving traffic congestion on Palomar Airport Road and Highway 78. Without these roadway links, several arteries are projected to fail in the years 2005, 2010, and 2020 (buildout).
Creeks: Geographically, the northeastern quadrant of Carlsbad possesses three creek drainages, Agua Hedionda Creek, Calavera Creek, and Little Encinas Creek. Unfortunately these creeks twist and meander in varying directions throughout the area that the roadways must cross.
Agua Hedionda Creek flows northwesterly from the south and parallels El Camino Real south of Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. College Boulevard presently is stubbed only a few feet from this creek, pointing directly across the creek. There is no feasible College Boulevard alignment that could avoid Agua Hedionda Creek. The City is proposing that the roadway bridge the creek to minimize impacts to the degree feasible.
Calavera Creek flows southerly from Lake Calavera to join Agua Hedionda Creek in the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. No feasible alignment exists which would both provide the Cannon Road east-west link between its stubs and avoid Calavera Creek without eliminating scores of occupied residential mobile homes in the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park.
These factors conspire to create a situation where full avoidance is impossible. However, minimization is possible. As mentioned, to reach the optimal minimization, an alternatives
analysis was conducted. The USACE Section 404 permit supplemental information contains the full alternatives analysis, which results in environmentally preferred alignments for the roadways that minimize impacts to the creeks and other waters.
I
Letters of Comment and Rewomes
12. It should be noted that Cannon Road is a regional link, and buildout traff~c projections indicate
that the removal of Cannon Road Reach 4 from the City of Carlsbad circulation plan would be
expected to result in rerouting of traffic patterns and significant traffic congeslion at 0th~
intewtions within Carlsbad. Reach 4 has been situated in the proposed alignment on the City Of
Carlsbad Circulation Element since 1978, which is several years prior to the creation of the
Carlsbad Highlands Mitigation Bank.
The City recognizes the biological impacts to Cannon Road Reach 4 are significant; however, the
regional traffic impacts to the area without this mad segment would also be significant.
13. Realignment of College Boulevard Reaches A and B farther to the west will result in the need for
condemnation and demolition of existing improvements. including residential how, within
Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. For these reasrms. further modifications to the alignments are not feasible.
14. See responee 3 above. The focus of the corridor protection is on avian corridors and not large
mammals. As such, the proposed madways would not affect the &si@ function of the corridor.
It is recognized that in working with the resource agencies to obtain find permib. the find design
of the conidor may accommMLBte other terrestrial wildlife. -
c cn
Letters of Comment and Responses
15. This recommendation is acknowledged. See response 11 above regarding the ability to minimize
impacts from the two circulation element roads on creeks and the associated floodplains. As noted
in the final EIR, Cannon Road Reach 4 has been modified to provide a buffer between the
roadway and the wetlands in Little Encinas Creek. In addition, the 404 permit processing has
been initiated for the project and minimization of wetland impacts and incotporation of
appropriate project wetland buffers will be determined as part of the permit issuance.
The Biology section (Chapter 3.G.) of the draft EIR describes mitigation options for impacts and
notes that specific mitigation measures for the least Bell's vireo include avoidance during the
breeding season and monitoring of riparian habitat during grading. Additional measures may be
required through the 404 permitting process and consultation with the USFWS. Subject to
approval through the 404 permitting process, the currently preferred wetland mitigation locations
are areas adjacent to detention basins BJB and BJ. In addition, use of the basins as soccer fields or
other public, active, recreational use is not anticipated at this time.
See responses to Regional Water Quality Control Board letter of comment below.
16.
1 17.
Letters of Comment and Responses
A1-18
A1-19
A1-20
A1-21,
cd 7 w 0%
'P
18. The City concurs that the use and implementation of the Draft HMP should guide mitigation
measure development even if not formally adopted. Specifically, the City concurs that the impacts
to southern mixed chaparral and non-native grasslands should be mitigated to Draft HMF'
requirements. The final EIR has been revised to reflect this comment. I
19. The final EIR, specifically Figure 3G-2, will include updated maps that identify the vireo
locations.
20. See response 9 above.
21. Comment noted. See also response 14 above.
hbr. Brsc Munca
I.
Letters of Comment and Responses
8
. . a California Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Diego Region
Secmaryfor . 9771 Chirannt Meu Bou*nrd. Slale A. SU Lhcp.Cahfmu921UI324 Gnrnnr
Wllrtoll E. Flickox hma Mdrst hllpJlvvws\ncb apvt- Grmy Davis
LETTER B EwrmmNd pbme(E38)46?-2952 * FAX(858)57149T2
PmuCrion
February 6,2001
, Mr. Eric Munoz
City of Carlsbad, Senior Planner
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Subject: Calavcra Hills Master Plan Phase II, Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4, and
Detention Basins Draft Environmental Impact Report
Dear Mr. Munoz:
The Regional Watcr Quality Control Board, San Diego Region (RWQCB) has reviewed the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II, Bridge and
'Ihomughfarc District No. 4, and Detention Basins Project (Project) that was received on
February 2,2001. The 819 acre Calavera Hills Master Plan area is located in a northeast portion
of the City of Carlsbad. The project mses to amend the existing Calavcra Hills Master Plan,
construct extensions of College Boulevard (reaches A through C) and Cannon Road (reaches 3
and 4), and construct two detention basins within the Calavera Crack watershed. Direct impacts
to waters of the US. from construction of the pmposed residential rlt\zlopmcnt include 0.1 ~cre
of Vegetated watm and 0.2 am of unvegetated waters; impacts from the proposed road
extensions include 3.8 acres of vegetated waters and 0.2 acre of unvegetated waters; and impacts
fmm the proposed detention basins include 0.2 acre of vegetated waters and no impacts to
unvegetated waters.
The primary concerns and mandates of the RWQCB is the protection of water quality standards, j
these include numeric and narrative water quality criteria, beneficial uses; and the State's
antidegradation policy. Water quality criteria for inland surface waters arc identified in the
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (9). Beneficial uses for Calavera Creek,
Agua Hedionda Creek, and Little Encinas Creek include municipal and domestic water supply 0, agricultural supply (AGR), industrial (IND), contact and nonantact water recreation
(REC-1 and REC-2), warm freshwater habitat (WARM), and wildlife habitat (WILD). The antidegradation policy stab that MY water quality degradation will be consistent with the maximum benefit to the people of the State; will not unreasonably affd existing and potential
beneficial uses of such waters; and will not result in water quality less than described in the Basin
Plan.
California Environmental Protection Agency
Letters of Comment and Responses
Mr. Muwz -2- February 6.2001
Potential impacts to water quality standards are not adequately addressed in the DEIR. .The
Regional Board quests that the EIR address the following specific concerns.
Water Ouality
B-1 The proposed project has the potential to adversely impact water quality during construction as
well as over the life of the project. The DER does not address potential impacts to water quality
from construction activities (eg., increased erosion and sedimentation due to grading) and from
the generation of urban pollutants. In order to fully evaluate the potential impacts to water
quality, the DER should, at a minimum, address the following questions:
B-2 Would the proposed project result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters? Consider temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, heavy metals, pathogens, sediment. nutrients, etc. Also consider changes in duration, frequency, and intensity of flooding.
Would the proposed project result in increased erosion downsueam (e.g., detailed
discussion of pre- and post construction hydrology for the entin project)? B-3 'd F 5
~4 Is the project tribumy to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean Water Act 303(d) list? If so, will it result in an increase in any pollutant for which the water body is
already impaired?
B.5 Is the project tributary to any environmentally sensitive areas? If so, will it exacerbate
already existing sensitive conditions?
Would the proposed project have a potentially significant adverse effect on ground water quality?
Will the proposed project cause or contribute to an excedence of applicable surface or
groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses?
What urban pollutants are expected to be generated by development of the entire. project?
What are the current concentration or occurrences of these pcillutants with waters on the
project site, and what am the expected loading rates?
Furthermore, the DEIR should identify specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) that wilt be
implemented during construction and over the life of the project; BMPs should also be specified
for each type of proposed land use (e.g., residential development, roadway, commercial facility).
Information on BMPs should also include the required maintenance, the entity responsible for
maintenance, and a maintenance schedule.
Letters of Comment and Responses
1. The draft EIR on page 277 addresses the potential for water quality impacts (e.& sedimentation
and erosion) from construction activities. Mitigation measures are described in the EIR to reduce
these impacts to below a level of significance. The project proponent is required to prepare and
receive City approval of a construction and post-construction SWPPP which will be Rquired to
include these miligation measures.
The DEIR does discuss, on pp. 277-279, the on-site structural BMPs and long-term maintenance
responsibilities required by the City of Carlsbad as part of the future tentative map approvals and
the detention basins incorporated into the project design; increases in pollutant discharges into
downstream water bodies and adverse changes to downsbam flood flows would not be
anticipated. The project includes pollution control basins that will serve to protect against
pollutant (including erosion) discharges off-site, and detention features (Basins BJ and BJB)
which have been designed to improve downstream flooding and erosion problems that have
occurred in the past. And as mentioned on p. 281, mitigation involving a SWPPP will be approved
prior to construction of the proposed project, which will require a demonstration that pollutants
will be controlled during the construction and postconstruction periods.
A map showing the pre- and post-project Q'O and Q'O0 values was submitted to the RWQCB as
part of the submittal package for the 401 State Water Quality Certification application. These
values show, with implementation of all applicable BMPs, there will be no significant change in
the hydrology downstream. Therefore, no increase in downstream erosion is anticipated.
As noted in the draft EIR, runoff from the project site drains into two watersheds, Buena Vista
Creek and Agua Hedionda Creek, and ultimately discharges into the Pacific Ocean. The Buena
Vista Lagoon. Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and Pacific Ocean adjacent to the Buena Vista Lagoon
outlet are each included on the 1998 California 303 List of impaired water bodies. The listed
pollutants for the Buena Vista Lagoon include high coliform counts, nutrients, and
sedimentatiodsiltation. The listed pollutants for the Agua Hedionda Lagoon include high
coliform counts and sedimentation/siltation. The listed pollutant for the Pacific Ocean
surrounding the Buena Vista Lagoon outlet is high coliform counts. The project, with the
proposed mitigation, will not increase any of the pollutant impairment conditions. See. also
response 2 above.
The majority of the project is northeast of upper Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Calavera, Agua
Hedionda, and Little Encinas Creeks are all tributary to the lagoon. Portions of the project are also contributory to Buena Vista Creek, which drains into Buena Vista Lagoon. With proper
implementation of the proposed project BMPs both during and after construction, the proposed
project would not exacerbate any existing sensitive conditions in the creeks or lagoons.
Additionally, the currently preferred wetland mitigation will involve creation of a vegetated
willow foorest at locations adjacent to Basins BJB and Basin BJ. This wetland mitigation will
serve to provide additional protection of the downstream environmentally sensitive areas.
2.
3.
4.
5.
California Environmental Protection Agency
Q Reryrl.d Paper
Mr. Munoz .2- Febm 6,2001
I
Letters of Comment and Responses
Potential impacts to water quality standards an not adequately addressed in the DEIR. .The
Regional Board nquests that the EIR address the following specific concerns.
Water Ouality
The proposed project has the potential to adversely impact water quality during construction as
well as over the life of the project. Thc DEIR does not address potential impacts to water quality
from construction activities (e.& increased erosion and sedimentation due to grading) and from
the generation of urban pollutants. In order to fully evaluate the potential impacts to water
quality, the DEIR should, at a minimum, address the following questions:
0 Would the proposed project mult in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving
waters? Consider temperature. dissolved oxygen, turbidity, heavy metals, pathogens,
sediment, nutrients, etc. Also consider changes in duration. frequency. and intensity of
flooding.
Would the pmposed project result in increased msion downstream (e.g.. detailed
discussion of pre- and post consbuction hydrology for the entire project)? 8 Is the project tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean Water Act
303(d) list? If so. will it result in an increase in any pollutant for which the water body is
already impaired?
Is the project tributary to any environmentally sensitive areas? If so, will it exacerbate
already existing sensitive conditions?
~-6 Would the proposed project have a potentially significant adverse effect on pund water quality?
B-7 Will the proposed project cause or contribute to an exccdence of applicable surface or
groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses?
B-8 What urban pollutants BIC expected to be generated by development of the entire project? What am the cmnt concentmion or occurrenw of these pollutants with waters on the
project site, and what an the expected loading rates?
B.9 Furthermore, the DEIR should identify specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be
implemented during construction and over the life of the project; BMPs should also be specified
for each type of proposed land use (e.g., residential development, roadway, commercial facility).
Information on BMPs should also include the required maintenance, the entity responsible for
maintenance, and a maintenance schedule.
Caxifornin Environmental htection Agency
6 Redd Paper
I
6. With proper implementation of the proposed BMPs during'and after construction and the project-
related pollution control basins required of the SWPPP that will filter runoff, standards for surface
and groundwater receiving water quality will not be violated and beneficial uses will not be
degraded as a result of the proposed project. In addition, implcmcntaticm of the project will reduce
the use of pesticides and fertilizers currently used on a portion of the project site for a~cultural
operations.
7. Sce response 6 above.
8. As noted in the draft ER, the conversion of land to urban use will innease the momt Of
pollutants entering into the hydrologic system. primarily through the storm water drainage. 'Ihwc
increased pollutants am directly related to the oils, fuel residues, and heavy metals associated with
automobiles. The water running off the project building surfaces picks up chemicals from
construction materials; water flowing across streets and driveways picks up hydrocarbons and
heavy metals associated with roadways and automobiles; and runoff from domestic landscaped
aredgardcns is contaminated with fertilizers, pesticides. and pet waste. Determination of the
current concentrations of these types of pollutants associated with the agricultural operations that
exist on a portion of the project site and the runoff entering the site from existing development is
beyond the scope of this EIR. Given the proposed BMPs and detention basins incorporated into
the project, the potential for water quality impacts would be mitigated.
I
MI. Munoz -2- Fcbruaiy 6.2001
Potential impacts to water quality standards are not adequately addressed in the DEIR. .The
Regional Board requests that the EIR address the following specific concerns.
Water Quality
The proposed project has the potential to adversely impact water quality during construction as
well as over the life of the project. The DEIR does not address potential impacts to water quality
from construction activities (e.& increased erosion and sedimentation due to grading) and from
the generation of urban pollutants. In order to fully evaluate the potential impacts to water quality, the DEIR should, at a minimum, address the following questions:
Would the proposed project result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving
waters? Consider temperature, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, heavy metals, pathogens,
sediment, nutrients, etc. Also consider changes in duration, frequency. and intensity of
flooding.
Would the proposed project result in increased erosion downstream (e.g., detailed
discussion of pre- and post construction hydrology for the entire project)?
Is the project tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean Water Act
303(d) list? If so, will it result in an increase in any pollutant for which the water body is
already impaired?
Is the project tributary to any environmentally sensitive areas? If so, will it exacerbate
already existing sensitive conditions?
~-6 Would the proposed project have a potentially significant adverse effect on ground water quality? ~
B-7 Will the proposed project cause or contribute to an excedence of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses?
B-8 What urban pollutants are expected to be generated by development of the entire project? What are t!!e current concentration or Occurrences of these pdutants with waters on the
project site, and what arc the expected loading rates?
B-9 Furthermore, the DEIR should identify specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be
implemented during construction and over the life of the project; BMPs should also be specified for each type of proposed land use (e.g., residential development, roadway, commercial facility).
Information on BMF's should also include the required maintenance, the entity responsible for
maintenance, and a maintenance schedule.
Cafifornb Environmental htection Ageney
Letters of Comment and Responses
9. The City of Carlsbad is required to approve a SWPPP. which will include maintenance
requirements including a schedule and responsible entity(ies) as well as a list of the proposed
BMPs for each type of land use.
..
B-IO
’ B-12 w
B-13
B-14
B-15
B-16
B-17
Mr. Munor -3 February 6.2001
The DEIR states that the project will be mass graded. To avoid potentially adverse impacts to
water quality, the DEIR should address phased grading of the project. This will minimize the
area of exposed soil within a given time period and reduce potential increases in erosion and
sedimentation due to grading.
Benefieialuses
The proposed project has the potential to significantly impact bendicial uses identified for
Calavera Creek, Agua Hedionda Creek, Little Encinas Creek, and unnamed tributaries. The
DEIR does not address impacts to beneficial uses and should, at a minimum, address the
following questions:
What arc the upstream and downstream resources for each of the drainages that will be
impacted by the proposed project? HOW will proposed impacts affect the functions and
values of beneficial uses adjacent to the project area?
What ax the current functions and values associated with each waters of the U.S. that
will be impacted by the proposed projaCt? What are the expected functions and values of
these waters of the U.S. following project implementation?
What are the types of road crossings (e.g., bridges, culvetts) for pmposed mads that cm over a waters of the US.? Provide cross sections that show the proposed strum as
well as the maximum size of structure that could be accommodated given final grades and
mad bed conshuction.
How will stream flows be diverted and aquatic connectivity maintained while work is
conducted within a waters of the U.S.?
The proposed detention basins appear to impact Calavera Creek and Little Encinas Creek, It is not apparent how dry-season flows will continue through the existing creeks. In other words, how will linear stream functions be maintained if the basins are constructed as propod? Furthennore. the DEIR states that “Construction of the “BS’ detention facility. . . would mate
more habitat value for the area” Please provide the rationale for this statement. The DEJR also states that “Approximately 600 feet of channel improvements upsmam of the proposed
embankment are ncceswy in the adjacent uak. The channel improvements would include
grading of a trapezoidal, grass-lined channel . . .” Please explain why these “improvements” are
necessary and what alternatives were looked at to avoid or minimize further impacts within the
creek. Also identify the alternative basin designs and locations that were looked at.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Letters of Comment and Responses
Comment noted. The grading of the Calavera Hills Phase Il project and reaches of College Boulevard and Cannon Road will be phased over an approximate 18-month period. BMF’s and an erosion control plan for all construction activities will be required as conditions of the tentative
map approvals to ensure that adverse erosion and sedimentation impacts are avoided.
A general characterization of the upstream and downstream resources of each drainage is provided in the biological technical report appended to the DEIR. Functions of the Tesoutzes include flood control, habitat conservation, and groundwater recharge. These resources m not expected to be adversely affected by the project nor will their functions and values be diminished.
The current functions and values of the on-site waters of the US. include wildlife habitat, short- and long-term water retention, removal of particulates/pollutants, and groundwater recharge.
These functions and values are not expected to change with implementation of the proposed project.
Most of the road crossings of waters of the U.S. will be made using culverts. The crossing of
College Boulevard over Agua Hedionda Creek will be via bridge. Cross sections of these facilities were submitted to the RWQCB as part of the submittal package for the 401 State Water Quality
Certification application.
The construction effort will include a program which maintains continuoudaltemative drainage path for the existing stream flows. This program will include erosion control features within the flow lines of both the existing and temporary stream course alignments, consistent with the requirements of the Section 1601/03 and Section 404 permits.
The proposed detention basin on Calavera Creek is actually adjacent to the creek. Low flows will
be allowed to continue down the creek and connect via culvert to Calavera Creek at the Cannon RoadCollege Boulevard intersection near the mobile home park. The Calavera Creck tributary does not connect to Agua Hedionda Creek until just east of El Camino Real. Detention basin BJ. on Little Encinas Creek allows the low flows to pass through the basin in an earthen swale. The flows then exit the basin via a culvert under College Boulevard, which discharges slightly upstream of Calavera Creek.
The draft EIR pnsented optional locations that would be suitable as mitigation for project-related wetland impacts. Subsequent to the close of the EIR public review period. the project applicant in consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and wildlife agencies reviewed the location of the mitigation areas and determined that locations north of Basin BJB and an area associated with Basin BJ could be the most appropriate sites to mitigate project wetland impacts. Determination of the exact size and location of the wetland mitigation would occur during the processing of the 404 permits.
The 600 feet of channel along Little Encinas Creek that will be affected by the BJ detention basin that is currently within the outer developed area of the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park (RCMHP). The creek flows through an area that is used for a garden and supplemend RV parking. The RCMHP garden is actually an existing community garden managed and maintained by the residents of the RCMHP. The narrow earthen channel is highly disturbed and contains
areas of riprap. The new grass-lined trapezoidal channel to be created in the detention basin will be an improvement over the current disturbed earthen channel. These improvements are necessary to minimize erosion of the low flow channel of Little Encinas Creek.
Mr. Munoz Letters of Comment and Responses -4- February 6.2001
Indirect Impacts
8-18 The proposed residential development is expected to result in an increase in the volume and
duration of runoff from irrigation of landscaped mas. Typically, this runoff results in the
conversion of ephemeral and intermittent drainages into perennial drainages. This problem is
further exacerbated by the practice of outletting storm drains into existing waters of the U.S. The
end result is a conversion from a riparian plant community that is adapted to less water (e.g.,
mulefat) to a plant community that dies on pennnial flows (e.g. southern willow scrub). The
draft EIR does not specify plant species that ace present within each vegetation type so it is
difficult to determine what the potential impacul of increased mnoff are. The DEIR needs to provide more detail on specific plant species and the expected impacts from runoff.
Furthermore, the DEIR needs to look at impacts downstream of the project to determine potential
impacts.
The Regional Board also addresses potential impacts to groundwater resources. The DEIR does
not address potential impacts to groundwater. At a minimum, the DEIR needs to:
B-19
Identify existing groundwater resources within the project area.
Expected cliungcs (e.g., recharge rates, migration of urban pollutants) in groundwater
quality and quantity as a result of project implementation.
How the proposed project will impact alkali marsh, a significant wetland plant
community that is dependent on groundwater.
l.2
Cumulative lmmcts
B-20 A complete discussion of the history of improvements made to these drainages and measures that
were previously implemented to preserve water quality and beneficial uses should be included in the cumulative impacts analysis. Include information on thc acreage of the watersheds and sub- watersheds which are tributaries to these drainages, along with the volume of dry-season urban
runoff which is generated from such watersheds. Also include a discussion of the water quality
include structural and nonstructural BMPs, previous loss of wetland habitat within these
drainages, and restoration and conservation projects.
, treatment processes, that are being provided by each of the drainages. This discussion should
18. The biology section of the DEIR and the biological technical report appended to the EIR provide
the plant species compositions of each of the drainage courses on the site. The major creeks on the
site are already receiving supplemental water from the agricultural operations that exist on and
around the site. Additional water from postdevelopment of the area will likely have a beneficial
effect on the habitat of these creeks. The supplemental water will encourage better understory
growth. tree growth, and, thus, more woodland habitat for wildlife. In addition, this issue will be
addressed through the required consultation with CDFG, USFWS, and USACE.
19. See response 6 above regarding groundwater impacts. In addition, it is expected that the detention
of water in the two project-related detention basins would improve groundwater recharge in the
area. Finally, the alkali marsh found on the site is confined to very small areas. The proposed
project is not expected to adversely affect groundwater in these areas.
20. A complete history of all improvements made within the subject drainages (the drainages extend
into the cities of Vista and San Marcos) and measures implemented to preserve water quality and
beneficial uses in conjunction with these improvements is beyond the scope of this EIR. The
hydrologic analysis for the proposed project's detention facilities has been designed in ac~ordancc
with the previously approved studies in the project ma. As noted in the draf? EIR, these include
the Calavera Hills Master Plan Area, Phase I, drainage study; the conceptual drainage plan for the
Rancho Carlsbad Channel & Basin Project; and the City of Carlsbad's 1994 Master Drainage Plan.
See also response 2 above.
.. .
MI. Munoz -5- February 6,2001
Altmmtives and Avoidmce
The majority of impacts to waters of the U.S. result from construction of the proposed road
extensions and detention basins. The DEIR mentions alternatives to the proposed road crossing
but does not provide sufficient &tail to determine if there are environmentally less damaging
alternatives. The DFJR should provide all alternatives looked at for the road extensions,
evaluation criteria, impacts, and rationale why the altematives were determined not to be
feasible. Sumcient detail should be provided for verification of the analysis. For example, if an
alternative was not proposed due to costs, costs estimates and assumptions should be provided.
~-22 The DEIR does not discuss alternatives to the location or design of the proposed detention basins. The DEIR also does not provide sufficient rationale for not placing the basins in upland
areas and conholling runoff before it leavcs a project site. If the creek floods due to natural
runoff. that information needs to be provided as well.
B-21
cd Mitieation
h) P
T B-23 The DER does not provide sufficient information to determine if impacts to water quality
standards are being adequately mitigated. The DEIR states that mitigation will occur onsite,
provides a suggested mitigation ratio, and identifies a few potentiai mitigation sites. Following the functional analysis of existing waters of the US.. the DEIR needs to develop a specific -
mitigation plan to allow reviewers to determine if lost functions and values are being replaced.
At a minimum, the DEIR should identify the following:
Separate the BcRage that is proposed for creation, enhancement, and restoration
For each of the proposed mitigation -, provide a figure that shows how the BM will
integrate with adjacent, natural areas, grading plans, and cross sections. Provide a table
that differentiates the acreage of mitigation bascd upon the proposed plant community
(e.&. alkali marsh, riparian woodland. unvegetated waters).
Describe the buffers (e.&, width, vegetation, slopes, e&) around preserved wetlands and
mitigation -. (For purposes of this analysis, a buffer consist of areas without any
impacts [e.g.. graded slopes. landscaping]).
Provide a detailed discussion of how the mitigation areas will connect to existing waters
of the U.S.
Letters of Comment and Responses
21. As described in the draft FJR and as part of the 404 pennit application and 401 RWQCB
certification processes, a discussion of project alternatives regarding the road crossing has been
included and a comparative analysis of biological impacts is part of the draft EIR in Table 4-4..
22. As part of the overall Master Drainage Study (City of Carlsbad 1994), alternative locations werc
examined for the proposed detention basins. As proposed. these basins are consistent with the
adopted Master Drainage Study. The 404/401 permits include an alternativcs analysis as part of
the application package for review by USACE and RWQCB. It should be noted that the majority
of the drainage basin has been developed, and no feasible options exist for provision of detention
facilities on propties upstream. The proposed basins are not affecting existing riparian habitat
and may in the future be used to provide for additional wetlands beyond that existing to date.
A mitigation plan that outlines the proposed location of the riparidwetland mitigation sites, the
acreage of each, the plant palette to be used, buffers, tables of plant species, maps showing the
locations of the mitigation sites relative to the project. and a general maintenance and monitoring
program is included in the DFJR and was submitted to the RWQCB as part of the submittal
package for the 401 State Water Quality Certification application.
-
23.
MCTD w LETTER C
March 16,2001
Eric Munoz
Senior Planner
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase I1 and Bridge and Thoroughfare District #M (EIR 98-02/MP ISO(H)/GPA 99-03LFMP 87-07(A)lZC 00-OdSUP 00-08/
CT 00-02/HDP 00-02)
Dear Mr. Munoz,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II and Bridge and Throughfare District #4. North
County Transit District (NCTD) has reviewed the above referenced project, and has the
following comments:
Existing Bus Service
NCTD currently operates bus service along portions of Tamarack Avenue and Carlsbad
Village Drive that are located in the developed portion of the Calavera Hills Master Plan.
Route 322 serves as the “Carlsbad Local” route and provides hourly service seven days a
week between the Carlsbad Village Station and Plaza Camino Real.
Future Bus Service
NCTD is currently restructuring bus routes for the North County region. As part of our Fast Forward Service Plan, we will update our current bus routes in order to provide
simpler and faster service to the community. The goal is to increase ridership by
providing more convenient services. With the implementation of Fast Forward, route 322
will be discontinued and will be replaced by route 324. Route 324 will originate at the
Carlsbad Transit Center, running east along Carlsbad Village Drive, eventually heading north on College Avenue. Implementation of route 324 is scheduled for August, 2002, although this date is subject to the removal of barriers on College Boulevard along the City of CarlsbdCity of Oceanside border.
Letters of Comment and Responses
Requested Bus Stop Improvement Locations
After reviewing the EIR, we request the following inhtructurc improvements for the
Calavcra Hills Master Plan Phase II project at the following locations:
1) On College Boulevard northbound, existing bus pullout located just north of
,
’ c-l TamarackAvenue.
Letters of Comment and Response3
0 A sidewalk, boarding pad and bench currently exist in this location.
Improvements should include a bus shelter, trash receptacle and a 10’-0” deep from face of curb by 15’4” hoarding pad that meets Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) standards.
2) On College Boulevard southbound, existing bus pullout located just south of Tamarack Avenue.
0 A sidewalk, hoarding pad and bench cmtly exist in this location.
Improvements should include a bus shelter, trash receptacle and a IO’-O” deep
from face of curb by 15’-0” boarding pad that meets ADA standards.
3j On College Boulevard northbound, existing bus pullout located just north of
Tamarack Avenue.
0 A sidewalk, boarding pad and bench cumntly exist in this location.
Improvements should include a bus shelter, trash receptacle and a 10’4” deep from face of curb by 15’4” boarding pad that meets ADA standards.
4) On College Boulevard southbound, existing bus pullout located just south of
Tamarack Avenue.
A sidewalk, boarding pad and bench currently exist in this location.
Improvements should include a bus shelter, trash receptacle and a 10’4” deep
from face of curb by 15’-0” boarding pad that meets ADA standards.
I have included a copy of Figure 3B-4 from the Draft Environmental Impact Report with
the existing bus stop locations indicated in red to assist the developer in the siting of the
requested infrastructure improvements.
Infrnstntcture Dimensions
Passenger shelter
We recommend a 13-foot Tolar non-advertising shelter with a dome roof (model number 13NALD-GL). If the requested bus stop locations arc not currently lit &e. located under
or near a streetlight) we would also request that a solar panel be installed on the bus
1. These quested infrastructure improvements to existing bus pullout facilities in the developed
portions of Calavera Hills are noted. The project applicant will work with North County Transit ’
District during the tentative mapping stage of the project to determine site-specific requirements at
these locations. The village tentative maps will he routed to North County Transit District for
I review.
I
I
shelter to light the structure at night. The maintenance of this facility should be the
responsibility of the applicant.
I have enclosed additional information regarding the bus shelters we would like the
developer to use. When the developer is rendy to install the shelters, please have them
contact me so our transportation services staff can review the siting and installation of the
bus facilities.
Thank you again for giving NCTD the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. If you have any questions regarding my comments, please contact me at (760)
967-2859 or email me at bcorson@>ctd.org.
Sincerely,
Brenna C. Corson
Assistant Transportation Planner
Enclosure
Letters of Comment and Responses
02875/TOL '
EuvLlne 1142
Letters of Comment and Responses
-
5
_- - . . .. " ... ,. . -- .
..
Mr. Munor -6- February 6.2001
Provide a map showing the location of the mitigation area in relationship to the impact
mas, a map showing existing resources within and adjacent to the mitigation area, and a
figure showing the proposed plant layout and plant palette.
A discussion of maintenance and monitoring activities and duration.
If you have any questions concerning the issues raised above, please contact Ms. Stacey Baczkowski of my staff at 858-637-5594.
Sincerely,
L/ &n H. ~obcrtus Executive Officer San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Calvomia Environmental htection Agency
Q Recycled Papr
Letters of Comment and Responses
Proposed Mass Grading Plan
. .- . . . . - .- .- . .. -
P
t x
i
? w c
LETTER D
rlsbad Unifizd School District
801 Pine Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008
(760) 729-9291 FAX (760)729-9685 ..a world class dlsfriccf
March l6,2001
Mr. Eric Munoz Senior Planner
City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE: EWN0.9842 CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN PHASE 11, BRIDGE AND
THOROUGHFARE DISTRICT No. 4 4% DETENTION BASINS
Dear Mr. Munoz:
The Carlsbad Unified School district is in receipt of the above document. We have reviewed the information as it relates to the existing and future school facilities as well as the propetty owned by the District designated as a future High School site. Please see the
following comments and observations.
C. Characteristies of the Proposed Project Page 19
2). Bridge & Thoroughfare District No. 4 - College Blvd./Cannon Road Extensions
Cannon Road Reach 4
Cannon Road reach 4 may have negative impacts on the ultimate
size of the District future high school site. The City public impmvements for the Major Arterial serves not only the Northeast quadrant of the City, but also will serve as a regional circulation element that will dtimately coMect to the city of Oceanside and
the City of Vista to the east. This is clearly more "demand" than is
dictated by a high school.
The approximate acreage that would be removed fiom the futurc high school site to provide Right-of-way and grading for this
major arterial madway is approximately 5.0 - 7.0 acres.
D-1
Letters of Comment and Responses
1. Comment noted. Cannon Road Reach 4 impacts to the CUSD high school property beyond those
required to serve the high school project will necessitate compensation to the landowner pursuant
to legal requirements and eminent domain law.
Under existing circumstances, with no basin impmvements, the 100-year flood inundates a poftion
of the high school site. The DEIR analysis demonstrates the inundation area under circumstances
of a 100-year flood with Basin BJB installed, which is larger than that under the existing
circumstances. It is anticipated that fill grading over the western portion of the high school site
will reduce the impact of the 100-year flood if Basin BJB is constructed. Rood control
improvements in excess of those required to serve the high school project will again necessitate
compensation to the landowner pursuant to legal requirements.
Substantial coordination with the City of Carlsbad of final design of these improvements should
occur to ensure that the public impmvements described in this EIR do not eliminate the viability
of a high school use on the site.
I
1- 5p w h)
Mr. Eric Munoz Calavaa Hills EJR March 16,2001
3). Detention Basins
Detention Buh "FLJB"
Future. City of Carlsbad dation basin (BJE3) that serves the
Calavcra Creek watershed 8128 will apparently inundate a portion
of the hture. high school site. The detention basin will have a
negative impact to the district property.
The approximate acreage that would be inundated and thus
removed from the future high school site for the detention basin
may be as much a~ 2.0 - 4.0 acres.
The District acknowledges the procars in which City public facilities arc planned and
proposed. The District is also bound by a State process to provide school facilities. After
reviewing EIR 98-02, we conclude that approximately 7.0 - 11.0 acres of City of
Carlsbad public facilities arc proposed on the future high school site and will have a
signdieant effect on the District's property. The reduction of land 8128 available for a
high school campus, given the topography of the site creates the possibility that there may not be an adequate amount of usable propcrty to adequately aceommodatc District
and State requirements.
Thank you for the opporh~nity to comment on EIR 98-02.
Sincerely,
CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
kiatant Supahtendent, Business Services
GF/jc
cc: Cheryl Emst, Superintendent
Letters of Comment and Responses
I
LE'ITER E
City of Vista
April 2,2000
Mr. Eric Munoz, Senior Planner City of Carlsbad Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
RE: Draft EIR for the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase 11 and Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 (College and Cannon)
Dear Mr. Munoz:
The City of Vista has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report FIR) prepared for the
Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase I1 and Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 (College and Cannon). Based on City staffs initial review of the Notice of Preparation for the EIR, the City
submitted a letter detailing our concerns regarding increased traffic on Melrose Drive that could
occur as a result of construction of Cannon Road Reach-4, which was dated February 8,2000. In
the February 8 letter, the City of Vista requested that the project traffic analysis prepared for the construction of Cannon Road Reach4 address nine (9) specific intersections within or adjacent
to the City of Vista. Those intersections are:
~-1
Hacienda DriveNista Village DrivdState Route 78 interchange Melrose DrivdState Route 78 interchange
Melrosc DrivelEast Vista Way
Melmse DrivdHacienda Drive Melrose DrivdSunset Drive Melrose DrivdCannon Road
Melrose DrivdShadowridge Drive
Melrose DrivdSycamore Avenue Melrose DrivePdomar Airport Road . '
Of the nine intersections identified above, the traffic report prepared for Carlsbad Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 (Urban Systems Associates, 2001) analyzed only two, consisting of Melrose DrivdCannon Road and Melrose DrivdPalomar Airport Road.
The City has the same concerns now that were expressed in the response letter to the NOP, that
is the connection of Cannon Road has the potential to add approximately 10,000 average daily
trips to Melrose Drive, which could significantly impact several intersections that are currently projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service in the fuhuc. Therefore, the City requcsts
Letters of Comment and Responses
1. The Calavera Hills Phase I1 project study area was determined by using the Regional Congestion
Management Plan Guidelines for preparation of traffic impact studies. These guidelines extend
the project study area out to locations with 50 or more peak hour trips in one direction. The
intersections listed in this comment are outside the study area established for the project.
However, in response to this comment, the intersections listed in this comment have ken
evaluated for AM and PM peak hour LOS with and without Cannon Road Reach 4 in Year 2020.
These locations are expected to be at acceptable LOS during the Year 2020 AM and PM peak
hours (LOS D is considered acceptable) except at the Melrose DriveNista Way intersection,
which is projected at LOS F without Reach 4 in the AM peak, but LOS E with Reach 4, and LOS
F in the PM peak, both with and without Cannon Road Reach 4. Therefore, based on this
additional evaluation it can be concluded that the completion of Cannon Road would have a less
than significant impact at these locations, but that impacts in the Year 2020 as a result of planned
regional growth would be significant and unmitigated both with and without the construction of
Cannon Road Reach 4 at the Melrose DriveNista Way intersection. The LOS worksheets for
these intersections have been included as an attachment to the traffic technical report (Appendix
B) in the final EIR.
In addition, Figure 8-1 of the Carlsbad Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 traffic study (DEIR
Appendix C) shows Year 2020 average daily traffic volumes on Melrose Drive with Cannon Road
Reach 4 in place, while Figure 8-7 shows the Year 2020 traffic volumes without Cannon Road
Reach 4. A comparison between these two figures (shown in Table 8-8 of the traffic appendix)
indicates that the greatest increases in ADT volumes are expected along College Boulevard, an
increase of approximately 6,000 ADT; Faraday Avenue, up 3,000 ADR Palomar Airport Road, up
3,000 ADT between Melrose and El Camino Real; Melrose Drive, up 5,000 ADT; SR-78 west of
College, up 4,000 ADT; and 1-5, up 3,000 ADT. In the city of Vista, Year 2020 ADT volume
changes on additional segments without Cannon Road Reach 4 would be minimal, ranging from a
slight decrease to no more than a 500 ADT increase. A figure comparing the 2020 ADT volumes
with and without Cannon Road Reach 4 has been included as an attachment to the traffic technical
report (Appendix B) in the final EIR.
I I
j
Mr. Eric Munoz
Page 2
that the Mic report pnpend for Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 address the project’s
potential impact to the seven other intersections that were initially identified by the City.
City staff appreciates the opportunity to review the DraA EIR and we look fonvard to a timely
response to OUT concerns. Should you have MY questions regarding the issues identified hatin or quire any additional information, please feel fm to contact me at (760) 726-1340, extension
1262.
I J April 2,2001
Sincerely, fllVY EnVironmentnlPlanu r
cc: Robin Putnam, Community Dcvdopment Dinaor Wayne Dmetz, City Attorney
Rita Geldert, City Manager
u F
P
Letters of Comment and Responses
1. The Calavera Hills Phase 11 project study area was determined by using the Regional Congestion
Management Plan Guidelines for preparation of trafic impact studies. These guidelines extend
the project study area out to locations with 50 or more peak hour trips in one direction. The
intersections listed in this comment are outside the study area established for the project.
However, in response to this comment, the intersections listed in this comment have been
evaluated for AM and PM peak hour LOS with and without Cannon Road Reach 4 in Yea2020.
These locations are expected to be at acceptable LOS during the Year 2020 AM and PM peak
hours &OS D is considered acceptable) except at the Melrose DriveNista Way intersection.
which is projected at LOS F without Reach 4 in the AM peak, but MS E with Reach 4, and LOS
F in the PM peak, both with and without Cannon Road Reach 4. Therefore. based on this
additional evaluation it can be concluded that the completion of Cannon Road would have a less
than significant impact at thcse locations. but that impacts in the Year 2020 as a result of planned
regional growth would be significant and unmitigated both with and without the construction of
Cannon Road Reach 4 at the Melrose DriveNista Way intersection. The LOS worksheets for
these intersections have been included as an attachment to the traffic technical report (Appendix
B) in the final EIR.
In addition, Figure 8-1 of the Carlsbad Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 traffic study (DER
Appendix C) shows Year 2020 average daily Wic volumes on Melrose Drive with Cannon Road
Reach 4 in place, while Figure 8-7 shows the Year 2020 traffic volumes without Cannon Road
Reach 4. A comparison between these two figures (shown in Table 8-8 of the traffic appendix)
indicates that the greatest increases in ADT volumes are expected along College Boulevard, an
increase of approximately 6,000 ADT; Faraday Avenue, up 3,000 ADT; Palomar Airport Road, up
3,000 ADT between Melrose and El Camino ReAl; Melrose Drive, up 5,000 ADT; SR-78 west of
ColIege, up 4,000 ADT; and 1-5, up 3,000 ADT. In the city of Vista, Year 2020 ADT volume
changes on additional segments without Cannon Road Reach 4 would be minimal, ranging from a
slight decrease to no more than a 500 ADT increase.. A figurt comparing the 2020 ADT volumes
with and without Cannon Road Reach 4 has been included as an attachment to the Mic technical
report (Appendix B) in the final EIR.
LETTER F
Mr. Eric Munoz, Senior Planner
City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Re: Bridge & Thotwghfan District #4
Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Em Report”)
Dear Mr. Munoz:
Our community, Rancho Carlsbad Country Club Estates, will be impacted considerably by the highway extensions of Cannon ”Reach 3”, the intersection of Cannon and College, and the College extension “Reach A”, particularty the construction ofDetention Basin BJ. This report
only addresses the “Reach A” portion of College, adjacent to the planned BJ Detention Basin. This, :lie ETR relattn only to II portion of the dl improvements proposed under ths Bridge
and ThorougMse. When tlle BJ Detention Basin is constructed, we lose our RV Parking Area,
Maintenance Buildinb and related Maintenance Equipment Storage Area, our Garden, and the
balance of the remaiqder of our land &ill become inaccessible. Therefore, our position is that the
issues relating to thelBJ Detention Basin should be addressed at the outset of the phased
improvement.
cd 7 w VI
In anticipation of the publicstion of this report, we have formed what we refer to as our “Blue
Ribbon” Committee. made up of individuals with extensive backgrounds in civil engineering, land
and building dsveloppcnt, law, government and contracting. Their review found several arm of
concern that we want considered and modificatiom made in this report and in ibturc planning.
We will identi@ eact area of concern, suggest solutions that we believe are reasonable and that
can be done at a minimum of wcpense in rdation to the overall cost of the project.
We recognize the need for these highway extensions due to current and fibre development plans,
and we do not intend to he nntagonlstic, but prdhr to be viewed as cooperative. At the snme
time, we are asking you and the City Government at large to recognize that Rancho Carlsbad has been an established neighborhood for close to 30 years, maintaining a “Senior” lifestyle superior
to most senior conununities in San Diego County, and we do not want our lifestyle, amenities,
and security reduced or jeopardized by these developments. Now for the specifics:
I
Letters of Comment and Responses
1. Location of Cannon "Reach 3":
F-l The EIR states that Alternate 1 of "Reach 3" is the pnferred routing. We strongly
disagree, recornending Alternate 2. The Alternate 1 routingsweep in too dose to our
community: It will bc less than 150 feet from 18 residences along Don Lonnu, Drive and
3 othm at the Nor& East end of our neighbomood. In fict, 40 resid- are within 300 fect at the North EMt portion, in addition to the 14 residences in the North West section. Altanati\Ec 1 negatively impacts the community, and then is no reasonable mitigation for
the noise, light, and other negative mors aMilable for this alternative.
Altemate 2 of Cannon "Reach 3" does not impact our North East quadrant until it
approaches the College Avenue intasection and then only 4 residences are within
300 feet. Incidentally, all of the maps omit the 5 homes on the East side of Don Juan Dr.
at the North East corn.
In nvidng the Tables 4-2,4-3, & 4-4, listing the mitigation impacts of Ahkes 1 and
2, there arc minimal differences. 1. the grading is a trade-off, in fact somewhat fivorable
for Alternate 2. 2. the effect on ngetnbion is similar, and 3. the noise impact fbr
Ahemate 2 h definitely less. Tks6 statements mu all confhncd in the EIR, pages 327 &
328. The vjsual would be somewhat inonased. but that's an auxptable trade-off far less
noise. Theionly other negative to Ahemate 2 is the impact on existing agricultural
options. It will move the hi
corridor ofland can serve
a
w o\ on avenge to the North. This wid=
ch we will elaborate on shortly,
?
F-2 is the noise it will create on er wall will be cwstructed at Most all of our resideaces are 30" to 40' above ground. The wall location at the West end of Cannon"Rcach 3" is
insufficient in our vim. Thewall should &ut aa dose to the El Camino Real
feet. This segment ahwld
the fann house and becomes visible. Hem again, the 6 foot wall should atart 300 fwt to
the West of the proposed site. All of these comments arc based on Alternate 2. f.
2. Construction of Detention Basin BIB:
The order of phasing the proposed work is Unacceptable because the current
recommendation places our community in serious jeopardy of a flood. The construhn of this basin is critical to the long planned mitigation for flood control, as a section of our
Letters of Comment and Responses
1. A minimum 150- to 300-foot-wide open space buffer is proposed between the Cannon Road
Alternative 1 (and 3) alignment and the closest existing Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park
residences. This buffer is considered adequate for minimizing compatibility impacts between the
uses. Subject to noise policy compliance, the typical minimum buffer between major arterials and
new residential areas in Carlsbad is 40 feet [Ordinance 21.45.090(b)(I)].
It is acknowledged that the grading, biological, and visual impact differences for Alternkives 1
and 2 are nominal. The impacts for Alternative 3 (the Reduced Vertical Intersection Alignment)
are measurably less. However, the draft EIR describes the environmental benefits and drawbacks
associated with each alignment. Alternative 1 is considered the preferred alternative as it would
require slightly less earthwork (approximately 18,000 less cubic yards of grading), reduce the
maximum manufactured slope height from 60 feet to 30 feet, and create less of a visual quality
impact. In addition, under Alternative I, the land use impacts to the agricultural operations at the
Robertson Ranch would be minimized. The noise modeling conducted as part of the draft EIR for
Alternative 2 also indicated that four-foot-high noise barriers at the two locations shown in figUn?
3D-13 would comply with the City's noise standards for residential uses. The need for a highw
and more extensive barrier would not be warranted given the roadway design, projected traffic
volumes, and relationship of the road to the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. In addition, the
noise modeling for the project did include a receiver location at the east side of Don Juan Drive at
the northeast comer where the five homes are located (see Figure 3D-14).
Standard "ground level" testing is typically conducted at 24 to 36 inches above ground surface.
The subject tests are considered adequate for structures situated 30 to 40 inches above grade. The
DEIR conducted a scientific analysis of expected noise impacts assuming the alternative roadway
alignments and projected buildout traffic volumes. including truck traffic. The identified noise
barrier locations and heights resulting from this analysis are identified. Additional noise barriers
beyond those identified in the DEIR can be provided if desired and required by the City; however.
they are not needed in order for the roadway alternatives to comply with CEQA and the City's 60
dBA noise standard.
As shown on Tables 3D-8, 3D-9, and 3D-10, noise levels for all alternatives can be mitigated
through installation of a 4- to 6-foot-high noise barrier wall in the locations shown. This barrier
will duce noise levels to 60 dBA CNEL or leas, in compliance with City standards. for all three
Cannon Road Reach 3 alternatives. The need for an additional 300 feet of a noise barrier is not
warranted based on the noise analysis conducted for the roadway. The noise modeling takes into
account the roadway noise source and traffic conditions relative to the receiver locations (see final
EIR Figure 3D-14) and the results do not indicate the need for a noise wall within the 300-foot gap
referenced in this comment.
2.
, r .- . . .....
G 4
F-3
F-4
community is within the 100 year flood plan. The EIR addresses this subject; in fact,
assumes the basin will be in place (Table S-I). This is fbnher discussed
in the hydrology section of this report verifying that the existing Calavera Creek parallel
to our community has become filled with silt. It goes on to state “In addition downstream at El Camino Real, the bridge is currently unable to handle substantial flood flows”. This
is stated on Page 278 of the EIR The silting of our creek has occurred before any
significant construction has begun.
The EIR correctly points out the impuct of future development to the North and North
East of our community. The increase in the amount of run-off will only aggravate what
already is a potential flood problem.
It seems to us that not only should the BIB Detention Basin be in place, but our creek
should be dredged and the problem at the El Camino Real bridge addressed any major construction of College andor Cannon, “Reach 3”. B & C begin. To do otherwise,
we believe, would be negligent. Our community was assessed in excess of S300,OoO
toward the cost ofthis dredging, which we are paying. Why hasn’t this been moved to the
top ofthe agenda? We believe it is not receiving the priority that it should.
3. Recreation Vehicle Parking:
~-5 The proposed mitigation reldng to the RV Parking is inadequate. The Cannon “Reach A” section and the construction of Detention Basin BJ will eliminate our present
RV parking facilities and parking needs. We currently lease parking spaces to 46
residents. Some of the Rw are up to 40 fwt in length. We have a few “5’” wheelers, where the pulting vehicle and trailer are longer still. Because of the size of many of thsre
vehicles, the aisles need to be wide enough to enable me of parking. We need spaces for
about 10% of our residents, or 50 spaces. In addition, we have a “dump station” tied into
our sewer system and a vehicle wash area which is dso used by many other residents fbr
their cars. This also drains into the same system, reducing pollution in our creeks. The EIR allows about H acre. This is totally inadequate. We need close to 3 acres to replace
what we use now.
4. LandscapeMaintenance Facilities:
F-6 There is no proposed mitigation relating to the deletion ofthe Landscape Maintenance Facilities. At the rear of our Recreational Vehicle Parking Area is a Maintenance & Tool
shop and two smaller storage sheds for chemicals, as required by the EPA, and other
landscaping supplies and tools.
In addition, we park our dump truck, large mower, and several vehicles and carts used for
our extensive landscape maintenance, which requires a Landscape Manager and five
employees, fill time.
The extension of College Avenue across our property will deprive the Association of the
Letters of Comment and Responses
3. Comment noted. The City requires that post-development storm water be contained to pre-
development levels. The removal of silt from the creek will he a separate project managed by the
City of Carlsbad and will be concurrently coordinated with construction of the basin@).
The questions asked as to City priorities and agendas are City policy and priority questions and are
not within the purview of this DEIR. Phasing of the construction of Basin BJB will be determined
by the City of Carlsbad as the improvements are implemented. However, it is anticipated that
Basin BJB may be built in phases. Adequate erosion control will be implemented during
construction as required by the mitigation measures identified in this DEIR. Erosion levels are
required to be no worse or improved from existing circumstances.
The standard of review for environmental impacts with regard to replacement of the RV storage
lot is the amount of lot necessary to comply with City zoning standards. The RV storage area and
facilities in the present Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park lot significantly exceeds the adopted
City zoning standards. Per the City’s zoning standards, the required area is approximately 10,080
square feet (504 dwelling units times 20 square feet per unit). The proposed approximately 0.5
acre (21.780 square feet) substantially exceeds the City’s minimum requirement. CEQA does not
require that impacts to areas in excess of the minimum required be considered a significant
environmental impact. As such, the DER does not consider the RV storage replacement acreage
a significant environmental impact.
In compliance with the City of Carlsbad zoning ordinance (Section 21.45.090). the developer of
College Boulevard Reach A will he required to install a 0.24-acre site (0.5-acre maximum to allow
for driveways and aisles) in an adjacent site to be approved by the Director of Planning for the
City of Carlsbad. Candidate areas for relocation of the RV storage lot include a por&ion of the
Rancho Carlsbad Partners’ property between the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park and the
future College Boulevard Reach A or on the Robertson Ranch property immediately northwest of the mobile home park. The Land Use section (Chapter 3.A.) of the final EIR has been revised to
clarify the mitigation requirements. The City may decide, at the Council’s discretion, to provide for a full replacement of the RV storage lot, beyond the minimums required for zoning
compliance, outside of the CEQA process. This replacement size will be addressed at the time that
College Boulevard Reach A is constructed, which will significantly change the access to the
existing lot. The issue of compensation or replacement of existing amenities will be resolved prior
lo the time College Boulevard Reach A or Basin BJB receives improvement plan approval.
This comment is noted. However, the loss of access to a landscape maintenance area is not
considered a significant environmental impact pursuant to CEQA guidelines. In addition, the
College Boulevard right-of-way in this location has been previously dedicated to the City by the
Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park landowner. CEQA docs not require that impacts to areas in
compliance with Clty requirements be considered a significant environmental impact. AS such,
the DEIR does not consider the loss of access to the landscapehaintenance area a significant
environmental impact. Outside of CEQA, however, the City may agree to replacement Of the landscape facility. This issue will be considered at the time that College Boulevard Reach A is brought forward for construction.
4.
5.
6.
vital space where it is now out of view fiom the residences. This, too. requires
"mitiption" and suitable docation.
5. Theciaden:
F-7 Thm is no proposed miti&Uion relating to the deletion of the Garden. One of the biggest
oversights of the EIR, in our opinion, is its fkilure to deal with the loss of three acres of tillable roil actively cultivated by the Rancho Carlsbad Garden Club members.
Perhaps a few facts should be motioned at this time. The Rancho Carlsbad Oardm Club
was established in 1974. We haw 95 residents representing 52 households (over 10%) BJ
current members of the club, with 128 garden plots under cultivation, many of these
growing winter as well as AuNllcc cmps.
Some of our members have fiuit trees which take mny yean to bring to yield while
others grow an assortment offlowaa, many of which grace our clubhouse at dous
social events. The club provides produce at its "Fanner's Market" stand as a money
raising activity 2 or 3 time during the aumnsr powing season, which h quite poprlrr.
Many members supply fra produes to Bdghbon and fiiends throughout our community.
Thia past year* the club hdd five outdoor picnic style hers with bntertainment, open for
all resident8 to attend, at a modest charge. The dub is a mjor source of outdoor activity
for its manbcrs d. of social benefittothcRancho carlsbad community at large. I am
sure we could pt ovawhelming medioal opinion atteStiag to the therapeutic benefit, both
physical qi mental, that ga*lsning brings, especially to Seniors.
This thra acres of garden ah has considerable infrastructure.. It is completely fenced, all
garden plots are sectioned off with fencing. with gravel paths throughout. There is under- ground wqcr pVC piping) ta d plots, aupplisd from our main pump and irrigation water
system. Mony gardeners have orected tool sheds, which would be difficult to movc, md
finaUy the soil has bem emichcd and productivity enhanced. It would take up to three
years to impm new, virgin roil.
Ths EIR ~QIS into great detail comanins the need to mitigate Biological Resources.
What about some consideration for Human Resources?
This Garden isma commercial rium, but a social activity that will cease to exist if
consideration is not given for its relocation on suitable land, contiguous to our community.
w 00
Letters of Comment and Responses
The elimination of a domestic garden, even if it constitutes a social and therapeutic activity, is not
consided a significant environmental impact pursuant to CEQA. CEQA does not mn that
impacts to areas in compliance with City requirements be considered a significant envimnmenUd
impact. As such, the DER does not consider the loss of garden a significant envimmnkd
impact. In addition, the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park community garden is a use that is
not required by the City or other agencies. The loss of the garden is a mult of implementing the
previous mad dedication for College Boulevard and is therefore not considered a significant
environmental impact under CEQA.
I
6. Proposed Solution For Replacement Of RV Parking, Maintenance Equipment & Garden Areas
F-8 By the selection of Cannon “Reach 3”. Alternate 2, it frees up significant acreage
contiguous to our northern border with the Robertson land that it appears would provide
us the land we need to adequately relocate all of the facilities we lose when College
“Reach A” is constructed. In fact, the EJR suggests the use ofRobertson land. We would need a simple bridge constructed across Calavera Creek from our community, in order to
access this location. There are at least 2 or 3 sites that could be utilized for this purpose
tying into our existing streets, that would not adversely impact any resident’s property.
This new location would also need to be secured with adequate fencing so as to maintain
our security and facilitate the regular patrolling of this area. As you may know, we not
only man our front entrance gate 24 hours, we employ a second person patroiling our
entire area and common buildings 24 hours, 7 days a week as well. The issue of security
will be increasingly important to us as highways open up our Eastern borders. That, too,
will need to be addressed in your future planning.
The EIR also recommends that the acreage (our acreage) cut off by College “Reach A”
to form the BJ Detention Basin be allowed “to go back to nature”. The existing facilities, Le., paving, fencing, garden infrastructure, etc. is to be removed and the area replanted
with native material. No mention is made throughout this report of land acquisition costs
for this “cut off land. It is not only denying us access, it is tantamount to a “taking”.
This land has significant value, and we expect to receive fair compensation and fair
mitigation of the negative impacts on our community.
We are not necessarily looking for monetary value, but value in kind. We want the
facilities we will be losing to be replaced on sufficient contiguous land which leads us back
to the Robertson land North of our border assuming Alternate 2 of Cannon “Reach 3” is
the approved route. Without a survey it would appear that there would be sufficient
acreage to accommodate our needs. Obviously, this needs further investigation by all
parties.
So, what we are proposing is a possible “trade of land” that could involve the land owner,
Robertson, the Developer, McMillan, or other developers, in need of present or future
“Open Space” to satisfy environmental requirements.
Letters of Comment and Responses
8. These summary comments are acknowledged. Cannon Road Reach 3 Alternative 2 is considered a
feasible alternative roadway alignment since the DEIR concludes that all impacts can be mitigated
to a level of insignificance. This finding is also made for Alternatives 1 and 3. It should be noted,
however, that the land purchase costs associated with Alternative 2 are expected to be significantly
higher than either Alternatives 1 or 3, since Alternative 2 effectively bifurcates the existing
agricultural operations and renders a larger area of the operations unusable for farming.
Additionally, alignment alternatives farther north would be expected to result in landowner
proposals for development between Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park (RCMHP) and Cannon
Road and would thus result in minimal buffer of land uses from RCMHP to the north. These
factors would tend to support the alignment of Alternatives 1 and 3. The ability to constnrct a
bridge across Calavera Creek from the RCMHP for access as suggested in this comment requires
resource agency review and approval.
At the time that the RCMHP landowner dedicated the College Boulevard Reach A land to the City
of Carlsbad, the access to this property was essentially severed. A determination of the value Of
this cutoff land will be negotiated in conjunction with acquisition of the easements necessary to
install the detention basin, and fair market compensation is anticipated. Also, see responses F-7
above.
I
Letters of Comment and Responses
We beficvc our proposals arc CQUoMble and oonmudive, and we offer solutions that will resolve
our con- and the regulatory guiddims of the various governmental bodies involved.
We would be happy to meet and discuss these issues with any and all parties concerned.
BiU Amold. President Rancho carlsbad Owner's AMociation
CC: David Hauser, Deputy City Engineer Claude "Bud" Lswiq Mayor, Ci ofcarlsbad
Am Kulcin, Mayor Pro Tem Ra~nona~umila,caUacil~emba MattHall,CdMambsr
Sue Loftin. Attomy, ILC.0.A Juliaws~councilMaolbes
LEmR G * OCEAN HILLS COUNTRY CLUB
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
April 2,2001
City of CarIsbad
Attn Eric Munoz, Senior Pher
1 63 5 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008
RECEIVED
AP2 0 2 2001
CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT. Dear Mr. Munoz:
SUBJECT: Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase 11
This letter is in response the above referenced embnnmual impact report issued by the City of
Carlsbad dated February 2001. We understand that the deadlim for fiiing comment^ to the report is April 2,2001.
G-1 Our community is concerned about the emmOnmental impact that this project will have on our community. Occan Hills Country Club cornunity is composed of 1,633 homes and approximately
2,500 residents. The report indicates that homes within 1,500 feet of Cannon Road will be impacted by
the proposed changes to Cannon Road. There are 43 1 homes in our community within 1.500 feet of
Cannon Road. There are also 69 homes that are within 300 feet of Cannon Road. For your intbnnrtion we are enclosing a scale drawing of the properties within our community that are within these distances
from Cannon Road.
cd 7 2
6-2 Ocean Ws Country Club Homeowners Association opposes the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase n -
Bridge and Thoroughfjlrr District No. 4 & Detention Basis as oumntly propostd because the report
does not adequately address the environmental impact on the homes in our community.
Thank you for addressing the concuns of our community.
Shoerely, Ocean Hills Country Club Homeowem Association
President
Enclosure:
cc: Board of Directors, Ocean Hills Country Club Homeowaa Association Mr. Everett L. Delano, Esq.
cbdotwc
Letters of Comment and Responses
1. Comment and map noted. The proposed project involves a realignment of Cannon Road Reach 4
at the Carlsbad-Oceanside city boundary (overlapping approximately 450 linear feet into
Oceanside in order to avoid significant biological impacts to riparian and wetlands habitats on
Little Encinas Creek westerly of Ocean Hills. This current alignment shown on the existing
General Plan Circulation Element since 1968 predates the listing of sensitive and endangered
plants and animals, and the proposed alignment of Cannon Road Reach 4 would shift the roadway
to the north to avoid significant biological impacts. As shown in the draft EIR, the proposed
alignment (Alignment 1) would shift the roadway upslope, out of the riparian area, approximately
230 feet to the north at the current terminus of the roadway. In doing so. the elevation of the
roadway would be raised by approximately 35 feet in this location.
Subsequent to the draft ElR public review period and in response to resource agency concerns,
Alignment 1 for Cannon Road Reach 4 has been shifted further to the north to provide an
increased buffer between the roadway and adjacent wetland habitats in Little Encinas Creek. Figure 3B-11 has been revised in the final EIR to illustrate this change. This modified Alignment 1 slightly decreases the impacts to coastal sage scrub habitat and eliminates the need for a 4O-foot-
high retaining wall.
In response to this comment, additional noise modeling was conducted for both of the alignments
for Cannon Road Reach 4 to examine the effect of the vertical and horizontal realignment at the
Ocean Hills residences. Using the traffic volumes contained in the draft EIR traffic report.
multiple Ocean Hills residences were used as modeled receiver locations along the edge of the
roadway to compare the noise levels that would result under both alignments. The results of the
modeling indicate that the realignment will have the result of pushing the Cannon Road noise
source farther away from Ocean Hills residences (particularly at its western end), thus generally
reducing noise levels from Cannon Road compared to the noise levels that would occur if the present alignment were maintained. This modeling documentation (graphics and text) has been
included as an attachment to the noise technical report as part of the final EIR.
The buildout of Cannon Road has been on both the City of Carlsbad and the City of Oceanside
circulation plans and General Plan maps for several years, including prior to the construction of
Ocean Hdls project in the 1980s. The environmental impact of Cannon Road on Ocean Hills
development was addressed at the time that the Ocean Hills development was considered and
approved by the City of Oceanside. The proposed Cannon Road Reach 4 under the current
Calavera HillslSridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 project will generally reduce the noise
impacts to Ocean Hills over those associated with the current alignment. Noise impacts associated
with Cannon Road Reach 4 were addressed by the City of Oceanside in the 1980 approval of the
Leisure Village Final ElR that includes the Ocean Hills project.
Opposition of the homeowners association to the proposed extension of Cannon Road is
acknowledged. However, it should be noted that this roadway has been shown on the City Of
Oceanside General Plan Circulation Element since 1968. Environmental impacts associated with
Cannon Road were anticipated by the City of Oceanside in the 1980 approval of the Leisure
Village project and final EIR that included the Ocean Hills project.
2. .
4600 Leisure Vilage Way, Oceanside, California 9205&5101 Tel(760) 758-7080 Fax (7a) 758-8647
t
___ ~. ~ _-__ . .I._ . -- . .' --.I . . , . . ., -. . -. . . .- - I_ . . .I. - .. ... . ." ,
Letters of Comment and Responses
As an introduction to the responses to the following letter, it should be noted that the land uses proposed
in the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase I1 addressed in the EIR are generally consistent with the cumntly
adopted Master Plan and General Plan land use designations. The proposed project represents the last
phase of the long-standing Master Plan that was originally approved in 1974.
1. Comment noted. The responses to the Preserve Calavera letter of comment (Letter I) are provided
below.
2. Comment noted.
3. These comments on eliminating Cannon Road Reach 4 and reevaluating Calavera Phase I1 are
noted. However, the USFWS has provided a letter of comment on the draft EIR (see Letter A-1)
that generally concurs with the proposed project open space pursuant to an 1999 agreement
between the USFWS and the applicant.
RECElVED
4UO 1 CITY OF CARLSBAD
Eric Munoz PLANNING DEPT,
Senior Planner
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
1635 Faraday Carlsbad, CA
LE'ITER Z
Letters of Comment and Responses
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this major master plan and madway project, We look forward to WMking with you to modi@ this project so that it will be ecceptable to the community, pleservc biological resources, d be consistent with our vision for a regional nature
preserve around Mt calavem
Please make sure that we arc includad on your project notification list and am advised of dl
future notices, documents, and hdng for the proposed dmlopncnt and roadway projects. .
Sincerely, n
.. .
I ._ . . . ~ ..I_- . .. --.
I
7 R I
CALAVERA HILLS PEASE II
BRIDGE AND THOROUGHFARE DISTRICT NO.4 DETENTION BASINS
COMMENTS ON EIR 98-02 SCB NO. 99111082
These comments are based on the draft ElR dated February 2001.
4/2/01
Preserve Calavera is a grassroots organization of residents of Carlsbad, Oceanside, and Vista and
users of the open space around Mount Calavera in northeastern Carlsbad. The ma is one of
two, large contiguous native habitats remaining in North County. It is roughly bounded by Lake Blvd on the North, Palomar Airport Road on the south, El Camino Real on the east, and
Melrose on the west. Its value as native habitat is enhanced by including several paroels that
have been protected for many years- BWM Vista Park in Vista, the Dawson-h Monos Rcsem,
Oak Riparian Park in Oceanside, and Calavera Heights and Calavera Highlands mitigation
banks.
1-1 While the city of Carlsbad intends to develop much of this existing open space, our goal is to
protect and preserve it as a regional nature preserve. The size of the area, large number of
distinct habitats contained within it, and the rich diversity of plants and animals make it worth
special consideration for preservation. Most of the area is classified as “Very High” habitat
value in the MHCP Study Area (Figure 2-3). But perhaps what is most unique about this area is
its location right in the middle of extensive development- where thousands of people have the
opportunity to experience nature, learn to appreciate it, and to participate in its protaxion for
future generations.
While much of this existing open space is technically “ preserved”, it is preserved in name only.
Off-road vehicle use in the area increases, invasive plants are displacing native species, storm water protection violations occur throughout the industrial sites along LQS Monos and La Mirada
Canyons, and documented c~ses of the destruction of small populations of endangered plants
are found in essentially every biological survey done in the area over the last ten years.
Calavera Hills Phase II is located in the northern portion of this large existing open space area.
It is particularly important to the preservation of the integrity of the larger area because of its
location adjacent to Mt Calavera, impact on Lake Calavera and Calavera Creek through the
watershed area to Buena Vista and Aqua Hedionda Lagoons, its function as a connecting link in
the regional wildlife comdor , and the presence of severs! endange&hreatened species.
The associated roadways will dissect what was a large, joined open area into four quadrants-
none of which are able to sustain the existing populations of plank and animals. The noise, run-off and visual impacts of roads in this area will undermine the effective functioning of the
entire preserve.
Calavera Hills Phase II doesn’t just impact the 300 acres of Phase II- it will impt thousaods of
acres of high quality habitat. Proceeding with this project in its current form will drastically
Calavera Hills Phase II, BTD No. 4, and Detention Basins 1
Letters of Comment and Responses
As an introduction to the responses to the following letter, it should be noted that the land uses proposed
in the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II addressed in the EIR are generally consistent with the currently
adopted Master Plan and General Plan land use designations. The proposed project represents the last
phase of the long-standing Master Plan that was originally approved in 1974.
1.
I
It is the intention of cities, including the City of Carlsbad, to implement long-standing Master Plan
and General Plan designations in cooperation with the responsible resource agencies, which
provide guidance for establishing wildlife corridors. To this end, the City has facilitated the 110-
acre conversion of private property to a nature preserve that, prior to preservation, was allowed to
develop with residential uses. No public money was required to acquire the preserve, nor will it
be required for future management. Furthermore, preservation efforts formulated during the
process will redirect public users to appropriate trails developed in coordination with the preserve
and will eliminate historical trespassing that jeopardized sensitive habitats and individual floral
and faunal species. With regard to Calavera Hills specifically, the resource agencies have a lead
role in defining and requiring wildlife corridors and regulating the use of sensitive wildlife habitat.
Various other comments submitted by Preserve Calavera are noted.
1-2
1-3
1-4
alter this land hrever- and it will alter it in ways that impus the iimctioning of the small
remaining native habitat Modifications to the poposcd project can be made that will still meet
the city of Carlsbad's goal for increased housing, but provide much greater protaction of our
preciousnatural environment
Ourpmpodisto:
-
-
-
-
increase densities in VillagEs El. K, and G2
reconfigureopenspace to save all ofvillage H, and most of W, and U
eliminate Reach 4 of Cannon Rd
redesign madways to integrate viable public traosit altcmatives
Our vision is fbr a regional nature preserve around Mt Calavem Our goal is forthe city to de
minor changes to this pmjcct so it can dize this vision Our vision is one where the city
works with the mmmuuity to enhance our quality of life and proteot p~operty values. Its a vision where the city looks at long term impacts of its decisions, and not just the ecolIomic grin from
OM project Its a vision that would benefit the entire region
The following art our specific comments on the dr& EIR
A. LmdUw
Laad use plarming for this site, while consistent with the existing city of Carlsbad oenarl Plan.
is not oonsistent with modem principles of Smart osowth, nor thc policy of the mgid planning
agcncySANDAG. RojectsthatJupportSmartGrowthintegrateplenningfor~cgrowth,
prosperity,- 'm, housing, and the eovironmgd The project needs to be evalumM for
consistence with the Smart cirowthstandapds of WAG-andnot justtfio#-bythe
city of Carlsbad stdads art intendad to pravidc man low cost housing, less qnaa and baterintegratiOnofhwsiagandjobs. F~1uratomattheseshdardsshouldbeidentifisd.
and alternatives should be denloped that wwld be anisistart with these standards.
spccificcxummts:
1. c.rlsbsd's homingclement fails to mect the goals forthe city as defined in SANDAWs Regio~ml Housing keds Soatanna San Diego Region. June 1999. Carlsbad hru met less then
half of the tar@ number of affordable housing units- 604 of 1,125. (See Att A Table 64).
2. SANDAGh incre;lsedthetsrgetednumbcrofhousiagrmitS- butthe PhaseIIMaster Plan Amendment 89 shown on table 2-1 reduces housing units from 795 in the mnt plan to 781 in
the prooposed plan This change moves the city in the wrong direction- raducing total housing
units insteadofinmasing them.
Calavera Hills Phase II. BTD No. 4, and Detention Basins
Letters of Comment and Responses
2. SANDAG is not a permitting agency for the proposed project and the implementation of Smart
Growth principles is a planning issue but is not a CEQA issue nquiring discussion in the EIR. The
proposed project is in compliance with SANDAG policies and projections, inasmuch as it is
consistent with the Carlsbad Oeneral Plan (as amended). The project provides for circulation
element roads that will reduce regonal traffic congestion in the area Additionally, the project will
provide reduced floodplain development and inundation, as well as the development of housing
units, including affordable housing, which SANDAG projections indicate will be in shoa supply
over the next 20 years, particularly in coastal North County. The City of Carlsbad General Plan
has been incorporated into the SANDAG projections, and as previously noted, the project is in
conformance with the General Plan (as amended).
The proposed project will provide additional affordable housing units consistent with City of
Carlsbad affordable housing policies, increasing the City's supply of affordable housing and
moving toward compliance with the SANDAG Regional Housing Needs Statement. The NO
Project alternative would not provide additional affordable housing units.
In addition, State Planning Law Section 65583(b)(2) states, "it is recognized that the total housing
needs identified pursuant to subdivision (a) may exceed available resources and the community's
ability to satisfy this need within the content of the general plan requirements outlined in Article 5,
commencing with Section 65300." As such, the needs assessment is not a mandate or legal
objective. It is recognized that needs may outstrip resoums; therefore. consistent with above
citation, the City of Carlsbad (and most cities) outline realistic use of resouces to address the
needs via General Plan Housing Elements. The State of California certified the City of Carlsbad
Housing Element in December ZOOO.
The project proposes to develop residential dwelling units consistent with the maximum cap for
units left in the Master Plan. The primary reduction in density is to provide wildlife comdors. In
addition, pursuant to City of Carlsbad policy, the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on a
property does not necessarily correspond to the number of units approved on the property. The
reduction in the new maximum number of units allowed (14 units. or 1.8% reduction) is
considered an insign~ficant decrease from the maximum number of units previously allowed on
the site. Increasing dwelling units in the remaining villages would potentially create more impacts
to those villages. The resultant grading concept and product type necessary to achieve the
increased density favored in this comment would generate another set of environmental concerns
and issues. This proposal represents an appropriate balance point.
3.
4.
2
I.._- - - . .. . . .. . .. .- I__...,_
1.5 3. The SNAG targeted share of housing units for Carlsbad for 1999-2004 is 6,214 with 4,623 or 74% affordable housing. (See Att A Table 61) This project provides 140 affordable units of
781 or less than 18%. This low percentage will move Carlsbad further away fmm meeting the
goal and will add to housing costs in the region, sprawl, and traffic congestion.
This increase in density will require improved infrastructute for public transit, parks, and
community commercial.
To support Smart Growth this project should be denser, and include more affordable housing
units:
5
1-6 4. The proposed Bridge and Thorwghfsre District(BTD) is not consistent with prom land use. Cannon Rd Reach 4 extends through the center of what is identified in Carlsbad‘s Habitat
Management Plan(HMp) as hardline preserve. In the HMP Figure 4 Focused Planning Areas
identifies this as Core Area 3. Figures 11 Holly Springs and 22 Calavm Heights show detailed
maps for sections of the preserved hardline area- and neither of these show highways through
this area The large scale map of the entire plan also fails to show these roadways- although they
clearly show other proposed roadways such as the Faraday and El Fuerte segments that will
extend through Carlsbad Oaks North.
The BTD is not consistent with the HMP. The roadway extensions have a significant impact on
the HMP and this was not identified or analyzed in the EIR.
5. The proposed detention basins require relocation of the existing community gardens and recreational vehicle parking area for Rancho CarlsW. The potential relocation sites are d
areas that are adjacent to sensitive habitats. Unless the location is specified, the biological
impacts cannot be assessed. The existing sites have already been disturbed. The proposed
relocation will require mitigation and this was not addressed in the EIR. The relocation will also
generate additional traffic along El Camino Real in order to access mrcational vehicles. Thesc
additional trips are a further adverse impact that was not addressed in the EIR.
The EIR failed to addres the significant impacts to biological resources and traffic from the
relocation of recreational vehicle parking for Rancho Carlsbad.
6. The Carlsbad City council is currently considering a modification to their current land use
description and related Growth Management Plan criteria for community facilities. The
proposed change would allow the community facility in Village H now described as
“community” to be any commercial land use. This change could impact the traffic, visual
character, and other impacts of the proposed project. The ElR nccds to specifically state that the
analysis appli? to a day care center only and any other use would require further environmental
impact analysis.
7. The proposed change to Village H land use. failed to respond to numerous public comments
during the scoping meetings about the importance of the existing land use to the community.
Village H currently functions as a safe, accessible, greatly loved community open space park,
Letters of Comment and Responses
5. This pmject complies with the city-wide minimum inclusionary requirement of 15 percent low-
income housing per Section 21.85.040 and complies with the General Plan. The project is not
required to exceed this City standard. The City of Carlsbad is the land use authority for the
subject properly. City of Carlsbad policy does not require compliance with SANDAG regional
targeted unit counts, phasing nor pricing. Although Carlsbad takes into account SANDAG goals,
SANDAG does not have legal authority to determine land use policy for properties within the City
of Carlsbad nor any other city. A denser project would not be consistent with the City’s General
Plan.
The Draft HMF’ does account for circulation element roadways but did not depict them on all
exhibits since the alignments for those roadways are only conceptually depicted on the General
Plan map until designed with an implementing project. The intent of the referenced HMP exhibits
is not to provide graphic representation of every use in each specific area. A key objective of the
HMP is defined as “permitting for City public facility projects mandated by the Growth
Management Plan.”
Both Cannon Road and College Boulevard are listed in HMP Appendix B as projects allowed
through the HMP. It is, therefore, incorrect to assume that the Draft HMP did not account for
circulation element roadways. As long as mitigation for the proposed Bridge and Thoroughfare
District project is provided as indicated in the EIR, the Bridge and Thoroughfare District is
consistent with the HMP.
The EIR text also indicates that both College Boulevard and Cannon Road have been components
of the Carlsbad General Plan Circulation Element since 1974 and are shown on the adopted land
use map. The proposed project alignments are consistent with the alignments shown in the
General Plan.
i
I
I
I
I 6.
!
Calavcra Hills Phase II, BTD No. 4, and Detention Basins 3
? i%
1-7
1-8
1-9
3. The SWAG bqctcd sharc of housing units for Carisbad for 1999-2004 is 6,214 with 4.623
or 74% affopdable housing. (See Ati A Table 61) This project provides 140 affordable units of
781 or less than 18%. This low Percentage will me CarW further away &om meeting the
gofd and will add to housing cats inthc regi0K spawl,dtraffic congestim
Commlnitycommercial.
This increase in density will quire improved infiastructun for public transit, parks. and
To support Smart Growth this project should be denser. and include more affordable housing
units:
4. The proposed Bridge. and Thoroughfan District(BTD) is not umsistent with proposed land
use. Cannon Rd Reach 4 extends through the center of what is identified in Carlsbad’s Habitat
Management Ph@MP)as hardlinc pmcrvc. In the HMP Figurc 4 Focused Plarming Areas identifies this as Core Ana 3. Figures 11 Holly Springs and 22 Calavera Heights show detailed maps for sections ofthe presened hardline am- and ndther of thest show highwaysthrough
this area Tht large scale map of the entire plan also fails to show these roadways- atthough they
clearly show other proposed madways such as the Faraday and El Fume segments that will
extend through Carlsbad OaLS North.
The BTD is not consistent with the HMP. The roadway extensions have a significant impact on
theHMP and this was not identified or MalyZedinthcEIR.
5 The. proposed detention basins require relocation of the existing community gardtns and
recreational vehicle parking area for Rancho carlsbad. The potential relocation sites are all areas that arc adjacent to sensitive habitats. Unlcss the location is specified, the biological
impacts cannot bed. The existing sib have almuly been disturbed The proPoad
relocation will quire mitigetion and this was not addressed in the EIR The relocation wilt also gcncmtc additional traffic along El Camino Real in order to access donal vehicles. These
additional ldp area further adversc imp3 that WBS not addresscd in the EIR.
The ElR failed to addrnu the significant impacts to biological rcsoulces and traffic from the
relocation of l.uxational vehicle parking for Rancho cartsbad
6. Thc Carlsbad City council is currmtly considering a modification to their cnmnt land use description and related Orowth Management Plan criteria for community facilities. The poposed change would allow the commrmity fircility in Village H now dcscrii BS
“community“ to be any commercial land use. This change dd impact the traffic. visual
chmckr, andother impacts of the pmpoaed project. The W needs to specifically state that the analysis apptiesto a day care center only and any other use would quire finther envimrrmgltal
impact analysis.
7. The. PropOJed change to Village H land use failed to respond to nummus public comments
during the scoping meetings about the importance of the existing land use to the community.
Village H currently functions (IS a safe, accessible, greatly loved community open space park,
Calavera Hills Phase JI, BTD No. 4, and Detention Basins 3
Letters of Comment and Responses
7. Construction of the proposed detention basin does not require replacement of the community garden per CEQA. The EIR indicates that the “community garden is a voluntary use utilized for seasonal vegetable gardening by several of the mobile homeowners. This garden is not a use required by the City or other agencies, and as such its loss is not considered a significant environmental effect.”
As discussed in Chapter 3.A. Land Use and Table S-1 of the EIR, Section 21.45.090&) of the City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance stipulates that planned developments must provide minimum RV storage lot of 20 square feet per unit, which equates to 0.24 acre for the affected property. The significant impact resulting from the loss of a 0.24-acre portion of the approximate 1.5-acre existing RV storage lot is addressed in the EIR. No decision has been made as to the final relocation site.
At the present time, the likely candidate site for the relocation is an area between Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park and the future alignment of Cannon Road Reach 3. This area is on the Robertson Ranch proprty immediately northwest of the mobile home park and flood channel. A 0.24-acre RV storage lot (0.5 acre to allow for driveways and aisles) could be accommodated within this area, although the City could decide to a full-size relocation of the existing (oversized) lot. This location, along with the other locations described in the.draft EIR, was surveyed for biological resouxes in conjunction with Cannon RoadlCollege Boulevard and consists of disturbed agricultural land. Additional impacts would not occur. If another unidentified site is chosen, then additional evaluation for biological impacts would be required. A Conditional Use Permit and any additional environmental review would be required at the time the relocation action is proposed.
However, mitigation requires that a site must be secured and installed prior to the beginning of construction for either Reach A of College Boulevard or installation of Detention Basin BJ. Future selection of a replacement site will require environmental review and approval by the Director of Planning for the City of Carlsbad prior to relocation. The Land Use section (Chapter 3.A.) of the final EIR has been revised to clarify the mitigation requirements.
The draft W includes community facility uses pkpsed for Village H and a portion of Village Y and considers the project impacts in relation to the existing land use designations BS approved. The types of uses allowed under the CF zone include churches, religious reading mm, welfare and charitable services, social clubs, fraternal organizations, youth organizations. civic associations, veterans associations, adult or senior day care, and other uses of similar character BS determined by the Planning Director. The EIR cannot speculate as to future modifications that may or may not be approved. Prior to approving any future change in land use, the City must first consider the effect on existing and already approved uses. The site is intended for development with a community facility. The City has the discretion to approve uses other than a day-care facility if traffic, noise, and other impacts are not significantly differcnt from those identified for the project and reviewed in the EIR, if the City determines the use to be consistent with the approved use and compatible with surrounding uses. Additional environmental review would be required if a future proposed use would result in impacts not identified in this EIR.
The site’s long-standing Zoning, General Plan, and Master Plan designations allow residential development up to 42 dwelling units and provide for future development of an area within Village H that is larger than would be developed by the proposed community facility use. The community facility proposal retains more open space than residential development would retain and would legally sanction the current pedestrian uses on the site noted in your letter. Designated open space areas within Village H will be retained with the proposed project. The proposed use is compatible with the existing and planned land uses and does not represent a significant land use impact.
8.
9.
J
1-10
1-11
? P \o
I. -12
gathering place, children’s play area, dog-walking park and wildlife corridor. This unique, shady
Eucalyptus grove and bail area is of great local concern. The EIR failed to assess the proposed
compatibility of the proposed land use change with the current uses.
8. The EIR failed to address the incompatibility of the proposed residential land use in Villages
U, W. Y, and X with the adjacent operational farm, and the impact of the residents and
roadways on farm operations.
9. The EIR failed to address the impacts of Village Ron the adjacent recreational uses proposed
for Lake Calavera
B. Landform AltentioniViiurl Quality
In the summary of the Environmental Effects for Landform AlterationNisual Quality of the
proposed project found to be significant, two environmental issucs were raised :”Would this
project have a substantial adverse effect on the scenic vista or substantially damage scenic
resources within a state scenic highway? Would the proposed project dfect the visual quality
and aesthetic character of the area?”
The results of the impact analysis states : “ The Landform AlteratiodAesthetic impact from both
within Calavera Hills and off-site areas(e.g.. El Camino Real and Rancho Carlsbad Mobile
Home Park) from the southern villages would be considered a significant visual quality impact
and lists five mitigation measures that are supposed to render these impacts less than significant
The EIR failed to identify other significant impactn, and the proposed mitigations are insufficient
to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.
1. The EIR is extremely vague in the summary p 5-9 of the “sout.hcrn villages” and should
mention them specifically by their assigned letters W. X, Y and 1.” It fails to mention that in addition to Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park, El Camho Real, The Colony (Villages A and
B), The Cape (Village D), and Capistrano(Vi1lage T) would also be impacted in terms of visual
quality. The development of these three villages would also have a severe negative impact on
the scenic vistas from Oceanside neighborhoods including Ocean Hills Country Club, The
Ridge, Spinnaker Ridge, and Ocean Terrace. (See An. B Visual Impacts Not Addressed in
DEIR)
2. Scenic vistas would also be impacted from Calavera Mountain and the Calavern Nature
Preserve. (current Scmic views being the main reeson people climb this mountain and hike ox
bike in th~s preserve and one of the most valuable things about them.) See Aii. B.
3. The EIR fails to mgnjze that any significant visual quality impacts would result from thc
proposed development of any of the other Villages(U, E-I, H, K, L2, and R). (page 43)
Additional scenic view impacts will occur as follows:
Letters of Comment and Responses
10. The EIR addresses project impacts to existing off-site agricultural operations, and mitigation
measures are provided to maintain access to all remaining active agricultural areas during
construction and throughout operation of the roadways and drainage basins. Urban agricultural
operations operate with the property owner’s knowledge of adjacent development, designations,
and planned future roads. Agricultural operations are accommodated but not given preference
over implementation of planned General Plan land uses. Furthermore, the project is consistent
with the adopted land use plan, which provides for residential uses on the site (see Calavera Hills
Master Plan, as amended 1993. and EIR-230 and EIR 90-5, incorporated by reference). Villages U
and Yare interior areas within the Master Plan. Potential compatibility impacts from development
of the proposed residential uses in Villages W and X are considered less than significant. Villages
Y and X are generally separated from off-site agricultural activities to the south and west by
existing topographic features and areas of native vegetation and portions of the existing
agricultural use are potentially compatible with storm use of the basin since it would be tilled only
during the IO-year storm event.
11. Village R has allowance for up to six units in the Master Plan at the same location. This project
will propose four units. The EIR (Chapters 3.A.2.a Land Use and 3.G. Biological Resources)
addresses the compatibility of the four lots of Village R, located at the end of an existing cul-de-
sac, on the urban side of the SDG&E electric transmission easement, with off-site areas. The
impact of these four units in Village R on the lake is not considered a significant impact. It should
also be noted that no recreational uses are formally allowed at Lake Calavera.
All the projects referenced in this comment are existing and allowed developments by the General
Plans for either the City of Carlsbad or City of Oceanside. It is important to note within the
context of the Calavera Hills Master Plan that areas previously approved for development are
reverting to open space and development is being shifted and clustered to implement resource
agency-mandated (not city-mandated) wildlife comdors in the area. In contrast, if the Calavera
Hills Master Plan Phase I1 had been built several years ago (at the higher allowed density and
without strategic wildlife corridors to the degree proposed), the visual quality impacts would have
been increased beyond what is currently proposed.
The summary table at page 5-9 “summarizes” the significant impacts and mitigation measures
identified in the chapter. Additional detail, including identification of the affected residential
communities, is provided in the body of the EIR. The discussion on landform altcratiodvisual
quality (see Chapter 3.8.2) identifies Villages W, X. and Y as the “southern villages.” Residential
neighborhoods within the city of Oceanside are more than a mile east of proposed residential
development areas and would not create significant visual quality impacts. Impacts are considered
to be less than significant and are considered typical of residential development of this scale in
southern California.
12.
Calavera Hills Phase ll, BTD No. 4, and Detention Basins 4
8. The. EIR failed to address the incompatibility of the pmposcd residential land use in Villages U, W, Y, and X withthe adjacent operational farm, andthe impact ofthe residentsand
madwaysonfsrmopaations.
9. The EIR hiled to address the impacts of VihgeR on the adjacent dona1 UMS popoacd for Lake Calavera
B. Landform Alterntio.Rraolal Qeality
Inthesummsryofthe~ Effects for Lendforro Altemtioa/Visual Quality of the
propad project found to be. significant, two environmenlal issues were raised :“Would this project have a substantial advent effect on the scenic vista or substmially damage scenic
resouma within a state Sceaic highway? Would tbc pPoposed project e&ct thc visual quality
andaesttsstccharactcr OfthealeaT
The results ofthe impact dysis states : The Worm Ahatidmc impwttiom both within Calavera Hills and off& arcas(e.g., El Camin0 Real and Raacho Carlsbd Mobile
Home Park) from the Jouthtm villages dd be oonsidaed a significant visual quality impact
and lists five mitigation measures that are supposed to render thcsc impacts less than significant.
P
The EIR failed to identi@ other signiscant irnpcts, and the proposed mitigations me idcicnt
to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.
1. The~iscxtnmelyvague~tfiesurmnaryp5-9ofthe‘swthcmvill~~andshould
mention them specifically by their assigned lettm W. X, Y and 7.” It fails to mention that in addition to Rancha Carlsbad Mobile Home Park, El Camino Real, The Colony (Villages A and B), The Cape (Village D), and Capistraw(Villagc T) dd also be. impacted in tenns of visual
quality. The development of these ttyec villages would also have a scvetr negative impact on the scenic vistas 6om Oceanside nei@bmhoods including Oceaa Hills couatry Club, The
Ridge, Spinnaker Ridge, and Ocean Terrace. (See Att B Visual Impacts Not Addressed in
DEW
presnve. (cunent scenic views being the main reason people climb this mountain and hike OT bike in this preserve and one of the most valuable things about them.) See Att. B.
1-14 3. The EIR faiis to ram- tht any significant visual quality impacts Would mult from the
proposed development of any of the other Villages(U, El, H, K, L2, and R). (page 43)
Additional scenic view impacts will OCCUT as follows:
I 1-13 2, Scenic vistss wwld also be. impacted from calavera MOUWII . andthecalaveraNahlFe
Calavera Hills Phase II, BTD No. 4, and Dstention Baslw 4
Letters of Comment and Responses
13. Scenic vistas of the ocean, coastal watershed, and backcountry from the Calavera Nature Preserve
will not be adversely affected by the development. When viewing the adjacent Master Plan from
the preserve, the context of a developed, urbanized residential master plan is apparent. Any
development will cause landform transfonation, but Villages U, W. X. and Y are not included for
preserve status as is the case for Village Z (the Calavera Name Preserve). These are88 have
always been slated for residential development, in fact, at higher densities than proposed.
Application of the Hillside Development Ordinance and landscape design measures incorporate
measures such as the use of landform planting to simulate natural contours for manufactured
slopes and transitional landscaping between developed areas and natural mas to address the
landform alteration issues. In addition, open space areas wilt be incorporated into the design of
each Village. It should also be noted that not all views are deemed significant pcr CEQA. The
eastern slopes of Villages U and W (which are directly visible from the preserve) have been
reviewed (review of 40 percent slope encroachments, slope heights, and contour grading) for
compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance as part of the master tentative map process.
Acknowledging the planned physical development and dated visual impacts associated with
building out the Master Plan’s remaining villages is a basic consequence of &ding in a Master
Planned community. Any of the development noted in this letter could be considercd significant if
the areas were designated as open space or camed a “preserve” status. Subject to compliance with
the applicable City ordinances and Master Plan criteria, visual impacts of Phase II development
will be less than significant.
The proposed Phase II development project would implement the Master Landscape Concept Plan
and conform to grading requirements contained in the Calavera Hills Master Plan (as amended).
14.
, Implementation avoids or reduces landform alteration/visual quality impacts for already developed
residential areas within the Calavera Hills Master Plan boundary and to off-site neighborhoods
within the viewshed to a less than significant level.
..- ,--.. . - . --
- The Village H community hcility will impact residents in The Crest (Village 0) with views of the beautiful scenic canyon
Village H can be seen hm Carlsbad Village Drive, Tamarack Ave, and
Edinburgh Rd.
Residents in the Cliffs, The Trails, Barrington, and Nantucket as well as wrs of the roads Carlsbad Village Dr, Tamarack Ave,, Glasgow Rd, and Edinburgh Rd
will all be adversely impacted by the Phase Il development.
-
-
1-15 4. On page 64 under the category of “Visual Quality” the EIR states that the proposed project would be visible from many vantage points within the existing Calavera Hills, and would alter
the existing aesthetic characteristics of those viewsheds.” Although nine neighborhoods are listed as being in view of the proposed developments, the EIR fails to mention that the Cliffs, the
Trails, Nantucket, and the Oceanside neighborhoods of Ocean Hills Country Club. The Ridge.
Spinnaker Ridge, Ocean Terrace and some of the homes on Lake Blvd would also be impacted,
In addition views of Village H from Tamarack, Edinburgh Rd and Carlsbad Village DR that
currently provide aesthetic relief to anyone who drives, walks, jogs, or bikes on these roads will
also be impacted.
Also on page 64 the EIR states that “ from most vantage points only a limited number of private
residences will be. effected by the landform alteration and ultimate residential development of
the site.” Since the EIR failed to include a complete count of all impncted neighborhoods and
homes that will have views impacted by the proposed development as well as those who walk,
drive, bike, or jog through the proposed anas of the development the EIR failed to recognize
that the cumulatlve visual quality impact is extremely significant.
5. The mitigation measures listed in the EIR to reciify the loss of the many brenthtaking mnic
vistas in Calavera Hills and surrounding areas and communities are appallingly inadequate. The
mitigation measures primarily take into account only the proposed development of Villages X,
Y, and W, and from only a few of the viewing ranges of these villages. The EIR failed to cite
any specific mitigation measures for general aesthetic degradation and loss of scenic views for
the other villages(U, El, H, K, R, and L-2.)
In general, the mitigation measures listed are insufficient to remedy the loss of viewing(and
experiencing on all levels) unspoiled M~UC as opposed to viewing (and experiencing) high
density suburban development. No mitigation measure. listed here could compensate a homeowner who pid a premium price for a home with a gorgeous view in a quiet setting.
At most, the mitigation muunnes that were listed: measures of slope contour grading.
implementing the Master Plan’s landscaping requirements, implementing transitional landscape
plantings, and implementing the Master Plan’s design guidelines for noise walls will have the
most minimal of effects in helping to reduce significant adverse visual impacts to some of the
most beautiful remaining untouched areas in Carlsbad. (Specifically Villages W, X, Y, H, and
1-16
Calavera Hills Phase II. BTD No. 4, and Detention Basins 5 I
Letters of Comment and Responses
15. Representative views from the nearest (and potentially most affected) neighborhoods are depicted
in the EJR. As shown, views would change but would not obstruct long-distance views. Project
implementation would not result in a significant visual impact. These less than significant impacts
would be further reduced with distance. As discussed in the EIR, impacts to other off-site
neighborhoods would not be considered significant due to site distance or topographic features
separating the receptors from the proposed development. See also responses 1-12 and 1-14.
The visual analysis included in the EIR discusses the impacts to scenic views consistent with the
requirements of the adopted land use plan and considers views from significant ridgelines and mad
segments, neighborhoods, and parks. Areas where there was a potential for impact were selected
for additional discussion in the EIR. These include Carlsbad Village Drive, existing single-family
homes west of Village H, the Calavera Hills Community Park, the Cape (Village D)
neighborhood, the Capistrano (Village T) neighborhood, the Colony (Villages A and 9)
neighborhood, and more distant views from the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park, existing
Cannon Road, and College Boulevard (see Chapter 3.8. Landform Alteration/Visual Quality,
subsections 1.a and b. 2.a and b, 3, and photosimulations/figures).
The discussion in Chapter 3.B.2.a Visual Quality indicates that landform alteration/visual impacts
to some residences within the Cape neighborhood and off-site areas from development of the
southern villages would be considered a significant visual impact. In addition, changes to the ~ral
character of College Boulevard and Cannon Road and construction of noise. walls along College
Boulevard at Villages U, W, X, and Y would also result in significant direct visual quality
impacts. Impacts to Villages H, K, L-2, E-1, and R were found not to be significant due to their
internal location and proximity to existing or developing residential development.
It should also be noted that premiums paid for views by existing homeowners do not contribute to
a significant impact under CEQA. Development of villages within the Phase II portion of the
Calavera Hills Master Plan has long been planned (see City of Carlsbad MP-150, EIR-230, and
EIR 90-5). Existing and potential homeowners must consider the approved land use and zoning of
adjacent parcels and should not assume that a presently undeveloped site will be retained in that
condition unless the adopted land use and zoning specificnlly designates the parcel as open space.
Subsequent development that conforms to the land use plan and zoning is not considered a
significant impact.
16.
r
U). Great care should betaken toprrsave these scenic lllc8~ and the fmttrails on them as a
community and regional treasure for genaetions to wme.
1-17 6. The alternatives to the proposed project fail to addnss this pmw project from the
perspective of landform alteratiWd impact An alte~~tivc to the proposed project that this EIR failed to consider is the possibility of reverting to the original plans for Village IC and build
most of the high density lowcost housiq units then when the ldorm alterations, grading,
and overall visual impacts would be less severe. Much of the site pposcd for Villagcs U, W
and X is not approlaiate for the proposed use. The excessive amount of grading and blasting
alone is sufficient evidence of the unsuitability of the site -moving 1,663,000 cubic yards of soil
and blasting BII lllcll of 400 lhre homes.
. 1-18 7. A key element in maintaining some senee of the natural landform is protection of the ridgeline from visual encroachment Visual design criteria need to be established that prcsewe the sense of the natural land featurrs- particularly thc existiq ridgeline. While the pmpoped
development is consistent with the City of Carlsbad"~ Hillside Dcvelopnent Ordhnce, this
does not preserve views of the natural ridgeline+ which is put ofthe scenic nsources of the area.
north and south sick of the lake. (Ckmce@d Open Spce and Consenation Map, City of
Carlsbad General Plan) In addition to these trails, therc arc numerous historic trails throughout
views. includiag arens with views to the Pacific Oceau. Eduntions of the visual impects along the proposed trails need to be included in the evaluation. If there is a significant reduction in the length of trail segments with views of the oaan or other scenic vistas, then altemativc trail
alignments or other mitigation is quid
1-20 9. Table 3b-4 orading Sumnary on page 64 spaciScally excludes Caunon Road Reach 4 h the analysis. There is no justification to exclude this roadway element from the dfie particularly since the roadway profiles show significant areas whm grading and/or eldm will be required. Page 72 states that this segment alone will require 234,853 cubic yards of fill.
Thegradingimpacts ofcawOnRdReach4 must be included in the. summary in ordertoassure
compliance with the Hiiside Development Ordinance and to assess the full impacts of the proposcdlandform alteration,
IO. The realignment and mmquent ekvation of Cannon Rd Reach 4 to the height of
approximately 40' will have significant adverse visual impacts on the homes to the south of the
existing Cannon Rd in Oceanside 14 Ocean Hills Country Club, as well as those on the north of
the roadway. The elevated roadway will be visible from several h\mdrsd homes, whertas the
cmt roadway is klow the line of sight.
1-19 8. This area is suppod to be ColMcetOd by trails at the base ofMt Calavera awl on both the
cb 7 theproposedPbasc IandPhnse IIprojcctarea Bothcurrcntandproposedtmilshavescenic
h, v1
11. SOUIXIW~IIS along the roadwaynaehsions will ~from 6 - 14". These walls create visual
barriers that are an adverse impact. No specific design criteria have been proposed that will
Letters of Comment and Responses
17. The EIR Project Description (Chapter 2) discusses an agreement with the U.S. Rsh and Wildlife
Service and California Department of Fish and Game that provides for preservation of a majority
of the centrally located Village. K as permanent conserved open space habitat. The preservation
agreement results in the formation of a habitat conidor link thrwgh the middle of the Master Plan
and is required as mitigation for unavoidable potential impacts to the coastal California
gnatcatcher. Further consideration of an alternative to davelop Village K with high density
housing would not meet the requirements of the resource agencies or CEQA to avoid or
substantially reduce impacts to this sensihve species to below a level of significance, nor would it
conform to the 1998 agreement reached between the project proponent, City, and resome
agencies (incorporated by reference, see Attachment to Appendix F in the final EJR).
Ridgelines within the Master Plan area are not on the list of undevelopable ~~u18 per Carlsbad
Municipal Code Section 21.95, which establishes standards for the utilization and development of
hillsides (see also the EJR discussions--land Use Chapter 3.A.l.a. Hillside Development
Ordinance, and LandfonnNisual Quality Chapter 3.B. subsections1.a and 2.a).
The subject project proposes no change to the adopted (Conceptual Open Space and Conservation
Map, City of Carlsbad General Plan) conceptual trail plans for the Calavera Nature Reserve
propmty or adjacent area.
18.
19.
20. The purpose of Table 3B4 is to preaent the grading associated with Calavera Hills Phase. II, which
includes the construction of College Boulevard Reach B and Cannon Rod Reach 3. Grading
quantities for Cannon Road Reach 4 are discussed on page 72 of the draft FIR.
Calavera Hills Phase U, BTD No. 4. and Detention Basins 6
U). Great care should be taken to preserve these scenic areas and the foot trails on them as a
community and regional treasure for generations to come.
6. The alternatives to the proposed project fail to address this proposed project from the
perspective of landform alteratiodvisual impact. An alternative to the proposed project that this EIR failed to consider is the possibility of reverting to the origi~l plans for Village K and build
most of the high density low-cost housing units then where the landform altmtion~, grading,
and overall visual impacts would be less severe. Much of the site proposed for Villages U, W
and X is not appropriate for the proposed use. The excessive amount of @ng and blasting
alone is sufficient evidence of the unsuitability of the site -moving 1,663,000 cubic yards of soil
and blasting an area of 400 futm homes.
7. A key element in maintaining some sense of the natural landform is protection of the
ridgeline from visual encroachment. Visual design criteria need to be established that preserve
the sense of the ~tural land features- particularly the existing ridgeline. While the proposed development is consistent with the City of CarlsWs Hillside Development Ordinance. this
does not preserve views of the natural ridgeline- which is part of the scenic ~SOUTC~S of the area.
8. This area is supposed to be connected by trails at the base of Mt Calavera and on both the
north and south side of the lake. (Conceptual Open Space and Conservation Map, City of
Carlsbad General Plan) In addition to these trails, there are numerous historic trails throughout
the proposed Phase I and Phase ll project m. Both current and proposed bails have scmic
views, including arm with views to the Pacific Ocean. Evaluations of the visual impacts along the proposed trails need to be included in the evaluation If there is a significant reduction in the
length of trail segments with views of the ocean or other scenic vistas, then alternative trail
alignments or other mitigation is required.
9. Table 3b-l Grading Summary on page 64 specifically excludes Cannon Road Reach 4 from
the analysis. There is no justification to exclude this roadway element hm the analysis-
particularly since the roadway profiles show significant arcas where grading andor elevation will be required. Page 72 states that this segment alone will require 234,853 cubic yards of fill.
The grading impacts of Cannon Rd Reach 4 must be included in the summary in order to assum
compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance and to assess the full impacts of the
proposed landform alteration
10. The realignment and coosequcnt elevation of Cannon Rd Reach 4 to the height of
approximately 40’ will have significant adverse visual impacts on the homes to the south of the
existing Cannon Rd in Oceansick at Ocean Hills Country Club, as well as those on the north of
the roadway. The elevated roadway will be visible from several hundred homes, whereas the
current roadway is below the line of sight.
11. Sound walls along the roadway extensions will vary from 6 - 14”. These walls create visual
baniers that are an adverse impact. No specific design criteria have been proposed that will
.
Calavem Hills Phase II, BTD No. 4, and Detention Basins 6
I
Letters of Comment and Responses
,
21. The proposed roadway alignments are within the jurisdiction of the City of Carlsbad. The City’s
General Plan shows both Cannon Road and College Boulevard as Major Arterials within a 102-
foot right-of-way. As discussed in Chapter 3.A. Land Use, the road segments have been a
component of the Circulation Element since 1974. Ultimate development of Cannon Road
Reaches 3 and 4 and College Boulevard Reaches A-C are not subject to the same development
standards as residential uses under the Hillside Development Ordinance for grading volumes and
manufactured slope heights. The only exception is that the portion of College Boulevard within
the Master Plan boundary (Reach C) would be subject to development standards included in the
Master Plan.
The proposed alignment and road geometrics are necessary to meet roadway design standards and
to avoid sensitive habitats. The current roadway alignment within the canyon would create
significant environmental impacts. The EIR acknowledges that the existing aesthetic character of
the area south and east of the Master Plan would be substantially altered as a result of roadway
construction and would contribute to the cumulative degradation in aesthetic character of the
larger subregional ma. The EIR provides adequate visual mitigation for adjacent residential
development. Proposed mitigation requiring implementation of landscaping requirements on
manufactured slopes with native species ensures that impacts are reduced. The primary purpose of
proposing an alternative is to preserve Calavera and Little Encinas Creeks and to provide an
alignment for Cannon Road Reach 4 that is least environmentally damaging to riparian habitat and
coast live oak woodland.
Mitigation measure number 5 in the EIR reduces impacts from the construction of noise walls and
requires conformance to the Master Plan’s design guidelines, and Figure 3B-16 in the EIR
illustrates the type of noise wall that complies to reduce potential impacts to below a level of
significance. Retaining walls and noise walls along the portion of College Boulevard that traverses
the Calavera Hills Master Plan area must conform to requirements contained in the Calavera Hills
Master Plan (as amended). Retaining and sound walls along other roadway alignments must
conform to City of Carlsbad roadway design guidelines and would be subject to approval by the
City Engineer.
’
22.
mitigate the adverse visual imapcts of these roads. Specific design standds for soundwalls
through what is supposed to be a nature prescrvc need to be included as part of the mitigation.
C TrrfficlCimhtiom
Tbis project includes major roadway extensions to both College BIvd and Cannon Road which
scrve to support traffic generated by the project as well BS sening regional trip. The proposed
roadway configuration is not justified by this project done- for neither the short term nor the
long term cumulative impacts. This section of the EIR analyzed roadways only, and failed to addnss the other key elements of the transportation system: pedestrian. bicycle. and public transit.
The following are Wific commcntp 011 the trafiidcidation elcmcnt :
1. ’The EIR states that since the project will result in less than 150 tripspe~ day on the already
impacad 1-5 and # 78 corridors (LOS E and F) SO no further analysis ofthese rondways is
included. These “less thnn 150” trip per day ll~c One of many project cumulative impacts that
collectively will sreatly excecd 150 trip per day. Nineteen projects as identified within this
quadrant of the city done not dng djm project8 from the cities of oceaapidc and Vista Allowing each project to pmoaed with nomitigatinn for this impact extends the boups ami
severity of this impan Wbile this exclusion is allowed under the criteria for the CMP. it is not
reasonable to exclude ihm cumulative impacts. They remain a significant unmitigated regid impact and need to be identified 85 such
2. TIR. safety ofthe my intmmtim is a significant cumu~ative impact that VMS not
considered. The interscctiOn of 1-5 and # 78 is alnady way beyond its design capacity. Two
people baw been killed in this ma in tbc last fcwyeanr and iacreased trdl7c volumes will only
inoraue the risk.
’d w (;I P
3. Appendi;r A to ~ppndices B and c ~ransp~rtati~n studies incluties de~ailed existing condition counts. Most of these counts are from late 2000, or early 2001. However.
sevd key locationS are bascd on old counts. Standard practice is to adjust dy counts by a
r~~~~nable amount to ncwunt for cumulative impacts on roadways. ( In other rcccnt local studies a 3% adjustment factor has been usad). The collllts for the following intemctioas shouldbe
indbyafactorof3Wperyear:
for
Location Date of Collection
- COlkgelSR#78 10121l99 - collgc/plaza 10119l99 - EIcamim/plaza 10/19/99 - 8/19/99 - EICammdCollV 10f191‘99 - ElCamindPlaza 10120199 - ElCamindpalOmarAirport 9/2/99
Calavcra Hills Phase II, BTD No. 4, and Detention Basins 7
Letters of Comment and Responses
23. The 1994 Congestion Management Program/Traffk Impact Report Guidelines define the project
freeway study ana as mainlane freeway locations where the projeqt will add more than 150 or
more peak hour trip in either direction. The. project-only trip distribution is less than the required
threshold, so the project impact is considered less than significant.
The issue of traffic safety on the freeway is outside the scope of this EIR and this issue should be
referred to Caltrans. Caltrans has identified funding for an improvement project at the I-5/SR-78
interchange in order to increase safety and efficiency. Caltrans also continuously updates 1-5 mute
concept studies using the SANDAG segional traffic model, which was the basis for Year 2020
average daily traffic and peak hour volumes used in the Calavera Hills Phase Il and Carlsbad
Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 traffic reports (with refinements within the City of
Carlsbad and adjacent fringe. mas).
24.
25. The traftic studies were written in Year 2000 using data collected within one year for existing
conditions. These data are considered adequate to identify any existing intersection deficiencies.
However, more recent counts were obtained, where available, or critical volumes WME increased
by three percent and levels-of service recalculated. No intersection deficiencies result horn the
updated traffic counts, so no mitigation for existing conditions is needed or rrcommended.
I
- ElCaminoFaraday - 7/15/99 - I-S/Cannon 8/18/98 - Carlsbad Village Drmamamck 8/17/99
Letters of Comment and Responses
I-26 4. There is a huge discrepancy in roadway segment counts on College between Lake and # 78
for this project and for the adjacent city of Oceanside Quany Creek project for which the Draft
EIR was issued January 2001. On page 34 this project shows average daily volume of 15.000
with an LOS A. The Quarry Creek project breaks this area into two segments. The first between
# 78 and Haymar Dr has average daily volume of 29,930 with LOS C. The second between
Haymar and Lake has average daily volume of 13.480 and LOS A.(page 4.7-7)
The EIR underreported traffic volumes on this roadway segment. The roadway segment analysis
should distinguish two separate segments in the existing conditions analysis show on Table 3-1.
Existing Conditions, Table 5-1 Existing Plus Project, and Table 7-1 Year 2020 With Project.
Correcting these counts is expected to result in reduced LOS , failure to meet local traffic
condition standards, and a requirement for further mitigation.
5. The EIR( page 6-5 second paragraph) states that the following tables include roadway
improvements for ‘‘ approved projects adjacent to the intersection, or by a city-wide traffic
impact fee project, or a combination of both.” According to the project transportation
consultants this list included the improvement to College Blvd/Lake Ave associated with the
Quarry Creek project. (per memo of 2/28/01 From Sam P. Kab, 11 to Eric Munoz “Calavera Hills
Phase II, Final Report, January 8,200 I). This improvement is not part of an “approved project.”
In fact, according to comment letters submitted to the city of Oceanside from the Regional
Water Quality Control Board and the Ca Department of Fish and Game, permits will not be
issued for the proposed project, and furthermore a revised project footprint will be required
outside of the 100 year flood plain. This will require a major restructuring of this project,
reduction in traffic. and potential elimination of this proposed roadway improvement.
The EIR assumed a roadway improvement that is not approved and is likely to never be
approved. This is the same intersection for which traffic volumes were incorrectly identified as
described in our comment # 4. The EIR analysis both understated the traffic volumes and over stated the roadway improvements. This combination of errors (an amazing coincidence)
invalidates the analysis for this roadway segment and the associated intersections.
6. Cannon Rd Reach 4 is projected to carry only 2% of the project trip generation by year 2020.
volume of traffic served makes it clear that this roadway segment has no real relationship to the
development at Calavera Hills. It was included only because it will suppDrt the financing for the
BTD. In several places the EIR makes a point to state that there is no financing in place for
Reach 4. It appears the intent of this is to assure the public that \NZ are just doing this paper
exercise, but we aren’t really going to build this road- at last not for a long time.
b28 On page 4-8 of Technical Appendix B a total of 15 1 trips per day are identified. The small
In fact, the city of Carlsbad submitted a hding request for this segment to SANDAG last year.
Staff evaluation of the request indicate that it is likely to reach threshold levels for funding
26. The existing average daily traffic volume on College Boulevard from the SR-78 eastbound on-
ramp intersection to Plaza Drive is approximately 30,000 ADT. as shown in the Quarry Creek
traffic report, and approximately 15,000 ADT between Plaza Drive and Lake Boulevard. The
segment between the SR-78 ramp and Plaza Drive has eight lanes available to accommodate
existing traffic at LOS A [( I455 VPH SB, 4 lanes) (1800 VPHPL capacity) = 0.20 VIC = LOS AI.
There is some difference in methodology of analysis between the cities, but the conclusion
reached in both cases is that no roadway segment deficiency exists and no mitigation is needed or
recommended.
27. The Quarry Creek project will be required to make roadway improvements at the College
Boulevardnake Boulevard intersection. Bonds have been posted for these improvements and
work is expected to commence in early 2002. The total planned improvements along the Quarry
Creek frontage on College Boulevard are. expected to be in place at or near the same time that
Calavera Hills Phase 11 begins to develop and College Boulevard is constructed.
It should also be noted that if the Quarry Creek roadway assumptions are not in place, a
recalculation of intersection LOS at the College Boulevard/Lake Boulevard intersection would be
required for Year 2005 and Year 2020, so that traffic impacts would be mitigated.
28. Anticipated buildout traffic on Cannon Reach 4 will approximate 24,000 ADT. This reach was
included in the EIR because of the need to establish the Cannon Road alignment for Reach 3,
which is influenced by the future Reach 4 alignment. Additionally, CEQA requires that projects
that are known to have influence or connection to a project under EIR review must be reviewed in
the same EIR, in order to avoid piecemeal analysis. Although the DEIR assumes completion of
Cannon Road Reach 4 near buildout in Year 2020, an earlier completion would be beneficial to
the regional freeway and arterial street system, and construction costs would be lower the earlier
the roadway is constructed.
Calavera Hills Phase II, BTD No. 4, and Detention Basins 8
approval in 2002 or 2003. (Telephone conversation 207/01 with Richard chava, SANDAG)
Once funds are allocated there is a time restriction on their utilization. The city fully intends to
build this roedwq segment- and to do it within the next five years. These routs are not being
done for the &lam Hills project- but for the other projects that are axpeaed to follow like
dominos that will be using this roadway- Cantorini, Holly Springs, Robertson Ranch and 16 other pmjects in this quadmnt ofthe city. Thcse pjccts will not be delayed by any issues over constnrcting this road- because it is assumed that the mid will already be in place.
The city has knowingly included tklse infodon in the E3R and put Cannon Road Reach # 4
with this pjea as a way to expedite other pmjects that otherwise might be delayed for traffic
impacts.
This roadway segmeut causes mtcnsi\rc uomitigatible adverse impacts to biological resources. is
not justified based on 2% of this projects' traffic. and should be eliminated from further
consideration A reasonable alternative to this project should haw looked at eliminating Cammn
Rd Reach4
7. Chapter 6 in the Calavera Hills Phase 11 and Chapter 5 in the BTD # 4 Transportation Shdics
should both be based on the same data sets for projected year2005 traffic. Insteed, thcrc ae
significant differences in the two lists. ( Memos of 2/28/01 fmm Sam P. Knb, n to Eric Muna)
The ont fM ckhVeI'8 Hills phase II hChdts thC htelSe& ~onimpmvementsforQuany~
but the BTD analysis fails to show the inrrcased ADT for this project CEQA rasUirep EIR
information to be sufficient to evaluate the identified impacts and mitigations. The EIR duu not prowde sufficient infomration to assure consistency in the two studies, the requested back-up
documentation shows at least one major div, and the back-up memos prwided in
response to ournquest fail to provide inform&on in a way that allows the datato beverifid.
( Intersedons are not identified with BTD memo, projects am not idemifid with roadway intersection improvements in the calavera Hills Phase II memo).
The description of short term impacts in the two transportation studies needs to be revised to
clearly identify Wtrat projects are included and to mute consistency batweea than.
8. Public bunsit has not been integrated into the design for this project. The roadway system of 1-30 cu~de-sac streets, no pmvision for a transit center, no provision fork Nl-ins offthe major
erterial roads, and winding road9 all limit the ability of public tramit to serve this MO weU. In
contrast to this there bas beena lot ofrecent work to design land use to facilitate transif bicycle
and pcdtshian use. In a recent pupa focused on suburban land use. the following design
guidelines to Jupport public transit me suggwtut
VI Q\
- predesigaateafuluresystemoftransitconidon
* se~~t~dandm~catedlandusCs - establish transit service zones along existing arterials - explore plbliwvate oppommitics for tnuwit stop joint development - provide adequate population size and density to support transit use - design for a phased implementation of transit corridors(5)
Letters of Comment and Responses
29. The computer traftic models used for the Year 2005 and Year 2020 evaluation were identical for
the two traftic reports included as appendices in the DER. The region-wide traffic models
prepared by SANDAG include land use and roadway assumptions throughout San Diego County
that reflect each jurisdiction's General Plan land use and circulation elements.
For the City of Carlsbad version of these regional traffic models, the City's engineering staff and
transportation consultant verified or updated land use assumptions for both Year 2005 and Year
2020 to include approved or pending projects within the City of Carlsbad and the fringe area
surrounding the city within approximately one mile of the city limits in the cities of Oceanside,
Vista, San Marcos, and Encinitas.
The computer traffic model land use files arc extensive and require technical expertise to interpret.
Land use assumptions are listed within a traffic analysis zone (TU). not by sheet address, so that
a TAZ map of the region needs to be used to locate projects, and projects an input by land use
type and amount, not by a project's commonly known name (such as a subdivision name). These
files 82e provided to each jurisdiction and are public records.
A partial listing of known or approved projects used to update the computerized land use files for
the Carlsbad traffic models is included as an attachment to the traffic appendix (Appendix B) in
the final EIR.
The issue of designing around the alternative design features identified in the comment are policy
decisions. The City of Carlsbad has not, to date, adopted such policies. The City will continue to
work with North County Transit District to provide the necessary mass transit facilities they
require. See response to Letter C fmm NTCD above.
30.
Calavcra Hills Phase II, BTD No. 4, and Detention Basins 9
Carlsbad has no such design guidelines in place. nor has the city made any effort to integrate
transit planning with the design for either this project or the roadway extensions.
The roadway extensions cause significant, pemanent environmental impacts. An alternative to
design the project to support increased public transit use, and reduced auto trips could
significantly reduce these impacts. The EIR should have included a transit optimization
alternative.
9 SANDAG has prepared a plan to increase the transit share of work and higher education trips
in north county to 10% by the year 2020. (6) The work trips in the area have a primary focus
along Palomar Airport Road. An extensive regional system of street-based bus and trolleys will
be required to achieve this goal. This system will integrate the primary residential
neighborhoods. like Calavera Hills, with this key employment area. This regional transit system will be delayed, and costs will escalate if new roadways are not designed to be consistent with this plan.
This is a significant regional issue that should have been addressed in the EIR and was not.
10. The location of a large, multi-family affordable housing unit (Village Y) in the interior
portion of the unit is also poor planning. A recent study by the PCL Foundation finds that of the
many people who are dependent upon public transportation, a disproportionate number are
low-income. minorities, and senior cifizens. (4) Low income persons have lcss access to
automobiles and a greater reliance on public transit. Transportation system planning nccds to locate low-income housing close to jobs so thwe trips can be served by public bansit.
The land use plan for this project was not integrated with planning for a transportation system
that would serve all of the residents- especially those of low income.
The EIR should include a reasonable altdve to Optimize land use design to increase public
transit- particularly for the affordable housing neighborhood, and thereby reduce roads and the
adverse impacts associated with the roadvmy extensions
11. Page 4-6 of Technical Appendix B shows that the proposed Phase II project changes will
out, will all increase. The proposed project changes have increased the peak hour trip impacts.
This has been done in spite of the congestion in the primary roadway mhwrks that this project
will feed into- # 78 on the north and El Camino Real on the west are already highly congested Good project design and land use planning should achieve a reduction in peak hour trips, not an
increme. Since traffic and the roadway expansion caws the primary adverse impacts of the
project, reasonable alternatives to reduce these trips, particularly peak how trips should have
been evaluated, and were not.
12. Technical Appendix B, Figure 6-1 shows Faraday Ave only east of El Fuerfc. This is not
consistent with information submitted by the City of Carlsbad on the Carlsbad Oaks North
project at the EIR scoping meeting on January 18,2001.
1-33 reduce the ADT from 24.502 to 23.993. However, the peak hour trip Ah4 and PM, both in and
Letters of Comment and Responses
3 1. See response to comment 30 above,
32. The subject affordable housing project is located directly adjacent to a bus pullout transit stop.
located on a major arterial roadway. It is concluded that this location will facilitatc high density
use in proximity to mass transit. In addition, it is City policy to distribute affordable housing
throughout the city limits, in order that it is not segregated into one or two areas, separate from the.
rest of the residential areas. The proposed site is also in close proximity to parks and schools. See
also response to Letter C from NTCD above.
33. Although peak hour trips resulting from the Phase 11 Master Plan project may increase slightly
(see Table 4-3 in the traffic report as Appendix B), the Phase I1 project has been adequately
planned so that project-related impacts are considered less than significant.
34. The Year 2005 assumption in the Carlsbad Oaks North draft traffic study and the City of Carlsbad
Year 2005 traffic model show Faraday Avenue constructed from Melrose Drive to El Fuerte
Street, not connected through to the west. Therefore, no correction is needed.
Calavera Hills Phage U, ETD No. 4, and Detention Basins 10
! I.
Coned the year 2005 haffic projections with project to include the entire segmcnt associated with Chrlsbad OaksNorth. not just the segment east ofEl Fuerte.
13. sChools on the vicinity of Csnmn Road Reach 4 include Lake Eiv SCbooI, Madison MiddkScbml,aadBueuaVistaHigl~School. hwillbeasignifimtsafctyimpsctonthe childmu attending thtse schools from the id traffic volumes on both Cannon Road and
Lake Blvd.
The EIR €$tiled to identiQthis safety hazard or to propose any mitigntion for it
14. There is a blind curve at the end of Carlsbad Village Drive. The significance of this hazard
will be increased by incrcasing the traffic volumes on tbis roadway. Then have already been
several accidents on this roadway scctia including fatalities. The EIR should assess the sa&y
issues related to the proposed roadway design.
15. Th EIR thiled to discus the impacts on Ocsvuide of the change m elevation of the COMectionto CanwnRd Reacb4. This action will require review and appmvd by the City of
Oceanside. The EIR nads to specifidly identifi the need for concurrence with the adjacent
city and whaherthis has been apprwed or not Ifoceanside’s action is discretionary, then an
altematc plan is required which wxu not admessed in the alternatives analysis.
16. Them pmposed no a1 to the location or design of a major arterial mad - conegc 1-38 Bid through &middle ofaztial ncightmhood. Th pmposed high- speed, 4-h. center median with bike lanes roadway configuration muses a division in the community. creates a safikty hazard forean movtmglt, and clwses excessive noise and pollution impacts
Altcmrtiyes should have been developed that raducc exterior noise lmls to the local adinuwx staadard of 60 CNEL’S.
o
VI 00
D. Ndae
Noise from blasting, consbuction, materials pmcessing, and the mtgded roadways win all
adversely impact residents in adjacent neighborhoods in calsvera Hills and Oceauside, F~dve noise impacts the quality of life for existing residents. the cumulative impacts of this mise ilnncasc have not been adequacly dhssed. A much more extensive noise analysis is rcqui~witha~mitigation
1. The pmjed design shows Ilo wntitivityto the Ibt ofnrtural land foma md location of the ..
1-39 buildings whae the hillsides will ~nn as buffus. Buildings me on the steep dope si& adja
totheproposedroadwayextnuion+~ . the noise impacts. More semitive siting,
including the use of setbacks would reducc the noise impacts and should have been considetd
as an alternative.
calama Hills Phase JI, BTD No. 4, and Detention Basins 11
Letters of Comment and Responses
38. See Chapters 2 and 4 of the EIR and responses 1-16 and 1-21. A number of alternatives W~IG
considered and rejected due to excessive costs, grading, riparian impacts, or dispropOrtionate
property acquisition requirements. Therefore, the number of possible roadway di@ts that a
considered feasible is limited. Mitigation is incorporated to reduce or avoid the significant impacts
associated with each of the alternative alignments to the extent feasible. Resource agency
permitting will be required prior to any construction.
39. Existing topography limits the potential developable area and quires blasting to prepare the site.
Blasting, construction, and materials processing are short-term construction-related impacts. AS
stated in the EIR, hours for grading and construction are limited by City of Carlsbad ordinance.
The City has no thnshold standard establishing the maximum allowable construction noise level,
but thresholds established by the County of SM Diego were used to determine the potmtid for
impact to off-site. residences and assessed for significance per CEQA. Impacts will not contribute
to long-term cumulative noise impacts. It should also be noted that blasting activities during site
preparation of Village Q in 1999 did not result in any documented loss of life, health, or propMty
values.
2. There is no analysis of the impacts of exterior noise levels on the wildlife in the adjacent
protected open space and wildlife comdors. Extenor noise levels need to be specified at levels
that eliminate any adverse impacts to wildlife.
3. The seniors in Ocean Hills Country Club and Rancho Carlsbad are sensitive receptors. The 1-41 noise impact analysis should have specifically addressed the impacts of the roadway extensions
on these sensitive receptors. Increasing the levels of background noise has a much more
significant impact on populations with hearing impairments - such as the residents of these two
communities for over 55 year olds.
4. The elevation of Cannon Rd Reach 4 will significantly change the relationship of the traffic
natural contours of the land. Under the proposed alignment sound will be bounced right to the
residences which will be at the same elevation. ( See Anachment C for a diagram of the
changed noise relationships in this ana.)
5. The noise impact analysis failed to identify the combined impacts of construction noise.
materials processing, and blasting noise- all of mhich are likely to be occurring at the same
times. Either the analysis needs to look at these combined impacts, or mitigation needs to
restrict grading and other heavy equipment noise during the times that blasting or materials
processing is occurring.
6. The annlysis of blasting noise impacts was based on a 1986 study. This methodology is
outdated and needs to be revised based on cumnt technology.
7. The CNEL. analysis was only done for the Calavera Hills adjacent to the new roadways. It
failed to evaluate the Oceanside neihgboPhoods and Rancho Carlsbad that will have homes just
a9 close as those that were Bssesscd
8. The EIR failed to address the cumulative impncts of the combined noise level increases
from all of the roadway extensions and higher traffic volumes in this area. These cumulative
impacts need to include College, Cannon, Melrose, Lake, and Shadowridge Dr and the
circulation streets feeding into each of these arterials.
1-42 noise to the adjacent neighborhhods. In the cumnt alignment, sound is bounced up by the
W' \o
I I
E. Agriculture
Agriculture is a protected land use in Carlsbad. Robertson's Ranch is also of cultural and
historical significance to the CalaveTa Hills community. It provides needed visual and aestfietic
relief from sprawl and development in the surrounding areas. It provides an educational
resource for local children. Our proposed alternatives for restructuring the open space would
provide a buffer zone around the ranch helping to protect it from the adverse impacts of the adjacent development
Calavera Hills Phase II, BTD No. 4, and Detention Basins 12
i
Letters of Comment and Responses
40. Mitigation is required for impacts that are considered significant, including impacts to listed
species, sensitive plant communities and habitats, and wetlands. City and resource agency permit
conditions consistent with the EIR and the City of Carlsbad draft HMP regarding noise will be
incorporated into the conditions of project approval and will include prohibitions on grading and
construction activities during the breeding seasons of sensitive bird species (see EIR Chapter 3.0.
Biological Resources for a list of specific mitigation measures that reduce or avoid impacts to
sensitive wildlife species).
41. Additional noise modeling was conducted for the roadway alignments. The results of the modeling
indicate that the realignment will have the result of pushing Cannon Road farther away from
Ocean Hills residences (particularly at its western end), thus reducing noise impacts from the road
compared to the noise levels that would occur if the present alignment were maintained. This
modeling documentatlon has been included as an attachment to the noise technical repod as part
of the final EIR.
The buildout of Cannon Road has been on both the City of Carlsbad and the City of Oceanside
circulation plans and General Plan maps for several years, including prior to the construction of
Ocean Hills.
42. See discussions in response 41 above. It should also be noted that in the interest of preserving
Calavera, the project must also consider impacts to sensitive biological resources and, in this case,
noise impacts would be easier to mitigate than the regionally significant wildlife and habitat
impacts that would, be. compromised by implementing the proposal presented by Preserve
' Calavera.
43. Materials processing, blasting, and construction activities would all occur during the construction
phase of the project. These activities cannot be conducted simultaneously at any given location
and there is no way to adequately predict the exact location and effect of combined activities that
may occur at varying locations on the site at any given time. Therefore, the EIR assessed impacts
in accordance with the County of San Diego Noise Otdinance Section 36.410. As discussed in the
EIR, conformance to these standards and limitations on hours of construction reduce impacts to a
less than significant level. Impacts to sensitive wildlife would he reduced or avoided through
implementation of mitigation measures requiring that construction-related activities avoid impacts
during the breeding season of identified species. The project-related impacts from noise associated
with construction activities, blasting, and materials processing are adequately addressed in the
draft EIR.
2. There is no analysis of the impacts of exterior noiae levels on the wildlife in the adjm
pmtated open space and wildlife corridon. Exterior noise levels need to be specified at lmls
that eliminate any adverse impwts to wildlife.
3. The seniors ill oaatl Hills Cormtry Club cud RMcb carfsbad ale sensitive receptola. The
noise impaot analysis should have specifically addressed the impacts of the roadway extensions
on these sensitive receptors. Incressing the levels of background noise has a much more
sipifid impact on popllatiooS with hearing impnirmcnts - such as the midents of thesc two
communities for OVCT 55 ycar old&
4. The eldon of Canrmn Rd Reach 4 will signifidy change the nlationship of the traffic
noise to thc dj-t neighbohhods. In tbe current alignment, sound is bounced up by the oatural contours of the land. Under the poposcd alignment sound will be bod right to the residema which will be at the samc elevation. ( See Attachment C for a diagram of the
5. The noise impact analysis failed to identify the combined impacts of constnm ‘on noise. matcrials processin& and blastingnoise- all of which am likely to be oaming at the same times. Either the analysis needs tu look at these unnbimd impacts, or mitigation mads to
restrict SradiDg and otba heavy cquipmcm noise during the times that blasting or materials
ProaMingisoCclnring
changcdnoiscrclntioashipainthis~)
6. The annlysis ofblbptiag noise impactJ wbs based on a 1986 study. This methodology is 1-44 ~dneedstoberevisedbasedoncumnt~ogy.
EAgrimltRre
Agriculture is 8 prokchi Landwe in carlobad Robatson’s Ranch is dso of cultural .nd
historid significance to the c.lavsn Hills community. It POvideJ needed vi& and agthctic
relicfhm sprawl and developmat in the swrowding mas. It provides cm e&c&md
@de a buffer 2011~ around the much helping to protect it fmm the adverse impacts ofthe
adjacent development.
P
. resom for lud chikm. Our propostd shematives for mtrumm . Btheopensp.cadd
12
Letters of Comment and Responses
* 44. The 1986 noise measurements cited in the draft EIR for blasting and materials processing are
typical of these operations and continue to be applicable to anticipated blasting and materids
processing operations at the project site. In addition, as noted in the draft EIR (Chapter 3.D.
Noise), the exact number and schedule of blasts cannot be determined at this time. Development
of a blasting plan along with other mandated mitigation measures is dewxibed on page 164 of the
draft EJR. However, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to ensure that
adverse impacts from blasting would be avoided. Also, see responses 1-39 and I-% below. In
addition, it should be noted that the most recent blastingoperations within Calavera Hills occurred
in 1998 at Village Q. These recent blasting operations adhered to the City of Carlsbad Resolution
Conditions for Village Q (Resolution 7728). City of Catlsbad Engineering Depatment Policy NO.
15 on Blasting, Blasting Report for Calavera Hills Villages Q and T (1991). approved Village Q
grading plans, and Calavera Hills Master Plan (MP-150) requirements on blasting. All q~hd
surveys, seismic measurements, monitoring, inspections. adherence to hours of operations, and
notifications were implemented as required by the City during this operation.
Pursuant to the City’s noise policy, the deft EIR assessed noiae impacts associated with the
proposed project’s Master Plan and roadway components. The draft EIR does examine noise
impacts at the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park (see Figure 3D-13). Regarding the noise
impacts in the City of Oceanside, additional noise modeling was conducted for both of the
alignments for Cannon Road Reach 4 to examine the effect of the vertical and horizontal
realignment at the Ocean Hills residences. Using the traffic volumes contained in the draft EIR
traffic report, multiple Ocean Hills residences were used as modeled receiver locations along the
edge of the roadway to compare the noise levels that would result under both alignments. The
results of the modeling indicate that the realignment will have the result of pushing the Cannon
Road noise source farther away from Ocean Hills residences (particularly at its western end), thus
generally reducing noise levels from Cannon Road compared to the noise levels that would M%UT
if the present alignment were maintained. This modeling documentation (graphics and text) has
been included as an attachment to the. noise technical report as part of the final EIR.
The buildout traffic conditions on these referenced roadways have been on both the city of
Carlsbad and the City of Oceanside circulation plans for several years. Noise impacts to sensitive
receivers at the referenced off-site roadways locations in this comment would have been addressed
in previous environmental documents.
45.
46.
. . I-.- .. ... . - -. L ...... ~. . , .. .. ... - . I_ I. .. .~. -. , -
1. The EIR failed to addresses the indirect impacts of creating easy access to Robertson Ranch 1-47 agricultural land(This would be equivalent to a business being ford to keep its front and back
door open at all times so the general public could have a walkway and not be forced to walk
around the building.) Other indirect impacts are the edge effects of over 400 high density
housing units, with little or no private yards, that will be backed up right against this farmland
Children seeking a place to play, people walking their dogs or joggers will inevitably trample
this farmland.
Other recent examples, such as the building of homes near McClelland Airport, should have
taught us that the impact of residential conshuction on nearby businesses should be wefully
evaluated.
2. The EIR failed to identify the presence of migrant workers living in the area, particularly in 1-48 Village W. Agriculture depends upon migrant workers to operate cost efficiently. Development
proposed in this area will cause displacement of these workers and indirectly impact the
operation of the farm. Relocation within the immediate area could cause further indirect impacts to the sensitive habitat. In light of the recent savage beatings of migrant workers in
Cannel Valley, such relocation could also increase the risk of such attacks on the displaced
workers. The relocation of these workers must be admessed in the EIR.
3. The EIR failed to specifically address the types of agricultural operations at the ranch and I-49 their compatibility with the proposed residential development. The impact of pcsticide, and
herbicide run-off from grading which will occur higher on the watershed, the presence of
apiaries which could pose a hazard to children playing in the area, etc.
F. Public Facilities
1. The EIR indicates the project would have no impact on the need for new or altered police.
fire and road maintenance. This is not correct. Tbere will be an incremental increase in the need for these services. The roadway extensions will result in a need for increased roadway
maintenance requirements and increased traffic volumes and resultant road maintenance
requirements to the connecting roadways. The ability to address these needs will be impacted by
the increased trafic volumes in the project area. Emergency response times for police an$ fire
also need to be evaluated,
2. The color. location and levels of exterior lighting need to be defined in a way that minimizes advene impacts on wildlife along the riparian comdor, in the adjacent Calavera m, and for the adjaceni residential neighborhoods.
3. The city of Carlsbad has proposed a system of trails which are identified in the General Plan.
Trails will go to the summit of Mt Calavera. and around the south side of Lake Calavera Thcse
trails are a significant public recreational element, but were not discussed in the EIR The EIR
failed to address the impacts of the proposed development on this system of trails. Pedestrian
access to this trail system needs to be specifically provided for in project design. Signage and
.
Letters of Comment and Responses
47. The comments regarding Robertson Ranch are noted. The EIR discusses the potential for the
proposed extension of College Boulevard and Cannon Road to restrict required access to existing agricultural operations or pending planning actions on the Robertson Ranch. A mitigation
measure is proposed that requires maintenance of site access for the property owners (EIR Chapter
3.E. Agriculture, subsection 3. Mitigation). Public access to this privately owned property is not
provided, and there is no evidence that active farmland will “inevitably” be trampled.
Residential use of open spaces by migrants are not considered an authorized use. and therefore
replacement of unauthorized housing does not require an environmental analysis per CEQA. NO
unmitigated significant environmental impacts to agricultural uses on Robertson Ranch have been
identified as a result of implementation of the proposed project. Although not a CEQA issue, it
should be noted that the City of Carlsbad is a regional leader in this area through support of the
City’s migrant Hiring Center and Posada de Guadalupe migrant housing shelter.
The EIR addresses the effects of the proposed Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase I1 development on
the environment. Topographic features and natural habitat areas currently provide a buffer
between existing (albeit interim) agricultural uses on the Robinson Ranch and the proposed
development areas within Villages X and W, whereas elsewhere on the “Ranch.” existing
residential uses are directly adjacent to successful agricultural operations.
Proposed uses would not result in a significant impact to the off-site agricultural operations.
Agricultural areas that may have been sprayed with pesticides or herbicides would not be graded
as they are outside the Master Plan boundary. Furthermore, the Robertson Ranch is zoned LC,
Limited Control. Chapter 21.39 of the City’s Municipal Code states:
48.
49.
The intent and purpose of the L-C zone is to provide an interim zone for areas
where planning for future land uses has not been completed or plans of
development have not been formalized. After proper planning or plan approval has
been completed, properly zone LC may be rezoned in accord with this title.
As is the case elsewhere in the city, agricultural uses at Robertson Ranch are likely a temporary
interim use, and planning consistent with the General Plan designations is reportedly under way
for the Robertson Ranch area. While the only permitted uses currently allowed on the Robertson
Ranch property are those permitted in the “Exclusive Agricultural Zone,” other uses, including
residential, may be allowed in the future, subject to City of Carlsbad approval of a master plan and
proper development entitlements and certification of the necessary environmental reviews.
Calavm Hills Phase I& BTD No. 4, and Detention Basins 13
I
1. ThcEIRfaifedtoddnsststheiDdirectimpscbof~arsy~toRobertsonRweh
agricuhd lud(lhiswwldbeequivalcmttoabusmasbcimgforccdtolnepits fnnt and buck
door open at all times sothe geacral public couldhavcawalkwny andnot be forced to walk mund the building.) Other indirect impacts are the edge effects of over 400 high density hwsing -with little orm private yuds. that will be backed up right against this tiumland
Children seeking a place to play, pcople walkmg their dop or joggen will inevitably trample
this thdand.
Other mcm cx8mplcs, such as UIC building of homes near McClelland Airport, should hm
laught us that the impaot of residartial constnetion on nearby businesses should be carefuuy
evaluated
2. The EIR fiiledto idcntify the pnsemx of mi- WOrLers living inthe ama, particullnty in VillageW. Agtid~~~migrant~tooperatccast~i~.
propod inthisanawill cause displ~oftheseworLasand indircaly impact the operationofthe fane RelocatioawithintheimmediateereaEwld~ustfintherindircct
impacts to the Jensitive habitat In light of thc cccont savage bestings of migrant WOrLcn in
Carmel Valley, such rCiocntion could also iDacasc the ti& of such attacks on the displaced
workers. Tberelocationofthtreworlras~be~mtheEIR
3. Them failed to specifically adQessthctypca ofagricpltural operations at the ranch end
thcir compatibility with the popoacd residential dcvelopmnt. The impact of pesticide, and
herbicide nm-off h grading which will occur higher on the mtersbed, the prtse~ee of apiaries which could poseahszard to children plsying in the am, ctc.
w
Q\ h)
7
Letters of Comment and Responses
50. The EIR does not say that the "project would have no impact on the need for new or altemd police,
fire and road maintenance." The public facilities discussion included in Chapter 3.F. of the J3lR
indicates that implementation of the Calavm Hills Master Plan project is anticipated and would
not result in a substantial change to the ultimate buildout of the community. Mitigation for
impacts to public facilities requires that the developer pay fees andor construct improvements 88
specified in the EIR. City of Carlsbad development fee and property tax structure factors in the
incremental increase in roadway maintenance and public facilities required of new development.
Emergency response time has been addressed in the Public Facilities chapter of the EIR. Inclusion
of the proposed roadway links will generally improve response times both within the City and
regionally. In addition, staffing requirements for the Carlsbad Police Department am not bawd
population numbers. In response to this comment, the Carlsbad Police Departmmt has mnfid
that the level of service would not change as a result of the proposed Calavera Hills Master Plan
Amendment.
5 1. The adopted Calavera Hills Master Plan contains goals and objectives that relate to the design and
aesthetic character development within Calavera Hills. Lighting is nviewed at the tentative map
stage. In addition, the riparian corridor is separated fmm residential development areas either by
proposed open space within the Master Plan boundary or by distance from the off-site resource.
Residential lighting impacts to adjacent neighborhoods would be regulated by existing ordinances
to not illuminate off-site m.
52. The development of a hail system on the pnserve by property ownem, The Bnvimnmental Trust,
is not part of this project (see Project Description, Chapter 2 in the draft EIR). Nor dces the
provd project propose any modification to trails or other impmvcmmts on the Calavera Naturt
Preserve property. The project does propose a trail link between the Calavera Hills phase II trails
and the Calavera Nature Preserve trails. Nevertheless, the developments of Phase II will not
impact preserve trails; rather, they will provide part of a local community base to use and monitor
the preserve. Signage and other trail development details should be reviewed with the
Environmental Trust diredly at 619-461-8333, Views of the proposed project hm this pnserve
were addressed and determined to be nonsignificant, providing that the identified mitigation
measures are incorporated.
. .. .. . -. - . I_ -. -.
I
I
barricades may be needed protect the sensitive habitat from off trail incursions by people,
vehicles, and pets using the trails.
The EIR failed to assess the direct and indirect impacts from use of trails in !he designated open
space. It failed to integrate the planned development with this planned regional recreational use.
It also failed to provide mitigation for the significant adverse impact from public acccss to
sensitive habitat.
4. Gas and electric service is a significant public service that is impacted by this project. The
addition of 781 residential units, a school, and community facility will all require additional
power. Southern California is an area of limited power availability. In several areas the
roadway noise levels are 50 high that even with sound walls houses will be required to have
closed system WAC systems as windows should not be opened. This will require power use
above the levels of current housing- at a time when power shortages are imminent
Local building codes should be working towards reduced power use- not allowing excess use by
allowing designs that exceed noise levels and thereby requiring mitigation that increases power use.
The EIR failed to assess power supply as a significant impact. Increased use in the area
increases the risk of blackouts to both current and new residents; increases the likelihood of rate
increases above what would be required without this additional demand; and supports a local
public energy use policy that is contradictory to regional and state efforts to incm
conservation and reduce energy use.
An appropriate mitigation for this is isolation of this area on the power grid and designation of
this area as rstrictions to inform potential buyers
5. The EIR failed to provide an adequate assessment of parks. Using the performance standard
on page 196 it states that this is based on a projected Zone 7 LFMP build-out population of
5,765, whereas the project description specifies 6,004.
Park adequacy is not just based on total acreage. The specific fatures of parks and recreational
facilities are critical to any determination of their adequacy. Items like ballfields, swimming
pools. tennis courts, walking and jogging areas. and available parking are all part of such an
assessment. Numerous comments in the public scoping meetings identified shortcomings in the
existing recreational facilities- and these shortcomings were noted prior to build-out of Phase 1
when the demand for park facilities is much less than it will be at build-out Parking was noted
as being of pticular concern- both because of the limits it placed on park utilization, and the
adverse impacts on the adjaceni residential neighborhood streets.
Calavera Hills Community Center is already serving as a regional recreational site. This will be
exacerbated by the removal of the College Blvd barricade and the provision of a direct link fmm
of the first tier for power shut-off in the event of shortages with appropriate deed
1-54 of 3 acres of park per 1,OOO population it found an excess supply of park to demand. However
Letters of Comment and Responses
53. Gas and electric usage for the proposed project would be typical of residential development
throughout southern California and would comply with all State-mandated energy conservation
measures. In addition, in response to the recent disruption in electrical energy supply, the State
of California has initiated a number of steps to alleviate the crisis. One of these actions is to
accelerate the approval and licensing of additional in-state power plants to ensure an adequate
supply of electricity for State consumers, Additional generating plants have been built and will
continue to come on-line. These plants will provide California with electrical energy supply
capacity and ability to meet peak load demand in excess of forecasts of regional energy supplies.
The use of energy resources is described as a significant irreversible environmental effect in
Chapter 7 of the draft EIR.
As discussed in the Em, the City of Carlsbad adopted a Growth Management Ordinance in 1986
which directs urban public service and infrastructure development within the city. Adoption of the
Growth Management Ordinance resulted in the establishment of Local Facilities Management
Plan (LFMP) Zone 7 which encompasses the Calavera Hills Master Plan area (see EIR
Figure 3F-I). The environmental effect of an additional 239 residents more than projected for the
Zone 7 buildout population on available parkland would not result in a statistically significant
increase and would not be considered a significant adverse effect to parks given that a projected
park surplus is expected. Furthermore, an earlier miscalculation of the projected population has
been corrected to show that the decrease of 203 in population will result from the proposed project
projections. The LFMP that is concurrently being processed with this ELR has been modified to
reflect these new numbers as compared to levels anticipated in the 1989 analysis. Parks must
comply with City standards for size, area, and design, including parking requirements.
Furthermore, as stated in the EIR, “a yearly finding of park supply adequacy must be made by the
City of Carlsbad or building permits will not be issued until the shortfall is satisfied.” The project
developer must comply with existing requirements for the constmction of parkland.
The Park Department oversees more than 286 acres of park facilities, school athletic fields, beach
accesses, and landscaping at various city facilities. This includes eight community parks
(including the Calavera Hills Community Park) and 26 special use areas. Regional parkland needs
are addressed in the City General Plan and zoning which designates locations for regional park
facilities. In addition, the project site is within Park District 2 and the approved supply/demand
projections through buildout of the Calavera Hills project indicate that there will be a park acreage
surplus through 2005. The project is consistent with the City General Plan park requirements and
buildout of the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase I1 would not result in a significant impact to the
City’s parks.
54.
Calavera Hills Phase II, BTD No. 4, and Detention Basins 14
highway # 78. The adjacent neigh- in Oaaaside have a shortage of rccrcational
facilities and can be reasonably expected to usc facilities in this neigh-
The EIR failed to address the comments raised in the public scoping meetings, or to adequately discuss this issue in its regional context.
6. BiologkklRcsD.rar
The project site is part of one of only two large remaining contiguous open space areas in Carlsbad. It is identified as a "con Area" in Carlsbad's €IMP, and in the Multiple Habitat
ConSnnm 'on Plan(h4HCP). Viability of the Core Area to support the existing populations of
thrca~~ plants and animals, BS well BS those that will be displaced from adjacent
development, is scrionsly degradsd by this project. The pnsence of largc Standards Arcas on the
swth side of the existing open space further impacts the viability of the pesmre. Open spnce boundaries have not bem ddincd for these projects, making it impossible to evaluate the
optimization ofopen spaoe forthe arca
The project should be been configured to first potect the viability of the con area, and then
secondly to provide adequate linkage bn co@ BICBS. The proposed configuration of opcn
space does a poor job on both counts. A project dtdve should have been defined that still meets housing objectives of the city while minimizing the adverse biological impcts. The
alternative3 analysis failed to define such a project, and therefor fails to meet tbt quirements of
CEQk
The following are specific comments in thc project impacts to biological ~c~~teces.
1. The 1993 agnemenf that established the Village 2, Calawra Highlands mitigation am for
I-55~hsse I and Phase II was flaw 110 BOCFS of land were credited- butthe egreement fails to
specify BQC~BC dts by habitat typc. huge portions ofthe fie that was mimd has no habitat
value, the summit, and significant portions of the slope m sevmly degrades Thc original credit of 110 Bcrw was exdve.
According tothe 193 b&m@nmtPlan the 110 acres includes 88.9 aam of coastal sagc
scrub, 3 5 acres mixed coastal sage dnon-native grassland, 14.6 acres chapparal. 2.8 acm
disturbed, and .3 acres ripriadmuleikt scrub.
A revised andysis of the quality of the habitat, by type is @d New Witat sub-types and
species have bccn listed since the 1993 agreement. Furthennore, the habitat was allowed to degrade in the eight iataveningyean when the 1993 MaasgemnaPlan actiws were suppoeed
to protect the presmve but wen never implemnaed Revewon was not done. off-road
vehicle use was not controlled, fences were not installed, interim biological sumys wen mi done, etc.. m., In our cstimationthae vas liuthcradvem impact to M BCT~S of landthat
should be subhacted from thc mitigation credits allowed for Village Z. This would result in a
net loss cany forward- and not the excess mitigation credi @that are claim4
Calavem Hills Phase II, BTD No. 4, and Detention Besins I5
Letters of Comment and Responses
55. The IlCLacre Calavera Nature Preserve is being included in the Calavera Hills Master Plan Area
to formally include the preserve area in the Master Plan, and the use of mitigation is consistent
with previous approvals for Calaven Hills. Its cumnt management efforts, and the contents and
implementation of the 1993 Agreement are not subject to CEQA and am not part of this project
description, nor subject to public comment. The alternative to the City securing the 1993
agreement would have the site remaining in private ownership with no legally sanctioned public
access, no management activities occurring, no presnvt status, and the ability to pursue the
midential development of approximately 45-50 single-family homes. The ownership and
management of the Calavera Heights Mitigation Bank was hnnsfemd in November 1998 to The
Envimnmental Trust, as stipulated in the 1993 Mitigation Agreemnrt, which describes the
mitigation for impacts to habitat.
.." -- .. .. . .. ~ __ I ._._. - . ... . . -
CEQA requires an analysis of the cumnt environmental setting. This analysis should have
included an assessment ofthe current conditions- and not just assumed that the 1993 Plan WBS
implemented when it was not. The W should provide a current analysis of actual habitat type
acreage and location. Mitigation credits should be based on actual habitat conditions that
existed prior to the clean-up work done bt The Environmental Trust in the last few months. The
entire Village Z area is not acceptable as a 1: 1 mitigation credit area.
2. The proposed hardline preserve space to be added in Village K is primarily revegetated
manufactured fill slope. Village K is an interior site with housing on three sides and a major
arterial road on the fourth. It appears that there has already been grading on much of this site.
Additional hardline space in Village K creates a wider linkage, but at the expense of the core
area.
Reducing the open space preserve in K is more consistent with its actual value in the habitat
preservation system. Interior project open space easements have been found to have
unacceptable cumulative adverse direct and indirect impacts on wildlife and habitat. The
indirect impacts of run-off from the upslope development, impervious surfaces, and pollutants
from pesticides, herbicides and other chemical substances are significant on such sites. A court
ruling in Sierra Club v. County of San Diego, Bonnie Kibbe, et al.. (1995) (DPLU Case File TM
4978) lays out the fair argument reasoning that the use of such areas as protected open space is
unenforceable and unproven.
The storm water drain protection plan and other run-off protection measures identified do not
protect the impacts to individual open space parcels like that pmposed for Village K For
example, they don't prevent pesticide from the back yard of houses above Village K from going
down slope and impacting the vegetation on the hardlime open space in Village K- they only
protect it from entering the storm drain.
For such a site to be acceptable mitigation, monitoring, maintenance. and enforcement in
perpetuity must be specified- as was provided for in the Village Z mitigation site.
3. The portions of Villages W and U east of College Blvd are contiguous with Core Area 3. 1-57 would not be separated by a major roadway 60m the core area, and are high quality undisturbed
habitat on southhutheastern facing slopes. This am is protected from the edge effects of
residential development by the roadway. Preservation of these slopes would have a much higher
potential to support endangered plants and animals.
Expanding Village K open space to provide an improved linkage between Core Arees 2 and 3
also docs not seem to provide any significant improvement to the regional preserve system.
Core Area 2 is parallel to highway # 78 and doesn't conned to anything else- it is a deadend.
Commercial development is pmceeding in this area that included an active mine for over 30
years and has a Reclamation Plan in place. (Quarry creek EIR for the city of Oceanside.) The
city of Oceanside also has a proposal for a new freeway interchange fur Rancho del Or0 that
would Mer impact this already degraded "Core Area."
I
? E
i I
Letters of Comment and Responses
. 56. These comments on Village K are noted. However, as described throughout the draft EIR, the
hard line open space configuration for Village K has been developed in conjunction with the
project applicant and the wildlife agencies. Management actions within the hard line open space
areas to be consistent with the Draft HMP and provisions to be identified as a result of the Section
7 consultation. Hard line open space abuts existing developed areas throughout the planning area.
Project design and proposed storm water drainage improvements are considered sufficient to
protect vegetation within the proposed open space parcels. It should also be noted that the federal
government regulates the strength and composition of pesticides and other chemicals used to
control weeds, pests, or as fertilizer by homeowners to ensure public safety and to reduce or avoid
inadvertent effects to wildlifelhabitat outside the targeted use area. See also Appendix F of the
draft EIR.
57. See response 1-56 above.
Calavera Hills Phase I& BTD No. 4, and Detention Basins 16
In contrast to this, Con Area 3 is a large contiguous open space with hundreds of acres of high
quality habitat with linkages through Village H to Larwin Park. pmervation of land in this core
will have a much higher value than linlragcs to Core Area 2. (See Attachment D Proposed
Alternative Wildlife Corridors.)
There appears to be no biological justification for the selection of the land to be developed and
the land to be retained as open spsce. Much of the land proposed for development is high
quality habitat while some of the areas being presemd are highly disturbed. The EIR needs to
include anaIpis of alternative siting of the proposed areas for development that result in redd biological impacts.
The alternatives analysis should have looked at reduced open space in Village K, and the
preservation of more in Villages W and U east of College Blvd.
4. The project proposes a determination of equivalency for scvd modifications to hardline
real issue. The real issue is the tredc ofopen space in Village K for that of Villages U and W. This trade as documented in the 1993 agreement should be evaluated in the EIR
5. Extensive blasting is required in Villages U and W. The adverse impacts of the blasting on I-59 biological resoulces was not evaluated and should have been This steep slope area is part of the
Aqua Hedionda watershed and from the creek to Aqua Hcdionda Lagoon- M impaid water
body. Our proposed ahnative of eliminating development on the portions of Villsgcs U and W
east of College would also signifidy reduce any adverse impacts on biological rrsaunx~ from this blasting
6. This EIR shows the extension of College and Cannon roads. These road elritensions wcrt not
In contrast to this the overall HMP map and the detailed area map Figure IO both show the
roadway impacts for Faraday and El F& streets.
It can be assumed that because ofthe inconsistent handling of the roadway impacts mthe HMP,
the public did not have the wty to comment on the impacts of Carmen and College
exteasions in the HMP EIR- nor was thm adeqmte notice to the wildlife ageacies who are
responsible for reviewing and appwing the HMP.
The mis not consistent with thew with respect to these roadway impacts. Them
annlysis should have identified this inconsistency and specified a comctjon Ifthe city adopts
the pmject as proposed the HMP will @re amendment to accmately reflect the biological
impacts from extending Cannon and College BId
7.
north county. The EIR assesses the impacts only in terms of specific acreage mitigations for
each habitat impacted. It fsils to assess the regional setting of these impacts as is required by
1-58 pnserve boundaries as shown in carlsbsd's W. These minor equivalency changes are not the
Q\ Q\
1-60 shown on the HMP maps, nor do they show on the detailed HMP area maps Figures 22 and 23.
Carmon Rd Reach 4 has particularly adverse impacts on biological ~CSOU~CW as it will cut 1-61 right through core Area 3- one of only two large remaining contiguous native habitats in cosstal
I
Letters of Comment and Responses
58. See response 1-55 above.
59. Blasting impacts associated with wildlife are not considered significant given the short-term
duration of the blasting event.
60. In clarification, the draft HMF' did not process an EIR, it was pmcessed with a Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND). Secondly, the HMP MND is not part of this project and thus not PIW of this
environmental review or this EIR.
The intent of the referenced draft HMP exhibits is not to provide graphic rcprescntation of every
use in each specific area. A key objective of the draft HMP is defined as 'permitting for City
public facility projects mandated by the Growth Managemt Plan." It states further that 'The
City is proping to include the 266 am publie property at Lake Calavera as a public project
mitigation bank for municipal projects such as the City golf course and the major roads shown on
the City's Circulation Plan. During the
development of the draft HMP, knowledge of the roadways varied from mea to ama within the
City. The draft HMP does provide habitat conservation planning consistent with the goals and
objectives of the General Plan.
Both Cannon Road and College Boulevard me listed in draft HMP Appendix B as projects
allowed through the draft Hh4P and mitigated through the Lake Calavera Mitigation Bank. As
long as mitigation for the proposed Bridge and Thoroughfare District project is proid 88
indicated in the EJR, the Bridge and Thoroughfam District is consistent with the HMP. Also, see
response 1-6 above.
See responses 1-6 and 1-60 above.
These projects am identified m Appendix B."
61.
Calavera Hills Phase II, BTD No. 4, and Detention Basins 17
CEQA Guidelines 15125(a). The impact on the core area is a regional impact. It effects the
regional plan to preserve habitat The EIR must assess these impacts on the functioning of the
entire core area and the entire regional plan.
8. Project impacts on the adjacent core area preserve land were not adequately assessed in the 1-62 EIR. Appendix F Biological Technical Report page 49 states “Indirect impacts associated with
project implementation include an increase in night lighting, traffic. domestic pas, and litter and
pollutants into adjacent wildlife habitat. These impacts arc not expected to reduce the wildlife populations of the area below self-sustaining levels and are thus considered less than
significant.” Tlus constitutes the entire analysis of the impacts of the project on the adjacent
wildlife habitat. There is no biological basis for either the analysis or the conclusion.
The adjacent wildlife habitat is a core area in the regional system of habitat preservation
Failure to assess the impacts on this area is a violation of CEQA.
9. Appendix F Table 9 shows the mitigation recommendations for the Master Plan Phase II. It 1-63 states that 165.1 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub will be preserved as open space and 7.7 acres
will be restored on manufactured slopes. This is not consistent with the grading boundaries shown on Figure 7. Figure 7 indicates that essentially all of the CSS in Villages W and U will be
graded. There is a significant qualitative difference between “ on-site preservation” and
revegetation- especially re-vegetation on a blasted, manufactured fill slope. The EIR needs to
specifically identify the amount of the mitigation that is preserved vs the amount that will be
revegetated.
10 Table 9 is also not consistent with the grading plan for southern mixed and chamise chaparral. The EIR needs to specifically identify the amount of this habitat that is preserved vs
the amount that is destroyed and revegetated.
11. Grading for a master plan project phase typically all occurs at once in order to reduce 1-65 construction costs. The @ng for this phase will destroy the entire link between Core Area 2
and 3 . The EIR did not assess this impact. Mitigation should include a grading plan that
maintains a viable link by doing grading in segments.
12 The number and configuration of wildlife crossings through an area proposed for major
arterial roads has not been identified. The extensions of Cannon and College will bisect what is
supposed to be hardline open space preserve land: Existing wildlife corridors in this area were
not identified, nor was there any assessment of the impact of the roadway extensions on wildlife
movement.
The MHCP Section 6.2.3 proposes guidelines to protect the biological resources in the preserve.
These include the following: “ Avoid areas that have the potential to be used as wildlife
movement corridors or habitat linkag es.”... and “Use bridges, instead of culverts for all major
riparian crossings and regional wildlife movement corridors, and use 3-meter chain link fencing
to direct wildlife movement toward the wildlife underpass. The site of the riparian crossing and its importance as a wildlife corridor should dictate the design’’.
m 4
Calavera Hills Phase 9 BTD No. 4, and Detention Basins 18
Letters of Comment and Responses
62. City of Carlsbad conditions of project approval at the tentative map stage will ensure that the EIR
mitigation requirements for edge effects will comply with the guidelines and policies cited in the
draft HMP and thus ensure that significant environmental effects are addressed as required by
CEQA,. Such detailed measures may include measures for maintenance of open space areas over
time as well as lighting controls. Please note that the commentor’s reference was taken from an
EIR discussion of impacts to wildlife in general. Impacts to sensitive species and required
mitigation are addressed separately in the EIR biological resources discussion (Chapter 3.G.).
63. The mitigation requirements in the final EIR (see EJR Tahle 3G-8) have been revised to reflect the
wildlife agencies position regarding the revegetation and use of manufactured slopes adjacent to
open space.
64. Tahle 3G-8 in the EIR and Table 9 on page 56 in the biology technical report have been revised in
response to this comment and to reflect changes that result from the Section 7 consultation with
the wildlife agencies.
Grading for the project in a single phase and subsequent revegetation of affected open space mas
as designated reduce the duration of the associated impacts from the operation and would
minimize the impacts to the corridor linkage. Also, longer construction time would create more
severe environmental impacts as noted elsewhere in this letter.
The location and configuration of the proposed wildlife corridors associated with Calavera Hills
and the circulation element roadways of Cannon Road and College Boulevard are consistent with
the draft HMP and are described in the draft EIR. See also responses 1-17 above and attachment
to the biology technical report that is included in the final EIR.
65.
66.
The College extension includes a crossing of Aqua Hedionda Cmk. The creek is part of a
regid wildlife comdor. Protection of the wildlife movement in this conidor needs to be
med
A roadway alignment, and plm for wildlife cross& lleed to be developed that takes into *
acoountthe natural movemcntpatteans of the wildlife in this area. The EIR alsoneeds to specify
when the mitigatiom for the roadway extensions will occur.
13. The biologid survey ducted by Recon and s\munanzed . in Appendix F dated January I-6725,2001 failed to adequately assess biological ~csources in the following areas:
- Ca Cuastd Gnatcatcher survey areas were limited and did not include all
potential ncsting BRas - it did not specifically address vernal pools although soil type analysis indicates
several areas dere there is a potential for pools which an specifically protea4
in the MHCP.
- plant su~veys were only ducted in November, Lkccmber, and Janusry and therefor carmot detect those speciesthat an not readily obsavedduringthose
months- like brodeia filihlia Vegetaion sweys need to be conducted
’ sasonal~yto identlfysma~~ amnia~ species
I
- no dwis of impacts OD the pbpu~ins ofmmmcim~ species.
(other than the statement on -49)
No analysis of the availability and suitability of habitat for displaced animals- and
their ability to relocate.
-
Habitats are complex tcosystems. The loss of habitat ami impacts the ecosystem
expected to have an impact on the related tlueatdendmgmd species The loss of wildlife needs to be specified- both project specifie from loss of habitat, and on-going impects from the road Snd increased interface with humans.
wetlads impsots an not avoided and minimized to the maximum extent passibls
wildlife mmys failed to include trapping surveys for small mammals, did not
consider d utilization of the habitats or migration pattems of biob along the wildlife conidom, and did not include monthly avian swyeys on a monthly
base in ordn to accurately descrii avian utilization of the habitats.
14 MHCP Section 3.6.1 Wetland Avoidance and Mitigation Criteria require that impacts to
wdands are avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. Project alternatives have
andwillreducepopllatroasof~~~~anianimals. Thiscaabe
-
-
Calavaa Hills phase 9 BTD No. 4, and Detention Basins 19
67.
68. ,
Letters of Comment and Responses
Coastal California gnatcatcher surveys were conducted in all potentially suitable habitat for the
species within the Master Plan and roadway alignments following current USFWS
presencdabsence survey protocol.
The entire project area was traversed throughout the numerous visits made to the site. Neither
vernal pools nor typical vernal pool habitat was detected during the surveys. In addition, none Of
the previously prepad documents for this project reviewed in support of the cumnt study
indicate the presence of vernal pools.
A thorough review of supplemental sources, including the California Natural Diversity Data Base
and reports of surveys previously conducted on the site, was conducted to provide a more accurate
accounting of the presence and location of spnng and summer annual species. In addition, focused
surveys for listed species were conducted during the spring and summer of 2000 by biologists also
trained to identify sensitive plant species. Any sensitive plants detected during these surveys were noted and mapped.
As stated on page 49 of the draft EIR, the impacts to populations of non-endangeredlthreatened
species would be considered less than significant.
It is assumed that not all displaced animals will be able to relocate to adjacent open space. None of
these common species will be depleted to the point of the project having a significant impact.
Open space suitable for relocation is present throughout the Master Plan area and to the east in the
Calavera Nature Preserve and adjacent State of California open space.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service in accordance with the Clean Water Act 404 Permit process are cumntly reviewing the
project alternatives regarding impacts to wetlands and will determine if the prefnred project is the least envimnme~tally damaging practicable alternative. This determination examines how
proposed project alternatives first avoid and then minimize unavoidable impacts to wetlands.
There was no potential for listed mammals to occur on-site and no reason to trap for non-listed
species. General avian surveys were conducted in November, December, and January. Focused
surveys for three listed species were conducted in November, December, January, April, May,
June, and July. Two of the three listed species potentially present were located and mapped during
these surveys. In addition, the site is not expected to support any listed wintering species and
impacts to common wintering birds are not expected to be significant. Spring and fall migrant
birds will usc the remaining habitat, created parks, and residential and community landscaped
mas.
The 404 permit p”8s was initiated for the project and minimization of wetland impacts to be evaluated as part of the permit issuance. The intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road
has been designed to minimize wetland impacts as multiple alternative alignments were examined,
as noted in the draft EIR, in developing the preferred alignments. Wetland mitigation ratios
identified in the draft EIR for impacts, subject to review of the resource agencies through the 404 permitting pess. The EIR does include alternatives that avoid (No Project alternative) and
minimize (Alternative 3) impacts to wetlands. While the No Project alternative is not feasible,
Alternative 3 (Reduced Intersection Elevation) is feasible.
,.. . . . . .. .-
not been proposed that achieve no wetlands impacts- the three elements of the project need to be
jointly developed into a single alternative with no wetlands impacts.
This section also states Road or utility projects that must CMSS a wetland and that are permitted under an MHCP subarea plan will be required to demonstrate that the crossing will occur at the
least overall biologically sensitive location and that all feasible minimization measures have
been implied.”
The alternatives proposed for both of the roadway extensions include crossing of several
wetlands and other areas identified as non-wetland jurisdictional waters. The proposed project
fails to meet the criteria in both the MHCP and HMP with respect to wetland avoidance. The
EIR failed to identify the failure to meet this criteria.
15 The Biological Study also failed to adequately survey vernal pools as is now required by the
16. In several places the EIR provides alternatives in the event the HMP is not approved. For example, on page 239 it states “ If the Draft HMP is not approved or adopted as currently
published, significance will bedetermined solely bused on CEQA and no mitigntion would be
required.” The project provides for contingencies in the event the HMP is not approved- all of these contingencies reduce the amount of mitigation that will be included. What it does not
specify is contingencies to assure on-going management, monitoring and preservation of the
proposed open space. The HMP includes such management provisions. In the absence of HMP
approval, the EIR must assure that there will be adequate management of the open space.
The 1993 agrenncnt with LYON included a management plan for protection of the open space. This plan was not adhered to by the developer, and the city of Carlsbad took no enforcement
action. One of the consequences of this is that the 1995 biological survey showed that there were 5 nesting pairs of California Coastal gnatcatchers in Village K - and in the most recent
survey there WBS one pair. This loss of species in an area that was targeted for the highest level
of protection proves the failure of the prior plan.
17. There will be significant indirect impacts on the Buena Vista and Aqua Hedionda Creek
additional roadways, roof, and driveways. Changes in hydrologic conditions can damage
riparian areas and alter habitat suitability for wildlife like nesting birds. There are no beers
proposed betwecn development and the creek banks. Buffers are required to minimize these
indirect impacts.
A specific confguration of buffers needs to be specified that assures protection of the creeks.
18. Off-rogd vehicle use historically has been a significant problem in this area, and continues
with little enforcement by the local police. The additional people, and roads right next to
sensitive habitat will only increase the potential for this activity to increase. Signagc by The
Environmental Tnrst around the perimeter of Village Z almost implies that it is OK to ride your
Id9 MHCP.- or if they were surveyed the findings were not reported.
Q\ W
1-71 watersheds and the Calavera preserve From the run-off of the impervious surfaces of the
Calavera Hills Phase JI, BTD No. 4, and Detention Basins 20
Letters of Comment and Responses
69. The most recent aerial maps of the site were reviewed and Gerry Scheid, Senior Biologist at
RECON, subsequently conducted a field visit in March 2001. The field visit was conducted to
verify the status of on-site non-wetland waters. No vernal pools were found to be present on the
site. In a letter updating earlier studies, Mr. Scheid indicates that there are two areas, described as
“locations where no distinct channel could be identified but where there was evidence of sheet
flow.” These areas include areas where farming and road construction have significantly altered
the area and the channel is no longer obvious. In RECON’S opinion. these areas are considered
isolated and therefore not under USACE jurisdiction. This letter has been included as an
attachment to the biology technical report (Appendix F) in the final EIR.
As indicated in the EIR. the proposed project will necessitate permits from the USACE, the
USFWS, the CDFG, and others. The specifics of management of open spaces will be determined
in conjunction with these permits. Even without HMP, management will still be. required via the
homeowners association and/or the developer andlor a third-party environmental manager.
Without the HMP, mitigation measures may not be in the same form or to the same level as HMP
mitigation; however, in part due to the role of resource agency permitting, there will be no
significant environmental impacts created. See also response to comment letter Al-1 that
discusses project coordination with the resource agencies and implementation of management
requirements customized to ensure the long-term viability of the habitat.
The population of any given species identified during field surveys, including the California
gnatcatcher, can fluctuate dramatically from year to year depending on a variety of factors. These
include environmental conditions (wet vs. dry years, food sources, predators, etc.), development
(loss or degradation of habitat). survey methods employed by field professionals, and even the
time of year surveys are conducted. The EIR reflects the most up-to-date survey infomation and
it would be inappropriate to speculate as to the exact reason for differences in the number of
species located during earlier surveys as compared to the most recent. The conclusions and
proposed mitigation meet the requirements of CEQA and are considered adequate.
The Regional Water Quality Control Board Letter has provided a letter of comment on the draft
EIR which also addresses these issues. Their letter is included in the final EIR as Letter B. The
water quality runoff issues and methods employed to ensure that indirect impacts to the watershed
are reduced to below a level of significance are included as mitigation measures in the final EIR.
In addition, City of Carlsbad conditions of project approval and the RWQCB 401 permit will
require implementation of best management practices, including the use of buffers, to ensure that
indirect water quality impacts will not occur.
This comment is noted. However, increased urban development adjacent to open spaces generally
decreases obvious illegal uses within these areas because residents are likely to report illegal
activities to the authorities. No evidence exists that the proposed project will increase this illegal
activity. Furthermore, should illegal use of the site occur, it would constitute an enforcement issue
and, as such, is not considered an environmental issue under CEQA for the putposes of this EIR.
Presumptions of guilt and community delinquency are law enforcement issues and not
environmental issues.
I
70.
71.
72.
vehicle up to that point- cven though it requires driving through land that is restricted for
off-road vehicle use. Captain Metcalf of the Carlsbad Police department has bcen invited to
community meetings with residents upset about the level of off-road vehicle activity and the lack
of responsiveness on the part of the police department,
In the adjacent calavera Highlaads mitigation site the Department of Fish and Game added Jersey barrim in March 2001 in an effort to protect sensitive areas that were being damsgad by
off-road vehicles.
The project design will increese the destruction of sensitive habitat- both within the project and in the adjacent mitigation bnnks because of its encouragement of incrtased off-road vehicle use.
This is a significant adverse impact that was not addressed in the EIR Signage and barricades
have not stopped this activity in the past. Mitigation must include design standards,
wandenf-
19. There was no discussion in the EIR of the failure of the developer to abide by the 1-73 management plan that WBS part ofthe project master plan clgnemmt. A comparison ofthe 1%
and the 1999 biological surveys indicates several areas where there have been a loss of
significant biological msources. This loss of resources has not been acamted for in the Phase n mitigations that are proposed. Many ofthese losses are to resources that were supposed to haw,
beenpnsmnd as part OfPhase I and were not
2 A compehrnsivc mriew of the entire project ana is now requid because ofthe failure to protect the resow as requked by law. The loss of rcsourcea should be specifically
documented Penalties should be applied for violations and mitigations need to be established
that comet the failures of Phasc I as well as mitigate for the impacts of Phase n.
20. Development is proposed adjacmt to protected habitat within the project bolmdaries ad 1-74 adjacent to the project boundaries. Landseaping standards fail to protect the native plants itom
adverse impacts from these adjacent landscape materials. In the absence of such a plan the
advcrse impacts from landscaping are not dud to a level of insignificance. The pmvision of
a landscapcplan is not the same as a requhmeat fora regulatory landscape plaa The phsse II landscape plan is based on the master plan criteria The application of these criteria has rtJulded in paor choice of landscape material and demage to native habitat The attached photos labeled
Attachment E show alyssim and other crawlers planted adjacent to ~tive hsbitai desigaatcd as protecud open space in three areas of the existing Calavera Hills Phase I development. Views
througb the feme and along the trails show where exotic plants have alreadycrossed the
' boundaricsintothe~nativehabitst
A reguletory landscape plan would include a plant list of preferable ti^ plants, wntaiaex sk, location of the planting, and reawnable monitoring and cnforcaaent Such provisions cwld
include thc posting of a bond with the city for 5 years, refundable only if the landscape plan has
met succtss criteria
Calavera Hills Phase Il, BTD No. 4. and Detention Basins 21
Letters of Comment and Responses
73. The City of Carlsbad is satisfied that the Master Plan developer has maintained andcontinues to
maintain compliance with the 1993 Apment. The City considers the pme an envimnmentfd
success that didnot cost the citizens or City any public money given the alternative of not securing
the site (acquisition, short- and long-term maintenance) as a preaerve status. Allegations to the
contrary should be submitted in writing with the appropriate evidence documentation.
I
74. The landscape concept plan ppared for the proposed Phase n project incorporates the we of
native species at locations adjacent to the HMP preserve. This requirement, dong with a long-
term maintenance and monitoring requirement imposed on individual homeowners asscciations
for slopes, would avoid encroachment of exotic species into native habitats.
The statement that native plants should be “incorporated when appropriate” does not represent
a good faith effort to protect the native plants. Native planting should be a requirement for all of
the project landscaping plans. Native planting should be a requirement of residential
landscaping, or additional monitoring is required to assure there is no invasion or other adverse
impact from the private landscaping materials used by homeowners.
The EIR failed to address the indirect impacts from non-native plantings, failed to assess the
cumulative impacts of non-native planting, and failed to provide adequate mitigation for these
impacts.
21. The proposed mitigation for riparian woodland in both the proposed development and the 1-75 BTD is inadequate. Project design needs to specifically address the avoidance of mature trees.
Where they cannot be avoided, replacement trees need to be specified. The provision for ‘*
replacement of five sycamores for every tree effected “is totally inadequate. Appropriate
mitigation should be at a 5: 1 ratio, tree replacement should be large 24 to 36 inch box m.
specific success criteria must be specified, and funding SOUTCCS for mitigation monitoring and
corrective action if success criteria are not met
22. The ElR failed to assess the cumulative impacts of the fragmentation of sensitive habitat 1-76 that will occur from the extension 0f-m ad.
23. The 1993 Agreement reduced the housing in Village K and props to use this as a wildlife I-” corridor. An environmentally sqaior wildlife corridor could be included to the south from the Calavera Nature Preserve. The alternative wildlife corridor would continue through the difficult to grade Villages W, K, and Y, and from there through the biologically vaned and diveme open
space that currently runs baween The Colony (Village A and €3) and The Cape(Vi1lage D). The corridor would continue across Tamarack and run through the entire length of Village H. From a land altematiodvisual impact and biological perspective, this would preserve the natural
topography’s visual beauty and the supenor trscks of native vegetation. In addition, mouting the
proposed wildlife corridor from the south side of the CNP would create a nabnal buffer baweur
residential neighborhoods and the Robenson Ranch. This would decrease the adverse impacts
that would result from having residential neighborhoods adjacent to boundaries of agriculhual
land.
‘
24. Lake Calavera is a wetlands that is protected under the guidelines of the MHCP. The City of 1-78 Carlsbad staff have publicly stated that if the proposed municipal golf course is not approved,
then the lake will be removed from the HMP and not be a protected habitat area Whether Lake Gdavera is in, or not in the HMP, the impacts of development so close to the lake should have
been evaluated as an indirect impct. Village R will be right next to the prom lakeshore
habitat boundaries.
The project will have significant indirect impacts on the wetlands habitat of Lake Calavera.
Over 99% of the original wetl~ds have been lost in San Diego County. The indirect impacts to
the lake should have been identified and appropriate mitigation provided
Letters of Comment and Responses
75. The EIR states that impacts to riparian woodland will be mitigated at a 2:l ratio and that agencies
generally require the replacement of five sycamores for every tree affected. The EIR further states
that the final mapping and grading plan will present the guidelines for mitigation site selection,
site preparation, plant selection, installation, and five-year maintenance, and monitoring programs
and will be submitted for approval to the City of Carlsbad Planning Department Director. As part
of the plan preparation, a tree survey will be completed to identify the numbers of western
sycamores trees impacted by any of the project components. Any tree replacement required will be
consistent with the City’s proposed draft HMP or other applicable plans and policies, as they
apply.
76.-77. The changes proposed in Figure 2-6 of the EIR (modified hard line open space) will
necessitate the finding of an “equivalency determination” by the wildlife agencies and the City.
As shown on Figure 2-6, these changes are in various locations along the hard line within Calavera
Hills, not just Village K. Village K, however, was the area of greatest concern during the
consensus negotiations, inasmuch as it had previously been identified as having suitable habitat
for gnatcatchers. Figure 3G-7 shows the project deviation from the exact hard line alignment of
the Draft HMP and open space equivalency for the affected villages. For example, as part of the
consensus agreement reached between the City. wildlife agencies, and the project applicant on the
overdl project hard line, the manufactured fill slope on the southern side of Village K (see Figure
3G-4) would be relocated within the open space side of the hard line but would be required to be
revegetated with coastal sage scrub. The deviation results in a net increase of 13.5 acres of
preserved lands, does not result in a decrease of conserved area habitat quality, and is considered
to be the functional equivalent of the Draft HMP configuration.
As discussed in the Biological Resources section (Chapter 3.G.) of the EIR, changes are proposed
to the hard line open space that necessitate the finding of an “equivalency determination” by the
wildlife agencies and the City. The deviation results in a net increase of 13.5 acres of preserved
lands, does not result in a decrease of conserved area habitat quality, and is considered to be the
functional equivalent of the Draft HMP configuration.
In the event that the project proceeds before the Draft HMP is adopted by the City of Carlsbad,
and before the resource agencies have issued an incidental take pennit for activities contemplated
by the Draft HMP, the proposed project would require “take” authorization by the USFWS. Such
authorization or a Section 7 consultation between U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and USWS
would be accomplished as part of the project’s Section 404 permit. See also responses 1-6 and
1-60 above. As noted throughout the draft EIR, the resource agencies are responsible for the
creation, regulation, and management of the proposed wildlife corridor.
Comment noted. However, the topographic relationship of the residential development area of
Village R and Lake Calavera limit the potential for indirect impacts. Development as proposed for
Village R would not conflict with the draft HMP or create indirect wetland impacts.
78.
Calavera Hills Phase Il, BTD No. 4, and Detention Basins 22
r i
,-
25. The proposed adjushnents to the hardline pnserve boundaries include the intrusion of fire
suppression breaks into what is supposed to be protected land according to the Fire Protection
Plan These fh suppression breaks should not reduce bardline protected space- they should
instcadbenquiredaspartofthedeveloped land
If these intrusions are allowed into the badline presmre, then there needs tobe additional
mitigation fot these hbusions.
26. The Management Plan related to the 1993 agreement was never fully implmemted because 1-80 of the insolvency of the previous developer. There is always the potential that a developer is not
able to complete a project once stluted. Particularly given the history of this project, a
contingency plan in the event of developer cancellation of the project needs to be in place to
~ssun protection of the biological nsomces. This could consist of a performance bond that is
only reld as phases of the mitigation are in place, and the permaamt monitoring and managcmentfunctionhasbctnadequatelyfundcd. Themanagemcntplanneedstospecifythat
the City is respoasible for Mlforcnnent and penalties must be included for fsilure to perfom.
27. Pmt of the Chon Road Reacb 4 wetlands impacts arc proposed to be mitigated off-site.
mitigahon should occur within the adjacentdmddsarea, or contiguous to the preserve so that there is nonet reductiaa incontiguous preserve land.
28. Figure 3 in the Biological Sumy fails to show the location of the sighting of the least Bell's vireo which is identified in the text
1-81 since these impacts are omming in whst is suppo~ed to be potccted wine presrrve. the
29. =&E bas Significantearementsthmughwhat is suppos#ltobe protected open space.
obsrrvations along this casement show most of the area almost completely devoid of plant cover. This disturbtd land should be deducted from the open space credits. Mitigation needs to specify howthe open space will be protected from the adverse impactSofthesecasements.
1-83 There is no gwantec of protection of biological mources along this easement In tkt,
30. Insufkknt mitigation has been proposed for the adverse edge effects of residential 1-84 deve~opment on the preserved witat III addition to the planting materials discus~ed m
Comment # 20. this should include things like restrictions on gates from yards to opcn space,
lighting not dl4 beyond the pprivste land pehcter, no adjacent shuctum providing paths
for animals, etc. CC and R's for the HOA should specify these restrictions.
Thc city of Carlsbad has proposed a system of bails which are identified in the General Plan. Trails will go to the summit of Mt Calavera and around the south side of Lake calavna These
trails are a significant public rrcrtational element, but wen not discussed in them The EIR failed to address the impacts of the poposcd development on this system of trails. Pedestrian
access tothis trail system needs tobe specifically provided for in project design. Signage and barricades may be needed protect the sensitive habitat from off trail incursions by people,
vehicles, and pets using the trails.
!
Letters of comment and Responses
79. Except where City Fire Department and USmKS consensus agreement allows for relocation of the
hard line open space boundary and incorporation of the manufactured fill slope, fire suppression
areas are. not to be accommodated or allowed in the designated open space/HMp areas.
Calavm Hills Phase II, BTD No. 4, and Detention Basins 23
80. Insolvency of the previous Master Plan owner did not affect the 1993 Agreement because it binds
successors in interest and the site was purchased (1.4 million dollars) without the use of public
funds and funds were set aside to finance an initial management period that began in 1998. The
1993 Agreement has been and continues to be properly implemented. Long-term maintenance
financing was also secured without public monies.
81. The currently preferred location for mitigation of impacts to wetlands within Cannon Road Reach
4 is within an area adjacent to Detention Basin BJ. This basin is within the same drainage (Little
Encinas Creek) associated with CFnon Road Reach 4.
82. Figure 3G-2 of the EIR has been revised in the final EIR to address this comment.
83. Inclusion of the SDG&E easements is shown as part of the overall project open s-. However,
the mitigation acreage does include the non-disturbed areas within the Sm&E easement, but
excludes the graded mas, including the tower access trails for SDG&E maintenance. As patt of
the permitting processes, the resource agencies have reviewed the proposed open space system
described in the draft EIR and have recommended modifications that are reflected in the final EIR.
However, the proposed inclusion of habitat within the SDGBrE easement as part of the open space
system has not been changed based on this review.
City of Carlsbad conditions of project approval at the tentative map stage will ens= that the
mitigation requirements for edge effects will comply with the guidelines and policies cited in the
Draft HMP. Such detailed measures may include invasive species conml and maintenance over
time as well as lighting controls. In addition, the project does not conflict with my trail plan. All
current trail plans, conceptual or otherwise, considered and accounted for future developments,
subject to minor field refinements.
84.
The EIR failed to assess the direct and indirect impacts from use of trails in the designated open
space. It failed to integrate the planned development with this planned regional recreational use.
It also failed to provide mitigation for the significant adverse impact from public access to
sensitive habitat.
E. Hydrology
1. Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin by the Ca Regional WQCB dated 9/8/94
on page 4-72 identifies Aqua Hedionda Lagoon as a water body “Receiving Waters Impacted by
Pollution from Storm Water and Urban Run-off.” The referenced State Department of Health
Services report Shellfish Contamination in Aqua Hedionda Lagoon identifies contamination by
coIiform bacteria and other microbes. The proposed project does not ensure that there will be no
Mer degradation to the water quality of Aqua Hedionda Creek and from the Creek to Aqua
Hedionda Lagoon. Under the provisions of the Clean Water Act, the RWQCB has an obligation
to ensure that there is no Mher loss to the water quality of an impaired water body, and under
the law, activities thai have thepotential to contribute to thefurther impairment of an alrea&
impaired water body are not permitted(e.g.Resolution No. 68-16)
The amount of storm water run-off from the roads , roofs, and patios from this project will be
extensive. Pollutants found in urban run-off severely degrade the beneficial uses of surface
water, and threaten the health of users of the site, the adjacent neighborhood, and the native
plants and animals. This urban run-off also threatens the beneficial uses of the surface water of
Aqua Hedionda Lagoon- contact water recreation; commercial and sport fishing; habitat for rare.
threatened or endangered species; and migration of aquatic organisms. In recent months this
urban run-off has also allowed invasive, non-indigenous plant species into the lagoon that
threatened the entire lagoon ecosystem.
The project area already shows the impacts of increased run-off from the
Phase I development. Mitigations for Phase I either were not sufficient to protect the area, or
they were not implemented as planned. Numerous water quality violations can be observed by
hiking through the area. Slopes show the signs of on-going erosion, required plantings are not in
place, interim grading continues to impact the watershed, storm water drains are not located to
minimize impacts, etc. These impacts are cumulative. increasing, and will be further
exacerbated by this project. Base level required conditions need to be established through
adequate monitoring and enforcement of mitigations that are supposed to be in place, as well as
any future ones proposed for this project.
2. The EIR states “Implementation of BMP’s(Best Management Practices) to control urban 1-86 pollutants (e.g.constnrcting detention and siltation basins, creating grass swales or filter strips.
and revegetating natural drainages for both Calavna Hills Phase II and the BTD would mitignte
these potential impacts to below a level of significance.” However the “ level of significance”
concluded does not take into consideration the following:
7 --
I Letters of Comment and Responses
I
85. See response 1-7 1 above.
86. The project must comply with existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
requirements and will complete a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan to reduce or avoid
construction-related and ongoing project-related impacts from runoff in compliance with
regulations. To conform to existing water quality regulations, the project is required to maintain
water quality at existing levels or better for “lesser flows” prior to exiting the project site. The
project proponent proposes sediment/pollution control basins which will ensure compliance with
the water quality requirements.
Calavera Hills Phase U, BTD No. 4, and Detention Basins 24
The pro~detcntionbasinsaredescn'bedas~now-by"basinswherr"thelargcrflowsare
attenuated while the lesser flows are allowed to 'flow-by' the basin udamd'' This
presumably means that only larger mff flows will b detained by these bash while smaller
nm-off episodes would flow directiy into the existing drainage charmel of Calavera Creek, Little
Encinas Creek, and Aqua Hedionda Creek. In addition, it is stated that detaining run-off would
eventually discharge into these drainage chmmels as well. with the idea that ''some" of the pollutants will have settled and filtered into the ground Most of these flows will most likely
deposit into the Aqua Hedionda Lapn No mention of the added pollution impact to Aqua
Hedionda Lagoon WBS made. This Lagoon is M impaired body of water which is CUrrcJntly
threatened by a foreign algae infestation The impact of further pollution streson this Lagoon
requires specific study.
The EJR states that this area under development Mllsists of 70% Soil Group D which has a very
slow infiltration rate and high rate of mff Any flow-by contahbg llrban pollutants which
was not caught by the detention basins would most likely find its way into the lagoon and/or the
ocean due to the poor infiltration rate. Proposed revegetation of the natural drainages will most
likely not reduce drainage below the current natural amount and this m-off will conlain llrban
pollutants. These pollutants will find their way to the lagoon and to the Ocean
An analysis of the impact of projected amount of urban pollutanm on projected storm
run-ofQ on the Aqua Hedionda Lagoon should be performed and additional mitigation should bc w
P 4 7 PIoposed
2. Under the latest California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWCJ3) Guidelints 1-87 (-to ~entati~ order # 2001.01), the City ofcatisbad must "in addition to requiring
implementation of a full mgc of BMP's, M effective co-on mff pmgram must inch&
local plan rWiew, permit conditions, field inspe&ons, and cnfomement" The EIR states that
the project must "develop and implement a monitoring and reporhg prognun that inchides site
inspections before and afta every storm event to asses the integrity and effkctkmew ofaoaian
control measure9 and other BMP's." There isno mention of or ref- to an actual plan or
Prognua
A description of the monitoring and reporting program should be required. If this description is
out of the scope of the EIR, then at a minimum, a reference to such a document should be
provided. This plan is required by the latest CRWQcB mandates for discharges of urban
and it states that grading pennits cannot be issued unless such a plan exists.
3. Studies have found that soil distwbmce sssociatcd with land development, such as major CUM
enginanhs calculations of storm water mff for postdcvelopment conditiorw may be
sigolficantly undmstimaterl. There will be amajor nconfigumtim of the land fonn with tom of grading and fill. According to the provisions of the Clean Water Act Won 404 B(1)
Guidelines : " A Except as provided for uuder section 404@((2), no dipcharge of aged or fill
material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which
1-88 and fills and heavy machinery movement have altered soil porosity to such M extent that
Calavera Hills Phase II, BTD No. 4, and JMcntion Basins 25
Letters of Comment and Responses
87. The proposed project is required to comply with all requirements of the RWQCB. including
Tentative Order No. 2001-01. Mitigation measures are included in the draft EIR that would
ensure compliance with applicable rules and regulations, including the preparation of PI-. All
mitigation measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that would
ensure implementation.
88. Several alternatives have been analyzed in this EIR and information regarding the significance of
their impacts relative to water quality and grading is identified.
would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not
have other significant adverse environmental consequences.”
As - built soil density measurements must be required for all landscaped, native habitat
restoration areas, and storm water infiltration basins. (Friedman, 1999 )
The EIR must analyze alternatives that have less of an impact on the aquatic ecosystem
4. Unchannelized portions of the major streams feeding the lagoon are important natural 1-89 sediment storage areas. Habitat and buffer mnes along the stream and adjacent to wetlands
absorb and slow flood waters allowing sediment particles to settle out of the run-off. To any
degree that the proposed noise banien. roadway extensions, fill, and structures reduce these
filtration capabilities sedimentation/siltation problems in the lagoon would be exacerbated.
Such an adverse imp1 is a violation of the antidegradation policy which accompanies a 303d
listing of “impaired water bodies” under the provisions of the Clean water Act.
The EIR failed to adequately assess the reduction of filtration capabilities caused by the
roadways and noise barriers.
5. As described on page 79 Detention Basin BJ is incorporated into the berm design for the 1-90 embankment of College Blvd that goes across the mouth of a small tributary canyon of Calavera
Creek. The impacts of this berm across the creek tributary were not identified. This constitutes
a wetland impact that requires mitigation which was not addressed.
6. The existing Hillside Development Ordinance and Landscape Manual do not adquately
protect the watershed from emsion. Proof ofthis is already seen in the new neishbornood of
The Cape at Calavera Hills. Further mitigation is required to protect the watershed from
erosion. (See Attachment F Photos of Erosion in The Cape.)
I Air Quality
1. The ElR does not indicate any exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutants. This is not
correct. The biological assessment has identified several threatendendangered species on the
project site as well as habitats that have already teen severely impacted throughout Sari Diego
County. Many of these endangered species are sensitive to common pollutants from mobile
sources. The EIR needs to specifically address the impcts of the increased levels of mobile
source emissions on these native plants and animals.
To minim& these impacts, alternatives need to be developed that locate the pollution further from the most sensitive areas, and that reduce the size of the project so that fewer trips
generated.
2. The project is not consistent with the City of Carlsbad General Plan because key elemcnts of. 1-93 the roadway network in this area have not been completed. Project specific transportation
control measures need to be provided to address the air quality impacts from the additional vehicle miles traveled associated with this project. This could include things like redd
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
Letters of Comment and Responses
Impacts to wetlands and other “waters of the U.S.” will be avoided or mitigated as mdition for
approval of a required 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The draft EIR
mitigation measures and the future permit conditions consider design features mentioned in this
comment.
The wetland impacts associated with the berm for Basin BJB are included in the wetland analysis for College Boulevard and are included in the impactlmitigation analysis in the draft EIR.
The draft EIR cites erosion control measures consistent with current city standards which will be
required as conditions of tentative map approvals to ensure that adverse watershed impacts are
avoided. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan will be prepared and approved in accordance
with the requirements of the RWQCB NPDES permit.
There is no existing air quality standard to assess impacts to sensitive plant or animal species. AS
indicated in the Chapter 3.K. Air Quality discussion of the EIR, no intersections would operate at
substandard conditions as a result of the proposed project and no direct significant localized hot
spot impacts are anticipated. The project conforms to the adopted General Plan for the City of
Carlsbad and the Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan, as amended, which outline land use
and circulation measures to be incorporated to limit air quality impacts (e.g., construction of
bicycle and pedestrian paths, clustered uses, etc.). Furthermore, the project proposes less
development than was assumed for the approved Calavera Hills Master Plan and in the adopted
regional air quality plan and attainment demonstration. The EIR analysis determined that the
project would not exceed Regional Air Quality Strategy threshold standards established by the
State Implementation Plan for determining a significant direct or cumulative impact to air quality
in the region. As discussed in the EIR, the SIP is the document which sets forth the state’s
strategies for achieving air quality standards. The San Diego Air Pollution Control District is
responsible for preparing and implementing the portion of the SIP applicable to the San Diego Air
Basin. The San Diego APCD adopts rules, regulations, and programs to attain state and federal air
quality standards and appropriates money (including permit fees) to achieve these objectives. The
project is consistent with AFCD rules and regulations and therefore avoids or minimizes effects to below a level of significance.
The EIR discusses the potential for air quality impacts and addresses effects from the proposed project actions. The EIR does not identify any significant unmitigated impacts to air quality and therefore does not require issuance of a Statement of Ovemding Considerations for this issue. The project is consistent with and adequately implements the City’s General Plan and is therefore consistent with the State Implementation Plan and Regional Air Quality Strategy. The completion of missing Cannon Road and College Boulevard road segments will contribute to more efficient
point-to-point travel for residents of the region. Bikeways and a pedestrian ci~culation system are included in the Calavera Hills Master Plan. See also response C-1. The developer is coordjnating
with the North County Transit District to ensure appropriate public transit facilities are in place. The project considers buildout of the region in assessing cumulative impacts to air quality. No significant air quality impacts would occur with future operation of the proposed or cumulative developments, and therefore, there would be no nexus for requiring additional mitigation as
suggested by the commentor.
calavera Hills Phase Il, BTD No. 4, and Detention Basins 26
,
on-site pking availability, requirements to pay for parking, specific design standards that
support the use of public bansit, requiremeam to participate in ridesharing progmm, improved
pedestrian access. provision for transit loading areas. required subsidies for public transit, etc.
The “Statement of Overriding Considerations” is only valid if all of the mitigation measures in
Cemfied EIR’s for adjacent projects have been completed. Since they have not been, air quality
impacts are required to be evaluated.
3. The San Diego Air Besin is a ndmnent area for carbon motKIxidc, and omne is under 1-94 strict monitoring. (Telephone comrersat.on with Lisa ~rias. WAG, 2/1/01) he raa~
proposed for this project will add mmcesmy vehicle miles traveled and the associated mobile
source pollutants. The pollutants from this exccss VMT must be identified and mitigated.
Mass transit use is not supported by the project design Design to support transit needs to be
specifically addnssGd Suggestions for such design guidelines are included in City of San
Diego Land Guidance System Transit-oriented Development Design Guidelines approved by the
City Council 8/4/1992. This issue is discussed finthcr in the comments on the Tfic section of
the ElR.
1. Them are several areas of unique rock formations, cliffs, and other ~hual featuns that will 1-95 be destroyed ty the me and fill, or at a minimum they will no longer exist in their present
context as part of a ~t~rally OcCuITing landform. Visibility of these unique features will also be
impacted, reducing the donal value of the trail system through the project site. Such rock outcrops have been considered a significant resow in other pjects in San Diego county. (For example the Alpine Ranch Ehtatcs West II, TM 5063). The EIR failed to address impacts
to these nalural features, and also failed to mitigate the adverse impacts to these unique
geological feaams.
2. The face of Mt Calawra that was mid in thc past remains very unstable. Rackslides occur 1-96 frepumtly in the area he ~mrirod rust recognized the frequency ofthese tmmmces by placing a fence a few feet out hm the base of this face. Significant blasting is propod in
Villages W, X, andU which anjustafew hundred feet fiom this very unstable rock fsct. The
EIR failed to address the impact of blasting in this unstable BIC~
CEQA project M location of the project.” (Citizen’s Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act, Yeats, January 2000.) The purpose of this Section as a requirement of CEQA is to reduce or
avoid environmental harm by adopting fcasible project alternatives analysis or mitigation
measures (Public Resources Code Sections 21002-21002.1) The spirit and intent of the law is
to look at ways to make the project do less harm. Only two of the bmty-two alternatives
that a propod project “ma consider a reasonable mge of alternatives to the
Letters of Comment and Responses
94. The commentor has misquoted Ms. Arias (Elisa Arias, July 2,2001). The San Diego Air Basin is
in attainment for carbon monoxide as indicated in the EIR. The project will not add unnecessary
vehicle miles. As an infill project for an already approved Master Plan, the project is not growth
inducing. Growth inducing impacts from the construction of proposed road improvements are less
than significant because the alignments are included on the adopted Circulation Elements and
would be phased to serve already planned development. If the project is not constructed at this
location, housing will be constructed elsewhere within the air basin. This would not innesse the
number of vehicle miles traveled but would distribute trips somewhere else within the basin.
See also response to comment 1-93. The project proponent is coordinating with the North County
Transit District to identify appropriate routes and stops within the development to facilitate transit
service.
The trail system at buildout of the Master Plan is not based on the existing network of infd
on-site trails. The planned trail system is shown as Exhibit 18, Circulation/Trails Map, in the
Calavera Hills Master Plan (December 1999, page 64). The project would result in a change in
landform, but given the proposed wildlifehabitat corridors and the allowance for development in
conformance to the General Plan and Master Plan, no rock outcropping or other geologic fenture .
on the subject site was considered significant or unique. Therefore, no significant impact would
result and specific mitigation was not proposed.
95.
96. The EIR discusses the potential for impacts resulting from pmposed landform modification and
blasting. As indicated in the EIR, blasting activities are highly regulated and -ire pre-blast
inspections, notification to affected parties. and supervision during each occunence. The Calavera
Nature Preserve, which includes Mt. Calavera, is a protected ana. The property trustee would be
advised of the blasting schedule so that appropriate restrictions can be imposed if public acces~ to
the area is allowed.
Calavera Hills Phase II, BTD No. 4, and Detention Basins 27
4 FJ
4
. - __. - . .. ... ~ -. .- .I - - .-.I ,, .- - _I_ . .. ,_ . . . ~ __ .. . ... . -.
evaluated in the EIR reduce the adverse impacts of this project- the No Build Alternative, and
the Calavera Hills Master Plan Environmentally Superior Alternative.
The analysis of 20 options that are worse than the proposed project and only one option that is better. but not feasible does not constitute a good faith effort to reduce the significant,
permanent, irreversible harm that will be done by this project. It aopearr that the only d intent
ofthe alternatives analysis was to support the prom project. The following summarizes the
alternatives that were considered:
- NoBuiId
This is required by CEQA and was clearly a pro forma exercise. While this
avoids the environmental harm, it meets none of the project objectives and is
therefor not feasible.
- Minor realignments of Cannon and College
These minor realignments of a few feet of each roadway result in no duction of
the adverse environmental impacts. This does not constitute an alternative that
reduces project impacts.
- No intersection of CannodCollege
The technical traffic study for this alternative detennined that it had greater
adverse impacts than the proposed pject This does not constitute an alternative
that reduces adverse impacts.
- Development consistent with the Calavera Hills Master Plan
Both trafic and biological resources have greater adverse impacts than the
proposed projd
- Minor land use changes within the master plan development.
These included relocation of afTordable housing, making Village H residential
instead of open space, changing the community commercial site in Village H to
residential, and alternative locations for the community facilities site. All of
these alternatives were either substantially the same in their environmental impact
to the proposed project or were worse.
- Environmentally superior alternative.
This alternative would eliminate 23% of the remaining planned housing and does
not meet the housing objectives of the city’s General Plan It is rejected for this
and for the impact of this reduction on the funding plan for the roadway.
Letters of Comment and Responses
Calavera Hills Phase U, BTD No. 4, and Detention Basins 28
1-97 Clearly project sponsors that could come up with 20 alternatives worse than the proposed project
could have been creative enough to come up with at least one alternative that was both
environmentally superior and feasible. The alternatives analysis fails to meet the requirements
of CEQA. A revised EIR should be prepared and circulated for public review and comment.
1-98 The following are such reasonable alternatives that should have been considered:, and should be
part of a revised EIR for this project :
1. A revised project proposal that increases residential density within the areas of Villages E-1,
K, and L-2 in order to increase open space and reduce the biological and visual impacts.
2. Eliminating the community facility from the project and leaving this land open space.
3. An off-site alternative.
A discussion and analysis of off-site alternatives is required to be in the EIR, even if the private
project applicant does not own the alternative site(s).(See Citizen’s of Goleta Valley v. Board of
Supervisors (1990) 52 cal3d 553,556). Projects like this often include land exchanges- and this
has been done in other projects within the city of Carlsbad. ( For example, the La Costa project
is doing an off-site land exchange for open space.)
4. A transit optimizing alternative to reduce the number of trips generated and the adverse
impacts associated with the noise, air quality, and biological resources impacts associated with
the roadways required to support these trips.
5. Elimination of Reach 4 of Cannon Road. This roadway segment is not justified by project
traffic and causes significant adverse impacts to biological resources.
,F 4
I 00
I Cumulative Impacts
1-99 While the EIR properly identifies the significant irreversible impact from the transformation of
the current rural and natural visual character to unattractive suburban sprawl and roadways, it
fails to address these impacts on either the City as a whole, or the region. This area is one of
only two large remaining open space areas in coastal north county- and the other at La Costa will
soon be destroyed with mitigation provided outside the city limits. That will place even more
importance on preservation of this area as the last large native habitat area in Carlsbad, and OM
of the few such remaining areas in the region It also fails to identify the cumulative indirect
impacts from creating easy access to currently difficult to access areas of native habitat.
Growth Inducing Impacts
CEQA Guidelines Section 15 126(g) define a project as growth inducing if it directly or
indirectly fosters economic or population growth or additional housing. removes obstacles to
growth (such as introducing roads, sewer or water service or capacity), or taxes community
Letters of Comment and Responses
97. These comments on the alternatives discussed in the draft EIR are noted. However, the alternatives
described in the draft EIR for both Calavera Hills Phase I1 and the Bridge and Thoroughfare
District represent a reasonable range of alternatives for both-project components. It should also be
noted that open space protection and delivery of needed infrastructure, both desired elements
noted in the Preserve Calavera letter, do not come about without development. For example, the
Calavera Nature Preserve would never have been established without development. Therefore,
without development there would be no program for the acquisition and long-term preservation
and management of open space. Finally, the EIR discusses alternatives in compliance to CEQA
and also describes other alternatives that were previously considered but rejected during the
planning process.
The discussion of alternatives included in the EIR is adequate and complies with CEQA.
Alternatives presented in the commentor’s letter, either individually or collectively, are counter to
and inconsistent with other comments made in the same letter. The proposed alternatives
suggested by the commentor fail to provide needed infrastructure as anticipated (and demanded)
for the region, violate City codes and policies for Master Plan developments, or are counter to the
resource agency direction.
98.
99. The list of projects described in Chapter 5 forms the basis of the cumulative impact analysis.
Cumulative impacts are considered on a city and regional basis as they apply (e.g.,
HMPIbiological resources, landform alteration, public services, air quality). Also, the proposed
development assesses and provides mitigation to reduce or avoid environmental effects created by
the project. Growth inducing impacts are discussed in Chapter 6 of the EIR.
The EIR acknowledges that growth inducing impacts result from construction of road segments
within the Bridge and Thoroughfare District for College Boulevard and Cannon Road across
undeveloped land, but are considered less than significant. Construction of these segments would
improve access and increase traffic capacity to the adjacent area, which is already planned for
residential development in the adopted General Plan.
Calavem Hills Phase ll, BTD No. 4, and Detention Basins 29
service facilities. The project is adding two major roadway extensions through what is now
undeveloped land. These roadway extensions will lead to a domino effect from this
development to others along the new roadways. The fact that a BTD is being established is
testimony to the impact this project will have- the roads will be funded by the developers of this
and the next projects.
1-100 The EIR states that there is no funding in place for Cannon Road Reach 4, but that all of the other segments are expected to be covered by the adjacent landowners. Although the city states
they have no funding for Reach 4, they have submitted a funding application to SANDAG.
According to SANDAG staff it is expected that this roadway segment will meet the threshold
conditions for fimding in 2002 or 2003. This section of Cannon will connect to an existing
section in Oceanside. that now ends at the Vista city limits. Completing this section will
increase. traffic congestion at the current tenninus and add pressure for the next section of
roadway through an existing residential neighborhood
General Commenb
1-101 The DER failed to address numerous comments made during the four scoping meeetings that
were held on this project. Attachment G summarizes these comments that were not addressed.
Need For A Supplemental DEIR
4 W 1-102 Responses to the issues raised in this comment letter will require extensive modification to the
DER for these combined projects. A supplemental DER is therefor required, with appropriate
public notification and recirculation for review and comment.
Commmts submitted by Diane Nygaad
On Behalf of Preserve Calavera
5020 Nighthawk Way
Oceanside, CA 92056
(760)724-3887
(1) Friedman,D.B.,Connecting People to the Soi1:Mimicking Nature in Watershed Management,
Ocean County Soil Conservation District, NJ. March 26,1999.
.(2) Honachcfsky, William B., Ecologically Based Municipal Land Use Planning, Lewis Publishers. 2000.
(3) Fullerton, E.C.. Director, California Department of Fish and Game, Memorandum to Jim Bums, Resources Agency, September 17, 1981.
(4) The Inequalities of Transportation Systems in California, Kimberly A. Strickland, The
Planning and Conservation League Foundation, January 2000.
Letters of Comment and Responses
1m. The road alignment has been anticipated on the General Plan maps for the cities of Oceanside and
Carlsbad since 1968 and 1974, respectively, and as such, each development request was required
to consider buildout conditions under the adopted Circulation Element. Inclusion of the
alignments on the General Plan maps indicates that the roads have been considered in a regional
context. Financing of these roadways is not a CEQAEIR issue.
101. Although not required under CEQA ETR guidelines (CEQA Guidelines Section 15083). the City
conducted four public scoping meetings to elicit input from the community and other interested
parties. The written comments were reviewed during the preparation period of the draft. These
meetings provided valuable information with regard to determining the issues to be. addressed and
possible significance of impacts. Issues raised in the comments that represented potentially new
significant impacts were included in the draft EIR and, in some instances, resulted in changes to
the project. For example, although limited by agreements made with the resource agencies and the
City, the project was revised to provide residential uses for Village E-I and development of
Village H with a trail and no residential uses. Comments not relevant to the scope of a project
environmental impact report or that represented opinions on the merits of the project were noted.
102. Text changes have been made to the final EIR Summary and Biological Resources discussions as
indicated in the responses to comments. Most of these changes are minor, reflecting revisions to
the text for clarification or to revise the number of acres of biological resources, impacts, or
mitigation. The conclusions of the circulated draft ETR remain valid and no significant new
impacts were identified. Therefore, a Supplemental DEIR is not required as stated by the
commentor.
Calavera Hills Phase II, BTD No. 4, and Detention Basins 30
5p 8
(5) ImplnaentatiOa Issues for Transit Seusitivc Suburban Lwd Use Daign, Mwnrd kimborn et
al, The Caaer For Tra?lsportation Studies. The University of Wiscmin. Milwaukq Wiscmsk,
July 1595
(6) North Cormty W Long Range c0ncept:TOward A Regional Red Car/Yellow Car Ne
Alan HofTinan, February IS, 2001.
Calavera Hills Phase II, BTD No. 4, and Dotention Basins 31
Letters of Comment and Responses
Attachments
A SANDAG Housing Tables
B Visual Impacts Not Addressed in the DER
C Cross Section of Cannon Rd at City Boundary Between Oceanside and Carlsbad
D Potential Alternative Wildlife Corridor
E Photos of Invasive Plant Intrusion Into Open Space in Calavera Hills Phase 1
F Photos of Erosion in The Cape Neighborhood F 00
c
G Summary of Comments from Public Scoping h.icethgs That Were Not Adequately Addressee! t PEE-
Calavera Hills Phase U, BTD No. 4, and Detention Basins 32
Letters of Comment and Responses
Attachment A
SANDAG Housing Tables - Table 61 Regional Share Housing Unit Allocation - Altemdve 3 San Diego Region, t999
6,214 1.770 10,401 1 ,em 80 24
23 7
6OD 118 1,581 441
2,803 604 85 12
693 ‘ 141 491 87 ‘
376 9. 6.761 1,474 717 232 99.786 7,463 3.w 761
2.891 729 105 27 2,744 Mo
16,818 3,823
wm mm (1OW WW)
1,417
1 .J3E, 17
6
97 340 391
8 109
76 34
962 174 8.797
478 476 26 395
2.888
1- (1W
1 .- 2,98e 18 5 165
386 596 22 159 113
66 1.581 166 9,137 843 e22 24 631
3.m
21m mw
1,591
4.589 21
5
409
437 1.110
59
264
212 249
2784 145 16,988
1.685 882 28 1,178 5,907
37237 @W
Letters of Comment and Responses
Table 64 19911999 Affordable Houslng Goals Sun Diego Region
@.OOo 8.466
2073 521 3,761
4,307 8.785
335 3.812
1.391 288 7,734 4.518 74.529 4.221
5239
1 ,=
3,882
31 .e2a
1m12
1,125
1.050 259
85
538 846
42 452
174 37
967 585
0.316
528
655 194 456
3.979
470
604
1.829 393
9
1.133 232 1,312 164 870 129
396 1,192 145
6.W 313 659 96
!38
2,299
I
Letters of Comment and Responses
34
.. ._ - . . . .. - . . . -. . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . .. , . .- . . ..
.- .-. _i___l., ~ ..., . 1 .. .,._.___A_-_ .." . i ..
m
B9 P
t 3
b
a R
a
B 1
a
. . .. . - .~.-. . . . . . . . , . ._ ._._. . ._ _. - __ . . . . - . . ... - . . .. - . . . . . .
i
P B
. - . . - . - . ... . . . .. . . . .. .- . . . . - . -
f w 3
P
r
U
Letters of Comment and Responses
- ---
Attachment C
Cross Section of Cannon Rd at City Boundary Between Oceanside and Carlsbad
New Venture Church
Letters of Comment and Responses
I'
Attachment D I
I AttacbmentD '
Potential Altemative Wildlife Comdor
I NO SCALE Open Space Habitat Linkage
m 3 a
Attachment E
photos of Invasive Plant Intrusion Into Open Space in Calavera Hills Phase 1 *
Fcn~eNexttoPumpHowe Along ACCCSS Rd Next to Lake Calavera
Slope Along Village K
Letters of Comment and Responses
c
!
PR-95
ISSUES NOT ADDREBED M TEE RELR FROM PUBLIC SCOPE COMMENTS
Letters of Comment and Responses
I
Letters of Comment and Responses
11) Impst om of few Carisbad Hiking meas (Jason Powells, 5/12/00) -LOSS of lcQeatim mas used for watkingjogging. bicycling, ctc. (Paul ffieisd, 5lluoO) -Need for "qrm Spscs" for community/chil&en to nrpaieac~ quality Q life snd nature. (Loni Todoroki, WlOlOO)
-Whenever possible we ad paaive trails and nature centen in our apar space. This iuclodes
walkin& bike, and cqucskim trails. This is one. ofthe lsst 0pcanaMs anasin Carlsbad. We Deal
to remind ourselves of the gmu losses to this area's Cnvironmmt when it 8etJ developed (Opy
Agliata, 5/12/00)
12) Kccp Viage E-! Deisbborhooa shopping with a combiaatioa Commuoily Facilities Laud uso. We nced neighborhod caters io daw canmmities such as Calavaa Hills so people am walk or rids bicycles toga groceries, etc. Thc ideal &et for
~ndcpmdcnt &e similar to Cladiff seaside Mark*. The market ody ads to be 12,000-
15.000 S.F. We do no4 need aIsrgs &in market such as Vonswr a small CDmrCBicnce stwe like
7-1 I.. .Also. this cum conld be wmbinai with Community Facilities such as Day Cm (photocopy ad offhere.) (Oary Agliata, 5/12/00)
13) If we must open College Blvd. at 78 so tnffic can flow through our n~b0rhocn-l. we need to
like thir wouldbe a qdty
Wbit llnu mck tmftlc. When 78 west b&s up, huckn and CBS will get Off Of 78, taka college
to El Ch, thca take Cannon west to 5 much. Truck traffic and spcrdimg cars wiU be a negative hnpsts tothehssa~etyandmvi~mtoftheCalaveraWsC~~.Nothrutrucktraacon College bawm 78 & El Cgnino Rad. (Qay Agli 5/12/00)
The amnccting of C5mon Rod Enst to Ocefmside is nu unmxssmy addition. Cannon E& would
run through a highly mvirmmcntal sensitive ma. Opwiog Cannon Easl to Oceanside will have
no bcnsfit for Calsbdmidmts. It would he ahighly negative imp.a on the impact on the
eavinnment itrrmsthrooph. (Gary Aglias 5/1uoO)
14) VILLAGE H COm
- Villqa H sbouldrsrrmia opm spmx rad kept m a wildlife corridor. It shonldmtbe&vdoped for housing nor oonrmurrity lacility. Tbe & is too steep and he alignmwt of Ehn st with
hitities issue cau he addressed by combining it with neighborhood S~O@I~ d village El. (0- Agl- SlluOO)
whuc nmnypsoplc mh wallring & hegine pounds ofowls & woodpcdrar (I'm a) daily patkipant in it's nstnrally rdicshg amibutss (Brian Butchko, S/l2/00)
This is one of the few jwds left whm tbe community can Mly engage with nature with a minim- of impact (Ron Smith, 5/12100)
PltsxDO NQdtvctopVillageH u! It is anatuml pa& for us has athc crest of
Cdavaa Hills. (Lee Aane Bright, Wl2lOo) - CaacanbyP~~veoofDayCreCentcrofdogsiacloJeproxirnity.l\aiaulraesda life too. Wedthisaealeft m it is now. Also, the sped ofviaaia is too kt for Iba way the stnet is wnfignrcd. (Pm Hildebraod 5/12/00)
PI- addmy name to thc long lii of "dogwallrsm" who usc the - OfCvD & vi
to ocade snd socializsthcirpds each day through thc nralyphls pvc p!lnvv. We loa
majorsrca wben thc nails &nu the water tower to he lake werc commandrzcd with
any dsvelOpmCnt a that snr would ~s tmftlc SafsaFety. 'Ibc solution to tbe canmonity
- Conamed~~ denlopment ( on visgc H) will upsst the \miqudy naluml scaiq
-
-
-
Letters of Comment and Responses
2) Tbe water tow Ween Harvick & Td is not amthetidy pleasing. Arc you planning to add wes to the site? (Elizabeth Gosnell. 2/14/00)
Devclopncnt - aesthetia of the land 81~ datmyed. (F'd beid, 5/12/00)
Letters of Comment and Responses
ccIRcIn.4qQ?&
1) Cda sdding sidewalks dong both sides of Olasgow & cast side of Tammxk no& of CVD (for ssfciy & school accessibility for cbildm.) (KimMee Peasc 10/1/99) (Banice Hall 9/29/99)
(Elizsboth Gosncll, 2/14/00) (Sozarme Noh, 2/28&M)
2) Cdda dfopphg CoUqe Bhd. to divat traf6c headlights
3) Selective cnforcwca ofalsrgon pdhgisbd, *us, mdthe streanecds to bewidsasdto Bcullmaodate parking @oris Jab, Ul4hKI)
4) Concaned Sboot~c impaetron CVD betmaa Pod= & Chatham as it cdy h.s one heach
5) Excessive traffic on CVD (Lmm Larnsr 5/12/00)
6) Hmwitossd many anto accidents at this urea (CVD at Victoria) & contnny to rocmttrdtlc
7) %e approach firom Csmino Real dong CVDk a Miadcurve & &traffic. Idg aatrylo3dt
way! (D*neQuinti5/Iu99)
shrdy. obsave bcsvy traffic mueh of the time. (Brim BWhko, 5/12/00)
volume would dso haease likelihood of oollisiau. (Cliff Stabler, 5/luoO)
I%?!s&
1) Tbecity hld look at a Sod Wall Mdc out ofNatiVc Rock from the BCP The Native Rock far thc Sod Wall could tunc fmm the excavation mck fmm the new Collqc Elvd.
2) The Ndve Rock Swnd Wall would be extremely amaEtivc to all thofie dri- along College Bhrd TheNdve Rock Souad Wall would also pmd an irregular Burfacc to mom svmly disburrsthetraf6cnoisc tbaa a &der block dl would. 3) 'Ibe City rboaldconsiderbnaking up tbe Sound Wall sothat it does mtnm continuouslypwlld
4) Wedon't wmt the wall to IC& like the one the denlapa put along Pal- Airpat Roadnext to tkcabrillio Rmcb Dcvdopnatt Thc sod wdl ncedato have ari 3" shaped flow to it a@
sound Wall shouldmove lataallv io and out to& the SOMd Wall more aundvc asit runs
dm the new Collqxe Blvd. nexi to tbc Cape. Cram & Jom Flanapm. 9/19199)
tOCdlC$BBlVd
I
Letters of Comment and Responses
AGRICUL’IURG:
12) Consider making der park for the Villages U, Y, W, and X to enjoy, so that Calavaa Park docs not lose the ability to provide for the community mmnd it. ’Ihen arc “opm spaces’’ in the
dcvelopmaus dy rmda dsvclopmcat in Calavaa Hills. Thcsc “open spaces” wen included in LC plms to &, but arc of little prsaicrl use. Being thc size of about % of the lot that ah WMlld be buiit on, it includes a bench, a grass area too snail to wen throw a fdl
or bsrsball in without hig the next hour 01 BOhg in the shed. Wby not 1.k tbc “token” open spar ht McMUI.a nin surely be forced to Wude amomgar the boua& pmeb El, U, Y, X, and W. and combine them all together to nmke a ~OU&IUI, adequate park ares - wfikknr to accept the ust of an additiaul3ooo people (quoted by McMUhu)??? Making anOmcr large perk fbr mC areas of U.Y, W, nnd X to mjoy, East of Collage Blvd.. will havc multiple aivan~es a ResidentsinU.Y,W.aadXammcslltbccomwmcty ’ pa& on the E. side of Collsge Blvd, svoidmg Ebatclmiag the dsvdopmmt bctwcea than and the only Conrrmmity pa&
-tly available, Calavcm Pd. b. Avoids pcdcstriaas crossing College Blvd. m orda to gdto Calavsrahk, the only commrmity park for all Calavaa Ws and ahdy ovmtnd with use at this time.
-Consida allowing tbe thtclre grade lchad M College BM. to be opm after rhd bun so tht
their bdfklda and open space maam be used asammmmity park m &to: a Alleviate fmihcr omcrowding of sports teams attanpiing to nr CalaMa Pmk banfields md soccer arcfu(the soccm fields an alnsdy omtaxed m unavailable formsny asme mat dcsire to form cammmity leagues.) b. Alleviate the hazadous sihladion of children, 011 the E. side of College - m the ~lopments nrmntly under con~ou, crossing colloge md the0 CVD to pI to
calsvm Park to play in opm pace or UIW the playgmmd. (Suzanne NoliR 2nm)
IS) A~scwrg~tmdment-n~bescb (a ~5/12/00)
14) Rood Chlml Basins - Will Sq Cd t& all the W-OtI’? (Laraa LKiIm SlluOO)
15) Dcplction of Wnm Table @ae Ann Oee, S/luoO)
pIOUK;ICAL RESOURCES;
1) contirmc to pregavcnrtmal babitat for snimal trafec in mulofthe cspc (KimMcC Pcarc, 10/1/99)
2) w~undagroundpoWCr Liacs in habitat mulofsouth ponion ofthe cape (Ridlard Peck,
3) Proximity of Village Y pmpostd high density to sensitive creek cnvimmnent in opm spnce Mow
4) Rotdon of aeek enviroamCnt below Village Y during construction. (Carolhe Rescon, 9130199)
30/99)
Cape & Village Y. (Claoliae Resmq 9/30/99)
Letters of Comment and Responses
Letters of Comment and Responses
Letters of Comment and Responses
+ College BhrdJCanaon RdBridgc and Thoroughfare Dbtrict 4
~IIcIIoCU~LI~-SW~MUA~~~/UAW 8
"Bam on eastern borda sboald no beranovcd - pmpaty haJ high *table"
"Fsrmcnr wecc mmccead e ?''-
"Si. residents live hen - am t haadle msechcid~~cides" "why not build a hmnel under Collw Rd.?" MI Criddle 03/241W Male B&s
"Nd d
lcecss carlsbed Gsrdrn h"
bawan clmnan ad Who Cdsbd - Need tna phtd - Coasider tannd to
Jadr Ja& 03/25/00
" Nccd noirSWall RmchoMsbad" E.C.Robinson 31191M)
"clmmm Rd-bam or wall for mise htunent"
&xge Hill Jr. 3/10/00
CarmOn Rd. -Impact OII golf COWSC- L~VC pen Cma~n d
"Don'ttlLeawaythcGrrdens* Julia Rrs 3/23/00
"Maintain secure boundaries of Rancho csrlsbad (ie wall or fmos).
I
I' I
Letters of Comment and Responses
Letters of Comment and Responses
n
Letters of Comment and Responses
c
57
RE: Calavera Hills Master Plan Buildout Environmental Impact Report
(EIR 98-02)
I am very opposed to any development in Village H for the following reasons:
1) The proposal to build a Community Facility in Village H (a day care center)
would create significant traffic congestion on both Victoria Avenue and Carlsbad
Village Drive. In the morning (starting around 7:15am, cars take Victoria west as
a shortcut to Chestnut on their way to Carlsbad High. This means an awful tot of
teenage drivers who frequently make unsafe left turns onto Victoria from
Carlsbad Village Drive and then speed up Victoria Avenue to Pontiac. Pontiac
often ends up being used as a mini drag strip. (I used to walk in this area
frequently and quit due to unsafe drivers!). A second .heavy traffic flow occurs
in the morning around 7am when parents drop their kids at Hope elementary
school. This flow first heads east on Carlsbad Village Drive and then reverses ten
minutes later. A day care center would create even more traffic. There are a
number of children that walk or ride their bikes to Hope during this time as well.
They come down Victoria, past the proposed entrance/exit to the day care
facility, and right onto Carlsbad Village Drive. These kids would have to contend
~ with cars coming in and out of the day cafe facility. The Victoria / Carlsbad
Village intersection is already very dangerous (there have been numerous
accidents and even a car that missed the turn and ended up in the canyon),
especially for left turns from Carlsbad Village Drive'onto Victoria. The addition of
day care traffic at the same peak times will add to the hazard, particularly for
pedestrians and children.
2) The local community uses the Village H area as an ideal open space area For dog
walking, recreation, and strolling with friends. Every morning and afternoon
there are consistently five or size cars parked along Victoria Avenue near the
canyon,entrance. These are people who have made it part of their daily routine
.
.
I
Letters of Comment and Responses
to walk their dogs and meet with their neighbors in th~s beautiful open space. I
walk our two dogs every morning and many afternoons and have done so for
the last 5 years. It is the only place where we can safely take our dogs to run
off leash and get needed exercise. Weekends bring out even more pesple, dogs
and kids. In addihon to dog walking, people jog, ride their bikes play ball, gay
on the tree swing, and everyone enjoys the tree-lined path and open space. I
am pregnant with our first child and I hope that this area is still open for him or
her to play in. Kids in Carlsbad have fewer and fewer places to play hide and
seek,bg, etc.
3) I have observed numerous wildlife species in the Village H area induding coyote,
possum, owl, skunk, hawk, raccoon, rabbit and numemus snakes, lizards and
other reptiles. I even saw a bobcat one morning. We are concerned that
development in the canyon will reduce habitat and force wildlife into neighboring
residentla1 areas. F E RE: college BlvdJCannon Road-Bridge and Thoroughfare District #4
1) Again I am concerned about the wildlife impact. We hear the coyotes every
night and regularly witness possums, raccoons and rabbits roaming the future
College Blvd. area. A few years ago we even had a pair of mountain lions
roaming the far end of the canyon. Increased development and traffic will drive
the wildlife into our neighborhood. Also, increased traffic greatly increases the
odds of animals getting hit by cars-posing a danger to animal and driver.
Calavera Lake will expenence further environmental damage due to the increase
in pollution. Much like the Village H area, this development is taking more open
space away from our children.
2) I live on Brandon Circle. The proposed route of College Blvd. is right along side
of my home. The increased noise and pollution is of great concern. These
things are not only disturbing to my family, (and a potential health hazard), they
-
Letters of Comment and Responses
-- .
will negatively impact our property values. The homes that will be built around
College Blvd will create wen more traMc and will further impede on our ability
to enjoy our view. To my knowledge nothing has been done to develop College
in a direction that will minimally Interfere with current homeowners. Nor, to my
knowledge, has anfling been done about landscaping the area to minimize the
impact on current homkowners.
3) Many children currently walk or ride their bikes to and from Hope Elementary
school each day. ,The increased baffic that will be generated onb our streets,
(especially Carlsbad Village Drive), will be dangerous. These children will need
to mss busier intwsections at a time when many drivers are in a hurry. There
will also be the lnueqre in commuters to the Junior High and High khool, .
which means even more teenage drivers. This city has already done a poor job
at handling the Increase in trafflc from the new homes In the canyon. Drivers
regularly fail to slow down, (let alone stop) at the 4-way stop intersection of
Carlsbad Village Drive and Glasgow. The new sectlon of College has become a
drag sbjp for teenagers almost daily.
In summary I would simply like to say that Carlsbad has always been a wonderful
place to live. People move here because of it‘s beauty, &pie and small bwn feel.
Due to the recent rapid development we are rapidly losing the “small town” feel and
beauty that this wonderful city has had to offer.‘ Carlsbad will cease to prosper
when it has been overdeveloped and people no longer wkh to reslde here.
n
/\ - Y Sigmhfm LI
Amanda A. Grillo and Vincent F. Grillo
2983 Brandon Urde
CarlsbadCA 92008
_- Go
Letters of Comment and Responses
I
The mpics of yricultun, air pudity. uchatologicltl pdeontoiogica! ~sou~s. biology. rrrdfidcirculation, cumulative impacu. grow& infiucerncnt. lmd use cornpari-
bility,, noise. public services and utilih. solid waste, visual @iedcggrading. water
conservation. and hydrology will be addressed in the Dnfi ELR for Calavcra Hills. in
addition, kc following topics should also be addrrsscd in be Draft Em:
-
Wrirtm ~OmmCnt forms must bc re&~& by October 1. 1999. Feel free to ure the Lck
of this form foraddiriaaal commmts.
Plasa send your mmmmts to!
Lts Shenvood
RECOS
4241 JuUand Drive. Suite 201 San Dicgo. CA 92117
FAX NO. 858-210-54 14
-.
Letters of Comment and Re~ponSeS
-._- . --
cd sp c c e
CALAVERA HILLS VICINITY MAP
CIRLSBAD, CILFORNIA
Letters of Comment and Responses
..
r- LETTER I1 Letters of Comment and Responses
1. Comment noted. The mitigation measures associated with the archaeological sites are described in
Chapter 3.H. of the EIR.
2. The draft EIR provides for mitigation measures, in compliance with CEQA. for previously known
as well as newly discovered cultural resource sites during the course of project implementation.
While archaeological monitoring during grading is not required, the project applicant and the San
Luis Rey Band will coordinate their efforts to ensure that appropriate Native American monitoring
is conducted.
3. Comment noted.
Letters of Comment and Responses
1. Comment noted. The mitigation measures associated with the archaeological sites are described in
Chapter 3.H. of the EIR.
2. The draft EIR provides for mitigation measures, in compliance with CEQA, for previously known
as well as newly discovered cultural resource sites during the course of project implementation.
While archaeological monitoring during grading is not required, the project applicant and the San
Luis Rey Band will coordinate their efforts to ensure that appropriate Native American monitoring
is conducted
3. Comment noted.
LE~R J Letters of Comment and Respomes
1. J-1
a. 5-2
3.
5-3
' 4. 5-4
1. Comment noted. The mitigation measures associated with the archaeological sites m described in
Chapter 3.H. of the EIR.
2. The draft EIR provides for mitigation measures, in compliance with CEQA, for previously known
as well as newly discovered cultural resouIce sites during the course of projcct implementation.
While archaeological monitoring during &ng is not required the project applicant and the Sari
Luis Rey Band will coordinate their efforts to ensun that appropriate Native American monitoring
is conducted.
3. comment noted.
LETTER J
D&AM No: 010311
1. J-1
2. 5-2
3.
5-3
' 4. 5-4
Letters of Comment and Responses
1. For the proposed project, Year 2005 volumes on Cannon Road, west of Melrose Drive. are
expected to be at 14,000 ADT. Cannon Road Reach 4 is planned for construction beyond year
2005 so that the volume would not be significantly affected by the College Boulevard extension
only, in year 2005. A calculation of Year 2020 intersection levels of service at the existing
intersections along Cannon Road in the city of Oceanside west of Melrose Drive was prepared to
address this comment, and the results are expected to provide operation at acceptable levels of
service with no need for mitigation. The LOS worksheets for these intersections are included as
an attachment to the traffic report (Appendix B) in the final EIR. Table S-2 does indicate that
there would be significant and unmitigated impacts for the No Project alternative where the
proposed circulation improvements are not implemented.
2. The grading plan shown in Figure 3B-11 of the draft EIR accurately depicts the grading
anticipated for Cannon Road Reach 4 at the Oceanside city limits. The draft EIR concludes that
the visual quality impacts associated with proposed College Boulevard and Cannon Road would
be significant given the character of the areas south and east of the Master Plan.
3-4. See response J-1 above.
Letters of Comment and Responses
5-7. See response J-1 above.
c
..
LETTER K ladwig Design Group, Inc. Letters of Comment and Responses
March 16,2001
Eric Munoz City of Carlsbad Planning Department
1635 Faraday
Carlsbad, CA 92008 I
RECEIVED
MAR 16 2001
CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT.
RE: EIR for Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase 2 and Bridge and Thoroughfare District #4 and
Detention Basins (ElR 98-02lSCH 991 11082)
(LADWIG DESIGN GROUP, INC. JOB NO. L-1048)
I Dear Eric:
The following are my comments relative to the above EIR dated Februruy 2001.
pages2
Boulevard and its effect, if any, on the hydraulics of Agua Hedionda Creek. ~
Page S-llmable S-1- Trafflc Circulation
Boulevard south.
Page S-28 - Blologlcal Resources K-3 Please note that at the end of the second bullet paragraph, there is a note that states construction and
mitigation for Reach A is not the responsibility of the Master Plan Developer and maybe
accomplished either by the City or other proponents. My question is, could the construction of Reach
A ofCollege Boulevard bean elected option by the Calavera Master Plan Developer in case for some reason they decide to not build the preferred option to get to El Camino Real which is Cannon Road
Reach 3?
, + ~-1 In reviewing the project description, there is no discussion of the bridge on Reach A of College c
K-2 Under the third bullet, the last lines states "College Boulevard north"/I believe it should be College
Page 5-42 and 43 - Hydrology K-4 There is no discussion of the bridge on Reach A of College Boulevard as it crosses Agua Hedionda
Creek or it effect on drainage flows or other impacts. I believe some discussion should be included.
Page 77 - Environmental Analysis/College Boulevard K-5 The discussion again of Reach A talks about College Boulevard being extended from El Camino
Real northerly across Agua Hedionda Creek to the intersection with Cannon Road. Again, there is
no reference to a proposed bridge across Agua Hedionda Creek. The bridge does show up on Figure 3b-12.
1. Comment noted. The proposed bridge over Agua Hedionda Creek has becn designed to comply
with the hydrologic analyses conducted for Agua Hedionda Creek by Rick Engineering and a
bridge is planned for this reach.
The third bulleted mitigation measure listed in Table S-1 and in Chapter 3.C. Traffic Circulation
refer to College Boulevard North because the proposed extension of College Boulevard would
occur on Reaches A, B, and C (Figure 2-9, Chapter 2, Project Description), which are north of the
existing El Camino Real.
The final EIR incorporates an analysis of this option (Attachment to Appendix B) and concludes
that additional significant impacts from connecting Reach A of College Boulevard to El Camino
Real would not occur.
2.
3.
4. See response K-1 above.
5. See response K-1 above.
703 Palomar Airport Road + Suite, 300 + Carlsbad, CaliFornia 92009
(760) 438-31 89 FAX (760) 438-01 73
Eric Munoz
March 16,2001 Page 2
Page 341 - Cumulative Projects Consldered - 2) Cantarini Ranch Residential Development K-6 This project description indicates 314 units for the Cantarini Ranch. The 3 14-unit project has been
withdrawn and a new application has been submitted to the City (CT 00-1 8). The new project has
been substantial reduced to about 105 units.
Page 342 - Cumulative Projects considered - 3) Holly Springa Resideutlal Development K-7 The Holly Springs project (CT 00-21) is indicated in the EIR as containing 4 parcels with 57 units
(56 single family and 1 multifamily). The current application is about 44 single-family units with
100 multifamily units.
Page 342 - Cumulative Projects Considered - 6) Cnrlsbnd Unified School District Property K-8 The EIR states that the CUSD purchased this 47-acre property and a high school is proposed. The original property that the District purchased was 42 acres and they recentlypurchased an additional
15 acres kom Holly Springs for a total of 57 acres.
I CI c I understand the Master Plan Developer’s preference ofcompleting his offsite road obligation using
Reach 3 of Cannon Road versus using Reach A of College Boulevard. This is in addition to the
project’s obligations north ofthe intersection of Cannon and College. I do think though that the EIR
should address more. fully the impacts associated with Reach A of College Boulevard in addition to
Reach 3 of Cannon Road. Specifically, the EIR should make more detailed reference to the bridge
that is required to be constructed over Agua Hedionda Creek and a summary of the details that need
to be looked at with a Spacial Use Pe-nnit that would be required in the future such as the am and
amount of innundation required upstream of the bridge and in addition any downstream effects.
I would be pleased to meet with you or your consultants on any of the items I have referred to above.
03
Sincerely,
LADWIG DESIGN GROUP, INC. ,
Robat C. Ladwig, President
RCL:lb.Ol
cc: David Bentley
Lucia Sippel
703 Palomar Airport Road + Suite 300 + Carlsbad, California 92009
(760) 438-3182 FAX (760) 438-01 73
Letters of Comment and Responses
6, The cumulative impacts section of the final EIR, Chapter 5, has been revised to reflect this
comment.
The cumulative impacts section of the final EIR, Chapter 5, has been revised to reflect this
comment.
7.
8. The cumulative impacts section of the final EIR, Chapter 5, has bem revised to reflect this
comment.
I
LETTER RECEIVED
RECON
Ai\
McMillin AknADselopment MAR 7 PO01
March 26,2001
Mr. Eric Munot
Senior Planner
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
RE. CALAVERA HILLS PHASE II, BRIDGE & T"FARE DISTRICT
NO. 4 & DEllZNTION BASINS DRAFT EIR
Dear Eric:
Calavera Hills IT., UC has reviewed the subject Draft EJR and offers the following comments:
1. $ L-1 vegetation resulting from construction of College Boulevard and Cannon Road may (depending
w upon whether the HMP is adopted or not) require off-site mitigation in the tbnn of purchase of
\O wmerved land containing this vegetation. The authors of the EIR should be. aware that approximately 7.9 acres of non-native grassland vegetation is slated for pamancat consavation within Village H, and that this close location would seem to be a good candidate for such
mitigation. We recommend that this mitigation option be included in the Drat? EIR
2. ~-2 anticipated. The City of Carlsbad has indicated that the Calavera Hills Phase II developer will
be required to construct only Phase I of this basin, which is to be of sufficient size to ensure no
increase in downstream drainage runoff from proposed Calavera Hills Phase II during either the
grading or developed stage. The balance of this regional basin will be constructed at some point
in the future.
3. Pages 260 and 261 of the Draft EIR indicate that wetlands and non-wetlands mitigation
Home Park, and the other on the Robertson Ranch proputy, north of proposed Basin BJB. We
recommend that the EIR note that within the inundation areaa identified for Basins BJ and BJB, the opportunity for wetlands mitigation also exists, subject to approval of the City and the
applicable resource agencies.
4. The proposed development of multi-family condominium units on Village E-1 is I,-4 expected to result in a down slope condition between Village E-1 and the existing Cape
neighborhood that may be addressed through a minor lot-line adjustment. We suggest that the EIR address the possibility of a lot-line adjustment bawan Village El and The Cape owners if
it is determined that such an adjustment is in the best interest of both prowes.
We note that on p. S-29, the Draft EIR indicates that impacts to non-native grassland
e
The Drat? EIR should recognize that phased development of Detention Basin BJB is
L-3 is slated to occur in either of two locations, one beiig just north of Rancho Carlsbad Mobile
Letters of Comment and Responses
1. Page S-29 in the final EIR has been revised to be. consistent with Table 3G-8, which indicates that
on-site mitigation for this impact would occur. The final EIR has been revised to reflect mitigation
options for non-native grassland, disturbed lands, and eucalyptus woodland should the draft IIMP
not be adopted. In addition, if the draft HMP is not adopted, the mitigation fee provision for
disturbed lands and eucalyptus woodland would not be available.
2. Comment noted.
3. Comment noted. The final ETR indicates the potential use of both basins as possible wetland
mitigation locations. These locations are being considered by the resource agencies and the
Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4.
4. Comment noted. However, the suggested lot line adjustment is not an issue relative to the
adequacy of the draft EIR and no additional response is necessary.
LAW OFFICES OF EVERE77 L. DELANO ///
San Maw, Califwni 92069
(760) 510-1562 (760) 510-1565 (faw)
197 Woodland Pkwy, Sub 104-272 LETTER M
VIA HAND DELIVERY
April 2,2001
RECEIVED
Eric MuAoz, Senior Planner
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
1635 Faraday Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
APR 0 2 MM
CilY OF CARLSBAD PUNNING DEPT.
Re: Draft Environmental Imwt Repod for the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase Il
and Bridee and Thorouehfare District #4 (Collcee and Cannon)
Letters of Comment and Responses
Dear Mr. Muiloz:
This letter is submitted on behalf of the Ocean Hills Country Club Homeowners
Association (“Association”) to provide comments wn&ng tbe Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DER”) for the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II and Bridge and
Thoroughhc District #4 (“Project”).
1. Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act (TEQA”), Pub. Res. Code 95 21000 -
21 177, must be interpreted ‘‘so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Suuervisors, 8 Cal. App. 3d 247,259 (1972). If an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) fails to provide agency decision-makers and the public with all
relevant information regarding a project that is necessary for informed decision-making
and infonned public participation, the EIR is legally deficient and the agency’s decision
must be set aside. Kines count^ Farm Bureau v. Citv of Hauford, 221 Cal. App. 3d 692,
712 (1990). An EIR is “aptly described as the ‘heart of CEQA”’ (an “envhnmental
‘alarm bell”’); its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the
environmental consequences before they are made. Laurel Heiehts Im~rovement Assoc. v. Universitv of California, 47 Cal.3d 376,392 (1988) (“Laurel Heiehts I”).
Among other things, the City is required to “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: I
(A) Any significant effect on the environment that cannot be avoided
(B) Any significant effect on the environment that would be if the project is implemented.
irreversible if the project is implemented.”
Comments re Calavera Hills, Phase IIil3ridge &Thoroughfare Dist. #4 DEIR
April 2,2001
Page 2 of 1 1
(3) Mitigation measures proposed to minimize significant effects on the
environment, including but not limited to, measures to reduce the
wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.
(4) Alternatives to the proposed project.’’
Pub. Res. Code 5 21 loo&). See also CEQA Guidelines 5 15126.
n. The DEIR Fails to ComDlv with Numerous CEOA Reauirements
The City has failed to address numerous reasonably foreseeable environmental
impacts, as discussed below. The City should reject the Project and withdraw the DEIR.
A. Proiect Description
The DEIR’s discussion of the Project is confusing and internally inconsistent.
The DEIR “leaves the reader quite confused as to the objectives” of the Project, and the “enigmatic and unstable project description draws a red herring across the path of public
input.” Countv of Invo v. Citv of Los Anneles, 71 Cal. App. 3d 185,198 (1977). For example, the DEIR‘s project description fails in the following respects:
M-1
M-2
M-3
M-4
a
a
The DEIR lacks a statement of objectives as required by CEQA. CEQA
Guidelines 4 15 124(b). This failure, in turn, leads to other failures of the
DEIR, including an inadequate understanding of the goals of the Project in
order to discuss meaningfully appropriate alternatives, as discussed below.
It appears there may be three different projects discussed within the DEIR:
(1) development of portions of the Calavera Hills development; (2) construction of portions of College Boulevard and Cannon Road, largely
through existing open space; and (3) construction of two detention basins.
The DEIR fails to discuss their relationship. Additionally, it is unclear
why these three separate projects should be addressed in a single report.
Only Reach C of proposed College Boulevard lies within the Calavem Hills development area DEIR Fig. 2-1.
Reach 4 of the proposed Cannon Road addition is not a part of the Bridge
and Thoroughfare District #4, DEIR Fig. 2-9, and it is unclear why the
DEIR discusses it here or what Flationship it has to the rest of the Project.
The DER mentions that the City is considering an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Code that would increase the
minimum net acreage quid within Village H, DEIR at 12. yet it is
unclear whether these amendments are part of the Project.
The DEIR’s discussion of the proposed detention basins provides little
information and is inadequate. DEIR at 22. It is unclear their relationship
to the other two elements of the Project.
The DEIR fails to account for reasonably foreseeable future. consequences of the Project, particularly the construction of roads into areas that arc not currently served by roads. This is likely to lead to additional development
I
Letters of Comment and Responses
As an introduction to the responses to the following letter, it should be noted that the land uses proposed
in the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase I1 addressed in the EIR are generally consistent with the cumntly
adopted Master Plan and General Plan land use designations. The proposed project represents the last
phase of the long-standing Master Plan that was originally approved in 1974.
1. The Project Description of the draft EIR includes a discussion of both the overall goal of the
project as well as specific objectives (Chapter 2, subsection E, Project Objectives). This
discussion is consistent with the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b) and
provides the statement of objectives referenced in this letter.
2. The approach by the City of Carlsbad was understood and presented at several public scoping
meetings and was specifically suggested as the appropriate approach by the resource agencies
early in the process. As noted, there are three components to the proposed project, which are
described in the Project Description and analyzed in the impact sections of the draft EIR. The
three project components are included in one EIR because they are intenelated projects in
geographic proximity. The Bridge and Thoroughfare District encompasses the reach of College
Boulevard (Reach C) that lies within the boundaries of the Calavera Hills Master Plan.
Additionally, both Cannon Road and College Boulevard would serve the proposed development
within the Master Plan boundaries. The proposed detention basins, although outside of the Master
Plan boundaries, are adjacent to proposed road extensions and would detain runoff from these
roads, making simultaneous implementation reasonable and more effective. Although the project
is complex, it is typical of projects in coastal southem California for cities that are nearing
buildout. In addition, it is important to note that separation of the projects would not be consistent
with the intent of CEQA, which requires that the entirety of a project be. analyzed.
3. Comment noted.
buildout of the Calavera Hills Master Plan.
Cannon Road Reach 4 is an important part of the anticipated roadway system for both the
Calavera Hills project area and the subregion within both Carlsbad and Oceanside. As such, it is
addressed as part of the bigger project improvements in the area. It is not expected, however, to
be funded through Bridge and Thoroughfare District fees and will be funded largely through other
state and federal highway improvement grants. This is because the anticipated alignment of Reach
4 is largely through open space preserve land, which cannot financially sustain construction of an
arterial roadway link and, thus, the fees associated with a bridge and thoroughfare district. It
should also be noted that the draft HMP preserve lands were established recognizing that Cannon
Road Reach 4 was part of the City’s General Plan Circulation System.
As noted in the Project Description of the draft EIR (Chapter 2, subsection I), the proposed
Master Plan will establish community facility uses per the city-wide regulations as considered by
the City Council in ZC 99-02 and LCPA 99-02.
As noted in the Project Description, the EIR addresses more than just the
4.
5.
Comments m Cdavera Hills, Phase IyBridge & Thoroughfare Dist #4 DEIR
April 2,2001
Page 2 of 11
(3) Mitigation muwces proposed to minimize significant effects on the
environment, including but not limited to, mc8su~es to reduce the
wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.
(4) Alternatives to the proposed project.“
Pub. Res. Code 0 21 1oo(b). See also CEQA Guideli 15126.
II. The DEIR Fails to ComDlv with Numerous CEOA Reauinments
The City has failed to address numerous reasonably forrseeable environmental
I
impacts, as discussed below. The City should reject the Project and withdraw the DER.
I A. ProiectDescriuti on
The DEIR’s discussion of the Project is confusig and internally inconsistent.
The DEIR “leaves the der quite confused as to the objectives’’ of the Project, and tht
“enigmatic and unstable project description draws a red herring ~~~059 the path of public
input.” Countv of Invw v. Citv of Los Aneeles, 71 Cd. App. 3d 185,198 (1977). For
example, the DEWS project description fails in the following respects:
The DER lacks a statement of objcctivcs as required by CEQA. CEQA
Guidelines 5 15124(b). This failure, in tum, leads to other failures of the
DEIR, including an inadequate understandiryr of the goals of the Project in
order to discuss meaningfully approPriate altemtives, as discussed below.
It appears them may be three different projects discussed within the DER.
(1) development of portions of the Calavera Hills development; (2) construction of portions of Collcgc Boulevard and Cannon Road. largely
through existing open space; and (3) construction of two detention basins.
The DEIR fails to discuss their relationship. Additionally, it is unclear
why these thm separate projects should be addressed in a single rrport.
Only Reach C of pmposed College Boulevard lies within the Calavera
Hills development ana DER Fig. 2-1.
Reach 4 of the proposed Cannon Road addition is not a part of the Bridge
and Thoroughfare District #4, DER Fig. 2-9. and it is unclear why the
DEIR discusses it here or wtrat mlationship it has to the rest of the Project.
The DEIR mentions that the City is considering an amendment to the
General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Code that would in- the minimum net acreage required within Village H, DER at 12, yet it is
unclear whether these amendments are pari of the Project M-6 The DEIR’s discussion of the pmpod detention basins provides little information and is inadequate. DEIR at 22. It is unclear their relationship
to the other two elements of the Project.
M-7 The DER fails to account for reasonably foreseeable future collsequmces of the Project, particularly the construction of mads into sress that are not
currently sewed by roads. This is likely to lead to additional development
t3 t4
Letters of Comment and Responses
6. The detention basins are described in Chapter 2, Project Description. The impact analyses in
Chapter 3 provide greater detail of their function and potential impacts associated with
implementation. See response M-2 above. The discussion regarding the detention basins in the
draft EIR is considered adequate for CEQA and the impacts and mitigation requirements are fully
disclosed.
As an infill project for an already approved Master Plan, the project is not considered growth
inducing. The Phase II Master Plan project is not requesting a dwelling unit increase even with the
provision of affordable housing. In addition. the General Plan has long recognized and anticipated
buildout of the Calavera Hills Master Plan. The project is considered a large-scale infill project
and is not a growth inducing project. Moreover, the EIR text also indicates that both College
Boulevard and Cannon Road have been components of the Carlsbad General Plan Circulation
Element since 1974 and, as such, are shown on the adopted land use map.
7.
.. , . .., __ . ,__... - . -
Comments re Calavera Hills, Phase 11iBridge & Thoroughfare Dist. #4 DEIR
April 2,2001
Page 3 of 1 I
M-8
B.
of these areas. As such, the DEIR must address these issues. See Laurel
Heights 1,47 Cal. 3d at 396.
The DEIR’s discussion of “other future approvals” is vague. DEIR at 23.
If there are permit applications pending andor if other agencies intend to
use this report for their own purposes and analyses, the DEIR should
discuss these issues.
Existing Environment
The DEIR fails to discuss the existing conditions in the affected area, Environmental Plannine. and Information Council of Western El Dorado Countv v. Countv of El Dorado, 131 Cal. App. 3d 350,354 (1982). “Knowledge of the regional setting is critical to the assessment of environmental impacts. Special emphasis should be placed on environmental resources that are rare or unique to that region and would be affected by the project.” CEQA Guidelines 5 15125(c). The DEWS discussion of the existing environment fails in the following respects:
M-9 The DER provides little information, less than a full page of discussion,
concerning the existing conditions in the area affected by the Project.
DEIR at 5 - 7.
~-10 The DEIR fails to mention that much of the Project area is undeveloped, open land. The DEIRs mention of grading and agricultural activities on
certain portions is misleading. DEIR at 7. This is only a portion of the
Project area; the DEIR must address the existing open space condition of
the area.’
Stanislaus, 27 Cal. App. 4th 713 (1994).
San Joaauin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. Counhr of
C. Landuse
The DEIR fails to address existing land use obligations and inordinately limits
land use impacts. For example, the DEIR fails to address the following:
M-110 The City’s Habitat Management Plan (‘“MY). The Project is
inconsistent with the HMP. Among other things, it will provide for development of areas that are designated as “hardline areas” - locations where commitments to preservation of habitat and open space are assured. See HMP at D- 10 to 14.2 The DEIR discusses the affect of the Phase 11
project on the HMP, DEIR Fig. 2-6, yet it fails to address the roadways or
’ Subsequent sections ofthe DEIR provide some insight IIS to the open space condition of the ma. For example, Photographs 3845.6, & 13, and Photosimulation 38-1.2 & 3 reveal large amounts of open
space. Additionally, the biological resources section of the DE14 while unduly limited, reveals numerous plants and animals on site. &gig, DEIR Figs. 3G-I & 2.
incorporated by reference. Copies of pages of the HMP specifically cited herein are attached to this letter for your convenience.
The HMP and the accompanying mitigated negative declaration adopted by the City are hereby
Letters of Comment and Responses
8. The proposed project will necessitate a 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
consultation with the USFWS, CDFG 1601 and 1603 agreements, and a 401 permit from the
RWQCB. Conditions of approval from the City of Carlsbad will require these permits prior to the
issuance of a grading permit. The specifics of mitigation and management of open space will be
determined in conjunction with these resource agency permits. The Project Description in the
final EIR has been revised to clarify that these permits are necessary. In addition, each of these
permits is currently in process.
9. As required under CEQA, the Project Description (Chapter 2, Location and Environmental Setting
subheading) provides a brief summary of existing conditions in and around the project site.
Additional information is provided at the beginning of each topic in Environmental Analysis
(Chapter 3). under the subheading Existing Conditions. Specifically, the Land Use and Landform
Alteration chapters in the draft ETR fully present the existing conditions associated with the
surrounding area. Photographs (Le., Photographs 3B-1 through 38-13) are included to assist in
adequately depicting the surrounding land use characteristics.
Contrary to this comment, the EIR explicitly describes the characteristics of the Master Plan
project area and the area that would be traversed by the extension of Cannon Road and College
Boulevard as vacant and undeveloped. As evidenced in the aerial photograph (Figure 2-2) and
Photographs 3B-1 through 3B-13 of the project area, the site is clearly vacant. Likewise, the
regional biological context of the project is fully described in Chapter 3.B. Biological Resources.
The project area, including reference to its undeveloped state, is described in further detail in the
draft EIR under the Existing Conditions subheading in Land Use (3.A.). Landform Alteration and
Visual Quality (3.8.). and Biological Resources (3.G.). In addition, the draft EIR accurately states
both in text and graphics that much of the Master Plan area (e&. Phase 1 of Calavera Hills) has
been built or graded and that agricultural operations exist south and southeast of the Master Plan
area. The draft EIR also describes the regional context of the open space conditions both on- and
off-site relative to the draft HMP and includes correspondence from the resource agencies that
concur with the open space system. These analyses are included in the Biology section of the draft
EIR.
Contrary to this comment, the project’s consistency with the City’s Draft Habitat Management
Plan including impacts associated with the roadways and detention basins are fully addressed in
the draft EIR (Chapter 3.G. Biological Resources). The City, wildlife agencies, and the applicant
participated in consensus negotiations to address changes to the hard line open space. This
agreement is included as an attachment to the biology technical report. Under the agreement that
was reached, there is a net increase of 13.5 acm of the preserved land, the quality of conserved
area habitat is not decreased, and it is considered to be the functional equivalent of the draft HMP
hard line preserve configuration.
10.
11.
M-
M-
Comments re Calavna Hills, Phase IYBridge & Thoroughfare Dist. #4 DEIR
April 2.2001
Page4of11
detention basins. Indeed, much of these facilities, and particularly Reach
4 of proposed Cannon Road, would travel directly through existing and proposed hardline areas. HMP Figs. 5,6,11 & 28. Additionally, a
portion of Reach 4 crosses State of California biological mitigation lands.
DEIR at 49. The DEIR must address these issues. M-12 The current and persistent failure of the City to meet Circulation Element goals. This failure has resulted in gridlock and numerous other traffic
problems in many parts of the City, including in the vicinity of the Project. As a result of this failure, traffic impacts from the Project will be
.
exacerbated. The DER must address these issues.
3 Scenic Roadways Goal A. The DEIR later acknowledges numerous visual impacts from the change of character of a largely open, natural setting to a
man-made setting, DEIR at 82, yet it fails to acknowledge impacts to
scenic roadways. The DER must address these issues.
4 City Hillside Development Regulation 8 21.95.120(B)(l). Construction of the Project will involve “substantial alteration of the existing landfonn” with over OM and a half million cubic yards of cut and fill. DEIR at 54. Yet the DEIR fails to discuss compliance with this regulation, including
the four factors under it. “The EIR must contain facts and analysis, not just the bare conclusions of a public agency.” Santiaeo Countv Water
District v. Countv of Orange, 1 I8 Cal. App. 3d 818,831 (1981). The
DER must address these issues.
City Hillside Development Regulation 8 21.95.120@)(2). The Project
proposes substantial grading. which will have a significant impact. Yet the DER attempts to skirt this issue by claiming that the Project misses
the 10,000 cubic yard per acre cut-off. Even if this figure were accurate,
the fact of such massive gmding is a significant impact. The exclusion of
road grading in the total calculation “avoids analyzing the severity of the
problem and allows the approval of projects which, when taken in isolation, appear insignificant, but when viewed together, appear startling.” Kiws Countv, 221 Cal. App. 3d at 721. Additionally, Hillside Development Regulation section 21.95.1 30(A)( I) allows an exclusion
only “where a circulation element roadway or a collector stnet must be
located provided that the proposed alignment(s) are environmentally preferred and comply with all other city standardr.” There is no
showing in the DER that this exclusion is applicable in this instance. If it
were not applicable, the total figure would be 11,293 cubic ydacre
(1,633,000 divided by 144.6), which is well above the 10,000 limit. Regardless of the math used, grading impacts will be significant and the DEIR must address these issues.
City Hillside Regulation 5 2 1.95.130. The Project proposes’numerous manufactured slopes. Indeed, the DEIR later acknowledges that
manufactured slopes will have a significant visual quality impact. DEIR
at 54. Nevertheless, without any explanation or support, the DEIR claims
i
Letters of Comment and Respom
12. One of the main components of the proposed project is the Bridge and Thoroughfare Districf
which will be formed to fund the construction of College Boulevard and Cannon Road.
Implementation of these roadways will implement the Circulation Element. In addition, the draft
EIR fully addresses existing, existing plus project, short-term, and buildout traffic conditions
resulting from implementation of the proposed project (3.C. Traffic Circulation) based on City
level of service standards and state Congestion Management Program guidelines. Direct and
indirect traffic impacts are reduced below a level of significance and therefore maintain acceptable
LOS with implementation of the mitigation measures described in the draft EIR.
13. Cannon Road and College Boulevard are designated as scenic corridors in the General Plan, and
the portions of these roadways created as part of the propsed project would be consistent with the
land use designations in the General Plan and would implement the goal of the General Plan.
Scenic Roadways Goal A of the Circulation Element of the General Plan indicates that it is a goal
of the City to preserve and enhance the visual characteristics of the community through sensitive
planning and design of transponation and utility corridors. As noted throughout the draft EIR, the
proposed alignments of both roadways is the result of numerous engineering studies (draft HR,
page 322) that have been developed to reduce impacts to sensitive biological IESOUPXS and
minimize impacts to wetlands. In particular, Alternative 3 for both College Boulevard and
Cannon Road was developed during the preparation of the draft EIR to further reduce the impacts
to wetlands, consistent with the intent of Goal A. This alternative depresses the intersection of
College Boulevard and Cannon Road to reduce the grading and wetland impacts as presented in
Chapter 4, Project Alternatives.
The Landform Alteration chapter’in the draft EIR does provide facts and analysis of compliance
with the Carlsbad Hillside Development Ordinance. Compliance with HDO regulations and visual
impacts are considered to be the tests against which significance is measured. The DER has
analyzed the proposed grading relative to the requirements of the HDO and concluded that the
project encroaches into natural 40 percent or greater slopes in Village U, on the northern and
eastern edge of Village W, and in central Village X. Encroachment such as this is considered
consistent with 21.95.120(B)(2) of the HDO if these slopes are identified as “Exclusions” or
“Modifications” to the Hw, per 21.95.130 and 21.95.140. respectively. In these cases, it is
concluded that the encroachments are necessitated by the horizontal and vertical alignment of
College Boulevard (a circulation element roadway - Exclusion 21.95.130), and the balance arc
within the area situated on the development-allowed side of the proposed hard line per the City’s
Draft HMP. The proposed open space configuration will implement the input of the affected
resource agencies, as contained in the 1999 letter from the agencies. This letter is included as an
attachment to the Biology appendix in the final EIR. This results in significantly more open space than would a strict adherence to the HDO.
I
14.
’
Continued on next page
Comments re Calavera Hills, Phase IVBridge & Thoroughfare Dist. #4 DEIR
April 2,2001
page4 of I 1
a
M-15
M-16
detention basins. Indeed, much of these facilities, and particularly Reach
4 of proposed Cannon Road, would travel directly through existing and
proposed hardline areas. & HMP Figs. 5,6,11 Br 28. Additionally, a
portion of Reach 4 crosses State of California biological mitigation Iyds. DER at 49. The DEIR must address these issues.
The current and persistent failure of the City to meet Circulation Element
goals. This failure has resulted in gridlock and numerous other traffic
problems in many parts of the City, including in the vicinity of the Project.
As a result of this failure, Mic impacts from the Project will be
exacerbated. The DER must address these issues.
Scenic Roadways Goal A. The DEIR later acknowledges numerous visual impacts from the change of character of a largely opm, natural setting to a
man-made setting, DEIR at 82, yet it fils to acknowledge impacts to scenic roadways. The DEN must address these issues.
City Hillside Development Regulation 5 21.95.120(B)(I). Construction of
the Project will involve “substantial alteration of the existing landform”
with over one and a half million cubic yards of cut and fill. DEIR at 54.
Yet the DEIR fails to discuss compliance with this regulation, including
the four factors under it. “The EIR must contain facts and analysis, not
just the bare conclusions of a public agency.” Santiago Countv Water
118Cal.App.3d818,831 (1981). The
DEIR must address these issues.
City Hillside Development Regulation 8 21.95.120(D)(?). The Project
proposes substantial grading, which will have a significant impact. Yet
the DEIR attempts to skirt this issue by claiming that the Project misses
the 10,000 cubic yard per acre cut-off. Even if this figure were accurate, the fact of such massive grading is a significant impact. The exclusion of road grading in the total calculation “avoids analyzing the severity of the problem and allows the approval of projects which, when taken in isolation, appear insignificant, but when viewed together, appear startling.” Kines Counw, 221 Cal. App. 3d at 721. Additionally, Hillside Development Regulation section 21.95.13O(A)(l) allows an exclusion only “where a circulation element roadway or a collector street must be located provided that the proposed alipment(s) are environmentrlly preferred and comply with all other city standards.” There is no showing in the DEIR that this exclusion is applicable in this instance. If it
were not applicable, the total figure would be 1 1,293 cubic yarddacre
(1,633,000 divided by 144.6), which is well above the l0,OOO limit.
Regardless of the math used, grading impacts will be significant and the DEIR must address these issues.
City Hillside Regulation 5 21.95.130. The Project proposesnumerous manufactured slopes. Indeed, the DER later acknowledges that
manufactured slopes will have a significant visual quality impact. DEIR
at 54. Nevertheless, without any explanation or support, the DEIR claims
r
i I
Letters of Comment and Responses
14. cont.
15.
16.
Likewise, the DER notes that a number of manufactured slopes are proposed at heights greater
than 40-feet tall, a height which is allowed if the slopes are found to comply through an
“Exclusion” (Section 21.95.130) or a “Modification” (Section 21.95.140). The high slopes are
located on the eastern edge of Villages U and W and in the southwest comers of Villages X and Y.
Again, the DER has analyzed the subject slopes relative to the findings and concluded that the
slopes are necessitated by the horizontal and vertical alignment of College Boulevard or are a by-
product of the balance of development pad and open space protection of the HMF’ consensus
program, which results in significantly more open space than would a strict adherence to the HDO.
As a result, the grading design complies with the HDO. Determination of compliance of specific
encroachments and specific slopes with the “Exclusions” and “Modifications” allowances will be
conducted by the City of Carlsbad through the hillside development permit that accompanies this
project master tentative map.
As mentioned on page 58 of the DER, mass grading volumes total 997,000 cubic yards of soil.
This volume involves 135.5 acres of area subject to the HDO (exclusive of College Boulevard).
The HDO Section 21.95.120(D) requires that the volume of grading for a project be minimized
and that per-acre volumes up to 7,999 cubic yards are acceptable. Per-acre volumes above this
amount are either potentially acceptable or unacceptable. The proposed project is projected to
generate 7,358 cubic yards per acre and thus complies with the HDO standard.
Visual impacts associated with the high slopes will not be significant if mitigation measures
identified are complied with.
The draft EIR (pages 54-58) demonstrates that the grading for the circulation element roadways or
collector streets do meet the requirements as exclusions pursuant to HDO Section
21.95.140(A)(l). The draft EIR concludes that the landform alteration impacts am significant. and
mitigation is required. The Hillside Ordinance allows that a circulation element roadway be
excluded from the requirements of the ordinance if the alignment is the environmentally preferred
alignment and that the roadway complies with all other city standards.
The Landform Alteration and Visual Quality chapter of the EIR (3.B.) (pages 54-58) addresses
compliance with the HDO, including whether the proposed manufactured slopes will be consistent
with this HDO. The HDO includes a list of circumstances which result in “exclusions” to the
HDO (21.95.130), or “modifications” to the HDO (21.95.140). The EIR analysis concludes that
the proposed manufactured slopes comply in several cases with these exclusions or modifications
and also must comply with identified mitigation measures of this EIR or a significant impact will
result. See also response 14 above.
Nonetheless, the review and approval of specific individual high manufactured slopes will be
conducted by the City of Carlsbad in their analysis and findings of design consistency with the
Hillside Development Ordinance.
Comments re Calavera Hills, Phase M3ridge & Thoroughfare Dist. #4 DEIR
April 2,2001
Page 5 of 1 1
that exclusions can be granted and, therefore, the Project will not have a
significant impact. The DEIR must address these issues.
City Noise Guidelines Policy C.9. This policy discourages “the exclusive
use of noise walls in excess of 6 feet in height as mitigation for noise
along Circulation Element roadways.” The Project will require noise
walls in excess of 6 feet. DElR at 174. The DEIR must address these
issues.
M-18 The Subdivision Map Act, Gov. Code 4 66410 &ec~ The City must address this act’s requirement to apply density standards in effect at the
date the Project’s application was complete.
M-17
D. Landform AlterationNisual Ouality
As discussed above, the hoject win have several significant landform alteration
impacts, which the DEIR fails to address. Manufactured slope heights would be up to
approximately 60 feet, and the DEWS attempted exclusion of this impact is without
support. DEIR at 72 - 77. The DEIR must address these issues.
E. Traffic Circulation
The DEk fails to address existing traffic issues and the Project’s impacts on c traffic. For example, the DEIR fails to address the following: !2
There is little discussion of traffic impacts outside Carlsbad, either
intersections or roadways. &g DEIR Figs. 3C-2 & 4. The DER must address these issues. citizens of Ooleta Vallev v. Board of Suoervisors,
52 Cal. 3d 553,575 (1990) (“an EIR may not ignore the regional impacts
of a project proposal, including those that occur outside it borders”).
The DEIR fails entirely to address impacts sssociated with construction
Mc. Galante Vmevatds v. Montemv P minsula Water Mann~anmt Dist. 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109,1123 (1997): The DER must address construction haf€ic impacts, including those associated with the import of
approximately 700,000 cubic yards of fill. DEIR at 72 & 77.
F. Noise
The DEIR fails to address the Project’s noise impacts on traffic. For example, the
DER fails to addnss the following:
0 Although blasting is expected over large areas of the Project. DER Fig.
3D-1, there is no information on the extent or expected duration of
blasting activities. DER at 124.
’ In a rewnt decision, a California appdlate CMnt required the City of SM Mueor to prepare a suppkmntal EIR where ihe original EIR had failed to address impacts associated with comhu*nn bafi
P I i
17.
18.
i
Letters of Comment and Responses
Although noise walls in excuss of six feet in height adjacent to circulation element roadways 81c
discouraged in City policy, they may be used in order to preclude a significant unmitigated noise
impact such as that which would occur within The Cape neighborhood and within Villages El, U,
W, X. and Y. As currently proposed, the use of noise walls will not exceed six feet in height, and
a mitigation measure is included in the draft EIR to reduce significant visual effects associated
with the construction of these. noise barriers. Figure 3B-16 in the draft EIR illustrates an example
of a bedwall combination to mitigate significant noise impacts along College Boulevard. This
bedwall combination would apply to all noise barriers that would need to be over six feet in
height throughout the Master Plan.
The proposed project applies and analyzes density standards in effect at the date the project’s
application was deemed complete. Since the City does not deem an application compkte until the
EIR is done, the propod project application has still not been deemed complete. However,
density standards reflected in the EIR are not expected to change in the interim.
In addition, the current Calavera Hills Master Plan and Zona 7 Local Facilities Management Plan
allow a maximum of 795 residential units within the residential villages of the project This 795-
unit figure is the unit count that has been utilized by the City for the Growth Management
Program quadrant caps.
The Calavera Hills Phase II Master Plan Amendment proposes a maximum of 781 dwelling units,
which is 15 units less than that allowed under the cumnt Master Plan and the quadrant cap. This
proposed maximum unit count is not expected to be achieved as the individual subdivisions am
approved, due to restrictive development standards and other internal site and building constraints.
As a result, it is concluded that the proposed project will not exceed the Master Plan or quadrant
dwelling unit caps adopted by the City.
Comments re Calavera Hills, Phase IyBridge & Thoroughfate Dist. #4 DEIR
April 2,2001
Page5of 11
that exclusions can be granted and, therefore, the Project will not have a
significant impact. The DEIR must address these issues. City Noise Guidelines Policy C.9. This policy discourages “the exclusive
use of noise walls in excess of 6 feet in height as mitigation for noise
along Circulation Element roadways.” The Project will require noise
walls in excess of 6 feet. DER at 174. The DEIR must address these
issues. The Subdivision Map Act, Gov. Code 8 66410 etseo. The City must
address this act’s requirement to apply density standards in effect at the
date the Project’s application was complete.
D. Landform AlterationNisual Ouality
As discussed above, the Project will have several significant landfom alteration M-19
impacts, which the DEIR fails to address. Manufactured slope heights would be up to appximately 60 feet, and the DEWS attempted exclusion of this impact is without support. DER at 72 - 77. The DER must addrrss these issues.
E.
The DEIR fails to address existing traffc issues and the Project’s impacts on traffic. For example, the DEIR fails to address the following:
There is little discussion of traffic impacts outside Carlsbad, either
intersections or roadways. address these issues. mm, 52 Cal. 3d 553,575 (1990) (“an EIR may not ignore the regional impacts of a project proposal, including those that occur outside it borders”). The DEIR fails entirely to address impacts associated with consmtction
traffic. GalanteVi- v. Montenw Peninsula Water Management
j& 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109,1123 (1997): The DER must address
construction traffic impacts, including those associated with the import of approximately 700,000 cubic yards of fill. &DER at 72 B 77.
DEIR Figs. 3C-2 Bt 4. The DEE must
F.
The DER fails to address the Pmjcct’s noise impacts on traffic. For example, the
DEIR fails to address the following:
Although blasting is expected over large arcas of the Project, DEIR Fig.
3D-1, there is no information on the extent or expected duration of blasting activities. DER at 124.
r
Letters of Comment and Responses
19. The manufactured slopes in excess of 40 feet in height are covered under the Master Plan’s
allowable exclusions related to circulation and open space (draft EIR Chapter 3.B. Landform
AlteratiodVisual Quality). The maximum slope heights are approximately 100 feet. The draft
EIR (pages 54-58) addresses these issues. Also. see response M-15 and 16 above.
Manufactured slope heights analyzed in the draft EIR were designed up to 100 feet in height. The
grading of the development pads in the areas of high slopes has recently been modified to lower
heights. Nonetheless, a number of areas of slopes in excess of 40 feet in height continue to exist.
The Hillside Development Ordinance addresses circumstances where high slopes may be allowed
due to the slope’s “Exclusion” from the ordinance due to any of the following criteria:
a.
I
Hillside areas where a circulation element roadway or a collector stmzt must bc located
provided that the proposed alignment or alignments are environmentally prefemd and
comply with all other City standards.
b. Grading volumes, slope heights, and graded areas which are directly associated with
circulation element roadways or collector streets, provided that the proposed alignment(s)
are environmentally prefemd and comply with all other City standards.
Hillside areas that have unusual gmtechnical or soil conditions that necessitate corrective
work that may require significant amounts of grading.
c.
In addition, “Modifications” to the standards and restrictions of the Hillside Development
Ordinance are allowed under circumstances as follows:
a. The proposed modification will result in significantly more open space or undisturbed area
than would a strict adherence to the requirements of Section 21.95.120, or
The proposed modification will result in the development of manufactured slopes that are
more aesthetically pleasing and natural appearing than would a strict adherence to the
requirements of Section 21.95.120.
b.
In general, the proposed project design is highly impacted by the horizontal and vertical elevation
of College Boulevard and will result in significantly more open space than the original Master
Plan. This original Master Plan was found consistent with the Hillside Development Ordinance.
Additionally, the project grading has been redesigned to reduce the height of the high
manufactured slopes. Nonetheless, the review and approval of specific individual high
manufactured slopes will be conducted by the City of Carlsbad in their analysis and findings of
design consistency with the Hillside Development Ordinance.
’ In a nemt decision. a Califanin appellate court required !he City of Sin Marcor to preparc a supplemmul EIR when the original EIR had failed to &ss impacrs nssociatcd with construction me.
Comments re Calawra Hills, Phase IVBridge & Thoroughfare Dist. #4 DEIR
April 2,2001
Page 5 of 1 1
that exclusions can be granted and, therefore, the Project will not have a
significant impact. The DEIR must address these issues.
City Noise Guidelines Policy C.9. This policy discourages ‘?he exclusive
use of noise walls in excess of 6 feet in height as mitigation for noise
along Circulation Element roadways.” The Project will require noise
walls in excess of 6 feet. DEIR at 174. The DER must address these
issues.
The Subdivision Map Act, Gov. code 5 66410 The City must address this act’s requimnent to apply density standards in effect at the datc the Project’s application was complete.
D.
As discussed above, the Project will haw several significant landform alteration
impacts. which the DEIR fails to address. Manufactund slope heights wuld bc up to
approximately 60 feet, and the DEIR’s attempted exclusion of this impact is without
support. DER at 72 - 77. The DER must ad& thcse issues.
E. Traffic Circulation
The DEIR fails to address existing traf€ic issues and the Project’s impacts on traffic. For example, the DER fails sddnss the following:
M-20 There is little discussion of traffic impacts outside Carlsbad, either
intrrscctionS or roadways. &g DEIR Figs. 3C-2 & 4. The DEIR must
sddrrss these issues. Citizens of Goleta Vallev v. Board of Su~~Msors,
52 Cal. 3d 553,575 (1990) (“an EIR may not ignore the regional impacts
of a project proposal, including those that occur outside it borders”).
M-21 The DEIR fails entirely to address impacts assoCiated with wnstNction
traffic. Galante Vineyards v. Montemv P eainsulaWatcrManapan ent Dist. 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109.1123 (1997)? The DER must address
wnstruction traffic impacts, including those essociated with the import of
approximately 700,000 cubic yards of fill. DEIR at 72 & 77.
F. Noise
The DEIR fails to adk the Project’s noise impacts on traffic. For example, the DEIR fails to address the following:
Although blasting is expected over large - of the Pmject, DEIR Fig.
3D1, there is no information on the extent or expected duration of
blasting activities. DEIR at 124.
’ In a IUXW decision, a California appellste COUR required he City of Sm Mms to prepare a
supplnnenal EIR whcrc the 0tigi~1 EIR hd faikd to lddnu impncu associated with wnsbuction b.tfic.
r ! ’- Letters of Comment and Responses
20. The study area for Calavera Hills Phase II (the residential project) is defined by the SANTEWTE
Guidelines, which recommend including intersections that have 50 or more project peak hour trips
added in either direction. Figures 4-5 and 4-6 of the Calavera Hills Phase II traffic study (see EIR
Appendix B) include the project-only assignment of peak hour trips to intersections that define the
study area.
The Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 traffic report (DEIR Appendix C) ineludes a “with
and without” project comparison of average daily traffic volumes for locations outside of the City
of Carlsbad shown in Table 8-2 of the traffic report. This table includes an evaluation of segments
of 1-5 from SR-78 to Poinsettia Lane, and SR-78 from 1-5 to Rancho Santa Fe Road. This table
indicates that with project roadways in place, volumes on these segments of 1-5 and SR-78 are
expected to decrease (or remain unchanged) in Year 2020. so that the project’s traffic impacts to
these fteeway segments are considexed less than significant.
Segments of Melrose Drive within the city of Vista are also included in this table. As indicated
segments of Meh Drive south of Cannon Road am expected to have lower average daily MC
volumes in Year 2020 with project roadways in place, and volumes to the notth of Cannon Road
are expected to increase minimally, thereby resulting in traffic impacts that ~IB considered less
than significant. The NOP for the draft EIR was sent to adjacent jurisdictions and letters of
comment on the draft EIR were received only from the city of Vista
Construction traffic will include two types of construction and roadway activities. the grading of
the roadway and residential sites and normal construction traffic due to the building of the
Calavera Hills Phase II residential homes. The @ng phase of the project would be balanced on-
site so that import of material is minimal and would not include the need for trucks to travel on
existing streets. The final EJR has been revised to note that a requirement for a traffic managemt
plan for construction traffic to include designating staging m, scheduling, and identifying haul
routes on arterial sheets only will be necessary.
Normal constrtiction traffic associated with residential home construction would be less than the
traffic assumed under the “Existing plus Pmject” condition (see page 5-5 of the Calavera Hib
Phase I1 traffic study [Appendix B]). , As such, construction traffic associated with home
construction is considered less than significant.
21.
Cements re Calavera Hills, Phase II/Bridge & Thoroughfare Dist. #4 DEIR
April 2,2001
Page5of11
that exclusions can be granted and, therefore, the Project will not have a
significant impact. The DElR must address these issues.
City Noise Guidelines Policy C.9. This policy discourages ‘‘the exclusive
use of noise walls in excess of 6 feet in height as mitigation for noise
along Circulation Element roadways.” The Project will require noise walls in excess of 6 feet. DEIR at 174. The DEIR must address these issues.
The Subdivision Map Act, Gov. Code 8 66410 The City must address this act’s requirement to apply density standards in effect at the
date the Project’s application wm complete.
D. Landform AlterationNisual Ouality
As discussed above, the Project will have several significant landform alteration
impacts, which the DER fails to address. Manufactured slope heights would be up to
approximately 60 feet, and the DEWS attempted exclusion of this impact is without
support. DER at 72 - 77. The DEIR must address these issues.
E. TraEc Circulation
The DEIR fails to address existing traffic issues and the Project’s impacts on
traffic. For example, the DEIR fails to address the following:
There is little discussion of traffic impacts outside Carlsbad, either
intersections or roadways. address these issues. Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Suuervisors,
52 Cal. 3d 553,575 (1990) (“an EIR may not ignore the regional impacts
of a project proposal, including those that occur outside it borders”). The DEIR fails entirely to address impacts associated with construction
tdlic. Galante Vineyards v. Montemv Peninsula Water Manaeement Dist.. 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109,1123 (1997): The DER must address
construction traffic impacts, including those associated with the import of
approximately 700,000 cubic yards of fill. See DEIR at 72 & 77.
DEIR Figs. 3C-2 & 4. The DER must
F.
The DEIR fails to address the Project’s noise impacts on traffic. For example, the
DEIR fails to address the following:
M-22 Although blasting is expected over large arcas of the Project, DEIR Fig. 3D-1, there is no information on the extent or expected duration of
blasting activities. DEIR at 124.
’ In a rrccnt decision, a California mppellate couti required the City of San Mercos to prepare e supplemental EIR where the original EIR had failed to address impacts associated with construction traffic.
j
Letters of Comment and Responses
22. As noted in the draft EIR (Chapter 3.D. Noise), the exact number and schedule of blasts cannot be
determined at this time. Development of a blasting plan along with other mandated mitigation
measures are described on page 164 of the draft ER. However, mitigation measures have been
incorporated into the project to ensure that adverse impacts from blasting would be avoided. These
measures include:
a.
b.
Prior to blasting, a blasting schedule shall be approved by the City Engineer.
The blasting contractor shall notify the Carlsbad Police Department and the County
Sheriffs Department prior to commencing blasting activities.
The property owner shall give a one-time notice in writing to residences and businesses
within 600 feet of a potential major blast location. The notice shall discfose the anticipated
blasting schedule and provide a contact phone number for the blasting contractor.
A pre-blast inspection of existing structures shall be conducted within 300 feet of any
proposed detonation by an inspector approved by the Carlsbad Police Department, the San
Diego County Sheriffs Department, and the City of Carlsbad Building Department.
The project shall conform to the San Diego County Blasting Ordinance, Title 3, Division 5,
Chapter 111, County Code of Regulatory Ordinances, Sections 35.377.101-104,
35.377.301(a), 35.377.306 and 35.377.307, to reduce the temporary noise impacts due to
blasting and Section 8.48.010 of the City’s Municipal Code limiting allowable hours of
activities. The allowable hours of activities associated with blasting will be from 900 A.M.
to 4:30 P.M. or one-half hour before sunset, whichever comes first, Monday through
Friday. No blasting will be allowed on weekends or on the holidays specified in Section
8.48.010 of the City’s Municipal Code.
c.
d.
e.
f. A blasting report shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to any blasting activities.
The report shall conform to the San Diego County Blasting Ordinance (Division 5, Title 3.
Section 35) and vibration standards promulgated by the U.S. Bureau of Mines.
In addition, it should be noted that the most recent blasting operations within Calavera Hills
occurred in 1998 at Village Q. Grading quantities for Village Q included 586.160 cubic yards of
cut and 231,450 cubic yards of fill and contained locations of nonrippahle rock that required
blasting. These recent blasting operations adhered to the City of Carlsbad Resolution Conditions
for Village Q (Resolution 7728). City of Carlsbad Engineering Department Policy No. 15 on
Blasting, Blasting Report for Calavera Hills Villages Q and T (1991). approved Village Q grading
plans, and Calavera Hills Master Plan (MP-150) requirements on blasting. All required surveys,
seismic measurements, monitoring, inspections, adherence to hours of operations, and
notifications were implemented as required by the City during this operation. These same
measures implemented at Village Q will also be required for the Phase I1 Master Plan project.
Comments re Calavera Hills, Phase Wridge & Thoroughfare Dist. #4 DER
April 2,2001 Page 6 of 11
M-23
M-24
M-2s 0
M-26
0
0
The DEIR provides no justification for averaging the high noise levels
(102 &[A]) with lesser noise. DEIR at 126. There is no support for this
approach, particularly since sensitive noise receptors are likely to be
bothered by the higher noise impacts.
There is no analysis for anticipated noise impacts associated with grading and construction. The DER merely states that if noise were high for an
extended period of time, “noise levels at the adjacent residential area could
exceed County standards.” DEW at 127. This is a mere tautology that
provides no usell analysis of reasonably foreseeable noise impacts.
There is no analysis of contours and their effects on noise impacts.
The DEIR’s reliance upon County standards is also misplaced. DER at 126 - 27. The County construction standards are intended for short-term
impacts only and should not be used where, as here, high noise may result
for several hours in a row over several days or even months. Project noise impacts are not necessarily insignifwant merely because they m consistent with general plan standards. Or0 Fino Gold Minine Corn. v.
The DEIR’s discussion of noise impacts associated with rock crushing is also inadequate. The DEIR acknowledges that the noise could represent a nuisance, yet fails to acknowledge this as a significant impact. DER at 132.
There is no analysis of noise impacts to existing residences along Cannon
Road. The extension of Cannon Road past its current termination at the
OceansiddCarlsbad bordert the increase in traac associated with the Project, and the elevation of the roadway individually and cumulatively will impact existing residences. As noted in a letter submitted by the Association’s general manager, several residences exist in close proximity
to the existing roadway. That figure will incrcasc if Cannon Road is
extended past more homes as proposed by the Project. & DEIR Fig. 2-2
(showing proposed Cannon Road passing by several homes). The DEIR
provides no analysis of the impacta to these residences, DER at 156, and
it provides M mitigation, i& at 172.‘
“[A]lternatives and mitigation measures have the same function -
diminishing or avoiding adverse environmental effects.” Laurel Heights I>
47 Cal.3d at 403. The proposed mitigation for noise impacts is not sufficient DEIR at 164 - 65. Requirements for notice and a schedule of
hours will not reduce the noise impacts associated with the activity during
the hours of operation. Kings County, 221 Cal. App. 3d at 728.
COUII~V Of El Dodo, 225 Cd. App. 3d 872,881 - 82 (1990).
’ The DElR .clmowMga that residences within 1,500 feet of the roadway will k affected. DEIR at 160. As UE lcmr 6mm the Assaciitim’s manager points out, there an at least 43 I homes currently within that disanm. Indeed, 69 homed areas clm ILI 300 fea fmm Cannon Road. More honm will fall within the
1,500 fcct pmximii if the roadway is extended as PmpMed by the Project.
r i. I
Letters of Comment and Responses
23. The draft EIR indicates that noise levels up to 102 dB(A) Lq could occur when the warning horn
sounds prior to and followifig a blast during the ped& when blasting activities are occurring.
However, the description of the noise environment must include the duration of the sound The
typical averaging period for sound is one hour. Consequently, the noise levels due to the overall
blasting activity were averaged over a one-hour period. The draft EIR indicates on page 129 that
noise levels in excess of 75 dB(A) Lcq could occur within 275 feet of the noise sourn. The
County’s Noise Ordinance, repnxenting the construction noise standard used by the City of
Carlsbad, specifies that construction noise levels in excess of 75 dB(A) shall not occur for more
than eight hours in any 24-hour period. Therefore, the draft EIR concludes that if blasting activities
were to occur within 275 feet of existing residences for more than eight horn in a day, a significant
noise impact would occur. This approach to analyzing noise impacts associated with blasting
activities is consistent with the adopted standards and is compliant with the requirements of CEQA.
’
24. The draft EIR indicates that grading activities could generate noise levels of 83-84 &(A) & at 50
feet from the grading activity. Consequently, noise levels within 150 feet of the grading activity
could exceed 75 dB(A) Lq and repnxent a significant impact. The County’s Noise Ordinance
specifies that noise levels in excess of 75 dB(A) due to construction activities cannot be .made for
more than eight hours during any 24-hour period. If grading activities were to occur within 150
feet of existing residences for a period of more than eight hours, a significant noise impact would
occur. The anticipated noise impacts associated with grading and construction are discussed on
page 127, and mitigation measures are prescribed on page 165. The mitigation measures
identified in the draft EIR include limitations on the duration and the hours that grading operations
can occur.
25. Although it is not clear what the use of the tern “contours” references in this comment, the noise
modeling conducted for the Calavera Hills Phase ll project did take topographic ‘‘contoui’s” into
account in determining the noise impacts and associated mitigation requirements. The proposed
mass grading shown on the master Tentative Map was used in analyzing the noise impacts. The
EIR also requires as a mitigation measure that additional noise analyses at the time the individual
tentative maps are proposed to ensure that the noise mitigation requirements prescribed in the draft
EIR continue to mitigate the identified noise impact. These additional analyses will account for
any differences between the mass @ng assessed in the draft EIR and the final mass +ng
proposal that will respond to various EIR comments and issues.
As indicated in the draft EIR on page 127, the city of Carlsbad dots not have a noise level
standard for construction noise. Consequently, the significance of construction noise was assessed
in accordance with the County of San Diego Noise Ordinance, as established in the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Calavera Hills Master Plan (EIR 90-5). The County’s
construction noise standards are typical of jurisdictions county-wide and are appropriate for
assessing the impacts of construction noise. In addition, the City’s General Plan does not regulate
construction noise. There is no analysis of the consistency of project construction noise impacts to
General Plan standards since none is required.
26.
.-- - -. .. . -.. --_I _” -. ”.. .. - . . . .... . .. . .- .
Comments re Calavera Hills, Phase Inridge & Thoroughfare Dist. #4 DEIR
April 2,2001
Page 6 of 11
8
8
0
M-27
M-28
M-29
The DER provides no justification for averaging the high noise levels (102 dB[A]) with lesser noise. DEIR at 126. There is no support for this
approach, particularly since sensitive noise receptors arc likely to be bothered by the higher noise impacts.
There is no analysis for anticipated noise impacts associated with grading
and construction. The DEIR merely states that if noise were high for an
extended period of time, “noise levels at the adjacent residential area could exceed County standards.” DEIR at 127. This is a mere tautology that provides no useful analysis of reasonably foreseeable noise impacts.
There is no analysis of contours and their effects on noise impacts.
The DEIRs reliance upon County standards is also misplaced. DEIR at
126 - 27. The County construction standards are intended for short-term
impacts only and should not be used where, as here, high noise may result for several hours in a row over several days or even months. Project noise
impacts are not necessarily insignificant merely because they arc consistent with general plan standards. Or0 Fino Gold Minina Cora. v.
The DEIR’s discussion of noise impacts associated with rock crushing is also inadequate. The DEIR acknowledges that the noise could represent a nuisance, yet fails to acknowledge this as a significant impact. DEIR at
132.
There is no analysis of noise impacts to existing residences along Cannon Road. The extension of Cannon Road past its current termination at the
OceansiddCarlsbad border, the increase in traffic associated with the Project, and the elevation of the roadway individually and cumulatively will impact existing residences. As noted in a letter submitted by the
Association’s general manager, several residences exist in close proximity
to the existing roadway. That figure will increase if Cannon Road is
extended past more homes as proposed by the Project. DEIR Fig. 2-2
(showing proposed Cannon Road passing by several homes). The DER
provides no analysis of the impacts to these residences, DEIR at 156, and
it provides no mitigation, at 172.4
“[A]ltematives and mitigation measurcs have the same function -
diminishing or avoiding adverse environmental effects.” Laurel Heights 1,
47 Cal.3d at 403. The proposed mitigation for noise impacts is not
sufficient. DEIR at 164 - 65. Requirements for notice and a schedule of
hours will not reduce the noise impacts associated with the activity during
the hours of operation. Kings County, 221 Cal. App. 3d at 728.
.
County of El Domdo, 225 Cal. App. 3d 872,881 - 82 (1990).
~~ ~ ‘ Ihe DEIR acknowledges that residences within 1,500 feet of the roadway will be affectcd. DEIR at 160. As the lmcr from the Association’s manager points out, there arc at lcast 43 1 homes currently within that
d-. Indeed, 69 homes arc as closes 300 feet from Cannon Road. More homes will fall within the 1,500 feet proximity ifthe roadway is extended as proposed by the Project
r I I
Letters of Comment and Responses
27. The draft EIR on page 132 indicates that noise levels at existing residential areas due to the
operation of the materials processing centets are not projected to exceed 75 dB(A) Leq standard.
Consequently, noise impacts due to operation of the materials processing centers are not
significant. The draft EIR recognizes that the noise from the materials processing centers could be
perceived as a nuisance and does recommend mitigation measures on page I65 to maintain a level
of insignificance.
The proposed project realigns Cannon Road Reach.4 farther away from Ocean Hills residences
(particularly at its western end) and thus reduces noise impacts from the road from the level that
would occur if the present alignment were maintained. The extension of Cannon Road, and thus
the increase in noise from Cannon Road, was in both the City OF Carlsbad and the City of
Oceanside circulation plans for many years prior to the construction and occupancy of Ocean
Hills. Moreover. the capacity of the designed roadway is not being increased; rather, the regional
developments that were planned for this road segment are now being reviewed and entitled. In
addition, additional noise modeling was conducted for both of the alignments for Cannon Road
Reach 4 to examine the effect of the vertical and horizontal realignment at the Ocean Hills
residences. Using the traffic volumes contained in the draft ElR traffic report, multiple Ocean
Hills residences were used as modeled receiver locations along the edge of the roadway to
compare the noise levels that would result under both alignments. The results of the modeling
indicate that the realignment will have the result of pushing the Cannon Road noise source farther
away from Ocean Hills residences (particularly at its western end), thus generally reducing noise
levels from Cannon Road compared to the noise levels that would occur if the present alignment
were maintained. This modeling documentation (graphics and text) has been included as an
attachment to the noise technical report as part of the final EIR.
Being located within the city of Oceanside, the environmental impact of Cannon Road on Ocean
Hills homes was under purview of the City of Oceanside along with CEQA compliance. The City
of Carlsbad is attempting to implement regional circulation network improvements and notes that
the extension of Cannon Road with full improvements has been recognized by the City of
Oceanside on the Circulation Element of the General Plan since 1968.
The draft EIR indicates that significant noise impacts to existing residences could occur during
blasting actkities if those activities are within 275 feet of the residences and if those activities
occur for more than eight hours in a 24-hour period. While it is true that requirements for notice
and a schedule of blasting activities will not eliminate the noise effect, the time period that
blasting activities may occur each day is limited by the City Ordinance to 7.5 hours a day.
Because the blasting is restricted to a period of less than eight hours a day, no significant noise
impacts associated with blasting will occur. In addition in keeping with the intent of the
disclosure required in the EIR, residents will be notified of blasting details as outlined on page 164
of the draft EIR. See also response M-22 above.
28.
29.
7 c
W N
Coniments re Calavcra Hills, Phsse WBridge & Thoroughfate Dist. #4 DEIR
April 2,2001
Page 7 of 11
G. Biological Resources
The bject area supports some of the most ecologically important and unique
biological resources in Carlsbad and the region. In discussing this area. the HMF’ notes
that it “contains large areas of coastal sage scrub that support critical populations of
California gnatcatcher and thread-leaved brodiaea Major stands of chaparral and
grassland are also present.” HMP at D-2 (emphasis added); see also id. at D-66.
Similarly, the HMP states that Linkage Area A, which goes through the Phase 11 project
area, “is considered critical for gnatcatchers because it is a primary connection.”
2. Yet the DEIR fails to address significant biological impacts, including:
at D-
M-30
M-31
M-32
M-33
The DER inordinately liits its analysis of roadway impacts to a 500-foot
wide path. DER at 212. This approach is particularly faulty where, as
here, animal species do not confine themselves to a small area and the roadway development will lead to additional development of the currently
undeveloped area. The City has failed to “provide clear and definite analysis of the location, extent and character” of animal species “possibly
within and definitely adjacent to” the Project. !an Joaauin
RaDtor/Wildlife Rescue Center, 27 Cal. App. 4 at 729. The DER must
address these issues.
The DER states that it ”could impact” the California gnatcatcher, DER at 247, despite the fact that the proposed roadway will go right over at least
one spotted location. DEIR Fig. 3G-5. As discussed above. development through the HMP’s hardline areas is a
significant impact to biological resources and one that is inconsistent with the Hh4P.
The DEIR’s discussion of impacts to wetlands is inadequate. There is no
demonstration that the Project will comply with the US. Environmental
Protection Agency’s Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (“Guidelines”) or whether the Project is the least environmentally damaging practicable
alternative (“LEDPA”) as required by federal Clean Water Act regulations. The Project will result in significant negative impacts to wetlands and to waters of the U.S. The DEIR must address these issues.
For similar rrasons. the DEIR needs to discuss Section 401 axtifiation by
the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The DEIR must establish that the Project will not cause additional impairment to the region’s water
quality. The DER must address these issues.
“mhe CEQA process demands that mitigation measures timely be set
forth, that environmental information be complete and relevant, and that
en-tal decisions be made in an accountable arena.” Om Fino
Gold Mining Corn., 225 Cal. App. 3d at 885. Where mitigation measures
are deferred, the City should “commit itself to eventually devising
measures that will satisfy specific performance criteria articulated at the
time of project approval.“ Sacnunento Old Citv Am. V. Citv Counci!,
229 Cal. App. 3d 101 1,1029 (1991). The DEIR merely provides
Letters of Comment and Responses
30. The study area or area of potential effect for the Bridge and Thoroughfare District roadways
(College Boulevard and Cannon Road) “includes a 50O-foot corridor surrounding the various
alignment alternatives” (see draft EIR, page 21 I and Figure 3G-2). This corridor was calculated
from the outer edges of the preferred alternative and several other alternative alignments and
actually ranges from M)o feet to 1,500 feet in width as shown on Figure 3G-2. This study area is
sufficiently broad in size to accurately assess the biological resources within and adjacent to the
bridge and thoroughfare components of the project and is standard practice in determining direct
and indirect biological impacts. The USFWS has reviewed this draft EIR and accompanying
biological technical studies and has not commented on this approach to the analysis. In addition,
as shown on the vegetation map for Carlsbad (Figure 3 of the draft HMP), the vegetation
surrounding the survey area consists primarily of coastal sage scrub and agricultural lands with
arcas of chaparral and grassland further to the north. The similarity of the surrounding vegetation
indicates that the resources would not be drastically different from that within the survey area.
The phrase “could impact the coastal California gnatcatcher” on page 247 of the draft EIR refers
to direct impacts to individual birds or nests. This direct impact can be avoided if the mitigation
measures listed. in the draft EIR text (and in Table 3G-9) are implemented. These. specific
measures include removing vegetation outside of the breeding season and having a biological
monitor present during this process and setting aside adequate quality and quantity of open space
pursuant to subsequent resource agency permits.
The HMP prepared by the City of Carlsbad is currently a draft document. However, the City,
wildlife agencies, and the developer participated in consensus negotiations to address changes to
the hard line open space relative to the draft HMP. Under the agreement that was reached (see
attachment to biology technical report that has been included in the final EIR), there is a net
increase of 13.5 acres of the preserved land, the quality of conserved area habitat is not decreased,
and it is considered to be the functional equivalent of the draft HMP hard line preserve
configuration. Thus, impacts that would result from development in the revised hard line areas are
not inconsistent with the draft HMP.
3 1.
32.
33. The draft EJR fully discusses impacts to wetlands associated with the Phase II Master Plan,
roadway extensions, and detention basins in the Biology section of the EIR and concludes that
impacts to wetlands are significant but mitigable. In addition, in Chapter 2, the EIR indicates that
the project would be required to obtain a 404 permit. In the draft EIR, the intersection of College
Boulevard and Cannon Road has been designed to minimize wetland impacts BS multiple
alternative alignments were examined in developing the preferred alignments. Initiation of the
necessary state and federal wetland permitting process has commenced and determination of the
least environmentally damaging practicable alternative will be determined by the permitting
agencies.
..
Comments re Calavera Hills, Phase WBridge & Thoroughfare Dist. #4 DEIR
April 2,2001
Page 7 of 11
G. Biological Resources
The Project arm supports some of the most ecologically important and unique
biological resources in Carlsbad and the region. In discussing this area, the HMP notes
that it “contains large areas of coastal sage scrub that support critical populations of
California gnatcatcher and thread-leaved brodiaea. Major stands of chaparral and
grassland are also present.” HMP at D-2 (emphasis added); see also id, at D-66.
Similarly, the HMP states that Linkage Area A, which goes through the Phase I1 project
area, “is considered critical for gnatcatchers because it is a primary connection.” &at D-
2. Yet the DER fails to address significant biological impacts, including:
M-34
M-35
The DEIR inordinately limits its analysis of roadway impacts to a 500-foot wide path. DEIR at 212. This approach is particularly faulty where, as here, animal species do not confine themselves to a small area and the roadway development will lead to additional development of the currently
undeveloped area. The City has failed to “provide clear and definite analysis of the location, extent and character” of animal species “possibly
within and definitely adjacent to” the Project. San Jo uin RaDtorlWildlife Rescue Center, 27 Cat. App. 4 at 729. The DEIR must address these issues.
The DER states that it “could impact” the California gnatcatcher, DEIR at
247, despite the fact that the proposed roadway will go right over at least
one spotted location. DEIR Fig. 3G-5.
As discussed above, development through the HMP’s hardline areas is a
significant impact to biological resources and one that is inconsistent with the HMP. The DEWS discussion of impacts to wetlands is inadequate. There is no demonstration that the Project will comply with the US. Environmental Protection Agency’s Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (“Guidelines”) or
whether the Project is the least environmentally damaging practicable
alternative (“LEDPA”) as required by federal Clean Water Act ’
regulations. The Project will result in significant negative impacts to
wetlands and to waters of the U.S. The DEIR must address these issues.
For similar TcBsons, the DEIR needs to discuss Section 401 certification by
the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The DEIR must establish that
the Project will not cause additional impairment to the region’s water
quality. The DEIR must address these issues.
“[Tlhe CEQA process demands that mitigation measures timely be set forth, that environmental information be complete and relevant, and that
environmental decisions be made in an accountable arena.” Oro Fino
Gold Minine Corn., 225 Cal. App. 3d at 885. Where mitigation measures
are deferred, the City should “commit itself to eventually devising
measures that will satisfy specific performance criteria articulated at the
time of project approval.” Sacramento Old Citv Assn. V. Citv Council, 229 Cat. App. 3d 101 1,1029 (1991). The DEIR merely provides
+
Letters of Comment and Responses
34. The draft EIR indicates that the project would be required to obtain 401 permits as a mitigation
requirement. A discussion of water quality impacts is provided in the Hydrology and Water
Quality chapter in the EIR. In addition, a letter of comment on the draft ElR has baen provided by
the RWQCB. As with the necessary wetland permits, the RWQCB 401 permitting process has
also been initiated by the project applicant.
The mitigation measure in the draft EIR that states a per-acre fee “at an amount to be determined
by the City Council” relates only to impacts to eucalyptus woodland, agricultural lands, and
disturbed lands as is specified by the draft HMP. The mitigation requirements in the final EIR
have been revised to include a condition of tentative map approval requiring that the fee be paid
prior to the issuance of any grading permit. All other mitigation will be conducted in a timely
manner as established by the necessary permits issued by the affected regulatory jurisdictions and
the mitigation monitoring and reporting program that is part of the final EIR. In addition, the final
EIR has been revised to reflect mitigation options should the draft HMP not be adopted. IF the
draft HMP is not adopted, the mitigation fee provisions would still be required by the City of
Carlsbad.
35.
Comments re Calavera Hills, Phase IYBridge & Thoroughfht Dist. #4 DER
April 2,2001
Page 8 of 1 1
mitigation “through a fee per acre at an amount to be detennined by the
City Council.” DER at 259. This is inadequate to demonstrate mitigation
for the Project’s significant impacts.
H. Archaeolo&al and Historical RcsouTces
The DEIR fails to provide for the adequate mitigation of impacts to the numerous
archaeological and historical resou~cw on the Project site.’ For example, the DEIR is
deficient in the following respects:
M-36
M-37
M-38
M-39
I.
The DEIR defers analysis of (and mitigation for) fourteen sites, reasoning
that these locations ‘‘will require significance assessments in order to
comply with CEQA if they fall witbin a selected alignment.” DEIR at 266
& 268. This analysis must be provided in the DER and not at a fiture
time. Pub. Res. Code $5 21084.1 & 21 IOO(b).
The DEIR fails to prevent the destruction of several sites. The City is failing to ensure that these resources are “preserved in place or left in an
undisturbed state.” Pub. Res. Code 5 21083.2(b).
The DER fails to ensure that “the field excavation phase of an approved mitigation plan shall be completed within 90 days after final approval.” Pub. Res. Code 5 21083.2(f).
The DEIR fails to ensure that the Project proponent provides “a guarantee to the lead agency to pay one-halfof the estimated costs of mitigating the
significant effects of the project on unique archaeological resources.” Pub. Res. Code 5 21083.2(c).
Altemativa
“The core of an EIR is the mitigation and alternatives sections.” Citizens of
Goleta Valley v. Board of SuDerVisorg, 52 Cal.3d 553,564 (1990). An EIR “must
produce information sufficient to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects arc concerned” $an Bemardino Valln, Audubon Societv. Inc. v.
!2ountv of San Banardmo, 155 Cal. App. 3d 738,750 - 51 (1984). “Environmentally superior alternatives must be examined wbctber or not they would impede to some degree
the attainment of project objectives.’’ Kings County, 221 Cal. App. 3d at 737.
.
’ Thi section of the DEIR is titled only “AnhaeologicaVCuhral Resoums”; however, it appcan to cover
other historical moulw as requid by CEQA. If thrt is nM the C.IC - i.e., d~ue arc historical rcsourcts on the Pmjcct site uNccounted for by Ihe DEIR - that is an additional violation of CEQA’s rcquhts. %Pub. Rcs.Code5~21084.1 8~5024.1.
i
Letters of Comment and Responses
>
36. As noted in the draft EIR (Chapter 3.H. Archaeology/Cultural Resources), the potentially affected
cultural resource sites m assumed to be significant until the alignment of College Boulevard and
Cannon Road is finalized. Subsequent to the release of the draft EIR for public review, all the
sites within the proposed alignments of Cannon Road and College Boulevard were tested. The
results of this testing program have been summarized in the final EIR as an attachment to the
cultural resources report (Appendix H).
As discussed in the draft EIR (Chapter 3.H.). buildout of the Master Plan will not adversely impact
any significant amheological/cultural resources. However, construction of the detention basins and
extension of College Boulevard and Cannon Road, depending on the alignment selected, could
result in potentially significant impacts to archeological/cultural mources. The draft EIR
concluded that the significant impacts to the archaeology sites within the alignments of College
Boulevard and Cannon Road could occur and outlined a mitigation program consisting of testing
for significance for each site. However, as indicated in response 36 above, the 14 potentially
affected sites have been tested and the results of the testing program have been included as an
attachment to the cultural resources technical report. Ihe results of the testing program indicate
that one site (CA-SDI-11,756) within Alignment 2 of Cannon Road Reach 4 is a significant
resource reguiring mitigation. Should the City Council adopt Alignment 2 for Cannon Road
Reach 4, a mitigation program would be prepared and approved.
See responses 36 and 37 above. As noted above, the potentially significant sites within the College
Boulevard and Cannon Road alignments have been tested. Should the Council adopt Alignment 2
for Cannon Road, approval of a mitigation plan 90 days after final approval of the project will be
37.
38.
required.
39. This citation from the PRC is not applicable to the proposed project because the Bridge and
Thoroughfare District No. 4 is the ultimate funding source for all College Boulevard and Cannon
Road reaches addressed in the EIR, except Cannon Road Reach 4, which is funded by the City of
Carlsbad. Funding comes fmm developcrs within the boundaries of the Bridge and ThomUghfm
District and the funds will be used to fund the necessary percentages required by law.
.... , ..
Comments re Calavera Hills, Phase WBridge &Thoroughfare Dist. #4 DElR April 2,2001 Page 9 of 1 1
The DEIRs discussion of alternatives is inadequate. For example, the DElR
inadequately addresses alternatives in the following respects:
M-40
M-41
M-42
M-43 ’
M-44
.
Minimal consideration is given to an environmentally preferable
alternative to the Phase I1 development. DEIR at 337 - 38. Just as there is
little discussion of Project goals, there is little discussion and no
explanation as to why a reduced development alternative would not meet
most, if not all, of the Project goals.
No consideration is given to an environmentally preferable alternative for the roadway or detention basin projects. CEQA Guidelines 9 15 126.6(c).
Then is no discussion of a “no project” alternative for the roadway or
detention basin projects. rd. §15126.6(e).
The Reach 4 Alternative Alignment considered by the DElR is not adequately explored or discussed. DEIR at 328 - 30. In particular, impacts and analysis associated with this alternative are not discussed.
The DEIR fails to consider an alternative that provides for even greater
protection of environmental values. The DEIR must discuss this alternative, including the restoration of certain areas within the site and the possible dedication of portions of the site for different uses (i.e., plortions of the site would be used for recreation while other parts of the site would be preserved for species protection).
An alternative location for the development. “The key question and first
step in analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project
would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in
another location.” CEQA Guidelines 8 15126.6(f)(2)(A). The DEIR fails
to consider any alternative location.
Furthermore, feasible alternatives to the Project exist; therefore, the City must
deny approval of the Project. CEQA “requires public agencies to deny approval of a project with significant adverse effects when feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation
measures can substantially lessen such effects.” Sierra Club v. Gilrov Citv Council, 222
Cal. App. 3d 30,41 (1990); see Pub. Res. Code 18 21002 & 21081. Although minimal in
its analysis, the DEIR acknowledges the environmental superiority of a reduced development alternative for the Phase I1 project, yet it dismisses this Without adequate support or explanation. DEIR at 338. The mere statement that reduced development
might mean less income for the developer(s) is not adequate support to demonstrate they
are infeasible.
’
J. Cumulative Imaacts
“The full environmental impact of a proposed . . . action cannot be gauged in a
vacuum.” Whitman v. Board of Supervisors, 88 Cal. App. 3d 397,408 (1979). CEQA
requires consideration and analysis of cumulative impacts. CEQA Guidelines 15130. Among other things, the City should provide a “summary of the expected environmental
effects to be produced . . . with specific reference to additional information stating where
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
Letters of Comment and Responses
The project goals and objectives arc provided in the draft EIR in the Project Description on page
24. In Chapter 4, Project Alternatives, the draft EIR does explain that the environmentally
superior alternative would not achieve the goals and objectives of the General Plan and proposed
Calavera Hills Phase 11 project. The objectives of this alternative and feasibility of this project
alternative for the Master Plan is considered in the draft EIR pursuant to the requirements of
CEQA and appropriate for this section of the EIR.
The proposed location for both detention basins (BJB and BJ) has been a component of the
adopted City’s Master Drainage Study since 1980. Other locations for detaining the runoff of the
area have been analyzed in numerous engineering studies and are not considered feasible. In
addition, the alignments currently proposed for the extensions of College Boulevard and Cannon
Road are the result of numerous studies (see page 306 in the draft EIR) and represent the most
environmentally sensitive designs as compared to other less feasible alternatives. The range of
alternatives presented in the draft EIR for these two project components is consistent with the
intent of CEQA.
The three project components are discussed collectively under the No Project alternative section in
the draft EIR (Chapter 4, Section B). As stated in the draft EIR, the No Project alternative implies
no development, in which case the detention basins and roadway extensions would not be
constructed and impacts associated with the proposed project would be eliminated. The No Project
alternative, which would eliminate Reach 4 of Cannon Road, would not achieve the goals and
objectives of the Calavera Hills Master Plan or the City of Carlsbad General Plan for Zone 7 nor
desired infrastructure expectations at the regional level and is therefore not considered a viable
alternative to the proposed project. In addition, the draft EIR discusses a No Intersection
alternative for Cannon Road and College Boulevard that would have a different configuration of
the roadways.
The discussion of Cannon Road Reach 4 is adequately discussed in the draft EIR. The draft EIR
does discuss the relative impacts to biological resources and landform alteratiodvisual quality
associated with the alternative alignment of Cannon Road Reach 4 in the Alternatives section of
the draft EIR. The analysis focuses on these two issues as the other impacts (e.g., traffic) would
be similar to the proposed project alignment.
The draft EIR does consider an alternative that addresses this comment. The Calavera Hills Master
Plan environmentally superior alternative is discussed in the draft EIR (Chapter 4, Section G).
Under this alternative some development would be eliminated and wildlife corridors would
consequently be expanded with additional open space. Associated incremental reductions in air
quality and traffic impacts would also result with the reduced development alternative. This
alternative would not implement the agreement that is part of the final EIR (see attachment to
Biology appendix) as outlined in the resource agencies’ requirements for open space and wildlife
corridors.
’
P
Comments re Calavm Hills, Phase lVBridge & Thoroughfare Dist. #4 DER
April 2.2001
Page 9 of 11
The DEWS discussion of alternatives is inadequate. For example, the DEIR
inadequately addresses alternatives in the following respects:
Minimal Consideration is given to an environmentally preferable
alternative to the Phase I1 development. DEIR at 337 - 38. Just as there is
little discussion of Project goals, there is little discussion and no
explanation as to why a reduced development alternative would not meet
most, if not all, of the Project goals. No consideration is given to an environmentally preferable alternative for
the roadway or detention basin projects. CEQA Guidelines 5 15126.q~). There is no discussion of a “no project” alternative for the roadway or
detention basin projects. 515126.q~).
The Reach 4 Alternative Alignment considered by the DEIR is not
adequately explored or discussed. DEIR at 328 - 30. In particular,
impacts and analysis associated with this alternative &re not discussed.
The DEIR fails to consider an altemative that provides for even greater
protection of environmental values. The DEIR must discuss this
alternative, including the restoration of certain areas within the site and the
possible dedication of portions of the site for different uses (Le., portions
of the site would be. used for recreation while other parts of the site would
be preserved for species protection). M-45 An altemative location for the development. “The key question and first step in analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project
would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in
another location.” CEQA Guidelines 5 15126.6(f)(2)(A). The DEIR fails
to consider any alternative location.
M46 Furthermore, feasible alternatives to the Project exist; therefore, the City must
deny approval of the Project. CEQA “requires public agencies to deny approval of a project with significant adversc effects when feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation
measures can substantially lessen such effects.” Sierra Club v. Gilroy Citv Council, 222
Cal. App. 3d 30,41(1990); s4p Pub. Res. Code $5 21002 & 21081. Although minimal in
its analysis, the DEIR acknowledges the environmental superiority of a reduced development alternative for the Phase Il project, yet it dismisses this without adequate
support or explanation. & DER at 338. The mere statement that reduced development might mean less income for the developer(s) is not adequate support to demonstrate they
arc infeasible.
J. Cumulative ImDacts
“The full environmental impact of a proposed . . . action cannot be gauged in a
vacuum.” Whitman v. Board of Supervisors, 88 Cal. App. 3d 397,408 (1979). CEQA
rcq- consideration and analysis of cumulative impacts. CEQA Guidelines 15 130.
Among other things, the City should provide a “summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced . . . with specific reference to additional information stating where
Letters of Comment and Responses
45. The alternatives described in the draft EIR for both Calavera Hills Phase Il and the Bridge and
Thoroughfare District represent a reasonable range of alternatives for both project components that
comply with CEQA. The EIR in Chapter 4 also describes other alternatives that were previously
considered but rejected during the planning process. Because the project would complete the final
phase of infill development in the long-established Calavera Hills Master Plan and provides for
specific roadways that have long been in the Carlsbad Circulation Element, the ability to
accomplish the project objectives would not be feasible at an off-site location and thus off-site
alternatives are not included in the EIR pursuant to CEQA. Likewise, the feasibility of an off-site
alternative is limited due the applicant’s ownership of the proposed project site and ability to
acquire an alternate site (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (D(1).
The draft EIR (page 337 and 338) adequately presents the environmental benefits and drawbacks
of eliminating Village U from the Phase I1 Master Plan. As noted in the draft EIR. this alternative
would be biologically superior to the proposed Phase II Master Plan.
46.
Comments re Calavera Hills, Phase Inridge & Thoroughfare Dist. #4 DEIR
April 2,2001
Page 10 of 11
that information is available” and it should ‘‘examine reasonable options for mitigating or M-47 avoiding any significant cumulative effects ....I’ & 5 15130(b). As discussed above. the
DEIR fails to discuss numerous reasonably foreseeable impacts associated with the
project. The Cumulative Impacts section of the DElR provides scant additional
information with almost no discussion of environmental effects, including impacts-
associated with land use, traffic circulation, biological resources, hydrology, landform . alteratiodvisual quality, air quality, noise, public services, public health and safety.
DEIR at 5-1 to 19. Furthermore, the DEIR utterly fails to examine options to mitigate or
avoid those effects. &g CEQA Guidelines 5 15 130(b)(3).6
K. Growth Inducinn Imuacts
As discussed above, the DEIR fails to acknowledge the growth inducing impacts M-48 associated with construction of the proposed roadways. In particular, portions of the
Project Area that would be served by College Boulevard and Reach 4 of Cannon Road
are currently not accessible by road. f& DEIR Fig. 2-2. The provisions of roadways into these areas will allow for the development of these areas where currently such development is essentially foreclosed. The fact that these areas may be “planned for
residential development in the general plan” is irrelevant to the impact these roadways
will have on the existing environment. Environmental Planninn and Information, 131 Cat. App. 3d at 354.
L.
The DEIR refuses to address impacts associated with the current electricity crisis
and the fact that demands currently exceed supplies. DEIR at 349. Among other things,
the Cabrillo plant in Carlsbad recently received an exemption from more stringent air
pollution control requirements in order to ensure the continued availability of electricity (copy of an article from the San Diego Union-Tribune is enclosed); “Cursing the Darkness,” a recent paper by the Utility Consumers Action Network (“UCAN) (copy
enclosed). The DEIR must discuss these and other impacts associated with the Project’s
demand for electricity.
IV. Conclusion
~-49
Accordingly, the Association requests that the City withdraw the DEIR,
disapprove the Project, and pursue appropriate alternatives.
‘ In a glaring inconsistency. the DElR acknowledges significant cumulative impacts to landfodvisual quality, DElR at 343, then two pages later denies any cumulatively significant impacu, & at 345.
I
Letters of Comment and Responses
47. The list of projects described in Chapter 5 forms the basis of the cumulative impact analysis. The
analysis of cumulative effects is consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Mitigation for
cumulative impacts is either not feasible or not required as the impacts are not significant. The
final EIR has been revised to clarify the mitigation requirements.
48. As an infill project for an already approved Master Plan, the project is not considered growth
inducing. Moreover, the EIR text also indicates that both College Boulevard and Cannon Road
have been components of the Carlsbad General Plan Circulation Element since 1974 and as such
are shown on the adopted land use map. In addition, development proposals (e.g., Cantarini and
Holly Springs) are currently in process for several of the properties adjacent to the roadway
extensions of College Boulevard and Cannon Road. Completion of these roadway segments are
not considered growth inducing given the existing land use designations, the existing Master Plan
allowances, and the current status of development of surrounding properties.
49. Gas and electric usage for the proposed project would be typical of residential development
throughout southern California and would comply with all State-mandated energy conservation
measures. In addition, in response to the recent disruption in electrical energy supply, the State of
California has initiated a number of steps to alleviate the crisis. One of these actions is to
accelerate the approval and licensing of additional in-state power plants to ensure an adequate
supply of electricity for State consumers. Additional generating plants have been built and will
continue to come on-line. These plants will provide California with electrical energy supply
capacity and ability to meet peak load demand in excess of forecasts of regional energy supplies.
The use of energy resources is described as a significant irreversible environmental effect in
Chapter 7 of the draft EIR and is compliant with CEQA.
Comments re Calavera Hills, Phase WBridge 8 Thoroughfare Dist. #4 DEIR
April 2,2001
Page 11 of 11
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Letters of Comment and Responses
Evereit DeLano, Esq.
Enclosures:
1. Pages of Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities m the City of
Carlsbad (December, 19991;
2. ‘%wer-plant ruling seen &ting in dirtier air,” San Dieeo Union-Tribune
3. “Cmsing the Dfukmss,” Utility Consumer Action Network website report (March (March 17,2001); end
21,2001).
Habitat Management Plan
for Natural Communities
in the City of Carlsbad
Letters of Comment and Responses
DECEMBER, 1999
With addendum
...
Important habltats assodated with Bwna Vbta Lagoar Indude amas of freshwater marsh that skirt the edges of tho IEQOOII and large areas of dlsturbad wetland that dominate the lagoon's eastern half The lagoon proWss ham! for aiUcal populattons of the Califomla least lem, wastam snowy plover. I~t-footad dapper ml. Amencan peregrine falcon, Callfanta bmwn pellean. and white-faced Ibr.
Cora I is connacted to Core 2 via Bwnavirts Cnek which is pe#allyouLI~Ie of Carlsbad n the CY, of Oceanaide AHhough the aeek is Channrd~ed in the appmxmtely OSmde stretch cannew lhew two Coras. a c0n-s strip of nparisn swb remains, except where EI Camtno Real ~ES the aeek This axtramdy narmw swp of tipanan habitat my
it IS not consldarad a landscapa bvd linkage functron ES 8 wldllfe moVWnmt conidor for SOme bvds and IlIEnltnElS. hdUdlng coyotes, but
B. COre2MdUnkagaFPAs
The FPA for Cere 2 Is koaad in the norlhasstem portion of the CY, and Is approximately 352
acres n area. It conlains major grassland and NPWIWI hablWs wHh scattered patches of chaparral and coastal saga e. The patches of coastal sage scrub probably support 6-10 palm of gnatcatchefs, N~gh compieb survey information is lacklng Buena Vista Creek
borders tho norlhm Odga of Core 2 and suppafb raub and freshwater menh habitats Least BeH'S VLeO known to occupy tho riparbn scnh Although recent swvey
Informstion is lacklng for this ama. the extent and qual4 of tho riparian vege.lah suggest that thls may reprosant a major papulation area for the Vcso.
Core 2 has linkaam to Cora 3 (Linkage ha A). cor0 4 (Unkaga Area 6). and the city of
OceansMa The pauOn of Lhm Area AWtlMUhg C~US 2 end 3 b a short shppho- stone linkage of appmxhately 24 ~c~e8 domnated by cowtal saga raub. It 18 cordhxt critical for gnatcatchem because It is the primary connectbn baween Cora 3. mlaining
approxbnately 20-30 ph of gnatcatchers, and mas nmth of tho CY,. This llnm Is probably also used by other birds and some mammslr. reludhv coyote and bobcat.
The pwtm of Linkage Area B connecting Coras 2 md4 is dominatsd by grass)and and
coastal saga scrub It h spproxmatdy 1 mile n IengIh and abwt 300-400 feet wide, WI average Three roads. indudmg El Camino Real. suss this Unkage. With same mvegetah and enhancement of ~oertal saga swb. thb linkage should be moderately effectbe for bbds and marnmals.
Core 2 abo pmvides the only linkage fmm Carisbad Mo Oatanslda Disperrlng gnatcatchers moving between Cdsbad and Oceanside must utlltze this Core. Coastal saga swb patchas apparently supply breeding habitat for the specier. and the riparian haMtats may help fadlitate
dsparsal andwinterkreglng by thespecias
c cOlU3rd~FPAs
The Cora 3 FPA (&mmhmMy 1.184 acres)conlans large amas of coastal sage scrub that
suppact ukkal poprkboM of celi gnatcatchw and Lhread-leaved bmdma Major
open wrb, freshwater marsh. and riparbn scrub h&itats lhat are assodated wim Lake caavata. 043kWwdknd.riparian rOrert.ad rlpanan saub OCMinthe southem sactlonof thhCare. Core3 hss lhkagas to Cora 2 (Linkage Area A. see above). Core4 (Llnkaga Area B), and cae 5 (Linksgs Arsa C)
The paifon of Unw ha B betwaen Cares 3 end 4 suppafb grasrland and coastal saga saub mmmunltkc lhat am surrounded by ~ltural lands. The Inkage is approxmatdy 3.000 feet IWIQ IS pmba~y modotawy effectwe for birds and memmals Thm am S~Ilkmtoppmtunities foruand mstwatmnwlthhttus lnkf~~
StWdS of-1 md gntulmd WO alM pfO8Wlt. nW IW'htll portbn d Care 3
0-2 D&&8w 1-
Letters of Comment and Response~
3. Preserve Components and Assembly
using the Fws Planning Areas as a foundation, the HMP has idantled a preserve system that
consists of the components described below:
A. Existing Hardllne Preserve Areas
These areas Include both publidy owned land and privately owned land that has been Committed to habitat conservation as a result of exlstlng open space regulations, past development approvals or
other actions. Ths includes the Clty's three coastal lagoons and wetlands. the Dam Los Monos Reserve. as well as preserve ereas in Aviara. Villages of La Costa. Canill0 Ranch. Calavera Heights. and other development areas. Total acreage of exiSting hardlie areas Equals approximately 4.459
acres, or approximately 69% of the 6.449 awe preserve system.
There ara a number of projects in the City whkh have obtained permits or approvals from the federal and state wildlife agencies to impact listed Spedas M their habitats and which have agreed to conserve other habitat areas. The proposed conservation areas of these projects am also included in the existing hardline portions of the preserve system, as described below:
Calavera Helghts (LFMZ 7). Villages A to D, E-2. F. G. I. J. L-1. M. N. 0. P-1. 0. and 7. whkh have been developed or whlch have approved tentative M final maps, and the Calavera Heights Mitigation Site approved by the Clty in 1993. A new master plan update must be approved by the City for the development of Villages €-I, H. K. L-2. R. U and W to Y.
Ranch Camllo (southem portion of LFMZ le). which has a 1996 permit from ACOE with Section 7 consultation with VW USFWS.
Rancho Vefde (a porLion of LFMZ 11 ), which has a 1995 permit from ACOE with Section 7 consultation with the USWS.
Villages of La Costa (LFMZs 10, 12 and a portion of 11). which has a habnat conservation plan (HCP) approved by the USFWS and CDFG in 1995.
There is one existing mitigation bank included in the existing hardline component of the preserve
system. A mitigation or conservation bank is land that Is permanently conserved and managed for Its natural resource values. with the intent of seUw mitisation credits to private or public enlties requiring mitigation. The one conservation bank in operation in the City is the Catisbad Highlands Conservation Bank, located in the northern portion of LFMZ 15 end approved by the USFWS and CDFG in 1995. This bank contains 263 acres of primarily upland habitats. indudlng coastal sage scrub.
The existing hardline componen! of the preserve system is shown on Figure 5 and the levels of conservation achieved by this compomnt by habitat type and by LFMZ are provided in Table 4.
Letters of Comment and Responses
Fiaure 5 Eds t in g Hard I i ne Conservation
Areas
O-- UIa
Letters of Comment and Responses
EP 1 -ad
CARLSBM HYP
Table 4
Existing Hardllne Conservation Areas (Acres)
Nole: Aueage fgures may vary somewhat between tables due lo rounding.
- I . . __ -. . ___ .. . . .. ... .
1
U
6. Proposed Hardline Preserve Areas
A number of pmposed public and private projects have submitted pmposed hardline design for inclusion in Vle HMP and the presenm system. Upon approval of the HMP, these proposals will obtain
the sama conservation stalus as tha existing hardline areas and the Clly's General Plan will be amendsd to designate them as open space. Take of habitat will be authorized for the ramaining portions of tha projecb. These proleds hdude tha City's munkipel golf cwrse. Lake Wavera.
Veteran's Memorial Park, Hub Park, the Zone 19 park, Manzanita Propertk. SDG&E south shore properties, Bred Ranch. Carisbad Oaks North Busin8ss Park, Holly Spmgs. Kelly Ranch. South Coast and the Raceway Roperty. The general location of the proposed hardlie areas are shown on Figure 6. whde detailed boundaries are shown for the individual projects on Fpures 7 through 19. The proposed hardline boundaries on Veterans Memorial Park which provide a conidor between the City's Municipal Golf Course and pmpertieo to the north. constitutes mitigation for the development of the
remainlng portion of Veterans Memorial Perk. A pedestrian trail. park road and five individual end two group passive picnic areas will be prmmed in the corridor. The City is proposing to mdude the 266
acre public properIy at Lake Calavera as a publk pm@t mitigation bank for municipal projects such 8s the City golf course and the major roeds shown on the City's CirculaUon Plan. The other City . projects which cwld be mered by the Ci mitigation bank are identified in Appendix B. One of the
key objectives of the HMP is pedtting for City public Wity prc+a& mandated by the Gmwth Management Plan. The purpose of a publk mitigation bank will be mitigation of unavoidable impacts to bblogical resources resulting fmm public facilities projects. The mitigation credii available in the Lake Cdavera mitigation bank are shwm in the followhg table. There are 266.1 total acfes at the bank. There are two paim of gnatcatchers at the bank which ara being preserved aa parUal mitigation for the City's municipal golf course. Deductions have been made for devcrlopmt in the potlion of
Hub Park not being anrsafved as a hardline prasewe area (10 arms). Dedudbnt haw also been mad% for approved Mure knprovamts on the property which consiala of a police shooting range (10 acres) and Water Distrkt pm$ds (22 acres) and for a 100 fl. We fire break along the nMtherly
'
TABLE 5
L8ke Calrven Public Mltlgatlan Bank
TOTAL ACREAGE I 266.1
Approved Mitigation for I 10 DEDUCTIONS ACRES
100 R. widoh kk 17.55
TOTAL REMAINING
59.55
The remaitung credits at Lake Calavera wll mltmte for habitat impacts of City pmyas on an acre-for- am bask regdless of tha type of habltet bemg mpadsd except for mpads to gnatcatcher ocarpced coastelsapeocrub.southemmaritknechapanel. mantwwsuctulentrau$andweUands
In addltla, to mltigatbn credb at Lake Calavera. IO aams of coastal sage mb and two WtCatdW
pahmHigatbn credits for future City propcts will be gwen for the consetvah pmvded at Hub Park as a hardltrm prism area
The levels of ccnsenratbn achbved by the proposed hardlm wmpanent of the prssarvct system by habitat type and by LFMZ are pmwded in Table 6 The total acreage of amsewed habitat resulbng
fmm propmed hardline carmetvatbn areas IS 1.437 acres or appmxlmately 22% of tha prarewe m.
0-14 DEcasw 1-
.-
Letters of Comment and Responses
- . .-. .- . . ... . -- ~.. -: .
-GI
11
r
Fiaure 6 PGposed Hardline Conservation
Areas
o-= YII
Letters of Comment and Responses
9PI -ad I
--
CITY OF CARLSBAD
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN - Figure 28
H Existing Hardline
Proposed Hardline
a Proposed Standards Areas
0 Not A Part (N.A.P.)
Conservation Areas
Conservation Areas
[I3 Development Areas
0 SDGE Transmission Corridors
0 Focused Planning Areas of Adjoining Jurisdictions
Letters of Comment and Responses
PACIFIC
OCEAN
a
Letters of Comment and Responses
Letters of Comment and Responses
PACIFIC
OCEAN
Letters of Comment and Responses
I
Letters of Comment and Responses
'3 ' - NORTH-COAST Letters of Comment and Responses
-- .
. CURSING Tl-E DARKNESS Page 1 Of3
CURSING THE
DARKNESS
Welcome to our nightmare. March lgth -the beginning of summer.
UCAN had predicted that summer blackouts were inevitable. We did not forecast summer starting in March.
The outages that hit the state today were not an aberration. They
were not fully unpredictable. But they were a sobering demonstration
of the severity of the West Coast energy crisis.
Below we will attempt to explain what CAUSED the blackouts and what
consumers can do to COMBAT the blackouts. But we aren't going to
offer any quick and easy fixes to the problem, because there are none.
WHAT HAPPENED
California celebrated is last day of winter by knocking out power to an
estimated one million homes and businesses. In San Diego, some
210,000 customer locations, (effecting well over 1 million San Diegans or nearly 21 percent of SDG&Es total customer base), went without
power during the outage. The unexpected outages raised new concerns about how the state can possibly get through the long, hot
summer without economically crippling disruptions.
It was the third time since January that blackouts were ordered and the
first time that Southern California was included in the order. And the
blackouts were by far the longest duration seen in the state so far.
What caused it? The state IS0 attributed it to a transformer fire at a big Southern California power plant that knocked two generators off
line. But this only amounted to a 1500 MW loss -- less than 5% of the
overall total power demanded.
http:Nwww.ucan.orglIawgolicy/energydocs/. hrm 3R1/01
Letten of Comment and Responses
* . CURSINGTHE DARKNESS Page 2 of 3
In reality, the blackouts had been building all morning, with an early hot
spell boosting air conditioning demand in the Southwest and a drought
in the Northwest drying up the flow of hydro-electric power on which California typically depends for eniergency relief.
chronic number of planned and unplanned power plant outages and the state was left with almost 33% of all of its capacity off-line. It was
a recipe for disaster.
A total of 11,500 megawatts were offline due to plants that were down
for repairs. About 3,100 megawatts that were off the grid were from
plants that use renewable energy, such as solar, wind and biomass,
which bums wood waste, she said. Of that total, approximately 1200
missing megawatts were down due to non-payment i.e. a "sickout" being staged by generators who-were not being paid by the cash-
strapped utilities.
The results were dramatic. In San Diego, news media reported
localized traffic jams spread as signals at intersections went dark. A
handful of minor traffic accidents were blamed on signal outages. San
Diego city firefighters were called to a half-dozen rescues involving elevators stuck when the electricity went out. Burglar and fire alarms
were set off by the outages, tying up firefighters and police responding
to false alarms.
Add to that the
The severity of the problem goes beyond just the blackouts. The
power shortages are expected to cause skyrocketing electric prices
paid by the state. UCAN predicts that energy prices on the wholesale market will likely hit the $1 000 per megawatt during these blackout
events (compare this to the $35 per megawatt that we paid just last
year at the same time).
So the problem is both a reliability problem and a financial problem.
And the severity of the problem can not be overstated.
i
WHAT CONSUMERS CAN DO
There are no easy solutions. The Governor, the President, the utilities can not
http://www.ucan.org/lawplicy/enetgydocsiblackouts. htrn 3121101
Letters of Comment and Responses
- . , - .
; aRSMG THE DARKNESS Page 3 of 3
take any one simple answer to fix a problem that has been developing for well
over one year.
In the short-term -this Spring and Summer - consumers will have to take matters into their own hands. UCAN recommends that where
you can, reduce your consumption. Detailed ideas can be found at
http://~.ucan.or~/con.sumer~~fo/Eleco~2OBill/conse~ation. htm
Some specific actions that can be taken include:
All lightbulbs in your house and business should be replaced with high-efficiency compact fluorescent bulbs.
Those using electric life-support systems should check their standby facilities and equipment. For those support-dependent customers,
SDG&E is obligated to call prior to the blackout to give ample warning,
but this call sometimes doesn't come.
Thermostats should be turned down and the use of other appliances
and electric equipment should be severely restricted. Unnecessary
lighting should be switched off. In addition, water use should be cut down due to the need to use electricity for water pumping and
processing.
People whose homes or businesses are currently without electric
service can help by turning all electrical switches and air conditioning
controls to the "off' position, which helps prevent circuits from being
overloaded when electric service is restored.
Keep battery-operated radios and flashlights available.
If electric setvice is not restored in their area within two hours, customers should call SDG&E at 1-800-41 1-SDGE. Some locations
In La Jolla were reportedly without power for over 4 hours - In violation
of the utilities rotating blackout guidelines.
Letters of Comment and Responses
hRp://www.ucan.orgflawqolicy/encr~docs/b 3/21/01
LE'ITER N
'~.* 1
-. ... . .,. . . . . ._ . .
RECEIVED
KAS 16 2001
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPT.
..
.-
Letters of Comment and Responses
__
1. This recommendation regarding the environmentally preferable alternative is acknowledged. The
project, however, represents the bulldout of a long-standing Master Plan in the City of Cadsbd at
a lesser density than currently allowed and better integrates community amenities such as trails,
p-ed and managed open space. and community facilities.
. --
__
.-
Letters of Comment and Responses
2. The width, configuration, and locations of the wildlife corridors associated with the Phase II
Master Plan are the result of negotiations between the City of Cadsbad, the project applicant, and
the wildlife agencies. The resulting overall open space and corridor widths result in a shift of the
densities from what is currently shown in the adopted Master Plan. These modifications to the
Master Plan for Phase I1 of Calavera Hills have been conceptually agreed to by these parties. The
biology technical report (Appendix F in the final EIR) includes the resource agency-authored
agreement that determined the width of corridors.
The original intent of the Master Plan was to provide commercial uses as noted in this comment.
Commercial use of Village E-I is addressed in the draft EIR in the Project Alternatives section.
However, a city-wide commercial study approved on March 21, 2001, by the City Council noted
!
3.
.,: , I
........ -..,, .:_. .............. ........ .- .I ...
.... .................................................................. ^I - I... .........
..... . ... -.... .- " - -. ........ ......
.. . --.--. .....__-_.._._I .... . ... .- ...... .-. .....
... .... .. ..... ..... ........... .- __ -. _. ........ ...
....... .................................... ........... _. . --
...................................................... ............................ -., ..........
Letters of Comment and Responses
4. These recommendations on the use of Village H are acknowledged. However, the resourCC
agencies have not considered Village H to have high value as a wildlife corridor and have focused
on other loeations within the Calavera Hills Master Plan to accommodate wildlife movement. In
addition, while the existing Master Plan allows up to 42 units for Village H. the proposed
community facility use responds to input from the community that opposed residential use. The
community facility designation would also allow the existing public access to continue.
5. These comments on the distribution of the affordable housing iocatihs rn ncknow1edgd. The
revised ptoposal for Village Y is for approximately 108 units. 'l% rsduced develop-t area
Village K that resulted from the Phase Il Master Plan negotiations with the resource agen~es
precludes the use of high density multi-family units in this location. This I#nd use option for
Village K is discussed as a project alternative in the draft ELR in Chapter 4. ?he #Master
Plan allows for wildlife corridors. a range of residential densities, cornunit)' fscilities, and
product divemity throughout the Master Plan, including an affordable housing project in Village
Y.
'.
..
.. . *,{ .. .. . .. - . . . . .. . . . .. ..
Letters of Comment and Responses
6. The City of Carlsbad Circulation Element identifies College Boulevard as a four-lane major
arterial roadway and as a future truck route. As such, College Boulevard is to be constructed with
grades and an alignment that will adequately accommodate the projected traffic volumes,
including truck traffic. Accordingly, noise impacts associated with traffic on the roadway assume
truck traffic in addition to automobile traffic. As demonstrated in the EIR, these impacts can be
mitigated to a level of insignificance (including trucks) through the installation of noise bamers of
heights as identified. There would be no reason to prohibit truck traffic, and therefore, the
prohibition of truck traffic on future College Boulevard is not recommended.
I
7. This comment regarding the sensitivity of the habitat traversed by Cannon Road Reach 4 is noted.
However, Cannon Road has been on the Circulation Elements of both the City of Carlsbad and the
City of Oceanside for decades and there is a regional need to provide for such General Plan
roadway links as both cities approach buildout.
,:
‘_
................ - ...... _..“ ...... _-1- -_--_-- ............... -Q?-J- .... -- ---_ ___ __-ll-__._._._ ...
.. ...... - ->.C.+-.l. ...... -.._ _. ... ....... --.---... - ..... ..- _ ... ,.
Letters of Comment and Responses
8. These comments on providing more active uses within the open space system within the Master
Plan are acknowledged. Trails are proposed internal to the Calavm Hills Phase II project site,
However, development of trails within the off-site natural open space areas that would link to the
project site is not proposed as active trail development is not encouraged by the draft HMP. It is
important to note that the “preserve” designation of the 110-acre Calavera Nahm Preserve
(Village Z) differs from the other open space areas within Calavera Hills and other master planned
communities in the city of Carlsbad. The Calavera Nature Prescfve preclude any future
development potential and was established without any expenditure of public monies and provides
for the short- and long-term management of this key core habitat ma. A city-wide trail system is
currently being developed that will further address this issue within the Calavera Hills area
I
.... .. -. .. . __ __ ..._. ........... .......
...... -, C-- ... .................... - ......... ......... -. ...
..... .. ............... ...... .... ---
................ .... .. ........ .. .................... - __
.. ....... ........... ........ . .... ........ - ._ - ~-
Letters of Comment and Responses
1. The original intent of the Master Plan was to provide commercial uses at Village E-1.
Commercial use of Village E-1 is addressed in the draft EIR in the Project Alternatives section.
However. a city-wide commercial study approved on March 21.2001. by the City Council noted
that this property along with others in the city should be part of a group general plan amendment
that redesignates the property to residential use. The proposed residential use for Village E-1 in
the draft EIR reflects this modification, and the City Council will ultimately determine the land
use for Village E-1 when action is taken on the Master Plan amendment associated with this EJR
(MP-150-H). In addition, while some public input expressed support for a commercial use on
Village E-1. the majority of the comments favored a residential designation.
March 12,2001
LETI’ER P
Letters of Comment and Responses
Eric Munoz
Planning Deprtment
City of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Ave
Carlsbad, CA
Subject: EIR 98-02 Comments
Dear Carlsbad,
Pursuant to your request at the Apn’l20,2000 Scoping meeting for the subject EIR I
forwarded a list of items that should be considered in this EIR. This communication is
attached to this letter. These items all pertained to the proposed Reach 4 of Cannon Road.
The EIR unfortunately does not cover these items and is totally inadequate as defined by
CEQA.
p-1 The detailed traffic study does include an analysis of the impact of not completing Reach
4 of Cannon and concludes that it will not be required to be built until at least the year
2020. The study is flawed because the analysis assumes that Cannon will be completed
by the City of Vista to Highway 78. THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. When this is taken
into account and Cannon ends ai Melrose there will be no need for Reach 4 of Cannon. It
is also necessary for the traffic study to take into account that the development of the Lake Calavera Natural Area has eliminated all future development along Reach 4 of
Cannon that was originally a part of the Carlsbad Master Plan. An updating of the
Carlsbad Arterial Road Network would show that Reach 4 of Cannon is simply not
required and the area is well served by the extension of Faraday to Melrose,
the extension of Melrose to Palomar Airport Rd and completion of College to Hwy 78.
p.2 The EIR is totally deficient in not including a detailed analysis of the “No Pruject” alternative for Reach 4 of Cannon and the document docs not even consider this required ’ element. Accurate traffic study numbers must be compared to the environmental costs of bisecting the IO00 acre Calavera Natural Area, destroying 44 acres of sensitive habitat,
12 scientific sites, grading almost a half a billion cu yds of earth, and constructing 40 foot retaining walls and 60 foot high cuts in the hillsides. This does not even mention the 100s of millions of dollars of regional highway improvement dollars that will be spent on this road to nowhere which could much more effectively be ‘spent on improvements to 1-5 and
Hwy 78.
I. i
w
o\ h)
i
Wouldn’t Carlsbad itself be so much better off if it used the mitigation credits-& it has planned to use in the construction of Reach 4 of Cannon on more useful projects to the
citizens of Carisbad? , .% ,\ -
Oceanside CA 92056
1-2. The project components including the roadway extensions for Cannon Road and College
Boulevard are discussed collectively under the No Project alternative section in the draft EIR
(Chapter 4, Section B). As stated in the draft EIR, the No Project alternative implies no
development, in which case the roadway extensions (including Cannon Road Reach 4) would not
be constructed and impacts eliminated. The No Project alternative, which would eliminate Reach 4
of Cannon Road, would not achieve the goals and objectives of the Calavera Hills Master Plan or
the City of Carlsbad General Plan for Zone 7 or desired infrastructure expectations at the regional
level and is therefore not considered a viable alternative to the proposed project. In addition, the
Calavera Hills Phase XI Master Plan project would be required to construct College Boulevard
Reaches B and C and Cannon Road Reach 3 to provide access to the site. Construction of College
Boulevard Reach A and Cannon Road Reach 4 would not be a master plan rcquiremnt.
The Carlsbad Bridge and Thoroughfare District No, 4 traffic study in the draft EIR (Appendix C)
does include an analysis without Cannon Road Reach 4. Figure 8-1 shows Year 2020 average
daily traffic volumes with the completed street system. Figure 8-7 shows Year 2020 average daily
traffic volumes without Cannon Road Reach 4. Table 8-8 includes a comparison of the Year 2020
traftlc volumes with and without Cannon Road Reach 4. This comparison indicates that volumes
along evaluated segments of 1-5 and SR-78 would be lower with Cannon Road Reach 4 than
without, so that the Reach 4 connection would be regionally beneficial to future traffic conditions.
The Cannon Road-Mar Vista connection through the city of Vista has been included in that City’s
General Plan Circulation Element and has been included in the SANDAG 1994 Congestion
Management Program Update as a segment of the regionally significant arterial system. This
segment is included in the SANDAG Series 9 computer traffic model for Year 2020. Therefore,
until these agencies ofticially remove this segment from their circulation plans, the segment needs
to be assumed in place for Year 2020.
The traffic study did take into account the elimination of future development along Reach 4 Of
Cannon Road. The land use file used for the computer traffic forecast was adjusted to account for
the change of land use within the Calavera land bank area.
In response to comments received on the draft EIR, additional analysis was conducted to examine
the effect of eliminating Cannon Road Reach 4. This analysis concludes that significant traffic
impacts will occur at various intersections throughout Carlsbad at buildout if Reach 4 is
eliminated. The results of this traffic analysis have been included as an attachment to the traffic report (Appendix B) in the final EIR. Environmental impacts to sensitive habitat within the.
Carlsbad Highlands Mitigation Bank and surrounding area can be mitigated through protection or
creation of similar habitat elsewhere. If Reach 4 is needed, then mitigation measures will account
for its cost as part of the environmental review process of determining impacts, mitigation, and
eventually the related costs.
Future permitting of Reach 4 will require concurrence from the USFWS and CDFG. The purpose
of EIRs is to identify impacts and mitigation, not to provide permitting for construction projects.
.
.
Letters of Comment and Responses
PUBLIC NOTICE
CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN
BRIDGE AND THOROUGHFARE DISTRICT #-I.
E?WIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FINAL PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING
Faraday Communlly Development Building
1635 Faraday Avenue, Room 173 - Carisbad, Cri
Thursday, April 20,2000
The City of Carlsbad intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Repon (El:< !%-)2) for the project described below (includes General Plan, Master Plan, and Local Facilitie; Management Plan Amendments; a master tentative map and special use permit). Two ider,tical liroject description presentations will be made on April 20 LEM and 8 PM. Written input forrx are required to submit
input: written input forms may be submitted without attending the April 20 Scop ng Meeting.
!
c Project Description: m w
1 ) the establishment of open space wildlife corridors of approximately 160 acn:;; i.nd the rearrangement
of residential densities to provide for the approximately 120 acre1781 c w~.ll!ng unit maximum residential buildout of Villages K, L-2, R, U, W, X & Y;
i
2) change the commercial designation of Village E-1 to residential medium-hii:i dm:;ity:
3) process a 6 lot master tentative map to allow grading for roadway and resiLfiitit 1 developments;
4) propose the relocation of the master plan's affordable housing site from Villag: I;. to Village Y with
5) ciiminarc the residmtiul land use aliowed un Wage H aid itp;ace ~.;tli C:iiii~ltiaky Facili:i?s ICE:
a 140 unit apartment project, and:
uses for the master plan.
1) assess environmenml impacts of alternative alignments for CollegdCannon rmlw.iys, and;
2) the construction of College and Cannon roadway segments east of El Camincl Rral; a special use permit for the development of Cannon Road in a flood hazard area is also re; uiirc
Two Fl-
1) one on the nonh side and one on the south side of future Cannon Road, jus1 ta!t the CannonICollegc
Letters of Comment and Resporrse~
Project Location
The project site is located west of Lake Calavera. south of the city boundary u rh Oceansidc u-ithin and
adjacent to the existing Calavera Hills Master Plan. and east of El Camino kal. 'The Cannon Road. College Boulevard and detention basin components of the project arc gen:rally located south and
southeast of the master plan boundary. . ,
Anticipated Slpldcant Impacts
Agriculnwl, Air Quality, Archaeological and Paleontological Resources. Biol ~g:, 'Traffic?Circulation,
Cumulative Impacts, Growth Inducement, Land Use Compatibility, Noise, Pwli.: Fen-ice 8: Utilltles. Solid Waste, Visual Acstherico/Grading, Water Quality and Hydrology.
Scoping Meeting Pnrpose
The purpose of the meting is to solicit written input on the effects this )ioj:ct may have on the
environment so that the EIR consultant may finalize the list of issues which wi bv analyzed in the EIR. This project has already been scoped sevcral times but this final scoping mce:ng is intended to reflect
the final, proposed project description. Through the w of written inpui fomis, please list the envir~nmen~l issues rn impacts that the DraR EIR should address -!ab- -. The 45 day public rebkw period of the haft EIR will be the op]iortun.ty IO see how your
issues or comments are addressed. The haft EIR and the 45 day public nvier! pen>d will be noticed; and may take place sometime during the June-August 2000 timeframe.
Seoplng Meeting Format
..
..
#
0
Scoping Meeting attendance ism mandatory to complete and send in writtei tiput forms.
City staff will host the public scoping meeting and project description prcse xations.
Project description presentations will take place at -:il&2QQQ The EIR consultant will pmvide an ovmew of the CEQAER process. The developer will present the Calavera Hills portion of the project descript am.
City Engineering staff will present the roadway and detention basins pottior of the project.
The project description contained in this Notice may be used to generate wnlter input.
Written input will be used to assess comments. The return deadline date Is M&!L1Z..
All written input forms to be returned to the EIR Consultant, RECON by tht Miy 12 deadline date.
NO ORAL TESTIMONY WILL BE RECEIVED
PROJECT DECISIONS ARE NOT PART OF THE SC0PI:VG MEETING
PROJECT APPROVALS ARE NOT MADE AT THE SCOI'I YG MEETING
Calavera Hills Project Description Questions: Paul Klukss, McMillin's Const :tar :: '760.93 1.0780 CollegeKannon Rojcct Description Questions: David Hauser, Deputy City En&, nex 760.602.2739
- .---.. _- __ - - -~ ...... __ . ... -. . .-. . ,. . .._.- ~- - . .- -.
. PROPOSLD ADDIJJONS TO EIR College Bhd Cannon Road- Bridge and Thoroughfare District = -I
c d\ VI
M? comments all pertain to information that should he supp!icc' in 'c 1iIx!i011
with Reach 4 of Cannon Road (Le. that ponion ofcannon between CL~I?~: ;find ihc flceanside Cit). Boundan) - with the approval ofHabitat Management Plan by Carlsbad ,lie!? I\ ill be no
local need and a significantly reduced regional need for this -mi >.incs no development IS allowed in this entire area. This coupled ibitl ih:, J:clrion of Vista not to pursue a Cannon project which would ha\? prtn ide.13 cuil:icction
to HWY 78 would seem to indicate that the city's circulatio: pl:m should be
altered and that this section of Cannon be considered as a "11,: p1c)j::ci"
Alternatix e.
Carlsbad will hale a 78 connection with College therefore tk $:re is no i~zd fo: Cannon to be extended since there are no regional amactors i i t lis ai-ca or Oczdnside or Vista to require Carlsbad access. In a similar IT iniler, there is no
pressing reason that Oceanside residents need a Cannon connx~.on wh2n
College is opened to the West and Melrose is opened IO the :;au:Ii. Yo additional development is planned in Oceanside or Vista in t;is .ir.vd and development in this area in Carlsbad is \-en, limited due io iia! t akiiat plan The principle development planned in this area ol'carlsbad i! it.: liigh school
which Lvould require no access from or to Oceanside since it si dit'ferenr
school dis&ict..Additional traffic on Cannon near the high scloc 1 I,+(juld just
increase safety problems for the students over a no project alimsiiie.
17 acres of sensitive habitat will be destroyed by this project In addition this
project will cut the largest core area #3 ofthe habitat probvair ir t'.,o thus
restricting the innvement of wildlife and defeating the wholt ?upme of this
core area and bringing noise and pollution into what was SUFIIO!~ 10 be an
environmentally protected region.. By pro\-iding access into t lie aim it will
make this resource much more difficult to manage and violaws ihc: tlsbitai
Management Pian in this regard.
This prqect will significantly impact Oceanside since appro timxcly 1000 feel of existing Cannon roadway in Oceanside will have to be ebat :d as a part of this project. This will change traffic noise relationships with txiitiiig homes and negatively impact housing values over what these buyer!. coiik! haw
expected from a completed Cannon since it was already insti. leli iii B lowered
state when they purchased their homes. By dumping tratfic I 'to 0;caiiside
since Cannon will not be completed through Vista to 78, trilific .ongestion will
be signilicantly increased over what has been planned for 811: ail1 iequire additional m.tigation whch will cost millions of dollars. .
The EIR should discuss the regional aspects of these traffic, yoke :ind
economic impacts as well as the more localized biological inrpa:ts of Phase 4
ofCannon. ;\ detailed analysis ofthe impact of Phase 4 ofC: ~JI:)II 011 the Habitat Management Plan should be conducted as well as a I-mparative study
of thc regional traffic plan with and hithout a Phase 4 orCali io i and
reflecting the noncompletion of Cannon through Vista to 79.
-
-
-
-
Letters of Comment and Responses
- - .-- 3.
FIoad Control Detention Ber ,
Letters of Comment and response^
.I
LETTER Q
THOMAS P. FLANAGAN
JOAN R. FLANAGAN
AND
The Cape at Calavera Hills
Fax: (760) 729-7474
2988 Ridgefield Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008
Phone: (7603 729-3874
March 10,2001
Mr. Eric Munoz Senior Planner City of Carlsbad Planning Department Faraday Center
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad. CA 92008
Via Fax & US Ma il
Fax: f7m 60 2-8559
RECEIVED
MAR 12 m
I Cm OF CARLSBAD PUNNING DEW.
Re: Calavera Hills Master Phase I1 & Vue E-1 Dm p _o
[ .98-O2 R Fbrua 2 001
Dear Mr. Munoz:
bY We have reviewed them ~a~Phase4 RECON dated February 2,2001 and offer the following comments:
Q-1 - We strongly support the DEIR's conclusion that the elimination of community commercial uses at Village E-I from within the Calavera Hills Master Plan is not considered a signifi- cant environmental impact. (See Page 35).
Q-2 - We agree with the DEIR's conclusion that the proposed land use changes to Village E-1 would reduce traffic circulation and air quality impacts locally. (See Page 35).
- We agree with the DEWS conclusion that the proposed land use changes to Village E-1 would improve land use compatibility, noise. impacts and visual impacts as the result of eliminating the community commercial uses at Village E-l. (See Page 35).
Q-3
Letters of Comment and Responses
1-3 These comments regarding Village E-1 concur with the conclusions of the draft EIR and are
acknowledged. The original intent of the Master Plan was to provide commercial uses at Village
E-I. Commercial use of Village E-1 is addressed in the draft EIR in the Project Alternatives
section. However. a city-wide commercial study approved on March 21, 2001, by the City
Council noted that this property along with others in the city should be patt of a group gad
plan amendment that redesignates the property to residential use. The proposed residential use for
Village E-1 in the draft EIR reflects this modification, and the City Council will ultimately
determine the land use for Village E-1 when action is taken on the Master Plan amendment
associated with this EIR (MP-150-H). In addition, while some public input expressed support for
a commercial use on Villlage E-I, the majority of the comments favored a residential
redesignation.
1
- We agree with the DEIR's conclusion that
~4 - The existing Von's Center Commercial Project
- The proposed commedal project at the 18-acre Sunny Creek Commercial Site
(at El Camino Real and Mamn Road),
(at El Camino Real and College Boulevard),
and
Hills (at College Boulevard and Lake Boulevard in Oceanside) -just 500 feet outside of he Carlsbad City Border -
will provide sufficient commercial coverage for residents of the Caiavera Hills Area and would not result in impacts to other sites. (See Page 35).
- The proposed Albertson's &acre Commercial Site immediately nolth of Calavera
Q-5 - We agree with the DEWS conclusion that the lack of adequate total buildout population due to the Large Open Space Preserve to the east of the Village E-1 trade axea would render Village E-1 infeasible as a commercial Projcd (See Page 35).
Q-6 - We also agree with the DEWS wnclusion that the Village Site Access Restrictions of Village E-1 would render Village El infeasible as a commercial project (See Page 35).
Additionally. we believe that we can work with The McMillan Bt Company to work wt all
appropriate sound wall, separation wall, and adjacent grading nquirements associated with the location of college Boulevard, Village E-1, and the site location and site line requirements of vi Y.
We thank you, the City of Carlsbad Planning Depamnent, the City of Carlsbad. and RECON fot considering thesc requests.
We look fonbard to working with you, the City of Carlsbad Planning Depamnent. RECON and The McMillan & Company on the final Environmental Impact Report and the Specific Calavm , Hills Site PIans.
We also look forward to working with you and the City Planning Department when the Specific Site Plans for Calavera Hills II are submitted by The McMillan & Company for review by the Planning Department, the Planning Commission and the City Council.
cp
? M ui 03
Sincerely,
Thomas P. Hanag 2988 Ridgefield Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Carlsbad. cA9m 729-3874 729-3874
2
Letters of Comment and Responses
4-6 These comments regarding Village E-1 concur with the conclusions of the draft EIR and are
acknowledged. The original intent of the Master Plan was to provide commercial u8es at Village
E-I. Commucial use of Village El is addressed in the draft EIR in the Project Alternatives
section. However, a city-wide commercial study approved on March 21. 2001, by the City
Council noted that this pmperty along with othehels in the city should be part of a pup ged
plan amendment that redesignates the property to residential use. The proposed residential use for
Village E-1 in the drafi EIR reflects this modification, and the City Council will ultimately
determine the land use for Village E-1 when action IS taken on the Master Plan amendment
associated with this EIR (MP-150-H). In addition, while some public input expressed support for
a commercial use on Villlage E-1, the majority of the comments favored a residential
designation.
I ,.d._ - . ,. .. -. . .. ,.. . . . .- ,.. --
cc: Mr. Michael H~lzmiller - Planning Director Fa: 602-8559
Mr. Dennis Turner - Senior City Planner Fa: 602-8559 ..
Mr. Brian Milich - McMillan & Company Fax: (619) 366-3112
Mr. Lee Shewood
RECON
1927 Fifth Avenue Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101-2358 Fax: ( 619) 308-9334
Letters of Comment and Responses
4-6 These comments regarding Village E-1 concur with the conclusions of the draft EIR and are
acknowledged. The original intent of the Master Plan was to provide commercial uses at Village
E-1. Commercial use of Village E-1 is addressed in the draft EIR in the Project Alternatives
section. However, a city-wide commercial study approved on March 21, 2001, by the City
Council noted that this property along with others in the city should he part of a group general
plan amendment that redesignates the property to residential use. The proposed residential use for
Village E-1 in the draft EIR reflects this modification. and the City Council will ultimately
determine the land use for Village E-1 when action is taken on the Master Plan amendment
associated with this EIR (MP-150-H). In addition, while some public input expressed suppon for
a commercial use on Villlage E-I, the majority of the comments favored a residential
redesignation.
3
GORDON M. FRENCH LETTER R
Marcb 15,2001 ,
Re:: Calavera HBb Muter Pbw I1 & Village E-1 DnR Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
EIR No. 9842 Ilkcon Number 32253) Dated February 2,2001
DcarIur.M-
I have reVi:wed the pdt EGVim-cI RcDort (D ER) for Calawra Hills Phasc fl refermccd above and offer the following observations:
R-1 I nipport tk conclusion that elimination of community commercial designation at Village E-I from the Calavera Hills Master Plan is not considered a significant cnvimnmcntal impact.
I a- with the DElRthat tihe pmpored land use dwge to Village E4 would reduce traffic
,’ * circulation and air qcs!iIy impacts locally. z
R-3, J agree tbat wah the conclusim of the DElRthat the Site Access Restrictions at Village E-1 wdM render Village E-! infeasible IU a commercial site.
R-4 I agm with the DEIRthat dimiiing the community commercial use at Village E-1 would impmt ? land we ccntptibility IU well BS noise and visual impacts.
R-5 I slppa., toe DJ3R.s conclusion thst ths existing Von’s Cents on El Camino at Mamn Road,
th: proposr;l Sunny CIW~ commercial project on El Camino Real and the propwed Albertroa’s
ummcrcial pmjcd at Collegc and Lake Boulevards in Oceanside (just over the line from Lwkbati) Wili provide the nc.ccss~l)r wmmcrcipi eavem&e for &e Caiavur Hills residents.
R-2
i Ad lh to thank the City of Cukbad Pluming Department for the privilege of reviewing the DEIR
and for mru;dering my obsaMtions
. -.
Letters of Comment and Responses
1-5 These comments regarding Village E-I concur with the conclusions of the draft EIR and are
acknowledged. The original intent of the Master Plan was to provide commercial uses at Village
E-I. Commercial use of Village E-1 is addressed in the dmft EIR in the Project Alternatives
Section. However, a city-wide commercial study approved on March 21, 2001, by the City
Council noted that this property along with others in the city should be part of a group general
plan amendment that designates the property to residential use. The proposed residential use for
Village E-1 in the draft EIR reflects this modification, and the City Council will ultimately
determine the land use for Village E-1 when action is taken on the Master Plan amendment
associated with this EIR (MP-150-H). In addition, while some public input expTwscd suppat for
a commercial use on Villlage E-I, the majority of the comments favored a midentid
redesignation.
29 I3 hnrter Road Carlsbad, CdHomia 92008 (760) 720-9200
RECEIVED
&?it 0 2 2001
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPT.
LETTER S
RuthGam
4918 Debs Way
Ocean Hills, CA 92056-7408
April 1,2001
Mr. EricMumz Senior Planrrer
1635 Faraday Avenue CityofCarkMPIaaning~
cartpbsd, CA 92008-7266
Dear Mr. Mmz Re: calavaa Hills phape 11 Master ph
& Bm N0.4 & Detention Basin DEIR
Letters of Comment and Responses
i
s-1
5-2
s-3
COMMENTS ON EIR98-02 sc"O.99111082
BRIDGE AND THOROUGHFARE DISTRICT NO. 4
& DETENTION BASIN
My coIlEllfs are based on the draft EIR dated February 2001.
I am a mident bonmwner of Ocean Hii Country Club, formaly Leisllrt Vie, a &r community of 1633 single finaihr boms on Carmon Road and Shadowridge hive
m ocean andalso bolmded by the citiesofcarlsbad andvi
LeisllnVillageOceanHillswasiaeludedmthebmk"Izle!EJBcstResidential&
by Gke, Thornton & Kinrurmsn(1992). These 99 comnnmitii wcre proW out of mom than 130,OOOplaMedconmnmititsthat existed m 1992 when1 jm~~hased my home.
The proposed pkosdaaibd mthe three volume DEIR, pose a serious thrent to the qualay
CanmnRoadattheCar~ city lima, mvbq it IS kt mrthaaogl theNew Vadun~propaty,whcnitwuld~ atMystraDrive/oCeenHiIbhive. which is the mninmtrance to Ocum Hills couptry Club on Cannon Road.
RamatiodConrmunitiesmAmcricaforVecation,RetirnaentandlmrestmatP~,
oflikmowseniorco~. My~conCunistk alterMterealigrmrszntof
The plarmed 40-50 hot elevated extension ofCammnRoad would be witbia 300 to 1500
ofourresidenta, the aesthetic beauty ofoCeen Hills Country Club and reduce the property values ofd 1633 horns, with the added poteadial ofrrduchrg tax revenue fw both county
feetofS00bo~almostonethirrlofourcomonmity. It Woulddaroytkqualityoflihe
aad city.
Co~thealt~a~tofCarmwRoadrequhrs~Mastingand
gridiug of rock, moving 234,853 cubic yards of cut and 398,979 cubic yarda of alter the contours of the lend, construction of40 fwt high^ walls, the bisctionof tk 1000 LakecalanraEcobgicelArea,thusrcduciogitseffectivemJJfor wild&
co- - thedcamctm n of 12 erchaeological sites, 44 ams of sensitive habitat and 2 anesofripsrianwetlendandforest.
to
accordme to the DElRam to e excessm.m- of babitat and d~&
!2Ed&?&
It is estimeted by James W. Gab, Transportation Division of the City of carlsbad public Works Deptum2, that tk volume of W for the 2020 Tranqmrtation Forecaclt on Camon Road win be 18,700. Havc cartpbed City Plarmers seenor shdicdwlmt lies beyond theiiboundaymoceanside?Have trdic studies bccnmsde oftbe present volume oftra0iconCllllmonRoadinOcesaside?
Thaeareprcsedyfourtr&iclightsonCarmoaRoad: atleisllrrViaegcDh,Wi Drive. Lake Boulevsrd and Mehse Avenue. A fifth light willbemeded at Shadowridge
Drive.
n of cost of conshuction for the c;jer *
Letters of Comment and Responses
1. These comments expressing opposition to the alternate alignment of Cannon Road at the Carisbad-
Oceanside city limit are acknowledged. The proposed project involves a realignment of Cannon
Road Reach 4 at the Carlsbad-Oceanside city boundary in order to avoid impacts to riparian and
wetlands habitats on the Little Encinas Creek westerly of Ocean Hills. Modeling documentation
has been included as an attachment to the noise technical report as pari of the final EIR.
The buildout of Cannon Road has been on both the City of Carlsbad and the City of Oceanside
circulation plans and General Plan maps for several years, including prior to the construction of
Ocean Hills. The environmental impact of Cannon Road on Ocean Hills' homes was addressed at
the time that the Ocean Hills development was considered and approved by the City of Oceanside.
2. Figure 3-1, page 3-2, of the Carlsbad Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 traffic repolt PER
Appendix C) shows an existing traffic volume of 14,000 average daily vehicles on Cannon Road
between Lake Boulevard and Melmse Drive. Cannon Road within the City of Oceanside has been
constructed as a four-lane major arterial, with a design volume at LOS C of 32,000 ADT, in anticipation of the ultimate connection through to the City of Carlsbad. The futurc volume of
traffic on this segment, as shown in Figure 8-1, page 8-2, of the traffic study, is 30,000 ADT,
which is a volume consistent with the design volume of a four-lane major arterial.
Traftic studies included within the scope of this EIR utilize a base traffic projection model
prepared by SANDAG, the civic regional planning association, and utilized by governmental
agencies throughout San Diego County. The draft EIR was circulated to the city of Oceanside for
review during the public review period and no response from the city of Oceanside was received.
Although beyond the boundaries of the study area for the traffic analysis, the City of Oceanside
should monitor the intersection of Cannon RoadShadowridge Drive for the possible installation of
a traffic signal based on existing conditions. Based on Caltrans traffic signal warrant miteria, this
location is currently a candidate for the installation of a traffic signal.
.
3.
.. ~ . .. . _._ . . . , . . ' . .- -
There m four schools in the vicinityofCmonRoad: LakeElcmadsry and Madison
MiddleSchookonLakcBoulevard,BucllaVistaHighSchoolonLonghomnern Shadowridge Drive and New Venture Church School on Mystra hive.
s-4 withthe existhgtrallic inthe ocean Hills area - the four Schk thehurtratlic lights
the trrminuS of Camon Road at Melrose Drive, the two-lane Shadowridge Drive (a Mer road to Cawon), plus the additional traffic hm Carlsbad, one can only hresee tdic congestion a! its worst, orSenictLeve1 Fatpcakhorns. I envision bumper to bump traflic atbothentraaces to omcommunity, withmnwmittnnt incnesedmisehh and heahhthreateningpohtion.
Two of the bask purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ace to ihrm governmntal decisiinmakcm and the public about the potential significant
if any of proposed actiVaita and to provide oppommitieS for other agencies and the public toreview and commmtondraftmviromm?ntald~.
s-5 Prior to completiug the draft EIR, Guidrlincs Section 15083 provides that the kad agency
may also consult with other persons or organizationS which may be concerned with the mviromnentaleilkctsofthepject.
Have CarW Ci Planmn consulted with 0th persons or organkations on the
enviro& impact to the residents of oaan Hills? I-- 4 0 S-6 When adraft EIRk completed, Public Rcsolmxs Code Sections 21104 and 21153 "require the lead agency to also consult with any city or county which borders the city or
countywithinwhichtheprojectisproposed"
Has the Gdsbad Ci Plamrisg Depertnrent conplied with PRC Code sectiotrr 21104 and
21153byco~withtheCiofOceaoside? IftheCityofCathtadisincomplimce,
Whendid it occm?
IMPACT OF PROPOSED ALTERNATE ALIGNMENT OF CANNON ROAD EXTENSION
1. NOISE
horn. moving and hauling huge amounts of eatth; B. FROM TRAFFIC - the conflueme oftratfic hmCarkbnd to OccanHills, traffic on
Lake Boukvard, Mchse Drive, Shadowridge Drive and LongbDm hive.
C. FROM MC CIRCULATION - withfourcxistiitraf6c lights. and a iifth Winbe
need4 the flow oftraffic will be seriously impeded hmthe carlsbadbouadary to Melrose Drive.
A. FROM CONSTRUCTION - the extensive bhthg and grirrding of rock, sound of air
Letters of Comment and Responses
4. The City subarea traffic model utilized in this EIR projects a buildout (2020) traffic volume on
Cannon Road Reach 4 at 24,000 ADT. The peak hour LOS at the intersections along Cannon
Road are expected to be at acceptable LOS (LOS D is considered acceptable). Table 8-3, page
8-16. of the Carlsbad Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 report (DER Appendix C) shows
acceptable LOS at the Melrose DriveKannon Road intersection during peak hours in Year 2020
with Cannon Road Reach 4 constructed. See response J-1 for LOS at Cannon Roadhisure
Village Drive, Cannon RoadlWisteria Drive, Cannon RoadShadowridge Drive, and Cannon
RoadLake Boulevard (which are expected to be at acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak
hours in Year 2020 with Cannon Road Reach 4 constructed).
From a regional standpoint, the provision of Cannon Road Reach 4 will reduce traffic congestion
in several highly congested areas, including Palomar Airport Road, El Camino Real, and Highway
78. Although inclusion of an additional traffic link typically increases traffic on that specific
(previously stubbed) roadway, additional traffic links redistribute traffic from overly congested
areas to less congested areas.
Cannon Road has been included on the cities of Vista, Carlsbad. and Oceanside Circulation
Elements as an arterial roadway for several years. Circulation studies indicate that inclusion of
this roadway will reduce buildout traffic congestion on congested roadways in the region. Traffic
increases in the immediate vicinity of presently stubbed Cannon Road will increase, but not to
levels which will result in failing levels of service.
Also, as stated in the reference provided in the letter, the lead agency may consult with other
persons or organizations prior to completing the DEIR. The City of Carlsbad conducted publicly
noticed scoping meetings. The draft EIR was prepared in full compliance with CEQA notification
requirements, and as evidenced by letters received from Oceanside residents, the ability to get
community input and effectively get consultations from adjacent interest pups is occurring
through this process.
The City of Carlsbad delivered notices of preparation and of completion of a draft EIR to the City
of Oceanside on November 12, 1999, and February 2, 2001. These notices requested their input
and comments on the DER
5.
6.
2. SAFETY A. The residents of Ocean Hills Country Club Win have considerable deulty nmking kft tums on Cannon Road to enterthe main gate at Lei ViUage Drive. They will alp0
5-7
S-8
Letters of Comment and Responses
7. Noise from construction is addressed in the draft JZJR (Chapter 3.D.). In addition, 'addMal noise
modeling was conducted for both of the alignments for Cannon Road Reach 4 to examine the
effect of the vertical and horizontal realignment at the Ocean Hills residences. Using the traftic
volumes contained in the draft EIR traffic report, multiple Ocean Hills residences were used as
modeled receiver locations along the edge of the roadway to compare the noise levels that would
result under both alignments. The results of the modeling indicate that the realignment will have
the result of pushing the Cannon Road noise soume farther away from Ocean Hills residences
(particularly at its western end), thus generally reducing noise levels from Cannon Road co-
to the noise levels that would occur if the present alignment were maintained. This modeling
documentation (graphics and text) has been included as an attachment to the noise technical qm't
as part of the final EIR.
Traffic circulation is addressed in Chapter 3.C. of the draft EIR. As discussed in the draff EIR,
traffic studies indicate that Cannon Road Reach 4 will provide significant benefit to regional
traffic as a whole, even though its effect on a limited area may be undesirable.
The intersection of Cannon RoadlLeisure Village Drive is currently signalized with a separate
signal phase for Icfi turns from Cannon Road to Leisure Village Drive. Although volume will
increase on Cannon Road by Year 2020 with completion of Cannon Road Reach 4, the traffic
signal would allow adequate brcaks in the traffic flow to accommodate left turns.
The Year 2020 traffic volume on Shadowridge Drive at the Ocean Hills Country Club back
enhance is projected to be lower with Cannon Road Reach 4 constructed (6.800 ADT without
Reach 4 and 5,900 ADT with Reach 4). The completed Cannon Road Reach 4 provides an
alternate mute for Ocean Hills Country Club motorists, thereby Feducing these volumes.
The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the Calms Traftic Manual provide the
requirements for school crossing signs and striping at intersections and school zones near schools.
The City of Oceanside should review current school crossing signs and striping within school
zones and should also use these guidelines at future school sites.
8.
-- ,.. - - .. _- .- . .. , - . . ."I.__ _e.-("-- - - . . . . ..
'.
encounter ditficulty entering or departing 6om the bnck gate on the two-lane Shadowridge
Drive. This proposed extawion of Cannon road poses a very serious danger to the safety
of residents of Ocean Hills Country Club.
B. With four schools in the vicinity of Cannon Road and the large number of children and
youths walking or bcing driven to school, it will be difficult to provide adequate &ty measures at the various intersections. This is a *safetv problem
3. AIR QUALITY
A. The Federal Clean Air Act and the California Environmntal Quality Act consider seniors, childrenandthosewithbreathing d8icuItii to bemost at risk Thereare many residents in Ocean Hills Country Club with bregthing difficulties who will be adversely
affected by diminisbed air quality. B. During construction, and the moving of huge mounts of earth and 6ll, air quality will bc affected despite any qukd me89u~cs to attempt to avoid it. c. The increased vohune oftlallic in the ocean Hills area will significantly decrease air
quality.
S-9
The Calawra Hills Master Plan must "PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH WITH AN ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY". (EPA)
4. AESTHETICS S-10 The proposed 40-50 foot elevated extension of Cannon Road would very seriously impact the beauty of our community, OM of the most desireable and attractive senior communitii
in San Dkgo County.
5. FINANCIAL
1633 homeowners, resulting m loss of tax revenue for both oceanside and San Diego
county.
S-11 The proposed alternate Cannon Road extension would decrease property values for our
ALTERh'ATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PR0JJX.T
s-12 1. Do not buii the alternate extension of Cannon Road until such tim as 1-5 has ban' widened fim Delmar to Oceansie and until there is a connection to a widened Route 78.
2.- Calavcra Hills by mat& a one hundred acre Regional Nature Preserve to protect this open space as habitat for native plants, birds and animals, to promote the use of this area by a 'csponsible public with walking trails and bicycle paths, to support
education and restomion programs, to introduce children to the wonders ofnature mtheii very midst; and to minimize the adverse eBFcct of development.
Mount calawra, thc highest point in the CarsWOcemside Area, is one of three extinct volcanoes in catifornia From its summit it offers BmaziDg views and mtrigUiag geological
formations. 3. Provide frequently scheduled, conveniently located public bus transportation along
desii lanes to reduce tratlic congestion Provide public transportation to the beaches, railroad stations and Palomar Airport.
The Ci of Carlsbad has the capability to plan housing and provide open space for
Letters of Comment and Responses
9. Comment noted. Construction and operations-related impacts to air quality are addressed in the draft EIR (3.K.). The proposed project is in compliance with regional air quality plans and conforms to the General Plan for the City of Carlsbad. Project design measures to reduce air quality impacts such as a bikeway and pedestrian circulation system as well as traffic flow improvements with the connection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road to El Camino Real have been included in the proposed project. Mitigation for construction-related impacts is included to reduce any impacts below a level of significance. No significant operation-related impacts
would result from project implementation. Traffic-related impacts to air quality are not considered significant because no intersections would operate at substandard conditions as a direct result of project implementation.
As discussed in the Chapter 3.A. Land Use, both roadway segments have been a component of the Circulation Element since 1974. Ultimate development of Cannon Road Reaches 3 and 4 are not
subject to the same development standards as residential uses under the Hillside Development Ordinance for grading volumes and manufactured slope heights. The proposed alignment and road geometrics for Cannon Reach 4 are necessary to meet roadway design standards and to avoid sensitive habitats. The EIR acknowledges that the existing aesthetic character of the area south and east of the Master Plan would be substantially altered as a result of this roadway construction
and would contribute to the cumulative degradation in aesthetic character of the larger subregional area. Proposed mitigation requiring implementation of landscaping requirements on manufactured
slopes with native species ensures that impacts are reduced.
This comment regarding property values is acknowledged. However, as noted above, the extension of Cannon Road Reach 4 has been on the General Plan since 1974. Property values are
not a CEQA issue to be addressed in EIRs.
The comments regarding alternatives to the proposed project components are acknowledged Responses to the issues raised are as follows:
a. Deferment of the extension of Cannon Road until 1-5 and SR-78 are widened would not be recommended as the extension of Cannon Road to from El Camino Real to Melrose Drive serves inter-community traffic and would divert some traffic from Interstate 5 and State Route 78. Indefinitely deferring this continuous connection would be detrimental to the operation of these freeways.
The comments on providing more open space active uses within the open space system within the Master Plan are acknowledged. However, development of trails and a nature center within the off-site natural open space areas that would link to the project site is not
proposed as active trail development is not encouraged by the HMP. It is important to note that the "preserve" designation of the 110-acre Calavera Nature Preserve (Village 2) differs from the other open space areas within Calavera Hills and other master planned communities in the city of Carlsbad. Implementation of multi-use trails and a nature center would be contrary to the purpose of the preserve. The Calavera Nature Preserve precludes
any future development potential and was established without an expenditure of public monies and provides for the enhancement and long-term management of this key core habitat area.
The project applicant will work with North County Transit District during the tentative mapping stage of the project to determine site-specific requirements for public transportation facilities associated with the project.
10.
11.
12.
b.
c.
-. .
4 Letters of Comment and Responses
conmmtssubmatcdby: RIIthGarB
4918 Ddoe Way
Ocerm Hilts, Ca 9220567408
TtL.760630-3929
-. -. ... . . ~ I ..... ._
LETTER T
April 2,2000
Eric Munoz
Don Rideout
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Munoz & Mr. Rideout,
Thank you for all your help during this DEIR review period. Our community has serious
concerns about this project as it now stands and we appreciate the opportunity to continue
collaborating with all those involved and impacted by these developmcnts in seeking
acceptable win-win solutions to the many issues raised in this DEIR.
Please find attached a draft of our comments in response to the Draft Environmental Impact
Report for Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase I1 & Bridge & Thoroughfare District No. 4 &
Detention Basins. Please note that you may find several instances where the comments may '
overlap with comments submitted by Perserve Calavera and other residents of Calavera Hills
as there was some collaboration in certain areas.
We will either deliver to your office or send this final hard copy by mail as we do have photos
and attachments to these comments.
Sincerely,
Letters of Comment and Responses
B.A. Grouse
E.A. Orlowski
CC: Department of Fish and Game
Letters of Comment and Responses
CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN PHASE I1
BRIDGE & THOROUGHFARE DISTRICT N0.4 DETENTION BASINS
Draft Environmental Impact Report EIR No. 98-02
SCH No. 99111082
DEIR RESPONSE COMMENTS
Submitted by: B.A. Grouse
E.A. Orlowski
3729 Bennington Court
Carlsbrd, CA 92008
I) , GENERALCOMMENTS:
-According to CEQA Guidelines 15140, EIRs should be written in “plain language.” - We would like to comment on that point. A fair number of people -all of whom are highly intelligent and educated people - with whom we shared portions of this document, found it to
be intimidating, convoluted, inaccessible. and genaally unrcadable. Although these residents
are extremely concerned with the nature of the proposed developments, they found the task of simply reading this document, let alone analyzing and commenting on it, formidable and ovnwhelming. The City Planning Dept. will testify to the fact that we ikquently needed to contact than for clarification on certain points. (And we would have been contacting them
even more often but we were codcaned we might be considered a nuimce.) We are propsing the following suggestions that would help make this document more user-friendly:
T-l
cd
F c 4 co
1) Include a general Index by subject and Village
2) Include a glossary of terms and abbreviations so the reader isn’t forced to flip *ugh the entire document searching for the place the definition w8s cited. (For example: USACE, RWQCB, L-C Zone. Streambed Alteration Agreement, etc. etc.) Please note that most of these terms are industry specific and arc not
common usage in the avenge pmon’s vocabulary.
3) Rovide an explanation of CEQA and a list of all the CEQA requirements for DE&.
~-2 -CEQA (15141) al~0 requires that the text Of the DEB should bc less than 150 pages or for
projects of unusual complexity, less than 300 pages. -We would like to point out that the text of this document was 357 pages plus 52 pages of executive summary -a total of 409 pages (not including two very thick technical appendices.) In addition, so many other documents and
ordinances are referenced (the CGP. HMP, etc. etc.) that it is necessary to read all these additional documents to fully comprehend all the implications of the proposed plan. Although the 45day review period was extended to 6Odays, it was not sufficient time for the avenge resident with a full time job andlor a family to care for to adequately review a document of this magnitude and complexity. And it is not reasonable to expect people to give up theii jobs and other nsponsibilities to devote their MI-time to the study of such a document for proper commentary.
L
1. The draft EIR is consistent with the intent of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15140 and 15154. By
definition, the nature of the proposed project is complex given the number of villages in Phase II
of the Master Plan, the inclusion of Bridge and Thoroughfare District roadways and alternatives.
and the two detention basins. Every effort has been made in the EIR to present the impact analysis
within separate subheadings to allow the reader to follow the existing conditions, impact analysis,
and mitigation requirements. Throughout the EIR, impacts specific to each village are often
separated in the EIR text, tables, and figures. In addition, the draft EIR is written such that
acronyms are defined at the time of first use. For brevity, an explanation of CEQA and a list of all
CEQA requirements is not a standard inclusion within EIRs. The purpose and requirements of
CEQA are illustrated in the structure, analysis, and conclusions of the environmental =view
process and EIR document.
2. Objections to the length of the EIR am. acknowledged. The complexity of the project, including
three separate although interrelated components, requid a thorough and unavoidably lengthy
analysis. It should be noted that over 75 pages of the draft EIR are tables, figures, and photographs
or photosimulations and not standard text. Other documents am. referenced in the draft EIR in
order to provide the decisionmakers and other interested parties with the relevant information used
in the environmental review and to access additional information, as needed in the decision-
making process. Objections to the length of the public review period are acknowledged; however,
those standards are established at the state level, and the city of Carlsbad extended the review
period to 60 days. The draft EIR also responded to numerous comments raised during the public
scoping process and public meetings. CEQA mandates that the entirety of a project be addressed
in order to avoid a piecemeal approach to environmental review (CEQA Guidelines Section
15126) and includes time limits for the pparation and review of EIRs pursuant to Section 15100.
I
5 W
T.3 Finally, we would like to point out that the document was, for the most part, physically inaccessible to the general public. Since it was only available at the City Planning Dept during their office hours (which happens to coincide with the work hours for the vast majority of us) and at the Public Library, which is only open several more hours a week than the City Planning office, it was not readily available for those who may have been inclined to give it a closer look. A group of us got together, and at our own expense, had a copy made for us to share. We did this in order to give it more time and attention during any small pockets of spare time we could find in our busy lives. But in this day and age, with internet technology widely used and readily available, there is really no excuse for not posting this entire document online with all additional referenced documents and ordinances.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, and ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
-The DER addressed the project's relationship to the Carlsbad general plan, but failed to address the project's relationship to regional plans, SANDAG's 20120 Plan for Smart Growth, and development plans in all areas adjacent to Calavera Hills. Therefore it failed to give a clear picture of cumulative impacts from a regional perspective.
n)
T-4
III) ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:
A) LAND USE:
The 1st environmental issue raised on p. S-7 "Is the proposed project compatible with existing land uses?" The Results of the Impact Analysis for Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase Il is "No land use planning conflicts were identified for the Master Plan Phase II project." As a result,
"no mitigation was required" and the Impact Level After Mitigation was declared "Less than
significant."
The agency who conducted this Impact Study obviously lacked familiarity With tk Calavera Hills community andlor failed to read the public scope comments or they would have identified several areas of land use conflict, one of the most vocalized of these being the current use of Village A as a safe, accessible, and greatly loved Community Opcn Space Park, Community gathering place, children's play area, dog-walking park, and wildlife corridor. The
residents of Calavera Hills and surrounding areas (people come from as far as Carlsbad Village, Hedionda Lagoon, and even Oceansidc to walk, jog, and play in this unique, shaded Eucalyptus grove and trail area. The proposed Community Facility, (which varies in acreage from 2 to 5.5. acres depending on which page of the FIR you read), was not analyzed for appropriateness or compatibility with the existing land use.
The DEIR failed to identify conflicts With parking from the park users and the CF users if a Community Facility were developed on this Village H land. They also failed to address traffic problems that would result on an already dangerous curve of CVD.
The DER failed to recognize that developing a Community Facility at this Village H location would impact the main feeding area of coyotes, hawks. owls, and other birds of prey, and greatly impact this canyon as a much needed wildlife corridor.
T-5
T-6
~-7
Letters of Comment and Responses
3. The City of Carlsbad Planning Department is open to the public from 7:30 A.M. to 5:30 P.M. each
workday. City staff also provided a substantial amount of time and resources to address a variety
of questions and requests for additional information, including responding to requests via e-mail.
The two Carlsbad libraries are also open evenings and weekends. In addition, the public review
period was extended to the full limit as provided for by CEQA.
4. The proposed project is in compliance with SANDAG policies and projections, inasmuch as it is
consistent with the Carlsbad General Plan (as amended). It provides for circulation element roads,
which will reduce regional traffic congestion in the area; reduced floodplain development and
inundation; and development of housing units, including affordable housing, which SANDAG
projections indicate will be in short supply over the next 20 years, particularly in coastal North
County. The project does address the compatibility of the project with all adjacent development in
the Land Use chapter of the EIR (Chapter 3.A.) and finds the project to be compatible when
mitigation measures articulated in the draft EIR are incorporated into project design.
5. The comments regarding Village H and open space are acknowledged. However, unlike the
Calavera Nature Preserve, Village H is not a "preserve." It is important to note that the "preserve"
designation of the 1 IO-acre Calavera Nature Preserve (Village Z) differs from the other open space
areas within Calavera Hills and other master planned communities in the city of Carlsbad. The
baseline for development of Village H is outlined in the adopted Master Plan for Calavera Hills.
Residential development of the site has been part of the adopted Master Plan since 1993. The
currently proposed land use for Village H (community facility) was developed in response to
citizen input at the public scoping meetings and does retain public access to the trail. The proposed
use is not considered a conflict with the surrounding land uses in the draft EIR nor in an area
desired by the resource agencies for a wildlife corridor and is not a significant impact.
See response 5 above regarding land use compatibility of the proposed community facility use for
Village H. In addition, Carlsbad Village Drive has been consttucted in accordance with Carlsbad
City Street Design Standards. The segment between Tamarack Avenue and Victoria Avenue has a
lane reduction from two to one lane in the westbound direction. Additional enhanced delineation
of this lane transition is planned.
Potential impacts to wildlife corridors and project design measures to protect these resources are
addressed in the draft EIR (Chapter 3.G.). It should be noted that the Village H canyon south of
Carlsbad Village Drive is not a designated wildlife corridor in the HMP, and a significant impact
would not occur from the proposed community facility.
6.
7.
3
Letters of Comment and Responses
T-8
T- 9
r 00 0 T-10
T-11
T-12
The DEIR failed to address drainage issues on Village H and did not identify the scvm erosion and run-off problems on the castem hillside in the Crest neighborhood above the Village H canyon.
In the event that the Community Facility is a Day Care Center (as suggested, but not specified)
the DEIR failed to examine many potential sowces of conflict and hazards between Village H park and bail users and Day Care Facility users. As the park is generally most visited during the carly morning and the late aftrmoons/early evenin~s, before people leave for work and rem home from work, the DEIR failed to recognize the possibilities of parking and traffc conflicts with parents arriving at the same time to drop off or pick up their children. The DER also failed to address any potential hazards of people coming into this area to give their dogs a morning or late aftanoon/esrly evening walk while children are’en route from cars to the Day Care Facility. One small incident between a dog and a child could close down the park am to the gcncral public for good. That would be a tremendous loss to the community and nceds to
be addd.
Since the DEIR failed to recognize the great social, cultural, and biological significance of the existing land uses of Village H. and its precarious location in terms of tram0 and potentially grcat trafiic hazards, no mitigation was proposed for the loss of Village H’s multiple purposes. This necds to be addressed and nctified.
VUhga U, w, Y, and X: Thc DER failed to recognize the significant mlc these villages cumntly play as an important wildlife corridor link from the CNP and how the significance of this area as a wildlife conidor has increased in the past ycar and a half due to the severe and negative biological impacts on Village K ftom the surrounding Phase I developments (i.c. The Cliffs, Barrington, Collep Blvd., Capistrano, Sheffield, and Nanmckct neighborhoods.)
The DEIR failed to identi@ Village U as a particularly dmse and high quality multiple species habitat, nor did it identify Village U as a gnatetcher habitat.
The DER failed to identify migrant workers inhabiting Village W and psrts of VlUage X Nor wcn any mitigation measures proposed to find new homes for farm workers who will be displaced by any development of these mas.
The DEIR $iled to mgnize any incompahibiMy of land usage by developing 140 residential homes on Village X dmtly adjacent to an existing, operational farm, and an additid 280 plus residential units (in Villages Y, W, and v) in close proximity to this farm. If hiled to
addrcs the impact the residents of thesc Villages would have on farm activities and funaim
or rccoMnend any mitigation mcllsurcs.
Wllage R Thc DER failed to address the impact Village R’s close proximity to Lake Calavera would have on recreational hiking trails surrounding the lake.
College Blvd Adequate justification for building College Blvd. was not provided in this DEIR. It would
appear to be an old circulation element based on old and outdated development plans. How College Blvd. would function as an artery in a regional circulation system was not adequately
8. Drainage in the project area, including Village H, is addressed in the draft EIR in Hydrology (35.).
Drainage from Village H, which is within drainage Basin II, flows into an existing concrete-lined
channel directed toward Agua Hedionda Creek and indirectly contributes to the drainage of
Calavera Creek. The increases in runoff discharge over existing conditions due to proposed
developments for Basin I1 ranges from 2.0 to 3.5 percent. As stated in the draft EIR, this slight
increase in runoff from Basin I1 would cause a small negative impact to the hydrology of the area.
Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to reduce hydrology and water quality
impacts to below a level of significance.
The Calavera Hills Phase II traffic study (DER Appendix B) included a peak hour evaluation at
the Carlsbad Village DriveNictoria Avenue intersection that accounted for the operation of the
possible day-care facility. Table 7-2. page 7-1 1, from that study indicatea Year 2020 AM and PM
peak hour operations as LOS B at the intersection, indicating little delay to motorists is expected at
this location.
A City ordinance requires that dogs be leashed. In addition, parking and drop-off for the day-care
center should occur on-site or at the adjacent curb only so that child contact with pets would be
minimized. Finally, parents are typically required to accompany their child into the day-care
center, thus reducing safety hazards. The currently proposed land use for Village H (community
facility) was developed in response to citizen input at the public scoping meetings and does retain
public access to the trail. The proposed use is not consideredr conflict with the sumunding land
uses in the draft EIR and is not a significant impact.
Potential impacts to wildlife corridors and project design measures to protect these resources are
included in the draft EIR (Chapter 3.G.). The Villages referenced in this comment differ from the
“preserve” designation associated with the Calavera Natue Preserve and have been *sed by
the resource agencies during their review of the project. The final EIR includes an attachment to
the biology technical report (Appendix F) that explains the reSOUrCe agencies’ position on the hard
line open space system for Calavera Hills, in the form of a 1999 letter from the USFWS.
Surveys have been conducted on this site, including Village U, since 1991. Only three sensitive
species, northern harrier, orange-throat whiptail, and Palmer’s grapplinghook. have been observed
specifically within Village U. While coastal California gnatcatchers have not been directly
observed in this village during focused surveys, the coastal sage scrub on the entire site is
considered suitable habitat and is considered occupied by the species.
Residential use of open spaces by migrants is not considered an authorized use, and thmfore,
replacement of unauthorized housing does not require an environmental analysis per CEQA. NO
unmitigated significant environmental impacts to agricultural uses on Robertson Ranch have been
identified as a result of implementation of .the proposed project. Although not a CEQA issue, it
should be noted that the City of Carlsbad is a regional leader in this area through support of the
City’s migrant Hiring Center and Posada de Guadalupe migrant housing shelter. It should also be
noted that migrant inhabitants in open space areas often create. habitat degradation.
9.
10.
11.
12.
--.I- - .- 1 - . . . , , . ___ .. . ... . ,_ ._ .. . " - . ___-..I ,..I ._I - .- . .- ...- . __ _" ._ - .... __ . -
The DEIR failed to address drainage issues on Village H and did not identify the scvcrc
erosion and run-off problems on he eastem hillside in the Crest neighborhood above the Village H canyon.
In the event that the Community Facility is a Day Care Center (as suggested, but not specified) the DEIR failed to examine many potential sources of conflict and hazards between Village H park and trail users and Day Care Facility usm. AS the park is generally most visited during
the early morning and the late aftmoondearly evenings, before people leave for work and return home from work, the DEIR failed to recognize the possibilities of parking and traffic conflicts with parents arriving at the same time to drop off or pick up their children. The DEIR also failed to address any potential hazards of pcople coming into this area to give their dogs a morning or late aftmoodearly evening walk while children areen route from cars to the Day Care Facility. One small incident between a dog and a child could close down the park area to the general public for good. That would be a tremendous loss to the community and needs to be addressed.
Since the DER failed to recognize the great social, cultural, and biological significance of the existing land uses of Village H, and its precarious location in terms of mffic and potentially great trafic hazards, no mitigation was proposed for the loss of Village Hs multiple purposes. This needs to be addressed and rectified.
Villages U. W, Y, and X The DER failed to recognize the significant role these villages currently play as an important wildlife comdor link from the CNP and how the significance of this area as a wildlife corridor has incrcascd in the past year and a half due to the severe and negative biological impacts on Village K from the surrounding Phase I developments (Le. The Cliffs, Barrington, College Blvd., Capistrano, Sheffield, and Nantucket neighborhoods.)
The DEIR failed to identify Vlllage U as a particularly dense and high quality multiple spccies habitat, nor did it identify Village U as a gnat-catcher habitat.
The DEIR failed to identify migrant workers inhabiting Village W and parts of VlUage X Nor were any mitigation measures proposed to find new homes for farm workers who will be displaced by any development of these areas.
T-13 The DEIR failed to recognize any incompatibility of land usage by developing I40 residential homes on Village X directly adjacent to an existing, operational farm, and an additional 280 plus residential units (in Villages Y, W, and U) in close proximity to this fm. If failed to address the impact the residents of these Villages would have on farm activities and hctions
or recommend any mitigation measures.
V111age R T-14 The DEIR failed to address the impact Village R's close proximity to Lake Calavera would have on recreational hiking trails surrounding the lake.
College Blvd T-15 Adequate justification for building College Blvd. was not provided in this DEIR. It would appear to be an old circulation element based on old and outdated development plans. How College Blvd. would function as an artery in a regional circulation system was not adequately
'
I
Letters of Comment and Responses
13. The EIR discusses the potential for the proposed extension of College Boulevard and Cannon
Road to restrict required access to existing agricultural operations on the ongoing agricultural
operations (e.g., Robertson Ranch). Mitigation measures arc proposed to ensure adequate access
for the property owners. Public access to this privately owned property is not provided. No
unmitigated significant impacts to agricultural use have been identified as a result of
implementation of the proposed project. In addition, topographic features and natural habitat areas
currently provide a buffer between existing (albeit interim) agricultural uses on the Robertson
Ranch and the proposed development areas within Villages X and W. In addition, existing
residential uses are directly adjacent to successful agricultural operations. Agricultural use is not a
permanent use on the Robertson Ranch and the property owners arc initiating planning efforts that
would replace the agricultural use with either existing or amended General Plan land uses.
The four units proposed for Village R adjacent to the existing Village T at the end of existing
Gorge Road would not affect recreational hiking trials around Lake Calavera.
14.
1 5. See next page.
4
T-16
T-17
T-18
00 h) T-19
T-20
addressed and explained. No adquate explanation was provided for constructing a high-speed
4-lane highway directly adjacent to no less than 6 existing or proposed midential communities: (Villages D, E-1, U, Y, W, and X.), vulnerable farmland, and biologically
sensitive areas.
The DER failed 6 examine and explain why the insequicious access routes of Cdsbad Village Dr. and Tamarack Ave. from College Blvd. failed to provide adequate circulation through the nma. It also failed to prow any modified alternatives to a four-lane highway College Blvd (such as a 2 lane road, drastic speed restrictions, or truck restrictions.) Such alternatives would be more appropriate through residential neighborhoods and lessen the impacts of noise levels that exceed the City's 60 CNEL exterior standard or would duce the need for costly and quality-of-life reducing mitigation measures such as sound walls homes with closed air circulation systems and deed rcshictions.
'Ihe d some of the regional traffic problems in this area- the need for an adequate interchange to be built at 1-5 and Highway 78- was not examined or addressed in this Em.
One might suspcct the real motive for pushme College Blvd. through this am might be to create an infrastruahlrc to support fuMe growth in Calavcra and adjacent areas that wcrc not discussed in this EIR. One might also question whether the densities of Villages of Villages U, Y. W, and X were increased to help fund this road as the relocation of these densities from Village K do not make sense from a either a biological resource point of view nor the any
other perspective.
College Blvd (and Cannon Rd reach 4) could potentially suffer the same fate as Somnto Valley Rd @ctwccn Carmel Valley and Sorrmto Valley) and be shut down in the near fuhm due to its impact on a biologically sawitive environment if they arc forced through at this time
without &equate proof that they arc really necessary.
B) LANDFORMFORM ALTERATIONMSIJAL QUALITY
In the summary of the Envimnmental E&ets for Landform AlterationNisual Quality of the proposed Project found to be significant, two environmental issues were raised. The first: "Would this project have a substantial ad- effect on a scenic vista. or subseantial~ damage scenic reso-, within a state scenic highway? Would the pmposcd project affect the visual quality and aesthetic chsracta of the area?"
Tlc Results of Impact Analysis states: 'The landform altaatidaesthdic impact ftom both
within Calavaa Hills and off-site areas (e.g., El Camino Real and Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park) from the southem villages would be considered a significant visual quality impact And lists 5 mitigation measures that arc supposed to render thesc impacts "less than significant".
The DEIR is utrcmdy vague, in this summary (p. S-9) of the "southern villages" and should
mention them specifically by their assigned letten (W, X, Y.?) It failf to mention specifically, that in addition to Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park, El Camino Real, The Colony (Villages A & B), The Cape (Village D), Capistrano (Village T) would also be impacted in
terms of yisual quality and that the development of these 3 villages would also have a scvm
Letters of Comment and Responses
15-17. It is City of Carlsbad policy to udate their traffic models, including land uses, Mic
18.
19.
20.
--. generation rates, and traffic improvements, every two or three years. The m&I utilized in the
subject analysis was updated in 2000. These models continue to demonstrate that there is a
significant need for completion of all arterial roadways within the City of Carlsbad or traffic
congestion will increase on existing roadways.
The Carlsbad Bridge and Thoroughfare Disbict No. 4 &fic study (DER Appendix C) includes Year 2020 average daily traffic volume (Table 8-2, page 8-6) and peak hour intersection MS
comparison (Table 8-3, page 8-16) with and without the construction of the project roadways.
The average daily traffic volume comparison indicates a decrease in future traffic volumes with the project roadways in place on segments of El Camino Real from SR-78 to College Boulevard,
on SR-78 from 1-5 to Escondido Avenue, and on 1-5 from SR-78 to Poinsettia Lane. These
potential reductions in volumes indicate regionally beneficial effects to future traffic operations
with project roadways in place.
Table 8-3 indicates improved MS in Year 2020 peak hours at the El Camino RdSR-78 odoff-
ramps with project roadways in place compared to the no project scenario. The College Boulevard
construction would provide an alternate parallel route for traffic using El Camino Real south of SR-78. No recommendation for improving the El Camino ReaVSR-78 was made since the
roadway projects do not degrade the LOS at the interchange.
College Boulevard constructed with two lanes instead of four lanes would not have adequate
roadway capacity to accommodate the projected traffic volumes. The City of Carlsbad Street
Design Criteria indicates that a two-lane roadway would have a design average daily traffic
volume capability of 10,OOO ADT, while projected volumes along College Boulevard range from
22,000 to 24,000 ADT between Carlsbad Village Drive and El Camino Real.
There is no connection with the roadway funding through the formation of a Bridge and Thoroughfare District and the density modifications associated with Phase II of the Master Plan.
As noted throughout the draft EJR, the density modifications were a direct result of negotiations with the resource agencies, the project applicant, and the City of Carlsbad.
The impacts associated with College Boulevard and Cannon Road would be mitigated as disclosed
in the EIR through a combination of on- and off-site habitat preservation. In addition, the project
is also required to obtain permits from the resource agencies prior to the issuance of a gradmg
permit by the city of Carlsbad.
Acknowledging the physical development and related visual impacts associated with building out
the Phase II villages is a basic consequence of residing in a master planned community. Any of the development noted could be considered significant if the areas were designated as open spacc
or canied a "preserve" status. Subject to compliance with the applicable City ordinances and Master Plan criteria, visual impacts of Phase II development will be less than significant. The
proposed Phase II development project would implement the Master Landscape Concept Plan and
conform to grading requirements contained in the Calavera Hills Master Plan (as amended).
Implementation avoids or reduces landform alteratiodvisual quality impacts for already developed
residential areas within the Calavera Hills Master Plan boundary and to off-site neighborhoods
within the viewshed, to a less than significant level.
... .
r -- . , .-
negative impact the on the scenic vistas from Oceanside neighborhoods such as Ocean Hills. The Ridge, Spinnaker Ridge, Ocean Terrace, and Ocean Hills Country Club as well as from the scenic vistas from Calavera Mountain and the Calavera Nature Preserve (the current scenic views being the main reason people climb this mountain and hike or bike in this preserve and one of the most valuable things about them.)
The DEIR failed to recognize that any significant visual quality impacts would result from the proposed development of any other the other Villages (U, E-I, H. K. L-2, and R) ln the case of Village H, the DEIR failed to mention in "the Views of the Project Site" on p.43 that residents in the Crest (Village G) with views of the beautiful scenic Village H canyon will be visually impacted. It also fails to mention that views of Village H can be seen from Carlsbad Village Drive, Tamarack Ave., and Edinburgh Rd. This section also fails to mention that Residents in the Cliffs (Village?), The Trails (Village ?), Barrington (Village?), and Nantucket (Village?) as well as views from the roads Carlsbad Village Drive, Tamarack Ave., Glasgow Rd. and Edinburgh Rd. will be impacted in Calavera Hills. And that the Oceanside neighborhoods of Ocean Hills, The Ridge, Spinnaker Ridge, Ocean Terrace, Ocean Hills Counay Club, and some of the homes on Lake Blvd. will suffer from adverse scenic impacts.
On p. 64, under the category of "Visual Quality," the DEIR states that the proposed project "would be visible from many vantage points within the existing Calavera Hills, and would alter the existing aesthetic characteristics of those viewsheds." Although 9 neighborhoods are listed as being in view of the proposed developments, the DEIR fails to mention that the Cliffs, the Trails, Nantucket, and the Oceanside neighborhoods of Ocean Hills, The Ridge, Spinnaker Ridge, Ocean Tnrace, Ocean Hills Country Club, and some of the homes on Lakc Blvd. would also be impacted. In addition, views of Village H from Tamarack Ave., Edinburgh Rd, and Carlsbad Village Drive that currently provide aesthetic relief to anyone who drives, walks, jogs, or bikes on these roads will also be impacted.
Also on p.64, the DEIR states that "from most vantage points only a limited number of pnvates residences will be affected by the landform alteration and ultimate residential development of the site." Since the DEIR failed to include a complete count of every neighborhood and every home that will have views impacted from the proposed development, not to every resident who drives, walks, bikes, hikes, or jogs through the proposed areas of development the DEIR failed to recognize that the cumulative visual quality impact to the entire area is extremely significant.
The mitigation measures listed in this DEIR to rectify the loss of the many breathtaking scaric vistas in Calavera Hills and surrounding areas and communities are appallingly inadequate. The mitigation measures primarily take into account only the proposed development of Villages X, Y, and W and from only a few of the viewing ranges of these villages. The EIR failed to cite specific mitigation measures were proposed for general aesthetic degradation and the loss of scenic views for the other Villages (U, E-I. H, K, R, and L-2)
In general, the mitigation measures listed are insufficient to remedy the loss of viewing (and experiencing on all levels) unspoiled nature as opposed to viewing (and experiencing) high- density suburban development. No mitigation measure listed here could compensate a homeowner who paid a premium price for a home with a gorgeous scenic view in a quiet
T-21
~-22
T-23
T-24
setting.
Letters of Comment and Responses
21. Representative views from the nearest (and potentially most affected) neighborhoods are depicted
in the EIR. As shown, views would change but would not obstruct long-distance views. Project
implementation would not result in a significant visual impact. These less than significant impacts
would be further reduced with distance. As discussed in the EIR, impacts to other off-site
neighborhoods would not be considered significant due lo site distance and topographic features
separating the receptors from the proposed development.
The visual analysis included in the EIR discusses the impacts to scenic views consistent with the
requirements of the adopted land use plan and considers views from significant ridgelines and road
segments, neighborhoods, and parks. Areas where there was a potential for impact were selected
for additional discussion in the EIR. These include Carlsbad Village Drive, existing single-family
homes west of Village H, the Calavera Hills Community Park, the Cape (Village D)
neighborhood, the Capistrano (Village T) neighborhood, the Colony (Villages A and B)
neighborhood, and more distant views from the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park, existing
Cannon Road, and College Boulevard (see Chapter 3.B. Landform AlterationNisual Quality,
subsections 1.a and b, 2.a and b, 3, and photosimulationdfigures).
The discussion in Chapter 3.B.2.a Visual Quality indicates that landform alte.ration/visual impacts
to some residences within the Cape. neighborhood and off-site areas from development of the
southern villages would be considered a significant visual impact. In addition, changes to the mal
character of College Boulevard and Cannon Road and construction of noise walls along College
Boulevard at Villages U, W, X, and Y would also result in significant direct visual quality
impacts. Impacts to Villages H, K, L-2, E-I, and R were found not to be significant due to their
internal location and proximity to existing or developing residential development.
It should also be noted that premiums paid for views by existing homeowners do not contribute to
a significant impact under CEQA. Development of villages within the Phase I1 portion of the
Calavera Hills Master Plan has long been planned (see City of Carlsbad MP-150, EIR-230, and
EIR 90-5). Homeowners must consider the approved land use and zoning of adjacent parcels and
should not assume that a presently undeveloped site will be retained in that condition unless the
adopted land use and zoning specifically designates the parcel as open space. Subsequent
development that conforms to the land use plan and zoning is therefore not considered a
significant impact per CEQA.
22.
23. See response 22 above.
24. See response 22 above. In addition, the draft EIR does prescribe mitigation measures for direct
landform alteration/visual quality impacts including as described in Chapter 3.B. Cumulative
visual quality impacts are considered significant and unmitigable.
6
I ”. ? c
00 P
Letters of Comment and Responses
At mod, the mitigation measures that werc listed measures of slope contour grading,
implementing the Master Plan’s landscaping requirements. implementing transitional landscape plantings, and implementing the Master Plan’s design guidelines for noise walls will have the most minimal of effects in helping to reduce significant advene visual impacts to some of the most beautiful mining untouched areas in Carlsbad. (specifically, Villages, W,
X, Y, H. and U.) Greet cam should be &ken to pmrvc theses scenic mas and the foot trails on them as a community and regional treasure for generations to come.
The Alternatives to the Proposed Project in this DEIR failed to address this proposed project from the pcrqcdive of Landform AlterationNisual Impact. T-25
An alternative to the F’ropod Project that this DER failed to consider is the possibility of reverting to the original plans for Village K and build most of the high-density, low-cost housing units there where the Landform Alterations, grading, and overall Visual Impacts would be less severe. An envinmmcntally superior wildlife corridor than the seriously flawed and &graded one that is currently pmposed through Village K could be re-routed to the swth from the Calavm Nature hscrvc. The altanative wildlife conidor would continue through the difficult to Villages W, X, and Y, through the biologically varied and dive open space that clllTcntly runs between The Colony (Village A & B) and the Cape (Village D.) The Corridor would continue across Glasgow and Tamarack (where a wildlife tunnel is currently in place) and NII through the entire length of Village H and continue to link to Core Arca 2 as well as westward through bin Park (which also links north-south through the canyon crossing Larwin Park with the Power easement. From a Land AltcrationNisual Impact, Land
Usc, and Biological pmpcctive, this would enable the natural topographies, visual beauty. and superia tracts of nahaal vegetation (than currently exist in Village K). It would enable original topsoil and vegetation and multiple species habitat to remain intact in its original, unspoiled state. In addition, re-muting the proposed wildlife corridor on from the south side of the CNP would create a natursl Mer betwccn residential neighborhoods and the Robertson Ranch. This would dwmse the adverse impacts that would result fiom having residential neighborhoods slammed up against the boundaries of agricultural land.
This DEIR acknowledges Significant Irreversible Changes on p. 348 that are othedse described throughout this DER as “less than significant.” Hm, on page 348, it states, “the pmposcd project would transform the visual character of the villages fiom an BM characterized by rolling hills and natural vegetation to an em of residential development and roadways.” Howevcr, the DEIR failed to include a separate section analyzing the cxtcnt to which the aoposed project will commit some of thesc nonrenewable resources to uses which
future generations will probably be unable to revme.
The DER also $ils to idcntify and analyze these significant irreversible changes from both
the project’s primary and secondary effects. Although the DEIR identifier the impact as a tnmfotuutim of he cmt rural and natural visual chanctn of this uta to mac unnmctivc suburban sprawl and roadways, it fails to include an analysis of this impact on either Calavap Hills, the City of Carlsbad. or the entire region. The DEIR Lils to mention that this area is the last remaining substantial area of natural habitat open space in Calavna, one of the few remaining such areas in the entire City of Carlsbad, and one of the few remaining such
arcas for this entire region. It also fails to identify any of the secondary impacts. These wwld include creating easy access to currently difficult to access areas of natural habitation and easy access to Robertson Ranch farmland. Other secondary considerations would include lack of considemtion hat over 400 highdensity housing units, with little or no private yards, will be
“-26
“-27
~-28
25. The draft ElR does include an environmentally superior alternative that would eliminate
development of Village U and reduce the landform alteratiodvisual quality impacts associated
with the proposed project.
The EIR Project Description (Chapter 2) discusses an agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and California Department of Fish and Game that provides for preservation of a majority
of the centrally located Village K as permanent conserved Open space habitat. The prcscrvation
agreement results in the formation of a habitat corridor link through the middle of the Master Plan
and is required as mitigation for unavoidable potential impacts to the coastal California
gnatcatcher. Further consideration of an alternative to develop Village K with high density
housing would not meet the requirements of CEQA to avoid or substantially reduce impacts to this
sensitive species to below a level of significance, nor would it conform to the 1998 agnwnent
reached between the project proponent, City, and resource agencies. In addition, considantion of
Village K as a site for the affordable housing is described in the draft EIR (Chapter 4. subheading 2, Affordable Housing Alternative Locations).
The draft EIR addresses significant and irreversible environmental effects (Chapter 7). including
the consumption of nahval resources such as energy and building materials and the transformation
of open space to urban development. These impacts arc significant and irreversible pursuant to the
CEQA Guidelines.
The draft EIR addresses the change in visual character in greater detail in Landform Alteration and
Visual Quality (3.B.) and concludes that the cumulative loss of open space ass0ciated with the
proposed project and other pjcct represents a significant aesthetic impact. The cormnents
regarding natural habitat and open space are noted, however, the project is consistent with the City
of Carlsbad‘s HMP. It is important to note that the “preserve” designation of the 110-acre
Calavera Nature bserve (Village Z) differs from the other open space arcas within Calavera Hills
and other master planned communities in the city of Carlsbad The Calavera Nature Presnve
precludes any future development potential and was established without any expenditure of public
monies and providea for the short- and long-term management of this key corn habitat area.
The draft EIR addresees these issues in Land Use (3.A.) and Biological Resounx~ (3.0.). me
proposed Master Plan (as amended) would retain more open space than the adopted Master Plan
for Phase I1 of Calavera Hills. Also, see response 1-16. Public access to Robertson Ranch is not
provided by the proposed project, and there is no evidence that active farmland will adversely
impacted. .I
26.
27.
28.
.. . . .. -_ . .
backed up right against this farmland. Kids seeking a place to play, people looking for a place to walk their dogs or jog will inevitably start to trample the farmland.
B) TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
The DER failed to give a thorough and complete analysis of the public transportation available in Calavera Hills. This is an important as low-cost housing is part of the Calavera Hills Phase Il proposal and accessibility, availability, and frequency of public transportation is an important factor for many residents of low-cost housing. An adequate public mansportation should be in place before considering this level of population and density increase in Calavera Hills.
Please see reference to College Blvd. in the Land Usc section.
(Please note: Although we would have like to have addressed this issue in greata detail, we did not have sufficient time to do so.)
"-29
C) NOISE
-Village E-1: c 00 VI
T-30 The DEIR failed to address that there will be significant noise factors impacting any residential units built in this Village in addition to the high noise levels generated by proposed extension of College Blvd directly to the east of this Village. There will also be significant noise levels generated from CVD to the north, which will greatly increase once College Blvd. becomes a throughway for Highway 78. Directly to west across Glasgow, the noise generated from the future fue station will compound the existing noise generated by Calavera Park activities that often go on until past 9:30 p.m.
Please see reference to sound walls under College Blvd. in the Land Use section.
(Please note: Although we would have like to have addressed this issue in much greata detail, we did not have sufficient time to do so.)
E) AGRICULTURE:
The DEIR only posed one question in determining this project's impact on agriculture: Would the proposed project convert prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance to non-agriculhlral UM? A5 a result, the EIR addressed the apicultural impacts only from the point of view ofan analysis of soil types.
What this DEIR failed to address was the impact these proposed projects would have on the existing agricultural operation ofRobertson Ranch adjacent to the proposed build-outs of Villages X and W.
T-31
T-32 The DER failed to identify the presence of migrant workers living in the area, especially in Village W. In light of the recent savage beatings ofmigrant workers in Cannel Valley by a group of teenagers living in nearby developments, the issue of whether medium to high
8
Letters of Comment and Responses
29. North County Transit District (NCTD) presently operates bus service along Tamarack Avenue and
Carlsbad Village Drive within existing villages of Calavera Hills. They will be updating their
Calavera Hills routes with development of the proposed Calavera Hills Phase I1 project. Their
stated goal is to provide service in the locations most convenient for the most number of pple.
Although the exact ultimate routing for NCTD in the area is as yet undecided, this outstanding
variable is not considered an impact requiring CEQA review. The project applicant will work with
NCTD during the tentative mapping stage of the project to determine site-specific requirements at
these locations. The tentative map will be routed to NCTD for review.
As indicated on page 133 of the draft EIR, without mitigation future noise levels over Village E-1
are projected to exceed the City's 60 CNEL residential noise standard due to traffic on both
College Boulevard and Carlsbad Village Drive. This significant impact would be mitigated with
the construction of noise barriers along College Boulevard and Carlsbad Village Drive (see pages
166-167 of draft EIR). As noted in the draft EIR, any noise barriers over six feet in height must
comply with the design shown in Figure 3B-16.
Noise associated with the future fire station is intennittent and irregular and is not regulated by
ordinance. Because this is an emergency facility serving the community. the intermittent noise
levels associated with operation of the fire station are not considered significant. Noise associated
with activities in the park is intermittent and irregular as well, and, due to its changing nature.
cannot be. quantified. The existing Calavera Hills Community Park is considered a compatible use
within a residential area and noise associated with activities in the park are not regulated by
ordinance. No significant impacts are anticipated. The proposed Master Plan would
incrementally shift densities and refine the alignments of College Boulevard and Cannon Road.
However, overall, the proposed Phase II buildout of the Calavera Hills Master Plan is generally
consistent with the adopted Master Plan land uses and roadway patterns and environmental
impacts anticipated for the Master Plan.
30.
31. See response 13 above regarding impacts on agricultural operations. The draft EIR discusses
indirect effects on agricultural operations in Chapter 3.E.
Residential use of privately owned open spaces by migrants is not considered an authorized use,
and therefore, a compatibility analysis with unauthorized uses is not required under CEQA. (It
should be noted that the City of Carlshad has various facilities and programs to address migrant
worker needs, such as Posada de Guadalupe and a hiring center.) Agricultural operations within
Carlsbad are considered a temporary use. inasmuch as the Carlsbad General Plan does not
designate any areas for permanent agncultural operations. Since the proposed residential
developments are designed with buffers between the development and the Robertson Ranch
agricultural operations, they are considered compatible with these temporary operations. No
significant impacts to Robertson Ranch agricultural use have been identified. In addition,
displacement of workers is not a CEQA issue.
32.
Letters of Comment and Responses
T-33
T-34
T-35
T-36
T-37
T-38
density developments should be in such close proximity to an agricultural operation needs to
be questioned and the safety of these workers needs to be addressed. Agricultural operations depend on migrant workers to operate cost effectively. If villages W, X, and Y are developed,
these migrant workers will be forced to relocate into more open areas, making them even more vulnerable to the type of attack that occurred in Camel Valley. The migrant worken’ other
alternatives would be to relocate into biologically protected areas or to rapidly disappearing open areas far firom Robertson’s Ranch. Either way, the impact to Robertson’s Ranch or MY future agricultural operations on the Robertson’s Ranch property will be significant to the
ability for an agricultural operation to continue to function successfully in that location.
This DEIR failed give an accurate description of all the current agricultural operations at Robntson’s Ranch and describe their compatibility with residential neighborhoods at such close proximity. It also failed to address the use of pesticides on Robertson’s that cwld potentially pose a health hazard to children, pets, and residents living in Village X and W, who would be in the direct breezeway of these pesticides. The DEIR also did not identify the presence of apiaries on Robertson’s Ranch, directly south of Villages X & W, which could also pose a potential hazard to children playing in the area.
If the recent experiences of building residential homes near McClellum Airport have taught us anything, it is that existing business options (which Roberton’s Ranch is) should be closcly examined and analyzed for compatibility with future homes. It is not fair to an existing and established operation to have to modify or cease to perform certain functions key to their success when residents from new homes, that should have never been built on such locations in the first place, begin to complain. Better planning and prevention will save hundreds of hours in public hearings and City Council meetings and band-aide mitigation measures after the fact.
This DER failed to address the impact College Blvd. would have on the operations at Robertson’s farm. It also failed to recognize that the sanctity of this currently protected area would be greatly disturbed by the easy access to an otherwise inaccessible area.
This DEIR failed to address or provide mitigation for the impacts of run-off from grading and construction on the soil types of Robertson, which could potentially greatly disturb this agricultural operution.
This DEIR failed to address whether the Robertson Ranch is zoned permanently for agricultural use exclusively. It also failed to address if future development plans for the Robertson’s Ranch property are already in existence and if so, reveal what these plans might be so it could be determined if they might be compatible with surrounding development and proposed infrastructure.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Robertson’s farm is of great historical and cultural significance to the Calavcra Hills community. Ifprovides greatly needed visual and aesthetic relief from the ever-encroaching sprawl and development in the surrounding areas. It IS also of educational significance to local children. Walking and biking the trails surrounding Robertson’s provides relief from the ever- increasing shss in all our lives and for restwing a sense of balance and hanquility. Great cm should be taken to protect this precious Carlsbad resource from the negative impacts of poorly planned development. Alternative plans of creating wildlife corridors, trail systems and open
33. As indicated in the draft EIR (3.E.), the agricultural fields on Robertson Ranch are primarily used
for tomato production. In addition, the EIR addresses the effects of the proposed Calavera Hills
Master Plan Phase 11 development on the surrounding environment. Topographic features and
natural habitat areas currently provide a buffer between existing (albeit interim) agricultural uses
on the Robinson Ranch and the proposed development areas within Villages X and W, whereas
elsewhere on the “Ranch,” existing Calavera Hills residential uses and the Rancho Carlsbad
Mobile Home Park are directly adjacent to successful agricultural operations. Adverse impacts to
future residents would also not be anticipated.
See response 33 above. In addition, agricultural use is not a permanent use on the Robertson
Ranch and the property owners are initiating planning efforts that would replace the agricultural
use with either existing or amended General Plan land uses. Existing agricultural operations on the
Robertson Ranch project would not preclude implementation of General Pldaster Plan land
uses on adjacent properties.
The draft EIR in Chapter 3.E. addresses the agricultural access impacts and mitigation
requirements associated with the extension of College Boulevard.
The draft EIR (3.J.) addresses runoff and water quality impacts from grading and construction and
includes mitigation to reduce these impacts below a level of significance. Although the mitigation
measures are not specifically targeted to Robertson Ranch. they will be applied on a project-wide
basis so as to ensure the minimization of any potentially significant impacts to all adjacent lands,
including the soils of Robertson Ranch.
As noted in above in response 13, agricultural use is not a pennanent use on the Robertson Ranch
property and the property owners are initiating planning efforts that would replace the agricultural
use with either existing or amended General Plan land uses.
These recommendations regarding the desire to retain the Robertson farm as open space are
acknowledged. However, as noted above in response 13. planning efforts have been initiated for
the Robertson Ranch property. At the time site designs are proposed for the property. the ability
to develop perimeter trails connected to open space would be evaluated by the City of Carlsbad.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
9
. ~ -. ~.. . .”. . , .-. . . .
space parks in Villages W, X, and Y should be seriously considered to provide a buffer zone between residential and/or commercial development with this current farm operation.
(Please note: Although we would have like to have addressed this issue in greater detail, we did not have suffcient time to do so.)
F) PUBLIC FACILITIES:
-This DER claims that Zone 7, which encompasses Calavera Hills, “has been determined to have a surplus supply of parks throughout anticipated buildout of the Zone, based on current City policy which recognizes future Win Park as funded within the next five years ... The projected park demand park demand for maximum development of the balance (Phase 11) of
Zone 7 is 5.43 acres, utilizing a projected Phase I1 population of 1,820.’’ @. 197) On p.190 it states, “the projected park demand for Zone 7 throughout the buildout of the zone is 9.84 acres in the year 2004, using a projected population of 3,282. A surplus supply of parks is expected throughout anticipated buildout of the Zone.” This is based on the “performance standard of 3
acres of parkland per 1000 population” (cited on p.204)
The projected Zone 7 population of 3282 contradicts the claim on p. 196 under City Administrative Facilities that states: “The 1989 Zone 7 LFMP projected a total buildout population of 5.765 persons. The proposed project reports a total of 6004 persons or 239 more
T-39
3 ’p c than the 1989 analysis.’’ This population information needs to be consistent in order to determine if the proper calculations on Park Smce. ca a
T-40 The DEIR failed to give the size in acreage of each of the existing parks and the specific facilities they each contain (i.e. basketball courts, playing fields, swimming pools, tennis courts, etc.) It also failed to specify the exact acreage and the specific facilities that each of future proposed parks would contain.
”-41 The DEIR also failed discuss the amount of parking spaces each of these proposed new parks would be able to provide and that if the acreage for parking spaces would be included in the total acreage of the park facility.
The DER failed to address the overwhelming public outcry in the scope comments of the present inadequacy of Calavera Hills park in terms of facilities and especially in terms of severely inadequate parking spaces and the nuisance that is creating on the surrounding residential streets.
The DER also failed to recognize the fact that Calavem Hills is currently being accessed and
often ovm by non-Carlsbad residents. It failed to recognize that Calavera Park is currently serving as a reaional park, which therefore nullifies its performance standard as 3 acres of parkland for 1000 population. It also failed to address the further impact that opening College Blvd. from the 78 will have on amplifying this problem of non-residential usage of this park It also did not take into account the impact that opening College Blvd. from the 78 will have on the other existing park spaces and future development of hin Park.
The DER did not address the issue raised in the public scope comments for more open space parks. It did not address the need for open ares for walking, jogging, biking, and equestrian trails. It did not address the need for open areas where children can enjoy %on-shctured”
T-42
T-43
~-44
i
to
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
Letters of Comment and Responses
The reference to 6,004 population in Chapter 4.F. (Public Services, Parks) is a typographical error. The coiTect number is 5,562. which is 203 persons less than the 5,765 population projected in the
1989 analysis. This is based upon an assumed 2.3178 persons per household ratio. The project would comply with the City of Carlsbad park requirements. The final EIR has been revised to reflect this change.
The discussion in the EIR regarding parks and park impacts is considered adequate. The need to discuss specific information regarding size in acreage of existing parks and specific facilities they contain is not required. Rather, it is sufficient to determine that the facilities qualify as community parks pursuant to City of Carlsbad policies and standards. In addition, a thorough analysis of Park District 2 (including Zone 7) park facilities’ adequacy is included in the referenced Zone 7 LFh4P document. which is referenced in the draft EIR.
The numher of parking spaces included in an existing park is not considered an environmental issue to be discussed in an EIR. Issues relating to the use or operation of Calavera Community Park need to be directed to the Parks and Recreation Division of the City. New parks must comply with City standards for design, including parking requirements. Furthermore, as stated in the ETR, ‘‘a yearly finding of park supply adequacy must be made by the City of Carlsbad or building permits will not be issued until the shortfall is satisfied.” The project developer must comply with existing requirements for the construction of parkland.
As discussed in the EIR, the City of Carlsbad adopted a Growth Management Ordinance in 1986 that directs urban development within the city. Adoption of the Gmwth Management Ordinance resulted in the establishment of Local Facilities Management Plan Zone 7 which encompasses the Calavera Hills Master Plan area (see EIR Figure 3F-1). The environmental effect of an additional
239 residents more than projected for the Zone 7 buildout population on available parkland would not result in a statistically significant increase and would not be considered a significant adverse effect to parks given that a projected park surplus is expected. Furthermore, an earlier miscalcu- lation of the projected population has been corrected to show that the decrease of 203 in popu- lation will result from the proposed project projections. The LFMP has been modified to reflect these new numbers as compared to levels anticipated in the 1989 analysis. See also response T-41.
The Park Department oversees more than 286 acres of park facilities, school athletic fields, beach accesses, and landscaping at various city facilities. This includes eight community parks (including the Calavera Hills Community Park) and 26 special use areas Regional parkland needs are addressed in the City General Plan and zoning which designates locations for regional park facilities. In addition, the project site is within Park District 2 and the approved supply/demand projections through buildout of the Calavera Hills project indicate that there will be a park acreage surpius through 2005.
The project is consistent with the City General Plan park requirements and buildout of the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase I1 would not result in a significant impact to the City’s parks.
The issue of use of Calavera Hills Community Park and other parks by non-Carlsbad residents and the continued applicahility of the three acres per 1,OOO population is a policy issue to be addressed by the Carlsbad City Council. As long as this ratio is the adopted City policy, the EIR must analyze park adequacy of the proposed Calavera Hills Phase I1 project relative to this ratio.
Based on the standards established by the City of Carlsbad and the projected funding of Larwin Park, Zone 7 (of which the project area is part) has been determined to have a surplus supply of parks throughout anticipated buildout. The draft ETR is required to analyze impacts to parks based on established standards. Citizen demand for parks and other open areas beyond what is required by the City or other governing agency does not represent a significant environmental impact and is therefore not addressed in the draft EIR.
Letters of Comment and Responses
recreation to help develop their imaginations and have the opportunity to commune with nature It did not address the overwhelming need expressed in the scope comments for opm areas wherc residents can play with and socialize their dogs.
RECOMMENDATION
The number of public scope comments on the inadequate cumnt park situation in Calavem T-45 Hills suggests that the city needs to re-examine its current performance standard of 3 am per 1000 population. It also suggests that the question of adequate park space must be addressed from more of a regional perspective.
(Please note: Although we would have like to have addressed this issue in detail and specifically address other Public Facilities, we did not have sufficient time to do so.)
G) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
The DER failed to provide a thorough study of the Calavaa Hills Phase I biological impacts I impacts which should be in place before proceeding with Phase II.
Please see reference to the proposed alternate wildlife corridor in the Landform AlterntloaNisnal Impact section.
(Please note: Although we would have like to have addressed this issue in greater detail, we did not have sufficient time to do so.)
T-46
45. The recommendations are acknowledged. See responses 43 and 44 above.
46. The proposed project includes three components, one of which is the Calavera Hills Master Plan
Phase 11. Impact analysis is therefore based on the proposed development in the Phasc II Villages.
Impacts resulting from development of Phase I (which is completed or under way) was addressed
in a prior environmental review (EIR-230 and EIR 90-5) and is not the subject of this draft EJR.
In addition, the biological impacts associated with Phase I were mitigated in 1993 with the
establishment of the Calavera Nature Preserve (see Appendix 0 of draft EIR), which is now
shown as Village Z and included as part of the Calavera Hills Master Plan.
A) ARcHAEoLoGY/cuLTmAL RESOURCES:
(Please note: Although we would have like to have addressed this issuel, we did not have sufficient time to C so.)
I) PALEONTOLOGY
(Please note: Although we would have like to have addressed this issue, we did not have sufficient time to do so.)
J)HYDROLOGY
(Please note: Although we would have like to have addressed this issuel, we did not have sufficient time to do so.)
WAIRQUALITY:
(Please note: Although we would have like to have addressed this issue, we did not have sufficient time to do so.)
L) GEOLOGY
(Please note: Although we would have like to have addressed this issue, we did not have sufficient time to do so.)
IV)
T-47
T-48
c 00 \o v)
T-49
T-50
vr)
T-51
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatives are referenced in all the above sections. Please take special notice of the alternative wildlife corridor referenced in the Land AlterationNisual Impact section. Rerouting the wildlife corridor through the biologically superior habitats of Villages U, W, Y, X and H. Reverting back to a variation on the onginal plans of increased density in Villages K, E-I, and L-2 would substantially reduce the impacts of: Landform Alteration from reduced blasting, grading; visual impact (by keeping open undisturbed areas); noise (reduce the need for voluntary and mandatory sound walls, closed air circulation systems, deed
restrictions on homes,); traffic circulation (homes in Villages: K, E-I, and L-2 are already surrounded by College Blvd., CVD, and Glasgow with existmg infrastructure and better access to public transportation); and biological resources (construction would be done on already prepared or disturbed land rather than destroying undisturbed, high quality multiple species habitat that currently exists in Villages: U, W, X, Y, and H leaving open a higher quality wildlife corridor than that which currently runs through Village K,)
Quality of life for both new and existing residents would be improved by keeping larger arms of open space and scenic trails to the south of CVD in Villages U, W, Y, H, and X available for walking, jogging, biking, and as well as a multiple species habitat.
(Please note: Although we would have like to have addressed this issue in detail and presented
a greater number of alternatives, we did not have sufficient time to do so.)
EFFECT3 FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT:
The DEIR failed to address scope comment requests that *’the city should approach SDG&E and the PUC or seck state legislation that would rquire SDG&E to underground their power lines when they approach and run through city set aside habitat areas.. .” (Tom & Joan Flanagan 9/29/99)
The DEIR also failed to cite any EMF hazard information or studies more recent than 1993. Since no evidence was provided that guarantee EMFs are 100% safe and guarantee no potential health hazard. at the very least, the most recent information and studies should have been provided.
(Please note: Although we would have like to have addressed this issue in greater detail, we did not have sufficient time to do so.)
FINAL RECOMMENDATION
AAer review of this document, we believe that this project does not represent the best possible planning and land use for both current and future Calavera Hills residents, the surrounding communities in the region, and the MSHP. We believe that many significant factors were not addressed adequately or at all. The DEIR also failed to reference any fies, penalties, or other punitive measures that the developer or City would incur for failing to implement, implement correctly, and/or monitor all recommended mitigation measures.
Letters of Comment and Responses
47. These recommendations regarding project alternatives are acknowledged. However, the
referenced “alternative wildlife corridor” noted in this comment would not be. consistent with the
proposed project’s open space systedwildlife corridor that has been conceptually agreed to by the
resource agencies. The final EIR includes the 1999 letter from the USFWS that acknowledges the
project’s proposed open space system. As proposed, the resource agencies consider habitat
associated with Village K and the east-west linkage provided between biological core mas
superior to the suggested alternative corridor in this comment that would use Villages U, W, X.
and Y. In addition, the alternatives described in the draft EIR for both Calavera Hills Phase I1 and
the Bridge and Thoroughfare District represent a reasonable range of feasible alternatives for both
project components. It should also be noted that open space protection and delivery of needed
infrastructure do not come about without development. For example, the Calavera Nature
Preserve would never have been established without development. Therefore, without
development there would be no program for the acquisition and long-term preservation and
management of open space. Finally, the EIR discusses alternatives in compliance to CEQA and
also describes other alternatives that were previously considered but rejected during the planning
process. The proposed alternatives suggested in this comment fail to provide needed infrastructure
as anticipated (and demanded) for the region or violate City codes and policies for Master Plan
developments.
48. See response T-47 above.
49. The recommendation to underground existing SDG&E transmission lines to improve habitat
quality and aesthetic values is noted. However, such improvements are regional in nature and are
beyond the scope of this EIR. This recommendation is beyond the scope of the EIR and
represents a city-wide policy issue to be addressed by the City Council.
The conclusions presented in the draft EIR regarding EMF have not changed in recent years. The
most recent literature evaluating EMF was published by the National Research Council in 1997
and concludes that the current body of evidence does not show that exposure presents a human
health hazard.
50.
5 1. The final EIR includes a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (h4MRP) that identifies
responsible parties, enforcement authority, and timing thresholds to ensure that all identified
mitigation measures are implemented and monitored pursuant to the requirements of the final EIR.
Each mitigation measure will be identified in the MMRP along with the timing and enforcement
responsibility. It is the City of Carlsbad’s role to implement the MMRP.
12
T-52 Ideally, a reviscd &new DER addressing all the issues that werc not adequately addressed and all any msonablc alternatives that wm not eonsidcred in this DEIR should be prepared for public review before pmcceding with any Calavm Hills Phase I1 or BTD no. 4 develop~k.
VII) AlTACEMENTS:
A) A Typlcd Day at Village H Park & Trail
B) Vtnage H - A Typical Day at the Park
C) Problems With the Existing WUdlife Corrldor
D) Some Visual Impacta Not Addressed La the DEIR
E) Vlcrpr tbht Cannot be Mitigated
F) Vim &at Cannot be Mitigated
G) Moses and the E.P.A.
I Letters of Comment and Responses
52.
I
The final EIR will be distributed to the City Council for certification, and the EIR presents a
reasonable range of alternatives for both the Master Plan and the Bridge and Thoroughfare
District. As noted in the final EIR, changes to the text of the final document have been made
disturbance based on tentative map applications). These modifications do not change the
conclusions presented in the draft EIR. The revisions to the final EIR are intended to comet
minor discrepancies and provide additional clarification. The revisions do not constitute
significant changes to the project or environmental setting, no new significant environmental
effects have been Identified for the project, and the severity of environmental impacts would not
be increased.
1 I
I based on the responses to comments and refinements in the project (i.e., reductions in the area of .
13
'.
u-1
u-2
u-3
u-4
LETTER U
April 2,2001
Mr. Eric Munw. Project Manner
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1635 Faraday Awmc
Carlubad. CA 92008
Re. DraR Environmental Kcport Calavcn llills Muster Plan Phw II
Rridgc & ThoroughTare Distrid No. 4 Detention Hasinr
!)ear Ilric
This letter is writtcn on behalf or the Robertson hmily to provide you with thcir
c;omments rqprdin8 the above-rcfcrcnccd Dran Environmental Repon. Our summary
CO-S thc rollowing subjea~:
Cannon hid Aliynmont
Collcgc Boulevard Alignment Delmtioin Hasin NJII Mitigation Requirements and lbcations
Park Kequircmcnts
won Road Alhnm~
What access will be provided frcim Cannon Road to those propcnia owned by the Robertson family which lis both mirth wd south of the proposed roadway:' And wbt will be the deqign ofthr access points, is hll intersection +?
Will the design of the acccss to the Robertson residence, a copy .of which has bccn providcd to the Rmily, he constructcd within the District and will it be included in its
costs?
Has financial consideration bccn &a to the lad prcpdes, portionr of which lie within thc propored right-of-way for Cannon Road?
Boulevard-
What acws will he provided fmm College Boulevard to thosc propedeg own& by thc
Kobcnson family which lic both enit and west of thc proposrd madway'? And what will
he the design ol'tbe =cess points. i.e. full intmion?
Letters of Comment and Responses
1. City policy dictates that continued access to ongoing agricultural operations will be provided
during and after construction of Cannon Road and College Boulevard. The length of Cannon
Road through Robertson Ranch is such that intersection access to both the north and south side of
the proposed roadway can be provided consistent with City intersection spacing guidelines. Exact
design of such intersections will be determined through future planning review of development
plans for the area.
It is anticipated that the design of access to the Robertson residence will be funded and constructed
through the Bridge and Thoroughfare District.
Financial consideration of leased properties is not considered a CEQA issue. Private property may
not be taken without compensation consistent with legal requirements.
Access will be provided to ongoing agricultural operations. Design and specific location of
intersections along the proposed roadways will be addressed through planning review of
development plans for the Robertson Ranch.
2.
3.
4.
u-5 Will the Robertnnn property which lics of thc plbpbaed alignment of Collsge Hwld bo provided with twu access points on tho dwny or. will the prupaty bo limited to the devclopmcnt eocutrninlu t)f the cukle-snc poll179
11~ finandial wn!idcretion been given to thc lcasod propedes. pofiionv of which llc within the pruposed rieht-of-wry Tor Collryc Bnulnrard? U-6
U-7 It u noted that Bnsin RJ will hnvc a storage volume or48 AF on 8 ncrw of Id while Dadn BJB requires I5 nc~s Cor 49 AI' Could you explain why the Robcrtrun p~lpcrty is losine an additional7 acres of land fw only I sdditiod acre faat.
U-8 Why hu thc Robutron propmy "immedintely nCmM of the mobile home pad? been
~~lected as e rcplaccnicnt rite for their RV parking requiremcM3 It qpem on the maps tht the mobile holm park hw nuficient land fnr thir uw en their propcnics which they would main afia Collcgo Boulevard is conatrucnrd.
u-9 'The kcport data &ut len lhan two acm of land currently king used for ngricultwe
purpnfiea will be affoncd by rhc Dorention Basin and the nudr We would nppmintc I
summation nfthis acrcrgc in that wc bclicve a hqer amount ofacreage ix affected
u-10 It ir dm noted in the Rqmti that the propused detention basins et the lntcmctioll of
Cdlg Boulcvud ud Canon Road would no^ interfere with the planned lend UYCJ in the vicinity It is cur understanding that thc location of Basin BJB 411 prsclude the
dcvclopment or any land uwd hy the Kobcrtron family louted cut of pmpolad
u-11 Cpment is mndc thnt thc atcu pmppcmed fiir the detentim bnnins at the inteocction of
College Boulevard and Cannon Word arc within thc floodplain of Calrvera Creek and its
cl~fm uibutuy. We were nut aware that thc crith 15 UCTC designated for Rayin RJR was cntimly within UIC floodplain.
Miha- tionr
We notcdthrt dl thrcc potentiif mitigation xitex frw impads hi wetlands and non-wctknd
juridictional warcrs arc located on he R&&titm Ranch Arc thcrr no 0th possiblc mki&m localionn within the ownenhips of IMdgc 8 Thorougbhre Dirtrict No. 4 that muld qualify?
Will the family bc ~~mpdnrted hr the torr ofthen lands and how will the det~inatioin of value bc mrrde?
One of the mensum rnuggested to mirlg*te inae**6d traffic ysnaatd by thc pmjax is the conrtruuion of College I3oulevd wth of Carinhad ViII~e Drive to Cnnnon Roul und a~nsmaion of Rmch 3 of Cannon Kcd linking Collcgc Boulcvllrd and El Clm1m K-I.
Colleye Hwlevard
i
!
Letters of Comment and Respom
5. These questions will be answered in conjbnction with proposals for development of the Robettson
Ranch property. Access will be accommodated in compliance with City standards for such &~ce8S
points.
6. Comment noted. See also response U-3 above. .
7. Basin BJ preliminary design includes sharply steeper sides and deeper ckpth. Therefore, more
water can be contained on less acreage. Basin BJB is a naturally flatter area and, therefore, results
in shallower retention amounts and a greater overall surface area.
One option indicated for replacement of the Rancho Cadsbad Mobile Home Park @CW)
recreational vehicle storage lot is on Robertson Ranch property immediately northwest of the
RCMHP. Other options are available east of the mobile homepnrk, just north of Basin BJ, and on
vacant RCMHP land. Utilization of Robertson Ranch acreage for RCMHP RV storage mitigation
would require compensation at fair market value, as would any acquisition of property for public
facility mitigation. Also, see response F-5. The resowe agencies must concur with whatevez
option is propod.
The draft EIR indicates, on page 183, that less than 3.5 acres of prime agricultural soils would be
affected by the proposed roadways and that construction of the detention basin would affect less
than two acres of prime agricultural land. A total of approximately 18.2 acres of agricultural lands
(including both prime and non-prime soils) will be affected by the roadways and detention basin
within Robertson Ranch, as follows:
8.
9.
. College Boulevard Reach B - 5.0 acres
Cannon Road Reach 3 - 10.8 acres
Detention Basin BIB - 2.4 acres
10. Installation of proposed Basin BJB will preclude the development of most types of development
within the area behind the basin dike, which would be inundated as a result of a 100-year flood
event.
Comment noted. Based on a hydrologic study prepared by Rick Engineering, the Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM) shows the 100-year floodplain within the BJB basin. The floodplain
delineation ends approximately 750 feet upstream of the point where the main embankment
crosses the low-flow channel. Studies have not been conducted to determine whether the
floodplain extends beyond the current FIRM mapping. However, the majority of the 3.7--
ponded area within Basin BIB will be within the mapped floodplain.
11.
,I
Letters of Comment and Responses
Will the Rohcn.wn property which lics east or the pmposed alignment of College
Houlcvard bc provided with two mess points on thc roadway or. will the property bo limited to the devclopmcnt mistrainis of the cul-de-sac policy?
I las financial consideration been given to the lcascd propenies. portions of which lic within the proposcd right-of-way ror (hlle~ Boulevard?
mn Banin RIB
It is noted that Rash BJ will hvc a storage volume of 48 AF on 8 acres (if land whilc Dash BJB requires I5 acres for 49 Al’. Could you explain why the Rohertwn prupcny it losing an additional7 acres of land for only 1 additional acre foot.
Why has thc Robcrtson propmy “immediately northwest of the mohilc home park” been
sclcctcd as a rcplaccnicnt sitc for their RV parking requirement? It appm on the maps that thc niobilc home park har sufficient land for this use on their pmpcnics which ihey wild retain aAcr Collcgc Boulevard is conxtrucqtd.
Thc Kcport statcs that lens than two acres of land currently beink uscd for agricultun purpnss will bc affccrcd by rhc Dolention Basin and the rtudn. We would apprwiatc a
wmnrafion ofthis aqc in rhat wc bclicvo a larger mount ofactrage is utfectcd.
It is also noted in the Repor~ that the proposed damtion basins at thc intcncction of
Collqe Boulcvard and Canon Road would not interfere with the planned land uses in the
vicinity. It ir our understanding that thc location of Dash DJD will preclude the dcvclopment of‘ any lwd owned hy the Kobcrtson family located us1 of propscd
College Houlevard
Comment is mdc that the amas prqxwed for the detention basins at the interscction of Colloge Boulevard and Cannon HoPd arc within thc floodplain of Calavera Creek and ita mcrn tributary. We were not aware that thc cnrim IS acrc area designated thr Ruin
AIR was cntimly within the Ibodplain.
Mitin- Loc*tiana
U-12 We noted that all thrcc potential mitigation sitex for impacts tri wrtlands and non-wctland jurisdictional warcrs arc located on the Rtheawn Ranch. Are them no other possible mitigation locations within the ownerships of llridgc & ‘I‘horoughfara Districi No. 4 that would qualify‘?
U-13 Will the family bc comp&saied for the loss ofrhese lands md how will the determination
of value bc made?
u-14 Onc of the measure suggested to mirigale incrcn. traftic yencrated hy thc proja is the construclion of Colleye 13oulcvard south of Carlshad Villaye Drive to Caiinon Road and construction of Rcach 3 olTunnon Road linkin8 Collcgc Doulcvard and El Camintr Kcal.
12. All three potential wetlands mitigation sites are proposed within property owned by Robertson
Ranch because a high percentage of the lowland arcus adjacent to the roadway and detention basin
wetlands impacts are on the Robertson Ranch. The federal and state agencies that permit wetlands
impact and approve wetlands mitigation strongly prefer that wetlands mitigation be provided
nearby the areu of impact. that it be viable as an expansion of existing wetland. and that it be of
accommodating soil characteristics. The subject alternative wetlands mitigation sites arc the only
areas that comply fully with these criteria.
13. Financial consideration of leased properties is not considered a CEQA issue. Private property may
not be taken without compensation consistent with legal requirements.
The Calavera Hills Phase n traffic study (DEJR Appendix B) includes a Year 2005 alternative
with College Boulevard Reaches C and B constructed to Cannon Road and Cannon Road Reach 3 constructed between College Boulevard and El Camino Real. The final EJR incorporates an
analysis of the option of College Boulevard Reach A in place of Cannon Road Reach 3
(Attachment to Appendix B, Traffic Report) and concludes that additional significant impacts
from connecting Reach A of College Boulevard to El Camino Real would not occur.
14.
..: .
I
Would anothw ahcmativo be the cnnntructitin of College Roulcvard smth of Crrlnhsd Village Drive to El Camino Kea19
u-15 Fm what WE haw bcon &I 10 determine mifl'idmt pdc I8ndsW-t &blm thmugh buildsul of the Mhaat gubdrmt of the city unless the mplircmcnU change. TMs beins the uy; wwld there ho no firturn nccd for parklands in Zone 147 And if them arcre. would they be a condition of entitlcmcnt or. becauw there i!, no deficiency, would he city be rrqukcd lo roqutr th lands?
cd Td c W P
Letters of Comment and Responses
15. As noted in the Project Description, Zone 14 is not affected by the project as the Calavera Hills
Master Plan and the LFMP affects Zone 7 and not Zone 14. Sufficient parkland exists for buildout
of the proposed project and Zone 7; however, buildout of the northeast quadrant Will #@n the
acquisition and construction of additional park(s). Zone 7 is only a part of the remaining
developable area in the northeast quadrant.
Future proposed residential development of Robertson Ranch will reqnire an analysis of park
facility adequacy and if community park facilitis are needed, they will have to be provided within
Zone 14 or at an acceptable site within another northcast quadrant zone.
Jams M. Hicks
Cc. Mr. & him. 1JW Robm*m Mr. Brian Robrrtwn
Mr. Gary Robarm
Mr. Hmry f (gut
Clty of Carlsbad Planning Department Attn: Erlc Munor
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad. CA 92008-7314
LETTER V
March 30, 2001
Via Fax 760-602-8559
Subject: Calavera Hllls (Phase I1 Draft E.I.R.)
Dear Erlc,
Thank you for your attentlon to our requests and concerns. I haven't written before, but would appreclate It If my thoughts are added to thls Issue before declslons are made that wlll change our communlty and our Ilfe.
I moved to Carlsbad In 1984, rlght where I am today, In Carisbad Heights. We chose to live here because It was so open and free. The hills weren't covered by rows of houses. The alr was fresh and the mood was of contentment.
This llttle patch of area Is all we have left. It's a small sllce of nature where people meet, kids play, dogs run, people run, woodpeckers peck, owls nest, hawks fly, coyotes live and much more. It's 8 plsce where I go wlth my dogs
to enloy them, to enjoy nature and to enjoy Ilfe. If you've had the occaslon to walk there you know how peaceful It Is. People need thls place to unwind, to
The best use choice for thls plece of land In my oplnlon Is as nature has given
It ..... It's perfect Just the wsy It Is. A day care center wlll create traffic from all dlrectlons, nolse, and concerned parents about natures' animals and peoples' dogs. A chlldcare faclllty brlngs cars speeding up and down the street
In the mornlngs and agaln In the evenlngr. We now have a small one on our street. The dlfference Is remarkable from before and now. Even wlth the proposed street wldenlng, any commerclal use In that area wlll change our communlty completely. The traffic on Victorla Is already too fast. Moving West on Carlsbad Vlllage Drive near that Intersection Is trlcky now, especlally If the sun Is setting. Wldenlng the streets wlll not change the path of the sun. Addlng any more cars to thut areu wlll surely cause accldents.
We need this area to be left as It is. It Is perfect now and serves us well.
v-l commune, to build friendships.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Letters of Comment and Responses
1. This comment opposing the proposed project is acknowledged. However, it should be noted that
prior to the 1993 Master Plan Amendment, the original Master Plan for Calavera Hills anticipated
higher residential densities, less community facilities, and less open space without wildlife
corridors and preserved lands. In addition, the baseline for development of Village H for up to 42
units was outlined in the adopted 1993 Master Plan for Calavera Hills. The currently proposed
land use for Village H (community facility) was developed in response to citizen input at the
public scoping meetings and does retain public access to the trail. The proposed use is not
considered a conflict with the surrounding land uses in the draft EIR and is not a significant
impact. Finally, Carlsbad Village Drive has been constructed in accordance with Carlsbad City
Street Design Standards. The segment between Tamarack Avenue and Victoria Avenue has a lane
reduction from two to one lane in the westbound direction. Additional enhanced delineation of this
lane transition is planned.
Pamela Hlldebrand 3605 Haverhlll St. Carlsbad, CA 92008
760-434-5336
, ‘I ! Jkrniw Hill
2984 Ridgefield Ave, Cadsbad, CA 9ux)8 MAR 15 2001
March 13,2001 .
wed the DEIR for the
rein we all enjoy the
by a Lovely natural
Village” exactly as vities at our nearby Community Center. All our shopping needs are within a mere tranl distance of time & convenience & see do need for any future commercial shopping center to add traffic congestion
hick parking at Calavera C
1-2.
3.
Letters of Comment and Responses
The original intent of the Master Plan was to provide commernial u8cs as noted in this comment.
Commercial use of Village E-1 is addressed in the draft EIR in the Project Alternatives section.
However, a commercial study recently approved by the City noted that this property along with
others in the city should be part of a combined group general plan amendment that redesignates
the property to residential use. The proposed residential use for Village E-1 in the draft EIR
reflects this modification. and the City Council will ultimately determine the land use for Village
E-1 when action is taken on the proposed Master Plan Amendment (MP-150-H).
Repeated incidents of hazardous or illegal double parking on Glasgow Drive should be reported to
the Carlsbad Police Department for parking enforcement. Parking adequacy at existing Calavera
Hills Community Park is a zoning compliance issue and not a CEQA issue. The City of Carlsbad
is aware of this issue and working on alternative methods of solving the problem. This issue is an
enforcement issue and not a CEQA issue. In addition, such issues could be addressed through the
City’s Park and Recreation Commission and their staff.
LETI'ER X
Letters of Comment and Responses
Jamas & Mmrilyn Hope
4558 cape cod circle
Carlobad, CA B22008-6649
March 15,2001
Mr. Erk Munoz Senior Planner City of Carlsbed Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue
COrhJbad, CA 92008 fax number: (780) 602-8550
via fax 8 US mail
RE: Calovora Hills Master Phase II 8 Village E-1 Draft Emrlmnmntal Impact Report (DEIR)
EIR -42 (Recon Number 3225E) dated February 02,2001
Dssr Mr. Mum:
After haV(hg rsviewed the Draft Environmental lmplld Report (DEIR) f6r Celavera Hllk Phase II by RECON dated February 02,2001, we have a few comments:
x-1
x-2
x-3
x-4
1. Agree nrlth the DEIR'r condusion that the proposed land u80 changes to Vlllage E-1 would reduce tramc drculation 8 air qualny impacts locally. It would also Improve land urn compatibility. nob Impacts and visual imp& as the result of eliminating the communlty commercial uses.
2. Agree with the DEIRs conclusion thpt the existing Von's Center commercia Project QD El Camino Real h Mamm Roed
3. Agree with the DEIRs condurlon on me PropOJed commercial pfojoct at tho 1OScre Sunny Creek Commercial Site @ El Camino Real 8 College Boulevard
4. Agree with the DEIRs conciusion on the pmpd Albertson's 4O-acre Commerdal sltn lmmadlately north of Calavera Hills @ College Boulevard i% Lake Boulevard in Wanaide
1
1-4. These comments concur with the conclusions in the drafi EIR and are acknowledged. The original
intent of the Master Plan was to provide commercial uses as noted in this comment. Commercial
use of Village E-1 is addressed in the draft EIR in the Project Alternatives section. However, a
commercial study recently approved by the City noted that this property along with several others
in the city should be part of a group general plan amendment that redesignates the property to
residential use. The proposed residential use for Village. E-1 in the draft F!R reflects this
modification, and the City Council will ultimately determine the land use for Village E-I when
action is taken on the proposed Master Plan Amendment (MP-150-H).
x-5 5. Agree nrith the DEIR's conduskn that the lack of adequate bdel bulM out papulation due to the brge open rpaos premrva to the east of- Village E-I trade am mld render Village E-1 InfMsible a8 a
commercial project,
Thin will provtde sumcknt camnsrcial cowage for msidenta of tho Calavera Hills am and would not result in lmpacb to OthM sites.
X-6 We also be+lieve that our eomunlty wn work with Willan to wk out the appmpriabs wuhd wall on village E-1 , College Bwlarard and village Y. In mgard8 tovlllage Y mquinwnents, I thlnkthe h&htIltnb nsed to beset at no mom than (2) two atones to maintain tho long acenic view the midents now have et the south end of the Cepe I@ Cahvera Hllls.
b&W. In fad, wlth the ball seam just Mddng in, this stmet will become hazard with all the 111egal parking. DrMng on Ohe+gow has become very dHnwlt
We do appredPte your efforts in vllhat you have done to Catisbad. 86 please try to keep our area safe bo.
Looking toward to wlMng with you and the City Planning Department when the plans for Phase II are submitted by McMlllan for review.
x-7 We mld like to montian hut Ihe parklng along Olasgow la not gating any
cc: Mr. Mlchsel HokmWef - Planning Director fax number: 602-8559
Mr. Dsnnk Turner - Senior City Planner fax number: 602-8559
Mr. Man Mlllch - MeMllten & Company fax number: (6lQ) 36531 12
Mr. Lee Shemood RECON 1927 FHth Strset, Sub ROO
San Olego, CA 92101-2358 fax number (6lQ) 308%334
!
I
i
Letters of Comment and Responses
5. These comments concur with the conclusions in the draft EIR and acknowledged. The on@nal
intent of the Master Plan was to provide commercial uses as noted in this comment. Commercial
use of Village E-1 is addressed in the draft EIR in the Project Alternatives section. However, a
commercial study recently approved by the City noted that this property along with several others
in the city should be part of a group general plan amendment that redesignates the property to
residential use. The proposed residential use for Village E-1 in the draft EIR reflects this
modification, and the'City Council will ultimately determine the land use for Village El when
action is taken on the proposed Master Plan Amendment (MP-1504).
At the time a tentative map is proposed for Village E-1, a detailed noise study would be prepared
to determine wall heights for the proposed residential use along the frontages of Carlsbad Village
Drive and College Boulevard. As described in the noise analysis, City policies limit the height of
noise walls to six feet. Walls over six feet will conform with the Master Plan noise wall design
illustrated in Figure 3B-16 in the final EIR. With respect to the height of residential units in
Village Y, the project applicant has agreed to limit the project for Village Y to two stones.
Repeated incidents of hazardous or illegal double parking on Glasgow Drive should be reported to
the Carlsbad Police Department for parking enforcement. Parking adequacy at existing Calavera
Hills Community Park is a zoning compliance issue and not a CEQA issue. The City of Carlsbad
is aware of this issue and working on alternative methods of solving the problem. This issue is an
enforcement issue and not a CEQA issue. In addition, such issues could be addressed through the
City's Park and Recreation Commission and their staff.
6.
7.
I
I
"IC Cnp at Cnlavtm Hills Ihx: (760) 719-7474
LE"ER Y
March 10.2001
Mr. Eric Munoz Senior Planner Ciw of Carlsbad Planning Dcpmnt Faraday Center 1635 Farday Amuc Carlsbad.CA 92008
RC: --
Et
Deu Mr. Munoz:
y-1 - We SV supptt the DEWS conclusion that the elimination ofeommunity commercid usrr: cant cnvhmtrl implct. (See P~o 35). il age 1 from within tbs c.lrwr Hills Mu& Plan is not considued a signifl-
1
Letters of Comment and Responses
1-2. These comments concur with the conclusions in the draft EIR and are acknowledged. The original
intent of the Master Plan was to provide commercial uses as noted in this comment. Commercial
use of Village E-1 is addressed in the draft EIR in the Project Alternatives section. However, a
commercial study recently approved by the City noted that this pmperty dong with sevd others
in the city should be part of a pup general plan amendment that redesignates the pmpcrty to
residential use. The proposed residential use for Village E-1 in the draft EIR reflects this
modification, and the City Council will ultimately determine the land use for Village E-1 when
action is taken on the proposed Master Plan Amendment (MP-150-H).
Y-3 - We pgns-with the DEIR's cooclnsion that the proposed land use changts to Village E-1
as the nsult of would improve land use compatibility. noise impacts clpd visual eliminating the comnmity canmmial uses at Village &I. (See Page 35).
y-4 - We agree with the DEWS coaclusbn that: - The exisring Van's Ceater Conunucial Project (at El Camin0 Kul and MMon Rond),
(at El Camino Rcal and &ge Boukvd),
and
Hills (at Colle Boulcvud and Lakc Boulevard in Oceanside) -just 500 feer outside of he &Isbad City Borda -
- propDscd cod ject at thc 18-a~~ Sunny Creek Commercial Site
- The~~'s40-~~ * Site immediily no& of Cdavera
will pmvide Ntiicient commercial merage for residents of th. Calaven Hills Arca and would not mlt in impacts to other sites. (See Page 35).
y.5 - We rgnc with the DEWS conclusion that the lack of tc Wl buildout populltion due to thew 0 vil1age EI infeasiE'.s a connnereid projm (see age 35).
y-6 - We also agree witb the DBIR's conclusion $at the VUlage Site Access Restrictions of Village E-1 would render Village E-1 infeasible 89 a commmid pject (See Page 35).
Space Prrsuveto tbe east ofthe%& E-1 lradc am would render
Letters of Comment and Responses -.
3-7. These comments concur with the conclusions in the draft EIR and are acknowledged. The origind
intent of the Master Plan was to provide commercial uses as noted in this comment. Commercial
use of Village E-I is addressed in the draft EIR in the Project Alternatives section. However, a
commercial study recently approved by the City noted that this property along with neveral others
in the city should be part of a group general plan amendment that redesignates the property to
residential use. The proposed residential use for Village E-1 in the draft EJR reflects this
modification, and the City Council will ultimately determine the land use for Village E-1 when
.action is taken on the proposed Master Plan Amendment (Mp-150-H).
8. As a result of the public comments to the EJR, the developer has modified their three-stoy
proposal to allow for only maximum two-story unit structures on Village Y. This modification
will further reduce the potential for aesthetic impacts.
2
We thank you, the City of Cprlsbrd Plaaniag Depprcmcot. the City of Carlsbad. and FECON for considering these quests.
We look forward to working with you. ths City of Culsbad Planning Dcputmcot. RECON and the McMillan Company on Ihe Final Environmental lmpacl Repo~l lad he Specific Calawn Hills Site Plans.
We also look forwrrd IO working with you and the Cily Rdng Depuuncnc when Ihe Specific Site Pip116 for Calaven Hills II M submind by the McMillan Company for review by the Planning Lkpmmcnr. the Planning Commission rod Ihe clty Council.
Sincerely,
Mr. Dennis Tumer - Senior City Planner Fax: 602-8559
MI. Brian Milich - McMlll~ & compsny Fax: (619) 363112
Mr. Lee shsrwood RECON
1927 Fifth Avenue Suite 200 San Dicgo, CA 92101-2358 Fax: (619) 308-9334
3
c i
Letters of Comment and Responses
+**Use intro and list of letters from resp.pro.
Richartd A. Reck
4534 Hartford Place
Carlsbad, CA 92008 Phone: (760) 720-9143
March 13,2001
Mr. Eric Munoz Senior Planner City of Carlsbad Planning Department Faraday Center I635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Munoz:
2-1 cd P t2 N
I am in comdete amement with the conclusions of Thomas P. and Joan R. Flanagau's letter to you concerning the Draft Environmental IrnDact Rmrt
(DER) for Calavm Hills Phase II (dated March 10,2001). In particular, I concur with their agreement concerning the DEIR's conclusion that the
proposed land use changes to Village E-1 would reduce traffic circulation and air quality impacts locally. Second, I agree with the DEWS conclusion
that the proposed land use changes to Village E-1 would improve land use compatibility, noise impacts and visual impacts as the result of eliminating the community commercial uses at Village E-1. Also, I agree with the
DEIR's conclusions that existing and proposed Commercial Sites will provide sufficient commercial coverage for residents of the Calavera Hills Area and that Village E-1 is infeasible as a commercial project. Finally, I
also believe that we can work successfirlly with the McMillan company in developing a residential site at Village E-1. I look forward to working with
you, the City of Carlsbad Planning Department, RECON and the McMillan
Company on the final Environmental Impact Report and the specific Calavera Hills Site Plans.
Sincerely,
Letters of Comment and Responses
1. These comments concur with the conclusions in the draft EIR and are acknowledged. The original
intent of the Master Plan was to provide commercial uses as noted in this comment. Commercial
use of Village E-1 is addressed in the draft EIR in the Project Alternatives section. However, a
commercial study recently approved by the City noted that this property along with several others
in the city should be part of a pup general plan amendment that redesignates the ppty to
residential use. The proposed residential use for Village E-1 in the draft EIR reflects this
modification, and the City Council will ultimately determine the land use for Village E1 when
action is taken on the proposed Master Plan Amendment (MP-1%-H).
. Richard A. Reck
4534 Hartford Place
Carlsbad, CA 92008
720-9 143
cc: Mr. Michael Holzmiller - Planning Director
Fax: 602-8559
Mr. Dennis Turner - Senior City Planner
Fax: 602-8559
Mr. Brian Milich - McMillan & Company Fax: (619) 366-31 12
Mr. Lee Sherwood RECON
1927 Fifth Avenue Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92101-2358
Fa: (619) 308-9334
I i Letters of Comment and Responses
***Use intro and list of letters from resp.pro.
Sandra Stamper LETTER AA
2962 Lmcsrtcr Road
Carlsbad. CA 92008
March 18,2001
Mr. Eric Muwz, Sr. Planner
City of Carlsbad Planning Dept.
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Munoz:
RE: CALAVERAHILLS MASTER PHASE II & VILLAGES1 DRAFT E.I.R.NO. 98-02 WCON NO. 32253 2/2/01)
AA-1 I have reviewed the DEIR for the Calavera Hills Phase II by RECON dated 2/2/01 and would like
to reiterate that I fully endorse and support all the related comments as presented to you in MrJMrs. Tom Flanagan’s 3-page letter/Fax to you dated 3/10/01 concerning several issues.
Our Calavera Hills’ neighborhoods are comprised of several communities where we all enjoy the
peace and quiet. I am strongly in favor of keeping our neighborhood community exactly as it is.
Our children can walk safelv to school, & play & enjoy recreational activities at our nearby
All our shopping needs are within a mere travel distance of time & convenience & see nq need for any futu~ commercial shopping center to add traffic congestion
onto OUT streets and into our neighborhoods.
I also feel the need for additional vehicle parking at Calavera Community Center should be of AA-3 paramount priority with your Staff due to hazardous & double parking on Glasgow Drive which also
overtlows into The Cape’s community. This continues to become a maior problem as surrounding developments grow. I would suggest we consider the adjacent lot next to the Calavera Park for an
additional parking lot & reconsider a new location for the future Fire Station.
Thank you and your Staff for your efforts in working together with us & allowing our voices to be
heard.
v Td
* AA-2 Community Center.
SANDAR STAMPER
CC: Michael Holzmiller - Planning Director
Dennis Turner - Senior City Planner
La Sherwood - RECON, 1927 Fifth Avenue - Suite #200, San Diego, CA 92101-2358
Brian Milich - McMillii & Company, Senior V.P. & Project Engineer, 2727 Hoover Avenue
National City, CA 91950
Letters of Comment and Responses
1-2. The original intent of the Master Plan was to provide commercial uses as noted in this comment.
Commercial use of Village E-1 is addressed in the draft EIR in the Project Alternatives section.
However, a commercial study recently approved by the City noted that this proplty along with
others in the city should be part of a combined group general plan amendment that redesignates
the property to residential use. The proposed residential use for Village E-1 in the draft EIR
reflects this modification, and the City Council will ultimately determine the land use for Village
E-1 when action is taken on the proposed Master Plan Amendment (MP-150-H).
3. Repeated incidents of hazardous or illegal double parking on Glasgow Drive should be reported to
the Carlsbad Police Department for parking enforcement. Parking adequacy at existing Calavera
Hills Community Park is a zoning compliance issue and not a CEQA issue. The City of Carlsbad
is awm of this issue and working on alternative methods of solving the problem. This issue is an
enforcement issue and not a CEQA issue. In addition, such issues could be addressed through the
City’s Park and Recreation Commission and their staff.
AB
1-2.
Letters of Comment and Responses
These comments regarding the variety of impacts associated with development and opposition to
the project are acknowledged. However, the city of Carlsbad is not yet built out and the cumnt
adopted Master Plan anticipates higher residential densities. less community facilities. less
affordable housing, fewer trails, and less open space without wildlife comdom and pnservd
lands than the pmposed Master Plan. In addition, it should be noted that the land uses proposed in
the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase I1 addmsed in the ED7 are generally consistent with the
cumntly adopted Master Plan and General Plan land use designations. The proposed project
represents the last phase of the long-standing Master Plan that was originally approved in 1974.
I
. -, .. C.
Letters of Comment and Responses
1-2. These comments regarding the variety of impacts associated with development and opposition to
the project are acknowledged. However, the city of Carlsbad is not yet built out and.the cumnt
adopted Master Plan anticipates higher residential densities, less community facilities, less
affordable housing, fewer trails, and less open space without wildlife corridors and preserved
lands than the proposed Master Plan. In addition, it should be noted that the land use8 proposed in
the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase I1 addressed in the EIR arc generally consistent with the
currently adopted Master Plan and General Plan land use designations. The proposed project
represents the last phase of the long-standing Master Plan that was originally approved in 1974.
I-- - - - -_- --
I
‘c. March 27,2001
Eric Munoz
Senior Planner
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
LETTER AC
Re:Drafi EIR comment - Calavera Hills Phase IVBridge and Thoroughfare District #4
AC-I The issue of village H and its use as a “community facility” (ie daycare center) has me concerned. I was informed that the definition for “community facility” has yet to be finalized. My question is, how can the city have a nquirement for a community facility
when it is not known what one is? How can it be put forth that a daycare is going to
suffice for the requirement of a community facility in village H. if we don’t have a definition for community facility? This leads me to believe, that a daycare center is not the ONLY choice that should have been worked up to fulfill the community facility
requirement for village H. The word community facility evokes images of a place that
fulfills a community need. Such as recreation. ducation, and social gathering area - a place where much of the community’s population can benefit from and not just a sclectcd
few.
Following that lead, I would propose to leave village H in its MtUral state. It exists as a
place where members of the immediate and neighboring community use it as a place for
exercise and recreation (E: “community facility”). It was already found by the DER in 1993(?) that the area provided aesthetic visual relief from the surrounding urban anas. There are existing trails on south village H. Every year they get disked under for
&fire control. The trails get lost in the ground upheaval, but manage to come back
within a few weeks, due to its constant use by the community. It’s obvious that there is a
need for this to be here. It’s obvious that putting a day care center here, which would draw traffic and noise, would ruin its calming natural setting. The area proposed for the daycare center may look, to a developer/city, as a barren plot of land. But. to the many of
us who live here, it’s one less piece of cement wc are forced to be subjected to.
Development of this area would haw a significant impact to tbis community’s social environment. In short, village H, currently exists as a “community facility” and further
development is not necessary to fulfill its requirement as such. Maybe the terms community facility and open space can be one in the same in this instance.
cd
3
AC-3 One more issue I would like to address is the intersection of Glasgow and Edinburgh. This intersection has a two way stop. The stop signs are on Glasgow to allow cars traveling on Edinburgh to pass. This intcrscCtion is a nightmare. Not r dry goes by on this interseaion where someone almost gets sideswiped. There are several reasons for this problem. Om is that people coming down/up Glasgow don’t realize that the stop signs exist. This is not hard to imagine since the streets that intersect Glasgow up to
Edinburgh (from south to north) do not have stop signs, so people just figure that it’s the
same at that intersection as well. And many of the cars that travel in the opposite
Lette.rs of Comment and Responses
1. The draft EIR includes the community facility use proposed for Village H and considers the
project impacts in relation to the existing land use designations as approved. The EIR cannot
speculate as to future modifications that may or may not be approved. Prior to approving any
future change in land use, the City must first consider the effect on existing and already approved
uses. The site is intended for development with a community facility. The City has the discretion
to approve uses other than a day-care facility if traffic, noise, and other impacts are not
significantly different from those identified for the project and reviewed in the EIR. Additional
environmental review would be required if a future proposed use would result in impacts not
identified in this EIR. The site’s long-standing Zoning, General Plan, and Master Plan
designations allow residential development up to 42 dwelling units and provide for future
development of an area within Village H that is larger than would be developed by the proposed
community facility use. The community facility proposal retains more open space than residential
development would retain and would legally sanction the current pedestrian uses on the site noted
in your letter. Designated open space areas within Village H will be retained with the proposed
project. The proposed use is compatible with the existing and planned land uses and does not
represent a significant land use impact.
The baseline for development of Village H for residential use was outlined in the adopted 1993
Master Plan for Calavera Hills. The currently proposed land use for Village H (community
facility) was developed in response to citizen input at the public scoping meetings and does retain
public access to the trail. The proposed use is not considered a conflict with the surrounding land
uses in the draft EIR and is not a significant impact
2.
3. The City of Carlsbad is monitoring the traffic situation at this intersection to determine whether
additional traffic control is necessary. The intersection of Glasgow DriveEdinburgh Drive has
been referred to the City of Carlsbad traffic engineer for the possible installation of an all-way stop
or other traffic control.
4. dmctioqcome fromthecommunitypark(IE people not from the ncighbomood,
thmfore Mfamiiar witb tbe traffic Stops). This intermb 'on bas also been mistaken for a four way stop. scnechisgbralres, honking hnas d loud Wle nmulcrlm common
to this anq due to its confusiagnahae. l'kereazonwhy Ibringthis up, is that I fonsee it
getting Wme. with the opening of college. openiae of college will bring mre poople unfsmilipr to the- who want to get to the community ~EIIL This dd iacrease the
' Iwould traffic on SUIIDMding slrects thus, morepople totbis nightman ilmxaon like to see sort of traffic solution (speed humps, pehnp) that wwld make it mon
obvious to people trawling to this intmectioatbet it IS atwo way stop. I haw almidy
sccn an accident occur here. One pmon was hospitdhJ,tbe other ended upcolliding with canthat were parlndonthestrc~ I bope that bybringingthisto your attentioathat something will get done to avoid Murc accidents. -
Sincerely,
LynnT~nkcr ,. .
Letters of Comment and Responses
1. The original intent of the Master Plan was to pmvide commercial uses as noted in this comment.
Commercial use of Village El is addressed in the draft EIR in the hject Alternatives section.
However, a commercial study recently approved by the City noted that this prop" along with
othen in the city should be part of a combined group general plan amendment that redesignates
the pmperty to residential use. The proposed residential me for Village El in the draft EIR
reflects this modification, and the City Council will ultimately determine the land use for Village E-1 when action is taken on the pmposed Master Plan Amendment (MP-150-H).
LETTJIR AD
Letters of Comment and Responses
March 13,2001
Eric Munoz, Senior City Planner Planning Department
1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Munoz
In the recent newsletter from our Homeowner’s Association, we noted that an 1 1-acre parcel at the corner of Carlsbad Village Drive and Glasgow Street is under consideration for rezoning from “commercial” designation to “residential“.
AD-1 When we were considering purchasing a home in the “Cape at Calavera
Hills”, I went to the planning department to see what development was being proposed in the surrounding area. I was very pleased to see that a neighborhood commercial area was planned for that site. Having convenient grocery shopping in a residential area means less car travel.
We see newspaper articles discussing the “village” concept of development in the North County as a way of reducing traffic impact as more residential areas are added.
? 8
Now we understand that the planning department is considering
changing this neighborhood commercial site-thus eliminating a feature that makes so much sense-to add even more intensive residential development. We wish to register our strong objection to this change.
,
Ted & Katie Wheeler 4653 Woodstock Street Carlsbad, CA 92008
1. The traffic analysis prepared for the draft EIR used the Congestion Management Prograddfic
Impact Report Guidelines. These guidelines define the project fneway study ma BS mainlane
freeway locations where the project will add more than 150 or more peak hour trips in either
direction. The project-only trip distribution is less than the required threshold 80 that the project
impact IS considered less than significant.
760 730-3527
LE'ITER AE
Letters of Comment and Responses
1. The grading shown in draft EIR (Figures 3B4 and 3B-6) for Village Y indicates that the existing
grades would actually be lowered by approximately 20 feet hm an existing elevation of 320 fee!
to 300 feet. This topographic reduction combined with limiting building heights to two stories at
Village Y will serve to reduce visual quality impacts from adjacent mas. The project applicant
has agreed to limit building heights at Village Y to two stories.
2. See response 1 above.
3. The landscape palette for the Master Plan perimeter and interior slopes, where view blockage
could occur from off-site areas, does not include eucalyptus. Pursuant to the City's landscape
manual, the eucalyptus will be used as a street tree in College Boulevard and at limited locations
in usable open space mas.
4. ' The median landscaping for College Boulevard will match the existing landscaping that is in
College Boulevard north of Carlsbad Village Drive and will be consistent with the City's
Landscape Manual.
5. The noise analysis prepared for the project addresses noise impacts for existing residences (Le.,
Cape neighborhood) along those portions of College Boulevard that are proposed as part of the
project. Noise impacts at the Cape neighbomood arc described on page 160. Mitigation in the
form of noise walls is proposed on page 173 to reduce these impacts to below a level of
significance. The need to provide air conditioning at existing residences is not necessary.
i
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Letters of Comment and Responses
The grading shown in draft EIR (Figures 3B4 and 3B-6) for Village Y indicates that the existing
grades would actually be lowered by approximately 20 feet from an existing elevation of 320 feet
to 300 feet. This topographic reduction combined with limiting building heights to two stories at
Village Y will serve to reduce visual quality impacts from adjacent areas. The project applicant
has agreed to limit building heights at Village Y to two stories.
See response 1 above.
The landscape palette for the Master Plan perimeter and interior slopes, where view blockage
could occur from off-site areas, docs not include eucalyptus. Pursuant to the City's lands cap^
manual, the eucalyptus will be used as a street tree in College Boulevard and at limited locations
in usable open space areas.
The median landscaping for College Boulevard will match the existing landscaping that is in
College Boulevard north of Carlsbad Village Drive and will be consistent with the City's
Landscape Manual.
The noise analysis prepared for the project addresses noise impacts for existing midences (i.e..
Cape neighborhood) along those portions of College Boulevard that are proposed as part of the
project. Noise impacts at the Cape neighborhood are described on page 160. Mitigation in the
form of noise walls is propokd on page 173 to reduce these impacts to below a level of
significance. The need to provide air conditioning at existing residences is not necessary.
'?d ... P ..... ............... .. - .. - ...... - . -. .... b
h) .. ... .- ......... _. ...... -.--- ...... ....
.....
....... ....
.~
.1 ..... ............ ..
.. - ............................
..... " ...... __ .... ." . .. _.
..
........ -
............. .. -
...
- ..
...
.._.___.____.I..._. - - .- ---..- --.-.
.... -. .. .- ... ,. ...... .- -
.. * . . "_
~ ....... d
- .-
.....
....
...
-.
.. __ .
...... ..-
.. _. ...... -
... --
........
........
-8
-
.....
......
...
. .
.....
...... __ .
.........
....
..... ..-
....... -
..
Letters of Comment and Responses
!
1
Prepared for
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLAN"G DEPARTMENT
1635 FARADAY AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
Prepared by
RECON NUMBER 3225E
NOVEMBER 29,2001
1927 Fifth Avenue, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 921 01 -2358
61 9 I 308-9333 faX 308-9334
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN PHASE 11
BRIDGE AND THOROUGHFARE DISTRICT NO. 4
AND
DETENTION BASINS
EIR NO. 98-02
SCH No. 99111082
@ This document printed on recycled paper
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary 5-1
1: Introduction 1
2: Project Description, Location, and Environmental Setting 5
3: Environmental Analysis
A. LandUse
B. Landform AlterationNisual Quality
C. Traffic Circulation
D. Noise
E. Agriculture
F. Public Facilities
G. Biological Resources
H. Archaeology/Cultural Resources
I. Paleontology
J. Hydrology
K. AirQuality
L. Geology
4: Alternatives
A. Alternatives Considered but Rejected
B. No Project Alternative
C. Development Consistent with the Adopted Calavera Hills Master Plan
D. Alternative Land Use Designations
E. Circulation Alternative for College Boulevard and Cannon Road Alternative
F. Carlsbad Village Drive Widening at Victoria Avenue
G. Calavera Hills Master Plan Environmentally Superior Alternative
25
25
39 -
84
119
175
185
21 1
262
269
272
283
300
306
306
307
308
309
322
335
337
Table of Contents
5: Cumulative Impacts 339
6: Growth Inducing Impacts 346
7: Significant and Irreversible Environmental Effects 348
8: Effects Found to be Not Significant 349
9: References Cited 352
10: Persons and Agencies Consulted 356
11: EIR Preparers 357
FIGURES
1-1: 1-2: 2-1: 2-2: 2-3: 2-4: 2-5 : 2-6: 2-7 : 2-8 : 2-9:
2-10: 3A- 1 :
3B-1:
3B-2: 3B-3:
3B-5: 3B-6: 3B-7: 3B-8: 3B-9: 3B-10: 3B-11: 3B-12: 3B-13: 3B-14: 3B-15: 3B-16: 3C-1:
3B-4:
3C-2: 3c-3:
Regional Location Project Vicinity Map Project Location and Proposed Land Uses Aerial Photograph of the Project Area Villages Affected by the Calavera Hills Master Plan Amendment Proposed Master Plan Land Use Existing Zoning Master Plan Open Space System Open Space Habitat Linkage Open Space Phases Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 (College Blvd. Reaches A-C,
Proposed Alignments of College Boulevard and Cannon Road Adopted Calavera Hills Master Plan Land Uses
Existing Site Topography - Master Plan Phase II
Slope Analysis
Photograph Location Map Proposed Mass Grading Plan and Photosimulation Location Cross Section Location Map Calavera Hills Master Plan Representative Cross Sections A-A Calavera Hills Master Plan Representative Cross Sections B-B Calavera Hills Master Plan Representative Cross Sections C-C Calavera Hills Master Plan Representative Cross Sections D-D and E-E Grading Plan - Proposed Alignment Cannon Road Reach 3 Grading Plan - Proposed Alignment Cannon Road Reach 4 Grading Plan - Proposed Alignment College Boulevard Reach A Grading Plan - Proposed Alignment College Boulevard Reach B/C Grading Plan for Detention Basins “BJB” and “BJ” Landform Planting Exhibit Proposed Sound Wall Section Existing Average Circulation System and Daily Traffic Volumes
Intersection Number Key Year 2000 Project Only Directional Distribution Percentages
Cannon Road Reaches 3 and 4)
(with College Boulevard Barricade)
2 3 6 8 10 11 14
15 16 18
20
21
26
40 42 44 55 59 60 61 62 63 73 74 75 76 78 81 83
85 91 96
Table of Contents
FIGURES (cont.)
!
I
3c-4: 3c-5:
3D- 1: 3D-2: 3D-3:
3D-5: 3D-6: 3D-7: 3D-8: 3D-9: 3D-IO: 3D-11:
3D-4:
3D-12:
3D-13:
3D-14:
3D-15: 3D-16:
3D-17: 3D-18:
3E-1: 3F-1: 3F-2:
3F-3: 3F-4: 3F-5: 3F-6:
3F-7 :
3F-8: 3F-9 : 3F- 10: 3F-11: 3G-1: 3G-2:
3G-3: 3G-4: 3G-5:
3G-6: 3G-7: 35-1: 35-2: 4-1: 4-2:
Project Only Average Daily Traffic Volumes Existing Plus Project Average Daily Traffic Volumes (without College Boulevard Barricade) Potential Blasting Areas and Potential Blast Noise Impact Areas Limits of Grading and Potential Construction Noise Impact Area Materials Processing Centers Projected Future Noise Contours - Village H Modeled Receiver Locations and Proposed Noise Barriers - Village H Projected Future Noise Contours - Village K Modeled Receiver Locations and Proposed Noise Barriers - Village K Projected Future Noise Contours - Village U Modeled Receiver Locations and Proposed Noise Barriers - Village U Projected Future Noise Contours - Villages W, X, and Y Modeled Receiver Locations and Proposed Noise Barriers - Villages W, X, and Y Modeled Receiver Locations and Proposed Noise Barriers, Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park, Cannon Road Alignment 1 Modeled Receiver Locations and Proposed Noise Barriers, Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park, Cannon Road Alignment 2 Modeled Receiver Locations and Proposed Noise Barriers, Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park, Cannon Road Alternative 3
Modeled Receiver Locations - Garden Modeled Receiver Locations and Proposed Noise Barriers - Robertson
Projected Future Noise Levels - The Cape Modeled Receiver Locations and Proposed Noise Barriers -
Soil Types Growth Management Zone 7
Growth Management Zone 7 - Phase II Location Map City Administrative Facilities Library Facilities Community Parks and Special Use Areas Existing Fire Response Time and Fire Station Locations Existing and Future Schools Existing Sewer Interceptor Lines Buildout Sewer Facilities for Zone 7A Buildout Sewer Facilities for Zone 7B Buildout Sewer Facilities for Zone 7C Existing Biological Resources Master Plan Phase II Existing Biological Resources Bridge and Thoroughfare District and
Existing Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. Project Impacts to Master Plan Phase II Project Impacts to Bridge and Thoroughfare District and Detention
Project Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. Open Space Equivalency Exhibit Drainage Basin Boundaries Watershed Boundary Expanded Village H Alternative Grading Plan - College Boulevard Reach B/C Alternative Alignment
Ranch House
The Cape
Detention Basins
Basins
99
100 125 128 130 134
135
137
138
141
142
144
145
148
149
150 154
157 161
162 176 186 187 188 189 191 193 194 195 200 201 202 2 14
215 236 237
23 8 240
249 273 275
3 19 326
Table of Contents
FIGURES (cont.)
329 i
Cannon Road 333 i 4-6: Carlsbad Village Drive Alternative 336 'L
4-3:
4-4:
4-5:
Grading Plan - Cannon Road Reach 3 Alternative Alignment Grading Plan - Cannon Road Reach 4 Alternative Alignment Alternative 3: Lowered Intersection Elevation for College B1vd.h 33 1
TABLES i
s-1:
s-2:
2-1:
3A-1: 3A-2: 3B-1: 3B-2: 3B-3:
3C-1: 3C-2:
3c-3:
3c-4: 3c-5: 3C-6: 3c-7: 3C-8: 3c-9: 3C-10: 3C-11:
3D- 1 : 3D-2: 3D-3: 3D-4: 3D-5: 3D-6: 3D-7: 3D-8:
3D-9:
3D-10:
3D-11: 3D-12: 3D-13:
3D-14:
3B-4:
Summary of Environmental Analysis Results Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase 11, Bridge & Thoroughfare
Proposed Master Plan Amendment - Phase II Proposed Master Plan Amendment Phase II Changes - Dwelling Units Calavera Hills Master Plan Land Use Summary Slope Analysis by Village Areas to be Disturbed by Grading Grading Quantities by Village Grading Summary Existing Street Segment Levels of Service
Year 2000 Street Segment Levels of Service (With & Without College
Existinnear 2000 Intersection Levels of Service (With & Without
Project Trip Generation Existing Plus Project Street Segment Levels of Service Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service (ICU Method) 2005 Street Segment Levels of Service 2005 Intersection Levels of Service Year 2020 with Project Street Segment Levels of Service Year 2020 with Project CMP Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service Year 2020 CMP Peak hour Intersection Levels of Service Summary
Year 2020 Roadway Traffic Parameters Average Noise Levels of Rock Processing Plants at a Distance of 50 Feet Materials Processing, Distance to Noise Contours Future Projected Noise Levels - Village H Future Projected Noise Levels - Village K Future Projected Noise Levels - Village U Future Projected Noise Levels - Villages W, X, and Y Future Projected Noise Levels, Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park,
Future Projected Noise Levels, Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park,
Future Projected Noise Levels, Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park,
Future Projected Noise Levels, Garden Future Projected Noise Levels, Robertson Ranch House Distance to Noise Contours, Off-Site Cannon Road and
Future Projected Noise Levels, The Cape
District No. 4 and Detention Basins and Alternative Projects Comparison
Boulevard Barricade)
College Boulevard Barricade - ICU Method)
(HCM Method)
Cannon Road - Alignment 1
Cannon Road - Alignment 2
Cannon Road - Alignment 3
College Boulevard
1
5-7
S-48 13 33 34 41 56 57 64 86
89
92 1 95 101
103
104 107
109 111 1
1 1
114
123 1 131 132 136 139 143 146
151
152 1
153 155 1 158
159 163
! 1 1
Table of Contents
TABLES (conk)
3E-1: 3E-2: 3E-3: 3E-4: 3F-1: 3F-2: 3F-3: 3F-4: 3G-1: 3G-2: 3G-3: 3G-4: 3G-5:
3G-6: 3G-7: 3G-8:
3G-9:
3G- 10:
3H-1:
35-1: 3K-1: 3K-2: 3K-3:
4-1: 4-2:
4-3: 4-4:
4-5: 5-1:
Soil Descriptions Soil Capability Classes Stone Index Ratings Impacts to Agricultural Soils Future Dwelling Units Beyond 5-Minute Response Phase 11 Drainage Improvements Phase II Sewer Collection Improvements Phase II Water Distribution Improvements Vegetation Communities Within the Project Components Sensitive Plant Species Observed or with the Potential for Occurrence Sensitivity Codes Sensitive Wildlife Species Known (or Potentially Occurring) Impacts to Resources by Village within the Master Plan Phase II
Impacts to Resources within the Bridge and Thoroughfare District Impacts to Resources within the Detention Basins Project Components Mitigation for Impacts to Resources within the Master Plan Phase 11
Mitigation for Impacts to Resources within the Bridge and
Mitigation for Impacts to Resources within the Detention Basins Project
Previously Recorded Sites Relative to the Proposed Alignment
Villages in Each Drainage Basin Ambient Air Quality Standards Summary of Air Quality Data for the San Diego Air Basin Number of Days Air Quality Standards were Exceeded at
Biology Impacts for the Village H Expansion and Road Widening Comparison of Landform AlteratiodGrading Impacts for the Proposed
Impacts to Resources Within the Bridge and Thoroughfare District Mitigation for Impacts to Resources Within the Bridge and Thoroughfare
Biology Impacts for the Widening of Carlsbad Village Drive Cumulative Projects
Project Component
Project Component
Thoroughfare District Project Components
Components
Alternatives
Escondido Monitoring Station
and Alternative Projects
District
177 178 180 181 198 205 207 209 213 222 225 226
24 1 243 244
252
254
257
264 272 288 292
293 32 1
323 324
325 335 340
PHOTOGRAPHS
3B-1: 3B-2: 3B-3: 3B-4: 3B-5: 3B-6: 3B-7 : 3B-8: 3B-9: 3B-10: 3B-11:
Easterly view of Village H Development Area Southerly View of Village K from above Harwich Drive
Southerly View of Village W from Capistrano Neighborhood Easterly View of Village Y from Cape Neighborhood
45 . 45 Easterly View from Carlsbad Village Drive 46 Southerly View of Village U from Capistrano Neighborhood 46 47 47 Easterly View along El Camino Real of College Blvd. (Under Construction) 50 Northerly View along College Blvd. Alignment and Villages X and W 51 Westerly View along Cannon Road Alignment Photographs 51 Easterly View along Cannon Road Alignment 52 Easterly View along Cannon Road Alignment near Oceanside City Limits 52
Table of Contents
!
PHOTOGRAPHS (cont.)
3B-12: Northerly View from the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park 53 3B-13: Westerly View from Oceanside City Limits 53
PHOTOSIMULATIONS
3B- 1 : Existing Viewpoint 1 66 3B-1A: Photosimulation from Viewpoint 1 67 3B-2: Existing Viewpoint 2 68 69 70 3B-2A: Photosimulation from Viewpoint 2
3B-3: Existing Viewpoint 3 3B-3A: Photosimulation from Viewpoint 3 71
APPENDIXES (bound separately)
A: B:
C: D: E: F: G: H: I: J: K: L:
Notice of Preparation Transportation Analysis for Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase n& Attachments Transportation Analysis for Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 Noise Technical Report and Attachment Wetland Delineation Biological Technical Report and Attachments Mitigation Parcel’s Agreement of 1993 Cultural Resources Technical Report and Attachment Geotechnical Report for Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II Geotechnical Report for Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 Retail-Commercial Shopping Center Feasibility Study Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
i
1’ i
i
I
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
A. Proposed Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase 11, Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4, & Detention Basins
1) Project Location and Setting
The Calavera Hills Master Plan Amendment, Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4,
and the detention basins addressed in this EIR are located in the northeast quadrant of the
City of Carlsbad. The 819-acre Calavera Hills Master Plan area is bounded by the
Oceanside City limits along with State Route 78 on the north with the southern boundary
being an east-west line approximately one-half mile north of the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile
Home Park. This line was formerly a City of CarlsbadCounty of San Diego
jurisdictional boundary. The Master Plan's western extent is near Carlsbad Village Drive
and the easterly boundary is just west of Lake Calavera.
Existing features in the Calavera Hills Phase II project vicinity include a San Diego Gas
& Electric (SDG&E) transmission line right-of-way (ROW) trending northeast-
southwest, which cuts diagonally across the southeastern portion of the Master Plan area.
In addition, a six-million-gallon steel tank water reservoir, which is owned and operated
by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, exists in the north-central portion of the Master
Plan area.
The majority of the existing Master Plan area has either been built or graded. Agricultural
operations currently exist south and southeast of the Master Plan area. Much of the land
required for the proposed project extension of College Boulevard and Cannon Road is
within this area.
2) Project Description
The Calavera Hills Master Plan Amendment and Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4
consists of three components, which consist of: (1) an amendment of Calavera Hills
Master Plan; (2) extensions to College Boulevard (Reaches A-C) and Cannon Road
(Reaches 3 and 4) within the City of Carlsbad Bridge & Thoroughfare District No. 4; and
(3) two detention basins within the Calavera Creek watershed.
s-1
Executive Summary
a) Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II
The areas within Calavera Hills affected by the proposed plan amendment are referred to
as Phase II of the Calavera Hills Master Plan. The amendment to the Calavera Hills
Master Plan would modify existing land use designations and rearrange residential
densities to provide for the residential buildout of Villages K, L-2, R, U, W, X, and Y. In
addition, the amendment proposes to change the Village E-1 land use from commercial to
residential and designate a two-acre community facility use in Village H. These land use
changes would affect a patchwork of undeveloped Master Plan property totaling
approximately 300 acres out of the 819 acres that make up the current Master Plan area.
Proposed land use standards for each of the villages affected by the Master Plan
amendment are a mix of residential density-multiple, single-family residential, multi-
family residential, and open space. Other land use modifications in the proposed
amendment include adjusting the boundaries of Villages Y, K, and L-2, incorporating the
adjacent 110-acre open space in Village Z as the Calavera Nature Preserve (CNP), and
providing a habitat link from east to west in order to adequately mitigate for impacts to
the coastal California gnatcatcher and other species consistent with the City’s Draft HMP.
The Calavera Hills Phase II Master Plan Droiect would be required to construct College
Boulevard Reaches B and C and Cannon Road Reach 3 to provide access to the site.
Construction of College Boulevard Reach A and Cannon Road Reach 4 would not be a
Master Plan requirement.
The amendment to the Calavera Hills Master Plan will also update and modify the Zone 7
(Calavera Hills) Local Facilities Management Plan to revise buildout projections, and
address existing and future public facility adequacy for parks, drainage facilities,
circulation roadways, fire stations, open space, schools, sewer collection lines, and water
distribution facilities, affected by the Phase II development.
b) Bridge & Thoroughfare District No. 4 - College Boulevadcannon
Road Extensions
The second major component of the project is the formation by the City of Carlsbad of a
Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 for the extensions of College Boulevard and
Cannon Road. College Boulevard (Reaches A, B, and C) would be extended from within
the Calavera Hills Master Plan at Carlsbad Village Drive southerly to El Camino Real
(approximately 9,500 feet). The Bridge and Thoroughfare District encompasses the reach
of College Boulevard (Reach C) that lies within the boundaries of the Calavera Hills
Master Plan. Cannon Road (Reaches 3 and 4) would be extended from El Camino Real
easterly to the City of Oceanside (approximately 9,100 feet). Although included in the
Bridge and Thoroughfare District, Cannon Road Reach 4 is currently unfunded.
Alternative alignments for each roadway including alternatives which were considered
but rejected by the City of Carlsbad prior to the EIR are addressed in the Project
Alternatives section (Chapter 4) of this EIR.
s-2
Executive Summary
c) Detention Basins
The third component of the project consists of the construction of two detention basins by
the City of Carlsbad to control flooding impacts within the Calavera Creek watershed.
The recommended location for these basins is near the northeast corner of the Rancho
Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. Basin 1 (referred to as Basin “BJB”) is located north of the
proposed College BoulevardCannon Road intersection and would have an inundation
area of approximately 15 acres and a storage capacity of 49 acre-feet. Basin 2 (referred to
as Basin “BJ”) is located southeast of the College BoulevardCannon Road intersection
and would have an inundation area of approximately eight acres with a storage volume of
48 acre-feet. The basins are part of a larger drainage plan for the area, and are consistent
with the 1994 City of Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan.
i
1 i
i
I
3) Project Objectives
The overall goal of the proposed project is to refine the land use plan, circulation plan,
and open space preserve system in a manner that is generally consistent with the intent of
the Calavera Hills Master Plan and the City of Carlsbad General PladCirculation
Element. In addition, the specific objectives include the following:
Establishment of an economically feasible land use plan that provides the necessary
range of housing opportunities for residents while maintaining an acceptable quality
of life standard within Calavera Hills;
Implementation of the City of Carlsbad Draft HMP and establishment of an open
space system which preserves environmentally sensitive lands, provides a functional
and regionally connected wildlife corridor system, and is consistent with regional
wildlife and environmental planning efforts;
Control and management of regional growth by updating the Local Facilities
Management Plan ensuring that necessary public facilities are in place at the time of
need, and providing for the siting and financing of such facilities;
Ensure that drainage facilities consistent with the City’s Master Drainage Plan are
implemented; and
Ensure that future development of the Master Plan amendment areas complies with
applicable City and regional policies, regulations, and programs.
s-3
Executive Summary
B. Discretionary Actions
1) Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II
Discretionary approvals accompanying the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II project
include a:
The proposed Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II, Bridge and Thoroughfare District
No. 4 & Detention Basins EIR (EIR 98-02)
Master Plan amendment (adjustments to residential and open space land use densities
and patterns along with changes in land uses for Villages E-1 and H and the CNP),
General Plan amendment (GPA 99-03) to allow change in land use for Villages H, E-
l, and the CNP and reconfiguration of land use densities for the remaining villages,
Rezone for Village Z (the CNP), and
Local facilities management plan amendment (LFMP 87-07[A]) for modification of
Zone 7 public infrastructure assessment and adequacy and phasing per the City’s
Growth Management Ordinance.
Master Tentative Map (CT 00-02) for development of the Calavera Hills Master Plan
Phase II, and
Hillside Development Permit OP 00-02) for grading of slopes within the Master
Plan area with a gradient of more than 15 percent and a relief of more than 15 feet.
The entitlements noted above will be considered by the City’s Planning Commission
which will make a recommendation to the final decisionmaker, the City Council. A
master tentative map is proposed concurrent with the Master Plan amendment to allow
for the grading of Villages K, L-2, U, Y, W, X, and College BoulevardCannon Road
connection to El Camino Real. Tentative map proposals for the individual villages
addressed in this EIR will be proposed after EIR approval and would be subject to future
environmental review. This would typically consist of preparation of a Negative
Declaration or an Addendum to the EIR to verify consistency with the conclusions of this
EIR.
Other future approvals which would be required to construct the Calavera Hills Master
Plan Phase II project eeeWinclude state and federal permits. These permits iwyinclude I
a Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for wetland
impacts; a Section 401 certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board
s-4
Executive Summary
(RWQCB); a 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG); and take authorizations/management authorizations for state and
federally listed, threatened, or endangered species.
2)
Extension of both of these roadways (Cannon Road Reach 3 and College Boulevard
Reaches A-C) is expected to include the formation of a bridge and thoroughfare district
(District No. 4), which is proposed to be formed upon approval by the City Council. In
addition, the roadways will require a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow for grading in the
floodplain and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow development of a public facility
within an L-C Zone and in the roadway links situated within the L-C zoned Robertson
Ranch property by the Carlsbad Planning Commission. The crossings by these roadways
over wetlands and waters under the jurisdiction of the USACE will require a Section 404
Permit, Section 401 certification from the RWQCB, and a 1603 Streambed Alteration
Agreement from the CDFG.
Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 - College BoulevarcVCannon
Road Extension
3) Detention Basins
Construction of the detention basins would require a USACE Section 404 Permit,
Section401 certification from the RWQCB, a 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement
from the CDFG, and any required City permits.
C. Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved
CEQA Guidelines Section 15123 (b)(2) requires identification of areas of controversy
known to the lead agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public. The
following areas of controversy were identified during preparation of the initial study.
These, and other issues, are fully analyzed in Chapter 4, Environmental Analysis:
Impacts to sensitive biological habitats and species on-site and in the immediate
area;
Conformance with the goals and objectives of the Master Plan and Draft Multiple
Habitat Conservation Program;
Traffic circulation and impacts to roadways;
Compatibility of the proposed project with existing and planned uses in the
vicinity.
.
0
0
0
CEQA Guidelines Section 15123 (b)(3) require a discussion of issues to be resolved
including a choice of alternatives and whether or how to mitigate the significant effects of
the proposed project. The listing of environmental effects, mitigation measures, and
alternatives constitute the required identification of issues to be resolved.
s-5
Executive Summary
D. Summary of Significant Effects and Mitigation Measures
Table S-1 summarizes each environmental effect of the proposed project found to be
significant, the mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid that effect, and the
conclusion as to whether the effect is reduced below a level of significance by applying
the mitigation measures. The mitigation monitoring and reporting program included as
Appendix L provides a comprehensive list of all project mitigation measures and
responsibility for enforcement.
E. Growth Inducement ~
Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of potential growth-
inducing impacts associated with a project, specifically the “ways in which the proposed
project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional
housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.” Typically, projects
that are considered growth inducing are those that (1) remove an obstacle to growth (Le.,
construction of water and sewer lines in an undeveloped area) or (2) encourage and
facilitate other activities (i.e., development of a new universitykollege).
The proposed project would not induce growth within the Master Plan area or in areas to
the north or west. Regions to the north and west of the Calavera Hills Master Plan area
have already been fully developed with typical suburban residential uses. The villages
proposed to be developed in this project are the last undeveloped villages in Calavera
Hills. The other villages have already been built or have been approved for development.
The project would not tax existing services because it would provide new facilities to
sufficientiy supply the proposed project.
I
Land bordering the Master Plan area to the east is primarily undeveloped. In addition, the
project sets aside the 110-acre Calavera Nature Preserve area (Village Z) as a long-term
mitigation property, never to be developed. The project cannot induce growth in these
areas.
Land to the south is a mixture of vacant land and agriculture. The project proposes to
construct only those facilities necessary to serve the proposed villages and meet the
requirements of the Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan. Construction of unplanned
sewer, water, gas, or electric lines would not be required. The project could induce
growth in these areas because it would bring development in proximity to open,
undeveloped, or agricultural land.
S-6
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
Impact Level
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation After Mitigation
LAND USE
1. Is the proposed project
compatible with existing land uses?
2. Does the project conflict
with any applicable land
use plan, policy, or
with jurisdiction over the
project, including the City
of Carlsbad General Plan,
Calavera Hills Master Plan,
habitat conservation plan,
or zoning ordinance?
z regulation of an agency
Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II: No land use planning conflicts were required. significant
identified for the Master Plan Phase I1
project.
DistrietLDetention Basins: The
proposed roads and detention basins
are compatible with existing land uses.
Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II: The proposed project is consistent required significant
with Carlsbad General Plan, Calavera
Hills Master Plan, Zone 7 Local
Facilities Management Plan, and the
Hillside Development Ordinance.
Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II: No mitigation is Less than
Bridge and Thoroughfare Bridge and Thoroughfare DistrietDetention Basins: No Less than mitigation required. significant
Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II: No mitigation is Less than
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation
Impact Level
After Mitigation
LAND USE (cont.)
Bridge and Thoroughfare District
No.4Detention Basins: The
proposed project detention basins and
the roadway alignments are generally
consistent with the alignments shown
in the General Plan and adopted
Calavera Hills Master Plan.
Construction of detention basin “BJ”
results in a significant impact because
construction will eliminate approx-
imately I .5 acres of RV storage
parking at the 520-unit Rancho
Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. Since
this mobile home park is a planned
development subdivision, Section
2 1.45.090(k) of the Carlsbad Zoning
Ordinance is applicable. This section
stipulates that planned developments
must provide a minimum RV storage
lot of 20 sq. ft. per unit or an estimated
10,400 sq. ft. (0.24 ac) (exclusive of
driveways and aisles). To
accommodate driveways and aisles, a
maximum 0.5-acre RV storage area is
estimated to be required to avoid a
significant impact.
Bridge and Thoroughfare DistrictDetention Basins:
following measures shall be made conditions for approval for
the master tentative map’s Final Map or Grading Plan,
whichever occurs first:
1.
Less than
significant
Prior to elimination of access to the existing approximately
1.5-acre RV storage parking for Rancho Carlsbad Mobile
Home Park located within proposed Detention Basin “BJ”
and commencement of construction of Reach A of College
Boulevard (which’will eliminate access), the proiect
applicant for College Boulevard Reach A shall secure
alternate pedestrian and vehicular access to the existin9 RV
storage areas.
2. <
RV storage parking for Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home
Park (RCMHP) due to construction of Detention Basin “BJ.” the proiect applicant for the detention basin shall
secure a minimum 0.24-acre replacement site (exclusive of
access roads) for RV storage parking at one of the followinp;
locations:
0 The Rancho Carlsbad Partners’ propertv between
RCMHP and future College Boulevard Reach A,
0 The Robertson Ranch immediately northwest of the
mobile home park and south of Cannon Road;
0 Within an area surrounding Detention Basin “BJ” on the
RCMHP property; or
Another site suitable and convenient to the RCMHP
residents.
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Impact Level
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation After Mitigation
LAND USE (cont.)
The selected site shall be approved bv the Planning Director for
the City of Carlsbad and shall be installed prior to the bepinninri of construction for installation of Detention Basin “BY’ (which
will have the Dotential to inundate the lot with floodwaters). The
site selected will require a Conditional Use Permit and the
accompanving environmental review would be required at the time the relocation action is proposed.- .. .
CT i Ec
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis
LANDFORM ALTERATIONMSUAL QUALITY
1. Would the project have a
substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, or
substantially damage scenic
resources, within a state
. scenic highway? Would the
proposed project affect the
visual quality and aesthetic
character of the area?
The landform alteratiodaesthetic
impact from both within Calavera
Hills and off-site areas (e.g., El
Camino Real and Rancho Carlsbad
Mobile Home Park) from the development of the southern villages
(Villages W, X. Y) would be
considered a significant visual quality
impact.
Impact Level
After Mitigation Mitigation
~
Significant landform alteratiodaesthetic character impacts
would be reduced by conformance to the City’s Hillside
Development Ordinance, City of Carlsbad Landscape Manual,
and requirements contained in the Landscape Concept Plan and
grading requirements contained in the Master Plan (see EIR
Figure 3B- 15). The following measures would be made
conditions of future the master tentative map’s Final Map or
Grading Plan, whichever occurs first.
1.
Less than
significant
Utilize slope contour grading, in conjunction with landform
vegetation planting for slopes adjacent to natural open space
in areas visible from public roadways and public open
spaces. This will result in visual transition of these slopes
into the natural terrain as required by City of Carlsbad
Hillside Development Ordinance Section 21.95.120(@(2).
Implement the Master Plan’s detailed landscaping require-
ments for manufactured slopes adjacent to the proposed
Draft MHP open space to reduce the contrast and blend the
visual appearance of the graded and developed site from
natural off-site areas.
Implement the Master Plan’s transitional landscaping
plantings between development and native vegetation on
visible manufactured slopes and internal project landscap-
ing to reduce the off-site aesthetic impact from the grading
proposed for residential development pads and roads.
Implement the Master Plan’s landscaping requirements for
perimeter slopes.
2.
3.
4.
I
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Impact Level
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation After Mitigation
LANDFORM ALTERATIONMSUAL QUALITY (cont.)
5. Implement the Master Plan’s design guidelines for noise
walls (exterior treatment and landscaping) to reduce aesthetic impacts. (See Figure 3B-16 of the EIR for a noise
wall example that complies with the Master Plan’s six-foot
height limitation.) Design utilizes a combination bedwall
which would be landscaped to reduce the aesthetic impacts
at Village U along College Boulevard. This type of noise
wall would be required at the time master tentative maps are
proposed.
2. Is the proposed project No significant impacts were identified No additional mitigation is required. consistent with the City of
Carlsbad Hillside Develop-
ment Ordinance?
for the HDO because grading volumes would be in the “acceptable” range
(e.g., equal to or less than 10,OOO
cubic yards per graded acre), and the
manufactured slopes would comply
with the allowable exclusions.
Project conformance to all grading and
landscaping design requirements
contained in the Calavera Hills Master
Plan further avoids or reduces impacts
to a less than significant level.
Y c c
Less than
significant
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Impact Level Environmental Issue - Results of Impact Analysis . Mitigation After Mitigation
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
1. What direct and/or cumula- The traffic analysis concludes that In order to insure that the increased traffic generated by the Less than
significant tive traffic impacts would
the project have on local
and regional circulation
systems?
project traffic would not have a
significant direct and/or cumulative
traffk impact on the area.
project does not contribute to a significant reduction in service,
the project proponent shall incorporate the following measures
into the project construction scheduling. These measures would
assure that potential project impacts are avoided or reduced to a
less than significant level. These include:
0 Construction of traffic signals at warranted locations within
the Master Plan Phase II area; and
Construction of College Boulevard south of Carlsbad
Village Drive to Cannon Road and construction of Reach 3
of Cannon Road linking College Boulevard and El Camino
Real; and
Participation in financing the proposed Bridge and
Thoroughfare District No. 4 for Cannon Road -Reach
aand College Boulevard
The above provisions of the Calavera Hills Master Plan would
be accomplished through payment of Bridge and Thoroughfare District fees and construction of facilities as noted above.
Related Actions
In addition to the above, the City of Carlsbad is proposing
removal of an existing barricade on College Boulevard south of
Lake Boulevard. This action is not project dependent, but is
assumed to be in place prior to implementation of the proposed
0
Reaches B and C).
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVZRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Impact Level
After Mitigation Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION (cont.)
Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase I1 and Bridge and Thorough-
fare District No. 4 project. To avoid significant impacts from
this action to the intersections of El Camino ReaVPalomar
Airport Road and at El Camino ReaYTamarack Avenue, it is
anticipated that the City will complete the following measures
prior to removal of the barricade:
0 Complete improvements to the intersection of El Camho
ReaVPalomar Airport Road, which are currently under
construction.
Restripe the westbound through lane of Tamarack Avenue
to create a left-turn lane within the existing roadway.
0
NOISE
1. Would existing or future Analysis assumes that final grading The following measures would be made conditions of future the
master tentative map's Final Map or Grading Plan, whichever
occurs first to reduce the nuisance noise generated by
construction activities:
Less than significant noise levels adversely
impact future residents of
the planned development?
plans conform to grading plans
evaluated for this EIR. Any change in
grade elevations could result in a
reduction or increase to impacts and
would require additional analysis. la. Hours of construction shall be limited to the time period
allowed in the Carlsbad MuniciDal Code (Section 8.48.010).
7:OO A.M. to sunset on weekdays and 8:6 A.M. to sunset on
Saturdays. No construction, except in the event of an emergency, shall occur on Sundays and designated holidays.
lb. If construction activities will occur within 150 feet of existing residential areas, those construction activities shall
be limited to an eight-hour period within the allowable
timeframe indicated above.
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Impact Level
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation After Mitigation
NOISE (cont.)
Construction: Short-term blasting and
grading activities could occur directly
adjacent to a residential area within
the 75 dB(A) & line. Noise levels in
the existing residential areas due to
operations at the temporary materials
processing centers are not anticipated
to exceed the 75 dB(A) standard.
Impacts would be significant if a
sensitive receptor is exposed to
blasting or grading noise in excess of
75 dB(A) for more than eight hours in
any 24-hour period.
On-site Future Trafic Operations: Future Mic-generated noise is
anticipated to exceed the City’s 60
CNEL exterior standard in many of the
on-site and off-site areas. Significant
exterior and interior noise impacts are
projected for residential uses in
Villages E-1, U, W, X, and Y. To
avoid significant impacts, the project
2. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and
fitted with standard mufflers. Verification shall be provided
to the satisfaction of the Planning Department Director prior
to the commencement of grading.
3. The project shall conform to standards established in the
County Blasting Ordinance (Title 3, Division 5, Chapter 111
County Code of Regulatory Ordinances, Sec. 35.377.101-
104 and 35.377.301,306 and 307) and Uniform Fire Code
(Sec. 77.101,103,104,306 and 307) and Section 8.48.010
of the City’s Municipal Code limiting allowable hours of
activities associated with blasting to between 9:OO A.M. and
430 P.M. or one-half hour before sunset, whichever comes
first, Monday through Friday. No blasting will be allowed
on weekends or on the holidays to reduce the temporary
noise impacts due to blasting. Verification of conformance
shall be provided to the Planning Department Director prior
to the commencement of grading andor blasting activities.
The following measures shall be made a condition of approval
for the master tentative map’s Final Map or Grading Plan,
whichever occurs first to reduce the significant noise generated by post-development operational activities:
4. To reduce significant noise impacts to on- and off-site areas
where predicted levels exceed allowable levels, prior to
completion of each road segment shown to result in
significant traffic-related noise impacts, the project shall
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
~
Impact Level
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation After Mitigation
NOISE (cont.)
requires construction of noise barriers
(bedwall combination) at heights in
excess of six feet to reduce exterior
noise levels to the City's 60 CNEL
exterior residential noise standard.
In addition, for areas where ground-
and/or second-floor exterior noise
levels are projected to exceed 60
CNEL (Villages E-I, K, U, W, X and
Y), it will be necessary for the
windows to remain closed to ensure
that interior noise levels meet the
City's interior standard of 45 CNEL.
The building code (for multi-family
buildings) and the City of Carlsbad
require forced-air circulation or air
conditioning be provided for
residential areas where noise levels
exceed 60 CNEL, necessitating that
windows be kept closed. The affected
units would be the units adjacent to the
roadways.
construct noise barriers, consisting of walls, berms, and/or
wallhem combinations of varying heights, to reduce the
impact of traffic generated noise. Noise barriers shall be
free of cracks, gaps, or holes and the transmission loss shall
be at least 10 decibels greater than the estimated barrier
attenuation per requirements of the Master Plan and
Chapter 3, Section B of this EIR that address visual impacts
from wall heights in excess of six feet. Figure 3B-16
provides an example of a proposed sound wall section that
meets City noise wall height requirements.
As a condition for construction, the project proponent shall
provide forced-air circulation or air conditioning prior to
occupancy of units where it will be necessary for the
windows to remain closed to ensure that interior noise levels
meet the City's interior standard of 45 CNEL. In addition,
an interior noise study is required prior to the issuance of
building permits for those areas where ground- and/or second-floor exterior noise levels are projected to exceed 60 CNEL. The affected units would be the units adjacent to the roadways.
Detailed acoustical analyses shall be performed and
submitted for approval as part of the tentative map
applications for Villages E-I, K, U, W, X and Y, showing
that second-floor interior noise levels will not exceed the 45
CNEL interior standard and outdoor areas will not exceed
the City's 60 CNEL outdoor standard.
5.
6.
TABLE S-1
(continued)
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
~~ ~ ~~
Impact Level
After Mitigation Enhnmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation
NOISE (cont.)
Ofl-site Future Traflc Operations: 7.
Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park
(RCMHP) - significant exterior noise
impacts are projected in northwestern
and northeastern portions of the park
located south of Cannon Road Reach 3
and west of the intersection of Cannon
Road with College Boulevard. Impacts would be reduced to a less
than significant level if proposed
mitigation measures 7 and 8 are
’ implemented.
Robertson Ranch House - located
south of the Cannon Road Reach 3
alignment, significant exterior noise
impacts are projected along the
northern property boundary if the
ranch house is permanently occupied.
Impacts would be reduced to a less
than significant level if proposed
mitigation’measures 7 and 8 are implemented.
8.
Prior to completion and operation of Cannon Road Reach 3,
Alignment 1 (the proposed project) , a four-foot-high noise ,
wall shall be constructed along the northern boundary of the
RCMHP as shown on Figure 3D-12 of the EIR.
Prior to completion and operation of Cannon Road Reach 3
(Proposed Project, Alignment 1 or Alignment 3), the Droiect
amilicant shall construct noise barriers varving from seven
to eight feet in height for the prooosed Cannon Road
alignment (Alternative 1) (EIR Figure 3D-12) or for
Alternative 3. the “Reduced Intersection Elevation”
alternative as shown in Figure 3D-16 of the EIR. to reduce
exterior noise levels at the ranch house to a level at or
below the Citv’s 60 CNEL standard. Noise barriers shall
comtdv with Firmre 3B-16 of the EIR.
TABLE S-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
~ ~~ ~
Impact Level
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation After Mitigation
NOISE (cont)
Significant noise impacts could also
occur at the Cape Neighborhood (west
of College Blvd., south of Village E- LL
9. To avoid significant unmitigated noise impacts to private
properties (including “The Cape”) along College Boulevard
Reach C, the project proponent shall (a) contact affected
property owners for permission to construct a noise barrier.
If the affected owners agree, the project proponent shall (b) obtain necessary entrance and construction permits for
building a barrier and a release for wall maintenance prior
to (c) constructing the wall. As a condition for approval of
the master tentative map’s Final Map andor Grading Plans,
whichever occurs first, and prior to completion of College
Boulevard Reach C, required noise walls shall be
constructed to conform to the design requirements described
in the Master Plan and this EIR (see Figure 3B-16). In
addition, an acoustical study shall be prepared and
submitted to the City demonstrating that barriers are
sufficient to reduce exterior noise levels to the City’s 60
CNEL standard or below.
Permission to construct the barriers is voluntary and owners
may refuse banier construction. In the event that individual
owners refuse barrier construction, noise impacts at those
locations would remain sienificant and unmitigable. If
permission is granted, the barriers may be constructed of
transparent materials (e.g., glass, Plexiglas, etc.). Actual
construction of the wall shall occur concurrently with the
construction of College Boulevard.
TABLE S-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Impact Level
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation After Mitigation
NOISE (cont.)
AGRICULTURE
1. Would the proposed
project convert prime
farmland, unique
farmland, or farmland
of statewide
importance to non-
agricultural use?
Garden Southeast of Future Cannod
College Intersection - noise levels will
not exceed 70 CNEL exterior standard
established for agricultural uses. No
mitigation is required.
Church-City of Oceanside - increased
exterior noise levels would be approx-
imately one decibel. The increase is
considered less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
No additional mitigation required.
Master Plan Phase ZZ: There are no villages in the Master Plan Phase I1
that would affect soils suitable for
agriculture, that is, soils with a
Capability Class of IV or higher and a
Stone Index of 40 or higher.
Master Plan Phase ZZ: No significant impacts were identified
for development of proposed villages in Master Plan Phase I1
Less than
significant
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation
Impact Level
After Mitigation
AGRICULTURE (cont)
Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4LDetention Basin: Significant
direct and indirect impacts to prime
agricultural soils and ongoing
agricultural operations would affect a
small area (less than two acres) of land that is currently being used for
agriculture. Affected soils include
segments of Cannon Road and College
Boulevard and the proposed detention
basins near their intersection. Three
different soil types would be affected by construction of the two basins.
Among these are several soils suitable
for agriculture, including one prime
agricultural soil type, Salinas clay
loam (SbA).
Bridge and Thoroughfare Dktrzkt No. 4LDetention Basins: The
following measures shall be made a condition of approval for
the master tentative map's Final Map or Grading Plan,
whichever occurs first to reduce significant direct and indirect
impacts to prime agricultural soils and ongoing agricultural
operations affected by construction of project segments of
College Boulevard and Cannon Road, the following mitigation
shall be implemented:
1. As a condition for construction of proposed detention basins
and project segments of College Boulevard and Cannon
Road, site access shall be maintained or otherwise provided
throughout construction and subsequent operation of the
roadways and basins to ensure continued access to all
remaining active agricultural areas. Such access shall be
shown on applicable Final Maps and Grading Plans,
whichever occurs first. These plans are to be approved and
maintained by the City of Carlsbad within public rights-of-
way, and by the affected property owner where located on
private lands.
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation
Impact Level
After Mitigation
PUBLIC FACILITIES
1. Would the proposed Significant impacts to park adequacy project result in impacts on
schools, parks, fire/police
protection, water, or
wastewater?
will result if City determines that
Growth Management performance
standard is not met throughout
development phasing of the project.
Sewer collection facilities require
mitigation to lessen impacts to below a
significant level.
Impacts to all other areas, including
police and fire service, schools, water
distribution system, and wastewater
treatment would be avoided or
reduced to less than significant. This
would occur with implementation of
proposed project design, payment of mandatory fees, compliance with the
City’s Growth Management and
LFMPA for Zone 7, or other measures
required by statute. No additional
mitigation is required.
The following measures shall be made a condition of approval
for the master tentative map’s Final Map or Grading Plan,
whichever occurs first:
Parks and Recreurion: City Public WorkdParks and Recreation
staff for City of Carlsbad shall demonstrate Growth Manage-
ment and Local Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) compliance
for park facilities in the northeast quadrant of the city on an
annual basis. If City policy changes, or public funding for
proposed parkland is withdrawn or redirected to the degree that
the performance standard of 3 acres of parkland per 1,OOO
population is no longer attained, the developer shall provide
sufficient funding for parkland prior to the issuance of building
permits to allow the proposed development to proceed.
Drainage: In addition to planned Rancho Carlsbad Channel and
Basin Project improvements (discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3.J., Hydrology), such as construction of Basins
“BJBBJ” and dredging and other improvements to the Calavera
Creek channel along the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park),
the project proponent shall ensure that construction of first phase
improvements for the future Basin “BJB” are adequate to
mitigate the flows from the Calavera Hills development such
that there is no increase to drainage flow discharged into the Calavera Creek north and adjacent to the Rancho Carlsbad
Less than
significant
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Impact Level
After Mitigation Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation
PUBLIC FACILITIES (cont.)
Mobile Home Park, participate in the existing Local Drainage
Area Fee program and financing of the expanded Master
Drainage Plan improvements to mitigate existing flooding
problems downstream of the proposed project.
Sewer Collection: Subject to approval by the City Engineer,
significant direct and indirect long-term impacts to sewer
collection facilities shall be reduced to below a level of
significance through implementation of the following measure:
The proposed development project shall participate in the
existing fee program for financing the South Agua Hedionda
System. If the South Agua Hedionda is not completed prior to
the project's need for capacity, the project shall implement one
of the following alternatives:
a. Divert flows to the North Agua Hedionda Interceptor as
all flows are currently diverted.
If the North Agua Hedionda Interceptor is full, the
project shall be required to do one of the following:
Construct improvements on the North Agua
Hedionda line to increase the capacity. This could
require construction of a temporary storage
reservoir to regulate flows;
Construct an interim South Agua Hedionda Lift
Station to meet the needs of the proposed project;
b.
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Impact Level
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation After Mitigation
PUBLIC FACILITIES (cont.)
0 Construct an interim lift station to pump into the
Buena Vista Drainage Basin with all required
conveyance facilities to be constructed in road
rights-of-way; or
Construct an interim lift station to pump flows into
the Encinas Creek Basin.
All new conveyance facilities are to be constructed in road
rights-of-way.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES z h,
Significant direct and indirect impacts to sensitive plant
communities would be avoided or reduced to a less than
significant level with implementation of the measures described
below. Acquisition, preservation, and long-term maintenance of
the Calavera Nature Preserve (Village 2) is assured under the
provisions of an agreement developed in 1993. The funding
provisions are discussed in mitigation measures included in
Chapter 3.G. The mitigation measures recommended are based
on those provided in the Draft HMP and shall be made a
condition of approval for the master tentative map's Final Map
or Grading Plan, whichever occurs first. Alternative mitigation is
also recommended in the event the Draft HMP is not approved
as written. Tables 3G-8,3G-9, and 3G-10 provide a detailed accounting of impacts, required mitigation, and mitigation
recommendations for impacts to sensitive resources. Table 3G-8
also provides an accounting of excess acreage after mitigation
requirements are met.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.)
1. Would the proposed Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II:
project resilt in direct or
indirect imDacts to sensitive Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
plant species, or habitat communities? sensitive plant communities, including
Project development will impact
80.84A acres of Diegan coastal sage
scrub habitat.
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Impact Level Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation After Mitigation
Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II:
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
As a condition for approval of the master tentative map’s Final
Map or Grading Plan, whichever occurs first, the project
proponent shall, in conjunction with the development
improvements, ensure implementation of the following
mitigation as described below:
e The project proponent shall mitigate for impacts to Diegan
coastal sage scrub at a ratio of 2:l through the on-site
preservation of 161.i acres and restoration of 2.4W
acres along manufactured slopes, for a total of 164 acres.
The project proponent shall ensure that no part of any fire suppression zone shall be allowed within the approved Draft
HMP “hard-line” open space areas except at Village K and
Village X. Mitigation for this impact will reauire a modified
promam for fire suppression (which reduces the fire sup-
pression horizontal distances of the zones). a pullback of the
structural development within these areas, and modification
of the proposed “hard-line” alignment through approval of
the proposed “esuivalencv determination.”-
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Impact Level
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation After Mitigation
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.)
Southern Mixed and Chamise Southern Mixed and Chamise Chaparral
Significant impacts to southern mixed and chamise chaparral shall be mitigated edy&hweeardless of the approval status of - the Draft HMPL&
Chaparral
Project development will impact
27.394 acres of sensitive southern
mixed and chamise chaparrak
-The following mitigation
measure is required and shall be made a condition of approval of
the master tentative map's Final Map or Grading Plan,
whichever occurs first and shall be implemented in conjunction
with the development improvements.
of southern mixed and chamise chaparral at a ratio greater than
of like habitat.
The project proponent shall mitigate for impacts to 2uM acres
the required of 1: 1 through on-site preservation of 38.m acres
I
I
~ ~ ~~~~
Impact Level
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation After Mitigation
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.)
Non-Native Grasslands Non-Native Grasslands
Project development will impact - 2.044 acres of non-native grassland,
and
Significant impacts to non-native grasslands shall be mitigated
regardless of the status of the m&&he-Draft HMP,i4
As a condition for approval of the master tentative map’s Final
Map or Grading Plan, whichever occurs first, and in conjunction
with development improvements, the project proponent shall
ensure implementation of the mitigation measure described
below.
IThe project proponent
shall mitigate for impacts to 2.W acres of non-native
grasslands off-site at a 0.5: 1 ratio for a total of 1 .O acre. In total,
the proposed project retains 18.23 acres of non-native grasslands within the on-site open space preservation area.
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Impact Level
After Mitigation Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.)
Cismontane Alkali Marsh
Project development will impact 0.1
acre of sensitive cismontane alkali
marsh (seasonal).
Cismontane Alkali Marsh
As a condition for approval of the master tentative map’s Final
Map approval and/or issuance of grading permits, whichever
occurs first, and in conjunction with development improvements,
the project proponent shall ensure implementation of the
mitigation measures described below.
0 Impacts to 0.1 acre of cismontane alkali marsh (seasonal)
shall be mitigated at a 3:l ratio or 0.3 acre. This shall be
subject to the timing requirements of the affected resource
agencies and accomplished through creation and restoration
of wetland habitat either on- or off-site at a location
acceptable to the resource agencies and City of Carlsbad.
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Impact Level
After Mitigation Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.)
Eucalyptus WoodlanddDisturbed
Lands
Impacts to 1 .O acre eucalyptus
woodlands and 13.29 acres disturbed
lands may require payment of an “In-
lieu” Mitigation Fee on a “per acre of
impact” basis if the Draft HMP is
approved. If the Draft HMP is not
approved or adopted as currently
published, eucalyptus woodlands,
disturbed, and agricultural lands would
not be considered biologically
sensitive habitats under CEQA and no
mitigation would be required.
Eucalyptus Woodlands/Disturbed Lands
Impacts to eucalyptus woodland and disturbed lands shall be
mitigated only if the Draft HMP is approved. If the Draft HMP
is not approved, impacts to these lands would not be considered
significant under CEQA and would not require mitigation.
If the Draft HMP is approved and resources are determined
to be subject to the City of Carlsbad “In-lieu Mitigation
Fee,” the project proponent shall pay for each acre of
impact to eucalyptus woodlanddisturbed lands at an amount
to be determined by the City Council. Payment shall be
made a condition for approval of the master tentative map’s
Final Map andor grading permits, whichever occurs first,
the project proponent shall, in conjunction with
development improvements, ensure implementation of the
mitigation measures described below.
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS (continued)
~~
Impact Level
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation Mer Mitigation
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.)
Bridge and Thoroughfare District:
Project development of the College
Boulevard (Reach A, B, and C)
Proposed Project Alternative will
impact 43.6 acres, including sensitive
plant communities. There will be
ampacts to 5.7 (of 10.4) acres of
Diegan coastal sage scrub and 6.6
acres (of 6.6 acres) of southern mixed
and chamise chaparral, htw&es+
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
Development of Cannon Road (Reach
4) will impact 16.W acres of
Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat.
I Bridge and Thoroughfare DistrictLDetention Basins:
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
As a condition of approval for the master tentative map's Final
Map and issuance of grading permits, the Master Plan
developedproject proponent shall, in conjunction with the
roadway improvements, ensure implementation of the mitigation
described below.
I
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Impact Level Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation After Mitigation
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.)
0 College Boulevard (Reaches A and B) - impacts to Diegan
coastal sage scrub shall be mitigated at a ratio of 2: 1
through the on-site preservation of 9.4 acres at a location
acceptable to the City of Carlsbad and responsible agencies. NOTE: Construction and mitigation for Reach A is not the
responsibility of the Master Plan developer and may be
accomplished either by the City or other proponent.
Cannon Road (Reach 4) - impacts to Diegan coastal sage
scrub at a ratio of 2: 1 through the on-site preservation of
32.3 acres. Impacts shall be mitigated at a location
acceptable to the City of Carlsbad and responsible agencies.
NOTE: Construction and mitigation for Reach 4 is not the
responsibility of the Master Plan developer and may be
accomplished either by the City or other proponent.
Southern Mixed and Chamise Charmral
The uroiect applicant shall mitigate for impacts to sensitive
resources as follows:
0 Colleee Boulevard (Reach C) - Impacts to 6.6 acres of
southern mixed and chamise chapanal have been previously
mitigated as part of Calavera Hills Phase 1 Mitination Promam for the development of Villages 0 and T.
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Environmental Issue Results of Imriact Analvsis
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont)
Non-native Grasslands
Project development of the College
Boulevard (Reaches A and B) and
Cannon Road (Reaches 3 and 4) will
impact 1 .O acre and 0.98 acre,
respectively, of non-native grassland.
Impact Level After Mitigation Mitigation
Non-native Grasslands
As a condition of approval for the master tentative map's Final
Map approval and issuance of grading permits, the project
proponent shall, in conjunction with the development
improvements, ensure implementation of the mitigation
described below:
0 College Boulevard - Impacts to 1 .O acre of non-native
grasslands shall be mitigated at a 0.5: 1 ratio for a total of
0.5 acre of like habitat. Impacts to non-native grasslands
shall be mitigated off-site, at a location determined
acceptable by the City of Carlsbad,
Cannon Road (Reaches 3 and 4) - Impacts to 0.98 acre of
non-native grasslands at a 0.5: 1 ratio for a total of 0.9
acre of like habitat. Impacts to non-native grasslands shall
be mitigated off-site-.
Acceptable mitigation sites shall be determined by the City
of Carlsbad and responsible agencies.
TABLE S-1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
~~ ~ ~
Impact Level
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation After Mitigation
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.)
Cismontane Alkali Marsh
Project development of Cannon Road
(Reaches 3 and 4) will impact 0.6 acre
of cismontane alkali marsh and 0.12
acre cismontane alkali marsh
(seasonal), respectively. described below.
Cismontane Alkali Marsh
As a condition of approval for the master tentative map's Final
Map approval and issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall, in conjunction with the development improvements, ensure implementation of the mitigation
Cannon Road (Reaches 3and 4)- Impacts to 0.6 acre of
cismontane alkali marsh and 0.12 acre of cismontane alkali
marsh (seasonal) shall be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio for a total of
2.14 acres of like habitat. This shall be accomplished through
restoration of wetland habitat either on- or off-site at a location acceptable to the resource agencies and City of Carlsbad.
Riparian Woodland Riparian Woodland
Project development of College
Boulevard (Reaches A and B) and
Cannon Road Reach 3 will impact
1.35 acres and 0.63 acre of riparian
woodland, respectively.
0 College Boulevard {Reaches A and B) - Impacts to 1.35
acres of riparian woodlands shall be mitigated at a 22: 1
ratio for a total of 3.90 acres of like habitat.
Cannon Road (Reach 4) - Impacts to 0.63 acre of riparian
woodland shall be mitigated at a g:1 ratio for a total of
1.84 acres of like habitat. The replacement of five
sycamores for every tree affected will be required.
Mitigation shall be at a location acceptable to the resource
agencies and City of Carlsbad.
0
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Impact Level Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation After Mitigation
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.)
Riparian Forest/Riparian Scrub
Project development of College
Boulevard (Reaches A and B) will
impact 0.3 acre of riparian scrub.
Project development of Cannon Road
Reach 3 and Reach 4 will impact 0.3
acre of riparian scrub and 0.1 acre
riparian forest, respectively.
Riparian Forest/Riparian Scrub
As a condition of approval for the master tentative map's Final
Map and issuance of grading permits, the project proponent
shall, in conjunction with the development improvements,
ensure implementation of the mitigation described below.
College Boulevard (Reach A) - Impacts to 0.3 acre of
riparian scrub shall be mitigated at a 3: 1 ratio for a total of
0.9 acre of like habitat. Mitigation shall be at a location
acceptable to the resource agencies and City of Carlsbad.
Cannon Road- Impacts to 0.1 acre of riparian fori% (Reach
4) shall be mitigated at a 3? 1 ratio for a total of 0.32 acre
of like habitat. Impacts to 0.23 acre of riparian scrub
(Reach 3) shall be mitigated at a 3: 1 ratio for a total of O.%
acre of like habitat. Mitigation shall be at a location
acceptable to the resource agencies and City of Carlsbad.
0
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation
Impact Level
After Mitigation
~~~ ~- ~~
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.)
Eucalyptus Woodland, Agricultural Lands, and Disturbed Area
Project development of College
Boulevardcannon Road@x&e&
md-Bj will impact QL.5 acres of
eucalyptus woodland, 3o.W acres
of agricultural fields, 3.32; acres of
disturbed area, and 6.2 acres of
developed area. If the Draft HMP is
approved, In-lieu Mitigation would be
required. If the Draft HMP is not
approved or adopted as currently
published, eucalyptus woodlands,
disturbed, and agricultural lands would
not be considered biologically
sensitive habitats under CEQA and no
mitigation would be required.
Eucalyptus Woodland, Agricultural Lands, and Disturbed Area
If the proposed project is determined by the City of Carlsbad to
be subject to the In-lieu Mitigation Fee, mitigation for impacts to
eucalyptus woodland, agricultural, and disturbed lands would be
through a per-acre fee at an amount to be determined by the City
Council (City of Carlsbad HMP 1999).
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Impact Level Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation After Mitigation
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.)
..
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Impact Level
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation After Mitigation
~~ ~~
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.)
2. Would the proposed Coastal California Gnatcatcher/
project result in direct or Raptors
indirect impacts to sensitive
wildlife species? Project impacts to active nests of
raDtors and the coastal California
gnatcatcher require mitigation to
lessen impacts to below a significant
level.
Coastal California GnatcatcherRaptors Less than
significant Construction impacts to active nests will be avoided by
removing the Diegan coastal sage scrub within the project
area outside of the breeding season (February 15 to August
30) unless a Qualified biologist determines that there would
be no imDacts. A qualified biologist shall monitor all
vegetation removal to ensure no direct impacts occur to
individual birds or nests.
Construction impacts to nesting raptors will be avoided by
removal of any tree in the project area between September
and January, outside of the breeding season. If tree removal
must be conducted during the breeding season, a raptor nest
survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to
any removal to determine if any raptor nests are present. If
an active nest is discovered, a buffer shall be established
around the tree until the young are independent of the nest
site.
0
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Impact Level
Mitigation After Mitigation Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.)
Least Bell’s Vireo Least Bell’s Vireo ,
Focused surveys have been conducted All vegetation within the riparian scrub shall be removed outside
to determine whether the least Bell’s of the breeding season (March 15 to September 15) to ensure
vireo and the southwestern willow that no direct impacts occur to these species. Additionally, a
flycatcher are present within the biologist shall monitor all vegetation removal to ensure no direct
Bridge and Thoroughfare District and impacts occur to individual birds or nests
detention basins. The least Bell’s vireo
was found to be present. Project
impacts to active nests of this species
require mitigation to lessen impacts to
below a significant level.
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
A single adult willow flycatcher was
observed on-site; however, it is
believed to be a migrant flycatcher
given the timing of the observation
and because it was not observed during subsequent surveys.
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
No significant impacts identified; therefore, no mitigation is
required.
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~
Impact Level
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation After Mitigation
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.)
3. Would the promsed Wetlands and Non-wetland Wetlands and Non-wetland Jurisdictional Waters Less than 1. project result in indirect
impacts to important
wetlands and non-wetland
jurisdictional waters?
Jurisdictional Waters significant
Impacts to wetlands and non-wetland
jurisdictional waters are under
USACE iurisdiction and are
Jiirisdictioizal Requirements: For all the proiect components,
€impacts to USACE wetlands and non-wetland jurisdictional
waters of the U.S. and CDFG jurisdictional wetlands require a
404 r>ermit from USACE, a 401 water quality certificate or
considered significant. waivkr thereof from the Regional Wate; Quality Control Board,
and a 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG. All
project components shall obtain an individual 404 permit from
USACE. The impacts to wetlands and non-wetland iurisdictional
waters are described in detail in the final EIR and total 3.6 acres.
The habitats impacted include riparian scrub (0.6 acre). riparian
woodland (1.9 acres). alkali marsh (0.8 acre). and non-wetland
jurisdictional waters (0.3 acre).
Pursuant to wnding wildlife agency mrmits (USACE 404,
RWOCB 401. and CDFG 1603), the wetland creation necessary
to mitigate wetland imDacts is anticipated to occur in two
locations at a ratio of 3: I for wetland habitats and a ratio of I: 1
for non-wetland jurisdictional areas. The two locations are
adiacent to Basin “BJ” in Little Encinas Creek (3.6 acres) and
within the Calaveras Creek north of Basin “BJB” (7 acres). Apmoval of the wetland mitigation areas is reauired bv the resource agencies as part of the 404 and 1600 mrmittinq
process.
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Impact Level
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation After Mitigation
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (conk)
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Impact Level Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation After Mitigation
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.)
Wetlands Habitat: Impacts to riparian
woodland and riparian forest would be
mitigated at a 2: I ratio as discussed in #I above for the loss of these plant
communities that are considered to be
wetland habitats.
Wetlands Habirat: Impacts to riparian woodland and riparian
forest would be mitigated at a 2: 1 ratio as discussed in #I above
for the loss of these plant communities that are considered to be
wetland habitats. Impacts to riparian scrub and cismontane alkali
marsh would be mitigated at a 3: 1 mitigation ratio. Specific
mitigation acreages are provided below and in Tables 3G-8.3G-
9, and 3G-10 of the EIR.
Master Plan
Impacts to 0.1 acre of cismontane alkali marsh (seasonal)
would be mitigated at a 3: 1 mitigation ratio for a total of 0.3
acre.
Impacts to 0.1 acre of non-wetland jurisdictional waters of
the U.S. would require a mitigation ratio of 1:l for a total of
0.1 acre.
Bridge and Thoroughfare District
e Impacts to 1.5 acres of riparian woodland from College
Boulevard and 0.7 acre of riparian woodland and 0.1 acre of
riparian forest from Cannon Road would be mitigated at a
2: 1 ratio for a total of 4.4 acres. Impacts to 0.3 acre of
riparian scrub from College Boulevard and 0.3 acre of
riparian scrub and 0.8 acre of cismontane alkali marsh from
Cannon road would be mitigated at a 3: 1 mitigation ratio for
a total of 4.2 acres.
Impacts to 0.1 acre of non-wetland jurisdictional waters of
the U.S. from College Boulevard and 0. I acre from Cannon Road would require a mitigation ratio of 1: 1 for a total of
0.2 acre.
0
TABLE S-l
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS (continued)
Impact Level
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation After Mitigation
a
ARCHAEOLOGY/CULTURAL RESOURCES
1. To what extent would Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II:
with the master plan area will not
impact any significant cultural
Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II: No mitigation required. Less than
archaeological or historical The proposed development associated significant
resources be impacted by
development of the
proposed project, including resources.
off-site improvements?
Bridge and Thoroughfare District Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4Detention Basins: Less than
No. 4Detentbn Basins: Fourteen
sites and one isolate are recorded
within the proposed alignment and
alternative alignments.
- significant Subsequent to the close of the draft EIR public review ueriod,
the moiect aDplicant implemented the mitigation reauirements
prescribed below. The results of this mitigation (Le., testing of
the 14 identified sites within the aliments) indicate that one
site (CA-SDI-11756) within Cannon Road Reach 4 (Alignment 2) is significant and would reauire further mitigation (data
recoverv) as listed below as item 5 to reduce the impacts to below a level of significance. Should the Citv of Carlsbad adod
Alignment 2 for Cannon Road Reach 4, then this additional mitigation would be reauired. A summary of the testing promam is included as an attachment to Arqendix H (cultural
resources remrt).
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Impact Level
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation After Mitigation
ARCHAEOLOGYKULTURAL RESOURCES (cont.)
To avoid or reduce potentially significant impacts to
archaeological resources, the project proponent shall ensure that,
upon selectiodapproval of a final alignment by the City Council,
and prior to approval of the master tentative map’s Final Map or
Grading Plan, the following mitigation measures are
implemented
1. Prior to any disturbance, the project applicant shall provide
a letter of verification to the City of Carlsbad Director of
Planning that a qualified archaeologistlcultural resource
specialist has been retained to conduct a field investigation for the selected alignment(s).
2. Prior to any disturbance, a qualified archaeologistlcultural
resource specialist shall conduct a site investigation for
resources located in the proposed College Avenue
alignment (Reach B) to determine if any of the affected sites
meet the eligibility criteria for the California Register of
Historical Resources as required under CEQA. The project
proponent shall submit the results of the full archaeological/
CEQA significance assessment and related mitigation to the
City of Carlsbad Planning Department prior to
commencement of clearing, grubbing, or grading activities
for roadway or detention basin construction. The test
program for each site shall consist of mapping, a surface
collection, surface scrapes, and subsurface test probes
(STPs). If a subsurface deposit is identified as a result of
the STPs, up to three 1x1-meter units shall be hand excavated to provide a sample of site contents. Where
bedrock milling is present, each feature shall be measured,
drawn to scale, and photographed.
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Impact Level
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation After Mitigation
ARCHAEOLOGY/CULTURAL RESOURCES (cont.)
3. Recovered cultural material shall be analyzed and a
summary report prepared and submitted to the City of
Carlsbad Director of Planning, the client, South Coast
Information Center, and San Diego Museum of Man. The
summary report shall document the significance assessment
investigations, present discussions and supporting data
concerning the site's ability to address applicable research
issues, and make recommendations for future treatment and
impact mitigation.
Site records shall be updated or completed and submitted to
the SCIC and the SDMM and arrangements for the curation
of the collections shall be made.
Prior to any disturbance and after release of the site
investigation results, the qualified archaeologist/cultural
resource specialist shall develop mitigation for any eligible
sites consisting of preservation of significant resources in
open space. If this is not feasible, a data recovery program
shall be carried out. The proposed treatment plan shall be
prepared to provide details for the mitigation of impacts to
important sites and shall be approved by the responsible
agency. This plan shall be implemented as a condition of
the application for grading permits.
Based on the results of the above investigation, the project proponent shall not proceed with plans to construct any
alignment found to result in significant and unmitigated impacts to culturallarchaeological resources without first
circulating the results to the public and allowing comment
during an additional environmental review period.
4.
5.
6.
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
~ _____ ~
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation
Impact Level
After Mitigation
~~
PALEONTOLOGY
1. Would the proposed
project, including off-site
improvements, adversely
impact paleontological
resources?
There is a potential for significant
fossils to occur during grading of
Village H and W of the Calavera Hills
Master Plan Phase I1 and of the
proposed road extensions alignments.
Approval of the proposed project shall require a monitoring and
salvage program for the recovery of paleontological resources.
As a condition of the master tentative map's Final Map or
Grading Plan approval, whichever occurs first, the monitoring
and salvage program shall be implemented during development
grading. These mitigation measures would be carried out in
coordination with the City's adopted paleontological mitigation
program. With implementation of a program for the recovery of
paleontological resources during grading and earthwork, impacts
would tie below a level of significance.
Less than
significant
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Impact Level
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation After Mitigation
HYDROLOGY
1.
E
How would the proposed
project affect existing
drainage patterns? Would
these modifications result
in direct or cumulative
impacts related to increased
flooding downstream?
Creation of impervious surfaces on
what is now undeveloped land in the
remaining villages and road align-
ments would cause an increase in the
amount of runoff. Runoff from the
developed areas of the site would be
controlled and diverted into the
proposed storm drain system. The project design along with the proposed
downstream detention basin “BJB”
would decrease the amount of surface
runoff to bordering areas of
development and decrease overall
runoff velocity.
Increased runoff and potential erosion
generated from project construction
and development will require mitiga-
tion to lessen impacts to below a
significant level. .
The project will be required to comply with the NPDES permit
regulations as promulgated by the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board for the San Diego region. Current
regulations require the control of non-storm water discharges to
the storm water conveyance system, development and
implementation of a monitoring and reporting program to assess
the SWPPP.
The RWQCB is currently developing new regulations for the
NPDES permit (Tentative Order No. 2001-01). The final order
is scheduled to be published in February 2001. As a condition
of approval of the master tentative map’s Final Map or Grading
Plan, whichever occurs first, the project will be required to
adhere to the new regulations and to control sedimentation and
erosion, including installation of temporary detention basins or
other means of stabilization or impoundment required by the
State Water Resources Control Board. The following guidelines
shall be used during design and implemented during
construction to reduce runoff and minimize erosion:
0
L~SS than
Significant
Comply with current drainage design policies set forth in
the City of Carlsbad procedures.
Create desiltation basins where necessary to minimize
erosion and prevent sediment transport, until the storm drain
system is in place and streets are paved.
0
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Impact Level
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation After Mitigation
HYDROLOGY (cont.)
Landscape all exposed, manufactured slopes per City of
Carlsbad erosion control standards.
Phase grading operations and slope landscaping to reduce
the susceptibility of slopes to erosion.
Control sediment production from graded building pads
with low perimeter berms, desiltation basins, jute matting,
sandbags, bladed ditches, or other appropriate methods.
0
2. To what extent would the
proposed project affect the
water quality in the two
watersheds (Buena Vista
Creek watershed, which
drains to the north and the
Agua Hedionda Creek
watershed, which drains to
the south) within the
project area?
The short-term construction impacts to
water quality can result from increased
sediment from erosion during
construction, especially during wet
weather seasons. These activities
would, without control measures,
increase the amount of sedimentation
and siltation associated with runoff to
a significant level.
Conditions to control sedimentation and erosion, such as
temporary detention basins or other means of stabilization or
impoundment are required by the State Water Resources Control
Board as noted above. The project proponent shall ensure that
measures are implemented during construction and in the project
design.
Less than
significant
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis
AIR QUALrry
1. How would the proposed Potentially significant short-term
construction-related impacts to air
quality from fugitive dust during
grading, equipment exhaust and increased trips could occur.
project affect the ability of
the San Diego Air Pollution
Control District to meet
federal clean air standards?
The project proposes less development than was assumed in the adopted
regional air quality plan and
attainment demonstration and no
significant direct short- or long-term
impacts are predicted from
development of the Master Plan Phase
I1 and related operations. The project
is consistent with the adopted City
General Plan.
Mitigation
Impact Level
After Mitigation
The construction mitigation measures would be included as
conditions of approval for the master tentative map's Final Map
or Grading Plan, whichever occurs first. Each contractor/
applicant is responsible for this task upon verification by the
City of Carlsbad. In addition, all project construction activities
(e.g., grading, blasting, materials processing) are subject to the
City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance and are required to
implement measures to reduce fugitive dust impacts. Specific
measures are summarized below and include
Less than
significant
1. Sprinkling of all unpaved construction areas with water or
other dust control agents acceptable to the San Diego APCD
during dust-generating activities and application of water or
dust control agents during dry weather or windy days until
dust emissions are not visible.
2. Covering of haul trucks carrying dirt and debris to reduce
windblown dust and spills.
3. Immediate sweeping of dirt or debris spilled into paved
surfaces to reduce resuspension of particulate matter caused
by vehicle movement on dry, windy days. Approach routes
to construction sites shall be cleaned daily of construction-
related dirt in dry weather.
On-site stockpiles of excavated material shall be covered or
watered.
4.
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS (continued)
-~ ______
Impact Level Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation After Mitigation
AIR QUALITY (cont)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Rock materids undergoing processing shall be watered at
sufficient frequency during on-site rock-crushing and the
project shall install an automatic water, mist, or sprinkler
system in areas of rockcrushing and conveyor belt systems.
The project shall abide by all conditions of approval for dust
control required by the San Diego APCD.
Low pollutant-emitting construction equipment shall be
used.
Construction equipment shall be equipped with prechamber
diesel engines (or equivalent) and shall receive proper
maintenance and operated so as to reduce emissions of
nitrogen oxide, to the extent available and feasible.
Where feasible, electrical construction equipment shall be
utilized.
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS (continued)
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation
Impact Level
Mer Mitigation
________ ~~~
GEOLOGY
1. Are there unstable geologic
or soil conditions that
would represent a
constraint to development?
Master Plan Phase ZZ: Portions of the
development area are underlain by
expansive clay soils and/or hard rock
that could require removal,
recompaction, employment of post-
tensioned foundations, or blasting,
depending on the material.
Bridge and Thoroughfare District
No. 4lDetention Basins: Settlement
monitoring is needed where significant
fills are proposed in alluvial areas that
contain large amounts of potentially
compressible soils. The impact of
these soils is easily mitigated with
standard remedial grading, blasting,
and road construction techniques.
Master Plan Phase I. and Bridge and Thoroughfare: Prior to
approval of the master tentative map's Final Map or Grading
Plan, whichever occurs first, the project applicant shall
implement the following mitigation measures to reduce
potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level:
Less than
significant
Grading and blasting activities (specifically, ripping and
blasting of boulders) shall conform to the recommendations
outlined in the geotechnical study and requkments of the
City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance and San Diego County
Blasting Ordinance as they apply.
Removal of topsoil to a certain depth depending on the
location and recompaction;
Stability fills in some cut slopes;
Settlement monitoring in some locations;
Provision of adequate subdrainage in some canyon areas:
Heavy ripping with some boulders and blasting with others;
Placement of toe keys for some side-hill fills;
0
0
0
TABLE S-1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
(continued)
Impact Level
Environmental Issue Results of Impact Analysis Mitigation After Mitigation
GEOLOGY (cont.)
0 Oversize rock shall be disposed of within the deeper fills.
Rock in excess of eight inches shall be placed a minimum of
one foot below the lowest utility in road areas;
Final determination of rock disposal requirements should be
in compliance with the City of Carlsbad grading code or
policy and the recommendations of the geotechnical
consultant;
After final alignments are selected and prior to construction,
a detailed subsurface investigation shall be performed and
additional measures identified as necessary to remediate
adverse geological conditions.
0
Executive Summary
:I The proposed project would construct College Boulevard south through the project to El
Camino Real and Cannon Road across undeveloped land from El Camino Real to the City
access and increase traffic capacity to this undeveloped area while at the same time
However, this is not considered a significant growth impact because the area is already
planned for residential development in the general plan.
of Oceanside boundary to the east. These new circulation element roads would improve
adversely affect these areas by reducing and limiting access to agricultural lands.
!
i
I F. Cumulative Effects ’
Cumulative impacts are addressed in Chapter 6. Cumulative impacts refer to two or more
individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound
or increase other environmental impacts. These may include individual effects consid-
ered together from a single project or a number of separate projects. A potential
cumulative impact to landfodvisual quality and traffic circulation was determined to be
bs-t€w+significant. Implementation of the proposed project is in accordance with long-
standing City and County land use plans for the area, which indicate an eventual
conversion from existing mal to urban uses. Significant landform alteratiodaesthetic
character impacts would be partially reduced by requirements contained in the Landscape
Concept Plan and grading requirements contained in the Master Plan. Cumulative traffic
impacts as described in the traffic section (ChaDter 3.G.) would also be significant. No
other significant cumulative impacts were identified.
G. Project Alternatives
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) states that the range of reasonable alternatives to
the project, or to the location of the project, shall include those that could feasibly
accomplish most of the basic purposes of the development but would avoid or
substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. Section 15126.6(f)(l) states
that among the factors which may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of
alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general
plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, and jurisdictional boundaries and
whether the project proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access
to the alternative site. The alternatives addressed in the draft EIR include alternatives for
both the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II and the Cannon Road and College
Boulevard alignments. No alternative locations are proposed for the siting of detention
basins. The proposed basin locations are dependent upon existing topography, natural
drainage courses, and other existing and proposed site characteristics such as the
proposed alignments for Cannon Road and College Boulevard. A comparative summary
of the project alternatives is provided below in Table S-2.
S-50
1. Introduction
i
Chapter One
Introduction
This environmental impact report (EIR) has been prepared according to the requirements
of the City of Carlsbad and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public
Resources Code 21000 et seq.) and the state CEQA Guidelines (California Code of
Regulations, Section 15000 et seq.). It is an informational document intended for both
the decision maker and the public. It provides relevant information concerning the
proposed amendment to the Calavera Hills Master Plan, and the associated extensions of
College Boulevard and Cannon Road as part of the City’s Bridge and Thoroughfare
District No. 4 & Drainage Detention Basins. Discretionary evaluation of the proposed
project is the responsibility of the City of Carlsbad. The project applicants are Calavera
Hills II LLC (McMillin Companies and Brookfield Homes) for the Calavera Hills Master
Plan Amendment and the City of Carlsbad for the formation of the Bridge and
Thoroughfare District No. 4 and the Drainage Detention Basins.
The Calavera Hills Master Plan site is generally located west of Lake Calavera and south
of the city boundary with Oceanside. The College/Cannon Road extensions are located to
the south and southeast of the Calavera Hills Master Plan area (Figures 1-1 and 1-2). A
portion of the Master Plan area (Phase I) has already been developed. Phase II of the
Master Plan area is the subject of this document.
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed for the project on November 12, 1999.
The potentially significant impacts to be addressed in the draft EIR include agriculture,
air quality, archaeological and paleontological resources, biology, traffidcirculation,
cumulative impacts, growth inducement, land use compatibility, noise, public services
and utilities, solid waste, visual aestheticdgrading, water conservation, and hydrology.
Responses to comments received during the NOP public review period are incorporated
in the text of the EIR. The NOP is included in Appendix A of this document. In addition,
as part of the initial consultation process, four public scoping meetings were held on
September 16, 1999, January 31, 2000, March 8, 2000, and April 20, 2000. At each of
the scoping meetings each of the project components were presented to the public by the
City of Carlsbad Planning and Engineering Departments. Written comment forms were
made available for members of the public to provide input on the scope of issues to be
1
I I
1 FIGURE 1-1
4.4
RECON 'I' pq Regional Location of the Project oz.2 - - - MjobsU225e\graph1cs\nginai.cdr
1. Introduction
addressed in the draft EIR. Written comments were received after each of the scoping
meetings on a variety of issues. This draft EIR addresses issues brought up at these
scoping meetings.
For each environmental issue, the EIR contains a discussion of the existing conditions,
potential impacts, significance of impacts, and mitigation measures for those impacts
which have been identified as significant. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program for the mitigation measures is presented in accordance with CEQA Section
21081.6 and the City of Carlsbad requirements. Significant environmental effects that
could not be avoided if the project were to be implemented as proposed are identified in
the impact section of each topic and briefly summarized at the beginning of this report.
Alternatives to the proposed project are presented in Chapter 4. The technical and
supporting materials discussed and cited in the text are bound under separate cover in the
appendixes.
4
I
2. Project Description
Chapter Two
Project Description
A. Location and Environmental Setting
The Calavera Hills Master Plan Amendment and Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4
project addressed in this EIR are located in the northeast quadrant of the City of Carlsbad
(see Figures 1-1 and 1-2). The project consists of three components which are discussed
in greater detail in subsequent paragraphs. These include the (1) proposed 819-acre
Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II area located in the City’s approved Zone 7 Local
Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) area and an additional proposed 1 10-acre open space
area designated the Calavera Hills Nature Preserve; (2) extensions to College Boulevard
(Reaches A-C) and Cannon Road (Reaches 3 and 4) within the City of Carlsbad Bridge &
Thoroughfare District No. 4; and (3) two detention basins within the Calavera Creek and
the Little Encinas Creek watersheds.
As shown in Figure 2-1, the Calavera Hills Master Plan, including the Calavera Hills
Nature Preserve, is bounded by the Oceanside City limits along with State Route 78 (SR-
78) on the north with the southern boundary being an east-west line approximately one-
half mile north of the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. This line was formerly a City
of CarlsbadKounty of San Diego jurisdictional boundary. The Master Plan’s western
extent is near Carlsbad Village Drive and the easterly boundary is just west of Lake
Calavera except for the proposed Calavera Nature Preserve which extends easterly and
south of the lake. Figure 2-1 also shows the proposed extensions of College Boulevard
and Cannon Road and the location of the two detention basins which are generally
southeast of the Master Plan area.
Existing features in the Calavera Hills Phase II project vicinity include a San Diego Gas
& Electric (SDG&E) transmission line right-of-way (ROW) trending northeast-
southwest, which cuts diagonally across the southeastern portion of the Master Plan area.
In addition, a six-million-gallon steel tank water reservoir, which is owned and operated
by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD), exists in the north-central portion of
the Master Plan area.
5
LEGEND
RESIDENTIAL. LOW-MEDIUM SPACE (0-4 DU/AC) i 7 RESIDENTIAL. MEDIUM &%! (4-8 DU/AC)
RESIDENTIAL. MEDIUM-HIGH
111 FIRE STATION
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
COMMUNITY FACILITY AND/OR SCHOOL !giL::k?, HIGH
(15-23 DU/AC)
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL (KI VILLAGE NAME
NOTE: The Land Use designations (ie. RLM) shown on
each village of this exhibit are Proposed. not
existing.
This map was prepared for Calavera Hills 11. LLC. for presentation purposes only The information
shown is considered accurate and is nubjecl to
revision and change.
FIGURE 2-1
Calavera Hills Vicinity Map - - - M\jobs\3225e\praphics\fig2- 1 .ai I1/28/0 I
2. Project Description
Figure 2-2 is an aerial photograph of the project site and shows the current extent of
development in the Calavera Hills Master Plan area. As evidenced by the aerial
photograph, the majority of the existing Master Plan area has either been built or graded.
Agricultural operations currently exist south and southeast of the Master Plan area. Much
of the land required for the proposed project extension of College Boulevard and Cannon
Road is within this area.
B. Master Plan History
The Calavera Hills Master Plan has a history which dates back to May 7, 1974, when the
City Council approved MP-150 (Lake Calavera I Master Plan) and EIR-230. Since that
time there have been many amendments to the Calavera Hills Master Plan as well as one
updated environmental impact report. Most recently, the Master Plan was amended in
1993 and EIR 90-5 was certified in 1993 by the City Council. The 1993 amendment and
final EIR addressed the same villages that are the subject of this current EIR. Information
from EIR-230 and EIR 90-5 is incorporated by reference in this EIR to provide a more
detailed historical background for the current project.
Although most of the approved Phase I villages were constructed prior to the 1993
amendment (A, B, C, D, E-2, F, G, I, J, M, N, 0, and P-1) several have been developed
since this time (Village L-1 has been completed and occupied, and Villages Q and T have
recorded final maps, and are under construction. A sales and occupancy program has
been implemented for the last two). An estimated 1,619 housing units have either been
completed or are currently being developed as of December 2000, the time of this Master
Plan amendment. As currently adopted, the Master Plan would allow for the
development of an additional 679 dwelling units (or 702 since Village L-1 has been
constructed at a lesser than allowable density), plus a 9.0-acre community commercial
project.
Remaining villages to be developed constitute Phase I[ of Calavera Hills (E-1, H, K, L-2,
R, U, W, X, and Y). All of these Phase 11 villages, except Villages E-1, K, and R, were
the subject of previously approved tentative maps, which, in conjunction with Master
Plan densities for non-tentative map villages, allowed for 679 primarily multi-family
units. Subsequent to approval of these tentative maps, the coastal California gnatcatcher
was listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the federal Endangered Species
Act (ESA) as a “threatened” species. Since the City of Carlsbad determined that these
approved tentative maps could have the potential to harm the gnatcatcher, the approved
tentative maps were never finalized, and in 1998, they expired.
Beginning in 1997, gnatcatcher surveys, vegetation analyses, and discussions on redesign
of the development commenced between the Calavera Hills Phase II landowner, and
officials from the City of Carlsbad, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California
7
Date of Photograph: February, 2000
I' No Scale
FIGURE 2-2
Aerial P hot0 gr ap h of the Project Site - 1
2. Project Description
Department of Fish and Game, regarding avoidance of impacts, and mitigation for
unavoidable potential impacts to the gnatcatcher. These discussions resulted in a
consensus reached between the parties in 1998, which resulted in the requirement for a
designated habitat corridor link through the middle of the Master Plan area, preserving
the majority of centrally located Village K in permanent conserved open space habitat.
This consensus is documented in the City of Carlsbad draft Habitat Management Plan
(Draft HMP).
I
This required change in the plan due to the &atcatcher ESA listing is the genesis of the
redistribution of dwelling units from Village K to the previously lower density villages in
the southeast quadrant of the Master Plan (Villages U, W, X, and Y) proposed in this
Master Plan Amendment. As a result, lower densities and greater amounts of open space
are provided for in the center of the Master Plan area, and these densities are redistributed
primarily to the southeast quadrant of the Master Plan area. As currently adopted, the
Master Plan would allow for the development of 702 additional units, and a 9.0-acre
community commercial project.
In 1989, the City adopted the Zone 7 LFMP for the Calavera Hills area as required by the
Carlsbad Growth Management Program. This Growth Management Plan is the
authoritative policy on maximum development potential on properties within Carlsbad.
This Zone 7 LFMP allows for a maximum of 795 units, plus the community commercial
project, to be developed within the Master Plan area.
C. Characteristics of the Proposed Project
I
The project addressed in this EIR differs from the previous Calavera Hills amendments in
that it includes more that just an amendment of the Master Plan by the project applicant.
The major project components consist of (1) an amendment to the Calavera Hills Master
Plan; (2) the extensions of College Boulevard and Cannon Road southeast of the Master
Plan area through the formation of a City-initiated Bridge and Thoroughfare District by
the City of Carlsbad; and (3) the construction of two detention basins by the City of
Carlsbad in the vicinity of the College Boulevard Cannon Road intersection. Each of
these project components is described below.
I i Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase 11
I
The areas within Calavera Hills affected by the proposed plan amendment are referred to
as Phase II of the Calavera Hills Master Plan and are shown in Figures 2-3 and 2-4.
the proposed land use designations for the amended Master Plan. The amendment would
provide for the following:
I
I Figure 2-3 highlights the villages affected by the plan amendment, and Figure 2-4 shows
1
I 9 ._ .
source: Planning Systems 8/00 RECON FIGURE 2-3 9 NO SCALE Villages Affected by the Calavera Hills Master Plan
RLM
Source: Planning Systems 1/01 9 NO SCALE
FIGURE 2-4
Proposed Master Plan Land Use - - - WWE
2. hoiect Description
Modify existing land use designations and rearrange residential densities to provide
for the residential buildout of Villages K, L-2, R, U, W, X, and Y of the Calavera
Hills Master Plan. In addition, the amendment proposes to change the Village E-1
land use from commercial to residential and designate a two-acre community facility
use in Village H and a one-acre communitv facilitv use in Village Y. These land use
changes would affect a patchwork of undeveloped Master Plan property totaling
approximately 300 acres out of the 819 acres that make up the current Master Plan
area. The proposed maximum number of dwelling units (781 units) proposed by the
Phase II Master Plan amendment is shown in Table 2-1. Figure 2-5 shows the
existing zoning accompanying the Master Plan amendment. Proposed zoning districts
for each of the villages affected by the Master Plan amendment is as follows:
Village E- 1 :
Village H:
Village K
Village L-2:
Village R:
Village U:
Village W:
Village X:
Village Y:
Village 2:
RD-M (Residential Density-Multiple)
C-F (Community Facilities)
R- 1 (Single-Family Residential)
R-1
R- 1
RD-M
R- 1
R- 1
R-3 (Multi-Family Residential and Communitv Facilitv)
OS
NOTE: Village Z has been added to the Master Plan. It is the Calavera Nature Preserve (CNP). In addition, the City is currently considering an amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element (GPA 99-01) and Zoning Code (ZCA 99-02) that would increase the minimum net acreage required within the Village H community facilities (C-F) land use designation and zone. Chapter 4 includes a discussion of an alternative design that meets this requirement should it be approved.
Accommodate the open space system that has been negotiated by the project
applicant, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish
and Game (CDFG), and the City of Carlsbad. Figure 2-6 shows the “hard line”
configuration of the Calavera Hills open space system that was negotiated by the
interested parties in 1999. Hard line open spaces are those public or privately owned
properties that are permanently and legally committed to open space conservation.
This hard line configuration of habitadwildlife corridors is reflected in the City of
Carlsbad’s Draft HMP, dated December 1999.
Provide a habitat link from east to west in order to adequately mitigate for impacts to
the California gnatcatcher and other species consistent with the City’s Draft HMP
(Figure 2-7). The proposed Master Plan amendment would accommodate this linkage
by reducing the development area in Village K and redistributing the allowable
dwelling units among several of the remaining villages.
12
TABLE 2-1
PROPOSED MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT - PHASE II
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Village Gross Net Existing General Existing Existing Unit Proposed General Proposed Proposed Available Excess Units
Acres' Acres Plan Land Use GPC Yield2 Plan Land Use GPC Unit Yield Unit Credits3 Bank4
E- 1
H
K
L-2
R
U
w
X
Y
Z
11.7 9.0 ~
66.0 42.2
51.1 36.2
6.2 19.9
5.1 1.9
61.8 43.2
36.2 32.0
52.7 36.7
9.1 , 4.9
109.9 0.0
C
RL
RMH
RM
RLM
RLM
RL
RL
RL
os
0.0
1 .o
11.5
6.0
3.2
3.2
1 .o
1 .o
1 .o
0.0
Community
~ommercial~
42
416
119
6
139
32
36
5
O6
RMH
OSICF
RM
RLM
RM
RMH
RM
RM
RM
os
11.5
0
6
3.2
6.0
11.5
6.0
6.0
19.0
0.0
117
0
88
15
4
179
121
117
140
0
117
42
328
104
2
40
89
81
135
0
TOTAL 409.8 226.0 795 78 1 476 462
~
NOTES: GCP = growth control point. Overall dwelling-unit credit = 14.
Gross acres pursuant to proposed configuration of Village boundaries
Existing unit yield pursuant to approved Zone 7 LFMP
3C01umn #6 minus column #9
1
2
4c~i~~ #9 minus column #6
1 17,6 12 square feet Community Commercial development
Purposes
village Z, the Calavera Nature Preserve, currently allows 44 dwelling units pursuant to Zone 14 LFMP but site has been purchased for nature preserve
RECON -
7
%me: Planning Systems 8/00 FIGURE 2-5
Existing Zoning 9 NO SCALE
R-3225E
RECON
- -
FIGURE 2-6 Source. Planning Systems 3/00
Master Plan Open Space System 9 NOSCALE
R-322SF
REON
- -, -
Planning Systems 8/00 FIGURE 2-7 $ NOSCU Open Space Habitat Linkage
R-3225E
2. Project Description
Incorporate the adjacent 110-acre open space in Village Z as the Calavera Nature
Preserve (CNP), dedicated by Calavera Hills II, LLC in 1998, into the Calavera Hills
Master Plan boundary and eliminate the residential land use designation. As shown in
Figures 2-3 and 2-4, the CNP is south of Lake Calavera and adjacent to the current
eastern Master Plan boundary. The zoning of the CNP will be changed from the
existing Limited Control (L-C) zone to a Planned Community (p-C) zone. Within the
Master Plan this parcel will be designated Open Space (OS). Figure 2-8 shows the
Master Plan’s open space designations for Calavera Hills Phase I, Phase II, and joint
Phase I and II, including the 1 10-acre CNP.
Allow for the residential buildout development of the subject eight Phase IT villages
(E-1, K, L-2, R, U, W, X, and Y) in accordance with the provisions of the proposed
Master Plan amendment.
Propose Village Y as the affordable housing site.
Adjust the boundaries of Village Y in response to a proposed shift of College
Boulevard to the east necessitated by a preliminary alignment’s conflict with a high
voltage power transmission tower. This shift would increase the area of Village Y by
3.5 acres.
Adjust the boundaries of Villages K and L-2 in order to join the segment of Village L-
2 bifurcated by Tamarack Avenue to Village K. This swap would remove
approximately 9.5 acres from the existing Village L-2 and add this amount to
Village K.
Modify development standards, residential design criteria, and architectural guidelines
to ensure functional and aesthetically pleasing design and compatible architectural
styles for the proposed residential products.
Modify the designated location of signage, documentation, fencing, and other existing
community identification criteria for the buildout of the Master Plan.
Update and modify the Zone 7 (Calavera Hills) Local Facilities Management Plan to
for parks, drainage facilities, circulation roadways, fire stations, open space, schools,
sewer collection lines, and water distribution facilities, affected by the Phase II
revise buildout projections, and address existing and future public facility adequacy
i development. j
i
I
I
Construct College Boulevard Reaches B and C and Cannon Road Reach 3 to Drovide
access to the site. Construction of College Boulevard Reach A and Cannon Road
Reach 4 would not be a Master Plan requirement.
17
[[[ON
- - -
Source: Planning Systems 8/00 FIGURE 2-8
$NO SCALE Open Space Phases
R-3225E
2. Proiect DescriDtion
development of major arterial roadways.
0 Include a construction traffic management plan consistent with City of Carlsbad
Engineering policy to ensure that traffic safetv and access is maintained during
grading and construction of the moiect.
1
2) Bridge & Thoroughfare District No. 4 - College
BoulevarcVCannon Road Extensions
The second major component of the project is the formation by the City of Carlsbad of a
Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 for the extensions of College Boulevard and
Cannon Road. College Boulevard (Reaches A, B, and C) would be extended from within
the Calavera Hills Master Plan at Carlsbad Village Drive southerly to El Camino Real
(approximately 9,500 feet). The Bridge and Thoroughfare District encompasses the reach
of College Boulevard (Reach C) that lies within the boundaries of the Calavera Hills
Master Plan. Cannon Road (Reaches 3 and 4) would be extended from El Camino Real
easterly to the City of Oceanside (approximately 9,100 feet). Although included in the
Bridge and Thoroughfare District, Cannon Road Reach 4 is currently unfunded.
Figure 2-9 shows the approximate alignments of both roadways. As noted above, the
Calavera Hills Phase II Master Plan project would be rewired to construct College
Boulevard Reaches B and C and Cannon Road Reach 3 only to provide access to the site.
Construction of College Boulevard Reach A and Cannon Road Reach 4 would not be a
Master Plan requirement.
Figure 2-10 shows in greater detail the alignments for College Boulevard and Cannon
Road by reach which are addressed in this EIR as a component of the proposed project.
Alternative alignments for each roadway including alternatives which were considered
but rejected by the City of Carlsbad prior to the EIR are addressed in the Project
Alternatives section (Chapter 4) of this EIR.
The primary elements of this portion of the project are:
1
I
19
.
I
CALIAm HILLS MASTERPLAN BOUNDARY 7
FIGURE 2-9
Bridge and Thoroughfare District Number 4
(Cannon Rd. Reach 3,4 and College Blvd. Reach A-C)
Source: PlanningSystems 8/00
2. Proiect DescriDtion
Realign Cannon Road within the Oceanside City limits including the reconfiguration
of an existing church site and parking lot area. The proposed realignment of Cannon
Road would require approximately 22 parking spaces to be replaced and modification
of the existing access. Preliminary studies indicate that approximately 24 parking
spaces would be provided to replace those lost Praser Engineering 1999). The City
of Carlsbad would coordinate with the church to obtain a CUP amendment to proceed
with modification of the church parking lot.
3) Detention Basins
The third component of the project consists of the construction of two detention basins by
the City of Carlsbad to control flooding impacts within the Calavera Creek and the Little
Encinas Creek watersheds. These basins are shown as future drainage facilities on
Figure 2-1. The recommended location for these basins is near the northeast comer of the
Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. Basin 1 (referred to as Basin “BJB”) at the
northeast of the College BoulevardCannon Road intersection would have an inundation
area of approximately 15 acres and a storage capacity of 49 acre-feet. Basin 2 (referred to
as Basin “BJ”) is located east of the College BoulevardCannon Road intersection and
would have an inundation area of approximately eight acres with a storage volume of 48
acre-feet. Basin “BJB” would be constructed concurrentlv with the construction of
College Boulevard. The basins are part of a larger drainage plan for the area, and are
consistent with the 1994 City of Carlsbad Master Drainage Plan.
D. Discretionary Approvals
1) Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase I1
Discretionary approvals accompanying the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II project
include:
The proposed Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II, Bridge and Thoroughfare District
No. 4 & Detention Basins EIR (EIR 98-02)
0 Master Plan amendment (MP 15O[H]) for adjustments to residential and open space
land use densities and patterns along with changes in land uses for Villages E-1 and
H and the CNP,
General Plan amendment (GPA 99-03) to allow change in land use for Villages H, E-
l, and the CNP and reconfiguration of land use densities for the remaining villages,
Zone Change for Village Z (the CNP),
22
2. Project Description
Local facilities management plan amendment (LFMP 87-07[A]) for modification of
Zone 7 public infrastructure assessment and adequacy and phasing per the City’s
Growth Management Ordinance,
Master Tentative Map (CT 00-02) for development of the Calavera Hills Master Plan
Phase 11, and
Hillside Development Permit (HDP 00-02) for grading of slopes within the Master
Plan area with a gradient of more than 15 percent and a relief of more than 15 feet.
The entitlements noted above will be considered by the City’s Planning Commission
which will make a recommendation to the final decisionmaker, the City Council. A
master tentative map is proposed concurrent with the Master Plan amendment to allow
for the grading of Villages K, L-2, U, Y, W, X, and College BoulevarcUCannon Road
connection to El Camino Real. Tentative map proposals for the individual villages
addressed in this EIR will be proposed after EIR approval and would be subject to future
environmental review for consistency with the conclusions of this EIR.
Other future approvals which wodd be required to construct the Calavera Hills Master
Plan Phase 11 project “^“‘T‘include state and federal permits. These permits mayinclude I
a Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for wetland
impacts; a Section 401 certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB); a 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFG; and take
authorizations/management authorizations for state and federally listed, threatened, or
endangered species. A consistency determination with the City of Carlsbad Draft HMP
will be necessary for the take of native upland habitats. Alternatively, Section 7 or
Section 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act could be used for the take of endangered
species should the City’s Draft HMP not be adopted.
!
2) Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 - College
Boulevard/Cannon Road Extension
Extension of both of these roadways is expected to include the formation of a bridge and
thoroughfare district (District No. 4), which is formed upon approval by the City Council.
In addition, the roadways will require a Special Use Permit (SUP) (to allow for grading in
the floodplain, in areas of the roadways located within the floodplain) and a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) to allow development of a public facility within an L-C Zone, in the
roadway links situated within the L-C zoned Robertson Ranch property) by the Carlsbad
Planning Commission. The crossings by these roadways over wetlands and waters under
the jurisdiction of the USACE will require a Section 404 Permit, Section 401 certification
from the RWQCB, and a 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFG.
23
2. Proiect DescriDtion
3) Detention Basins
Construction of the detention basins would require a USACE Section 404 Permit, Section
401 certification from the RWQCB, a 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the
CDFG and any required City permits.
E. Project Objectives
The overall goal of the proposed project is to refine the land use plan, circulation plan,
and open space preserve system in a manner that is generally consistent with the intent of
the Calavera Hills Master Plan and the City of Carlsbad General PldCirculation
Element. In addition, the specific objectives include the following:
0 Establishment of an economically feasible land use plan that provides the necessary
range of housing opportunities for residents while maintaining an acceptable quality
of life standard within Calavera Hills;
0 Implementation of the City of Carlsbad Draft HMP and establishment of an open
space system which preserves environmentally sensitive lands, provides a functional
and regionally connected wildlife corridor system, and is consistent with regional
wildlife and environmental planning efforts;
Control and management of regional growth by updating the Local Facilities
Management Plan (LFMP) ensuring that necessary public facilities are in place at the
time of need, and providing for the siting and financing of such facilities;
0 Ensure that drainage facilities consistent with the City’s Master Drainage Plan are
implemented; and
0 Ensure that future development of the Master Plan amendment areas complies with
applicable City and regional policies, regulations, and programs.
24
3. Environmental Analysis A. LandUse
Chapter Three
Environmental Analysis
A. LandUse
1) Existing Conditions
a)
Adopted/Existing Master Plan Land Uses
Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase 11
The adopted Master Plan area consists of 819 acres which are divided into 27 villages.
The villages affected by the proposed amendment are shown in Figure 2-3. Figure 3A-1
shows the currently adopted Master Plan land uses for the affected areas. At the present
time, many of the villages within Calavera Hills have been built or have been approved,
Specifically, Villages A through D, E-2, G, J, 0, and P-1 have been developed and
Villages L-1, Q, and T have recorded final maps and are presently under construction.
To date, 1,619 units have either been completed or are currently being developed in
Calavera Hills, along with one elementary school, one recreational vehicle storage area,
and one community park. As adopted, the current Master Plan would allow for 795
additional units within the eight remaining residential Villages (Villages H, K, L-2, R, U,
W, X, and Y), for a total of approximately 2,400 residential units along with a junior high
school site within Village S. An 11.3-gross-acre site with a commercial center land use
designation at Village E-1 and the Calavera Nature Preserve, a 110-acre open space
designation at Village Z, are also shown in the adopted Master Plan.
Major infrastructure facilities within the Master Plan area include the 16.16-acre Calavera
Hills Community Park in Villages E-2 and F, the Hope Elementary School in Village M,
a K-8 school in Village S, the Calavera Hills Sewer Reclamation Plant, and the Carlsbad
Municipal Water District’s steel tank water reservoir and associated conveyance system.
A 150-foot-wide SDG&E electrical transmission line easement also bisects the Master
Plan area. Upon buildout of the Master Plan area, three circulation element roads will
service Calavera Hills: College Boulevard, Carlsbad Village Drive, and Tamarack
Avenue. .
25
LAND USE LEGEND
RESIDENTIAL RL - Low Density (0-1.5 DUIAC.) RLM - Low-Medium Density (0-4 DUIAC.) RM - Medium Density (4-8 DU/AC.) RMH - Medium-High Density (8-15 DU/AC.)
C - Community Commercial E - Elementary School J -Junior High School U - Public Utility OS - Open Space
NON-RESIDENTIAL
rA LandUses
Affected
by MPA
3. Environmental Analysis A. LandUse
The 10 villages affected by the proposed plan amendment comprise approximately 410
acres of essentially vacant land entirely within the City of Carlsbad. The proposed land
use for the affected villages is residential, with general plan designations ranging from
low-medium density residential (UM) to high density residential (RH) and open space.
The residential designations allow for residential densities ranging from 0 to 4 dwelling
units per acre (ddac) (RLM) to 15 to 23 ddac (RH).
Existing On-site and Adjacent Land Uses
As depicted in the aerial photograph shown in Figure 2-2, much of Calavera Hills has
been either built or graded pursuant to previous approvals. There are existing residential
neighborhoods within Calavera Hills adjacent to some of the vacant villages being
considered in the proposed plan amendment. These include:
The Cape neighborhood (Villages C and D, 230 multi-family units) adjacent to
Villages E-1, U, and Y;
The Villas (Village J, 210 multi-family units) and Crest (Village G, 108 duplex
units) near Village H;
The Trails (Village 0, P1) and the Cliffs (Village L1) northerly and easterly of
Village K, and
The Barrington neighborhood (Village Q) adjacent to Village L2.
A variety of land uses surround the Master Plan area. Active agricultural operations exist
to the south and southeast; private and City-owned open space preserve lands occur
around Calavera Lake to the east; residential development, South Coast quarry, and open
space lie to the north in the City of Oceanside; and residential development exists to the
west.
Applicable City Plans, Policies, and Regulations
There are several adopted City ordinances and policies which address land use issues
applicable to the proposed project. The pertinent components of those ordinances and
policies are discussed below.
Carlsbad General PZan. The Carlsbad General Plan’s Land Use Element defines
residential density allocations as a tool used in describing the intensity of residential land
use. These designations are not intended to drive the selection of a particular housing
type or design, but rather offer a type of intensity that would characterize the area. This
characterization attempts to accommodate innovative approaches to residential design.
The General Plan also defines the community commercial designation, which currently
exists within the Master Plan. The residential and commercial land use designations
applicable to the proposed Master Plan amendment areas are described below:
27
3. Environmental Analysis A. LandUse
Residential Low (RL) would be characterized detached single-family dwellings at
a density of 0-1.5 units per acre,
Residential Low Medium (RLM) would be characterized by detached single-
family dwellings on lots in the range of a quarter of an acre per unit. Providing the
development does not exceed 4 ddac, a variety of product types would be
allowed under this designation.
Residential Medium Density (RM) is characteristic of detached small-lot single-
family, attached condominiums, or low-density apartment at 4 to 8 du/ac.
Residential Medium-High Density (RMH) is characteristic of apartment
complexes or condominium developments with densities in the 8 to 15 ddac
range.
Residential High (RH) is characteristic of apartment complexes or condominium
developments with densities in the 15 to 23 ddac range.
Community Commercial (CC) at Village E-1 (9.3 net acres) would allow
commercial uses within the Master Plan. The Community Commercial
designation would provide a wide range of commercial-related services on 10 to
30 acres and would usually serve a market radius containing 40,000 to 50,000
population. Currently, there is one existing and two anticipated commercial
centers in the project area. These include the 10-acre Vons center at El Camino
Real and Marron Road; approved Sunny Creek site at the El Camino Real and
College Boulevard; and a proposed 40-acre South Coast Commercial site south of
SR-78 and west of College Boulevard.
Community Facilities - For new or amended Master Plans, the General Plan Land
Use Objective B-4 outlines City guidelines for the sizes and types of uses. For
Calavera Hills, adequate areas for community facilities uses must be provided.
Allowable uses include places of worship, boys/girls clubs, day care, senior
facilities, and so on.
Open Space (Calavera Nature Preserve)
Elementary and Junior High Schools
Zuning Ordinance. The Calavera Hills Master Plan area is zoned P-C, Planned
Community. As stated in the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, the intent and purpose of the
planned community zone is to: ,
28 I
3. Environmental Analysis A. LandUse
Provide a method for and to encourage the orderly implementation of
the general plan and any applicable specific plans by the
comprehensive planning and development of large tracts of land under
unified ownership or developmental control so that the entire tract will
be developed in accordance with an adopted Master Plan to provide an
environment of stable and desirable character;
Provide a flexible regulatory procedure to encourage creative and
imaginative planning of coordinated communities involving a mixture
of residential densities and housing types, open space, community
facilities, both public and private and, where appropriate, commercial
and industrial areas;
0 Allow for the coordination of planning efforts between developer and
City to provide for the orderly development of all necessary public
facilities to insure their availability concurrent with need; and
0 Provide a framework for the phased development of an approved
Master Plan area to provide some assurances to the developer that later
development will be acceptable to the City; provided such plans are in
accordance with the approved planned community Master Plan.
Calavera Hills Master Plan. The Master Plan document which regulates the develop-
ment of the lands within Calavera Hills is the Calavera Hills Master Plan [MP-lSO(G)]
approved on November 1, 1993. Originally adopted in 1974 and amended on several
occasions, the Master Plan contains sections relating to environmental constraints, land
use/development standards, affordable housing, open space and maintenance, and public
facilities and phasing. The Master Plan is the site-specific planning document for the
Calavera Hills area. Its purpose is to be consistent with but more detailed and specific
than the general plan. The Calavera Hills Master Plan acknowledges that there will be a
diversity of housing in the Master Plan area that may include duplex, townhomes, stacked
units, and apartments. As indicated in the approved Zone 7 LFMP, an additional 795
dwelling units would be allowed using the base density calculations in the Master Plan,
for a total of approximately 2,400 units. The 1 10-acre Village Z, which would be added
to the Master Plan as the Calavera Nature Preserve has an existing land use designation
of Open Space and Residential Low (0- 1.5 du/ac) in the Carlsbad General Plan.
The Master Plan also addresses affordable housing requirements. It is the intent of the
Master Plan to ensure that the housing opportunities are provided for all identifiable
economic segments of the population, including households of lower incomes. In order
to implement the policies and programs contained in the City’s General Plan and Housing
Element, the Master Plan describes the general requirements, location, timing, and
agreement requirements for inclusionary housing within the Master Plan. The pertinent
29
3. Environmental Analysis A. LandUse
policies applicable to Phase 11 of Calavera Hills require that a minimum of 15 percent of
the units shall be affordable to the lower income households. The adopted Master Plan
also indicates that Village K could represent the affordable housing site, “due to its
superior location to public transit along College Boulevard and Carlsbad Village Drive
and the adjacent commercial site and community park” (City of Carlsbad 1993). This
issue is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4, Project Alternatives.
The preservation of open space is also an important goal of the Master Plan. Open space
within the Master Plan is to be consistent with the City’s General Plan, Open Space, and
Conservation Resource Management Plan and Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP).
Any adjustments to the adopted open space boundaries must comply with equivalency
standards in the Draft HMP and Open Space Elements. In addition, the Master Plan
divides the project’s open space into four major categories: natural resource preservation,
outdoor recreation, managed production of resources, and public health and safety, each
of which has a particular standard for the provision of open space. Using these standards
the entire Master Plan would be required to provide 122.85 acres of open space.
Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan. The proposed residential development areas
of the Calavera Hills Master Plan area are entirely within the Zone 7 LFMP. This plan is
1 of 25 facilities planning areas in the City of Carlsbad. The completion of the LFMP was
part of Carlsbad’s overall growth management program and is a more detailed version of
the growth management plan for the Zone 7 area. The purpose of the plan is to analyze
and project public facilities requirements before and as an area continues to develop. To
assure the adequacy of public facilities, compliance to the plan is mandatory, since it is a
regulatory document. With regard to open space, the performance standard relating to
open space for Zone 7 LFMP is 15 percent of total land area, exclusive of non-
developable land, which must be set aside as permanent open space concurrent with
development. The total designated open space in the adopted Zone 7 LFMP totals 165.16
acres.
Hillside Devebpment Ordinance. These regulations are contained in Section 21.95 of
the Carlsbad Municipal Code. In general, the ordinance sets standards for the
identification and utilization of hillsides. A Hillside Development Permit is required
when development is proposed on slopes that exceed 15 percent slope and are 15 feet
high. As a result, all Phase II villages are required to receive approval of a hillside
development permit in order to develop the site. The Phase 11 master tentative map
which proposes mass grading of Villages K, L-2, U, W, X, and Y, in order to provide
embankment soil necessary to construct College Boulevard (Reaches B and C) and
Cannon Road (Reach 31, will require approval of a hillside permit prior to approval of the
grading plan for this mass grading project.
The mass grading proposed for Villages K, L-2, U, W, X, and Y through the master
tentative map will not reflect the final grading of the individual residential lots for these
30
3. Environmental Analvsis A. LandUse
villages, and future follow-up tentative maps and site development plans will be
presented to the City for review and approval of specific development plans. Pursuant to
Section 21.95. MO(A)(l), this master tentative map hillside permit will suffice as the only
hillside permit required for these villages, if their ultimate development plan complies
with the development design standards of Section 21.95.120. Since Villages E-1, H, and
R are not part of the master tentative map hillside permit, development plans for these
villages will each require a separate, specific hillside development permit.
b) Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 Extension of College
Boulevard and Cannon Road and Detention Basins
!
Existing Adjacent Land Uses
As shown in Figure 2-2, the majority of the land in the vicinity of the off-site extensions
of College Boulevard and Cannon Road is currently vacant and includes agricultural
operations. Agricultural land and native vegetation exist adjacent to most of the proposed
alignments. Other existing land uses include the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park
and flood channel southeast of the Cannon Road alignment (Reach 3), and a golf course
along Agua Hedionda Creek west of College Boulevard (Reach A). Detention Basin
“BJB” is currently undeveloped and used for agricultural purposes. In addition, a portion
of the area proposed for Basin “BJ” is used for recreational vehicle (RV) storage and a
garden for the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park.
Planned Land Uses
Residential land use designations (RLM and RM) cover the majority of the properties
adjacent to the proposed alignments, including the CanAm properties (64 acres) approved
for medium density residential use northeast of the College BoulevardEl Camino Real
intersection. The exceptions are the 57-acre Carlsbad Unified School District property,
located northeast of the College/Cannon intersection, that is designated as a high school
in the General Plan and LFMP, and the commercial development pending approval on the
northwesterly corner of College Boulevard and El Camino Real.
Applicable City Plans, Policies, and Regulations
The circulation element of the Carlsbad General Plan shows both Cannon Road and
College Boulevard as Major Arterials within a 102-foot right-of-way. Design standards
for major arterials include two 12-foot travel lanes, one 8-foot bike lane in each direction
with an 18-foot median separating the travel. Ultimate development of Reaches A, B,
and C for College Boulevard and Reaches 3 and 4 for Cannon Road would not be subject
to the same development standards as for residential properties under the Hillside
Development Ordinance but development standards included in the Master Plan would be
applicable.
31
3. Environmental Andvsis A. LandUse
2) Impacts
a) Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase 11
The proposed amendment for Phase 11 of the Calavera Hills Master Plan is generally
consistent with the adopted Master Plan, but would modify existing land use designations
and rearrange residential densities to provide for the residential buildout of Villages E-1,
K, L-2, R, U, W, X, and Y. Table 3A-1 shows the proposed changes in dwelling units by
Village and the anticipated housing types. As indicated in this table, the major changes
would occur at Villages K, L-2, U, W, X, and Y. In addition, Village E-1 would be
changed from community commercial to residential land uses (Residential Medium-
High). These changes would result in 781 total units for Phase II. This residential unit
count is 14 units less than the 795 units allowed by the adopted 1989 Zone 7 LFMP.
Table 3A-2 shows the resulting breakdown of land uses for the entire Master Plan upon
completion of the proposed amendment.
The rearrangement of residential land use categories (see Table 3A-1) and resultant
density increases in Villages U, W, X, and Y to accommodate for the loss of developable
acreage at Villages K, L-2, and R is not considered a significant land use planning
impact. The increased densities and expansion of development areas, particularly at
Villages U, W, X, and Y, would not create land use planning conflicts or be incompatible
with the existing or approved residential areas within the Master Plan. The proposed
amendment at Village Y from Residential Low to Residential High and associated change
in housing type (single-family detached to multi-family) would not represent an
incompatible land use with the existing attached condominiums (residential medium and
low medium) to the west (Village C). As discussed in Chapter 3.B., Landform
AlterationNisual Quality section of this EIR (Section 2.a., Impacts: Visual Quality), the
grade separation between Village Y, combined with the design, separate access,
architecture, setback, and landscaping requirements that already exist in the Master Plan
would avoid significant impacts.
From an open space standpoint, the Phase II Master Plan amendment would increase the
overall open space within the current Master Plan boundaries by approximately 20.5
acres (see Figure 2-6). In addition, Village Z, a 110-acre parcel adjacent to the eastern
boundary would be added to the Master Plan as the CNP. Overall, the open space in the
Master Plan would be 468 acres. The natural open space system shown in the Master
Plan has been negotiated and consensus reached by the project applicant, US. Fish and
Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and the City of Carlsbad.
The hard line configuration of habitatlwildlife corridors is reflected in the City of
Carlsbad’s Draft HMP. The proposed preserve system provides a habitat link from east
to west in order to adequately mitigate for biological impacts and is consistent with the
City’s Draft HMP. The proposed Master Plan amendment would accommodate this
linkage by reducing the development area in Village K. The proposed open space system
32
I !
i J
TABLE 3A-1
PROPOSED MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT PHASE I1 CHANGES -
DWELLING UNITS
Approved Master PldGCP Proposed Master Plan
Village from LFMPA WA)
E- 1
H
K
L-2
R
U
W
X
Y
Z
~
Commercial
42 single-family
4 16 multi-family
1 19 multi-family
6 single-family
139 multi-family
32 single-family
36 single-family
5 single-family
Open space
117 multi-family
0
88 single-family
15 single-family
4 single-family
179 multi-family
121 single-family
117 single-family
140 multi-family
Open space
TOTAL 795 781
GCP = growth control point (per Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan)
MPA = Master Plan amendment
TABLE 3A-2
CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN
LAND USE SUMMARY WITH AMENDMENT
Land Use Gross Acres Percent
~
Residential low-medium 401.6 43
Villages A, B, C, G, L-2*, 0, P-1, Q, T
Residential medium
Residential medium-high
Residential high
Subtotal
Villages D, J, K*, R*, W*, X*
Villages L-1, E-l*, U*
Village Y*
K-8 school site
Village S
Elementary school
Village M
189.4 20
82.8 9
9.4 1 -
683.2 73
18.2 2
11.1 1
Open space 193.8t 21
Public utilitiesRV storage 7.0 1
Maior arterials/secondarv arterials 15.1 2
Village E2, F, H*, Z (Calavera Nature
Preserve)*
~ TOTAL 928.4$ 100
*Villages affected by proposed Master Plan amendment. ?Open space acreage does not include open space within residential villages. $Total acreage includes Village 2 (Calavera Nature Preserve).
i
3. Environmental Analysis A. LandUse
meets the requirements of the Draft HMP and exceeds all the standards established in
Zone 7 of the LFMP.
The elimination of community commercial uses at Village E-1 from within the Calavera
Hills Master Plan area is not considered a significant environmental impact. Based on
information included in the traffic study for this project, the proposed land use change
would reduce traffic circulation and air quality impacts locally (Appendix B). Land use
compatibility, noise impacts, and visual impacts would also be expected to improve as a
result of the change.
The issue, however, of whether substantial demand for a commercial site on Village E-1
exists must also be taken into account. In the event this local demand exists, the
elimination of commercial use may cause significant congestion and other traffk-related
impacts at neighboring commercial sites.
However, based on commercial feasibility studies (see Appendix K), the existing Vons
center commercial project at El Camino Real and Marron Road, and the proposed
commercial projects at the 18-acre Sunny Creek mixed-use site (El Camino Real and
College Boulevard) and the 40-acre South Coast site immediately north of Calavera Hills
in the City of Oceanside, would provide sufficient commercial coverage for residents of
the area and would not result in impacts to other sites. Lack of adequate total buildout
population due to the large open space preserve to the east of the trade area in
conjunction with site-access restrictions pursuant to City of Carlsbad street design
standards, render Village E-1 infeasible as a commercial project.
The Calavera Hills Master Plan area presently contains several community-oriented land
uses, including the Calavera Hills Community Park (outdoor ballfields, playgrounds,
gymnasium, and meeting rooms), 24 neighborhood pocket parks, an existing and another
proposed school site, a future fire station site, a community RV storage site, and public
trails and overlooks. The City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use Element, however,
requires that additional property, such as day care or worship uses (in addition to Growth
Management-mandated facilities or Planned Unit Development amenities) be designated
for community facilities within each Master Plan area in the City. The proposed land use
change at Village H would accomplish this General Plan goal by designating a two-acre
community facility. In doing so, approximately 12 residential lots would be eliminated
from the Master Plan. This use would allow for the existing trail on the westerly edge of
Village H to remain and allow for preservation of additional open space to the south. It
should also be noted that the City is currently considering an amendment to the General
Plan Land Use Element (GPA 99-01; City of Carlsbad 2001a) and Zoning Code (ZCA
99-02; City of Carlsbad 2001b) that would increase the minimum net acreage required
within the community facilities land use designation and zone. Chapter 4 includes a
discussion of an alternative design that meets this requirement should it be approved.
35
3. Environmental Analysis A. LandUse
With respect to affordable housing, the adopted Master Plan designates Village K as the
affordable housing site. However, in order to accommodate the open space
preservelwildlife corridor required by the wildlife agencies, the developable acreage in
Village K has been substantially reduced. The area northwest of the College
BoulevardCarlsbad Village Drive intersection that was previously part of Village K is’
now shown as open space and access to Village K would be solely from Tamarack
Avenue approximately 1,000 feet to the north of the Carlsbad Village Drive intersection.
This modification (no longer fronting on College Boulevard and no longer adjacent to the
park) combined with the removal of the commercial use at Village E-1 diminishes the
benefits described in the adopted Master Plan of using Village K as the affordable
housing site. The assignment of Village Y as the affordable housing site would provide
access to public transit at College Boulevard and does not represent a significant impact.
Walking distance from the high-density project to Calavera Hills Community Park and
schools would be increased by less than a mile, depending on location; however, this
increase would not be considered significant. This incremental increase in the distance to
the community park (approximately one-quarter mile) would not affect the ability of
residents at the affordable housing project to use the park facilities nor proceed safely to
the school. In addition, the approximately 3.5-acre increase in Village Y area, due to the
eastward shift of College Boulevard for purposes of avoiding an existing high voltage
power transmission tower, is not considered a significant impact.
As mentioned, the Master Plan accommodates an existing RV storage lot located within
Village I in the southwest corner of the Master Plan area. This lot presently
accommodates approximately 130 RV spaces, in approximately 41,000 square feet of net
parking area (exclusive of drive lanes and landscaping). Although this amount of RV
space is in excess of the present demand, City Planned Unit Development (PUD)
standards require up to 45,000 square feet of parking area at buildout of Phase II. With
relatively minor modification to the internal striping and the design of the RV storage lot,
sufficient area exists within the lot to accommodate the additional 4,000 square feet of
parking area required by the proposed Phase II development.
b) Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 Extension of College
Boulevard and Cannon Road and Detention Basins
The extension of both roadways has been a component of the Carlsbad General Plan
Circulation Element since 1974 and both are shown on the adopted land use map. The
alignments shown as part of the “proposed project” addressed in this EIR are generally
consistent with the alignments shown in the General Plan. Alternative alignments for
various reaches of both roads are discussed in Chapter 9, Project Alternatives.
As proposed, the formation of the Bridge and Thoroughfare District and the construction
of the roads would not conflict with existing, approved, and planned land uses in the area.
As described in Chapter 3 .E, Agricultural Resources, measures would be provided to
36
3. Environmental Analysis A. LandUse
ensure that the existing agricultural and nursery operations could continue with the
construction of the roads. The potential land use compatibility impacts associated with
noise at the church in the City of Oceanside (Cannon Road Reach 4) and at the Rancho
Carlsbad Mobile Home Park (Cannon Road Reach 3) would be avoided or mitigated as
described in Chapter 3.D., Noise (Section 4: Mitigation). Likewise, the proposed
development plans for the CanAm property (SUMY Creek commercial site) and
proposedfkture development plans at the Cantarini and Holly Springs properties (see
Figure 2-9) have been designed to accommodate the proposed alignments of both
roadways. No adverse land use compatibility impacts would occur.
The proposed detention basins at the intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road
would not interfere with the planned land uses in the vicinity (e.g., school and residential .
uses). However, Basin “BJ” would displace the RV storage and community garden that
currently exists as part of Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park.
The Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park community garden is a voluntary use utilized
for seasonal vegetable gardening by several of the mobile homeowners. This garden is
not a use required by the City or other agencies, and as such its loss is not considered a
significant environmental impact.
The Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, however, requires an RV storage lot for the Rancho
Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. Section 21.45.090 requires 20 square feet of RV storage for
each of the 520 mobile home lots. This results in a required 10,400 square feet (0.24 acre)
minimum lot to accommodate the park (exclusive of driveways). Allowing for aisles and
driveways, the estimated maximum RV storage area required is 0.5 acre. The existing lot
(1.5 acres), located in the area proposed for Basin “BJ” exceeds the size required by the
City’s zoning ordinance by approximately 1.25 acres and is only partially used at this
time. As a result, the elimination of the RV storage area in excess of 0.24 acre in size
(exclusive of driveways) would not be considered a significant impact, in that the excess
acreage is not necessary for compliance with the City’s zoning requirements. The loss of
the required 0.24 acre of RV storage would, however, be considered a significant impact
which would require mitigation.
3) Mitigation
a) Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase 11
No significant land use compatibility impacts have been identified. No mitigation would
be required.
37
3. Environmental Analvsis A. LandUse
b) Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 Extension of College
Boulevard and Cannon Road and Detention Basins .. The following measures shall be shown on the
2: grading and improvement plans for CollePe
J:
1. Prior to elimination of access to the existinp approximately 1.5-acre RV storage
parking for Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park located within proposed Detention
Basin “BJ” and commencement of construction of Reach A of College Boulevard
(which will eliminate access), the project applicant for College Boulevard Reach A
shall secure alternate pedestrian and vehicular access to the existing RV storage areas.
2. Prior to elimination of the existing approximately 1.5-acre RV storage parkinn for
Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park (RCMHP) due to construction of Detention
Basin “BJ,” the proiect applicant for the detention basin shall secure a minimum 0.24-
acre replacement site (exclusive of access roads) for RV storage parking at one of the
followinP locations:
The Rancho Carlsbad Partners’ property between RCMHP and future College
Boulevard Reach A;
The Robertson Ranch immediatelv northwest of the mobile home park and south
of Cannon Road;
0 Within an area surrounding Detention Basin “BJ” on the RCMHP property: or Another site suitable and convenient to the RCMHP residents.
The selected site shall be approved by the Planning Director for the City of Carlsbad and
shall be installed prior to the beginning of construction for installation of Detention Basin
“BJ” (which will have the potential to inundate the lot with floodwaters). These locations
were surveyed for biological resources in coniunction with Cannon Road/College Boule-
vard and consist of disturbed agricultural land. Additional impacts will not occur. If
another unidentified site is chosen, then additional evaluation for biological impacts will
be required. The site selected will require a Conditional Use Permit and accompanying
environmental review will be required at the time the relocation action is proposed.
!
1
38
3. Environmental Analysis B. Landform AlterationNisual Quality
B. Landform Alteratioflisual Quality
Existing Conditions
a) Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase 11
Existing Landform and Site Features
The villages remaining to be developed within the Calavera Hills Master Plan area are
topographically diverse. As shown in Figure 3B-1, Villages U, W, X, and Y in the
southern portion of the Master Plan area comprise the largest contiguous block of land
(approximately 160 gross acres) to be developed within Phase II. These four villages
encompass lands that generally form the westerly slopes along Calavera Creek to the east
with a 150-foot-wide SDG&E transmission line easement bisecting the area. Elevations
range from approximately 360 feet above mean sea level (MSL) at the current terminus of
Carlsbad Village Drive in Village U to approximately 150 above MSL at the southern end
of Village W. The predominantly east-facing slopes are covered with native vegetation in
the north at Village U which eventually transition to agricultural fields south of Villages
W and X. Overall, these villages are dissected by a number of minor drainages with
moderate to steep slopes and also contain several small knolls with more moderate slopes
in the south. Table 3B-1 shows the overall slope categories for each of the villages, and
Figure 3B-2 shows the slope analysis prepared for the Master Plan.
All villages are contiguous except Villages H and R and they vary considerably in both
size and topographic conditions (see Figure 3B-1). Village E-1 at the intersection of
College Boulevard and Carlsbad Village Drive is a graded 9.3 net-acre flat pad on 11.3
gross acres while the development area in Village H (approximately 3.5 acres of the 66
gross acres) consists of a steep east-facing slope above a canyon that drains south into
Agua Hedionda Creek approximately 1.2 miles to the south and a northern portion that
drains to Buena Vista Creek. Villages K and L-2 in the northern portion of Calavera Hills
occupy higher elevations within the Master Plan and are generally surrounded by existing
residential development. Village L-2 with an elevation of 446 feet above MSL near the
base of the CMWD reservoir is the highest point in the Master Plan.
Existing Biological Resources in the villages are shown in Figures 3G-1 and 3G-2 in the
Biological Resources subsection of Chapter 3 in this EIR.
Existing Aesthetic Character
Overall, the aesthetic character of the remaining villages to be developed within the
Master Plan is suburban. The aesthetic context of the proposed villages is either adjacent
39
TABLE 3B-1
SLOPE ANALYSIS BY VILLAGE
Village E-1 Village H Village K Village L-2 Village R Village U Village W Village X Village Y
Acres % Acres %
~~~
Slope Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %
045% 9-09 93.2 5.66 54.5 16.27 89.6 4.80 77.8 4.84 94.2 16.11 69.4 21.62 68.4 27.65 83.1 8.75 95.6
2540% 0.33 3.4 2.82 27.1 1.15 6.3 0.68 11.0 0.18 3.4 4.98 21.5 8.52 26.8 4.74 14.2 0.30 3.3
over40% 0.33 3.4 1.90 18.3 0.75 4.1 0.69 11.3 0.12 2.3 2.10 9.0 1.51 4.8 0.90 2.7 0.10 1.1
3. Environmental Analysis B. Landform AlterationNisual OUaW
to existing residential development or areas currently being developed within Calavera
Hills. Surrounding properties to the west in Carlsbad and the northeast in Oceanside are
also developed with residential subdivisions. As shown in the aerial photograph (see
Figure 2-2), the proposed northern villages (Villages E-1, H, L-2, K, and R) are internal
to Calavera Hills and mostly surrounded by existing or approved residential development.
Two of the southern villages (Villages U and Y) are also in close proximity to existing
residential development (The Cape [village D] and Capistrano [village TI Villages).
However, the setting of these villages appears more rural because of the topographic
separations from existing development and the proximity to off-site open space (1 10-acre
Mitigation Parcel) to the east and the agricultural lands to the south.
Views of the Project Site
Portions of the project site can be seen from a variety of locations including existing
residential neighborhoods, and public roadways. Direct views of the Master Plan
amendment areas exist from Carlsbad Village Drive, existing single-family homes west
of Village H off of Carlsbad Village Drive, the Calavera Hills Community Park, the Cape
(Village D) Neighborhood, the Capistrano (Village T) Neighborhood, the Colony (Village
A and B) Neighborhood. More distant views exist from the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile
Home Park, and existing College Boulevard. In order to depict representative existing
views and the aesthetic character of the site, photographs were taken of the project site
from several locations. A map is provided in Figure 3B-3 showing the location of the
photographs. Representative photographs illustrating the aesthetic character of the site
from the locations and described above are included in Photographs 3B-1 through 3B-6.
These photographs are keyed to the numeric locations shown in Figure 3B-3.
Applicable Policies and Regulations
The adopted Calavera Hills Master Plan contain goals and objectives which relate to the
design and aesthetic character development within Calavera Hills. Many of these goals
and policies are described in detail in the Land Use section (Chapter 3A) of this EIR. The
guidelines from the General Plan, concern the preservation of significant ridgelineskind-
forms and steep slopes, hillside development, viewshed and scenic quality preservation,
use of contour grading to blend with natural landforms, revegetation and proper siting of
structures, and use of open space buffers.
The development of slope areas in the Calavera Hills Master Plan area is controlled by
the City of Carlsbad Hillside Development Ordinance (HDO). A Hillside Development
Permit is required under certain circumstances where a project proposes grading oh any
slope with a gradient of more than 15 percent and a relief of more than 15 feet. The
purpose of this ordinance is to assure prudent planning for slope areas to protect and
enhance their value as natural resources. Specific issues discussed in the ordinance that
are relevant to the scope of this review are hillside grading volumes, existing steep slopes,
contour grading, and manufactured slopes.
43
I Date of Photograph 2/00
RECON [a - -
FIGURE 3B-3 13 Photograph location
$NOSCALE Photograph Location Map
R-3225E
PHOTOGRAPH 3B-1 Easterly View of Village H Development Area
R 'I JRI IlLUUlY
- - - R-3225E
PHOTOGRAPH 3B-2
Southerly View of Village K Above Harwich Drive
3. Environmental Analysis B. Landform AlkrationNisual Quality
Hillside grading volumes are an indication of the amount of earthwork needed to grade a
lot in preparation for construction. This number is the product of the cubic yards of
earthwork, cut, or fill, whichever is larger, divided by the total number of acres of grading
proposed. The resulting quantity is expressed in cubic yards per acre (cy/ac). The Hillside
Development Ordinance and CMC 21.95.060 are specific in the amounts of hillside
grading volumes and their relative sensitivity. From 0-7,999 cy/ac is acceptable, 8,000-
10,000 cy/ac is potentially acceptable, and greater than 10,000 cy/ac is unacceptable.
Steep natural slopes are defined by HDO as any slope over 15 percent for which
disturbance of the slope requires a Hillside Development Permit. For slopes in excess of
25 percent, the HDO allows for encroachment if certain requirements are met. Slopes in
excess of 40 percent are restricted from being developed. Allowable exclusions from the
HDO requirements are described in Section 21.95.140(A)(l) of the HDO, and allow for
encroachment if there is construction or influence of an arterial roadway, necessary for
geotechnical remediation, and if the project preserves greater amounts of open space, and
other criteria determined by the City.
Contour grading refers to a technique utilized to simulate existing topography. The design
of the slope should be undulating on both the top and toe of the slope. Once this type of
slope is revegetated, it will enhance the manufactured slopes’ ability to blend into the
natural landscape. Manufactured slopes are created by grading activities and may be of
either cut or fill in nature. The HDO has placed a limit of 40 feet on the heights of
manufactured slopes, although exemptions under specific circumstances are allowed by
Section 21.95.120.B2.
b)
Existing Landform and Site Features
The topographic conditions and site features associated with the areas to be affected by
the proposed alignments for College Boulevard and Cannon Road and the detention
basins are shown in the aerial photograph shown as Figure 3B-3. The characteristics of
each roadway alignment by reach and the two proposed detention basins are described
below.
Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 Extension of College
Boulevard and Cannon Road and Detention Basins
Cannon Road. Cannon Road (Reach 3) would be extended easterly from El Camino
Real just north of the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park through agricultural lands
along Calavera Creek to the intersection with College Boulevard. Elevations along the
floodplain range from approximately 50 feet above MSL near El Camino Real to
approximately 75 feet above MSL at the future College BoulevardKannon Road
intersection. East of College Boulevard (Reach 4), the topographic conditions change
dramatically, as the proposed alignment would traverse the steep slopes covered with
native vegetation on the north side of Little Encinas Creek to Calavera Creek to the
4%
3. Environmental Analysis B . Landform AlterationNisual Quality
Oceanside city limits. Elevations for this reach range from approximately 75 feet above
MSL to approximately 400 feet above MSL at the Oceanside city limits.
College Boulevard. College Boulevard (Reach A) would be extended from El Camino
Real northerly across Agua Hedionda Creek past the Rancho Carlsbad Golf Course to the
intersection with Cannon Road. This reach traverses several small ridgelines (maximum
elevation of approximately 130 feet above MSL) north of Agua Hedionda Creek before
intersecting with Cannon Road at an elevation of approximately 75 feet above MSL.
North of the Cannon Road intersection (Reach B), the proposed alignment crosses
agricultural lands at Calavera Creek before entering the steep slopes covered with native
vegetation within the Calavera Master Plan. Reach C of College Boulevard is entirely
within the area of the Master Plan. This reach proceeds northerly across the SDG&E
easement and generally parallels the east side of the Cape Neighborhood before
connecting to the current terminus of College Boulevard at Carlsbad Village Drive. The
elevation at the Carlsbad Village Drive is approximately 375 feet above MSL at the
existing graded pad at Village E- 1.
Detention Basins. The areas proposed for the detention basins at the intersection of
College Boulevard and Cannon Road are within the floodplain of Calavera Creek and its
eastern tributary. Except for a limited area used for storage of recreational vehicles for
the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park, both locations are currently used as a garden
area. Existing elevations in these locations range from approximately 60 feet above MSL
to approximately 75 feet above MSL.
Existing Aesthetic Character
The areas associated with the College Boulevard and Cannon Road extensions, and
detention basins are primarily rural and undeveloped. However, developed properties do
exist along Agua Hedionda Creek (Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park and Golf Course,
and approved/pending Sunny Creek commercial project), in Calavera Hills (Cape and
Capistrano neighborhoods), and in Oceanside (church and residential development) east
of the Carlsbad city limits. The majority of the proposed alignments traverse either
agricultural lands or currently undeveloped properties. In addition, a portion of Reach 4
of Cannon Road crosses property owned by the State of California as biological
mitigation bank lands.
Views of the Project Areas
Portions of the roadway extensions would be visible from along El Camino Real, the
Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park, the Cape/Colony/Capistrano Neighborhoods within
Calavera Hills, and from areas to the east in the City of Oceanside. Photographs 3B-7
through 3B-13, depict representative views of the alignments and detention basin areas
from these locations. These photographs are keyed to the numeric locations shown in
Figure 3B-3.
I
!
I i
49
- - R-3225E
PHOTOGRAPH 3B-7
Easterly View Along El Camino Real
of College Boulevard Alignment Reach A
PHOTOGRAPH 3B-8
Northerly View of College Boulevard Alignment and Villages X and W
R-3225E
PHOTOGRAPH 3B-9
Westerly View Along Cannon Road Alignment
PHOTOGRAPH 3B-10
Easterly View Along Cannon Road Alignment
PHOTOGRAPH 3B-11 Easterly View Along Cannon Road Alignment Near Oceanside Citv Limits
3. Environmental Analysis B. Landform AlterationNisual Quality
Impacts
a) Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II
Landform Alteration
Substantial alteration of the existing landform would be required to implement the
proposed Master Plan Amendment. The proposed concept grading plan for the Phase II
of the Master Plan is shown in Figure 3B-4. Approximately 131.5 acres of the remaining
villages and College Boulevard would be disturbed by grading. Table 3B-2 shows the
area to be disturbed on a village-by-village basis. Total earthwork quantities for the
project is estimated at 1,633,000 cubic yards of cut and 1,633,000 cubic yards of fill,
balanced on the project site, including on-site and off-site College Boulevard (Reach B
and C) and Cannon Road (Reach3). Table 3B-3 shows the earthwork quantities by
project village.
The proposed grading for the implementation of the Phase II project requires several
manufactured slopes in excess of 40 feet in height (see also Figure 3B-4). As shown on
Figure 3B-4, manufactured slopes exceed 40 feet in height at eight locations, most of
which are isolated lengths of the slope. The Phase II project would involve grading at
some locations which is inconsistent with the specific standards of the City’s HDO, but
since the project qualifies as an “exclusion,” is considered consistent with the
requirements of the HDO. The Carlsbad Hillside Development Ordinance requires that
manufactured slopes not exceed 40 feet in height unless the slopes meet the intent of the
Master Plan’s allowable exclusions. These exclusions are described in Section
21.95.140(A)(l) of the HDO, and involve the construction or influence of an arterial
roadway, geotechnical remediation, preservation of greater amounts of open space, or
other criteria determined by the City.
These slope lengths in excess of 40 feet in height are within the Master Plan’s allowable
development area and are outside any hard line open space corridors. The proposed slope
heights are also directly influenced by the horizontal and vertical alignments of College
Boulevard (in the case of Village U and W) and Victoria Drive (in the case of Village H)
in order to comply with City street design safety standards. In addition, all the proposed
slopes in excess of 40 feet are located within the development area associated with the
Draft HMP hard line pursuant to HDO Section 21.95,14O(A)(l). All the slopes would be
revegetated with native species. As a result, the slopes would comply with the above-
cited exclusions.
The Phase II Master Plan grading is also technically inconsistent with the HDO policy of
grading into natural 40 percent slopes. These areas occur primarily at Village U, W, and
X along the College Boulevard alignment in Village U at the SDG&E easement, and a
small area within Village K (see Figure 3B-2). However, grading in these areas also meet
54
TABLE 3B-2
AREAS TO BE DISTURBED BY GRADING
(acres)
New Graded Revegetated Open Space
Site Gross Area Area* Area Area
Village E- 1 11.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
Village H
Village K
Village L-2
Village R
Village U
Village W
Village X
66.0 3.5 0.4 56.4
51.1 17.6 1.8 32.9
6.2 4.4 0.0 1.8
5.1 1.3 0.0 3.8
61.8 18.3 2.2 42.2
36.2 27.4 1.2 6.5
52.7 27.4 0.7 22.5
Village Y 9.1 7.6 0.0 0.0
Calavera Nature 109.9
Preseive (Village Z)
3 8 .Ot
~
TOTAL, 409.8 107.5 6.3 204.1
*Existing streets not included in new graded area. Grading for stand-alone College
Boulevard has been previously mitigated and, therefore, not included in new graded
area.
tAcreage from the Calavera Nature Preserve credited for Phase II project impacts.
TABLE 3B-3
GRADING QUANTITIES BY VILLAGE
(cubic yards)
Area cut Fill Import Export
Village H
Village K
Village L-2
Village R
Village U
Village W
Village X
Village Y
Cannon Reach 3
College Reach B
College Reach C
0
8 1,000
54,000
0
77,000
754,000
5 10,000
52,000
20,000
0
85,000
90,000
96,000
19,000
8,000
368,000
14 1,000
242,000
3 3,000
195,000
336,000
105,000
90,000
15,000
--
8,000
29 1,000
--
175,000
336,000
20,000
--
613,000
268,000
19,000
TOTAL 1,633,000 1,633,000 935,000 935,000
*Earthwork for the site (including College Boulevard Reach €3 and C, and Cannon Road Reach 3) is a nominally balanced project. Estimated bulking and consolidation yardage are provided for in the above quantities.
i
!
3. Environmental Analysis B . Landform AlteratiodVisual Quality
the exclusions regarding circulation element roads and open space policies cited above
pursuant to HDO Section 21.95.14O(A)(l). The Village U, W, and X grading along
College Boulevard is dependent upon and influenced by the roadway profile and
necessary grading. In addition, the Village U and western portion of Village K grading
into 40 percent slopes occur within the development-allowed side of the Draft HMP hard
line thereby increasing the amount of open space than would have occuq-ed under strict
compliance with the HDO provision. The proposed Draft HMP hard line open space
program for Calavera Hills “preserves larger, remaining blocks or cores of habitat . . , and
conserves linkages that ensure connectivity to the Draft HMP cores.” This provision
complies with the exclusions pursuant to the HDO.
As shown in the mass grading plan (see Figure 3B-4), the tallest manufactured slope
(approximately 100 feet) would occur along the eastern edge at Village U. This slope is
influenced by the grade of College Boulevard, a circulation element road, and the hard
line open space which has been negotiated by the City, wildlife agencies, and the
applicant. Figure 3B-5 shows the location of topographic cross sections that illustrate the
extent of grading. Representative cross sections showing the proposed grading are
provided in Figures 3B-6 to 3B-9. Proposed grading within the SDG&E easement (see
Figure 3B-4) consists of encroachdent associated with the construction of roadway
access to Village R, on-site College Boulevard, and for development at Villages U, W, X,
and Y. There would be no significant impacts on the existing SDG&E easements or
easement access road networks as a result of the project.
The Hillside Development Ordinance also requires that the volume of earth moved in a
particular project be minimized to the extent feasible, and indicates a maximum of 10,OOO
cubic yards per graded acre that is considered acceptable. It also allows that grading
associated with construction of a circulation element roadway or collector streets
(provided that they are the environmentally preferred alignments) need not be included in
the grading volume analysis. Table 3B-4 below shows an analysis prepared for Phase II
which shows that the project falls into the “acceptable” range of grading volume (997,000
cubic ywdd135.5 acres = 7,358 cubic yarddacre) pursuant to the Hillside Development
Ordinance. The total graded area and the total graded volume in Table 3B-4 includes off-
site College Boulevard, Reach “B,” and Cannon Road Reach “3.”
58
Source: O’Day Consultants, Inc. 8/00 * NO SCALE
FIGURE 3B-:
Cross Section Location Mal
R-322%
I
i 1
I
I I
I
I
i
i
2
1
I
1 i i
1 I
I
!
i I i
I
RECON Dl - - -
Source: O'Day Consultants, Inc., 2000
90-5 250
FIGURE 3B-6
i Calavera Hills Master Plan Representative Cross-section A-A, Village Y
R-3225s
Source: O'Day Consultants, Inc., 2000 FIGURE 3B-7
I Calavera Hills Master Plan
Representative Cross-section B-B, Viage W
' RECON Dl - 4077- 250 - R-3225c I
RECON Dl - - -
Source: O’Day Consultants, Inc., 2000 FIGURE 3B-8
Calavera Hills Master Plan
Representative Cross-section C-C, Village U Po- 250
R-322%
3. Environmental Analysis B. Landform AlterationNisual Qua&
TABLE 3B-4
GRADING SUMMARY
Graded Area Volume Cubic Yards Total maded volume 1.633.000 Standhone College Blvd./Cannon Road :636;000 Calavera Phase 11 graded volume 997,000 Graded Area Acres Total graded area* 144.6
Graded area acres subject to HDO 135.5 ROW College BlvdJReach C -9.1
*Includes College Boulevard Reach B and Cannon Road Reach 3
Visual Quality
The proposed project would be visible from many vantage points within the existing
Calavera Hills, and would alter the existing aesthetic characteristics of those viewsheds.
Changes in the appearance of the parcels associated with the development of the
remaining villages would be visible from the existing residential communities within
Calavera Hills (e.g., Cape, Colony, Barrington, Capistrano, Villas, and Crest
Neighborhoods), Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park to the south, and the residential
neighborhood off-site to the west along Carlsbad Village Drive. In addition, the
community facility development within Village H would be visible from Carlsbad Village
Drive and the existing residential neighborhood to the west (see Photograph 3B-1). The
proposed southerly villages (i.e., Villages W, X, and Y) would also be visible within the
context of the existing Calavera Hills neighborhoods from more distant (approximately
4,500 feet) locations along El Camino Real.
However, from most of these vantage points only a limited number of private residences
would be affected by the landform alteration and ultimate residential development of the
site. Village Y represents the primary example of the visual interface between existing
residential development in Calavera Hills and the proposed Phase II project. Depending
on the future architectural design and detailed site plan proposed in the future for Village
Y, easterly views from some of the residences within the Cape Neighborhood could be
affected. The proposed concept grading plan for Village Y indicates pad elevations for
the multi-family units ranging from approximately 280 feet above MSL in the south to
approximately 310 feet above MSL in the north along College Boulevard. The existing
finished elevations of the existing Cape Neighborhood vary from approximately 10-30
feet above the proposed pad elevations for Village Y. Because the multi-family units
could be up to 35 feet (three stories) in height, some easterly views could be affected by
the multi-family development of Village Y.
In order to provide a detailed representation of the developed condition at Village Y,
computer-generated photosimulations have been prepared to depict views from three
3. Environmental Analysis B. Landform AlterationNisual Quality
locations within the Cape Neighborhood (Photosimulations 3B-1 through 3B-3). These
photosimulations depict worst-case views based on three-story buildings. The project
applicant has aseed to limit building heights to two stories. Figure3B-4 includes the
photosimulation viewpoint locations. Existing View 1 and the accompanying
Photosimulation 3B-1A is taken from the south end of Woodstock Drive. Existing Views
2 and 3 and accompanying Photosimulations 3B-2A and 3B-3A are taken from the south
and north side of the Lancaster Road cul-de-sac, respectively. These photosimulations
depict the anticipated change in the viewshed from these viewpoints. The multi-story
buildings would not totally obstruct easterly views and would not be considered a
significant aesthetic impact.
From an overall aesthetic perspective, the site design for the remaining Master Plan
villages retains internal areas (i.e., Village K) and slopes on the site’s southern (Village
Y) and eastern periphery (i.e., Villages U and W) as open space. Given the internal
location and proximity to residential development that either exists or is under
construction, the aesthetic impact associated with the development of the remaining
northern villages &e., Villages H, K, L-2, E-1, and R) would not represent a significant
visual impact from off-site areas. The proposed open space system along with the
inclusion of the 110-acre Mitigation Parcel as permanent open space provides a visual
transition to the more rural setting to the east. The inclusion of the 110-acre mitigation
parcel as permanent open space enhances the overall aesthetic setting of Calavera Hills.
However, the existing rural aesthetic amenities currently provided by the undeveloped
southern villages (Villages U, Y, W, and X), in conjunction with the existing off-site
agricultural setting to the south and east would be substantially altered by the proposed
grading and residential development of the southern villages. The landform
alteratiodaesthetic impact from both within Calavera Hills and off-site areas (e.g., El
Camino Real and Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park) from the development of the
southern villages would be considered a significant visual quality impact.
Consistency with Applicable Regulations
General Phn. As shown by the above-referenced figures, grading of 131.5 acres or 43
percent of the remaining villages and College Boulevard, would alter the existing
topographic conditions on the site. However, the peripheral slopes along the eastern
boundary and internal slopes would be retained as natural open space (MHCP Open
Space). The preservation of these landforms as open space implements the intent of the
General Plan goals, objectives, and policies. The goals concerning compatibility with
natural terrain, preservation of essential open space, and use of contour grading are
implemented by the proposed site design, and significant impacts would not occur.
i
I
65
3. Environmental Analysis B. Landform AlteratiodVisual Quality
Ordinances, As described above, the grading shown for the project would not be
consistent with several of the requirements of the City of Carlsbad Hillside Development
Ordinance. However, this lack of technical compliance with the ordinance provisions
would not be a significant impact as grading volumes would be in the “acceptable” range
(e.g., equal to or less than 7,000 cubic yards per graded acre), and the manufactured
slopes would comply with the allowable exclusions described above.
b) Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 Extension of College
Boulevard and Cannon Road and Detention Basins
Landform Alteration
The proposed grading plan for the preferred alignments for College Boulevard and
Cannon Road are shown in Figures 3B-10 through 3B-13. Alternatives to the preferred
alignment are fully discussed in Chapter 4, Alternatives. The landform alteration impacts
of each roadway alignment are described below by reach:
Cannon Road. As noted above, Cannon Road (Reach 3) would be extended easterly
from El Camino Real north of the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park through
agricultural lands along Calavera Creek to the intersection with College Boulevard.
Existing elevations along the alignment range from approximately 50 feet above MSL
near El Camino Real to approximately 75 feet above MSL at the intersection. The
intersection would be raised to approximately 88 feet above MSL upon roadway
completion. Grading plans for Reach 3 (see Figure 3B-10) indicate manufactured slopes
along both sides of the entire length of this reach. The manufactured slope heights vary
in height along this reach with the maximum height of approximately 30 feet near the
College Boulevard intersection. Earthwork quantities for this reach total approximately
20,000 cubic yards of cut and 195,000 cubic yards of fill, requiring 175,000 cubic yards
of imported material on this reach.
Cannon Road (Reach 4) is nearly twice the length of Reach 3 and traverses much steeper
topography (see Figure 3B-11). Existing elevations for this reach range from
approximately 75 feet above MSL (post-development elevation at 88 feet above MSL) to
approximately 400 feet above MSL at the Oceanside city limits. As such, the grading for
the preferred alignment for Reach 4 would require approximately 234,853 cubic yards of
cut and approximately 398,979 cubic yards of fill, requiring a net import of
approximately 164,126 cubic yards, In order to avoid impacts to riparian habitat, a
retaining or crib-type wall is proposed. The retaining or crib wall would have a
maximum height of approximately 42 feet and a length of approximately 360 feet.
Manufactured slope heights up to approximately 60 feet in height at the central and
eastern portions of this reach would be required.
Cannon Road is a circulation element road and is therefore exempt from HDO limits on
hillside grading volumes and manufactured slope heights. Therefore, no direct impact is
72
3. Environmental Analysis B. Landform AlterationNisual Quality
associated with this activity. The aesthetic impact from the necessary manufactured
slopes and noise attenuation features along the roadway are discussed below.
\
I
!
College Boulevard. The preferred alignment for College Boulevard (Reach A) (see
Figure 3B-12) would be extended from El Camino Real northerly across Agua Hedionda
Creek to the intersection with Cannon Road. As noted above, this reach traverses several
small ridgelines before intersecting with Cannon Road at a post-development elevation of
approximately 88 feet above MSL. Earthwork quantities for Reach A total approximately
87,272 cubic yards of cut and 187,703 cubic yards of fill, requiring 100,431 cubic yards
of imported material on this reach. As shown in Figure 3B-12, manufactured slopes
would be necessary on both sides of the road for nearly the entire length of the reach. The
maximum manufactured slope height would be approximately 60 feet north of the creek
crossing.
The preferred alignment of College Boulevard (Reaches B and C) is shown in
Figure 3B-13 and crosses relatively level agricultural lands at Calavera Creek before
transitioning into the steeper slopes west of Calavera Creek and leading northerly into the
Calavera Hills Master Plan area. The grading for the crossing of the creek is primarily on
fill in the valley bottom and the embankment along the eastern side of College Boulevard
is used as the berm for detention basin “BJB.” As shown in Figure 3B-13, extensive cut
slopes along each side of the roadway would be required to construct the roadway
northerly through the Master Plan area to its terminus at Carlsbad Village Drive. Grading
for Reaches B and C would require approximately 85,000 cubic yards of cut and
approximately 441,000 cubic yards of fill, requiring a net import of approximately
356,000 cubic yards. Maximum manufactured slope heights reach approximately 5 1 feet
just north of the Calavera Creek crossing.
As noted above for Cannon Road, College Boulevard is a circulation element road and is
exempt from HDO limits on hillside grading volumes and manufactured slope heights. As
such, no direct impact is associated with the roadway grading. The aesthetic impact from
the necessary manufactured slopes and noise attenuation features along the roadway are
discussed below.
Detention Basins. The two areas proposed for the detention basins are at the intersection
of College Boulevard and Cannon Road and are within the floodplain of Calavera Creek
and its eastern tributary. Conceptual grading designs for Basins “BJB” and “BJ” are
shown in Figure 3B-14.
Basin “BJB” has been designed to incorporate the eastern embankment of College
Boulevard and the northern embankment of Cannon Road at the Calavera Creek crossing
as a berm (earthen embankment) for the basin. In addition, a smaller berm will parallel
the west side of Calavera Creek for approximately 1,200 feet upstream from the
embankment. This berm would have a 10-foot top width with 2:l side slopes.
77
REDIN Iml - -
Source: O’Day Consultants, Inc. 8/00
FIGURE 3B-14
Grading Plan for Detention Basins tcBJB” and “BJ”
I+ Inundation area NO SCALE
R-3225E
3. Environmental Analysis B. Landform AlterationNisual Quality
,
Basin “BJ” (see Figure 3B-14) has been designed to incorporate the eastern embankment
of College Boulevard that creates a berm across the mouth of a small tributary canyon of
Calavera Creek. Channel improvements for a distance of approximately 600 feet
upstream from the basin are also anticipated, and include the construction of a grass-lined
trapezoidal channel with a three-foot bottom width and four-foot depth, and 2:l side
slopes.
Visual Quality
Cannon Road and College Boulevard. As with the aesthetic impact described above for
the southern villages within the Master Plan, the implementation of the Bridge and
Thoroughfare District for College Boulevard (Reaches A and B) and Cannon Road
(Reaches 3 and 4) would substantially alter the existing aesthetic character of the area
south and east of the Master Plan. The existing semi-rural visual character associated
with the agricultural land and native habitat areas through which the roadways would pass
would be affected by the proposed alignments. Both roadways in conjunction with the
urbanization from existing, approved, and planned development would contribute to the
cumulative degradation in the aesthetic character of the larger subregional area. This
change in aesthetic rural character from the grading and construction of the proposed
alignments would be considered a significant impact.
Portions of College Boulevard (Reaches A and B) would be visible from existing
residential development in Calavera Hills, Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park (see
Photograph 3B-12), and travelers along El Camino Real (see Photograph 3B-7). College
Boulevard Reach C is planned to be developed in conjunction with the Master Plan
Villages U, W, X, and Y and would not be visible as a separate roadway segment.
Cannon Road (primarily Reach 3) would also be visible from similar locations described
above for College Boulevard. Because significant public views would not be affected by
the proposed alignments for College Boulevard and Cannon Road, the direct visual
quality impacts would not be significant.
Another visual quality component of the extension of the roadway consists of the noise
walls along College Boulevard at Villages U, W, X, and Y. As discussed in the
Chapter 3.D., Noise, a noise wall along both edges of College Boulevard would be
required to attenuate noise from vehicular traffic on the roadway to acceptable levels. As
shown in the noise section, noise walls up to 12 feet in height would be required. As an
example, a noise wall approximately 1,400 feet in length with a maximum height of 12
feet would be required at Village U. The aesthetic impact associated with noise walls of
this magnitude on both sides of the roadway would be considered a significant visual
quality impact.
Detention Basins. The two areas proposed for the detention basins are at the intersection
of College Boulevard and Cannon Road and would only be partially visible from the
79
3. Environmental Analysis B. Landform AlterationNisual Quality
roadways themselves. The visual prominence of the basins and associated berms is
reduced because they would largely be below grade. There would be no changes in the
appearance in the flood control channel in the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park from
the project and the proposed basins “BJB” and “BJ” would be north of the existing wall
along the park’s northern boundary. Because no other designated public viewsheds
would be affected, the visual quality impacts associated with the basins would not be
considered significant.
3) Mitigation
The following measures shall be made a condition for approval of the master tentative
map’s Final Map or Grading Plan, whichever occurs fust:
a) Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II
To reduce the significant landform alteratiodaesthetic character impacts resulting from
project implementation of the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II project, the project
applicant shall implement the proposed Master Landscape Concept Plan and conform to
the grading requirements contained in the proposed Calavera Hills Master Plan. These
requirements contained in the Master Plan include the following and shall be made
conditions of future tentative map approvals. Implementation of these measures reduces
the direct landform alteratiodvisual quality impacts to below a level of significance.
1.
2.
3.
Utilize slope contour grading, in conjunction with landform vegetation planting for
slopes adjacent to natural open space in areas visible from public roadways and public
open spaces. Application of landform planting to simulate contour grading shall be
required to soften the visual impact of manufactured slopes over 20 feet in height and
200 feet more in length. The planting will consist of a variety of drought-tolerant
trees, shrubs, and ground covers, with similar sized plants undulating horizontally and
vertically on the slope face. All the plantings will conform to the City of Carlsbad
Landscape Manual. As shown in Figure 3B-15, this will result in visual transition of
these slopes into the natural terrain as required by City of Carlsbad Hillside
development Ordinance Section 21.95.1200( 1);
Implement the Master Plan’s detailed landscaping requirements for manufactured
slopes adjacent to MHCP open space which serve to reduce the contrast and blend the
visual appearance of the graded and developed site from off-site areas;
I
Implement the Master Plan’ s transitional landscaping plantings between development
and native vegetation on visible manufactured slopes and internal project landscaping
to reduce the off-site aesthetic impact from the grading proposed for residential
development pads and roads.
80 i
._ . .
, Undulating lines of
frees and lave shrubs meander both horrrzontally
and vertical& on slope. mating masses and voids
to simulate wntourgmding
/ f I
Section A-A
Undulating lines of
frees and lam shrubs
I \ ",- mating masses and voids to simulate contour grading
Voids mated by meandedng
lines of trees and shrubs simulate contour grading 1
Landform Planting Used to Simulate
Contour Gradina
Plan View
I Source: O'Day Consultants, Inc. 12/00
NO SCALE
R-3225P.
FIGURE 3B-15
Landform Planting Exhibit
,
1 1.
3. Environmental Analysis B. Landform AlterationNisual Quality
4. Implement the Master Plan’s landscaping requirements for perimeter slopes as a
condition of the master tentative map’s Final Map.
5. Implement the Master Plan’s design guidelines for noise walls (exterior treatment and
landscaping) to reduce aesthetic impacts. Figure 3B-16 illustrates the type of noise
wall that complies with the Master Plan’s six-foot high solid wall height limitation.
A combination of wall/glass/berm is allowable where approved by the City and shall
be landscaped to reduce the aesthetic impacts at Village U along College Boulevard.
This type of noise wall shall be required at the time tentative maps are proposed to
reduce the aesthetic impact to below a level of significance.
b) Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 .Extension of College
Boulevard and Cannon Road and Detention Basins
6. The significant landform alteration and aesthetic character impacts from the proposed
road alignments and detention basins shall be reduced to a less than significant level
by implementation of landscaping requirements for the manufactured slopes for the
roadways, subject to approval by the City Engineer for the City of Carlsbad. As with
the manufactured slope adjacent to natural open space for the Master Plan above, the
roadway slopes for College Boulevard and Cannon Road shall be revegetated with
native species to provide a transition to the adjacent native habitat.
4) Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of the above landscaping and slope grading mitigation measures would
reduce direct landform alterationlaesthetic impacts associated with the development of
the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II and the roadway alignmenWdetention basins to
below a level of significance. The cumulative change from project implementation to the
existing aesthetic character within the larger project area would be significant and not
mitigated. Development of the project, including buildout of the City’s General Plan in
the project vicinity and provision regional roadways cannot occur without resulting in a
significant change to the existing aesthetic character.
i
82
i
I
!
i
i
I i
i I
! ! i
i i I
I
i I
i
I
i
i
! i 1
I
i
i i
I
1
I I !
j - -
a
Source: O'Day Consultants, Inc. 8/00 FIGURE 3B-16
Proposed Sound Wall Section
R-322SE
w t n i -3- rn
J J,
I 1, z U Landscape Area
Variable Height Table
Notes: 1. Sections B & C can be substituted with a 2:l landscaped slope.
3. Environmental Analysis C. Traffic Circulation
C. Traffic Circulation
The following discussion is based on the transportation analysis for the Calavera Hills
Phase II development project prepared by Urban Systems Associates, Inc. (USA) dated
January 8, 2001. The report is included as Appendix B. A transportation analysis was
also prepared by Urban Systems Associates, Inc. for the bridge and thoroughfare district
to determine the effect of construction of the project roadways on traffic. The report is
included as Appendix C and is discussed below where appropriate.
Existing Conditions
a) Street Segments (With College Boulevard Barricade)
The Calavera Hills Master Plan area is located in the north-central portion of the City of
Carlsbad, generally east and north of El Camino Real. Figure 3C-1 depicts the existing
circulation system within the project and the vicinity of the project with average daily
traffic (ADT) volumes under the current circumstance which includes an existing but
temporary barricade on College Boulevard. The barricade is located south of the
intersection of College and Lake Boulevards and prevents traffic from traveling north or
south on College Boulevard. Traffic volumes were taken from recent traffic counts
conducted for the City of Carlsbad 1999 Traffic Monitoring Program and recent traffic
counts in year 2000 for project analysis.
I
i
When analyzing street segments, the level of service &OS) must be determined. LOS is
a measure used to describe the conditions of traffic flow. LOS is expressed using letter
designations from A to F. LOS A represents the best case and LOS F represents the worst
case. Generally, LOS A through C represents free flowing traffic conditions with little or
no delay. LOS D represents limited congestion and some delay. However, the duration
of periods of delay is acceptable to most people. LOS E and F represent significant
delays on local streets, which are generally unacceptable for urban design purposes. The
descriptions are from the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Transportation Research
Board 1998). For the City of Carlsbad, LOS D is the lowest acceptable LOS standard for
roadways and intersections during peak hours, and LOS C is the lowest acceptable LOS
standard for off peak hours. In almost all cases, the LOS level for peak hours will be the
controlling standard.
Table 3C-1 shows the existing street segment classifications and levels of service based
on the highest peak hour flow per lane (VPHPL) and a per-lane capacity of 1,800 VPHPL
with the barricade prohibiting traffk from traveling north or south on College Boulevard.
As shown, all street segments currently operate acceptably. Street segments studied in the
84 ,
!
I
Source: Urban Systems Associates, Inc. 12/00 I FIGURE 3C-1 I Existing Circulation System and Average Daily Traffic Volumes
TABLE 3C-1
EXISTING STREET SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE
(With College Boulevard Barricade)
Location
Average Daily Peak Peak
Classification Volume VPHPL VPHPLKPL LOS
Cannon Road
1-5 - Paseo del Norte
Paseo del Norte - Leg0 Dr.
Leg0 Drive - El Camino Real
El Camino Real - College Blvd.
College BIvd. - east city limit
East city limit -Melrose Drive
College Boulevard
Palomar Airport Rd. - El Camino Real
El Camino Real - Cannon Road
Cannon Road - Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad Village Drive - Lake Blvd.'
Lake Blvd. - SR-78
El Camino Real
SR-78 - Marron Road
Marron Road - Carlsbad Village Drive
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
6PA
17,000
7,000 *
*
*
8,000
14,000 *
*
*
15,000
565
315 *
*
*
320
560 *
*
*
0.3 1 A
0.18 A * *
* *
* *
0.18 A
0.3 1 A * *
* *
* *
370 0.21 A
6PA 36,000 755 0.42 A
6PA 34,000 610 0.34 A
:- I
TABLE 3C-1
EXISTING STREET SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE
(continued)
Location
Average Daily Peak Peak Classification Volume VPHPL VPHPUCPL LOS
Carlsbad Village Drive - Tamarack Avenue
Tamarack Avenue - Cannon Road
Cannon Road - College Boulevard
College Boulevard - Faraday Avenue
Faraday Avenue - Palomar Airport Road
4PA
4PA
4PA
4PA
6PA
25,000
28,000
28,000
25,000
32,000
620
620
620
675
520
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.38
0.29
A
A
A
A
A
Carlsbad Village Drive
El Camino Real - Pontiac Drive
Pontiac Drive - Tamarack Avenue
Tamarack Avenue - College Boulevard
4SA
2SA
4SA
12,000
6,000
2,000
300
150
50
0.17
0.08
0.03
A
A
A
Tamarack Avenue
El Camino Real - Carlsbad Village Drive 4SA 8,000 220 0.12 A
NOTE: Existing barricade in place south of Lake Blvd.
*Not built.
LOS = level of service
VPHPL = vehicles per hour per lane
CPL = capacityAane at 1,800 VPH
6PA = 6-lane primary arterial
4PA = 4-lane primary arterial
4MA = 4-lane major arterial
4SA = 4-lane secondary arterial
2SA = 2-lane secondary arterial
3. Environmental Analysis C. Traffic Circulation
bridge and thoroughfare analysis (see Appendix C) operate at acceptable LOS, excepting
segments of Interstate 5 0-5) and State Route 78 (SR-78).
b) Street Segments (Without Barricade)
As shown on Table 3C-2, removal of the College Boulevard barricade would reduce
traffic volumes on segments of El Camino Real between SR-78 and Tamarack Avenue.
Alternatively, the action would increase the number of trips using Carlsbad Village Drive
between Tamarack Avenue and College Boulevard, and segments of College Boulevard
between Carlsbad Village Drive and SR-78 and on Tamarack Avenue between El Camino
Real and Carlsbad Village Drive. All affected roadway segments are expected to operate
at acceptable levels of service. Traffic operations on all project study area road segments
would continue to operate at acceptable levels with the removal of the barricade (see the
traffic technical analysis, Appendix B).
c)
Figure 3C-2 shows the key to study area intersections and Table 3C-3 shows the results of
the intersection level of service evaluation. All intersections studied operate at acceptable
levels of service (“D’ or better during the AM and PM peak hour periods) except the El
Camino Remalomar Airport Road intersection, which operates at LOS F in the morning
peak hour and LOS E in the evening peak hour for the existing year 2000 with the
College Boulevard barricade. However, with improvements, including northbound and
westbound dual right-turn lanes, currently under construction, the morning and evening
LOS are expected to be B and C, respectively. The bridge and thoroughfare transportation
analyses determined the same existing intersection LOS and expected LOS with
implementation of the planned improvements. Without the barricade, operations during
the morning peak hour at the intersection of El Camino RealfTamarack Avenue would
operate at an unacceptable LOS E. However, with restriping of the westbound through
lane at this intersection as a shared through-left turn lane (with split-phase signal
operation), operations would be improved to an acceptable LOS C during the morning
peak hour and LOS B during the evening peak hour. All other intersections affected by
the barricade’s removal would comply with the City’s Growth Management Program and
would operate at an acceptable LOS D or better (see Appendix C). The level of service
based on intersection volume to capacity ratios is shown on Table 3C-3. Operations
service levels are based on the following criteria (see also Appendix C).
Intersections (With and Without the College Boulevard
Barricade)
I
i
88
TABLE 3C-2
YEAR 2000 STREET SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE
(With and Without College Boulevard Barricade)
Location
ADTwl ADTwIo Peak Need for
Classification Barricade Banicade VPHPL V/C LOS Mitigation
El Camino Real
SR-78 - Marron Road
Marron Road - Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad Village Drive - Chestnut Avenue
' Chestnut Avenue - Tamarack Avenue
Tamarack Avenue - College Boulevard
College Boulevard - Faraday Avenue
Faraday Avenue - Palomar Airport Road
Carlsbad Village Drive
1-5 - Highland Drive
Highland Drive - Monroe Street
Monroe Street - El Camino Real
El Camino Real - Pontiac Drive
Pontiac Drive - Victoria Avenue
Victoria Avenue - Tamarack Avenue
Tamarack Avenue - College Boulevard
6PA
6PA
4PA
4PA
4PA
4PA
6PA
4s A
4SA
4SA
4SA
2SA
4s A
4SA
36,000
34,000
25,000
25,000
30,000
25,000
32,000
14,000
18.000
16,000
12,000
8,000
7,000
2,000
26,000
26,000
18,000
18,000
32,000
26,000
32,000
15,000
19,000
17,000
10,Ooo
7,000
7,000
8,000
605
490
410
580
1090
675
520
525
665
375
350
350
350
400
0.34
0.27
0.23
0.32
0.60
0.38
0.29
0.29
0.37
0.21
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.22
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
TABLE 3C-2
YEAR 2000 STREET SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE (With and Without College Boulevard Barricade) . (continued)
Location
ADTwl ADTwlo Peak Need for
Classification Barricade Barricade VPHPL VIC LOS Mitigation
College Boulevard
Carlsbad Village Drive - Lake Blvd. 4MA 2,000 8,000 380 0.21 A No
Lake Blvd. - SR-78 6PA 15,000 25,000 490 0.27 A No
Tamarack Avenue
1-5 - Highland Drive
Highland Drive - Monroe Street
Monroe Street - El Camino Real
4c 12,000 13,000 510
2c 10,000 1 1,000 865
4s A 7,000 8,000 235
-28 A No
.48 A No
.13 A No
El Camino Real - Carlsbad Village Drive 4s A 8,000 15,700 640 .36 A No
VPHPL = vehicles per hour per lane LOS = level of service
4MA = 4-lane major arterial 2SA = 2-lane secondary arterial
6PA = 6-lane primary arterial 4c - - 4-lane collector
2c = 2-lane collector 4SA = 4-lane secondary arterial
I
I
Source: Urban Systems Associates, Inc. 12/00 + NO SCALE
FIGURE 3C-2
Intersection Number Key
TABLE 3C-3
EXISTING/YEAR 2000 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
WlI" AND WITHOUT THE COLLEGE BOULEVARD BARRICADE
(ICU METHOD)
# Intersection
1 Vista Way
2 SR-78 EB ramps*
3 Plaza Drive*
4 Lake Boulevard*
5 Carlsbad Village Drive
6 Cannon Road
7 El Camino Real?
College Boulevard
El Camino Real
8 SR-78 WB ramps*
9 SR-78 EB ramps*
10 Plaza Drive?
11 Marron Road?
12 Carlsbad Village Drive?
13 Tamarack Avenue?
14 Faraday Avenue?
15 Palomar Airport Road$
Cannon Road
16 1-5 SB ramps*
17 1-5 NB ramps*
18 Paseo del Norte*
19 El Camino Real
Carlsbad Village Drive
20 Tamarack Avenue
21 Victoria Avenue
AM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour
(wl barricade) (wlo barricade)
ICU LOS ICU LOS
0.57
0.37
0.28
,0.35
-
-
0.51
0.75
0.63
0.38
0.40
0.63
0.81
0.67
1.07
0.38
0.40
0.53 -
-
stop sign
A
A
A
A
A
A
-
C
B
A
A
B
D
B
F
A
A
B -
A
B
0.55
0.39
0.47
0.3 1 -
-
NIA
N/C
NIC
NIC
NIC
0.64
0.98
NIC
NIC
NIC
N/C
NIC -
N/C
NIC
A
A
A
A -
-
NIA
N/C
NIC
NIC
NIC
B
NIC
NIC
E#
NIC
NIC
NIC -
NIC
NIC
PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
(wl barricade) (wlo barricade)
ICU LOS ICU LOS
0.66
0.48
0.44
0.32 - -
0.61
0.75
0.69
0.72
0.57
0.66
0.70
0.7 1
0.97
0.31
0.69
0.57 -
-
stop
sim
B
A
A
A
A
B
-
C
B
C
A
B
B
C
E
A
B
B -
A
B
0.56
0.48
0.50
0.45 - -
NIA
NIC
NIC
NIC
NIC
0.55
0.68
NIC
NIC
NIC
NIC
NIC -
NIC
N/C
A
A
A
A - -
NIA
N/C
N/C
NIC
NIC
A
B
NIC
NIC
NIC
NIC
NIC -
NIC
NIC
*Urban Systems Associates, Inc. calculation.
TCarlsbad 1999 traffic monitoring report calculation.
$With improvements currently under construction, northbound and westbound dual right-tum lanes, A.M.
LOS = B, P.M. LOS = C
#City to re-stripe westbound through lane as a left-turn lane within the existing roadway. Results in acceptable A.M.
LOS of C and P.M. LOS of B at this intersection.
NIA or - = Not Applicable or Not Built
NIC = No Change Noted
3. Environmental Analysis C. Traffic Circulation
Level of Service Criteria (LOS)
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)
Level of Service - ICU
A 0.00 - 0.60
B 0.61 - 0.70 C 0.71 - 0.80
D 0.81 - 0.90
E 0.9 1 - 1 .OO F Over 1.00
I
d) Regional Congestion Management Program
The Regional Congestion Management Program (CMP) guidelines determine the
procedures to be used for intersection peak hour analysis. To determine an intersection
peak hour LOS, the CMP guidelines require use of the most recent procedure from
Chapter 9 of the HCM (Transportation Research Board 1998). The procedure in
Chapter 9, which is used to analyze signalized intersections, is the “operational method.”
This method determines LOS based on total vehicle delay expressed in seconds. A
computer program is used to complete the analysis. As discussed below, the CMP
guidelines have established LOS D as the objective for intersections and street segments.
The level of service based on intersection control delay per vehicle was determined using
the following HCM criteria:
Level of Service Criteria
Highway Capacity Manual Software (HCM)
A 110
Level of Service Control Delay Per Vehicle (sec.)
B C
D
E
F
>10 and 120
>20 and 135 > 35 and 155
>55 and 180
>80
Congestion Management Plan Enhanced CEQA Review Guidelines
As discussed above, the CMP regional guidelines were developed by the San Diego
Association of Governments (SANDAG) to provide a set of procedures for completing
enhanced CEQA review for certain projects. The guidelines prepared by SANDAG
stipulate that any development project generating 2,400 or more average daily trips, or
200 or more peak hour trips must be evaluated in accordance with the requirements of the
Regional CMP. The CMP analysis must include the traffic LOS impacts on affected
freeways and Regionally Significant Arterial (RSA) systems, which includes all
93
3. Environmental Analysis C. Traffic Circulation
designated CMP roadways. In order to conform to the region’s CMP, local jurisdiction
must adopt and implement a land use analysis program to assess impacts of land use
decisions on the regional transportation system. Figure 2-2, the project location map, is
the CMP study area for this project.
The CMP requires that the traffic impact analysis address freeway links with 150 or more
peak hour project trips (in either direction) or 50 or more peak hour trips (in either
direction) on CMP or RSA roadways. Interstate 5, SR-78, College Boulevard, and
Cannon Road are portions of the RSA or freeway systems. The project’s addition of
traffic to the freeway systems is expected to be less than 150 peak hour trips so that a
freeway main lane evaluation is not required.
Impacts
The proposed project includes both single-family detached and multi-family attached
dwelling units on 290.5 acres. Although a redistribution of land uses is proposed, the
Calavera Hills Phase II project does not increase the average daily peak volumes included
in the current Calavera Hills Master Plan approved in 1989.
a) Project Traffic Projections
Trip Generation
The project proposes construction of 345 single-family residences, 293 multi-family
residences, 140 apartment units, and a 180-child day care facility. Using the standard trip
generation rates of 10 trips per household for single-family dwelling units, 8 trips per
household for multi-family dwelling units, and 6 trips for apartments, the proposed
project would generate 7,534 daily trips. Table 3C-4 shows the proposed project’s
estimated peak hour trip generation. The project is estimated to generate 684 trips during
the AM peak hour (split 218 inbound and 467 outbound) and 825 trips during the PM
peak hour (split 547 inbound and 297 outbound). As compared to the approved project
for Phases I and I& the proposed project would generate approximately 5,548 fewer
average daily trips overall. The net difference between the approved and proposed
project-generated external trips is far less due to residentialkornmercial trip match ups.
This results in an estimated 500 fewer external trips generated by the proposed project
overall but an incremental increase during the A.M. and P.M. peak hours (see the traffic
technical analysis, Appendix B).
,-
Trip Distribution
SANDAG/Carlsbad Year 2000, 2005, and 2020 Trflic Models. Figure 3C-3 shows the
Year 2000 project only trip didbution percentages.
I Traffic distribution was based on a select zone plot of the project using the i
I
i
94
TABLE 3C-4
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
Trip AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Village Amount Rate* ADT %* Number In:Out* In Out %* Number In:Out* In Out
H (day care) 180 stj- 5/st 900 17 153 5:5 77 77 18 162 5:5 81 81
L-2 (single-family) 15 du lO/du 150 8 12 3:7 4 8 10 15 7:3 11 5
R (single-family) 4du lO/du 40 8 3 3:7 1 2 10 4 7:3 3 1
U (multi-family) 179 du 8/du 1,432 8 115 2: 8 23 92 10 143 7:3 100 43
29 68 10 121 7:3 85 36 W (single-family) 121 du lO/du 1,210 8 97 3:7
X (single-family) 117du lO/du 1,170 8 94 3:7 28 66 10 117 7:3 82 35
Y (multi-family) 140du 6/du 840 8 67 2: 8 13 54 10 84 7:3 59 25
E-1 (multi-family) 114du 8 du 912 8 73 3:7 22 51 10 91 7:3 64 27
Total multi-family 433 du
Total single-family 345 du
TOTAL 7,534 684 218 467 825 547 279
*SANDAG, San Diego Traffic Generators, July 1998.
tst = student
K (single-family) 88du lO/du 880 8 70 3:7 21 49 10 88 7:3 62 26
I
Source: Urban Systems Associates, Inc. 12/00
9 NO SCALE
FIGURE 3C-3
Year 2000 Project Only Directional Distribution Percentage8
3. Environmental Analysis C. Traffic Circulation
Project Trip Assignment
Based upon the trip generation and trip distribution discussed above, the project only trips
were assigned as shown on Figure 3C-4 for average daily trips and for peak hour turns at
the study intersections at project buildout. .
b) Existing Year 2000 Plus Project Conditions (Without College
Boulevard Barrier) !
!
!
Street Segments
This scenario examines the traffic conditions with project only AM/PM peak hour and
average daily traffic added to existing conditions assuming the barrier on College
Boulevard has been removed and the completion of Villages Q and T within Phase I of
Calavera Hills. Figure 3C-5 shows the estimated average weekday two-way traffic vol-
umes for various street segments in the project area. Table 3C-5 shows the street segment
level of service and concludes that with project traffic added to existing daily traffic, all
segments evaluated on City-owned roadways comply with the City’s Growth Manage-
ment Program level of service criteria of at least LOS D in the AM and PM peak hours.
Intersections
All analyzed intersections will operate at an LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak
hour periods, as required by the City’s Growth Management Propam, except for the
Palomar Airport Roam1 Camino Real intersection (Table 3C-6). This intersection would
operate at LOS F in the Ah4 and LOS E in the PM, as it does under existing conditions.
Intersection improvements have been completed to add
dual right-turn lanes to the northbound and westbound travel lanes to improve LOS
accemable levels at this intersection.
c) Short-term Future (Year 2005) Conditions
Street Segments
This scenario evaluates roadway and intersection conditions assuming at least five years
growth in traffic volumes including project traffic. Table 3C-7 shows the street segment
level of service predicted for year 2005. The calculated street segment operations assume
completion of College Boulevard Reaches B and C (between Carlsbad Village Drive and
Cannon Road), Cannon Road Reaches 2 and 3 (Faraday Avenue to College Boulevard),
and additional street segments unrelated to the project (see the traffic technical analysis,
Appendix B). As shown, all arterial road segments evaluated comply with the City’s
Growth Management Program level of service criteria of at least LOS D in the AM and
PM peak hours. With the construction of the projected roadways, traffic volume to
capacity ratios would be considerably lower in 2005 than is expected without roadway
construction.
97
3. Environmental Analysis C. Traffic Circulation
Traffic counts for the Carlsbad Village Drive link between Pontiac Drive and Victoria
Drive (through Calavera Hills Village H) are lower than originally projected (when the
roadway was adopted as a secondary arterial), most likely due to the proposed elimination
of the Village E-1 commercial land use, and the transfer of about 400 multi-family units
from Village K to the southeast corner of the Master Plan (Villages U, W, X, and Y),
away from the Carlsbad Village Drive link.
The Street Standards for the City of Carlsbad require only a two-lane roadway up to a
design volume of 10,000 ADT. As indicated below, only a two-lane roadway would be
needed to accommodate existing and future roadway volumes on this link of Carlsbad
Village Drive.
Carlsbad Village Drive (Pontiac Drive - Victoria Drive) Segment Volumes
- Year 2-Lane Design Volume Volume (ADT) fADT) Classification
Existing (Year 2000) 10,Ooo 8,000 2 lanes
Year 2000 + project (no barricade) 10,000 8,800 2 lanes
Year 2005 (with CollegeKannon) 10,Ooo 5,000 2 lanes
Year 2020 (Buildout) 10,Ooo 3,000 2 lanes
As the above volumes indicate, Carlsbad Village Drive between Pontiac Drive and
Victoria Drive would operate acceptably as a two-lane roadway so that no widening
would be needed or recommended (see the traffic technical analysis, Appendix B).
Additionally, properties to the west of this segment of Carlsbad Village Drive contain
existing development, and property to the east is identified in Figure 5 of the Draft HMP
as “Existing Hardline Conservation Area.” Modification via an amendment to the Draft
HMP would be necessary.
Also, areas of biologically sensitive vegetation, including Brodiueu JiZifoZiu and native
grassland occur over much of this area. A number of wetlands and non-wetland
jurisdictional waters also occur within this area and would be disturbed by widening of
the roadway. Take of such biologically sensitive vegetation and disturbance of wetlands
and non-wetland waters would be considered a significant impact that would require
federal and state permitting, and mitigation.
For the above reasons, the proposed project does not propose widening of this segment of
Carlsbad Village Drive. However, improvements necessary at each end of this roadway
98 ,
I
I
LEGEND
x,xxx =prOjcctoalyA~DailyT~c
Source: Urban Svstems Associates. Inc. 8/00 FIGURE 3C-4
Year 2020 Project Only
Average Daily Traffic Volumes - - R-322%
I
Source: Urban Systems Associates, Inc. 12/00
FIGURE 3C-5
Existing Plus Project
Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Without College Blvd. Barricade)
TABLE 3C-5
EXISTING + PROJECT STREET SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE
(WITHOUT COLLEGE BOULEVARD BARRICADE)
Location
Average Daily Peak Peak
Classification Volume VPHPL VHPUCPL LOS
Cannon Road
1-5 - Paseo del Norte
Paseo del Norte - Leg0 Dr.
Leg0 Drive - El Camino Real
El Camino Real - College Blvd.
College Blvd. - east city limit
East city limit - Melrose Drive
College Boulevard
Palomar Airport Rd. - El Camino Real
El Camino Real - Cannon Road
Cannon Road - Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad Village Drive - Lake Blvd.
Lake Blvd. - SR-78
El Camino Real
SR-78 - Marron Road
Marron Road - Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad Village Drive - Tamarack Avenue
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
6PA
6PA
6PA
4PA
17,000
7,000 *
*
*
8,000
14,400 *
*
*
30,700
26,700
27,000
25,000
570
320 *
*
*
320
570 *
*
*
470
760
615
620
0.32 A
0.18 A * *
* *
* *
0.18 A
0.32 A * *
* *
* *
0.26 A
0.42 A
0.34 A
0.34 A
TABLE 3C-5
EXISTING + PROJECT STREET SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE
(continued)
Location
Average Daily Peak Peak
Classification Volume VPHPL VHPUCPL LOS
Tamarack Avenue - Cannon Road 4PA 33,000 645 0.36 A
Cannon Road - College Boulevard 4PA 33,000 630 0.35 A
College Boulevard - Faraday Avenue 4PA 26,600 685 0.38 A
Faraday Avenue - Palomar Airport Road 6PA 32,400 525 0.29 A
Carlsbad Village Drive
El Camino Real - Pontiac Drive
Pontiac Drive - Tamarack Avenue
Tamarack Avenue - College Boulevard
4SA 11,800 315 0.18 A
2SA 8,800 165 0.09 A
4SA 8,000 110 0.06 A
Tamarack Avenue
El Camino Real - Carlsbad Village Drive 4SA 16,000 255 0.14 A
VPHPL = vehicles per hour per lane *Not built.
CPL = capacity per lane at 1,800 VPH
LOS = levelofservice
4MA = 4-lane major arterial
6PA = 6-laneprimaryarterial
4PA = 4-lane primary arterial
4SA = 4-lane secondary arterial
2SA = 2-lane secondary arterial
i i
i
TABLE 3C-6
EXISTING + PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY
(ICU METHOD)
Intersection
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ICU LOS ICU LOS
College Boulevard
Vista Way
SR-78 EB ramps
Plaza Drive
Lake Boulevard
Carlsbad Village Drive
Cannon Road
El Camino Real
El Camino Real
SR-78 WB ramps
SR-78 EB ramps
Plaza Drive
Marron Road
Carlsbad Village Drive
Tamarack Avenue
Faraday Avenue
Palomar Airport Road 7
Cannon Road
1-5 SB ramps
1-5 NB ramps
Paseo del Norte
El Camino Real
Carlsbad Village Drive
Tamarack Avenue
Victoria Avenue
0.64
0.44
0.54
0.5 1
0.69
-
0.52
0.78
0.64
0.39
0.40
0.66
0.77
0.68
1.07
0.38
0.40
0.53
-
0.77
stop sign
B 0.58
A 0.60
A 0.55
A 0.52
B 0.7 1
A -
A 0.62
C 0.77
B 0.72
A 0.73
A 0.57
B 0.60
C 0.72
B 0.7 1
F 0.97
A 0.31
A 0.69
B 0.57
- -
C 0.60
B stop sign
A
A
A
A
C
A
B
C
C
C
A
A
C
C
E
A
B
B
-
A
B
______
NOTE: No College Boulevard Barricade, Add Villages Q and T, Plus Phase XI
?With improvements currently under construction, northbound and westbound dual right-
turn lanes, A.M. LOS = B, P.M. LOS = c
TABLE 3C-7
YEAR 2005 WITH PROJECT STREET SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE
Location
Average Daily Peak Peak
Classification Volume VPHPL VHPUCPL LOS
Cannon Road
1-5 - Paseo del Node
Paseo del Norte - Leg0 Dr.
Leg0 Drive - El Camino Real
El Camino Real - College Blvd.
College Blvd. - east city limit
East city limit - Melrose Drive
College Boulevard
Palomar Airport Rd. - El Camino Real
El Camino Real - Cannon Road
Cannon Road - Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad Village Drive - Lake Blvd. '
Lake Blvd. - SR-78
El Camino Real
SR-78 - Marron Road
Marron Road - Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad Village Drive - Tamarack Avenue
Tamarack Avenue - Cannon Road
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
6PA
6PA
6PA
4PA
4PA
17,000
13,000
1 1,000
14,000 *
14,000
16,000 *
14,000
3 1,000
39,000
36,000
31,000
26,000
32,000
655
170
505
420 *
430
560 *
415
760
670
840
640
475
870
0.36
0.09
0.28
0.23 *
0.24
0.3 1 *
0.23
0.42
0.37
0.47
0.36
0.26
0.48
-- -_ --
A
A
A.
A *
A
A *
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
TABLE 3C-7
YEAR 2005 WITH PROJECT STREET SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE
(continued)
Average Daily Peak Peak
Location Classification Volume VPHPL VHPUCPL LOS
Cannon Road - College Boulevard 4PA 40,000 1,160 0.64 B
College Boulevard - Faraday Avenue 4PA 38,000 580 0.32 A
Faraday Avenue - Palomar Airport Road 6PA 46,000 750 0.42 A
Carlsbad Village Drive
El Camino Real - Pontiac Drive
Pontiac Drive - Tamarack Avenue
Tamarack Avenue - College Boulevard
4SA 7,000 370 0.2 1 A
2SA 5,000 265 0.15 A
4SA 15,000 285 0.16 A
Tamarack Avenue
El Camino Real - Carlsbad Village Drive 4SA 10,000 310 0.17 A
VPHPL =
CPL =
LOS =
4MA =
6PA =
4PA =
4SA =
2SA =
*Not built.
vehicles per hour per lane
capacity per lane at 1,800 VPH
level of service
4-lane major arterial
6-lane primary arterial
4-lane primary arterial
4-lane secondary arterial
2-lane secondary arterial
3. Environmental Analysis C. Traffic Circulation
segment, to provide a transition of.the roadway from four lanes to two lanes, should be
made in order to safely direct motorists. Since these transitions can be made within the
existing four-lane roadway, no significant impacts would result from restriping to
accommodate the transition lanes. Likewise, although segments of SR-78 and 1-5 would
continue to operate below acceptable LOS standards in 2005 this is not considered a
direct project impact attributable to the bridge and thoroughfare district construction
because the LOS on these roadway segments would be below “D’ without the proposed
roadway construction.
Intersections
As shown on Table 3C-8, all analyzed intersections studied in the Calavera Hills Master
Plan Phase II analysis would operate at a LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak
hour periods, as required by the City’s Growth Management Program. Several roadway
improvements are planned in the vicinity of the proposed project. These improvements
are required of other approved projects in the area or by a city-wide traffic impact fee
project, or a combination of both and are not a part of the proposed Calavera Hills Master
Plan Phase II/Bridge and Thoroughfare District improvements. Construction of these
roadways would improve the LOS to at least “D’ on seven of the intersections studied in
the transportation analysis, while all other intersections would maintain acceptable levels
of service.
d) Buildout (year 2020) Conditions
The SANDAG/Carlsbad Cities-County 2020 Transportation Forecast (August 13, 1999)
was used to determine year 2020 traffk volumes.
Street Segments
Table 3C-9 shows the street segment level of service predicted for year 2020. As shown,
all arterial road segments evaluated for the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II comply
with the City’s Growth Management Program level of service criteria of at least LOS D
in the AM and PM peak hours. In the bridge and thoroughfare analysis for the year 2020,
segments of 1-5 and SR-78 would operate below LOS D with or without construction of
the proposed roadways. With project roadway construction, segments of El Camino Real,
Palomar Airport Road, and Melrose Drive would have considerably lower volume-to-
capacity ratios because east-west and north-south traffic would have an alternative to the
parallel routes from Cannon Road and College Boulevard.
‘I
Intersections
As shown on Table 3C-10, all analyzed intersections for the Calavera Hills Master Plan
Phase II analysis would operate at an LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hour
periods, as required by the City’s Growth Management Program, except the SR-78
106
TABLE 3C-8
YEAR 2005 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE
WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Without With Without With
Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS
College Boulevard
Vista Way
SR-78 EB ramps
Plaza Drive
Lake Boulevard
Carlsbad Village Drive
Cannon Road
El Camino Real
El Camino Real
SR-78 WB ramps
SR-78 EB ramps
Plaza Drive
Marron Road
Carlsbad Village Drive
Tamarack Avenue
Faraday Avenue
Palomar Airport Road
0.6 1
0.3 1
0.54
0.56
0.43
-
0.7 1
0.65
0.58
0.47
0.55
0.68
0.68
0.72
0.80
B
A
A
A
A
-
C
B
A
A
A
B
B
C
C
0.65
0.32
0.57
0.59
0.5 1
-
0.7 1
0.65
0.58
0.47
0.56
0.70
0.80
0.73
0.80
B 0.62
A 0.42
A 0.84
A 0.6 1
- 0.53
- -
C 0.6 1
B 0.88
A 0.79
A 0.87
A 0.57
B 0.60
C 0.63
C 0.65
C 0.77
B 0.63
A 0.43
D 0.88
B 0.64
A 0.60
- -
B 0.6 1
D 0.90
C 0.80
D 0.87
A 0.58
A 0.60
B 0.68
B 0.66
C 0.76
B
A
D
B
A
-
B
D
C
D
A
A
B
B
C
TABLE 3C-8
YEAR 2005 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE
WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC
(continued)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Without With Without With
Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS
Cannon Road
1-5 SB ramps 0.3 1 A 0.3 1 A 0.27 A 0.28 A
1-5 NB ramps 0.22 A 0.22 A 0.32 A 0.33 A
Paseo del Norte 0.27 A 0.27 A 0.49 A 0.50 A
El Camino Real 0.64 B 0.64 B 0.52 A 0.52 A
Carlsbad Village Drive
Tamarack Avenue ' 0.30 A 0.35 A 0.3 1 A 0.35 A
Victoria Avenue NA B NA B NA B NA C
NOTE: Year 2005 excludes Cannon Road Reach 4 and College Boulevard Reach A
TABLE 3C-9
YEAR 2020 WITH PROJECT STREET SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE
Average Daily Peak Peak
Location Classification Volume VPHPL VHPUCPL LOS
Cannon Road
1-5 - Paseo del Norte
Paseo del Norte - Leg0 Dr.
Leg0 Drive - El Camino Real
El Camino Real - College Blvd.
College Blvd. - east city limit
East city limit - Melrose Drive
College Boulevard
Palomar Airport Rd. - El Camino Real
El Camino Real - Cannon Road
Cannon Road - Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad Village Drive - Lake Blvd.
Lake Blvd. - SR-78
El Camino Real
SR-78 - Marron Road
Marron Road - Carlsbad Village Drive
Carlsbad Village Drive - Tamarack Avenue
Tamarack Avenue - Cannon Road
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
4MA
6PA
6PA
6PA
6PA
6PA
38,000
28,000
22,000
2 1,000
24,000
30,000
22,000
29,000
24,000
39,000
48,000
43,000
34,000
32,000
44,000
1,025
755
595
570
650
8 10
595
595
650
1,055
865
755
615
575
790
0.58
0.42
0.33
0.32
0.36
0.45
0.33
0.33
0.36
0.59
0.48
0.43
0.34
0.32
0.44
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
TABLE 3C-9
YEAR 2020 WITH PROJECT STREET SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE
(continued)
Location
Average Daily Peak Peak
Classification Volume VPHPL VHPUCPL Los
Cannon Road - College Boulevard 6PA 39,000 705 0.54 A
College Boulevard - Faraday Avenue 6PA 54,000 975 0.49 A
Faraday Avenue - Palomar Airport Road 6PA 49,000 885 0.49 A
Carlsbad Village Drive
El Camino Real - Pontiac Drive
Pontiac Drive - Tamarack Avenue
Tamarack Avenue - College Boulevard
4SA 7,000 190 0.11 A
2SA 3,000 80 0.04 A
4SA 17,000 460 0.26 A
Tamarack Avenue
El Camino Real - Carlsbad Village Drive 4SA 10,Ooo 380 0.21 A
VPHPL =
CPL =
LOS =
4MA =
6PA =
4SA =
2SA =
vehicles per hour per lane
capacity per lane at 1,800 VPH
level of service
4-lane major arterial
6-lane primary arterial
4-lane secondary arterial
2-lane secondary arterial
TABLE 3C-10
YEAR 2020 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE
WITH AND WITHOUT CALAVERA HILLS MASTER PLAN PHASE I1 PROJECT TRAFFIC
~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour
Without With Without With
Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS
College Boulevard
Vista Way
SR-78 EB ramps
Plaza Drive
Lake Boulevard
Carlsbad Village Drive
Cannon Road
El Camino Real
El Camino Real
SR-78 WB ramps
SR-78 EB ramps
Plaza Drive
Marron Road
Carlsbad Village Drive
Tamarack Avenue
Faraday Avenue
Palomar Airport Road
0.62
0.52
0.45
0.58
0.49
0.59
0.8 1
0.76
0.74
0.55
0.79
0.69
0.64
0.79
0.83
B
A
A
A
A
A
D
C
C
A
C
B
B
C
D
0.64
0.54
0.58
0.63
0.56
0.60
0.82
0.76
0.75
0.55
0.80
0.7 1
0.76
0.79
0.83
B
B
A
B
A
A
D
C
C
A
C
C
C
C
D
0.66
0.55
0.70
0.73
0.62
0.67
0.84
0.95
0.88
0.84
0.88
0.67
0.66
0.90
0.82
B
A
I3
C
B
B
D
E
D
D
D
B
B
D
D
0.67
0.59
0.72
0.76
0.70
0.68
0.88
0.96
0.89
0.85
0.88
0.68
0.68
0.90
0.82
B
A
C
C
B
B
D
E
D
D
D
B
B
D
D
TABLE 3C-10
YEAR 2020 INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE
WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT TRAFFIC
(continued)
~~~~~ ~ ~ AM Peak Hour PM Peak HOG
Without With Without With
Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS
Cannon Road
1-5 SB ramps
1-5 NB ramps
Paseo del Norte
El Camino Real
1
0.41 A 0.41 A 0.41 A 0.42 A
0.35 A 0.35 A 0.43 A 0.44 A
0.4 I A 0.42 A 0.63 B 0.63 B
0.76 C 0.77 C 0.86 D 0.86 D
Carlsbad Village Drive
Tamarack Avenue 0.35 A 0.36 A 0.30 A 0.35 A
Victoria Avenue NA B NA B NA B NA B
3. Environmental Analysis C. Traffic Circulation
I
!
\
westbound ramps at the intersection with El Camino Real, which would continue to
operate at LOS E during the evening peak hour. However, LOS E at SR-78 westbound
ramps occurs with and/or without the addition of Master Plan Phase JI project-related
traffic. For construction of the proposed Bridge & Thoroughfare District roadways,
assuming development of Villages Q and T, and the proposed Master Plan Phase II uses,
the intersection of El Camino Real and SR-78 westbound ramps would operate at LOS E
in 2020, but would operate at LOS F without. Similarly, the intersections of El Camino
ReaVPlaza Drive, El Camino ReaVFaraday Avenue, and Palomar Airport RoadMelrose
Drive would operate at unacceptable LOS without construction of the project Bridge &
Thoroughfare District roadways, but would be improved to LOS D with their
construction.
e) Congestion Management Program (CMP)
According to the State of California Law, an analysis of the RSA in the study area is
required. Portions of SR-78, College Boulevard, Cannon Road, Melrose Drive, and
Palomar Airport Road are considered RSAs (or Freeway Systems) Cannon Road is listed
as an RSA and was evaluated in the traffic analysis. The ramp intersections with College
Boulevard/SR-78 have also been evaluated. Both street segments and intersections will
operate at a LOS D or better and therefore comply with CMP regional guidelines for year
2020. The SR-78El Camino Real westbound off-ramp would operate at LOS “E” in the
PM peak hour during the year 2020 with project roadway construction. However, without
project roadway construction, this ramp intersection is expected to be at LOS “F’ during
both peak hours.
f) Freeway Segments Evaluation
The project traffic contribution to Interstate 5 and SR-78 main lanes is less than the 150
peak hour trips established in the CMP Guidelines, so that a freeway main lane analysis is
not needed for the project.
g) Intersections
Study area intersections were evaluated using the 1997 update to the 1994 Highway
Capacity Manual software. As shown in Table 3C-11, all intersections comply with CMP
requirements using this methodology.
h) Ramp Meter Evaluation
At buildout (year 2020), the project contribution to both AM and PM ramp meter queue
lengths is expected to be approximately 500 feet at the SR-78 westbound on-ramp at
College Boulevard and 400 feet at the SR-78 eastbound on-ramp at Plaza Drive.
113
I I
TABLE 3C-11 I YEAR 2020 CMP INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR
LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
(HCM METHOD)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay' LOS Delay' LOS
College Boulevard
Vista Way
SR-78 EB ramps
Plaza Drive
Lake Boulevard
Carlsbad Village Drive
Cannon Road
El Camino Real
El Camino Real
SR-78 WB ramps
SR-78 EB ramps
Plaza Drive
Marron Road
Carlsbad Village Drive
Tamarack Avenue
Faraday Avenue
. Palomar Airport Road
Cannon Road
1-5 SB ramps
1-5 NB ramps
Paseo del Norte
El Camino Real
Carlsbad Village Drive
Tamarack Avenue
43.1
24.4
37.5
44.9
28.2
45.9
44.9
28.1
25.9
24.4
43.8
42.2
44.4
50.7
49.8
20.1
11.4
28.9
51.8
32.6
D
C
D
D
G
D
D
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
C
B
C
D
C
53.1
29.0
52.2
54.7
28.2
47.9
53.4
54.3
37.5
54.3
48.2
42.4
39.1
51.1
42.4
15.8
16.7
38.2
54.8
33.1
D
C
D
D
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
B
B
D
D
C
SOURCE: 1997 Update to the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual.
'Total control delay in seconds.
3. Environmental Andysis C. Traffic Circulation
3) Significance
a) Existing Conditions
All street segments within the study area currently operate acceptably within the Carlsbad
Growth Management Plan circulation performance standard of at least LOS D during
peak hours. All intersections studied operate at acceptable levels of service, with or
without the College Boulevard barricade, except the intersections of El Camino Real with
Palomar Airport Road and Tamarack Avenue. The El Camino Real/Palomar Airport
Road intersection operates at LOS F in the morning peak hour and LOS E in the evening
peak hour. However, with improvements, including northbound and westbound dual
right-turn lanes, currently under construction, the morning and evening LOS are expected
to improve to an acceptable LOS B and D, respectively.
The City of Carlsbad is proposing removal of the College Boulevard barricade. Removal
will reduce intersection operations at the intersection of El Camino ReaVTamarack
Avenue from the existing acceptable LOS D operations currently experienced during the
morning peak hour with the barricade in place, to an unacceptable LOS E. Restriping of
the westbound through lane of Tamarack Avenue to create a left-turn lane within the
existing roadway would improve the A.M. peak hour intersection operations to an
acceptable LOS C and P.M. peak hour operations to LOS B (see Appendix C).
b) Existing Plus Project Conditions
With project traffic added to existing traffic, both street segments and intersections within
the study area would continue to operate acceptably within the Carlsbad Growth
Management Plan circulation performance standard of at least LOS D during peak hours,
with or without the barricade on College Boulevard. No direct significant project impacts
to street segments are expected. Project impacts at intersections are considered less than
significant. Dual right-turn lanes are currently under construction in the northbound and
westbound directions to improve the LOS F and E conditions at the Palomar Airport
Roam1 Camino Real intersection to acceptable LOS B and LOS C during the morning
and evening peak hours, respectively.
c) Short-term (Year 2005) Conditions
An evaluation of short-term future conditions indicates that both street segments and
intersections within the study area would continue to operate acceptably with the
Carlsbad Growth Management Plan circulation performance standard of at least LOS D
during peak hours. No direct significant project impacts to street segments are expected
for the Calavera Hills Phase II component of the project. Likewise, although segments of
SR-78 and 1-5 would continue to operate below acceptable LOS standards in 2005 this is
not considered a direct project impact attributable to the project Master Plan Phase II and
115
3. Environmental Analysis , C. TrafficCirculation
bridge and thoroughfare district construction because the LOS on these roadway segments
would be below “D’ without the proposed roadway construction.
d) Buildout wear 2020) Conditions
An evaluation of study area street segments and intersections concludes that year 2020
peak hour volumes would continue to operate acceptably within the Carlsbad Growth
Management Plan circulation performance standard of at least LOS D during peak hours.
Calculated LOS E operations at the intersection of El Camino Real and SR-78 westbound
ramps would not be considered significant because the calculated LOS E would be
unacceptable with or without the proposed project if calculated using the ICU method. If
the HCM Method is used, all intersection operations in the study area are projected to
operate at an acceptable LOS D or better.
!
I
I
The City of Carlsbad General Plan Circulation Element classifies Cannon Road and
College Boulevard as major arterials (four lanes). The projected peak hour volumes can
be accommodated by the planned cross sections and intersection lane configurations.
Planned lane configurations are those expected as a result of adjacent developments as
frontage improvements or as Traffic Impact Fee funded projects.
The project’s contribution to citywide circulation improvements will be made through
participation in the City’s Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 as well as payment of
public facilities fees.
e) Congestion Management Program
A CMP evaluation was conducted for the project area. The evaluation concluded that all
street segments and intersections are expected to comply with CMP level of service
objective of LOS D except for the SR-78El Camino Real westbound off-ramp which
would operate at LOS E in the PM peak. However, without construction of the proposed
Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 roadways, this ramp intersection is expected to be
at LOS F during both peak hours.
The project traffk contribution to Interstate 5 and SR-78 main lanes is less than the 150
peak hour trips established in the CMP Guidelines, so that a freeway main lane analysis is
not needed for the project.
Ramp meter queues during peak hours are expected to be lengthened by approximately
500 feet at the SR-78 westbound on-ramp at College Boulevard, and 400 feet at the SR-
78 eastbound on-ramp at Plaza Drive.
116
3. Environmental Analysis C. Traffic Circulation
I
4) Mitigation
In order to insure that the increased traffic generated by the project does not contribute to
a significant reduction in service, the project proponent shall incorporate the following
measures into the project construction scheduling. These measures would assure that
potential project impacts are avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. These
include:
Construction of traffic signals at warranted locations within the Master Plan Phase II
area; and
Construction of College Boulevard south of Carlsbad Village Drive to Cannon Road
and construction of Reach 3 of Cannon Road linking College Boulevard and El
Camino Real; and
Participation in financing the proposed Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 for
Cannon Road and College Boulevard (Reaches B and CMJe&k
The above provisions of the Calavera Hills Master Plan would be accomplished through
payment of Bridge and Thoroughfare District fees and construction of facilities as noted
above.
Related Actions
In addition to the above, the City of Carlsbad is proposing removal of an existing
barricade on College Boulevard south of Lake Boulevard. This action is not project
dependent, but is assumed to be in place prior to implementation of the proposed
Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II and Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 project.
To avoid significant impacts from this action to the intersections of El Camino
ReaWalomar Airport Road and at El Camino ReaVTamarack Avenue, it is anticipated
that the City will complete the following measures prior to removal of the barricade:
Complete improvements to the intersection of El Camino ReaVPalomar Airport Road,
which are currently under construction to provide northbound and westbound dual
right-turn lanes. This improves the future morning and evening LOS to B and C,
respectively.
Restripe the westbound through lane of Tamarack Avenue to create a left-turn lane
within the existing roadway. This will improve the A.M. peak hour intersection
operations to an acceptable LOS C and P.M. peak hour operations to an acceptable
LOS B.
3. Environmental Analysis C. Traffic Circulation
L
While the restriping of the intersection of Tamarack Avenue and El Camino Real, as
proposed above, will ensure an acceptable level of service for this intersection through
buildout of the project, the restriping measure should be considered an interim solution
only. Restriping of the intersection as proposed results in a non-standard lane configura-
tion which reduces the through movement capacity along Tamarack Avenue. In addition,
due to the close proximity of the adjacent La Portalada Drive intersection on Tamarack
Avenue, there is inadequate queuing space to accommodate the expected number of left-
turn movement which will result in reduced carrying capacity of the intersection. The
permanent solution to ensure the proper functioning of the Tamarack Avenue and El
Camino Real intersection is the completion of the College Boulevard and Cannon Road
linkage from Carlsbad Village Drive to El Camino Real.
5) Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementation ,of the above project design features, as well as other planned
improvements discussed herein, would ensure that direct and indirect traffic impacts are
avoided or remain below a level of significance.
I18
!
3. Environmental Analysis D. Noise
D. Noise
I
I
I/
An acoustical analysis was prepared for the project by RECON in November 2000. The
technical report is included as Appendix D.
1) Existing Conditions
The majority of the existing Master Plan area has either been built or graded. Agricultural
operations currently exist south and southeast of the Master Plan area encompassing
much of the proposed extensions of College Boulevard and Cannon Road. Carlsbad
Village Drive has been constructed to College Boulevard. College Boulevard has been
partially constructed north of Carlsbad Village Drive, but not to the south of Carlsbad
Village Drive.
2) Analysis Methodology
a) Applicable Standards and Definitions of Terms
The community noise equivalent level (CNEL) is a 24-hour A-weighted average sound
level [dB(A) L4 from midnight to midnight obtained after the addition of 5 dB to sound
levels occurring between 7:00P.~. and 10:OOp.~. and of 10 dB to the sound levels
occurring between 1O:OO P.M. and 7:OO A.M. A-weighting is a frequency correction that
often correlates well with the subjective response of humans to noise. Adding 5 dB and
10 dB to the evening and nighttime hours, respectively, accounts for the added sensitivity
of humans to noise during these time periods.
Traffic Noise
For community noise issues related to land use, the City of Carlsbad addresses noise
standards in terms of residential and non-residential land uses.
Residential Noise Standards. Traffic noise impacts to sensitive residential receivers
were evaluated in relation to the noise level standards promulgated in the City of
Carlsbad’s adopted General Plan Noise Element and Noise Guidelines Manual. The
noise element of the City of Carlsbad states (City of Carlsbad 1994a):
Policy c.5: . . . sixty (60) dBA CNEL is the exterior noise level to which all
residential units should be mitigated. 65 dBA CNEL is the maximum
noise level to which residential units subject to noise from McClellan-
Palomar Airport should be permitted. Additional disclosure actions
119
j
\
3. Environmental Analvsis D. Noise
(easements, deed restrictions, recorded notice, etc.) may be required of
developer/sellers of noise impacted residential units.
Interior noise levels shou$l be mitigated to 45 dBA CNEL when
openings to the exterior qf the residence are open or closed. If
openings are required to be closed to meet the interior noise standard,
then mechanical ventilation shall be provided.
If a project is approved wiq exterior noise levels exceeding the level
allowable pursuant to this policy, all purchasers of the impacted
property shall be notified writing prior to purchase, and by deed
disclosure in writing, that +e property they are purchasing is, or will
be, noise impacted and does not meet Carlsbad noise standards for
residential property.
Policy C.9: I Discourage the exclusive use of noise walls in excess of 6 feet
height as mitigation for noise along Circulation Element roadways.
in
i
Non-Residential Noise Standards. Thy guidelines for maximum exterior noise levels for
non-residential uses are provided in the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise
Environments Matrix provided as Figure-iii in the Noise Guidelines Manual (City of
Carlsbad 1995). The City’s exterior qoise standard for schools, which would include a
daycare center, is 60 CNEL. The City also specifies a maximum hourly average
equivalent interior noise level of 45 &(A) &(h) for schools. These standards are
applied to Village H.
The City’s exterior noise standard for, commercial uses is 65 CNEL (City of Carlsbad
1995). The City’s exterior noise standard for agricultural areas is 70 CNEL (City of
Carlsbad 1995). Given the nature an use, the agricultural standard is applied to the
community garden area adjacent to the i ancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park.
Construction Noise
I
I
The section of the City of Carlsbad’s current noise ordinance that addresses construction
activities (Section 8.48.010) does not ,set a noise level standard, but simply limits the
hours of construction. The City does not currently have a noise level standard for
construction noise. Therefore, as established in the Final Environmental Impact Report
for the Calavera Hills Master Plan (EIR 90-5), the significance of the construction noise
produced during project development was assessed in accordance with the County of San
Diego Noise Ordinance. San Diego County Noise Ordinance Section 36.410 states that
construction noise shall not exceed 75 dB for more than 8 hours during any 24-hour
period.
!
i
1 120
3. Environmental Analysis D. Noise
I
,
The City of Carlsbad does impose time constraints on grading and construction
operations in Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 8.48.010. This section specifies that no
construction shall occur during the following times:
1. After sunset on any day, and before 7:OO A.M., Monday through Friday, and
before 8:OO A.M. on Saturday;
2. All day on Sunday, New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day,
Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day.
City of Oceanside
There is a church and existing residences adjacent to a portion of the proposed Cannon
Road alignment that lies within the City of Oceanside. Noise level standards in the City
of Oceanside are expressed in terms of the day-night average sound level (Lh). The
is a 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight similar to CNEL
in that 10 decibels (dB) is added to the sound levels occurring between 1O:OO P.M. and
7:OO A.M. However, unlike CNEL, there is no modification of the sound levels during the
evening hours.
The noise element of the General Plan of the City of Oceanside establishes a maximum
exterior noise level standard for residential use areas of 65 &(A) Lb (City of Oceanside
1974). This is the exterior noise standard used in this assessment. The noise element of
the General Plan also indicates that noise attenuation provided by residential structures is
17 decibels with the windows open and 25 decibels with the windows closed, and that the
maximum acceptable interior noise level is 48 dB(A) Lb. Therefore, if exterior noise
levels remain below 65 &(A) Lb, interior noise levels will be acceptable. If exterior
noise levels exceed 65 &(A) Lb, but remain below 73 &(A) Lb, interior noise levels
will be acceptable if the building windows remain closed.
Additionally, the City of Oceanside does not specify exterior noise level standards for
churches.
Applicability of Standards
The residential and non-residential standards discussed above are applied to all future
development areas proposed in the Calavera Hills Phase II Master Plan. These standards
are also applied to existing uses that are adjacent to the proposed rights-of-way for the
extensions of future Cannon Road and College Boulevard.
Construction noise impacts to existing residential neighborhoods were assessed in
accordance with the policies stated above.
121
3. Environmental Analysis D. Noise
Standard construction techniques can generally be assumed to provide a 20decibel
reduction of exterior noise levels to an interior receiver when the windows and doors are
closed. With these criteria, standard construction could be assumed to result in interior
noise levels of 45 &(A) or less when exterior noise levels are 65 dB(A) or less. When
exterior noise levels are greater than 65 dB(A), consideration of specific construction
techniques is required to ensure that interior noise levels will not exceed the 45 dB(A).
b) Traffk Noise Analysis
i
Traffic Parameters
Table 3D-1 presents the future traffic parameters used in this analysis. Future traffic
volumes for the roadways in the vicinity of the project were obtained from the project
traffic report (Urban Systems Associates 2000).
Both Cannon Road and College Boulevard are designated as 4-lane major arterials.
Carlsbad Village Drive is designated a 4-lane secondary arterial. The average traffic
speed assumed for College Boulevard and Cannon Road was 50 mph. The average
traffic speed assumed for Carlsbad Village Drive was 45 mph.
The traffic mix used for Carlsbad Village Drive was based on the mix for non-truck
routes used in the city of Carlsbad (City of Carlsbad 1995). The traffic mix used for
Cannon Road and College Boulevard was based on the mix for designated truck routes in
the city of Carlsbad. These mixes were developed through field surveys of routes in
Carlsbad (City of Carlsbad 1995).
The day, evening, and nighttime traffic distribution was assumed to be 77 percent, 10
percent, and 13 percent, respectively. The definition of CNEL is as follows:
12* [ 10'0 "Y) +3* [ 10 [&€;r+'i) + 9*( lo[LMZG~+lol)l i 24 CNEL = 10 log
1 1
I
where LDAY, LE~G, and LMGW are the average equivalent hourly daytime, evening,
and nighttime noise levels. Assuming that the average vehicle speed and vehicle mix
remain the same for all hours, CNEL can be related to the average equivalent daytime
hourly noise level as follows:
I 122 L
TABLE 3D-1 YEAR 2020 ROADWAY TRAFFIC PARAMETERS
Percent Percent Percent Speed
Roadway ADT Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks (mph)
Carlsbad Village Drive
Between Pontiac Dr. & Tamarack Ave. 3,000 97.89 1.83 0.28 45
Between Tamarack Ave. & College 17,000 97.89 1.83 0.28 45
College Boulevard
Between El Camino Real & Cannon Rd. 22,000 95.24 3.52 1.24 50
Between Cannon Rd. & Carlsbad Village Dr. 24,000 95.24 3.52 1.24 50
Between Carlsbad Village Dr. & Lake Blvd. 39,000 95.24 3.52 1.24 50
Between El Camino Real & College Blvd. 21,000 95.24 3.52 1.24 50
i Between Oceanside City Limit & Melrose Dr. 30,000 95.24 3.52 1.24 50
Cannon Road
I Between College Blvd. 8z Oceanside City Limit 24,000 95.24 3.52 1.24 50
mph = miles per hour
i i
3. Environmental Analysis D. Noise
L J
where (%)DAY, (%’~)EVE”G, and (%)NIc+~ are the traffic distribution percentages. Using
the assumptions indicated above, the CNEL due to traffk is approximately two decibels
above the average equivalent daytime hourly noise level.
Analysis of Traffic Noise
Noise generated by future traffic was projected using the STAMINA 2.0/0PTIMA
computer models from Vanderbilt University (1991). These models are computerized
versions of the Federal Highway Administration Noise Prediction Model (1979), which
uses California vehicle noise emission levels (California Department of Transportation
1983).
Exterior traffic noise levels to first- and second-floor receivers were calculated where
necessary. First-floor receivers were placed at five feet above ground level; second-floor
receivers were placed at 15 feet above ground level. Calculations were completed for a
daytime hour, and the resulting hourly Leqs were weighted and combined into CNEL
values. Projected CNEL values based on the traffic distributions used here are
approximately two decibels higher than the daytime hourly calculated by STAMINA
as indicated above.
Grading for the villages and roadways are from the mass grading exhibit prepared for the
Master Plan and were obtained in the form of computer aided design (CAD) drawings
from the project engineers. The Y-axis pointed north and the X-axis pointed east.
I
!
I!
i
3) Impacts
a) Blasting
Areas of non-rippable rock that would require blasting for removal occur throughout the
project site. These areas are shown in Figure 3D-1. The number and schedule of blasts
for each area is not available at this time.
Data on noise levels produced by drilling and blasting activities were obtained from a
report prepared by RECON for the Prohoroff Ranch property in San Marcos, California
(RECON 1986). As part of this study, field measurements were taken of blasting
activities at areas of non-rippable rock.
124
I
!
RECON Potential blasting area
FIGURE 3D-1
s Potential Blasting Areas and
0 Feet 1000 2000 Potential Blast Noise Impact Areas
17 75 dBA Leq contour
(275 feet from blasting area)
3. Environmental Analysis D. Noise
Blasting activities can be divided into two separate components: drilling and actual
blasting. Holes are drilled into the rock to create areas to place the explosives. The
drilled holes are then filled with explosives. These are electronically detonated in a
programmed sequence with millisecond delay times between each detonation. The whole
sequence lasts up to one-half second. This pattern causes the rock to fracture in a
controlled manner. Because of the detonation sequencing, these blasts have an indistinct
rumbling sound that is hard to distinguish from background noise. Prior to and after a
blast, air horn warning signals are sounded.
During the 1986 study, the drilling contractor completed a total of 45 holes in three
locations in three days. Field measurements were taken 50 feet from the drilling
operation, and the resulting measured average noise level was 89 &(A) &. 'I
Noise levels produced by test blasts on the Prohoroff Ranch site were also monitored in
the study. As indicated, air horns were used as warning signals before and after a blast.
Prior to a blast, the warning signals consisted of repeated bursts of the horn. After a
blast, the all-clear signal was a continuous burst of the air horn for about 10 seconds.
These warning signals were the loudest part of the blasting event.
At one measurement location, there was a clear line of sight to the blast area about 1,870
feet away. A maximum noise level of 71 &(A) was recorded at the measurement
location during the air horn warning signals that were sounded both before and after the
actual blast.
Using a standard 6 &(A) attenuation for every doubling of distance (a) from a point
source (Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc. 1973), the resulting noise level produced by the
air horn at 50 feet would be approximately 102 &(A).
As a worst case, it was assumed that the air horn would be sounded for a total of
approximately 30 seconds during an hour while drilling would occur the remainder of the
hour. Using these assumptions, the combined average hourly Leq of 30 seconds of air
horn (102 dB[A]) and 59.5 minutes of drilling (89 dB[A]) results in a noise level of
approximately 89.6 B(A) at 50 feet from the source.
This is taken to be the equivalent hourly Leq at 50 feet due to the blasting operations. The
distance required to attenuate 89.6 dB(A) to 75 dB(A) is approximately 275 feet.
Therefore, any sensitive receivers located within 275 feet of a blasting area and having a
clear line of site could experience hourly average noise levels in excess of 75 dB(A).
As seen in Figure 3D-1, noise levels could exceed 75 dB(A) at existing residential
areas in portions of Villages C, D, L-1, 0, P1, and Q while blasting is occurring at the
adjacent villages. The significance of the construction noise produced during project
development was assessed in accordance with the County of San Diego Noise Ordinance.
126
3. Environmental Analysis D. Noise
County standards specify that construction noise shall not exceed 75 &(A) for more than
eight hours in any 24-hour period. A significant impact may result if blasting activities
occur directly adjacent to a residential area within the 75 &(A) b line for more than
eight hours in any 24-hour period. If this were to occur, noise levels at the adjacent
residential area could exceed County standards.
i
b) Grading
Grading activities would occur at the proposed villages and also along the proposed
alignments of Cannon Road and College Boulevard that would be built as part of this
project. Figure 3D-2 shows the limits of grading for the roadways and villages. Ground-
clearing activities for housing and roads in a typical suburban residential area are
estimated to generate 83-84 dB(A) Leq 50 feet from the site of construction (Bolt,
Beranek, and Newman, Inc. 1971). This value is based on empirical data on the number
and types of equipment at a construction site and their average cycle of operation.
I
i
I i
Grading noise generally can be treated as a point source and would attenuate at 6 &(A)
for every doubling of distance. A noise level of 84 dB(A) would attenuate to 75
&(A) Lq at approximately 150 feet from the noise source. Figure 3D-2 shows the limits
of grading for the village sites, College Boulevard, and Cannon Road. This figure also
indicates areas around the grading sites that could experience noise levels in excess of 75
&(A) when grading is occurring in a particular area (potential impact occurs within
150 feet of the edge of the area being graded).
As seen in Figure 3D-2, noise levels could exceed 75 dB(A) Lq at existing residential
areas in portions of Villages C, D, E-2, F, G, L-1, Q, and T while the adjacent villages are
being graded. This includes noise impacts to portions of the Calavera Hills Community
Park west of Village E-1. Additionally, potential grading noise impacts could occur in
limited portions of the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park during construction of
Cannon Road, particularly if the southern (preferred) roadway alignment is chosen.
Grading noise impacts are also anticipated to occur at the Robertson Ranch house north
of the mobile home park during the construction of Cannon Road.
As indicated above, in the absence of a specific City standard, the significance of the
construction noise produced during project development was assessed in accordance with
the County of San Diego Noise Ordinance. County standards specify that construction
noise shall not exceed 75 dB(A) for more than eight hours in any 24-hour period. A
significant impact may occur if grading occurs directly adjacent to a residential area
within the 75 &(A) b line for more than eight hours in any 24-hour period. If this were
to occur, noise levels at the adjacent residential area could exceed County standards.
127
IC' - 1
Graded area FIGURE 3D-2
Limits of Grading and Potential - 0 Feet 2000 4000 Construction Noise Impact Area
75 dl3A Leq contour
(150 feet from graded area)
3. Environmental Analysis D. Noise
I
c) Temporary Materials Processing Center
Noise associated with operations at the temporary materials processing centers will result
from trucks delivering raw material, trucks departing with processed material, on-site
material handling, and raw rock material crushing operations. The material processing
centers (MpCs) are shown in Figure 3D-3, and are proposed at Villages K, W, and X. It
is anticipated that MPCl in Village K will operate for about five months. MPC2 and
MPC3 in Villages W and X, respectively, will not operate simultaneously and it is
anticipated that they will be in operation for a cumulative total of 18 months.
Maximum noise levels will occur during raw rock material crushing operations. A
portable crushing and screening unit, and associated equipment, are used for raw material
processing. A noise survey of the portable crushing equipment used by South Coast
Materials was made in 1994 (Boelter Environmental Consultants 1994). This survey
assessed the noise associated with all equipment involved in the complete crushing
operation (e.g., crushing unit, skip loader, etc.).
Based on the information obtained during this survey, noise levels due to the crushing
operation are between 87 and 89 dB(A) at 50 feet from the noise source, which is
approximately the center of the processing plant. Results of the survey, as well as a study
prepared for another rock-crushing operation (RECON 1988), also indicate that
stockpiles of aggregate provide some shielding and that added noise from the conveyor
belts and falling aggregate do not appreciably increase the overall noise levels.
Table 3D-2 summarizes the results of noise measurements at several other portable
processing plants which crush and screen hard rock with equipment similar to that
proposed for this project (RECON 1988; RECON 1998). The results in Table 3D-2 have
been standardized to a distance of 50 feet from the noise source to allow comparison.
The noise source was assumed to behave as a point source and the attenuation equation
described above was used for making the distance adjustments.
In all cases, the noise levels are between 85 and 89 dB(A) at 50 feet from the noise
source (RECON 1988). Therefore, a worst-case noise level of 89 dB(A) at 50 feet from
the noise source (as determined from the Boelter noise survey) was assumed for the
portable crushing equipment to be used by this project (RECON 1998).
These noise levels only occur when the unit is actually crushing material. Results of the
noise survey indicate that noise levels may be more than 10 decibels less when the
equipment is operating but material is not being crushed (Boelter Environmental
Consultants 1994). Raw rock material is typically fed to the crushing unit by a skip
loader. After the skip loader has dumped its load into the crusher, it must return to the
raw rock materials pile, pick up a load, and travel back to the crushing system.
129
RECON 0 Materials processing center F!IGURE 3D-3
iA
- 75 dB(A) Leq contour
65 dB(A) Leq contour I Materials Processing
Cpnterc and Potential - 0 Feet 700
!
TABLE 3D-2
AVERAGE NOISE LEVELS OF ROCK PROCESSING PLANTS
AT A DISTANCE OF 50 FEET
at 50 Feet
Equipment [cwA)I Reference
Portable rock crushing plant 85 Bricken 1984:Exhibit 3
Portable crushing and screening 87 San Diego Acoustics 1986a:2
plant (based on measured 76 &(A)
at 180 feet)
Portable crushing and screening 89 San Diego Acoustics 1986b:2
plant (based on measured 75 &(A)
at 250 feet)
SOURCE: RECON 1988.
3. Environmental Analysis D. Noise
Therefore, it is assumed that during an average hour, the crushing unit is actually
crushing material approximately 85 percent of the time. Based on this assumption, the
average hourly source noise level for the crushing system was assumed to be 88 &(A) & at 50 feet from the noise source.
‘1 1 !
I
Using this source level, and neglecting any attenuation provided by the aggregate piles,
Table 3D-3 shows the distance from the crushing unit to various hourly average noise
levels. As seen from Table 3D-3, a worst-case average hourly noise level of 75 &(A)
Leq would occur at approximately 225 feet from the crushing unit.
TABLE 3D-3
MATERIALS PROCESSING
DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOURS
(feet from crushing unit)
Noise Level [dB(A) I-1 Distance
88 50
85 71
80
75
70
125
225
400
These noise levels would only occur during the daytime operating hours as specified by
the County’s noise ordinance. As shown in Figure 3D-3, the 75 &(A) noise contours
due to the processing operations are anticipated to remain outside of the existing
residential areas.
Consequently, no significant noise impacts due to the materials processing centers are
anticipated.
Noise levels are also not anticipated to exceed 65 &(A) Leq at any existing residential
area while MPC2 is in operation. However, while MPC1 is in operation, noise levels are
anticipated to exceed 65 &(A) & in limited portions of Villages L-1, 0, P-1, and Q.
Additionally, noise levels are anticipated to exceed 65 &(A) in limited portions of
Village C while MPC3 is in operation. Although these noise levels are below the City’s
standards for construction activities, given the extended duration of the work (5 to up to
18 months) these noise levels could represent a nuisance during the daytime hours to
existing residential areas in those villages.
t
I 1
i
132
3. Environmental Analvsis D. Noise
d) Future TrafEc Generated Noise
On-Site
The on-site analysis discussed below is based on the sheet grading obtained from the
mass grading exhibit prepared for the Master Plan for each of the villages in the master
plan area, as well as the proposed grading for Alignment 1 of College Boulevard and
Alignments 1 and 2 of Cannon Road. If final grading for the villages changes from that
analyzed here, the required barrier heights could differ from those indicated below.
Village H. This village is proposed primarily to remain in open space with a small area
designated for community facility development such as day care. Noise levels were
modeled for a series of receivers located within the proposed development area of Village
H. The resulting ground floor noise contours are plotted in Figure 3D-4. As seen from
Figure 3D-4 noise levels at Village H are projected to exceed the City's 60 CNEL
standard for school uses adjacent to Carlsbad Village Drive. Noise levels were also
modeled at 10 receiver locations as shown in Figure 3D-5. The resulting noise levels at
the ground-floor levels at these locations are shown in Table 3D-4.
Village E-I. Village E-1 is currently designated for commercial development. The
proposed Master Plan redesignates this village to multi-family residential development.
The site is rough-graded and detailed grading for this village has not been proposed at
this time. Therefore, flat site conditions were assumed. Flat site assumptions will result
in worst case predicted noise levels for this site. With these assumptions, the 60 CNEL
contour is anticipated to lie approximately 1,100 feet from the centerline of College
Boulevard and approximately 500 feet from Carlsbad Village Drive. Consequently,
future noise levels on this village are anticipated to exceed City standards if developed
for residential uses.
If this village were developed for commercial uses, it would be subject to the City's 65
CNEL exterior noise standard for commercial development. Given the same assumptions
indicated above, the 65 CNEL contour is anticipated to lie approximately 370 feet from
the centerline of College Boulevard and approximately 165 feet from the centerline of
Carlsbad Village Drive. Consequently, future noise levels on this village are also
anticipated to exceed the City's standards if developed for commercial uses.
ViUuge K. This village is proposed for single-family residential development. Noise
levels were modeled for a series of receivers located in the proposed development area of
Village K. The resulting ground floor noise contours are plotted on Figure 3D-6. As
seen from Figure 3D-6, noise levels are projected to exceed the 60 CNEL exterior
standard in the southern and eastern portions of the development. Noise levels were also
modeled at 14 receiver locations as shown in Figure 3D-7. The resulting noise levels at
the first and second floors of these locations are shown in Table 3D-5.
133
HGURE 3D-4
Projected Future Noise Contours - Village H
0 Feet 40 80
0 Modeled receiver -- FTGURE 3D-5 /V 3 foot high barrier A/ 4 foot high barrier Modeled Receiver Locations and
Proposed Noise Barriers - Village H
TABLE 3D-4 FUTURE PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS - VILLAGE H
Projected Noise Level with No Constructed Noise Barriers Projected Noise Level with Constructed Noise Barriers Receiver (CNEL) (CNEL)
56
61
63
63
64
64
65
65
60
55
58
59
60
59
59
60
60
57
10 56 55
TABLE 3D-5
FUTURE PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS - VILLAGE K
(CNW
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
No Noise Barriers With Noise Barriers
Receiver 1 st floor 2nd floor 1 st floor 2nd floor
51 54
58 59
60 60
60 60
60 61
61 61
61 61
51 54
58 59
60 60
60 60
59 61
60 61
60 61
8 61 62 57 62
9 64 65 59 64
10 66 66 60 66
11 66 66 60 66
12 65 66 60 66
13 65 65 59 65
14 60 63 56 61
3. Environmental Analysis D. Noise
Village L2. Village L-2 is proposed for single-family residential development. This
development will be shielded from road noise by surrounding development in Villages Q
and K. Consequently, noise levels are anticipated to remain below the City’s 60 CNEL
exterior noise standard. No further acoustical analysis of this village is required.
ViZZuge R. This village is proposed for single-family residential development. The
residential development is located approximately 1,500 feet from College Boulevard and
will be shielded from road noise by surrounding development in Villages S and T. On-
site exterior noise levels are anticipated to remain below the City’s 60 CNEL residential
exterior noise standard. No further acoustical analysis of this village is required.
Village U. This village is proposed for multi-family residential development. Noise
levels were modeled for a series of receivers located in the proposed development area of
Village U. The resulting ground floor noise contours are plotted in Figure 3D-8. Noise
levels are projected to exceed the 60 CNEL exterior standard adjacent to College
Boulevard. Noise levels were also modeled at 13 receiver locations as shown in
Figure 3D-9. The resulting noise levels at the first and second floors of these locations
are shown in Table 3D-6.
Village W. This village is proposed for single-family residential development. Noise
levels were modeled for a series of receivers located in the proposed development &ea of
Village W. The resulting ground floor noise contours are plotted on Figure 3D-10. As
seen from Figure 3D-10, noise levels are projected to exceed the 60 CNEL exterior
standard adjacent to College Boulevard. Noise levels were also modeled at 14 receiver
locations as shown in Figure 3D-11. The resulting noise levels at the first and second
floors of these locations are shown in Table 3D-7.
Village X. This village is proposed for single-family residential development. Noise
levels were modeled for a series of receivers located in the proposed development area of
Village X. The resulting ground floor noise contours are plotted in Figure 3D-10. As
seen from Figure 3D-10, noise levels are projected to exceed the 60 CNEL exterior
standard adjacent to College Boulevard. Noise levels were also modeled at six receiver
locations as shown in Figure 3D-11. The resulting noise levels at the first and second
floors of these locations are shown in Table 3D-7.
Village Y. This village is proposed for affordable housing in a multi-family residential
development. Noise levels were modeled for a series of receivers located in the proposed
development area of Village Y. The resulting ground floor noise contours are plotted on
Figure 3D-10. As seen from Figure 3D-10, noise levels are projected to exceed the 60
CNEL exterior standard adjacent to College Boulevard. Noise levels were also modeled
at eight receiver locations as shown in Figure 3D-11. The resulting noise levels at the
first and second floors of these locations are shown in Table 3D-7.
140
TABLE 3D-6
F'UTURE PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS - VILLAGE U
(CNEL)
No Noise Barriers With Noise Barriers
Receiver 1 st Floor 2nd Floor 1 st Floor 2nd Floor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
68
67
64
64
63
64
63
66
64
66
63
67
75
72
70
66
67
64
68
64
68
64
/ 68
64
70
75
60
59
58
59
58
59
58
60
59
60
59
60
60
66
63
61
63
59
63
60
63
60
63
60
66
73
TABLE 3D-7
FUTURE PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS - VILLAGES W, X, AND Y
(CNEL)
No Noise Barriers With Noise Barriers
Receiver 1 st Floor 2nd moor 1 st Floor 2nd Floor
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
71
70
71
72
69
71
74
74
72
70
62
65
73
68
60
61
70
65
59
59
62
62
65
64
66
65
74
66
72
70
71
72
70
71
74
74
72
71
67
66
73
70
63
62
73
67
61
61
65
63
68
64
71
66
74
68
59
59
59
59
60
60
60
60
60
60
59
59
60
59
57
56
60
59
59
58
59
60
60
60
60
60
60
59
71
70
71
72
69
71
74
74
72
70
64
64
73
68
61
59
68
61
61
61
62
61
63
61
65
63
73
66
3. Environmental Analysis D. Noise
Off-Site
Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. Future Cannon Road will be built to the north of
the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. Noise levels were modeled at 21 receiver
locations adjacent to and within the mobile home park for both Cannon Road Align-
ments 1, 2, and 3. In the vicinity of the mobile home park, College Boulevard
Alignments 1 and 2 are the same. These receiver locations are shown in Figures 3D-12,
3D-13, and 3D-14 for Cannon Road Alignment 1 and Alignment 2, respectively. The
analysis includes the effects of the existing five-foot-high wall that runs along the
northern boundary of the mobile home park.
Table 3D-8 provides the projected noise levels at these modeled receivers for Align-
ment 1 of Cannon Road. Table 3D-9 provides the projected noise levels for Alignment 2.
Table 3D-10 provides the projected noise levels for Alignment 3 which is a lowered
Alignment 1. From these tables it can be seen that future projected noise levels within the
mobile home park are projected to exceed 60 CNEL in both the northwest and northeast
portions of the park.
Comparison of Figures 3D-12, 3D-13, and 3D-14 shows that Alignment 2 generally lies
further from the mobile home park than Alignment 1 and 3. Consequently, as
demonstrated by comparison of the results shown in Tables 3D-8, 3D-9, and 3D-10,
overall noise impacts to the mobile home park would be less with Alignment 2 than those
that would occur with Alignment 1 and 3 and would be less with Alignment 1 than
Alignment 3.
Garden Southeast of Future Intersection of Cannon Road and College Boulevard.
There is an existing community garden located to the southeast of the future intersection
of Cannon Road and College Boulevard. This garden is generally used by the residents of
the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park for the cultivation of produce. Consequently, it
is assumed that the City’s 70 CNEL agricultural noise standard applies to this area.
Noise levels were modeled at six receiver locations within the garden area. These
receiver locations are shown in Figure 3D-15. College Boulevard Alignments 1,2, and 3
are essentially the same relative to this garden.
I
I
I
Table 3D-11 provides the projected noise levels at these modeled receivers for both
Alignment 1, Alignment 2, and Alignment 3 of Cannon Road. From this table it can be
seen that future noise levels within the garden are projected to remain below 70 CNEL.
Furthermore, it is anticipated that this garden area will ultimately be removed with
development of the detention basins proposed for the Master Plan. No significant noise
impacts are anticipated.
147
I'
/ i
TABLE 3D-8
FUTURE PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS
RANCHO CARLSBAD MOBILE HOME PARK
CANNON ROAD - ALIGNMENT 1
(CNW
No Roadway With Roadway
Receiver Barriers Barriers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18"
19
20
21
22
65
59
65
61
64
60
64
62
59
62
60
62
62
61
62
62
61
62
60
59
57
64
59
62
60
63
59
63
61
59
62
60
60
59
58
59
59
59
59
58
57
55
*Receiver 18 is at the tennis courts.
TABLE 3D-9
FUTURE PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS
RANCHO CARLSBAD MOBILE HOME PARK
CANNON ROAD - ALIGNMENT 2
(CNEL)
~
No Roadway With Roadway
Receiver Barriers Barriers
1
2
3
8
9
11 ~
12
13
14
15
16
17
18"
19
20
21
22
65
59
65
61
64
60
60
59
58
56
55
58
58
61
61
61
61
62
60
58
55
64
59
62
60
63
59
60
59
57
55
55
57
57
59
59
59
59
60
58
57
54
*Receiver 18 is at the tennis courts. i
!
I TABLE 3D-10
FUTURE PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS
RANCHO CARLSBAD MOBILE HOME PARK
(CNEL)
CANNON ROAD - ALIGNMENT 3
No Roadway With Roadway
Receiver Barriers Barriers
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18"
19
20
21
22
64
59
65
61
64
60
63
61
59
62
60
62
62
65
63
63
62
64
61
59
57
63
59
61
60
63
59
63
61
59
62
60
60
59
61
60
60
60
60
58
57
55
*Receiver 18 is at the tennis courts.
I,
I
I
TABLE 3D-11
FUTURE PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS
GARDEN
(CWL)
Cannon Road Cannon Road Cannon Road
Receiver Alignment 1 Alignment 2 Alignment 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
63 62 61
61 60 59
59 59 57
63 63 61
60 60 58
58 58 57
j
I
I
1
1
3. Environmental Analvsis D. Noise
Robertson Ranch House. Future Cannon Road will be built to the north of the old
Robertson Ranch House. Noise levels were modeled at six receiver locations adjacent to
the house. These receiver locations are shown in Figure 3D-16. College Boulevard is
located far enough to the east such that the different College Boulevard alignments do not
produce substantially different noise levels at the house.
Table 3D-12 provides the projected noise levels at these modeled receivers for both
Alignment 1, Alignment 2, and Alignment 3 of Cannon Road. From this table it can be
seen that future projected noise levels adjacent to the house are projected to exceed 60
CNEL for Alignment 1 and 3, but will remain below the 60 CNEL residential standard
for Alignment 2.
Church - City of Oceanside. There is a church adjacent to existing Cannon Road in the
city of Oceanside. Proposed Alignment 1 for Cannon Road would realign the
westernmost portion of existing Cannon Road in the city of Oceanside. Altering the
alignment of the existing segment of the road within the city of Oceanside could change
the exterior noise levels at the church from those that would occur if the existing
alignment were unchanged. The resulting realignment would straighten the road such
that it would be moved slightly closer to the church (approximately 15 feet) and away
from the existing residential area on the opposite side of the street. The road
straightening would also increase the view angle of the roadway from a sensitive receiver
at the church by about 20 degrees. These changes in roadway geometry are anticipated to
increase exterior noise levels at the church by approximately 1 decibel from those that
would occur without the realignment.
A change in exterior noise levels of 3 dB is considered perceptible; changes of less than 3
decibels in general are not noticeable in the outdoor environment (Bolt, Beranek, and
Newman 1973:l-20). Therefore, since the projected noise increase is less than 3 decibels
at the church, it is not considered a significant direct impact. Noise levels at the existing
residential uses on the south side of the street would be anticipated to decrease by a
similar amount with this alignment.
Alignment 2 for Cannon Road would also shift the existing alignment slightly to the
north, but by an amount less than that with Alignment 1. Consequently, noise impacts at
the church due to Alignment 2 will be less than those with Alignment 1 and are not
considered significant.
I
Cannon Road/College Boulevard. Table 3D- 1 indicates the future projected traffk
volumes for these roadways. Table3D-13 provides the projected distance from the
centerline of the roadway to specified noise contours for the various off-site roadway
segments. This table was generating assuming hard site conditions. Using this table it
can be seen that, depending on the reach, if future sensitive receivers are placed within
156
TABLE 3D-12
FUTURE PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS
ROBERTSON RANCH HOUSE
(CNEL)
Cannon Road - Alignment 1 Cannon Road - Alignment 2 Cannon Road - Alignment 3
Receiver No Barriers With Barriers No Barriers With Barriers No Barriers With Barriers
10 69 60
23 69 58
24 69 56
25 68 60
26 69 58
27 .68 58
57 NA
57 NA
57 NA
57 NA
57 NA
57 NA
69 60
69 58
69 56
68 59
69 58
68 59
NA = barriers not required for Alignment 2.
TABLE 3D-13
DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOURS OFF-SITE CANNON ROAD AND COLLEGE BOULEVARD
Distance to Contour (feet)
Roadway 75CNEL 70CNEL 65CNEL 6OCNEL
College Boulevard
Between El Camino Real & Cannon Rd. 36 112 355 1123
Between Cannon Rd. & Carlsbad Village Dr. 39 122 387 1225
Cannon Road
Between El Camino Real & College Blvd. 34 107 339 1072
Between College Blvd. & Oceanside City Limit 39 122 387 1225
Between Oceanside City Limit & Melrose Dr. 48 153 484 1531
i
I
D. Noise 3. Environmental Analysis
approximately 1,500 feet of the proposed roadways prior to their construction, potentially
significant noise impacts could occur once the roadways are built.
The Cape. Future College Boulevard will be constructed adjacent to The Cape
residential development (Villages C and D). A series of receivers were modeled
throughout The Cape to determine the future noise contours over the development. These
noise contours are shown in Figure 3D-17. The contours assume that Villages X and Y
are graded, but does not include the effects of any buildings or mitigation on those
villages. The contours also do not include the effects of any shielding provided by the
buildings in The Cape itself.
I
As seen from Figure 3D-17, noise levels at The Cape could exceed 60 CNEL at locations
adjacent to future College Boulevard. Noise levels were also modeled at 20 ground-floor
receiver locations within The Cape adjacent to College Boulevard where noise levels are
anticipated to exceed 60 CNEL. The locations of these modeled receivers are shown in
Figure 3D-18.
Table 3D-14 provides the projected noise levels at these modeled receivers. From this
table it can be seen that future noise levels adjacent to College Boulevard are projected to
exceed 60 CNEL.
e)
As indicated, a small portion of this village is proposed for community facility
development such as day care. If this village is developed as a day care center, it is likely
that outdoor play areas would be incorporated in the design. If so, noise emanating from
children playing in these outdoor areas could be audible at the surrounding residential
areas in Villages G and J to the northeast and southeast, and the existing residential
development to the west.
Village H - Day Care Center Noise Impacts to Surrounding Areas
Per the City’s Noise Guidelines Manual Table ii, the City does not regulate general
nuisance noise levels by ordinance (City of Carlsbad 1995). Consequently, although
children at times may be heard in the surrounding residential areas, no significant
nuisance noise impacts are anticipated.
4) Mitigation
a) Blasting
Portions of existing residential developments (Villages C, D, L-1, 0, P1, and Q) could
experience noise levels in excess of County standards during blasting activities. As
indicated, if blasting activities occur within 225 feet of existing residential areas for more
than eight hours, a significant noise impact could occw.
160
Without Constructed With Constructed With Constructed Barriers Receiver Barriers Barriers Limited to 6 feet in Height
1
2
TABLE 3D-14
FUTURE PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS
THE CAPE
(CNEL)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
61
61
61
63
65
67
68
65
68
69
69
71
74
14 70
15 68
16 69
17 67
18 66
19 66
20 64
57
57
57
59
59
60
60
58
59
59
59
59
60
59
60
60
59
59
59
60
58
59
58
60
61
61
62
60
61
61
62
63
67
61
61
60
60
59
59
60
3. Environmental Analysis D. Noise
Blasting and disclosure requirements are mandated by ordinance. Mitigation measures
are discussed both in this section and the Geology section of the EIR. Title 3, Div. 5,
Chapter III of the County Code of Regulatory Ordinances, provides enforcement,
application, definitions, and requirements to be met prior to issuance of a blasting permit.
Among these are the requirement to show insurance and indemnification, permitted
hours, notification requirements, violations and penalties, and payment of fee
requirements. Detailed information can be obtained from the County of San Diego
Sheriff's Department, License Division, 9621 Ridgehaven Court, P.O. Box 429000, San
Diego, California 92142-9000. In addition to the preceding, the following requirements
will lessen potential noise impacts to existing residential areas to below a level of
significance. They are to be incorporated in this project.
1. Prior to blasting, a blasting schedule shall be approved by the City Engineer.
2. The blasting contractor shall notify the Carlsbad Police Department and the County
Sheriff's Department prior to commencing blasting activities.
3. The property owner shall give a one-time notice in writing to residences and
businesses within 600 feet of a potential major blast location. The notice shall
disclose the anticipated blasting schedule and provide a contact phone number for the
blasting contractor.
4. A pre-blast inspection of existing structures shall be conducted within 300 feet of any
proposed detonation by an inspector approved by the Carlsbad Police Department, the
San Diego County Sheriff's Department, and the City of Carlsbad Building
Department.
5. The project shall conform to San Diego County Blasting Ordinance Title 3, Division
5, Chapter III County Code of Regulatory Ordinances Sections 35.377.101-104,
35.377.301(~), 35.377.306 and 35.377.307) to reduce the temporary noise impacts
due to blasting and Section 8.48.010 of the City's Municipal Code limiting allowable
hours of activities. The allowable hours of activities associated with blasting will be
from 9:OO A.M. to 4:30 P.M. or one-half hour before sunset, whichever comes first,
Monday through Friday. No blasting will be allowed on weekends or on the holidays
specified in section 8.48.010 of the City's Municipal Code.
6. A blasting report shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to any blasting
activities. The report shall conform to the San Diego County Blasting Ordinance
(Division 5, Title 3, Section 35) and vibration standards promulgated by the U.S.
Bureau of Mines.
I
i
t
i
164
!
I
3. Environmental Analysis D. Noise
b) Grading
Portions of existing residential developments (Villages C, D, E-2, F, G, GI, Q, and T)
and the Calavera Hills Community Park west of Village E-1 could experience noise
levels in excess of County standards during grading activities.
The following measures will reduce potentially significant noise impacts generated by
grading activities to below a level of significance:
la. Hours of grading shall be limited to the time period allowed in Carlsbad Municipal
Code section 8.48.010; 7:OO A.M. to sunset on weekdays and 8:OO A.M. to sunset on
Saturdays. No grading, except in the event of an emergency as determined by the
City Manager per Municipal Code section 8.48.020, shall occur on Sundays and
designated holidays.
lb. If grading activities will occur within 150 feet of existing residential areas, those
grading activities shall be limited to an eight-hour period within the allowable
timeframe indicated above.
2. Grading and construction equipment shall be properly maintained and fitted with
standard mufflers. Verification shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Planning
Department Director prior to the commencement of grading.
c) Temporary Materials Processing Center
Noise impacts in the existing residential areas due to materials processing are not
anticipated to exceed the City’s standards and, consequently, are not considered
significant. No mitigation is required.
Although not significant, noise levels from the temporary materials processing centers
could be perceived as a nuisance to receivers in the surrounding existing residential areas
(Villages C, L-1, 0, P-1, and Q). The following measures will serve to reduce the
nuisance noise generated by activities at the materials processing centers while they are
in operation:
1. Hours of operation of the materials processing centers shall be limited to the time
period allowed in Carlsbad Municipal Code section 8.48.010 for construction;
7:OOA.M. to sunset on weekdays and 8:OO A.M. to sunset on Saturdays. No
construction, except in the event of an emergency as determined by the City Manager
per Municipal Code section 8.48.020, shall occur on Sundays and designated
holidays.
165
3. Environmental Analysis D. Noise
2. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and fitted with standard
mufflers.
d) Future Traffic-Generated Noise
Barrier heights specified below are relative to pad elevations where barriers are
constructed at the pad edge. Where barriers are constructed along the roadway edges; the
barrier height is relative to the roadway. Required barrier heights may be achieved
through the construction of walls, berms, or wallhem combinations.
The effectiveness of a barrier is dependent upon the quality of construction and the h
barrier material mass and acoustical properties. Barriers should be free of cracks and
holes. The transmission loss through a barrier should be at least 10 decibels greater than
the estimated barrier attenuation (Federal Highway Administration 1979:34). If a barrier
attenuates noise levels by 5 dB(A) at a receiver location, the barrier transmission loss
must be at least 15 dB(A) to prevent audible noise from traveling through the barrier and
adding to the acoustical environment. Examples of acceptable barrier materials include,
but are not limited to, masonry block, wood frame with stucco, OS-inch-thick Plexiglas,
or 0.25-inch-thick plate glass. If transparent barrier materials are used, no gaps should
occur between the panels.
,
On-Site
Village H. As indicated, on-site exterior noise levels adjacent to Carlsbad Village Drive
are anticipated to exceed the City’s 60 CNEL exterior standard for school uses. With the
construction of noise barriers varying from three to four feet in height along the top of the
pad slopes as shown in Figure 3D-5, noise levels at all ground-floor usable areas within
the village would be at or below 60 CNEL. Table 3D-4 shows the aqticipated ground
floor noise levels after construction of the proposed noise barriers at the modeled
receivers. Prior to approval of any tentative map or final grading plans for Village H,
verification of the above mitigation based on detailed grading plans shall be required. ‘If
substantial changes in the proposed project grading occur as the final design develops
through the tentative map process, additional exterior noise analyses will be required.
As seen from Table 3D-4, even without the construction of noise barriers, ground-floor
noise levels are anticipated to remain at or below 65 CNEL. As such, interior noise
levels in future facilities are anticipated to remain below the City’s 45 dB(A) &(h)
standard for schools provided that the buildings are designed such that windows may
remain closed. Where it is necessary to keep windows closed, forced-air circulation or air
conditioning must be provided.
Village E-I. As indicated, on-site exterior noise levels in the development areas are
anticipated to exceed the City’s 60 CNEL residential standards. With the construction of
J,
i I 166
3. Environmental Analysis D. Noise
noise barriers approximately 11 feet in height along College Boulevard, and 8 feet in
height along Carlsbad Village Drive, noise levels at all ground-floor usable areas within
the village would be at or below 60 CNEL.
If this village is ultimately developed for commercial uses, approximately seven-foot-
high barriers along College Boulevard and five-foot-high barriers along Carlsbad Village
Drive would be required to reduce on-site noise levels to the City’s 65 CNEL exterior
standard for commercial uses.
As indicated, detailed grading has not been proposed for this village at this time. Once
detailed site grading is available for this village, a new, detailed acoustical study shall be
performed to refine the required barrier heights and locations.
Interior Noise Levels. If developed for residential uses, even with the construction of
noise barriers, noise levels at the second floors of the units adjacent to the roadways in
Villages E-1 could exceed 65 CNEL. Therefore, standard construction is not assumed to
adequately reduce interior noise levels to below 45 CNEL at these locations.
Consequently, the following measures shall be a condition of the future tentative maps
for Village E- 1 :
1. At the time that building plans are available for the units in this village, and prior to
the issuance of building permits, a detailed acoustical analysis for units exposed to 65
CNEL or greater will be required demonstrating that interior noise levels due to
exterior sources will be below the 45 CNEL residential interior standard.
2. For those areas where exterior noise levels are projected to exceed 60 CNEL, it will
be necessary for the windows to remain closed to ensure that interior noise levels
meet the City’s residential interior standard of 45 CNEL and forced-air circulation or
air conditioning is required.
Village K. As indicated, on-site exterior noise levels in a limited portion of the
development area are anticipated to exceed the City’s 60 CNEL residential standard.
With the construction of noise barriers varying from three to five feet in height along the
top of the pad slopes as shown in Figure 3D-7, noise levels at all ground-floor usable
areas within the village would be at or below 60 CNEL. Table 3D-5 shows the
anticipated noise levels after construction of the proposed noise barriers at the modeled
receivers. Prior to approval of any tentative map or final grading plans for Village K,
verification of the above mitigation based on detailed grading plans shall be required. If
substantial changes in the proposed project grading occur as the final design develops
through the tentative map process, additional exterior noise analyses will be required.
167
3. Environmental Analysis D. Noise
Interior Noise LeveZs. As seen from Table 3D-5, even with the construction of noise
barriers, noise levels at the second floors of the units adjacent to the roadways are
projected to exceed 65 CNEL. Therefore, standard construction is not assumed to
adequately reduce interior noise levels to below 45 CNEL at these locations.
Consequently, the following measures shall be a condition of the future tentative map for
Village K:
1.
2.
I f At the time that building plans are available for the units in this village, and prior to
the issuance of building permits, a detailed acoustical analysis for units exposed to 65
CNEL or greater will be required demonstrating that interior noise levels due to
exterior sources will be below the 45 CNEL interior standard.
For those areas where exterior noise levels are projected to exceed 60 CNEL, it will
be necessary for the windows to remain closed to ensure that interior noise levels
meet the City’s interior standard of 45 CNEL and forced-air circulation or air
conditioning is required.
‘I
Village G2. On-site noise levels in the development areas are anticipated to remain
below the City’s exterior noise standard. No mitigation is required.
Village R. On-site noise levels in the development areas are anticipated to remain below
the City’s exterior noise standard. No mitigation is required.
Village U. As indicated, on-site exterior noise levels in the development areas are
anticipated to exceed the City’s 60 CNEL residential standard. With the construction of
noise barriers varying from five to twelve feet in height along the edge of College
Boulevard as shown in Figure 3D-9, noise levels at all ground-floor usable areas within
the village would be at or below 60 CNEL. Table 3D-6 shows the anticipated noise
levels after construction of the proposed noise barriers at the modeled receivers. Prior to
approval of any tentative map or final grading plans for Village U, verification of the
above mitigation based on detailed grading plans shall be required. If substantial changes
in the proposed project grading occur as the final design develops through the tentative
map process, additional exterior noise analyses will be required.
Additional points of access from College Boulevard have not been clearly delimited in
the village design. If additional breaks in the proposed barriers are required, no usable
exterior areas shall be placed adjacent to those breaks.
Interior Noise Levels. As seen from Table 3D-6, even with the construction of noise
barriers, noise levels at the second floors of the units adjacent to the roadways are
projected to exceed 65 CNEL. Therefore, standard construction is not assumed to
adequately reduce interior noise levels to below 45 CNEL at these locations.
168 1
3. Environmental Analysis D. Noise
i
’”
Consequently, the following measures shall be a condition of the future tentative map for
Village U:
1.
2.
At the time that building plans are available for the units in this village, and prior to
the issuance of building permits, a detailed acoustical analysis for units exposed to 65
CNEL or greater will be required demonstrating that interior noise levels due to
exterior sources will be below the 45 CNEL interior standard.
For those areas where exterior noise levels are projected to exceed 60 CNEL, it will
be necessary for the windows to remain closed to ensure that interior noise levels
meet the City’s interior standard of 45 CNEL and forced-air circulation or air
conditioning is required.
Village W. As indicated, on-site exterior noise levels in the development areas are
anticipated to exceed the City’s 60 CNEL residential standard. With the construction of
noise barriers varying from five to eleven feet in height along the edge of College
Boulevard as shown in Figure 3D-11, noise levels at all ground-floor usable areas within
the village would be at or below 60 CNEL. Table 3D-7 shows the anticipated noise
levels after construction of the proposed noise barriers at the modeled receivers. Prior to
approval of any tentative map or final grading plans for Village W, verification of the
above mitigation based on detailed grading plans shall be required. If substantial changes
in the proposed project grading occur as the final design develops through the tentative
map process, additional exterior noise analyses will be required.
The points of access from College Boulevard have not been clearly delimited in the
village design. If breaks in the proposed barriers are required, no usable exterior areas
shall be placed adjacent to those breaks.
Interior Noise Levels. As seen from Table 3D-7, even with the construction of noise
barriers, noise levels at the second floors of the units adjacent to the roadways are
projected to exceed 65 CNEL. Therefore, standard construction is not assumed to
adequately reduce interior noise levels to below 45 CNEL at these locations.
Consequently, the following measures shall be a condition of the future tentative map for
Village W:
1. At the time that building plans are available for the units in this village, and prior to
the issuance of building permits, a detailed acoustical analysis for units exposed to 65
CNEL or greater will be required demonstrating that interior noise levels due to
exterior sources will be below the 45 CNEL interior standard.
2. For those areas where exterior noise levels are projected to exceed 60 CNEL, it will
be necessary for the windows to remain closed to ensure that interior noise levels
169
3. Environmental Analysis D, Noise
meet the City’s interior standard of 45 CNEL and forced-air circulation or air
conditioning is required.
Village X. A5 indicated, on-site exterior noise levels in the development areas are
anticipated to exceed the City’s 60 CNEL residential standard. With the construction of
noise barriers varying from five to nine feet in height along the top of slope as shown in
Figure 3D-11, noise levels at all ground-floor usable areas within the village would be at
or below 60 CNEL. Table 3D-7 shows the anticipated noise levels after construction of
the proposed noise barriers at the modeled receivers. Prior to’ approval of any tentative
map or final grading plans for Village X, verification of the above mitigation based on
detailed grading plans shall be required. If substantial changes in the proposed project
grading occur as the final design develops through the tentative map process, additional
exterior noise analyses will be required.
The points of access from College Boulevard have not been clearly delimited in the
village design. If breaks in the proposed barriers are required, no usable exterior areas
shall be placed adjacent to those breaks.
Interior Noise Leveh. As seen from Table 3D-7, even with the construction of noise
barriers, noise levels at the second floors of the units adjacent to the roadways are
projected to exceed 65 CNEL. Therefore, standard construction is not assumed to
adequately reduce interior noise levels to below 45 CNEL at these locations.
Consequently, the following measures shall be a condition of the future tentative map for
Village X:
1. At the time that building plans are available for the units in this village, and prior to
the issuance of building permits, a detailed acoustical analysis for units exposed to 65
CNEL or greater will be required demonstrating that interior noise levels due to
exterior sources will be below the 45 CNEL interior standard.
2. For those areas where exterior noise levels ye projected to exceed 60 CNEL, it will
be necessary for the windows to remain closed to ensure that interior noise levels
meet the City’s interior standard of 45 CNEL and forced-air circulation or air
conditioning is required.
Village Y. As indicated, on-site exterior noise levels in the development areas are
anticipated to exceed the City’s 60 CNEL residential standard. With the construction of
noise barriers varying from six to ten feet in height along the top of slope as shown in
Figure 3D-11, noise levels at all ground-floor usable areas within the village would be at
or below 60 CNEL. Table 3D-7 shows the anticipated noise levels after construction of
the proposed noise barriers at the modeled receivers. Prior to approval of any tentative
map or final grading plans for Village Y, verification of the above mitigation based on
i
!
170
3. Environmental Analysis D. Noise
detailed grading plans shall be required. If substantial changes in the proposed project
grading occur as the final design develops through the tentative map process, additional
exterior noise analyses will be required.
The points of access from College Boulevard have not been clearly delimited in the
village design. If breaks in the proposed barriers are required, no usable exterior areas
shall be placed adjacent to those breaks.
Interior Noise LeveZs. As seen from Table 3D-7, even with the construction of noise
barriers, noise levels at the second floors of the units adjacent to the roadways are
projected to exceed 65 CNEL. Therefore, standard construction is not assumed to
adequately reduce inteiior noise levels to below 45 CNEL at these locations.
Consequently, the following measures shall be a condition of the future tentative map for
Village Y:
1. At the time that building plans are available for the units in this village, and prior to
the issuance of building permits, a detailed acoustical analysis for units exposed to 65
CNEL or greater will be required demonstrating that interior noise levels due to
exterior sources will be below the 45 CNEL interior standard.
For those areas where exterior noise levels are projected to exceed 60 CMEL, it will be
necessary for the windows to remain closed to ensure that interior noise levels meet the
City’s interior standard of 45 CNEL and forced-air circulation or air conditioning is
required.
Limiting Noise Wall Heights to Six Feet. As indicated previously, it is a policy of the
City to discourage the use of noise walls in excess of six feet in height adjacent to
circulation element roadways. As discussed above, barrier heights in excess of six feet
are required on Villages E-1, U, W, X, and Y to reduce exterior noise levels to the City’s
60 CNEL exterior residential noise standard. A mitigation measure has been identified to
reduce significant visual effects associated with the construction of noise barriers. As
previously discussed, the project is required to implement the Master Plan’s design
guidelines for noise walls (exterior treatment and landscaping) to reduce aesthetic
impacts (see Figure 3B-16 of the EIR for a noise wall exhibit that complies with the
Master Plan’s noise wall design standard where solid walls are subject to the six-foot
height limitation). The design utilizes a combination bedwall which would be
landscaped to reduce the aesthetic impacts at Village U along College Boulevard and
would be required at the time tentative maps are proposed.
Site Grading Changes. As indicated previously, this analysis is based on the sheet
grading obtained from the mass grading exhibit prepared for the Master Plan for each of
the villages in the Master Plan area. If final grading shown on the tentative maps for
171
3. Environmental Analwis D. Noise
Villages H, E- 1, K, U, W, X, and Y changes from that analyzed here, the required barrier
heights could differ from those indicated above.
Off-Site
Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. As indicated, an existing five-foot-high wall runs
along the northern boundary of the mobile home park. Future projected on-site exterior
noise levels in the northwestern and northeastern portions of the mobile home park are
anticipated to exceed @e City’s 60 CNEL residential standard for both proposed
alignments for Cannon Road. With the construction of four-foot-high noise barriers
along the edge of the roadway as shown in Figure 3D-12 for Alignment 1 and in
Figure 3D-13 for Alignment 2, and four- to six-foot-high barriers as shown in Figure 3D-
14 for Alignment 3, noise levels at all ground-floor usable areas within the mobile home
park would be at or below 60 CNEL. Tables 3D-8, 3D-9, and 3D-10 show the
anticipated noise levels after construction of the proposed noise barriers at the modeled
receivers for Cannon Road Alignments 1,2, and 3 respectively.
Garden Southeast of Future Intersection of Cannon Road and College Boulevard.
Future noise levels are projected to remain below the City’s 70 CNEL exterior standard
for agricultural uses. No mitigation is required.
Robertson Ranch House. Noise levels at the ranch house due to future traffic on Cannon
Road Alignment 1 and 3 are projected to exceed 60 CNEL. With the construction of
noise barriers varying from seven to eight feet in height as shown in Figure 3D-16,
exterior noise levels at the ranch house are anticipated to remain at or below the City’s 60
CNEL standard. Table 3D-12 shows the anticipated noise levels after construction of the
proposed noise barriers at the modeled receivers.
Future on-site noise levels associated with Cannon Road Alignment 2 are anticipated to
remain below the 60 CNEL standard. No mitigation is required for this alignment.
Church - City of Oceanside. Noise level increases at the church due to changes in the
existing Cannon Road alignment are projected to increase by approximately one decibel.
Noise level changes of less than three decibels in the outdoor environment generally are
not perceptible, Additionally, the city of Oceanside does not specify exterior noise level
standards for churches. Noise levels at the residences along the south side of the street
are anticipated to decrease by the she amount due to the roadway realignment.
No mitigation is required.
Cannon RoadKollege Boulevard. As indicated previously, if future sensitive receivers
are placed within approximately 1,500 feet of the proposed roadways, potentially
significant noise impacts could occur once the roadways are built. Consequently, any
172
i
3. Environmental Analvsis D. Noise
new development placed adjacent to these roadway alignments shall prepare detailed
acoustical studies demonstrating that on-site noise levels will meet City standards if the
road is built.
The Cape. Noise levels at The Cape due to traffic on future College Boulevard are
projected to exceed 60 CNEL. With the construction of noise barriers varying from three
to nine feet in height as shown in Figure 3D-18, exterior noise levels at The Cape are
anticipated to remain at or below the City’s 60 CNEL standard. Table 3D-14 shows the
anticipated noise levels at the modeled receivers after construction of the proposed noise
barriers.
It is noted that most of these barriers would be constructed on private property within The
Cape. Consequently, construction of the proposed barriers would have to be agreed to by
the individual property owners within The Cape. Mitigation of potential noise impacts
would involve the following steps for each residential lot:
1. Contact the homeowner and inquire as to the desirability of a barrier constructed on
their backyard.
2. For those units with a positive response, obtain the necessary entrance and
construction permits for building the barrier and the releases for maintenance of the
constructed wall.
3. Construct the wall.
Prior to constructing College Boulevard, the applicant shall make an effort to gain
permission of each of the affected property owners to construct the noise barriers on their
properties. Permission to construct the barriers shall be voluntary and owners may refuse
the barrier construction. In the event that individual owners refuse barrier construction,
noise impacts at those locations would remain significant and unmitigable. The barriers
may be constructed of transparent materials (e.g., glass, Plexiglas, etc.). Actual
construction of the wall shall occur concurrently with the construction of College
Boulevard.
. To reduce impacts to off-site properties where permission is required and granted to
construct noise barriers (e.g., The Cape) the following mitigation is required as a
condition for approval of the master tentative map’s Final Map and/or Grading Plans,
whichever occurs first: prior to completion of College Boulevard Reach C, the project
proponent shall construct noise walls to conform to the design requirements described in
the Master Plan and this EIR (e.g., Figure 3B-16) and an acoustical study shall be
prepared and submitted to the City demonstrating that barriers are sufficient to reduce
exterior noise levels to the City’s 60 CNEL standard or below.
173
3. Environmental Analysis D. Noise
The noise levels indicated in Table 3D-14 were determined assuming that the noise
barriers proposed for Villages X and Y are incorporated into the project (see On-Site
Mitigation above). Furthermore, it is assumed that the height of the barriers at Villages X
and Y, as well as those proposed for The Cape are not limited to six feet.
As indicated previously, it is a policy of the City to discourage the use of noise walls in
excess of six feet in height adjacent to circulation element roadways. As discussed
above, barrier heights in excess of six feet are required on Villages X and Y and at The
Cape to reduce exterior noise levels to the City’s 60 CNEL exterior residential noise
standard.
Although, as indicated previously, ultimate barrier heights may be achieved through a
combination of berms and walls, it is not always possible to construct berms due to space
limitations, Consequently, an analysis was performed to determine the effect of limiting
noise barrier heights to six feet.
Table 3D-14 also indicates the projected noise levels at the modeled receivers in The
Cape if all proposed barriers are limited to six feet in height. As seen from Table 3D-14,
if the height of the noise barriers is limited to six feet, noise levels at The Cape could
exceed 60 CNEL even after construction of the barriers.
Consequently, if noise barrier heights were limited to six feet, a significant, unmitigated
noise impact would occur at those portions within The Cape where noise levels are
projected to remain above 60 CNEL. However, implementation of the barrier design
shown in Figure 3B-16 for barriers in excess of six feet would mitigate the impact.
e)
If this village is developed as a day care center, potential nuisance noise impacts from
children’s outdoor activities are not anticipated to be significant. No mitigation is
required.
Village H - Day Care Center Noise Impacts to Surrounding Areas
j
174
3. Environmental Analysis E. Agriculture
i
!
I
E. Agriculture
Existing Conditions
Much of the Calavera Hills Master Plan area is developed and no longer capable of
supporting agriculture. Several of the villages, however, and the areas in the proposed
routes of College Boulevard and Cannon Road are undeveloped. In general, the
undeveloped areas of Calavera Hills are covered with Diegan coastal sage scrub,
chaparral (southern and mixed chamise), and grasslands (non-native and native). Isolated
areas of riparian woodland and riparian scrub, freshwater marsh, seasonal Cismontane
alkali marsh, and eucalyptus woodland are also present. For the most part, undeveloped
areas in Village H, the westernmost area of the Master Plan, are comprised of native and
non-native grasslands, eucalyptus woodland and riparian scrub. A small developed area is
located adjacent to an existing utility site at the southern limit of Village H. Previously
disturbed areas are located along the northwestern portion of Village H and over most of
Village El. Additional detail on the project area’s existing vegetation is included in
Chapter 3.G. of this EIR. Scattered pockets of eucalyptus trees are located throughout.
The terrain is primarily rolling hills with some moderate and steep slopes. There are no
agricultural operations currently being conducted on any of the undeveloped areas where
development of villages is proposed.
To the west and northeast of Calavera Hills is residential land, with vacant land to the
east within the City of Carlsbad and northwest within the City of Oceanside. The City of
Oceanside borders the approximate eastern half of the Master Plan area on the north (see
Figure 2-1). Agricultural fields are located to the south and southeast of the Master Plan
area known as Robertson Ranch. These fields are used primarily for growing tomatoes,
and are located in the areas of the proposed routes of College Boulevard and Cannon
Road. Figure 2-2 is an aerial photograph of the area and surrounding areas, showing the
agricultural fields south of the Master Plan area.
Eighteen soil types have been identified within the entire project area (U.S. Department
of Agriculture 1973). The most abundant soil types occurring on the project site are FxE
(Friant rocky fine sandy loam) and FeE2 (Fallbrook rocky sandy loam); each has a
relatively poor suitability for agricultural. The distribution of soil types across the entire
Master Plan area is presented in Figure 3E-1. Table 3E-1 lists the full name for each soil
type, the Storie Index, the Capability Class, and the village areas in which the soil is
found.
The Soils Survey (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] 1973) has grouped the soils
into Capability Classes according to their suitability for most kinds of field crops. These
Capability Classes, ranging from I to Vm, are listed in Table 3E-2, with Class I soils
being most suitable for agricultural production.
175
17 Calavera Hills Master Plan
boundary cI-\.9 Calavera Hills Villages
(Development Area)
Road alignments
- - I*
Soil types within development
and road alignment areas
- FIGURE 3E-1
Project Area
Soil Types
0 FEET 2000
M \jobsU3?5e@sk1rfigs aprUE- I - final 09/?7/00
AtD
AtE
B1C2
CbE
CnE2
DaF
EsE2
FeE2
FXE
GaF
HrD
HrE2
LeC
Lec2
LeD2
LeE
OhE
Rm
SbA
SbC
TUB
Va8
Note: Refer to Table 3E-1 for
soil descriptions.
TABLE 3E-1
SOIL DESCRIPTIONS
Storie Capability Village Index Class or Road Symbol Soil Unit Name
AtD
AtE
B1C2
Altamont clay, 5% to 9% slopes
Altamont clay, 15% to 30% slopes
Bonsall sandy loam, 2% to 9% slopes, eroded
39
29
41
m
Iv
Iv
College
Cannon
E-1, U, K,
Cannon
H Carlsbad gravelly loamy sand, 15% to 30%
Cieneba-Fallbrook rocky sandy loam, 9% to
Escondido very fine sandy loam, 15 % to 30%
Fallbrook rocky sandy loam, 9% to 30% slopes,
Friant rocky fine sandy loam, 9% to 30% slopes
slopes
30% slopes, eroded
slopes, eroded
eroded
15 VI CbE
cnE2 18 VI College, Cannon
w, u EsE2 32 VI
FeE2 27 VI E-1, L-2, u, K
w, x, Y, U, College
College,
Cannon
College
College
R, X
8 VII FXE
HrD Huerhuero loam, 9% to 15% slopes 36 Iv
WE2
LeC
LeD2
Huerhuero loam, 15% to 30% slopes, eroded
Las Flores loamy fine sand, 2% to 9% slopes
Las Flores loamy fine sand, 9% to 15% slopes,
Las Flores loamy fine sand, 15% to 30% slopes
eroded
32
36
29
VI
Iv
Iv
VI College, Cannon LeE 29
20
<lo
81
VI
VIII
I
College
College
College,
Cannon
College
College,
Cannon
OhE
Rm
SbA
Olivenhain cobbly loam, 9% to 30% slopes
Riverwash
Salinas clay loam, 0% to 2% slopes
SbC
TUB
Salinas clay loam, 2% to 9% slopes
Tujunga sand, 0% to 5% slopes
73
39
II
Iv
SOURCE: USDA 1973.
TABLE 3E-2
SOIL CAPABILITY CLASSES i
Class Description
I
II
m
Iv
V
VI
VII
m
Soils have few limitations that restrict their use.
Soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require
moderate conservation practices.
Soils have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants, require special
conservation practices, or both.
Soils have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants, require very
careful management, or both.
Soils are not likely to erode but have other limitations, impractical to remove, that
limit their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife habitat.
Soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuited to cultivation and
that limit their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife habitat.
Soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuited to cultivation and that
restrict their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife habitat.
Soils and landforms have limitations that preclude their use for commercial crop
production and restrict their use to recreation, wildlife, or water supply, or to
esthetic purposes.
i
!
3. Environmental Analysis E. Agriculture
i
i
Another rating system for agricultural suitability is the Storie Index. The numeric values
of this index range from 1 to 100 and are divided into six grades, with an index of 100
and a grade of 1 being the most suitable farmland. Table 3E-3 lists the Storie Index
classifications. Soils in the San Diego region range from 5 to 97 and in the project area
from 8 to 73. The Storie Index of a soil indicates the relative degree of value of the soil
for general intensive agriculture and is based on soil characteristics only. Prime
agricultural soils are soils which have a Stone Index greater than 79 and, therefore, there
are no prime agricultural soils in the project area. A goal of the open space and
conservation element of the Carlsbad General Plan is to prevent premature development
of prime agricultural land and to preserve this land when feasible (City of Carlsbad
1990). No Class I, ZI, or IlI (Storie Index ranging from 41 to 81) soils are located within
the Master Plan boundary except for the area proposed for Village El, which has been
graded and native soils no longer exist. However, prime and other soils more suitable for
agriculture are located beyond the Master Plan boundary in areas designated for future
roadway improvements (see Figure 3E- 1).
2) Impacts
Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 & Detention
Basin impacts would be significant if development of the proposed project directly
affects large contiguous areas of soils suitable for agriculture or areas where productive
agriculture is now being conducted. Significant impacts could also result if the proposed
development would restrict access to areas being used for productive agriculture, or areas
with the potential for productive agricultural use. As long as General Plan circulation
element roads are not constructed before they are needed, significant impacts due to their
construction would not result.
a) Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II
Impacts for the development of Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II are assessed
according to the areas that would be affected by development, not the areas that would be
left in open space. In particular, the soils in the Calavera Nature Preserve would not be
disturbed or affected because development is not proposed for this area. A potential for
significant impacts would be present where the proposed development would affect a
substantial area of soils with a Capability Class of IV or higher. Generally, only soils
with a Storie Index of 40 or higher are suitable for agriculture, with a Storie Index of 40
to 60 indicating marginally suitable soils. Significant impacts would result from any
impacts to prime agricultural soils with a Storie Index of 80 or higher.
Impacts to on-site soils are summarized in Table 3E-4. No significant impacts were
identified for proposed development within the proposed Master Plan Phase II villages.
In Village H, although there are five soil types present, only a small portion of land,
which contains Carlsbad gravelly loam (CbE), with a Capability Class of VI and a Storie
179
TABLE 3E-3
STORIE INDEX RATINGS
Grade Index Rating Description
1
2
80 to 100
60 to 80
Few or no limitations that restrict use for crops.
Suitable for most crops, few special management needs, minor
Suitable for few crops or to special crops, requires special
Severely limited for crops, requires careful management.
Not suitable for cultivated crops, can be used for pasture and
limitations that narrow crop choices.
management.
3 40 to 60
4
5
20 to 40
10 to 20
range.
6 Less than 10 Not suitable for farming.
I
TABLE 3E-4
IMPACTS TO AGRICULTURAL SOILS
Suitable for Agriculture? Significant?
Storie Index/ (Stone Index 240, (Stone Index 240, Village Predominant Soil Type Capability Class Capability Classes I-IV) Capability Classes I-N)
El
H
K
L2
R
U
W
X
Y
B1C2 Bonsall sand loam, 2-9% slopes, eroded
CbE Carlsbad gravelly loam, 1530% slopes
FeE2 Fallbrook rocky sandy loam, 9-30% slopes
B1C2 Bonsall sand loam, 2-9% slopes, eroded
FeE2 Fallbrook rocky sandy loam, 9-30% slopes
LeD2 Las Flores loamy fine sand, 9-15% slopes, eroded
FxE Friant rocky fine sandy loam, 9-30% slopes
EsE2 Escondido very fine sandy loam, 1530% slopes,
eroded
B1C2 Bonsall sand loam, 2-9% slopes, eroded
FxE Friant rocky fine sandy loam, 9-30% slopes
EsE2 Escondido very fine sandy loam, 1530% slopes, eroded
FxE Friant rocky fine sandy loam, 9-30% slopes
LeD2 Las Flores loamy fine sand, 9-15% slopes, eroded
FxE Friant rocky fine sandy loam, 9-3096 slopes
41, IV
15, VI
27, VI
41, IV
27, VI
29, IV
8, VII
32, VI
41, IV
8, VII
32, VI
8, VII
29, IV
8, VII
NO. Native soils have been
removed or disturbed by grading.
NO
NO
YES (marginally). However,
areas are small, isolated, and not
currently used for agriculture.
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES (marginally). However,
areas are small, isolated, and not
currently used for agriculture.
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
3. Environmental Analysis
,
E. Anriculture
I
I Index of 15, is proposed for development. In Village R, development would affect only
Las Flores loamy fine sand (LeD2), with a Capability Class of IV but a Storie Index of
29. Development of Village W would affect principally Friant rocky fine sandy loam
(FxE), with a Capability Class of VII and a Storie Index of 8, and a smaller area of
I
I
Escondido very fine sandy loam (EsE2), with a Capability Class of VI and Storie Index
of 32. Village Y would affect only Friant rocky fine sandy loam (FxE). Village X would
I
I
affect mostly Friant rocky fine sandy loam (FxE) and smaller areas of Las Flores loamy
fine sand (LeD2) and Olivenhain cobbly loam (Ohe). Village L-2 would affect only
Fallbrook rocky sandy loam (FeE2), with a Capability Class of VI and a Storie Index of
27.
I
!
None of the villages described above would affect soils suitable for agriculture, that is,
soils with a Capability Class of IV or higher and a Storie Index of 40 or higher. Native
soils in Village E-1 consisted of mostly Bonsall sandy loam (BlC2), which has a
Capability Class of IV and a Storie Index of 41, and of a smaller area of Fallbrook rocky
sandy loam (FeE2), with a Capability Class of VI and a Storie Index of 27. Village E-1,
however, has been graded, and native soil conditions are no longer present. Therefore,
development of the villages proposed as part of the Master Plan amendment would not
have a significant impact on soils suitable for agriculture.
Village U would affect several soil types, including Friant rocky fine sandy loam (FxE),
Escondido very fine sandy loam (EsE2), Fallbrook rocky sandy loam (FeE2), and Bonsall
sandy loam (BlC2), all of which are described above. Village K would affect mostly
Fallbrook rocky sandy loam (FeE2), but in two small areas on the east and west, would
also affect Bonsall sandy loam (BlC2). Bonsall sandy loam, as noted in the preceding
paragraph, has a Capability Class of IV and a Stone Index of 27. Impacts to this soil type
could be significant, but relatively small areas that are not being used for agriculture
would be affected, and the soil type is marginally suitable for agriculture. For these
reasons, the impact is not considered significant.
b) Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 Extension of College
Boulevard and Cannon Road and Detention Basins
Implementation of improvements for Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 (College
Boulevard and Cannon Road) would impact a number of soil types different from those
affected by development of the Calavera Hills Master Plan area. Among these are
several soils suitable for agriculture, including one prime agricultural soil type affected
by College Boulevard, Salinas clay loam on 0 to 2 percent slopes (SbA), with a
Capability Class of I and a Stone Index of 81. Construction of College Boulevard and
Cannon Road would also impact one other soil type with a Capability Class of IV or
higher and a Storie Index of 40 or higher, Salinas clay loam (SbC) on 2 to 9 percent
slopes (SbC Capability Class II, Storie Index 73). Cannon Road, in Reach 4, would
affect a small area of Bonsall sandy loam (BlC2), marginally suitable for agriculture.
182
i
i
I
i
3. Environmental Analysis E. Agriculture
This area is currently not cultivated and would not be cultivated in the future, because,
pursuant to the mitigation measures below, agricultural uses are not allowed in the
Calavera Nature Preserve. Both College Boulevard and Cannon Road would affect a
number of soil types with a Capability Class of IV or above but a Storie Index below 40.
The routes of both these roads would also cross areas that are actively being cultivated.
As discussed in the previously approved Calavera Hills Master Plan Final EIR (1993), the
direct loss of prime agricultural soils due to the construction of College Boulevard and
Cannon Road would not constitute a significant impact because less than 3.5 acres of
prime soils would be affected and both are already approved General Plan circulation
element roadways. Planned extension would connect urbanized areas to the north and
west with urbanized areas to the east of El Camino Real and to the south. Both roadways
would cross fields being actively cultivated, potentially making access to active
agricultural areas more difficult. If the construction of the roads were to inhibit access to
these areas for cultivation, the impact would be significant.
Construction of the detention basins near the intersection of College Boulevard and
Cannon Road would affect a small area (less than two acres) of land that is currently
being used for agriculture. Three different soil types would be affected by construction
of the two basins. Among these are several soils suitable for agriculture, including one
prime agricultural soil type, Salinas clay loam on 0 to 2 percent slopes (SbA), with a
Capability Class of I and a Storie Index of 81. The other two soil types affected are
Huerhuero loam on 9% to 15% slopes (HrD), with a Capability Class of IV and a Storie
Index of 36, and Tujunga sand on 0% to 5% slopes (TUB), with a Capability Class of IV
and a Stone Index of 39.
The prime soils affected by construction of basins are not mapped by the County of San
Diego as being under a Williamson Act contract or other agricultural preserve (County of
San Diego Mapping Section, Agricultural Preserves, 1980). The General Plan land use
designation for the detention basin site is Low-Medium Residential indicating that future
development of the area is anticipated. Impacts would be reduced but not eliminated
because the detention basins would be constructed adjacent to the planned intersection of
the two circulation element roadways. Furthermore, the basins are required to provide
flood control facilities to reduce downstream flooding and sedimentation and to protect
public health and safety. As such, the basins are considered a compatible infrastructure
use. Nevertheless, construction of the proposed roadways and detention basins will
significantly affect important farmlands.
3) Mitigation
Both College Boulevard and Cannon Road are adopted General Plan circulation element
roadways. Previous environmental analysis conducted for the Final EIR for the Calavera
183
3. Environmental Analysis E. Agriculture
Hills Master Plan (1993) indicated that, prior to inclusion on the circulation element,
there was no possible rerouting of the Cannon Road and College Boulevard alignments
that would allow these roads to function as planned while at the same time avoiding
impacts to active agricultural areas or prime agricultural soils. The project roads are
required to connect already urbanized and developing areas east of El Camino Real with
urbanized areas to the west, south, and north. Given that earlier approvals acknowledged
that avoidance of a significant impact to prime agricultural soils is possible only with
selection of the No Project alternative, implementation would be expected to result in a
significant impact.
To reduce significant direct and indirect impacts to prime agricultural soils and ongoing
agricultural operations affected by construction of project segments of College Boulevard
and Cannon Road, the following mitigation shall be implemented:
As a condition for construction of proposed detention basins and project segments of
College Boulevard and Cannon Road described in the Calavera Hills Master Plan
Phase IT & Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 & Detention Basins, site access
shall be maintained or otherwise provided throughout construction and subsequent
operation of the roadways and basins to ensure continued access to all remaining
active agricultural areas. Such access shall be shown on the master tentative map
Final Map or Grading Plans, whichever occurs first. These plans are to be approved
and maintained by the City of Carlsbad within public rights-of-way, and by the
affected property owner where located on private lands.
4) Analysis of Significance
Development of the proposed villages of Calavera Hills would not directly affect large
contiguous areas of soils suitable for agriculture or areas where productive agriculture is
now being conducted. Since there are no active agricultural operations in the area of the
villages, their development would not restrict access to areas being used for productive
agriculture, or areas with the potential for productive agricultural use. Furthermore, even
where soils marginally suitable for agriculture are located, development of the Master
Plan that has already occurred limits the viability of agriculture by fragmenting large
contiguous areas available and also limits access.
Significant direct andor indirect impacts to prime agricultural soils and cultivated areas
from the construction of detention basins and the extension of College Boulevard and
Cannon Road project segments would be reduced to a less than significant level through
implementation of the mitigation measures that ensure continued access to agricultural
fields. Impacts are further reduced because proposed roadway improvements are
anticipated in the General Plan circulation element roads.
184 !
I
I
1
i
I
I
I
I I
I
1
I
1
i 1
I
j
;
i
; !
i
i
3. Environmental Analysis F. Public Facilities
F. Public Facilities
1) Existing Conditions
The City of Carlsbad adopted a Growth Management Ordinance in 1986 which directs
urban development within the city. This ordinance requires the establishment of Local
Facilities Management Zones. Local 'Facilities Management Plan (LFMP) Zone 7
encompasses the Calavera Hills Master Plan area, and is located in the northeast quadrant
of Carlsbad as shown in Figure 3F-1. It includes 819 acres of land, about 50 percent of
which is developed, and is located east and north of El Camino Real.
In 1994, the City developed a General Plan update, which provided an amendment to
land uses throughout the city. Very minor modifications were made to the open space
edges of a few Phase II villages within Zone 7 at that time. Figure 3F-2 reflects the
approved village boundaries and locates the villages planned for development within
Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II.
The following discussion evaluates the adequacy of nine citywide public facilities to
serve the proposed Calavera Hills Phase 11 development. The public service discussion
below pertain to the Calavera Hills Phase 11 Master Plan component of the project. The
issue of drainage associated with the roadway and detention basin components is
discussed in Chapter 3.J., Hydrology.
a) City Administrative Facilities
Figure 3F-3 shows the existing and planned citywide administrative facilities. They are
generally located along Carlsbad Village Drive, Faraday Avenue, and El Camino Real
near Palomar Airport Road. The approved Zone 7 LFMP provides that for every 1,000
population within the zone, 1,500 square feet of city administrative facilities must be
provided. Facility adequacy is based on population and population projections. The
approved 1989 Zone 7 LF'MP projected a total buildout Zone 7 population of 5,765
persons. The 1989 Zone 7 LFMP concluded that city administrative facilities would be
adequate and in conformance with the adopted performance standard through buildout of
the zone. Current facility construction is in conformance with the anticipated schedule.
b) Library Facilities
Three City of Carlsbad library facilities are shown on Figure 3F-4. They are the Civic
Center Library/Adult Learning Center located on Carlsbad Village Drive near
Interstate 5, the library warehouse on Palomar Airport Road, and the new south Carlsbad
library located on Alga Road. The approved 1989 Zone 7 LFMP requires that 800 square
185
RECON la - =
Source: Planning Systems 1999 FIGURE 3F-1
9NoScale Growth Management Zone 7
R-3225e
.- .-. . - ..
RECON
- - -
FIGURE 3F-2 Source: Planning Systems 1999
Growth Management Zone 7 Phase I1 Location Map /ENoScale
R-3225~
/-CIVIC CENTER
I
i ! I'
I
i CITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICES
0 CITY ADMINISTRATION
NOTE: ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
FIGURE 3F-3
City Administration Facilities
'1
i
!
I
i
!
,
!
,
I
I I
i I
I i
i
CIVIC CENTER LlBRARYlADULT LEARNING CENTER f
. i
0 LIBRARY LOCATION
.-
Source Plannmg Systems 8/00 FIGURE 3F-4
Library Facilities
3. Environmental Analysis F. Public Facilities
feet of library space be scheduled for construction within a five-year period for every
1,000 population within the zone.
c) Wastewater Treatment Capacity
A number of sewer options have been considered for the Calavera Hills planning area
since the development project was first approved. The original plan called for
construction of an on-site treatment plant, which was constructed to serve the entire
project. Although the on-site facility is still in place, the City elected not to utilize it, but
rather decided to treat all sewage generated by the project at the City’s Encina Water
Pollution Control Facility. In addition to serving the City, the Encina facility provides
treatment capacity to the Vista, Buena, Vallecitos, Encinitas, and Leucadia sewer and/or
wastewater districts.
The Zone 7 LFMP area is served by the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility. The
Phase IV expansion of the facility is now complete and results in 36 million gallons per
day (MGD) of wastewater treatment capacity. The City of Carlsbad’s share of this
capacity is now 9.24 MGD. The Zone 7 LFMP requires that adequate wastewater
treatment capacity be available for development for at least five years. The five-year
capacity is adequate to maintain service to existing and planned development as
approved.
d) Parks
The City of Carlsbad is divided into four park districts, consistent with the four City
quadrants, defined at the center by the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and El
Camino Real. The Zone 7 LFMP area is situated within the northeastern quadrant (north
of Palomar Road and east of El Camino Real), designated as Park District 2. Figure 3F-5
shows the existing and future community parks and the existing special use areas for Park
District 2. The projected park demand for Zone 7 throughout buildout of the zone is 9.84
acres in the year 2004 using a projected population of 3,282. A surplus supply of parks is
expected throughout anticipated buildout of the Zone (Planning Systems 1999).
e) Drainage
As noted in Chapter 4.J., Hydrology, Zone 7 is located within two watersheds, the Buena
Vista Creek watershed, which drains to the north, and the Agua Hedionda Creek
watershed, which drains to the south. Future development in Zone 7 is required to
construct necessary future storm drain facilities identified in the current Drainage Master
Plan dated March 1994 as determined by the City Engineer. Also, development that
drains south into Agua Hedionda Creek within Zone 7 must construct or otherwise avoid
increased impacts to existing undersized facilities adjacent to the Rancho Carlsbad
Mobile Home Park because downstream areas are subject to flooding due to inadequate
capacity in the existing system. Currently, projects are required to provide a proportional
i
I 190
-
LARWIN (FUTURE) ' CITY OF OCEANSOE
U A 0 0 €3 -
I
I
HOPE ELEMENTARY
VILLAGE 'S' SCHOOL
CALAVERA HILLS
PARK SITE ACQUISlTlOI- (POSSIBLE LOCATION)
QUADRANT BOUNDARY
SKATEBOARD PARK
VETERAN'S MEMORIAL REGIONAL PARK
Existing Community Park
Future Community Park
Existing Special Use Area
Future Special Use Area
Future Regional Park
I NOTE: ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
~ Source: Planning Systems 1999 A FIGURE 3F-5
Community Parks and Special Use Areas - I . NO SCALE
R-3225E
i
3. Environmental Analysis F. Public Facilities
share of the construction cost of the drainage retention basin (Basin “BJB”) located at the
northeast quadrant on the future College Boulevard/Cannon Road intersection unless an
alternative basin, or series of basins is approved by the City Engineer. In addition,
projects are required to construct facilities on-site or downstream of the project to
mitigate project impacts and/or to reduce or eliminate flooding of downstream properties.
f) Fire Facilities
The City of Carlsbad has established a fire performance standard that no more than 1,500
city dwelling units shall be located outside a five-minute response time. Figure 3F-6
shows the location of existing Fire Stations Nos. 3 and 5 in the city and the number of
existing and currently under construction dwelling units in Zone 7 and Zone 8 that are
located outside a five-minute response time. As part of the City’s approved CIP, it is the I
City’s plan to relocate existing Fire Station No. 3 into Zone 7 at the southwest comer of
Carlsbad Village Drive and Glasgow Road to reduce the number of dwelling units that
are outside the five-minute response time.
g) School Facilities
The Zone 7 LFMP is entirely within the Carlsbad Unified School District (CUSD). The
City’s General Plan identifies the approximate location for future school sites in order to
meet projected growth. This process involves responses from the school district
confirming the exact site locations at the time of development.
The Calavera Hills Master Plan identifies Wage S as a future CUSD K-8 school.
Acquisition of the site was completed by CUSD in April 1999. In addition, a 57-acre
future high school site in Zone 15 is presently owned by CUSD. Also a “floating” future
elementary school site is designated within Zone 14. Figure 3F-7 shows the locations of
these school facilities.
The current student generation rates for the CUSD are as follows:
Elementary (K-5) 0.23 student per household
\ Middle School (6-8) 0.10 student per household
High School C9-12) 0.15 student per household
S
h) Sewer Collection Facilities
The City of Carlsbad requires that trunk-line sewer capacity must meet demand as I
determined by the appropriate sewer district. Zone 7 is located within the City of
Carlsbad sewer service area. Figure 3F-8 shows the various segments of three existing
major sewer interceptors that serve the area: (1) the VisWCarlsbad Interceptor (VC),
I
I 192
.
RECON pq - - -
FIRE STATION #3 \ -
FIGURE 3F-6 Source: Planning Systems 1999
Existing Fire Response Time and Fire Station Locations 9NoScale
R-322Se
126 Dwelling Units Outside of Five Minute Response Time in Zone 7
375 Dwelling Units Under Construction
EXISTING FIRE STATION
BOUNDARY OF FIVE MINUTE RESPONSE TIME FOR F.S. #3
BOUNDARY OF FIVE MINUTE RESPONSE TIME FOR F.S. #5
596 Dwelling Unks Outside of
NOTE: ALL LOCATIONSARE APPROXMAIE
RECON Source: Planning Systems, 1999
9 No Scale
FIGURE 3F-7
Existing and Future Schools
R-32250
1
RECON
- - -I
VILLAS LIFT STAT1
FOXES LANDING LUT STATION
LEGEND - EXISTING SEWER FACILITIES
LIFTSTATION
NOTE: ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
Source: Planning Systems 8/00 FIGURE 3F-8
Existing Sewer Interceptor Lines /EN0 SCALE
5
I
3. Environmental Analysis F. Public Facilities
which serves the northern section of Zone 7; (2) North Agua Hedionda Interceptor
("I), which travels from the future intersection of El Camino Real and Cannon Road;
and (3) the South Agua Hedionda Trunk Interceptor (SAHT2), which travels southerly
through Zone 14 along the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park to El Camino Real. The
South Agua Hedionda Trunk Interceptor east of El Camino Real (SAHT1) is planned to
convey flows along the south shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon to a lift station located on
Kelly Ranch Village F and on to the Encina facility. Assuming necessary funding is
identified for construction of the lift station, the earliest anticipated completion date has
been pushed back from the previously anticipated date in late 2000 to mid- to late 2002
(Klaahsen 2000).
i) Water Distribution System
Water distribution facilities to Zone 7 are provided by Carlsbad Municipal Water District.
The adopted performance standard requires that line capacity be available concurrent
with development to meet demand as determined by the appropriate water district. A
minimum ten day average storage capacity must be provided by the CMWD prior to
development.
Impacts
The proposed project would amend the City of Carlsbad General Plan and the Calavera
Hills Master Plan, as well as the Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan for the Master
Plan approved in 1989. These amendments would change some land uses, reflect a slight
modification in the per household population generation rate used in 1989, and recognize
the delay in buildout of the zone (originally projected in year 2000). A reduction in
facility demand in adjacent Zone 14, due to the elimination of residential land use from
the Calavera Nature Preserve, would be expected to result although no formal
amendment of this LFMP document is proposed at this time. Each of these factors affects
€he results of the facility adequacy analysis performed in 1989. The following discussion
summarizes the reanalysis necessary for public infrastructure/services development
associated with the proposed Calavera Hills Phase 11 Master Plan project.
a) City Administrative Facilities
The 1989 Zone 7 LFMP projected a total buildout population of 5,765 persons. The
proposed project reports a total of 5,562e;ee4 persons or 2032% persons than
the 1989 analysis. The impact of decreasing -buildout population by 203239
affect the results of the persons from the development of Phase 11 does not qydka4y
previous analysis which concluded that city administrative facilities would be adequate
. and in conformance with the adopted performance standard through buildout of the zone.
..
I
196
i
I
3. Environmental Analysis F. Public Facilities
I
i
i
With the 1991 formation of the City of Carlsbad Community Facilities District (0)
No. 1, funding for all future city administrative facilities is guaranteed to buildout of the
city. Zone 7 property owners are participants in this CFD program. Significant impacts
to City administrative facilities would not occur.
b) Library Facilities
The approved 1989 Zone 7 LFMP requires that 800 square feet of library space be
scheduled for construction with a five-year period for every 1,000 population within the
Zone. Implementation of the proposed project would significantly contribute to the
impact to library facilities.
c) Wastewater Treatment Capacity
The Zone 7 LFMP requires that adequate wastewater treatment capacity be available for
development for at least five years. In addition, all private development within Zone 7 is
required to pay Carlsbad Municipal Sewer fees prior to the issuance of building permits.
The revised Zone 7 buildout projections and phasing for the proposed project results in
both a short-term and long-term decrease in demand for wastewater treatment capacity
within Zone 7 as compared to that anticipated for the adopted 1989 LFMP. The City has
determined that the decrease in demand for the Zone 7 LFMP and proposed Phase II
project as compared to the approved plan would not result in a significant impact to
wastewater treatment capacity and facilities. Impacts would be less than significant
because facility capacity would be available to meet the existing and planned future
development needs through buildout of Zone 7.
d) Parks
Zone 7 has been determined to have a surplus supply of parks throughout anticipated
buildout of the Zone (Planning Systems 1999) based on current City policy which
recognizes future Larwin Park as funded within the next five years. As a result, at
buildout the additional population associated with the proposed project would have a less
than significant impact on parks. In the event the City modifies their policy in the future
regarding Larwin Park or eliminates its funding and provides no replacement park
activity areas within Park District 2, this could become a significant impact due to its
inconsistency with the Growth Management Plan. The projected park demand for
maximum development of the balance (Phase n> of Zone 7 is 5.43 acres, utilizing a
projected Phase II population of 1,810 persons. A yearly finding of park supply
adequacy (allowance is made for budgeted park facilities not exceeding five years in the
future) must be made by the City of Carlsbad or building permits will not be issued until
the shortfall is satisfied. As park facilities are presently budgeted for within the next five
years in the City of Carlsbad Capital Improvement Program (CP), a surplus of parks is
expected throughout anticipated buildout of the Zone (Planning Systems 2000).
197
3. Environmental Analysis
)
F. Public Facilities
I
I
Significant impacts to park adequacy will result if the City determines that the Growth
Management performance standards for parks facilities is not being met throughout
development phasing of the project.
e) Drainage . I I
Figures 2-1 and 3B-15 show the location and configuration of large-scale detention basin
improvements that would be constructed to retain storm water runoff in conjunction with
anticipated Zone 7 Phase II development (Basins “BJB” and “BJ”). Implementation as
designed would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. These basins are
discussed in detail in Chapter 3.J., Hydrology. ,
f) FireFacilities
As demonstrated in Table 3F-1, at no time during the period from 2000 to 2002, when
Fire Station No. 3 is planned for relocation to Zone 7, will more than 1,500 dwelling
units be located outside the five-minute response time as established by the Fire Facilities
Performance Standard.
TABLE 3F-1
FUTURE DWELLING UNITS BEYOND 5-MINuTE RESPONSE
Additional Zone 7 Additional Zone 8 Total DU Year DU DU Cumulative
Existing 126
1999 35
2000 120
2001 114
2002” 0
1
0
160
148
0
127
162
442
704
309
DU = dwelling units
*Fire Station No. 3 to be relocated to Zone 7 location in 2001. As a result,
only Zone 8 units (309 total) will be located beyond the five-minute response
time.
Even if relocation of Fire Station No. 3 is delayed, implementation of the proposed
project would have a less than significant impact on accomplishing the City’s Fire
Facilities Performance Standard because the number of total dwelling units outside the
five-minute response time boundary would still not exceed the threshold standard of
1,500 dwelling units.
198 i
j
I
3. Environmental Analysis F. Public Facilities
g) School Facilities
Based on the student generation rates used by CUSD, the proposed project will generate
the following numbers of students at buildout:
Elementary (K-5) 1,327 x 0.23 = 305 students
Middle School (6-8) 1,327 x 0.10 = 133 students
\
High School (9-12) 1,327 x 0.15 = 200 students
Additionally, the Calavera Hills Master Plan, Phase II developer has sold Village S to the
CUSD for a proposed K-8 school, which will allow the school district to build the
facilities necessary to ensure satisfaction of the performance standard. The school district
has agreed to provide a will-serve letter that indicates the district's agreement that it can
adequately house and serve the projected growth for all remaining Zone 7 residential
development (Planning Systems 1999). An elementary and high school are proposed in
Zone 14 which would serve the populations associated with the project as well.
Consequently, no significant school impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is
necessary for Phase 11 development to proceed.
h) Sewer Collection Facilities
Following is a discussion of the three existing major sewer interceptors that will serve
Phase II development (Figures 3F-9 to 3F-11):
VistdCarlsbad Interceptor (Zone 7A)
It is anticipated that all future Zone 7 Phase 11 development will utilize the NAHYSAHTI
trunk system, and that no additional sewage is projected to be directed toward the
VistdCarlsbad Interceptor Line from VC13 or below. Both the NAHI and SAHTI
connect to the Vista Carlsbad interceptor in the southernmost portion of the system at
VCll andVC14.
North Agua Hedionda Interceptor
Sufficient capacity exists within the existing NAHI Line that Zone 7B Phase II
development will be accommodated. The Carlsbad Municipal Water District will monitor
the actual flow within the NAHI Line to ensure that capacity continues to exist as
development occurs.
The draft Year 2000 study conducted by the CMWD for the NAHI sewer line evaluated
the theoretical'maximum flow rate that can be accommodated with the existing NAHI
line and the Foxes Landing Lift Station. This rate is estimated at 4.32 MGD. The
199
1
5
- EXISTING SEWER FACILITIES
WW~W~ BUILDOUT FACILITIES
LIFTSTATION
NOTE: ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
Source: Planning Systems 8/00 9 NO SCALE
FIGURE 3F-9
Build-out Sewer Facilities for Zone 7A
i
I
\--
\----- --I----
II LEGEND
5
- EXISTING SEWER FACILITIES
111*11191111 BUILDOUT FACILITIES
LIFTSTATION
NOTE: AU LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
Source: Planning Systems 8/00 RECON FIGURE 3F-10
Build-out Sewer Facilities for Zone 7B
1
RECON
- -
5
Source: Planning Systems 8/00 FIGURE 3F-11
*NO SCALE Build-out Sewer Facilities for Zone 7C
R-3WE
- EXISTING SEWER FACILITIES
111(1@@11111 BUILDOUT FACILITIES
0 LIFTSTATION
NOTE: ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
I
i
3. Environmental Analysis F. Public Facilities
CMWD then compared that estimate to the peak existing flow when combined with flows
from all additional commitments that may affect the sewer pipeline and the lift station
capacity. Existing development currently generates flows of approximately 0.74 MGD.
This when considered together with an additional 3.59 MGD that has been committed for
additional development projects (estimated existing and future commitments) would be
roughly equivalent to the projected capacity needs, exceeding the current line and lift
station capacity by approximately 20 equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) or 0.01 MGD.
With implementation of planned improvements to the South Agua Hedionda Sewer
Trunk Line, excess capacity in the NAHI line would provide an estimated 1,329
additional EDUs or 0.73 MGD flow capacity more than the minimum amount required to
serve existing and future commitments (CMWD 2000).
South Agua Hedionda Sewer Trunk Line
As noted previously, the earliest this trunk line is expected to come on-line is mid to late
2002. When completed, the line will accept all Zone 7C flow, which includes the vast
majority of Phase II. Phase 11 development occupancies may occur prior to installation of
this line. This is considered a significant impact requiring mitigation. In the event that
development occupancies occur and no permanent or acceptable temporary solution is
proposed to resolve the downstream regional SAHl sewer issue, the City or a developer
will be required to install this line, or an otherwise acceptable temporary solution as a
condition of development.
The SAHT2B and SAHT2C lines will provide ultimate service to Zone 7C. The portion
of this line east of El Camino Real was completed and operational in 1999.
The portion of the SAHTI Line between El Camino Real and Interstate 5 and a schedule
for installation has not been established. As a result, it is the City's plan to provide sewer
service to existing Calavera Hills Villages Q and T (occupancies began in 1999) via the
NAHI Line west of El Camino Real. With the possible exception of Kelly Ranch Village
E (144 SFD) Calavera Hills Villages Q and T are ahead of other potential users for the
available EDUs within the existing NAHI line.
South Agua Hedionda Lift Station. The City is currently proceeding with design and
construction plans that will result in the completion of the South Agua Hedionda Lift
Station and force main prior to the need to serve the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II
project (see Figure 3F-11). The permanent lift station may or may not be completed prior
to the need to serve the proposed Phase 11 project.
i) Water Distribution System
No distribution line changes to the water facility analysis and conclusions of the 1989
Zone 7 LFMP will be necessary as a result of the proposed land use redistribution in the
I
203
I
3. EnvironmentaI Analysis . F. PublicFacilities
i proposed project. The adopted Zone 7 LFMP indicates that, with mitigation, water
facilities would meet the adopted performance standard through buildout of the zone.
3) Mitigation
a) City Administrative Facilities
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay public facilities fees
which constitutes the required financial guarantee and Zone 7 mitigation for city
administrative facilities.
b) Library Facilities
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay public facilities fees
which constitutes the required financial guarantee and Zone 7 mitigation for library
facilities.
c) Wastewater Treatment Capacity
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay Carlsbad Municipal
Sewer fees. No additional mitigation is required.
d) Parks
Based on current City policy, sufficient parkland is available and funded to meet the
adopted performance standard for park requirements in Park District 2, and thus no
mitigation is required. The City of Carlsbad Public Works/Parks and Recreation city staff
shall demonstrate annually that the project complies with Growth Management Plan for
park facilities in this park district. In the event City policy changes, or public funding for
proposed parkland is withdrawn or redirected to the degree that the performance standard
of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 population is no longer attained, then the developer shall
provide sufficient funding for parkland to allow the proposed development to proceed
prior to the issuance of building permits. This measure would mitigate the potential
impact below a level of significance.
e) Drainage
I
Table 3F-2 shows the on-site drainage improvements that will be implemented in
conjunction with anticipated Zone 7 Phase II development. In addition to on-site
improvements and off-site improvements included as part of the Rancho Carlsbad
Channel and Basin Project (discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3.J., Hydrology), such
as construction of Basins “BJBIBJ,” dredging and other improvements to the Calavera
Creek channel along the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park to mitigate flooding of the
204
TABLE 3F-2
PHASE 11 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
Estimated Cost Storm Drain Line Location Villages Served Funding
College Boulevard South Within College Blvd., exits pollution control basin at U, W, X, & Y BTDM $330,000
Trunk Storm Drain southerly Calavera Hills property line, south on
College Blvd. to Basin BJB
College Boulevard North From Village U to College Blvd., south within U BTD #4 $205,000
Trunk Storm Drain College Blvd., exiting into pollution control basin in
southeast corner Village W.
Village K Desiltation Basin Drains Village K, exits into Village Q storm drain K Developer $25,000
system at College Blvd.
SDG&E Outlet Storm Drain From Village Y, across SDG&E easement, through X&Y Developer $230,000
Village X. Includes pollution control basin on
Village X.
NOTE: All other required storm drain facilities are on-site, internal drainage improvements, which serve the individual villages only.
3. Environmental Analysis F. Public Facilities
downstream properties), the following additional off-site improvements are required to
reduce or avoid the potential for flooding of downstream properties:
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall ensure that
construction of first phase improvements for the future Basin “BJB” are adequate to
mitigate the flows from the Calavera Hills development such that there is no increase
to drainage flow discharged into the Calavera Creek north and adjacent to the Rancho
Carlsbad Mobile Home Park.
As a condition for approval of the master tentative map’s Final Map and/or Grading
Plan, whichever occurs first, the project proponent shall show proof of payment or
credit of the existing Local Drainage Area Fee program and participation in the
financing of the expanded Master Drainage Plan improvements required to mitigate
existing flooding problems within the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park
downstream of the Calavera Hills Master Plan development.
Implementation of these measures would mitigate the impacts to below a level of
significance.
f) Fire Facilities
No mitigation is necessary. If at some time in the future, the City of Carlsbad determines
that the Fire Service performance standard is no longer being met due to the fact that the
fire station has not been relocated to the comer of Carlsbad Village Drive and Glasgow
Drive as shown in the approved CIP, the City must adopt measures to ensure the adequate I
fire protection can be provided. If such measures are not adopted, then development
within the fire district would be restricted or halted.
g) School Facilities
No mitigation is necessary.
h) Sewer Collection Facilities
On-site sewage collection trunk line requirements for future Phase II development are
shown on Table 3F-3. In addition, subject to approval by the City Engineer, significant
direct and indirect long-term impacts to sewer collection facilities shall be reduced to
below a level of significance through implementation of the following measure:
The proposed development project shall participate in the existing and proposed
revised fee program for financing the South Agua Hedionda System. If the South
Agua Hedionda is not completed prior to the project’s need for capacity, the project
shall implement one of the following alternatives:
i
206
I
TABLE 3F-3 PHASE I1 SEWER COLLECTION IMPROVEMENTS (Trunk Sewer Improvements)
Sewer Line Location
Villages Estimated
Served Funding costs
College Blvd. Within College Blvd. Right-of- U, W, X, & Y developer or sewer $150,000 south trunk sewer way, from southerly Calavera benefit area
line Hills property line to the South
Agua Hedionda (SAH) Line.
College Blvd. From Village U, down College U developer or sewer $120,000
north trunk sewer
line College Blvd. South Line.
benefit area Blvd. Southerly to meet the
Village X sewer From Village Y, through Village X Developer $175,000
line X, to tie into College Blvd.
NOTE: All other required sewer collection facilities are on-site, internal sewer lines, which serve the
individual villages only.
3. Environmental Analysis F. Public Facilities
a. Divert flows to the North Agua Hedionda Interceptor as all flows are currently
diverted.
I
b. If the North Agua Hedionda Interceptor is full, one of the following will be
required:
I
1
Construct improvements on the North Agua Hedionda line to increase the
capacity. This could require construction of a storage reservoir to regulate
flows;
!
0 Construct an interim South Agua Hedionda Lift Station to meet the needs of
the proposed project;
I
0 Construct an interim lift station to pump into the Buena Vista Drainage Basin
with all required conveyance facilities to be constructed in road rights-of-way;
or
e Construct an interim lift station to pump flows into the Encinas Creek Basin.
All new conveyance facilities can be constructed in road rights-of-way.
i) Water Distribution System
The construction of regional water facilities will be funded by CMWD. Contribution to
these facilities is made through developer payment of water fees. On-site water
distribution improvements to deliver water to the new residences shall be in place prior to
occupancy. Table 3F-4 lists the proposed on-site improvements to the water distribution
system.
4) Analysis of Signi@cance
. With implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures, all project impacts
would be reduced below a level of significance.
a) City Administrative Facilities
With the 1991 formation of the City of Carlsbad Community Facilities District (CFD)
No. 1, funding for all future City Administrative Facilities is guaranteed to buildout of the
City. Zone 7 property owners are participants in this CFD program. This participation in
conjunction with payment of public facilities fees with building permits, constitutes the
required financial guarantee and Zone 7 mitigation for City Administrative Facilities.
~ 208
TABLE 3F-4 PHASE I1 WATER DISTRIBUTION IMPROVEMENTS (Trunk Water Improvements)
Villages Estimated
Water Line Location Served Funding Costs
12-inch-high pressure line Within College Blvd. (middle). U&Y Developer $85,000
(HG 580)
16-inch low pressure line Within College Blvd. (south end) W&X Developer $400,000
(HG 446)
Stubs to Village U and Y.
Villages W and X
NOTE: All other required water facilities are on-site, internal water lines, which serve the individual
villages only.
3. Environmental Analysis F. Public Facilities
I b) Library Facilities
Payment of the public facilities fees constitutes the required financial guarantee and
Zone 7 mitigation for library Facilities.
c) Wastewater Treatment Capacity
The City has concluded that the wastewater treatment performance standard has been met
and no mitigation is required other than the standard payment of municipal sewer fees.
d) Parks
Zone 7 will have a surplus of parks supply throughout the buildout of the zone (Planning
Systems 1999).
e) Drainage
The proposed drainage improvements are consistent with the City of Carlsbad Drainage
and Storm Water Quality Management Plan (1994) and reduce all potential impacts to an
insignificant level.
f) Fire Facilities
At no time during the development of Phase II will the Fire Facilities Performance
Standards of 1,500 dwelling units beyond the five-minute response time be exceeded.
g) School Facilities
No specific mitigation or special conditions are necessary since the Phase II developer
has sold Village S to the School District, which will allow the school district to build the
facilities necessary to ensure satisfaction of the performance standard. Additionally,
CUSD has agreed to provide a will-serve letter for all remaining Zone 7 residential
development.
h) Sewer Collection Facilities
With the proposed sewer collection system improvements, trunk-line capacity to meet
demand as determined by the City of Carlsbad will be achieved.
i) Water Distribution System
With the proposed water distribution system improvements, line capacity to meet demand
as determined by the Carlsbad Water District will be achieved.
210 I
i
3. Environmental Analysis G. Biological Resources
G. Biological Resources
!
I
i
The following discussion is based on various biological resources surveys and a wetlands
delineation conducted by RECON biologists during 1999-2000, as well as surveys
conducted in 1991. The wetland delineation, biological technical report, and the 1993
agreement creating the Calavera Nature Preserve (Village Z) are included as
Appendices E, F, and G, respectively.
A general biological resources survey was conducted on November 22 and December 13,
1999, and January 5, 12, 17 and 19,2000, by RECON biologists. Vegetation communities
were assessed and mapped for the three project components. The study area for the
Bridge and Thoroughfare District component includes a 500-foot corridor surrounding
the various alignment alternatives. The project components are not geographically
exclusive and overlap where the College Boulevard alignment falls within the Master
Plan boundary. Animal species observed directly or detected from calls, tracks, scat,
nests, or other signs were noted. All plant species observed on-site were also noted, and
plants that could not be identified in the field were identified later using taxonomic keys.
The wildlife surveys include focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatchers
conducted by RECON biologists (permit numbers TE-839084-2 and TE-811615)
according to the USFWS California gnatcatcher survey guidelines (USFWS 1997a).
Focused surveys for the southwestern willow flycatcher were conducted by a RECON
biologist (TE-811615) on May 22, June 13, and June 23, 2000. Surveys were conducted
according to the accepted survey protocol (Sogge et al. 1997), which requires at least one
survey between May 15 and 31, one survey between June 1 and 21, and one survey
between June 22 and July 10.
Focused surveys for least Bell’s vireo were conducted on April 27; May 11 and 22;
June 4, 13, and 23; and July 5 and 14, 2000. Survey guidelines for these species require
eight surveys, at least 10 days apart between April 1 and July 31 (USFWS 1999).
A wetland delineation was performed by RECON according to the guidelines set forth by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE 1987) on December 13, 1999, and January 5,
17 and 19,2000 (see Appendix E). A wetland delineation is used to identify and map the
extent of the wetlands and “waters of the U.S.” found within the proposed project
boundary and provide information regarding both state and federal jurisdictional issues.
Limitations to the compilation of a comprehensive floral checklist were imposed by
seasonal factors, such as blooming period and emergence of some early spring annual
species. Faunal species that are only present during the breeding season of late spring to
21 1
3. Environmental Analysis G. Biological Resources
i I
summer were not detected. Since surveys were performed during the day, nocturnal
animals were detected by sign.
Nomenclature for common plants follows Hickman (1993). Plant community
classifications follow the Habitat Management Plan for the Natural Communities in the
City of Carlsbad (City of Carlsbad, 1999). Zoological nomenclature is in accordance with
the American Ornithologists’ Union Checklist (1998) for birds; Jones et al. for mammals
(1982); and Collins (1997) for amphibians and reptiles. Assessments of the sensitivity of
species and habitats are based primarily on Skinner and Pavlik (1994), State of California
(1999a, 1999b, 1999c, ZOOO), City of Carlsbad (1999), and Holland (1986).
I
i
i
1) Existing Conditions
i
There are 412.6 acres within the Master Plan Phase II project component and a total of
421.2 acres within the Bridge and Thoroughfare District and detention basin areas. The
existing acreage for the roadways reflects a survey area that includes a corridor extending
up to 500 feet on either side of the area impacted by the alignments. These project
components are not geographically exclusive, with overlap where the College Boulevard
alignment falls within the Master Plan boundary.
a) Botany
Eleven plant communities were identified within the survey area: Diegan coastal sage
scrub, southern mixed and chamise chaparral, non-native grassland, riparian woodland,
eucalyptus woodland, native grassland, riparian scrub, riparian forest, cismontane alkali
marsh, cismontane alkali marsh (seasonal), and freshwater marsh. The rest of the site is
agricultural, developed, or disturbed. These plant communities are discussed in greater
detail within the biological technical report provided in Appendix F. A total of 116 plant
species were identified on the site. Of this total, 70 (60 percent) are species native to
southern California and 46 (40 percent) are introduced species. A complete list of plants
identified on-site is included in Appendix F. Table 3G-1 presents the acreages of each
community within the project components. Figure 3G-1 illustrates the locations of the
plant communities within the Master Plan Phase II area and Figure 3G-2 illustrates the
vegetation within the Bridge and Thoroughfare District and detention basin areas.
zoology
Overall, the project area and vicinity provide high value habitat for wildlife species.
Much of the site contains moderate to high quality coastal sage and chaparral habitat
which provide suitable habitat for a variety of native wildlife species. A complete list of
the wildlife species detected is provided in the biological technical report provided in
Appendix F. Sensitive species potentially occurring on-site are discussed in the Sensitive
Biological Resources section.
I
212 ~
I
I
TABLE 3G1
VEGETATION COMMUNITIES WI" THE PROJECT COMPONENTS
Bridge and Thoroughfare District and
Detention Basins* Master Plan Phase II Vegetation Type
Diegan coastal sage scrub 250.3 137.3
Southern mixed and chamise chaparral
Non-native grassland
Riparian woodland
Eucalyptus woodland
Native grassland
Riparian scrub
Riparian forest
Cismontane alkali marsh
Cismontane alkali marsh (seasonal)
Freshwater marsh
Agricultural
Developed
Disturbed
66.6
20.2
0.2
9.9
9.3
7.2
0.1
0.5
25.8
22.5
24.8
16.3
15.1
5 .O
3.3
2.0
1 .o
0.5
0.2
133.6
54.1
28.0
TOTAL 412.6 421.2
Wetland habitat 8.0 22.2
Non-wetland jurisdictional waters 1.2 0.4
TOTAL 9.2 22.6
*The acreages for the Bridge and Thoroughfare District and detention basins reflect the existing conditions
present within a study area that includes a 5c)o-foot survey area beyond the perimeter of the proposed
grading for the road alignment alternatives. The area surveyed also includes some overlap between the
Master Plan Phase II, the Bridge and Thoroughfare District, and the Detention Basins in the numbers
above.
i
3. Environmental Analysis G. Biological Resources
i Amphibians
No amphibians were visually observed on-site; although Pacific treefrogs (Hyla regilla)
were heard within the drainages and wetlands throughout the properties.
!
Reptiles
No reptiles were observed on-site during the current surveys. A number of species have
been identified previously on the site including San Diego gopher snake (Pituophis
melanoleucus unnectens, see Appendix F for additional classification), San Diego homed
lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillii), western fence lizard (Sceloporus
occidentulis), side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiunu), and Belding’s orangethroat
whiptail (Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi) (RECON 1991; SEB 1995).
The diversity of bird species varies with respect to the character, quality, and diversity of
vegetation communities. Due to the variety of habitats present on the property, the bird
diversity is fairly high on-site. Raptors observed on-site include red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamuicensis), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus hudsonius), turkey vulture (Cathartes
aura), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), American kestrel (Falco spawerius), and
Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii). Nesting habitat is present on-site in riparian habitat
and eucalyptus woodland. Other birds commonly observed on-site within particular
habitats are listed below.
Diegan coastal sage scrub:
Bewick‘s wren (Thyromanes bewickii), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus
minimus), yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), wrentit (Chamaea
fasciuta), Anna’s hummingbird (Culypte anna), California towhee (Pipilo
crissalis), spotted towhee (P. muculutus), and California quail (Callipepla
califomica) ;
Riparian habitats:
Lesser goldfinch (Carduelis tristis salicumans) and Nuttall’s woodpecker
(Dendrocopos nuttallii);
Native and non-native grasslands:
Mourning dove (Zenuidu macroura marginella), kingbird (Tyrannus sp.),
house finch (Carpodacus mexicunus frontalis), and western meadowlark
(Stumella neglecta).
3. Environmental Analysis G. Biological Resources
Mammals
Cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus uudubonii), southern pocket gopher (Thornornys urnbrinus),
woodrat (Neotornu sp.), and coyote (Canis latrans) were observed either directly or
through sign. San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) was also observed
during previous surveys (RECON 1991; SEB 1995).
2) Sensitive Biological Resources
State and federal agencies regulate sensitive species and require an assessment of their
presence or potential presence to be conducted on-site prior to the approval of any
proposed development on a property. For the purposes of this report, species will be
considered sensitive if they are:
(1) listed or proposed for listing by state or federal agencies as threatened or endangered;
(2) on List 1B (considered endangered throughout its range) or List 2 (considered
endangered in California but more common elsewhere) of the California Native Plant
Society’s (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California
(Skinner and Pavlik 1994);
(3) included on the Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP) or Multiple Habitat
Conservation Program (MHCP) list of species evaluated for coverage or list of narrow
endemic plant species; or
(4) considered fully protected, sensitive, rare, endangered, or threatened by the State of
California (1999a, 1999b, 1999c) and Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB) (State of
California 2000) or other local conservation organizations or specialists. California
fully protected is a designation adopted by the State of California prior to the creation
of the State Endangered Species Act and is intended as protection from harm or
harassment.
Noteworthy plant species are considered to be those which are on List 3 (more
information about the plant’s distribution and rarity needed) and List 4 (plants of limited
distribution) of the CNPS Inventory. Sensitive habitat types are those identified by
Holland (1986), NDDB (State of California 2000), and/or those considered sensitive by
other resource agencies.
The MHCP is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plan currently
being drafted for northwestern San Diego County (SANDAG 1998). In addition to the
City of Carlsbad, participating jurisdictions include the cities of Oceanside, Vista, San
Marcos, Escondido, Encinitas, and Solana Beach. The City of Carlsbad has drafted the
Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad, a
217 I
3. Environmental Analvsis G. Bioloeical Resources
I I
subarea plan of the MHCP (City of Carlsbad 1999). The City’s Draft HMP designates a
natural habitat preserve system and provides a regulatory framework for determining
impacts and designating mitigation associated with proposed projects. In the event the
Draft HMP is not formally approved and adopted, all projects would be required to obtain
applicable permits for impacts to listed species as per Section 10(a) or Section 7 of the
federal Endangered Species Act.
The multi-jurisdictional MHCP draft document identifies a series of focused planning
areas within which some lands will be dedicated for preservation of native habitats. These
areas contain both “hard line” areas which will be preserved as open space and “soft line”
areas which will include both development and open space to be determined through the
planning process. Mitigation requirements for impacts to the biological resources are
based on ratios provided by the Draft HMP (City of Carlsbad 1999). If this plan is not
formally adopted, these mitigation requirements lie., fee payment) for disturbed land and
eucalmtus may not be required by the City.-
Determination of the potential presence of listed, sensitive, or noteworthy species are
based upon known ranges and habitat preferences for the species (Zeiner et al. 1988a,
1988b, 1990; Skinner and Pavlik 1994; Reiser 1994); species records from the NDDB;
and species records from other sites in the vicinity of the project site.
a) Sensitive Plant Communities
The following plant communities identified on-site are considered sensitive by the City of
Carlsbad (1999), NDDB (State of California 2000), Holland (1986) and/or state and
federal resource agencies: Diegan coastal sage scrub, native grassland, riparian woodland,
riparian scrub, riparian forest, cismontane alkali marsh, cismontane alkali marsh
(seasonal), and freshwater marsh.
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
Diegan coastal sage scrub is restricted to the coastal areas of southern California and
northern Baja California. Development and other human-related activities have seriously
affected this plant community and its associated plant and wildlife species. It is estimated
that 70-90 percent of the presettlement southern California coastal sage scrub has been
destroyed, with the losses accelerating rapidly within the last decade (NOSS et al. 1995;
Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995). Diegan coastal sage scrub is considered sensitive by
federal and state resource agencies, most southern California jurisdictions, and local
conservation organizations. The City of Carlsbad considers sage scrub a sensitive plant
community. This plant community is considered to be occupied by the coastal California
gnatcatcher because biological studies conducted in 1992, 1995, and 1999 have noted the
presence of this species within the Master Plan Phase II, Calavera Nature Preserve, and
Bridge and Thoroughfare District survey areas (RECON 1999; SEB 1995).
218
3. Environmental Analvsis G. Biological Resources
Native Grassland
Native grasslands are considered sensitive because of the extensive loss of this
community throughout the state. Native grasslands are listed as sensitive by the City of
Carlsbad and NDDB and it is estimated that only 0.1 percent of the native grasslands in
California remain (Keeley 1990). The loss of native grasslands is attributed to
development, agriculture, grazing, and invasion by non-native, annual grasses and other
non-native plant species. The invasion of native grasslands by non-native species
including brome grasses (Brornus spp.), wild oats, and mustards has degraded native
grasslands to the extent that it is rare to find any that have not been invaded by these
species. Grasslands that have at least 10 percent cover by native grasses such as purple
needlegrass are classified here as native grasslands.
Riparian Woodland, Scrub, and Forest
All riparian communities are considered sensitive by the City of Carlsbad and are
regulated as sensitive wetland communities by California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). These plant communities are
found along rivers, streams, and intermittent drainages throughout southern California.
Channelization of rivers, streams, and drainages for flood control and land development
has resulted in cumulative losses of these habitat types throughout the state. The loss of
riparian communities in southern California has been estimated at greater than 95 percent
(Faber et al. 1989). Riparian scrub in particular potentially supports several endangered
and otherwise sensitive wildlife species.
Cismontane Alkali Marsh and Cismontane Alkali Marsh (seasonal)
Cismontane alkali marshes are typically low-lying areas with a high water table that have
alkaline soils. Evaporation of ponded water often results in salts remaining on the surface.
This plant community is identified as sensitive by the City of Carlsbad (1999), Holland
(1986), and NDDB (State of California 2000), and is considered a sensitive wetland
community by USACE and CDFG. Wetland communities have been greatly reduced
throughout their entire range and continue to decline as a result of urbanization. State and
federal resource agencies consider wetland communities sensitive plant communities.
Freshwater Marsh
Freshwater marsh vegetation occurs in open bodies of fresh water with little current flow,
such as ponds, and to a lesser extent around seeps and springs. This plant community is
identified as sensitive by the City of Carlsbad (1999), Holland (1986), and NDDB (State
of California 2000), and is considered sensitive as a wetland community by USACE and
CDFG. Like Cismontane alkali marshes, freshwater marsh communities have been
greatly reduced throughout their entire range and continue to decline as a result of
urbanization. These communities are also considered sensitive by state and federal
resource agencies.
219
i
I
3. Environmental Analysis G. Biological Resources
I
i
!
I
b) Sensitive Plants
Seven sensitive plant species were observed on-site during the surveys conducted by
RECON in 1999 and 1991, by Ogden Environmental and Energy Servi,ces in 1992 (as
cited in SEB 1995), and by Sweetwater EnvGonmental Biologists, Inc. in 1995 (SEB
1995). The locations of plants observable only during spring surveys are taken from the
surveys conducted for the previous Master Plan amendment by RECON (RECON 1991).
Figures 3G-1 and 3G-2 show the locations of thread-leaved brodiaea, Palmer’s
grapplinghook, Nuttall’s scrub oak, and spiny rush. California adolphia and ashy spike-
moss were common within their respective habitats throughout the site and were not
mapped. Previously observed plant locations are expected to still be valid because the
soil and vegetation has not been substantially altered during the interim. The extent of
plant populations in density and area can fluctuate from year to year based on
environmental conditions; however, species are still expected to be present at their
previously recorded locations.
,
Thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaeu filifolia) is a state-listed endangered and federally
listed threatened species. Approximately 300 individuals within 1700 square meters were
originally mapped by RECON biologists in 1991 (RECON 1991). The population was re-
identified in 1995 when 200 individuals were observed (State of California 2000). This
decrease in flowering plants does not show a decline in the number of individuals present.
Year to year variations in numbers of individual flowering can occur due to changes in
environmental conditions (e.g., rainfall).
Nuttall’s scrub oak (Quercus dumosa) is a CNPS List 1B species. Nuttall’s scrub oak was
identified in the southern mixed and chamise chaparral habitat within the Calavera Nature
Preserve within the Master Plan area during the 1999-2000 surveys.
California adolphia (AdoZphiu caZifornica) is a CNPS List 2 species, which defines this
species as rare or declining in California but may be more common elsewhere. It is
generally present in Diegan coastal sage scrub and is often associated with California
buckwheat and California sagebrush. It is present and often a dominant species within the
Diegan coastal sage scrub and southern mixed and chamise chaparral throughout the
Master Plan and Bridge and Thoroughfare District areas.
Palmer’s grapplinghook (Harpagonella palmeri var. palmeri) is a CNPS List 2 species. It
was observed in two small patches in Diegan coastal sage scrub within the open space
north of Village U of the Master Plan area (RECON 1991).
Spiny rush (Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii) is a CNPS List 4 species. It is common in the
cismontane alkali marsh habitat within the Cannon Road alignment and detention basins
survey areas.
220
3. Environmental Analysis G. Biological Resources
Western dichondra (Dichondra occidentulis) is a CNPS fist 4 species. It was observed in
several places in the Master Plan Phase 11 area and on the College Boulevard alignment
during previous surveys (RECON 199 1).
Ashy spike-moss (Selaginella cineruscens) is a CNPS List 4 species. It was identified
throughout the site in the Diegan coastal sage scrub and the chamise-dominant patches of
the southern mixed and chamise chaparral within the Master Plan Phase II area and
Bridge and Thoroughfare District areas.
Several other sensitive species &e known to exist in the vicinity of the project site and
have the potential to exist on-site based on vegetation communities identified. Table 3G-2
summarizes the status, habitats, and results of the botanical survey for each of these
species, with codes explained in Table 3G-3.
c) Sensitive Wildlife
Two sensitive reptiles, several sensitive bird and raptor species, and one mammal were
observed on-site by RECON: San Diego horned lizard, Belding’s orangethroat whiptail,
coastal California gnatcatcher, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, loggerhead
shrike, white-tailed kite, northern harrier, Cooper’s hawk, and San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit. Each of these species is mapped on Figures 3G-1 and 3G-2 except for the San
Diego black-tailed jackrabbit. This species observation was made during a previous
survey (RECON 1991) and was not included on the map of sensitive resources at that
time. Sensitive wildlife observed during previous studies conducted by Sweetwater
Environmental Biologists, Inc. in 1995 and Ogden Environmental and Energy Services in
1992, as published in a 1995 report by Sweetwater Environmental Biologists, Inc. have
been incorporated into Figure 3G-1. Additional species observed during these surveys
include Bell’s sage sparrow and yellow-breasted chat. All observations discussed below
were made during the surveys conducted by RECON in 1999 and 2000, unless otherwise
noted. Table 3G-4 lists the sensitive species known to occur or which have potential to
occur on-site.
Observed
Four individual Belding’ s orangethroat whiptails (Cnernidophorus hyperythrus beldingi),
a CDFG species of special concern, were observed within the Diegan coastal sage scrub
and southern mixed chaparral on the site (RECON 1991). Three of the whiptails were
observed within the Master Plan Phase II area and one was observed within the College
Boulevard alignment.
The coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) is federally listed
as threatened, a CDFG species of special concern, and an MHCP covered species. During
the most recent surveys of the site, coastal California gnatcatchers were observed in four
221
i
TABLE 3G2
SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES
OBSERVED (t) OR WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE
I I
City of
Species status Status ListICode Typical HabitatIComments
StateFederal Carlsbad CNPS
Acanthomintha ilicifolia
San Diego thornmint
Adolphia califomica
California adolphiat
Ambrosia pumila
San Diego ambrosia
Arctostaphylos glandulosa
ssp. crassifolia
Del Mar manzanita
Artemisia palmeri
San Diego sagewort
Bacchans vanessae
Encinitas coyote bush
Brodiaea Plifolia
Thread-leaved brodiaeat
Brodiaea orcuttii
Orcutt' s brodiaea
Ceanothus verrucosus
Wart-stemmed ceanothus
Chorizanthe orcuttiana
Orcutt's spineflower
CE/FT
-1-
-/-
-/FE
-1-
CE/FT
CE/FT
4-
-1-
CE/FE
NE, HMP
-
NE, HMP
NE,
HMP
-
NE,
HMP
HMP
HMP
HMP
NE, HMP
1B/2-3-2
211 -2- 1
1B/3-2-2
1B/3-3-2
212-2- 1
1B/2-3-3
1B/3-3-3
1B/1-3-2
211-2-1
1Bl3-3-3
Chaparral, coastal sage scrub,
valley and foothill grassland
clay soils. Low potential to
occur.
Coastal sage scrub, chaparral.
Observed on-site.
Creekbeds, seasonally dry
drainages, floodplains. No
suitable habitat. Not expected
to occur.
Southern maritime chaparral.
No suitable habitat. Not
observed on-site.
Coastal sage scrub, chaparral,
riparian. Low to moderate
potential to occur.
Chaparral. Not observed
on-site.
Valley and foothill grassland,
vernal pools. Observed on-site
(RECON 1991).
Closed-cone coniferous forest,
meadows, cismontane wood-
land, valley and foothill grass-
land, vernal pools. Low
potential to occur.
Chaparral. Not observed
on-site.
Openings in coastal chamise
chaparral. Only a few extant
populations occur from
Encinitas to Point Lorna. Low
potential to occur.
I
I
TABLE 36-2
SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES
OBSERVED (t) OR WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE
(continued)
Species
City of
StateFederal Carlsbad CNPS
status Status ListICode Typical HabitatEoxmnents .~
Chorizanthe polygonoides vu. longispina -1- - 1Bl2-2-2 Open chaparral, coastal sage
Long-spined spineflower scrub, montane meadows,
valley and foothill grasslands;
vernal poolslclay. Low
potential to occur.
Comarostaphylis diversifolia
ssp. diversifolia
Summer holly
Dichondra occidentalis
Western dichondrat
Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. biochmuniae
Blochman's dudleya
Dudleya variegata
Variegated dudleya
Dudleya viscida
S ticky-leaved liveforever
Euphorbia misera
Cliff spurge
Ferocactus viridescens
Coast barrel cactus
-1- HMP 1Bl2-2-2 Chaparral. Not observed
on-site.
-1- - 411-2-1 Chaparral, cismontane wood-
land, coastal sage scrub, valley
and foothill
grassland/generally post-burn.
Observed on-site (RECON
1991; State of California
2000).
-1- NE, 1Bl2-2-2 Coastal sage scrub. Habitat
HMP marginal, not expected to
occur.
-1- NE, 1B11-2-2 Openings in chaparral and
HMP coastal sage scrub; open,
rocky grasslands. Habitat
marginal, not expected to
occur.
-1- HMP 1Bl3-2-3 Coastal sage scrub; steep,
north-facing slopes1 gabbroic
soils. No suitable soils. Not
expected to occur.
-1- HMP 212-2-1 Coastal sage scrub, coastal
bluff scrub. Not observed
on-site.
-1- HMP 211-3-1 Chaparral, coastal sage scrub,
valley and foothill grassland.
Not observed on-site.
TABLE 36-2
SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES
OBSERVED (7) OR WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE
(continued)
j!
I City of
Species status Status List/Code Typical HabitaKomments
StatelFederal Carlsbad CNF’S
Harpagonella palmeri var. palmeri -1-
Palmer’s grappling hoow
I
Hazardia orcuttii
Orcutt’s hazardia
Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii
Spiny rush?
4-
-1-
Lessingia filaginifolia var. filaginifolia -/-
(=Corethrogynefilaginifolia var. incana)
San Diego sand aster
Muilla clevelandii
San Diego goldenstar
Navarretia fossalis
Prostrate navarretia
Quercus dumosa
Nuttall’s scrub oak?
Selaginella cinerascens
Ashy spike-moss?
Tetracoccus dioicus
Parry’s tetracoccus
-1-
-/FT
-1-
-1-
-I-
211-2-1
1Bl3-3-2
411-2-1
1Bl2-2-2
1B/2-2-2
1B/2-3-2
1 B/2-3-2
411 -2- 1
1Bl3-2-2
Chaparral, coastal sage scrub,
valley and foothill grassland.
Observed on-site (RECON
1991).
Open chamise chaparral. Only
one U.S. population known
from Encinitas. Not observed
on-site.
Coastal dunes (mesic)
meadows (alkaline), coastal
salt marsh. Observed on-site.
Coastal sage scrub, chaparral.
Out of range. Not expected to
occur.
Chaparral, coastal sage scrub,
valley and foothill grassland,
vernal pools. Marginal habitat
present; not expected to occur.
Vernal pools. No suitable
habitat present; not expected
to occur.
Coastal chaparral. Observed
on-site.
Chaparral, coastal sage scrub.
Present on-site.
Chaparral, coastal sage scrub.
Not observed on-site.
NOTE See Table 4 for explanation of sensitivity codes.
FE
Fr
WE
FPT
CE
CR
CT
HMP
NE
1A
1B
2
3
4
TABLE 36-3
SENSIlTWl'Y CODES
FEDERAL CANDIDATES AND LISTED PLANTS
Federally listed, endangered
Federally listed, threatened
Federally proposed endangered
Federally proposed threatened
STATE LISTED PLANTS
State listed, endangered
State listed, rare
State listed, threatened
CITY OF CARLSBAD STATUS
Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad
Narrow endemic species in HMP
CALIFORNIA NAM PLANT SOCIETY
LISTS R-E-D CODES
Species presumed extinct. R (Rarity)
Species rare, threatened, or
endangered in California and
elsewhere. These species are
eligible for state listing.
1 = Rare, but found in sufficient
numbers and distributed widely
enough that the potential for
extinction is low at this time.
Species rare, threatened, or
endangered in California but
which are more common elsewhere.
These species are eligible for
state listing.
Species for which more infor-
mation is needed. Distribution,
endangerment, and/or taxonomic
information is needed.
A watch list of species of limited
distribution. These species need
to be monitored for changes in the
status of their populations.
2 = Occurrence confined to several
populations or to one extended
population.
3 = Occurrence limited to one or a
few highly restricted populations,
or present in such small numbers
that it is seldom reported.
E (Endangerment)
1 = Notendangered
2 = Endangered in a portion of its range
3 = Endangered throughout its range
D (Distribution)
1 = More or less widespread outside
2 = RareoutsideCalifornia
3 = Endemic to California
California
TABLE 36-4
SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN (OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING)
Species Status Habitat Occurrence/Comments'
Invertebrates
Quino checkerspot butterfly
Euphydryas editha quino
Harbison's dun skipper
Euphyes vestris harbisoni
Amphibians (Nomenclature from Collins 1997)
Western spadefoot
Spea hammondii
Reptiles (Nomenclature from Collins 1997)
Southwestern pond turtle
Clemmys marmorata pallida
San Diego homed lizard
Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillii
Belding's orangethroat whiptail
Cnemidophonrs hyperythrus beldingi
Silvery legless lizard
Anniella pulchra pulchra
FE, MHCP Open, dry areas in foothills, mesas, lake
margins. Larval host plant Plantago
erecta.
Adult emergence midJanuary through April. Not
observed during focused surveys conducted in
1998 and 1999. Site outside of required survey
area for 2000.
MHCP,HMP Riparian habitats. Larval host plant Carex
spissa.
High potential to occur if host plant present. Host
plant has a moderate to high potential to be present
within the drainage bottoms in the riparian
woodland and riparian forest.
CSC, MHCP Vernal pools, floodplains, and alkali flats
within areas of open vegetation.
Low potential to occur on-site.
CSC, FSS, Ponds, small lakes, marshes, slow-
MHCP moving, sometimes brackish water.
Low potential to occur on-site.
CSC, MHCP, * Chaparral, coastal sage scrub with fine,
loose soil. Partially dependent on
harvester ants for forage.
Observed on-site (RECON 1991).
csc,
MHCP,HMP
Chaparral, coastal sage scrub with coarse
sandy soils and scattered brush.
Observed on-site (RECON 1991).
csc Herbaceous layers with loose soil in
coastal scrub, chaparral, and open riparian
habitats. Prefers dunes and sandy washes
near moist soil.
Suitable habitat present; moderate potential to
occur on-site.
TABLE 36-4
SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN (OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING)
(continued)
Species Status Habitat occurrence/Comments '
Coast patch-nosed snake
Salvadora hexalepis virgultea
Red diamond rattlesnake
Crotalus exsul (= C. ruber ruber)
csc
csc
Birds (Nomenclature from American Ornithologists' Union)
White-tailed kite (nesting) CFP, *
Elanus leucurus
Northern harrier (nesting)
Circus cyaneus
CSC, MHCP
Sharp-shinned hawk (nesting)
Accipiter striatus
Cooper's hawk (nesting)
Accipiter cooperii
Ferruginous hawk (wintering)
Buteo regalis
csc
csc,
MHCP.HMP
csc
Grasslands, chaparral, sagebrush, desert
scrub. Found in sandy and rocky areas.
Desert scrub and riparian habitats, coastal
sage scrub, open chaparral, grassland, and
agricultural fields.
Nest in riparian woodland, oaks,
sycamores. Forage in open, grassy areas.
Year-round resident.
Coastal lowland, marshes, grassland,
agricultural fields. Migrant and winter
resident, rare summer resident.
Open deciduous woodlands, forests,
edges, parks, residential areas. Migrant
and winter visitor.
Mature forest, open woodlands, wood
edges, river groves. Parks and residential
areas. Migrant and winter visitor.
Require large foraging areas. Grasslands,
agricultural fields. Uncommon winter
resident.
Suitable habitat present; moderate potential to
occur on-site.
Suitable habitat present; high potential to occur
on-site.
Observed on-site; high potential to nest on-site.
Observed on-site; low potential to nest on-site.
Observed on-site; winter foraging habitat present;
out of nesting range.
Observed on-site; suitable nesting habitat present.
Winter foraging habitat present; low potentid to
occur on-site due to &ty of species in southern
California region.
TABLE 36-4
SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN (OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING)
(continued)
Occurrence/Comments' status Habitat
Suitable foraging habitat present; low potential to
occur on-site due to rarity of species in southern
California region. No suitable nesting habitat
present.
Golden eagle (nesting and wintering)
Aquila chrysaetos
csc, CFP,
BEPA, MHCP
Require vast foraging areas in grassland,
broken chaparral, or sage scrub. Nest in
cliffs and boulders. Uncommon resident.
Merlin
Falco columbarius
csc Rare winter visitor. Grasslands,
agricultural fields, occasionally mud flats.
Suitable habitat present; low potential to occur
on-site in winter.
Prairie falcon (nesting)
Fadco mexicanus
csc Grassland, agricultural fields, desert
scrub. Uncommon winter resident. Rare
breeding resident. Breeds on cliffs.
Low potential to occur on-site. No nesting habitat
present.
Western yellow-billed cuckoo (breeding)
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis
Large riparian woodlands. Summer
resident. Very localized breeding.
Only a few recent sightings in county; not expected
to occur. No suitable habitat present.
SE
Western burrowing owl (burrow sites)
Speotyto cun icula ria hypugaea
csc,
MHCP,HMP
Grassland, agricultural land, coastal
dunes. Require rodent burrows. Declining
resident.
Low potential to occur on-site.
Southwestern willow flycatcher
Empidonax traillii extimus
SE, FE, FSS,
MHCP,HMP
Nesting restricted to willow thickets. Also
occupies other woodlands. Rare spring
and fall migrant, rare summer resident.
Extremely localized breeding.
Willow flycatcher observed as a migrant.
Southwestern willow flycatcher unlikely to nest on-
site.
California homed lark
Eremophila alpestris actia
csc Sandy shores, mesas, disturbed areas,
grasslands, agricultural lands, sparse
creosote bush scrub.
Suitable habitat present; high potential to occur
on-site.
Coastal cactus wren
Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus couesi
CSC, MHCP, * Maritime succulent scrub, coastal sage
scrub with Opuntia thickets. Rare
localized resident.
Moderate habitat present; scattered Opuntia
thickets present. Not observed during surveys.
TABLE 36-4
SENSlTIW WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN (OR POTENTLALLY OCCURRING)
(continued)
Species Status Habitat Occurrence/Comments '
Coastal California gnatcatcher
Polioptila califomica califomica
FT, csc,
MHCP,HMP
Coastal sage scrub, maritime succulent
scrub. Resident.
Open foraging areas near scattered bushes
and low trees.
Willow riparian woodlands. Summer
resident.
Breeding restricted to riparian woodland.
Spring and fall migrant, localized summer
resident, rare winter visitor.
Dense riparian woodland. Localized
summer resident.
Observed on-site.
Loggerhead shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
csc Observed on-site.
Least Bell's vireo (nesting)
Vireo bellii pusillus SE, FE,
MHCP,HMP
Observed on-site.
Yellow warbler (nesting)
Dendroica petechia brewsteri
csc Suitable habitat present; moderate potential to
occur on-site.
Yellow-breasted chat (nesting)
Icteria virens
csc,
MHCP,HMP
Suitable habitat present; high potential to occur
on-site. Observed during previous survey (SEB
1995).
Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow csc,
Aimophila rujkeps canescens MHCP,HMP
Coastal sage scrub, grassland. Resident. Observed on-site.
Bell's sage sparrow
Amphispiza belli belli
CSC, MHCP Chaparral, coastal sage scrub. Localized
resident.
Suitable habitat present; not observed during most
recent surveys. Observed during previous surveys
(SEB 1995).
Tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
CSC, MHCP Freshwater marshes, agricultural areas,
lakeshores, parks. Localized resident.
Moderate habitat present; low to moderate
potential to occur on-site.
Blue grosbeak (nesting)
Guiraca caerulea
* Riparian woodland edges, mule fat
thickets. Summer resident, spring and fall
migrant, winter visitor.
Suitable habitat present; high potential to occur
on-site.
TABLE 36-4
SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN (OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING)
(continued)
Species Status Habitat Occurrence/Comments'
Mammals (Nomenclature from Jones et al. 1982)
Pale big-eared bat
Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens
Townsend's western big-eared bat
Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii
Western mastiff bat
Eumops perotis califomicus
San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit
Lepus califomicus bennettii
Pacific little pocket mouse
Perognathus longimembris pacificus
Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse
Chaetodipus fallax fallax
San Diego desert woodrat
Neotoma lepida intermedia
csc
CSC, MHCP
CSC, MHCP
CSC, MHCP
m, csc,
MHCP
CSC, MHCP
csc
Caves, mines, buildings. Found in a
variety of habitats, and and mesic.
Caves, mines, buildings. Found in a
variety of habitats, arid and mesic.
Woodlands, rocky habitat, arid and
semiarid lowlands, cliffs, crevices,
buildings, tree hollows.
Open areas of scrub, grasslands,
agricultural fields.
Open coastal sage scrub; fine, alluvial
sands near ocean.
San Diego County west of mountains in
sparse, disturbed coastal sage scrub or
grasslands with sandy soils.
Coastal sage scrub and chaparral.
Individual or colonial. Extremely sensitive to
disturbance; marginal roosting habitat present; not
expected to occur.
Individual or colonial. Extremely sensitive to
disturbance; marginal roosting habitat present; not
expected to occur.
Marginal roosting habitat present; low potential to
occur on-site.
Observed on-site (RECON 1991).
No suitable soils; not expected to occur.
Suitable habitat present; moderate potential to
occur.
Suitable habitat present; moderate to high potential
to occur on-site.
Unless otherwise noted, all observations were made during surveys conducted in 1999 and 2000. 1
TABLE 36-4
SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN (OR POTENTIALLY OCCURRING)
(continued)
STATUS CODES
Listed/prowsed
E=
Fr=
SE =
Other
BEPA =
CFP = csc =
FC =
FSS =
MHCP=
HMP = - - *
- -
- Listed as endangered by the federal government
Listed as threatened by the federal government
Listed as endangered by the state of California
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (federal)
California fully protected species
California Department of Fish and Game species of special concern
Federal candidate for listing (taxa for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threat($ to
support proposals to list as endangered or threatened; development and publication of proposed rules for these taxa are anticipated)
Federal (Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service) sensitive species
Multiple Habitat Conservation Program target species list
Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad
Taxa listed with an asterisk fall into one or more of the following categories:
Taxa considered endangered or rare under Section 15380(d) of CEQA guidelines
Taxa that are biologically rare, very restricted in distribution, or declining throughout their range
Population(s) in California that may be peripheral to the major portion of a taxon’s range, but which are threatened with extirpation within California
Taxa closely associated with a habitat that is declining in California at an alarming rate (e.g., wetlands, riparian, old growth forests, desert aquatic systems,
native grasslands)
3. Environmental Analysis G. Biological Resources
1 1’
’,
locations within the Diegan coastal sage scrub. A single male was observed at the
intersection of El Camino Real and the College Boulevard extension. A single individual
was heard on several occasions on the edge of a paved section of road in the eastern
portion of the Master Plan Phase II area. One pair was observed in the southeastern
portion of the Master Plan Phase II area and another pair was observed within the survey
area for the Cannon Road extension (Reach 4). Previous studies conducted in 1992 and
1995 have noted coastal California gnatcatchers within other areas of the Master Plan
Phase II area, including the Calavera Nature Preserve (SEB 1995). This includes three
additional observations in the open space north and south of Village H, four additional
observations within Village K, and seven observations within the Calavera Nature
Preserve (see Figure 3G-1).
Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo pusillus bellii) is state and federally listed as endangered species.
One adult least Bell’s vireo was observed in the riparian woodland located on the
northern section of the center drainage of the Bridge and Thoroughfare District. This
individual was observed on May 22, 2000 and was not seen or heard subsequently. A
second adult least Bell’s vireo was observed in the same drainage as the first least Bell’s
vireo. This individual was detected at the southernmost part of the drainage. The adult
was observed singing and foraging throughout his territory on four occasions which were
May 22, June 13 and 23, and July 5, 2000. This male was also observed feeding a
fledgling on June 13,2000, and was seen with his mate and a fledgling on July 5,2000.
The southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Airnophila rufceps canescens) is a
CDFG species of special concern. At least four southern California rufous-crowned
sparrow territories are present in the Diegan coastal sage scrub within the Phase II Master
Plan area and the survey area for the Cannon Road extension (Reach 4). An additional
eight observations were made during surveys conducted in 1992 and 1995 (SEB 1995).
Suitable habitat for the California rufous-crowned sparrow is present within Diegan
coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and grasslands throughout the project components.
The loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), a CDFG species of special concern, was
observed within the survey corridor for the Cannon Road extension (Reach 4) and within
Calavera Nature Preserve (SEB 1995).
White-tailed kites (Elunus leucurus), a California fully protected species, were observed
in two locations on-site, one within the Master Plan area and one within the survey area
for the College Boulevard extension.
The yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens) is a CDFG species of special concern. In spring
and summer, this migratory bird inhabits dense riparian woodland habitat in the coastal
lowland area of San Diego County where it breeds (Unitt 1984). This species was
observed near the boundary of the open space north of Village H (SEB 1995).
232
3. Environmental Analysis G. Biological Resources
Bell’s sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli belli), a CDFG species of special concern, was
observed within Village X during previous surveys (SEB 1995).
An adult and a juvenile red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus elegans),
northern harrier (Circus cyuneus hudsonius), and Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cuoperii)
were observed on-site.
San Diego black-tailed jackrabbits, (Lepus culifomicus bennettii) a CDFG species of
special concern, were observed during a previous survey (RECON 1991). This species is
expected to be a fairly common resident within the Diegan coastal sage scrub and
southern mixed and chamise chaparral habitats throughout the project sites.
Not Observed
Several other sensitive animals are either known to occur in the vicinity or have a
potential to be present on-site. Three of these are state and/or federally listed species:
quino checkerspot butterfly, southwestern willow flycatcher, and Pacific pocket mouse.
The quino checkerspot butterfly and the Pacific pocket mouse were not observed on-site
and are not believed to be present. A single adult willow flycatcher was observed on-site;
however, it is believed to be a migrant flycatcher given the timing of the observation and
because it was not observed during subsequent surveys. These are discussed in more
detail in the following paragraphs. Table 3G-4 lists the sensitive species observed on-site
and those that could potentially occur on-site based on the ranges and habitat
requirements of these species and includes the likelihood of occurrence for these species.
The quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas edithu quino) is federally listed as
endangered. There were no quino checkerspot butterflies detected during focused surveys
in 1998 and 1999 and they are not expected to occur in the area. USFWS has determined
there is little likelihood that this species would be present in the Carlsbad vicinity. The
2000 survey protocol has excluded the Phase II Master Plan area, Bridge and
Thoroughfare District and Detention Basins area from their required habitat assessment
and adult flight season surveys (USFWS 2000).
The southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii exthus) is federally and state
listed as endangered. One adult willow flycatcher was observed in the riparian woodland,
located on the northern section of the center drainage of the Bridge and Thoroughfare
District. This individual was observed on May 22,2000 and was not seen subsequently.
Given the time frame of the observation and the lack of any later-season corroboration,
we believe this was a migrant bird. Migrant willow flycatchers are not uncommon during
spring and fall and the appearance of migrant does not indicate that the site is being used
by the local endangered southwestern willow flycatcher. If the southwestern willow
flycatcher was breeding on-site, it would have been detected during subsequent surveys
,
233 j
3. Environmental Analysis G. Biological Resources
!
i
after migrant willow flycatchers have left the region and only the southwestern willow
flycatcher breeding populations remain.
Pacific pocket mouse (Perognathus Eongimembrus pacificus) is a federally listed
endangered and a CDFG species of special concern. It is endemic to the within 2.5 miles
of the southern California coast and typically requires fine-grain, sandy soils within open
coastal sage scrub, coastal strand, coastal dune, and river alluvium habitats. The three
project components are greater than 2.5 miles from the coast and contain marginal soils
and habitat for this subspecies on-site. In addition, there are no known historic
populations of this species in the Carlsbad area and the closest currently known
population is at the mouth of the San Luis Rey River in Camp Pendleton. Based on this
information this species is not expected to occur.
d) Wildlife Movement Corridors
Wildlife movement corridors are defined as areas that connect suitable wildlife habitat
areas in a region otherwise fragmented by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human
disturbance. Natural features such as canyon drainages, ridgelines, or areas with
vegetation cover provide corridors for wildlife travel. Wildlife movement corridors are
important because they provide access to mates, food, and water; allow the dispersal of
individuals away from areas of high human population density; and facilitate the
exchange of genetic traits between populations (Beier and Loe 1992). Wildlife movement
corridors are considered sensitive by resource and conservation agencies,
The project components are located within focused planning areas identified by the City
of Carlsbad (1999) as Draft HMP Core #2, Core #3, and linkages A and B. Core areas
contain large blocks of native habitats that are capable of sustaining populations of
sensitive species. Linkages are open spaces that connect and allow for wildlife
movement between core areas. Core #2 provides the only linkage between Carlsbad and
the City of Oceanside (City of Carlsbad 1999). The function of the project components as
a movement corridor is high.
The project has been designed to include large areas of open space on the property. This
includes a portion of the 110-acre Calavera Hills mitigation site on the east edge of the
Phase II Master Plan area that has been included within the boundaries of the amended
Master Plan. This proposed open space is adjacent to other designated and proposed
mitigation bankdopen space areas, including the Bank of America Mitigation Bank, Lake
Calavera, and the Holly Springs Ranch property. It should also be emphasized that the
proposed open space configuration and associated wildlife corridors within the Phase IT
Master Plan reflects a consensus reached between the project applicant, the wildlife
agencies, and the City of Carlsbad. The proposed open space/wildlife corridor has been
included in the City’s proposed Draft HMP.
234
3. Environmental Analysis G. Biological Resources
. e) Wetlands and Non-Wetland Jurisdictional Waters
U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers
Jurisdictional wetlands are found within riparian scrub, riparian woodland, riparian forest,
cismontane alkali marsh, cismontane alkali marsh (seasonal), and freshwater marsh and
total approximately 8.0 acres within the Master Plan Phase II component and 22.2 acres
within the Bridge and Thoroughfare District and Detention Basin areas (Figure 3G-3). ~
The location of areas considered jurisdictional waters, but not wetlands, is based on the
observance of strong indicators of seasonal fiows or ponding and the presence of an
ordinary high water mark. These jurisdictional waters were delineated by the lateral and
upstreddownstream extent of the ordinary high water mark of the particular drainage or
depression. These were identified in areas with representative communities such as
riparian woodland, riparian forest, and southern mixed chamise, and agriculture lands. A
total of 1.2 acres of non-wetland jurisdictional waters are present within the Master Plan
Phase II component and 0.4 acre within the Bridge and Thoroughfare District and
Detention Basin areas.
The interpretation of the data in the delineation report and the conclusions drawn are
subject to review by the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) since the
implementation of the Bridge and Thoroughfare District and the Detention Basins
components would affect agriculture lands. The USACE would make final jurisdictional
determination based on the recommendation of the NRCS. The report detailing the results
of this wetland delineation is included in Attachment F. Although certification of the
wetland delineation by NRCS is required for completion of a 404 permit, it is not
otherwise related to this EIR.
California Department of Fish and Game
Guidelines for delineating the boundaries of wetlands for the USACE differ from those
used by the CDFG. Under Sections 1600-1607 of the Fish and Game Code, CDFG
regulates activities that would alter streams, rivers, or lakes. CDFG also has jurisdiction
over riparian habitats (e.g., southern willow scrub and riparian woodland) associated with
watercourses. Areas considered jurisdictional by CDFG are delineated by the outer edge
of riparian vegetation or at the top of the bank of streams or lakes, whichever is wider.
CDFG jurisdiction for the project components falls within the same boundaries as that
delineated as USACE jurisdiction.
3) Project Impacts
The proposed project will include the residential development of the Master Plan Phase II
area, the construction of the College Boulevard and Cannon Road extensions, and two
detention basins. Figures 3G-4 and 3G-5 illustrates the proposed impacts to the existing
235
3. Environmental Analysis G. Biological Resources
biological resources and Figure3G-6 shows impacts to wetlands and non-wetland
jurisdictional waters that would result from implementation of all three project
components. Tables 3G-5, 3G-6, and 3G-7 provide the acreages of impacts to vegetation
communities and jurisdictional waters. The tables detail the impacts from each proposed
village and fuel management zone within the Master Plan area, the proposed road
alignments by reach, and the construction of berms for the detention basin.
The biological impacts of the project were assessed according to guidelines set forth in
the City of Carlsbad’s Draft HMF (City of Carlsbad 1999) and CEQA. Mitigation is
required for impacts that are considered significant under the Draft HMP and CEQA
guidelines. The Draft HMP is currently in the process of being approved by regulatory
agencies and adopted by the City. Although eucalyptus woodlands, disturbed, and
agricultural lands are not considered to be biologically sensitive habitats under CEQA,
the Draft HMP, if approved, would require payment of an in-lieu mitigation fee for
impacts to these resources. If the Draft HMP is not approved or adopted as currently
published, significance will be determined solely based on CEQA and no mitigation
would be required. This contingency is addressed below where applicable.
a) Plant Communities
Master Plan Phase 11 Area
Implementation of the Master Plan Phase TI development plan will impact approximately
M128.7 acres (see Table 3G-5). This will include impacts to 80.8453 acres of Diegan
coastal sage scrub, 27.34 acres of southern mixed and chamise chaparral, acres
of non-native grassland, 1.0 acre of eucalyptus woodland, 0.1 acre of cismontane alkali
marsh (seasonal), 3.6 acres of developed areas, and 13.29 acres of disturbed areas.
Bridge and Thoroughfare District I
Implementation of the College Boulevard and Cannon Road extensions will impact a
variety of habitats. Table 3G-6 provides the acreages of impact for Alternative 1, the
preferred project alignment.
College Boulevard Alternative z$ @referred alternative): This alternative will impact a
total of 42.- acres, including impacts to 10.4 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub (5.7
previously mitigated), 6.6 acres of southern mixed and chamise chaparral (all of which
have been previously mitigated), 1 .O acre of non-native grassland, 1.315 acres of riparian
woodland, 0.5 acre of eucalyptus woodland, 0.3 acre of riparian scrub, 13.29 acres of
agricultural fields, acres of developed areas (1.5 previously mitigated), and 342u
acres of disturbed areas (2.7 previously mitigated).
Cannon Road Alternative 3f @referred alternative): This alternative will impact a total
of 4444.4- acres, including impacts to 44Xx acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub, 0.98
acre of non-native grassland, 0.67 acre of riparian woodland, Wu acre of eucalyptus
239
TABLE 36-5 (~vised)
IMPACTS TO RESOURCES BY VILLAGE WITHIN THE MASTER PLAN PHASE 2 PROJECT COMPONENT
Village El Village H Village K Village L2 Village R Village U Village W Village X Village Y Fuel Total
Vegetation Type Management Impacted
Diegan coastal sage scrub -- 0.1 4-443w 3;3= e,r- 7;eu %x&& MU wm
Southern mixed and chamise -_ woo 0.3 __ __ %fi 5.8 WQ wm
chaparral
Non-native grassland -- MU -- -- -- -_ -- -_ _- -- MU I
-- -_ -- 1 Riparian woodland -- -- -- -- -- -_ -- --
Eucalyptus woodland
Native grassland
Riparian scrub
Cismontane alkali marsh
(seasonal)
.- 0.1
TABLE 3G6_(revised)
IMPACTS TO RESOURCES WITHIN THE BRIDGE AND THOROUGHFARE DISTRICT
College Boulevard Alternative 1
Reach
VegetationType ,A B C Total
Diegan coastal sage
scrub
Southern mixed and
chamise chaparral
Non-native grassland
Riparian woodland
Eucalyptus woodland
Native grassland
Riparian scrub
Riparian forest
Cismontane alkali
marsh
Cismontane alkali
marsh (seasonal)
Freshwater marsh
Agriculhlral
Developed
Disturbed
1.6 3.1
-- -_
1.0 --
0.6 0.9
0.5 --
-- --
0.3 --
-- __
-- --
-- --
-- --
8.4 5.5
4.7 --
0.5 --
10.4
6.6
1 .o
1.5
0.5
__
0.3
--
--
--
--
13.9
6.2
3.2
..
College Boulevard College Boulevard Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Reach Reach
A B C Total A B C Total
1.6 5.0 6.5 13.1
-- -- 4.1 4.1
1.0 -- -- 1.0
0.6 1.0 -- 1.6
0.5 -- -- 0.5
-_ -- __ --
0.3 0.7 -- 1.0
-_ -- -- --
-_ __ __ --
-- -- __ --
8.4 12.4 -- 20.8
4.7 -- 1.6 6.3
0.5 -- 2.7 3.2
1.5 3.2
-- __
1.0 --
0.6 0.28
0.5 --
-- __
0.3 --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- _-
8.2 5.0
4.3 --
0.6 --
10.4
6.6
1 .o
1 .y
0.5
--
0.3
--
-_
--
--
13.2
5.8
3.3
VEGETATION 17.6 9.5 16.5 43.6 17.6 19.1 14.9 51.6 17.0 8.9 16.5 42.6
TOTAL 94
Wetland habitat 0.9 0.9 -- 1.8 0.9 1.7 -- 2.6 0.9 0.l8 -- 1.6;
Non-wetland 0.1 --
jurisdictional waters 04 &k
-- - -- 0.1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
JURISDICTIONAL 1.0 0.9 -- 1.9 0.9 1.7 -- 2.6 0.9 0.z8 -- - 1.64
WATERS TOTAL 470 478
Cannon Road - Cannon Road - Cannon Road - Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Reach Reach Reach
3 4 Total 3 4 Total 3 4 Total
__
--
0.5
0.7
0.2
--
0.3
--
0.6
--
--
11.4
0.1
2.2
17.7
__
0.8
0.7
0.9
--
0.3
0.1
0.6
0.2
16.9
I
0.1
0.3
0.3
--
_-
0. I
__
0.1
16.9
--
0.6
1 .o
0.4 --
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.1
16.0
0.9
0.63 I
1 .o
0.6
200 I
-- __ -- __ -- -_ _- -_
5.5 16.9 11.4 5.5 16.9 10.8 6.0 16.8
3.9 4.0 -- 1.5 1.5 0.1 3.7 3.8
-- 2.2 2.0 -- 2.0 2.7 -_ 2.7
16.0 28.8 44.8 15.5 24.8 40.3 26.9 42.8
462. 434
1.6 0.4 2.0 1.5 0.5 2.0 1.y 0.2 1 &3
-- 0.1 0.1 -- 0.1 0.1 -- 0.1 0.1
1.5 0.6 2.1 1.g 0.3 l.B 1.6 0.5 2.1
%ere is a maximum of 0.4 acre of additional associated impact to iurisdictional waters from temporary construction activitv.
!
TABLE 36-7 (revised) I IMPACTS TO RESOURCES WITHIN THE DETENTION BASINS PROJECT COMPONENT
Detention Basin “BJB” Detention Basin “BJ”
Vegetation Type Berm Impacts Berm Impacts Channel Impacts
Diegan coastal sage scrub -- -_ --
Southern mixed and chamise chaparral _- -- --
Non-native grassland __ -- -_
Riparian woodland (32: -- --
Eucalyptus woodland -- -- --
Native grassland -- _- --
Riparian scrub -- _- --
Riparian forest -- -_ --
Cismontane alkali marsh -- __ --
Cismontane alkali marsh (seasonal) _- _- --
Freshwater marsh _- _- __
Agricultural 2.4
Developed _- 0.6 0.3
Disturbed
-- __
_- _- __
i
VEGETATION TOTAL &6u 0.6 0.3
Wetland habitat €a? _- _-
Non-wetland jurisdictional waters -- -- --
JLTRTSDICTIONAL WATERS TOTAL €a? -- --
*A total of 0.2 acre of imDact to wetland habitat is included in the imuacts calculated for College Boulevard
Reach B .
i
i
3. Environmental Analysis G. Biological Resources
~ ~~ ~ ~
.. woodland, 0.3 acre of riparian scrub, C.? wv- , .6 acre of cismontane
alkali marsh, 0.12 acre of cismontane alkali marsh (seasonal), 16.89 acres of agricultural
fields, 44s acres of developed areas, and 2.z2 acres of disturbed areas.
Detention Basins
Construction of the two detention basins, including berms and a channel within Basin
“BJ,” would impact approximately 3.35 acres (see Table 3G-7). This would include
impacts to , 2.4 acres of agricultural fields; and 0.9 acre of
developed areas.
..
b) Wildlife
Some impacts to general wildlife associated with the project may occur through
implementation of all project components. Birds are highly mobile and would most likely
be displaced during site grading. Small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles with low
mobility may be inadvertently killed during grading of the site. Impacts on general
wildlife are considered less than significant because they are not expected to reduce the
wildlife populations of the area below self-sustaining levels.
Indirect impacts associated with project implementation include an increase in night
lighting, traffic, domestic pets, and litter and poIlutants into adjacent wildlife habitat.
These impacts are not expected to reduce the wildlife populations of the area below self-
sustaining levels and are thus considered less than significant.
e) Sensitive Biological Resources
Sensitive Plant Communities
Master Plan Phase II Area. Two sensitive plant communities would be affected through
implementation of this project component: Diegan coastal sage scrub and cismontane
alkali marsh (seasonal).
Approximately 8Q3W acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub and disturbed coastal sage I
scrub will be affected by the proposed project. This habitat is currently occupied by the
coastal California gnatcatcher. Impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub are considered
adverse and significant.
Approximately 0.1 acre of cismontane alkali marsh (seasonal) would be affected by the
proposed project. Impacts to this plant community are considered adverse and significant.
In addition, project implementation will impact southern mixed and chamise chaparral
and non-native grassland. While these are not typically considered sensitive plant
communities, the City of Carlsbad considers impacts to be significant.
245
3. Environmental Analysis G. Biological Resources
i
I
I
Bridge and Thoroughfare District. The following sensitive habitats would potentially be
affected by the implementation of the road extensions: Diegan coastal sage scrub, riparian
woodland, riparian scrub, riparian forest, cismontane alkali marsh, and cismontane alkali
marsh (seasonal).
College Boulevard Alternative &l- (preferred alternative): Approximately 10.4
acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub, 1.35 acres of riparian woodland, and 0.3 acre of
riparian scrub would be affected by this alignment alternative. These impacts are
considered adverse and significant.
Cannon Road Alternative 9 (preferred alternative): Approximately 16.)
acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub, 0.3 acre of riparian woodland, 0.3 acre of
riparian scrub, C.! zcx 7 , 0.6 acre of cismontane alkali marsh, and
0.12 acre of cismontane alkali marsh (seasonal) would be affected by this alignment
alternative. These impacts are considered adverse and significant.
..
Detention Basins. Inundation would have a variable affect on the surrounding vegetation
due to the unpredictability of future storm events. The basins are designed so that at
extreme storm events @e., 100-year storm) water will pond for no longer than 15 hours
for basin “BJB” and 6 hours for basin “BJ.” This length of inundation should have no
detrimental impacts on native plant communities based on the rarity of these storm events
and the short term of inundation.
- N& sensitive plant communitb would be affected through implementation of this
project componentL- ..
Sensitive Plants
Master Plan Phase 11 Area. Two sensitive plants would be affected through
implementation of the Master Plan Phase II: California adolphia and Nuttall’s scrub oak.
California adolphia is pervasive within the Diegan coastal sage scrub and Nuttall’s scrub
oak is common within the chaparral in both the proposed development and open space
areas. Both will be preserved on-site within the open space. Impacts are considered less
than significant.
The thread-leaved brodiaea and Palmer’s grapplinghook would be preserved within open
space on-site and thus not impacted by the project.
246
3. Environmental Analysis G. Biological Resources
Bridge and Thoroughfare District. One sensitive plant species would be affected
through the implementation of the alignment alternatives for the Cannon Road extension:
spiny rush. The southwest population of spiny rush closest to El Camino Real would be
partially affected by both alignment alternatives. This species is relatively common in San
Diego County and impacts would be considered less than significant.
Detention Basins.
sensitive plant species.
Sensitive Wildlife
The implementation of the Master Plan Phase 11 development and the Bridge and
Thoroughfare District could impact the coastal California gnatcatcher during removal of
the Diegan coastal sage scrub. These impacts would be considered adverse and
significant.
Implementation of the detention basins would not impact any
The implementation of all three project components could impact active raptor nests
which would be considered significant. Impacts may occur if trees containing active
raptor nests are removed during the breeding season (March through September).
Impacts to the southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, Bell’s sage sparrow,
Belding’s orangethroat whiptail, San Diego horned lizard, San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit, and loggerhead shrike would be considered adverse but less than significant.
Implementation of the Bridge and Thoroughfare District and the detention basins will
impact habitat of the least Bell’s vireo. Impacts to this species would be considered
adverse and significant.
d)
Any impact to wetlands, jurisdictional waters of the US, andor drainages is considered a
significant impact by both USACE and CDFG. Impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional
waters of the U.S. are shown in Figures 3G-6.
Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters of the U.S.
Master Plan Phase I1 Area
i
i
,
Implementation of the Master Plan Phase II development plan would hnpact
approximately 0.1 acre of wetland habitat and 0.2 acre of non-wetland jurisdictional
waters (see Table 3G-5). These impacts would occur in Villages U, W, and X.
I
247
!
3. Environmental Analysis G. Biological Resources
Bridge and Thoroughfare District
College Boulevard Alternative z$ Cprefemed alternative): Approximately 1 .@3 acres of
would be affected by wetland habitat 5.1
implementation of reaches A and B of this alignment alternative.
.. ..
Cannon Road Alternative 24 @referred alternative): Approximately L.fj acres of I
wetland habitat and 0.1 acre of non-wetland jurisdictional waters would be affected by
implementation of both reaches of this alignment alternative.
Detention Basins
Implementation of Basin “BJB” would w- impact e€ C.2
Ganv iurisdictional wetlands and waters of the - U.S.
e) Wildlife Movement Corridors
Figure 3G-7 illustrates the proposed hard line modifications, which occur primarily at
Village H, Villages R/U/W within the SDG&E easement, and Village W. This additional
corridor open space would be functionally equivalent to the current negotiated consensus
and would not create any adverse biological impacts.
f) Draft Habitat Management Plan (HMP) Consistency
The Calavera Hills Phase II property is located within Link A of the Carlsbad Draft HMP.
The hard-line preserve limits are shown on Figure 22 of the Draft HMP.
The consensus reached by the City, the wildlife agencies, and the applicant involved
identification of open space for the entire Calavera Hills property. The changes proposed
in Figure 2-6 of the EIR (increased and decreased hardline open space) will necessitate
the finding of an “equivalency determination” by the wildlife agencies and the City. As
shown on Figure 2-6, these changes are in various locations along the hardline within
Calavera Hills, not just Village K. Village K, however, was the area of greatest concern
during the consensus negotiations, inasmuch as it had previously been identified as
having suitable habitat for gnatcatchers. Figure 3G-7 shows the project deviation from the
exact “hardline” alignment of the Draft HMP and open space equivalency for the affected
villages. For example, as part of the consensus agreement reached between the City,
wildlife agencies, and the project applicant on the overall project “hardline,” the
manufactured fill slope on the southern side of Village K (see Figure 3G-4) would be
relocated within the open space side of the “hardline,” but would be required to be
revegetated with coastal sage scrub. The deviation results in a net increase of 13.5 acres
of preserved lands, does not result in a decrease of conserved area habitat quality, and is
considered to be the functional equivalent of the Draft HMP configuration.
248
3. Environmental Analysis G. Biological Resources
I
I
1(
The project is also consistent with measures identified in the Draft HMP to minimize
impacts on Draft HMP covered species. Narrow endemic species covered under the Draft
HMP are avoided and preservation and revegetation will occur consistent with the
mitigation ratios identified in the Draft HMP. The Calavera Hills Phase 11 development
will be assessed by the City of Carlsbad to determine whether the development will be
subject to the Draft HMP In-lieu Mitigation Fee. Draft HMP policy dictates that projects
which preserve a minimum of 67 percent of the project site in natural open space are not
subject to this fee. Exactly which lands are considered in this formula would not be
known until the Draft HMP is approved.
In the event that the project proceeds before the Draft HMP is adopted by the City of
Carlsbad, and before the resource agencies have issued an incidental take permit for
activities contemplated by the Draft HMP, the proposed project would require “take”
authorization by the USFWS. Such authorization or a Section 7 consultation between
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and USFWS as part of the project’s section 404 permit.
4) Mitigation Measures
Mitigation is intended to reduce significant impacts to a level of less than significant.
Mitigation measures typically employed include resource avoidance, on-site habitat
replacement, and/or the off-site acquisition of habitat. Acquisition and creation of the
1 10-acre Calavera Nature Preserve resulted from the approval of a mitigation agreement
between the City of Carlsbad and project proponent in 1993 (see Appendix G). The
preserve, created to offset impacts anticipated from proposed development of the
Calavera Hills Master Plan area, is shown as Village Z on Figure 2-1. The agreement also
includes provisions for the long-term management of the site (Ogden 1993). To assure
that funding is available for long-term maintenance, the following condition is included
in the 1993 agreement:
Long-term Maintenance Annuity. In order to provide for the cost of the
long-term maintenance and biological monitoring program for the
preserve, following the end of the five year management period
{November 1998 to November 20031, a long-term management program
shall be defined and funded. The long-term management program shall be
defined through a line item scope of work description and associated costs,
to be prepared no earlier than the end of year two and no later than the end
of year four, of the initial five-year management period, The urouew
owner/on-site environmental manager will initiallv proDose a scoue of
work for the long-term management proaam.-
The scope of work shall then be subject to peer
review by the City. Based upon the scope of work and associated costs,
250
3. Environmental Analysis G. Biological Resources
agreed to by the developer or their successors and the City, a funding
mechanism shall be provided by the developer or their successors. The
funding for the long-term maintenance can be an annuity or other
mechanism agreed to by the developer and the City. Managing %ish
long-term maintenance program shall be a separate agreement between the
City and The Environmental Trust-.
Additionally, mitigation is required for impacts that are considered significant, including
impacts to listed species, sensitive plant communities and habitats, and wetlands. In
addition to the plant communities identified as sensitive under CEQA, the City of
Carlsbad’s Draft HMP (City of Carlsbad 1999) has classified two non-sensitive plant
communities as significant habitat resources for sensitive wildlife species: southern
mixed and chamise chaparral and non-native grassland. The Draft HMP provides
mitigation guidelines for impacts to these communities. These impacts are not considered
significant under CEQA and if the Draft HMP is not approved or adopted by the City as
currently published, these impacts would not require mitigation. Additionally, all projects
would be required to obtain applicable permits for impacts to listed species as per Section
1O(a) or Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act.
The mitigation ratios provided below are applicable under both the Draft HMP and
CEQA and would remain as an appropriate recommendation if the Draft HMP is not
adopted, except as noted above. If the Draft HMP is not adopted then impacts to non-
native grassland and southern mixed and chamise chaparral would not be significant and
would not require mitigation. The Draft HMP also states that some projects may also be
required to pay an In-Lieu Mitigation Fee for impacts to disturbed lands and eucalyptus
woodland to be decided by the City of Carlsbad.
a) Sensitive Plant Communities
Tables 3G-8, 3G-9, and 3G-10 present the required mitigation ratios and the acreages
needed to meet these requirements for all of the project components.
Any impacts to wetlands are regulated by the federal, state, and local governments by a
no-net-loss policy. These impacts would have to be mitigated by habitat creation,
enhancement, or preservation, as determined by a qualified restoration specialist in
consultation with the regulating agencies, as part of the required mitigation measure.
Master Plan Phase II Area
Impacts to 80.8844 acres of occupied Diegan coastal sage scrub would be mitigated at a
2:l mitigation ratio through the on- and off-site site preservation of 1618.6 acres and the
restoration of 2.W acres along the manufactured slopes, for a total of 164 acres.
I ,
,
!
i
1 I 25 1
TABLE 3G-Sjrevised)
MITIGATION FOR SIGMFICANT IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE RESOURCES
WITHIN THE MASTER PLAN PHASE II PROJECT COMPONENT
Excess Open Space Mitigation Acreage (+)r
Required Jon-site and Revegetated Total Additional Total Acres Mitigation Mitigation Calavera Slope Acreage Acreage Resource Type Impacted Ratio Acreage Preserve) Acreage Preserved Needed (-1 Mitigation Recommendations
Upland Plant Community
Diegan coastal sage 844 2: 1 46434 4-6a rM scrub (occupied)' 80.8 161.6 122.9 - 2.4
-- Southern mixed and 293 1:1 293 m - chamise chaparral 27.5 - 27.5 38.9
Non-native grassland Wu 0.5: 1 1 .o - __
Eucal yptuf woodland 1 .o Mitigation None - 8.9 Fee
4%%3 44 On-site preservation, Calavera Preserve 125.3 - -36.3 mitirration credit, &restoration of manufactured slopes, purchase of 36.3 acres of off-site mitigation credit.
m &8 On-site preservation and Calavera Preserve 38.9 +11.4 mitigation credit.
Wu k17.32 On-site preservation and Calavera Preserve mitigation credit.
Payment of a mitigation fee as determined by the City Council. - 8.9
Disturbed' 13.9 Mitigation None - 8.6 - 8.6 Payment of a mitigation fee as determined by I Fee the City Council.
Upland Community 445s 4984 2205 rM ?282 293 Combination of on-site preservation, Subtotal 125.3 190.1 197.5 - 2.4 199.9 Calavera Preserve mitigation credit,&* - site restoration, and Durchase of off-site mitigation credit.
Wetland Habitat
Cismontane alkali 0.1 3: 1 0.3 0 0 0 marsh (seasonal)
Non-Wetland 0.2 1:1 0.2 Jurisdictional Waters
On-site creation and/or enhancement.
On-site creation.
Jurisdictional Waters 0.3 Subtotal 0.5 0 0 0 On-site creation and/or enhancement.
TABLE 36-8 (revised)
MITIGATION FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE RESOURCES
WITHIN THE MASTER PLAN PHASE I1 PROJECT COMPONENT
(continued)
Excess Open Space Mitigation
Required (on-site and Revegetated Total Additional Acreage &)cJ
Total Acres Mitigation Mitigation Calavera Slope Acreage Acreage Resource Type Impacted Ratio Acreage Preserve) Acreage Preserved Needed (-1 Mitigation Recommendations
Sensitive Wildlife Resources
Coastal California gnatcatcher
Active raptor nests
Removal of Diegan coastal sage scrub should occur between September 1 &February 14 to avoid active nest impacts. All coastal sage scrub removal should be monitored by a qualified biologist.
All trees should be removed between September and January, outside the breeding season of local raptor species. If trees are removed during the breeding season, a raptor nest survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to any removal to determine if any raptor nests are present. If an active raptor nest is discovered, a buffer should be established around the tree until the young are independent of the nest site. The buffer is typically 500 feet.
I
~~
‘The City of Carlsbad’s DraftHMP (1999) requires a 2: 1 mitigation ratio for Diegan coastal sage scrub that is known to be occupied by the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptilu culifomicu culifomicu) as opposed to a 1:l mitigation ratio for unoccupied coastal sage scrub. The draft HMP also requires a mitigation fee for impacts to disturbed lands, eucalyptus woodland, and agricultural lands in an amount to be determined by the City Council, if applicable.
I
TABLE 3G-91revised) I MITIGATION FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE RESOURCES WITHIN THE BRIDGE AND THOROUGHFARE DISTRICT
College Boulevard
Alternative 43
Cannon Road - Alternative 43
Total
Impacted
Mitigation (Reach A Required Required
Resource Type Ratio and B only*) Mitigation Total Impacted Mitigation Mitigation Recommendation
Upland Plant Community
Diegan coastal sage
scrub (occupied)t
Southern mixed and
chamise chaparral
Non-native grassland
Eucalyptus woodlandt
Agriculturalt
Disturbed?
2: 1
1:l
0.5: 1
Mitigation
Fee
Mitigation Fee
Mitigation
Fee
4.7
--
1 .o
0.5
mu
!Moo
&+&preservation or Durchase of mitigation
credit at a location acceptable to the City of Carlsbad
and responsible agencies
Ch&t+pEreservation or Durchase of mitigation
credit at a location acceptable to the City of Carlsbad
and responsible agencies
&+hp~reservation or Durchase of mitigation
credit at a location acceptable to the City of Carlsbad
and responsible agencies
Payment of a per acre fee, at an amount to be
determined by the City of Carlsbad City Council.
I
I
Payment of a per acre fee, at an amount to be
determined by the City of Carlsbad City Council.
Payment of a per acre fee, at an amount to be
determined by the City of Carlsbad City Council. I Upland Subtotal 24MU wa wm 55,8= Combination of on-site preservation and payment of
a per-acre fee.
TABLE 36-9 (revised) 1 MITIGATION FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE RESOURCES WITHIN THE BRIDGE AND THOROUGHFARE DISTRICT
(continued)
__ ~~ ~
College Boulevard
Alternative 43
Cannon Road - Alternative 43
Total
Impacted
Mitigation (Reach A Required Required
Resource Type Ratio and B only*) Mitigation Total Impacted Mitigation Mitigation Recommendation
Wetland Habitat
Riparian woodland 2: 1 3;eu 00 On-site creation and/or enhancement.
Riparian scrub 3: 1 0.3 0.9 Moo €MOO On-site creation and/or enhancement.
Riparian forest 2: 1 -_ -- w- e,Z- On-site creation and/or enhancement.
Cismontane alkali marsh 3: 1 -- -- 0.6 1.8 On-site creation and/or enhancement.
Cismontane alkali marsh 3: 1 --
(seasonal) I wo MOO On-site creation and/or enhancement.
Non-Wetland Jurisdictional 1:l w- QA-2 0.1 0.1 On-site creation.
Waters
Jurisdictional Waters wfi 44s Mfi On-site creation and/or enhancement.
Subtotal
I
I
-_ .
TABLE 3G-9J~visedl I MITIGATION FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE RESOURCES WITHIN THE BRIDGE AND THOROUGHFARE DISTRICT
(continued)
College Boulevard
Alternative 42 Cannon Road - Alternative 1.3
Total
Impacted
Mitigation (Reach A Required Required
Resource Type Ratio and B only*) Mitigation Total Impacted Mitigation Mitigation Recommendation
Sensitive Wildlife Resources
Coastal California
gnatcatcher
Active raptor nests
Removal of Diegan coastal sage scrub should occur
active nest impacts. All coastal sage scrub removal
should be monitored by a qualified biologist.
All trees should be removed between September and
January, outside the breeding season of local raptor
species. If trees are removed during the breeding
season, a raptor nest survey should be conducted by
a qualified biologist prior to any removal to
determine if any raptor nests are present. If an active
raptor nest is discovered, a buffer should be
established around the tree until young are inde-
pendent of nest site. The buffer is typically 500 feet.
between September 1 &February 14 to avoid I
*College Blvd. Reach C biological resource impacts previously mitigated as part of Calavera Hills Phase I Calavera Heights Mitigation Program (72-acre credit).
tThe City of Carlsbad’s Draft HMP (1999) requires different mitigation ratios for Diegan coastal sage scrub that is known to be occupied by the coastal
California gnatcatcher (Polioptila culifomica califomica). The Draft HMP also requires a mitigation fee for impacts to disturbed lands, eucalyptus woodland,
and agricultural lands in an amount to be determined by the City Council, if applicable.
TABLE 36-10 ~revised) I MITIGATION FOR SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO SENSITIVE RESOURCES WITHIN THE DETENTION BASINS PROJECT COMPONENT
Detention Basin “BJB” Detention Basin ‘‘BY
Berm Impacts Berm Impacts
Required RfXJUired
Resource Type Mitigation Total Mitigation Total Mitigation
Ratio Impacted Acreage Impacted Acreage Recommended Mitigation
Upland Plant Community
Agriculture* Mitigation 2.4 2.4 -- __ Payment of a per acre fee, at an amount to be determined by the
fee City of Carlsbad City Council.
Sensitive Wildlie Resources
Coastal California
gnatcatcher
Removal of Diegan coastal sage scrub should occur between
September 1 &February 14 to avoid active nest impacts. All
coastal sage scrub removal should be monitored by a qualified
biologist.
I
Active raptor nests All trees should be removed between September and January,
outside of the breeding season of local raptor species, If trees
are removed during the breeding season, a raptor nest survey
should be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to any
removal to determine if any raptor nests are present. If an active
raptor nest is discovered, a buffer should be established around
the tree until the young are independent of the nest site. The
buffer is typically 500 feet.
*The City of Carlsbad’s DraftHMP (1999) requires a mitigation fee for impacts to disturbed lands, eucalyptus woodland, and agricultural lands in an amount to
be determined by the City Council, if applicable. I
__ --_: _-
3. Environmental Analysis G. Biological Resources
I
\
Generally, the City of Carlsbad has mandated that no part of the fire suppression zones
shall be allowed within the open space side of the Draft HMP “hard-line” open space
areas. The applicant shall ensure that no part of any fire suppression zone shall be
allowed within the Draft HMP “hard-line” open space areas except at Village K and
Village X. Mitigation for this impact will reauire a modified proflam for fire suppression
(which reduces the fire suppression horizontal distances of the zones). a Dullback of the
structural development within these areas. and modification of the proposed “hard-line”
alignment through approval of the proposed “equivalency determination.”&wew+&
Mitigation for impacts to 27.5% acres of southern mixed and chamise chaparral would
be mitigated at a 1:l ratio through the on-site preservation of 38.9% acres.
Mitigation for impacts to 2.W acres of non-native grassland would be mitigated at a
0.5:l ratio through the on-site preservation of 18.23 acres.
Impacts to 0.1 acre of cismontane alkali marsh (seasonal) would be mitigated at a 3:l
ratio for a total of 0.3 acre. This can be accomplished through restoration of wetland
habitat on-site or at another appropriate off-site location.
Impacts to 1 acre of eucalwtus woodland and 13.7 acres of disturbed lands would be
mitigated - only if the Draft HMP is approved. If the Draft HMP is not approved, imuacts
to these lands would not be considered significant under CEOA and would not require
mitigation. If the Draft HMP is approved and resources are
determined 5 Cw to be subject to the Citv of Carlsbad “In-lieu
Mitigation Fee,: mitigation for impacts to eucalyptus woodland and disturbed lands
would be through a per acre fee at an amount to be determined by the City Council.
258
3. Environmental Analysis G. Biological Resources
Bridge and Thoroughfare District
Impacts resulting from the implementation of the reaches of the road extensions that fall
within the City jurisdiction shall be mitigated through the Lake Calavera Mitigation
Bank, as available. This applies to College Boulevard Reaches A and B and Cannon Road
Reaches 3 and 4. Impacts to upland plant communities on College Boulevard Reach C
have already been mitigated through an agreement entered into in 1993 between the
original Calavera owner and the City (see Appendix G). The specific impacts to
communities by reach are presented in Table 3G-6. The discussion below includes the
total mitigation required for each alignment alternative.
College Boulevard Alternative z€ (preferred alternative): Impacts to 4.7 acres of Diegan
coastal sage scrub resulting from impacts to Reaches A and B shall be mitigated at a 2:l
ratio for a total of 9.4 acres. Impacts to 1.0 acre of impacts to non-native grassland shall
be mitigated at a 0.51 ratio for a total of 0.5 acre. Impacts to 1.35 acres of riparian
woodland shall be mitigated at a 2:l ratio for a total of 2.6- acres. In addition, agencies
generally require the replacement of five sycamores for every tree affected. Impacts to 0.3
acre of riparian scrub shall be mitigated at a 3:l ratio for a total of 0.9 acre. If the Draft
HMF is adooted, Mr&tigation for impacts to eucalyptus woodland, agricultural lands, and
disturbed lands shall be mitigated through a fee per acre at an amount to be determined by
the City of Carlsbad City Council.
Cannon Road Alternative €2 Cpreferred alternative): Impacts to 16.W acres of
Diegan coastal sage scrub shall be mitigated at a 2:l ratio for a total of 3LW acres.
Impacts to 0.98 acre of impacts to non-native grassland shall be mitigated at a 0.5:l ratio
for a total of 0.54 acre. Impacts to 0.63 acre of riparian woodland shall be mitigated at a
2: 1 ratio for a total of 1.24 acres. In addition, agencies generally require the replacement
of five sycamores for every tree affected. ~
be mitigated at a 3:l ratio for a total of 0.9 acre. Impacts to 0.6 acre of cismontane alkali
marsh and 0.L2 acre of cismontane alkali marsh (seasonal) shall be mitigated at a 3: 1 ratio
for a total of 2.14 acres. If the Draft HMP is adopted, Mnjtigation for impacts to
eucalyptus woodland, agricultural lands, and disturbed lands shall be mitigated through a
fee per acre at an amount to be determined by the City of Carlsbad City Council.
..
n.- n3 u &.L L xseAmpacts to 0.23 acre of riparian scrub shall
259
3. Environmental Analvsis G. Biological Resources
f
i
I
i
i
b) Sensitive Wildlife
Calavera Hills Phase II and Bridpe and Thoroughfare District
Impacts to active coastal California gnatcatcher nests can be avoided by removing the
Diegan coastal sage scrub within the project area outside of the breeding season
(February 15 to August 30) unless a qualified biologist determines that there are no
Additionally, a qualified biologist shdedd-monitor all vegetation removal to ensure no
direct impacts occur to individual birds or nests.
.. impacts. k-- ..
To avoid potential impacts to nesting raptors, it is recommended that any trees be
removed between September and January, outside of the breeding season of local raptor
species. If tree removal must be conducted during the breeding season, a raptor nest
survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to any removal to determine if
any raptor nests are present. If an active raptor nest is discovered, a buffer should be
established around the tree until the young are independent of the nest site. The buffer is
typically 500 feet.
Impacts to active least Bell’s vireo nests can be avoided by removing the riparian scrub
and riparian woodland within the project area outside of the breeding season (March 15 to
September 15) unless otherwise specifically authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Additionally, a qualified biologist should monitor all vegetation removal to
ensure no direct impacts occur to individual birds or nests.
3. Environmental Analysis G. Biological Resources ’
c)
Calavera Hills Phase II and Bridge and Thoroughfare District
For all the proiect components, ampacts to USACE wetlands and non-wetland
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and CDFG jurisdictional wetlands require a 404 permit
from USACE, a 401 water quality certificate or waiver thereof from the Regional Water
Quality Control Board, and a 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG. Since
the three segments of the project are largely dependent on each other, agency policies
dictate that a single federal and a single state permit cover all wetlands/jurisdictional
waters impacts. Impacts to wetlands/jurisdictional waters are regulated by a no-net-loss
policy and, in the case of wetlands, require a larger replacement ratio to mitigate for the
loss of habitat. Impacts to wetlands shall be mitigated according to the ratios discussed
above in regard to the loss of the individual plant communities that are considered to be
wetland habitats. Impacts to non-wetland jurisdictional waters of the U.S. will require a
mitigation ratio of 1: 1.
Wetlands and Non-Wetland Jurisdictional Waters
Given the extent of impacts to wetlands and non-wetland jurisdictional waters of the
U.S., all project components will be included
be obtained from USACE.
- in an individual 404 permit I
Agency policy recommends that mitigation occur within the vicinity of the impacts or at
least within the same watershed. &litigation for project impacts shall occur io e&heee€
fwdocations that exist in the vicinity of the project. One location is situated within the
approximately seven available acres between the preferred alternative for Cannon Road
and the northern boundary of the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. Other wetland
mitination sites include ~ property owned by the Robertson
family, north of proposed Basin “BJB,” and within Basin “BJ” owned bv the Rancho
Carlsbad Mobile Home Park.
..
I I
i
I
i
I
;
I
1 1
I
1
j
I
j
Both candidate mitigation site alternatives appear to be feasible from a wetlands
revegetation standpoint and are expected to be used for biological mitigation.
i
26 1 i
3. Environmental Analysis H. Archaeology/Cultural Resources
H. Archaeology/Cultural Resources
In January 1992, RECON conducted a survey for cultural resources within the proposed
Calavera Hills Master Plan area as well as a portion of the College Boulevard alignment
located north of the future intersection of College BoulevarcVCannon Road. The technical
report for that project showed 13 cultural resource sites recorded within the Calavera
Hills Master Plan area. One additional site located within Robertson Ranch was also
discussed. Of the 14 sites, three sites (CA-SDI-635, -12,470, and -12,471) had the
potential for being adversely impacted by the 1992 Master Plan Amendment and thus
were evaluated (tested) and determined not to be significant as defined by CEQA.
The current RECON investigation for the Master Plan Amendment Phase II included an
archival research, field verification of the recorded locations, an update of the status of
these locations, and a pedestrian survey as well as review of all of the cultural resource
projects completed within the Calavera Hills Master Plan area and the proposed
alignments of College Boulevard and Cannon Road. A cultural resources technical report
documenting the results of the current survey is included as Appendix H of this EIR.
Existing Conditions
Based on the natural resources present on the project site, the area represents a favorable
location for human habitation. The project area was first systematically surveyed in 1977
(Bull 1977), and two sites found during this survey were evaluated in 1990 (Gallegos et
al. 1990). One other relevant survey was done on Robertson Ranch, which lies south of
the master plan area (Hector 1985).
a)
The vegetation communities on-site contain many plants used by Native American
populations for food, clothing, construction, and medicines. Well-known food plants on
the site are flat-top buckwheat, laurel sumac, lemonadeberry, toyon, black sage, and
Mexican elderberry. Willows were used in fabricating structures, clothing, and weapons.
The vegetation communities are fully described in Chapter 3.G., Biological Resources.
Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase 11
Wildlife species which would have represented a food source to Native Americans were
also documented in the biological survey prepared for this project. The project site is also
located near coastal lagoon resources which would have provided food sources such as
clams, scallops, mussels, and bean clams. Tidal species and deep water species of fish
were also food resources.
Lithic or stone sources include outcrops, alluvial deposits, exposures and remnant
materials associated with prehistoric activities. These sources were important factors
262
3. Environmental Analysis H. Archaeology/Cultural Resources
influencing prehistoric population settlement patterns. Examples of the preferred lithic
types include fine-grained stones for the construction of flaked stone tools. Granites and
coarse-grained stones for the construction of grinding implements. Suitable flaked or
ground stone raw materials can be found on a sporadic basis in the valley or creek
bottoms. Volcanic and metavolcanic stones are also present in association with Cerro de
la Calavera east of the Master Plan area, south of Lake Calavera.
Based on investigation of lagoon shore sites at Batiquitos Lagoon, Cheever and Eighmey
(1991) have proposed a model for changes in subsistence strategies through 9,000 years
of prehistory. This model proposes the existence of four periods of prehistory, which are
characterized as “a transition from more regular and long-term occupation of the lagoon
shore and terraces during the early period to a more transitory, limited or specific use
pattern during the late period” (Cheever and Eighmey 1991:l). Use of this model in the
interpretation of resources located within the Calavera Hills project area necessitates the
recovery of sufficient artifacts and faunal remains to identify intensity of use, subsistence
strategy, and temporal placement for the sites.
Research for the proposed project revealed that six sites (CA-SDI-635, -5437, -5438, -
5439, -12,470, and -12,471) are recorded within the boundaries of the Phase II Master
Plan area (see Appendix H, Confidential Attachment 1). These sites are discussed in
more detail in the impact section.
b) Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 Extension of College
Boulevard and Cannon Road and Detention Basins
The majority of the land in the vicinity of the proposed extensions of College Boulevard
and Cannon Road is currently vacant and often include agricultural operations.
Agricultural land and native vegetation exist along nearly the entire proposed alignments.
A review of site records on file at the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) and the
San Diego Museum of Man (SDMM) indicate that cultural resource sites are recorded
within the proposed alignment alternatives (see Appendix H, Confidential Attachment 1).
A total of fourteen sites and one isolate are recorded within the proposed and alternative
alignments for the roadways and the two detention basins. The quantity and type of sites
within each proposed alternative is provided in Table 3H-1. The potential for each of the
sites to be impacted by development of one of the proposed alignments or detention
basins is discussed below.
2) Impact
a)
Of the six sites previously documented within the villages to be addressed in the current
master plan amendment (CA-SDI-635, -5437, -5438, -5439, -12,470, and -12,471), CA-
Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II
I
,
i
!
263
TABLE 3H-1 (revised) I PREVIOUSLY RECORDED SITES RELATIVE TO THE
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES AND PHASE 11 VILLAGES
Alignment Alternative Site Number Site Description Significance, Impact, Action
Proposed Cannon Road Reach 3 Robertson Ranch House*
Alternative Cannon Road Reach 3 No sites within this
alternative
Cannon Road Reach 4 CA-SDI-8407
CA-SDI-8465 A, B, C
CA-SDI- 1 1,756
Proposed and Alternative College CA-SDI-9092 Boulevard Reach A
CA-SDI-9093
CA-SDI-9094
CA-SDI-96 15
CA-SDI- 15,069
CA-SDI- 15,073
CA-SDI- 18,284
Historic-era building
NA
Preserved in open space
Marine shell and flakes
Bedrock milling features
and marine shell
Marine shell and flakes
Marine shell midden
Assumed importantlsignificant pending evaluation
Assumed importantlsignificant pending evaluation
Assumed importantlsignificant pending evaluation
Assumed importantlsignificant pending evaluation
Marine shell and flakes
Marine shell and manos
Marine shell and flakes
Bedrock milling, shell,
flakes, and historic debris
Bedrock milling, mano, metate and flake
Isolate
Assumed importantlsignificant pending evaluation
Assumed importantlsignificant pending evaluation
Assumed importantlsignificant pending evaluation
Assumed importantlsignificant pending evaluation
Assumed importantlsignificant pending evaluation
TABLE 3H-1 (revised)
PREVIOUSLY RECORDED SITES RELATIVE TO THE
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES AND PHASE 11 VILLAGES
(continued)
Alignment Alternative Site Number Site Description Significance, Impact, Action
Proposed College Boulevard
Reach B
Alternative College Boulevard
Reach B
Proposed College Boulevard
Reach C
Alternative College Boulevard Reach C
Phase 11 Villages
CA-SDI-54 16
CA-SDI-5434
No sites within this
alternative
CA-SDI-543-
No sites within this alternativeCXABM4%
CA-SDI-l2,47Ot
CA-SDI-6353:
CA-SDI-5437
CA-SDI-5438
CA-SDI-5439
CA-SDI- 12,47 1 t
Bedrock milling, sherds,
and flakes
Marine shell
Marine shell and flakes
Marine shell and flakes
Marine shell and flakes
Isolate
Rock cairn
Marine shell
Marine shell and flakes
Assumed importantlsignificant pending evaluation
Assumed importanthignificant pending evaluation
Assumed importanthignificant uending evaluation
No adverse effect
No adverse effect
No adverse effect
Preserved in open space
Preserved in open space
No adverse effect
*Alignment misses house; house preserved.
tPreviously evaluated and found not importanthot significant (Wade 1992).
$Previously evaluated and found not importanthot significant (Gallegos 199 1).
I
i
I
1
3. Environmental Analysis H. Archaeology/Culturd Resources
SDI-635, -12,470, and -12,471 have been evaluated (Gallegos 1991; Wade 1992) and
determined to be neither a unique archaeological nor a historical resource. Therefore, the
effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered significant under CEQA
and the Cultural Resource Guidelines (CRG) of the City of Carlsbad. Additionally, CA-
SDI-5437 is recorded as an isolated artifact consisting of a single flake and as such
requires no additional evaluation under CEQA or the CRG.
Sites CA-SDI-5438 and -5439 are located within areas of proposed open space and a
wildlife corridor. The potential for direct impacts to these sites is low and would only
result from alterations to the existing access roadways adjacent to the recorded locations.
Since neither of these sites is visible, the potential for casual and illicit collection from
the sites is low.
Thus, the six sites located within the master plan area have been either previously
determined to be not significant under CEQA or are located within areas proposed for
permanent open space and will not be adversely affected by the proposed development.
The proposed development associated with the master plan area will not impact any
significant cultural resources.
b) Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 Extension of College
Boulevard and Cannon Road and Detention Basins
The second primary aspect of this project EIR is to assess the impacts resulting from
developing one of two alternative alignments for the extensions of College Boulevard and
Cannon Road and related roadhainage improvements and detention basins within the
general area southeast of the Calavera Hills Master Plan (see Figure 3-2). The proposed
project is to develop Reaches A, B, and C for College Boulevard and Reaches 3 and 4 for
Cannon Road (see Figure 3-2). Alternative alignments for both roadways are discussed
in the Chapter 4, Alternatives.
Because it is not known which alignment will be selected, all of the fourteen sites located
within one of the alternative alignments are discussed. A summary of the quantity and
type of sites within each proposed alternative is provided in Table 3H- 1.
One of the fourteen sites (CA-SDI-12,470) has been evaluated (Wade 1992) and
determined to be neither a unique archaeological nor a historical resource. Therefore, the
effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered significant or important
under CEQA. In addition, CA-SDI-018284, an isolate, does not meet the criteria of
importance/significance. The remaining sites will require significance assessments in
order to comply with CEQA if they fall within a selected alignment. Until an alternative
alignment is selected and the affected sites have been evaluated for significance, the
proposed project would have a significant impact on cultural resources.
266
i 3. Environmental Analysis H. Archaeology/Cultural Resources
3) Mitigation
a) Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II
Development of the Master Plan will not adversely impact a significant cultural resource.
No mitigation is necessary.
b) Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 Extension of College
Boulevard and Cannon Road and Detention Basins
Fourteen sites and one isolate are recorded within the proposed alignment and alternative
alignments for the College Boulevard and Cannon Road alignments. Depending on the
alignment selected, significant impacts could result. To avoid or reduce potentially
significant impacts to archaeological resources, the project proponent shall ensure that the
following measures be implemented upon selection/approval of a final alignment by the City
Council and prior to approval of the master tentative map's Final Map or Grading Plan.
Subsequent to the close of the draft EIR public review period, the proiect applicant
implemented the mitigation requirements prescribed below. The results of this mitigation
{Le., testing of the 14 identified sites within the alignments) indicate that one site (CA-
SDI-11756) within Cannon Road Reach 4 (Alignment 2) is significant and would require
further mitisation (data recovery) as listed below as item 5 to reduce the impacts to below
a level of significance. Another site was also determined to be significant (CA-SDI-9092
Locus B) but would be impacted by the alignment of College Boulevard Reach A.
Should the City of Carlsbad adopt Alignment 2 for Cannon Road Reach 4, then this
additional mitigation would be required. A summary of the testing program is included
as an attachment to Amendix H (cultural resources report).
1. Prior to any disturbance, the project applicant shall provide a letter of verification to
the City of Carlsbad Director of Planning that a qualified archaeologistkultural
resource specialist has been retained to conduct a field testing investigation for the
sites within the selected alignment(s).
2. Prior to any disturbance, a qualified archaeologist/cultural resource specialist shall
conduct a site testing investigation for resources located in the chosen alignments to
determine if any of the affected sites meet the eligibility criteria for the California
Register of Historical Resources as required under CEQA. The project proponent
shall submit the results of the testing program and related mitigation program to the
City of Carlsbad Planning Department prior to commencement of clearing, grubbing,
or grading activities for roadway or detention basin construction. The test program for
each site shall consist of mapping, a surface collection, surface scrapes, and
subsurface test probes (STPs). If a subsurface deposit is identified as a result of the
STPs, up to three 1x1-meter units shall be hand excavated to provide a sample of site
contents. Where bedrock milling is present, each feature shall be measured, drawn to
scale, and photographed.
i
i 'i
I
i
1 I. 267
3. Environmental Analysis H. Archaeology/Cultural Resources
3.
4.
5.
Following site testing investigation, the qualified archaeologistkultural resource
specialist shall analyze recovered cultural material and a summary report shall be
prepared and submitted to the City of Carlsbad Director of Planning, South Coast
Information Center (SCIC), and San Diego Museum of Man (SDMM). The summary
report shall document the significance assessment investigations, present discussions
and supporting data concerning the site’s ability to address applicable research issues,
and make any necessary recommendations for impact mitigation.
The qualified archaeologist/cultural resource specialist, in cooperation with the City
of Carlsbad, shall update or complete site records, submit them to the SCIC and the
SDMM and make arrangements for the curation of the collections as needed
following completion of the site investigation and preparation of a summary report.
Prior to any disturbance and after release of the site testing investigation results, a
treatment plan detailing the mitigation of impacts to any sites identified as important
sites shall be prepared by the qualified archaeologistkultural resource specialist and
approved by the City of Carlsbad. The qualified archaeologist/cultural resources
specialist shall develop mitigation for any eligible sites consisting of preservation of
significant resources in open space. If this is not feasible, a data recovery program
shall be carried out. The proposed treatment plan shall be prepared to provide details
for the mitigation of impacts to important sites and shall be approved by the City of
Carlsbad. This plan shall be implemented prior to the issuance of grading permits.
4) Analysis of Significance
a) Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II
Development of the master plan will not adversely impact a significant cultural resource.
b) Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 Extension of College
Boulevard and Cannon Road and Detention Basins
There are fourteen -sites recorded within and immediately adjacent to the
proposed College Boulevard and Cannon Road alignments. These resources have been
mw+bevaluated to determine their eligibility criteria for the California Register of
Historical Resources, as required under CEQA, and their significance under the CRG.
The evaluations wi4-included surface and subsurface testing investigations, updates of
site records for each evaluated resource, and a summary report and agreements for the
long-term curation of the archaeological collections. Site CA-SDI-11756 is considered a
significant site and would be imDacted should Aliment 2 for Cannon Road Reach 4 be
adopted. If significant sites will be impacted as a result of the proposed improvements
then mitigation will be required. The breadth and scope of mitigation will be developed
on the basis of the results of the site evaluations.
268
3. Environmental Analysis I. Paleontology
I. Paleontology
RMW Paleo Associates, Inc. prepared a paleontological assessment for the development
proposed for Villages E-1, H, K, L-2, R, U, W, X, and Y of the Cdavera Hills Master
Plan and the off-site grading for College Boulevard in June 199 1. The study assessed the
known and potential paleontological resources within the project area through literature
and records reviews and a field survey. This section summarizes that study and includes
a paleontological assessment of areas to be graded for the City of Carlsbad Bridge &
Thoroughfare District No. 4 - College BoulevardCannon Road Extensions.
Existing Conditions
Exposed rock in the study area includes Cretaceous-age granitic rock, Cretaceous-age
Lusardi Formation, Eocene-age Santiago Formation, and Quaternary-age deposits. These
rocks have a varied history of fossil production in the region.
The granitic rocks present in the study area are approximately 100 million years old.
These rocks were formed when molten rock cooled deep within the earth. They are now
exposed due to uplift and erosion associated with the development of the Peninsular
Mountain Range. Because these rocks were formed intrusively, they do not contain
fossils.
The Lusardi Formation consists of sandstones and conglomerates that were deposited in a
shallow sea that covered the region approximately 70 million years ago. During the field
study, no fossils were discovered in the formation underlying the project area. However,
this rock unit has a moderate to possibly high potential for containing significant fossils.
Other Cretaceous-age rock units in the Carlsbad area have produced numerous
invertebrate and vertebrate (dinosaur) remains.
The youngest bedrock in the study area is the Santiago Formation. This formation is
approximately 35-54 million years old. At several locations in the Carlsbad and Camp
Pendleton areas, sandstones in this formation have produced large and diverse
assemblages of terrestrial vertebrate fossils. This formation has a high potential for
containing significant fossils. There are two recorded occurrences of fossils in the
Santiago Formation within one mile of the study area. No fossils were located in the
Santiago Formation during the field study.
Quaternary-age deposits in the study area are undifferentiated deposits of streams and
rivers. There are no records of fossils from these deposits within the project area and no
fossils were found during the field study. There are records of fossils from deposits of
similar age elsewhere in northern San Diego County. These deposits have a low to
moderate potential for containing fossils.
i
269
3. Environmental Analysis I. Paleontology
i
2) Impacts
a) Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase 11
Based on the geological mapping done by RMW Paleo, Inc. all of Village H is underlain
by the Santiago Formation, which has a high potential for containing fossils. Villages K,
L-2, and E-1 consist entirely of the granitic rocks which do not contain fossils. Village W
consists of the Lusardi Formation, a fossiliferous formation, which has moderate to high
potential for containing fossils. Villages U, X, and Y do not have paleontological
potential because they are not underlain by fossiliferous rock formations, and therefore,
do not contain fossils. Figure 3B-1 shows the underlying site topography associated with
those villages.
Destruction of fossils would represent an adverse impact on the region’s paleontological
resources.
b) Bridge & Thoroughfare District No. 4 - College Boulevard
Cannon Road Extensions
The proposed alignment for College Boulevard Erom the Calavera Hills Master Plan
south to El Camino Real and Canon Road between El Camino Real and College
Boulevard are generally underlain by the Quaternary deposits, which have a low to
moderate potential for the discovery of fossils. The proposed alignments for Cannon
Road from College Boulevard to the city of Oceanside are underlain by the Lusardi
Formation which has a moderate to high potential for the discovery of significant fossils
and the Santiago Formation which has a high potential for discovery of fossils.
Destruction of fossils would represent an adverse impact on the region’s paleontological
resources.
c) Detention Basins
The third component of the project consists of the construction of two detention basins
(see Figures 2-1 and 2-3) by the City of Carlsbad to control flooding impacts within
Calaveras Creek watershed. These basins have been recommended near the northeast
corner of the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. Basin “BJB” at the northwest
quadrant of the College BoulevardKannon Road intersection is underlain by the Santiago
Formation, which has a high potential for discovery of fossils and Quaternary-age
deposits which can have a low to moderate potential for containing fossils. Basin “BJ” is
located southeast of the College BoulevardlCannon Road intersection and is also
underlain by the Santiago Formation and Quaternary-age deposits.
270
3. Environmental Analysis I. Paleontology
3) Mitigation
I
Adverse impacts to paleontological resources could occur during grading of Villages H
and W and during grading for any of the proposed road extension alignments. Grading
for these projects could also impact paleontological resources in the “BJB” and “BJ”
detention basins.
The following mitigation measures would reduce the adverse impact of grading these
areas to an acceptable level. These mitigation measures would be carried out in
coordination with the City’s adopted paleontological mitigation program.
The following measures shall be made a condition of the master tentative map’s Final
Map or Grading Plan approval, whichever occurs first:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of
excavations and, if necessary, salvage exposed fossils. The frequency of inspections
will depend on the rate of excavations, the materials being excavated, and the
abundance of fossils.
The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of an
exposed fossil to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage.
Because of the small nature of some fossils present in these rock units, matrix
samples should be collected for processing through fine mesh screens.
Provisions for preparation and curation shall be made before the fossils are donated to
their final repository.
AI1 fossils collected should be donated to a museum with a systematic paleontological
collection, such as the San Diego Natural History Museum.
4) Analysis of Significance
Grading for the proposed project could destroy fossils in the underlying rock. This
represents a significant impact to the region’s paleontological resources. The measures
described above would mitigate this impact to below a level of significance.
I
!
i 27 1 I
3. Environmental Analysis J. Hydrology
J. Hydrology
This section is based on the hydrology study for the Calavera Hills Master Plan Area,
Phase I, prepared by Howard H. Chang, Ph.D., P.E. in November, 1991; the conceptual
drainage plan outlined in a June 30, 1998 report, Rancho Carlsbad Channel & Basin
Project, prepared by Rick Engineering company; and the City of Carlsbad’s 1994 Master
Drainage Plan (MDP). The section evaluates runoff, erosion, and sedimentation impacts,
urban pollutant control, and dam breach impacts in the Calavera Hills Master Plan area as
well as the downstream effects of constructing two detention basins in the Calavera
Creek drainage basin.
1) Existing Conditions
a) Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase 11
The proposed project includes Villages E-1, H, K, L-2, R, U, W, X, and Y of the
Calavera Hills Master Plan. These villages are located within four drainage basins.
Figure 3J-1 shows the drainage basins and the direction of flow from each basin.
Table 35- 1 lists which proposed villages are contained in each basin.
TABLE 35-1
VILLAGES IN EACH DRAINAGE BASIN
Basin Village
I E-1, K, L-2
II H
m R, K
Iv u, w, x, Y, z
The surface areas for Basins I, II, III, and IV are 312, 63, 34, and 215 acres, respectively.
Portions of all these basins have been developed with residential uses. In the undeveloped
areas, the surface cover can be classified as narrowleaf chaparral, with shrubs usually
widely spaced and low to the ground. All four hydrological soil types are present in the
Calavera Hills Master Plan. Soils are classified into four groups (A, B, C, and D) based
on their infiltration rate (County of San Diego 1985). For example, clay soils, which are
in Soil Group D, have a very slow infiltration rate and consequently a high rate of runoff.
The project area is estimated to consist of approximately 70 percent Soil Group D.
272
3. Environmental halvsis J. Hydrology
The proposed project is located within two watersheds, the Buena Vista Creek watershed,
which drains to the north where the flow from Basin I is directed, and the Agua Hedionda
Creek watershed, which drains to the south where the flow from Basins II, IE, and lV is
directed (Figure 3J-2). Each drainage basin flows into a different body of water. Three of
the basins drain into creeks which flow into lagoons before reaching the ocean. Basin III
flows southeasterly into Lake Calavera. Drainage from Basin I encompassing Village K
and E-1 flows in a northerly direction through a single natural watercourse to Buena
Vista Creek. Near the Master Plan's southwestern boundary, drainage from Basin II
including Village H flows into an existing concrete-lined channel directed toward Agua
Hedionda Creek. Drainage from Basin ID flows through an existing detention basin
before reaching Lake Calavera. Flow from Basin IV follows three different natural water
drainages in an easterly direction to Calavera Creek. From there Calavera Creek flows
southward and westward towards the ocean.
b) Bridge & Thoroughfare District No. 4 - College Boulevard
Cannon Road Extensions
The proposed extensions of College Boulevard and Cannon Road as primary arterials
would traverse lands within Calavera Creek and its eastern tributary (Little Encinas
Creek), and Agua Hedionda Creek. Cannon Road would cross only Calavera Creek near
its intersection with College Boulevard and College Boulevard would cross Agua
Hedionda Creek, Little Encinas Creek, and Calavera Creek as it proceeds northerly from
El Camino Real. In addition, the alignment for both roadways would cross smaller
tributary channels associated with each of these creeks. The entirety of the roadway
areas is within the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Drainage Basin, which encompasses
approximately 28 square miles.
I c) Detention Basins
The project includes the construction of two detention basins located within the Calavera
Creek and Little Encinas Creek watersheds.
d) Lake Calavera Dam
Lake Calavera Dam is an earth- and rock-filled dam located at the western end of
Calavera Lake, east of the Master Plan area.
e) Water Quality
For the management of storm water, municipalities in the San Diego region, including the
City of Carlsbad, must comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board's
(RWQCB's) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("DES) Permit, which
consists of wastewater discharge requirements for storm water and urban runoff. A Best
Management Practices (BMPs) Program for Stormwater Pollution Control has been
274
WATERSHED BOUNDARIES
STORM DRAIN
CREEK FLOW LINE
RECON - - -
DIRECTION OF FLOW
SEDIMENT DETENTION BASIN
SIZED AS NOTED
Source: Plannmg Systems 8/00 FIGURE 35-2 9 NO SCALE Watershed Boundaries
R-3225E
3. Environmental Analysis J. Hydrology
i
i
created. BMPs appropriate to the characteristics of a project may be employed to reduce
pollutants available for transport or to reduce the amount of pollutants in runoff prior to
discharge to a surface water body. Additional measures are required to control potential
construction-related impacts. Among BMPs employed where the increase in impervious
surfaces substantially increases runoff rates and volumes are:
Detention basins, effective for very large drainage areas. These are essentially ponds
with controlled release rates to minimize downstream effects. Some pollutants can
settle during storage and improve the quality of water released.
Infiltration basins, designed to hold runoff and allow percolation into the ground.
These basins need adequate storage volume and good permeability of the underlying
soils.
Infiltration trenches and dry wells, holes, or trenches filled with aggregate and then
covered. Dry wells are typically used for runoff from roofs; infiltration trenches
typically serve larger areas, such as streets and parking lots in commercial areas.
Both are best suited for areas with permeable soils and a sufficiently low water table
or bedrock.
Porous pavement such as lattice pavers or porous asphalt. These may be used to
replace large areas of paving that are not subject to heavy traffic.
Vegetative controls, plant materials which intercept rainfall and filter pollutants and
absorb nutrients.
Grassed swales, shallow grass-covered channels used in place of a buried storm drain.
This type of vegetative control is most applicable to residential areas.
BMPs can also include nonstructural methods, such as controlling litter and waste
disposal practices. The "DES construction permit requires that the project provide
similar temporary or permanent measures to (1) reduce or eliminate non-storm water
discharges to the storm water conveyance system. In addition, the project must
(2) develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and
(3) develop and implement a monitoring and reporting program that includes site
inspections before and after every storm event to assess the integrity and effectiveness of
erosion control measures and other BMPs.
3. Environmental Analysis J. Hydrology
2) Impacts
a) Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II
Storm Runoff
Creation of impervious surfaces on what is now undeveloped land in the remaining
villages would cause an increase in the amount of runoff. These increases in runoff result
from the changes to a landscape characterized by roads, buildings, and domestic
plantings. The pavement and other impermeable surfaces associated with development
increase the amount of runoff from a site and reduce the ability of water to percolate into
the ground. Runoff from the developed areas of the site would be controlled and diverted
into the proposed storm drain system. The project design along with the proposed
downstream detention basin “BJB” would decrease the amount of surface runoff to
bordering areas of development and decrease overall runoff velocity.
The projected increases in peak discharges due to the proposed Master Plan Phase II
development in each drainage basin were computed for the 100-year 6-hour storm event.
The 6-hour storm event was used instead of a 24-hour storm event because it produces
higher runoff discharges in small basins like the ones in the project area.
Increases in runoff were calculated using the HEC-1 computer program developed by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Soil Conservation Service Method. The increases
in runoff discharge over existing conditions due to proposed developments for Basins I,
II, and III range from 2.0 to 3.5 percent. The slight increase in runoff from Basins I and 11
would cause a small negative impact to the hydrology of the area. The small increase in
runoff from Basin III could be handled by the existing detention basin and no impacts
would occur within this drainage area. Basin IV would experience a more substantial 9.9
percent increase in runoff. Basin IV follows three different natural water drainages in an
easterly direction to Calavera Creek, which flows southward and westward towards the
ocean. The project design includes the construction of a downstream detention basin that
would handle the increase of surface runoff in Basins III and N of the project area.
Erosion and Sedimentation
Development causes erosion and sedimentation in different ways at different stages.
During the construction stage, there is a substantial increase in sediment production from
ground surfaces due to grading and lack of vegetation. After development is complete,
sediment production is generally reduced below natural conditions due to pavement,
landscaping, and drainage facilities. Therefore, the time of greatest erosion and
sedimentation impact is during the construction stage. Without mitigation, these impacts
would be considered significant. Since Buena Vista Creek, Agua Hedionda Creek, and
Calavera Creek all flow into lagoons, increased sediment carried in these streams would
adversely affect the lagoons. Lagoons act as sediment traps, and the increased sediment
277
I (
1
I
1
!
1 !
I i
! i
!
I !
I
j
j
1
I 1
i
I
I
I
3. Environmental Analysis J. Hydrology
f
carried in the creeks would deposit in the lagoons, causing them to fill. The sh&t-tenn
construction impacts to water quality can result from increased sediment from erosion
during construction, especially during wet weather seasons. These activities would,
without control measures, increase the amount of sedimentation and siltation associated
with runoff.
Because drainage flows toward the ocean, another area of concern is the project’s effect
on beach sand supply. Increases in sediment production may benefit a beach, and
conversely, decreases in sediment production after an area is developed could adversely
affect beach sand supply. The project drains into creeks, which flow into lagoons.
Approximately all sediments, which are carried from the project site would drop out in
the lagoons before they reached the ocean. Therefore, the project site is not a supply area
for beach sand.
Downstream Channels of Calavera Creek
The size of the natural swale of Calavera Creek from Calavera Dam to the future
intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road was determined to be adequate to
contain a 100-year 6-hour storm event (1991). The existing and proposed Phase II
development are above the 100-year flood levels of Calavera Creek and would not be
adversely affected.
Downstream of the future College BoulevardCannon Road intersection, Calavera Creek
is inadequate for the 100-year flood. This section of the creek flows south of and parallel
to Cannon Road through the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. This section of the
creek has become filled with silt. In addition, downstream at El Camino Real, the bridge
is currently unable to handle substantial flood flows.
Basins II, IlI, and IV, which include Villages E-1, H, R, U, W, X, and Y, drain directly or
indirectly into this creek. Detention basin “BJB” is shown on the mass grading plan to
accommodate runoff from the site. Development of these villages would be affected by
the inadequate carrying capacity of Agua Hedionda Creek. According to the Growth
Management Program Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 7 (Calavera Hills
Master Plan area), improvement of this section of Calavera Creek is a prerequisite to
development in the drainage basin. This improvement would be accommodated by the
proposed detention basins “BJB” and “BJ” which are described under item c) detention
basins below.
Urban Pollutants
The conversion of land to urban use will increase the amount of pollutants entering into
the hydrologic system, primarily through the storm water drainage. These increased
pollutants are directly related to the oils, fuel residues, and heavy metals associated with
automobiles. Water running off building surfaces picks up chemicals from construction
278
3. Environmental Analysis J. Hydrology
materials; water flowing across streets and driveways picks up hydrocarbons and heavy
metals associated with roadways and automobiles; and runoff from domestic landscaped
areadgardens is contaminated with fertilizers and pesticides. These contaminants have
the potential to affect the biological community within the immediate area and within the
drainage system.
b) Bridge & Thoroughfare District No. 4 - College Boulevard
Cannon Road Extensions
Runoff from the proposed arterial roadways and graded slopes associated with College
Boulevard and Cannon Road would be diverted into storm drain structures within or
adjacent to the roadways and drain ultimately into either Calavera Creek, Little Encinas
Creek, or Agua Hedionda Creek. Energy dissipating devices are proposed at each of the
outlet structures along both roadways to reduce erosional impacts. In addition, the
detained runoff from basin “BJB” would be discharged into the existing drainage channel
north of the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park via a culvert proposed beneath the
College BoulevardCannon Road intersection.
c) Detention Basins
As noted above, the project includes the construction of two detention basins located
within the Calavera Creek watershed. The construction of the basins along with the
removal of the RV storage area and garden would create erosion and sedimentation
impacts. However, the basins are part of a larger conceptual drainage plan outlined in the
Rancho Carlsbad Channel & Basin Project (Rick Engineering 1998). The intent of the
drainage plan is to provide recommendations for minimizing the 100-year inundation
within the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. The detention basins correspond to
facilities “BJ” and “BJB” in the City of Carlsbad’s 1994 MDP. Both detention basins
were designed as flow-by basins. In a flow-by basin, the larger flows are attenuated while
the lesser flows are allowed to “flow-by” the basin undetained.
The first detention facility, corresponding to MDP facility “BJB,” is located north of the
proposed intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road (see Figure 3B-14). Under
the conceptual plan, the detention basin consists of an earthen embankment, outlet works,
and a small earthen berm. The earthen embankment would be designed so that it can be
incorporated into the proposed College Boulevard embankment at the crossing of
Calavera Creek. The earthen embankment described below for Basin “BJB” is the
requirement for a berm built independent of the berm formed by College Boulevard and
Cannon Road.
Preliminary design shows that the earthen embankment would have a 10-foot top width,
76-foot crest elevation, and 2:l (horiz0ntal:vertical) side slopes. The outlet would consist
of a single 10-foot-wide by 7-foot-high reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) and a
I
279
3. Environmental Analysis J. Hydrology
I
I
!
I
72-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP). The 72-inch RCP joins the RCBC downstream
of the embankment, and the RCBC then outlets into Calavera Creek. A small earthen
berm would run parallel to the westerly edge of Calavera Creek for approximately 1,200
feet upstream of the earthen embankment. The berm would have a 10-foot top width, 74-
foot crest elevation, 2:l side slopes, and a weir section. The weir section is the control
mechanism for the flow-by basin. The weir would allow creek flow to enter the basin
when the flow reaches an approximate water surface elevation of 73 feet. Hydrologic
calculations show that the 100-year ultimate condition peak discharge of 1,570 cubic feet
per second (cfs) entering the basin would be detained down to 1,200 cfs. The resultant
ponded water surface elevation would be approximately 75 feet, the inundation area will
be approximately 15 acres, the storage volume would be approximately 49 acre-feet, and
the maximum storage depth would be approximately 13 feet.
The second detention facility, corresponding to MDP facility “BJ,” (see Figure 3B-15) is
located east of the proposed intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road. Under
the conceptual plan, the detention basin consists of an earthen embankment, outlet works,
and channel improvements. The earthen embankment would be designed so that it can be
incorporated into the proposed College Boulevard embankment at the crossing of a
tributary to Calavera Creek. Construction of the “BJ” detention facility would also
include removal of existing improvements such as a paved area, sewer lines, and
improvements for the garden. Removal of these items would create more habitat value for
the area, as well as improve water quality and percolation. The earthen embankment
described below for Basin “BJ” is the requirement for a berm built independent of the
berm formed by College Boulevard and Cannon Road.
The preliminary design shows that the earthen embankment would have a 10-foot top
width, 78-foot crest elevation, and 2:l side slopes. The outlet would consist of a single 6-
foot-wide by 3-foot-high RCP. Approximately 600 feet of channel improvements
upstream of the proposed embankment are necessary in the adjacent creek. The channel
improvements would include grading of a trapezoidal, grass-lined channel with a 3-foot
bottom width, 4-foot depth, and 2:l side slopes. Hydrologic calculations show that the
100-year ultimate condition peak discharge of 670 cfs entering the basin would be
detained down to 350 cfs. The resultant ponded water surface elevation would be
approximately 76 feet, the inundation area would be approximately 8 acres, the storage
volume will be approximately 48 acre-feet, and the maximum storage depth would be
approximately 16 feet.
d) Breach of the Lake Calavera Dam
A dam breach analysis was conducted to determine the flood discharge which would
result in assuming a full reservoir behind the dam. The inundation area was determined
for use in the development of evacuation plans as required by the State Office of
Emergency Services. For areas immediately below a dam, the dam breach discharge is i
280
3. Environmental Analysis J. Hydrology
usually greater than the 100-year flood volumes. The probability of a dam breach is
generally considered to be lower than the 100-year flood event.
Since the dam is constructed of earth and rock, the breach analysis assumed that failure is
caused by erosion of the dam and that one-half of the reservoir capacity would be
required to erode the dam to natural ground level. As the flow is routed downstream, the
peak discharge of 3,402 cfs is attenuated by channel storage of water created by the road
embankments of College Boulevard and Cannon Road. At the intersection of these two
roadways, the discharge rate would be reduced to 2,017 cfs.
In the stream channel upstream of the road embankments, the area of inundation would
be within designated open space areas and would not affect existing or proposed
developments. The dam breach discharge would overflow onto College Boulevard and
Cannon Road and then reenter the main channel and the east branch of Calavera Creek.
3) Mi tigation
The project will be required to comply with the NPDES permit regulations as
promulgated by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Diego
region. Current regulations require the control of non-storm water discharges to the
storm water conveyance system, development and implementation of a monitoring and
reporting program to assess the SWPPP.
The RWQCB is currently developing new regulations for the NPDES permit (Tentative
Order No. 2001-01). The final order is scheduled to be published in February 2001. As a
condition of approval of the master tentative map’s Final Map or Grading Plan,
whichever occurs first, the project will be required to adhere to the new regulations and to
control sedimentation and erosion, including installation of temporary detention basins or
other means of stabilization or impoundment required by the State Water Resources
Control Board. The following guidelines shall be used during design and implemented
during construction to reduce runoff and minimize erosion:
Comply with current drainage design policies set forth in the City of Carlsbad
procedures.
Create desiltation basins where necessary to minimize erosion and prevent sediment
transport, until the storm drain system is in place and streets are paved.
9 Landscape all exposed, manufactured slopes per City of Carlsbad erosion control
standards.
i
i
281
*.
, !, i
3. Environmental Analysis J. Hydrology
e Phase grading operations and slope landscaping to reduce the susceptibility of slopes
to erosion.
Control sediment production from graded building pads with low perimeter berms,
desiltation basins, jute matting, sandbags, bladed ditches, or other appropriate
methods.
4) Significance After Mitigation
Construction of the proposed detention basins “BJB” and “BJ” along with the smaller
detention facilities shown on the Master TM would mitigate developed 100-year flood
peak flows from Calavera Hills Phase II to below a significant level. Implementation of
BMPs to control urban pollutants (e.g., constructing detention and siltation basins,
creating grass swales or filter strips, and revegetating natural drainages) for both Calavera
Hills Phase II and the Bridge and Thoroughfare District would mitigate these potential
impacts to below a level of significance.
iI
I 282
3. Environmental Analysis K. AirQuality
K. Air Quality
1) Existing Conditions
a) Climate
The project area has a warm-summer Meditexranean climate characterized by warm, dry
summers and mild, wet winters. The mean annual temperature for the project area is 74
degrees Fahrenheit 0. The average annual precipitation is 13 inches, falling primarily
from November to April. Winter low temperatures in the project area average about 44
degrees F, and summer high temperatures average about 81 degrees F (U.S. Department
of Commerce 1992).
The dominant meteorological feature affecting the region is the Pacific High Pressure
Zone, which produces the prevailing westerly to northwesterly winds. These winds tend
to blow pollutants away from the coast toward the inland areas. Consequently, air quality
near the coast is generally better than that which occurs at the base of the coastal
mountain range.
Fluctuations in the strength and pattern of winds from the Pacific High Pressure Zone
interacting with the daily local cycle produce periodic temperature inversions that
influence the dispersal or containment of air pollutants in the San Diego Air Basin
(SDAB). Beneath the inversion layer pollutants become “trapped” as their ability to
disperse diminishes. The mixing depth is the area under the inversion layer. Generally,
the morning inversion layer is lower than the afternoon inversion layer. The greater the
change between the morning and afternoon mixing depths, the greater the ability of the
atmosphere to disperse pollutants.
Throughout the year the height of the temperature inversion in the afternoon varies
between approximately 1,500 and 2,500 feet above MSL. In winter, the morning
inversion layer is about 800 feet above MSL. In summer, the morning inversion layer is
about 1,100 feet above MSL. Generally, therefore, air quality tends to be better in winter
than in summer. The project site is situated at an elevation of approximately 650 feet
above MSL.
The prevailing westerly wind pattern is sometimes interrupted by regional “Santa Ana”
conditions. A Santa Ana occurs when a strong high pressure develops over the Nevada-
Utah area and overcomes the prevailing westerly coastal winds, sending strong, steady,
hot, dry northeasterly winds over the mountains and out to sea. I
283 *i
I
3. Environmental Analvsis K. AirQuality ,
I I
[!
Strong Santa Anas tend to blow pollutants out over the ocean, producing clear days.
However, at the onset or during breakdown of these conditions, or if the Santa Ana is
weak, local air quality may be adversely affected. In these cases, emissions from the
South Coast Air Basin to the north are blown out over the ocean, and low pressure over
Baja California draws this pollutant-laden air mass southward. As the high pressure
weakens, prevailing northwesterly winds reassert themselves and send this cloud of
contamination ashore in the SDAB.
When this event does occur, the combination of transported and locally produced
contaminants produce the worst air quality measurements recorded in the basin.
b) Regulatory Framework
Federal Regulations
The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was enacted in 1970 and amended in 1977 and 1990
[42 U.S.C. 7506(c)] for the purposes of protecting and enhancing the quality of the
nation’s air resources to benefit public health, welfare, and productivity.
In 1971, in order to achieve the purposes of Section 109 of the act, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) developed primary and secondary national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). Six pollutants of primary concern were designated: ozone, carbon
monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and suspended particulates (PMlo). The
primary NAAQS must “protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety” and
the secondary standards must “protect the public welfare from known or anticipated
adverse effects (aesthetics, crops, architecture, etc.)” (Federal Clean Air Act 1990:Section
109). The primary standards were established, with a margin of safety, considering long-
term exposures for the most sensitive groups in the general population (i.e., children,
senior citizens, and people with breathing difficulties).
If an air basin is not in federal attainment for a particular pollutant, the basin is classified
as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme. Under San Diego’s current federal
classification as a serious non-attainment area for ozone, the CAA specifies several
requirements, including (County of San Diego 1998):
Federal ozone standard attainment by November 1999 and a demonstration that the
State Implementation Plan provides for attainment.
Emissions reduced 15 percent between 1990 and 1996, and reduced 3 percent each
year thereafter until attainment.
Transportation Control Measures if vehicle travel and emissions exceed attainment
demonstration levels.
284
3. Environmental Analvsis K. &Quality
0 Enhanced motor vehicle inspection and maintenance program.
Clean-fuel vehicle program.
In 1997 the EPA established new federal air quality standards for ozone and fine particles
(PM2.5). The EPA promulgated a new 8-hour ozone standard of 8 parts per hundred
million (pphm) that is to replace the existing 1-hour standard of 12 pphm. In those areas
currently in attainment of the 1-hour standard, the 1-hour standard was replaced by the 8-
hour standard. However, the existing 1-hour standard continued to apply in each
nonattainment area (such as San Diego) until attainment of the 1-hour standard was
achieved. After attainment of the 1-hour standard, the 1-hour standard will be revoked,
leaving only the 8-hour standard (County of San Diego 1999a).
The existing federal standard for inhalable partkles targets those particles that are 10
microns or less in diameter (PMlo) and will be retained. The new federal fine particulate
standards target PM2.5-inhalable particles that are 2.5 microns or less in diameter.
Federal regulations requiring PM2.5 monitoring began on January 1,1999 (County of San
Diego 1999a). According to the EPA website, monitoring data will be collected for three
years before making any determination as to whether the stricter PM2.5 standard is being
met in the air basin. The earliest acceptable monitoring data is therefore expected to be
available in 2002. If designated nonattainment for PM2.5, the State will have three years
from the date of designation to develop pollution control plans and submit them to the
EPA showing how the new standard will be met. Nonattainment areas will then have up
to 10 years from designation to attain the PM2.5 standard, with the possibility of two 1-
year extensions (httD://ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/naaasfin/irnpfac.htm 1998).
On May 14, 1999, the U.S. Court of appeals held that the Clean Air Act, as applied in
setting the new public health air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter, was
unconstitutional “as an improper delegation of legislative authority to the EPA.” The
Court allowed the new 8-hour standard for ozone to remain in place; however, the Court
stated that it cannot be enforced (County of San Diego 1999a).
The new PM2.5 standard was also reviewed by the Court along with the new 8-hour ozone
standard. On June 18, 1999, the Court ruled that the new PM2.5 standards should be
retained (County of San Diego 1999a). However, the Court will allow parties to apply for
the standards to be vacated if “the presence of this standard threatens a more imminent
harm” (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1999a).
On June 28, 1999, the EPA filed a petition for rehearing on three aspects of the May 14,
1999 decision, including aspects related to the new ozone standard. On October 29,
1999, rehearing before the entire court was denied. However, in response to EPA’s
petition for rehearing, the panel modified the following portion of the May 14 opinion:
! ’1
285
3. Environmental Analysis K. AirQuality
I
i
I
The panel replaced language in the May 14 decision stating that the
revised ozone standard “cannot be enforced” with language saying that it
could be enforced “only in conformity with Subpart 2” [of the Clean Air
Act] (EPA 1999b).
The EPA indicated that it would continue to appeal the May 14, 1999 decision and on
January 27,2000 petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to hear the case. On
May 22,2000 the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal and the petitioner’s brief was
filed on July 21, 2000. It is anticipated that the appeal will be heard by the Supreme
Court in the fall of 2000.
As indicated above, with the promulgation of the new 8-hour ozone standard, the existing
1-hour standard was revoked in those areas that had met the 1-hour standard. With the
subsequent lawsuits and suspension of the enforcement ability of the 8-hour standard, the
EPA felt that those areas where the 1-hour standard had been revoked were no longer
protected by any federal ozone standard. Consequently, on July 5, 2000, the EPA
reinstated the 1-hour ozone standard for all areas where the 1-hour standard had been
revoked, thereby ensuring that the entire nation was covered by the old 1-hour ozone
standard.
The SDAB is classified as a “serious” ozone nonattainment area under both the state and
federal Clean Air Acts. The serious nonattainment classification, based on the amount of
pollutant above the standard, determines the minimum federal control requirements and
the federal attainment deadline (currently November 15, 1999) for the San Diego region.
However, pollution transported from the Los Angeles region, currently the smoggiest area
in the nation, prevented San Diego County from having the three consecutive clean years
required to meet the attainment deadline.
Because a number of areas in the country have been identified as being unable to meet
their attainment dates due to pollutant transport from outside the area, the EPA has issued
guidelines under which the air quality attainment dates may be extended for areas affected
by downwind transport. Under this guidance, the EPA will consider extending the
attainment date for an area that (EPA 1998):
1.
2.
Has been identified as a downwind area affected by transport from either an upwind
area in the same State with a later attainment date or an upwind area in another State
that significantly contributes to downwind nonattainment. (By “affected by
transport,” EPA means an area whose air quality is affected by transport from an
upwind area to a degree that affects the area’s ability to attain);
Has submitted an approvable attainment demonstration with any necessary, adopted
local measures and with an attainment date that shows that it will attain the 1-hour
standard no later than the date that the reductions are expected from upwind areas
286
3. Environmental Analysis K. AirQuality
3.
4.
under the final nitrogen oxide (Nod State Implementation Plan (SIP) call, and/or the
statutory attainment date for upwind nonattainment areas, Le., assuming the boundary
conditions reflecting those upwind reductions;
Has adopted all applicable local measures required under the area's current
classification and any additional measures necessary to demonstrate attainment,
assuming the reductions occur as required in the upwind areas. (To meet section
182(c)(2)@), serious areas would only need to achieve progress requirements until
their original attainment date of November 15,1999);
Has provided that it will implement all adopted measures as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than the date by which the upwind reductions needed for
attainment will be achieved.
Table 3K-1 summarizes the current federal ambient air quality standards.
State Regulations
I
The EPA allows the states the option to develop different (stricter) standards. The state
of California generally has'set more stringent limits on the six pollutants of national
concern (see Table 3K-1).
AB-2595 became effective on January 1, 1989, and requires that districts implement
regulations to reduce emissions from mobile sources through the adoption and
enforcement of transportation control measures. As a state serious ozone non-attainment
area, San Diego is subject to various requirements including (County of San Diego
1998a):
0 Five percent annual reduction in hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen emissions from
'1987 until standards are attained. If this reduction cannot be obtained, all feasible
measures must be implemented.
Air quality permitting program requiring: (1) Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) on new and modified equipment that emits 10 or more pounds per day of
nonattainment pollutants or precursors, and (2) emission offsets for all increases in
emissions of nonattainment pollutants or precursors at sources with emissions of
nonattainment pollutants or precursors of 15 or more tons per year.
With respect to the new federal standards for ozone and PM2.5, the existing state standard
for ozone and PMlo will remain unchanged.
287
TABLE 3K-1 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
!
i ..
!I
i I
i
Maximum Concentration Averaged over Swcified Time Period
Pollutant State Standard Federal Standard
Ozone (03)
Ozone (03)
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Carbon monoxide (CO)
Nitrogen dioxide ("02)
Sulfur dioxide (SO*)
Sulfur dioxide (S02)
Sulfur dioxide (S02)
Suspended particulate matter (PMIo)
Suspended particulate matter (PMd
Suspended particulate matter (PM2.5)
9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 8 hr.
20.0 ppm (23 mg/m3)
1 hr.
0.25 ppm
1 hr. (470
0.04 ppm
24 hr. (105 pg/m3>
0.25 ppm
1 hr. (655 Wm3)
50 pg/m3 24 hr.
30 &m3 Annual Geometric Mean
No Separate State Standard
0.12 ppm
1 hr. (235 Pg/m3)
0.08 ppm
8 hr. (157 Wm3)
9 PPm (10 mg/m3) 8 hr.
35.0 ppm (40 mg/m3) 1 hr.
0.053 ppm
Annual Arithmetic Mean
(100 Pg/m3)
0.03 ppm
Annual Arithmetic Mean
(80 Pg/m3>
0.14 ppm
24 hr. (365 Pg/m3)
0.5 ppm
3 hr. (1,300 pg/m3>
150 pg/m3 24 hr.
50 pg/m3 Annual Arithmetic Mean
65 pg/m3 24 hr.
TABLE 3K-1 AMBIENT AIR QUALJTY STANDARDS (continued)
Pollutant
Maximum Concentration Averaged over Specified Time Period
State Standard Federal Standard
Suspended particulate matter (PM2.5) No Separate 15 pg/m3 State Standard Annual Arithmetic Mean ,
Lead (pb) 1.5 pg/m3 1.5 pg/m3 30-day Average Calendar Quarter
SOURCE: State of California 1998.
ppm = parts per million; pg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.
i i
I
3. Environmental Analysis K. AirQuality
i
I
State Implementation Plan
The State Implementation Plan is the document which sets forth the state's strategies for
achieving air quality standards. The San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) is
responsible for preparing and implementing the portion of the SIP applicable to the
SDAB. The San Diego APCD adopts rules, regulations, and programs to attain state and
federal air quality standards, and appropriates money (including permit fees) to achieve
these objectives.
The California Environmental Quality Act
Section 15 125(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires discussion of any inconsistencies
between the proposed project and the applicable/existing air quality management 'plan,
which is the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin.
Local Regulations
The San Diego APCD is the agency which regulates air quality in the SDAB. The APCD
prepared the 1991/1992 RAQS in response to the requirements set forth in Assembly Bill
(AB) 2595. The draft was adopted, with amendments, on June 30, 1992 (County of San
Diego 1992). Attached as part of the RAQS are the transportation control measures
(TCM) for the air quality plan prepared by SANDAG in accordance with AB-2595 and
adopted by SANDAG on March 27, 1992, as Resolution Number 92-49 and Addendum.
The required triennial update of the RAQS and corresponding TCM was adopted on
December 12, 1995, and again in June 1998. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the
steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards.
The APCD has also established a set of rules and regulations initially adopted on
January 1, 1969, and periodically reviewed and updated. The rules and regulations define
requirements regarding stationary sources of air pollutants and fugitive dust.
c) Existing Air Quality
The project area is within the SDAB. Air quality at a particular location is a function of
the kinds and amounts of pollutants being emitted into the air locally and throughout the
basin and the dispersal rates of pollutants within the region. The major factors affecting
pollutant dispersion are wind speed and direction, the vertical dispersion of pollutants
(which is affected by inversions), and the local topography.
Air quality is commonly expressed as the number of days in which air pollution levels
exceed state standards set by the CARB and federal standards set by the EPA (see
Table 3K-1). The concentration of pollutants within the SDAB is measured at 11 stations
maintained by the APCD and the CARB. The station nearest the project area measuring a
full range of pollutants is in Oceanside, about five miles northwest of the project site.
I i
290
3. Environmental Analysis K. AirOualitv
Table 3K-2 summarizes the number of days per year during which state and federal
standards were exceeded in the SDAB overall during the years 1993 to 1996 (1996 is the
most recent year for which a complete annual summary of air quality data is available).
Table 3K-3 lists these data for the Oceanside monitoring station.
Ozone
The air basin is currently designated a state and federal “serious” nonattainment area for
ozone. However, peak ozone concentrations have steadily declined since 1978 (as
reported by the APCD Fact Sheet 1997 Scorecard). For example, in 1998, San Diego
exceeded the state standard for ozone on 54 days compared to 158 in 1989. Federal
standards were exceeded on 9 days in 1998 compared to 55 days in 1989 (County of San
Diego 1998). Table 3K-2 shows that during the last five years for which annual summary
data are available (1995-1998).
During these years, the state ozone standard was exceeded on 79, 96, 51, and 54 days,
respectively. At the Oceanside monitoring station, the federal standards for ozone were
exceeded for one day in 1996 and four days in 1994. The stricter state standard for ozone
was exceeded at the Oceanside monitoring station for six days in 1996 and seven days in
1997. It has not exceeded in 1998 (see Table 3K-3).
Ozone presents special control strategy difficulties in the SDAB because of climatologi-
cal and meteorological factors. Ozone is the end product of a chain of chemical reactions
that produces photochemical smog from hydrocarbon and NO, emissions. A major
source of hydrocarbon and NO, emissions is motor vehicle exhausts. In the SDAB, only
part of the ozone contamination is derived from local sources.
As indicated previously under certain meteorological conditions, contaminants from the
South Coast Air Basin (such as the Los Angeles area) are windborne over the ocean into
the SDAB. When this happens, the combination of local and transported pollutants
produces the highest ozone levels measured in the basin.
In 1992, pollution transported from the Greater Los Angeles area was responsible for 11
out of 19 days over federal standards. On average, approximately 42 percent of the days
over state standards between 1987 and 1994 were attributable to pollution transported
from Los Angeles (SANDAG 1994:249-250).
More recent data provided by the APCD indicates that transported pollutants account for
an even higher percentage. For example, during the years 1994 through 1998, ozone
concentrations in San Diego County exceeded the federal ozone air quality standard on 9,
29 1
..
TABLE 3K-2
SUMMARY OF AIR QUALITY DATA
FOR THE SAN DIEGO AIR BASIN
Number of Days Over Standard
State Federal
Pollutant 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Ozone (03) - 1 hour 79 96 51 43 54 9
Carbon monoxide 0 0 0 0 0 0
(CO) - 8 hour
Carbon monoxide 0 0 0 0 0 0
(CO) - 1 hour
Nitrogen dioxide 0 0 0 0 0 NE
(NO2) - State 1 hour;
Federal anuual avg.
Sulfur dioxide (SOz) 0 0 0 0 0 NE
State 1 hour; Federal
annual average
Particulates* 25 23 16 22 18 0
(PM-10) - 24 hour
Lead (Pb) - State 30- NENENENENE NE
day average; Federal
calendar quarter
12
0
0
NE
NE
0
NE
2
0
0
NE
NE
0
NE
1
0
0
NE
NE
0
NE
9
0
0
NE
NE
0
NE
SOURCE: State of California December 1999: California Ambient Air Quality Data.
*Number of samples over standard.
NE: annual standard not exceeded.
I
TABLE 3K-3 NUMBER OF DAYS AIR QUALITY STANDARDS WERE EXCEEDED AT OCEANSIDE MONITORING STATION
Year Pollutant 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Oceanside Station
Ozone Federal 1-hour standard (0.12 ppm, 235 pg/m3) State 1-hour standard (0.09 ppm, 180 pg/m3)
Carbon monoxide Federal 8-hour average (9 ppm, 10 mg/m3) State 8-hour average (9.0 ppm, 10 mg/m3)
State 1-hour average (20 ppm, 23 mg/m3)
Nitrogen dioxide State 1-hour standard (0.25 ppm, 470 pg/m3)
Sulfur dioxide Federal annual average (0.03 ppm, 80 pg/m3)$ State 1-hour average (0.25 ppm, 655 pg/m3) State 24-hour average (0.04 ppm, 105 pg/m3)
PM- 10 Federal 24-hour average (150 pg/m3)$ Federal annual arithmetic mean (50 pg/m3)§ State 24-hour average (50 pg/m3)$ State annual geometric mean (30 pg/m3)§
0 0 0 0 0 2 5 4 6 3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
NRNRNR NRNR NRNRNRNRNR NRNRNRNRNR
0/63 0159 0/60 0/55 0/45 29.1 29.7 25.6 24.8 23.3 3/63 4/59 1/60 0/55 0/45 27.2 27.0 24.1 NA NA
Lead¶ Federal calendar quarter average (1.5 pg/m3)$ NRNRNRNRNR NRNRNRNRNR State 30-day avearge (1.5 pg/m3)9
SOURCE: State of California 1999.
ppm - parts per million mg/m: - milligrams per cubic meter
pg /m - micrograms per cubic meter NR - not reported at this station *Data presented are valid, but incomplete in that an insufficient number of valid data
?Monitoring of this pollutant was discontinued during 1993. $Number of samples over standardhumber of samples collected. §Data shown are in pg/m3.
period maximum concentrations are shown.
points were collected to meet EPA andor CARB criteria for representativeness.
3. Environmental Analysis K. &Quality
I 1 I’
i i I’
12, 2, 1, and 9 day(s), respectively. Peak ozone concentrations were attributed primarily
to emission sources within San Diego County on only 2 of the 9 days in 1994,2 of the 12
days in 1995, none of the days in 1996 or 1997, and only 2 of the 9 days in 1998. Ozone
transported into San Diego County from the South Coast Air Basin was the primary cause
for the Basin exceeding federal ozone thresholds on 27 of a total of 33 days 1994 to 1998
(County of San Diego 2000).
In 1999 smog transported from the South Coast Air Basin was a key factor on at least 67
percent of the days San Diego County exceeded the one-hour state ozone standard (a total
of 27 days), and on at least 69 percent of the days the federal eight-hour standard was
exceeded (a total of 16 days; County of San Diego 2000).
As a serious nonattainment area, San Diego is required to attain the federal ozone
standard by November 15, 1999. However, pollution transported from the Los Angeles
region, the smoggiest area in the nation, has prevented San Diego County from having the
three consecutive clean years required to attain the standard by the 1999 attainment date.
The San Diego basin recorded no violations of the federal ozone standard in 1999.
Consequently, the region qualifies to request a one-year extension of the 1999 attainment
date to a November 15, 2000 attainment date, Again, if one or no violations take place in
the year 2000, another extension in the attainment date to 2001 could be requested
(SANDAG 1999). On May 15,2000, the CAM3 (on behalf of the APCD) has requested
the EPA for this one-year extension. The EPA has yet to grant the extension.
If the one-year extension is not granted, or if the requested one-year extension and
possible second one-year extension do not result in attainment, the APCD anticipates
submitting a SIP revision retaining the Serious classification and extending the attainment
date in light of the schedule for the necessary upwind emission reductions, pursuant to
EPA’s “Guidance on Extension of Attainment Dates for Downwind Transport Areas” (64
FR 14441, March 25, 1999).
Local agencies can control neither the source nor the transportation of pollutants from
outside the basin. The APCD’s policy, therefore, has been to control local sources
effectively enough to reduce locally produced contamination to clean air standards. The
APCD concurs with the conclusions of the most recent Regional Transportation Plan that
ozone remains the major primary pollutant in the San Diego region (County of San Diego
1998).
Carbon Monoxide
No violations of the state standard have been recorded for carbon monoxide since 1991
and no violations of the federal standard have been recorded since 1989. The basin is
294
3. Environmental Analysis K. AirQuality
classified as a state and federal attainment area for carbon monoxide (County of San
Diego 1998a).
Particulates (PMlo)
Particulates within the respirable range (10 microns in size or less) are reported as an
annual measure. Federal standards for PMlo have never been exceeded since the standards
were established in 1987. However, the stricter state standards are not met. Currently,
EPA has designated San Diego County as unclassifiable. The state has designated the
SDAB as a nonattainment area for PMlo.
i
Table 3K-2 shows that the state PMlo standard was exceeded in the SDAB each year from
1993 through 1997. Monitoring of PMlo began at the Oceanside monitoring station in
1992. State PMlo standards were exceeded on 2 out of 61 measurements in 1993,3 out of
63 measurements in 1994, 4 out of 59 measurements in 1995, and 1 out of 60
measurements in 1996 (see Table 3K-3).
In 1998, the APCD launched a new monitoring program for PM2.5 and was one of the
first laboratories certified by the CARB to measure concentrations of PM2.5 (County of
San Diego 1999a). PM2.5 samples are collected every day at three sites and once every
third day at two sites (County of San Diego 1999a). Results of this monitoring are not yet
available.
San Diego County does not have the woodburning or coal use that contributes to
particulate pollution elsewhere, and most fine particles (PM2.5) are formed in the air by a
chemical reaction. Emissions of organic gases, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and
ammonia react in the atmosphere, forming the tiny particles. These emissions are
primarily from combustion sources such as vehicles, diesel engines, and industrial
facilities. Coarser particles are directly emitted from activities that disturb the soil
including travel on roads and construction, mining, or agricultural operations. Other
sources include windblown dust, salts, brake dust, and tire wear (County of San Diego
1998a).
For several reasons hinging on the area’s dry climate and coastal location, the SDAB has
special difficulty in developing adequate tactics to meet present state particulate standards
throughout the basin.
I:
Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulfur Dioxide, and Lead
The basin is classified as a state and federal attainment area for these pollutants.
295
I I
I
3. Environmental Analysis K. AirQuality
Standards of Significance
For long-term emissions, the direct impacts of a project can be measured by the degree to
which the project is consistent with regional plans to improve and maintain air quality.
The regional plan for San Diego is the 1991/1992 RAQS and attached TCM plan, as
revised by the triennial updates adopted on December 12, 1995 and June 1998. The
California Air Resources Board (CARB) provides criteria for determining whether a
project conforms with the RAQS (State of California 1989), which include the following:
1. Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area?
2. Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan?
3. Does the project incorporate all feasible and available air quality control measures?
In addition to the above, the City of Carlsbad considers a project to have a potentially
significant impact to air quality (City of Carlsbad 1994b) if it will:
1. Cause any federal, state, or local ambient air quality standard to be exceeded,
2. Contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation,
3. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations,
4. Conflict with the County of San Diego Air Pollution Control District Regional Air
Quality strategies (RAQS), or
5. Create objectionable odors.
Air quality impacts can result from the construction and operation of the project.
Construction impacts are short term and result from fugitive dust, equipment exhaust, and
indirect effects associated with construction workers and deliveries. Operational impacts
result from fixed and mobile sources associated with the occupancy of the homes, and use
of neighborhood facilities.
Operational impacts can occur on two levels. Regional impacts resulting from growth
inducing development or local hot-spot effects stemming from sensitive receivers being
placed close to highly congested roadways or other generating sources.
296
3. Environmental Analysis K. AirQuality
a) Construction-Related Impacts
Construction-related activities are temporary, short-term sources of air emissions.
Sources of construction-related air emissions include:
Fugitive dust from grading activities
Construction equipment exhaust
Construction-related trips by workers, delivery trucks, and material-hauling trucks
To insure that construction-related emissions do not represent a significant impact, the
measures outlined in the mitigation section below are needed.
b) Operation-Related Emissions
Since no intersections would operate at substandard conditions directly as a result of
implementation of the proposed project, no direct significant localized hot spot impacts
are anticipated. All area intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better. In
most instances LOS C or better is achieved. Because of the lack of significant traffic
congestion, hot spot impacts are not significant.
Regional air quality impacts are dependent upon the potential for the project to conform
to regional plans. The proposed project is in the city of Carlsbad, which is within the San
Diego Air Basin. The 1991/1992 RAQS, as updated in 1995 and 1998, are implemented
by APCD throughout the air basin. Therefore, the proposed project fulfills the first
criteria from the CARB guidelines described in Existing Conditions.
The project conforms to the adopted General Plan for the City of Carlsbad. This plan was
used as the basis for generating the Series 8 growth forecasts by SANDAG. The Series 8
forecasts served as the basis for the most recent adopted air quality plan and ozone
attainment demonstration analysis. The project as proposed is consistent with these
growth projections. In addition, the project as proposed permits fewer housing units than
anticipated in the currently adopted master plan.
The proposed Calavera Hills Master Plan Amendment and the Zone 7 Local Facilities
Management Plan AmendmentNpdate outline measures that incorporate land use and
circulation measures that help limit air quality impacts. A bikeway and pedestrian
circulation system has been included and standards for those systems established. The
project provides for traffic flow improvements with the connection of College Boulevard
and Cannon Road to El Camino Real, as well as planned circulation element roadways on
the project site.
'I
Section 15064(i)(3) of the 1998 revision to the State CEQA Guidelines indicates that:
297
3. Environmental Analysis K. AirQuality
i
4 1
i I
i
1.
I
I
i i
. . . a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not
cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements
in a previously approved plan or mitigation program which provides
specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative
problem (e.g., water quality control plan, air quality plan, integrated waste
management plan) within the geographic area in which the project is
located.
As indicated, the project proposes less development than was assumed in the adopted
regional air quality plan and attainment demonstration. Additionally, the project
incorporates elements such as bike paths that will lessen potential air quality impacts. As
such, the incremental impacts due to implementation of the proposed project are not
cumulatively considerable.
Consequently, implementation of the project would not result in a significant direct or
cumulative impact.
4) Mitigation
a) Construction-Related Impacts
Emission from construction activities, which are localized and short term, can be
mitigated using appropriate control measures. The construction mitigation measures
listed below should be included as conditions of approval of grading permits. Each
contractor/applicant is responsible for this task upon verification by the City of Carlsbad.
The phasing of the various construction projects would be beneficial in terms of reducing
concurrent emissions from construction activities. All project construction activities
(e.g., grading, blasting, materials processing) are subject to the City of Carlsbad Grading
Ordinance and are required to implement the following Best Management Practices
(BMPs) measures to reduce impacts from fugitive dust and construction-related
emissions:
1. All unpaved construction areas shall be sprinkled with water or other dust control
agents acceptable to the San Diego APCD during dust-generating activities to
reduce dust emissions, Additional watering or acceptable APCD dust control
agents shall be applied during dry weather or windy days until dust emissions are
not visible.
2. Trucks hauling dirt and debris shall be covered to reduce windblown dust and
spills.
298
3. Environmental Analysis K. AirQuality
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
On dry days, dirt or debris spilled into paved surfaces shall be swept up
immediately to reduce resuspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle
movement. Approach routes to construction sites shall be cleaned daily of
construction-related dirt in dry weather.
On-site stockpiles of excavated material shall be covered or watered.
During on-site rock-crushing, rock materials undergoing processing shall be
watered at sufficient frequency. The project shall install an automatic water, mist,
r or sprinkler system in areas of rockcrushing and conveyor belt systems.
/I I
The project shall abide by all conditions of approval for dust control required by
the San Diego APCD.
Low pollutant-emitting construction equipment shall be used.
Construction equipment shall be equipped with prechamber diesel engines (or
equivalent) and shall receive proper maintenance and operated so as to reduce
emissions of nitrogen oxide, to the extent available and feasible.
Where feasible, electrical construction equipment shall be utilized.
Incorporation of these measures reduces construction-related air quality impacts to below
a level of significance.
b) Post-development Operations
Because the proposed project reduces the number of approved units and conforms to the
growth projections and the adopted regional air quality plan, no significant operational air
quality impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.
i
299
3. Environmental Analysis L. Geology
L. Geology
I i
i
I
This section is based on an Environmental Impact Assessment conducted by the City of
Carlsbad for the 1992 Calavera Hills Master Plan EIR, and the geotechnical
reconnaissance prepared for the Calavera Hills Phase II conducted by GeoSoils, Inc. in
October 1999 and for the proposed alignments of Cannon Road East (Alternatives 1 and
2) and College Road North (Alternatives 1 and 3), conducted by Leighton and Associates
in May 1999. The geologic reconnaissance work included the review of geologic maps,
aerial photographs, and walking of the proposed alignments. No subsurface investigation
was performed. A detailed subsurface investigation of the selected alignment will be
required at a later time.
1) Existing Conditions
There are 13 soil classifications present within the entire project area (U.S. Department of
Agriculture 1973). These include the soils shown and listed in Chapter 3.E., Agriculture,
Figure 3E-1, and Table 3E-1. They are Altamont clay, Huerhuero loam, Bonsall sandy
loam, Cieneba-Fallbrook rocky sandy loam, Escondido very fine sandy loam, Fallbrook
rocky sandy loam, Friant rocky fine sandy loam, Olivenhain cobbly loam, Salinas clay
loam, Carlsbad gravelly loamy sand, Las Flores loamy fine sand, Tujunga sand, and
riverwash. Many of these classifications are represented by subtypes that are
characterized by the percent slope and extent of erosion.
a) Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase 11
Depending on location, the master plan area consists of colluvium, alluvium, stream
terrace and marine terrace deposits, volcanic rock, sedimentary bedrock, granitic bedrock,
and metavolcanic bedrock. The predominant earth material types within the proposed
villages include colluvium, sedimentary bedrock (Villages H and R only), and granitic
and metavolcanic bedrock. Colluvium generally consists of a surficial layer of silty sand
underlain by sandy clay and/or clay. The sedimentary bedrock within Villages H and R
belongs to the Eocene-age Santiago Formation and generally consists of interlayered
sandstone and silstone/claystone. Igneous bedrock underlies the remainder of the study
area.
b) Bridge & Thoroughfare District No. 4 - College Boulevard/
Cannon Road Extensions
The proposed City of Carlsbad Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 project is shown
on Figure 2-9. The alternative alignments are shown on Figure 2-10. All of the proposed
alternative alignments are located east of El Camino Real in the City of Carlsbad. The
generalized soil conditions for each of the alternatives are listed below.
300
3. Environmental Analysis L. Geology
Cannon Road and College Boulevard
Two general conditions exist: (1) sedimentary rock is overlain by potentially
compressible topsoillcolluvidalluvium and (2) cretaceous granitic bedrock is covered
by a thin veneer of topsoilkolluviudalluvium.
c) Detention Basins
The project includes the construction of two detention basins. Basin “BJB” is located
north of the College BoulevardCannon Road intersection and would have an inundation
area of approximately 15 acres. Basin “BJ” is located east of the College
BoulevardCannon Road intersection and would have an inundation area of
approximately eight acres. Both basins would cover alluvial areas.
2) Impacts
a) Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase 11
The development of eight villages and the construction of College Avenue from Carlsbad
Village Drive south to Cannon Road would not result in unstable earth conditions or
increase the exposure of people or property to geologic hazards. The geotechnical
reconnaissance study indicates that some remedial work may be required to address the
presence of claystones/silstones at or near cut grades, including stabilization fills.
Sedimentary and igneous bedrock materials were found to be generally suitable for the
support of fills and structures. Very dense exposures of igneous bedrock will likely
require drill and shoot blasting techniques in order to excavate. Post-tensioned or
conventional foundation systems may be required where (1) highly expansive soils are
present, (2)-structures overlay compacted fills of approximately 30 feet in thickness or
more, or (3) differential fill thickness conditions exceed 3:l across a given lot. As for the
previous 1993 Final EIR for the Calavera Hills Master Plan, the 1999 geotechnical study
(Appendix I) determined that site conditions, with implementation of standard remedies
to address impacts, do not represent a significant constraint to development.
Blasting
The presence of hard rock areas within Villages H, L-2, K, R, U, W, X, and Y has been
identified. In these areas, material up to 10 feet in depth and some localized boulders and
oversize material could be rippable with the aid of heavy equipment for this purpose.
Cuts greater than 10 feet would likely encounter dense rock and require blasting (see
Figure 3D-2).
Modern blasting procedures are quite precise in their methodology and effects. Charges
are carefully controlled and placed to limit effects, such as excessive fracturing of rock,
noise and vibration, and fugitive dust. Very small charges are inserted into many drill
30 1
3. Environmental Analysis L. Geology
holes to fracture the rock. Upon detonation, the ground in the immediate vicinity rumbles
slightly and a dull “thud’, is heard. Stockpiling and use of explosives could present a
significant risk of accidental explosion. The use of explosives is highly regulated. The
project will comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations for blasting.
County Ordinance Number 7821 regulates blasting and requires that:
Blasting be conducted only by a County-approved blasting contractor and
between the hours of 7:OO A.M. and 6:OO P.M. or one-hour before sunset,
whichever comes first, Monday through Saturday.
Blasters must obtain adequate liability insurance as specified in the ordinance and
must agree to defend, indemnify, and hold the County harmless in case of claims
or actions resulting from blasting in order to obtain a blasting permit.
Contractors shall give, or cause to be given, a one-time, reasonable notice in
writing to any residence within 600 feet of any potential major blast location or
300 feet from any minor blast location prior to commencement of blasting.
A preblast inspection shall be performed on all structures within 300 feet of the
blast site before blasting operations unless inspection is waived by the owner or
occupant. The inspector shall obtain permission prior to conducting the
inspection.
Specific measures required of all blasting are listed in Section 35.316.06, Article 77.301,
of the Uniform Fire Code.
b) Bridge & Thoroughfare District No. 4 - College Boulevard
Cannon Road Extensions
Settlement
The two alignments for each roadway have the same general soil conditions and,
therefore, share the same geologic concerns. Constraints would include the need for
settlement monitoring where significant fills are proposed in alluvial areas that contain
large amounts of potentially compressible soils. Although these constraints represent a
potentially significant geological impact, the impact is easily mitigated with standard
remedial grading and road construction techniques.
Blasting
Blasting may be required due to the presence of hard rock in approximately half of the
proposed project roadway alignments. As for the Master Plan Phase II areas, cuts greater
than 10 feet would likely encounter dense rock and require blasting. The project Will
comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations for blasting as listed
302
3. Environmental Analvsis L. Geology
above, including those listed under County Ordinance Number 7821 and Section
35.316.06, Article 77.301, of the Uniform Fire Code.
Rock Disposal
Final determination of rock disposal requirements shall be in compliance with the
recommendations of the project’s geotechnical engineer and the Carlsbad Grading
Ordinance.
c) Detention Basins
No geological impacts are identified because the basins would not support any structures.
3) Mitigation
Geologic reconnaissance reports were prepared separately for the Calavera Hills Master
Plan Phase II area (see Appendix I) and project segments proposed for development
within the Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 (Appendix J). Appendix I summarizes
the substantial body of existing geotechnical work previously prepared for the project.
Appendix J includes specific remedial grading recommendations (by Stations) for each
roadway alternative analyzed. The following mitigation measures will be required to
reduce impacts associated with grading and blasting activities:
As a condition of approval of the master tentative map’s Final Map or Grading Plan,
whichever occurs first, the project applicant shall implement the following general and
specific measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. These include:
Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II
Grading: Prior to the issuance of grading permits and subject to the approval of the
City Engineer, the project proponent shall stabilize fills in cut slopes consistent with
the recommendations included in the geotechnical report for the area affected. During
site excavation and grading, the project applicant shall employ remedial earthwork for
all villages. This may include, but is not limited to, shear key construction for all fill
slopes, removal and recompaction of colluvial topsoils and overexcavation of
transition pads or cut pads exposing bedrock transitions or expansive soil. Based on
existing studies, buttresses, andor stabilization fills do not appear to be necessary but
may be required depending on future slope stability analyses or field experience
during grading. For street areas exposing hard rock, overexcavation to below the
lowest utility line depth may be necessary. The project applicant will likely be
required to use a combination of conventional grading and drill and shoot excavation
within all villages except Villages H and R where conventional grading equipment
should be sufficient. Grading and blasting activities (specifically, ripping and blasting
I
i
I
303
3. Environmental Analysis L. Geology
of boulders) shall conform to the recommendations outlined in the geotechnical study
and requirements of the City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance and San Diego County
Blasting Ordinance as they apply;
I
\
I
I i
i I
\
I
Expansive Soils, Slopes, and Foundations: Natural slopes within Village H and R will
likely expose earth materials belonging to the Santiago Formation that may include
expansive clayey bedrock materials. The project applicant shall employ post-
tensioned foundations for areas with highly expansive soil conditions.
Slope Erosion: Prior to the issuance of grading permits and subject to the approval of
the City Engineer, the project proponent shall, depending on location and
recompaction requirements, remove topsoil to the recommended depth as indicated in
the geotechnical report prepared for the project.
Foundations: As a condition of approval for the master tentative map’s Final Map or
Grading Plan, and subject to the approval of the City Engineer, the project proponent
shall monitor settlement at locations identified in the geotechnical study. At a
minimum, the project applicant shall employ post-tensioned foundations for areas
where structures overlay compacted fills greater than (approximately) 30 feet in
thickness or where differential fdl thickness conditions exceed 3: 1 across the lot.
Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and subject to the approval of the City
Engineer, the project proponent shall, depending on location and recompaction
requirements, remove topsoil to the recommended depth as indicated in the
geotechnical report prepared for the project.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and subject to the approval of the City
Engineer, the project proponent shall stabilize fills in cut slopes consistent with the
recommendations included in the geotechnical report;
As a condition of approval for the master tentative map’s Final Map or Grading Plan,
and subject to the approval of the City Engineer, the project proponent shall monitor
settlement at locations identified in the geotechnical study;
As a condition of approval for the master tentative map’s Final Map or Grading Plan,
and subject to the approval of the City Engineer, the project proponent shall provide
adequate sub drainage in canyon areas as indicated in the geotechnical study;
Grading and blasting activities (specifically, ripping and blasting of boulders) shall
conform to the recommendations outlined in the geotechnical study and requirements
of the City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance and San Diego County Blasting Ordinance
as they apply.
304
3. Environmental Analysis L. Geology
4)-’
As a condition of approval for the master tentative map’s Final Map or Grading Plan,
and subject to the approval of the City Engineer, the project proponent shall ensure
that toe keys are constructed in side-hill fills consistent with the recommendations of
the geotechnical study;
As a condition of approval for the master tentative map’s Final Map or Grading Plan
and prior to construction, oversize rock shall be disposed of within the deeper fills.
Rock in excess of eight inches should be placed a minimum of one foot below the
lowest utility in road areas;
Final determination of rock disposal requirements shall be in compliance with the
City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance;
prior to approval of the master tentative map’s Final Map or Grading Plan, whichever
occurs first, and upon selection/approval of a final alignment by the City Council, a
detailed site-specific geologic study shall be conducted. Should the detailed studies
indicate conditions that are substantially different from those identified during
preliminary testing, additional environmental review and mitigation may be required.
Analysis of Significance
The potential for settlement exists for all of the proposed road alignments; however, this
potential is not considered an unmanageable constraint to development, provided the
recommendations of a complete geologic investigation are followed for the selected
alignments.
Some granitic rock may require blasting. This potential impact would be reduced to
below a level of significance by adherence to the County blasting ordinance and the
required mitigation of this EIR.
1
305
i
4. hqject Alternatives
Chapter Four
Project Alternatives
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) states that the range of reasonable alternatives to
the project, or to the location of the project, shall include those that could feasibly
accomplish most of the basic purposes of the development but would avoid or
substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. Section 15126.6(f)(l) states
that among the factors which may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of
alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general
plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, and jurisdictional boundaries and
whether the project proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access
to the alternative site. The alternatives addressed in this chapter include alternatives for
both the Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II and the Cannon Road and College
Boulevard alignments. No alternative locations are proposed for the siting of detention
basins. Basin locations are dependent upon existing topography, natural drainage courses,
and other existing and proposed site characteristics such as the proposed alignments for
Cannon Road and College Boulevard.
A. Alternatives Considered but Rejected
! 1) Alternative Cannon RoacUCollege Boulevard
Alignments
A variety of alignments for both College Boulevard and Cannon Road were considered in
developing the currently proposed/preferred alignment and alternative alignments
addressed in this EIR. Fraser Engineering (1999) originally evaluated four alternatives
for College Boulevard and three alternatives for Cannon Road. Based on comments
received during the four public scoping meetings (September 1999 to April 2000) and
further analyses of the alignments, several of the alternative alignments for each roadway
have been eliminated from further consideration due to excessive grading, high
construction costs, disproportionate property acquisition, and excessive riparian impacts.
306
4. hoiect Alternatives
An additional configuration for both College Boulevard and Cannon Road was brought
forward during the public scoping process for the project that had not been previously
considered in the Fraser Engineering analyses. This alternative would not create the
College/Cannon intersection that is currently proposed, but rather would provide a direct
connection to El Camino Real for both roadways. Under this scenario College Boulevard
would intersect El Camino Real at the western edge of the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile
Home Park, and Cannon Road would transition southerly into the currently shown
College Boulevard (Reach A) alignment to El Camino Real. This alternative would not
implement the City of Carlsbad Circulation Element goal of providing expedient north-
south and east-west arterial roadway circulation. The direct arterial connection of
College Boulevard northerly to the Oceanside city limits and the easterly Cannon Road
extension to Oceanside would not occur.
An analysis of this alternative scenario is included in the traffk technical study (see
Appendix B). Compared to the proposed project, the results of this alternative traffic
analysis indicate higher street segment traffk volumes on SR-78, 1-5, El Camino Real,
Palomar Airport Road, Melrose Drive, and College Boulevard in the year 2020. In
addition, the intersection levels of service of El Camino Real at Plaza Drive, Marron
Road, Tamarack Avenue, and Palomar Airport Road would fall below acceptable levels
and require additional mitigation improvements (e.g., intersection widening and
additional lanes) that may not be feasible. As a result, this alternative has been eliminated
from further consideration.
2) Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase I1 Alternatives
Several alternatives to the proposed Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II project are
discussed below. No other alternatives to the project were considered and subsequently
eliminated from further consideration.
B. No Project Alternative
The No Project alternative would retain the remaining villages within the Master Plan in
their present undeveloped condition. This alternative would not achieve the goals and
objectives of the project and the existing Calavera Hills Master Plan nor the City of
Carlsbad General Plan. The proposed residential buildout of the Master Plan, extension
of the College Boulevard and Cannon Road roadway links, flood control facilities, receipt
of fees for schools and public facilities, and permanent retention of open space as
proposed in the Draft HMP would not occur as proposed. The No Project’alternative
typically implies no development of the project site. As a result, the identified impacts
related to biological resources, archaeology/cultural resources, visual quality, public
307
4. Project Alternatives
r I
!
I
i
facilities and services, air quality, noise, water quality, and traffic congestion associated
with the proposed project would be eliminated.
This alternative would not achieve the goals and objectives of the project, the adopted
Calavera Hills Master Plan, and the City of Carlsbad General Plan, including the
circulation element. The General Plan objectives of providing housing, public facility
improvements, and roads would not be met for Zone 7.
C. Development Consistent with the Adopted Calavera Hills Master Plan
Implementation of the current Calavera Hills Master Plan would retain existing land use
designations for the remaining Villages. As shown in Figure 3A-1 and Table 3A-1, the
adopted Master Plan would result in 795 residential units; a 14-unit increase over the
proposed amendment. In addition, the adopted Master Plan would result in the following:
Village E-1 would remain designated for community commercial use;
110-acre Calavera Nature Preserve parcel would not be added to the Master Plan.
Although the GDP would allow 44 additional units to be developed on this parcel,
subsequent actions to preserve the site prevent future development and require
preservation (see Appendix G).
Draft HMP open space corridor would not be created through Village K,
Overall open space acreage would be decreased;
A designated community facility use within the Master Plan (Village H) would not
occur; and
Village K would house a 400-unit apa.rtment/condominium site, and would remain as
the affordable housing site.
The majority of the project-related impacts would be similar to the proposed project with
the incremental increase in dwelling units under the adopted Master Plan. Specifically,
the demand on public services and utilities, noise impacts, air quality impacts, degree of
landform alteration from grading, impact to agricultural operations, and overall visual
quality impact would be similar to the proposed project. The overall traffk generation
would be substantially increased by 9,864 ADT with the retention of Village E-1 as
community commercial rather than the proposed 117-unit multi-family residential use.
However, the adopted Master Plan would not be environmentally preferable to the
proposed project primarily because of the change in the impacts to biological resources.
I i 308
4. Project Alternatives
Under the proposed Master Plan amendment, the open space acreage would be increased
by approximately 25 acres within the boundaries of the current Master Plan. The
increased open space would accommodate the Draft HMP hard line open space system
agreed upon by the wildlife agencies, the project applicant, and the City of Carlsbad.
Additionally, the mitigation parcel would maintain a permanent open space of 110 acres.
As noted throughout the EIR, the proposed open space system would link two biological
core areas through Village K and provide for regional wildlife movement through the
Master Plan. Under the adopted Master Plan, this wildlife corridor would not be
established.
D. Alternative Land Use Designations
During the Notice of Preparation (NOP) period and public scoping meetings for the
proposed project, it became apparent that there were a variety of land use alternatives that
warranted consideration for the following villages within the Master Plan. Although
significant environmental impacts have not been identified for the uses presently
proposed for Village E-1 (Residential Medium High), Village K (Residential Medium),
Village H (Community Facility), Village U (Residential Medium High), and Village Y
(Residential High), there are a variety of land use options which could be applied to each
of these areas. Based on the public comments on the NOP and those received during the
public scoping meetings, the following land use alternatives for each of the identified
villages are discussed below.
Village E-1 Land Use Options
As proposed, the Master Plan amendment would change the land uses on the 9.3 acres in
Village E-1 from community commercial (C) to residential medium-high (RMH). Other
land use options for Village E-1 include modifying the existing community commercial
designation to neighborhood commercial (N) or to community facility (CF). A
comparison of the environmental effects of these two options at Village E with the
proposed residential use is described below.
a) Neighborhood Commercial
Although Village E-1 is presently designated for community commercial uses, the site, at
9.3 acres in size, is not entirely consistent with the General Plan land use element
guideline of 10 to 30 acres for community commercial. One potential land use alternative
would be to amend the Master Plan to provide for neighborhood commercial use on
Village E-1. Neighborhood commercial land use provides for more limited retail
businesses, typically as a group of smaller stores and service shops, than community
commercial, which typically offers a greater depth and range of merchandise, including
“big box” retailers. Neighborhood commercial centers are typically anchored by a
309
4. Proiect Alternatives
grocery store, while a community commercial center may be anchored by a department
store or home improvement supply store. Additionally, the General Plan land use element
(City of Carlsbad 1994) indicates that the neighborhood commercial land use category:
. . . includes commercial uses that provide limited retail business, service,
and office facilities for the daily needs and convenience of residents in
adjacent neighborhoods. These commercial uses generally exist as a group
of small stores and service shops but, on small sites, may exist with only
one tenant. Typically, such centers include a grocery store as the principle
anchor tenant and such uses as banks, drug stores, beauty shops, barber
shops and Laundromats.
The land use element of the General Plan also designates guidelines for development of
neighborhood coeercial centers as follows:
Leading tenant: Supermarket, drug store, mini-market,
or combination of smaller retail
Acres: 3-10
Square feet: 30-100,000 (average 50,000)
Trade area population: 3-10,000
Drive: 5-10 minutes
Radius: 1.5 miles
Estimated weekday
vehicle generation rate: 120/1000 square feet
In addition, the project applicant has prepared a study entitled Feasibility of Developing a
Retail-Commercial Shopping Center-Village E- 1 Calavera Hills-College Boulevard and
Carlsbad Village Drive. The feasibility study, included as Appendix K and on file at the
City of Carlsbad, indicates that the population base of the trade area for Village E-1 is
insufficient to provide the necessary sales volume for a successful commercial center,
even at buildout of the City. This report notes that one existing and two future
commercial centers are adequate to properly serve the subject trade area. These centers
include:
0 Existing 10-acre Von’s center at El Camino Real and Marron Road;
Approved 18-acre Sunnv Creek site at El Camino Real and College Boulevard; and
3 10
4. Proiect Alternatives
Proposed 40-acre South Coast commercial site (400,000 square feet including
supermarket and big box retailers) to be located south of Highway 78 on the west side
of College Boulevard, just inside the Oceanside city limits and adjacent to Calavera
Hills.
The feasibility study notes that at the time Village E-1 was originally designated a
community commercial site (1974), only the Von’s center, above, was designated for
commercial uses. In addition, implementation of the 1986 Growth Management Plan
(which reduced achievable residential densities citywide) and the 1993 listing of the
California gnatcatcher (which eliminated development over significant areas of
previously developable, residentially designated natural vegetation) have reduced the
buildout residential potential of the trade area significantly. In addition, along with other
future commercial centers and trade area limitations, the study indicates severe access
limitations with the Village E-1 site, which also affect its viability, The study concludes
that these market demand factors would tend to discourage the opportunity for successful
implementation of neighborhood commercial use on Village E-1 (see Appendix K).
Compared with the proposed project, the primary change in environmental effects
associated with Neighborhood Commercial Use at Village E-1 would concern traffic
generation. As with the adopted Master Plan, the retention of a commercial use at Village
E-1 would increase the trip generation when compared to the proposed RMH land use
designation (1 17 multi-family residential units). The proposed RMH density would result
in an approximate 912 ADT generated by development of the proposed project. The
Neighborhood Commercial uses would result in approximately 10,800 ADT. This
increase in 9,864 ADT resulting from implementation of the neighborhood commercial
use would create significant traffic impacts that would be difficult to mitigate. From a
traffic access standpoint, City of Carlsbad Engineering Design Standards would limit
driveway access points to Village E-1 . As a result, the primary access to the site would be
from Glasgow Drive, a local residential street. Primary access to a neighborhood
commercial use from Glasgow Drive would not only require street widening, it would
result in complicated and potentially hazardous conflicts of commercial and resident
traffic, and would be considered a significant impact that could be mitigated through
allowance for full-turning primary access from Carlsbad Village Drive. The
neighborhood commercial alternative would have significantly greater traffic impacts on
the surrounding area when compared with the proposed project.
From a land use standpoint, neighborhood commercial use at Village E-1 would not
represent an incompatible land use. With design considerations including buffers and
perimeter walls, neighborhood commercial use could be considered compatible with the
adjacent residential neighborhood.
i
Noise created by a neighborhood commercial site could create a significant impact upon
residents of existing Village D (The Cape). However, this potential impact could be
311
4. Proiect Alternatives
,
i
mitigated through installation of a sound wall and buffer along the southerly property line
of Village E-1, and implementation of restrictions on hours of operation and timing of
deliveries.
b) Community Facility
In order to comply with the City’s General Plan Land Use Element objectives for
community facilities within new planned communities, the proposed Master Plan
includes a two-acre community facilities (e.g., day care) area at Village H. These General
Plan objectives include:
Objective B.4. To ensure that new master planned communities and
residential specific plans contribute to a balanced community by
providing, with the development, adequate areas to meet some
socialhuman service needs such as sites for worship, daycare, youth and
senior citizen activities, etc.
Objective C.12. Require new master planned developments and
residential specific plans of over 100 acres 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.
As an alternative to the proposed Village H community facility site, a potential alternative
land use for Village E-1 could be a 9.3-acre community facility. Although 9.3 acres is a
relatively large property for a typical community facility project, such community
facilities do exist within the City. Such a large community facility would be expected to
involve a multi-use facility, such as a churcWmeeting halllprivate school complex. An
example of such a project would be an approximate 10,000-square-foot church, 3,000-
square-foot meeting hall with adjoining rooms, and a private school facility (K-8) as large
as 40,000 square feet. Under this land use scenario of using Village E-1 as the community
facility, Village H would revert to the adopted Master Plan land use of residential low
with up to 42 detached single-family homes.
As with the neighborhood commercial designation for Village E-1 described above, the
change in environmental impact with the proposed RMH use would concern traffic
generation. Although community facility use on Village E- 1 would not generate nearly as
much traffic as a commercial use, a typical large community facility land use can generate
approximately 3,200 ADT. This 3,200 ADT is an increase in 2,030 ADT over the
proposed 1 17-unit multi-family residential project, which generates a projected 912 ADT.
It would be expected that the majority of the 3,200 community facility ADT would occur
during weekdays, evenings, and Sundays, and could result in conflicts with residential
and park usage.
3 12
4. F’roiect Alternatives
Access to a Village E-1 community facility would be restricted by the same City of
Carlsbad Engineering Design Standards that limit commercial driveways. As a result, the
primary access to the site would again be from Glasgow Drive, a local primarily
residential street. An additional secondary right-in, right-out driveway may be allowed on
Carlsbad Village Drive, although this driveway would not technically meet driveway
spacing standards. Such access from Glasgow Drive would incrementally add traffic to
this busy residential street beyond that added by the proposed residential project, but
would be less than a neighborhood commercial use.
From a land use standpoint, a 9.3-acre community facility at Village E-1 would not
represent an incompatible land use. With design considerations including buffers,
perimeter walls, and restrictions imposed by a conditional use permit, a large community
facility could be considered compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood.
Noise created by a large community facility could create significant impact upon residents
of existing Village D (The Cape). However, this potential impact could be mitigated
through installation of a sound wall and buffer along the southerly property line of
Village E- 1.
Affordable Housing Alternative Locations
As proposed, the Phase II Master Plan amendment would shift the affordable housing site
from Village K under the adopted Master Plan to Village Y. Village Y is proposed at
residential high with approximately 140 multi-family apartment units. These units would
qualify as affordable units, to be rented at lower rates consistent with the City
Inclusionary Housing ordinance. In addition to the Village K site in the adopted Master
Plan, other feasible affordable housing locations would include Village E-1 and the
northern half of Village U. These options are discussed below.
a) VillageK
Approximately nine acres of the currently proposed 16-acre Village K development area
could be used to accommodate the affordable housing requirements. Although use of
Village K as an affordable housing site would not create new significant impacts from the
proposed project, it would not be environmentally preferable to the proposed location at
Village Y. Incremental impact differences would include aesthetics and landform
alteration requirements.
Village K is located at the approximate top of the highest point on Calavera Hills. Due to
the hilltop topography that characterizes Village K, the present proposed single-family
development design for Village K includes six separate pad elevations, climbing up and
generally contouring to the natural landform. Multi-family design of high-density
3 13
4. Proiect Alternatives
apartments would require larger flat pads for buildings and parking lots, and thus be less
able to design with sensitivity to the natural landform. In addition, the placement of large
and wide multi-story buildings (three stories) on the highest location within the Master
Plan boundary would be less desirable from an aesthetic standpoint. The proposed single-
family homes (with only slightly less structural height), when submitted for review,
would have significantly less bulk and thus less aesthetic impacts on this prominent
location. Landform alteration is less of an issue at the proposed Village Y location.
The Village K development area is also surrounded by single-family homes and an open
space corridor (to the south). This land use pattern results in a potential for
incompatibility issues. However, these issues can typically be resolved through buffers.
and setbacks. The potential for land use compatibility impacts would be less of an issue
at the proposed Village Y location given the existing grade separation between the
attached single-family residential neighborhood to the west (The Cape) and the multi-
family building pads shown for Village Y.
b) Village E-1
Another potential location for the affordable housing site could occur at Village E-1 (9.3
acres), which is proposed in the Master Plan amendment as RMH for approximately 117
units. Impacts from implementation of a high-density apartment project in this location
to accommodate the affordable housing requirement would be slightly increased from the
proposed project. Up to 172 multi-family units could be developed on Village E-1 under
the RH designation. As with the proposed RMH uses, this land use change would be
compatible with the surrounding land uses @e., multi-family, community park, and future
fire station). As previously mentioned, however, access to Village E-1 would be allowed
only (or primarily) on Glasgow Drive, which is a local residential street already congested
with community park traffic at this location. Impacts to existing residences at The Cape
resulting from a high-density project along Glasgow Drive in this location would be
somewhat increased from the additional units.
i
The proposed Village Y location for high-density affordable housing does not take access
off an existing residential street, would have controlled access at a signalized intersection,
and thus does not have the same issue. The Village E-1 location for high-density
affordable housing is considered a less desirable location than Village Y in the proposed
project.
c) Village U (Northern Half)
The proposed high-density affordable housing project could also be located on
approximately nine acres comprising the northern portion of Village U. This location is
east and south of the Carlsbad Village Drive/College Boulevard intersection. Placement
of the proposed high-density affordable housing project on the northern portion of Village
314
4. Project Alternatives
U would not result in land use incompatibilities; however, the configuration of the
Village U development pad contains certain characteristics that would tend to discourage
development of high-density residential product in this location. This results primarily
because there is insufficient area at this location for the large pads needed for
construction of multi-unit buildings.
As proposed, the Village U development pad is long and narrow, running along a
relatively steep, narrow ridge adjacent to College Boulevard. The eastern edge of the pad
is restricted by the hard-line habitat preserve. College Boulevard is designed along the
accessible western side of this area at a 7 percent grade (the steepest acceptable grade).
Village U received preliminary approval of a medium-density, 138-unit condominium
project (two-story duplex, four-plex and six-plex over the entirety of Village U) in 1994.
This 1994 approval has since expired.
The option of construction of high-density affordable housing building pads (larger and
flatter pads to accommodate up to 20-plex structures) on the north end of Village U
would require internal manufactured slopes and the use of potentially high retaining walls
both internally and along the perimeter of the site. This degree of grading for this narrow,
sloping site would be less preferable to the proposed grading which involves less dense
development.
In addition, the massing of high-density three-story buildings in combination with the pad
elevation differential from pads to the north and east, would result in a highly visible
project, from College Boulevard, the open spaces to the east, and the Calavera Hills
villages to the north. The proposed Village Y affordable housing site is lower in
elevation than much of the surrounding land, and is of a pad size and grade that
accommodates the proposed project.
3) Village H Alternative Land Use
a) Single-Family Residential Alternative
The proposed Master Plan for Village H includes a community facility land use
designation on a 2.0-acre pad with plans to provide a future day-care facility consistent
with objectives identified in the City General Plan. An alternative land use scenario for
Village H involves 12 single-family homes on approximately a 6.5-acre multi-level pad
configuration instead of a community facility use. This land use option would be
consistent with the adopted general plan and Master Plan land use for Village H.
Implementation of residential use at Village H would not create any new significant
environmental impacts not associated with the proposed community facilities use, but
there are incremental differences between the two types of land uses.
!
,
i
3 15
4. Project Alternatives
?
As with the proposed use, this alternative for 12 single-family homes would be
considered compatible with the surrounding land uses, but would require grading of
approximately 10.4 acres of the Village H site, compared to the proposed 3.1 acres of the
site under the proposed Master Plan. In addition, besides eliminating the proposed
community facility use, development with the single-family homes would encroach
further into the existing eucalyptus grove than the proposed plan and the character of an
existing trail through Village H would be modified to provide a less rural experience
under this alternative.
With respect to traffic, there would be an incremental increase in trip generation for a
community facility. Approximately 900 ADT is projected to be generated by a proposed
2.0-acre community facility such as a day-care project. Anticipated access to this project
would be on Victoria Drive, some 150 feet westerly from its intersection with Carlsbad
Village Drive. The 12 single-family homes would generate approximately 120 ADT, a
780-ADT decrease. As such, the traffic generation would be less of an impact with the
single-family alternative.
Although neither use would create significant noise impacts, from a land use
compatibility standpoint, a single-family use for Village H would generate less noise on-
site than a day-care use. Aesthetically, the proposed single-story community facility
structure would be considered to have a lessened visual impact relative to 12 single- and
two-story homes. Again, neither of these uses would be considered a significant impact.
b)
City of Carlsbad policy allows that community facility land uses be designated within
master plans for a specified period of time. In the event that these sites are not developed
within this time period (typically 3 to 10 years), the sites are then reverted to an alternate
use, frequently residential. As a result, an alternative residential land use for Village H
development of the proposed 2.0-acre community facility site with multi-family housing
has been analyzed in conjunction with this EIR. The subject 2.0-acre site is assumed to
accommodate a maximum of 9 multi-family units.
Multi-family Residential Alternative on 2.0 Acres
The development of 9 multi-family units on Village H would correspond closely with the
impacts associated with the impacts identified for the 12 single-family homes alternative,
with the exception that traffic generated by the site would be reduced somewhat, and
general topographical and hydrological impacts to the site would be reduced from the 12
single-family homes alternative. Traffic generated by 9 multi-family homes would be
less than that generated by a community facility use also. Development of 9 multi-family
units in replacement of a community facility would be considered compatible with
adjacent residential uses. No significant environmental impacts associated with this
alternative are anticipated. ,
316
4. Proiect Alternatives
4) Alternative Community Facilities Site
Although not yet adopted, the City Planning Department is in the process of
recommending a series of modifications to the Land Use Element of the General Plan,
and the Zoning Ordinance, which would articulate new requirements for community
facility uses within master plans and residential specific plans. Adoption of these
requirements, expected in 2001, may result in additional community facility requirements
of Calavera Hills Phase II beyond those identified for the proposed project at the time this
DEE was prepared.
As presently proposed by the Planning Department, development through a master plan
amendment involving over 100 acres of land would be required to provide a minimum of
“two (2) net developable acres plus 1% of the total net developable acreage in the area
included in the proposed amendment” for community facilities. The Calavera Hills
PhaseII net developable acreage totals 104.85 acres. If approved, the community
facilities use area required for the project would total 3.0485 net acres. This is 1.048 net
acres more than the 2.0 net acres presently proposed for Village H. Therefore, if the
additional community facilities acreage requirement is adopted, the following two
alternatives are provided to assess impacts of the additional community facilities acreage.
a)
An alternative or additional site which could accommodate community facility land uses
such as day care, facilities for public youth organizations, or other community facilities
could be located on the west side of future College Boulevard at the entrance to
Village Y. This future signalized intersection could accommodate 1.0 to 1.5 acres of
such use only if the number of units within Village Y was reduced from the maximum
allowable 140, to 120 units or less. This drop in units could allow sufficient space to
accommodate a community facilities use.
Alternative/Additional Community Facilities at Village Y
EntrancdCollege Boulevard
A community facility use in this location would be compatible with both the proposed
Village Y high density project because it would be relatively small in scale due to its
small community facility acreage (up to 1.5 acres). It would be considered compatible
with the existing adjacent The Cape development to the northwest, for the same reasons
that the proposed Village Y project is compatible, that is that sufficient horizontal setback
(100 feet or more), vertical separation (30 feet), and access separation (access from
completely different public streets) that compatibility impacts would be minimized. Since
the addition of community facilities use on Village Y would result in a decrease in
Village Y multi-family units (20 or more unit decrease), traffic and noise impacts
associated with the community facility would be largely offset by this decrease in multi-
family intensity of the site. The surrounding area could handle a net increase in traffic
from Village Y of up to 600 ADT (over the ADT associated with the proposed 140-unit
3 17
4. Proiect Alternatives
multi-family project) without any significant impacts to traffic circulation. Additionally,
the Village Y alternative site for community facilities would be expected to be utilized to
some degree by the residents of the Village Y project, which could allow for convenient
sharing of use, without significant generation of traffic onto public streets.
Noise, topographic alteration, biology, public utility, and other impacts would be no
greater under this alternative than have been considered in this EIR analysis for the
proposed project.
b) Expanded Village H Community Facility Alternative
An additional 1.05 net acre of expanded community facility use could be provided within
Village H, on the north side of Carlsbad Village Drive. Such a community facility use
would take vehicular access off Carlsbad Village Drive as the northerly leg of the
Carlsbad Village DriveNictoria Drive intersection. A flatter, more usable (less than 25
percent slope) portion of north Village H is situated at this location (Figure 4-1).
Selection of this alternative would also require construction of a left-turn lane to
accommodate northbound traffic on Carlsbad Village Way and turns onto Victoria
Avenue.
Land uses surrounding this potential 1.05-acre community facility site include preserved
natural open space to the north, an open space canyon immediately to the east and The
Villas existing multi-family condominiums located across the canyon farther to the east.
To the south, south and across Carlsbad Village Drive, is the proposed project community
facility site (providing 2.0 net and 3.2 gross acres). Existing single-family homes are to
the west, across Carlsbad Village Drive. These land uses are buffered by Carlsbad
Village Drive or open space, and are considered compatible with community facilities
uses. As a result, no land use incompatibility should result from implementation of this
community facility expansion.
Expansion of 1.05 net acres (1.9 gross acres) on the north side of Village H will occupy
area that is identified in the Draft HMP as hardline open space conservation area. As a
result, this take of open space will necessitate approval of an equivalency determination
by the City of Carlsbad, in conjunction with a consultation with the USFWS. The
proposed project (not including the subject Village H north community facility
expansion) already necessitates an equivalency determination and provides a net increase
in hardline open space acreage of 13.5 acres (see Chapter G, Biological Resources). As
compared to the proposed project (without expansion 'of Village H) the subject expansion
would reduce the 13.5-acre net increase in hardline open space acreage by 2.43 acres.
Implementation of this alternative would provide an 1 1.07-acre net increase in open space
hardline acres and would still be considered a positive benefit of the project. No
significant impact would result.
318
RECON I
Village H boundary
I +- 0 Feet 150 300
FIGURE 4-1
Expanded Village H
Alternative
4. Project Alternatives
Although the subject expansion of development northerly in Village H would encroach
into area identified in the HMP as Core Area #2, it is in an extreme southerly finger of
this core area, and would not obstruct “Link A” of this plan, or any required linkage
corridor. Although the USFWS and City of Carlsbad would have to approve this
encroachment through an equivalency determination, this is not considered a significant
impact, subject to approval of these agencies.
This expansion would also encroach into an area presently designated as Open Space on
the City of Carlsbad General Plan. This potentially significant impact would be offset by
a corresponding increase in General Plan open space elsewhere on the site (Village K
corridor), as designated in the proposed project. This offsetting General Plan open space
would mitigate this potentially significant impact to a level of insignificance.
The proposed expansion of Village H to the north would result in import of necessary fill
material to create a flat pad for community facilities uses. This fill embankment would
result in a maximum fill slope of 35 feet, which is within the @foot limit allowed by the
Hillside Development Ordinance (HDO). The elevation of the development pad is
heavily influenced by the elevation of Carlsbad Village Drive at the access location
(across from Victoria Drive). Carlsbad Village Drive is a circulation element road
(secondary arterial), and as a result, grading for Village H north and modification to
Carlsbad Village Drive to provide a left-turn lane, complies with the findings for an
“exception” to the HDO grading standards. As a result, no significant impact to
compliance with the HDO will result from the proposed alternative.
The subject alternative would result in development of a community facility use on a site
pad that would be situated slightly lower than the elevation of Carlsbad Village Drive,
and at approximately the same elevation as The Villas condominium project to the east.
This view from The Villas is the only potentially significant view of the subject, although
in consideration of the extensive development and design standards and restrictions of the
City of Carlsbad, the visual impact is not considered significant.
Noise impacts to the site are expected to be significant and necessitate mitigation.
Mitigation would be in the form of a noise wall, the height to be determined through a
specific noise analysis conducted in conjunction with site development approval. In the
event this noise analysis results in noise wall mitigation in excess of 6 feet in height,
noise wall design shall be a combination of berming and wall, as indicated in
Chapter 3.B., Landform Alteratioflisual Quality (see Figure 3B-16).
The proposed expansion of Village H community facilities would add up to 500 ADT
onto Carlsbad Village Drive, over that assessed in conjunction with the proposed project.
This increase would not be considered a significant impact because the traffic levels of
service (LOS) on the surrounding street segments and intersections are not at borderline
acceptable service levels.
320
4. Project Alternatives
Construction of the proposed Village H expansion to the north would result in the
following biological impacts:
TABLE 4-1
BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS FOR THE VILLAGE H EXPANSION AND ROAD
WIDENING
ImDact Acres
Village H North Carlsbad Village Total Resource Type Expansion Drive Widening
Plant community
Diegan coastal sage scrub 0.1 0.1 0.2
Non-native grassland 1.7 0.3 2.0
Riparian scrub - 0.1 0.1
Eucalyptus woodland - 0.1 0.1
Disturbed 0.1 0.1 0.2
Total Plant Community 1.9 0.7 2.6
Wetland Habitat - 0.1 0.1
Impacts to all of the resources above are considered significant and will require
mitigation. The recommended measures for mitigation of these impacts are as follows:
1. Impacts to 0.2 acre of occupied Diegan coastal sage scrub would be mitigated at a 2:l
mitigation ratio through the on-site preservation of 0.4 acre.
2. Mitigation for impacts to 2.0 acres of non-native grassland would be mitigated at a
0.5: 1 ratio through the on-site preservation of 1 .O acre.
3. Impacts to 0.1 acre of riparian scrub shall be mitigated at a 3:l ratio for a total of 0.3
acre.
4. If the proposed project is determined by the City of Carlsbad to be subject to the In-
lieu Mitigation Fee, mitigation for impacts to eucalyptus woodland and disturbed
lands would be through a per acre fee at an amount to be determined by the City
Council.
Implementation of the Carlsbad Village Drive road widening will result in additional
impacts to 0.1 acre of wetland habitat. No additional impacts to non-wetland
jurisdictional waters will occur from implementation of this alternative. Mitigation for
impacts to the wetland habitat should be mitigated at a ratio of 3:l by the creation of 0.1
acre of like habitat and either creation, restoration, or enhancement of 0.2 acre.
I
1
i
I I I
I
I
1
I
I i
1 i
1 I
I
i
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I 321
4. Proiect Alternatives
Implementation of the Village H north expansion will not impact any additional
jurisdictional waters. Implementation of the alternative would not result in significant
impacts to air quality, public utility, geology, hydrology, and other impacts.
E. Circulation Alternatives for College Boulevard and Cannon Road Alignments
As noted throughout this EIR (see Figure 2-10), several alternatives for the alignments of
College Boulevard and Cannon Road have been examined for the Bridge and
Thoroughfare District No. 4. The preferred and alternative alignments shown on Figure 2-
10 are also discussed in Chapter 3.B., Landform AlterationNisual Quality, of this EIR.
The alternative alignments affect both Reaches 3 and 4 of Cannon Road and Reaches B
and C of College Boulevard. Except for Alternative 3, alternative alignments for Reach
A of College Boulevard (El Camino Real to the Cannon Road intersection) are not
included, as the alignment has been previously dedicated to the City. Alternative 3 has
been developed to consider a lowered vertical alignment for those portions of the
roadways near the intersection of Cannon Road and College Boulevard. Implementation
of Alternative 3 would modify approximately 1,400 linear feet along the approved
horizontal approach to the intersection for Reaches 3 and 4 of Cannon Road
approximately 1,700 feet south of the intersection on College Boulevard Reach A and
along Reach B from approximately 800 feet north. The following discussion compares
the environmental impacts of the alternative alignments (Alternatives 2 and 3) with the
preferred alignment discussed as the “proposed project (Alternative 1) throughout the
body of the EIR. The primary variation in impacts for each alternative below concerns
grading and visual quality, biology, land use compatibility, and noise. Table 4-2 provides
a comparison of grading impacts for the preferred Alternative 1 alignment and
Alternatives 2 and 3. A summary of the impacts to vegetation associated with the
preferred project and each of the alternative alignments is included as Table 4-3.
Table 4-4 identifies the required mitigation for impacts to resources for the preferred and
alternative road alignments.
1) Alternative 2
a) College Boulevard Alternative Alignment - Reaches B and C
An alternative alignment for Reaches B and C (Fraser Engineering 1999) locates these
Reaches east of the proposed/preferred Alternative 1 alignment. This alternative will
have no effect on the approved alignment for Reach A. As shown in Figure 2-10, this
alignment would proceed northerly up the west side of the Calavera Creek drainage from
the Cannon Road intersection and then northwesterly up the steep slope in Villages W
and U to intersect with Carlsbad Village Drive. Figure 4-2 shows the proposed grading to
322
TABLE 4-2
COMPARISON OF LANDFORM ALTERATION/GRADINC IMPACTS FOR THJ3 PROPOSED AND ALTERNATlVE PROJECTS
College Boulevard Alternative 3
(Reduced Vertical Intersection Alignment)
ReachA ReachB ReachC Total
Cannon Road - Alternative 1’ Cannon Road - Alternative 2 Cannon Road - Alternative 3
Proposed PrOjecvReferred (Northerly Alignment ow (Reduced Vertical
Reach3 Reach4 Total Reach3 Reach4 Total Reach3 Reach4 T&
Alignment Knon) Intersection Alignment)
Acres
Affected
college Boulevard Alternative I’
Proposed F’rojecr/prefed Alignment
ReachA ReachB ReachC Toral
College Boulevard Alternative 2
(Easterly Alignment Along Calnvem Creek)
RenchA ReachB ReachC Total
College!
Cannon
Intersection
Elevation
’see Agure
2see Figure )cut slope ‘Altemtives 1 and 2 require apximate 42-foot-high. 360-foot-long. aod 22-foot-long retaining walls. respectively; near he CarlsbdCkeanside boundary to avoid impacts to riparian habitat adjacent to Reach 4.
6Alternatives 1-3: Maximum height near central and eastern portions. ‘Fa slope
top -central portion of the segment
. _- ... . -. - _I
TABLE 4-3
IMPACTS TO RESOURCES WITHIN THE BRIDGE AND THOROUGHFARE DISTRICT
College Boulevard College Boulevard College Boulevard Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Reach Reach Reach
VegetationType A B C Total A B C Total A B C Total
’ Diegan coastal sage
scrub
Southern mixed and
chamise chaparral
Non-native grassland
Riparian woodland
Eucalyptus woodland
Native grassland
Riparian scrub
Riparian forest
Cismontane alkali
marsh
Cismontane alkali
marsh (seasonal)
Freshwater marsh
Agricultural
Developed
Disturbed
1.6 3.1
-- -_
1.0 --
0.6 0.9
0.5 --
-- --
0.3 -- -- --
-- --
--. --
-- --
8.4 5.5
4.7 --
0.5 --
5.7 10.4
6.6 6.6
-- 1.0
-- 1.5
-- OS
-- --
-- 0.3
-- --
-- --
-- __
-- . --
-- 13.9
1.5 6.2
2.7 312
1.6 5.0 6.5 13.1
-- -- 4.1 4.1
1.0 -- -- 1.0
0.6 1.0 -- 1.6
0.5 -- 0.5
_- __ -- --
0.3 0.7 -- 1.0
-- -- -- --
-- __ -- --
-- -- -- --
8.4 12.4 -- 20.8
4.7 -- 1.6 6.3
0.5 -- 2.7 3.2
1.5 3.2
-- --
1.0 --
0.6 0.8
0.5 --
-- --
0.3 --
-- __
_- --
_- --
_- --
8.2 5.0
4.3 --
0.6 --
5.7 10.4
6.6 6.6
-- 1.0
-- 1.4
-- 0.5
-- --
-- 0.3
-- --
-- _-
-_ __
-- --
-- 13.2
1.5 5.8
2.7 3.3
VEGETATION 17.6 9.5 16.5 43.6 17.6 19.1 14.9 51.6 17.0 9.0 16.5 42.5
TOTAL
Wetland habitat 0.9 0.9 -- 1.8 0.9 1.7 -- 2.6 0.9 0.8 -- 1.7
Non-wetland 0.1 -- -_ 0.1 -- -- -- -- 0.1 -- -- 0.1
jurisdictional waters
JURISDICTIONAL 1.0 0.9 -- 1.9 0.9 1.7 -- 2.6 1.0 0.8 h- 1.8
WATERS TOTAL
Cannon Road -
Alternative 3
Cannon Road - Cannon Road - Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Reach Reach Reach
3 4 Total 3 4 Total 3 4 Total
-- 17.7 17.7
--
0.5 0.3
0.7
0.2 0.7
-- --
0.3 --
-- 0.1
0.6
-- 0.2
--
11.4 5.5
0.1 3.9
2.2
0.8
0.7
0.9
-_
0.3
0.1
0.6
0.2
6.9 11.4
4.0 -_
2.2 2.0
--
0. I
0.3
0.3
--
--
0. I
--
0. I
--
16.9 16.9
--
0.6
1 .o
0.4
--
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.1
--
5.5
I .5
6.9 10.8
1.5 0.1
2.0 2.7
6.0
3.7
--
16.0
--
0.9
0.7
1 .o
__
0.3
--
0.6
0.2
16.8
3.8
2.7
16.0 28.8 44.8 15.5 24.8 40.3 16.1 26.9 43.0
1.6 0.4 2.0 1.5 0.5 2.0 1.6 0.2 1.8
-- 0.1 0.1 -- 0.1 0.1 -- 0.1 0.1
1.6 0.5 2.1 1.5 0.6 2.1 1.6 0.3 1.9
TABLE 4-4
MITIGATION FOR IMPACTS TO RESOURCES WITHIN THE BRIDGE AND THOROUGHFARE DISTRICT
Total Mitigation Required by Reach (acre)
Cannon Road -
College Boulevard Alternative 1 Alternative 1 Cannon Road - Cannon Road -
Proposed Alignment College Boulevard Alternative 2 College Boulevard Alternative 3 Proposed Alignment Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Mitigation Reach Reach Reach Total Reach Reach Reach Total Reach Reach Reach Total Reach Reach4 Total Reach Reach Total Reach Reach Total
Resource Type Ratio A B C' A B Cz A B' C2 33 3 4 34
Diegan coastal 2: 1
sage scrub
(occupied)
Southern mixed I:1
and chamise
chaparral
Non-native 0.5:1
grassland
woodland
Eucalyptus Mitigation
Riparian scrub 3: I
Riparian 2: 1
Fee
Riparian forest 2: I
Cismontane alkali 3:1
marsh
Cismontane alkali 3:1
msh (seasonal)
Agricultural' Mitigation
Disturbed4 Mitigation
Fee
Fee
3.2
I
0.5
1.2
0.5
0.9 -_ -
-_
8.4
0.5
9.4 3.2 10.0
__
0.5
3.0
0.5
0.9 --
__
__
13.9
0.5
-- __
0.5 --
1.2 2.0
0.5 --
0.9 2.1 -- --
__ --
-- _-
8.4 12.4
0.5 --
-- 13.2 3.0
-- 0.5 0.5
-- 3.2 1.2
-- 0.5 0.5
-- 3.0 0.9 -- _- --
__ -- -_
-- -- __
-- 20.8 8.2
-- 0.5 0.6
9.4 __
-- _-
0.5 0.3
2.8 1.4
0.5 0.2
0.9 0.9 __ __
-- 1.8
__ __
13.2 11.4
6.6 2.2
35.4
--
0. I
__
0.7
0.2
0.6
5.5
--
35.4
-_
0.4
1.4
0.9
0.9
0.2
1.8
0.6
16.9
2.2
__
--
0.2
1.4
0. I
0.6
--
1.8
--
11.4
2.0
33.8 33.8
-- __
0.1 0.3
0.6 2.0
0.3 0.4
-- 0.6
0.2 0.2
- 1.8
0.3 0.3
5.5 16.9
-- 2.0
_-
--
0.4
1.4
0.2
0.9
--
1.8
--
10.8
2.7
32.0 32.0
-- --
0.1 0.5
- 1.4
0.8 1.0
-- 0.9 -- __
-- 1.8
0.6 0.6
6.0 16.8
-- 2.7
~ ..
'College Blvd. Reach C biological resource impacts previously mitigated as part of Calavera Hills Phase I Calavera Heights Mitigation Program (72-acre credit)
'College Blvd. Reach C (Alternative 2) biological impacts previously mitigated since impacts no greater than Alternative 1 Reach C impacts.
'Table 3B-4 shows thnt total grading volume for College Boulevard Reach B and Cannon Road Reach 3 is approximately 636,000 cubic yards.
vhe City of Carlsbad's draft HMP (1999) requires different mitigation ratios for Diegan coastal sage scrub that is known to be occupied by the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioprilu culifornicu culifornica). draft HM~ also requires a mitigation fee for impacts to disturbed lands, eucalyptus woodland, and agricultural lands in an amount to be determined by the City Council, ifapplicable.
4. Project Alternatives
implement this alignment for Reaches B and C. Implementation of this alternative would
require a redesign of Villages W and U as currently shown in the proposed Master Plan.
Table 4-2 shows that the Alternative 2 alignment of College Boulevard (Reaches B and
C) would require a substantial and significant increase in grading. The fill within the west
side of the Calavera Creek valley bottom and the cut to accommodate the upslope
transition to the Carlsbad Village Drive intersection would be substantially greater than
the proposedpreferred alignment (Alternative 1). Major cut and fdl slopes would be
necessary along nearly the entire alignment to construct the roadway northerly through the
Master Plan area to its terminus at Carlsbad Village Drive. Under this alternative,
grading for Reaches B and C would require approximately 136,042 cubic yards of cut and
approximately 1,033,271 cubic yards of fill, requiring a net import of approximately
897,229 cubic yards. Maximum manufactured slope heights would exceed 100 feet in
some locations (i.e., Calavera Creek crossing). The grading for this alternative would
affect approximately 8.2 additional acres. This alternative would require in excess of
500,000 cubic yards of import more than the proposedpreferred alignment (Alternative 1)
for College Boulevard Reaches A, B, and C. Accordingly, the visual impact, while
significant for the proposed alignment, would be further exacerbated under this
alternative.
A comparison of biological impacts between the proposed alignment and this alternative
is shown in Table 4-3. As shown in this table, the impacts to native habitats are similar
between both alignments with the major difference being the impacts to agricultural
lands. However, this alternative alignment would impact approximately three additional
acres of coastal sage scrub and 0.6 additional acre of wetland habitats. More importantly,
the alternative alignment for College Boulevard would not be consistent with the City’s
Draft HMP “hard line” open space system established along the eastern edge @e., Village
W) of the Master Plan.
Aside from the internal redesign of the Master Plan at Villages U, W, and X necessitated
by the ali,onmnt, there would be no land use compatibility impacts created by this
alternative. In addition, noise impacts, as with the proposed project, would be significant
but mitigable. This alternative is not environmentally preferable to the proposed
alignment.
b)
An alternative alignment for Cannon Road Reach 3 between El Camino Real and the
College Boulevard intersection was developed along a route northerly of the Alternative 1
alignment (Fraser Engineering 1999). As shown in Figure 2-10, this alignment would
proceed northeasterly as it leaves the proposed alignment into a knoll top before
descending easterly to the intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road.
Cannon Road Alternative Alignment - Reach 3
327
4. Project Alternatives
Figure4-3 and Table 4-2 show the proposed grading to implement this alternative
alignment.
This alternative alignment for Reach 3 would require similar earthwork quantities to the
proposed Alternative 1 alignment with cut and fill slopes along much of the roadway.
Cut slopes up to approximately 60 feet in height would be required for the grading into
the knoll top within the central section of this reach. The grading for this alternative
would affect approximately 1.1 additional acres. Earthwork quantities are similar
between this alternative and the proposed alignment. However, the visual quality impacts
would be somewhat increased as the alignment would traverse higher elevations at the
knoll top and associated ridgeline (elevation 100 feet above mean sea level) which would
be more visible from surrounding vantage points (e.g., Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home
Park and El Camino Real).
As with the grading impacts, the biological impacts under this alternative for Reach 3
would be similar to the proposed project. The majority of the habitat affected would
continue to consist of agricultural land, with the impact to wetland habitats also being
nearly identical. Table 4-3 provides a comparison between each of the two alternative
alignments, including the proposdpreferred alignment (Alternative 1).
Land use compatibility impacts would also be similar, but with some minor differences.
The impact to the existing agricultural operations would be increased as the more
northerly alternative more directly bisects the existing operations. As a result, land and/or
farming severance costs would increase. However, the noise impact to the Rancho
Carlsbad Mobile Home Park would be reduced under this alternative. With a shift in the
alignment approximately 300 feet to the north, the extent of the noise wall along the
southern edge of Cannon Road parallel to the mobile home park would be reduced. With
noise wall installation, both alternatives would result in mitigated noise impacts.
c)
A modification of the proposed alignment for Cannon Road Reach 4 between College
Boulevard and the Carlsbad city limits has been developed to somewhat reduce the need
for such an extensive retaining wall at the eastern limits of the roadway and reduce the
overall grading quantities (see Figure 2-10). This alternative would have a lower
elevation profile adjacent to the riparian habitat in Little Encinas Creek at the eastern end
of Reach 4. However, the roadway geometrics for a portion of this alternative alignment
would not be standard as the width of the median would be reduced and sidewalks would
not be included on the south side. In addition, the design speed at the eastern end of the
alignment within the city of Oceanside would be reduced to 40 miles per hour. This
option would also intersect the existing roadbed of Cannon Road approximately 600 feet
closer to the City boundary and at a lower elevation.
Cannon Road Alternative Alignment - Reach 4
1 I
'1
i
1
!
I
I
I
1. i
I
1 I
1 i
1 i
i I
328
4. hoiect Alternatives
The grading for the alternative for Reach 4 would require approximately 215,625 cubic
yards of cut and approximately 141,681 cubic yards of fill, requiring a net export of
approximately 69,943 cubic yards. These earthwork quantities are significantly less than
that associated with the proposed alignment which would require approximately 398,978
cubic yards of fill and an import of approximately 164,125 cubic yards. As with the
proposed alignment, a retaining wall would be required, but the height of the wall would
be reduced from 42 feet to 22 feet along the eastern portion of the roadway. A retaining
wall is required in this location to avoid impacts to riparian habitats just south of the
right-of-way.
As shown in Figure 4-4, manufacturql slope heights up to approximately 60 feet in height
at the central and eastern portions of this reach would be required. These slope heights
are similar to the proposed alignment. The resulting landform alteration and visual
quality impacts would under this alternative be incrementally improved due to the
reduction in grading over the proposed alignment. Like the proposed project, the visual
qualib impacts would not be considered significant due to the limited viewsheds affected.
Biologically, the impacts to native upland habitats and wetland habitats would be similar
to the proposed alignment (see Table4-3) with a slight decrease in impacts to Diegan
coastal sage scrub and eucalyptus woodland.
It should be noted that another alternative for Reach 4 was previously considered which
would connect to the existing grade at the current terminus of Cannon Road at the
Carlsbad city limits. This alignment would have placed the roadway directly in the
riparian habitat of Little Encinas Creek, affecting several acres of wetlandriparian
woodland habitat. Because of these unavoidable impacts, this other alternative alignment
for Reach 4 was eliminated from further consideration.
2) Alternative 3: Reduced Intersection Elevation for
College BoulevarcVCannon Road
The following discussion is based on a technical study entitled Vertical Alignment
Analysis for Portions of the Bridge & Thoroughfare District No. 4 Near the College
BoulevardCannon Road Intersection. The analysis was prepared for the City of Carlsbad
by Fraser Engineering, Inc. in October 2000. The document considers the engineering
requirements, environmental effects, and costs associated with four variations on the
vertical alignment of the intersection of Cannon Road and College Boulevard. Each of the
four intersection design alternatives were compared for overall balance of cut/fill
quantities, right-of-way requirements, ease of constructing future utilities, road
geometrics, safety, aesthetics, effects on adjacent parcels and the environment (riparian
woodlands, wetlands, etc.) and cost. This EIR discussion considers only the “most
desirable” alternative as determined by the technical study: referred to as Alternative 3 in
this EIR. Tables 4-2 and 4-3 provide a comparison of landform alteration and
330
4. Project Alternatives
biological resource impacts associated with this alternative as compared to Alternative 1
(the proposed projedpreferred alignment) and Alternative 2.
Alternative 3 would lower the intersection of College Boulevard and Cannon Road by
just over 16 feet as compared to the current base design intersection elevation (88.26 feet
above MSL for Alternatives 1 (proposedpreferred alternative) and 2. The finished
centerline vertical elevation of the intersection would be 72.03 feet above MSL and
would be constructed within the same horizontal alignments as the proposedpreferred
alternative. The finished elevation would be slightly lower than the predicted high water
elevation for detention basin “BJB” (74.0 feet above MSL) and would therefore require a
berm for the detention basin. Fill requirements at the intersection are estimated at
approximately one foot and the alignment allows construction of future utilities within the
roadway section. Alternative 3 would require an estimated 0.02 acre more right-of-way to
accommodate the lower intersection elevation than would the proposed project design.
Implementation of this alternative would result in a slight modification to the
proposedpreferred alternative (Alternative 1) road geometrics along College Boulevard
Reach A from approximately 1,700 feet south of the intersection and along Reach B from
approximately 800 feet north. Minor design modifications would also occur along
Cannon Road, approximately 1,400 feet east and west of the intersection (Reaches 3 and
4) (Figure 4-5). The vertical alignment of College Boulevard Reach C would not be
affected and would remain the same as for the proposed project/preferred alignment.
L
A comparison of grading quantities, maximum slope heights, and area affected for each
alignment of the proposed project and alternatives is shown on Table 4-2. It also shows
that lowering the intersection would incrementally decrease overall grading impacts along
College Boulevard Reach A along the 1,700-foot approach to the intersection as
compared to the preferred alignment (Alternative 1) and Alternative 2. Implementation
would also provide an incremental reduction to the height of cut-and-fill slopes along the
affected sections of College Boulevard Reach B and Cannon Road Reaches 3 and 4 as
they approach the intersection.
Table 4-2 shows that cut-and-fill requirements for College Boulevard would be reduced
as compared to the preferred Alternative 1 alignment and Alternative 2, with
approximately 73,689 cubic yards of cut and 151,181 cubic yards of fill required for
Reach A. For College Boulevard Reach B, the fill would be an estimated 86,000 cubic
yards less than for the proposed alignment (Alternative 1) and near 800,000 cubic yards
less than for the Alternative 2 alignment of Reach B. Under this alternative, overall
grading for Reaches A-C would require approximately 160,000 cubic yards of cut and
approximately 485,000 cubic yards of fill, requiring a net import of approximately
325,000 cubic yards. The overall grading and maximum manufactured slope heights
would be reduced as compared to the proposed project and Alternative 2 alignments.
Accordingly, the visual impact would be somewhat reduced or the same, depending on
332
4. Proiect Alternatives
location, as compared to the proposed alignment and would be substantially reduced from
what would result with implementation of Alternative 2.
Table 4-3 provides a comparison of biological impacts occurring with implementation of
the proposed alignment (Alternative l), Alternative 2 and this alternative for both College
Boulevard and Cannon Road. Impacts to native upland habitats along College Boulevard
are nearly identical for each of the three alternatives. The impacts to wetlands would be
reduced approximately 0.1 acre from the proposed alignment and 0.8 acre from
implementation of Alternative 2. Impacts to native upland habitats along Cannon Road
would be approximately two acres less than the proposed alternative and one acre less
than Alternative 2. The impacts to wetlands would be reduced by approximately 0.2 acre
from implementation of either the proposed alignment or the implementation of
Alternative 2.
Alternative 3 would have no effect on Reach C of College Boulevard and would therefore
have no impact on the proposed internal redesign of the Master Plan. Consequently, there
would be no land use compatibility impacts created by this alternative.
Noise impacts from development of Alternative 3 are essentially the same as for the
proposedpreferred (Alternative 1) project alignment except along the eastern portion of
Reach 3. Noise impacts are slightly greater near the intersection of Cannon Road with
College Boulevard primarily due to the lower intersection elevation. With mitigation,
impacts are reduced to a less than significant level.
4) No Cannon Road/College Boulevard Intersection
Alternative Alignment
This alternative alignment would eliminate the proposed intersection between Cannon
Road and College Boulevard. College Boulevard would extend southerly from Carlsbad
Village Drive to connect with the Cannon Roam1 Camino Real intersection, while
Cannon Road at the CarlsbadOceanside city limits would extend southerly to connect
with the College Boulevard/El Camino Real intersection.
Without the proposed Cannon RoadCollege Boulevard intersection, segments of 1-5,
SR-78, El Camino Real, Palomar Airport Road, Melrose Drive, and College Boulevard
would have higher volumes as result of the rerouted traffic (see Appendix C). This
alternative alignment would require improvements to the intersections at Cannon Roam1
Camino Real by the year 2020 in order to attain acceptable AM and PM peak hour level
of service. These improvements would include widening the northbound approach for
dual right-turn lanes and possibly triple left-turn lanes westbound to southbound. This
alignment alternative would result in unacceptable levels of service at the intersections of
El Camino ReaVPlaza Drive and El Camino ReaVTamarack Avenue by the year 2020.
334
x
4. Project Alternatives
F. Carlsbad Village Drive Widening at Victoria Avenue
To enhance the transition to the existing Carlsbad Village Drive, an alternative is
proposed to add a left-turn lane for northbound traffic (Figure 4-6). The road segment
would be widened at this location to 46 feet for a distance of approximately 400 feet,
tapering to the existing road width at either end. Total impacts would be limited to an
approximate 7W-foot corridor length along the north side of Carlsbad Village Drive,
north and south of Victoria Avenue. When completed, the road segment would be
configured to provide a 10-foot-wide left-turn lane for northbound traffic and two 13-
foot-wide through travel lanes and two 5-foot-wide bike lanes in each direction. A fill
slope along the north side of Carlsbad Village Drive would be approximately 40 feet.
Implementation of this alternative would result in an incremental increase in impacts to
wetland habitat and Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat (0.1 acre, respectively) and
landform visual quality due to the modification of the fill slope already existing along the
north side of Carlsbad Village Drive. As compared to the proposed project, the 13.5-acre
net increase in hardline open space acreage would be reduced by less than one acre (0.83
acre). All other impacts would be the same as for the proposed project.
Construction of the proposed widening of Carlsbad Village Drive would result in the
following biological impacts (Table 4-5).
TABLE 4-5
BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS FOR THE
WIDENING OF CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
Resource Type Impact Acres
1
Plant community
Diegan coastal sage scrub 0.1
Non-native grassland 0.3
Riparian scrub 0.1
Eucalyptus woodland 0.1
Disturbed 0.1
Total Plant Community 0.7
Wetland Habitat 0.1
335
Proposed
Village H
RECON Village H boundary
w 0 Feet 125 250
FIGURE 4-6
Carlsbad Village Drive
Alternative
4. Project Alternatives
Impacts to all of the resources above are considered a significant and will require
mitigation. The recommended measures for mitigation of these impacts are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Impacts to 0.1 acre of occupied Diegan coastal sage scrub would be mitigated at a 2: 1
mitigation ratio through the on-site preservation of 0.2 acre.
Mitigation for impacts to 0.3 acres of non-native grassland would be mitigated at a
0.5: 1 ratio through the on-site preservation of 0.2 acre.
Impacts to 0.1 acre of riparian scrub shall be mitigated at a 3:l ratio for a total of 0.3
acre.
If the proposed project is determined by the City of Carlsbad to be subject to the In-
lieu Mitigation Fee, mitigation for impacts to eucalyptus woodland and disturbed
lands would be through a per acre fee at an amount to be determined by the City
Council. ,
Implementation of the Carlsbad Village Drive road widening will result in additional
impacts to 0.1 acre of wetland habitat. No additional impacts to non-wetland
jurisdictional waters will occur from implementation of this alternative. Mitigation for
impacts to the wetland habitat should be mitigated at a ratio of 3: 1 by the creation of 0.1
acre of like habitat and either creation, restoration, or enhancement of an additional 0.2
acre.
G. Calavera Hills Master Plan Environ- mentally Superior Alternative
CEQA requires that an EIR consider an alternative project which would be
environmentally superior to the proposed project, in that it would avoid or substantially
lessen any of the significant effects of the project. To this end, the elimination of
development in the Village U area alternative is considered because it would expand the
width of the wildlife corridor through the east-central portion of the project, which would
result in more open space than would occur in the proposed project. This alternative was
chosen because it is biologically superior, and biological habitat preservation
requirements are the primary driving force behind the proposed Master Plan amendment,
and this EIR. This environmentally superior alternative would eliminate up to 179
dwelling units from the project, including grading and infrastructure associated with
development of Village U. Incremental decrease in traffic and air quality impacts would
also result from this alternative.
The environmentally superior alternative would eliminate 23 percent of the remaining
housing planned for the Master Plan, and as a result, would not fulfill the provision of
337
4. hoiect Alternatives
housing objectives of the City of Carlsbad land use and housing elements of the General
Plan. The elimination of these units, which will contribute to the College Boulevard and
Cannon Road Bridge & Thoroughfare District No. 4 through the payment of building
permit fees, would impact the funding feasibility of this District. This could result in the
lack of adequate funding for these regional roadway links, which would not fulfill the
City of Carlsbad circulation element goals. In light of the fact that the proposed project
already involves dedication of greater amounts of open space than the existing Master
Plan, elimination of 23 percent of the remaining potential development revenue renders
the overall project financially infeasible.
The proposed project is the result of a balance between urban development and habitat
preservation that was struck between the City, the resource agencies, and the property
owner. The environmentally superior alternative would also result in reduced mitigation.
The environmentally superior alternative would result in significant impacts to several of
the City of Carlsbad General Plan goals, and would result in financial infeasibility of the
overall project.
i
338
I
t
5. Cumulative Impacts
Chapter Five
I Cumulative Impacts
Section 15130(a) of CEQA Guidelines requires that “an EIR shall discuss cumulative
impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable,
as defined in section 15065(c). Where a lead agency is examining a project with an
incremental effect that is not ‘cumulatively considerable,’ a lead agency need not
consider that effect significant, but shall briefly describe its basis for concluding that the
incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable.” Cumulative impacts involve
individual effects that may increase in scope or intensity when considered together. Such
impacts typically involve a number of local projects, and can result from individually
incremental effects that collectively increase in magnitude over time. The CEQA
Guidelines require that an evaluation of cumulative impacts include either (1) a list of
past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts or
(2) a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning
document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified,
which described or evaluated regional or areawide conditions contributing to the
cumulative impact. The cumulative analysis is required to include a summary of
expected environmental effects and a reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of
the relevant projects, references for additional information on individual projects, and
reasonable, feasible options for avoiding or mitigating any significant cumulative effects.
For the purposes of this cumulative analysis, significant impacts identified for the
proposed Calavera Hills Master Plan Phase II, Bridge and Thoroughfare District Number
4, and two detention basins are considered with potential impacts from specific past,
present, or probable projects. These include the other planned and/or existing projects in
the surrounding area.
Table 5-1 provides a list of the projects. Cumulative projects impacts are discussed
below.
339
TABLE 5-1
CUMULATIVE PROJECTS
Name of Project Proposed Development status
1. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities Long-range planning program for the preservation of sensitive
habitat
Approval is pending.
2. Cantarini Ranch Residential Development 3 14 units: 186 single-family; 128 multi-family; 49 percent
open space
Approval is pending
3. Holly Springs Residential Development 57 lots: 56 single-family units; 1 multi-family lot (100 multi
units) 8 1 percent open space
Approval is pending
4. Mandana Residential Development Approximately 159 units and approximately 50 percent open
space
Preliminary planning
5. Canam Commercial Development 132 single-family units Under construction
6. Carlsbad Unified School District Property Public high school Preliminary planning
7. City of Oceanside Commercial Development Approximately 400,000 square feet of general commercial. Environmental documentation
(South Coast property currently being prepared
8. Bank of America Mitigation Bank Open space habitat preserve
5. Cumulative ImDacts
, A. Cumulative Projects Considered
Environmental documentation for the projects listed in Table 5-1 is on file at the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California
92008-73 14. The following list of cumulative projects was created following
consultation with the City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
The list of cumulative projects was developed pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines as
updated in November 1999. As defined in the guidelines, probable future projects
include those for which an application has been received, those in an adopted capital
improvements program, general plan regional transportation plan, summary of
projections of projects or development areas designated in a GP or similar plan, projects
anticipated as a later phase of a previously approved project or those public agency
projects for which money has been budgeted [CEQA Guidelines 15 130(b)( 1)(B)2].
1) Habitat Management Plan for Natural
Communities in the City of Carlsbad
The Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad proposes
a comprehensive, citywide program to identify how the City, in cooperation with federal
and state wildlife agencies, can preserve the diversity of habitat and protect sensitive
biological resources with the City while allowing for additional development consistent
with the City’s General Plan and its Growth Management Plan. In so doing, the plan is
intended to lead to citywide pennits and authorization for the incidental take of sensitive
species in conjunction with private development projects, public projects, and other
activities which are consistent with the plan. These permits would be issued under the
U.S. Endangered Species Act, the California Endangered Species Act, and the California
Natural Community Conservation Planning Act.
2) Cantarini Ranch Residential Development
The Cantarini Ranch project includes the residential development of Cantarini Ranch
(105314 units), a portion of the College Boulevard extension, and several access roads I
that connect the development on Cantarini Ranch with future developments on the Holly
Springs and Mandana properties. The 283-acre site is bounded by El Camino Real to the
south, by the Rancho Carlsbad Partners property and Rancho Carlsbad Golf Course to the
west, by the Holly Springs property to the north, and by the Mandana property to the east.
In addition, there is a proposed exchange of parcels between Cantarini Ranch and Rancho
Carlsbad Partners (RCP). The RCP parcel on the northwest comer of Cantarhi Ranch
would be exchanged with the southwest parcel of Cantarini that is located southwest of
the College Boulevard extension.
I 34 1
5. Cumulative ImDacts
3) Holly Springs Residential Development
The Holly Springs property is located in the City of Carlsbad, California, north of El
Camino Real. The site is bounded by Cantarini Ranch and Western Lands to the south,
the Bank of America mitigation bank to the north, a City of Oceanside residential
development to the east, and Carlsbad Unified School District and Western Lands
properties to the west. Holly Springs Ranch consists of four parcels with 14453 units
(456 single-family and 100 multi-family). This report describes the biological resources
on one of these parcels, Parcel D, which encompasses approximately 110 acres and
extends north from the southern boundary of the property, adjacent to Cantarini Ranch.
4) Mandana Residential Development
The Mandana property site is an approximately 195-acre ranch with approximately 159
units located in the City of Carlsbad, California, on the northeast side of El Camino Real
near the intersection of College Boulevard and El Camino Real. The site is bounded by
the Cantarini and Canam ranches to the west, the Kato property and a City of Oceanside
residential development to the north, Dawson Los Monos Canyon Reserve to the east,
County of San Diego property to the southeast, and industrial development to the south.
In addition to the main ranch property, the project site includes a small parcel to the
southwest of the ranch that is surrounded by smaller ranch properties.
5) Canam Commercial Development
This project would construct a light commercial area called the Sunny Creek Plaza.
6) Carlsbad Unified School District Property
The CUSD purchased this 475J-acre property just northeast of the proposed intersection
of Cannon Road and College Boulevard. It is proposed to be developed as a high school.
7) South Coast Commercial Project
This project is a proposed general commercial project of approximately 400,000 square
feet containing a grocery store, discount retailers, and free-standing restaurant and retail
shops.
I I
342
5. Cumulative Impacts
I
8) Bank of America Mitigation Bank
This property, formerly part of the Holly Springs Ranch, is 205 acres set aside for
mitigation of the California gnatcatcher. The property is north of Reach 4 of the
proposed Cannon Road extension.
B. Impacts
The following discussion examines those issues that have the potential to create
significant cumulative impacts.
1) Landform/Visual Quality
The combined projects have altered and would continue to alter the existing landforms
and visual setting in the general project area from that of open space to urban
development. However, given the existing land use and zone that have produced the
urbanizing development pattern in the project area, the conversion of open
undeveloped/agricultal land and change in the visual setting would represent a
cumulatively significant impact.
2) Traffic/Circulation
As described in the traffic report, the proposed project would contribute to the traffic
volumes projected in the year 2020 for the project area. An evaluation of study area street
segments and intersections concludes that Year 2020 peak hour volumes would continue
to operate acceptably with the Carlsbad Growth Management Plan circulation
performance standard of at least LOS D during peak hours. However, as described in the
traffic section (Chapter 3.G.). the SR-78El Camino Real westbound off-ramp would
operate at LOS E in the PM peak hour during the Year 2020, which is considered a
significant cumulative impact.
3) Noise
Existing noise levels on the project site are due primarily to off-site activities on the
surrounding adjacent lands. Ambient noise levels in the project area would increase in
association with the proposed project traffic volumes in addition to other noise sources
associated with urban activities. Noise levels would not exceed land use compatibility
standards if mitigation measures are incorporated.
343
5. Cumulative Impacts
4) Public Services and Utilities
a) Water Services
The proposed project would incrementally increase regional water consumption;
however, this increase represents an insignificant impact on current water availability.
b) Sewer Services
I
1 1
1
The proposed project would incrementally increase regional wastewater generation;
however, this increase is within the planned future wastewater generation within the City
of Carlsbad and would not result in a significant impact on facilities or treatment
capacity.
i
5) Hydrology/Water Quality
Development of the proposed project would potentially increase the amount of erosion,
due to increased amounts of runoff from impervious surfaces. Erosion can be destructive
to the immediate area and siltation can clog waterways and downstream areas. Increased
erosion can also result in a decrease of downstream water quality. The quality of runoff
water from the project areas is affected by contaminants, such as pesticides, fertilizers,
and petroleum products. The project would incorporate measures into the project to
reduce or eliminate project-related impacts associated with increased erosion,
sedimentation, and contamination. This includes implementation of Best Management
Practices during the design, construction, and operation of drainage and storm runoff
facilities and conformance with local, state, and federal regulations for the protection of
water quality, Project-specific measures are discussed in Chapter 4.J., Hydrology.
The project includes the construction of two detention basins located within the Calavera
Creek watershed. The basins are part of a larger conceptual drainage plan outlined in the
Rancho Carlsbad Channel and Basin Project (Rick Engineering 1998). The intent of the
drainage plan is to provide recommendations for minimizing the 100-year inundation
within the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. The detention basins correspond to
facilities “BJ” and “BJB” in the City of Carlsbad’s 1994 Master Drainage Plan and are
discussed as part of the project analyzed in this Em.
When project impacts are considered in combination with other area projects there is a
potential that significant hydrology and water quality impacts could occur. Each project
would be subject to the same local, state, and federal regulations for water quality.
Hence, cumulative water quality impacts would not ‘be significant.
344
I
5. Cumulative Impacts
The proposed water quality control plan would reduce downstream impacts in the
Calavera Creek watershed to less than significant levels.
Air Quality ,
i
The proposed project is consistent with the adopted General Plan of the City of Carlsbad.
This plan was the basis for the State Implementation Plan and the Regional Air Quality
Strategy (RAQS). Section 15064 of the State CEQA Guidelines indicates that:
. . . incremental impacts of a project are not cumulatively considerable if
the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved
plan or mitigation program which provides specific requirements that will
avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem (e.g., water quality
control plan, air quality plan, intergraded waste management plan) within
the geographic area in which the project is located.
Because of its inclusion in an adopted air quality plan, the incremental effects of the
project are not considered cumulatively considerable. Because the effects are not
cumulatively considerable, the cumulative impact is not significant. It should be noted,
that the project as proposed permits fewer units than the previous plan. This further
supports the conclusion that cumulative air quality impacts are not significant.
7) Biological Resources
The project would not contribute to cumulatively significant impacts to biological
resources. The project would comply with guidelines set forth in the City’s Draft HMP
and recommended mitigation to reduce direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to a less
than significant level.
C. Mitigation
No mitigation is required for noise, public services. hvdrologv and water quality, air
quality, and biology. The mitigation measures incorporated into the project would reduce
the cumulative impacts to landform alteratiordvisual quality. but the impact would remain
significant and unmitigated. Cumulative traffc impacts would remain significant and
unmitigated. -
D. Analysis of Significance
All cumulative impacts, except traffic circulation and landform alteratiodvisual quality, I
discussed above are less than significant.
345
6. Growth Inducing Impacts
i
Chapter Six
Growth Inducing Impacts
Section 15 126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of potential growth-
inducing impacts associated with a project, specifically the “ways in which the proposed
project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional
housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.” Typically, projects
that are considered growth-inducing are those that (1) remove an obstacle to growth @e.,
construction of water and sewer lines in an undeveloped area) or (2) encourage and
facilitate other activities (i.e., development of a new universitykollege).
The proposed project would not induce growth within the Master Plan area or in areas to
the north or west. Regions to the north and west of the Calavera Hills Master Plan area
have already been fully developed with typical suburban residential uses. The villages
proposed to be developed in this project are the last undeveloped villages in Calavera
Hills. The other villages have already been built or have been approved for development.
The project would not tax existing services because it would provide new facilities to
sufficiently supply the proposed project.
Land bordering the Master Plan area to the east is primarily undeveloped and will be set
aside as a long-term mitigation property, never to be developed. The project cannot
induce growth in these areas.
Land to the south is a mixture of vacant land and agriculture. The project proposes to
construct only those facilities necessary to serve the proposed villages and meet the
requirements of the Zone 7 Local Facilities Management Plan. Construction of unplanned
sewer, water, gas, or electric lines would not be required. The project could induce
growth in these areas because it would bring development in proximity to open,
undeveloped, or agricultural land.
The proposed project would construct College Boulevard south through the project to El
Camino Real and Cannon Road across undeveloped land from El Carnino Real to the
City of Oceanside boundary to the east. These new circulation element roads would
improve access and increase traffic capacity to this undeveloped area while at the same
346
6. Growth Inducing Impacts
time adversely affect these areas by reducing and limiting access to agricultural lands.
However, this is not considered a significant growth impact because the area is already
planned for residential development in the general plan.
347
I 7. Sidficant and Irreversible Environmental Effects
i
!
I
Chapter Seven
Significant and Irreversible Environmental Effects
The effects associated with the proposed project are documented in the impact
discussions of Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis. Several of these impacts would be
considered irreversible. The most prominent irreversible environmental change
associated with the proposed project would be the conversion of undeveloped land to
urbanized uses, including residential and road development. Once construction occurs,
reversion of the land to its original condition is nearly impossible.
Likewise, implementation of the proposed project would transform the visual character of
the villages from an area characterized by rolling hills and natural vegetztion to an area of
residential development and roadways. Components of the development also would
require the net loss of agriculturally productive land, which would be considered an
irreversible effect. In addition, the project as it is proposed would fragment the spatial
arrangement of existing agricultural and vacant land and result in a permanent loss of
biological habitat.
Besides the commitment of land to urban use, implementation of the plan and subsequent
tentative map would involve the consumption of natural resources, as well as energy
derived from nonrenewable sources, such as fossil and nuclear fuels. Building materials
could for practical purposes be considered permanently consumed, though perhaps
recyclable in part at some long-term future date.
Notwithstanding the above irreversible environmental effects, implementation of the
proposed project is in accordance with long-standing City and County land use plans for
the area, which indicate an eventual conversion from existing rural to urban uses.
348
8. Effects Found to Be Not Significant
Chapter Eight
Effects Found to Be Not Significant
A. Calavera Hills Master Plan Area
CEQA Section 15128 requires that an EIR identify and briefly explain why various
effects of the project were found not to be significant and therefore, are not addressed in
the EIR. Based on an Environmental Impact Assessment, the City of Carlsbad concluded
in the 1992 final EIR for the Calavera Hills Master Plan (included six tentative tract
maps, widening of Carlsbad Village Drive, alignment of College Boulevard from
Carlsbad Village Drive south to Cannon Road, a General Plan Amendment to change
Open Space boundaries and a Master Plan Amendment to change housing product type
and village boundaries) that the following environmental issues would not have a
significant impact on the environment: (1) geologic hazards; (2) depletion of natural
resources; (3) use substantial amount of fuel or energy; (4) produce new light or glare;
(5)involve a significant risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances;
(6) affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing; (7) alter
waterborne, rail, or air traffic; and (8) interfere with emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans.
Since the proposed project includes approximately the same area of the Calavera Hills
Master Plan, it is concluded that the same environmental issues found not to be
significant for the previous project would continue to be not significant.
One environmental issue not considered in the 1992 EIR is the potential for adverse
public health effects from electromagnetic fields (EMF') caused by power lines passing
through residential areas. An existing 150-foot electrical transmission line easement
either passes through or is adjacent to Villages R, T, U, W, X, and Y. The easement is
maintained by SDG&E and is currently occupied by two single-circuit 138 kilovolt (kV)
transmission lines.
For the past decade the public has raised concerns about the potential adverse effect of
EMF created by electrical transmission lines on public health. In January 1991, the
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) issued an Order instituting investigation
I
349
8. Effects Found to Be Not Significant
to develop policies and procedures for addressing potential health effects of magnetic
fields from utility facilities. The CPUC formed the California Consensus Group (CCG),
a committee of 17 stakeholders representing diverse interests and perspectives, to provide
guidance on interim EMF measures the CPUC might have adopted while waiting for
resolution of scientific uncertainties. In March 1992, the CCG issued its report. In part,
the report recommended that the CPUC authorize utilities to implement magnetic field
reduction techniques if those techniques could be implemented at little or no cost. In
November 1993, the CPUC issued Decision 93- 1 1-0 13 adopting interim policy regarding
EMF. The CPUC found that the scientific community had not concluded that an EMF
health hazard actually exists. Further, the CPUC states, “It is not appropriate to adopt
any specific numerical standard in association with EMFs until we have a fm scientific
basis for adopting any particular value.” However, “public concern and scientific
uncertainty remain regarding the potential health effects of EMF exposure.” In response,
California’s electric utilities were authorized to implement no- and low-cost field
management techniques to reduce EMF levels from new and upgraded electrical facilities
if a noticeable reduction could be achieved.
Given the uncertainty of EMF effects and the inability of scientific investigations to
identify any unsafe level or component of EMF exposure, potential EMF impacts are
appropriately addressed as speculative in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section
15145. Therefore, potential health effects from EMF are not considered significant for
the proposed project.
B. Road Extensions and Detention Basins
The proposed project includes two new components (College BoulevardICannon Road
extensions and two detention basins) that were not part of the 1992 analysis for effects
found not to be significant. The following analysis fulfills the CEQA Section 15128
requirement for the two new components of the project.
1) Population and Housing
The proposed road extensions and two new detention basins would not induce substantial
growth in the area south of the Master Plan area (see discussion in Chapter 6 of this ER).
The two roads are part of the approved Circulation Element and would pass through an
area approved for development. The roads would not displace any existing housing,
especially affordable housing. Therefore, the proposed road extensions and detention
basins would not have a significant effect on population and housing.
,
I
350
8. Effects Found to Be Not Simii3cant
Energy and Mineral Resources
,
The proposed road extensions and two detention basins would not conflict with any
adopted energy conservation plans, use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner, or result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. In
fact, construction of the road extensions would likely result in more efficient automobile
travel and a less wasteful use of petrochemicals. For these reasons the proposed road
extensions and two detention basins are not expected to have a significant effect on any
known existing energy or mineral resources.
3) Hazards
The proposed road extensions and two detention basins would not involve a risk of
accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances nor expose people to any existing
sources of potential health hazards. However, the Cannon Road extension would cross a
30-inch gas line along the eastern border of the City. San Diego Gas & Electric would
need to grant permission for the crossing and care would need to be taken to avoid
incident. See the discussion above regarding the effect of EMF on the public.
Furthermore, rather than interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan, the two road extensions could expedite future emergency response
planning. The roads would also provide better access to area to prevent existing fire
hazards. Additionally, construction of the basins would alleviate hazards associated with
flooding, excepting seismic-induced flooding. For these reasons the two road extensions
and two detention basins are not expected to have a significant effect with regard to
hazards.
I
35 I
9. References Cited
Chapter Nine
References Cited
Boelter Environmental Consultants
1994 Aerosol and Noise Survey, Blue Diamond Materials Recycling Facilities, Santa
Monica, California, Inglewood, California. Prepared for - Southwest
Construction Materials & Services, Inc. December 20.
Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc.
1973 Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway TrafJic Noise.
Federal Highway Administration. Report No. PB-222-703. June.
Prepared for the
Bull, Charles S.
1977 Archaeology and Linguistics, Coastal Southern California. Master’s Thesis.
California, State of
1989 Guidelines for Air Quality Impact Assessment for General Development and
Transportation-Related Projects. June.
1999 California Ambient Air Quality Data 1980-1 998. California Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, Planning & Technical Support
Division, Air Quality Data BrancWClient Support Services Section.
VOYAGER CD, CD Number PTSD-99-Ol l-CD. December.
Carlsbad, City of
1993 Calavera Hills Master Plan MP-150G.
I
1993 Local Facilities Management Plan-Zone 7.
1994a Noise Element. City of Carlsbad General Plan.
1994b Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General
Plan Update. March.
352
I 1 9. References Cited
I I 1995 Noise Guidelines Manual. September.
1996 Carlsbad General Plan and Open Space Element I
I 2001a Draft General Plan Land Use Element Revisions, GPA 99-01, Exhibit “W’
Revised. January 3.
2001b Draft Community Facilities Zone, Chapter 21.25, ZCA 99-02, Exhibit “A” I Revised. January 3.
Chang, Wayne
1989 Hydrological Study for Northeast Carlsbad, Basins of Calavera Lake Creek and
Agua Hedionda Creek. July.
Cheever, Dayle M., and James D. Eighmey
1991 Data Recovery at SDI-6753 and SDI 6819:
Carlsbad California. RECON.
Aviara Development Project,
Faber, P.A., E. Keller, A. Sands, and B. M. Massey
1989 The Ecology of Riparian Habitats of the Southern California Coastal Region:
A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85
(7.27).
Federal Highway Administration
1979 Federal Highway Administration Noise Prediction Model. Report No. FHWA-
RD-77- 108, with California Vehicle Noise Emissions Levels. Washington, D.C.
Fraser Engineering
1999 Preliminary Design and Cost Estimate for Bridge and Thoroughfare District
No. 4. November.
2000 Vertical Alignment Analysis for Portions of Bridge & Thoroughfare District
No. 4 Near the College BoulevardKannon Road Intersection.
Gallegos, D.
1990 Cultural Resource Testing Program for Calaveras Heights Village. ERC.
1991 Testing and Data Recovery for Late Period Occupation Sites CA-SDI-635 and
CA-SDI-636 - Calavera Heights. Unpublished report on file at the South
Coastal Information Center. San Diego.
I
353
9. References Cited
Hector, Susan M., Ph.D.
1985 An Archaeological and Historical Survey of Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad.
RECON.
Morris and Campbell
1999 Feasibility of Developing Retail-Commercial Shopping Center Village E- 1
Calavera Hills. December.
Oceanside, City of
1974 Noise Element of the City General Plan. (Oceanside)
!
I
Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc.
1993 Calavera Heights California Gnatcatcher Mitigation Preserve Management
Plan. March 9.
Planning Systems
2000 Draft Local Facilities Management Plan Amendment Zone 7.
RECON
1988 Noise Analysis for Otay Lakes Road Rock Quarry. December 1.
1998 Noise Technical Report for the Concrete and Asphalt Recycling Facility
(Gillespie Field Site), City of El Cajon, California. May 28.
Rick Engineering
1998 Rancho Carlsbad Channel & Basin Project. June 1998.
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)
1994 1994 Regional Transportation Plan. February.
1999 Draft 2020 Regional Transportation Plan. November.
San Diego, County of
1992 1991/1992 Regional Air Quality Strategies. Air Pollution Control District.
June.
1998a Air Quality in San Diego County. 1997 Annual Report. San Diego Air
Pollution Control District.
1998b Air Quality Scorecards. San Diego Air Pollution Control District Internet Home
page. URL http://www.sdapcd.co.san-dieg0.ca.m.
354
9. References Cited
1999a Air Quality in San Diego County. 1998 Annual Report. San Diego Air
Pollution Control District.
1999b San Diego Records Best Air Quality in History in 1999. San Diego Air
Pollution Control District Internet Home page. URL http://www.sdapcd.co.san-
diego.ca.us.
2000 Air Quality in San Diego County.
Pollution Control District.
1999 Annual Report, San Diego Air
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
1998 URBEMIS7G Computer Program User’s Guide, Version 3.1. Prepared by
Jones & Stokes Associates. August.
Transportation Research Board
1994 Highway Capacity Manual Capacity Special Report. Washington D.D.
Urban Systems
2000 Transportation Analysis for Carlsbad Bridge and Thoroughfare District #4. In-
house draft. January 17.
U.S. Dept of Agriculture
1973 Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California. Soil Conservation Service and Forest
Service.
U.S. Dept of Commerce
1992 Monthly Station Normals of Temperature, Precipitation, and Heating and
Cooling Days 1961-1990, California. Climatography of the United States No.
81. National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. January.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1999a American trucking Associations, Inc. v USEOA, Nos. 97-1440 and 97-1441
(D.C. Cir. May 14 1999) Summary of Decision. EPA Internet page. UFU
http://www .epa.gov.airlinls/rehear.htm.
1999b Summary of Opinions Re: EPA’s Request for Rehearing of May 14,1999
Decision. EPA Internet page. URL http://www.epa.gov.airlinls/rehear.htm.
Wade, Sue
1992 Archaeological Evaluations at Calavera Hills SDI-5416, Archaeological Testing
at SDI-12,470, SDI-12,471, Carlsbad. RECON, San Diego.
355
10. Persons and Agencies Consulted
Chapter Ten
Persons and Agencies Consulted
Dick Jacobs and Associates
Dick Jacobs
Fraser Engineering
Graham Fraser
Galen N. Peterson, Consulting Engineer
Galen Peterson
O’Day Consultants
George O’Day
Keith Hansen
Planning Systems
Paul Klukas
Eric Johnston
Rick Engineering
Wayne Chang, Director of Water Resources
Urban Systems Associates
Sam Kab
356
11. EIR heparers
I Chapter Eleven
EIR Preparers
This Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the City of Carlsbad, Planning
Department, located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. The following
professional staff participated in its preparation.
City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
Michael Holzmiller, Planning Director
Eric Munoz, Senior Planner
Dave Hauser, Deputy City Engineer
RECON Environmental, Inc. (Job Number 3225E)
1927 Fifth Avenue, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92101-2358
Karen L. Bowling, GIs Specialistlcartographer
Charles S. Bull, President
Dayle M. Cheever, Senior Archaeologist
Russ Collett, Project Archaeologist
Scott Fulmer, Senior Project Manager
Dave Gottfredson, Environmental Analyst
Loretta L. Gross, Production Supervisor
Tom Held, Senior Project Manager
Karla Hellestrae, Environmental Analyst
Stacey Higgins, Production Specialist
Wendy Loeffler, Biologist
Harry J. Price, Senior Technical Illustrator
Autumn Radle, Environmental Analyst
Lee Shenvood, Principal
Donna Steel, Environmental Analyst
357